You are on page 1of 5

1.

) ATIENZA V BOARD OF MEDICINE


G.R. No. 177407 | February 9, 2011 | J. Nachura Issue:
W/N the exhibits are inadmissible in evidence
Facts: Held:
1. Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent Editha Sioson went to
Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for check-up on February 1995. No. Petition denied. To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of
evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative
2. Sometime in 1999, due to the same problem, she was referred to Dr. bodies such as the BOM. Although trial courts are enjoined to observe
Pedro Lantin III of RMC who, accordingly, ordered several diagnostic strict enforcement of the rules of evidence, in connection with evidence
laboratory tests. She underwent kidney operation after the tests which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or
revealed that her left kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing. admissibility, we have held that, “it is the safest policy to be liberal, not
rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them
3. Private respondent’s husband Romeo Sioson then filed a complaint unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that
for gross negligence and/or incompetence before the Board of Medicine their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they
for the removal of Editha’s fully functional right kidney, instead of the are thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their
left, against the doctors who allegedly participated in the kidney admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can
operation, namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin, III, Dr. easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.”
Gerardo Antonio Florendo and petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza. Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the
circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. On the other hand,
4. After Romeo Sioson presented his evidence, Editha filed her formal the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not
offer of documentary evidence, which consisted of certified photocopies it proves an issue.
of X-Ray request forms where interpretation of the ultrasound results
were written, for the purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in Second, petitioner’s insistence that the admission of Editha’s exhibits
their proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated. violated his substantive rights leading to the loss of his medical license
is misplaced in light of Section 20, Article I of the Professional
5. Petitioner filed his comments/objections to Editha’s formal offer of Regulation Commission Rules of Procedure. As pointed out by the
exhibits, alleging that said exhibits are inadmissible because the same appellate court, the admission of the exhibits did not prejudice the
are mere photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, substantive rights of petitioner because, at any rate, the fact sought to
intended to establish matters which are hearsay, and incompetent to be proved thereby, that the two kidneys of Editha were in their proper
prove the purpose for which they are offered. anatomical locations at the time she was operated on, is presumed
under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court on Disputable
6. The formal offer of documentary exhibits of private respondent was presumptions.
admitted by the BOM. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the The exhibits are certified photocopies of X-ray Request Forms filed in
Order, which was denied on the ground that BOM should first admit connection with Editha’s medical case, which contained handwritten
the evidence being offered so that it can determine its probative value entries interpreting the results of the examination. The fact sought to
when it decides the case, and later on determine whether the evidence be established by the admission of Editha’s exhibits, that her “kidneys
is relevant or not. were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time” of her
operation, need not be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial
7. Disagreeing with the BOM, Atienza filed a petition for certiorari with
notice. These exhibits do not constitute hearsay evidence of the
the CA. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys because the position and
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
removal may still be established through a belated ultrasound or x-ray
of her abdominal area.
Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, the best evidence rule is also Facts:
inapplicable. Section 3 of Rule 130 provides: Alberto Ligaray (Ligaray) transacted business with Gilbert Wagas
(Wagas) in which the latter placed an order of 200 bags of rice over the
1. Best Evidence Rule telephone. Ligaray released the goods to Wagas and at the same time
received the a check for P200,000 payable to cash. Upon depositing the
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the said check, the same was dishonoured because of insufficient funds.
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be Ligaray demanded from Wagas for the payment of the check but the
admissible other than the original document itself, except in the latter did not pay the former.
following cases:
Wagas was charged with estafa in an information stating that he issued
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be a check in the amount of P200,000; however, when the check was
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; presented for encashment, it was dishonoured because it was “drawn
against insufficient funds.” Despite of notice and several demands upon
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party Wagas to make good said check, he failed to do so.
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice; On arraignment, Wagas pleaded not guilty. On pre-trial, Wagas
admitted that the check alleged in the information had been
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Trial ensued and on cross
documents which cannot be examined in court
examination, Ligaray admitted that he did not personally meet Wagas
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from
because they transacted through telephone only; and he release the 200
them is only the general result of the whole; and
bags of rice directly to Robert Cañada (Cañada), the brother-in-law of
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public Wagas, who signed the delivery receipt upon receiving the rice. In his
officer or is recorded in a public office. defense, Wagas admitted that he issued the check to Cañada for the
payment of Cañada’s property and denied he had any dealings with
The subject of inquiry in this case is whether respondent doctors before Ligaray. The trial court convicted Wagas of the crime charged against
the BOM are liable for gross negligence in removing the right him. After denial of Wagas’ motion for new trial/ consideration, he
functioning kidney of Editha instead of the left non-functioning kidney, appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
not the proper anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys. As previously
discussed, the proper anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys at the Issue:
time of her operation at the RMC may be established not only through Did the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of
the exhibits offered in evidence. the perpetrator of the crime?

