You are on page 1of 7

People of the Philippines vs.

Julito Franco (#8)


The trial court convicted appellant Franco of the crime of robbery with homicide based of his alleged
extrajudicial confession. However, the said extrajudicial confession was not offered in evidence by the
prosecution. Neither was its contents recited by the appellant in his testimony.

According to the defense, and based on the records, there was no single person witnessed the incident.
Thus, according to the accused-appellant, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion for convicting

Hence, this petition before the Supreme Court.


Whether or not the accused – appellant’s extra-judicial confession which was not offered in evidence would
warrant the accused-appellant’s conviction of the said crime.


The Supreme Court ruled that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. So
fundamental is this injunction that litigants alike are corollary enjoined to formally offer any evidence which
they desire the court to consider. Chief Justice Moran explained the rationale behind the rule in this wise:

“…the offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment
only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit.

It cannot be argued either that since the extrajudicial confession has been identified and marked as Exhibit
“N” by the prosecution in the course of the cross-examination of the appellant, then it may now be validly
considered by the trial court. Indeed, there is a significant distinction between identification of documentary
evidence and its formal offer. The former is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking
of the evidence as an exhibit, while the latter is done only when the party rests its case. According to the
Supreme Court, the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not
mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.

complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import.00). . Thus. Moreover. Respondent herself admitted that the telephone number reflected in complainants cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. The CSC ordered complainant’s reinstatement but a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the CA in favor of PAGCOR. Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against PAGCOR before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof…In this case. complainant informed respondent of the particulars of his pending case. During their first telephone conversation and thereafter through a series of messages they exchanged via SMS. the respondent replied that a favorable and speedy decision of his case was attainable but the person who was to draft the decision was in return asking One Million Pesos (Php1. Ruling: Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter asked for One Million Pesos (Php1. It is also well to remember that in administrative cases. any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Allegedly. thus complainant was not reinstated to his former job pending adjudication of the case. Cruz – Apao (#10) Facts: The Complainant had a pending case with the Court of Appeals for more than two years. Hence. Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which provides: “Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations. The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k). complainant thought that respondent would be able to advise him on how to achieve an early resolution of his case. Under Section 2. an administrative case for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct was filed against the respondent Elvira Cruz-Apao which resulted to the latter’s dismissal from the service. Desiring an expeditious decision of his case. The complainant asked for a reduction of the said amount since he did not have such amount because he had been jobless for a long time. he sought the assistance of respondent after learning of the latter’s employment with the CA from her sister.and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not covered or retained. Respondent denied the request.000. Magdalena David.000.000. However. Nuez vs. a petition was filed before the present court. the text messages were admissible in evidence in the resolution of the case.000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of the former’s pending case with the CA. which caused the complainant to seek the assistance of an Imbestigador wherein an entrapment was formulated so as to apprehend the respondent. Issue: Whether or not. text messages….

a petition for review was filed before the Supreme Court. whom he had gotten pregnant. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection. quasi-judicial proceedings. Because of fear. saying that he did not love the woman he was about to marry. . However. arrested Rustan and a case for Violation of Section 5(h) of RA No. The objection is too late since he should have the objection at the time it was offered in evidence. Irish rejected the proposal. Rustan is raising his objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture for the first time before the Supreme Court. The accused – appellant was convicted. The police. before Rustan got married he made a proposal and convince Irish to elope with him. CA (#12) Facts: Complainant Irish and accused Rustan were former sweethearts but their relationship had ended when Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife). after hearing Irish’s report.Rustan Ang y Pascua vs. and changed her cellphone number but Rustan found a way to get her number and sent through Multimedia Message Service (SMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of Irish and threatened her to spread the picture he sent through the internet. Irish sought the help of the Vice Mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the Police. The rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions. 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 was filed. Issue: Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture in the case? Ruling: Yes. and administrative proceedings. hence.

