1. People vs.

Larrañaga, July 21, 2005

2. BPI v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008
3. People v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167
4.People vs. Domen, January 31, 1983
5. People v. Bududan, G.R. No. 178196, Auguat 6, 2008 
6. People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004
7. Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, November 16, 1995 
8. Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118441, January 18, 2000
9. People vs. Nuñez, October 4, 2017
10. People v. Anita Miranba, G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016
11. People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No. 208093,
February 20, 2017
13. People v. Ramil Doria and Rommel Castro, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015
14. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 9, 2008
15. People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192
16. People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504
17. In Re Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, December 14, 2007
18. Agustin vs. CA, June 15, 2005
19. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Yu, AM Nos. MTJ-12-1813, March 14,
2017
20. People vs. Empleo, 226 SCRA 454
21. College Assurance Plan vs. Belfranlt Development, Nov. 22, 2007
22. People vs. Zeta, May 27, 2008

1. People vs. Galam, Oct. 9, 2019

2. Gumabon vs. Philippine National Bank, July 25, 2016
3. Hizon vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517
4. University of Mindanao, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, January 11, 2016
5. People vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS LARRANAGA

Facts: Four motions for reconsideration were separately filed by the appellants
regarding the criminal cases of special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape, the appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. On the criminal case of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, they
were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, three Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 (DEATH
PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES) is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes
the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is
constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

Appellants vigorously contended that the Supreme Court should not have sustained
Rusia’s testimony hook, line and sinker, owing to his tainted record and reputation.
Appellants likewise claimed that the SC should not have sustained the trial court’s
rejection of their alibi. Additionally, knowing that the prosecution’s theory highly rests on
the truth of Rusia’ testimony, appellants endeavor to destroy it by claiming that the body
found at the foot of a deep ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the Supreme Court should take credence of the decision of
the trial court in taking consideration of the physical evidence and the
corroborative testimonies of other witnesses.
2. Whether or not the trial court’s rejection of their alibi must be sustained.

Ruling:

1. Yes. There is no reason not to. Physical evidence is one of the highest
degrees of proof. It speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put
together.The presence of Marijoy’s ravished body in a deep ravine at Tan-
awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and handcuffs on her wrists certainly
bolstered Rusia’s testimony on what actually took place from Ayala Center to
Tan-awan. Indeed, the details he supplied to the trial court are of such nature
and quality that only a witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes
could furnish.

2. Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in
the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on
affirmative matters. Being evidence that is negative in nature and self-serving,
it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
who testify on clear and positive evidence. A thorough examination of the
evidence for the prosecution shows that the appellants failed to meet the
requirements of alibi, i.e., the requirements of time and place. They failed to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible
for them to be at the Ayala Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were
abducted. What is clear from the evidence is that Rowen, Josman, Ariel,
Alberto, James Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of
Cebu City on July 16, 1997. Not even Larrañaga who claimed to be in
Quezon City satisfied the required proof of physical impossibility.

CASE #2
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. JESUSA P. REYES and CONRADO B.
REYES
G.R. No. 157177 February 11, 2008
Facts:
Reyes decided to open new bank accounts in BPI where 200k will be transferred
from her previous account to the new account. However, the bank teller informed her
that the balance is insufficient, hence she decided that only 100k will be transferred and
she would just deposit the 100k cash to have a 200k total bank deposit in the new
account. She signed the edited withdrawal slip to effect the transfer of 100k and left the
premises of the bank. Afterwards, she instructed her employee to update her passbook
in the bank. The employee informed her that the deposit slip is altered from 200k to
100k, that her balance in the new account is only 100k and not 200k. Reyes then
demanded the money, contending that aside from the 100k fund transfer, she also had
deposited 100k cash to the new account. In their reply, the BPI alleged that Reyes left
the bank's premises without giving the 100k cash and that she did not sign the
verification for the deposit hence, the bank alone entered the same in their record.

Issue:
Whether or not Reyes presented sufficient evidence that she made an initial
deposit of 200k in her new account.

Ruling:
No. After a careful and close examination of the records and evidence presented
by the parties, the SC found that Reyes failed to successfully prove by preponderance
of evidence that respondent Jesusa made an initial deposit of P200,000.00 in her
Express Teller account. 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.

In the present case, the respondents testified that Reyes said that she was
opening an Express Teller account for 200k; that she was going to withdraw and
transfer 100k from her savings account to her new account, and that she had an
additional 100k cash. However, these assertions are not borne out by the other
evidence presented. 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, the SC
consistently ruled that the physical evidence should prevail.

CASE #3
 G.R. No. 109775. November 14, 1996.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ENCARNACION

MALIMIT alias “MANOLO,” accused-appellant.

Facts:

On April 15, 1991, Edilberto Batin, the houseboy of Onofre Malaki, had just finished
cooking and from the kitchen, he proceeded directly to the store to ask his employer,
Onofre Malaki if supper is to be prepared. When Batin, the houseboy of Malaki stepped
inside the store he saw Jose Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo and Malaki
sprawled on the floor and bloodied. On the other hand, Rondon, who had just
purchased from Malaki’s store, also clearly saw Malimit rushing out through the front
door of Malaki’s store with a blood-stained bolo

Batin immediately went out of the store to seek help and met Rondon, where they
rushed to the nearby house of Malaki’s brother-in-law, Beloy.

Batin, along with Beloy, went back to the store. Inside, they saw the lifeless body of
Malaki. Beloy noticed that the store’s drawer was opened and ransacked and the wallet
of Malaki was missing from his pocket. The trial court convicted him Malimit of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Issue:

Whether the admission as evidence of Malaki’s wallet together with its contents violates
Malimit’s right against self-incrimination.

Ruling:

No, the right against self-incrimination does not apply to the instant case where the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object
evidence. Malimit sought their exclusion because during the custodial investigation,
where he pointed to the investigating policemen the place where he hid Malaki’s wallet,
he was not informed of his constitutional rights.

The violation of the so-called “Miranda rights” would render inadmissible only the
extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. The
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not
otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the
course of custodial investigation. Appellant’s insistence 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, hardly
inspires belief. We are at a loss, just as the trial court was, as to why appellant should
fear being implicated in the crime if indeed, he merely found Malaki’s wallet by chance.
No inference can be drawn from appellant’s purported apprehension other than the
logical conclusion that appellant had knowledge of the crime. Besides, proof that
appellant is in possession of a stolen property gives rise to a valid presumption that he
stole the same. Furthermore, even assuming that these pieces of evidence are
inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant’s culpability considering the
existence of other evidence and circumstances.

PEOPLE V. DOMEN
 January 31, 1983

Facts:

Marciano Domen raped her 16 year old daughter, Eleanor, twice. The first rape was
committed on February 15, 1977, and the second one was committed on March 31,
1977.

In the evening of February 14, 1977, there was a coronation dance of Project
Compassion at Aloran, Misamis Occidental, where the Domen family lived. Eleanor
Domen wanted to attend the dance. She went home that afternoon as it was Valentine's
Day and because she wanted to ask for money from her parents. She requested
permission from her father, accused Marciano Domen, to attend the dance, since her
three (3) younger sisters were previously permitted, but her father refused. So, Eleanor
went inside their room to sleep. The accused also went inside the room and laid down
beside her. At this, Eleanor got angry, because she became suspicious of the intentions
of her father. But later on, her grand aunt came to pick her up so that they could both go
to the dance. The accused permitted her at this point. Later that evening all of the four
sisters went home and they all slept in the same room. For the first commission, it was
witnessed by Florita Domen, the 14 year old daughter of the accused. Florita was
sleeping on the same room where the commission of rape took place. Florita was
awoken because of the protestations of Eleanor and the sounds made by the elbows of
the accused on the bed. She then asked her father what it was. But her father
admonished her to keep silent. At this, the accused went down the bed and laid beside
Florita on the floor. Then later on, he went out of the room.

Then, again, at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening of March 31, 1977, the accused
again raped Eleanor. At this time, Eleanor and her two (2) sisters: Esterlita and Nena
were sleeping inside their room, side by side, on the floor, with Eleanor at the center.
Their mother, Maria Domen, and their sister, Florita, were at Sinampongan, Aloran, to
attend the graduation ceremonies there. She noticed that she was no longer at the
center of her two (2) sisters, as Esterlita and Nena were removed, by her father, from
her sides. At this position, her father held her body around her shoulder. Eleanor did not
shout since her father covered her mouth with his left hand and because she was
warned, by her father, not to do so, otherwise he would hurt her.

On April 11, 1977, Eleanor managed to gather enough courage to tell her mother that
the accused raped her, and so they sought the help of an attorney and told the
authorities of the crime. Sometime later, Eleanor, Florita and their mother, as well as the
accused had a confrontation at the office of the Provincial Fiscal, and there, the
accused asked for the forgiveness of his wife and Eleanor as well as of Florita,
requesting them that they drop the cases against him, promising that he will go away
from them. But they refused to forgive the accused. On April 12, 1977, Eleanor was
physically examined by Dr. Amador M. Mejos, Resident Physician of the Misamis
Occidental Provincial Hospital, and she was found to have an old hymenal laceration at
6:00 o'clock and was negative for spermatozoa (Exhibits "A" and "5")."
Accused was convicted by the trial court, but Marciano Domen appealed by attacking
the credibility of the witness.

Issue: Whether or not the witnesses, Florita and Maria Domen, in this case are
credible.

Held: Yes, Florita and Maria Domen were credible witnesses. It is true that when the
rapes were committed the room where it took place was dark and it was not possible to
see the features of the accused as admitted by both Eleanor and Florita. However, they
were in fact able to identify the culprit as their father. If they had sought to identify a
stranger under the circumstances there would be a basis to reject their testimony. But
certainly it is easy to identify a member of one’s family even without using the sense of
sight. The senses of hearing and smell are equally reliable when identifying a familiar
person. In the case of Eleanor she identified her father not only by his voice out also by
his structure. Florita made the same identification because of his voice.

The second assignment of error attacks the credibility of Maria Domen, wife of the
appellant, and Eleanor. It claims that the rape charges were a scheme to drive away the
appellant from the conjugal abode because while Maria is a salaried school teacher the
husband is a mere farmer and an ex-convict prone to violence. It is true that according
to Maria she was losing her love for her husband even before the rapes. But this
admission does not necessarily support the claim that the rape charges were a scheme
to get rid of him. In fact, Maria had an ambivalent attitude towards her husband as
revealed by her answer during the cross examination.

The court also emphasized that in rape cases, there are only two possible defenses:
denial of copulation of admission of the fact of copulation but with the legal consent of
the partner. In this case, the appellant has chosen the first. He claims that on February
14 and 15, 1977, he could not have raped Eleanor as alleged because she was not in
the family home but in Oroquieta City where she was studying. He denied the rape on
March 31, 1977, by claiming that his wife was with him "during the time and date." This
was, however, uncorroborated. His claim that he copulated twice with his wife on March
31, 1977, could also have been corroborated but instead Maria Domen testified that on
that date she was in her official station with Florita.

Upon the other hand, although a conviction for rape can be had on the sole testimony of
the victim, there is corroboration of Eleanor’s testimony. Florita testified on the first rape.
Maria Domen said that the appellant asked for forgiveness and the dismissal of the
cases which the latter did not rebut.
CASE # 5

People v. Buduhan
FACTS:

Defendants Robert Buduhan and Rudy Buduhan were found guilty of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide with respect to the deceased Larry Erese, and
of the crime of homicide with respect to the deceased Romualde Almeron.

Cherry Rose testified that she was working as a guest relations officer at the RML
Canteen when the group of Robert and Rudy Buduhan declared a hold up. All four men
from Robert’s group fired their guns at Larry Erese and the manager which caused them
to fall down. Gilbert Cortez and Fernando Pera ran out of the RML Canteen when the
shooting occurred, and Cherry Rose hid below the table. Responding policemen later
apprehended the first group.

The lower court convicted the defendants.

ISSUE: WON the testimony of the witness (Cherry Rose) is admissible.

RULING: Yes.
As between statements made during the preliminary investigation of the case and the
testimony of a witness in open court, the latter deserves more credence. Preliminary
investigations are commonly fairly summary or truncated in nature, being designed
simply for the determination, not of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but of probable
cause prior to the filing of an information in court. It is the statements of a witness in
open court which deserve careful consideration
The rule that requires a sufficient foundation to be first laid before introducing evidence
of inconsistent statements of a witness is founded upon common sense and is
essential to protect the character of a witness. His memory is refreshed by the
necessary inquiries, which enable him to explain the statements referred to and to
show that they were made by mistake, or that there was no discrepancy between them
and his testimony.
In the present case, the statements made by Cherry Rose during the preliminary
investigation with respect to the identities of the accused were not related to her during
the trial. Indeed, it is only during the appeal of this case that appellants pointed out the
supposed inconsistencies in Cherry Rose’s identification of the appellants in order to
destroy her credibility as a witness. No opportunity was ever afforded her to provide an
explanation. Without such explanation, whether plausible or not, we are left with no
basis to evaluate and assess her credibility, on the rationale that it is only when no
reasonable explanation is given by a witness in reconciling her conflicting declarations
that she should be deemed impeached
Case # 6

PEOPLE vs. BRECINIO

G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004.

FACTS:

Appellant SP01 Virgilio Brecinio was originally charged with homicide thru reckless
imprudence in the MTC of Pagsanjan, Laguna by the PNP Chief of Police. However,
upon intervention of the NBI and after a re-investigation conducted by the Office of the
Laguna Provincial Prosecutor, the charge against the appellant was upgraded to
murder:

That on the 30th day of June 1996, inside the Municipal Jail, the accused, with intent to
kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, shoot Alberto Pagtananan, resulting in his
instantaneous death.

Robinson Arbilo testified that he was with other inmates and victim, when appellant
SPO1 Virgilio Brecinio, who was drunk, arrived. Appellant entered their cell and asked
questions and each of them received a blow in the stomach from the appellant for no
apparent reason. Appellant proceeded to the comfort room and confronted the latter,
not believing him, appellant accused the victim of "hiding" and "making a fool of him."
Appellant pulled out his .45 caliber pistol. The first shot was directed upward, the
second downward. Witness Arbilo who was merely one-and-a-half meters in front of the
appellant then saw the latter aim his gun at the victim and fire the third shot, hitting the
victim in the stomach.

Contrary to the prosecution’s version, appellant claimed that the shooting was
accidental.

NBI forensic chemist Emilia Andro-Rosaldes was also presented by the defense to
testify on the result of the paraffin examination conducted on the appellant two days
after the alleged shooting incident. She testified that it was Mrs. Gemma Orbeta who
made the paraffin cast on the appellant and her only participation was the examination
of the paraffin cast taken from the appellant. According to her, there are four factors that
can affect the presence of gun powder residue in the hands of a person who fires a gun,
namely, the length of the barrel of the gun, the wind velocity, the direction of the shot(s)
and the type and caliber of ammunition. She also declared that the application of
paraffin wax to make the paraffin cast can remove gunpowder residue. She did not
know whether paraffin wax had been applied on the hands of the appellant before the
paraffin cast was made.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused of murder.

RULING:

No, the conviction was correct. The appellant, in an attempt to impugn the credibility of
prosecution witness Filomeno Mapalad, Jr., harps on the latter’s recantation of his
affidavit supporting the defense’s "accident" theory.

We reiterate the familiar and well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of
the trial judge (an opportunity not available to the appellate court) in the appreciation of
testimonial evidence. The trial judge personally hears the witnesses and observes their
deportment and manner of testifying. Although the rule admits of certain exceptions, we
find no reason to hold otherwise in the present case.

The defense never showed that Mapalad was motivated by any ill-motive in implicating
the appellant in the crime. When there is no evidence of improper motive on the part of
the prosecution witness to testify falsely against an accused or implicate him in the
commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and
the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.

Likewise, while the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso facto prove
that the appellant was innocent. Time and again, we have held that a negative paraffin
result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. Stated otherwise, it is
possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing
gloves or he washes his hands afterwards. Since appellant submitted himself for
paraffin testing only two days after the shooting, it was likely he had already washed his
hands thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates therefrom.

Case # 7 gie
For recit
Sison vs. People
G.R. Nos. 108280-83.
November 16, 1995
Facts:
This case is about the murder of Stephen Salcedo who was allegedly mauled by
Marcos Loyalitst and later on he collapsed and was declared on arrival in the hospital.
This started after the proclamation of Cory Aquino as president and former President
Marcos was removed from the position. Due to his event, a lot of Marcos Loyalist and
supporters started a rally.

One time, a rally with no permit transpired in Luneta. When authorities tried to disperse
them, they got mad and they shouted “Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si
Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw!”. It so happened that
Salcedo was seen wearing a yellow t-shirt at that time and he was labeled Coryistas.
When the Marcos Loyalist saw him, they mauled him and even when he begged them
to stop they didn’t hear Salcedo out and continued mauling him. A cigarette vendor and
his friend saw the event.
They tried to help Salcedo and when they carried Salcedo out of the group, another
person hit him on his head. The event was captured by the media and a lot of
photographs were taken. This event caught national and international attention. This
prompted President Aquino to order its investigation and e general Lim even put a
reward to whoever can identify these persons.

At the hearing, the prosecution presented the said photographs from the media,
newspaper and magazines. the other accused adopted the said photographs in their
defense, stating that they were not were not in the said photographs and others give
reasons out why they were captured in the said photographs. Accused Lozado
challenged the admissibility of the said photographs contending that the person who
took the same was not presented to identify them because the rule in this 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.
The lower courts render the accused guilty of the crime of murder. Hence this automatic
review.
Issue: is whether or not the said Photographs are admissible as evidence

Held: yes, the said Photographs are admissible as evidence

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. That the photographs are faithful representations of the mauling incident was
affirmed when the accused identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their
presence thereat.

The photographer is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken—
they can also be identified by any other competent witness who can testify to their
exactness and accuracy. The testimonies of the cigarette vendor unequivocally
identified the accused and their alibis cannot overcome their eyeball identification.
Wherefore, the decision of the lower a courts was affirmed with modification and
the accused were found guilty of the crime of Murder.
CASE #8
Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118441, January 18, 2000

Facts: On February 22, 1985, a bus driven by petitioner Armando Jose and owned by
Manila Central Bus Lines Corporation, collided with a red Ford Escort driven by John
Macarubo. As a result of the collision, the left side of the Ford Escort’s hood was
severely damaged while Macarubo and his passenger, private respondent Rommel
Abraham, were seriously injured. Macarubo went into coma but has died five days after
admission to the hospital. Abraham, on the other hand, became blind on the left eye
which had to be removed and he sustained a fracture on the forehead and multiple
lacerations on the face, which caused him to be hospitalized for a week.

Abraham, represented by his father, Felixberto, instituted a civil case for

damages against petitioners MCL and Armando Jose in the Regional Trial Court while
the parents of Macarubo, Jose and Mercedes filed a separate action for damages in the
same court. On the other hand, MCL filed a third-party complaint against Juanita
Macarubo, registered owner of the Ford Escort on the theory that John Macarubo was
negligent and that he was the “authorized driver” of Juanita Macarubo. The latter, in
turn, filed a counterclaim for damages against MCL for the damage to her car. The RTC
rendered judgment dismissing both civil cases against MCL and ruling favorably on its
third-party complaint against Juanita Macarubo, relying on the photographs of the two
vehicles taken an hour after the accident, and the testimonies of what transpired during
the night until the time of the accident.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the decision of the RTC which relied on
the photographs and not on Rommel’s testimony.

Ruling: The trial court was justified in relying on the photographs rather than on
Rommel Abraham's testimony which was obviously biased and unsupported by any
other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and
it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder
or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in
many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. In
People v. Vasquez, where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical evidence
should prevail.

In this case, the positions of the two vehicles, as shown in the photographs taken
by MCL line inspector Jesus Custodio about an hour and fifteen minutes after the
collision, disputes Abraham's self-serving testimony that the two vehicles collided
because Bus 203 invaded the lane of the Ford Escort and clearly shows that the case is
exactly the opposite of what he claimed happened. Contrary to Abraham's testimony,
the photographs show quite clearly that Bus 203 was in its proper lane and that it was
the Ford Escort which usurped a portion of the opposite lane. The three photographs
show the Ford Escort positioned diagonally on the highway, with its two front wheels
occupying Bus 203's lane. As shown by the photograph marked Exhibit 3, the portion of
MacArthur Highway where the collision took place is marked by a groove which serves
as the center line separating the right from the left lanes. The photograph shows that
the left side of Bus 203 is about a few feet from the center line and that the bus is
positioned parallel thereto. This negates the claim that Bus 203 was overtaking another
vehicle and, in so doing, encroached on the opposite lane occupied by the Ford Escort.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CRISENTE PEPAÑO NUÑEZ (read this case)
impt
G.R. No. 209342 October 4, 2017
Facts:
In an Information, George Marciales, Orly Nabia, Paul Pobre, and a certain alias
"Jun'' were charged with robbery with homicide. However, only Marciales and Nabia
were arrested, arraigned, and tried. The case against Pobrn and Jun was archived
subject to revival upon their apprehension.

Nuñez was apprehended by the PNP in 2006 since he was identified as “Paul
Pobre” according to the information. Nuñez petitions the case against him to be
dismissed, alleging that he was not the one declared in the information. However, the
prosecution witnesses identified him as one of the alleged robbers and his motion to
dismiss was denied. The information was then proceeded to state Nuñez's name in lieu
of "Paul Pobre."

During trial, the prosecution manifested that it would be adopting the evidence
already presented in the course of Marciales and Nabia's trial. Apart from this, it also
recalled prosecution witnesses where in their testimonies, they both positively identified
Nunez as among the perpetrators of the crime. The RTC and CA then convicted Nuñez
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not Crisente Pepaño Nuñez is the same person, earlier identified as
Paul Pobre, who acted in conspiracy with Marciales and Nabia?

Ruling:
No. The SC held that it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that
Nuñez is the same person identified as Paul Pobre because eyewitness identification is
prone to error due to being affected by normal human fallibilities and suggestive
influences, as stated by domestic jurisprudence. People are less accurate and complete
in their eyewitness accounts after a long retention interval than after a short one. 6
years has passed from the commission of the crime to the apprehension of Nuñez, the
passage of time may have diminished the memory of the witnesses.

In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable

doubt and the burden of proof that Nuñez was the one indicated in the information is
within the prosecution. An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which
the Bill of Rights guarantees. Since the prosecution failed to establish proof beyond
reasonable doubt, Nuñez must be acquitted.

CASE #10
G.R. No. 205639. January 18, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANITA MIRANDA y BELTRAN,
appellant.

Facts:
On May 6, 2005, a buy-bust team was formed headed by PO2 Rodil as the poseur-
buyer, SPO1 Buhay and PO2 Chan as the arresting officers. At 2:00 p.m., the buy-bust
team arrived in Barangay Ibaba West, PO2 Rodil then proceeded to Anita Miranda’s
house. The exchange was made and the signal was manifested. PO2 Rodil told
Miranda that she was buying shabu worth P400. Miranda then went inside her house
and upon her return, handed to PO2 Rodil one transparent plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance. PO2 Rodil then gave Miranda the marked money as
payment, she then made a missed call to PO2 Chan as a prearranged signal. SPO1
Buhay and PO2 Chan effected the arrest. PO2 Chan got the marked money from
Miranda, while PO2 Rodil held on to the plastic sachet. The team then informed Arnel
Almazan, the Barangay Councilor about the operation and they all brought Miranda to
Calapan Police Station.
Both the inventory of the seized item and the taking of Miranda’s photos were made
at the police station. PO2 Rodil marked the seized item and submitted the same for
laboratory examination on the same day which confirmed that it was indeed shabu.
The RTC found the accused guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not there was full compliance with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 on the custody
and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs.

Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to establish the crucial links in the chain of custody of
the seized sachet of shabu. After PO2 Rodil received the plastic sachet of white
crystalline substance from appellant, she was in possession of the shabu up to the time
appellant was brought to the police station. PO2 Rodil made an inventory of the seized
item which was attested by Ocampo. She also marked the seized item with her initials
“MDR.”
PO2 Rodil prepared and signed the request for laboratory examination and brought
the letter-request and the seized item to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office for
analysis. The specimen was received at the laboratory. PI Alviar examined the white
crystalline substance contained in a heat-sealed plastic transparent plastic sachet with
marking “MDR” on the same right and issued a report stating that the specimen was
tested positive for shabu. The staple-sealed brown envelope which contained one
rectangular transparent plastic sachet sealed with masking tape with the same marking,
was offered in evidence and identified in court by PI Alviar. There is no doubt that the
sachet of shabu, which was bought and confiscated from Miranda, brought to the police
station, and was submitted to the crime laboratory for a qualitative examination, was the
very same shabu presented and identified in court. The police had sufficiently preserved
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus, complying with the
prescribed procedure in the custody and control of the confiscated drugs.

People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang

G.R. No. 208093,

20 February 2017

FACTS:

On a buy bust operation held by the police, Salim was arrested and charged
with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling and possession
shabu. The shabu that was seized by police officers SPO1 Santiago and SPO1
Rodriguez to the Desk Officer, PO3 Floro Napalcruz who likewise turned over to the
Duty Investigator PO2 Tan the placed his initials ‘RDT’. Salim thereafter convicted with
the crime charged. He alleged that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt because the prosecution: (1) failed to establish the identity of the prohibited
drugs allegedly seized from him and; (2) likewise failed to comply with the strict
requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 due to failure to immediately mark the seized
drug.

ISSUE: WON there is compliance of chain of custody of the seized drug.

RULING: No.

In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous
drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of
utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to
have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it
ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that
the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimen will use the markings as reference. It is important that the seized drugs be
immediately marked, if possible, as soon as they are seized from the accused.

It is clear from the testimonies that SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not
mark the seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. At this
stage in the chain, there was already a significant break such that there can be no
assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held
that, "failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused
casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."

The arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs
was done in the presence of the appellant to assure that the identity and integrity of the
drugs were properly preserved. They likewise failed to make an inventory and take
photographs of the seized drugs. These break in the chain tainted the integrity of the
seized drugs presented in court.

Wherefore, the SC reversed and set aside the decision of the CA. Accordingly,
appellant Salim R. Ismael is acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

CASE # 13

G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.

As a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA, Dahil and Castro were charged
with illegal sale and possession of marijuana. The accused interposed the defense of
frame-up and the irregularities in the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items. As for the chain of custody, the following events were noted:

1. the inventory of the seized items was conducted only at the police station because
the officers did not bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the
documents;
2. The markings were also placed at the police station;

3. there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property
Seized;

4. there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in
accordance with the law; and

5. There was lack of information as to who received the subject drugs in the crime
laboratory.

Issues:

1. WON there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody.

2. WON the seized items are admissible in evidence.

Held:

1. No, there was no substantial compliance with the chain of custody. In view of above
stated serious lapses, it can be concluded that there was no compliance with the
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate
physical inventory and the lack of photography of the marijuana. No explanation was
offered for the nonobservance of the rule. The prosecution miserably failed to prove that
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links
required to establish the proper chain of custody were breached with irregularity and
lapses. Hence, the accused were acquitted.

2. Yes, the seized items are admissible. Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution
to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence
dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law
does not necessarily render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or
confiscated from him inadmissible. The issue of non-compliance with the said section is
not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on the evidence.
CASE #14

People vs. Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 177222. 
October 29, 2008.
Facts:
Office of the Station Drugs Enforcement Unit (SDEU), Mandaluyong City received
information that someone that named “Boy Tigre” was engaging in a trade of illegal
drugs. A team was formed composing of Peregrino, Boyles, Drilon and Ruesello to
conduct a buybust operation on that same day. Ruello was the poseur buyer. And when
the alleged sale has transpired, a signal to his team was made and there they
apprehended Dela Cruz.

The accused was brought to SDECU for investigation. Thereat, Peregrino placed his
initials (BP) on the plastic sachet containing allegedly a shabu and send it to Chemical
Laboratoty, and it tested positive. They now, filed a case against Dela Cruz for violation
of RA 9165.

During the cross examination, the police officers admitted that they did not cooperate
with PDEA nor marked the money with fluorescent powder and they did not examined
and marked the substance in the presence of the accused nor his representative.

On the defense side, accused said that no buybust operation has transpired and that
they just came to his house and brought him to baranagay and when he was identified
as Boy Tigre, he was brought to City Hall and the police officer demanded from him
money before they will release him.

RTC convicted the accused but the CA reversed its decision stating that Section 21 of
RA 2165 or the chain of custody was not followed . Hence, his arrest was invalid and
the said substance as evidence is inadmissible but the OSG contends that even the
chain of custody was not strictly followed it has preserved the integrity and evidentiary
value

Issue: WON the seized item was admissible despite non compliance with sec 21 of Ra
9165 or the chain of custody
Held: the item seized is inadmissible in this case.

Court finds that the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the guidelines
prescribed by the law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs despite its
mandatory terms
Under RA 9165 sec 21 and its IRR, there must be physically inventory and photograph
the same 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.

Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable

grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.

the Court finds that the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the guidelines
prescribed by the law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs despite its
mandatory terms. While there was testimony regarding the marking of the seized items
at the police station, there was no mention whether the same had been done in the
presence of appellant or his representatives.

There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media, DOJ or any
elected official had been present during the inventory or that any of these people had
been required to sign the copies of the inventory. Neither does it appear on record that
the team photographed the contraband in accordance with law.

The present case lack the most basic or elementary attempt at compliance with the law
and its implementing rules; it fails as well to provide any justificatory ground showing
that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved.

This inexcusable non-compliance effectively invalidates their seizure of and custody

over the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the same.
WHEREFORE Appellant RANILO DELA CRUZ y LIZING is ACQUITTED

CASE #15

People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192

Facts: Gerrico Vallejo has been charged of the crime of Rape with Homicide for the
rape-slaying of the 9-year-old Daisy Diolola. Prior to the commission of the crime, Daisy
was sent by her mother to Aimee Vallejo, sister of the accused, to ask help in her
assignments. The accused was also asked by the mother of Daisy in creating a poster
for the latter’s school project. The accused was last seen with Daisy by multiple
witnesses, until the latter’s lifeless body was found in the river submerged in mud, with
her sleeveless shirt wrapped around her neck. The body was brought to the Barangay
hall and has soon underwent autopsy where it was shown that rape has been
committed and her cause of death was manual strangulation.

The prosecution has also presented ten witnesses whose testimonies range from the
time they saw the accused and the victim, and to the experts’ testimonies on the
medical reports, up to the confessions and sworn statement of the commission of the
crime by the accused. The key pieces of the prosecution’s evidence arose from the
testimony of a forensic biologist of the NBI who testified that blood samples were taken
from the defendant for the purpose of comparing with the blood found on his and on the
victim’s clothes. The RTC found the accused guilty of rape with homicide.

Issue: 1. Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as evidence.

2. Whether or not accused-appellant’s confessions were extrajudicial admissions and

should be inadmissible in evidence.

Ruling:

1. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Buan (NBI forensic
biologist) are conclusive. The court reiterated that even though DNA evidence
is merely circumstantial, it can still convict the accused considering that it
corroborates all other circumstantial evidence gathered in this rape-slay case.
The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA evidence in
this case and for the first time recognized its evidentiary value in the
Philippines that the purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an
association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample.

2. The claim is untenable. Section 12 of Art. III of the Constitution provides in

pertinent parts:

"(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

"(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

"(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 shall

be inadmissible in evidence against him."
There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional
provision: (1) coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods such as torture,
force, violence, threat, and intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section
12, and (2) uncounselled statements, given without the benefit of Miranda warnings,
which are the subject of paragraph 1 of the same section. In this case, however, the
confession, thus, can be likened to one freely and voluntarily given to an ordinary
individual and is, therefore, admissible as evidence.

CASE #16
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT" (important case)
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
Facts:
On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother’s (Isabel Dawang’s)
house. At 10:00 am, Joel Yatar was seen at the back of the same house where
Kathylyn stayed during said date. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin saw
Yatar, who was then wearing a white shirt with collar and black pants.. At 1:30 PM,
Yatar called upon Judilyn, telling her that he would not be getting the lumber he had
been gathering. This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a different dress
and that the latter’s eyes were “reddish and sharp”.

In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found the lights of her
house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened, and the containers, which she
asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon ascending the second floor to check
whether Kathylyn is upstairs, Isabel found Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with
some intestines protruding out from it. Soon after, police came where they found
Kathylyn’s clothes and undergarments beside her body. Amongst others, a white
collared shirt splattered with blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabel’s house.

Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon examination of Kathlyn’s cadaver.
When subjected to a DNA test, the sperm is identical to Yatar’s genotype. Yatar was
accused of Rape with Homicide but he is contesting that the trial court should have not
considered the DNA test and that the blood sample taken from him is in violation of his
constitutional right against self incrimination.

Issue:
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen may
be used as evidence for Yatar’s conviction?

Ruling:
 Yes. The SC upheld the probative value of the DNA test. Due to this case being
decided in 2004 before the 2007 Rules on DNA took effect, the SC ruled based on the
Daubert Test jurisprudence of the US where it was ruled that pertinent evidence based
on scientifically valid principles could be used so as they are relevant and reliable. In the
present case, the DNA evidence was held to be both reliable and relevant hence,
sufficient DNA analysis is sufficient to be admitted as evidence to warrant Yata’s
conviction of the crime of Rape with Homicide.

CASE #17
G.R. No. 171713. December 17, 2007.
ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG, petitioner, vs. Minor JOANNE RODJIN DIAZ,
Represented by Her Mother and Guardian, Jinky C. Diaz, respondent.

Facts:
Joanne Rodjin Diaz, represented by her mother, Jinky C. Diaz filed a complaint
for compulsory recognition with prayer for support against Rogelio G. Ong. Jinky alleged
that she and Rogelio are engaged in a relationship. During that time Jinky was already
married to Hasegawa Katsuo. From January 1994 to September 1998, Jinky and
Rogelio cohabited and lived together as husband and wife. From this live-in relationship,
Joanne Rodjin Diaz was conceived and born on 25 February 1998. Rogelio brought
Jinky to the hospital and took Joanne and Jinky home after delivery. Rogelio paid all the
hospital bills and the baptismal expenses and provided for all of Joanne’s needs –
recognizing the child as his.
On September 1998, Rogelio abandoned Joanne and Jinky, and stopped
supporting Joanne, falsely alleging that he is not the father of the child. Rogelio refused
to give support to the child.
The RTC ruled in favor of Joanne Diaz. A motion for new trial was granted which
rendered a decision that Joanne Diaz is the illegitimate child of Ong. Ong filed an
appeal before the CA, during the pendency of the case Ong died. The CA remanded the
case back to the RTC and ordered that a DNA analysis be conducted for the purpose of
determining the paternity Joanne Rodjin Diaz.

Issue:
Whether or not a DNA analysis is still feasible despite the death of Rogelio Ong.

Ruling:
Yes, with the advancement in the field of genetics, and the availability of new
technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether Rogelio is the
biological father of the minor, through DNA testing. The New Rules on DNA Evidence
allows the conduct of DNA testing, either motu proprio or upon application of any person
who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. From the foregoing, it can be said that
the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for
as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. The term “biological
sample” includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones. Thus,
even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as
may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown
the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the
conduct of DNA testing.

Case # 18
Agustin vs. CA
June 15, 2005

Facts: Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martin’s alleged
biological father, petitioner Arnel Agustin, for support and support pendente lite before
the Quezon City RTC. In their complaint, respondents alleged that Arnel courted Fe,
after which they entered into an intimate relationship. Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe
on her 34th birthday but despite Arnel’s insistence on abortion, Fe decided to give birth
to their child out of wedlock, Martin. The baby’s birth certificate was purportedly signed
by Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses but later
refused Fe’s repeated requests for Martin’s support despite his adequate financial
capacity and even suggested to have the child committed for adoption. Arnel also
denied having fathered the child.

On January 2001, while Fe was carrying five-month old Martin at the Capitol Hills Golf
and Country Club parking lot, Arnel sped off in his van, with the open car door hitting
Fe’s leg. This incident was reported to the police. Several months later, Fe was
diagnosed with leukemia and has, since then, been undergoing chemotherapy. Fe and
Martin then sued Arnel for support.

Fe and Martin moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit
themselves to DNA paternity testing, which Arnel opposed by invoking his constitutional
right against self-incrimination and moving to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of
action.

The trial court denied the MTD and ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA
paternity testing at the expense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court, thus this petition.

Issue: 1. W/N the respondent court erred in denying the petitioner’s MTD

2. W/N the court erred in directing parties to subject to DNA paternity testing and was a
form of unreasonable search
Held:

1. No. The trial court properly denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss because the
private respondents’ complaint on its face showed that they had a cause of action
against the petitioner. The elements of a cause of action are: (1) the plaintiff’s primary
right and the defendant’s corresponding primary duty, and (2) the delict or wrongful act
or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated.
The cause of action is determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts
alleged.

2. No. In Ople v. Torres,the Supreme Court struck down the proposed national
computerized identification system embodied in Administrative Order No. 308, we said:

In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all
incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good...
Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards that enhance public
service and the common good.

Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of legality of searches and seizures, and the
infringement of privacy of communication where the constitutional right to privacy has
been critically at issue. Petitioner’s case involves neither and, as already stated, his
argument that his right against self-incrimination is in jeopardy holds no water.

CASE # 19

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Elizabeth Yu

AM Nos. MTJ-12-1813
14 March 2017

FACTS:

The administrative matter emanated from the complaint of Judge Emily San
Gaspar-Gito, whereby Judge San Gaspar imputed Judge Yu conduct of unbecoming
of a judge for continually sending inappropriate message via Facebook and email
account.

Judge Yu and San Gaspar became acquainted in May when Yu was a

Presiding Judge. They became FB friends upon Yu’s initiative. From then on, San
Gaspar continuously receive messages from Yu to which she had ignored most of the
time.

Then on July 2010, Judge San Gaspar formally filed administrative complaint
against Yu and used messages sent to her as evidence.

Yu, in her supplemental manifestation said that San Gaspar violate RA 8792 on
the confidentiality of electronic messages. She also invoked the exclusionary rule
because she did not give her consent to use private messages as evidence,

ISSUE: WON email messages are admissible in evidence.

RULING: Yes. Exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,
presupposes violation of law on the part of the agents of the government, and bars the
admission of evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures. The exclusionary rule refers to the prohibition against the issuance of
general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions.

Judge Yu did not specify that the State intruded into her privacy. The subject of
inquiry were the messages sent by her to Judge San Gaspar-Gito. Regardless of the
mode of transmission, the ownership of messages pertained to the latter as recipient.
Considering that it was the latter who granted access to such messages, there was no
violation of Judge Yu’s right to privacy. As such, the grant of access by San Gaspar
did not require consent of Yu as the writer. Hence, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

OPTIONAL: disbarred si Yu

Accordingly, gross misconduct, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and willful

disobedience of any lawful order by the Court constitute grounds to disbar an
attorney. In the respondent's case, she was herein found to have committed all of
these grounds for disbarment, warranting her immediate disbarment as a
consequence. The Court deem it worthwhile to remind that the penalty of
disbarment being hereby imposed does not equate to stripping the respondent of
the source of livelihood her disbarment is intended to protect the administration
of justice by ensuring that those taking part in it as attorneys should be
competent, honorable and reliable to enable the courts and the clients they serve
to rightly repose their confidence in them.
Case # 20

People vs. Empleo, 226 SCRA 454

Facts: In a complaint,1 filed by Elisa Cordova, Edmund Empleo was charged with the
crime of rape.

Considering the importance and primacy given by appellate courts to the factual
findings of trial courts, especially on the issue of credibility of testimonial evidence, the
ambient facts of the sexual assault was reproduced as culled from the prosecution's
evidence and the submissions of the defense in its version of the incident, all was
perspicaciously synthesized by the court.

On September 28, 1990, the court below rendered judgment finding appellant, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties, and to indemnify the victim, Elisa
Cordova, in the sum of P3,000.00, as well as to pay the costs.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape on the basis of the testimonies of complainant Elisa Cordova
and prosecution witness, Collen Parreño, which are allegedly replete with contradictions
and inconsistencies on material point.

Similarly, the testimony of the other prosecution witness, Collen Parreño, allegedly
contradicts that of complainant. Appellant asserts' that nowhere in the testimony of
Parreño can it be gleaned that the person who allegedly raped the victim had a gun,
whereas complainant claimed that appellant was carrying a gun. Said witness also
testified that the place was then lighted by a 15-watt bulb, contrary to the testimony of
complainant that at the time of the incident there was no illumination, except the light
coming from the moon.

Issue: WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape on the basis of the testimonies of complainant and prosecution
witness which are allegedly replete with contradictions and inconsistencies on material
point.

Ruling:

No. The Court have earlier noted, the long settled proposition is that when an appealed
conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the trial court is
accorded the highest degree of respect. Absent any proper reason to depart from this
fundamental rule, factual conclusions reached by the lower court, which had the
opportunity to observe and evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses while on the
witness stand, should not be disturbed.

The contradiction between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness may be explained
by the fact that an affidavit will not always disclose all the facts and will oftentimes and
without design incorrectly describe, without the deponent detecting it, some of the
occurrences narrated. Being taken ex parte, an affidavit is almost always incomplete
and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes from want of
suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall
the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first
suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the
subject. It has thus been held that affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to
open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant's mental
faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the
incident which has transpired. Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what
the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering
officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to him.

CASE #21

College Assurance Plan vs. Belfranlt Development, Inc.

G.R. No. 155604.
November 22, 2007.

Facts:
This is a case filed by Belfranlt Development, Inc. (Belfranlt) against College Assurance
Plan (CAP) for damages. This started when CAP leased the 2nd and 3rd floor of the
building of Belfranlt and in 1994 a fire started and it destroyed some parts of the building
including the second floor units occupied by the CAP. After the investigation, a
certification was issued by Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) City Fire Marshal, Insp.
Teodoro D. del Rosario and states that the fire was caused by an overheated coffee
percolator which was found in the premises where the CAP occupied. CAP challenges
the admissibility of the certification of BFP and contends the it is supported by the
testimony of a different person named Fireman Sitchon and such person has no
participation in the investigation of the incident hence no personal knowledge and
therefore he is incompetent.

ISSUE: WON the certification is admissible and the testimony of the other officer is
competent.

HELD: yes, the testimony of the other officer is competent, and the certification is
admissible.
Contrary to petitioners’ claim, the other officer (Fireman Sitchon) is competent to identify
and testify to the certification, because, although he did not sign said documents, he
personally prepared the same. He emphasized that he interviewed said investigation
witnesses before he made prepared the investigation report.
Fireman Sitchon may have had no personal knowledge of the fire incident, which he
prepared based on the statements of his investigation witnesses, one of which is the
officer who has duty to report on the incident, are exceptions to the hearsay rule
because these are entries in official records. Consequently, his testimony on said
documents are competent evidence of the contents thereof.
--Further the court finds that CAP was not able to overturn the presumption under res
ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for himself. For there is a presumption that the lessee is
liable for the deterioration or loss of a thing leased--
WHEREOF CAP is liable for damages.

CASE# 22
People vs. Zeta, May 27, 2008

Facts: That on October 28, 1995, at around 2:15 am, in Quezon City, Angelo and his
wife Petronilla Zeta, in conspiracy with one another, and with intent to kill, assaulted and
shot Ramon Garcia with a .45 caliber pistol firing multiple shots resulting to the death of
Garcia.

The prosecution has presented multiple witnesses. Edwin Ronk and Rey Jude Naverra
testified that while drinking, they were asked by accused Petronilla of the address of
Ramon, and minutes later, they heard gunshots from the direction of Ramon’s house.
Aleine Mercado reiterated what transpired in their house where the killing happened.
Two policemen testified regarding the apprehension of the accused for bringing a gun in
the waist without a license. Medical experts testified as to the cause of death as well as
a ballistics expert regarding the paraffin test and the object evidence recovered from the
crime scene. The RTC then ruled against the accused and since there is the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and nocturnity, the accused Angelo
was sentenced to death while Petronilla being a mother, her sentence was reduced to
reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in accepting the testimony of Aleine Mercado.

Ruling: No. Appellant’s argument that Aleine’s testimony identifying him as the one who
shot Ramon is not morally certain because she saw only the side portion of his face and
the color of the shirt he wore during the incident, deserves scant consideration. A
person can still be properly identified and recognized even by merely looking at the side
portion of his face. To be sure, Aleine recognized and identified appellant in the police
line-up and during trial as the one who shot Ramon. Experience dictates that precisely
because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, witnesses
can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given
time.42 A startling or frightful experience creates an indelible impression in the mind that
can be recalled vividly.

Furthermore, the testimonies of Aleine and of the other prosecution witnesses are in
harmony with the documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. The
RTC and the Court of Appeals found their testimonies to be credible and trustworthy.
The rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the
witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions
anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is more
true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings
have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this
Court.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DANTE GALAM AND LITO

GALAM, ACCUSED-AP

For recit

Facts:

This case is about a criminal complaint of murder filed against Lito and Dante Galam for
allegedly killing Eusebio Antolin by means of treachery,

There are two version of facts in this case:

Prosecutor’s version is that the son and daughter of Eusebio, the victim, testified and said
that they saw their father arguing with Dante and Lito in that evening about a pending
dispute over a land. They heard Dante threatening Eusebio about it and that during the
heat of the conversation, Lito pulled out a gun and shot their father.This was corroborated
by Eusebions Nephew and Eusebio's Wife. Further, a medico legal report was also
produced stating that there was a penetrating wound in the right chest of Eusebio and that
Eusebio died of "hemorrhagic shock" resulting from a gunshot wound.

Defense Version,

Dante Galam testified that around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he went to the onion field
where his sister Amelia Galam Batangan was working. The onion field was only ten (10)
minutes away from Eusebio's house.

Around 7 o'clock in the evening, his sister Amelia Batangan invited him over for dinner in
her home. After dinner, his sister's husband Teodoro Batangan offered him a ride home. By
8:45 in the evening, he was already home. He went to sleep around fifteen (15) minutes
later. The following morning, his neighbor Atong Costales informed him that he was a
suspect in killing Eusebio

Amelia corroborated Dante’s testimony. Lito on the other hand refused to give testimony.

RTC gave credence to the testimony of the son and daughter of Eusebio who positively
identified the appellants as the killer of their father and rejected the alibi of Dante.CA
affirmed with modification with damages holding the accused guilty of murder. Hence this
appeal.

Appellants faulted the trial court for rendering a verdict of conviction despite the
prosecution's alleged failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the
prosecution witnesses had a long standing dispute with them, hence, their testimonies
were biased against them. The medico legal report was inaccurate for the body was already
embalmed when the examination took place

Issue:

(1) won the prosecution failed to establish that they killed Eusebio. They argue that the
prosecution witnesses were biased because they had a long standing dispute with them.

(2) won the defense was able to overthrow the prima facie case or to nullify what was
established by the prosecutor.

HELD:

(1) The Court held that the positive and credible testimony of eyewitnesses, even
standing alone, is sufficient to support a verdict of conviction, that family members testify
in the interest of seeing that justice is done so that they will act strictly according to the law
despite their loss and grief.

The fact that Eusebio and appellants had a long standing conflict over a piece of land does
not automatically taint the credibility of Eusebio's children who positively identified
appellants as the persons who killed their father. Being the children of Eusebio naturally
impelled them to exact justice from the real assailants and definitely not from any "fall
guys”

The fact that Eusebio's body was already embalmed when Dr. Carlos examined it does not
negate the accuracy of the medical findings pertaining to Eusebio's injuries and cause of
death. A medico-legal examination of the victim's body is not even an indispensable
requirement for appellants' conviction here. It is sufficient that the prosecution was able to
establish through the required quantum of proof that Eusebio was killed and it was
appellants who killed him
As for Lito Galam, by not taking the stand or at least presenting a witness to testify in his
defense, he totally failed to refute the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses that
it was he who fatally shot the victim to death.

(2) no , the defense failed to overthrow what was established by the prosecutor.

The prosecution's burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the
prosecution throughout the trial, except in case of self-defense.

When the prosecution, however, has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by
presenting evidence sufficient to convince the Court of the truth of the allegations in the
information or has established a prima facie case against the accused, as in this case, the
burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it

And it is incumbent upon him or her to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not
to overthrow, that prima facie case. Here, just like his brother Dante, Lito failed to
discharge such burden of evidence. As it was, Lito did not even offer any defense on his
behalf

Wherefore. Appellants DANTE GALAM and LITO GALAM are found guilty of
HOMICIDE for failure to substantiate the element of treachery bc he was threatened he
must have known about the consequence

Case #2

Gumabon vs Philippine National Bank

Facts:

Anna Marie decided to consolidate the eight (8) savings accounts and to withdraw
P-2,727,235.85 from the consolidated savings account to help her sister's financial needs.
After withdrawals, the balance of her consolidated savings account was P250,741.82.

On July 30, 2003, the PNB sent letters to Anna Marie to inform her that the PNB
refused to honor its obligation under FXCTD Nos. 993902 and 993992, and that the PNB
withheld the release of the balance of Php 250,741.82 in the consolidated savings account.
According to the PNB, Anna Marie pre-terminated, withdrew and/or debited sums against
her deposits but Anna Marie argued that if she really did pre-terminate or withdrew the
same, then why are the certificates pertaining to the foreign deposits. On August 12, 2004,
Anna Marie filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money and damages before the RTC
against the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the PNB Delta branch manager Silverio
Fernandez

Issue:
 1. Whether or not there is proof of payment.
2. Whether or not PNB’s presentation of photocopies of the subject documents will
suffice for its defense of payment.

Ruling:

1. None. It is a settled rule in evidence that the one who alleges payment has the
burden of proving it.The burden of proving that the debt had been discharged by
payment rests upon the debtor once the debt's existence has been fully established
by the evidence on record. When the debtor introduces some evidence of payment,
the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from the burden of proof
- shifts to the creditor. Consequently, the creditor has a duty to produce evidence to
2.
show non-payment.
3. No. Evidence, to be admissible, must comply with two qualifications: (a) relevance
and (b) competence. Evidence is relevant if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence. On the other hand, evidence is
competent if it is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court.hanrobleslaw

One of the grounds under the Rules of Court that determines the competence of
evidence is the best evidence rule. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that
the original copy of the document must be presented whenever the content of the
document is under inquiry. However, there are instances when the Court may allow the
presentation of secondary evidence in the absence of the original document. Section 3, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court enumerates these exceptions:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(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
cralawlawlibra

(d) when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.

The PNB cannot simply substitute the mere photocopies of the subject documents
for the original copies without showing the court that any of the exceptions under Section 3
of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies. The PNB's failure to give a justifiable reason for
the absence of the original documents and to maintain a record of Anna Marie's
transactions only shows the PNB's dismal failure to fulfill its fiduciary duty to Anna Marie.

CASE #3

RICHARD HIZON, SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO, RODRIGO

ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA PENA, JONEL AURELIO,
GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO
VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, ANGEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL,
RICHARD ESTREMOS, JORNIE DELA PENA, JESUS MACTAN, MARLON CAMPORAZO,
FERNANDO BIRING, MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, JOSEPH AURELIO, RONNIE
JUEZAN, BERNARDO VILLACARLOS, RICARDO SALES, MARLON ABELLA, TEODORO
DELOS REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO, JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG
DELOS REYES, JOLLY CABALLERO and ROPLANDO ARCENAS vs. HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 119619 December 13, 1996

FACTS:

Petitioners Hizon, et al. were charged with violating PD 704 for supposedly fishing
with the use of a poisonous substance (sodium cyanide). A report that some fishing boats
were fishing by "muro ami" led to the apprehension of such boats (F/B Robinson), where
Hizon et al were present. The police (PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay
Dagat) directed the boat captain to get random samples of the fish from the fish cage for
testing. The initial results tested the fish positive for sodium cyanide and that was the basis
of the information against Hizon et al. However, a second set of fish samples yielded a
negative result on the sodium cyanide.

The RTC found Hizon et al. guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment and forfeiture of the
fishes. The CA affirmed this decision. Hizon et al., together with the Solicitor general now
question the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners in view of the warrantless
search of the fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of petitioners.

ISSUE:

Whether or not fish samples seized by the NBI in the F/B Robinson without a search
warrant are admissible in evidence.

RULING:

Yes. As a general rule, any evidence obtained without a judicial warrant is

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is, however, subject to certain
exceptions. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional
requirement of a search warrant. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing
vessels and boats breaching our fishery laws.

In the present case, Hizon et al. were charged with illegal fishing penalized under sections
33 and 38 of P.D. 704. These provisions create a presumption of guilt for possession of
explosives or poisonous substances. However, this presumption is merely prima facie and
the accused has the right to present evidence to rebut this presumption.
CASE # 4

G.R. Nos. 194964-65. January 11, 2016.

UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC., petitioner, vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, et

al., respondents.

Facts:

Guillermo B. Torres was the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of
Mindanao while his wife, Dolores P. Torres, sat as the University’s Assistant Treasurer.
Guillermo and Dolores are also operating two thrift banks namely; Iligan Savings & Loan
Association, Inc. (FISLAI); and Davao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (DSLAI).

BSP issued a P1.9 million standby emergency credit to FISLAI. On May 25, 1982, University
of Mindanao’s Vice President for Finance, Saturnino Petalcorin, executed a deed of real
estate mortgage over the University’s property in favor of BSP which served as security for
FISLAI’s P1.9 Million loan. As proof of his authority to execute a real estate mortgage for
University of Mindanao, Petalcorin showed a Secretary’s Certificate by University of
Mindanao’s Corporate Secretary, Aurora de Leon. BSP granted FISLAI an additional loan
and emergency advances to DSLAI. Petalcorin executed another deed of real estate
mortgage allegedly on behalf of University of Mindanao, this mortgage served as additional
security for FISLAI’s loans.

FISLAI and DSLAI entered into a merger with DSLAI as the surviving corporation which
later became Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (MSLAI). MSLAI failed to recover
from its losses and was liquidated. On June 18, 1999, BSP sent a letter to University of
Mindanao, informing it that the bank would foreclose its properties if MSLAI’s total
outstanding obligation of P12,534,907.73 remained unpaid. University of Mindanao denied
that the University’s properties were mortgaged. It also denied having received any loan
proceeds from BSP. University of Mindanao filed two Complaints for nullification and
cancellation of mortgage.

University of Mindanao alleged that Aurora de Leon’s certification was anomalous. It never
authorized Saturnino Petalcorin to execute real estate mortgage contracts involving its
properties to secure FISLAI’s debts. It never ratified the execution of the mortgage
contracts. Moreover, as an educational institution, it cannot mortgage its properties to
secure another person’s debts.

The RTC ruled in favor of the University of Mindanao. The RTC found that there was no
board resolution giving Saturnino Petalcorin authority to execute mortgage contracts on
behalf of University of Mindanao. The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC.
Issue:

Whether or not University of Mindanao is bound by the real estate mortgage contracts
executed by Saturnino Petalcorin.

Ruling:

No, petitioner does not have the power to mortgage its properties in order to secure loans
of other persons. As an educational institution, it is limited to developing human capital
through formal instruction. It is not a corporation engaged in the business of securing loans
of others. Corporate acts that are outside those express definitions under the law or articles
of incorporation or those “committed outside the object for which a corporation is created”
are ultra vires. Securing FISLAI’s loans by mortgaging petitioner’s properties does not
appear to have even the remotest connection to the operations of petitioner as an
educational institution.

This court has created a presumption that corporate acts are valid if, on their face, the acts
were within the corporation’s powers or purposes. This presumption was explained as
early as in 1915 in Coleman v. Hotel De France where this court ruled that contracts entered
into by corporations in the exercise of their incidental powers are not ultra vires. However,
this should not be interpreted to mean that such presumption applies to all cases, even
when the act in question is on its face beyond the corporation’s power to do or when the
evidence contradicts the presumption. In this case, the presumption that the execution of
mortgage contracts was within the petitioner's corporate powers does not apply. Securing
third party loans is not connected to the petitioner's purposes as an educational institution.

People vs Alivio

Facts:

The prosecution’s case relied on the theory that the police apprehended the appellants during a buy-
bust operation conducted at Alivio’s residence. During the buy-bust operation, the police found drug
paraphernalia at Alivio’s residence while a search on Dela Vega’s person yielded one plastic sachet
of shabu which the police seized.

Won Alivio is guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:
While the presumption of innocence is the highest in the hierarchy of presumptions, it remains a
rebuttable presumption. In a criminal case, the presumption of innocence can be overcome by the
presumption of regularity when the latter is accompanied by strong evidence supporting the guilt of
the accused.10 Even without the presumption of regularity, a drug conviction can be sustained
through competent evidence establishing the existence of all the elements of the crimes charged.

In this case, although the presumption of regularity did not arise considering the evident lapses the
police committed in the prescribed procedures, we rule that the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently
established all the elements of the three (3) crimes charged and the identity of the appellants as the
perpetrators.