CONFESSION: PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN (G.R. No.
110290) counsel of one's choice and the requirement of a
In the case of People v. Agustin, the court ruled that the
appellant's extrajudicial admission was obtained in violation
of his constitutional rights and is inadmissible as evidence,
emphasizing the importance of meaningful information
transmission and explicit information about the right to
counsel.
Facts:
 Appellant, Jaime "Jimmy" Agustin, charged with
murder in connection with the deaths of Dr.
Napoleon Bayquen and Anna Theresa Francisco, as
well as the attempted murder of Anthony
Bayquen, Dominic Bayquen, and Danny Ancheta.
 Crimes allegedly committed on September 6, 1986,
in Baguio City.
 Appellant and Wilfredo "Sonny" Quia o were the
only ones arrested, but Quia o escaped while
under custody.
 Appellant pleaded not guilty.
 Trial court acquitted appellant of charges of
frustrated murder and attempted murder but
convicted him of two counts of murder.
 Court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and
ordered him to pay indemnity to the victims' heirs.
Issue:
 Whether the extrajudicial admission of the
appellant is admissible as evidence against him.
Ruling:
 The extrajudicial admission of the appellant is
inadmissible as evidence against him.
 Appellant's constitutional rights were violated
during the investigation, resulting in the
involuntary and unintelligent nature of his
admission.
 Right to be informed of the right to remain silent
and to counsel requires meaningful information
transmission, not just a ceremonial recitation of
the constitutional principle.
 Appellant was not explicitly informed of his right to
have a competent and independent counsel of his
choice, and no written waiver of his right to
counsel was presented.
 Counsel who represented the appellant was not an
"independent" counsel, as he was an associate of
the private prosecutor in the case.
 Doubts about the appellant's understanding of his
constitutional rights, as the explanations were
given in English and Tagalog, while the appellant
only understood Ilocano.
 Appellant's extrajudicial admission was obtained in
violation of his constitutional rights and is
inadmissible as evidence.
Ratio:
 Decision based on the violation of the appellant's
constitutional rights during the investigation.
 Emphasized the importance of meaningful
information transmission when informing a person
of their right to remain silent and to counsel.
 Highlighted the need for explicit information about
the right to have a competent and independent
written waiver of the right to counsel.
 Emphasized the importance of understanding the
appellant's language and doubts about the
appellant's understanding of his constitutional
rights.
 Concluded that the appellant's extrajudicial
admission was obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights and is inadmissible as
evidence.
PEOPLE VS TIZON (G.R. No. 133228-31)
Facts:
 The accused-appellants, Godofredo Tizon, Jr.,
Randy Ubag, Arnold Ladrillo, and Nestor
Crisostomo, were found guilty of four counts of
rape each and were sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
 The conviction was based on their extrajudicial
confessions, which were deemed admissible by the
trial court.
 The accused claimed that their confessions were
obtained in violation of their constitutional rights
because they were made before a lawyer chosen
by the police and they were induced by a promise
of leniency by the police station commander.
Issue:
 Whether the extrajudicial confessions of the
accused were obtained in violation of their
constitutional rights.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the
accused.
 The court ruled that a lawyer chosen by the police
is deemed engaged by the accused if they did not
object to the lawyer's appointment and voluntarily
executed their confessions.
 The court also ruled that the trial court's finding
that the accused were accorded a competent and
independent counsel is entitled to respect.
 The promise of leniency by the police station
commander did not render the confessions
inadmissible.
Ratio:
 The accused had the final choice of their lawyer
and they voluntarily executed their confessions
without objecting to the lawyer chosen by the
police.
 The trial court's finding that the accused were
accorded a competent and independent counsel is
entitled to respect.
 The promise of leniency by the police station
commander, who is not a prosecuting officer, did
not render the confessions inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS TUJON (G.R. No. 66034)
Facts:
 The case involves the accused-appellant Jovito
Tujon who was charged with the crime of Robbery
with Homicide.
 The victim, Rolando Abellana, a taxi driver, was
found dead with stab wounds in Quezon City.
  The accused, along with Ernesto Parola and Cesar
Paredes, were arrested and allegedly confessed to
the crime during police interrogation.
 The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh
Judicial District, Quezon City, found Tujon and
Parola guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
 Parola escaped from jail and remained at large.
Issue:
 Whether the extra-judicial confessions of the
accused, taken without the presence of counsel,
are admissible as evidence.
Ruling:
 The confessions are inadmissible as evidence.
 The accused were not properly informed of their
rights and the waiver of counsel, if made at all, was
not made with the assistance of counsel.
 Therefore, the confessions cannot be considered
as credible evidence.
 The Court acquitted both accused.
Ratio:
 The right of a person under custodial interrogation
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part
of the police investigator to explain and ensure
effective communication.
 In this case, the accused were not properly
informed of their rights and the waiver of counsel,
if made at all, was not made with the assistance of
counsel.
 Therefore, the confessions cannot be considered
as credible evidence.
 The Court also noted that there was no other
evidence presented by the prosecution to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 In weighing the evidence, the scales must be
tipped in favor of the accused due to the
constitutional presumption of innocence.
 As a result, the Court acquitted both accused.
 Despite Parola's escape from jail, he still benefits
from the acquittal as the evidence against him was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 The Court acknowledged his act of escaping as an
act of defiance of the law but recognized that
there have been cases where such conduct is
driven by a sense of desperation of those who
believe they are innocent but fear they cannot
prove their innocence.
PEOPLE VS LADAO (G.R. No. 100940-41)
Facts:
 Henry Ponseca and his co-accused were
apprehended by the Caloocan Police for several
robbery and hold-up incidents in Caloocan.
 They executed an extra-judicial confession with
the assistance of a lawyer from the Public
Attorney's Office, admitting their involvement in
the crime.
 Based on the confession and circumstantial
evidence, the trial court convicted all five accused,
including Ponseca, and sentenced them to
reclusion perpetua.
Issue:
 Whether Ponseca's confession was obtained
through force and torture.
 Whether Ponseca's confession was admissible as
evidence.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court affirmed Ponseca's conviction.
 The court ruled that Ponseca failed to prove that
his confession was obtained through force and
violence.
 The court stated that a confession is admissible
until the accused successfully proves that it was
given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat,
or promise of reward or leniency.
 Ponseca only made bare allegations without
presenting any proof of coercion.
 The court also found that Ponseca's confession
was supported by other competent evidence, such
as the testimony of a witness who identified
Ponseca and his co-accused as the perpetrators of
the crime.
 Therefore, the court concluded that Ponseca's
confession was admissible and upheld his
conviction.
Ratio:
 Once the prosecution has shown compliance with
the constitutional requirement on pre-
interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed
to be voluntary. The burden is on the accused to
prove that the confession was involuntary.
 Ponseca failed to present any proof that force and
violence were employed to coerce him into
confessing. He did not undergo a medical
examination, did not complain to his relatives or
the prosecutor, and did not file any complaint
against the police officers.
 Ponseca's confession was supported by other
evidence, such as the testimony of a witness who
identified him and his co-accused as the
perpetrators of the crime.
 Accused-appellant's confession was obtained with
the assistance of a lawyer, and the lawyer testified
that he informed Ponseca of his constitutional
rights and assisted him during the custodial
investigation.
 The confession contained details that only a
participant in the crime would know, further
supporting its credibility.
 The court found no reason to alter the trial court's
judgment of conviction and affirmed Ponseca's
guilt for robbery with homicide.
 The court modified the civil liability by increasing
the indemnity to the victim's heirs to P50,000.00
and deleting the award for burial and wake
expenses due to lack of basis.
PEOPLE VS ENCIPIDO (G.R. No. 70091)
Facts:
 The case involves the conviction of eight
individuals for murder.
 The defendants are Brigido Encipido, Charlito
Manatad, Jesus Rubio, Rudy Lumarda, Jose
 Cabageran, Eddie de la Peña, Cris Ramire, and
Jesus or John Doe.
 The incident took place on March 30, 1982, in
Barangay Mabini, Tubajon, Surigao del Norte.
 The victim, Jose Lacumbes, was found killed near
his hut.
 The autopsy revealed multiple injuries on the
victim's body.
Issue:
 The main issue is the credibility of the witnesses
and the admissibility of the oral confessions made
by the defendants.
Ruling:
 The court upheld the conviction of the defendants
for murder.
Ratio:
 The court ruled that minor inconsistencies in the
witness's testimony did not affect his credibility.
 The witness's description of the incident was
consistent with the testimonies of other witnesses
and supported by the autopsy findings.
 The court stated that omissions and
misunderstandings are common in affidavits and
do not undermine the witness's credibility.
 The court held that the oral confessions made by
Encipido and De la Peña were admissible as
evidence against them under Sections 22 and 29 of
the Rules of Court.
 The confessions were independently made
without collusion, were identical in their material
respects, and were corroborated by other
evidence.
 The court noted that the confessions could be
considered as circumstantial evidence against the
co-accused implicated therein and as
corroborative evidence against the others involved
in the crime.
 The court rejected the argument that the
testimonies regarding the oral confessions
constituted hearsay, stating that oral confessions
can be proved by any competent witness who
heard them.
 The court emphasized that any person who heard
the confession and understood it is competent to
testify as to its substance.
 The defense of alibi raised by Encipido and
Manatad was dismissed by the court.
 The positive identification by the witness, their
verbal acknowledgments of guilt, and the
confessions made by De la Peña provided strong
evidence against them.
 The court noted that the defense failed to prove
that they were at a different location at the time of
the crime.
 The court affirmed the conviction of the
defendants for murder and increased the civil
indemnity to P30,000.
PEOPLE VS JALJALANI (G.R. No. L-29979)
Facts:
 This case involves the multiple murder of two PC
soldiers and one civilian, as well as the direct
assault upon agents of persons in authority. The
accused, including Tambutso Patuhin, Jayri Jamari,
Tambusong Mohamadsali, and Samindi Cosing,
were charged with the crime. The incident
occurred on April 7, 1967, in the municipality of
Peaplata, Samal, Davao. The accused were caught
dynamite fishing, and when they were arrested,
they were towed by a PC motorboat. Another
motorboat intercepted the PC motorboat, and the
accused in the second motorboat threw dynamite
sticks at the PC motorboat, causing the death of
the victims. The accused were apprehended, and
they confessed to their participation in the crime.
Issue:
 Whether the accused participated in the material
execution of the acts that caused the death of the
victims.
 Whether there was a criminal conspiracy among
the accused and the persons who actually killed
the victims.
 Whether Sapal Jabal should be convicted as an
accessory to the crime.
 Whether the extra-judicial confessions of the
accused are admissible as evidence.
Ruling:
 The lower court did not err in convicting the
accused. Although some of the accused claimed in
their statements that they did not hit the PC
motorboat, the court found that there was a
concert of action among the accused, and they
were responsible for throwing dynamite sticks that
caused the deaths of the victims.
 The lower court did not err in convicting the
accused of criminal conspiracy. The court found
that there was evidence of conspiracy among the
accused, as they acted together in throwing
dynamite sticks at the PC motorboat.
 The issue of Sapal Jabal being convicted as an
accessory is not considered since he was not an
appellant and has passed away.
 The lower court did not err in admitting the extra-
judicial confessions of the accused as evidence.
The confessions were found to be given freely and
voluntarily, and the fact that the accused did not
complain of duress or violence supports their
voluntariness.
Ratio:
 The court based its decision on the evidence
presented, including the extra-judicial confessions
of the accused. The court found that the
confessions were given voluntarily and that there
was no evidence of duress or violence. The court
also found that there was a concert of action
among the accused, indicating a criminal
conspiracy. Therefore, the accused were convicted
of the crimes charged.
HEARSAY RULE:PEOPLE VS VALERO (G.R. No. L-45283-84)
Facts:
  The case involves the charge of double murder and
frustrated murder against Lucila Valero for
allegedly giving poisoned bread to the
complainant's children, two of whom died while
another would have died if not for timely medical
assistance. The case against Alfonsito Valero, a
deaf-mute who did not understand the
proceedings against him, was dismissed. The
prosecution and defense had conflicting views on
the source of the poisoned bread. The prosecution
presented witnesses who claimed that Lucila gave
the bread to Alfonsito, who then delivered it to the
children. The defense argued that the children may
have eaten the poisoned bread intended for rats.
The trial court found Lucila guilty based on the
prosecution's evidence and her psychiatric
abnormality, sentencing her to death.
Issue:
 The main issue in this case is whether the
admission of the prosecution's evidence, which
relied on hearsay and violated the accused's right
to confront witnesses, was a gross violation of the
hearsay rule and the accused's constitutional
rights.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court held that the admission of the
prosecution's evidence, which relied on hearsay
and violated the accused's right to confront
witnesses, was a gross violation of the hearsay rule
and the accused's constitutional rights. The court
also found that the trial judge's conjecture on
probable cause was a denial of due process. As a
result, the judgment was reversed, and Lucila was
acquitted.
Ratio:
 The court ruled that the presentation of witnesses
who conveyed information obtained from a deaf-
mute through sign language violated the hearsay
rule and the principle of res inter alios acta. The
court also found that the admission of such
evidence as part of the res gestae was unjustified.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the
presentation of incompetent evidence did not give
it any probative value. The court emphasized that
the admission of testimonies, whether hearsay or
part of the res gestae, for the imposition of the
death penalty violated the accused's right to
confront witnesses. The court further noted that
the extrajudicial information obtained from an
incompetent witness was inadmissible. The court
also found that the absence of a natural reaction
from a witness negated his credibility. Additionally,
the court found that the absence of a motive for
the accused to poison the children weakened the
prosecution's case. Finally, the court held that the
trial judge's sudden conjecture on the accused's
psychiatric abnormality in his decision was a denial
of due process.
PEOPLE VS DAMASO (G.R. No. 93516)
Facts:
 Accused Basilio Damaso was charged with illegal
possession of firearms in connection with the
crime of subversion.
 The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court
of Dagupan City.
 The prosecution presented testimonies from
witnesses claiming that the accused was the lessee
of the house where the firearms were found.
 However, these testimonies were hearsay and
lacked personal knowledge.
 The defense argued that the search conducted by
the authorities was illegal as it was done without a
warrant and without the consent of the accused.
Issue:
 Whether the evidence presented by the
prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 Whether the search conducted by the authorities
was legal.
Ruling:
 The court ruled in favor of the accused and
acquitted him.
 The evidence presented by the prosecution was
weak and insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not,
cannot be given credence.
 The right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is enshrined in the Constitution and
cannot be waived by anyone except the person
whose rights are invaded.
 The search conducted by the authorities was illegal
as it was done without a warrant and without the
consent of the accused.
Ratio:
 The court emphasized that the evidence presented
by the prosecution was weak and insufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The testimonies of the witnesses were
hearsay and lacked personal knowledge. Hearsay
evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be
given credence as it does not meet the standard of
proof required in criminal cases.
 The court highlighted that the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in
the Constitution. This right protects individuals
from arbitrary invasions of their privacy and
property. It can only be waived by the person
whose rights are invaded, and not by anyone else.
In this case, the search conducted by the
authorities was done without a warrant and
without the consent of the accused, making it
illegal.
 Based on these reasons, the court concluded that
the evidence presented by the prosecution was
weak and insufficient, and the search conducted
by the authorities was illegal. Therefore, the
accused was acquitted.
Agcaoili v. Molina (AM 94-979, October 25, 1995)
Facts:
1. Complainant Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili filed a
case charging Judge Adolfo B. Molina with grave
ignorance of the law in relation to Criminal Case No.
10-435, entitled "People of the Philippines v.
Rolando Anama," for homicide.
2. The Complainant judge alleged that respondent,
in conducting the preliminary investigation of the
above-mentioned criminal case, failed to exercise
utmost care in the issuance of a warrant of arrest
against the accused relying merely on the
statements of two (2) witnesses who had no
personal knowledge of the commission of the
offense charged.
3. Respondent admitted that he was the inquest
judge in the preliminary investigation of the above
entitled case and finding the existence of probable
cause, he ordered the issuance of the warrant of
arrest against the accused.
4. Respondent explained that since the case
washtognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the
Provincial Prosecutor's Office, which has the final
say and disposition on the existence of probable
cause on cases cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court, should carry the brunt of the responsibility
for "erroneous" finding of probable cause.
5. The Office of the Court Administrator
recommended that respondent be admonished to
be more careful in the determination of the
existence of probable cause before issuing a
warrant of arrest.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge is correct in
issuing the warrant of arrest.
Held:
No. An elementary legal principle must not be
compromised — hearsay evidence cannot be the
basis of probable cause. The rules on evidence are
explicit. A witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his own perception.'
Hearsay evidence, therefore, has no probative value
whatsoever. Yet, in the case at bench, the
respondent judge found probable cause and even
issued an arrest warrant on the basis of the
testimonies of Mencelacion Padamada and Rosita
Castillo which were obviously hearsay.
PEOPLE VS BRIOSO (G.R. No. L-28482)
Facts:
 The case involves the defendants Juan Brioso
and Mariano Taeza who were charged with
the crime of murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code.
 The incident occurred on December 23, 1966,
in the Municipality of Tayum, Province of
Abra, Philippines.
 The defendants were accused of assaulting
and shooting Silvino Daria, resulting in his
death.
 The motive for the killing was the disapproval
of Mariano Taeza's courtship of the victim's
daughter.
 Witnesses testified to seeing the defendants
pointing guns at the victim's house and
hearing gunshots.
 The victim's wife also testified that her
husband identified the defendants as his
shooters before he died.
 The defendants pleaded alibi as their defense,
claiming they were elsewhere at the time of
the incident.
Issue:
 The main issues raised in the case are:
 Whether the testimony of the prosecution
witness, Cecilia Bernal, is reliable and
sufficient to identify the defendants as the
perpetrators.
 Whether the affidavit of Antonio Daria,
clearing Mariano Taeza, should be considered
as evidence.
 Whether the defendants are guilty of murder.
Ruling:
 The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower
court, finding the defendants guilty of murder.
 The penalty of death was reduced to life
imprisonment due to lack of sufficient votes.
 The amount of indemnity was increased to
P12,000.00.
Ratio:
 The testimony of Cecilia Bernal, a witness who
saw the defendants pointing guns at the
victim's house and heard gunshots, is reliable
and sufficient to identify the defendants as the
perpetrators.
 The affidavit of Antonio Daria, clearing
Mariano Taeza, was rejected as evidence
DYING DECLARATION: PEOPLE VS DE JOYA (G.R. No.
75028)
Facts:
 The case involves the defendant-appellant,
Pioquinto de Joya y Cruz, who was charged with
the crime of robbery with homicide. The incident
occurred on January 31, 1978, in Baliuag, Bulacan.
The victims were Arnedo Valencia and Eulalia
Diamse Vda. de Salac. The defendant allegedly
took jewelry from the victims and attacked Eulalia,
causing her death. The trial court found the
defendant guilty and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
Issue:
 The main issue in the case is whether the
defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of robbery with homicide.
