PEOPLE vs HIPONA

TOPIC: Admission by a Party

FACTS:

Michael A. Hipona (accused) and two other male friends have carnal knowledge and
killed the offended party (AAA) who the accuseds Aunt, she being the younger
sister of the accuseds mother. That on the said occasion the victims brown bag
worth P3,800.00; cash money in the amount of no less than P5,000.00; and gold
necklace were stolen by all accused but the gold necklace was later on recovered
and confiscated in the person of accused Michael A. Hipona. The local police thus
called for a meeting of AAAs relatives during which AAAs sister BBB, who is
appellants mother, declared that her son-appellant had told her that "Mama, Im
sorry, I did it because I did not have the money," and he was thus apologizing for
AAAs death. BBB executed an affidavit affirming appellants confession.
On the basis of BBBs information, the police arrested appellant the day after the
commission of the crime. He was at the time wearing AAAs missing necklace. When
on even date he was presented to the media and his relatives, appellant apologized
but qualified his participation in the crime, claiming that he only acted as a look-out,
and attributed the crime to his co-accused.
By Decision the trial court, after considering circumstantial evidence, viz:
Based on the foregoing circumstances, specially of his failure to explain why he
was in possession of victims stolen necklace with pendants, plus
his confession to the media in the presence of his relatives, and to another radio
reporter "live-on-the-air" about a day after his arrest, sealed his destiny to
perdition and points to a conclusion beyond moral certainty that his hands were
soiled and sullied by blood of his own Aunt.
ISSUES:
1. WON the circumstantial evidence is enough to establish guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. WON the statements made by the accused to news/radio reporters may be
admissible in evidence.
HELD: 1. Yes. For circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused, the
following requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The confluence of the following established facts and circumstances sustains the
appellate courts affirmance of appellants conviction: First, appellant was
frequently visiting AAA prior to her death, hence, his familiarity with the layout of
the house; second, appellant admitted to his relatives and the media that he was
present during commission of the crime, albeit only as a look-out; third, appellant
was in possession of AAAs necklace at the time he was arrested;
and fourth, appellant extrajudicially confessed to the radio reporter that he
committed the crime due to his peers and because of poverty.

2. Yes. Not only does appellants conviction rest on an unbroken chain of

circumstantial evidence. It rests also on his unbridled admission to the media.
Appellants confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The
confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the
police or any other investigating officer. We have held that statements
spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are
deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.
NISSAN NORTH EDSA OPERATING UNDER THE NAME MOTOR CARRIAGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

United provides security services, based on a contract for security services, to Nissan. It
posted 18 security guards within Nissans compound in EDSA Balintawak, Quezon City.
Nissan informed United, that its services were being terminated. Uniteds President
demanded payment of the amount equivalent to 30 days of service in view of Nissans act of
terminating Uniteds services without observing the required 30-day prior written notice as
stipulated under paragraph 17 of their service contract. United filed a case for Sum of Money
with damages before the MTC of Las Pias City.
Nissan argues that paragraph 17 confers upon either party the power to terminate the
contract, without the necessity of a prior written notice, in cases of violations of the
provisions thereof. Nissan alleged that United violated the terms of their contract, when
Uniteds night supervisor and night security guard did not report for duty and in another
date the security supervisor assigned at Nissans premises abandoned his post.
The MTC ruled that Nissan has not adduced any evidence to substantiate its claim that the
terms of their contract were violated by United and the 30-day prior written notice should
have been observed and awarded actual and exemplary damages to United. The RTC and
the CA affirmed this decision.
Nissan argues that United failed, during the trial of the case, to offer in evidence the service
contract upon which it based its claim for sum of money and damages. As a result, the
decisions of the lower courts were mere postulations. Nissan asserts that the resolution of
this case calls for the application of the best evidence rule.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Best Evidence rule applies in this case
Held: No, because the contents of the document (the service contract) is not in issue.

The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a
disputed fact. However, the same applies only when the contents of a document are the
subject of the inquiry. In this case, the contents of the service contract between Nissan and
United have not been put in issue. Neither United nor Nissan disputes the contents of the
service contract; as in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same provision of the
contract (paragraph 17) to support their respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best
evidence rule finds no application here.
Paragraph 17 of the service contract reads:
However, violations committed by either party on the provisions of this Contract shall be
sufficient ground for the termination of this contract, without the necessity of prior notice,
otherwise a thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be observed.

Nissan failed to indicate the specific provisions of the service contract which were violated
by United as a result of the latters lapses in security. In so failing, Nissans act of
unilaterally terminating the contract constitutes a breach thereof, entitling United to collect
actual damages.