CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VICTOR COGAED

Facts:
Police Senior Inspector Sofronio Bayan of the San Gabriel Police Station in San
Gabriel, La Union, received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer that
one Marvin Buya would be transporting marijuana from Barangay Lun-oy, San
Gabriel, La Union to the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union.
A member of the San Gabriel Police, to set up a checkpoint in the waiting area
of passengers from San Gabriel bound for San Fernando City. A passenger jeepney
from Barangay Lun-oy arrived at SPO1 Taracatac’s checkpoint. The jeepney driver
disembarked and signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers
who were carrying marijuana.
SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were later identified
as Victor RomanaCogaed and Santiago Sacpa Dayao. Cogaed was carrying a blue bag
and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow bag.
SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of their bags.
Cogaed and Dayao told SPO1 Taracatac that they did not know since they were
transporting the bags as a favor for their barriomatenamed Marvin.
Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three bricks of what looked like
marijuana. SPO1 Taracatac arrested Cogaed and Dayao and brought them to the
police station. Cogaed and Dayao were still carrying their respective bags inside the
station.
The bags were also opened, but Cogaed never knew what was inside. It was only later
when Cogaed learned that it was marijuana when he and Dayao were charged with
illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.

Issue:
Whether the evidence obtained through the search should be admitted.

Held:
No. The evidence obtained through the search should be admitted.
Under the law, evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be
excluded as evidence because it is “the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.

1
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

ROMEO POSADAS VS HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both members of the Integrated
National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task
Force, were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City. While
they were within the premises of the Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner
carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously.
They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the
INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two
notwithstanding his resistance.
They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1)
caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196, two (2) rounds of live
ammunition for a .38 caliber gun a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) live
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the police station
for further investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show
the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his
possession but he failed to do so.
He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.

Issue:
Whether the evidence obtained through the search should be admitted.

Held:
Yes. The evidence obtained through the search should be admitted.
A police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
manner approach a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal
behaviour even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest." In such a
situation, it is reasonable for an officer rather than simply to shrug his shoulder and
allow a crime to occur, to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine
his identity or maintain the status quo while obtaining more information.

2
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

TOMAS TAN VS HOSANA

Facts:
Jose G. Hosana married Milagros C. Hosana. During their marriage, Jose and
Milagros bought a house and lot. Milagros sold to the petitioner Tomas P. Tan, Jr. the
subject property, as evidenced by a deed of sale executed by Milagros herself and as
attorney-in-fact of Jose, by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney executed by Jose in
her favor.
Jose averred that while he was working in Japan, Milagros, without his
consent and knowledge, conspired with Tomas to execute the SPA by forging Jose’s
signature making it appear that Jose had authorized Milagros to sell the subject
property to Tomas.

Issue:
Whether or not the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of
consideration paid.

Held:
Yes. The deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of consideration
paid.
The deed of sale was declared null and void by positive provision of the law
prohibiting the sale of conjugal property without the spouse’s consent. It does not,
however, preclude the possibility that Tomas paid the consideration stated therein.
The admission of the deed of sale as evidence is consistent with the liberal policy of
the court to admit the evidence which appears to be relevant in resolving an issue
before the courts.

3
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINE

Facts:
Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal
Medical Center (RMC) for check-up. The tests revealed that her right kidney is
normal. It was ascertained, however, that her left kidney is non-functioning and non-
visualizing. Thus, she underwent kidney operation.
Private respondent’s husband, Romeo Sioson filed a complaint for gross
negligence and/or incompetence before the BOM against the doctors who allegedly
participated in the fateful kidney operation.
It was alleged in the complaint that the gross negligence and/or incompetence
committed by the said doctors, including petitioner, consists of the removal of private
respondent’s fully functional right kidney, instead of the left non-functioning and
non-visualizing kidney.
Attached to the formal offer of documentary evidence are her Exhibits "A" to
"D," which she offered for the purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in their
proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated.

Issue:
Whether or not the evidence offered are valid evidence.

Held:
Yes. The evidence offered in the case were valid evidence.
Under the best evidence rule: Sec. 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer
or is recorded in a public office.
Since the originals cannot be produced, the BOM properly admitted Editha’s formal
offer of evidence and, thereafter, the BOM shall determine the probative value thereof
when it decides the case.

4
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

JEANETTE MANALO VS TNS PHILIPPINES

Facts:
Petitioners were likewise assigned office-based tasks for which they were
required to be in the office from 9:00 o’clock in the morning to 6:00 o’clock in the
evening, but most of the time, they worked beyond 6:00 o’clock without receiving the
corresponding overtime pay. These office based tasks were not on a per project basis
and petitioners did not sign any contract for these jobs. These assignments were not
reported to the DOLE either.

Issue:
Whether the NLRC is correct.

Held:
Yes. The NLRC is correct.
The technical rules of evidence are not binding on labor tribunals. Such a rule,
however, is not a license for parties to a case to be remiss in their duty to present
every and all proofs, at the earliest opportunity, that will best support their claim and
help the courts to fully, exhaustively and speedily resolve the controversy.
TNS belatedly submitted the supposed lacking termination reports, it failed to
show the corresponding project employment contracts of petitioners covering the
period indicated in the said termination reports.

5
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS REYES

Facts:
A confidential informant went to PDEA office in San Fernando, La Union and
reported to SPO1 Rene Acosta that Reyes was selling shabu.
Reyes claimed that he was on board a bus bound for La Union to discuss a
business proposal with his wife’s nephew, Rolando Pinon, Jr. Tired from the long
journey, Reyes boarded a tricycle and instructed the driver to take him to the
cheapest hotel. A car suddenly blocked the road and three of the four men on board
the vehicle alighted and pointed their guns at him. His captors ordered him to face
the wall and take off his clothes. They also confiscated his bag and then asked him
why there was shabu inside. He denied possession of the same.
The RTC found Reyes guilty.
The CA rendered a decision affirming the RTC’s judgement of conviction.

Issue:
Whether or not denial is valid.

Held:
No. the defense of denial is not valid.
The Supreme Court viewed the defense of denial with disfavor for being
inherently weak which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses that Reyes committed the crime.
In this case, Reyes did not confess or admit the charge against him and even
raised the defense of denial and alibi. His guilt was established by the testimonies of
the police officers.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of La Union is AFFIRMED.

6
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

RUBIO VS ALIBATA

Facts:
Rufa Rubio and Lourdes Alibata were protagonists in an earlier case for
annulment of declaration of heirship and sale, reconveyance and damages before the
RTC of Dumaguete. The case was decided in favor of Rubio.
Not in conformity, Alibata elevated the RTC decision to the CA. she, however,
later withdrew her appeal which paved the way for the RTC decision to lapse into
finality. The CA resolution granting Alibata’s motion to withdraw became final and
executory.
Unfortunately, the judgment was not executed. Rubio’s claim that their counsel
at PAO-Dumaguete was never informed that the entry of judgment had already been
issued.
More than ten (10) years from the date when the RTC decision was entered in
the CA, Rubio found out that the said decision had become final and executory when
their nephew secured a copy of the Entry of Judgment.
Rubio, through PAO-Dumaguete, filed an action for revival of judgment. The
RTC ordered Rubio’s case for revival of judgment dismissed on the ground of
prescription.
Rubio then interposed an appeal before the CA which affirmed the RTC
decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA is correct.

Held:
No. The CA is not correct.
The law provides that although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is
desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the
rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it is a better rule that courts, under
the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of
limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would
result.
In this case, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, relaxes the
rules and decides to allow the action for the revival of judgment filed by Rubio.
WHEREFORE, the petition id granted.

7
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

INTER ORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISE VS CREER III

Facts:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Decision of the Court of
Appeals which reversed and set aside the Decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The said NLRC decision affirmed the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter which dismissed the complaint filed by Victor Creer III against Inter Orient for
permanent disability benefits, medical reimbursement, sickness allowance, moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Issue:
Whether or not the NLRC decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Held:
Yes. The NLRC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the burden of
proving.
In this case, there are so many possibilities how and when Victor could have
acquired pulmonary tuberculosis.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted and the decision of the NLRC is
reinstated.

8
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

REPUBLIC VS GALENO

Facts:
Carmen Galeno filed a petition for correction of the subject property before the
RTC. She alleged that she is one of the co-owners of the subject property by virtue of
the Deed of Sale. The survey and subdivision of the subject property was duly
approved by the DENR.
There being no opposition to the petition, the RTC allowed the presentation of
evidence ex parte before the Branch Clerk as well as for the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional requirements.
Herein, Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General
filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the adjoining owners had not been
notified, stressing that such notice is a jurisdictional requirement. The RTC denied
such motion.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the presentation of evidence was valid.

Held:
No. The presentation of evidence was not valid.
The law provides that hearsay evidence, whether objected or not, has no
probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the
exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule.
In this case, the contents of the certifications are hearsay because Galeno’s
sole witness and attorney-in-fact was incompetent to testify on the veracity of their
contents, as she did not prepare any of the certification nor was she a public officer
of the concerned government agencies.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
REVERESED and SET ASIDE.

9
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS BELGAR

Facts:
Bobby Belgar, with lewd designs, with force and intimidation and after entering
and pulling the victim from her house, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lie and have carnal knowledge with AAA, a 15-year-old lass, against her
will and without her consent.
Belgar denied raping AAA and interposed alibi, insisting that he was sleeping in
his house, that he did not leave the house in that period of time; and that it was his
first time to see AAA when she was identified him inside the Municipal Jail of Tigaon
as the one who had raped her.
The RTC ruled for the conviction of Belgar. The CA affirmed.

Issues:
1. Whether or not alibi is valid.
2. Whether or not the Court erred in finding Belgar guilty of the crime of rape
when the said victim was unconscious when the incident happened.

Held:
1. No. The defense of alibi is not valid.
The law provides that for the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be
substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, Belgar failed to adequately support his alibi.
2. No. The Court did not err in finding Belgar guilty for the crime of rape.
Proof of the commission of the crime need not always be by direct evidence, for
circumstantial evidence could also sufficiently and competently establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the commission of the rape was competently established although
AAA had been unconscious during the commission of the act.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

10
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JOEREL GALLENO

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged for the crime of Statutory Rape.
The prosecution claimed that appellant took advantage of the situation by
sexually molesting Evelyn. After lowering her shorts, he made Evelyn sit on his lap,
facing him. Then forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. As Evelyn was only five-
years old while appellant was a fully-grown man, the penetration caused the child’s
vagina to bleed, making her cry in pain.
Appellant tried to stop the bleeding by applying, with his finger, the sap of
“madre de cacao” leaves on her vagina. Unsuccessful in his attempt, he left Evelyn
grimacing and crying in pain.
On the other side, accused asserted that when he arrived at the Obligar
residence that afternoon he found the two children. While seated at the balcony,
accused-appellant was approached by Evelyn. He cajoled her by throwing her up and
down, his right holding the child and his left hand covering her vagina. His left ring
finger was accidentally inserted into the vagina of the child since his fingernail was
long and the child was not wearing any underwear.
However, the testimonies of the three (3) doctors that examined Evelyn provides
that Evelyn’s vaginal laceration could have been caused by a blunt instrument
inserted into the vagina, that it was possible that a human penis in full erection had
been forcibly inserted into her vagina and that a human penis in full erection is
considered a blunt instrument.
The trial court ruled against accused-appellant.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the
medical doctors.

Held:
No. The trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the
medical doctors.
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give
opinions. It is the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form
opinions upon the facts proved.
In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the
aid of the expert’s testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible

11
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

cause of the victim’s laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution
witnesses, especially the victim herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely
solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided
the trial court in the exercise of its judgement on the facts. Hence, the fact that the
experts enumerated various possible causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean
that the trial court’s inference is wrong.
The absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina does not negate the
conclusion that it was his penis which was inserted in the victim’s vagina. In rape,
the important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the
female genitalia by male organ. Verily, it is entirely probable that climax on the part
of accused-appellant was not reached due to the cries of pain of the victim and the
profuse bleeding of her vagina.

12
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RODRIGO SALAFRANCA

Facts:
Bolanon was stabbed. After stabbing Bolanon, his assailant ran away. Bolanon
was still able to walk to the house of his uncle Rodolfo in order to seek help. His
uncle rushed him to the Philippine General Hospital. On their way to the hospital
Bolanon told his uncle that it was Salafranca whi had stabbed him. Bolanon
eventually succumbed at the hospital despite receiving medical attention.
As stated, Salafranca fled after stabbing Bolanon.
After trial, the RTC convicted Salafranca.

Issue:
Whether or not a dying declaration may be admissible.

Held:
Yes. A dying declaration may be admissible.
The law provides that a dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as
evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the
following requisites concur, namely: (a) that the declaration must concern the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) that at the time the
declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered
in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a
victim.
In this case, all the requisites were met. Bolanon communicated his ante-
mortem statement to Rodolfo, identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed
him. At the time of his statement, Bolanon was conscious of his impending death,
having sustained a stab wound in the chest and, according to Rodolfo, was then
experiencing great difficulty in breathing.
Hence, the dying declaration is admissible.

13
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

SPOUSES OMAR AND MOSHIERA LATIP VS ROSALIE CHUA

Facts:
Respondent Rosalie is the owner of the Roferxane Building.
Rosalie filed a complaint for unlawful detainer plus damages against
petitioners.
A year after the commencement of the lease and with Spouses Latip already
occupying the leased cubicles, Rosalie, through counsel, sent the spouses a letter
demanding payment of back rentals and should they fail to do so, to vacate the lease
cubicles. When Spouses Latip did not heed Rosalie’s demand, she instituted the
aforesaid complaint.
In their Answer, Spouses Latip refuted Rosalie’s claims. They averred that the
lease of the two (2) cubicles had already been paid in full as evidenced by receipts
showing payment to Rosalie.
Spouses Latip averred that the contract of lease they signed had been novated
by their purchases of lease rights of the subject cubicles. Thus, they were surprised
to receive a demand letter from Rosalie’s counsel and the subsequent filing of a
complaint against them.
The MeTC ruled in favor of Rosalie. However, in stark contrast, the RTC
reversed the MeTC and ruled in favor of Spouses Latip. On appeal, the CA reversed
the RTC and reinstated the decision of the MeTC. The CA took judicial notice of the
common practice in the area of Baclaran, especially around the Redemptorist Church
regarding the payment of goodwill money. According to the appellate court, this
judicial notice was bolstered by the Joint Sworn Declaration of the stallholders at
Roferxane Bldg that they all had paid goodwill money to Rosalie prior to occupying
the stalls.

Issue:
Whether or not the judicial notice was valid.

Held:
No. The judicial notice was not valid.
The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts.
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must
be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the
subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.

14
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

In this case, it is apparent that the matter which the appellate court took
judicial notice of does not meet the requisite of notoriety. Only the CA took judicial
notice of this supposed practice to pay goodwill money to the lessor in the Baclaran
area. Neither the MeTC or the RTC found that the practice was of “common
knowledge” or notoriously known.
Apparently, only that particular division of the CA had the knowledge of the
practice to pay goodwill money in the Baclaran area. As held, justices and judges
alike ought to be reminded that the power to take judicial notice must be exercised
with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be ample reason for
the claim of judicial notice to be promptly resolved in the negative.

15
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK VS COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS

AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Facts:
It appears that petitioner had a refundable amount being claimed as tax refund
in the present case. However, petitioner declared in the same 1989 Income tax
Return that the said refundable amount will be applied as tax credit to the
succeeding taxable year.
Petitioner filed a written claim for refund with the respondent Commissioner of
Internal Revenue alleging that it did not apply the 1989 refundable amount to its
1990 Annual Income Tax Return or other tax liabilities due to the alleged business
losses it incurred for the same year.
Without waiting for respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the
claim for refund, petitioner filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of
Tax Appeals.
The respondent Court of Tax Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition on the
ground that petitioner failed to present as evidence its Corporate Annual Income Tax
Return for 1990 to establish the fact that petitioner had not yet credited the amount
to its 1990 income tax liability.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration however, the same was denied.
The CA affirmed the CTA. Hence this petition.
Petitioner calls the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by the Tax
Court in the CTA Case No. 4897 involving its claim for refund for the year 1990. In
that case, the Tax Court held that petitioner suffered a net loss for the taxable year
1990. Respondent, however, urges this Court not to take judicial notice of the said
case.

Issue:
Whether or not this Court may take judicial notice of the said case.

Held:
Yes. This Court may take judicial notice of the said case.
Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. In this case, the

16
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

Court notes that a copy of the Decision in CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to the
Petition for Review filed before this Court. Significantly, respondents do not claim at
all that the said Decision was fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do not even
dispute the contents of the said Decision, claiming merely that the Court cannot take
judicial notice thereof.
Respondents’ reasoning underscores the weakness of their case. For if they had
really believed that petitioner is not entitled to a tax refund, they could have easily
proved that it did not suffer any loss in 1990. Indeed, it is noteworthy that
respondents opted not to assail the fact appearing therein that petitioner suffered a
net loss in 1990 in the same way that it refused to controvert the same fact
established by petitioner’s other documentary evidence.

17
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS VS JESUSA REYES

Facts:
Plaintiff Jesusa Reyes together with her daughter went to BPI Zapote branch to
open an ATM account.
Plaintiff informed Capati that they wanted to open an ATM account for the
amount of P200,000.00, P100,000.00 of which shall be withdrawn from her existing
savings account with BPI bank.
Capati allegedly made a mistake and prepared a withdrawal slip for
P200,000.00.
Minutes later after the slip were presented to the teller, Capati returned to
where the plaintiff was seating and informed the latter that the withdrawable balance
could not accommodate P200,000.00.
Plaintiff explained that she is withdrawing the amount of P100,000.00 only and
then changed and correct the figure from 2 to 1 with her signature super-imposed
signifying the change.
After a while, he returned and handed to the plaintiff her duplicate copy of her
deposit slip reflecting the amount of P200, 000.00.
Plaintiff instructed one of her employees update her savings account at the
BPI. After presenting the passbook to be updated and when the same was returned,
Luna noticed that the deposit slip stapled at the cover was removed and validated at
the back portion thereof.
Plaintiff asked the bank manager why the deposit slip was validated,
whereupon the manager assured her that the matter will be investigated into.
Plaintiff, however, never learned of the result of said test. Plaintiff filed this
instant case.
Defendant claimed that BPI admitted Jesusa had effected a fund transfer in the
amount of P100, 000.00 from her ordinary savings account to the express teller
account however, it was the only amount she deposited and no additional cash
deposit was made.
RTC issued a decision upholding the versions of respondents.
Petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC decision.

18
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

Issue:
Whether or not the CA is correct in resolving the issue based on a conjecture
and ignoring physical evidence in favor of testimonial evidence.

Held:
No. The CA is not correct in resolving the issue based on a conjecture and
ignoring physical evidence in favor of testimonial evidence.
It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a case must prove his own
affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law. In civil cases, the
party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of
evidence or that evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that
which is in opposition to it.
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks
high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. 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.
In fine, respondent failed to establish their claim by preponderance of evidence.

19
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

ROMEO SISON et al VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
This was the time when the newly-installed government of President Corazon
C. Aquino was being openly challenged in rallies, demonstrations and other public for
a by “Marcos loyalists,” supporters of deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Tension and animosity between the two (2) groups sometimes broke into violence
which resulted in the murder if Stephen Salcedo, a known “Coryista.”
The prosecution established that a rally was scheduled to be held at the Luneta
by the Marcos loyalists. However, they failed to secure a permit hence the police
asked them to dispersed. The loyalist leaders said that “Gulpihin ninyo lahat ng mga
Cory infiltrator.” The police then pushed the crowd and used tear gas and truncheons
to disperse them. The loyalist scampered away but some of them fought back and
threw stones at the police. Eventually, the crowd fled towards Maria Orosa Street and
the situation later stabilized.
A small group of loyalist converged at the Chinese Gardem, phase III of the
Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer a popular star and supporter of President
Marcos. They approached her and informed her of their dispersal and she angrily
said “Gulpihin ninyo ang mga Cory hecklers!” Then they saw a man wearing yellow t-
shirt being chased by group of persons. The man was Salcedo. They caught Salcedo
and boxed and kicked him and mauled him.
Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the
blood from his face.
The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas
Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness.
Salcedo died of hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic. He sustained various
contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures as revealed in the post-
mortem.
The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press people,
both local and foreign. The press took pictures and a video of the event which became
front-page news the following day, capturing the international and national attention.
This prompted President Aquino to order the Capital Regional Command and the

20
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

Western Police District to investigate the incident. A reward of then thousand pesos
was put up for persons who could give information leading to the arrest of the killers.
Several persons, including the accused were apprehended and investigated.
The principal accused denied their participations in the mauling of the victim
and offered their respective alibis.
The RTC ruled against the accused. On appeal, the CA modified the decision of
the RTC imposing a higher penalty.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding the accused guilty based on the
photographs submitted as evidence.

Held:
No. The CA did not err in finding the accused guilty based on the photographs
submitted as evidence.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that 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. Photographs can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent
witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
In this case, when the prosecution offered the photographs as part of its
evidence, appellants objected to their admissibility for lack of proper identification.
However, the same photographs were adopted by appellant as part of the defense
exhibits.
The court ruled that the use of these photographs by some of the accused to
show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness
and accuracy thereof.

21
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAŃAGA et al

Facts:
Brothers James Anthony and James Andrew Uy, co-accused, filed a motion for
reconsideration praying for the reduction of penalties imposed upon the latter on the
ground that he was a minor at the time the crimes were committed.
Accused were convicted of the crimes of (a) special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape; (b) simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
To substantiate his claim, accused submitted his Certificate of Live Birth
issued by the National Statistics Office and Baptismal Certificate.

Issue:
Whether or not accused is entitled to a reduced penalty.

Held:
Yes. The accused is entitled to a reduced penalty.
The court gives a higher credence to physical evidence.
In this case, the submission of the birth certificate of the accused, evidenced
that he was indeed a minor during the commission of the crime. Hence, he was
entitled to a much lower penalty.

22
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS REYES

Facts:
A confidential informant went to PDEA office in San Fernando, La Union and
reported to SPO1 Rene Acosta that Reyes was selling shabu.
Reyes claimed that he was on board a bus bound for La Union to discuss a
business proposal with his wife’s nephew, Rolando Pinon, Jr. Tired from the long
journey, Reyes boarded a tricycle and instructed the driver to take him to the
cheapest hotel. A car suddenly blocked the road and three of the four men on board
the vehicle alighted and pointed their guns at him. His captors ordered him to face
the wall and take off his clothes. They also confiscated his bag and then asked him
why there was shabu inside. He denied possession of the same.
The RTC found Reyes guilty.
The CA rendered a decision affirming the RTC’s judgement of conviction.

Issue:
Whether or not denial is valid.

Held:
No. the defense of denial is not valid.
The Supreme Court viewed the defense of denial with disfavor for being
inherently weak which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses that Reyes committed the crime.
In this case, Reyes did not confess or admit the charge against him and even
raised the defense of denial and alibi. His guilt was established by the testimonies of
the police officers.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of La Union is AFFIRMED.

23
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS SOLINA

Facts:
Ma. Fe Solina enlist, transport and refer workers for employment abroad, did
then and there, without any license or authority, recruit for overseas employment
and for a fee. Thus in a large scale amounting to economic sabotage but Solina failed
to deploy said complainants and likewise failed to return the money incurred by them
and the documents submitted despite demands.
Solina maintains her denial that she was engaged in the business of recruiting
possible workers for jobs abroad. She alleges that private complainants conspired
together, used her name, and represented themselves to the other applicants as
being authorized to collect documents and fees and that she only met the other
private complainants in the trainings/seminars she attended.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court gravely erred in rejecting Solina’s defense.

Held:
No. The Court did not err in rejecting Solina’s defense.
Greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the
prosecution witnesses than the accused’s denial and explanation concerning the
commission of the crime.
In this case, Solna’s defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimonies
of the witnesses presented by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED.

24
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS SALUHUDDIN

Facts:
Zaldy Saluhuddin being then armed with a .45 caliber pistol and other
handguns, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting one
another, by means or treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, assault, attack and shoot with the use of said weapons Atty. Segundo
Sotto, Jr, employing means, manner and form which tended directly and specially to
insure its execution without any danger to the persons of Zaldy Saluhuddin, as a
result of which attack, said Atty. Sotto sustained mortal gunshot wounds on the fatal
parts of his body which directly caused his death.
To establish its murder case against Saluhuddin, the prosecution presented
the testimonies of nine witnesses.
Saluhuddin on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial. He averred
that he was on duty as a Barangay Tanod .
The RTC convicted Saluhuddin for the crime of murder.
On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the
failure of the prosecution to provide evidence of his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
2. Whether or not defense of denial is valid.

Held:
1. No. The trial court did not err in convicting Saluhuddin.
It is well-settled that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is
entitled to great respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand, and
the manner in which they gave their testimonies.

25
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

In the present case, the factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of
the witnesses’ credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court,
particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the said findings, and will not be
disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and
circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.
2. No. The defense of denial is not valid.
In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the
accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed, but it must likewise
be shown that he was so far way that it was not possible for him to have been
physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.
In this case, denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution
witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against Saluhuddin.
PEOPLE VS GANDUMA

Facts:
Nestor Ganduma was convicted of the crime of rape and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim, Eva Comista for damages
in a decision rendered by RTC Leyte.
Ganduma in his testimony declared that Eva was his sweetheart, their love
affair having started two years before the alleged crime happened when Ganduma
was still employed as a helper in the household of Eva.

Issue:
Whether or not trial court’s judgement was proper.

Held:
No. The trial court’s judgment was not proper.
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.
In this case, the said bruises, if there were indeed any, ould 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.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED.

26
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS MALIMIT

Facts:
Jose Malimit charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.
Malimit questions the credibility of prosecution witness by pointing out their
alleged delay in revealing what they knew about the incident.
Also, Malimit derided the non-presentation by the prosecution of the police
blotter which could prove if Malimit was indeed implicated right away by Batin to the
crime.
Malimit insisted that he merely found Malaki’s wallet by chance while
gathering shells along the seashore, and that he feared being implicated in the crime
for which reason he hid the wallet underneath a stone.
Malimit demurs the prosecution’s evidence contending that they are
insufficient to sustain his conviction.

Issues:
1. Whether or not police blotter should be presented as evidence.
2. Whether or not the testimony is credible.
3. Whether or not trial court is correct in convicting Malimit.
4. Whether or not conviction is proper.
5. Whether or not alibi is a valid defense.

Held:
1. No. Police blotter need not be presented as evidence.
Where entries in the police blotter are merely corroborative evidence of the
uncontroverted testimony of a witness, the presentation of the police blotter as
evidence is not indispensable.

27
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

In this case, if Malimit believed that he was not identified therein, then he should
have secured a copy thereof from the Silago Police Station and utilized the same as
controverting evidence to impeach Batin’s credibility as witness. Having failed to do
so, Malimit cannot now pass the blame on the prosecution for something which
appellant himself should have done.
2. Yes. The testimony is credible.
The non-disclosure by a witness to the police officers of the accused’s identity
immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human
experience- the natural reticence of most people get involved in criminal prosecutions
against immediate neighbors is of judicial notice.
In this case, even assuming arguendo that Rondon and Batin identified Malimit
only after the lapse of five months from commission of the crime, this fact alone does
not render their testimony less credible.
3. Yes. The trial court is correct for ruling for conviction.
It is established rule of evidence that the findings of the trial court with regard
to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and the highest degree of respect by
the appellate court. This rule admits certain exceptions, (1) when patent
inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2)
when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.
In this case, the exceptions mentioned are not present.
4. Yes. The decision for conviction is proper.
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 pointing the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as perpetrator of the
crime.
In this case, there were at least five circumstances constituting an unbroken
chain of events which by their concordant combination and cumulative effect satisfy
the requirements for the conviction of Malimit.
5. No. Alibi as a defense is not valid.
As the defense of alibi is weak in view of the positive identification of the
accused by the prosecution witnesses, it becomes weaker by reason of the
unexplained failure of the defense to present an corroboration.
In the present case, Malimit’s version of the story does not inspire belief.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction id hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

28
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS ENOJAS

Facts:
Eduardo Gregorio testified that he and PO2 Pangilinan were patrolling. A taxi
that was suspiciously parked. The officers approached the taxi and asked the driver
for his documents. The latter complied but having doubt regarding the veracity of
documents they asked him to come with them to the police station.
On reaching a 7/11 convenience store, they stopped and PO2 Pangilinan went
down to relieve himself. As he approached the store’s door, he came upon two
suspected robbers and shot it out with them. Po2 Pangilinan shot one suspect dead
and hit the other who still managed to escape. But someone fired at PO2 Pangilinan
causing his death.
PO3 Cambi and PO2 Rosarito testified that they monitored the messags in
accused Enojas’ mobile phone and posting as Enjoas, communicated with the other
accused.

Issue:
Whether or not text messages a valid evidence.

Held:
Yes. Text messages are a valid evidence.
The law provides that 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.
In this case, PO3 Cambi posting as the 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.

29
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS DAHIL

Facts:
Dahil and Castro were charged in three separate information before the RTC
with violation of RA 9165 for the sale of marijuana.

Issue:
Whether or not evidence was validly marked.

Held:
No. The evidence was not validly marked.
The Chain of Custody rule provides that the identity of the dangerous drugs
should be established beyond reasonable doubt by showing that the items offered in
court were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation.
In the present case, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office, the seized
items were not marked. It could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked
drugs were handled.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED.

30
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS VALLEJO

Facts:
Gerrico Vallejo with lewd design by means of force and intimidation, did and
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with
Daisy Ditalo, a nine-year-old child against the latter’s will and while raping the said
victim, strangled her to death.
The defense presented the testimony that victim came to ask Vallejo to draw
her school project. After making such request, victim left. Vallejo claimed that he
finished the drawing at about three in the afternoon and gave it to the victim’s aunt.

Issue:
Whether or not conviction is proper.

Held:
Yes. The decision for conviction is proper.
An accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, provided
sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond
doubt that the accused committed the crime.
In this case, there is enough circumstantial evidence establishing beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of Vallejo.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.

31
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

ARCEO VS PEOPLE

Facts:
Arceo obtained a loan from Josefina Cenizal. Several weeks thereafter, Arceo
obtained an additional loan from Cenizal. Arceo then issued in favor of Cenizal, Bank
of the Philippine Islands postdated checks. When the maturity of the checks 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 (7) times.
However, Arceo failed to make good the amount of the check.
Cenizal executed his affidavit and submitted documents in support of his
complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22 against Arceo. The check in question and
the return slip were however lost by Cenizal as a result of a fire that occurred near
his residence. Cenizal executed an Affidavit of Loss regarding the loss of the check in
question and the return slip.
Arceo was found guilty as charged. Aggrieved, he appealed to the Court of
Appeals. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Arceo
sought reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Arceo despite the failure of
the prosecution to present the dishonored check during the trial.

Held:
No. the trial court is correct in ruling for the conviction of Arceo.
In this case, 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

32
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

his argument on Rule 130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court. However, the rule applies
only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry.
The best evidence rule applies only where the content of the document is the
subject of inquiry, and not where the issue is the execution or existence of the
document or the circumstances surrounding its execution.
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby denied. The resolution of the Court of Appeals
are affirmed.

CHUA GAW VS CHUA

Facts:
Spouses Chua Chin and Chan Chi were the founders if three business
enterprises namely: Hagonoy Lumber, Capitol Sawmill Corportation and Columbia
Wood Interprise. The couple had seven children. Chua Chin died leaving his wife and
his seven children as his surviving heirs the net worth of Hagonoy Lumber.
His surviving heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and
Renunciation of Hereditary Rights in favor of co-heir. In said document, Chan Chi
and the six children likewise agreed to voluntarily renounce and waive their shares
over Hagonoy Lumber in favor of their co-heir Chua Sioc Huan.
Concepcion Chua Gaw and her husband, Antonio Gaw, asked Suy Ben Chua
to lend them money which they will use for the construction of their house. The
parties agreed that the loan will be payable within six months without interest.
The Spouses Gaw failed to pay the amount they borrowed within the
designated period. Suy Ben Chua sent the couple a demand letter requesting them to
settle their obligation with the warning that he will be constrained to take appropriate
legal action if they fail to do so.
Failing to heed his demand, Suy Ben Chua filed a complaint for sum of money
against Spouse Chua Gaw with the RTC.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Suy Ben Chua.
Aggrieved, Spouse Chua Gaw appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of
the RTC.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the testimony of the witness is valid.

33
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

2. Whether or not a notarized document is a valid evidence.

3. Whether or not best evidence rule applies.

Held:
1. Yes. The testimony made by the witness is valid.
In the present case, Spouses Chua Gaw failed to discredit Suy Ben Chua’s
testimony on how Hagonoy Lumber became his sole property.
The rule is that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not upon the weakness of the defendant’s evidence. Preponderance of evidence is
determined by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, culled from
the evidence regardless of who actually presented it.

2. Yes. A notarized document is valid as an evidence in court.

In this case, Spouse Chua Gaw maintains that the RTC erred in admitting in
evidence a mere copy of the Deed of Partition and the Deed of Sale in violation of the
best evidence rule.
The law provides that a notarized document carries evidentiary weight as to its
due execution and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their
favor the presumption of regularity. The notarization of a private document converts
it into a public document and makes it admissible in court without further proof of is
authenticity.

3. No. The best evidence rule is inapplicable in this case.

In this case, there was no dispute as to the terms of either deed. Spouse Chua
Gaw never even denied their due execution and admitted that she signed the Deed of
Partition.
The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence applies only when the content of such document is the subject of
the inquiry.
WHEREFORE, petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals are
affirmed.

34
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

SKUNAC CORPORATION VS SYLIANTENG

Facts:
Sylianteng base their claim over the subject lots a Deed of Absolute Sale
executed in their favor by their mother. Their mother acquired the lots from the late
Luis Pujalte through a Deed of Sale.
Skunac Corp on the other hand claim that a certain Romeo Pujalte sold the
lots to them.
The RTC of Pasig rendered judgment in favor of Skunac Corp.
Sylianteng then filed an appeal with the CA which ruled in favor of Sylianteng.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it.
Hence, this instant petition.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the best evidence rule is applicable.
2. Whether or not a signed copy is valid.
3. Whether or not a notarized document may be admissible in court as
evidence.

Held:
1. No. The best evidence rule is inapplicable in this case.
In the present 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.
The best evidence 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 exits, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its

35
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

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.

2. Yes. The signed copy is valid.

In the present case, Skunac Corp do not dispute that the copy of the deed of
sale that Sylianteng submitted as part of their evidence is a duplicate of the original
deed of sale.
It is settled that a signed carbon copies 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.

3. Yes. Notarized document is admissible in court.

In the present case, evidence of the authenticity and due execution of the
subject deed is the fact that it was notarized.
The notarization of a private document converts it into a public document.
HEIRS OR MARGARITA PODON VS HEIRS OF MAXIMO ALVAREZ

Facts:
Heirs of Maximo Alvarex avers that their parents were the registered owner of
the subject property. Their parents had been in possession of the property during
their lifetime; that upon their parents’ deaths, they had continued the possession of
the property as heirs, paying the real property taxes dues thereon; that they could
locate the owner’s duplicate copy but the original copy on file with the RD was intact;
that the original copy contained an entry stating that the property had been sold to
Prodon subject to the right of repurchase; and that the entry had been maliciously
done by Prodon because the deed of sale with right to repurchase covering the
property did not exist.
Heirs of Prodn claimed that the late Maximo Alvarez had executed the deed of
sale with the right to repurchase with the RD and duly annotated on the title; that
the late Maximo Alvarez had been granted six months within which to repurchase the
property; and that she had then become the absolute owner of the property due to its
non-repurchase within the given period.
During the trial, the custodian of the records of the property attested that the
copy of the deed of sale with the right to repurchase could not be found in the files of
RD.
The RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Prodon.
The CA reversed the said decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the pre-requisites for the admission of secondary evidence had
been complied with.

36
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

Held:
No. The pre-requisites for the admission of secondary evidence had not been
complied with.
The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written
document the original of the document must be produced in court. The rule excludes
any evidence other than the original writing to prove the contents thereof, unless the
offeror proves: (a) the existence or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and
destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in court; and (c) the
absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the
original ca be affirmed.
In this case, Prodon did not preponderantly establish the existence and due
execution of the deed of sale with the right to repurchase.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals.

REPUBLIC VS MARCOS-MANOTOC

Facts:
After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986, President Aquino created
PCGG.
One of the civil case filed before the Sandiganbayan to recover the Marcoses’
alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The Republic as petitioner, presented and formally offered its evidence against
Marcos-Manotoc. However, the latter objected to the offer primarily on the gorund
that the documents violated the best evidence rule of the Rules of Court, as these
documents were unauthenticated and moreover, the Republic had not provided any
reason for its failure to present originals.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the evidence presented was in violation of the best evidence
rule.
2. Whether or not the affidavits may be considered as evidence.

Held:
1. Yes. The evidence offered was in violation of the best evidence rule.
In this case, the Republic 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 testimony of the witnesses who
had executed them.
Hence, the photocopied documents are in violation Rule 130, Sec 3 of the Rules
of Court which mandates that the evidence must be the original document itself.

37
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

2. No. Affidavits may not be considered as evidence in court.

In this case, neither did the Republic present witnesses the affiants of theses
Affidavits or Memoranda submitted to the court.
Basic is the rule that while affidavits may be considered as public documents if
they are acknowledged before a notary public, these affidavits are still classified as
hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not generally prepared by
the affiant but by another one who uses his or her own language in writing the
affiant’s statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by
the one writing them.

CIR VS HANTEX TRADING CO INC

Facts:
Hantex is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. It is required to file a Consumption Entry with the BOC under Section
1301 of the Tariff and Custom Code.
Based on photocopies of 77 Consumption Entries furnished, the 1987
importations of Hantex were understated in its accounting records.
The CTA ruled in favor of CIR.

Issue:
Whether or not photocopies are admissible as evidence.

Held:
No. The best evidence rule under Section 16 of the 1977 NIRC does not include
mere photocopies of records/documents.
In this case, CIR in making a preliminary and final tax deficiency assessment
anchored the said assessment on mere machine copies of records/documents.
The law provides 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.

38
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

REPUBLIC VS MUPAS

Facts:
The CA ordered the Republic of the Philippines and etc to pay the PIATCO just
compensation for the expropriation of the NAIA III.
President Arroyo declared that the Government would not honor the PIATCO
contracts.
The Government filed a complaint for expropriation of the NAIA. The RTC
issued a writ of possession in favor of the Government.

Issue:
Whether or not hearsay may be accepted as evidence.

Held:
No. the hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in court.
In the present case, PIATCO cannot rely on the affidavit of Atty. Tolentino who
allegedly identified the photocopied documents supporting attendant costs.
The law provides that hearsay evidence has no probative value and should be
disregarded whether objected to or not.

39
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

SY VS CA

Facts:
Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy contracted marriage. Fernando left their conjugal
dwelling. Since then the spouses lived separately and their two children were in the
custody of their mother.
Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to
Fernando.
The RTC denied the petition of Filipina. She appealed to the CA which affirmed
the decision of the trial court.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage is void for lack of marriage license at the time of
the ceremony.

Held:
No. The marriage is not void.
In the present case, the marriage certificate and marriage license are only
photocopies, however no objection was interposed to Filipina’s testimony in open
court when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of marriage.
The law provides that although the marriage certificate and other documents
were only photocopies, the fact that these have been examined and admitted by the
trial court with no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due
execution, means that these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts
contained therein.

40
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP VS SSANGYONG CORP

Facts:
MCC a domestic corporation is engaged in the business of importing and
wholesaling stainless steel products. One of its suppliers is the Ssangyang an
international trading company. The two corporations conducted business through
calls and facsimile or telecopy transmissions.
Despite Ssangyong’s letters, MCC failed to open a letter of credit.
Ssangyong then filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract
against MCC. Ssangyong alleged that MCC breached their contract when they
refused to open the letter of credit.
MCC filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that Ssangyong failed to present the
original copies of the pro forma invoices on which the civil action was based.
The RTC rendered its decision in favor of Ssangyong.

Issue:
Whether or not the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are
electronic evidence and admissible.

Held:
Yes. Such facsimile transmissions are considered electronic evidence and are
admissible in court.
In this case, MCC argued against the admissibility of the Pro Forma Invoices
that the said documents are inadmissible being violative of the best evidence rule.

41
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

The law provides that an electronic document is also the equivalent of an

original document under the Best Evidence Rule, if it is a printout or output readable
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.

GARVIDA VS SALES JR

Facts:
Garvida filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Sk Chairman.
Election officer disapproved Garvida’s certificate of candidacy again due to her age.
Garvida, however, appealed to COMELEC who set aside the order of respondents and
allowed petitioner to run.
Sales, Jr., a rival candidate for Chairman of the Sanggunianng Kabataan, filed
with the COMELEC en back a Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of Certificate of
Candidacy against Garvida. The petition was sent by facsimile.
The COMELEC en banc issued an order to suspend Garvida’s proclamation.

Issue:
Whether or not petition filed thru facsimile is valid.

Held:
No. Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court.
In this case, the uncertainty of the authenticity of a facsimile pleading should
have restrained the COMELEC en banc from acting on the petition and issuing the
questioned order. The COMELEC en banc should have waited until it received the
petition filed by registered mail.
The law provides that facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is,
at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original,

42
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine
and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It any, in fact,
be a sham pleading.

SEAOIL PETROLEUM CORP VS AUTOCORP GROUP

Facts:
Seaoil Petroleum Corporation purchased one unit of Robex LC Excavator from
Autocorp Group. The sales agreement was embodied in the Vehicle Sales Invoice.
The relationship turned sour when the remaining 10 checks were not honored
by the bank since Seaoil requested that payment be stopped.
Despite demands, Seaoil refused to pay the remaining balance. Hence,
Autocorp filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages and
replevin in RTC of Pasig. The trial court ruled for Autocorp.
Seaoil filed a petition for review before the CA which dismissed the petition and
affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the testimony offered is valid.
2. Whether or not parol evidence may apply.
3. Whether or not sales invoice is a valid evidence.
4. Whether or not oral testimony is valid.

Held:
1. No. the testimony is not valid.
In this case, petitioner only had its bare testimony to back up the alleged
arrangement with Rodriguez.

43
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

The law provides that unsubstantiated testimony, offered as proof of verbal

agreements which tends to vary the terms of a written agreement, is inadmissible
under the parol evidence rule.
2. No. the parol evidence is not applicable in this case.
In this case, Seaoil would have the Court rule that this case falls within the
exceptions, particularly that the written agreement failed to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties.
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a
written agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different
terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract,
although parol evidence 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.
3. Yes. The sales invoice is valid.
In the present case, the vehicle sales invoice is the best evidence of the
transactions.
The law provides that a sales invoice is a commercial document. Commercial
documents or papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to promote or
facilitate trade or credit transactions.
4. No. The oral testimony is not valid.
In this present case, Seaoil contends that the document falls within the exception of
the parol evidence.
The law provides that the exception obtains only where the written contract is so
ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot
be understood from a mere reading of the instrument.

44
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

EDRADA VS RAMOS

Facts:
Upon the signing of the document, Edrada delivered to Ramos 4 postdated
checks. The 4th check was dishonored because of a stop-payment order.
Ramos filed an action against Edrada for specific performance with damages
before the RTC.
The RTC rendered a petition in favor of Ramos. The CA affirmed the decision of
the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the evidence is valid.

Held:
Yes. The evidence is valid.
In this case, the Court acknowledge that the contending parties offer vastly
differing accounts as to the true nature of the agreement.
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of
the written agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written
contract.

45
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

ORTAŃEZ VS CA

Facts:
Ortanez filed with the RTC Quezon City a complaint for annulment of marriage
against Teresita Salcedo on the grounds of lack of marriage licnese and/or
psychological incapacity of the Ortanez.
Among the exhibits offered by Teresita were 3 cassette tapes of alleged
telephone conversations between Ortanez and unidentified persons.
The trial court admitted all Teresita’s offered evidence.

Issue:
Whether or not the cassette tapes are valid evidence.

Held:
No. The cassette tapes are not valid evidence.
In this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the
provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question.
RA 4200 expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence.

46
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

INCIONG VS CA

Facts:
Inciong’s liability resulted from the promissory note which he signed with Rene
Naybe and Gregorio Pantanosas holding themselves jointly and severally liable to
Philippine Bank of Communications.
Said due date expired without the promisors having paid their obligation. PBC
sent Inciong et al telegrams demanding payment thereof. Since they did not respond
to the demands made, PBC filed a complaint for collection of money against Inciong
et al.
The complaint was dismissed for failure of PBC to prosecute the case. However, the
lower court reconsidered the dismissal order and required the sheriff to serve the
summonses.
Inciong alleged that five (5) copies of blank promissory note were brought to
him by Campos at his office. He affixed his signature thereto but in one copy. He
indicated that he bound himself only for the amount of P5,000.00.

Issue:
Whether or not parol evidence may apply.

Held:

47
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

Yes. Parol evidence is applicable in this case.

In this case, Inciong asserts that since the promissory note is not a public deed
with the formalities prescribed by law but a mere commercial paper which does not
hear the signature of attesting witnesses.
The law provides that for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract
need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 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.

EAGLERIDGE DEV CORP VS CAMERON GRANVILLE ASSET INC

Facts:
Eagleridge development corporation filed their motion to admit attached
opposition. Subsequently, Cameron Inc filed its reply and Eagleridge their motion to
admit attached rejoinder.
Eagleridge argue that the parol evidence rule is not applicable to them because
they were not parties to the deed of assignment and they cannot be prevented from
seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of the Deed of Assignment.

Issue:
Whether or not parol evidence rule is applicable to Eagleridge.

Held:
No. The parol evidence rule is inapplicable to Eagleridge.
In this case, 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.

48
CASE DIGEST EVIDENCE

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.

49