Prof. V. A.

Avena Evidence
Entries in the Course of Business MANALO V. ROBLES .R. No. L!"1#1$ Au%ust 1&' 1()&$ Monte*a+or (Chrislao) ,AC-S. -On August 9, 1947, a taxicab owned and operated by de endant !obles "ransportation Co#pany, $nc% (the Co#pany) and dri&en by 'ernande( its dri&er, collided with a passenger truc)% $n the course o and a result o the accident, the taxicab ran o&er Ar#ando *analo, an ele&en year old, causing hi# physical in+uries which resulted in his death se&eral days later% -'ernande( was prosecuted or ho#icide through rec)less i#prudence and a ter trial was ound guilty% 'e ser&ed out his sentence but ailed to pay the inde#nity% , writs o execution were issued against hi# to satis y the a#ount but both writs were returned unsatis ied by the sheri % -On -ebruary 17, 19./, plainti s 0#ilio *analo and his wi e Clara 1al&ador, ather and #other respecti&ely o Ar#ando iled the present action against the Co#pany to en orce its subsidiary liability, pursuant to Articles 12, and 12/ o the !e&ised 3enal Code% -$t also iled a #otion to dis#iss the co#plaint unless and until the con&icted dri&er 'ernande( was included as a party de endant, the Co#pany considering hi# an indispensable party% "he "C and CA both correctly ruled that 'ernande( was not an indispensable party de endant% "he Co#pany is now be ore 1C% -"o pro&e their case against the de endant Co#pany, the plainti s introduced a copy o the decision in the cri#inal case con&icting 'ernande( o ho#icide through rec)less i#prudence, the writs o execution to en orce the ci&il liability, and the returns of the sheriff sho/in% that the t/o /rits of e0ecution /ere not satisfied 1ecause of the inso2venc+ of 3ernande4' the sheriff 1ein% una12e to 2ocate an+ 5ro5ert+ in his na*e. Over the o16ections of the Co*5an+' the tria2 court ad*itted this evidence and 1ased its decision in the 5resent case on the sa*e. -"he Co#pany contends that this )ind o e&idence is inad#issible% "he Co#pany also clai#s that in ad#itting as e&idence the sheri 4s return o the writs o execution to pro&e the insol&ency o 'ernande(, without re5uiring said opportunity to cross-exa#ine said sheri % 7SS8E. 6O7 the Co#pany is correct% 3EL9. NO. "he Co#pany is #ista)en% A sheriff:s return is an officia2 state*ent *ade 1+ a 5u12ic officia2 in the 5erfor*ance of a dut+ s5ecia22+ en6oined 1+ the 2a/ and for*in% 5art of officia2 records' and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. ;Ru2e <(' section 11 and Ru2e 12<' section <)' Ru2es of Court.= "he sheri 4s #a)ing the return need not testi y in court as to the acts stated in his entry% $n the case o Antillon &s% 8arcelon, /7 3hil%, 1.1 citing 6ig#ore on 0&idence, this court said9 To the foregoing rules with reference to the method of proving private documents an exception is made with reference to the method of proving public documents executed before and certified to, under the land of seal of certain public officials. The courts and the legislature have recognized the valid reason for such an exception. The litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily needed, the occasion in which the officials would be summoned from his ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless. The public officers are few in whose daily work something is not done in which testimony is not needed from official statements, host of official would be found devoting the greater part of their time to attending as witness in court or delivering their depositions before an officer. The work of Administration of government and the interest of the public having business with officials would alike suffer in consequence. And this Court added9 The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trust with accuracy and fidelity; and therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree

A2010
of caution as the nature and circumstances of each a case may appear to require. CAN>8E V CA ;SOCOR CONS-R8C-7ON CORPORA-7ON= *07:O;A< A3!$= 1/, 1999 (+a+a) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari ,AC-S Can5ue is a contractor doing business under the na#e and style !:C Construction% At the ti#e #aterial to this case, she had contracts with the go&ern#ent or (a) the restoration o Cebu-"oledo whar road< (b) the asphalting o =utopan access road< and (c) the asphalting o 8abag road in =apulapu City% $n connection with these pro+ects, petitioner entered into two contracts with pri&ate respondent 1ocor Construction Corporation% "he irst contract (0xh% A), dated April ,>, 19?., pro&ided9 "he 1ub-Contractor (1OCO! Corporation) and the Contractor (!:C Construction) or the consideration hereina ter na#ed, hereby agree as ollows9 1% 1CO30 O- 6O!@9 a% "he 1ub-Contractor agrees to per or# and execute the 1upply, =ay and Co#pact $te# /12 and $te# /2,< b% "hat Contractor shall pro&ide the labor and #aterials needed to co#plete the pro+ect< c% "hat the Contractor agrees to pay the 1ub-Contractor the price o One "housand 3esos only (31,222%22) per *etric "on o $te# /12 and 0ight "housand Only (3?,222%22) per *etric "on o $te# /2,% d% "hat the Contractor shall pay the 1ubContractor the &olu#e o the supplied $te# based on the actual weight in *etric "ons deli&ered, laid and co#pacted and accepted by the *36'< e% "he construction will co##ence upon the acceptance o the o er% "he second contract (0xh% 8), dated Auly ,/, 19?., stated9

92

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
"he 1upplier (1OCO! Construction) and the Contractor (!:C Construction) or the consideration hereina ter na#ed, hereby agree as ollows9 1% 1CO30 O- 6O!@9 a% "he 1upplier agrees to per or# and execute the deli&ery o $te# /12 and $te# /2, to the +obsite or the Asphalting o :A1 Access !oad and the -ront Bate o AC*:C, "oledo City< b% "hat the Contractor should in or# or gi&e notice to the 1upplier two (,) days be ore the deli&ery o such ite#s< c% "hat the Contractor shall pay the 1upplier the &olu#e o the supplied ite#s on the actual weight in #etric tons deli&ered and accepted by the *36' i teen (1.) days a ter the sub#ission o the bill< d% "he deli&ery will co##ence upon the acceptance o the o er% On *ay ,?, 19?>, pri&ate respondent sent petitioner a bill (0xh% C), containing a re&ised co#putation, or 3,99,717%7., plus interest at the rate o /C a #onth, representing the balance o petitionerDs total account o 3,,29?,422%,. or #aterials deli&ered and ser&ices rendered by pri&ate respondent under the two contracts% 'owe&er, petitioner re used to pay the a#ount, clai#ing that pri&ate respondent ailed to sub#it the deli&ery receipts showing the actual weight in #etric tons o the ite#s deli&ered and the acceptance thereo by the go&ern#ent% 'ence, on 1epte#ber ,,, 19?>, pri&ate respondent brought suit in the !egional "rial Court o Cebu to reco&er ro# petitioner the su# o 3,99,717%7., plus interest at the rate o /C a #onth% $n her answer, petitioner ad#itted the existence o the contracts with pri&ate respondent as well as receipt o the billing (0xh% C), dated *ay ,?, 19?>% 'owe&er, she disputed the correctness o the bill E % % % considering that the deli&eries o Fpri&ate respondentG were not signed and ac)nowledged by the chec)ers o FpetitionerG, the bitu#inous tac) coat it deli&ered to FpetitionerG consisted o >2C water, and FpetitionerG has already paid Fpri&ate respondentG about 31,422,222%22 but Fpri&ate respondentG has not issued any receipt to FpetitionerG or said pay#ents and there is no agree#ent that Fpri&ate respondentG will charge /C per #onth interest% 3etitioner subse5uently a#ended her answer denying she had entered into sub-contracts with pri&ate respondent% :uring the trial, pri&ate respondent, as plainti , presented its &ice-president, 1anche(, and Aday, its boo))eeper% 3etitionerDs e&idence consisted o her lone testi#ony% On Aune ,,, 19??, the trial court rendered its decision ordering petitioner to pay pri&ate respondent the su# o 3,99,717%7. plus interest at 1,C per annu#, and costs% $t held9 % % % % F8Gy analy(ing the plainti Ds 8oo) o Collectible Accounts particularly page 17 thereo (0xh% H@I) this Court is con&inced that the entries (both pay#ents and billings) recorded thereat are credible% Jndeniably, the boo) contains a detailed account o 1OCO!Ds co##ercial transactions with !:C which were entered therein in the course o business% 6e cannot there ore disregard the entries recorded under 0xhibit H@I because the act o their ha&ing been #ade in the course o business carries with it so#e degree o trustworthiness% 8esides, no proo was e&er o ered to de#onstrate the irregularity o the said entries thus, there is then no cogent reason or us to doubt their authenticity% On appeal, the Court o Appeals a ir#ed% $t upheld the trial courtDs reliance on pri&ate respondentDs 8oo) o Collectible Accounts (0xh% @) on the basis o !ule 1/2, K/7o the !ules o Court% 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 the entries in the 8oo) o Collectible Accounts (0xh% @) constitute co#petent e&idence to show such deli&ery ,% 6O7 there is no co#petent e&idence o pri&ate respondentDs clai# 3EL9 7O% Considered as a #e#orandu#, 0xh% @ does not itsel constitute e&idence% As explained in orromeo v. !ourt of Appeals9 Jnder the abo&e pro&ision (!ule 1/,, K12), the #e#orandu# used to re resh the #e#ory o the witness does not constitute e&idence, and #ay not be ad#itted as such, or the si#ple reason that the witness has +ust the sa#e to testi y on the basis o re reshed #e#ory% $n other words, where the witness

A2010
has testi ied independently o or a ter his testi#ony has been re reshed by a #e#orandu# o the e&ents in dispute, such #e#orandu# is not ad#issible as corroborati&e e&idence% $t is sel -e&ident that a witness #ay not be corroborated by any written state#ent prepared wholly by hi#% 'e cannot be #ore credible +ust because he supports his open-court declaration with written state#ents o the sa#e acts e&en i he did prepare the# during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate o his ailing #e#ory is priorly laid down% 6hat is #ore, e&en where this re5uire#ent has been satis ied, the express in+unction o the rule itsel is that such e&idence #ust be recei&ed with caution, i only because it is not &ery di icult to concei&e and abricate e&idence o this nature% "his is doubly true when the witness stands to gain #aterially or otherwise ro# the ad#ission o such e&idence % % % % As the entries in 5uestion (0xh% @) were not #ade based on personal )nowledge, they could only corroborate :olores AdayDs testi#ony that she #ade the entries as she recei&ed the bills% ,% 7O% "he entries recorded under 0xhibit H@I were supported by 0xhibits H=I, H*I, H7I, HOI which are all 1ocor 8illings under the account o !:C Construction% "hese billings were presented and duly recei&ed by the authori(ed representati&es o de endant% "he circu#stances obtaining in the case at bar clearly show that or a long period o ti#e a ter receipt thereo , !:C ne&er #ani ested its dissatis action or ob+ection to the a orestated billings sub#itted by plainti % 7either did de endant i##ediately protest to plainti Ds alleged inco#plete or irregular per or#ance% $n &iew o these acts, we belie&e Art% 1,/. o the 7ew Ci&il Code is applicable% Art% 1,/.% 6hen the obligee accepts the per or#ance, )nowing its inco#pleteness and irregularity and without expressing any protest or ob+ection, the obligation is dee#ed co#plied with% A ter a conscientious scrutiny o the records, we ind 0xhibit H:-1I (p% ?. record) to be a #aterial proo o plainti Ds co#plete ul ill#ent o its obligation% "here is no 5uestion that plainti supplied !:C Construction with $te# /2, (8ituni#ous 3ri#e Coat), $te# /2/ (8itu#inous "ac) Coat) and $te# /12 (8ituni#ous Concrete 1ur ace Course) in all the three pro+ects o the

93

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
latter% "he =utopan Access !oad pro+ect, the "oledo whar pro+ect and the 8abag-=apulapu !oad pro+ect% On the other hand, no proo was e&er o ered by de endant to show the presence o other contractors in those pro+ects% 6e can there ore conclude that it was 1ocor Construction Corp% A=O70 who supplied !:C with 8itu#inous 3ri#e Coat, 8itu#inous "ac) Coat and 8itu#inous Concrete 1ur ace Course or all the a orena#ed three pro+ects% $ndeed, while petitioner had pre&iously paid pri&ate respondent about 31,422,222%22 or deli&eries #ade in the past, she did not show that she #ade such pay#ents only a ter the deli&ery receipts had been presented by pri&ate respondent% On the other hand, it appears that petitioner was able to collect the ull a#ount o pro+ect costs ro# the go&ern#ent, so that petitioner would be un+ustly enriched at the expense o pri&ate respondent i she is not #ade to pay what is her +ust obligation under the contracts% Disposition "ecision affirmed EMMAN8EL B. A?NAR v. C7-7BAN@' N.A.' ;Phi2i55ines= B%!% 7o% 1>4,7/ AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70;< *arch ,?, ,227 (edel) NA-8RE. CER-7ORAR7 ,acts. -A(nar, a )nown business#an in Cebu, is a holder o a 3re erred *astercard issued by Citiban) with a credit li#it o 31.2,222%22% As he and his wi e, ;oraida, planned to ta)e their two grandchildren, on an Asian tour, A(nar #ade a total ad&ance deposit o 34?.,222%22 with Citiban) with the intention o increasing his credit li#it to 3>/.,222%22% -6ith the use o his *astercard, A(nar purchased plane tic)ets to @uala =u#pur or his group worth 3,/7,222%22% -:uring the trip, A(nar clai#s that when he presented his *astercard in so#e establish#ents in *alaysia, 1ingapore and $ndonesia, the sa#e was not honored% -And when he tried to use the sa#e in $ngtan "our and "ra&el Agency ($ngtan Agency) in $ndonesia to purchase plane tic)ets to 8ali, it was again dishonored or the reason that his card was blac)listed by Citiban)% 1uch dishonor orced hi# to buy the tic)ets in cash% -A(nar iled a co#plaint or da#ages against Citiban), clai#ing that Citiban) raudulently or with gross negligence blac)listed his *astercard which orced hi#, his wi e and grandchildren to abort i#portant tour destinations and pre&ented the# ro# buying certain ite#s in their tour% -'e urther clai#ed that he su ered #ental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded eelings, bes#irched reputation and social hu#iliation due to the wrong ul blac)listing o his card -"o pro&e that Citiban) blac)listed his *astercard, A(nar presented a co#puter print-out, deno#inated as O7-=$70 AJ"'O!$;A"$O71 -O!0$B7 ACCOJ7" AC"$L$"M !03O!", issued to hi# by $ngtan Agency (0xh% NBN) with the signature o one Lictrina 0lnado 7ubi which shows that his card in 5uestion was N:0C= OL0!=$*$"N or declared o&er the li#it% -Citiban) denied the allegation that it blac)listed A(narDs card% "o pro&e that they did not blac)list A(narDs card, Citiban)Ds Credit Card :epart#ent 'ead, :ennis -lores, presented 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins, which contained the list o its canceled cards co&ering the period o A(narDs trip% A(narDs wasnDt in the list% -!"C o Cebu dis#issed A(narDs co#plaint or lac) o #erit and held that as between the co#puter print-out presented by A(nar and the 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins presented by Citiban), the latter had #ore weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by Citiban)%Also held that e&en i it was shown that A(narDs credit card was dishonored by a #erchant establish#ent, Citiban) was not shown to ha&e acted with #alice or bad aith when the sa#e was dishonored% -A(nar iled a *-! with #otion to re-ra le the case saying that Audge *arcos could not be i#partial as he hi#sel is a holder o a Citiban) credit card% "he case was re-ra led with the new +udge granting A(narDs *! saying that it was i#probable that a #an o A(narDs stature would abricate the co#puter print-out which shows that A(narDs *astercard was dishonored or the reason that it was declared o&er the li#it< 0xh% NBN was printed out by 7ubi in the ordinary or regular course o business in the #odern credit card industry and 7ubi was not able to testi y as she was in a oreign country and cannot be reached by subpoena< ta)ing +udicial notice o the practice o auto#ated teller #achines

A2010
(A"*s) and credit card acilities which readily print out ban) account status, 0xh% NBN can be recei&ed as prima facie e&idence o the dishonor o A(narDs *astercard< no rebutting e&idence was presented by Citiban) to pro&e that A(narDs *astercard was not dishonored, as all it pro&ed was that said credit card was not included in the blac)listed cards< when Citiban) accepted the additional deposit o 34?.,222%22 ro# A(nar, there was an i#plied no&ation and Citiban) was obligated to increase A(narDs credit li#it and ensure that A(nar will not encounter any e#barrassing situation with the use o his *astercard< Citiban)Ds ailure to co#ply with its obligation constitutes gross negligence as it caused A(nar incon&enience, #ental anguish and social hu#iliation< the ine prints in the lyer o the credit card li#iting the liability o the ban) to 31,222%22 or the actual da#age pro&en, whiche&er is lower, is a contract o adhesion which #ust be interpreted against Citiban)% -Citiban) iled an appeal with the CA and its counsel iled an ad#inistrati&e case against Audge :e la 3eOa or gra&e #isconduct, gross ignorance o the law and inco#petence, clai#ing a#ong others that said +udge rendered his decision without ha&ing read the transcripts% "he ad#inistrati&e case was held in abeyance pending the outco#e o the appeal iled by Citiban) with the CA% -CA ruled that9 A(nar had no personal )nowledge o the blac)listing o his card and only presu#ed the sa#e when it was dishonored in certain establish#ents< such dishonor is not su icient to pro&e that his card was blac)listed by Citiban)< 0xh% NBN is an electronic docu#ent ,which #ust be authenticated pursuant to 1ec% ,, !ule . o the !ules on 0lectronic 0&idence or under 1ect%,2 o !ule 1/, o the !ules o Court by anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< A(nar, howe&er, ailed to pro&e the authenticity o 0xh% NBN, thus it #ust be excluded< the unre uted testi#ony o A(nar that his credit card was dishonored by $ngtan Agency and certain establish#ents abroad is not su icient to +usti y the award o da#ages in his a&or, absent any showing that Citiban) had anything to do with the said dishonor< Citiban) had no absolute control o&er the actions o its #erchant a iliates, thus it should not be held liable or the dishonor o A(narDs credit card by said establish#ents% -A(narDs *! was denied by the CA% -As regards the ad#in case, A% :ela 3ena was ad+udged guilty%

94

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
7ssue9 6O7 A(nar has established his clai# against Citiban)% $ so, 6O7 Citiban) is liable or da#ages% 3EL99 7O to both% On his clai#9 $t is basic that in ci&il cases, the burden o proo rests on the plainti to establish his case based on a preponderance o e&idence% "he party that alleges a act also has the burden o pro&ing it% -A(nar ailed to pro&e with a preponderance o e&idence that Citiban) blac)listed his *astercard or placed the sa#e on the Nhot list% -A(nar in his testi#ony ad#itted that he had no personal )nowledge that his *astercard was blac)listed by Citiban) and only presu#ed such act ro# the dishonor o his card% -"he dishonor o A(narDs *astercard is not su icient to support a conclusion that said credit card was blac)listed by Citiban), especially in &iew o A(narDs own ad#ission that in other #erchant establish#ents in @uala =u#pur and 1ingapore, his *astercard was accepted and honored% -A(nar puts #uch weight on the O7-=$70 AJ"'O!$;A"$O7 -O!0$B7 ACCOJ7" AC"$L$"M !03O!", a co#puter print-out handed to A(nar by $ngtan Agency, #ar)ed as 0xh% NBN, to pro&e that his *astercard was dishonored or being blac)listed% -8ut such exhibit cannot be considered ad#issible as its authenticity and due execution were not su iciently established by A(nar as per 1ec ,2 o !ule 1/, o the !oC% $t pro&ides that whene&er any pri&ate docu#ent o ered as authentic is recei&ed in e&idence, its due execution and authenticity #ust be pro&ed either by (a) anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< or (b) by e&idence o the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o the #a)er% -A(nar, who testi ied on the authenticity o 0xh% NB,N did not actually see the docu#ent executed or written, neither was he able to pro&ide e&idence on the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o 7ubi, who handed to hi# said co#puter print-out% -0&en under the !ules on 0lectronic 0&idence, which too) e ect on August 1, ,221, and which is being in&o)ed by A(nar in this case, the authentication o 0xh% NBN would still be ound wanting% 3ertinent sections o !ule . read9 #ection $. urden of proving authenticity. % The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this &ule. #ection '. (anner of authentication. % efore any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means) *a+ by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same; *b+ by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the #upreme !ourt or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or *c+ by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the ,udge. -0xh% NBN does not show on its ace that it was issued by $ngtan Agency as A(nar #erely #entioned in passing how he was able to secure the print-out ro# the agency< A(nar also ailed to show the speci ic business address o the source o the co#puter printout because while the na#e o $ngtan Agency was #entioned by A(nar, its business address was not re lected in the print-out% -$ndeed, A(nar ailed to de#onstrate how the in or#ation re lected on the print-out was generated and how the said in or#ation could be relied upon as true% -A(nar next in&o)es 1ection 4/ o !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court, which pertains to entries in the course o business, to support 0xh% NBN% 1aid pro&ision reads9 1ec% 4/% -ntries in the course of business% P 0ntries #ade at, or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er, by a person deceased or unable to testi y, who was in a position to )now the acts therein stated, #ay be recei&ed as prima facie e&idence, i such person #ade the entries in his pro essional capacity or in the per or#ance o duty and in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% Jnder this rule, howe&er, the ollowing conditions are re5uired9 1% the person who #ade the entry #ust be dead, or unable to testi y< ,% the entries were #ade at or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er< /% the entrant was in a position to )now the acts stated in the entries<

A2010
4% the entries were #ade in his pro essional capacity or in the per or#ance o a duty, whether legal, contractual, #oral or religious< and .% the entries were #ade in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% - Also, $t is not clear it was 7ubi who encoded the in or#ation stated in the print-out and was the one who printed the sa#e% "he handwritten annotation signed by a certain :arryl *ario e&en suggests that it was *ario who printed the sa#e and only handed the printout to 7ubi% -"he identity o the entrant, re5uired by the pro&ision abo&e #entioned, was there ore not established% 7either did petitioner establish in what pro essional capacity did *ario or 7ubi #a)e the entries, or whether the entries were #ade in the per or#ance o their duty in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% -And e&en i 0xh% NBN is ad#itted as e&idence, it only shows that the use o the credit card o petitioner was denied because it was already o&er the li#it% "here is no allegation in the Co#plaint or e&idence to show that there was gross negligence on the part o Citiban) in declaring that the credit card has been used o&er the li#it% -"he 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins (6C8) which co&ered the period when plainti tra&eled in the a ore#entioned Asian countries showed that said Citiban) pre erred #astercard had ne&er been placed in a Hhot listI or the sa#e was blac)listed, let alone the act that all the credit cards which had been cancelled by the de endant ban) were all contained, reported and listed in said 6arning Cancellation 8ulletin which were issued and released on a regular basis% -Citiban) produced /22 docu#ents to show that A(nar was not a#ong those ound in said bulletins as ha&ing been cancelled or the period or which the said bulletins had been issued% -Bet/een said co*5uter 5rint out ;e0h. = and the Aarnin% Cance22ation Bu22etins the 2atter docu*ents adduced 1+ defendant are entit2ed to %reater /ei%ht than that said co*5uter 5rint out 5resented 1+ 52aintiff that 1ears on the issue of /hether the 52aintiffBs 5referred *aster card /as actua22+ 52aced in the Chot 2istD or 12acE2isted for the fo22o/in% reasons. 1) the due execution and authentication o these 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins (or 6C8) ha&e been duly established and identi ied by Citiban)Ds witness, :ennis -lores, one o the ban)Ds o icers, who is the head o its

95

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
credit card depart#ent, and, "-, co#petent to testi y on the said bulletins as ha&ing been issued by the de endant ban) showing that plainti Ds pre erred #aster credit card was ne&er blac)listed or placed in the 8an)Ds Hhot listI% 6hile A(narDs co#puter print out was ne&er authenticated or its due execution had ne&er been duly established% "hus, between a set o duly authenticated co##ercial docu#ents, the 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins presented by de endants (sic) and an unauthenticated pri&ate docu#ent, plainti Ds co#puter print out (0xh% B), the or#er deser&es greater e&identiary weight supporting the indings o this Court that plainti D s pre erred #aster card had ne&er been blac)listed at all or placed in a so-called Hhot listI by de endant% ,) On i#plied no&ation (when he added addtDl unds to increase credit li#it)9 the Court inds that petitioner4s argu#ent on this point has no leg to stand on% On da*a%es. -the Court agrees with A(nar that the ter#s and conditions o Citiban)Ds *astercard constitute a contract o adhesion% $t is settled that contracts between cardholders and the credit card co#panies are contracts o adhesion, so-called, because their ter#s are prepared by only one party while the other #erely a ixes his signature signi ying his adhesion thereto% -On 3ar 7 o said contract9 6hile it is true that Citiban) #ay ha&e no control o all the actions o its #erchant a iliates, and should not be held liable there or, it is incorrect, howe&er, to gi&e it blan)et reedo# ro# liability i its card is dishonored by any #erchant a iliate for any reason% 1uch phrase renders the state#ent &ague and as the said ter#s and conditions constitute a contract o adhesion, any a#biguity in its pro&isions #ust be construed against the party who prepared the contract,Citiban)% On li#iting its liability to 31) or the actual da#age pro&en, whiche&er is lesser9 such stipulation cannot be considered as &alid or being unconscionable as it precludes pay#ent o a larger a#ount e&en though da#age #ay be clearly pro&en% !-he inva2idit+ of the ter*s and conditions 1ein% invoEed 1+ Citi1anE' not/ithstandin%' the Court sti22 cannot a/ard da*a%es in favor of 5etitioner. -"he underlying basis or the award o tort da#ages is the pre#ise that an indi&idual was in+ured in conte#plation o law< thus there #ust irst be a breach be ore da#ages #ay be awarded and the breach o such duty should be the proxi#ate cause o the in+ury% -the Court cannot grant his present petition as he ailed to show by preponderance o e&idence that Citiban) breached any obligation that would #a)e it answerable or said su ering% ./ v. !A) xxxQ there is a #aterial distinction between da#ages and in+ury% $n+ury is the illegal in&asion o a legal right< da#age is the loss, hurt, or har# which results ro# the in+ury< and da#ages are the reco#pense or co#pensation awarded or the da#age su ered% "hus, there can be da#age without in+ury to those instances in which the loss or har# was not the result o a &iolation o a legal duty% $n such cases, the conse5uences #ust be borne by the in+ured person alone, the law a ords no re#edy or da#ages resulting ro# an act which does not a#ount to a legal in+ury or wrong% "hese situations are o ten called damnum absque in,uria. 9is5osition. "he petition is denied or lac) o #erit% LLEMOS V. LLEMOS .1/ 1C!A 1,? AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70;< Aanuary ,>, ,227 (chriscaps) ,AC-S - Co#plaint was iled by respondents, the co#pulsory heirs o 1aturnina 1al&atin, see)ing to declare the nullity o "C" o petitioners on ground that their predecessor-in-interest, -elipe =le#os, ac5uired the prop thru orged deed o sale% - !"C ruled in a&or o petitioners, then the de endants% $t held that though respondent 0usebia testi ied that 1aturnina was her grand#a and that she died in 19/?, 0usebia didnDt testi y on the act o death r personal )nowledge< the cause o action hea&ily rests on Certi icate o :eath only and no other e&idence% - !"C9 "he Certi icate o :eath is a p&t doc and #ust be authenticated% "he respondents ailed to authenticate the sa#e% - CA re&ersed% $t held that entries in !egistry 8oo) o 1t% Aohn *etropolitan Cathedral #ay be considered entries #ade in the course o business, an exception to the hearsay rule% $t held that the :eed o Absolute 1ale purportedly executed in 19>4 is in&alid, as there couldnDt be a #eeting o the #inds between a dead person and a li&ing one% $t held that 1aturnina died in 19/?%

A2010

7SS8EFS 1% 6O7 prescription R laches has set in ,% 6O7 the church registries are co&ered by the hearsay rule 3EL9 1% 7O% - An action or annul#ent o title R recon&eyance based on raud is i#prescriptible where the plainti is in possession o the prop sub+ect o the acts% - =aches canDt be used to de eat +ustice or perpetuate raud% 7either should it be used to pre&ent right ul owners o prop r reco&ering what was raudulently registered in anotherDs na#e% ,% M01% - Church registries o births, #arriages, and deaths subse5uent to Beneral Orders 7o% >? and Act 7o% 192 are no longer public writings, nor are they )ept by duly authori(ed public o icials% "hey are pri&ate writings% "heir authenticity #ust be pro&ed% - !espondents ailed to establish due execution and authenticity o Certi icate o :eath% - CA erred in considering the entry as an entry in the course o o icial business% - !espondents ailed to sub#it !egister o :ead o 1t% Aohn *etropolitan and ailed to co#ply wR 1ec . !ule 1/2 - !egister o :ead is in custody o the cathedral but respondents ailed to show that it presented the Certi icate o :eath bec !egister o :ead canDt be produced in court% - *oreo&er, Court notes the absence o e&idence showing that H1al&atin 1al&atinI #entioned in the Cert o :eath is the H1aturnina 1al&atinI who is their predecessor-in-interest% - On the other hand, petitioners presented the :eed o Absolute 1ale, a notari(ed doc% A notari(ed doc is executed to lend truth to state#ents contained therein and to authenticity o signatures% "hey en+oy presu#ption o regularity% - !espondents ailed to establish date o death o 1aturnina, wRc could ha&e pro&en that the thu#b#ar) in the :eed o Absolute 1ale was raudulently a ixed% NES-LE V ,G SONS 7NC. B%!% 7o% 1.27?2 CO!O7A< *ay ., ,22>

96

there are no supporting docu#ents to sustain such unpaid accounts% .4>. a director and o icer o respondent corporation. assign#ent o representati&es by way o assistance in its de&elop#ent e orts..22. assigning to petitioner the ti#e deposit o =aureano in the a#ount o 3. it is not disputed that respondent paid doc)et ees based on the a#ounts prayed or in its co#plaint% !espondent adduced e&idence to pro&e its losses% $t was proper or the CA and the !"C to consider this e&idence and award the su# o 31*% 'ad the courts below awarded a su# #ore than 31*.3etitioner ined respondent 3.222 to secure respondentDs credit purchases% An 13A was li)ewise executed by =aureano authori(ing the respondent to use the ti#e deposit as collateral% . MueDs state#ent cannot be considered a +udicial ad#ission% .% 6O7 the testi#ony o the witness. or whether they were actually recei&ed by respondent% 1he was not e&en the credit A2010 and collection #anager during the period the agree#ent was in e ect% "his can only #ean that she #erely obtained these docu#ents ro# another without any personal )nowledge o their contents% . petitioner #ade representations and pro#ises o rendering support. and it does not show receipt thereo by the appellee. petitioner could ha&e easily abricated the#% 3etitionerDs ailure to present any co#petent witness to identi y the signatures and other in or#ation in those in&oices and deli&ery orders cast doubt on their &eracity% /% M01 .Prof.222%I . being at ault and in bad aith. and there being no proo that respondent was guilty o any wrongdoing.1ection 4/. a retail outlet in "arlac% !espondent paid the ine% =ater. i such indeed was recei&ed% *oreo&er. Avena Evidence (+oey) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari under !ule 4. alleging that the latter had outstanding accounts o 399.222 ti#e deposit as partial pay#ent% . ad#itted in open court that the respondent had an unpaid obligation to petitioner in the a#ount o Haround 3922. A./19%?1% 6hen the alleged accounts were not settled. a court ac5uires +urisdiction o&er the clai# o da#ages upon pay#ent o the correct doc)et ees% $n this case.. respondent was lured into executing a distributorship agree#ent with the petitioner% 'owe&er. i. petitioner sent respondent a de#and letter and notice o ter#ination.!espondent wrote petitioner to co#plain about the latterDs breaches o their agree#ent and the &arious acts o bad aith co##itted by petitioner against respondent% !espondent de#anded the pay#ent o da#ages% $n turn.22. it is not entitled to the supposed unpaid balance% .3etitioner. petitioner applied the 3. and when.%>2 should not ha&e been considered because respondentDs co#plaint only prayed or an award o 31*% .2. it also deliberately ailed to pro#ptly supply the respondent with the stoc)s or its orders< supported a nondistributor< and concocted alsi ied charges to cause the ter#ination o the distributorship agree#ent without +ust cause% . who prepared the state#ent o account should ha&e been disregarded or being inco#petent e&idence /% 6O7 the award o actual da#ages and the re und o the ti#e deposit were +usti ied 4% 6O7 petitioner should be awarded its counterclai# 3EL9 1% M01 . not only did petitioner ail to gi&e pro#otional support. an additional iling ee would ha&e been assessed and i#posed as a lien on the +udg#ent% 'owe&er. which was the a#ount prayed or. V.3etitioner asserts that -lorentino Mue.3etitioner ailed to pro&e the alleged outstanding accounts o respondent% "hus. alleging bad aith% According to respondent.21. there was legal basis or the grant o actual da#ages% .222 ine which respondent re used to pay% "he selling was allegedly done in &iolation o the agree#ent% . cannot clai# #oral and exe#plary da#ages and attorneyDs ees ro# respondent% Dispositive 3etition is :07$0: or lac) o #erit% CA decision and resolution are hereby A--$!*0:% 97 . the courts li#ited their award to the a#ount prayed or% 4% 7O . @re#-"op li5uid co ee crea#er was sold to Augustus 8a)ery and Brocery% 3etitioner again i#posed a 342.% M01 . !ule 1/2 o the !OC does not apply to this case because it does not in&ol&e entries #ade in the course o business% !ayos testi ied on a state#ent o account she prepared on the basis o in&oices and deli&ery orders which she )new nothing about% 1he had no personal )nowledge o the acts on which the accounts were based since she was not in&ol&ed in the deli&ery o goods and was #erely in charge o the records and docu#ents o all accounts recei&able as part o her duties as credit and collection #anager% 1he thus )new nothing o the truth or alsity o the acts stated in the in&oices and deli&ery orders.$ndeed.!"C ruled in a&or o the respondent% CA a ir#ed 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 Hthe ratiocinations o the appellant as to the appelleeDs alleged &iolation o the contract were wea) and uncon&incingI and Hthe appelleeDs alleged nonpay#ent and outstanding balance was not su iciently pro&enI ."he appellantDs 1tate#ent o Account showing such alleged unpaid balance is undated. whether such deli&eries were in act #ade in the a#ounts and on the dates stated.3etitioner asserts that the docu#entary e&idence presented by respondent to pro&e actual da#ages in the a#ount o 34. nor was he addressing.3etitioner 5uoted *r% MueDs state#ent in isolation ro# the rest o his testi#ony and too) it out o context% Ob&iously. including #ar)eting support.3etitioner did not challenge the indings that it co##itted &arious &iolations o the agree#ent% 'ence.!espondent counters that this state#ent was #erely in answer to the 5uestion o the presiding +udge on what ground petitioner supposedly ter#inated the agree#ent% "he witness was not being as)ed. and assurances o inco#e in a #ar)eting area not pre&iously de&eloped% "hus.. the truth o such ground% .2 cases o @re#-"op li5uid co ee crea#er to =u 'ing *ar)et. .AC-S 3etitioner and respondent entered into a distributorship agree#ent whereby petitioner would supply its products or respondent to distribute to its ood ser&ice outlets% A deed o assign#ent was executed by respondent.!espondent iled a co#plaint or da#ages against petitioner.e."he in&oices and deli&ery orders presented by petitioner were sel -ser&ing% 'a&ing generated these docu#ents. Ar%.222 or selling .

*ercado had no personal )nowledge o the acts constituting the entries..2>2%21 with 1.222 to co&er any da#ages that #ight be caused to his goods% . 19?. his total obligation reached 3. .7. or unable to testi y< . attorneyDs ees. litigation expenses and costs o suit% .2>2%21. the insurance co#pany cited the ollowing excerpts ro# the police blotter o the $loilo $73./.22.1ecurity 8an) and "rust Co#pany is a ban)ing institution duly organi(ed and existing under the laws o the 3hilippines% $n 19?1. inclusi&e o interest% .% "he entries were #ade at or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er< /% "he entrant was in a position to )now the acts stated in the entries< 4% "he entries were #ade in his pro essional capacity or in the per or#ance o a duty. to 1epte#ber 1.. Avena Evidence ledger cards it presented e&idence% "he CA a ir#ed% were #erely hearsay A2010 substantiated% ('ence.22/ (ric)y) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari . to wit9 the CA SEC8R7-G BAN@ v. who was the boo))eeper who prepared the entries.AC-S . 1ecurity 8an) iled a co#plaint or su# o #oney in the *anila !"C against Ban to reco&er the 3.. with 3late 7o% -81-917.C interest per annu# ro# 1epte#ber 1>./ SJ$1J*8$7B< August 14.7. the ban)Ds allegation that Ban is estopped was also re+ected there being no proo that Ban recei&ed copies o the ledgers%) Ad#ittedly.Prof.97. V. the ad#ission in e&idence o entries in corporate boo)s re5uired the satis action o the ollowing conditions9 1% "he person who #ade the entry #ust be dead. S-AN9AR9 7NS8RANCE B%!% 7o% 1422.6hile the policy was in e ect.3etitioner !udy =ao is the owner o a -uso truc).Ban denied liability and contended that the alleged o&erdra t resulted ro# transactions done without his )nowledge and consent% !"C dis#issed the co#plaint holding that 1ecurity 8an) was not able to pro&e that Ban owed it the a#ount clai#ed considering that the 7SS8E 6O7 the CA erred in ruling that 1ecurity 8an) has not su iciently pro&ed its cause o action against Ban and that the ledger cards and the testi#ony o 3atricio *ercado was not the best e&idence o the transactions #ade by Ban relati&e to his account% 3EL9 7O% Ratio Jnder the exception to the hearsay rule in 1ec 4/ o !ule 1/2.=ao iled a clai# with the insurance co#pany or the proceeds ro# his policy% 'owe&er. 0ric Ban opened a current account at its 1oler 8ranch in 1anta Cru(. particularly those entries which resulted in the negati&e balance% 'e had no )nowledge o the truth or alsity o these entries% ."he trans ers were #ade under the authority o Sui% Ban denied that he authori(ed these unds trans ers% "he entries in the ledger were not co#petent e&idence to pro&e that Ban consented to the trans ers o unds% "hese entries #erely showed that the trans ers were indeed #ade and that Sui appro&ed the#% 1ecurity 8an)Ds clai# that Ban a&ailed o a special arrange#ent to trans er unds ro# his account to another personDs account was a bare allegation that was ne&er 98 . insured with respondent 1tandard $nsurance Co% or the #axi#u# a#ount o 3.Ban purportedly incurred an o&erdra t or negati&e balance in his account% As o :ece#ber 14. was running ahead o the insured truc) and was bu#ped ro# the rear% "he insured truc) sustained da#ages esti#ated to be around 3112. 19?. contractual. to testi y on the transactions pertaining to BanDs account% $t was in the course o his testi#ony that the ledger entries were presented% "here was. neither +usti ication nor necessity or the presentation o the entries as the person who #ade the# was a&ailable to testi y in court% *oreo&er./?. *anila% 1ecurity 8an) alleged that it had an agree#ent with Ban wherein the latter would deposit an initial a#ount in his current account and he could draw chec)s on said account pro&ided there were su icient unds to co&er the#% -urther#ore. with 3late 7o% -CB-. Ban re used to heed repeated de#ands or pay#ent% -or the period :ece#ber 14.% "he entries were #ade in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty Reasoning "he ledger entries did not #eet the irst and third re5uisites% 1ecurity 8an) presented 3atricio *ercado.222 and an additional su# o 3..2. while the da#age to the other truc) and to properties in the &icinity o the accident.7%7?% According to 1ecurity 8an). AN B%!% 7o% 1.22 )gs%.222 #ore or less% .22 )gs% 1ince the insured truc) he was dri&ing weighed #ore than 4.22> (ric)y) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari . .AC-S . an accident occurred9 the insured truc) bu#ped another truc). whether legal. the o&erdra t balance ca#e up to 31.>9. there ore. *r% Sui.24>4 CO!O7A< Aune . he was allowed to trans er unds ro# his account to another personDs account also within the sa#e branch% 'e a&ailed o such arrange#ent se&eral ti#es by depositing chec)s in his account and e&en be ore they cleared. the clai# was denied on the ground that the dri&er o the insured truc). did not possess a proper dri&erDs license at the ti#e o the accident% "he restriction in =eonardo AnitDs dri&erDs license pro&ided that he can only dri&e our-wheeled &ehicles weighing not #ore than 4. also owned by =ao% "he latter truc). were placed at 3/. 1992. *ercado had no personal )nowledge o this arrange#ent% "he ban) could ha&e presented Sui who# they alleged allowed the special arrange#ent with Ban% 8ut it did not% Disposition 3etition is :07$0:% :ecision o a ir#ed in toto% Entries in Officia2 Records LAO v. A... 1992 until ully paid. under a special arrange#ent with the branch #anager. he there ore &iolated the Hauthori(ed dri&erI clause o the insurance policy% $n addition. =eonardo Anit. #oral or religious< and .$n 1991. he withdrew the proceeds and trans erred the# to the other account% "hese transactions were co&ered by what were )nown as Hdebit #e#osI since Ban had no su icient unds to co&er the a#ounts he trans erred% .97.

a collision too) place between a truc) ('ino) with 3late 7r -8F1G 917 owned by !udy =ao and dri&en by 8OM B$::$0 M COM0=. in August 197.> and 19.1o#eti#e in 19. with the *O:$-$CA"$O7 that the award o exe#plary da#ages and attorneyDs ees is :0=0"0:% 3ERCE' HR. =ao presented the *otor Lehicle Accident !eport wherein the $n&estigating O icer.%Q . 'erce iled a *otion to *odi y :ecision explaining that since no decree was issued yet in the original =!C Case. CAB8GAO B%!% 7o% 1>>>4. disclosed that at about ?922 3* this date at the a ore#entioned place. and another truc) with 3late 7r% -CB-. ha&ing purchased it ro# a certain Aose Carpena. a decree o registration could not be i##ediately issued considering that the sub+ect property was included in the 19. $loilo. V.7. on *ay 1.=ao clai#s that at the ti#e o the accident. the insurance co#pany was ir# in its denial o the clai#% .22. with =icense 7r :=! 112?14. they are ne&ertheless ad#itted and considered in the absence o co#petent e&idence to re ute the acts stated therein% ."he !"C./?% -urther#ore..Munici5a2it+ of Ca1u+ao iled.%) .. Avena Evidence :A*AB0 "O 3!O30!"M 6R 3'M $7AJ!$01 T !R $*3!J:07C0 119/2 3* T 1gt% A% 8ernas in or#ed this o ice that a collision too) place at 8rgy% 8uhang. 8alasan. no proo was adduced to su iciently establish that it ca#e to his hands through his e#ploy#ent o underhanded #eans% "hus.Prof.% 6O7 the credence gi&en by the trial court to the &ersion o the respondent vis010vis the testi#ony o the witnesses was proper% /% 6O7 the award o exe#plary da#ages and attorneyDs ees was proper% 3EL9 1% M01% Ratio 0ntries in police records #ade by a police o icer in the per or#ance o the duty especially en+oined by law are prima facie e&idence o the act therein stated. te#perate or co#pensatory da#ages be ore the court #ay consider the 5uestion o whether or not exe#plary da#ages should be awarded% Reasoning "he insurance co#pany had not shown su icient e&idence that =ao indeed sche#ed to procure the dubious docu#ents and lied through his teeth to establish his &ersion o the acts% 6hat was ound was that the docu#ent he presented was inad#issible.. 199> granting the #otion and directing the =and !egistration Authority (=!A) to inally issue a decree o registration in the na#e o petitioner 'erce% .% M01% Ratio Breat weight. te#perate or co#pensatory da#ages% . only 4. a res% o 8rgy =aya.' V M8N7C7PAL7-G O. Huanita Car5ena and co% applied or the +udicial registration o 44 parcels o land all situated in Cabuyao."he award o attorneyDs ees #ust also be deleted% 1uch award was gi&en in its extraordinary concept as inde#nity or da#ages to be paid by the losing party to the pre&ailing party% 8ut it was not su iciently shown that =ao acted #aliciously in instituting the clai# or da#ages% A2010 Disposition :ecision o the CA is A--$!*0:. $C% $n&estigation conducted by 3at% Lillaher#osa. 199>. it was error or the courts below to award exe#plary da#ages in the absence o any award or #oral. and its contents were dubious% 'owe&er.$n this case. and their probati&e &alue #ay be either substantiated or nulli ied by other co#petent e&idence% Reasoning Although police blotters are o little probati&e &alue. 3erce iled an opposition to the proceedings (he had ac5uired ownership o&er the sub+ect property. A.3etitioner Vicente 9.AC-S . the decision therein could still be #odi ied by excluding the sub. arguing that it was issued a decree of registration over the said 99 .222 as exe#plary da#ages% "he CA a ir#ed% 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 the ad#issibility and e&identiary weight gi&en to the police blotter was proper% .A ter hearing. assisted by =t% 3% 8aclaron (O:).22 )gs% As e&idence. M7A!01-1A7"$ABO< 7o&e#ber 11. and e&en inality. Aaro. one o AuanitaDs hers. =aguna% "he trial court granted the application and directed the issuance of a decree of registration% 'owe&er. // yrs.7 case iled by Auanita Carpena% "hus in Aune 199. /? yrs. the entries in the police blotter re lected the in or#ation sub+ect o the contro&ersy% 1tated therein was the act that =eonardo Anit was dri&ing the insured truc) with plate nu#ber -CB-. $loilo with =icense 7r 1?/>4?.ect property in order to facilitate the issuance of the decree to him% ./? owned by !udy =ao and dri&en by =0O7A!:O A7$" M 3A701. it was in act Biddie 8oy M Coyel who was dri&ing the insured truc)% Biddie 8oy possessed a dri&erDs license authori(ing hi# to dri&e &ehicles such as the truc) which weighed #ore than 4. they also need not be pro&ed% 8ut a co#plainant #ust still show that he is entitled to #oral.22 or appearance ee and 3. dis#issed the case inding that =ao lac)s su icient cause o action and urther ordered hi# to pay the de endant 3.2. stated that it was Biddie 8oy dri&ing the insured truc) and not =eonardo Anit% "he said report was #ade three days a ter the accident% 'owe&er. 3at% Lillaher#osa.>-. the police blotter was identi ied and or#ally o ered as e&idence% "he person who #ade the entries was li)ewise presented in court< he identi ied and certi ied as correct the entries he #ade on the blotter% "he in or#ation was supplied to the entrant by the in&estigating o icer who did not protest about any inaccuracy when the blotter was presented to hi#% 7o explanation was li)ewise gi&en by the in&estigating o icer or the alleged interchange o na#es% . a res% o 8alasan. the court awarded property in a&or o 'erce% 'owe&er. is gi&en to the actual conclusions o the CA which a ir# those o the trial courts% Reasoning 6e ind on this score no reason to o&erturn such conclusions% /% 7O% Ratio Although exe#plary da#ages cannot be reco&ered as a #atter o right. the trial court issued an order dated *ay /. a ter trial.2. a petition or the reconstitution o its alleged title o&er the disputed property be ore the !"C =aguna.222 as attorneyDs ees plus 3. (#ini) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari o CA decision a ir#ing !"C decision to reopen the decree o registration issued by the =and !egistration Authority (=!A) in a&or o petitioner . .A ter trial. were issued decrees% One o these two parcels or which no decree o registration was issued was #ade the sub+ect o cadastral proceedings instituted by the !epublic o the 3hilippines in 197>% .

44 in a&or o the *unicipality o Cabuyao cannot be o&erturned without any counter&ailing proo to the contrary% 0 Tichangco v. this !ourt resolves to open the decree of registration issued herein."his led to the issuance o the 5uestioned 199? !"C Order directing the reopening and re&iew o the decree o registration% 3!onsidering the &eport dated "ec '. <=<9. the title is per ected and cannot be collaterally 5uestioned later on% Reasoning (City o *anila & =ac)) "he purpose o the legislature in creating the Court o =and !egistration was to bring the land titles o the 3hilippine under one co#prehensi&e and har#onious syste#% "he Court o =and !egistration does not create or &est a title% $t si#ply confirms a title already created and already vested.. showing that :ecree 7o% 4.299.AC-S .% M01 Ratio "he trustworthiness of public documents and the &alue gi&en to the entries #ade therein could be grounded on . of the Acting !ommissioner of 6and &egistration that "ecree 7o.44 issued in a&or o the *unicipality has beco#e inde easible . &ecord 7o. =!C (C=!) !ec% 7o% >7>/. and the regle#entary period has passed within which the decree #ay be 5uestioned. rendering it ore&er inde easible% . the Ordinary :ecree 8oo).% 6O7 the Ordinary :ecree 8oo) is 5ri*a facie 5roof o the entries appearing therein 3EL9 1% M01 Ratio A land already decreed and registered in an ordinary registration proceedings cannot again be the sub+ect o ad+udication% /ndefeasibility and imprescriptibility are the cornerstones o land registration proceedings% "hus. 1994 (bau(a) .ERNAN9E? V CA . :i&ision o Ordinary !egistration. 19?2% . Avena Evidence property as early as $2$$. 1911.44 was issued on *arch /. 'erce is now barred ro# clai#ing the sub+ect land% Although the #unicipalityDs clai# o ownership is based on the entry in the Ordinary :ecree 8oo). in favor of the (unicipality of !abuyao for apparently the same parcel of land applied for herein. is presumed to have been regularly issued by the accountable public officers who en."he petition to open a decree o registration will not prosper i the alleged raudulent depri&ation o ownership had been contro&erted. 1il&erio B% 3ere(. =!C (C=!) !ec% 7o% >7>/.ERNAN9E?= B! 12?/>> 3J7O< -eb 1>. 8ranch 1. in the report dated :ece#ber .44 was issued on *arch /.J= the publicity o record which #a)es #ore li)ely the prior exposure o such errors as #ight ha&e occurred% Reasoning 1ince :ecree 7o% 4. are declared 7J== and LO$:% HO3N PA8L . I Munici5a2it+Bs Co**ent . petitioners. the Ordinary :ecree 8oo) is 5ri*a facie 5roof o the entries appearing therein% A2010 . issued in the na#e o petitioner 'erce.On Aan . litigated. the #other and guardian ad litem o the .3etitioners iled a case or support against pri&ate respondent be ore SC !"C% "he co#plaint was dis#issed on :ec 9.1>11. 1911 other than the entry in the .N and that there was no su icient and co#petent e&idence to pro&e petitionersD iliation% . the *unicipality o Cabuyao iled a petition or the reopening o the decree o registration issued in a&or o 'erce% . but also &iolate the underlying principle o the "orrens syste#% $ndeed.2= the penalty which is usually a ixed to a breach o that duty. and . "his was dis#issed in -eb 199>% $n the #eanti#e. 3etitioner insists that the lac) o docu#entary proo and the act that respondent #unicipality ne&er had possession o the sub+ect property pro&e that it ne&er owned the disputed property% . 199?. A. =aguna% 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 :ecree 7o% 4. once a decree o registration is #ade under the "orrens syste#. =aguna is A--$!*0:. and Original Certi icate o "itle 7o% 2-.1= the sense o o icial duty in the preparation o the state#ent #ade. . 8'88 was issued on (arch 9.'erce sought reconsideration< CA denied% CA ound that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the reopening of the decree of registration% $t held that the trial court properly granted the reopening o the decree o title considering the existence o two con licting titles T one in a&or o petitioner and the other in the na#e o the *unicipality o Cabuyao% I PetitionerBs Contentions .oy the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions% "hus. as con ir#ed by the report sub#itted by the =!A to then C-$.CARL7-O . 19?79 petitioners ile the case at bench.7. 1ein% a 5u12ic docu*ent. 19?> on the ground that Nthere is nothing in the #aterial allegations in the co#plaint that see)s to co#pel (pri&ate respondent) to recogni(eRac)nowledge (petitioners) as his illegiti#ate children.$n the absence o e&idence to the contrary. single. V.44 has beco#e inde easible. showing that :ecree 7o% 4. to do so would reduce the &aunted legal inde easibility o "orrens titles to #eaningless &erbiage% Disposition 3etition is :07$0:% "he &alidity o :ecree 7o% 4. the =!A issued a decree o registration in a&or o 'erce ollowed by the issuance o Original Certi icate o "itle in his na#e% .rdinary &egistration ook of the 6&A% 'ence. the proceedings that led to the issuance o :ecree 7o% 4. there is no /a+ of deter*inin% /hich of the si0 2ots a552ied for re%istration isFare covered 1+ the decree.44 that was purportedly issued in a&or o the #unicipality on *arch /. 1911 and that =ot 1 3lan $$-. -nriquez9 "o o&erturn this legal presu#ption carelessly will not only endanger +udicial stability. .-eb 19."here is no record o :ecree 7o% 4. C=A!O A7"O7$O -0!7A7:0."he e&idence shows that L$O=0"A 3% 01BJ0!!A.> . and resol&ed% (unicipality could no longer question the factual findings of the cadastral court. $2$$ in 6&! *:6&. <=<9. and AO'7 100 .44 issued on *arch /. another action or recognition and support against the pri&ate respondent be ore another branch o the SC !"C% . 1911 in a&or o respondent *unicipality o Cabuyo. 8iOan. $245.44 was issued in its a&or although pertinent records e&idencing said decree o registration were lost or destroyed during the war% $t points out that the entries in the appro&ed sur&ey plan or the *unicipality o Cabuyao show that "ecree 7o.Prof. 8'88 was issued on (arch 9. whereas :ecree 7o% 7-. $2$$ under !adastral !ase 7o.+.:ecree 7o% 4.<= the routine and disinterested origin o #ost such state#ents.719 was one o the six parcels o land pre&iously applied or registration by the *unicipality o Cabuyao in =!C (B=!O) !ecord 7o% >7>/."hese incidents were attested to by Acting Chie .

the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar had no authority to #a)e or record the paternity o an illegiti#ate child upon the in or#ation o a third person and the certi icate o birth o an illegiti#ate child. the CA ruling is in accord with &oces vs.?2. children% 1he a&erred they were #arried in ci&il rites in Oct 19?/% $n *arch 19?. at di erent ti#es. the state#ent o any in or#ation or circu#stances by which he could be identi ied% Accordingly.D $n (acandang vs.222 each a #onth. but. the children4s #other and natural guardian. not only the na#ing o the ather or the child born outside wedloc).3etitioners li)ewise presented as witnesses. on the other hand. is inco#petent e&idence o athership o said child%H 1C reiterated this rule in 8erciles9 Na birth certi icate not signed by the alleged ather therein indicated is not co#petent e&idence o paternity%N /% 7O% Reasoning 3etitioners capitali(e on the testi#ony o -r% -ernande( who sole#ni(ed the baptis#al cere#ony o Claro% 'e declared on the witness stand that he 101 . viz%9 $n &iew o the abo&e. !uby Chua Cu. #et Carlito so#eti#e in 19?/. .Prof. V. sons% 1he clai#ed that they started their illicit sexual relationship > #onths a ter their 1st #eeting% "he tryst resulted in the birth o petitioners% Lioleta clai#s not to ha&e )nown that Carlito was #arried until the birth o her .udicata applied because o the dis#issal o the petitionersD earlier co#plaint% . when signed only by the #other o the latter. howe&er. . when the birth certi icates. is not iled or #ade by hi#. -he reason for this ru2e that canonica2 records do not constitute the authentic docu*ent 5rescri1ed 1+ Arts. with arrears rec)oned as o the iling o the co#plaint on -ebruary 19. introduced Carlito to the# as her NhusbandN% -r% -ernande(. Trocio) Hthe pictures o Aewels and !espondent showing allegedly their physical li)eness to each other is inconclusi&e to pro&e paternity and #uch less would pro&e &iolation o co#plaint4s person and honor%I . petitioners presented the ollowing docu#entary e&idence9 their certi icates o li&e birth. #ystems. now aged 4 U as his sons% As the de endant has ad#itted that he has a super&isory +ob at the *eralco. 1C also ruled that /hi2e 1a5tis*a2 certificates *a+ 1e considered 5u12ic docu*ents' the+ can on2+ serve as evidence of the ad*inistration of the sacra*ents on the dates so s5ecified. or the recognition. testi ied that Carlito was the one who presented hi#sel as the ather o petitioner Claro during the latter4s baptis#% . also. !osario Cantoria. :r% *ilagros Lillanue&a. A. where Lioleta4s ather ser&ed as tennis instructor% . and -r% =iberato -ernande(% "he irst / witnesses told the "C that Lioleta had. the decision was set aside and petitionersD co#plaint was dis#issed by the CA in its i#pugned decision% $t ound that the Nproo relied upon by "C is inade5uate to pro&e the (pri&ate respondent4s) paternity and iliation o (petitioners)%N $t urther held that the doctrine o res . !A. 6ocal !ivil &egistrar9 H% % % 1ec . Carlito used to spend his wee)ends regularly at said courts.8ased on the e&idence adduced by the parties. CC explicitly prohibited.. he shall gi&e the plainti s support in the a#ount o 3. 11) and 11# to 5rove the 2e%iti*ate fi2iation of a chi2d in that such canonica2 record is si*52+ 5roof of the on2+ act to /hich the 5riest *a+ certif+ 1+ reason of his 5ersona2 Eno/2ed%e' an act done 1+ hi*se2f or in his 5resence' 2iEe the ad*inistration of the sacra*ent u5on a da+ stated$ it is no 5roof of the dec2arations in the record /ith res5ect to the 5arenta%e of the chi2d 1a5ti4ed' or of 5rior and distinct facts /hich reLuire se5arate and concrete evidence.% 6O7 docu#ents presented were su icient to deter#ine iliation% /% 6O7 the testi#onies presented were su icient to deter#ine iliation% 3EL9 1% 7O% Reasoning 3etitioners cannot rely on the photographs showing the presence o the pri&ate respondent in the baptis# o petitioner Claro% "hese are ar ro# proo s that Carlito is the ather o Claro% As explained by Carlito.% 7O% Reasoning "he baptis#al certi icates o petitioner Claro na#ing pri&ate respondent as his ather has scant e&identiary &alue% "here is no showing that pri&ate respondent participated in its preparation% As A2010 held in erciles vs. -he+ are not necessari2+ co*5etent evidence of the veracit+ of entries therein /ith res5ect to the chi2d:s 5aternit+. now aged >.. identi ying respondent Carlito as their ather< the baptis#al certi icate o petitioner Claro which also states that his ather is respondent Carlito< photographs o Carlito ta)en during the baptis# o petitioner Claro< and pictures o respondent Carlito and Claro ta)en at the ho#e o Lioleta% . at the *eralco Co#pound tennis courts% A *eralco e#ployee and a tennis enthusiast. the records do no show that pri&ate respondent had a hand in the preparation o said certi icates% $n re+ecting these certi icates.*-! denied% 7SS8EFS 1% 6O7 ob+ects presented were su icient to deter#ine iliation% . an o ice#ate o Carlito who also stood as a sponsor o Claro during his baptis#% Carlito also presented as witness."o bolster their case. Avena Evidence 3AJ= -0!7A7:0.9 CK the ru2e is that a2thou%h the 1a5tis*a2 record of a natura2 chi2d descri1es her as a chi2d of the decedent' the 1a5tis*a2 record cannot 1e he2d to 1e a vo2untar+ reco%nition of 5arenta%e.Lioleta pointed to Carlito as the ather o her . respondent denied Lioleta4s allegations that he sired the petitioners% 'e a&erred that he only ser&ed as one o the sponsors in the baptis# o petitioner Claro% "his clai# was corroborated by the testi#ony o !odante 3agta)han. et al.On appeal. 19?7% . a waiter o the =ighthouse !estaurant% 'e disputed Lioleta4s allegation that she and respondent Carlito re5uented the said restaurant during their a air% Arcagua stated he ne&er saw Lioleta and Carlito together at the said restaurant% !espondent also declared that he only learned he was na#ed in the birth certi icates o both petitioners as their ather a ter he was sued or support in (the 1st case) . pay#ent to be deli&ered to Lioleta 0sguerra. o Act 7o% /79/ and Article . . -idel Arcagua.$n de ense. she disco&ered that the #arriage license which they used was spurious% . he was in the baptis# as a sponsor o Claro% "his was corroborated by 3agta)han% "he pictures ta)en in the house o Lioleta showing pri&ate respondent showering a ection to Claro also all short o the e&idence re5uired to pro&e paternity% As held in Tan vs. "he certi icates o li&e birth o petitioners identi ying pri&ate respondent as their ather are also inco#petent e&idence on the issue o their paternity% Again. the Court concludes and so holds that the plainti s #inors (petitioners herein) are entitled to the relie 4s prayed or in the co#plaint% "he de endant (herein pri&ate respondent) is hereby ordered to recogni(e Claro Antonio -ernande(. "C ruled or petitioners.. and Aohn 3aul -ernande(.

. -3E 7N-ES-A-E ES-A-E O.9 :ece#ber 12. The work of Administration of government and the interest of the public having business with officials would alike suffer in consequence. the writs o execution to en orce the ci&il liability. Ar% iled a N3etition or =etters o Ad#inistrationN praying that he be appointed Ad#inistrator o the $ntestate 0state o the deceased% 'e allegedthat he is an ac)nowledged natural child o the late Auan C% =ocsin and that he is the only sur&i&ing legal heir o the decedent% MANALO V. Over the o16ections of the Co*5an+' the tria2 court ad*itted this evidence and 1ased its decision in the 5resent case on the sa*e. without re5uiring said opportunity to cross-exa#ine said sheri % 7SS8E. an ele&en year old. the taxicab ran o&er Ar#ando *analo. B%!% 7o% 14>7/7 1A7:OLA=-BJ"$0!!0. host of official would be found devoting the greater part of their time to attending as witness in court or delivering their depositions before an officer. $nc% (the Co#pany) and dri&en by 'ernande( its dri&er. ather and #other respecti&ely o Ar#ando iled the present action against the Co#pany to en orce its subsidiary liability. pursuant to Articles 12. -r% -ernande( ad#itted that he had to be shown a picture o the pri&ate respondent by Lioleta 0sguerra to recogni(e hi#% 'e also stated that it was Lioleta who said that pri&ate respondent was the ather% "here is no proo that -r% -ernande( is a close riend o Lioleta and Carlito wRc should render un5uestionable his identi ication o the pri&ate respondent during petitioner Claro4s baptis#% $n the absence o this proo . The litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily needed./. -0le&en (11) #onths a ter Auan NAhonnyN =ocsin. The courts and the legislature have recognized the valid reason for such an exception. . The public officers are few in whose daily work something is not done in which testimony is not needed from official statements.R. NO. And this Court added9 The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trust with accuracy and fidelity. whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each a case may appear to require. Avena Evidence re#e#bered who was presented as ClaroDs ather in the baptis# and when as)ed to identi y said person. on cross exa#ination. A. we are not prepared to concede that -ather -ernande( who o iciates nu#erous baptis#al cere#onies day in and day out can re#e#ber the parents o the children he has bapti(ed% 6e cannot also disturb the indings o the CA on the credibility o Lioleta% 'er testi#ony is highly suspect as it is sel -ser&ing and by itsel . the Co#pany considering hi# an indispensable party% "he "C and CA both correctly ruled that 'ernande( was not an indispensable party de endant% "he Co#pany is now be ore 1C% -"o pro&e their case against the de endant Co#pany. respondent Auan 0% =ocsin. plainti s 0#ilio *analo and his wi e Clara 1al&ador.= "he sheri 4s #a)ing the return need not testi y in court as to the acts stated in his entry% $n the case o Antillon &s% 8arcelon. L!"1#1$ Au%ust 1&' 1()&$ Monte*a+or (Chrislao) .AC-S. ROBLES . the occasion in which the officials would be summoned from his ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless. 19. causing hi# physical in+uries which resulted in his death se&eral days later% -'ernande( was prosecuted or ho#icide through rec)less i#prudence and a ter trial was ound guilty% 'e ser&ed out his sentence but ailed to pay the inde#nity% 102 . and therefore. 1992. he pointed at Carlito% 'owe&er. collided with a passenger truc)% $n the course o and a result o the accident.AC-S. the petition is :$1*$110: and the :ecision o the respondent court is A--$!*0:. this court said9 To the foregoing rules with reference to the method of proving private documents an A2010 exception is made with reference to the method of proving public documents executed before and certified to. V. 1947. and 12/ o the !e&ised 3enal Code% -$t also iled a #otion to dis#iss the co#plaint unless and until the con&icted dri&er 'ernande( was included as a party de endant. the plainti s introduced a copy o the decision in the cri#inal case con&icting 'ernande( o ho#icide through rec)less i#prudence. -On August 9.221 (da) .Ru2e <(' section 11 and Ru2e 12<' section <)' Ru2es of Court. H8AN LOCS7N SR. 1. /7 3hil%.1 citing 6ig#ore on 0&idence. 6O7 the Co#pany is correct% 3EL9.Prof. "he Co#pany is #ista)en% A sheriff:s return is an officia2 state*ent *ade 1+ a 5u12ic officia2 in the 5erfor*ance of a dut+ s5ecia22+ en6oined 1+ the 2a/ and for*in% 5art of officia2 records' and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. is insu icient to pro&e the paternity o the petitioners% !es +udicata unnecessary to discuss considering that petitioners e&idence ailed to substantiate their cause o action% Disposition $7 L$06 6'0!0O-. Costs against petitioners% . a taxicab owned and operated by de endant !obles "ransportation Co#pany. No. under the land of seal of certain public officials. (SOL7NAP V LOCS7N= 7N -3E MA--ER O. writs o execution were issued against hi# to satis y the a#ount but both writs were returned unsatis ied by the sheri % -On -ebruary 17. 1r% died intestate on :ece#ber 11. and the returns of the sheriff sho/in% that the t/o /rits of e0ecution /ere not satisfied 1ecause of the inso2venc+ of 3ernande4' the sheriff 1ein% una12e to 2ocate an+ 5ro5ert+ in his na*e. -"he Co#pany contends that this )ind o e&idence is inad#issible% "he Co#pany also clai#s that in ad#itting as e&idence the sheri 4s return o the writs o execution to pro&e the insol&ency o 'ernande(.

or in any authentic writing is. respondent alleged that he is an acknowledged natural son o the deceased. so ar as )nown to the petitioner9 (a) "he +urisdictional acts< x x xN An Ninterested partyN. this Court. a will. a state#ent be ore a court o record or an authentic writing.N and N:-/N)% "o pro&e the existence and authenticity o Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 ro# which 0xhibit N:N was #achine copied. *anuel =ocsin and 0ster Aarantilla. clai#ing to be the law ul heirs o the deceased. 1r%% (Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 (0xhibit N:N) is spurious) Reasonin%. such as a creditor% "he deceased. the heirs o *aria =ocsin.. howe&er. respondent clai#s. i%e%. as e&idenced by his signatures (0xhibit N:-. 1ection >. a will. *anuel =ocsin and the successors o the late =ourdes C% =ocsin alleging that respondent4s clai# as a natural child is barred by prescription or the statute o li#itations% -"he $ntestate 0state o the late Aose =ocsin. li)ewise stating that there is no ilial relationship between herein respondent and the deceased% -"o support his clai# that he is an ac)nowledged natural child o the deceased respondent sub#itted a #achine copy (#ar)ed as 0xhibit N:N) o his Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 ound in the bound &olu#e o birth records in the O ice o the =ocal Cler) !egistrar o $loilo City% 0xhibit N:N contains the in or#ation that respondent4s ather is Auan C% =ocsin.) any other #eans allowed by the !ules o Court and special laws% "he due recognition o an illegiti#ate child in a record o birth. in ront o a co in bearing Auan C% =ocsin4s dead body% "he photograph. A#paro 0sca#illa. !ontents of petition for letters of administration% A petition or letters o ad#inistration #ust be iled by an interested person and #ust show. or the executor or executors are inco#petent. Ar% (brother o the deceased) also entered its appearance in the estate proceedings. +udicial action within the applicable statute o li#itations is essential in 103 . i co#petent and willing to ser&e< VVV A2010 Jpon the other hand. thus9 1ec% . Col% 3edro =% 0l&as. 0xhibit N?N appears on a Auly. another opposition to the petition was iled by =ucy 1alinop (sole heir o the late *aria =ocsin Lda% :e Araneta. any authentic writing is treated not +ust a ground or co#pulsory recognition< it is in itsel a &oluntary recognition that does not re5uire a separate action or +udicial appro&al% 6here. a handwriting expert% 'e testi ied that the signatures o Auan C% =ocsin and 0#ilio B% "o#esa (then Ci&il !egistrar o $loilo City) appearing in Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 (0xhibit N:N) are orgeries% 'e thus concluded that the said Certi icate is a spurious docu#ent surreptitiously inserted into the bound &olu#e o birth records o the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar o $loilo City% 7SS8E. A#paro 0sca#illa. his Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 447 (0xhibit N:N) was recorded on a "ecember $. *etro *anila. a clai# or recognition is predicated on other e&idence #erely tending to pro&e paternity. shows that he and his #other ha&e been recogni(ed as a#ily #e#bers o the deceased% -3etitioners clai#ed that Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 (0xhibit N:N) is spurious% "hey sub#itted a certi ied true copy o Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 ound in the Ci&il !egistrar Beneral. already used be ore respondent4s birth% "his scenario dearly suggests that 0xhibit N:N was alsi ied% 3etitioners presented as witness. and that the sa#e does not contain the signature o the late Auan C% =ocsin% "hey obser&ed as ano#alous the act that while respondent was born on October . a state#ent be ore a court o record.. A. is one who would be bene ited in the estate. as the case #ay be. was not sur&i&ed by a spouse% $n his petition or issuance o letters o ad#inistration. is established by (1) the record o birth appearing in the ci&il register or a inal +udg#ent< or (.. li)e legiti#ate children. or next o )in.> or#. 19. ad#inistration shall be granted9 (a) "o the sur&i&ing husband or wi e. a consu##ated act o ac)nowledg#ent o the child. who during his li eti#e. in the discretion o the court. or one who has a clai# against the estate. in estate proceedings. re use the trust. Avena Evidence -Aanuary 12. held9 N"he iliation o illegiti#ate children. Ar is not an interested person within the #eaning o 1ection .> and his birth was recorded on Aanuary /2. the heirs o Aose =ocsin. 1ection . ne&er a ixed N1r%N in his na#e% -Aanuary . #ar)ed as 0xhibit N?N. 1r% and that he was the in or#ant o the acts stated therein.7 records o birth where the alleged original o Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 is included% !espondent also o ered in e&idence a photograph (0xhibit NCN) showing hi# and his #other. 199/ . iliation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession o the status o a legiti#ate child< or (. the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar o $loilo City% 1he produced and identi ied in court the bound &olu#e o 19. re5uests to ha&e appointed. indicating that the birth o respondent was reported by his #other. o !ule 79 pro&ides that a petition or letters o ad#inistration #ust be iled by an interested person. 19. or a person dies intestate.. or both.Prof. iled an opposition to respondent4s petition or letters o ad#inistration% "hey a&erred that respondent is not a child or an ac)nowledged natural child o the late Auan C% =ocsin. 199. in itsel . 6O7 Auan 0% =ocsin Ar is an interested party and is 5uali ied to be granted letters o ad#inistration (6hich o the two docu#ents is genuine) 3EL9. Ar%. outside o a record o birth.7.. instead. respondent presented !osita A% Lencer. thus9 1ection >% @hen and to whom letters of administration granted% $ no executor is na#ed in the will. through *r% Austice Aose C% Litug.>. Auan C% =ocsin. Auan 0% =ocsin. 19. or to such person as such sur&i&ing husband or wi e. sister o the deceased). i#plying that he is an interested person in the estate and is considered as next of kin% 8ut has respondent established that he is an ac)nowledged natural son o the deceasedW On this point. or next of kin. $2?4 revised form% Jpon the other hand.) an ad#ission o legiti#ate iliation in a public docu#ent or a pri&ate handwritten instru#ent and signed by the parent concerned% $n the absence thereo . or ail to gi&e bond. V. 199/ o 0ster =ocsin Aarantilla (another sister o Auan C% =ocsin). and no urther court action is re5uired% $n act. such as an heir. +oining the earlier oppositors% "his was ollowed by an appearance and opposition dated Aanuary . !ule 7? o the !e&ised !ules o Court lays down the persons pre erred who are entitled to the issuance o letters o ad#inistration. !ule 79 o the !e&ised !ules o Court entitled to the issuance o letters o ad#inistration since he ailed to pro&e his iliation with the late Auan C% =ocsin.

!ourt of Appeal where this !ourt said that Ca birth certificate not signed by the alleged father *who had no hand in its preparation+ is not competent evidence of paternity. but also. $loilo on 7o&e#ber .C -A birth certi icate is a or#idable piece o e&idence prescribed by both the Ci&il Code and Article 17. not sewn li)e the other entries% -"he docu#ents bound into one &olu#e are original copies% 0xhibit N:N is a carbon copy o the alleged original and stic)s out li)e a sore thu#b because the entries therein are typewritten. not only the na#ing o the ather o the child born out o wedloc)./ (An Act to 0stablish a Ci&il !egister). the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar had no authority to #a)e or record the paternity o an illegiti#ate child upon the in or#ation o a third person and the certificate of birth of an illegitimate child. 19. !ule 1/. as trans#itted to the Ci&il !egistrar Beneral is not identical with 0xhibit N:N as appearing in the records o the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar o $loilo City% 1uch circu#stance should ha&e aroused the suspicion o both the trial court and the Court o Appeals and should ha&e i#pelled the# to declare 0xhibit N:N a spurious docu#ent% 0xhibit N?N shows that respondent4s record o birth was #ade by his #other% $n the sa#e 0xhibit N?N. the state#ent o any in or#ation or circu#stances by which he could be identi ied% Accordingly. A. 19>> (rean) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew o CA decision 104 . is not filed or made by him. a regular e#ployee. co#plete and conclusi&e proo o its alsity or nullity% $n this case. V.7 bound &olu#e in the =ocal Ci&il !egistry o $loilo is torn% 0xhibit N:N is #erely pasted with the bound &olu#e. in pro&ing the authenticity o 0xhibit N:. 0xhibit N?N. i not #ore. 19. 0xhibit N:N does not indicate i#portant particulars. the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar to send copies o registrable certi icates and docu#ents presented to the# or entry to the Ci&il !egistrar Beneral%A copy o the docu#ent sent by the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar to the Ci&il !egistrar Beneral should be identical in or# and in substance with the copy being )ept by the latter% $n the instant case.9?> *A@A=$7"A=< *arch /1.? or# could be used in 19. o Act /7. address and business% "he space which calls or an entry o the legiti#acy o the child is blan)% On the bac) page o 0xhibit N:N. o the !e&ised !ules o Court that N(d)ocu#ents consisting o entries in public records #ade in the per or#ance o a duty by a public o icer are prima facie e&idence o the acts therein stated%N $n this case. 6ocal !ivil &egistrar9 N1ection . o Act 7o% /7. respondent. lest we rec)lessly set a &ery dangerous precedent that would encourage and sanction raudulent clai#s% Anybody can ha&e a picture ta)en while standing be ore a co in with others and therea ter utili(e it in clai#ing the estate o the deceased% A.?2 o the Ci&il Code o the 3hilippines % % % explicitly prohibit. Avena Evidence order to establish the child4s ac)nowledg#ent%N (0#phasis ours) 'ere. respondent4s Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 entered in the records o the =ocal Ci&il !egistry ( ro# which 0xhibit N:N was #achine copied) has all the badges o nullity% 6ithout doubt.? !e&ised -or#%N -Jpon the other hand. $2?<% 6e ind no irregularity here% $ndeed.> were already exhausted so the or#er Ci&il !egistrar had re5uested or a new or# and they sent us the 19. 0xhibit N?N o the petitioners ound in the Ci&il !egistrar Beneral in *etro *anila is on *unicipal -or# 7o 12.7 birth record originating ro# the =ocal Ci&il !egistry o $loilo City% 6ith respect to =ocal Ci&il !egistries. such as the alleged ather4s religion.7 when respondent4s birth was recorded. #aybe the or#s in 19.Prof.?. not respondent4s 0xhibit N:N. should ha&e been gi&en #ore aith and credence by the courts below% -"he Ci&il !egistry =aw re5uires. or the recognition. presented to the trial court his Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 (0xhibit N:N) and a photograph (0xhibit NCN) ta)en during the burial o the deceased% -xhibit " spurious) -3ursuant to 1ection 1. occupation. Lencer answered that Nx x x during that ti#e. the signature and na#e o Auan C% =ocsin listed as respondent4s ather and the entry that he and A#paro 0sca#illa were #arried in Oton. the authentic copy on ile in that o ice was re#o&ed and substituted with a alsi ied Certi icate o =i&e 8irth% At this point.> or#s would continue to be used se&eral years therea ter% ut for a $2?4 form to be used in $2?= is unlikely% -"he bac) co&er o the 19.. there is a purported signature o the alleged ather./. it is logical to assu#e that the 19. revised in Auly.R7CA V CAL-EM B%!% 7o% =-1. 0xhibit N:N. inter alia. in order to establish his iliation with the deceased. was #erely pasted with the &olu#e% "he records o the instant case ade5uately support a inding that 0xhibit N?N or the petitioners. has to be engaged% $t is highly unli)ely that any o these e#ployees in *etro *anila would ha&e reason to alsi y a particular 19. the glaring discrepancies between the two Certi icates o =i&e 8irth (0xhibits N:N and N?N) ha&e o&erturned the genuineness o 0xhibit N:N entered in the =ocal Ci&il !egistry% 6hat is authentic is 0xhibit N?N recorded in the Ci&il !egistry Beneral% -!espondent4s photograph with his #other near the co in o the late Auan C% =ocsin cannot and will not constitute proo o iliation. is incompetent evidence of fathership of said child%N (0#phasis ours) 0The &oces ruling regarding illegitimate filiation is further elucidated in Bernandez vs.4 do not appear% -$n &oces vs. race. A2010 when signed only by the mother of the latter.N #ore con&incing e&idence than those considered by the trial court should ha&e been presented by respondent% -!espondent4s Certi icate o =i&e 8irth 7o% 477 (0xhibit N:N) was recorded in a :ece#ber 1. this &ital docu#ent./ and Article . but the blan)s calling or the date and other details o his !esidence Certi icate were not illed up% -"here is no explanation why out o so #any certi icates. to #erely access the# in the Ci&il !egistry Beneral re5uires expertise% "o locate one single birth record ro# the #ass. o the -a#ily Code or purposes o recognition and iliation% 'owe&er. the records o births ro# all cities and #unicipalities in the 3hilippines are o icially and regularly orwarded to the Ci&il !egistrar Beneral in *etro *anila by the =ocal Ci&il !egistrars% 1ince the records o births co&er se&eral decades and co#e ro# all parts o the country. birth certi icate o ers only prima facie e&idence o iliation and #ay be re uted by contrary e&idence%1? $ts e&identiary worth cannot be sustained where there exists strong. it bears stressing the pro&ision o 1ection .? re&ised or#% As)ed how a 19. while the records o all other certi icates are handwritten% Jnli)e the contents o those other certi icates. when the birth certificate. access thereto by interested parties is ob&iously easier% "hus.

are prima facie e&idence o the acts therein stated%N ."he reports in 5uestion do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule< the acts stated therein were not ac5uired by the reporting o icers through o icial in or#ation.3olice :ept report9 At about 4p%#% *arch 1?. *anila% $t started while gasoline was being hosed ro# a tan) truc) into the underground storage.. right at the opening o the recei&ing tan) where the no((le o the hose was inserted% "he ire spread to and burned se&eral neighboring houses. ire suddenly bla(ed% Suic) action o =eandro -lores in pulling o the gasoline hose connecting the truc) with the underground tan) pre&ented a terri ic explosion% 8ut. and A192/ OCC% $n the a ternoon o *arch 1?. which is the sub+ect-#atter o the contract was sold by the plainti co#pany to the de endant. or by a person in the per or#ance o a duty specially en+oined by law. installed between the gasoline pu#ps and the underground tan)s% 7SS8EFS 6O7 reports on the ire by the *anila 3olice and -ire :epart#ents and by a certain Captain "inio o the A-3 are ad#issible% 3EL9 7O . ac5uired by the# through o icial in or#ationW As to so#e acts the sources thereo are not e&en identi ied% Others are attributed to =eopoldo *edina. howe&er.222 on :ece#ber 1.422. not ha&ing been gi&en by the in or#ants pursuant to any duty to do so% . without urther testi#onial e&idence on their contents. V. does not #eet the conditions speci ied and guaranteed in the a oresaid contract o sale% =ower court rendered +udg#ent sentencing the 6i+angco (de endant) to pay the plainti relying a#ong other e&idence to the certi icate issued by the :irector o the 8ureau o Agriculture 7SS8E 6O7 the certi icate o the :irector o the 8ureau o Agriculture as to the a&erage crop o palay produced in 105 .Although such reports were not ad#issible. another 34. Avena Evidence ."here are three re5uisites or ad#issibility under the rule +ust #entioned9 (a) that the entry was #ade by a public o icer. Court said9 the gasoline station. 19. was under the control o appellees% A ire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses% "he persons who )new or could ha&e )nown how the ire started were appellees and their e#ployees. a#ong the# petitioners 1ps A rica and 'eirs o Ong.2< 34."he -ire :ept report9 !e their allegation that the pre#ises were subleased or the installation o a cocacola and cigarette stand... !ule 1. into the underground tan) o the Caltex Bas 1tation located at corner o !i(al A&e and Antipolo 1t.3etitioners #aintain that the reports in the#sel&es. V../. the persons who #ade the state#ents not only #ust ha&e personal )nowledge o the acts stated but #ust ha&e the duty to gi&e such state#ents or record .AC-S . as basis or authority% . 19.!e negligence. which #ust ha&e been ac5uired by hi# personally or through o icial in or#ation . inally. A7HAN CO B%!% 7o% =-. which pro&ides that Nentries in o icial records #ade in the per or#ance o his duty by a public o icer o the 3hilippines.4 (ice) . 19.C-$ and CA ound that petitioners ailed to pro&e negligence and that respondents had exercised due care in the pre#ises and with respect to the super&ision o their e#ployees% .1>49 Lilla#or< 9 October 19. A. in *anila.1.O the / re5uisites +ust stated. October ?. but they ga&e no explanation thereo whatsoe&er% $t is a air and reasonable in erence that the incident happened because o want o care% 1o Court ruled that Caltex and 8o5uiren are liable to the petitioners% Disposition :ecision appealed ro# is !0L0!10: and Caltex and 8o5uiren are held liable solidarily to appellants A rica% SALMON' 9EM-ER N CO.222 on Aune 1.AC-S -1al#on. or by another person specially en+oined by law to do so< (b) that it was #ade by the public o icer in the per or#ance o his duties.222 upon the deli&ery o said #achineries by the de endant to the plainti < another 34. an un)nown -ilipino lighted a cigarette and threw the burning #atch stic) near the #ain &al&e o the said underground tan)% :ue to the gasoline u#es. only the last need be considered here% Ob&iously the #aterial acts recited in the reports as to the cause and circu#stances o the ire were not within the personal )nowledge o the o icers who conducted the in&estigation% 6as )nowledge o such acts. e5uip#ent and e#ployees. payable by install#ents as ollows9 3422 at the signing o the contract sale.1% -"he plainti prays or a su# o #oney plus legal interests% -6i+angco denies generally and speci ically the acts alleged in the co#plaint% 'e alleged that the tractor and threshing #achine. sued respondents Caltex (3hil%). to wit. i%e. including the personal properties and e ects inside the#% "heir owners. the la#es scattered due to the hose ro# which the gasoline was spouting% $t burned the truc) and the % accessorias and residences% . who could not gi&e any reason as to the origin o the ire% "o 5uali y their state#ents as No icial in or#ationN ac5uired by the o icers who prepared the reports. 194? a ire bro)e out at the Caltex ser&ice station at the corner o Antipolo 1t% and !i(al A&e. while =eandro -lores was trans erring gasoline ro# a tan) truc). the irst as alleged owner o the station and the second as its agent in charge o operation% 7egligence on the part o both o the# was attributed as the cause o the ire% . all within the scope o 1ec/. 194?. and. which has a si#ilar set o acts. and Co% entered into a contract with 6i+angco or the purchase and sale o a tractor and threshing #achine upon the conditions speci ied in said contract% "he price o the #achineries sold is 31. with all its appliances. or by such other person in the per or#ance o a duty specially en+oined by law< and (c) that the public o icer or other person had su icient )nowledge o the acts by hi# stated."he action is or da#ages under A192.Prof. the court discussed and ruled that the doctrine o !es $psa =o5uitur is applicable in this case contrary to what the A2010 C-$ and CA ruled% $t cited the case o Aones &s% 1hell 3etroleu# Corporation. :exter. $nc% and *ateo 8o5uiren. the co#plainants urnished this O ice a copy o a photo ta)en during the ire and which is sub#itted herewith% $t appears in this picture that there are in the pre#ises a coca-cola cooler and a rac) which accdg% to in or#ation gathered in the neighborhood contained cigarettes and #atches. dri&er o the tan) truc) ro# which gasoline was being trans erred at the ti#e to the underground tan) o the station< and to respondent *ateo 8o5uiren. re erred to as an 00 at the gas station were the ire occurred< to =eandro -lores.

preponderance o e&idence being the 5uantu# o proo % . says9 >% !ertificates% 0&ery o icer has an i#plied duty or authority to prepare and deli&er out to an applicant a certi icate stating anything which has been done or obser&ed by hi# or exists in his o ice by &irtue o so#e authority or duty.Prof. the certi ication issued by the $ntegrated 7ational 3olice o 8acolod City and the ire in&estigation report prepared by 1-O $$$ !ochas is dee#ed su icient (0ntry in O icial !ecords) . while :83 co&ered !A:$ODs trans#itter. urniture.>. a#ong other things.??/. the ci&il case% . rebellion.2...222%22 under a -ire $nsurance 3olicy. . riot. 1992% . poured gasoline in it and then lit it% A ter that.Auly .2%22 under a -ire $nsurance 3olicy% 106 .% 6O7 the reports o witnesses =t% Col "orres and 1-O $$ !ochar that the bystanders they inter&iewed clai#ed that the perpetrators were #e#bers o the C33R73A is an exception to the hearsay rule as part o res gestae (6eight and 1u iciency o 0&idence) 3EL9 1% 7O .C legal interest ro# *arch . who were ad#ittedly not present when the ire occurred.DBP assails: actual inding o both !"C and CA that its e&idence ailed to support its allegation that the loss was caused by an excepted ris). 1992 the date o the iling o the Co#plaint% :83 to pay 3>2.% 6O7 the testi#ony o =t% Col% "orres is ad#issible /% 6O7 the letter o *agsilang.C legal interest ro# *arch . being entries in o icial records. !A:$ODs station in 8acolod City was ra(ed by ire causing da#age in the a#ount o 31.. iled a ci&il case against :83 3ool o Accredited $nsurance Co#panies (:83) and 3ro&ident $nsurance Corporation (3!OL$:07") or reco&ery o insurance bene its% 3!OL$:07" co&ered !A:$ODs trans#itter e5uip#ent and generating set or 31/.2. A.CA: a ir#ed the decision. they went out shouting H*abuhay ang 73AI% X persons who# they in&estigated and actually saw the burning o the station were not presented as witnesses X docu#entary e&idence.2-19. directly or indirectly. re&olution.< Aanuary . &ol% /. and the ar#ed #en suspected to be #e#bers o the C33R73A were the ones responsible QI . being an ad#ission o person which is not a party to the present action. $nc% (!A:$O).!adio *indanao 7etwor). V.9.7. ci&il war% (d) *utiny.222%22 plus 1.. the HsuspectedI executor o the ire were belie&ed to be #e#bers o the C33R73A% 8ut suspicion alone is not su icient.2 persons suspected to be C33R73A.1 .242%22% !A:$O sought reco&ery under the two insurance policies but the clai#s were denied on the ground that the cause o loss was an excepted ris) excluded under condition no% > (c) and (d) >% "his insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in conse5uence. ne&ertheless. do not satis actorily pro&e that the author o the burning were #e#bers o the 73A%% CA A2010 X police blotter o the burning o :M'8 X certi ication o the 7egros Occidental $ntegrated 7ational 3olice.I Z certi ication ro# the 8acolod 3olice station9 HQ so#e . (#e#bers o the C33R73A) !"C X testi#ony o witnesses =t% Col% "orres and 13O/ !ochar. in his treatise on e&idence.AC-S .>22%22 plus 1. and the certi icate is ad#issible% 97SPOS7-7ON A ir#ed 9BP POOL O. ACCRE97-E9 7NS8RANCE COMPAN7ES V RA97O M7N9ANAO NE-AOR@'7NC B%!% 7o% 1472/9 AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70.All these docu#ents show that indeed.. 8acolod City regarding the incident X letter o alleged 73A #e#bers *agsilang clai#ing responsibility or the burning o :M'8 X ire in&estigation report dated Auly ."he docu#entary e&idence #ay be considered exceptions to the hearsay rule.22> (owen) NA-8RE 3etition or certiorari under !ule 4. is ad#issible (Ad#ission Y Con essions) 4% 6O7 the excepted ris) was not pro&en by :83 . !oC see)ing the re&iew o the CA :ecision a ir#ing !"C *a)ati :ecision reducing interest rate to >C per annu# . in&asion. act o oreign ene#y. na#ely9 (c) 6ar..I Z ire in&estigation report9 H($)t is there ore belie&ed by this $n&estigating "ea# that the cause o the ire is intentional.% 7O 3EL9 Mes% "he statistics prepared by the 8ureau o Agriculture is chie ly based on the 5uarterly reports o the #unicipal presidents #ade pursuant to section . #ilitary or usurped power% "he insurance co#panies denied the clai#s by #aintaining that the e&idence showed that the ire was caused by #e#bers o C33R73A% 'ence. Avena Evidence the #unicipality o *agalang in the agricultural year should be ad#issible% 19. section 1>/>.RTC Makati9 in a&or o !A:$O% 3!OL$:07" to pay 34. hostilities. none o these docu#ents categorically stated that the perpetrators were #e#bers o the C33R73A% Z police blotter9 Ha group o persons acco#panied by one (1) wo#an all belie&ed to be C33R73A Q #ore or less . or warli)e operations (whether war be declared or not). o any o the ollowing conse5uences.. #ilitary or popular rising. ixture and other trans#itter acilities or 3. insurrection. o the Ad#inistrati&e Code% "he certi icate issued by the :irector o Agriculture is ad#issible in e&idence as an o icial docu#ent issued by a public o icer authori(ed by law% 6ig#ore. 19?? X testi#onies o =t% Col% "orres and 1-O $$$ !ochas 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 police blotter o the burning o :M'8. which includes a letter released by the 73A #erely #entions so#e dissatis action with the acti&ities o so#e people in the #edia in 8acolod. 19?? e&ening. spea)ing o exceptions to the rule as to the inad#issibility o hearsay e&idence.2 or #ore ar#ed #en belie&ed to be #e#bers o the 7ew 3eopleDs Ar#y 73A.2.7. who clai#s to be a #e#ber o 73A-7$!OC.244. with the #odi ication that the applicable interest rate reduced to >C per annu#% *-! denied% . was li#ited to the act that an in&estigation was conducted and in the course o the in&estigation they were in or#ed by bystanders that Hhea&ily ar#ed #en entered the trans#itter house. who owns se&eral broadcasting stations all o&er the country.

the duty or the burden o e&idence shi ts to :83 to contro&ert !A:$OD1 pri#a acie case% $n this case. or ro# a cause which li#its its liability% .$t is reasonable to assu#e that when these state#ents were noted down. since such act was prohibited. Avena Evidence .. where a ris) is excepted by the ter#s o a policy which insures against other perils or ha(ards.Jnder 1ection .0&en assu#ing that the declaration o the bystanders that it was the #e#bers o the C33R73A who caused the ire #ay be ad#itted as e&idence.As such. 19?9. the res gestae. which #eans those acts which are deri&ed ro# his perception% A witness #ay not testi y as to what he #erely learned ro# others either because he was told or read or heard the sa#e% 1uch testi#ony is considered hearsay and #ay not be recei&ed as proo o the truth o what he has learned% "he hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability o hearsay e&idence inas#uch as such e&idence are not gi&en under oath or sole#n a ir#ation and. and ro# this it ollows that an insurer see)ing to de eat a clai# because o an exception or li#itation in the policy has the burden o pro&ing that the loss co#es within the pur&iew o the exception or li#itation set up% $ a proo is #ade o a loss apparently within a contract o insurance.On Aune .% 7O . it cannot be ad#it as conclusi&e proo that the C33-73A was really in&ol&ed in the incident considering that he ad#itted that he did not personally see the ar#ed #en e&en as he tried to pursue the#% 7ote that when =t% Col% "orres was presented as witness... is a party to the action% 4% M01 . &icti#s. while the weight o e&idence pertains to e&idence already ad#itted and its tendency to con&ince and persuade% A2010 . re ers to those excla#ations and state#ents #ade by either the participants. but the cadet got #ad and started shouting% Buri#bao therea ter co#plied% Buri#bao co#plained to *acatuno% "he two con ronted the cadet and said to hi# that he was a #ere apprentice and has no right to order people% "he cadet started shouting% *acatuno 107 . tal) to one another and exchange in or#ation. 199> (#onch) NA-8RE 3etition or certiorari . he was presented as an ordinary witness only and not an expert witness% 'ence. they were repatriated to the 3hilippines% 8oth then iled illegal dis#issal co#plaints with the 3O0A% . and are ad#issible not as to the &eracity thereo but to the act that they had been thus uttered% .4. or spectators to a cri#e i##ediately be ore. or so#eone identi ied in legal interest with hi#. though his testi#ony is persuasi&e.A witness can testi y only to those acts which he )nows o his personal )nowledge. A. ha&e not been sub+ected to crossexa#ination by opposing counsel to test the perception. his opinion on the identity or #e#bership o the ar#ed #en with the C33-73A is not ad#issible in e&idence% /% 7O . V. while the &essel was in Aapan. the testi#onies o 1-O $$$ !ochar and =t% Col% "orres that these state#ents were #ade #ay be considered as independently rele&ant state#ents gathered in the course o their in&estigation. when the circu#stances are such that the state#ents were #ade as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excite#ent o the occasion and there was no opportunity or the declarant to deliberate and to abricate a alse state#ent% "he rule in res gestae applies when the declarant hi#sel did not testi y and pro&ided that the testi#ony o the witness who heard the declarant co#plies with the ollowing re5uisites9 (1) that the principal act. since it has not assu#ed that ris). the burden is upon the insurer to pro&e that the loss arose ro# a cause o loss which is excepted or or which it is not liable. &eracity and articulateness o the out-o -court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the worth o the out-o -court state#ent depends% .) the state#ents were #ade be ore the declarant had the ti#e to contri&e or de&ise a alsehood< and (/) that the state#ents #ust concern the occurrence in 5uestion and its i##ediate attending circu#stances% . loss ro# such a ris) constitutes a de ense which the insurer #ay urge. during. a &essel o =iberian registry% .Prof.AC-S .Conse5uently. 6alle# *ariti#e 1er&ices. $nc%. or a ter the co##ission o the cri#e. !ule 1/2 !oC% An ad#ission is co#petent only when the declarant. he and a ellow -ilipino crew #e#ber Buri#bao had an altercation with a cadetRapprentice o icer o the sa#e nationality as the captain o the &essel% "he #aster entered the incident in the logboo)% .$n insurance cases. it is su icient or !A:$O to pro&e the act o da#age or loss% Once !A:$O #a)es out a pri#a acie case in its a&or. since :83 alleged an excepted ris). the incident started when Buri#bao was as)ed by an cadetRapprentice to sho&el o dirty water (#ixed with oil and dirt) and throw it o&erboard% Buri#bao didnDt want to at irst. as an exception to the hearsay rule. #e#ory.Ad#issibility o e&idence should not be e5uated with its weight and su iciency% Ad#issibility o e&idence depends on its rele&ance and co#petence. #ore i#portantly. the bystanders already had enough ti#e and opportunity to #ill around. be a startling occurrence< (. it does not ollow that such declarations are su icient proo % "hese declarations should be calibrated &is-[-&is the other e&idence on record% Disposition 3etition is :$1*$110:% AALLEM MAR7-7ME SERV7CES V NLRC B%!% 7o% 12?4// !O*0!O< October 1. as an able-bodied sea#an on board the *R" -ortuna. then the burden o e&idence shi ted to :83 to pro&e such exception% $t is only when petitioner has su iciently pro&en that the da#age or loss was caused by an excepted ris) does the burden o e&idence shi t bac) to respondent who is then under a duty o producing e&idence to show why such excepted ris) does not release petitioner ro# any liability . not to #ention theories and speculations. as is the usual experience in dis5uieting situations where hysteria is li)ely to ta)e place% $t cannot there ore be ascertained whether these utterances were the products o truth% "hat the utterances #ay be #ere idle tal) is not re#ote% At best.According to *acatuno and Buri#bao."he only person who see#s to be so sure that that the C33-73A had a hand in the burning o :M'8 was =t% Col% "orres% 'owe&er.3ri&ate respondent Aoselito L% *acatuno was hired by 6alle# 1hip#anage#ent =i#ited thru its local #anning agent.!es gestae.

227 (Anton) NA-8RE An appeal ro# the decision dated *ay 19. they were warned% "hey were also to ha&e been alleged to assault an o icer and was gi&en a se&er warning% . unsupported by other e&idence.4?/. the o ense described by the logboo) entry #ay well all under insubordination and #ay constitute assaulting a superior o icer Hwith the use o deadly weaponI punishable with dis#issal% 'owe&er. which was issued to hi# in 1(")% . what was presented in the 'a&erton 1hipping case was a copy o the o icial entry ro# the logboo) itsel % $n this case.According to 6alle#. .9. did not 5ertain to the su16ect 5ro5erties 1ut to a different 5arce2 of 2and 2ocated in 8rdaneta' Pan%asinan. on the sa#e date% . )J"<' /hich ho/ever' did not e0ist in the records of the Re%istr+ of 9eeds of the Province of Batan%as 5er certification of Att+. when he engaged the ser&ices o a geodetic engineer to sur&ey the sa#e parcel o land to ha&e his title con ir#ed under the pro&isions o Act 7o% 49>. 8atangas. they were told that they would not be gi&en their salaries and their repatriation expenses would not be rei#bursed% .-he Esco1ars a22e%ed2+ *ade it a55ear that the t/o tit2es ori%inated fro* Ori%ina2 Certificate of -it2e . as a#ended by 3: 7o% 1. or e&en authenticated copies o pertinent pages thereo % 6hat was o ered in e&idence was #erely a typewritten collation o excerpts% . 1ur&ey 3lan 3su.1. ha&e no probati&e &alue at all.Adelaida 0scobar and =olita 0scobar (petitioners) separately bought two parcels o land located in 8arrio "olentino. denying reconsideration% .'owe&er."he ship captainDs logboo) is a &ital e&idence as Article >1. petitioners did not sub#it as e&idence to the 3O0A the logboo) itsel . the a ore5uoted entry in the logboo) is so s)etchy that.. it lea&es so #any 5uestions unanswered . V. 1941.:ecree 7o% /4>. there was an in&estigation be ore the sea#an was dis#issed% "here acts in the logboo) were supported by acts in the in&estigation% $n the case at bar. as shown in "ax :eclaration 7o% B!-219217/. 5er 2etter of Privadi H . o the Code o Co##erce re5uires hi# to )eep a record o the decisions he had adopted as the &esselDs head% "hus. 9a2ire' Chief of the eodetic Surve+s 9ivision of the Lands Mana%e*ent 3EL9 1% 7O Reasoning .1o#eti#e in 1992. A.OC-= No.*oreo&er. due process was not obser&ed in this case% "he act that the captain witnessed the incident does not dispense the re5uire#ent o notice and hearing Disposition 3etition denied% A2010 B%!% 7o% 1>9. the #an they assaulted (1ason) was only an apprentice and cannot be considered a superior o icer% . . "agaytay City since *arch . not to the su16ect 5ro5erties 2ocated in -a%a+ta+ Cit+% 1i#ilarly. o the CA and its !esolution dated August 4.0le&en years later.4?/ appeared to ha&e been issued. because no in&estigation was #ade./. 1992. it was not the *acatuno and Buri#baoDs irst in raction% "hey apparently le t during wor)ing hours be ore.1. see)ing to nulli y the two titles o the 0scobars% Luna c2ai*ed that he had 1een in actua2' 5u12ic' adverse' continuous' and notorious 5h+sica2 5ossession of an unre%istered 5arce2 of 2and located in 8arrio "olentino. they lew bac) to the 3hilippines% "here. on 1epte#ber 11. Eva Cain4a!Va2enton' Actin% Re%ister of 9eeds' issued on Hune 11' 1((0% ."he captain su##oned the# both and then told the# that they were being ter#inated and would be dise#bar)ed at the next port% A ter dise#bar)ation."he 3O0A o icer ruled that the dis#issal was without +ust and &alid cause% 'e did not gi&e weight to the certi ied true copy o the logboo) because the alleged entries therein were only handpic)ed and copied ro# the o icial logboo)% "here is no way o &eri ying the truth o these entries% Also.Jnder the "able o O enses and Corresponding Ad#inistrati&e 3enalties appended to the contract o e#ploy#ent between the parties.Prof. as e&idenced by the logboo)% As such.) "-1//>.9. Clodualdo =una iled a co#plaint be ore the !"C o "agaytay City.'ence. pertained to a parcel o land located in 1an Auan.. on which OC" 7o% .*oreo&er.Also.24 SJ$1$*8$7B< *arch . respecti&ely. no docu#entary e&idence was sub#itted to support the alleged o icial logboo)% -inally.1.e1ruar+ 2"' 1(#( and were issued "C" 7os% ("-. petitionersD cause #ust ail% "heir ailure to discharge the onus probandi properly #ay ha&e no other result than a inding that the dis#issal o pri&ate respondent is un+usti ied . "agaytay City on . the ruling in such case does not apply in the case at bar% $n said case. the contents o the logboo) ha&e to be duly identi ied and authenticated lest an in+ustice result ro# a blind ESCOBAR V L8NA 108 . . as the typewritten excerpts ro# the Hlogboo)I were the only pieces o e&idence presented by petitioners to support the dis#issal o pri&ate respondent. in 'a&erton 1hipping =td% &% 7=!C the Court held that a copy o an o icial entry in the logboo) is legally binding and ser&es as an exception to the hearsay rule% .7=!C a ir#ed% 7SS8EFS 1% 6O7 there was &alid dis#issal adoption o such contents which #erely ser&e as pri#a acie e&idence o the incident in 5uestion% .AC-S . the copy o the alleged o icial logboo) was not properly authenticated% .42/9. Avena Evidence pushed hi# twice% Buri#bao #ildy hit his ar#% "he cadet ran to the captain Hwho happened to witness the incidentI ro# the cabinDs window% ..22.94) "-1//>1 and ("-. he alleged that he disco&ered that the land had been illegally and raudulently titled in the na#es o the 0scobars by the use o ictitious and si#ulated docu#ents and court records% .22. which supposedly technically described the land #entioned in OC" 7o% .

/79 and that the sub+ect #atter o that Case 7o% . 2". who was duly authori(ed to issue the certi ication. is su icient e&idence or the stated purpose% "he !egister o :eeds o the 3ro&ince o 8atangas is the repository o all records regarding OC"s issued in that pro&ince.4?/ was not existing in the iles o the !egistry o :eeds o the 3ro&ince o 8atangas and which con ir#ed that OC" 7o% . without testi#ony o the person gi&ing the certi ication. o the sa#e !ules which allows the ad#ission o the said docu#ent% Sec. the 0scobars are entitled to protection ro# suits to annul their titles% (7O) 3EL9 1% Ratio Jnder the principle o the law of the case. <#1<( *ere2+ ordered the tria2 court to deter*ine the intrinsic va2idit+ of the tit2es 1+ 5ro1in% into the technica2 data of OC. 1992 issued by Atty% Cain(a-Lalenton..% 6O7 the respondents4 e&idence ad#issible to pro&e the nullity o the "C"s in 5uestion% (M01) /% 6O7 being purchasers in good aith."he 0scobars ele&ated the appellate court4s decision to the 1upre#e Court.. Privadi H . and the certi ication is there ore co#petent and ad#issible e&idence to pro&e that the titles o the 0scobars deri&ed ro# it are ro# a ictitious source% -he sa*e ho2ds true for9 a) -he certification of Mr. stating that OC" 7o% . "alisay.4?/ was ictitious.2 years% .?. )J"<' 9ecree No. Chie o the Ordinary and Cadastral :ecree :i&ision. arguing that. 199.Prof. A2010 .S= 1% 6hat the law on the case is% . 8atangas . 1991 dis#issing the second a#ended co#plaint was &alid or not% "he appellate court did not resol&e any issue bearing on the #erits o the cancellation case% As re%ards the *erits of the case' therefore' there is no law of the case to s5eaE of% -he a55e22ate court in CA! . 1991. dis#issed the a#ended co#plaint on the ground that it was insu icient in or# and substance and that certain indispensable parties were not i#pleaded% . and proceeded to ind the 0scobars as purchasers in good aith and or &alue who were accordingly entitled to the bene its o the principle o inde easibility o title% . Corte4. 1991% 'owe&er."he certi ication dated Aune 11. on -ebruary .roof of lack of record.-ebruary 1. . A. whate&er is irre&ocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the sa#e parties in the sa#e case continues to be the law o the case. stating that plan 3su-. acco#panied by a certi icate as abo&e pro&ided. which states that it was issued by the Court o -irst $nstance o 8atangas in Case 7o% .Da written state#ent signed by an o icer ha&ing the custody o an o icial record or by his deputy that a ter diligent search no record or entry o a speci ied tenor is ound to exist in the records o his o ice./.=una iled an appeal to the CA. the CA had already ruled on the irst appeal that the 0scobars4 titles were &oid% ."he certi ication. 19919 =una iled an a#ended co#plaint which the trial court ad#itted on -ebruary . upon reiteration by the 0scobars o their #otion. the :irector o the 8ureau o =ands. re&ersing the dis#issal% "he CA he2d that the tria2 court shou2d have conducted a hearin% on the *otion to dis*iss considering that =una4s co#plaint alleged that OC" 7o% .=una iled a #otion or reconsideration and a second a#ended co#plaint i#pleading as party de endants the Ad#inistrator o the =and !egistration Authority.9. is ad#issible as e&idence that the records o his o ice contain no such record or entry% .not the land situated in 8arrio "olentino. certi ied by authori(ed personnel who were clothed with authority and duty to issue such certi ications% Reasoning .. which rendered a decision on *ay 1?.R. so long as the acts on which the decision was predicated continues% Reasoning . the records show that the Court o Appeals in CA-B%!% CL 7o% /71/9.-he law of the case is the o5inion de2ivered on a for*er a55ea2% $t applies to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a 5uestion and re#ands the case to the lower court or urther proceedings. Avena Evidence Bureau' 9ENR% =una urther alleged that the 0scobars acted with )nowledge o the in ir#ity and de ect o OC" 7o% .% M01 Ratio !espondents4 e&idence are co#petent e&idence.R-C re6ected res5ondents: ar%u*ent that the a55e22ate court:s ru2in% in the first a55ea2 constituted the 2a/ of the case.October 9. was issued on -ebruary .On appeal the CA re&ersed the !"C% 7SS8E. 19929 the 0scobars iled a #otion to dis#iss% "hey alleged that the co#plaint was barred by prior +udg#ent or by statute o li#itations< that the co#plaint stated no cause o action% .?. CV No. but the petition was denied in a *inute !esolution% "he case was re#anded to the "rial Court% . the trial court. V. +udicial orderliness and econo#y re5uire such stability in the inal +udg#ents o courts or tribunals o co#petent +urisdiction% .e2ino M. 8atangas< -he re52+!2etter of Mr. resol&ed only the issue o whether the Order dated Aune . #a)ing the titles deri&ed ro# it spurious.42/9 was a sur&ey o property b) 109 .4?/ as nonexistent and )new that he was in actual possession o the sub+ect land in the concept o an owner or . allegedly. the !egistry o :eeds and City Assessor o "agaytay City% "he trial court granted a subse5uent *": iled by the 0scobars% . the irst appeal. <J&)' and Surve+ P2an Psu!2J0<( a*on% others. the 7ational "reasurer.9 was the land situated in 1an Auan. the 5uestion there settled beco#es the law o the case upon subse5uent appeal% As a ru2e' a decision on a 5rior a55ea2 of the sa*e case is he2d to 1e the 2a/ of the case /hether that Luestion is ri%ht or /ron%' the re*ed+ of the 5art+ dee*in% hi*se2f a%%rieved 1ein% to seeE a rehearin%% .!easons o public policy.No. stating that per C=! !ecord 7o% /99. . 1929< and a copy o :ecree 7o% /4>.$n this instance. is su icient and co#petent e&idence which is an exception to the hearsay rule as pro&ided in 1ection 44. =una died and was substituted by his heirs (respondents)% "hey sub#itted the case on the basis o the docu#entary e&idence.4?/ ( ro# which the "C"s o the 0scobars were deri&ed) was nonexistent% . !ule 1/2 o the !e&ised !ules o Court% 1ection 44 should be read in con+unction with 1ection . =and !egistration Authority. ha&ing been issued by go&ern#ent o ices. B%=%!%O% !ecord 7o% . . !ule 1/.:uring trial.-ria2 court further ru2ed that res5ondents fai2ed to 5rove their case for cance22ation of -C-s since the docu*entar+ evidence the+ su1*itted' not 1ein% su55orted 1+ testi*onia2 evidence' /ere hearsa+.. :ecree 7o% /4>. 9a2ire addressed to 0ngr% !uperto "% del Car#en.

222% "he C"A ruled on the pri#ary issue o prescription and ound it unnecessary to decide the issues on the &alidity and propriety o the assess#ent% $t #aintained that while a #ailed letter is dee#ed recei&ed by the addressee in the course o #ail. which constitute certi ications ro# go&ern#ent o icials who are responsible or sa eguarding the "C"s and OC"s in their possession because o their o icial capacity. *arch 199. respondent had /years ro# the last day or the iling o the return to send an assess#ent notice to petitioner% An assess#ent is #ade within the prescripti&e period i notice to this e ect is released.2/ o the 7$!C.>9?%/1 as de iciency inco#e tax or the year 19?7 plus .>.42/9. Mariano.22. April 1991 within which to send an assess#ent notice% 6hile respondent a&ers that it sent the assess#ent notice dated 1 -ebruary 1991 on > -ebruary 1991. respondent Co##issioner o $nternal !e&enue issued an assess#ent or de iciency inco#e tax in the a#ount o 3?. Hose C. this is #erely a disputable presu#ption% $t reasoned that the direct denial o the petitioner shi ts the burden o proo to the respondent that the #ailed letter was actually recei&ed by the petitioner% "he C"A ound the 8$! records sub#itted by the respondent i##aterial. !oxas 1ecurities $nc% (now )nown as J83 1ecurities. these docu#ents.42/9 indicating that said plan does not appear to ha&e been the sub+ect o an application or original registration under Act 7o% 49> as a#ended by 3%:% 7o% 1.>. the C"A rendered a decision in a&or o petitioner on 17 *ay .42/9 does not exist and it cannot ser&e as basis or the two titles< and -he certification dated Hu2+ 2(' 1((< issued 1+ Mr. Avena Evidence located at 3in#aludpod.29/.. :07!. ..22> (#arge) 110 .. -heir e0istence /as a2so never denied under oath. bonuses and allowances to withholding taxes% "his assess#ent was co&ered by -or#al Assess#ent 7otice 7o% -A7-1-?7-91-222>49 dated 1 -eb 1991. =ands *anage#ent 8ureau.A!$O< Aug 7.2C interest per annu#< and !esolution denying *!% . which shows that the titles are spurious. o the Court o Appeals are a ir#ed% BARCELON' ROMAS SEC8R7-7ES' 7NC.. there ore the legal presu#ption that it was recei&ed should apply% 3etitioner iled *! but the sa#e was denied% 'ence.9. . the right o the go&ern#ent to assess and collect the alleged de iciency tax is barred by prescription% -Jnder 1ec% . the CA ound the e&idence presented by the respondent to be su icient proo that the tax assess#ent notice was #ailed to the petitioner. within the three (/)-year period prescribed by law. re5uesting or its cancellation% On / Auly 199?. is insu icient to gi&e rise to the presu#ption that the assess#ent notice was recei&ed in the regular course o #ail% Conse5uently.2229 !espondentDs *! was denied by the C"A% "herea ter. V.2/ o the 7$!C% 1uch e&idence. petitioner denies ha&ing recei&ed an assess#ent notice ro# respondent% 3etitioner alleges that it ca#e to )now o c) -he certification dated Au%ust &' 1((< issued 1+ Mr. which is a long way ro# the 8arrio "olentino. have not 1een controverted as to their e0istence and due e0ecution. Jrdaneta. .9/ as part o the deductible business expense. or sent be ore 1. no right passed to a trans eree ro# a &endor who did not ha&e any right in the irst place% Loid ab initio land titles issued cannot ripen into pri&ate ownership% A spring cannot rise higher than its source% 97SPOS7-7ON 6here ore' the instant petition is denied or lac) o #erit% "he :ecision dated *ay 19.22.*ost signi icantly. this 3etition or !e&iew on Certiorari% 7SS8E 6O7 respondentDs right to assess petitionerDs alleged de iciency inco#e tax is barred by prescription 3EL9 M01% 0&idence o ered by the respondent ails to con&ince 1C that -or#al Assess#ent 7otice 7o% -A7-1?7-91-222>49 was released.19.AC-S -3etitioner 8arcelon. Chie o the !ecords *anage#ent :i&ision. against the 6arrant o :istraint andRor =e&y. sel ser&ing. dated . #ailed or sent by the C$! to the taxpayer within said period% !eceipt thereo by the taxpayer within the prescripti&e period is not necessary (Collector o $nternal !e&enue &% 8autista)% "he rule does not dispense with the re5uire#ent that the taxpayer should actually recei&e. thus. V C7R B%!% 7o% 1. petitioner denies recei&ing the or#al assess#ent notice% -17 *arch 199. and !esolution dated August 4. that there appears to be no entry corresponding to plan 3su-. . which.9 petitioner was ser&ed with a 6arrant o :istraint andRor =e&y to en orce collection o the de iciency inco#e tax or the year 19?7% 3etitioner iled a or#al protest.. and there ore insu icient to pro&e that the A2010 assess#ent notice was #ailed and duly recei&ed by the petitioner% -.>9?%/1 arising ro# the disallowance o the ite# on salaries.. respondent appealed to the CA% -!e&ersing the C"A decision. bonuses and allowances in the a#ount o 31. gi&ing respondent until 1. which shows that 3su-. there ore. since petitioner ailed to sub+ect the salaries. petitioner recei&ed a letter dated /2 April 199? ro# the respondent denying the protest with inality% -/1 Auly 199?9 petitioner iled a petition or re&iew with the C"A% A ter due notice and hearing. or be ore the lapse o the period o li#itation upon assess#ent and collection prescribed by 1ection . respondent alleges. certi ying to the act that his o ice has no a&ailable record o the alleged plan 3su-.e2ino M. April 19??. April 1991. #ailed.C surcharge and . was sent to petitioner through registered #ail on > -eb 1991% 'owe&er. "alisay. $nc%) is a corporation engaged in the trading o securities% -14 April 19??9 petitioner iled its Annual $"! or taxable year 19?7% A ter an audit in&estigation conducted by the 8$!.Prof. 8atangas property< NA-8RE 3etition or !e&iew on Certiorari see)ing to set aside the CA :ecision ordering the petitioner to pay the Bo&ern#ent the a#ount o 3?. #ailed and sent% -$n the present case. A. the assess#ent notice which was ti#ely released. Auly . ha&ing had spurious sources% d) . certi ying to the true and correct reproduction o page 142 o 1ur&ey !ecord 8oo) 7o% /. 3angasinan. records show that petitioner iled its Annual $"! or taxable year 19?7 on 14 April 19??% "he last day or iling by petitioner o its return was on 1. Corte4.72>4 C'$CO-7A. e&en beyond the prescripti&e period. /% 0&en i petitioners were innocent purchasers or &alue and in good aith.

thru their #other Celestina :aldo as guardian ad lite#. without ade5uate supporting e&idence. thru their #aternal grand ather 1er&illano :aldo as guardian ad lite#. the year. howe&er. co##enced an action be ore the Au&enile Y :o#estic !elations Court or ac)nowledg#ent and support. this ruling #a)es it the #ore i#perati&e that the release. which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information x x x. 1ection 44 inds no application in the present case% "hus. and prayed that the sa#e be dis#issed with pre+udice and without recourse o appeal% . !ule 1/2. or sending o the notice be clearly and satis actorily pro&ed% *ere notations #ade without the taxpayerDs inter&ention.Celestina :aldo a ter petitioners had already presented oral and docu#entary e&idence and were about to rest their case #o&ed to dis#iss the oregoing ci&il case upon the ground that the parties had co#e to an a#icable settle#ent. -$n this case. she did not attest to the act that she ac5uired the reports ro# persons under a legal duty to sub#it the sa#e% 'ence. -There are three re& isites for admissi'ility under the rule . cannot su ice< otherwise.>929 o the C-$ o *anila< and that. notice. A.hil. no substantial e&idence was e&er presented to pro&e that the assess#ent notice 7o% -A7-1-?7-91222>49 or other supposed notices subse5uent thereto were in act issued or sent to the taxpayer% C$! only sub#itted the 8$! record boo) which allegedly contains the list o taxpayerDs na#es.3etitioners #o&ed to reconsider% .3etitioners. the e&idence o ered by respondent does not 5uali y as an exception to the rule against hearsay e&idence% -7ava v. when it was ser&ed with the 6arrant o :istraint and =e&y% -3rotectorDs 1er&ices. !espondent at the &ery least.A:!C reconsidered.ust mentioned) *a+ that the entry was made by a public officer.oined by law to do so. e&en i recei&ed by the taxpayer a ter its expiration. the entries #ade by $ngrid Lersola were not based on her personal )nowledge as she did not attest to the act that she personally prepared and #ailed the assess#ent notice% 7or was it stated in the transcript o stenographic notes how and ro# who# she obtained the pertinent in or#ation% *oreo&er. cause o action and sub+ect #atter% . this is still #erely a disputable presu#ption sub+ect to contro&ersion. the cityR#unicipality and the a#ount% 'owe&er.N and dis#issed the co#plaint% .AC-S A2010 . and to co#pel the latter to support petitioners% . there exists a presu#ption. all entries thereon appears to be i##aterial and i#pertinent in pro&ing that the assess#ent notice was #ailed and duly recei&ed by petitioner% 7othing indicates therein all essential acts that could sustain the burden o proo being shi ted% 6hat is essential to pro&e the act o #ailing is the registry receipt issued by the 8ureau o 3osts or the !egistry return card which would ha&e been signed by the 3etitioner or its authori(ed representati&e% And i said docu#ents cannot be located.!espondent -rancisco "an appealed to the Court o Appeals% 111 . or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially en. the re erence nu#ber. plainti s ha&e not #ade out their case with su icient e&idence. Avena Evidence the de iciency tax assess#ent only on 17 *arch 199.22< and to pay the costs o this proceedings% . as can be gleaned ro# the ace o the exhibit. or control.C-$ o *anila dis#issed the case with pre+udice% .1 year and ? #onths a ter the ci&il case was dis#issed ] petitioners. or by another person specially en. where it has been held that an entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same.Prof.+. !altex *. Nis not the ather o #y said #inor children na#ed Car#elita and !odol o (herein petitioners) but another person whose na#e $ cannot di&ulgeN< and that she prepared said a ida&it precisely Nto record what is true and to correct what #isinterpretation #ay arise in the utureN% ."his is a suit ai#ed at establishing a children-toather. illegiti#ate relationship between petitioners and the principal respondent -rancisco "an. should ha&e sub#itted to the Court a certi ication issued by the 8ureau o 3osts and any other pertinent docu#ent which is executed with the inter&ention o the 8ureau o 3osts% Any o these independent e&idence could ha&e easily been obtained% Met respondent ailed to present such e&idence% -C$! o ered the entry in the 8$! record boo) and the testi#ony o its record custodian as entries in o icial records in accordance with R le !"#$%% of the R les of Co rt% "he oregoing rule on e&idence. 19>7< 1A7C'0. set orth under !ule 1/1%/(&) that it was recei&ed in the regular course o #ail% "he acts to be pro&ed in order to raise this presu#ption are9 (a) that the letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid< and (b) that it was #ailed% 6hile a #ailed letter is dee#ed recei&ed by the addressee in the ordinary course o #ail.. in&ol&ing the sa#e parties.1he subscribed be ore the cler) o the C-$ o *anila to an a ida&it categorically stating that respondent -rancisco "an. the nature o tax.or*er 9e5osition or Proceedin% -AN V CA *ay 1>. the taxpayer would be at the #ercy o the re&enue o ices. #ailing. *b+ that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties. sued respondent "an in the C-$ o *anila or ac)nowledg#ent and support% 1\h FRciteZ . e&en on the #erits. /nc.oined by law. !ommissioner of /nternal &evenue9 H6hile we ha&e held that an assess#ent is #ade when sent within the prescribed period.. must be read in accordance with this !ourtEs pronouncement in Africa v. V. declared the #inors Car#elita and !odol o "an to be the illegiti#ate children o the de endant -rancisco "an alias "an Jh 8a) and "ang 1eng @a< ordered the de endant to support said #inors and to help the# de ray their #atriculation expenses< to rei#burse 1er&illano :aldo his expenses in supporting plainti #inors during the pendency o the case and to pay plainti #inors4 attorney4s ees o 3. and a direct denial o the receipt thereo shi ts the burden upon the party a&ored by the presu#ption to pro&e that the #ailed letter was indeed recei&ed by the addressee% -'ere. and *c+ that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated."he A:!C rendered +udg#ent declaring that Nthe present case is res +udicata by reason o the dis#issal with pre+udice o Ci&il Case . $nc% &% CA9 when a #ail #atter is sent by registered #ail. without ade5uate protection or de ense%I Disposition 3etition granted% CA decision re&ersed and set aside % C"A decision reinstated% -esti*on+ in . A% (lora) .

or unable to testi y. the witnesses at the or#er trial were subpoenaed by the A:!C a nu#ber o ti#es% "hese witnesses did not appear to testi y% "hese witnesses are not dead% "hey are not outside o the 3hilippines% . considering that the period o cohabitation or any inti#ate relations at all between their #other and the appellant has been denied and that sa#e has not been satis actorily pro&ed% A2010 /% "he oral e&idence or the plainti s. are inad#issible% . attached to the record o the or#er Case . in &iew o the ollowing considerations9 1% "hat 0xhibits ' and $. their counsel had a grasp o the situation% 3etitioners and their guardian ad lite# could ha&e )nown whether they had reasonably #ade out a case against respondent% .CA in turn re&ersed the last-na#ed +udg#ent and dis#issed the co#plaint% .Concededly.Can they be categori(ed as witnesses o the class unable to testi yW "he CA. petitioners argu#ent wor)s both ways% 8ecause. together with *arcelo *endo(a. V. not in the non-en orce#ent o 1ection 41.CA9 the e&idence or the plainti s-appellees all short o the re5uire#ent o clear strong and con&incing e&idence% 6e agree with the indings o the trial court in its original correctly appreciating the e&idence o the plainti s as unsatis actory and insu icient. 1944% . the ad&erse party ha&ing had an opportunity to crossexa#ine hi#. .. or to re&iew the 5uestions o act Disposition Audg#ent o CA A ir#ed% MANL7CL7C VS CALA8NAN B%!% 7o% 1. by her own ad#ission.% "hat the baptis#al certi icates are not ad#issible proo s o iliation% "he birth certi icate is li)ewise inad#issible against the de endant because the alleged illegiti#ate ather did not sign it under oath% $t should be noted that said baptis#al certi icates are also useless to pro&e the dates o birth o the appellees#inors. Avena Evidence . but such inability proceeding ro# a gra&e cause. and !odol o. are unsatis actory. al#ost a#ounting to death. a&ers that he is &ery #uch a #arried #an with children% Celestina :aldo. had been a nurse#aid (yaya) in respondent4s residence but or l short period o not less than one year in 19/9% Car#elita was born on *ay ?. or#er testi#onies o witnesses in Ci&il Case 7o% . gi&en in a or#er case between the sa#e parties. held that Nsubse5uent ailure or re usal to appear thereat Fsecond trialG or hostility since testi ying at the irst trial does not a#ount to inability to testi y. consisting principally o the testi#onies o the grand ather and o the #other o the #inors. on 1epte#ber 11. 8ulacan. was on his way to *anila ro# 3angasinan on board his ownertype +eep% "he 3hilippine !abbit 8us was li)ewise bound or *anila ro# Concepcion.% NO% 3etitioners tried to pro&e that Celestina :aldo and respondent -rancisco "an li&ed together as husband and wi e or #ore than eight years co##encing ro# 19/> to 1944% 3etitioners Car#elita "an and !odol o "an are allegedly the ruits o such cohabitation% !espondent stoutly denies this clai#..21. "arlac% At approxi#ately @ilo#eter 42 o the 7orth =u(on 0xpressway in 8arangay =alangan. by Nanother person whose na#e $ cannot di&ulge%N . 10C% 41% "esti#ony at a or#er trial% ] "he testi#ony o a witness deceased or out o the 3hilippines. 3laridel.% 6O7 petitioners had reasonably #ade out a case against respondent% 3EL9 1% NO% !ule 1/2. and unbelie&able% "he loose character o the #other o the #inors who ad#ittedly had li&ed and begotten children with se&eral #en o di erent nationalities. in +ust the sa#e way that they could ha&e been bought to gi&e their original testi#ony% 1olution o this proble# lies elsewhere. construing this ter#.227 (#el) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew assailing the decision o CA (a ir#ing "C) . #ay be gi&en in e&idence% . Celestina deposed that petitioners were not athered by -rancisco "an. testi#ony o petitioners4 witnesses in the or#er case are ad#issible% . +urisprudence teaches.Prof. !ule 4. but. punished or conte#pt% 3etitioners ailed to a&ail o these re#edies. the conductor o the 3hilippine !abbit 8us.7 Chico-7a(ario< Aanuary . respondent iled a co#plaint or da#ages against petitioners *anliclic and 3!8=$ be ore the !"C o :agupan City% "he cri#inal 112 . e#ploys the co##anding language that Nonly 5uestions o law #ay be raisedN in an appeal by certiorari ro# a +udg#ent o the Court o Appeals% "hat +udg#ent. !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court% .'ere. is conclusi&e as to the acts% "he Court is not to alter said acts ] they bind it..3etitioners appealed to Court in or#a pauperis% 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 0xhibits ' and $. the two &ehicles collided% "he ront right side o the 3hilippine !abbit 8us hit the rear le t side o the +eep causing the latter to #o&e to the shoulder on the right and then all on a ditch with water resulting to urther extensi&e da#age% "he bus &eered to the le t and stopped 7 to ? #eters ro# point o collision% Calaunan su ered #inor in+uries while his dri&er was unhurt% 'e was irst brought or treat#ent to the *anila Central Jni&ersity 'ospital in @aloo)an City by Oscar 8uan. in Celestina4s own words."he &alidity o the testi#ony o petitioners4 witnesses in the present case was considerably downgraded by the a ida&it o Celestina :aldo. went ahead and sub#itted their case% . hereto ore ad&erted to. 8ulacan. relating to the sa#e #atter. charging petitioner *anliclic with !ec)less $#prudence !esulting in :a#age to 3roperty with 3hysical $n+uries% 1ubse5uently. A.>929. they re used to testi y% Certainly. being inconsistent and contradictory on #aterial points.Correctly then did the CA rule out the probati&e &alue o petitioners4 e&idence and ound or respondent% .1tri)ing is the act that this a ida&it was executed a ter petitioners in the or#er case had inished with their oral and docu#entary e&idence and were about to sub#it their case% 8y then. witnesses at the or#er trial can be bought not to testi y at the second trial. they do not co#e within the legal pur&iew o those unable to testi y% .>929% $n that a ida&it. 194. cannot also be o&erloo)ed% . o the !ules o Court.AC-S Calaunan. the witnesses in 5uestion were a&ailable% Only. and was later trans erred to the Leterans *e#orial *edical Center% A cri#inal case was iled be ore the !"C o *alolos. is to per#it party litigants to buy witnesses to dissuade the# ro# testi ying again% 7othing extant in the record will as #uch as inti#ate that respondent was responsible or the non-appearance o these witnesses% "he danger o ta#pering with witnesses is a proble# that attends trials in #any a ti#e and in nu#ber o i#aginable situations% And.1ection . as when the witness is old and has lost the power o speech% .8esides petitioners could ha&e urged the court to ha&e said witnesses arrested."he Court noted petitioners4 argu#ent that to ollow strictly the law o ad#issibility o testi#ony in or#er trials.

to wor)% !osalia *endo(a testi ied that her husband. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os in said case. *arcelo *endo(a. when he did not return a ter one #onth% 1he went to her husbandDs ho#etown to loo) or hi# but she was in or#ed that he did not go there% "he trial court subpoenaed the Cler) o Court o 8ranch ?. to be considered and gi&en the i#portance it deser&es% $n the case at bar. it wai&ed its right to ob+ect that the "17s did not co#ply with 1ection 47% 3etitioners contend that the docu#ents in the cri#inal case should not ha&e been ad#itted in the instant ci&il case because 1ection 47 o !ule 1/2 re ers only to Ntesti#ony or deposition%N 6e ind such contention to be untenable% "hough said section spea)s only o testi#ony and deposition. *alolos. it does not #ean that docu#ents ro# a or#er case or proceeding cannot be ad#itted% 1aid docu#ents can be ad#itted they being part o the testi#onies o witnesses that ha&e been 113 . strictly spea)ing. respondent Calaunan. the testi#onies o the three witnesses are still ad#issible on the ground that petitioner 3!8=$ ailed to ob+ect on their ad#issibility% $t is ele#entary that an ob+ection shall be #ade at the ti#e when an alleged inad#issible docu#ent is o ered in e&idence< otherwise. !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court% -or 1ection 47. to bring the "17s o the testi#onies o respondent Calaunan. petitioner 3!8=$Ds e#ployee% "he cases dealing with the subsidiary liability o e#ployers uni or#ly declare that. but since the sa#e were not brought to the trial court. it was 0nri5ue 1antos Bue&ara. !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court. but on account o A2010 ailure to ob+ect thereto. had no opportunity to cross-exa#ine the three witnesses in said case% "he cri#inal case was iled exclusi&ely against petitioner *anliclic. Oscar 8uan and petitioner *anliclic in the cri#inal case% "he trial court rendered its decision in a&or o respondent Calaunan and against petitioners *anliclic and 3!8=$% CA a ir#ed% 7SS8E 6O7 the ad#ission in e&idence o the "17Ds and other docu#ents presented in the cri#inal case is &alid 3EL9 M01 RA-7O 3etitioners argue that the "17s containing the testi#onies o respondent Calaunan. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os in the cri#inal case be recei&ed in e&idence in the ci&il case in as #uch as these witnesses are not a&ailable to testi y in the ci&il case% -rancisco "uliao testi ied that his brother-in-law. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os should not be ad#itted in e&idence or ailure o respondent to co#ply with the re5uisites o 1ection 47. between the sa#e parties or those representing the sa#e interests< (c) the or#er case in&ol&ed the sa#e sub+ect as that in the present case. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os in the cri#inal case when the sa#e were o ered in e&idence in the trial court% $n act. Court $nterpreter. !"C. li)e any other e&idence. le t or abroad so#eti#e in 7o&e#ber. -ernando !a#os. since the right to ob+ect is #erely a pri&ilege which the party #ay wai&e% "hus. Avena Evidence case was tried ahead o the ci&il case% A#ong those who testi ied in the cri#inal case were respondent Calaunan. petitioner 3!8=$ did not ob+ect to the "17s containing the testi#onies o respondent Calaunan. petitioner *anliclic and bus conductor Oscar 8uan testi ied% "he "17 o the testi#ony o :onato Baniban. as a ground or ob+ecting to the ad#issibility o the "17s% -or ailure to ob+ect at the proper ti#e. Aordan. as rebuttal e&idence. the "17s o the testi#onies o Calaunan and *endo(a were ad#itted by both petitioners% *oreo&er. together with other docu#entary e&idence #ar)ed therein% $nstead o the 8ranch Cler) o Court. the ollowing re5uisites #ust be satis ied9 (a) the witness is dead or unable to testi y< (b) his testi#ony or deposition was gi&en in a or#er case or proceeding. it is. the ob+ection shall be treated as wai&ed.Prof. 19?9 and has not returned since then% !ogelio !a#os too) the stand and said that his brother. the sa#e #ay be ad#itted and considered as su icient to pro&e the acts therein asserted%. in&estigator o the 3!8=$. the "17s o the testi#onies o :onato Baniban. counsel or petitioners co#pro#ised that said "17s and docu#ents could be o ered by counsel or respondent as rebuttal e&idence% -or the de endants. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os in the cri#inal case are to be ad#itted in the ci&il case% $t is too late or petitioner 3!8=$ to raise denial o due process in relation to 1ection 47. in the cri#inal case was #ar)ed and allowed to be adopted in the ci&il case on the ground that he was already dead% !espondent urther #ar)ed. a#ong other docu#ents. they are not parties to the cri#inal cases instituted against their e#ployees% REASON7N 7otwithstanding the act that petitioner 3!8=$ was not a party in said cri#inal case. "arlac. V. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os in the cri#inal case and to ad#it the "17 o the testi#ony o Baniban would be un air% "he Court does not subscribe to petitioner 3!8=$Ds argu#ent that it will be denied due process when the "17s o the testi#onies o Calaunan. petitioner 3!8=$ e&en o ered in e&idence the "17 containing the testi#ony o :onato Baniban in the cri#inal case% $ petitioner 3!8=$ argues that the "17s o the testi#onies o plainti Ds witnesses in the cri#inal case should not be ad#itted in the instant case. when no ob+ection is #ade thereto. 8ulacan. A. the court where the cri#inal case was tried. respondent ailed to show the concurrence o all the re5uisites set orth by the !ules or a testi#ony gi&en in a or#er case or proceeding to be ad#issible as an exception to the hearsay rule% 3etitioner 3!8=$. although on di erent causes o action< (d) the issue testi ied to by the witness in the or#er trial is the sa#e issue in&ol&ed in the present case< and (e) the ad&erse party had an opportunity to cross-exa#ine the witness in the or#er case% Ad#ittedly. le t or A##an. !ule 1/2 to apply. +udicial or ad#inistrati&e. counsel or respondent prayed that the transcripts o stenographic notes ("17s) o the testi#onies o respondent Calaunan. not being a party in the cri#inal case.4 'earsay e&idence alone #ay be insu icient to establish a act in a suit but. who appeared be ore the court and identi ied the "17s o the three a ore-na#ed witnesses and other pertinent docu#ents he had brought% Counsel or respondent wanted to #ar) other "17s and docu#ents ro# the said cri#inal case to be adopted in the instant case. a ailure to except to the e&idence because it does not con or# to the statute is a wai&er o the pro&isions o the law% 0&en assu#ing ex gratia argu#enti that these docu#ents are inad#issible or being hearsay. why then did it o er the "17 o the testi#ony o Baniban which was gi&en in the cri#inal caseW $t appears that petitioner 3!8=$ wants to ha&e its ca)e and eat it too% $t cannot argue that the "17s o the testi#onies o the witnesses o the ad&erse party in the cri#inal case should not be ad#itted and at the sa#e ti#e insist that the "17 o the testi#ony o the witness or the accused be ad#itted in its a&or% "o disallow ad#ission in e&idence o the "17s o the testi#onies o Calaunan. *arcelo *endo(a and -ernando !a#os% 6hen the ci&il case was heard. le t their residence to loo) or a +ob% 1he narrated that she thought her husband went to his ho#etown in 3ani5ue.

and without )nowing the contents thereo < • $n 1991.. A&elina was urnished with copies thereo < • A&elina reely and &oluntarily signed the docu#ents< • At the ti#e o the execution o the docu#ents.Prof.4. ne&er appeared be ore the notary public. 199. and who had to be assisted and acco#panied to his table to be able to sign the 5uestioned agree#ents< he noticed that Hshe could hardly seeI< • "hat it was unusual or A&elina. who# she does not )now< • "he oreclosure is &oid since she ne&er &oluntarily executed the #ortgage or surety agree#ent. the principal borrower. Avena Evidence ad#itted% Accordingly. 0##anuelDs co##on-law wi e.9. Al onso @ipte. secured by a pro#issory note and a real estate #ortgage signed by A&elina o&er her properties% "he #ortgage was annotated on the titles% "he loan was also secured by a surety agree#ent signed by @ipte as principal and by A&elina as surety% :ue to @ipteDs ailure to pay his indebtedness. as she is 12ind. to be so willing to act as surety to a pro#issory note o @ipte.< Auly . A. 1991. =udi&ina again as)ed her to sign so#e docu#ents. 1991G Al onso @ipte obtained a 31.CA9 !e&ersed% • :eceased A&elina was an old widow. which in&ol&ed the large a#ount o 31. she was #entally sound and in co#plete possession o her aculties. though physically wea). 7otice o Auction 1ale and :a#ages with 3rayer or $ssuance o a "e#porary !estraining Order andRor 3reli#inary $n+unction with the !"C% A&elina denies ha&ing signed the docu#ents. *ari&ic @ipte and the !egister o :eeds o !i(al or Annul#ent o !eal 0state *ortgage. and she understood the nature o the transactions< A2010 • A&elina personally appeared be ore the notary public% . . respecti&ely< • "hat !ebecca 3iOero-Balang. said that he re#e#bered A&elina to be an old lady..' 7NC VS CA . 9E P7OERO AN9 EMMAN8EL P7OERO= AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70. they shall be gi&en the sa#e weight as that to which the testi#ony #ay be entitled% 97SPOS7-7ON petition or re&iew denied% CA decision a ir#ed O5inion Evidence C37NA BAN@7N CORP.FAugust .22.22. was not physically it. who clai#ed to ha&e notari(ed the 1urety Agree#ent. ?2 years o age and blind e&en be ore she purportedly signed the !eal 0state *ortgage and 1urety Agree#ent on August . and was ne&er a business associate o @ipte< • 1o#eti#e in 1992.A&elina died and was substituted by her heirs% !"C9 Co#plaint and Counterclai# :is#issed% .9?//< • "C" 7o% >421? also contained a cancellation o a #ortgage in a&or o Aose *acaraig and Cerila de =eon.:eceased A&elina Lda% de 3iOero (A&elina). respondentsD predecessor-in-interest. A&elina was not able to read or )now the contents o these docu#ents< • "he alleged #ortgage was annotated on "C" 7o% >421?. 1991 and August . both o who# she does not )now% . a co#plete stranger. was the registered owner o two ad+oining parcels o land with i#pro&e#ents. Atty% !estituto -ano. as)ed A&elina to sign so#e docu#ents allegedly pertaining to a loan ro# one Cerila de =eon< signed these docu#ents without reading the sa#e.222%22% 7SS8E • A&elina 114 .222%22 loan ro# A&elina. stating that her properties would be sold at public auction by &irtue o a petition or extra+udicial oreclosure iled by petitioner< • A ter in5uiring ro# petitioner. her #other beca#e totally blind. testi ied that in 19?.AC-S .. a wo#an o old age. $nc%. and su ered an eye disease or glauco#a< • A&elina hersel testi ied that she was only persuaded to sign the 5uestioned docu#ents as witness< that =udi&ina guided her when she signed the oregoing docu#ents< that she did not recei&e ro# @ipte. the #ortgaged properties were oreclosed and auction sale was scheduled on August 17. =udi&ina !innoces. 7otary 3ublic 0rnesto 8oni acio. consisting o .12 s5 # situated in *andaluyong City% . A&elina was surprised to recei&e a oreclosure notice ro# the notary public. allegedly to pay the account to Cerila< again. any a#ount as consideration o the #ortgage attests to her credible theory that she was only a witness to the execution o the docu#ents< • "hat her deport#ent in court and the act that she had to be guided to ta)e the witness stand constituted the Hstrongest proo o blindnessI< • "hat the notary public.7. she learned that she allegedly executed a real estate #ortgage and a surety agree#ent to secure a loan o one Al redo @ipte. V. ne&er recei&ed any proceeds ro# the loan. but not on "C" 7o% .China 8an)ing contends that9 • Jpon execution o the docu#ents.227 F#ae#G NA-8RE 3etition or !e&iew on !ertiorari under !ule 4.>. -oreclosure o *ortgage. and alleged that9 • 1o#eti#e in 1epte#ber 199. AVEL7NA V9A.3E7RS O.% . with white co#plexion and white hair.. . daughter o A&elina.A&elina and respondent 0##anuel 3iOero sued China 8an)ing Corporation.

