Prof. V. A.

Avena Evidence
Hearsay PEOPLE v. CUSI G.R. No. L-20986 DIZON; August 14, 1965 (ricky) NATURE Petition for certiorari praying that the ruling of Judge Cusi be declared erroneous and to order him to allow witness Sgt. Lucio Baño to answer the question in full FACTS - Arcadio Puesca, Walter Apa, Jose Gustilo, Filomeno Macalinao, Ricardo Dairo, and Magno Montano were charged with robbery in band with homicide in the CFI of Davao, to which they pleaded not guilty. - During the trial, and while Sgt. Lucio Baño, of the Police Force of Digos, Davao, was testifying as a prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by Arcadio Puesca, he said that the latter, aside from admitting his participation in the commission of the offense charged, revealed that other persons conspired with him to commit the offense, mentioning the name of each and everyone of them. - The prosecutor asked the witness to mention in court the names of Puesca's alleged co-conspirators. Counsel for the accused Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairo objected to this, upon the ground that whatever the witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients were concerned. Judge Vucente Cusi resolved the objection by directing the witness to answer the question but without mentioning the names of the accused who had interposed the objection. In other words, the witness was allowed to answer the question and name his coconspirators except those who had raised the objection. The prosecutor's MFR of this ruling was denied. ISSUE WON Judge Cusi erred in resolving the objection. HELD YES. Ratio There is no question that hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted. But while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. Reasoning The purpose of the prosecutor is nothing more than to establish the fact that the accused Puesca had mentioned to Sgt. Baño the names of those who conspired with him to commit the offense charged, without claiming that Puesca's statement or the answer to be given by Sgt. Baño would be competent and admissible evidence to show that the persons so named really conspired with Puesca. For this limited purpose, the question propounded to the witness was proper and the latter should have been allowed to answer it in full, with the understanding, however, that his answer shall not to be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca and took part in the commission of the offense. Disposition The writ is granted. ESTRADA V DESIERTO 356 SCRA 108 PUNO; March 2, 2001 (joey) NATURE Consolidated cases: GR No. 146710-15- Petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, GR No. 146738 - Quo Warranto FACTS - This case concerns Erap’s fall from power. You know the story… - January 18, 2001 – start of EDSA II - January 20, 2001 – [midnight] first round of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power between Estrada’s and Arroyo’s camps; [noon] Davide administered the oath to Arroyo as President of the Philippines; [2:30 p.m] Estrada and his family hurriedly left Malacañang Palace and issued a press statement saying that he has “strong and serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as President” but he was nevertheless leaving the Palace “for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation.” - Still on January 20, Estrada signed a letter with the following tenor: “By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby

A2010
transmitting this declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the VicePresident shall be the Acting President.” Copies of this were received by former Speaker Fuentebella at 8:30 a.m. and by Senate President Pimentel at 9 p.m. - January 22 - Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency; SC issued Resolution in A.M No. 01-1-05-SC, wherein the court resolved unanimously to confirm the authority given by the 12 members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to Arroyo as President - Arroyo was recognized by more than a hundred foreign diplomats and by the House of Representatives (through Resolution No. 175) as the new President. She appointed cabinet members, ambassadors and special envoys, signed bills into laws, and nominated Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr. as VP. Surveys to the public also showed high rate of acceptance. - February 7, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the impeachment court is functus officio and has been terminated. - Several cases were filed against Estrada in the Office of the Ombudsman. A special panel of investigators was created to investigate the charges against the petitioner. - Petitioner filed these petitions, the first one seeking to “enjoin the Ombudsman from “conducting any further proceedings in Case Nos. OMB 0-00-1629, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 or in any other criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted,” and the second praying for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution.” ISSUES 1. WON the cases at bar involve a political question 2. WON Estrada resigned as President 3. WON petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as President. 4. WON petitioner enjoys immunity from suit 5. WON the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity

53

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
HELD 1. NO Ratio Prominent on the surface on any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it, or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretions; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on question. Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non justiciability on the ground of a political question’s presence. The doctrine of which we treat is one of ‘political questions’, not of ‘political cases’. Reasoning - Tanada v. Cuenco: Political questions refer “to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.” - The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. - Reliance on of Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino is erroneous. There is a clear legal distinction between EDSA I and EDSA II. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II involves legal questions. 2. YES Ratio To be considered as a resignation, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to form. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect. Reasoning - The issue brings under the microscope of the meaning of section 8, Article VII of the Constitution as petitioner denies he resigned as President or that he suffers from a permanent disability. - Petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacañang. Consequently, whether or not he resigned has to be determined from his acts and omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue. (totality test) - “Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” the diary of Exec. Sec. Angara serialized in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was used as an authoritative window on the state of mind of the petitioner. - Among others, it stated that that on January 20, the petitioner decided to call for a snap presidential election and stressed he would not be a candidate. The SC considered this as an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that time. The diary also stated that Estrada expressed no objections to the plans for a graceful and dignified exit. To the SC, this was proof that petitioner had reconciled himself to the reality that he had to resign. - SC also noted that the first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power was limited to 3 points, which did not include the resignation of petitioner because at this time, this was not a disputed point. - Angara’s diary quotes Estrada saying, “Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. To the SC, this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned. The intent to resign is clear when he said “x x x Ayoko na masyado nang masakit.” “ Ayoko na” are words of resignation.

A2010
- During this second round of negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was again treated as a given fact. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and after the transition period. - The resignation of the petitioner was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner’s reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioner’s valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in the past tense. - It is, however, urged that the petitioner did not resign but only took a temporary leave of absence due to his inability to govern and cites the letter transmitted to the Senate President and House Speaker as support. However, the mysterious letter cannot negate the resignation of the petitioner. Petitioner’s resignation from the presidency cannot be the subject of a changing caprice nor of a whimsical will especially if the resignation is the result of his repudiation by the people. - Petitioner also argues that he could not resign as a matter of law. He relies on section 12 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which states that no public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or under the provisions of the RPC on bribery.

54

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
- The intent of the law ought to be obvious. It is to prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being used by a public official as a protective shield to stop the investigation of a pending criminal or administrative case against him and to prevent his prosecution under the Anti-Graft Law or prosecution for bribery under the Revised Penal Code. To be sure, no person can be compelled to render service for that would be a violation of his constitutional right. A public official has the right not to serve if he really wants to retire or resign. Nevertheless, if at the time he resigns or retires, a public official is facing administrative or criminal investigation or prosecution, such resignation or retirement will not cause the dismissal of the criminal or administrative proceedings against him. - Also, when petitioner resigned on January 20, 2001, there were cases filed against him before the Ombudsman but they were not technically pending as the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to act on them. The Ombudsman refrained from conducting the preliminary investigation for the reason that as the sitting President then, petitioner was immune from suit. Section 12 of RA No. 3019 cannot therefore be invoked. - Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from resigning. However, the exact nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable. Even assuming that it is an administrative proceeding, it can not be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely. There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against petitioner when he resigned. 3. NO Ratio Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions in the manner provided for in section 11 of Article VII Reasoning - The Congress has through various acts confirmed GMA’s presidency. They passed the following resolutions: House Resolution No. 176 (Resolution Expressing The Support Of The House Of Representatives To The Assumption Into Office By Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo As President Of The Republic Of The Philippines, Extending Its Congratulations And Expressing Its Support For Her Administration As A Partner In The Attainment Of The Nation’s Goals Under The Constitution); House Resolution No. 178 (Resolution Confirming President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Nomination Of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. As Vice President Of The Republic Of The Philippines); Senate Resolution No. 82(Resolution Confirming President Gloria MacapagalArroyo’s Nomination Of Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. As Vice President Of The Republic Of The Philippines); Senate Resolution No. 83 (Resolution Recognizing That The Impeachment Court Is Functus Officio); Senate Resolution No. 84 (Certifying to the existence of a vacancy in the Senate and calling on the COMELEC to fill up such vacancy through election to be held simultaneously with the regular election on May 14, 2001 and the senatorial candidate garnering the thirteenth (13th) highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.). Both houses of Congress also started sending bills to be signed into law by Arroyo as President. - Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of inability. - The Court cannot pass upon petitioner’s claim of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The question is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. - Even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court. 4. NO Ratio Incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure but not beyond. Moreover, unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser; he is not immune from suit for criminal acts. Reasoning - Estrada makes two submissions: first, the cases filed against him before the Ombudsman should be

A2010
prohibited because he has not been convicted in the impeachment proceedings against him; and second, he enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit, whether criminal or civil. - The doctrine of executive immunity in this jurisdiction emerged as a case law. In Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco tiaco it was held: “the [Governor-General] is liable when he acts in a case so plainly outside of his power and authority that he can not be said to have exercise discretion in determining whether or not he had the right to act. What is held here is that he will be protected from personal liability for damages not only when he acts within his authority, but also when he is without authority, provided he actually used discretion and judgment, that is, the judicial faculty, in determining whether he had authority to act or not. In other words, he is entitled to protection in determining the question of his authority. If he decide wrongly, he is still protected provided the question of his authority was one over which two men, reasonably qualified for that position, might honestly differ; but he is not protected if the lack of authority to act is so plain that two such men could not honestly differ over its determination. In such case, he acts, not as GovernorGeneral but as a private individual, and, as such, must answer for the consequences of his act.” - Considering the peculiar circumstance that the impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency, petitioner Estrada cannot demand as a condition sine qua non to his criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. The plea if granted, would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. To be sure, the debates in the Constitutional Commission make it clear that when impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil cases may already be filed against him. - The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in character. They involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries the death penalty, be covered by the allege mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president. 5. NO Ratio To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by

55

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
the barrage of publicity. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden. (Martelino v Alejandro) Reasoning - 2 principal legal and philosophical schools of thought on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity during the investigation and trial of high profile cases. (1) British- presumption that publicity will prejudice a jury; courts readily stay and stop criminal trials when the right of an accused to fair trial suffers a threat. (2) American- skeptical about the potential effect of pervasive publicity on the right of an accused to a fair trial; employ different strains of tests to resolve this issue, i.e., substantial probability of irreparable harm, strong likelihood, clear and present danger, etc. - Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other offcourt publicity of sensational criminal cases. For another, our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. We have not installed the jury system whose members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose their impartiality. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality. - There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to discharge his burden of proof. He needs to show more weighty social science evidence to successfully prove the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. - The records show that petitioner has instead charged respondent Ombudsman himself with bias. To quote petitioner’s submission, the respondent Ombudsman "has been influenced by the barrage of slanted news reports, and he has buckled to the threats and pressures directed at him by the mobs." News reports have also been quoted to establish that the respondent Ombudsman has already prejudged the cases of the petitioner and it is postulated that the prosecutors investigating the petitioner will be influenced by this bias of their superior. - Again, we hold that the evidence proffered by the petitioner is insubstantial. The accuracy of the news reports referred to by the petitioner cannot be the subject of judicial notice by this Court especially in light of the denials of the Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice and the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty to which he is entitled. Nor can we adopt the theory of derivative prejudice of petitioner, i.e., that the prejudice of respondent Ombudsman flows to his subordinates. In truth, our Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, give investigating prosecutors the independence to make their own findings and recommendations albeit they are reviewable by their superiors. They can be reversed but they can not be compelled to change their recommendations nor can they be compelled to prosecute cases which they believe deserve dismissal. Dispositive Petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED SEPARATE OPINION Vitug [concur] - Resignation is an act of giving up or the act of an officer by which he renounces his office indefinitely. In order to constitute a complete and operative act of resignation, the officer or employee must show a clear intention to relinquish or surrender his position accompanied by an act of relinquishment. Resignation implies, of the intention to surrender, renounce, relinquish the office. - Mr. Estrada imports that he did not resign from the presidency because the word "resignation" has not once been embodied in his letters or said in his statements. However, the contemporary acts of Estrada during those four critical days of January are evident of his intention to relinquish his office. Scarcity of words may not easily cloak reality and hide true intentions. - Abandonment of office is a species of resignation, and it connotes the giving up of the office although not attending by the formalities normally observed in resignation. Abandonment may be effected by a positive act or can be the result of an omission, whether deliberate or not.

A2010
- Mr. Joseph Estrada invokes "temporary incapacity" under Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution. This assertion is difficult to sustain since the temporary incapacity contemplated clearly envisions those that are personal, either by physical or mental in nature, 7 and innate to the individual. - Neither can it be implied that the takeover has installed a revolutionary government. A revolutionary government is one which has taken the seat of power by force or in defiance of the legal processes. Within the political context, a revolution is a complete overthrow of the established government. In its delimited concept, it is characterized often, albeit not always, by violence as a means and specificable range of goals as ends. In contrast, EDSA 2 did not envision radical changes. The government structure has remained intact. Succession to the presidency has been by the duly-elected Vice-president of the Republic. The military and the police, down the line, have felt to be so acting in obedience to their mandate as the protector of the people. Mendoza [concur] - The legitimacy of a revolutionary government cannot be the subject of judicial review. In contrast, these cases do not involve the legitimacy of a government. They only involve the legitimacy of the presidency of Arroyo. - The events that led to the departure of petitioner Joseph E. Estrada from office are well known and need not be recounted in great detail. Justice Mendoza quoted excerpts from the Far Eastern Economic Review and Time Magazine as quoted in the submitted Memorandum. - The permanent disability referred to in the Constitution can be physical, mental or moral, rendering the President unable to exercise the powers and functions of his office. As his close adviser wrote in his diary of the final hours of petitioner's presidency: The President says: "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko namasyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. Angara himself shared this view of petitioner's inability. He wrote in his diary: "Let us be realistic," I counter. "The President does not have the capability to organize a counter-attack. He does not have the AFP or the Philippine National Police on his side. He is not only in a corner; he is also down.” - This is the clearest proof that petitioner was totally and permanently disabled at least as of 11 P.M. of

56

Prof. V. A. Avena Evidence
Friday, January 19, 2001. Hence the negotiations for the transfer of power to the respondent Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It belies petitioner's claim that he was not permanently disabled but only temporarily unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office and therefore can only be temporarily replaced by respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo under Art. VII, Sec. 11. - From this judgment that petitioner became permanently disabled because he had lost the public's trust. - The only question left for resolution is whether there was massive prejudicial publicity attending the investigation by the Ombudsman of the criminal charges against petitioner. The test in this jurisdiction is whether there has been "actual, not merely possible, prejudice"19 caused to petitioner as a result of publicity. There has been no proof of this, and so I think this claim should simply be dismissed. Motion for reconsideration PUNO; April 3, 2001 ISSUES 1. WON prejudicial publicity has affected petitioner’s right to fair trial 2. WON petitioner resigned or should be considered resigned 3. WON the Angara Diary is inadmissible for being violative of the following rules on evidence: hearsay, best evidence, authentication, admissions and res inter alios acta, and WON reliance on newspaper acounts is violative of the hearsay rule 4. WON Congress post facto can decide petitioner’s inability to govern considering Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution 5. WON petitioner must be first convicted in the impeachment proceedings before he can be criminally prosecuted. 6. WON there was double jeopardy 7. WON petitioner was immune from suit 8. WON the SC Justices who went to EDSA should inhibit themselves from the proceedings HELD 1. NO - Petitioner assails the Decision for adverting to newspaper accounts of the events and occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. In our Decision, we used the totality test to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner has resigned. We referred to and analyzed events that were prior, contemporaneous and posterior to the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo as president. All these events are facts which are wellestablished and cannot be refuted. All these prior events are facts which are within judicial notice by this Court. There was no need to cite their news accounts. The reference by the Court to certain newspapers reporting them as they happened does not make them inadmissible evidence for being hearsay. The news account only buttressed these facts as facts. Even then, petitioner has not singled out any of these facts as false. - We used the Angara Diary to decipher the intent to resign on the part of the petitioner. It is not unusual for courts to distill a person’s subjective intent from the evidence before them. Everyday, courts ascertain intent in criminal cases, in civil law cases involving last wills and testaments, in commercial cases involving contracts and in other similar cases. - Petitioner pleads that we apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Under the res ipsa loquitur rule in its broad sense, the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. It is not a rule of substantive law but more a procedural rule. Its mere invocation does not exempt the plaintiff with the requirement of proof to prove negligence. It merely allows the plaintiff to present along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or presumption of negligence and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of going forward with the proof. - It is inappropriate to apply the rule on res ipsa loquitur, a rule usually applied only in tort cases, to the cases at bar. Indeed, there is no court in the whole world that has applied the res ipsa loquitur rule to resolve the issue of prejudicial publicity. - Petitioner keeps on pounding on the adverse publicity against him but fails to prove how the impartiality of the panel of investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman has been infected by it. This fact must be established by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be left to loose surmises and conjectures.

A2010
- We cannot replace this test of actual prejudice with the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The latter rule assumes that an injury (i.e., prejudicial publicity) has been suffered and then shifts the burden to the panel of investigators to prove that the impartiality of its members has been affected by said publicity. Such a rule will overturn our case law that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. - Petitioner suggests that the Court should order a 2month cooling off period to allow passions to subside and hopefully the alleged prejudicial publicity against him would die down. There is no assurance that the so called 2-month cooling off period will achieve its purpose. Petitioner cannot avoid the kleiglight of publicity. What is important for the petitioner is that his constitutional rights are not violated in the process of investigation. 2. YES Ratio In determining whether a given resignation is voluntarily tendered, the element of voluntariness is vitiated only when the resignation is submitted under duress brought on by government action. The threepart test for such duress has been stated as involving the following elements: (1) whether one side involuntarily accepted the other’s terms; (2) whether circumstances permitted no other alternative; and (3) whether such circumstances were the result of coercive acts of the opposite side. - A resignation may be found involuntary if on the totality of the circumstances it appears that the employer’s conduct in requesting resignation effectively deprived the employer of free choice in the matter. Factors to be considered, under this test, are: (1) whether the employee was given some alternative to resignation; (2) whether the employee understood the nature of the choice he or she was given; (3) whether the employee was given a reasonable time in which to choose; and (4) whether he or she was permitted to select the effective date of resignation. In applying this totality of the circumstances test, the assessment whether real alternatives were offered must be gauged by an objective standard rather than by the employee’s purely subjective evaluation; that the employee may perceive his or her only option to be resignation - for example, because of concerns about his or her reputation - is irrelevant. Similarly, the mere fact that the choice is between comparably unpleasant alternatives - for example, resignation or facing

57

’ The Hearsay Rule is satisfied since the party now as opponent has the full opportunity to put himself on the stand and explain his former assertion. It was also extensively used by Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez in his oral arguments. no attack planes that flew over the presidential residence.Prof. It was frequently referred to by the parties in their pleadings. unless the employer actually lacked good cause to believe that grounds for termination existed. . Furthermore.Petitioner’s issuance of the press release and his abandonment of Malacañang Palace confirmed his resignation.To be sure. aalis na ba ako?" which implies that he still had a choice of whether or not to leave. written declaration of temporary inability. But it is difficult to believe that the pressure completely vitiated the voluntariness of the petitioner’s resignation. (2) absence of demeanor evidence. The decided historical trend has been to exclude categories of highly probative statements from the definition of hearsay. .Petitioner further contends that the use of the Angara diary against him violated the rule on res inter alios acta (see Section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court) However. and to develop more class exceptions to the hearsay rule. . Moreover.the holding of snap elections. He was authorized by the petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he abandoned Malacañang Palace. A2010 .Under our rules of evidence. The Diary shows that petitioner was always briefed by Secretary Angara on the progress of their negotiations. One of them is provided in section 29 of Rule 130 with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent. in whole or in part. are admissible against him. The reason behind this is "What is done.Wigmore: The party’s declaration has generally the probative value of any other person’s asssertion. but upon the adversary theory of litigation. NO . the admission discredits the party’s statement with the present claim asserted in pleadings and testimony. and (2) those statements which are 58 . and was therefore involuntary.Even if the Angara Diary is not the diary of the petitioner.A resignation resulting from a choice between resigning or facing proceedings for dismissal is not tantamount to discharge by coercion without procedural view if the employee is given sufficient time and opportunity for deliberation of the choice posed. admissions of an agent are binding on the principal. Not at all hearsay evidence. petitioner had all the opportunity to contest the use of the Diary but unfortunately failed to do so. Certainly. A. Section 26 of Rule 130 provides that "the act. conduct. to justify the conclusion that petitioner was coerced to resign. if voluntary. though the appropriate authority has already determined that the officer’s alternative is termination.A more circumspect examination of our rules of exclusion will show that they do not cover admissions of a party and the Angara Diary belongs to this class. however.Morgan: ‘The admissibility of an admission made by the party himself rests not upon any notion that the circumstances in which it was made furnish the trier means of evaluating it fairly. This is so even where the only alternative to resignation is facing possible termination for cause. no shooting. . . Secretary Angara acted for and in behalf of the petitioner in the crucial days before respondent Arroyo took her oath as President. 3. a resignation by an officer charged with misconduct is not given under duress. In that circumstance. trustworthiness and necessity. on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. pressure was exerted for the petitioner to resign. except verbal violence. and it is his fault if they do not. etc. admissions pass the gauntlet of the hearsay rule. the three parts of the Diary published in the PDI were attached as Annexes A-C of the Memorandum of private respondents Romeo T. A party can hardly object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence save when speaking under sanction of an oath. the ban on hearsay evidence does not cover independently relevant statements.Over the years. . . and declaration." It has long been settled that these admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay. There are three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: (1) absence of cross examination. he asked Secretary Angara: "Ed.Executive Secretary Angara was an alter ego of the petitioner.Petitioner had several options available to him other than resignation-.The Angara Diary contains direct statements of petitioner which can be categorized as admissions of a party. The second and third parts of the Diary were earlier also attached as Annexes 12 and 13 of the Comment of same respondents. An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. Avena Evidence disciplinary charges . . much like a witness impeached by contradictory statements. Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends. A man’s acts.Even assuming arguendo that the Angara Diary was an out of court statement. Thus. the rule has several exceptions. and ‘he does not need to cross examine himself. by agent. .The Angara diary is not an out of court statement but is actually part of the pleadings. V. is done by the principal through him. Petitioner even cited in his Second Supplemental Reply Memorandum both the second and third parts of the diary. it is binding on him under the doctrine of adoptive admission. no large scale violence. for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth. Reasoning . These are statements which are relevant independently of whether they are true or not. is inadmissible as evidence. .” . . Immediately before he left Malacañang.Moreover. They belong to two classes: (1) those statements which are the very facts in issue. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. a huge body of hearsay evidence has been admitted by courts due to their relevance. which requires that extrajudicial assertions be excluded if there was no opportunity for the opponent to cross-examine because it is the opponent’s own declaration. wherever made. Capulong. These are overt acts which leave no doubt to the Court that the petitioner has resigned. petitioner is bound by the acts and declarations of Secretary Angara. there were no tanks that rumbled through the Palace. and (3) absence of the oath. since it is not duress to threaten to do what one has the legal right to do.does not of itself establish that a resignation was induced by duress or coercion. as through a mere instrument. Futhermore. et al. still its use is not covered by the hearsay rule. . or to threaten to take any measure authorized by law and the circumstances of the case. Consequently. where such authority has the legal authority to terminate the officer’s employment under the particular circumstances. and it has a special value when offered against the party.

recognized respondent Arroyo as the "constitutional successor to the presidency" post facto. section 7 of Article VII covers the instance when (a) the President-elect fails to qualify. Section 11 of Article VII covers the case where the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. the rule of exclusion might have successfully been invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken. Statements which may identify the date.Petitioner himself made the submission that "Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions in the manner provided for in section 11 of Article VII.It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 4-6. the knowledge. in the Muro case. These acts of Congress. and frequently. violate the best evidence rule. whenever in the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production." If petitioner now feels aggrieved by the manner Congress exercised its power. which frowned on reliance by courts on newspaper accounts. in the trial court’s discretion. . motive. that is. . . permanent disability. knowledge. Avena Evidence circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled. On the Rule on Proof of Private Writings . In the instant cases. Jr. in effect. The objection itself should be sufficiently definite to present a tangible question for the court’s consideration. Secondary evidence of the content of the writing will be received in evidence if no objection is made to its reception. b.Francisco: an objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence rule into application. Judge Muro dismissed the cases against Mrs. Fuentebella. intention. He was therefore not denied due process. On the Best Evidence Rule . Special consideration should be given to the fact that the events which led to the resignation of the petitioner happened at express speed and culminated on a Saturday. belief. removal from office or resignation of the President. This a priori recognition by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives was followed post facto by various resolutions of the Senate and the House. the Court. Muro. that is. Petitioner’s change of theory. 2001. No general rule as to the form or mode of objecting to the admission of secondary evidence is set forth. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written. and Speaker Fuentebella had prepared a Joint Statement which states their recognition of Arroyo as the constitutional successor to the Presidency.Petitioner cites the case of State prosecutors v. or b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.Petitioner argues that Congress can only decide the issue of inability when there is a variance of opinion between a majority of the Cabinet and the President. Statements of a person which show his physical condition. Statement of a person showing his state of mind. Petitioner had "been given an opportunity to inspect" the Angara Diary but did not object to its admissibility.A proper foundation must be laid for the admission of documentary evidence. that is. cannot be dismissed as merely implied recognitions of respondent Arroyo. Jr. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. a priori and post facto. where secondary evidence has been admitted.Petitioner cannot strictly maintain that the President of the Senate. did not. . It is also urged that the president’s judgment that he is unable to govern temporarily which is thereafter communicated to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate is the political question which this Court cannot review. The second class includes the following: a. .Sec. Marcos on the basis of a newspaper account without affording the prosecution the basic opportunity to be heard on the matter by way of a written comment or on oral argument. YES . The cases at bar do not present the general issue of whether the respondent Arroyo is the de jure or a de facto President. Congress was then not in session and had no reasonable opportunity to act a priori on petitioner’s letter claiming inability to govern. ill will and other emotions. and e. whenever it appears that there is better evidence than that which is offered and before the secondary evidence has been admitted. . . Thus. ill disguised as it is. the Honorable Aquilino Pimentel. V. . d. Petitioner cannot blur these specific rulings by A2010 the generalization that whether one is a de jure or de facto President is a judicial question. of the latter.The Constitution clearly sets out the structure on how vacancies and election contest in the office of the President shall be decided. 20 Rule 132 provides that before any private writing offered as authentic is received in evidence. it is incumbent upon him to seek redress from Congress itself. however. Before the oath-taking. the petitioner had an opportunity to object to the admissibility of the Angara Diary when he filed his pleadings. place and person in question. There is nothing in section 11 of Article VII of the Constitution which states that the declaration by Congress of the President’s inability must always be a priori or before the Vice-President assumes the presidency. good or bad faith. However. In doing so. his mental condition. etc. Suffice it to say here that the objection should be made in proper season – that is. In each case. Section 8 of Article VII covers the situation of the death.Petitioner now argues that whether one is a de jure or de facto President is a judicial question. c. . Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another. however.Petitioner asserts that these acts of Congress of passing Resolutions should not be accorded any legal significance because: (1) they are post facto and (2) a declaration of presidential incapacity cannot be implied. Specific issues were raised to the Court for resolution and we ruled on an issue by issue basis. belief.Prof. Senate President Pimentel. as the President of the Republic. the identity and authenticity of the document must be reasonably established as a pre-requisite to its admission. confirming this recognition. a party who does not deny the genuineness of a proffered instrument may not object that it was not properly identified before it was admitted in evidence. However. and the then Speaker of the House of Representatives. does not at all impress.Wigmore: Production of the original may be dispensed with. 4. the Honorable Arnulfo P. the Constitution specifies the body that will resolve the issues that may 59 . as illness and the like. (b) if a President shall not have been chosen and (c) if at the beginning of the term of the President. A.

. From the deliberations. his claim of previous acquittal may be scrutinized in light of a violation of his right to speedy trial.Assuming that the first four requisites of double jeopardy were complied with.Petitioner avers that even a non-sitting President enjoys immunity from suit during his term of office. He buttresses his position with the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. . it tells us the consequence of the limited reach of a judgment in impeachment proceedings considering its nature.A plain reading of the section 3 (7) of Article XI of the Constitution will not yield petitioner’s conclusion. the Court precisely treated the letter as an administrative matter and emphasized that it was "without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case that may be filed by a proper party. petitioner more than consented to the termination of the impeachmment case against him. petitioner was not able to prove that his case was dragged to an unreasonable length of time. A2010 . Dispositive MR denied for lack of merit CORNEJO. 7. L-58831 FERNAN. Ratio Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid complaint. the Court on February 20. No. The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right. and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. Article VII provides that the contests shall be resolved by this Court sitting en banc. As Bernas points out..facts of the criminal case: Accused represented himself to be connected 60 ." . the deprivation of his or their judicial power is equivalent to the deprivation of the judicial power of the court itself. . In case of inability to govern.R. it cannot extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. 01-1-05 SC. petitioner failed to satisfy the fifth requisite for he was not acquitted nor was the impeachment proceeding dismissed without his express consent. 2001 declaring the office of the President vacant and that neither did the Chief Justice issue a press statement justifying the alleged resolution. (2) before a competent court. (4) when a valid plea has been entered. 8. dismissal on such grounds is a dismissal on the merits. July 31.Petitioner contends that the private and public prosecutors’ walk out from the impeachment proceedings "should be considered failure to prosecute on the part of the public and private prosecutors. hence dismissal on such grounds is a dismissal on the merits. 2001 issued another resolution to inform the parties and the public that it "did not issue a resolution on January 20. however. trial and punishment for the offenses he is now facing before the Ombudsman. and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another." He explains "failure to prosecute" as the "failure of the prosecution to prove the case.Nor can the claim of double jeopardy be grounded on the dismissal or termination of the case without the express consent of the accused. and the termination of the case by the Senate is equivalent to acquittal. And if that judge is the one designated by the Constitution to exercise the jurisdiction of his court. In case of resignation of the President. 5. Petitioner. . if sanctioned and ordered. it is not disputed that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. No amount of manipulation will justify petitioner’s non sequitur submission that the provision requires that his conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition sine qua non to his prosecution. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent. the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term." . The provision conveys two uncomplicated ideas: first. then petitioner has reason to fear that the Court has predetermined the legitimacy of the claim of respondent Arroyo to the presidency. NO. To dispel the erroneous notion.There is no ground to inhibit the12 members of the Court who merely accepted the invitation of the Arroyo to attend her oath taking. there is no double jeopardy. ." . for he brought about the termination of the impeachment proceedings. NO. 6. In case of election contest. and second. The impeachment proceeding was closed only after the petitioner had resigned from the presidency. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds office." He then concludes that "dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute amounts to an acquittal for purposes of applying the rule against double jeopardy.e.It is clear from A. By resigning from the presidency. .Prof. thereby rendering the impeachment court functus officio. A. Petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy cannot be predicated on prior conviction for he was not convicted by the impeachment court.At best.To disqualify any of the members of the Court. section 11 of Article VII gives the Congress the power to adjudge the issue and petitioner himself submitted this thesis which was shared by this Court. that the party convicted shall still be liable and subject to prosecution. 1987 (mini) NATURE Petition for certiorari to review Sandiganbayan decision FACTS . particularly a majority of them. NO. that the Court did not treat the letter of respondent Arroyo to be administered the oath by Chief Justice Davide. However. is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental law.i.In further clarification. We have consistently ruled that when the dismissal or termination of the case is made at the instance of the accused. If it were considered as a case. it tells us that judgment in impeachment cases has a limited reach.e. as is the case with the Justices of this Court.. Reasoning . . The proposed mass disqualification. fails to distinguish between term and tenure. a failure to prosecute. NO. (3) after arraignment. which is what happens when the accused is not given a speedy trial.Cornejo seeks a review on certiorari of a decision in a Criminal case wherein the Sandiganbayan found him guilty for the crime of Estafa . which amounts to a failure to prosecute. V. said members of the Court did not prejudge the legal basis of the claim of Arroyo to the presidency at the time she took her oath. trial and punishment according to law. As mere spectators of a historic event. Hence. Avena Evidence arise from the contingency. as a case but as an administrative matter. means failure of the prosecution to prove the case. Jr. i. It affects the very heart of judicial independence. section 4.M. would leave the Court no alternative but to abandon a duty which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire membership of Justices. NO . SR.. V SANDIGANBAYAN G. Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power.