In fact, the introduction of secondary evidence, such as copies of the Ruling:


exhibits, is allowed, especially as one of the witnesses testified that the No, the prosecution was not able to establish beyond reasonable doubt
Records Office of RMC no longer had the originals of the exhibits the identity of the perpetrator of the crime.
“because [it] transferred from the previous building, x x x to the new
building” and ultimately, the originals cannot be produced. The prosecution established that Ligaray had released the goods to
Cañada because of the postdated check the latter had given to him; and
that the check was dishonoured when resented for payment because of
the insufficiency of funds.
2.) People v. Wagas
G.R. No. 157943; 4 September 2013 In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, in this case,
the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was mother decided to leave because appellant has the habit of mauling her
Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.. mother every time he gets drunk. Her only brother also went out with
some neighbors.
First, even after the dishonour of the check, Ligaray expressly admitted
that he did not personally meet the person with whom he was At around 10pm, appellant woke up the victim, removed his
transacting over the telephone. pants and slid inside the blanket covering the victim and removed her
pants and underwear. Appellant had warned the victim not to shout for
Second, the check was payable to case. This type of check was payable help. He proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her daughter by
to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the need threatening her with his fist and a knife. Soon after, the victim’s brother
of an indorsement. arrived and saw her crying. Appellant claimed he scolded the victim for
staying out late. The two decided to leave the house.
Third, Ligaray admitted that it was Cañada who received the rice from While on their way to their maternal grandmother’s house,
and who delivered the check to him Considering that the records are victim recounted to her brother what happened to her. They later told
bereft of any showing that Cañada was then acting in behalf of Wagas, the incident to their grandmother and uncle who sought the assistance
the trial court had no factual and legal bases to conclude and find that of Moises Boy Banting. Banting found appellant in his house wearing
Cañada had been an agent of Wagas. only his underwear. He was invited to the police station to which he
obliged. Appellant admitted to Banting that he indeed raped her
Finally, Ligaray’s declaration that it was Wagas who had transacted daughter because he was unable to control himself.
with him over the telephone was not reliable because the same should
be authenticated first before it could be received in evidence. The trial court convicted the accused for qualified rape. Upon
appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the trial court.
A fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries the Hence this petition.
onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. The State has the burden of proof to show: (1) the
correct identification of the author of the crime, and (2) the actuality of ISSUE: Whether or not appellant’s extrajudicial confession without
the commission of the offence with the participation of the accused. The counsel admissible in evidence?
accused, being presumed innocent, carries no burden of proof on his
shoulders. For this reason, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to RULING: No.
prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the
llant’s extrajudicial confession without counsel admissible in evidence?
commission of the crime can be established, without competent proof
of the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, there can be no HELD: Negative.
conviction.

Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups,


3.) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the local
ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, Accused-Appellant. government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of
peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the
G.R. No. 186228 March 15, 2010 legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific
scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan,"
FACTS: Appellant Lauga was charged of qualified rape by his particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any
daughter. Testimonies revealed that the victim was left alone at home inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective
while his father was having drinking spree at the neighbor’s place. Her insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights
provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise ISSUE:
known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.
Whether the Sworn Statement should have been rejected
Even if the extrajudicial confessions were not admitted as outright by the lower courts.
evidence, it does not warrant the acquittal of the accused. The
appellant’s conviction is upheld because of the strong evidence showing RULING: The Court finds that both the trial court and the CA
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. committed error in giving the sworn statement probative weight. Since
Daniela is no longer available to take the witness stand as she is already
dead, the RTC and the CA should not have given probative value on
Principle: The extrajudicial confession of appellant, which Daniela's sworn statement for purposes of proving that the contract of
was taken without a counsel, inadmissible in evidence. sale between her and petitioner was simulated and that, as a
consequence, a trust relationship was created between them.
Considering that the Court finds the subject contract of sale between
petitioner and Daniela to be valid and not fictitious or simulated, there
4.) TATING v. MARCELLA, TATING and COURT OF APPEALS is no more necessity to discuss the issue as to whether or not a trust
G.R. No. 155208 | 2007-03-27 relationship was created between them. WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The
FACTS: On October 14, 1969, Daniela sold the subject property to her complaint of the private respondents is DISMISSED.
granddaughter, herein petitioner Nena Lazalita Tating. The contract of
sale was embodied in a duly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed
by Daniela in favor of Nena. Subsequently, title over the subject 5.) PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION v.
property was transferred in the name of Nena. She declared the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA EFIGENIA
property in her name for tax purposes and paid the real estate taxes due FISHING CORPORATION
thereon for the years 1972, 1973, 1975 to 1986 and 1988.However, the
land remained in possession Daniela. On December 28, 1977, Daniela G.R. No. 107518. October 8, 1998
executed a sworn statement claiming that she had actually no intention
of selling the property; the true agreement between her and Nena was FACTS:
simply to transfer title over the subject property in favor of the latter to
enable her to obtain a loan by mortgaging the subject property for the On the morning of September 21, 1977, M/V Maria Efigenia XV
purpose of helping her defray her business expenses; she later (of the private respondent) was navigating the waters near Fortune
discovered that Nena did not secure any loan nor mortgage the Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas, Metro Manila when
property; she wants the title in the name of Nena cancelled and the it collided with the vessel “Petroparcel”, owned at that time by Luzon
subject property reconveyed to her. Daniela died on July 29, 1988 Stevedoring Corporation (LSC).The Board of Marine Inquiry found the
leaving her children as her heirs. In a letter dated March 1, 1989, Carlos Petroparcel at fault for the collision and based on this and after
informed Nena that when Daniela died they discovered the sworn unsuccessful demands on petitioner, private respondent sued LSC and
statement she executed on December 28, 1977 and, as a consequence, Petroparcel captain Edgardo Doruelo for actual and compensatory
they are demanding from Nena the return of their rightful shares over damages.
the subject property as heirs of Daniela. Nena did not reply. Efforts to
settle the case amicably proved futile. Hence, her son filed a complaint During the pendency of the proceedings, PNOC Shipping
with the RTC praying for the nullification of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Transport Corporation acquired ownership of Petroparcel and replaced
RTC decide in favour or the plaintiff and was affirmed by the CA. LSC in the trial. CFI Caloocan ruled in favor of private respondent,
awarding it: the sum of P6,438,048.00 representing the value of the
fishing boat with interest of 6% per annum; P50,000 attorney’s fees and proof and on the best evidence available. Damages may not be awarded
the cost of suit. The basis of said amount was the testimony of the on the basis of on the basis of hearsay evidence. The documents
general manager of Maria Efigenia Fishin Corporation, Edilberto del presented by private respondent were regarded as hearsay evidence.
Rosario and several documentary evidence that included: ownership Del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the documents as
certificate, price quotations, and invoices issued at the request of Del he was not the author of them. He can only testify as to facts of his
Rosario. CFI ruled that PNOC-STC was unable to contest such evidence personal knowledge. As such, the price quotations were considered
with only the testimony of its senior estimator Lorenzo Lazaro as sole ordinary private writings which under the Revised Rules of Court
witness and without any documentary evidence. should be preferred along with the testimony of the writers thereof. One
of the exemptions to the hearsay evidence rule under Sec.37-47 of Rule
On appeal, petitioner questioned the admissibility and 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is “commercial lists”.
competency of private respondent’s documents as basis for damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI decision ruling that where a However, the quotations do not fall under “other published
lower court is confronted with evidence which appears to be of doubtful compilation” mentioned in the said exemptionas they are not published
admissibility, the judge should declare in favorof admissibility rather in any list, register, periodical, or other compilation. They are also not
than of non-admissibility. standard handbooks or periodicals containing data of everyday
professionals need and relied upon in the work of occupation. They are
On appeal to the SC, petitioner argued, among other things, that merely letters responding to the queries of Del Rosario.
the documents were not sufficient evidence to support the extent and
actual damages incurred by private respondent. The price Under the principle of ejusdem generis, “where general words
quotationswere not duly authenticated and that the witness (Del follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular
Rosario) did not have personal knowledge on the contents of the and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in
writings and neither was he an expert on the subjects thereof. CA their widest extent but are to be held as applying only to persons or
argued that the documents were sufficient and exempt from the hearsay things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.
rule as they are part of “commercial lists” defined in sec.45 Rule 130 of Because of the absence of competent proof of the actual damage
the Revised Rules on Evidence in so far as they fall under the “or other suffered, SC modified the CA decision and awarded the private
published compilation” phrase of the rule. respondent nominal damages amounting to P2,000,000.00.

Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of


statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation
contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation
is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so
stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.

ISSUE: WON the documents fall under the exception to the hearsay
evidence rule under sec. 45 rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
and would therefore be competent enough to establish the amount of
actual and compensatory damages.

RULING: With respect to the documentary evidence, the SC ruled in


favor of the petitioner PNOC-STC. For actual and compensatory
damages, the injured party is required to prove the actual amount of
loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent