IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES

1. SPOUSES MARCELIAN AND ALICE TAPAYAN V. PONCEDA MARTINEZ

PRINCIPLES:
· Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy presented as a
documentary evidence, when no objection was raised when it was formally offered.
· A clear and convincing evidence is necessary to rebut the conclusive presumption of
the due execution of a Deed acknowledged before a notary public.
A- The Deed of Undertaking was admissible as proof of its contents
Under the law, a proper and timely objection over the documentary evidence presented is
necessary; otherwise, it is deemed waived.
Although Best Evidence Rule requires that the original documents must be produced
whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, Courts are not precluded to accept in
evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was
formally offered. Offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have
testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this
time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.
In this case, the Petitioners failed to object to the admission of the plain copy of the Deed of
Undertaking at the time it was formally offered in evidence before the RTC, in fact, they only
raised this objection for the first time before the CA.
B- The Deed of Undertaking was genuine and was duly executed.
Under the law, a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that
enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts
stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome
this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing.
In this case, the petitioners' denials without clear and convincing evidence to support their
claim of fraud and falsity were not sufficient to overthrow the above-mentioned presumption.
They have not even supported their claim that their signatures thereon were forged.
Therefore, the authenticity, due execution and the truth of the facts stated in the "Bilihan ng
Lupa" are upheld.
C. The petitioners were not accommodation borrowers.
The statements in the Joint Venture were only corroborated by the petitioner’s self-serving
declarations and the Court finds no other evidence on record to support the existence of the
alleged joint venture, and the verbal agreement of the Joint Venturers in respect of the DBP
Loan.
In this case, Petitioners paid the interest on the DBP Loan, insurance premiums, and other
incidental fees without seeking reimbursement from the alleged Joint Venturers, establishing
Petitioners’ benefit.
Therefore, Petitioners must bear the liability and comply the obligations imposed by the Deed
of Undertaking.

2. People vs. Nepumuceno, GR No. 216062 September 16, 2018

SUMMARY: Nepumuceno was charged in separate Informations with sale and possession of
a dangerous drug. Before the SC, Nepumuceno sought acquittal on the ground of a
violation of the chain of custody rule. SC ruled in his favor.

DOCTRINE: Section 21 paragraph 1 of R.A. 9165 as amended by RA 10640 provides

among others that noncompliance of the chain of custody requirements under justifiable
grounds as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
Under RA 9165, the requirement under Section 21 as amended by RA 10640 is the strict
compliance of the chain of custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment. It provides that the
apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the following:
1. Accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated, or his
representative or counsel with an elected public official or barangay official,
(complying the 2 witnesses rule under Art. 130 of RPC);
2. A representative of the National Prosecution Service of the DOJ; or
3. The media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It
states further that a forensic laboratory examination results done by the forensic laboratory
examiner shall be issued immediately within 24 hours upon the receipt of the subject
items.

As amended, it is not an absolute requirement that all of them be present during the
inventory. Noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over
said items. (Par. 1 Section 21 of RA 10640).

The Supreme Court held in another case that Section 21 of RA 10640 did not erase that
responsibility on the part of the police officer, so if there is no media representative or
representative from the DOJ, even the integrity of the drugs preserved, it does not mean that
conviction will follow. The prosecution must prove at the outset why these representatives
were not around, there absence must be justified since this will be subject of abuse by the
police officers. Further, the accused could not be protected from tampering, alteration or
substitution of the incriminatory evidence unless the Prosecution established that the arresting
or seizing officer complied with the requirements set by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. In this
case, the records herein reveal that the police officers did not mark the confiscated drugs at
the place of the arrest but only upon their arrival at the police station; and did not conduct the
physical inventory of the confiscated drug and did not take pictures thereof as required by
Section 21.

The last sentence of paragraph (a)of Section 21 excuses lapses in the arresting

officer's compliance with the requirements only if a justifiable reason is advanced for the
lapses. Although the failure to mark the confiscated substances upon arrest of the accused
could be excusable in light of the testimony of PO2 Baladjay that a neighbor of the accused
had started a commotion during the arrest proceedings that rendered the immediate marking
in that place impractical, the non-compliance with the requirements for the physical inventory
and for photographing of the confiscated drug being taken "in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof" was not explained at all by the arresting officers.

The Court accepts that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in
reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." This
limitation on the chain of custody is well recognized in the IRR, which states that non-
compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said item as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized item are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. In deciding drug-
related offenses, therefore, the courts should deem to be essential "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."

3. Circumstantial Evidence- Kyle Anthony Zabala VS People of the Philippines, GR #

210760
The SC further stated that, to sustain a conviction based on the said principle, it is
essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain of
events which lead one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the
possibility that some other person has committed the crime.
 Unfortunately, the CA and RTC erred on using the application of the circumstantial
evidence. The pieces of evidence presented before the trial court failed to provide a sufficient
combination of circumstances, as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

4.PRINCIPLE OF THE CASE IN RE RULES IN EVIDENCE:

In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the
proper time, and the grounds specified.
Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived, even if the
evidence was objected to on some other ground.
Thus, even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider any other ground of objection,
except those that were raised at the proper time.
Thus, Section 35, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court, provides when to make an offer of
evidence, thus: SEC. 35. When to make offer. -As regards the testimony of a witness, the
offer must. be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary and object
evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer
shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
On the other hand, Section 36, Rule 132 of the same rules, provides when objection to the
evidence offered shall be made, thus: SEC. 36. Objection. -Objection to evidence offered
orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Objection to a question
propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be
objected to within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed
by the court. In other words, objection to oral evidence must be raised at the earliest possible
time, that is after ·the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the
objectionable issue becomes apparent only after the answer was given. In case of
documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer
have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered.
5.FERNANDO MANCOL, JR. VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
PRINCIPLES:

The admissibility of the testimonial evidence as an exception to the parol evidence rule does
not necessarily mean that it has weight. Admissibility of evidence should not be confounded
with its probative value.
The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial
evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact.
Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered
at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an
issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.

It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his
own personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception. A witness
may not testify on what he merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony
is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned,
read or heard. Hearsay evidence is evidence, not of what the witness knows himself but, of
what he has heard from others; it is not only limited to oral testimony or statements but
likewise applies to written statements.

The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial

evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge
of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because his testimony derives its
value not from the credit accorded to him as a witness presently testifying but from the
veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of his information.

Guided by these precepts, Villanueva's testimony falls within the category of hearsay
evidence. Villanueva has no personal knowledge. His testimony related only to the fact that
Atty. De Asis ordered him to go to BIR-Catbalogan and bring the check and other
documents.

The same conclusion can be drawn from Mancol, Sr.'s testimony.

The petitioner failed to show with whom the DBP agreed to arrange and effect the transfer of
the title in his name. Assuming for argument's sake that Mancol, Sr., on behalf of petitioner,
entered into a verbal agreement with DBP, such agreement would remain unenforceable.
Despite petitioner's insistence, the act of entering into a verbal agreement was not stipulated
in the SPA. The authority given to Mancol, Sr. was limited to representing and negotiating,
on petitioner's behalf, the invitation to bid on the sale of the subject lot. A power of attorney
must be strictly construed and pursued. The instrument will be held to grant only those
powers which are specified therein, and the agent may neither go beyond nor deviate from the
power of attorney. Clearly, the power to enter into a verbal agreement with DBP is
conspicuously inexistent in the SPA.
6.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. FRANK
LOBRIGAS, accused-appellant

1. Requisites in order that circumstantial evidence be sufficient to warrant

conviction includes (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference
must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
2. A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as
an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the
principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements
were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.
 3. Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements states only the fact that such
statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is
immaterial.
4. The admissibility of the evidence differs from its probity. If an evidence is
admissible in court does not warrant that the court will put weight its
probative value.

7.A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of

evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant, to the effect that the evidence produced by
the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
an issue. The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in
chief, had been able to establish a prima facie case.

a review of the dismissal of the complaint naturally entailed a calibration of the evidence on
record to properly determine whether the material allegations of the complaint were amply
supported by evidence. This being so, where the resolution of a question requires an
examination of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and the relevance
of surrounding circumstances, and the probability of specific situations, the same involves a
question of fact.

In this regard, the Court emphasizes that factual questions are not the proper subject of a
petition for review under Rule 45, the same being limited only to questions of law. Not being
a trier of facts, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence already
considered in the proceedings below. For such reasons, the Court has consistently deferred
to the factual findings of the trial court, in light of the unique opportunity afforded them to
observe the demeanor and spontaneity of the witness in assessing the credibility of their
testimony.