O. J.

Simpson murder case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the 1994 murder trial. For the 2008 trial, see O. J. Simpson robbery case. The O. J. Simpson murder case (officially the People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson ) was a criminal trialheld in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court that spanned from the ury !eing sworn in on "o#em!er $, %&&',(%) to opening statements on *anuary $', %&&+, ($) to a #erdict on ,cto!er -, %&&+. (-) Former professional foot!all star and actor ,. *. Simpson was tried on two counts of murder after the *une %&&' deaths of his e/0wife, "icole 1rown Simpson, and a waiter, 2onald Lyle 3oldman. The case has !een descri!ed as the most pu!lici4ed criminal trial in American history.(') Simpson was ac5uitted after a trial that lasted more than eight months. (+) Simpson hired a high0profile defense team initially led !y 2o!ert Shapiro(6)(7)(8) and su!se5uently led !y *ohnnie Cochran and also included9 F. Lee 1ailey, Alan :ershowit4, 2o!ert ;ardashian, 3erald <elmen (the dean of law at Santa Clara <ni#ersity), 2o!ert 1lasier, and Carl =. :ouglas with two more attorneys speciali4ing in :"A e#idence9 1arry Scheck and >eter "eufeld. Los Angeles County !elie#ed it had a solid prosecution case, !ut Cochran was a!le to persuade the urors that there was reasona!le dou!t a!out the:"A e#idence (a relati#ely new form of e#idence in trials at the time)(&) ? including that the !lood0sample e#idence had allegedly !een mishandled !y la! scientists and technicians ? and a!out the circumstances surrounding other e/hi!its. (%@) Cochran and the defense team also alleged other misconduct !y the Los Angeles >olice :epartment. SimpsonAs cele!rity and the lengthy tele#ised trial ri#eted national attention on the so0called BTrial of the CenturyB. 1y the end of the criminal trial, national sur#eys showed dramatic differences in the assessment of SimpsonAs guilt !etween most !lack and white Americans. (%%) Later, !oth the 1rown and 3oldman families sued Simpson for damages in a ci#il trial that came to a total of '@ million dollars. ,n Fe!ruary 6, %&&7, a ury unanimously found there was a preponderance of e#idence to hold Simpson lia!le for damages in the wrongful death of 3oldman and !attery of 1rown. (%$) ,n Fe!ruary $%, $@@8, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the ci#il udgment against him.(%-) Curders(edit) At %$9%@ am(%') on *une %-, %&&', "icole 1rown Simpson and 2onald 3oldman were found murdered outside 1rownAs 1undy :ri#econdo in the 1rentwood area of Los Angeles. ,.*. Simpson and "icole 1rown Simpson had di#orced two years earlier. =#idence found and collected at the scene led police to suspect that ,.*. Simpson was the murderer. "icole had !een sta!!ed multiple times in the head and neck and had defensi#e wounds on her hands. The wound through her neck was gaping, through which the laryn/ could !e seen, and #erte!ra C- was also incised.(%+)

Lawyers con#inced the LA>: to allow Simpson to turn himself in at %% am on *une %7, %&&'(%6)987 e#en though the dou!le murder charge meant no !ail and a possi!le death penalty #erdict if con#icted.(%7) ,#er %,@@@ reporters waited for Simpson at the police station, !ut he failed to appear. At $ pm, the Los Angeles >olice :epartment issued an all0points !ulletin. At + pm 2o!ert ;ardashian, a Simpson friend and one of his defense lawyers, read a ram!ling letter !y Simpson to the media.(%8)9$$ Dn the letter Simpson sent greetings to $' friends and wrote, BFirst e#eryone understand D had nothing to do with "icoleAs murder ... :onAt feel sorry for me. DA#e had a great life.B (%8)9$$(%6)987(%&) To many, this sounded like asuicide note, and the reporters oined the search for Simpson. According to Simpson lawyer2o!ert Shapiro, also present at

;ardashianAs press conference, SimpsonAs psychiatrists agreed with the suicide note interpretationE on tele#ision the attorney appealed to Simpson to surrender.($@) The low0speed chase(edit) At around 69$@ pm, a motorist in ,range County saw Simpson riding in his white 1ronco, dri#en !y his friend, Al Cowlings, and notified police. The police then tracked calls placed from Simpson on his cellular telephone. At 69'+ pm, a police officer saw the 1ronco, going north on Dnterstate '@+. When the officer approached the 1ronco with sirens !laring, Cowlings yelled that Simpson was in the !ack seat of the #ehicle and had a gun to his own head. ($@) The officer !acked off, !ut followed the #ehicle(%6)987?88 at -+ miles per hour (+6 kmFh),($%) with up to $@ police cars participating in the chase. ($$) For some time a Los Angeles "ews Ser#ice helicopter piloted !y 1o! Tur and contracted !y ;C1S had e/clusi#e co#erage,(%6)988 !ut o#er $@ helicopters oined the chaseE the high degree of media participation caused camera signals to appear on incorrect tele#ision channels.($@) 2adio station ;"G also pro#ided li#e co#erage of the slow0speed pursuit. <SC sports announcer >ete Ar!ogast and station producer ,ran Sampson contacted former <SC coach *ohn Cc;ay to go on the air and encourage Simpson to end the pursuit. Cc;ay agreed and asked Simpson to pull o#er and turn himself in instead of committing suicide. (%6)988 LA>: detecti#e Tom Lange, who had pre#iously inter#iewed Simpson a!out the murders on *une %-, reali4ed that he had SimpsonAs cellular phone num!er and called him repeatedly. A colleague hooked a tape recorder up to LangeAs phone and captured a con#ersation !etween Lange and Simpson in which Lange repeatedly pleaded with Simpson to Bthrow the gun out the windowB for the sake of his mother and his children. Simpson apologi4ed for not turning himself in earlier in the day and responded that he was Bthe only one who deser#ed to get hurtB and was B ust gonna go with "icole.B Al Cowlings can !e o#erheard on the recording (after the 1ronco had arri#ed at SimpsonAs home surrounded !y police) pleading with Simpson to surrender and end the chase peacefully. ($-) :uring the pursuit and without ha#ing a chance to hear the taped phone con#ersation, SimpsonAs friend Al Cichaels interpreted his actions as an admission of guilt.($@) All 1ig Three tele#ision networks and C"" as well as local news outlets interrupted regular programming, with &+ million #iewers nationwide.(%8)9$-(%6)($@)($') While "1C continued co#erage of 3ame + of the "1A Finals !etween the "ew Hork ;nicks and the Iouston 2ockets at Cadison S5uare 3arden, the game appeared in a small !o/ in the corner while Tom 1rokaw as anchorman co#ered the chase.(%8)9$-($@) The chase was co#ered li#e !y A1C "ews anchors >eter *ennings and 1ar!ara Walters on !ehalf of A1CAs fi#e news maga4ines, which achie#ed some of their highest0e#er ratings that week.($') :ominoAs >i44a later reported Brecord salesB of pi44a deli#ery during the tele#ised chase.($+) Thousands of spectators and on0lookers packed o#erpasses along the processionAs ourney waiting for the white 1ronco. Dn a festi#al0like atmosphere, some had signs urging Simpson to flee. (%6)988($$) They and the millions watching the chase on tele#ision felt part of a Bcommon emotional e/perienceB, (%8)9$- as they wonder(ed) if ,. *. Simpson would commit suicide, escape, !e arrested, or engage in some kind of #iolent confrontation. Whate#er might ensue, the shared ad#enture ga#e millions of #iewers a #ested interest, a sense of participation, a feeling of !eing on the inside of a national drama in the making. (%8)9$Simpson reportedly demanded that he !e allowed to speak to his mother !efore he would surrender. ($$) The chase ended at 89@@ pm at his 1rentwood home, +@ miles (8@ km) later, where his son *ustin ran out of the house to greet him. ($$) After remaining in the 1ronco for a!out '+ minutes, (%6)988 Simpson was allowed to go inside for a!out an hourE a police

spokesman stated that he spoke to his mother and drank a glass of orange uice, resulting in laughter from the reporters.
($@)

Shapiro arri#ed and a few minutes later, Simpson surrendered to authorities. Dn the 1ronco the police found BJ8,@@@ in

cash, a change of clothing, a loaded .-+7 Cagnum, a passport, family pictures, and a fake goatee and mustache.B(%6)988 "either the footage of the 1ronco chase, the recorded calls !etween Lange and Simpson nor any of the items found in the 1ronco was shown to the ury as e#idence in SimpsonAs su!se5uent criminal murder trial. ($6) Arrest and trial(edit) ,n *une $@, Simpson was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to !oth murders. As e/pected, the presiding udge ordered that Simpson !e held without !ail. The following day, a grand ury was called to determine whether to indict him for the two murders. Two days later, on *une $-, the grand ury was dismissed as a result of e/cessi#e media co#erage, which might influence its neutrality. *ill Shi#ely, a 1rentwood resident who testified that she saw Simpson speeding away from the area of "icoleAs house on the night of the murders, testified to the grand ury that the 1ronco almost collided with a "issan at the intersection of 1undy and San Kicente 1oule#ard. (+)Another grand ury witness, *ose Camacho, was a knife salesman at 2oss Cutlery who claimed to ha#e sold Simpson a %+0inch (-8@ mm) 3erman0made knife similar to the murder weapon three weeks !efore the murders. (+) Shi#ely and Camacho were not presented !y the prosecution at the criminal trial after they sold their stories to the ta!loid press. ($') Shi#ely had talked to the tele#ision show J+,@@@,($') and Camacho sold his story to the "ational #n$uirer for J%$,+@@ 2ather than a grand ury hearing, a pro!a!le cause hearing was held to determine whether or not to !ring Simpson to trial, which was a minor #ictory for SimpsonAs lawyers who would now ha#e access to e#idence as it is !eing presented !y the prosecution in contrast to a grand ury hearing. After a week0long court hearing, California Superior Court *udge ;athleen ;ennedy0>owell ruled on *uly 7 that there was sufficient e#idence to !ring Simpson to trial for the murders. At his arraignment on *uly $&, when asked how he pleaded to the murders, Simpson, !reaking a courtroom practice that says the accused may plead only simple words of BguiltyB or Bnot guilty,B firmly stated9 BA!solutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.B Following the preliminary hearing, the case was mo#ed from Santa Conica to the Criminal Courts 1uilding in downtown Los Angeles. The decision, commonly attri!uted to the :istrict Attorney, was actually the decision of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which cited damage to the Santa Conica Courthouse from the %&&' "orthridge earth5uake and security concerns for mo#ing the trial downtown. The decision likely resulted in a ury pool with more Latinos, African0Americans, Asian0Americans, and !lue0collar workers than one would find from Santa Conica. ($7) Leading the murder in#estigation was #eteran LA>: detecti#e Tom Lange. Dn %&&+, the criminal trial of ,.*. Simpson was tele#ised for %-' days. The prosecution elected not to ask for the death penalty, and instead it sought a life sentence. The TK e/posure made cele!rities of many of the figures in the trial, including the presiding udge, Lance Dto. >rosecutor Carcia Clark, a '@0year0old :eputy :istrict Attorney, was designated as the lead prosecutor, which was to !e her twenty0first murder trial during her %- years with the :.A.As office. :eputy :istrict Attorney Christopher A. :arden, an African0American prosecutor widely e/perienced in murder trials, !ecame ClarkAs co0counsel. Since Simpson wanted a speedy trial, the defense and prosecuting attorneys worked around the clock for se#eral months to prepare their cases. Dn ,cto!er %&&', *udge Dto started inter#iewing -@' prospecti#e urors, each of whom had to fill out a 7+0page 5uestionnaire. ,n "o#em!er -, %$ urors were seated with %$ alternates. ard !opy for

Tele#ised !y Court TK, and in part !y other ca!le and network news outlets, the trial !egan on *anuary $', %&&+. Los Angeles County prosecutor Christopher :arden argued that Simpson killed his e/0wife in a ealous rage. The prosecution opened its case !y playing a&0%0% call that "icole 1rown Simpson had made on *anuary %, %&8&. She e/pressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her, and he could !e heard yelling at her in the !ackground. The prosecution also presented do4ens of e/pert witnesses, on su! ects ranging from :"A fingerprinting to !lood and shoeprint analysis, to place Simpson at the scene of the crime. The prosecution spent the opening weeks of the trial presenting e#idence that Simpson had a history of physically a!using "icole. SimpsonAs lawyer Alan :ershowit4 argued that only a tiny fraction of women who are a!used !y their mates are murdered. This claim is often cited in pro!a!ility classes as an e/ample of how 1ayesA rule is counterintuiti#e since the implied pro!a!ility that Simpson committed the murder is a!out two thousand times what :ershowit4 suggested.
($8)

Within days after the start of the trial, lawyers and persons #iewing the trial from a single closed0circuit TK camera in the courtroom saw an emerging pattern9 Continual and countless interruptions with o! ections from !oth sides of the courtroom, as well as one Bside!arB conference after another with the udge !eyond earshot of the unseen ury located ust !elow and out of the cameraAs frame. Defense attorneys(edit)

Simpson hired a team of high0profile lawyers, including F. Lee 1ailey, 2o!ert Shapiro, Alan :ershowit4,2o!ert ;ardashian, 3erald <elmen (the dean of law at Santa Clara <ni#ersity), Carl =. :ouglas and *ohnnie Cochran. Two attorneys speciali4ing in :"A e#idence, 1arry Scheck and >eter "eufeld, were hired to attempt to discredit the prosecutionAs :"A e#idence,(&) and they argued that Simpson was the #ictim of police fraudand what they termed as sloppy internal procedures that contaminated the :"A e#idence.(%+) SimpsonAs defense was said to cost !etween <SJ- million and J6 million.($&) SimpsonAs defense team, du!!ed the B:ream TeamB !y reporters, argued that LA>: detecti#e Cark Fuhrman had planted e#idence at the crime scene. LA>: Criminalist :ennis Fung also faced hea#y scrutiny. Dn all, %+@ witnesses ga#e testimony during the trial. Prosecution case(edit)

=#en with no murder weapon and no witnesses to the murders, the prosecution felt they had a #ery strong case. Supported !y :"Ae#idence, they fully e/pected a con#iction. From the physical e#idence collected, the prosecution claimed that Simpson dro#e to "icole 1rownAs house on the e#ening of *une %$ with the intention of killing her. They maintained that "icole, after putting her two children to !ed and while getting ready to go to !ed herself, opened the front door of her house after either responding to a knock on the front door or after hearing a noise outside, where Simpson gra!!ed her !efore she could scream and attacked her with a knife. Forensic e#idence from the Los Angeles County coroner suggested that 2on 3oldman arri#ed at the front gate to the townhouse sometime during the assault where the assailant apparently attacked him and sta!!ed him repeatedly in the neck and chest with one hand while restraining him with an arm choke0hold. According to the prosecutionAs account, as "icole 1rown was found lying face down, the assailant, after finishing with 3oldman, pulled her head !ack using her hair, put his foot on her !ack, and slit her throat

with the knife, se#ering hercarotid artery.(%+) They then argued that Simpson left a Btrail of !loodB from the condo to the alley !ehind itE there was also testimony that three drops of SimpsonAs !lood were found on the dri#eway near the gate to his house on 2ockingham :ri#e.(-@) According to the prosecution, Simpson was last seen in pu!lic at &9-6 p.m. that e#ening when he returned to the front gate of his house with 1rian B;atoB ;aelin, a !it0part actor and family friend who li#ed with "icole until he was gi#en the use of a guest house on SimpsonAs estate. Simpson was not seen again until %@9+' p.m., an hour and %8 minutes later, when he came out of the front door of his house to a waiting limousine hired to take him to Los Angeles Dnternational Airport (LAG) to fly to a Iert4 con#ention in Chicago. 1oth the defense and prosecution agreed that the murders took place !etween %@9%+ and %@9'@ p.m., with the prosecution saying that Simpson dro#e his white 1ronco the fi#e minutes to and from the murder scene.(%@) They presented a witness in the area of 1undy :ri#e who saw a car similar to SimpsonAs 1ronco speeding away from the area at %@9-+ p.m. (%@) According to his testimony, limousine dri#er Allan >ark arri#ed at SimpsonAs estate at %@9$' p.m. :ri#ing past the 2ockingham gate, he did not see SimpsonAs white 1ronco parked at the cur!. >ark testified that he had !een looking for and had seen the house num!er, and the prosecution presented e/hi!its to show that the position in which the 1ronco was found the ne/t morning was right ne/t to the house num!er (implying that >ark would surely ha#e noticed the 1ronco if it had !een there at that time).(-%) According to SimpsonAs #ersion of e#ents, the 1ronco had !een parked in that position for se#eral hours. Ceanwhile, ;ato ;aelin was in his guest house and on the telephone to his friend, 2achel Ferrara. >ark parked opposite the Ashford gate, then dro#e !ack to the 2ockingham gate to check which dri#eway would ha#e the !est access for the limo. :eciding that the 2ockingham entrance was too tight, he returned to the Ashford gate and !egan to !u44 the intercom at %@9'@, getting no response. >ark got out of the limousine and looked through the Ashford gate and saw the house dark with no lights on, sa#e for a dim light coming from one of the second floor windows, which was SimpsonAs !edroom. While smoking a cigarette, >ark then made a series of phone calls from his cellular to the pager of his !oss, :ale St. *ohn, and then to >arkAs home, trying to get St. *ohnAs home phone num!er from his mother to try to get the phone num!er for SimpsonAs house. At appro/imately %@9+@, ;ato ;aelin (who was still on the phone to 2achel Ferrara) heard three thumps against the outside wall of his guest house. ;aelin hung up the phone and #entured outside to in#estigate the noises !ut decided not to #enture directly down the dark south pathway where the thumps came from. Dnstead, he walked to the front of the property where he saw Allan >arkAs limousine outside the Ashford gate. At the same time >ark saw ;aelin come from the !ack of the property to the front, >ark testified that he saw Ba tall !lack manB of SimpsonAs height and !uild enter the front door of the house from the dri#eway area, after which lights went on and Simpson finally answered >arkAs call, e/plaining that he had o#erslept and would !e at the front gate soon. ;aelin opened the front gate to let >ark dri#e the limo onto the estate grounds, and Simpson came out of his house through the front door a few minutes later. 1oth ;aelin and >ark helped Simpson put his !elongings (which were already outside the front door when >ark dro#e up to the front of SimpsonAs house) in the trunk of the limo for the ride to the airport. 1oth ;aelin and >ark remarked in their testimony that Simpson looked agitated. 1ut other witnesses, such as the ticket clerk at Los Angeles Dnternational Airport who checked Simpson onto the plane and a few others, including a flight attendant who was also called to testify, said that Simpson looked and acted perfectly normal. Conflicting testimony such as this was to !e a recurring theme throughout the trial.

SimpsonAs initial claim that he was asleep at the time of the murders was replaced !y a series of different stories. According to the defense lawyer *ohnnie Cochran, Simpson had ne#er left his house that night and that he was alone in his house packing to tra#el to Chicago. Cochran claims that Simpson went outside through the !ack door to hit a few golf !alls into the childrenAs sand!o/ in the front garden, one or more of which made the three loud thumps on the wall of ;aelinAs !ungalow. Cochran produced a potential ali!i witness, 2osa Lope4, a neigh!orAs Spanish0speaking housekeeper who testified that she had seen SimpsonAs car parked outside his house at the time of the murders. 1ut Lope4As testimony, which was not presented to the ury, was pulled apart under intense cross0e/amination!y Carcia Clark, when Cs. Lope4 was forced to admit that she could not !e sure of the precise time she saw SimpsonAs white 1ronco outside his house. Later, the defense tried to claim that Simpson could not !e physically capa!le of carrying out the murders, for 2onald 3oldman was a fit young man who put up a fierce struggle against his assailant. ,.*. Simpson was a '60year0old former foot!all player with chronicarthritis, which had left him with scars on his knees from old foot!all in uries. 1ut Carcia Clark produced into e#idence an e/ercise #ideo that Simpson made a few months !efore the murders which was titled O.J. Simpson %inimum %aintenance& Fitness For %en which showed that, despite some physical conditions and limitations, Simpson was anything !ut frail.(-$) The prosecution also called "icoleAs sister, :enise, to the witness stand where she tearfully testified that on many occasions in the %&8@s, she witnessed Simpson pick up his wife and hurl her against a wall, then physically throw her out of their house after an argument. Ier testimony was punctuated !y a !arrage of defense o! ections and side!ar conferences with the udge. Then the prosecution turned to the e#ents of the e#ening of *une %$, %&&', where ;aren Lee Crawford, who was the manager of the Ce44aluna restaurant where "icole ate that Sunday night, was called to testify where she recounted that Crs. SimpsonAs mother phoned the restaurant at &9-7 p.m., a!out her daughterAs lost eyeglasses, and how Cs. Crawford found them, put them in a white en#elope, and how waiter 2on 3oldman departed from the restaurant after his shift was o#er to drop them off at "icoleAs house at &9+@ p.m. "icoleAs neigh!or, >a!lo Feni#es, testified a!out hearing a B#ery distincti#e !arkingB and Bplainti#e wailB of a dog at around %@ to %+ minutes after %@9@@ p.m. while he was at home watching the %@ oAclock news on his TK set. =#a Stein, another neigh!or, testified a!out a #ery loud and persistent !arking sound also at around %@9%+ p.m. that kept her from going !ack to sleep. "eigh!or Ste#en Schwa! testified that while he was walking his dog in the area near "icoleAs house at around %%9-@ p.m., he noticed a wandering and agitatedAkita dog trailing its leash with !loody paws, which after e/amining, found the dog unin ured. Schwa! told a!out taking the dog to another neigh!or friend of his, Sukru 1o4tepe, who testified that he took the Akita dog into his home where the dog !ecame more agitated. 1o4tepe took the dog for a walk at appro/imately %$9@@ midnight and testified that the dog tugged on its leash and led him to "icoleAs house. There he disco#ered "icole SimpsonAs dead !ody. Cinutes later, 1o4tepe flagged down a passing patrol car. The police officer, 2o!ert 2iske, was the first officer at the crime scene. Ie testified that he found a woman in a !lack dress, !arefoot, and lying face down in a puddle of !lood on the walkway that led to the front door of her house. Then he saw 3oldmanAs !ody lying on its side !eside a tree a short distance away off the walkway. 2iske also descri!ed seeing a white en#elope, which was later pro#en to contain "icoleAs motherAs glasses that had !een left at the restaurant. Ie also saw 3oldmanAs !eeper, a !lack leather glo#e, and a dark !lue knit ski cap on the ground near the !odies. The front door

of "icoleAs house was wide open, !ut there were no signs of forced entry nor any e#idence that anyone had entered the premises and nothing inside was out of the ordinary. ,n Sunday, Fe!ruary %$, %&&+, a long motorcade tra#eled into 1rentwood where the udge, urors, prosecutors, and defense lawyers made a two0hour inspection of the crime scene, and then a three0hour tour of ,.*. SimpsonAs 2ockingham estate. Simpson, under guard !y se#eral officers !ut not wearing handcuffs, waited outside the crime scene in and around an unmarked police car, !ut was permitted to enter his 2ockingham house. :etecti#e 2on >hillips testified that when he called Simpson in Chicago to tell him of his e/0wifeAs murder that Simpson sounded shocked and upset, !ut was oddly unconcerned a!out how she died. :etecti#e Tom Lange testified that "icole was pro!a!ly killed first !ecause the !ottoms of her !are feet were clean, implying that she was struck down to the ground !efore any !lood flowed. This was a key point that Simpson might ha#e set out to kill "icoleE whereas 3oldman inad#ertently stum!led upon the scene and prompted Simpson to kill him too. Dn cross0e/amining :etecti#e Lange, Cochran proposed two hypotheses for what happened at the murder scene. First, he suggested that one, or more, drug dealers encountered "icole Simpson while looking for her friend and house guest, Faye 2esnick, an admitted cocaine a!user. Dn the second hypothesis, Cochran suggested that Ban assassin, or assassins,B followed 3oldman to the South 1undy house to kill him. DNA evidence(edit) Sample from !loody shoe prints leading away from the !odies and from the !ack gate of the condominium were tested for :"A matches.(%@) Dnitial polymerase chain reaction testing did not rule out Simpson as a suspect. Dn more precise restriction fragment length polymorphism tests matches were found !etween SimpsonAs !lood and !lood samples taken from the crime scene (!oth the shoe prints in !lood and the gate samples). (&)(%@) >olice criminalist :ennis Fung testified that this :"A e#idence put Simpson at "icole 1rownAs townhouse at the time of the murders. 1ut in cross0e/amination !y 1arry Scheck, which lasted eight full days, most of the :"A e#idence was 5uestioned. :r. 2o!in Cotton, of Cellmark :iagnostics, testified for si/ days. (%+) 1lood e#idence had !een tested at two separate la!oratories, each conducting different tests. (%+) :espite that safeguard, it emerged during the cross0e/amination of Fung and the other la!oratory scientists that the police scientist Andrea Ca44ola (who collected !lood samples from Simpson to compare with e#idence from the crime scene) was a trainee who carried the #ial of SimpsonAs !lood around in her la! coat pocket for nearly a day !efore handing it o#er as an e/hi!it. While two errors had !een found in the history of :"A testing at Cellmark, one of the testing la!oratories, in %&88 and %&8&, the errors were found during 5uality control tests and had not occurred since. (%+) Dn the %&88 test, one of the companies hired for :"A consulting !y SimpsonAs defense also made the same error. (&) What should ha#e !een the prosecutionAs strong point !ecame their weak link amid accusations that !ungling police technicians handled the !lood samples with such a degree of incompetence as to render the deli#ery of accurate and relia!le :"A results almost impossi!le. The prosecution argued that they had made the :"A e#idence a#aila!le to the defense for its own testing, and if the defense attorneys disagreed with the prosecutionAs tests, they could ha#e conducted their own testing on the same samples.(%+) The defense had chosen not to accept the prosecutionAs offer.(%+) ,n Cay %6, 3ary Sims, a California :epartment of *ustice criminalist who helped esta!lish the :epartment of *usticeAs :"A la!oratory, testified that a glo#e found at SimpsonAs house tested positi#e for a match of 3oldmanAs !lood. (%+)

Mark Fuhrman(edit)

Dn Carch %&&+, Cark Fuhrman testified to dri#ing o#er to SimpsonAs house to 5uestion him on the night of the two murders and, after getting no response after !u44ing the intercom of the house which was empty, scaled one of the walls and found !lood marks on the dri#eway of SimpsonAs home, as well as a !lack leather glo#e on the premises near the location of ;aelinAs !ungalow, which had !lood of !oth murder #ictims on it as well as SimpsonAs. (%@) :espite an aggressi#e cross0 e/amination !y F. Lee 1ailey, (--) Fuhrman denied on the stand that he was racist or had used the word B niggerB to descri!e !lack people in the %@ years prior to his testimony. (--) 1ut a few months later, the defense played audio tapes of Fuhrman repeatedly using the word ? '% times, in total. The tape had !een made in %&86 !y a young "orth Carolina screenwriter named Laura Cc;inny. She had inter#iewed Fuhrman for a screenplay she was de#eloping on police officers. The Fuhrman tapes !ecame one of the cornerstones of the defenseAs case that FuhrmanAs testimony lacked credi!ility. Dn Septem!er, Fuhrman was called !ack to the witness stand !y the defense to answer more 5uestions a!out the disco#ery of the !lood marks and leather glo#e that he supposedly found on SimpsonAs property hours after the murders took place. When 5uestioned !y attorney 3erald <elmen, Fuhrman, with his lawyer standing !y his side, pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self0incrimination to a#oid further 5uestioning after his integrity was challenged at this point. The prosecution told the ury in closing arguments that Fuhrman was indeed a racist, !ut said that this should not detract from the e#idence showing SimpsonAs guilt. (+) FuhrmanAs testimony resulted in his indictment on one count of per ury, to which he later pleadedno contest. Glove(edit) ,ne dark leather glo#e was found at the crime scene, its match found near ;ato ;aelinAs guest house !ehind SimpsonAs 2ockingham :ri#e estate.(%@) ;aelin testified that he had heard Bthumps in the nightB in the same area around the guest house the night of the murder. (%@) 1rown had !ought Simpson two pairs of this type of glo#e in %&&@. (%@) 1oth glo#es, according to the prosecution, contained :"A e#idence from Simpson, 1rown and 3oldman, with the glo#e at SimpsonAs house also containing a long strand of !londe hair similar to 1rownAs. (%@) ,n *une %+, %&&+, defense attorney *ohnnie Cochran goaded assistant prosecutor Christopher :arden into asking Simpson to put on the leather glo#e that was found at the scene of the crime. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try on the glo#es !ecause the glo#e had !een soaked in !lood (according to prosecutors) from Simpson, 1rown and 3oldman,(%+) and fro4en and unfro4en se#eral times. The leather glo#e seemed too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially o#er glo#es he wore underneath. (%@) <elmen came up with and Cochran repeated a 5uip he had used se#eral times in relation to other points in his closing arguments, BDf it doesnAt fit, you must ac5uit.B ,n *une $$, %&&+, :arden told *udge Lance Dto of his concerns that Simpson Bhas arthritis and we looked at the medication he takes and some of it is anti0inflammatory and we are told he has not taken the stuff for a day and it caused swelling in the oints and inflammation in his hands.B The prosecution also stated their !elief that the glo#e shrunk from ha#ing !een soaked in !lood and later testing. (%@) A photo was presented during the trial showing Simpson wearing the same type of glo#e that was found at the crime scene.

>rosecutors claimed that the presence of ,.*. SimpsonAs !lood at the crime scene was the result of !lood dripping from cuts on the middle finger of his left hand. (%@) >olice noted his wounds on *une %-, %&&', and asserted that these were suffered during the fatal attack on 2onald 3oldman. Iowe#er, the defense noted that none of the glo#es found had any cuts. >lus, !oth prosecution and defense witnesses testified to not seeing any cuts or wounds of any kind on SimpsonAs hands in the hours after the murders took place. The defense also alleged that Fuhrman may ha#e planted the glo#e at SimpsonAs house after taking it from the crime scene, and that the analysis finding that the hair could !e 1rownAs could not !e relia!le.(%@) The prosecution contended that this was not the case, pointing out that !y the time Fuhrman had arri#ed at the Simpson home after lea#ing "icole 1rownAs home, the crime scene had already !een com!ed o#er !y se#eral officers for almost two hours, and none had noticed a second glo#e at the scene. Dn his first round of testimony, Fuhrman answered BnoB when asked !y F. Lee 1ailey if he had planted any e#idence at SimpsonAs house. Dn his second round of testimony, Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment when asked the same 5uestion !y 3erald <elmen. ,n Septem!er 8, $@%$, :arden accused Cochran of tampering with the glo#e !efore the trial.(-') acial differences(edit) Dn closing arguments, :arden ridiculed the notion that police officers might ha#e wanted to frame Simpson. (+) Ie 5uestioned why, if the LA>: was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic #iolence calls without arresting him !efore e#entually citing him for a!use in %&8&, and why they then waited fi#e days to arrest him for the %&&' murders.(+) CochranAs ury summation compared Fuhrman, pro#en to ha#e repeatedly referred to African0Americans as BniggersB and to ha#e !oasted of !eating young African0Americans in his role as a police officer, to Adolf Iitler, a techni5ue which was later critici4ed !y 2o!ert Shapiro and !y at least one uror, (+) as well as 2on 3oldmanAs father, Fred 3oldman. Cochran called Fuhrman Ba genocidalracist, a per urer, AmericaAs worst nightmare and the personification of e#il.B (+) Fuhrman later pleaded "olo contendere to felony charges of per ury, arising from his testimony in SimpsonAs trial. Fears grew that race riots would erupt all o#er Los Angeles and the rest of the country if Simpson was con#icted of the murders, similar to the %&&$ riots following the ac5uittal of four police officers for !eating !lack motorist 2odney ;ing three years earlier. As a result, all L.A. police officers were put on %$0hour shifts, and a line of o#er %@@ police officers on horse!ack surrounded the L.A. county courthouse on the day of the #erdict, in case of rioting !y the crowd. !erdict(edit) At %@ a.m. on ,cto!er -, %&&+, the ury returned a #erdict of not guilty. The only testimony re#iewed was that of limo dri#er Alan >ark who stated that he did not see SimpsonAs 1ronco outside of the 2ockingham estate after the murders occurred. The *ury arri#ed at the #erdict !y - p.m. the pre#ious day, after only four hours of deli!eration, !ut *udge Dto postponed the announcement.(-+) 1efore the #erdict, >resident 1ill Clinton was !riefed on security measures if rioting occurred nationwide due to the #erdict. An estimated %@@ million people worldwide stopped what they were doing to watch or listen to the #erdict announcement. Long0distance telephone call #olume declined !y +8L and trading #olume on the "ew Hork Stock =/change !y '%L, water usage decreased as people a#oided using !athrooms, and go#ernment officials postponed meetings. So much work stopped that the #erdict cost an estimated J'8@ million in lost producti#ity.(-+)

The <nited States Supreme Court recei#ed a message on the #erdict during oral arguments, with the ustices 5uietly passing the note to each other while listening to the attorneyAs presentation. Congressmen cancelled press conferences, with one telling reporters B"ot only would you not !e here, !ut D wouldnAt !e here, either.B (-6) :ominoAs >i44a reported a large rise in pi44a sales in the %+ minutes !efore the #erdict. Iowe#er, when the announcement !egan, the orders stopped and Bnot a single pi44a was ordered in the <nited States for fi#e minutes !etween % oAclock and %9@+B, according to the chain.(-7) "vidence(edit) The prosecution used se#eral tactics to show SimpsonAs culpa!ility. (-8) :"A analysis of !lood found on a pair of SimpsonAs socks found in his !edroom identified it as "icole 1rownAs. The !lood had :"A characteristics matched !y appro/imately only one in &.7 !illion, with odds rising to one out of $% !illion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate :"A la!oratories. (%+)(-8) 1oth socks had a!out $@ stains of !lood.(%+) :"A analysis of the !lood found in, on, and near SimpsonAs 1ronco re#ealed traces of SimpsonAs, 1rownAs, and 3oldmanAs !lood.(-&) :"A analysis of !loody socks found in SimpsonAs !edroom pro#ed this was 1rownAs !lood. The !lood made a similar pattern on !oth sides of the socks. :efense medical e/pert :r. Ienry Lee of the Connecticut State >olice Forensic Science La!oratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a BholeB in his ankle, or a drop of !lood was placed on the sock while it was not !eing worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could ha#e caused contamination.('@) A few strands of African0American hair were found on 3oldmanAs shirt. (-&) Se#eral coins were found along with fresh !lood drops !ehind "icoleAs condo, in the area where the cars were parked. :"A analysis of !lood on the left0hand glo#e, found outside 1rownAs home, was pro#en to !e a mi/ture of SimpsonAs, 1rownAs, and 3oldmanAs. Although the glo#e was soaked in !lood, there were no !lood drops leading up to, or away from the glo#e. "o other !lood was found in the area of the glo#e e/cept on the glo#e. (-&)
(%@)

The glo#es contained particles of hair consistent with 3oldmanAs hair and a cap contained carpet fi!ers consistent with fi!ers from SimpsonAs 1ronco. (%@) A !lack knit cap at the crime scene contained strands of African0American hair. Se#eral strands of dark !lue cotton fi!ers were found on 3oldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly0colored sweat suit that night. (%@)

The left0hand glo#e found at "icole 1rownAs home and the right0hand glo#e found at SimpsonAs home pro#ed to !e a match.('%)

The LA County :istrict AttorneyAs ,ffice and the Cedical =/aminerAs ,ffice could not e/plain why %.+ cmM of !lood were missing from the original 8 cmM taken from Simpson and placed into e#idence. ('$)

,fficers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the !eating of his wife "icole 1rown. >hotos of 1rownAs !ruised and !attered face from that attack were shown.

Cuch of the incriminating e#idence9 !loody glo#e, !loody socks, !lood in and on the 1ronco, was disco#ered !y Los Angeles >olice :etecti#e Cark Fuhrman. Ie was later charged with per ury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word BniggerB within ten years of the trial. :uring the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self0incrimination to a#oid further 5uestioning after his integrity was challenged on this point. ('$)

The !loody shoe prints at the crime scene were identified !y F1D shoe e/pert William 1od4iak as ha#ing !een made !y a pair of e/tremely rare and e/pensi#e 1runo Cagli shoes, of which it has !een reported that only $&& pairs were sold in the <nited States. (%@) The large si4e %$ (-@+ mm) prints matched SimpsonAs shoe si4e. (%@) Dn the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had e#er !ought such shoes,
(%@)

howe#er, then free0lance photographer =.*. Flammer claimed to ha#e found a photograph he had taken of

Simpson in %&&- that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a pu!lic e#ent, which was later pu!lished in the "ational =n5uirer. SimpsonAs defense team claimed that the photograph was doctored, although other pre0%&&' photos appearing to show Simpson wearing 1runo Cagli shoes were since disco#ered and pu!lished. ('-) =#idence collected !y LA>: criminalist :ennis Fung came under criticism. Ie admitted to Bha#ing missed a few drops of !lood on a fence near the !odies,B !ut on the stand he said that he Breturned se#eral weeks afterwards to collect them.B('$) Fung admitted that he had not used ru!!er glo#es when collecting some of the e#idence. ('$) Although, the !lood that was tested ruled out Fung within pu!lished guidelines. LA >olice :etecti#e >hillip Kannatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on SimpsonAs 1ronco !efore e#idence was collected.('$) "vidence not presented at trial(edit) At the *une %&&' grand ury hearing, 2oss Cutlery pro#ided store receipts indicating that Simpson had purchased a %$0inch (-@+ mm) stiletto knife si/ weeks !efore the murders. The knife was determined to !e similar to the one the coroner said caused the sta! wounds.(+) The prosecution did not present this e#idence at trial after disco#ering that store employees had sold their story to The "ational #n$uirer for J%$,+@@.(+) The knife was later collected from SimpsonAs residence !y a court0appointed special master, who took control of the knife. Dt turned out not to !e the murder weapon !ecause prosecution tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on the knife indicating the knife had ne#er !een used. *ill Shi#ely testified to the %&&' grand ury that she saw a white Ford 1ronco speeding away from 1undy :ri#e, in such a hurry that it almost collided with another car at an intersection. (+) She talked to the tele#ision show !opy for J+,@@@, after which prosecutors declined to use her testimony at trial. (+) A womenAs shelter, So ourn, recei#ed a call from "icole 1rown four days prior to the murders saying that she was scared of her e/0hus!and, whom she !elie#ed was stalking her.(+) The prosecution did not present this in court !ecause they thought that *udge Dto would rule the e#idence to !e hearsay.(+) Dn addition, friends and family indicated ard

that "icole 1rown had consistently said that Simpson had !een stalking her. (+) She claimed that e#erywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would !e there, watching her. Ier friends Faye 2esnick and Cynthia Shahian said she was afraid !ecause Simpson had told her he would kill her if he e#er found her with another man. (+) Former "FL player and pastor 2osey 3rier #isited Simpson at the Los Angeles County *ail in the days following the murders. A ailhouse guard, *eff Stuart, testified to *udge Dto that at one point Simpson yelled to 3rier that he BdidnAt mean to do itB, after which 3rier had urged Simpson to come clean. (+) Dto ruled that the e#idence was hearsay and could not !e allowed in court.(+) Cedia co#erage(edit) The murders and trialNBthe !iggest story D ha#e e#er seenB, said the producer of "1CAs TodayNrecei#ed e/tensi#e media co#erage from the #ery !eginningE at least one nonfiction Binstant !ookB was proposed two hours after the !odies were found, and scheduled to pu!lish only a few weeks later. ($') The 'os (n)eles Times alone co#ered the case on its front page for more than -@@ days after the murders, and the 1ig Three networksA nightly news !roadcasts ga#e more air time to the case than to the 1osnian War and the ,klahoma City !om!ing com!ined. The media outlets ser#ed an enthusiastic audienceE one company put the loss of national producti#ity from employees following the case instead of working at J'@ !illion.(%8)9$$?$- The Toni)ht Sho* *ith Jay 'eno aired many skits on the trial, and the :ancing DtosNa troupe of dancers dressed as the udgeNwas a popular recurring segment. ('') SimpsonNwho, !esides his acting career, had worked as a sports reporter for !oth "1C and A1CNhad many friends and relationships in the media world, causing most networks to !e reluctant to air a tele#ision mo#ie dramati4ation of the case. ($') Fo/ was an e/ception, airing one in %&&+, and C1S followed se#eral years later.('+) The media co#erage was itself at times contro#ersialE the issue of whether or not to allow any #ideo cameras into the courtroom was among the first issues *udge Dto had to decide, ultimately ruling that li#e camera co#erage was warranted.
('6)

