NAME: Gretchen B.

Cañedo DATE: 03/14/2020

SUBJECT: Evidence Review

Rules 128 to 129

1) Ong Chia was granted Filipino citizenship by the Regional Trial

Court. On appeal, due to the opposition of the Office of the
Solicitor-General, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
because of, among others, Ong’s failure to state all the names by
which he is or had been known; failure to state all his former places
of residence; failure to conduct himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines; and,
absence of known lucrative trade or occupation and his previous
incomes have been insufficient or misdeclared. To support its
opposition, the Office of the Solicitor-General attached in his brief
various documents not presented before the trial court.

Since under Rule 132 Section 34 of the Rules on Evidence, it is

provided that the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered, is the Court of Appeals correct in reversing
the decision?

ANSWER:

Yes, the Court of Appeals is correct because petitioner failed to note

Rule 1, Section 4 of of the Rules of Court which provides that -

“These rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and

election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.”

Prescinding from the above, the rule on formal offer of evidence

(Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not
applicable to the present case involving a petition for naturalization.
The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or
suppletorily in such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient."
That is not the case here, since reliance upon the documents
presented by the State for the first time on appeal, in fact, appears
to be the more practical and convenient course of action considering
that decision in naturalization proceedings are not covered by the
rule on res judicata.
 Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not preclude the
State from later on moving for a revocation of the grant of
naturalization on the basis of the same documents.
2) At about 10:15 o’clock in the morning, the police informed of the
presence of a marijuana plantation. At 5:00 o’clock in the morning
of the following day, a police team, accompanied by the informer,
left for the site where the marijuana plants were grown. After a 3-
hour uphill trek from the nearest barangay road, they arrived at the
place and found accused in his nipa hut. They looked around the
unfenced “kaingin” and saw 7 five-foot high marijuana planted
approximately 25 meters from his hut.

Are the marijuana plants admissible in evidence?

ANSWER:

No. The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and
seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant.
Otherwise, the search and seizure is deemed “unreasonable.”

In the instant case, the police team proceeded with their search
without warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of
the existence of probable cause. The place where the cannabis
plants were planted was pinpointed. From the information in their
possession, they could have convinced a judge that there was
probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant.

In any case, the protection against illegal search and seizure is

constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are
searches allowed without warrants. The mantle of protection
extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike
against any form of highhandedness of law enforcers, regardless of
the praiseworthiness of their intentions.

Since the evidence was procured on the occasion of an

unreasonable search and seizure, it is deemed tainted for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and thus should be excluded.
Therefore, such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.
3) In a complaint for annulment of marriage based on psychological
incapacity, the plaintiff-husband presented three (3) cassette tapes
of alleged telephone conversations between defendant-wife and
unidentified persons. These tape recordings were made and
obtained when the husband allowed his friends from the military to
wiretap his home telephone without the knowledge of his wife. Is
the evidence admissible?

ANSWER:

No. Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 4200 otherwise known as the Anti-

Wiretapping Law provides that,

“any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,

substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part
thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured
by any person in violation of the preceding Sections the Act shall
not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.”

In the instant case, tape recordings were made and obtained when
the husband allowed his friends from the military to wiretap his
home telephone without the knowledge of his wife.

Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone

conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility
of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
4) Appellant was convicted of rape with homicide. Among the
evidence presented during the trial was a test showing that the DNA
of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim was identical
semen to that of the appellant’s gene type. Is the evidence
admissible?

ANSWER:

Yes. In the case of People v. Joel Yatar (a.k.a. Kawit), the Supreme
court cited Daubert v. Merrell Dow, wherein it was ruled that
pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be
used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert,
were allowed greater discretion over which testimony they would
allow at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific
techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure.

Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to

a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence
obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which
was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it
is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human
genetics and molecular biology.

Moreover, the kernel of the Constitutional right against self-

incrimination is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion. The right against self- incrimination is simply against
the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an
admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to
be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence.
5) During the pendency of a civil case between the parties involving
the recovery of possession of a fishpond, the Minister of Agriculture
issued an order cancelling the Fishpond Lease Agreement in favour
of plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the order to the Office of the
President but his appeal was denied.

What is the nature of the decision of Malacanang and its effect on

the civil case?

ANSWER:

In the case of Calixto Sañado v. CA, the Supreme Court held that
the decision of the Office of the President is a substantial
supervening event which drastically changed the circumstances of
the parties to the subject fishpond lease agreement. For to award
possession to petitioner is futile since he has lost the fishpond
license.

Moreover, the act is not purely administrative but quasi-judicial or

adjudicatory since it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts
by the administrative agency, upon which a decision is to be made
and rights and liabilities determined.

As such, the decision of the Office of the President is explicitly an

official act of and an exercise of quasi-judicial power by the
Executive Department headed by the highest officer of the land. It
thus squarely falls under matters relative to the executive
department which courts are mandatorily tasked to take judicial
notice of under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
6) Accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms. Among
the evidence presented against him was a certification issued by the
Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, Philippine National Police,
stating that a certain Vicente “Vic” del Rosario of barangay Bigte,
Norzagaray, Bulacan, had not been issued a license to carry a
firearm. Accused argued that he is Vicente del Rosario of barangay
Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that he has a valid firearm license.
Nevertheless, the court convicted him.

Is the court correct?

ANSWER:

No. In the case of Vicente Del Rosario v. People, the Supreme Court
held that a trial court errs grievously when it does not take judicial
notice of the barangays within its territorial jurisdiction. The court is
duty bound to examine the evidence assiduously to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused.

In the instant case, it is clear that the Barangay Tigbe and Barangay
Bigte are two different places within the same territorial jurisdiction.
It is true that the court may rely on the certification of the Chief,
Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP on the absence of a firearm
license. However, such certification referred to another individual
and thus, cannot prevail over a valid firearm license duly issued to
petitioner.

The essence of the crime penalized under P. D. 1866 is primarily the

accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess the firearm,
ammunition or explosive as possession by itself is not prohibited by
law. Since the accused is licensed to carry the firearm, therefor the
conviction has no basis in law and jurisprudence.
7) During the occurrence of a powerful typhoon “Saling”, the roof of
Southeastern College, a 4-story building, was partly ripped off and
blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of
the house of Dimaanao.

Dimaano filed a case for culpa aquiliana against Southeastern

alleging that the damage to their house rendered the same
uninhabitable.

Southeastern averred that its school building had withstood several

devastating typhoons and other calamities in the past, without its
roofing or any portion thereof giving way. Typhoon “Saling” was
“an act of God and therefore beyond human control” such that
Southeastern College cannot be answerable for the damages
wrought thereby, absent any negligence on its part.

Should Southeastern be held liable for the damage?

ANSWER:

No. In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from

liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence
or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been
occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a
person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to
forestall its possible adverse consequences. When a person's
negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage or
injury to another, such person is not exempt from liability by
showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damages or
injury was a fortuitous event.

In the case under consideration, petitioner has not been shown

negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of
its school building in question and that typhoon "Saling" was the
proximate cause of the damage suffered by private respondents'
house.

Consequently, petitioner cannot be made to answer for a purely

fortuitous event. More so because no bad faith or willful act to cause
damage was alleged and proven to warrant moral damages.
8) In a prosecution for robbery committed in Mandaluyong, Metro
Manila, accused, a soldier, put up alibi as his defense. Specifically,
he alleged that he was in San Pedro, Laguna, doing intelligence
work at the time of the incident. During the trial, the prosecution
presented no evidence that accused had a car. Nevertheless, the
trial court convicted him by taking judicial notice of the travel time
between the place where the crime occurred and the place where
the accused claimed to be. Is the correct?

ANSWER:

Yes. Judicial notice could be taken of the travel time by car from
San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig City, Metro Manila, because it is capable
of unquestionable demonstration, and nowadays is already of public
knowledge, especially to commuters. The Supreme Court found no
error in the trial court’s finding that it was not impossible for
petitioner to be at the scene of the crime, despite his alibi that he
was engaged in intelligence work in San Pablo, Laguna that same
afternoon of October 19, 1990.

For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for the accused to prove
that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed. He must
further demonstrate that it would have been physically impossible
for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission. It is essential that credible and tangible proof of
physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime
be presented to establish an acceptable alibi. Petitioner failed to
meet this test.

In the instant case, while petitioner could have been working as

intelligence agent in San Pedro, Laguna, contrary to his claim, it
was not physically impossible for him to have been in Pasig City,
Metro Manila on the day of the commission of the crime.

Therefore the Court is correct.

9) Andres Penaflorida was charged with the murder of SPO3 Eusebio
Natividad. He was convicted by the RTC based on the sworn
statements and testimony of Rodolfo dela Cruz that he saw Andres
shoot SPO3 Natividad.

Andres tries to point out the fact that Rodolfo belatedly executed
the sworn statement (Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1), only 7 days after
the shooting incident. Andres insinuates that the police authorities
“coached” Rodolfo in the identification for he executed the sworn
statement, propitiously only the day after Andres’ arrest.

Does the fact that Rodolfo’s sworn statement was made belatedly
impair his credibility as a witness?

ANSWER:

No. The alleged delay in the execution of Rodolfo’s sworn statement

does not and will not impair his credibility as a witness.

In the case of People vs. Peñaflorida, the Supreme Court takes

judicial notice of the actuality that witnesses in this country are
usually reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or
are unwilling to be involved in or dragged into criminal
investigations.

In the instant case, Rodolfo exhibited a natural human reaction.

Although there was delay in the execution of his sworn statement,
what matters is that he overcame his initial reluctance and fear to
be involved by voluntarily participating in the police investigation
and then openly testifying in court.

Well settled is the rule that the ascertainment of the credibility of

witnesses is best left to the determination of the trial court. This is
so because the trial court is in a distinct advantageous position to
examine the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying. On
appeal, its evaluation or assessment of the testimonies of witnesses
is accorded great respect and finality in the absence of any
indication that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight
and influence which, if considered, would alter the results of the
case.
10) Plaintiff, a Filipino citizen, was employed as a pilot by
Singapore Airlines Limited. When the airline was hit a recession in
1992, it terminated the services of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, plaintiff
filed a civil case for damages due to illegal termination of contract
of services. The airline contended that since plaintiff was employed
in Singapore and all other aspects of his employment contract and
documents were executed in Singapore. Singapore laws should
apply to the dispute.

Is Singapore Airlines correct?

ANSWER:

No. The Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of
Singapore. The party who claims the applicability of a foreign law
has the burden of proof, and where said party has failed to
discharge the burden, under the doctrine of processual
presumption, the Philippine law applies.

In the instant case, the airline contended that since plaintiff was
employed in Singapore and all other aspects of his employment
contract and documents were executed in Singapore.

Since the airline claims the applicability of a foreign law, it has the
burden to prove it as a fact before it can be applied. Otherwise, the
doctrine of processual presumption applies.