TITLE: DBP Pool of Accredited Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc.

CITATION: 480 SCRA 314 G.R. NO. 147039 January 27, 2006
TOPIC: Res Gestae

FACTS:
R’s radio station was razed by fire and tried to claim the insurance but was denied. R filed a case against
D and P for recovery of insurance benefits. Police officers testified that during their investigation, they
were informed by bystanders that heavily armed men entered the transmitter house, poured gasoline in it,
lighted it and after that, they went out shouting Mabuhay ang NPA. Are the statements of the bystanders
regarding the incident admissible as part of the res gestae?

ANSWER:
No.

Res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or after the commission of the crime. The rule in res
gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and provided that the testimony of the witness
who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae,
be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or
devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediate attending circumstances.

In this case, the police officers received the bystanders statements while they were making their
investigations. It is reasonable to assume that when these statements were noted down, the bystanders
already had enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk to one another and exchange information,
not to mention theories and speculations, as is the usual experience in disquieting situations where
hysteria is likely to take place.
TITLE: Sadagnot vs. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc.
CITATION: 529 SCRA 413, G.R. No. 152636 August 8, 2007
TOPIC: Entries in the Course of Business

FACTS:
R Shipping hired S as Third Officer. S alleged that while on board, the vessel’s Master ordered him to
perform hatch stripping, a deck work. He refused the order which led to his dismissal. S filed an action for
illegal dismissal. For its defense, R presented the ship’s logbook which contained an entry about S’s
misconduct. Is the logbook admissible in evidence against S?

ANSWER:
Yes.

The Rules of Court provides that entries made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer, by
a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be
received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

In this case, the ship’s logbook is the official record of a ship’s voyage which its captain is obligated by
law to keep—the entries made in the ship’s logbook by a person performing duty required by law are
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
TITLE: Canque vs. Court of Appeals
CITATION: 305 SCRA 579, G.R. No. 96202 April 13, 1999
TOPIC: Entries in the Course of Business

FACTS:
For failure of C to pay its bill to S, the latter filed a case for collection of sum of money. S presented its
bookkeeper D to testify and during her testimony, she presented the Book of Collectible Accounts which
contained the amount billed to C. Can the Book be admitted as prima facie evidence of C’s obligation to
S?

ANSWER:
No.

The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the satisfaction of the following
conditions: 1. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside the country or unable to testify; 2.
The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer; 3. The entrant was in a
position to know the facts stated in the entries; 4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in
the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; and 5. The entries were made in
the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

In this case, requisite #1 was not complied with. D, who made the entries, was presented by S to testify. It
was in the course of her testimony that the entries were presented and marked in evidence. There was,
therefore, neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of the entries as the person who made
them was available to testify in court.