Dto would !e later critici4ed for this decision !y other legal professionals, and Dto himself, along with others related to the

case (Carcia Clark, Cark Fuhrman, ;ato ;aelin) were said to ha#e !een influenced to some degree !y the media presence, and the pu!licity that came with it. The trial was co#ered in $,$-7 news segments from %&&' through %&&7. (-+) Time ma#a$ine cover(edit) ,n *une $7, %&&', Time pu!lished a co#er story BAn American TragedyB with a mugshot image of ,. *. Simpson on the co#er.('7) The image was darker than a typical maga4ine image, and the Time photo was darker than the original, as shown on a"e*s*ee+ co#er released at the same time. Time itself then !ecame the o! ect of amedia scandal, and it was found it had employed photo manipulation to darken the photo, for the purpose of, as commentators ha#e claimed, making Simpson appear more Bmenacing.B The pu!lication of the co#er photo drew widespread criticism of racist editoriali4ing, and yellow ournalism. Time pu!licly apologi4ed.('8) Frogmen(edit) A part of the murder case that was ne#er tele#ised was the two0hour0long film pilot forFro)men, a The (,Team0like ad#enture series starring Simpson, that Warner 1ros. Tele#ision completed in %&&', a few months !efore the murders. "1C had not yet decided on whether to order the series when SimpsonAs arrest cancelled the pro ect. While searching his home the police o!tained a #ideotaped copy of the pilot as well as the script and dailies. Although the prosecution in#estigated reports that Simpson, who played the leader of a group of former <nited States "a#y S=ALs, recei#ed Ba fair

amount ofB military trainingNincluding use of a knifeNfor Fro)men, and there is a scene in which he holds a knife to the throat of a woman, it was not introduced as e#idence during the trial. ('+) Cost pilots that are two hours long are aired as TK mo#ies whether or not they are ordered as series. 1ecause Bthe appetite for all things ,.*. appeared insatia!leB during the trial, Warner 1ros. and "1C estimated that a gigantic, Super 1owl0like tele#ision audience would ha#e watched the Fro)men film. ,ne of SimpsonAs co0stars in the film commented that the studioAs decision to not air it or e#en release it on home #ideo, and forego an estimated J%' million in profits, was B ust a!out the only proof you ha#e that there is some dignity in the ad#ertising and tele#ision !usinessB. ('+) 2eaction to the #erdict(edit) Dn post0trial inter#iews with the urors, a few said that they !elie#ed Simpson pro!a!ly did commit the murders, ('&) !ut that the prosecution failed to pro#e their case. Three urors pu!lished a !ook called %adam Foreman, in which they descri!ed how police errors, not race, led to their #erdict, and that they considered prosecutor :arden to !e a token !lack assigned to the case !y the prosecutorAs office.(--) Critics of the not0guilty #erdict contend that the deli!eration time was unduly short compared to the length of the trial, and that the urors, most of whom did not ha#e any kind of college education, did not understand the scientific e#idence. (+@) Dn %&&6, defense attorney 2o!ert Shapiro wrote a !ook, The Search -or Justice, in which he critici4es F. Lee 1ailey as a Bloose cannonB and *ohnnie Cochran for !ringing race into the trial. Ie did not !elie#e Simpson was framed !y the LA>: for racial reasons, !ut !elie#ed the #erdict was correct due to reasona!le dou!t.(--) :efense attorney *ohnnie Cochran also wrote a !ook in %&&7 titled Journey to Justice which details his childhood in Shre#eport, Louisiana, and also e/amines the criminal case in detail. Lead prosecutor Carcia Clark also wrote a !ook in %&&8 a!out the case titled .ithout a /oubt. Ier !ook recounts the trial proceedings, from ury selection to final summation, and concludes that nothing could ha#e sa#ed her case, gi#en the prominent role of race in the defenseAs strategy and the hostile !lack ury who heard it. Dn ClarkAs opinion, the prosecutionAs e#idence should ha#e easily con#icted Simpson. That it did not, she says, attests to a udicial system compromised !y issues of race and cele!rity. Clark also details her pri#ate life !efore and after the ,.*. Simpson murder case, from a teenage rape to her e/0hus!andAs custody suit. Former LA>: :etecti#e Cark Fuhrman wrote a !ook in %&&7 a!out the case titled %urder 0n 1rent*ood which detailed his in#estigation into the case. Former Los Angeles County :eputy :istrict Attorney Kincent 1ugliosi (who had handled the Canson trial) wrote a !ook titled Outra)e& The Fi2e 3easons O.J. Simpson 4ot (*ay .ith %urder . 1ugliosi was #ery critical of Clark and :arden, faulting them, among other reasons, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written !efore trying to flee. 1ugliosi contended that the note BreekedB of guilt and that the ury should ha#e !een allowed to see it. Ie also pointed out that the ury was ne#er informed a!out items found in the 1ronco9 a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit. The prosecution e/plained that they felt these items of e#idence would !ring up emotional issues on SimpsonAs part that could harm their case, despite the fact that the items seemed as though they could !e used for fleeing.(+)(+%)

Simpson made an incriminating statement to police a!out cutting his finger the night the murders took place first !y claiming to ha#e accidentally cut his finger with a shard of !roken glass in his Chicago hotel room, then changing his story minutes later that it was the tip of a knife, and later claiming not to remem!er at all how he recei#ed the cut on his left middle finger. 1ugliosi took Clark and :arden to task for not allowing the ury to hear the police audio tape of this statement. 1ugliosi also said the prosecutors should ha#e gone into more detail a!out SimpsonAs a!use of his wife. Ie said it should ha#e !een made clear to the mostly African0American ury that Simpson had little impact in the !lack community and had done nothing to help !lacks less fortunate than he was. 1ugliosi pointed out that, although the prosecutors o!#iously understood that SimpsonAs race had nothing to do with the murders, once the defense Bopened the doorB !y trying to paint Simpson falsely as a leader in the !lack community and that he might ha#e !een framed !y the o#er4ealous prosecution looking for a suspect, the e#idence to the contrary should ha#e !een presented, to pre#ent the ury from allowing it to !ias their #erdict. 1ugliosi also critici4ed the prosecutionAs closing statements as inade5uate. (+%) 2ather than try the crime in mostly white Santa Conica, California, where murders occurring in 1rentwood would normally ha#e !een held, 1ugliosi claimed that the prosecution made a !ig mistake !y deciding to ha#e the trial in mostly nonwhite Los Angeles. :uring the ury selection process, the defense made it difficult for the prosecution to challenge potential !lack urors on the grounds that it is illegal to dismiss someone from the ury for racially moti#ated reasons (California courts !arred peremptory challenges to urors !ased on race in 5eople 2. .heeler,(+$) years !efore the <.S. Supreme Court would do so in 1atson 2. 6entuc+y).(+-) :istrict Attorney 3arcettiAs supporters noted that the decision to mo#e the trial was actually that of the Los Angeles Superior Court >residing *udge, and not that of the :istrict Attorney. The trial was mo#ed due to security concerns and the poor condition of the Santa Conica Courthouse. (+') Another common criticism was that 3arcetti was BmicromanagingB the trial, and made the decision to ha#e Simpson try the !loody leather glo#es reco#ered at the scene of the murder and at SimpsonAs estate in open court. SimpsonAs hands appeared una!le to fit into those glo#es which was highly damaging to the prosecutionAs case. Dn fact, the decision to ha#e Simpson try on the glo#es was made !y !oth :arden and Clark. Also, pundits critici4ed the prosecution for calling Cark Fuhrman to the witness stand in the first place and stated that the prosecution failed to do due diligence on his pre#ious racist statements. The :.A.As office argued that the defense would ha#e called Fuhrman anyway and that no one knew of the e/istence of the Cc;inney tapes until after the trial actually started. (++) According to media reports, prosecutor Carcia Clark thought that women, regardless of race, would sympathi4e with the domestic #iolence aspect of the case and connect with her personally. ,n the other hand, the defenseAs research suggested that women generally were more likely to ac5uit than men. Also, the urors did not respond well to ClarkAs com!ati#e style of litigation, and the defense also correctly speculated that !lack women would not !e as sympathetic to a white woman as the #ictim. 1oth sides accepted a disproportionate num!er of female urors. From an original ury pool of '@L white, $8L !lack, %7L Latino, and %+L Asian, the final ury for the trial had %@ women and two men, of which there were nine !lacks, two whites, and one Latino.(%%)(+6) :iscussion of the racial elements of the case continued long after the trialAs end. Some polls and some commentators ha#e concluded that many !lacks, while ha#ing their dou!ts as to SimpsonAs innocence, were nonetheless more inclined to !e suspicious of the credi!ility and fairness of the police and the courts, and thus more likely to 5uestion the e#idence. After the ci#il trial #erdict against Simpson, most whites !elie#ed ustice had !een ser#ed and most !lacks (7+L)

disagreed with the #erdict and !elie#ed the #erdict to !e racially moti#ated. (%%) An "1C poll taken in $@@' reported that, although 77L of %,%86 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only $7L of !lacks in the sample !elie#ed so, compared to 87L of whites. Whate#er the e/act nature of the Bracial di#ide,B to this #ery day, the Simpson case continues to !e assessed through the lens of race. *udge Lance Dto was also critici4ed for allowing the trial to !ecome a media circus and not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings as much as he could ha#e. (+7) Cany law critics claim that Dto allowed the courtroom proceedings to drag on needlessly, as well as allowed !oth prosecution and defense lawyers to get out of control with arguing with one another o#er presentation of the e#idence. Iowe#er, Dto and others present in the courtroom dispute this characteri4ation, challenging critics to identify a proceeding that was not under anyoneAs control. 1ecause the ury was se5uestered, an attorney gag order would not ha#e !een supported !y any appellate court, leading to often chaotic scenes outside the courthouse. Dto also allowed a ury field trip through ,.*. SimpsonAs home after it had !een supposedly stage dressed !y the defense team, in one case replacing an artistic nude painting of SimpsonAs then0current girlfriend with a reproduction of "orman 2ockwellAs painting of 2u!y 1ridges !eing escorted to school in the Little 2ock desegregation struggle. Dto was also critici4ed for the way that the ury was handled, !owing to defense team pressure to dismiss #arious urors including Francine Florio01unten late in the trial.(citation needed) Ci#il trial(edit) The parents of 2on 3oldman, Fred 3oldman and Sharon 2ufo, !rought suit against Simpson for wrongful death, and 1rownAs estate, represented !y her father Lou 1rown, ($&) !rought suit against Simpson in a Bsur#i#or suitB, in a trial that took place o#er four months inSanta Conica and was not tele#ised (!y udgeAs order). (+7)(+8) The 3oldman family was represented !y :aniel >etrocelli, with Simpson represented !y 1o! 1aker. (+8) Attorneys for !oth sides were gi#en high marks !y o!ser#ing lawyers. (+8) SimpsonAs defense in the trial was estimated to cost J% million and was paid for !y an insurance policy on his company, ,renthal =nterprises.($&) At one point, 1aker made a mistake that allowed >etrocelli to introduce e#idence regarding SimpsonAs failure of a lie detector test a!out the murders. (') Fuhrman was not called to testify, and Simpson was su!poenaed to testify on his own !ehalf.(')(%%) Dn addition, a photo of ,.*., taken while he was attending a 1uffalo 1ills game in %&&- was produced and showed him wearing 1runo Cagli shoes,(+&) the same type of shoes which in#estigators stated the killer of 3oldman and 1rown was wearing when the murders were committed. (6@) The photo was then presented as e#idence against him, (6@) as ,.*. had pre#iously denied e#er wearing such shoes. (6@) The ury in the ci#il trial awarded 1rown and SimpsonAs children, Sydney and *ustin, J%$.6 million from their father as recipients of their motherAs estate. (')The #ictimsA families were awarded J--.+ million in compensatory and puniti#e damages.(6%) Four years after the trial, at an auction to pay some of the money in the compensation order, a conser#ati#e Christian radio host paid J%6,@@@ for some of Simpsons memora!ilia, including his Iall of Fame induction certificate, two erseys and two trophies he was gi#en for charity work. Ie then took them outside the courthouse where the auction was held, !urned the certificate and erseys, and smashed the trophies with a sledgehammer. (citation needed) Aftermath of trials(edit) Some of SimpsonAs supporters !egan to dou!t his innocence as he seemed to dodge the ci#il uryAs #erdict for the #ictimsA families(6$)and appeared not to search for the Breal killerB as he had promised to do. (6$)

,n Septem!er 6, $@%$, former Los Angeles deputy district attorney Christopher :arden accused *ohnnie Cochran of BmanipulatingB one of the glo#es that the prosecution said linked Simpson to the murders. (6-) Apparent confessions(edit) Dn Septem!er %&&', *ennifer >eace, (6') an adult actress who performed under the name B:e#on Shire,B came forward claiming that she was Al CowlingsA girlfriend, and that Cowlings had told her that Simpson had confessed his guilt. >eace was su!poenaed to testify !efore a 3rand *ury !y Clark and Iodgman, and later said that Cowlings had told her that Simpson was guilty of !oth murders, and that the weapon Bsleeps with the fishes.B (6+) >eace sold her story to Star %a)a7ine and (merican Journal for a reported mid si/0figure sum, an action that discredited her and led to her not !eing called as a witness during the larger trial. Speculation at the time was that the prosecution was using >eace to try to put pressure on Cowlings to BflipB on Simpson and testify against him. When that strategy failed to work, the 3rand *ury was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial. Dn the Fe!ruary %&&8 issue of #s$uire, Simpson was 5uoted as saying, BLetAs say D committed this crimeO =#en if D did this, it would ha#e to ha#e !een !ecause D lo#ed her #ery much, rightPB Simpson said that he would look for the real murderer, who he said he !elie#ed was a hitman. Dn "o#em!er $@@6, 2egan1ooks announced a !ook !y Simpson, titled 0- 0 /id 0t, an account that the pu!lisher pronounced a hypothetical confession. The !ookAs release was planned to coincide with a Fo/ special featuring Simpson. BThis is a historic case, and D consider this his confession,B pu!lisher *udith 2egan told The Associated >ress.(66) ,n "o#em!er $@, "ews Corporation, parent company of 2egan1ooks and Fo/, canceled !oth the !ook and the TK inter#iew due to a high le#el of pu!lic criticism. C=, 2upert Curdoch, speaking at a press conference, stated9 BD and senior management agree with the American pu!lic that this was an ill0considered pro ect.B (67) Dn *une $@@7, a federal udge ruled that Fred 3oldman, 2on 3oldmanAs father, could pursue the pu!lishing rights to SimpsonAs !ook.(68)Dn *uly $@@7, a federal !ankruptcy udge awarded the rights to the !ook to the 3oldman family to help satisfy the J-8 million wrongful death ci#il suit udgment against Simpson. (6&) After 3oldman had won the rights to the !ook, he arranged to pu!lish it under the new title 0- 0 /id 0t& !on-essions o- the 6iller.(7@) The !ook was ghostwritten !y >a!lo Fen #es.(7%) Fen #es stated in inter#iews that Simpson acti#ely colla!orated on the !ook, and that he BknewB him to !e the murderer. (7$) Fo/ Tele#ision was to air a related inter#iew with Simpson in late "o#em!er $@@6, in which Simpson would allegedly descri!e how he would ha#e committed the %&&' slayings of his e/0wife, "icole 1rown Simpson, and her friend 2onald 3oldman, Bif he were the one responsi!le.B(7-) Dn Cay $@@8, Cike 3il!ert released his !ook o* 0 elped O.J. 4et (*ay *ith %urder,(7') which details ,. *. confessing to

the killings to 3il!ert.(7+) 3il!ert, a memora!ilia dealer, is a former agent and friend of Simpson. Ie states that Simpson had smoked mari uana, taken a sleeping pill and was drinking !eer when he confided at his 1rentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of the murders. Simpson allegedly said, BDf she hadnAt opened that door with a knife in her hand... sheAd still !e ali#e.B This, 3il!ert said, confirmed his !elief that Simpson had confessed. Alternative murderer theories(edit) Jason Simpson(edit)

An alternati#e theory is that SimpsonAs son, *ason Simpson, committed the murders. The theory originates from pri#ate in#estigator William :ear, in his !ook O.J. is 4uilty, 1ut "ot o- %urder .(76) >u!lished in $@@@, the !ook was said to !e the result of a si/0year in#estigation !y :ear. Ie attempted to e/plain SimpsonAs incriminating !eha#ior and the incriminating e#idence. The !ook is also the !asis of a documentary film, including purportedly new e#idence, titled The O2erloo+ed Suspect, released in late $@@7. Later, in $@%$, William :ear wrote a second !ook called 8O.J. 0s 0nnocent (nd 0 !an 5ro2e 0t.8 Dn the newspaper BSun on SundayB(77) ournalist >ete Samson wrote a summary of :earAs findings, saying that :ear Bclaims that Simpson senior stood trial in a !id to protect his son.B Apparently *ason Simpson, who had recently spent time in a psychiatric unit, Bwas known to hallucinateB and was una!le to control his rage, whereas Bwe know that this was a rage killing !y an amateurB and B,* didnAt suffer rage and wasnAt on medication.B After the 1ronco chase, there was no !lood on the soles of ,*As shoes nor on the #ehicleAs pedals, e#en though the #ictimAs $7 sta! wounds might ha#e suggested a lot of !lood. A photo in *asonAs !o/ of pri#ate mementos show him wearing a !eanie cap that was found at the murder scene. A dagger !elonging to *ason Bmatched the wounds inflictedB upon the #ictims. Dn his diary (citation needed), *ason had written9 BDt is the year of the knife for me ... DAm out of medication and a!out to rage.B The theory was descri!ed !y BCele!rity criminal defense lawyerB *effrey Stein!erger as Ba!solutely a!surd ... a desperate attempt to sell a !ook.B Dru# dealers%edit& ,.*. SimpsonAs defense had sought to show that hit men hired !y drug dealers had murdered 1rown and 3oldman 0 gi#ing !oth BColom!ian necklacesB 0 !ecause 1rownAs friend, Faye 2esnick, had failed to pay for her drugs. Iowe#er, *udge Dto !arred testimony a!out the drug use of 2esnick, who had stayed for se#eral days at 1rownAs condominium until entering drug reha!ilitation four days !efore the killings. Dto stated the defense had failed to pro#ide sufficient direct or circumstantial e#idence that the scenario was possi!le, indicating9 BD find that the offer of proof regarding moti#e to !e highly speculati#e.B Conse5uently, he prohi!ited Christian 2eichardt from testifying a!out the drug pro!lem of his former girlfriend, 2esnick.(78)(7&) Glen "d'ard o#ers%edit& Dn "o#em!er of $@%$, American ca!le channel D: aired a documentary entitled %y 1rother The Serial 6iller, which included allegations from mem!ers of the family of serial killer 3len =dward 2ogers that 2ogers murdered "icole 1rown and 2onald 3oldman. 2ogers allegedly told mem!ers of his family !y phone in early %&&' that he was BpartyingB with "icole and was Bgoing to take her down.B Further allegations include 2ogers !eing ac5uainted with ,.*. Simpson, that Simpson paid 2ogers to !reak into 1rownAs house to steal a pair of J$@,@@@ earrings Simpson had gi#en to 1rown, that Simpson told 2ogers to kill 1rown if necessary, and that 2ogers later confessed to killing Simpson and 1rown to a criminal profiler after !eing con#icted and sentenced to death as a result of another murder. (8@) The families of 1rown and 3oldman e/pressed anger at the documentary with !oth families dismissing the claims !y the 2ogers family. (8%) ;im 3oldman accused D: of irresponsi!ility, also stating that no one had informed her of 2ogersA claims that he had !een in#ol#ed in her !rotherAs death.(8%)

G. . No. ()*+, June +-. +((, P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. plaintiff0appellee, #s. A/"JAND O 32//2AM 4 5AN"GA. OM6/O M. 7A/OG7OG 4 F" MA 02N"8. accused.

A "N. and 5"NJAM2N SAM2A 4

PA AS. J.:p This appeal seeks re#ersal or modification of the decision 9 of the 2egional Trial Court of >asay City, 1ranch %@& dated :ecem!er $$, %&8& issued in Criminal Case "o. 860&$+$0> entitled B>eople of the >hilippines #s. Ale andro William. et., al.B the dispositi#e portion of which reads9 Dn #iew of all the foregoing, the Court funds accused 2omulo Calogcog y. Qui!an and Ale andro William y 1anega guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t for Kiolation of Section ', 2epu!lic Act 6'$+ as amended and here!y sentences them to 3eclusion 5erpetua and to pay a fine of TW="TH TI,<SA": (>$@.@@@.@@) >=S,S each without su!sidiary imprisonment in case of insol#ency. For insufficiency of e#idence and on grounds of reasona!le dou!t, accused 1en amin Samia y Cartine4 and Kirgilio Apura y Ferraren are here!y ac5uitted of the charges against them considering that the go#ernment witnesses testified that the two ($) accused Kirgilio Apura and 1en amin Samia are mere onlookers (usyosos) at the place of the operation. The stuff of mari uana is here!y ordered forfeited in fa#or of the go#ernment and the ,fficer in charge of this Court is ordered to transmit the same to the :angerous :rugs 1oard thru the "ational 1ureau of Dn#estigation for proper disposition. S, ,2:=2=:. (p. 66, 3ollo) The accused0appellants were charged with the #iolation of Section ' of 2epu!lic Act 6'$+ as amended (The :angerous :rugs Act of %&7$) in an Dnformation filed !y the >asay City FiscalAs ,ffice. thus9 That on or a!out the %8th day of *anuary, %&86, in >asay City, >hilippines and within the urisdiction of this Ionora!le Court. the a!o#e0named accused, considering and confederating together and mutually helping one another without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, gi#e away to another, deli#er, distri!ute or act as a !roker in the sale transaction of mari uana, a prohi!ited drug. Contrary to law. (p +7, 3ollo) All pleaded Bnot guiltyB, when arraigned.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows9 For the prosecution, four (') witnesses were presented. namely9 >at. Cenon >arungao. >fc. Canuel ,li#as, Lt. 2olando >uruganan and >FLt. Tita Ad#incula, who testified9 That sometime in *anuary %&86, the "A2C,C conducted a sur#eillance at the Starlight :isco at >asay City !ased on informations (sic) recei#ed that drug pushers are roaming around the said place. That accordingly a team consisting of three (-) mem!ers with Lt. >uruganan as team leader was formed and sur#eillance was started two ($) weeks !efore the actual date of operation. That on *anuary %8, %&86 one mem!er of the team >fc. Canuel ,li#as posed as tourist guide with a <.S. "a#y as tourist proceeded to the coffee shop at Starlight :isco. That one of the suspects 2omeo Calogcog approached the group who in loud con#ersations made known the fact that they ha#e a client, !uyer of the dope, offering to contact person who has the stuff of mari uana which they offered to !uy at >$@@.@@. That 2omulo Calogcog left and returned with one Ale andro William who owned the mari uana. That accordingly, the amount of >$@@.@@ was paid to the two ($) suspects as payment for the mari uana stuff. That after the mari uana was deli#ered to >fc. ,li#as and the payment of >$@@.@@ was recei#ed !y Ale andro William, !oth were arrested !y the team. That Samia and Apura arri#ed after Ale andro William has already deli#ered the mari uana and recei#ed payments thereof. That the two ($) were in the place making BusyosoB. That they also talked with Apura and Samia and also suspected them as pushers. That !oth accused Ale andro William and 2omulo Calogcog were identified !y mem!ers of the !uy0!ust team as the ones who sold the mari uana. That they also identified Apura and Samia. That all were arrested and in#estigated at the "A2C,C ,ffice. That the mari uana !ought from Ale andro William and 2omulo Calogcog were su!mitted to the >CCL for forensic e/amination. A receipt for the sei4ed article was prepared and signed !y the suspect. That the mem!ers of the team e/ecuted a *oint Affida#it of Arrest detailing the circumstances leading to the arrest. That the signatures thereon are that of the team mem!ers. That after the re5uired forensic e/amination of the stuff sold !y the accused Ale andro William and 2omulo Calogcog were found to !e positi#e for the presence of mari uana. That they noticed the presence of Apura and Samia after William has handed them the prohi!ited stuff. That !ecause Apura and Samia were there making BusyosuB, they included them in the arrest least (sic) they may ha#e knowledge of the transaction. That Apura and Samia were allowed to go home. (pp. +80+&. 3ollo) The defense presented all the accused0appellants e/cept Ale andro William who umped !ail. Accused 2omulo Calogcog, testified9 That on *anuary %8, %&86, at around 89-@ a.m., while on duty as a watch0your0car !oy at the Starlight :isco located at corner San Luis Ser#ice 2oad, 2o/as 1oule#ard, two ($) persons approached him and asked him if he knows something a!out mari uana to which he answered in the negati#eE that the two men left !ut after a little while he was arrested and !rought together with the other three (-) accused inside a Ii0ace #an then with William !rought to the 1each Kiew hotel inside a !athroom and was asked for money !ut answered in the negati#e9 that for four (') hours thereafter he was made as temporary helperE that thereafter he was !rought to Camp Crame together with the other three (-) accused and with se#eral othersE locked inside N they were made to sign documents without letting them read the same and without a lawyerAs assistanceE that they were then !rought to the City FiscalAs ,ffice of >asay, that he denied the charge #erses him and upon cross e/amination denied all the testimonies of the defenseE and that the officers who arrested him were not the ones who !rought him to the hotel, that he knew the other three accused only !y face. Accused Kirgilio Apura, when called to the witness stand, testified that at around &9-@ p.m. of *anuary %8, %&86 he was alone eating BlugawB near the ser#ice road corner San Luis St., >asay City with other peopleE that he noticed three persons con#ersing with one another, !ut one left and returned after some ten minutes, that again the three talked to one anotherE that after he paid for the BlugawB, two persons held the !ack of his pants and arrested him who introduced themsel#es as "A2C,C agents, that he was !rought inside a Ii0ace and to the 1ay#iew >la4aE that he noticed there were less than nine persons inside the #an, that two person sitting !eside him were !rought to the second floor while he was left !ehindE Bthat he does not know the identities of the other two co0accusedE that together with Samia or BtatangB he was sent home !ecause they were only making BusyosoBE that they !oarded a eep and returned to the place where they were first arrested !ecause they li#ed there, that again, the "A2C,C agents in#ited them again for some e/planation, they were again !rought to the 1ay#iew >la4a Iotel and he was slapped twice when !e denied any knowledge of mari uana, and he was !o/ed also on the chest upon repeated answers of denials to their similar 5uestionsE that they stayed there for four minutes, !rought to Camp Crame and placed inside a small cell on the charge of confiscated mari uana !ut from whom it was confiscated, there was no mentionE that they stayed in Camp Crame for fi#e (+) daysE that the did not gi#e any statement which he claimed as his right, that he only came to know William for the first time at Camp CrameE that he did not know the reason why he and Samia were left inside the #an while Calogcog and William were !rought inside the 1ay#iew >la4a. ,n cross e/amination, Apura said that although Samia owns a small eatery near his

place of residence it was only the wife who manages the store whom !e seen there and ne#er SamiaE that he ne#er knew Calogcog and William !efore the incidentE that while eating BlugawB he actually saw not only three (-) persons !ut fi#e (+)E that he did not hear them talking a!out mari uana. Accused 1en amin Samia testified that on *anuary %8, %&86, when he was at the store at around 89@@ and 89-@ p.m., there were three (-) persons eating and he sat down !eside them waiting for them to finish eatingE that after %@ minutes, some!ody approached him and in#ited him to a near!y #an where there were se#en other personsE that he was !rought to the !each with four (') othersE that upon reaching the hotel, nothing was asked of him !ut the two whom he later on knew to !e Calogcog and William were !rought upstairsE that after some time, he was told to go home as he was only an BusyoseroB. ,n cross e/amination he said that he did not know any case calling for his in#itation and arrest. Accused0Appellants assigned two ($) errors. thus9 %. The trial court gra#ely erred in gi#ing credence to the testimonies of the low enforcers who are accordingly presumed to !e regularly performing their duties in the a!sence of proof to the contraryE and $. The trial court seriously erred in considering that the e#idences su!mitted are indeed the corpus delicti of the crime in the a!sence of con#incing proof to that effect. We will tackle the first assigned error. We must pay attention the to fact that drug addiction is one of the most pernicious e#ils that ha#e e#er crept into our society. Core often than not it is the young who constitute the greater ma ority of the citi4enry who are the #ictims. Dt is of common knowledge that drug addicts !ecome useless if not dangerous mem!ers in society and in same instances turn out to !e among the li#ing dead. This is the reason why courts and law enforcement agencies should continue in their relentless campaign not merely to minimi4e !ut to totally eradicate the e#il !efore it is too late. And e#eryone must !e in#ol#ed in this dri#e if we are to succeed. The peddlers of drugs are actually agents of destruction (>eo #. >olicarpio, %+8 SC2A 8+) At the same time, we should not close our eyes to reports of e#idence !eing planted on unwary persons either for e/torting money or e/acting personal #engeance. 1y the #ery nature of anti0narcotics operations. The need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of mari uana or grams of heroin can !e planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting pro#incial hicks and the secrecy that ine#ita!ly shrouds all drug deals, the possi!ility of a!use is great. Courts must also !e e/tra #igilant in trying drug charges lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually se#ere penalties for drug offenses (>eo #. Ale %'+ SC2A +@). What transpired was a !uy0!ust operation of the "A2C,C people ine#ita!ly preceded !y careful planning which consists of weeks of sur#eillance and tense sleuthings. There is nothing in the records of the case suggesting that the testimonies of the "A2C,C agents were moti#ated !y any reason other than the mission to cur! drug a!use. (>eople #. La!riaga, %&& SC2A +-@). As a general rule, a !uy0!ust operation is the method employed !y peace officers to trap and catch malefactors in-la)rante delicto. Dt is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. =ntrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a law!reaker from whose mind the criminal intent originated. ,ftentimes it is the only effecti#e way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. The "A2C,C agents in this case used entrapment to !e a!le to catch the accused0appellants in that act. The fact that they had a ready supply !elies their claim of instigation. (>eo #. de la Cru4, %8 April, %&&@). While the appellantsA attempt to discredit the testimony of said police officers, they ha#e not shown any improper moti#e why they should testify in the manner that they did, Thus their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credence. They are presumed to !e in the regular performance of official duties.(>ere4 #. 2umeral, $@- SC2A %&'). Further, e#en without relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of the "A2C,C officersA official duties. appellantsA con#iction can !e sustained on the unre!utted e#idence that they were caught in -la)rante delicto. Dt is worth reiterating that conspicuous is the fact that accused0appellants did not impute, much less pro#e, any ill0moti#e on the part of the "A2C,C agents. This destroys their defense that they were framed. Dn this regard. it was held in 5eo 2. ()apito, %+' SC2A 6&' that9

(i)n cases in#ol#ing persons accused of !eing drug pushers or sellers, almost always, the defense is that the accused was framed !y the apprehending police officers. We reali4e the disastrous conse5uence on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well0!eing of society, if the courts, solely on the !asis of the policemanAs alleged rotten reputation, accept in e#ery instance this form of defense which can !e so easily fa!ricated. Dt is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has !een regularly performed e/ists (p. 7@@). (pp. %'0%+, AppelleeAs 1riefE p. 7', 3ollo) And for someone caught red0handed peddling illicit drugs, ust like the accused0appellants, an imputation of wrongdoing allegedly committed !y =nforcement ,fficers, so easily fa!ricated, can !e e/pected. (>eo #. Cadarang, %'7 SC2A %$-) 1esides, again, in 5eo 2. 3umeral, $@@ SC2A %&'. We held that the commission of the offense of illegal sale of mari uana re5uires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, What is important is that the poseur0!uyer recei#ed the mari uana from the accused. As to the $nd assigned error 5uestioning the CourtAs consideration of the corpus delicti of the crime, this the Solicitor 3eneral has !rilliantly refuted, thus9 The contents of the plastic cannister and the aluminum foil sei4ed from appellants tested positi#e for mari uana. N ,n the !asis of her la!oratory e/amination of o! ects taken from appellants, >C forensic chemist Lt. Tita 1. Ad#incula issued Chemistry 2eport "o. :0+%086 dated *anuary $@, %&86 (=/hi!it B:B) stating that the -.@& grams of suspected dried mari uana flowering tops placed in a round plastic container with co#er (=/hi!it BD0%B) and the @.+8 gram of suspected mari uana flowering tops wrapped in aluminum foil (=/hi!it BD0$B) tested positi#e for mari uana. When Lt. Ad#incula testified, she identified the specimens on which she conducted her la!oratory e/amination and the report she prepared (TS", :ecem!er $$, %&86). The fact that she did not gi#e details of the procedure she followed in e/amining the specimens does not diminish her credi!ility. She was not a!le to gi#e details of the procedure she followed not !ecause of any ina!ility or refusal on her part to do so !ut !ecause of the simple reason that she was not asked, whether in direct e/amination or cross0e/amination. to do so. She was merely called upon to identify the report she prepared and the specimens she used. Appellants point out that this Ionora!le Court, Bin #arious occasions.B ruled that an e/pert witness, such as a forensic chemist, should show the thorough procedures he followed to determine that the specimen is a prohi!ited drug (AppellantsA 1rief, p. 8) Dt must !e stressed that appellants failed to cite a single case supporting this proposition. Coreo#er, witness Ad#incula testified (TS". :ecem!er $$, %&86, p. -) that she used three methods of e/amination in arri#ing at the finding contained in her preliminary report (=/hi!it B:B) that the specimens pro#ed positi#e for mari uana. She also prepared a Chemistry 2eport $0+%086 (=/hi!it B;B), the final report of her e/amination of the specimens. Appellants attack the credi!ility of >fc. ,li#as for mistakenly identifying the chemistry report which certified that the specimens tested positi#e for mari uana as Chemistry 2eport "o. B:08+0%86B instead of B:0+%086B. This is nitpicking. Since >fc. Canuel ,li#as did not conduct the la!oratory e/amination and did not prepare the chemistry report, he was not e/pected to !e familiar with the same, and most certainly, to memori4e its num!er. The pro!ati#e #alue of an o! ect e#idence is not affected !y the fact that it is !eyond the commerce of man. N Appellants raise the strange argument that =/hi!it BCB has pro!ati#e #alue !ecause the su! ect thereof N mari uana N is !eyond the commerce of man This is simply a!surd. The transfer of mari uana was incidental to the arrest of appellants and the confiscation of the su! ect matter of the crime. =/hi!it BCB is in the same category as a death certificate and autopsy report which are admissi!le e#idence of the su! ect of the crime N the human cada#er which is also !eyond the commerce of man. Transfer of goods as a conse5uence or !y #irtue of police or state action such as forfeiture, sei4ure, condemnation, confiscation did not fall within the phrase Bcommerce of manB e#en in its !roadest meaning. Assuming that the signing of the receipt of sei4ed goods !y appellants constituted e/tra udicial confession and therefore re5uired the assistance of counsel, any defect or infirmity was cured or wai#ed when

appellantsA counsel. Atty. ,scar "udo, categorically stated that appellants were not o! ecting to the admission of =/hi!it BCB. <nder Sec. -6. 2ule %-$, of the 2e#ised 2ules of Court, o! ections to e#idence shall !e made as soon as the grounds therefor shall !ecome reasona!ly apparent. The alleged infirmity of =/hi!it BCB. is the a!sence of counsel when appellants signed =/hi!it BCB. This alleged defect was reasona!ly apparent at the time =/hi!it BCB was introduced and at the time it was formally offered in e#idence. Dt must !e stressed that appellants did not merely fail to o! ect to said e/hi!itAs admission. They e#en categorically manifested that they were not o! ecting to the admission of =/hi!it BCB. Appellants cannot now o! ect to the admission of =/hi!it BCB. ,! ections to admissi!ility of e#idence cannot !e made for the first time on appeal. (>eople #. Kerges, %@+ SC2A 7''). The presentation of the mari uana specimens taken from appellants and their identification !y the forensic chemist constitute proof of corpus delicti. 9 !orpus delicti simply means the fact that a crime was committed (>eople #. >ascual. "o. %@++02, ,cto!er %@, %&'7. '' ,3 $787). Dn >eople #. Cacuto, %76 SC2A 76, it was held that9 (w)hat is important is the fact that the poseur0!uyer recei#ed the mari uana from the appellant and that the contents were presented as e#idence in court. >roof of the transaction suffices. The identity of the tea !ag of mari uana which constitutes the corpus delicti was esta!lished !efore the court. Dn the case at !ar, appellants were positi#ely identified as the sellers of goods to the "A2C,C agents, The goods were deli#ered !y and sei4ed from appellants. (=/hi!its C) The goods sei4ed were tested positi#e for mari uana (=/hi!its :, ;), one of the drugs prohi!ited under Sec. ' of the :angerous :rugs Act. Said mari uana and its containers were presented in e#idence (=/hi!its D, D0%,%0$). Appellants try to raise dou!t as to the identity of the mari uana !y pointing to the possi!ility that the o! ects sei4ed from appellants may ha#e BcommingledB with other "A2C,C e#idence considering their massi#e operations on *anuary %8, %&86. This is highly impro!a!le. The 2eceipt for >roperty Sei4ed (=/hi!it C), e/ecuted !y appellants themsel#es immediately following their arrest on *anuary %8, %&86, acknowledged the sei4ure of goods from them on the date indicated thereon and descri!ed said goods as9 BAB one (%) round >lastic cannister le#eled (la!eled P) B1ullseyeB Cagnum. containing mari uana arro/ (sic) - grams. B1B one (%) !ig (P) foil containing mari uana. The Affida#it of Arrest (=/hi!it A) e/ecuted !y arresting officers >at. >arungao and >fc. ,li#as descri!ed the containers of the mari uana sei4ed from appellants as Ba plastic container with a B1ullseyeB mark and an aluminum foil. The re5uest for la!oratory e/amination e/ecuted !y Ca or 2uperto C. 2emetre on *anuary %&, %&86 (=/hi!it *) in connection with the case in#ol#ing Kergilio Apura. appellant Ale andro William. 1en amin Samia and appellant 2omulo Calogcog descri!ed the specimens su!mitted for e/amination as Bone (%) round share plastic container marked B1ullseyeB containing suspected mari uanaB and Bone (%) cigarette foil of suspected mari uana. The Certificate of La!oratory 2esult (=/hi!it :) e/ecuted !y e/amining forensic chemist Lt. Tita Ad#incula descri!ed the specimens su!mitted in connection with said case as follows9 B(A)B -.@& grams of suspected dried mari uana flowering tops placed in a round plastic container with co#er. B(1)B @.+8 gram of suspected mari uana flowering tops wrapped with aluminum foil.

The foregoing information matches the description contained in Chemistry 2eport "o. :0+%086 issued !y Lt. Ad#incula (=/hi!it ;). The specimens descri!ed in the foregoing documents were presented in court (=/hi!its D, D0%, D0$) and Ddentified !y Lt. Ad#incula as the specimens su!mitted to her for e/amination in connection on with appellantsA case. Dn #iew of the foregoing circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the specimens e/amined !y the forensic chemist and which tested positi#e for mari uana are different from those sei4ed from appellants. (pp. $+0 -+, AppelleeAs 1riefE p. 7', 3ollo) WI=2=F,2=, the assailed decision is here!y AFFD2C=:. S, ,2:=2=:.

G. . No. +(*,-:

July +*. ,:+)

P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. >laintiff0Appellee, #s. "4NA/DO ;AND4; SOMO8A y 1ANDA4A. Accused0Appellant. :=CDSD," /"ONA DO<D" 7AS0 O. J.: Accused0appellant 2eynaldo BAndyB Somo4a appeals from the :ecision % dated *une $$, $@%@ of the Court of Appeals in CA03.2. C=1C20I.C. "o. @@7'% denying his appeal from the *oint *udgment $ dated Cay -@, $@@7 of the 2egional Trial Court (2TC) of :umaguete City, 1ranch -@ in Criminal Case "os. %77@@ and %77@%, which found him guilty of #iolation of Sections + and %%, Article DD of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, otherwise known as the BComprehensi#e :angerous :rugs Act of $@@$.B The Dnformations filed against accused0appellant in the trial court read9 D. Criminal Case "o. %77@@ That on or a!out the $%st day of *uly, $@@+, in the City of :umaguete, >hilippines, and within the urisdiction of this Ionora!le Court, the said accused, not !eing then authori4ed !y law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deli#er to the "1D poseur !uyer one (%) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a total of @.+@ gram of white crystalline su!stance, of Cethamphetamine Iydrochloride, commonly called sha!u, a dangerous drug. Contrary to Sec. +, Art. DD of 2.A. &%6+.DD. Criminal Case "o. %77@% That on or a!out the $%st day of *uly, $@@+, in the City of :umaguete, >hilippines, and within the urisdiction of this Ionora!le Court, the said accused, not !eing then authori4ed !y law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and keep si/ (6) pieces of heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total of @.6& gram of white crystalline su!stance, of Cethamphetamine Iydrochloride, commonly called sha!u, a dangerous drug. Contrary to Sec. %%, Art. DD of 2.A. &%6+.' Accused0appellant pleaded not guilty to !oth charges when arraigned. + After pre0trial was conducted, trial ensued. The prosecution esta!lished that, sometime during the first week of *uly $@@+, the "ational 1ureau of Dn#estigation ("1D) recei#ed confidential information that accused0appellant is engaged in the repacking and selling of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as sha!u, and conducting his !usiness in his residence at 1arangay Looc, :umaguete

City.6 The "1D coordinated with the >hilippine "ational >olice (>">) in :umaguete City and discreet in5uiries and sur#eillance were made to #erify the information.7 >olice ,fficer (>,) % Carcelina 1autista and >,% 2aymunda Coreno of the >"> :umaguete City were tasked to do the sur#eillance.8 Dn the course of the sur#eillance, >,% 1autista was a!le to gain the trust of accused0appellant to the point of pretending to agree to !e his girlfriend. & This led to a positi#e test !uy of >6@@.@@ worth of sha!u from accused0appellant !y >,% 1autista and >,% Coreno on *uly $@, $@@+. %@ With this de#elopment, in the morning of *uly $%, $@@+, "1D Agent Chester Aldwin Celon applied for a warrant to search accused0appellantRs residence for dangerous drugs. After the e/ecuti#e udge of the 2TC of :umaguete City granted the application and issued a warrant, the oint operati#es of the "1D, the >hilippine :rug =nforcement Agency (>:=A), and the >"> :umaguete City had a !riefing at the "1D office in :umaguete City at around $9@@ in the afternoon of that same day to plan the manner of ser#ice of the warrant. %% To facilitate the e/ecution of the plan, >,% 1autista sent accused0appellant a te/t message asking where he was. Accused0appellant replied that he was not at his house and instructed >,% 1autista to proceed to ,racion :ri#e in 1arangay Looc where he would wait for her !y the roadside. With this de#elopment, the team ad usted their plan and decided to conduct a !uy0!ust operation !efore ser#ing the warrant. >,% 1autista and >,% Coreno were designated as poseur0!uyers with the rest of the mem!ers ser#ing as !ackup. %$ The team was to !e accompanied !y 2ogelio Tala#era, ;agawad of 1arangay Looc, and media representati#e 2eysan =lloren. %>,% 1autista was gi#en >%,@@@.@@ in marked money consisting of a >+@@.@@ !ill and fi#e pieces of >%@@.@@ !ills, all of which were photocopied !efore the operation. >,% 1autista then sent accused0appellant another te/t message telling him that she would !uy sha!u from him at their meeting place. %' Thereafter, >,% 1autista proceeded to ,racion :ri#e with >,% Coreno. Accused0appellant met them and !rought them to his friendRs house near SD,C warehouse. Dnside the house of accused0appellantRs friend, >,% 1autista !ought >%,@@@.@@ worth of sha!u from accused0appellant. She ga#e him the marked money and he handed her two sachets of powdered white crystalline su!stance. At this point, >,% Coreno e/cused herself and went out of the house to gi#e the pre0arranged signal to the !ackup team.%+ Ceanwhile, accused0appellant suggested to >,% 1autista that they use the contents of one of the sachets that she !ought to help them get aroused. >,% 1autista, not wanting to spoil the operation, acceded. Accused0appellant opened one of the sachets and used its contents !y sniffing some of the powdered su!stance. Ie then asked >,% 1autista to take her turn. To di#ert his attention and while the time away as she awaited the arri#al of the !ackup, she told him that she wanted to ha#e intercourse first !efore using drugs. Accused0appellant kissed >,% 1autista and, while he was kissing her, the !ackup team came rushing in. Iowe#er, someone from inside the ad acent house shouted to alert accused0 appellant that he was going to !e arrested. Accused0appellant scampered away and tried to scale a concrete fence !ut the law enforcers caught up with him. 1efore !eing captured, howe#er, he threw away on the other side of the fence some of the marked !ills and a metallic tu!e containing a tooter. %6 A coin purse with si/ sachets containing powdered crystalline su!stance was found in his pocket when he was searched. ,nly >8@@.@@ worth of marked money, consisting of the >+@@.@@ !ill and three pieces of >%@@.@@ !ills, was reco#ered.%7 "1D Agent Celon marked the items reco#ered from the scene immediately after accused0appellantRs apprehension. The remaining sachet !ought !y >,% 1autista was marked as B1102S0@%,B %8 the si/ sachets found in the coin purse as B>,S0 2S0@%B%& to B>,S02S0@6B and the metallic tu!e as B>,S02S0$% *uly @+.B The marking was witnessed !y ;agawad Tala#era and media representati#e =lloren.$@ Accused0appellant was thereafter informed that the law enforcers ha#e a warrant to search his house. Ie was !rought to his house and his place was searched in the presence of ;agawad Tala#era and media representati#e =lloren. Iowe#er, the search yielded nothing !ut plastic sachets, lighter and foils. $% "1D Agent Celon proceeded to conduct an in#entory of the items sei4ed during the !uy0!ust operation. Ie prepared two receipts 00 one for the sachet !ought !y >,% 1autista from accused0appellant and the reco#ered marked !ills worth >8@@.@@, and another receipt for the si/ sachets and the metallic tooter. The in#entory receipts were signed !y ;agawad Tala#era, media representati#e =lloren, Senior >olice ,fficer (S>,) % Canuel Sanche4 of >:=A, and :umaguete City Assistant >rosecutor "ilo Sarsa!a.$$ Accused0appellant was su!se5uently !rought to the "1D office for !ooking and documentation. Ie was photographed with the sei4ed items in front of him and the incident was entered in the >:=A !lotter. $-

Dn the morning of the following day, *uly $$, $@@+, "1D Agent Celon made a return of the search warrant with prayer to retain custody of the sei4ed items. $' The court appro#ed the re5uest and "1D Agent Celon recei#ed the items. Ie proceeded to !ring them to the >"> Crime La!oratory in :umaguete City for chemical e/amination. >olice Senior Dnspector (>FS Dnsp.) Caria Ana :agasdas, forensic chemical officer, recei#ed the items and e/amined them. $+ She then prepared Chemistry 2eport "o. :0%--0$@@+ and a sworn Certification to the effect that the sachet marked as B1102S0@%B contained @.+ gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride and the si/ sachets marked as B>,S02S0@%B to B>,S02S0@6B contained an aggregate of @.6& gram of the same prohi!ited su!stance. $6 For his part, accused0appellantRs defense was denial. Ie disclaimed possessing or selling sha!u on the day he was arrested. According to him, on the said date, his friend Kictor Asunio in#ited him to the latterRs !irthday party at ,racion :ri#e. When he arri#ed at the #enue at around $9@@ in the afternoon, only Asunio and two ladies were there. The ladies turned out to !e >,% 1autista and >,% Coreno. Asunio told him to wait for awhile as Asunio was still doing something. Asunio went out and, moments after, shouted a warning that accused0appellant would !e arrested. Accused0appellant immediately went out of AsunioRs house and ran away !ut se#eral persons suddenly appeared, !locked his path and arrested him. Ie was handcuffed and !odily searched !ut the police officers found nothing. Ie was then shown a copy of a search warrant and told that it was for him. Ie was thereafter !oarded in a police car and !rought to his house. A search was made in his place !ut nothing illegal was found there. Ie was su!se5uently !rought to the "1D office where he was photographed and documented.$7 Dn its *oint *udgment dated Cay -@, $@@7, the trial court disregarded the accused0appellantRs defense for its inherent weakness and ga#e full faith and credence to the testimony of the law enforcers. Dt found no improper moti#e or ill will on the part of said law enforcers to testify against him. Their testimonies, credi!le and consistent, corro!orated !y the statements of ;agawad Tala#era and media representati#e =lloren and !acked !y o! ect and documentary e#idence sufficiently esta!lished the guilt of accused0appellant. The dispositi#e portion of the *oint *udgment reads9 WI=2=F,2=, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court here!y renders udgment as follows9 %. Dn Criminal Case "o. %77@@, the accused 2eynaldo BAndyB Somo4a y Iandaya is here!y found 3<DLTH !eyond reasona!le dou!t of the offense of illegal sale of @.+@ gram of sha!u in #iolation of Section +, Article DD, of 2A "o. &%6+ and is here!y sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Fi#e Iundred Thousand >esos (>+@@,@@@.@@). The one (%) heat0sealed transparent plastic sachet which contained the @.+@ gram of sha!u is here!y confiscated and forfeited in fa#or of the go#ernment and to !e disposed of in accordance with law. $. Dn Criminal Case "o. %77@%, the accused 2eynaldo BAndyB Somo4a y Iandaya is here!y found 3<DLTH !eyond reasona!le dou!t of the offense of illegal possession of @.6& gram of sha!u in #iolation of Section %%, Article DD of 2A "o. &%6+ and is here!y sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of (imprisonment for) twel#e (%$) years and one (%) day as minimum term to fourteen (%') years as ma/imum term and to pay a fine of Four Iundred Thousand >esos (>'@@,@@@.@@). The si/ (6) heat0sealed transparent plastic sachets which contained the @.6& gram of sha!u are here!y confiscated and forfeited in fa#or of the go#ernment and to !e disposed of in accordance with law. Dn the ser#ice of sentence, the accused shall !e credited with the full time during which he has undergone pre#enti#e imprisonment, pro#ided he agrees #oluntarily in writing to a!ide !y the same disciplinary rules imposed upon con#icted prisoners.$8 Accused0appellant appealed his case to the Court of Appeals. Ie presented a lone assignment of error9 the trial court erred in con#icting him of the crimes charged !ecause his guilt was not pro#en !eyond reasona!le dou!t. Ie cited three things in support of his appeal. First, there was failure to present the full amount of the marked money used in the !uy0 !ust operation as only >8@@.@@ was presented. There was also no pre0operation report which would ha#e stated the details of the !uy0!ust operation, including the serial num!ers of the marked money. Second, it was not sufficiently esta!lished that the packs of sha!u actually came from accusedappellant, as !oth >,% 1autista and "1D Agent Celon claimed to ha#e personally reco#ered the si/ sachets of sha!u. Also, the chemical officer who identified the drug specimen mentioned the total weight of sha!u as @.'' gram only, not @.6& gram as stated in the Dnformation in Criminal Case "o. %77@%. Third, the regularity of the in#entory0taking done at his house is 5uestiona!le and affected the chain of custody of the sha!u. The irregularity !ecame more glaring considering the fact that no illegal drug was found in his house.$&

Dn its :ecision dated *une $$, $@%@, the Court of Appeals found nothing irregular in the !uy0!ust operation. The non0 presentation of the entire amount of >%,@@@.@@ marked money did not diminish the integrity of the !uy0!ust process, especially considering the circumstance that accused0appellant threw the money while trying to e#ade arrest. Coreo#er, the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs does not hinge on the presentation of all the marked money used in the !uy0!ust operation, pursuant to Cru4 #. >eople -@ which ruled that neither law nor urisprudence re5uires the presentation of any money used in the !uy0!ust operation. The Court of Appeals held that the !uy0!ust was not affected !y the a!sence of a pre0operation report. <nder the o!taining facts, no pre0operation report was prepared as the !uy0!ust operation was urgently concei#ed. "otwithstanding the swiftness of the e/ecution of the strategy, the law enforcers descri!ed their operation in detail during trial. -% The Court of Appeals further ruled that the statements of >,% 1autista and "1D Agent Celon were not contradictory. ,nly >,% 1autista made the claim of personally reco#ering the si/ sachets of sha!u from accused0appellant. "1D Agent Celon, on the other hand, simply stated that the metallic tu!e and the si/ sachets of sha!u were the items reco#ered !y the law enforcers from accused0appellant. Furthermore, the issue on who reco#ered the packets of sha!u from accused0appellant is immaterial to the charges le#eled against him.-$ There was also no disparity in connection with the weight of the sha!u. The forensic chemical officer, >FS Dnsp. :agasdas, ne#er mentioned @.'' gram. Dnstead, her sworn Certification and the accompanying Chemistry 2eport !oth indicated that her e/amination of the specimens su!mitted !y "1D Agent Celon showed that the su!stance contained in the si/ sachets su! ect of Criminal Case "o. %77@% was sha!u with an aggregate weight of @.6& gram. -The appellate court also re ected accused0appellantRs assertion of a defect in the chain of custody of the drugs taken from him. The failure to make an immediate in#entory at the scene of the !uy0!ust operation was not fatal to the prosecutionRs case as all of the prosecutionRs witnesses, including ;agawad Tala#era and media representati#e =lloren, confirmed that the items sei4ed from accused0appellant during the !uy0!ust were marked at the scene. The course of action taken !y the law enforcers at the time of the !uy0!ust and during the su!se5uent search at accused0appellantRs place was ustifia!le under the circumstances and properly preser#ed the pro!ati#e #alue of the sei4ed items. Dn addition, accused0appellant !elatedly challenged the admissi!ility of the sei4ed items on the ground of defecti#e chain of custody only on appeal and not !efore the trial court.-' The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the prosecution was a!le to esta!lish !eyond reasona!le dou!t all the elements of !oth the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, it upheld the con#iction of accused0 appellant for !oth crimes. The decretal portion of the :ecision dated *une $$, $@%@ reads9 WI=2=F,2=, premises considered, the appeal is :="D=: and the *oint *udgment of the 2egional Trial Court, 1ranch -@, :umaguete City in Criminal Case "os. %77@@ and %77@% is here!y AFFD2C=: in toto. "o costs. -+ Accused0appellant is now !efore this Court insisting on the failure of the prosecution to pro#e his guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t. This Court does not agree. The Court of Appeals has sufficiently addressed the concerns of accused0appellant. Dn fact, the trial and the appellate courts were unanimous in re ecting as implausi!le accused0appellantRs defense. "e#ertheless, this Court is aware that accused0appellantRs con#iction cannot rest on the weakness of his defense !ut on the strength and merits of the case of the >eople against him. -6 Stated differently, accused0appellant need not pro#e his innocence as he en oys the constitutional presumption of inculpa!ility, the onus is on the State to pro#e his guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t.-7 Dn this case, the State has discharged the !urden of proof re5uired of it. A successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs re5uires that the following elements !e esta!lished9 (%) the identity of the !uyer and the seller, the o! ect and the consideration of the saleE and ($) the deli#ery to the !uyer of the thing sold and receipt !y the seller of the payment therefor. -8 ,n the other hand, there can !e con#iction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs only if the following elements are present9

(%) the accused is in possession of an item or o! ect which is identified to !e a prohi!ited drugE ($) such possession is not authori4ed !y lawE and (-) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. -& Dn !oth cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show the chain of custody o#er the dangerous drug in order to esta!lish the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself. '@Such chain of custody should show that the dangerous drug sold !y or in the possession of the accused is the same dangerous drug sei4ed from the said accused and taken into custody !y the apprehending officer, marked and su! ected to physical in#entory !y the apprehending officer, su!mitted to the >:=A or >"> forensic la!oratory, su! ected !y the forensic la!oratory e/aminer to la!oratory e/amination the results of which are contained in a sworn certification, and presented to the court as e#idence against the accused.'% This is to ensure the integrity and e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items and preclude the possi!ility of alteration, tampering or su!stitution of su!stance in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug. "e#ertheless, a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossi!le to o!tain an un!roken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preser#ation of the integrity and the e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items, !ecause the same will !e utili4ed in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused. '$ Dn this case, the 2TC and the Court of Appeals !oth found that accused0appellant, as seller, sold @.+ gram of sha!u to the poseur0!uyer, >,% 1autista, for >%,@@@.@@. Ie handed her two sachets of sha!u upon his receipt of a >+@@.@@ !ill and fi#e >%@@.@@ !ills from her. 1oth the 2TC and the Court of Appeals also found that the accused0appellant had in his possession si/ sachets containing sha!u with an aggregate weight of @.6& gram and that he had no authority to possess the dangerous drug. This Court respects the identical findings of the trial and the appellate courts. The esta!lished rule in appellate re#iew is that the trial courtRs factual findings are accorded great respect and e#en conclusi#e effect, especially if such findings are affirmed !y the Court of Appeals. '- This Court finds no compelling reason to di#erge from the rule. A re#iew of the records re#eals that the prosecutionRs retelling of the e#ents as they transpired hews closer to the truth. Accused0appellant is clutching at straws in insisting on the following9 non0presentation of the full amount of the marked money, lack of pre0operation report, inconsistency in the testimonies on who reco#ered the sachets of sha!u and what the total weight of the said sachets is, and irregularity of the in#entory. The Court of Appeals has sufficiently addressed all these matters. This Court has already held in >eople #. Am!rosio '' that the non0presentation of the entire amount of the marked money is not a mortal !low to the prosecutionRs case. Dt has also !een held that the non0presentation of the marked money, '+ or the presentation of mere photocopies of the marked money, '6 does not render the !uy0!ust operation illegal or in#alid. "or is the presentation of the marked money material in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs as the omission to present the marked money may !e o#erlooked as a peripheral matter. '7 As this Court ruled in >eople #. Ara'89 Dn the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the a!sence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the e#idence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is ade5uately pro#ed and the drug su! ect of the transaction is presented !efore the court. / / /. (Citation omitted.) Dllegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed when the sale transaction is consummated, '& that is, upon deli#ery of the illicit drug to the !uyer and the receipt of the payment !y the seller. While the marked money may !e used to pro#e payment, it is not material in pro#ing the commission of the crime. What is material is the proof that the sale transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, +@ the dangerous drug su! ect of the sale. +% Iere, the prosecution has ade5uately esta!lished the occurrence of a sale transaction !etween accused0appellant and >,% 1autista, and the sachet containing the contra!and su! ect of the sale was presented in court. The lack of pre0operation report had no effect on the legality and #alidity of the !uy0!ust operation. Dn the first place, a pre0 operation report is not indispensa!le in a !uy0!ust operation. +$ Dn the second place, the facts of the case show that the !uy0!ust operation was not part of the original plan 00 to ser#e the search warrant on accused0appellant 00 !ut was resorted to address the contingencies of the circumstances. The urgency of the situation reasona!ly e/cused the preparation of a pre0operation report. Core importantly, a pre0operation report is ordinarily su!mitted !y the local >"> or the "1D to comply with Section 86 of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+ which re5uires Bclose coordination with the >:=A on all drug

related matters.B Iere, to re5uire a pre0operation report for purposes of the !uy0!ust would constitute unnecessary !ureaucratic red tape as there was already coordination !y the "1D and the >"> :umaguete City with the >:=A in the planning of the ser#ice of the warrant and in the decision to resort to a !uy0!ust operation. As regards the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on who reco#ered the si/ sachets of sha!u and what the total weight of the said sachets is, the transcript of stenographic notes support the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that there were none of the alleged inconsistencies. Dt was >,% 1autista who reco#ered the si/ sachets of sha!u from accused0appellant and "1D Agent Celon marked the metallic tu!e and the si/ sachets of sha!u after noting that they were the items reco#ered !y the !uy0!ust team from accused0appellant. +Dn connection with the weight of the sha!u su! ect of Criminal Case "o. %77@%, >FS Dnsp. :agasdas ne#er mentioned @.'' gram and she categorically stated that she prepared and issued a sworn Certification and Chemistry 2eport "o. :0%--0 $@@+, !oth of which similarly indicated that the si/ sachets su! ect of Criminal Case "o. %77@% contained sha!u with an aggregate weight of @.6& gram.+' Finally, there was no !reak in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs taken from accused0appellant. 1:*phi1 The prosecution has shown that the illicit drugs sei4ed from accused0appellant are the same illicit drugs marked and su! ected to physical in#entory !y "1D Agent Celon, su!mitted !y him to the >"> forensic la!oratory, recei#ed !y forensic chemical officer >FS Dnsp. :agasdas and su! ected !y her to la!oratory e/amination, and presented !y the prosecution to the trial court as e#idence against the accused0appellant. The chain of custody was continuous and the identity, integrity and e#identiary #alue of the dangerous drugs sei4ed from accused0appellant were preser#ed. The in#entory made at accused0appellantRs house and not at the scene of the !uy0!ust operation did not ad#ersely affect the chain of custody. The fact is that, as witnessed !y ;agawad Tala#era and media representati#e =lloren, the illicit drugs taken from accused0appellant were marked in his presence at the scene of the !uy0!ust operation immediately after his arrest. This marking may !e considered as the preliminary phase of the in#entory. Dndeed, Section $% of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+ which pro#ides for the chain of custody of dangerous drugs sei4ed !y law enforcers is silent on the matter of marking of the sei4ed drugs. Dn particular, its paragraph (%) only speaks of conducting a physical in#entory and photographing of the illicit drugs Bimmediately after sei4ure and confiscationB9 Section $%. Custody and :isposition of Confiscated, Sei4ed, andFor Surrendered :angerous :rugs / / /. (%) The apprehending team ha#ing initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after sei4ure and confiscation, physically in#entory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personFs from whom such items were confiscated andFor sei4ed, or hisFher representati#e or counsel, a representati#e from the media and the :epartment of *ustice (:,*), and any elected pu!lic official who shall !e re5uired to sign the copies of the in#entory and !e gi#en a copy thereof. (=mphasis supplied.) "either is marking of the confiscated drugs found in the implementing rules of the law which pro#ides9 S=CTD," $%. Custody and :isposition of Confiscated, Sei4ed andFor Surrendered :angerous :rugs, / / /. (a) The apprehending officerFteam ha#ing initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after sei4ure and confiscation, physically in#entory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personFs from whom such items were confiscated andFor sei4ed, or hisFher representati#e or counsel, a representati#e from the media and the :epartment of *ustice (:,*), and any elected pu!lic official who shall !e re5uired to sign the copies of the in#entory and !e gi#en a copy thereof9 >ro#ided, that the physical in#entory and photograph shall !e conducted at the place where the search warrant is ser#edE or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officerFteam, whiche#er is practica!le, in case of warrantless sei4uresE >ro#ided, further, that non0compliance with these re5uirements under ustifia!le grounds, as long as the integrity and the e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items are properly preser#ed !y the apprehending officerFteam, shall not render #oid and in#alid such sei4ures of and custody o#er said items. "onetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical #alue of the process of marking the confiscated contra!and and considered it as an initial stage in the chain of custody 00 a process preliminary and preparatory to the physical in#entory and photograph re5uirements in Section $% of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+9 This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from du!ious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits !ased on planting of e#idence under Section $& of 2epu!lic act "o. &%6+ and on allegations of ro!!ery or theft.++ (Citations omitted.)1:*phi1

BCarkingB is the placing !y the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with hisFher initials and signature on the items sei4ed. Dt helps ensure that the dangerous drugs sei4ed upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs su! ected to in#entory and photography when these acti#ities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practica!le #enue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the Bchain of custodyB rule re5uires that the BmarkingB of the sei4ed items 00 to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are e#entually the ones offered in e#idence 00 should !e done (%) in the presence of the apprehended #iolator ($) immediately upon confiscation.+6 BDmmediate confiscationB has no e/act definition. +7 Dndeed, marking upon immediate confiscation has !een interpreted as to e#en include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. +8 Dn this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused0appellant were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the #ery #enue of his arrest. As marking is the initial stage of physical in#entory, in effect, the physical in#entory of the confiscated contra!and commenced at the scene of the !uy0!ust and was completed at the house of accused0appellant. Coreo#er, the prosecution has satisfied the re5uirement that the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important to esta!lish the chain of custody. +& >,% 1autista testified that she kept the sachet sold to him !y accused0 appellant, that she sei4ed the other si/ sachets from accused0appellant and that she su!se5uently transferred all sachets in her possession to "1D Agent Celon. "1D Agent Celon stated that he recei#ed from >, % 1autista the sachet !ought !y her and the sachets sei4ed !y her from accused0appellant, that he marked these items, that he in#entoried them, that he re5uested authority from the court to retain custody of them, and that he su!mitted them to the >"> forensic la!oratory. >FS Dnsp. :agasdas attested that she recei#ed the specimens from "1D Agent Celon, that she conducted the la!oratory e/amination and that she issued a sworn certification regarding the results of her e/amination. Thus, all persons who handled the sha!u sei4ed from accused0appellant testified on how they came to take custody of the illicit drugs, what they did with the said drugs and to whom they su!se5uently transferred such drugs. Their testimonies esta!lished a continuous chain of custody which preser#ed the identity, integrity and e#identiary #alue of the dangerous drugs sei4ed from accused0appellant. Dn sum, accused0appellant has !een correctly found guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t of illegal sale of @.+@ gram of sha!u in Criminal Case "o. %77@@ and of illegal possession of @.6& gram of sha!u in Criminal Case "o. %77@%. The respecti#e penalties imposed on him are likewise proper and in accordance with law. WI=2=F,2=, the :ecision dated *une $$, $@%@ of the Court of Appeals in CA03.2. C=10C20I.C. "o. @@7'% affirming the *oint *udgment dated Cay -@, $@@7 of the 2egional Trial Court of :umaguete City, 1ranch -@ in Criminal Case "os. %77@@ and %77@% which found the accused0appellant 2eynaldo BAndyB Somo4a guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t for #iolation of Sections + and %%, Article DD of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+ is here!y AFFD2C=:. S, ,2:=2=:.

G. . No. /<=*-=> June +?. +((, GO0"S7O 2N!"S0M"N0 7O PO A02ON. petitioner, #s. G/O 2A ". 71A00O and /2NA D"/8A 71A00O. respondents.

DA!2D". J .. J.: Assailed in this petition for re#iew under 2ule '+ of the 2ules of Court are !oth the :ecision + promulgated on $7 *uly %&88 and the 2esolution dated %' Carch %&8& , of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA03.2. CK "o. @&6&& which, respecti#ely affirmed in toto the decision of 1ranch GGD of the 2egional Trial Court of Ce!u in Ci#il Case "o. 20$$+67 entitled B3loria Chatto, et al. #ersus 3otesco Dn#estment CorporationB, and denied petitionerAs motion to reconsider the same. The trial court ordered the defendant, herein petitioners to pay the plaintiff Lina :el4a =. Chatto the sum of >%@,@@@.@@ as moral damages and the plaintiff 3loria =. Chatto the sum of >'&,@+@.@@ as actual and conse5uential damages, >7+,@@@.@@ as moral damages and >$@,@@@.@@ as attorneyAs fees, plus the cost of the suit. These awards, e/cept for the attorneyAs fees, were to earn interest at the rate of twel#e per cent (%$L) per annum !eginning from the date the complaint was filed, %6 "o#em!er %&8$, until the amounts were fully paid. The antecedent facts, as found !y the trial court and affirmed !y the respondent Court, are summari4ed !y the latter in the challenged decision as follows9 The e#idence shows that in the afternoon of *une ', %&8$ plaintiff 3loria =. Chatto, and her %+0year old daughter, plaintiff Lina :el4a =. Chatto went to see the mo#ie BCother :earB at Superama D theater, owned !y defendant 3otesco Dn#estment Corporation. They !ought !alcony tickets !ut e#en then were una!le to find seats considering the num!er of people patroni4ing the mo#ie. Iardly ten (%@) minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of its !alcony collapsed. The theater was plunged into darkness and pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt, plaintiffs managed to crawl under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were a!le to get out to the street they walked the near!y F=< Iospital where they were confined and treated for one (%) day. The ne/t day, they transferred to the <ST hospital. >laintiff 3loria Chatto was treated in said hospital from *une + to *une %& and plaintiff Lina :el4a Chatto from *une + to %%. >er Cedico Legal Certificate (=/h, BCB) issued !y :r. =rnesto 3. 1rion, plaintiff Lina :el4a Chatto suffered the following in uries9 >hysical in uries9 Contusions9

forehead and drental region, scalp left with hematomaE chest anterior upper !ilateralE !ack right, scapular regionE !ack, mid0portion, thoraco0 lum!ar regions, !ilateral A!rasions9 !ack lum!ar region, hori4ontal, across midline, from left to rightE hand right, palm, near wristE hand left, inde/ finger, dorsum, pro/imal phalan/. Conclusion, cere!ral. G02ay N region N All negati#e. C,"CL<SD,"S %. >hysical in uries rioted on the su! ect. $. That under normal condition in the a!sence of complication, said physical in uries will re5uire medical attendance andFor incapacitate the su! ect for a period of from two to four weeks. ,n the other hand, the findings on plaintiff 3loria Chatto per Cedico Legal Certificate (=/h. B:B) of :r. 1rion are as follows9 /// /// /// >hysical in uries9 Lacerated wounds9 scalp #erte/, running across suggittal line, from left to right, -.@ cm suturedE Contusion, forearm right, anterior aspect, upper third. A!rasions9 Shoulder and upper third, arm right, posterior aspect, linearE !ackright, scapular region, two in num!er, linearE el!ow right, posterior aspectE forearm right, anterior aspect, middle third. Concusion (sic), cere!ral. G02ay N Skull N Cer#ical spines Straightening of cer#ical spine, pro!a!ly to muscular spasm. C,"CL<SD,"S9 %. >hysical in uries noted on su! ect. $. That under normal condition, in the a!sence of complication, said physical in uries will re5uire medical attendance andFor incapacitate the su! ect for a period of from two to four weeks. :ue to continuing pain in the neck, headache and di44iness, plaintiff went to Dllinois, <SA in *uly %&8$ for further treatment (=/h B=B). She was treated at the Cook County Iospital in Chicago, Dllinois. She stayed "egati#e. SkullE Thoraco0lum!ar

in the <.S. for a!out three (-) months during which time she had to return to the Cook County Iospital fi#e (+) or, si/ (6) times. :efendant tried to a#oid lia!ility !y alleging that the collapse of the ceiling of its theater was done due to -orce ma;eure. Dt maintained that its theater did not suffer from any structural or construction defect. (=/h. %, $, -, ', S +) ) Dn ustifying its award of actual or compensatory and moral damages and attorneyAs fees, the trial court said9 Dt has !een esta!lished thru the uncontradicted testimony of Crs. Chatto that during the chaos and confusion at the theater she lost a pair of earrings worth >$,+@@ and the sum of >%,@@@.@@ in cash contained in her wallet which was lostE and that she incurred the following e/penses9 >+@@.@@ as transportation fare from Ce!u City to Canila on the first leg of her trip to the <nited StatesE >-+@.@@ for her passportE and >'6,&78.@@ for her e/pense relati#e to her treatment in the <nited States, including the cost of a round0trip ticket (>%%,7&8.@@) hospital and medical !ills and other attendant e/penses. The total is >+%,-$8.@@, which is more than the sum of >'&,@+@.@@ claimed in the complaint, hence should !e reduced accordingly. The same testimony has also esta!lished that Crs. Chatto contracted to pay her counsel the sum of >$@,@@@.@@, which this court considers reasona!le considering, among other things, the professional standing of work (sic) in#ol#ed in the prosecution of this case. Such award of attorneyAs fees is proper !ecause the defendantAs omission to pro#ide the plaintiffs proper and ade5uate safeguard to life and lim! which they deser#ed as patrons to (sic) its theater had compelled the plaintiffs to hire the ser#ices of a counsel, file this case and prosecute it, thus incurring e/penses to protect their interest. The plaintiffs are entitled to moral damages, which are the direct and pro/imate result of the defendants gross negligence and omission. Such moral damages include the plaintiffsA physical suffering, mental anguish, fright and serious an/iety. ,n the part of Crs. Chatto, who o!#iously suffered much more pain, anguish, fright and an/iety than her daughter Lina :el4a, such damages are compounded !y the presence of permanent deformities on her !ody consisting of a 60inch scar on the head and a $0inch scar on one arm. The court !elie#es that the sum of >7+,@@@.@@ for plaintiff 3loria =. Chatto and the sum of >%@,@@@.@@ for plaintiff Lina :el4a =. Chatto would !e reasona!le. > >etitioner su!mitted !efore the respondent Court the following assignment of errors9 D. TI= L,W=2 C,<2T =22=: D" A:CDTTD"3 >AT="TLH N D"A:CDSSD1L= =KD:="C= >2=S="T=: 1H >LAD"TDFF0A>>=LL==S A": D" 3DKD"3 L=SS >2,1ATDK= KAL<= T, ><1LDC :,C<C="TS A": C=2TDFDCATD,"S ,F TI= C,":DTD," ,F TI= 1<DL:D"3, >A2TDC<LA2LH TI= C=2TDFDCAT= ,F ,CC<>A"CH DSS<=: 1H TI= CDTH ="3D"==2AS ,FFDC= ,F CA"DLA. DD. TI= L,W=2 C,<2T =22=: D" FD":D"3 TIAT BTI= C=DLD"3 ,F TI= 1ALC,"H C,LLA>S=: :<= T, S,C= ST2<CT<2AL C,"ST2<CTD," ,2 A2CIDT=CT<2AL :=F=CT,B A": ",T :<= T, A" ACT ,F 3,: ,2 FO3!# %(J#<3#. DDD. TI= L,W=2 C,<2T =22=: D" FD":D"3 TIAT TI= A>>=LLA"T WAS 32,SSLH "=3LD3="T D" FADLD"3 BT, CA<S= >2,>=2 A": A:=Q<AT= D"S>=CTD," CAD"T="A"C= A": <>;==> ,F TI= 1<DL:D"3.B Dn its decision, respondent Court found the appeal to !e without merit. As to the first assigned error, it ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting the e/hi!its in 5uestion in the light of the ruling in (brenica 2s. 4onda ? on wai#er of o! ections arising out of failure to o! ect at the proper time Thus9 =/h. BAB, the letter dated *une &, %&8$ of Tina Co ica of defendant0appellant to the Administrator of <ST Iospital e/pressing their willingness to guaranty the payment of the hospital !ills of the plaintiffs0 appellees was not o! ected to in trial court for lack of authentication. Dt is too late to raise that o! ection on appeal. =/hi!its B1B, BCB, B:B, BFB to BF0%-B are the hospital records at F=<, <ST and Cook County Iospital. Dt may !e true that the doctors who prepared them were not presented as witnesses. "onetheless, the records will show that counsel for defendant0appellant cross e/amined plaintiff0appellee 3loria Chatto on

the matter especially the content of =/hi!its BFB to F0%-B, Conse5uently, defendant0appellant is estopped from claiming lack of opportunity to #erify their te/tual truth. Coreo#er, the record is full of the testimony of plaintiffs0appellees on the in uries they sustained from the collapse of the ceiling of defendant0appellantAs theater. Their e/istence is crystal clear. =/h. B=B is the flight coupon and passenger ticket ("orthwest ,rient) of plaintiff0appellee 3loria Chatto from the >hilippines to the <.S. (Canila0Chicago0Canila). Certainly, this is rele#ant e#idence on whether or not she actually tra#elled (sic) to the <.S. for further medical treatment. :efendant0appellantAs contention that the !est e#idence on the issue is her passport is off the mark. The !est e#idence rule applies only if the contents of the writing are directly in issue. Dn any e#ent, her passport is not the only e#idence on the matter. =/h. B3B is the summary of plaintiff0appellee 3loria ChattoAs e/penses in the <.S in her own handwriting. :efendant0appellantAs o! ection that it is self ser#ing goes to the weight of the e#idence. The truth of =/h. B3B could !e and should ha#e !een tested !y cross e/amination. Dt cannot !e denied howe#er that such e/penses are within the personal knowledge of the witness. =/h. BIB is the surgical neckwear worn !y the plaintiff0appellee 3loria Chatto as part of her treatment in the <.S. :efendant0appellant o! ects to its admission !ecause it is self0ser#ing. The o! ection is without merit in #iew of the e#idence on record that plaintiff0appellee 3loria Chatto sustained head in uries from the collapse of the ceiling of defendant0appellantAs theater. Dn fact, counsel for defendant0appellant cross e/amined the said witness on the medical finding of Cook County Iospital that she was suffering from neck muscle spasm. (TS", April %7, %&8', p. %%) The wearing of a surgical neckwear has proper !asis. =/h. BDB is the photograph of plaintiff0appellee 3loria Chatto in the <.S. showing the use of her surgical neckwear. :efendant0appellant o! ects to this e/hi!it its hearsay !ecause the photographer was not presented as a witness. The o! ection is incorrect. Dn order that photographs or pictures may !e gi#en in e#idence, they must !e shown to !e a true and faithful representation of the place or o! ects to which they refer. The photographs may !e #erified either !y the photographer who took it or !y any person who is ac5uainted with the o! ect represented and testify (sic) that the photograph faithfully represents the o! ect. (Coran, Comments in the 2ules of Court, Kol. K, %&8@ ed., p. 8@ citing "ew Hork Co #s. Coore, %@+ Fed. 7$+) Dn the case at !ar, =/h. BDB was identified !y plaintiff appellee 3loria Chatto. * As to the, other assigned errors, the respondent Court ruled9 The lower court did not also err in its finding that the collapse of the ceiling of the theaterAs !alcony was due to construction defects and not to force ma eure. Dt was the !urden defendant0appellant to pro#e that its theater did not suffer from any structural defect when it was !uilt and that it has !een well maintained when the incident occurred. This is its Special and Affirmati#e :efense and it is incum!ent on defendant0 appellant to pro#e it. Considering the collapse of the ceiling of its theaterAs !alcony !arely four (') years after its construction, it !ehoo#ed defendant0appellant to conduct an e/hausti#e study of the reason for the tragic incident. ,n this score, the effort of defendant0appellant !orders criminal nonchalance. Dts witness *esus Lim ,ng testified9 Atty. 1arcelona9 Q 1y the way, you made mention a while ago that your staff of engineer and architect used to make round inspection of the !uilding under your construction the of these !uildings is 3otesco Cinema % and $, su! ect matter of this case, and you also made a regular round up or inspection of the theater. Ds that rightP A Hes, sir. Q And do you personally inspect these !uildings under your constructionP A Hes, whene#er D can. Q Dn the case of 3otesco Cinema % and $, had you any chance to inspect this !uildingP

A Hes, sir. Q >articularly in the months of Cay and *une of %&8$P A Hes, in that (sic) months. Q "ow, you said also that sometime in *une %&8$ you remem!er that one of these theaters. Atty. 1arcelona9 continuing particularly Superama % the ceiling had collapsedP A Hes, sir. Q :id you conduct an in#estigationP A Hes, sir. Q What was your findingP A There was really nothing, D cannot e/plain. D could not gi#e any reason why the ceiling collapsed. Q Could it not !e due to any defect of the plantP Atty. Florido9 Already answered, Hour Ionor, he could not gi#e any reason. C,<2T9 ,! ection sustained. Atty. 1arcelona9 Q When that incident happened, did the owner 3otesco Dn#estment Corporation went (sic) to you to call your attentionP A Hes, sir. Atty. Florido9 Hour Ionor, we noticed (sic) series of leading 5uestions, !ut this time we o! ect. C,<2T9 Sustained. Atty. 1arcelonaE Q What did the owner of 3otesco do when the ceiling collapsed, upon knowing that one of the cinemas you maintained collopsedP A Ie asked for a thorough in#estigation.

Q And as a matter of fact as asked you to in#estigateP A Hes, sir. Q :id you come out with any in#estigation report. A There was nothing to report. Clearly, there was no authoritati#e in#estigation conducted !y impartial ci#il and structural engineers on the cause of the collapse of the theaterAs ceiling, *esus Lim ,ng is not an engineer, Ie is a graduate of architecture from the St. Louie (sic) <ni#ersity in 1aguio City. Dt does not appear he has passed the go#ernment e/amination for architects. (TS", *une %', %&8+ p. ') Dn fine, the ignorance of Cr. ,ng a!out the cause of the collapse of the ceiling of their theater cannot !e e5uated, as an act, of 3od. To sustain that proposition is to introduce sacrilege in our urisprudence. = Dts motion for reconsideration of the decision ha#ing !een denied !y the respondent Court, petitioner filed this petition assailing therein the challenged decision on the following grounds9 %. The !asis of the award for damages stems from medical reports issued !y pri#ate physicians of local hospitals without !enefit of cross0e/amination and more seriously, /ero/ copies of medical findings issued !y American doctors in the <nited States without the production of originals, without the re5uired consular authentication for foreign documents, and without the opportunity for cross0e/amination. $. The damage award in fa#or of respondents is principally, made depend on such unrelia!le, hearsay and incompetent e#idence for which an award of more than >%+@,@@@.@@ in alleged actual, moral and D Bconse5uentialB damages are awarded to the pre udice of the right of petitioner to due process. . . . -. <nfortunately, petitioners e#idence of due diligence in the care and maintenance of the !uilding was not seriously considered !y the Court of Appeals, considering that fre5uent inspections and maintenance precautions had to !e o!ser#ed !y hired engineers of petitioner, which en oys an unsullied reputation in the !usiness of e/hi!iting mo#ies in a chain of mo#ie houses in Cetro Canila. ( After the pri#ate respondents filed their Comment as re5uired in the 2esolution of %7 Cay %&8&, this Court resol#ed to gi#e due course to the petition and re5uired the parties to file their respecti#e Cemoranda. Su!se5uently, pri#ate respondents, in a motion, prayed for lea#e to adopt their Comment as their Cemorandum, which this Court granted on 6 :ecem!er %&8&. >etitioner filed its Cemorandum on %@ *anuary %&&@. The petition presents !oth factual and legal issues. The first relates to the cause of the collapse of the ceiling while the latter in#ol#es the correctness of the admission of the e/hi!its in 5uestion. We find no merit in the petition. The rule is well0settled that the urisdiction of this Court in cases !rought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to re#iewing and re#ising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact !eing conclusi#e, +: e/cept only where a case is shown as coming under the accepted e/ception. ++ "one of the e/ceptions which this Court has painstakingly summari4ed in se#eral cases +, has !een shown to e/ist in this petition. >etitionerAs claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theaterAs !alcony was due to -orce ma;eure is not e#en founded on facts !ecause its own witness, Cr. *esus Lim ,ng, admitted that Bhe could not gi#e any reason why the ceiling collapsed.B Ia#ing interposed it as a defense, it had the !urden to pro#e that the collapse was indeed caused !y -orce ma;eure. Dt could not ha#e collapsed without a cause. That Cr. ,ng could not offer any e/planation does not imply -orce ma;eure. As early as eighty0fi#e (8+) years ago, this Court had the occasion to define -orce ma;eure. Dn 5ons y !ompa=ia 2s. 'a !ompa=ia %aritima +) this Court held9 An e/amination of the Spanish and American authorities concerning the meaning of -orce ma;eureshows that the urisprudence of these two countries practically agree upon the meaning of this phrase. 1lackstone, in his Commentaries on =nglish Law, defines it as N Dne#ita!le accident or casualtyE an accident produced !y any physical cause which is irresisti!leE such as lightning. tempest, perils of the sea, inundation, or earth5uakeE the

sudden illness or death of a person. ($ 1lackstoneAs Commentaries, %$$E Story in 1ailments, sec. $+.) =scriche, in his /iccionario de 'e)islacion y Jurisprudencia, defines -uer7a mayor as follows. The e#ent which we could neither foresee nor resistE as for e/ample, the lightning stroke, hail, inundation, hurricane, pu!lic enemy, attack !y ro!!ersE >is ma;or est, says Cayo, ea $uae consilio humano ne$ue pro2ideri ne$ue 2itari potest . Accident and mitigating circumstances. 1ou#ier defines the same as N Any accident due to natural cause, directly e/clusi#ely without human inter#ention, such as could not ha#e !een pre#ented !y any kind of o#ersight, pains and care reasona!ly to ha#e !een e/pected. (Law 2eports, % Common >leas :i#ision, '$-E Law 2eports, %@ =/che5uer, $++.) Cork!urn, chief ustice, in a well considered =nglish case (% Common >leas :i#ision, -', '-$), said that were a captain N <ses all the known means to which prudent and e/perienced captains ordinarily ha#e recourse, he does all that can !e reasona!ly re5uired of himE and if, under such circumtances, he is o#erpowered !y storm or other natural agency, he is within the rule which gi#es immunity from the effects of such 2is ma;or. The term generally applies, !roadly speaking, to natural accidents, such as those caused !y lightning, earth5uake, tempests, pu!lic enemy ,etc. >etitioner could ha#e easily disco#ered the cause of the collapse if indeed it were due to -orce ma;eure. To ,ur mind, the real reason why Cr. ,ng could not e/plain the cause or reason is that either he did not actually conduct the in#estigation or that he is, as the respondent Court impliedly held, incompetent. Ie is not an engineer, !ut an architect who had not e#en passed the go#ernmentAs e/amination. Kerily, post0incident in#estigation cannot !e considered as material to the present proceedings. What is significant is the finding of the trial court, affirmed !y the respondent Court, that the collapse was due to construction defects. There was no e#idence offered to o#erturn this finding. The !uilding was constructed !arely four (') years prior to the accident in 5uestion. Dt was not shown that any of the causes denominates as -orce ma;eure o!tained immediately !efore or at the time of the collapse of the ceiling. Such defects could ha#e !een easily disco#ered if only petitioner e/ercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. 1ut as disclosed !y the testimony of Cr. ,ng, there was no ade5uate inspection of the premises !efore the date of the accident. Iis answers to the leading 5uestions on inspection disclosed neither the e/act dates of said. inspection nor the nature and e/tent of the same. That the structural designs and plans of the !uilding were duly appro#ed !y the City =ngineer and the !uilding permits and certificate of occupancy were issued do not at all pro#e that there were no defects in the construction, especially as regards the ceiling, considering that no testimony was offered to pro#e that it was e#er inspected at all. Dt is settled that9 The owner or proprietor of a place of pu!lic amusement impliedly warrants that the premises, appliances and amusement de#ices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine !eing su! ect to no other e/ception or 5ualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not disco#era!le !y ordinary or reasona!le means. +> This implied warranty has gi#en rise to the rule that9 Where a patron of a theater or other place of pu!lic amusement is in ured, and the thing that caused the in ury is wholly and e/clusi#ely under the control and management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of e#ents would not ha#e happened if proper care had !een e/ercised, its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. +That presumption or inference was not o#ercome !y the petitioner.

1esides, e#en assuming for the sake of argument that, as petitioner #igorously insists, the cause of the collapse was due to -orce ma;eure, petitioner would still !e lia!le !ecause it was guilty of negligence, which the trial court denominated as )ross. As gleaned from 1ou#ierAs definition of and Cock!urnAs elucidation on -orce ma;eure for one to !e e/empt from any lia!ility !ecause of it, he must ha#e e/ercised care, i.e., he should not ha#e !een guilty of negligence. Turning now to the legal issue posed in this petition, the error lies not in the dis5uisitions of the respondent Court, !ut in the sweeping conclusion of petitioner. We agree with the respondent Court that petitioner offered no reasona!le o! ection to the e/hi!its. Core than this, howe#er, We note that the e/hi!its were admitted not as independent e#idence, !ut, primarily, as part of the testimony of Crs. 3loria Chatto. "either were the e/hi!its made the main !asis for the award of damages. As to the latter, including the award for attorneyAs fees, the testimonial e#idence presented is sufficient to support the sameE moreo#er, petitioner was not depri#ed of its right to test the, truth or falsity of pri#ate respondentsA testimony through cross0e/amination or refute their claim !y its own e#idence. Dt could not then !e successfully argued !y petitioner that the admission of the e/hi!its #iolated the hearsay rule. As this Court sees it, the trial court admitted such merely as independently rele#ant statements, which was not o! ectiona!le, for9 Where, regardless of the truth or the falsity of a statement, the fact that it has !een made is rele#ant, the hearsay rule does not apply, !ut the statement may !e shown. =#idence as to the making of such statement is not secondary !ut primary, for the statement itself may constitute a factE in issue, or !e circumstantially rele#ant as to the e/istence of such a fact. +? Furthermore, and with particular reference to the documents issued in the <nited States of America (=/hi!its BFB, BF0%B to BF0%-B, inclusi#e), the main o! ection thereto was not that they are hearsay. Dn its written comment andFor opposition to documentary e/hi!its, petitioner o! ected to their admission on the following grounds only9 . . . for !eing incompetent e#idence considering that the same were not duly authenticated !y the responsi!le consular andFor em!assy officials authori4ed to authenticate the said documents. +* All told, the instant petition is without merit. WI=2=F,2=, udgment is here!y rendered :="HD"3 the instant petition with costs against petitioner. S, ,2:=2=:. 4utierre7, Jr., Feliciano, 1idin, and 3omero, JJ., concur.