Dominga erected a house on the land long before the outbreak of World War II. she eventually believed him and hired him for the premises she had been renting. . A2010 long before respondents went to Hawaii. who went with them to Pasay City Hall. if Dominga used said money for improving the house. . de Burcena (Dominga). the CA sustained the conclusion of the RTC that the donation is void. Avena Evidence with the City Engineer. Witnesses for the plaintiffs were respondents and their aunt. done without the consent of the real owners. the finding ot the trial court that petitioner had no authority to conduct inspections and investigations was reached.Dissatisfied. Feb13. ISSUE/S 1. Dominga Reclusado Vda. to the complainant. V. the said Deed of Donation is null and void because: (a) Dominga had no right to donate the same since she is not its owner. depriving respondents of its ownership and enjoyment of its fruits. CC where property sold is granted to one party but the price is paid for by another. trial on the merits ensued. (c) granting Dominga had authority to donate. (b) Dominga did not give her consent and was misled to the execution of such document. she being a merchant when she could still travel to Cagayan Valley. petitioner is in possession of the subject property. the donation is void because the property donated is the only property declared in her name and therefore she could not have reserved for herself in full ownership sufficient property to support herself.Cornejo objects to the admissibility of the certification issued by City Engineer Jesus Reyna to the effect that Cornejo was not authorized to inspect and investigate privately-owned buildings ISSUE 1. but principally from a consideration and study of the law which first allowed the city governments to create the position of City Public Works Supervisor. Bernal had apparently had similar doubts as to the identity of the accused Engineer. 61 . Following pretrial. . so both she and Chua went to the Barangay Captain. the subject property was declared for taxation purposes in Dominga's name as administrator thereof. The CA held that the case involves an implied trust known as purchase price resulting trust under Article 1448. and that Dominga's act of donating the property to petitioner was beyond her authority and capacity. . Mrs. 2006 (bauza) FACTS . There.The complaint alleges that: respondents are the owners of a 918-sqm parcel of land located in Manueva. Bernal. petitioner caused the execution of a Deed of Donation over said property by taking advantage of Dominga's blindness. filed a complaint for annulment of document w/ damages against Salvador Comilang (petitioner). WON Margarita's statement on the witness stand (that Dominga told her that the respondents sent her money to buy the subject property) should not have been given weight or credence by the RTC and the CA because it is hearsay and has no probative value.Petitioner's MFR was denied. not solely on the basis of the certification. respondents have no right over the house. Aniceta and Juana Reclusado. said money already belonged to her. but for which he would only charge P0. Margarita Burcena (Margarita). in relation to the law which placed the city public works supervisors under the supervision of the city engineers. COMILANG V BURCENA GR 146853 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. WON CA erred in discussing an issue not brought before it (implied trust) 2. and found out he was there for the same purpose. such evidence is not covered by the hearsay rule. although declared for taxation purposes in Dominga's name. Besides. Santa. Thus. Disposition instant petition is denied for lack of merit. NO Ratio Where the statement or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered to prove that such statements were actually made or such writings were executed. but merely as part of the testimony of the complainant that such certification was issued in her presence and the declaration of Assistant City Engineer Ceasar Contreras that the signature appearing thereon was that of Engineer Reyna. as well as the latter's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Beth Chua. (petitioner found in good faith -only has to turnover property) .Francisco and Mariano Burcena (respondents). Dominga died. .50/square meter if he were to be hired. City Engineer Jesus Reyna told them that the accused Engineer was not authorized to conduct inspection and investigation of privately owned buildings. together w/ their mother.RTC held that the donation is void because Dominga could not have validly disposed of the subject property since it was bought with the money sent by respondents while working abroad. WON the certification issued by City Engineer Jesus Reyna is covered by the hearsay rule HELD 1. Accused Engineer was eventually cought by the cops in some entrapment plan. a service which usually costs P3/square meter. granting that respondents had been sending money to Dominga. This fact was later confirmed by a certification issued to that effect by said City Engineer. Dominga financed out of her own money the construction of the house and subsequent improvements thereof. Mrs. petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.In his Answer. The CA found no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC. while petitioner testified on his own behalf. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed. petitioner contends that: the Deed of Donation was freely and voluntarily executed by Dominga in consideration of her love and affection for him. .Prof. Ilocos Sur and the house with a floor area of 32 sqm built thereon.During the pendency of the case and before she could take the witness stand. old age and physical infirmity. Reasoning The certification was not presented as independent evidence to prove the want of authority of petitioner to inspect and investigate privately-owned buildings. Although Beth Chua initially was doubtful about the personaility of the accused Engineer. that the evidence presented by the respondents convincingly show that the subject property was bought with money belonging to respondents but declared in Dominga's name as administrator thereof. Beth Chua saw the accused Engineer go into the house of her neighbor. the subject property was acquired by Dominga together w/ her 2 sisters. herein respondents. respondents acquired the subject property through their earnings while working abroad. A. He said that he was empowered to inspect private buildings and that the Metro Manila Commission requires that the floor area of all houses be measured.

The statement attributed to Dominga regarding the source of the funds used to purchase the subject property related to the court by Margarita is admissible if only to establish the fact that such statement was made and the tenor thereof. In fact. who he found near the bench by the door of the house.Prof. Josue Molas. Dulcesima was the daughter of Bernardo and Soledad Resonable. property or services. but on my intervention. the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed Dulcesima and Soledad. As a matter of fact. was the fact that the statement was made by Dominga to Margarita. Nos. principally because trial courts have vastly superior advantages in ascertaining the truth and in detecting falsehood as they have the opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. the testimony of Margarita is not the main basis for the RTC decision. her daughter and grabbed her hair and boxed her to the different parts of her body. Molas was transferred to Valencia Police Station later. Due to blocks I made she was tired and again went back to Dulcesima and again boxed her to the different parts of her body. her testimony is not indispensable. Dominga was merely a trustee of the respondents in relation to the subject property. CC (guardians and trustees cannot donate the property entrusted to them. Bernardo carried Abelardo into their house. since the petitioner directly brought in issue on appeal in his Appellants Brief the declaration of the RTC that Dominga could not have validly disposed of the subject property because respondents are the real owners of the subject property since it was bought with money sent by them. victim) were sweethearts and were engaged to be married. Disposition WHEREFORE. Bernardo then looked for Dulcesima." [It's good that you have arrived. as expressly provided in Article 736.o. Respondents have shown that the two elements are present in the instant case. NO. 97437-39 GRIÑO-AQUINO. Therefore. Avena Evidence HELD 1. Bernardo ran to the barangay captain and sought help from authorities. NO. Because of faith and sympathy. the daughter and the boy”. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement. V. A. Patrolman Vallega then lodged Molas in jail. Soledad boxed me hitting my head and arms. -next morning. who he found dead in a dried carabao mud pool 3-arms length from the house. for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue. it was well-within the CAs authority to review and evaluate the propriety of such ruling. I was able to 62 . The testimonies of all three witnesses for the plaintiffs were found to be convincing and credible by the RTC. from Kabangogan. It merely serves to corroborate the testimonies of the respondents on the source of the funds used in purchasing the subject property. * this Soledad Resonable lighted a gas lamp in their store and said. ROC) In this case. In holding that an implied trust exists between respondents and Dominga in relation to the subject property and therefore Dominga had no right to donate the same to petitioner. and the sister of Nicolas and Abelardo Resonable -on Feb 2.) 2. surrendered to Patrolman Geronimo Vallega. sec 8. the CA merely clarified the RTC's findings. (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law. and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned. MOLAS G. Ratio While it is true that the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned. The trust created under the 1st sentence of Art 1448. February 5. Dominga could not have validly donated the subject property to petitioner. The following are contained in Molas’ sworn statement: In our arrival to their house at sitio Inas. after being informed of his Constitutional rights. the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. Reasoning An appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter. no one can stop me if I kill my own daughter] at the same time went near Dulcesima. Abelardo was brought to the Provincial hospital but died the next day. Bernardo arrived at their house and found 8-y. or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. when the fact that it has been made is relevant. This Court will not alter the findings of the RTC on the credibility of witnesses. is clearly hearsay evidence. with blood-stained clothes. 1993 (cha) NATURE Appeal A2010 FACTS -Josue Molas (accused-appellant) and Dulcesima Resonable (Dulcesima. and Soledad. Molas freely and voluntarily related the “whole story”. Because I was hurt on the part of Dulcisima. not necessarily that the matters stated by her were true. Abelardo at the doorway of their house bathed in his own blood. at about 6:00 pm after farm work. evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but primary. Reasoning What was sought to be admitted in evidence. "maayo kay naabot na ta walay makaboot nako ug patyon nako ang akong anak. refused to give any statement to the police. together with the “hunting knife I used in killing the mother. I stopped Solidad by holding her hands to prevent her boxing Dulcesima. or an equivalent. (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice. as taken down by Patrolman Fetalvero. Dying Declaration PEOPLE V. if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement. (See R51. -dawn of Feb 3. it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. Eventually. constituting valuable consideration.R. Costs against petitioner. is dependent. 1983. Barangay Dobdob. the elements of which are: (a) an actual payment of money. and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust. (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored. Besides. my wife-tobe and no other means to prevent Solidad. and what was actually admitted in evidence. CC is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust.

PEOPLE VS GUMIMBA 517 SCRA 25 TINGA. February 27. the appealed judgment convicting Josue Molas for the murders of Dulcesima Resonable. ISSUE WON the testimonies of Magallano and Aranas are inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay HELD 63 . Disposition. and (d) that his declaration is offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide. He denied knowing the contents of the affidavit because it was written in English and was not translated to him. While it is true that the appellant's extrajudicial confession was made without the advice and assistance of counsel. patya lamang ko ug layhan ka mag onong ta sa kamatayon. he saw Soledad wounded in the neck and bathed with blood. Dulcesima and Soledad Resonable. he testified that at about 6 pm on Feb 2. Reasoning. .Gumimba later on changed his plea of not guilty to GUILTY. People vs. He informed his mother regarding what happened. . WHEREFORE. (c) that he was a competent witness. which observed his deportment on the witness stand. he saw his fiancé lifeless beside the dried mud pool 3 fathoms away from the store/house. His act of giving himself up to the police of Pamplona with the murder weapon. He shouted for help then suddenly a voice from behind the store said “Don’t shout.Both entered a plea of not guilty on arraignment. However.000." [You'll kill me after all?] I went back where Abelardo was and pulled the penetrated weapon and stabbed Dulcisima who at that time was following me hitting her breast and caused her life to end. During the said flight he stumbled. only Molas was presented. Saliling. People vs. The prosecution presented two witnesses: Magallano and Arenas.Gumimba and co-accused Abapo were charged with the crime of rape with homicide of an eight-year old child. To be admissible. . the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death. He even repeated his narration and confessed to the baranggay captain that he had raped and killed the victim. He signed the document willingly. his A2010 blood-stained clothing at the time of the surrender only hours after the killings. inadmissible as evidence. Rules of Court. Bay. Hearing such words. Dulcisima's younger brother at my back holding and boxing my buttock. and the testimonies of the policemen in the police stations in Pamplona and Valencia to whom he admitted his guilt constitute an unbroken chain proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was he who murdered Abelardo. . Molas did not object to any of the contents of his affidavit as translated.Both were found guilty of the crime. YES Ratio. Correct in giving credence to it as a dying declaration. (b) that at the time it was made. Reasoning." [How could you do this to my parent. NO. there was more that enough evidence to support his conviction. SO ORDERED. Carido. testifying before the trial court on October 16. hence. I responded. When I saw Solidad her mother walking towards the seat of their store and sat down. a dying declaration must: (1) concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. -3 separate information for murder were filed against Molas. Avena Evidence grab the weapon on my waist and stabbed Solidad hitting her first on the breast.” The said confession was signed before Judge Tayrosa of the MTC fo Valencia after it was translated to Cebuano. It was indubitably a dying declaration. In essence. -for the defense. causing the injury in his hands. Patrolman Paquito Fetalvero. and with his blood-stained clothes. There. "puslang nabuhat sa akong ginikanan. A. murder or parricide in which the declarant is the victim (Sec. He hugged Dulcesima but she was dead so he ran to the store. V.the trial court did not rely solely on the extrajudicial confession of the accused. They testified that Gumimba went to Magallano’s home and confessed to him that he alone and by himself raped and killed his niece in Ozamis City. the latter being hearsay. Rule 130. WON the court erred in giving credence to Abelardo’s dying declaration 2. with modification of the death indemnity which is hereby increased to P50. then on the back after which I saw Abelardo. kill me also so we'll all die together]. quoted the admissions of the accused. he proceeded to the police station. while he (Abelardo) lay at death's door. He also alleged. I followed her and slashed her neck and stabbed her stomach and immediately ran home.Prof. it could be treated as a verbal admission of the accused established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused (People vs. 58 SCRA 383. 167 SCRA 462. Ratio. to which he pleaded not guilty. leaving therein the weapon I used causing incised wound on my right little finger and ran away but Dulcisima stopped me by holding my left hand and said. found him credible. Even if that confession were disregard. 1984. "papatay ka diay kanako. All of the circumstances required were present when Abelardo made his dying declaration. Abelardo's statement that it was Josue Molas who inflicted his injuries and also stabbed his mother and sister was given to his father. People vs. 69 SCRA 427). though unsubstantiated. He also saw Abelardo under a table with a hunting knife in his back which he pulled from Abelardo. Soledad Resonable and Abelardo Resonable and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of said murders is AFFIRMED. on appeal the appellant raises the issue that the CA erred in convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of his improvident plea of guilty and his alleged confessions to Magallano and Aranas. if you don’t want to die!” 3 unidentified men started chasing him afterwards. 20 SCRA 249). While he was being investigated. bleeding from stab wounds in his colon and spinal cord. I stabbed him on the breast and followed again at the back causing him to fall down on the ground. 2. that Patrolman Quitoy manhandled him.00 for each case. WON his extrajudicial admission was validly admitted by the court HELD 1. The trial court. 2007 (athe) NATURE APPEAL from the decision of the CA FACTS . as a result of which he expired a few hours later. The Valencia Police Station investigator. Feliciano. Patrolman Vallaga arrived and informed Patrolman Renzal that Abelardo tagged him as the killer. 31. -RTC: GUILTY ISSUES 1. Abelardo's dying declaration. Fontanosa.

hitting the latter on the left breast. When Ricardo regained consciousness. heard an PEOPLE V MARAMARA G. Guided by these long standing doctrinal pronouncements. it must be considered as an evidence of the highest order because. Accused took his handgun tucked in his waist and fired at victim Miguelito. 1991 and at about 12 mn. Regarder. husband and wife. Accused regained consciousness at the hospital where Dr. Ratio Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements. as truthful testimonies coming from credible witnesses. The fact of relationship of prosecution witnesses Ricardo and Regarder Donato to the victim Miguelito does not necessarily place them in bad light. Regarder asked who shot him and Miguelito replied that it was accused. Relationship per se does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive. No.Cresencio Maramara was convicted of murder for killing Miguelito Donato. SC is bound by its assessment. Then Ricardo and Miguelito ganged-up on Dante. at the threshold of death.pm. and (5) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry. (2) that the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. The testimonies are independently relevant statements which are not barred by the hearsay rule. Note: The Court found that the appreciation of treachery by RTC to qualify the offense to murder is reversed. (3) that the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to. V. for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. DISPOSITION Decision of the RTC and CA affirmed. He now appeals to SC. The couple lived in a typical hut made of bamboo flooring and dilapidated buri walling surrounded by fruit bearing banana plants. and the truth or falsity is immaterial. Geñorga.Miguelito’s father. 11 January 1979 (ice) Nature Automatic Review Facts Molo was accused of Murder. since the stronger Ricardo was holding accused’s hands and was dragging him away while Miguelito kept lunging a 6-inch bladed weapon at him. . . accused’s attending doctor. Rowena ran away while Ricardo scampered toward the fence for safety. rushed to the scene to pacify the trio. approached Ricardo and boxed him on the chest. Before Miguelito expired. the presumption is that A2010 they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. Dante Arce. these requisites must concur: (1) that death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact. October 22.The issue of credibility requires a determination that is concededly best left to the trial court with its unique position of having been enabled to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the deportment of witnesses on the stand. No.. (4) that the declarant thereafter dies. Dr. 2 YES .The degree and seriousness of the wounds suffered by the victim Miguelito and the fact that his death supervened shortly thereafter may be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration was made by him with the full realization that he was in a dying condition. Disposition: RTC Decision MODIFIED. nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. while Ricardo Donato was dancing with a certain Rowena. PEOPLE V. he hurried home and informed his parents of what happened to their son Miguelito. brothers Ricardo and Miguelito arrived at the benefit dance and 64 .For a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence. never asked the details of the stabbing incident nor the identity of assailant. 18. only the fact that such statements were made is relevant. who had not yet fallen asleep.Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive. ISSUES 1 WON testimonies of prosecution witnesses are credible 2 WON Regarder Donato’s testimony regarding Miguelito’s identification of the accused as his assailant certainly qualifies as a dying declaration that is worthy of credence HELD 1 YES . Miguelito Donato was about 2 meters away from where Ricardo Donato stayed at the fence. retired to sleep.Defense Version: At about 11p. Accused guilty of HOMICIDE and NOT MURDER. much less was he capable of inflicting injury on Miguelito. He allegedly attacked and assaulter Gapisa in Romblon with a bolo. a friend of accused. 110994 PARDO. Ricardo tried to help his fallen brother but somebody struck Ricardo’s head with an iron bar which knocked him out for about 3 minutes. Gil Geñorga treated him for a few days. . In the absence of any showing that the trial court’s calibration of credibility is flawed. MOLO G.R. L-44680 Per Curiam. all thoughts of fabrication are stilled. Maramara. approached the dancing pair of Rowena and Dante. -Venancio Gapisa and Simeona Rapa-Gapisa.Prosec Version: At a benefit dance held in the yard of accused Maramara’s house in the evening of Nov. immediately went to the crime scene and rushed Miguelito to the Hospital where the latter died. . Ricardo held accused’s hands at his back and then Miguelito repeatedly stabbed him on different parts of his body. A. There was no way accused could’ve resisted Miguelito’s attack.Prof. Simeona. A victim’s utterance after sustaining a mortal wound may be considered pure emanations of the incident. .R. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary. Avena Evidence NO. The victim Miguelito’s dying declaration having satisfied all these requisites. 1999 (rean) NATURE Appeal from RTC Decision FACTS . we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of (1) Ricardo’s eyewitness account of how accused shot Miguelito and (2) Regarder’s recollection of his son Miguelito’s dying declaration.

Simeona rushed out of the house through the door of the unfinished kitchen to summon help from her son. WON Simeona could have been able to recognize Molo (given that he was at the foot of the stairs and there is a banana plant obstructing the moonlight) Yes. The discordance in their testimonies on collateral matters heightens their credibility and shows that their testimonies were not coached or rehearsed. Issues (The court tried to answer each allegations of Molo) WON there is no proof of motive on appellant's part. The transcripts showan answer to the misgivings by showing that she was scared of being boloed as well which the court finds reasonable. because he was awakened by the first blows and stood up to defend himself. considering that their house was only elevated by two steps and at the time she saw him through the dilapidated burl wall he was already at the foot of the stairs. Indeed. With regard to the assertion that Simeona only pointed to the accused as the killer because he was a hated criminal in the locality No. therefore. Simeona had no difficulty in recognizing the accused. V. which. Venancio was then rushed to the hospital and arrived there at about 1:50 a. Upon arrival. not laid to impeach Simeona's testimony on the basis of alleged inconsistent statements which she allegedly made before the police. i. and a mitigating circumstance. a son of the victim who went to the rescue of his father after he was stabbed by accused-appellant and was able to talk with him before he succumbed to several bolo wounds. He was sitting in the floor of the kitchen. and Roman. Simeona testified that the banana plants did not obstruct the light cast by the moon and the defense did not disprove this fact. (2) Alejandro Gapisa. People vs. the name by which accused-appellant was known in their locality. recidivism and reiteration alleged in the Information. Trembling. his neighbor are dying declarations. On the alleged inconsistent averments regarding the presence of light. A. Far from being evidence of falsehood. To simply thrust a bolo at a lying person is not as forceful as to hack him with it. Victorio Benedicto. The accused forcibly pushed the sliding door and barged into the house. Roman Mangaring who was present also inquired from Venancio who his assailant was and elicited the answer. the conviction of accused.appellant can stand inasmuch as he had been positively Identified by Simeona Gapisa and by the deceased himself through his dying declaration. The statements of Venancio Identifying Dominador Molo as his assailant to Alejandro. For she clarified A2010 that her husband was already boloed before the light was snuffed out. they saw Venancio bleeding profusely and in weakened condition. they could justifiably be regarded as a demonstration of good faith. Venancio told him that he was boloed by Boslo. followed by Simeona. Feliciano. but he was not able to retaliate in as much as Dominador Molo was quick to hack at him again. Upon being informed. He inquired from Simeona where Venancio was and she replied that he was asleep. When Alejandro took him in his arms. who was at Roman Mangaring's house some 100 meters away. 58 SCRA 383. Inconsistencies on minor details or on matters that are not of material consequence as to affect the guilt or the innocence of the accused do not detract from the credibility of the witnesses. Venancio quickly stood up and with his right hand reached for his bolo which was atop the table nearby. Dorico. eight in all. and (4) Dr. defecating in his pants. Disposition 65 . "Boslo". who performed the autopsy and accomplished the Autopsy Report. but the second is natural and can be done with facility. the alleged inconsistencies inconsequential. she told him that his father was boloed by Boslo. There was certainty in the identification of Molo. Rudely awakened. an eye witness to the alleged murder. since as testified by Simeona he was asleep when attacked No. Alejandro and Roman ran towards the house of Venancio. Trial Court relying on the testimony of Simeona Gapisa who was an eye-and ear-witness to the incident and the corroborating testimonies of Alejandro Gapisa and Roman Mangaring. who testified on the ante-mortem statements of the victim identifying accused as the assailant. that it was very unusual that she remained silent while witnessing the attack on her husband. a neighbor of Alejandro. Fearing for her own life. but the latter did not respond.Prof. Motive need not be shown where there is positive Identification. Simeona Gapisa. (3) Roman Mangaring. WON Simeona's account is contrary to physical facts (i. Moreover.e. 54 SCRA 172). in fact. his son. With regard to alleged incredible assertions. PC soldiers and policemen were dispatched to the house of Dominador Molo some one and a half (1-1/2) kilometers away from the scene of the killing Dominador Molo was placed under arrest and brought by the arresting officers to the poblacion. She saw accused Dominador Molo by peeping in a hole. A review of the transcript of the testimony shows that the foregoing is an inaccurate representation of Simeona's testimony. voluntary surrender. (People vs. He expired a few minutes after. The first is an awkward if not difficult movement. appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of dwelling. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. She tried to awaken her husband. Investigated at the PC barracks. Even in the absence of proof of motive. Finding Venancio sleeping near the door.m. Motive need not be shown when there is positive Identification. Venancio must have realized the seriousness of his condition and it can therefore be inferred that he made the incrimination under the conciousness of impending death. WON the dying declarations should not be accorded credence because the victim could not have recognized his assailant. sentenced the accused. he immediately grabbed his left wrist and started hacking at the sleeping old man. supervened barely 41/2 hours after he was boloed. Alejandro Gapisa. WON Molo’s Identity as assailant was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Avena Evidence indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing of teeth. The proper bast was. The alleged inconsistent statement given to the police was neither offered as evidence nor shown to witness in order to enable her to explain the discrepancies if any in accordance to Section 16. it was only at the initial stage of the attack when the victim was asleep. discounting the defense of alibi put forth by the accused and his wife. The accused had already climbed up the house which was only a flight of two steps. She immediately lighted a kerosene lamp and placed it on top of the trunk nearby.e how Molo stabbed her husband) No it is not. -Testimonies were presented from (1) the victim's wife. Considering the nature and extent of the wounds.

to report a crime and describe the malefactor at the earliest possible opportunity. June 21. he expired. also known as an ante mortem statement or a statement in articulo mortis. March 3. which she refused to do. she claimed that she ws not able to talk to him anymore. . and. resulting in the death of another daughter. he merely learned of the shooting of Cipriano from the people who rushed to the scene of the crime. is admissible under the following requisites: (1) that death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact. waiting for her husband Cipriano to arrive. foremost of which is Barangay Captain Solis' testimony that Feriamil was the original suspect in the murder. Solis. . A.Leticia Bandarlipe was sitting on a sled near a kamias tree by her house.. . but merely presumed it was appellant who shot the victim because he saw appellant carrying a gun near the vicinity of the crime scene . and Leticia Bandarlipe's admission that Solis and Gagaza went to her house the day after her husband's murder to solicit her cooperation in the prosecution of Feriamil. . WON the dying declaration should be admitted.August 14. Jr. ISSUE/S 1. Cipriano was rushed to the hospital by Leticia’s sister-in-law. Gagaza’s report was entered into the police blotter. Her acts are contrary to the natural tendency of a witness closely related to the victim. 2. V. WON the Bautista is guilty HELD 1.If it is true that Leticia Bandarlipe actually saw her husband being shot by appellant. This testimony has left the Court baffled as to whether or not the victim indeed identified appellant as his assailant. In her cross examination.It is also worthy to note that whereas Leticia initially denied having talked to the local officials who accompanied her to the hospital she subsequently admitted that Barangay Captain Solis.April 15. who heard the statement. prompting the MCTC to forward the records to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. went to her house the day after the incident and talked to her about filing a case in connection with her husband's murder. JR.Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with Multiple Murder with Arson in a criminal complaint filed on March 24. et al. (3) that the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to. 1986: the accused filed a Waiver of Preliminary Investigation. 1993 (anton) NATURE Automatic appeal to the SC for penalty of life imprisonment (case: life imprisonment not provided in the RPC.December 11. Barangay Captain Felipe M. the investigating officers found six year old Bombie 66 . She heard a gunshot and the ensuing shout of her husband that he was shot. (2) that the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.After both accused entered a not guilty plea during their arraignment on 23 February 1987. would certainly raise questions consistent with the proposition that the prosecution might have accused the wrong person. . About 40 meters away.Gagaza and Solis proceeded to police station to report the incident.R. Manolo Toting. Reasoning In her direct testimony. the Court cannot see its way clear why Leticia should still ask her husband who shot him when she allegedly saw appellant still pointing the gun at him . 1986: the Integrated National Police (INP) Station Commander of Pamplona amended the complaint by including the name of another victim. was not presented to testify. There. Manolita Toting and Manolo Toting were found near the vicinity of the burned house. Leticia then asked her husband who shot him and the latter identified the appellant. there are pieces of evidence on record which. Barangay Tanod De Leon.Prof. Beatrice Toting. who suffered second and third degree burns because of the burning of the house. No.In the case at bar.The evidence for the prosecution upon which the decision is based is summarized in the RTC’s decision. Leticia claimed that the victim identified his killer.Given the alleged knowledge of Gagaza of certain vital facts surrounding the crime.As to prosecution witness Peralta. why was she reluctant to file a complaint against the gunman whom she allegedly saw shoot her husband. Bombie. trial on the merits ensued. who responded to her shouts for help. 1986: the Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Negros Oriental filed with the RTC of Negros Oriental an Information for Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder with Arson against the accused. It was alleged therein that Cipriano told Gagaza that he was shot by one Domy Ferreamil. 1986 with the MCTC of Pamplona in Negros Oriental for allegedly killing the spouses Zosimo and Beatrice Toting and their six-year old daughter. Likewise. Avena Evidence Affirmed PEOPLE V BAUTISTA GR No.. . She approached him and saw Bautista pointing a firearm at her husband. Manolita. He did not in fact witness the shooting. 117685 KAPUNAN. The entry in the police blotter is not enough. 1999 (monch) NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC convicting Bautisa FACTS . No. . and contains the following: “Zosimo Toting. if properly considered. he caused the entry in the police blotter naming Feriamil as the main suspect in the murde . 86941 DAVIDE. 1988: the RTC promulgated its Decision acquitting accused Basay but convicting Ramirez. why did she not report what she saw and heard to the two barangay tanods. 2. it is highly surprising why the prosecution did not call him to testify if only to clarify why on the day the crime was committed.December 15. NO Ratio A dying declaration. and for burning the said spouses' house to conceal the crime. Sr. or that her dying husband told her that it was appellant who shot him. Feriamil is a business partner of Bautista in a tobacco plantation which the former operated. Gagaza. It is not the same as reclusion perpetua) FACTS . Disposition Decision reversed A2010 PEOPLE V BASAY G. . . Poldo Bautista. and (4) that the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant's death is the subject of the inquiry Reasoning The TC correctly rejected the ante mortem statement since Gagaza. Gagaza and de Leon.. Jose C.

the trial court did not admit the statement of Bombie Toting as a dying declaration but merely as part of the res gestae because the prosecution failed to prove of the requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration: that (1) the statement was given under consciousness of an impending death.The appellant executed the extra-judicial confession voluntarily and without duress. 18. Calumpang of the MCTC of Pamplona. 1986 and subscribed and sworn to only on March 14. 1986 before Judge Teopisto L. in the presence of the Judge. Elpedio Catacutan who acted as appellant's counsel. no reasonable mind would conclude that she was candidly truthful. 18). Article IV of the 1973 (and 1987) Constitution.On the other hand. . RTC: 67 . he was not present during the custodial investigation. ISSUE(S) 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. (NO) 2. and therefore admissible.The Joint Waiver mentioned in the testimony of Jaime Ramirez is in the Cebuano dialect and was signed by accused Basay and Ramirez on March 7.Queried on the joint waiver. 1986. Bombie Toting related to Sgt. Records. . they voluntarily decided to be detained and that they killed the spouses Zosimo Toting and Betty Toting and thereafter burned the spouses' house. . Both accused state therein that for their safety and security. . Securing counsel to help the accused when the latter subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal's Office was too late and had no palliative effect. January 20. A. The Judge then made the court interpreter translate the allegations of the sworn statement into the local dialect for appellant. Even if he were called on as counsel. Avena Evidence Toting suffering from serious hack wounds (TSN. Thereafter. Her condition at the time she supposedly gave her statement made it impossible for her to have communicated effectively. Catacutan signed the affidavit. Ramirez said he could not have read it because he’s illiterate. p. 1986 at 7:00 o'clock in the evening. inguinal area left to the medial thigh left through and through. When the waiver was read to him.No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it is in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. . it did not cure the absence of counsel at the time of the custodial investigation when the extra-judicial statement was being taken. Reasoning Article III. 1986. 12(1). They brought with them an affidavit previously typed by a police investigating officer. . and when the latter saw them.” Bombie died on March 7. Appellant and counsel also signed the vernacular translation of Exhibit “F”. NO Ratio The trial court itself ruled that Bombie was not a competent witness. with necrotic transected muscle. WON the extra-judicial confession signed by Ramirez is admissible. that the fire resulted in the death of one and the hospitalization of two Toting children. and died in the hospital on March 7. 2. p. they were not represented by counsel. it admitted in evidence the so-called extra-judicial confession of Jaime Ramirez. he did not understand it because it was read in English. and (2) that Bombie Toting is a competent witness.” Prosecution . Sec. shall be inadmissible in evidence. Reasoning .Prof. Edgar Cantalao (doctor who attended to Bombie before she died) testified that when he last saw Bombie alive. Appellant’s Claim . Dr. 12. by any person on his behalf. Investigating Officers went to the appellant’s house. .The purported extra-judicial confession belonging to appellant Jaime Ramirez and obtained during custodial interrogation was taken in blatant disregard of his right to counsel.The trial court disregarded this Joint Waiver insofar as it tended to incriminate the accused "because when they signed said Joint Waiver. . (NO) HELD 1. she could not talk. and considered as flight (which is indicative of guilt) when Ramirez ran away. The trial court described this document as the Extra-Judicial Confession of Ramirez.She was taken from the crime scene only on 6 March 1986. p. WON Bombie Toting’s statement should be considered a dying declaration. . appellant and Mr. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. 9). he tried to run away. 1986.Bombie’s statement must be considered a dying declaration. . . The young girl said that she had been in this condition for one and a half days already.” HOWEVER. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. .Elpedio Catacutan was not yet a lawyer. It further ruled that the latter signed the extra-judicial confession voluntarily and in the presence of Elpedio Catacutan. 1988.Appellant was brought into the chamber of Judge Teopisto Calumpang.The so-called extra-judicial confession Exhibit "F" was executed in blatant disregard of his constitutional right to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation. WON flight by Ramirez is indicative of guilt.Bombi Toting’s statement is "very doubtful and . guaranteed by Section 20. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down.The Exhibit "F" referred to is the Sworn Statement (in English) of accused Jaime Ramirez taken in the Pamplona police station on March 7. He reached only Grade II and knows only how to write his name. He was accompanied by Mr. the MCTC judge of Pamplona on March 14. It is therefore inadmissible in evidence. in whole or in part. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. he must be provided with one. 1988. January 20. Tabanao that on March 4. or 2 days after the commission of the crime. (NO) 3. If the person cannot afford the A2010 services of counsel. to remain silent and to be informed of such rights. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. . appellant and Teodoro Basay killed her parents and burned their house (TSN. NO Ratio Statements made during the period of custodial interrogation to be admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.Bombie suffered the following injuries: Infected hack wound from the right anterior lumbar area transecting mid abdomen. It was this inability to talk which led the trial court to express its doubts on the veracity of the latter's supposed statement. V. 1986. only a barrister. 1987 Constitution Sec. .

’ She immediately pushed open the window of their kitchen and saw the accused wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants running towards the direction of the back portion of Lito’s house. ^_^] Version of the Prosecution -Nov 4. ‘Tabangi ko Pre. Apr 18. Lito saw Ernita Pantinople. PO2 Operario told the crew to load Artemio’s body into the vehicle. ‘Help me Pre. inter alia. DISPOSITION Decision of the RTC is reversed. He then invited accused to go with him to the police station and also to bring along with him his M-14 rifle. the day the crime was committed. -Armed with the information that accused was the one responsible for the shooting of Artemio. . the coconut trees and young banana plants growing at the scene of the crime did not affect his view. Ernita saw the accused carrying a long firearm which looked like an M-14 rifle and also sensed that accused had some companions with him because she heard the crackling sound of the dried leaves around the place. Some of their neighbors answered Ernita’s call for help and approached them. Reasoning .’ (Help me. Ernita was hysterical.This act should not be considered as the flight which is indicative of guilt.Lastly. . he then boarded again their mobile car together with Lito Santos. Artemio returned to the bench in front of the Santos’ store and sat on it together with his three children. Lito was still eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a gunshot. Their open-type kitchen (no walls) gave him an unobstructed view of Artemio who was about 5meters away from where he A2010 was positioned at that time. Avena Evidence “. Sorry. Lito then went out of their house and approached Artemio who was lying dead near a banana trunk more than 5meters from his house. Artemio shouted to him.Prof. When the funeral hearse arrived. The portions of the Court’s ruling relevant to the topic in the outline have been italicized for easier reference. bakit mo binaril and aking asawa. no brgy tanod or any member of the CFO and CAFGU came to help. she suddenly heard the sound of a gunburst followed by a shout. 163217. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. Zosimo Toting. Although persons of tender age are prone to tell the truth.If indeed his running away could be construed as flight. She repeatedly called her neighbors for help. -Shortly. PO2 Operario stayed at the crime scene for about 1hour and waited for the funeral vehicle to pick up the body of Artemio. Moments later. I know this digest is very long. he also noticed smoke and fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun. Lito did not see the person who shot Artemio because his attention was then focused on Artemio. however. he should have vanished sooner and should not have remained in his house. Pre. -While waiting for the police. a few responded to her calls and approached them. Lito did not approach Artemio right after the shooting incident because Cecilia warned him that he might also be shot. After eating. I was shot by the captain. When she was about to put the bottle into the baby’s mouth. -When the shooting incident happened [abt 7:30pm]. . Lito’s house was illumined by a lamp. Accused did 68 . MARTURILLAS V PEOPLE G. NO Ratio While it may be true that the appellant ran away when he first saw the armed law officers. Our experience has shown that persons in authority are prone to fabricate or misrepresent the facts to serve their own purpose. 3. Although there was a gemilina tree growing in the space in between his house and the store of Artemio. Such evidence would still be insufficient for a conviction. Jr. he saw Artemio clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the direction of Lito’s kitchen. jumping and shouting. If he were indeed one of the perpetrators and had the intention to flee in order to avoid arrest. the wife of Artemio. but I assure you the case is even longer. there must be. -At the same instance. in order that circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction.’ She also repeatedly cried for help. abt 6pm: Cecilia Santos called her husband Lito and their neighbor and kumpare Artemio Pantinople for supper. Ernita did not allow Artemio’s body to be touched by anybody. Under Section 4. She immediately went out of their house and ran towards Artemio who tried to speak to her but could not do so because his mouth was full of blood. Ernita was also in their kitchen preparing milk for her baby who was then lying on the floor of their kitchen. V.” . PO2 Operario proceeded to the house of accused and informed him that he was a suspect in the killing of Artemio. From there. that it was the accused. he did so merely out of fear of them. as a result of the foregoing observations. the Court will have to put weight and consider her statement as a dying declaration. neither did she tell her own brother. it could only be considered as circumstantial evidence. coming from her house towards the direction where Artemio was sprawled on the ground. and Jaime Ramirez is acquitted. the Court must be cautious in appreciating said testimony where the person had a serious wound and had not eaten for one day and one night. 1998. Therefore it should also not held against Jaime Ramirez. No. 2006 (marge) NATURE Petition for Review seeking to set aside [1] CA Decision affirming (with modifications as to the award of damages) the RTC Davao City Decision finding Celestino Marturillas (former Brgy Capt of Gatungan. The appellant had not left his house or barangay since 4 March 1986. No other circumstance was established in this case. Likewise. PANGANIBAN. I was shot by the captain’). FACTS [Yeah. Ernita and Lito then approached PO2 Operario and informed him that accused was the one responsible for the shooting. Bunawan District.R. 42091-98. After more than 2hours. the accused crossed the street and disappeared. together with a photographer named Fe Mendez who took pictures of the crime scene. more than one (1) circumstance. gipusil ko ni kapitan. A. XXX Had the statement of Bombie Toting been made to the doctor or to the barangay captain or to any reputable member of the community where the incident happened. and the CA resolution denying MR. [around 10pm] the police arrived. Thereafter. Davao City) guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. ‘Kapitan. From a distance of about 10meters. There is no evidence to show that Bombie Toting told the doctor as to who were the perpetrators of the crime. Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez who killed her parents and her brother and sisters and burned their house. She had a clear view of accused at that time because their place was well-illumined by the full moon that night and by the two (2) fluorescent lamps in their store. the same did not block his view of Artemio. the trial court completely disregarded Bombie Toting's socalled statement as against Teodoro Basay.

-No ill motive could be ascribed to the prosecution witnesses. clearly established the latter’s complicity in the crime. Since the wound was negative of powder burns. He also testified that the house of Lito Santos was only about 4meters from the crime scene. City Prosecutor Raul B. the PNP Crime Laboratory released Physical Sciences Report No. 1998. 1998: Marturillas was subjected to paraffin testing by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Davao City. black jacket and a pair of camouflage pants. then 2nd Asst. abt 8:30 pm: Marturillas was roused from his sleep by his wife since two brgy kagawads wanted to see him. Accused did not also give any statement to anybody about the incident. they then proceeded to the crime scene to determine what assistance they could render. the widow of the victim and the children were merely shouting and crying and it was only after the policemen arrived that the widow uttered in a loud voice. after preparing all the affidavits of Ernita Pantinople and her witnesses. They decided to go back to his house. Kagawad Balugo instead radioed officials of nearby Brgy San Isidro requesting them to contact the Bunawan PNP for police assistance since someone was shot in their locality. His testimony also revealed that when the responding policemen arrived. PO2 Operario. -While approaching the store owned by the Pantinople’s and not very far from where the deceased lay sprawled. He noticed that one of the three men was armed with a rifle but could not make out their identities since the area where the three men converged was a very dark place. The following day. It is me. Lito Santos immediately approached the policemen. Artemio’s heart and lungs were lacerated and his stomach contained partially digested food particles indicating that he had just eaten his meal when he was shot. a medico-legal officer of the Davao City Health Department. Not knowing the radio frequency of the local police. and forming an irregular exit at the posterior chest wall left side. Avena Evidence not say anything. -Alicia Pantinople. He was informed that a resident of his barangay. while the house of victim-Artemio Pantinople was about FIFTY (50) meters away. After the three men disappeared. Dazed after just having risen from bed. Marturillas was taken aback by the instant accusation against him. he and his companions backed off to avoid a heated confrontation. Marturillas and his team was met by Ernita Pantinople who was very mad and belligerent. He was wearing a brown shirt. credible and unequivocal testimonies were accepted as sufficient to 69 . their positive. A little later. had just been shot. -Nov 5. the assailant must have been at a distance of more than twenty-four (24) inches when he fired his gun at Artemio. he was at his house and he saw an unidentified armed man flee from the crime scene who later joined two other armed men near a nangka tree not far from where deceased was shot. he instructed Kagawad Jimmy Balugo to contact the Bunawan Police Station and inform them what transpired. ‘Kapitan nganong gipatay mo ang akong bana?’ Ruling of RTC and CA: -The guilt of petitioner had been established beyond reasonable doubt. He was also wearing brown shoes but he had no socks on his feet. Moments later. He further testified that immediately after he went to the crime scene. He did not also find any bullet slug inside the body of Artemio indicating that the bullet went through Artemio’s body. she saw accused reclining on a bench about 2 ½meters away from the door. conducted an autopsy on Artemio’s cadaver. 76 summarized his findings to the effect that the cause of death was a gunshot wound entering at the anterior right side of the chest. Seeing that the accused was tapping the floor with his right foot. -On this same day. 1998. Ledesma explained that the trajectory of the bullet indicates that his assailant was in a lower position than Artemio when the gun was fired. He testified that there was no lighted fluorescent at the store of deceased at the time of the shooting. after learning about the incident and seeing his brother sprawled lifeless on the ground went around the Bunawan Police Station and noticed a locked door. perforating the body of the sternum. Why did you kill my brother? What has he done wrong to you?’ Accused did not answer her. At once. he ordered his Kagawads to assemble the members of the SCAA (Special Civilian Armed Auxiliary) so that they could be escorted to the crime scene some 250 meters away. All three later fled on foot towards the direction of the Purok Center in Brgy Gatungan. volunteered himself as a witness and even declared that he would testify that it was Marturillas who shot Artemio Pantinople. He also testified that there were many coconut and other trees and bananas in the crime scene. he was rubbing his eyes when he met the two Kagawads inside his house. C-074-98 finding Marturillas NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates. Thus. A. A2010 -Defense witness Ronito Bedero testified that on the night Artemio Pantinople was shot. Such fact is reflected in Bunawan PNP’s police blotter to have occurred at around 10:45 pm. -Dominador Lapiz testified that he was one of the first persons who went to the crime scene where he personally saw the body of deceased lying at a very dark portion some distance from the victim’s house and that those with him at that time even had to light the place with a lamp so that they could clearly see the deceased. together with the declaration of the victim himself that he had been shot by the captain. Not being able to talk sense with Ernita. Version of the Defense: -Nov 4. 1998. Marturillas immediately went with the said police officers for questioning at the Bunawan Police Station. As soon as the SCAA’s were contacted. taking with him his government-issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14 ammunition which he turned over for safe keeping with the Bunawan PNP. prepared and transmitted a Complaint to the City Prosecution Office recommending that Marturillas be indicted for Murder. V. Bendigo issued a Resolution finding sufficient evidence to indict Accused for the crime of Homicide and not Murder as alleged in the Affidavit-Complaint. Upon their invitation. accused was transferred by the police to Tibungco Police Station where he was detained. 1998: Dr. Alicia confronted him. immediately accusing him of having shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his enemy. This fact. Artemio Pantinople. [see case for full text of the affidavits]. the 44-year old sister of Artemio. Dr. Nov 4. the heart and the upper lobe of the left lung. asking ‘Nong Listing I know that you can recognize my voice. His Necropsy Report No. On the basis of these affidavits. -Upon reaching his house. -Nov 5. informing him that he was the principal suspect in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. The next day. He just got his M-14 rifle and went with the police to the police station where he was detained the whole night of Nov 4. he saw from the opposite direction Marturillas and his team of kagawads and 3 SCAA members going to the scene of the crime but they did not reach the crime scene. He was positively identified as the one running away from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot. During the trial.Prof. PO2 Mariano Operario and another police officer arrived at Marturillas’ house. When she peeped through the hole of the said door. Danilo Ledesma. he saw the Marturillas group return to where they came from.

They referred only to that point wherein Ernita ascertained the identity of Artemio as the victim. alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses found to be more credible. however. identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that people in rural communities generally know each other both by face and name. 2. the statement in her Affidavit that she was surprised to see that her husband was the victim of the shooting. -Both courts also rejected Marturillas’ defenses of denial and alibi. and a long-time brgy capt of the locality when the incident took place. the prosecution presented photographs of the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinities. V. their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. Santos never pointed to petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. YES. saying these were necessarily suspect. not infrequently. Even where the circumstances were less favorable. the familiarity of Ernita with the face of petitioner considerably reduced any error in her identification of him. after seeing the victim stagger and hearing the cry for help. the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp. I was shot by the captain. A. The trees and plants growing in between Ernita’s house and the place where Artemio was shot to death did not impede her view of the assailant. had that person been called upon to testify. a flashlight. and to enable the eyewitness to identify him as the person who was present at the crime scene. this Petition.” -Statements identifying the assailant. To be sure. -The law does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death. If it were true that he had an ulterior motive. the alleged inconsistency is inconsequential to the ascertainment of the presence of petitioner at the crime scene. The identification of a person can be established through familiarity with one’s physical features. The trees and banana plants have slender trunks which could not have posed an obstacle to Ernita’s view of the crime scene from the kitchen window of her house especially so that she was in an elevated position. -To be admissible. Re: Inconsistency Between Affidavit and Testimony -Although Ernita stated in her testimony that she had recognized the victim as her husband through his voice. on the premise that no one who knows of one’s impending death will make a careless and false accusation. His statements corroborated those of Ernita and therefore simply added credence to the prosecution’s version of the facts. -Given the proper conditions. Hence. Admittedly. 2) be made under the consciousness of an impending death. The dying declaration is given credence. it would have been very easy for him to say that he had seen petitioner shoot the victim. Once a person has gained familiarity with one another. Hence. In this case. Re: Positive Identification -Ernita’s testimony that she saw Marturillas at the crime scene is credible because the spot where Artemio was shot was only 30 meters away from her house. Ernita was also able to see his face while he was running away from the crime scene. in which the death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry. petitioner has not convinced this Court of the existence of any. the full moon and the light coming from two fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were sufficient to illumine the place where petitioner was. Santos would shift his attention to the person who had uttered the plea “Help me p’re. Thus. Undoubtedly. or starlight is considered sufficient to allow the identification of persons. Although she recognized him as the victim.37: “The declaration of a dying person. a dying declaration must 1) refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the declarant’s death. In corroboration. Ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete. At any rate. -Ernita’s recognition of the assailant was made possible by the lighted two fluorescent lamps in their store and by the full moon. The perception may be established from surrounding circumstances. Basic is the rule that the Supreme Court accords great weight and a high degree of respect to factual findings of the trial court. as these are frequently prepared by administering officers and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have said. especially when affirmed by the CA. Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations. 4) be offered in a criminal case. pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration of the deceased victim. there is only one gemilina tree. A2010 Re: Statements Uttered Contemporaneous with the Crime -It was to be expected that. made under the consciousness of impending death. Lito testified that the place where the shooting occurred was bright. Even if 70 . such as the nature of the declarant’s injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a consciousness of impending death.Prof. Notably. she was still hoping that it was not really he. a wick lamp. 3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper influence. there are some trees and plants growing in between the place where the house of Ernita was located and the spot where Artemio was shot. moonlight. especially when established by friends or relatives. HELD 1. it cannot necessarily be inferred that she did not see him. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. Neither was there any indication that Ernita was impelled by ill motives in positively identifying petitioner. and 5) have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a witness. and should thus be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.” A shift in his focus of attention would sufficiently explain why Santos was not able to see the assailant. These photographs gave a clear picture of the place where Artemio was shot. Although there are recognized exceptions to the conclusiveness of the findings of fact of the trial and the appellate courts. Nevertheless. ISSUES 1. Avena Evidence establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. They did not relate to Ernita’s identification of petitioner as the person running away from the crime scene immediately after she heard a gunshot. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. some coconut trees and young banana plants growing in the place where Artemio was shot. Re: Dying Declaration -Rule 130. Settled is the rule that when conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased. WON the evidence is sufficient to convict him of homicide. WON the prosecution’s evidence is credible. Ernita is familiar with the accused. are entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect. and can be expected to know each other’s distinct and particular features and characteristics. if uttered by a victim on the verge of death. who is her neighbor.

-. statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. -These pieces of evidence indubitably lead to the conclusion that it was petitioner who shot and killed the victim. it was uttered spontaneously. -A negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. It [was] complete and [was] not merely fragmentary. a crime immediately before. as it was “a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning. and afford an opportunity for deliberation. is a startling occurrence. or x x x to the seized contraband cigarettes. corpus delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person murdered.42: “Part of the res gestae. and giving it a legal significance. “[Corpus delicti] is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. the declaration concerned the one who shot the victim. That some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are circumstantial does not diminish the fact that they are of a nature that would lead the mind intuitively. he should not have simply left. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates. Ernita’s statement. V. Immediately after. -Rule 130. d. The version of the events given by petitioner is simply implausible. SC considered the ff: a. leads to the logical conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the crime charged. or who should testify as a witness is within the discretionary power of the prosecutor and definitely not of the courts to dictate. 2. The dying declaration made by the victim immediately prior to his death constitutes evidence of the highest order as to the cause of his death and of the identity of the assailant. as when culprits wear gloves. any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant. excluding the possibility of error. Re: Paraffin Test & Corpus Delicti .The negative paraffin test result and the prosecution’s failure to present the gun used in the shooting is not enough to exculpate the accused from the crime.Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof.Prof. while he was still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence. or are bathed in perspiration. and it related to the circumstances of the shooting. “Captain. was a startling occurrence. toward the conviction of petitioner. As the incumbent barangay captain. coupled with the proven facts presented by the prosecution. or by a conscious process of reasoning. An important consideration is whether there intervened. without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. right after the shooting. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. The principal act. this defense 71 . conviction in a criminal case does not require a degree of proof that. may be received as part of the res gestae. it should have been his responsibility to go immediately to the crime scene and investigate the shooting. wash their hands afterwards. Ernita testified that she had heard a gunshot and her husband’s utterance. c. Santos testified that he had heard a gunshot. In any event. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion. but was also a weighty and telling piece of evidence. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of petitioner. So. -Aside from the victim’s statement. it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise. -All these requisites are present in this case. between the occurrence and the statement. if the elements of both are present. produces absolute certainty. evidence is not necessarily weaker. his dying declaration was not only admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. or after its commission. to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. the res gestae. -A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of unlicensed firearms. -The prosecution was able to give sufficient proof of the corpus delicti -. A. This showed petitioner’s antagonism towards the victim. The choice of what evidence to present. the dying declaration of the victim was complete. If he were really innocent. Where an eyewitness saw the accused with a gun seconds after the gunshot and the victim’s fall. YES. Her statement was about the same startling occurrence. the shooting. -To be sure. the reasonable conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim. Also. the victim made the declaration without any prior opportunity to contrive a story implicating petitioner.” then saw petitioner in a black jacket and camouflage pants running away from the crime scene while carrying a firearm. her husband was trying to close a real estate transaction which petitioner tried to A2010 block. The prosecution was able to establish motive on the part of petitioner. also.” Re: Alibi -As held by the CA: “[Petitioner’s] alibi is utterly untenable. This damning evidence. while she had no opportunity to concoct a story against petitioner. why did you shoot my husband?” was established as part of the res gestae.the fact that a crime had actually been committed. I was shot by the captain. “Help me p’re. Thus.” Testified to by his wife and neighbor. e. ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana?” (“Captain. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. the degree and seriousness of the words and the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being in a dying condition. I was shot by the captain. and seen smoke coming from the muzzle of a gun. -As found by the CA. vis-à-vis direct. Circumstantial. Avena Evidence the declarant did not make an explicit statement of that realization. why did you shoot my husband?”) -. For alibi to prosper. Re: Res Gestae -The fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying declaration does not preclude it from being admitted as part of the res gestae. In its legal sense.may be considered to be in the same category. “Help me p’re. or the spectators to. during. when the following requisites concur: 1) the principal act. Here. as well as the victim staggering backwards while shouting. that of Ernita -“Kapitan.” -Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of. the latter’s statement was correctly appreciated as part of the res gestae. The victim’s wife positively testified that prior to the shooting. the locus criminis was only several meters away from [petitioner’s] home.” b.

Sisenando Holgado died from the wounds received in the fight. But the general rule is stated to be that the declarations of a person other than accused confessing or tending to show that he committed the crime are not competent for accused on account of the hearsay doctrine. with a few well recognized exceptions. P50k for moral damages. even without Exhibit 1. the Government has not made out its case. (lora) NATURE Appeal taken by Eugenio Toledo from a judgment of the CFI of Mindoro.Justices Street.Chief and Mr. might be expected to exaggerate. Without Exhibit 1. and there being on the contrary exculpatory evidence for the defense. the exception to the hearsay rule in the case of declarations against interest is well known. and they agreed to fight. under certain circumstances. commonly would have such weight. Justice Villamor: Disregarded and refrained from all discussion relative to the admissibility of Exhibit 1. Confining themselves exclusively to an analysis of the evidence other than Exhibit 1. some of which seem to me excessive. . closely connected story. of declarations of third parties made contrary to their own pecuniary or proprietary interest.Justices Romualdez and Villa-Real: Exhibit 1 should have been admitted in evidence as part of the res gestae. [SC reviewed amount of damages.One morning. the English cases since the separation of the two countries do not bind us. which was identified by the municipal president of Pinamalayan. coherent. the accused has not been proved guilty. Her testimony was partially corroborated by that of the witness Justina Llave.Sisenando Holgado was also seriously wounded but was able to proceed to a neighboring house.On the other hand. less hampered by history than some parts of the substantive law. Avena Evidence cannot be given credence in the face of the credible and positive identification made by Ernita.Hearsay evidence. Malcolm. in helping him to a nearby house. V. To this effect is the testimony of the accused and of Conrado Holgado. There is no decision by this court against the admissibility of such a confession. . Had Exhibit 1 been received. He shows that the limitation is inconsistent with the language originally employed in stating the principle and is unjustified on grounds of policy. it is believed that its influence would have been felt by the trial court. plus costs. the son of Sisenando Holgado. the querida of Filomeno Morales. For the prosecution. Province of Mindoro. P25k for temperate damages. they find that Eugenio Toledo has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. there being but one witness for the prosecution who. all leading to the same result of acquittal. logic. . From there Sisenando Holgado was taken to the municipal building where he made a sworn statement before the municipal president. if proved. ISSUE WON the lower court erred in not admitting the affidavit of Sisenando Holgado HELD . . P20k for attorney’s fees. the two men happened to meet. and Ostrand: the court erred in not admitting Exhibit 1 as the statement of a fact against penal interest. Exhibit 1 was made by Sisenando Holgado on the same morning that the fight occurred and without the interval of sufficient time for reflection. I think we ought to give him the benefit of a fact that. Assailed Decision and Resolution are affirmed with modifications. .The discussion of the case in court has revealed three different points of view among the members participating. who was killed almost instantly. there was presented the witness Justina Villanueva. . which would be let in to hang a man. The modern A2010 tendency is toward the extension of the rule admitting spontaneous declarations to meet the needs of justice when other evidence of the same fact cannot be procured. and common sense. FACTS .Professor Wigmore attempted to demonstrate the false premises on which the arbitrary limitation to the hearsay rule rests. MALCOLM. J. and when we surround the accused with so many safeguards. who was his landlord or master. . since an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. and that giving it effect. United States: The rues of evidence in the main are based on experience.The prosecution and the defense alike agree on the facts above outlined. . .Sisenando Holgado and Filomeno Morales had disputes about the occupation of certain land situated in the municipality of Pinamalayan. In reality. The defense also relied upon the affidavit of Sisenando Holgado. in which he declared that only he and Filomeno Morales fought. in relation with the other evidence. is excluded by courts in the United States that adhere to the principles of the common law.Prof. and the land troubles. . About one month later. The nature and circumstances of the statement do not disclose intrinsic evidence of premeditation as revealed in a long. finding him guilty of the crime of homicide. 1928. Another exception permits the reception.” Disposition Petition is denied. P312k for loss of earning capacity. the theory for the defense was that Toledo was in another place when the fight between Morales and Holgado occurred and that his only participation was on meeting Holgado.] Declaration Against Interest PEOPLE V TOLEDO August 6. SC awarded P50k as indemnity ex delicto. it has been said on high authority. There was such a correlation between the statement and the fact of which it forms part as strongly tends to negative the suggestion of fabrication or a suspicion of afterthought. Exhibit 1.Donnelly vs. and could. on account of her relations with Filomeno Morales. the appellate court is bound by the appreciation of the evidence made in the trial court. The declaration of Sisenando Holgado fulfilled the test of the facts talking through the party and not the party talking about the facts. The argument was renewed. set aside the findings made by a learned trial judge. One universally recognized exception concerns the admission of dying declarations. They did engage in a bolo duel with a fatal result for Filomeno Morales. The disputable point is whether the accused Eugenio Toledo intervened in the quarrel and dealt a mortal blow to Filomeno Morales. A. it is far more calculated to convince than dying declarations. with little propriety. The history of the law and the arguments against the 72 . who testified to the presence and participation of Eugenio Toledo. The case calls for an examination of the right of the courts to receive in evidence documents of the character of Exhibit 1. no other statement is so much against interest as a confession of murder.

When Sisenando Holgado declared "I met one of my workers named Eugenio Toledo. Most of them do not concern the confessions of declarants shown to be deceased. although there is not wanting authority in favor of admitting such statements.These lines of precedent proceeded independently till about the beginning of the 1800s. Yet the truth of the exhibit is not different in the first case that in the second. — It is plain enough that this limitation. pars. When Sisenando Holgado declared "When we fought. excluding confessions of a crime. . Again admissions are receivable against either a pecuniary or a proprietary interest. and has been expressly laid down by many judges. Exhibit 1 should have been received not as conclusive evidence of innocence. — It is today commonly said. The exception appears to have taken its rise chiefly in two separate rivulets of rulings." it was at the end of just such a rambling statement as a wounded man would be expected to make. it cannot be justified on grounds of policy.In the Philippine jurisdiction." But the person accused of a crime. par. were fairly trustworthy and might therefore (if he were deceased) be treated as forming an exception to the hearsay rule.A study of the authorities discloses that even if given application they are not here controlling. as the Supreme Court of Mississippi states. . starting independently as a matter of practice. . . Practically all of them give as the principal reason for denying the admission of a confession of a third person that he committed the crime with which the accused is charged. Here the declarant is deceased and his statements were made under oath. Same: Policy of this Limitation. Again the exhibit would have been admitted against its maker at his trial. Thenceforward this rule was accepted in England. is not permitted to free himself by offering in evidence the admission of another under oath that this other committed the crime. V. when a unity of principle for some of them came gradually to be perceived and argued for. 1079) that the admissions of one who is not a co-conspirator cannot affect others jointly charged. who accompanied me to the house of Dalmacio Manlisic. that the interest prejudiced by the facts stated must be either a pecuniary or a proprietary interest. What ground in authority there is for this limitation may be found by examining the history of the execution at large. . 1456). This is the ancient rusty weapon that has always been drawn to oppose any reform in the rules of evidence. there was nobody present. 1475). not merely one casual piece of evidence suffices but a "prima facie" case resting on several concurring pieces of evidence must be made out. in almost all of the rulings the declarant was not shown to be deceased or otherwise unavailable as a witness. not the present exception to the hearsay rule. Secondly. par. or other statements of facts against penal interest. in that they concerned matters prejudicial to the declarant's selfinterest. even if it also hampers a villain in falsely passing for an innocent. after two decades. It was held to exclude the statement of a fact subjecting the declarant to a criminal liability. What is to be noted. in North Carolina) the independent doctrine (ante.But in 1884. the rejection of a confession.PAR. for it was sometimes put in the broad form that any statement by a person "having no interest to deceive" would be admissible. made by third persons. the Court have never felt bound to follow blindly the principles of the common law. The truth is that any rule which hampers an honest man in exonerating himself is a bad rule. .The same attitude has been taken by most American courts. in order to prove the accused's noncommission of the offense by showing commission by another person. Statement of Fact against Penal Interest. But acceptance was gained.But. pars. a backward step was taken and an arbitrary limit put upon the rule.Prof.The only practical consequences of this unreasoning limitation are shocking to the sense of justice. but afterwards united as parts of a general principle. most of the early rulings had in view. Confessions of Crime by a Third Person. not strongly argued and not considered by the judges in the light of the precedents. then. 1457. 1477. . furthermore. for. 1076. This would be a good argument against admitting any witnesses at all. in its commonest application. There was some uncertainty about its scope. . They also read in such a way as to ring with the truth. but not against a penal interest. however well authenticated. A reexamination of some of those principles discloses anomalies. and therefore the declaration would have been inadmissible in any view of the present exception (ante. pars. the argument of danger of abuse.The rulings already in our books cannot be thought to involve a settled and universal acceptance of this limitation. in a case in the House of Lords. . is inconsistent with the broad language originally employed in stating the reason and principle of the present exception (ante. but it was an uncertainty in the direction of breadth. under the same principle of necessity. it requires. . The absurdity and wrong of rejecting indiscriminately all such evidence is patent. A2010 . Finally. and not a penal interest.A dying declaration is admitted of necessity in order. "to reach those man slayers who perpetrate their crimes when there are no other eyewitnesses. . Avena Evidence English doctrine are so well and fully stated by Mr." he did so in response to a question by the municipal president. for in several rulings up to that time such statement had been received. but the doctrine of admissions (ante. viz. 139-141) was applicable that. in some of the rulings (for example. besides being a fairly modern novelty. and frequent passages show the development of the principle to this point. 1476. We fail to see why it can be believed that a man will be presumed to tell the truth in the one instance but will not be presumed to tell the truth in the other instance. But the document is held inadmissible to exonerate another. . in a criminal trial. This broad form never came to prevail. is that from 1800 to about 1830 this was fully understood as the broad scope of the principle. 1476) as well as with the settled principle upon which confessions are received (ante. excluded. but as evidence to be taken into consideration in connection with the other proven facts. 73 . A. of a person deceased or insane or fled from the jurisdiction (and therefore quite unavailable) who has avowed himself to be true culprit. . if he had not died. History of the Exception. This unity lay in the circumstance that all such statements. Wigmore that there is no need to set them forth at greater length. In the first place.This broad principle made its way slowly. and to confined to statements of facts against either pecuniary or proprietary interest. that it was not made under oath. although it was plainly a novelty at the time of its inception.. for the principle that all declarations of facts against interest (by deceased persons) were to be received. The only plausible reason of policy that has ever been advanced for such a limitation is the possibility of procuring fabricated testimony to such a admission if oral.Professor Wigmore: PAR. . for it is notorious that some witnesses will lie and that it is difficult to avoid being deceived by their lies. It was thus stated without other qualifications.

Sec. seems indisputable. the question as to the effect to be given to such a confession is solely one of weight and credibility. died out of the stab wound (at the left lumbar region). would say that if a man deliberately acknowledged himself to be the perpetrator of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime. Petitioner called Malaspina and placed his right arm on the shoulder of the latter saying. made on the very gallows. alias "Jonie" who knifed Malaspina. that he was compelled to run away when he heard that somebody with a bolo and spear would "kill all those from San Isidro" because "Jonie.It is therefore not too late to retrace our steps. secs." that he even showed him the knife he used and asked his help in finding a lawyer. if... Benjamin Conde. 111692 Bellosillo. Those who watched (in 1899) with self-righteous indignation the course of proceedings in Captain Dreyfus' trial should remember that.. seeks reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for murder. I saw you with a long hair but now you have a short hair." that "Jonie" admitted spontaneously that he stabbed Malaspina because after a boxing match before the latter untied his gloves and punched him. in his note in volume 37: The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. in securing bail and. Conde then advised Felicisimo that if it was true that it was Zoilo who fatally stabbed Malaspina Felicisimo must persuade Zoilo to surrender. No. VS CA G. In other words.Any man outside of a court and unhampered by the pressure of technical procedure. if not inadmissible on other grounds. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. are the best evidence. avowing himself the guilty author of the treason there charged. the spectacle would have been no less shameful if we. Tudela. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. . .Editor of L. confessed that he killed Malaspina in "retaliation. however. and to discard this barbarous doctrine. Conde then personally went to Barangay San Isidro to investigate. his extrajudicial statement should not be heard. and there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the statement. that as there were many persons milling around the house "Jonie" jumped out and escaped through the window. Agusan del Sur. — something else is necessary. and cumulative authority. The Regional Trial Court of Prosperidad. in working out a settlement with the relatives of the deceased. the declarant is dead or has disappeared. if possible. ISSUE WON the admission against penal interest allegedly made by Zoilo Fuentes can be accepted in this case HELD NO RATIO One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that pertaining to declarations made against interest. or unable to testify. found petitioner guilty of murder qualified by treachery. For his part. — the authenticated confession of the escaped Major Esterhazy. There he was told by the townsfolk that Zoilo had already fled. Shall Judges trained and experienced in the law display less discerning common sense that the layman and allow precedent to overcome truth? Disposition Judgment appealed reversed and defendant acquitted and an order will immediately issue directing his release. 74 . The following day however he learned that the selfconfessed killer was gone and that petitioner had been arrested for a crime he did not commit. V. Where. The reason for the hearsay rule is that the extrajudicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of serving this purpose. Jr. . The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. that since he was also from San Isidro he sought refuge in his brother's house where he met "Jonie. was at a benefit dance at Dump Site.Again. Malaspina fell to the ground and his companions rushed to his side. Petitioner claims on the other hand that it was his cousin Zoilo Fuentes. 1476. out of court. which would refuse to let an innocent accused vindicate himself even by producing to the tribunal a perfectly authenticated written confession. by the rule culprit now beyond the reach of justice. the uncle of petitioner and Zoilo.R. Petitioner fled. A. FUENTES JR. since it is a declaration against penal interest and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule. . 1477. that when the victim was killed he was conversing with him. But they are not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that the declarant is unavailable. . 2d ed. Jr. Jr. Jr. Before the victim succumbed to the gaping wound on his abdomen he muttered that Alejandro Fuentes. One fact which will satisfy this necessity is that the declaration is or was against the declarant's interest.. Avena Evidence . Felicisimo testified that on 24 June 1989 while he was at Barangay San Isidro. So long therefore as a declarant is available as a witness. Conde. following our own supposed precedents. as per report of the Rural Health Physician. against the interest of the declarant. unreasoned rules of evidence. had refused to admit what the French court never for a moment hesitated to admit. 1996 (mel) NATURE Petitioner Alejandro Fuentes. February 9.. Agusan del Sur. his previous statements.. and this is because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.Prof. *In this case. Jr. and the inability to prove their untruth. The so-called confession of Zoilo was allegedly given to Felicisimo Fuentes. if that trial had occurred in our own courts. Jr.. the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods. A. the desire to close the door to falsehood which cannot be detected dictates the exclusion of such testimony. the accused man should not be permitted to go to prison or to the electric chair to expiate a crime he never committed. that he was arrested A2010 at eight o'clock in the morning of 24 June 1989 while he was in a store in the barangay. 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that "(t)he declaration made by a person deceased." 2 Suddenly petitioner stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife." the killer. Trento. Station Commander P/Sgt. was from that place. who in turn relayed the matter to P/Sgt. requires that the doors be closed to such evidence. Honorio Osok and Alberto Toling. stabbed him. testified that after the criminal information for murder was filed on 26 July 1989. R.) . Jr. The victim. (3 Wigmore on Evidence. Petitioner would make much of the alleged confession of Zoilo Fuentes. FACTS At four o'clock in the morning of 24 June 1989 Julieto Malaspina together with Godofredo Llames. Zoilo Fuentes. petitioner met Felicisimo who informed him of the disclosure by Zoilo. "Before.

Jr. absolutely nothing. The reason for the hearsay rule is that the extrajudicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of serving this purpose. and later to their common uncle Felicisimo Fuentes. Consider this factual scenario: the alleged declarant Zoilo Fuentes Jr. He overheard Bernal dispatch one of his companions to “Tarsing’s Store” to check if a certain person is still there. and it is not altogether clear that the declarant himself is unable to testify. Jr. Avena Evidence may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. who narrated the facts as found by the TC. exclusion is the prudent recourse as explained in Toledo The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. Jr. Circumstance B – Testimony of Racasa. as when the extrajudicial statement is not even authenticated thus increasing the probability of its fabrication. approached Openda. Upon confirmation of Openda. Jr. one of the two men suddenly pulled out a handgun while the other handcuffed Openda. we need not resort to legal rhetorics to find that the admission of such a statement may likewise be. passed by the billiard hall with Bernal’s companions. The prosecution established through Enriquez’ testimony (which includes Openda. Bernal’s neighbor and compadre. His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable under this rule. For it is incumbent upon the defense to produce each and every piece of evidence that can break the prosecution and assure the acquittal of the accused. Jr. two men (the Does) arrived. TC affirmed.Prof.” When Openda. the Court is always for the admission of evidence that would let an innocent declaration of guilt by the real culprit. Jr. a tailor and Openda. Jr.. One striking feature that militates against the acceptance of such a statement is its patent untrustworthiness. for this case at least. Jr. was a drug-pusher who was arrested by the police. verbally admitted to the latter. after which he disappeared. according to Wigmore. After a few minutes Bernal leaves. After Bernal left. DISPOSITION The judgment appealed from finding petitioner ALEJANDRO FUENTES JR. motive may be sufficient to support a conviction. Circumstance A – Testimony of Sagario. a handcuffed Openda. said yes. Circumstance C – Testimony of Enriquez. unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator.’s friend: That sometime in January 1991 Openda.000. Openda. and (c) the circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.00 plus costs is AFFIRMED A2010 The defense asserts that Openda. "shocking to the sense of justice. and the inability to prove their untruth. Proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. asking him if he was “Payat. which person turned out to be Openda. Zoilo who is related to accusedappellant had every motive to prevaricate. Minutes later. With that they hastily took him away. Jr. that can bind Zoilo legally to that statement. Thus. There is nothing. SC: Naty’s infidelity was ample reason for Bernal to contemplate revenge. requires that the doors be closed to such evidence." The admissibility in evidence of such declaration is grounded on necessity and trustworthiness. guilty of MURDER and directing him to indemnify the heirs of Julieto Malaspina in the amount of P50. JOHN & PETER DOE (June 19. the three men left the billiard hall. Jr. a cousin of accusedappellant." There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead. SC: No error. V.’s revelation to Enriquez is admissible in evidence as a declaration against interest which has the following requisites: PEOPLE V THEODORE BERNAL. Jr. The circumstances here sufficiently indicate Bernal’s participation. confided to him that he and Bernal’s wife Naty were having an affair. the far weightier reason why the admission against penal interest cannot be accepted in the instant case is that the declarant is not "unable to testify.’s declaration against his own interest) that Bernal kidnapped Openda. and thus not kidnapped. There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a declaration against interest: (a) the declarant must not be available to testify. Jr. who was told not to run because they’re policemen and he had a score to settle with them." Let us assume that the trial court did admit the statement of Zoilo and on that basis acquitted accused-appellant. the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods. reasonable doubt weight of to Bernal: TC committed error in giving prosecution’s witnesses’ testimony.’s presence. Let us assume further that Zoilo was subsequently captured and upon being confronted with his admission of guilt readily repudiated the same. The same can be said of accused-appellant and his uncle Felicisimo. 75 . it is made to persons who have every reason to lie and falsify. The two invited Bernal who was passing by. the Toledo case (SUPRA) cannot be applied in the instant case which is remarkably different. Jr. are drinking. because the latter had an illicit affair with Bernal’s wife Naty. Jr. REASONING For all its attempt to demonstrate the arbitrariness behind the rejection in certain cases of declarations against penal interest. that he (Zoilo) killed the victim because of a grudge. But more importantly. Bernal’s childhood friend and neighbor: He saw Bernal at the billiard hall at 11am with two companions. TC: Bernal guilty beyond kidnapping Openda. Lest we be misunderstood. A. the records show that the defense did not exert any serious effort to produce Zoilo as a witness. In other words. Secondly. ’97) Romero [maem] Facts accdg to TC: Around 11:30am of August 1991 Rasaca and Openda. Bernal conspired with the two Does. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence or facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the malefactor. (b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant. Other than the gratuitous statements of accused-appellant and his uncle to the effect that Zoilo admitted having killed Malaspina. But this can be open to abuse. 38 obviously contemplates. mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent which Sec. Motive is generally irrelevant. saying he has to fetch his son.

V.Upon appeal to the CA. Since the land on which said house was erected has been allocated to Florentino.Florentino was an allocatee of the land on which the subject house was erected. not Florentino. it is safe to assume that “interest” has been expanded to include all kinds of interest. . Parel alleges that his parents are the co-owners of the said house. . . the parties had the understanding that once the house was completed. proprietary.The RTC did not give credence to the tax declaration as well as the several documents showing the City Assessor’s assessment of the A2010 property all in Prudencio’s name since tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership. . Openda. the carpenter-foreman. that it was Florentino who constructed the house and Corazon Garcia.] his parents (the late Florentino and Susana) to move in so that the couple could supervise the construction of the house and to safeguard the materials. 1992 – Prudencio filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Parel. the CA reversed the RTC decision.Without Prudencio’s knowledge. Prudencio also asked for a monthly rental of P3. when the second storey of the house was undergoing construction. 146556 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. Avena Evidence That the declarant is dead or unable to testify.In 1973. 1973 was issued by Florentino.It ruled that the trial court’s statement that Parel’s occupancy of the house is due to a special power of attorney executed by his parents most specially the deceased Florentino Parel who is in fact a co-owner of said building" is wanting of any concrete evidence on record.November 1985 – Prudencio wrote Florentino. . . Jr. the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his interest. . asking the latter to vacate the house as the former was due for retirement.R. hence. The construction began in 1972 and was completed after three years. could not be referred to as evidence to support Parel’s claim. . Prudencio alleged that he owned a two-storey residential house in Baguio City. The RTC found that: . must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness. . [With the deletion of the phrase “pecuniary or moral interest” from the present provision. as one of the lowly-paid government employees at that time when then Mayor Luis Lardizabal gave them the chance to construct their own house on said reservation.] That at the time he made said declaration. express or implied. who testified that the lot was allocated to Florentino. Parel and family unlawfully entered the house and took possession of the ground floor. . The CA found as meritorious Prudencio’s contention that since petitioner failed to formally offer in evidence any documentary evidence. moral or even penal – here.Prudencio failed to show proof of any contract. When the second storey was completed.In his counterclaim.The said power of attorney was never offered. Prudencio allowed Parel’s 76 . was the owner of the house. to be believed. PAREL V PRUDENCIO G. [Here.An affidavit dated September 24. The CA found the affidavit to be conclusive proof of Prudencio’s sole ownership of the house since it was a declaration made by Florentino against his interest. . nor any other proof that would clearly establish his sole ownership of the house. April 19. advised Naty not to do it {giving him money for motel} again because she was a married woman.] Evidence.000 from April 1988 until Parel vacates the house. ISSUES WON Parel was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that his father was a co-owner of the subject two-storey residential house HELD YES That it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant. . and that the rule on offer of evidence is mandatory. the construction of which was funded by his own money and declared in his name under Tax Declaration No. written or oral. A. . He claim that he occupied the ground floor of the house with his father Florentino’s knowledge. the former barangay captain. pecuniary.The CA also found the tax declarations and official receipts representing payments of real estate taxes of the questioned property covering the period 1974 to 1992 sufficient to establish Prudencio’s case which constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.Prudencio and Florentino agreed to contribute their money to complete the house. the affair with Naty was a crime. that is. This request was acceded to by Florentino and Susana when they migrated to the US in 1986.Prof. [Openda. [No sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment. he allowed the Parels and their children to temporarily live in the house out of sheer magnanimity because Florentino was his brotherin-law. but must be credible in itself. thus he is deemed unable to testify. there is nothing to refute the evidence offered by respondent. 47048. They refused to leave despite Prudencio’s demands which prompted the respondent to institute an action for recovery. 2006 (aida) NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS . had been missing since abduction. Florentino could keep the ground floor while Prudencio could have the second floor. Jr. there was no supporting document which would sufficiently establish factual bases for the TC’s conclusion.Except for the bare testimonies of Candelario Regua.February 27.The RTC found that the house was co-owned by Florentino and Prudencio thus the latter cannot evict Parel. .] That the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true. that Florentino and his family stayed on the house not as co-owners but as mere lessees. The said affidavit stated that Prudencio.

from 1973 (the year he executed said affidavit) until 1989 (the year of his death). taken with the other circumstances abovementioned. . xxx (5) he was not to publish the Philippine Free Press nor was he to do. contacted Locsin. inexorably lead to the conclusion that respondent is the sole owner of the house subject matter of the litigation. The house which Parel claims to be coowned by Florentino had been consistently declared for taxation purposes in the name of Prudencio. . Sec. brought to Camp Crame. Petitioner insists that although his documentary evidence were not formally offered. during Florentino’s lifetime. V. former aide-decamp of Pres Marcos.PFPI is a domestic corporation engaged in the publication of Philippine Free Press Magazine. that Martial Law had been declared and that they were to take over the building and to close the printing press. Locsin. The building remained padlocked and under heavy military guard. Disposition Judgment affirmed.The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and. Sr. as it is prejudicial to himself as well as to his children’s interests as his heirs. 1972. exposing the corruption and abuses of the regime. a widely circulated political magazine. 2005 (kooky) NATURE: 77 . publication of the Philippine Free Press ceased.Court reasoning as to offer of evidence . 1973 was in the name of respondent and his wife. Sr.In Dec. This was due to the fact that the birth certificate was properly filed in support of a motion for bail to prove petitioner’s minority which was never challenged by the prosecution and it already formed part of the records of the case.During the 1965 elections. refused. Crispin Baizas with offers from Pres Marcos for the acquisition of PFPI. Sr.The reliance in Bravo v. . INC) G. forced out its employees at gunpoint and padlocked the said establishment. A. 38.The rule on declaration against interest is in Rule 130. 132864 GARCIA. No. Sr. Florentino categorically declared that while he is the occupant of the residential building. he is not the owner of the same as it is owned by respondent who is residing in Quezon City. In Bravo. was approached by Atty. Borja is misplaced. This led to the financial ruin of PFPI. . 1972. he. .While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership. . Avena Evidence Reasoning . . PFPI printed numerous articles highly critical of the Marcos administration. Sr. Locsin. Locsin.mid-1973. v. Sr. was arrested.The records show that although Parel’s counsel asked that he be allowed to offer his documentary evidence in writing.On Sept 21. It enjoyed considerable prestige and a high profit margin prior to the declaration of Martial Law.R. .The building plan of the residential house dated January 16. say or write anything critical of the Marcos administration. Sr. however. did not file the same.Court reasoning relevant to declaration against interest . A declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. It was established during petitioner’s crossexamination that the existing structure of the twostorey house was in accordance with said building plan.On separate occasions in 1973. and subsequently transferred to Fort Bonifacio. 34. there is no showing that he had revoked such affidavit even when a criminal complaint for trespass to dwelling had been filed by respondent against him and his son. concerning PHILIPPINE FREE PRESS. The rule referred to in the Bravo case was Section 7 of Rule 133 of the RoC and not Section 34 of Rule 132. 1972.Notably.In said affidavit. Its main office was in Pasong Tamo..Prof. Brig. . Hans Menzi. Gen. Oct 24. further that the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest. PFPI supported Diosdado Macapagal against Ferdinand Marcos.The rule on offer of evidence is in Rule 132. reiterated Marcos’s offer to purchase the name and the assets of PFPI. . . Sec. Its minority stockholders also made demands that Locsin.The testimonies of Parel and his witnesses failed to show that the subject house is co-owned by Florentino and respondent. Borja. . Upon the election of Marcos and prior to Martial law. Thus. . INC v CA (LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING. was informed that no charges were to be filed against him and that he was to be provisionally released subject to the following conditions: (1) he remained (sic) under ‘city arrest’.In the evening of Sept 20. The soldier in charge informed Teodoro Locsin. It is safe to presume that he would not have made such declaration unless he believed it to be true. they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. Its situation was further aggravated when its employees demanded the payment of separation pay. the CA did not consider the documentary evidence presented by petitioner. Jr. . Locsin. buy out their shares.. A few months later. .Consequently. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. the Court allowed evidence on minority by admitting the certified true copy of the birth certificate attached to a motion for bail even if it was not formally offered in evidence. President of PFPI.A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit. the same were marked during the presentation of the testimonial evidence. A2010 Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 ROC FACTS: . and this fact. . Jr. Sec Guillermo De Vega. . Makati. son of Teodoro Locsin. soldiers surrounded the Free Press Building. PFPI likewise ran a series of articles exposing the plan of the Marcoses to impose a dictatorship in the guise of Martial Law. thus it can properly be taken cognizance of relying in Bravo.

against the interest of the declarant. Locsin. it cannot be given evidentiary weight as PFPI wants. A meeting was held inside the PFPI Building. . Sr. wherein Menzi reiterated Marcos’s offer to purchase both the name and assets of PFPI. in considering as hearsay the testimonial evidence that may prove the element of "threat" against petitioner or Locsin. Francisco explains why: It has been said that “of all evidence.. WON PFPI’s use of the proceeds of the sale constitute an implied ratification HELD NO a. took the strongest critical stand against the Marcos administration. The Locsins can hardly be considered as disinterested witnesses. Moreover. Sr. . 2) upon Marcos’ orders. buy out the shares of the minority stockholders as well as to settle all its obligations. in gist. be viewed with utmost caution. A. ISSUES: WON the lower court erred in dismissing PFPI’s complaint a. b. then made a counteroffer that he will sell the land. downpayment for the sale. On vitiation of consent: NO. Sr. 1995. and 4) Locsin.Prof.The evidence referred to as hearsay pertains mainly to the testimonies of Locsin. Sr.75M balance. . WON PFPI’s cause of action has already prescribed b. TC dismissed PFPI’s complaint and granted Liwayway’s counterclaim of attorney’s fees. i. Sr.Sec 38. .Locsin. refused but Menzi insisted that he had no choice but to sell. Avena Evidence the sale of PFPI. before the sale. V. duress and undue influence which vitiated its consent c. in concluding that the acts of then President Marcos during the martial law years did not have a consentvitiating effect on PFPI 3. Sr. Menzi thereafter informed Locsin. – The declaration made by a person deceased or unable to testify. Rule 130 ROC. to sell the assets of its to Menzi minus the name “Philippine Free Press”. 1973. . together with his family. Consequently. 1987. the action has prescribed. that he was acting for Pres Marcos when he purportedly coerced Locsin.On Oct 23. 2. They are likely to gain the most from the annulment of the subject contracts. thereafter used the proceeds of the sale to pay the separation pay of PFPI’s employees.e. Hearsay evidence is excluded precisely because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of or is bereft of opportunity to cross-examine the persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed. may be received in evidence against himself or his successorsin-interest and against third persons.CA affirmed w/ modification. and is offering P5. is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Sr. and his family remained fearful of reprisals from Marcos until the 1986 EDSA Revolution. Sr. . it was amidst these circumstances that PFPI’s property was sold to Liwayway. Sr. . 1987. 1986 (People Power). They should not be laid lightly at the door of men whose lips had been sealed by death. PFPI filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale against Liwayway and PCGG before RTC on the grounds of vitiated consent and gross inadequacy of purchase price. has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule . . Jr. Rule 130 of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence that any evidence. on the theory that martial law has the effects of force majeure. . and Locsin. that Pres Marcos was amenable to his counteroffer. WON the purchase price was grossly inadequate such as to show vitiation of consent d. allegations of duress or coercion should. Sr. PCPI has not established it. allegedly applied the squeeze on Locsin. . that it should start on Feb 25. complaint was dismissed on Oct 22.75M on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. Locsin. the Board of Directors of PFPI held a meeting and reluctantly passed a resolution authorizing Locsin. Sr. a check for P1M. 1973. Sr.. On Prescription: YES.On Feb 26. Menzi paid the P4. A2010 . . in resolving the case on the basis of mere surmises and speculations. .In assessing the probative value of Menzi’s supposed declaration against interest. prior to the declaration of Martial Law. to sell the Free Press property. building and all the machineries and equipment but he will be allowed to keep the name of PFPI. subject to the condition that he will refund the same in case the sale will not push through. was arrested and detained for over 2 months without charges and. the narration of a witness of his conversation with a dead person is esteemed in justice the weakest. accepted the check. . .Aug 22. which. thru the “Marcos cannot be denied” and “[you] have no choice but to sell” lines. which works to suspend the running of the prescriptive period. PFPI has failed to convincingly prove that it was so circumstanced that it was well-nigh impossible for it to successfully institute an action during the martial law years. which. and the dictatorial regime's use of Liwayway as a corporate vehicle for forcibly acquiring petitioner’s properties.SC: Martial Law did not suspend the running of the period. Locsin. PFPI contends. in rejecting PFPI’s posture of vitiation of consent. whether objected to or not. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true.Per the Locsins. hearsay evidence. adding that “Marcos cannot be denied”. Sr. Menzi tendered to Locsin. building and the machineries of the PFPI. an exception to the hearsay rule. reads: Declaration against interest. represented by Menzi.’” One reason for its unreliability is that the alleged declarant can not recall 78 . who. On motion of PCGG.CA ruled the 4-year prescriptive period started to run when the deeds were executed (Oct 1973). Sr. however. observed: xxx the testimonies of Locsin. regarding Menzi’s alleged implied threat that “Marcos cannot be denied” and that Liwayway was to be the corporate vehicle for Marcos’s takeover of the Free Press is hearsay as Menzi already passed away and is no longer in a position to defend himself… It is clear from the provisions of Sec 36. deleting award of attorney’s fees. Locsin. established the following facts: 1) the widely circulated Free Press magazine. . On Aug 23.. the parties met and executed two notarized Deeds of Sale covering the land. Jr. Sr.SC: Evidence of statement made or a testimony is hearsay if offered against a party who has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 3) Locsin. like fraud. which closure eventually drove petitioner to financial ruin. intimidation.CA. WON PFPI was able to establish the force. 1973. and Locsin. was threatened with execution. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant's own interest. was closed down on the eve of such declaration. .PFPI ascribes the following errors to CA: 1.On Oct 31. was provisionally released on the condition that he refrains from reopening Free Press and writing anything critical of the Marcos administration.

SC held that PFPI is oblivious that it itself can only offer. Casimiro handed him P20. . . .00 to be given to Brigida at Teopista's baptism. Lolito Tufiacao. if any there be. In 1977. were in fact testifying to matters of their own personal knowledge because they were either parties to the said conversation or were present at the time the said statements were made.The complaint was filed on August 21. Casimiro himself told him she was his sweetheart. . married at that time to Emiliana Barrientos. It is thus quite possible that PFPI’s financial condition. Testimony to statements of a deceased person.Two other witnesses testified for Teopista. is regarded as an unsafe foundation for judicial action except in so far as such evidence is borne out by what is natural and probable under the circumstances taken in connection with actual known facts. alleged that she was born on August 20. On the gross inadequacy of the price: NO .Teopista testified that it was her mother who told her that her father was Casimiro. Locsin. even if the threat of arrest hung over his head.The private respondent claimed she was the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court.As regards the third error. Later. A. as counterpoint. Casimiro allowed her son. Vicente Toring. Teopista Toring Tufiacao. rejecting the offers of Baizas and De Vega. .Following this provision. Casimiro opened a joint savings account with her as a co-depositor at the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank. to accept Menzi’s offer. 79 . On use of the proceeds constituting implied ratification: YES .The ruling of the CA on the matter is well-taken: It need not be overemphasized that by using the proceeds in this manner. and defendant Casimiro Mendoza. namely. She lived with her mother because Casimiro was married but she used to visit him at his house. Gaudencio acted as a go-between for their liaison. 1981. but the latter denied her claim. Sr refused to sell PFPI a number of times. the only declaration supposedly made by Menzi which can conceivably be labeled as adverse to his interest could be that he was acting in behalf of Marcos in offering to acquire the physical assets of petitioner. a declaration conveying the notion that the declarant possessed the authority to speak and to act for the President of the Republic can hardly be considered as a declaration against interest. (Art 1470 CC) . Far from making a statement contrary to his own interest. Disposition Petition denied (eva) NATURE Certiorari A2010 Pedigree MENDOZA VS CA 201 SCRA 675 CRUZ. 1991 FACTS . to build a house on his lot and later he gave her money to buy her own lot from her brother.PFPI insists that the testimonies of the Locsins are not hearsay because hearsay evidence has been defined as “the evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others.As regards the second error imputed by PFPI to the CA. failing which its case for annulment contract of sale on ground gross inadequacy of price must fall. Jr. In context. precisely because none of said witnesses ever had an opportunity to hear what the two talked about. And a court should be very slow to act upon the statement of one of the parties to a supposed agreement after the death of the other party. PFPI witnesses cannot testify respecting what Pres Marcos said Menzi about the acquisition of PFPI. as a matter of civil law. even able to secure a compromise that only the assets of the Free Press will be sold. Xxx Teodoro Locsin. Casimiro later sold the truck but gave the proceeds of the sale to her and her husband. then already 91 years old. . When she married Valentin Tufiacao. . Locsin. She called him Papa Miroy. at least where proof of them will prejudice his estate.Lolito corroborated his mother and said he considered Casimiro his grandfather because Teopista said so. . c. was. Sr. SC held this is a rehash of PFPI’s bid to impute on Liwayway acts of force and intimidation that were made to bear on PFPI or Mr. Casimiro also gave him P5. Gaudencio said he was a cousin of Casimiro. d. also mere surmises and speculations. it behooves petitioner to first prove “a defect in the consent”. albeit caused by the declaration of Martial Law.” xxx Thus. who was then single. the mere fact that the other parties to the conversations testified to by the witness are already deceased does [not] render such testimony inadmissible for being hearsay. . The temptation and opportunity for fraud in such cases also operate against the testimony. moreover. Avena Evidence to the witness the circumstances under which his statement were made. The trial court believed him and dismissed her complaint for compulsory recognition. was a major factor in influencing Locsin. such ratification cleanses the assailed contract from any alleged defects from the moment it was constituted. Casimiro bought a passenger truck and engaged him to drive it so he could have a livelihood. Sr. . Free Press only too clearly confirmed the voluntaries of its consent and ratified the sale.gross inadequacy of the purchase price does not. V. the other pertaining to the dead shall nevertheless remain hearsay in character. . 1930. He denied it to his dying day. September 24. such corroborative evidence should be adduced as to satisfy the court of the truth of the story which is to benefit materially the person telling it. during the early years of martial law.Even if petitioner succeeds in halving its testimonial evidence. Sr. which eventually resulted in Brigida becoming pregnant and giving birth to Teopista. herein private respondent.The all too familiar rule is that “a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own knowledge”.To further illustrate that PFPI was not able to establish vititation of consent: Locsin. She averred that Mendoza recognized her as an illegitimate child by treating her as such and according her the rights and privileges of a recognized illegitimate child.00 every so often to be delivered to Brigida. He even testified that the initial offer of Menzi was rejected even though it was supposedly accompanied by the threat that “Marcos cannot be denied”. . Gaudencio Mendoza and Isaac Mendoza.Prof. Sr. one-half purporting to quote the words of a live witness and the other half purporting to quote what the live witness heard from one already dead. specifically denied the plaintiffs allegations and set up a counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees. to Brigida Toring. both relatives of Casimiro. and Teodoro Locsin. Needless to state.Casimiro. per se affect a contract of sale.Neither may PFPI circumvent the hearsay rule by invoking the exception under the declaration-againstinterest rule.

NO Ratio To establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child. In Masecampo vs." according to the Civil Code. who appears to be the former's illegitimate son. WON Teopista was in continuous possession of her claimed status of an illegitimate child of Casimiro Mendoza. . of the Rules of Court. the respondent court reversed. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose. who appears to be the former's illegitimate son is allowed. which were the very issues involved in the 80 . V. ISSUES 1. . Masecampo. The pedigree must be in issue. Brigida Mendoza.On appeal.Such acts or declarations may be received in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule because "it is the best the nature of the case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof than from its admission.Casimiro died on May 1986. precisely because of its nature as hearsay evidence. WON the substitution of Casimiro Mendoza pro haec vice and nunc pro tunc by Vicente Toring. Teopista did not use the surname of Casimiro although this is. the mother of Casimiro. Casimiro's own mother. by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care. and he did not cite Casimiro's father. Such evidence may consist of his baptismal certificate. "Continuous" does not mean that the concession of status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues." it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. or "by evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father. and his grandmother. were both dead at the time of Isaac's testimony. With these guidelines in mind. administrator. He worked on Casimiro's boat and whenever Casimiro paid him his salary. death. admission by silence. Brigida Mendoza.To set the record straight. 3. It may survive against the executor.00 to P10. A. so informed him. 3. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.All the above requisites are present in the case at bar. Francisco enumerates the following requisites that have to be complied with before the act or declaration regarding pedigree may be admitted in evidence: 1. . His testimony was that he was informed by his father Hipolito. . Mandaue City. and his brother. Casimiro's niece. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. Julieta Ouano. directly and not through others. 3. the testimonies of witnesses. . The declarant is dead or unable to testify. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue. providing as follows: Sec. Isaac also declared that Casimiro intended to give certain properties to Teopista. 2. who also affirmed that Vicente Toring used to work as a cook in Casimiro's boat. the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. not decisive of one's status. marriage. Hipolito. of course. under both Article 283 of the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code. birth. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. Reasoning The plaintiff lived with her mother and not with the defendant although they were both residents of Omapad. The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. however." It should have probed this matter further in light of Rule 130. 6 . common reputation respecting his pedigree. that Teopista was Casimiro's illegitimate daughter. 39 Act or declarations about pedigree. The act or declaration of a person deceased. This disposes of the private respondent's contention that the lawyer-client relationship terminated with Casimiro's death and that Vicente has no personality now to substitute him. it was held that “The subsequent death of the father is not a bar to the action commenced during his lifetime by one who pretended to be his natural son.Commenting on this provision. The persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of Teopista. a family Bible in which his name has been entered. told Gaudencio A2010 Mendoza and Isaac Mendoza. and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. now acting for Vicente Toring.Prof. WON Teopista has nevertheless established the status of an illegitimate child of Casimiro by another method. a judicial admission. The last statement was shared by the other defense witness. as in this case. 2. Nevertheless. that Teopista was the daughter of the defendant.00 to be delivered to Teopista." according to the Family Code. then asked this Court to substitute the latter for the deceased Casimiro Mendoza in the present petition.” We hereby allow the substitution of Casimiro Mendoza pro haec vice and nunc pro tunc by Vicente Toring. as well as the plaintiff himself. There must be a showing of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his own. it was only Isaac Mendoza who testified on this question of pedigree. Section 39. 2. HELD 1. The regularity of defendant's act of giving money to the plaintiff through Gaudencio Mendoza and Isaac Mendoza has not been sufficiently established. She flatly declared she had never met Teopista but she knew her husband.the trial court judge rejected plaintiff' s claim that she was in continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family. It is not unusual for a father to take his illegitimate child into his house to live with him and his legitimate wife. or any other legal representative of the testate or intestate succession. but Vicente Toring took the stand to resist Teopista's claim. who was Casimiro's brother. namely.The trial court conceded that "the defendant's parents. . The declarations referred to the filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro. . . 5. he would also give him various amounts from P2. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration. and the names of the relatives. Counsel. we agree with the trial court that Teopista has not been in continuous possession of the status of a recognized illegitimate child of Casimiro Mendoza. Casimiro's brother. family genealogy. especially if the couple is childless. spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate). there are certain safeguards against its abuse. Avena Evidence Isaac testified that his uncle Casimiro was the father of Teopista because his father Hipolito. YES Ratio What both the trial court and the respondent court did not take into account is that an illegitimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. and Brigida Mendoza. 4.Casimiro himself did not testify because of his advanced age. or unable to testify. who was a mechanic.

vs. in Dingle. Danthea Lopez. MONINA enrolled at Western Institute of Technology (WIT). Thereafter. MONINA further alleged that FRANCISCO gave her support and spent for her education. and did not know of her whereabouts since then. Dominador Zavariz and Lope Amolar. FRANCISCO could not believe that Lagarto would pay for these fees despite absence of instructions or approval from FRANCISCO. FRANCISCO. school supplies. Rudy Tingson. In his answer. After Sagrado. where she stayed with Mrs. FRANCISCO offered his deposition taken before then Judge Romeo Callejo of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In 1963. or saw FRANCISCO give money to her mother. Zafiro Ledesma. Jose Cruz and Dolores Argenal. Franco’s house. In the same vein. Lagarto. but she later dropped due to an accident which required a week's hospitalization. MONINA first studied at Sagrado where she stayed as a boarder. MONINA presented a total of eleven (11) witnesses.B. During her senior year. At the start of each semester. his household staff was composed of three (3) female workers and two (2) male workers. Although FRANCISCO paid for part of the hospitalization expenses. While at Sagrado from 1952 until 1955 (up to Grade 4). her mother shouldered most of them. MONINA prayed for a judicial declaration of her 81 . as his illegitimate child. Lagarto would pay Sagrado directly. DAVIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING Teopista Toring Tuñacao to be the illegitimate child of the late Casimiro Mendoza and entitled to all the rights appurtenant to such status. He likewise categorically denied that he told anyone. house. He thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint and an award of damages due to the malicious filing of the complaint. FRANCISCO presented Nonito Jalandoni. Iloilo.A. laches and/or prescription. Lagarto paid for these fees. while he. Ruben Castellanes. illegitimate status and that FRANCISCO support and treat her as such..If we consider the other circumstances narrated under oath by the private respondent and her witnesses (the truck. MONINA herself took the witness stand. then give her the money she needed. FRANCISCO declared that Pansay’s employment ceased as of October. Branch 48. 124853 1998 J. expressly or impliedly. V. FRANCISCO L. he denied having paid for MONINA’s tuition fees. and asserted that he never knew that Mr. DISPOSITIVE WHEREFORE. At the end of 1945 or the start of 1946. C and D). expenses for books. 1944. She either received the money from FRANCISCO or from Mr. the petition is DENIED. AA). and took up an M. FRANCISCO impregnated Esperanza F. however. MONINA studied in different schools. At that time. Alfredo Baylosis. she was 40 years old and a Central Bank Examiner. where she obtained a bachelor’s degree in Commerce in April 1967. as evidenced by her transcript of records she transferred to “De Paul College. (SJ) NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS In her complaint filed with the RTC on 13 March 1985. MONINA was born on 6 August 1946. For her college education. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and Casimiro. Teodoro Zulla. As affirmative and special defenses. in person or otherwise. and that while employed by him. Arsenio Duatin. such that she obtained a Master's degree. a Central Bank examiner. JISON. MONINA alleged that FRANCISCO had been married to a certain Lilia Lopez Jison since 1940. or Mr. joint account) we can reasonably conclude that Teopista was the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza. She affirmed that as evidenced by certifications from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar and baptismal certificates (Exhs. Amolar (who was then employed as the nanny of FRANCISCO's daughter. uniforms and the like were shouldered by FRANCISCO. her father. CA and MONINA JISON G. further. that MONINA was his daughter. As a result. to Esperanza Amolar (who passed away on 20 April 1965) and FRANCISCO. at De La Salle University as evidenced by her transcript (Exh. owned by said couple. implied recognition as an illegitimate child of FRANCISCO by his acts and that of his family. After Pansay left in October 1944. and since childhood. On 21 October 1986. FRANCISCO contended that MONINA had no right or cause of action against him and that her action was barred by estoppel. Sr. Pansay would sleep with the other female helpers on the first floor of his residence. paid for her tuition fees and other school expenses. At that time. she enrolled at the University of San Agustin. Zafiro Ledesma. As additional witnesses. Adela Casabuena. She passed the CPA board exams in 1974. wherein FRANCISCO was likewise listed as “Guardian” In his defense. After finishing two semesters at University of San Agustin. Romeo Bilbao. his wife and daughter slept in a room on the second floor. A. Franco who A2010 paid for MONINA's tuition fees. neither did he know of her whereabouts. consisting of the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza. Concha Cuaycong or Remedios Franco. Lourdes). MONINA would show FRANCISCO that she was enrolled. she stayed with Eusebio and Danthea Lopez at Hotel Kahirup. he never recognized MONINA. Lourdes Ledesma. MONINA enrolled at the University of Iloilo. she never communicated with him again. FRANCISCO staunchly denied having had sexual relations with Pansay and disavowed any knowledge about MONINA’s birth. At trial on the merits. JR. . be it Danthea Lopez. Iñigo Supertisioso. Moreover. had enjoyed the continuous. the relationship between the declarants and Casimiro has been established by evidence other than such declaration. Iloilo. In view of FRANCISCO's refusal to expressly recognize her. became a certified public accountant (CPA) and eventually. No. Avena Evidence complaint for compulsory recognition. Finally. which induced them to believe that MONINA was Francisco’s daughter. she was born on 6 August 1946 in Barangay Tabugon. in which Casimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs.” just in front of Mrs. namely: herself. but FRANCISCO continuously answered for her schooling.Prof. These witnesses explained individual circumstances. Dingle. However. and studied there for a year.R. then he would ask her to canvass prices. FRANCISCO alleged that he could not have had sexual relations with Esperanza Amolar during the period specified in the complaint as she had ceased to be in his employ as early as 1944.

especially in light of the overwhelming evidence. there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his. SO THAT IT MUST BE ISSUED ONLY IF PATERNITY OR FILIATION IS ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. RATIO Under Article 1751 of the Family Code. and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases. 1 NOTE THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FAMILY CODE HERE. but continuously. Akin to the crime of rape where. A. by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care. he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof. the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon. not accidentally. the issue of whether sexual intercourse actually occurred inevitably redounds to the victim’s or mother’s word. hence her birth on 6 August 1946 could still be attributed to sexual relations between FRANCISCO and MONINA’s mother. FRANCISCO’s arguments that he could not have had sex with MONINA’s mother deserve scant consideration. with amendments. While it has been observed that unlawful intercourse will not be presumed merely from proof of an opportunity for such indulgence. and upon the plaintiff in a civil case. has recognized her as his daughter and that MONINA has been enjoying the open and continuous possession of the status as FRANCISCO’s illegitimate daughter. in most instances.e. must be situated within the general rules on evidence. The paramount question then is whether MONINA’s evidence is coherent. this does not favor FRANCISCO. In the absence of the foregoing legitimate filiation shall be proved by: evidence. with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s. which MONINA relies upon given that she has none of the evidence mentioned in the first paragraph. i. THE COURT SAID THAT IT MAY BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED SINCE IT WILL NOT PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AS THEY ARE BOTH ALIVE AND HENCE. The concept of “preponderance of A2010 evidence” refers to evidence which is of greater weight. it means probability of truth. but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life. ISSUE Whether or not the CA erred in holding that Monina’s filiation was sufficiently established. Articles 265. The complaint stated that FRANCISCO had carnal knowledge of Pansay “by about the end of 1945. In any event. since it was established that her mother was still in the employ of FRANCISCO at the time MONINA was conceived as determined by the date of her birth. MONINA’s mother could no longer testify as to the fact of intercourse. at bottom. or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. sexual contact between FRANCISCO and MONINA’s mother was not at all impossible. However. the For the success of an action to establish illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph. By “continuous” is meant uninterrupted and consistent. Moreover. Avena Evidence The trial court ruled against Monina but the Court of Appeals reversed. that which is offered in opposition to it. The fact of her birth and her parentage may be established by evidence other than the testimony of her mother. in the course of trial in a civil case. The foregoing discussion. in civil cases. In the instant case. which cannot be attributed to pure charity. 172. that FRANCISCO fathered MONINA. the only witnesses to the felony are the participants in the sexual act themselves. 82 . as hereafter shown. we now proceed to resolve the merits of the instant controversy.. the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. preponderance of evidence. such as MONINA's. a “high standard of proof” is required. a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity. otherwise. IN THE POSITION TO DEFEND THEMSELVES ADEQUATELY. 266 and 267 of the Civil Code. HELD NO. but does not require any particular length of time. may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate children.” We agree with MONINA that this was broad enough to cover the fourth quarter of said year. REASONING (FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RATIO) With these in mind. to prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child. as against the accused’s or putative father’s protestations. Specifically. This Article reproduces. however. the burden of proof never parts.Prof. in deciding paternity suits. or more convincing. once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor. (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. passed away long before the institution of the complaint for recognition. thus: ART. But this did not mean that MONINA could no longer prove her filiation. logical and natural. illegitimate filiation. The foregoing STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ONE’S FILIATION IS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN ORDER FOR RECOGNITION AND SUPPORT MAY CREATE AN UNWHOLESOME ATMOSPHERE OR MAY BE AN IRRITANT IN THE FAMILY OR LIVES OF THE PARTIES. in light of the burden of proof in civil cases. as she had. unfortunately. Simply put. V. Article 172 thereof provides the various forms of evidence by which legitimate filiation is established.

This was followed by an appearance and opposition dated January 26. his Certificate of Live Birth No. Locsin. Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court lays down the persons preferred who are entitled to the issuance of letters of administration. 1958 revised form. The deceased. A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show. filed a "Petition for Letters of Administration" praying that he be appointed Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased. Manuel Locsin and the successors of the late Lourdes C. Juan C. -The Intestate Estate of the late Jose Locsin. in estate proceedings. 1957. They submitted a certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth No. likewise stating that there is no filial relationship between herein respondent and the deceased. claiming to be the lawful heirs of the deceased. They observed as anomalous the fact that while respondent was born on October 22. is one who would be benefited in the estate. Jr. She produced and identified in court the bound volume of 1957 records of birth where the alleged original of Certificate of Live Birth No. implying that he is an interested person in the estate and is considered as next of kin. joining the earlier oppositors. ISSUE: WON Juan E. and that he was the informant of the facts stated therein.Prof. Tomesa (then Civil Registrar of Iloilo City) appearing in Certificate of Live Birth No. through Mr. -January 5. never affixed "Sr. so far as known to the petitioner: (a) The jurisdictional facts. 2 Contents of petition for letters of administration. Metro Manila. Vencer. 477 found in the bound volume of birth records in the Office of the Local Clerk Registrar of Iloilo City. 1956 and his birth was recorded on January 30. was not survived by a spouse. Jr. Section 2 of Rule 79 provides that a petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person. or to such person as such surviving husband or wife. When and to whom letters of administration granted. Jr. thus: Sec. refuse the trust. another opposition to the petition was filed by Lucy Salinop (sole heir of the late Maria Locsin Vda. 477 from which Exhibit "D" was machine 83 . such as a creditor. Locsin's dead body. 477 is included. A. But has respondent established that he is an acknowledged natural son of the deceased? On this point. or a person dies intestate. Locsin Jr is an interested party and is qualified to be granted letters of administration (Which of the two documents is genuine) HELD: Juan E. (brother of the deceased) also entered its appearance in the estate proceedings. (Certificate of Live Birth No. the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. in the discretion of the court. Amparo Escamilla. requests to have appointed. Locsin alleging that respondent's claim as a natural child is barred by prescription or the statute of limitations. This scenario dearly suggests that Exhibit "D" was falsified. Jr is not an interested person within the meaning of Section 2. such as an heir. Locsin. or both. Pedro L. Sr. as the case may be. Sr. Justice Jose C. -To support his claim that he is an acknowledged natural child of the deceased respondent submitted a machine copy (marked as Exhibit "D") of his Certificate of Live Birth No. in front of a coffin bearing Juan C. held: "The filiation of illegitimate children. or fail to give bond. Locsin. if competent and willing to serve. respondent alleged that he is an acknowledged natural son of the deceased. In his petition for issuance of letters of administration. indicating that the birth of respondent was reported by his mother. Locsin. Locsin. Exhibit "D" contains the information that respondent's father is Juan C.. 447 (Exhibit "D") was recorded on a December 1. Sr. thus: Section 6. marked as Exhibit "8". already used before respondent's birth. They averred that respondent is not a child or an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. The photograph. or the executor or executors are incompetent. Locsin. 146737 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ: December 10. this Court. Upon the other hand. a handwriting expert. 477 (Exhibit "D") is spurious) Reasoning: A2010 Section 6. Exhibit "8" appears on a July. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a SOLINAP V LOCSIN G. Locsin). filed an opposition to respondent's petition for letters of administration. Respondent also offered in evidence a photograph (Exhibit "C") showing him and his mother. He allegedthat he is an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. 477 (Exhibit "D") is spurious. Manuel Locsin and Ester Jarantilla. He testified that the signatures of Juan C. Petitioners presented as witness. 477 (Exhibit "D") are forgeries. XXX Upon the other hand. or next of kin. Elvas. or next of kin. or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. 1993 . No. sister of the deceased). 1990. De Araneta. -January 10. and that the same does not contain the signature of the late Juan C. however. 477 found in the Civil Registrar General. Col. Avena Evidence copied. 1993 of Ester Locsin Jarantilla (another sister of Juan C. -Petitioners claimed that Certificate of Live Birth No.R.. shows that he and his mother have been recognized as family members of the deceased. Amparo Escamilla. To prove the existence and authenticity of Certificate of Live Birth No. administration shall be granted: (a) To the surviving husband or wife. He thus concluded that the said Certificate is a spurious document surreptitiously inserted into the bound volume of birth records of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City." in his name. Locsin. is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. as evidenced by his signatures (Exhibit "D-2" and "D-3"). In the absence thereof. the heirs of Maria Locsin. 1956 form. or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. like legitimate children. the heirs of Jose Locsin. respondent presented Rosita J. Vitug. 1992. V. 2001 (da) FACTS: -Eleven (11) months after Juan "Jhonny" Locsin. or one who has a claim against the estate. who during his lifetime. x x x" An "interested party". Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court entitled to the issuance of letters of administration since he failed to prove his filiation with the late Juan C. died intestate on December 11. respondent Juan E. Locsin and Emilio G. Locsin and that he is the only surviving legal heir of the decedent. If no executor is named in the will. respondent claims.

Court of Appeal where this Court said that "a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father (who had no hand in its preparation) is not competent evidence of paternity. With respect to Local Civil Registries. not only the naming of the father of the child born out of wedlock. if not more. birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary evidence. Iloilo on November 28. The space which calls for an entry of the legitimacy of the child is blank.A copy of the document sent by the Local Civil Registrar to the Civil Registrar General should be identical in form and in substance with the copy being kept by the latter. Accordingly. to merely access them in the Civil Registry General requires expertise. a claim for recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove paternity. Exhibit "8" shows that respondent's record of birth was made by his mother. access thereto by interested parties is obviously easier. Asked how a 1958 form could be used in 1957 when respondent's birth was recorded. respondent's Certificate of Live Birth No. and no further court action is required. Exhibit "D" is a carbon copy of the alleged original and sticks out like a sore thumb because the entries therein are typewritten. But for a 1958 form to be used in 1957 is unlikely. 1958 revised form. this vital document. when signed only by the mother of the latter. We find no irregularity here. Locsin listed as respondent's father and the entry that he and Amparo A2010 Escamilla were married in Oton. or the recognition. the Local Civil Registrar to send copies of registrable certificates and documents presented to them for entry to the Civil Registrar General. 477 (Exhibit "D") and a photograph (Exhibit "C") taken during the burial of the deceased. Exhibit D spurious: -Pursuant to Section 12 of Act 3753 (An Act to Establish a Civil Register). in itself. outside of a record of birth. . It is highly unlikely that any of these employees in Metro Manila would have reason to falsify a particular 1957 birth record originating from the Local Civil Registry of Iloilo City. Since the records of births cover several decades and come from all parts of the country. a will. not respondent's Exhibit "D". -The back cover of the 1957 bound volume in the Local Civil Registry of Iloilo is torn. V. On the back page of Exhibit "D".18 Its evidentiary worth cannot be sustained where there exists strong. not sewn like the other entries. What is authentic is Exhibit "8" recorded in the Civil Registry General. such as the alleged father's religion. -Respondent's Certificate of Live Birth No. -The documents bound into one volume are original copies. the Local Civil Registrar had no authority to make or record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person and the certificate of birth of an illegitimate child. Avena Evidence record of birth. Exhibit "8". there is a purported signature of the alleged father. the records of births from all cities and municipalities in the Philippines are officially and regularly forwarded to the Civil Registrar General in Metro Manila by the Local Civil Registrars. -The Civil Registry Law requires." (Emphasis ours) Here. Exhibit "D". Unlike the contents of those other certificates. it bears stressing the provision of Section 23. To locate one single birth record from the mass. Indeed. maybe the forms in 1956 were already exhausted so the former Civil Registrar had requested for a new form and they sent us the 1958 Revised Form. while the records of all other certificates are handwritten. 477 entered in the records of the Local Civil Registry (from which Exhibit "D" was machine copied) has all the badges of nullity. -In Roces vs. any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition. instead. Thus. Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that "(d)ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Local Civil Registrar: "Section 5 of Act No. respondent. In the instant case. Exhibit "D" does not indicate important particulars.Prof.e. ." (Emphasis ours) -The Roces ruling regarding illegitimate filiation is further elucidated in Fernandez vs. In fact." -Upon the other hand." -A birth certificate is a formidable piece of evidence prescribed by both the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code for purposes of recognition and filiation. the authentic copy on file in that office was removed and substituted with a falsified Certificate of Live Birth. but also.. presented to the trial court his Certificate of Live Birth No. occupation. -There is no explanation why out of so many certificates. Without doubt. Exhibit "D" is merely pasted with the bound volume. as transmitted to the Civil Registrar General is not identical with Exhibit "D" as appearing in the records of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. in proving the authenticity of Exhibit "D. a regular employee. -Respondent's photograph with his mother near the coffin of the late Juan C. address and business. However. judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the child's acknowledgment. explicitly prohibit. should have been given more faith and credence by the courts below. Vencer answered that "x x x during that time. race. is not filed or made by him. In this case." In this case. The records of the instant case adequately support a finding that Exhibit "8" for the petitioners. the signature and name of Juan C. it is logical to assume that the 1956 forms would continue to be used several years thereafter. a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child. a statement before a court of record. complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity. a statement before a court of record or an authentic writing. 477 (Exhibit "D") was recorded in a December 1. when the birth certificate. At this point. revised in July. it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. the glaring discrepancies between the two Certificates of Live Birth (Exhibits "D" and "8") have overturned the genuineness of Exhibit "D" entered in the Local Civil Registry. Locsin cannot and will not 84 . Exhibit "8" of the petitioners found in the Civil Registrar General in Metro Manila is on Municipal Form No 102. is incompetent evidence of fathership of said child. was merely pasted with the volume. Such circumstance should have aroused the suspicion of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals and should have impelled them to declare Exhibit "D" a spurious document. 1956. but the blanks calling for the date and other details of his Residence Certificate were not filled up. in order to establish his filiation with the deceased." more convincing evidence than those considered by the trial court should have been presented by respondent. a will. the statement of any information or circumstances by which he could be identified. A. has to be engaged. or in any authentic writing is. In the same Exhibit "8". i. 1954 do not appear. Where. 3753 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines . inter alia.

Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870. Allan F.FPJ’s earliest established ascendant was his grandfather Lorenzo Pou. No birth certificate for Lorenzo but his death certificate issued upon his death in September 11. unmarried and Filipino.January 23. Poe . in turn. Such petition was filed under Rule 64 of ROC (Review of Decision of COMELEC) FACTS . . COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS GR 161434 VITUG. a Spanish subject. Poe . WON FPJ can be disqualified as a presidential candidate on the ground that he materially misrepresented in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born Filipino HELD 1. 2003. Long Facts: On Dec.Copy of certificate of death of Lorenzo Pou . depended on whether or not the father of respondent. (FPJ). Poe and Paulita Gomez . whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. 1940 where Allan was 25. in the absence of any other evidence. even granting that the father was Filipino. the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. Pangasinan stating that the records of the birth of the said office from 1900 to May 1946 were destroyed during World War II . even if no such prior marriage existed. would have himself been a Filipino citizen and. V. . could have TECSON V. thus still illegit). without going through the COMELEC). he was born to an American mother and a Spanish father. and Bessie was 22.In the hearing before the COMELEC. it is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen.Certificate of birth of Ronald Allan F.” or “Ronald Allan” Poe. when the Phils. Poe. FPJ represented himself to be a natural-born citizen. which. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old. 1939. Jr. Pangasinan. and that San Carlos.According to Fornier. In his certificate of candidacy.31. 85 . Fornier presented the following: -Copy of the certificate of birth of FPJ -Certified photocopy of an affidavit by Paulita GomezPoe attesting that she had filed a bigamy case against Allan F. only one petition was considered by SC (Fornier v COMELEC).Quick Facts: FPJ was allegedly disqualified from being a candidate for President because he was not a naturalborn citizen.Copy of marriage contract of Fernando Pou and Bessie Kelley -Certification issued by the City Civil Registrar of San Carlos. 1915. thus marriage to mother was bigamous. NO Ratio While the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Phils. Poe because of his relationship with Kelley (in Spanish) and its English translation -Certified copy of the certificate of birth of Allan F.Prof. Thus. FPJ’s parents were foreigners – his mother Bessie Kelley Poe was an American and his father Allan F.Fornier filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy on the ground that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen. lest we recklessly set a very dangerous precedent that would encourage and sanction fraudulent claims. 2004 (maia) NATURE This is a consolidation of 3 petitions. Allegedly. was under Spanish rule. Poe was a Filipino citizen. Further. or even granting there was no prior marriage. Pangasinan. Poe was a Spanish national being a son of Lorenzo Pou. Poe married Bessey Kelley only a year after the birth of FPJ. Even if Allan F. Lorenzo married Marta Reyes and their son Allan was born on May 17. The marriage certificate of their marriage reflected the date of their marriage to be on September 16. he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ because FPJ was illegitimate (illegitimate children follow the citizenship of the mother) since Allan Poe contracted a prior marriage to Paulita Gomez before marrying Bessie Kelley according to an “uncertified” copy of a supposed certification of the marriage in July 5.FPJ presented the following pieces of evidence among others: . Poe in the registry of births for San Carlos.) were dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction (the petitions were filed in the SC.Certification by the OIC of the Archives Division of the National Archives that there was no available information about the marriage of Allan F. Alternatively. . . 1936. Poe -Certification from the director of the Records Management and Archives Office stating that a Lorenzo Poe/Pou resided in the Phils before 1907 -Certification from OIC of the Archives Division of the National Archives stating that there was no available information regarding the birth of Allan F. The birth certificate of Allan showed that his father was an Español and mother a mestiza Español. FPJ was born one year prior to the marriage of his parents. His real name was stated to be “Fernando.. in the affirmative. March 3. Jr. FPJ could not have inherited the Philippine citizenship because he was illegitimate (father had a prior subsisting marriage. 1954 at age 84 identified him as a Filipino residing in San Carlos. Avena Evidence constitute proof of filiation. FPJ filed his certificate of candidacy for President under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP). The two petitions (Tecson v COMELEC and Velez v Poe. 2004 – COMELEC dismissed the Fornier petition for lack of merit. Anybody can have a picture taken while standing before a coffin with others and thereafter utilize it in claiming the estate of the deceased. Jr. all assailing the citizenship of Fernando Poe. unmarried and American. A. Procedure . Allan F. Pangasinan A2010 . born in Manila on August 20. his place of residence upon his death in 1954. Reasoning Quick version: In ascertaining whether grave abuse of discretion has been committed by the COMELEC.Certification that there was no available information regarding the birth of Allan F.Original Certificate of Title if the Registry Deeds of Pangasinan in the name of Lorenzo Pou. Fornier filed MFR (denied) ISSUE/S 1.Copies of tax declarations under the name of Lorenzo Pou .

not all these were extended to the Phils. 1. who were Spanish subjects in the 11th day of April. 1. Rights to property. The 1935 Constitution. if acquired. such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. and then resided in said islands. Art.Prof. Now. *For discussion on “Pedigree. 1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority .Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Phils . and (3) since that date. without such papers. FPJ was Filipino . its really obiter lang.earliest understanding was given by Aristotle who described a citizen as a man who shared in the administration of justice and in the holding of an office and the state would be composed of such individuals in order to achieve a self-sufficient existence. Long version: .Petitioner has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the Court. Art. . This was deemed discriminatory in that it incapacitated the Filipino woman from transmitting her citizenship to her legitimate children and required illegitimate children of Filipino mothers to still elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. natives were identified as “indios. viz: a. A.e. 1 that the following are Filipino citizens: . which. Allan F. and their children born subsequent thereto.Can FPJ be disqualified as a presidential candidate on the ground that he materially misrepresented in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born Filipino? Obiter: Concept of citizenship (baka lang magtanong si ma’am about this) . .” In church records. as indicated in Sec.Article 10 of the Treaty of Paris stated that the civil and political status of the native inhabitants would be determined by the US Congress. the native inhabitants of the Phils ceased to be Spanish subjects.Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Phils . Persons born in Spanish territory b. shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Phil Islands” (this is what they call the Filipinization en masse) -under the Jones Law.1987 Constitution – aimed to correct the irregular situation generated by the questionable proviso in the 1935 Constitution and outlines in Article 4. as so ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. If no such declaration is made. 3.Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. 1. Avena Evidence well been his place of residence before death. 86 . would thereby extend to his son. which.” Although there were a lot of Spanish laws on citizenship. must not only be material. following jus sanguinis. 3 (defining citizens): (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who. They did not become American citizens either but were issued passports describing them to be citizens of the Phils entitled to protection of the US. confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution .” see long version.1935 Constitution provided jus sanguinis (blood relationship) as basis for citizenship. elect Philippine citizenship (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law .Add Sec. (2) residing in the Phils on said date.in the Philippine Bill of 1902. Those who. Children of a Spanish father or mother even if they were born outside Spain c. 19th century: concept expanded to include political citizenship. Sec. 20th century: developed to social citizenship.Those born before January 17.thus. may have become domiciled inhabitants of any town of the Monarchy . Citizenship was deemed to deal with rights and entitlements on the one hand and with concomitant obligations on the other. V.Those who are naturalized in accordance with law . Poe. Sec.Spanish period: no such term as “Philippine citizens. Concept of Citizenship in the Phils from the Spanish times to the present . It was only in the Civil Code of Spain (which became effective in the Phils 1889) where a categorical enumeration of Spanish citizens were made. their allegiance shall be held renounced and they would have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they reside. Upon ratification of the treaty. when taken together with the existing civil law provisions would provide that women would automatically lose their Filipino citizenship and acquire that of their foreign husbands. not a ctizen of some other country. during which regime FPJ has seen first light. personal liberty and justice]. Art.1973 Constitution – Corrected Sec.Those who are citizens of the Phils at the time of the adoption of this Constitution . encompassing right to participate in exercise of political power. Spanish subjects and natives who choose to remain in the territory may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making a declaration of their decision within a year from the date of the ratification of the treaty. 2 of the same article which provided that a female citizen of the Phils who marries an alien retainers her Philippine citizenship unless by her act or omission she is deemed to have renounced her citizenship under the law. established rights necessary for individual freedom [i. notwithstanding the ample opportunity given to the parties to present their position and evidence. and to prove whether or not there has been material misrepresentation.concept of citizenship underwent changes in the 18th to 20th centuries: 18th century: limited to civil citizenship. COMELEC. it seems that movement internationalization of citizenship is towards A2010 . That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou). a native-born inhabitant of Phils was deemed to be a citizen as of 11 April 1899 if he was (1) a subject of Spain on said date. before the adoption of this Constitution. Islands continuing to reside therein. Foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers d. 1899. 3 (4) of the 1935 Constitution. . . emphasized right of citizen to economic well-being and social security). had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Phils (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Phils and upon reaching the age of majority.Those who are citizens of the Phils at the time of the adoption of this Constitution . it was provided that “all inhabitants of the Phil. but also deliberate and willful.” only “Spanish subjects. 1973 Constitution state that the ff are citizens of the Phils: . father of respondent FPJ.

The CC and FC provisions on proof of filiation or paternity. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage.In the FPJ case. In that case. Rule 130. Absence of this renders the birth certificate useless as being an authoritative document or recognition . (now Jorge Bocobo St. Avena Evidence The Case of FPJ .).Allan F.For the above rule to apply. The duly notarized declaration by Ruby Kelley Mangahas. Poe. in general. and (e) the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Ronald. Ruby Kelley Mangahas. and that he is the legitimate child of Fernando Poe. While. A. Allan and Fernando II. recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ (living with Bessie and the children in one house as one family) would be accepted. Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill effected in 1902. his relationship to the State. as `Fernando Poe. the 3 documents are prima facie proof of their contents as stated in the ROC (130. 2).At the time of his death on September 11.’ or `FPJ’. These provisions are there to govern the private and personal affairs of the family. living together with Bessie Kelley and his children (including respondent FPJ) in one house.The Constitution requires that the President of the Phils should be a natural-born citizen of the Phils (Art. 173 and 175 and the rules have retroactive effect (Article 255). (d) declaration must be made before the controversy has occurred. family genealogy. 87 . if any. and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the phils.Prof. more popularly known in the Phils. The relevance of citizenship is exemplified in Art. the domain of civil law(that branch of law which is concerned with the organization of the family and regulation of property).For proof of filiation (relationship or civil status of a child to either parent) or paternity (relationship or civil status of father to child). As public documents. condition.Acknowledgement needed to establish paternity (eg. birth. FPJ’s father.FPJ was born to them on August 20. Thus. and as one family -"I.2)] . 7. Elizabeth. Poe was a Filipino because his father Lorenzo was also Filipino. provisions on "citizenship" could be found in the Civil Code.e. 1939 (governed by 1935 consti). 1954. a Filipino. V. even though living abroad. . Sr. sister of Bessie Kelley Poe submitted as Exhibit 20 before the COMELEC. the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley Mangahas. .The parents of FPJ were Allen Poe and Bessie Kelley. will or a statement before the court in authentic writing) (b) Legal (in favor of full blood brothers and sisters of an illegitimate child who was recognized as natural) (c) Compulsory (demanded generally in cases when the child had in his favor any evidence to prove filiation) .. Section 44) that the entries in official records made by a public officer in the performance of his duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. indeed. the matter about pedigree is not necessarily A2010 precluded from being applicable by the CC or FC provisions. I am executing this Declaration to attest to the fact that my nephew. of the Rules of Court: “Act or Declaration about pedigree. . (b) the pedigree of a person must be at issue. Sec. The ff can be drawn with some degree of certainty from the evidence: . … “18. the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. do not have preclusive effects on matters alien to personal and family relations.It is safe to assume that Lorenzo Pou was born sometime in 1870. the only other proof of voluntary recognition remained to be “some other public document” .The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining his citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from and not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law purposes. Thus. Malate until the liberation of Manila in 1945. such provisions must be taken in the context of private relations. FPJ’s maternal aunt and sister of his mother Bessie. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.Allan F.The public documents submitted are deemed trustworthy. the mandatory rules of civil law would not apply in this case. .Thus. i. The ordinary rules on evidence could well and should govern. Ronald Allan Poe is a natural born Filipino. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Poe was Lorenzo Pou.The father of Allan F. marriage certificate of Bessie and Allan and the death certificate of Lorenzo) were certified true copies of the originals. my sister Bessie and their first three children. Poe. Section 39. proving the acts of Allan F. death. it would be necessary that (a) the declarant is already dead or unable to testify. although good law. or unable to testify. Poe. … do hereby declare that: … “3. Poe in the birth certificate of FPJ. Jr. The three documents (birth certificate of FPJ. and myself lived together with our mother at our family's house on Dakota St. there was no signature of Allan F. For instance.. … “9.1950 Civil Code – 3 types of acknowledgement of illegitimate children which had to be done during the lifetime of the presumed parent: (a) Voluntary (expressly made in record birth.The Family Code has liberalized the rules as stated in Articles 172. and resident of Pangasinan. The act or declaration of a person deceased. which provides that laws relating to family rights and duties. except for some months between 1943-1944. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. and the names of the relatives. . This citizenship would then extend to his son Allan F. The word `pedigree’ includes relationship. Fernando and Bessie Poe had a son by the name of Ronald Allan Poe. to indicate that the legitimate or illegitimate civil status of the individual would also affect his political rights or. (c) the declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question.” . 4 sec. the need to reiterate the consti provisions on citizenship The ONLY item relevant to “pedigree”: . recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ. or status. . Acknowledgement in the birth certificate by signing name of father). Fernando Poe. There is little. Sr. Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. 15 of the Civil Code. Proof of Paternity and Filiation under Civil Law . might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan F. 1940. marriage. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each other on September 16. . . when Phils was still a Spanish colony (since he died at 84 in 1954) and that his place of residence at the time of death was the same as his residence before death in the absence of evidence that would attest otherwise. [Natural born citizen – citizens of the Phils from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship (Art.

Negros Oriental.. But where there is substantial evidence supporting the finding of the Superintendent of Schools is precisely the issue in this case. thus he may take the citizenship of his father. (2) took into account the verified answer in a cadastral proceeding in CFI Negros Oriental. he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of a family tradition. Why deprive the child of the fullness of political rights for no fault of his own? To disqualify an illegitimate child from holding an important public office is to punish him for the indiscretion of his parents. Avena Evidence .when jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child to inherit the mother’s citizenship. 1924. GRAVADOR V MAMIGO G.Cogent Reasons why TC did not err in its findings (1) although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth. And if there is neither justice nor rationality in the distinction.Pedro Gravador. Mamigo was designated teacher-in-charge of the said elementary school. in Amlan. through the 88 . 1897 is an administrative finding that should not be disturbed by the court. then the distinction transgresses the equal protection clause and must be reprobated.TC: (1) concluded that the post-war records were intended to replace the pre-war records and therefore the correct date of birth is December 11. Citing Bernas: “What is the relevance of legitimacy or illegitimacy to elective public service? What possible state interest can there be for disqualifying an illegitimate child from becoming a public officer.The controversy arose because of conflicting records of Gravador’s date of birth which is the basis of computation of retirement annuities and the number of years of service of a retiree. Fornier v. Negros Oriental because they were the neighbors of Gravador’s parents and they were present when Gravador was born and that they were also invited in Gravador’s baptismal party. 2. ISSUE WON TC erred in giving full reliance on post war records and verified answer by Gravador’s brother in a cadastral proceeding (PEDIGREE) HELD NO . COMELEC and Velez v. (2) post-war records. The Court held that the veracity of this marriage between Paulita and Allan is doubtful. .” . Catalina Elementary School in Negros Oriental.DNA testing to prove paternity could also be resorted to. There is neither justice nor rationality in that. 8 months. 1901. 1897 but December 11. which Allan Poe was DISPOSITION 1. which has just been found in connection with the verification of his service that he was born on November 26. Attached to his letter was (1) the affidavit of Bandoquillo and Sienes. 1901. . A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity Re: contention that being illegitimate prevents a child from inheriting the citizenship of the father . .400. filed by the Gravador’s brother where it was stated that he was one of the co-owners of a piece of land and at the time he was 23 years old. . 1901. an Employee's Record Card and an Employee's Record of Qualifications which state that Gravador’s birth date is December 11. No. . formerly known as New Ayuquitan. A.Gravador filed a suit for quo warranto. mandamus and damages in CFI Negros Oriental as he asked the court to adjudge him entitled to the office of principal of the Sta. . was advised by Superintendent of Schools Salazar of his separation from the service because he had reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 as according to (1) pre-war records as a teacher in the public schools and (2) his Insular Teacher's Cards and Employee's Record Card. namely. the date contained in the pre-war records should be regarded as controlling.Conclusion (digester’s take): the affidavit of Ruby Mangahas was sufficient to establish that there was recognition of the child FPJ. Catalina Elementary School and to order payment of not only his back salaries but also damages in the total amount of P52. dated March 15. L-24989 CASTRO. V. 1897 (TF he is 66 years. 1967 (owen) FACTS . and that the A2010 municipal civil register contains no record of the Gravador’s birth. and (2) the finding of the Superintendent of Schools that Gravador was born on November 26. both of Amlan. but as some pre-war records had since been located. principal of Sta.problem is aggravated by two uncontroverted facts. consisting of an Elementary Teacher's Report Card. July 21. that they knew him to be born on December 11. . The evidence does not establish conclusively FPJ’s citizenship but the evidence preponderates in his favor to hold that he could not be guilty of misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. and 22 days old) unless he can show valid proof in the form of a baptismal or birth certificate that he was below 65 year old.R. 1901.The 1935 Constitution applies to FPJ since he was born during that time period and it states that Filipino citizens include those whose fathers are citizens of the Phils. Tecson v.Gravador wrote the Director of Public Schools and the Division Superintendent of Schools protesting his forced retirement because the date of his birth is not November 26. Even in his application for back pay which he filed with the Department of Finance.The findings of fact of administrative officials are binding on the courts if supported by substantial evidence is a settled rule of administrative law. . It was not the fault of the child that his parents had illicit liaison.FPJ was alleged to be illegitimate because of the bigamous marriage between his parents Allan and Bessie for the reason that Allan allegedly had a prior existing marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez. TC granted his petition .Prof. DNA Testing . it to ensure a Filipino nationality for the child in line with the assumption that the mother would gain custody. COMELEC DISMISSED for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for dismissing the original petition. Poe DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.Respondents Claim: (1) TC erred in placing full reliance on the post-war records because these records were made only because it was thought that the prewar records had been lost or destroyed.The pronouncement that an illegitimate child cannot inherit the father’s citizenship has no textual basis in the Constitution and violates the equal protection clause. that the records of the church where Gravador was baptized were destroyed by fire.

. . Thus. and (c) respondent. He repeated the same assertion in 1956 and again in 1960 when he asked GSIS and the CSC to correct the date of his birth to December 11. as well as the resolution of January 10. And it would be straining the imagination to perceive that this situation was purposedly sought by Esteban's parents to suit some ulterior motives. Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age. general reputation of marriage may proceed from persons who are not members of the family . Common Reputation IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE A.In Our decision of April 29. 1968.M. 1948. the lawyer's diploma previously issued to him. No. The evidence proposed to be presented consisted of (1) an entry in the registry of baptism of the Immaculate Concepcion Church at Macalelon. Florencio Mallare is a Filipino citizen and therefore with qualification and right to continue the practice of law in the Philippines. birth. who was born on June 10.With the additional evidence submitted by respondent pursuant to the authority granted by this Court. V. Esteban Mallare. citizen". contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral case way back in 1924. In 1903. Quezon. or race-ancestry. was a Chinese up to his death. is a Filipino citizen. instead of adopting that of his father. to the effect that Gravador was then 23 years old. as "wife of Dy Esteban. 1963 with full retirement pay.Reputation has been held admissible as evidence of age. Such declarations constitute admissible evidence of the birth and illegitimacy of Esteban Mallare. Disposition Judgment Affirmed could alter the decision previously promulgated. her son. without pronouncement as to costs. this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. to the effect that he had chosen to follow the citizenship of his Filipino mother was not only self-serving. 1968. Gravador stated that the date of his birth is December 11. 533 FERNANDEZ. the introduction of which 89 .I. and on the question of whether a child was born alive. that the landing certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration which referred to respondent's mother. say in 1897 as the pre-war records indicate. all natives of Macalelon. Consequently respondent Florencio Mallare was declared excluded from the practice of law. Esteban Mallare. respondent is likewise a Chinese national. a Filipino. was a Filipino citizen. and (2) testimonies of certain persons who had a known Esteban Mallare and his mother during their lifetime. 1968.Respondent's petition to set aside the decision of this Court of April 29. 1974 (glaisa) FACTS . of newly discovered evidence. and the complaint in this case is DISMISSED. therefore. by his own overt acts. Constantino. who had personal knowledge of the person. . is hereby definitely set aside. but they must have certain factual basis. ISSUE WON Esteban Mallare (respondent’s father) is a Filipino as respondent claims. if Estaban were really born out of legal union. was based upon an ex parte determination of the evidence presented by therein applicant and consequently carries little evidentiary weight as to the citizenship of her said husband. and that the affidavit of Esteban Mallare. respondent's claim that he is a Filipino was denied for lack of evidence proving the Philippine citizenship of his father. on October 7. Esteban Mallare. The declarations were not only based on the reputation in the community regarding her race or race-ancestry. It was ruled that Ana Mallare (Esteban's mother) can not be considered a Filipino. the son of a Filipino mother. Dispositive Upon the foregoing considerations. constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.And even assuming arguendo that Ana Mallare were legally married to an alien. holding that by preponderance of evidence.YES. September 12. that Ana Mallare is a Tagalog (and. a legitimate son of Esteban Mallare. would constitute proof of the illegitimacy of the former. 1901. . P. and that Esteban. a Filipino citizen). . Avena Evidence Office of the Superintendent of Schools. which have not been controverted. Besides. testified to by the witness.The public reputation in Macalelon that Esteban was Ana's natural child. 1968. A.The witnesses. but also it can not be considered a re-affirmation of the alleged election of citizenship since no previous election of such citizenship has been proved to exist. HELD . is premised upon three basic arguments. race. had chosen Philippine citizenship. Te Na. . and his mother admittedly being a Chinese.Prof. Gravador could not have been born earlier than Constantino. purporting to show that Estaben Mallare (respondent's father) is the natural son of Ana Mallare. . which is admissible in evidence. there being no proof that she was "an inhabitant of the Philippines continuing to reside therein who was a Spanish subject on the eleventh day of April. . inter alia. and on the basis of the original and additional evidence herein adduced the decision of this Court dated April 29.The assertion of the witnesses. Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative. the A2010 aforementioned void in the proof of respondent's citizenship has been duly filled.the reason for the distinction is the public interest that is taken in the question of the existence of marital relations. cannot be assailed as being mere conclusions devoid of evidentiary value. (3) Gravador has a brother. 1898 and who retired on June 10. a Filipino.Respondent petitioned the Court for the reopening of the case and for new trial on the ground. were one in their declaration that Ana Mallare is a Tagalog who had continuously resided in the place.A decision was rendered by this Court on April 29. December 11. (b) Esteben Mallare. 1939. . eighteen hundred and ninety-nine". being the natural son of Ana Mallare. cannot be ignored. birth and residency of both Ana Mallare and her son Esteban. his admission to the bar was revoked. it appeared that respondent Mallare's father. 1901 is established as the date of birth of Gravador only by evidence of family tradition but also by the declaration ante litem motam of a deceased relative. was reputedly born out of wedlock. and he was ordered to return to this Court. 1901. to wit: (a) Respondent's father. we can not concede that alien inhabitants of his country were that sophisticated or legally-oriented. (2) the import of the declaration of Gravador’s brother. Unlike that of matters of pedigree. executed on February 20. because Constantino is admittedly older than he. it is highly improbable that he would be keeping the surname "Mallare" after his mother. 1969.

In the absence thereof. they would proceed to Baclaran Church to hear mass. SPO3 Jesus Patriarca. their respective testimonies are not affected by their relationship to the victim. At that moment. V. Garabato on June 16. The testimony of prosecution were alleged to be fraught with inconsistent and incredulous statements. Cornelia de la Cruz (Pablo's wife) and Romeo Mabahagi (a janitor/utility man at Gagalangin Health Center). Denial. Chief of Police of Sangandaan Police Station and other police officers in the presence of a tabloid reporter and with the assistance of his counsel. -Petitioner alighted from his jeep. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner immediately left the scene on board his jeep. Garabato was shot. -For his part. Fr. -Initially. No. the fact that Mascardo and Tad-y Benito worked for the victim does not in any way render their testimonies incredulous. and he was certain that the assailant was NOT Pablo de la Cruz. From there. Garabato. -On appeal. 2001 (giulia) medico-legal concluded that Fr. for alibi to prosper. They instinctively turned their sights towards the origin of the gunshots. -TC rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of homicide. walked towards Fr. The 90 . hired Abundo Tad-y and Mario Mascardo in the construction of his house. Garabato. the distance between Sangandaan. -Considering the positive identification of petitioner as the assailant of the victim by eyewitnesses to the crime. ISSUE WON the petitioner was guilty A2010 HELD In this case. is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. -Out of fear of their lives. -Fr. Atty. Manila does not preclude the possibility that petitioner could have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at or about the time of its commission. These two witnesses were with the victim at the time that he was shot and they positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. but (2) it must likewise be demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Garabato's body was rushed to Quezon City General Hospital where he was pronounced DOA. He claims that at the time and date Fr. Carmela and Pamela. who was employed therein as a midwife. The trial court summed up his version of the case as follows: Accused firmly disclaims knowledge or participation in the aforesaid shooting incident. Quezon City and Tondo. Petitioner has not ascribed any ill motive on their part to wrongfully accuse him of the crime. 139150 KAPUNAN. This point was corroborated by defense witnesses. -Fr. Ancheta. -Alibi is a defense invariably viewed by the Court as weak. The victim sustained six (6) gunshot wounds spread over his head and body. the deceased. his friends. the police officer who investigated the incident. who categorically stated that he witnessed the shooting incident.R. At his arraignment. petitioner interposed the twin defense of denial and alibi. It ruled that the qualifying circumstance of alevosia was not sufficiently established by the prosecution and appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Garabato surrounded by several curious spectators and police officers. Their testimonies were corroborated by the testimony of another prosecution witness. Manila. Garabato. 1993. The Accused's defense is further corroborated by the testimony of witness. that he and his two children. re-loaded his gun with another magazine and shot Fr. went to fetch his wife.Prof. 1993. the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses. Garabato died of "(h)emorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds of the body". Cornelia. -The vehicle was parked in front of the house of the petitioner. The prosecution allegedly tried to portray the victim as a "pacifist" and that he was "meek as a lamb" when in fact he was a Lieutenant Colonel assigned to the headquarters of the Armed Forces. petitioner must prove not only (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Mario Mascardo went back to the locus criminis and there he saw the helpless body of Fr. Constante A. Avena Evidence Res Gestae PEOPLE V DELA CRUZ G. Garabato moved the vehicle. On June 16. the two workers were unloading construction materials from a Ford Fiera owned and driven by Fr. Four (4) of these wounds were diagnosed to be fatal. Garabato anew. He denies having known or seen Fr. Petitioner's defense of alibi is thus unavailing especially in light of the clear and positive identification of him as the assailant by two credible eyewitnesses who had no motive to lie. -At the Police Station. the CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner for homicide but modified the penalty as it held that the trial court erred in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. SPO4 Pablo De La Cruz where another vehicle was also parked behind it. the two workers were standing behind the Ford Fiera. both the TC and CA gave scant consideration to petitioner's defense of denial and alibi. The victim was not NATURE Petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decisionof the CA. petitioner gave himself up to Superintendent Efren Santos. the two workers ran to the house being constructed. FACTS -RTC of QC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. July 20. not murder as was charged in the Amended Information. Abundio Tad-y Benito and Mario Mascardo positively identified petitioner Pablo De La Cruz as the person who shot Fr. and they heard successive shots of gunfire. petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. and that he actually saw the face of the assailant. Subsequently. Ricardo Cuadra. A. It is treated with disfavor simply because it is easily fabricated on the part of the accused. -The petitioner got upset with the deceased because he could not get his jeep out. relatives and supporters. the Information was amended charging petitioner with murder. such that they saw smoke coming from the side of petitioner's jeep and saw petitioner seated in the driver's seat still holding his gun pointing towards the Ford Fiera. About half an hour later. -Contrary to petitioners contention. Garabato's position. -On June 19. the Information filed against petitioner charged him with homicide. prosecution witnesses. he was in Gagalangin Health Center in Tondo. -To the mind of the Court. 1993. -Moreover.

-With respect to the non-presentation of the . DISPOSITION WHEREFORE.") but later on the information was amended to charge them with the crime of parricide when the victim. To be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. the victim(s) or spectators to a crime immediately before. as claimed by the prosecution. 1993. A. Theresa Castillo (neighbor). thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which directly caused her death. NO. Lilia also noticed Ethel's knees with contusions due to prolonged kneeling. Ethel replied: "pinaso po ako. testified that she was aghast to see Ethel shaven. -Even if the declaration was not to be considered as res gestae. insofar as the aforequoted spontaneous utterance is concerned: a) the principal act (res gestae) the killing of Fr. Michelle Torente (neighbor). ETHEL died. When she asked Ethel's "yaya" why this was done to the little girl.A. Lilia confronted Ava about her and Leezel's treatment of Ethel The second witness. all the elements of res gestae are sufficiently established. "Papa ko po. Petitioner denies owning a . her hair was shaven. they rushed to the scene of the crime to investigate. Sep 27. he did so purportedly to clear his name. She also had marks of "black-eye" on both eyes.45 caliber pistol and faults the prosecution for not presenting the same as evidence. the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.3 (Otherwise known as "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse. Michelle Torrente. Avena Evidence allegedly constructing his own residence in the area. It is neither a test of credibility nor a positive rule of universal application. AVA and LEEZEL were the witnesses presented by the defense. but was just renovating a house. her neck had faded cigarette burns while her arms and legs had traces of pinching and maltreatment. He also claims that it would be inconceivable for him to kill the victim in the presence of his two (2) children. the voluntary surrender must be spontaneous. "parusa". 7610. testified that when he conducted the investigation immediately after the incident occurred. the presentation of the weapon is not a prerequisite for conviction. within several minutes after the victim was shot. Garabato in broad daylight is a startling occurrence. -CA correctly held that petitioner cannot avail himself of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. When petitioner went to the Sangandaan Police Station. the testimonies of Mascardo and Tad-y Benito positively identifying petitioner is sufficient to establish the latter's guilt. "RES GESTAE" refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants. when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. Article VI of R. an occupant of unit 115. Ethel was beaten and mauled in the different parts of her body.. Ethel also had cigarette burns. Therefore. According to the TC: [A]lthough the people who gave this information were not presented on the witness stand. One day Lilia visited Ava and her niece but she was shocked to see Ethel's appearance. On Res Gestae -Petitioner further puts in issue the admission by the trial court of the statement made by the bystanders imputing the crime to petitioner as res gestae. and c) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances the identity of the assailant is a material and vital information that concerns the aforementioned startling occurrence. SP03 Jesus Patriarca. this Court still resolved to admit and consider this spontaneous exclamation from the spectators competent as "PART OF RES GESTAE". Exploitation and Discrimination Act. It was not his intention to submit himself to the authorities and assume responsibility for the death of the victim.45 caliber pistol. V. a prosecution witness. falsus in omnibus" is not a strict legal maxim in our jurisprudence. and immediately. Lilia Gojul used to live with her sister but was forced to leave as Ava’s household was not at all peaceful.22 A2010 DAVIDE. the "yaya" answered." referring to Leezel Franco. not the father of Ethel) were initially charged with serious physical injuries under Section 10. her face was full of contusions. during or immediately after the commission of the crime. As borne by evidence on record. CARIQUEZ GR 129304 91 . The trial court admitted this statement as part of res gestae. PEOPLE vs. he questioned those people at the scene of the crime if they know who shot the victim. as narrated by the prosecution. The little girl's shaven head and bruises were also noticed by Theresa Castillo. The eyewitnesses allegedly claimed to have heard ten (10) gunshots but only six (6) gunshots were established. When Lilia asked the little girl to identify who inflicted the injuries on her body." still. Among the witnesses presented by the prosecution were Lilia Gojul (Ava’s sister). while the latter was on duty. 1999 (athe) NATURE: Appeal FACTS AVA (mother of Ethel) and LEEZEL (live-in partner of Ava. these do not per se render the entire testimony unworthy of credence. b) the statements were made before the declarants had time to contrive or devise that is. JR. Ethel said. Records of this case reveal that the incident was reported to SPO3 Patriarca at around 2:45 in the afternoon of June 16.Prof. adjacent to Ava's residence." When Michelle further asked who burned her and caused her bruises. with bruises all over her body and wounds in her arms and legs. It was at that instance that he gathered the aforesaid information. "Falsus in uno. The response he got was: "yun hong pulis na nakatira sa tapat" referring to petitioner. These alleged inconsistent and incredulous statements pertain merely to minor details and do not detract from the crux of the testimonies of Mascardo and Tad-y Benito that they witnessed the killing of the victim by petitioner. and when Michelle asked what happened. Ethel tearfully pointed to Ava and Leezel. Even if the trial court found certain imputations made by the prosecution witnesses "exaggerated. it should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other pieces of evidence.

17 [Section 5. Reasoning In this case the startling occurrences were the tortures inflicted on ETHEL. and kissed her private parts. Regail did not want to believe her daughter and thought that her father was just joking with the latter. an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Ethel fell from the stairs. Theresa. Leezel. who when asked who caused them spontaneously pointed to AVA and LEEZEL. it must however. was the prosecution’s witnesses are purely hearsay and that they were convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He lowered her shorts and underwear. raised her shirt and bra. and (3) that 2 A2010 the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. indeed. The trial court found Ava and Leezel guilty of parricide and homicide respectively. then 13 years of age. 132635 & 143872–75 MENDOZA. Velasquez pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. also. WON the TC erred in convicting Ava and Leezel based on circumstantial evidence HELD 1. and rape of MARY JOY OCAMPO. That some time may have lapsed between the infliction of the injuries and the disclosure. and giving it a legal significance. 42. on the other hand. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequently thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. NO. pulled down her shorts and underwear. While the answer of ETHEL as to who inflicted the injuries may have been. What is necessary is that the injuries sustained by ETHEL prior to the incident on 27 May 1996 were inflicted by AVA and LEEZEL.2 Ratio There are three requisites to the admission of evidence as constituting part of the res gestae. 2 years old. The second was narrated in her affidavit and reply-affidavit where she pointed Leezel as the culprit. though she tried to evade him. Mary Joy (stepdaughter of accused). the res gestae. Aira complained that her grandfather did something to her. February 21. which made the latter remove his finger although he continued kissing her. Ratio Circumstancial evidence is sufficient to convict provided the following requisites are present. The evidence for the prosecution: In October 1994. So. Mary Joy felt a sharp pain and tried to resist by kicking him. showing her mother what had been done to her. WON the declarations of Lilia. but not before warning her to keep quiet and not to tell anyone what he had done to her. Aira walked into the room crying. She testified in open court that Ethel’s death was due to an accident. the Office of the Solicitor General enumerates seven (7) circumstantial evidence which the trial court took in to account and relied upon as bases for its finding that AVA and LEEZEL. PEOPLE v VELASQUEZ G. . and started kissing her. convicting Lamberto Velasquez of (1) acts of lasciviousness committed against his granddaughter Aira Velasquez. V. statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. and her two half-brothers. Then he inserted his middle finger into her vagina and later had sexual intercourse with her. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. may be received as part of the res gestae. (1) that the principal act. However. NO. at 3PM.R. which she demonstrated by opening her right leg and moving one of her right fingers toward her vagina. Aira started to cry. Velasquez approached her and. be pointed out that there has been no uniformity as to the interval of time that should separate the occurrence of the startling event from the making of the declarations. while Regail was folding clothes.Regail (daughter of accused) has a daughter named Aira. Nos. Their contention. she found the accused beside her on the floor. all that he saw was the child lying on the floor. sometimes forcing her to masturbate him and at other times licking her vagina. On April 16. her mother Angelina. Michelle. Michelle and Theresa as to what they observed from Ethel were hearsay. Part of res gestae. Rule 133. 2. 92 . among others.On SEC. Avena Evidence Ava offered two versions.] The circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the guilt of the accused. . hearsay because ETHEL could not be confronted on that. be a startling occurrence. whereupon the cases were consolidated and jointly tried. were criminally responsible for the death of ETHEL (testimony of Lilia. Velasquez continuously molested Mary Joy. Then he raised her shirt. therefore. etc. therefore inadmissible 2. He kissed her on the mouth and the breasts. Afterward. Up to April 1997. while Mary Joy was watching television alone in the living room. When Regail asked her why her vagina hurt. ISSUES 1. he succeeded in forcing her to their room. slept in a room she shared with Velasquez. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived from are proven. he inserted his middle finger into Mary Joy’s vagina.2 weeks later. and then he helped Ava bring the child to the hospital. 2001 (jojo) NATURE An appeal from the decision of the RTC of Angeles City. A. Aira said it was because of the things her grandfather had been doing to her vagina. 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise.Prof. she noticed that Aira complained of pain in her vagina while taking a bath. her mother having left for the market. namely: (1) there is more than one circumstance. Reasoning In the Appellee's Brief. 1997. Dr Bienvenida. He further claimed that the testimony of Lilia is not true. and (2) rape of his stepdaughter Mary Joy Ocampo FACTS Velasquez was charged with acts of lasciviousness upon the person of AIRA VELASQUEZ. claimed that he had no idea as to what happened to Ethel. When she woke up in the morning. MARY JOY OCAMPO and KIMBERLY VELASQUEZ. yet it was part of the res gestae and. They both appealed. They saw her and personally noticed the injuries and telltale marks of torture. In the days that followed. He then left. still in October.) DISPOSITION : Decision of RTC finding Ava and Leezel guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Parricide and Homicide respectively is AFFIRMED. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. Rules of Court.

Prof. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements. At around 10PM. he claimed he never molested her. It is an established jurisprudence that the issue of lack of or a defective preliminary investigation should be raised before or during trial and such statutory right to a preliminary investigation is deemed waived when appellant. accused-appellant said that she was a liar and a naughty child. WON the trial court erred in giving credibility to Mary Joy Ocampo’s testimony HELD 1. 2. Kimberly was around Aira’s age. more importantly. that is why it hurts. and to corroborate his story. kinayi ne pu ing pekpek ku kaya masakit ya. NO. he looked for his family. As for Mary Grace’s complaint. Aira’s mother. He believed that Mary Joy had accused him because he always noticed whenever she came home late and scolded her. 1997. but there was still no sign of them. and again when she went out with her cousin after she had married Meryll Robertson. NO. However. The hearsay rule does not apply. The inculpatory and spontaneous statements were: (1) “Si Tatang kakayan na ku pu. appellant must be taken to have waived his right to a preliminary investigation if in fact he was not given the benefit thereof. As to Roan. to show what accusedappellant had done to it. in appellant’s arguments. So that where no objection has been made at the trial. TC RULING: The accused was convicted of (1) acts of lasciviousness committed against his granddaughter Aira Velasquez. and fondled her breasts. but they were not around. A. he was awakened by his son Renel who gave him glass of bitter liquid to drink. and that her vagina was red and swollen. When he woke up the next morning.” (“Because Tatang has been doing something to my private part. as it was made immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence. failed to claim it before plea. and (2) rape of his stepdaughter Mary Joy Ocampo ISSUES 1. for the statement 93 . When it does not appear from the record that a preliminary investigation was not granted the accused. Rolando Velasquez. . and Regail remembered hearing that pus had also come out of the child’s vagina. She took Aira to Dr. and the statements are admissible as evidence. married Ranold. Buyboy. and then she gestured. it must be presumed that A2010 the proceedings in the trial court were in accordance with law. he went to Manila. Lydia Buyboy. as in this case. Mary Grace Ocampo( stepdaughter of accused). as a new couple. the doctor declined to give a medical certificate as she did not want to get involved in any case. He was found in Cebu and arrested in July. 2.Accused denied the allegations against him. who testified on what her daughter had told her. His hands went lower. he sailed for Cebu and stayed with his eldest son.The following day. he was unable to return to Pampanga to clear his name. Mary Grace moved out of their house and went to live with her aunt in Angeles City. She also noticed that her daughter was running a fever. .”) (3) She showed her mother her private part. WON the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Regail Velasquez 3. Pampanga. by slightly opening or raising her right foot and using her right finger. According to Mary Grace. which was swollen and oozing with pus. the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. he set it aside. However. Aira’s acts and statements constitute exceptions to the hearsay rule because they were part of the res gestae. Moreover. The trial court based its conviction of accusedappellant for acts of lasciviousness against Aira Velasquez on the testimony of Regail Velasquez. Avena Evidence April 28. We hold that Aira’s statements and acts constitute res gestae. Angelina and accused spent the night at an aunt’s house in San Fernando. accused’s son by first wife Caridad and Regail’s brother. and so it was impossible for him to have an opportunity to molest any of the complainants. Failing to raise the issue of lack of preliminary investigation during the trial.”) (2) “I-tatang kasi.On April 30. 1997. regardless of their truth or falsity. The evidence for the defense: . Aira herself was not presented in court. She recalled when. He pawned his watch and ring and bought a ticket on the Super Ferry 10. Of his granddaughter Aira. appellant is now estopped to raise this issue for the first time on appeal. Mary Grace lost no time and took Kimberly to Dr. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary. V. Buyboy’s findings.Angelina and Loida went to the police station to make a report and brought the children to the Ospital ng Angeles for physical examination. Regail’s account of Aira’s words and. who made the same findings. (pls see orig copy re testimony) . She was unable to resist accused’s advances because of his strength and threats. They went to the NBI for another physical examination. accused went to her side. Mary Grace testified that she had been molested by her stepfather when she was 9 years old. Angelina’s daughter. he learned of the cases filed against him from the newspapers and television. constitutes independently relevant statements distinct from hearsay and admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered. At any rate. Aira’s gestures. The drink contained sleeping pills. he was drinking with his friends when he developed a headache and decided to sleep. absence of preliminary investigation merely affects the regularity of the proceedings but does not affect the trial court’s jurisdiction or impair the validity of the information.” (“Tatang (accused-appellant) has been doing something to me.As the SolGen contends. After taking one sip. He said there were always several people in their house at any time. He believes that Regail filed the complaint against him because he had scolded her and punished her when she went out on a date with a married man. The accused presented several witnesses to testify that he is a man of good repute. They went back to the Mabalacat Police Station and gave their statements. WON the trial court erred in denying the accused of his right to preliminary investigation. it is unclear whether this alleged motion for preliminary investigation which was denied by the trial court was anchored on the lack of it or merely a defect thereon or a mere motion for reinvestigation. during Loida Kellow’s despedida. . To prevent a recurrence of the event. When she told her about Dr. raised her clothes. being a mere child of two and a half years old. Mary Grace was with them. He got home at 8PM. Three weeks later. he claimed he was in fact the one who caught Kimberly playing with her organ and that he reported this to Kimberly’s parents. without prior opportunity to contrive the same. Regail noticed pus coming out of Aira’s vagina. uttered shortly thereafter by her with spontaneity. because he had no job and no money. At 9PM. who told her that her daughter had lacerations in her vaginal area and that she had probably been fingered.

Section 31. and. V. nobody was at home except her other brothers who were asleep.Inconsistencies on minor or inconsequential matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole.The accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the rape victim. not even his own brother. In this case. Aguda discovered an old healed laceration. finding petitioner Peter Paul Aballe guilty of homicide. 1997. nor detract from the witnesses’ testimony. In fact. 94 . and even in a room where other members of the family are sleeping. even when his life and his freedom were gravely threatened.A. the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of this crime. the following circumstances establish accused’s guilt: Regail’s account of her daughter’s words and actions. compounded with his unexplained flight to Cebu. He is a black belter in karate and. the maximum period of reclusion temporal medium should be imposed. The penalty imposable for acts of lasciviousness against children under 12 years of age should be that provided by R. It can be committed in places where people congregate. her personal knowledge of the pus discharged from her daughter’s vagina and the NBI medico-legal report confirming it. 64086 (jojo) NATURE Direct appeal from the decision of the CFI of Davao City. and close relatives fled their home and lived in a hotel for four days to escape his ire. natural. along the roadside. he could hurt a person merely by holding his hand. such that he would have had no opportunity to commit the crimes charged against him. To sum up. 7610. That is why it has spent an unusual amount of time and effort to reflect upon all the circumstances which the lower court accepted as an unbroken chain of events. Accused questions the credibility of Mary Joy Ocampo because of a three-year delay in reporting the alleged rape. easy to see why Mary Joy kept her silence. in this case. the delay was caused by fear. her mother was in the market and when appellant finally succeeded in inserting his sexual organ into Mary Joy’s. . in parks. 1997. and accused’s bare denials. stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. that accused-appellant was a man to be feared. and the laceration was very superficial.Mary Joy’s alleged inconsistent testimonies as to whether or not she knew Jesus “Tootsie Mendoza” or “Robertson” is inconsequential. all consonant with the requisites therefor. Evidently. Taken together. Mary Joy’s alleged inconsistent testimony as to whether her mother was in the market or asleep in the house when she was raped is readily explicable or reconcilable. Rape has been known to be committed in places ordinarily considered as unlikely. in both instances. At any rate. . According to the doctor. which usually indicates that the injury was inflicted more than one month prior to the examination. It is apparent from the testimony of witnesses. [69] In these cases. March 15. he was intimidating. We adhere to this principle in the case at bar.” Hence. Mary Joy’s testimony is corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations.But. Aira is a two-year old child. Also.The rule is settled that we give due deference to the observations of trial courts on questions of credibility of witnesses since they have a better opportunity for observation than appellate courts. they strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. . On the other hand. No. A. the results varied slightly. Aguda to the satisfaction of the trial court. whereas the date of the alleged molestation was on April 16. which is reclusion temporal in its medium period. YES . the chain of facts cannot but produce an inference consistent with guilt and not with innocence.Accused also questions the fact that when Aira was examined on May 9. within school premises. Mary Joy testified that the first time Lamberto inserted his finger on her A2010 sexual organ. parent.[70] It is. bringing little more with him than the clothes on his back. one week short of a month. the minimum of the penalty to be imposed should be reclusion temporal minimum. The scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded. This discrepancy was already explained by Dr. He brooked no disobedience even from his own brothers and sisters and was so feared that. Mary Joy clarified these points. inside an occupied house. On the contrary. His wife.Prof. Accused-appellant is Aira’s grandfather. His relationship to his victim aggravates the crime. these are sufficient to convince us of the truth of the allegations against accused. was willing to wake him and confront him with the accusations. as provided by R. the medical classifications and periods were based on adult cases. Discrepancies could be caused by the natural fickleness of human memory. therefore. Physically. 3. Delay in reporting an incident of rape is not necessarily an indication that the charge is fabricated. if such testimony is credible. DISPOSITION: Decision of RTC of Angeles finding Velasquez guilty of acts of lasciviousness and of rape is affirmed. the penalty “shall be imposed in the maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant. guardian. Dr. Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters. nobody. Mary Joy’s mother was not in the house. according to his own sister’s testimony.R. Accused said that there was always a large number of people in their house. convincing. accused merely makes a bare denial of the charges against him. then. whereas Aira was a little child with a very small hymen. 1990 G. 7610. his children. ABALLE v PEOPLE FERNAN. it is not impossible for the rape to have taken place inside a small room with five occupants therein. Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.A. Understandably. Avena Evidence itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. reinforced by corroboration and yielding a conclusion of guilt. which the trial court found meritorious. both of the prosecution and of the defense. A rape victim cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. It is highly unlikely that a child of Aira’s age would be able to concoct such a depraved tale and compliment it with such disturbing gestures with only the fantastic intention of implicating her grandfather. The Court is not unaware of the caution to be observed when circumstantial evidence is to be considered as inculpatory indicia in a criminal prosecution. . the trial court’s evaluation of testimonial evidence is accorded great respect. For this reason. accused threatened Mary Joy with harm if she told anyone what accused-appellant had done to her. including accused-appellant and Mary Joy.

The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction is that "an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping. 1980 as he was coming out of the communal bathroom and wearing a T-shirt covered with bloodstains which he tried to cover with his hands. TAMPUS G. the two surrendered to a prison guard their knives. however. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. The accused and the victims were all prisoners in the national penitentiary and are in the emergency ward. 8. acting on information furnished by the victim's father. The rule is that any person.Prof. sir. being in the nature of an evidence in plain view which an arresting officer may take and introduce in evidence. Marante subsequently brought him to the Toril police station for interrogation. another prison guard 95 . -How it happened: at around 10 am. He also disavowed his extrajudicial confession on the ground that it was obtained through coercion and in the absence of counsel. a member of the Batang Mindanao gang which was a hostile group to the Oxo gang. They found him just as he was coming out of the communal bathroom in Saypon and wearing what appeared to be a bloodstained T-shirt. is admissible. co-accused Avila was also sentenced to death in another case but did not appeal in this case because his sentence was already under review FACTS -Tampus and Avila. The testimony of Sgt. 1980 in Saypon. the accused's parents and relatives were almost always around but at no stage of the entire proceedings was it shown that the youthful offender was ever represented by counsel. Upon seeing Sgt. Compliance with the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicable to a spontaneous statement. a 42-year old driver. bathed in her own blood with multiple wounds on different parts of her body. attended a birthday party at the residence of his neighbor Aguilles Mora. Aballe also made an extrajudicial confession admitting his guilt in killing Jennie while under the influence of liquor and marijuana. WON the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt HELD 1. the accused. see original copy re sworn affidavit) Thereafter. and the waiver of counsel was not made with the assistance of counsel as mandated by the provisions of Section 20. who heard the confession. ( Pls. Marante on Aballe's oral A2010 confession is competent evidence to positively link the accused to the aforesaid killing. whereby the accused orally admitted having slain the victim. charging him with homicide penalized under Article 249 of the RPC. He brought along his wife and other children. not elicited through questioning. ( Pls see orig copy re testimony) The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offenses charged may be given in evidence against him. orally admitted that he killed Jennie Banguis. Together with the extrajudicial confession. but given in an ordinary manner. he pleaded not guilty. upon being picked up in the morning of Nov.Inappropriateness of penalty discussed PEOPLE VS. Davao City. At his arraignment on Apr. Cause of death was attributed to hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds. Tampus inflicted 8 incised wounds while Avila stabbed Saminado 9 times.Equally inadmissible is the kitchen knife recovered from Aballe after his capture and after the police had started to question him. 1980 (cha) NATURE Automatic review of CFI judgment convicting Tampus of murder. Notwithstanding the repudiation of his earlier confession. . Aballe was convicted of the crime of homicide. 8. the fatal weapon is but a fruit of a constitutionally infirmed interrogation and must consequently be disallowed. Aballe. Afterwards.While under custodial investigation." 2. a police team headed by Sgt Marante sought the accused for questioning. . ISSUES 1. members of the Oxo gang. . said confession should have been discarded by the lower court. leaving his 12-year-old daughter Jennie alone in their house. V. Avena Evidence FACTS At around 7PM of Nov. Toril. Nov. 17 years old. or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the cause. The bloodstained T-shirt. YES Aballe's extrajudicial admission should have been disregarded by the lower court for having been obtained in violation of Aballe's constitutional rights. Marante and confessed that he killed Jennie Banguis. . L-44690 AQUINO. the accused without anyone asking him.R. -the officer of the day investigated the incident right away. an information was filed against Aballe. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim. YES It is well to note that even before the taking of the extrajudicial confession. whether de oficio or de parte. otherwise competent as a witness. No. avenged the stabbing of their co-gang member Rosales by stabbing Saminado. Saminado went to the toilet. 2. but in such case it must be given in its substance. There were no eyewitnesses to the bizarre killing. suddenly broke down and knelt before Sgt. Tampus and Avila followed Saminado and.7. March 28. The postmortem report disclosed that Jennie sustained a total of 32 stab wounds. 1981. Sgt. sentencing him to death. by means of their bladed weapons. Quirino found Jennie in the sala. . Since the execution of the extrajudicial statement was admittedly made in the absence of counsel. a school dropout (he finished second year high school) and next door neighbor of the victim. lying prostrate. Throughout the custodial interrogation. brought the police to his house and pointed to them the pot at the "bangera" where he had concealed the death weapon which was a 4-inch kitchen knife.At daybreak of the following day." Saminado died 11am upon arrival in the prison hospital. 13. 2 days after the killing. Also taken from Aballe was the bloodstained red and white striped T-shirt which he claimed he wore during the commission of the crime. WON the trial court erred in giving full weight to Aballe’s extrajudicial confession taken during custodial investigation and in imposing a penalty which was not in accordance with law. Upon their return at around 8:30 that same night. Marante. assaulted him. saying "Surrender po kami. . Gumanti lang po kami. Quirino Banguis. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. A.

Any confession or A2010 incriminatory statement obtained in violation thereof is expressly declared "inadmissible in evidence. the lower court's judgment as to Jose Tampus is modified. after coming out of the toilet. Arayat. (1) Confession was voluntarily made. 1948 (aida) NATURE Appeal from judgment of CFI Pampanga FACTS . No. J.Eusebio Perez said he was attending the pabasa and when he heard gunshots. (3) they already waived their right to remain silent and to have the right to counsel when they gave freely on the spur of the moment without any urging or suggestion. YES Reasoning. this Court directed that the arraignment and trial in the instant case. No showing that the public was actually excluded from the place where the trial was held or that the accused was prejudiced by the holding of the trial in the national penitentiary. They did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. be held at the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa. SO ORDERED. V. Pedro Reyes. (Sec. the scene of the crime. according to his understanding. January 18. ISSUES 1. sec. approached Nery. Eustaquio. watching the proceedings. Perez did not mention Gatchalian. plea of guilty and testimony in court. He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 270). Tampus and Avila had already admitted it when.The three MPs were sitting on one corner. For the convenience of the witnesses a case is tried in Bilibid Prison without any objection on the part of the accused is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction. Rules of Court. where Rodolfo Avila was one of the accused-appellants. See 21 Am Jur 2d 305. Eusebio Perez. WON Tampus was denied his right to a public trial because the arraignment and hearing were held at the state penitentiary 2. affirmed their confessions and testified as to the manner in which they repeatedly wounded Saminado. TEEHANKEE. Gatchalian stated that each of them approached an MP and fired at them and that he was sure they would die. exclude from the trial every person except the officers of the court and the attorneys for the prosecution and defense.Prof. Gervasio Due and Marcelo Due were charged in two separate cases with the deaths of Benjamin Nery and Alfredo Laguitan. refused..R.The motive for the killing was the conflict between the MPs and the Huks. the two accused took the witness stand. concurring: I concur.The extra-judicial confession of the accused. because this Court in its resolution of July 20. ***other issues are criminal issues…*** Disposition. . The next day he saw three of the assailants including Maximo Austria and they said they were going into hiding because they had taken part in the shooting the night before. dissenting: . A. The New Bilibid Prison was the venue of the arraignment and hearing.. Rizal. Martinez testified that in the investigation conducted by Quintans. but I believe it is best that the court should inform the accused of his right to remain silent and not wait for the lawyer to make the objection. . to comply with section 20 of the 1973 Constitution (refer to the case for the salaysay). Good Friday in Cacutud. At gunpoint. The accused may waive his right to have a public trial as shown in the rule that the trial court may motu proprio exclude the public from the courtroom when the evidence to be offered is offensive to decency or public morals. WON the extrajudicial admissions of Tampus and Avila were admissible HELD 1. Pampanga – While the “pabasa” was being performed. . 14. 1946.Segundo Guevara saw Gatchalian during the pabasa and when gunshots were heard. Avena Evidence investigated the two and obtained their extradjudicial confessions wherein they admitted that they assaulted Saminado. (2) Res Gestae: even if there was an initial investigation before the extrajudicial confession was obtained (where the right against self-incrimination may not have been told to the accused). having been taken after the 1973 Constitution is manifestly barred from admission under section 20 of the Bill of Rights (Article IV) thereof. including Reyes. where Avila was a co-accused of Tampus. The lower court's judgment as to his civil liability is affirmed. the appellants.Lt. assisted by Marcelo Due. The trial was held at the state penitentiary. WHEREFORE. . (lacked 10 votes required) Separate Opinions BARREDO. The investigator in taking it endeavored.Six people testified for the prosecution. he grabbed his wife and ran. -grave doubts as to the alleged waiver by the accused of his constitutional right to counsel and to remain silent given in the middle of his "voluntary" extrajudicial confession during his custodial interrogation by the prison investigator -it was the trial court’s duty to apprise and admonish the accused of his consti right to remain silent and against self-incrimination. the attackers being Huk members. Laguitan and Orsino who were members of the military police. Ratio. . he saw Gatchalian run 96 . the three MPs were driven to the road and when they were about ten meters away from where the “pabasa” was being done. When the prosecution presented evidence. Costs de oficio. they were shot from behind. J. Reasoning. Gervasio Due and one Peping and carrying pistols. they pleaded guilty even after they were told regarding the gravity of the charge and informed them that the death penalty might be imposed upon them. Nery and Laguitan were killed instantly while Orsino fractured a leg which took 6 months to heal. . NO. the first guard whom they encountered. and not the trial court's session hall at Makati. The court may also. to allow him to be brought to Makati So. L-1846-48 BENGZON. -at the arraignment. 1976 in L-38141.April 19. they were accused of causing physical injuries to Francisco Orsino. upon request of the defendant.Witnesses for the defense gave their own testimonies. they surrendered to Reynaldo S. Admission was confirmed by their extrajudicial confession. for security reasons. Severino Austria. . and they revealed to him that they had committed an act of revenge. 2. In another case." PEOPLE V REYES G.Vicente Gatchalian. . Rule 119.

Appellants' guilt not having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.Orsino testified that the shooting took place in front of the place where the pabasa was being held in the presence of many people. but because it is inherently unbelievable that the authors of the shooting could have been so reckless enough to make comments on the results of the shooting in the field.Prof. Gervacio had asked him to talk to the MPs but he refused.Gatchalian denies that he made a confession before Lt. Ulanday only lost sight of the 4 persons running after Catungal when said Catungal entered a certain yard. secondary to stab wound.The testimony of Eusebio Perez to the effect that on April 20. L-68620 NARVASA. he did not witness how the 4 allegedly overtook Catunga. Ulanday also said in his statement before the Provincial Fiscal: 97 . They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnity for the deaths of Nery and Laguitan. near the scene. . appellants told him that they wanted to hide because of their participation in the shooting the previous night. where and when that single stab wound was inflicted.he did not see any person who stabbed or killed Catungal. . His 3 other companions also chased Catungal. The deceased appeared to have been carried. . According to the latter. Ulanday followed in such a way as to avoid being noticed by the pursuers. . Don Pedro.The CFI judge found the accused Maximino Austria alias Severino Australia alias Big Boy and Vicente Gatchalian alias Magallanes guilty of the offenses set forth in the different informations. He testified that before the crime was committed. The Solicitor General's brief substantially proves conspiracy between them and their other co-accused who are still at large. Satsoy chased Catungal. Marlon Catungal. including the assailants. at about 10pm. where a dance was being held on the occasion of the barrio fiesta. succumbing to "Shock. He also asked that the accused Pedro Reyes be discharged so that the latter may be used as prosecution witness. 3. No. If appellants had wanted to hide. This was corroborated by a testimony by Evaristo Paras. 5. He denied that he had taken part in the killing and that he was merely threatened to be killed lest he reenact the crime as shown in the photograph. at w/c time Catungal was motionless and blood was oozing from the body of Catungal. The chase began at the dance hall. 2. . ran away afield.Orsino narrated a similar incident but could not identify the assailants except Austria. identified as Freddie “Eding” Tulagan and Valentin "Satsoy" de Guzman. after he had been fatally stabbed. July 22. Catungal ran away when he saw Satsoy receive a "balisong" about a foot long from one of his companions. 4. where his corpse was later found by police investigators and barangay officials. 19. . Pangasinan.R.Their defense of alibi is weak and untenable. Not one of those many had witnessed the shooting was called by the prosecution to testify as to who did the shooting and how it took place. 6. ISSUE WON the judgment appealed from should be reversed HELD NO Reasoning . Avena Evidence carrying his child and then the latter lay in a pile of palay. but there seems to be no question (both prosecution and defense agreeing on this point) that the deceased was killed while attempting to flee from at least 2 men. Later on. staying about 15m behind them. after Catungal was accosted by Satsoy and 3 other persons. or by whom. . Lts. and ended. tortured and threatened to be killed. Quintans.Lt. some 300m away. not only because it comes from a polluted source. This was also granted.The only person with any claim to some sort of direct observation of the pursuit and its sanguinary ending is Bonifacio Ulanday. at the porch (azotea) of the house of a certain Cesar Evangelista. everybody.The testimony of Pedro Reyes cannot be taken seriously. Quintans also testified that Austria had voluntarily signed the confession. Martinez and Quintans declared under oath that Gatchalian admitted to them during the investigation that he had shot one of the MPs. Quintans as to the supposed oral admission of Vicente Gatchalian and the written statement signed by Severino Austria. V. .. 1946. . The chase began at or near the public hall of Bgy. with the single exception of Orsino.May 19. 1986 (rach) FACTS . Gatchalian remained in Guevara’s house the whole night. is absolutely incredible. 1979: at about 11pm.The testimonies of Fidel Martinez and Segundino S. . tragically for Catungal. due to severe hemorrhage." . he heard gunshots and when he ran to the ricefield. He alleged that he was maltreated and even showed his supposed injuries in court.The picture of the reenactment of the crime is convincing enough to show the guilty participation of the appellants. . are completely valueless because of the uncontradicted testimonies of the two appellants to the effect that they were maltreated. . 1979 and later testified before the TC. he saw and heard Gervacio saying that the MP he shot would surely die and Gatchalian assuring him that the MO would indeed die.The fiscal filed a motion for the dismissal of the case against Eusebio Perez for insufficiency of evidence. it is incomprehensible that they should start by admitting to Eusebio Perez that they took part in the shooting affray and then confiding to him their intention to hide. A. and at the hearing distance of Pedro Reyes. anterior chest. This was granted.Reyes did become a state witness but he did not confirm every statement he had previously made at the fiscal's investigation. died a violent death. from the house of Evangelista to the shoulder of the provincial road about 10m away.No one saw precisely how. Malasiqui. they are entitled to acquittal. who gave a sworn statement before the provincial Fiscal at Dagupan City on June 6. His version is as follows: 1. Ulanday only saw 4 persons who lifted Catungal and placed him in front of a big house. Gatchalian even demonstrated how he shot the victim whih was captured in a photograph. but it is unbelievable that the assailants should stop in their flight just to make comments and seemingly should to afford Pedro Reyes the opportunity to overhear their conversation. A2010 PEOPLE V TULAGAN G. Disposition Judgment affirmed SEPARATE OPINION PERFECTO [dissent] .

The decision under review lays stress on Natalia Macaraeg’s testimony of a statement by de Guzman deemed to be part of the res gestae or an "oral confession.Case now before SC on automatic review. V.There is no evidence whatsoever that the statement attributed to de Guzman was made by him "immediately subsequent" to the startling occurrence which the TC had in mind: the slaying of Catungal. . admissible against him. there is no direct evidence to establish that Satsoy stabbed Marlon Catungal while the latter was being held "helpless and defenseless" by the 3 other accused. . His statement regarding the killing of Marlon Catungal is not admissible as part of the res gestae. These constitute conclusive and decisive evidence of the guilt of accused Romeo Mendoza as one of the authors of the death of Marion Catungal. after issuance of the warrant. Jose B. of course. the statement of de Guzman partakes of an oral confession or part of the res gestae. an employee of PNR.This is completely contrary to the record.Considered as an "oral confession. it would most certainly have taken de Guzman and his companions that length of time to return from the crime scene to where the chase had started. as has aptly been said. accused de Guzman. He kept silent about what he knew until he chanced to meet Catungal's father in Dagupan City 2 weeks after the event). sec 36 provides that statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. Macaraeg and his daughter. particularly in view of the firm denials of the accused and the exculpatory testimony of Victoriano Deldio and Andres Nevado. if account be taken of the claim of another prosecution witness. 1979 at around 9pm. .Of the 4 thus charged. on the contrary. On the contrary. as to whom no clear motive or reason to subvert the truth to favor said accused has been shown. an information was filed with the Circuit Criminal Court at Dagupan City charging Freddie Tulagan alias "Eding. The Court cannot bring itself to accept the testimonial declarations of these two witnesses. The startling occurrence must produce so powerful an effect or influence on the observer as to extract from his lips some description of the event practically without being conscious of his utterance. and this. Neither before the Investigating Fiscals nor before the TC was any proof adduced directly and positively demonstrating precisely how and by whom the single fatal wound was inflicted. or to Natalia's store. in full possession of his faculties and fully aware of what he was doing and saying. that he had followed the 4 persons pursuing the deceased for almost 1 hour. while standing side by side with Tulagan and Mendoza told her that they killed Marlon Catungal. her neighbor. which form the pillars of the prosecution's case. A. Natalia herself testified that the 3 accused returned to her store at about 10:30pm or after more or less 1 ½ hours.Certain relevant and significant considerations prevent this Court from giving faith and credit to the evidence given by Natalia Macaraeg (failed to mention de Guzman’s “we killed him” statement on either of her 2 sworn statements). . he pleaded not guilty.On the basis of this sworn statement. Tulagan and Mendoza what they did to her neighbor. not the witness speaking of the event. and that he took part in the pursuit of the deceased. it may reasonably be inferred from Natalia's testimony that he was in nowise agitated. it is the event speaking through the witness. NO A2010 Reasoning TC also said that: “Aside from the evidence that accused Romeo Mendoza.Given the fact that the victim's last moments are veiled in obscurity insofar as what evidence has been 98 . Ulanday. . only such are admissible as appear to have been involuntarily and spontaneously wrung from an observer by the shock or impact of the occurrence such that.SC said that this signifies nothing insofar as the guilt of person arrested and his denial of complicity in the crime charged are concerned. it was Vicente de Guzman who supposedly volunteered information.As may at once be perceived. NO Ratio Not every statement made on the occasion of a startling occurrence is admissible as part of the res gestae.TC opined that the statement made by Satsoy is admissible against accused Romeo Mendoza as part of the res gestae." de Guzman's statement is. The testimony of Natalia Macaraeg on this point is competent evidence. Natalia Macaraeg. Natalia noticed blood stains on their hands and bodies." Romie Mendoza and Ramon Mendoza with the crime of murder. 2. and the same is true with respect to Bonifacio Ulanday (who claims to be a friend yet after seeing lifeless body did nothing and saw no cause to inform Catungal's family about the death of their son or to report that matter to Macaraeg.There is no indication in the record that de Guzman was so affected when he made the statement in question under the circumstances related by Natalia Macaraeg. calm. it was shown that upon the return of the three accused to the store at about 10:30pm. only Mendoza was arrested. Freddie Tulagan and Valentin de Guzman chased Marlon Catungal at May 19. Indeed. .TC also considers as “an indication of guilt" the fact that Mendoza was arrested only 2yrs. which in a later part states that Romie Mendoza DENIED that he appeared at Natalia’s store with Tulagan and de Guzman. THIS IS ERROR. without initially having to be asked by Natalia.Prof. . he was found guilty of murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. His counsel presented 2 witnesses who substantiated his denial. imposed. Besides. These circumstances and pieces of evidence have not been denied by accused Romie Mendoza. contrary to the view of the court a quo.” . They placed the cadaver of Catungal on the left side of the road from Malasiqui.": Natalia asked de Guzman. ." Valentin de Guzman alias "Satsoy. ISSUE/S 1. and those of Bgy Capt. R130. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. . Arraigned. Such circumstance can just as plausibly suggest that the officers charged with serving the warrant exhibited less than a desirable diligence and concern in the performance of that duty as that the accused person sought to hide himself and evade arrest. Avena Evidence “While I was running towards the North (following the pursuers) I saw Satsoy and his companions carrying the cadaver of Catungal from the azotea of a house located around 10m away from the road to Bayambang. WON TC’s other conclusions were correct HELD 1. . WON said statement constitutes res gestae 2. After trial. Reasoning Actually. .” . but its use against others for any purpose is proscribed by the well known rule res inter alios acta. It is belied by the very decision itself. stunned or shocked but was.

and his sister. 1976 (apple) NATURE Cross-petitions for the review of the per curiam resolution of the CA FACTS -The main controversy here centers on the true nature of the three documents. said conclusion. the decision under review is reversed and said accused is acquitted. through its authorized agent. are admissible as part of the res gestae. the deposition of the purser could have cleared up the matter. which on their faces are unquestionably deeds of absolute sale of the real properties therein described executed by the deceased Simeon Rallos on various dates in favor of Emmanuel Aznar. one flight attendant approached him and requested from him his ticket and said that she will note of his transfer. in Exhibits A and C. there was a 'white man'. were her notations allegedly representing the deductions made by Matias Aznar for advance interest. ISSUES 1.00 and P35. Moreover. but such would depend upon the availability of first class seat cannot hold water. the defendant. as was to be expected. Alma Aznar. V. plaintiff reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat in the plane. He refused because for him it is tantamount to accepting his transfer. L-31342 BARREDO. Testimony of the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. No. had a 'better right to the seat. After transferring to the tourist class seat. a commotion ensued. as administrator of the estate of Simeon Rallos. Besides. A-3. refused. and that the captain refused to intervene" is predicated upon evidence which is incompetent. they grow "out of the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition of the declarant". lacking any kind of support in the record. DISPOSITION: Decision of CA affirmed. Avena Evidence offered is concerned. Exhibits A-2. Statements then. which. is nothing but pure and simple speculation. For. Oral evidence cannot prevail over written evidence. NO. the first class tickets of the plaintiff without any reservation whatever and even marked with OK. and what the others were doing while the deceased was being stabbed. – "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist 99 . Juan T. from a reading of the transcript just quoted. the plaintiff.R. during trial. WON the CA erred in finding that the purser madean entry in his notebooks reading "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous. A2010 BORROMEO V CA G. Borromeo. and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Sep 28. The subject of inquiry is not the entry. it calls for a close scrutiny of AIR FRANCE vs. Philippine Air Lines. who. in Exhibit B. He read it and translated to him – because it was recorded in French. the Manager alleged. according to Crispina Rallos Alcantara. and that the captain refused to intervene. when the dialogue happened. YES. The CA stated: “While it is true that relationship does not disqualify a witness. Inc. -The CA. On March 28. Such testimony is admissible. deceased father of Emmanuel and Alma -The trial court dismissed the said complaint and on appeal. therefore not admissible (because the defendant was saying that the best evidence in this case is the entry and not the testimony) HELD 1. CARRASCOSO 18 SCRA 155 SANCHEZ..Prof. who claimed to have been present when the transactions took place. Exhibits A. in its original decision. 1958. and no evidence of which of them inflicted the single fatal stab wound. plaintiff traveled in 'first class'. WON Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat he claims 2. meaning confirmed. 2. The testimony of the defendant’s witnesses that the issuance of first class ticket was no guarantee that the passenger would have a first class ride. issued to plaintiff a 'first class' round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. 1966 (athe) NATURE: Review on certiorari FACTS Carrascoso. he went to the pantry that was next to him and the purser was there. there being no direct evidence of how the killing was done. the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the 'first class' seat that he was occupying because. B-3 and C-5. testified to the effect that her deceased father merely borrowed money from the late Matias Aznar in the sums of P6. Air France. From Manila to Bangkok. and told defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body. a civil engineer. -According to Borromeo (appellant). class against his will. Later. in this environment. but the ouster incident.000. He told him that he recorded the incident in his notebook. attorney's fees and miscellanous expenses are corroborative of her testimony that the transactions in controversy were really loans with mortgages. in the words of the witness Ernesto G. included this incident in his testimony. She testified that the transactions were disguised as absolute sales and Rallos was assured by Matias Aznar that he could exercise the right to repurchase the lots and would deliver to him the corresponding options in writing. Cuento. The excitement had not as yet died down. in this case.00 and to secure the repayment thereof mortgaged to the latter the properties described in Exhibits A. A. found the testimony of Crispina Rallos Alcantara unreliable and insufficient to justify the reformation of the instruments in question. said dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its original decision -Crispina Rallos Alcantara. It forms part of the res gestae. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. -In his complaint in the court below. was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30. April 7. Disposition The guilt of the accused Romeo ("Romie") Mendoza not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. B and C." Carrascoso.000. 1958. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. alleged that these documents were in fact equitable mortgages to secure loans granted to Rallos by Matias Aznar. B and C. no evidence of whether or not authorities the pursuers took part in the final assault or of what role each played therein. if it were really true that no such entry was made. but at Bangkok. the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. When asked to vacate his 'first class' seat.

-The extensive and repeated arguments of the parties relative to the issue of whether or not self-serving statements may be admitted in evidence as parts of the res gestae are very interesting and illuminating. -The CA likewise found Exhibits A-2. we held that the notations or memoranda of Crispina Rallos Alcantara marked as Exhibits A-2. The per curiam resolution of the CA appealed is hereby reversed and the original decision of that court is affirmed. which is exactly the case of Crispina Alcantara. and. be said to be disinterested witness. A-3. it would not have reversed its previous finding that the subject deeds are absolute sales. and as such. No witness other than Crispina has testified as to the veracity of her testimony relative to her alleged notes and memoranda. they A2010 cannot have anymore credibility than her own declarations given under oath in open court. were the parties thereto. hence. as the documents show. was present on one of the occasions in issue. B3 and C5 were self-serving and unsatisfactory as evidence of the facts asserted. -It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. in this connection.Prof. His successors-ininterest cannot now be heard to complain that the parties to said exhibits intended the same to be loans with mortgages contrary to what are clearly expressed therein. this provision applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is need to refresh the memory of the witness. there can be no basis for holding that she actually took part in the transaction. who was a daughter of the deceased Rallos and who cannot. how can the notes and memoranda in dispute add any weight to her testimony. may be considered as constituting part of the res gestae. and C-5 weak and unsatisfactory as evidence of the facts asserted. a witness may testify from such a writing. if he is able to swear that the writing correctly stated the transaction when made. What is more. In other words it could at the most be only circumstantial evidence. elucidate or qualify the act. who are being sought to be bound by them. If anything. -The record does not reveal why Crispina was with her father at the time. constitute part of the transaction. if she is to be believed. unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. in its per curiam resolution. Indeed. -If such alleged taking of notes by Crispina has to be given any legal significance at all. 10. and may read it in evidence. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly stated in the writing. when she herself created them? Surely. the same. 3 SEC. B and C were signed by Rallos himself as a party thereto. A. So. -We cannot see how the disputed notes and memoranda can be considered in any sense as part of the res gestae as this matter is known in the law of evidence. acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly connected with the main action as to form a part of it. It cannot be denied that Crispina is interested in the outcome of this case. her testimony cannot be considered as absolutely unbiased or impartial. or Emmanuel and Alma Aznar. He cannot be more credible just because he support his open-court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute. B-3. Matters attendant upon a sale or conveyance may also be admissible as part of the res gestae." -Such being the case. however. The notes supposedly prepared by witness Alcantara during the transaction between her father and the Aznars do not partake at all of the nature of hearsay evidence. or immediately thereafter. by anything written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. that Crispina was not a party to the transaction in question. absent any showing that she was requested or directed by the parties to do so or that the parties. -However. who may. was called to testify. if he chooses. cross-examine the witness upon it. on the other. as they were admittedly prepared by the declarant herself. "unreliable and insufficient to justify the reformation of the instruments in question. if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. therefore. It cannot be said. relevant matters said and done which are parts of the res gestae of the negotiation and execution of a contract are admissible to show the existence and nature of the contract and the relation of the parties. knew what she was doing. according to her. Disposition Petition dismissed. even where this requirement has been satisfied. -Thus the CA reversed first its rulings on the admissibility of the relevant evidence by admitting those it had rejected in its original decision and then premised the reversal of its conclusions therein on these newly admitted evidence. are admissible as part of the res gestae. the express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution. therefore. which is not the case here. In the words of the Court of Appeals itself in its original decision. A-3. V. also. it appears that had that court found no reason to admit and take into account said evidence. As correctly observed by the trial court. but such evidence must be received with caution. That she allegedly took notes thereof while there present made her at best only a witness not a party. and which illustrate. Statements. on the one hand. are admissible in evidence to show the nature of the contracts in question and the relation of the parties involved. -The trouble however is that the admission of said notes and memoranda suffers from a fatal defect. It must be borne in mind. and Matias Aznar. that her taking down of her alleged notes. Not even her husband who. the res gestae itself. but they are rather off tangent. they constitute memoranda contemplated in Section 10 or Rule 1323 which provides: -As may be observed. the most that it can be is that it is one circumstance relevant to the main fact in dispute. Avena Evidence his testimony. This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence. hence. A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. more particularly the Aznars. the attendant circumstances and the statements then made are admissible as part of the res gestae to show the execution of a contract. though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. Accordingly. but in such case the writing must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. as she was naturally interested in an outcome of the case favorable to the plaintiff. "her testimony cannot be considered as absolutely unbiased or impartial". Only Simeon Rallos. 100 . The fact remains that Exhibits A. When witness may refer to memorandum. this rather strong position taken by the appellate court was completely reversed by itself as follows: While it is true that in our decision rendered in this case. They are clearly self-serving. ISSUE WON the Court of Appeals committed a legal error in admitting the evidence it had originally held to be incompetent HELD Yes.

January 27. insurrection. A. + persons whom they investigated and actually saw the burning of the station were not presented as witnesses + documentary evidence. 1990. NO . is admissible (Admission & Confessions) 4. furniture. Torres is admissible 3. invasion. The insurance companies denied the claims by maintaining that the evidence showed that the fire was caused by members of CPP/NPA. who were admittedly not present when the fire occurred. Torres and SFO III Rochas ISSUES 1. . act of foreign enemy. (d) Mutiny.00 plus 12% legal interest from March 2. 3. Note that when Lt. No. V.00 plus 12% legal interest from March 2. of any of the following consequences. where a risk is excepted by the terms of a policy which insures against other perils or hazards. and from this it follows that an insurer seeking 101 . Col. (members of the CPP/NPA) RTC + testimony of witnesses Lt.883. . Torres.Prof. After that.650.INC G..R. PROVIDENT covered RADIO’s transmitter equipment and generating set for P13. his opinion on the identity or membership of the armed men with the CPP-NPA is not admissible in evidence. WON the testimony of Lt. was limited to the fact that an investigation was conducted and in the course of the investigation they were informed by bystanders that “heavily armed men entered the transmitter house. since it has not assumed that risk.000. nevertheless.044. filed a civil case against DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies (DBP) and Provident Insurance Corporation (PROVIDENT) for recovery of insurance benefits. the civil case.All these documents show that indeed. WON the excepted risk was not proven by DBP 5.RTC Makati: in favor of RADIO. they went out shouting “Mabuhay ang NPA”.DBP assails: factual finding of both RTC and CA that its evidence failed to support its allegation that the loss was caused by an excepted risk. preponderance of evidence being the quantum of proof. with the modification that the applicable interest rate reduced to 6% per annum. Bacolod City regarding the incident + letter of alleged NPA members Magsilang claiming responsibility for the burning of DYHB + fire investigation report dated July 29. RADIO’s station in Bacolod City was razed by fire causing damage in the amount of P1. and the armed men suspected to be members of the CPP/NPA were the ones responsible …” . 1988 evening. poured gasoline in it and then lit it. 1990 the date of the filing of the Complaint. military or popular rising.The only person who seems to be so sure that that the CPP-NPA had a hand in the burning of DYHB was Lt.600. Col Torres and SFO II Rochar that the bystanders they interviewed claimed that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA is A2010 an exception to the hearsay rule as part of res gestae (Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence) HELD 1. who claims to be a member of NPA-NIROC.00 under a Fire Insurance Policy. 6 (c) and (d) 6. military or usurped power. (RADIO). DBP to pay P602.CA: affirmed the decision. do not satisfactorily prove that the author of the burning were members of the NPA. WON the reports of witnesses Lt. 2.00. An admission is competent only when the declarant. the certification issued by the Integrated National Police of Bacolod City and the fire investigation report prepared by SFO III Rochas is deemed sufficient (Entry in Official Records) 2. . Hence.July 27. namely: (c) War. Hence. NO . being entries in official records. Col. revolution. 4. NO . 147039 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. MFR denied. is a party to the action. hostilities.040. WON police blotter of the burning of DYHB. or someone identified in legal interest with him. YES .” > fire investigation report: “(I)t is therefore believed by this Investigating Team that the cause of the fire is intentional. Avena Evidence DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE COMPANIES V RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK. it cannot be admit as conclusive proof that the CPP-NPA was really involved in the incident considering that he admitted that he did not personally see the armed men even as he tried to pursue them. loss from such a risk constitutes a defense which the insurer may urge.000. the “suspected” executor of the fire were believed to be members of the CPP/NPA. Inc. PROVIDENT to pay P450. he was presented as an ordinary witness only and not an expert witness. though his testimony is persuasive. riot. CA + police blotter of the burning of DYHB + certification of the Negros Occidental Integrated National Police. However. rebellion. This insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence. .Under Section 22.The documentary evidence may be considered exceptions to the hearsay rule.” > certification from the Bacolod Police station: “… some 20 or more armed men believed to be members of the New People’s Army NPA. who owns several broadcasting stations all over the country. civil war. which includes a letter released by the NPA merely mentions some dissatisfaction with the activities of some people in the media in Bacolod.00 under a Fire Insurance Policy. RADIO sought recovery under the two insurance policies but the claims were denied on the ground that the cause of loss was an excepted risk excluded under condition no. 1988 + testimonies of Lt. while DBP covered RADIO’s transmitter. WON the letter of Magsilang. Col. being an admission of person which is not a party to the present action. But suspicion alone is not sufficient. Torres was presented as witness. fixture and other transmitter facilities for P5. > police blotter: “a group of persons accompanied by one (1) woman all believed to be CPP/NPA … more or less 20 persons suspected to be CPP/NPA. directly or indirectly.Radio Mindanao Network.550.In insurance cases. Col. Col. or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not). Torres and SPO3 Rochar. Rule 130 RoC. 2006 (owen) NATURE Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 RoC seeking the review of the CA Decision affirming RTC Makati Decision reducing interest rate to 6% per annum FACTS . none of these documents categorically stated that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA.

as is the usual experience in disquieting situations where hysteria is likely to take place. Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence. -When the shooting incident happened [abt 7:30pm]. refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants. veracity and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends. The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and provided that the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites: (1) that the principal act. during. 1998. ‘Help me Pre. Col. Likewise. gipusil ko ni kapitan. V. Davao City) guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. be a startling occurrence. she suddenly heard the sound of a gunburst followed by a shout. FACTS 102 .Even assuming that the declaration of the bystanders that it was the members of the CPP/NPA who caused the fire may be admitted as evidence. . when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. Artemio shouted to him. Pre. Lito’s house was illumined by a lamp. or spectators to a crime immediately before. -At the same instance. I was shot by the captain’). but I assure you the case is even longer. In this case. Lito did not see the person who shot Artemio because his attention was then focused on Artemio. more importantly. A2010 [Yeah.R. Lito then went out of their house and approached Artemio who was lying dead near a banana trunk more than 5meters from his house. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.’ She immediately pushed open the window of their kitchen and saw the accused wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants running towards the direction of the back portion of Lito’s MARTURILLAS V PEOPLE G. ‘Tabangi ko Pre. The hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under oath or solemn affirmation and. Avena Evidence to defeat a claim because of an exception or limitation in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss comes within the purview of the exception or limitation set up. Their open-type kitchen (no walls) gave him an unobstructed view of Artemio who was about 5meters away from where he was positioned at that time. NO . which means those facts which are derived from his perception. Once RADIO makes out a prima facie case in its favor. the coconut trees and young banana plants growing at the scene of the crime did not affect his view. Some of their neighbors answered Ernita’s call for help and approached them. When she was about to put the bottle into the baby’s mouth. and the CA resolution denying MR. These declarations should be calibrated vis-à-vis the other evidence on record. 42091-98. 163217. -Shortly. the res gestae. ‘Kapitan. the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to DBP to controvert RADIO’S prima facie case. the wife of Artemio.Consequently. I was shot by the captain. Ernita was hysterical. the same did not block his view of Artemio.A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. I know this digest is very long. memory. Ernita was also in their kitchen preparing milk for her baby who was then lying on the floor of their kitchen. it does not follow that such declarations are sufficient proof. as an exception to the hearsay rule. If a proof is made of a loss apparently within a contract of insurance. have not been subjected to crossexamination by opposing counsel to test the perception. victims. . A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. Lito saw Ernita Pantinople. The portions of the Court’s ruling relevant to the topic in the outline have been italicized for easier reference. the bystanders already had enough time and opportunity to mill around. Although there was a gemilina tree growing in the space in between his house and the store of Artemio. he saw Artemio clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the direction of Lito’s kitchen. Lito did not approach Artemio right after the shooting incident because Cecilia warned him that he might also be shot. Lito was still eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a gunshot. not to mention theories and speculations. . it is sufficient for RADIO to prove the fact of damage or loss. A. PANGANIBAN. Moments later. he also noticed smoke and fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun.Res gestae. No. Artemio returned to the bench in front of the Santos’ store and sat on it together with his three children.’ (Help me. and are admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered. the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause of loss which is excepted or for which it is not liable. ^_^] Version of the Prosecution -Nov 4.’ She also repeatedly cried for help. That the utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote. Disposition Petition is DISMISSED. while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. abt 6pm: Cecilia Santos called her husband Lito and their neighbor and kumpare Artemio Pantinople for supper. (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood.Prof.Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency. since DBP alleged an excepted risk. . . the testimonies of SFO III Rochar and Lt. From a distance of about 10meters. At best. 2006 (marge) NATURE Petition for Review seeking to set aside [1] CA Decision affirming (with modifications as to the award of damages) the RTC Davao City Decision finding Celestino Marturillas (former Brgy Capt of Gatungan. Apr 18.It is reasonable to assume that when these statements were noted down. jumping and shouting. or after the commission of the crime. Sorry. bakit mo binaril and aking asawa. After eating. then the burden of evidence shifted to DBP to prove such exception. talk to one another and exchange information. and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. Torres that these statements were made may be considered as independently relevant statements gathered in the course of their investigation. Bunawan District. It is only when petitioner has sufficiently proven that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk does the burden of evidence shift back to respondent who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why such excepted risk does not release petitioner from any liability 5. or from a cause which limits its liability. coming from her house towards the direction where Artemio was sprawled on the ground. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether these utterances were the products of truth.

Moments later. he was at his house and he saw an unidentified armed man flee from the crime scene who later joined two other armed men near a nangka tree not far from where deceased was shot. Nov 4. She immediately went out of their house and ran towards Artemio who tried to speak to her but could not do so because his mouth was full of blood. PO2 Operario told the crew to load Artemio’s body into the vehicle. a few responded to her calls and approached them. after preparing all the affidavits of Ernita Pantinople and her witnesses. Bendigo issued a Resolution finding sufficient evidence to indict Accused for the crime of Homicide and not Murder as alleged in the Affidavit-Complaint. Marturillas immediately went with the said police officers for questioning at the Bunawan Police Station. -On this same day. -While waiting for the police. Thereafter. On the basis of these affidavits. Dazed after just having risen from bed. abt 8:30 pm: Marturillas was roused from his sleep by his wife since two brgy kagawads wanted to see him. he then boarded again their mobile car together with Lito Santos. PO2 Mariano Operario and another police officer arrived at Marturillas’ house. A. perforating the body of the sternum. City Prosecutor Raul B. -Defense witness Ronito Bedero testified that on the night Artemio Pantinople was shot. She repeatedly called her neighbors for help. he and his companions backed off to avoid a heated confrontation. He did not also find any bullet slug inside the body of Artemio indicating that the bullet went through Artemio’s body. Since the wound was negative of powder burns. They decided to go back to his house. 1998. the assailant must have been at a distance of more than twenty-four (24) inches when he fired his gun at Artemio. [see case for full text of the affidavits]. no brgy tanod or any member of the CFO and CAFGU came to help. She had a clear view of accused at that time because their place was well-illumined by the full moon that night and by the two (2) fluorescent lamps in their store. the PNP Crime Laboratory released Physical Sciences Report No. -Armed with the information that accused was the one responsible for the shooting of Artemio. immediately accusing him of having shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his enemy. 1998: Dr. Alicia confronted him. Ernita saw the accused carrying a long firearm which looked like an M-14 rifle and also sensed that accused had some companions with him because she heard the crackling sound of the dried leaves around the place. He was wearing a brown shirt. Why did you kill my brother? What has he done wrong to you?’ Accused did not answer her. and forming an irregular exit at the posterior chest wall left side. Not knowing the radio frequency of the local police. Such fact is reflected in Bunawan PNP’s police blotter to have occurred at around 10:45 pm. he ordered his Kagawads to assemble the members of the SCAA (Special Civilian Armed Auxiliary) so that they could be escorted to the crime scene some 250 meters away. At once. Upon their invitation. the 44-year old sister of Artemio. 1998. Ledesma explained that the trajectory of the bullet indicates that his assailant was in a lower position than Artemio when the gun was fired. It is me. after learning about the incident and seeing his brother sprawled lifeless on the ground went around the Bunawan Police Station and noticed a locked door. then 2nd Asst. -While approaching the store owned by the Pantinople’s and not very far from where the deceased lay sprawled. he instructed Kagawad Jimmy Balugo to contact the Bunawan Police Station and inform them what transpired. 1998. Avena Evidence house. -Nov 5. When the funeral hearse arrived. 1998: Marturillas was subjected to paraffin testing by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Davao City. His Necropsy Report No. Marturillas and his team was met by Ernita Pantinople who was very mad and belligerent. During the trial. -Nov 5. had just been shot. Danilo Ledesma. he saw from the opposite direction Marturillas and his team of kagawads and 3 SCAA members going to the scene of the crime but they did not reach the crime scene. together with a photographer named Fe Mendez who took pictures of the crime scene. He was informed that a resident of his barangay.Prof. Ernita and Lito then approached PO2 Operario and informed him that accused was the one responsible for the shooting. He was also wearing brown shoes but he had no socks on his feet. Dr. C-074-98 finding Marturillas NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates. Kagawad Balugo instead radioed officials of nearby Brgy San Isidro requesting them to contact the Bunawan PNP for police assistance since someone was shot in their locality. A little later. PO2 Operario. From there. Marturillas was taken aback by the instant accusation against him. Accused did not also give any statement to anybody about the incident. the heart and the upper lobe of the left lung. As soon as the SCAA’s were contacted. the accused crossed the street and disappeared. 76 summarized his findings to the effect that the cause of death was a gunshot wound entering at the anterior right side of the chest. he was rubbing his eyes when he met the two Kagawads inside his house. He noticed that one of the three men was armed with a rifle but could not make out their identities since the area where the three men converged was a very dark place. she saw accused reclining on a bench about 2 ½meters away from the door. Version of the Defense: -Nov 4. conducted an autopsy on Artemio’s cadaver. taking with him his government-issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14 ammunition which he turned over for safe keeping with the Bunawan PNP. -Alicia Pantinople. When she peeped through the hole of the said door. He just got his M-14 rifle and went with the police to the police station where he was detained the whole night of Nov 4. Not being able to talk sense with Ernita. He then invited accused to go with him to the police station and also to bring along with him his M-14 rifle. The following day. V. PO2 Operario stayed at the crime scene for about 1hour and waited for the funeral vehicle to pick up the body of Artemio. accused was transferred by the police to Tibungco Police Station where he was detained. a medico-legal officer of the Davao City Health Department. asking ‘Nong Listing I know that you can recognize my voice. Seeing that the accused was tapping the floor with his right foot. informing him that he was the principal suspect in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. 103 . he saw the Marturillas group return to where they came from. Artemio Pantinople. Accused did not say anything. PO2 Operario proceeded to the house of accused and informed him that he was a suspect in the killing of Artemio. After more than 2hours. The next day. [around 10pm] the police arrived. they then proceeded to the crime scene to determine what assistance they could render. Ernita did not allow Artemio’s body to be touched by anybody. prepared and transmitted a Complaint to the City Prosecution Office recommending that Marturillas be indicted for Murder. All three later fled on foot towards the direction of the Purok Center in Brgy Gatungan. black jacket and a pair of camouflage pants. After the three men disappeared. -Upon reaching his A2010 house. Artemio’s heart and lungs were lacerated and his stomach contained partially digested food particles indicating that he had just eaten his meal when he was shot.

Re: Inconsistency Between Affidavit and Testimony -Although Ernita stated in her testimony that she had recognized the victim as her husband through his voice. I was shot by the captain. Thus.” A shift in his focus of attention would sufficiently explain why Santos was not able to see the assailant. Admittedly. while the house of victim-Artemio Pantinople was about FIFTY (50) meters away. and should thus be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. or starlight is considered sufficient to allow A2010 the identification of persons. A. credible and unequivocal testimonies were accepted as sufficient to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. after seeing the victim stagger and hearing the cry for help. V. He also testified that the house of Lito Santos was only about 4meters from the crime scene. YES. and to enable the eyewitness to identify him as the person who was present at the crime scene. Lito Santos immediately approached the policemen. the alleged inconsistency is inconsequential to the ascertainment of the presence of petitioner at the crime scene. the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp. WON the evidence is sufficient to convict him of homicide. Hence. and can be expected to know each other’s distinct and particular features and characteristics. These photographs gave a clear picture of the place where Artemio was shot. Avena Evidence -Dominador Lapiz testified that he was one of the first persons who went to the crime scene where he personally saw the body of deceased lying at a very dark portion some distance from the victim’s house and that those with him at that time even had to light the place with a lamp so that they could clearly see the deceased. Even where the circumstances were less favorable. At any rate. Although there are recognized exceptions to the conclusiveness of the findings of fact of the trial and the appellate courts. as these are frequently prepared by administering officers and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have said. the familiarity of Ernita with the face of petitioner considerably reduced any error in her identification of him. The identification of a person can be established through familiarity with one’s physical features. especially when affirmed by the CA. a wick lamp. Re: Positive Identification -Ernita’s testimony that she saw Marturillas at the crime scene is credible because the spot where Artemio was shot was only 30 meters away from her house. Ernita was also able to see his face while he was running away from the crime scene. To be sure. 2. who is her neighbor. Re: Statements Uttered Contemporaneous with the Crime -It was to be expected that. clearly established the latter’s complicity in the crime. In this case. Although she recognized him as the victim. the full moon and the light coming from two fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were sufficient to illumine the place where petitioner was. His statements corroborated those of Ernita and therefore simply added credence to the prosecution’s version of the facts. the statement in her Affidavit that she was surprised to see that her husband was the victim of the shooting. their positive. Thus. it cannot necessarily be inferred that she did not see him. there is only one gemilina tree. the widow of the victim and the children were merely shouting and crying and it was only after the policemen arrived that the widow uttered in a loud voice. there are some trees and plants growing in between the place where the house of Ernita was located and the spot where Artemio was shot. Re: Dying Declaration 104 . He also testified that there were many coconut and other trees and bananas in the crime scene. The trees and banana plants have slender trunks which could not have posed an obstacle to Ernita’s view of the crime scene from the kitchen window of her house especially so that she was in an elevated position. volunteered himself as a witness and even declared that he would testify that it was Marturillas who shot Artemio Pantinople. a flashlight. Undoubtedly. ‘Kapitan nganong gipatay mo ang akong bana?’ Ruling of RTC and CA: -The guilt of petitioner had been established beyond reasonable doubt. saying these were necessarily suspect. He was positively identified as the one running away from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot. Nevertheless. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that people in rural communities generally know each other both by face and name. He further testified that immediately after he went to the crime scene. Ernita is familiar with the accused. -Ernita’s recognition of the assailant was made possible by the lighted two fluorescent lamps in their store and by the full moon. He testified that there was no lighted fluorescent at the store of deceased at the time of the shooting. petitioner has not convinced this Court of the existence of any. some coconut trees and young banana plants growing in the place where Artemio was shot. Basic is the rule that the Supreme Court accords great weight and a high degree of respect to factual findings of the trial court. Settled is the rule that when conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased. They referred only to that point wherein Ernita ascertained the identity of Artemio as the victim. Neither was there any indication that Ernita was impelled by ill motives in positively identifying petitioner. Ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete. They did not relate to Ernita’s identification of petitioner as the person running away from the crime scene immediately after she heard a gunshot. HELD 1. WON the prosecution’s evidence is credible. she was still hoping that it was not really he. especially when established by friends or relatives. identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses found to be more credible. it would have been very easy for him to say that he had seen petitioner shoot the victim. Lito testified that the place where the shooting occurred was bright. -No ill motive could be ascribed to the prosecution witnesses.Prof. -Both courts also rejected Marturillas’ defenses of denial and alibi. ISSUES 1. In corroboration. together with the declaration of the victim himself that he had been shot by the captain. If it were true that he had an ulterior motive. Once a person has gained familiarity with one another. this Petition. the prosecution presented photographs of the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinities. Santos would shift his attention to the person who had uttered the plea “Help me p’re. This fact. their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. -Given the proper conditions. Notably. His testimony also revealed that when the responding policemen arrived. The trees and plants growing in between Ernita’s house and the place where Artemio was shot to death did not impede her view of the assailant. however. and a long-time brgy capt of the locality when the incident took place. Santos never pointed to petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. moonlight.

The dying declaration made by the victim immediately prior to his death constitutes evidence of the highest order as to the cause of his death and of the identity of the assailant. why did you shoot my husband?”) -.” -Statements identifying the assailant. her husband was trying to close a real estate transaction which petitioner tried to block. -These pieces of evidence indubitably lead to the conclusion that it was petitioner who shot and killed the victim. while she had A2010 no opportunity to concoct a story against petitioner. and seen smoke coming from the muzzle of a gun. -A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. the latter’s statement was correctly appreciated as part of the res gestae. -Rule 130. c. As the incumbent barangay captain. that of Ernita -“Kapitan. the degree and seriousness of the words and the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being in a dying condition. The principal act. -As found by the CA. 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise. and giving it a legal significance. a crime immediately before. it was uttered spontaneously. -All these requisites are present in this case.42: “Part of the res gestae. on the premise that no one who knows of one’s impending death will make a careless and false accusation. ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana?” (“Captain.37: “The declaration of a dying person.” then saw petitioner in a black jacket and camouflage pants running away from the crime scene while carrying a firearm. 4) be offered in a criminal case. was a startling occurrence. the reasonable conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim. made under the consciousness of impending death. If he were really innocent. such as the nature of the declarant’s injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a consciousness of impending death. The victim’s wife positively testified that prior to the shooting. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.” b. as it was “a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning. pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration of the deceased victim. Hence. SC considered the ff: a. he should not have simply left.” Testified to by his wife and neighbor. “Captain.” -Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of. V. Immediately after. -The law does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death.Prof. it should have been his responsibility to go immediately to the crime scene and investigate the shooting. 2. had that person been called upon to testify. Also. are entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect. produces absolute certainty. and it related to the circumstances of the shooting. The dying declaration is given credence. -Aside from the victim’s statement. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. during. also. d. Where an eyewitness saw the accused with a gun seconds after the gunshot and the victim’s fall. This damning evidence. his dying declaration was not only admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. That some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are circumstantial does not diminish the fact that they are 105 . -To be sure. e. the victim made the declaration without any prior opportunity to contrive a story implicating petitioner. not infrequently. in which the death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry. but was also a weighty and telling piece of evidence.Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. I was shot by the captain. It [was] complete and [was] not merely fragmentary. -To be admissible. if uttered by a victim on the verge of death. while he was still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence. the res gestae. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion. “Help me p’re. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. between the occurrence and the statement. or after its commission. This showed petitioner’s antagonism towards the victim. and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. Re: Res Gestae -The fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying declaration does not preclude it from being admitted as part of the res gestae. Ernita testified that she had heard a gunshot and her husband’s utterance. A. leads to the logical conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the crime charged. as well as the victim staggering backwards while shouting. “Help me p’re. may be received as part of the res gestae. a dying declaration must 1) refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the declarant’s death. statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. The version of the events given by petitioner is simply implausible. the dying declaration of the victim was complete. without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An important consideration is whether there intervened. So. Ernita’s statement.may be considered to be in the same category. Santos testified that he had heard a gunshot. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. YES. when the following requisites concur: 1) the principal act. Even if the declarant did not make an explicit statement of that realization. is a startling occurrence. The perception may be established from surrounding circumstances. right after the shooting. if the elements of both are present. 2) be made under the consciousness of an impending death. the declaration concerned the one who shot the victim. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of petitioner. The prosecution was able to establish motive on the part of petitioner. 3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper influence. Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations. or the spectators to. why did you shoot my husband?” was established as part of the res gestae. any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant. Her statement was about the same startling occurrence. and afford an opportunity for deliberation. -. conviction in a criminal case does not require a degree of proof that. Thus. Avena Evidence -Rule 130. I was shot by the captain. the shooting. and 5) have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a witness. coupled with the proven facts presented by the prosecution. excluding the possibility of error.

filed a formal offer of evidence before the lower court consisting of Exhibits "A" to "V" together with the sub-marked portions thereof. "H" and its sub-markings. "O". "electronic document" can also refer to other modes of written expression that is produced electronically. a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated by Bangpai allegedly bumped and damaged NAPOCOR’s Power Barge 209 which was then moored at the Cebu International Port. The plaintiff attempted to justify the admission of the photocopies by contending that "the photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the document" …xxx…the Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic evidence defined in Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence…xxx… However. Avena Evidence of a nature that would lead the mind intuitively. 170491 CHICO-NAZARIO. P312k for loss of earning capacity. -NAPOCOR filed an Amended Complaint dated 8 July 1996 impleading Wallem as additional defendant. Also. . "N" and its sub-markings. retrieved or produced electronically and that NAPOCOR had not properly authenticated such evidence as electronic documents. April 4. since an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. the CA said that the information (in said exhibits) were not received. & WALLEM SHIPPING. P25k for temperate damages. -A negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. Re: Paraffin Test & Corpus Delicti . corpus delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person murdered. as included in the section�s catch-all proviso: "any printout or output.Hence. Codilla acted with GAD amounting to A2010 lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the admission of its exhibits and its sub-markings. HON. -NAPOCOR after adducing evidence during the trial of the case. except in certain cases specifically so enumerated therein. V. readable by sight or other means". "K". as when culprits wear gloves. or are bathed in perspiration.] 106 . to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of unlicensed firearms. or who should testify as a witness is within the discretionary power of the prosecutor and definitely not of the courts to dictate. No. or x x x to the seized contraband cigarettes. Here. Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence is not limited to information that is received. In its legal sense. "Q" and its sub-markings. toward the conviction of petitioner. Assailed Decision and Resolution are affirmed with modifications.” Re: Alibi -As held by the CA: “[Petitioner’s] alibi is utterly untenable. "P" and its sub-markings.CA dismissed the petition as it appeared that there was no sufficient showing by NAPOCOR that there was GAD. recorded. Codilla. SC awarded P50k as indemnity ex delicto. as well as the Rules on Electronic Evidence/ WON said electronic documents qualify under the one of the exceptions of Best Evidence Rule so that those may be admitted as documentary evidence HELD: NO/NO. "R" and "S" and its sub-markings.” Disposition Petition is denied. ISSUE: WON the photocopies are indeed electronic documents as contemplated in RA No. may NAPOCOR v. It never produced the originals. to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. 8792 or the IRR of the Electronic Commerce Act. Rather. “[Corpus delicti] is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. evidence is not necessarily weaker. For alibi to prosper. "J" and its sub-markings. -The prosecution was able to give sufficient proof of the corpus delicti -. "L". Consequently. "E". P50k for moral damages. such as photocopies. they found that the judge acted within the pale of his discretion when he denied admission of said documentary evidence for in Sec 3 of Rule 130 of the RoC. Reasoning: -A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies submitted by NAPOCOR will reveal that not all of the contents therein. Codilla denied (through an order) the admission and excluding from the records NAPOCOR’s Exhibits "A". [SC reviewed amount of damages.Prof. "D". it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. "I".” . A. The choice of what evidence to present. Lastly.] G. when the subject of inquiry are the contents of documents. INC. contending that the latter is a ship agent of Bangpai. the locus criminis was only several meters away from [petitioner’s] home. In any event.The negative paraffin test result and the prosecution’s failure to present the gun used in the shooting is not enough to exculpate the accused from the crime. plus costs. RAMON G. or by a conscious process of reasoning. and the petitioner has not shown that the non-presentation or non-production of its original documentary pieces of evidence falls under such exceptions. such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the documents. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original documents themselves. CODILLA. P20k for attorney’s fees. Circumstantial. vis-à-vis direct. the instant petition wherein NAPOCOR insists that the photocopies it presented as documentary evidence actually constitute electronic evidence based on its own premise that an "electronic document" as defined under Section 1(h).the fact that a crime had actually been committed. this defense cannot be given credence in the face of the credible and positive identification made by Ernita. wash their hands afterwards. [BANGPAI SHIPPING COMPANY. "C". . these excluded evidence should be attached to the records of this case to enable the appellate court to pass upon them should an appeal be taken from the decision on the merits to be rendered upon the termination of the trial of this case. 2007 (edel) Nature: Certiorari under Rule 45 Facts: -M/V Dibena Win. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates. . Bangpai and Wallem filed their respective objections to said formal offer of evidence.NAPOCOR’s MR was denied and so the filed a petition for Certiorari via R64 before the Court of Appeals maintaining that J. -NAPOCOR then filed before the Cebu RTC a complaint for damages against Bangpai for the alleged damages caused on the power barges.R.J. retrieved or produced electronically. "M" and its sub-markings. -According to the court a quo: ”The record shows that the plaintiff has been given every opportunity to present the originals of the Xerox or photocopies of the documents it offered. JR. It appeared that the pieces of documentary evidence which were denied admission were not properly identified by any competent witness. -Bangpai & Wallem filed their respective Motions to Dismiss which were denied by J.

. employees of Pilipinas Bank. figures. the offeror. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. The statement of Dimas is part of the res gestae. Pepito Capila. July 17. A.3M.Prof. It has been shown that under certain external circumstances of physical or mental shock. clearly. But the modern justification for the rule has expanded from the prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law. A2010 guard on duty. Dimas told Ariel that one of the robbers is his fellow guard.” As an exception to the hearsay rule. went to the Meralco collection office in JP Rizal. transmitted.The police arrived at the scene 10 min after the call. which is received. the 107 . retrieved or produced. The prosecution evidence included of the testimony of SPO4 Maximo and Ariel. CA affirmed RTC decision. RTC acquitted everyone except Pepito. recorded. . They packed the money in duffel bags and padlocked them. processed. symbols or other models of written expression. what differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the manner by which the information is processed. it refers to those exclamations and statements by either the participants. YES. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. V. WON Pepito was denied due process HELD 1. P of the Phils) -DEFINITION: "electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information. (Lee v. his fellow sekyu. but not of Dimas.History of BER: Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery. ISSUES 1. recorded. when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as spontaneous reactions or utterances inspired by the excitement of the occasion. the TC did not commit an error when it denied the admissibility of the photocopies as documentary evidence as Napocor failed to establish that its offer falls under the exceptions (as herein enumerated). processed. While waiting for the armored van. Makati to get the collection totaling around P1. stored. Avena Evidence be recorded or produced electronically. or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed. . described or however represented. during or immediately after the commission of the crime. stored. the state of nervous excitement which occurs in a spectator may produce a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions produced by the external shock. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents. the fallibility of the human memory as reliable evidence of the terms. Costs against petitioner. DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED. .A criminal case for robbery was filed with the RTC against Pepito and Dimas and 4 others. and the security agency. the Meralco security division. . data. The robbers hit Dimas dela Cruz. rather than reason and reflection.Lani and Ariel. or spectators to a crime immediately before. Sandoval-Gutierrez (ina) FACTS . -The rules use the word "information" to define an electronic document received. transmitted. the information contained in an electronic document is received. readable by sight or other means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. or cannot be produced in court. two armed men approached them. 2006. transmitted. As the statements or utterances are made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses. such statements or utterances may be taken as expressing CAPILA v. WON the statement of Dimas is admissible 2. may prove its contents by a copy. victims. . by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout. 146161. and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false statement. the best evidence rule was designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the withholding of the originals. However. processed. retrieved or produced electronically. PEOPLE GR No. SC denied said prayer. CA DECISION of 9 November 2005 AFFIRMED. Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130 (as discussed by the SC): When the original document has been lost or destroyed. and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns addressed by the best evidence rule. * NOTE: It was also said that NAPOCOR continued to obdurately disregard the opportunities given by the TC for it to present the originals of the photocopies it presented BUT at the SC it prayed that it be allowed to present the originals of the exhibits that were denied admission or in case the same are lost. and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places. retrieved or produced electronically. The importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of legal relations. on the nape and ordered Lani and Ariel to lie face-down. . retrieved or produced electronically.According to the SC. similar to any other document which is presented in evidence as proof of its contents. However. He then called reported the incident to the police. transmitted. (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy. Dimas said that one of the robbers is Pepito Capila. recorded. The robbers took the duffel bags and the gun of Dimas. and modern technique of electronic copying. recorded. stored. Pepito appealed to CA on the ground that the RTC erroneously admitted in evidence Dimas’ statement that Pepito is one of the robbers for being hearsay and that he was denied due process for not being given a chance to cross examine Dimas because Dimas didn’t testify.The reason for the rule is human experience. This would suggest that an electronic document is relevant only in terms of the information contained therein. When questioned by SPO4 Maximo. to lay the predicate for the admission of secondary evidence. processed. By no stretch of the imagination can a person’s signature affixed manually be considered as information electronically received.Res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally means “things done. stored.Right after the robbery.

When questioned by SPO4 Maximo. A. The spontaneity of the declaration is such that the declaration itself may be regarded as the event speaking through the declarant rather than the declarant speaking for himself.Prof. The requisites for the admission of res gestae in evidence are (with corresponding compliance in this case): (1) that the principal act or the res gestae be a startling occurrence (The principal act. which by any measure is undoubtedly a startling occurrence. is the robbery). Even though the declarant is not presented as witness. NO. His statements to Ariel and SPO4 Maximo were made before he had the time and opportunity to concoct and contrive a false story.). the statement is not hearsay since it forms part of the res gestae. Avena Evidence the real belief of the speaker as to the facts he just observed. named petitioner herein as one of the robbers. and the statement is made during the occurrence or immediately or subsequent thereto (Dimas informed Ariel and SPO4 Maximo right away. Dimas. who was still shocked. (2) the statement is spontaneous or was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise. V. and (3) the statement made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances (The statement of dela Cruz refers to the robbery or incident subject matter of this case. A2010 108 . 2.).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful