CASE DIGEST
RULE 128
Cathay Pacific vs. NLRC
Hornales vs. NLRC
Kanlaon vs. NLRC
Baguio Country Club vs NLRC
Cano vs. Chief of PNP
People vs Ayupan
People vs Lavapie
GSIS vs. CA
People vs Balleno
People vs Miranda
People vs Ramos
TOPIC
Rules of Evidence not always
controlling
Labor proceedings are non-litigious
in character
Labor proceedings are non-litigious
in character
Object evidence
A matter/question/issue of fact
Corroborative evidence
Hierarchy of evidence
Documentary evidence prevails over
testimonial evidence
Between oral and written testimony
Alibi as negative evidence
Evidence is either direct
circumstantial
CASE DIGEST
The Rules on Evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not
always controlling. Its not even necessary that affidavits and other
documents presented conform to the technical rules of evidence, as the
court maintains a liberal stance regarding procedural deficiencies in
labor cases.
The technicalities of law and procedure, and the rules obtaining in the
courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto, and the hearing officer may
avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case.
It may be non-litigious, but there is still that requirement of ascertaining
the facts.
The requirement of due process when it comes to labor tribunals is
satisfied, at the very least, when the parties are given an opportunity to
submit position papers.
The object of evidence is to establish the truth by the use of perceptive
and reasoning faculties.
The rules on evidence apply when there is a question of fact.
When the parties agree in writing upon the facts involved in the case
between them, judgment can be rendered without the introduction of
evidence. Because there are no questions of fact to be determined due
to their agreed statement of facts, evidence would no longer be
required.
Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to
suspect that the witness bent the truth, or that his/her observation was
inaccurate. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. It is
to be weighed, not counted.
Testimony of a single prosecution witness, as long as it is positive, clear,
credible and sufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction. This
is so, especially if the testimony bore the earmarks of truth and sincerity
and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward
manner.
If the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conclusions as to the physical
evidence should prevail.
Physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestations of truth
which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
Greater credence is given to physical evidence as evidence of the
highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred of
witnesses.
Testimonial evidence is easy of fabrication and there is little room for
choice between testimonial and documentary evidence. Generally,
documentary evidence prevails over testimonial evidence.
In any case, open court declarations take precedence over written
affidavits in the hierarchy of evidence. Unlike written statements, there
is flexibility on the part of the questioner to adapt his questions to elicit
the desired answer in order to ferret the truth.
A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes
self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witness who testify
on affirmative matters.
As against the positive identification and credible testimony by the
private complainant, mere denials of the accused cannot prevail to
overcome conviction by the trial court.
or Direct evidence id that evidence which proves a fact in issue directly
without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the fact-
finder.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact
in issue. Under ROC, convicted based on circumstantial evidence is
sufficient if:
 a) There is more than one circumstance
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
c) Combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs Gumayao Corroborative evidence Corroborative evidence or cumulative evidence is not a pre-requisite for
the conviction of the accused. Truth is established not by the number of
witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.
Mancol Jr vs DBP Admissibility of evidence The admissibility of evidence depends o its relevance and competence,
while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and
its tendency to convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item od
evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of
evidence.
People vs Agripa Probative value The mere fact that evidence is admissible does not necessarily mean
that it is also credible.

RULE 129

Mejia Espimoza vs Carino
Condon vs COMELEC
Judicial notice
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
The general rule is that courts must based their factual findings on such
relevant evidence formally offered during trial, recognized exceptions to
this are matters which courts can take judicial notice of, judicial
admissions and presumptions created by law or by the Rules.
X wanted the court to take judicial notice of the laws of Australia
regarding laws of citizenship and also contends that the mere fact of
running for public office is a clear abandonment of her foreign
citizenship.

The SC held that foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like
any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. And to prove foreign
law, it must present a copy thereof and comply with Section 24 and 25
of Rule 132.

Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority
Legislative acts other than law
covered by mandatory judicial notice
In the absence of proof, the PH courts will apply the PH law under the
doctrine of processual presumption.
The court rules that a senate investigation report is deemed covered by
mandatory judicial notice because that is an official act of the legislative
department.

Congressional debates and other records that predicated the passage

of the law are considered to be official acts of the legislative department
and therefore within the realm of mandatory judicial notice.
Pasei vs. Lopez Official acts of executive department Letters of instructions are considered matter of judicial notice. To form
as law covered by mandatory judicial part of the law of the land, a decree order or letter of instruction must be
notice issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary power of
legislation. Not all decree order or LOI become part of the law of the
land.
Sanado vs CA Official acts construed The action of an administrative agency in granting, denying or even
suspending or revoking a license of franchise or certificate of public
convenience is administrative or quasi-judicial.

Decisions of the Office of the President are official acts exercising quasi-
judicial power by the executive department may thus squarely fall under
matters relative to the executive department which the court are
mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of.
Republic vs Southside Official acts construed WON a land that is under a military reservation can be subject to an
Homeowner’s Association, Inc. application for titling.

No, titling of the property cannot be allowed. It is still part of a military

reservation. Hence, the same is within the realm of mandatory judicial
notice.
Asian Terminals vs Malayan Judicial notice is not taken of mere The Sc said that not all exercises of the executive power can be subject
Insurance proprietary functions to mandatory judicial notice.

The Management Contract entered into by Asian Terminal and PPA is

not a matter subject of mandatory judicial notice because it cannot be
considered as an official act of the executive department of the PH. The
contract was entered into by virtue of the exercise of a proprietary
function not a governmental function.
People vs Casido
Occidental Land vs CA
SJS vs Atienza
People vs Meneses
Gabriel vs CA
Republic vs UP and Rosario
Saludo, Jr. vs American Express
Internatio
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v
COMELEC
State Prosecutors vs Muro
Pardon vs Amnesty Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act
which must be pleaded and prove by the person pardoned, because
courts take no notice thereof.
Amnesty is by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence
of Congress, and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial
notice.
Permissible judicial notice of judicial WON the trial court can taken judicial notice of the decision of another
records of lower courts case involving a similar issue.
GR: They are not given judicial notice.
EXN: Permissible judicial notice of records of lower courts. As a matter
of convenience to both parties. When in the knowledge of and absent
of objection from the parties, reference is made to it for that purpose and
admitted as part of the record of the case then pending, it can be taken
a judicial notice.
That there should be an absence of objection, meaning both parties
agree, as a matter of convenience between two parties to treat the
records of another case as read into the records.
This exception is applicable only when, in the absence of objection, with
the knowledge of the opposing party or at the request or with the
consent of the parties.
Ordinances While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by
Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances is different.
Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of matters covered by
mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of ROC.
You cannot just simply expect a court to take judicial notice of an
ordinance. The duty of the party, therefore, is to supply the court with a
copy of the ordinance if it wants the court to take judicial notice of it.
Laws of Nature The court can take judicial notice of the laws of nature such as in the
instant case, that at around three in the morning during the Christmas
season, it is still quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in this
time of year.
Laws of Nature The testimony of Gonzales should not be given credence. His testimony
is essentially saying that the sound of the collision took place before the
actual collision itself.
Since this courts are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws of nature,
this Court prefers to side with prudence.
The RTC should not have allowed the reconstitution when it should have
taken judicial notice of the several cases cited by SC and even the
statute saying that UP’s title over the land is already incontrovertible.
The RTC and CA should have taken judicial notice of the UP’s title over
its landholdings, without need of any other evidence.
Common knowledge The concept of “facts of common knowledge” in the context of judicial
notice has been explained as those facts that are so commonly known
in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so
certainly known to as to make it indisputable among reasonable men.
Discretionary judicial notice This court has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice of the
factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff. That the
Oakwood incident was widely known and extensively covered by the
media made it a proper subject of judicial notice.
Thus, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it
treated these facts as public knowledge, and took cognizance thereof
without requiring the introduction and reception of evidence thereon.
Judicial notice is not equivalent to Matters of judicial notice have three requisites:
judicial knowledge a) Matter of common knowledge
b) It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain
c) It must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the
court.
Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial knowledge. The mere
personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the
 court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action.

Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective.

A law not yet in force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of common
knowledge capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Landbank vs Wycoco Just compensation In determining just compensation, the courts cannot simply take judicial
notice of the prevailing market value of agricultural lands.

The trial court should have allowed the parties to present evidence
thereon instead of practically assuming a valuation without basis.

The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution

especially where the case involves a vast tract of land.
Spouses Binarao vs Plus Builders Sources of Judicial Admissions A party may make judicial admissions in the pleadings during trial, either
Inc. by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations or in other stages of
the judicial proceedings, admissions can be expressed like verbal or
written.
Adolfo v Adolfo Sources of Judicial Admissions Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or
requests for admission are also considered judicial admissions.
Casent Realty Dev. Corp vs Admission of actionable documents Since respondent failed to file a Reply, in effect, respondent admitted
Philbanking Corp the genuineness and due execution of the said documents.
Filing of a Reply is mandatory if you
want to avoid the effect of implied or Where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document,
automatic admission of the a Reply specifically denying it under oath must be made, otherwise, the
genuineness and due execution of an genuineness and due execution of the document will be deemed
actionable document admitted.
Constantino vs Heirs of Judicial admissions Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the
Constantino admissions.
Odiamar vs Valencia Judicial admissions Having admitted that she obtained loans from respondent without
showing that the same had already been paid or otherwise
extinguished, petitioner cannot now aver otherwise.

It is settled that judicial admissions made by the parties in the pleadings

Santiago vs Delos Santos
Republic Glass Corp v Qua
or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are
conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them. They are
legally binding on the party making it, except when it is shown that they
have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was actually made.
Judicial admissions An admission cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive as to him and that all proofs subsequent
made by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith shall be ignored
and no objection is interposed.
Admission must be made in the same To constitute judicial admission, the admission must be made in the
case same case in which it is offered.

If made in another case or in another court, the fact of such admission

must be proved as in the case of any other fact, although if made in a
judicial proceeding it is entitled to greater weight.

A judicial admission not made in the same case is considered an

Atlas Consolidated Mining vs CIR
Atillo III vs CA
extrajudicial admission which must be offered and proved as in any
other type of evidence.
Palpable mistake This is the only exception to the rule that a judicial admission binds the
party making it.
No such admission was made
These mistakes that are glaring that the judge or the adverse party can
see that there was really no judicial admission made.
Palpable mistake This exception may mean either:
1) That they have not been made at all; or
The admission was taken out of context or not in the sense in which the
admission is made to appear.

If a party invokes an “admission” by an adverse party but cites the

admission “out of context,” then the one making the admission may
show that he made no such admission or that his admission was taken
out of context.
People vs Hernandez Admissions made by counsel binding A stipulation of facts proposed during trial by prosecution and admitted
on client by defense counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission by the
appellant of the facts stipulated on.

Silot vs De La Rosa Judicial admissions do not require proof and may not be contradicted in
the absence of a prior showing that the admissions had been made
through palpable mistake.

Fule vs CA Fule Doctrine The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as
mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts
inadmissible in evidence.

FULE DOCTRINE:

Whatever he confessed during the Pre-Trial Conference which was

reduced in the Pre-Trial Agreement but was not signed by the accused
and his counsel is inadmissible.

Hence, the accused was acquitted despite the fact that during PT, he
actually made a confession.
King vs People BP 22 case A PT Agreement not signed by a party is inadmissible. However, here,
the conviction of petitioner was based not on that agreement but on the
documents submitted during the trial, all of which were admitted without
any objection from her counsel.

The documents that were presented without any objection from the
accused’s counsel already sufficed to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt even without the unsigned confession.
Calde vs CA Autoptic preference The signatures of some attesting witnesses in decedent’s will and its
codicil were written in blue ink, while the others were in black. Nobody
of his six witnesses testified that two pens were used by the signatories
on the two documents. In fact, two of petitioner’s witnesses even
testified that only one ball pen was used in signing the two testamentary
documents.

Here, the autoptic preference contradicts the testimonial evidence

produced by petitioner. The will and its codicil, upon inspection, in show
black and white, or more accurately, black and blue, that more than one
pen was used by the signatories thereto.

Sison vs People Authentication requirements of
specific objects: Pictures and
photographs
Thus, it was not erroneous nor baseless for the court to disbelieve
petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question were
subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Article 805 of the Civil
Code.
Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and 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 who can testify to its exactness and accuracy, after which the
court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Torralba vs People Tape recordings The person who actually recorded should be presented in order to lay
the foundation for the admission of the tape recording.

Before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative

value, the ff requisites must first be established:

1) Recording device was capable of taking testimony

2) Operator of the device was competent
3) Authenticity and correctness of the recording
4) Changes, additions or deletions have not been made
5) Manner of preservation of the recording
6) Identification of the speakers
7) Testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of
inducement
People vs William Object evidence is beyond the
commerce of man not a ground for
exclusion
The probative value of an object evidence is not affected by the fact that
it is beyond the commerce of man.
The appellants raised the argument that the marijuana lacks probative
value because it is outside the commerce of man. This is simply absurd.

The transfer of marijuana was incidental to the arrest of the appellants

and the confiscation of the subject matter of the crime.

People vs Brecino Paraffin test yielded negative result While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso facto
prove that Matteo is innocent. A negative paraffin result is not conclusive
proof that a person has not fired a gun.

People vs Eugenio Chain of custody The non-compliance by the buy-bust team is not fatal as long as there
is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.

Its non-compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the

items seized from him inadmissible. What is upmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
People vs Almorfe Lapses in the chain of custody Drugs that were seized were not physically inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused.

Anent non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirement,

the same does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the
dangerous drugs.

There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception

therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved.

For the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity
and value of the seized evidence had been preserved.
People vs Taguba When presentation of the object itself In cases involving the illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution has
dispensed with the burden of proving

a) The existence of the subject firearm; and

b) The fact that the accused does not have corresponding
permit to possess.