has ruled before in a number of cases that even if the confession of the accused were “gospel truth”. . hence. Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence in court. The court. The conviction of the said accused-appellants was primarily based on extrajudicial confessions they had been executed. however. the confession is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. there were no prior valid waivers of their constitutional rights by Cabintoy and Fernando. Thus. the confessions do not indicate that both accused were represented by counsel during the investigation.appellants Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando. the accused-appellants filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. People vs Cabintoy Facts: A case was filed against accused. Based on the records. it was unconstitutional. Because at the time the questioned confessions were executed. Moreover. if it was made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of such assistance. This defect alone is sufficient to tender the confessions inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellants. the extrajudicial confessions were executed by the accused-appellants without the assistance of counsel and without prior valid waivers. together with one Fernando Garcia who is still at large for the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. Ruling: No. The settled rule is that an uncounselled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the rights to counsel is inadmissible in evidence.

Hence. and the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision because the respondent had presented only the unauthenticated and unsigned computer printouts of DTRs of the complainant only when they were required to present the authenticated and signed of the same. and for failure to observe the due process of law in dismissing the respondent. Israel was an employee of IBM Philippines. Ruling: No. . when he was placed under the direct supervision of Victor V. However. The days when private respondent did not report to the office were credited either as vacation or as sick leaves. Furthermore. NLRC (#9) Facts: Private Respondent Angel D. On days when he was away on business trips. Reyes. he was charged of habitual tardiness and absenteeism leading to his termination from his employment. because if a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it. Issue: Whether or not. Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court requires that the original documents shall be produced. private respondent’s DTRs for the period complained of by petitioner show that while his attendance record may not have been perfect. Inc. received numerous awards. vs. The termination was made through a letter informing Israel that his employment in the company was to be terminated due to habitual tardiness and absenteeism. IBM Philippines Inc. except only when such document falls within the exceptions provided for under the said Rule. his destination was shown. and represented the company in various seminars and conferences in and out of the country. Because when the court asked the petitioner to present the original documents. The purpose of the rule requiring the production of the best evidence is the prevention of fraud. the latter failed to do so. as Office Products Customer Engineer. The DTRs were signed by petitioner Victor Reyes. Israel then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment. the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes which its production would expose and defeat. this petition. and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place. he occupied two other positions in the company. For the next sixteen (16) years. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision against Israel. the unauthenticated computer printouts of DTRs are admissible in evidence. thus the latter appealed to the NLRC. the requirement for the production of the authenticated and signed DTRs of the private complainant does not fall within the said exceptions provided for under the said Rule. it was at least satisfactory. In the case at bench.

Issue: Whether or not the admission of txt messages as evidence constitutes a violation of right to privacy of the accused? Ruling: No. as the respondent himself. in finding the respondent therein guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. this petition. Elvira Cruz –Apao. Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral electronic communication” under Section 1(k). The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right to privacy is unavailing. which provides: “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversation. text messages…and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained” . He. the Court. or in any other case. This was also the ruling of the Court in the recent case of Zaldy Nuez v. The Court had the occasion to state: …The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k). Complainant then lodged the complaint against the respondent in a letter dated November 14. already admitted that he was the sender of the first three messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone. Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. the respondent denied extorting or receiving money for Lagua’s release. and “shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. Complainant called the respondent to her office. admitted serving the copies of resolution and order of release intended for Lagua and his counsel to Art Baluran. Hence. as well as his counsel. When confronted. considered text messages addressed to the complainant asking for a million pesos in exchange for a favorable decision in case pending before the CA. Magtolis vs Salud Facts: Respondent is charged and held liable for offenses on inefficiency and incompetence of official duty. and directly and indirectly having financial and material interest in an official transaction considering his undue interest in the service of the order of release and actual release of Melchor Lagua. however. The weight of respondent’s guilt was primarily based on his admission of the text messages when the same were presented during the hearing. conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. “ Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic. In that case. 2003.