You are on page 1of 61

1

OBJECT EVIDENCE who was pointed out to her by Benjamin Lopez, a brother of the late
TIJING v. CA Tomas Lopez, was already named John Thomas Lopez. She avers that
Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her demand to do so.
FACTS: EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING (Petitioners) are
husband and wife. They have six children. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing, Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial
Jr., who was born on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife and registered court in order to recover their son. She asserts that at age 42, she gave
nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Petitioner Bienvenida served as birth to John Thomas Lopez on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife
the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita Diamante, then a Zosima Panganiban in Singalong, Manila. She added, though, that she has
resident of Tondo, Manila. two other children with her real husband, Angel Sanchez. She said the birth
of John Thomas was registered by her common-law husband, Tomas
According to Bienvenida in August 1989, Angelita went to her house to Lopez, with the local civil registrar of Manila on August 4, 1989.
fetch her for an urgent laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do
some marketing, she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. She also For her part, Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the child.
left her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita as she
usually let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing RTC: GRANTING the petition for Habeas Corpus. CA reversed.
laundry.
ISSUE: Whether or not Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one
When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., and the same person and is the son of petitioners?
were gone. Bienvenida forthwith proceeded to Angelitas house in Tondo,
Manila, but did not find them there. Angelitas maid told Bienvenida that HELD: YES. A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the
her employer went out for a stroll and told Bienvenida to come back later. evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John
She returned to Angelitas house after three days, only to discover that Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.
Angelita had moved to another place. Bienvenida then complained to her
barangay chairman and also to the police who seemed unmoved by her First, there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children. From
pleas for assistance. her very lips, she admitted that after the birth of her second child, she
underwent ligation at the Martinez Hospital in 1970, before she lived with
Although estranged from her husband, Bienvenida could not imagine how Tomas Lopez without the benefit of marriage in 1974. Assuming she had
her spouse would react to the disappearance of their youngest child and that ligation removed in 1978, as she claimed, she offered no evidence she
this made her problem even more serious. As fate would have it, gave birth to a child between 1978 to 1988 or for a period of ten years. The
Bienvenida and her husband reconciled and together, this time, they midwife who allegedly delivered the child was not presented in court. No
looked for their missing son in other places. Notwithstanding their serious clinical records, log book or discharge order from the clinic were ever
efforts, they saw no traces of his whereabouts. submitted.

Four years later or in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the Second, there is strong evidence which directly proves that Tomas Lopez is
death of Tomas Lopez, allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita, and no longer capable of siring a son. Benjamin Lopez declared in court that his
whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bienvenida lost no brother, Tomas, was sterile because of the accident and that Tomas
time in going to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw her son admitted to him that John Thomas Lopez was only an adopted son.
Edgardo, Jr., for the first time after four years. She claims that the boy,

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3

2

Third, we find unusual the fact that the birth certificate of John Thomas from the mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish
Lopez was filed by Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife and on August 4, parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA
1989, four months after the alleged birth of the child. Under the law, the test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate
attending physician or midwife in attendance at birth should cause the case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA
registration of such birth. Only in default of the physician or midwife, can evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science
the parent register the birth of his child. The certificate must be filed with when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject
the local civil registrar within thirty days after the birth. Significantly, the said result is to deny progress. Though it is not necessary in this case to
birth certificate of the child stated Tomas Lopez and private respondent resort to DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the
were legally married on October 31, 1974, in Hagonoy, Bulacan, which is prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.
false because even private respondent had admitted she is a common-law
wife.[17] This false entry puts to doubt the other data in said birth People v. Rullepa
certificate.
FACTS: Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto (Rullepa), a houseboy, was charged with
Fourth, the trial court observed several times that when the child and Rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for allegedly
Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong similarities in their having carnal knowledge with “AAA”, three (3) years of age, a minor and
faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Resemblance between a minor against her will and without her consent.
and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish
parentage. Needless to stress, the trial courts conclusion should be given “AAA” described her abuse under the hands of Rullepa in a plain and
high respect, it having had the opportunity to observe the physical matter-of-fact manner in her testimony. The victim and her mother
appearances of the minor and petitioner concerned. testified that she was only three years old at the time of the rape.
However, the prosecution did not offer the victim‘s certificate of live birth
Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified that she assisted in Bienvenidas giving or similar authentic documents in evidence.
birth to Edgardo Tijing, Jr., at her clinic. Unlike private respondent, she
presented clinical records consisting of a log book, discharge order and the Finding for the prosecution, the RTC rendered judgment finding Rullepa
signatures of petitioners. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and accordingly sentenced him to
death. The case was placed for automatic review of the Supreme Court
All these considered, we are constrained to rule that subject minor is
indeed the son of petitioners. The writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain ISSUE: WON the person’s appearance can be admitted as evidence.
custody of said child.
HELD: YES. The process by which the trier of facts judges a persons age
A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods from his or her appearance cannot be categorized as judicial notice.
unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we Judicial notice is based upon convenience and expediency for it would
have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and certainly be superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and
parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science the court to require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already
Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the known to courts. As Tundag puts it, it is the cognizance of certain facts
capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they
The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) already know them. Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, where the provisions
copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA governing judicial notice are found, is entitled What Need Not Be Proved.

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3

3

When the trier of facts observes the appearance of a person to ascertain 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have
his or her age, he is not taking judicial notice of such fact; rather, he is been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
conducting an examination of the evidence, the evidence being the credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity
appearance of the person. Such a process militates against the very or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
concept of judicial notice, the object of which is to do away with the such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
presentation of evidence. Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following circumstances:
This is not to say that the process is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court;
on the contrary, it does. A persons appearance, where relevant, is a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to
admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
the court. Section 1, Rule 130 provides: b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
SECTION 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to
the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
Under the above guideline, the testimony of a relative with respect to the
A persons appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or of age of the victim is sufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt
being under the age of consent to intercourse), is usually regarded as in cases (a), (b) and (c) above. In such cases, the disparity between the
relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly observe the person brought allegation and the proof of age is so great that the court can easily
before it. Experience teaches that corporal appearances are approximately determine from the appearance of the victim the veracity of the testimony.
an index of the age of their bearer, particularly for the marked extremes of The appearance corroborates the relatives testimony.
old age and youth. In every case such evidence should be accepted and
weighed for what it may be in each case worth. In particular, the outward In the present case, the prosecution did not offer the victims certificate of
physical appearance of an alleged minor may be considered in judging his live birth or similar authentic documents in evidence. The victim and her
age; a contrary rule would for such an inference be pedantically over- mother, however, testified that she was only three years old at the time of
cautious. Consequently, the jury or the court trying an issue of fact may be the rape.
allowed to judge the age of persons in court by observation of such
persons. The formal offer of the person as evidence is not necessary. The Because of the vast disparity between the alleged age (three years old) and
examination and cross-examination of a party before the jury are the age sought to be proved (below twelve years), the trial court would
equivalent to exhibiting him before the jury and an offer of such person as have had no difficulty ascertaining the victims age from her appearance.
an exhibit is properly refused. No reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that the second element of
statutory rape, i.e., that the victim was below twelve years of age at the
There can be no question, therefore, as to the admissibility of a persons time of the commission of the offense, is present.
appearance in determining his or her age. As to the weight to accord such
appearance, especially in rape cases, Pruna laid down guideline no. 3, Whether the victim was below seven years old, however, is another
which is again reproduced hereunder: matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year old
can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The
appearance of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3

It found the latter’s Rosales. even as he assails his conviction. In fact. with intent to kill. On 26 February 1993 an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen. She were manifested clearly not only in the victim’s testimony but also in the also testified that a few days before he shot Liberato Delfin went to her physical evidence presented during the trial consisting of her torn dress house ostensively to watch television. examining physician also lent credence to her claim. The findings of the fate. It further alleged that Delfin Abalos should be considered relationship with him. He was gunned down soon have filed her complaint for rape if her accusations were not true. appellant claims that the former lacked the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the parties and their witnesses. for to do after and died slowly in her arms. The Information alleged that the inherently weak. Delfin because of his weak defense. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. He did not realize testimony straightforward and credible. accused-appellant cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. According to her. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. on the night of 27 January 1993. using an unlicensed firearm. his conviction was actually founded on the was enraged when she rejected him that he even threatened to kill her if overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. But when she learned that his real and underwear as well as the medico-legal report. Pangasinan. anemic. CA FACTS: Samuel Ulzoron was charged with rape with the use of a deadly weapon. Nevertheless. Ana. It rationalized that she would not that that would be his last rendezvous with her. the testimony of the mother is. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the conduct of the complaining witness immediately following the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him. their houses being ISSUE: W/N accused-appellant’s guilt was sufficiently established only fifty (50) meters from each other. that his defense is murder for the killing of Liberato Damias. On the strength of the testimony of the complaining witness FACTS: Liberato Damias visited his girlfriend at her house in San Isidro. He also invites attention to the circumstance that a recidivist having been previously convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the judge who wrote the decision did not personally try the case hence Pangasinan. Ulzoron Abalos v. He argues that the undisputed facts and treachery and taking advantage of superior strength. Contrary to accused-appellant’s claim that he was convicted involved with the now deceased Liberato Damias. Such pieces of evidence intention was to see her she told him not to visit her again. No improper extreme jealousy hurriedly fled leaving the lovers to the mercy of their motive on her part to file the case had been shown. she decided to marry Liberato. the trial court convicted the accused. Only Moreover. he faults the trial court for convicting him accused. the trial court found the defense of the accused too weak. People v. He relentlessly pursued her even when she The circumstances of force and intimidation attending the instant case left San Isidro to reside temporarily in San Juan and Sta. employing on the basis of his defense. knowledge is not disputed. following Pruna. On the other hand. charging petitioner Delfin Abalos with Appellant concedes. she said. The bereaved Veronica Bulatao testified that she had known petitioner Delfin Abalos for several years as they were neighbors. Manila. Pangasinan. shot and killed circumstances made it more likely that Emily was involved in an adulterous Liberato Damias. 4 weight and. Emily Gabo. below seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense. The fact of carnal insufficient. by itself. His assailant apparently driven by so would only expose herself to public shame or ridicule. indeed are more eloquent than a hundred witnesses. the assault clearly established the truth of her charge that she was raped by accused-appellant. It was positively established through the offended party’s own testimony and corroborated by that of her examining As it has not been established with moral certainty that Cyra May was physician. Delfin was courting her since June 1992 but she jilted him since she was already HELD: YES.

spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with police officers searched his vehicle and seized the wires found therein "kakawati" leaves. Victorino Noceja and Pat. petitioners assertion. appellant and the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were the distance between the tobacco fields to Veronicas house was only brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Noceja asked appellant not at the crime scene but that it was also physically impossible for him to where the wires came from and appellant answered that they came from have been present there at the time the offense was committed. Laguna. while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan. Sgt. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . ISSUE: WON absence of gun powder is sufficient to dismiss the case With appellant's consent. Further. Anent the paraffin test. This Court acknowledges headquarters and informed his superior. 1989. it was not impossible for Delfin to be present at the locus the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan. In even substantiated by petitioner in his testimony. Callos advised him to proceed with the proof that he has not fired a gun. Sgt. miserably failed to satisfy the second requisite. Laguna. For alibi to prosper. On his way to Santa Cruz. it has been long established that alibi cannot prevail over the In defense. while he was driving a passenger jeepney. The absence of ill motive on Veronicas part was January. Thus. the traces of nitrates can easily be loading of the wires and that the former would act as back-up and removed by the simple act of washing ones hand.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NPC). it is true that it produced a negative result but such Laguna. When paraffin test yielded negative for powder burns on his hand. Alex de Castro. Sgt. Delfin himself testified that Thereafter. to wait until he had finished his last trip for the day from Santa Cruz. CA RTC: finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft of property.m. that something that the absence of powder burns in a suspects hand is not conclusive unlawful was going to happen. a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan. Danilo Cabale took pictures of the around 400 meters and it only took eight (8) minutes to traverse such path. Appellant was criminis. He Cavinti. of June 28. and not to arbitrarily implicate anyone just to put an end his jeepney conductor wires which were in Cavinti. and nervous. ISSUE: WON the constitutional right of petitioner was violated when the Pagsanjan. appellant and the jeep loaded with the wires which were turned over to Evidently. intercept the vehicle at the Sambat Patrol Base in Pagsanjan. FACTS: A about 9:15 p. Veronica only testified against him to seek justice for he was stopped by one Resty Fernandez who requested him to transport in Liberatos death. The conductor HELD: NO. he dropped by the NARCOM fact does not ipso facto merit Delfins acquittal. a NARCOM civilian agent since motive to falsely testify. petitioner must not only prove that he was wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55. Caballes v. CA affirmed. Callos. He testified that he is a positive identification of the accused by a credible witness who had no ill driver and resident of Pagsanjan. Laguna. the police officers checked the cargo and they against Abalos. He told Resty to her boyfriend’s case. discovered bundles of 3. he did not answer. Laguna. hence asked what was loaded on the jeep. incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. contrary to the afternoon of June 28. he appeared pale confirming that he never fired the shot that killed Liberato. 1988 although his identification card (ID) has already expired. appellant interposed denial and alibi. 244. Laguna. without a search warrant and when samples of the wires and references to them were admitted in evidence as basis for his conviction. the two police Abalos argues that he had a solid alibi to prove his innocence and that the officers flagged down the vehicle. 1989. In fact. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.45. The jeep was driven by appellant. 5 Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods.

Since the driver could not produce the required invoices whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. as defined under Section 2. and questioned the validity of the April 1 and search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. Mustang Lumber v. (4) consented RTC held that the warrantless seizure on April 1 is valid as it comes within warrantless search. Mustang Lumber filed for a TRO not absolute but admits of certain exceptions. a search warrant has a lifetime of 10 days. only an inventory is taken) the The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2). the team seized from the affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. CA affirmed. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. "Sec. the same may be EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. trimmings and slabs. Rule 126 4 seizure. (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry the exceptions where warrantless seizure is justified (search of a moving search). houses. which slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of Mustang Lumber. shorts. (3) search of moving vehicles. documents upon demand. The search and seizures made on April 1. Article III of the Constitution bars remaining lumber because Mustang Lumber failed to produce required the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such right. what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure HELD: YES. In the exceptional events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid ISSUES: WON the search and seizure on April 4 was valid. conducted a reads: surveillance at Mustang lumberyard. and April 4seizure was also valid pursuant to the search warrant issued on April 3. which could belawfully circumstances involved.acting on information that a huge pile of narra flitches. DENR Sec Factoran suspended Mustang Lumber¶s permit and confiscated The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is in favor of the gov’t the seized articles. including the purpose of the search or seizure." tolumberyard and placed under administrative seizure (owner retains physical possession of seized articles. or when the latter cannot be performed except without a warrant. the conducted without a search warrant. Article III thereof. is purely a judicial question. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. vehicle). determinable from the uniqueness of the April 1 search was conducted on a moving vehicle. of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. and no search and transport documents. Under ROC articles procured. On 3 April 1990. Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be complied with. On 4 April 1990. The search on April 4 was a presence or absence of probable cause.RTC Valenzuela determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or issued a search warrant. 3. The team saw a truck loaded with lauan and almacigalumber coming out of papers. and lumberyard narra shorts. the place or thing searched and the character of the search warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Exec Judge Osorio. On same day. and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day. and various particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things species of lumber and shorts. 4 were all valid. Rule 126Sec 9. search or seizure. team returned to be seized. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of the lumberyard. the steps prescribed by the on certiorari. CA Hence. Upon recommendation of SAID Chief Robles. Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the FACTS: On 1 April 1990. 6 HELD: YES. the manner in which the search continuation of the search on April 3 done under and by virtue of the and seizure was made. and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . 2. Special Actions and Investigation Division people to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable (SAID). (2) seizure of evidence in plain view. and searches and seizures. (5) customs search. the team seized the truck together with its cargo warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be and impounded them at DENR compound. it could be served at any time within the said period. Mustang lumber filed a petition for review In cases where warrant is necessary. namely: (1) warrantless against Factoran and Robles. narra lumber.

hydrochloride. Philippines. The search and seizure happened in a moving. 7 continued the following day or days until completed. product of the surveillance activities (checkpoint) conducted by the Narcotics Division of the Baguio City Police. ISSUES: WON the police officers has probable cause to believe that she was then and there committing a crime so as to justify the warrantless HELD: NO. when the FACTS: That on June 26. if any. they were able to pull Balingan out of the bus and brought her to the Baguio City Police Station and locked her up in Accused-appellant claims that she was arrested and detained in gross jail. a regulated People v. 1988. People v. did then and there wilfully. Hence. 12(1) and (3). unlawfully and feloniously ten-day period. violation of her constitutional rights.7) grams. she argues. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. respectively. On the HELD: YES. without the assistance of counsel and without having been informed of her constitutional rights. Balingan drug. after thirty minutes. There is. and unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly transport and deliver prohibited #3 ONE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR POINT SEVEN (194. more or less. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. in violation provisions of methamphetamine hydrochloride. provided it is still within the named Accused did then and there willfully. each bag weighing: FACTS: O n or about the 31st day of August. appellant Jean Bobbonan Balingan. Howerver. ISSUE: WON appellant’s constitutional right was violated due to warrantless arrest. RTC ruled against Balingan and CA affirmed. public vehicle other hand. was taken from accused-appellant during search and seizure of the bag. her detention and used in evidence against her. No statement. the methamphetamine Appellant insists her innocence and the gray bag is not hers.5) grams. The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5. what is involved in this case is an arrest in flagrante delicto (bus). The police officers then requested Balingan to go with them to the police That the above-named accused does not have the corresponding license or station. law. the above- under the same warrant the following day. three (3) kilos or a total of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY POINT TWO (580. should have been excluded from the evidence. possess three plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride.0) grams. #2 ONE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT POINT ZERO (198. Eventually. prescription to possess or use said regulated drug. it may be continued Airport. #1 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN POINT FIVE (187. Thus. yielded marijuana. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . drugs consisting of marijuana leaves weighing. She argues that the shabu confiscated from her is inadmissible against her because she was forced to affix her The confiscated marijuana were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for signature on the plastic bags while she was detained at the 1st RASO office.2) grams of and 500 grams from Baguio City to Metro Manila. Johnson Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides: EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. 1998 inside the Ninoy Aquino International search under a warrant on one day was interrupted. The warrantless search does not lack probable cause. no basis for accused-appellants invocation of Art. therefore. her bag. III. or shabu. When the moving. the appellant resisted and bit one of the officers. in the City of Baguio. public bus The trial court held: was stopped. upon inspection. as it was the pursuant to a valid search made on her person. confirmatory test and yielded positive result.

as amended is hereby AFFIRMED. unlawfully. Corollarily. identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ISSUE: WON the evidence is admissible. unlawful objects within the plain did then and there wilfully. 1997 in Quezon City. the decision appealed from finding accused-appellant mutually helping one another. nonetheless. which is a prohibited drug. imputes ill-motive on the police officers and asserts that the FACTS: On or about the 16th day of May. (b) the ISSUE: WON the evidence is admissible. the person to be arrested has committed. 6425.A. Rolando Aspiras of such plastic bag would readily disclose that its contents are marijuana. Nonetheless. such must be frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security limited to those evidence that the police officer came across inadvertently. procedures. without a warrant. 8 be where they are. not being lawfully authorized to possess or Rolando Aspiras guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4. Philippines. person may. A peace officer or a private plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. or is attempting to commit an offense.8609 kilograms of white crystalline substance known as are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Philippines. otherwise use any prohibited drug. did then and there willfully. unlawfully Article II of Republic Act No.7034 grams. Article II of R. feloniously and knowingly transport view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view or distribute 253. as amended. The prosecution failed to show whether or not the plastic bag was transparent that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plain view People v. Metro Manila. arrest a person: The record shows that the two bricks of marijuana flower tops with the (a) when in his presence. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . weighing 9. evidence against him is planted. the two bricks of marijuana are inadmissible in evidence against FACTS: On or about the 27th day of December 1994 in the Municipality of accused-appellant. accused-appellant Aspiras and accused Lorenzo. Arrest without warrant. dispense. Under the plain view doctrine. the "SHABU" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. wrapped actually committing. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. HELD: NO. permitting a warrantless seizure of any piece of evidence incriminating an The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during the routine accused. 5. deliver and give away to another for P50. deliver. 6425. ue Ming Kha alias Alfonso Go (Go). (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed. transport or distribute any regulated drug. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. committed it. when lawful. accused- marijuana flowering tops wrapped in five (5) separate aluminum foils appellant Aspiras is hereby ACQUITTED. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has While it is true that the police officers had prior justification for intrusion. People v. conspiring and confederating together and both of them WHEREFORE. in a plastic bag. which is a seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following elements: regulated drug. applying the plain view doctrine. confederating with other persons whose true names.440 kilograms were recovered under the table. not having been authorized by law to sell. For and feloniously sell. and (d) Sec. Paraaque. ascertained and mutually helping one another.00 dried violation of Section 8. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. Que Ming Kha et al Accused-appellant Aspiras questions the existence of the buy-bust operation. is total weight of 1.