Ruling:
  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant
and acquitted him of the charges. The court found
that the dying declaration of the deceased victim
was incomplete and therefore not admissible as
evidence. The court also found that the other
circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution was not sufficient to establish the
defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio:
 The court explained that a dying declaration must
be complete in itself to be admissible. In this case,
the deceased victim was unable to convey a
complete or sensible communication before her
death. The court could not speculate on what the
rest of her communication might have been.
Therefore, the dying statement could not be
considered a dying declaration naming the
defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
 The court also found that the other circumstantial
evidence presented by the prosecution, such as a
quarrel over a bicycle and the defendant's
reluctance to participate in the wake of the victim,
did not establish a credible motive or guilt. The
court emphasized that a credible motive is
necessary when no identification of the defendant
was shown.
 Additionally, the court rejected the prosecution's
claim of an offer of compromise and implied
admission of guilt by the defendant. The court
found that the evidence presented was not
sufficient to support these claims.
PEOPLE VD DUNIG (G.R. No. 101799)
Facts:
 The case involves the defendant-appellant,
Pacifico Dunig, who was charged with the murder
of Marilyn Canatoy. The incident occurred on April
5, 1990, in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, where Dunig
allegedly stabbed and killed the 14-year-old victim.
The prosecution presented three witnesses,
Maylin Montes, Katherine Montes, and Teresita
Montes, who claimed to have witnessed the
killing. The defense of Dunig was alibi, stating that
he was in a nipa hut in Matinbubong, San
Ildefonso, Bulacan, during the time of the crime.
Issue:
 The main issue in this case is whether the
prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused-
appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
 The court reverses and sets aside the decision of
the trial court, acquitting the accused-appellant
and ordering his immediate release.
Ratio:
 Alibi is a weak defense, and in this case, Dunig
failed to present any witnesses to corroborate his
alibi. Furthermore, the nipa hut where he claimed
to have been sleeping was only a kilometer away
from the scene of the crime, weakening his
defense even further.
 The conviction of a person should rest on the
strength of the prosecution's case, not on the
weakness of the defense. The accused can rely on
the constitutional presumption of innocence, and
it is the prosecution's burden to overcome this
presumption with convincing proof of guilt. In this
case, the prosecution failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
 A dying declaration, if proven to be true, can be
considered an exception to the hearsay rule.
However, it is still subject to the test of credibility.
In this case, the victim allegedly identified Dunig as
her attacker before she died. However, the
resthouse where the incident occurred was dark,
and the witnesses themselves admitted that they
could not see anyone clearly. The identification of
Dunig as the killer was uncertain and based on a
surmise, which is not considered evidence.
 The evidence presented by the prosecution is
weak and cannot sustain a conviction. The
testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses are not
believable, as they claimed to have seen the killing
in total darkness or near total darkness.
PEOPLE VS AMACA (G.R. No. 110129)
Facts:
 The case involves accused-appellant Edelciano
Amaca who was convicted of murder and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The victim,
Wilson Vergara, made a dying declaration to a
police officer, positively identifying Amaca as the
killer. The defense of the accused was alibi.
Issue:
 The main issue raised in the case is whether the
trial court erred in convicting the accused of
murder based solely on the dying declaration of
the victim.
Ruling:
 The appeal is partially granted. The accused is
guilty only of homicide, not murder, and civil
indemnity shall not be awarded to the heirs of the
deceased.
Ratio:
 A dying declaration is considered credible because
it is highly unlikely for someone who is aware of
their impending death to falsely accuse someone
of being responsible for their death. The victim's
statement meets all the requirements for a dying
declaration. The serious nature of the victim's
injuries did not affect his credibility as a witness
since he was able
US VS ANTIPOLO (G.R. No. L-13109)
Facts:
 Dalmacio Antipolo was prosecuted for the murder
of Fortunato Dinal.
 Antipolo was convicted of homicide in the Court of
First Instance of the Province of Batangas and
appealed the decision.
  One of the errors raised in the appeal was the
refusal of the trial judge to allow Susana Ezpeleta,
the widow of the deceased, to testify as a witness
for the defense regarding certain dying
declarations made by her husband.
 The trial judge sustained the objection of the fiscal,
who argued that as the widow of the deceased,
Ezpeleta was not competent to testify under the
rules of procedure in civil or criminal cases.
Issue:
 Is the widow of the deceased a competent witness
to testify about dying declarations made by her
husband regarding the cause of his death?
Ruling:
 The court ruled in favor of the defendant and
granted a new trial.
 The court held that the widow of the deceased is a
competent witness in a prosecution regarding
dying declarations made by the deceased
concerning the cause of his death.
Ratio:
 The court based its decision on Section 58 of
General Orders No. 58 (1900), which states that
neither husband nor wife shall be a competent
witness for or against the other in a criminal action
or proceeding, except with the consent of both or
in cases of crime committed by one against the
other.
 The purpose of this rule is to protect accused
persons against statements made in the
confidence engendered by the marital relation and
to relieve the spouse to whom such confidential
communications might have been made from the
obligation of revealing them to the prejudice of
the other spouse.
 However, dying declarations made by a deceased
person regarding the circumstances leading up to
their death are admissible in a prosecution of the
person charged with killing the declarant.
 Such dying declarations are admissible in favor of
the defendant as well as against him.
 Previous cases in the United States have held that
the widow of the deceased may testify regarding
his dying declarations.
 The communication made by the deceased at the
point of death regarding the cause of his injuries is
not confidential and is made for the purpose of
being communicated to the authorities concerned
in investigating the cause of his death.
 Therefore, the widow of the deceased is a
competent witness to testify about these dying
declarations.
 The trial judge erred in excluding the testimony of
Susana Ezpeleta and a new trial was granted for
the accused.
PART OF RES GESTAE: PEOPLE VS TIOZON (G.R. No. 89823)
Facts:
 The case involves accused-appellant Eutropio
Tiozon y Acid who was charged with violation of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended,
for the illegal possession of a firearm and for
murder. The information alleged that accused-
appellant unlawfully possessed a firearm and used
it with treachery and evident premeditation in
shooting and killing Leonardo Bolima. The trial
court found accused-appellant guilty and
sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Issue:
 Whether the prosecution was able to prove
accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt
for the crimes of illegal possession of firearms and
murder.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court modified the decision of the
trial court and found accused-appellant guilty of
homicide instead of murder. The court held that
the prosecution failed to prove that accused-
appellant had no license to possess the firearm,
which is an essential element of the offense of
illegal possession of firearms. However, the court
found that accused-appellant was guilty of
homicide based on circumstantial evidence. The
court also ruled that the qualifying circumstance of
treachery was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
Ratio:
 The killing of a person with the use of an
unlicensed firearm may give rise to separate
prosecutions for violation of P.D. No. 1866 and
violation of the Revised Penal Code for murder or
homicide.
 The rule against double jeopardy cannot be
invoked because the first offense is punished by a
special law while the second offense is punished
by the Revised Penal Code.
 Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to
convict an accused if the circumstances proven
constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair
and reasonable conclusion that points to the
accused as the guilty person.
 Statements made by a person as part of the res
gestae are admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule.
 The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to
prove the lack or absence of a license in cases of
illegal possession of firearms.
 Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.
 An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case
for review, including the penalty, indemnity, and
damages involved.
PEOPLE VS NARANJA (G.R. No. L-13288)
Facts:
 The accused, Jose Naranja, was charged with and
convicted of murder in the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan.
 The information filed against the accused stated
that on December 28, 1956, in barrio Caraol-
Malimpin, municipality of Dasol, province of
Pangasinan, the accused assaulted, attacked, and
beat to death Mamerto Signey with a blunt
instrument.
  The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that
the alleged crime has not been established due to
lack of evidence.
Issue:
 Whether the elements of the crime of murder
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
 The decision of the lower court convicting the
accused of murder is affirmed.
Ratio:
 The testimony of Maria Diaz, the widow of the
deceased, is credible and not self-serving. She
admitted to having had illicit relations with the
accused in order to bring out the truth that the
accused confessed to her his plan to kill her
husband and the fact that he killed him. Her
testimony is therefore credible and cannot be
considered self-serving because she gained no
beneficial interest from it.
 The confession of the accused to Maria Diaz falls
under the res gestae rule, which allows statements
made by a person while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto to be given in evidence as part of the res
gestae. These statements are admitted as original
evidence, distinguished from hearsay, because of
their connection with the principal fact under
investigation.
 The testimony of Santiago Balderas, who was told
by Maria Diaz that her husband was dead and
could be found at a certain place, further proves
the fact of the crime as confessed by the accused.
 The presence of a bluish black spot at the nape of
the deceased and the opinion of Dr. Valera that a
blow delivered right on the medulla oblongata
could have caused instantaneous death confirm
the admission of the accused to Maria Diaz.
 The defense of alibi is weak and not credible. The
testimony of the defense witness, Bisquera, is not
believable as she could recall the events of
December 28, 1956, the date of the crime, but
could remember nothing about other days, not
even Christmas. It is also not impossible for the
accused to have been at the ricefield in the
afternoon and still have gone to Maria Diaz's
house in the evening to kill her husband,
considering the proximity of the locations.
PEOPLE VS PALOMONES (G.R. No. 136303)
Facts:
Case title: People v. Palmones
 Accused-appellants charged with the crime of
murder for killing SPO2 Asim Mamansal
 Trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced
them to reclusion perpetua
 Prosecution's case relied on alleged dying
declaration made by the victim, where he
identified the accused as his assailants
Issue:
 Whether the dying declaration made by the victim
is admissible as evidence
Ruling:
 The dying declaration did not comply with the
requirements for admissibility
 The prosecution failed to establish that the victim
made the statements under a consciousness of
impending death
 No proof that the victim was aware of the
seriousness of his condition or believed he was
going to die
 Alleged statements lacked spontaneity and did not
qualify as part of the res gestae
 Testimonies of prosecution witnesses contradicted
by defense witnesses and even some of the
prosecution's own witnesses
Ratio:
 The dying declaration did not meet the
requirements for admissibility
 The prosecution failed to prove that the victim
made the statements under a consciousness of
impending death
 There was no evidence to show that the victim was
aware of the seriousness of his condition or
believed he was going to die
 The alleged statements lacked spontaneity and did
not qualify as part of the res gestae
 The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
contradicted by the defense witnesses and even by
some of the prosecution's own witnesses
 The Supreme Court emphasized that the weakness
of the accused's alibi cannot be held against them
in the absence of a clear and positive identification
as the perpetrators of the crime
 The State must rely on the strength of its own
evidence, not the weakness of the defense
Conclusion:
 The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the
trial court and acquitted the accused-appellants of
the crime charged.
PEOPLE VS RAQUEL (G.R. No. 119005)
Facts:
 Accused-appellants Sabas Raquel and Valeriano
Raquel were charged with robbery with homicide.
 The crime was allegedly committed on July 4,
1986, in Barangay Osias, Kabacan, Cotabato.
 The victims were Agapito Gambalan, Jr. and his
wife Juliet Gambalan.
 Juliet testified that her husband was shot by
armed men who declared a hold-up.
 She was not able to identify the assailants, but she
saw one person fall beside their water pump and
two others running away.
 Witness George Jovillano also saw three persons
passing by but could not recognize them.
 Accused Amado Ponce, who was wounded and
found near the crime scene, implicated the Raquel
brothers as his co-perpetrators.
Issue:
 Whether the prosecution was able to establish the
guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable
doubt.
Ruling:
 The court acquitted Sabas Raquel and Valeriano
Raquel of the crime charged.
 The court ruled that the extrajudicial statement of
Amado Ponce implicating the appellants was
inadmissible as evidence against them.
 The court emphasized that extrajudicial
statements of an accused implicating a co-accused
cannot be utilized unless repeated in open court.
 The statement was made without the assistance of
counsel, rendering it inadmissible.
 The court applied the res inter alios rule, stating
that an extrajudicial confession is binding only
upon the confessant and not admissible against his
co-accused.
 The prosecution failed to establish the identities
and participation of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ratio:
 Extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating
a co-accused are inadmissible unless repeated in
open court.
 Extrajudicial statements made during custodial
investigation without the assistance of counsel are
inadmissible.
 An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon
the confessant and not admissible against his co-
accused.
 A conviction in a criminal case must rest on
nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt.
 Every reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be
resolved in favor of the accused.
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS: PEOPLE VS BERNALDEZ
(G.R. No. 109780)
Facts:
 The case involves the conviction of accused-
appellant Rodolfo Bernaldez for the crime of rape
committed against his 10-year-old niece, Maria
Teresa Bernaldez. The incident occurred on August
29, 1990, at Rodolfo's house in Sitio Mabatia,
Barangay Sugcad, Polangui, Albay. After the rape,
Rodolfo gave Maria Teresa P5.00 and threatened
her not to tell anyone or he would kill her parents,
brothers, and sisters. Maria Teresa also claimed
that Rodolfo had been sexually abusing her since
she was five years old. The complaint for rape was
filed by Maria Teresa's father, Pedro Bernaldez, on
September 3, 1990.
Issue:
 The main issue raised in the case is whether
Rodolfo Bernaldez is guilty of the crime of rape
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting Rodolfo
Bernaldez of rape.
Ratio:
 The court ruled that the complainant's positive
identification of the accused as the perpetrator is
decisive in a rape charge. Bare denial and alibi are
insufficient to overcome the positive identification
made by the prosecution witness. In this case,
Maria Teresa positively identified Rodolfo as the
person who raped her on August 29, 1990, and
who had been sexually abusing her since she was
five years old. The court also noted that Rodolfo's
house was only about 2-1/2 to 3 kilometers away
from his place of work, which could be reached in
30 minutes by walking. Therefore, it was not
physically impossible for him to have been at his
house where the rape was committed. The court
also considered the delicate details in Maria
Teresa's statements and testimony, which could
only be based on real experience rather than
imagination. The court emphasized that the
testimony of young and immature rape victims
deserves full credence. Since Maria Teresa was
below 12 years old when the rape was committed,
any carnal knowledge of her, even if consented,
would be considered rape under the law.
PEOPLE VS DIVINA (G.R. No. 93808-09, 94073-74)
Facts:
 Accused Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga were
convicted for murder and frustrated murder.
 The incident occurred on June 17, 1988, in
Barangay Malungcay Daku, Municipality of Dauin,
Negros Oriental.
 Accused were charged with shooting Concepcion
Baillo, resulting in her death, and inflicting gunshot
wounds on Jaime Baillo.
 Trial court found both accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and sentenced them
accordingly.
Issue:
 Credibility of the lone eyewitness and victim, Jaime
Baillo.
 Defense argues conflicting, uncorroborated,
unreliable, and inconclusive testimony.
 Defense questions the delay in reporting the
identities of the accused, affecting the credibility
of the witnesses.
Ruling:
 Conviction of accused Belarmino Divina affirmed.
 Conviction of accused Mecrito Baga overturned
due to lack of evidence.
 Prosecution failed to establish guilt of Baga
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Conspiracy not established beyond reasonable
doubt, no evidence of overt act in furtherance of
conspiracy.
Ratio:
 Alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over
positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
 Victim Jaime Baillo positively identified Belarmino
Divina as one of the assailants.
 Consideration of motive of Divina, victim's mother
was a witness against his brothers in another
criminal case.
 Discrepancy in time of incident stated in police
blotter explained.
  Entries in official records, such as a police blotter,
are only prima facie evidence and not conclusive.
 Hearsay information supplied by parish priest, not
present during incident, lacks probative value.
 Separate petition for certiorari by Belarmino Divina
regarding approval of property bond.
 Court denies petition, accused charged with capital
offense or offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua not entitled to bail as a matter of right,
even if they appeal the case to the court
Conclusion:
 Accused Mecrito Baga acquitted due to lack of
evidence.
 Conviction of accused Belarmino Divina affirmed,
ordered to indemnify heirs of victim.
 Dismissal of Divina's petition for certiorari
regarding approval of property bond.
PEOPLE VS LEONES (G.R. No. L-48727)
Facts:
 The case involves the defendant-appellant, Joseph
Leones, who was accused of raping Irene Dulay, a
salesgirl in the store owned by appellant's parents.
The incident allegedly occurred one afternoon
after the appellant and his sister forced Irene to
take three tablets, which rendered her semi-
conscious. The appellant denied the charges and
claimed that he was at a beach resort with his
family during the time of the alleged rape.
 During the trial, medical examination conducted
on Irene about two or three hours after the
alleged rape revealed healing lacerations of the
hymen, absence of sperm cells, and unclotted
blood at the vaginal cavity. However, Irene
testified that she was having her menstrual period
on the date of the alleged rape.
Issue:
 The main issue in the case is whether the guilt of
the accused, Joseph Leones, has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
 The court reverses the judgment of conviction and
acquits Joseph Leones of the crime charged.
Ratio:
 The court finds that the evidence presented by the
prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court
notes that the complainant's version of events is
inconsistent and contradictory. Her claim of feeling
pain when Joseph inserted his private parts into
hers, despite being unconscious at that time, is
deemed incredible. Additionally, the court
considers the immoral behavior and conduct of the
complainant, as testified by witnesses, which
raises doubts about her credibility. The court
emphasizes that convictions for rape should not be
sustained without clear and convincing proof of
guilt. It also highlights the need to exercise caution
and not accept the uncorroborated testimony of
the injured woman without suspicion. Based on
these considerations, the court concludes that the
guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, and he is entitled to an
acquittal.
PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO (G.R. No. L-32243)
Facts:
 On December 25, 1967, Eugenio Crisostomo
encountered Romeo Geronimo and invited him to
have a drink, but Romeo declined. Suddenly,
Eugenio rushed towards Romeo, who had his back
turned, and shot him with a .22 caliber revolver.
The bullet entered Romeo's chest and he fell to
the ground. Eugenio fled the scene while
bystanders brought Romeo to the hospital, where
he was pronounced dead upon arrival. Eugenio
was charged with murder.
Issue:
 Did Eugenio admit to killing Romeo?
 Was the cause of death established?
 Did Eugenio act with treachery?
 Is Eugenio entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of drunkenness?
 Is Eugenio entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender?
 Is Eugenio entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of a voluntary plea of guilty?
 Is Eugenio entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance?
Ruling:
 The court found Eugenio guilty of murder and
sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua. The court
also ordered him to pay the victim's heirs P12,000.
The decision was affirmed with modifications,
increasing the indemnity to P30,000.
Ratio:
 Eugenio effectively admitted to shooting Romeo,
as he testified that he played a joke on him by
pointing his gun, which accidentally went off and
hit Romeo.
 The cause of death was established through the
death certificate and the testimony of the
municipal health officer, who examined the body
and found a gunshot wound as the cause of death.
 Eugenio acted with treachery because he invited
Romeo to have a drink, then suddenly shot him
from behind without any ceremony. The use of a
gun and the victim's unarmed state support the
finding of treachery.
 Eugenio is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of drunkenness because his claim of
being drunk is self-serving and uncorroborated. He
was still able to remember details and flee from
the authorities, indicating that his mental capacity
was not impaired.
 Eugenio is entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender because he voluntarily
surrendered to the authorities upon the advice of
his parents.
 Eugenio cannot be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty because
he offered to plead guilty to a lesser offense only
 after some evidence of the prosecution had been
presented.
 Eugenio is not entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance because he did not meet the
requirements for a voluntary plea of guilty.
FERIA VS CA (G.R. No. 122954)
Facts:
 Norberto Feria was convicted of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide and had been under
detention since May 21, 1981.
 Feria sought to be transferred from Manila City Jail
to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City,
but the transfer could not be done because the
records of his case, including the copy of the
judgment, were missing.
Issue:
 Whether Feria's continued detention without a
valid judgment violates his constitutional rights.
Ruling:
 Feria's continued detention is justified, and the
proper remedy is the reconstitution of the missing
records.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to
establish Feria's conviction, which serves as the
legal basis for his detention.
 The loss or destruction of the records does not
invalidate the judgment or the commitment.
 The reconstitution of the judgment is the duty of
both the prosecution and the defense.
 The records of another case for Illegal Possession
of Firearms, which arose from the same incident as
the Robbery with Homicide case, could be of
assistance in the reconstitution process.
Detailed Digest:
 Norberto Feria had been under detention since
May 21, 1981, after being convicted of Robbery
with Homicide for the hold-up and killing of a
United States Peace Corps Volunteer.
 Feria sought to be transferred from Manila City Jail
to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City,
but the transfer could not be done because the
records of his case, including the copy of the
judgment, were missing.
 Feria filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court, arguing
that his continued detention without a valid
judgment violated his constitutional right to due
process.
 The Supreme Court ordered the lower court to
conduct proper hearings on the case.
 The Regional Trial Court of Manila dismissed the
case, stating that the mere loss of the records does
not invalidate the judgment or authorize the
release of the prisoner.
 The court ruled that the proper remedy would be
the reconstitution of the records, which should be
filed with the court that rendered the decision.
 Feria appealed the decision to the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision
but modified the order by ordering the transfer of
Feria to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa
City without the submission of the requirements.
 Feria's motion for reconsideration was denied,
leading him to file a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court.
 The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to
establish Feria's conviction based on the available
records and the hearing conducted by the trial
court.
 The court noted that Feria had made admissions
regarding his conviction for the crime of Robbery
with Homicide.
 The court ruled that the mere loss or destruction
of the records does not invalidate the judgment or
the commitment, and therefore, Feria's continued
detention was justified.
 The court explained that the proper remedy in this
case would be the reconstitution of the judgment
of the case.
 It emphasized that reconstitution is the duty of
both the prosecution and the defense.
 The court also noted that the records of another
case for Illegal Possession of Firearms, which arose
from the same incident as the Robbery with
Homicide case, could be of assistance in the
reconstitution process.
 In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied Feria's
petition for habeas corpus and affirmed the
decision of the Court of Appeals.
 The court ruled that Feria's continued detention
was justified, and the proper remedy would be the
reconstitution of the missing records.
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING:
DE LEON VS PEOPLE (G.R. No. 108522)
Facts:
 Lawyer Gerardo A. del Mundo filed a petition for
review to reverse a decision in an ejectment case
and declare a writ of execution as null and void.
 The case originated from a lease contract between
del Mundo and the spouses Carlos and Alejandra
Nava, who owned a house and lot in Quezon City.
 Del Mundo failed to exercise his option to
purchase the property and instead sent the Navas
a Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage,
which they later revoked due to del Mundo's
failure to fulfill his promises.
 The Navas filed an unlawful detainer case against
del Mundo, which resulted in a decision ordering
him to vacate the premises.
 Del Mundo appealed the decision to the Regional
Trial Court, but the court affirmed the decision
with modifications.
 Del Mundo also filed a separate declaratory relief
case, which was dismissed by the trial court.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and
del Mundo filed a petition for certiorari to
challenge the decision.
Issue:
  Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper
remedy to correct errors in judgments.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court denied del Mundo's petition,
ruling that certiorari is not the proper remedy to
correct errors in judgments.
 The court also held that the issue of possession
can be resolved in an ejectment proceeding
without deciding the issue of ownership.
 The court found no basis to review the factual
conclusions of the lower courts and reprimanded
del Mundo for employing delaying tactics in the
case.
 The court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals and ordered del Mundo to pay treble
costs.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari is not the
proper remedy to correct errors in judgments.
Certiorari is a special civil action that can only be
availed of when there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. In this case, del Mundo had
the option to appeal the decision of the Regional
Trial Court, but instead chose to file a petition for
certiorari. The court emphasized that certiorari is
not a substitute for an appeal and should not be
used as a means to correct errors in judgments.
 The court also held that the issue of possession
can be resolved in an ejectment proceeding
without deciding the issue of ownership. In an
ejectment case, the only issue to be resolved is the
right to physical possession of the property. The
court does not delve into the issue of ownership,
as it is a separate matter that should be resolved in
a separate proceeding. In this case, the lower
courts correctly decided the issue of possession
without delving into the issue of ownership.
 The court found no basis to review the factual
conclusions of the lower courts. The Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts and generally defers to
the factual findings of the lower courts, unless
there is a clear showing of grave abuse of
discretion. In this case, del Mundo failed to
present any compelling reason to warrant a review
of the factual conclusions made by the lower
courts. The court found no grave abuse of
discretion in their decisions.
 The court reprimanded del Mundo for employing
delaying tactics in the case. Del Mundo filed a
separate declaratory relief case, which was
dismissed by the trial court. This was seen as a
tactic to delay the resolution of the ejectment
case. The court emphasized that litigants should
not abuse the judicial process by filing unnecessary
and dilatory actions. As a result, the court ordered
del Mundo to pay treble costs as a penalty for his
actions.
OPINION RULE: LIM VS CA (G.R. No. 91114)
Facts:
 Nelly Lim and Juan Sim are lawfully married to
each other.
 Juan Sim filed a petition for annulment of their
marriage on the grounds that Nelly Lim has been
suffering from schizophrenia before, during, and
after their marriage.
 During the trial, Juan Sim's counsel announced
that they would present Dr. Acampado as a
witness, who had examined and diagnosed Nelly
Lim with schizophrenia.
 Nelly Lim's counsel opposed the testimony,
claiming that it violated the physician-patient
privilege.
 A subpoena was issued for Dr. Acampado to testify
despite the objection.
 Nelly Lim's counsel filed a motion to quash the
subpoena, but it was denied by the trial court.
 Dr. Acampado then testified as an expert witness,
not as an attending physician of Nelly Lim.
Issue:
 Whether the testimony of Dr. Acampado violates
the physician-patient privilege.
Ruling:
 The testimony of Dr. Acampado does not violate
the physician-patient privilege.
Ratio:
 The physician-patient privilege is intended to
protect the patient and facilitate full and
confidential disclosure to the physician.
 The privilege may be waived if no timely objection
is made to the physician's testimony.
 Requisites for claiming the privilege include that
the information was acquired by the physician
while attending to the patient in a professional
capacity and that the information was necessary
for the physician to act in that capacity.
 Only disclosures made to enable the physician to
safely and effectively treat the patient are covered
by the privilege.
Court's Argument:
 Dr. Acampado's testimony does not violate the
privilege because she was presented as an expert
witness and did not disclose any information
obtained from Nelly Lim during her professional
capacity as a physician.
 The interviews between Dr. Acampado and Nelly
Lim were conducted in the presence of a third
party, which may remove the information from the
privilege.
 Nelly Lim's counsel did not object to any questions
asked of Dr. Acampado during her testimony,
which amounts to a waiver of the privilege.
Conclusion:
 The testimony of Dr. Acampado does not violate
the physician-patient privilege.
 The requisites for claiming the privilege were not
met.
 The information disclosed by Dr. Acampado did
not blacken Nelly Lim's reputation.
 The petition is denied and the decision of the
Court of Appeals is upheld.

PEOPLE VS GALLENO (G.R. No. 123546)
Facts:
 The case involves the sexual abuse of a five-year-
old child named Evelyn Obligar Garganera. The
accused, Joeral Galleno, was charged with the
crime of statutory rape. The incident occurred on
August 16, 1994, at Brgy. Balighot, Maayon, Capiz.
Accused-appellant entered the house of Evelyn
without permission and had carnal knowledge of
her, causing a vaginal laceration that resulted in
continuous bleeding and her admission to the
hospital for five days.
Issue:
 The main issue in the case is whether or not
accused-appellant committed the crime of
statutory rape.
Ruling:
 The trial court found accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and
sentenced him to suffer the death penalty. The
Supreme Court, in its automatic review of the case,
affirmed the trial court's decision.
Ratio:
 Conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received
in many cases, not just expert testimony, if it aids
the court in reaching a judgment. In this case, the
trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with
the aid of expert testimony but also the testimony
of other prosecution witnesses, especially the
victim herself. The fact that the experts
enumerated various possible causes of the victim's
laceration does not mean that the trial court's
inference is wrong.
 Evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Relevancy is determinable by the rules
of logic and human experience. The determination
of whether particular evidence is relevant rests
largely at the discretion of the court, which must
be exercised according to the teachings of logic
and everyday experience.
 Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or
procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the accused must be made before he enters his
plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
The accused should question the validity of his
arrest before entering his plea in the trial court. If
he fails to do so, he is estopped from questioning
any defect in the manner of his arrest.
 A judge may properly intervene in the
presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent
unnecessary waste of time and clarify obscure and
incomplete details after the witness has given
direct testimony. However, undue interference
may prevent the proper presentation of the cause
or the ascertainment of truth. In this case, the trial
court judge propounded questions for clarification
purposes and not to build the case for one of the
parties.
 In rape cases, the important consideration is not
the emission of semen but the penetration of the
female genitalia by the male organ. The absence of
spermatozoa in the victim's vagina does not
negate the conclusion that it was the accused's
penis that was inserted. The fact that the victim
experienced pain and profuse bleeding supports
the conclusion of penetration.
OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS: CEBU SHIPYARD AND
ENGINEERING WORKS, INC. VS WILLIAM LINES, INC. (G.R.
No. 132607)
Facts:
 The incident occurred on February 16, 1991, when
the M/V Manila City, owned by William Lines, Inc.,
caught fire and sank while undergoing repairs at
the premises of Cebu Shipyard and Engineering
Works, Inc. (CSEW).
 The vessel was insured with Prudential Guarantee
and Assurance Company, Inc. for P45 million.
 William Lines, Inc. sued CSEW for damages and
included Prudential as a co-plaintiff after
Prudential paid the value of the hull and
machinery insurance on the M/V Manila City.
 The trial court ruled in favor of William Lines, Inc.
and Prudential, and CSEW appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the decision.
 CSEW then filed a petition for review with the
Supreme Court.
Issue:
 Whether CSEW was negligent and liable for the
loss of the M/V Manila City.
 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should
apply.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of William Lines,
Inc. and Prudential, upholding the findings of the
trial court and the Court of Appeals.
 The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
and found that all the conditions for its application
were present.
 The Court found direct evidence to prove that the
workers of CSEW were negligent in their duty of
exercising due diligence in the care of the vessel.
 The Court rejected CSEW's claim to be a co-
assured under the insurance policy.
 The Court ruled that the limitation of liability for
negligence to One Million Pesos was unfair and
inequitable.
Ratio:
 The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
which means "the thing speaks for itself," and
found that all the conditions for its application
were present. This means that the mere
occurrence of the incident itself raises a
presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant.
 The Court found direct evidence to prove that the
workers of CSEW were negligent in their duty of
exercising due diligence in the care of the vessel.
This evidence included the failure to provide
adequate fire-fighting equipment, failure to
 properly secure the vessel, and failure to take
necessary precautions to prevent the fire from
spreading.
 The Court rejected CSEW's claim to be a co-
assured under the insurance policy, as the policy
only named William Lines, Inc. as the assured. The
Court emphasized that insurance contracts are
strictly construed against the insurer and liberally
in favor of the insured.
 The Court ruled that the limitation of liability for
negligence to One Million Pesos was unfair and
inequitable, considering the total loss suffered by
William Lines, Inc. amounted to Forty Five Million
Pesos. The Court held that the limitation of liability
clause should not be enforced when it would
result in an unjust and inequitable situation.
In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of
negligence against CSEW, applied the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur, rejected CSEW's claim to be a co-assured under
the insurance policy, and ruled that the limitation of liability
for negligence was unfair and inequitable.