Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
CASE TITLE FACTS
New Era university – College of Law
BPI v. REYES The case rooted from the incident in relation
GR No. 157177, February 11, to the opening of an ATM account by
2008 Respondent with herein petitioner Bank.
That as a result of the said transaction,
Respondent would become aware that her
ATM account only contained the amount of
P100,000.00 with interest. Hence, she filed
an action before the RTC.
Petitioner claimed that there was actually no
cash involved with the transactions which
happened on December 7, 1990 as
contained in the bank’s teller tape.
On August 12, 1994, the RTC issued a
Decision upholding the versions of
respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA
which affirmed the RTC decision with
modification
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES The cases involves a rape/murder case
v. LARRANAGA involving Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong,
GR No. 138874-75, July 21, sisters, who failed to come home on the
2005 expected time on July 16, 1997. Two days
after, a young woman was found dead at the
foot of a cliff in Tan-awan, Carcar Cebu. Her
pants were torn, her t-shirt was raised up to
her breast and her bra was pulled down. Her
face and neck were covered with masking
tape, and attached to her left wrist was a
handcuff. The woman was identified as
ISSUE
OBJECT EVIDENCE
Whether the CA erred in sustaining the
RTC's finding that respondent Jesusa
made an initial deposit of P200,000.00 in
her newly opened Express Teller account
on December 7, 1990?
Whether or not the Court erred in
sustaining the testimony of witness
Rusia?
RULING/RELATED DOCTRINE
YES.
The teller's tape definitely establishes the fact of
respondent Jesusa's original intention to withdraw the
amount of P200,000.00, and not P100,000.00 as she
claims, from her savings account, to be transferred as her
initial deposit to her new Express Teller account, the
insufficiency of her balance in her savings account, and
finally the fund transfer of the amount of P100,000.00
from her savings account to her new Express Teller
account. We give great evidentiary weight to the teller's
tape, considering that it is inserted into the bank's
computer terminal, which records the teller's daily
transactions in the ordinary course of business, and there
is no showing that the same had been purposely
manipulated to prove petitioner's claim.
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of
truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy
evidence. We have, on many occasions, relied principally
upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where
the physical evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we
consistently rule that the physical evidence should prevail.
NO.
It must be stressed that Rusias testimony was not viewed
in isolation. In giving credence to Rusias testimony, the
trial court took into consideration the physical
evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other
witnesses. Thus, the Court find no reason why they should
not uphold said testimony.
What makes Rusia’s testimony worthy of belief is its
striking compatibility with the physical evidence. Physical
1
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
Marijoy. After almost ten months, accused
Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted
before the police having participated in the
abduction of the sisters. He identified
appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman
Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel
Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James
Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in the crime.
Rusia provided the following before the trial
court:
PEOPLE v. GANDUMA
GR No. L-64507, April 25,
1988
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of
Rape?
evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof. It speaks
more eloquently than all witnesses put together. The
presence of Marijoy’s ravished body in a deep ravine at
Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and handcuffs
on her wrists certainly bolstered Rusia’s testimony on what
actually took place from Ayala Center to Tan-awan.
Indeed, the details he supplied to the trial court are of such
nature and quality that only a witness who actually saw the
commission of the crimes could furnish. Reinforcing his
testimony is its corroboration by several other witnesses
who saw incidents of what he narrated. Now, with such
strong anchorage on the physical evidence and the
testimonies of disinterested witnesses, why should we not
accord credence to Rusias testimony? Even assuming that
his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of
belief in view of his character, it is not so when considered
with the other evidence presented by the prosecution.
NO.
1. The examining physician's findings pointed to the
presence of some linear abrasions inside of the
complainant's thigh but none on her arms or legs. The said
bruises, if there were indeed any, could not have been
missed by the physician for he had the duty to examine
physically the complainant. Neither could the alleged
bruises have already healed for the physical examination
was conducted barely a week after the alleged crime of
rape was committed.
Physical evidence being of the highest order, this absence
of external injuries belies the complainant's testimony
that she was dragged to the bushes thus rendering her
credibility in doubt.
It is, therefore, a possibility that the complainant might
not actually have tripped while she was allegedly being
2
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
PEOPLE v. MALIMIT At 8 pm, Onofre Malaki(victim) was
GR No. 109775, November attending to his store. Malaki's houseboy
14, 1996 Edilberto Batin, was busy cooking supper at
the kitchen located at the back of the store
Florencio Rondon, a farmer, arrived at the
store of Malaki. to purchase chemical for his
rice farm.
Batin had just finished cooking, he
proceeded directly to the store to ask Malaki
if supper is to be prepared. As Batin stepped
inside the store, he saw accused Ercarnacion
“Manolo” Malimit coming out of the store
with a bolo while his boss, bathed in his own
blood, was sprawled on the floor struggling
for his life.
Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5)
meters away from the store, also saw
dragged to the bushes against her wig. It is more plausible
that she went with the appellant to the bushes willingly.
2. As to the presence of the linear abrasions of 3.0 cm. in
length found inside the left thigh of the complainant, we
cannot appreciate those as indications of force and
violence. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant,
the wounds may have been caused by blades of grass or by
some hard object while the complainant and the appellant
were caressing each other by the bushes.
Nonetheless, the wounds were too superficial to
corroborate the complainant's allegation that she resisted
the appellant's sexual advances which compelled the latter
to use brute force. In a rape case, the testimony of the
complainant must be corroborated by physical evidence
showing use of force.
The wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the
very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery.
The identification card, residence certificate and keys
found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are admissible
to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of
evidence are inadmissible, the same will not detract from
appellant's culpability considering the existence of other
evidence and circumstances establishing appellant's
identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged.
We, now come to appellant's third assignment of error
where he demurs on the prosecution's evidence,
contending that they are insufficient to sustain his
conviction.
Our close scrutiny of the record reveals otherwise. Time
and again, we ruled that there can be a verdict of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads
to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the
3
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
accused Malimit rushing out through the
front door of Malaki's store with a blood-
stained bolo
Aided by the illumination coming from a
pressure lamp inside the store, Rondon
clearly recognized Malimit.
Both Batin and Rondon rushed to the nearby
house of Malaki's brother-in-law Eutiquio
Beloy and informed Beloy of the tragic
incident which befell Malaki.
Batin, along with Beloy, went back to the
store. Inside, they saw the lifeless body of
Malaki in a pool of blood lying prostrate at
the floor. Beloy readily noticed that the
store's drawer was opened and ransacked
and the wallet of Malaki was missing from
his pocket
TC: Convicted accused for the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide
One of the contentions of accused Malimit
in this appeal is that the trial court erred in
giving credence to the testimonies of
Rondon and Batin. He questions the
credibility of the 2 witnesses because they
only revealed that they have knowledge of
the crime and identified the accused as the
perpetrator, 5 months after the incident.
SISON v. PEOPLE A rally was held by Marcos loyalists at
GR Nos. 108280-83, Luneta. Since they have no permit, they
November 16, 1995 were dispersed. Later in the afternoon, a
small group of loyalists converged at the
Chinese Garden, Phase III of the Luneta.
Whether or not the photographs
presented are admissible as evidence?
accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as the
perpetrator of the crime. In order that circumstantial
evidence may be sufficient to convict, the same must
comply with these essential requisites, viz., (a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, there were at least five (5) circumstances
constituting an unbroken chain of events which by their
"concordant combination and cumulative effect", satisfy
the requirements for the conviction of the appellant,
specifically: (1) appellant was seen by Rondon and Batin,
whose credibilities were untarnished, holding a bolo in his
right hand and rushing out of Malaki's store seconds prior
to their discovery of the crime; (2) Malaki sustained
multiple stab wounds 34 and he died of "cardiac arrest,
secondary to severe external hemorrhage due to multiple
stab wounds", (3) witness Elmer Ladica saw the appellant
on August 6, 1991, accompanied by some policemen,
retrieve Malaki's wallet underneath a stone at the
seashore in Barangay Hingatungan; (4) appellant himself
admitted in his testimony that on August 6, 1991, he
accompanied several policemen to the seashore where he
hid Malaki's wallet; and (5) appellant's flight and his
subsequent disappearance from Hingatungan immediately
after the incident.
YES.
CASE LAW/DOCTRINE:
Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be
identified by the photographer as to its productions and
4
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular
movie starlet and supporter of President
Marcos, jogging around the fountain. Ferrer
angrily ordered the loyalists “Gulpihin ninyo
and mga Cory hecklers!" Then she continued
jogging around the fountain chanting
"Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si
Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang
mga nakadilaw". As a result, Salcedo (who
was only attacked because he was wearing a
yellow shirt DILAWAN!!!!!!) died due to the
mauling given to him by the loyalists.
testified as to the circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its
being a correct representation or reproduction of the
original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy
in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The
photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful representation of the object
portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the
testimony of the person who made it or by other
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it
subject to impeachment as to its exactness and accuracy.

Thus, several informations were filed in

court against eleven persons identified as
Marcos loyalists charging them with the
murder of Salcedo.

The cases were consolidated and raffled to

the RTC Manila. All of the accused pleaded
not guilty to the charge and trial ensued
accordingly. The prosecution presented
twelve witnesses, including two
eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato
Banculo, and the police officers who were at
the Luneta at the time of the incident. In
support of their testimonies, the
prosecution likewise presented
documentary evidence consisting of
newspaper accounts of the incident and
various photographs taken during the
mauling.

The RTC rendered a decision finding Romeo

Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los
Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as
principals in the crime of murder qualified

5
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
by treachery.

On appeal, the CA modified the decision of

the RTC by acquitting Annie Ferrer but
increasing the penalty of the rest of the
accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to
reclusion perpetua. The CA found them
guilty of murder qualified by abuse of
superior strength, but convicted Joselito
Tamayo of homicide because the
information against him did not allege the
said qualifying circumstance.

Hence, this petition.

PEOPLE v. ENOJAS The defendant, taxi driver Enojas, was
GR No. 204894, March 10, stopped by police while parked suspiciously
2014 in front of a glass shop. Enojas provided the
police with identification that the officers
suspected to be fake. The officers then
asked Enojas to accompany them to the
police station. Enojas agreed.
On the way, the officers stopped at a 7/11 to
use the restroom. The officer who went into
the store apprehended two robbers, one of
whom shot and killed the officer. The other
officer got out of the car upon hearing the
gunshots. Returning to the police car, he
found that Enojas had fled the scene. Later,
the police searched his abandoned taxi car
and found Enojas’ phone. They monitored
the messages on the phone and
communicated with the other suspects,
resulting in an entrapment operation.
Whether or not text messages are
admissible as evidence?
YES.
The Court found that the text messages were properly
admissible because the police officer, posing as Enojas, had
personal knowledge of the messages and was competent
to testify about them applying the Rules on Electronic
Evidence to criminal actions. Text messages are to be
proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to
the same or has personal knowledge of them. Here, PO3
Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text
messages with the other accused in order to identify and
entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from
and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had
personal knowledge of such messages and was competent
to testify on them.

Enojas, along with several other defendants,

was charged with murder in 2006 before the

6
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
Las Pifias Regional Trial Court. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the conviction. The accused then appealed
to the Supreme Court.
PEOPLE v. LANGCUA
GR No. 190343, February 6,
2013
MALLILIN-LOPEZ v. PEOPLE On the strength of a warrant of search and
GR No. 172953, April 30, seizure, a team of Þve police ofÞcers raided
2008 the residence of petitioner. The search
allegedly yielded two (2) plastic sachets of
shabu and Þve (5) empty plastic sachets
containing residual morsels of the said
substance. Accordingly, petitioner was
charged with violation illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under RA 9165. Accused
was convicted. He appealed from the said
decision and averred that there was
irregularity on the conduct of the search.
During the trial, the following persons were
presented as witnesses: (1) two members of
Whether petitioner's bare denial cannot
defeat the positive assertions of the
prosecution and that the same does not
suffice to overcome the prima facie
existence of animus possidendi?
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.46
The Court finds that the different links to establish the
chain of custody are sufficiently established.
PO1 Domingo in his testimony identified the confiscated
white crystalline substance and its turnover to the crime
laboratory for examination.
Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon
from the standard and normal procedure in the
implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seizure
custody of the evidence, the blind reliance by the trial
court and the Court of Appeals on the presumption of
regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly
misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely just
that—a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof
and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be
regarded as binding truth.52 Suffice it to say that this
presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption
of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.53 In the present case the lack of
conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly
seized from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the
7
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
the raiding team, i.e., Esternon and Bulanon; manner by which the same were placed under police
and (2) the forensic chemist who examined custody before offered in court, strongly militates a finding
the seized items. The member of the raiding of guilt.
team who conducted the recording and
marking of the seized items were not
presented. Furthermore the item seized was
immediately sent to the laboratory without
presenting the same to the judge who issued
the warrant. Furthermore, the forensic
chemist admitted that all seven sachets
were delivered to the laboratory by
Esternon in the afternoon of the same day
that the warrant was executed. The items
seized were not presented to the judge who
issued the warrant
PEOPLE v. DAHIL On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were Whether or not the law enforcement NO.
GR No. 212196, January 12, charged in three (3) separate Informations officers substantially complied with the
2015 before the RTC for violation of Section 5, chain of custody procedure required by The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of R.A. No. 9165? custody and that the prosecution failed to establish the
26.8098 grams of marijuana very corpus delicti of the crime charged.

Dahil filed a motion for reinvestigation and The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in
trial ensued and the prosecution presented court is material if not indispensable in every prosecution
PO2 Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz) and SPO1 for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drug.
Eliseo Licu (SPO1 Licu), as witnesses.
As such, the identity of the dangerous drugs should be
for a couple of weeks, the agents of the established beyond doubt by showing that the items...
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), offered in court were the same substances bought during
Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing the buy-bust operation
operations relative to the information they
received that a certain alias "Buddy" and Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1,
alias Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains
the said term as follows:
"Mel" were trafficking dried marijuana in TB
Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or

8
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
The Chief of PDEA formed a team to conduct
a buy-bust operation.
PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-
buyer while SPO1 Licu was assigned as his
back-up. PO2 Corpuz together with the
informant went to the house of Dahil which
was within the TB Pavillon compound.
The informant then introduced PO2 Corpuz
as the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2
Corpuz how much would he be buying and
the latter answered that he would buy
P200.00 worth of marijuana.
Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) plastic
sachets of... marijuana and handed them to
PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2
Corpuz handed two (2) P100.00 marked bills
to Castro.
Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off
his cap to signal that the sale had been
consummated.
The rest of the buy-bust team then rushed
to their location and arrested Castro and
Dahil.
The RTC found both accused liable for
violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
The accused then appealed to the CA but
the latter denied. Hence, this case.
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory...
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the... course
of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.
Although the prosecution offered in evidence the
Inventory of the Property Seized signed by the arresting
officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided
in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not observed.
First, the inventory of the property was not immediately
conducted after seizure and confiscation as it was only
done at the police station.
The prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification
for the delayed conduct of the inventory.
Second, there is doubt as to the identity of the person who
prepared the Inventory of Property Seized
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized
items were photographed in the presence of the accused
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.
During the cross-examination, PO2 Corpuz testified:
The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish
the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is
9
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
PEOPLE v. KAMAD Prosecution version:
GR No. 174198, January 19, PNP Drug enforcement unit of southern
2010 police unit( Taguig police) received
information from an asset that certain
zenaida was engaged in illegal sale of shabu
at Purok 4, silverio compound in paranaque.
Tagui police then formed a buy-bust team
composed of inspector Parillas, Maulit
Manfoste, Sanchez and Velasco. Sanchez
acted as poseur –buyer and used marked-
money. Thereafter, the team proceeded to
Whether there was a presumption of
regularity in the conduct of buy-bust
operation by the police?
sufficient
The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of
admissibility, but of weight to be given on the evidence.
Dahil and Castro. No explanation was offered for the non-
observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the
saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165
because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items were... preserved.
The four links required to establish the proper chain of
custody were breached with irregularity and lapses.
Principles:
People v. Catalan, the Court said:
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. That proof is
vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other hand, the
Prosecution does not comply with the... indispensable
requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are
missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the
chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise
doubts about the authenticity of the evidence... presented
in court.
The Supreme Court enumerated the links that the
prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a
buy-bust situation to be as follows:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
10
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
the target place where they immediately
saw accused-appellant and Leo. The asset
and Sanchez approached the 2 while the
team watched from the distance; the
accused then handed Sanchez a plastic
sachet containing substance suspected to be
shabu. Sanchez lighted his cigarette as signal
for the team to approach. The team arrested
Leo and Kamad. Thereafter, the team
brought sample of the substance to Crime
Lab and the test yielded positive results for
metamphetamine hydrochloride.
Defense version: Leo and the accused
denied the charge and claimed that she and
her boyfriend Leo were framed up; that they
went to the house of Leo’s cousins and that
they waited for Leo’s cousin when 4 armed
men entered the house and introduced
themselves as police officers. Leo and Zaida
were frisked but nothing was found in their
possession; that she was asked where she
kept the shabu; that she replied that she
was not selling shabu; afterwards, they were
taken to the PNP headquarters where they
were gain frisked and asked the same
questions and they were detained for about
a day and brought them to Prosecutor’s
office for inquest without showing them any
shabu.
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
These links in the chain of custody were not adequately
established by the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the documentary records of the case. It is
significant to note that the testimonies of poseur-buyer
Catubay and his back-up, Esguerra, lack specifics on the
post-seizure custody and handling of the subject narcotic
substance. Although Catubay testified that he seized the
small plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu from
Salcena and brought it to the BSDO office, he never
disclosed the identity of the person/s who had control and
possession of the shabu at the time of its transportation to
the police station. Neither did he claim that he retained
possession until it reached the police station. Furthermore,
the prosecution failed to supply vital details as to who
marked the sachet, where and how the same was done,
and who witnessed the marking.

RTC: Declared the accused guilty as charged.

Accused questioned the regularity of their
arrest and or the buy-bust operation. She
argued that no presumption of regularity
could arise considering that the police
violated NAPOLCOM rules by using the

11
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
asset; the rules prohibit the deputation of
private persons as PNP civilian agents.
Accused likewise pointed out the material
inconsistencies in the testimony of the
witnesses: a. uncertainty of Sanchez
regarding the time the buy-bust team was
dispatched at the target area; confusion of
po3 Maulit on the identity of the team
leader of the team; mistake of Maulit that
only the recovered sachet was marked ES,
while marked money was marked MF; and
contradcting statements of the policemen as
to whom between the accused and Leo who
sold the shabu.

CA: Affirmed in toto. Brushed aside the

alleged inconsistencies on the ground that
the accused were caught in flagrante delicto
for illegal sale of shabu committed in the
presence of police officers.
AGUSTIN v. COURT OF Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin
APPEALS Prollamante sued Martin’s alleged biological
GR No. 162571, June 15, father, petitioner Arnel Agustin, for support
2005 and support pendent lite before the Quezon
City RTC.In their complaint, respondents
alleged that Arnel courted Fe, after which
they entered into an intimate relationship.
Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe on her
34th birthday but despite Arnel’s insistence
on abortion, Fe decided to give birth to their
child out of wedlock, Martin. The baby’s
birth certificate was purportedly signed by
Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the
pre-natal and hospital expenses but later
refused Fe’s repeated requests for Martin’s
support despite his adequate financial
capacity and even suggested to have the
Whether or not the court erred in
directing parties to subject to DNA
paternity testing and was a form of
unreasonable search?
No. In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely
to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain,
DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from
body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue
of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive
match would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing v Court
of Appeals, this Court has acknowledged the strong weight
of DNA testing
In no uncertain terms, the Court also underscored that the
right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual
privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public service
and the common good. Intrusions into the right must be
accompanied by proper safeguards that enhance public
service and the common good.

12
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
child committed for adoption. Arnel also In the instant case, the petitioner has in no way shown any
denied having fathered the child. arbitrariness, passion, prejudice or personal hostility that
would amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of
On January 2001, while Fe was carrying five- the Court of Appeals. The respondent court acted entirely
month old Martin at the Capitol Hills Golf within its jurisdiction in promulgating its decision and
and Country Club parking lot, Arnel sped off resolution, and any error made would have only been an
in his van, with the open car door hitting error in judgment. As we have discussed, however, the
Fe’s leg. This incident was reported to the decision of the respondent court, being firmly anchored in
police. Several months later, Fe was law and jurisprudence, was correct.
diagnosed with leukemia and has, since
then, been undergoing chemotherapy. Fe
and Martin then sued Arnel for support. Fe
and Martin moved for the issuance of an
order directing all the parties to submit
themselves to DNA paternity testing, which
Arnel opposed by invoking his constitutional
right against self-incrimination and moving
to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of
action.

The trial court denied the MTD and ordered

the parties to submit themselves to DNA
paternity testing at the expense of the
applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court, thus this petition.
PE LIM v. COURT OF In 1978, the petitioner Raymond Lim and
APPEALS, PE LIM respondent Maribel Cruz fist met in a club
GR No. 112229, March 18, along Roxas Boulevard on the very first day
1997 when the latter was just sixteen years old
and working as an attendant in the said club.
The petitioner showed interest to the
respondent and started courting her which
he succeeded. They started cohabiting in
different areas in Manila in which the
petitioner was the one paying for their
rentals. In July 1981, Maribel already
pregnant, left for Japan but returned in
Whether or not the petitioner’s acts
would stand as evidence to justify his
paternity?
Yes. Article 172 (2) states “An admission of legitimate
filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parents.” In this case the
tenor of the petitioner is that they are not just friends as
claimed by the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner is
the father of the child since he executed all responsibilities
which undeniably showed concern of a legitimate father
such as payment of hospital bill, causing the registration of
the child using his surname and lastly the lines in his letters
which much love and concern to Maribel and their
daughter

13
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
TIJING v. COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 125901, March 8,
2001
October of the same year. QUESTION
In January 1982, Maribel gave birth to their The alleged father did not sign the birth certificate of his
daughter and it was the petition who alleged child. However, his name was enter in the said
shouldered the hospitalization and even document by the registrar. Could it a valid and competent
caused the registration of the name Joanna evidence of his paternity?
Rose Pe Lim on the child’s birth certificate.
Answer:
Towards the latter part of 1983, Maribel
noticed that the petitioner’s feeling towards No, it is an incompetent evidence of his paternity because
her started to wane. It resulted to the it should be voluntarily and actually signed by the father
petitioner’s abandonment of Maribel and himself.
their daughter. Respondent tried to support
themselves that it was never enough so that
she sought for support from the petitioner
who kept on promising but nothing had
been made. Hence, a complaint was filed
against the petitioner for support. However,
the petitioner contended that it was Maribel
who insisted for them have that kind of
intimacy which he never deemed it as such.
He even insinuated that he was not the
father of the child considering the nature of
Maribel’s work as an entertainer. More so,
the payment he made upon all expenses was
just a gesture of generosity since he wanted
to help her out of that hard situation that
she was in with the promise that she is going
to pay him back. Nevertheless, the RTC ruled
in favor of Maribel and it was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
Edgardo and Bienvenida Tijing filed a Whether or not habeas corpus is the Yes. SC upheld the decision of the trial court.
petition for habeas corpus in order to proper remedy to regain custody of the
recover their youngest child, Edgardo Jr., minor? The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
whom they did not see for 4 years. Trial confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
court granted the petition and ordered of his liberty, or by the rightful custody of any person
Angelita Diamante to immediately release withheld from the persons entitled thereto. The writ of
14
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
the child, now named John Thomas D.
Lopez, and turn him over to his parents. CA
reversed and set aside the decision rendered
by the lower court. It questioned the
propriety of the habeas corpus in this case.
habeas corpus is the proper legal remedy to enable
parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the
latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free
will. It must be stressed out that in habeas corpus
proceeding, the question of identity is relevant and
material, subject to the usual presumption, including those
as identity of the person.
The trial court was correct in its judgment based on the
evidence established by the parents and by the witness
who is the brother of the late common-law husband of
Angelita. Furthermore, there are no clinical records, log
book or discharge from the clinic where John Thomas was
allegedly born were presented. Strong evidence directly
proves that Thomas Lopez, Angela's "husband", was not
capable of siring a child. Moreover, his first marriage
produced no offspring even after almost 15 years of living
together with his legal wife. His 14 year affair with Angelita
also bore no offspring.
The birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez were attended
by irregularities. It was filed by Thomas Lopez, the alleged
father. Under Sec. 4, Act No. 3753 (Civil Register Law), the
attending physician or midwife in attendance of the birth
should cause the registration of such birth. Only in default
of the physician or midwife, can the parent register the
birth of his child. Certificate must be filed with the LCR
within 30 days after the birth. The status of Thomas and
Angelita on the birth certificate were typed in as legally
married, which is false because Angelita herself had
admitted that she is a "common-law wife."
Trial court also observed several times that when the child
and Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong
similarities in their faces. Resemblance between a minor
and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence
to establish parentage. Lastly, the spouses presented
15
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
PEOPLE v. VALLEJO On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about
GR NO. 144656, May 9, 2002 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to her
neighbor’s house to seek help in an
assignment. It was a Saturday. Gerrico
Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her
assignment.
At 5pm of the same day, Daisy’s mom
noticed that her child wasn’t home yet. She
went to Vallejo’s house and Daisy wasn’t
there. 7pm, still no word of Daisy’s
whereabouts. The next morning, Daisy’s
body was found tied to a tree near a river
bank. Apparently, she was raped and
thereafter strangled to death.
In the afternoon of July 11, the police went
to Vallejo’s house to question the latter as
he was one of the last persons with the
victim.
But prior to that, some neighbors have
already told the police that Vallejo was
acting strangely during the afternoon of July
10.
The police requested for the clothes that
Vallejo wore the day Daisy disappeared.
Vallejo complied and the clothes were
submitted for processing.
The person who processed the clothing was
Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic Biologist of the
NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal, he
also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek
WON the DNA samples obtained from
Vallejo’s clothes and those of the victim
are admissible as evidence?
clinical records and testimony of the midwife who
attended Bienvenida's childbirth.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Buan
(NBI forensic biologist) are conclusive. The court reiterated
that even though DNA evidence is merely circumstantial, it
can still convict the accused considering that it
corroborates all other circumstantial evidence gathered in
this rape-slay case.
The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of
DNA evidence in this case and for the first time recognized
its evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus
DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells which
contains his or her genetic code. Except for identical twins,
each person's DNA profile is distinct and unique.
When a crime is committed, material is collected from the
scene of the crime or from the victim's body for the
suspect's DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence
sample is then matched with the reference sample taken
from the suspect and the victim.
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an
association exists between the evidence sample and the
reference sample. The samples collected are subjected to
various chemical processes to establish their profile. The
test may yield three possible results:
1) The samples are different and therefore must have
originated from different sources (exclusion). This
conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or
discussion;
2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the
test, whether the samples have similar DNA types
(inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of reasons
including degradation, contamination, or failure of some
16
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from
Daisy’s body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan found
that there were bloodstains in Vallejo’s
clothing – Blood Type A, similar to that of
the victim, while Vallejo’s Blood Type is O.
Buan also found that the vaginal swab from
Daisy contained Vallejo’s DNA profile.
Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a
sworn statement admitting the crime.
But when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the
sworn statement was coerced; that he was
threatened by the cops; that the DNA
samples should be inadmissible because the
body and the clothing of Daisy (including his
clothing – which in effect is an admission
placing him in the crime scene – though not
discussed in the case) were already soaked
in smirchy waters, hence contaminated.
Vallejo was convicted and was sentenced to
death by the trial court.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
ARCEO v. PEOPLE Pacifico Arceo obtained a loan amounting to
GR No. 142641, July 17, 2006 P100,000 from private complainant Josefino
Cenizal. Several weeks thereafter, he
obtained an additional loan of P50,000 then
issued in favor of Cenizal, BPI Check,
postdated August 4, 1991, for P150,000.
When August 4 came, Cenizal did not
deposit the check immediately because
Arceo promised that he would replace the
check with cash. Such promise was made
verbally seven times. When his patience ran
out, Cenizal brought the check to the bank
Whether or not the Best Evidence Rule is
applicable in this case?
aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might
then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to
obtain a more conclusive result; or
3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from
the same source (inclusion). In such a case, the samples are
found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the
statistical significance of the Similarity.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
therefore, courts should consider, among others things,
the following data: how the samples were collected, how
they were handled, the possibility of contamination of
the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
NO.
Petitioner’s insistence on the presentation of the check in
evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under
BP 22 is wrong. Petitioner anchors his argument on Rule
130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as
the best evidence rule. However, the rule applies only
where the content of the document is the subject of the
inquiry. Where the issue is the execution or existence of
the document or the circumstances surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
17
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
for encashment, however, the check testimonial evidence is admissible.
bounced because of insufficient funds.
The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and
Thereafter, Cenizal went to the house of issuing a worthless check. Hence, the subject of the inquiry
Arceo but found out that he had left the is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its
place. So Cenizal referred the matter to a content. The due execution and existence of the check
lawyer who wrote a letter giving Arceo three were sufficiently established.
days from receipt thereof to pay the amount
of check. Arceo still failed to make good the
amount of the check. As a consequence,
Cenizal executed on January 20, 1992 his
affidavit and submitted documents in
support of his complaint for estafa and
violation of BP 22 agaisnt Arceo. The check
in question and the return slip were
however lost by Ceniza as a result of a fire
that occurred near his residence. He
executed an Affidavit of Loss.

After trial, petitioner was found guilty as

charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court’s decision in toto.
CHUA GAW v. CHUA Petitioner, however, maintains that the RTC
GR No. 160855, April 16, erred in admitting in evidence a mere copy
2008 of the Deed of Partition and the Deed of Sale
in violation of the best evidence rule. In
addition, petitioner insists that the Deed of
Sale was not the result of bona fide
negotiations between a true seller and
buyer.
Whether or not the Best Evidence Rule is
applicable in this case?
NO.
The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule 130,
Section 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies
only when the content of such document is the subject of
the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such
document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution,
the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence
is likewise admissible without need to account for the
original.

Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed

with, in the trial courts discretion, whenever the

18
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the
document and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production.

Accordingly, we find that the best evidence rule is not

SKUNAC CORPORATION v. Petitioners contend that respondents'
SYLIANTENG presentation of the "duplicate/carbon"
GR No. 205879, April 23, original of the Deed of Sale13 dated June 20,
2014 1958 is in violation of the best evidence rule
under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.14 The Court does not agree.
Whether or not the Best Evidence Rule is
applicable in this case?
applicable to the instant case. Here, there was no dispute
as to the terms of either deed; hence, the RTC correctly
admitted in evidence mere copies of the two deeds. The
petitioner never even denied their due execution and
admitted that she signed the Deed of Partition.
NO.
The said rule applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is
only as to whether such document was actually executed,
or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.

In the instant case, what is being questioned is the

authenticity and due execution of the subject deed of
sale. There is no real issue as to its contents.

In any case, going to the matter of authenticity and due

execution of the assailed document, petitioners do not
dispute that the copy of the deed of sale that respondents
submitted as part of their evidence is a duplicate of the
original deed of sale dated June 20, 1958. It is settled that
a signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document
executed at the same time as the original is known as a
duplicate original and maybe introduced in evidence
without accounting for the non-production of the
original.

Moreover, Section 4 (b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court

provides that "[w]hen a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with identical

19
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. IMELDA IMEE
MARCOS-MANOTOC ETAL.
GR NO. 171701, February 8,
2012
CIR v. HANTEX TRADING
GR No.136975. March 31,
2005
After the People Power Revolution in 1986,
President Corazon C. Aquino created the
Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) that was primarily
tasked to investigate and recover the alleged
ill-gotten wealth amassed by the then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives and associates.
On 16 July 1987, the PCGG, acting on behalf
of the Republic with the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Complaint for
Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution,
Accounting and Damages against Ferdinand
E. Marcos, who was later substituted by his
estate upon his death; Imelda R. Marcos;
and herein respondents Imee Marcos-
Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, Bongbong
Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, and Gregorio
Araneta III.
Four amended Complaints were thereafter
filed in relation to the ₱200 Billion Pesos ill-
gotten wealth allegation.
Petitioner presented and formally offered its
evidence against herein respondents.
However, the latter objected on the ground
that the documents were unauthenticated
and mere photocopies.
In relation to the tax deficiency assessment
of Petitioner on Respondent wherein the
latter refused to cooperate and show its
1987 books of account and other accounting
Whether or not the photocopied
documents presented by Petitioner are
admissible as evidence in relation to the
best evidence rule?
Whether or not the photocopies of
Import Entries are admissible as
evidence?
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals."
NO.
First, petitioner does not deny that what should be proved
are the contents of the documents themselves. It is
imperative, therefore, to submit the original documents
that could prove petitioners allegations.
Thus, the photocopied documents are in violation Rule
130, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the
best evidence rule, which mandates that the evidence
must be the original document itself.
Petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible
reason why the originals were not presented, or any
compelling ground why the court should admit these
documents as secondary evidence absent the testimony of
the witnesses who had executed them.
In particular, it may not insist that the photocopies of the
documents fall under Sec. 7 of Rule 130, which states:
Evidence admissible when original document is a public
record. ─ When the original of a document is in the custody
of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved be a certified copy issued by the
public officer in custody thereof.
As to the copy of the TSN of the proceedings before the
PCGG, while it may be considered as a public document
since it was taken in the course of the PCGGs exercise of its
mandate, it was not attested to by the legal custodian to
be a correct copy of the original.
NO.
In Section 16 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, it is
provided that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has
20
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
records, Petitioner found it proper to resort
to the best evidence obtainable, which are
the photocopies of the import entries in the
Bureau of Customs and the respondent’s
financial statement filed with the SEC.
The petitioner maintains that these import
entries were admissible as secondary
evidence under the best evidence
obtainable rule, since they were duly
authenticated by the Bureau of Customs
officials who processed the documents and
released the cargoes after payment of the
duties and taxes due.
The petitioner avers that the best evidence
obtainable rule under Section 16 of the 1977
NIRC, as amended, legally cannot be
equated to the best evidence rule under the
Rules of Court; nor can the best evidence
rule, being procedural law, be made strictly
operative in the interpretation of the best
evidence obtainable rule which is
substantive in character.
the power to make assessments and prescribe additional
requirements for tax administration and enforcement.
Among such powers are those provided in paragraph (b)
thereof, which we quote:
(b) Failure to submit required returns, statements, reports
and other documents. When a report required by law as a
basis for the assessment of any national internal revenue
tax shall not be forthcoming within the time fixed by law
or regulation or when there is reason to believe that any
such report is false, incomplete or erroneous, the
Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on the best
evidence obtainable.xxx
The best evidence envisaged in Section 16 of the 1977
NIRC, as amended, includes the corporate and accounting
records of the taxpayer who is the subject of the
assessment process, the accounting records of other
taxpayers engaged in the same line of business, including
their gross profit and net profit sales. Such evidence also
includes data, record, paper, document or any evidence
gathered by internal revenue officers from other taxpayers
who had personal transactions or from whom the subject
taxpayer received any income; and record, data, document
and information secured from government offices or
agencies, such as the SEC, the Central Bank of the
Philippines, the Bureau of Customs, and the Tariff and
Customs Commission.
The Court stressed that the petitioner was correct that the
best evidence obtainable may consist of hearsay evidence,
such as the testimony of third parties or accounts or other
records of other taxpayers similarly circumstanced as the
taxpayer subject of the investigation, hence, inadmissible
in a regular proceeding in the regular courts. Moreover,
the general rule is that administrative agencies such as the
BIR are not bound by the technical rules of evidence. It can
21
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
REPUBLIC v. MUPAS On October 5, 1994, Asia's Emerging Dragon
GR NO. 181892, September Corp. (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited
8, 2015 proposal to the Government - through the
Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) and the Manila
International Airport Authority (MIAA)- for
the construction and development of the
NAIA-IPT III under a build-operate-and-
transfer (BOT) arrangement. The DOTC and
the MIAA invited the public to submit
competitive and comparative proposals to
AEDC's unsolicited proposal in accordance
with the BOT Law and its implementing
rules. Paircargo consortium also submitted
their competitive proposal to build the
NAIA-IPT III. Both AEDC and Paircargo
offered to build, however, Paircargo
submitted a bid superior to AEDCÕs
unsolicited proposal, thus DOTC awarded
the project to Paircargo (PIATCO). PIATCO
Whether or not the non-submission of
original documents is justified?
accept documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial
proceeding where the Rules of Court are strictly observed.
It can choose to give weight or disregard such evidence,
depending on its trustworthiness.
However, the best evidence obtainable under
Section 16 of the 1977 NIRC, as amended, does not
include mere photocopies of records/documents. The
petitioner, in making a preliminary and final tax deficiency
assessment against a taxpayer, cannot anchor the said
assessment on mere machine copies of
records/documents. Mere photocopies of the
Consumption Entries have no probative weight if offered
as proof of the contents thereof. The reason for this is that
such copies are mere scraps of paper and are of no
probative value as basis for any deficiency income or
business taxes against a taxpayer.
The court held in the negative, that although the
contention of non-submission due to numerous accounts
of the document is justifiable under the rule. However, as a
condition precedent to the admission of a summary of
numerous documents, the proponent must lay a proper
foundation for the admission of the original documents on
which the summary is based. The proponent must prove
that the source documents being summarized are also
admissible if presented in court.
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry
relates to the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself. In
proving the terms of a written document, the original of
the document must be produced in court.
In proving the terms of a written document, the original of
the document must be produced in court. Thus, PIATCO
having failed to establish that the photocopied documents
he presented in courts are authentic, theses photocopied
22
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
engaged the services of Takenaka, as well as, documents are deemed as hearsay, and shall not be
Asahikosan, both foreign corporations admissible as evidence, or reference to the claimed
organized in Japan, for the construction of attendant costs of the project.
the NAIA-IPT, however, PIATCO defaulted on
its obligations, and to settle the problem
Takenaka and Asahikosan agreed to defer
PIATCOÕs payments until June 2003. Trial
ensued, there has been an issue as to the
attendant costs of the construction, PIATCO
was required to submit the original
documents to the court, however PIATCO
argues that his non-submission is justified
under Sec. 3 rule 130 of the ROC, referring
to the submission of numerous accounts
SY v. CHUA
330 SCRA 550
PAROL EVIDENCE
SEAOIL PETROLEUM Petitioner Seaoil Petroleum Corporation Whether or not parol evidence rule is No. Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the
CORPORATION VS. purchased one unit of ROBEX 200 LC applicable in this case? meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
AUTOCORP GROUP AND Excavator, Model 1994 from respondent incorporating into the contract additional
PAUL Y. RODRIGUEZ Autocorp Group. The sales agreement was contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at
GR NO. 164326, October 17, embodied in the Vehicle Sales Invoice No. A- all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake.
2008 0209 and Vehicle Sales Confirmation No. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement
258. Seaoil issued 12 checks as payment is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the
therefor; however 10 checks were not operation of a valid contract.
honored by the bank since Seaoil requested
that payment be stopped. Autocorp filed a The Vehicle Sales Invoice is the best evidence of the
complaint for recovery of personal property transaction. The terms of the subject sales invoice are
with damages and replevin in the Regional clear. They show that Autocorp sold to Seaoil one unit
Trial Court. Robex 200 LC Excavator paid for by checks issued by one
Romeo Valera.
Seaoil claims that Seaoil and Autocorp were
only utilized as conduits to settle the
obligation of one foreign entity named
Uniline Asia, in favor of another foreign
entity, Focus Point International,
Incorporated. The real transaction is that

23
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V CA
G.R. No. 107372. January 23,
1997
Uniline, through Rodriguez, owed money to
Focus. In lieu of payment, Uniline instead
agreed to convey the excavator to Focus.
This was to be paid by checks issued by
Seaoil but which in turn were to be funded
by checks issued by Uniline.
Petitioner Seaoil in sum alleges that the
written agreement failed to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties, thus
parol evidence is admissible.
Private respondents sold to petitioner two
(2) parcels of registered land for a
consideration of P35,000.00 and P20,000.00,
respectively as evidence by two (2) deed of
sale. Private respondents received the
payments for the above-mentioned lots, but
failed to deliver the titles to petitioner.
When the latter demanded from the former
the delivery of said titles, Private
respondents, refused on the ground that the
title of the first lot is in the possession of
another person, and petitioner’s acquisition
of the title of the other lot is subject to
certain conditions. Offshoot, petitioner sued
private respondents for specific
performance before the RTC. In their answer
with counterclaim private respondents
merely alleged the existence of the following
oral conditions which were never reflected
in the deeds of sale
Whether or not parol evidence relating
to certain stipulated condition made
orally may be admitted in evidence in
addition to those expressly provided in a
contract?
The answer is in the negative. Section 9 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain
all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms
can be admitted other than the contents thereof.
Considering that the written deeds of sale were the only
repository of the truth, whatever is not found in said
instruments must have been waived and abandoned by
the parties. Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot even
make an inference that the sale was subject to any
condition. As a contract, it is the law between the parties.
Oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a
party who has an interest in the outcome of the case,
depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable
as written or documentary evidence. Spoken words could
be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which
speaks of a uniform language.
Parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary,
contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument,
hence, contrary to the rule that the parol evidence rule
forbids any addition to the terms of a written instrument
by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the
signing of the document, other or different terms were
orally agreed upon by the parties. Although parol evidence
24
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
SPOUSES BONIFACIO AND Lucia was a concessionaire of a sand and
LUCIA PARAS vs. KIMWA gravel permit and Kimwa is a construction
CONSTRUCTION AND firm that sells concrete aggregates to
DEVELOPMENT contractors and haulers. On December 6,
CORPORATION 1994, Lucia and Kimwa entered into a
G.R. No. 171601, April 8, contract where 40,000 cubic meters of
2015 aggregates were "allotted" by Lucia as
supplier to Kimwa. Kimwa was to pick up the
allotted aggregates at Lucia’s permitted area
in Toledo City at ₱240.00 per truckload.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Kimwa hauled
10,000 cubic meters of aggregates.
Sometime after this, however, Kimwa
stopped hauling aggregates. Claiming that in
so doing, Kimwa violated the Agreement,
Lucia filed the Complaint for breach of
contract with damages. In its Answer, Kimwa
alleged that it never committed to obtain
40,000 cubic meters of aggregates from
Lucia. It argued that the controversial
quantity of 40,000 cubic meters represented
only an upper limit or the maximum
quantity that it could haul. Kimwa asserted
that the Agreement articulated the parties’
true intent that 40,000 cubic meters was a
maximum limit and that May 15, 1995 was
never set as a deadline. Invoking the Parol
Evidence Rule, it insisted that Spouses Paras
were barred from introducing evidence
which would show that the parties had
Whether Spouses Paras were able to
establish that Kimwa was obliged to haul
a total of 40,000 cubic meters of
aggregates on or before May 15, 1995?
is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, "it
cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the
contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are
not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been
fraud or mistake." No such fraud or mistake exists in this
case.
YES. Kimwa is liable for failing to haul the remainder of the
quantity which it was obliged to acquire from Paras.
Rule 130, Section 9 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
provides for the Parol Evidence Rule, the rule on
admissibility of documentary evidence when the terms of
an agreement have been reduced into writing. (See section
9, Rule 130)
Apart from pleading the exceptions under the above-
mentioned provision, it is equally imperative that the parol
evidence sought to be introduced points to the conclusion
proposed by the party presenting it. That is, it must be
relevant, tending to "induce belief in [the] existence" of
the flaw, true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms
averred by the party seeking to introduce parol evidence.
In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol
evidence to be admitted: first, that the existence of any of
the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s
pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party;
and second, that the parol evidence sought to be
presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion
proposed by the presenting party.
Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s conclusion, Spouses
Paras pleaded in the Complaint they filed before the trial
court a mistake or imperfection in the Agreement, as well
as the Agreement’s failure to express the true intent of the
parties. Further, Kimwa, through its Answer, also
responded to petitioners Spouses Paras’ pleading of these
25
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
BALDOMERO INCIONG, JR.,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS
GR No. 96405, June 26, 1996
agreed differently.
Petitioner Baldomero Inchiong, Jr. is one of
the signatory of a promissory note in the
amount of Php50,000.00 that resulted to his
present liability with Rene C. Naybe and
Gregorio D. Pantanosas which hold
themselves jointly and severally liable to
private respondent Philipine Bank of
Communications. Said promissory note was
due on May 5, 1983 without the promissory
having paid their obligation.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS
LIABLE TO PAY THE OBLIGATION
PROVIDED IN THE PROMISSORY NOTE AS
JOINTLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH
NAYBE AND PONTANOSAS TO THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE BANK
OF COMMUNICATION?
issues. This is, thus, an exceptional case allowing admission
of parol evidence. It is true that petitioners’ Complaint
does not specifically state words and phrases such as
"mistake," "imperfection," or "failure to express the true
intent of the parties." Nevertheless, it is evident that the
crux of petitioners Spouses Paras’ Complaint is their
assertion that the Agreement "entered into . . . on 6
December 1994 or thereabouts" was founded on the
parties’ supposed understanding that the quantity of
aggregates allotted in favor of Kimwa must be hauled by
May 15, 1995, lest such hauling be rendered impossible by
the rechanneling of petitioner Lucia Paras’ permitted area.
Yes.
Petitioner is liable up to the extent of the provision under
the promissory note and for being one of the three
signatories therein as “jointly and solidarilly liable.” Any
one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the
entire obligation. The choice is left to the solidary creditor
to determine against whom he will enforce collection.
Pontanosas consequent dismissal of the said case does not
deemed him as having discharged petitioner from liability.
And with regards to Naybe, the court have never obtained
jurisdiction over him. Thus, petitioner may only have
recourse against his co-makers, as provided by law.
N.B.
The promissory note "is not a public deed with the
formalities prescribed by law but . . . a mere commercial
paper which does not bear the signature of . . . attesting
witnesses," parol evidence may "overcome" the contents
of the promissory note.
The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule 130 states:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon and there can be, between the parties and their
26
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. CAMERON
GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MGNT,
INC.
741 SCRA 557
Petitioners Eagleridge Development
Corporation (EDC), and sureties Marcelo N.
Naval (Naval) and Crispin I. Oben (Oben) are
the defendants in a collection suit initiated
by Export and Industry Bank (EIB) through a
Complaint dated February 9, 2005, and
currently pending proceedings before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Makati
City.
By virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated
August 9, 2006, EIB transferred EDC's
outstanding loan obligations to respondent
Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management,
Inc. (Cameron).
Thereafter, Cameron filed its Motion to
Whether or not Parol Evidence Rule will
be violated?
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.
Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written
agreement be a public document.
What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the
rule is in fact founded on "long experience that written
evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that
which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be
unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their
contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to control
and vary the stronger and to show that the
parties intended a different contract from that expressed
in the writing signed by them." Thus, for the parol
evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in
any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 12 As a
general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar
nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by
parol or extrinsic evidence.
Claiming further the impropriety of allowing the
production of the Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement
(LSPA), respondent contends that the presentation of the
document and its annexes would violate the parol
evidence rule in Rule 130, Section 9:
SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of
an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain
or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in
issue in his pleading:
27
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
Substitute/Join EIB which was granted by
the trial court.
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Production/Inspection of the Loan Sale and
Purchase Agreement (LSPA) referred to in
the Deed of Assignment.
Respondent Cameron filed its Comment
dated March 14, 2012 alleging that
petitioners have not shown "good cause" for
the production of the LSPA and that the
same is allegedly irrelevant to the case a
quo.
Petitioners explained that the production of
the LSPA was for "good cause". They pointed
out that the claim of Cameron is based on an
obligation purchased after litigation had
already been instituted in relation to it.
The trial court denied petitioners' motion for
production for being utterly devoid of merit.
It ruled that there was failure to show "good
cause" for the production of the LSPA and
failure to show that the LSPA is material or
contains evidence relevant to an issue
involved in the action.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed on April 25,
2012, their Motion for Reconsideration.
The trial court denied petitioners' motion for
reconsideration... petitioners filed their
Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals (CA), to nullify and/or set aside the
RTC's Resolutions
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
The Court disagrees.
The parol evidence rule does not apply to petitioners who
are not parties to the deed of assignment and do not base
a claim on it. Hence, they cannot be prevented from
seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of the
deed of assignment.
Even assuming that Rule 130, Section 9 is applicable, an
exception to the rule under the second paragraph is when
the party puts in issue the validity of the written
agreement, as in the case a quo.
Besides, what is forbidden under the parol evidence rule is
the presentation of oral or extrinsic evidence, not those
expressly referred to in the written agreement.
"[D]ocuments can be read together when one refers to the
other." By the express terms of the deed of assignment, it
is clear that the deed of assignment was meant to be read
in conjunction with the LSPA.
As we have stated in our decision, Rule 132, Section 17 of
the Rules of Court allows a party to inquire into the whole
28
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
Resolution dated August 29, 2012, the CA
(Third Division) dismissed the petition
subsequent motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied in the CA.
Respondent, among others, contends that
the presentation of the document and its
annexes would violate the parol evidence
rule.
CARGANILLO v. PEOPLE Teresita Lazaro, a rice trader gave petitioner
GR No. 182424, 22 P132K to buy palay. The petitioner, who was
September 2014 alleged to be an agent in the buy-and-sell of
palay, agreed to deliver the palay on or
before Nov 28, 1998.
According to the "Kasunduan" the parties
shall earn a commission of P0.20. But if no
palay is purchased on Nov 28, the petitioner
must return the P132K to Teresita within 1
week after Nov 28.
Teresita made oral and written demands for
the return of the P132K.
Petitioner alleged that she owed Teresita a
balance of P13,704.32 for the fertilizers and
rice, and that she was made to sign a blank
"Kasunduan" that reflected no written date
and amount. She denied personally receiving
any written demand letter from Teresita.
She also denied receiving the P132K.
RTC convicted the petitioner. CA affirmed.
Whether prosecution proved her guilt of
the crime of estafa beyond reasonable
doubt?
of the writing or record when a part of it is given in
evidence by the other party. Since the deed of assignment
was produced in court by respondent and marked as one
of its documentary exhibits, the LSPA which was made a
part thereof by explicit reference and which is necessary
for its understanding may also be inquired into by
petitioners.
The "Kasunduan" clearly stated that the petitioner
received in trust the amount of P132K from Teresita with
the obligations to deliver the palay or to return the P132K.
Parol Evidence
GR: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced
into writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement.
E: A party to a written agreement may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading the ff:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
The petitioner alleges that the "Kasunduan" failed to
express the real agreement between her and Teresita; that
theirs was a plain and simple loan agreement and not that
29
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT
OF APPEALS
341 SCRA 527
MADRIGAL v. COURT OF Spouses Jose and Fermina Mallari owned a
APPEALS 340sqm lot with a 2-storey house in
456 SCRA 247 Olongapo. When Jose was in need of money
for Fermina’s trip to the US, he wanted to
mortgage the property but their son,
Virgilio, convinced him not to and persuaded
him to assign a portion to Virgilio with some
conditions like allowing them to stay there,
renovating a room for the mother, getting
one room for Virgilio, and to ask for Jose’s
Whether the TC and CA erred in taking
into account parol evidence presented by
Jose to prove the existence of an
equitable mortgage instead of a sale
between him and Virgilio?
of a principal-agent relationship in the buy-and-sell of
palay.
The receipts presented by the petitioner to prove her loan
obligation with Teresita were vague, undated and
unsigned. The witnesses who testified that they saw the
petitioner sign the "Kasunduan" were not even certain of
the real transaction between the petitioner and Teresita.
re allegation that she signed a blank document
Petitioner: after she signed the "Kasunduan," Teresita
subsequently made her execute a deed of sale over her
property, which deed she refused to sign. This statement
negates the petitioner’s self-serving allegation that she
was tricked by Teresita into signing a blank "Kasunduan,"
as she was fully aware of the possible implications of the
act of signing a doc.
For fraud to vitiate consent, the deception employed must
be the causal (dolo causante) inducement to the making of
the contract, and must be serious in character. It must be
sufficient to impress or lead an ordinarily prudent person
into error, taking into account the circumstances of each
case
NO.
Virgilio and Jose fault the TC for receiving parol evidence to
establish the instrument in question is actually one of
equitable mortgage. Indirectly, they also put the CA to task
for giving weight to those evidence instead of rejecting
them, conformably with the Parol Evidence Rule under Sec.
9, Rule 130.
We cannot view the Deed of Absolute Sale in question in
isolation of the circumstances under which the same was
30
Evidence
Atty. Arnold Labay
New Era university – College of Law
permission before disposing it. The executed by Virgilio’s parents, more so in the light of his
consideration stated in the Deed, however, father’s disavowal of what the document, on its face,
was only P50k. Thereafter, unknown to Jose, purports to state.
Virgilio sold the lot to Madrigal for P50k,
who demanded that Jose and company As held in Lustan v. Ca: Even when a document appears on
vacate the same. So Jose filed a case against its face to be a sale, the owner of the property may prove
both of them. TC and CA ruled for Jose. that the contract is really a loan with mortgage by raising
an issue the fact that the document does not express the
true intent of the parties. In this case, parol evidence then
becomes competent and admissible to prove that the
instrument was in truth and in fact given merely as a
security for the repayment of a loan.

SANTIAGO v. CA Whether the trial court and the CA erred NO.

278 SCRA 98 in not applying the Parol Evidence Rule in
this case? The parol evidence rule may be waived by failure to
invoke it, as by failure to object to the introduction of
parol evidence. And, where a party who is entitled to the
benefit of the rule waives the benefit thereof 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 court, he cannot, after the trial has
closed and the case has been decided against him, invoke
the rule in order to secure a reversal of the judgment by an
appellate court.

In this case, the records are devoid of any indication that

petitioners ever objected to the admissibility of parole
evidence introduced by private respondent in open court.
The court cannot disregard evidence which would
ordinarily be incompetent under the rules but has been
rendered admissible by the failure of party to object
thereto. Petitioners have no one to blame but themselves
in this regard.

31