=a Jnion) was charged with alsi ication o a public docu#ent% 'e was accused o alsi ying the ti#eboo) and payroll o his o ice or the periods co&ering Aanuary to *arch 1977.Prof. by this reason. up to :ece#ber 197>. A&elina was in act blind. and. not whether she a ixed her signature% *ayor & 8elen9 7otari(ation per se is not a guarantee o the &alidity o the contents o a docu#ent% Benerally a notari(ed docu#ent is presu#ed regular. 197. 19?/ (aida) . a person #ust prepare his daily ti#e A""M% :0 BJ. a act which even the tria2 court noted..8or+e (as the or#er 3ro&incial 3lant $ndustry O icer o the 8ureau o 3lant and $ndustry in 1an -ernando. they are prima facie regular and duly executed< A&elina was duly in or#ed o the nature and purpose o these agree#ents by petitionerDs branch #anager and the notary public be ore she a ixed her signature< and respondents did not e&en sub#it a #edical certi icate attesting to the supposed blindness o A&elina or #ade an ophthal#ologist ta)e the witness stand% 7otari(ation "he ad#ission o the signatureDs authenticity does not by itsel pro&e petitionerDs case% "he issue is whether A&elina ga&e her consent to be bound as surety. it is i#plausible that she agreed to be his surety% $n act. viz) 5Gou are an educated person (rs. A. such as an ophthal#ologist. he was detailed as production technician in the Bulayan 3rogra# o the 83$ and the 8ureau o Agricultural 0xtension recei&ing incenti&e pay ro# the 7ational -ood and Agricultural Council during said period% $n 1977. up to his resignation on April /2.*A79 Ob+ection% A""M% CA1$:$7B9 $ a# as)ing the witness i she )nowsW COJ!"9 Ges. but such is rebuttable% 6hen 0xpert Opinion 7ecessary !eyes & 1isters o *ary 'ospital< !a#os & CA9 "he rule re5uiring the opinion o expert witnesses applies only to such #atters clearly within the do#ain o #edical science. who did not explain to her the contents and true nature o the docu#ents be orehand< • 'er hand had to be guided by =udi&ina during the act o signing< • A&elina did not )now that the 1urety Agree#ent and !eal 0state *ortgage she signed were to secure the loan @ipte contracted ro# the petitioner< • 1he was #ade to understand that she was to sign only as witness< • @ipte was a total stranger to her. 197..AC-S . to pro&e whether one is blind. :ucusin was e#ployed as 3lant 3est O icer with 83$ 1an -ernando ro# -ebruary . respondents 0##anuel *% 3iOero and 115 . since the act o blindness can be deter#ined through co##on )nowledge and by anyone with su icient a#iliarity o such act% A&elina during trial categorically testi ied and attested to her own blindness. and #ore i#portantly. @itness. to testi y to such act..A&elina4s blindness was urther con ir#ed by the testi#onies o her children. 197?% -ro# -ebruary . Also =udi&inaDs testi#ony established that9 • A&elina was already blind when she was #anipulated into signing the 5uestioned docu#ents by her daughter-in-law. it was only a ter A&elina recei&ed the notices o oreclosure that she learned that there was a #ortgage docu#ent a#ong the papers she signed% . the daily ti#e record o :ucusin and a certi ication or the a#ount o 3. but precisely the witness is blind. and not to #atters that are within the co##on )nowledge o #an)ind which #ay be testi ied to by anyone a#iliar with the acts% Attestin% to B2indness does not need E05ert O5inion "hus. is it not true that it is basic for a person before signing a document to read it firstH A2010 !ebecca 3iOero-Balang% 0&en the notary be ore who# she supposedly appeared testi ied to the act that she was indeed blind and that she was not #ade to understand the docu#ents% . V.Clearly. Avena Evidence $9 6O7 A&elina signed the real estate #ortgage and surety agree#ent )nowingly and &oluntarily. 197?% . that she did not )now the capacity in which she was signing these docu#ents% 97SPOS7-7ON CA A ir#ed% Presu*5tions BORHE V SAN97 ANBAGAN B%!% .According to testi#onial e&idence.:ucusin was in or#ed by Castro that he was entitled to recei&e 7-AC incenti&e pay because his na#e was included in the special order enu#erating those included in the progra#% 8e ore one can recei&e the incenti&e pay. that she did not )now the contents o the docu#ents she signed.. it is not necessary to sub#it a #edical certi icate attesting to the blindness or to re5uire an expert witness. with ull )nowledge o its contentsW 3EL9 China 8an)ing9 A&elinaDs signature was ad#itted as authentic% As notarial docu#ents. :ucusin was no longer entitled to the 7-AC incenti&e pay as he was detailed to the 1ur&eillance and 0arly 6arning 1er&ices (1061) "ea# o the 8ureau o 3lant $ndustry ro# Aanuary 1977 up to April /2.% .4/> BJ0!!0!O< 7o&e#ber 1... howe&er.

A.8or+e pleaded not guilty but the 1andigabayan declared hi# otherwise% 7SS8E 6O7 the 1andigabyan erred in declaring 8or+e guilty o alsi ication o public docu#ents 3EL9 M01. reported on the possible danger the tree posed to passersby% =erios e&en pointed to Capili the tree that stood near the principalDs o ice% "he 116 . the accused is presu#ed to ha&e alsi ied it% 8ut in re&iewing the testi#ony o =oren(o. 199. all o the# had the sa#e opportunity to co##it the alsi ication along with the #essengers who presu#ably deli&ered the docu#ents% Other e#ployees #ay ha&e handled the docu#ent also or purposes o typing. a resident o the barangay.8or+e has denied &igorously the testi#ony o =oren(o that he recei&ed the payroll and the chec)s ro# her% 'e said that his participation in the preparation o the payroll ended with his act o a ixing his signature% . -ebruary and *arch 1977 all bore his na#e and signature e&en i he had ne&er done so% . certi ication. had personally and actually alsi ied the public docu#ents in 5uestion% . besides A2010 :ucusin% $t is initialled by / personnel in the Accounting 1er&ices Jnit and urther signed by the !egional Accountant and or the !egional :irector% All o these persons were at one ti#e or another in possession o the docu#ent. the school principal% .=oren(oDs clai# that she was orced to testi y or 8or+e on pain o being i#plicated in the case does not hold water% =oren(oDs position as cashier is not subordinate to 8or+eDs position so she cannot be easily said to be inti#idated by hi#% . accounting.On -eb 1. the liability o 8or+e as head o the o ice who had signed the certi ication and &eri ication#ust be li#ited to the contents o said &eri ication and certi ication or which he does not necessarily incur cri#inal responsibility i the entries. initialling.$n the ace o the docu#ents presented (ti#eboo). the prosecution was unable to satis actorily o&erco#e the presu#ption o innocence accorded to accused 8or+e% Ratio "he constitutional presu#ption o innocence in a&or o the accused has not been satis actorily o&erco#e by the prosecution e&idence in this case where the con&iction o 8or+e or alsi ication o public docu#ents was based principally on the #ere assu#ption that as possessor o the alsi ied docu#ents. &eri ication.8or+e contends that :ucusin was paid his incenti&e pay and he con ir#s substantially the o icial procedure in the preparation o the payroll and subse5uent pay#ent o the incenti&e pay to the production technicians as described by witness =oren(o.:ucusin re erred the #atter to accused 8or+e who con essed that he (8or+e) had ta)en :ucusinDs incenti&e pay and repeatedly o ered hi# 3. e&en identi ying the genuine signature o :ucusin on the payroll% . data or state#ents certi ied and &eri ied turn out not to be true% $n such a scenario."here is no direct proo showing that 8or+e.792> SJ$1J*8$7B< 7o& . . 0u ronio =erios. 199/.. recording.Only photocopies o the alleged docu#ents were presented in court and the 1andiganbayan stated that the issue o bringing out the original would ha&e been rele&ant i he issue con ronting the Court been one o alteration or superi#position o signatures or words or igures% . unding. drawing o the chec) and inally. payroll and daily ti#e record).AC-S. disbursing o icer and cashier o 83$% 'e &igorously denies ha&ing recei&ed the payroll and the corresponding chec)s ro# witness =oren(o as his participation in the preparation o the said payroll ended with his signing thereo a ter which the payroll goes to the disbursing o icer or the preparation and issuance o the chec)s to the payees% . the e#ployee or personnel #a)ing the entries."he =oren(o testi#ony is dee#ed to be 5uestionable% . =eyte against Aoa5uinita Capili. causing her instantaneous death% 'er parents iled a case or da#ages be ore !"C o 3alo. the court held that an accused is not entitled to an ac5uittal si#ply because o his pre&ious good #oral character and exe#plary conduct i the court belie&es he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt o the cri#e charged% Disposition Audg#ent re&ersed% CAP7L7 v CAR9ANA B%!% 7o% 1.. data or state#ents as to his ser&ices and attendance is solely and separately responsible% . the accused is presu#ed to be the author o the alsi ication on the ollowing grounds9 ."he 1andiganbayan con&icted 8or+e on the basis o the testi#ony o the cashier =oren(o who testi ied that she deli&ered the payroll and chec)s to 8or+e. he is presu#ed to be the author o the alsi ication% Reasoning .22> ()oo)y) NA-8RE. issuing o the chec)% . . relying urther on the presu#ption that as possessor o the docu#ent.Prof.6ith regard to the de enseDs portrayal o the accused as an exe#plary public ser&ant.:ucusin reported the #atter to the 83$ !egional :irectorDs attention and later to the 83$ president and director% :ucusin later resigned."he CardaOas alleged in their co#plaint that e&en as early as :ec 1."he Court re+ects the 1andiganbayanDs reliance on the presu#ption that as possessor o the docu#ent. who had #any subordinate e#ployees and personnel under hi# engaged in agricultural ield wor) and assigned in the rural areas.0xhibit A (payroll and ti#eboo)) appears to be also signed by 12 other production technicians listed in the payroll. the Court ound that she said that she deli&ered the payroll and the chec)s to :ucusin. Aas#in CardaOa was wal)ing along the peri#eter ence o 1an !o5ue 0le#entary 1chool when a branch o a caimito tree located within the school pre#ises ell on her. saying he had lost aith in the way the #atter was being handled% . Avena Evidence record and a certi ication that he was indeed detailed in the said progra#% :ucusin went to the 83$Ds accounting di&ision where he disco&ered that the payroll or the periods o Aanuary.. V... to co&er the incenti&e pay which :ucusin did not accept% .8or+e clai#s that he had nothing to do with the alsi ication charges iled against :ucusin but alleges that :ucusinDs alsi ication charges iled against hi# was the latterDs way o getting bac) at hi#% 'e also alleged that :ucusin per or#ed dual wor) T irst with the Bulayan progra# and second with the 1061 tea# as 3lant 3est Control O icer and that his resignation was a way or hi# to a&oid acing the charges in connection with this dual wor) per or#ed% . 3etition or re&iew .

yet. she should ha&e had the tree re#o&ed and not #erely delegated the tas) to 3alaOa% "he appellate court ruled that the dead caimito tree was a nuisance that should ha&e been re#o&ed soon a ter petitioner had chanced upon it% CapiliDs *! was denied% "hus. and that the occurrence resulting in the in+ury was such as in the ordinary course o things would not happen i those who had its control or #anage#ent used proper care. petitioner is expected to o&ersee the sa ety o the schoolDs pre#ises% "he act that she ailed to see the i##ediate danger posed by the dead and rotting tree shows she ailed to exercise the responsibility de#anded by her position% *oreo&er. as so#eti#es stated. or at least per#it an in erence o negligence on the part o the de endant. or so#e other person who is charged with negligence% x x x where it is shown that the thing or instru#entality which caused the in+ury co#plained o was under the control or #anage#ent o the de endant. that the in+ury arose ro# or was caused by the de endantDs want o care% . inding Capili liable or Aas#inDs death% $t ruled that petitioner should ha&e )nown o the condition o the tree by its #ere sighting and that no #atter how hectic her schedule was. that the thing or instru#entality spea)s or itsel . 3alaOa.(. and while the #ere happening o an accident or in+ury will not generally gi&e rise to an in erence or presu#ption that it was due to negligence on de endantDs part."C dis#issed the co#plaint or ailure o CardaOas to establish negligence on the part o Capili% $t ga&e credence to the clai# o Caopili that she had no )nowledge that the tree was already dead and rotting and that =erios #erely in or#ed her that he was going to buy the tree or irewood% $t ruled that petitioner exercised the degree o care and &igilance which the circu#stances re5uire and that there was an absence o e&idence that would re5uire her to use a higher standard o care #ore than that re5uired by the attendant circu#stances% . she did not exercise reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would ha&e done in the sa#e situation% 7SS8E. GES. and assigned !e#edios 3alaOa to negotiate the sale% . the burden shi ts to petitioner to explain% "he presu#ption or in erence #ay be rebutted or o&erco#e by other e&idence and.$n e&ery tort case iled under Art . 199. the thing or transaction spea)s or itsel . "he doctrine o res ipsa loquitur applies% Ratio 6here (1) the accident was o such character as to warrant an in erence that it would not ha&e happened except or the de endantDs negligence< (. under the doctrine o res ipsa loquitur. the doctrine applies% Ratio "he procedural e ect o the doctrine o res ipsa loquitur is that petitionerDs negligence is presu#ed once respondents established the re5uisites or the doctrine to apply% Once respondents #ade out a prima facie case o all re5uisites. a third person. an ani#al. v. that respondentsD daughter.Petitioner(s Arg ments: she was not negligent about the disposal o the tree since she had assigned her next-in-ran). she did not obser&e any indication that the tree was already rotten nor did any o her 1. under appropriate circu#stances a disputable presu#ption. or in one +urisdiction.A negligent act is an inad&ertent act< it #ay be #erely carelessly done ro# a lac) o ordinary prudence and #ay be one which creates a situation in&ol&ing an unreasonable ris) to another because o the expectable action o the other. or. e&en i petitioner had assigned disposal o the tree to another teacher.17> CC.Respondents( comment: they insist that Capili )new that the tree was dead and rotting. reasonable e&idence.3etitionerDs explanation as to why she ailed to ha&e the tree re#o&ed i##ediately is not su icient to exculpate her% As school principal. such as that o due care or innocence. in the sa#e or si#ilar circu#stances. A. literally.) the accident #ust ha&e been caused by an agency or instru#entality within the exclusi&e #anage#ent or control o the person charged with the negligence co#plained o < and (/) the accident #ust not ha&e been due to any &oluntary action or contribution on the part o the person in+ured.6hile negligence is not ordinarily in erred or presu#ed. being in charge o the school% .) the ault or negligence o the de endant or so#e other person or whose act he #ust respond< and (/) the connection o cause and e ect between the ault or negligence and the da#ages incurred% A2010 . she exercised her duty by assigning the disposition o the tree to another teacher% .. !onsun.Capili denied the accusation and said that at that ti#e =erios had only o ered to buy the tree% 1he also denied )nowing that the tree was dead and rotting% "o pro&e her point. !ourt of Appeals9 As a rule o e&idence.i. there is su icient e&idence. e&en i she should ha&e been aware o the danger. to see to its disposal< that despite her physical inspection o the school grounds. howe&er. teachers in or# her that the tree was already rotten< and that #oral da#ages should not be granted against her since there was no raud nor bad aith on her part% 1he contends she was unaware o the state o the dead and rotting tree because =erios #erely o ered to buy the tree and did not in or# her o its condition% 7either did any o her teachers in or# her that the tree was an i##inent danger to anyone% 1he argues that she could not see the i##ediate danger posed by the tree by its #ere sighting e&en as she and the other teachers conducted ground inspections% 1he urther argues that. this appeal% . in the absence o explanation by the de endant. she presented witnesses who attested that she had brought up the o er o =erios to the other teachers during a #eeting on :ec 1. V. #ay outweigh the in erence% .". Aas#in. she exercises super&ision o&er her assignee% "he record shows that #ore than a #onth had lapsed ro# the ti#e petitioner 117 . 6O7 Capili was negligent and there ore liable or the death o Aas#in CardaOa 3EL9. would oresee such an appreciable ris) o har# to others as to cause hi# not to do the act or to do it in a #ore care ul #anner% -.Prof. /nc.CA re&ersed. died as a result o the dead and rotting tree within the schoolDs pre#ises shows that the tree was indeed an ob&ious danger to anyone passing by and calls or application o the principle o res ipsa loquitur% . Avena Evidence CardaOas a&erred that CapiliDs gross negligence and lac) o oresight caused the death o their daughter% . or a orce o nature% A negligent act is one ro# which an ordinary prudent person in the actorDs position. the doctrine o res ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the law o negligence which recogni(es that prima facie negligence #ay be established without direct proo and urnishes a substitute or speci ic proo o negligence% ."he act. which #eans. the acts or circu#stances acco#panying an in+ury #ay be such as to raise a presu#ption."he e ect o the doctrine o res ipsa loquitur is to warrant a presu#ption or in erence that the #ere alling o the branch o the dead and rotting tree which caused the death o respondentsD daughter was a result o petitionerDs negligence. the plainti has to pro&e by a preponderance o e&idence9 (1) the da#ages su ered by the plainti < (.

who testi ied on the ante-#orte# state#ents o the &icti# identi ying accused as the assailant< discounting the de ense o alibi put orth by the accused and his wi e< appreciating the 5uali ying circu#stance o treachery and the aggra&ating circu#stances o dwelling. *oti&e need not be shown where there is positi&e $denti ication% 0&en in the absence o proo o #oti&e. MOLO B%!% 7o% =-44>?2 3er Curia#< 11 Aanuary 1979 (ice) Nature Auto#atic !e&iew . V. 1i#eona had no di iculty 118 . and a #itigating circu#stance.) Ale+andro Bapisa. who had not yet allen asleep. but the latter did not respond% "he accused had already cli#bed up the house which was only a light o two steps% "he accused orcibly pushed the sliding door and barged into the house% 'e in5uired ro# 1i#eona where Lenancio was and she replied that he was asleep% -inding Lenancio sleeping near the door. but the second is natural and can be done with acility% 6O7 1i#eona could ha&e been able to recogni(e *olo (gi&en that he was at the oot o the stairs and there is a banana plant obstructing the #oonlight) Mes% 1i#eona testi ied that the banana plants did not obstruct the light cast by the #oon and the de ense did not dispro&e this act% $ndeed. A. there ore. retired to sleep% "he couple li&ed in a typical hut #ade o ba#boo looring and dilapidated buri walling surrounded by ruit bearing banana plants% 1i#eona.? 1C!A /?/< 3eople &s% :orico. he i##ediately grabbed his le t wrist and started hac)ing at the sleeping old #an% !udely awa)ened. an eye witness to the alleged #urder< (. Lenancio 5uic)ly stood up and with his right hand reached or his bolo which was atop the table nearby< but he was not able to retaliate in as #uch as :o#inador *olo was 5uic) to hac) at hi# again% -earing or her own li e.Prof. recidi&is# and reiteration alleged in the $n or#ation. who per or#ed the autopsy and acco#plished the Autopsy !eport% 3C soldiers and police#en were dispatched to the house o :o#inador *olo so#e one and a hal (1-1R.acts *olo was accused o *urder% 'e allegedly attac)ed and assaulter Bapisa in !o#blon with a bolo% -Lenancio Bapisa and 1i#eona !apa-Bapisa.4 1C!A 17. they could +usti iably be regarded as a de#onstration o good aith% On the alleged inconsistent a&er#ents regarding the presence o light% A re&iew o the transcript o the testi#ony shows that the oregoing is an inaccurate representation o 1i#eona4s testi#ony% -or she clari ied that her husband was already boloed be ore the light was snu ed out% 6ith regard to alleged incredible assertions. a son o the &icti# who went to the rescue o his ather a ter he was stabbed by accused-appellant and was able to tal) with hi# be ore he succu#bed to se&eral bolo wounds< (/) !o#an *angaring. husband and wi e. 1i#eona rushed out o the house through the door o the un inished )itchen to su##on help ro# her son. she told hi# that his ather was boloed by 8oslo.) )ilo#eters away ro# the scene o the )illing :o#inador *olo was placed under arrest and brought by the arresting o icers to the poblacion% $n&estigated at the 3C barrac)s% "rial Court relying on the testi#ony o 1i#eona Bapisa who was an eye-and ear-witness to the incident and the corroborating testi#onies o Ale+andro Bapisa and !o#an *angaring. Ale+andro Bapisa. a neighbor o Ale+andro< and (4) :r% Lictorio 8enedicto. !ule 1/.2 a%#% 'e expired a ew #inutes a ter% -"esti#onies were presented ro# (1) the &icti#4s wi e. not laid to i#peach 1i#eona4s testi#ony on the basis o alleged inconsistent state#ents which she allegedly #ade be ore the police% *oreo&er. . Avena Evidence ga&e instruction to her assistant 3alaOa to the ti#e the incident occurred% Clearly. the na#e by which accused-appellant was )nown in their locality% Jpon being in or#ed.appellant can stand inas#uch as he had been positi&ely $denti ied by 1i#eona Bapisa and by the deceased hi#sel through his dying declaration% *oti&e need not be shown when there is positi&e $denti ication% (3eople &s% -eliciano. the alleged inconsistencies inconse5uential% $nconsistencies on #inor details or on #atters that are not o #aterial conse5uence as to a ect the guilt or the innocence o the accused do not detract ro# the credibility o the witnesses% "he discordance in their testi#onies on collateral #atters heightens their credibility and shows that their testi#onies were not coached or rehearsed% -ar ro# being e&idence o alsehood.)% A2010 6O7 (oloEs /dentity as assailant was not established beyond reasonable doubt. . de ecating in his pants% 6hen Ale+andro too) hi# in his ar#s. i%e% that it was &ery unusual that she re#ained silent while witnessing the attac) on her husband% "he transcripts showan answer to the #isgi&ings by showing that she was scared o being boloed as well which the court inds reasonable% 6ith regard to the assertion that #imeona only pointed to the accused as the killer because he was a hated criminal in the locality 7o% "here was certainty in the identi ication o *olo% 6O7 1i#eona4s account is contrary to physical acts (i%e how *olo stabbed her husband) 7o it is not% "o si#ply thrust a bolo at a lying person is not as orce ul as to hac) hi# with it% "he irst is an aw)ward i not di icult #o&e#ent. 1i#eona Bapisa. "he alleged inconsistent state#ent gi&en to the police was neither o ered as e&idence nor shown to witness in order to enable her to explain the discrepancies i any in accordance to 1ection 1>. heard an indistinct sound o #ur#ur and gnashing o teeth% 1he saw accused :o#inador *olo by peeping in a hole% 1he i##ediately lighted a )erosene la#p and placed it on top o the trun) nearby% 1he tried to awa)en her husband. o the !ules o Court% "he proper bast was. who was at !o#an *angaring4s house so#e 122 #eters away% "re#bling. she ailed to chec) seasonably i the danger posed by the rotting tree had been re#o&ed% 9is5osition 3etition denied% La+in% the Predicate PEOPLE V. the con&iction o accused. Lenancio told hi# that he was boloed by 8oslo% !o#an *angaring who was present also in5uired ro# Lenancio who his assailant was and elicited the answer. &oluntary surrender. sentenced the accused% 7ssues ("he court tried to answer each allegations o *olo) 6O7 there is no proof of motive on appellantIs part. N8osloN% Lenancio was then rushed to the hospital and arri&ed there at about 19. ollowed by 1i#eona% Jpon arri&al% they saw Lenancio bleeding pro usely and in wea)ened condition% 'e was sitting in the loor o the )itchen. Ale+andro and !o#an ran towards the house o Lenancio.

'ashi# ad#its all o the allegations o the co#plaint and consents to the rendition o the +udg#ent in con or#ity therewith% "he de endant A i e Abdo Cheyban denies all other allegations contained in the co#plaint and set up as a special de ense that the action is the result o a conspiracy between 'ashi# and his relations.2. Auan Ms#ael Y Co%.As will be seen the only assign#ent actually e ected was that to the Asia 8an)ing Corporation% Jpon the acts shown by the record.. was assigned by the latter to the Asia 8an)ing Corporation and not to it. which prayer was granted% . hours a ter he was boloed% :isposition A ir#ed H8AN GSMAEL N CO.C-$ rendered +udg#ent in a&or o the plainti or the ull a#ount de#anded under the irst cause o action. which. 1917< that de endant ailed to pay and so the chattel #ortgage was oreclosed and the #ortgaged property sold by the sheri on Aan%1. ixtures. and its entire stoc) o goods< that the plainti has de#anded pay#ent ro# the de endants and now as)s +udg#ent against the#% "he plainti also prayed or a writ o attach#ent o the property o the de endants. . Avena Evidence in recogni(ing the accused.1/4%/.% 6O7 the court erred in rendering +udg#ent upon the irst cause o action in a&or o the plainti % /% 6O7 the trial court erred in prohibiting Cheyban ro# in5uiring into the details o the account set orth in 0xhibit /% 4% 6O7 the trial court erred in re using to recei&e the testi#ony o the de endant 7% "% 'ashi#.1.19 H%%%7ow. $nc% its entire stoc) o goods. ta)ing into consideration the acts o the case and the circu#stances preceding the sa#e. in the a#ount o 314. and trans er rati ied%I .% 7O. be and the sa#e appro&ed. 191> executed a chattel #ortgage in a&or o said plainti or the su# o 31/.. Lenancio #ust ha&e reali(ed the seriousness o his condition and it can there ore be in erred that he #ade the incri#ination under the conciousness o i#pending death. cash on hand and in ban)s. and !o#an. in act.Prof. $nc%. since as testi ied by 1i#eona he was asleep when attac)ed 7o. the said co-partnership assigned the a#ount due it on said indebtedness to the plainti on October /. 19. but a#ount #odi ied% $n discussing their irst assign#ent o error. adopted another resolution which practically re&o)ed the resolution o October /. ixtures. V.1. $nc%. its entire stoc) o goods.' 7NC. together with its other bills recei&able. $nc% #ight.) plainti alleges that the de endant 'ashi# has been indebted in the su# o 314.' 52aintiff!a55e22ant VS NA EEB -. ixtures and to ha&e access to the boo)s whene&er re5uired by the#< and be it urther< %%%*r% A% "% 'ashi# be and hereby is authori(ed in an irre&ocable #anner to execute. it is ob&ious that the case is N raudulent and that e&en i the 119 . together with Auan Ms#ael Y Co%. to the Asia 8an)ing Corporation. A. it was only at the initial stage o the attac) when the &icti# was asleep.1< that a balance o 311.47 O1"!A7:< *arch 1?.7. bills recei&able. cash on hand in ban)s. now a#ounts to the su# o 319. =td%. 19. authori(ed in an irre&ocable #anner to trans er in a&or o *essrs% Auan Ms#ael Y Co%. wares and #erchandise. cash on hand and in ban)s.7.>.7 (e&a) . as a oresaid.AC-S . super&ened barely 41R.A. eight in all. there ore. o all goods. as per said agree#ent. a li#ited copartnership. his son. but it does not ollow that the sa#e acts would constitute a &alid assign#ent as against third parties and that the prospecti&e assignee #ay #aintain an action against the debtor or the collection o the credit without a or#al assign#ent o such credit% "he debtor has the right to de#and that the person who sues hi# or the debt shall be the real party in interest and shall show a &alid title to the chose in action< a #ere e5uitable right to the assign#ent thereo is not su icient% . 19. to de raud her o the ali#ony granted her in a ci&il case% 1he also alleges that she has su ered da#ages in the su# o 3. his neighbor are dying declarations% Considering the nature and extent o the wounds. 191> to Aan%9.1>2%?7. the last three paragraphs o which reads as ollows9 H%%%on condition that this co#pany trans er to Auan Ms#ael Y Co%. =td%.E AB9O C3EGBAN ORAGEB' defendants. which. because he was awa)ened by the irst blows and stood up to de end hi#sel % "he state#ents o Lenancio $denti ying :o#inador *olo as his assailant to Ale+andro. that o A% "% 'ashi#. be it resol&ed that the trans er #ade by A% "% 'ashi#.Ms#ael assigns as error the inding o the trial court that the indebtedness o the de endant 7ageeb "% 'ashi# to the 'ashi# Co##ercial Y "rading Co%.. $nc%. ha&e co#pelled the 'ashi# Co##ercial Y "rading Co% to execute an assign#ent o the credit in contro&ersy. and that o @% 7%'e#ady in the or#er action% 3EL9 1% 7O% . perhaps. with interest at ?C p%a%. counsel or the de endant-appellant insist that.1. considering that their house was only ele&ated by two steps and at the ti#e she saw hi# through the dilapidated burl wall he was already at the oot o the stairs% 6O7 the dying declarations should not be accorded credence because the &icti# could not ha&e recogni(ed his assailant."he co#plaint in the present case sets orth two causes o action9 1) plainti alleges that the de endant 7ageeb "% 'ashi# on 1ept%.>4>%47 to the 'ashi# Co##ercial Y "rading Co#pany.1.E AB9O C3EGBAN ORAGEB' a55e22ant= B! 7o% . =td%. 19. 3AS37M and A. 19.$t does not appear that the assign#ent authori(ed by this resolution was e&er #ade and the sa#e stoc)holders. and that the court li)ewise erred in dis#issing the second A2010 cause o action alleged in the co#plaint% "his contention is principally based on a resolution o the stoc)holders o the 'ashi# Co##ercial Y "rading Co%. with the corresponding interest at ?C ro# 1ept%.>4>%47. but dis#issed the second cause o action on the ground that the plainti had ailed to show that the credit upon which said cause o action is based had been legally assigned to it% 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 the court erred in dis#issing the second cause o action% . the stoc)holders is Auan Ms#ael Y Co%. the #ortgage alling due on 1ept%. and that. bills recei&able. and deli&er all such docu#ents and instru#ents in writing as #ay be necessary to e ectuate the oregoing purpose%I . ac)nowledge.2>2%?7 was le t a ter applying the proceeds ro# the sale.222% . also a stoc)holder. . and to ha&e access to the boo)s whene&er re5uired by the#< %%%that *r% A% "% 'ashi# be and hereby is. or good and &aluable consideration.

and the slant o the stro)es o the whole signature as well as o each letter thereo . and other details o the paraph% As these details strongly indicate that 0xhibit C is not genuine. and it does not appear that he has incurred any urther indebtedness to the plainti since that date% "he plainti explains that the a#ount clai#ed in excess o the su# shown by the ledger represents interest o ?C. a oundation should ha&e been laid by calling the attention o the witnesses to the or#er state#ents so as to gi&e the# opportunity to explain be ore the state#ents were o ered in e&idence% 97SPOS7-7VE "he +udg#ent appealed ro# is. #ay at a gi&en ti#e be written on any docu#ent% A care ul exa#ination o 0xhibit C re&eals so#e details which bear out the presu#ption that it was written on the sa#e typewriter as docu#ent 0xhibit . 19..Prof. in this case the preponderance #ilitates against the docu#ent% $t cannot be held pro&en. at least by a preponderance o e&idence. and the costs o the action% . between the signature in 0xhibit C and the one in 0xhibit A. and the co#plaint here is directed against his estate. upon which the plainti 4s irst cause o action is based. had to #a)e #any trips to the town o Cabugao.7 )ilo#eters distant ro# where said patients li&ed% =eandro 1errano is now dead./?%2. plus 3. that this docu#ent was ad#issible e&idence o record. Avena Evidence indebtedness clai#ed were o&er a true indebtedness.?. the space they occupy. on 3ri#iti&a 1errano as well as on her ather =eandro 1errano.2. thus suggesting the act that it was written later% "he prior date appearing in it does not preclude this conclusion. the ser&ices or which co#pensation is here clai#ed consist in #edical attendance during the years 1919.On :ece#ber /1. casts serious doubts on its genuineness% $t see#s hardly probable that =eandro 1errano should ha&e been able to write two signatures so exactly ali)e. that =eandro 1errano pro#ised to pay the plainti 34 or e&ery 120 . . the plainti 4s reco&ery on its irst cause o action should be li#ited to the a#ount shown by its boo)s o account% . A% !O*JA=:0. is included in the ledger account and it #ay properly be considered as #erged therein% /% M01% "he court below undoubtedly erred in denying the de endant-appellant the opportunity to in5uire into the sources o the entries ound in the plainti 4s boo)s o account in relation to the indebtedness o the de endants< the act that such sources #ight ha&e been exa#ined in ci&il case 7o% 19. (1A) NA-8RE "his is an action to collect the balance o pro essional ees. but under the circu#stances o the case. 19. we cannot consider it as reliable proo in this case% "he burden o proo was on plainti to show.2? 1epte#ber /. while in the present case. either the sa#e had been paid or pay#ent thereo wai&ed%N "his contention is not entirely without oundation. and 19.. 19. not only in the cur&ature at the base o the letters. or #edical ser&ices a#ounting to 3. the date o the iling o the co#plaint% $n all other respects said +udg#ent is a ir#ed without costs in this instance% Reference to Me*orandu* . past or uture. there ore. A.4.. who at that ti#e li&ed in Ligan. there ore. the plainti 4s ledger showed a balance o 31. but also in the distance between the#. with 37.. the testi#ony would ha&e been ad#issible without the laying o a oundation and without the witnesses ha&ing testi ied in the case at bar% 8ut the purpose o the o er o the testi#ony was e&idently to i#peach the testi#ony o the sa#e witnesses in the present case and i so. SERRANO B%!% 7o% ..>9 o the C-$ cannot be regarded as a bar to a reasonable in5uiry into the character o the debt in the present case% "he issues in the two cases are entirely di erent< the or#er case dealt with the &alidity o a chattel #ortgage. represented by the de endant ad#inistrator% $t is also alleged therein that =eandro 1errano pro#ised to pay or plainti 4s trip to the town o Cabugao at the rate o 34 per )ilo#eter% "he principal e&idence adduced to pro&e this pro#ise is the letter 0xhibit C which is alleged to be addressed to the plainti and signed by =eandro 1errano% "he de endant assails the authenticity o this letter and the signature at the botto# thereo % 0xhbit S and ! on the other hand were presented as #e#oranda where :r% -ugueras noted down his &isits acco#panied by state#ents as to the ser&ices rendered% 7SS8E A2010 6hether or not 0xhibit C is genuine and there ore ad#issible in e&idence% 6hether or not 0xhibit S and ! are ad#issible in e&idence% 3EL9 1% 7O $ndeed.?. and in &iew o the &ery apparent unreliability o so#e o the oral e&idence presented. we are dealing with the a#ount o the de endant4s indebtedness to the plainti % -or #uch the sa#e reasons. we notice as to the context that the typewritten characters therein are &ery si#ilar to those o 0xhibit ./?%2..1. and.% And the changes and erasures which ha&e not been satis actory explained.9..222 da#ages.7 8ERAS VS.. the de endant-appellant did not clai# that said testi#ony contained ad#issions against interest by the parties to the action or their agents< i such had been the case. the de endant-appellant should ha&e been per#itted to present e&idence in support o her special de ense o conspiracy% 4% 7O% $n o ering in e&idence the testi#ony gi&en by *r% 'e#ady and the 'ashi#s in the earlier case. as #ay be clearly seen by placing one upon the other../12 interest. contour.. we cannot gi&e #uch weight to this explanation% $t clearly appears that the chattel #ortgage debt.. and e&en in the length.AC-S According to the co#plaint o :r% Bregorio -igueras. or which purpose the plainti . in point o si(e and contour. li)ewise argue against the ad#issibility o this exhibit% "he re#ar)able rese#blance al#ost identical. with interest at the rate o >C ro# Aanuary 1/.. or any date.% (p% 1?4 o the record) which is a letter written by the plainti 4s brother% "he di erence we obser&e in the typewriting o these docu#ents consists in that in 0xhibit C the type is #ore worn. #odi ied by reducing the plainti 4s reco&ery to the su# o 31. 19. against the de endant 'ashi#. V. and in the or# o the s#all as well as the capital letters.

identi ied by 3edro 1uero and 1i#eon 1errano. *A=CO=*.rimitiva #errano in !abugao and . which is the point in 5uestion. 9 and 12. as to throw out the action entirely and concede nothing to :octor -igueras% -iguring on a basis o approxi#ately two hundred &isits to Cabugao. ?9>) and in accordance with the pro&ision o section .144 granted by trial +udge is too high% Met there is no need to be so carried away by an enthusiastic desire to conde#n unethical and unpro essional practices in #a)ing e&idence to establish clai#s when no such e&idence is necessary. V. in the al#anacs 0xhibits 9 and 12 with the initial B and the letters Na%#%N or Np%#%N according as they were #ade in the #orning or a ternoon% Jnli)e the entries in 0xhibits S and !.. in al#ost all the entries. their A2010 appearance. and adding a reasonable su# or special ser&ice and treat#ents. the plainti #ade twenty-six #edical &isits to 3ri#iti&a 1errano in Cabugao.222 is grossly exaggerated% 0&en the su# o 319. but it appears ro# the testi#ony o 3edro 1uero. that he. 3ri#iti&a 1errano. which are 8ristol Al#anacs or the years 1919 and 19. the na#e o Bregorio -igueras. with all its uncertainty on this point.' for each eye treatment. without su icient assurance o approxi#ation. at 3.% Considering plainti 4s social standing. whene&er said physician paid a pro essional &isit to 3ri#iti&a 1errano in Cabugao that he used to record plainti 4s #edical &isits to witness4 sister. 1>2/%) "he total de#anded by :octor -igueras o the estate o *r% 1errano co#ing to o&er 3>2. but there is no proo that the notes in these exhibits were written with the )nowledge and consent. was en+oined to note down in 0xhibits > and 7. chau eurs who successi&ely too) the plainti to Cabugao. are co#petent e&idence. it is #y opinion that the physician 121 . /t has not been sufficiently proven that these amounts do not include the fees for the treatment given on such visits. considering the noticeable uni or#ity o the handwriting and o the color o the in) used (in 0xhibit S).ection."'0 30!1O7 8M 6'O* "'0M 60!0 *A:0% (. and . a act ad#itted by the de endant% 8ut as to the nu#ber o said trips. o =eandro 1errano% 7either does it appear that such notes were #ade at the ti#e o the &isits and pro essional ser&ices re erred to therein. -or#oso. the ho#e o the deceased. because.2 a &isit and nearly the sa#e nu#ber o consultation at the o ice o the physician at 3. and ta)ing into consideration the pro essional standing o :octor -igueras. and that the evidence shows that the plaintiff is entitled to receive .79 o our present Code o Ci&il 3rocedure% !onsequently we conclude that the number of visits proven in these proceedings is '< in !abugao and 25 in Jigan. he was entitled to use an auto#obile as the #ost ade5uate #ode o transportation% . render the# co#petent corroborati&e e&idence under the rule abo&e 5uoted ro# Corpus Auris (. 9 and 12. and Arcebal testi ied that at the ti#e in 5uestion. or e&en in the presence. details. the irst three o who#.' for each visit to her in Jigan. those o 0xhibits >. but it appears that the plainti who #ade the #e#oranda noted therein did not e&en testi y concerning the#% "hese exhibits cannot. he saw the plainti stop in ront o the #unicipal building o Cabugao two or three ti#es a wee). identi ied. -igueras and Arcebal. the testi#ony o these witnesses. as professional fees. and the act that they were #ade at the ti#e o the &isits so recorded. going in the direction o =eandro 1errano4s house% "he nu#ber o ti#es testi ied to by these witnesses.$? for each electrical treatment. in.ections and eye treatments *which in themselves are not sufficiently established+ is . C%A%. be ta)en into consideration to deter#ine the nu#ber o &isits #ade by the plainti nor that o the ti#es he rendered pro essional ser&ices% "he appellee alleges that said entries are corroborated by the witness -lorendo.. a#ong the#sel&es ixed the total nu#ber o trips to Cabugao at about one hundred. in addition to being su iciently identi ied by the persons who #ade the# at the ti#e o the &isits. in Ligan. #ere con+ecture. as it could not otherwise be as in erred ro# their own testi#ony. A. . Avena Evidence )ilo#eter o his trips to Cabugao on his #edical &isits% "he preponderance o ad#issible e&idence o record is to the e ect that the cost o each o such &isits to Cabugao is about 3. and ninety in Ligan% 7ot only are these 0xhibits >. or that they were written about that ti#e% And the appearance o the writing in these boo)s (0xhibit S and ! ) does not show that such notes were #ade therein on di erent occasions and at di erent periods o ti#e.Prof. 7. including the physician4s boo) o account. C%A%. :$1107"$7B9 "he issue in this case is the reasonable &alue o the pro essional ser&ices per or#ed by :r% Bregorio -igueras or =eandro 1errano% "he issue is not as to whether :r% Bregorio -igueras is cri#inally guilty o abricating the #uch discussed 0xhibit C% 6ith or without 0xhibit C. nor that the reasonable price of electrical treatments. 9 and 12. or a sum total of . a consultation."'0 "!A71AC"$O7 "O 6'$C' "'0M !0=A"0 A!0 1O*0"$*01 A:*$""0: $7 0L$:07C0 "O CO!!O8O!A"0 "'0 "01"$*O7M O. #uch less exactness% 6hat these witnesses de initely established and wherein they corroborate the noteboo)s 0xhibits S and !. there is su icient e&idence.2. A%.495.% 7O 0xhibits S and ! are ob+ected to by the de endant as not duly identi ied and as inco#petent e&idence% $t is true that the witnesses 3arto and -lorendo testi ied that they recogni(ed the writing in said noteboo)s as plainti 4s. is. cannot be considered as either direct or corroborati&e e&idence% 6e there ore ind that the plainti 4s e&idence does not supply data legally co#petent to ascertain the nu#ber o ti#es he was in Cabugao to render pro essional ser&ices to 3ri#iti&a 1errano% According to the de endant4s e&idence consisting o 0xhibits >. 7. notwithstanding the act that these entries co&er a period o o&er one year% $t is absolutely necessary or the ad#ission o such entries to pro&e that they were #ade at or about the ti#e o the transaction to which they relate% Once this is pro&en they #ay be ad#itted to corroborate the testi#ony o the person who #ade the#% 6!$""07 *0*O!A7:A *A:0 A" O! A8OJ" "'0 "$*0 O.? for each in. ?>9%) 8ut the act is that 0xhibits S and ! not only do not #eet the re5uire#ent as to being conte#poraneous.'? for each visit to . is that the plainti #ade trips to Cabugao. there ore.. 7. as or#er cler) to =eandro 1errano. which establishes satis actory the approxi#ate nu#ber o &isits #ade by :octor -igueras to *r% 1errano and the proper a#ount or each &isit% (/2 Cyc%.

