RULE 132 1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMIL MARCOS Y ISIDRO G.R. No.

91646 August 21, 1992 Statement of the Fact : Romil Marcos Isidro was charged with the crime o !iolatio" o #ectio" 4, Article II o Re$u%lic Act 642&, 'a"gerous 'rugs Act o 19(2. )" *u"e (, 19+9, i" the ,it- o .am%oa"ga, Romil Marcos was e"tra$$ed %- a %u-/%ust o$eratio" co"ducted %- the $rosecutio" wit"esses, all o them Narcom age"ts, wherei" Marcos sold si0 162 stic3s o mari4ua"a to #gt. Amado A"i, a mem%er o the o$eratio", who acted as the $oseur/%u-er. 5he other target o the o$eratio", a certai" 6alle"a eluded arrest a"d esca$ed. 5he trial court re4ected the a$$ella"t7s de e"se that he was "ot the o%4ect o the %u-/%ust o$eratio" a"d that he was arrested whe" he re used to testi agai"st 6alle"a who was actuall- the target o the %u-/%ust o$eratio". Statement of the I !e: 8hether or "ot the testimo"ies o the wit"esses were ormall- o ered R!"#n$: 5he #u$reme ,ourt held that, as regards the $rosecutio" wit"esses, we agree with the a$$ella"t that their testimo"ies were "ot ormall- o ered at the time the said wit"esses were called to testi -. 9owever, the records reveal that the testimo"ies o the $rosecutio" wit"esses were o ered duri"g the ormal o er o docume"tarevide"ce %- the $rosecuti"g :iscal. Marcos did "ot o%4ect to such o er. I" such a case we rule that the a$$ella"t is "ow esto$$ed rom ;uestio"i"g the i"clusio" o the su%4ect testimo"ies %- the trial court i" co"victi"g him o the crime charged. At a"rate, the a$$ella"t was "ot de$rived o a"- o his co"stitutio"al rights i" the i"clusio" o the su%4ect testimo"ies. 5he a$$ella"t was "ot de$rived o his right to cross/ e0ami"e all these $rosecutio" wit"esses.

RULE 132 2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. %ILLIAM ANCHETA& ED'ARDO AREOLA& ANTOS DACANAY, LITO DE LA CRU(& FELIPE ULEP G.R. No. 14<9<& *u"e 4, 2==4 Statement of the Fact : :eli$e >le$, together with 8illiam A"cheta, ?dgardo @Aili"g@ Areola, A"tos 'aca"a-, Aito dela ,ruB a"d ?l- ,alacala, was charged with the crime o ro%%erwith multi$le homicide a"d rustrated murder. Al redo Roca testi ied that arou"d 12 oCcloc3 "oo" o March 2=, 19+(, he was i" his arm i" Ma"ggaha", RiBal, Nueva ?ci4a to thresh palay. 8ith him at that time were Mar4u" Roca, 6e"ita Roca, :e%e Roca a"d daughter !irgilita Roca/Aaureaga. At this $oi"t, Al redo "oticed the arrival o a" ow"er/t-$e 4ee$ with trailer which sto$$ed at a s$ot "ot ar rom his hut. 9e recog"iBed the occu$a"ts as accused A"tos 'aca"a-, ?dgardo @Aili"g@ Areola, 8illiam A"cheta, Aito de la ,ruB, ?l- ,alacala a"d a$$ella"t :eli$e @6o-@ >le$ who all alighted rom the 4ee$. 'aca"a-, Areola a"d A"cheta stood o" o"e side o the irrigatio" ca"al aci"g Mar4u" Roca who was sta"di"g o" the other side. :rom a dista"ce o 1= to 12 meters, Al redo saw 'aca"a- sudde"l- $ull out a gu" a"d shoot Mar4u" o" the head, causi"g the latter to all to the grou"d. As he la- o" the grou"d, Mar4u" was agai" shot, this time %- Areola a"d A"cheta. 5herea ter, >le$, de la ,ruB a"d ,alacala started iri"g at Al redoCs hut. Al redo was "ot hit, however, %ecause he was a%le to get out o the hut a"d dive i"to the irrigatio" ca"al i" the "ic3 o time. 9owever, 6e"ita a"d :e%e were atall- hit %- the i"itial volle- o gu" ire. 5he assaila"ts ired at Al redo i" the ca"al %ut the- did "ot hit him. A"cheta the" hurled a gre"ade which e0$loded "ear the hut. 8he" the grou$ ra" out o %ullets, Al redo emerged rom the ca"al a"d hid i"side his hut. 9e saw the grou$ load o"to the trailer <& sac3s o palay, each co"tai"i"g a" average o &= 3ilos. Al redo ow"ed the stole" palay. A$$ella"t >le$ a"d his com$a"io"s the" %oarded their 4ee$ a"d le t. !irgilita Roca/Aaurega corro%orated her atherCs testimo"-. Statement of the I !e: 8hether or "ot the trial court erred i" admitti"g as evide"ce the testimo"ies o the $rosecutio" wit"esses des$ite the ailure o the $rosecutio" to ma3e a ormal o er thereo i" violatio" o Rule 1<2, #ectio" <4 o the Rules o ,ourt R!"#n$: 5he records show that the $rosecutio" ailed to ormall- o er the ;uestio"ed testimo"ies o wit"esses Al redo Roca a"d !irgilita Roca/Aaureaga. 9owever, a$$ella"t waived this $rocedural error %- aili"g to ma3e a timel- o%4ectio", i.e., whe" the grou"d or o%4ectio" %ecame reaso"a%l- a$$are"t the mome"t said wit"esses were called to testi - without a"- $rior o er havi"g %ee" made %- the $ro$o"e"t. 9e eve" im$liedl- ac;uiesced to the materialit-, com$ete"ce a"d releva"ce o the $rosecutio" wit"essesC testimo"ies %- cross/e0ami"i"g them. #i"ce a$$ella"t ailed to raise %e ore the trial court the issue o the $rosecutio"Cs ailure to ormall- o er the testimo"ies o its wit"esses, a" o%4ectio" o" this score raised or the irst time o" a$$eal will "ot %e e"tertai"ed.

RULE 132 <. LEODE'ARIO )AYANI * . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 1&&619 Statement of the Fact : 6a-a"i issued a chec3 $a-a%le to D,ashE a"d gave it to 'olores ?va"gelista i" e0cha"ge or cash. 6a-a"i 3"ew that said chec3 had "o su icie"t u"d or $a-me"t. It was $rese"ted to com$lai"i"g wit"ess, 'olores ?va"gelista, or e"cashme"t %- Alicia Ru%ia whom the ormer 3"ows. A ter the chec3 was de$osited with the %a"3, it was retur"ed to ?va"gelista or i"su icie"c- o u"ds. 6a-a"i was charged with violatio" o 6atas Fam%a"sa 6lg. 22 a"d ou"d guilt- therewith. Statement of the I !e: 8hether or "ot the hearsa- evide"ce %- ?va"gelista is admissi%le R!"#n$: 5he #u$reme ,ourt held that, $etitio"er is %arred rom ;uestio"i"g the admissio" o ?va"gelistaCs testimo"- eve" i the same is hearsa-. #ectio" <4, Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt re;uires that the trial court shall "ot co"sider a"- evide"ce which has "ot %ee" i"all- o ered. #ectio" <& o the same Rule $rovides that as regards the testimo"- o a wit"ess, the o er must %e made at the time the wit"ess is as3ed to testi -. A"d u"der #ectio" <6 o the same Rule, o%4ectio" to a ;uestio" $ro$ou"ded i" the course o the oral e0ami"atio" o a wit"ess shall %e made as soo" as the grou"d there ore %ecomes reaso"a%l- a$$are"t. 5hus, it has %ee" held that Di" aili"g to o%4ect to the testimo"- o" the grou"d that it was hearsa-, the evide"ce o ered ma- %e admitted.E #i"ce "o o%4ectio" to the admissi%ilit- o ?va"gelistaCs testimo"- was timel- made G rom the time her testimo"- was o ered a"d u$ to the time her direct e0ami"atio" was co"ducted G the" $etitio"er has e ectivel- waived a"- o%4ectio" to the admissi%ilit- thereo a"d his %elated attem$ts to have her testimo"- e0cluded or %ei"g hearsa- has "o grou"d to sta"d o".

RULE 132 +. HEIRS OF PASA' ,. PAROCHA& '.R. No. 1--+.3& 2/ A01#" 222/ Statement of the Fact 3 5he case arose rom a ,om$lai"t or 'eclaratio" o Nullit- o 'ocume"ts a"d 5itles, Recover- o Fossessio" a"d )w"ershi$, Reco"ve-a"ce, Fartitio" a"d 'amages iled %- $etitio"ers at the >rda"eta ,it- R5, o Fa"gasi"a" agai"st res$o"de"ts. Fetitio"ers alleged a share i" the $ro$erties ow"ed %- res$o"de"ts which ormed $art o $etitio"ersC deceased gra"d$are"ts 6e"ito a"d :lore"ti"a Fasag who died i"testate. 5he trial o the case comme"ced o" March 19, 1996. )" March 9, 1999, $etitio"ers rested their case a"d were gra"ted te" 11=2 da-s withi" which to su%mit their ormal o er o docume"tar- e0hi%its. 9owever, $etitio"ers ailed to su%mit the said $leadi"g withi" the re;uired $eriod. )" A$ril 19, 1999, $etitio"ers as3ed the trial court to give them u"til Ma- 11, 1999 to su%mit their o er o evide"ce, which was su%se;ue"tl- gra"ted. 9owever, o" Ma- 11, 1999, the- agai" ailed to su%mit their o er o evide"ce a"d moved or a"other e0te"sio" o ive 1&2 da-s. >" ortu"atel-, $etitio"ers still ailed to su%mit their ormal o er o evide"ce withi" the e0te"ded $eriod. ,o"se;ue"tl-, i" its *u"e 1(, 1999 )rder, the trial court deemed waived $etitio"ers7 right to ma3e their ormal o er o evide"ce. Fetitio"ers, o" *ul2(, 1999 moved or the admissio" o their o er o evide"ce, su%se;ue"tl- de"ied %the trial court or their Dco"siste"t ailureE to su%mit it. )" :e%ruar- 24, 2===, the trial court gra"ted res$o"de"tsC Motio" to 'ismiss o" 'emurrer to ?vide"ce, a"d ordered the dismissal o the ,om$lai"t. Fetitio"ers a$$ealed to the ,A which a irmed the ruli"g o the trial court. Statement of the I !e3 8hether co"siste"t ailure to su%mit evide"ce co"stitute as waiver to o er the same R!"#n$3 Hes, Dco"siste"t ailureE to su%mit evide"ce co"stitutes as waiver to o er the same. Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt $rovides that @the court shall co"sider "o evide"ce which has "ot %ee" ormall- o ered.@ A ormal o er is "ecessar- %ecause 4udges are ma"dated to rest their i"di"gs o acts a"d their 4udgme"t o"l- a"d strictl- u$o" the evide"ce o ered %- the $arties at the trial. 5he #u$reme ,ourt i" ,o"sta"ti"o v. ,ourt o A$$eals ruled that the ormal o er o o"e7s evide"ce is deemed waived a ter aili"g to su%mit it withi" a co"sidera%le $eriod o time. It e0$lai"ed that the court ca""ot admit a" o er o evide"ce made a ter a la$se o three 1<2 mo"ths %ecause to do so would @co"do"e a" i"e0cusa%le la0it- i "ot "o"/com$lia"ce with a court order which, i" e ect, would e"courage "eedless dela-s a"d derail the s$eed- admi"istratio" o 4ustice.@ 'es$ite several e0te"sio"s o time to ma3e their ormal o er, $etitio"ers ailed to com$l- with their commitme"t a"d allowed almost ive mo"ths to la$se %e ore i"all- su%mitti"g it. Fetitio"ers7 ailure to com$l- with the rule o" admissi%ilit- o evide"ce is a"athema to the e icie"t, e ective, a"d e0$editious dis$e"satio" o 4ustice. Fetitio" '?NI?', assailed decisio" a"d resolutio" a irmed.

RULE 132 -. UNI%IDE SALES ,. TITAN4I5EDA& '.R. No. 126617& 22 Decem8e1 2226 Statement of the Fact 3 >"iwide #ales Realt- a"d Resources ,or$oratio" 1>"iwide2 a"d 5ita"/I3eda ,o"structio" a"d 'evelo$me"t ,or$oratio" 15ita"2 e"tered i"to various agreeme"ts i"volvi"g three 1<2 $ro4ects o co"structio". 5he case origi"ated rom a" actio" or a sum o mo"e- iled %- 5ita" agai"st >"iwide, arisi"g rom >"iwideCs "o"/$a-me"t o certai" claims %illed %- 5ita" a ter com$letio" o the three $ro4ects. )"e issue is regardi"g Fro4ect 1, a writte" D,o"structio" ,o"tractE e"tered i"to %- the $arties sometime i" Ma- 1991, where%- 5ita" u"dertoo3 to co"struct >"iwideCs 8arehouse ,lu% a"d Admi"istratio" 6uildi"g i" Ai%is, IueBo" ,it- or a ee o 12=,9<6,&91.&=, the $arties sti$ulated that the %uildi"g shall %e com$leted "ot later tha" <= Novem%er 1991. >"iwide alludes to a" alleged 4udicial admissio" made %- ?"gr. AuBo" 5a%la"te wherei" he stated that Fro4ect 1 was com$leted o" 1= March 1992, >"iwide "ow claims that %- virtue o such stateme"t, 5ita" had admitted that is was i" dela-, which ma- %e grou"d i" a claim or li;uidated damages. 5he testimo"- o ?"gr. 5a%la"te was i"itiall- o ered to $rove that Fro4ect 1 was i"deed com$leted. Statement of the I !e3 8hether ?"gr. 5a%la"teCs testimo"- ma- %e o ered to $rove the act o delao" the $art o 5ita" R!"#n$3 No, the testimo"e- o ?"gr. 5a%la"te ma- "ot %e o ered to $rove act o dela-. 5he #u$reme ,ourt held that the testimo"- o ?"gr. 5a%la"te was o ered o"lto $rove that Fro4ect 1 was i"deed com$leted. It was "ot o ered to $rove act o dela-. 5he $ur$ose or which evide"ce is o ered must %e s$eci ied %ecause such evide"ce ma- %e admissi%le or several $ur$oses u"der the doctri"e o multi$le admissi%ilit-, or ma- %e admissi%le or o"e $ur$ose a"d "ot or a"other, otherwise the adverse $art- ca""ot i"ter$ose the $ro$er o%4ectio". ?vide"ce su%mitted or o"e $ur$ose ma- "ot %e co"sidered or a"- other $ur$ose. :urthermore, the ,ourt stated that, eve" assumi"g, or the sa3e o argume"t, that said testimo"- was admitted to $rove dela-, such act is i"su icie"t or the im$ositio" o li;uidated damages. It must urther %e show" that dela- was attri%uta%le to the co"tractor i "ot otherwise 4usti ia%le. ,o"traril-, >"iwideJs %elated claim co"stitutes a" admissio" that the dela- was 4usti ied a"d im$lies a waiver o its right to such damages. ) er o evide"ce to $rove dela- '?NI?', claim or li;uidated damages '?NI?'.

RULE 132 6. RAMOS ,. SPS. DOMIN'O DI(ON AND EDNA MEDINA DI(ON '.R. No. 13/2+/& / A!$! t 2226& +7. SCRA 1/ Statement of the Fact 3 5he case arose rom a $etitio" or registratio" o co"solidatio" o ow"ershi$ over real $ro$ert- iled %- herei" $etitio"er. Fetitio"er alleged that res$o"de"ts are the ow"ers o a" u"divided o"e/hal $ortio" o a $arcel o la"dJ that o" 1 :e%ruar19++, res$o"de"t 'omi"go e0ecuted a #$ecial Fower o Attor"e- 1#FA2 authoriBi"g ?l$idio 'omi"go to sell o"e hal $ortio" o said $arcel o la"dJ that ?l$idio, acti"g $ursua"t to the $rovisio"s o the #FA sold, with a right to re$urchase withi" ive mo"ths, o"e/hal o the la"d to $etitio"erJ a"d that res$o"de"t 'omi"go ailed to redee" or re$urchase the di$uted la"d withi" the ive/mo"th $eriod $rovided or u"der the 'eed o #ale >"der Facto de Retro, thus, ow"ershi$ over the su%4ect la"d was co"solidated i" $etitio"er. I" a" a"swer, res$o"de"t 'omi"go alleged that the #FA was e0ecuted or the $ur$ose o e"a%li"g ?l$idio to secure a loa" o 1&=,===.== %- usi"g 'omi"goCs share i" the la"d as securit-. 9owever, ?l$idio o%tai"ed a loa" o <&=,===.== a"d used a su%sta"tial $ortio" thereo or his $erso"al adva"tage a"d %e"e it. 'omi"go claimed that he revo3ed the #FA through several letters a"d %- a ormal "otice o revocatio" se"t %- his cou"sel. As or the $acto de retro sale, 'omi"go mai"tai"s that the same was simulated as ?l$idio had alread- o%tai"ed a loa" totali"g <&=,===.== rom $etitio"er as evide"ced %- a Real ?state Mortgage e0ecuted %- the two o them. 'uri"g the trial o the case, $etitio"er $rese"ted ?l$idio as her seco"d wit"ess, a"d o" cross/e0ami"atio", it was declared %- him that he is a"d his %rother Ricardo are the ow"ers o the $ro$ert- i" dis$ute a"d that he o ered to sell to the res$o"de"t the $ro$ert- or &&=,===.==, 'omi"go agreed to ?l$idioCs $ro$osal a"d remitted the amou"t o 2=(,===.==, the remai"der was to %e secured through a loa". ?l$idio secured a loa" rom $etitio"er i" the i"itial amou"t o 1&=,===.== i" order to secure such loa", ?l$idio agreed to e0ecute a real estate mortgage over the la"d su%se;ue"tl- the loa" was i"creased to <&=,===.==. 'uri"g ?l$idioCs cross/ e0ami"atio", it was also revealed that 'omi"go had $reviousl- iled a case or s$eci ic $er orma"ce a"dKor rescissio" agai"st him wherei" the su%4ect matter was the $ur$orted co"tract o sale %etwee" 'omi"go a"d ?l$idio i"volvi"g the same $ro$ert- i" co"trovers-. 5he case was decided i" avor o 'omi"go. 'omi"go was give" te" da-s to su%mit his ormal o er o evide"ce i" writi"g a"d $etitio"er was give" the same $eriod o time to ile her comme"t or o$$ositio" thereto a ter which the case would %e su%mitted or resolutio". 5he trial court $rior to the su%missio" o res$o"de"t 'omi"goCs ormal o er o evide"ce, re"dered a 'ecisio" dated 24 *a"uar- 199& holdi"g that the co"tract %etwee" $etitio"er a"d ?l$idio was actuall- o"e o e;uita%le mortgage a"d "ot a $acto de retro sale. It was o"l- o" <1 *a"uar- 199& whe" res$o"de"t 'omi"go iled his :ormal ) er o ?0hi%its. Fetitio"er elevated the case %e ore the ,ourt o A$$eals which a irmed the 'ecisio" o the trial court.

RULE 132 Statement of the I !e3 8hether evide"ce "ot ormall- o ered ma- %e co"sidered admitted a"d co"sidered R!"#n$3 Hes, evide"ce "ot ormall- o ered ma- %e admitted a"d co"sidered %- the trial court. 5he a$$lica%le $rovisio" o the Rules o ,ourt o" this matter is #ec. <4, Rule 1<2. It reads: #?,. <4. Offer of evidence.- 5he court shall co"sider "o evide"ce which has "ot %ee" ormall- o ered. 5he $ur$ose or which the evide"ce is o ered must %e s$eci ied. 5he case o Vda. De Oate, which was relied u$o" %- the ,ourt o A$$eals, reiterated our $revious ruli"gs i" People v. Napat-a a"d People v. Mate relative to the admissio" a"d co"sideratio" o e0hi%its which were "ot ormall- o ered duri"g the trial. 8e declared i" Vda. De Oate that G :rom the oregoi"g $rovisio", it is clear that or evide"ce to %e co"sidered, the same must %e ormall- o ered. ,orollaril-, the mere act that a $articular docume"t to ide"ti ied a"d mar3ed as a" e0hi%it does "ot mea" that is has alread- %ee" o ered as $art o the evide"ce o a $art-. I" Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles L1+6 #,RA <+&M, we had the occasio" to ma3e a disti"ctio" %etwee" ide"ti icatio" o docume"tarevide"ce a"d its ormal o er as a" e0hi%it. 8e said that the irst is do"e i" the course o the trial a"d is accom$a"ied %- the mar3i"g o the evide"ce as a" e0hi%it while the seco"d is do"e o"l- whe" the $art- rests its case a"d "ot %e ore. A $art-, there ore, ma- o$t to ormall- o er his evide"ce i he %elieves that it will adva"ce his cause or "ot to do so at all. I" the eve"t he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is "ot authoriBed %- the Rules to co"sider the same. 9owever, i" People v. Napat-a citi"g People v. Mate, we rela0ed the oregoi"g rule a"d allowed evide"ce "ot ormall- o ered to %e admitted a"d co"sidered %- the trial court, $rovided the ollowi"g re;uireme"ts are $rese"tJ 1. 5he same must have %ee" dul- ide"ti ied %- testimo"- dul- recordedJ a"d 2. 5he same must have %ee" i"cor$orated i" the records o the case. Fetitio" '?NI?'.

RULE 132 /. SPOUSES RENATO S. ON' an9 FRANCIA N. ON' * . COURT OF APPEALS& INLAND RAIL%AYS& INC. an9 PHILTRANCO SER,ICE ENTERPRISE& INC.& G.R. No. 11(1=< *a"uar- 21, 1999 Statement of the Fact 3 Re"ato a"d :ra"cia )"g %oarded a %us which was ow"ed a"d o$erated %I"la"d Railwa-s u"der a Aease Agreeme"t with Fhiltra"co. 8he" the %us was i" 5iao"g, IueBo", it slowed dow" to avoid a stalled cargo truc3 %ut it was %um$ed rom the rear %- a Fhiltra"co %us. Re"ato a"d :ra"cia su ered i"4uries causi"g them to ile damages agai"st I"la"d a"d Fhiltra"co. Fhiltra"co claimed that it was 4ust leasi"g its su$$ort acilities to I"la"d he"ce, I"la"d will %e solel- lia%le or the damages however, the 5rial ,ourt ruled that Fhiltra"co shall %e lia%le %ecause the $ro0imate cause o the accide"t was the %um$i"g o the rear o I"la"d %us %- the Fhiltra"co %us as show" %- the Folice Re$ort a"d a idavits o the s$ouses. )" a$$eal, the ,ourt o A$$eals reversed the decisio" %ecause the Folice Re$ort was "ot ormall- o ered as evide"ce %ecause it was 4ust attached to I"la"dCs a"swer. Statement of the I !e3 8)N the Folice Re$ort, which was "ot ormall- o ered i" evide"ce, could %e used to esta%lish a claim agai"st Fhiltra"co R!"#n$3 N). #ectio" <4, Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt, $rovides that @the court shall co"sider "o evide"ce which has "ot %ee" ormall- o ered.@ A ormal o er is "ecessar-, si"ce 4udges are re;uired to %ase their i"di"gs o act a"d their 4udgme"t solel- a"d strictl- u$o" the evide"ce o ered %- the $arties at the trial. 5o allow $arties to attach a"- docume"t to their $leadi"gs a"d the" e0$ect the court to co"sider it as evide"ce, eve" without ormal o er a"d admissio", ma- draw u"warra"ted co"se;ue"ces. )$$osi"g $arties will %e de$rived o their cha"ce to e0ami"e the docume"t a"d to o%4ect to its admissi%ilit-. )" the other ha"d, the a$$ellate court will have di icult- reviewi"g docume"ts "ot $reviousl- scruti"iBed the court %elow. 5he Folice Re$ort was merel- attached as A""e0 D1E o I"la"dCs A"swer. 5he mere act that a $articular docume"t is ide"ti ied a"d mar3ed as a" e0hi%it does "ot mea" it will %e or has %ee" o ered as $art o the evide"ce o the $art-.

RULE 132 .. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES * . SUSANA NAPAT4A : MACA)IO G.R. No. +49&1 Novem%er 14, 19+9 Statement of the Fact 3 #usa"a Na$at/a was arrested through %u-/%ust o$eratio" %- the Narcotics Regio"al >"it i" 6aguio ,it-. 'uri"g the %u-/%ust o$eratio", a %row" carto" %o0 was seiBed rom her a"d was %rought to ,am$ 6ado 'a"gwa. At. ,arlos :igueroa, a ore"sic chemist, a irmed i" his ,hemistr- Re$ort that the co"te"ts o the %o0 were mari4ua"a. Na$at/a raised the de e"se o de"ial a"d that she was ramed %ut the trial court ruled that she was guilt- a"d was se"te"ced to Ai e Im$riso"me"t a"d to $ai"es. )" her a$$eal, she co"te"ded that the $rosecutio" ailed to $rese"t the %row" carto" %o0 a"d its co"te"ts duri"g the trial. Statement of the I !e3 8)N the o%4ect evide"ce ma- "ot %e $rese"ted o" trial a ter it has %ee" mar3ed, ide"ti ied a"d testi ied u$o" R!"#n$3 H?#. 5he su%se;ue"t loss o these e0hi%its did "ot a ect the case or the trial court had descri%ed the evide"ce i" the records. ,arlos !. :igueroa, :ore"sic ,hemist o the F, ,rime Aa%orator-, testi ied that the %o0 a"d its co"te"ts were $rese"ted, Ide"ti ied a"d mar3ed as e0hi%its i" court. ?ve" without the e0hi%its which have %ee" i"cor$orated i"to the records o the case, the $rosecutio" ca" still esta%lish the case %ecause the wit"esses $ro$erl- ide"ti ied those e0hi%its a"d their testimo"ies are recorded.

RULE 132 ..a. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES * . A'PAN'A LI)NAO : 5ITTEN an9 ROSITA NUN'A : ,ALENCIA& A'PAN'A LI)NAO : 5ITTEN G.R. No. 1<6+6= *a"uar- 2=, 2==< Statement of the Fact 3 5he i"tellige"ce o$eratives o the FNF 5arlac receive rom a" asset that a woma" rom 5arlac a"d o"e rom 6aguio ,it- were tra"s$orti"g illegal drugs o"ce a mo"th i" %ig %ul3s. )"e "ight, the FNF lagged dow" a tric-lcle o" chec3$oi"t which had 2 emale $asse"gers with a %lac3 %ag. 5he $asse"gers were ta3e" to Na%a-a" ,e"ter a"d that the co"te"ts o the %ag were co" irmed to %e mari4ua"a leaves. A case was the" iled agai"st the two wome" a"d the- were eve"tuallco"victed %- the trial court or violatio" o the 'a"gerous 'rugs Act a"d was se"te"ce to reclusio" $er$etua. )" a$$eal, Ai%"ao ;uestio"ed the act the the $rosecutio" ailed to ormall- o er the o%4ect evide"ce duri"g the trial. Statement of the I !e3 8)N the o%4ect evide"ce ma- "ot %e $rese"ted o" trial a ter it has %ee" mar3ed, ide"ti ied a"d testi ied u$o" R!"#n$3 H?#. ?vide"ce "ot ormall- o ered ca" %e co"sidered %- the court as lo"g as thehave %ee" $ro$erl- ide"ti ied %- testimo"- dul- recorded a"d the- have themselves %ee" i"cor$orated i" the records o the case. All the docume"tar- a"d o%4ect evide"ce i" this case were $ro$erl- ide"ti ied, $rese"ted a"d mar3ed as e0hi%its i" court, i"cludi"g the %ric3s o mari4ua"a. ?ve" without their ormal o er, there ore, the $rosecutio" ca" still esta%lish the case %ecause wit"esses $ro$erl- ide"ti ied those e0hi%its, a"d their testimo"ies are recorded. :urthermore, a$$ella"tCs cou"sel had cross/e0ami"ed the $rosecutio" wit"esses who testi ied o" the e0hi%its.

RULE 132 7. ON' CHIA vs. REPU)LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ; CA G.R. No. 12(24= March 2(, 2=== Statement of the Fact 3 Fetitio"er )"g ,hia arrived i" Ma"ila at the age o "i"e. #i"ce the", he has sta-ed i" the Fhili$$i"es where he ou"d em$lo-me"t a"d married a :ili$i"a. 8he" he was 66 -ears old, he iled a $etitio" or his "aturaliBatio". 'uri"g the heari"g, $etitio"er testi ied as to his ;uali icatio" a"d has $rese"ted wit"esses to corro%orate his testimo"-. 5he $rosecutor that time was co"vi"ced with $etitio"erCs testimo"- so the- o$t "ot to $rese"t evide"ce to cou"ter $etitio"erCs claim. 5he 5rial court the" gra"ted )"g ,hiaCs $etitio" %ut the #tate through the ) ice o the #olicitor Ge"eral a$$ealed the said decisio" co"te"di"g that )"g ,hia committed some violatio"s duri"g his sta- i" the Fhili$$i"es i"cludi"g his erro"eous declaratio" o his i"comes. A"other issue $oi"ted %- the #olicitor Ge"eral is )"g ,hiaCs ailure to su$$ort his $etitio" with a$$ro$riate docume"tar- evide"ce so the ,A reversed the trial courtCs decisio". 5he evide"ce %ei"g $rese"ted %- the #olicitor ge"eral duri"g the a$$ellate court should "ot %e admissi%le %ecause the- were "ot o ered duri"g the trial court. Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot evide"ce i" "aturaliBatio" cases "eed to %e $ro$erl- o ered %e ore the courts R!"#n$3 Rule 14< o the rules o court $rovides that/ 5hese rules shall not a$$l- to 000, naturalization a"d i"solve"c- $roceedi"gs, a"d other cases "ot herei" $rovided or, e cept !y analo"y or in a suppletory c#aracter and $#enever practica!le and convenient. )"g ,hiaCs case is o" "aturaliBatio" there ore the rule o evide"ce "eed "ot %e a$$lied so the evide"ce i" ;uestio" "eed "ot %e o ered.Fetitio"er ca""ot also claim that he was de$rived o the right to o%4ect to the authe"ticit- o the docume"ts su%mitted to the a$$ellate court %- the #tate %ecause docume"ts li3e his i"come ta0, marriage co"tract, 4oi"t a idavits e0ecuted %- him a"d his wi e are $u%lic docume"ts. As such, the- have %ee" e0ecuted u"der oath. 5he- are thus relia%le. 5he decisio" o the ,ourt o A$$eals was sustai"ed.

RULE 132 12. PEOPLE vsEMILIANO DURANAN& a.<.a =5a"8o= G.R. No. 1<4=(4/(& *a"uar- 16, 2==1 Statement of the Fact 3 ?milia"o 'ura"a" is aci"g ra$e cases iled i" the R5, o IueBo" ,it-. 5he $rivate com$lai"a"t is N-m$ha AoBada, who was 2& -ears old at the time o i"cide"t i" ;uestio" a"d co"sidered retarded. I" her testimo"-, it a$$eared that the accused ma"aged to have a" i"tercourse with her two times a"d o"e which did "ot $ush through due to some i"terve"tio". 5he trial court the" ruled agai"st the de e"da"t a"d i"ds him guilt- %e-o"d reaso"a%le dou%t as $ri"ci$al two 122 cou"ts o ra$e. Aside rom other de e"ses, 'ura"a" claims that the com$lai"a"t could "ot %e a com$ete"t wit"ess i she is a retarded. Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot the $rivate com$lai"a"t is com$ete"t to testi R!"#n$3 I" this case, although com$lai"a"t is a retardate, she was "evertheless a%le to tell the court what accused/a$$ella"t had do"e to her a"d to a"swer the ;uestio"s o %oth the $rosecutor a"d the de e"se cou"sel. 5his is clear rom her testimo"-. At all eve"ts, a"- o%4ectio" to the com$ete"c- o com$lai"a"t to testi should have %ee" raised %- the de e"se at the outset. It ca""ot %e raised or the irst i" this a$$eal. It has %ee" held that a $art- ma- waive his o%4ectio"s to the com$ete"c- o wit"ess a"d $ermit him to testi - i , a ter such i"com$ete"c- a$$ears, there is ailure to ma3e timel- o%4ectio", %- a $art- havi"g 3"owledge o the i"com$ete"c-, the o%4ectio" will %e deemed waived, whether it is o" the grou"d o wa"t o me"tal ca$acit- or or some other reaso". I the o%4ectio" could have %ee" ta3e" duri"g the trial, a "ew trial will %e re used a"d the o%4ectio" will "ot %e availa%le o" writ o error. I" this case, the accused ailed to o%4ect o" the testimo"- o the $rivate com$lai"a"t whe" it was o ered duri"g the trial so it a$$ears that the right to o%4ect has %ee" waived. 5he decisio" o the trial court was sustai"ed.

RULE 132 11. DEUTSCHE )AN5 MANILA vs SPOUSES CHUA YO5 SEE et a". G.R. No. 16&6=6 :e%ruar- 6, 2==6 Statement of the Fact 3 'eutsche 6a"3 iled a com$lai"t or sum o mo"e- a"d damages agai"st $rivate res$o"de"t i" the R5, o Ma3ati. 5he %a"3s claim arises rom a %reach o co"tract e"tered %- the %a"3 a"d the res$o"de"ts. A ter re$laci"g 4udge Maceda, $residi"g *udge Rei"ato G. Iuilalia ha"dled the case. At the trial the $lai"ti o ered several docume"taries evide"ce that will orm $art o the testimo"ies o the %a"3Cs wit"esses. 5he de e"da"ts iled their o%4ectio"sK comme"ts to the $lai"ti Cs o er o docume"tar- evide"ce. 5he trial court the" issued a" order $ertai"i"g to the docume"tar- evide"ce a"d almost all o it was de"ied or %ei"g irreleva"t, immaterial, hearsa-, sel /servi"g, etc. so the $lai"ti iled a motio" or reco"sideratio" a"d a" )m"i%us motio" or the 4udge to i"hi%it himsel . 5he 4udge made clear a"d categorical erro"eous $ro"ou"ceme"ts which shows %ias a"d $artialit-, a"d co"stitutes a $re4udgme"t o the case. Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot the acts o the 4udge i" re4ecti"g the evide"ce co"stitute grave a%use o discretio" o" his $art R!"#n$3 Res$o"de"t *udgeCs re4ectio" o docume"tar- e0hi%its o" valid a"d law ul grou"ds does "ot amou"t to grave a%use o discretio". As $art o his 4udicial u"ctio", the res$o"de"t *udge is u"de"ia%l- clothed with authorit- to admit or re4ect evide"ce determi"ative o the outcome o the case. 9e ma- $ro$erl- i"terve"e i" the $rese"tatio" o evide"ce to e0$edite a"d $reve"t u""ecessar- waste o time. 5he records do "ot show that the trial court was motivated %- malice a"d %ad aith i" issui"g its orders. I" act, it eve" $artiall- gra"ted $etitio"erCs motio" or reco"sideratio" o its $revious order de"-i"g some o the docume"tar- e0hi%its, a"d admitted all o its docume"tar- e0hi%its as $art o the testimo"ies o its wit"esses. ?ve" i the ruli"g ma- %e erro"eous, it is "ot a su icie"t grou"d to re;uire the $residi"g 4udge to i"hi%it himsel rom heari"g the case.

RULE 132 12. RAMON 'ERARDO ). SAN LUIS * HON. PA)LITO M. RO>AS G.R. No. 1&912( Statement of the Fact 3 Frivate res$o"de"t, 6erde0 I"ter"atio"al, I"c. iled with the R5, a com$lai"t or a sum o mo"e- agai"st $etitio"er, doc3eted as ,ivil ,ase No. 6+&<=. 8here the $rivate res$o"de"t a"d the $etitio"er e"tered i"to a" isolated tra"sactio" where the latter received certai" amou"ts o mo"e- re$rese"ti"g the ormerCs 4=O shares i" %oth #ea"et a"d #ea%est ,or$oratio". 9owever, the $rivate res$o"de"t alleged that the shares were "ot tra"s erred so the $arties agreed thereo" that the said amou"t will %e treated as loa"s. )" the other ha"d, the $etitio"er the" argued that i" view, o su%se;ue"t su%sta"tial losses i"curred %- #ea"et, $etitio"er o ered that the amou"ts he received rom $rivate res$o"de"t %e $aid %- :uegomar 5raders, I"c. 1:uegomar2, a com$a"- which he su%se;ue"tl- $ut u$ a"d which he su%sta"tiallow"ed a"d e"gaged i" the same li"e o %usi"ess as #ea"etJ while the docume"tatio" o such agreeme"t was %ei"g i"aliBed, $etitio"er the" gave >#P2=,===.== to $rivate res$o"de"t o" %ehal o :uegomarJ however, $rivate res$o"de"t the" claimed that its i"vestme"t i" #ea"et was $etitio"er7s $erso"al loa" a"d the amou"t o >#P2=,===.== $aid o" %ehal o :uegomar was maliciousl- i"ter$reted as $etitio"er7 admissio" o $erso"al lia%ilit-. 5he $re/trial co" ere"ce was termi"ated a"d the case was su%se;ue"tl- set or trial. Frivate res$o"de"t iled a M)5I)N 15o AuthoriBe 'e$ositio"/5a3i"g 5hrough 8ritte" I"terrogatories2 allegi"g that i"itial $rese"tatio" o its evide"ce is set o" Ma- <, 2==2J that however, all o its wit"esses are America"s who reside or hold o ice i" the >#AJ that o"e o the wit"esses is alread- o adva"ced age a"d travel to the Fhili$$i"es ma- %e e0tremel- di icult i "ot da"gerousJ a"d there is a $erceived da"ger to them i" the a termath o the terrorist attac3s o" #e$tem%er 11,J that writte" i"terrogatories are ideal i" this case si"ce the actual issues are alread- ver- ewJ that such mode o de$ositio"/ta3i"g will save $recious 4udicial a"d gover"me"t time a"d will $reve"t "eedless dela-s i" the case. I" his )$$ositio" a"d ,omme"t, $etitio"er co"te"ds: I i"deed there was a" oral co"tract a"d $etitio"er was lia%le to $rivate res$o"de"t or the amou"t he received rom the latter, the docume"ts attached to $rivate res$o"de"t7s com$lai"t did "ot su$$ort its claim, %ut rather su$$orted his $ositio". 5a3i"g the de$ositio" through writte" i"terrogatories would de$rive the court o the o$$ortu"it- to o%serve the ge"eral %eari"g a"d demea"or o wit"esses. Fetitio"er7s right to cross/e0ami"e the wit"esses will %e $re4udiced, si"ce he will %e limited to cross/i"terrogatories which will severel- limit "ot o"l- the sco$e %ut the s$o"ta"eit- o his cross/ e0ami"atio". It is dou%t ul whether the wit"esses will give their de$ositio" u"der sa"ctio" o the $e"alties $rescri%ed %- Fhili$$i"e law or $er4ur-. 5he claim that travel to the Fhili$$i"es would %e da"gerous or the wit"esses who are all America"s is rivolous, si"ce res$o"de"t has "ot $rese"ted evide"ce that the ># gover"me"t has $rohi%ited its citiBe"s rom traveli"g to the Fhili$$i"esJ a"d i ever there was such $rohi%itio", it was "ot %i"di"g o" our ow" legal s-stem. )ld age was "ot a valid reaso".

RULE 132 I" a" )rder, the R5, gra"ted $rivate res$o"de"t7s Motio", as it ou"d the same a$$ro$riate a"d sa"ctio"ed %- the rules o" de$ositio"/ta3i"g. Fetitio"er7s Motio" or Reco"sideratio" was de"ied i" a" )rder. Fetitio"er iled with the ,A a $etitio" or certiorari with $ra-er or the issua"ce o a tem$orar- restrai"i"g order a"dKor writ o $relimi"ar- i"4u"ctio". I" a Resolutio", the ,A dismissed the $etitio". ,A de"ied $etitio"er7s Motio" or Reco"sideratio". I" de"-i"g the motio", the ,A ou"d that "o"/com$lia"ce with the re;uireme"ts as a result o misa$$rehe"sio" a"d u" amiliarit- with the rules is "ot e0cusa%leJ that i" a"- case, #, Admi"istrative ,ircular No. </96 dated *u"e 1, 1996 states that su%se;ue"t com$lia"ce with the re;uireme"t shall "ot warra"t a reco"sideratio". 9e"ce this Fetitio". Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot de$ositio" ma- %e e0cluded o" the grou"d o hearsa- i o$$osi"g $art- was "ot give" the o$$ortu"it- to cross/e0ami"e the de$o"e"ts R!"#n$3 I" Das%arias &ar%ents, Inc. v. 'eyes, where we u$held the right o $lai"ti duri"g the trial stage o the case to $rese"t its evide"ce %- de$ositio" o its wit"esses i" a oreig" 4urisdictio" i" lieu o their oral e0ami"atio" i" court, we said: 'e$ositio"s are chie l- a mode o discover-. 5he- are i"te"ded as a mea"s to com$el disclosure o acts resti"g i" the 3"owledge o a $art- or other $erso" which are releva"t i" some suit or $roceedi"g i" court. 'e$ositio"s, a"d the other modes o discover- 1i"terrogatories to $artiesJ re;uests or admissio" %- adverse $art-J $roductio" or i"s$ectio" o docume"ts or thi"gsJ $h-sical a"d me"tal e0ami"atio" o $erso"s2 are mea"t to e"a%le a $art- to lear" all the material a"d releva"t acts, "ot o"l- 3"ow" to him a"d his wit"esses %ut also those 3"ow" to the adverse $art- a"d the latter7s ow" wit"esses. I" i"e, the o%4ect o discover- is to ma3e it $ossi%le or all the $arties to a case to lear" all the material a"d releva"t acts, rom whoever mahave 3"owledge thereo , to the e"d that their $leadi"gs or motio"s ma- "ot su er rom i"ade;uac- o actual ou"datio", a"d all the releva"t acts ma- %e clearl- a"d com$letel- laid %e ore the ,ourt, without omissio" or su$$ressio". 'e$ositio"s are $ri"ci$all- made availa%le %- law to the $arties as a mea"s o i" ormi"g themselves o all the releva"t actsJ the- are "ot there ore ge"erall- mea"t to %e a su%stitute or the actual testimo"- i" o$e" court o a $art- or wit"ess. 5he de$o"e"t must as a rule %e $rese"ted or oral e0ami"atio" i" o$e" court at the trial or heari"g. 5his is a re;uireme"t o the rules o evide"ce. #ectio" 1, Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt. I"deed, a"- de$ositio" o ered to $rove the acts therei" set out duri"g a trial or heari"g, i" lieu o the actual oral testimo"- o the de$o"e"t i" o$e" court, ma- %e o$$osed a"d e0cluded o" the grou"d that it is hearsa-: the $artagai"st whom it is o ered has "o o$$ortu"it- to cross/e0ami"e the de$o"e"t at the time that his testimo"- is o ered. It matters "ot that o$$ortu"it- or cross/ e0ami"atio" was a orded duri"g the ta3i"g o the de$ositio"J or "ormall-, the o$$ortu"it- or cross/e0ami"atio" must %e accorded a $art- at the time that the testimo"ial evide"ce is actuall- $rese"ted agai"st him duri"g the trial or heari"g.

RULE 132

Ho?e*e1& 9e0o #t#on ma: 8e ! e9 ?#tho!t the 9e0onent 8e#n$ act!a"": ca""e9 to the ?#tne tan9 8: the 01o0onent& !n9e1 ce1ta#n con9#t#on an9 fo1 ce1ta#n "#m#te9 0!10o e . The e e@ce0t#ona" #t!at#on a1e $o*e1ne9 8: Sect#on +& R!"e 2+ of the R!"e of Co!1t. #?, 4. >se o de$ositio"s. Q At the trial or u$o" the heari"g o a motio" o a" i"terlocutor- $roceedi"g, a"- $art or all o a de$ositio", so ar as admissi%le u"der the rules o evide"ce, ma- %e used agai"st a"- $art- who was $rese"t or re$rese"ted at the ta3i"g o the de$ositio" or who had due "otice thereo , i" accorda"ce with a"- o the ollowi"g $rovisio"s: 000 1c2 The 9e0o #t#on of a ?#tne & ?hethe1 o1 not a 0a1t:& ma: 8e ! e9 8: an: 0a1t: fo1 an: 0!10o e #f the co!1t f#n9 3 112 that the wit"ess is deadJ or A2B that the ?#tne #f o!t of the 01o*#nce an9 at a $1eate1 9# tance than f#ft: A-2B <#"omete1 f1om the 0"ace of t1#a" o1 hea1#n$& o1 # o!t of the Ph#"#00#ne & !n"e #t a00ea1 that h# a8 ence ?a 01oc!1e9 8: the 0a1t: offe1#n$ the 9e0o #t#onC or 1<2 that the wit"ess is u"a%le to atte"d to testi - %ecause o age, sic3"ess, i" irmit-, or im$riso"me"tJ or 142 that the $art- o eri"g the de$ositio" has %ee" u"a%le to $rocure the atte"da"ce o the wit"ess %- su%$oe"aJ or 1&2 u$o" a$$licatio" a"d "otice, that such e0ce$tio"al circumsta"ces e0ist as to ma3e it desira%le, i" the i"terest o 4ustice a"d with due regard to the im$orta"ce o $rese"ti"g the testimo"- o wit"esses orall- i" o$e" court, to allow the de$ositio" to %e usedJ 000 5hus, we i"d "o grave a%use o discretio" committed %- the R5, i" gra"ti"g $rivate res$o"de"t7s M)5I)N 15o Allow 'e$ositio"/5a3i"g 5hrough 8ritte" I"terrogatories2 co"sideri"g $rivate res$o"de"t7s allegatio" i" its M)5I)N that its wit"esses are all America"s residi"g i" the >.#. 5his situatio" is o"e o the e0ce$tio"s or its admissi%ilit- u"der #ectio" 41c2122, Rule 2< o the Rules o ,ourt, i.e., that the wit"ess resides at a dista"ce o more tha" o"e hu"dred 11==2 3ilometers rom the $lace o trial or heari"g, or is out o the Fhili$$i"es, u"less it a$$ears that his a%se"ce was $rocured %- the $art- o eri"g the de$ositio". Fetitio"er co"te"ds that si"ce $rivate res$o"de"t will have the testimo"ies o its wit"esses i" a"other 4urisdictio", the sa"ctio" o $e"alt- or $er4ur- u"der our laws would "ot a$$l- to themJ a"d $etitio"er ma- "ot %e a%le to e" orce its ow" claim agai"st $rivate res$o"de"t, si"ce it is domiciled i" a oreig" cou"tr- a"d does "ot a$$ear to have a"- assets i" the Fhili$$i"es. 8e will "ot ve"ture to ma3e a"determi"atio" o" this matter, as it would %e $remature, co"4ectural or a"tici$ator-. 8e must o"l- deal with a" e0isti"g case or co"trovers- that is a$$ro$riate or ri$e or 4udicial determi"atio", "ot o"e that is co"4ectural or merel- a"tici$ator-. 89?R?:)R?, the $etitio" is GRAN5?'. 5he Resolutio"s dated #e$tem%er 11, 2==2 a"d Ma- 2=, 2==< o the ,ourt o A$$eals are R?!?R#?' a"d #?5 A#I'?. 9owever, the )rders dated Ma- 9, 2==2 a"d *ul- <, 2==2issued %the Regio"al 5rial ,ourt o Fasig ,it- i" ,ivil ,ase No. 6+&<= sta"d.

RULE 132 13. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARMIE SER,ANO : 'AOR G.R. Nos. 14<==2/=<. *ul- 1(, 2==< Statement of the Fact 3 :or automatic review is the 4oi"t decisio" L o 6ra"ch <= o the Regio"al 5rial ,ourt o the :i th *udicial Regio" statio"ed i" #a" *ose ,amari"es #ur, i"di"g a$$ella"t guilt- %e-o"d reaso"a%le dou%t o two cou"ts o ra$e a"d im$osi"g u$o" him the death $e"alt- i" each case. 5wo se$arate i" ormatio" were iled agai"st a$$ella"t ,harmie #erva"o chargi"g him with two cou"ts o ra$e %oth committed o" *u"e 1<, 199+ agai"st his daughter, Ail-" #erva"o. >$o" arraig"me"t, the a$$ella"t, assisted %- his cou"sel, $leaded "ot guiltto %oth charges. ,o"sideri"g that the $arties were the same i" %oth cases a"d the i"cide"ts which gave rise thereto occurred o" the same date, 4oi"t trial o" the merits was co"ducted %- the trial court. 5he $rosecutio" $rese"ted three wit"esses: $rivate com$lai"a"t Ail-" #erva"o, 'r. Ro%erto ?"ri;ueB a"d 6ara"ga- ,hairma" *ose 6arro. It rested its case with the admissio" o its ?0hi%its DAE to D?E with su%mar3i"gs or %oth cases. )" the other ha"d, the de e"se $rese"ted the a$$ella"t, ,harmie #erva"o, as its lo"e wit"ess a"d rested its case without a"- docume"tar- evide"ce. Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot swor" stateme"ts orm $art o the evide"ce i o ered si"ce it com$lime"ts direct testimo"ormall-

R!"#n$3 ?vide"ce i" crimi"al cases is "ot limited to the declaratio"s made i" o$e" courtJ it i"cludes all docume"ts, a idavits or swor" stateme"ts o the wit"esses, a"d other su$$orti"g evide"ce. It com$rehe"ds somethi"g more tha" 4ust the mere testimo"- o a wit"ess.5hus, whe" a swor" stateme"t has %ee" ormall- o ered as evide"ce, it orms a" i"tegral $art o the $rosecutio" evide"ce which should "ot %e ig"ored or it com$leme"ts a"d com$letes the testimo"- o" the wit"ess sta"d. A swor" stateme"t is a writte" declaratio" o acts to which the declara"t has swor" %e ore a" o icer authoriBed to admi"ister oaths. 5his oath vests credi%ilit- a"d trustworthi"ess o" the docume"t. 5he act that a wit"ess ails to reiterate, duri"g trial, the co"te"ts o his swor" stateme"t should "ot a ect his credi%ilit- a"d re"der the swor" stateme"t useless a"d i"sig"i ica"t, as lo"g as it is $rese"ted as evide"ce i" o$e" court. 5his is "ot to sa-, however, that the swor" stateme"t should %e give" more $ro%ative value tha" the actual testimo"-. Rather, the swor" stateme"t a"d the o$e" court declaratio"s must %e evaluated a"d e0ami"ed together in toto so that a ull a"d thorough determi"atio" o the merits o the case ma- %e achieved. Givi"g weight to a wit"essC oral testimo"- duri"g the trial should "ot mea" %ei"g o%livious to the other $ieces o availa%le evide"ce such as the swor" stateme"t. I" li3e ma""er, the court ca""ot give $ro%ative value to the swor" stateme"t to the e0clusio" o the oral testimo"-. I" ever- case, the court should review, assess a"d

RULE 132 weigh the tota"#t: o the evide"ce $rese"ted %- the $arties. It should "ot co" i"e itsel to oral testimo"- duri"g trial. I" the i"sta"t case, the swor" stateme"t o com$lai"a"t co"tai"ed a detailed accou"t o the two ra$e i"cide"ts which made it as co"vi"ci"g a"d as $ersuasive as her testimo"-. 5o $rove her age, the $rosecutio" adduced i" evide"ce what $ur$orted to %e Ail-" #erva"oCs certi icate o live %irth. 9owever, this docume"t was correctldisregarded %- the trial court %ecause, aside rom its %elated registratio", there were irregularities atte"da"t to its $re$aratio", such as the erro"eous dates a"d "ames o certai" $erso"s a$$eari"g thereo". 8hile com$lai"a"t testi ied that she was %or" o" *a"uar- (, 19+6, the date o %irth o" her %irth certi icate is August 4, 19+6. Also, the middle i"itial o the $rivate com$lai"a"t hersel was writte" erro"eousl- as D:E i"stead o D,E. 5he "ame o the a$$ella"t u"der the s$ace or Di" orma"tE was merel- su$erim$osed o" what a$$eared to %e that o a"other $erso". I" the a%se"ce o a"- other com$ete"t evide"ce, such as the %a$tismal certi icate, school records or the testimo"- o the victimCs relatives, the testimo"- o the $rivate com$lai"a"t was "ot su icie"t $roo o her actual age without a" e0$ress a"d clear admissio" thereo %- the a$$ella"t, $ursua"t to our ruli"g i" People vs. Pruna. #i"ce it was the $rosecutio" that had the %urde" o $rovi"g the age o the o e"ded $art-, the ailure o the a$$ella"t to o%4ect to the testimo"ial evide"ce regardi"g the victimCs age could "ot %e ta3e" agai"st him. 5he $rosecutio" ailed to $rove the actual age o the $rivate com$lai"a"t as alleged i" the se$arate i" ormatio", thus the a$$ella"t should %e co"victed o sim$le ra$e a"d se"te"ced accordi"gl- to reclusion perpetua i" each case. *uris$rude"ce dictates that, u$o" a i"di"g o the act o ra$e, the award o civil i"dem"it- e delicto i" the amou"t o F&=,=== %ecomes ma"dator-. I" additio", the victim Ail-" is e"titled to the amou"t o F&=,=== as moral damages, without "eed o $roo , a"d a"other F2&,=== as e0em$lar- damages or each cou"t o ra$e, to set a" e0am$le or the $u%lic good. 89?R?:)R?, the 4udgme"t o the lower court is here%- A::IRM?' with the M)'I:I,A5I)N that a$$ella"t ,harmie #erva"o is ou"d guilt- o two cou"ts o sim$le ra$e a"d is se"te"ced to su er the $e"alt- o reclusion perpetua or each cou"t o ra$e. 9e is also ordered to $a- or each cou"t o ra$e the amou"t o 1a2 F&=,=== as civil i"dem"it- 1%2 F&=,=== as moral damages a"d 1c2 F2&,=== as e0em$lar- damages.

RULE 132 1+. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PEDRIN' CALIDTRO& CELSO FERRER an9 LOUIE FERRER& acc! e9& PEDRIN' CALIDTRO G.R. No. 92<&& *a"uar- 24, 1991 Statement of the Fact 3 5he accused Fedri"g ,ali0tro, ,elso :errer a"d Aouie :errer were charged with the crime o Ro%%er- with Ra$e. 8hile the Astelero amil- were $eace ull- resti"g i" their a%ode, ?deliBa heard the %ar3i"g o dogsJ she $ee$ed thru the hole o their wi"dow a"d she saw three male $erso"s. #he we"t to her hus%a"d o" the %ed a"d awa3e"ed him. 6oth $ee$ed through the hole o the wi"dow where the- saw three me" calli"g rom outside, @Ma"a"g, Ma"a"g, %u3sa" mo a"g $i"tua".@ #he we"t "ear the door o their hut. )"e o the three $erso"s threate"ed her that i she would "ot o$e" the door, thewould %last the house with a ha"d gre"ade. #he was a%out to o$e" the door %ut theco"ti"ued 3ic3i"g the door to o$e" the same. 5he" the- hac3ed the wall o their house a"d the same ell dow". #he was a raid that her amil- would %e 3illed, so she decided to o$e" the door. As she was o$e"i"g the door, ,elso :errer $ulled her outside o the house a"d threate"ed her "ot to as3 or hel$. 5he" the- dragged her out to the middle o the ields. I" the middle o the ield, ,elso :errer a"d Aouie :errer too3 hold o her arms a"d $oi"ted a %laded wea$o" at her "ec3. At that ver- mome"t, accused Fedri"g ,ali0tro told her that i she would "ot give her woma"hood she would %e 3illed. #he $leaded or merc- %ut accused Fedri"g ,ali0tro succeeded i" removi"g her duster a"d short $a"ts. #he struggled %ut the accused started hurti"g her thighs. Fedri"g ,ali0tro succeeded i" havi"g se0ual i"tercourse with the victim, while ,elso :errer too3 o her ri"g a"d earri"gs. ,elso :errer a"d Aouie :errer too3 tur"s i" a%usi"g her. A ter the hei"ous acts, the three accused de%ated whether to 3ill ?deliBa Astelero or "ot. ?deliBa too3 the o$$ortu"it- to lee while the three were discussi"g. #he ra" as ast as she could u"til she saw a 4ee$, which she later ou"d to %e carr-i"g her hus%a"d. 5herea ter, she was %rought to the hacie"da o 6e%a"g Adria"o. 5he testimo"- o com$lai"a"t wit"ess is corro%orated %- Rogelio de la ,ruB, a %ara"ga- ta"od a"d "eigh%or o the Asteleros. ) the three accused, o"l- Fedri"g ,ali0tro was a$$rehe"ded. Fedri"g ,ali0tro $leaded @"ot guilt-@ to the crime charged, therea ter, trial o" the merits e"sued. A ter trial, the court a (uo re"dered a decisio" i"di"g the accused guilt%e-o"d reaso"a%le dou%t o the crime o Ra$e as descri%ed u"der Art. <<& o the Revised Fe"al ,ode. 9e"ce this a$$eal. Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot the lower ,ourt erred i" categoricall- $ro"ou"ci"g that the testimo"ies o the com$lai"a"t duri"g the trial o the case clearl- esta%lished the guilt o accused/a$$ella"t %e-o"d reaso"a%le dou%t

RULE 132 R!"#n$3 5here are three settled $ri"ci$les to guide a" a$$ellate court i" reviewi"g the evide"ce i" ra$e cases: 112 a" accusatio" or ra$e ca" %e made with acilit-J it is di icult to $rove it %ut more di icult or the $erso" accused, though i""oce"t, to dis$rove it 1Feo$le v. Alda"a, G.R. No. +1+1(, *ul- 2(, 19+92J 122 i" view o the i"tri"sic "ature o the crime o ra$e where two $erso"s are usuall- i"volved, the testimo"- o the com$lai"a"t must %e scruti"iBed with e0treme cautio"J a"d 1<2 the evide"ce or the $rosecutio" must sta"d or all o" its ow" merits, a"d ca""ot %e allowed to draw stre"gth rom the wea3"ess o the evide"ce or the de e"se 1Feo$le v. !illa$a"a, 161 #,RA (22. 8hat is decisive i" the ra$e charged is com$lai"a"t7s $ositive ide"ti icatio" o the accused/a$$ella"t as the male actor. I" the case at %ar, the de e"se de$e"ded heavil- o" su$$osed i"co"siste"cies $ervadi"g com$lai"a"t7s testimo"- at the trial court %elow. 8e i"d the alleged i"co"siste"cies as too trivial, i"sig"i ica"t a"d i"co"se;ue"tial to merit the reversal o the trial court7s decisio". 5he i"co"siste"cies $oi"ted out %- a$$ella"t ca" hardla ect the com$lai"a"t7s credi%ilit-. 5he- re er to mi"or details or to the $recise se;ue"ce o eve"ts that do "ot detract rom the ce"tral act o ra$e, o" which com$lai"a"t had co"siste"tl- a"d ca"didl- testi ied. A wit"ess who is i" a state o light ca""ot %e e0$ected to recall with accurac- or u"i ormit- matters co""ected with the mai" overt act 1Feo$le v. Ramilo, supra2. 5he testimo"ial discre$a"cies could have also %ee" caused %- the "atural ic3le"ess o memor-, which te"d to stre"gthe", rather tha" wea3e", credi%ilit- as the- erase a"- sus$icio" o rehearsed testimo"-. 5hese discre$a"cies o" mi"or details serve to add crede"ce a"d veracitto her categorical, straight orward, a"d s$o"ta"eous testimo"-. Mi"or discre$a"cies i"dicate that the wit"ess was "ot $reviousl- rehearsed, a"d co"se;ue"tl- stre"gthe" her credi%ilit-. It would have %ee" more sus$icious i com$lai"a"t had %ee" a%le to $i"$oi"t with clarit- or descri%ed with $recisio" the e0act se;ue"ce o eve"ts. 5he ra$e victim should "ot %e e0$ected to 3ee$ a" accurate accou"t o the traumatic a"d horri -i"g e0$erie"ce she we"t through. Needless to sa-, whe" the issue is o"e o credi%ilit- o wit"esses, the i"di"gs o the trial court are ge"erall- accorded a high degree o res$ect, the court havi"g o%served the demea"or a"d de$ortme"t o wit"ess. 8e i"d "o com$elli"g reaso" to deviate rom this settled rule. 5his is corro%orated %- the testimo"- o Rogelio de la ,ruB who saw Fedri"g ,ali0tro, ,elso :errer a"d Aouie :errer dragged ?deliBa Astelero out o her house. A$$ella"t $ut u$ the de e"se o ali%i that he was loo3i"g a ter his irrigatio" tas3 whe" he heard shouts, a"d we"t %ac3 a ter havi"g a ist ight with ,elso :errer. 'e e"se o ali%i is i"here"tl- wea3 a"d ca""ot $revail over the $ositive ide"ti icatio" o the accused 1Feo$le v. ,a-ago, 1&+ #,RA &+62. :or the de e"se o ali%i to succeed, the accused must esta%lish $h-sical im$ossi%ilit- a"d im$ro$er motive o the $rosecutio" wit"esses, which matters the accused ailed to $rove. 8e i"d the accused7s guilt to have %ee" $roved %e-o"d reaso"a%le dou%t. A,,)R'INGAH, the 4udgme"t o co"victio" is here%- A::IRM?', IN,R?A#ING the $e"alt- im$osed o" the a$$ella"t to three 1<2 $e"alties o ')*+,-ION P)'P)T,A, a"d or him to i"dem"i - the o e"ded $art- i" the sum o F<=,===.== i" each case or a total o F9=,===.== a"d to $a- the costs.

RULE 132 %a#*e1 of C1o 4e@am#nat#on 1-. EMILIO DE LA PA(& >R.& et a". vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT& et a"., '.R. No. /1-3/ Se0tem8e1 1/& 17./ Statement of the Fact 3 5he case i"volves the 4udicial declaratio" o ow"ershi$ o a $arcel o la"d allegedl- i"cluded i" the $ro%ate $roceedi"gs or Fo"cia"o de la FaBC testate estate a"d was ad4udicated to Aoreto a"d her mother. 5he $arties, e0ce$t or $etitio"er ?"ri;ue de la FaB, were admittedlcom$ulsor- heirs o Fo"cia"o de la FaB who died i" 1916. Aoreto was the o"llegitimate child o Fo"cia"o while the others are recog"iBed "atural childre". A ter Aoreto i"ished her direct testimo"-, the $etitio"ersC cou"sel %ega" his cross/e0ami"atio". 9e was "ot a%le to com$lete it so he moved or the co"ti"ua"ce o the cross/e0ami"atio" o" the grou"d that he still had to co"duct a le"gth- cross/ e0ami"atio". 5his was however the start o the series o $ost$o"eme"t a"d ailure to a$$ear %- the cou"sel a"d $etitio"ers o" set heari"gs des$ite due "otice. Aoreto moved or the $rese"tatio" o evide"ce e0 $arte a"d was a%le to $rese"t a"d su%mit her case or decisio" i" #e$tem%er, 19+4. #he u" ortu"atel- died i" 'ecem%er, 19+4. At the resum$tio" o the trial, the $etitio"ers moved ver%all- to stri3e o the record the e"tire testimo"- o Aoreto as the- were "ot a%le to cross/e0ami"e Aoreto. 5he motio" was de"ied. *udgeme"t was eve"tuall- re"dered i" avoro Aoreto a"d her heirs. Statement of the I !e3 8as the de e"se de"ied the right to cross e0ami"e the wit"essR R!"#n$3 No. 5hough the ,ourt co"siste"tl- ruled o" the "ature o the right o cross/ e0ami"atio", to wit: Dthe right o a $art- to co" ro"t a"d cross/e0ami"e o$$osi"g wit"esses i" a 4udicial litigatio", %e it crimi"al or civil i" "ature, or i" $roceedi"gs %e ore admi"istrative tri%u"als with ;uasi/4udicial $owers, is a u"dame"tal right which is $art o due $rocess. 1#avor- Au"cheo"ette v. Aa3as"gMa"ggagawa"g Fili$i"o, et al., 19(&, 62 #,RA 2&+2E

RULE 132 Dthe right o a $art- to cross/e0ami"e the wit"ess o his adversar- i" i"valua%le as it is i"viola%le i" civil cases, "o less tha" the right o the accused i" crimi"al cases. 5he e0$ress recog"itio" o such right o the accused i" the ,o"stitutio" does "ot re"der the right thereto o $arties i" civil cases less co"stitutio"all- %ased, or it is a" i"dis$e"sa%le $art o the due $rocess guara"teed %- the u"dame"tal law. ... >"til such cross/e0ami"atio" has %ee" i"ished, the testimo"- o the wit"ess ca""ot %e co"sidered as com$lete a"d ma- "ot, there ore, %e allowed to orm $art o the evide"ce to %e co"sidered %- the court i" decidi"g the case. 16acrach Motor ,o., I"c., v. ,ourt o I"dustrial Relatio"s, +6 #,RA 2( citi"g #avor- Au"cheo"ette v. Aa3as"gMa"ggagawa"g Fili$i"o, et al., supra, )rtigas, *r. vs. Au tha"sa Germa" Airli"es, 64 #,RA 61=2.E 6ut we have also ruled that it is "ot a" a%solute right which a $art- ca" dema"d at all times. 5his ,ourt has stated that: the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. 5he co"duct o a $art- which ma- %e co"strued as a" im$lied waiver o the right to cross/e0ami"e ma- ta3e various orms. 6ut the commo" %asic $ri"ci$le u"derl-i"g the a$$licatio" o the rule o" im$lied waiver is that the $art- was give" the o$$ortu"it- to co" ro"t a"d cross/e0ami"e a" o$$osi"g wit"ess %ut ailed to ta3e adva"tage o it or reaso"s attri%uta%le to himsel alo"e. I" the case at %ar, the $etitio"ers7 ailure to cross/e0ami"e Aoreto was through "o ault o the res$o"de"ts. As ca" %e glea"ed rom the record, Aoreto was availa%le or cross/e0ami"atio" rom the time she i"ished her direct testimo"- u"til the last scheduled heari"g o the case %e ore her death.5he $etitio"ers "ot o"l- 3e$t o" $ost$o"i"g the cross/e0ami"atio" %ut at times ailed to a$$ear duri"g scheduled heari"gs. >"der these circumsta"ces, the ,ourt ruled that the $etitio"ers had waived their right to cross/e0ami"e Aoreto. 5hrough their ow" ault, the- lost their right to cross/e0ami"e Aoreto. 9er testimo"- sta"ds.

RULE 132 C"a1#f#cato1: E!e t#on f1om the >!9$e 16. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CONRADO DE LEON& ANDRIN' DE LEON& >OHN DOE Aat "a1$eB, '.R. No. 1++2-2. Ma1ch 6& 2222 Statement of the Fact 3 5he accused ,o"rado de Aeo" was ou"d guilt- o murder ;uali ied %treacher- or the sta%%i"g o victim ,ris$i" 'ela Fe"a which eve"tuall- led to latterCs death. 5he trial court 4udge relied o" the d-i"g declaratio" o the victim who was a%le to ide"ti - his assaila"ts a"d relate it to his mother a"d %rother while he was %ei"g %rought to the hos$ital. )" a$$eal, the accused i" his assig"me"t o error $oi"ted out that the trial 4udge Ditchi"g to co"vict the accused/a$$ella"t, started cross/e0ami"i"g the wit"ess eve" %e ore the $u%lic $rosecutor could as3 his irst ;uestio", there%- ta3i"g over rom the $rosecutio" the tas3 o im$eachi"g Arma"do Ro;ueCs 1de e"se wit"ess2 credi%ilit-.E Statement of the I !e3 'id the trial 4udge wro"g ull- $artici$ated i" the cross/e0ami"atio" o the de e"se wit"essR R!"#n$3 No. I" the $rese"t case, the o"l- $ur$ose o the trial 4udge was to arrive at the truth a"d do 4ustice to %oth $arties. A" accusatio" o u" air"ess ca""ot %e su$$orted whe" his i"te"tio" was merel- to elicit the truth.As this ,ourt has alread- ruled, 4udges ma- as3 ;uestio"s that would elicit the acts o the issues i"volved, clari am%iguous remar3s %- wit"esses, a"d address the $oi"ts that ma- have %ee" overloo3ed %- cou"sel. As this ,ourt has held, the $artici$atio" o 4udges i" the co"duct o trials ca""ot %e co"dem"ed outrightl-. 5he- ca""ot %e e0$ected to remai" alwa-s $assive a"d stoic duri"g the $roceedi"gs.A ter all, the- are "ot $rohi%ited rom as3i"g ;uestio"s whe" $ro$er a"d "ecessar-. I" act, this ,ourt has re$eatedl- ruled that 4udges @must %e accorded a reaso"a%le leewa- i" as3i"g Lwit"essesM ;uestio"s 0 0 0 as ma- %e esse"tial to elicit releva"t acts a"d to %ri"g out the truth.E

RULE 132 5his mea"s that D;uestio"s desig"ed to clari - $oi"ts a"d to elicit additio"al releva"t evide"ce are "ot im$ro$er. Also, the 4udge, %ei"g the ar%iter, ma- $ro$erli"terve"e i" the $rese"tatio" o evide"ce to e0$edite a"d $reve"t u""ecessar- waste o time.E 5rial 4udges ma- e0ami"e some o the wit"esses or the de e"se or the $ur$ose o erreti"g out the truth a"d getti"g to the %ottom o the acts. 5hat the- do so would "ot 4usti - the charge that the- assist the $rosecutio" with the evide"t desire to secure a co"victio", or that the- i"timidate the wit"esses. !eril-, the- are 4udges o %oth the law a"d the acts. 5he- would %e "eglige"t i" the $er orma"ce o their duties i the- $ermit a miscarriage o 4ustice through their ailure to $ro$ou"d ;uestio"s that have some material %eari"g u$o" the outcome. I" the e0ercise o sou"d discretio", the- ma- cross/e0ami"e these wit"esses or as3 them such ;uestio"s as will e"a%le the ormer to ormulate sou"d o$i"io"s o" the a%ilit- o the latter to tell the truth, a"d to draw out releva"t a"d material testimo"ies that masu$$ort or re%ut the $ositio" ta3e" %- o"e or the other $art- . E*en #f the c"a1#f#cato1: F!e t#on the: 01o0o!n9 ha00en to 1e*ea" ce1ta#n t1!th that ten9 to 9e t1o: the theo1: of one of the 0a1t#e & 8#a # not nece a1#": #m0"#e9. I" the $rese"t case, the o"l- $ur$ose o the trial 4udge was to arrive at the truth a"d do 4ustice to %oth $arties. A" accusatio" o u" air"ess ca""ot %e su$$orted whe" his i"te"tio" was merel- to elicit the truth.As this ,ourt has alread- ruled, 4udges ma- as3 ;uestio"s that would elicit the acts o the issues i"volved, clari am%iguous remar3s %- wit"esses, a"d address the $oi"ts that ma- have %ee" overloo3ed %- cou"sel. Accused was ou"d guilt- o 9omicide, "ot Murder.

RULE 132 A9m# #8#"#t: of Off#c#a" Ent1#e 1/. ERNESTO M. FULLERO * . PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES G.R. N). 1(=&+<. #e$tem%er 12, 2==( Statement of the Fact 3 Fetitio"er :ullero was charged with alsi icatio" o $u%lic docume"t %allegedl- i"dicati"g i" his Ferso"al 'ata #heet that he $assed the ,ivil ?"gi"eeri"g 6oard ?0ami"atio" co"trar- to records with the Fro essio"al Regulatio" ,ommissio". Statement of the I !e 3 a. 8hether or "ot the ho"ora%le court o a$$eals erred i" sustai"i"g the 4udgme"t o the regio"al trial court des$ite the act that said lower court co"victed the accused i" the a%se"ce o su icie"t evide"ce i.e., $roo to show that the accused actuall- $er ormed the act o alsi icatio" he is accused o J a"d %. 8hether or "ot the ho"ora%le court o a$$eals erred i" sustai"i"g the 4udgme"t o the regio"al trial court des$ite the act that said R5, admitted evide"ces "ot $ro$erl- ide"ti ied a"d therea ter co"sidered the same i" determi"i"g the alleged guilt o the accused. R!"#n$3 a. Fetitio"er i"ter$osed de"ials a"d ali%i to su$$ort his co"te"tio"s. Fetitio"er de"ied that he e0ecuted a"d su%mitted the su%4ect F'# co"tai"i"g the stateme"t that he $assed the %oard e0ami"atio"s or civil e"gi"eeri"g. 9e li3ewise disow"ed the sig"ature a"d thum%mar3 a$$eari"g therei". 9e averred that the F'# he accom$lished a"d su%mitted was t-$ewritte" i" ca$ital letters si"ce his t-$ewriter does "ot have small lettersJ thus, the su%4ect F'# could "ot %e his si"ce the letters were t-$ewritte" i" small a"d ca$ital lettersJ that the stro3e o the sig"ature a$$eari"g i" the F'# di ers rom the stro3e o his ge"ui"e sig"atureJ that Magistrado had a" ill motive i" ili"g the i"sta"t case agai"st him si"ce he issued a memora"dum agai"st her or the latterCs mis%ehavior i" the 65), Iriga ,it-J that he is "ot a lice"sed civil e"gi"eerJ a"d that he accom$lished a di ere"t F'# i" the 65), Iriga ,it-. Fetitio"er testi ied that he ca""ot recall the e0act date whe" he issued the alleged memora"dum agai"st Magistrado a"d whe" duri"g the trial o his $er4urcase agai"st Magistrado, he claimed that he is a lice"sed civil e"gi"eer. 9e ca""ot also remem%er i he su%mitted a letter to the ,#,, Regio"al ) ice No. &, AegaB$i ,it-, a$$l-i"g or the $ositio" o either a *u"ior 5elecommu"icatio"s ?"gi"eer or 5elecommu"icatio"s 5ra ic #u$ervisora"d the act that he su%mitted therei" a certi icatio" that he is a lice"sed civil e"gi"eer. Although "o"e o the $rosecutio" wit"esses actuall- saw the $etitio"er alsi -i"g the F'#, the-, "o"etheless, testi ied that that the- are ver- amiliar with the $etitio"erCs ha"dwriti"g a"d sig"ature. Magistrado testi ied that, %ei"g a su%ordi"ate o $etitio"er, she is ver- amiliar with $etitio"erCs sig"ature a"d actuall-

RULE 132 wit"essed $etitio"er a i0i"g his sig"ature o" her dail- time records or #e$tem%er 19+( to Ma- 19++.6riBo testi ied that he is also amiliar with $etitio"erCs sig"ature %ecause he $erso"all- 3"ows $etitio"er a"d that he regularl- received $etitio"erCs dail- time records a"d other docume"ts %eari"g $etitio"erCs sig"ature. 6oth Magistrado a"d 6riBo o$i"ed that the sig"ature i" the F'# %elo"gs to $etitio"er. I" a%solute dis$arit-, the evide"ce or the de e"se is com$rised o de"ials. Fetitio"er de"ied havi"g accom$lished a"d sig"ed the F'#. 9e tried to im$art that someo"e else had illed it u$. 9owever, aside rom this sel /servi"g a"d "egative claim, he did "ot adduce a"- co"vi"ci"g $roo to e ectivel- re ute the evide"ce or the $rosecutio". It is a hor"%oo3 doctri"e that as %etwee" %are de"ials a"d $ositive testimo"o" a irmative matters, the latter is accorded greater evide"tiar- weight. %. Fetitio"er co"te"ded that the $rosecutio"Cs docume"tar- evide"ce are i"admissi%le i" evide"ce %ased o" the ollowi"g reaso"s: 11.2 5he ,erti icatio" o the FR, dated 1( *a"uar- 199+, co" irmi"g that $etitio"erCs "ame does "ot a$$ear i" the registr- %oo3s o lice"sed civil e"gi"eers was "ot $ro$erl- ide"ti ied duri"g the trial. 5he $ro$er $erso" to ide"ti - the certi icatio" should have %ee" the sig"ator- therei" which was FR, 'irector II, or i" his a%se"ce, a $erso" who actuall- wit"essed the e0ecutio" o the certi icatio". Frosecutio" wit"ess, who was "ot $rese"t whe" the certi icatio" was e0ecuted, had ide"ti ied the certi icatio" duri"g the trial. 5hus, the co"te"ts o the certi icatio" are mere hearsa-J #ectio" <6, Rule 1<= o the Rules o" ?vide"ce, states that a wit"ess ca" testi - o"l- to those acts which he 3"ows o or comes rom his $erso"al 3"owledge, that is, which are derived rom his $erce$tio". A wit"ess, there ore, ma- "ot testi as to what he merel- lear"ed rom others either %ecause he was told, or he read or heard the same. #uch testimo"- is co"sidered hearsa- a"d ma- "ot %e received as $roo o the truth o what he has lear"ed. 5his is 3"ow" as the hearsa- rule. 5he law, however, $rovides or s$eci ic e0ce$tio"s to the hearsa- rule. )"e o the e0ce$tio"s is the e"tries i" o icial records made i" the $er orma"ce o dut- %a $u%lic o icer.I" other words, o icial e"tries are admissi%le i" evide"ce regardless o whether the o icer or $erso" who made them was $rese"ted a"d testi ied i" court, si"ce these e"tries are co"sidered $rima acie evide"ce o the acts stated therei". )ther recog"iBed reaso"s or this e0ce$tio" are "ecessit- a"d trustworthi"ess. 5he "ecessit- co"sists i" the i"co"ve"ie"ce a"d di icult- o re;uiri"g the o icialCs atte"da"ce as a wit"ess to testi - to i""umera%le tra"sactio"s i" the course o his dut-. 5his will also u"dul- ham$er $u%lic %usi"ess. 5he trustworthi"ess co"sists i" the $resum$tio" o regularit- o $er orma"ce o o icial dut- %- a $u%lic o icer. 5he ,erti icatio" o the FR, dated 1( *a"uar- 199+, was sig"ed %- the 'irector II o the FR,, Ma"ila.Although the 'irector was "ot $rese"ted i" court or did "ot testi - duri"g the trial to veri - the said certi icatio", such certi icatio" is co"sidered as $rima acie evide"ce o the acts stated therei" a"d is there ore $resumed to %e truth ul, %ecause $etitio"er did "ot $rese"t a"- $lausi%le $roo to re%ut its truth ul"ess. It is there ore admissi%le i" evide"ce.

RULE 132 112 A machi"e co$- o the F'#, does "ot show that it was the $etitio"er who $re$ared a"d su%mitted the F'# to 65), AegaB$i ,it-. 5here was "othi"g i" the F'# which re;uires a $eriodic su%missio" o a" u$dated F'#. Frosecutio" wit"ess 6riBo does "ot 3"ow whether $etitio"erCs F'# was $erso"all- delivered or mailed. 9e"ce, the ide"ti icatio" a"d su%se;ue"t testimo"ies o the $rosecutio" wit"esses o" the F'# are mere hearsa-J #ectio" <, Rule 12+ o the Revised Rules o" ?vide"ce, $rovides that evide"ce is admissi%le whe" it is releva"t to the issue a"d is "ot e0cluded %- the law or rules. 5he machi"e co$- o the F'# is ver- releva"t to the charge o alsi icatio" a"d is "ot e0cluded %- the law or rules. It was o ered $recisel- to $rove that $etitio"er committed the crime o alsi icatio" %- ma3i"g alse stateme"ts i" the F'#. :urther, the i" ormatio" s$eci icall- accuses $etitio"er o alsi -i"g such F'#. A scruti"- o the same would show that it is the ver- F'# which $etitio"er alsi ied a"d "ot a mere machi"e co$- as alleged %- $etitio"er. 6ei"g the origi"al alsi ied docume"t, it is the %est evide"ce o its co"te"ts a"d is there ore "ot e0cluded %- the law or rules. 122 5he 5ra"scri$t o #te"ogra$hic Notes dated 1( March 199+ o the $er4urcase iled %- $etitio"er agai"st Magistrado where $etitio"er allegedl- admitted that he is a civil e"gi"eer, lac3s $ro$er ide"ti icatio" as the ste"ogra$her or records o icer was "ot $rese"ted i" courtJ #ectio" 2, Rule 1<2 o the Revised Rules o" ?vide"ce, e0$licitl- $rovides that a tra"scri$t o the record o the $roceedi"gs made %- the o icial ste"ogra$her, ste"ot-$ist or recorder a"d certi ied as correct %- him shall %e deemed $rima acie a correct stateme"t o such $roceedi"gs. Fetitio"er ailed to i"troduce $roo that the 5ra"scri$t o #te"ogra$hic Notes dated 1( March 199+ o the $er4ur- case iled %- $etitio"er agai"st Magistrado i" which $etitio"er allegedl- admitted that he is a civil e"gi"eer, is "ot what it $ur$orts to %e. 5hus, it is $rima acie correct. Moreover, as earlier elucidated, o"e o the e0ce$tio"s to the hearsa- rule is the e"tries i" o icial records made i" the $er orma"ce o dut- %- a $u%lic o icer. It %ei"g a" o icial e"tr- i" the courtCs records, is admissi%le i" evide"ce a"d there is "o "ecessit- to $roduce the co"cer"ed ste"ogra$her as a wit"ess. 122 5he alleged letter o $etitio"er to the Regio"al 'irector o the ,#,, Regio" &, AegaB$i ,it-, a$$l-i"g or the $ositio" o either a *u"ior 5elecommu"icatio"s ?"gi"eer or 5elecommu"icatio"s 5ra ic #u$ervisorJ a"d a machi"e co$- o a certi icatio" allegedl- issued %- the FR, attesti"g that $etitio"er is a lice"sed civil e"gi"eer a"d which was allegedl- su%mitted %- $etitio"er to the Regio"al 'irector o the ,#,, Regio" &, AegaB$i ,it-, as his crede"tial i" a$$l-i"g or the a oresaid $ositio"s, are merel- machi"e co$ies a"d the loss a"d u"availa%ilit- o their origi"al were "ot $rove"J a"d #ectio" (, Rule 1<= o the Revised Rules o" ?vide"ce, $rovides that whe" the origi"al o a docume"t is i" the custod- o a $u%lic o icer or is recorded i" a $u%lic o ice, its co"te"ts ma- %e $roved %- a certi ied co$- issued %- the $u%lic o icer i" custod- thereo . 5he alleged letter o $etitio"er to the Regio"al 'irector o the ,#,, Regio" &, AegaB$i ,it-, a$$l-i"g or the $ositio" o either a *u"ior 5elecommu"icatio"s ?"gi"eer or 5elecommu"icatio"s 5ra ic #u$ervisorJ a"d ?0hi%it I, which is the machi"e co$- o a certi icatio" allegedl- issued %- the FR,

RULE 132 attesti"g that $etitio"er is a lice"sed civil e"gi"eer a"d which was allegedlsu%mitted %- $etitio"er to the Regio"al 'irector o the ,#,, Regio" &, AegaB$i ,it-, as his crede"tial i" a$$l-i"g or the a oresaid $ositio"s, are certi ied true co$ies o their origi"al docume"ts recorded or 3e$t i" the ,#,, Regio"al ) ice No. &, AegaB$i ,it- a"d, thus, admissi%le to $rove the co"te"ts o their origi"als. 1<2 5he dail- time records o Magistrado sig"ed %- $etitio"er a"d which were o ered to com$are $etitio"erCs alleged sig"ature i" the F'# with the said e0hi%its, are devoid o actual %asis. Fetitio"erCs sig"atures i" the said e0hi%its are, Dwith the use o "a3ed e-e,E "ot the same as his sig"ature i" the F'#. 5he AegaB$i ,it- R5, should have su%mitted these docume"ts to a ha"dwriti"g e0$ert or e0ami"atio" i"stead o rel-i"g o" the testimo"- o Magistrado. 5he dail- time records o Magistrado sig"ed %- $etitio"er a"d which were o ered to com$are $etitio"erCs alleged sig"ature i" the F'# with the said e0hi%its, are admissi%le i" evide"ce si"ce the- are releva"t a"d material to the charge o alsi icatio" agai"st $etitio"er. 5he sig"atures o $etitio"er i" the said e0hi%its, the authe"ticit- o which were "ot de"ied %- $etitio"er, were $rese"ted to $rove that these sig"atures were similar to $etitio"erCs sig"ature i" the F'# where he made the alleged alsi icatio". 8ell/e"tre"ched is the rule that resort to ha"dwriti"g e0$erts is "ot ma"dator-. 9a"dwriti"g e0$erts, while $ro%a%l- use ul, are "ot i"dis$e"sa%le i" e0ami"i"g or com$ari"g ha"dwriti"gs or sig"atures.5his is so si"ce u"der #ectio" 22, Rule 1<2 o the Revised Rules o" ?vide"ce, the ha"dwriti"g o a $erso" ma- %e $roved %- a"- wit"ess who %elieves it to %e the ha"dwriti"g o such $erso", %ecause he has see" the $erso" writeJ or has see" writi"g $ur$orti"g to %e his u$o" which the wit"ess has acted or has %ee" charged, a"d has thus ac;uired 3"owledge o the ha"dwriti"g o such $erso". Moreover, the o$i"io" o a "o"/e0$ert wit"ess, or which $ro$er %asis is give", ma- %e received i" evide"ce regardi"g the ha"dwriti"g or sig"ature o a $erso" with which he has su icie"t amiliarit-. 5he AegaB$i ,it- R5, was, there ore, "ot o%liged to $ut a ha"dwriti"g e0$ert o" the wit"ess sta"d a"d direct the latter to e0ami"e $etitio"erCs sig"atures i" the oregoi"g e0hi%its %e ore ruli"g o" their admissi%ilit-. It ca", as it did, rel- o" the testimo"ies o the $rosecutio" wit"esses who are amiliar with $etitio"erCs ha"dwriti"gKsig"ature i" determi"i"g the admissi%ilit- o the a oresaid e0hi%its. It ca", %- itsel , also com$are $etitio"erCs sig"ature i" the F'# with the $etitio"erCs sig"atures i" the su%4ect e0hi%its with or without the aid o a" e0$ert wit"ess a"d therea ter rule o" the admissi%ilit- o such e0hi%its %ased o" its ow" o%servatio". I" short, it ca" e0ercise i"de$e"de"t 4udgme"t as regards the admissi%ilit- o said e0hi%its.

RULE 132 Effect of *a1#ance #n ce1t#f#cate of "#*e 8#1th an9 t1an m#tte9 co0:C 1eme9: 1.. In the matte1 of the #nte tate e tate of the "ate >UAN =>HONNY= LOCSIN& SR.& LUCY A. SOLINAP ADa!$hte1 of the "ate Ma1#a Loc #nA1anetaB& the !cce o1 of the "ate LOURDES C. LOCSIN& MANUEL C. LOCSIN& ESTER LOCSIN >ARANTILLA an9 the #nte tate e tate of the "ate >OSE C. LOCSIN& >R. * . >UAN C. LOCSIN& >R. G.R. No. 146(<(. 'ecem%er 1=, 2==1 Statement of the Fact 3 Res$o"de"t *ua" Aocsi" *r. iled or letters o admi"istratio" as the sole admi"istrator allegi"g amo"g others that he is the o"l- survivi"g legal heir o the decede"t *ua" Aocsi" #r. as a" ac3"owledged "atural child o the latter. Res$o"de"t to $rove claim $rese"ted as evide"ce: a. Machi"e co$- o his ,erti icate o Aive 6irth ou"d i" the %ou"d volume o %irth records i" the ) ice o the ,ivil Aocal Registrar o Iloilo ,it-. 5he local civil registrar testi ied to its e0iste"ce a"d authe"ticit-J a"d %. A $hotogra$h showi"g res$o"de"t a"d his mother i" ro"t o the co i" %eari"g the decede"tCs dead %od-. )$$ositio" was iled %- $etitio"ers claimi"g to %e the legal heirs o the decede"t claimi"g that res$o"de"t is "either a child "or a" ac3"owledged "atural child o the decede"t a"d that the latter "ever a i0ed D#r.E i" his "ame. I" their o$$ositio"s, $etitio"ers claimed that ,erti icate o Aive 6irth $rovided %- res$o"de"t is s$urious. 5he- su%mitted a certi ied true co$- o ,erti icate o Aive 6irth ou"d i" the ,ivil Registrar Ge"eral, Metro Ma"ila i"dicati"g that the %irth o res$o"de"t was re$orted %- his mother, Am$aro ?scamilla, a"d that the same does "ot co"tai" the sig"ature o the late *ua" ,. Aocsi". 5he- o%served as a"omalous the act that while res$o"de"t was %or" o" )cto%er 22, 19&6 a"d his %irth was recorded o" *a"uar- <=, 19&(, however, his ,erti icate o Aive 6irth was recorded o" a 'ecem%er 1, 19&+ revised orm a"d the same a$$ears o" a *ul-, 19&6 orm, alread- used %e ore res$o"de"t7s %irth. 5his sce"ario clearl- suggests that it was alsi ied. Fetitio"ers $rese"ted as wit"ess a ha"dwriti"g e0$ert. 9e testi ied that the sig"atures o *ua" ,. Aocsi" a"d ?milio G. 5omesa 1the" ,ivil Registrar o Iloilo ,it-2 a$$eari"g i" ,erti icate o Aive 6irth are orgeries. 9e thus co"cluded that the said ,erti icate is a s$urious docume"t surre$titiousl- i"serted i"to the %ou"d volume o %irth records o the Aocal ,ivil Registrar o Iloilo ,it-.

RULE 132 Statement of the I !e3 8hich o the two %irth certi icates are ge"ui"eR R!"#n$3 A %irth certi icate is a ormida%le $iece o evide"ce $rescri%ed %- %oth the ,ivil ,ode a"d Article 1(2 o the :amil- ,ode or $ur$oses o recog"itio" a"d iliatio". 9owever, %irth certi icate o ers o"l- $rima acieevide"ce o iliatio" a"d ma- %e re uted %- co"trar- evide"ce.Its evide"tiar- worth ca""ot %e sustai"ed where there e0ists stro"g, com$lete a"d co"clusive $roo o its alsit- or "ullit-. I" this case, res$o"de"t7s ,erti icate o Aive 6irth e"tered i" the records o the Aocal ,ivil Registr- 1 rom which res$o"de"tCs evide"ce was machi"e co$ied2 has all the %adges o "ullit-. 8ithout dou%t, the authe"tic co$- o" ile i" that o ice was removed a"d su%stituted with a alsi ied ,erti icate o Aive 6irth. At this $oi"t, it %ears stressi"g the $rovisio" o #ectio" 2<, Rule 1<2 o the Revised Rules o ,ourt that @1d2ocume"ts co"sisti"g o e"tries i" $u%lic records made i" the $er orma"ce o a dut- %- a $u%lic o icer are$rima acie evide"ce o the acts therei" stated.@ I" this case, the glari"g discre$a"cies %etwee" the two ,erti icates o Aive 6irth have overtur"ed the ge"ui"e"ess o res$o"de"tCs co$e"tered i" the Aocal ,ivil Registr-. 8hat is authe"tic is the %irth certi icate recorded i" the ,ivil Registr- Ge"eral. I"cide"tall-, res$o"de"t7s $hotogra$h with his mother "ear the co i" o the late *ua" ,. Aocsi" ca""ot a"d will "ot co"stitute $roo o iliatio", lest we rec3lessl- set a ver- da"gerous $recede"t that would e"courage a"d sa"ctio" raudule"t claims. A"-%od- ca" have a $icture ta3e" while sta"di"g %e ore a co i" with others a"d therea ter utiliBe it i" claimi"g the estate o the deceased.

RULE 132 Nat!1e of Doc!ment Nota1#Ge9 A81oa9 17. HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. ARCILLA ,. TEODORO& '.R. No. 162..6 Statement of the Fact 3 Ma. Aourdes A. 5eodoro 1res$o"de"t2 i"itiall- iled with the Regio"al 5rial ,ourt 1R5,2 o !irac, ,ata"dua"es a" a$$licatio" or la"d registratio" o two $arcels o la"d located at 6ara"ga- #a" Fedro, !irac, ,ata"dua"es. 5he lots, with a" aggregate area o 2+4 s;uare meters, are de"omi"ated as Aot Nos. &2&/A a"d &2&/6, ,sd./=&/=1=4+</' o the !irac ,adastre. Res$o"de"t alleged that, with the e0ce$tio" o the commercial %uildi"g co"structed thereo", she $urchased the su%4ect lots rom her ather, Faci ico Arcilla 1Faci ico2, as show" %- a 'eed o #ale dated 'ecem%er 9, 1966, a"d that, $rior thereto, Faci ico ac;uired the said lots %- virtue o the $artitio" o the estate o his ather, *ose Arcilla evide"ced %- a docume"t e"titled ?0tra4udicial #ettleme"t o ?state. Res$o"de"t also $rese"ted as evide"ce a" A idavit o Iuit/,laim i" avor o Faci ico, e0ecuted %- herei" $etitio"ers as 9eirs o !ice"te Arcilla 1!ice"te2, %rother o Faci ico. I" their )$$ositio", $etitio"ers co"te"ded that the- are the ow"ers $ro/ i"diviso o the su%4ect lots i"cludi"g the %uildi"g a"d other im$roveme"ts co"structed thereo" %- virtue o i"herita"ce rom their deceased $are"ts, s$ouses !ice"te a"d *ose a ArcillaJ co"trar- to the claim o res$o"de"t, the lots i" ;uestio" were ow"ed %- their ather, !ice"te, havi"g $urchased the same rom a certai" Ma"uel #armie"to sometime i" 191(J !ice"te7s ow"ershi$ is evide"ced %- several ta0 declaratio"s attached to the recordJ $etitio"ers a"d their $redecessors/i"/i"terest had %ee" i" $ossessio" o the su%4ect lots si"ce 19=6. Fetitio"ers moved to dismiss the a$$licatio" o res$o"de"t a"d sought their declaratio" as the true a"d a%solute ow"ers $ro/i"diviso o the su%4ect lots a"d the registratio" a"d issua"ce o the corres$o"di"g certi icate o title i" their "ames. Fetitio"ers iled a Motio" to 'ismiss A$$licatio" o" the grou"d that res$o"de"t should have iled the certi icate agai"st orum sho$$i"g simulta"eouslwith the $etitio" or la"d registratio" which is a ma"dator- re;uireme"t o #, Admi"istrative ,ircular No. =4/94 a"d that a"- violatio" o the said ,ircular shall %e a cause or the dismissal o the a$$licatio" u$o" motio" a"d a ter heari"g. )$$osi"g the motio" to dismiss, res$o"de"ts asserted that the $etitio"ers7 Motio" to 'ismiss A$$licatio" was iled out o timeJ res$o"de"t7s ailure to com$l- with #, Admi"istrative ,ircular No. =4/94 was "ot will ul, deli%erate or i"te"tio"alJ a"d the Motio" to 'ismiss was deemed waived or ailure o $etitio"ers to ile the same duri"g the earlier stages o the $roceedi"gs. M5, re"dered its decisio" i" avor o 5eodoro which is a irmed %- the R5, a"d ,A s$eci icall- u$holdi"g that the certi icatio" o "o"/ orum sho$$i"g su%se;ue"tl- su%mitted %- res$o"de"t does "ot re;uire a certi icatio" rom a" o icer o the oreig" service o the Fhili$$i"es as $rovided u"der #ectio" 24, Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt.

RULE 132 Statement of the I !e3 8hether or "ot the certi icatio" o "o"/ orum sho$$i"g e0ecuted i" a oreig" cou"tr- is "ot covered %- #ectio" 24, Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt R!"#n$3 :or oreig" $u%lic docume"ts to %e admissi%le or a"- $ur$ose here i" our courts, the same must %e certi ied %- a"- o icer o the Fhili$$i"e legatio" statio"ed i" the cou"tr- where the docume"ts could %e ou"d or had %ee" e0ecuted. 9owever, a ter 4udicious studies o the rule, #ec. 24, Rule 1<2 o the 199( Rules o ,ourt %asicall- $ertai"s to writte" o icial acts, or records o the o icial o the sovereig" authorit-, o icial %odies a"d tri%u"als, a"d $u%lic o icers, whether o the Fhili$$i"es, or o a oreig" cou"tr-. 5his is so, as #ec. 24, Rule 1<2 e0$licitl- re ers o"l- to $aragra$h 1a2 o #ec. 19. I the rule com$rehe"ds to cover "otarial docume"ts, the rule could have i"cluded the same. 5hus, $etitio"ers/o$$ositors7 co"te"tio" that the certi icate o orum sho$$i"g that was su%mitted was de ective, as it did "ot %ear the certi icatio" $rovided u"der #ec. 24, Rule 1<2 o the Rules o ,ourt, is devoid o a"- merit. 8hat is im$orta"t is the act that the res$o"de"t/ a$$lica"t certi ied %e ore a commissio"ed o icer clothed with $owers to admi"ister oath that she has "ot a"d will "ot commit orum sho$$i"g. It ca""ot %e overem$hasiBed that the re;uired certi icatio" o a" o icer i" the oreig" service u"der #ectio" 24 re ers o"l- to the docume"ts e"umerated i" #ectio" 191a2, to wit: writte" o icial acts or records o the o icial acts o the sovereig" authorit-, o icial %odies a"d tri%u"als, a"d $u%lic o icers o the Fhili$$i"es or o a oreig" cou"tr-. 5he ,ourt agrees with the ,A that had the ,ourt i"te"ded to i"clude "otarial docume"ts as o"e o the $u%lic docume"ts co"tem$lated %- the $rovisio"s o #ectio" 24, it should "ot have s$eci ied o"l- the docume"ts re erred to u"der $aragra$h 1a2 o #ectio" 19.

RULE 132 Ten9e1 of E@c"!9e9 E*#9ence 22. Y! *. CA& 'R No. 1-+11Statement of the Fact 3 !iveca Aim Hu 1$rivate res$o"de"t2 %rought agai"st her hus%a"d, Fhili$ #Hu 1$etitio"er2, a" actio" or legal se$aratio" a"d dissolutio" o co"4ugal $art"ershi$ o" the grou"ds o marital i" idelit- a"d $h-sical a%use. 5he case was iled %e ore the R5, o Fasig. 'uri"g trial, $rivate res$o"de"t moved or the issua"ce o a su%$oe"a to certai" o icers o I"sular Ai e Assura"ce ,o. Atd., to com$el $roductio" o the i"sura"ce $olic- a"d a$$licatio" o a $erso" sus$ected to %e $etitio"erCs illegitimate child. 5he trial court de"ied the motio". It ruled that the i"sura"ce co"tract is i"admissi%le evide"ce i" view o ,ircular Aetter No. 11/2===, issued %- the I"sura"ce ,ommissio" which $resuma%l- $reve"ts i"sura"ce com$a"iesKage"ts rom divulgi"g co" ide"tial a"d $rivileged i" ormatio" $ertai"i"g to i"sura"ce $olicies. It added that the $roductio" o the a$$licatio" a"d i"sura"ce co"tract would violate Article 2+= o the ,ivil ,ode a"d #ectio" & o the ,ivil Registr- Aaw, %oth o which $rohi%it the u"authoriBed ide"ti icatio" o the $are"ts o a" illegitimate child. Frivate res$o"de"t sought reco"sideratio" o the )rder, %ut the motio" was de"ied %- the trial court. ,ase was the" elevated to ,A which has decided that $rivate res$o"de"t was merel- see3i"g the $roductio" o the i"sura"ce a$$licatio" a"d co"tract, a"d was "ot -et o eri"g the same as $art o her evide"ce. 5he co"te"ts o the i"sura"ce a$$licatio" a"d i"sura"ce docume"ts ca""ot %e co"sidered as $rivileged i" ormatio". 5hus, trial court does "ot have the discretio" to de"- a $art-Cs $rivilege to te"der e0cluded evide"ce, as this $rivilege allows said $art- to raise o" a$$eal the e0clusio" o such evide"ce. Statement of the I !e: 8hether or "ot a trial court has the discretio" to de"- a $art-Cs motio" to attach e0cluded evide"ce to the record u"der #ectio" 4=, Rule 1<2 R!"#n$: 8hile trial courts have the discretio" to admit or e0clude evide"ce, such $ower is e0ercised o"l- whe" the evide"ce has %ee" ormall- o ered. :or a lo"g time, the ,ourt has recog"iBed that duri"g the earl- stages o the develo$me"t o $roo , it is im$ossi%le or a trial court 4udge to 3"ow with certai"t- whether evide"ce is releva"t or "ot, a"d thus the $ractice o e0cludi"g evide"ce o" dou%t ul o%4ectio"s to its materialit- should %e avoided. I" the i"sta"t case, the i"sura"ce a$$licatio" a"d the i"sura"ce $olic- were -et to %e $rese"ted i" court, much less ormall- o ered %e ore it. I" act, $rivate res$o"de"t was merel- as3i"g or the issua"ce o su%$oe"a duces tecum a"d su%$oe"a ad testi ica"dum whe" the trial court issued the assailed )rder.

RULE 132 ?ve" assumi"g that the docume"ts would eve"tuall- %e declared i"admissi%le, the trial court was "ot the" i" a $ositio" to ma3e a declaratio" to that e ect at that $oi"t. 5hus, it %arred the $roductio" o the su%4ect docume"ts $rior to the assessme"t o its $ro%a%le worth. As o%served %- $etitio"ers, the assailed )rder was "ot a mere ruli"g o" the admissi%ilit- o evide"ceJ it was, more im$orta"tl-, a ruli"g a ecti"g the $ro$er co"duct o trial. It is thus a$$are"t that %e ore te"der o e0cluded evide"ce is made, the evide"ce must have %ee" ormall- o ered %e ore the court. A"d %e ore ormal o er o evide"ce is made, the evide"ce must have %ee" ide"ti ied a"d $rese"ted %e ore the court. 8hile $rivate res$o"de"t made a D5e"der o ?0cluded ?vide"ce,E such is "ot the te"der co"tem$lated %- the rule, or o%viousl-, the i"sura"ce $olic- a"d a$$licatio" were "ot ormall- o ered much less $rese"ted %e ore the trial court. At most, said D5e"der o ?0cluded ?vide"ceE was a ma"i estatio" o a" u"dis$uted act that the su%4ect docume"ts were declared i"admissi%le %- the trial court eve" %e ore these were $rese"ted duri"g trial. It was "ot the 3i"d o $lai", s$eed- a"d ade;uate remed- which $rivate res$o"de"t could have resorted to i"stead o the $etitio" or certiorari she iled %e ore the ,ourt o A$$eals.