G. . No. /<++>*+

March +>. +(+*

7O P64. petitioner0appellant, #s. 01" 2NS6/A 7O//"70O OF 76S0OMS. respondent0appellee. 1eaumont and Tenney -or appellant. (ttorney,4eneral (2ance=a -or appellee. MO "/AND. J.@ This is an appeal !y the petitioner from a udgment of the Court of First Dnstance of the city of Canila dismissing a petition for a writ of ha!eas corpus. Dt appears on the record that on April $6, %&%+, two Chinamen claiming themsel#es to !e Co >uy and Co >ay, $+ and $@ years of age respecti#ely, the illegitimate sons of a Filipino woman named >atricia and a Chinaman named Co Lian, arri#ed at port of Canila from China and asked permission to enter the >hilippine Dslands. >ermission was denied !y the immigration authorities upon the ground that it was !elie#ed that they were Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent and were not pro#ided with credentials showing a right to enter. ,n the -d of *uly, %&%+, a petition for a writ of ha!eas corpus was filed in the Court of First Dnstance on their !ehalf and an order to show cause why the writ should not !e issued was granted. After due hearing the petition was denied, as aforesaid, and an appeal taken. There were se#eral hearings !efore the !oard of special in5uiry with reference to the right of the two Chinamen referred to enter the >hilippine Dslands. At the first hearing entrance was denied to each of them. Later, on a rehearing, Co >ay was admitted !ut Co >uy was refused admission. "ot less than si/ hearings were gi#en !y the !oard of special in5uiry in this case. After the hearings were closed the !oard rendered a decision a part of which is as follows9 The record shows that he (referring to Co >uy) was !orn in ChinaE that when he arri#ed in these Dslands he was $+ years oldE and he stated at the original hearing that at a!out the age of $@ he left the home of his parents and !ecame employed in a drug storeE and had continued in such employment for four or fi#e years until he departed for the >hilippine Dslands. Df the detained Co >oe (>uy) is the son of this Filipina woman, as claimed, in the opinion of the !oard he has e/patriated himself !y his #oluntary act of remaining in China since attaining his ma ority and has maintained himself separate and apart from his home and li#ed to all intents and purposes as a su! ect of the 2epu!lic of China. The !oard also said in its decision9 Dn regard to Co >ay, the youngest of the detained, the 1oard is of the opinion that there is a reasona!le dou!t in his fa#or. The testimony gi#en in all the hearings has !een practically the same in regard to !oth !oys, !ut has not !een of a #ery con#incing nature. 1ut Co >ay has somewhat the appearance of a Chinese0Filipino mesti4o and is still a minor and the 1oard therefore decides to gi#e him the !enefit of any dou!t which may e/ist and allow him to land as the son of a Filipina woman.

Dn regard to Co >oe (>uy) while the testimony has !een practically the same as for Co >ay, his personal appearance is decidedly that of a full0!looded Chinese. With regard to the character of the testimony gi#en !y the witnesses the !oard says9 There are many 5uestions asked of these witnesses to test their credi!ility, !ut the witnesses were generally una!le to gi#e any minor details that would tend to esta!lish their credi!ility and render their testimony con#incing and satisfactory e#idence. An appeal was taken from the decision of the !oard of special in5uiry to the Collector of Customs where the decision was affirmed. ,n the hearing on the order to show cause why a writ of ha!eas corpus should not !e issued the trial court found that the customs officials had a!used their discretion and e/ceeded their authority in e/cluding Co >uy from the >hilippine Dslands and, accordingly, found that it had urisdiction to e/amine the case on the merits. The ground upon which the court !ased its finding that the customs officials had e/ceeded their authority and a!used their discretion is stated !y the court as follows9 The attention of the Dnsular Collector of Customs ha#ing !een, in the appeal taken !y the petitioner, especially called to the su! ect of whether or not the petitioner has the appearance of a Chinese mesti4o or that of a full0 !looded Chinaman, with arguments or comments upon the su! ect !y the attorneys for the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that it was the duty of the Dnsular Collector of Customs to inspect the person of the petitioner for the purpose of re#iewing the finding of the !oard of special in5uiry that petitionerAs Bpersonal appearance is decidedly that of a full0!looded Chinese,B and his failure or refusal to do this was an a!use of the discretion, power and authority #ested in him as the re#iewing authority in such cases. We are of the opinion that the trial court was in error in holding that the Collector of Customs has a!used his discretion and e/ceeded his authority upon the ground stated. Dn the case of Que Quay 2s. Collector of Customs (-- >hil. 2ep., %$8) this court said9 ,cular inspection !y a court of the su! ect0matter in contro#ersy is permitted !y the law of the >hilippine Dslands in certain cases and the right of the court to inspect in other cases has !een recogni4ed !y many decisions of the Supreme Court. Dn such cases, whether it !e !y a commission in condemnation proceedings, or !y a udge of the land court in proceedings for the registration of title, or !y the Court of First Dnstance in the location of !oundary lines, an ocular inspection !y the court or commission has fre5uently !een made the !asis of a udgment of the Supreme Court sustaining the decision of the trial court or commission. Dn such cases the lands inspected are not !efore the Supreme Court nor is the !oundary line as seen !y the trial court, or the lay of the ground, the natural contour, the location of trees and other natural o! ects, and all other indications which lead the court as a result of an ocular inspection to say that the land or the !oundary line lies in one place instead of another N none of these things are !efore the Supreme Court when it renders its decision. "e#ertheless, the udgment of the court !ased on these facts and circumstances is accepted and they are gi#en their due weight in this court. Wounds, weapons, and localities are o! ects of fre5uent inspection !y trial courts in criminal cases, yet none of these may !e !efore the appellate court. The personal appearance of an accused or a witness will many times tell a court whether he is testifying falsely or truly and will !e an element in determining the sentence which will !e imposed. Het these facts may ne#er come to the attention of the appellate court when the case is appealed !y the accused. The rule re5uiring this court, in passing on a 5uestion of fact on which the trial court has !ased its decision, to gi#e due weight and consideration to the fact that the trial court saw the witnesses when they testified and o!ser#ed their manner on the stand, touches the same principle as the right and necessity of a !oard of special in5uiry to take into consideration the language, personal, appearance, and characteristics of an alleged Chinese alien seeking to enter the >hilippine Dslands, and permits the Collector of Customs to decide the case on appeal although he may ne#er ha#e seen the person from whose language, appearance, dress, manner and deportment the !oard of special in5uiry drew important conclusions. The trial court ha#ing erred in finding that the Dnsular Collector of Customs had a!used his discretion and e/ceeded his authority, it also erred in deciding the case on the merits. Dn the case of Kalde4co Sy Chiok 2s.Dnsular Collector of Customs (-- >hil. 2ep., '@6) this court said9 From this it is clear that, while the court in which the proceeding for the writ is pending may hear e#idence on the merits, it can do so only when it has !een esta!lished to its satisfaction that the customs officials a!used their authority or #iolated the law in refusing to gi#e the hearing which the law re5uired, or in some other manner.

Coreo#er, the mere fact that the decision of the customs official or officials was wrong does not esta!lish the right to !e heard on the merits in the court in which the proceeding for the writ is pending. The udgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. Torres, !arson, Trent and (raullo, JJ., concur.

G. . No. +,*->( January ,=. +((= SPO6S"S 7"SA and AA6"/ S0A. MA 2A and F/O 7" F2DA S0A. MA 2A. petitioners, #s. 7O6 0 OF APP"A/S. and SPO6S"S A S"N2O and OS/4NN FAJA DO. respondents.

DA!2D". J .. J.: This is an appeal under 2ule '+ of the 2ules of Court from the decision + of %8 :ecem!er %&&6 of the Court of Appeals in CA03.2. CK "o. '8'7-, which affirmed with modification the -@ *une %&&' :ecision , of 1ranch %& of the 2egional Trial Court of 1ulacan in Ci#il Case "o. 770C0&$ granting the pri#ate respondents a right of way through the property of the petitioners. The antecedent facts, as summari4ed !y the Court of Appeals, are as follows9 >laintiff spouses Arsenio and 2oslynn Fa ardo are the registered owners of a piece of land, Lot "o. %$' of the ,!ando Cadastre, containing an area of %,@'- s5uare meters, located at >aco, ,!ando, 1ulacan, and co#ered !y Transfer Certificate Title (TC: "o. T0%'77$& (C) of the 2egistry of :eeds of Ceycauayan, 1ulacan (=/hi!it B1B, p. %+- ,rig. 2ec.). They ac5uired said lot under a :eed of A!solute Sale dated Fe!ruary 6, %&&$ e/ecuted !y the #endors >edro C. Sanche4, et al. (Anne/ BAB, ComplaintE pp. 708 ibid.). >laintiffAs aforesaid Lot %$' is surrounded !y Lot % (>sd '+'%$), a fishpond (=/h. BC0+BE p. %+', ibid.), on the northeast portion thereofE !y Lot %$6, owned !y Florentino Cru4, on the southeast portionE !y Lot 60a and a portion of Lot 60! (!oth >sd0$&7786) owned respecti#ely !y Spouses Cesar and 2a5uel Sta. Caria and Florcerfida Sta. Caria (=/hs. BC0$B and BC0-B, ibid.), on the southwestE and !y Lot %$$, owned !y the *acinto family, on the northwest. ,n Fe!ruary %7, %&&$, plaintiff spouses Fa ardo filed a complaint against defendants Cesar and 2a5uel Sta. Caria or Florcerfida Sta. Caria for the esta!lishment of an easement of right of way. >laintiffs alleged that their lot, Lot %$', is surrounded !y properties !elonging to other persons, including those of the defendantsE that since plaintiffs ha#e no ade5uate outlet to the pro#incial road, an easement of a right of way passing through either of the alternati#e defendantsA properties which are directly a!utting the pro#incial road would !e plaintiffsA only con#enient, direct and shortest access to and from the pro#incial roadE that plaintiffsA predecessors0in0interest ha#e !een passing through the properties of defendants in going to and from their lotE that defendantsA mother e#en promised plaintiffsA predecessors0in0interest to grant the latter an easement of right of way as she acknowledged the a!sence of an access from their property to the roadE and that alternati#e defendants, despite plaintiffsA re5uest for a right of way and referral of the dispute to the !arangay officials, refused to grant them an easement. Thus, plaintiffs prayed that an easement of right of way on the lots of defendants !e esta!lished in their fa#or. They also prayed for damages, attorneyAs fees and costs of suit.

:efendants, instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss (pp. '%0'+, ibid.) on the ground that the lower court has no urisdiction to hear the case since plaintiffs failed to refer the matter to the baran)ay lupon in accordance with >residential :ecree "o. %+@8. The lower court, howe#er, in its ,rder dated Cay %8, %&&$, denied said motion on the premise that there was su!stantial compliance with the law. ,n Cay $+, %&&$, defendants filed a B"otice of AppealB to the Supreme Court of the 5uestioned order of the lower court denying their motion to dismiss, under 2ule '+ of the 2ules of Court (p. +', ibid.). ,n *une $', %&&$, the lower court denied the notice of appeal for lack of merit (p. 86, ibid). Dn the meantime, defendants filed a petition for re#iew on certiorari of the lower courtAs ,rder dated Cay %8, %&&$ (pp. 6'08', ibid.). Dn an ,rder dated *uly 8, %&&$, the Third :i#ision of the Supreme Court denied said petition for failure to comply with 2e#ised Circular "os. %088 and Circular "o. $80@% (p. &7, ibid.). :efendantsA motion for reconsideration was likewise denied with finality on *uly $@, %&&$ (p. &6, ibid.). Conse5uently, defendants filed their answer to the court !elow where they alleged that the granting of an easement in fa#or of plaintiffs would cause them great damage and incon#enienceE and that there is another access route from plaintiffsA lot to the main road through the property of Florentino Cru4 which was likewise a!utting the pro#incial road and was !eing offered for sale. 1y way of counterclaim, defendants prayed for damages and attorneyAs fees. The parties not ha#ing settled their dispute during the pre0trial (p.%$@, ,rig. 2ecord), the court directed that an ocular inspection !e conducted of the su! ect property, designating the !ranch clerk of court as its commissioner. Dn time, an ,cular Dnspection 2eport dated :ecem!er -, %&&$ (=/hs. B*B and B*0 %B) was su!mitted. After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered the assailed decision granting plaintiffsA prayer for an easement of right of way on defendantsA properties. ) The trial court found that !ased on the ,cular Dnspection 2eport there was no other way through which the pri#ate respondents could esta!lish a right of way in order to reach the pro#incial road e/cept !y tra#ersing directly the property of the petitioners. Dt further found that (a) no significant structure, sa#e for a wall or fence a!out three feet high, would !e ad#ersely affectedE (!) there was sufficient #acant space of appro/imately %% meters !etween petitionersA housesE and (c) petitionersA property could pro#ide the shortest route from the pro#incial road to the pri#ate respondentsA property. Conse5uently, the trial court granted the easement prayed for !y the pri#ate respondents in a decision dated -@ *une %&&', > whose decretal portion reads as follows9 WI=2=F,2=, premises considered the Court orders that a right0of0way !e constructed on the defendantsA property co#ered !y TCT "o. @06$'' of a!out 7+ s5. meters, $+ s5. meters shall !e taken from the lot of Florcerfida Sta. Caria and +@ s5. meters from the property of Cesar Sta. Caria to !e esta!lished along lines %0$ of lot 60c and along lines -0' of lot 60! and to indemnify the owners thereof in the total amount of >-,7+@.@@ (>%,$+@.@@ goes to Florcerfida Sta. Caria and >$,+@@.@@ to Cesar Sta. Caria) and to reconstruct the fence to !e destroyed in the manner it was at the time of the filing of this action. The petitioners seasona!ly appealed from the aforementioned decision to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the case as CA03.2. CK "o. '8'7-. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the pri#ate respondents had sufficiently esta!lished the e/istence of the four re5uisites for compulsory easement of right of way on petitionersA property, to wit9 (%) pri#ate respondentsA property was, as re#ealed !y the ,cular inspection 2eport, surrounded !y other immo#a!les owned !y different indi#iduals and was without an ade5uate outlet to a pu!lic highwayE ($) the isolation of pri#ate respondentsA property was not due to their own acts, as it was already surrounded !y other immo#a!les when they purchased itE (-) petitionersA property would pro#ide the shortest way from pri#ate respondentsA property to the pro#incial road, and this way would cause the least pre udice !ecause no significant structure would !e in ured there!yE and (') the pri#ate respondents were willing to pay the corresponding damages pro#ided for !y law if the right of way would !e granted. Accordingly, in its decision - of %8 :ecem!er %&&6, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courtAs decision, !ut modified the property #aluation !y increasing it from >+@ to >$,@@@ per s5uare meter. The petitioners forthwith filed this petition for re#iew on certiorari !ased on the following assignment of errors9

D. WI=TI=2 ,2 ",T A C,C><LS,2H =AS=C="T ,F 2D3IT ,F WAH CA" 1= =STA1LDSI=: D" TI= LD3IT ,F TI= :,CT2D"= LAD: :,W" 1H TI= I,". S<>2=C= C,<2T D" !OST(1#''( !O35O3(T0O" >S. !O<3T OF (55#('S, %&- SC2A ---, -'% WIDCI I=L: TIAT (F,2) TI= FADL<2= ,F >2DKAT= 2=S>,":="TS T, SI,W TIAT TI= DS,LATD," ,F TI=D2 >2,>=2TH WAS ",T :<= T, TI=D2 >=2S,"AL ,2 TI=D2 >2=:=C=SS,2S0D"0D"T=2=STAS ,W" ACTS, TI=H A2= ",T ="TDTL=: T, A C,C><LS,2H =AS=C="T ,F 2D3IT ,F WAH. DD. WI=TI=2 ,2 ",T A C,C><LS,2H 2D3IT ,F WAH CA" 1= 32A"T=: T, >2DKAT= 2=S>,":="TS WI, IAK= TW, ,TI=2 =GDSTD"3 >ASSA3= WAHS ,TI=2 TIA" TIAT ,F >=TDTD,"=2S A": A" ALT=2"ATDK= KACA"T L,T F2,"TD"3 TI= >2,KD"CDAL 2,A: ALS, A:*AC="T T, >2DKAT= 2=S>,":="TSA >2,>=2TH, WIDCI CA" 1= <S=: D" 3,D"3 T, A": F2,C >2DKAT= 2=S>,":="TSA >2,>=2TH. DDD. 2=S>,":="T I,". C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" CA;D"3 A >,2TD," ,F DTS STAT=C="T ,F FACTS F2,C ALL=3ATD,"S D" TI= C,C>LAD"T A": ",T F2,C TI= =KD:="C= ," 2=C,2:. DK. 2=S>,":="T I,". C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS S=2D,<SLH =22=: D" I,L:D"3 TIAT >2DKAT= 2=S>,":="TS IAK= ", A:=Q<AT= ,<TL=T T, A ><1LDC ID3IWAH WIDCI D"F=2="C= :2AW" F2,C FACTS WAS CA"DF=STLH CDSTA;=". ? The first, second, and fourth assigned errors in#ol#e 5uestions of fact. Settled is the rule that the urisdiction of this Court in cases !rought !efore it from the Court of Appeals #ia 2ule '+ of the 2ules of Court is limited to re#iewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the latter are conclusi#e, e/cept in the following instances9 (%) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or con ecturesE ($) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, a!surd, or impossi!leE (-) when there is gra#e a!use of discretionE (') when the udgment is !ased on a misapprehension of factsE (+) when the findings of fact are conflictingE (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went !eyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of !oth the appellant and the appelleeE (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial courtE (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific e#idence on which they are !asedE (&) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionerAs main and reply !riefs are not disputed !y the respondentE and (%@) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed a!sence of e#idence and contradicted !y the e#idence on record. * A perusal of the pleadings and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as of the decision of the trial court, yields no ground for the application of any of the foregoing e/ceptions. All told, the findings of fact of !oth courts satisfied the following re5uirements for an estate to !e entitled to a compulsory ser#itude of right of way under the Ci#il Code, to wit9 %. the dominant estate is surrounded !y other immo#a!les and has no ade5uate outlet to a pu!lic highway (Art. 6'&, par. %)E $. there is payment of proper indemnity (Art. 6'&, par. %)E -. the isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate (Art. 6'&, last par.)E and '. the right of way claimed is at the point least pre udicial to the ser#ient estateE and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a pu!lic highway may !e the shortest (Art. 6+@). = As to such re5uisites, the Court of Appeals made the following dis5uisitions9

Anent the first re5uisite, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs0appelleesA property is surrounded !y other immo#a!les owned !y different indi#iduals. The ocular inspection report su!mitted to the lower court re#eals that9 The property of the plaintiffs, spouses Arsenio and 2oslynn Fa ardo, is completely surrounded with ado!e fence without any point of egress and ingress to the national road. Said plaintiffsA property containing an area of %,@'- s5uare meters and co#ered !y ,CT "o. ,06$'' of the 2egistry of :eeds of 1ulacan was situated directly !ehind defendantsA property which a!uts the national road. :efendants, spouses Cesar and 2ac5uel Sta. Caria, are the a!solute owners of the parcel of land with an area of +-7 s5uare meters and em!raced under TCT "o. T0-7.76$(C) situated on the left side a!utting the national road with their house thereon made of wood and hollow !locks, while defendant Florcerfida Sta. Caria is the a!solute owner of a parcel of land with a similar area of +-7 s5uare meters and co#ered !y TCT "o. T0-7.76$(C) situated on the right side and likewise a!utting the national road with an impressi#e house thereon of modern #intage made of strong materials. As depicted in the rough sketch hereto attached, plaintiffs ha#e a!solutely no means of ingress and egress to their property as the same is completely isolated !y properties owned !y other persons. ,n the left side is the property of Florentino Cru4, on the right side is the property reportedly owned !y the *acintosE and on the front portion are properties owned !y defendants. . . . . (,cular Dnspection 2eport, p. %-+, ,rig. 2ec.) >laintiffs0appelleesA property is likewise without ade5uate outlet to a pu!lic highway. The e/isting passage way for people (Bdaang taoB) at the !ack of plaintiffs0appellees property leading to the pro#incial road (TS", Cay %7, %&&-, p. %$) cannot !e considered an ade5uate outlet for purposes of esta!lishing an easement. Article 6+% of the Code pro#ides that B(t)he width of the easement of right of way shall !e that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly !e changed from time to time.B Thus in the case of 'arracas 2s. /el 3io (-7 ,fficial 3a4ette $87), this Court had occasion to rule that Bit is not necessary for a person, like his neigh!ors, to content himself with a footpath and deny himself the use of an automo!ile. So in an age when motor cars are a #ital necessity, the dominant proprietor has a right to demand a dri#eway for his automo!ile, and not a mere lane or pathwayB (Cited in Tolentino, ibid., p. -&%). The second re5uisite for the esta!lishment of an easement of right way, i.e., payment of indemnity, is likewise present in this case. >laintiff0appellee spouse 2oslynn Fa ardo testified on direct e/amination that they are willing to pay the corresponding damages pro#ided for !y law if granted the right of way (TS", "o#em!er +, %&&$, p. %%). The third re5uisite is that the isolation of plaintiffs0appelleesA property should not ha#e !een due to their own acts. Dn the case under consideration, the isolation of their lot is not due to plaintiffsA acts. The property they purchased was already surrounded !y other immo#a!les lea#ing them no ade5uate ingress or egress to a pu!lic highway. 3oing now to the fourth re5uisite of Bleast pre udiceB and Bshortest distance,B We agree with the lower court that this twin elements ha#e !een complied with in esta!lishing the easement of right of way on defendants0appellantsA properties. Dt has !een commented upon that where there are se#eral tenements surrounding the dominant estate, and the easement may !e esta!lished on any of them, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should !e chosen. 1ut if these two circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should !e used, e#en if it will not !e the shortest. And if the conditions of the #arious tenements are the same, all the ad oining owners should !e cited and e/perts utili4ed to determine where the easement shall !e esta!lished (Tolentino, ibid., pp. %@80%@&, citin) Casals Colldecarrera). Dn the case at !ar, the ocular inspection disclosed that there are three options open to the plaintiffs0 appellees as a route to reach the national road, to wit9

(%) To tra#erse directly through defendantsA property which is the shortest route of appro/imately $@ to $+ meters away from the national roadE ($) To purchase a right of way from the ad oining property of Florentino Cru4 on the left side of their propertyE and (-) To negotiate with *acinto family on the right side of their property. Dn all instances, no significant structures would !e ad#ersely affected. There is sufficient #acant space !etween defendantsA houses of appro/imately %% meters. The distance of defendant FlorcerfidaAs house with the ad oining ado!e wall separating that of the property of defendants Cesar and 2ac5uel Sta. Caria is a!out ' meters, while the space !etween the ado!e wall and that of the latterAs house is a!out 7 meters or a total of %% meters #acant space for purposes of a right of way. ,n the other hand, plaintiffs may negotiate with a right of way with Florentino Cru4 on the left side of their property although the same is 5uite circuitous. Lastly, the option through the property of the *acinto on the right side is #ery circuitous and longer. The route in#ol#es a total of a!out +@ yards as it has to go straight to the right of a!out -+ yards and turn left of a!out another %+ yards !efore reaching the common right of way. (,cular Dnspection report, pp. %-+0%-6, ibid.) Among the three (-) possi!le ser#ient estates, it is clear that defendants0appellantsA property would afford the shortest distance from plaintiffs0appelleesA property to the pro#incial road. Coreo#er, it is the least pre udicial since as found !y the lower court, B(i)t appears that there would !e no significant structures to !e in ured in the defendantsA property and the right0of0way to !e constructed thereon would !e the shortest of all the alternati#e routes pointed to !y the defendantsB (p. ', 2TC, :ecisionE p. $$-, ibid.). >etitionersA reliance on !ostabella !orporation 2. !ourt o- (ppeals ( to support their first assigned error is misplaced. Dn said case we re#ersed the decision of the Court of Appeals granting a compulsory easement of a right of way to the pri#ate respondents therein !ecause of the a!sence of any showing that the Bpri#ate respondents had esta!lished the e/istence of the four re5uisites mandated !y law.B As to the third re5uisite, we e/plicitly pointed outE thus9 B"either ha#e the pri#ate respondents !een a!le to show that the isolation of their property was not due to their personal or their predecessors0in0interestAs own acts.B Dn the instant case, the Court of Appeals ha#e found the e/istence of the re5uisites. The petitioners, howe#er, insist that pri#ate respondentsA predecessors0in0interest ha#e, through their own acts of constructing concrete fences at the !ack and on the right side of the property, isolated their property from the pu!lic highway. The contention does not impress !ecause e#en without the fences pri#ate respondentsA property remains landlocked !y neigh!oring estates !elonging to different owners. <nder the second and fourth assigned errors, the petitioners try to con#ince us that there are two other e/isting passage ways o#er the property of Cru4 and o#er that of *acinto, as well as a Bdaang tao,B for pri#ate respondentsA use. ,ur e/amination of the records yields otherwise. Said lots of Cru4 and *acinto do not ha#e e?istin) passage ways for the pri#ate respondents to use. Coreo#er, the ,cular Dnspection 2eport +: re#eals that the suggested alternati#e ways through Cru4As or *acintoAs properties are longer and BcircuitousB than that through petitionersA property. This is also clear from the Sketch >lan ++ su!mitted !y the pri#ate respondents wherein it is readily seen that the lots of Cru4 and *acinto are only ad acent to that of pri#ate respondents unlike that of petitioners which is directly in front of pri#ate respondentsA property in relation to the pu!lic highway. <nder Article 6+@ of the Ci#il Code, the easement of right of way shall !e esta!lished at the point least pre udicial to the ser#ient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a pu!lic highway may !e the shortest. Where there are se#eral tenements surrounding the dominant estate, and the easement may !e esta!lished on any of them, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should !e chosen. +, The conditions of Bleast damageB and Bshortest distanceB are !oth esta!lished in one tenement N petitionersA property. As to the Bdaan) taoB at the !ack of pri#ate respondentsA property, it must !e stressed that under Article 6+% the width of the easement of right of way shall !e that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly !e changed from time to time. Therefore, the needs of the dominant estate determine the width of the easement. +) The needs of pri#ate respondentsA property could hardly !e ser#ed !y this Bdaang taoB located at the !ack and which is !ordered !y a fishpond. +>

The third assigned error is without !asis and is nothing !ut a misreading of the challenged decision. The Court of Appeals did not declare as esta!lished facts the allegations of the complaint referred to !y the petitioner. Dt merely made a !rief summary of what were alleged in the complaint as part of its narration of the antecedents of the case on appeal. WI=2=F,2=, the instant petition for re#iew is :="D=: and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFD2C=: in toto. Costs against petitioners. S, ,2:=2=:.

A.M. No. M0J<::<+,(=

Au#ust ). ,:::

32//2AM . ADAN. complainant, #s. J6DG" AN20A A567"JO</68ANO. Municipal 7ircuit 0rial 7ourt. 2nitao</iBertad. Misamis Oriental. respondent. :=CDSD," GON8AGA< "4"S. J.: William 2. Adan is the pri#ate complainant in two ($) criminal cases ("os. $$++ and $$+6) !oth for 3ra#e ,ral :efamation filed with respondent *udge Anita A!uce o0Lu4ano of the Cunicipal Trial Court of Lope40*aena, Cisamis ,ccidental wherein the latter found accused 2emedios and 1elinda Saarenas guilty of the said crime and were sentenced accordingly. Iowe#er, on Cotion for 2econsideration, respondent udge re#ersed her decision and rendered a udgment of ac5uittal. Dn the present case, herein complainant Adan alleges that respondent *udge modified the udgment not on the !asis of what was already on the record !ut on the !asis of BnewB, information supplied to her !y the accusedE that respondent *udge conducted an ocular inspection of the place of the crime without in#iting or e#en informing the parties thereof despite the fact that such ocular inspection is part of the pu!lic trial where !oth the prosecution and the defense are present or representedE that respondent *udge e#en inter#iewed the accused thus recei#ing !iased informationE and that respondent *udge failed to furnish him a copy of the ,rder of ac5uittal dated :ecem!er &, %&&6 and that he came to know of the e/istence of the said order when he accidentally met the pu!lic prosecutor on Cay %', %&&7 or si/ (6) months after the promulgation of the udgment. Complainant charged respondent *udge with a!use of authority, partiality and rendering an un ust udgment relati#e to the aforesaid criminal cases. 2espondent *udge denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that neither of the accused are personally known to herE that she modified the udgment upon finding that she committed in ustice to the accused who are poor and ha#e less in life and in education unlike the complainant who is the Chancellor of the Cindanao State <ni#ersity (CS<) and the head of CS<As Dnstitute of Fisheries and 2esearch :e#elopment. She further alleged that she is Bone if not the only one among the udges of the first le#el courts to ha#e the least num!er of pending criminal and ci#il cases filed as she does not wait for any!ody to come and seek her aid in the disposal of casesB. The case was referred to the Court Administrator for in#estigation, report and recommendation. The Court Administrator recommended that respondent *udge !e fined in the amount of Twenty Thousand >esos ( >$@,@@@.@@) with a warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future shall !e dealt with more se#erely. Dn the 2esolution dated *anuary -%, $@@@, this Court re5uired the parties to manifest whether they are willing to su!mit the case for resolution on the !asis of the pleadingsF records already filed and su!mitted. Complainant and respondent filed separate Canifestations stating that they are su!mitting the case on the !asis of the pleadings andFor records already filed.

A careful reading of the ,rder dated :ecem!er &, %&&6 ac5uitting the accused clearly shows that indeed respondent *udge conducted an ocular inspection of the place of the incident Bon her way homeB at which the accused were present and wherein respondent *udge was informed !y the accused that Bthe area was fenced !y the CS<B. % Dt is not disputed that complainant or his counsel was not informed of such ocular inspection. 2espondent *udge should ha#e known that an e?,parte ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the parties and after the case had already !een decided was highly improper. Df respondent *udge had entertained dou!ts that she wished to clarify after the trial had already terminated, she should ha#e ordered motu proprio the reopening of the trial for the purpose, with due notice to the parties, whose participation therein is essential to due process. Thus, it is error for the udge to go alone to the place where the crime was committed and make an inspection without pre#ious knowledge or consent of the parties. $ The conduct of the e?,parte inspection, the result of which apparently influenced her to reconsider her earlier decision, was highly improper as she, in effect, admitted additional e#idence without gi#ing the prosecution a chance to o! ect to its introduction or to contro#ert the same. 2espondent *udge has opened herself to charges of partiality and !ias !y meeting with the accused pri#ately. "o matter how no!le her intentions may ha#e !een, it was improper for respondent *udge to meet the accused without the presence of complainant. 2espondent *udge has not only shown gross ignorance of the law and procedure !ut failed to li#e up to the norm that B udges should not only !e impartial !ut should also appear impartialB. She thus #iolated Canon $ of the Code of *udicial Conduct which pro#ides that Ba udge should a#oid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all acti#ities.B Anent respondent *udgeAs alleged failure to furnish complainant with a copy of the order of ac5uittal, the same is untena!le.1:*phi1 Dt is not the udgeAs duty to do this. Complainant should ha#e coordinated with the pu!lic or pri#ate prosecutor in charge of the cases to update himself of the status of the case. The charge of knowingly rendering an un ust udgment must likewise fail. As aptly pointed out !y the Court Administrator, the respondentRs decision was actuated more !y her misguided sense of ustice rather than any e#il moti#e to cause an in ury to complainant. Iowe#er, we !elie#e that the fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand >esos ( >$@,@@@.@@) recommended !y the Court Administrator is too harsh and the same is reduced to Ten Thousand >esos (>%@,@@@.@@) as it was not shown that there was malice or e#il intent in respondent *udgeAs actuation. 31" "FO ", for gross ignorance of udicial procedures, respondent *udge Anita A!uce o0Lu4ano is here!y FD"=: in the amount of Ten Thousand >esos (>%@,@@@.@@) with a ST=2" WA2"D"3 that a repetition of the same or similar act shall !e dealt with more se#erely !y this Court. SO O D" "D.

G. . No. +-*+**

FeBruary ++. ,::=

5ANC OF 01" P12/2PP2N" 2S/ANDS. petitioner, #s. J"S6SA P. "4"S and 7ON ADO 5. "4"S. respondents. D"72S2ON A6S0 2A<MA 02N"8. J.@. 1efore us is a >etition for 2e#iew on !ertiorari under 2ule '+ of the 2ules of Court seeking to annul the :ecision %of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated ,cto!er $&, $@@$ as well as its 2esolution $ dated Fe!ruary %$, $@@-, which affirmed with modification the :ecision of the 2egional Trial Court (2TC) of Cakati, 1ranch %'$, in Ci#il Case "o. &%0-'+-, - re5uiring 1ank of >hilippine Dslands (petitioner) to return to spouses *esusa >. 2eyes and Conrado 1. 2eyes (respondents) the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ plus interest and damages. The conflicting #ersions of the parties are aptly summari4ed !y the trial court, to wit9 ,n :ecem!er 7, %&&@ at around $9@@ p.m., plaintiff *esusa 2eyes together with her daughter, *oan 2eyes, went to 1>D Tapote 1ranch to open an ATC account, she !eing interested with the ongoing promotions of 1>D entitling e#ery depositor with a deposit amounting to >$,@@@.@@ to a ticket with a car as its pri4e to !e raffled e#ery month. She was accommodated, in lieu of the !ank manager Cr. "icasio, !y Cicero Capati (>ats) who was an employee of the !ank and in charge of the new accounts and time deposits characteristically descri!ed as ha#ing homose/ual inclinations. They were entertained !y Capati and were made to sit at a ta!le occupied !y a certain Li4a. >laintiff informed Capati that they wanted to open an ATC account for the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@, >%@@,@@@.@@ of which shall !e withdrawn from her e/iting sa#ings account with 1>D !ank which is account no. @$--0$'--088 and the other >%@@,@@@.@@ will !e gi#en !y her in cash. Capati allegedly made a mistake and prepared a withdrawal slip for >$@@,@@.@@ to !e withdrawn from her e/isting sa#ings account with said !ank and the plaintiff *esusa 2eyes !elie#ing in good faith that Capati prepared the papers with the correct amount signed the same unaware of the mistakes in figures. While she was !eing entertained !y Capati, her daughter *oan 2eyes was filling up the signature cards and se#eral other forms. Cinutes later after the slips were presented to the teller, Capati returned to where the plaintiff was seating and informed the latter that the withdrawa!le !alance could not accommodate >$@@,@@@.@@.

>laintiff e/plained that she is withdrawing the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ only and then changed and correct the figure two ($) into one (%) with her signature super0imposed thereto signifying the change, afterwhich the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ in cash in two !undles containing %@@ pieces of >+@@.@@ peso !ill were gi#en to Capati with her daughter *oan witnessing the same. Thereafter Capati prepared a deposit slip for >$@@,@@@.@@ in the name of plaintiff *esusa 2eyes with the new account no. @$-+0@7670'8 and !rought the same to the tellerAs !ooth. After a while, he returned and handed to the plaintiff her duplicate copy of her deposit to account no. @$-+0@7670'8 reflecting the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ with receipt stamp showing :ecem!er 7, as the date. >laintiff and daughter then left. ,n :ecem!er %', %&&@, Crs. *esusa recei#ed her e/press teller card from said !ank. Thereafter on :ecem!er $6, %&&@, plaintiff left for the <nited States (=/hs. BTB, B<B0 B<0%B) and returned to Canila on *anuary -%, %&&% (=/hs. BKB0BK0%B). When she went to her pawnshop, she was made aware !y her statement of account sent to her !y 1>D !ank that her ATC account only contained the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ with interest. She then sent her daughter to in5uire, howe#er, the !ank manager assured her that they would look into the matter. ,n Fe!ruary 6, %&&%, plaintiff instructed =fren Luna, one of her employees, to update her sa#ings account pass!ook at the 1>D with the folded deposit slip for >$@@,@@@.@@ stapled at the outer co#er of said pass!ook. After presenting the pass!ook to !e updated and when the same was returned, Luna noticed that the deposit slip stapled at the co#er was remo#ed and #alidated at the !ack portion thereof. Thereafter, Luna returned with the pass!ook to the plaintiff and when the latter saw the #alidation, she got angry. >laintiff then asked the !ank manager why the deposit slip was #alidated, whereupon the manager assured her that the matter will !e in#estigated into. When no word was heard as to the in#estigation made !y the !ank, Crs. 2eyes sent two ($) demand letters thru her lawyer demanding return of the missing >%@@,@@@.@@ plus interest (=/hs. B1B and BCB). The same was recei#ed !y defendant on *uly $+, %&&% and ,cto!er 7, %&&%, respecti#ely. The last letter prompted reply from defendant in#iting plaintiff to sit down and discuss the pro!lem. The meeting resulted to the !ank promising that Capati will !e su!mitted to a lie detector test. >laintiff, howe#er, ne#er learned of the result of said test. >laintiff filed this instant case. :efendant on the other hand claimed that 1ank of the >hilippine Dsland admitted that *esusa 2eyes had effected a fund transfer in the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ from her ordinary sa#ings account to the e/press teller account she opened on :ecem!er 7, %&&@ (=/hs. B-B to B-0CB), howe#er, it was the only amount she deposited and no additional cash deposit of >%@@,@@@.@@ was made. That plaintiff wanted to effect the transfer of >$@@,@@@.@@ !ut the !alance in her account was not sufficient and could not accommodate the same. >laintiff thereafter agreed to reduce the amount to !e withdrawn from >$@@,@@@.@@ to >%@@,@@@.@@ with plaintiffRs signature superimposed on said correctionsE that the original copy of the deposit slip was also altered from >$@@,@@@.@@ to >%@@,@@@.@@, howe#er, instead of plaintiff signing the same, the clerk0in0charge of the !ank, in this case Cicero Capati, signed the alteration himself for *esusa 2eyes had already left without signing the deposit slip. The documents were su!se5uently machine #alidated for the amount of>%@@,@@@.@@ (=/hs. B$B and B'B). :efendant claimed that there was actually no cash in#ol#ed with the transactions which happened on :ecem!er 7, %&&@ as contained in the !ankRs teller tape (=/hs.B%B to B%0CB). :efendant further claimed that when they su! ected Cicero Capati to a lie detector test, the latter passed the same with flying colors (=/hs. B+B to B+0CB), indicati#e of the fact that he was not lying when he said that there really was no cash transaction in#ol#ed when plaintiff *esusa 2eyes went to the defendant !ank on :ecem!er 7,

%&&@E defendant further alleged that they e#en went to the e/tent of informing *esusa 2eyes that her claim would not !e gi#en credit (=/h. B6B) considering that no such transaction was really made on :ecem!er 7, %&&@. ' ,n August %$, %&&', the 2TC issued a :ecision + upholding the #ersions of respondents, the dispositi#e portion of which reads9 WI=2=F,2=, premises considered, the Court finds in fa#or of the plaintiff *esusa >. 2eyes and Conrado 2eyes and against defendant 1ank of the >hilippine Dslands ordering the latter to9 %. 2eturn to plaintiffs their >%@@,@@@.@@ with interest at %'L per annum from :ecem!er 7, %&&@E $. >ay plaintiffs >%,@@@,@@@.@@ as moral damagesE $. >ay plaintiffs >-+@,@@@.@@ as e/emplary damagesE -. >ay plaintiffs >$+@,@@@.@@ for and attorneyAs fees.6 The 2TC found that petitionerAs claim that respondent *esusa deposited only >%@@,@@@.@@ instead of >$@@,@@@.@@ was ha4yE that what should control was the deposit slip issued !y the !ank to respondent, for there was no chance !y which respondent could write the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ without petitionerAs employee noticing it and making the necessary correctionsE that it was deplora!le to note that it was when respondent *esusaAs !ank!ook was su!mitted to !e updated after the lapse of se#eral months when the alleged error claimed !y petitioner was correctedE that Article %&6$ of the "ew Ci#il Code pro#ides that a deposit is constituted from the moment a person recei#es a thing !elonging to another with the o!ligation of safely keeping it and of returning the sameE that under Article %&7$, the depositary is o!liged to keep the thing safely and to return it when re5uired to the depositor or to his heirs and successors or to the person who may ha#e !een designated in the contract. Aggrie#ed, petitioner appealed to the CA which in a :ecision dated ,cto!er $&, $@@$ affirmed the 2TC decision with modification as follows9 "onetheless, the award of %'L interest per annum on the missing >%@@,@@@.@@ can stand some modification. The interest thereon should !e %$L per annum, reckoned from Cay %$, %&&%, the last day of the fi#e day0grace period gi#en !y plaintiff0appelleesA counsel under the first demand letter dated Cay 6, %&&% (=/hi!it 1), or counted from Cay 7, %&&%, the date when defendant0appellant recei#ed said letter. Dnterest is demanda!le when the o!ligation consist in the payment of money and the de!tor incurs in delay. Also, we ha#e to reduce the >% million award of moral damages to a reasona!le sum of >+@,@@@.@@. Coral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the e/pense of a defendant. They are awarded only to ena!le the in ured party to o!tain means, di#ersion, or amusements that will ser#e to alle#iate the moral suffering he has undergone, !y reason of the defendantAs culpa!le action. The award of moral damages must !e proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Dn addition, we ha#e to delete the award of >-+@,@@@.@@ as e/emplary damages. The a!sence of malice and !ad faith, as in this case, renders the award of e/emplary damages improper. Finally, we ha#e to reduce the award of attorneyAs fees to a reasona!le sum of >-@,@@@.@@, as the prosecution of this case has not !een attended with any unusual difficulty. WI=2=F,2=, with the modifications thus indicated, the udgment appealed from is in all other respects AFFD2C=:. Without costs.7 Dn finding petitioner lia!le for the missing >%@@,@@@.@@, the CA held that the 2TC correctly ga#e credence to the testimonies of respondent *esusa and *oan 2eyes to the effect that aside from the fund transfer of >%@@,@@@.@@ from *esusaAs sa#ings account, *esusa also made a cash deposit of >%@@,@@@.@@ in the afternoon of :ecem!er 7, %&&@E that it is unlikely for these two to concoct a story of falsification against a !anking institution of the stature of petitioner if their claims were not trueE that the duplicate copy of the deposit slip showed a deposit of >$@@,@@@.@@E this, u/taposed with the fact that it was not machine0#alidated and the original copy altered !y the !ankAs clerk from >$@@,@@@.@@ to >%@@,@@@.@@ with the altered amount B#alidated,B is indicati#e of anomalyE that e#en if it was !ank employee Cicero Capati who prepared the deposit slip, *esusa stood her ground and categorically denied ha#ing any knowledge of the alteration

therein madeE that petitioner must account for the missing >%@@,@@@.@@ !ecause it was the author of the lossE that !anks are engaged in !usiness im!ued with pu!lic interest and are under strict o!ligation to e/ercise utmost fidelity in dealing with its clients, in seeing to it that the funds therein in#ested or !y them recei#ed are properly accounted for and duly posted in their ledgers. >etitionerAs motion for reconsideration was denied in a 2esolution dated Fe!ruary %$, $@@-. Ience, the present petition on the following grounds9 A. Dn affirming the decision of the trial court holding 1>D lia!le for the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ representing an alleged additional deposit of respondents, the Ionora!le Court of Appeals gra#ely a!used its discretion !y resol#ing the issue !ased on a con ecture and ignoring physical e#idence in fa#or of testimonial e#idence. 1. The Court of Appeals gra#ely a!used its discretion, !eing as it is contrary to law, in holding 1>D lia!le to respondents for the payment of interest at the rate of %$L per annum. C. This Ionora!le Court gra#ely a!used its discretion, !eing as it is contrary to law, in holding 1>D lia!le for moral damages and attorneyAs fees at the reduced amounts of >+@,@@@.@@ and >-@,@@@.@@, respecti#ely. 8 The main issue for resolution is whether the CA erred in sustaining the 2TCAs finding that respondent *esusa made an initial deposit of >$@@,@@@.@@ in her newly opened =/press Teller account on :ecem!er 7, %&&@. The issue raises a factual 5uestion. The Court is not a trier of facts, its urisdiction !eing limited to re#iewing only errors of law that may ha#e !een committed !y the lower courts. & As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed !y the CA are final and conclusi#e and cannot !e re#iewed on appeal !y this Court, as long as they are !orne out !y the record or are !ased on su!stantial e#idence. %@ Such rule howe#er is not a!solute, !ut is su! ect to well0esta!lished e/ceptions, which are9 %) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, a!surd or impossi!leE $) when there is a gra#e a!use of discretionE -) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or con ecturesE ') when the udgment of the CA is !ased on a misapprehension of factsE +) when the findings of facts are conflictingE 6) when the CA, in making its findings, went !eyond the issues of the case, and those findings are contrary to the admissions of !oth appellant and appelleeE 7) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial courtE 8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific e#idence on which they are !asedE &) when the CA manifestly o#erlooked certain rele#ant facts not disputed !y the parties and which, if properly considered, would ustify a different conclusionE and %@) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the a!sence of e#idence and are contradicted !y the e#idence on record.%% We hold that this case falls under e/ception "os. %, -, ', and & which constrain us to resol#e the factual issue. Dt is a !asic rule in e#idence that each party to a case must pro#e his own affirmati#e allegations !y the degree of e#idence re5uired !y law.%$ Dn ci#il cases, the party ha#ing the !urden of proof must esta!lish his case !y preponderance of e#idence,%- or that e#idence which is of greater weight or is more con#incing than that which is in opposition to it. Dt does not mean a!solute truthE rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more !elie#a!le than that of the other side, and that the pro!a!ility of truth is on one side than on the other. %' Section %, 2ule %-- of the 2ules of Court pro#ides the guidelines for determining preponderance of e#idence, thus9 S=CTD," %. 5reponderance o- e2idence, ho* determined.0 Dn ci#il cases, the party ha#ing the !urden of proof must esta!lish his case !y a preponderance of e#idence. Dn determining where the preponderance or superior weight of e#idence on the issues in#ol#ed lies the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnessesA manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the pro!a!ility or impro!a!ility of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credi!ility so far as the same legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the num!er of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater num!er. For a !etter perspecti#e on the cali!ration of the e#idence on hand, it must first !e stressed that the udge who had heard and seen the witnesses testify was not the same udge who penned the decision. Thus, not ha#ing heard the testimonies himself, the trial udge or the appellate court would not !e in a !etter position than this Court to assess the credi!ility of witnesses on the !asis of their demeanor.

Ience, to arri#e at the truth, we thoroughly re#iewed the transcripts of the witnessesA testimonies and e/amined the pieces of e#idence on record. After a careful and close e/amination of the records and e#idence presented !y the parties, we find that respondents failed to successfully pro#e !y preponderance of e#idence that respondent *esusa made an initial deposit of >$@@,@@@.@@ in her =/press Teller account. 2espondent *esusa and her daughter *oan testified that at the outset, respondent *esusa told Capati that she was opening an =/press Teller account for >$@@,@@@.@@E that she was going to withdraw and transfer >%@@,@@@.@@ from her sa#ings account to her new account, and that she had an additional >%@@,@@@.@@ cash. Iowe#er, these assertions are not !orne out !y the other e#idence presented. "ota!ly, it is not refuted that Capati prepared a withdrawal slip%+ for >$@@,@@@.@@. This is contrary to the claim of respondent *esusa that she instructed Capati to make a fund transfer of only >%@@,@@@.@@ from her sa#ings account to the =/press Teller account she was opening. Het, respondent *esusa signed the withdrawal slip. We find it strange that she would sign the withdrawal slip if her intention in the first place was to withdraw only >%@@,@@@.@@ from her sa#ings account and deposit>%@@,@@@.@@ in cash with her. Coreo#er, respondent *esusaAs claim that she signed the withdrawal slip without looking at the amount indicated therein fails to con#ince us, for respondent *esusa, as a !usinesswoman in the regular course of !usiness and taking ordinary care of her concerns,%6 would make sure that she would check the amount written on the withdrawal slip !efore affi/ing her signature. Significantly, we note that the space pro#ided for her signature is #ery near the space where the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ in words and figures are writtenE thus, she could not ha#e failed to notice that the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ was written instead of >%@@,@@@.@@. The fact that respondent *esusa initially intended to transfer the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ from her sa#ings account to her new =/press Teller account was further esta!lished !y the tellerAs tape presented as petitionerAs e#idence and !y the testimony of =merenciana Torneros, the teller who had attended to respondent *esusaAs transactions. The tellerAs tape,%7 =/hi!it B%B une5ui#ocally shows the following data9 %+%%+& @7:=C&@ %-7@ $88A $---$'$&& %+%$'+ @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A ,)),>))== UUU$@@@@@.@@%8 1D3 AC,<"T %+%$+% @7:=C&@ %6@% $88* $--$'--88 UUU$@@@@@.@@ %+%-@& @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--$'--88 UUU$@@@@@.@@ 51 1('("!# #33O3 1('. 229,2@A.B4 %+%--8 @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--$'--88 UUU$@@@@@.@@ 1D3 AC,<"T %+%-'' @7:=C&@ %6@% $88* $--$'--88 UUU$@@@@@.@@

%+%'@' @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--$'--88 UUU$@@@@@.@@ T,: %+%+$@ @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $---$@%'+ UUU$@@@.@@ %+%7@+ @7:=C&@ %78& $88A $---$'$&& UUU$$&%7.@@ %+%7$7 @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--$'--88 UUU%@@@@@.@@ 1D3 AC,<"T %+%7-@ @7:=C&@ %6@% $88* $--$'--88 UUU%@@@@@.@@ %+%7'6 @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--$'--88 UUU%@@@@@.@@%& %+%8%@ @7:=C&@ %-7@ $88A ,)-:*?*>= %+%8$7 @7:=C&@ %7&@ $88A $-+@767'8 UUU%@@@@@.@@ UUU%@@@@@.@@$@ %+%&@- @7:=C&@ %-@% $88A $--$8$'@+ %+%&%' @7:=C&@ %6&@ $88A $-+@@8&++ UUU%778.@+ %+$%@7 @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A ----$'%-8% UUU+@@@.@@ %+$-$$ @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $---%'-7' UUU$@@@.@@ %+$'-+ @7:=C&@ %-7@ $88A $-+@7676' %+$+@6 @7:=C&@ %7&@ $88A $-+@7676' UUU'@@@.@@ UUU'@@@.@@ %+$++7 @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--@6&'6&

UUU$@@@.@@ %+$7-6 @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--$+'+8' UUU$@@@.@@ %+$8'& @7:=C&@ @6@@ $88A $-%@%7+8+ UUU-%+@.@@ 686''8 %+$&'% @7:=C&@ %7&@ $88A -%-+@+$$++ UUU$8@@.@@ UUU$8@@.@@ %+-$+$ @7:=C&@ %6@% $88A $--@&8$6' (=mphasis supplied) The first column shows the e/act time of the transactionsE the second column shows the date of the transactionsE the third column shows the !ank transaction codeE the fourth column shows the tellerAs codeE and the fifth column shows the clientAs account num!er. The tellerAs tape reflected #arious transactions in#ol#ing different accounts on :ecem!er 7, %&&@ which included respondent *esusaAs Sa#ings Account "o. $--$'--88 and her new =/press Teller Account "o. $-+@767'8. Dt shows that respondent *esusaAs initial intention to withdraw >$@@,@@@.@@, notP+::.:::.::, from her Sa#ings Account "o. $---$'$&& was !egun at - oAclock, %$ minutes and '+ seconds as shown in =/hi!it B%0c.B Dn e/plaining the entries in the tellerAs tape, Torneros testified that when she was processing respondent *esusaAs withdrawal in the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@, her computer re ected the transaction !ecause there was a discrepancyE $% thus, the word B1D3 AC,<"TB appeared on the tape. B1ig amountB means that the amount was so !ig for her to appro#e, $$ so she keyed in the amount again and o#errode the transaction to !e a!le to process the withdrawal using an officerAs o#erride with the latterAs appro#al. $- The letter B*B appears after Figure $88 in the fourth column to show that she o#errode the transaction. She then keyed again the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ at - oAclock %- minutes and & secondsE howe#er, her computer re ected the transaction, !ecause the !alance she keyed in !ased on respondent *esusaAs pass!ook was wrongE$' thus appeared the phrase B!alance errorB on the tape, and the computer produced the !alance of >$$&,$+7.6', and so she keyed in the withdrawal of>$@@,@@@.@@.$+ Since it was a !ig amount, she again had to o#erride it, so she could process the amount. Iowe#er, the withdrawal was again re ected for the reason BT,:, o#erdraft,B $6 which meant that the amount to !e withdrawn was more than the !alance, considering that there was a de!ited amount of >-@,&-+.%6 reflected in respondent *esusaAs pass!ook, reducing the a#aila!le !alance to only >%&8,-$$.'8.$7 Torneros then called Capati to her cage and told him of the insufficiency of respondent *esusaAs !alance. $8Capati then motioned respondent *esusa to the tellerAs cageE and when she was already in front of the tellerAs cage, Torneros told her that she could not withdraw >$@@,@@@.@@ !ecause of o#erdraftE thus, respondent *esusa decided to ust withdraw >%@@,@@@.@@.$& This e/plains the alteration in the withdrawal slip with the superimposition of the figure B%B on the figure B$B and the change of the word BtwoB to BoneB to show that the withdrawn amount from respondent *esusaAs sa#ings account was only >%@@,@@@.@@, and that respondent *esusa herself signed the alterations. The tellerAs tape showed that the withdrawal of the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ !y fund transfer was resumed at - oAclock %7 minutes and $7 secondsE !ut since it was a !ig amount, there was a need to o#erride it again, and the withdrawalFfund transfer was completed. At - oAclock %8 minutes and $7 seconds, the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ was deposited to respondent *esusaAs new =/press Teller Account "o. $-+@767'8. The tellerAs tape definitely esta!lishes the fact of respondent *esusaAs original intention to withdraw the amount of>$@@,@@@.@@, and not >%@@,@@@.@@ as she claims, from her sa#ings account, to !e transferred as her initial deposit to her new =/press Teller account, the insufficiency of her !alance in her sa#ings account, and finally the fund transfer of the amount of >%@@,@@@.@@ from her sa#ings account to her new =/press Teller account. We gi#e great e#identiary weight to the tellerAs tape, considering that it is inserted into the !ankAs computer terminal, which records the tellerAs daily transactions in the ordinary course of !usiness, and there is no showing that the same had !een purposely manipulated to pro#e petitionerAs claim.

2espondent *esusaAs !are claim, although corro!orated !y her daughter, that the former deposited >%@@,@@@.@@ cash in addition to the fund transfer of >%@@,@@@.@@, is not esta!lished !y physical e#idence. While the duplicate copy of the deposit slip-@ was in the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ and !ore the stamp mark of teller Torneros, such duplicate copy failed to show that there was a cash deposit of >%@@,@@@.@@. An e/amination of the deposit slip shows that it did not contain any entry in the !reakdown portion for the specific denominations of the cash deposit. This demolishes the testimonies of respondent *esusa and her daughter *oan. Furthermore, teller TornerosAs e/planation of why the duplicate copy of the deposit slip in the amount of >$@@,@@@.@@ !ore the tellerAs stamp mark is con#incing and consistent with logic and the ordinary course of !usiness. She testified that Capati went to her cage !ringing with him a withdrawal slip for >$@@,@@@.@@ signed !y respondent *esusa, two copies of the deposit slip for >$@@,@@@.@@ in respondent *esusaAs name for her new =/press Teller account, and the latterAs sa#ings pass!ook reflecting a !alance of >$'&,6+7.6'-% as of "o#em!er %&, %&&@. -$ Thus, at first glance, these appeared to Torneros to !e sufficient for the withdrawal of >$@@,@@@.@@ !y fund transfer. Capati then got her tellerAs stamp mark, stamped it on the duplicate copy of the deposit slip, and ga#e the duplicate to respondent *esusa, while the original copy-- of the deposit slip was left in her cage. -'Iowe#er, as Torneros started processing the transaction, it turned out that respondent *esusaAs !alance was insufficient to accommodate the >$@@,@@@.@@ fund transfer as narrated earlier. Since respondent *esusa had signed the alteration in the withdrawal slip and had already left the tellerAs counter thereafter and Capati was still inside the tellerAs cage, Torneros asked Capati a!out the original deposit slip and the latter told her, 8O+ naman iyan,8-+ and Capati superimposed the figures B%B on B$B on the deposit slip -6 to reflect the initial deposit of >%@@,@@@.@@ for respondent *esusaAs new =/press Teller account and signed the alteration. Torneros then machine0 #alidated the deposit slip. Thus, the duplicate copy of the deposit slip, which !ore TornerosRs stamp mark and which was gi#en to respondent *esusa prior to the processing of her transaction, was not machine0#alidated unlike the original copy of the deposit slip. While the fact that the alteration in the original deposit slip was signed !y Capati and not !y respondent *esusa herself was a #iolation of the !ankAs policy re5uiring the depositor to sign the correction, -7 ne#ertheless, we find that respondents failed to satisfactorily esta!lish !y preponderance of e#idence that indeed there was an additional cash of >%@@,@@@.@@ deposited to the new =/press Teller account. >hysical e#idence is a mute !ut elo5uent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy e#idence.-8 We ha#e, on many occasions, relied principally upon physical e#idence in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical e#idence on record runs counter to the testimonial e#idence of the prosecution witnesses, we consistently rule that the physical e#idence should pre#ail. -& Dn addition, to uphold the declaration of the CA that it is unlikely for respondent *esusa and her daughter to concoct a false story against a !anking institution is to gi#e weight to con ectures and surmises, which we cannot countenance. Dn fine, respondents failed to esta!lish their claim !y preponderance of e#idence. Considering the foregoing, we find no need to tackle the other issues raised !y petitioner. 31" "FO ", the petition is G AN0"D. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated ,cto!er $&, $@@$ as well as its 2esolution dated Fe!ruary %$, $@@- are here!y "!" S"D and S"0 AS2D". The complaint filed !y respondents, together with the counterclaim of petitioner, is D2SM2SS"D. "o costs. SO O D" "D.

G. . No. /<?>-:* April ,-. +(== 01" P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. petitioner, #s. N"S0O GAND6MA. respondent. The Solicitor 4eneral -or petitioner. !iti7ens 'e)al (ssistance O--ice -or respondent.

SA M2"N0O. J.: The accused0appellant, "estor 3anduma, was con#icted of the crime of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the #ictim, =#a Comista, for damages in the amount of >+,@@@.@@ in a decision rendered !y the 2egional Trial Court of Leyte through the Ionora!le *udge Fortunate 1. Cuna. The lower courtAs decision was !ased on the testimonies of the following witnesses for the prosecution9 =#a Cornista, the alleged offended party, =ugenia Afiano, CornistaAs aunt, and :r.Kirgilio 3ernale, CornistaAs e/amining physician. The testimonies of the foregoing witnesses proferred to esta!lish the following facts9 At a!out -9@@ in the afternoon of Septem!er 8, %&8@, while =#a Cornista, a %+0year old lass, was attending to her two !rothers aged three and one at the yard of her house, the accused appellant aged $% years old, passed !y and suddenly pointed a !olo at the girlAs !reast. Threatening the girl with death if she shouted, the accused0appellant dragged her to the !ushes which was a!out %@ meters from her house, then pushed her to the ground. When =#a fell face upward, the appellant placed himself on top of her. Still holding the !olo with his right hand, and pointing it at the girlAs !reast, the appellant remo#ed the girlAs underwear, then his trousers with his left hand, and successfully had carnal knowledge of her. =#a screamed and this was heard !y her aunt =ugenia. 2esponding to the scream, =ugenia proceeded to the place where she witnessed the appellant se/ually a!using =#a. Surprised, the appellant picked up his clothes then fled. The e/amining physician testified as to the presence of some linear a!rasions on the inside of the girlAs left thigh, the prominence of rugosities in and the la/ity of the #aginal wall. The girlAs hymen was, howe#er, found intact as it was fle/i!le. The physician further testified that the girl might actually ha#e had se/ual intercourse near or at the time of the commission of the crime of rape. ,n the other hand, the appellant in his testimony declared that =#a was as sweetheart, their lo#e affair ha#ing started some two years !efore the alleged crime happened, that is, when the appellant was still employed as a helper in the household of =#a. The appellantAs employment was terminated sometime later !y =#aAs father !ecause of his (appellantAs) failure to pay the amount of >+@.@@ loan. ,n the day of the alleged crime, the appellant testified, he went to =#aAs house upon the in#itation of the latter. When asked how the in#itation was relayed to him, the appellant declared that =#a called his name and !eckoned him with her hand towards the direction of her house. (The houses of "estor and =#a were some

$+ meters apart.) As soon as "estor arri#ed at the house, the two !egan sharing intimacies in the sala until the latter suggested that they should not do it at her house !ecause her Bfather might see.B 1oth, thus, proceeded to the !ushes where they continued kissing and caressing each other. =#a later suggested that they undress. Dt was while they were remo#ing their clothes that =ugenia AVano, =#aAs aunt, surprised them. "estor recalled =ugeniaAs statement, BHou =#a ..., that is what you are doing whene#er your parents are away. D am going to tell your parents a!out this.B Thereupon, =#a urged the defendant to lea#e saying, B"estor, you go ahead of me !ecause we will not stop if you will not lea#e me.B This case is now with us on appeal. The appellant assigned the following errors9 %. That the decision of the trial court was rendered without urisdictionE $. That the decision of the trial court is contrary to law and therefore null and #oid. The appellant anchors his appeal on the alleged a!sence of a complaint as re5uired !y Art. -'' of the 2e#ised >enal Code. Ie does not dispute the findings of fact of the trial court. Df, indeed, there was no complaint, such would ha#e !een ground enough for the ac5uittal of the accused. The records of the case, howe#er, show that there was indeed a complaint signed !y =#a Cornista dated Septem!er $6, %&8@. While the findings of facts here are not disputed !y the appellant and his defense of an alleged procedural infirmity is now o#erthrown, we ne#ertheless re#erse the udgment of the lower court on the ground of reasona!le dou!t. We are not unmindful of the fact that ordinarily, the 5uestion of credi!ility is for the trial court to resol#e. 1ut when there are circumstances on record that point to the possi!ility that the appraisal of the e#idence !y the trial court was tainted, this Court has the duty to weigh the e#idence anew and re#erse the decision if need !e. As *ustice Calcolm said in 5eople 2. Otero9 + After e#erything is said and done, we come !ack, as we in#aria!ly do in cases of this nature, to a recognition of the rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the udgment of the trial court in passing on the credi!ility of the opposing witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, which has !een o#erlooked or the significance of which has !een misinterpreted. A thorough e#aluation of the records of the case discloses certain matters in the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution which, to our minds, render dou!tful the commission of the crime charged. This !eing the case, re#ersal is !ut proper. %. We are not con#inced that the complainant offered a tenacious resistance to the alleged se/ual assault. While she was !eing dragged to the !ushes, which was some %@ meters away, she allegedly struggled to free herself from the grip of the accused0appellant. Dt was for this reason that she fell twice and sustained !ruises on her knees and left arm. 1ut while all these allegedly happened to her which undou!tedly, must ha#e caused her great pain, she ne#er shouted, cried nor e#en whimpered. For if she did, her aunt, witness AVano, would ha#e heard her at that #ery moment, considering that AVano was only some distance away (-+ meters). Coreo#er, the e/amining physicianAs findings pointed to the presence of some linear a!rasions inside of the complainantAs thigh !ut none on her arms or legs. The said !ruises, if there were indeed any, could not ha#e !een missed !y the physician for he had the duty to e/amine physically the complainant. "either could the alleged !ruises ha#e already healed for the physical e/amination was conducted !arely a week after the alleged crime of rape was committed. >hysical e#idence !eing of the highest order, this a!sence of e/ternal in uries !elies the complainantAs testimony that she was dragged to the !ushes thus rendering her credi!ility in dou!t. , Dt is, therefore, a possi!ility that the complainant might not actually ha#e tripped while she was allegedly !eing dragged to the !ushes against her wig. Dt is more plausi!le that she went with the appellant to the !ushes willingly. $. As to the presence of the linear a!rasions of -.@ cm. in length found inside the left thigh of the complainant, we cannot appreciate those as indications of force and #iolence. As pointed out !y the counsel for the appellant, the wounds may ha#e !een caused !y !lades of grass or !y some hard o! ect while the complainant and the appellant were caressing each other !y the !ushes. "onetheless, the wounds were too superficial to corro!orate the complainantAs allegation that she resisted the appellantAs se/ual ad#ances which compelled the latter to use !rute force. Dn a rape case, the testimony of the complainant must !e corro!orated !y physical e#idence showing use of force. )

-. The testimony of =ugenia AVano does not show that the crime charged was committed.We note the fact that AVano merely declared that she surprised the appellant and the complainant while the former was on top of the latter doing the push and pull motion. She ne#er said anything a!out a struggle. /// /// /// Q And when you arri#ed at that place, what did you see there, if anyP A D saw "estor 3anduma without lower garment, without pants. /// /// /// Q "ow after seeing that when you reached that place you saw "estor 3anduma without pants and making a push and pull motion on =#a Cornista, now, when you arri#ed there what was the position of =#a CornistaP A Lying down face upward. Q What was the position of "estor 3andumaP A Ie was on top face downward making a push and pull motion.
>

"or did the witness mention seeing a knife or any deadly weapon at the scene of the supposed crime at the moment of disco#ery and e#en when the appellant supposedly fled. /// /// /// Q "ow after seeing that to "estor 3anduma, what happenedP A Ie stood up immediately and !rought along his pants and ran away, picked up his pants and ran. /// /// /// Coreo#er, witness AVano heard only one shout (Bouch or aguiB) which may actually not ha#e !een a cry of resistance or a cry for help !ut a cry of discomfort or pain naturally felt !y a woman who was e/periencing se/ual intercourse in such #enue. '. Df the appellant indeed entertained lustful intentions towards the complainant and the latter ne#er reciprocated any ad#ances that he must ha#e made, he would ha#e committed the crime charged while he was still employed in the complainantAs house. For then, the satisfaction of his se/ual urges through the use of force was easier to accomplish considering that !oth were then li#ing under the same roof Certainly, there were many instances when only the two of them were left in the house and what !etter opportunities did he ha#e than those moments when he could ha#e pounced upon the unsuspecting complainant and a!use her se/ually. 1ut as the prosecution would like us to !elie#e, it was only months after the ser#ices of the appellant were terminated that the latter decided to force himself upon her. And the means he allegedly employed to achie#e his end was !y !rute force, highly unusual for a man who had known, and in fact, ser#ed the woman for years. We are likewise !affled !y the suddenness of the alleged attack. From nowhere, the appellant appeared !efore the complainantAs eyes and for no apparent reason !ut lust which must ha#e seethed all those years, pointed a !olo at the complainantAs !reast, dragged her to the !ushes and thereupon ra#ished her. Again, we say that such was unusual. And when the alleged crime was disco#ered !y AVano and the appellant fled from the scene of the crime, we find it, likewise, unusual that the appellant ne#er e#en !othered to hide in order to escape the ire of complainantAs father as wen as the strong arm of the law. From the preceding, we can !ut conclude that the complainant and the appellant, as the latter claims, were lo#ers and that the se/ual act was !ut a product of their passions inflamed. Their physical accessi!ility for each other !orne out !y the fact that !oth li#ed under the same roof for 5uite some time must ha#e gi#en rise to what de#eloped as se/ual intimacy. This is not an uncommon result of mere propin5uity.

While this Court has, in numerous cases, affirmed the udgments of con#iction rendered !y the trial court in rape charges especially where the offended parties were #ery young and presumpti#ely had no ill moti#es to concoct a story if only to secure indictments for a crime as gra#e as rape, this Court likewise re#ersed udgments of con#iction and ac5uitted the accused when there were strong indications pointing to the possi!ility that the rape charges were merely moti#ated !y some factors e/cept the truth as to their commission. Dn 5eople 2. 1erda;e, ? this Court considered the case an e/ception to the general !elief that a %+0year old girl would not e/pose herself to the ordeal of a pu!lic trial if she were not moti#ated solely !y a desire to ha#e the culprit who had ra#ished and shamed her placed !ehind !ars. The e#idence in the said case showed that the alleged #ictim #oluntarily su!mitted to the se/ual intercourse. She was moti#ated to file the case if only to escape the indignation of her family as well as the social disrepute that goes with the act. Also, in 5eople 2. 'ope7, * this Court, speaking through the then Chief *ustice Fernando, ac5uitted the accused of the crime of rape of a %-0year old girl !ecause of want of force and intimidation as !orne out !y the fact that the girl, in o!edience to the wishes of the appellant, su!mitted herself to him. Furthermore, this Court found that the filing of the charge was moti#ated !y an ulterior moti#e, i.e., that the alleged #ictim !ore a grudge towards the accused !ecause he courted her elder sister. Dn this case, we cannot !ut suspect the moti#e that impelled the complainant to file the rape case. Suffice it to say that no less than the complainantAs aunt disco#ered the appellant and the complainant while in se/ual congress. =/pectedly, the matter was reported !y AVano to the complainantAs parents. Core !ecause of fear for her fatherAs wrath for her ha#ing carried on a relationship with a man who was not only her familyAs former helper !ut also the man her father disliked utterly, as well as the social conse5uences, than for any affection that she may ha#e had for the appellant, the complainant had to report to her father that she was se/ually a!used. Thus, this case for rape which saw the con#iction of the appellant in the lower court. Considering the a!o#e circumstances, we are, to a great e/tent, dou!tful whether the crime charged was, in fact, committed. The prosecution failed to esta!lish the guilt of the accused !eyond reasona!le dou!t. Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of innocence not ha#ing !een successfully o#ercome, it should pre#ail. The appellant, hence, is entitled to ac5uittal. WI=2=F,2=, the decision of the lower court dated April %8, %&8- is 2=K=2S=: and the appellant ACQ<DTT=: of the crime of rape. With costs de oficio. Cap, !.J., 5aras and 5adilla, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions M"/"N72O<1" " A. J., dissenting9

Dt is my #iew that appellantAs guilt has !een pro#en !eyond reasona!le dou!t. %. The testimony of the complainant to the effect that she resisted the ad#ances made !y appellant, compelling the latter to use !rute force, is not negated !y the fact that the e/amining physician failed to find any other e/ternal in ury other than the presence of linear a!rasions of -.@ cm. in length inside her left thigh. Dn fact, those linear a!rasions sufficiently indicate the use of force upon the #ictim. They would not ha#e !een there if the se/ual congress had !een #oluntary. The a!sence of !ruises on the #ictimAs arms and legs when she was physically e/amined may !e attri!uted to the fact that !y their #ery nature, !ruises are superficial and can disappear within a week. 1esides, the fact that the medical certificate shows no e/ternal signs of physical in uries does not negate the commission of rape (>eople #. Conte#erde, %'$ SC2A 668E >eople #. 1awit, L0'8%%6, Fe!ruary $@, %&8%E >eople #s. :adaeg, L0 -77&8, *uly %+, %&8+, %-7 SC2A +@@). To consider the e/istence of the came, it is only necessary that the force used !y the guilty party !e sufficient to consummate his purpose (>eople #s. 1udol, %'- SC2A $'%, 3. 2. "o. L0'8@%@, *uly -%, %&86). $. Dt is inaccurate to state that the #ictim Ane#er shouted, cried nor e#en whimpered For if she did, her aunt, witness AVano, would ha#e heard her at that #ery moment, considering that AVano was only some distance away (-+ meters).B (p. + :ecision). The fact of the matter is that the #ictim screamed for which reason the aunt heard her. The latter did not

merely chance upon the appellant and the #ictim. "either could the aunt ha#e said anything a!out a struggle !ecause she was not around at the initial stages. She arri#ed at the scene when the act was already !eing consummated. -. AppellantAs claim that he and the offended girl are sweethearts is !arren for not ha#ing !een corro!orated !y e#en close ac5uaintances (>eople #s. Calu!ag, %'% SC2A -7%, Fe!ruary %&, %&86). '. Dn the final analysis, the Trial CourtAs findings on the credi!ility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect for it had the opportunity to see, hear and o!ser#e the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies (>eople #s. 1udol, supra). The recogni4ed e/ceptions to the rule are ine/istent in this case. Separate Opinions M"/"N72O<1" " A. J., dissenting9

Dt is my #iew that appellantAs guilt has !een pro#en !eyond reasona!le dou!t. %. The testimony of the complainant to the effect that she resisted the ad#ances made !y appellant, compelling the latter to use !rute force, is not negated !y the fact that the e/amining physician failed to find any other e/ternal in ury other than the presence of linear a!rasions of -.@ cm. in length inside her left thigh. Dn fact, those linear a!rasions sufficiently indicate the use of force upon the #ictim. They would not ha#e !een there if the se/ual congress had !een #oluntary. The a!sence of !ruises on the #ictimAs arms and legs when she was physically e/amined may !e attri!uted to the fact that !y their #ery nature, !ruises are superficial and can disappear within a week. 1esides, the fact that the medical certificate shows no e/ternal signs of physical in uries does not negate the commission of rape (>eople #. Conte#erde, %'$ SC2A 668E >eople #. 1awit, L0'8%%6, Fe!ruary $@, %&8%E >eople #s. :adaeg, L0 -77&8, *uly %+, %&8+, %-7 SC2A +@@). To consider the e/istence of the came, it is only necessary that the force used !y the guilty party !e sufficient to consummate his purpose (>eople #s. 1udol, %'- SC2A $'%, 3. 2. "o. L0'8@%@, *uly -%, %&86). $. Dt is inaccurate to state that the #ictim Ane#er shouted, cried nor e#en whimpered For if she did, her aunt, witness AVano, would ha#e heard her at that #ery moment, considering that AVano was only some distance away (-+ meters).B (p. + :ecision). The fact of the matter is that the #ictim screamed for which reason the aunt heard her. The latter did not merely chance upon the appellant and the #ictim. "either could the aunt ha#e said anything a!out a struggle !ecause she was not around at the initial stages. She arri#ed at the scene when the act was already !eing consummated. -. AppellantAs claim that he and the offended girl are sweethearts is !arren for not ha#ing !een corro!orated !y e#en close ac5uaintances (>eople #s. Calu!ag, %'% SC2A -7%, Fe!ruary %&, %&86). '. Dn the final analysis, the Trial CourtAs findings on the credi!ility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect for it had the opportunity to see, hear and o!ser#e the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies (>eople #s. 1udol, supra). The recogni4ed e/ceptions to the rule are ine/istent in this case.

G. . No. +*,(-)

April ):. ,::=

J6N2" MA/2//2N 4. /OP"8. petitioner, #s. P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. respondent. D"72S2ON 02NGA. J.@ The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot !y its lonesome o#ercome the constitutional presumption of innocence. =#idence of guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness. And this !urden is met not !y !estowing distrust on the innocence of the accused !ut !y o!literating all dou!ts as to his culpa!ility. Dn this >etition for 2e#iew % under 2ule '+ of the 2ules of Court, *unie Calillin y Lope4 (petitioner) assails the :ecision $ of the Court of Appeals dated $7 *anuary $@@6 as well as its 2esolution - dated -@ Cay $@@6 denying his motion for reconsideration. The challenged decision has affirmed the :ecision ' of the 2egional Trial Court (2TC) of Sorsogon City, 1ranch +$+ which found petitioner guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a prohi!ited drug. The antecedent facts follow. ,n the strength of a warrant 6 of search and sei4ure issued !y the 2TC of Sorsogon City, 1ranch +$, a team of fi#e police officers raided the residence of petitioner in 1arangay Tugos, Sorsogon City on ' Fe!ruary $@@-. The team was headed !y >FDnsp. Catalino 1olanos (1olanos), with >,- 2o!erto =sternon (=sternon), S>,% >edro :ocot, S>,% :anilo Lasala and S>,$ 2omeo 3allinera (3allinera) as mem!ers. The searchNconducted in the presence of baran)ay +a)a*ad :elfin Licup as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, "ormaNallegedly yielded two ($) plastic sachets of shabu and fi#e (+) empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said su!stance. Accordingly, petitioner was charged with #iolation of Section %%, 7 Article DD of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, otherwise known as The Comprehensi#e :angerous :rugs Act of $@@$, in a criminal information whose inculpatory portion reads9 That on or a!out the 'th day of Fe!ruary $@@-, at a!out 89'+ in the morning in 1arangay Tugos, Sorsogon City, >hilippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ha#e in his possession, custody and control two ($) plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (or) B shabuB with an aggregate weight of @.@7'- gram, and four empty sachets containing B shabuB residue, without ha#ing !een pre#iously authori4ed !y law to possess the same. C,"T2A2H T, LAW.8

>etitioner entered a negati#e plea. & At the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented 1olanos, Arroyo and =sternon as witnesses. Taking the witness stand, 1olanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified on the circumstances surrounding the search as follows9 that he and his men were allowed entry into the house !y petitioner after the latter was shown the search warrantE that upon entering the premises, he ordered =sternon and baran)ay +a)a*ad Licup, whose assistance had pre#iously !een re5uested in e/ecuting the warrant, to conduct the searchE that the rest of the police team positioned themsel#es outside the house to make sure that no!ody fleesE that he was o!ser#ing the conduct of the search from a!out a meter awayE that the search conducted inside the !edroom of petitioner yielded fi#e empty plastic sachets with suspected shabu residue contained in a denim !ag and kept in one of the ca!inets, and two plastic sachets containing shabu which fell off from one of the pillows searched !y =sternonNa disco#ery that was made in the presence of petitioner.%@ ,n cross e/amination, 1olanos admitted that during the search, he was e/plaining its progress to petitionerAs mother, "orma, !ut that at the same time his eyes were fi/ed on the search !eing conducted !y =sternon. %% =sternon testified that the denim !ag containing the empty plastic sachets was found B!ehindB the door of the !edroom and not inside the ca!inetE that he then found the two filled sachets under a pillow on the !ed and forthwith called on 3allinera to ha#e the items recorded and marked. %$ ,n cross, he admitted that it was he alone who conducted the search !ecause 1olanos was standing !ehind him in the li#ing room portion of the house and that petitioner handed to him the things to !e searched, which included the pillow in which the two sachets of shabu were keptE%- that he !rought the sei4ed items to the 1alogo >olice Station for a Btrue in#entory,B then to the trial court %' and thereafter to the la!oratory. %+ Supt. Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), the forensic chemist who administered the e/amination on the sei4ed items, was presented as an e/pert witness to identify the items su!mitted to the la!oratory. She re#ealed that the two filled sachets were positi#e of shabu and that of the fi#e empty sachets, four were positi#e of containing residue of the same su!stance. %6 She further admitted that all se#en sachets were deli#ered to the la!oratory !y =sternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was e/ecuted e/cept that it was not she !ut rather a certain Crs. ,felia 3arcia who recei#ed the items from =sternon at the la!oratory.%7 The e#idence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and sei4ure conducted !y the police operati#es. >etitioner testified that =sternon !egan the search of the !edroom with Licup and petitioner himself inside. Iowe#er, it was momentarily interrupted when one of the police officers declared to 1olanos that petitionerAs wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside her underwear. Forthwith, a lady officer arri#ed to conduct the search of SheilaAs !ody inside the same !edroom. At that point, e#eryone e/cept =sternon was asked to step out of the room. So, it was in his presence that Sheila was searched !y the lady officer. >etitioner was then asked !y a police officer to !uy cigarettes at a near!y store and when he returned from the errand, he was told that nothing was found on SheilaAs !ody. %8 Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other !edroom together with her children. %& >etitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned !y =sternon to the !edroom and once inside, the officer closed the door and asked him to lift the mattress on the !ed. And as he was doing as told, =sternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the head!oard. Dn that instant, =sternon showed him Bsachet of sha!uB which according to him came from a pillow on the !ed. $@ >etitionerAs account in its entirety was corro!orated in its material respects !y "orma, baran)ay +a)a*ad Licup and Sheila in their testimonies. "orma and Sheila positi#ely declared that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the search !ecause at one point he was sent !y =sternon to the store to !uy cigarettes while Sheila was !eing searched !y the lady officer. $% Licup for his part testified on the circumstances surrounding the disco#ery of the plastic sachets. Ie recounted that after the fi#e empty sachets were found, he went out of the !edroom and into the li#ing room and after a!out three minutes, =sternon, who was left inside the !edroom, e/claimed that he had ust found two filled sachets. $$ ,n $@ *une $@@' the trial court rendered its :ecision declaring petitioner guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t of the offense charged. >etitioner was condemned to prison for twel#e years (%$) and one (%) day to twenty ($@) years and to pay a fine of >-@@,@@@.@@.$- The trial court reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in the house of petitioner was prima -acie e#idence of petitionerAs animus possidendi sufficient to con#ict him of the charge inasmuch as things which a person possesses or o#er which he e/ercises acts of ownership are presumpti#ely owned !y him. Dt also noted petitionerAs failure to ascri!e ill moti#es to the police officers to fa!ricate charges against him. $' Aggrie#ed, petitioner filed a "otice of Appeal.$+ Dn his Appeal 1rief$6 filed with the Court of Appeals, petitioner called the attention of the court to certain irregularities in the manner !y which the search of his house was conducted. For its part, the ,ffice of the Solicitor 3eneral (,S3) ad#anced that on the contrary, the prosecution e#idence sufficed for petitionerAs con#iction and that the defense ne#er ad#anced any proof to show that the mem!ers of the raiding team was improperly moti#ated to hurl false charges against him and hence the presumption that they had regularly performed their duties should pre#ail.$7

,n $7 *anuary $@@6, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the udgment of the trial court !ut modifying the prison sentence to an indeterminate term of twel#e (%$) years as minimum to se#enteen (%7) years as ma/imum.$8 >etitioner mo#ed for reconsideration !ut the same was denied !y the appellate court. $&Ience, the instant petition which raises su!stantially the same issues. Dn its Comment,-@ the ,S3 !ids to esta!lish that the raiding team had regularly performed its duties in the conduct of the search.-% Dt points to petitionerAs incredulous claim that he was framed up !y =sternon on the ground that the disco#ery of the two filled sachets was made in his and LicupAs presence. Dt likewise notes that petitionerAs !are denial cannot defeat the positi#e assertions of the prosecution and that the same does not suffice to o#ercome the prima -acie e/istence of animus possidendi. This argument, howe#er, hardly holds up to what is re#ealed !y the records. >refatorily, although the trial courtAs findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not !e distur!ed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and su!stance ha#e !een o#erlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal.-$ Dn the case at !ar, se#eral circumstances o!tain which, if properly appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from that arri#ed at !y the trial court and the Court of Appeals. >rosecutions for illegal possession of prohi!ited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohi!ited su!stance !e esta!lished with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authori4ed !y law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the #ery corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its e/istence is #ital to a udgment of con#iction.-- =ssential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohi!ited drug !e esta!lished !eyond dou!t. -' 1e that as it may, the mere fact of unauthori4ed possession will not suffice to create in a reasona!le mind the moral certainty re5uired to sustain a finding of guilt. Core than ust the fact of possession, the fact that the su!stance illegally possessed in the first place is the same su!stance offered in court as e/hi!it must also !e esta!lished with the same unwa#ering e/actitude as that re5uisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody re5uirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary dou!ts concerning the identity of the e#idence are remo#ed. -+ As a method of authenticating e#idence, the chain of custody rule re5uires that the admission of an e/hi!it !e preceded !y e#idence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in 5uestion is what the proponent claims it to !e. -6 Dt would include testimony a!out e#ery link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into e#idence, in such a way that e#ery person who touched the e/hi!it would descri!e how and from whom it was recei#ed, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessA possession, the condition in which it was recei#ed and the condition in which it was deli#ered to the ne/t link in the chain. These witnesses would then descri!e the precautions taken to ensure that there had !een no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to ha#e possession of the same.-7 While testimony a!out a perfect chain is not always the standard !ecause it is almost always impossi!le to o!tain, an un!roken chain of custody !ecomes indispensa!le and essential when the item of real e#idence is not distincti#e and is not readily identifia!le, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to o!ser#e its uni5ueness.-8 The same standard likewise o!tains in case the e#idence is suscepti!le to alteration, tampering, contamination-& and e#en su!stitution and e/change.'@ Dn other words, the e/hi!itAs le#el of suscepti!ility to fungi!ility, alteration or tamperingNwithout regard to whether the same is ad#ertent or otherwise notNdictates the le#el of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. Dndeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an e/hi!it is greatest when the e/hi!it is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungi!le in nature and similar in form to su!stances familiar to people in their daily li#es.'% 4raham 2s. State'$ positi#ely acknowledged this danger. Dn that case where a su!stance later analy4ed as heroin Nwas handled !y two police officers prior to e/amination who howe#er did not testify in court on the condition and wherea!outs of the e/hi!it at the time it was in their possessionNwas e/cluded from the prosecution e#idence, the court pointing out that the white powder sei4ed could ha#e !een indeed heroin or it could ha#e !een sugar or !aking powder. Dt ruled that unless the state can show !y records or testimony, the continuous wherea!outs of the e/hi!it at least !etween the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the la!oratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the la!oratoryAs findings is inadmissi!le. 'A uni5ue characteristic of narcotic su!stances is that they are not readily identifia!le as in fact they are su! ect to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possi!ility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody o#er the same there could ha#e !een tampering, alteration or su!stitution of su!stances from other casesN!y accident or otherwiseNin which similar e#idence was sei4ed or in which similar e#idence was su!mitted for la!oratory testing. Ience, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than

that applied to cases in#ol#ing o! ects which are readily identifia!le must !e applied, a more e/acting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it impro!a!le that the original item has either !een e/changed with another or !een contaminated or tampered with. A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant dou!ts as to the identity of the sachets of shabuallegedly sei4ed from petitioner. ,f the people who came into direct contact with the sei4ed o! ects, only =sternon and Arroyo testified for the specific purpose of esta!lishing the identity of the e#idence. 3allinera, to whom =sternon supposedly handed o#er the confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as 3arcia, the person to whom =sternon directly handed o#er the sei4ed items for chemical analysis at the crime la!oratory, were not presented in court to esta!lish the circumstances under which they handled the su! ect items. Any reasona!le mind might then ask the 5uestion9 Are the sachets of shabu allegedly sei4ed from petitioner the #ery same o! ects la!oratory tested and offered in court as e#idenceP The prosecutionAs e#idence is incomplete to pro#ide an affirmati#e answer. Considering that it was 3allinera who recorded and marked the sei4ed items, his testimony in court is crucial to affirm whether the e/hi!its were the same items handed o#er to him !y =sternon at the place of sei4ure and acknowledge the initials marked thereon as his own. The same is true of 3arcia who could ha#e, !ut ne#ertheless failed, to testify on the circumstances under which she recei#ed the items from =sternon, what she did with them during the time they were in her possession until !efore she deli#ered the same to Arroyo for analysis. The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its !urden of esta!lishing the identity of the sei4ed items !ecause it failed to offer not only the testimony of 3allinera and 3arcia !ut also any sufficient e/planation for such failure. Dn effect, there is no reasona!le guaranty as to the integrity of the e/hi!its inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possi!ility of su!stitution of the e/hi!its, which cannot !ut inure to its own detriment. This holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets !ut also to the fi#e sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu. Also, contrary to what has !een consistently claimed !y the prosecution that the search and sei4ure was conducted in a regular manner and must !e presumed to !e so, the records disclose a series of irregularities committed !y the police officers from the commencement of the search of petitionerAs house until the su!mission of the sei4ed items to the la!oratory for analysis. The Court takes note of the unre!utted testimony of petitioner, corro!orated !y that of his wife, that prior to the disco#ery of the two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to !uy cigarettes at a near!y store. =5ually telling is the testimony of 1olanos that he posted some of the mem!ers of the raiding team at the door of petitionerAs house in order to forestall the likelihood of petitioner fleeing the scene. 1y no stretch of logic can it !e conclusi#ely e/plained why petitioner was sent out of his house on an errand when in the first place the police officers were in fact apprehensi#e that he would flee to e#ade arrest. This fact assumes prime importance !ecause the two filled sachets were allegedly disco#ered !y =sternon immediately after petitioner returned to his house from the errand, such that he was not a!le to witness the conduct of the search during the !rief !ut crucial interlude that he was away. Dt is also strange that, as claimed !y =sternon, it was petitioner himself who handed to him the items to !e searched including the pillow from which the two filled sachets allegedly fell. Dndeed, it is contrary to ordinary human !eha#ior that petitioner would hand o#er the said pillow to =sternon knowing fully well that illegal drugs are concealed therein. Dn the same !reath, the manner !y which the search of SheilaAs !ody was !rought up !y a mem!er of the raiding team also raises serious dou!ts as to the necessity thereof. The declaration of one of the police officers that he saw Sheila tuck something in her underwear certainly di#erted the attention of the mem!ers of petitionerAs household away from the search !eing conducted !y =sternon prior to the disco#ery of the two filled sachets. Lest it !e omitted, the Court likewise takes note of =sternonAs suspicious presence in the !edroom while Sheila was !eing searched !y a lady officer. The confluence of these circumstances !y any o! ecti#e standard of !eha#ior contradicts the prosecutionAs claim of regularity in the e/ercise of duty. Coreo#er, Section $%'' of the Dmplementing 2ules and 2egulations of 2.A. "o. &%6+ clearly outlines the post0sei4ure procedure in taking custody of sei4ed drugs. Dn a language too plain to re5uire a different construction, it mandates that the officer ac5uiring initial custody of drugs under a search warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical in#entory of the item at the place where the warrant has !een ser#ed. =sternon de#iated from this procedure. Dt was elicited from him that at the close of the search of petitionerAs house, he !rought the sei4ed items immediately to the police station for the alleged purpose of making a Btrue in#entoryB thereof, !ut there appears to !e no reason why a true in#entory could not !e made in petitionerAs house when in fact the apprehending team was a!le to record and mark the sei4ed items and there and then prepare a sei4ure receipt therefor. Lest it !e forgotten, the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had as much time to prepare for its implementation. While the final pro#iso in Section $% of the rules would appear to e/cuse non0compliance therewith, the same cannot !enefit the prosecution as it failed to offer any accepta!le ustification for =sternonAs course of action.

Likewise, =sternonAs failure to deli#er the sei4ed items to the court demonstrates a departure from the directi#e in the search warrant that the items sei4ed !e immediately deli#ered to the trial court with a true and #erified in#entory of the same,'+ as re5uired !y 2ule %$6, Section %$ '6 of the 2ules of Court. 5eople 2. 4o'7characteri4ed this re5uirement as mandatory in order to preclude the su!stitution of or tampering with said items !y interested parties. '8 Thus, as a reasona!le safeguard, 5eople 2s. /el !astillo '& declared that the appro#al !y the court which issued the search warrant is necessary !efore police officers can retain the property sei4ed and without it, they would ha#e no authority to retain possession thereof and more so to deli#er the same to another agency. +@ Cere tolerance !y the trial court of a contrary practice does not make the practice right !ecause it is #iolati#e of the mandatory re5uirements of the law and it there!y defeats the #ery purpose for the enactment.+% 3i#en the foregoing de#iations of police officer =sternon from the standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post0sei4ure custody of the e#idence, the !lind reliance !y the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely ust thatNa mere presumption disputa!le !y contrary proof and which when challenged !y the e#idence cannot !e regarded as !inding truth. +$ Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate o#er the presumption of innocence that pre#ails if not o#erthrown !y proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t. +- Dn the present case the lack of conclusi#e identification of the illegal drugs allegedly sei4ed from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner !y which the same were placed under police custody !efore offered in court, strongly militates a finding of guilt. Dn our constitutional system, !asic and elementary is the presupposition that the !urden of pro#ing the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own e#idence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is in#aria!le whate#er may !e the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.+' Dn dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpa!ility hangs in the !alance, ac5uittal on reasona!le dou!t ine#ita!ly !ecomes a matter of right. WI=2=F,2=, the assailed :ecision of the Court of Appeals dated $7 *anuary $@@6 affirming with modification the udgment of con#iction of the 2egional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, 1ranch +$, and its 2esolution dated -@ Cay $@@6 denying reconsideration thereof, are "!" S"D and S"0 AS2D". >etitioner *unie Calillin y Lope4 is A7A6200"D on reasona!le dou!t and is accordingly ordered immediately released from custody unless he is !eing lawfully held for another offense. The :irector of the 1ureau of Corrections is directed to implement this :ecision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within fi#e (+) days from receipt. S, ,2:=2=:. Duisumbin),!hairperson !arpio,%orales, >elasco, Jr., 1rion, JJ., concur.

G. . No. +=+->-

OctoBer =. ,::=

01" P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. appellee, #s. MA C D"/A 7 68. appellant. :=CDSD," 02NGA. J.@ Su! ect of this appeal is the %$ Septem!er $@@7 decision % of the Court of Appeals in CA03.2. C20I.C. "o. @$+-', affirming the $' August $@@6 udgment$ of the 2egional Trial Court (2TC), 1ranch %$@ of Caloocan City, finding appellant Cark :ela Cru4 y 1atac guilty of #iolation of Section +, Article DD of 2epu!lic Act (2.A.) "o. &%6+. Appellant was charged with illegal sale of shabu in an Dnformation dated %8 *uly $@@-, committed as follows9 That on or a!out the %6th day of *uly $@@- in Caloocan City, C.C. and within the urisdiction of this Ionora!le Court, the a!o#e0named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without ha#ing !een authori4ed !y law, did then and there wil(l)fully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deli#er to one >,$ =<3="= C. AC,H,, who posed as !uyer, two ($) pcs. of small transparent plastic sachets containing @.@8 gram, total weight of Cethylamphetamine Iydrochloride (shabu) for (t)wo ($) pcs of ,ne Iundred >eso 1ill with S" :F&+@-&+ and ;H-8'7'% knowing the same to !e a dangerous drug. C,"T2A2H T, LAW.Appellant entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. :uring the pre0trial conference, the parties stipulated that >FDnsp. =ricson L. Cala!ocal conducted a 5ualitati#e e/amination on two ($) heat0sealed transparent plastic sachets e#idenced !y >hysical Science 2eport "o. :08'+0@- dated %7 *uly $@@-. Dt was further stipulated that said witness had no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of appellant, as well as the source of the su! ect specimens.' Trial ensued. Witnesses for the prosecution narrated that in the e#ening of %6 *uly $@@-, a male informant came to the office of the "orthern >olice :istrict on Tanigue Street, ;aunlaran Killage, Caloocan City. Dn the presence of >,- 3il!ert Kelasco (>,- Kelasco) and >,$ =ugene Amoyo (>,$ Amoyo), the informant complained a!out the rampant selling of shabu !y a certain Cac0Cac. Said information was relayed to >FChief Dnspector 2afael Santiago who immediately instructed >,- Kelasco to form a !uy0!ust team. The team was composed of >,- Kelasco, >,$ Amoyo, >,- *oel 1orda (>,- 1orda), >,$ Loreto Lagmay, >,% 2enato Ameng, >,% Allan 2eyes and >,% *oel Cosme. >,$ Amoyo was the designated poseur0!uyer. Two ($) pieces of >%@@.@@ !ills were prepared as !oodle money. The initials B=CAB were placed on the !ills.

The !uy0!ust team underwent a !riefing and then proceeded to the target area on !oard two ($) separate #ehicles. They arri#ed at a parking lot along Iipon Liit in :agat0dagatan at 79-@ p.m. >,$ Amoyo, >,- Kelasco and >,- 1orda, along with the informant, waited !eside a coconut tree for Cac0Cac. After two hours, appellant arri#ed with two male companions. The informant approached appellant and introduced >,$ Amoyo to him as a !uyer of >$@@.@@ worth of shabu. Appellant left for a while to get the shabu from his companions, who were standing 7 meters away from the group. Ie returned ten (%@) minutes later and handed two ($) plastic sachets to >,$ Amoyo, who, in e/change, handed o#er the !oodle money. After the e/change, >,$ Amoyo raised his left hand to signal the other mem!ers of the !uy0!ust team that the transaction had already !een concluded. >,- Kelasco and >,- 1orda immediately arrested appellant while >,$ Amoyo ran after appellantRs companions. There was an e/change of gunfire !etween >,$ Amoyo and an unidentified companion !ut the latter was a!le to escape unscathed. >,$ Amoyo kept the two ($) plastic sachets in his pocket. A spot in#estigation was conducted on appellant. Dt was re#ealed that the two ($) male companions were identified as Amay and Ta!o. Appellant was then !rought to the police head5uarters. >,$ Amoyo placed his markings B=CA0110%B and B=CA0110$B on the plastic sachets !efore turning them o#er, together with the !uy0!ust money, to S>,' *orge Ta!ayag. >,$ Amoyo also prepared a re5uest for la!oratory e/amination addressed to the >hilippine "ational >olice (>">) Crime La!oratory. The two ($) plastic sachets containing white crystalline su!stance were found positi#e for shabu. Said finding was indicated in >hysical Science 2eport "o. :08'+0@- + prepared !y Forensic Chemist and >olice Dnspector =rickson L. Cala!ocal of the >"> Crime La!oratory 3roup. Appellant presented a different #ersion of the facts. Ie testified that at 89-@ p.m. on %6 *uly $@@-, he was sitting in the pla4a located on Iipon Liit St., :agat0dagatan, Caloocan City. Ie was waiting for his !rother to deli#er his !oots when the policemen arri#ed and were looking for an alias Amay. Appellant then heard a gunshot and saw Amay firing the shot. Appellant ran towards his house. Later, the policemen went to his house and handcuffed him. When appellant asked why he was !eing arrested, the policemen claimed that appellant knew Amay. Appellant denied selling shabu and asserted that the case was filed against him when he refused to gi#e information a!out Amay. AppellantRs testimony was corro!orated !y his !rother, 1alweg :ela la Cru4, who stated in court that appellant instructed him to get his !oots and !ring them to the pla4a at around 89-@ p.m. 6 As he was a!out to lea#e the house, 1alweg saw his !rother !eing arrested !y two policemen. Ie heard from other people that the policemen were asking appellant if he knew of a man named Amay.7 Dn finding appellant guilty, the trial court ruled that there was a meeting of minds !etween the poseur0!uyer and appellant as to the deli#ery of shabu in e/change for >$@@.@@. The dispositi#e portion of said udgment reads9 >remises considered, this Court finds accused MA C D"/A 7 68 4 5A0A7 B3<DLTHB !eyond reasona!le dou!t for Kiolation of Sec. +, Article DD of (2.A. "o.) &%6+, otherwise known as the Comprehensi#e :angerous :rugs Act of $@@$ and imposes upon him the penalty of Life Dmprisonment and a fine of Fi#e Iundred Thousand (>+@@,@@@.@@) >esos. The two ($) plastic sachets containing @.@' gram each of Cethylamphetamine Iydrochloride is here!y ordered confiscated in fa#or of the go#ernment to !e turned o#er to the >hilippine :rug =nforcement Agency (>=:=A) (sic) for proper disposition. S, ,2:=2=:.8 ,n %+ Septem!er $@@6, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals #ia a notice of appeal. & ,n %$ Septem!er $@@7, the Court of Appeals rendered udgment affirming the 2TCAs decision in Criminal Case "o. 686@%.%@ The appellate court ga#e weight to the testimony of the poseur0!uyer as well as to the >hysical Science 2eport in concluding that the illegal sale of shabu was perpetrated !y appellant. The appellate court re ected appellantRs defense of frame0up for failure to su!stantiate such allegation and in light of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the performance of their official duties. Anent the alleged failure of the police officers to o!ser#e the procedure laid down under Section $% of 2. A. "o. &%6+, the appellate court held that such failure is not fatal as the circumstances in the instant case show that the integrity pertaining to the custody of the sei4ed shabu was not compromised notwithstanding that the same were marked only during the in#estigation held at the police station. %%

After o!taining an unfa#ora!le decision, appellant filed a notice of appeal !efore this Court. %$ ,n & April $@@8, this Court re5uired the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental !riefs. %Dn two separate manifestations, !oth parties e/pressed their intention not to file any supplemental !rief since all the issues and arguments ha#e already !een raised in their respecti#e 1riefs. %' Appellant maintains that the prosecution was not a!le to esta!lish the moral certainty re5uired !y law to pro#e his guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t. Ie contends that his defenses of ali!i and denial were supported not only !y his testimony !ut !y that of other witnesses. Ie 5uestions the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him as the marking was made only in the police station in front of the in#estigating officer, contrary to the re5uirement laid down in Section $% (%) of 2A "o. &%6+. Ie also assails the forensic la!oratory e/amination result in that it was not co#ered !y a certification in #iolation of Section $% (-) of the same law. Ie stresses that the prosecution must not simply rely on the presumption of regularity for it cannot !y itself support a udgment of con#iction. %+ Dn its appelleeRs !rief,%6 the ,ffice of the Solicitor03eneral (,S3) supports the con#iction of appellant. Dt argues that appellant was caught in -la)rante delicto selling shabu in a legitimate !uy0!ust operation. Dt claims that the elements necessary in the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs were duly esta!lished !y the prosecution, namely9 the appellant, as seller of the shabu, and the poseur0!uyer were identifiedE and the shabu confiscated from appellant and the money used to !uy it were also presented in court. The ,S3 emphasi4es that the sachets of shabu presented in court were the same sachets confiscated from appellant and su! ected to la!oratory e/amination. Dt ustifies the non0o!ser#ance of Section $% (%) of 2. A. "o. &%6+ since the corpus delicti of the illegal sale of drugs was duly esta!lished during trial. Dt adds that after the confiscation of the sachets of shabufrom appellant, they were immediately su!mitted for la!oratory e/amination to the >"> Crime La!oratory. %7 The appeal is meritorious. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are9 (%) the identities of the !uyer and the seller, the o! ect, and considerationE and ($) the deli#ery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of e#idence of corpus delicti.%8 The common issue that crops out of a !uy0!ust operation, like in this case, is whether the drug su!mitted for la!oratory e/amination and presented in court was actually reco#ered from appellant. The Court is cogni4ant of the fact that an entrapment operation is open to possi!ilities of a!use. Dt is !y this same thrust that the chain of custody rule was adopted !y the Court. Dn 'ope7 2. 5eople,%& we had the occasion to e/pound on the chain of custody rule, thus9 As a method of authenticating e#idence, the chain of custody rule re5uires that the admission of an e/hi!it !e preceded !y e#idence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in 5uestion is what the proponent claims it to !e. Dt would include testimony a!out e#ery link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into e#idence, in such a way that e#ery person who touched the e/hi!it would descri!e how and from whom it was recei#ed, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessR possession, the condition in which it was recei#ed and the condition in which it was deli#ered to the ne/t link in the chain. These witnesses would then descri!e the precautions taken to ensure that there had !een no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to ha#e possession of the same. While testimony a!out a perfect chain is not always the standard !ecause it is almost always impossi!le to o!tain, an un!roken chain of custody !ecomes indispensa!le and essential when the item of real e#idence is not distincti#e and is not readily identifia!le, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to o!ser#e its uni5ueness. The same standard likewise o!tains in case the e#idence is suscepti!le to alteration, tampering, contamination and e#en su!stitution and e/change. Dn other words, the e/hi!itRs le#el of suscepti!ility to fungi!ility, alteration or tamperingNwithout regard to whether the same is ad#ertent or otherwise notNdictates the le#el of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. Dndeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an e/hi!it is greatest when the e/hi!it is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungi!le in nature and similar in form to su!stances familiar to people in their daily li#es. 4raham 2. State positi#ely acknowledged this danger. Dn that case where a su!stance later analy4ed as heroinN was handled !y two police officers prior to e/amination who howe#er did not testify in court on the condition and wherea!outs of the e/hi!it at the time it was in their possessionNwas e/cluded from the prosecution e#idence, the court pointing out that the white powder sei4ed could ha#e !een indeed heroin or it could ha#e !een sugar or !aking powder. Dt

ruled that unless the state can show !y records or testimony, the continuous wherea!outs of the e/hi!it at least !etween the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the la!oratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the la!oratoryRs findings is inadmissi!le. A uni5ue characteristic of narcotic su!stances is that they are not readily identifia!le as in fact they are su! ect to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possi!ility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody o#er the same there could ha#e !een tampering, alteration or su!stitution of su!stances from other casesN!y accident or otherwiseNin which similar e#idence was sei4ed or in which similar e#idence was su!mitted for la!oratory testing. Ience, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases in#ol#ing o! ects which are readily identifia!le must !e applied, a more e/acting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it impro!a!le that the original item has either !een e/changed with another or !een contaminated or tampered with. Thus, the corpus delicti should !e identified with unwa#ering e/actitude. $@ This Court !elie#es that the prosecution failed to clearly esta!lish the chain of custody of the sei4ed plastic sachets containing shabu from the time they were first allegedly recei#ed until they were !rought to the police in#estigator. >,$ Amoyo testified that he failed to place any marking on the sachets of shabu immediately after the apprehension of appellant. Dn fact, >,- Amoyo admitted that he only placed his markings upon !eing ordered !y S>,' Ta!ayag. $% The defense howe#er failed to corro!orate >,$ AmoyoRs claim. While S>,' Ta!ayag was presented in court, he neglected to mention nor was he asked a!out the markings on the shabu. ,n the contrary, the sworn statement of >,$ Amoyo, which was formally offered in e#idence, seemed to suggest that markings were made prior to the su!mission of the shabu to S>,' Ta!ayag, to wit9 %6N T9 %aipapa+ita mo ba yon) sinasabi mon) pina)hihinalaan) Shabu na nabili mo dito +ay %ar+ /ela !ru7, alyas %ac %acE S9 ,po. 0to po. (Affiant presented two ($) pieces of small transparent plastic sachets (heat0sealed) containing a crystalline su!stance !elie#ed to !e Sha!u) at an) plastic po nito ay a+in) minar+ahan n) a+in) inisyal na B=CA011%B at B=CA0 11$).B$$ Kerily, >,$ AmoyoRs testimony suggests that he already placed his markings prior to !eing 5uestioned !y S>,' Ta!ayag. Coreo#er, no other witness was presented to testify or to fill the gap from the time S>,' Ta!ayag recei#ed the sachets of sha!u from >,$ Amoyo up to the time they were deli#ered to the >"> Crime La!oratory. Furthermore, nothing on record shows that the procedural re5uirements of Section $%, >aragraph % of Article DD of 2. A. "o. &%6+$- with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs were complied with. There was no physical in#entory and photograph of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant. "either did the police officers offer any e/planation for their failure to o!ser#e the rule. The prosecution merely sought refuge in its !elief that a stringent application of the rule may !e dispensed with if the corpus delicti has !een duly esta!lished. Dn 5eople 2. Orte7a,$' the Court citing 5eople 2. 'a?a,$+ 5eople 2. 6imura$6 and Farra)a 2. 5eople,$7 reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the sei4ed drugs raises dou!t as to its origins. $8 Dn 5eople 2. "a7areno,$& the poseur0!uyer failed to immediately place his markings on the sei4ed drugs !efore turning them o#er to the police in#estigators. The police officer who placed his markings was not presented to testify on what actually transpired after the drugs were turned o#er to him. The Court e5uated these circumstances as failure on the part of the prosecution to pro#e the e/istence of the corpus delicti.-@ As stated !y the Court in 5eople 2. Santos, Jr.,-% failure to o!ser#e the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. -$ As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit !ecause of the presumption that they ha#e performed their duties regularly.-- Iowe#er, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effecti#ely destroyed.

While the law enforcers en oy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot pre#ail o#er the constitutional right of the accused to !e presumed innocent and it cannot !y itself constitute proof of guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t.-' The presumption of regularity is merely ust thatNa mere presumption disputa!le !y contrary proof and which when challenged !y the e#idence cannot !e regarded as !inding truth. -+ Dn fine, the failure to esta!lish the corpus delicti is detrimental to the cause of the prosecution. The Court is thus constrained to ac5uit appellant on reasona!le dou!t. WI=2=F,2=, the assailed :ecision of the Court of Appeals dated %$ Septem!er $@@7 affirming the udgment of con#iction of the 2egional Trial Court of Caloocan City, 1ranch %$@ is "!" S"D and S"0 AS2D". Appellant CA2; :=LA C2<T y 1ATAC is A7A6200"D on reasona!le dou!t and is accordingly ordered immediately released from custody unless he is !eing lawfully held for another offense. The :irector of the 1ureau of Corrections is ,2:=2=: to implement this decision forthwith and to D"F,2C this Court, within fi#e (+) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released from confinement. Let a copy of this decision !e forwarded to the >"> :irector and the :irector 3eneral of the >hilippine :rug =nforcement Agency for proper guidance and implementation. "o costs. SO O D" "D.

Hes sir.$& This Court, thus, is in agreement with the trial court in finding that9 1ayani himself appears to !e a shady character. 1y his admission he is a !ata or agent of >, Kas5ue4. As far as the court knows, such characters are used !y the police !ecause they are underworld character (sic). -@ Finally, the testimony of accused0appellantRs !rother, 1en amin Agulay, is not con#incing. 1en amin, !eing accused0 appellantRs !rother, we find him to !e unrelia!le. Suffice it to say that, ha#ing !een gi#en !y a relati#e of the accused0 appellant, his testimony should !e recei#ed with caution. ,n this premise, this Court has laid down the Bo! ecti#eB test in scrutini4ing !uy0!ust operations. Dn >eople #. :oria, -% we said9 We therefore stress that the Bo! ecti#eB test in !uy0!ust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must !e clearly and ade5uately shown. This must start from the initial contact !etween the poseur0!uyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale !y the deli#ery of the illegal drug su! ect of the sale. The manner !y which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the B!uy0!ustB money, and the deli#ery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must !e the su! ect of strict scrutiny !y courts to insure that law0 a!iding citi4ens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. / / /. Dt !ears to point out that prosecutions of cases for #iolation of the :angerous :rugs Act arising from !uy0!ust operations largely depend on the credi!ility of the police officers who conducted the same, and unless clear and con#incing e#idence is proffered showing that the mem!ers of the !uy0!ust team were dri#en !y any improper moti#e or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deser#e full faith and credit. -$ The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is pro#ed. --This presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is consistent with a most fundamental constitutional principle, fleshed out !y procedural rules which place on the prosecution the !urden of pro#ing that an accused is guilty of the offense charged !y proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t. This constitutional guarantee is so essential that the framers of the constitution found it imperati#e to keep the pro#ision from the old constitution to emphasi4e the primacy of rights that no person shall !e held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. -' Dn his dissent, *ustice 1rion focused on the con#iction that the Buy<Bust operation and the conseDuent sei$ure of the prohiBited suBstance either did not take place or has not Been proven Beyond reasonaBle douBt Because of a #ap in the prosecutionEs evidence. Con#inced that under the pro#en facts of the present case, the dissent maintains that the

prosecution has not pro#en that a crime had !een committed through proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t 00 that the three plastic sachets that were admitted into e#idence during the trial were in fact the same items sei4ed from the accused0 appellant when he was arrested. The guilt of accused0appellant was esta!lished !eyond reasona!le dou!t. Contrary to the dissentRs claim, the totality of the e#idence would indicate that the sale of the prohi!ited drug had taken place, and that the sale was ade5uately esta!lished and the prosecution witnesses clearly identified accused0appellant as the offender. Coreo#er, the sei4ed items, pro#en positi#e to !e sha!u, were properly identified and presented !efore the court. To reiterate, in prosecutions for illegal sale of regulated or prohi!ited drugs, con#iction is proper if the following elements are present9 (%) the identity of the !uyer and the seller, the o! ect, and the considerationE and ($) the deli#ery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohi!ited or regulated drug. -+ The term corpus delicti means the actual commission !y someone of the particular crime charged. The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, sei4ed andFor surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is pro#ided under Section $% (a), paragraph % of Article DD of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, to wit9 (a) The apprehending team ha#ing initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after sei4ure and confiscation, physically in#entory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personFs from whom such items were confiscated andFor sei4ed, or hisFher representati#e or counsel, a representati#e from the media and the :epartment of *ustice (:,*), and any elected pu!lic official who shall !e re5uired to sign the copies of the in#entory and !e gi#en a copy thereofE Section $% (a), Article DD of the Dmplementing 2ules and 2egulations of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, which implements said pro#ision, reads9 (a) The apprehending team ha#ing initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after sei4ure and confiscation, physically in#entory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personFs from whom such items were confiscated andFor sei4ed, or hisFher representati#e or counsel, a representati#e from the media and the :epartment of *ustice (:,*), and any elected pu!lic official who shall !e re5uired to sign the copies of the in#entory and !e gi#en a copy thereofE >ro#ided, further that non0compliance with these re5uirements under ustifia!le grounds, as long as the integrity and the e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items are properly preser#ed !y the apprehending officersFteam, shall not render #oid and in#alid such sei4ures of and custody o#er said items. The a!o#e pro#ision further states that non0compliance with the stipulated procedure, under ustifia!le grounds, shall not render #oid and in#alid such sei4ures of and custody o#er said items, for as long as the integrity and e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items are properly preser#ed !y the apprehending officers. The e#ident purpose of the procedure pro#ided for is the preser#ation of the integrity and e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items, as the same would !e utili4ed in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. ,n the chain of custody of the sei4ed drugs The dissent agreed with accused0appellantRs assertion that the police operati#es failed to comply with the proper procedure in the chain of custody of the sei4ed drugs. Dt premised that non<compliance 'ith the procedure in Section ,+FaG. Article 22 of the 2mplementin# ules and e#ulations of epuBlic Act No. (+?- creates an irre#ularity and overcomes the presumption of re#ularity accorded police authorities in the performance of their official duties. This assumption is without merit. First. it must Be made clear that in several cases%)?& decided !y the Court, failure !y the !uy0!ust team to comply with said section did not pre#ent the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty from applying. Second. even prior to the enactment of .A. (+?-. the reDuirements contained in Section ,+FaG 'ere already there per Dan#erous Dru#s 5oard e#ulation No. ). Series of +(*(. Despite the presence of such re#ulation and its non<compliance By the Buy<Bust team. the 7ourt still applied such presumption. -7 We held9 The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said ::1 2egulation "o. -, Series of %&7& is a matter strictly !etween the :angerous :rugs 1oard and the arresting officers and is totally irrele#ant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohi!ited drug is considered consummated once

the sale or transaction is esta!lished and the prosecution thereof is not undermined !y the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the :angerous :rugs 1oard. While accused0appellant contends in his appellantRs !rief that the police operati#es did not su!mit the re5uired in#entory of the sei4ed items pursuant to the pro#isions of Section $% (a), Article DD of the Dmplementing 2ules and 2egulations of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, the records !elie this claim. ,n cross0e/amination !y the defense, >olice ,fficer (>,) $ Ierrera testified on making an in#entory of the sei4ed items. >,$ Ierrera testified as follows9 Q9 When you arrested the suspect in this case, you confiscated two ($) items from himP A9 Hes sir. Q9 And you said that it is part of your procedure when you confiscated items from the suspect you made an in#entory of the item confiscatedP A9 Hes sir. Q9 :id you make in#entory of the confiscated itemsP A9 Hes sir it is with the police in#estigator.-8 Coreo#er, non0compliance with the procedure outlined in Section $%(a), Article DD of the Dmplementing 2ules and 2egulations of 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, shall not render #oid and in#alid such sei4ures of and custody o#er said items, for as long as the integrity and e#identiary #alue of the sei4ed items are properly preser#ed !y the apprehending officers. Consistent with this CourtRs pronouncements in >eople #. 1ano -& and in >eople #. Ciranda,'@ contrary to appellantRs claim, there is no showing of a !roken chain in the custody of the sei4ed items, later on determined to !e sha!u, from the moment of its sei4ure !y the entrapment team, to the in#estigating officer, to the time it was !rought to the forensic chemist at the >"> Crime La!oratory for la!oratory e/amination. Dt was duly esta!lished !y documentary, testimonial, and o! ect e#idence, including the markings on the plastic sachets containing the sha!u that the su!stance tested !y the forensic chemist, whose la!oratory tests were well0documented, was the same as that taken from accused0appellant. The records of the case indicate that after his arrest, accused0appellant was taken to the police station and turned o#er to the police in#estigator. >,$ Ierrera testified that he personally '% made the markings B2IB (representing his initials) on the three sachets, the in#entory'$ of which was deli#ered to the police in#estigator. After the arrest, the sei4ed items which had the markings B2IB alleged to contain sha!u were !rought to the crime la!oratory for e/amination. '- The re5uest for la!oratory e/amination and transfer of the confiscated sachets to the >"> crime la!oratory was prepared !y another officer, >,$ 3ulferic, the designated officer0on0case. '' Dt was signed as well !y the Chief of ,fficeFAgency (S:=<FSDD1) >olice Chief Dnspector Leslie Castillo Castillo. The re5uest indicated that the sei4ed items were deli#ered !y >,$ 3ulferic and recei#ed !y Forensic Chemist *a!onillo.'+ The three heat0sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline su!stance were later on determined to !e positi#e for Cethylamphetamine Iydrochloride or sha!u. When the prosecution presented the marked sachets in court, >,$ Ierrera positi#ely identified the plastic sachets containing sha!u which he !ought from accused0appellant in the !uy0!ust operation. The sachets containing sha!u had the markings B2IB as testified !y Forensic Chemist *a!onillo. >,$ Ierrera positi#ely identified in court that he put his initials B2IB on the sachets. Thus, the identity of the drugs has !een duly preser#ed and esta!lished !y the prosecution. 1esides, the integrity of the e#idence is presumed to !e preser#ed unless there is a showing of !ad faith, ill will, or proof that the e#idence has !een tampered with. The accused0appellant in this case !ears the !urden to make some showing that the e#idence was tampered or meddled with to o#ercome a presumption of regularity in the handling of e/hi!its !y pu!lic officers and a presumption that pu!lic officers properly discharged their duties. '6 >,$ Ierrera identified the sachets in court, and more importantly, accused0appellant had the opportunity to cross0 e/amine him on this point. This Court, thus, sees no dou!t that the sachets marked B2IB su!mitted for la!oratory e/amination and which were later on found to !e positi#e for sha!u, were the same ones sold !y accused0appellant to the poseur0!uyer >,$ Ierrera during the !uy0!ust operation. There is no 5uestion, therefore, that the identity of the prohi!ited drug in this case was certainly safeguarded.

The dissent maintains that the chain of custody rule Bwould include testimony a!out e#ery link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into e#idence / / /.B This means that all persons who came into contact with the sei4ed drugs should testify in courtE otherwise, the un!roken chain of custody would not !e esta!lished. We disagree. "ot all people who came into contact with the sei4ed drugs are re5uired to testify in court. There is nothing in the "ew :rugs Law or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a re5uirement. As long as the chain of custody of the sei4ed su!stance was clearly esta!lished not to ha#e !een !roken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs sei4ed, it is not indispensa!le that each and e#ery person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. Dn >eople #. Teng Iua :ian, '7 we held9 After a thorough re#iew of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the sei4ed su!stance was not !roken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs sei4ed in this case. The non0presentation of witnesses of other persons such as S>,% 3rafia, the e#idence custodian, and >,- Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witneses !y the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. Dn connection with this, it must not !e forgotten that entries in official records made !y a pu!lic officer in the performance of his duty are prima facie e#idence of the facts therein stated. '8 Df it is now a re5uirement that all persons who came into contact with the sei4ed drugs should testify in court, what will now happen to those pu!lic officers ( e.)., person who issued re5uest for e/amination of drugs or those who tested the drugs) who issued documents regarding the sei4ed drugsP Shall they !e o!ligated to testify despite the fact the entries in the documents they issued are prima facie e#idence of the facts therein statedP We do not think so. <nless there is proof to the contrary, the entries in the documents are prima -acie e#idence of the facts therein stated and they need not testify thereon. The dissenting opinion likewise faults the prosecution for failing to disclose the identity of the person who su!mitted the item that was e/amined. The answer to this 5uestion can easily !e seen from the stamp made in the re5uest for drug analysis. There !eing no 5uestion !y the accused on this matter, the entry thereon made !y the pu!lic officer is definitely sufficient, same !eing an entry in official records. ,n the credi!ility of the witnesses >rosecutions in#ol#ing illegal drugs depend largely on the credi!ility of the police officers who conduct the B!uy0!ustB operation.'& Dn cases in#ol#ing #iolations of the :angerous :rugs Law, appellate courts tend to hea#ily rely upon the trial court in assessing the credi!ility of witnesses, as it had the uni5ue opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to o!ser#e the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross0e/amination. +@ This Court, not !eing a trier of facts itself, relies in good part on the assessment and e#aluation !y the trial court of the e#idence, particularly the attestations of the witnesses, presented to it. +% Thus, this Court will not interfere with the trial courtRs assessment of the credi!ility of witnesses considering there is nothing on record that shows some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has o#erlooked, misappreciated, or misinterpreted. <nless compelling reasons are shown otherwise, this Court, not !eing a trier of facts itself, relies in good part on the assessment and e#aluation !y the trial court of the e#idence, particularly the attestations of witnesses, presented to it. As this Court has held in a long line of cases, the trial court is in a !etter position to decide the 5uestion, ha#ing heard the witnesses themsel#es and o!ser#ed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Accused0appellant casts suspicion on the means or methods !y which the police officers conducted the operation and claims to !e the #ictim of a frame0up. According to accused0appellant, the trial court relied hea#ily on the police officersR testimonies that what had actually transpired was a !uy0!ust operation, which resulted in his arrest. Dn almost e#ery case in#ol#ing a !uy0!ust operation, the accused put up the defense of frame0up. Such claim is #iewed with disfa#or, !ecause it can easily !e feigned and fa!ricated. Dn >eople #. <y, the Court reiterated its position on the matter, to wit9 We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting e#idence to e/tract information or e#en to harass ci#ilians. Iowe#er, like ali!i, frame0up is a defense that has !een in#aria!ly #iewed !y the Court with disfa#or as it can easily !e concocted (and) hence commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from #iolations of the :angerous :rugs Act. We reali4e the disastrous conse5uences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well !eing of society, if the courts / / / accept in e#ery instance this form of defense which can !e so easily fa!ricated. Dt is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has !een regularly performed e/ists. / / / +$

Dn the case at !ar, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are positi#e and con#incing, sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that accused0appellantRs guilt had !een esta!lished !eyond reasona!le dou!t. First, the testimony of >,$ 2aul Ierrera was spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Second, >,% 2eyno 2iparip, the !ack0up police operati#e of >,$ Ierrera, corro!orated the latterRs testimony on material points. AppellantRs defense of frame0up and self0ser#ing assertion that he was mistakenly picked up !y the police operati#es for a carnapping case cannot pre#ail o#er the positi#e and straight0forward testimonies of the police operati#es who ha#e performed their duties regularly and in accordance with law, and ha#e not !een shown to ha#e !een inspired !y any improper moti#e or to ha#e improperly performed their duty. +To reiterate, 1ayani de LeonRs testimony that the accused was !eing taken as a carnapping suspect only further weakened the defense, considering it was totally out of sync with the testimony of accused0appellant #is0W0#is the positi#e testimonies of the police officers on the e#ents that transpired on the night of $' August $@@$ when the !uy0!ust operation was conducted. The arrest of accused0appellant was made in the course of an entrapment, following a sur#eillance operation, normally performed !y police officers in the apprehension of #iolators of the :angerous :rugs Act. The Court so holds that in the a!sence of proof of any odious intent on the part of the police operati#es to falsely impute such a serious crime, as the one imputed against accused0appellant, it will not allow their testimonies to !e o#ercome !y the self0ser#ing claim of frame0up. =#en assuming arguendo that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty has !een o#ercome !ecause of failure to comply with Section $%(a), same will not automatically lead to the e/oneration of the accused. Said presumption is not the sole !asis for the con#iction of the accused. Iis con#iction was !ased not solely on said presumption !ut on the documentary and real e#idence, and more importantly, on the oral e#idence !y prosecution witnesses whom we found to !e credi!le. Dt is to noted that one witness is sufficient to pro#e the corpus delicti ? that there was a consummated sale !etween the poseur !uyer and the accused 00 there !eing no 5uantum of proof as to the num!er of witnesses to pro#e the same. Dn the case at !ar, the selling of drugs !y accused was esta!lished. The dissent likewise argues that the ponencia cannot impose on the defense the !urden of pro#ing that the police had an improper moti#e in charging him !ecause of the a!sence of the presumption of regularity. We find this untena!le. Dt is settled that if the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not impugned, full faith and credit shall !e accorded them. ,ne impugns the testimony of witness during cross0e/amination. :id the defense satisfactorily impugn the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when he said that he was a #ictim of hulidap and that the policemen were e/torting money from himP Said declaration is definitely not sufficient to impugn the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Iis mere say so that he was #ictimi4ed without clear and con#incing e#idence to support such claim does not suffice. Df what he claims was indeed committed !y the policemen, he should ha#e sued or charged them. This, he did not do. Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and !eha#ior of one who feels truly aggrie#ed !y the act complained of.+' From the foregoing, We are fully con#inced that the accused is guilty as charged. We thus hold that accused0appellantRs guilt has !een esta!lished !eyond reasona!le dou!t. This Court shall now determine the proper penalties to !e imposed on him. An e/amination of the Dnformation re#eals that accused0appellant was charged with the unauthori4ed sale and deli#ery of dangerous drugs consisting of twenty0fi#e hundredths (@.$+) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (sha!u). From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, only one sachet ++ was sold and deli#ered to the poseur0!uyer, >,$ Ierrera. The two other sachets+6 were not sold or deli#ered, !ut were found !y >,$ Ierrera inside the right pocket of accused0 appellantRs pair of shorts upon frisking, after the latter was caught in flagrante delicto during the !uy0!ust operation. Accused0appellant could ha#e !een charged with the possession of dangerous drugs +7 on account of the second and third sachets. This was not done. Ie cannot then !e con#icted of possession of dangerous drugs, without !eing properly charged therewith, e#en if pro#ed. Accused0appellant, howe#er, is still guilty, as charged in the Dnformation, of selling and deli#ering one sachet to the poseur0!uyer. <nder 2epu!lic Act "o. &%6+, the unauthori4ed sale of sha!u carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Fi#e Iundred Thousand >esos (>+@@,@@@.@@) to Ten Cillion >esos (>%@,@@@,@@@.@@).

>ursuant, howe#er, to the enactment of 2epu!lic Act "o. &-'6 entitled, BAn Act >rohi!iting the Dmposition of :eath >enalty in the >hilippines,B only life imprisonment and fine, instead of death, shall !e imposed. We, therefore, find the penalty imposed !y the trial court, as affirmed !y the Court of Appeals ? life imprisonment and a fine of >+@@,@@@.@@ ? to !e proper. WI=2=F,2=, premises considered, the Court of Appeals :ecision in CA03.2. C2 "o. @%&&' dated -% August $@@7 is AFFD2C=:. S, ,2:=2=:.

G. . Nos. +:=,=:<=) NovemBer +?. +((OM"O S2SON. N2/O PA7ADA . JO"/ 0AN. 271A D D" /OS SAN0OS. and JOS"/20O 0AMA4O. petitioners, #s. P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S and 7O6 0 OF APP"A/S. respondents. G. . Nos. ++>()+<)) NovemBer +?. +((01" P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. plaintiff0appellee, #s. ANN2" F" " . accused. OM"O S2SON. N2/O PA7ADA . JO"/ 0AN. JOS"/20O 0AMA4O. accused0appellants.

271A D D" /OS SAN0OS. and

P6NO. J.: The case !efore us occurred at a time of great political polari4ation in the aftermath of the %&86 =:SA 2e#olution. This was the time when the newly0installed go#ernment of >resident Cora4on C. A5uino was !eing openly challenged in rallies, demonstrations and other pu!lic fora !y BCarcos loyalists,B supporters of deposed >resident Ferdinand =. Carcos. Tension and animosity !etween the two ($) groups sometimes !roke into #iolence. ,n *uly $7, %&86, it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known BCoryista.B From August to ,cto!er %&86, se#eral informations were filed in court against ele#en persons identified as Carcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo. Criminal Case "o. 860'7-$$ was filed against 2aul 1illosos y de Leon and 3erry "ery y 1a!a4onE Criminal Case "o. 860'76%7 against 2omeo Sison y Ce ia, "ilo >acadar y A!e and *oel Tan y CosteroE Criminal Case "o. 860'77&@ against 2ichard de los Santos y Aram!uloE Criminal Case "o. 860'8+-8 against *oselito Tamayo y ,rtiaE and Criminal Case "o. 860'8&-% against 2olando Fernande4 y Candapat. Also filed were Criminal Cases "os. 860'&@@7 and 860'&@@8 against ,li#er Lo4ano and 1en amin "uega as well as Annie Ferrer charging them as accomplices to the murder of Salcedo. The cases were consolidated and raffled to the 2egional Trial Court, 1ranch GLDG, Canila. All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly. The prosecution presented twel#e witnesses, including two eyewitnesses, 2anulfo Sumilang and 2enato 1anculo, and the police officers who were at the Luneta at the time of the incident. Dn support of their testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented documentary e#idence consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and #arious photographs taken during the mauling. The prosecution esta!lished that on *uly $7, %&86, a rally was scheduled to !e held at the Luneta !y the Carcos loyalists. =arlier, they applied for a permit to hold the rally !ut their application was denied !y the authorities. :espite this set!ack, three thousand of them gathered at the 2i4al Conument of the Luneta at $9-@ in the afternoon of the scheduled day. Led !y ,li#er Lo4ano and 1en amin "uega, !oth mem!ers of the Dntegrated 1ar of the >hilippines, the loyalists started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers and deli#ered speeches in !etween. Colonel =dgar :ula Torres, then :eputy

Superintendent of the Western >olice :istrict, arri#ed and asked the leaders for their permit. "o permit could !e produced. Colonel :ula Torres thereupon ga#e them ten minutes to disperse. The loyalist leaders asked for thirty minutes !ut this was refused. Atty. Lo4ano turned towards his group and said B3ulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators.B Atty. "uega added BSige, sige gulpihin ninyo GB The police then pushed the crowd, and used tear gas and truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists scampered away !ut some of them fought !ack and threw stones at the police. =#entually, the crowd fled towards Caria ,rosa Street and the situation later sta!ili4ed. + At a!out '9@@ p.m., a small group of loyalists con#erged at the Chinese 3arden, >hase DDD of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular mo#ie starlet and supporter of >resident Carcos, ogging around the fountain. They approached her and informed her of their dispersal and Annie Ferrer angrily ordered them B3ulpihin ninyo and mga Cory hecklers GB Then she continued ogging around the fountain chanting BCarcos pa rin, Carcos pa rin, >a!alikin si Carcos, >a!alikin si Carcos, 1ug!ugin ang mga nakadilawGB The loyalists replied B1ug!ugin GB A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested !y the police. Some!ody then shouted B;ailangang gumanti, tayo ngayon GB A commotion ensued and 2enato 1anculo, a cigarette #endor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the color of the BCoryistas.B 2enato took off his yellow shirt. , Ie then saw a man wearing a yellow t0shirt !eing chased !y a group of persons shouting BDyan, ha!ulin iyan. Cory iyanGB The man in the yellow t0shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to !e Carcos loyalists. They caught Salcedo and !o/ed and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to e/tricate himself from the group !ut they again pounced on him and pummelled him with fist !lows and kicks hitting him on #arious parts of his !ody. 1anculo saw 2anulfo Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to SalcedoAs aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could e/tricate Salcedo from them. 1ut the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, !o/ing him with stones in their fists. Some!ody ga#e Sumilang a loyalist tag which Sumilang showed to SalcedoAs attackers. They !acked off for a while and Sumilang was a!le to tow Salcedo away from them. 1ut accused 2aul 1illosos emerged from !ehind Sumilang as another man !o/ed Salcedo on the head. Accused 2ichard de los Santos also !o/ed Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him e#en as he was already fallen. ) Salcedo tried to stand !ut accused *oel Tan !o/ed him on the left side of his head and ear. > Accused "ilo >acadar punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting9 BDyan, Cory Dyan. >atayinXB - Sumilang tried to pacify >acadar !ut the latter lunged at the #ictim again. Accused *oselito Tamayo !o/ed Salcedo on the left aw and kicked him as he once more fell. 1anculo saw accused 2omeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the head, and when he tried to stand, Sison repeatedly !o/ed him. ? Sumilang saw accused 3erry "eri approach the #ictim !ut did not notice what he did. * Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the !lood from his face. Ie sat on some cement steps = and then tried to flee towards 2o/as !oule#ard to the sanctuary of the 2i4al Conument !ut accused *oel Tan and "ilo >acadar pursued him, mauling Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life e/claiming BCaawa na kayo sa akin. Tulungan ninyo ako.B Ie cried9 B>ulis, pulis. Wala !ang pulis EB ( The mauling resumed at the 2i4al Conument and continued along 2o/as 1oule#ard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness. Sumilang flagged down a #an and with the help of a traffic officer, !rought Salcedo to the Cedical Center Canila !ut he was refused admission. So they took him to the >hilippine 3eneral Iospital where he died upon arri#al. Salcedo died of Bhemorrhage, intracranial traumatic.B Ie sustained #arious contusions, a!rasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures as re#ealed in the following post0mortem findings9 Cyanosis, lips, and nail!eds. Contused0a!rasions9 6.@ / $.+ cm., and -.@ / $.' cm., frontal region, right sideE 6.8 / '.$ cm., frontal region, left sideE +.@ / '.@ cm., right cheekE +.@ / -.+ cm., face, left sideE -.+ / $.@ cm., noseE '.@ / $.% cm., left ear, pinnaE +.@ / '.@ cm. left suprascapular regionE 6.@ / $.8 cm., right el!ow. A!rasions9 '.@ / $.@ cm., left el!owE $.@ / %.+ cm., right knee. Lacerated wounds9 $.$ cm., o#er the left eye!rowE %.@ cm., upper lip. Iematoma, scalpE frontal region, !oth sidesE left parietal regionE right temporal regionE occipital region, right side. Fractures, skullE occipital !one, right sideE right posterior cranial fossaE right anterior cranial fossa. Iemorrhage, su!dural, e/tensi#e. ,ther #isceral organs, congested.

Stomach, a!out %F$ filled with grayish !rown food materials and fluid. +: The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed !y !ystanders and se#eral press people, !oth local and foreign. The press took pictures and a #ideo of the e#ent which !ecame front0page news the following day, capturing national and international attention. This prompted >resident A5uino to order the Capital 2egional Command and the Western >olice :istrict to in#estigate the incident. A reward of ten thousand pesos (>%@,@@@.@@) was put up !y 1rigadier 3eneral Alfredo Lim, then >olice Chief, for persons who could gi#e information leading to the arrest of the killers. ++ Se#eral persons, including 2anulfo Sumilang and 2enato 1anculo, cooperated with the police, and on the !asis of their identification, se#eral persons, including the accused, were apprehended and in#estigated. For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the mauling of the #ictim and offered their respecti#e ali!is. Accused *oselito Tamayo testified that he was not in any of the photographs presented !y the prosecution +, !ecause on *uly $7, %&86, he was in his house in Que4on City. +) 3erry "eri claimed that he was at the Luneta Theater at the time of the incident. +> 2omeo Sison, a commercial photographer, was allegedly at his office near the Luneta waiting for some pictures to !e de#eloped at that time. +- Ie claimed to !e afflicted with hernia impairing his mo!ilityE he cannot run normally nor do things forcefully. +? 2ichard de los Santos admits he was at the Luneta at the time of the mauling !ut denies hitting Salcedo. +* Ie said that he merely watched the mauling which e/plains why his face appeared in some of the photographs. += <nlike the other accused, "ilo >acadar admits that he is a Carcos loyalist and a mem!er of the AkoAy >ilipino Co#ement and that he attended the rally on that fateful day. According to him, he saw Salcedo !eing mauled and like 2ichard de los Santos, merely #iewed the incident. +( Iis face was in the pictures !ecause he shouted to the maulers to stop hitting Salcedo. ,: *oel Tan also testified that he tried to pacify the maulers !ecause he pitied Salcedo. The maulers howe#er ignored him. ,+ The other accused, specifically Attys. Lo4ano and "uega and Annie Ferrer opted not to testify in their defense. ,n :ecem!er %6, %&88, the trial court rendered a decision finding 2omeo Sison, "ilo >acadar, *oel Tan, 2ichard de los Santos and *oselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murder 5ualified !y treachery and sentenced them to %' years %@ months and $@ days of reclusion temporal as minimum to $@ years of reclusion temporal as ma/imum. Annie Ferrer was likewise con#icted as an accomplice. The court, howe#er, found that the prosecution failed to pro#e the guilt of the other accused and thus ac5uitted 2aul 1illosos, 3erry "ery, 2olando Fernande4, ,li#er Lo4ano and 1en amin "uega. The dispositi#e portion of the decision reads as follows9 WI=2=F,2=, udgement is here!y rendered in the aforementioned cases as follows9 %. 0n 85eople 2ersus 3aul 1illosos and 4erry "ery,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,4AH22 , the Court finds that the >rosecution failed to pro#e the guilt of the two ($) Accused !eyond reasona!le dou!t for the crime charged and here!y ac5uits them of said chargeE $. 0n 85eople 2ersus 3omeo Sison, et al.,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,4AB1A , the Court finds the Accused 2omeo Sison, "ilo >acadar and *oel Tan, guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t, as principals for the crime of Curder, defined in Article $'8 of the 2e#ised >enal Code, and, there !eing no other mitigating or aggra#ating circumstances, here!y imposes on each of them an indeterminate penalty of from F,<2T==" (%')H=A2S, T=" (%@) C,"TIS and TW="TH ($@) :AHS, of 3eclusion Temporal, as minimum, to TW="TH ($@) :AHS, of 3eclusion Temporal, as minimum, to TW="TH ($@) H=A2S of3eclusion Temporal, as Ca/imumE -. 0n 85eople 2ersus 3ichard de los Santos,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,4AA90 , the Court finds the Accused 2ichard de los Santos guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t as principal for the crime of Curder defined in Article $'8 of the 2e#ised >enal Code and, there !eing no other e/tenuating circumstances, the Court here!y imposes on him an indeterminate penalty of from F,<2T==" (%') H=A2S, T=" (%@) C,"TIS and TW="TH ($@) :AHS of 3eclusion Temporal, as Cinimum, to TW="TH ($@) H=A2S of 3eclusion Temporal as Ca/imumE '. 0n 85eople 2ersus Joselito Tamayo,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,48@H8 the Court finds the Accused guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t as principal, for the crime of BCurderB defined in Article $'8 of the 2e#ised >enal Code and here!y imposes on him an indeterminate penalty of from F,<2T==" (%') H=A2S, T=" (%@) C,"TIS and TW="TH ($@) :AHS of 3eclusion Temporal, as Cinimum, to TW="TH ($@) H=A2S of 3eclusion Temporal, as Ca/imumE

+. 0n 85eople 2ersus 3olando Fernande7,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,489Hl , the Court finds that the >rosecution failed to pro#e the guilt of the Accused for the crime charged !eyond reasona!le dou!t and here!y ac5uits him of said chargeE 6. 0n 85eople 2ersus Oli2er 'o7ano, et al.,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,4900A , the Court finds that the >rosecution failed to pro#e the guilt of the Accused !eyond reasona!le dou!t for the crime charged and here!y ac5uits them of said chargeE 7. 0n 85eople 2ersus (nnie Ferrer,8 !riminal !ase "o. 8B,49008 , the Court finds the said Accused guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t, as accomplice to the crime of Curder under Article %8 in relation to Article $'8 of the 2e#ised >enal Code and here!y imposes on her an indeterminate penalty of "D"= (&) H=A2S and F,<2 (') C,"TIS of 5rision %ayor, as Cinimum to TW=LK= (%$) H=A2S, FDK= (+) C,"TIS and =L=K=" (%%) :AHS of 3eclusion Temporal, as Ca/imum. The Accused 2omeo Sison, "ilo >acadar, 2ichard de los Santos, *oel Tan, *oselito Tamayo and Annie Ferrer are here!y ordered to pay, ointly and se#erally, to the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the total amount of >7',@@@.@@ as actual damages and the amount of >-@,@@@.@@ as moral and e/emplary damages, and one0half (%F$) of the costs of suit. The period during which the Accused "ilo >acadar, 2omeo Sison, *oel Tan, 2ichard de los Santos and *oselito Tamayo had !een under detention during the pendency of these cases shall !e credited to them pro#ided that they agreed in writing to a!ide !y and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City *ail. The Warden of the City *ail of Canila is here!y ordered to release the Accused 3erry "ery, 2aul 1illosos and 2olando Fernande4 from the City *ail unless they are !eing detained for another cause or charge. The >etition for 1ail of the Accused 2olando Fernande4 has !ecome moot and academic. The >etition for 1ail of the Accused *oel Tan, 2omeo Sison and *oselito Tamayo is denied for lack of merit. The !ail !onds posted !y the Accused ,li#er Lo4ano and 1en amin "uega are here!y cancelled.
,,

,n appeal, the Court of Appeals ,) on :ecem!er $8, %&&$, modified the decision of the trial court !y ac5uitting Annie Ferrer !ut increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused, e/cept for *oselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The appellate court found them guilty of murder 5ualified !y a!use of superior strength, !ut con#icted *oselito Tamayo of homicide !ecause the information against him did not allege the said 5ualifying circumstance. The dispositi#e portion of the decision reads9 >2=CDS=S C,"SD:=2=:, the decision appealed from is here!y C,:DFD=: as follows9 %. Accused0appellants 2omeo Sison y Ce ia, "ilo >acadar y A!e, *oel Tan y Costero and 2ichard de los Santos are here!y found 3<DLTH !eyond reasona!le dou!t of Curder and are each here!y sentenced to suffer the penalty of 3eclusion 5erpetuaE $. Accused0appellant *oselito Tamayo y ,ria is here!y found 3<DLTH !eyond reasona!le dou!t of the crime of Iomicide with the generic aggra#ating circumstance of a!use of superior strength and, as a conse5uence, an indeterminate penalty of TW=LK= (%$) H=A2S of prision mayor as Cinimum to TW="TH ($@) H=A2S of reclusion temporal as Ca/imum is here!y imposed upon himE -. Accused0appellant Annie Ferrer is here!y ACQ<DTT=: of !eing an accomplice to the crime of Curder. C,"SD:=2D"3 that the penalty of 3eclusion 5erpetua has !een imposed in the instant consolidated cases, the said cases are now here!y certified to the Ionora!le Supreme Court for re#iew. ,> >etitioners filed 3.2. "os. %@8$8@08- under 2ule '+ of the 2e#ised 2ules of Court inasmuch as *oselito Tamayo was not sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 3.2. "os. %%'&-%0-- was certified to us for automatic re#iew of the decision of the Court of Appeals against the four accused0appellants sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 1efore this court, accused0appellants assign the following errors9

D TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: WI=" DT ",T=: TIAT TI= ACC<S=: FADL=: T, CDT= A"HTID"3 ," 2=C,2: T, S<>>,2T TI=D2 AK=2C="T TIAT TI=2= W=2= ", WDT"=SS=S WI, IAK= C,C= F,2WA2: T, D:="TDFH TI= >=2S,"S 2=S>,"SD1L= F,2 TI= :=ATI ,F ST=>I=" SALC=:,. DD TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" 3DKD"3 C2=:="C= T, TI= <"2=LDA1L=, :,<1TF<L, S<S>DCD,<S A": D"C,"CL<SDK= T=STDC,"D=S ,F >2,S=C<TD," WDT"=SS 2A"<LF, S<CDLA"3. DDD TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS LD;=WDS= =22=: D" FD":D"3 TI= ACC<S=: 3<DLTH WI=" TI=2= WAS ", =KD:="C= T, >2,K= TIAT A"H ,F TI= ACC<S=: CA22D=: A IA2: A": 1L<"T D"ST2<C="T, TI= A:CDTT=: CA<S= ,F TI= I=C,22IA3= 2=S<LTD"3 D" TI= :=ATI ,F TI= :=C=AS=:. DK TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" FD":D"3 TIAT TI=2= =GDSTS C,"S>D2ACH AC,"3 TI= >2D"CD>AL ACC<S=:. K TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" FD":D"3 TIAT TI= C2DC= C,CCDTT=: DS C<2:=2 A": ",T :=ATI (I,CDCD:=) CA<S=: D" A T<C<LT<,<S AFF2AH. ,Dn their additional !rief, appellants contend that9 D TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" 2=ACID"3 A C,"CL<SD," ,F FACT <TDLDTD"3 S>=C<LATD,"S, S<2CDS=S, ","0S=Q<DT<2 C,"CL<SD,"S, A": =K=" TI= :DS><T=: :=CDSD," ,F TI= T2DAL C,<2T, T, <>I,L: TI= KALD:DTH ,F TI= K=2H SAC= *<:3C="T, ALL C,"T2A2H T, TI= 2<L=S ,F =KD:="C=. DD TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS =22=: D" A:CDTTD"3 =GID1DTS B:B, B3B, B,B, B>B, BKB, T, BK0'8B, BWB T, BW0%-B, ALL ,F WIDCI W=2= ",T >2,>=2LH D:="TDFD=:. DDD TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" C,"CL<:D"3 TIAT C,"S>D2ACH =GDST=: D" TI= CAS= AT 1A2 :DS2=3A2:D"3 ALT,3=TI=2 TI= S=TTL=: *<2DS>2<:="C= ," TI= CATT=2. DK TI= I,",2A1L= C,<2T ,F A>>=ALS 32AK=LH =22=: D" 2<LD"3 TIAT TI= C2DC= C,CCDTT=: WAS C<2:=2, ",T :=ATI (I,CDCD:=) D" T<C<LT<,<S AFF2AH SD:=ST=>>D"3 D" TI= >2,C=SS TI= FACT<AL 32,<":S S<22,<":D"3 TI= D"CD:="T. ,? Appellants mainly claim that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the testimonies of the two in prosecution eyewitnesses, 2anulfo Sumilang and 2enato 1anculo, !ecause they are unrelia!le, dou!tful and do not deser#e

any credence. According to them, the testimonies of these two witnesses are suspect !ecause they surfaced only after a reward was announced !y 3eneral Lim. 2enato 1anculo e#en su!mitted three sworn statements to the police geared at pro#iding a new or impro#ed #ersion of the incident. ,n the witness stand, he mistakenly identified a detention prisoner in another case as accused 2olando Fernande4. ,* 2anulfo Sumilang was e#asi#e and unresponsi#e prompting the trial court to reprimand him se#eral times. ,= There is no proof that 1anculo or Sumilang testified !ecause of the reward announced !y 3eneral Lim, much less that !oth or either of them e#er recei#ed such reward from the go#ernment. ,n the contrary, the e#idence shows that Sumilang reported the incident to the police and su!mitted his sworn statement immediately two hours after the mauling, e#en !efore announcement of any reward. ,( Ie informed the police that he would cooperate with them and identify SalcedoAs assailants if he saw them again. ): The fact that 1anculo e/ecuted three sworn statements does not make them and his testimony incredi!le. The sworn statements were made to identify more suspects who were apprehended during the in#estigation of SalcedoAs death. )+ The records show that Sumilang was admonished se#eral times !y the trial court on the witness stand for !eing argumentati#e and e#asi#e. ), This is not enough reason to re ect SumilangAs testimony for he did not e/hi!it this undesira!le conduct all throughout his testimony. ,n the whole, his testimony was correctly gi#en credence !y the trial court despite his e#asi#eness at some instances. =/cept for compelling reasons, we cannot distur! the way trial courts cali!rate the credence of witnesses considering their #isual #iew of the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand. As trial courts, they can !est appreciate the #er!al and non0#er!al dimensions of a witnessA testimony. 1anculoAs mistake in identifying another person as one of the accused does not make him an entirely untrustworthy witness. )) Dt does not make his whole testimony a falsity. An honest mistake is not inconsistent with a truthful testimony. >erfect testimonies cannot !e e/pected from persons with imperfect senses. Dn the courtAs discretion, therefore, the testimony of a witness can !e !elie#ed as to some facts !ut dis!elie#ed with respect to the others. )> We sustain the appellate and trial courtsA findings that the witnessesA testimonies corro!orate each other on all important and rele#ant details of the principal occurrence. Their positi#e identification of all petitioners i!e with each other and their narration of the e#ents are supported !y the medical and documentary e#idence on record. :r. 2o!erto 3arcia, the medico0legal officer of the "ational 1ureau of Dn#estigation, testified that the #ictim had #arious wounds on his !ody which could ha#e !een inflicted !y pressure from more than one hard o! ect. )- The contusions and a!rasions found could ha#e !een caused !y punches, kicks and !lows from rough stones. )? The fatal in ury of intracranial hemorrhage was a result of fractures in SalcedoAs skull which may ha#e !een caused !y contact with a hard and !lunt o! ect such as fist!lows, kicks and a !lunt wooden instrument. )* Appellants do not deny that Salcedo was mauled, kicked and punched. Sumilang in fact testified that Salcedo was pummeled !y his assailants with stones in their hands. )= Appellants also contend that although the appellate court correctly disregarded =/hi!its B:,B B3,B and B>,B it erroneously ga#e e#identiary weight to =/hi!its B,,B BK,B BK0%B to BK0'8,B BW,B BW0%B to BW0%-.B )( =/hi!it B,B is the *oint Affida#it of >at. Flores and >at. 1autista, the police intelligence0operati#es who witnessed the rally and su!se5uent dispersal operation. >at. Flores properly identified =/hi!it B,B as his sworn statement and in fact ga#e testimony corro!orating the contents thereof. >: 1esides, the *oint Affida#it merely reiterates what the other prosecution witnesses testified to. Ddentification !y >at. 1autista is a surplusage. Df appellants wanted to impeach the said affida#it, they should ha#e placed >at. Flores on the witness stand. =/hi!its BK,B BK0%B to BK0'8B are photographs taken of the #ictim as he was !eing mauled at the Luneta N starting from a grassy portion to the pa#ement at the 2i4al Conument and along 2o/as 1oule#ard, >+ N as he was !eing chased !y his assailants >, and as he sat pleading with his assailants. >) =/hi!its BWB, BW0%B to BW0%-B are photographs of Salcedo and the mauling pu!lished in local newspapers and maga4ines such as the >hilippine Star, >> Cr. and Cs. Caga4ine, >- >hilippine :aily Dn5uirer, >? and the Calaya. >* The admissi!ility of these photographs is !eing 5uestioned !y appellants for lack of proper identification !y the person or persons who took the same. The rule in this urisdiction is that photographs, when presented in e#idence, must !e identified !y the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. >= The #alue of this kind of e#idence lies in its !eing a correct representation or reproduction of the original, >( and its admissi!ility is determined !y its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. -: The photographer, howe#er, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. -+ The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the o! ect portrayed can

!e pro#ed prima -acie, either !y the testimony of the person who made it or !y other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it su! ect to impeachment as to its accuracy. -, >hotographs, therefore, can !e identified !y the photographer or !y any other competent witness who can testify to its e/actness and accuracy. -) This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs as part of its e#idence, appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo La4aro, *r. o! ected to their admissi!ility for lack of proper identification. -> Iowe#er, when the accused presented their e#idence, Atty. Winlo#e :umayas, counsel for accused *oselito Tamayo and 3erry "eri used =/hi!its BKB, BK0%B to BK0'8B to pro#e that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could not ha#e participated in the mauling of the #ictim. -- The photographs were adopted !y appellant *oselito Tamayo and accused 3erry "eri as part of the defense e/hi!its. And at this hearing, Atty. :umayas represented all the other accused per understanding with their respecti#e counsels, including Atty. La4aro, who were a!sent. At su!se5uent hearings, the prosecution used the photographs to cross0e/amine all the accused who took the witness stand. -? "o o! ection was made !y counsel for any of the accused, not until Atty. La4aro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a continuing o! ection to their admissi!ility. -* The o! ection of Atty. La4aro to the admissi!ility of the photographs is anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not presented to identify them. We rule that the use of these photographs !y some of the accused to show their alleged non0participation in the crime is an admission of the e/actness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants 2ichard de los Santos, "ilo >acadar and *oel Tan identified themsel#es therein and ga#e reasons for their presence thereat. -= An analysis of the photographs 2is,a,2is the accusedAs testimonies re#eal that only three of the appellants, namely, 2ichard de los Santos, "ilo >acadar and *oel Tan could !e readily seen in #arious !elligerent poses lunging or ho#ering !ehind or o#er the #ictim. -( Appellant 2omeo Sison appears only once and he, although afflicted with hernia is shown merely running after the #ictim. ?:Appellant *oselito Tamayo was not identified in any of the pictures. The a!sence of the two appellants in the photographs does not e/culpate them. The photographs did not capture the entire se5uence of the killing of Salcedo !ut only segments thereof. While the pictures did not record Sison and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they were une5ui#ocally identified !y Sumilang and 1anculo ?+AppellantsA denials and ali!is cannot o#ercome their eye!all identification. Appellants claim that the lower courts erred in finding the e/istence of conspiracy among the principal accused and in con#icting them of murder 5ualified !y a!use of superior strength, not death in tumultuous affray. :eath in a tumultuous affray is defined in Article $+% of the 2e#ised >enal code as follows9 Art. $+%. :eath caused in a tumultuous affray. N When, while se#eral persons, not composing groups organi4ed for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, 5uarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot !e ascertained who actually killed the deceased, !ut the person or persons who inflicted serious physical in uries can !e identified, such person or persons shall !e punished !y prison mayor. Df it cannot !e determined who inflicted the serious physical in uries on the deceased, the penalty ofprision correccional in its medium and ma/imum periods shall !e imposed upon all those who shall ha#e used #iolence upon the person of the #ictim. For this article to apply, it must !e esta!lished that9 (%) there !e se#eral personsE ($) that they did not compose groups organi4ed for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocallyE (-) these se#eral persons 5uarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous mannerE (') someone was killed in the course of the affrayE (+) it cannot !e ascertained who actually killed the deceasedE and (6) that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical in uries or who used #iolence can !e identified. ?, A tumultuous affray takes place when a 5uarrel occurs !etween se#eral persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot !e ascertained. ?) The 5uarrel in the instant case, if it can !e called a 5uarrel, was !etween one distinct group and one indi#idual. Confusion may ha#e occurred !ecause of the police dispersal of the rallyists, !ut this confusion su!sided e#entually after the loyalists fled to Caria ,rosa Street. Dt was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as

loyalists picked on one defenseless indi#idual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches, kicks and !lows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous 5uarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident. ?> As the lower courts found, the #ictimAs assailants were numerous !y as much as fifty in num!er ?- and were armed with stones with which they hit the #ictim. They took ad#antage of their superior strength and e/cessi#e force and frustrated any attempt !y Salcedo to escape and free himself. They followed Salcedo from the Chinese 3arden to the 2i4al Conument se#eral meters away and hit him mercilessly e#en when he was already fallen on the ground. There was a time when Salcedo was a!le to get up, prop himself against the pa#ement and wipe off the !lood from his face. 1ut his attackers continued to pursue him relentlessly. Salcedo could not defend himself nor could he find means to defend himself. Sumilang tried to sa#e him from his assailants !ut they continued !eating him, hitting Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for mercy !ut they ignored his pleas until he finally lost consciousness. The deli!erate and prolonged use of superior strength on a defenseless #ictim 5ualifies the killing to murder. Treachery as a 5ualifying circumstance cannot !e appreciated in the instant case. There is no proof that the attack on Salcedo was deli!erately and consciously chosen to ensure the assailantsA safety from any defense the #ictim could ha#e made. True, the attack on Salcedo was sudden and une/pected !ut it was apparently !ecause of the fact that he was wearing a yellow t0shirt or !ecause he allegedly flashed the BLa!anB sign against the rallyists, taunting them into mauling him. As the appellate court well found, Salcedo had the opportunity to sense the temper of the rallyists and run away from them !ut he, unfortunately, was o#ertaken !y them. The essence of treachery is the sudden and une/pected attack without the slightest pro#ocation on the part of the person !eing attacked. ?? The 5ualifying circumstance of e#ident premeditation was alleged in the information against *oselito Tamayo. =#ident premeditation cannot !e appreciated in this case !ecause the attack against Salcedo was sudden and spontaneous, spurred !y the raging animosity against the so0called BCoryistas.B Dt was not preceded !y cool thought and reflection. We find howe#er the e/istence of a conspiracy among appellants. At the time they were committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose among them, a concerted effort to !ring a!out the death of Salcedo. Where a conspiracy e/isted and is pro#ed, a showing as to who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal wound is not re5uired to sustain a con#iction. ?* =ach of the conspirators is lia!le for all acts of the others regardless of the intent and character of their participation, !ecause the act of one is the act of all. ?= The trial court awarded the heirs of Salcedo >7',@@@.@@ as actual damages, >-@,@@@.@@ as moral and e/emplary damages, and one half of the costs of the suit. At the time he died on *uly $7, %&86, Salcedo was twenty three years old and was set to lea#e on August ', %&86 for employment in Saudi Ara!ia. ?( The reckless disregard for such a young personAs life and the anguish wrought on his widow and three small children, *: warrant an increase in moral damages from >-@,@@@.@@ to >%@@,@@@.@@. The indemnity of >+@,@@@.@@ must also !e awarded for the death of the #ictim. *+ D" KD=W WI=2=,F, the decision appealed from is here!y affirmed and modified as follows9 %. Accused0appellants 2omeo Sison, "ilo >acadar, *oel Tan and 2ichard de los Santos are found 3<DLTH !eyond reasona!le dou!t of Curder without any aggra#ating or mitigating circumstance and are each here!y sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaE $. Accused0appellant *oselito Tamayo is found 3<DLTH !eyond reasona!le dou!t of the crime of Iomicide with the generic aggra#ating circumstance of a!use of superior strength and, as a conse5uence, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of TW=LK= (%$) H=A2S of prision mayoras minimum to TW="TH ($@) H=A2S of reclusion temporal as ma/imumE -. All accused0appellants are here!y ordered to pay ointly and se#erally the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the following amounts9 (a) >7',@@@.@@ as actual damagesE (!) >%@@,@@@.@@ as moral damagesE and (c) >+@,@@@.@@ as indemnity for the death of the #ictim. Costs against accused0appellants.

S, ,2:=2=:.

G. . No. +)+-+?

March -. ,::)

P"OP/" OF 01" P12/2PP2N"S. plaintiff0appellee, #s. ONN2" 6//"PA 4 G62N0O. accused0appellant. 7A P2O MO A/"S. J.@ ,n complaint of Cyra Cay Francisco 1uenafe, accused0appellant 2onnie 2ullepa y 3uinto was charged with 2ape !efore the 2egional Trial Court (2TC) of Que4on City allegedly committed as follows9 That on or a!out the %7th day of "o#em!er, %&&+, in Que4on City, >hilippines, the said accused, !y means of force and intimidation, to wit9 !y then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remo#ing her parity, kissing her lips and #agina and thereafter ru!!ing his penis and inserting the same to the inner portion of the #agina of the undersigned complainant, - years of age, a minor, against her will and without her consent. % Arraigned on *anuary %+, %&&6, accused0appellant pleaded not guilty. $ From the testimonies of its witnesses, namely Cyra Cay, - her mother 3loria Francisco 1uenafe, :r. Cristina K. >reyra, and S>,' Catherine 1orda, the prosecution esta!lished the following facts9 ,n "o#em!er $@, %&&+, as 3loria was a!out to set the ta!le for dinner at her house in Que4on City, Cyra Cay, then only three and a half years old, told her, BCama, si +uya 3onnie la)ay niya titi niya at sina+sa+ sa pu*it at sa bibi) +o .B B6uya 2onnieB is accused0appellant 2onnie 2ullepa, the 1uenafesA house !oy, who was sometimes left with Cyra Cay at home. 3loria asked Cyra Cay how many times accused0appellant did those things to her, to which she answered many times. >ursuing, 3loria asked Cyra Cay what else he did to her, and Cyra Cay indicated the room where accused0appellant slept and pointed at his pillow. As on the night of "o#em!er $@, %&&+ accused0appellant was out with 3loriaAs hus!and Col. 1uenafe, ' she waited until their arri#al at past %%9@@ p.m. 3loria then sent accused0appellant out on an errand and informed her hus!and a!out their daughterAs plaint. 1uenafe thereupon talked to Cyra Cay who repeated what she had earlier told her mother 3loria. When accused0appellant returned, 1uenafe and 3loria #erified from him whether what Cyra Cay had told them was true. 2onnie readily admitted doing those things !ut only once, at '9@@ p.m. of "o#em!er %7, %&&+ or three days earlier. <na!le to contain her anger, 3loria slapped accused0appellant se#eral times. Since it was already midnight, the spouses waited until the following morning to !ring accused0appellant to Camp ;aringal where he admitted the imputations against him, on account of which he was detained. 3loriaAs sworn statement + was then taken.6 2ecalling what accused0appellant did to her, Cyra Cay declared at the witness stand9 B Sina+sa+ nya an) titi sa pepe +o, sa pu*it +o, at sa bun)an)a,B thus causing her pain and drawing her to cry. She added that accused0appellant did these to her twice in his !edroom.

:r. Ca. Cristina K. >reyra, the Cedico0Legal ,fficer and Chief of the 1iological Science 1ranch of the >hilippine "ational >olice Crime La!oratory who e/amined Cyra Cay, came up with her report dated "o#em!er $%, %&&+, 7containing the following findings and conclusions9 FD":D"3S9 3="=2AL A": =GT2A 3="DTAL9 Fairly de#eloped, fairly nourished and coherent female child su! ect. 1reasts are unde#eloped. A!domen is flat and soft. 3="DTAL9 There is a!sence of pu!ic hair. La!ia ma ora are full, con#e/ and coaptated with con#ested and aBraded laBia minora presentin# in Bet'een. ,n separating the same is disclosed an a!raded posterior fourchette and an elastic, fleshy type intact hymen. =/ternal #aginal orifice does not admit the tip of the e/amining inde/ finger. /// /// ///

C,"CL<SD,"9 Su! ect is in #irgin state physically. There are no e/ternal signs of recent application of any form of trauma at the time of e/amination. (=mphasis supplied.) 1y :r. >reyraAs e/planation, the a!rasions on the labia minora could ha#e !een caused !y friction with an o! ect, perhaps an erect penis. She dou!ted if riding on a !icycle had caused the in uries. 8 The defenseAs sole witness was accused0appellant, who was $8 and single at the time he took the witness stand on *une &, %&&7. Ie denied ha#ing anything to do with the a!rasions found in Cyra CayAs genitalia, and claimed that prior to the alleged incident, he used to !e ordered to !uy medicine for Cyra Cay who had difficulty urinating. Ie further alleged that after he refused to answer 3loriaAs 5ueries if her hus!and 1uenafe, whom he usually accompanied whene#er he went out of the house, was womani4ing, 3loria would always find fault in him. Ie suggested that 3loria was !ehind the filing of the complaint. Thus9 5 According to them you caused the a!rasions found in her genitalP

a That is not true, sir, 5 Df that is not true, what is the truthP

a As D ha#e mentioned earlier that !efore D started working with the family D was sent to Crame to !uy medicine for the daughter !ecause she had difficulty in urinating. 5 :id you know why the child has difficulty in urinatingP

a "o, D do not know, sir. 5 And how a!out the present complaint filed against you, the complaint filed !y the mother of the #ictimP

a D did not do it, sir. 5 What is the truth, what can you say a!out this present complaint filed against youP

a As D said Crs. 1uenafe got mad at me !ecause after D e/plained to her that D was going with her gus!and (sic) to the children of the hus!and with a former marriage. &

Finding for the prosecution, 1ranch &6 of the Que4on City 2TC rendered udgment, the dispositi#e portion of which reads9 WI=2=F,2=, udgment is here!y rendered finding accused 2,""D= 2<LL=>A y 3<D"T, guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t of rape, and he is accordingly sentenced to death. The accused is ordered to pay CH2A CA= 1<="AF= the amount of >'@,@@@.@@ as ci2il indemnity. Costs to !e paid !y the accused.%@ (Dtalics in the original.) Ience, this automatic re#iew, accused0appellant assigning the following errors to the trial court9 D TI= C,<2T A Q<, =22=: D" C,"SD:=2D"3 AS A:CDSSD1L= D" =KD:="C= TI= ACC<S=:0 A>>=LLA"TAS A:CDSSD,". DD TI= C,<2T A Q<, =22=: ," (sic) 2<LD"3 TIAT TI= ACC<S=:0A>>=LLA"TAS SDL="C= :<2D"3 T2DAL AC,<"T=: T, A" DC>LD=: A:CDSSD," ,F 3<DLT. DDD TI= C,<2T A Q<, =22=: D" FD":D"3 TIAT TI= 3<DLT ,F TI= ACC<S=:0A>>=LLA"T F,2 TI= C2DC= CIA23=: IAS 1==" >2,K=" 1=H,": 2=AS,"A1L= :,<1T. DK TI= C,<2T A Q<, 32AK=LH =22=: D" DC>,SD"3 TI= S<>2=C= >="ALTH ,F :=ATI <>," TI= ACC<S=:0A>>=LLA"T.%% (=mphasis supplied.) Accused0appellant assails the crediting !y the trial court, as the following portion of its decision shows, of his admission to 3loria of ha#ing se/ually assaulted Cyra Cay9 Dn addition, the mother asserted that 2ullepa had admitted Cyra Ca(y)As complaint during the confrontation in the house. Dndeed, according to the mother, the admission was e#en e/pressly $uali-ied !y 2ullepaAs insistence that he had committed the se/ual assault only once, specifying the time thereof as '9@@ pm of "o#em!er %7, %&&+. That 5ualification pro#ed that the admission was #oluntary and true. An uncoerced and truthful admission like this should !e a!solutely admissi!le and competent. /// /// ///

2emarka!ly, the admission was not denied !y the accused during trial despite his freedom to deny it if untrue. Ience, the admission !ecame conclusi#e upon him.%$ (=mphasis supplied.) To accused0appellant, the statements attri!uted to him are inadmissi!le since they were made out of fear, ha#ing !een elicited only after Cyra CayAs parents B!ullied and 5uestioned him.B Ie thus su!mits that it was error for the trial court to take his failure to deny the statements during the trial as an admission of guilt. Accused0appellantAs su!mission does not persuade. The trial court considered his admission merely as anadditional ground to con#ince itself of his culpa!ility. =#en if such admission, as well as the implication of his failure to deny the same, were disregarded, the e#idence suffices to esta!lish his guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t. The plain, matter0of0fact manner !y which Cyra Cay descri!ed her a!use in the hands of her 6uya 2onnie is an elo5uent testament to the truth of her accusations. Thus she testified on direct e/amination9 5 :o you recall if 2onnie 2ullepa did anything to youP

a 5 a 5 a

Hes, sir. What did he do to youP BSinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at sa !ungangaB Iow many times did he do that to youP Twice, sir. /// /// ///

5 a 5

:o you remem!er when he did these things to youP ,po. When was thatP

a When my mother was asleep, he put N he remo#ed my panty and inserted his penis inside my #agina, my anus and my mouth, sir. /// 5 a 5 a 5 a /// ///

After your ;uya 2onnie did those things to you what did you feelP BSa!i nya ganito (Witness putting her finger in her lips) "asaktan po ako at umiyak po akoB. :id you cry !ecause of hurtP Hes. What part of your !ody hurtP B>epe ko po.B When D went to the !athroom to urinate, D felt pain in my organ, sir. %-

Cyra Cay reiterated her testimony during cross0e/amination, pro#iding more re#olting details of her ordeal9 5 a So, you said that ;uya 2onnie did something to you what did he do to you on "o#em!er %7, %&&+P BSinaksak nga yong titi nyaB. Ie inserted his penis to my organ and to my mouth, sir. /// /// ///

5 When you said that your kuya 2onnie inserted his penis into your organ, into your mouth, and into your anus, would you descri!e what N his penisP a Court9 Ds this titi of your kuya 2onnie a part of his !odyP a 5 ,po. Was that in the head of kuya 2onnieP Dt is a round o! ect, sir.

a 5

"o, sir. Which part of his !ody that titi locatedP

(Witness pointing to her groin area) Court9 Continue /// 5 a 5 a 5 a 5 a 5 a /// ///

Why were you in that roomP 3usto nya po matulog ako sa kuwarto niya. When you were in that room, what did ;uya 2onnie do to youP BIinu!o po niya ang panty ko.B And after he remo#e your panty, what did ;uya 2onnie do, what did he do to youP Ie inserted his penis to my organ, sir. Why did kuya 2onnie, was kuya 2onnie already naked or he was already wearing any clothingP Still had his clothing on, sir. So, where did his penis, saan luma!as ang penis ni ;uya 2onnieP :ito po, (Witness referring or pointing to her groin area) /// /// ///

5 a 5 a 5 a 5 a

So, thatAs the N and at the time, you did not cry and you did not shout for helpP Sa!i nya po, not to make any noise !ecause my mother might !e roused from sleep. Iow long was kuya 2onnie did that to youP Catagal po. After kuya 2onnie scru! his penis to your #agina, what other things did he doP After that he inserted his penis to my mouth, and to my anus, sir. Hou did not complain and you did not shoutP D cried, sir.%'

Accused0appellant draws attention to the statement of Cyra Cay that he was not in the house on "o#em!er %7 (%&&+), as reflected in the following transcript of her testimony9 5 Ds it not a fact that you said a while ago that when your father lea#es the house, he (was) usually accompanied !y your kuya 2onnieP

a 5 a

,po. Why is it that ;uya 2onnie was in the house when your father left the house at that time, on "o#em!er %7P Ie was with ;uya 2onnie, sir.

5 So, it is not correct that kuya 2onnie did something to you !ecause your kuya 2onnie (was) always with your >apaP a Hes, sir.%+

The a!o#e05uoted testimony of Cyra Cay does not indicate the time when her father Col. 1uenafe left their house on "o#em!er %7, %&&+ with accused0appellant and, thus, does not preclude accused0appellantAs commission of rape on the same date. Dn any e#ent, a young child is #ulnera!le to suggestion, hence, her affirmati#e response to the defense counselAs a!o#e05uoted leadin# 5uestions. As for the #ariance in the claim regarding when 3loria was informed of the rape, 3loria ha#ing testified that she learned of it on "o#em!er $@, %&&+%6 while Cyra Cay said that immediately after the incident, she awakened her mother who was in the ad acent room and reported it9 %7 This is a minor matter that does not detract from Cyra CayAs categorical, material testimony that accused0appellant inserted his penis into her #agina. Accused0appellant goes on to contend that Cyra Cay was coached, citing the following portion of her testimony9 5 a BHong sina!i mong sinira nya ang !uhay mo,B where did you get that phraseP Dt was the word of my Cama, sir.%8

,n the contrary, the foregoing testimony indicates that Cyra Cay was really narrating the truth, that of hearing her mother utter Bsinira niya an) buhay mo.B Accused0appellantAs suggestion that Cyra Cay merely imagined the things of which he is accused, perhaps getting the idea from tele#ision programs, is preposterous. Dt is true that Bthe ordinary child is a Ygreat wea#er of romances,BA and her Bimagination may induce (her) to relate something she has heard or read in a story as personal e/perience.B %& 1ut Cyra CayAs account is hardly the stuff of romance or fairy tales. "either is it normal TK fare, if at all. This Court cannot !elie#e that a #ictim of Cyra CayAs age could concoct a tale of defloration, allow the e/amination of her pri#ate parts, and undergo the e/pense, trou!le, incon#enience, not to mention the trauma of pu!lic trial.B $@ 1esides, her testimony is corro!orated !y the findings of :r. >reyra that there were a!rasions in her labia minora, which she opined, could ha#e !een caused !y friction with an erect penis. This Court thus accords great weight to the following assessment of the trial court regarding the competency and credi!ility of Cyra Cay as a witness9 Ier #ery tender age notwithstanding, Cyra Ca(y) nonetheless appeared to possess the necessary intelligence and percepti#eness sufficient to in#est her with the competence to testify a!out her e/perience. She might ha#e !een an impressiona!le child N as all others of her age are N !ut her narration of 6uya2onnieAs placing his BtitiB in her BpepeB was certainly one which could not !e considered as a common childAs tale. Ier responses during the e/amination of counsel and of the Court esta!lished her consciousness of the distinction !etween )ood and bad, which rendered inconcei#a!le for her to descri!e a B!adB act of the accused unless it really happened to her. "eedless to state, she descri!ed the act of the accused as !ad. Ier demeanor as a witness N manifested during trial !y her unhesitant, spontaneous, and plain responses to 5uestions N further enhanced her claim to credit and trustworthiness. $% (Dtalics in the original.) Dn a futile attempt at e/culpation, accused0appellant claims that e#en !efore the alleged incident Cyra Cay was already suffering from pain in urinating. Ie surmises that she could ha#e scratched herself which caused the a!rasions. :r. >reyra, howe#er, was 5uick to rule out this possi!ility. She stated categorically that that part of the female organ is #ery sensiti#e and ru!!ing or scratching it is painful.$$ The a!rasions could not, therefore, ha#e !een self0inflicted.

That the Cedical0Legal ,fficer found Bno e/ternal signs of recent application of any form of trauma at the time of the e/aminationB does not preclude accused0appellantAs con#iction since the infliction of force is immaterial in statutory rape. $Core. That Cyra Cay suffered pain in her #agina !ut not in her anus despite her testimony that accused0appellant inserted his penis in !oth orifices does not diminish her credi!ility. Dt is possi!le that accused0appellantAs penis failed to penetrate her anus as deeply as it did her #agina, the former !eing more resistant to e/treme forces than the latter. Accused0appellantAs imputation of ill moti#e on the part of 3loria is puerile. "o mother in her right mind would su! ect her child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape if she were not moti#ated solely !y the desire to incarcerate the person responsi!le for the childAs defilement. $' Courts are seldom, if at all, con#inced that a mother would stoop so low as to su! ect her daughter to physical hardship and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution ust to assuage her own hurt feelings.$+ Alternati#ely, accused0appellant prays that he !e held lia!le for acts of lasci#iousness instead of rape, apparently on the !asis of the following testimony of Cyra Cay, 5uoted 2erbatim, that he merely Bscru!!edB his penis against her #agina9 5 a 5 a Ds it not a fact that kuya 2onnie ust made some scru!!ed his penis into your #aginaP Hes, Sir. And when N he did not actually penetrated your #aginaP Hes, sir.$6

:r. >reyra, howe#er, found a!rasions in the labia minora, which is Bdirectly !eneath the labia ma;ora,B$7 pro#ing that there was indeed penetration of the #agina, not ust a mere ru!!ing or Bscru!!ingB of the penis against its surface. Dn fine, the crime committed !y accused0appellant is not merely acts of lasci#iousness !ut statutory rape. The two elements of statutory rape are (%) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and ($) that the woman is !elow twel#e years of age. $8 As shown in the pre#ious discussion, the first element, carnal knowledge, had !een esta!lished !eyond reasona!le dou!t. The same is true with respect to the second element. The #ictimAs age is rele#ant in rape cases since it may constitute an element of the offense. Article --+ of the 2e#ised >enal Code, as amended !y 2epu!lic Act "o. 76+&,$& pro#ides9 Art. --+. .hen and ho* rape is committed . N 2ape is committed !y ha#ing carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances9 /// /// ///.

-. When the woman is under t'elve years of age . . . /// /// ///.

The crime of rape shall !e punished !y reclusion perpetua. /// /// ///.

Furthermore, the #ictimAs age may constitute a Dualifyin# circumstance, warranting the imposition of the death sentence. The same Article states9 The death penalty shall also !e imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances9 %. when the #ictim is under ei#hteen F+=G years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step0parent, guardian, relati#e !y consanguinity or affinity with the third ci#il degree, or the common0law spouse of the parent of the #ictim9

///

///

///.

'. when the #ictim is . . . a child Belo' seven F*G years old. /// /// ///.

1ecause of the seemingly conflicting decisions regarding the sufficiency of e#idence of the #ictimAs age in rape cases, this Court, in the recently decided case of 5eople 2. 5runa,-@ esta!lished a set of guidelines in appreciating age as an element of the crime or as a 5ualifying circumstance, to wit9 %. The !est e#idence to pro#e the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of li#e !irth of such party. $. Dn the a!sence of a certificate of li#e !irth, similar authentic documents such as !aptismal certificate and school records which show the date of !irth of the #ictim would suffice to pro#e age. -. Df the certificate of li#e !irth or authentic document is shown to ha#e !een lost or destroyed or otherwise una#aila!le, the testimony, if clear and credi!le, of the #ictimAs mother or a mem!er of the family either !y affinity or consanguinity who is 5ualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the e/act age or date of !irth of the offended party pursuant to Section '@, 2ule %-@ of the 2ules on =#idence shall !e sufficient under the following circumstances9 a. Df the #ictim is alleged to !e !elow - years of age and what is sought to !e pro#ed is that she is less than 7 years oldE !. Df the #ictim is alleged to !e !elow 7 years of age and what is sought to !e pro#ed is that she is less than %$ years oldE c. Df the #ictim is alleged to !e !elow %$ years of age and what is sought to !e pro#ed is that she is less than %8 years old. '. Dn the a!sence of a certificate of li#e !irth, authentic document, or the testimony of the #ictimAs mother or relati#es concerning the #ictimAs age, the complainantAs testimony will suffice pro#ided that it is e/pressly and clearly admitted !y the accused. +. Dt is the prosecution that has the !urden of pro#ing the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to o! ect to the testimonial e#idence regarding age shall not !e taken against him. 6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the #ictim. Applying the foregoing guidelines, this Court in the 5runa case held that the therein accused0appellant could only !e sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua since9 . . . no !irth certificate or any similar authentic document, such as a !aptismal certificate of LDT=TT=, was presented to pro#e her age. . . . . /// /// ///.

Iowe#er, the Cedico0Legal 2eport relied upon !y the trial court does not in any way pro#e the age of LDT=TT=, for there is nothing therein which e#en mentions her age. ,nly testimonial e#idence was presented to esta!lish LDT=TT=As age. Ier mother, *ac5ueline, testified (that the #ictim was three years old at the time of the commission of the crime). /// /// ///

Likewise, LDT=TT= testified on $@ "o#em!er %&&6, or almost two years after the incident, that she was + years old. Iowe#er, when the defense counsel asked her how old she was on - *anuary %&&+, or at the time of the

rape, she replied that she was + years old. <pon further 5uestion as to the date she was !orn, she could not answer. For >2<"A to !e con#icted of rape in its 5ualified form and meted the supreme penalty of death, it must !e esta!lished with certainty that LDT=TT= was !elow 7 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. Dt must !e stressed that the se#erity of the death penalty, especially its irre#ersi!le and final nature once carried out, makes the decision0making process in capital offenses aptly su! ect to the most e/acting rules of procedure and e#idence. Dn #iew of the uncertainty of LDT=TT=As e/act age, corro!orati#e e#idence such as her !irth certificate, !aptismal certificate or any other authentic document should !e introduced in e#idence in order that the 5ualifying circumstance of B!elow se#en (7) years oldB is appreciated against the appellant. The lack of o! ection on the part of the defense as to her age did not e/cuse the prosecution from discharging its !urden. That the defense in#oked LDT=TT=As tender age for purposes of 5uestioning her competency to testify is not necessarily an admission that she was !elow 7 years of age when >2<"A raped her on - *anuary %&&+. Such !eing the case, >2<"A cannot !e con#icted of 5ualified rape, and hence the death penalty cannot !e imposed on him. Iowe#er, conforma!ly with no. - (!) of the foregoing guidelines, the testimony of LDT=TT=As mother that she was - years old at the time of the commission of the crime is sufficient for purposes of holding >2<"A lia!le for statutory rape, or rape of a girl !elow %$ years of age. <nder the second paragraph of Article --+, as amended !y 2.A. "o. 76+&, in relation to no. - of the first paragraph thereof, ha#ing carnal knowledge of a woman under %$ years of age is punisha!le !y reclusion perpetua. Thus, the penalty to !e imposed on >2<"A should !e reclusion perpetua, and not death penalty. (Dtalics in the original.) Se#eral cases-% suggest that courts may take B udicial noticeB of the appearance of the #ictim in determining her age. For e/ample, the Court, in 5eople 2. Tipay,-$ 5ualified the ruling in 5eople 2. Ja2ier,-- which re5uired the presentation of the !irth certificate to pro#e the rape #ictimAs age, with the following pronouncement9 This does not mean, howe#er, that the presentation of the certificate of !irth is at all times necessary to pro#e minority. The minority of a #ictim of tender age who may !e !elow the age of ten is 5uite manifest and the court can take udicial notice thereof. The crucial years pertain to the ages of fifteen to se#enteen where minority may seem to !e du!ita!le due to oneAs physical appearance. Dn this situation, the prosecution has the !urden of pro#ing with certainty the fact that the #ictim was under %8 years of age when the rape was committed in order to ustify the imposition of the death penalty under the a!o#e0cited pro#ision. (=mphasis supplied.) ,n the other hand, a handful of cases -' holds that courts, without the re5uisite hearing prescri!ed !y Section -, 2ule %$& of the 2ules of Court,-+ cannot take udicial notice of the #ictimAs age. *udicial notice signifies that there are certain B -acta probanda,B or propositions in a partyAs case, as to which he will not !e re5uired to offer e#idenceE these will !e taken for true !y the tri!unal without the need of e#idence. -6*udicial notice, howe#er, is a phrase sometimes used in a loose way to co#er some other udicial action. Certain rules of =#idence, usually known under other names, are fre5uently referred to in terms of udicial notice. -7 The process !y which the trier of facts udges a personAs age from his or her appearance cannot !e categori4ed as udicial notice. *udicial notice is !ased upon con#enience and e/pediency for it would certainly !e superfluous, incon#enient, and e/pensi#e !oth to parties and the court to re5uire proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to courts.-8 As Tunda) puts it, it Bis the cogni4ance of certain facts which udges may properly take and act on 'ithout proof !ecause they already know them.B 2ule %$& of the 2ules of Court, where the pro#isions go#erning udicial notice are found, is entitled BWhat "eed "ot 1e >ro#ed.B When the trier of facts o!ser#es the appearance of a person to ascertain his or her age, he is not taking udicial notice of such factE rather, he is conducting an eHamination of the evidence, the e#idence !eing the appearance of the person. Such a process militates against the #ery concept of udicial notice, the o! ect of which is to do away with the presentation of e#idence. This is not to say that the process is not sanctioned !y the 2ules of CourtE on the contrary, it does. A personAs appearance, where rele#ant, is admissi!le as o! ect e#idence, the same !eing addressed to the senses of the court. Section %, 2ule %-@ pro#ides9 S=CTD," %. Ob;ect as e2idence. N ,! ects as e#idence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an o! ect is rele#ant to the fact in issue, it may !e e/hi!ited to, e/amined or #iewed !y the court.

BTo !e sure,B one author writes, Bthis practice of inspection !y the court of o! ects, things or persons rele#ant to the fact in dispute, has its roots in ancient udicial procedure.B -& The author proceeds to 5uote from another authority9 B"othing is older or commoner in the administration of law in all countries than the su!mission to the senses of the tri!unal itself, whether udge or ury, of o! ects which furnish e#idence. The #iew of the land !y the ury, in real actions, of a wound !y the udge where mayhem was alleged, and of the person of one alle#ed to Be an infant. in order to fiH his a#e, the inspection and comparison of seals, the e/amination of writings, to determine, whether they are (Y)!lemished,(A) the implements with which a crime was committed or of a person alleged, in a !astardy proceeding, to !e the child of another, are few illustrations of what may !e found a!undantly in our own legal records and te/t!ooks for se#en centuries past.B '@ (=mphasis supplied.) A personAs appearance, as e#idence of age (for e/ample, of infancy, or of Bein# under the a#e of consent to intercourse), is usually regarded as rele#antE and, if so, the tri!unal may properly o!ser#e the person !rought !efore it.'% =/perience teaches that corporal appearances are appro/imately an inde/ of the age of their !earer, particularly for the marked e/tremes of old age and youth. Dn e#ery case such e#idence should !e accepted and weighed for what it may !e in each case worth. Dn particular, the out*ard physical appearance of an alleged minor may !e considered in udging his ageE a contrary rule would for such an inference !e pedantically o#er0cautious. '$Conse5uently, the ury or the court trying an issue of fact may !e allowed to udge the age of persons in court !y o!ser#ation of such persons. '- The formal offer of the person as e#idence is not necessary. The e/amination and cross0e/amination of a party !efore the ury are e5ui#alent to e/hi!iting him !efore the ury and an offer of such person as an e/hi!it is properly refused. '' This Court itself has sanctioned the determination of an alienAs age from his appearance. Dn 1raca 2. !ollector o!ustoms,'+ this Court ruled that9 The customs authorities may also determine from the personal appearance of the immigrant what his age is. The person of a Chinese alien seeking admission into the >hilippine Dslands is e#idence in an in#estigation !y the !oard of special in5uiry to determine his right to enterE and such !ody may take into consideration his appearance to determine or assist in determining his age and a finding that the applicant is not a minor !ased upon such appearance is not without e#idence to support it. This Court has also implicitly recogni4ed the same process in a criminal case. Thus, in <nited States 2. ()adas,'6this Court held9 2osario Sa!acahan testified that he was %7 years of ageE that he had ne#er purchased a cedulaE and that he was going to purchase a cedula the following *anuary. Thereupon the court asked this defendant these 5uestions9 BHou are a pretty !ig !oy for se#enteen.B Answer9 BD cannot tell e/actly !ecause D do not remem!er when D was !orn, !ut %7 years is my guess.B Court9 BDf you are going to take ad#antage of that e/cuse, you had !etter get some positi#e e#idence to that effect.B Answer9 BD do not remem!er, as D already stated on what date and in what year D was !orn.B The court, in determining the 5uestion of the age of the defendant, 2osario Sa!acahan, said9 BThe defendant, 2osario Sa!acahan, testified that he thought that he was a!out %7 years of age, !utIud#in# By his appearance he is a youth %8 or %& years old. Ie has shown that he has no positi#e information on the su! ect and no effort was made !y the defense to pro#e the fact that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of article &, paragraph $, of the >enal code, which fact it is held to !e incum!ent upon the defense to esta!lish !y satisfactory e#idence in order to ena!le the court to gi#e an accused person the !enefit of the mitigating circumstance.B Dn <nited States #s. =sta#illo and >ere4 (%@ ,ff. 3a4., %&8') =sta#illo testified, when the case was tried in the court !elow, that he then was only %6 years of age. There was no other testimony in the record with reference to his age. 1ut the trial udge said9 BThe accused =sta#illo, notwithstanding his testimony gi#ing his age as %6 years, is, as a matter of fact, not less than $@.B This court, in passing upon the age of =sta#illo, held9 BWe presume that the trial court reached this conclusion with reference to the age of =sta#illo from the latterAs personal appearance. There is no proof in the record, as we ha#e said, which e#en tends to esta!lish the assertion that this appellant understated his age. . . . Dt is true that the trial court had an opportunity to note the personal appearance of =sta#illo for the purpose of determining his age, and !y so doing reached the conclusion that he was at least $@, ust two years o#er %8. This appellant testified that he was only %6, and this testimony stands uncontradicted. Taking into consideration the marked difference in the penalties to !e imposed upon that age, we must, therefore, conclude (resol#ing all dou!ts in fa#or of the appellants) that the appellantsA ages were %6 and %' respecti#ely.B

While it is true that in the instant case 2osario testified that he was %7 years of age, yet the trial court reached the conclusion, udging from the personal appearance of 2osario, that Bhe is a youth %8 or %& years old.B Applying the rule enunciated in the case ust cited, we must conclude that there e/ists a reasona!le dou!t, at least, with reference to the 5uestion whether 2osario was, in fact %8 years of age at the time the ro!!ery was committed. This dou!t must !e resol#ed in fa#or of the defendant, and he is, therefore, sentenced to si/ months of arresto mayor in lieu of si/ years ten months and one day of presidio mayor. . . . . There can !e no 5uestion, therefore, as to the admissiBility of a personAs appearance in determining his or her age. As to the 'ei#ht to accord such appearance, especially in rape cases, 5runa laid down guideline no. -, which is again reproduced hereunder9 -. Df the certificate of li#e !irth or authentic document is shown to ha#e !een lost or destroyed or otherwise una#aila!le, the testimony, if clear and credi!le, of the #ictimAs mother or a mem!er of the family either !y affinity or consanguinity who is 5ualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the e/act age or date of !irth of the offended party pursuant to Section '@, 2ule %-@ of the 2ules on =#idence shall !e sufficient under the following circumstances9 a. Df the #ictim is alleged to !e !elow - years of age and what is sought to !e pro#ed is that she is less than 7 years oldE !. Df the #ictim is alleged to !e !elow 7 years of age and what is sought to !e pro#ed is that she is less than %$ years oldE c. Df the #ictim is alleged to !e !elow %$ years of age and what is sought to !e pro#ed is that she is less than %8 years old. <nder the a!o#e guideline, the testimony of a relati#e with respect to the age of the #ictim is sufficient to constitute proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t in cases (a), (!) and (c) a!o#e. Dn such cases, the disparity !etween the allegation and the proof of age is so great that the court can easily determine from the appearance of the #ictim the #eracity of the testimony. The appearance corro!orates the relati#eAs testimony. As the alleged age approaches the age sought to !e pro#ed, the personAs appearance, as o! ect e#idence of her age, loses pro!ati#e #alue. :ou!t as to her true age !ecomes greater and, following ()adas, supra, such dou!t must !e resol#ed in fa#or of the accused. This is !ecause in the era of modernism and rapid growth, the #ictimAs mere physical appearance is not enough to gauge her e/act age. For the e/treme penalty of death to !e upheld, nothing !ut proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t of e#ery fact necessary to constitute the crime must !e su!stantiated. Kerily, the minority of the #ictim should !e not only alleged !ut likewise pro#ed with e5ual certainty and clearness as the crime itself. 1e it remem!ered that the proof of the #ictimAs age in the present case spells the difference !etween life and death. '7 Dn the present case, the prosecution did not offer the #ictimAs certificate of li#e !irth or similar authentic documents in e#idence. The #ictim and her mother, howe#er, testified that she was only three years old at the time of the rape. Cyra CayAs testimony goes9 5 a 5 a Hour name is Cyra Cae is that correctP Hes, sir. And you are - years oldP Hes, sir.'8

That of her mother goes9 Q A Iow old was your daughter when there things happenedP - and Z years old.

Q A

When was she !ornP Dn Canila, Cay %@, %&&$.'&

1ecause of the #ast disparity !etween the alleged age (three years old) and the age sought to !e pro#ed (!elow twel#e years), the trial court would ha#e had no difficulty ascertaining the #ictimAs age from her appearance. "o reasona!le dou!t, therefore, e/ists that the second element of statutory rape, i.e., that the #ictim was !elow twel#e years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, is present. Whether the #ictim was !elow se#en years old, howe#er, is another matter. Iere, reasona!le dou!t e/ists. A mature three and a half0year old can easily !e mistaken for an underde#eloped se#en0year old. The appearance of the #ictim, as o! ect e#idence, cannot !e accorded much weight and, following 5runa, the testimony of the mother is, !y itself, insufficient. As it has not !een esta!lished with moral certainty that Cyra Cay was !elow se#en years old at the time of the commission of the offense, accused0appellant cannot !e sentenced to suffer the death penalty. ,nly the penalty of reclusion perpetua can !e imposed upon him. Dn line with settled urisprudence, the ci#il indemnity awarded !y the trial court is increased to >+@,@@@.@@. Dn addition, Cyra Cay is entitled to an award of moral damages in the amount of >+@,@@@.@@. +@ 31" "FO ", the :ecision of the 2egional Trial Court of Que4on City, 1ranch &6, is AFF2 M"D withMOD2F27A02ON. Accused0appellant 2onnie 2ullepa y 3uinto is found G62/04 of Statutory 2ape, defined and punished !y Article --+ (-) of the 2e#ised >enal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Ie is ordered to pay pri#ate complainant, Cyra Cay 1uenafe y Francisco, the amount of >+@,@@@.@@ as ci#il indemnity and >+@,@@@.@@ as moral damages. SO O D" "D.

G. . No. +>??)- DecemBer +>. ,::MA 7"/O MA7A/2NAO. SuBstituted By "SP" AN8A MA7A/2NAO and AN0ON2O MA7A/2NAO. >etitioners, #s. "DD2" M"D"72"/O ONG and G"NO!"!O S"5AS02AN. 2espondents. :=CDSD," 0in#a. J.@ 1efore this Court is a 5etition -or 3e2ie* on !ertiorari assailing the /ecision% and 3esolution$ of the Court of Appeals dated -% Cay $@@@ and 7 Septem!er $@@@, respecti#ely, in CA03.2. CK "o. +$&6-. The Court of Appeals re#ersed the udgment of the trial court and dismissed the complaint for damages filed !y Carcelo Cacalinao (Cacalinao) against =ddie Cedecielo ,ng (,ng) and 3eno#e#o Se!astian (Se!astian) for insufficiency of e#idence. The antecedent facts follow. Cacalinao and ,ng were employed as utility man and dri#er, respecti#ely, at the 3enetron Dnternational Carketing (3enetron), a single proprietorship owned and operated !y Se!astian. ,n $+ April %&&$, Se!astian instructed Cacalinao, ,ng and two truck helpers to deli#er a hea#y piece of machinery?a reactorFmotor for mi/ing chemicals, to Se!astianRs manufacturing plant in Angat, 1ulacan. While in the process of complying with the order, the #ehicle dri#en !y ,ng, 3enetronRs Dsu4u =lf truck with plate no. >C>0%@6 hit and !umped the front portion of a pri#ate eepney with plate no. :AF0&$$ along Caypom!o, Sta. Caria, 1ulacan at around %%9$@ in the morning. 1oth #ehicles incurred se#ere damages while the passengers sustained physical in uries as a conse5uence of the collision.' Cacalinao incurred the most serious in uries among the passengers of the truck. Ie was initially !rought to the Sta. Caria :istrict Iospital for first aid treatment !ut in #iew of the se#erity of his condition, he was transferred to the >hilippine ,rthopedic Center at the instance of Se!astian. Ie was again mo#ed to the Capitol Cedical Center !y his parents, petitioners herein, for medical reasons and later to the >hilippine 3eneral Iospital for financial considerations. + CacalinaoRs !ody was paraly4ed and immo!ili4ed from the neck down as a result of the accident and per doctorRs ad#ice, his foot was amputated. Ie also suffered from !ed sores and infection. Iis immedica!le condition, coupled with the doctorRs recommendation, led his family to !ring him home where he died on 7 "o#em!er %&&$. 6 1efore he died, Cacalinao was a!le to file an action for damages against !oth ,ng and Se!astian !efore the 2egional Trial Court (2TC) of Que4on City, 1ranch 8%. 7 After his death, Cacalinao was su!stituted !y his parents in the action. 8 A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical in uries& had also !een instituted earlier against ,ng !ut for reasons which do not appear in the records of this case, trial thereon did not ensue. %@ After trial in the ci#il action, the 2TC held that !ased on the e#idence, ,ng dro#e the Dsu4u truck in a reckless and imprudent manner there!y causing the same to hit the pri#ate eepney. Dt o!ser#ed that while respondents claimed that ,ng was dri#ing cautiously and prudently at the time of the mishap, no e#idence was presented to su!stantiate the claim.%% Dt declared ,ng negligent and at the same time, it held that Se!astian failed to e/ercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and super#ision of ,ng. Conse5uently, the trial court pronounced the two of them ointly lia!le to pay actual, moral, and e/emplary damages as well as ci#il indemnity for CacalinaoRs death. The trial court su!se5uently increased the monetary award%$ upon petitionersR motion for reconsideration thereof.

,n appeal, the appellate court re#ersed the findings of the trial court. Dt held that the e#idence presented !y petitioners was woefully scant to support a #erdict of negligence against ,ng. And since respondentsR lia!ility hinged s5uarely on proof of ,ngRs negligence, neither of them could !e held lia!le for damages to petitioners. %Aggrie#ed at the ruling, petitioners ele#ated the case to this Court. They herein contend that contrary to the conclusion reached !y the Court of Appeals, the e#idence conclusi#ely esta!lish fault or negligence on the part of ,ng and ustify the award of damages in their fa#or. The petition is meritorious. The issue of negligence is factual and, in 5uasi0delicts, crucial in the award of damages. %' Dn the case at !ar, the cru/ of the contro#ersy is the sufficiency of the e#idence presented to support a finding of negligence against ,ng. 3i#en the contradictory conclusions of the trial court and the appellate court on this issue, this Court is impelled to ascertain for itself which court made the correct determination. While as a rule factual findings of the Court of Appeals are deemed conclusi#e in cases !rought to us on appeal, we ha#e also consistently pronounced that we may re#iew its findings of fact in the following instances, among others9 (i) when the udgment of the Court of Appeals was !ased on a misapprehension of factsE (ii) when the factual findings are conflictingE (iii) when the Court of Appeals manifestly o#erlooked certain rele#ant facts not disputed !y the parties and which, if properly considered, would ustify a different conclusionE and (i#) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific e#idence, or where the facts set forth !y the petitioner are not disputed !y the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the a!sence of e#idence and are contradicted !y the e#idence on record. %+ Said e/ceptions o!tain in this case thus, a departure from the application of the general rule is warranted. Dn re#ersing the trial court and a!sol#ing respondents from lia!ility, the appellate court made the following pronouncement9 The e#idence presented is woefully scant. The pictures of the collision afford no !asis for concluding that it was the fault of the defendant dri#er, or that he was dri#ing recklessly. The police report contains no findings as to the road conditions, estimates of the relati#e speed of the #ehicles, or their e/act position at the time of the accident. And e#en so, entries in the police !lotter should not !e gi#en significance or pro!ati#e #alue as they do not constitute conclusi#e proof of the truth thereof. "or were eyewitnesses presented, not e#en affida#its or statements to gi#e any indication as to what actually happened. The police in#estigatorRs findings are sketchy at !est, with only the phrase BDsu4u lost controlB as his opinion, with no e/planation how he reached it. Ci#il cases re5uire e#idence of a lesser degree than criminal cases, !ut one sentence !y one who did not e#en witness an e#ent, is not conclusi#e proof. ... There was only the fact of the collision !efore the trial court. The attendant circumstances were not esta!lished, and no fault could !e determined using the e#idence, !oth testimonial and documentary presented. %6 Contrary to the a!o#e conclusion of the appellate court, the e#idence on record coupled with the doctrine of res ipsa lo$uitur sufficiently esta!lishes ,ngRs negligence. We focus first on the e#idence presented !efore the trial court. The photographs of the accident which the appellate court ca#alierly !rushed aside as insignificant deser#e su!stantial cogitation. Dn Jose 2. !ourt o- (ppeals,%7 we upheld the trial courtRs reliance on photographs of the accident as opposed to a partyRs o!#iously !iased testimony. Dn so doing, we stated9 Dn criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his li!erty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical e#idence in ascertaining the truth. Dn >eople #. Kas5ue4, %8where the physical e#idence on record ran counter to the testimonial e#idence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical e#idence should pre#ail.%& >hysical e#idence is a mute !ut an elo5uent manifestation of truth which ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy e#idence.$@

Dn this case, while there is a dearth of testimonial e#idence to enlighten us a!out what actually happened, photographs$% depicting the relati#e positions of the #ehicles immediately after the accident took place do e/ist. Dt is well esta!lished that photographs, when duly #erified and shown !y e/trinsic e#idence to !e faithful representations of the su! ect as of the time in 5uestion, are, in the discretion of the trial court, admissi!le in e#idence as aids in arri#ing at an understanding of the e#idence, the situation or condition of o! ects or premises or the circumstances of an accident. $$ According to American courts, photographs are admissi!le in e#idence in motor #ehicle accident cases when they appear to ha#e !een accurately taken and are pro#ed to !e a faithful and clear representation of the su! ect, which cannot itself !e produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. $- 1efore a photograph may !e admitted in e#idence, howe#er, its accuracy or correctness must !e pro#ed, and it must !e authenticated or #erified $' first. Dn the case at !ar, the photographer testified in open court and properly identified the pictures as the ones he took at the scene of the accident.$+ An e/amination of said photographs clearly shows that the road where the mishap occurred is marked !y a line at the center separating the right from the left lane. 1ased on the motoristRs right of way rule, the Dsu4u truck which was headed towards "or4agaray, 1ulacan$6 should ha#e !een occupying the left lane while the pri#ate eepney which was tra#ersing the road to the town proper of Sta. Caria, 1ulacan $7 should ha#e !een in the right lane. =/hi!its BLB and BL0'B among the photographs, howe#er, re#eal that in the aftermath of the collision, the Dsu4u truck usurped the opposite lane to such an e/tent that only its right rear wheel remained in the left lane, a few inches from the demarcation line. Dts two front wheels and left rear wheel were planted s5uarely on the pri#ate eepneyRs lane and the Dsu4u truck had rotated such that its front no longer pointed towards "or4agaray !ut partially faced the town proper of Sta. Caria instead. While ending up at the opposite lane is not conclusi#e proof of fault in automo!ile collisions, the position of the two #ehicles gi#es rise to the conclusion that it was the Dsu4u truck which hit the pri#ate eepney rather than the other way around. The smashed front of the Dsu4u truck is pressed against the pri#ate eepneyRs left front portion near the dri#erRs side. The pri#ate eepney is positioned diagonally in the right laneE its front at the rightmost corner of the road while its rear remained a few feet from the demarcation line. 1ased on the angle at which it stopped, the pri#ate eepney o!#iously swer#ed to the right in an unsuccessful effort to a#oid the Dsu4u truck. This would support the statement of the police in#estigator that the Dsu4u truck lost control $8 and hit the left front portion of the pri#ate eepney. $& Dt would also e/plain why the dri#er of the pri#ate eepney died immediately after !eing !rought to the hospital, -@ since in such a scenario, the !runt of the collision logically !ore down on him. Coreo#er, the une5ual si4e and weight of the two #ehicles would make it impro!a!le for the relati#ely lighter pri#ate eepney to ha#e stricken the hea#ier truck with such force as to push the latter to the formerRs side of the road. Iad that !een the case, the two #ehicles would ha#e ended up crushed together at the center of the road or at the Dsu4u truckRs lane instead of rolling to a stop at the pri#ate eepneyRs lane. Another piece of e#idence which supports a finding of negligence against ,ng is the police report of the incident denoted as =ntry "o. @'0$$& of the Sta. Caria >olice Station. The report states that the Dsu4u truck was the one which hit the left front portion of the pri#ate eepney. -% This piece of e#idence was disregarded !y the Court of Appeals on the ground that entries in police !lotters should not !e gi#en significance or pro!ati#e #alue as they do not constitute conclusi#e proof of the truth thereof. While true in most instances, it must still !e remem!ered that although police !lotters are of little pro!ati#e #alue, they are ne#ertheless admitted and considered in the a!sence of competent e#idence to refute the facts stated therein. -$ =ntries in police records made !y a police officer in the performance of the duty especially en oined !y law are prima -acie e#idence of the fact therein stated,-- and their pro!ati#e #alue may !e either su!stantiated or nullified !y other competent e#idence.-' Dn this case, the police !lotter was identified and formally offered as e#idence and the person who made the entries thereon was likewise presented in court. ,n the other hand, aside from a !lanket allegation that the dri#er of the other #ehicle was the one at fault, respondents did not present any e#idence to !ack up their charge and show that the conclusion of the police in#estigator was false. 3i#en the paucity of details in the report, the in#estigatorRs o!ser#ation could ha#e !een easily refuted and o#erturned !y respondents through the simple e/pedient of supplying the missing facts and showing to the satisfaction of the court that the Dsu4u truck was !lameless in the incident. ,ng was dri#ing the truck while the two other truck helpers also sur#i#ed the accident. Any or all of them could ha#e gi#en their testimony to shed light on what actually transpired, yet not one of them was presented to su!stantiate the claim that ,ng was not negligent.

Since respondents failed to refute the contents of the police !lotter, the statement therein that the Dsu4u truck hit the pri#ate eepney and not the other way around is deemed esta!lished. The prima -acie nature of the police report ensures that if it remains une/plained or uncontradicted, it will !e sufficient to esta!lish the facts posited therein. -+ While not constituting direct proof of ,ngRs negligence, the foregoing pieces of e#idence ustify the application of res ipsa lo$uitur, a Latin phrase which literally means Bthe thing or the transaction speaks for itself.B -6 3es ipsa lo$uitur recogni4es that parties may esta!lish prima -acie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to su!stitute for specific proof of negligence. -7 Dt permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to in#oke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and there!y place on the defendant the !urden of pro#ing that there was no negligence on his part. -8 The doctrine can !e in#oked only when under the circumstances, direct e#idence is a!sent and not readily a#aila!le.-& This is !ased in part upon the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the in ury either knows the cause of the accident or has the !est opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms and rely upon the proof of the happening of the accident in order to esta!lish negligence. '@ The inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief e#idence of the true cause, whether culpa!le or innocent, is practically accessi!le to the defendant !ut inaccessi!le to the in ured person.'% Dn this case, Cacalinao could no longer testify as to the cause of the accident since he is dead. >etitioners, while su!stituting their son as plaintiff, ha#e no actual knowledge a!out the e#ent since they were not present at the crucial moment. The dri#er of the pri#ate eepney who could ha#e shed light on the circumstances is likewise dead. The only ones left with knowledge a!out the cause of the mishap are the two truck helpers who sur#i#ed, !oth employees of Se!astian, and ,ng, who is not only Se!astianRs pre#ious employee !ut his co0respondent in this case as well. Dn the circumstances, e#idence as to the true cause of the accident is, for all intents and purposes, accessi!le to respondents !ut not to petitioners. The witnesses left are unlikely to di#ulge to petitioners what they knew a!out the cause of the accident if the same militates against the interest of their employer. This ustifies the in#ocation of the doctrine. <nder local urisprudence, the following are the re5uisites for the application of res ipsa lo$uitur9 (%) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the a!sence of someoneRs negligenceE ($) Dt is caused !y an instrumentality within the e/clusi#e control of the defendant or defendantsE and (-) The possi!ility of contri!uting conduct which would make the plaintiff responsi!le is eliminated. '$ We are con#inced that all the a!o#e re5uisites are present in the case at !ar. "o two motor #ehicles tra#ersing opposite lanes will collide as a matter of course unless someone is negligent, thus, the first re5uisite for the application of the doctrine is present. ,ng was dri#ing the Dsu4u truck which, from the e#idence adduced, appears to ha#e precipitated the collision with the pri#ate eepney. :ri#ing the Dsu4u truck ga#e ,ng e/clusi#e management and control o#er it, a fact which shows that the second re5uisite is also present. "o contri!utory negligence could !e attri!uted to Cacalinao relati#e to the happening of the accident since he was merely a passenger in the Dsu4u truck. 2espondentsR allegation that Cacalinao was guilty of contri!utory negligence for failing to take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety while on!oard the truck '- is too specious for !elief particularly as respondents did not e#en present any e#idence to pro#e such allegation. The last re5uisite is, therefore, likewise present. There e/ists a fourth re5uisite under American urisprudence, that is, that the defendant fails to offer any e/planation tending to show that the in ury was caused !y his or her want of due care. '' Dn this case, while respondents claimed that ,ng dro#e cautiously and prudently during the time in 5uestion, no e#idence was proffered to su!stantiate the same. Dn fact, ,ng did not !other to testify to e/plain his actuations and to show that he e/ercised due care when the accident happened, so e#en this re5uisite is fulfilled. All the re5uisites for the application of the rule of res ipsa lo$uitur are present, thus a reasona!le presumption or inference of ,ngRs negligence arises. Dn consonance with the effect of the doctrine, the !urden of pro#ing due care at the time in 5uestion shifts to respondents. <nfortunately, as pre#iously discussed, aside from !lanket allegations that ,ng e/ercised

prudence and due care while dri#ing on the day of the accident, respondents proffered no other proof. As a conse5uence, the prima -acie finding of negligence against ,ng, remaining une/plained andFor uncontradicted, is deemed esta!lished. This in turn warrants a finding that ,ng is lia!le for damages to petitioners. Such lia!ility of ,ng is solidary with Se!astian pursuant to Art. $%76 in relation to Art. $%8@ of the Ci#il Code which pro#ide9 Art. $%76. Whoe#er !y act or omission causes damage to another, there !eing fault or negligence is o!liged to pay for the damage done . . . . Art. $%8@. The o!ligation imposed !y Art. $%76 is demanda!le not only for oneRs own acts or omissions !ut also for those of persons for whom one is responsi!le. ... =mployers shall !e lia!le for the damage caused !y their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks e#en though the former are not engaged in any !usiness or industry. ... The responsi!ility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned pro#e that they o!ser#ed all the diligence of a good father of a family to pre#ent damage. Whene#er an employeeRs negligence causes damage or in ury to another, there instantly arises a presumption ;uris tantum that the employer failed to e/ercise dili)entissimi patris -amilies in the selection (culpa in eli)iendo) or super#ision (culpa in 2i)ilando) of its employees.'+ To a#oid lia!ility for a 5uasi0delict committed !y his employee, an employer must o#ercome the presumption !y presenting con#incing proof that he e/ercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and super#ision of his employee. '6 Dn an attempt to e/culpate himself from lia!ility, Se!astian claimed that he e/ercised due care in selecting ,ng as a dri#er. 1efore he hired ,ng, he allegedly re5uired him to produce police and "1D clearances and he took into account the recommendations of ,ngRs pre#ious employer and friends. '7 Se!astian also stressed that he instructed ,ng to dri#e slowly and carefully and to take necessary precautions. '8 Ie likewise admonished ,ng to !e careful after the latter had some minor accidents in the parking area.'& Iowe#er, Se!astianRs statements are not sufficient to pro#e that he e/ercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of ,ng. Iis testimony is self0ser#ing and de#oid of corro!oration as he did not !other to support the same with document e#idence. Coreo#er, Se!astian could not e#en remem!er whether the recommendation from ,ngRs pre#ious employer was made #er!ally or in writing. +@ ,n the other hand, due diligence in super#ision re5uires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.+% Admonitions to dri#e carefully without the corresponding guidelines and monitoring of the employee do not satisfy the due diligence re5uired !y law either. Dn short, Se!astianRs claims fall short of what is re5uired !y law to o#ercome the presumption of negligence in the selection and super#ision of his employee. The trial court therefore correctly held him solidarily lia!le with ,ng to petitioners. Dn an o!#ious ploy to relie#e himself from lia!ility should the appellate courtRs decision !e re#ersed, Se!astian a#erred that Cacalinao is not entitled to damages. Ie anchored his claim on the no#el argument that the pro#isions of Art. $%8@ apply only when the in ured party is a third person !ut it has no application to an employee like Cacalinao. +$ Ie likewise postulated that reco#ery from the Social Security System, State Dnsurance Fund, =mployeeRs Compensation Commission, and the >hilippine Cedical Care Act, the go#ernment agencies with which petitioners filed a claim in #iew of CacalinaoRs in ury and su!se5uent death, preclude pursuing alternate recourse or reco#ering from other sources until the former claims ha#e !een re ected.+-

Se!astian is grasping at straws. Art. $%8@ makes no distinction whatsoe#er whether the claimant is an employee or a third person relati#e to the employer. <bi le? non distin)uit nec nos distin)uere debemos. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.+' Coreo#er, petitionerRs claim against Se!astian is not !ased upon the fact of CacalinaoRs pre#ious employment with him !ut on the solidary lia!ility of the latter for the negligent act of one of his employees. Such is not precluded !y prior claims with the go#ernment agencies enumerated. ,ne is !ased on compulsory co#erage of go#ernment !enefits while the other is !ased on a cause of action pro#ided !y law. Additionally, respondents postulated that since it was Cacalinao who sustained physical in uries and died, he was the one who suffered pain, not petitioners so moral damages are not reco#era!le in this case. ++ The relati#es of the #ictim who incurred physical in uries in a 5uasi0delict are not proscri!ed from reco#ering moral damages in meritorious cases. To hold otherwise would gi#e rise to the ridiculous scenario where a defendant may !e compelled to pay moral damages in a 5uasi0delict causing physical in uries !ut will !e relie#ed from doing so should those same in uries cause the #ictimRs death. Dn the case of 'ambert 2. eirs o- 3ay !astillon,+6 we held that in 5uasi0delicts9 . . . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possi!le, of the spiritual status $uo anteE and therefore, it must !e proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain e/perienced !y the relati2es o- the 2ictim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and !ears no relation whatsoe#er with the wealth or means of the offender.+7 (=mphasis Supplied.) The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of >-@,@@@.@@ !ut since pre#ailing urisprudence has fi/ed the same at >+@,@@@.@@,+8 there is a need to increase the award to reflect the recent rulings. Lastly, respondents claim that e/emplary damages is not warranted in this case. <nder the law, e/emplary damages may !e granted in 5uasi0delicts if the defendant acted with gross negligence. +& 3ross negligence has !een defined as negligence characteri4ed !y the want of e#en slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inad#ertently !ut willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to conse5uences insofar as other persons may !e affected.6@ ,ngRs gross negligence in dri#ing the Dsu4u truck precipitated the accident. This is lucidly portrayed in the photographs on record and it ustifies the award of e/emplary damages in petitionersR fa#or. Iowe#er, the trial courtRs award of >%@,@@@.@@ is insufficient, thus the Court deems it proper to increase the award to >$+,@@@.@@ under the circumstances. WI=2=F,2=, the petition is 32A"T=:. The /ecision of the Court of Appeals dated -% Cay $@@@, as well as its3esolution dated 7 Septem!er $@@@, are here!y S=T ASD:=. The /ecision of the 2egional Trial Court of Que4on City, 1ranch 8% dated %$ April %&&6 as amended !y the Order dated $- Cay %&&6 is here!y 2=D"STAT=: with the modifications that the award for moral damages is increased to >+@,@@@.@@ to conform with pre#ailing urisprudence and the award for e/emplary damages is increased to >$+,@@@.@@. Costs against respondents.