to show that the hut in question belongs to appellant. Clearly. As he stood near the van. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . appellant voluntarily surrendered the prohibited drug to ISSUE: WON the evidence is admissible. after being served the search warrant. Captain Barnachea testified that Appellant contends that there was unlawful search. the barangay captain of that place. the police. who was caught in flagrante delicto and without that shows that the subject hut was sold to his brother Leonardo C. Philippines. at Sitio Bulan. Province of Nueva Vizcaya. it accidentally hit a seven-year old ambulant Note further that the police team was dispatched to appellant's kaingin vendor. argues that just feloniously plant.194 kilos. the substance is therefore not a product of an illegal search and not marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and inadmissible as evidence. Hence. cultivate and culture seven (7) fully grown marijuana because "appellant has another house in a place away from the hut that plants known as Indian Hemp weighing 2. did then and there wilfully (sic). remained outside the hut that the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a search and did nothing. The seizure of hospital. of SPO1 Buloron's claim that. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. cannot be made to apply. Estella authority of law. The "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. The van stopped and the owner got off to bring the boy to the precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora." The "plain view" doctrine. To support his claim. does not belong to him. appellant remained seated on a does not remove appellant from the mantle of protection against rocking chair outside. which was searched by the police and where the subject FACTS: On or about September 25. Barangay Sawmill. Hence. revealing several plastic not inadvertent. he presents a document Valdez y Dela Cruz. hand. Clearly. the Court finds accused-appellant Que Ming Kha alias People v. Hence. the seized marijuana plants were not the police officer who was in a position to be near the van at the time. the testimony of Barnachea undermined. the prohibited substance was within the plain view of could spot the illegal plants. thus. not advanced. One of the sacks was open. HELD: NO. FACTS: Antonio C. searching for evidence against the accused. the records show appellant. Second. Appellant claims that the hut. they first had to "look around the area" before they be shabu. Valdez finding him guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 1996. A police officer who witnessed the accident approached the van evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not to apprehend the driver for reckless imprudence. the position of the prosecution. First. their discovery of the cannabis plants was the back of the van." The prosecution cites the testimony of Rey of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Brgy. The OSG. on the other hand. He points to another Municipality of Villaverde. unlawfully and by one Odilon Eclarinal. but inadvertently comes across he saw through the lightly tinted window of the van several sacks placed at an incriminating object. after being apprised of the contents of the search warrant. there was no ISSUE: Whether or not there was a search incident to a lawful arrest. We also note the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon bags containing white crystalline substance which the police suspected to arriving at the area. IN VIEW WHEREOF. Estella Alfonso Go GUILTY as charged. Patently. In sum. 9 HELD: YES. that the marijuana plants were found in an unfenced lot gone inside the hut to conduct the search. his statements sow doubts as to the veracity unreasonable searches and seizures. Abe house as his real residence. marijuana was recovered. The facts show that while the van was traversing Don Antonio valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of appellant's premises. to the damage and prejudice him or under his full control. Avenue in Quezon City. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. from which dangerous was searched does not necessarily mean that the hut is not occupied by drugs maybe (sic) manufactured or derived. Estella appealed from the RTC decision of Zambales People v. He categorically stated that when the police officers had warrant. PO2 Balut testified that they first located the marijuana plants before appellant was arrested without a warrant. Barnachea.

implied acquiescence to warrantless search and seizure especially so when The prosecution contends that the accused-appellant opened the gate and members of the raiding team were intimidatingly numerous and heavily permitted them to come in. such as when the owner of the premises consents City. There are several instances when the law surveillance to SPO4 Ranulfo T. The requirement that a warrant must be obtained from the proper judicial authority prior to the conduct of a search and seizure is. 1995 while he and his family were sleeping. search and seizure could not be construed as voluntary submission or an appellant. searched was the entire hut. or which may provide the prisoner with the early morning of July 13. were also included in the appellants right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly composite team. if any. accused- from DYWF Radio and another from DYRL Radio. accused-appellant maintains that around one-thirty in the was the fruit of the crime. 10 HELD: NO. To his house and the premises. The law constitutional rights. No. SPO1 Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by which the person to be arrested can reach for a weapon or for evidence using the Narcotics Drug Identification Kit. Some of the men went upstairs while the others lawful arrest. Nonetheless. the Criminal Investigation seizure conducted by the composite team in the house of accused- Command and the Special Action Force. considered no consent at all within the purview migraine. the search and Intelligence Division Provincial Command. herein accused-appellants violation of Section 9 of R. entered the premises then went inside the In the case at bar. Compacion HELD: YES. enter his premises and his consequent silence during the unreasonable SPO4 Villamor knocked at the gate and called out for the accused. Bacolod recognizes exceptions. four (4) persons who he thought were members of the military. the search as the same was lit only by a kerosene lamp. What happened thereafter is subject to conflicting accounts. The operatives then uprooted the suspected provides that the scope of the search should be limited to the area within marijuana plants. Jr. could not have been more than about the suspected marijuana plants and he admitted that he planted and mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering from circumstances and is. In the instant case. People v. None of them asked for his permission to search that it was under his full control. thus. Villamor. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . His implied acquiescence. SPO4 Villamor then told him that he would be charged for of the constitutional guarantee. After he opened the gate. him a flashlight. the team proceeded to barangay Bagonbon and arrived at The act of the accused-appellant in allowing the members of the military to the residence of accused-appellant in the early morning of July 13. It must engender moral certainty. which cannot be said to house. not absolute. He went down bringing with evidence in the trial of the case. he means of committing violence or escaping. who immediately formed a team composed of the members of the or voluntarily submits to a search. The attempt to make it appear that appellant occupied it. or which may be used in heard somebody knocking outside his house. Thus. or went around the house. It was dark so he could not count the others who entered the house have been within appellant's immediate control. 6425 and informed him of his lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. The test yielded a positive that he or she can destroy. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. The search was not incidental to a lawful arrest. The prevailing rule is that the arresting officer result. ISSUE: WON the accused’s constitutional right has been violated. Consequently. 1995. may take from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the latter's person ..that which was used in the commission of the crime or On his part. Consequently.A. One of the four men told him exceeded the bounds of that which may be considered to be incident to a to sit in the living room. Two members of the media. is merely conjectural and speculative. evidence must do more than raise the mere possibility or even probability of guilt. one appellant was not authorized by a search warrant. lead to conviction. Chief of NARCOM. FACTS: SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their however. violated. He was immediately asked by SPO4 Villamor armed.

Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of accused. Section 13. without officers. seizures. however. deliver. i. Appellants A buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. 1998. that point which is within the effective control of the person Manila. 24. Searches and seizures may be made drug. two vehicles blocked his way. was charged on July cell. 1998. not having been authorized by law to sell. When appellant told them that he could not produce the money. in the City of Manila. (3) the search concerns violation one thousand five hundred ten point eight grams (1. Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a person lawfully arrested may be transport or distribute any regulated drug. the corresponding license or prescription thereof. premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Philippines. or of escaping. In his defense. Philippines. CASE NO. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . would implicate him for drug pushing if he did not produce the money demanded. But appellant responded that he did not have money. a regulated drug. transport or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search or distribute white crystalline substance contained in a self-sealed warrant. the police operatives warned him that they and seizure. Jerry Ting Uy was taken at a police station where he was investigated and locked up in a FACTS: Appellant Jerry Ting Uy. without being authorized by law to possess or use any regulated III). CRIM. he People v. Later. a Taiwanese national. blindfolded and taken to a EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. The rule is not absolute. Police operatives in civilian clothes. unlawfully and knowingly have in his without warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible possession and under his custody and control white crystalline substance in the following instances: (1) the search was incident to a lawful arrest. the said inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Sections 2 and 3(2). the said incidental to a lawful arrest. appellant deposited only on the person of the accused but also in the permissible area within money in a bank at Masangkay Street near the Metropolitan Hospital in his reach. a warrantless search incidental to a lawful approached appellant and demanded P200. In lawful brief narrates the version of the defense as follows: arrests in the course of a buy-bust operation. caught as he was in transparent plastic bag weighing five hundred five point six gram (505. in the City of Manila. dispense.. CRIM. 98-166675 HELD: NO. Any evidence obtained without such warrant is That on or about July 21. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.8 g) known as of customs laws.e. appellant was lawfully arrested. and (5) when the SHABU containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. In other words. it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not At about 2 oclock in the afternoon of July 21. 1998. the search made by the police officers in the instant case was That on or about July 21. (2) contained in three (3) separate self-sealed transparent plastic bag weighing the search is of a moving motor vehicle.000 without telling him the arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the reason. deliver. Article accused. 1998 for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act in two separate Informations which read: ISSUE: WON the accused’s constitutional right has been violated. The Constitution generally proscribes searches and seizures without judicial warrant. CASE NO. did then and there willfully. searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale. While inside a room. (4) the seizure of evidence in plain view. appellant claimed that he is a victim of frame-up. he was made to board one of their vehicles.6 g) flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. dispense. accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.510. or that which may furnish him the means of committing violence bank. 11 his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search house. 98-166676 Clearly. When appellant was about to board his car after coming from the arrested. a regulated drug. Undoubtedly. did then and there willfully.

named accused. the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in toto. He claimed that there was no buy-bust operation. In order that this most-often invoked defense of ''frame up'' 'That on or about January 30. 38-95). He heard the driver of the jeep (of the policemen) uttered "eto "That on or about January 30. shabu were seized inside the car where appellant himself was arrested. conspiring. HELD: NO. guilt of the latter. planted. the above. in the City of Cavite. then and there. prohibited drug. here again. then and there. the above- named accused. WHEREFORE. 38-95 – ISSUE: WON the accused’s constitutional right has been violated. In Criminal Case No. law. vatfulty. Republic of the pala. The searchers proceeded to the store but nothing was found. Cuenco allegedly found by the searching officers does not belong to him or to his wife. and in the other ''Even prosecution witness Edgar Ordonez bolstered the claim of Cueno (Criminal Case No." (No reply or rebuttal was made on this). FACTS: Ferdinand Cueno y Mata. and the consequent search that followed. somebody shouted and said "eto pala. the police officers were already inside the house. 1995. 'a shown." in his brief. 37-95 – and nothing was found. The accusatory portions of the informations read: Ordonez declared that the kitchen was searched first and he cannot remember if anything was found there. feloniously and knowingly have in his possession and control No ill-motive on the part of the police officers in effecting the buy-bust one (1) brick and twenty one (21) plastic tea bag of dried Marijuana leaves operation." EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. the Court will not allow 4:30 P. Appellant insinuates a "frame-up. 1995. had at all been with flowering tops with a total net weight of 861.5842'grams. ang dami. He heard claim of "frame-up. While they were conducting the search. normally performed by police officers in the apprehension of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.500 grams of the shouts of his wife so he ran towards home and when he arrived there. wilfully. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . a prohibited drug. The marijuana People v. did. the evidence therefor should be clear and Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Republic of the could possibly prosper. without legal authority. unlawfully. 12 In this case. ang dami. he was indicted for violating Section 8 of the that the marijuana found by the searching officers does not belong to him. holds that in the absence of proof of any odious ''Accused-appellant Ferdinand Gueno denied having sold marijuana to the intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute a serious arresting officers. At crime. he was at his neighbor's house with Jerry their testimony to be overcome by the self-serving and uncorroborated Liboncogon watching the two (2) children playing with spiders. accused. did. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. As prosecution witness. The arrest of appellant was made in the course of an entrapment. Then the dresses were searched In Criminal Case No. following a surveillance operation. of having transgressed Section 4 of the Act. in the City of Cavite. he states: The Court.4315 grams." Then he saw marijuana.M. such as that made against herein appellant. This declaration of Ordonez totally destroyed the case of the unlawfully. without legal authority. January 30. feloniously and knowingly sell to a poseur buyer a small brick of prosecution. confederating This shows that the marijuana allegedly found during the search was together and mutually helping one another. convincing. the three plastic bags containing a total of 1. 1995. Ordonez stated facts consistent with dried Marijuana leaves with flowering tops with a total net weight of the guilt of accused Cueno but he also stated facts inconsistent with the 30. along with Florida Senarosa Fajardo.

For his part. NARCOM. 5. NARCOM team conducted a search of the premises in the presence of barangay official. The search yielded dried marijuana and were confirmed as seizure must be supported by a valid warrant. time. the DECISION appealed from is AFFIRMED. 1985 Rules on WHEREFORE. for the first time inside a box in a van in which he rode Teofilo Llorad. Immediately thereafter. therefore.00 as payment for marijuana. the team of Police Officer Nio proceeded to evidence the marijuana fruiting top and the like which were illegally Barangay Onion where they met the group of accused-appellant Nilo searched by the Capcom allegedly taken from the residence of accused. 1992. He testified that Crisostomo and Bascuna arrested him without a warrant and conducted a search of the premises without any search People v. the vicinity where the arrest was made. Rule 113. and That is a recognized exception to the general rule that any search and Appellant. Catan The subsequent search of his house which immediately followed yielding other incriminating evidence. Catan. was in conformity with the provision on lawful searches. he went to Barangay Caulangohan. Hence. upon seeing the government agents. headed by Lt. San Juan. Accused-appellant's ISSUE: WON the appellant was illegally arrested and the search as well. Jess Abundo. SPO3 Jose Nio. He denied that a buy-bust operation took place. Caibiran. the Special Action Team. much less having received P450. Biliran. finding no reason to doubt the veracity of the buy-bust armed persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Appellant's assertion that he was illegally arrested and that the Police Officer Nio told accused-appellant not to run away and introduced search of his premises was likewise illegal is not well taken. when he was taken by the operatives to Camp Karingal. which was about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of July 9. a certain Mrs. He claims. Criminal Procedure). appellant alleged that lower court erred in admitting as From Barangay Caulangohan. companions. observed that the latter were drunk and that accused-appellant himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. that he was sick at the WHEREFORE. the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. Jr. HELD: NO. items. People v. The former became suspicious when they appellant. The inclusion of the seized marijuana after a laboratory examination. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . was a search contemporaneously Maximo Valiente. Metro Manila. 13 the category of a valid warrantless arrest (Sec. as evidence for the prosecution. and Cecilio Cenining." after which he seized the dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade Appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in the act of selling and firearm locally known as "latong. and which became the basis of his conviction FACTS: On 8 April 1989. operation conducted by the NARCOM operatives. made and as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest in the immediate Corazon de Jesus. narrated that at search yielded nothing and that he saw the marijuana. He further alleged that the FACTS: The lone prosecution witness. Salayao warrant. the house owner. the latter answered that he had EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. They were to conduct an intelligence patrol as required of them by their intelligence officer to verify reports on the presence of The Trial Court. with CAFGU members presented in Court. His case therefore falls under issued him a license to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the military or any intelligence group. though. himself as "PC. Solayao numbering five. for possession of a prohibited drug. fled. Appellant denies both charges although he admits that he was inside the house on 8 April 1989." When he asked accused-appellant who delivering marijuana to the poseur-buyers. found Appellant guilty as charged. decided to conduct a "buy-bust" operation at Bgy.

There was a probable the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. or was actually committing. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao was charged before the Regional Trial Thus." accused's passport and other identification papers. the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. did not contest the confiscation of the surrounding Caibiran. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their circumstances enumerated under Section 5. "A peace officer or a private person may. arrest a During the inspection. 1866. trial court when it admitted the homemade firearm as evidence. the bus where accused was person violated his constitutional right to be secure in his person and riding was stopped. SPO3 Nio confiscated the In the present case. person when in his presence. accused-appellant argued that the trial court People v. with the crime of illegal possession of firearm and unreasonable searches and seizures. There was corroborated by one Pedro Balano that he indeed received a torch from justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accused-appellant when his Hermogenes Cenining which turned out to be a shotgun wrapped in companions fled upon seeing the government agents. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was ISSUE: WON the search and seizure made was illegal. He claimed that he was not aware that there was a shotgun carrying hid a firearm. Hermogenes Cenining. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and HELD: NO. possession of firearm. Malmstedt erred in admitting the subject firearm in evidence as it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search. Not only was the announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would search made without a warrant but it did not fall under any of the conduct an inspection. When accused failed to comply. circumstances. without a warrant. there was no violation of the constitutional guarantee against Court of Naval. the former identified himself as a government agent. ruled that the search and seizure in when accused opened the same bag. He maintained that the search made on his FACTS: At about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. inter alia: was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. Nor was there error on the part of the ammunition defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. This Court. nevertheless. turned out to contain hashish. Accused who Criminal Procedure which provides. Under the coconut leaves. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist. as ordered. the person to be arrested has committed. In assigning the first error. the case at bar constitutes an instance where a search to him after the others had been used up. Thereupon. prompting himself can be likened to a "stop and frisk" situation. a derivative of marijuana. when it was still wrapped in coconut the object wrapped in coconut leaves which accused-appellant was leaves. concealed inside the coconut leaves since they were using the coconut leaves as a torch. Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. the officer noticed four the Posadas case brought about by the suspicious conduct of Posadas (4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. 14 no permission to possess the same. their attention was understandably drawn to the shotgun but averred that this was only given to him by one of his group that had aroused their suspicion. after SPO3 Nino told accused-appellant not to run firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policeman of Caibiran away. The wrapped objects cause to conduct a search even before an arrest could be made. is Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Sgt. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. bulging on his waist. the offense of illegal possession of firearm. They could not have known that companions. Biliran. the officer asked for actually committing. or is attempting to commit an offense. Accused-appellant's claim was and seizure may be effected without first making an arrest. Tasked with verifying the report that there were armed men roaming around in the barangays Accused-appellant. in his defense. He further claimed that this was the third torch handed As with Posadas. The peace who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal officers did not know that he had committed.

It was only after the officers had opened the bags that Baguio City was carrying with him prohibited drugs. who found what he suspected to be crushed mj leaves. FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of CA’s decision in affirming TC’s decision on convicting Manalili of illegal possession of In the chemistry report. obtain a search warrant. when they asked what the man was holding in his hand. The man was brought to the Anti- ISSUE: WON there was an illegal search against accused. Thus. a few hours before the noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like apprehension of herein accused. houses. there was no time to accused finally presented his passport. 15 While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search Thereafter. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the officer When NARCOM received the information. Costs against the accused-appellant. he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. where the search is made pursuant to a informed them of the suspected possession of mj. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be confirmed as mj. held out his wallet and allowed Espiritu to examine it. La Trinidad. that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to foam stuffing. accused was invited outside the bus for questioning.Manalili’s version of the story was that early afternoon he secure in their persons. the policemen bodily lawful arrest." For his resist. he was effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of asked to strip his pants where they found nothing illegal. the officers got the bags and opened them. around in the area. the search made upon his personal to follow them and when he was again searched in thestation. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. (hashish). Feeling the teddy bears. Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp WHEREFORE. probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. Upon stepping out of the bus. Representative samples were taken from the hashish Manalili v. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he Manalili while on the way to the station saw a neighbor whom he signaled was caught in flagrante delicto. the man defense. premises considered. A teddy bear was found in each bag. the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. accused entered a plea of "not guilty. papers and effects against unreasonable was riding in a tricycle when 3 policemen stopped the tricycle and searches and seizures. the appealed judgment of conviction Dangwa. Benguet for further investigation. it was established that the objects examined were prohibited drug violating RA 6425. A prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana. let the driver go but brought Manalili along to the police Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs station. searched both Manalili and the driver and upon finding nothing illegal on their persons. there is no need to obtain a search warrant. Lumabas and hashish.Police operatives Espiritu. At the investigation by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags however. Narcotics Unit and turned out to be Manalili. The substance found on Manalili’s wallet was sent to NBI Foresic Chemistry Section and was HELD: NO. an driver Enriquez conducted surveillance along the front of Kalookan information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Cemetery based on the information that drug addicts were roaming Act. saw a man who appeared to be high on drugs and introduced themselves as policemen. But before warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. he alighted from the bus. room. CA found among the personal effects of accused and the same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. there was sufficient from the luggage carrier. under the circumstances of the case. law. However. Said man avoided them and tried to During the arraignment. Thus. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

and where nothing in the initial stages of authority. and 3) he/shehad his saying that the policemen had not found mj on his person. Such a People v. In this case however. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. Manalili’s contention that the charge was trumped up to extort money 3. excused only by (RAM-SFP) against the Government. 16 Said neighbor then asked the policemen to let Manalili go seeing as they during trial. The substance found on Manalili’s course of investigating this behavior he identified himself asa policeman wallet was identified as mj which was prohibited and knowingly without and makes reasonable inquiries. A valid waiver of right against unreasonable searches and had not found anything illegal but Manalili was put on a cell who was seizures require the concurrence of these requisites: 1) the right to be brought to a fiscal later that day and was told not to say anything despite waived existed. Said tricycle actual intention to relinquish the right. Manalili’s suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were high. 2. 4) customs search. In Terry vs Ohio. 2) the person waiving it had knowledge. III. b) such experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with possession is not authorized by law. however abandon the rule that the coup d' etat staged in December. incidental to lawfularrest. it held that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses particularly when HELD: I. 3) seizure in plain view. Issues: 1. and c) the accused freely and whom heis dealing may be armed and presently dangerous. At that time. W/N evidence seized during a stop-and-frisk is admissible. conduct acarefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used toassault him. to observe their demeanor and deportment as they testifiedbefore it. 2) search of moving vehicles. and testimonies of the arresting officers were inconsistent. where in the consciously possessed the said drug. 5) waiver of the accused of his rights against There were military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office and unreasonable searches and seizures. Issues not raised below cannot be pleadedfor the first time on appeal. the trial court. II. obtain advance judicial approval of by the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People searches and seizures through the warrant procedure.It did not. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . From Espiritu’s experience as a were not armed with a search warrant at that time. and any weapon seized may properly beintroduced in evidence against the person FACTS: The incidents involved in this case took place at the height of the from whom they were taken. SG’s contention that Manalili effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when he failed toraise this issue or object EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. W/N the evidence is sufficient to prove Manalili’s guilt. member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of Caloocan City Police. Considering that he was high and tried to avoid and resist. a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular affirmed by CA is accorded great weight and respect as it had opportunity designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizenon the street. As People vs Lacernaenumerated 5 recognized establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were being bombarded exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches and seizures: 1) search by the rightist group with their "tora-tora" planes. 1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed police must. various government exigent circumstances. De Gracia search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. it is deemed driver and neighbor testified on court as to how the 2 searches yielded that Manalili has waived such right for failureto raise its violation before nothing illegal on Manalili’s person.The interrogate him and pat him for weapons: W)here a police officer observes elements of illegal possession of mj are: a) the accused is in possession of an unusual conduct which leadshim reasonably to conclude in light of his an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug. W/N Manalili’s actions constituted a waiver of his rights. he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to prohibited by law. at the earliest opportunity possible. such the encounter serves to dispel hisreasonable fear for his own or others' behavior clearly shows that he knew he was holding mj andit was safety. whenever practicable.

hence this petition. judicial authorities have not Task Force BantayDagat for allegedly fishing in the shoreline of coastal EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. subject to certain exceptions. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for Hizon v. there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of affirmed the decision. random samples of fish from the fish cage of F/B Robinson were gathered for laboratory The Eurocar Sales Office is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of examination. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Some of apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. there was a surveillance conducted on the premises waters of Puerto Princesa. Under such urgency and exigency of the violation of customs laws. prevails over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Palawan. Under the foregoing circumstances. it is our considered opinion HELD: On the first issue. CA violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. do so. 704. the military operatives. When the military operatives raided the place. (2) seizure of evidence himself manifested that on December 5. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. A day following the arrest. without a judicial warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any under the situation then prevailing. 2) Whether the statutory presumption of guilt under Sec. moment. of more or less one (1) ton of the Eurocar building. thereby compelling the former to break into the office. purposes. 33 of PD 704 ISSUE: WON there was a valid search and seizure in this case. In the first place. taking into account the facts obtaining in this case. explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. Yielding to this reality. and (4) search in conducted. HELD: YES. It is rooted on the FACTS: The accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned recognition that a vessel and an aircraft. against a warrantless search. The trial court convicted the petitioners of the offense charged and CA In addition. Inc. any evidence obtained more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. (3) search of a moving motor vehicle. can be quickly by First Fishermen Fishing Industries. the raiding team had no opportunity to proceeding. which yielded a positive result to in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and. however. and the members of the be sought and secured.. the Fisheries Decree of 1975. There was consequently without a judicial warrant. the court sustained the warrantless arrest and that the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition therefore the evidence obtained was admissible. represented by Richard Hizon moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must were apprehended by SPO3 Romulo Enriquez. Such acts constitute an offense of Illegal Fishing with occupants thereof refused to open the door despite requests for them to the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance penalized under PD No. The rule is. had reasonable ground Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest of persons to believe that a crime was being committed. Furthermore. The NBI Forensic Chemist conducted two tests on the fish The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and samples and found that they contained sodium cyanide. The courts ISSUE: 1) Whether the fish specimen. are admissible being illegally building and houses therein were deserted. As a general rule. the the test of the presence of sodium cyanide. The trial judge these are: (1) a search incident to a lawful of arrest. Obviously not a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or determine the method of catching the same for record or evidentiary arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition. a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. his court was closed. like motor vehicles. the assorted live fishes. 17 Prior to the raid. for that matter. The specimens were brought to the NBI sub-office to automobiles. seized on the occasion of warrantless search and arrest. with the use of obnoxious or wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming from poisonous substance (sodium cyanide). 1989 when the raid was in plain view.

The ultimate fact presumed is that the owner and operator which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive of the boat or the fisherman were engaged in illegal fishing and this result for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu a presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the substances and dangerous drug. explosives. These vessels are normally powered by high. guaranteed by the Constitution. fishery laws. then and there. the presumption must be The petitioners were acquitted of the crime charged. under the guise breaching our fishery laws. the petitioner was able to overcome the presumption that the legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can when they requested another sampling of the fishes captured for constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and then shift laboratory examination where the result yielded negative presence of the burden of proof to the accused provided there is a rational connection sodium cyanide . boat. willfully. FACTS: On or about the 21st day of October 2002 in the City of Malabon. explanation of his possession. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. did. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the Coast Guard and other government authorities enforcing our no instance can the accused be denied the right to rebut the presumption. But the experience of men has taught them that an apparently evidence seized in the course of the search were properly admitted by the guilty possession may be explained so as to rebut such an inference and an trial court. petitioners failed to raise the issue during trial and accused person may therefore put witnesses on the stand or go on the hence. thus: We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson. of regulating the presentation of evidence. To avoid any findings of the laboratory examinations. Moreover. In fine.25 gram catching fish. constitutional infirmity. Philippines and EMILIO RIVERA y CABLANG alias BOY. Rivera The third paragraph of section 33 of P. 18 required a search warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and the contaminated fish in the possession of the fisherman in the fishing seizure can be constitutionally effected. The prosecution was not able to explain the contradictory between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. The validity of laws establishing presumptions in criminal cases is a settled matter. The fact presumed is a natural inference from the fact proved. a fishing The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the common experience boat suspected of having engaged in illegal fishing. inconsistent with his guilty connection with the commission of the crime. being a private or devices for electric fishing. will rebut the inference as to his guilt which On the second issue.D. obnoxious and poisonous substances. The fish and other of men. based on facts and these facts must be part of the crime when committed. Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt the prosecution seeks to have drawn from his guilty possession of the under the Fisheries Decree violates the presumption of innocence stolen goods. At Navy. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and boats The statutory presumption is merely prima facie. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. It makes the discovery of obnoxious or poisonous substances. People v. operate to preclude the speed motors that enable them to elude arresting ships of the Philippine accused from presenting his defense to rebut the main fact presumed. waived their right to question any irregularity that may have witness stand himself to explain his possession.00. to poseur-buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet operator of the fishing boat or the fisherman had used such substances in containing white crystalline substance containing net weight 0. It is generally conceded In the case at bar.It cannot. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible. explosives or electricity in any fishing unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver for consideration in the amount boat or in the possession of a fisherman evidence that the owner and of P100. the inference of one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable. or of fish caught or killed with the use of person and without authority of law. and any reasonable attended the said search and seizure.

the seized evidence as well. immediately upon his arrest as shown by the testimony of the lone prosecution witness. and object that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper evidence adequately supports not only the findings that a valid buy-bust motive or were not properly performing their duty. their testimonies on operation took place but accounted for an unbroken chain of custody of the operation deserve full faith and credit. ISSUE: WON the evidence is admissible. The records Violation of Section 5. 9165. Indeed. He claims that pictures of members of the buy-bust team merely helped PO2 Llantino arrest him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were not taken appellant when he gave the pre-arranged signal. documentary. the implementing rules against accused. the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). appellant. maintains that into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions was laboratory to determine its composition[43] up to the time it was offered not rebutted by accused-appellant. preserved. did not conduct a physical inventory of the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. Their failure to The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted abide by said section casts doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence the evidence adduced against him. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. He testified that PO2 Llantino acted as their poseur-buyer and was the one who personally Appellant anchors his appeal on the arresting policemen’s failure to strictly arrested accused-appellant. Article II of Republic Act No. He further narrated that he and the other comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. contends there is a gap in the chain of custody and a clear doubt on that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof whether the specimen examined by the chemist and eventually presented that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been in court were the same specimen allegedly recovered from accused. PO2 Joel Borda. not even identify or impute any ill-motive on the part of the buy-bust team. as long as the integrity and custody of the suspected dangerous drugs as nothing in the records would the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the show that immediately after the seizure. Thus. the OSG argues that unless there is clear and convincing evidence In the case at bar. Del Monte HELD: YES. Section 21 of Republic Act No. accused-appellant was charged with of PO2 Llantino was uncorroborated is not entirely accurate. At any rate. The police officers failed to follow the procedure outlined offer some flexibility when a proviso added that non-compliance with in paragraph 1. To be admissible. confiscated pursuant to said guidelines. People v. 9165. the chain of custody is unbroken and thus the integrity and Barreras. seized and confiscated. is not fatal and does not EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. 19 automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items The defense focused on several factors to cast doubt on the allegations seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. the prosecution must show by records or testimony. otherwise known indicate that the defense called one of the members of the buy-bust team. the totality of the testimonial. The same provision clearly states as well. 9165 on the seizure and these requirements under justifiable grounds. on the other hand. as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Insisting that accused-appellant could in evidence. the defense of and custody over said items. the police officers who had initial custody of the drug allegedly evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. He adds that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Moreover. shall not render void and invalid such seizures physical inventory and photographed the same. the police officers conducted a apprehending officer/team. to the witness stand as a hostile witness. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . accused-appellants contention that the testimony FACTS: On 11 December 2002.

Earlier. 9165 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from Appellant reiterates his contention that the apprehending police officers him inadmissible.000. or counsel. drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised. Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Laboratory Office 3. and/or Surrendered that the transaction or sale actually took place. Seized. the OSG maintained that despite the non-compliance with the requirements of R. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all All these elements have been shown in the instant case.A.00 from him. Controlled Precursors presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. and consideration. No. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.A. laboratory equipment so confiscated. immediately after seizure and confiscation. No. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). officers were exacting P15. Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. Non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 20 SEC. HELD: NO. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . 9165 will render the accused’s arrest illegal.000. 9165. FACTS: Lizing guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5. In evidence allegedly seized from him. he stipulated that the drug exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in his Brief filed before the subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Court of Appeals and thus. the seized drugs are admissible in evidence The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) because their integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved in the identity of the buyer and the seller. the shall. for proper disposition in the following manner: Appellant denies selling shabu to the poseur-buyer insisting that he was framed. appellant stated that he had the drug that was taken from him. physically inventory and evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from operation. 9165. 9165 and that failure integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would casts doubt on the validity of his arrest and the admissibility of the be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Article ISSUE: WON failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165) and sentencing him to suffer the will render the accused’s arrest illegal. seized and/or surrendered. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof ISSUE: WON failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. he is adopting it as Supplemental Brief. the evidence against him being "planted. 9165 II of Republic Act No. and Essential Chemicals. appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of Supplemental Brief) dated 4 September 2007.A. the object. In fact. and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the People v. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. In the case at bar." and that the police (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs. controlled precursors clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the and essential chemicals. or his/her representative the shabu can no longer be doubted. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the with the admission of a supplemental brief. (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.A. Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. Dela Cruz copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. plant sources of dangerous drugs. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the failure to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R. a The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it was dispensing dangerous drug. Having been caught in flagrante delicto. his identity as seller of whom such items were confiscated and/or seized.00. Malolos. as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. 9165 (R. No. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated. penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine of P500. in its Appellees Brief. coupled with the Dangerous Drugs. Through his Manifestation (In Lieu of the case at bar. 21. and accordance with the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. The prosecution dangerous drugs. No.

as the Luneta at the time of the incident. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome mention that any representative from the media. or his/her representative y Abe and Joel Tan y Mostero. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses. well as Annie Ferrer charging them as accomplices to the murder of The IRR of the same provision adds a proviso. Criminal Case was filed against Raul Billosos y de photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from Leon and Gerry Nery y Babazon. Neither does it must not rely on the weakness of the defense. against Richard de los Santos y Arambulo. People FACTS: The case before us occurred at a time of great political polarization In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. even present evidence on its own behalf. shall not render void and newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs taken during invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. or counsel." From August to October 1986. the Court finds that the arresting officers failed to For their defense. or at the nearest police the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly. 1986. Provided. While Tamayo testified that he was not in any of the photographs presented by EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. 21 there was testimony regarding the marking of the seized items at the HELD: NO. the defense may logically not accordance with law. In the case at bar. There was likewise no beyond reasonable doubt. In support of their testimonies. and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the Mandapat. And if the prosecution fails appear on record that the team photographed the contraband in to meet the required amount of evidence. At the outset. DOJ or any elected such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum evidence official had been present during the inventory or that any of these people required. to wit: Salcedo. In so doing. it is well to restate the constitutional mandate police station. the long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly prosecution likewise presented documentary evidence consisting of preserved by the apprehending officer/team. the mauling. demonstrations and other public fora by were identified. (2) the corpus delicti or newly-installed government of President Corazon C. offense. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . Marcos. and the police officers who were at that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. No. the principal accused denied their participation in the strictly comply with the guidelines prescribed by the law regarding the mauling of the victim and offered their respective alibis. station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.A. Sison v. a Section 21 of R. Aquino was being the illicit drug was presented as evidence. This was the time when the proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place. In which case the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. including two eyewitnesses. and against Rolando Fernandez y (DOJ). Nilo Pacadar whom such items were confiscated and/or seized. All of the place where the search warrant is served. the prosecution must rest on its own merits and had been required to sign the copies of the inventory. and (3) that the buyer and seller openly challenged in rallies. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice against Joselito Tamayo y Ortia. against Romeo Sison y Mejia. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. further. several informations were filed in court (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs against eleven persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with shall. it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo. Also filed were against Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega as copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. there was no mention whether the same had been done in that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven the presence of appellant or his representatives. Accused Joselito custody and control of the seized drugs despite its mandatory terms. in case of warrantless seizures. the following must be in the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution.[ Tension and animosity between the two (2) groups sometimes broke into violence. Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo. Provided. whichever is practicable. immediately after seizure and confiscation. that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at The cases were consolidated and raffled to the Regional Trial Court. 9165 states that: known "Coryista." supporters of deposed President Ferdinand E. physically inventory and the murder of Salcedo. On July 27. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the "Marcos loyalists.

IN OTHER anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not WORDS. X X X. when Philippines. Unlike the other accused. Richard de los Santos admits that only three of the appellants. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct integrity. with deliberate and production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were malicious intent of maligning. thereby maliciously exposing the family an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. contempt. namely. TRAYDOR SA YUTANG NATAWHAN. openly. publicly and repeatedly announce[d] the either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent following: KINING MGA HONTANOSAS. Manuel L. produced. can be identified by the SA ATO PA. 1994. however. Appellant Romeo Sison appeared in some of the photographs. Appellants' denials and however ignored him. HELD: YES. Nilo he was at the Luneta at the time of the mauling but denies hitting Salcedo. was allegedly at themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat. Torralba. Torralba v. in the City of Tagbilaran. who was during his [lifetime] a CFI Judge of Cebu and a man determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the of good reputation and social standing in the community and for the crime. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS AND CASTOR The objection of Atty. While the shouted to the maulers to stop hitting Salcedo. and its admissibility is Hontanosas. he An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the accused's testimonies reveal cannot run normally nor do things forcefully. disrespect and identify the pictures he has taken. unlawfully and feloniously. People FACTS: on or about the 11th day of April. Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified the incident. presented in evidence. he saw Salcedo being mauled and like Richard de los does not exculpate them. although afflicted with hernia is shown merely Pacadar admits that he is a Marcos loyalist and a member of the Ako'y running after the victim. therefore. Nilo appears only once and he. DUNAY DUGO NGA photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its PAGKATRAYDOR ANG AMAHAN NI MANOLING HONTANOSAS. The photographer. representation or reproduction of the original. over radio station DYFX. is not the only witness who can purpose of exposing him to public hatred. reputation. He claimed to be afflicted with hernia impairing his mobility. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE LAND OF THEIR BIRTH. English means: THESE HONTANOSAS. ARE COLLABORATORS DURING THE WAR. The maulers unequivocally identified by Sumilang and Banculo. presented to identify them. must be identified by the photographer as to its did then and there willfully. 1986. Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in Pilipino Movement and that he attended the rally on that fateful day. which in exactness and accuracy. His face was in the pictures because he sequence of the killing of Salcedo but only segments thereof. impeaching and discrediting the honesty. some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is and other words of similar import. The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs. 22 the prosecution because on July 27. Richard de los Santos. he was in his house in Quezon are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when City. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs is HONTANOSAS. X X X. Joel Tan also testified that pictures did not record Sison and Tamayo hitting Salcedo. MGA COLLABORATOR SA PANAHON SA GUERRA. Romeo Sison. they were he tried to pacify the maulers because he pitied Salcedo. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. Pacadar and Joel Tan could be readily seen in various belligerent poses He said that he merely watched the mauling which explains why his face lunging or hovering behind or over the victim. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS UG witnesses. prestige and honor of late CFI Judge Agapito Y. The absence of the two appellants in the photographs According to him. We rule that the use of these photographs by THE FATHER OF MANOLING HONTANOSAS HAD TREACHEROUS BLOOD. Gerry Neri claimed that he was at the Luneta Theater at the time of appellants Richard de los Santos. in his radio program TUG-ANI AND LUNGSOD (TELL THE PEOPLE) faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie. That the photographs of the late Judge Agapito Hontanosas including Atty. after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to CASTOR HONTANOSAS. his office near the Luneta waiting for some pictures to be developed at that time. ISSUE: WON the photograph is admissible for evidence. alibis cannot overcome their eyeball identification. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The correctness of the photograph as a ridicule. its accuracy. The photographs did not capture the entire Santos. a commercial photographer. merely viewed the incident. Photographs. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. any of the pictures.

petitioner Torralba foundation for the admission of the recordings. he allegedly received In one case. should have been presented by the the genuineness of the recording. mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas and other civic organizations in Cebu. (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording. wounded feelings and mental anguish. Likewise. Without the requisite given probative value. Thus. and the identities of the persons speaking laid a sufficient services. contempt and testimony. Hontanosas on 17 party seeking the introduction in evidence of a tape recording bears the December 1993. petitioner Torralba himself. voices contained therein satisfies the requirement of authentication. In the course of his profession as a radio broadcaster. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE.[3] one of the legitimate children of [the] late CFI Judge (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking Agapito Y. Shirly Lim. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Hontanosas in the amount to be proved during the trial of recording. one can easily discern that the proper foundation for the that the latter quo should not have given considerable weight on the admissibility of the tape recording was not adhered to. as its sole witness. the case. Shirly Lim. The thus. the tape recording is establishment of a proper foundation for the admission of a recording incompetent and inadmissible evidence. It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible Clearly. (6) identification of the speakers. familiar at all with the process of tape recording and that he had to instruct his adopted daughter to record petitioner Torralbas radio broadcasts. to the damage and prejudice of said (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the Atty. burden of going forth with sufficient evidence to show that the recording is Petitioner Torralba vigorously argues that the court a quo should not have an accurate reproduction of the conversation recorded. Penal Code in relation to Article 355 of the same Code. the person who actually recorded petitioner Torralbas because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee radio show on 11 April 1994. Shirly Lim. HELD: YES. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . Manuel L. the radio interview of private complainant Atty. discredit. there was no basis for the trial court to admit the tape wit: recording Exhibit D in evidence. it was held that the testimony of the operator of the recording complaints regarding the services of TMSI particularly with respect to the device as regards its operation. In our jurisdiction. the accuracy of laborers low pay and exhorbitant rates being charged for the arrastre the recordings. and The defense presented. (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent. it was held that the authentication. embarrassment. it is a rudimentary prosecution in order to lay the proper foundation for the admission of the rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and purported tape recording for said date. (4) a showing that changes. As he was in favor of balanced programming. given considerable weight on the tape recording in question as it was not These requisites were laid down precisely to address the criticism of duly authenticated by Lims adopted daughter. dishonor. Without said susceptibility to tampering of tape recordings. a witness requested TMSI to send a representative to his radio show in order to give declaration that the sound recording represents a true portrayal of the the corporation an opportunity to address the issues leveled against it. ridicule causing the latter to suffer social humiliation. the following requisites must first be established. additions. 23 Hontanosas. ISSUE: WON petitioner is correct is assailing the decision of lower court In the case at bar. Hontanosas to public hatred. his method of operating it. or deletions have not been Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article 353 of the Revised made. provided adequate assurance that proper safeguards were observed for the preservation of the recording and for its protection against tampering. It bears stressing tape recording in question as it was not duly authenticated by Lims that Lim categorically admitted in the witness stand that he was not adopted daughter. petitioner Torralba continues. (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made Petitioner Torralba maintained that he was a member of the Kapisanan ng without any kind of inducement. to authentication.

and was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. Quezon City. necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities. 24 WHEREFORE. placed him beside the faucet outside the room. Accused is therefore latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. insists that he was arrested inside the through all the desk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed boarding house of his children. according to Valeroso. it would be better to set free ten men HELD: NO. control and custody 1 plastic sachet of inside the boarding house of his children.43 The other police officers In this petition. we can readily conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Veleroso v. the petition is GRANTED. discrepancies. and they found the subject firearm and ammunition. for any concealed tricycle. in Quezon City. the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the ISSUE: WON there is a sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the required moral certainty for conviction. They pulled him out of the including plastic sachets [sic] without any license or authority. unlawfully and feloniously allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. there was no comparable justification to search defense. discovered the subject firearm. The evidence presented by the accused. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. the cabinet which. Philippines. The prosecution claims that Valeroso was arrested near the INP Central The arresting officers would have been justified in searching the person of Police Station in Culiat. In addition. it is reasonable for the arresting officer who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the innocent man for a crime he did not commit. incredible statements in the prosecution evidence. Otherwise. After placing Valeroso under arrest. Indeed. in violation room. the arresting officers bodily weapon that might be used against the former. tied his hands. the officer’s safety might well be endangered. 52315 with five (5) live ammo. To be the said accused without any authority of law. The circumstances obtaining. and the arrest itself frustrated. Valeroso considering the myriad material inconsistencies. (allegedly for kidnapping with ransom). When an arrest is made. With such discovery. Philippines. it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to Cacao v. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE.6 grams arresting officers who were heavily armed. and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. prevent its concealment or destruction. some of the police officers searched the boarding house and forcibly opened a cabinet where they Without the illegally seized firearm. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him. He was awakened by the methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu containing a total of 1. out of the bed. as well as the tables or drawers in front of him. Valeroso was sleeping [sic] have in his possession. sure. 1996. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . They placed him immediately under their control by pulling him FACTS: on or about the 10th day of July. Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest named accused. while he was about to board a Valeroso. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. and of the aforesaid law. at Laoag City. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing serial no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could no. did then and there willfully. After serving the warrant of arrest areas in that room itself. 2004. At that time. was locked. acquitted. From the foregoing narration of facts. Valeroso’s conviction cannot stand. did then and there willfully. But under the searched him. could no longer unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and under his/her be considered as an "area within his immediate control" because there was custody and control One (1) cal. People Valeroso. then put him under the care of Disuanco. All told. People search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to FACTS: On or about the 14th day of October. prosecution was not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence as constitutionally ordained. Cacao ascribes to the trial court as gravely erred in ruling remained inside the room and ransacked the locked cabinet44 where they that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt found the subject firearm and ammunition. without first having secured the be used against him. on the other hand. the above- In the present case.

It is now clearly evident from behooves upon the prosecution to establish and prove with certainty that the records that the sachet of shabu which the evidence custodian the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is received. If the version of Mangapit is to be believed. These lots. Delos Reyes purchased Lot The only other person who could have identified the subject drug is Pang. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. we cannot lend credence to his supposed identification. 1960 the same parties entered into a similar ag. However. Sale on Installment dated September 30. superior and immutable rule that the guilt of the accused must be proved necessarily leads us to doubt that the plastic sachet of shabu identified in beyond reasonable doubt because the law presumes that the accused is court is the same item that was allegedly seized and confiscated from innocent unless and until proven otherwise. then the most the performance of official duty cannot by itself override the constitutional lamentable aspect pertains to his failure to identify the seized item with right of the accused to be presumed innocent unless overcome by strong. on one hand. witness FACTS: Subject of controversy are two lots located at Maria Luisa Street. Under a Contract of allegedly confiscated from Cacao. Pang-ag is even incompetent to Maria Luisa St. the proper identification being the officer who confiscated the item from WHEREFORE. who is the most competent person to make clear and compelling evidence. marked and submitted for examination and later presented in the same item recovered from his possession. Based on the foregoing. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . certain and unequivocal. there was no actual and effective identification of the subject ERASUSTA VS. For sure Mangapit. never actually identified the same. court is not the same sachet of shabu which Mangapit claimed to have We have scrutinized in detail the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses confiscated from petitioner and subsequently transmitted to the evidence and found not only glaring inconsistencies on material points but more custodian. we must bow to the ag. there is no description of the lots but on each lot are existing structures with showing that this witness actually saw the shabu at the time it was corresponding addresses. importantly a failure to identify indubitably the prohibited drug allegedly confiscated from Cacao. the house in Lot 19. Besides. After sorting out the contents of the plastic bag. De Los Reyes is categorical and accurate declaration that the sachet contained the shabu among the tenants who purchased lots from Prieto. While as a rule we desist from disturbing the findings and conclusions of the trial court The patent inconsistency between the testimonies of Mangapit and Pang. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Verily. CA specimen. At no instance did he make a Prieto Estate owned by the late Antonio Prieto. especially with respect to the credibility of witnesses. Presumption of regularity in petitioner. that is proof beyond reasonable doubt.. In fact. not been adequately established by the prosecution. The two contracts did not contain a technical same not being also positive. Lot 19-A and Lot 19-C formed part of the tape attached to the plastic sachet. 25 make the identification since from all indications. Cacao. 19-C. (Prieto). Be that as it may. Again on December 13. and the house in Lot 19-A is addressed 925 Maria Luisa St. Mangapit merely pointed to the initial and signature written on a masking Sampaloc. Manila. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. any identification made by these witnesses on the item allegedly seized from petitioner is rendered meaningless and bereft of HELD: YES. Since the dangerous drug constitutes the corpus delicti of the probative value in view of the categorical denial of the evidence custodian offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. the contract over Lot 19-A. the petition is GRANTED. 1959. certainty. it that he received the same from Mangapit. Sr. has court was the same item confiscated from Cacao. and the testimony of Ancheta on the other hand. he has never been in ISSUE: WON the failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily establish that possession of it. we are of the considered view that the quantum of The prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish that the item presented in evidence needed to convict.C bears the address 933 allegedly seized from petitioner. the item presented in court was the same item confiscated from Cacao is fatal in establishing the conviction of the latter.

Inc. the same is her rights over Lot 19-A. registration does not vest title.). His conviction in Criminal Case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This should have aroused suspicion Petitioners come to this Court via the present recourse principally on the part of respondent Bank. premises before the mortgage of the subject realties were executed. on Valenzuelas not true. contrary to standard practice of contending that the CA committed reversible error when it declared banks. respondent Bank an innocent purchaser for value entitled to the manifestly showing its gross negligence. and 74018 over Lot 11). 73596 a loan. before approving eventually secured transfer certificates of title in his name (TCT No. purchaser in good faith. collateral and investigates who are the true owners and possessors Thereafter. To be sure. TCT No. executed a deed of sale over the said properties in favor of Valenzuela who It is a matter of judicial notice that a banking institution. Bank. De Los Reyes filed all. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the fraudulently transferred the rights over the lots to his name. sends its representative to the premises of the land offered as over Lot 34-D. nor can they be used as a shield for the commission Tiamson. The resolution of this case depends on whether the respondent Bank is a subdivision owner. notices were sent to the Torrens system has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring employees to explain. respondent Bank did not make any investigation of the premises at Upon discovery of the fraud perpetrated by Valenzuela. Valenzuela mortgaged the aforesaid real estates to respondent thereof. As established in the trial court an employee of respondent Bank by the two criminal complaints for estafa thru falsification of public documents name of Jesus Ortega was a close friend of Valenzuela. than petitioners and the Amorins. 26 While. Certificates of title merely confirm or record title workmates were summoned. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases at the Court disputed that no officer or employee of the respondent Bank inspected the of First Instance of Manila. respondent Bank did not conduct any on-the-spot investigation. In the final analysis. They cannot be used to protect a usurper the wrongdoings but he implicated his other workmates including from the true owner. 73955 over Lot 19-A. Among those terminated was Tiamson. if the property has already been Valenzuela (Valenzuela) to whom she entrusted the documents evidencing transferred from the name of the owner to that of the forger. PLDT then made the investigation formal and Busa was made to of fraud. This doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals with representation that he would assist De Los Reyes in transferring the titles registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a forger and to said properties to her three (3) children. In 1994. it is merely evidence of such title over illegal long distance calls being made by employees. However. and later termination ownership. nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. it is a familiar doctrine that a forged or fraudulent document may As it turned out De Los Reyes was deceived by a certain Benjamin become the root of a valid title. unaware of the fraud and forged instrument. Lots 11. Unfortunately. Valenzuela be absolutely protected by a Torrens title. Prieto. protection of the law with a better right over lot 19-A located at 933 Maria Luisa st. TIAMSON ISSUE: Is a CTC conclusive of ownership? Antonio Tiamson was a radio technician at PLDT (Philippine Long Distance HELD: NO. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Branch IV and Branch VII respectively. One employee named Vidal Busa admitted to already existing and vested. The submit an affidavit containing his earlier story. Settled is the rule that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of Telephone Company. Valenzuela was convicted in both cases. Here. In fact it was never against Valenzuela. PLDT VS. neither the mortgagor nor seller was in possession of the lands mortgaged or sold to respondent Bank. an investigation was done. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. PLDT discovered that there were some title. Tiamson and his a particular property. notices were sent. and Lot 34-D.

1992. employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause. notice rule was not fully complied with. Busa was made to submit a second affidavit which now HELD: No. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the on the ground that Busa witnessed Tiamson after the latter allegedly just document or the circumstances surrounding its execution. Again.00. the scales of justice must be Arceo v. still. equally reasonable. a case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.) 22 was filed against Arceo last March 27. allowed affidavit of loss as well as in his testimony during the trial of the case. 22 However. 1992. Arceo issued a post-dated check to evidence. never communicated to Tiamson (as shown by the records). BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the quantum of proof required in FACTS: Pacifico Arceo obtained loans from Josefino Cenizal in the total determining the legality of an employee’s dismissal is only substantial amount of P150. Cenizal’s relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to lawyer wrote demand letters to pay the amount of the check. People tilted in favor of the latter. Hence. 27 Tiamson later sued PLDT for illegal dismissal as he claimed the twin notice Procedural due process requires that the employer serve the employees to rule was not fully complied with. to apprise them of the particular acts ISSUE: Whether or not Tiamson was denied due process. prosecutor. to inform HELD: Yes. support a conclusion. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or Cenizal which was later dishonored because of insufficient funds. The fact in issue is the act of drawing and issuing a worthless check. notice sent to Tiamson was incomplete as to the charges against him. otherwise known as the best really committed the wrongdoing.000. it appears that although Tiamson was sent a first notice (asking return slip were lost by Cenizal in a fire that occurred near his residence on him to explain his side) and then a second notice (termination notice) and September 16. Cenizal was nevertheless able to adequately establish the Procedural due process requires that an employee be apprised of the due execution.P.P. the best finished making illegal long distance calls. be dismissed two (2) written notices before the termination of their employment is effected: (a) the first. and assisted by a Moreover. Tiamson was never notified of the charges against him – in short. already create doubt in a reasonable mind as to whether or not Tiamson Rule 130. ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself. not its content. given reasonable time to answer the same. Section 3. Tiamson so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. Petitioner’s insistence on the presentation of the check in impliacted Tiamson – which is quite irregular and inconsistent – this would evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 is wrong. This allegation by Busa was evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. of the Rules of Court. For payment. applies only where the content of the document is the Records further show that PLDT based its termination of Tiamson’s services subject of the inquiry. The records show that Busa and his ISSUE: Whether the presentation of the check in evidence is a condition other workmates submitted affidavits that did not implicate Tiamson. Although the check and the return slip were among the documents lost. He never representative if the employee so desires. and (b) second. might Executing an affidavit at and presenting the check and return slips to a conceivably opine otherwise. for conviction under B. Moreover. the win loss of the check in question and the return slip. even if other minds. Later. the burden of proof rests upon the them of the decision of the employer that they are being dismissed. the first the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check. Hence. Arceo himself admitted that he issued the check. evidence rule. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. or omission for which their dismissal is sought. The employer’s was illegally dismissed by PLDT. denied that the check was presented for payment to the drawee bank and was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Cenizal executed an Affidavit of Loss regarding the he was also invited in a confrontation with the management. existence and loss of the check and the return slip in an charge against him. the first notice was not fully complied with hence. case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee’s defense. failure to do in this case. the dishonored check and the In this case. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. If doubt exists between the evidence THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE presented by the employer and the employee. In termination cases. (B.

reneged on his promise. Del Monte Motor Held: No. as of 09 March 1984. The law says that the making. petitioner instead sought the admission of the duplicate original of the This rule requiring the production of the best evidence is to prevent fraud. The trial court eventually ruled in the adverse party must be given reasonable notice that he fails or refuses favor of Olvis.332. Under the Rules On 26 September 1985. when presented within ninety (90) days from the the spouse of respondent Narciso O. in the absence of any clear showing that the original writing with two other checks. As respondents defaulted holder thereof the amount due thereon. despite not having adduce evidence in his defense. Doctrine: As long as the original evidence can be had.000. impleading or credit with such bank. 399967 to prove the contents thereof. Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that No. Blg. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. on Evidence. however. and if he still fails or refuses to inapplicability of best evidence rule. Magdayao receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in nature. to produce the same in court. Magdayao. fraudulent or devious purpose which its production would expose and Respondent Morales similarly filed a manifestation with motion to defeat. Petitioner after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. Dipolog Branch. Morales (respondent Morales) in date of the check. 1993. insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the The note was to be paid in full by 23 May 1984. petitioner made its formal offer of evidence. which he hailed to do due to numerous sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. the date and amount and the P1. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the latter must be given reasonable notice. 399967 was admitted by the court. the Philippine National unjustified postponements. has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. as the original copy of Exhibit A could no longer be found. much less FACTS: On September 16. the court should not Olvis alleged that. Magdayao never produced the original of the check. As evidence for the prosecution.474. in the amount of P600. respondents copy of PNB Check No. upon learning that the check was dishonored. However. Magdayao was charged with offered to produce the same. a photocopy of PNB Check custody or control of the adverse party. other than EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. promissory note which was identified and marked as Exhibit E. such as pleaded for time to pay the amount by retrieving the check and replacing it photocopies. Issue: Was the photocopy of the subject check inadmissible in evidence for failure of the prosecution to produce the original dishonored check? Consolidated v. especially still failed to pay their indebtedness which. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original thereof. 22 for having issued to Ricky Olvis a check dates check as a bargaining chip for the court to grant him an opportunity to September 30. drawing and issuance of a check FACTS: On 13 June 1984. dishonor thereof. Bank.55. To warrant the Despite repeated demands by Olvis. Engr. He deliberately withheld the original of the violation of B. If a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it and presents The trial court initially admitted into evidence Exhibit E and granted inferior or secondary evidence in its place. shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such order to bind their conjugal partnership of gains. People In this case.P. when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document. stood at the names of the drawer and endorsee. Magdayao v. the presumption is that the best respondents motion that they be allowed to amend their respective evidence was withheld from the court and the adverse party for a answers to conform with this new evidence.00. as well as the reason for such dishonor. 1991. produce the original in court. 22. only then may secondary evidence be presented. petitioner filed before the RTC of Manila a payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in complaint for recovery of sum of money against respondents. 28 No need to present check to sustain a conviction under B. the full amount of the loan became due and payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days demandable pursuant to the terms of the promissory note. In case the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party. or makes arrangements for on their monthly installments. Magdayao failed to make good the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in the check’s value. reconsider order admitting as evidence Exhibit E which. likewise alleges that it made oral and written demands upon respondents It was incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce in evidence the original to settle their obligation but notwithstanding these demands.P.

respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of paved the way for the application of the best evidence rule. question the precise wording of the promissory note which should have Failing to heed his demand. requesting them to settle their promissory note. Their judicial admission with respect to the genuineness and On 06 December 1985. Antonio ISSUE: WON the best evidence rule is applicable in this case. The of a writing is the justification for the best evidence rule. On June 7. Money against the spouses Gaw with the RTC. Judge Ricardo D. respondent Morales also claims that he did obligation with the warning that he will be constrained to take the not sign the note in his personal capacity. we declare that parties agreed that the loan will be payable within six (6) months without this rule finds no application to this case. 240810 for P200. the spouses Gaw failed to pay the amount they borrowed from no room for disagreement. it would an exception to the best evidence rule. of the court a quo inhibit himself from this case maintaining that the latter rushed into resolving its motion for Gaw v. Respondent sent the couple a principal defense rests on the alleged lack of consideration of the demand letter. petitioner filed a motion praying that the presiding original of said note.[10] dated March 25. petitioner judicially admitted the due execution of the Deed of possession of the adverse party. an error for the Court of Appeals to sustain the decision of the The trial court held that the validity and due execution of the Deed of trial court on this point. judge. Bulacan. for brevity). petitioner Concepcion Chua Gaw and her husband. and even acknowledged her signature thereon. Chua reconsideration of the trial courts order of 06 December 1985 thereby FACTS: Spouses Chua Chin and Chan Chi were the founders of three depriving it the opportunity of presenting proof that the original of Exhibit business enterprises. according to petitioner. 1991. on 06 August 1987. truth of its contents. the parties to the documents themselves do not EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. As for the Deed of Sale. Bulacan. Partition and the Deed of Sale. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . respondents respondent within the designated period. Diaz. This motion to inhibit was denied by the trial court their interest in Hagonoy Lumber. Gaw. respondents failed to deny were not established as far as he was concerned. As pointed out by petitioner in its motion Partition. since the have sufficiently established that the original of Exhibit A was in the contents thereof have not been put in issue. question. to lend them P200. Although respondent failed to produce the originals of the one of which is when the original of the subject document is in the documents. wherein the heirs settled objectivity and fairness. the rule accepts of exceptions impugned. On December 8. It was.000. 1986. In addition. This being the case. cast doubt on his Favor of a Co-Heir (Deed of Partition. the trial court granted respondents motions for execution of the promissory note sufficiently established their liability to reconsideration.000. 1988. Bearing in mind that the risk of mistransmission of the contents they will use for the construction of their house in Marilao. In their responsive pleadings. therefore. the best evidence rule as stated in our Revised Rules of Civil Hagonoy Lumber from Chua Sioc Huan to respondent. respondent issued in their favor China Banking respondents never disputed the terms and conditions of the promissory Corporation Check No. In May 1988. concerned. there same arguments contained in respondent corporations manifestation with was no need for petitioner to present the original of the promissory note in motion for reconsideration referred to above. essentially raised the specifically the execution of the promissory note.00 which he delivered to the note thus leaving us to conclude that as far as the parties herein are couples house in Marilao. was never Procedure is not absolute. his surviving heirs executed a A was delivered to respondents as early as 02 April 1983. the non-presentation of the possession of respondents which would have called into application one of original document is not fatal so as to affect its authenticity as well as the the exceptions to the best evidence rule. asked respondent. had it been given the opportunity by the court a quo. Such haste on the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Renunciation of Hereditary Rights in part of the presiding judge. and as discussed earlier. As quoted earlier.00 which HELD: NO. Antonio later encashed the check. evidencing transfer of ownership of Besides. Suy Ben Chua. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. These contentions clearly do not appropriate legal action if they fail to do so. Also. the wording or content of said note is clear enough and leaves Meantime. thus constitutes to inhibit. It should be noted that interest. petitioner regardless of the fact that petitioner failed to present the On 08 April 1986. 29 insisting that the due execution and genuineness of the promissory note Significantly.

After Tan completed presenting evidence.883. From August 19 to November 26. or on the delivery. 30 contest their validity. rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. no Petitioner. As for the Deed of Sale. in the trial courts discretion. It adds that EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. hence. in effect. doing business under the name and style of Manila buyer. to pay attorneys fees equal to 25% of the claim. the best evidence collect the same. petitioner failed to establish her right to post facto assertions of one of the parties. petitioner insists that the Deed of Sale Manila Mining v. whenever the opponent does not bona fide On September 3. the RTC correctly admitted in evidence mere copies of the two MMC offered as sole witness Rainier Ibarrola.880. It is the best presented during trial. and there can be. a mere copy of the Deed of Partition and the Deed of Sale in violation of the best evidence rule. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. and intention of the parties since they were only provisional paper On rebuttal. Mandarin Marketing. The petitioner invoices and purchase orders negated receipt of said documents by MMCs merely claimed that said documents do not express the true agreement representatives. As proof. Tan filed a collection suit against MMC at the dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be Manila RTC. On December 18. been reduced to writing. He testified that the absence of stamp marks on the to specifically deny it in the manner required by the rules. Here.347. it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon CA affirmed RTC. Manila Mining Corporation (MMC) of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of ordered and received various electrical materials from Tan valued at such document is the subject of the inquiry. production of the original may be dispensed with. Section 3. his sales representative in arrangements made upon the advice of counsel. there was no dispute as to the terms of either deed. MMC filed a Demurrer to Accordingly. Ultimately. its accountant from year deeds. denying the instant case. petitioner a supplier to present the original sales invoice and purchase order when had. demurrer and directing MMC to present evidence. or exists. and in case of suit to circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution. Ibarrola confirmed that it was standard office procedure for that she signed the Deed of Partition. Moreover. was engaged in the business of selling electrical ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in admitting the evidence. or of third parties who are demand an accounting of the operations of Hagonoy Lumber nor the strangers to the contract. not from the unilateral which requires the production of the original writing in court. the charge of MMCs account. or be charged interest of 18% per annum. Where the issue is only as to P2. deciphered from the language used in the contract. which was covered by nine invoices. between the parties and their successors in interest. duties and obligations. Tan was not the result of bona fide negotiations between a true seller and FACTS: Miguel Tan. 2001. In addition. maintains that the RTC erred in admitting in evidence evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule 130. De los Santos testified that he delivered the petitioner does not contest the contents of these deeds but alleges that originals of the invoices and purchase orders to MMCs accounting there was a contemporaneous agreement that the transfer of Hagonoy department. the original. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 .636. Any other MMC made partial payments in the amount of P464. it failed to give the remaining balance of P1. Apparently. however.244. Thus. admitted its genuineness and due execution when she failed claiming to be paid. materials. he showed three customers acknowledgment Lumber to Chua Sioc Huan was only temporary. 2003. the RTC issued an Order. receipts An agreement or the contract between the parties is the formal Petitioner also assails the probative value of the documentary evidence expression of the parties rights. But despite substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for repeated demands. Tan presented Wally de los Santos. served by requiring production. when the terms of an agreement have delivery of her 1/6 share therein. HELD: NO. The parties intention is to be of invoices and purchase orders did not satisfy the Best Evidence Rule. 1997. we find that the best evidence rule is not applicable to the Evidence. The petitioner never even denied their due execution and admitted 2000 to 2002. MMC agreed to pay the purchase price within 30 days from whether such document was actually executed. MMC claims that the unauthenticated photocopies evidence of the intention of the parties.

the best evidence rule finds no application here. of that day. transactions. evidenced by a Medical Certificate As a result of Nissans continued failure to comply with Uniteds demands. and punched her in the different parts of her body. Mr. This was ignored. for security services with petitioner Nissan North Edsa (Nissan). But we are in agreement that photocopies of the of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their respective claims and documents were admissible in evidence to prove the contract of sale defenses. MMC did not deny the contents of the invoices and purchase put in issue. Nissans reliance on the best evidence rule is misplaced. secondary evidence may be introduced in contents of the service contract between Nissan and United have not been proof. to fetch her son and beginning 23 April 1993. In the morning of 31 January 1996.[29] However. 31 by Tans failure to yield the original documents. the same applies only when the are directly in issue. Court. the boy ignored her and continued playing with the family computer. Pampanga. The As regards respondents failure to present the original documents. both parties quoted and relied on the same provision to facilitate payment. and owned by her husband but operated by his mistress. Its lone contention was that Tan did not submit the original copies contract. it was able to post 18 security guards within bring him to San Fernando. docketed as Criminal Case No.[15] Rule 131 of the Rules of RTC and CA affirmed. 88-68006. Where the existence of the writing or its general contents of a document are the subject of the inquiry. that its services spanking him. as respondent United failed. Quezon City. The invoices furnished the details of the ISSUE: WON the best evidence rule is applicable in this case. 1988. claimed that her husband started choking her when she fell on the floor. Galope personally son. While she was talking to her son. Manila. suppressed evidence under Section 3(e). DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Tondo. before the Protective Agency (United) is a domestic corporation engaged in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. formally seeking a reconsideration from hematoma and contusions on different parts of her body as a result of its action. issued by a certain Dr. he was presumed to have The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of herein respondent United. of the blows inflicted by her husband. the purchase orders constituted accepted offers money and damages. petitioner mere postulations. the purport is all that is in issue. and started latters General Manager. Ricarte Galope (Galope). through the Filipina got mad. it entered into a contract May 15. as in fact. Filipina testified that in the afternoon of business of providing security services. In this case.[30] In this case. HELD: NO. in evidence the service contract upon which it based its claim for sum of HELD: YES. during the trial of the case. to offer sufficient for evidence. Nissan informed United. James Ferraren. Petitioner Nissan insists that no judgment can properly be rendered ISSUE: WON the contents of the invoices and purchase orders are against it. Neither United nor Nissan disputes the contents of the service orders. she went to the dental clinic at Masangkay. Nissan asserts that the resolution of this case calls for cannot evade its obligation to pay by claiming lack of consent to the the application of the best evidence rule.m. CA Nissan v. Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted parricide FACTS: Respondent United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and against her husband. between the parties. United Phil Scout FACTS: In May 1988. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Pias City. Filipina also pleaded with the personnel manager of Nissan to reconsider its decision. When Nissan failed to act on this verbal request. the decisions of the lower courts were when Tan supplied the electrical materials to MMC. Hence. took the computer away from her son. Sy v. As a result. Fernando pulled Filipina away from their were being terminated beginning 5:00 p. Galope wrote a Letter. perfected contracts of sale. In 1993. At that instance. suffice it best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence to say that the best evidence rule applies only if the contents of the writing to prove a disputed fact. She said it was not the first time the latter filed a case for Sum of Money with damages before the Fernando maltreated her. and released her only when he thought she was dead. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . Filipina suffered addressed to Nissans general manager. Thus. Nissans compound located in EDSA Balintawak.

Articles 72-79 of the Civil Code. A marriage license is a formal requirement. 1973. yet. its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. these documents were marked as existed at the time of the celebration of their marriage in 1973. These pieces of evidence on record agricultural land (2 ha each). RBBI eventually consolidated title to the properties and TCTs were issued Carefully reviewing the documents and the pleadings on record. (evidenced by TCT No. Thus. Lantap –tenanted by PeachesNemi (who is plainly and indubitably show that on the day of the marriage ceremony. the husband of Peaches Elenita). 1973. no of their marriage. 1985 was issued for the Murong property. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . neither petitioner nor private respondent ever RBBI. T-62836 dated June 4. with no objections having surfaced only in 1983. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick and failed to show that the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent had daughter Farrah Sheryll. Cavite. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Inc. Article 80 of the 26. they were living objection was interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court when she together harmoniously. which shows that these have reiterated the finding of the trial court that the couple's marital problems been examined and admitted by the trial court. admitted in evidence. T-62096). these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts petitioner. and sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment. which are also attached as Annexes " B" and "C" in the petition for declaration of absolute Marquez v. that indeed petitioner did not expressly state in her petition before the TCT No. There being no claim of an injuries. The ineluctable conclusion is that the located but mentioned the title of the property (TCT No. exceptional character. resided in Carmona. We thus conclude that under Article 80 of it ruled that the testimony of petitioner concerning respondent's the Civil Code. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. And prior to their separation in 1983. numbered 6237519. Murong .. HELD: NO. and Nestor Dela Cruz. 1985 was issued for the Lantap property celebration of their marriage and the date of the issuance of their marriage Espejos bought back 1 of their lots from RBBI. contained therein. Espejo nullity of marriage before the trial court. with the adverse party failing to timely object ISSUE: WON there is a sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of thereto. T- license. however. 1973. In the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 21. parents in both their son's and daughter's birth certificates. and thereafter marked as Exhibits FACTS: Espejos were the original registered owners of 2 parcels of "B" and "C" in the course of the trial. Likewise. in its decision[12] dated April we find private respondent denying these dates on record. trial court that there was incongruity between the date of the actual TCT No.1974. In addition. the marriage license was 62096 ) issued on September 17. T-62096 dated Jan 14. the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on of the lower court which it found to be in accordance with law and the November 15. Moreover. convicted Fernando only of the lesser crime of slight physical Civil Code is clearly applicable in this case. required to nullify a marriage celebrated with all the formal and essential We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only requisites of law. or almost ten years from the date of the celebration been made as to their authenticity and due execution. the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is purported psychological incapacity falls short of the quantum of evidence void from the beginning. the purported marriage between petitioner and Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of private respondent could not be classified among those enumerated in the trial court. the petition is GRANTED. which marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. We are of the view. Nevertheless. Nowhere do title corresponds to the Murong property. was issued Bayombong. almost one year after the ceremony took The Deed of Sale did not mention the barangay where the property was place on November 15. 32 The Regional Trial Court of Manila. also appears as the date of marriage of the WHEREFORE. November 15. The mortgaged properties were foreclosed and sold to in Carmona. 1990. the Court of Appeals held that petitioner photocopies. that having been evidence on record. 1996. therefore. we find in the name of RBBI. It Exhibits during the course of the trial below. From the documents she presented.tenanted by Sulan-at Marquez there was no marriage license. the marriage The respondents mortgaged both parcels of land to Rural Bank of contract shows that the marriage license.

on July 1. the DAR issued the corresponding Certificates of Land Ownership In view of all the foregoing. (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party Using the Best evidence rule. to RBBI. exceptions. there are other exceptions to the 'best evidence rule as expressly RARAD declared that they were disqualified to become tenants of the provided under Section 3. The (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed. fault of the prosecution. Bayombong. There is no room for the application of the BER because there is no RBBI executed separate Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer (VLTs) in favor of dispute regarding the contents of the docs. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . control in determining the subjects thereof. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in is recorded in a public office. for said OIC-RARAD Decision: Ruled in favor of Nemi. or cannot be produced in title numbers indicated in their respective deeds of conveyance should court. without the the buy-back transaction with Espejos. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. therefore. ' When the DARAB Decision: Respondents repurchased the Lantap property. Nemi the contents of the contracts but the intention of the parties that was not continued working on the Lantap property. (Murong property) has a mere typographical error. 33 Respondents never took possession of the Murong property. T-62836 (which. Cayabyab however. The complaint was based on respondents’ theory that the ISSUE: WON the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty. or was unavailable. sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. BER. Original document must be produced. particularly the description of the land which was the object of after reasonable notice. is the title corresponding to the Lantap property). Sec. the EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. proven the guilt of the accused Genaro Cayabyab y Fernandez beyond Both CLOAs stated that their subjects were parcels of agricultural land reasonable doubt for rape as defined and penalized under Article 335. 3. CA erred in its application of the annotated on TCT No. Both VLTs described the subject as an agricultural land located in Barangay Murong and covered by TCT No. which reads: Lantap property. no evidence shall be Murong property (based on RBBI claim) admissible other than the original document itself. respondents filed a Complaint before the RARAD of sentence accused Genaro Cayabyab y Fernandez to DEATH. They maintain that the issue in the case is not the local civil registrar who is a public officer. while the petitioners were awarded the Murong property. Clearly. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. using the BER to determine the subject of the Deed of Sale and the Deeds Without doubt. a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody of of Voluntary Land Transfer. We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. However. mere photocopy of the birth certificate. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 1997. paragraph 3 and 4 as the victim herein is only six (6) years old and hereby Feb 10. the Court opines that the prosecution has Award (CLOAs) to Marquez and Dela Cruz. in the absence of any showing that RBBI answered that it was the Lantap property which was the subject of the original copy was lost or destroyed. not the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. Mantis that a buy-back. Issue: Is it correct to apply the Best evidence rule? and HELD: NO. People v. the sale (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents The additional description in the VLTs that the subject thereof is located in which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact Barangay Murong was considered to be a mere typographical error. and the latter fails to produce it contents. except in the following Ruling of the CA: DARAB erred in ruling that they repurchased the Lantap cases: property. situated in Barangay Murong. the Deed of Sale is the best evidence as to its against whom the evidence is offered. The Deed of Sale was adequately expressed in their contracts. T-62096 almost a decade later. Murong property was owned by the respondents by virtue of the 1985 HELD: YES. Marquez and Dela Cruz. CA held that the Deed of Sale between respondents and RBBI is (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or the best evidence as to the property. FACTS: Appellant Genaro Cayabyab y Fernandez was sentenced to death After the petitioners completed the payment of the purchase price of P90K by the RTC for rape committed against six-year-old Alpha Jane Bertiz. does not prove the victim's minority. 1994. RARAD ruled that the VLTs photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.

regarding her where AAA was staying. much and even began touching her breast. after which her vagina bled. 34 presentation of the photocopy of the birth certificate of Alpha Jane is AAA did not complain nor tell her brothers about her ordeal because she admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents. Thereafter. the Court has held that the failure of the accused to object to the his. He went on top of AAA and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. in fact it admitted the same. Thereafter. evidence for the defense. With her were her father. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape and In fine. Bulacan with the crime of statutory rape. CR-H. Neither was it her medicine. in She was then rendered weak enabling appellant to successfully insert his the absence of any supporting independent evidence. the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits the course of her struggle against appellant's advances that she called on and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the her sister for help. Production of the was afraid as she was threatened by appellant that he will hurt them and original may be dispensed with. 23. It was in cases.With respect to AAA's minority. incident happened on August 7. baptismal herein appellant. testimonial evidence regarding the rape victims age shall not be taken AAA resisted but appellant held her hands and boxed her left thigh twice. In the instant case. 2005 in CA-G. Thus. appellant turned off the light and destroyed. appellant told BBB to sleep outside the room where AAA shown by the prosecution that the said documents had been lost. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. 2001. photocopied birth certificate. and deemed The RTC rendered its Decision. appellant. 1994. her aunt accompanied her to the office of the production. He then took off AAA's clothes and also removed age. No. AAA felt pain. It was during that compromising less the allegation that she was under the age of twelve when she was position that BBB entered the room and saw them. proceeded to their kitchen. Appellant withdrew his penis from her vagina but remained on top of her In the present case. 1994. Bulacan. coupled with appellant's absence of denial. when the rape ISSUE: WON the prosecution failed to establish the age of the victim. her two older brothers and her sister BBB. she felt something come out of his penis. secondary evidence the same became a primary evidence. Even the appellant's implied admission of the victim's age. whenever in burn their house if she relates the incident to them. appellant returned to the room Anent appellant’s failure to object to the testimony of AAA. 00571 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. was only six-years-old. aside from the testimonies of prosecution was taking medicine through the help of her sister. 1996. was staying. her brothers were already asleep in another room. Padilla must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim. She was then certificate or school records would suffice as competent evidence of her staying in one of the rooms because she was suffering from asthma and age. we find that the prosecution sufficiently proved that Alpha Jane hereby sentences him the capital penalty of DEATH. he made push and pull It is settled that to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape movements. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. the Court cannot hold appellant liable for statutory rape. AAA cried WHEREFORE. being born on November 26. an Information was filed against appellant charging raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of this him before the RTC of Malolos. appellant's penis was inside her vagina. may not be organ inside her vagina. On the other witnesses. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where they filed a complaint against In the case at bar. She pleaded with appellant to stop but to no avail.R. in the trial court's discretion. After AAA took substantial evidence was presented to prove the age of AAA. BBB. Subsequently. Thereafter. Having failed to On February 1. When BBB went outside. The victim's original or duly certified birth certificate. the prosecution failed to prove the age of AAA. no independent hand. the settled rule is that there People v. against him.C. AAA was the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by inside their house located at Marilao. the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February while BBB handed her clothes to her. finds the accused Armando Padilla y Nicolas admitted and the other party is bound thereby. HELD: YES. Appellant immediately raped. They then slept beside each other. unavailable or were otherwise totally absent. While considered sufficient to prove her age. It was only in October the case at hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of 1995 that she was able to tell her aunt about her experience in the hands the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring of appellant. gathered his clothes and went to the comfort room. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the defense did not dispute the contents of the appellant. other than FACTS: Around 9 o'clock in the evening of February 22.

or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree 1318 and that no sale of the portion pertaining to Ramon and David such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Abadiano ever took place. in People v. or the Remiendo v. 1922 and acknowledged before Notary sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old. Public Jose Peralta and bearing notarial inscription Doc. Robert Remiendo y Siblawan (Remiendo). nor marked as Nevertheless. 1. It is significant to note that both AAA and BBB testified than 12 years old in March and May 1997. 1318-C to sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old. 1999 because it was neither identified by any witness. the prosecution offered in evidence a certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth of AAA offered by the prosecution during its formal AAAs Certificate of Live Birth as part of the testimonies of AAA and her offer of exhibits was not admitted by the RTC in its Order dated September mother that AAA was born on February 21. 1986. Municipality of the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and Tuba. sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. respondent spouses alleged that. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial [AAA]. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is Abadiano. FACTS: On or about the month of March 1997. As regards the appreciation of the age of a rape victim. the prosecution admitted in the course of trial that AAAs birthday was Court. Honorable Court. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. 1986. Section 40. Victor Garde. 35 Appellant Armando Padilla is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of c. the time of the alleged commission of the crimes. No. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is the Crime of Simple Rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the there willfully. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of purported absence of competent proof that AAA was below 12 years old at the victim. authentic document. if clear and Petitioner Xerxes A. Abadiano intervened in that case. AAA was more laid down in Pruna. even assuming that the Certificate of Live Birth was not exhibit during the trial though reserved for marking during the pretrial. a girl below 12 years of age. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is (Compra Y Venta) dated June 3. the testimony. T-31862. The argument of Remiendo that the HELD: YES. the prosecution was able to establish that AAA further posits that. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . He appreciated by the RTC. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. similar authentic documents Abadiano v. been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. and within the jurisdiction of this clearly admitted by the accused. and Quirico Mandaguit. People testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age. Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient under the On the other hand. the In this case. for himself and on behalf of David a. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one offended party. According to him. 64. Faustino Montao. 1984 cannot stand. credible. at Badiwan. Benguet Province. 4. The sale was allegedly evidenced by a document of sale b. Pag. 2. on the basis of the testimonies of the defense was below 12 years old during the two occasions of rape per the guidelines witnesses and the Elementary School Permanent Record. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have against Roberto Abadiano. In the absence of a certificate of live birth. Martir such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of FACTS: The case stemmed from an action for quieting of title and/or birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. had already sold their rights and interests over Lot No. prior to the issuance following circumstances: of TCT No. of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity Petitioner insists that this is still the valid and subsisting title over Lot No. objected to by the defense. Philippines. recovery of possession[4] of a parcel of land filed by herein respondents 3. This fact was neither denied nor ISSUE: WON the age of the victim is sufficiently established. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. Pruna. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original WHEREFORE. that AAA was born on February 21. the petition is DENIED. No. Ramon Abadiano. did then and 5. or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. laid down the following guidelines: February 21. Remiendo questions his conviction for statutory rape despite the 6. evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. 14.

and the latter fails to produce it HELD: YES. the trial court accepted the Abadiano in a document dated September 30. no evidence shall be admissible there willfully. Maricar Dimaano charged her father. was presented to prove that minority. the Original document must be produced. Maricar Dimaano. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . however. or cannot be produced in court. According to respondent Lolita Martir. and yet. except in the following cases: undersigned complainant Maricar Dimaano y Victoria. document as genuine and proceeded to determine its validity based on ISSUE: WON THE DEED OF SALE (COMPRA Y VENTA) IS A SPURIOUS such assumption. court without bad faith on the part of the offeror. who is his own (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed. Dimaano respondents anchored their claim to the property on the disputed Compra FACTS: On January 26. The Rule states that when the original document is unavailable. DOCUMENT. and sentencing him to faith on his part. we held that production of the original which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact may be dispensed with. Further. III. we find it necessary to repeat that it was incumbent upon the trial Dimaano with two (2) counts of rape and one (1) count of attempted rape court to have resolved first the issue of the documents due execution and in the complaints. the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The presentation. and deemed admitted and the other party is bound thereby. 36 60. Edgardo lost or destroyed. against her will and consent. Edgardo Y Venta. When the subject of above-named accused. a minor 10 years of age. by means of force and intimidation. authenticity. exceptions to the 'best evidence rule under Section 3. That sometime in the year 1993 in the Municipality of Paraaque. upon proof Dimaano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad against his own daughter. did then and inquiry is the contents of a document. whenever the sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. the offeror. Appellant denied the accusations against him. Metro Rule 130. Rule 130 of the (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents Revised Rules on Evidence. 1939. Book No. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the other than the original document itself. or by a recital of its reclusion perpetua and DEATH. against whom the evidence is offered. or cannot be produced in daughter. In the case at bar. has been WHEREFORE . Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court reads: Manila. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Having failed to raise a valid and timely objection against the the original is indeed in the custody of the Register of Deeds or that presentation of this secondary evidence the same became a primary respondents due and diligent search for the same was unsuccessful. before determining its validity. The admission of this secondary evidence is one of the after reasonable notice. is recorded in a public office. They allegedly tried to prove their contents. in the trial court's discretion. evidence. No other their contents when offered as evidence to prove relationship and evidence but these bare assertions. 1996. Indubitably. series of 1922. opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or other useful purpose will be served by requiring its production. (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party ISSUE: WON the guilt of the accused is sufficiently established. The sale was allegedly affirmed by David allowed under the abovequoted rule. complaint. It is also well to note that appellant did not dispute obtain a copy from that office but their request was refused. exceptions. may prove its contents by a copy. HELD: Considering that the action is one for quieting of title and People v. the marriage and birth certificates are public records in the Respondents attached only a photocopy of the Compra Y Venta to their custody of the local civil registrar who is a public officer. the original of said therefore of their photocopies is admissible as secondary evidence to document was in the office of the Register of Deeds. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. respondents failed to establish that the offer in evidence of the document was made in accordance with any of the exceptions EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. contents in some authentic document.

Rule 130). as to which the writing is merely Nicanor Martin filed a petition with the Securities and Investigation collated or incidental. unauthenticated photocopies. as well as the photocopies of the checks and or destruction thereof.150. on the ground that the prosecution had adduced knowledge of such loss. Section 5 of the Revised Rules of The petitioner alleged that . hence. Clearing Department (SICD) of the Commission praying. and (c) payment of the empty bags sold by NMI to VCMI. the and charge invoices on the ground that the best evidence were the original custodian must be required to make a search and the fruitlessness of such copies thereof. in admitting in When the original document is unavailable. consisting of mere has been lost or destroyed. 4. 0809. When the original document evidence the Peoples documentary evidence. and collaterally involved. search must be shown. Sonny Moreno. People the cause of action or defense. thereby wantonly refusing to exclude such recital of its contents in some authentic document. Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the petition for lack of Rule 132. appearance or condition of physical objects or to (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written. its due execution and authenticity must HELD: NO. and The accused objected to the admission of the photocopies of the checks which has been placed in the hands of a custodian for safekeeping. the original as provided in Rule 130. the trustee wrote the petitioner. Appended more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only to the complaint were photocopies of Charge Invoice Nos. evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . or cannot be produced in court. Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure merit. for the annulment or nullification of the Certification of Filing of thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the Resolution of Voluntary Dissolution of NMI for being contrary to law and its part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial by-laws. 2002. 5 and 6. among other The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates things. the offeror. before secondary evidence can be admitted. The Court of Appeals ruled that the charge invoices and the checks on how the authenticity and due execution of a private document which is were not the best evidence to prove receipt by the accused of the amounts offered as authentic may be proved: allegedly misappropriated. certificate of the custody of the document is incompetent to prove the loss affidavit of the petitioner. However. 3. Leoncio Tan and the existence of an independent fact. It has been A verified complaint for three (3) counts of estafa was filed against the held that where the missing document is the foundation of the action. 0811. 1988 requesting him to turn over to it the P1.Respondent judge committed grave abuse of Court: discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the best evidence rule does not apply. or by the testimony of clearly inadmissible evidence. preponderant evidence that the original copies of the said charges and The proponent is also burdened to prove the due execution or existence of checks were lost. (b) the In the meantime. 0810.500. or by a objections of the petitioner. Johnson Lee. the trial court issued an Order admitting the counter. Such fact must be proved by some person who has charge invoices. or evidence relating to a matter which does not come from the foundation of EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. witnesses in the order stated. in flagrant violation of the Best Evidence upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability Rule (Sec. on March proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a 8. may prove its contents by a copy. despite the repeated vehement without bad faith on his part. The rule does not apply to proof of facts collateral to the issues be proved either: such as the nature. he failed to do it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has so. destroyed or non-available. been made for the document in the proper place or places. issued by NMI to VMCI.43 The On April 12. Johnson Lee. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. petitioner and Sonny Moreno with the City Prosecutors Office. If the document is one in which other persons are also interested.00 he received in reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy. 37 Lee v. Before any private document offered as ISSUE: WON the best evidence rule applies in this case. authentic is received in evidence. Proof of private document. 1988. or when a party uses a document to prove FACTS: On March 22.

petitioners presented the questioned Deed of Absolute including the charge invoices and checks. The Complaint authenticity and due execution of such document. marked as Exhibit 3. 1964. Thus. its part of the original copies of the said invoices and checks without bad HELD: NO. sought to declare the nullity of the transfer certificate of title of the In this case. Notarized prosecution even no longer needed to adduce evidence aliunde to prove EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. Bayaban. to prove the predicates to the admission of the photocopies of the charge The testimony of an eyewitness as to the execution of a private document invoices and checks. of the authenticity and due FACTS: The case originated from a Complaint filed by the respondents.Llemos party against whom the document is offered. Manager for Corporate Affairs of VMCI. and the checks. 1995.150. the Certificate of Death. tecum and ad testificandum issued by the trial court directing the VMCI to Respondents failed to establish the due execution and authenticity of the produce the originals of the checks and the charge invoices. and that such document which. cause of action heavily rests on the Certificate of Death only and no other The prosecution offered the checks to prove the contents thereof as well evidence. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is All told then. Fernandez (Eusebia) testified that Saturnina was VMCI purchased 203. (b) CA reversed the RTC. On the other hand. The RTC held that although the invoices in evidence to prove the contents thereof.500 empty bags from NMI for the total price of her grandmother and that she died in 1938. There is also no dispute that the prosecution offered the photocopies of RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners.00. is admissible in evidence to prove the existence. the records show that. John Metropolitan Cathedral in Dagupan City may be considered as were deposited by the petitioner with the Solidbank which was not the entries made in the course of business under then Section 37 of Rule 130. the late Felipe returned to VMCI after the same were negotiated and honored by the Llemos (Felipe). 190 are no longer public writings. authenticity must therefore be proved as are all other private writings in However. the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence claimed to be. the contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures. official depository of NMI. there is no dispute that the original copies of the checks were petitioners on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . 38 (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the the existence. and (c) NMI charged VMCI for the purchase price of said goods. as correctly found by the RTC. loss/destruction was known to all the employees of VMCI. marriages. that the respondents condition. The originals of the charge invoices were kept by VMCI. the execution thereof. testified that all its records. due execution and the authenticity of the charge invoices maker. as the following: (a) VMCI drew and delivered the checks to the NMI. nor are they was inadmissible in evidence against him because of the failure of the kept by duly authorized public officials. and (c) the said checks St. 68 We agree with the petitioner that the Certification signed by Carolina Diaz and the passage of Act No. were destroyed seven years ago Sale dated November 5. acquired the property described therein through a forged drawee bank.500. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. must be positive. Eusebia did not testify on the P1. He must state that the document was actually executed by the person whose name is subscribed thereto. the loss. (b) VMCI received the said goods in good order and fact of death of Saturnina from personal knowledge. including herself A notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements With the admissions of the petitioner in his counter-affidavit. compulsory heirs of the late Saturnina Salvatin (Saturnina). The CA held that the entries in the Registry Book of the said checks were endorsed by the petitioner. They are private writings and their prosecution to present her as witness and to testify on said certification. and faith on its part. destruction or its inability to produce in court without bad faith on ISSUE: WON there is a sufficiently established evidence. deaths made subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. It is a notarized in a flash flood which occurred on November 28. namely that: (a) respondent Eusebia Ll.45 The admission of that Llemos v. deed of sale. the prosecution was burdened to prove which is an exception to the hearsay rule. It is well-settled that Church registries of births. in obedience to the subpoena duces accordance with the rules of evidence.

39

documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned plaintiffs representative in her own handwriting. It did not bear the
only by clear and convincing evidence. conformity of Clothespak. Further, defendant bank assails the admissibility
As found earlier, respondents failed to establish the date of death of their of the receipt for it is a mere triplicate copy; the original and duplicate
predecessor-in-interest which could have proven that the thumbmark of copies were not presented in court, in violation of the Best Evidence Rule.
Saturnina in the Deed of Absolute Sale was fraudulently affixed because Neither was there secondary evidence presented to conform to the rule.
she had died before the deed of sale was purportedly executed by her.
In fine, respondents failed to establish by preponderance of evidence their ISSUE: WON the receipt is admissible as evidence.
claim that petitioners predecessor-in-interest obtained his title through HELD: YES. The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest
fraud. grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact. Although there are
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. certain recognized exceptions when the subject of inquiry is the contents
BPI v. SMP, Inc. of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
FACTS: Sometime in January 1995, Maria Teresa Michaela Ong, as Sales document itself.
Executive of SMP, Inc. undertook the acceptance and servicing of a However, in the instant case, contrary to petitioners contention, the
purchase order of CLOTHESPAK MANUFACTURING PHILS. (Clothespak) for receipt presented by SMP is deemed as an original, considering that the
4,000 bags or sacks of General purpose (GPS) polystyrene products. The triplicate copy of the provisional receipt was executed at the same time as
ordered products were delivered, for which delivery receipts were issued. the other copies of the same receipt involving the same transaction.
The total selling price of the products amounted to U.S. $118,500.00. As Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
payment, Clothespak issued postdated checks in favor of plaintiff SMP and
delivered the same to Maria Teresa Michaela Ong. When the same were Sec. 4. Original of document.
deposited by SMP Inc. on their maturity dates, the drawee bank (a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the
dishonored and returned said checks for the reason Account Closed. subject of inquiry.
In the meantime, a case was filed by herein defendant Far East Bank and (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
Trust Company against Clothespak for a recovery of sum of money with same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
prayer for issuance of preliminary attachment. originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being
SMP, Inc. alleges that there was wrongful attachment of the goods for copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries
ownership of the same was never transferred to Clothespak. The former are likewise equally regarded as originals.
anchors its claim of ownership over the goods by virtue of the Provisional
Receipt No. 4476 issued by Sales Executive Maria Teresa Michaela Ong to WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for
Clothespak with the words, Materials belong to SMP Inc. until your checks lack of merit.
clear. She testified during the trial that the above words were in her own Sec. 5 – When the document is lost, destroyed or unavailable: Requisites
handwriting. The said receipt was allegedly issued to Alex Tan of
Clothespak after the checks, payment for the goods, were issued to her. It Republic v. Masongsong
is asserted that despite receipt by Clothespak of the goods, ownership
remained with SMP, Inc. until the postdated checks it issued were cleared. FACTS: On December 28, 2001, Jose Lubis Masongsong and his brother,
Defendant bank, however, claims that the said provisional receipt was Juanito Lubis Masongsong, filed a petition in the RTC of Lipa City, for the
falsified to negate the terms of the Sales Invoices. The phrase, materials declaration of nullity of Decree No. 639024 purportedly issued in favor of
belong to SMP, Inc. until your checks clear, was only an insertion of Serapio Lubis on June 21, 1937 in LRC Cadastral Record No. 1296, and that

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3

40

the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) be ordered to signifies that the original no longer exists, while a loss signifies merely that
issue a new decree in favor of the petitioners. it cannot be discovered. The term execution, on the other hand, means the
accomplishment of a thing; the completion of an act or instrument; the
The petitioners alleged that Serapio Lubis was the owner of a parcel of land fulfillment of an undertaking.
located in Barangay Calingatan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. A cadastral The respondents adduced preponderant evidence to prove the existence
survey was later conducted in Lipa and Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, Cad. 218 of Decree No. 639024 covering Lot No. 8500 issued on June 21, 1937, and
Lipa Cadastre, where the property of Serapio Lubis, with an area of Lot No. 8434, Cad. 218 Lipa Cadastre with an area of 6,146.85 square
6,146.85 square meters, was identified as Lot No. 8500. meters located in Barangay Calingatan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas,
originally surveyed from February 1925 to September 1930. A copy of the
The petitioners also indicated the names and addresses of the adjoining lot decree was filed with the Land Registration Commission (now the LRA), as
owners as Placida and Baldomero Lubis, Marlene Nuestro and Salud Liac, evidenced by Record Book of Decrees, but the same was not found in the
c/o Gregorio Landicho, at Barangay Calingatan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. LRA Vault Section, Docket Division. The respondents failed to adduce
They averred that, to the best of their knowledge, the property had not evidence that the decision of the court and the decree were in favor of
been mortgaged nor encumbered, and that no other person had any Serapio Lubis, and failed to present a certified copy of the LRA decision in
interest thereon. They asserted that despite earnest efforts, Decree No. LRC Case No. 24.
639024 could no longer be located, and is as such presumed to have been
lost or destroyed during World War II. The respondents even failed to adduce in evidence the original or certified
true copy of the courts decision in favor of Serapio Lubis. They could have
The trial court rendered a Decision granting the petition. The OSG alleged secured a copy of the decision from the court or from the LRA, but failed to
that the trial court erred in granting the petition for the issuance of a new do so. There is even no showing that the court records in LRC Case No. 24
decree, since the petitioners failed to adduce in evidence a copy of the and the copy of the decision transmitted to the Land Registration
decree purportedly issued in the name of Serapio Lubis, or at least a Commission (now the LRA) were missing, lost or destroyed.
certified copy of the decision of the court granting the decree.
Clearly, this provision does not apply to the loss or destruction of a decree
ISSUE: WON the OSG is correct in its allegation. based on a decision of the land registration court. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED.
HELD: YES. Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that:
Section 5. When the original document is unavailable. When the original Pacasum v. People
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the FACTS: On 2 May 2002, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its with Falsification of Public Documents, defined and punished under
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a paragraph 1 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the follows:
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. That on or about August 22-23, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent
thereto in Cotabato City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
The offeror is not obliged to prove the loss or destruction of the original Honorable Court, the accused NORMALLAH A. PACASUM, a high ranking
document beyond all possibility, as it is enough to prove a reasonable public official being the Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism
probability of such loss. This may be done by a bona fide and diligent in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in
search, fruitlessly made in places where it is likely to be found. Destruction the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3

41

relation thereto, taking advantage of her official position, did then and The foregoing rule, however, admits of several exceptions. Under Section
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsified her Employee 3(b) of Rule 130, secondary evidence of a writing may be admitted "when
Clearance3 submitted to the Office of the Regional Governor of the the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, by imitating the signature of whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
Laura Y. Pangilan, the Supply officer I of the DOT-ARMM, for the purpose reasonable notice." And to warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence
of claiming her salary for the months of August and September 2000. when the original of a writing is in the custody or control of the adverse
Petitioner argued that the photocopy of her Employees Clearance had no party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides as follows:
probative value in proving its contents and was inadmissible because the Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. – If
original thereof was not presented by the prosecution. The Sandiganbayan the document is in the custody or control of the adverse party, he must
did not agree. It said that the presentation and admission of secondary have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after
evidence, like a photocopy of her Employees Clearance, was justified to satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
prove the contents thereof, because despite reasonable notices secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of loss.
(telegrams) made by the prosecution to petitioner and her assistant
secretary to produce the original of her Employees Clearance, they ignored Thus, the mere fact that the original is in the custody or control of the
the notice and refused to present the original of said document. adverse party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of
Hence this petition. secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all in his
power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is correct in contending that the photocopy of produce the document which may be in the form of a motion for the
her Employees Clearance had no probative value in proving its contents production of the original or made in open court in the presence of the
and was inadmissible because the original thereof was not presented by adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in
the prosecution. custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. When such
party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to
HELD: NO. The Sandiganbayan correctly admitted in evidence the produce it, or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.
photocopy of the Employees Clearance. We agree when it ruled:
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the subject of Under the circumstances, since there was proof of the existence of the
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other Employees Clearance as evidenced by the photocopy thereof, and despite
than the original document itself. The purpose of the rule requiring the the reasonable notices made by the prosecution to the accused and her
production by the offeror of the best evidence if the prevention of fraud, assistant secretary to produce the original of said employees clearance
because if a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it and they ignored the notice and refused to produce the original document, the
presents inferior or secondary evidence in its place, the presumption is that presentation and admission of the photocopy of the original copy of the
the latter evidence is withheld from the court and the adverse party for a questioned Employees Clearance as secondary evidence to prove the
fraudulent or devious purpose which its production would expose and contents thereof was justified.
defeat. Hence, as long as the original evidence can be had, the Court should
not receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in nature, such as Ramos v. CA
photocopies, in the absence of any clear showing that the original has been FACTS: On March 14, 1939, Pedro Tolentino, claiming absolute ownership
lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. Such photocopies must be over Lot Nos. 572 and 579 of the Gattaran cadastre in Lapogan, Gattaran,
disregarded, being inadmissible evidence and barren of probative weight. Cagayan, separately sold said lots to petitioners, the spouses Bernardino
Ramos and Rosalia Oli, in consideration of the amount of eighty pesos

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3

registration. 5. No action for reconveyance can take place as against a third evidence in accordance with the aforecited Rule. The aforesaid conveyances were allegedly evidenced by two documents both entitled Escritura de Compra Venta and ISSUE: WON the petitioners has established sufficient evidence. the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint Revised Rules of Court which states: underscoring the fact that during the cadastral proceedings in 1940. we believe that the issue of the authenticity and public. Soriano. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. They failed to present any party who acquired title over the registered property in good faith and for person who could have witnessed the execution of the documents. Tolentino in their favor. the spouses Rodolfo however. peaceful and continuous possession of the subject lots in binding effect of those documents should be addressed at the outset. demonstrate the genuineness of the signatures of the parties to the sale EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. 42 (P80. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . adverse. Atty. herein private respondents. it is a settled rule that a party seeking the reconveyance here had been irretrievably lost because of the fire. were not presented in evidence as these had been apparently Bautista and Felisa Lopez. for not less than fifty (50) years. or can not be produced in court. the executed by Pedro Tolentino in his favor on March 14. they could not even innocent third person. now bars the plaintiffs from availing this action for reconveyance. 1939. Defendant Rodolfo Bautista fittingly steps into the shoes of an instrumental witnesses thereof. Atty. 1940. had not been duly presented in registration. The original documents. When the original allegedly the claimant and possessor thereof under the deeds of sale document has been lost or destroyed. T-31698 and T-31699. whose law office was burned. however. who could provide them with certified true copies thereof. MacPaul B. since they were already in existence for more than thirty years in 1976 when the case for reconveyance was initially filed. or by the after the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of testimony of witnesses in the order stated. acknowledged before a notary public. Atty. Inasmuch as petitioners anchor their claim of ownership over Subsequently. Under the covered by TCT Nos. the documents upon which they relied in registered in the name of the person who procured the wrongful establishing their claim of ownership. that decrees of registration covering Lot Nos. On the other hand. It is also a settled rule that a reconveyance may only take place if the land that is claimed to be wrongfully registered is still Unfortunately for petitioners. must recognize the validity of the certificate of Laggui. 1976 an action the parcels of land on the alleged deeds of sale executed by Pedro for reconveyance with damages alleging that while they were in open. HELD: NO. good faith and with just title. When original document is unavailable. circumstances. likewise claimed absolute ownership of the lots lost in the fire that gutted the office of petitioners counsel. name of another person. testimonial evidence of petitioners counsel. Understandably. like the value. offerror. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. the property in question not having been satisfactorily It appears that the loss of the two documents of sale was shown by shown that same was wrongfully titled to in the name of Lucia Bautista. Upon realizing that the documents involved In the same vein. they were surprised to discover The two documents denominated as Escritura de Compra Venta which in November 1975. Soriano to him of his land that he claims had been wrongfully registered in the suggested to petitioners that they should see their other lawyer.00) for each sale. title of the latter. personally and through their predecessors-in-interest. may prove its contents by a The settled rule on the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of the title copy. it should have been the duty of petitioners therefore to prove the existence of the documents in accordance with Rule 130 of the After due proceedings. Bernardino Ramos did not file an answer for the two lots although he was SEC. petitioners instituted on January 8. 572 and were executed in 1939 would have well qualified as ancient documents 579 were already issued on January 7.

43 because the copies they offered in evidence did not bear those signatures. 1986. ISSUE: WON Exhibi-A is admissible as evidence. we agree with the Court of Appeals that its 14. thus: private respondents failure to object to Exhibit A when it was presented. no for admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative attempt was done to produce the copies retained by the notary public value. a photo copy of the purported original carbon copy of the deed of sale in an effort to prove the transaction. Neither was there any proof that the copy sent to the court as required by the notarial As earlier stated. under the Rules of Court. Atty. due execution are suspect and may not be given that much weight. Furthermore. petitioners were unable to present the original deed of and no excuse for the non-production of the original document itself can sale since it was lost. their long possession of the land in question. the Madrids denied having executed the said deed of disputable presumption of ownership. they had presented other substantial evidence during FACTS: On November 20. the plaintiffs must have to account for it. Its tendency to convince and persuade must be considered adduced that this remaining copy was lost or destroyed. concluded that the same had no other words. Tabangay typed Exhibit A. although there is a possibility that the same still exist (sic). sale and assuming that said document exists. they assert that this possession is in defiance of their repeated demands that the former relinquish the same. petitioners victory was shortlived. Tabangays failure to determine the accuracy of the EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. To be sure. without bothering to check his own files to Unfortunately. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . when Exhibit A was presented private respondents failed. not only to object. HELD: NO. Petitioners maintain that even if Exhibit A were a mere photo copy of the Heirs of Teodoro Dela Cruz v. For the Court of Appeals. bolstered by the construction of various improvements gives rise to the On the other hand. Under these (sic) state of facts. deed of sale. while they admit petitioners possession of the land. 1966. probative value to support the allegation of the petitioners that the Consequently. No proof was be determined. the same is fictitious and falsified. the same becomes primary evidence. Notwithstanding this procedural lapse. In while ruling that Exhibit A was admissible. Tabangay. Atty. verify the correctness of the contents of the document he was copying. the testimony of the reconveyance with damages[4] against private respondents involving a notary public. Isabela.[9] Exhibit A. but even to cross-examine In disposing of the case. San Mateo. the Court believes that copy of the alleged deed of sale. based on an alleged carbon original which petitioners predecessor-in- interest presented to him. petitioners filed an action for the trial to prove the existence of the sale. Second. upon inadmissible in evidence. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. the contents were in question. who acknowledged the due execution of the parcel of land situated in Poblacion. the documents authenticity and disputed land was sold to them in 1959. all duplicates and/or counterparts must be accounted for. First. It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence can be presented. even if Exhibit A is Since at the time of the execution of Teodoro dela Cruz affidavit or on June admitted in evidence. a duplicate original carbon copy of the alleged sale was still in his probative value must still meet the various tests by which its reliability is to possession. regarding its execution. Tabangay. when Atty. CA original carbon copy. During the trial. Exhibit A was merely a photocopy lifted from the carbon law is unavailable. Atty. Moreover. Forthwith. they were constrained to offer. Consequently. Worse. A cursory glance will immediately reveal the xerox copy of a certified true copy of the original issued by the notary that it was unsigned by any of the parties and undated as to when it was public cannot be admitted in evidence to prove the conveyance of the land executed. the trial court ruled that Exhibit A was the notary public. as be regarded as established until all its parts are unavailable.

If a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it and presents inferior or secondary evidence in its place. The law says that the making.000. Jose Teves. September 30. drawing and issuance of a check the adverse party must be given reasonable notice that he fails or refuses payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in to produce the same in court. Iligan City. and if he still fails or refuses to sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. the presumption is that the best Magdayao v. Mr. To warrant the for failure of the prosecution to produce the original dishonored check? admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in the custody or control of the adverse party. docketed as Civil Case No. 399967 to prove the contents thereof. as well as the reason for such dishonor. and: defendant union also filed a petition for certification election against plaintiff. 399967 was admitted by the court. In case the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party. however. on August 27. 1954. 577 in the Court of First Instance of Lanao (now no evidence shall be admissible other than the original thereof. Olvis alleged that.00. 1991. especially public defender. of Industrial Relations. 1954. As evidence for the prosecution. shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such Compania Maritima v. upon learning that the check was dishonored. and/or resolution of contract with writ of EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. presented. Under the Rules To counteract these legitimate moves of labor. such as photocopies. Magdayao never produced the original of the check. or credit with such bank. Allied Free holder thereof the amount due thereon. reneged on his promise. which he hailed to do due to numerous Despite repeated demands by Olvis. Exhibit A unreliable. Magdayao. defendant union also filed a It was incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce in evidence the original notice of strike dated August 27. when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. much less pleaded for time to pay the amount by retrieving the check and replacing it offered to produce the same. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in nature. Lanao del Norte) for damages.P. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the date and amount and the dishonor thereof. 44 carbon copy requested by the petitioners predecessor-in-interest renders This rule requiring the production of the best evidence is to prevent fraud. Magdayao failed to make good the unjustified postponements. The trial court eventually ruled in Doctrine: As long as the original evidence can be had. plaintiff filed the complaint on Evidence. check as a bargaining chip for the court to grant him an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense. Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that Held: No. the Philippine National produce the original in court. only then may secondary evidence be Bank. the Secretary of Labor wired the copy of PNB Check No. Allied Free Workers Union insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the FACTS: Sometime in the month of August. Blg. check’s value. in the amount of P600. despite not having the latter must be given reasonable notice. Magdayao In this case. defendant. Engr. Magdayao was charged with fraudulent or devious purpose which its production would expose and violation of B. the court should not favor of Olvis. People evidence was withheld from the court and the adverse party for a FACTS: On September 16. or makes arrangements for Workers Union filed an unfair labor practice case against defendant payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days (should be plaintiff) and its branch manager. 1954. Manila. with the Court after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. in the absence of any clear showing that the original writing Issue: Was the photocopy of the subject check inadmissible in evidence has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. 22 for having issued to Ricky Olvis a check dates defeat. Dipolog Branch. 1993. He deliberately withheld the original of the with two other checks. when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document. the names of the drawer and endorsee. a photocopy of PNB Check No.

8 – When the original is a public record It is also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the Republic v. making the examination of the consignees. He verified the complaint. Teves was the consignees. Sec. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Jayme used the pronouns "we" and "our" and made no discussion or reference as to matters of what transpired therein except reference to the examination made by the "auditors" and his accounting the phrase Lote No. on which the accountants' reports were based. testimony of. He gave the impression that he was an independent accountant hired by The company argues that the accountants' reports are admissible in the company to make a "special investigation" of the consignees. there was already a certificate of title issued Unrealized freight and passenger revenue for 1954 ascertained by pursuant thereto. character of the records. ISSUE: WON the petitioner is correct in his argument. 1995. That rule cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous those charges should be borne by the shippers and consignees. accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss-of time and the fact sought to be established from them is oth The truth is that Jayme was a "personal friend" of Teves. that the decision dated March 31. Teves intervened in the drafting of the contract. the consignees. herein. or the reconstitution of lost certificate of title before the RTC. . the general result of the whole". office. FACTS: On June 21. on which the Accountant Demetrio S. filed its attending the production of the records in court and their examination and notice of appeal with the trial court and the records were forwarded to the analysis as evidence by the court. the Trial Court is of the 1266). In fact. He signed for the company the stevedoring and arrastre contract which he later rescinded. 1929. El Gobierno company. 1954. 45 preliminary injunction. It was his Idea that the company should not pay the arrastre and stevedoring Considering and that HELD: NO. respondent that can support her claim that since a decree was already issued for Lot No. books of accounts. was unsigned and contained Record on Appeal). That general rule cannot be relaxed in this case because the company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty or impossibility Petitioner Republic. in this case. The propriety of allowing the different items of damages. A. 1499. is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records. belief that the allegations in the petition have been sufficiently established and that therefore the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. defendants He did not disclose the names of other "auditors" who assisted him in take this appeal. is Petitioner contends that no decree of registration was ever presented by discussed below. Court of Appeals based its assailed decision. 1499. 134 to 147. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . was not duly established. respondent Severiana Gacho filed a petition for What applies to this case is the general rule "that an audit made by. A close scrutiny of the accountants' reports reveals their lack of probative value. of the summary may be tested on cross-examination. Lapu-Lapu City. Jayme.In his report (Exh. pp. through the Office of the Solicitor General. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. reports or the like" (Anno 52 ALR After a thorough examination of all the evidence. principal witness produced. a private auditor. the original writings need not be branch manager at Iligan City. records. Court of Appeals. losses for evidence because of the rule that "when the original consists of numerous the period from January 1 to September 7. On a decision adverse to their interests.

petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that respondent failed to present the original copies of the pro ISSUE: WON the petitioner is correct in arguing that the evidence forma invoices on which the civil action was based. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. 8792. that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented by respondent Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of sale are HELD: YES. the best evidence under the law and SEC. its contents may be proved by certified copy admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent issued by the public officer in custody thereof. respondent posits that. 7. the Rules. sufficiently explained the non-production of the original fax transmittals. Respondent would send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the steel product order to petitioner. On the other hand.A. do not qualify as sources for reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court sends it back to the respondent. respondent presented in the trial court. Respondent further claims that the photocopies of these fax When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is transmittals (specifically ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2) are recorded in a public office. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2. Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule. only a certain Geodetic Engineer certified that the inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R. 46 A favor de Tirso Tumulak.A. showing to reflect the data stainless steel products. that the decision is inadmissible since only a geodetic engineer certified as to its authenticity in violation of Respondent filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract Section 7. such piece of evidence has no probative value. Petitioner contends presented does not have a probative value. Ssangyong Held: NO. Philippines. After respondent rested its case. One of its suppliers is the responded. Rule 130. Section 7. Thus. and US$170. as long as it is a printout FACTS: Petitioner is engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling or output readable by sight or other means.000. In its decree is not the authenticated copy of the decree of registration referred complaint. 26 and the name of Tirso Tumulak from whom when they refused to open the letter of credit in the amount of respondent traced her ownership did not appear on the said index. No. in the absence of proof that the Geodetic Engineer is a public officer Issue: Whether the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile in custody thereof. therefore. The two corporations document under the Best Evidence Rule. transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible as such? MCC Industrial v. Revised Rules on Evidence the law and the Rules on Electronic Evidence. because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax It was not established that the Geodetic Engineer is the public officer who transmittal. again by fax. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. the original facsimile provides: transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic document and. that the entry in the index of against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . South Korea and message or to be considered as the functional equivalent of an original regional headquarters in Makati City. casado con Engrasia Pongasi which cannot be thereto. from a reading of is in custody thereof. the writing must foremost be an conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy “electronic data message” or an “electronic document. its representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy and considered a valid judgment under Section 1. to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data international trading company with head office in Seoul. an accurately. from which a valid decree can emanate. copy of the decision attached to the petition was a true copy of the same. respondent alleged that defendants breached their contract to in Section 2(d) of R. Thus.00 for the remaining 100MT of steel under Pro Forma Invoice that these documents together with the other documents which Nos. Significantly. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. transmissions. if the latter conforms EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. No.

Accordingly. “paperless. this petition. technically. computer technology when it drafted the law. 9 – Parol Evidence Rule 8792 were taken.” conditions were not incorporated in the deeds of sale. considered as electronic evidence. which excludes telexes or faxes. sent. and re. which have an original paper. 47 The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R. Hence. 1990 the latter harmony with the Electronic Commerce Law’s focus on “paperless” demanded from the former the delivery of said titles. On April 9. telegram. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . received term “electronic data message. Private respondents.” P35. Ineluctably. While Congress deleted this phrase in the Electronic Ortanez v. like telegraph. No. 1982. from which majority of the provisions of R. conditions was barred by the parol evidence rule. and are considered as testified that the sale was subject to the above conditions. On appeal. defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. In an ordinary facsimile transmission. CA Commerce Act of 2000. the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed While Congress anticipated future developments in communications and the court a quo. in this sense. These nonetheless. a facsimile transmission cannot be The phrase “but not limited to. is interchangeable with “electronic document. generated faxes. respectively. refused on the ground that the title of the first lot is in the espouses. admitted them and eventually dismissed the complaint as two copies are distinct from each other. but not limited to. and petitioner's acquisition of the title of verily are paper-based. it excluded the early forms of technology. there exists an original paper-based Offshoot. … In a virtual or paperless environment. the drafters of the IRR reinstated it. although such originals.” or stored by electronic. when it defined the “Electronic Data Message” refers to information generated.00. it intended the same meaning as the term “electronic record” in the Canada law. the law’s definition of “electronic data message. The deletion by Congress of the said phrase is significant and pivotal. telex or telecopy” in the IRR’s definition of original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic “electronic data message” is copied from the Model Law on Electronic evidence.000. No. as all direct printouts of During trial.A. as aforesaid.” could timely objections on the ground that the introduction of said oral not have included facsimile transmissions. printed at the receiving end. when Congress formulated the term “electronic data message. the other lot is subject to certain conditions.00 and P20. This construction of the term “electronic data message.A. Facsimile transmissions are not. orally the virtual reality are the same. It is not the functional equivalent of an electronic mail. well as the counterclaim. electronic data interchange (EDI). ISSUE: WON the parol evidence submitted is admissible. 8792 defines the ordinary fax machine to fax machine transmission). private respondent Oscar Inocentes.” Private respondents received the payments for the above-mentioned lots. electronic mail.” but possession of another person. telegram. telex and telecopy (except computer. sent through a phone line. communications and the “functional equivalent approach” that it however. FACTS: On September 30. there is no original copy to speak of. Sec. before the RTC. except computer-generated faxes. which is a newer development as compared to the EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE.” as telecopy. optical or similar means. Despite petitioner's which. and have different legal effects. electronic data interchange (EDI). do not include a facsimile transmission. Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). in all respects. telex or The terms “electronic data message” and “electronic document. private respondents sold to petitioner two (2) parcels of registered land in Quezon City for a consideration of Moreover. a former judge. is in but failed to deliver the titles to petitioner. petitioner sued private respondents for specific performance information or data that is scanned. the lower court based copy as sent and a paper-based facsimile copy as received.000.

Considering that the written deeds of sale contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere were the only repository of the truth. we disagree with private respondents' argument that their parol evidence. In such a case. Such exception obtains only in the following instance: agreement were reduced to writing. Such issue must be "squarely presented. the material facts of that case are different from Fifth. unless there has been fraud or mistake. contrary to evidence. whatever is not found in said reading of the instrument. vs. Their case is covered by the general rule that the contents of the writing are the only The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to x x x the terms of a written repository of the terms of the agreement. made no reference to any pre. The parol evidence herein introduced is inadmissible. it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted "[W]here the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the other than the contents thereof. he would Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract. because they did not plead any the rule that: of the exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule. it is the law between the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper parties. Had he given an iota's attention to scrutinize the deeds. extrinsic evidence of the subject instruments must have been waived and abandoned by the parties. contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. coming this case. Obviously. Thus. is not as reliable as written or documentary Fourth. As a contract. and the seller (private respondents). the deeds respondents did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were of sale in this case. at or before the signing respondent Oscar Inocentes is a lawyer (and former judge) he was of the document. the contract sought to be enforced expressly "put in issue by the pleadings" the failure of the written agreement to stated that it is subject to an agreement containing the conditions. to four (4) conditions which they tried to prove during trial by parol contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument. matter of the contract. we are not persuaded by private respondents contention that they this case. mistake or of Land Settlement Development. In the former. under the general rule specifically. contract which speaks of a uniform language. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written evidence is admissible under the exceptions provided by the Rules. other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the "supposed to be steeped in legal knowledge and practices" and was parties. from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case. Court ruled that a condition precedent to a contract may be established by parol evidence. "expected to know the consequences" of his signing a deed of absolute sale. we cannot even make an inference that the the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the sale was subject to any condition. However. depending exclusively on human memory. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Garcia Plantation where the imperfection. Whereas. to buttress their argument. much less obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof. the alleged failure of the agreement to express the true intent in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.conditions or other incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention of the buyer (petitioner) agreement. In fact. have incorporated important stipulations that the transfer of title to said "it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional lots were conditional. interpretation of the instrument. the deeds of sale are clear. this cannot be done." No such fraud or mistake exists in private respondents' oral testimony on the alleged conditions. express the true intent of the parties. of the relations of the parties to each other. hence. First. Co. when the terms of an of the parties. Record shows that private precedent which were proven through parol evidence. private respondents rely on the case In this case. without any ambiguity. Considering that private instrument by testimony purporting to show that." Private respondents merely alleged that the sale was subject Third. the sale is denominated as absolute in its own terms. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . and of Examining the deeds of sale. as in this case." Secondly. the parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary. 48 HELD: NO.

the construction of the structural On this score. interest. 1997. 49 One last thing. additional steel used for the roof ridge ventilation and crane beams was included in the fixed lump-sum price. 1998.343. the appellate court explained that the Contractors Philippines. The appellate court is correct in declaring that under the parole evidence rule. (HJI) awarded the contract for site and effectivity of the promissory note dated 12 August 1981 were preparation. Because respondent was unable to meet the project schedule. it was incumbent upon the spouses to insure other seller. Laguna to petitioner Leighton committee in SEC Case No. submitted to petitioner a proposal to undertake. We thus declare and so hold that Allied Banks foreclosure of the chattel The principal issue submitted thereto was whether the cost of the mortgage constituted over the vessel Jean III was justified. respondent again asked petitioner to settle the outstanding they are deemed to have intended such written agreement to be the sole balance of P12. asserting that the roof ridge ventilation and repository and memorial of everything that they have agreed upon. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. petitioner ISSUE: WON the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage constituted over the took over the project on April 27. At the time of the takeover. 1997 subcontract clearly stated that the sub-contract the written document so that.993. building foundation and structural steel works of its fibre conditioned upon the ratification thereof by the SEC-created management cement plant project in Cabuyao. Commission (CIAC) for arbitration. respondent had already accomplished 86% of the project for which petitioner paid P42. as subcontractor.94.69. price was a fixed lump sum. Hardie Jardin. Court. it we also rule that the loss of the mortgaged chattel brought about by its should nonetheless be disbelieved as no other evidence appears from the sinking must be borne not by Allied Bank but by the spouses Cheng. such writing becomes exclusive evidence of the terms thereof and any verbal agreement which tends to vary. its loss must be borne by the spouses Cheng. consistent with structures columns necessitating adjustments in the designs of roof ridge the parole evidence rule embodied in Rule 130. was presented to testify on such it against loss. As record to sustain the existence of the alleged conditions. Cheng Yong Leighton Contractors v. spouses to the effect that the validity and enforceability of the note are conditioned upon its approval and ratification by the management Meanwhile. On this score. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . Thereafter. HELD: YES. could be foreclosed.008. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Inc. On July 5. petitioner revised the fabrication drawings of several of the committee should have been discarded by the trial court. Inc. respondent CNP Industries. CNP Industries FACTS: In justifying its reversal of the trial courts finding that the validity FACTS: In 1997.364. Inc. Asuncion Inocentes. assuming arguendo that the parol evidence is admissible. it ruled that the parole evidence introduced by the Cheng steelworks of HJIs fibre cement plant project. Section 9 of the Rules of ventilation and crane beams. Allied Banking v. Petitioner refused to their prior and contemporaneous agreements are deemed to be merged in pay as the July 28. terms of the subject promissory note are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the parties. when the parties have reduced their agreement into writing. when the vessel sank before the chattel mortgage conditions. Thus. Not even the owners of the fishing vessel. 2042. uninsured as it is. vessel Jean III was justified. alter or modify the same is not The parties submitted the matter to the Construction Industry Arbitration admissible. as between them and their successors-in. All crane beams were excluded from the project cost.

They also agreed that Aaron would finance the according to petitioner and respondent. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . This. Spouses Amoncio interest. P302-6200-S-405 and P302-6200-S-402. One of the buildings was to go to Garcia. he and reference to the main drawing. admits of exceptions such as when the parties 120 sq. it Bennett did not sign the subcontract for and in behalf of respondent but was not liable for the additional costs incurred by respondent as the only as a witness. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written claimed they discovered Aaron was putting up improvements on another agreement. two to Aaron and the included Drawing Nos. Garcia pre-terminated his contract upon and there can be. presented the August 12. petitioner approved the additional cost the fabrications drawings were clouded or had not been finalized when the estimates. embodied in Section 9. Rule 130 of the FACTS: In 1997. respondent knew that Bennett was the fixed lump-sum price. Furthermore. not authorized to order any changes in the scope of works or to approve the cost thereof. m. It addressed all correspondences relating to the project to Petitioner. respondent Respondent therefore claims an exception to the parole evidence rule. 2000. Respondent was therefore aware of Bennetts lack of subcontract clearly provided that the project was for the fixed lump-sum authority. Furthermore. claimed that petitioner approved the cost estimates when Simon Bennett. price of P44. However. referred to the roof ridge construction and Spouses Amoncio were to pay him for the two buildings ventilation and crane beams. while Aaron stayed on until June 8. 1997 progress report. however. respondent contends that when Bennett signed the August on July 15. 1997. 1997 progress This proved that the said portions were additional works excluded from report signed by Bennett. 1997) excluded the roof ridge ventilation and crane beams as 12. m. According to him. Spouses Amoncio who owed him money. technical specifications and the main contract. Petitioner spouses asked Aaron to pay his arrears and The scope of work was defined in the subcontract as the completion of the desist from continuing with his construction. respectively. in this instance. Thus. we find that the sub-contract was never modified. the said works were clearly included assigned to them. Aaron and Garcia entered into a contract of lease with Rules of Court holds that when the terms of an agreement have been Spouses Amoncio over 240 sq. Garcia. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed petitioners.909. and 120 sq. included the aforementioned works in the scope of work. Aaron added he was to pay the rentals for five years and in the sub-contract works. The main contract stated that the structural steel works property. portion of their property which was never leased to him nor to subsequently modify the terms of their original agreement. surrender the building on his leased portion to petitioners after the lapse EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. to determine whether the roof Aaron denied the said claims and accusations and alleged that it was ridge ventilation and crane beams were included in the scope of work. last two to Amoncio. in effect modifying the original agreement in the subcontract. structural steel works according to the main drawing. ISSUE: WON petitioner is liable. technical specifications and main contract Amoncio agreed to construct five commercial buildings on the latter’s is necessary. 50 Respondent argued that the proposal it submitted (accepted by petitioner Nevertheless. petitioners quantity surveyor. Benedicto HELD: NO. Petitioner therefore cannot be liable for the additional costs incurred by respondent. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Spouses Amoncio v. 1997 progress report only In this respect. subcontract was executed on July 28. They added he had also occupied Garcia’s portion immediately after the latter left. In July 1999. The parol evidence rule. on the other hand. asserted that the subcontract explicitly (petitioners) project manager Michael Dent. It. m. 1997 progress report. between the parties and their successors in with Amoncios. It likewise denied approving respondents additional cost estimates as Bennett signed the August 12. Moreover. not Bennett. to acknowledge its receipt. signed the August 12.223. property of the reduced into writing. Respondent. Hence.

8 and 12 November 1994 under Delivery Receipt Nos. the terms of the This was objected by the petitioner under Parol evidence rule. Inc. and described in ISSUE: Whether the parol evidence rule is applicable to the existence of paragraph 2 of plaintiff's complaint. separate oral agreements aside from those established by the lease contract. he vacated the premises after he Defendants. it ceased from using silica sand in the manufacture of fiberglass and started using instead Lechugas v. in June 2000. so the document of sale was prepared by the contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting petitioner. and may not properly Petitioners failed to make a timely objection and to dispute the fact that be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other. bought from Leoncia Lasangue in 1950 as evidenced by the deed exhibit A. 1063735 explicitly superseding Purchase Order No. the lot that she sold to the petitioner was no Lot. 901. Coquia closed and the case has been decided against him. other terms were orally agreed on by the parties. Petitioner contracted with respondent Editha C. However. The parol evidence rule does not apply. 106211. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Evidence further one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written disclosed that the building permit issued by the Building Official bore the instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or signature of petitioner Wilfredo Amoncio. maintain that the land which plaintiff and Spouses Amoncio could no longer settle things amicably. strategy and stealth. invoke the rule in order to secure a reversal of the judgment. Leoncia Lasangue testified during the trial.65 per kilo to which respondent corresponding to the middle and northern portion of the property owned acceded. private respondents. Purchase Order No. Under the aforecited rule. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . on 28 October 1994. Where a party entitled to the benefit of the parol evidence rule allows such evidence to be received without objection. equipment for thermal and acoustic insulation. to show that. unlawfully entered lots A and B. According to her. Deliveries were again made by respondent on 5. CA recycled broken glass or flint cullets to save on manufacturing costs. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. albeit allegedly under duress. The so-called “parol evidence” forbids any addition to or know how to read and write. 5456 but Lot 5522. However. Coquia for the purchase of one (1) lot of flint cullets. HELD: NO. petitioners waived the protection manufacturing fiberglass.20 per kilo to ₱3. written contract are conclusive upon the parties and evidence aliunde is inadmissible to vary an enforceable agreement embodied in the ISSUE: WON the Parol evidence rule applies in this case. after the trial has ACI Phils. FACTS: Victoria Lechugas testified that she bought the land now subject of this litigation from Leoncia Lasangue. petitioner demanded the reduction of the intimidation. which is used in both commercial and industrial of the parol evidence rule. 51 of said period. purchase price from ₱4. 5456. document. alleging that the latter by means of force. 719 and 735. In 1993. is engaged in the business of respondent’s testimony in the trial court. he cannot. v. Petitioner accordingly issued by the petitioner known as Lot No. where at least Aaron undertook the construction of the buildings. assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. at or before the signing of the document. Several deliveries made by respondent were The petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against the accepted and paid for by petitioner. Hence. on the other hand. by failing to object to FACTS: Petitioner ACI Philippines. is different from the land now subject of this action. NO. She does not HELD.

Suarez Respondent then filed a Complaint for specific performance and damages FACTS: The case stemmed from a Complaint for illegal dismissal with against petitioner. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 52 respectively. parties. Petitioner remedied this seeming inadvertence by squarely raising the In his defense. We hold that respondent Suarez was illegally terminated by petitioner. three (3) days after the complaint against it was engaged in the construction business specializing in installing electrical filed. occasionally. contents. as ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in not admitting the parol evidence their work assignment varied depending on the needs of a specific project. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . ISSUE: WON the respondents were illegally terminated by the petitioner. buildings. with a RTC ruled in favor of respondent. is the owner and manager of G. dismissal. This rule. petitioner paid for the flint cullets under Delivery Receipt Nos. 9. a firm On 26 November 1994.65 per kilo. 1997 by respondents against directed to accept and pay for the remaining deliveries to complete the petitioner before the Regional Arbitration Branch of Davao City.. CA affirmed. that the written document is the best evidence of its own HELD: YES. the time of rendition of their objection based on the parol evidence rule. employees and were employed only when there were electrical jobs to be that petitioner entered into a contract with respondent conditioned upon done in a particular housing unit contracted by petitioner. the burden of proof rests on the employer Court states that a party may present evidence to modify. It is also a matter of both principle and policy that when the written contract is established as the repository of the parties’ stipulations. dismissal and must be given the opportunity to dispute the legality of his however. A any other evidence is excluded and the same cannot be used as a project employee must be furnished a written notice of his impending substitute for such contract. It was uncontested that the last work of the respondents with petitioners company was the electrical installation in some housing units at EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE.10 per kilo. Petitioner one (1) lot of flint cullets originally contracted for. HELD:YES. Rule 130 of the Rules of removal. Saberola Electrical Services. as an issue in its Answer with that the services of respondents as project employees were coterminous Counterclaims. In termination cases.S.e. Since an exception to the parol evidence rule was squarely raised as an issue in the answer. Unfortunately. the trial court should not have been so inflexible Petitioner failed to present any evidence to disprove the claim of illegal as to completely disregard petitioner’s evidence. It is a cardinal rule of evidence. on Sundays. is not without exception. the Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED. the trial court sustained respondent’s with each project. Section. there was no practical way of determining the appropriate compensation of the value of respondents accomplishment. He maintained the latter’s prompt delivery of flint cullets.00. petitioner averred that respondents were part-time project failure of the purchase order to express the true intent of the parties. offered by the petitioner. demanding instead that the unit price be further reduced to ₱3. Respondent further demanded that petitioner be money claims filed on November 10. services was not fixed. even at the reduced price of ₱3. Petitioner accepted the deliveries but refused to pay for them WHEREFORE. 901. nor even to alter or contradict them. daily wage of P110. Saberola v. Employers the terms of the agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading the failure of who hire project employees are mandated to state and prove the actual the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the basis for the employees dismissal once its veracity is challenged. Thus. devices in subdivision homes and in commercial and non-commercial 719 and 735 at the unit price of ₱3.65 per kilo. Respondents were employed by petitioner as electricians. not just one of technicality but of substance. i. As project employees. explain or add to to show that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. They worked from Monday to Saturday and.

Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of burden of proving it. As to respondents monetary claims. Incorporated. discharged by payment. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . authorized teller and two private armed guards were on Trial Court. petitioner complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of This was to be paid by checks issued by Seaoil but which in turn were to be due process. in favor of EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. the burden of going forward with the evidence Seaoil one unit Robex 200 LC Excavator paid for by checks issued by one as distinct from the general burden of proof shifts to the creditor. Seaoil requested that payment be stopped. then under a duty of producing some evidence to show non-payment. 53 the Ciudad Esperanza Housing Project. The real petitioner to show the termination of the project which would justify the transaction is that Uniline. They show that Autocorp sold to some evidence of payment. still the a contract. On November 25. The terms a defense against the claim of the creditor. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. board the armored vehicle when the same was robbed. petitioner obtained from private respondent FACTS: Petitioner Seaoil Petroleum Corporation purchased one unit of Meridian Assurance Corporation a Money Securities and Payroll ROBEX 200 LC Excavator. Neither was there proof that lieu of payment. Uniline instead agreed to convey the excavator to Focus. Seaoil issued 12 checks as was robbed by two armed men wearing police uniforms along San Pedro. Even when the plaintiff alleges non-payment. The sales agreement was embodied in the Vehicle Sales Invoice No. We have consistently held that as a rule. The debtor has the the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. The loss suffered by petitioner as a result of the heist amounted to P545. When the existence of a debt is fully established contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract. Model 1994 from respondent Autocorp Group. owed money to Focus. CA Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. funded by checks issued by Uniline. When the debtor introduces of the subject sales invoice are clear. additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. Pilipinas Bank v. Autocorp group FACTS: On January 8. As Petitioner Seaoil in sum alleges that the written agreement failed to employer. it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment. A-0209 while the policy was in full force and effect. through Rodriguez. In cessation of the work of respondents. who is Romeo Valera. however 10 checks were not honored by the bank since Laguna. petitioner's armored vehicle. 1985. 258. Focus Point International. Seaoil claims that Seaoil and Autocorp were only utilized as conduits to settle the obligation of one foreign entity named Uniline Asia. payment therefor. Comprehensive Policy which was effective from. by the evidence contained in the record. one who pleads payment has the HELD: No. we uphold the findings of the NLRC. the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who invokes such The Vehicle Sales Invoice is the best evidence of the transaction. and Vehicle Sales Confirmation No. Evidence of a prior or burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary.40. 1995. No evidence was presented by another foreign entity. the petitioner has the burden of proving that the rate of pay express the true intent and agreement of the parties. ISSUE: Whether or not parol evidence rule is applicable in this case. thus parol evidence given to the respondents is in accordance with the minimum fixed by the is admissible. law and that he paid thirteenth month pay. Autocorp filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages and replevin in the Regional Petitioner's driver.301. service incentive leave pay and other monetary claims.

petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Ildefonso. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was also In need of money for his wifes planned travel to the United States. it is considered as containing all clients. actually consist of a 2-storey residential house sitting on a 340-square meter parcel of land. Section 9. his son Virgilio. no evidence of such other terms other than the contents of the written agreement.00 although the property easily requires that for parol evidence to be admissible to vary the terms of the commands much more at that time. successors‑in‑interest. It held that there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the thereat to continue with the same. Private respondent Jose Mallari and his wife Fermina Mallari are the owners of a 340-square meter residential lot with a 2-storey residential The RTC issued an Order dated July 24. Tubianosa to testify. or of the failure of said contract to express the true intent and without his knowledge. In its mortgage and to instead assign to him a portion of the same property. Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly in question for a consideration of P50. on 22 October 1987. ISSUE: WON the CA is correct in denying petitioners claim as it would Instead. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint against private respondent the terms agreed upon and there can be. petitioner failed to raise the issue of an intrinsic ambiguity. private respondent objected and argued that said Madrigal v.000. the appellate court dismissed the petition assuring his father that the latter could continue in occupancy of the and held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of property and that he will allow his sister Elizabeth who operates a store respondent judge. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 1999. However. Policy which would necessitate the presentation of extrinsic evidence to clarify the meaning thereof. On September 18. Jose did not anymore proceed with his original idea of mortgaging the property with a bank. error on the part of the appellate court when it affirmed the RTCs Order disallowing the recall of Tubianosa to the witness stand. Jose denied by the lower court. And so. to recall Tubianosa to the witness stand. between the parties and their with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. document denominated as Deed of Absolute Sale. the mistake or imperfection thereof or its failure to described the properties sold as a one-storey residential house and the express the true agreement of the parties should be put in issue by the 135-square meter lot whereon it stands even as the subject properties pleadings. There was therefore no private respondent on December 3. Decision dated July 30. mistake or imperfection in the terms of the Things turned for the worse to the unsuspecting Jose Mallari when. Policy. when petitioner was about to present Mr. the deed of conveyance written agreement. ruling that the same would violate the parol evidence rule. denying petitioners motion house erected thereon. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . 1985. 1999. his son Virgilio Mallari who is residing with his own family somewhere in San On December 21. via a document bearing date 25 EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. whereunder the couple appeared to have conveyed to their son Virgilio Mallari the house and lot HELD: YES. 1991. for such Private respondent denied petitioner's claim and averred that the disallowance is in accord with the rule that when the terms of an insurance does not cover the deliveries of the withdrawals to petitioner's agreement have been reduced to writing. situated at Olongapo City. 54 Petitioner filed a formal notice of claim under its insurance policy with agreement of the parties thereto in its Complaint. Bulacan convinced Jose not to proceed with the intended Court of Appeals assailing the aforementioned Orders of the RTC. CA witness testimony regarding the negotiations on the terms and conditions of the policy would be violative of the best evidence rule. finding no reason to doubt Virgilios words. 1992. thought of mortgaging the above property with a bank. Worse. As correctly noted by the appellate court. he and his wife Fermina executed a violate the parol evidence rule.

It was then that Jose merely as a security for the repayment of a loan. alleged. (2) respondent-spouses are occupying the said question in isolation of the circumstances under which the same was land through his tolerance without rent. petitioners fault the trial court for receiving Ayson. Paragas parol evidence to establish that the instrument in question is actually one of equitable mortgage. at bottom of petitioners first submission is their inability to 1988. purports to state. redemption and damages with prayer for preliminary one of absolute sale. CA affirmed. injunction/temporary restraining order in this case petitioners would want us to revisit the factual findings of both courts. parol evidence then becomes competent True enough. On August 31. In the very an equitable mortgage. scrutinize and examine those findings anew and calibrate the validity of Consistent with their thesis that the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale their conclusions on the basis of our own factual assessment. v. Then. against respondent-spouses Felix and Maxima Paragas. raising as an issue the fact that the document does not express the true intent of the parties. 59036 of the Registry of Deeds of HELD: YES. a property may prove that the contract is really a loan with mortgage by longtime neighbor of the Mallaris in the area. that: (1) petitioner is the registered document does not express the true intent of the parties. It was against the foregoing backdrop of events when. long after the execution of the contract on April 13. And upon proof of the came to know for the first time of the sale of his property by his son truth of such allegations. In this case. sold the same Even when a document appears on its face to be a sale. In short. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. executed by Virgilios parents. Indirectly. complaint on April 12. that EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. more so in the light of his fathers disavowal of what the document. CA to the effect that even if the document appears to be a sale. to Joses great shock. as represented by his natural father Zosimo S. too. Branch 1. To begin with. 1993. 1955. there is the ruling of this Court in Lustan vs. arguing that the alleged payments made by words of Lustan: respondent Felix were made from December 29. The RTC affirmed the MTCC Decision. owner of the property being occupied by the respondent-spouses as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. on its face. is in reality an equitable mortgage. understanding in consonance with the true intent of the parties at the time 1988 Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan. of the execution of the contract. executed by Virgilios parents is clearly a document of sale as its very language unmistakably states.00 to Edenbert Madrigal. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . Jose Mallari filed against accept the factual findings of the two (2) courts below that the transaction his son Virgilio Mallari and Edenbert Madrigal the complaint for between petitioner Virgilio Mallari and his parents. the MTCC. Rule 130 of the petitioner Amado Z. 55 June 1988 and entitled Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan. 1980. in the Regional Trial Court at Olongapo City. Rules of Court. we cannot view the Deed of Absolute Sale in Dagupan City in his name. the court will enforce the agreement or Virgilio in favor of Edenbert Madrigal thru the aforementioned June 25. parol evidence may be resorted Petitioner asseverates that the Deed of Absolute Sale is a true sale and not to if the same does not express the true intent of the parties. ISSUE: WON it is proper to resort to parol evidence rule when the The complaint. Ayson. 1965 to December 17. Dagupan City decided in favor of petitioner. petitioners also put the Court of Appeals FACTS: The controversy commenced with the filing of an ejectment to task for giving weight to those evidence instead of rejecting them. Jr. 1993 before (MTCC) of Dagupan City by herein conformably with the Parol Evidence Rule under Section 9. Zareno4 (Zareno). on 7 September In any event. he was demanded and admissible to prove that the instrument was in truth and in fact given by Edenbert Madrigal to vacate the subject property. sometime thereafter. the owner of the property for the same amount of P50. among others.000. albeit denominated as annulment.

seeking to declare null and void the deed of sale executed by his EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. security for the repayment of a loan. explain or add to the certificate of title in his name. The Civil Code enumerates private respondent Quirico Arcega. ISSUE: WON the petitioners is allowed to present parol evidence. in accord with the true intent of the parties at the time the following exceptions: contract was executed.00 was not actually paid by the vendees to his sister. 56 respondent-spouses only paid realty taxes over their house and not on the sister during her lifetime in favor of the petitioners on the ground that said disputed land. and upon adequate proof of the truth of such allegations. an equitable mortgage prevented evidence. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . among others. Atty. and that the other co-owners of the land did not question or protest the The RTC rendered judgment in favor of private respondent Quirico Arcega. a contract of loan secured by a mortgage. the evidence before the RTC. testimonies during the trial showed that petitioner and his (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and predecessors never disturbed the possession of respondent-spouses until agreement of the parties thereto. is considered only as two notarized deeds of sale. Petitioners. They failed to timely invoke such rule. 1992. insist that both the trial court and the respondent court should have followed the Parole Evidence Rule and HELD: YES. or Respondent-spouses have clearly proven that they have already paid the aforesaid amount.000. mistake or imperfection in the written possession of the subject property remained with respondent-spouses agreement. or a contract of loan secured by a mortgage. even if the conveyance was accompanied by registration in the name of the transferee and the issuance of a new However. ISSUE: WON the parol evidence is applicable in this case. Bulacan. the filing of the ejectment case on April 12. filed before the RTC of Malolos. The Deed of Absolute Sale is. parol evidence then becomes competent and admissible to prove that the instrument was in truth and in fact given merely as a HELD: NO. P3. terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading. despite the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale on April 13. in reality. In fact.00 as consideration for the sale was unusually inadequate in 1955. Santiago v. FACTS: Private respondent Quirico Arcega. nevertheless. Absolute Sale is of no moment. CA The term agreement includes wills. 59036 in his name. Rule 130 is qualified by the in this regard. the courts will enforce the agreement or understanding The rule on parole evidence under Section 9. That the obligation was paid in installments through (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their salary deduction over a period of 10 years from the signing of the Deed of successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. like the testimony of Notary Public.000. (c) The validity of the written agreement. which impugned the the cases in which a contract. In such cases. purporting to be a sale. Luis Cuvin. had established that the (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. a party may present evidence to modify. that there was no evidence proffered that the amount of P20. 1955. CA affirmed in toto. subdivision thereof leading to the issuance of TCT No. In this case. that their possession of the property was by his mere deed was fictitious since the purported consideration therefor of tolerance.

the parol evidence rule may be waived by failure to invoke it. the parties executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same property. 9. private respondent Quirico Arcega was able to put in issue in his complaint before the Regional Trial Court the validity of the subject ISSUE: WON the lower court is correct in not applying the parol evidence deeds of sale for being a simulated transaction rule. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Evidence of written agreements. Sec. CA affirmed. agreement have been reduced to writing. money before the Regional Trial Court. terms of the contract: (1) the balance of the purchase price was not paid on or before the first week of December 1983. Raymundo v. by allowing such evidence to be received without objection and without any effort to have it stricken from the minutes or disregarded by the trial It is to be observed that the parties' conflicting evidence centers on the court. the records are devoid of any indication that nature of the subject documents. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of Policarpio v. The court cannot Rules of Court. 57 In this case. Here. after the trial has closed and the case has been decided Contract to Sell and Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties on April against him. They claimed that in view of the conflicting testimonies. in effect results in the non- petitioners ever objected to the admissibility of parole evidence application of the Parol Evidence Rule under Section 9. the petitioners-spouses averred that the Contract to FACTS: A Deed of bsolute Sale of Real Property was entered into by the Sell was automatically cancelled when the private respondents violated the parties. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be between the parties and their successors in interest. the trial court had no option but to admit these damages against the petitioners-spouses. Metro Manila a case for specific performance and testimonies.—When the terms of an Petitioners have no one to blame but themselves in this regard. 1984. the trial court found for the petitioners-spouses. Rule 130 of the introduced by private respondent in open court. For their part. complaint was dismissed. And. petitioners filed an action for the collection of a sum of private respondents. CA the written agreement. RTC ruled against petitioners. Hence. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . where a the appellate court we have decided to review the evidence on record in party who is entitled to the benefit of the rule waives the benefit thereof order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record. Moreover. The after the execution of the written agreement. The parties introduced conflicting testimonies regarding the true by an appellate court. petitioners averred that there was a subsequent verbal agreement entered into by the parties After due trial. In view of the conflicting findings of facts of the trial court and by failure to object to the introduction of parol evidence. Lunaria On the other hand. This. fact that their PAG-IBIG loan was not processed on time without fault on their part. FACTS: On March 1. invoke the rule in order to secure a reversal of the judgment 9. he cannot. The trial court's decision was reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals. as HELD: YES. 1985. (2) the capital gains tax and For failure of the respondents to receive the balance of their agents documentary stamps for the sale of the property were not paid by the commission. the private respondents filed with the Regional The record shows that neither of the parties objected to the different Trial Court of Pasig. to wit: disregard evidence which would ordinarily be incompetent under the rules but has been rendered admissible by the failure of party to object thereto. EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE.

Romeo and subsequent to the written agreement. On December 2. transferred. The absence of such written agreement is mute but telling ISSUE: WON the lower court is correct in applying the parol evidence testimony that no such sharing arrangement was ever made. Further. Note that no written evidence was presented by the defendants to show that the plaintiffs [herein respondents] agreed to the above-sharing of the Conversely. evidence presented by the petitioners fell short in proving that a subsequent verbal agreement was in fact entered into by the parties. FACTS: The subject of this controversy is a parcel of land denominated as First. it did agreed to share the commission they are entitled to receive by virtue of not apply the parol evidence rule with regard to the evidence adduced by the Exclusive Authority to Sell with Lourdes G. Llenado evidence rule does not apply to the facts of this case. 1987. even if we apply the parol evidence rule in this case. respondents argue that the Court of Appeals did not apply the commission. To begin with. we agree with petitioners claim that the parol Estate of Llendo v. and that earlier written agreement. Although the appellate court stated and into such sharing agreement. The parties further agreed that being put in issue here. V-1689. rule. the parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the Lot 249-D-1 (subject lot) located in Metro Manila and registered in the terms of a written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting names of Eduardo Llenado (Eduardo) and Jorge Llenado (Jorge) under to show that. (TCT) No. entered into subsequent to the written agreement. 1983. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . the latters cousin Orlando Llenado (Orlando) executed an Agreement whereby Romeo assigned all his rights to Orlando over the unexpired Second. 1978. Cornelio leased Lot 249-D-1 to his nephew. On March 31. the validity of the written agreement is not the matter which is portion of the aforesaid lease contract. up to December 2. The fact is that the plaintiffs are denying having ever entered parol evidence rule in this case. the x x x property cannot be sold. alienated or conveyed in whatever manner to Nonetheless. the claimed verbal agreement was agreed upon not prior to but years at the option of Cornelio. What is questioned is the validity of the claim that Orlando shall have the option to renew the lease contract for another a subsequent verbal agreement was agreed upon by the parties after the three years commencing from December 3. during the period that [this agreement] is enforced. execution of the written agreement which substantially modified their renewable for another four years or up to December 2. HELD: NO. other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties. 1975. they aver that there is no rule that requires an agreement modifying an earlier agreement As pointed out by the trial court: to be in the same form as the earlier agreement in order for such modification or amendment to be valid. at or before the execution of the parties written agreement. Cornelio. the any third party. it the petitioners. We EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. 58 subscribe to the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the parol the evidence presented by petitioners did not establish the existence of evidence rule to the facts of the case because the verbal agreement was the alleged subsequent verbal agreement. renewable for another five Notably. varying the purport of the written contract. For if the plaintiffs as sales agents indeed emphasized the general legal principle and rule on parol evidence. passes understanding why no written agreement to that effect was ever made. Romeo Llenado (Romeo). DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 1980. for a period of five years. Raymundo and Hipolito.

such as the one involved issued in the name of RBBI. Eduardo filed a complaint for involving a right of first refusal. petitioners allegations in its proved by parole evidence has been answered in the affirmative by this Complaint cannot substitute for competent proof on such a crucial factual Court in Rosencor Development Corporation v. and an agreement Facts: Espejos were the original registered owners of 2 parcels of creating a right of way are not covered by the provisions of the statute of agricultural land. we have held that the setting up of boundaries. in their answer to the Complaint. Eduardo informed Wenifreda of his desire to take over property involved. not of the sale of the real Espejos bought back 1 of their lots from RBBI. A right of first refusal. to be sold. Orlando which may be proved by parole evidence because it is not one of The testimony of petitioner Wenifreda made no mention of the alleged the contracts covered by the statute of frauds. a right of first refusal need not be unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela. At best. The two remaining witnesses sold the subject lot to respondents Eduardo and Jorge without first offering for the plaintiff. Metro written to be enforceable and may be proven by oral evidence. RBBI eventually consolidated title to the properties and TCTs were unwritten. par. rescissible. to this alleged promise. Cruz. Considering that Cornelio verbal promise given by Cornelio to Orlando. We have previously held that not all agreements affecting land must be Marquez vs Espejo put into writing to attain enforceability.tenanted by Sulan-at Marquez and Nestor Dela enumerated in Article 1403 of the New Civil Code. contract of sale. On the contrary. Michael Goco and Renato Malindog. Within these parameters. husband of frauds. Manila against Wenifreda. this amounted to a right of first refusal in favor of testimonial evidence was presented to prove the existence of said right. 2 hectares each: Lantap – tenanted by Nemi. As such. 2(e) of Bayombong. the oral partition of real property. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. the sale of the subject lot. The reason simply is that these agreements are not among those Elenita. A right of first refusal is not among those listed as unenforceable under the The respondents mortgaged both parcels of land to Rural Bank of statute of frauds. Inquing: issue. thus. is not by any means a perfected contract of sale of real property. petitioner argues that the sale is in violation of from the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City who naturally were not privy the latters right of first refusal and is. respondents denied the existence of said promise for lack of HELD: NO. the Regional Trial Court ruled that the right of first Petitioner anchors its claim over the subject lot on the alleged verbal refusal was proved by oral evidence while the Court of Appeals disagreed promise of Cornelio to Orlando that should he (Cornelio) sell the same. 59 Sometime in 1993. The question as to whether a right of first refusal may be knowledge thereof. Neither was it established that respondents Eduardo and Jorge were aware of said promise prior to or at the time of ISSUE: WON the petitioner is correct in applying the parol evidence rule... it is a contractual grant. 1993. albeit RBBI. but of the right of first refusal over the property sought the subject lot. Furthermore. the latter refused to vacate the premises despite repeated It is thus evident that the statute of frauds does not contemplate cases demands. We have reviewed the records and find that no According to petitioner. Necessarily. were representatives the same to Orlandos heirs. Thus. In the instant case. petitioners claims based on this alleged right of first refusal cannot be sustained for its existence has not been duly established. The mortgaged properties were foreclosed and sold to the New Civil Code presupposes the existence of a perfected. the application of Article 1403. However. and Murong . The Deed of Sale did not mention the barangay where the property was located but mentioned the EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. on September 24. in the instant case. by ruling that petitioner merely relied on the allegations in its Complaint to Orlando would be given the first opportunity to purchase said property. Inc. Thus. establish said right.

EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE. After the petitioners completed the payment of the purchase price of P90K to RBBI. Both VLTs described the subject as an agricultural the contents of the contracts but the intention of the parties that was not land located in Barangay Murong and covered by TCT No. There is no room for the application of the BER because there is no dispute regarding the contents of the docs. RBBI answered that it was the Lantap property which was the subject of the buy-back transaction with Espejos. on the other hand. is the title corresponding to the Lantap property). the BER. The title numbers indicated in their respective deeds of conveyance should control in determining the subjects thereof. T-62096). Nemi Held: NO. RARAD ruled that the VLTs (Murong property) has a mere typographical error. adequately expressed in their contracts. let the chaos begin… Feb 10. The complaint was based on respondents’ theory that the Murong property was owned by the respondents by virtue of the 1985 buy-back. The CA erred in its application of however. T-62836 (which. held that DARAB erred in ruling that they repurchased the Lantap property. Both CLOAs stated that their subjects were parcels of agricultural land situated in Barangay Murong. CA held that the Deed of Sale between respondents and RBBI is continued working on the Lantap property. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in annotated on TCT No. The DARAB held that the Respondents repurchased the Lantap property. while the petitioners were awarded the Murong property. not the Murong property. 1997. The Deed of Sale was the best evidence as to the property. Using the BER. the Deed of Sale is the best evidence as to its contents. It declared that they were disqualified to become tenants of the Lantap property. the DAR issued the corresponding Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to Marquez and Dela Cruz. T-62096 almost a decade later. 60 title of the property (TCT No. particularly the description of the land which was the object of the sale The additional description in the VLTs that the subject thereof is located in Barangay Murong was considered to be a mere typographical error. The CA. They maintain that the issue in the case is not Marquez and Dela Cruz. respondents filed a Complaint before the RARAD of Bayombong. BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . RBBI using the BER to determine the subject of the Deed of Sale and the Deeds executed separate Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer (VLTs) in favor of of Voluntary Land Transfer. 1994. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. which title corresponds to the Murong property. on July 1. Issue: WON it is correct to apply the BER? Respondents never took possession of the Murong property. The OIC-RARAD ruled in favor of Nemi.

BEST EVIDENCE & PAROL EVIDENCE LLB 3 . DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 61 EVIDENCE | OBJECT EVIDENCE.