Avena Evidence should be allowed 3. she heard another &olley o shots% 1he saw -lorencio Odencio (3oren).AC-S . 3e died on the fo22o/in% da+% $n that unsigned ante#orte# declaration. A.Prof. :aongan @araing% 1he noticed that @adir Oranen was also shot dead% Ahi2e Setie /as co*fortin% her hus1and' he a22e%ed2+ to2d her that he /as %oin% to die. (1ee . An unsi%ned d+in% dec2aration *a+ 1e used as a *e*orandu* 1+ the /itness /ho tooE it do/n. V. o said lots to /rd parties% .2orencio Odencio and . and a new "C" was issued in the na#e o the :el ins% 1ale no% .E0h. and sold . reco&ery o ownership and possession. 6hile 3rowa "alib (3alua "alib). and "eresa. the ather-in-law o Buia#elon% $t was stated urther in the sa#e dying declaration that "alib had told 3atrol#an 1aOada that he wanted to sign it but that he could not do so because o the wound in his ar#% "alib also articulated his belie that he was going to die because he could hardly breathe and his wound was pain ul% 6ithin orty-eight hours a ter ta)ing "alib4s unsigned ante#orte# state#ent. and *aria :arador. p% 11. on the other hand. "rinidad. -he ru2e is that a d+in% dec2aration *a+ 1e ora2 or /ritten 7f ora2' the /itness' /ho heard it' *a+ testif+ thereto /ithout the necessit+' of course' of re5roducin% e0act2+ the /ords of the decedent' if he is a12e to %ive the su1stance thereof.1. 1etie *a#alintao. handing a pot o rice to his wi e. and Cipriano :egala ( or #arital consent only as husband o "eresa). April 1994. and that. =eopoldo. she saw Buia#elon *a#a holding a gun near a coconut tree around six bra(as away% "hen. 3resentacion. who was near the stairs. 7orth Cotabato. it was 122 . 0speran(a. "alib re&ealed that -lorencio Odencio suspected that he and Oranen had #aster#inded the the t o Aoseph Odencio4s two carabaos. AON the accused /ere convicted so2e2+ on the 1asis of the /ifeBs uncorro1orated testi*on+ 3EL9. the new "C" in the na#e o the :el ins was issued on . was in the yard o his house located at 8arrio 1i#si#an.in issue here are two deeds o absolute sale 1ale no% 19 between "eresa :anos.2orencio:s father' Hose5h Odencio. a orty-year old ar#er. and 3edro :egala. the tria2 court o1served that the accused /ere indu1ita12+ 7dentified as the assai2ants in -a2i1:s d+in% dec2arations to his /ife and Patro2*an SaPada% Setie Ma*a2intao in her state*ent to the 5o2ice dec2ared that she /as a12e to reco%ni4e . recon&eyance. as &endors. heirs o the &endors iled action or annul#ent. also holding a gun near another coconut tree around ten #eters away in the yard o the house o her neighbor.222 or his ser&ices% "hat is #y &ote and to that extent $ dissent% PEOPLE V O9ENC7O ?? 1C!A 1 ASJ$7O9 Aanuary 9. B= as taEen do/n 1+ Patro2*an SaPada -a2i1 /as 1rou%ht to the hos5ita2. 3igcawayan. 3e directed her to re*e*1er /hat had ha55ened to hi* and that the+ had seen uia*e2on Ma*a and Poren ar*ed /ith %uns% 3rior to that shooting incident..2orencio and uia*e2on 1ecause there /as a Q1i% torchQ in front of her house and @arain%:s house (7o% 19. as &endors./1>%) C2asses of 9ocu*ents 9EL. 0xh% 1. and the :el in 1pouses as &endees% 0xecuted on *arch 19>. he was elled down by a &olley o shots% 1etie rushed to the aid o her husband% 6hen she loo)ed in the direction where the gunshots e#anated.na%aa%onto=' he /as not a12e to si%n his d+in% dec2aration . 1972 0d%. Buia#elon suspected "alib o ha&ing stolen the carabao o :a#iog. !ecord)% Appellants4 counsel contends that they were con&icted on the basis o the wi e4s uncorroborated testi#ony Nwhich is open to suspicion due to inherent i#probabilities44 and N#oti&es to alsi y the truthN% 7SS8E. !osario. the deed li)ewise bears either the signatures or thu#b #ar)s o the sellers and was notari(ed% Again. 9ue to the critica2 condition of -a2i1 . *oran4s Co##ents on the !ules o Court.9 Auly 19>2.22> (#aia) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari decision and resolution o CA (re&ersed decision o !"C) . 7o% -a2i1:s ante*orte* state*ent fortifies the testi*on+ of his /ido/' an e+e/itness% 6e ha&e stressed that two other witnesses saw the appellants lea&ing the scene o the cri#e% A2010 Moreover' -a2i1:s d+in% dec2aration /as sufficient2+ 5roven. with da#ages% According to the#. and *aria a ixed their thu#b #ar)s% "he deed was notari(ed% "he deed was registered with the register o deeds only on 1? 7o&e#ber 19?2.AC-S. 1aOada executed an a ida&it reciting the circu#stances surrounding the ta)ing thereo % 1aOada testi ied in court on "alib4s dying declaration% "C ac5uitted Aoseph and con&icted only -lorencio and Buia#elon% $n disbelie&ing the alibis o -lorencio and Buia#elon.7N V B7LLONES B! 14>. Cipriano. 1979 (da) .. .4 Aune 19?2% -:el in spouses consolidated the two lots and subdi&ided these into > s#all lots. 0strella. pp% /1.9 between "eresa :anos.2 "$7BA< *arch 17. and :el in 1pouses as &endees% 0xecuted on . whereby 0speran(a and 0strella a ixed their signatures.. 3rowa "alib had reported to the barrio captain that -lorencio Odencio had stolen his lu#ber% "he two assailants led westward and encountered Aapal !ongot who was on his way to "alib4s Jpon reaching "alib4s house1etie told hi# that "alib was shot by Buia#elon and she pointed to hi# Oranen4s corpse% 7gela# "owa another neighbor and the uncle o 1etie went to get assistance ro# his ather-in-lawand while crossing the trail his lashlight ocussed on -lorencio Odencio with two co#panions lea&ing the scene o the cri#e% 3olice#en arri&ed at "alib4s house% 1etie in or#ed the# that Buia#elon was the gunwielder% -he+ 1rou%ht -a2i1 to a *edica2 c2inic /here he /as interro%ated 1+ Patro2*an HoaLuin SaPada -a2i1 to2d SaPada that his assai2ants /ere uia*e2on' .

respecti&ely% 'owe&er. they presented certi ications on the deaths o 0speran(a and Cipriano by the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar% .nd lot #ust ail% $n &iew o the heirsD ailure to show their &alid title to said lot or e&en their occupation thereo . the attestation by the o icer ha&ing legal custody o the record #ust state that the copy is a correct copy o the original. with plainti s ha&ing to rely on the strength o their own e&idence.6!" to the 1st :eed o 1ale (and on the topic o docu#ents)9 .CA annulled the 1st :eed o Absolute 1ale because Hone o the &endors therein was already dead. or a certi ied true copy thereo < and when a copy o a docu#ent or record is attested or the purpose o e&idence.!"C9 in a&or o :el ins% CA9 re&ersed and annulled the deeds o sale. signatories were already dead (based on the . the case cannot prosper e&en when it is &iewed as one or 5uieting o title% . unless the party who contests its accuracy can produce positi&e e&idence establishing otherwise% 7e&ertheless. it cannot be de#onstrated by #ere construction. respondentRwitness Aolly :atar who ad&erted to the certi ications did not testi y on how the certi ications were obtained. was constrained to #ortgage the . wrt to the 1st lot. nor e&en records o public docu#ents< thus. but turned out to be an extra+udicial partition with deed o absolute sale% On the other hand. this presu#ption is disputable and is satis actory only i uncontradicted. it cannot be said that i#plied or constructi&e trust was created between respondents and the :el ins% "he action or recon&eyance o the .4 years in 194>. and that due execution cannot pre&ail o&er the act that . the Court ta)es note o the CA :ecision in CA-B%!% CL 7o% /17/9.9. not on the wea)ness o the de endantDs% -As regards the . as the case #ay be% .A duly-registered death certi icate is considered a public docu#ent and the entries ound therein are presu#ed correct.nd lot to the :el ins% :el ins #ade her sign a docu#ent purporting to be a #ortgage. circu#stances surrounding the execution o the docu#ent show that the real intention was #erely to secure a loan o 3/22. and the circu#stances pro&ed #ay in so#e cases raise a presu#ption o its existence% 'owe&er.. A. #uch less his role therein% As a conse5uence.A contract or conduct apparently honest and law ul #ust be treated as such until it is shown to be otherwise by either positi&e or circu#stantial e&idence% A duly executed contract carries with it the presu#ption o &alidity% "he party who i#pugns its regularity has the burden o pro&ing its si#ulation% A notari(ed docu#ent is executed to lend truth to the state#ents contained therein and to the authenticity o the signatures% 7otari(ed docu#ents en+oy the presu#ption o regularity which can be o&erturned only by clear and con&incing e&idence (=ao &% Lillones-=ao)% . Avena Evidence only in 19?9 when they ound out that "eresa.4 and >/. death certi icates presented) 7SS8E 1% 6O7 the deeds o sale are &alid 3EL9 1% M01 Ratio -raud #ay be. they do not en+oy the presu#ption granted by the !ules% "he heirs did not e&en present the local ci&il registrar who supposedly issued the certi ications to authenticate and identi y the sa#e% . as respondents were unable to present any e&idence to substantiate their clai#s. petitioners once #ore point out that the :eed o 1ale. they argue that the appellate courtDs conclusion is based on the disputable presu#ption that identity o na#es #eans identity o persons% -:ocu#ents consisting o entries in public records #ade in the per or#ance o a duty by a public o icer are prima facie e&idence o the acts therein stated% A2010 3ublic docu#ents #ay be pro&ed by the original copy. or a speci ic part thereo .Prof. the heirs allege that the deed o sale was ictitious and signatures and thu#b #ar)s therein where all orged because 0dtrella.% =i)ewise. and their contents cannot be dee#ed to constitute proo o the acts therein stated% . the certi ications cannot be gi&en probati&e &alue.nd lot. wherein 123 . and #ay be o&erco#e by contrary e&idence . but #ust be pro&en in all cases% Reasoning $n essence.nd lot. being a duly notari(ed docu#ent. and o ten is.*ore i#portantly. respondents (the heirs) ha&e the burden to establish their case by a preponderance o e&idence.nd lot. #a)ing her date o birth to be so#eti#e in 1929% "his is totally incongruous with her supposed age o . an o icial publication thereo . pro&ed by or in erred ro# circu#stances. the &ery exhibits o the heirs dispel the presu#ption o regularity o the issuance o the certi ications o death relied upon by the CA% "he certi ications state that both 0speran(a :aradar and Cipriano :egala died in 194> at ages . CA said that the deed o sale could not ha&e been executed since so#e o the &endors were already dead. 0speran(a. V. a care ul study o the records o the case shows that in the OC". or e&idence which is o greater weight or #ore con&incing than that which is o ered in opposition to it% 'ence. sic) and in dire need o #oney. the trial court did not ad#it the certi ications as independent pieces o e&idence but #erely as part o the testi#ony o Aolly :atar% A docu#ent or writing which is ad#itted not as independent e&idence but #erely as part o the testi#ony o a witness does not constitute proo o the acts related therein% Clearly then.=i)ewise. while raud #ay be pro&ed by circu#stances or presu#ed ro# the#. should be gi&en ull aith and credit% Also.2 years old in 19. the heirs speci ically alleged that the :el ins tric)ery and raud% "hey clai#ed that the original owners o the =ot did not intend to execute a deed o extra-+udicial partition and absolute sale but only a #ortgage instru#ent% 'owe&er. and Cipriano all died prior to the execution o the deed% As proo . parties who ha&e the burden o proo #ust produce such 5uantu# o e&idence. all that respondents ca#e out with were bare allegations that the said owners were either old and sic)ly or illiterate< that the purported selling price o 3/22%22 was unconscionable< and that petitioners ailed to e+ect respondents ro# the sub+ect land.As plainti s in the action be ore the trial court. 0speran(a was already . #uch less the charge o raud% "heir bare and unsupported allegations are not enough to o&erthrow the presu#ption o the &alidity o said agree#ent or to raise the presu#ption o raud% -Considering that the heirs ailed to establish the existence o raud in the spouses :el inDs ac5uisition o the . thus it was an e5uitable #ortgage and not a sale% 6rt to the 1st lot. petitioners insist that respondents ailed to pro&e that raud attended the sale o the =ots% "he Court agrees% ."he docu#ents presented by the heirs were #ere certi ications and not the certi ied copies or duly authenticated reproductions o the purported death certi icates o 0speran(a and Cipriano% "hey are not the public docu#ents re erred to by the !ules o Court. which places the year o her birth in 19. saying that wrt to the .I relying on the certi ications issued by the =ocal Ci&il !egistrar% $n assailing this declaration.

A. is a contract o adhesion which #ust be interpreted against Citiban)% -Citiban) iled an appeal with the CA and its counsel iled an ad#inistrati&e case against Audge :e la 3eOa or gra&e #isconduct. his wi e and grandchildren to abort i#portant tour destinations and pre&ented the# ro# buying certain ite#s in their tour% -'e urther clai#ed that he su ered #ental anguish. the latter had #ore weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by Citiban)%Also held that e&en i it was shown that A(narDs credit card was dishonored by a #erchant establish#ent. the sa#e was not honored% -And when he tried to use the sa#e in $ngtan "our and "ra&el Agency ($ngtan Agency) in $ndonesia to purchase 124 . o the !ules o Court by anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< A(nar.222%22% As he and his wi e.< *arch .2. o the !ules on 0lectronic 0&idence or under 1ect%. bes#irched reputation and social hu#iliation due to the wrong ul blac)listing o his card -"o pro&e that Citiban) blac)listed his *astercard. is a holder o a 3re erred *astercard issued by Citiban) with a credit li#it o 31.. it was again dishonored or the reason that his card was blac)listed by Citiban)% 1uch dishonor orced hi# to buy the tic)ets in cash% -A(nar iled a co#plaint or da#ages against Citiban).2 o !ule 1/. Citiban)Ds Credit Card :epart#ent 'ead. wounded eelings. as all it pro&ed was that said credit card was not included in the blac)listed cards< when Citiban) accepted the additional deposit o 34?. planned to ta)e their two grandchildren. Citiban) was not shown to ha&e acted with #alice or bad aith when the sa#e was dishonored% -A(nar iled a *-! with #otion to re-ra le the case saying that Audge *arcos could not be i#partial as he hi#sel is a holder o a Citiban) credit card% "he case was re-ra led with the new +udge granting A(narDs *! saying that it was i#probable that a #an o A(narDs stature would abricate the co#puter print-out which shows that A(narDs *astercard was dishonored or the reason that it was declared o&er the li#it< 0xh% NBN was printed out by 7ubi in the ordinary or regular course o business in the #odern credit card industry and 7ubi was not able to testi y as she was in a oreign country and cannot be reached by subpoena< ta)ing +udicial A2010 notice o the practice o auto#ated teller #achines (A"*s) and credit card acilities which readily print out ban) account status. thus it should not be held liable or the dishonor o A(narDs credit card by said establish#ents% -A(narDs *! was denied by the CA% -As regards the ad#in case. on an Asian tour. #ental anguish and social hu#iliation< the ine prints in the lyer o the credit card li#iting the liability o the ban) to 31.A"$O71 -O!0$B7 ACCOJ7" AC"$L$"M !03O!". there ore. respondents were unable to o&erthrow the presu#ption o &alidity o the :eed o Absolute 1ale% Disposition 3etition is granted% :ecision re&ersed% plane tic)ets to 8ali./7. absent any showing that Citiban) had anything to do with the said dishonor< Citiban) had no absolute control o&er the actions o its #erchant a iliates. issued to hi# by $ngtan Agency (0xh% NBN) with the signature o one Lictrina 0lnado 7ubi which shows that his card in 5uestion was N:0C= OL0!=$*$"N or declared o&er the li#it% -Citiban) denied the allegation that it blac)listed A(narDs card% "o pro&e that they did not blac)list A(narDs card. .222%22% -:uring the trip. clai#ing that Citiban) raudulently or with gross negligence blac)listed his *astercard which orced hi#.222%22% -6ith the use o his *astercard. A(nar clai#s that when he presented his *astercard in so#e establish#ents in *alaysia.7/ AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70. whiche&er is lower. :ennis -lores.. 1ingapore and $ndonesia.which #ust be authenticated pursuant to 1ec% . C7-7BAN@' N. . Aune 194/. -A(nar.acts.?.. A?NAR v. a )nown business#an in Cebu.. thus it #ust be excluded< the unre uted testi#ony o A(nar that his credit card was dishonored by $ngtan Agency and certain establish#ents abroad is not su icient to +usti y the award o da#ages in his a&or.227 (edel) NA-8RE. 0xh% NBN can be recei&ed as prima facie e&idence o the dishonor o A(narDs *astercard< no rebutting e&idence was presented by Citiban) to pro&e that A(narDs *astercard was not dishonored. Avena Evidence the CA in its state#ent o acts ound that 0speran(a :aradar died on 12 August 1942. A(nar presented a co#puter print-out. howe&er. contrary to the clai# o respondents in this case% "he 0speran(a :aradar na#ed in the OC" and the one re erred to in the a oresaid :ecision could not ha&e been the sa#e 0speran(a :aradar in the =ocal Ci&il !egistrarDs certi ication% .Phi2i55ines= B%!% 7o% 1>4. A(nar purchased plane tic)ets to @uala =u#pur or his group worth 3.222%22 or the actual da#age pro&en. which contained the list o its canceled cards co&ering the period o A(narDs trip% A(narDs wasnDt in the list% -!"C o Cebu dis#issed A(narDs co#plaint or lac) o #erit and held that as between the co#puter print-out presented by A(nar and the 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins presented by Citiban). while 0strella :aradar died on 1. A(nar #ade a total ad&ance deposit o 34?.222%22 with Citiban) with the intention o increasing his credit li#it to 3>/. !ule . ailed to pro&e the authenticity o 0xh% NBN.222%22 ro# A(nar. deno#inated as O7-=$70 AJ"'O!$.Prof. there was an i#plied no&ation and Citiban) was obligated to increase A(narDs credit li#it and ensure that A(nar will not encounter any e#barrassing situation with the use o his *astercard< Citiban)Ds ailure to co#ply with its obligation constitutes gross negligence as it caused A(nar incon&enience. CER-7ORAR7 . A.oraida. V.' . presented 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins. clai#ing a#ong others that said +udge rendered his decision without ha&ing read the transcripts% "he ad#inistrati&e case was held in abeyance pending the outco#e o the appeal iled by Citiban) with the CA% -CA ruled that9 A(nar had no personal )nowledge o the blac)listing o his card and only presu#ed the sa#e when it was dishonored in certain establish#ents< such dishonor is not su icient to pro&e that his card was blac)listed by Citiban)< 0xh% NBN is an electronic docu#ent . A% :ela 3ena was ad+udged guilty% Authentication of Private 9ocu*ent EMMAN8EL B.Jnder the circu#stances. serious anxiety. gross ignorance o the law and inco#petence.

Also. 1) the due execution and authentication o these 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins (or 6C8) ha&e been duly 125 . = and the Aarnin% Cance22ation Bu22etins the 2atter docu*ents adduced 1+ defendant are entit2ed to %reater /ei%ht than that said co*5uter 5rint out 5resented 1+ 52aintiff that 1ears on the issue of /hether the 52aintiffBs 5referred *aster card /as actua22+ 52aced in the Chot 2istD or 12acE2isted for the fo22o/in% reasons. % The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this &ule. or unable to testi y< . the authentication o 0xh% NBN would still be ound wanting% 3ertinent sections o !ule . was there ore not established% 7either did petitioner establish in what pro essional capacity did *ario or 7ubi #a)e the entries. V. (anner of authentication. #ay be recei&ed as prima facie e&idence. it only shows that the use o the credit card o petitioner was denied because it was already o&er the li#it% "here is no allegation in the Co#plaint or e&idence to show that there was gross negligence on the part o Citiban) in declaring that the credit card has been used o&er the li#it% -"he 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins (6C8) which co&ered the period when plainti tra&eled in the a ore#entioned Asian countries showed that said Citiban) pre erred #astercard had ne&er been placed in a Hhot listI or the sa#e was blac)listed. or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er. or whether the entries were #ade in the per or#ance o their duty in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% -And e&en i 0xh% NBN is ad#itted as e&idence. its due execution and authenticity #ust be pro&ed either by (a) anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< or (b) by e&idence o the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o the #a)er% -A(nar. A(nar ailed to de#onstrate how the in or#ation re lected on the print-out was generated and how the said in or#ation could be relied upon as true% -A(nar next in&o)es 1ection 4/ o !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court.Prof. #oral or religious< and .e0h. his *astercard was accepted and honored% -A(nar puts #uch weight on the O7-=$70 AJ"'O!$. the ollowing conditions are re5uired9 1% the person who #ade the entry #ust be dead.N did not actually see the docu#ent executed or written. especially in &iew o A(narDs own ad#ission that in other #erchant establish#ents in @uala =u#pur and 1ingapore. a co#puter print-out handed to A(nar by $ngtan Agency.A"$O7 -O!0$B7 ACCOJ7" AC"$L$"M !03O!". which pertains to entries in the course o business. 6O7 Citiban) is liable or da#ages% 3EL99 7O to both% On his clai#9 $t is basic that in ci&il cases. and which is being in&o)ed by A(nar in this case. its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means) *a+ by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same. urden of proving authenticity. by a person deceased or unable to testi y. % efore any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence.udge.221.% the entries were #ade in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% . its business address was not re lected in the print-out% -$ndeed. . #ar)ed as 0xh% NBN. who was in a position to )now the acts therein stated. -0xh% NBN does not show on its ace that it was issued by $ngtan Agency as A(nar #erely #entioned in passing how he was able to secure the print-out ro# the agency< A(nar also ailed to show the speci ic business address o the source o the co#puter printout because while the na#e o $ngtan Agency was #entioned by A(nar. A.2 o !ule 1/. whether legal. or *c+ by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the . the burden o proo rests on the plainti to establish his case based on a preponderance o e&idence% "he party that alleges a act also has the burden o pro&ing it% -A(nar ailed to pro&e with a preponderance o e&idence that Citiban) blac)listed his *astercard or placed the sa#e on the Nhot list% -A(nar in his testi#ony ad#itted that he had no personal )nowledge that his *astercard was blac)listed by Citiban) and only presu#ed such act ro# the dishonor o his card% -"he dishonor o A(narDs *astercard is not su icient to support a conclusion that said credit card was blac)listed by Citiban). Avena Evidence 7ssue9 6O7 A(nar has established his clai# against Citiban)% $ so. $t is not clear it was 7ubi who encoded the in or#ation stated in the print-out and was the one who printed the sa#e% "he handwritten annotation signed by a certain :arryl *ario e&en suggests that it was *ario who printed the sa#e and only handed the printout to 7ubi% -"he identity o the entrant. re5uired by the pro&ision abo&e #entioned.% the entries were #ade at or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er< A2010 /% the entrant was in a position to )now the acts stated in the entries< 4% the entries were #ade in his pro essional capacity or in the per or#ance o a duty. to pro&e that his *astercard was dishonored or being blac)listed% -8ut such exhibit cannot be considered ad#issible as its authenticity and due execution were not su iciently established by A(nar as per 1ec . read9 #ection $. *b+ by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the #upreme !ourt or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document. howe&er. who testi ied on the authenticity o 0xh% NB. to support 0xh% NBN% 1aid pro&ision reads9 1ec% 4/% -ntries in the course of business% P 0ntries #ade at. which too) e ect on August 1. neither was he able to pro&ide e&idence on the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o 7ubi. #ection '. let alone the act that all the credit cards which had been cancelled by the de endant ban) were all contained. contractual. i such person #ade the entries in his pro essional capacity or in the per or#ance o duty and in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% Jnder this rule. reported and listed in said 6arning Cancellation 8ulletin which were issued and released on a regular basis% -Citiban) produced /22 docu#ents to show that A(nar was not a#ong those ound in said bulletins as ha&ing been cancelled or the period or which the said bulletins had been issued% -Bet/een said co*5uter 5rint out . who handed to hi# said co#puter print-out% -0&en under the !ules on 0lectronic 0&idence. o the !oC% $t pro&ides that whene&er any pri&ate docu#ent o ered as authentic is recei&ed in e&idence.

) that 'eirs o 1ongco are neither co-owners o the land nor tenants thereo . thru stealth. ha&ing been inherited by the# ro# their deceased ather $nocencio 1ongco% . the 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins presented by de endants (sic) and an unauthenticated pri&ate docu#ent.) in the na#e o :e#etria =acsa. "he petition is denied or lac) o #erit% 3E7RS O. SON CO= B%!% 7os% 79. 9is5osition. OC" 7o% 794 was issued to Alberta Bue&arra and Auan =i#pin< (c) the latter "C" was in turn superseded by "C" 7o% 9. V. to gi&e it blan)et reedo# ro# liability i its card is dishonored by any #erchant a iliate for any reason% 1uch phrase renders the state#ent &ague and as the said ter#s and conditions constitute a contract o adhesion.)eirs of +ongco claim that 'eirs o =acsa lac)s cause o action. plainti Ds co#puter print out (0xh% B). it #ust not only be at least thirty (/2) years old but it #ust also be ound in the proper custody and is unble#ished by alterations and is otherwise ree ro# suspicion% "hus. had long been cancelled and superseded by "C" 7o% 794 by &irtue o the docu#ent "!A:JC$O7 (written in the 1panish language) entered into by her two daughters Alberta Bue&arra and A#brocia Bue&arra with their respecti&e husbands Auan =i#pin and :a#aso Cabais or an extra+udicial partition o the properties< (b) the Alberta Bue&arra and Auan =i#pin and the A#brosia Bue&arra and :a#aso Cabais executed on April 7. another deed o partition (in the 3a#pango dialect) wherein the ishpond in 5uestion was ad+udicated to Alberta Bue&arra and as a conse5uence. between a set o duly authenticated co##ercial docu#ents. any a#biguity in its pro&isions #ust be construed against the party who prepared the contract.) On i#plied no&ation (when he added addtDl unds to increase credit li#it)9 the Court inds that petitioner4s argu#ent on this point has no leg to stand on% On da*a%es. was the owner o a certain parcel o land consisting partly o a ishpond and partly o unculti&ated open space in Buagua. there can be da#age without in+ury to those instances in which the loss or har# was not the result o a &iolation o a legal duty% $n such cases. succeeded in occupying or possessing the ishpond o said parcel o land and caused the open space therein to be cleared or expanded occupancy thereo < (/) that they re used to &acate the sa#e despite their de#ands to &acate but later abandoned the sa#e but only a ter the case was iled and a ter all the ish were trans erred to the ad+oining ishpond owned by the#< (4) that 'eirs o 1ongco presented to the !egister o :eeds o 3a#panga certain orged and absolutely A2010 si#ulated docu#ents.)eirs of *acsa claim that Ancient :ocu#ent !ule under 1ection . "C" 7o% 794 in the na#e o the Alberta Bue&arra and Auan =i#pin was cancelled by the O ice o the !egistry o :eeds o 3a#panga and "C" 7o% 9. na#ely9 N"!A:JCC$O7 A= CA1"0==A7O :0 =A 01C!$"J!A :0 3A!"$C$O7 0V"!AAJ:$C$A=N ("!A:JC$O7) and N01C!$"J!A :0 L07"A A81O=J"AN (01C!$"J!A)< and .CA9 a ir#ed. "!A:JC$O7 and 01C!$"J!A cannot 126 .9 issued in the na#e o $nocencio 1ongco (decedent o respondents) by &irtue o a docu#ent 01C!$"J!A executed by spouses Auan =i#pin and Alberta Bue&arra in a&or o said $nocencio 1ongo and duly registered in the O ice o the !egistry o :eeds o 3a#panga as e&idenced by the certi ication o the :eputy !egister o :eeds< (d) as a result o this sale. the law a ords no re#edy or da#ages resulting ro# an act which does not a#ount to a legal in+ury or wrong% "hese situations are o ten called damnum absque in. co#petent to testi y on the said bulletins as ha&ing been issued by the de endant ban) showing that plainti Ds pre erred #aster credit card was ne&er blac)listed or placed in the 8an)Ds Hhot listI% 6hile A(narDs co#puter print out was ne&er authenticated or its due execution had ne&er been duly established% "hus.) was #erely a reconstituted copy issued in April 19?/ upon 'eirs o =acsaDs expedient clai# that the owner4s duplicate copy thereo had been #issing when the truth o the #atter was that (a) OC" !O-12/? (117. one o the ban)Ds o icers. whiche&er is lesser9 such stipulation cannot be considered as &alid or being unconscionable as it precludes pay#ent o a larger a#ount e&en though da#age #ay be clearly pro&en% !-he inva2idit+ of the ter*s and conditions 1ein% invoEed 1+ Citi1anE' not/ithstandin%' the Court sti22 cannot a/ard da*a%es in favor of 5etitioner. who is the head o its credit card depart#ent.9 was issued to $nocencio 1ongco . -the Court agrees with A(nar that the ter#s and conditions o Citiban)Ds *astercard constitute a contract o adhesion% $t is settled that contracts between cardholders and the credit card co#panies are contracts o adhesion. !ule 1/..Prof.. and should not be held liable there or.97-9? 3A:$==A< *ay . 19. *-! denied . it is incorrect. hurt. e&idenced by OC" !O-12/? (117. because their ter#s are prepared by only one party while the other #erely a ixes his signature signi ying his adhesion thereto% -On 3ar 7 o said contract9 6hile it is true that Citiban) #ay ha&e no control o all the actions o its #erchant a iliates. ownership with da#ages and preli#inary in+unction (Ci&il Case . or the reason that OC" !O-12/? (117./. howe&er. "-. the or#er deser&es greater e&identiary weight supporting the indings o this Court that plainti D s pre erred #aster card had ne&er been blac)listed at all or placed in a so-called Hhot listI by de endant% .3E7RS O.)< (.Citiban)% On li#iting its liability to 31) or the actual da#age pro&en. -"he underlying basis or the award o tort da#ages is the pre#ise that an indi&idual was in+ured in conte#plation o law< thus there #ust irst be a breach be ore da#ages #ay be awarded and the breach o such duty should be the proxi#ate cause o the in+ury% -the Court cannot grant his present petition as he ailed to show by preponderance o e&idence that Citiban) breached any obligation that would #a)e it answerable or said su ering% .) iled 'y )eirs of *acsa against 'eirs o 1ongco (1) that during :e#etria =acsaDs (decedent) li eti#e. so-called.uria.. the conse5uences #ust be borne by the in+ured person alone.2./ v. Avena Evidence established and identi ied by Citiban)Ds witness. and."C9 the ishpond in 5uestion belongs to 'eirs o 1ongco. :ennis -lores. raud and other or#s o #achination.Action or reco&ery o possession with da#ages and preli#inary in+unction (Ci&il Case 1) and action or cancellation o title. 1991 (owen) . !A) xxxQ there is a #aterial distinction between da#ages and in+ury% $n+ury is the illegal in&asion o a legal right< da#age is the loss. LACSA V CA . is #isapplied because or a docu#ent to be classi ied as an Nancient docu#entN. 3a#panga. A. or har# which results ro# the in+ury< and da#ages are the reco#pense or co#pensation awarded or the da#age su ered% "hus.AC-S .

V.3assage o ti#e and a personDs increase in age #ay ha&e a decisi&e in luence in his handwriting characteristics% $n order to bring about an accurate co#parison and analysis.% 0&idence o execution not necessary% 6here a pri&ate writing is #ore than thirty years old. @GOR7-S8 7N-ERNA-7ONAL B! 7o% 1>27. there ore. #ore than thirty (/2) years old% 8oth copies o the a ore#entioned docu#ents were certi ied as exact copies o the original on ile with the O ice o the !egister o :eeds o 3a#panga. she sought a co-#a)er. ad#itted that he was the one who orged her signature and #ortgaged the property to @yoritsu% 'ence. an action was iled by petitioner on *arch 12. A.CA re&ersed and set aside the +udg#ent o the trial court% $t held that petitionerDs signatures on the !0* and pro#issory note were not orged. there ore. her son 6illia# =ao% Jpon appro&al o the loan. so that one part co#es ro# CO -ON v.7.) As to the last re5uire#ent that the docu#ent #ust on its ace appear to be genuine. which were certi ied as copied o the originals on ile with the !egister o :eeds o 3a#panga. &erbal de#ands were #ade upon the petitioner and =ao to pay% :espite the extension.222 to co&er the loan% . in order that they #ay bind third parties. there ore. R le !". is produced ro# a custody in which it would naturally be ound i genuine.4% "hese docu#ents are.illed application which was signed by 127 .@yoritsu re5uired =ao to issue postdated chec)s% 1ince so#e o the chec)s bounced. petitioner and =ao signed a pro#issory note and deed o !0*% A ter that. #ust be recorded with the appropriate !egister o :eeds% "he docu#ents in 5uestion.2 Aanuary 19. Ar%. it is not enough that it be #ore than thirty (/2) years old< it is also necessary that the ollowing re5uire#ents are ul illed< (1) that it is produced ro# a custody in which it would naturally be ound i genuine< and (. this Court scrutini(ed the e&idence on record to deter#ine whether the signature o petitioner was in act orged% . the last re5uire#ent o the Nancient docu#ent ruleN that a docu#ent #ust be unble#ished by any alteration or circu#stances o suspicion re ers to the extrinsic 5uality o the docu#ent itsel "he lac) o signatures on the irst pages.9 SJ$1J*8$7B< Auly . by the :eputy !egister o :eeds% "here is a urther certi ication with regard to the 3a#pango translation o the docu#ent o extra+udicial partition which was issued by the Archi&es di&ision. the standards o co#parison #ust be as close as possible in point o ti#e to the suspected signature% "he standards should. i possible. 8ureau o !ecords *anage#ent o the :epart#ent o Beneral 1er&ices% :ocu#ents which a ect real property.AC-S ..@yoritsu denies petitionerDs allegation o orgery and alleges that she is its legiti#ate creditor% @yoritsu presented in court *r% Beorge Busilatar. they did not pay% 6hen petitioner recei&ed the de#and letter. no other e&idence o its execution and authenticity need be gi&en%N Reasoning (1) "!A:JC$O7 was executed on 7 April 19.of the R les of Co rt states that: N10C% . absent any alterations or circu#stances o suspicion cannot be held to detract ro# the act that the docu#ents in 5uestion.Ancient Doc ment R le. the head o its credit in&estigation panel% Busilatar testi ied that petitioner went to the o ice o @yoritsu< that she sub#itted a duly. the irst two (. she ailed to do so% 'ence. ha&e been #ade at the sa#e ti#e as the suspected docu#ent% "he standards should e#brace the ti#e o the origin o the docu#ent."C declared that the signatures o petitioner were orged< that the deed o !0* and the pro#issory note were null and &oid< and that @yoritsu should return to petitioner her copy o the "rans er Certi icate o "itle and all docu#ents relating to the land in 5uestion% $t also en+oined the sheri o 3asay City ro# doing any act in urtherance o the intended oreclosure and auction sale o the property% . 'eirs o =acsa did not present any conclusi&e e&idence to support their allegation o alsi ication o the said docu#ents% "hey #erely alluded to the act that the lac) o signatures on the irst two (.227 (glaisa) . and that the signatures thereon are not hers but orgeries% 1he also a&ers that her son. 6illia# =ao./ whereas 01C!$"J!A was executed on . provided in +ec$ --.) pages could ha&e easily led to their substitution% As held in one case. . she called up @yoritsuDs o ice and pro#ised to pay% 'owe&er.Cogtong learned ro# the 7otice o 1heri Ds 1ale that her house and lot had been #ortgaged to @yoritsu% 1he clai#s that she did not execute a deed o !eal 0state *ortgage (!0*) nor a pro#issory note in a&or o @yoritsu. are genuine and ree ro# any ble#ish or circu#stances o suspicion% Disposition 3etition is :07$0:% CA a ir#ed A2010 her< that upon his ad&ice. or pro&ed to be genuine to the satis action o the +udge% "he Court #ay &alidly deter#ine orgery ro# its own independent exa#ination o the docu#entary e&idence at hand% 'ence. the oreclosure proceedings% . Avena Evidence 5uali y because the N irst pagesN o said docu#ents do not bear the signatures o the alleged parties thereto.) that it is unble#ished by any alteration or circu#stances o suspicion% . a contract apparently honest and law ul on its ace #ust be treated as such and one who assails the genuineness o such contract #ust present conclusi&e e&idence o alsi ication% *oreo&er.N or a pri&ate ancient docu#ent to be exe#pt ro# proo o due execution and authenticity.Prof. can be said to be ound in the proper custody% Clearly.) re5uire#ents o the Nancient docu#ent ruleN were #et% (. and should be gi&en e ect% 7SS8E 6O7 petitioner CogtongDs signature was orged% 3EL9 7O% "he genuineness o a handwriting #ay be pro&ed by a co#parison #ade by the court o the 5uestioned handwriting and writings ad#itted or treated as genuine by the party against who# the e&idence is o ered. 1997 see)ing to en+oin @yoritsu ro# proceeding with the extra+udicial oreclosure sale% . a chec) was issued by @yoritsu in the a#ount o 3//9. being certi ied as copies o originals on ile with the !egister o :eeds o 3a#panga. and is unble#ished by any alterations or circu#stances o suspicion. this constitutes an indelible ble#ish that can beget unli#ited alterations% 7SS8E 6O7 CA erred in applying the HAncient :ocu#ent !uleI on the 5uestioned docu#ent entitled 401C!$"J!A :0 3A!"$C$O7 0V"!AAJ:$C$A=4 and 401C!$"J!A :0 L07"A A81O=J"A 3EL9 7O Ratio Jnder the Nancient docu#ent rule.

4/."he !"C did not gi&e credence to the tax declaration as well as the se&eral docu#ents showing the City AssessorDs assess#ent o the A2010 property all in 3rudencioDs na#e since tax declarations are not conclusi&e proo o ownership% .< April 19. the carpenter.Jpon appeal to the CA.0xcept or the bare testi#onies o Candelario !egua. a burden which petitioner ailed to discharge con&incingly% 'ere.Prof. -lorentino could )eep the ground loor while 3rudencio could ha&e the second loor% . . no e&idence was presented by petitioner to o&erco#e this presu#ption% Other than her own declaration that her signatures on the 5uestioned docu#ents were orged and the prayer boo)lets which she presented during trial. petitioner ailed to o&erride the e&identiary &alue o the duly notari(ed deed o !0* and pro#issory note% As a notari(ed docu#ent. T 3rudencio wrote -lorentino. hence.6ithout 3rudencioDs )nowledge. as)ing the latter to &acate the house as the or#er was due or retire#ent% "his re5uest was acceded to by -lorentino and 1usana when they #igrated to the J1 in 19?>% . this Court cannot accept the clai# o orgery in the absence o other witnesses."he said power o attorney was ne&er o ered. that it was -lorentino who constructed the house and Cora(on Barcia.222 ro# April 19?? until 3arel &acates the house% . sa&e or petitioner hersel . petitioner presented no other proo to corroborate her clai#% 1uch an allegation and e&idence are insu icient to o&erco#e a notari(ed docu#entDs presu#ption o due execution% 'ence. T 3rudencio iled a co#plaint or reco&ery o possession and da#ages against 3arel% 3rudencio alleged that he owned a two-storey residential house in 8aguio City. written or oral. that -lorentino and his a#ily stayed on the house not as co-owners but as #ere lessees.-lorentino was an allocatee o the land on which the sub+ect house was erected. Avena Evidence the ti#e be ore the origin and one part ro# the ti#e a ter the origin% .22/ in CA-B! CL 7o% >. there is nothing to re ute the e&idence o ered by respondent% . . express or i#plied.> AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70. 3arel alleges that his parents are the co-owners o the said house% 'e clai# that he occupied the ground loor o the house with his ather -lorentinoDs )nowledge% . nor any other proo that would clearly establish his sole ownership o the house% .7. as one o the lowly-paid go&ern#ent e#ployees at that ti#e when then *ayor =uis =ardi(abal ga&e the# the chance to construct their own house on said reser&ation% .-ebruary . su icient to establish 3rudencioDs case which constitute at least proo that the holder has a clai# o title o&er the property% 7SS8ES 6O7 3arel was able to pro&e by preponderance o e&idence that his ather was a co-owner o the sub+ect two-storey residential house 3EL9 M01 128 . 3rudencio allowed 3arelDs parents (the late -lorentino and 1usana) to #o&e in so that the couple could super&ise the construction o the house and to sa eguard the #aterials% 6hen the second storey was co#pleted.22> (aida) NA-8RE 3etition or certiorari .ore#an.$n 197/. 199. who would testi y that petitionerDs signatures on the prayer boo)lets are in act her custo#ary way o signing% Dispositive the instant petition is :07$0: or lac) o #erit% "he assailed :ecision dated *arch 17. and was co#pleted a ter three years% . A.3rudencio and -lorentino agreed to contribute their #oney to co#plete the house% 1ince the land on which said house was erected has been allocated to -lorentino. 3arel and a#ily unlaw ully entered the house and too) possession o the ground loor% "hey re used to lea&e despite 3rudencioDs de#ands which pro#pted the respondent to institute an action or reco&ery% 3rudencio also as)ed or a #onthly rental o 3/. the deed o !0* and pro#issory note en+oy the presu#ption o due execution% 'owe&er.7o&e#ber 19?."he !"C ound that the house was co-owned by -lorentino and 3rudencio thus the latter cannot e&ict 3arel% "he !"C ound that9 . when the second storey o the house was undergoing construction."he CA also ound the tax declarations and o icial receipts representing pay#ents o real estate taxes o the 5uestioned property co&ering the period 1974 to 199. V.3rudencio ailed to show proo o any contract.$n his counterclai#.22/ o the CA and its !esolution dated 7o&e#ber 11. not -lorentino. the CA re&ersed the !"C decision% "he CA ound as #eritorious 3rudencioDs contention that since petitioner ailed to or#ally o er in e&idence any docu#entary e&idence. . are A--$!*0:% Offer of Evidence PAREL V PR89ENC7O B%!% 14>. positi&e and con&incing e&idence and whoe&er alleges it has the burden o pro&ing the sa#e.An a ida&it dated 1epte#ber . he allowed the 3arels and their children to te#porarily li&e in the house out o sheer #agnani#ity because -lorentino was his brotherin-law% .AC-S .4. was the owner o the house% "he CA ound the a ida&it to be conclusi&e proo o 3rudencioDs sole ownership o the house since it was a declaration #ade by -lorentino against his interest% .-orgery cannot be presu#ed% $t #ust be pro&ed by clear.. could not be re erred to as e&idence to support 3arelDs clai#% .$t ruled that the trial courtDs state#ent that 3arelDs occupancy o the house is due to a special power o attorney executed by his parents #ost specially the deceased -lorentino 3arel who is in act a co-owner o said buildingN is wanting o any concrete e&idence on record% . there was no supporting docu#ent which would su iciently establish actual bases or the "CDs conclusion< and that the rule on o er o e&idence is #andatory% . the parties had the understanding that once the house was co#pleted. who testi ied that the lot was allocated to -lorentino. the construction o which was unded by his own #oney and declared in his na#e under "ax :eclaration 7o% 4724?% "he construction began in 197. 197/ was issued by -lorentino% "he said a ida&it stated that 3rudencio. the or#er barangay captain.

Ar. 1e&erino (1 o the 1ps 3asag4s ? children). he."he rule on declaration against interest is in !ule 1/2. !eco&ery o 3ossession and Ownership. the sa#e were #ar)ed during the presentation o the testi#onial e&idence. there is no showing that he had re&o)ed such a ida&it e&en when a cri#inal co#plaint or trespass to dwelling had been iled by respondent against hi# and his son% . . 3artition and :a#ages iled by petitioners in the !"C against respondents% 3etitioners alleged a share o&er three (/) properties owned by respondents.6hile tax receipts and declarations are not incontro&ertible e&idence o ownership.Prof. during -lorentinoDs li eti#e. on the due date o the extension. ro# 197/ (the year he executed said a ida&it) until 19?9 (the year o his death).$n said a ida&it. . respondents asserted that the said land had been in 1e&erino4s possession and occupation since 1942. howe&er.4?/ L0=A1CO. did not ile the sa#e% "hus. they constitute at least proo that the holder has a clai# o title o&er the property% "he house which 3arel clai#s to be coowned by -lorentino had been consistently declared or taxation purposes in the na#e o 3rudencio. V. they again ailed to sub#it their o er o e&idence and #o&ed or another extension% Jn ortunately. 1ec% /?% . Avena Evidence Reasoning . petitioners as)ed the "C to gi&e the# extension to sub#it their o er o e&idence< and court granted their #otion% 'owe&er."he building plan o the residential house dated Aanuary 1>."he theory under which declarations against interest are recei&ed in e&idence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity o the occasion renders the reception o such e&idence ad&isable and. and this act. -lorentino categorically declared that while he is the occupant o the residential building. v."he testi#onies o 3arel and his witnesses ailed to show that the sub+ect house is co-owned by -lorentino and respondent% Disposition Audg#ent a ir#ed% 3E7RS O. petitioners #o&ed or the ad#ission o their o er o e&idence% 'owe&er.7otably. petitioners still ailed to sub#it their or#al o er o e&idence within the extended period% Conse5uently. as it is pre+udicial to hi#sel as well as to his childrenDs interests as his heirs% A declaration against interest is the best e&idence which a ords the greatest certainty o the acts in dispute% . and co#pulsory heir% Conse5uently."he rule on o er o e&idence is in !ule 1/. legal. parcels o land are 8oni acio4s share o which he later on renounced in a Suitclai# :eed in a&or o his brother. 1e&erino4s title had now beco#e inde easible% -$n the course o the trial. thus. "C denied i or their constant ailure to sub#it it% -!espondents iled a *": on :e#urrer to 0&idence% "C granted de#urrer to e&idence and ordered the dis#issal o the Co#plaint% 3etitioners4 *! was denied or lac) o #erit% 129 . 1ps 3asag% 'owe&er.a is #isplaced% $n ravo.. 1e&erino executed a deed o absolute sale o&er the said properties in a&or o his daughter. inexorably lead to the conclusion that respondent is the sole owner o the house sub+ect #atter o the litigation% 0 !ourt reasoning as to offer of evidence . the predecessor o respondents. thus it can properly be ta)en cogni(ance o relying in ravo. he was able to appropriate to hi#sel the properties% "herea ter. 197/ was in the na#e o respondent and his wi e% $t was established during petitionerDs crossexa#ination that the existing structure o the twostorey house was in accordance with said building plan% 0 !ourt reasoning relevant to declaration against interest . !econ&eyance."he records show that although 3arelDs counsel as)ed that he be allowed to o er his docu#entary e&idence in writing.a.. urther that the reliability o such declaration asserts acts which are against his own pecuniary or #oral interest% . or. ta)en with the other circu#stances abo&e#entioned. 1ec% /4% . the Court allowed e&idence on #inority by ad#itting the certi ied true copy o the birth certi icate attached to a #otion or bail e&en i it was not or#ally o ered in e&idence% "his was due to the act that the birth certi icate was properly iled in support o a #otion or bail to pro&e petitionerDs #inority which was ne&er challenged by the prosecution and it already or#ed part o the records o the case% "he rule re erred to in the 8ra&o case was 1ection 7 o !ule 1// o the !oC and not 1ection /4 o !ule 1/. PASA V PAROC3A B%!% 7o% 1. petitioners alleged that 1e&erino used the sa#e a ida&it o sel -ad+udication to secure a ree patent o&er an agricultural land that had long been under the possession o 8enito and -lorentina 3asag% !espondents a&erred in their Answer that the properties le t behind by the 1ps 3asag had already been partitioned a#ong their eight (?) sur&i&ing children% "hey clai#ed that the . 1e&erino% As regards /rd parcel o land. or. gi&ing hi# the right to apply or and be granted a ree patent o&er it% 'a&ing co#plied with the re5uire#ents o law. "C dee#ed wai&ed petitioners4 right to #a)e their or#al o er o e&idence% -=ater. A.227 (giulia) 7ature 3etition or !e&iew on Certiorari under !ule 4.% . clai#ed in an a ida&it o sel -ad+udication that he is the sole.A or#al o er is necessary because it is the duty o a +udge to rest his indings o acts and his +udg#ent only and strictly upon the e&idence o ered by the parties to the suit% $t is a settled rule that the #ere act that a particular docu#ent is identi ied and #ar)ed as an exhibit does not #ean that it has thereby already been o ered as part o the e&idence o a party% 3etitioner insists that although his docu#entary e&idence were not or#ally o ered. respondent -lorentina 3arocha% *oreo&er. A2010 -acts -"he instant case arose ro# a Co#plaint or :eclaration o 7ullity o :ocu#ents and "itles. which or#ed part o the estate o petitioners intestate grandparents. the CA did not consider the docu#entary e&idence presented by petitioner% ."he reliance in ravo v. A!< Apro . he is not the owner o the sa#e as it is owned by respondent who is residing in Sue(on City% $t is sa e to presu#e that he would not ha&e #ade such declaration unless he belie&ed it to be true.7.

#ay allow introduction o additional e&idence in the ollowing cases9 (a) those to be used on cross-exa#ination or re-cross-exa#ination or i#peach#ent purposes< (b) those presented on redirect exa#ination to explain or supple#ent the answers o a witness during the cross-exa#ination< (c) those to be utili(ed or rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes< and (d) those not a&ailable during the pretrial proceedings despite due diligence on the part o the party o ering the sa#e% -ro# the oregoing pro&isions.CORPORA-7ON B! 1. and not by #ere con+ectures or speculations% 7o such e&idence was presented in this case to sustain petitioners4 allegations% :ispositi&e 6'0!0-O!0. would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy ad#inistration o +ustice%N "he pre-trial guidelines and !ule 1/. petitioners ha&e ailed to su iciently pro&e their allegations% $t is a basic rule in e&idence that the burden o proo lies on the party who #a)es the allegations% 'owe&er. petitioners did not substantiate their allegations and #erely argued that the Co#plaint should be Nthreshed out in a ull blown trial in order to establish their respecti&e positions on issues Fwhich areG a #atter o +udicial appreciation%N -$t #ust be stressed that raud is not presu#ed< and it #ust be pro&ed by clear and con&incing e&idence.77>> CO!O7A< Auly 1. in its discretion. Avena Evidence -3etitioners appealed the case to the CA% CA a ir#ed the ruling o the "C% CA held that petitioners ailed to pro&e their clai# by a preponderance o e&idence% $t obser&ed that Nno concrete and substantial e&idence was adduced by FpetitionersGN to substantiate their allegation that 1e&erino. A. pieces o e&idence not identi ied or #ar)ed during the pre-trial proceedings are dee#ed wai&ed and rendered inutile% "he parties should strictly adhere to the principle o Nlaying one4s cards on the table%N $n the light o these issuances and in order to ob&iate inter#inable delay in case processing. to the e ect that the e&idence which his ad&ersary produced is insu icient in point o law (whether true or not) to #a)e out his case or sustain the issue%N (8lac)4s =aw :ictionary) -"he de#urrer challenges the su iciency o the plainti 4s e&idence to sustain a &erdict% "he court is #erely re5uired to ascertain whether there is co#petent or su icient proo to sustain the indict#ent or to support a &erdict o guilt% -$n the present case.AC-S 130 . +ointly considered #a)es it is clear that the party who ter#inated the presentation o e&idence #ust #a)e an oral o er o e&idence on the &ery day the party presented the last witness% Otherwise.227 (athe) NA-8RE. raudulently executed an a ida&it o sel ad+udication in order to exclude petitioners ro# the settle#ent o the estate o 1ps 3asag% $ssues 6O7 there was wai&er o petitioners4 o er o docu#entary e&idence 6O7 =C erred in the dis#issal o the Co#plaint on a de#urrer to e&idence% 'eld 6ai&er o the O er o 0&idence Mes% "he !ule 1/. the predecessor o respondents. or ob+ect. and list all their respecti&e pieces o e&idence whether testi#onial. docu#entary..%/4 pro&ides that Nthe court shall consider no e&idence which has not been or#ally o ered%N A or#al o er is necessary because +udges are #andated to rest their indings o acts and their +udg#ent only and strictly upon the e&idence o ered by the parties at the trial% $ts unction is to enable the trial +udge to )now the purpose or purposes or which the proponent is presenting the e&idence% "his also allows opposing parties to exa#ine the e&idence and ob+ect to its ad#issibility% *oreo&er. this can only be tolerated in extre#e cases where the ob+ect e&idence or docu#ents are large in nu#ber say ro# 122 and abo&e. V. 3etition or re&iew on certiorari . the court #ay consider the party4s docu#entary or ob+ect e&idence wai&ed% 6hile 1ec% /. the Court. e&en prior to the preli#inary con erence be ore the cler) o court or at the latest be ore the scheduled pre-trial con erence% Otherwise. we :07M the petition and A--$!* the assailed !esolution o the CA. and trial is acco#panied by the #ar)ing o the e&idence as an exhibit< while the or#al o er is done only when the party rests its case% "he #ere act that a particular docu#ent is identi ied and #ar)ed as an A2010 exhibit does not #ean that it has already been o ered as part o the e&idence% $t #ust be e#phasi(ed that any e&idence which a party desires to sub#it or the consideration o the court #ust or#ally be o ered by the party< otherwise. o !ule 1/. says that the trial court #ay allow the o er to be done in writing. both parties should obtain. abbre&iating +udicial proceedings% $t is de ined as Nan ob+ection or exception by one o the parties in an action at law. collate. it is excluded and re+ected% :is#issal o the Co#plaint on a :e#urrer to 0&idence 7o% A de#urrer to e&idence is an instru#ent or the expeditious ter#ination o an action< thus. it acilitates re&iew as the appellate court will not be re5uired to re&iew docu#ents not pre&iously scrutini(ed by the "C% -"here should be strict adherence to the rule% "he Court in Constantino &% CA ruled that the or#al o er o one4s e&idence is dee#ed wai&ed a ter ailing to sub#it it within a considerable period o ti#e% $t explained that the court cannot ad#it an o er o e&idence #ade a ter a lapse o three (/) #onths because to do so would Ncondone an inexcusable laxity i not non-co#pliance with a court order which.%/. with costs against petitioners% 1O O!:0!0:% SALAS VS S-A.Prof. the parties and lawyers should closely con or# to the re5uire#ent that the o er o e&idence #ust be done orally on the day scheduled or the presentation o the last witness% -"hus. and only where there is unusual di iculty in preparing the o er% -7o e&idence shall be allowed to be presented and o ered during the trial in support o a party4s e&idencein-chie other than those that had been identi ied below and pre-#ar)ed during the pre-trial% Any other e&idence not indicated or listed below shall be considered wai&ed by the parties% 'owe&er. MESA MAR@E. gather. the "C is bound to consider only the testi#onial e&idence presented and exclude the docu#ents not o ered% :ocu#ents which #ay ha&e been identi ied and #ar)ed as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not or#ally o ered in e&idence cannot in any #anner be treated as e&idence% 7either can such unrecogni(ed proo be assigned any e&identiary weight and &alue% $t #ust be stressed that there is a signi icant distinction between identi ication o docu#entary e&idence and its or#al o er% $denti ication o docu#entary e&idence is done in the course o the pretrial. in e ect. .

the appellate court ruled that the audited inancial state#ents were not only sel -ser&ing but also hearsay% *! . it ended its #anage#ent contract with petitioner (and $nter-Alia)% On Aune ?. they beco#e public docu#ents% 6hether a docu#ent is public or pri&ate is rele&ant in deter#ining its ad#issibility as e&idence% 3ublic docu#ents are ad#issible in e&idence e&en without urther proo o their due execution and genuineness% On the other hand. once inancial state#ents are iled with a go&ern#ent o ice pursuant to a pro&ision o law. A2010 authentication was a precondition to their ad#issibility in e&idence% 8ut in this case.2% . in this instance.794 in 19?. its due execution and authenticity #ust be pro&ed either9 a% 8y anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< or b% 8y e&idence o the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o the #a)er% Any other pri&ate docu#ent need only be identi ied as that which it is clai#ed to be% Reasoning a% 3etitioner and respondents agree that the docu#ents presented as e&idence were #ere copies o the audited inancial state#ents sub#itted to the 8$! and 10C% 7either party clai#ed that copies presented were certified true copies o audited inancial state#ents obtained or secured ro# the 8$! or the 10C which under 1ection 19(c). pri&ate docu#ents are inad#issible in e&idence unless they are properly authenticated% 1ection . as general rule. including the respondent corporation 1ta% *esa *ar)et Corporation (1**C). are. 1**C.22> B%!% 7o% 1.7// (+o+o) NA-8RE 3etition or re&iew on certiorari.roof of private documents. to testi y on the genuineness and due execution o the audited inancial state#ents o 1**C% $nstead.792 in 19?4 to 3429.. . pri&ate docu#ents% 'owe&er.. !ule 1/. the corporation su ered additional losses and incurred new liabilities (which respondents consistently ite#i(ed in their pleadings) a#ounting to 31. would ha&e been public docu#ents% "hus.2. and grandnephews and grandnieces 131 . would ha&e been the testi#ony o a representati&e o 1**C4s external auditor who prepared the audited inancial state#ents% $nas#uch as there was none. Avena Evidence 3ri#iti&o 0% :o#ingo handed the #anage#ent o his estate. to petitioner 0rnesto =% 1alas% As estate #anager.99. on the other hand.2.222.. it was unable to pay the #onthly rent% "hus. petitioner was pri#arily tas)ed to ensure 1**C4s continued &iability and pro itability by rede&eloping the 1ta% *esa #ar)et and restructuring the corporation4s inances% :o#ingo. under petitioner4s #anage#ent.1) #onths petitioner was #anaging it% PROCE98RE !"C (Action or speci ic per or#ance and da#ages) in a&or o 1alas % "he trial court considered copies o 1**C4s audited inancial state#ents which showed an i#pro&e#ent in the corporation4s #onthly a&erage gross inco#e ( ro# 3. the best proo a&ailable #ust be presented% "he best proo a&ailable. petitioners see) to reinstate decision o the !"C o *anila . i petitioner ailed to achie&e a #onthly #ar)et re&enue o at least 3/. 1**C ter#inated its lease contract with *alaca% As a result.222 yet :o#ingo re used to co#ply with his obligation to deli&er /2C o the subscribed and paid-up capital stoc) o 1**C to hi#% $n his answer. prepared by a #e#ber o his #anage#ent tea#% 6hile there is no ixed criterion as to what constitutes co#petent e&idence to establish the authenticity o a pri&ate docu#ent. 8e+arin Ai#ene( Y Co%. whether audited or not.2.9/. petitioner #erely presented a #e#orandu# attesting to the increase in the corporation4s #onthly #ar)et re&enue. 19?7. o the !ules o Court pro&ides9 1ection . A.%2> o&er the twenty-one (. V. nephews and nieces.)% CA (Appeal) T :ecision re&ersed% 3etitioner ailed to pro&e the authenticity o the audited inancial state#ents% 'e did not present a representati&e o 1**C4s external auditor.7. 8e ore any pri&ate docu#ent o ered as authentic is recei&ed in e&idence. its board o directors beca#e dissatis ied with petitioner4s #anage#ent o the corporation% "herea ter. the state#ents presented were pri&ate docu#ents% Conse5uently. petitioner presented a #e#orandu# prepared by a #e#ber o his #anage#ent tea# attesting to the increase in the corporation4s #onthly #ar)et re&enue% -or this reason.and ullblood siblings. the audited inancial state#ents were ne&er authenticated% b% "he petitioner cannot also insist on the application o an exception to this rule9 authentication is not necessary where the ad&erse party has ad#itted the genuineness and due execution o a docu#ent because the act was that nowhere in his testi#ony did A#ado :o#ingo categorically ad#it the authenticity o the copies o the audited inancial state#ents% 'e only testi ied that 1**C regularly sub#itted its audited inancial state#ents to the 8$! and 10C% "here was ne&er any ad#ission that the docu#ents presented by petitioner were true or aith ul copies o those sub#itted to the 8$! and the 10C% 97SPOS7-7ON9 3etition :07$0:% "he resolution o the Court o Appeals A--$!*0:% Aei%ht and Sufficienc+ of Evidence 9EL A9O v R8S-7A CO!O7A< Aanuary . he would be obliged to return the shares o stoc) o 1**C to :o#ingo% 1hortly a ter the execution o the contract. :o#ingo argued that petitioner was not entitled to the shares o 1**C% On the contrary.Prof.denied% 7SS8E 6O7 the CA erred in holding that the audited inancial state#ents were inad#issible in e&idence due to lac) o proper authentication 3EL9 7O% Ratio -inancial state#ents. petitioner iled an action or speci ic per or#ance and da#ages against 1**C and :o#ingo in the !"C o Sue(on City% 'e alleged that 1**C4s #onthly #ar)et re&enue had surpassed 3/. bound hi#sel to trans er /2C o 1**C4s subscribed and paid-up capital stoc) to petitioner as part o his co#pensation% 8ut. !ule 1/.AC-S Clai#ants to the estates o Builler#o !ustia and Aose a :elgado9 (1) the alleged heirs o Aose a :elgado T hal .1. leased the 1ta% *esa #ar)et to *alaca !ealty Corporation (*alaca)% 8ut it beca#e apparent soon therea ter that *alaca was inancially incapable o i#pro&ing and expanding the existing acilities o the 1ta% *esa #ar)et% $n act.

Builler#o X Aose a ^ no child but too) into their ho#e. A. The alleged heirs of 0 illermo R stia . legiti#ated.Res5ondents9 the absence o a #arriage certi icate did not o necessity #ean that no #arriage transpired< Builler#o and Aose a were #arried on Aune /. 0lisa &da% de Anson. his 3artida de Casa#iento stated that he was the natural child o -elisa. his nephews and nieces. 8=<= issued to Aosefa ".hilippine .) the alleged heirs o Builler#o !ustia T sisters. when =uis got #arried. his own lesh and blood. without a will% 1he was sur&i&ed by Builler#o and the petitioners% 1e&eral #onths later. V. and she en+oyed open and continuous possession o that status ro# her birth in 19. Aacoba and Borgonio (all natural children) Petitioners . re erred to the# as Hspouses%I Met. Builler#o executed an a ida&it o sel ad+udication o the re#aining properties co#prising her estate% The marriage of 0 illermo R stia and /osefa Delgado . her son with !a#on Osorio% =ater on.assport 7o. na#ed her as one o their children< her report card ro# J1" identi ied Builler#o as her parentRguardian% ! Res5ondents. 'ere.during this period spanning #ore than hal a century. petitioners #aintain that Aose a and Builler#o had si#ply li&ed together as husband and wi e without the bene it o #arriage% "hey #a)e #uch o the absence o a record o the contested #arriage. and the de acto adopted child (a#pun-a#punan) o the decedents% The alleged heirs of /osefa Delgado . Builler#o treated her as his daughter. its absence is not always proo that no #arriage in act too) place% . 9. petitionersD own witness whose testi#ony they pri#arily relied upon to support their position.-elisa X !a#on Osorio (union in dispute) ^ =uis :elgado -elisa X =uio Ca#po (ad#ittedly without the bene it o #arriage) ^ Hosefa. but ne&er legally adopted. although a #arriage contract is considered a pri#ary e&idence o #arriage. Titles to real properties in the name of :uillermo indicated that he was married to Aosefa. the absence o a record o the alleged #arriage did not necessarily #ean that no #arriage e&er too) place% ."hird. other evidence may be presented in support thereof. youngsters Builler#ina !ustia and 7anie !ustia . 2?2' issued to (rs. &ustia '. $28= 9. the two e&entually li&ed together as husband and wi e but were ne&er #arried< no record o the contested #arriage existed in the ci&il registry< a baptis#al certi icate na#ing Aose a as one o the sponsors re erred to her as H1eOoritaI or un#arried wo#an% . D The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted.Prof. the testi#ony o a witness attesting that they were not #arried. the passport issued to her as Aose a :% !ustia. The evidence need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage but must at least be enough to strengthen the presumption of marriage. 1919 and ro# then on li&ed together as husband and wi e until the death o Aose a . :uillermo A. &ustia on Aune '?. co22atera2 re2atives of Hosefa=9 !a#on and -elisa were ne&er #arried T no e&idence was e&er presented to establish the #arriage. his illegiti#ate child.$n 1917. they were )nown a#ong their relati&es and riends to ha&e in act been #arried% "hey presented the ollowing pieces o e&idence9 $. 0dilberta.! provides) #ec.O55ositors . signi icantly o#itting any #ention o the na#e and other circu#stances o his ather% .no/ res5ondents=. ac)nowledged natural children or natural children by legal iction%I "he petition was o&erta)en by his death% Builler#o !ustia died without a will% 7SS8ES 1% 6O7 there was a &alid #arriage between Builler#o !ustia and Aose a :elgado .I #ore than ade5uately support the presu#ption o #arriage% "hese are public docu#ents which are pri#a acie e&idence o the acts stated therein% 7o clear and con&incing e&idence su icient to o&erco#e the presu#ption o the truth o the recitals therein was presented by petitioners% .ension or !ompensation with the Jeterans Administration of the K#A wherein :uillermo himself swore to his marriage to Aosefa in (anila on 9 Aune $2$2 8.Aose a died in 197. Builler#a has no interest in the intestate estate o Builler#o as she was ne&er duly ac)nowledged as an illegiti#ate child< Buller#aDs right to co#pulsory ac)nowledge#ent prescribed when Builler#o died in 1974 and that she cannot clai# &oluntary ac)nowledge#ent since the docu#ents she presented were not the authentic writings prescribed by the new Ci&il Code% .1econd. not e&en so #uch as an allegation o the date or place o the alleged #arriage< -elisa retained the surna#e :elgado and so did =uis.*ore than a year a ter the death o Aose a. the baptis#al certi icate was conclusi&e proo only o the baptis# ad#inistered by the priest who bapti(ed the child% $t was no proo o the &eracity o the declarations and state#ents contained therein. GES &ule $9$.% 6ho are the legal heirs o Builler#o !ustiaW /% 6ho are the legal heirs o Aose a :elgadoW 4% 6ho should be issued letters o ad#inistrationW 3EL9 1. the declaration under oath o no less than Builler#o that he was #arried to Aose a and the titles to the properties in the na#e o HBuiller#o !ustia #arried to Aose a :elgado. 7a(ario.Builler#o X A#paro 1agarbarria ^ Builler#a !ustia (illegiti#ate) ui22er*a. #ection 9 of the &. Builler#o proposed #arriage to Aose a but whether a #arriage in act too) place is disputed% Petitioners. !ertificate of /dentity 7o.2 years cannot be doubted% "heir a#ily and riends )new the# to be #arried% "heir reputed status as husband and wi e was such that e&en the original petition or letters o ad#inistration iled by =uisa :elgado &da% de :anao in 197. such as the alleged single or un#arried (H1eOoritaI) ci&il status o Aose a who had no hand in its preparation% 132 . .nce the presumption of marriage arises.-irst. Avena Evidence (. Aose. 1e&eral circu#stances gi&e rise to the presu#ption that a &alid #arriage existed between Builler#o and Aose a% "heir cohabitation o #ore than . the certi icate o identity issued to Aose a as *rs% Builler#o !ustia. Application with for . Builler#o iled a petition or the adoption o Builler#ina and stated under oath Hthat he had no legiti#ate. con ir#ed that Builler#o had proposed #arriage to Aose a and that e&entually. and a baptis#al certi icate which re erred to Aose a :elgado as H1eOoritaI or un#arried wo#an% . "isputable presumptions. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence) A2010 *aa+ That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.2 until her atherDs de#ise< Aose aDs obituary which was prepared by Builler#o. the two had Hli&ed together as husband and wi e%I "his again could not but strengthen the presu#ption o #arriage% .

*'+ when the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father *or mother+L<$M by the direct acts of the latter or of his family. &oluntary recognition through authentic writing% ."he law prohibits reciprocal succession between illegiti#ate children and legiti#ate children o the sa#e parent. co#pulsory recognition through the open and continuous possession o the status o an illegiti#ate child and second. there ore. A22 her si12in%s . grandnephews and grandnieces o Aose a % Jnder Article 97. *8+ when the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father. when the period of the offense coincides more or less with that of the conception.Jnder Article 122.=ittle was said o the cohabitation or alleged #arriage o -elisa and !a#on% "he respondents chose #erely to rely on the disputable presu#ption o #arriage e&en in the ace o such counter&ailing e&idence as (1) the continued use by -elisa and =uis (her son with !a#on Osorio) o the surna#e :elgado and (. Always presu#e #arriage% 2. e&en when the illegiti#ate brothers and sisters are only o the hal blood% "he reason i#pelling the prohibition on reciprocal successions between legiti#ate and illegiti#ate a#ilies does not apply to the case under consideration% "hat prohibition has or its basis the di erence in category between illegiti#ate and legiti#ate relati&es% "here is no such di erence when all the children are illegiti#ate children o the sa#e parent. =uis and his hal -blood siblings 7a(ario. that published obituary was not the authentic writing conte#plated by the law% 6hat could ha&e been ad#itted as an authentic writing was the original #anuscript o the notice. i there are no descendants. that the rules regarding succession o legiti#ate brothers and sisters should be applicable to the#% -ull blood illegiti#ate brothers and sisters should recei&e double the portion o hal -blood brothers and sisters< and i all are either o the ull blood or o the hal -blood. Sisters' nieces and ne5he/s Builler#a is an illegiti#ate child o Builler#o% As such. ascendants. a statement before a court of record or in any authentic writing% . that the petitioners be ore us are already the nephews. &oluntary recognition #ay be #ade in the record of birth. any +udicial action or co#pulsory ac)nowledg#ent has a dual li#itation9 the li eti#e o the child and the li eti#e o the putati&e parent% On the death o either. Builler#aDs right to clai# co#pulsory ac)nowledg#ent prescribed upon the death o Builler#o% . o the new Ci&il Code. illegiti#ate children absolutely had no hereditary rights% "his draconian edict was."here was apparently no doubt that she possessed the status o an illegiti#ate child ro# her birth until the death o her putati&e ather Builler#o !ustia% 'owe&er. o the new Ci&il Code. Aacoba. the law ul heirs o Builler#o !ustia are the re#aining clai#ants. Borgonio and the decedent Aose a. or sur&i&ing spouse. they shall share e5ually% . clai#ed the status o an ac)nowledged illegiti#ate child o Builler#o only a ter the death o the latter on -ebruary . this did not constitute ac)nowledg#ent but a #ere ground by which she could ha&e co#pelled ac)nowledg#ent through the courts% -urther#ore. V. *9+ when the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed father.Jnder the new law. while witnesses testi ied that it was Builler#o hi#sel who dra ted the notice o death o Aose a :elgado which was published. howe&er. e&en i begotten with di erent persons% "hey all stand on the sa#e ooting be ore the law.fu22 and ha2f 12ood= and their chi2dren /ho /ere sti22 a2ive at the ti*e of her death A2010 . 1974 at which ti#e it was already the new Ci&il Code that was in e ect% Jnder the old Ci&il Code. na#ely. +ust li)e legiti#ate children o hal -blood relation% 6e sub#it.?. recognition #ay be co#pulsory or &oluntary% !ecognition is co#pulsory in any o the ollowing cases9 *$+ in cases of rape. A. howe&er. the collateral relati&es shall succeed to the entire estate o the deceased% "here ore.6e note.Builler#a sought recognition on two grounds9 irst. we sub#it that succession should be allowed. nieces. the right o representation in the collateral line ta)es place only in a&or o the children o brothers 133 . it ne&er ca#e to ruition and was dis#issed upon the latterDs death% 6e a ir# the ruling o both the trial court and the Court o Appeals holding her a legal stranger to the deceased spouses and there ore not entitled to inherit ro# the# ab intestato% . a will. L<'M 0 On the other hand. the action or co#pulsory recognition can no longer be iled% $n this case. not the newspaper clipping o the obituary% "he ailure to present the original signed #anuscript was atal to Builler#aDs clai#% . all surna#ed :elgado. e&ery intend#ent o the law leans toward legiti#i(ing #atri#ony% 3ersons dwelling together apparently in #arriage are presu#ed to be in act #arried% "his is the usual order o things in society and. is understood as a genuine or indubitable writing o the parent% "his includes a public instru#ent or a pri&ate writing ad#itted by the ather to be his% "he report card ro# J1" and Aose aDs obituary prepared by Builler#o do not 5uali y as authentic writings under the new Ci&il Code% "he report card did not bear the signature o Builler#o% "he act that his na#e appears there as Builer#aDs parentRguardian holds no weight since he had no participation in its preparation% 1i#ilarly. 0dilberta. or purposes o &oluntary recognition. e&en though there is un5uestionably a tie o blood between the#% $t see#s that to allow an illegiti#ate child to succeed ab intestato ro# another illegiti#ate child begotten with a parent di erent ro# that o the or#er.) =uis :elgadoDs and Caridad ConcepcionDs 3artida de Casa#iento identi ying =uis as Hhi+o natural de -elisa :elgadoI (the natural child o -elisa :elgado)% All things considered. they would be li&ing in constant &iolation o the co##on rules o law and propriety% #emper praesumitur pro matrimonio. i the parties are not what they hold the#sel&es out to be. she #ay be entitled to successional rights only upon proo o an ad#ission or recognition o paternity% 1he. Aose. who was ne&er adopted in accordance with law% Although a petition or her adoption was iled by Builler#o. consisting o his sisters."he sa#e #is ortune be alls Builler#ina. howe&er.Prof. in the handwriting o Builler#o hi#sel and signed by hi#."he clai# o &oluntary recognition #ust li)ewise ail% An authentic writing. illegiti#ate children. nieces and nephews% <. Avena Evidence 3etitioners ailed to rebut the presu#ption o #arriage o Builler#o and Aose a% $n this +urisdiction. all the children born to -elisa out o her relations with !a#on and =ucio. howe&er. we rule that these actors su iciently o&erca#e the rebuttable presu#ption o #arriage% -elisa and !a#on were ne&er #arried% 'ence. later relaxed in the new Ci&il Code which granted certain successional rights to illegiti#ate children but only on condition that they were irst recogni(ed or ac)nowledged by the parent% . abduction or seduction. would be allowing the illegiti#ate child greater rights than a legiti#ate child% 7otwithstanding this. were her natural children% .

it cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces% "here ore. belie&ing the prosecution ailed to pro&e their guilt beyond reasonable doubt% 'owe&er. the principal consideration is the interest in the estate o the one to be appointed% "he order o pre erence does not rule out the appoint#ent o co-ad#inistrators. unless the guilt o the accused is established by proo beyond reasonable doubt. they assu#e a de inite burden% $t beco#es incu#bent upon petitioners to adduce ABAR>8E? V PEOPLE B%!% 7o% 1. then the +ewelry would be returned% "he accused ailed and re used and still ailed and re used to return the +ewelries or deli&er the proceeds to :r% Map e&en a ter pre&ious de#ands (as e&idenced by the de#and letter presented as e&idence)% :r% Map was the only witness presented by the prosecution% -the de endants #o&ed to dis#iss the case by way o de#urrer to the e&idence. SARM7EN-O . not a#ong exception) 6O7 there was a inding o a pri#a acie case o 0sta a against the de endants 3EL9 GES Ratio% A prima facie case is that a#ount o e&idence which would be su icient to counterbalance the general presu#ption o innocence. plainti will ha&e to go orward with the proo % 1hould it happen that at the trial the weight o e&idence is e5ually balanced or at e5uilibriu# and presu#ptions operate against plainti who has the burden o proo .27>. and not o the burden o proo as petitioners would see# to belie&e% -6hen a pri#a acie case is established by the prosecution in a cri#inal case. $55$. respecti&ely% BA8-7S-A V. A. the pri#a acie case against the#% "his is due to the shi t in the burden o e&idence. specially in cases where +ustice and e5uity de#and that opposing parties or actions be represented in the #anage#ent o the estates. it is now or the trial court to deter#ine who were the sur&i&ing brothers and sisters (or their children) o Aose a at the ti#e o her death% "ogether with Builler#o !ustia. i not o&erthrow. 1ince Aose a had heirs other than Builler#o. Builler#o could not ha&e &alidly ad+udicated Aose aDs estate all to hi#sel % !ule 74.22> (rach) NA-8RE 134 . Avena Evidence and sisters (nephews and nieces)% Conse5uently. L!J)1<# C8EVAS' Se5te*1er 2<' 1(") (cha) NA-8RE 1pecial ci&il action o 3reli#inary $n+unction Certiorari and 3rohibition with A2010 e&idence to #eet and nulli y. i not encountered and controlled by e&idence tending to contradict it. *ilagros Corpus. and render it i#probable. 1ection 1 o the !OC is clear% Ad+udication by an heir o the decedentDs entire estate to hi#sel by #eans o an a ida&it is allowed only i he is the sole heir to the estate% J. they are entitled to inherit ro# Aose a in accordance with Article 1221 o the new Ci&il Code9 Art. No. or to pro&e other acts inconsistent with it. he cannot pre&ail% Reasoning% "he petitioners re used to present e&idence. a situation which obtains here% $t is in this light that we see it to appoint +oint ad#inistrators. he is entitled to an ac5uittal% 3ut when the trial court denies petitioners4 #otion to dis#iss by way o de#urrer to e&idence on the ground that the prosecution had established a pri#a acie case against the#. CA!3$O< Aanuary . or their children who were still ali&e at the ti#e o her death on 1epte#ber ?. #hould brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower. the latter shall be entitled to one0half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other one0half. or at least. V. .An ad#inistrator is a person appointed by the court to ad#inister the intestate estate o the decedent% $n the appoint#ent o an ad#inistrator. 197. as in the case at bar.AC-S -:r% =eticia Map charged the de endants -e 8autista. !"C denied their #otion% 7SS8ES _3ropriety o certiorari (canDt petition or certiorari i #erely in&ol&es an interlocutory order. and "eresita Lergere with esta a% "eresita Lergere was granted a separate trial% -"he in or#ation alleges that the two accused recei&ed +ewelries ro# :r% Map on consign#ent% "he pieces o +ewelry were to be sold by the accused on co##ission basis (as agents o :r% Map) and would pay or deli&er the proceeds to :r% Map i sold. de de 2a Rosa and a no*inee of the ne5he/s and nieces of ui22er*o .Prof. the only collateral relati&es o Aose a :elgado who are entitled to parta)e o her intestate estate are her brothers and sisters. raises a reasonable doubt as to their guilt% Disposition$ 6'0!0-O!0. Car2ota 9e2%ado vda. and warrant a con&iction. inding the order co#plained o to be well-ta)en and there being no gra&e abuse o discretion that attended its issuance. in the persons o Carlota :elgado &da% de de la !osa and a no#inee o the nephews and nieces o Builler#o% "hey are the next o )in o the deceased spouses :elgado and Builler#o. and the establish#ent o a pri#a acie case does not ta)e away the presu#ption o innocence which #ay in the opinion o the +ury be such as to rebut and control it% -"here is no denying that in a cri#inal case. the burden o proo does not shi t to the de ense% $t re#ains throughout the trial with the party upon who# it is i#posed ] the prosecution% $t is the burden o e&idence which shi ts ro# party to party depending upon the exigencies o the case in the course o the trial% "his burden o going orward with the e&idence is #et by e&idence which balances that introduced by the prosecution% "hen the burden shi ts bac)% -A pri#a acie case need not be countered by a preponderance o e&idence nor by e&idence o greater weight% :e endant4s e&idence which e5uali(es the weight o plainti 4s e&idence or puts the case in e5uipoise is su icient% As a result.R. the instant petition is :$1*$110: with costs against petitioners% "he 3residing Audge o the !egional "rial Court o 3a#panga where this case is now assigned. and i not. is hereby ordered to continue i##ediately with the trial o Cri#inal Case 7o% ?2? until its inal disposition% 1O O!:0!0:% .2. and this +usti ied an in erence o their guilt% "he burden o e&idence shi ted on the# to pro&e their innocence.% "hey ha&e a &ested right to participate in the inheritance% "he records not being clear on this #atter.

he is an acco#plice% . the cri#inal design o the principal by direct participation< and A2010 (.3a(. Abar5ue( was scolding or repri#anding hi# and telling hi# to stop% 7t /as not sho/n that A1arLue4 /as sto55in% Pa4 fro* he25in% A2*o6ue2a. and *asula sca#pered away% Al#o+uela told Abar5ue( that he was #erely trying to stop the group o 3a( ro# s#o)ing #ari+uana% Al#o+uela then went inside his house while Abar5ue( went ho#e% R-C and CA Ru2in%s .) the per or#ance by the acco#plice o pre&ious or si#ultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the co##ission o the cri#e% . Sue+ong. #ight a ect the result o the case% . Tumigil ka na.6e apply in this case the e5uipoise rule% Ahere the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is dou1t on /hich side the evidence 5re5onderates' the 5art+ havin% the 1urden of 5roof 2oses. 7t is *ore 2iEe2+ that A1arLue4 /as tr+in% to sto5 Pa4 fro* 6oinin% the fi%ht% Abar5ue(Ds act o trying to stop 3a( does not translate to assistance to Al#o+uela% . Sue+ong.Abar5ue( countered that he was in his residence when Al#o+uelaDs wi e in or#ed hi# that the group o 3a( was challenging Al#o+uela to a ist ight% A'ar& e1.CA a ir#ed !"C% "he CA sustained the trial court in gi&ing #ore credence to the testi#ony o 3a(% CA re+ected Abar5ue(Ds allegation that he was #erely at the cri#e scene to paci y the 5uarreling parties% 7SS8EFS 1% 6O7 the prosecution was able to establish the guilt o the accused beyond reasonable doubt . H(asyado kang matapang. they ound Sue+ong still on the ground% Al#o+uela and Abar5ue( were still in the area% -he Version of the 9efense . Abar5ue( saw Al#o+uela on the ground being strangled by Sue+ong% 3a( was holding Al#o+uelaDs waist and boxing hi# at the sto#ach% .!"C held that the prosecution ailed to pro&e that Abar5ue( was a co-conspirator o Al#o+uela in the )illing o Sue+ong% 'ence. because Al#o+uela was already grappling with Sue+ong at that ti#e% 3a( interpreted Abar5ue(Ds action as an atte#pt to pre&ent hi# ro# helping Sue+ong which was adopted by the !"C and CA% . the inculpatory acts and circu#stances are capable o two or #ore explanations. in holding and restraining 3a(. in his testi#ony. H6hyWI Al#o+uela got angry and attac)ed 3a( with a )ni e% 3a( parried the attac) with his le t ar# but sustained an in+ury% A1arLue4 he2d Pa4 on 1oth shou2ders /hi2e Bardie 5acified A2*o6ue2a. HAre you bra&eWI 3a( replied.Al#o+uela as)ed 3a(.*asula was near Al#o+uelaDs head holding a piece o stone as i waiting or a chance to hit hi#% Abar5ue( shouted at the group to stop% "he group did not heed Abar5ue(.oining the fray. V.Al#o+uela then con ronted Sue+ong and they had an altercation% 3a( tried to get away ro# Abar5ue( who continued restraining hi#% Jpon seeing Al#o+uela and Sue+ong all on the ground.Prof. or then the e&idence does not ul ill the test o #oral certainty.% 6O7 the prosecutionDs e&idence satis ied the test o #oral certainty 3EL9 7O Ratio "he rule is that the trial court is in the best position to deter#ine the &alue and weight o the testi#ony o a witness% "he exception is i the trial court ailed to consider certain acts o substance and &alue. we were going ho#e. H"he e5uipoise rule inds application i . Abarquez was trying to stop .As an acco#plice. e&en i wea). Al#o+uela and his co#panions bloc)ed their path% . the doubt should be resol&ed in his a&or% "hus9 H"he prosecution has the burden o pro&ing e&ery single act establishing guilt% "he de ense o the accused. H6hat is our atraso. which i considered.$n .3a( stated that Abar5ue( did not do anything to stop Al#o+uela% 'owe&er. there was another drin)ing session in ront o a certain Al#o+uelaDs house% As the group o 3a( was passing towards the #ain road. pre&ented the latter ro# helping Sue+ong and allowed Al#o+uela to pursue his cri#inal act without resistance% 'ence. which #eans that the acco#plice )nows o . 3a( struggled to ree hi#sel ro# Abar5ue(% 3a( approached Sue+ong and ound hi# already bloodied% Al#o+uela stabbed Sue+ong with a )ni e% 3a( tried to pull up Sue+ong but ailed% 'e ran away to as) or help% 6hen 3a( and his co#panions returned. as in this case. and concurs with.ong% 3a( clai#s that he was only trying to tal) to Al#o+uela% 'owe&er. Abar5ue( could not be con&icted as a principal in the cri#e o ho#icide% 'owe&er. *anila% "hey proceeded towards the exit o 1an Aose 1t% *eanwhile. A. who was one o 3a(Ds co#panions.eople v. proceeded to Almo2 ela(s ho se% 6hen he arri&ed at Al#o+uelaDs house.az from . the group did not heed hi# who then ired a second warning shot% 3a(. is no reason to con&ict%I . orcing hi# to ire a warning shot into the air% 1till. 3a(Ds testi#ony does not show that Abar5ue( concurred with Al#o+uelaDs cri#inal design% HTumigilI literally #eans Hstop%I !learly.Met. "ong. 3a( could not ha&e been #erely tal)ing to Al#o+uela. 3a( testi ied that Abar5ue(Ds son 8ardie. which cannot exist without the pre&ious cogni(ance o the cri#inal act intended to be executed% Mere 5resence of the accused at the cri*e scene cannot 1e inter5reted to *ean that he co**itted the cri*e char%ed% . was the one trying to paci y Al#o+uela% 135 . 3a( as)ed Abar5ue(. 'eing a 'arangay kagawad. the trial court ruled that Abar5ue(. 3a( ad#itted that while restraining hi#. why did you bloc) our wayWI Abar5ue( answered.AC-S -he Version of the Prosecution . and does not su ice to produce a con&iction%I Reasoning $n con&icting Abar5ue(. not from helping Nue. as he tried to portray.% 7O Ratio 6hen there is doubt on the guilt o an accused. Avena Evidence 3etition or re&iew o the CA decision a ir#ing !"C which ound Abar5ue( guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an acco#plice in the cri#e o ho#icide . tumigil ka na%I . one needs to ha&e had both )nowledge o and participation in the cri#inal act%I Reasoning "his #ust concur be ore a person beco#es liable as an acco#plice9 (1) community of design. Babros9 H"o be dee#ed an acco#plice. the !"C and CA relied #ainly on the testi#ony o 3a(% Pa4 testified that he /as he2d 1+ A1arLue4 on the shou2ders' thus 5reventin% hi* fro* he25in% >ue6on% /ho /as %ra552in% /ith A2*o6ue2a. Abar5ue(Ds son 8ardie and *asula were on their way ho#e ro# a drin)ing party in 1ta% *esa."he prosecution charged Abar5ue( with the cri#es o ho#icide and atte#pted ho#icide in two $n or#ations% (Sue+ong died< 3a( was in+ured%) . the cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance )nowingly rendered. one o which is consistent with the innocence o the accused and the other consistent with his guilt.

#ilitary or popular rising.2. urniture.% 9BP POOL O. in&asion."he prosecution argues that Abar5ue( was re#iss in his duties as a barangay )agawad in not extending assistance to the then wounded Sue+ong% "his."he docu#entary e&idence #ay be considered exceptions to the hearsay rule. .2. Abar5ue( was not aware o the extent o Sue+ongDs in+ury and he expected 3a( to loo) a ter his own co#panion% Disposition 3etition granted% 6e AC>87.22> (owen) NA-8RE 3etition or certiorari under !ule 4. they went out shouting H*abuhay ang 73AI% X persons who# they in&estigated and actually saw the burning o the station were not presented as witnesses X docu#entary e&idence.. A. rebellion. V.C legal interest ro# *arch . the certi ication issued by the $ntegrated 7ational 3olice o 8acolod City and the ire in&estigation report prepared by 1-O $$$ !ochas is dee#ed su icient (0ntry in O icial !ecords) .. who owns se&eral broadcasting stations all o&er the country.AC-S . with the #odi ication that the applicable interest rate reduced to >C per annu#% *-! denied% .% 7O .9. directly or indirectly.All these docu#ents show that indeed. while :83 co&ered !A:$ODs trans#itter. ixture and other trans#itter acilities or 3. do not satis actorily pro&e that the author o the burning were #e#bers o the 73A%% CA X police blotter o the burning o :M'8 X certi ication o the 7egros Occidental $ntegrated 7ational 3olice. 19?? X testi#onies o =t% Col% "orres and 1-O $$$ !ochas 7SS8ES A2010 1% 6O7 police blotter o the burning o :M'8. hostilities. o any o the ollowing conse5uences. 8acolod City regarding the incident X letter o alleged 73A #e#bers *agsilang clai#ing responsibility or the burning o :M'8 X ire in&estigation report dated Auly .% 6O7 the reports o witnesses =t% Col "orres and 1-O $$ !ochar that the bystanders they inter&iewed clai#ed that the perpetrators were #e#bers o the C33R73A is an exception to the hearsay rule as part o res gestae (6eight and 1u iciency o 0&idence) 3EL9 1% 7O . the HsuspectedI executor o the ire were belie&ed to be #e#bers o the C33R73A% 8ut suspicion alone is not su icient. poured gasoline in it and then lit it% A ter that.2 persons suspected to be C33R73A. Avena Evidence . the ci&il case% . it cannot be ad#it as conclusi&e proo that the C33-73A was really in&ol&ed in the incident considering that he ad#itted that he did not personally see the ar#ed #en e&en as he tried to pursue the#% 7ote that when =t% Col% "orres was presented as witness. being entries in o icial records. which includes a letter released by the 73A #erely #entions so#e dissatis action with the acti&ities o so#e people in the #edia in 8acolod.RTC Makati9 in a&or o !A:$O% 3!OL$:07" to pay 34. being an ad#ission o person which is not a party to the present action. howe&er. none o these docu#ents categorically stated that the perpetrators were #e#bers o the C33R73A% Z police blotter9 Ha group o persons acco#panied by one (1) wo#an all belie&ed to be C33R73A Q #ore or less . ci&il war% (d) *utiny. or warli)e operations (whether war be declared or not). he was presented 136 .CA: a ir#ed the decision.>. 19?? e&ening. Abar5ue( shouted at hi# that he le t his wounded co#panion% Apparently.Auly .2 or #ore ar#ed #en belie&ed to be #e#bers o the 7ew 3eopleDs Ar#y 73A.. !oC see)ing the re&iew o the CA :ecision a ir#ing !"C *a)ati :ecision reducing interest rate to >C per annu# .2.222%22 plus 1. who clai#s to be a #e#ber o 73A-7$!OC. ACCRE97-E9 7NS8RANCE COMPAN7ES V RA97O M7N9ANAO NE-AOR@'7NC B%!% 7o% 1472/9 AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70.222%22 under a -ire $nsurance 3olicy.DBP assails: actual inding o both !"C and CA that its e&idence ailed to support its allegation that the loss was caused by an excepted ris). (#e#bers o the C33R73A) !"C X testi#ony o witnesses =t% Col% "orres and 13O/ !ochar.Prof.I Z certi ication ro# the 8acolod 3olice station9 HQ so#e .. was li#ited to the act that an in&estigation was conducted and in the course o the in&estigation they were in or#ed by bystanders that Hhea&ily ar#ed #en entered the trans#itter house.% 6O7 the testi#ony o =t% Col% "orres is ad#issible /% 6O7 the letter o *agsilang.I Z ire in&estigation report9 H($)t is there ore belie&ed by this $n&estigating "ea# that the cause o the ire is intentional. na#ely9 (c) 6ar.Co&erdale Abar5ue( y 0&angelista as an acco#plice in the cri#e o ho#icide in Cri#inal Case 7o% 94-1/. does not necessarily show concurrence in Al#o+uelaDs cri#inal act% 6hen 3a( ran away.< Aanuary .7.244. act o oreign ene#y. is ad#issible (Ad#ission Y Con essions) 4% 6O7 the excepted ris) was not pro&en by :83 . riot.. 1992% . 1992 the date o the iling o the Co#plaint% :83 to pay 3>2."he only person who see#s to be so sure that that the C33-73A had a hand in the burning o :M'8 was =t% Col% "orres% 'owe&er.C legal interest ro# *arch . and the ar#ed #en suspected to be #e#bers o the C33R73A were the ones responsible QI . who were ad#ittedly not present when the ire occurred.242%22% !A:$O sought reco&ery under the two insurance policies but the clai#s were denied on the ground that the cause o loss was an excepted ris) excluded under condition no% > (c) and (d) >% "his insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in conse5uence.>22%22 plus 1.!adio *indanao 7etwor).??/.2%22 under a -ire $nsurance 3olicy% ... preponderance o e&idence being the 5uantu# o proo % . !A:$ODs station in 8acolod City was ra(ed by ire causing da#age in the a#ount o 31. #ilitary or usurped power% "he insurance co#panies denied the clai#s by #aintaining that the e&idence showed that the ire was caused by #e#bers o C33R73A% 'ence. insurrection. ne&ertheless. iled a ci&il case against :83 3ool o Accredited $nsurance Co#panies (:83) and 3ro&ident $nsurance Corporation (3!OL$:07") or reco&ery o insurance bene its% 3!OL$:07" co&ered !A:$ODs trans#itter e5uip#ent and generating set or 31/. re&olution.7. $nc% (!A:$O). though his testi#ony is persuasi&e.

and it see#ed to her that so#eone was being strangled% -1he recogni(ed the &oice as belonging to her play#ate. and ro# this it ollows that an insurer see)ing to de eat a clai# because o an exception or li#itation in the policy has the burden o pro&ing that the loss co#es within the pur&iew o the exception or li#itation set up% $ a proo is #ade o a loss apparently within a contract o insurance. or a ter the co##ission o the cri#e. they ound :yesebel4s body near the ri&er.Prof. in the presence o 137 . #e#ory.. or so#eone identi ied in legal interest with hi#. the bystanders already had enough ti#e and opportunity to #ill around. A.0&en assu#ing that the declaration o the bystanders that it was the #e#bers o the C33R73A who caused the ire #ay be ad#itted as e&idence. and resu#ed the ollowing #orning -6hile they was searching or :yesebel. SJ$1J*8$7B. +oined by :yesebel4s ather. V. :yesebel was in the co#pany o accused-appellant Licente Lalla. they were +oined by appellant who trailed behind the#% -At around 11 a#. *ila. :yesebel de la Cru( (? yRo)% -rightened by such thought. &icti#s. which #eans those acts which are deri&ed ro# his perception% A witness #ay not testi y as to what he #erely learned ro# others either because he was told or read or heard the sa#e% 1uch testi#ony is considered hearsay and #ay not be recei&ed as proo o the truth o what he has learned% "he hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability o hearsay e&idence inas#uch as such e&idence are not gi&en under oath or sole#n a ir#ation and.!es gestae.Conse5uently. the burden is upon the insurer to pro&e that the loss arose ro# a cause o loss which is excepted or or which it is not liable. 1991. be a startling occurrence< (. is a party to the action% 4% M01 . tal) to one another and exchange in or#ation. the testi#onies o 1-O $$$ !ochar and =t% Col% "orres that these state#ents were #ade #ay be considered as independently rele&ant state#ents gathered in the course o their in&estigation. re ers to those excla#ations and state#ents #ade by either the participants. . !ule 1/2 !oC% An ad#ission is co#petent only when the declarant. then the burden o e&idence shi ted to :83 to pro&e such exception% $t is only when petitioner has su iciently pro&en that the da#age or loss was caused by an excepted ris) does the burden o e&idence shi t bac) to respondent who is then under a duty o producing e&idence to show why such excepted ris) does not release petitioner ro# any liability . while passing by the rice ield in 8rgy $layang "ayu#an.AC-S -On April 14.$t is reasonable to assu#e that when these state#ents were noted down. yRo). or spectators to a cri#e i##ediately be ore. who ad#itted that he raped and )illed :yesebel% "herea ter. since :83 alleged an excepted ris). and that both o the# were tas)ed to watch the rice ield% "hey went to the rice ield but appellant was not there% Allarey learned ro# a barangay tanod that appellant was drin)ing li5uor in a riend4s house% 'e su##oned appellant but the latter ailed to i##ediately report to hi# -Allarey and his party started their search that a ternoon.% 7O . and are ad#issible not as to the &eracity thereo but to the act that they had been thus uttered% .222 (apple) NA-8RE Appeal ro# a decision o the !"C .. ha&e not been sub+ected to crossexa#ination by opposing counsel to test the perception. not to #ention theories and speculations. the res gestae.A witness can testi y only to those acts which he )nows o his personal )nowledge.?.Ad#issibility o e&idence should not be e5uated with its weight and su iciency% Ad#issibility o e&idence depends on its rele&ance and co#petence. went to 8rgy Captain Aristeo Allarey to report that her daughter was #issing% -A search party was organi(ed by Allarey.Jnder 1ection . Bon(alo -Captain Allarey learned ro# Bon(alo that. #ore i#portantly. earlier. or ro# a cause which li#its its liability% . the duty or the burden o e&idence shi ts to :83 to contro&ert !A:$OD1 pri#a acie case% $n this case. *yra sca#pered and proceeded to the crossing where she was originally headed% -4 p#9 :yesebel4s #other. heard a &oice co#ing ro# the direction o the orested area o the place. with her nec) blac)ened and her &agina bloodied% 1he was still wearing her dress but her panty had been pulled down to her #id-thigh% -Allarey and his co#panions con ronted appellant. loss ro# such a ris) constitutes a de ense which the insurer #ay urge.4.) the state#ents were #ade be ore the declarant had the ti#e to contri&e or de&ise a alsehood< and (/) that the state#ents #ust concern the occurrence in 5uestion and its i##ediate attending circu#stances% . during.$n insurance cases. when the circu#stances are such that the state#ents were #ade as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excite#ent o the occasion and there was no opportunity or the declarant to deliberate and to abricate a alse state#ent% "he rule in res gestae applies when the declarant hi#sel did not testi y and pro&ided that the testi#ony o the witness who heard the declarant co#plies with the ollowing re5uisites9 (1) that the principal act. as is the usual experience in dis5uieting situations where hysteria is li)ely to ta)e place% $t cannot there ore be ascertained whether these utterances were the products o truth% "hat the utterances #ay be #ere idle tal) is not re#ote% At best. since it has not assu#ed that ris). it is su icient or !A:$O to pro&e the act o da#age or loss% Once !A:$O #a)es out a pri#a acie case in its a&or. &eracity and articulateness o the out-o -court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the worth o the out-o -court state#ent depends% . as an exception to the hearsay rule. his opinion on the identity or #e#bership o the ar#ed #en with the C33-73A is not ad#issible in e&idence% /% 7O . Aanuary . 9 a#9 *yra 3ines (1. he addressed :yesebel4s ather. while the weight o e&idence pertains to e&idence already ad#itted and its tendency to con&ince and persuade% . where a ris) is excepted by the ter#s o a policy which insures against other perils or ha(ards. it does not ollow that such declarations are su icient proo % "hese declarations should be calibrated &is-[-&is the other e&idence on record% Disposition 3etition is :$1*$110:% A2010 PEOPLE V VALLA B%!% 7o% 111. Avena Evidence as an ordinary witness only and not an expert witness% 'ence.

*. year-old play#ate. appellant was charged with the cri#e o Nrape with #urderN -Jpon arraign#ent. the Court will so declare and direct that the proper co#plaint or in or#ation be iled% "he resolution o dis#issal is not based on the e&idence presented and is not warranted by the acts thus ar a&ailable to O*8% "hese docu#ents (`s . and deter#ine i he was telling the truth or not% -"he alleged inconsistency in the testi#ony o Allarey as to whether appellant i##ediately reported to hi# a ter being su##oned. he said that appellant i##ediately reported to hi#% Appellant also contends that *erle4s testi#ony that appellant was NtulalaN at the ti#e he con essed to the co##ission o the cri#e was inconsistent with appellant4s alleged begging or orgi&eness or the cri#e 7SS8E 6O7 the testi#onies o the prosecution witnesses should be gi&en ull aith and credence despite the inconsistencies 3EL9 Mes% -As consistently held by the Court. but also inality.% an a ida&it by one o the pri&ate respondents. duly assisted by counsel de oficio. Allarey narrated that when he su##oned appellant. 1992. and that the contents are pure hearsay because it wasnDt a ir#ed by :isini% 7SS8E 6O7 O*8 acted without or in excess o his +urisdiction. were a#ong those who were presented by the prosecution as witnesses -"C ound appellant guilty o the cri#e o Nrape with ho#icideN -'ence. $nc% ('B$ or short). *anahan ("he a ida&it stated the di&est#ent plan to turn o&er shares to *arcos)< /% the stoc) certi icates o L$*C and "0C ound in *alacaOang a ter the late 3resident led the country% O*8. o ering his own daughter in pay#ent o :yesebel4s li e which he too). the stoc) certi icates showed that pri&ate respondents. o !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court% Dispostion Assailed decision a ir#ed REP8BL7C' re5resented 1+ PC v. Avena Evidence Allarey and co#pany. ga&e to the or#er Chie 0xecuti&e shares o stoc) o Lulcan $ndustrial and *ining Corporation A2010 (L$*C) and "he 0nergy Corporation ("0C) worth 342* and 3. A. --urther.. and /% O*8 said the letter written by :isini to *arcos had no e&identiary &alue because it wasnDt identi ied nor authenticated by a 5uali ied person. who heard the &icti#4s cries as she was being strangled. respecti&ely. or with gra&e abuse o discretion a#ounting to lac) or excess o +urisdiction. both subsidiaries o 'erdis Broup. appellant. a local corporation controlled by :isini% "he stoc) certi icates co&ering the abo&e #entioned shares o stoc)s were a#ong the docu#ents ound in *alacaOang in the possession o the late 3resident when he led to 'awaii so#eti#e in -ebruary 19?>% 3CBB sub#itted the ollowing in support o its charge9 1% letter o 'er#inio :isini. a personal riend and gol ing partner o the late 3resident -erdinand 0% *arcos. and / abo&e) constituted probable cause or &iolation o 1ections / and 4 o !epublic Act 7o% /219. !7n fact' so*e *inor inconsistencies cou2d sho/ that the /itness /as not 5revious2+ coached so as to tai2or his testi*on+' and thus the+ serve as 1ad%es of credi1i2it+. the trial +udge was in a &antage position to assess his de#eanor. the latter did not i##ediately appear. and Aristeo Allarey. were turned o&er by hi# to the late 3resident *arcos< .. the Anti-Bra t and Corrupt 3ractices Act% 1tated in the a ida&it was a di&est#ent plan to turn o&er se&eral shares o L$*C and "0C to the or#er 3resident% *oreo&er. Bon(alo de la Cru(. appellant clai#s that the testi#ony o prosecution witness Allarey was inconsistent since on direct exa#ination. the &icti#4s 1. pri&ate respondent 'er#inio "% :isini. in conspiracy with 138 .AC-S 3CBB iled a co#plaint against pri&ate respondents (so#e *arcos cronies) or &iolation o Anti-Bra t and Corrupt 3ractices Act (!A /219)% O#buds#an (O*8) dis#issed the co#plaint or lac) o actual basis to charge the# o the o ense charged% $t is alleged that.. the trial +udge4s e&aluation o the testi#ony o a witness is generally accorded not only the highest respect. but on cross-exa#ination.CJ7A ($na) .227< A.. . V. the declaration o appellant ac)nowledging his guilt o the o ense #ay be gi&en in e&idence against hi# under 1ection // o !ule 1/2 o the !e&ised !ules o Court% 7ote that his extra+udicial con ession is corroborated by the corpus delicti as re5uired by 1ection / o !ule 1//% -"he state#ent o the accused as)ing or orgi&eness and e&en o ering his own daughter in exchange or his cri#e #ay also be regarded as part o the res gestae under 1ection 4. and begged or orgi&eness% -On August 14.1. considered only `1 abo&e and ignored `s . and in the testi#ony o *erle that appellant was NtulalaN at the ti#e he ad#itted responsibility or the cri#e. unless so#e weighty circu#stance has been ignored or #isunderstood but which could change the result% -'a&ing had the direct opportunity to obser&e the witness on the stand. 19?. #e#bers o the search party. wherein shares o stoc)s o L$*C and "0C. particularly the barangay o icials. in issuing the assailed resolution and order R8L7N M01% "he rule is O*8 ruling will not be o&erturned as long as substantial e&idence supports it% 'owe&er. #erely re er to #inor details which do not in actuality touch upon the NwhysN and Nwhere oresN o the cri#e co##itted% -7nconsistencies in the testi*on+ of /itnesses /hen referrin% on2+ to *inor detai2s and co22atera2 *atters do not affect the su1stance of their dec2aration' their veracit+' or the /ei%ht of their testi*on+. had no #oti&e to alsely testi y against appellant% -Also. on *arch 11. A2thou%h there *a+ 1e inconsistencies on *inor detai2s' the sa*e do not i*5air the credi1i2it+ of the /itnesses /here there is consistenc+ in re2atin% the 5rinci5a2 occurrence and 5ositive identification of the assai2ants./ Aanuary . as there appears to be here. the prosecution witnesses. entered a plea o not guilty -*yra 3ines. the present appeal -$n his brie . OMB 9ES7ER-O B! 1/. $nc%. which shares o stoc) were in the na#e o 'erdis Broup. where there appears to be a gra&e abuse o discretion. in its dis#issal o the co#plaint.Prof. !eynaldo *erle.

raises se&eral points which he says entitles hi# to no less than an ac5uittal% The assessment of credi'ility of witnesses lies with the trial co rt$ -LalerosoDs &ersion o the #anner and place o his arrest goes into the actual indings #ade by the trial court and its calibration o the credibility o witnesses% 'owe&er. acting on the acts within the )nowledge o the prosecutor. he )new &ery well the latterDs handwriting and signature% 'ence. . -13O. a inding o probable cause does not re5uire an in5uiry into whether there is su icient e&idence to procure a con&iction% $t is enough that it is belie&ed that the act or o#ission co#plained o constitutes the o ense charged% 3recisely. chie records o icer o the -irear#s and 0xplosi&e :i&ision% -Laleroso was then charged with illegal possession o irear# and a##unition under 3residential :ecree (3%:%) 7o% 1?>>. V. in or#ed hi# o his constitutional rights. with assistance o counsel. that the person charged was guilty o the cri#e or which he was prosecuted% "hus. A. Ar% and Muson% -According to Laleroso.) the act that the accused who possessed or owned the sa#e does not ha&e the corresponding license or it% "he prosecution was able to discharge its burden% A2010 -"he existence o the sub+ect irear# and its a##unition was established through the testi#ony o 13O. 7ns5. he relies on the calculus o co##on sense o which all reasonable #en ha&e an abundance o % A inding o probable cause needs only to rest on e&idence showing that more likely than not a cri#e has been co##itted and was co##itted by the suspects% 3robable cause need not be based on clear and con&incing e&idence o guilt. they put hi# under arrest.eople v..5D37C3 -3etitioner. &ivera9 x x x the #anner o assigning &alues to declarations o witnesses on the witness stand is best and #ost co#petently per or#ed by the trial +udge who had the un#atched opportunity to obser&e the witnesses and assess their credibility by the &arious indicia a&ailable but not re lected on record% xxx 6e ha&e consistently ruled that when the 5uestion arises as to which o the con licting &ersions o the prosecution and the de ense is 139 . because all o the# appear to ha&e appro&ed it% 3ri&ate respondent *anahan hi#sel appears to ha&e prepared the aide #e#oir. Va2eroso in a case or )idnapping with ranso#% -6hen they caught hi#. the search done in the boarding house was illegal% "he gun sei(ed ro# hi# was duly licensed and co&ered by necessary per#its% -13O/ "i#bol. Laleroso had a di erent &ersion was supplied by the co#bined testi#onies o petitioner 1r% $nsp% Laleroso. :eri5uito presented a certi ication signed by !o5ue. the records &eri ier. the prosecution has the burden o pro&ing the twin ele#ents o (1) the existence o the sub+ect irear# and a##unition. presented a certi ication to that e ect signed by !o5ue. or a certi ication ro#. pleaded not guilty when arraigned% "rial on the #erits ensued% -13O.22?< !eyes. prior to its sub#ission to pri&ate respondent 'er#inio :isini% 3robable cause does not #ean actual and positi&e cause or i#port absolute certainty% $t is #erely based on opinion and reasonable belie % $t has been de ined as the existence o such acts and circu#stances as would excite the belie . bearing a 1erial 7u#ber with .acts. Ar% testi ied that he issued to Laleroso a *e#orandu# !eceipt co&ering the sub+ect irear# and its a##unition% "his was upon the &erbal instruction o Col% *oreno% 13O/ "i#bol identi ied his signature on the said receipt% -!"C and CA ound hi# guilty% 'ence this petition be ore the 1C% 7ssue. as a#ended% -Laleroso. as aptly put by Austice Mnares-1antiago in . and bodily searched hi#% -ound tuc)ed in his waist was a Charter Ar#s. the chie records o icer o the sa#e o ice% -"he Court on se&eral occasions ruled that either the testi#ony o a representati&e o . the a iant ha&ing held i#portant positions in 'erdis Broup. :isuanco and :eri5uito testi ied or the prosecution in the #anner stated abo&e% -Jpon the other hand.. :eri5uito testi ied that a &eri ication o the Charter Ar#s Caliber %/? bearing a 1erial 7o% re&ealed that the sei(ed pistol was not issued to Laleroso% $t was registered in the na#e o a certain 1al&atierra% As proo . 6O7 CA 0!!0: $7 A--$!*$7B '$1 CO7L$C"$O7 :013$"0 "'0 A8107C0 O3!OO80MO7: !0A1O7A8=0 :OJ8"% Ru2in%9 NO% CA did not err% Laleroso $1 BJ$="M% $n illegal possession o irear# and a##unition. were the authors o the acts sub+ect o the co#plaint% "he a ida&it o pri&ate respondent *anahan relates acts that are based on personal )nowledge and perception. in a reasonable #ind. howe&er. 13O/ "i#bol. and (. li&e a##unition% -A &eri ication o the sub+ect irear# at the -irear#s and 0xplosi&es :i&ision re&ealed that it was not issued to Laleroso but to a certain 1al&atierra% :eri5uito. pri&ate respondents could not si#ply eign ignorance o the di&est#ent plan.Prof. there is a trial or the reception o e&idence o the prosecution in support o the charge% "he wide latitude in deter#ining the existence o probable cause or the lac) o it cannot be exercised arbitrarily% "he O#buds#an #ust weigh acts and circu#stances without resorting to the calibrations o our technical rules o e&idence% !ather. :isuanco% :e ense witness Muson also identi ied the irear#% $ts existence was li)ewise ad#itted by no less than Laleroso hi#sel % As or LalerosoDs lac) o authority to possess the irear#. !%"% (Chrislao) . 1ection 44 o the !ules o Court (0ntries in o icial records)% A+ R30ARD+ 456R T4P5C 47 8350)T A7D +6995C537C: 49 3. the 373 -irear#s and 0xplosi&e O ice attesting that a person is not a licensee o any irear# would su ice to pro&e beyond reasonable doubt the second ele#ent o possession o illegal irear#s% "he prosecution #ore than co#plied when it presented both% "he certi ication ro# the -irear#s and 0xplosi&es :i&ision is an exception to the hearsay rule by &irtue o !ule 1/2. de initely not on e&idence establishing absolute certainty o guilt% A inding o probable cause is not a pronounce#ent o guilt% VALEROSO V. neither on e&idence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and. :isuanco recei&ed a dispatch order ro# the des) o icer% "he order directed hi# Y / other police#en to ser&e a warrant o arrest &s% Sr. with the assistance o his subordinates. -eb% . PPL B%!% 7o% 1>4?1. Avena Evidence the or#er 3resident. $nc% As one o the trusted #en o pri&ate respondent 'er#inio :isini.

9) inso ar as it denied the prayer o the !epublic or a +udg#ent ordering the 0state o !a#on J% Co+uangco (Co+uangco). indings o the trial court are gi&en the highest degree o respect i not inality% -"he "C ound the prosecution &ersion worthy o credence and belie % 1C inds no co#pelling reason not to accept its obser&ation on this score% The pieces of evidence show that petitioner is not legally a thori1ed to possess the s '2ect firearm and its five <=> amm nition$ !Second... pro#ulgated in Ci&il Case 7o% 222. no restraining order en+oining the sa#e ha&ing been issued by this Court% "he 1andiganbayan. . Avena Evidence worthy o belie . still during the pendency o the irst three petitions. li&e a##unition were o ered in e&idence by the prosecution% 0&en assu#ing arguendo that they were not o ered. G8C3EN CO AN9 G REAL-G CORPORA-7ON V SAN97 ANBAGAN E. no#inees and agents to recon&ey to the !epublic 111. their three children. P37 AN9 7-S 9EAL7N S A7-3 P-7C 140 .R.R. the 1andiganbayan continued with the proceedings in Ci&il Case 7o% 222. the sub+ect irear# and its . 1)0<&#./. the assess#ent o the trial courts are generally &iewed as correct and entitled to great weight% -urther#ore. 19?7 by the !epublic o the 3hilippines (the !epublic) through the 3residential Co##ission on Bood Bo&ern#ent (3CBB) against or#er 3resident and *rs% *arcos. 1)<20# iled by the co#plainants-in-inter&ention Muchengcos. $#elda O% Co+uangco.AC-S "hese i&e consolidated petitions pray or the nulli ication o certain issuances o the 1andiganbayan in Ci&il Case 7o% 222. 1)<J)( iled by the !epublic' both challenge the 3artial :ecision% 3etitioners in . 1J("02' 1)0<20 and 1)0<&# contend they were denied due process when the 1andiganbayan in e ect directed the# to ter#inate the presentation o their respecti&e e&idence% "here is no disagree#ent with respect to the dispositiondis#issal by the #inority o the irst three petitions T the irst ha&ing beco#e #oot. e&en without its presentation at trial% $n . Laleroso clai#s that the sub+ect irear# and a##unition should ha&e been excluded as e&idence because they were not or#ally o ered by the prosecution in &iolation o 1ection /4. it owning so#e . A.22.eople v.Prof. o the !ules o Court% LalerosoDs contention has no leg to stand on% Contrary to LalerosoDs clai#. H!epublic o the 3hilippines &% 0state o -erdinand 0% *arcos. in an appeal. No. granting the *otion or 1u##ary Audg#ent F iled by $#elda Co+uangco. !ule 1/.R. the irst three petitions assailing interlocutory orders o the 1andiganbayan were iled be ore this Court% "hus. a 3artial :ecision on *ay >. et alG. the petitions in ..R.2. it is only a presu#ption< it #ay be o&erthrown by e&idence to the contrary% "he prosecution was able to rebut the presu#ption when it pro&ed that the issuance to petitioner o the *e#orandu# !eceipt was anything but regular% 9ail re to offer an nlicensed firearm as evidence is not fatal provided there is competent testimony as to its e?istence$ !-hird.AL CA!3$O *O!A=01< AA7JA!M . and the second and third or lac) o gra&e abuse o discretion on the part o the 1andiganbayan% "here is also no disagree#ent with respect to the disposition-denial by the #inority o the ourth petition (B%!% 7o% 1. Nos. and declaring the# as ha&ing wai&ed their right to present e&idence% "he petition in .R. a#ong which are shares o stoc) in the 3hilippine "eleco##unications $n&est#ent Corporation (3"$C)9 7>. . and so#e other indi&iduals% "he co#plaint was later a#ended to i#plead additional de endants% "he case is or the reco&ery o alleged ill-gotten wealth o the *arcoses. co#plainants-in-inter&ention in Ci&il Case 7o% 222. . 3"$C shares registered in the na#e o 3'$ that the #a+ority does not agree. (or the case) was iled be ore the 1andiganbayan on Auly 1>. No.ONSO -. where the culpability or innocence o the accused depends on the issue o credibility o witnesses and the &eracity o their testi#onies. No. Laleroso insists that he is legally authori(ed to possess the sub+ect irear# and its a##unition on the basis o the *e#orandu# !eceipt issued to hi# by the 373 7arcotics Co##and% -Although Laleroso is correct in his sub#ission that public o icers li)e police#en are accorded presu#ption o regularity in the per or#ance o their o icial duties. assails &ia petition or certiorari the 1andiganbayan Orders denying its !espect ul *otion or Additional "i#e to Co#plete the A2010 3resentation o 0&idence and directing it to sub#it its o er o e&idence within /2 days% :uring the pendency o these irst three petitions.1. and dis#issing the Co#plaint-in-$nter&ention F iled by the MuchengcosG% "he last two o the i&e petitions at bar. shares in the na#e o 3ri#e 'oldings $ncorporated (3'$)% 3"$C is the biggest stoc)holder o 3=:". was iled% $n the course o the proceedings in Ci&il Case 7o% 222.. .27) in the absence o re&ersible error on the part o the 1andiganbayan% $t is with respect to the disposition-denial by the #inority o the i th petition (B%!% 7o% 1. shares in the na#e o $#elda O% Co+uangco.. both or re&iew on certiorari.41. iled by the !epublic. in light o the i##ediately ollowing discussions . iled by Al onso Muchengco and M !ealty Corporation. the non-presentation o the pistol did not pre&ent the con&iction o the accused% AL.779 shares in the na#e o !a#on J% Co+uangco. and that in . Nos. assail &ia petition or certiorari orders and resolutions o the 1andiganbayan denying their #otions to suspend trial pending disco&ery proceedings and to re-set trial dates (with alternati&e prayer or a change in the order o trial). 3'$... their assigns.AC-8AL BAC@ RO8N9 O.22> (+a+a) . 1J("02 and 1)0<20. V.?C o the outstanding shares in 3=:" at the ti#e Ci&il Case 7o% 222. were thereupon iled% "he petition in . et al%I "he co#plaint in Ci&il Case 7o% 222.rehuela./4.41. and 111. LalerosoDs stance #ust still ail% "he existence o an unlicensed irear# #ay be established by testi#ony. dis#issing the co#plaint o plainti !epublic o the 3hilippines on the 3=:" shares sub+ect o separate trial or lac) o #erit.

3'$.42 shares to Antonio Co+uangco and 1>2 to "rinidad C% Mulo< Abalos trans erred /.. A rica trans erred all his 422 3'$ shares ] .>9> shares registered in his na#e to 3'$ &ia a deed o assign#ent also dated *ay . reparation o da#ages. *etro *anila% "he i&e 3'$ incorporators. . close andRor business associates. respecti&ely% 1ubse5uently.719 3"$C shares registered in his na#e &ia two separate deeds o assign#ent both dated *ay . based on the e&idence presented. 3.2. an A#erican corporation. Bapud and Aose :% Ca#pos. $#elda O% Co+uangco. $#elda !% *arcos. Ar%. 1977% On e&en date. with a par &alue o 3122 per share% "he total a#ount o capital stoc) subscribed was thus 3.2 shares to *a% Lictoria O% Co+uangco Mulo and ?2 also to Antonio Co+uangco% 1igni icantly./49 shares were then trans erred to his na#e% Co+uangco and =uis "irso !i&illa (!i&illa). 197?% "hus.) incorporators9 Hose 9. agents and no#inees. on the other hand.son of Hose Gao Ca*5os=' Ro2ando a5ud . the re#aining incorporators on the board o directors T =irio. Avena Evidence 3'$ was registered on October ..7. 197? re erring to the H&arious discussions during which FCo+uangco and !i&illaG o ered to sell and F3'$G agreed to purchase partially paid subscriptions and co##on shares o F3"$CG%I "he agree#ent which indicated the basic ter#s and conditions o the transaction states that the nu#ber o 3"$C shares which Co+uangco and !i&illa were prepared to sell to 3'$ was H111'J1) co**on shares representing J&.4. *andaluyong. 1ec% .9>%) "he sa#e author tells us o a case where Na +ury was +usti ied in drawing - *eanwhile.2.2. 19?1% On *ay 9. another stoc)holder o 3"$C. her late husband 3resident *arcos. V. in their capacity as stoc)holders.Prof.12)0R o the subscribed and outstanding shares o 3"$C%I 141 . which o the theories pro ered by the parties is #ore worthy o credence% "he case o Aoaquin v.222%22. orged an agree#ent dated Aanuary .4. and Ba&iola T each executed a deed o assign#ent trans erring their 3'$ shares to #e#bers o the Co+uangco a#ily% "hus =irio trans erred . its existence% "he &ital 5uestion in such cases is the cogency o the proo a orded by the secondary acts% 3o/ 2iEe2+' accordin% to e05erience' is the e0istence of the 5ri*ar+ fact if certain secondar+ facts e0istSN (1 *oore on -acts. replacing Bapud and Aose :% Ca#pos. there ore. one or 44. a5ud=' Renato Lirio . the 3"$C 8oard o :irectors resol&ed to sell such . Beneral "elephone and 0lectronics (B"0). respecti&ely. and Ba&iola T re#ained as such% On e&en date. were Hcontributed to andRor abandonedI by one o its stoc)holders. . consistent with the theory o petitioner !epublic. 1977 with the ollowing i&e (. &ia two separate deeds o assign#ent dated -ebruary 1?. by :eed o Assign#ent dated Aune 19?/ (the day is not indicated). na#ely9 0state o !a#on Co+uangco./49 shares to its stoc)holders in proportion to their holdings% 7o stoc)holder. clai#s that she. Ar% and ?2 to *iguel O% Co+uangco< and Ba&iola trans erred /. was not to loo) or proo beyond reasonable doubt. their only disagree#ent being who this owner is% "he Co+uangcos and 3'$ in their Co##ent pro er that the bene icial owners are the Co+uangcos% $#elda A2010 *arcos. and their a#ily were the bene icial owners o 3'$% 7SS8E 6O7 the preponderance o !epublic e&idence lies with the 3EL9 M01% 0%O% 7o% 14-A clearly states that the degree o proo re5uired in cases such as the one at bar is 5re5onderance of evidence% 1ec% /% "he ci&il suits to reco&er unlaw ully ac5uired property under !epublic Act 7o% 1/79 or or restitution. drawing an in erence that the #ain act in issue existed ro# collateral acts not directly pro&ing. #ay proceed independently o any cri#inal proceedings and #ay be pro&ed by a preponderance o e&idence% (Jnderscoring supplied) "he 1andiganbayan./ shares and the other or //.A1a2os=' and ervacio avio2a . the 3"$C 8oard o :irectors granted Co+uangco and !i&illa authori(ation to trans er their 3"$C shares to 3'$% Co+uangco therea ter ceded to 3'$ 77. Ar% later assigned all their shares in 3'$ (422 shares each) to Co+uangco and 3"$C :irector Oscar A rica (A rica). A. respecti&ely. Abalos.>9> shares% !i&illa li)ewise con&eyed 3"$C //. 3"$C. together with 3'$ 3resident Bapud. 1977./49 shares in another corporation.N says one author. respondents in B%!% 7o% 1./4. du##ies. avio2a=. 19?1.9. subordinates. they elected the ollowing as o icers o the corporation9 !olando C% Bapud Aose :% Ca#pos. apart ro# Co+uangco. Co+uangco and A rica were elected directors o 3'$.42 to Antonio Co+uangco and 1>2 to "rinidad Co+uangco Mulo% On e&en date.2. but to deter#ine.Lirio=' Ernesto A1a2os .G $ts place o business was at >> Jnited 1treet. Abalos. while de Bu(#an and Ba&iola re#ained as 1ecretary and "reasurer.4. Naccording to probabilities.. or inde#ni ication or conse5uential and other da#ages or any other ci&il actions under the Ci&il Code or other existing laws iled with the 1andiganbayan against -erdinand 0% *arcos. a tota2 of 111'J1) P-7C shares was transferred to P37 on Ma+ 2' 1(#". but strongly tending to pro&e. #e#bers o their i##ediate a#ily. Ar% 3resident Ber&asio "% Ba&iola -rancisco B% :e Bu(#an !odol o !% :i#aano 1ecretary 3resident Lice"reasurer 1ecretary Assistant On April . with 422 shares each. 197?. and $#elda !% *arcos all agree with petitioner !epublic that 3'$ has an undisclosed bene icial owner. in a&or o 3"$C% On :ece#ber . Ca*5os' Hr.22. while the other directors T =irio. elected the#sel&es as directors on October 12.222%22 o which was actually paid% F. expressed interest in purchasing the shares% All the . close relati&es. 197?. in light o co##on hu#an experience. 7avarro Finstructs9 x x x HAuries #ust o ten reason. 3"$C 3resident and #e#ber o its 8oard o :irectors.2 shares to !a#on O% Co+uangco. Co+uangco and A rica were elected by the 3'$ 8oard o :irectors as 3resident and Lice-3resident.

RANC7SCO 9E 8?MAN . the weight o the e&idence presented by the !epublic. the presu#ption that Angela Aoa5uin de 7a&arro died be ore her son is based purely on sur#ises. /ei%hed 1+ co**on e05erience..#. it bears repeating.#/T/. but which the decision under re&iew did not ta)e into account% (Jnderscoring supplied) -3E -ES-7MON7ES O. P37 #@. but only that Hshares o stoc) andFor the assign#ents indorsed in blan) were deli&ered to 3resident *arcos by *r% Ca#posI (e#phasis and underscoring supplied)% Bapud was thus pro erring the possibility that only deeds o assign#ent were deli&ered to the or#er 3resident% 'ence. howe&er. Avena Evidence the in erence that the person who was caught iring a shot at an ani#al trespassing on his land was the person who ired a shot about an hour be ore at the sa#e ani#al also trespassing%N "hat conclusion was not airtight.7 . surrendered to the go&ern#ent substantial assets which he con essed to ha&e held in behal o *arcos% 'e is one o the !epublicDs witnesses in the case% "he 1andiganbayan. #isinterprets the state#ent o Bapud. by BapudDs own recounting. since Hit would ha&e been i#plausible or hi# to #a)e the assign#ent to *r% Co+uangco i the co&ering certi icates had pre&iously been deli&ered to 3res% *arcos%I (Jnderscoring supplied) "his argu#ent. a ter inding that Hal#ost all the docu#ents o ered by the !epublic are photocopiesI (underscoring supplied) and ruling that the sa#e were unreliable. howe&er.GA. he and his co-incorporators executed the 19?1 and 19?/ deeds o assign#ent with the )nowledge and authori(ation o the sa#e person to who# the earlier deeds were deli&ered T 3resident *arcos% BapudDs state#ents thus co#ple#ent those #ade by Ca#pos. one o the incorporators o 3'$. notwithstanding the existence o BapudDs testi#ony in the records.# $t is not disputed that Aose Mao Ca#pos (hereina ter re erred to as Ca#pos) is a or#er *arcos crony who.Prof. .#/T/. there is no reason to read a contradiction into his state#ents% 1igni icantly. the gra t court concluded that HFtGhere is no co#petent e&idence to tie de endant -erdinand *arcos with 3"$C%I $n so ruling.. as will be discussed below% BapudDs state#ent relating the subse5uent execution o deeds o assign#ent to Co+uangco and his )in does not detract ro# the prior deli&ery o blan) deeds to 3resident *arcos. v.B ".that the #other outli&ed her son . co##itted a re&ersible error% $n &amos. a ter the -ebruary 19?> 0:1A !e&olution.#/T/. speculations. we apply the rule that indings o acts o the Court o Appeals are binding on the 1upre#e Court and will not be o&erturned when supported by the e&idence on record sa&e in the )nown exceptions such as %ross *isa55reciation of the evidence or *isa55rehension of facts% (0#phasis and underscoring supplied) *oreo&er. A. or con+ectures without any sure oundation in the e&idence% "he opposite theory . and there ore is re&iewed by this Court i the pre#ise is clearly contradicted by the record or un+usti ied upon other considerations which logically lead to a di erent conclusion. /nc%. passing upon the abo&e-5uoted testi#ony. but rational% $n act. expresses the &iew that Bapud contradicted hi#sel with respect to the disposition o his 422 shares in 3'$. urther strengthening the !epublicDs clai# that 3'$ is a corporation bene icially owned by the *arcoses% "-..7 . V. :atchalian &ealty.B A. reducing to naught Ca#posD categorical state#ent that P37 is one of the cor5orations he or%ani4ed in 1eha2f of Marcos and that in CTaU22 the cor5orations TheU or%ani4ed V that /as the standard 5o2ic+ V that /e surrendered Ta 9eed of -rust or 9eed of Assi%n*entU direct to President Marcos%I 'is sworn ad#ission that 3'$ was a du##y corporation organi(ed or or#er 3resident *arcos constitutes con&incing e&idence that 3'$ was bene icially owned by *arcos% "-.K" Bapud. there ore.. #r. the 1andiganbayan grossly #isappreciated. o#itted any discussion o the e&identiary weight o the !epublicDs testi*onia2 e&idence.&7 #TAT-(-7T A7" "-. since he did not speci ically state that covering certificates were deli&ered to 3resident *arcos..2 and :ece#ber 11-1. !A(. :utierrez teaches9 $t bears repeating that the inding thus #ade. including the deposition-state#ent o Ca#pos% 7otwithstanding Ca#posD testi#ony lin)ing *arcos to 3'$ (and thus to the sub+ect 3"$C shares pertaining to 3'$). de Bu(#an would con ir# in his testi#ony that only deeds o assign#ent. substantially corroborates the state#ents o Ca#pos and urther establishes that 3'$ was a du##y corporation o the *arcoses% As with the testi#ony o Ca#pos. were issued in 3'$.is deduced ro# established acts which. but the 1andiganbayan grossly #isappreciated it and. CAMPOS' AP89' AN9 A--G. 199. engender the in erence as a &ery strong probability% au%ed 1+ the doctrine of 5re5onderance of evidence 1+ /hich civi2 cases are decided' this inference ou%ht to 5revai2% x x x (0#phasis and underscoring supplied) "he e&idence presented by the parties shows that the preponderance clearly lies with the !epublic. the 1andiganbayan did not explain its reasons or holding that. there is no co#petent e&idence to support the !epublicDs thesis% "he #inority.:KO(A7 142 . this Court ruled9 Once again. is pre#ised upon supposed absence o e&idence. the case o #alazar v.9e u4*an= ES-ABL7S3 -3E MARCOSESB OANERS37P O. the circu#stances in the illustration lea&e greater roo# or another possibility than do the acts o the case at hand% $n conclusion. especially so in this case where. a ir#ed Ca#posD sworn state#ent 5uoted abo&e that he is his A2010 associate% 'is deposition ta)en at the 3hilippine Consulate O ice in 'ong @ong on October 1?-.7 . and not stoc) certi icates.B :A. although apparently actual in character.

connections or relationship (Jnderscoring supplied).221% 'is testi#ony also sheds light on the origins and organi(ation o 3'$. A.uangco was the bene icial owner.or Co6uan%co= no*inees' these deeds are a1so2ute2+ si2ent. the 3CBB which is charged. at the &ery least. during his ad#inistration. "he reco&ery o all ill-gotten wealth accu#ulated by or#er 3resident -erdinand 0% *arcos. the ollowing conclusions ine&itably ollow9 1% Co+uangco was elected 3resident and too) o&er the #anage#ent o 3'$ in 19?1 with the cooperation o the *arcos no#inees who.. in luence. long a ter the 111. which sheds light on the state#ent o Bapud earlier ad&erted to% :e Bu(#an #ay ha&e di ered with Ca#pos and Bapud inso ar as he stated that the original o the deeds re#ained with the records o 3'$ and a xerox copy was handed to its "reasurer Ba&iola% "his should not. bene icially owned by !a#on Co+uangco. the thesis that *arcos owned 3'$ is able to #a)e #ore sense o the undisputed assign#ent o 3"$C shares to 3'$ by Co+uangco% $ 3'$ were bene icially owned by Co+uangco. by ta)ing undue ad&antage o their public o ice andRor using their powers. as de Bu(#an hi#sel testi ied. still held the #a+ority stoc)holding as o that date< . ta)en at the *andarin 'otel. de Bu(#an substantially corroborates the Ca#pos and Bapud testi#onies% -urther#ore. the #inority i#plies that the true owner was neither *arcos nor Co+uangco.41. directly or through no#inees. contrary to BapudDs own ad#ission% 'owe&er. but Ca#pos hi#sel T contrary to the Co+uangcosD sub#ission that &amon !o. . the assign#ent thereo to 3'$ was a trans er ro# Co+uangco to 3resident *arcos% On the 1asis of the evidence' therefore' President Marcos o/ned P37 and a22 the incor5orators thereof acted under his direction% Once this is ac)nowledged. all these circu#stances #ar) out Co+uangco either as a no#inee o *arcos as was Bapud who# he replaced as 3resident o 3'$ or. under 0%O% 7o% issued by 3resident A5uino pursuant to her legislati&e powers under the 3ro&isional Constitution. it #ust be e#phasi(ed. subordinates and close associates.Prof. is that the Co+uangcos ac5uired 3'$ shares in the years 19?1 and 19?/. inter alia. and to Ca#posD ad#ission that he organi(ed 3'$ or . whether located in the 3hilippines or abroad. can and #ust reco&er or the !epublic the 111.resident (arcos% *oreo&er. On the other hand' there is hard2+ an+ evidence on Co6uan%coBs ro2e in the or%ani4ation of P37 to su1stantiate the thesis that the sa*e /as 1eneficia22+ o/ned 1+ hi*. *a)ati City on Aune 1. ro# its inception. Avena Evidence "he !epublic also presented the deposition o de Bu(#an. with assisting the 3resident in regard to. especially when it is considered that. howe&er. a close associate o *arcos% As such. howe&er.41. which is again consistent with the other testi#onies #entioned% 7otably. constitute e&idence that directly addresses the critical issue% of the 143 . 3"$C shares being held by 3'$. they bearing the character o ill-gotten wealth whether they be in the hands o *arcos or those o Co+uangco% On the other hand. 3"$C shares were ac5uired in 197? by 3'$% On the decisive Luestion of /hether the incor5orators /ho or%ani4ed P37 in 1(## acted as Marcos . relati&es. the records were under the control o Ca#pos% "he !epublicDs thesis that 3resident *arcos is the bene icial owner o 3'$ His deduced ro# established acts which. on the thesis that 3'$ is bene icially owned by *arcos. or#er corporate secretary o 3'$. as opposed to the purported lac) o such e&idence on the part o the !epublic% "he #ost these deeds could show. and de Bu(#an. #erely denying that his principal was *arcos.% As the re#aining incorporators on the 8oard di&ested their shares only in 19?/. authority. the Co+uangcos can only point to the deeds o assign#ent o 3'$ shares to #e#bers o their a#ily as con ir#ing the sa#e% "he 1andiganbayan considered these deeds as co#petent e&idence. V. engender the in erence as a &ery strong probability%I Only a *arcos ownership can #a)e sense o the circu#stances surrounding the origins o 3'$. especially its close ties with J7$=A8 and the Ca#poses% Only a *arcos ownership o 3'$ can plausibly account or the substantially corroborated ad#issions o Ca#pos and Bapud that they organi(ed 3'$ in behal o *arcos% $ndeed. Co+uangco #anaged a *arcos-controlled corporation or at least two years< /% "he si#ultaneous di&est#ent o shares by the three re#aining incorporators on the 8oard to Co+uangcoDs close relati&es in 19?/ were with the )nowledge and authori(ation o their principal T 3resident *arcos% A2010 Clearly. by identi ying all the incorporators and hi#sel as Ca#pos associates. 8y a ir#ing that 3'$ was organi(ed by Ca#pos. his i##ediate a#ily. then the trans er o these 3"$C shares to 3'$ would #erely ha&e been a trans er to hi#sel % On the other hand. $n #ar)ed contrast. persons who actually participated in the or#ation and early years o operation o 3'$. and substantially corroborates the state#ents o Ca#pos and Bapud% -he state*ents of de u4*an su55ort the thesis Re5u12ic that P37 is a du**+ of the Marcoses' it havin% 1een completely or%ani4ed 1+ associates of Ca*5os' /ho had cate%orica22+ testified to havin% or%ani4ed P37 for the 1enefit of President Marcos. respecting the thesis that 3'$ was. obscure the general consistency o his state#ents with those o Ca#posD and BapudDs. including the ta)eo&er or se5uestration o all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by the#. e&en the #inority had to ac)nowledge that Bapud was a #ere no#inee. de Bu(#an clari ied that no stocE certificates /ere issued in P37. the testi#onies o Ca#pos. but only deeds o assign#ent. weighed by co##on experience. and by re&ealing that the o ice o 3'$ was within the pre#ises o Ca#pos T controlled J7$=A8. perhaps unable to account or the undeniable act that all the incorporators o 3'$ are Ca#pos associates. Bapud. de Bu(#an also con ir#ed that all the incorporators o 3'$ held their shares as #ere no#inees and that there was a standard operating procedure ollowed in the holding co#panies organi(ed by Ca#pos regarding the issuance o deeds o assign#ent in blan).

appellant told her that he would )ill her and her a#ily i she reported the #atter to anyone%1. the !"C rendered a :ecision ac5uitting the appellant in Cri#inal Case 7o% 1. 888 did not report the incident% 1he inally told her #other when she learned that she was pregnant% 'er #other cried and got #ad%1/ 888 ga&e birth in October 199?% "he child was later adopted by her cousin%14 On Auly 7.T/! shares registered in the name of .221. . iled a Cri#inal Co#plaint1> against appellant be ore the . No. raised (888Ps) blouse up to her nec) and suc)ed her breasts%7 'e li)ewise pulled down her shorts and panty up to her thighs<? )issed her lips<9 went on top o her<12 and inserted his penis into her &agina%11 A ter satis ying his lust ul desire. 888 and his other children were already asleep% Appellant urther clai#ed that he and his wi e did not ha&e serious proble#s with each other except or petty 5uarrels o&er who was going to coo) in the #ornings%. +udg#ent is hereby rendered ac5uitting hi# o the cri#e charged% . +udg#ent is hereby rendered as ollows9 1% -or Cri#inal Case 7o% 1. 7o.hilippines in :.. and the li)e. her breasts and pri&ate part were aching. . 19?/% $n the e&ening o :ec%. in &iew o all the oregoing.. V./. e%g%. 7os. 1997. . 888 executed a #inumpaang #alaysay1.Prof.% -or Cri#inal Case 7o% 1. 13O4 Ce(ar "% *angune.??9 -or ailure o the prosecution to pro&e the guilt o the accused beyond reasonable doubt. $8245'. 1997.?9-(9?)% "he fallo reads9 6'0!0-O!0. $?98?2 0RA7T3D to the extent that it prays for the reconveyance to the &epublic of $$$.. * A#-!. 199?.&.8$? . spent the night in her auntDs house% 'er #other le t to attend a wa)e% 6hile inside the roo# with her brothers (who were then sleeping). in this regard is that this Court therein ound that there were blan) deeds o assign#ent and stoc) certi icates endorsed in blan) reco&ered in *alacaOang which were considered prima facie e&idence to +usti y the exercise o 3CBBDs powers o se5uestration. 1997. and NtheyN hurt hi#% 'e did not. but she did not do anything because she thought that she had +ust been bitten by ants% At around #idnight in the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?. $?59'5. unlaw ully. this Court deter#ined the extent o the powers &ested in the 3CBB or the purpose o preserving suspected ill-gotten wealth% "hese were in the nature o pro&isional re#edies.4 'e ad#itted that he did not ile a counter-a ida&it at the *C"C because he was surprised. "arlac. V7LLAN8EVA . be ore 13O1 7ixon Cru( o the 3hilippine 7ational 3olice% On the sa#e day. but con&icting hi# or the cri#e o rape in Cri#inal Case 7o% 1. report this #atter either be ore the *C"C or other authorities%./. and the li)e% No/here in BA+3C4 is an+ 5ronounce*ent that on2+ such Eind of evidence suffices to 5rove Marcos o/nershi5 of cor5orations' to the e0c2usion of other evidence such as the de5osition!s/orn state*ents of the confessed Marcos cronies in the instant case.?99 "he prosecution ha&ing success ully established the guilt o the accused beyond any ca&il o doubt o the cri#e o rape.&. preparatory to a +udicial inding that such properties are indeed ill-gotten% $t is unli)e the case at bar where this Court will now inally deter#ine on the #erits whether a particular property is. 'e denied that 888 as)ed hi# to get a glass o water< at that ti#e. would re&eal that it did not intend to establish e&identiary nor#s or all uture cases in&ol&ing the *arcos wealth% 7owhere does it state that the ailure o the !epublic to present as e&idence blan) deeds o assign#ent is atal to its cause% "he #ost that can be gathered ro# A#-!.R. 8ranch >>. his wi e and sister-in-law went to a wa)e%. 3hilippines and within the +urisdiction o this 'onorable Court the abo&e-na#ed accused did then and there will ully. +udg#ent is hereby rendered 144 . and $?9'5= D3753D 130C$A= !J=01 Ru2e re Minorit+ PEOPLE v. in the x x x 3ro&ince o "arlac. by #eans o orce and inti#idation. in A#-!. D5+P4+5T547 . a #inor 1. howe&er./. he and his children watched the tele&ision% 'is wi e arri&ed at 9922 p%#% At 12922 p%#%. appellant went inside. years old% xxxx "hat so#eti#e in the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?.nd *unicipal Circuit "rial Court (*C"C) o 8a#ban-CapasConcepcion. years old% (As per the :e endant) Appellant interposed the de enses o denial and alibi% 'e testi ied that on the night o :ece#ber . ree(e orders.1 6hile his wi e was away. a #inor 1. A2010 succeed in ha&ing sexual intercourse with his daughter 888..) separate $n or#ations were then iled with the !"C o Capas.acts9 (As per the 3rosecution) -888 is the appellantDs daughter and was born on Aanuary . /nc. he and his wi e and children went to the house o his sister-in-law where they spent the night% At 7922 p%#%. A.2. by #eans o orce and inti#idation. together with her parents and her three brothers. she elt di((y% 6hen she wo)e up the ollowing #orning. while 888 and her brothers were inside their roo# sleeping.etitions in :. in the x x x 3ro&ince o "arlac./ 'e did not ha&e any #isunderstanding with his daughter 888%. 888.?9-(9?)% "he $n or#ations contain the ollowing accusatory portions9 "hat on or about :ece#ber . se5uestration.etition of the &epublic of the . the Chie $n&estigator.Q/.7LOM7NO L. 3hilippines and within the +urisdiction o this 'onorable Court the abo&e-na#ed accused did then and there will ully. the *C"C issued a !esolution17 inding prima facie e&idence o rape% "he 3ro&incial 3rosecutor sustained the indings o the *C"C in a !esolution1? dated Auly . unlaw ully and eloniously. $?59<=. 888 was sleeping beside her #other% Appellant then positioned hi#sel beside his wi e%. !"C9 On 1epte#ber 12. and eloniously.??-(9?) and 1. succeed in ha&ing sexual intercourse with his daughter 888.??-(9?). 888 as)ed or a glass o water ro# appellant% A ter drin)ing. Avena Evidence Jnderlying the inding o the 1andiganbayan that the sub+ect 3'$ shares are not part o the *arcos ill-gotten wealth is its reliance on the supposed deter#inati&e indicia set out in ataan #hipyard P -ngineering !o. ree(e order.+ v. doc)eted as Cri#inal Cases 7os% 1. .ede2= Nature9 Auto#atic !e&iew . ill-gotten% A reading o A#-!.!::% $t bears noting that. 199?% "wo (. he decided to sleep and went inside the roo# where his wi e and children were sleeping% At that ti#e. Capas "arlac% A preli#inary in&estigation was i##ediately conducted% On e&en date. 1&(&J< CALLEHO' SR$ A5ri2 1<' 200# ./. in fact.

do you recall i your ather did anything to youW A Mes. the CA sustained the trial courtPs i#position o the death penalty% $t held that the 5uali ying circu#stance o the &icti#Ps #inority had been speci ically alleged in the $n or#ation and duly pro&en during the trial% "he appellate court. what else did he do.. '48 #!&A '?$+. are you re erring to the house o your aunt x x xW A 7o. howe&er.?9-C-9? o >ua2ified Statutor+ Ra5e and sentencin% hi* to suffer the 5ena2t+ of 9eath. $ was wearing a panty then% S And what did your ather do with your pantyW A 'e also re#o&ed it. 1ir% S And could you tell us what did your ather do to youW A 'e suc)ed #y breasts.eople vs. was con&inced that appellant co##itted the second charge o rape (the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?)% "he testi#ony o the o ended party on the #atter was clear.N did he re#o&e it ro# your two eetW A 7o. the parties were re5uired to sub#it their respecti&e supple#ental brie s% "he O ice o the 1olicitor Beneral #ani ested/. howe&er.. we hereby certi y and ele&ate the entire records o this case to the 1upre#e Court or its inal disposition% 1O O!:0!0:%// 3EL99 $n the CourtPs !esolution/4 dated 7o&e#ber ?. 1ir% S Mou stated that he li)ewise suc)ed your breasts% 'ow did he suc) your breastsW :id he re#o&e your braW A 'e +ust raised #y blouse. ran). 1ir% S :id you not tell hi# anything when he pulled down your shorts and pantyW A $ told hi# to ha&e #ercy on #e. the trial court con&icted the accused and sentenced hi# to su er the supre#e penalty o death% "he case was initially ele&ated to this Court on auto#atic re&iew% $n de erence to the ruling in .>$awphi$.222%22 to 37. that it would no longer ile a supple#ental brie since the argu#ents contained in the AppelleePs 8rie would only be reiterated% $n his 1upple#ental 8rie . A. 1ir. 1ir% S 6hen you said in your house. and pleaded only or a lighter sentence% 'e urther a&erred that in &iew o the enact#ent o !epublic Act (!%A%) 7o% 9/4> abolishing the death penalty. by way o inde#nity the a#ount o -i ty "housand 3esos (3. and he inserted his penis into #y &agina% S And at what ti#e was that when he did this to youW A2010 A *idnight already. and pulled down #y shorts% S Aside ro# your shorts.hilippines v. 1ir. the present appeal should now be dee#ed #oot and acade#ic% "he !uling o the Court A ter a care ul and #eticulous re&iew o the records o the case.. the Court inds no reason to o&erturn the indings o acts and conclusions o the trial and appellate courts% "he prosecution adduced e&idence to pro&e beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped 888 so#eti#e in the irst wee) o -ebruary 199? in their house% "he &icti# narrated in a spontaneous and straight orward #anner how appellant de iled her.2. 1ir% S 'ow did he threaten youW A 'e told #e that he will )ill #y #other as well as #y brothers i $ reported the #atter to anyone. Avena Evidence sentencing hi# to su er the penalty o death by lethal in+ection% C/f the crime of rape is committed where the victim is under eighteen *$4+ years of age and the offender is a parent x x x the imposition of the death penalty is mandatory.7CA-7ON that Ci&il inde#nity is increased to 37.Prof. 1ir% xxx S Mou stated that at about #idnight o the irst wee) o -ebruary 199? your ather suc)ed your breasts and inserted his penis on your pri&ate part% 8e ore doing this. and elt pain on her breasts and pri&ate part when she wo)e up the ollowing #orning P are not positi&e indicia o de loration%. he +ust pulled #y panty up to #y thighs% -$1CA= CA3J=O7B S And a ter pulling down your panty to your thighs.7 "he trial court. the prosecution ailed to su iciently establish the irst ele#ent o rape P sexual intercourse% "he trial court urther stated that the o ended partyPs testi#ony P that she elt di((y a ter drin)ing the glass o water gi&en by the appellant. 1997./2 howe&er. were you wearing any other underwear li)e pantyW A Mes.22. and another "wenty--i&e "housand 3esos (3. 1ir% S And whereat did he do this to youW A $n our house.eople of the . thus9 -$1CA= CA3J=O7B9 S 'ow about in the #onth o -ebruary 199? about the irst wee) o -ebruary. 1ir% S 6hen you said Nre#o&ed it. 1ir. ro# the e&idence presented.222%22) as exe#plary da#ages% 1O O!:0!0:%. Tanco.222%22 pursuant to pre&ailing +urisprudence% "he fallo o the decision reads9 6'0!0-O!0.222%22) as #oral da#ages./.9 Conse5uently.. . 1ir. appellant alleged that he was no longer 5uestioning his con&iction. in a roo# or in what part o the houseW A $nside our roo#. On *ay /2. #odi ied the ci&il inde#nity by increasing it ro# 3. 1ir. i anythingW A 'e threatened #e. the Court hereby a ir#s the sa#e with the MO97.. 1ir. -i ty "housand 3esos (3. "he accused is urther ordered to pay. 1ir% S 'ow about your brothers. did he re#o&e your dress or did he do anything to youW A 'e raised #y blouse.2. (ateo. . they were soundly (sic) asleep% -$1CA= CA3J=O7B 145 .n%t On the alleged rape co##itted on :ece#ber . there being no error in the appealed decision inding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Cri#inal Case 7o% 1. up to #y nec)% S 6here did your ather do this to you. the case was trans erred to the CA% CA9 Appellant clai#ed that the trial court gra&ely erred in i#posing the death penalty despite the prosecutionPs ailure to pro&e the 5uali ying circu#stance o #inority%/1 6hile appellant did not 5uestion his con&iction. he contested the penalty i#posed% 'e insisted that the #inority o the o ended party had not been su iciently pro&en because the prosecution presented a #ere photocopy o the birth certi icate which was not certi ied as a true copy o the original%/. howe&er.222%22). V. the !"C concluded that. positi&e and con&incing% "he apparent delay in reporting the incident was +usti ied since the appellant had threatened 888%..222%22 'owe&er. instead o entering +udg#ent.2. where were your brothers at that ti#e when he did this to you at the second ti#eW A "hey were also inside the roo#.22.C *.? "he court urther ound that the o ended party had no ill #oti&e to ile alse charges against the appellant%.

1ir% COJ!"9 S 6hen did he tell you that he will )ill you and your #other and your brothers. 1ir% S A ter your ather pulled down your shorts and your panty up to your thighs. but that was in the #orning because the preceding night she slept in another house% S :id you not report to your #other what your ather did to you the irst wee) o -ebruary 199? when she arri&ed ho#eW A $ did not. or contradictions on #aterial points. Mour 'onor%/> "he trial court ga&e credence and ull probati&e weight to the &icti#Ps testi#ony. 1ir% S :id you ha&e yoursel #edically exa#inedW A Mes. would re&erse or #odi y the outco#e o the case. he had no shirt on and therea ter he also re#o&ed his shorts% S 'ow about his brie W A 'e also re#o&ed his brie % S 1o your ather was entirely na)ed when he had sexual intercourse with you on the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?W A Mes. V. i you )nowW A 1he went to a iesta. she was inexperienced with the ways o the world%/7 "he CA a ir#ed the indings o the trial court% $t is settled that the trial courtPs e&aluation o the credibility o witnesses is &iewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is #ore co#petent to so conclude. $ +ust could not recall the exact date. 1ir% S Could you tell us why you did not report the incidentW A $ was a raid. #isinterpreted or #isunderstood acts and circu#stances o substance which. 1ir% S 6hen or the irst ti#e did you report the incident to your #otherW A 6hen $ got pregnant. Mour 'onor% S 6hat happened to the childW A At that ti#e. and the #anner in which they ga&e their testi#ony%/? Jnless the trial court ignored.) and o tender age at the ti#e o the co##ission o the o ense% "o the #ind o the court. 1ir% S 6hat did you eel when your ather inserted his penis on your pri&ate partW A $t was pain ul. when a rape &icti# testi ies in a straight orward and candid #anner. Mour 'onor. Mour 'onor% S :id you see hi# re#o&e his short and brie W A Mes. ran). the testi#ony should be gi&en ull aith and credit%42 And in &iew o the intrinsic nature o rape. 1ir% COJ!"9 S 6as your ather wearing anything when he had sexual intercourse with you on the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?W A At that ti#e. 1ir% S And a ter he succeeded in penetrating your pri&ate part. 1ir% COJ!"9 S A ter the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?. 1ir% S And a ter satis ying his lust. ran). did he #a)e any #o&e#entW A 6hat he told #e is that i $ reported the #atter to anyone he will also )ill #e. A. 1ir. a ter the sexual intercourse or be oreW A 8e ore the sexual intercourse. Mour 'onor% S 1o the incident on -ebruary 199? was the lastW A Mes. the only e&idence that can be o ered to pro&e the guilt o the o ender is the testi#ony o the o ended party%41 146 . 1ir% S 6here was your #other. Mour 'onor% S And you were i#pregnatedW A Mes. what else transpiredW A 7o #ore. Mour 'onor% COJ!"9 3roceed% -$1CA= CA3J=O7B9 S And or how long was the pri&ate part o your ather inserted in your &aginaW A $ do not )now. Avena Evidence S 'ow about your #otherW 6here was your #other at that ti#eW A 1he was not around then. Mour 'onor. that the witness is crying% COJ!"9 S 6hen was your child bornW A $n October 199?. Mour 'onor% S 6ere you lying down or whatW A $ was lying down. how did he do itW A 8oth o us were lying down. i considered. then he inserted his penis into #y &agina% S 6ho was on topW A 'e was the one. 1ir. and again he inserted his penis into #y &agina% S :id he succeed in penetrating your pri&ate partW A Mes. Mour 'onor% COJ!"9 3roceed% -$1CA= CA3J=O7B9 S At what ti#e did your #other arri&e on the second ti#e your ather sexually abused youW A $ do not recall any#ore the exact ti#e #y #other arri&ed. its indings on the credibility o witnesses will not be disturbed%/9 *oreo&er. 1ir. what else did he doW A 'e already )issed #e on the lips. Mour 'onor% S 6hile he was re#o&ing his short and brie what were you doingW A $ was pleading or #ercy. 1ir. positi&e and con&incing% $t is consistent with hu#an nature% 1he was ir# and categorical in denouncing her own atherPs lecherous act o stripping her &irginity% O ended party was only i teen (1. and ound it Nclear. ha&ing had the opportunity to obser&e the witnessesP de#eanor and deport#ent on the stand. unsha)en by rigid cross-exa#ination and un lawed by inconsistencies. 1ir% S And how did your #other reactW A 1he was u#ing #ad and she cried.Prof. was there any other sexual intercourse between you and your atherW A 7one. your 'onor% S 6hen he inserted his penis on your pri&ate part. #y #other was sic) and we ha&e no #oney that is why she had #y child adopted% -$1CA= CA3J=O7B9 A2010 *ay we +ust #a)e o record. positi&e and con&incingN9 "he Court had obser&ed personally and attenti&ely the o ended party when she testi ied% "he Court in its e ort to disco&er traces o alsehood in her testi#ony had participated in as)ing searching 5uestions% $t ailed to unra&el any &estige o untruth ulness% 'er testi#ony was clear.

W Ahen the su16ect of the inLuir+ is the contents of a docu*ent' no evidence sha22 1e ad*issi12e other than the ori%ina2 docu*ent itse2f' e0ce5t in the fo22o/in% cases.eople of the ./. the &icti# was only 1. is li)ewise 147 . that he was wrong ully sentenced to su er the supre#e penalty o death.4 6e a ir# the award o 37.. (antis that a #ere photocopy o the birth certi icate. 19?/. in the trial courtPs discretion. the prosecution su iciently established that at the ti#e o the co##ission o the cri#e o rape in the irst wee) o -ebruary 199?. Ori%ina2 docu*ent *ust 1e 5roduced$ e0ce5tions.1 A certi icate o li&e birth is a public record in the custody o the local ci&il registrar who is a public o icer% As such. which reads9 Section <. 1ir%4> $n act. years old< c% $ the &icti# is alleged to be below 1.222%22 as exe#plary da#ages. in &iew o the enact#ent o !%A% 7o% 9/4> on Aune . at that ti#e on :ece#ber . arcena. the presu#ption is that the &icti# told the truth< hence. 1ir% -$1CA= ==O8!0!A9 S9 And you do not )now o any reason whay (sic) they iled these co#plaintsW A9 7one 1ir%4.hilippines v. 1997 you were already 1. the testi#ony.hilippines v. years o age. the penalty o reclusion perpetua without eligibility or parole should instead be i#posed%. the presentation o the photocopy o the birth certi icate o the &icti# is ad#issible as secondary e&idence to pro&e its contents% 3roduction o the original #ay be dispensed with. since the special 5uali ying circu#stance o #inority was not substantially pro&en% "he contention is without #erit% $n . Avena Evidence Appellant ad#itted that no ill #oti&e can be attributed to the &icti# to alsely charge hi# o the cri#e o rape9 S9 8y the way do you ha&e any #isunderstanding with your wi e x x xW A9 1o#eti#es.eople of the . !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court.4. appellant did not dispute the contents o the photocopied birth certi icate% 'a&ing ailed to raise a &alid and ti#ely ob+ection. years old% $s it notW A9 Mes #aPa#%47 "he act o #inority was urther established by &icti#Ps certi icate o li&e birth.hilippines v. and contrary to the presu#ption o good aith. does not pro&e the &icti#Ps #inority.. 19?/. i clear and credible. . it would run counter to the natural order o e&ents and o hu#an nature. !ecords re&eal that the &icti# testi ied during the hearing that she was born on Aanuary . (angitngit. years o age and what is sought to be pro&ed is that she is less than 1? years old% J. her testi#ony is entitled to ull probati&e weight% "he strength o the prosecutionPs case is urther bolstered by the act that appellant no longer 5uestions his con&iction or rape. si#ilar authentic docu#ents such as baptis#al certi icate and school records which show the date o birth o the &icti# would su ice to pro&e age% /% $ the certi icate o li&e birth or authentic docu#ent is shown to ha&e been lost or destroyed or otherwise una&ailable. 1ir% S9 And do you ha&e your birth certi icateW A9 $t is in your possession already. without the ault o the prosecution.. there are other exceptions to the Nbest e&idence ruleN as expressly pro&ided under 1ection /. *iss witness. which is awarded i the cri#e is 5uali ied by circu#stances warranting the i#position o the death penalty% "he award o 3. albeit a #ere photocopy o the original% $n . V. . in the absence o any showing that the original copy was lost or destroyed. we 5uarrel.eople v.Prof. !ule 1/2 o the !ules on 0&idence shall be su icient under the ollowing circu#stances9 a% $ the &icti# is alleged to be below / years o age and what is sought to be pro&ed is that she is less than 7 years old< b% $ the &icti# is alleged to be below 7 years o age and what is sought to be pro&ed is that she is less than 1. in light o the presence o the 5uali ying circu#stances o #inority and relationship.4? . 1ir% S9 And so with your daughter./. 19?/% 'owe&er.22> prohibiting the i#position o the death penalty.. sir o&er coo)ing in the #orning upon wa)ing up% S9 8ut you ha&e no serious proble# whatsoe&erW A9 7one. or was una&ailable. we ind no reason to disturb the trial courtPs inding o guilt% Appellant insists. howe&er./.hilippines v. 7n the a1sence of a certificate of 2ive 1irth' authentic docu*ent' or the testi*on+ of the victi*Ws *other or re2atives concernin% the victi*Ws a%e' the co*52ainantWs testi*on+ /i22 suffice 5rovided that it is e05ress2+ and c2ear2+ ad*itted 1+ the accused%4. during cross-exa#ination o the &icti#.runa44 the Court laid down the ollowing guidelines in appreciating the age o the &icti#9 1% "he best e&idence to pro&e the age o the o ended party is an original or certi ied true copy o the certi icate o li&e birth o such party% . we ratiocinated in this wise9 6e are not unaware o our ruling in . $ndeed.. and the other party is bound thereby%./ "hus..eople of the . appellantPs counsel re erred to her age9 S9 8y the way. $n the present case.% $n the absence o a certi icate o li&e birth.222%22 as ci&il inde#nity.2 this Court ad#itted and ga&e weight to a photocopied birth A2010 certi icate to pro&e the age o the o ended party% 1peci ically. the docu#ent constitutes pri#ary e&idence< it is dee#ed ad#itted. o the &icti#Ps #other or a #e#ber o the a#ily either by a inity or consanguinity who is 5uali ied to testi y on #atters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date o birth o the o ended party pursuant to 1ection 42. A.49 and . or a prosecution witness to alsely testi y i the appellant is truly innocent%4/ "hus.d= Ahen the ori%ina2 is a 5u12ic record in the custod+ of a 5u12ic officer or is recorded in a 5u12ic office.eople of the . ha&ing been born on Aanuary . !ayabyab. and that appellant did not o er any ob+ection to her testi#ony9 S9 $ncidentally. you ha&e no #isunderstanding with herW A9 7one. and #erely prays or a lesser penalty% As such. xxxx . whene&er the opponent does not dispute the contents o the docu#ent and no other use ul purpose will be ser&ed by re5uiring production%. or said photocopy does not 5uali y as co#petent e&idence or that purpose% 'owe&er. could you tell us when were you bornW A9 $ was born Aanuary ./.

o the Court o Appeals inding appellant -ilo#ino =% Lillanue&a guilty beyond reasonable doubt o the cri#e o 5uali ied rape is A--$!*0: with *O:$-$CA"$O7%$awphi$. the sa#e was not honored% -And when he tried to use the sa#e in $ngtan "our and "ra&el Agency ($ngtan Agency) in $ndonesia to purchase plane tic)ets to 8ali. ailed to pro&e the authenticity o 0xh% NBN. is a holder o a 3re erred *astercard issued by Citiban) with a credit li#it o 31. C7-7BAN@' N. presented 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins. Citiban)Ds Credit Card :epart#ent 'ead. Citiban) was not shown to ha&e acted with #alice or bad aith when the sa#e was dishonored% -A(nar iled a *-! with #otion to re-ra le the case saying that Audge *arcos could not be i#partial as he hi#sel is a holder o a Citiban) credit card% "he case was re-ra led with the new +udge granting A(narDs *! A2010 saying that it was i#probable that a #an o A(narDs stature would abricate the co#puter print-out which shows that A(narDs *astercard was dishonored or the reason that it was declared o&er the li#it< 0xh% NBN was printed out by 7ubi in the ordinary or regular course o business in the #odern credit card industry and 7ubi was not able to testi y as she was in a oreign country and cannot be reached by subpoena< ta)ing +udicial notice o the practice o auto#ated teller #achines (A"*s) and credit card acilities which readily print out ban) account status. a )nown business#an in Cebu. 0xh% NBN can be recei&ed as prima facie e&idence o the dishonor o A(narDs *astercard< no rebutting e&idence was presented by Citiban) to pro&e that A(narDs *astercard was not dishonored. the :ecision dated *ay /2. on an Asian tour.Prof./7. :ennis -lores. -A(nar. . howe&er. planned to ta)e their two grandchildren.< *arch .222%22 with Citiban) with the intention o increasing his credit li#it to 3>/.222%22 or the actual da#age pro&en. 'owe&er..22.222%22% 148 . . 1ingapore and $ndonesia. thus it #ust be excluded< the unre uted testi#ony o A(nar that his credit card was dishonored by $ngtan Agency and certain establish#ents abroad is not su icient to +usti y the award o da#ages in his a&or.oraida. is a contract o adhesion which #ust be interpreted against Citiban)% -Citiban) iled an appeal with the CA and its counsel iled an ad#inistrati&e case against Audge :e la 3eOa or gra&e #isconduct.A. A(nar purchased plane tic)ets to @uala =u#pur or his group worth 3.7/ AJ1"!$A-*A!"$70. serious anxiety. issued to hi# by $ngtan Agency (0xh% NBN) with the signature o one Lictrina 0lnado 7ubi which shows that his card in 5uestion was N:0C= OL0!=$*$"N or declared o&er the li#it% -Citiban) denied the allegation that it blac)listed A(narDs card% "o pro&e that they did not blac)list A(narDs card. his wi e and grandchildren to abort i#portant tour destinations and pre&ented the# ro# buying certain ite#s in their tour% -'e urther clai#ed that he su ered #ental anguish. #ental anguish and social hu#iliation< the ine prints in the lyer o the credit card li#iting the liability o the ban) to 31. A(nar #ade a total ad&ance deposit o 34?.222%22% -:uring the trip..2 o !ule 1/.. clai#ing that Citiban) raudulently or with gross negligence blac)listed his *astercard which orced hi#. gross ignorance o the law and inco#petence. the latter had #ore weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by Citiban)%Also held that e&en i it was shown that A(narDs credit card was dishonored by a #erchant establish#ent. V. A(nar clai#s that when he presented his *astercard in so#e establish#ents in *alaysia.' . . in accordance with pre&ailing +urisprudence.. wounded eelings. A(nar presented a co#puter print-out.227 (edel) NA-8RE.222%22% -6ith the use o his *astercard. the award o #oral da#ages should be increased to 37. A?NAR v.which #ust be authenticated pursuant to 1ec% . bes#irched reputation and social hu#iliation due to the wrong ul blac)listing o his card -"o pro&e that Citiban) blac)listed his *astercard.222%22 ro# A(nar.222%22%. o the !ules o Court by anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< A(nar. there was an i#plied no&ation and Citiban) was obligated to increase A(narDs credit li#it and ensure that A(nar will not encounter any e#barrassing situation with the use o his *astercard< Citiban)Ds ailure to co#ply with its obligation constitutes gross negligence as it caused A(nar incon&enience.7 $7 =$B'" O. whiche&er is lower.2. Ru2es on E2ectronic Evidence EMMAN8EL B.acts.A== "'0 -O!0BO$7B. Avena Evidence proper%.n%t "he penalty o death is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to !%A% 7o% 9/4>% "he award o #oral da#ages to the pri&ate co#plainant is increased to 37. o the !ules on 0lectronic 0&idence or under 1ect%.. deno#inated as O7-=$70 AJ"'O!$. !ule . it was again dishonored or the reason that his card was blac)listed by Citiban)% 1uch dishonor orced hi# to buy the tic)ets in cash% -A(nar iled a co#plaint or da#ages against Citiban). the award o da#ages under pre&ailing +urisprudence is not a ected% "his award is not dependent on the actual i#position o the death penalty.. clai#ing a#ong others that said +udge rendered his decision without ha&ing read the transcripts% "he ad#inistrati&e case was held in abeyance pending the outco#e o the appeal iled by Citiban) with the CA% -CA ruled that9 A(nar had no personal )nowledge o the blac)listing o his card and only presu#ed the sa#e when it was dishonored in certain establish#ents< such dishonor is not su icient to pro&e that his card was blac)listed by Citiban)< 0xh% NBN is an electronic docu#ent .A"$O71 -O!0$B7 ACCOJ7" AC"$L$"M !03O!".> 6e would li)e to stress that e&en i the death penalty is not to be i#posed on the appellant because o the prohibition in !%A% 7o% 9/4>.?.222%22% As he and his wi e. CER-7ORAR7 . but on the act that the 5uali ying circu#stances warranting the i#position o the death penalty attended the co##ission o the o ense%..Phi2i55ines= B%!% 7o% 1>4. A. which contained the list o its canceled cards co&ering the period o A(narDs trip% A(narDs wasnDt in the list% -!"C o Cebu dis#issed A(narDs co#plaint or lac) o #erit and held that as between the co#puter print-out presented by A(nar and the 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins presented by Citiban). as all it pro&ed was that said credit card was not included in the blac)listed cards< when Citiban) accepted the additional deposit o 34?.

% efore any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence.221. or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er. #ay be recei&ed as prima facie e&idence. re5uired by the pro&ision abo&e #entioned. A. #ar)ed as 0xh% NBN.udge. it only shows that the use o the credit card o petitioner was denied because it was already o&er the li#it% "here is no allegation in the Co#plaint or e&idence to show that there was gross negligence on the part o Citiban) in declaring that the credit card has been used o&er the li#it% -"he 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins (6C8) which co&ered the period when plainti tra&eled in the a ore#entioned Asian countries showed that said Citiban) pre erred #astercard had ne&er been placed in a Hhot listI or the sa#e was blac)listed. $t is not clear it was 7ubi who encoded the in or#ation stated in the print-out and was the one who printed the sa#e% "he handwritten annotation signed by a certain :arryl *ario e&en suggests that it was *ario who printed the sa#e and only handed the printout to 7ubi% -"he identity o the entrant. neither was he able to pro&ide e&idence on the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o 7ubi. thus it should not be held liable or the dishonor o A(narDs credit card by said establish#ents% -A(narDs *! was denied by the CA% -As regards the ad#in case. . his *astercard was accepted and honored% -A(nar puts #uch weight on the O7-=$70 AJ"'O!$.Prof. was there ore not established% 7either did petitioner establish in what pro essional capacity did *ario or 7ubi #a)e the entries. the authentication o 0xh% NBN would still be ound wanting% 3ertinent sections o !ule . let alone the act that all the credit cards which had been cancelled by the de endant ban) were all contained. which too) e ect on August 1. #oral or religious< and . contractual. who testi ied on the authenticity o 0xh% NB. by a person deceased or unable to testi y.e0h. V. which pertains to entries in the course o business. or whether the entries were #ade in the per or#ance o their duty in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% -And e&en i 0xh% NBN is ad#itted as e&idence. or *c+ by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the .N did not actually see the docu#ent executed or written. its due execution and authenticity #ust be pro&ed either by (a) anyone who saw the docu#ent executed or written< or (b) by e&idence o the genuineness o the signature or handwriting o the #a)er% -A(nar. *b+ by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the #upreme !ourt or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document. its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means) *a+ by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same. A% :ela 3ena was ad+udged guilty% 7ssue9 6O7 A(nar has established his clai# against Citiban)% $ so.% the entries were #ade at or near the ti#e o the transactions to which they re er< /% the entrant was in a position to )now the acts stated in the entries< 4% the entries were #ade in his pro essional capacity or in the per or#ance o a duty. whether legal. #ection '.2 o !ule 1/.% the entries were #ade in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% . i such person #ade the entries in his pro essional capacity or in A2010 the per or#ance o duty and in the ordinary or regular course o business or duty% Jnder this rule. (anner of authentication.Also. the burden o proo rests on the plainti to establish his case based on a preponderance o e&idence% "he party that alleges a act also has the burden o pro&ing it% -A(nar ailed to pro&e with a preponderance o e&idence that Citiban) blac)listed his *astercard or placed the sa#e on the Nhot list% -A(nar in his testi#ony ad#itted that he had no personal )nowledge that his *astercard was blac)listed by Citiban) and only presu#ed such act ro# the dishonor o his card% -"he dishonor o A(narDs *astercard is not su icient to support a conclusion that said credit card was blac)listed by Citiban). = and the Aarnin% Cance22ation Bu22etins the 2atter 149 . reported and listed in said 6arning Cancellation 8ulletin which were issued and released on a regular basis% -Citiban) produced /22 docu#ents to show that A(nar was not a#ong those ound in said bulletins as ha&ing been cancelled or the period or which the said bulletins had been issued% -Bet/een said co*5uter 5rint out . especially in &iew o A(narDs own ad#ission that in other #erchant establish#ents in @uala =u#pur and 1ingapore. o the !oC% $t pro&ides that whene&er any pri&ate docu#ent o ered as authentic is recei&ed in e&idence. and which is being in&o)ed by A(nar in this case. to support 0xh% NBN% 1aid pro&ision reads9 1ec% 4/% -ntries in the course of business% P 0ntries #ade at. A(nar ailed to de#onstrate how the in or#ation re lected on the print-out was generated and how the said in or#ation could be relied upon as true% -A(nar next in&o)es 1ection 4/ o !ule 1/2 o the !ules o Court. to pro&e that his *astercard was dishonored or being blac)listed% -8ut such exhibit cannot be considered ad#issible as its authenticity and due execution were not su iciently established by A(nar as per 1ec . a co#puter print-out handed to A(nar by $ngtan Agency. the ollowing conditions are re5uired9 1% the person who #ade the entry #ust be dead. urden of proving authenticity. Avena Evidence absent any showing that Citiban) had anything to do with the said dishonor< Citiban) had no absolute control o&er the actions o its #erchant a iliates. -0xh% NBN does not show on its ace that it was issued by $ngtan Agency as A(nar #erely #entioned in passing how he was able to secure the print-out ro# the agency< A(nar also ailed to show the speci ic business address o the source o the co#puter printout because while the na#e o $ngtan Agency was #entioned by A(nar. howe&er. who handed to hi# said co#puter print-out% -0&en under the !ules on 0lectronic 0&idence. % The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this &ule.A"$O7 -O!0$B7 ACCOJ7" AC"$L$"M !03O!". 6O7 Citiban) is liable or da#ages% 3EL99 7O to both% On his clai#9 $t is basic that in ci&il cases. its business address was not re lected in the print-out% -$ndeed. who was in a position to )now the acts therein stated. read9 #ection $. or unable to testi y< .

the 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins presented by de endants (sic) and an unauthenticated pri&ate docu#ent. to gi&e it blan)et reedo# ro# liability i its card is dishonored by any #erchant a iliate for any reason% 1uch phrase renders the state#ent &ague and as the said ter#s and conditions constitute a contract o adhesion. hurt. and. -the Court agrees with A(nar that the ter#s and conditions o Citiban)Ds *astercard constitute a contract o adhesion% $t is settled that contracts between cardholders and the credit card co#panies are contracts o adhesion. so-called. whiche&er is lesser9 such stipulation cannot be considered as &alid or being unconscionable as it precludes pay#ent o a larger a#ount e&en though da#age #ay be clearly pro&en% !-he inva2idit+ of the ter*s and conditions 1ein% invoEed 1+ Citi1anE' not/ithstandin%' the Court sti22 cannot a/ard da*a%es in favor of 5etitioner. or har# which results ro# the in+ury< and da#ages are the reco#pense or co#pensation awarded or the da#age su ered% "hus.Citiban)% On li#iting its liability to 31) or the actual da#age pro&en. one o the ban)Ds o icers.uria. there can be da#age without in+ury to those instances in which the loss or har# was not the result o a &iolation o a legal duty% $n such cases. plainti Ds co#puter print out (0xh% B). Avena Evidence docu*ents adduced 1+ defendant are entit2ed to %reater /ei%ht than that said co*5uter 5rint out 5resented 1+ 52aintiff that 1ears on the issue of /hether the 52aintiffBs 5referred *aster card /as actua22+ 52aced in the Chot 2istD or 12acE2isted for the fo22o/in% reasons. V. the law a ords no re#edy or da#ages resulting ro# an act which does not a#ount to a legal in+ury or wrong% "hese situations are o ten called damnum absque in./ v. the or#er deser&es greater e&identiary weight supporting the indings o this Court that plainti D s pre erred #aster card had ne&er been blac)listed at all or placed in a so-called Hhot listI by de endant% . 1) the due execution and authentication o these 6arning Cancellation 8ulletins (or 6C8) ha&e been duly established and identi ied by Citiban)Ds witness. co#petent to testi y on the said bulletins as ha&ing been issued by the de endant ban) showing that plainti Ds pre erred #aster credit card was ne&er blac)listed or placed in the 8an)Ds Hhot listI% 6hile A(narDs co#puter print out was ne&er authenticated or its due execution had ne&er been duly established% "hus. and should not be held liable there or. 9is5osition. :ennis -lores. !A) xxxQ there is a #aterial distinction between da#ages and in+ury% $n+ury is the illegal in&asion o a legal right< da#age is the loss. between a set o duly authenticated co##ercial docu#ents. who is the head o its credit card depart#ent. howe&er.Prof. -"he underlying basis or the award o tort da#ages is the pre#ise that an indi&idual was in+ured in conte#plation o law< thus there #ust irst be a breach be ore da#ages #ay be awarded and the breach o such duty should be the proxi#ate cause o the in+ury% -the Court cannot grant his present petition as he ailed to show by preponderance o e&idence that Citiban) breached any obligation that would #a)e it answerable or said su ering% . "-. because their ter#s are prepared by only one party while the other #erely a ixes his signature signi ying his adhesion thereto% -On 3ar 7 o said contract9 6hile it is true that Citiban) #ay ha&e no control o all the actions o its #erchant a iliates. "he petition is denied or lac) o #erit% A2010 150 . any a#biguity in its pro&isions #ust be construed against the party who prepared the contract.) On i#plied no&ation (when he added addtDl unds to increase credit li#it)9 the Court inds that petitioner4s argu#ent on this point has no leg to stand on% On da*a%es. the conse5uences #ust be borne by the in+ured person alone. it is incorrect. A.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful