VOL.

328,MARCH27,2000 749 750

OngChiavs.Republic 7 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
G.R.No.127240.March27,2000.* 50
ONG CHIA, petitioner,vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OngChiavs.Republic
andTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,respondents. Same;Same;Same;Same;The reason for the rule
Naturalization;Evidence;Pleadings and Practice;Formal prohibitingtheadmissionofevidencewhichhasnotbeenformally
OfferofEvidence;Judgments;Theruleonformalofferofevidence offeredistoaffordtheoppositepartythechancetoobjecttotheir
(Rule 132,34) is clearly not applicable to a petition for admissibility.Petitionerclaimsthatasaresultofthefailureof
naturalization; Decisions in naturalization proceedings are not theStatetopresentandformallyofferitsdocumentaryevidence
coveredbytheruleonresjudicata.PetitionerfailedtonoteRule beforethetrialcourt,hewasdeniedtherighttoobjectagainst
143oftheRulesofCourtwhichprovidesthatTheserulesshall their authenticity, effectively depriving him of his fundamental
not apply to land registration, cadastral and election righttoproceduraldueprocess. Wearenotpersuaded. Indeed,
the reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence
cases,naturalizationandinsolvencyproceedings,andothercases
whichhasnotbeenformallyofferedistoaffordtheoppositeparty
not herein provided for,except by analogy or in a suppletory thechancetoobjecttotheiradmissibility.Petitionercannotclaim
character and whenever practicable and convenient. (Emphasis thathewasdeprivedoftherighttoobjecttotheauthenticityof
added) Prescinding from the above, the rule on formal offer of thedocumentssubmittedtotheappellatecourtbytheState.He
evidence (Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is couldhaveincludedhisobjections,ashe,infact,did,inthebrief
clearlynotapplicabletothepresentcaseinvolvingapetitionfor hefiledwiththeCourtofAppeals.
naturalization.Theonlyinstancewhensaidrulesmaybeapplied Same;Same;PublicDocuments;Whereapartyfailstomake
byanalogyorsuppletorilyinsuchcasesiswhenitispracticable
asatisfactoryshowingofanyflaworirregularitythatmaycast
andconvenient.Thatisnotthecasehere,sincerelianceuponthe
doubtontheauthenticityofdocumentswhichhavebeenexecuted
documentspresentedbytheStateforthefirsttimeonappeal,in
fact,appearstobethemorepracticalandconvenientcourseof under oath,the court may rely on them.The Court notes that
action considering that decisions in naturalization proceedings thesedocumentsnamely,thepetitioninSCNCaseNo.031767,
arenotcoveredbytheruleonresjudicata.Consequently,afinal petitionersmarriagecontract,thejointaffidavitexecutedbyhim
favorable judgment does not preclude the State from later on andhiswife,andpetitionersincometaxreturnsareallpublic
movingforarevocationofthegrantofnaturalizationonthebasis documents.Assuch,theyhavebeenexecutedunderoath.They
ofthesamedocuments. arethusreliable. Sinoe petitionerfailedtomake asatisfactory
________________ showingofanyflaworirregularitythatmaycastdoubtonthe
authenticity of these documents, it is our conclusion that the
*
SECONDDIVISION. appellatecourtdidnoterrinrelyinguponthem.
 Naturalization;Statutory Construction;It is settled that requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law. On this
naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly groundalone,theinstantpetitionoughttobedenied.
construedinfavorofthegovernmentandagainsttheapplicant.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Theabovediscussionwouldhavebeenenoughtodisposeofthis
Appeals.
case,buttosettlealltheissuesraised,weshallbrieflydiscussthe
effectofpetitionersfailuretoincludetheaddressJ.M.BasaSt.,
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Iloiloinhispetition,inaccordancewith7,CA.No.473.This
address appears on petitioners Immigrant Certificate of Algarra,Mutia&TrinidadLawOfficesforpetitioner.
Residence,adocumentwhichformspartoftherecordsasAnnex TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.
Aofhis1989petitionfornaturalization.Petitioneradmitsthathe
failed to mention said address in his petition, but argues that MENDOZA,J.:
since the Immigrant Certificate of Residence containing it had
been fully published, with the petition and the other annexes, This is a petition for review of the decision1of the Court of
suchpublicationconstitutessubstantialcompliancewith7.This Appeals reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
isallegedlybecausethepublicationeffectively Branch24,Koronadal,SouthCotabato2admittingpetitionerOng
751 ChiatoPhilippinecitizenship.
VOL.328,MARCH27,2000 751 Thefactsareasfollows:
OngChiavs.Republic PetitionerwasbornonJanuary1,1923inAmoy,China.In
1932,asanineyearoldboy,hearrivedattheportofManilaon
satisfied the objective sought to be achieved by such
board the vessel Angking. Since then, he has stayed in the
requirement,i.e.,togiveinvestigatingagenciesofthegovernment
Philippineswherehefoundemploymentandeventuallystarted
theopportunitytocheckonthebackgroundoftheapplicantand
hisownbusiness,marriedaFilipina,withwhomhe
prevent suppression of information regarding any possible
__________________
misbehavioronhispartinanycommunitywherehemayhave
lived at one time or another. It is settled, however, that 1
PerJusticeBernardoLl.Salas,andconcurredinbyJustices
naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly GloriaC.ParasandMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez.
construedinfavorofthegovernmentandagainsttheapplicant. 2
PresidedbyJudgeRodolfoC.Soledad.
AsnotedbytheState,CA.No.473,7clearlyprovidesthatthe 752
applicant for naturalization shall set forth in the petition his
752 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
present and former places of residence. This provision and the
OngChiavs.Republic
ruleofstrictapplicationofthelawinnaturalizationcasesdefeat
petitioners argument of substantial compliance with the hadfourchildren.OnJuly4,1989,attheageof66,hefileda
verifiedpetitiontobeadmittedasaFilipinocitizenunderCA.No.
473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, as ___________________
amended.Petitioner,afterstatinghisqualificationsasrequired
in2,andlackofthedisqualificationsenumeratedin3ofthe 3
TSN,p.152,June27,1991.(Emphasisadded)
law,stated 753
17.Thathehasheretoforemade(a)petitionforcitizenshipunder VOL.328,MARCH27,2000 753
theprovisionsofLetterofInstructionNo.270withtheSpecial OngChiavs.Republic
Committee on Naturalization, Office of the Solicitor General, (3) failed to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable
Manila,docketedasSCNCaseNo.031776,butthesamewasnot mannerduringhisentirestayinthePhilippines,inviolationof
acteduponowingtothefactthatthesaidSpecialCommitteeon 2; (4) has no known lucrative trade or occupation and his
Naturalization was not reconstituted after the February, 1986 previous incomes have been insufficient ormisdeclared, also in
revolutionsuchthatprocessingofpetitionsfornaturalizationby contraventionof2;and(5)failedtosupporthispetitionwiththe
administrativeprocesswassuspended; appropriatedocumentaryevidence.4
Duringthehearings,petitionertestifiedastohisqualifications AnnexedtotheStatesappellantsbriefwasacopyofa1977
and presented three witnesses to corroboratehis testimony. So petition for naturalization filed by petitioner with the Special
impressed was Prosecutor Isaac Alvero V. Moran with the CommitteeonNaturalizationinSCNCaseNo.031767, 5inwhich
testimony of petitioner that, upon being asked by the court petitionerstatedthatinadditiontohisnameofOngChia,he
whethertheStateintendedtopresentanywitnessagainsthim, hadlikewisebeenknownsincechildhoodasLoretoChiaOng.
heremarked: Aspetitioner,however,failedtostatethisothernameinhis1989
Actually,YourHonor,withthetestimonyofthepetitionerhimself petition for naturalization, it was contended that his petition
whichisrathersurprising,inthesensethatheseemstobewell mustfail.6Thestatealsoannexedincometaxreturns 7allegedly
versedwiththemajorportionofthehistoryofthePhilippines,so, filedbypetitionerfrom1973to1977toshowthathisnetincome
onourpart,weareconvinced,YourHonorPlease,thatpetitioner could hardly support himself and his family. To prove that
reallydeservestobeadmittedasacitizenofthePhilippines.And petitionerfailedtoconducthimselfinaproperandirreproachable
for this reason,we do not wish to present any evidence to mannerduringhisstayinthePhilippines,theStatecontended
that,althoughpetitionerclaimedthatheandRamonaVillaruel
counteract or refute the testimony of the witnesses for the
hadbeenmarriedtwice,oncebeforeajudgein1953,andthen
petitioner,aswellasthepetitionerhimself.3
againinchurch in 1977,petitioneractuallylivedwithhiswife
Accordingly, on August 25, 1999, the trial court granted the
without the benefit of marriage from 1953 until they were
petition and admitted petitioner to Philippine citizenship. The
marriedin1977.Itwasallegedthatpetitionerfailedtopresent
State, however, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
his 1953 marriage contract, if there be any. The State also
appealed contending that petitioner: (1) failed to state all the
annexed a copy of petitioners 1977 marriage contract 8and a
namesbywhichheisorhadbeenknown;(2)failedtostateallhis
JointAffidavit9executed by petitioner and his wife. These
formerplacesofresidenceinviolationofCA.No.473,7;
documentsshowthatwhenpetitionermarriedRamonaVillaruel
onFebruary23,1977,nomarriagelicensehadbeenrequiredin InstructionNo.270.Namesandpseudonymsmustbestatedin
accordancewithArt.76oftheCivilCodebecausepetitionerand the petition for naturalization and failure to include the same
RamonaVillaruelhadbeenlivingtogetherashusband militatesagainstadecisioninhisfavor...Thisisamandatory
_________________ requirement to allow those persons who know (petitioner) by
thoseothernamestocomeforwardandinformtheauthoritiesof
4
AppellantsBrief,pp.2122;CARollo,pp.3536. anylegalobjectionwhichmightadverselyaffecthisapplication
5
AnnexB;Id.,pp.129138. forcitizenship.
6
CitingWattv.Republic,46SCRA683(1972);Id.,p.37. Furthermore, Ong Chia failed to disclose in his petition for
naturalizationthatheformerlyresidedinJ.M.BasaSt.,Iloilo
7
AnnexesF,F1,F2,F3andF4;Id.,pp.144157.
andAlimodian,Iloilo.Section7oftheRevisedNaturalization
8
AnnexD;Id.,p.139.
Lawrequirestheapplicanttostateinhispetitionhispresent
9
AnnexE;Id.,p.140. andformerplacesofresidence.Thisrequirementismandatory
754 and failure of the petitioner to comply with it is fatal to the
754 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED petition.AsexplainedbytheCourt,thereasonfortheprovisionis
OngChiavs.Republic to give the public, as well as the investigating agencies of the
and wife since 1953 without the benefit of marriage. This, government,uponthepublicationofthepetition,anopportunity
according to the State, belies his claim that when he started to be informed thereof and voice their objections against the
livingwithhiswifein1953,theyhadalreadybeenmarried. petitioner.Byfailingtocomplywiththisprovision,thepetitioner
The State also argued that, as shown by petitioners isdeprivingthepublicandsaid
ImmigrantCertificateofResidence,10petitionerresidedatJ.M. _________________
Basa Street, Iloilo, but he did not include said address in his
petition. AnnexA;Records,p.16.
10

On November 15, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its CADecision,p.8;Rollo,p.50.Citationsomitted.

11

decision which, as already noted, reversed the trial court and 755
denied petitioners application for naturalization. It ruled that VOL.328,MARCH27,2000 755
due to the importance of naturalization cases, the State is not OngChiavs.Republic
precludedfromraisingquestionsnotpresentedinthelowercourt agenciesofsuchopportunity,thusdefeatingthepurposeofthe
andbroughtupforthefirsttimeonappeal. 11Theappellatecourt law
held: ...
As correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, Ong Chia had not also conducted himself in a proper and
petitioner Ong Chia failed to state in this present petition for irreproachablemannerwhenhelivedinwithhiswifeforseveral
naturalization his other name, LORETO CHIA ONG, which years, and sired four children out of wedlock. It has been the
name appeared in his previous application under Letter of consistent ruling that the applicants 8year cohabitation with
hiswifewithoutthebenefitofclergyandbegettingbyherthree 2. II.THEFINDINGOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSTHAT
childrenoutofwedlockisaconductfarfrombeingproperand THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN KNOWN BY SOME
irreproachableasrequiredbytheRevisedNaturalizationLaw, OTHER NAME NOT STATED IN HIS PETITION IS
and therefore disqualifies him from becoming a citizen of the NOTSUPPORTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEONRECORD.
Philippines by naturalization
... 756
Lastly,petitionerOngChiasallegedannualincomein1961of 756 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
P5,000.00,exclusiveofbonuses,commissionsandallowances,is OngChiavs.Republic
not lucrative income. His failure to file an income tax return
because he is not liable for income tax yet confirms that his
1. III.CONTRARYTOTHEFINDINGOFTHECOURTOF
income is low . . . It is not only that the person having the
APPEALS, THE PETITIONER STATED IN HIS
employment gets enough for his ordinary necessities in life. It
PETITION AND ITS ANNEXES HIS PRESENT AND
mustbeshownthattheemploymentgivesoneanincomesuch
FORMERPLACESOFRESIDENCE.
thatthereisanappreciablemarginofhisincomeoverexpenses
astobeabletoprovideforanadequatesupportintheeventof
2. IV.THEFINDINGOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSTHAT
unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid
THEPETITIONERFAILEDTOCONDUCTHIMSELF
onesbecomingtheobjectofcharityorpubliccharge....Now
INAPROPERANDIRREPROACHABLEMANNERIS
thattheyareintheiroldage,petitionerOngChiaandhiswife
NOTSUPPORTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEONRECORD.
arelivingontheallowancegiventothembytheirchildren.The
monthly pension given by the elder children of the applicant
cannotbeaddedtohisincometomakeitlucrativebecauselike Petitionersprincipalcontentionisthattheappellatecourterred
bonuses, commissions and allowances, said pensions are inconsideringthedocumentswhichhadmerelybeenannexedby
contingent,speculativeandprecarious... the State to its appellants brief and, on the basis of which,
Hence,thispetitionbasedonthefollowingassignmentoferrors: justifiedthereversalofthetrialcourtsdecision.Nothavingbeen
presented and formally offered as evidence, they are mere
scrap(s) of paper devoid of any evidentiary value, 12so it was
1. I.THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
argued, because under Rule 132, 34 of the Revised Rules on
DISCRETION IN RULING THAT IN
Evidence,thecourtshallconsidernoevidencewhichhasnotbeen
NATURALIZATION CASES, THE APPELLATE
formallyoffered.
COURT CAN DENY AN APPLICATION FOR
The contention has no merit. Petitioner failed to note Rule
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP ON THE BASIS OF
14313oftheRulesofCourtwhichprovidesthat
DOCUMENTS NOT PRESENTED BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT AND NOT FORMING PART OF THE These rules shallnotapply to land registration, cadastral and
RECORDSOFTHECASE. election cases,naturalizationand insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for,except by analogy or in a thathewasdeprivedoftherighttoobjecttotheauthenticityof
suppletory character and whenever practicable and thedocumentssubmittedtotheappellatecourtbytheState.He
couldhaveincludedhisobjections,ashe,infact,did,inthebrief
convenient.(Emphasisadded)
hefiledwiththeCourtofAppeals,thus:
Prescindingfromtheabove,theruleonformalofferofevidence
(Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not The authenticity of theallegedpetition for naturalization (SCN
applicable to the present case involving a petition for CaseNo.031767)whichwassupposedlyfiledbyOngChiaunder
naturalization.Theonlyinstancewhensaidrulesmaybeapplied LOI270hasnotbeenestablished.Infact,thecasenumberofthe
byanalogyorsuppletorilyinsuchcasesiswhenitispracticable alleged petition for naturalization . . . is031767while the case
andconvenient.Thatisnotthecasehere,sincerelianceuponthe number of the petition actually filed by the appellee
documentspresentedbytheStateforthefirsttimeonappeal,in is031776.Thus, said document is totally unreliable and should
fact,appearstobethemorepractical notbeconsideredbytheHonorableCourtinresolvingtheinstant
________________ appeal.17
Indeed, the objection is flimsy as the alleged discrepancy is
Petition,p.21;Id.,p.29.
12
trivial,and,atmost,canbeaccountedforasatypographicalerror
Now found under Rule 1, 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
13
onthepartofpetitionerhimself.ThatSCNCaseNo.031767,a
Procedure. copyofwhichwasannexedtothepetition,isthe
757 ___________________
VOL.328,MARCH27,2000 757
14
Republicv.Guy,115SCRA244(1982).
OngChiavs.Republic 15
Petition,p.17;Rollo,p.25.
and convenient course of action considering that decisions in 16
SeePeninsula Construction, Inc. v. Eisma,194 SCRA
naturalization proceedings are not covered by the rule onres
667(1991).
judicata.14Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not 17
AppelleesBrief,p.13;CARollo;p.184.
precludetheStatefromlateronmovingforarevocationofthe
758
grantofnaturalizationonthebasisofthesamedocuments.
758 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PetitionerclaimsthatasaresultofthefailureoftheStateto
present and formally offer its documentary evidence before the OngChiavs.Republic
trial court, he was denied the right to object against their correctcasenumberisconfirmedbytheEvaluationSheet 18ofthe
authenticity,effectivelydeprivinghimofhisfundamentalrightto SpecialCommitteeonNaturalizationwhichwasalsodocketedas
procedural due process.15We are not persuaded. Indeed, the SCN Case No. 031767. Other than this, petitioner offered no
reasonfortheruleprohibitingtheadmissionofevidencewhich evidencetodisprovetheauthenticityofthedocumentspresented
hasnotbeenformallyofferedistoaffordtheoppositepartythe bytheState.
chance toobject to theiradmissibility.16Petitioner cannot claim
 Furthermore,theCourtnotesthatthesedocumentsnamely, IntheOfficialGazetteandintheSaranganiJournal.
19

the petition in SCN Case No. 031767, petitioners marriage Petition,p.22;Rollo,p.30.

20

contract, the joint affidavit executed by him and his wife, and 759
petitioners income tax returnsare all public documents. As VOL.328,MARCH27,2000 759
such,theyhavebeenexecutedunderoath.Theyarethusreliable. OngChiavs.Republic
Sincepetitionerfailedtomakeasatisfactoryshowingofanyflaw suppressionofinformationregardinganypossiblemisbehavioron
orirregularitythatmaycastdoubtontheauthenticityofthese hispartinanycommunitywherehemayhavelivedatonetime
documents,itisourconclusionthattheappellatecourtdidnot or another.21It is settled, however, that naturalization laws
errinrelyinguponthem. shouldberigidlyenforcedandstrictlyconstruedinfavorofthe
Onelastpoint.Theabovediscussionwouldhavebeenenough governmentand against the applicant. 22As noted by the State,
todisposeofthiscase,buttosettlealltheissuesraised,weshall CA. No. 473, 7 clearly provides that the applicant for
briefly discuss the effect of petitioners failure to include the naturalization shall set forth in the petition his present and
addressJ.M.BasaSt.,Iloiloinhispetition,inaccordancewith formerplacesofresidence.23Thisprovisionandtheruleofstrict
7,CA.No.473.ThisaddressappearsonpetitionersImmigrant applicationofthelawinnaturalizationcasesdefeatpetitioners
Certificate of Residence, a document which forms part of the argumentofsubstantialcompliancewiththerequirementunder
records as Annex A of his 1989 petition for naturalization. the Revised Naturalization Law. On this ground alone, the
Petitioner admits thathefailed to mention said address in his instantpetitionoughttobedenied.
petition, but argues that since the Immigrant Certificate of WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Residence containing it had been fully published, 19with the AFFIRMEDandtheinstantpetitionisherebyDENIED.
petition and the other annexes, such publication constitutes SOORDERED.
substantial compliance with 7.20This is allegedly because the
Bellosillo, (Chairman),Quisumbing,BuenaandDeLeon,
publication effectively satisfied the objective sought to be
Jr.,JJ.,concur.
achievedbysuchrequirement,i.e.,togiveinvestigatingagencies
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
ofthegovernmenttheopportunitytocheckonthebackgroundof
theapplicantandprevent Notes.A former citizen who opts to reacquire Philippine
_______________ citizenshipthrunaturalizationundertheRevisedNaturalization
Lawisdutyboundtofollowtheprocedureprescribedbysaidlaw,
Annex C; CA Rollo, p. 133. Said evaluation sheet
18 and it is not for him to decide and to select the requirements
recommendedthatthepetitionbedismissedaspetitionerfailedto which he believes are applicable to his case and discard those
meet the requirements under LOI 491 because his income is whichhebelievesareinconvenientormerelyofnuisancevalue.
insufficientforhissupportandthatofhisfamilyandalsobecause (Republicvs.DelaRosa,232SCRA785[1994])
hefailedtoshowthathebelievesintheprinciplesunderlyingthe
Constitution.
 An applicant for naturalization may only take his oath of
allegianceaftertheSolicitorGeneralfindsthatwithintheperiod
oftwoyearsfromthedatethedecisiongrantingciti
____________________

21
Wattv.Republic,supra.
22
Chan Chen v. Republic,109 Phil. 940(1960),citingCo
Quingv.Republic,104Phil.889(1958)andCo.v.Republic,108
Phil.265(1960). VOL.253,FEBRUARY20,1996 699
23
Comment,p.23;Rollo,p.110. Zuluetavs.CourtofAppeals
760 G.R.No.107383.February20,1996.*
760 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and
Peoplevs.Mamalias ALFREDOMARTIN,respondents.
zenship is promulgated, the applicant has complied with the Evidence;Illegally Obtained Evidence;Constitutional
conditionssetoutinSection2ofRepublicActNo.530.(Hermovs.
Law;Privacy of Communication and Correspondence;Privacy of
DelaRosa,299SCRA68[1998])
communication and correspondence is inviolable. The only
exceptionintheConstitutionisifthereisalawfulorder[froma]
o0o
court or when public safety or order requires, otherwise, as
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights prescribed by law.Indeed the documents and papers in
reserved. question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional
injunction declaring the privacy of communication and
correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less applicable simply
because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her
husbands infidelity) who is the party against whom the
constitutionalprovisionistobeenforced.Theonlyexceptionto
theprohibitionin
_______________

*
SECONDDIVISION.
700
7 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
00 LeonidesS.Respicio&AssociatesLawOfficeforpetitioner.
Zuluetavs.CourtofAppeals GalileoP.Brionforprivaterespondent.
theConstitutionisifthereisalawfulorder[froma]court
orwhenpublicsafetyororderrequiresotherwise,asprescribed MENDOZA,J.:
by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence
obtainedinadmissibleforanypurposeinanyproceeding. ThisisapetitiontoreviewthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,
Same;Same;Same;Same;Apersonbycontractingmarriage affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an (BranchX)whichorderedpetitionertoreturndocu
701
individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to
VOL.253,FEBRUARY20,1996 701
himortoher.Theintimaciesbetweenhusbandandwifedonot
Zuluetavs.CourtofAppeals
justifyanyoneoftheminbreakingthedrawersandcabinetsof
the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of mentsandpaperstakenbyherfromprivaterespondentsclinic
marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not withoutthelattersknowledgeandconsent.
shedhis/herintegrityorhisrighttoprivacyasanindividualand Thefactsareasfollows:
theconstitutionalprotectioniseveravailabletohimortoher. Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent
AlfredoMartin.OnMarch26,1982,petitionerenteredtheclinic
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thelawinsuresabsolutefreedom
ofherhusband,adoctorofmedicine,andinthepresenceofher
ofcommunicationbetweenthespousesbymakingitprivileged. mother, a driver and private respondents secretary, forcibly
Thelawinsuresabsolutefreedomofcommunicationbetweenthe openedthedrawersandcabinetinherhusbandsclinicandtook
spousesbymakingitprivileged.Neitherhusbandnorwifemay 157documentsconsistingofprivatecorrespondencebetweenDr.
testifyfororagainsttheotherwithouttheconsentoftheaffected Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled
spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs. The
without the consent of the other as to any communication documentsandpaperswereseizedforuseinevidenceinacase
receivedinconfidencebyonefromtheotherduringthemarriage, forlegalseparationandfordisqualificationfromthepracticeof
save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of medicinewhichpetitionerhadfiledagainstherhusband.
communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the
sharewhatoneknowswiththeother.Andthishasnothingtodo documentsandpapersandfordamagesagainstpetitioner.The
withthedutyoffidelitythateachowestotheother. casewasfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofManila,BranchX,
which,aftertrial,renderedjudgmentforprivaterespondent,Dr.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
AlfredoMartin,declaringhimthecapital/exclusiveownerofthe
Appeals.
properties described in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs Complaint or
thosefurther describedinthe MotiontoReturn and Suppress
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
andorderingCeciliaZuluetaandanypersonactinginherbehalf respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, as complainant in that case,
to immediately return theproperties toDr. Martin and to pay chargedthatinusingthedocumentsinevidence,Atty.Felix,Jr.
him P5,000.00, as nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral committed malpractice or gross misconduct because of the
damagesandattorneysfees;andtopaythecostsofthesuit.The injunctive order of the trial court. In dismissing the complaint
writofpreliminaryinjunctionearlierissuedwasmadefinaland against Atty. Felix, Jr., this Court took note of the following
petitionerCeciliaZuluetaandherattorneysandrepresentatives defenseofAtty.Felix,Jr.whichitfoundtobeimpressedwith
wereenjoinedfromusingorsubmitting/admittingasevidence merit:2
thedocumentsandpapersinquestion.Onappeal,theCourtof On the alleged malpractice or gross misconduct of respondent
AppealsaffirmedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt.Hence [AlfonsoFelix,Jr.],hemaintainsthat:
thispetition. ....
There is no question that the documents and papers in 4.WhenrespondentrefiledCeciliascaseforlegalseparation
question belong to privaterespondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, and beforethePasigRegionalTrialCourt,therewasadmittedlyan
thattheyweretakenbyhiswife,thehereinpetitioner,without orderoftheManilaRegionalTrialCourtprohibitingCeciliafrom
his knowledge and consent. For that reason, the trial court usingthedocumentsAnnexA1toJ7.OnSeptember6,1983,
declaredthedocumentsandpaperstobepropertiesof however having appealed the said order to this Court on a
702 petition for certiorari, this Court issued a restraining order on
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 702 aforesaiddatewhichordertemporarilysetasidetheorderofthe
Zuluetavs.CourtofAppeals trialcourt.Hence,duringtheenforceabilityofthisCourtsorder,
privaterespondent,orderedpetitionertoreturnthemtoprivate respondentsrequestforpetitionertoadmitthegenuinenessand
respondent and enjoined her from using them in evidence. In authenticity of the subject annexes cannot be looked upon as
appealingfromthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingthe malpractice.Notably,petitioner
_______________
trialcourtsdecision,petitionersonlygroundisthatinAlfredo
Martinv.AlfonsoFelix,Jr., 1thisCourtruledthatthedocuments 1
163SCRA111(1988).
and papers (marked as Annexes A1 to J7 of respondents 2
Id.at120121,126.
commentinthatcase)wereadmissibleinevidenceand,therefore,
703
their use by petitioners attorney, Alfonso Felix, Jr., did not
VOL.253,FEBRUARY20,1996 703
constitutemalpracticeorgrossmisconduct.Forthisreasonitis
contended that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Zuluetavs.CourtofAppeals
decision of the trial court instead of dismissing private Dr. Martin finally admitted the truth and authenticity of the
respondentscomplaint. questioned annexes. At that point in time, would it have been
Petitioners contention has no merit. The case against Atty. malpractice for respondent to use petitioners admission as
Felix, Jr. was for disbarment. Among other things, private evidenceagainsthiminthelegalseparationcasependinginthe
Regional Trial Court of Makati? Respondent submits it is not requiresotherwise,asprescribedbylaw. 4Anyviolationofthis
malpractice. provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any
Significantly, petitioners admission was done not thru his purposeinanyproceeding.5
counsel but by Dr. Martin himself under oath. Such verified Theintimaciesbetweenhusbandandwifedonotjustifyany
admission constitutes an affidavit, and, therefore, receivable in oneoftheminbreakingthedrawersandcabinetsoftheotherand
evidenceagainsthim.Petitionerbecameboundbyhisadmission. inransackingthemforanytelltaleevidenceofmaritalinfidelity.
ForCeciliatoavailherselfofherhusbandsadmissionanduse Aperson,bycontractingmarriage,doesnotshedhis/herintegrity
thesameinheractionforlegalseparationcannotbetreatedas or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
malpractice. protectioniseveravailabletohimortoher.
Thus,theacquittalofAtty.Felix,Jr.intheadministrativecase Thelawinsuresabsolutefreedomofcommunicationbetween
amounts to no more than a declaration that his use of the the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife
documents andpapers for thepurposeof securing Dr.Martins may testify foror againsttheotherwithouttheconsentofthe
admission as to their genuineness and authenticity did not affected spouse while the marriage subsists. 6Neither may be
constituteaviolationoftheinjunctiveorderofthetrialcourt.By examined without the consent of the other as to any
no means does the decision in that case establish the communication received in confidence by one from the other
admissibilityofthedocumentsandpapersinquestion. duringthemarriage,saveforspecifiedexceptions. 7Butonething
It cannot be overemphasized that if Atty. Felix, Jr. was isfreedomofcommunication;quiteanotherisacompulsionfor
acquitted of the charge of violating the writ of preliminary eachonetosharewhatoneknowswiththeother.Andthishas
injunctionissuedbythetrialcourt,itwasonlybecause,atthe nothingtodowiththedutyoffidelitythateachowestotheother.
timeheusedthedocumentsandpapers,enforcementoftheorder WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewisDENIEDforlackof
ofthetrialcourtwastemporarilyrestrainedbythisCourt.The merit.
TROissuedbythisCourtwaseventuallyliftedasthepetitionfor SOORDERED.
certiorari filed by petitioner against the trial courts order was Regalado(Chairman),RomeroandPuno,JJ.,concur.
dismissedand,therefore,theprohibitionagainstthefurtheruse Petitiondenied.
ofthedocumentsandpapersbecameeffectiveagain.
504 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Indeedthedocumentsandpapersinquestionareinadmissible
inevidence.Theconstitutionalinjunctiondeclaringtheprivacy Peoplevs.Yatar
of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable 3is no G.R.No.150224.May19,2004.*
lessapplicablesimplybecauseitisthewife(whothinksherself PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.JOEL YATAR
aggrieved byherhusbandsinfidelity)who is thepartyagainst aliasKAWIT,appellant.
whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only Criminal Law;Witnesses;The Supreme Court will not
exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is ifthere isa interferewiththejudgmentofthetrialcourtindeterminingthe
lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order
credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some
fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been persons DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change
overlookedorthesignificanceofwhichhasbeenmisinterpreted. throughoutapersonslifetimetheDNAinapersonsbloodisthe
Theissueregardingthecredibilityoftheprosecutionwitnesses sameastheDNAfoundinhissaliva,sweat,bone,therootand
shouldberesolvedagainstappellant.ThisCourtwillnotinterfere shaftofhair,earwax,mucus,urine,skintissue,andvaginaland
withthejudgmentofthetrialcourtindeterminingthecredibility
rectalcells.Significantly,subsequenttesting
of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or
_______________
circumstanceofweightandinfluencewhichhasbeenoverlooked
or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. Well
ENBANC.
*

entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on

505
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 505
unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a
reexamination if not the disturbance of the same; the reason Peoplevs.Yatar
beingthattheformerisinabetteranduniquepositionofhearing showedthattheDeoxyribonucleicacid(DNA)ofthesperm
firsthandthewitnessesandobservingtheirdeportment,conduct specimenfromthevaginaofthevictimwasidenticalsementobe
andattitude.Absentanyshowingthatthetrialjudgeoverlooked, thatofappellantsgenetype.DNAisamoleculethatencodesthe
misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of geneticinformationinalllivingorganisms.ApersonsDNAisthe
weightwhichwouldaffecttheresultofthecase,thetrialjudges sameineachcellanditdoesnotchangethroughoutapersons
assessment of credibility deserves the appellate courts highest lifetime; theDNA in a persons blood isthe same as the DNA
respect.Wherethereisnothingtoshowthatthewitnessesforthe found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair,
prosecutionwereactuatedbyimpropermotive,theirtestimonies earwax,mucus,urine,skintissue,andvaginalandrectalcells.
areentitledtofullfaithandcredit. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic
structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the
Same;Same;Circumstantial Evidence;An accused can be
notableexceptionofidenticaltwins.
convictedevenifnoeyewitnessisavailable,solongassufficient
Same;Same;DNA print or identification technology has
circumstantial evidenceispresentedto provebeyond doubtthat
beenadvancedasauniquelyeffectivemeanstolinkasuspecttoa
theaccusedcommittedthecrime.Theweightoftheprosecutions
crime,ortoexonerateawronglyaccusedsuspect,wherebiological
evidence must be appreciated in light of the wellsettled rule
which provides that an accused can be convicted even if no evidence has been left.DNA print or identification technology
eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial hasbeenadvancedasauniquelyeffectivemeanstolinkasuspect
evidenceispresentedbytheprosecutiontoprovebeyonddoubt to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where
thattheaccusedcommittedthecrime. biological evidence has been left. For purposes of criminal
investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both
Same;DNATesting;WordsandPhrases;DNAisamolecule
inculpatoryandexculpatoryevidence.Itcanassistimmenselyin
thatencodesthegeneticinformationinalllivingorganisms,anda
effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed, 506
efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
acquittaloftheinnocent,andensuringtheproperadministration 06
of justice in every case. DNA evidence collected from a crime Peoplevs.Yatar
scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from
tiny amounts of a specific DNA sequence can be copied
suspicioninthesameprincipleasfingerprintsareused.Incidents
exponentially within hours. Thus, getting sufficient DNA for
involvingsexualassaultwouldleavebiologicalevidencesuchas
analysis has become much easier since it became possible to
hair,skintissue,semen,blood,orsalivawhichcanbeleftonthe
reliably amplify small samples using the PCR method. In
victimsbodyoratthecrimescene.Hairandfiberfromclothing,
assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should
carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be transferred to the
consider,interalia,thefollowingfactors:howthesampleswere
victims body during the assault. Forensic DNA evidence is
collected,howtheywerehandled,thepossibilityofcontamination
helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an
ofthesamples,theprocedurefollowedinanalyzingthesamples,
assailantandavictim.Ifproperlycollectedfromthevictim,crime
whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in
sceneorassailant,DNAcanbecomparedwithknownsamplesto
conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
placethesuspectatthesceneofthecrime.
conducted the tests. In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon
Same;Same;In assessing the probative value of DNA
AbogadodeUngriawasdulyqualifiedbytheprosecutionasan
evidence,courtsshouldconsider,interalia,thefollowingfactors expertwitnessonDNAprintoridentificationtechniques.Based
how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the on Dr. de Ungrias testimony, it was determined that the gene
possibilityofcontaminationofthesamples,theprocedurefollowed type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the
in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and extractssubjectofexamination.Thebloodsampletakenfromthe
procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the appellantshowedthathewasofthefollowinggenetypes:vWA
15/19, TH01 7/8, DHFRP2 9/10 and CSF1PO 10/11, which are
qualificationoftheanalystwhoconductedthetests;Admittedly,
identical with semen taken from the victims vaginal canal.
wearejustbeginningtointegratetheseadvancesinscienceand Verily, a DNA match exists between the semen found in the
technologyinthePhilippinecriminaljusticesystem,sowemustbe victimandthebloodsamplegivenbytheappellantinopencourt
cautiousaswetraversetheserelativelyunchartedwatersthough duringthecourseofthetrial.Admittedly,wearejustbeginning
wecanbenefitfromthewealthofpersuasivejurisprudencethat to integrate these advances in science and technology in the
hasdevelopedinotherjurisdictions.TheU.P.NationalScience Philippinecriminaljusticesystem,sowemustbecautiousaswe
ResearchInstitute(NSRI),whichconductedtheDNAtestsinthis traversetheserelativelyunchartedwaters.Fortunately,wecan
case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification benefit from the wealth of persuasive jurisprudence that has
method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR developed in other jurisdictions. Specifically, the prevailing
testing, doctrineintheU.S.hasproveninstructive.
 Same;Same;Evidence;Evidence is relevant when it relates admissionofguilt.Itdoesnotapplywheretheevidencesoughtto
directlytoafactinissueastoinducebeliefinitsexistenceornon beexcludedisnotanincriminationbutaspartofobjectevidence.
existence.InDaubertv.MerrellDow,itwasruledthatpertinent Same;Same;Same;Ex Post Facto Laws;No expost facto
evidencebasedonscientificallyvalidprinciplescouldbeusedas lawisinvolvedinDNAtestingsincethescienceofDNAtyping
longasitwasrelevantandreliable.Judges,underDaubert,were involvestheadmissibility,relevanceandreliabilityoftheevidence
allowedgreaterdiscretionoverwhichtestimonytheywouldallow obtainedundertheRulesofCourtwhereasanexpostfactolaw
at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a
techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure. Under factual determination of the probative weight of the evidence
Philippinelaw,evidenceisrelevantwhenitrelatesdirectlytoa
presented.Appellant further argues that the DNA tests
factinissueastoinducebeliefinitsexistenceornonexistence.
conductedbytheprosecutionagainsthimareunconstitutionalon
ApplyingtheDauberttesttothecaseatbar,theDNAevidence thegroundthatresorttheretoistantamounttotheapplicationof
obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and
anexpost factolaw. This argument is specious. Noexpost
whichwasappreciatedbythecourtaquoisrelevantandreliable
factolawisinvolvedinthecaseatbar.ThescienceofDNAtyping
since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of
involves the admissibility, relevance and reliability of the
humangeneticsandmolecularbiology.
evidenceobtainedundertheRulesofCourt.Whereasanexpost
Same;Same;Same;SelfIncrimination;The right against
factolaw refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling
selfincriminationissimplyagainstthelegalprocessofextracting
requires a factual determination of the probative weight of the
from the lips of the accused an admission of guiltit does not evidencepresented.
apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an Same;Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;Thelegalrelevancy
incrimination but as part of object evidence.In an attempt to ofevidencedenotessomethingmorethanaminimumofprobative
excludetheDNAevidence,theappellantcontendsthattheblood
value,suggestingthatsuchevidentiaryrelevancemustcontaina
sampletakenfromhimaswellastheDNAtestswereconducted
plus valueevidence without plus value may be logically
inviolationofhisrighttoremainsilentaswellashisright
507 relevant but not legally sufficient to convict.Generally, courts
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 507 shouldonlyconsiderandrelyupondulyestablishedevidenceand
neveronmereconjecturesorsuppositions.Thelegalrelevancyof
Peoplevs.Yatar
evidencedenotessomethingmorethanaminimumofprobative
againstselfincriminationunderSecs.12and17ofArt.IIIof
value,suggestingthatsuchevidentiaryrelevancemustcontaina
theConstitution.Thiscontentionisuntenable.Thekernelofthe
plusvalue. Thismay be necessary toprecludethetrial court
right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
frombeingsatisfiedbymattersofslightvalue,capableofbeing
compulsion.Therightagainstselfincriminationissimplyagainst
exaggeratedbyprejudiceandhastyconclusions.Evidencewithout
the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an
plusvaluemaybelogicallyrelevantbutnotlegallysufficientto witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or
convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to balance the immediatelyafterthecommissionoftheoffense,deedsorwords
probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that that may express it or from which his motive or reason for
wouldresultfromitsadmission.Thejudgmentinacriminalcase committingitmaybeinferred.
canbeupheldonlywhenthereisrelevantevidencefromwhich Same;RapewithHomicide;Elements.Accordingly,weare
the court can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty convincedthattheappellantisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtof
beyondreasonabledoubt.Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtrequires the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Appellant
moral certainty of guilt in order to sustaina conviction. Moral sexually assaulted Kathylyn Uba, and by reason or on the
certaintyisthatdegreeofcertaintythatconvincesanddirectsthe occasionthereof,inordertoconcealhislustfuldeed,permanently
understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those sealed the victims lips by stabbing her repeatedly, thereby
who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is certainty causing her untimely demise. The following are the elements
beyondreasonable doubt.Thisrequires thatthe circumstances, constitutiveofrapewithhomicide:(1)theappellanthadcarnal
taken together, shouldbeof a conclusive nature and tendency; knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was
leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by
accused,andno reasonorontheoccasionofsuchcarnalknowledgebymeansof
508 force, threat or intimidation, appellant killed the woman.
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED However, in rape committed by close kin, such as the victims
08 father, stepfather, uncle, or the commonlaw spouse of her
Peoplevs.Yatar mother, it isnotnecessary thatactual forceorintimidationbe
one else, committed the offense charged. In view of the employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of
totalityofevidenceappreciatedthusfar,werulethatthepresent violence and intimidation. The fact that the victims hymen is
casepassesthetestofmoralcertainty. intactdoesnotnegateafindingthatrapewascommittedasmere
Same;Same;Same;Presumption of Innocence;Motive;As a entrybythepenisintothelipsofthefemalegenitalorgan,even
withoutruptureorlacerationofthehymen,sufficesforconviction
matter of procedure, and for the purpose of meeting the
ofrape.Thestrengthanddilatabilityofthehymenareinvariable;
requirementofproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,motiveisessential it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during
forconvictionwhenthereisdoubtastotheidentityoftheculprit. intercourse. Absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove
Asamatterofprocedure,andforthepurposeofmeetingthe sexualabuseespeciallywhenthevictimisoftenderage.
requirementofproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,motiveisessential
forconvictionwhenthereisdoubtastotheidentityoftheculprit. AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt
Thus,appellantsmotivetosexuallyassaultandkillthevictim ofBulanao,Tabuk,Kalinga,Br.25.
wasevidentintheinstantcase.Itisaruleincriminallawthat
motive,beingastateofmind,isestablishedbythetestimonyof ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
 TheSolicitorGeneralforappellee. floorofthehouseoftheirgrandmother,IsabelDawang,inLiwan
509 West,Rizal,Kalinga.Theyweretalkingaboutthelettersentby
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 509 their aunt, Luz Yatar, to her husband, appellant Joel Yatar,
throughKathylynsfriend,CecilCasingan.Kathylynhandedthe
Peoplevs.Yatar
lettertoappellantearlierthatmorning.3
PublicAttorneysOfficeforappellant.
At 9:00 a.m. of the same day, Judilyn and her husband,
togetherwithIsabelDawang,leftfortheirfarminNagbitayan
PERCURIAM:
sometwo
_______________
OnautomaticreviewisaDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Bulanao,Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch25,sentencing appellantJoel 1
Decision penned by Judge Milnar T. Lammawin on 27
Yatar alias Kawit toDeathfor the special complex crime of August2001.
Rape with Homicide, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the 2
OriginalRecords,p.1.
victim, Kathylyn D. Uba, civil indemnity in the amount of 3
TSN, Direct Examination of Isabel Dawang, 30 September
P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00, 1998,pp.296306.
exemplarydamagesintheamountofP50,000.00,actualdamages 510
in the amount of P186,410.00, or total damages amounting to 510 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
P511,410.00,andcostsoflitigation.1
Peoplevs.Yatar
Appellant was charged with Rape with Homicide under the
kilometers away. Before Judilyn and her husband departed,
followingInformation:
KathylyntoldJudilynthatsheintendedtogotoTuguegarao,but
ThatonorabouttheafternoonofJune30,1998atLiwanWest,
intheeventshewouldnotbeabletoleave,shewouldjuststay
Rizal, Kalinga, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
homeandwashherclothesorgotothehouseoftheiraunt,Anita
Court,theaccused,inordertohavecarnalknowledgeofacertain
Wania.Kathylynwasleftaloneinthehouse. 4
KATHYLYND.UBA,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfully,and
Later,at10:00a.m.,AnitaWaniaandfifteenyearoldBeverly
feloniously, and with use of a bladed weapon stab the latter
DenengstoppedbythehouseofIsabel.Theysawappellantatthe
inflicting upon her fatal injuries resulting in the death of the
backofthehouse.Theywentinsidethehousethroughtheback
victim,andontheoccasionorbyreasonthereof,accused,wilfully,
door of the kitchen to have a drink of water. Anita asked
unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of force and violence
appellantwhathewasdoingthere,andherepliedthathewas
hadcarnalknowledgeofsaidKathlynD.Ubaagainstherwill.
gettinglumbertobringtothehouseofhismother.5
CONTRARYTOLAW.2
At 12:30 p.m., while Judilyn was on her way home from
Thefactsare:
Nagbitayan, she saw appellant descend the ladder from the
OnJune30,1998,at8:30a.m.,JudilynPasaandherfirst
secondfloorofthehouseofIsabelDawangandruntowardsthe
cousin, seventeen year old Kathylyn Uba, were on the ground
backofthehouse.6Shelaternoticedappellant,whowaswearing
awhiteshirtwithcollarandblackpants,pacingbackandforthat Peoplevs.Yatar
thebackofthehouse.Shedidnotfindthisunusualasappellant tothesecondfloorofthehousetoseeifKathylynwasupstairs.
andhiswifeusedtoliveinthehouseofIsabelDawang.7 Shefoundthatthedoorwastiedwitharope,soshewentdownto
At1:30p.m.,Judilynagainsawappellantwhenhecalledher getaknife.Whileshegropedinthedark,shefeltalifelessbody
nearherhouse.Thistime,hewaswearingablackshirtwithout thatwascoldandrigid.9
collar andbluepants. Appellanttold herthathewould not be Isabelmovedherhandthroughouttheentirebody.Shefound
gettingthelumberhehadstacked,andthatIsabelcoulduseit. outthatitwasthenakedbodyofhergranddaughter,Kathylyn.
She noticed that appellants eyes were reddish and sharp. Shecalledforhelp.Judilynandherhusbandarrived.Isabelwas
Appellantaskedherwhereherhusbandwasashehadsomething given a flashlight by Judilyn. She focused the beam and saw
important to tell him. Judilyns husband then arrived and Kathylyn sprawled on the floor naked, with her intestines
appellant immediately left and went towards the back of the protrudingoutofherstomach.Meanwhile,neighborshadarrived
houseofIsabel.8 toofferassistance.AdaughterofIsabel,Cion,calledthepolice. 10
Intheeveningofthesameday,IsabelDawangarrivedhome At9:00thatevening,SPO4MelchorFaniswareceivedareport
andfoundthatthelightsinherhousewereoff.Shecalledoutfor thatadeadwomanwasfoundinIsabelDawangshouse.Together
hergranddaughter,KathylynUba.Thedoortothegroundfloor withfellowpoliceofficers,Faniswawenttothehouseandfound
was open. She noticed that the water container she asked thenakedbodyofKathylynUbawithmultiplestabwounds.The
Kathylyntofillupearlierthatdaywasstillempty.Shewentup peopleinthevicinityinformedthepoliceofficersthatappellant
theladder wasseengoingdowntheladderofthehouseofIsabelDawangat
_______________ approximately12:30p.m.
The police discovered the victims panties, brassiere, denim
4
Id.,atpp.317319. pants,bagandsandalsbesidehernakedcadaveratthesceneof
5
TSN, Direct Examination of Beverly Deneng, 27 January the crime, and they found a dirty white shirt splattered with
1999,pp.531540,568576.SeealsoExhibitW,JointAffidavit bloodwithin50metersfromthehouseofIsabel.
of Anita Wania and Beverly Deneng executed on 3 July 1998, Whenquestionedbythepolice authorities, appellant denied
OriginalRecords,p.17. any knowledge of Kathylyns death,11however, he was placed
6
TSN, CrossExamination of Judilyn Pasa, 30 September underpolicecustody.
1998,p.377. OnJuly3,1998,appellantaskedthepoliceofficersifhecould
7
Id., at pp. 275324.See alsoTSN,supranote 7 at pp. 356 relievehimself.PoliceOfficerCesarAbaganaccompaniedhimto
358. the toilet around seven to ten meters away from the police
8
Id.,atpp.314323,339344. station. They suddenly heard someone shout in the Ilocano
511 dialect,Nagtaray!(Hesrunningaway!).PoliceOfficerOrlando
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 511 Manuel exited through the gate of the Police Station and saw
appellantrunningaway.Appellantwasapproximately70meters THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT
awayfromthesta ACQUITTINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTOFTHESERIOUS
_______________ CRIMECHARGEDDUETOREASONABLEDOUBT.
Appellantscontentionsareunmeritorious.
9
Id.,atpp.267270. The issue regarding the credibility of the prosecution
10
Id.,atpp.271273. witnessesshouldberesolvedagainstappellant.ThisCourtwill
11
TSN, Direct Examination of SPO4 Melchor Faniswa, 9 notinterferewiththejudgmentofthetrialcourtindetermining
the credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record
September 1998, pp. 920.See alsoTSN, CrossExamination of
somefactorcircumstanceofweightandinfluencewhichhasbeen
SPO4MelchorFaniswa,9September1998,pp.2138.
overlooked or the significance of which has been
512
misinterpreted.13Wellentrenchedistherulethatthefindingsof
512 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
Peoplevs.Yatar weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented
tion when Police Officer Abagan recaptured him. 12He was necessitatingareexaminationifnotthedisturbanceofthesame;
charged with Rape with Homicide. When he was arraigned on the reason being that the former is in a better and unique
July21,1998,appellantpleadednotguilty. positionofhearingfirsthandthewitnesses
Aftertrial,appellantwasconvictedofthecrimeofRapewith _______________
Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 266A of the
RevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyR.A.8353,otherwiseknown
12
TSN, CrossExamination and ReDirect Examination of
as the AntiRape Law of 1997, and was accordingly, sentenced PoliceOfficerOrlandoManuel,9September1998,pp.7684.See
toDeath. alsoTSN,DirectandCrossExaminationofSPO1FelixTuringan,
Hence, this automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the 9September1998,pp.8896.
RevisedPenalCode,asamended.InhisBrief,appellantassigns 13
People v. Remudo,G.R. No. 127905, 30 August 2001,364
thefollowingerrors: SCRA71.
I 513
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 513
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING MUCH
Peoplevs.Yatar
WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude.14Absent
PROSECUTION NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR
any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or
DOUBTFULNESS.
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would
II affect the result of the case, the trial judges assessment of
credibilitydeservestheappellatecourtshighestrespect. 15Where
thereisnothingtoshowthatthewitnessesfortheprosecution 17
People v. Cabug,G.R. No. 123149, 27 March 2001,355
wereactuatedbyimpropermotive,theirtestimoniesareentitled SCRA391.
tofullfaithandcredit.16 18
SeeTSN,DirectExaminationofDr.PejEvanC.Bartolo,16
Theweightoftheprosecutionsevidencemustbeappreciated September1998,pp.106157.
inlightofthewellsettledrulewhichprovidesthatanaccused 19
TSN, Direct Examination of Dr. Rey Evan C. Bartolo, 16
can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as September1998,pp.116118.
sufficientcircumstantialevidenceispresentedbytheprosecution 514
toprovebeyonddoubtthattheaccusedcommittedthecrime. 17
514 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Referencetotherecordswillshowthatatotalofeleven(11)
Peoplevs.Yatar
wounds, six (6) stab and five (5) incised, were found on the
victim,20Dr. Bartolo discovered the presence of semen in the
victims abdomen and back, causing a portion of her small
vaginal canal of the victim. During his testimony, Dr. Bartolo
intestines to spill outof her body.18Rigor mortisofthe victims
statedthattheintroductionofsemenintothevaginalcanalcould
bodywascompletewhenDr.Bartoloexaminedthevictimat9:00
only be done through sexual intercourse with the victim. 21In
a.m.onJuly1,1998.Accordingtohim,thetimeofdeathmaybe
addition, it is apparent from the pictures submitted by the
approximatedfrombetweennine(9)totwelve(12)hourspriorto
prosecutionthatthesexualviolationofthevictimwasmanifested
the completion ofrigor mortis.19In other words, the estimated by a bruise and some swelling in her right forearm indicating
timeofdeathwassometimebetween9:00a.m.to12:00p.m.on resistancetotheappellantsassaultonhervirtue.22
June30,1998.Thiswaswithinthetimeframewithinwhichthe Significantly, subsequent testing showed that the
lonepresenceofappellantlurkinginthehouseofIsabelDawang Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the sperm specimen from the
wastestifiedtobywitnesses. vaginaofthevictimwasidenticalsementobethatofappellants
Itshouldalsobenotedthat,althoughthePostmortemReport genetype.
by the attending physician, Dr. Pej Evan C. Bartolo, indicates DNAisamoleculethatencodesthegeneticinformationinall
thatnohymenallacerations,contusionsorhematomawerenoted livingorganisms.23ApersonsDNAisthesameineachcellandit
onthe does not change throughout a persons lifetime; the DNA in a
_______________ personsbloodisthesameastheDNAfoundinhissaliva,sweat,
bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin
14
Peoplev.Santos,G.R.No.137993,11April2002,380SCRA tissue,andvaginalandrectalcells. 24Mostimportantly,becauseof
608,613. polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals
15
Id. have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical
16
People v. Payot,G.R. No. 119352, 8 June 1999,308 SCRA twins.25
43,6263. DNAprintoridentificationtechnologyhasbeenadvancedasa
uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to
exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence properlycollectedfromthevictim,crimesceneorassailant,DNA
has been left. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA canbecomparedwithknownsamplestoplacethesuspectatthe
identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and sceneofthecrime.28
exculpatoryevidence.Itcanassistimmenselyineffectingamore TheU.P.NationalScienceResearchInstitute(NSRI),which
accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating conductedtheDNAtestsinthiscase,usedthePolymerasechain
theconvictionoftheguilty,securingtheacquittaloftheinnocent, reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat
andensuringtheproperadministrationofjusticeineverycase. (STR)analysis.WithPCRtesting,tinyamountsofaspecificDNA
DNAevidencecollectedfromacrimescenecanlinkasuspect sequencecanbecopiedexponentiallywithinhours.Thus,getting
toacrimeoreliminateonefromsuspicioninthesameprinciple sufficient DNA for analysis has become much easier since it
as becamepossibletoreliablyamplifysmallsamplesusingthePCR
_______________ method.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts
20
SeeTSN,DirectExaminationofDr.PejEvanC.Bartolo,16 shouldconsider,interalia,thefollowingfactors:howthesamples
September1998,pp.266304. were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
21
Id.,atpp.266304. contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
22
SeeExhibitsF1,G,H,OriginalRecords,pp.6A6C. analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and
23
Peter Sudbery,Human Molecular Genetics(2nd ed. 2002); procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
19992000PocketPart,p.51. qualificationoftheanalystwhoconductedthetests. 29
24
K.M.Turman,UnderstandingDNAEvidence:AGuidefor Inthecaseatbar,Dr.MariaCorazonAbogadodeUngriawas
Victim Service Providers, OVC Bulletin (U.S. Department of dulyqualifiedbytheprosecutionasanexpertwitnessonDNA
print or identification techniques.30Based on Dr. de Ungrias
Justice,April2001),p.1.
testi
25
84ALR4th313.
_______________
515
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 515 26
Id.
Peoplevs.Yatar 27
Id.
fingerprintsareused.26Incidentsinvolvingsexualassaultwould
leavebiologicalevidencesuchashair,skintissue,semen,blood,
28
Id.,atpp.12.
orsalivawhichcanbeleftonthevictimsbodyoratthecrime
29
Peoplev.Vallejo,G.R.No.144656,9May2002,382SCRA
scene.Hairandfiberfromclothing,carpets,bedding,orfurniture 192,209.
could also be transferred to the victims body during the
30
Dr. de Ungria is Head of the Genetic Engineering
assault.27ForensicDNAevidenceishelpfulinprovingthatthere Laboratory,UniversityofthePhilippines,AssistantSupervisorof
was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. If theDNAAnalysisLaboratory,UniversityofthePhilippines,and
Assistant Professor at the Ateneo de Manila University. In Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates
December 1999, Dr. de Ungria was a 1999 Jose Rizal Young directlytoafactinissueastoinducebeliefinitsexistenceor
AwardeefortheProfessionalSectorforherparticipationinthe nonexistence.34ApplyingtheDauberttesttothecaseatbar,the
identification of the body of a victim of the Paco fire. She DNAevidenceobtainedthroughPCRtestingandutilizingSTR
commenced working as Assistant Supervisor of the U.P. DNA analysis, and which was appreciated by the courta quois
Laboratory relevantandreli
516 _______________
516 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Yatar in February 1999 after returning from Sydney, Australia.
mony,itwasdeterminedthatthegenetypeandDNAprofileof Prior to February 1999, she worked as a DNA Analyst. An
appellant are identical to that of the extracts subject of alumna of the Philippine Science High School, Dr. de Ungria
examination.31Thebloodsampletakenfromtheappellantshowed obtained a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in Biology at
thathewasofthefollowinggenetypes:vWA15/19,TH017/8, Macquarie University, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in
DHFRP29/10andCSF1PO10/11,whichareidenticalwithsemen MolecularMicrobiologyattheUniversityofNewSouthWales,in
taken from the victims vaginal canal. 32Verily, a DNA match Australia. She is a member of the Philippine Society of
exists between the semen found in the victim and the blood MicrobiologyandanassociatememberoftheNationalResearch
samplegivenbytheappellantinopencourtduringthecourseof Council of the Philippines.SeeTSN, Direct Examination of Dr.
thetrial. Ma.CorazonAbogadodeUngria,18February2000,pp.739743.
Admittedly,wearejustbeginningtointegratetheseadvances 31
TSN,18February2000,pp.789790.SeeExhibitsXXand
in science and technology in the Philippine criminal justice
YY1, Original Records, p. 144, 149150.See alsoTSN,
system,sowemustbecautiousaswetraversetheserelatively
Continuation of Direct Examination of Dr. de Ungria, 18 April
unchartedwaters.Fortunately,wecanbenefitfromthewealthof
2000,p.842.
persuasive jurisprudence that has developed in other 32
TSN,18April2000,p.842.SeealsoExhibitsZ,ZZand
jurisdictions.Specifically,theprevailingdoctrineintheU.S.has
ZZ1,OriginalRecords,pp.152154.
proveninstructive. 33
509U.S.579(1993);125L.Ed.2d469.
InDaubert v. Merrell Dow,33it was ruled that pertinent 34
RulesofCourt,Rule128,sec.4.
evidencebasedonscientificallyvalidprinciplescouldbeusedas
517
longasitwasrelevantandreliable.Judges,underDaubert,were VOL.428,MAY19,2004 517
allowedgreaterdiscretionoverwhichtestimonytheywouldallow
Peoplevs.Yatar
at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific
ablesinceitisreasonablybasedonscientificallyvalidprinciples
techniques.DNAtypingisonesuchnovelprocedure.
ofhumangeneticsandmolecularbiology.
 Independently of the physical evidence of appellants semen others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether
foundinthevictimsvaginalcanal,thetrialcourtappreciatedthe thereissufficientcircumstantialevidence,threerequisitesmust
followingcircumstantialevidenceasbeingsufficienttosustaina concur:(1)thereismorethanonecircumstance;(2)factsonwhich
conviction beyond reasonable doubt: (1) Appellant and his wife theinferencesarederivedareproven;and(3)thecombinationof
were living in the house of Isabel Dawang together with the allthecircum
victim,KathylynUba;(2)InJune1998,appellantswifeleftthe _______________
housebecauseoftheirfrequentquarrels;(3)Appellantreceived
fromthevictim,KathylynUba,aletterfromhisestrangedwifein Decision,pp.4648.SeeRollo,pp.300302.
35

the earlymorningof June30,1998; (4)Appellantwasseenby 518

ApoloniaWaniaandBeverlyDennengat1:00p.m.ofJune30, 518 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
1998 near the kitchen of the house of Isabel Dawang, acting Peoplevs.Yatar
strangelyandwearingadirtywhiteshirtwithcollar;(5)Judilyn stances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
PasasawappellantgoingdowntheladderofthehouseofIsabel doubt.36
at12:30p.m.,wearingadirtywhiteshirt,andagainat1:30p.m., In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the appellant
thistimewearingablackshirt;(6)Appellanthurriedlyleftwhen contends that the blood sampletaken from him as well as the
the husband of Judilyn Pasa was approaching; (7) Salmalina DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain
Tandagansawappellantinadirtywhiteshirtcomingdownthe silentaswellashisrightagainstselfincriminationunderSecs.
ladderofthehouseofIsabelonthedayKathylynUbawasfound 12and17ofArt.IIIoftheConstitution.
dead; (8) The door leading to the second floor of the house of This contention is untenable. The kernel of theright is not
IsabelDawangwastiedbyarope;(9)Thevictim,KathylynUba, againstallcompulsion,butagainsttestimonialcompulsion. 37The
laynakedinapoolofbloodwithherintestinesprotrudingfrom rightagainstselfincriminationissimplyagainstthelegalprocess
herbodyonthesecondfloorofthehouseofIsabelDawang,with ofextractingfromthelipsoftheaccusedanadmissionofguilt.It
herstainedpants,bra,underwearandshoesscatteredalongthe doesnotapplywheretheevidencesoughttobeexcludedisnotan
periphery; (10) Laboratory examination revealed sperm in the incriminationbutaspartofobjectevidence.
victimsvagina(ExhibitsHandJ);(11)Thestainedordirty
We ruled inPeople v.Rondero38that although accused
whiteshirtfoundinthecrimescenewasfoundtobepositivewith
appellantinsistedthathairsampleswereforciblytakenfromhim
blood;(12)DNAofslide,ExhibitsJandH,comparedwiththe
and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for
DNA profile of the appellant are identical; and (13) Appellant
forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in
escaped two days after he was detained but was subsequently
evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of
apprehended,suchflightbeingindicativeofguilt.35
testimonialcompulsionoranyevidencecommunicativeinnature
Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a
acquiredfromtheaccusedunderduress.
conviction, must form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair
andreasonableconclusionthat the accused, totheexclusionof
 Hence,apersonmaybecompelledtosubmittofingerprinting, Appellants twin defense of denial and alibi cannot be
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no sustained. The forensic DNA evidence and bloodied shirt,
testimonial compulsion involved. UnderPeople notwithstandingtheeyewitnessaccountsofhispresenceatIsabel
v.Gallarde,39where immediately after the incident, the police Dawangshouseduringthetimewhenthecrimewascommitted,
authoritiestookpicturesoftheaccusedwithoutthepresenceof undeniablylinkhimtotheJune30,1998incident.Appellantdid
counsel,weruledthattherewasnoviolationoftherightagainst not demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence an
selfincrimination.Theaccusedmaybecompelledtosubmittoa impossibilitytobeintwoplacesatthesametime,especiallyin
physicalexaminationtodeterminehisinvolvementinanoffense this case where the two places are located in the same
ofwhichheisaccused. barangay.40He lives within a one hundred (100) meter radius
It must also benoted that appellantin thiscase submitted fromthesceneofthecrime,andrequiresamerefiveminutewalk
himselfforbloodsamplingwhichwasconductedinopencourton toreachonehousefromtheother.Thisfactseverelyweakenshis
March30,2000,inthepresenceofcounsel. alibi.
AppellantfurtherarguesthattheDNAtestsconductedbythe Astothesecondassignmentoferror,appellantassertsthat
prosecutionagainsthimareunconstitutionalonthegroundthat the courta quocommitted reversible error in convicting him of
resort thereto is tantamount to the application of anexpost the crime charged. He alleges that he should be acquitted on
reasonabledoubt.
factolaw.
Appellantsassertioncannotbesustained.
_______________
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly
established evidence and never on mere conjectures or
36
RulesofCourt,Rule133,sec.4.
suppositions.Thelegalrelevancyofevidencedenotessomething
37
Alih v. Castro,G.R. No. 69401, 23 June 1987,151 SCRA
morethanaminimumofprobativevalue,suggestingthatsuch
279.
evidentiaryrelevancemustcontainaplusvalue. 41Thismaybe
G.R.No.125687,9December1999,320SCRA383.
38
necessary to preclude the trial court from being satisfied by
G.R.No.133025,27February2000,325SCRA835.
39
mattersofslightvalue,capableofbeingexaggeratedbyprejudice
519
and hasty conclusions. Evidence without plus value may be
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 519 logically relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is
Peoplevs.Yatar incumbentuponthetrialcourttobalancetheprobativevalueof
Thisargumentisspecious.Noexpostfactolawisinvolvedinthe suchevidenceagainstthelikelyharmthatwouldresultfromits
caseatbar.ThescienceofDNAtypinginvolvestheadmissibility, admission.
relevanceandreliabilityoftheevidenceobtainedundertheRules The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when
of Court. Whereas anexpost factolaw refers primarily to a thereisrelevantevidencefromwhichthecourtcanproperlyfind
questionoflaw,DNAprofilingrequiresafactualdeterminationof orinferthattheaccusedisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt.Proof
theprobativeweightoftheevidencepresented. beyond
_______________ houseonJune25,1998. 48Inaddition,Judilynalsotestifiedthat
whenherauntieLuzDawangYatar,wifeofappellant,separated
40
SeePeople v. Manguera,G.R. No. 139906, 5 March from her husband, this Joel Yatar threatened to kill our
2003,398SCRA618. family.49Accord
41
IWigmoreonEvidence28,atpp.409410. _______________
520
520 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
42
R.J.Francisco,Evidence(3rdEd.,1996),p.577,citingShaw,
Peoplevs.Yatar C.J.,Commonwealth v. Webster, Benis Rep. Of the Trial,
reasonable doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in order to 469;Com.V.Costley,118Mass.1.
sustainaconviction.Moralcertaintyisthatdegreeofcertainty 43
Words and Phrases, Moral Certainty,
that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the citingCommonwealthv.Goodwin,80Mass.(14Gray)55,57.
reason and judgment of those who are bound to act 44
People v. Verzo,G.R. No. L22517, 26 December 1967,21
conscientiously upon it. It is certainty beyond reasonable SCRA1403.
doubt.42This requires that the circumstances, taken together, 45
TSN, CrossExamination of Judilyn Pasa, 30 September
should be of a conclusivenature and tendency; leading, on the 1998,pp.376380.
whole,toasatisfactoryconclusionthattheaccused,andnoone 46
Id.,atp.324.
else, committed the offense charged. 43In view of the totality of
evidence appreciated thus far, we rule that the present case
47
Id., at p. 332.SeeExhibits Q, Q1 and Q2, Original
passesthetestofmoralcertainty. Records,pp.1314.
However, as a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of
48
Id.,atp.334.
meeting the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, 49
Id.,atp.333.
motiveisessentialforconvictionwhenthereisdoubtastothe 521
identityoftheculprit.44 VOL.428,MAY19,2004 521
Pertinently,itmustbenotedthatJudilynPasa,firstcousinof Peoplevs.Yatar
the victim, testified that she last saw the victim alive in the ingtoJudilyn,whowaspersonallypresentduringanargument
morningofJune30,1998atthehouseofIsabelDawang. 45She betweenherauntandtheappellant,theexactwordsutteredby
witnessedtheappellantrunningdownthestairsofIsabelshouse appellanttohiswifeintheIlocanodialectwas,Ifyouleaveme,I
andproceedingtothebackofthesamehouse. 46Shealsotestified will kill all your family and your relatives x x x. 50These
thatafewdaysbeforethevictimwasrapedandkilled,thelatter statementswerenotcontradictedbyappellant.
revealedtoherthatJoelYatarattemptedtorapeheraftershe Thus,appellantsmotivetosexuallyassaultandkillthevictim
came from the school.47The victim told Judilyn about the wasevidentintheinstantcase.Itisaruleincriminallawthat
incidentorattemptoftheappellanttorapeherfivedaysbefore motive,beingastateofmind,isestablishedbythetestimonyof
hernakedandviolatedbodywasfounddeadinhergrandmothers
witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or 54
Peoplev.Serrano,G.R.No.137480,28February2001,353
immediatelyafterthecommissionoftheoffense,deedsorwords SCRA161,172.
that may express it or from which his motive or reason for 55
Peoplev.Aonuevo,G.R.No.137843,12October2001,367
committingitmaybeinferred.51 SCRA249.
Accordingly, we are convinced that the appellant is guilty 522
beyondreasonabledoubtofthespecialcomplexcrimeofrapewith
522 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
homicide. Appellant sexually assaulted Kathylyn Uba, and by
Peoplevs.Yatar
reasonorontheoccasionthereof,inordertoconcealhislustful
it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during
deed, permanently sealed the victims lips by stabbing her
intercourse. Absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove
repeatedly,therebycausingheruntimelydemise.
sexualabuseespeciallywhenthevictimisoftenderage.56
The following are the elements constitutive of rape with
In the case at bar, appellant is the husband of the victims
homicide:(1)theappellanthadcarnalknowledgeofawoman;(2)
aunt. He is seven years older than the victim Kathylyn Uba.
carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force,
Beforeheandhiswifeseparated,appellantlivedinthehouseof
threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on the occasion of
hismotherinlaw,togetherwiththevictimandhiswife.Afterthe
suchcarnalknowledgebymeansofforce,threatorintimidation,
separation, appellant moved to the house of his parents,
appellantkilledthewoman.52However,inrapecommittedbyclose
approximatelyonehundred(100)metersfromhismotherinlaws
kin, such as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or the
house.Beingarelativebyaffinitywithinthethirdcivildegree,he
commonlawspouseofhermother,itisnotnecessarythatactual
isdeemedinlegalcontemplationtohavemoralascendancyover
force or intimidation be employed.53Moral influence or
thevictim.
ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. 54The
UnderArticle266BoftheRevisedPenalCode,thepenaltyof
factthatthevictimshymenisintactdoesnotnegateafinding
deathisimposedwhenbyreasonorontheoccasionoftherape,
thatrapewascommittedasmereentrybythepenisintothelips
homicideiscommitted.Althoughthree(3)JusticesofthisCourt
ofthefemalegenitalorgan,evenwithoutruptureorlacerationof
maintaintheirpositionthatR.A.7659isunconstitutionalinsofar
the hymen, suffices for conviction of rape. 55The strength and
asitprescribesthedeathpenalty,theyneverthelesssubmittothe
dilatabilityofthehymenareinvariable;
rulingofthemajoritythatthelawisnotunconstitutional,and
_______________
thatthedeathpenaltycanbelawfullyimposedinthecaseatbar.
50
Id.,atpp.336338. As to damages, civil indemnityex delictoof
P100,000.00,57actual damages incurred by the family of the
51
Barrioquintov.Fernandez,82Phil.642,649(1949).
victim that have been proved at the trial amounting to
52
Articles266Aand266B,RevisedPenalCode.
P93,190.00,58and moral damages of P75,000.0059should be
53
Peoplev.Remudo,supra. awarded in the light of prevailing law and jurisprudence.
Exemplarydamagescannotbeawardedaspartof
_______________ withArt.83oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbySec.25of
Rep. Act No. 7659, let the records of this case be forthwith
56
Peoplev.Llanita,G.R.No.134101,5September2001,364 forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible
SCRA519. exerciseofthepardoningpower.
57
People v. Manguera,supra;People v. Seranilla,G.R. Nos. Costsdeoficio.
11302224, 15 December 2000,348 SCRA 227;People v. SOORDERED.
Payot,G.R.No.119352,8June1999,308SCRA43. Vitug,Panganiban,Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,Sand
58
Arts. 2199 and 2202, Civil Code, Art. 2199, states that ovalGutierrez,Carpio,AustriaMartinez,Corona,Carpio
[e]xceptasprovidedbylaworbystipulation,oneisentitledtoan Morales,Callejo,Sr.,AzcunaandTinga,JJ.,concur.
adequatecompensationonlyforsuchpecuniarylosssufferedby Davide,Jr.(C.J.)andPuno,J.,OnOfficialLeave.
himashehasdulyproved.Art.2202providesthat[i]ncrimes Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
andquasidelicts, thedefendantshall beliable forall damages
Notes.DNA,beingarelativelynewscience,hasnotyetbeen
which are the natural and probable consequences of the actor
accorded official recognition by the courtspaternity will still
omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages
havetoberesolvedbyconventionalevidence.(PeLimvs.Courtof
havebeenforeseenorcouldhavereasonablybeenforeseenbythe
defendant. Appeals,210SCRA1[1997])
59
Peoplev.Magallanes,G.R.No.136299,29August2003,410 Being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as
evidence is still open to challenge, but eventually, as the
SCRA183.
appropriatecasecomes,courtsshouldnothesitatetoruleonthe
523
admissibilityofDNAevidence.Courtsshouldapplytheresultsof
VOL.428,MAY19,2004 523
sciencewhencompetentlyobtainedinaidofsituationspresented,
Peoplevs.Yatar
sincetorejectsaidresultistodenyprogress.(Tijingvs.Courtof
thecivilliabilitysincethecrimewasnotcommittedwithoneor
moreaggravatingcircumstances.60 Appeals,354SCRA17[2001])
WHEREFORE, inview oftheforegoing, theDecision of the _______________
RTCofBulanao,Tabuk,Kalinga,Branch25inCriminalCaseNo.
Article2230,CivilCode.
60
3598,sentencingappellantJoelYataraliasKawittoDeathfor
524
thespecialcomplexcrimeofRapewithHomicideisAFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that he be ORDERED to pay the 524 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
familyofthevictimKathylynUbacivilindemnityexdelictointhe SMCQuarry2WorkersUnionFebruarySixMovement(FSM)LocalChapter
amount of P100,000.00, P93,190.00 in actual damages and No.1564vs.TitanMegabagsIndustrialCorporation
P75,000.00inmoraldamages.Theawardofexemplarydamages
isDELETED.UponthefinalityofthisDecisionandinaccordance
DNA test is synonymous to DNA typing, DNA fingerprinting, contract is the intention of the parties. Such intention is
DNAprofiling,genetictests,andgeneticfingerprinting.(People determinedfromtheexpresstermsoftheiragreementaswellas
vs.Marquez,380SCRA561[2002]) fromtheircontemporaneousandsubsequentacts.
Same;Same;Themostprotuberantindexofsimulationisthe
o0o completeabsenceonthepartofthevendeeofanyattemptinany
manner to assert his rights of ownership over the disputed
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights property.InSuntayv.CourtofAppeals,251SCRA430(1995),
reserved. theCourtruledthatthemostprotuberantindexofsimulationis
thecompleteabsence,onthepartofthevendee,ofanyattemptin
anymannertoasserthisrightsofownershipoverthedisputed
property.Inthepresentcase,however,theevidenceclearlyshows
thatpetitioner
_______________

*
THIRDDIVISION.
**
AlsospelledasLasalitainotherpartsoftheRollo.
80
8 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 79
0
Tatingvs.Marcella
Tatingvs.Marcella
G.R.No.155208.March27,2007.*
declaredthepropertyfortaxationandpaidrealtytaxesonit
NENA LAZALITA**TATING, petitioner,vs.FELICIDAD inhername.Petitionerhasshownthatfrom1972to1988she
TATINGMARCELLA,representedbySALVADORMARCELLA, religiouslypaidtherealestatetaxesdueonthesaidlotandthat
CARLOSTATING,andtheCOURTOFAPPEALS,respondents. it was only in 1974 and 1987 that she failed to pay the taxes
Civil Law;Contracts;Acontractis simulatediftheparties thereon. While tax receipts and declarations and receipts and
donotintendtobeboundatall(absolutelysimulated)orifthe declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are not, in
partiesconcealtheirtrueagreement(relativelysimulated).The themselves, incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they
CA and the trial court ruled that the contract of sale between constituteatleastproofthattheholderhasaclaimoftitleover
petitionerandDanielaissimulated.Acontractissimulatedifthe theproperty.Thevoluntarydeclarationofapieceofpropertyfor
partiesdonotintendtobeboundatall(absolutelysimulated)or taxation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and honest
ifthepartiesconcealtheirtrueagreement(relativelysimulated). desiretoobtaintitletothepropertyandannounceshisadverse
The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a claimagainsttheStateandallotherinterestedparties,butalso
theintentiontocontributeneededrevenuestotheGovernment. Tatingvs.Marcella
Such an act strengthens onesbona fideclaim of acquisition of allypreparedbytheaffiantbutbyanotherwhouseshisown
ownership. languageinwritingtheaffiantsstatements,whichmaythusbe
Same;Same;Property;Sales;Ownership;Possession along
eitheromittedormisunderstoodbytheonewritingthem.There
with ownership is transferred to the vendee by virtue of the isnoissueintheadmissibilityofthesubjectswornstatement.
notarized deed of conveyance.It is true that Daniela retained However,theadmissibilityofevidenceshouldnotbeequatedwith
physicalpossession ofthe propertyevenaftershe executed the weightofevidence.Theadmissibilityofevidencedependsonits
subjectAbsoluteDeedofSaleandevenaftertitletotheproperty relevanceandcompetencewhiletheweightofevidencepertains
wastransferredinpetitionersfavor.Infact,Danielacontinuedto to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and
occupythepropertyindisputeuntilherdeathin1988while,in persuade.Thus,aparticularitemofevidencemaybeadmissible,
themeantime,petitionercontinuedtoresideinManila.However, butitsevidentiaryweightdependsonjudicialevaluationwithin
it is wellestablished that ownership and possession are two theguidelinesprovidedbytherulesofevidence.Itissettledthat
entirely different legal concepts. Just as possession is not a affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not
definiteproofofownership,neitherisnonpossessioninconsistent generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his
withownership.ThefirstparagraphofArticle1498oftheCivil ownlanguageinwritingtheaffiantsstatements,whichmaythus
Code states that when the sale is made through a public beeitheromittedormisunderstoodbytheonewritingthem.
instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the Same;Same;As in all civil cases, the burden is on the
deliveryofthethingwhichistheobjectofthecontract,iffromthe plaintifftoprovethematerialallegationsofhiscomplaintandhe
deedthecontrarydoesnotappearorcannotclearlybeinferred.
mustrelyonthestrengthofhisevidenceandnotontheweakness
Possession,alongwithownership,istransferredtothevendeeby
virtueofthenotarizeddeedofconveyance.Thus,inlightofthe of the evidence of the defendant.Private respondents should
circumstancesofthepresentcase,itisofnolegalconsequence have presented other evidence to sufficiently prove their
thatpetitionerdidnottakeactualpossessionoroccupationofthe allegationthatDaniela,infact,hadnointentionofdisposingof
disputedpropertyaftertheexecutionofthedeedofsaleinher herpropertywhensheexecutedthesubjectdeedofsaleinfavor
favorbecauseshewasalreadyabletoperfectandcompleteher ofpetitioner.Asinallcivilcases,theburdenisontheplaintiffto
ownershipofandtitleoverthesubjectproperty. provethematerialallegationsofhiscomplaintandhemustrely
onthestrengthofhisevidenceandnotontheweaknessofthe
Civil Procedure;Evidence;Affidavits;The admissibility of
evidenceofthedefendant.AsidefromDanielasswornstatement,
evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence; It is
private respondents failed to present any other documentary
settledthataffidavitsareclassifiedashearsayevidencesincethey evidence to prove their claim. Even the testimonies of their
arenotgener witnesses failed to establish that Daniela had a different
81 intentionwhensheenteredintoacontractofsalewithpetitioner.
VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 81 SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. property;thetrueagreementbetweenherandNenawassimply
Pamplona,GenitoandValdezcoforpetitioner. totransfertitleoverthesubjectpropertyinfavorof
GuanzonandGuanzonLawFirmforrespondents. _______________
82 1
PennedbyJusticeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.andconcurredin
82 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
by Justices Conchita CarpioMorales (now a member of this
Tatingvs.Marcella
Court)andSergioL.Pestao;Rollo,p.53.
2
OriginalRecords,pp.318342.
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.: 3
ExhibitA,Id.,atp.138.
AssailedintheSpecialCivilActionforCertioraribeforetheCourt
4
ExhibitQ/1,Id.,atp.177.
are the Decision1dated February 22, 2002 and the Resolution
5
Exhibit3,Id.,atp.179.
datedAugust22,2002oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.
6
Exhibits8Ato8AA,Id.,atpp.183212.
CVNo.64122,whichaffirmedtheDecision 2oftheRegionalTrial 83
Court(RTC)ofCadizCity,NegrosOccidental,Branch60. VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 83
Thepresentcasearosefromacontroversyinvolvingaparcelof Tatingvs.Marcella
landdenominatedasLot56ofSubdivisionplanPsd31182,located thelattertoenablehertoobtainaloanbymortgagingthesubject
atAbelardeSt.,CadizCity,NegrosOccidental.Thesubjectlot, property for the purpose of helping her defray her business
containinganareaof200squaremeters,wasownedbyDaniela expenses;shelaterdiscoveredthatNenadidnotsecureanyloan
Solano Vda. de Tating (Daniela) as evidenced by Transfer nor mortgage the property; she wants the title in the name of
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T4393 issued by the Registry of Nenacancelledandthesubjectpropertyreconveyedtoher.7
DeedsoftheCityofCadiz.3 Daniela died on July 29, 1988 8leaving her children as her
OnOctober14,1969,Danielasoldthesubjectpropertytoher heirs, namely: Ricardo, Felicidad, Julio, Carlos and Cirilo who
granddaughter, herein petitioner Nena Lazalita Tating (Nena). predeceasedDanielaandwasrepresentedbyhereinpetitioner.
ThecontractofsalewasembodiedinadulynotarizedDeedof InaletterdatedMarch1,1989,CarlosinformedNenathat
Absolute Sale executed by Daniela in favor of when Daniela died they discovered the sworn statement she
Nena.4Subsequently, title over the subject property was executedonDecember28,1977and,asaconsequence,theyare
transferredinthenameofNena. 5Shedeclaredthepropertyin demandingfromNenathereturnoftheirrightfulsharesoverthe
her name for tax purposes and paid the real estate taxes due subjectpropertyasheirsofDaniela. 9Nenadidnotreply.Efforts
thereon for the years 1972, 1973, 1975 to 1986 and tosettlethecaseamicablyprovedfutile.
1988.6However,thelandremainedinpossessionofDaniela. Hence, on September 6, 1989, Carlos and Felicidad,
OnDecember28,1977,Danielaexecutedaswornstatement representedbyhersonSalvador,filedacomplaintwiththeRTC
claiming that she had actually no intention of selling the of Cadiz City, Negros Occidental against Nena praying for the
nullificationoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaleexecutedbyDanielain (Exh.Q)executedbetweenDanielaSolanoVda.deTatingand
herfavor,cancellationoftheTCTissuedinthenameofNena, NenaLazalitaTatingasNULLandVOIDandfurtherordering:
and issuanceof a new titleand tax declaration in favor of the
heirs of Daniela.10The complaint also prayed for the award of 1. 1.TheRegisterofDeedsofCadizCitytocancelTCTNo.
moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees and 5975andinlieuthereoftoissueanewtitleinthenames
litigation expenses. On March 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed an of Carlos Tating,Proindivisoowner of onefourth (1/4)
amended complaint with leave of court for the purpose of portionoftheproperty;FelicidadTatingMarcella,Pro
excludingRicardo asapartyplaintiff, hehavingdied intestate
indivisoowner of onefourth (1/4) portion; Julio
and without issue in March 1991.11He left Carlos, Felicidad,
Julio,andNenaashissoleheirs. Tating,Proindivisoownerofonefourth(1/4)portionand
_______________ Nena Lazalita Tating,Proindivisoowner of onefourth
(1/4)portion,alloflot56afterpaymentoftheprescribed
7
ExhibitD,Id.,atp.142. fees;
8
ExhibitI,Id.,atp.149.
2. 2.The City Assessor of the City of Cadiz to cancel Tax
9
ExhibitE,Id.,atp.143.
Declaration No. 14300672 and in lieu thereof issue a
10
Id.,atp.1.
new Tax Declaration in the names of Carlos Tating,
11
Id.,atp.55.
1/4Proindivisoportion; Felicidad Tating Marcella,
84
1/4Proindivisoportion; Julio Tating, 1/4Pro
84 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
indivisoportion; and Nena Lazalita Tating, 1/4Pro
Tatingvs.Marcella
indivisoportion, all of lot 56 as well as the house
InherAnswer,Nenadeniedthatanyfraudormisrepresentation
standing thereon be likewise declaredin the names of
attendedtheexecutionofthesubjectDeedofAbsoluteSale.She
thepersonsmentionedinthesameproportionsasabove
alsodeniedhavingreceivedtheletterofheruncle,Carlos.She
statedafterpaymentoftheprescribedfees;
prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, and in her
counterclaim,sheaskedthetrialcourtfortheawardofactual,
exemplary and moral damages as well as attorneys fees and 3. 3.Thedefendantisfurthermoreorderedtopayplaintiffs
litigationexpenses.12 the sum of P20,000.00 by way of moral damages,
Trial ensued. On November 4, 1998, the RTC rendered P10,000.00bywayofexemplarydamages,P5,000.00by
judgmentwiththefollowingdispositiveportion: wayofattorneysfeesandP3,000.00bywayoflitigation
WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,judgmentishereby expenses;andto
renderedinfavoroftheplaintiffsandagainstthedefendant,and
hereby declaring the document of sale dated October 14, 1969 _______________
 Id.,atpp.2325.
12 and in the interest of justice, the Court decided to treat the
85 presentpetitionforcertiorariashavingbeenfiled
VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 85 _______________
Tatingvs.Marcella
13
Id.,atp.342.
1. 4.Paythecostsofsuit.
14
CARollo,p.86.
15
Id.,atp.103.
SOORDERED.13 16
Rollo,p.5.
NenafiledanappealwiththeCA.OnFebruary22,2002,theCA 86
rendereditsDecisionaffirmingthejudgmentoftheRTC.14 86 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NenasMotionforReconsiderationwasdeniedbytheCAinits Tatingvs.Marcella
ResolutiondatedAugust22,2002.15
underRule45,especiallyconsideringthatitwasfiledwithinthe
Hence, herein petition forcertiorarianchored on the ground reglementaryperiodforfilingthesame.17
thattheCAhasdecidedtheinstantcasewithoutdueregardto Astothemeritsofthecase,petitionercontendsthatthecase
and in violation of the applicable laws and Decisions of this fortheprivaterespondentsrestsonthepropositionthattheDeed
HonorableCourtandalsobecausetheDecisionoftheRegional of Absolute Sale dated October 14, 1969 is simulated because
TrialCourt,whichithasaffirmed,isnotsupportedbyandiseven Danielasactualintentionwasnottodisposeofherpropertybut
againsttheevidenceonrecord.16 simply to help petitioner by providing her with a collateral.
Attheoutset,itmustbestatedthatthefilingoftheinstant Petitioner asserts that the sole evidence which persuaded both
petition forcertiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the RTC and the CA in holding that the subject deed was
inappropriate. Considering that the assailed Decision and simulatedwastheSwornStatementofDanieladatedDecember
Resolution of the CA finally disposed of the case, the proper 28,1977.However,petitionerarguesthatsaidSwornStatement
remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of should have been rejected outright by the lower courts
Court. consideringthatDanielahaslongbeendeadwhenthedocument
The Court notes that while the instant petition is wasofferedinevidence,therebydenyingpetitionertherightto
denominated as a Petition forCertiorariunder Rule 65 of the crossexamineher.
Rules of Court, there is no allegation that the CA committed Petitioner also contends that while the subject deed was
graveabuseofdiscretion.Ontheotherhand,thepetitionactually executed on October 14, 1969, the Sworn Statement was
averserrorsofjudgment,ratherthanofjurisdiction,whichare purportedly executed only on December 28, 1977 and was
thepropersubjectsofapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.Hence,in discovered only after the death of Daniela in 1994. 18Petitioner
accordancewith theliberalspirit pervadingtheRules ofCourt arguesthatifthedeedofsaleisindeedsimulated,Danielawould
have taken action against the petitioner during her lifetime.
However, the fact remains that upto the time ofher death or (absolutely simulated) or if the parties conceal their true
almost20yearsaftertheDeedofAbsoluteSalewasexecuted,she agreement(relativelysimulated).19Theprimaryconsiderationin
neverutteredawordofcomplaintagainstpetitioner. determiningthetruenatureofacontractistheintentionofthe
PetitionerfurtherassertsthattheRTCandtheCAerredin parties.20Suchintentionisdeterminedfromtheexpresstermsof
departingfromthedoctrineheldtimeandagainbytheSupreme their agreement as well as from their contemporaneous and
Court that clear, strong and convincing evidence beyond mere subsequentacts.21
preponderance is required to show the falsity or nullity of a Inthepresentcase,themainevidencepresentedbyprivate
notarialdocument.PetitioneralsoarguesthattheRTCandthe respondentsinprovingtheirallegationthatthesubjectdeedof
CAerredinitspronouncementthatthetransac saledidnotreflectthetrueintentionofthepartiestheretoisthe
_______________ swornstatementofDanieladatedDecember28,1977.Thetrial
court admitted the said sworn statement as part of private
17
DelsanTransportLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,335Phil. respondents evidence and gave credence to it. The CA also
1066,1075;268SCRA597,605(1997). accordedgreatprobativeweighttothisdocument.
18
Based on the certification issued by the Civil Registry of There is no issue in the admissibility of the subject sworn
CadizCity,DanielaS.TatingdiedonJuly29,1988. statement.However,theadmissibilityofevidenceshouldnot
87 _______________
VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 87
Tatingvs.Marcella
19
Peoples Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Court of
tionbetweenDanielaandpetitionercreatedatrustrelationship Appeals,357Phil.850,869870;297SCRA170,189(1998).
betweenthembecauseofthesettledrulethatwherethetermsof 20
Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr.,431 Phil. 337,
acontractareclear,itshouldbegivenfulleffect. 345;381SCRA594,601(2002).
In their Comment and Memorandum, private respondents 21
Id.,atp.345.
contend thatpetitionerfailed toshow that the CA or the RTC 88
committedgraveabuseofdiscretioninarrivingattheirassailed 88 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
judgments;thatDanielasSwornStatementissufficientevidence
Tatingvs.Marcella
to prove that the contract of sale by and between her and
be equated with weight of evidence. 22The admissibility of
petitioner was merely simulated; and that, in effect, the
evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the
agreement between petitioner and Daniela created a trust
weightofevidencepertainstoevidencealreadyadmittedandits
relationshipbetweenthem.
tendency to convince and persuade.23Thus, a particular item of
TheCourtfindsforthepetitioner.
evidencemaybeadmissible,butitsevidentiaryweightdepends
The CA and the trial court ruled that the contract of sale
onjudicialevaluationwithintheguidelinesprovidedbytherules
between petitioner and Daniela is simulated. A contract is
ofevidence.24Itissettledthataffidavitsareclassifiedashearsay
simulated if the parties do not intend to be bound at all
evidencesincetheyarenotgenerallypreparedbytheaffiantbut 89
by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 89
statements,whichmaythusbeeitheromittedormisunderstood Tatingvs.Marcella
by the one writing them.25Moreover, the adverse party is thesubjectdeedofsaleinfavorofpetitioner.Asinallcivilcases,
deprived of the opportunity to crossexamine the affiant. 26For theburdenisontheplaintifftoprovethematerialallegationsof
this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, hiscomplaintandhemustrelyonthestrengthofhisevidence
unlesstheaffiantsthemselvesareplacedonthewitnessstandto andnotontheweaknessoftheevidenceofthedefendant. 28Aside
testifythereon.27TheCourtfindsthatboththetrialcourtandthe from Danielas sworn statement, private respondents failed to
CA committed error in giving the sworn statement probative present any other documentary evidence to prove their claim.
weight.SinceDanielaisnolongeravailabletotakethewitness Even the testimonies oftheir witnesses failed to establishthat
standassheisalreadydead,theRTCandtheCAshouldnothave Daniela had a different intention when she entered into a
givenprobativevalueonDanielasswornstatementforpurposes contractofsalewithpetitioner.
ofproving thatthecontract ofsalebetweenher and petitioner
InSuntayv.CourtofAppeals,29theCourtruledthatthemost
wassimulatedandthat, as aconsequence, atrust relationship
protuberantindexofsimulationisthecompleteabsence,onthe
wascreatedbetweenthem.
partofthevendee,ofanyattemptinanymannertoasserthis
Privaterespondentsshouldhavepresentedotherevidenceto
rightsofownershipoverthedisputedproperty. 30Inthepresent
sufficiently prove their allegation that Daniela, in fact, had no
case,however,theevidenceclearlyshowsthatpetitionerdeclared
intentionofdisposingofherpropertywhensheexecuted
thepropertyfortaxationandpaidrealtytaxesonitinhername.
_______________
Petitionerhasshownthatfrom1972to1988shereligiouslypaid
therealestatetaxesdueonthesaidlotandthatitwasonlyin
22
Ayala Land, Inc. v. Tagle,G.R. No. 153667, August 11, 1974and1987thatshefailedtopaythetaxesthereon.Whiletax
2005,466SCRA521,532. receipts and declarations and receipts and declarations of
23
Id.,atp.532. ownership for taxation purposes are not, in themselves,
24
Heirs of Lourdes Sabanpan v. Comorposa,456 Phil. 161, incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least
172;408SCRA692,700(2003). proofthattheholderhasaclaimoftitleovertheproperty. 31The
25
Limv.CourtofAppeals,380Phil.60,78;323SCRA102,119 voluntarydeclarationofapieceofpropertyfortaxationpurposes
(2000)citingPeoplesBankandTrustCompanyv.Leonidas,G.R. manifestsnotonlyonessincereandhonestdesiretoobtaintitle
to the property and announces his adverse claim against the
No.47815,March11,1992,207SCRA164;D.M.Consunji,Inc.v.
Stateandallotherinterestedparties,butalsotheintentionto
CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.137873,April20,2001,357SCRA249,
contribute
260261.
_______________
26
D.M.Consunji,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,Id.,atpp.260261.
27
Id.,atpp.260261.
 28
Dungaran v. Koshnicke,G.R. No. 161048, August 31, It is true that Daniela retained physical possession of the
2005,468SCRA676,685. property even after she executed the subject Absolute Deed of
29
321Phil.809,831832;251SCRA430,450(1995). Sale and even after title to the property was transferred in
30
Ramosv.HeirsofHonorioRamos,Sr.,supranote20,atpp. petitioners favor. In fact, Daniela continued to occupy the
348349;p.604. property in dispute until her death in 1988 while, in the
meantime,petitionercontinuedtoresideinManila.However,itis
31
HeirsofMiguelFrancov.CourtofAppeals,463Phil.417,
wellestablishedthatownershipandpossessionaretwoentirely
433;418SCRA60,72(2003).
differentlegalconcepts.35Justaspossessionisnota
90
_______________
90 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tatingvs.Marcella 32
Calicdan v. Cendaa,G.R. No. 155080, February 5,
needed revenues to the Government.32Such an act strengthens 2004,422SCRA272,280.
onesbonafideclaimofacquisitionofownership. 33Ontheother 33
Id.,atp.280.
hand, private respondents failed to present even a single tax 34
ExhibitB,OR,139.
receiptordeclarationshowingthatDanielapaidtaxesdueonthe
disputedlotasproofthatsheclaimsownershipthereof.Theonly
35
Spouses Sabio v. The International Corporate Bank,
Tax Declaration in the name of Daniela, which private Inc.,416Phil.785,820;364SCRA385,416(2001).
respondents presented in evidence, refers only to the house 91
standing on the lot in controversy. 34Even the said Tax VOL.519,MARCH27,2007 91
Declarationcontainsanotationthathereinpetitionerownsthe Tatingvs.Marcella
lot(Lot56)uponwhichsaidhousewasbuilt. definiteproofofownership,neitherisnonpossessioninconsistent
Moreover,theCourtagreeswithpetitionerthatifthesubject withownership.ThefirstparagraphofArticle1498oftheCivil
DeedofAbsoluteSaledidnotreallyreflecttherealintentionof Code states that when the sale is made through a public
Daniela,whyisitthatsheremainedsilentuntilherdeath;she instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the
nevertoldanyofherrelativesregardingheractualpurposein deliveryofthethingwhichistheobjectofthecontract,iffromthe
executingthesubjectdeed;shesimplychosetomakeknownher deedthecontrarydoesnotappearorcannotclearlybeinferred.
true intentions through the sworn statement she executed on Possession,alongwithownership,istransferredtothevendeeby
December28,1977,theexistenceofwhichshekeptsecretfrom virtueofthenotarizeddeedofconveyance. 36Thus,inlightofthe
her relatives; and despite her declaration therein that she is circumstancesofthepresentcase,itisofnolegalconsequence
appealingforhelpinordertogetbackthesubjectlot,shenever thatpetitionerdidnottakeactualpossessionoroccupationofthe
took any concrete step to recover the subject property from disputedpropertyaftertheexecutionofthedeedofsaleinher
petitioneruntilherdeathmorethantenyearslater. favorbecauseshewasalreadyabletoperfectandcompleteher
ownershipofandtitleoverthesubjectproperty.
 As to Danielas affidavit dated June 9, 1983, submitted by simulated,thereisnomorenecessitytodiscusstheissueasto
petitioner,whichconfirmedthevalidityofthesaleofthedisputed whetherornotatrustrelationshipwascreatedbetweenthem.
lotinherfavor,thesamehasnoprobativevalue,asthesworn WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
statement earlier adverted to, for being hearsay. Naturally, DecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CV
privaterespondentswerenotabletocrossexaminethedeceased No.64122,affirmingtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
affiantonherdeclarationscontainedinthesaidaffidavit. CadizCity,NegrosOccidental,Branch60,inCivilCaseNo.278
However, even if Danielas affidavit of June 9, 1983 is C, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The complaint of the
disregarded,thefactremainsthatprivaterespondentsfailedto privaterespondentsisDISMISSED.
prove by clear, strong and convincing evidence beyond mere Nocosts.
preponderance of evidence37that the contract of sale between SOORDERED.
Danielaandpetitionerwassimulated.Thelegalpresumptionis YnaresSantiago(Chairperson),Callejo, Sr.,Chico
infavorofthevalidityofcontractsandthepartywhoimpugnsits NazarioandNachura,JJ.,concur.
regularity has the burden of proving its simulation. 38Since
Petitiongranted,assaileddecisionandresolutionreversedand
privaterespondentsfailedtodischargethebur
setaside.Complaintdismissed.
_______________
Note.Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for
36
Id.,atp.820;OngChingPov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos. taxationpurposesarestrongevidenceofownership.(Alonsovs.
11347273,December20,1994,239SCRA341,347. CebuCountryClub,Inc.,375SCRA390[2002])
37
Mendezona v. Ozamiz,426 Phil. 888, 904;376 SCRA 482,
496(2002). o0o
38
Peoples Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Court of
G.R.No.173476.February22,2012.*
Appeals, supranote 19, at p. 870; p. 189;Ramos v. Heirs of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff
HonorioRamos,Sr.,supranote20,atp.346;p.602. appellee,vs.RODRIGO SALAFRANCAyBELLO, accused
92 appellant.
92 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED CriminalLaw;Alibi;Denials;Denialandalibiinterposedby
Tatingvs.Marcella theaccusedareworthlessinthefaceofhispositiveidentification
denofprovingtheirallegationthatthecontractofsalebetween
astheassailant.Salafrancasdenialandalibiwereworthlessin
petitioner and Daniela was simulated, the presumption of
thefaceofhispositiveidentificationbyMendozaastheassailant
regularityandvalidityoftheOctober14,1969DeedofAbsolute
ofBolanon.Thelowercourtsproperlyaccordedfullfaithtosuch
Salestands.
incrimination by Mendoza considering that Salafranca did not
ConsideringthattheCourtfindsthesubjectcontractofsale
betweenpetitionerandDanielatobevalidandnotfictitiousor
evenprojectanyillmotivethatcouldhaveimpelledMendozato 02
testifyagainsthimunlessitwasuponthetruth. Peoplevs.Salafranca
Same; Treachery; Treachery is present when the offender Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Dying
commitsanyofthecrimesagainsttheperson,employingmeans, Declarations; Res Gestae; The statement of the victim an hour
methodsorformsintheexecutionthereofwhichtenddirectlyand beforehisdeathandrightafterthehackingincidentboreallthe
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising earmarkseitherofadyingdeclarationorpartoftheresgestae
fromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.Basedon eitherofwhichwasanexceptiontothehearsayrule.Itappears
Mendozasaccount,SalafrancahadattackedBolanonfrombehind from the foregoing testimony that Bolanon had gone to the
and hadencircledhisleftarm overtheneck (of Bolanon) and residence of Estao, his uncle, to seek help right after being
delivered the stabbing blow using the right (hand) and coming stabbedbySalafranca;thatEstaohadhurriedlydressedupto
fromwnnt(sic)uprightsidewaysandanotheroneencirclingthe bringhisnephewtothePhilippineGeneralHospitalbytaxicab;
blow towards below the left nipple. Relying on Mendozas thatonthewaytothehospital,EstaohadaskedBolanonwho
recollection of how Salafranca had attacked Bolanon, the RTC had stabbed him, and the latter had told Estao that his
foundtreacherytobeattendantinthekilling.Thisfindingthe assailanthadbeenSalafranca;thatatthetimeoftheutterance
CA concurred with. We join the CAs concurrence because Bolanonhadseemedtobehavingahardtimebreathing,causing
Mendozaseyewitnessaccountof themanner ofattackremained Estao to advise him not to talk anymore; and that about ten
uncontestedbySalafrancawhomerelyinsistedonhisalibi.The minutes after his admission at the emergency ward of the
method and means Salafranca employed constituted a surprise hospital, Bolanon had expired and had been pronounced dead.
deadly attack against Bolanon from behind and included an SuchcircumstancesqualifiedtheutteranceofBolanonasbotha
aggressivephysicalcontrolofthelattersmovementsthatensured dyingdeclarationandaspartoftheresgestae,consideringthat
thesuccessoftheattackwithoutanyretaliationordefenseonthe theCourthasrecognizedthatthestatementofthevictimanhour
partofBolanon.AccordingtotheRevisedPenalCode,treacheryis beforehisdeathandrightafterthehackingincidentboreallthe
presentwhentheoffendercommitsanyofthecrimesagainstthe earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of theres
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution gestaeeitherofwhichwasanexceptiontothehearsayrule.
thereofwhichtenddirectlyandspeciallytoinsureitsexecution, Same;Same;Same;Same;Adyingdeclarationisgenerally
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
inadmissibleforbeinghearsay;Exceptions.Adyingdeclaration,
offendedpartymightmake.
although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay
_______________
character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following
*FIRSTDIVISION.
502 requisitesconcur,namely:(a)thatthedeclarationmustconcern
the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
death;(b)thatatthetimethedeclarationismade,thedeclarant
is under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) that the madebeforethedeclaranthadtimetocontriveordevise;and(c)
declarantiscompetentasawitness;and(d)thatthedeclaration thestatementsmustconcerntheoccurrenceinquestionandits
isofferedinacriminalcaseforhomicide,murder,orparricide,in immediately attending circumstances. The requisites for
which the declarant is a victim. All the requisites were met admissibility of a declaration as part of theres gestaeconcur
herein. Bolanon communicated his antemortem statement to herein. Surely, when he gave the identity of the assailant to
Estao, identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed Estao,Bolanonwasreferringtoastartlingoccurrence,i.e.,his
him.Atthetimeofhisstatement,Bolanonwasconsciousofhis stabbingbySalafranca.Bolanonwasthenonboardthetaxicab
impending death, having sustained a stab wound in the chest thatwouldbringhim tothehospital, andthushadno timeto
and,accordingtoEstao,wasthenexperiencinggreatdifficulty contrive his identification of Salafranca as the assailant. His
inbreathing.Bolanonsuccumbedinthehospitalemergencyroom utterance about Salafranca having stabbed him was made in
afewminutesfromadmission,whichoccurredunderthreehours spontaneityandonlyinreactiontothestartlingoccurrence.The
afterthestabbing.Thereisampleauthorityfortheviewthatthe statement was relevant because it identified Salafranca as the
declarantsbeliefintheimminenceofhisdeathcanbe perpetrator.
503 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The termresgestae has
VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 50 beendefinedasthosecircumstanceswhicharetheundersigned
incidentsofaparticularlitigatedactandwhichareadmissible
Peoplevs.Salafranca
when illustrative of such act.The termres gestaehas been
shown by the declarants own statements or from defined as those circumstances which are the undesigned
circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, incidentsofaparticularlitigatedactandwhichareadmissible
statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of his
whenillustrativeofsuchact.Inageneralway,resgestaerefers
physician.Bolanonwouldhavebeencompetenttotestifyonthe
tothecircumstances,facts,anddeclarationsthatgrowoutofthe
subject of the declaration had he survived. Lastly, the dying
main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so
declarationwasofferedinthiscriminalprosecutionformurderin
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to
whichBolanonwasthevictim.
excludetheideaofdeliberationandfabrication.Theruleonres
Same; Same; Same; Same; Res Gestae; Requisites for
gestaeencompasses the exclamations and statements made by
declaration or an utterance as part of the res gestae to be
either the participants,victims, or spectators to a crime
admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.A
immediatelybefore,during,orimmediatelyafterthecommission
declarationoranutteranceisdeemedaspartoftheresgestaeand
ofthecrimewhenthecircumstancesaresuchthatthestatements
thusadmissibleinevidenceasanexceptiontothehearsayrule
weremadeasaspontaneousreactionorutteranceinspiredbythe
whenthefollowingrequisitesconcur,towit:(a)theprincipalact,
excite
theres gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are 504
 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED an amount that would restore the heirs of Bolanon to their
04 moralstatus quo ante. Given the circumstances, the amount of
Peoplevs.Salafranca P50,000.00isreasonableasmoraldamages,which,pursuantto
mentoftheoccasionandtherewasnoopportunityforthe prevailing jurisprudence, we are bound to award despite the
declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The absenceofanyallegationandproofoftheheirsmentalanguish
andemotionalsuffering.
test of admissibility of evidence as a part of theres gestaeis,
therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so Same;Same;ExemplaryDamages;Exemplarydamagesmay
intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or beimposedincriminalcasesaspartofthecivilliabilitywhenthe
event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any circumstances.TheCivil Codeprovides that exemplary
premeditationorpurposetomanufacturetestimony. damages may be imposedincriminal cases as part of the civil
Civil Law; Damages; Civil Indemnity; Damages to be liability when the crime was committed with one or more
awarded when death occurs due to a crime.We modify the aggravatingcircumstances.TheCivil
limitingofcivildamagesbytheCAandtheRTCtoonlythedeath 505
indemnityofP50,000.00.Wedeclarethatthesurvivingheirsof VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 50
Bolanon were entitled by law to more than such indemnity, 5
becausethedamagestobeawardedwhendeathoccursduetoa Peoplevs.Salafranca
crimemayinclude:(a)civilindemnityexdelictoforthedeathof
Codepermits such damages to be awarded by way of
thevictim(whichwasgrantedherein);(b)actualorcompensatory exampleorcorrectionforthepublicgood,inadditiontothemoral,
damages; (c) moral damages; (d) exemplary damages; and (e) temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Conformably
temperatedamages. with such legal provisions, the CA and the RTC should have
Same; Same;Same; Thedeathindemnity compensated the recognizedtheentitlementoftheheirsofthevictimtoexemplary
loss of life due to crime, but appropriate and reasonable moral damages because of the attendance of treachery. It was of no
damageswouldjustlyassuagethementalanguishandemotional moment that treachery was an attendant circumstance in
murder,and,assuch,inseparableandabsorbedinmurder.
sufferings of the surviving family of the victim.The death
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
indemnity compensated the loss of life due to crime, but
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
appropriateandreasonablemoraldamageswouldjustlyassuage
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
the mental anguish and emotional sufferings of the surviving
family of the victim. Although mental anguish and emotional PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
sufferings of the surviving heirs were not quantifiable with BERSAMIN,J.:
mathematicalprecision,theCourtmustnonethelessstrivetoset
 Anantemortemdeclarationofavictimofmurder,homicide, Mendoza,thenstillaminorof13years,whowasinthecomplex
or parricide that meets the conditions of admissibility under atthetime.2
theRules of Courtand pertinent jurisprudence is admissible Asstated,SalafrancafledafterstabbingBolanon.Heevaded
eitherasadyingdeclarationorasapartoftheresgestae,orboth. arrestforalongperiod,despitethewarrantforhisarrestbeing
issued.HewasfinallyarrestedonApril23,2003,anddetainedat
Rodrigo SalafrancayBello was charged with and tried for
theManilaCityJail.
murder for the fatal stabbing of Johnny Bolanon, and was
Aftertrial,theRTCconvictedSalafranca,stating:
ultimatelyfoundguiltyofthefelonybytheRegionalTrialCourt,
The evidence is clear that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who
Branch 18, in Manila on September 23, 2004. On appeal, his
delivered two (2) stabbing blows to the victim while holding
convictionwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals(CA)throughits
Johnny Bolanon with his left arm encircled around Bolanons
decisionpromulgatedonNovember24,2005.1
neckstabbingthelatterwiththeuseofhisrighthandattheright
SalafrancahascometotheCourtonafinalappeal,continuing
subcostalareawhichcausedBolanonsdeath.Notonlybecauseit
tochallengethecredibilityofthewitnesseswhohadincriminated
wastestifiedtobyAugustoMendozabutcorroboratedbyRodolfo
him.
Estao,thevictimsunclewhobroughtBolanontothehospital
_______________
andwhorelayedtothecourt thatwhen he aidedBolanon and
1Rollo, pp. 211; penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. evenontheirwaytothehospitalwhilethelatterwassuffering
Vasquez,Jr.(laterPresidingJustice,nowretired),withAssociate fromhardbreathing,victimBolanonwasabletosaythatitwas
JusticeJuan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and AssociateJustice Vicente Q. RodrigoSalafrancawhostabbedhim.3
Roxas,concurring. The RTC appreciated treachery based on the testimony of
506 ProsecutionwitnessMendozaonhowSalafrancahadeffectedhis
506 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED attack against Bolanon, observing that by encircling his
Peoplevs.Salafranca (accused)leftarm,whilebehindthevictimonthelattersneck
The established facts show that past midnight on July 31, andstabbingthevictimwiththeuseofhisrighthand,
1993BolanonwasstabbedneartheDelPanSportsComplexin _______________
Binondo,Manila;thatafterstabbingBolanon,hisassailantran 2Id.,pp.34.
away;thatBolanonwasstillabletowalktothehouseofhisuncle 3CARollo,p.36.
RodolfoB.Estaoinordertoseekhelp;thathisunclerushedhim
507
tothePhilippineGeneralHospitalbytaxicab;thatontheirway
VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 507
tothehospitalBolanontoldEstaothatitwasSalafrancawho
had stabbed him; that Bolanon eventually succumbed at the Peoplevs.Salafranca
hospitalat2:30amdespitereceivingmedicalattention;andthat Salafranca did not give Bolanon any opportunity to defend
the stabbing of Bolanon was personally witnessed by Augusto himself.4TheRTCnotedinconsistenciesinSalafrancasandhis
witnesstestimonies,aswellasthefactthathehadfledfromhis
residence the day after the incident and had stayed away in 508
Bataanforeightyearsuntilhisarrest.TheRTCopinedthathad 508 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
he not been hiding, there would be no reason for him to Peoplevs.Salafranca
immediatelyleavehisresidence,especiallybecausehewasalso pointingtoSalafrancaashisassailant,8andSalafrancaspositive
workingnearthearea.5 identification as the culprit by Mendoza. 9It stressed that
TheRTCdisposedthus:
Salafrancasdenialandhisalibiofbeinginhishomeduringthe
With the above observations and findings, accused Rodrigo
incidentdidnotovercomethepositiveidentification,especiallyas
SalafrancaisherebyfoundguiltyofthecrimeofMurderdefined
hisunexplainedflightafterthestabbing,leavinghishomeand
andpunishedunderArticle248asamendedbyRepublicActNo.
employment,constitutedacircumstancehighlyindicativeofhis
7659inrelationtoArticle63oftheRevisedPenalCodewiththe
guilt.10
presenceofthequalifyingaggravatingcircumstanceoftreachery
Presently,Salafrancareiterateshisdefenses,andinsiststhat
(248 par. 1 as amended) without any mitigating nor other
theStatedidnotprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
aggravating circumstance attendant to its commission, Rodrigo
Theappeallacksmerit.
Salafrancaisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusion Discrediting Mendoza and Estao as witnesses against
perpetua. Salafrancawouldbeunwarranted.TheRTCandtheCAcorrectly
He shall be credited with the full extent of his preventive concludedthatMendozaandEstaowerecredibleandreliable.
imprisonmentunderArticle29oftheRevisedPenalCode. Thedeterminationofthecompetenceandcredibilityofwitnesses
HisbodyisherebycommittedtothecustodyoftheDirectorof attrialrestedprimarilywiththeRTCasthetrialcourtduetoits
theBureauofCorrection,NationalPenitentiary,MuntinlupaCity unique and unequalled position of observing their deportment
thrutheCityJailWardenofManila. during testimony, and of assessing their credibility and
Heisherebyorderedtoindemnifytheheirsofthevictimthe appreciating their truthfulness, honesty and candor. Absent a
sumofP50,000.00representingdeathindemnity. substantialreasontojustifythereversaloftheassessmentmade
Therebeingnoclaimofotherdamages,nopronouncementis and conclusions reached by the RTC, the CA as the reviewing
herebymade. court was bound by such assessment and
SOORDERED.6 conclusions,11consideringthattheCAastheappellatecourtcould
Onappeal,theCAaffirmedthefindingsandconclusionsofthe neithersubstituteitsassessmentnordrawdifferentconclusions
RTC,7citingthedyingdeclarationmadetohisuncle withoutapersuasiveshowingthattheRTCmisappreciatedthe
_______________ circumstances or omitted significant evidentiary matters that
4Id.,p.38. wouldalter the result.12Salafranca didnot persuasively show a
5Id.,pp.3638. misappreciationoromis
6Id.,p.39. _______________
7Supra,atnote1. 8Id.,atp.6.
 9Id.,atp.9. employed constituted a surprise deadly attack against Bolanon
10CARollo,p.110. frombehindandincludedanaggres
_______________
11Peoplev.Resuma,G.R.No.179189,February26,2008,546
SCRA728,737. 13Peoplev.DeGuzman,G.R.No.177569,November28,2007,
12People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 539 SCRA 306, 314;People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
SCRA 219, 230;Bricenio v. People, G.R. No. 157804, June 20, February12,2007,515SCRA537,547,Peoplev.Taan,G.R.No.
2006,491SCRA489,496. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219, 230;Perez v. People,
509 G.R.No.150443,January20,2006,479SCRA209,219;Peoplev.
VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 509 Tonog,Jr.,G.R.No.144497,June29,2004,433SCRA139,153
Peoplevs.Salafranca 154;Peoplev.Genita,Jr.,G.R.No.126171,March11,2004,425
sion by the RTC. Hence, the Court, in this appeal, is in no SCRA 343, 349;People v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 142887, March 2,
positiontoundoortocontradictthefindingsoftheRTCandthe 2004, 424 SCRA164, 174;Peoplev. Abolidor, G.R.No. 147231,
CA,whichwereentitledtogreatweightandrespect. 13
February18,2004,423SCRA260,265266;Peoplev.Santiago,
Salafrancasdenialandalibiwereworthlessinthefaceofhis G.R.No.13754243,January20,2004,420SCRA248,256.
positive identification by Mendoza as the assailant of Bolanon.
14Domingov.People,G.R.No.186101,October12,2009,603
The lower courts properly accorded full faith to such
SCRA488,508.
incrimination by Mendoza considering that Salafranca did not
15TSN,September1,2003,pp.34.
evenprojectanyillmotivethatcouldhaveimpelledMendozato
510
testifyagainsthimunlessitwasuponthetruth.14
510 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Based on Mendozas account, Salafranca had attacked
Bolanon from behind and had encircled his left arm over the Peoplevs.Salafranca
neck (of Bolanon) and delivered the stabbing blow using the sivephysicalcontrolofthelattersmovementsthatensuredthe
right(hand) and coming from wnnt (sic) up right sideways and success of the attack without any retaliation or defense on the
another one encircling the blow towards below the left partofBolanon.AccordingtotheRevisedPenalCode,16treachery
nipple.15Relying on Mendozas recollection of how Salafranca ispresentwhentheoffendercommitsanyofthecrimesagainst
hadattackedBolanon,theRTCfoundtreacherytobeattendant theperson,employingmeans,methodsorformsintheexecution
inthekilling.ThisfindingtheCAconcurredwith.Wejointhe thereofwhichtenddirectlyandspeciallytoinsureitsexecution,
CAs concurrence because Mendozaseyewitnessaccount of the without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
manner of attack remained uncontested by Salafranca who offendedpartymightmake.
TheCourtfurthernotesEstaostestimonyontheutterance
merelyinsistedonhisalibi.ThemethodandmeansSalafranca
byBolanonofstatementsidentifyingSalafrancaashisassailant
rightafterthestabbingincident.Thetestimonyfollows:
 QCanyoutellwhathappenedonthesaiddate? AHewassufferingfromhardbreathingsoItoldhimnot
AMynephewarrivedinourhousewithastabwoundon totalkanymorebecausehewilljustsuffermore.
hisleftchest. QWhathappenedwhenyoutoldhimthat?
QWhattimewasthat? AHekeptsilent.
A12:50a.m. QWhattimedidyouarriveatthePGH?
QWhenyousawyournephewwithastabwound,what AI cannot remember the time because I was already
didhesay? confusedatthattime.
ATitodalhinmoakosaHospitalsinaksakako. QWhenyouarrivedatthePGHwhathappened?
QWhatdidyoudo? AHewasbroughttoEmergencyRoom.
AIimmediatelydressedupandbroughthimtoPGH. QWhen he was brought to the emergency room what
QOnthewaytothePGHwhattranspired? happened?
AWhiletravelingtowardPGHIaskedmynephewwho AHewaspronounceddead.17
stabbedhim?,andheanswered,RodSalafranca. It appears from the foregoing testimony that Bolanon had
QDoyouknowthisRodSalafranca? gonetotheresidenceofEstao,hisuncle,toseekhelprightafter
AYes,Sir. beingstabbedbySalafranca;thatEstaohadhurriedlydressed
QHowlonghaveyouknownhim? up to bring his nephew to the Philippine General Hospital by
AMatagalnahokasimagneighborkami. taxicab; that on the way to the hospital, Estao had asked
QIfyouseehiminsidethecourtroomwillyoubeableto Bolanon who had stabbed him, and the latter had told Estao
identifyhim? thathisassailanthadbeenSalafranca;thatatthetimeofthe
AYes,Sir. utterance Bolanon had seemed to be having a hard time
_______________ breathing,causingEstaotoadvisehimnottotalkanymore;and
that about ten minutes after his admission at the emergency
16Article14,paragraph16,RevisedPenalCode.
ward of the hospital, Bolanon had expired and had been
511
pronounceddead.Suchcircumstancesqualifiedtheutteranceof
VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 511
Bolanonasbothadyingdeclarationandaspartoftheresgestae,
Peoplevs.Salafranca
consideringthattheCourthasrecognizedthatthestatementof
QWillyoulookaroundandpointhimtous?
thevictimanhourbeforehisdeathandrightafterthehacking
A(Witnesspointingtoamanwhoansweredbythename
incidentborealltheearmarkseither
ofRodSalafranca.)
_______________
COURT
17TSN,March18,2003,pp.34.
Whenhetoldyouthenameofhisassailantwhatwas
512
hiscondition?
512 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Salafranca
ofadyingdeclarationorpartoftheresgestaeeitherofwhichwas 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 517, 522;People v. Elizaga, No. L78794,
anexceptiontothehearsayrule.18 November21,1988,167SCRA516,520;Peoplev.Lanza,No.L
A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as 31782,December14,1979,94SCRA613,625;Peoplev.Saliling,
evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be No.L27874,February27,1976,69SCRA427,438.
admittedwhenthefollowingrequisitesconcur,namely:(a)that 20M. Graham,Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence
the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding 7074, Interim Edition, Vol. 30B, 2000, West Group, St. Paul,
circumstancesofthedeclarantsdeath;(b)thatatthetimethe Minne
declarationismade,thedeclarantisunderaconsciousnessofan 513
impendingdeath;(c)thatthedeclarantiscompetentasawitness; VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 513
and (d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Peoplevs.Salafranca
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a would have been competent to testify on the subject of the
victim.19 declaration had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was
Alltherequisitesweremetherein.Bolanoncommunicatedhis offeredinthiscriminalprosecutionformurderinwhichBolanon
antemortemstatementtoEstao,identifyingSalafrancaasthe wasthevictim.
person who had stabbed him. At the time of his statement, A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of theres
Bolanonwasconsciousofhisimpendingdeath,havingsustained
gestaeand thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the
a stab wound in the chest and, according to Estao, was then
hearsayrulewhenthefollowingrequisitesconcur,towit:(a)the
experiencinggreatdifficultyinbreathing.Bolanonsuccumbedin
the hospital emergency room a few minutes from admission, principal act, theres gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
which occurred under three hours after the stabbing. There is statementsaremadebeforethedeclaranthadtimetocontriveor
ample authority for the view that the declarants belief in the devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in
imminence of his death can be shown by the declarants own questionanditsimmediatelyattendingcircumstances.21
statementsorfromcircumstantialevidence,suchasthenatureof The requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of
hiswounds,statementsmadeinhispresence,orbytheopinionof theresgestaeconcurherein.Surely,whenhegavetheidentityof
hisphysician.20Bolanon the assailant to Estao, Bolanon was referring to a startling
_______________ occurrence,i.e.,hisstabbingbySalafranca.Bolanonwasthenon
18Peoplev. Loste, G.R.No. 94785, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA boardthetaxicabthatwouldbringhimtothehospital,andthus
614, 621, citingPeoplev. Mision,G.R. No. 63480, February 26, had no time to contrive his identification of Salafranca as the
1991,194SCRA432,339340. assailant. His utterance about Salafranca having stabbed him
19Peoplev.Labagala,G.R.No.184603,August2,2010,626 was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling
SCRA267,278;seealsoPeoplev.Garma,G.R.No.110872,April occurrence. The statement was relevant because it identified
Salafrancaastheperpetrator.
 Thetermresgestaehasbeendefinedasthosecircumstances interwovenorconnectedwiththeprincipalfactoreventthatit
whicharetheundesignedincidentsofaparticularlitigatedact characterizesastoberegardedasapartofthetransactionitself,
andwhichareadmissiblewhenillustrativeof and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or
_______________ purposetomanufacturetestimony.25
sota;citingShepardv.UnitedStates,290US96,100;Mattox We modifythelimitingof civil damages bytheCAand the
RTCtoonlythedeathindemnityofP50,000.00.Wedeclarethat
v.UnitedStates,146US140,151(senseofimpendingdeathmay
thesurvivingheirsofBolanonwereentitledbylawtomorethan
be made to appear from the nature and extent of the wounds
suchindemnity,becausethedamagestobeawardedwhendeath
inflicted,beingobviouslysuchthathemusthavefeltorknown
occurs due to a crime may include: (a) civil indemnityex
thathecouldnotsurvive.);Webbv.Lane,922F.2d390,395396
delictoforthedeathofthevictim(whichwasgrantedherein);(b)
(7thCir.1991);UnitedStatesv.Mobley,491F.2d345(5thCir.
1970). actualorcompensatorydamages;(c)
_______________
21Peoplev.Peralta,G.R.No.94570,September28,1994,237
22AlhambraBldg.&LoanAssnv.DeCelle,118P.2d19,47
SCRA 218, 224;People v. Maguikay, G.R. Nos. 10322628,
October14,1994,237SCRA587,600. C.A. 2d 409;Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.v. Lewis, 61 N.E. 2d
514 297,326Ill.App.117.
514 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 23Kaikov.Dolinger,440A.2d198,184Conn.509;Southern
Peoplevs.Salafranca SuretyCo.v.Weaver,Com.App.273S.W.838.
such act.22In a general way,res gestaerefers to the 24Peoplev. Sanchez, G.R.No. 74740, August28, 1992, 213
circumstances,facts,anddeclarationsthatgrowoutofthemain SCRA70,79.
factandservetoillustrateitscharacterandaresospontaneous 25Molloyv.ChicagoRapidTransitCo.,166N.E.530,335Ill.
andcontemporaneouswiththemainfactastoexcludetheideaof 164;Campbellv.Gladden,118A.2d133,383Pa.144,53A.L.R.
deliberationandfabrication.23Theruleonresgestaeencompasses 2d1222.
the exclamations and statements made by either the 515
participants,victims,orspectatorstoacrimeimmediatelybefore, VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 515
during,orimmediatelyafterthecommissionofthecrimewhen Peoplevs.Salafranca
the circumstances are such that the statements were made as moral damages; (d) exemplary damages; and (e) temperate
aspontaneousreactionorutteranceinspiredbytheexcitementof damages.26
theoccasionandtherewasnoopportunity for the declarantto WeholdthattheCAandtheRTCshouldhavefurthergranted
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. 24The test of moral damages which were different from the death
admissibilityofevidenceasapartoftheresgestaeis,therefore, indemnity.27Thedeathindemnitycompensatedthelossoflifedue
whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately tocrime,butappropriateandreasonablemoraldamageswould
justlyassuagethementalanguishandemotionalsufferingsofthe 516 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
surviving family of the victim. 28Although mental anguish and Peoplevs.Salafranca
emotionalsufferingsofthesurvivingheirswerenotquantifiable andsupport,butoftenleavesthemwiththegnawingfeelingthat
withmathematicalprecision,theCourtmustnonethelessstrive aninjusticehasbeendonetothem.30
tosetanamountthatwouldrestoretheheirsofBolanontotheir TheCAandtheRTCcommittedanotheromissionconsisting
moralstatus quo ante. Given the circumstances, the amount of in their nonrecognition of the right of the heirs of Bolanon to
P50,000.00isreasonableasmoraldamages,which,pursuantto temperate damages. It is already settled that when actual
prevailing jurisprudence,29we are bound to award despite the damagesforburialandrelatedexpensesarenotsubstantiatedby
absenceofanyallegationandproofoftheheirsmentalanguish receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are
and emotional suffering. The rationale for doing so rested on warranted,foritwouldcertainlybeunfairtothesurvivingheirs
humannatureandexperiencehavingshownthat: of the victim to deny them compensation by way of actual
xxx a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about damages.31
emotionalpainandanguishonthepartofthevictimsfamily.It Moreover, theCivil Codeprovides that exemplary damages
is inherently human tosuffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability
whenalovedonebecomesthevictimofaviolentorbrutalkilling. when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the
circumstances.32TheCivil Codepermits such damages to be
familyofthedeceasedhispreciouslife,deprivesthemforeverof
awardedbywayofexampleorcorrectionforthepublicgood,in
hislove,affection
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
_______________
damages.33Conformablywithsuchlegalprovisions,theCAand
26People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, theRTCshouldhaverecognizedtheentitlementoftheheirsof
2012;People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009, 580 the victim to exemplary damages because of the attendance of
SCRA436,455. treachery.Itwasofnomomentthattreacherywasanattendant
27HeirsofRaymundoCastrov.Bustos,L25913,February28, circumstanceinmurder,and,assuch,inseparableandabsorbed
1969,27SCRA327,333. inmurder.TheCourtexplainedsoinPeoplev.Catubig:34
28Article 2206, (3), in relation to Article 2217 and Article The term aggravating circumstances used by theCivil
2219,CivilCode,andArticle107,RevisedPenalCode. Code,thelawnothavingspecifiedotherwise,istobeunderstood
29People v. Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002, 373 initsbroadorgenericsense.Thecommissionofanoffensehasa
SCRA55,69;Peoplev.Osianas,G.R.No.182548,September30, twopronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social
2008,567SCRA319,340;Peoplev.Buduhan,G.R.No.178196, orderandtheotherupontheprivatevictimasitcausespersonal
August6,2008,561SCRA337,367368;Peoplev.Berondo,Jr., sufferings,
G.R.No.177827,March30,2009,582SCRA547. _______________
516
 30Peoplev.Panado,G.R.No.133439,December26,2000,348 Forthepurposeoffixingtheexemplarydamages,thesumof
SCRA679,690691. P30,000.00isdeemedreasonableandproper,35becausewethink
31People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, thatalesseramountcouldnotresultingenuineexemplarity.
605SCRA784,804805. WHEREFORE,theCourtAFFIRMSthedecisionoftheCourt
ofAppealspromulgatedonNovember24,2005,butMODIFIES
32Article2230,CivilCode.
the awards of civil damages by adding to the amount of
33Article2229,CivilCode. P50,000.00 awarded as death indemnity the amounts of
34G.R.No.137842,August23,2001,363SCRA621,635. P50,000.00asmoraldamages;P25,000.00astemperatedamages;
617 andP30,000.00asexemplarydamages,allofwhichawardsshall
VOL.666,FEBRUARY22,2012 617
bearinterestof6%perannumfromthefinalityofthisdecision.
Peoplevs.Salafranca Theaccusedshallfurtherpaythecostsofsuit.
each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of _______________
heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of 35SeePeople v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16,
additionaldamagestothevictim.Theincreaseofthepenaltyora
2010,612SCRA738,752,Peoplev.DelRosario,G.R.No.189580,
shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the
February9,2011,642SCRA625,637638.
offensebytheattendanceofaggravatingcircumstances,whether
518
ordinaryorqualifying,initscommission.Unlikethecriminal
518 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
liabilitywhichisbasicallyaStateconcern,theawardof
damages,however,islikewise,ifnotprimarily,intended Peoplevs.Salafranca
fortheoffendedpartywhosuffersthereby.Itwouldmake SOORDERED.
littlesenseforanawardofexemplarydamagestobedue Corona (C.J., Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro,
the private offended party when the aggravating Villarama,Jr.andPerlasBernabe,**JJ.,concur.
circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is Judgmentaffirmedwithmodifications.
qualifying.Withal,theordinaryorqualifyingnatureofan Notes.As a rule, a dying declaration is hearsay and is
aggravatingcircumstanceisadistinctionthatshouldonly inadmissible as evidence. (People vs. Labagala,626 SCRA 267
beofconsequencetothecriminal,ratherthantothecivil, [2010])
liabilityoftheoffender.Infine,relativetothecivilaspect Res gestaerefers to statements made by the participants or
of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether thevictimsof,orthespectatorsto,acrimeimmediatelybefore,
ordinaryorqualifying,shouldentitlethe offendedparty during, or after its commissionthese statements are a
toanawardofexemplarydamageswithintheunbridled spontaneousreactionorutteranceinspiredbytheexcitementof
meaningofArticle2230oftheCivilCode. the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to
fabricateafalsestatement. (Peoplevs. Fallones,645SCRA 650 right of a litigant to crossexamine. It is settled that it is the
[2011]) opportunity to crossexamine which negates the claim that the
matterstestifiedtobyawitnessarehearsay.However,theright
o0o tocrossexaminemaybewaived.Therepeatedfailureofapartyto
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights crossexaminethewitnessisanimpliedwaiverofsuchright.
reserved. Same;Same;Same;UnderSection4,Rule129oftheRules
of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof.As correctly
found bytheCourtofAppeals, petitionersadmissionas tothe
executionofthepromissorynotebyitthroughprivaterespondent
ArrietaandBermundoatpretrialsuf

_______________

SECONDDIVISION.
*

71
VOL.353,FEBRUARY28,2001 7
1
70 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals
ficedtosettlethequestionofthegenuinenessofsignatures.
G.R.No.128538.February28,2001.*
Theadmissionhavingbeenmadeinastipulationoffactsatpre
SCC CHEMICALS CORPORATION, petitioner,vs.THE trialbytheparties,itmustbetreatedasajudicialadmission.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, STATE INVESTMENT Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial
HOUSE, INC., DANILO ARRIETA and LEOPOLDO HALILI, admissionrequiresnoproof.
respondents. Civil Law;Attorneys Fees;Award of attorneys fees is the
RemedialLaw;CivilProcedure;Evidence;Rulethathearsay
exceptionratherthantherule,henceitisnecessaryforthetrial
evidenceisexcludedandcarriesnoprobativevalueadmitsofan
court to make findings of fact and law, which would bring the
exception;Itissettledthatitistheopportunitytocrossexamine
casewithintheexceptionandjustifythegrantoftheaward.Itis
whichnegatestheclaimthatthematterstestifiedtobyawitness settledthattheawardofattorneysfeesistheexceptionrather
arehearsay.Asarule,hearsayevidenceisexcludedandcarries thantherule,henceitisnecessaryforthetrialcourttomake
noprobativevalue.However,theruledoesadmitofanexception. findingsoffactandlaw,whichwouldbringthecasewithinthe
Whereapartyfailedtoobjecttohearsayevidence,thenthesame exceptionandjustifythegrantoftheaward.Otherwisestated,
isadmissible.Therationaleforthisexceptionistobefoundinthe giventhefailurebythetrialcourttoexplicitlystatetherationale
fortheawardofattorneysfees,thesameshallbedisallowed.In 25%ofthetotalamountdueanddemandableasattorneysfees
the present case, a perusal of the records shows that the trial andtopaythecost(s)ofsuit.
courtfailedtoexplaintheawardofattorneysfees.Weholdthat SOORDERED.1
thesameshouldtherebybedeleted. Equally challenged in this petition is the Resolution of the
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof appellatecourtdatedFebruary27,1997,denyingSCCChemicals
Appeals. Corporationsmotionforreconsideration.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt. Thebackgroundofthiscase,asculledfromthedecisionofthe
RomeoB.Batino&AssociatesLawOfficesforpetitioner. CourtofAppeals,isasfollows:
EscoberandAlonLawOfficeforprivaterespondents. OnDecember13,1983,SCCChemicalsCorporation(SCCfor
RESOLUTION brevity)throughitschairman,privaterespondentDaniloArrieta
and vice president, Pablo (Pablito) Bermundo, obtained a loan
from State Investment House, Inc., (hereinafter SIHI) in the
QUISUMBING,J.:
amountofP129,824.48.Theloancarriedanannualinterestrate
of30%pluspenaltychargesof2%permonthontheremaining
Beforeusisapetitionforreview,pursuanttoRule45oftheRules
balance of the principal upon nonpayment on the due date
of Court, of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated in
January 12, 1984. To secure the payment of the loan, Danilo
November 12, 1996 inCAG.R. CV No. 45742entitledState
Arrieta and private respondent Leopoldo Halili executed a
Investment House, Inc. v. Danilo Arrieta, et al., and SCC ComprehensiveSuretyAgreementbindingthemselvesjointlyand
ChemicalCorporation.Thequestioneddecisionaffirmedintoto severallytopaytheobligationonthematuritydate.SCCfailedto
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, paytheloanwhenitmatured.SIHIthensentdemandlettersto
datedMarch22,1993,inCivilCaseNo.8425881,thedispositive SCC,ArrietaandHalili,butnotwithstandingreceiptthereof,no
portionofwhichreads: paymentwasmade.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby OnAugust2,1984,SIHIfiledCivilCaseNo.8425881fora
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants sumofmoneywithaprayerforpreliminaryattachmentagainst
orderingthelattertopayjointlyandseverallytheplaintiffthe SCC,Arrieta,andHaliliwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofManila.
following:a)To pay plaintiffStateInvestment House, Inc., the In its answer, SCC asserted SIHFs lack of cause of action.
sumofP150,483.16withinterestthereonat PetitionercontendedthatthepromissorynoteuponwhichSIHI
72 anchored its cause of action was null, void, and of no binding
72 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED effectforlackorfailureofconsideration.
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals Thecasewasthensetforpretrial.Thepartieswereallowed
30% per annum reckond (sic) from April, 1984 until the whole tomeetoutofcourtinanefforttosettlethedisputeamicably.No
amountisfullypaid;b)Topayplaintiffanamountequivalentto settlementwasreached,butthefollowingstipulationoffactswas
agreedupon:
_______________ its counsel failed to appear despite notice. SCC was finally
declared by the trial court to have waived its right to cross
1
Rollo,p.33. examinethewitnessofSIHIandthecasewasdeemedsubmitted
73 fordecision.
VOL.353,FEBRUARY28,2001 73 OnMarch22,1993,thelowercourtpromulgateditsdecision
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals infavorofSIHI.
Aggrievedbytheverdict,SCCelevatedthecasetotheCourt
1. 1.PartiesagreethatthisCourthasjurisdictionoverthe ofAppealswhereitwasdocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.45742.
plaintiffandthedefendantandthatithasjurisdictionto Onappeal,SCCcontendedthatSIHIhadfailedtoshow,bya
tryanddecidethiscaseonitsmeritsandthatplaintiff preponderanceofevidence,thatthelatterhadacaseagainstit.
andthedefendanthaveeachthecapacitytosueandto SCCarguedthatthelonewitnesspresentedbySIHItoproveits
besuedinthispresentaction; claimwasinsufficientasthecompetencyofthewitnesswasnot
established and there was no showing that he had personal
knowledge of the transaction. SCC further maintained that no
2. 2.Partiesagreethatplaintiffsentademandlettertothe
proof was shown of the genuineness of the signatures in the
defendant SCC Chemical Corporation dated April 4,
documentary exhibits presented as evidence and that these
1984togetherwithastatementofaccountofevendate
signatureswere
whichwerebothreceivedbythehereindefendant;and
_______________
3. 3.Partiesfinallyagreethattheplaintiffandthedefendant
SCC Chemical Corporation the latter acting through 2
Id.at31.
defendants Danilo E. Arrieta and Pablito Bermundo
74
executedapromissorynotelastDecember13,1983for
74 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the amount of P129,824.48 with maturity date on
January12,1984.2 SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals
neither marked nor offered in evidence by SIHI. Finally, SCC
Thecasethenproceededtotrialonthesoleissueofwhetheror pointed out that theoriginal copies of the documents were not
notthedefendantswereliabletotheplaintiffandtowhatextent presentedincourt.
wastheliability. OnNovember12,1996,theappellatecourtaffirmedintotothe
SIHI presented one witness to prove its claim. The cross judgmentappealedfrom.
examinationofsaidwitnesswaspostponedseveraltimesdueto On December 11, 1996 SCC filed its motion for
onereasonoranotherattheinstanceofeitherparty.Thecase reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its
wascalendaredseveraltimesforhearingbuteachtime,SCCor resolutiondatedFebruary27,1997.
 Hence, petitioners recourse to this Court relying on the 3
SEC. 36.Testimony generally confined to personal
followingassignmentsoferror: knowledge;hearsayexcluded.Awitnesscantestifyonlytothose
factswhichheknowsofhispersonalknowledge;thatis,which
I arederivedfromhisownperception,exceptasotherwiseprovided
intheserules.
THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERRED
75
IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT PROVED ITS
VOL.353,FEBRUARY28,2001 75
CAUSE OF ACTION AND OVERCAME ITS BURDEN OF
PROOF. SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals
48,4Rule130oftheRulesofCourtanditwasmanifesterrorfor
II theCourtofAppealstohaveruledotherwise.Inaddition,SCC
pointsoutthatthesolewitnessofSIHIdidnotprofesstohave
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY seenthedocumentpresentedinevidenceexecutedorwrittenby
ERREDINAWARDINGATTORNEYSFEESTOTHEPRIVATE SCC.Thus,noproofofitsgenuinenesswasadduced.SIHIthus
RESPONDENT. ran afoul of Section 2,5Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which
Wefindthepertinentissuessubmittedforresolutiontobe: requires proof of due execution and authenticity of private
documentsbeforethesamecanbereceivedasevidence.Petitioner
1. (1)WhetherornottheCourtofAppealsmadeanerrorof likewise submits that none of the signatures affixed in the
lawinholdingthatprivaterespondentSIHIhadproved documentary evidence presented by SIHI were offered in
itscauseofactionbypreponderantevidence;and evidence.Itvehementlyarguesthatsuchwasinviolationofthe
requirementofSection34,6Rule132oftheRulesofCourt.Itwas
2. (2)WhetherornottheCourtofAppealserredinupholding thusanerroroflawonthepartoftheappellatecourttoconsider
theawardofattorneysfeestoSIHI. thesame.Finally,petitionerpositsthatthenonproductionofthe
originals of the documents presented in evidence allows the
presumption of suppression of evidence provided for in Section
Anent thefirst issue, petitioner contends that SIHI introduced
3(e),7Rule131oftheRulesofCourt,tocomeintoplay.
documentaryevidencethroughthetestimonyofawitnesswhose
Petitionersargumentslackmerit;theyfailtopersuadeus.
competencewasnotestablishedandwhosepersonalknowledgeof
thetruthfulnessofthefactstestifiedtowasnotdemonstrated.It
_______________
arguesthatthesamewasinviolationofSections363and
SEC. 48.General Rule.The opinion of a witness is not
4
_______________
admissible,exceptasindicatedinthefollowingsections.
 5
SEC.2.Proceedingstoberecorded.Theentireproceedings hearsayrulecontainedinSection36,Rule130oftheRulesof
of a trial or hearing; including the questions propounded to a Court.
witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the Rule130,Section36reads:
judgeoranyoftheparties,counsel,orwitnesseswithreferenceto SEC. 36.Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge;
thecase,shallberecordedbymeansofshorthandorstenotypeor hearsayexcluded.Awitnesscantestifyonlytothosefactswhich
by other means of recording found suitable by the court. heknowsofhispersonalknowledge;thatis,whicharederived
Atranscriptoftherecordoftheproceedingsmadebytheofficial fromhis own perception,exceptasotherwise provided in these
stenographer,stenotypistorrecorderandcertifiedascorrectby rules.
him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such PetitionersrelianceonSection36,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt
proceedings. ismisplaced.Asarule,hearsayevidenceisexcludedandcarries
6
SEC. 34.Offer of evidence.The court shall consider no noprobativevalue.8However,theruledoesadmitofanexception.
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for Whereapartyfailedtoobjecttohearsayevidence,thenthesame
whichtheevidenceisofferedshallbespecified. isadmissible.9Therationaleforthisexceptionistobefoundin
7
SEC. 3.Disputable presumptions.The following therightofalitiganttocrossexamine.Itissettledthatitisthe
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be opportunity to crossexamine which negates the claim that the
contradicted and overcome by other evidence: matterstestifiedtobyawitnessarehearsay. 10However,theright
xxx tocrossexaminemaybewaived.Therepeatedfailureofaparty
tocrossexaminethewitnessisanimpliedwaiverofsuchright.
1. (e)Thatevidencewillfullysuppressedwouldbeadverseif Petitionerwasaffordedseveralopportunitiesbythetrialcourtto
produced. crossexamine the other partys witness. Petitioner repeatedly
failedtotakeadvantageoftheseopportunities.Noerrorwasthus
76 committed by the respondent court when it sustained the trial
courts finding that petitioner had waived its right to cross
76 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
examine
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals
We note that the Court of Appeals found that SCC failed to _______________
appear several times on scheduled hearing dates despite due
notice to it and counsel. On all those scheduled hearing dates, Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC,280 SCRA 735, 745
8

petitionerwassupposedtocrossexaminethelonewitnessoffered
(1997) citingPeople v. Laurente,255 SCRA 543, 567
bySIHItoproveitscase.Petitionernowchargestheappellate
courtwithcommittinganerroroflawwhenitfailedtodisallow (1996);Batiquin v. Court of Appeals,258 SCRA 334, 342
the admission in evidence of said testimony pursuant to the (1996);Eugenio v. Court of Appeals,239 SCRA 207, 216 (1994)
citingPeople v. Valero,L4528384, March 19,112 SCRA thecontraryorproofofpaymentorotherformsofextinguishment
661(1982);3Jonesonevidence,2ndEd.,745(1994). ofsaidobligation.Noreversibleerrorwasthuscommittedbythe
9
Krohnv.CourtofAppeals,233SCRA146,154(1994). appellate court when it held petitioner liable on its obligation,
pursuanttoArticle1159oftheCivilCodewhichreads:
10
SanSebastianCollegev.CourtofAppeals,197SCRA138
146(1991).
_______________
77
VOL.353,FEBRUARY28,2001 77 11
SEC. 4.Judicial admissions.An admission, verbal or
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals written,madebyapartyinthecourseoftheproceedingsinthe
theopposingpartyswitness.Itisnowtoolateforpetitionertobe same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
raisingthismatterofhearsayevidence. contradictedonlybyshowingthatitwasmadethroughpalpable
Norwastheassailedtestimonyhearsay.TheCourtofAppeals mistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwasmade.
correctlyfoundthatthewitnessofSIHIwasacompetentwitness 12
RULESOFCOURT,Rule130,sec.3and4.
ashetestifiedtofacts,whichheknewofhispersonalknowledge. 78
Thus,therequirementsofSection36,Rule130oftheRulesof 78 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Courtastotheadmissibilityofhistestimonyweresatisfied.
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals
Respectingpetitionersothersubmissions,thesamearemoot
ART.1159.Obligationsarisingfromcontractshavetheforceof
and academic. As correctly found by the Court of Appeals,
lawbetweenthecontractingpartiesandshouldbecompliedwith
petitionersadmissionastotheexecutionofthepromissorynote
ingoodfaith.
byitthroughprivaterespondentArrietaandBermundoatpre
trial sufficed to settle the question of the genuineness of Onthesecondissue,petitionerchargestheCourtofAppealswith
signatures.Theadmissionhavingbeenmadeinastipulationof reversible error for having sustained the trial courts award of
factsatpretrialbytheparties,itmustbetreatedasajudicial attorneysfees.PetitionerreliesonRadioCommunicationsofthe
admission. Under Section 4,11Rule 129 of the Rulesof Court, a Philippines v. Rodriguez,182 SCRA 899, 909 (1990), where we
judicialadmissionrequiresnoproof. heldthatwhenattorneysfeesare awarded, the reason forthe
Nor will petitioners reliance on the best evidence awardofattorneysfeesmustbestatedinthetextofthecourts
rule12advanceitscause.RespondentSIHIhadnoneedtopresent decision.Petitionersubmitsthatsincethetrialcourtdidnotstate
the original of the documents as there was already a judicial anyreasonforawardingthesame,theawardofattorneysfees
admission by petitioner at pretrial of the execution of the shouldhavebeendisallowedbytheappellatecourt.
promissorynoteandreceiptofthedemandletter.Itisnowtoo Wefindforpetitionerinthisregard.
late for petitioner to be questioning their authenticity. Its Itissettledthattheawardofattorneysfeesistheexception
admissionoftheexistenceofthesedocumentswassufficientto ratherthantherule,henceitisnecessaryforthetrialcourtto
establishitsobligation.Petitionerfailedtosubmitanyevidenceto makefindingsoffactandlaw,whichwouldbringthecasewithin
the exception and justify the grant of the award. 13Otherwise Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
stated,giventhefailurebythetrialcourttoexplicitlystatethe reserved.
rationale for the award of attorneys fees, the same shall be
disallowed. In thepresentcase, a perusal oftherecordsshows
thatthetrialcourtfailedtoexplaintheawardofattorneysfees.
Weholdthatthesameshouldtherebybedeleted.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
ThedecisiondatedNovember12,1996oftheCourtofAppealsis
AFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATIONthattheawardofattorneys
fees to private respondent SIHI is hereby deleted. No
pronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo(Chairman),Mendoza,BuenaandDeLeon,Jr.,
JJ.,concur.
Petitionpartlygranted,judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.

_______________

Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,256 SCRA

13

491,504(1996).
79
VOL.353,FEBRUARY28,2001 79
SCCChemicalsCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals VOL.434,JULY20,2004 543
Note.Thefailureofapartytointerposeatimelyobjectionto LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
thepresentationofprosecutionstestimonialevidenceresultsin G.R.No.143276.July20,2004.*
thewaiverofanyobjectiontotheadmissibilitythereof.(People LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.SPOUSES
vs.Sanchez,308SCRA264[1999]) VICENTE BANAL and LEONIDAS ARENASBANAL,
respondents.
o0o Agrarian Reform;Just Compensation;Due Process;The
determinationofjustcompensationofthepropertytakeninvolves
80 theexaminationofthefactorsspecifiedinSection17ofR.A.6657
the trial court cannot dispense with the hearing and merely shallapplytoallproceedingsbeforetheSpecialAgrarianCourts.
orderthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivememoranda.TheRTC In this regard, Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on
failedtoobservethebasicrulesofprocedureandthefundamental Evidenceisexplicitonthenecessityofahearingbeforeacourt
requirements in determining just compensation for the takesjudicialnoticeofacertainmatter,thus:SEC.3.Judicial
property.Firstly, it dispensed with the hearing and merely notice,whenhearingnecessary.Duringthe
orderedthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivememoranda.Such _______________
action is grossly erroneous since the determination of just
compensation involves the examination of the following factors
*
THIRDDIVISION.
specifiedinSection17ofR.A.6657,asamended:1.thecostofthe 544
acquisitionoftheland;2.thecurrentvalueoflikeproperties;3. 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
itsnature,actualuseandincome;4.theswornvaluationbythe 44
owner; the tax declarations; 5. the assessment made by LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
government assessors; 6. the social and economic benefits trial,thecourt,onitsowninitiative,oronrequestofaparty,
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the mayannounceitsintentiontotakejudicialnoticeofanymatter
governmenttotheproperty;and7.thenonpaymentoftaxesor
and allow thepartiesto be heard thereon. After thetrial, and
loanssecuredfromanygovernmentfinancinginstitutiononthe
before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own
saidland,ifany.Obviously,thesefactorsinvolvefactualmatters initiativeoronrequestofaparty,maytakejudicialnoticeofany
which can be established only during a hearing wherein the
matterandallowthepartiestobeheardthereonifsuchmatteris
contending partiespresent theirrespectiveevidence.Infact, to
decisiveofamaterialissueinthecase.(emphasisadded)
underscore theintricate natureofdetermining thevaluationof
theland,Section58ofthesamelawevenauthorizestheSpecial Same;Same;It is error for the trial court to apply the
AgrarianCourtstoappointcommissionersforsuchpurpose. formula prescribed in E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 3844, as
Same;Same;Judicial Notice;Wellsettled is the rule that amended,indeterminingthevaluationoflandplantedtococonut
courtsarenotauthorizedtotakejudicialnoticeofthecontentsof andriceandingrantingcompoundedinterestpursuanttoDAR
therecordsofothercasesevenwhensaidcaseshavebeentriedor Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1994it should have
are pending in the same court or before the same judge.Well applied DAR AdministrativeOrder No. 6, as amended by DAR
settledistherulethatcourtsarenotauthorizedtotakejudicial Administrative Order No. 11.The RTC erred in applying the
noticeofthecontentsoftherecordsofothercasesevenwhensaid formulaprescribedunderExecutiveOrder(EO)No.228andR.A.
caseshavebeentriedorarependinginthesamecourtorbefore No. 3844, as amended, in determining the valuation of the
thesamejudge.Theymayonlydosointheabsenceofobjection property;andingrantingcompoundedinterestpursuanttoDAR
and withthe knowledge ofthe opposing party, whicharenot AdministrativeOrderNo.13,Seriesof1994.Itmustbestressed
obtaininghere.Furthermore,asearlierstated,theRulesofCourt that EO No. 228 covers private agricultural landsprimarily
devoted to rice and corn, while R.A. 3844 governsagricultural PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
leasehold relationbetween the person who furnishes the Appeals.
landholding, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates the
same.Here,thelandisplantedtococonutandriceanddoesnot Miguel M. Gonzales,Rosemarie M. Ozoteo,Ricarte P.A.
involve agricultural leasehold relation. What the trial court ReyandNorbertoL.Martinezforpetitioner.
shouldhaveappliedistheformulainDARAdministrativeOrder ManuelFerrerforprivaterespondents.
No.6,asamendedbyDARAdministrativeOrderNo.11discussed
earlier. SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
Same;Same;DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of
1994doesnotapplytolandstakenunderP.D.No.27andE.O. Spouses Vicente and Leonidas Banal, respondents, are the
No. 228 whose owners have not been compensated.As regards registered owners of 19.3422 hectares of agricultural land
the award ofcompounded interest, sufficeittostatethatDAR situated in San Felipe, Basud, Camarines Norte covered by
AdministrativeOrderNo.13,Seriesof1994doesnotapplytothe Transfer Certificate of Title No. T6296. A portion of the land
subjectlandbuttothoselandstakenunderPresidentialDecree consisting of 6.2330 hectares (5.4730 of which is planted to
No.27andExecutiveOrderNo.228whoseownershavenotbeen coconutand0.7600plantedtopalay)wascompulsorilyacquired
compensated.Inthiscase,thepropertyiscoveredbyR.A.6657, by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to
as amended, and respondents have been paid the provisional RepublicAct(R.A.)No.6657,1asamended,otherwiseknownas
compensationthereof,asstipulatedduringthepretrial. theComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof1988.
In accordance with the formula prescribed in DAR
Same;Same;While the determination of just compensation
AdministrativeOrderNo.6,Seriesof1992, 2asamendedbyDAR
involvestheexerciseofjudicialdiscretion,suchdiscretionmustbe AdministrativeOrderNo.11,Seriesof1994, 3theLandBankof
discharged within the bounds of the law.While the the Philippines4(Landbank), petitioner, made the following
determination of just compensation involves the exercise of valuationoftheproperty:
judicialdiscretion,however,suchdiscretionmustbedischarged _______________
within the bounds of the law. Here, the RTC wantonly
disregardedR.A.6657,asamended,anditsimplementingrules EffectiveJune15,1988.
1

andregulations.(DARAdministrativeOrderNo.6,asamended Rules and Regulations Amending the Valuation of Lands

2

byDARAdministrativeOrderNo.11). VoluntarilyOfferedandCompulsorilyAcquiredAsProvidedFor
545 UnderAdministrativeOrderNo.17,Seriesof1989,AsAmended,
VOL.434,JULY20,2004 545 IssuedPursuanttoRepublicActNo.6657.
LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
 3
RevisingtheRulesandRegulationsCoveringtheValuation subject property is governed by the provisionsof R.A. 6657, as
of Lands Voluntarily Offered or Compulsorily Acquired as amended;(2)itwasdistributedtothefarmersbeneficiaries;and
EmbodiedinAdministrativeOrderNo.6,Seriesof1992. (3)theLandbankdepositedtheprovisionalcompensationbased
4
Executive Order No. 405, dated June 14, 1990, vests the onthevaluationmadebytheDAR.5
Land Bank of the Philippines the primary responsibility to Onthesamedayafterthepretrial,thecourtissuedanOrder
determine the land valuation and compensation for all private dispensingwiththehearinganddirectingthepartiestosubmit
landscoveredbyR.A.6657,asamended.SeePhilippineVeterans theirrespectivememoranda.6
Bank vs. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 132767, January 18, In its Decision dated February 5, 1999, the trial court
2000,322SCRA139,145. computed the just compensation for the coconut land at
546 P657,137.00 and for the riceland at P46,000.00, or a total of
P703,137.00, which is beyond respondents valuation of
546 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
P623,000.00.Thecourtfurtherawardedcompoundedinterestat
LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
P79,732.00incash.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
Acquiredproperty Areainhectares Value WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
Coconutland 5.4730 P148,675.19 _______________
Riceland 0.7600 25,243.36
P173,918.55
5
PretrialOrder,Rolloatpp.7677.
Respondents rejected the above valuation. Thus, pursuant to
6
Rolloatpp.25,82.
Section 16(d) of R.A. 6657, as amended, a summary 547
administrative proceeding was conducted before the Provincial VOL.434,JULY20,2004 547
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to determine the LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
valuation of the land. Eventually, the PARAD rendered its
DecisionaffirmingtheLandbanksvaluation. 1. 1.OrderingrespondentLandbanktopaythepetitioners,
Dissatisfied with the Decision of the PARAD, respondents the spouses Dr. Vicente Banal and Leonidas Arenas
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Daet, Banal,forthe5.4730hectaresofcoconutlandthesumof
Camarines Norte, designated as a Special Agrarian Court, a SIX HUNDRED FIFTYSEVEN THOUSAND ONE
petitionfordeterminationofjustcompensation,docketedasCivil HUNDRED THIRTYSEVEN PESOS (P657,137.00) in
CaseNo.6806.ImpleadedasrespondentsweretheDARandthe cashandinbondsintheproportionprovidedbylaw;
Landbank. Petitioners therein prayed for a compensation of
P100,000.00perhectareforbothcoconutlandandriceland,oran 2. 2.Ordering respondent Landbank to pay the petitioners
aggregateamountofP623,000.00. forthe.7600hectaresofricelandthesumofFORTYSIX
During the pretrial on September 23, 1998, the parties THOUSANDPESOS(P46,000.00)incashandinbonds
submittedtotheRTCthefollowingadmissionsoffacts:(1)the intheproportionprovidedbylaw;and
 3. 3.Ordering respondent Landbank to pay the petitioners 9
Entitled Declaring Full Land Ownership to Qualified
the sum of SEVENTYNINE THOUSAND SEVEN Farmer Beneficiaries Covered by Presidential Decree No. 27,
HUNDRED THIRTYTWO PESOS (P79,732.00) as the Determining the Value of Remaining Unvalued Rice and Corn
compoundedinterestincash. LandsSubjectofP.D.No.27,andProvidingfortheMannerof
PaymentbytheFarmerBeneficiaryandModeofCompensation
ITISSOORDERED.7 totheLandowner,datedJuly17,1987.
Indeterminingthevaluationoftheland,thetrialcourtbasedthe 548
sameonthefactsestablishedinanothercasependingbeforeit 548 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
(CivilCaseNo.6679,LuzRodriguezvs.DAR,etal.),usingthe LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
followingformula: Forthwith, the Landbank filed with the Court of Appeals a
Forthecoconutland petitionforreview,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.52163.
On March 20, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a
1. 1.AverageGrossProduction(AGP)x.70x9.70(priceper Decision10affirmingin totothe judgment of the trial court. The
kiloofcoconut)=NetIncome(NI) Landbanksmotionforreconsiderationwaslikewisedenied.11
Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
2. 2.NI / 6% = Price Per Hectare (PPH) (applying the ThefundamentalissueforourresolutioniswhethertheCourt
capitalizationformulaunderRepublicActNo.38448) ofAppealserredinsustainingthetrialcourtsvaluationofthe
land.Asearliermentioned,therewasnotrialonthemerits.
To begin with, under Section 1 of Executive Order No. 405
Forthericeland
(1990), the Landbank is charged primarily with the
determination of the land valuation and compensation for all
1. 1.2.5xAGPxGovernmentSupportPrice(GSP)=Land privatelandssuitableforagricultureundertheVoluntaryOffer
Value(LV)orPPH(usingtheformulaunderExecutive toSellorCompulsoryAcquisitionarrangement...Foritspart,
OrderNo.2289 the DARrelieson thedetermination ofthe land valuation and
compensationbytheLandbank.12
2. 2.AGPx6%compoundedannuallyfor26yearsxGSP= Based on the Landbanks valuation of the land, the DAR
Interest(pursuanttoDARAONo.13,Seriesof1994) makesanoffertothelandowner. 13Ifthelandowneracceptsthe
offer,theLandbankshallpayhimthepurchasepriceoftheland
_______________ afterheexecutesanddeliversadeedoftransferandsurrenders
the certificate of title in favor of the government. 14In case the
7
RTCDecisionatp.7,Id.,atp.68. landowner rejects the offer or fails to reply thereto, the DAR
8
CodeofAgrarianReformsofthePhilippines. adjudicator15conducts summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land by requiring the
landowner,theLandbankandotherinterestedpartiestosubmit xxx.
evidence as to the just compensation for the land. 16These ApartywhodisagreeswiththedecisionoftheDARadjudicator
functionsbytheDARarein may bring the matter to the RTC designated as a Special
_______________ AgrarianCourt17forfinaldeterminationofjustcompensation.18
IntheproceedingsbeforetheRTC,itismandatedtoapplythe
10
Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and RulesofCourt19and,onitsowninitiativeorattheinstanceofany
concurredbyAssociateJusticesRamonMabutas,Jr.andDelilah oftheparties,appointoneormorecommissionerstoexamine,
VidallonMagtolis. investigateandascertainfactsrelevanttothedispute,including
11
ResolutiondatedMay16,2000,Rolloatp.60. thevaluationofproperties,andtofileawrittenreportthereofxx
12
Sec.1,ExecutiveOrderNo.405(1990);Republicvs.Courtof x.20In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to
Appeals,G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996,263 SCRA considerseveralfactorsenumeratedinSection17ofR.A.6657,as
amended,thus:
758andPhilippineVeteransBankvs.CourtofAppeals,supra.
13
Sec.16(a)ofR.A.6657,asamended. Sec. 17.Determination of Just Compensation.In determining
14
Sec.16(c),Id. justcompensation,thecostofacquisitionoftheland,thecurrent
value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
15
TheProvincialAgrarianReformAdjudicator(PARAD)and
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the
theRegionalAgrarianReformAdjudicator(RARAD),depending
assessment made by government assessors shall be considered.
on the value of the land within their respective territorial
Thesocialandeconomicbenefitscontributedbythefarmersand
jurisdiction(RuleII,Sec.2,DARABRulesofProcedure).
thefarmworkersandbytheGovernmenttotheproperty,aswell
16
Sec. 16(d) of R.A. 6657, as amended;Philippine Veterans
as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any
Bankvs.CourtofAppeals,supra. government financing institution on the said land, shall be
549 consideredasadditionalfactorstodetermineitsvaluation.
VOL.434,JULY20,2004 549 ThesefactorshavebeentranslatedintoabasicformulainDAR
LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal AdministrativeOrderNo.6,Seriesof1992,asamendedbyDAR
accordancewithitsquasijudicialpowersunderSection50ofR.A. AdministrativeOrderNo.11,Seriesof1994,issuedpursuantto
6657,asamended,whichprovides: _______________
SEC.50.QuasiJudicialPowersoftheDAR.TheDARishereby
vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
17
Sec.56,Id.
agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original 18
Sec.16(f),inrelationtoSec.57,Id.
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of 19
Sec.57,Id.
agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive 20
Sec.58,Id.
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the
550
DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).
550 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 2. 2.thecurrentvalueoflikeproperties;
LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
theDARsrulemakingpowertocarryouttheobjectandpurposes 3. 3.itsnature,actualuseandincome;
ofR.A.6657,asamended.21
The formula stated in DAR Administrative Order No. 6, as 4. 4.theswornvaluationbytheowner;thetaxdeclarations;
amended,isasfollows:
LV=(CNIx0.6)+(CSx0.3)+(MVx0.1) _______________
LV=LandValue
CNI=CapitalizedNetIncome
21
Sec.49.RulesandRegulations.ThePARCandtheDAR
CS=ComparableSales shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether
MV=MarketValueperTaxDeclaration substantiveorprocedural,tocarryouttheobjectandpurposesof
Theabove formula shallbeusedifallthe threefactors are this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days after
present,relevantandapplicable. publicationintwo(2)nationalnewspapersofgeneralcirculation.
A.1WhentheCSfactorisnotpresentandCNIandMVare 551
applicable,theformulashallbe: VOL.434,JULY20,2004 551
LV=(CNIx0.9)+(MVx0.1) LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
A.2WhentheCNIfactorisnotpresent,andCSandMVare
applicable,theformulashallbe: 1. 5.theassessmentmadebygovernmentassessors;
LV=(CSx0.9)+(MVx0.1)
A.3WhenboththeCSandCNIarenotpresentandonlyMV 2. 6.the social and economic benefits contributed by the
isapplicable,theformulashallbe: farmersandthefarmworkersandbythegovernmentto
LV=MVx2 theproperty;and
Here,theRTCfailedtoobservethebasicrulesofprocedureand
thefundamentalrequirementsindeterminingjustcompensation 3. 7.the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any
fortheproperty.Firstly,itdispensedwiththehearingandmerely government financing institution on the said land, if
orderedthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivememoranda.Such any.
action is grossly erroneous since the determination of just
compensation involves the examination of the following factors
Obviously, these factors involvefactualmatters which can be
specifiedinSection17ofR.A.6657,asamended:
establishedonlyduringahearingwhereinthecontendingparties
present their respective evidence. In fact, to underscore the
1. 1.thecostoftheacquisitionoftheland; intricatenatureofdeterminingthevaluationoftheland,Section
58ofthesamelawevenauthorizestheSpecialAgrarianCourtsto AsshownintheMemorandumofLandbankinthiscase,the
appointcommissionersforsuchpurpose. areaofthecoconutlandtakenunderCARPis5.4730hectares.
Secondly, the RTC, in concluding that the valuation of Butasalreadynoted,theaveragegrossproductionayearof
respondentspropertyisP703,137.00,merelytookjudicialnotice 506.96 kilos per hectare fixed by Landbank is too low as
oftheaverageproductionfiguresintheRodriguezcasepending comparedtotheRodriguez
beforeitandappliedthesametothiscasewithoutconductinga 552
hearing and worse, without the knowledge or consent of the 552 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
parties,thus: LandbankofthePhilippinesvs.Banal
xxx.Inthecasexxxofthecoconutportionoftheland5.4730 casewhichwas1,061kiloswhenthecoconutlandinboth
hectares,defendantsdeterminedtheaveragegrossproductionper cases arein the same town of Basud, Camarines Norte,
yearat506.95kilosonly,butintheveryrecentcaseofLuz compelling this courtthen to adapt 1,061 kilos as the
Rodriguezvs.DAR,etal.,filedanddecidedbythiscourtin averagegrossproductionayearofthecoconutlandinthis
CivilCaseNo.6679alsoforjustcompensationforcoconutlands
case.WehavetoapplyalsothepriceofP9.70perkiloasthisis
andRicelandsituatedatBasud,CamarinesNortewhereinalso
thevaluethatLandbankfixedforthiscase.
thelandsintheaboveentitledcasearesituated,thevaluefixed
The net income of thecoconut land is equal to 70% of the
therein was 1,061.52 kilos per annumper hectare for grossincome.So,thenetincomeofthecoconutlandis1,061x.70
coconut land and the price per kilo is P8.82, but inthe x9.70equalsP7,204.19perhectare.Applyingthecapitalization
instantcasethepriceperkiloisP9.70.Inthepresentcase, formula ofR.A. 3844to thenet income of P7,204.19 divided by
weconsider506.95kilosaveragegrossproductionperyearper 6%, the legal rate of interest, equals P120,069.00 per hectare.
hectaretobeverylowconsideringthatfarmpracticeforcoconut Therefore, the just compensation for the 5.4730 hectares is
lands is harvest every fortyfive days. We cannot also P657,137.00.
comprehendedwhyintheRodriguezcaseandinthiscasethere The Riceland taken underPresidential Decree No. 27as of
isagreatvarianceinaverageproductionperyearwheninthe October 21, 1972 has an area of .7600 hectare.If in
twocasesthelandsarebothcoconutlandsandinthesameplace theRodriguezcasethe Landbank fixed the average gross
of Basud, Camarines Norte. We believe that it is more fair to productionof3000kilosor60cavansofpalayperyear,thenthe.
adapt the 1,061.52 kilos per hectare per year as average gross 7600hectareinthiscasewouldbe46cavans.Thevalueofthe
production.In theRodriguez case,the defendants fixed the ricelandthereforeinthiscaseis46cavansx2.5xP400.00equals
averagegrossproductionofpalayat3,000kilosor60cavansper P46,000.00.22
year.Thecourtisalsoconstrainedtoapplythisyearlypalay PARCResolution94241of25October1994,implementedby
productionintheRodriguezcasetothecaseatbar. DAR AO 13, granted interest on the compensation at 6%
xxxxxxxxx compoundedannually.Thecompoundedinterestonthe46cavans
for26yearsis199.33cavans.AtP400.00percavan,thevalueof andthepersonwhopersonallycultivatesthesame. 29Here,the
thecompoundedinterestisP79,732.00.23(emphasisadded) land is planted to coconut and rice and does not involve
Wellsettled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take agriculturalleaseholdrelation.Whatthetrialcourtshouldhave
judicialnoticeofthecontentsoftherecordsofothercaseseven applied is the formula in DAR AdministrativeOrder No. 6, as
whensaidcaseshavebeentriedorarependinginthesamecourt amendedbyDARAdministrativeOrderNo.11discussedearlier.
orbeforethesamejudge.24Theymayonlydosointheabsence As regards the award of compounded interest, suffice it to
ofobjection and with the knowledge of the opposing statethatDARAdministrativeOrderNo.13,Seriesof1994does
party,25whicharenotobtaininghere. not apply to the subject land but to those lands taken under
Furthermore,asearlierstated,theRulesofCourtshallapply PresidentialDecreeNo.2730andExecutiveOrderNo.228whose
to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. In this ownershavenotbeencompensated.Inthiscase,thepropertyis
regard,Section3,Rule129oftheRevisedRulesonEvidenceis covered by R.A. 6657, as amended, and respondents have been
explicitonthenecessityofahearingbeforeacourttakesjudicial paidtheprovisional compensation thereof, asstipulatedduring
noticeofacertainmatter,thus: thepretrial.
SEC. 3.Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.During the While the determination of just compensation involves the
trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a exerciseofjudicialdiscretion,however,suchdiscretionmustbe
party,mayannounceitsintentiontotakejudicialnoticeof dischargedwithintheboundsofthelaw.Here,theRTCwantonly
anymatterandallowthepartiestobeheardthereon. disregardedR.A.6657,asamended,anditsimplementingrules
Afterthetrial,andbeforejudgmentoronappeal,theproper andregulations.(DARAdministrativeOrderNo.6,asamended
court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take byDARAdministrativeOrderNo.11).
judicialnoticeofanymatterandallowthepartiestobeheard Insum,wefindthattheCourtofAppealsandtheRTCerred
thereonifsuchmatterisdecisiveofamaterialissueinthecase. indeterminingthevaluationofthesubjectland.Thus,wedeemit
proper to remand this case to the RTC for trial on the merits
(emphasisadded)
wherein the parties may present their respective evidence. In
TheRTCfailedtoobservetheaboveprovisions.
determiningthevaluationofthesubjectproperty,thetrialcourt
Lastly, the RTC erred in applying the formula prescribed
shallconsiderthefactorsprovidedunderSection17ofR.A.6657,
under Executive Order (EO) No. 22826and R.A. No. 3844,27as
as amended, mentioned earlier. The formula prescribed by the
amended, in determining the valuation of the property; and in
DARinAdministrativeOrderNo.6,Seriesof1992,asamended
granting compounded interest pursuantto DAR Administrative
by DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1994, shall be
OrderNo.13,Seriesof1994. 28ItmustbestressedthatEONo.
used in the valuation of the land. Furthermore, upon its own
228 covers private agricultural landsprimarily devoted to rice initiative,orattheinstanceofanyoftheparties,thetrialcourt
and corn, while R.A. 3844 governsagricultural leasehold mayappointoneormorecommissionerstoexamine,investigate
relationbetween the person who furnishes the landholding, andascertainfactsrelevanttothedispute.
eitherasowner,civillawlessee,usufructuary,orlegalpossessor,
 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed o0o
DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedMarch20,2000inCAG.R.
SPNo.52163isREVERSED.CivilCaseNo.6806isREMANDED Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
totheRTC,Branch40,Daet,CamarinesNorte,fortrialonthe reserved.
meritswithdispatch.Thetrialjudgeisdirectedtoobservestrictly
the procedures specified above in determining the proper
valuationofthesubjectproperty.
_______________

30
EntitledDecreeingtheEmancipationofTenantsfromthe
BondageoftheSoilTransferringToThemTheOwnershipofthe
LandTheyTill andProvidingthe Instruments andMechanism
Therefor,datedOctober21,1972.
555 VOL.292,JULY16,1998 551
SOORDERED. Peoplevs.Kulais
Panganiban(Chairman)andCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur. G.R.Nos.10090108.July16,1998.*
Corona,J.,OnLeave. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff
Petitiongranted,assaileddecisionreversed. appellee,vs.JAILON KULAIS, CARLOS FALCASANTOS @
Notes.TheCARLandE.O.407werenotintendedtotake Commander Falcasantos, AWALON KAMLON HASSAN @
awaypropertywithoutdueprocessoflawnorweretheyintended CommanderKamlon,MAJIDSAMSON@CommanderBungi,
toimpairtheobligationofcontracts.(DevelopmentBankofthe JUMATIYAAMLANIDEFALCASANTOS,NORMASAHIDDAN
Philippinesvs.CourtofAppeals,262SCRA245[1996]) DEKULAIS,SALVADORMAMARILyMENDOZA,HADJIRUL
Itwouldsubverttheoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionofthe PLASINyALIH, JAINUDDIN HASSANyAHMAD, IMAM
RTC for the DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation TARUK ALAHySALIH, JALINA HASSAN DE KAMMING,
casesinadministrativeofficialsandmaketheRTCanappellate FREDDIE MANUEL @ Ajid and several JOHN and JANE
courtforthereviewofadministrativedecisions.Whatagrarian DOES,accused.JAILONKULAIS,accusedappellant.
adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a Criminal Law;Constitutional Law;Right of
preliminary manner thereasonable compensationto be paid to Confrontation;Judicial Notice;As a general rule, courts should
landowners,leavingtothecourtstheultimatepowertodecide
nottakejudicial
the question. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals,263 SCRA
758[1996]) _______________
 *
FIRSTDIVISION. RevisedPenalCode,theCourtfoundthatthevictim,aneight
552 yearoldboy,wasdeprivedofhislibertywhenhewasrestrained
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED from going home. The Courtjustified the convictionby holding
52 that the offense consisted not only in placing a person in an
Peoplevs.Kulais enclosure,butalsoindetainingordeprivinghim,inanymanner,
noticeoftheevidencepresentedinotherproceedings,evenif ofhisliberty.Likewise,inPeoplevs.Santos,theCourtheldthat
sincetheappellantwaschargedandconvictedunderArticle267,
thesehavebeentriedorarependinginthesamecourt,orhave
paragraph4,itwasnotthedurationofthedeprivationofliberty
been heard and are actually pending before the same judge.
True,asageneralrule,courtsshouldnottakejudicialnoticeof whichwasimportant,butthefactthatthevictim,aminor,was
theevidencepresentedinotherproceedings,evenifthesehave lockedup.
beentriedorarependinginthesamecourt,orhavebeenheard Same;Witnesses;Alibi and Denial;Jurisprudence gives
andareactuallypendingbeforethesamejudge.Thisisespecially greaterweighttothepositivenarrationofprosecutionwitnesses
trueincriminalcases,wheretheaccusedhastheconstitutional thantothenegativetestimoniesofthedefense.Theappellants
righttoconfrontandcrossexaminethewitnessesagainsthim. baredenialisaweakdefensethatbecomesevenweakerinthe
Same;Kidnapping;Thefactthatthevictimsweredetained faceof theprosecutionwitnesses positiveidentificationofhim.
for only three hours does not matter if said victims are public Jurisprudence gives greater weight to the positive narration of
officers.Victims Virginia San AgustinGara, Monico Saavedra prosecutionwitnesses
and Calixto Francisco were members of the government 553
monitoring team abducted by appellants group. The three VOL.292,JULY16,1998 553
testifiedtothefactofkidnapping;however,theywerenotableto Peoplevs.Kulais
identifytheappellant.Evenso,appellantsidentityasoneofthe than to the negative testimonies of the defense. Between
kidnapperswassufficientlyestablishedbyCalunod,Bacarroand positiveandcategoricaltestimonywhichhasaringoftruthtoit
Perez, who were with Gara, Saavedra and Francisco when the on the one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former
abduction occurred. That Gara, Saavedra and Francisco were generally prevails. Jessica Calunod, Armando Bacarro and
detained for only three hours does not matter. InPeople vs. Edilberto Perez testified in a clear, straightforward and frank
Domasian,thevictimwassimilarlyheldforthreehours,andwas manner; and their testimonies were compatible on material
releasedevenbeforehisparentsreceivedtheransomnote.The points. Moreover, no ill motive was attributed to the kidnap
accused therein argued that they could not be held guilty of victimsandnonewasfoundbythisCourt.
kidnapping as no enclosure was involved, and that only grave Same;Penalties;Lifeimprisonmentisnotsynonymouswith
coercion was committed, if at all. Convicting appellants of reclusionperpetua.Thetrialcourterredwhenitsentencedthe
kidnappingorseriousillegaldetentionunderArt.267(4)ofthe appellant to six terms of life imprisonment. The penalty for
kidnapping with ransom, under the Revised Penal Code, TheCase
isreclusionperpetuatodeath.Sincethecrimeshappenedin1988, OnAugust22,1990,fiveInformationsforkidnappingforransom
whenthecapitalpenaltywasproscribedbytheConstitution,the (Crim. Case Nos. 10060, 10061, 10062, 10063 and 10064) and
maximum penalty that could have been imposed wasreclusion threeInformationsforkidnapping(Crim.CaseNos.10065,10066
perpetua. Life imprisonment is not synonymous withreclusion and 10067), all dated August 14, 1990, were filed 1before the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City against Carlos
perpetua. Unlike life imprisonment,reclusion perpetuacarries
Falcasantos, Jailon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani, Norma Sahiddan
with it accessory penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code
de Kulais, Jalina Hassan de Kamming,2Salvador Mamaril,
and has a definite extent or duration. Life imprisonment is
HadjirulPlasin,JaimuddinHassan,Imam3TarukAlah,Freddie
invariablyimposedforseriousoffensespenalizedbyspeciallaws,
Manuel alias Ajid, and several John and Jane Does. The
whilereclusion perpetuais prescribed in accordance with the Informationsforkidnappingforransom,whichsetforthidentical
RevisedPenalCode. allegationssaveforthenamesofthevictims,readasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe12thdayofDecember,1988,intheCityof
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
ZamboangaCity,Br.12. Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, being all private
individuals, conspiring and confederating together, mutually
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
aidingandassistingoneanother,withthreatstokillthepersonof
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee. FELIX ROSARIO [in Criminal Case No. 10060] 4and for the
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant. purpose ofextorting ransomfrom thesaidFelix Rosarioorhis
familiesoremployer,didthenandthere,wilfully,unlawfullyand
PANGANIBAN,J.: feloniously, KIDNAP the person of said Felix Rosario, 5a male
public officer of the City Government of Zamboanga, who was
Thetrialcourtserroneoustakingofjudicialnoticeofawitness then aboard a Cimarron vehicle with plateNo. SBZ976 which
testimonyinanothercase,alsopendingbeforeit,doesnotaffect was being ambushed by the herein accused at the highway of
the conviction of the appellant, whose guilt is proven beyond SitioTigbaoLisomo,ZamboangaCity,and
reasonable doubt by other clear, convincing and overwhelming
evidence,bothtestimonialanddocumentary.TheCourttakesthis _______________
occasion also to remind the bench and the bar thatreclusion
perpetuaisnotsynonymouswithlifeimprisonment.
1
These Informations were signed by Zamboanga City First
554 Assistant Prosecutor Manuel Tatel and approved by City
ProsecutorWilfredoM.Yu.
554 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 2
ReferredtoasJalihaHussinintheDecision.
Peoplevs.Kulais 3
AlsoreferredtoasIman.
 4
Record,p.1;ALLANBASAinCrim.CaseNo.10061,record, Of the twelve accused, only nine were apprehended, namely,
p. 1; EDILBERTO PEREZySALVADOR in Crim. Case No. Jailon Julais, Jumatiya Amlani, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais,
10062, record, p. 1; JESSICAS. CALUNOD in Crim.CaseNo. Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, Jainuddin Hassan, Imam
10063,record,p.1;ARMANDOO.BACARROinCrim.CaseNo. TarukAlah,JalinaHassanandFreddieManuel.8
10064,record,p.1.Bracketssupplied. OntheirarraignmentonSeptember13,1990,alltheaccused
5
Ibid. pleadednotguilty.Jointtrialonthemeritsensued.On
555
_______________
VOL.292,JULY16,1998 555
Peoplevs.Kulais 6
Ibid.
brought said Felix Rosario6to different mountainous places of 7
Record, p. 1; VIRGINIA SAN AGUSTIN GARA, a female
ZamboangaCityandZamboangadelSur,wherehewasdetained,
publicofficer,inCrim.Case No.10066, record,p. 1; CALIXTO
heldhostageanddeprivedofhislibertyuntilFebruary2,1989,
FRANCISCO in Crim. Case No. 10067, record, p. 1. Brackets
thedaywhenhewasreleasedonlyafterpaymentoftheransom
supplied.
wasmadetohereinaccused,tothedamageandprejudiceofsaid 8
SeeDecision, p. 3. Although the trial court listed the nine
victim;therebeingpresentanaggravatingcircumstanceinthat
arrestedaccused,iterroneouslywrotethattherewereonlyeight
theaforecitedoffensewascommittedwiththeaidofarmedmen
ofthem.
orpersonswhoinsureoraffordimpunity.
556
ThethreeInformationsforkidnapping,alsounderArticle267of
the Revised Penal Code, likewise alleged identical facts and 556 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
circumstances,exceptthenamesofthevictims: Peoplevs.Kulais
Thatonoraboutthe12thdayofDecember,1988,intheCityof April8,1991,JudgePelagioS.Mandirenderedtheassailed36
ZamboangaandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt, pageDecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
the abovenamed accused, being all private individuals, WHEREFORE, above premises and discussion taken into
conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and consideration, this Court renders its judgment, ordering and
assisting one another, by means of threats and intimidation of finding:
person, didthen andthere, wilfully,unlawfullyand feloniously
KIDNAP,takeanddragawayanddetainthepersonofMONICO 1. 1.FREDDIEMANUEL,aliasAJIDandIMAMTARUK
SAAVEDRAYLIMEN[CriminalCaseNo.10065] 7amalepublic ALAH y SALIH [n]ot [g]uilty of the eight charges of
officer of the City Government of Zamboanga, against his will, [k]idnapping for [r]ansom and for [k]idnapping, their
there being present an aggravating circumstance in that the guiltnothavingbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
aforecitedoffensewascommittedwiththeaidofarmedmenor
personswhoinsureoraffordimpunity.
 TheirimmediatereleasefromtheCityJail,ZamboangaCityis VOL.292,JULY16,1998 557
ordered, unlessdetainedforsomeotheroffensebesidesthese8 Peoplevs.Kulais
cases(Crim.CasesNos.1006010067).
1. 3.JAMATIYAAMLANIDEFALCASANTOS[n]ot[g]uilty
1. 2.JAINUDDIN HASSAN y AHMAD, JAILON KULAIS, inthethreechargesof[k]idnappingandsheisacquitted
SALVADOR MAMARIL y MENDOZA and HADJIRUL of these charges (Crim. Cases Nos. 10065, 10066 and
PLASINyALIH[g]uiltyasprincipalsbyconspiracyin 10067).
allthese8 cases for[k]idnappingfor[r]ansomand for
[k]idnapping(Crim.CasesNos.1006010067).
ButJumatiyaAmlanideFalcasantosis[g]uiltyasaccomplicein
thefivechargesof[k]idnappingfor[r]ansom.
Theirguiltisaggravatedinthattheycommittedthe8offenses WHEREFORE,JumatiyaAmlanideFalcasantosissentenced
withtheaidofarmedmenwhoinsuredimpunity.Therefore,the toservefive(5)imprisonments,rangingfromTEN(10)YEARSof
penaltiesimposedonthemshallbeattheirmaximumperiod. prision mayor as minimum to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS of
WHEREFORE, for the five charges of [k]idnapping for reclusiontemporalasmaximum(Crim.CasesNos.1006010064).
[r]ansom,andpursuanttoArt. 267of theRevised Penal Code,
five life imprisonments are imposed on Jainuddin Hassan y
1. 4.NORMA SAHIDDAN DE KULAIS, 18 years old, and
Ahmad,JailonKulais,SalvadorMamarilyMendozaandHadjirul
JALIHA HUSSIN (charged as Jalina Hassan de
PlasinyAlih(Crim.CasesNos.1006010064).
Kamming), 15 years old, [n]ot [g]uilty in the three
ForkidnappingMrs.VirginiaSanAgustinGara,afemaleand
charges for [k]idnapping and are, therefore,
publicofficerandpursuanttoArt.267,RevisedPenalCode(par.
ACQUITTEDofthesethreecharges(Crim.CasesNos.
4),anotherlifeimprisonmentisimposedonJainuddinHassany
10065,10066&10067).
Ahmad,JailonKulais,SalvadorMamarilyMendozaandHadjirul
PlasinyAlih(Crim.CaseNo.10066).
But Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and Jalina Hussin are found
For kidnapping Monico Saavedra y Limen, and Calixto
[g]uilty as accomplices in the five charges for [k]idnapping for
FranciscoyGaspar,andtheirkidnappingnothavinglastedmore
[r]ansom. Being minors, they are entitled to the privileged
thanfivedays,pursuanttoArt.268,RevisedPenalCode,andthe
mitigating circumstance of minority which lowers the penalty
IndeterminateSentenceLaw,thesamefouraccusedJainuddin
imposableonthembyonedegree.
Hassan y Ahmad, Jailon Kulais, Salvador Mamaril y Mendoza
WHEREFORE,NormaSahiddandeKulaisandJalinaHussin
andHadjirulPlasinyAlihare sentenced toserve two(2)jail
aresentencedtoservefiveimprisonmentsrangingfromSIX(6)
termsrangingfromten(10)yearsofprisionmayorasminimum,
YEARSofprisioncorreccionalasminimumtoTEN(10)YEARS
toeighteen(18)yearsofreclusiontemporalasmaximum(Crim.
ANDONE(1)DAYofprisionmayorasmaximum(Crim.Cases
CasesNos.10065and10067).
Nos.1006010064).
557
 Duetotheremovalofthesuspensionofsentencesofyouthful Cash P300.00
offendersconvictedofanoffensepunishablebydeathorlifeby
PresidentialDecreeNo.1179andPresidentialDecreeNo.1210 ToVirginiaSanAgustinGara
(of which [k]idnapping for [r]ansom is such an offense) the
One(1)WristWatch P850.00
sentences on Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and Jaliha Hussinde
The benefit of Art. 29, Revised Penal Code, on preventive
KammingareNOTsuspendedbutmustbeservedbythem.
suspension,shallbeextendedtothosesentenced.
JanuddinHassan,JailonKulais,SalvadorMamarilandHadjirul
The cases against Majid Samson, alias Commander Bungi
Plasin are sentenced further to return the following
AwalonKamlona.k.a.CommanderKamlonCarlosFalcasantos
personaleffects taken on December 12, 1988, the day of the
andseveralJohnDoesandJaneDoesareARCHIVEDuntil
kidnapping,ortheirvalueinmoney,theirliabilitybeingsolidary.
theirarrest.
ToJessicaCalunod: Costsagainsttheaccusedconvicted.
SOORDERED.9
One(1)Seikowristwatch P250.00 OnMay7,1991,JailonKulais,JumatiyaAmlanideFalcasantos,
OneBracelet P2,400.00 Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and Jaliha Hussin filed their joint
OneShoulderBag P200.00 NoticeofAppeal.10InaletterdatedFebruary6,1997,thesame
Cash P200.00 appellants,exceptJailonKulais,withdrewtheirappealbecause
558 of their application for amnesty. In our March 19, 1997
558 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Resolution, we granted their motion. Hence, only theappeal of
KulaisremainsfortheconsiderationofthisCourt.11
Peoplevs.Kulais
ToArmandoC.Bacarro: _______________

One(1)wristwatch P800.00 9
Decision,pp.3336;rollo,pp.5255.
OneNecklace P300.00
10
Through Atty. Catherine P.C. Fabian of the Public
OneCalculator P295.00 AttorneysOffice,whorepresentedthemduringthetrial.
Eyeglasses P500.00
11
ThecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononFebruary
21, 1997, whenthe Court receiveda letterfromthe Bureauof
OneSteelTape P250.00
Cor

559
ToEdilbertoS.Perez VOL.292,JULY16,1998 559

Peoplevs.Kulais
One(1)Rayban P1,000.00
OneWristWatch P1,800.00
TheFacts The wives of the kidnappers performed the basic chores like
TheVersionoftheProsecution cooking.(pp.910,TSN,ibid.)
The solicitor general summarized, in this wise, the facts as CommanderFalcasantosalsoorderedtheirvictimstosignthe
viewedbythePeople: ransomnoteswhichdemandedaransomofP100,000.00and
OnDecember12,1988,agroupofpublicofficialsfromvarious
governmentagencies,organizedthemselvesasamonitoringteam _______________
toinspectgovernmentprojectsinZamboangaCity.Thegroupwas
composed of Virginia Gara, as the head of the team; Armando rections confirming the confinement of Appellant Jailon
Bacarro, representing the Commission on Audit; Felix del KulaisattheNBP.
Rosario, representing the nongovernment; Edilberto Perez, 560
representing the City Assessors Office; Jessica Calunod and 560 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AllanBasaoftheCityBudgetOfficeandMonicoSaavedra,the Peoplevs.Kulais
driver from the City Engineers Office. (p. 3, TSN, October 22, P14,000.00 in exchange for twenty (20) sets of uniform. (p. 15,
1990.) TSN,ibid.)
On that particular day, the group headed to the Lincomo On February3,1989, ataround12:00 oclocknoontime,the
Elementary School to check on two of its classrooms. After victimswereinformedthattheywouldbereleased.Theystarted
inspecting the same, they proceeded to the Talaga Footbridge. walkinguntilaround7:00oclockintheeveningofthatday.At
Thegroupwasnotabletoreachtheplacebecauseontheirway, around 12:00 oclock midnight, the victims were released after
theywerestoppedbynine(9)armedmenwhopointedtheirguns Commander Falcasantos and Kamlon received the ransom
atthem.(p.4,TSN,ibid.) money. (p. 19, TSN,ibid.) The total amount paid was
ThegroupalightedfromtheirCimarronjeepwheretheywere P122,000.00. The same was reached after several negotiations
divestedoftheirpersonalbelongings.Theywerethenorderedto between Mayor Vitaliano Agan of Zamboanga City and the
walk to the mountain by the leader of the armed men who representativesofthekidnappers.(pp.2,6,TSN,Nov.11,1990)
introducedhimselfasCommanderFalcasantos.(p.5,TSN,ibid.) xxx.12
While the group was walking in the mountain, they The prosecution presented fifteen witnesses, including some of
encountered government troops which caused their group tobe the kidnap victims themselves: Jessica Calunod, Armando
divided. Finally, they were able to regroup themselves. Bacarro, Edilberto Perez, Virginia San AgustinGara, Calixto
Commander Kamlon with his men joined the others. (pp. 78, Francisco,andMonicoSaavedra.
TSN,ibid.) TheVersionoftheDefense
Thekidnappersheldtheircaptivesforfiftyfour(54)daysin Thefactsofthecase,accordingtothedefense,areasfollows: 13
the forest. During their captivity, the victims were able to OnMay28,1990,atabout10:00oclockinthemorning,while
recognizetheircaptorswhowereatalltimesarmedwithguns. weedingtheirfarminSinaburan,ZamboangadelSur,accused
appellant Jumatiya Amlani was picked up by soldiers and LikewiseakidnapvictimherselfisaccusedappellantJaliha
brought to a place where one army battalion was stationed. Hussin,whowasthirteenyearsoldatthetime(shewasfifteen
Thereat, her five (5) coaccused, namely Salvador Mamaril, yearsoldwhenthetrialoftheinstantcasescommenced).Shewas
Hadjirul Plasin, Jainuddin Hassin, Imam Taruk Alah and kidnapped by Daing Kamming and brought to the mountains
Freddie Manuel werealready detained. Intheafternoonof the where he slept with her. She stayed with him for less than a
sameday,appellantsspousesJailonKulaisandNormaSahiddan month sleeping on forest ground and otherwise performing
were brought to the battalion station and likewise detained housekeepingerrandsforKammingandhismen.Shemadegood
thereat.OnMay30,1990,theeight(8)accusedweretransported herescapeduringanencounterbetweenthegroupofKamming
to Metrodiscom, Zamboanga City. Here onthe same date, they andmilitarytroops.ShehidinthebushesandcameoutatLigui
werejoinedbyaccusedappellantJalihaHussin. anwhereshetookabachelorbusingoingbacktohermothers
house atPudos, Guiligan, Tungawan, Zamboanga delSur. One
_______________ day, at around 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, while she was
harvesting palay at the neighboring village of Tigbalangao,
AppelleesBrief,pp.810;rollo,pp.149h149j.
12
militarymenpickedheruptoTicbanuangwheretherewasan
AppellantsBrief,preparedbythePublicAttorneysOffice
13
armybattaliondetachment.FromTicbawuang,shewasbrought
andsignedbyPublicAttorneyIIIBartolomeP.ReusandPublic to Vitali, then to Metrodiscom, Zamboanga City, where on her
AttorneyIIRectorE.Macapagal,pp.811;rollo,pp.9295. arrival, she met all the other accused for the first time except
561 FreddieManuel.(Ibid.,pp.1621)
VOL.292,JULY16,1998 561 Another female accused is appellant Norma Sahiddan, a
Peoplevs.Kulais native of Sinaburan, Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur. At about
AtthetimeAmlaniwaspickedupbythemilitary,shehadjust 3:00oclockintheafternoonofadayinMay,whilesheandher
escaped from the captivity of Carlos Falcasantos and company husbandwereintheirfarm,soldiersarrestedthem.Thesoldiers
who in 1988 kidnapped and brought her to the mountains. didnottellthemwhytheywerebeingarrested,neitherwerethey
Againsttheirwill,shestayedwithFalcasantosandhistwowives shownanypapers.Thetwoofthemwerejustmadetoboardasix
fortwomonths,duringwhichshesleptwithFalcasantosasaide bysixtruck.Therewerenootherciviliansinthetruck.Thetruck
ofthewivesandwasmadetocookfood,washclothes,fetchwater broughtthespousestothearmybattalionandplacedtheminside
and run other errands for everybody. An armed guard was thebuildingwheretherewereciviliansandsoldiers.Amongthe
assignedtowatchher,sothat,forsometime,shehadtobearthe civilians present were her six coaccused Hadjirul Plasin,
illtreatmentofFalcasantosotherwivesoneofwhomwasarmed. Salvador Mamaril, Jaimuddin Hassan, Ima[m] Taruk Alah,
Afterabouttwomonths,whileshewascookingandFalcasantos FreddieManuelandJumatiyaAmlani.Thatnight,theeightof
andhistwowiveswerebathingintheriver,andwhileherguard themwerebroughttoTictapul,
wasnotlooking,shetookherchanceandmadeasuccessfuldash 562
forfreedom.(TSN,January29,1992,pp.215) 562 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Peoplevs.Kulais accused were keeping the five or six hostages named by
ZamboangaCity;thentoVitali;and,finally,totheMetrodiscom, [p]rosecutionevidence.
ZamboangaCitywheretheystayedforsixdaysandsixnights. Thesevenaccusedpositivelyidentifiedtohavebeenpresent
Ontheseventhday,theaccusedwerebroughttotheCityJail, during the course of the captivity of the five kidnapvictims
ZamboangaCity.(TSN,January30,1991,pp.611) complainantsare:(1)JumatiyaAmlani;(2)JalihaHussin;(3)
The husband of Norma Sahiddan is Jailon Kulais who, as 563
heretofore narrated, was arrested with his wife the day the VOL.292,JULY16,1998 563
soldierscametotheirfarmonMay28,1990.Hehassharedwith Peoplevs.Kulais
hiswifetheordealsthatfollowedinthewakeoftheirarrestand Norma Sahiddan; (4) Jailon Kulais; (5) Hadjirul Plasin; (6)
in the duration of their confinement up to the present. (TSN, SalvadorMamariland(7)JainuddinHassan.
January22,1991,pp.24) Thetwoaccusednotpositivelyidentifiedare:FreddieManuel
TheTrialCourtsRuling aliasAjid,andImamTarukAlah.Thesetwomust,therefore,be
The trial court found Appellant Kulais guilty of five counts of declaredacquittedbasedonreasonabledoubt.
kidnappingforransomandonecountofkidnappingawomanand Thenextimportantissuetobeexaminedis:Aretheseseven
publicofficer,forwhichoffensesitimposeduponhimsixtermsof accused guilty as conspirators as charged in the eight
life imprisonment. It also found him guilty of two counts of Informations;oronlyasaccomplices?Prosecutionevidenceshows
slight illegal detention for the kidnapping of Monico Saavedra thatthekidnappinggrouptowhichthesevenaccusedbelonged
andCalixtoFrancisco.Thetrialcourtratiocinatedasfollows: had formed themselves into an armed band for the purpose of
Principally, the issue here is one of credibilityboth of the kidnappingforransom.Thisarmedbandhadcutthemselvesoff
witnessesandtheirversionofwhathadhappenedonDecember fromestablishedcommunities,livedinthemountainsandforests,
12,1988,toFebruary3,1989.Onthispivotalissue,theCourt movedfrom placetoplaceinordertohidetheir hostages. The
gives credenceto[p]rosecutionwitnessesandtheir testimonies. wives of these armed band moved along with their husbands,
Prosecutionevidenceispositive,clearandconvincing.Notaintof attendingtotheirneeds,givingthemmaterialandmoralsupport.
evil or dishonest motive was imputed or imputable to These wives also attended to the needs of the kidnap victims,
[p]rosecutionwitnesses.TothisCourt,whosawallthewitnesses sleepingwiththemorcomfortingthem.
testify, [p]rosecutionwitnessestestifiedonly becausethey were xxxxxxxxx
impelledby[a]senseofjustice,ofdutyandoftruth. II)The guilt of Jainuddin Hassan, Jailon Kulais, Salvador
Contrarily, [d]efense evidence is weak, uncorroborated and Mamariland Hadjirul Plasin.The Courtholdsthese fourmen
consisted only of alibis. The individual testimonies of the nine guilty as conspirators in the 8 cases of kidnapping. Unlike the
accuseddwel[t]principallyonwhathappenedtoeachofthemon three womenaccused, these male accused were armed. They
May27,28and29,1990.Noneoftheaccusedexplainedwherehe activelyparticipatedinkeepingtheirhostagesbyfightingoffthe
orshewasonandfromDecember12,1988,toFebruary3,1989, militaryandCAFGUS,intransferringtheirhostagesfromplace
when[p]rosecutionevidenceshow[ed]positivelysevenofthenine
toplace,andinguardingthekidnaphostages.SalvadorMamaril individual whose evil will actively contribute to the
and Jailon Kulaiswere positively identified as among the nine wrongdoingisinlawresponsibleforthewhole,thesame
armed men who had kidnapped the eight kidnap victims on as though performed by himself alone. (People vs.
December12,1988. Peralta,etal.,25SCRA759,772[1968].)14
ThehigherdegreeofparticipationfoundbytheCourtofthe
fouraccusedissupported bytherulingsofourSupremeCourt TheAssignedErrors
quotedbelow. Thetrialcourtisfaultedwiththefollowingerrors,viz.:

1. (1)Thetimehonoredjurisprudenceisthatdirectproofis I
notessentialtoproveconspiracy.Itmaybeshownbya
number of infinite acts, conditions and circumstances The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of a material
which may vary according to the purposes to be testimonygiveninanothercasebyLt.MelquiadesFeliciano,who
accomplishedandfromwhichmaylogicallybeinferred allegedly was the team leader of the government troops which
that there was a common design, understanding or allegedly captured the accusedappellants in an encounter;
agreementamongtheconspiratorstocommittheoffense thereby, depriving the accusedappellants their right to cross
charged. (People vs. Cabrera,43 Phil. 64;People vs. examinehim.
Carbonel,48Phil.868.)
II
2. (2)Thecrimemust,therefore,inviewofthesolidarityof
the act and intent which existed between the sixteen On the assumption that Lt. Felicianos testimony could be
accused, be regarded as the act of the band or party validlytakenjudicialnoticeof,thetrialcourt,nevertheless,erred
createdbythem,andtheyareallequallyresponsiblefor in not disregarding the same for being highly improbable and
themurderinquestion.(U.S.vs.Bundal,etal.,3Phil. contradictory.
89,98.)
III
564
The trial court erred in finding that accusedappellants
564 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
JumatiyaAmlani,JalihaHussinandNormaSahiddanprovided
Peoplevs.Kulais
Carlos Falcasantos, et al., with material and moral comfort,
hence,areguiltyasaccomplicesinallthekidnappingforransom
1. (3)When two or more persons unite to accomplish a cases.
criminalobject,whetherthroughthephysicalvolitionof
one, or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each IV
 ThetrialcourterredindenyingtoaccusedappellantJaliha True,asageneralrule,courtsshouldnottakejudicialnotice
Hussin and Norma Sahiddan the benefits of suspension of oftheevidencepresentedinotherproceedings,evenifthesehave
sentence given to youth offenders considering that they were beentriedorarependinginthesamecourt,orhavebeenheard
minorsatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.15 and are actually pending before the same judge. 18This is
especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has the
_______________ constitutionalrighttoconfrontandcrossexaminethewitnesses
againsthim.
Decision,pp.2933.
14

AppellantsBrief,pp.12;rollo,pp.8586.
15
_______________
565
VOL.292,JULY16,1998 565 AppellantsBrief,p.11;rollo,p.95.
16

Peoplevs.Kulais
17
Ibid.,p.12;rollo,p.96.
As earlier noted, Jumatiya Amlani, Jaliha Hussin and Norma 18
Tabuenavs.CourtofAppeals,196SCRA650,May6,1991.
Sahiddanhadwithdrawntheirappeal,andassuch,thethirdand See alsoOccidental Land Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of
fourthassignederrors,whichpertaintothemonly,willnolonger Appeals,220SCRA167,March19,1993.
bedealtwith.OnlythefollowingissuespertainingtoAppellant 566
JailonKulaiswillbediscussed:(1)judicialnoticeofotherpending
566 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
cases,(2)sufficiencyoftheprosecutionevidence,and(3)denialas
Peoplevs.Kulais
adefense.Inaddition,theCourtwillpassupontheproprietyof
thepenaltyimposedbythetrialcourt. Having said that, we note, however, that even if the courta
TheCourtsRuling quodid take judicial notice of the testimony of Lieutenant
Theappealisbereftofmerit. Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases
First Issue: against the appellant. Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied
JudicialNoticeandDenialofDueProcess due process. His conviction was based mainly on the positive
identification made by some of the kidnap victims, namely,
AppellantKulaisarguesthathewasdenieddueprocesswhenthe
Jessica Calunod, Armando Bacarro and Edilberto Perez. These
trialcourttookjudicialnoticeofthetestimonygiveninanother
witnesses were subjected to meticulous crossexaminations
casebyoneLt.MelquiadesFeliciano,whowastheteamleaderof
conductedbyappellantscounsel.Atbest,then,thetrialcourts
the government troops that captured him and his purported
mention of Lieutenant Felicianos testimony is a decisional
cohorts.16Becausehewasallegedlydeprivedofhisrighttocross
surplusage which neither affected the outcome of the case nor
examineamaterialwitnessinthepersonofLieutenantFeliciano,
substantiallyprejudicedAppellantKulais.
hecontendsthatthelatterstestimonyshouldnotbeusedagainst
him.17
Second Issue: xxxxxxxxx
SufficiencyofProsecutionEvidence Q Now,yousaidthatyouwerewiththesemenforfiftyfourdaysand
AppellantwaspositivelyidentifiedbyCalunod,asshownbythe youreallycametoknowthem.Willyoustillbeabletorecognize
latterstestimony: thesepersonsifyouwillseethe[m]again?
CPCAJAYONDMS: A Yes,maam.
Q Andhowlongwereyouinthecustodyofthesepersons? Q NowwillyoulookaroundthisHonorableCourtandseeifanyof
A Westayedwiththemforfiftyfourdays. thoseyoumentionedarehere?
Q Andduringthosedaysdidyoucometoknowanyofthepersonswhowere A Yes,theyarehere.
withthegroup? Q Someofthemarehere?
A Wecametoknowalmostallofthemconsideringwestayedthereforfifty A Someofthemarehere.
fourdays. xxxxxxxxx
Q Andcanyoupleasenametoussomeofthemorhowyouknowthem? Q WhereisTangkong?Whatishewearing?
A Forexample,asidefromCommanderFalcasantosandCommanderKamlon A Whitetshirtwithorangecollar.(witnesspointing.)Hewasoneof
wecametoknowfirstourfosterparents,thosewhowereassignedtogiveus thoseninearmedmenwhotookusfromthehighway.
somefood. RTCINTERPRETER:
Q Youmeantosaythatthecaptorsassignedyousomemenwhowilltakecare Witnesspointedtoamansittingincourtandwhenaskedofhis
ofyou? name,hegavehisnameasJAILONKULAIS.
A Yes. CPCAJAYONDMS:
Q Andtowhomwereyouassigned? Q Asidefrombeingwiththearmedmenwhostoppedthevehicleand
A ToIlaAbdurasa. madeyoualight,whatelsewashedoingwhileyouwereintheir
567 captivity?
VOL.292, 567
A HewasthefosterparentofArmandoBacarroandthehusbandof
JULY16,
Nana.
1998
COURT:
Peoplevs.Kulais Q Who?
Q Andotherthanyourfoster[parents]ortheparentswhomyouare A Tangkong.
assignedto,whoelsedidyoucometoknow? xxxxxxxxx19
A Pagalandhiswife;TangkongandhiswifeNana;thetwo(2)wives
ofCommanderFalcasantosMatingandJaniraanotherbrother _______________
inlawofCommanderKamlon,Usman,thewifeofKamlon,Tira.
 19
TSN,October22,1990,pp.811.Italicssupplied. Mamarilwasoneofthosewhostoppedthebusandtookyoutothehilland
568 youdidnotmentionTangkong?
568 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED A IdidnotmentionbutIcanrememberhisface.
Peoplevs.Kulais xxxxxxxxx
Likewise clear and straightforward was Bacarros testimony Q AndbecauseTangkongwasalwayswithyouasyourhostevenifhedidnot
pointingtoappellantasoneoftheculprits:
tellyouthathe[was]oneofthosewhostoppedyou,youwouldnot
FISCALCAJAYON:
recognizehim?
xxxxxxxxx 569
Q Andwhathappenedthen? VOL.292,JULY16, 569
A Someofthearmedmenassignedwhowillbethehostorwhowillbetheone 1998
[to]g[i]vefoodtous. Peoplevs.Kulais
Q [To]whomwereyouassigned? A No,Icanrecognizehimbecausehewastheonewho
A IwasassignedtoacertainTangkongand[his]wifeNana. tookmyshoes.
xxxxxxxxx COURT:
Q Now,yousaidyouwereassignedtoTangkongandhiswife.[D]oyou Q Who?
rememberhowhelookslike? A Tangkong,yourHonor.
A Yes. xxxxxxxxx20
Q Now,willyoupleaselookaroundthisCourtandtellusifthatsaidTangkong AlsostraightforwardwasErnestoPerezcandidnarration:
andhiswifearehere? FISCALCAJAYON:
A Yes,maam. xxxxxxxxx
Q CouldyoupleasepointthisTangkongtous? Q Whoelse?
A WitnesspointedtoapersoninCourt.[W]henaskedhisnameheidentified A Thelastman.
[himself]asJailonKulais. Q Didyoucometoknowhisname?
Q WhydidyousayhisnameisTangkong?Wheredidyougetthatname? A Onlyhisnickname,Tangkong.(WitnesspointedtoamaninCourtwho
A Well,thatisthename[bywhichheis]usuallycalledinthecamp. identifiedhimselfasJailonKulais.)
xxxxxxxxx Q AndwhatwasTangkongdoinginthemountain?
ATTY.FABIAN(counselforaccusedKulais) A Thesame,guardingus.
Q WhendidyoufirstmeetTangkong? CROSSEXAMINATIONBYATTY.SAHAK
A ThatwasonDecember11,becauseIrememberhewastheonewhotookus. Q Engr.Perez,youstatedthatyouwereambushedbyninearmedmenonyour
Q Whenyouwerequestionedbythefiscalawhileago,youstatedthatMr. wayfrom[the]Licomoto[the]TalagaFootBridge.[W]hatdoyoumeanby
 ambushed? A Hewasoneofthearmedmenwhokidnappedus.
A Imeanthattheyblockedourwayandstopped. xxxxxxxxx21
Q Theydidnotfireanyshots? ItisevidentfromtheforegoingtestimoniesofCalunod,Bacarro
A Buttheywerepointingtheirgunsatus. andPerezthatkidnappingordetentiondidtakeplace:thefive
Q Andamongthe9armedmenwhoheldyouonyourwayto[the]Talaga victims were held, against their will, for fiftythree days from
December12,1988toFebruary2,1989.Itisalsoevidentthat
Footbridge,youstated[that]oneofthem[was]CommanderFalcasantos?
AppellantKulaiswasamemberofthegroupofarmedmenwho
A Yes.
stagedthekidnapping,andthathewasoneofthosewhoguarded
Q Couldyoualsorecognizeanyoneoftheaccusedinthatgroup? the victims during the entire period of their captivity. His
A Yes. participation gives credence to the conclusion of the trial court
Q Willyoupleaseidentify? thathewasaconspirator.
A Thatone,Tangkong.(Thewitnesspointedtoamansittingincourtwho KidnappingforRansom
identifiedhimselfasJailonKulais.) Thatthekidnappingofthefivewascommittedforthepurposeof
extortingransomisalsoapparentfromthetestimonyofCalunod,
_______________ whowasquiteemphaticinidentifyingtheaccusedandnarrating
thecircumstancessurroundingthewritingoftheransomletters.
TSN,October23,1990,pp.9and25.Italicssupplied.
20

570 _______________
570 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Kulais TSN,October24,1990,pp.1823.Italicssupplied.
21

571
xxxxxxxxx
VOL.292, 571
CROSSEXAMINATIONBYATTY.FABIAN
JULY16,
Q YousaidJailonKulaiswasamongthosewhoguardedthecamp?
1998
FISCALCAJAYON:
Peoplevs.Kulais
YourHonor,please,hedoesnotknowthenameofJulais,heusedtheword
Tangkong. CPCAJAYONDMS:
ATTY.FABIAN Q Now,youwereintheircaptivityfor54daysandyousaidthere
Q YousaidTangkongguardedyou[.W]hatdoyoumean? werethesemeetingsforpossiblenegotiationwiththeCity
A Heguardeduslikeprisoners[.A]fterguardingustheyhavetheirtimetwo Government.Whatdoyoumeanbythis?Whatwereyousupposed
hoursanotherwillbeondutyguardingus. tonegotiate?
Q WheredidyoumeetTangkong? A Becausetheytoldusthattheywillbereleasingusonlyafterthe
 terms.22 572
Q Andwhatweretheterms?Didyoucometoknowtheterms? 572 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
A IcametoknowthetermsbecauseIwastheoneorderedby Peoplevs.Kulais
CommanderFalcasantostowritetheletter,theransomletter. Q Thereisaprintednamehere[,]JessicaCalunod.
Q Atthispointoftime,yourememberhowmanyletterswereyou A Andoveritisasignature.
askedtowriteforyourransom? Q Thatisyoursignature?
A Icouldnotrememberastohowmany,butIcanidentifythem. A Yes,maam.
Q Whywillyouabletoidentifythesame? Q Howaboutintheotherletter,didyousignitalso?
A BecauseIwastheonewhowroteit. A Yes,thereistheothersignature.
Q Andyouarefamiliar,ofcourse,withyourpenmanship? Q TherearenamesothernameshereEddiePerez,AllanBasa,Armando
A Yes. Bacarro,FelixRosario,JojieOrtuosteandtherearesignaturesabovethe
Q Nowwehaveheresomeletterswhichwereturnedovertousby same.Didyoucomeuptoknowwhosignedthisone?
theHonorableCityMayorVitalianoAgan.1,2,3,4,5thereare A Thosewhosesignaturesthereweresignedbythepersons.[sic]
fivelettersallhandwritten. Q Andwehavehereatthebottom,CommanderKamlonHassan,andthereis
COURT: thesignatureabovethesame.Didyoucometoknowwhosignedit?
Original? A [Itwas]CommanderKamlonHassanwhosignedthat.
CPCAJAYONDMS: xxxxxxxxx
Original,yourHonor. Q Jessica,Iamgoingoverthisletter...Couldyoupleasereadtousthe
Q Andwewouldlikeyoutogoovertheseandsay,tellusifanyof portionherewhichsaystheterms?...
theseweretheonesyouwereaskedtowrite. A (Witnessreading)Maoilanggustongaandamunnaninyoangkantidad
A (Witnessgoingover[letters]) ngaP100,000ugP14,000baylosa20setsngauniformssaBiyernes
Thisone2pages.Thisone2pages.Nomore. (Pebrero3,1989).23
Q Asidefromthefactthatyouidentifiedyourpenmanshipinthese xxxxxxxxx
letters,whatelsewillmakeyourememberthatthesearereallythe INTERPRETER(Translation):
onesyouwrotewhilethere? Thisiswhattheylikeyoutoprepare[:]theamountofP100,000.00and
A Thesignatureisthere. P14,000.00inexchange[for]20setsofuniformonFriday,February3,
1989.
_______________ xxxxxxxxx
Q NowyoualsoearlieridentifiedthisotherletterandthisisdatedJanuary
22
TSN,October22,1990,p.13.Italicssupplied.
21,1988.24Now,couldyoupleaseex
_______________ INTERPRETER:
TheyliketheP100,000.00andanadditionof20setsofcomplete
23
This letter, dated January 31, 1989 and consisting of two
uniform(7colors,marinetypenotincludingtheshoes),onehalf
pages, was marked Exhs. A and A1; Jessica Calunods
medium,onehalflarge.
signature thereon was marked Exh. A2. This quoted portion
wasmarkedExh.A3. xxxxxxxxx
24
Thisletter,datedJanuary21,1989,wasmarkedExh.B; Q Afterhavingwrittentheseletters,didyoucometoknowafter[they
the second page thereof, Exh. B1, and Jessica Calunods were]signedbyyourcompanionsandallofyou,doyouknowif
signature,Exh.B2. theselettersweresent?Ifyouknowonly.
573 A Iwouldliketomakeitclear.Thefirstletterwasorderedtomeby
VOL. 573 FalcasantostoinformtheCityMayorthatinitialasP500,000.00,
292, andwhenwewerealreadyIwasaskedagaintowrite,wewere
JULY16, orderedtoaffixoursignaturetoserveasproofthatallofusare
1998 alive.26[sic]
Peoplevs.Kulais
plaintouswhyitisdatedJanuary21,1988andtheotheroneEnero _______________
31,1989orJanuary31,1989?
ThisportionwasmarkedExh.B3.
25
A IdidnotrealizethatIplaced1989,1988,butitwas1989.
TSN,October22,1990,p.13.
26

Q January21,1989? 574
A Yes. 574 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
xxxxxxxxx Peoplevs.Kulais
Q Now,inthisletter,werethetermsalsomentioned? Calunods testimony was substantially corroborated by both
Pleasegooverthis. Armando Bacarro27and Edilberto Perez.28The receipt of the
A (Goingovertheletter) ransomletters,theeffortsmadetoraiseanddelivertheransom,
Yes,maam. andthereleaseofthehostagesuponpaymentofthemoneywere
Q Couldyoupleasereaditaloudtous? testifiedtobyZamboangaCityMayorVitalianoAgan 29andTeddy
A (Witnessreading) Mejia.30
Theelementsofkidnappingforransom,asembodiedinArticle
GustonilaangP100,000.00ngkapinannuug20setsnga
267oftheRevisedPenalCode,31havingbeensufficiently
completonguniformer(7colorsmarinetypewalanaylabotang
sapatos),tungamediumugtungalargesize.25 _______________
xxxxxxxxx
 27
TSN, October 23, 1990, pp. 1011. During his testimony, 575
BacarroconfirmedthatJessicaCalunodandEngineerPerezwere VOL.292,JULY16,1998 575
madetowriteransomletters,andthathe,alongwiththeother Peoplevs.Kulais
hostages,wasmadetosigntheletters.Healsoidentifiedanother proven, and the appellant, a private individual, having been
letter,markedasExh.D,datedJanuary15,1988andaddressed clearlyidentifiedbythekidnapvictims,thisCourtthusaffirms
to Mayor Vitaliano Agan. Written in response to the mayors the trial courts finding of appellants guilt on five counts of
requesttoreducetheransommoneyfromP500,000toP350,000, kidnappingforransom.
thisletterstatedthatCommanderFalcasantosdidnotwantto
KidnappingofPublicOfficers
reduce the aforesaid amount, but he agreed to the reduced
VictimsVirginiaSanAgustinGara,MonicoSaavedraandCalixto
amountofP450,000,ashetookpityontheplightofthehostages.
Francisco were members of the government monitoring team
28
TSN,October24,1990,pp.1315.Perezstatedthathealso
abductedbyappellantsgroup.Thethreetestifiedtothefactof
wrotearansomletterandidentifiedthesame;healsoconfirmed
kidnapping;however,theywerenotabletoidentifytheappellant.
thatJessicaCalunodlikewisewroteransomnotes,andthathe
Even so, appellants identity as one of the kidnappers was
andalltheotherhostageswereaskedtosignthem.
sufficientlyestablishedbyCalunod,BacarroandPerez,whowere
29
TSN, December 11, 1990. Mayor Agan testified that he
withGara,SaavedraandFranciscowhentheabductionoccurred.
receivedransomletters;thathefacilitatedtheirdeliverytothe
That Gara, Saavedra and Francisco were detained for only
kidnappers; and that upon payment of the ransom money, the
three hours32does not matter. InPeople vs. Domasian,33the
kidnapvictimswerereleased.
victimwassimilarlyheldforthreehours,andwasreleasedeven
30
TSN,November7,1990,pp.27.Mr.Mejiatestifiedthathe
beforehisparentsreceivedtheransomnote.Theaccusedtherein
wasoneofthosewhodeliveredthemoneytothekidnappersand
argued that they could not be held guilty of kidnapping as no
witnessedthereleaseofthevictims.
enclosure was involved, and that only grave coercion was
31
Art. 267.Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Any
committed, if at all.34Convicting appellants of kidnapping or
privateindividualwhoshalldetainorkidnapanother,orinany
seriousillegaldetentionunderArt.267(4)oftheRevisedPenal
othermanner,deprivehimofhisliberty,shallsufferthepenalty
Code,theCourtfoundthatthevictim,an
ofreclusionperpetuatodeath:
_______________
1. 1.If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more
thanfivedays. 1. 3.Ifanyseriousphysicalinjuriesshallhavebeeninflicted
uponthepersonkidnappedordetained;orifthreatsto
2. 2.If it shall have been committed simulating public killhimshallhavebeenmade.
authority.
 2. 4.Ifthepersonkidnappedordetainedshallbe aminor,
36
GR No. 117873, December 22, 1997. Citing Ramon C.
femaleorpublicofficer. Aquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,1988ed.,Vol.III,pp.12,the
Court saidthat the Spanish version of Art. 267 of the Revised
Thepenaltyshallbedeathwherethekidnappingordetention Penal Code uses the terms lockup (encerrar) rather than
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the kidnap(sequestarorraptar).Lockupisincludedinthebroader
victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances termdetention,whichrefersnotonlytotheplacingofaperson
abovementionedwerepresentinthecommissionoftheoffense. in an enclosure which he cannot leave, but also to any other
(This definition has been amended by Section 8, RA No. 7659, deprivationofliberty.
effectiveDecember31,1993.Thecrimeshappenedin1988.) 37
Art.203,RevisedPenalCode,provides:
32
TSN,November6,1990,p.9. Art.203.Whoarepublicofficers.Forthepurposeofapplyingthe
33
219SCRA245,March1,1993. provisionsofthisandtheprecedingtitlesofthisbook,anyperson
34
Ibid.,p.250. who,bydirectprovisionoflaw,popularelectionorappointment
576 by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of
576 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED publicfunctionsintheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslands,or
Peoplevs.Kulais shallperforminsaidGovernmentorinanyofitsbranchespublic
eightyearold boy, was deprived of his liberty when he was dutiesasanemployee,agentorsubordinateofficial,ofanyrank
restrainedfromgoinghome.TheCourtjustifiedtheconvictionby orclass,shallbedeemedtobeapublicofficer.
holdingthattheoffenseconsistednotonlyinplacingapersonin In defining public officers, former Chief Justice Ramon C.
an enclosure, but also in detaining or depriving him, inany AquinocitedManiegovs.People,inwhichtheCourtheld:The
manner,ofhisliberty.35Likewise,inPeoplevs.Santos,36theCourt definition of public officer in Art. 203 is quite comprehensive,
held thatsincetheappellant wascharged andconvictedunder embracingasitdoeseverypublicservantfromthelowesttothe
highest. It obliterates the distinction between officer and
Article 267, paragraph 4, it wasnot the durationof the
employee in the law of public officers, it does not distinguish
deprivationoflibertywhichwasimportant,butthefactthatthe
betweenpermanentandtemporaryemployeesxxx.Helikewise
victim,aminor,waslockedup. presented a list ofpersons held to be public officers in various
Thus,inthepresentcase,thedetentionofGara,Saavedraand
cases,e.g.acustomssecretserviceagent,apublic
Franciscoforonlyafewhoursisimmaterial.Theclearfactisthat
577
thevictimswerepublicofficers37Garawasa
VOL.292,JULY16,1998 577
_______________ Peoplevs.Kulais
fiscalanalystfortheCityofZamboanga,Saavedraworkedatthe
35
Ibid.,p.253. CityEngineersOffice,andFranciscowasabarangaycouncilman
atthetimethekidnappingoccurred.AppellantKulaisshouldbe
punished, therefore, under Article 267, paragraph 4 of the 578 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
RevisedPenalCode,andnotArt.268,asthetrialcourtheld. Peoplevs.Kulais
ThepresentcaseisdifferentfromPeoplevs.Astorga,38which negative testimonies of the defense.39Between positive and
heldthatthecrimecommittedwasnotkidnappingunderArticle categoricaltestimonywhichhasaringoftruthtoitontheone
267,paragraph4,butonlygravecoercion.Theappellantinthat hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally
casehadtrickedhissevenyearoldvictimintogoingwithhimto prevails.40Jessica Calunod, Armando Bacarro and Edilberto
aplacehealoneknew.Hisplans,however,werefoiledwhena Pereztestifiedinaclear,straightforwardandfrankmanner;and
groupofpeoplebecamesuspiciousandrescuedthegirlfromhim. theirtestimonieswerecompatibleonmaterialpoints.Moreover,
TheCourtnotedthatthevictimstestimonyandtheotherpieces noillmotivewasattributedtothekidnapvictimsandnonewas
ofevidencedidnotindicatethattheappellantwantedtodetain foundbythisCourt.
her,orthatheactuallydetainedher. Weagreewiththetrialcourtsobservationthattheappellant
Inthepresentcase,theevidencepresentedbytheprosecution did not meet the charges against him head on. His testimony
indubitablyestablishedthatthevictimsweredetained,albeitfor dweltonwhathappenedtohimonthedayhewasarrestedand
a few hours. There is proof beyond reasonable doubt that onsubsequentdaysthereafter.Appellantdidnotexplainwhere
kidnapping tookplace,and that appellantwasamemberofthe he was during the questioned dates (December 12, 1988 to
armedgroupwhichabductedthevictims. February 3, 1989); neither did he rebut Calunod, Bacarro and
Third Issue: Perez,whentheyidentifiedhimasoneoftheirkidnappers.
DenialandAlibi ReclusionPerpetua,NotLifeImprisonment
Theappellantsbaredenialisaweakdefensethatbecomeseven Thetrialcourterredwhenitsentencedtheappellanttosixterms
weaker in the face of the prosecution witnesses positive of life imprisonment. The penalty for kidnapping with ransom,
identificationofhim.Jurisprudencegivesgreaterweighttothe under the Revised Penal Code, isreclusion perpetuato death.
positivenarrationofprosecutionwitnessesthantothe Sincethecrimeshappenedin1988,whenthecapitalpenaltywas
proscribedbytheConstitution,themaximumpenaltythatcould
_______________ havebeenimposedwasreclusionperpetua.Lifeimprisonmentis
not synonymous withreclusion perpetua. Unlike life
worksinspector,asanitaryofficer,abarriolieutenant,alaborer
dischargingclericalfunctions,anemergencyhelperintheBureau imprisonment,reclusion perpetuacarries with it accessory
ofForestryonadailywagebasis,performingthedutiesofjanitor penaltiesprovidedintheRevisedPenalCodeandhasadefinite
extentorduration.Lifeimprisonmentisinvariablyimposedfor
andmessenger.SeeRamonC.Aquino,RevisedPenalCode,1997
ed.,Vol.II,pp.409410. serious offenses penalized by speciallaws, whilereclusion
38
GRNo.110097,December22,1997. perpetuais prescribed in accordance with the Revised Penal
578 Code.41
 WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Jailon Kulais as thesameoneshewaschargedandconvictedwithinthecaseat
principal in five counts of kidnapping for ransom and in three bar.SeealsoPeoplevs.Ramos, Jr.,203SCRA237,October28,
countsofkidnappingisAFFIRMED,butthepenaltyimposedis
1991;andPeoplevs.Baguio,196SCRA459,April30,1991.
hereby MODIFIED as follows: Appellant is sentenced to five
termsofreclusionperpetua,oneforeachofhisfiveconvictionsfor
Notes.Courts should not at once look with disfavor at the
kidnappingforransom;andtothreetermsofreclusionperpetua, defenseofalibi,andthatwhenanaccusedputsupthedefenseof
one each for the kidnapping of Public Officers Virginia Gara, alibi,thecourtshouldnotatoncehaveamentalprejudiceagainst
MonicoSaavedraandCalixtoFrancisco.Liketheotheraccused
him.(Peoplevs.Escalante,238SCRA554[1994])
who withdrew their appeals, he is REQUIRED to return the
When the prosecutions cause is weak, an accuseds alibi
personaleffects,ortheirmonetaryvalue,takenfromthekidnap
assumesimportanceandbecomescrucialinnegatinghiscriminal
victims. Additionally, he is ORDERED to pay the amount of
liability, andhisalibishould beconsideredfortherearetimes
P122,000representingtheransommoneypaidtothekidnappers.
whereanaccusedhasnootherpossibledefensebutalibi,asthat
Costsagainstappellant.
could really be the truth. (People vs. Adofina,239 SCRA
SOORDERED.
67[1994])
Davide,
The exception to the right of confrontation contemplated by
Jr.(Chairman),Bellosillo,VitugandQuisumbing,JJ.,concur. lawcoversonlytheutilizationoftestimoniesofabsentwitnesses
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification. madeinpreviousproceedings,anddoesnotincludeutilizationof
previous decisions or judgments. (People vs. OrtizMiyake,279
_______________ SCRA180[1997])
41
People vs. Layno,GR No. 110833, November 21, o0o
1996;Peoplevs. Magana,GR No. 105673, July 26,1996;People
vs. Gregorio,255 SCRA 380, March 29, 1996;People vs. Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
Magalong,244 SCRA 117, May 12, 1995. SeePeople vs. reserved.
Samson,244 SCRA 146, May 16, 1995.NOTA BENE: It is 414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
noteworthythatAppellantKulaiswasalsotheappellantinthis Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals
citedcase.HeappealedtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof G.R.No.114776.February2,2000.*
ZamboangaCity,Branch12,presidedbyJudgePelagioS.Mandi MENANDRO B. LAUREANO, petitioner,vs.COURT OP
whopennedthe Decisionappealedinthepresentcase. In that APPEALSANDSINGAPOREAIRLINESLIMITED,respondents.
case, Kulais was convicted of kidnapping with ransom for the Actions;Conflict of Laws;The party who claims the
abduction of one Airman Ruben Monteverde, committed on
applicabilityofaforeignlawhastheburdenofproof,andwhere
January 30, 1990. The persons he was charged with were
said party has failed to discharge the burden, Philippine law leavesthepartiesinexactlythesamepositionasthoughnoaction
applies.At the outset, we find it necessary to state our hadbeencommencedat
concurrence on the assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional _______________
TrialCourtofManila,Branch9.Thetrialcourtrightlyruledon
the application of Philippine law, thus: Neither can the Court SECONDDIVISION.
*

determinewhethertheterminationoftheplaintiffislegalunder 415
the Singapore Laws because of the defendants failure to show VOL.324,FEBRUARY2,2000 415
which specific laws of Singapore Laws apply to this case. As Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals
substantially discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the all.Petitionerclaimsthattherunningoftheprescriptive
Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of periodwastolledwhenhefiledhiscomplaintforillegaldismissal
Singapore. The defendant that claims the applicability of the before the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations
Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of proof. The Commission.However,thisclaimdeservesscantconsideration;it
defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law
has nolegal legtostandon.InOlympiaInternational, Inc. vs.
shouldbeapplied.
CourtofAppeals,weheldthatalthoughthecommencementofa
Same;LaborLaw;Prescription;IllegalDismissals;Inillegal
civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or
dismissal,itissettled,thatthetenyearprescriptiveperiodfixed
limitations,itsdismissalorvoluntaryabandonmentbyplaintiff
inArticle1144oftheCivilCodemaynotbeinvoked,fortheCivil leaves the parties in exactly the same position as though no
Codeisalawofgeneralapplication,whiletheprescriptiveperiod actionhadbeencommencedatall.
fixedinArticle292oftheLaborCodeisaspeciallawapplicable Same;Same;Same;Contracts;It is a settled rule that
toclaimsarisingfromemployeeemployerrelations.Whatrules contractshavetheforceoflawbetweentheparties.Astowhether
onprescriptionshouldapplyincaseslikethisonehaslongbeen petitioners separation from the company due to retrenchment
decidedbythisCourt.Inillegaldismissal,itissettled,thatthe wasvalid,theappellatecourtfoundthattheemploymentcontract
tenyearprescriptiveperiodfixedinArticle1144oftheCivilCode ofpetitionerallowedforpreterminationofemployment.Weagree
maynotbeinvokedbypetitioners,fortheCivilCodeisalawof withtheCourtofAppealswhenitsaid,Itisasettledrulethat
generalapplication,whiletheprescriptiveperiodfixedinArticle contracts have the force of law between the parties. From the
292 of the Labor Code [now Article 291] is a SPECIAL LAW momentthesameisperfected,thepartiesareboundnotonlyto
applicabletoclaimsarisingfromemployeeemployerrelations. thefulfillmentofwhathasbeenexpresslystipulatedbutalsoto
Same;Same;Same;Although the commencement of a civil all consequences which, according to their nature, may be in
action stops the running of the statute of prescription or keeping with good faith, usage and law. Thus, when plaintiff
appelleeacceptedtheofferofemployment,hewasboundbythe
limitations,itsdismissalorvoluntaryabandonmentbyplaintiff
termsandconditionssetforthinthecontract,amongothers,the
rightofmutualterminationbygivingthreemonthswrittennotice
orbypaymentofthreemonthssalary.Suchprovisionisclearand month probation period, plaintiffs appointment was confirmed
readily understandable, hence, there is no room for effectiveJuly21,1979.(AnnexB,p.30,Rollo).
interpretation. OnJuly21,1979,defendantofferedplaintiffanextensionof
histwoyearcontracttofive(5)yearseffectiveJanuary21,1979
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof toJanuary20,1984subjecttothetermsandconditionssetforth
Appeals. inthecontractofemployment,whichthelatteraccepted(Annex
C,p.31,Rec.).
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. DuringhisserviceasB707captain,plaintiffonAugust24,
MontillaLawOfficeforpetitioner. 1980,whileincommandofaflight,committedanoiseviolation
Bengzon,Narciso,Cudala,Pecson,Bengson & Jimenezfor offenseattheZurichAirport,forwhichplaintiffapologized.(Exh.
privaterespondent. 3,p.307,Rec.).
Sometimein1980,plaintifffeaturedinatailscrapingincident
QUISUMBING,J.: wherein the tail of the aircraft scraped or touched therunway
duringlanding.Hewassuspendedforafewdaysuntilhewas
ThispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesof investigated by a board headed by Capt. Choy. He was
CourtseekstoreversetheDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,dated reprimanded.
October29,1993,inCA.G.R.No.CV34476, OnSeptember25,1981,plaintiffwasinvitedtotakeacourse
416 ofA300conversiontrainingatAeroformacion,Toulouse,France
416 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED atdefendantsexpense.Havingsuccessfullycompletedandpassed
thetrainingcourse,plaintiffwasclearedonApril7,1981forsolo
Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals
dutyascaptainoftheAirbusA300andsubsequentlyappointed
aswellasitsResolutiondatedFebruary28,1994,whichdenied
as captain of the A300 fleet commanding an Airbus A300 in
themotionforreconsideration.
flightsoverSoutheastAsia.(AnnexesD,EandF,pp.3438,
The facts of the case as summarized by the respondent
Rec.).
appellatecourtareasfollows:
Sometime in 1982, defendant, hit by a recession, initiated
Sometime in 1978, plaintiff [Menandro B. Laureano, herein
costcuttingmeasures.Seventeen(17)expatriatecaptainsinthe
petitioner],thenDirectorofFlightOperationsandChiefPilotof
Airbusfleetwerefoundinexcessofthedefendantsrequirement
Air Manila, applied for employment with defendant company
(t.s.n.,July6,1988,p.11).Consequently,defendantinformedits
[hereinprivaterespondent]throughitsAreaManagerinManila.
expatriate
On September 30, 1978, after the usual personal interview,
417
defendantwrotetoplaintiff,offeringacontractofemploymentas
VOL.324,FEBRUARY2,2000 417
anexpatriateB707captainforanoriginalperiodoftwo(2)years
commencingonJanuary21,1978.Plaintiffacceptedtheofferand Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals
commencedworkingonJanuary20,1979.Afterpassingthesix
pilotsincludingplaintiffofthesituationandadvisedthemtotake Thus,defendantpostulatesthatSingaporelawsshouldapplyand
advanceleaves.(Exh.15,p.466,Rec.). courtsthereatshallhavejurisdiction.(pp.5069,Rec.).
Realizing that the recession would not be for a short time, In traversing defendants arguments, plaintiff claimed that:
defendantdecidedtoterminateitsexcesspersonnel(t.s.n.,July6, (1) where the items demanded in a complaint are the natural
1988,p.17).Itdidnot,however,immediatelyterminateitsA300 consequencesflowingfromabreachofanobligationandnotlabor
pilots.Itreviewedtheirqualifications for possible promotionto benefits, the case is intrinsically a civil dispute; (2) the case
the B747 fleet. Among the 17 excess Airbus pilots reviewed, involves a question that is beyond the field of specialization of
twelvewerefoundqualified.Unfortunately,plaintiffwasnotone labor arbiters; and (3) if the complaint is grounded not on the
ofthetwelve. employeesdismissal
On October 5, 1982, defendant informed plaintiff of his 418
terminationeffectiveNovember1,1982andthathewillbepaid 418 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
three(3)monthssalaryinlieuofthreemonthsnotice(AnnexI, Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals
pp.4142,Rec.).Becausehecouldnotuproothisfamilyonsuch persebutonthemannerofsaiddismissalandtheconsequence
short notice, plaintiff requested a threemonth notice to afford thereof, the case falls under thejurisdictionofthecivilcourts.
himtimetoexhaustallpossibleavenuesforreconsiderationand (pp.7073,Rec.)
retention.Defendantgaveonlytwo(2)monthsnoticeandone(1)
OnMarch23,1987,thecourtaquodenieddefendantsmotion
monthsalary,(t.s.n.,Nov.12,1987,p.25).
todismiss(pp.8284,Ibid.).Themotionforreconsiderationwas
Aggrieved, plaintiff on June 29, 1983, instituted a case for
illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Defendant moved to likewisedenied,(p.95,ibid.)
dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Before said motion was OnSeptember16,1987,defendantfileditsanswerreiterating
resolved,thecomplaintwaswithdrawn.Thereafter,plaintifffiled the grounds relied upon in its motion to dismiss and further
theinstantcasefordamagesduetoillegalterminationofcontract arguing thatplaintiff is barred by laches, waiver, and estoppel
ofservicesbeforethecourtaquo(Complaint,pp.110,Rec.). frominstitutingthecomplaintandthathehasnocauseofaction.
Again, defendant on February 11, 1987 filed a motion to (pp.102115)1
dismissalleginginteralia:(1)thatthecourthasnojurisdiction On April 10, 1991, the trial court handed down its decision in
favorofplaintiff.Thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
overthesubjectmatterofthecase,and(2)thatPhilippinecourts
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofplaintiff
have no jurisdiction over the instant case. Defendant contends
Menandro Laureano and against defendant Singapore Airlines
thatthecomplaintisforillegaldismissaltogetherwithamoney
Limited,orderingdefendanttopayplaintifftheamountsof
claim arisingoutofandinthe courseofplaintiffs employment
SIN$396,104.00, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at
thus it is the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC who have the
thecurrentrateofexchangeatthetimeofpayment,asandfor
jurisdictionpursuanttoArticle217oftheLaborCodeandthat,
unearnedcompensationwithlegalinterestfromthefilingofthe
sinceplaintiffwasemployedinSingapore,allotheraspectsofhis
complaintuntilfullypaid;
employment contract and/or documents executed in Singapore.
 SIN$154,742.00, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at 1. 1.IS THE PRESENT ACTION ONE BASED ON
the current rate of exchange at the time of payment; and the CONTRACT WHICH PRESCRIBES IN TEN YEARS
further amounts of P67,500.00 as consequential damages with UNDER ARTICLE 1144 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE
legalinterestfromthefilingofthecomplaintuntilfullypaid; ORONEFORDAMAGESARISINGFROMANINJURY
P1,000,000.00 as and for moral damages; P1,000,000.00 as TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF WHICH
and for exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as and for PRESCRIBES IN FOUR YEARS UNDER ARTICLE
attorneysfees. 1146OFTHENEWCIVILCODE?
Costsagainstdefendant.
SOORDERED.2 2. 2.CAN AN EMPLOYEE WITH A FIXED PERIOD OF
Singapore Airlinestimelyappealedbeforetherespondent court EMPLOYMENT BE RETRENCHED BY HIS
and raised the issues of jurisdiction, validity of termination, EMPLOYER?
estoppel,anddamages.
OnOctober29,1993,theappellatecourtsetasidethedecision 3. 3.CAN THERE BE VALID RETRENCHMENT IF AN
ofthetrialcourt,thus, EMPLOYER MERELY FAILS TO REALIZE THE
_____________ EXPECTED PROFITS EVEN IF IT WERE NOT, IN
FACT,INCURRINGLOSSES?
1
Rollo,pp.3032.
2
Id.at65. Attheoutset,wefinditnecessarytostateourconcurrenceonthe
419 assumptionofjurisdictionbytheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,
VOL.324,FEBRUARY2,2000 419 Branch 9. The trial court rightly ruled on the application of
Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals Philippinelaw,thus:
. . . In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal NeithercantheCourtdeterminewhethertheterminationofthe
termination was filed by plaintiffappellee only on January 8, plaintiff is legal under the Singapore Laws because of the
1987ormorethanfour(4)yearsaftertheeffectivitydateofhis defendantsfailuretoshowwhichspecificlawsofSingaporeLaws
dismissalonNovember1,1982.Clearly,plaintiffappelleesaction apply to this case. As substantially discussed in the preceding
hasalreadyprescribed. paragraphs,thePhilippineCourtsdonottakejudicialnoticeof
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED thelawsofSingapore.Thedefendantthatclaimstheapplicability
andSETASIDE.Thecomplaintisherebydismissed. oftheSingapore
SOORDERED.3 _____________
Petitioners and Singapore Airlines respective motions for
reconsiderationweredenied. 3
Id.at40.
Now,beforetheCourt,petitionerposesthefollowingqueries: 420
420 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Laureanovs.CourtofAppeals Article 292 of the Labor Code [now Article 291] is a SPECIAL
Laws to this case has the burden of proof. The defendant has LAW applicable to claims arising from employeeemployer
failedtodoso.Therefore,thePhilippinelawshouldbeapplied.4 relations.9
Respondent Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction when MorerecentlyinDeGuzmanvs.CourtofAppeals,10wherethe
defendant filed its appeal before said court. 5On this matter, money claim was based on a written contract, the Collective
respondentcourtwascorrectwhenitbarreddefendantappellant BargainingAgreement,theCourtheld:
belowfromraisingfurthertheissueofjurisdiction.6 ...ThelanguageofArt.291oftheLaborCodedoesnotlimitits
Petitionernow raisesthe issue ofwhetherhisactionisone application onlytomoney claimsspecificallyrecoverable under
based on Article 1144 or on Article 1146 of the Civil Code. saidCodebutcoversallmoneyclaimsarisingfromanemployee
According to him, his termination of employment effective employerrelations(CitingCadalinv.POEAAdministrator,238
November1,1982,wasbasedonanemploymentcontractwhichis SCRA 721, 764 [1994]; andUy v. National Labor Relations
underArticle1144,sohisactionshouldprescribein10yearsas Commission,261SCRA505,515[1996])....
provided for in said article. Thus he claims the ruling of the
ItshouldbenotedfurtherthatArticle291oftheLaborCodeis
appellatecourtbasedonArticle1146whereprescriptionisonly
aspeciallawapplicabletomoneyclaimsarisingfromemployer
four(4)years,isanerror.Theappellatecourtconcludedthatthe
employeerelations;thus,itnecessarilyprevailsoverArticle1144
action for illegal dismissal originally filed before the Labor
of the Civil Code, a general law. Basic is the ruleinstatutory
ArbiteronJune29,1983,butwhichwaswithdrawn,thenfiled
construction that where two statutes are of equal theoretical
again in 1987 before the Regional Trial Court, had already
applicationtoaparticularcase,theonedesignedthereforeshould
prescribed.
prevail. (CitingLeveriza v. Intermediate Appellate Court,157
Inourview,neitherArticle1144 7norArticle11468oftheCivil
Codeisherepertinent.WhatisapplicableisArticle291ofthe SCRA282,294.)Generaliaspecialibusnonderogant.11
In the light of Article 291, aforecited, we agree with the
LaborCode,viz.:
appellatecourtsconclusionthatpetitionersactionfordamages
Article 291.Money claims.All money claims arising from
employeeemployer relations accruing during the effectivity of duetoillegalterminationfiledagainonJanuary8,1987ormore
thisCodeshallbefiledwithinthree(3)yearsfromthetimethe than four (4) years after the effective date of his dismissal on
causeofactionaccrued;otherwisetheyshallbeforeverbarred. November1,1982hasalreadyprescribed.
In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal
Whatrulesonprescriptionshouldapplyincaseslikethisonehas termination was filed by plaintiffappellee only on January 8,
longbeendecidedbythisCourt.Inillegaldismissal,itissettled, 1987ormorethanfour(4)yearsaftertheeffectivitydateofhis
thatthetenyearprescriptiveperiodfixedinArticle1144ofthe dismissalonNovember1,1982.Clearly,plaintiffappelleesaction
hasalreadyprescribed.
CivilCodemaynotbeinvokedbypetitioners,fortheCivilCodeis
WebaseourconclusionnotonArticle1144oftheCivilCodebut
alawofgeneralapplication,whiletheprescriptiveperiodfixedin
on Article 291 of the Labor Code, which sets the prescription
period at three (3) years and which governs, under this the aforementioned Agreement. As such, plaintiffappellee is
jurisdiction. estoppedfromquestioningthelegalityofthesaidagreementor
Petitionerclaimsthattherunningoftheprescriptiveperiod anyprovisocontainedtherein.13
wastolledwhenhefiledhiscomplaintforillegaldismissalbefore Moreover, the records of the present case clearly show that
theLaborArbiteroftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission. respondentcourtsdecisionisamplysupportedbyevidenceandit
However,thisclaimdeservesscantconsideration;ithasnolegal did not err in its findings, including the reason for the
leg to stand on. InOlympia International, Inc. vs. Court of retrenchment:
Appeals, we held that although the commencement of a civil When defendantappellant was faced with the worldwide
action stops the running of the statute of prescription or recessionoftheairlineindustryresultinginaslowdowninthe
limitations,itsdismissalorvoluntaryabandonmentbyplaintiff companys growth particularly in the regional operation (Asian
leaves the parties in exactly the same position as though no Area) where the Airbus 300 operates. It had no choice but to
actionhadbeencommencedatall.12 adopt cost cutting measures, such as cutting down services,
Now,astowhetherpetitionersseparationfromthecompany numberoffrequenciesofflights,andreductionofthenumberof
duetoretrenchmentwasvalid,theappellatecourtfoundthatthe flyingpointsfortheA300fleet(t.s.n.,July6,1988,pp.1718).As
employmentcontractofpetitionerallowedforpreterminationof aresult,defendantappellanthadtolayoffA300pilots,including
employment.WeagreewiththeCourtofAppealswhenitsaid, plaintiffappellee, which it found to be in excess of what is
Itisasettledrulethatcontractshavetheforceoflawbetween reasonablyneeded.14
theparties.Fromthemomentthesameisperfected,theparties Alltheseconsidered,wefindsufficientfactualandlegalbasisto
areboundnotonlytothefulfillmentofwhathasbeenexpressly concludethatpetitionersterminationfromemploymentwasfor
stipulatedbutalsotoallconsequenceswhich,accordingtotheir an authorized cause, for which he was given ample notice and
nature,maybeinkeepingwithgoodfaith,usageandlaw.Thus, opportunitytobeheard,byrespondent
whenplaintiffappelleeacceptedtheofferofemployment,hewas company.Noerrornorgraveabuseofdiscretion,therefore,could
bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the contract, beattributedtorespondentappellatecourt.
among others, the right of mutual termination by giving three ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The
months written notice or by payment of three months salary. decision of the Court of Appeals in CA. CV No. 34476 is
Suchprovisionisclearandreadilyunderstandable,hence,there AFFIRMED.
isnoroomforinterpretation. SOORDERED.
xxx Bellosillo(Chairman),Mendoza,BuenaandDeLeon,Jr.,
Further,plaintiffappelleescontentionthatheisnotboundby JJ.,concur.
theprovisionsoftheAgreement,asheisnotasignatorythereto, Petitiondismissed,judgmentaffirmed.
deservesnomerit.Itmustbenotedthatwhenplaintiffappellees
employmentwasconfirmed,heappliedformembershipwiththe
SingaporeAirlinesLimited(Pilots)Association,thesignatoryto
 Notes.It is a timehonored principle that contracts are Citizenship; Renunciation of Philippine Citizenship;
respectedasthelawbetweenthecontractingparties.(Hensonvs. Commonwealth Act No. 63; While the act of using a foreign
IntermediateAppellateCourt,148SCRA11[1987]) passportisnotoneoftheactsenumeratedinCommonwealthAct
Thepartiesarechargedwithknowledgeoftheexistinglawat No. 63 constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine
thetimetheyenterintoacontractandatthetimeitistobecome citizenship, it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very
operativeand,apersonispresumedtobemoreknowledgeable
oathofrenunciationrequiredforaformerFilipinocitizenwhois
abouthisownstatelawthanhisalienorforeigncontemporary.
alsoacitizenofanothercountrytobequalifiedtorunforalocal
(Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of
electiveposition.Whiletheactofusingaforeignpassportisnot
Appeals,260SCRA673[1996])
one of the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63
Amanningagencycannotbefaultedforcomplyingwiththe
constitutingrenunciationandlossofPhilippinecitizenship,itis
applicable foreign law. (Omanfil International Manpower
nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of
Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations renunciationrequiredforaformerFilipinocitizenwhoisalsoa
Commission,300SCRA455[1998]) citizenofanothercountrytobequalifiedtorunforalocalelective
position.WhenArnadousedhisUSpassporton14April2009,or
o0o justelevendaysafterherenouncedhisAmericancitizenship,he
recanted his Oath of Renunciation that he absolutely and
425 perpetuallyrenounce(s)allallegianceandfidelitytotheUNITED
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights STATESOFAMERICAand that hedivest(s)[him]self offull
reserved. employmentofallcivilandpoliticalrightsandprivilegesofthe
United States of America. We agree with the COMELECEn
Bancthat such act of using a foreign passport does not divest
Arnado of his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired by
repatriation. However, by representing himself as an American
citizen,Arnadovoluntarilyandeffectivelyrevertedtohisearlier
status as a dual citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive; it
took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an
G.R.No.195649.April16,2013.* AmericancitizenbyusinghisUSpassport.Thisactofusinga
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION foreignpassportafterrenouncingonesforeigncitizenshipisfatal
ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, LINOG G. toArnadosbidforpublicoffice,asiteffectivelyimposedonhima
BALUA,respondents. disqualificationtorunforanelectivelocalposition.
 Same;Same;ElectionLaw;Thecitizenshiprequirementfor citizens.Itlikewise demands theconcomitantduty to maintain
electivepublicofficeisacontinuingone.Itmustbepossessednot allegiancetoonesflagandcountry.Whilethosewhoacquiredual
citizenshipbychoiceareaffordedtherightofsuffrage,thosewho
just
seek election or appointment to public office are required to
_______________
renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving of the public
*ENBANC.
trust.Holdingpublicofficedemandsfullandundividedallegiance
421
totheRepublicandtonoother.WethereforeholdthatArnado,
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 421
by using his US passport after renouncing his American
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections citizenship,hasrecantedthesameOathofRenunciationhetook.
atthetimeoftherenunciationoftheforeigncitizenshipbut Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to his
continuously. Any act which violates the oath of renunciation situation.Heisdisqualifiednotonlyfromholdingthepublicoffice
opens the citizenship issue to attack.The citizenship butevenfrombecomingacandidateintheMay2010elections.
requirementforelectivepublicofficeisacontinuingone.Itmust ElectionLaw;Whenapersonwhoisnotqualifiedisvotedfor
bepossessednotjustatthetimeoftherenunciationoftheforeign andeventuallygarnersthehighestnumberofvotes,eventhewill
citizenshipbutcontinuously.Anyactwhichviolatestheoathof oftheelectorateexpressedthroughtheballotcannotcurethedefect
renunciationopensthecitizenshipissuetoattack.Weagreewith in the qualifications of the candidate. To rule otherwise is to
the pronouncement of the COMELEC First Division that
trampleuponandrentasundertheverylawthatsetsforththe
Arnados act of consistently using his US passport effectively
negatedhisAffidavitofRenunciation.Thisdoesnotmean,that qualifications and disqualifications of candidates.The ballot
hefailedtocomplywiththetwinrequirementsunderR.A.No. cannotoverridethe
422
9225, for he in fact did. It wasaftercomplying with the
requirements that he performed positive acts which effectively 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
disqualified him from running for an elective public office 22
pursuanttoSection40(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991. Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Same; Same; Same; While those who acquire dual constitutionalandstatutoryrequirementsforqualifications
citizenshipbychoiceareaffordedtherightofsuffrage,thosewho and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires
certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain
seek election or appointment to public office are required to
disqualificationsbenotpossessedbypersonsdesiringtoserveas
renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving of the public electivepublicofficials,thosequalificationsmustbemetbefore
trust. Holding public office demands full and undivided oneevenbecomesacandidate.Whenapersonwhoisnotqualified
allegiancetotheRepublicandtonoother.Citizenshipisnota isvotedforandeventuallygarnersthehighestnumberofvotes,
matterofconvenience.Itisabadgeofidentitythatcomeswith eventhewilloftheelectorateexpressedthroughtheballotcannot
attendant civil and political rights accorded by the state to its cure the defect in the qualifications of the candidate. To rule
otherwiseistotrampleuponandrentasundertheverylawthat disqualification is not a prerequisite for the disqualification to
sets forththequalificationsand disqualifications ofcandidates. attach to the candidate. The very existence of a disqualifying
Wemightaswellwriteoffourelectionlawsifthevoiceofthe circumstancemakesthecandidateineli
electorateis the sole determinant of who should be proclaimed 423
worthytooccupyelectivepositionsinourrepublic. VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 423
Same; When there are participants who turn out to be Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
ineligible,theirvictoryisvoidedandthelaurelisawardedtothe gible. Knowledge by the electorate of a candidates
nextinrankwhodoesnotpossessanyofthedisqualificationsnor disqualificationisnotnecessarybeforeaqualifiedcandidatewho
lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as placed second to a disqualified one can be proclaimed as the
winner.Thesecondplacerinthevotecountisactuallythefirst
candidates.We have ruled in the recent cases ofAratea v.
placer among the qualified candidates. That the disqualified
COMELEC,683SCRA105(2012)andJalosjosv.COMELEC,683 candidatehasalreadybeenproclaimedandhasassumedofficeis
SCRA1(2012),thatavoidCOCcannotproduceanylegaleffect. of no moment. The subsequent disqualification based on a
Thus,thevotescastinfavoroftheineligiblecandidatearenot substantive ground that existed prior to the filing of the
consideredatallindeterminingthewinnerofanelection.Even certificate of candidacy voids not only the COC but also the
whenthevotesfortheineligiblecandidatearedisregarded,the proclamation.
will of the electorate is still respected, and even more so. The
Same; Citizenship; Dual Citizenship; The disqualifying
votescastinfavorofanineligiblecandidatedonotconstitutethe
soleandtotalexpressionofthesovereignvoice.Thevotescastin circumstanceaffectingArnadoishiscitizenship.Arnadowasboth
favorofeligibleandlegitimatecandidatesformpartofthatvoice aFilipinoandanAmericancitizenwhenhefiledhiscertificateof
and must also be respected. As in any contest, elections are candidacy.Hewasadualcitizendisqualifiedtorunforpublic
governed by rules that determine the qualifications and officebasedonSection40(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCode;The
disqualifications of those who are allowed to participate as affirmationofArnadosdisqualification,althoughmadelongafter
players. When there are participants who turn out to be
the elections, reaches back to the filing of the certificate of
ineligible,theirvictoryisvoidedandthelaurelisawardedtothe
candidacy.Arnadoisdeclaredtobenotacandidateatallinthe
nextinrankwhodoesnotpossessanyofthedisqualificationsnor
lacksanyofthequalificationssetintherulestobeeligibleas May 2010 elections.The disqualifying circumstance affecting
candidates. Arnadoishiscitizenship.Asearlierdiscussed,Arnadowasbotha
Same; Knowledge by the electorate of a candidates FilipinoandanAmericancitizenwhenhefiledhiscertificateof
candidacy. He was a dual citizen disqualified to run for public
disqualificationisnotnecessarybeforeaqualifiedcandidatewho
office based on Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.
placed second to a disqualified one can be proclaimed as the Section40startswiththestatementThefollowingpersonsare
winner.The electorates awareness of the candidates disqualified from running for any elective local position. The
prohibitionservesasabaragainsttheindividualswhofallunder saying,[D]ualcitizenshipisjustarealityimposedonusbecause
anyoftheenumerationfromparticipatingascandidatesinthe wehavenocontrolofthelawsoncitizenshipofothercountries.
election. With Arnado being barred from even becoming a WerecognizeachildofaFilipinomother.Butwhetherornotshe
candidate,hiscertificateofcandidacyisthusrenderedvoidfrom isconsideredacitizenofanothercountryissomethingcompletely
thebeginning.Itcouldnothaveproducedanyotherlegaleffect beyondourcontrol.Inthepresentcase,wehavenoauthorityto
except that Arnado rendered it impossible to effect his declarethatArnadoisanAmericancitizen.Onlythecourtsofthe
disqualificationpriortotheelectionsbecausehefiledhisanswer USA,usingAmericanlaw,havetheconclusiveauthoritytomake
tothepetitionwhentheelectionswereconductedalreadyandhe anassertionregardingArnadosAmericancitizenship.
was already proclaimed the winner. To hold that such Same;Same;RenunciationofCitizenship;RepublicActNo.
proclamationisvalidistonegatetheprohibitorycharacterofthe 9225;ViewthatArnadosuseofhisAmericanpassportafterhis
disqualificationwhichArnadopossessedevenpriortothefilingof
execution of an Affidavit of Renunciation of his American
the certificate of candidacy. The affirmation of Arnados
Citizenshipisaretractionofhisrenunciation;Itisasifhenever
disqualification,althoughmadelongaftertheelections,reaches
back to the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Arnado is renounced his American citizenship at all. Arnado, therefore,
declaredtobenotacandidateatallintheMay2010elections. failed to comply with the twin requirements of swearing to an
Arnadobeinganoncandidate,thevotescastinhisfavorshould Oath of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of Foreign
not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified CitizenshipasfoundinRepublicActNo.9225.Arnadosuseof
candidate his American passport after his execution of an Affidavit of
424 RenunciationofhisAmericanCitizenshipisaretractionofhis
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED renunciation.WhenArnadofiledhisCertificateofCandidacyon
24 30November2009,therewasnolongeraneffectiverenunciation
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections of his American citizenship. It is as if he never renounced his
who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the American citizenship at all. Arnado, therefore, failed to comply
rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not withthetwinrequirementsofswearingtoanOathofAllegiance
apply. andexecutingaRenunciationofForeignCitizenshipasfoundin
Carpio,J.,ConcurringOpinion: Republic Act No. 9225. We previously discussed the distinction
ElectionLaw;Citizenship;ViewthatPhilippinecourtshave betweendual citizenshipanddual allegiance, as well as the
different acts required of dual citizens, who may either have
nopowertodeclarewhetherapersonpossessescitizenshipother
involuntary dual citizenship or voluntary dual allegiance, who
thanthatofthePhilippines.Philippinecourtshavenopowerto
desire to be elected to Philippine public office inCordora v.
declarewhetherapersonpossessescitizenshipotherthanthatof
COMELEC,580SCRA12(2009).425
thePhilippines.InMercadov.Manzano,307SCRA630(1999),
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 425
Constitutional Commissioner JoaquinG. Bernaswasquoted as
 Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections cancelledonedayormoreaftertheelections,allvotesforsuch
Same;Same;Same;StrayVotes;ViewthatArnadousedhis candidate should also be stray votes because the certificate of
candidacy is void from the very beginning. This is the more
USApassportafterhisRenunciationofAmericanCitizenshipand
equitableandlogicalapproachontheeffectofthecancellationof
before he filedhis Certificate ofCandidacy.Thispositiveact of
a certificate of candidacy that is voidab initio. Otherwise, a
retractionofhisrenunciationbeforethefilingoftheCertificateof
certificateofcandidacyvoidabinitiocanoperatetodefeatoneor
Candidacy renders Arnados Certificate of Candidacy void ab morevalidcertificatesofcandidacyforthesameposition.
initio.Therefore,Arnadowasneveracandidateatanytime,and Brion,J.,DissentingOpinion:
all the votes for him are stray votes.Arnado used his USA Citizenship;RepublicActNo.9225;ViewthatRA9225was
passportafterhis Renunciation of American Citizenship
enacted to allow the reacquisition and retention of Philippine
andbeforehefiledhisCertificateofCandidacy.Thispositiveact
citizenshipby:1)naturalborncitizenswhoweredeemedtohave
ofretractionofhisrenunciationbeforethefilingoftheCertificate
losttheirPhilippinecitizenshipbyreasonoftheirnaturalization
ofCandidacyrendersArnadosCertificateofCandidacyvoidab
ascitizensof
initio.Therefore,Arnadowasneveracandidateatanytime,and
426
all the votes for him are strayvotes. We reiterate our ruling
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
inJalosjos v. COMELEC, 683 SCRA 1 (2012), on this matter: 26
DecisionsofthisCourtholdingthatthesecondplacercannotbe
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
proclaimed winner if the firstplacer is disqualified or declared
ineligibleshouldbelimitedtosituationswherethecertificateof a foreign country; and 2) naturalborn citizens of the
candidacy ofthe firstplacerwasvalidatthetimeof filing but Philippineswho,aftertheeffectivityofthelaw,becamecitizensof
subsequentlyhadtobecancelledbecauseofaviolationoflawthat a foreign country.RA 9225 was enacted to allow the re
tookplace,oralegalimpedimentthattookeffect,afterthefiling acquisitionandretentionofPhilippinecitizenshipby:1)natural
of the certificate of candidacy. If the certificate of candidacy is born citizens who were deemed to have lost their Philippine
voidab initio, then legally the person who filed such void citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
certificateofcandidacywasneveracandidateintheelectionsat foreign country; and 2) naturalborn citizens of the Philippines
any time. All votes for such noncandidate are stray votes and who,aftertheeffectivityofthelaw,becamecitizensofaforeign
shouldnotbecounted.Thus,suchnoncandidatecanneverbea country. The law provides that they are deemed to have re
firstplacerintheelections.Ifacertificateofcandidacyvoidab acquiredorretainedtheirPhilippinecitizenshipupontakingthe
oathofallegiance.xxxArnadofallsunderthefirstcategoryasa
initioiscancelledontheday,orbeforetheday,oftheelection,
naturalborn Filipino citizen who was deemed to have lost his
prevailing jurisprudence holds that allvotes for that candidate
Philippine citizenship upon his naturalization as an American
are stray votes. If a certificate of candidacy voidab initiois
citizen.
 Same; Same; Renunciation of Citizenship; View that Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Arnados use of his US passport in travelling back to the thePhilippinecitizenshipheadoptedashissolecitizenship
PhilippinesonNovember24,2009wasanisolatedactthatcould underRA9225.
not, by itself, be an express renunciation of the Philippine Same;Same;Same;Viewthattheponenciafailstoconsider
citizenship he adopted as his sole citizenship under RA thatunder RA 9225, naturalborn citizens who weredeemed to
9225.ArnadosPhilippinepassportwasissuedonJune18,2009, have lost their Philippine citizenship because of their
buthewasnotimmediatelynotifiedoftheissuancesothatand naturalization as citizens of a foreign country and who
he only received his passport three months after or sometime subsequently complied with the requirements of RA 9225, are
inSeptember2009.Clearly,whenArnadotravelledonApril deemednottohavelosttheirPhilippinecitizenship.Idisagree
14, 2009, June 25, 2009 and July 29, 2009, he had no with the ponencias view that by using his US passport and
Philippinepassportthathecouldhaveusedtotraveltothe representinghimselfasanAmericancitizen,Arnadoeffectively
UnitedStatestoattendtothewindingupofhisbusiness reverted to the status of a dual citizen.Interestingly, the
andotheraffairsinAmerica.Atraveldocumentissuedbythe ponencia failed to cite any law or controlling
properPhilippinegovernmentagency(e.g.,aPhilippineconsulate jurisprudence to support its conclusion, and thus merely
officeintheUS)wouldnotsufficebecausetraveldocumentscould makes a bare assertion.Theponenciafails to consider that
not be used; they are issued only in critical instances, as underRA9225,naturalborncitizenswhoweredeemedtohave
determinedbytheconsularofficer,andallowthebeareronlya losttheirPhilippinecitizenshipbecauseoftheirnaturalizationas
direct,onewaytriptothePhilippines.AlthoughArnadoreceived citizensofaforeigncountryandwhosubsequentlycompliedwith
hisPhilippinepassportbythetimehereturnedtothePhilippines therequirementsofRA9225,aredeemednottohavelosttheir
on November 24, 2009, he could not use this without risk of Philippine citizenship.RA 9225 cured and negated the
complications with the US immigration authorities for using a
presumptionmadeunderCA63.Hence,asinJapzon,Arnado
traveldocumentdifferentfromwhatheusedinhisentryintothe
assumed pure Philippine citizenship again after taking the
USonJuly29,2009.Plainpracticalitythendemandedthatthe
OathofAllegianceandexecutinganOathofRenunciationofhis
traveldocumentthatheusedtoentertheUSonJuly29,2009be
AmericancitizenshipunderRA9225.
thesametraveldocumentheshoulduseinleavingthecountryon
November24,2009.Giventhesecircumstances,Arnadosuseof Same; Same; Same; View that the law requires express
his US passport in travelling back to the Philippines on renunciation in order to lose Philippine citizenship. The term
November24,2009wasanisolatedactthatcouldnot,byitself,be meansarenunciationthatismadedistinctlyandexplicitlyandis
anexpressrenunciationof notlefttoinferenceorimplication;itisarenunciationmanifested
427 by directand appropriatelanguage, as distinguished from that
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 427 which is inferred from conduct.I loathe to rule that Arnados
useofhisUSpassportamountstoanexpressrenunciationofhis to be a pure Filipino citizen and the loss of his Philippine
Filipino citizenship, when its use was an isolated act that he citizenshipcannotbepresumedorinferredfromhisisolatedactof
sufficientlyexplainedandfullyjustified.Iemphasizethatthelaw usinghisUSpassportfortravelpurposes.
requiresexpress renunciationin order to lose Philippine Same;Same;Same;ViewthatArnadosufficientlyjustified
citizenship. The term means a renunciation that is the use of his US passport despite his renunciation of his US
madedistinctlyandexplicitlyandisnotlefttoinferenceor citizenship;whenhetravelledonApril14,2009,June25,2009
implication;itisarenunciationmanifestedbydirectand
andJuly29,2009,hehadnoPhilippinepassportthathecould
appropriatelanguage,asdistinguishedfromthatwhichis
haveusedtotraveltotheUnitedStatestoattendtothebusiness
inferredfromconduct.
and other affairs that he was leaving; He consistently used his
Same; Same;Same; Viewthat intheabsenceofclearand
PhilippinepassportfortravelafterNovember24,2009,thetrue
affirmative acts of reacquiring US citizenship either by
characterofhisuseofhisUSpassportstandsoutandcannotbut
naturalizationorbyexpressacts(suchasthereestablishmentof
beanisolatedandconvenientactthatdidnotnegatehisOathof
permanentresi
Renunciation.I disagree however, with the conclusion that
428
Arnado effectively negated his Oath of Renunciation when he
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
usedhisUSpassportfortraveltotheUnitedStates.Toreiterate
28
ifonlyforemphasis,Arnadosufficientlyjustifiedtheuseofhis
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections USpassportdespitehisrenunciationofhisUScitizenship;when
dencyintheUnitedStates),ArnadosuseofhisUSpassport hetravelledonApril14,2009,June25,2009andJuly29,2009,
cannot but be considered an isolated act that did not undo his hehadnoPhilippinepassportthathecouldhaveusedtotravelto
renunciation of his US citizenship.In the present case, other theUnitedStatestoattendtothebusinessandotheraffairsthat
than the use of his US passport in two trips to and from the he was leaving. If at all, he could be faulted for using his US
United States, the record does not bear out any indication, passportbythetimehereturnedtothePhilippinesonNovember
supported by evidence, of Arnados intention to reacquire US 24,2009becauseatthattime,hehadpresumablyreceivedhis
citizenship.Tomymind,intheabsenceofclearandaffirmative Philippinepassport.However,giventhecircumstancesexplained
actsofreacquiringUScitizenshipeitherbynaturalizationorby aboveandthatheconsistentlyusedhisPhilippinepassportfor
express acts (such as the reestablishment of permanent travelafterNovember24,2009,thetruecharacterofhisuseof
residencyintheUnitedStates),ArnadosuseofhisUSpassport his USpassport stands out and cannot but be an isolated and
cannot but be consideredanisolated act that did not undo his convenientactthatdidnotnegatehisOathofRenunciation.429
renunciationofhisUScitizenship.Whathemightinfacthave VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 429
donewastoviolateAmericanlawontheuseofpassports,butthis Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
isamatterirrelevanttothepresentcase.Thus,Arnadoremains ABAD,J.,SeparateandConcurringOpinion:
 Citizenship;RepublicActNo.9225;ViewthatSection5(2)of renounce his citizenship who does not comply with what his
Republic Act 9225 provides the means by which a former countryrequiresofhim.Section349(a)(5)oftheImmigration
andNationalityAct(INA)setstheprocedurethatthosewhohave
Philippine citizen who has acquired foreign citizenship to later
moved their residence to other countries must observe when
reacquire his old citizenship by complying with certain renouncingtheirU.S.citizenship.Itprovidesthat(a)Aperson
requirements.Sec.5(2)ofRepublicAct9225providesthemeans who is a national of the United States whether by birth or
by which a former Philippine citizen who has acquired foreign naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily
citizenship to later reacquire his old citizenship by complying performing any of the following acts with the intention of
withcertainrequirements.RespondentRommelArnadocomplied relinquishing United States nationalityxxx (5) making a
withtheserequirementsforregainingPhilippinecitizenshipbut, formalrenunciationofna
becausehewantedtorunforpublicoffice,healsorenouncedhis 430
UnitedStates(U.S.)Citizenshipwhenhefiledhiscertificateof 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
candidacy,conformablywiththeprovisionsofRepublicAct9225
30
that reads: (2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as
tionalitybeforeadiplomaticorconsularofficeroftheUnited
requiredbytheConstitutionandexistinglawsand,atthetimeof
Statesinaforeignstate,insuchformasmaybeprescribedbythe
the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
Secretary of State. He does not effectively renounce his
swornrenunciationofanyandallforeigncitizenshipbeforeany
citizenshipwhodoesnotcomplywithwhathiscountryrequiresof
public officer authorized to administer an oath. But his
him.
compliancewiththeabovewaschallengedbeforetheCommission
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
onElections(Comelec)becauseArnadoafterwardstwiceusedhis
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
U.S.passportingoingtoandcomingfromtheU.S.,thecountry
whosecitizenshiphehadrenounced. Rexie Efren A. Bugaring & Associates Law Offices and
Same;Same;RenunciationofCitizenship;ViewthatSection MusicoLawOfficeforpetitioner.
349(a)(5)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct(INA)provides FedericoR.MirandaforrespondentLinogG.Balua.
that(a)ApersonwhoisanationaloftheUnitedStateswhether Tomas O. Cabili and Rejoice S. Subejanofor respondent
bybirthornaturalization,shalllosehisnationalitybyvoluntarily MayorRommelArnado.
SERENO,C.J.:
performing any of the following acts with the intention of
TheCase
relinquishing United States nationalityx x x (5) making a
formalrenunciationofnationalitybeforeadiplomaticorconsular ThisisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule64inconjunction
officeroftheUnitedStatesinaforeignstate,insuchformasmay withRule65oftheRulesofCourttoreviewtheResolutionsofthe
beprescribedbytheSecretaryofState.Hedoesnoteffectively Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Resolution1in SPA
No.10109(DC)oftheCOMELECFirstDivisiondated5October
2010 is being assailed for applying Section 44 of the Local andthatIimposethisobligationuponmyselfvoluntarilywithout
Government Code while the Resolution2of the COMELECEn mentalreservationorpurposeofevasion.6
Bancdated2February2011isbeingquestionedforfindingthat On3April2009ArnadoagaintookhisOathofAllegianceto
respondent Rommel Arnado y Cagoco (respondent the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his
Arnado/Arnado) is solely a Filipino citizen qualified to run for foreigncitizenship,whichstates:
publicofficedespitehiscontinueduseofaU.S.passport. I,RommelCagocoArnado,dosolemnlyswearthatIabsolutely
Facts and perpetually renounce all allegiance and fidelity to the
Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAofwhichIamacitizen,andI
citizen.3However, as a consequence of his subsequent divestmyselfoffullemploymentofallcivilandpoliticalrights
naturalization andprivilegesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.
_______________ Isolemnlyswearthatalltheforegoingstatementistrueand
correcttothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.7
1Rollo,pp.3849.
_______________
2Id.,atpp.5067.
4Id.,atp.241,Exhibit12MR,OathofAllegiance.
3Id.,atp.229,Exhibit1MR,CertificateofLiveBirth.
5Id.,atp.239,Exhibit10MR,OrderofApproval.
431
6Ibid.,Note2andAnnex1ofDulyVerifiedAnswer,Rollo,
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 431
p.160andAnnex2ofMemorandumforRespondent,Rollo,p.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 178.
asacitizenoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,helosthisFilipino
7Ibid.,pp.160and178.
citizenship.
432
ArnadoappliedforrepatriationunderRepublicAct(R.A.)No.
432 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San
Franciso,USAandtooktheOathofAllegiancetotheRepublicof Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
thePhilippineson10July2008.4OnthesamedayanOrderof On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of
Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition was Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, which
issuedinhisfavor.5 contains,amongothers,thefollowingstatements:
TheaforementionedOathofAllegiancestates: IamanaturalbornFilipinocitizen/naturalizedFilipinocitizen.
I,RommelCagocoArnado,solemnlyswearthatIwillsupport I am not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a foreign
and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines country.
and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly IameligiblefortheofficeIseektobeelectedto.
constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby declare IwillsupportanddefendtheConstitutionoftheRepublicofthe
that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippinesandwillmaintaintruefaithandallegiancethereto.I
Philippinesandwillmaintaintruefaithandallegiancethereto;
willobeythelaws,legalordersanddecreespromulgatedbythe 2009,andagaindepartedon29July2009,arrivingbackinthe
dulyconstitutedauthorities. Philippineson24November2009.
Iimposethisobligationuponmyselfvoluntarilywithoutmental Balua likewise presented a certification from the Bureau of
reservationorpurposeofevasion.8 Immigration dated 23 April 2010, certifying that the name
On28April2010,respondentLinogC.Balua(Balua),another Arnado, Rommel Cagoco appears in the available Computer
mayoraltycandidate,filedapetitiontodisqualifyArnadoand/or Database/Passenger manifest/IBM listing on file as of 21 April
to cancel his certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of 2010,withthefollowingpertinenttravelrecords:
Kauswagan,LanaodelNorteinconnectionwiththe10May2010 DATEOFArrival : 01/12/2010
local and national elections.9Respondent Balua contended that NATIONALITY : USAAMERICAN
ArnadoisnotaresidentofKauswagan,LanaodelNorteandthat
PASSPORT : 057782700
heisaforeigner,attachingtheretoacertificationissuedbythe

Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the
nationalityofArnadoasUSAAmerican.10 DATEOFArrival : 03/23/2010
TofurtherbolsterhisclaimofArnadosUScitizenship,Balua NATIONALITY : USAAMERICAN
presented in his Memorandum a computergenerated travel PASSPORT : 05778270012
record11dated03December2009indicatingthatArnadohasbeen
usinghisUSPassportNo.057782700inenter On30April2010,theCOMELEC(FirstDivision)issuedan
_______________ Order13requiringtherespondenttopersonallyfilehisanswerand
8Id.,atp.139,AnnexBofPetitionforDisqualification;Id., memorandumwithinthree(3)daysfromreceiptthereof.
atp.177,Annex1MemorandumforRespondent. After Arnado failed to answer the petition, Balua moved to
9Id.,atp.134,PetitiontoDisqualifyRommelCagocoArnado declarehimindefaultandtopresentevidenceexparte.
and/ortoCancelhisCertificateofCandidacyforMunicipalMayor Neithermotionwasactedupon,havingbeenovertakenbythe
ofKauswagan,LanaodelNorteinConnectionwithMay10,2010 2010 elections where Arnado garnered the highest number of
LocalandNationalElections. votesandwassubsequentlyproclaimedasthewinningcandidate
10Id.,atp.140,Certification. forMayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte.
11Id.,atp.191,ExhibitAofMemorandumforPetitioner It was only after his proclamation that Arnado filed his
verified answer, submitting the following documents as
filedbeforetheCommissiononElections.
evidence:14
433
_______________
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 433
12Id.,atp.192,ExhibitCofMemorandumforPetitioner
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
filedbeforetheCommissiononElections.
ing and departing the Philippines. The said record shows that
13Records,pp.7677.
Arnadoleftthecountryon14April2009andreturnedon25June
 14Rollo,p.42,Resolutiondated5October2010,pennedby residentoftheUnitedStateswasdismisseduponthefindingthat
Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, and concurred in by Baluafailedtopresentanyevidencetosupporthisconten
CommissionersArmandoC.VelascoandGregorioY.Larrazabal. _______________
434 15Id.
434 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 435
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 435
1.Affidavit of Renunciation and Oath of Allegiance to the Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
RepublicofthePhilippinesdated03April2009; tion, whereastheFirstDivisionstillcouldnotconcludethat
16

2.JointAffidavit dated 31 May 2010 of Engr. Virgil Seno, Arnadofailedtomeettheoneyearresidencyrequirementunder

VirginiaBranzuela,LeoncioDaligdig,andJessyCorpin,all theLocalGovernmentCode.17
neighborsofArnado,attestingthatArnadoisalongtime Inthe matter ofthe issueofcitizenship, however,the First
residentofKauswaganandthathehasbeenconspicuously Division disagreed with Arnados claim that he is a Filipino
andcontinuouslyresidinginhisfamilysancestralhousein citizen.18
Kauswagan; We find that although Arnado appears to have substantially
3.Certification from thePunong Barangayof Poblacion, compliedwiththerequirementsofR.A.No.9225,Arnadosactof
Kauswagan,LanaodelNortedated03June2010stating consistently using his US passport after renouncing his US
that Arnado is abona fideresident of hisbarangayand citizenshipon03April2009effectivelynegatedhisAffidavitof
thatArnadowenttotheUnitedStatesin1985toworkand Renunciation.
returnedtothePhilippinesin2009; xxxx
4.Certificationdated31May2010fromtheMunicipalLocal Arnados continued use of his US passport is a strong
GovernmentOperationsOfficeofKauswaganstatingthat indicationthatArnadohadnorealintentiontorenouncehisUS
Dr.MaximoP.Arnado,Sr.servedasMayorofKauswagan, citizenshipandthatheonlyexecutedanAffidavitofRenunciation
from January 1964 to June 1974 and from 15 February toenablehimtorunforoffice.Wecannotturnablindeyetothe
1979to15April1986;and glaringinconsistencybetweenArnadosunexplaineduseofaUS
5.Voter Certification issued by the Election Officer of passport six times and his claim that he reacquired his
Kauswagan certifying that Arnado has been a registered PhilippinecitizenshipandrenouncedhisUScitizenship.Asnoted
voterofKauswagansince03April2009. bytheSupremeCourtintheYucase,[a]passportisdefinedas
TheRulingoftheCOMELECFirstDivision anofficialdocumentofidentityandnationalityissuedtoaperson
Instead of treating the Petition as an action for the intendingtotravelorsojourninforeigncountries.Surely,one
cancellation of a certificate of candidacy based on whotrulydivestedhimselfofUScitizenshipwouldnotcontinue
misrepresentation,15the COMELEC First Division considered it toavailofprivilegesreservedsolelyforUSnationals.19
as one for disqualification. Baluas contentionthat Arnado isa The dispositive portion of the Resolution rendered by the
COMELECFirstDivisionreads:
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for performanyacttoswearallegiancetoacountryotherthan
disqualification and/or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of thePhilippines;
Rommel C. Arnado is herebyGRANTED. Rommel C. Arnados 3.HeusedhisUSpassportonlybecausehewasnotinformed
proclamation as the winning candidate for Municipal Mayor of oftheissuanceofhisPhilippinepassport,andthatheused
Kauswagan,Lanao hisPhilippinepassportafterheobtainedit;
_______________ 4.Baluas petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of
16Id.,atp.43. Arnado was filed out of time, and the First Divisions
treatmentofthepetitionasonefordis
17Id.,atp.44.
_______________
18Id.
20Id.,atp.48.
19Id.,atpp.4647,Resolutiondated5October2010.
21Id.,atp.214,AmendedMotionforReconsideration.
436
22Id.,atpp.193211,VerifiedMotionforReconsideration;id.,
436 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
atpp.212246,AmendedMotionforReconsideration;id.,atpp.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
247254, Rejoinder to Petitioners Comment/Opposition to
del Nore is herebyANNULLED. Let the order of succession
RespondentsAmendedMotionforReconsideration.
under Section 44 of the Local Government Code of 1991 take
437
effect.20
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 437
TheMotionforReconsiderationand Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
theMotionforIntervention qualification constitutes grave abuse of discretion
amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction;23
Arnado sought reconsideration of the resolution before the 5.Heisundoubtedlythepeopleschoiceasindicatedbyhis
COMELECEn Bancon the ground that the evidence is winningtheelections;
insufficienttojustifytheResolutionandthatthesaidResolution 6.His proclamation as the winning candidate ousted the
iscontrarytolaw.21Heraisedthefollowingcontentions:22 COMELECfromjurisdictionoverthecase;and
1.The finding that he is not a Filipino citizen is not 7.Theproperremedytoquestionhiscitizenshipisthrougha
supported by the evidence consisting of his Oath of petition forquo warranto, which should have been filed
AllegianceandtheAffidavitofRenunciation,whichshow withintendaysfromhisproclamation.
thathehassubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirements Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling (Maquiling), another
ofR.A.No.9225; candidateformayorofKauswagan,andwhogarneredthesecond
2.TheuseofhisUSpassportsubsequenttohisrenunciation highestnumberofvotesinthe2010elections,intervenedinthe
of his American citizenship is not tantamount to a case and filed before the COMELECEn Banca Motion for
repudiation of his Filipino citizenship, as he did not Reconsideration together with an Opposition to Arnados
Amended Motion for Reconsideration. Maquiling argued that ResolutionoftheFirstDivisionallowingtheorderofsuccession
whiletheFirstDivisioncorrectlydisqualifiedArnado,theorderof underSection44oftheLocalGovernmentCodetotakeeffect.
successionunderSection44oftheLocalGovernmentCodeisnot The COMELECEn Bancagreed with the treatment by the
applicable in this case. Consequently, he claimed that the FirstDivisionofthepetitionasonefordisqualification,andruled
cancellation of Arnados candidacy and the nullification of his thatthepetitionwasfiledwellwithintheperiodprescribedby
proclamation, Maquiling, as the legitimate candidate who law,24havingbeenfiledon28April2010,whichisnotlaterthan
obtained the highest number of lawful votes, should be 11May2010,thedateofproclamation.
proclaimedasthewinner. However,theCOMELECEnBancreversedandsetasidethe
Maquiling simultaneously filed his Memorandum with his ruling of the First Division and granted Arnados Motion for
Motion for Intervention and his Motion for Reconsideration. Reconsideration,onthefollowingpremises:
Arnado opposed all motions filed by Maquiling, claiming that
intervention is prohibited after a decision has already been First:
rendered, and that as a secondplacer, Maquiling undoubtedly ByrenouncinghisUScitizenshipasimposedbyR.A.No.9225,
lost the elections and thus does not stand to be prejudiced or therespondentembracedhisPhilippinecitizenshipasthoughhe
benefittedbythefinaladjudicationofthecase. neverbecameacitizenofanothercountry.Itwasatthattime,
_______________ April 3, 2009, that the respondent became a pure Philippine
23Id.,atp.224,AmendedMotionforReconsideration. Citizenagain.
438 _______________
438 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 24A verified petition to disqualify a candidate pursuant to
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections Sec. 68 of the OEC and the verified petition to disqualify a
RulingoftheCOMELECEnBanc candidateforlackofqualificationsorpossessingsomegroundsfor
In its Resolution of 02 February 2011, the COMELECEn disqualification may be filed on any day after the last day for
filingofcertificatesofcandidacybutnotlaterthanthedateof
Bancheld that under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, the
proclamation.(Sec.4.B.1.COMELECResolutionNo.8696).
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
439
action, inquiry or protest even after the proclamation of the
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 439
candidatewhosequalificationsforofficeisquestioned.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
AstoMaquilingsintervention,theCOMELECEnBancalso
cited Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 which allows intervention in xxxx
proceedings for disqualification even after elections if no final TheuseofaUSpassport[]doesnotoperatetorevertback
judgment has been rendered, but went on further to say that hisstatusasadualcitizenpriortohisrenunciationasthereisno
Maquiling,asthesecondplacer,wouldnotbeprejudicedbythe lawsayingsuch.Moresuccinctly,theuseofaUSpassportdoes
outcomeofthecaseasitagreeswiththedispositiveportionofthe notoperatetounrenouncewhathehasearlieronrenounced.
The First Divisions reliance in the case ofIn Re: Petition for 25Rollo, pp. 6466, COMELECEn BancResolution dated 2
Habeas Corpus of Willy Yu v. DefensorSantiago, et al.is February2011.
misplaced.Thepetitionerinthesaidcaseisanaturalizedcitizen 440
who,aftertakinghisoathasanaturalizedFilipino,appliedfor 440 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the renewal of his Portuguese passport. Strict policy is Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
maintainedintheconductofcitizenswhoarenotnaturalborn, In his Separate Concurring Opinion, COMELEC Chairman
who acquire their citizenship by choice, thus discarding their SixtoBrillantescitedthattheuseofforeignpassportisnotoneof
originalcitizenship.ThePhilippineStateexpectsstrictconductof thegroundsprovidedforunderSection1ofCommonwealthAct
allegiancetothosewhochoosetobeitscitizens.Inthepresent No.63throughwhichPhilippinecitizenshipmaybelost.
case,respondentisnotanaturalizedcitizenbutanaturalborn [T]heapplicationofthemoreassimilativeprincipleofcontinuity
citizenwhochosegreenerpasturesbyworkingabroadandthen
of citizenshipis more appropriate in this case. Under said
decided to repatriate to supposedly help in the progress of
principle, once a person becomes a citizen, either by birth or
Kauswagan. He did not apply for a US passport after his
naturalization,itisassumedthathedesirestocontinuetobea
renunciation.Thusthementionedcaseisnotonallfourswiththe
citizen, and this assumption stands until he voluntarily
caseatbar.
denationalizesorexpatriates himself.Thus, in theinstant case
xxxx
respondentafterreacquiringhisPhilippinecitizenshipshouldbe
The respondent presented a plausible explanation as to the
presumed to have remained a Filipino despite his use of his
use of his US passport. Although he applied for a Philippine
American passport in the absence of clear, unequivocal and
passport, the passport was only issued on June 18, 2009.
competentproofofexpatriation.Accordingly,alldoubtsshouldbe
However, he was not notified of the issuance of his Philippine
resolvedinfavorofretentionofcitizenship.26
passport so that he was actually able to get it about three (3)
On the other hand, Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento
months later. Yet as soon as he was in possession of his
dissented,thus:
Philippinepassport,therespondentalreadyusedthesameinhis
[R]espondent evidently failed to prove that he truly and
subsequenttravelsabroad.Thisfactisprovenbytherespondents
wholeheartedly abandoned his allegiance to the United States.
submissionofacertifiedtruecopyofhispassportshowingthathe
ThelatterscontinueduseofhisUSpassportandenjoymentofall
usedthesameforhistravelsonthefollowingdates:January31,
theprivilegesofaUScitizendespitehispreviousrenunciationof
2010,April16,2010,May20,2010,January12,2010,March31,
theaforemention[ed]citizenshiprunscontrarytohisdeclaration
2010andJune4,2010.ThisthenshowsthattheuseoftheUS
that he chose to retain only his Philippine citizenship.
passportwasbecausetohisknowledge,hisPhilippinepassport
Respondents submission with the twin requirements was
wasnotyetissuedtohimforhisuse.Asprobablypressingneeds
obviouslyonlyforthepurposeofcomplyingwiththerequirements
mightbeundertaken,therespondentusedwhateveriswithinhis
forrunningforthemayoraltypostinconnectionwiththeMay10,
controlduringthattime.25
2010AutomatedNationalandLocalElections.
_______________
 Qualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, are proclaimed as the winner in the 2010 mayoralty race in
continuing requirements; once any of them is lost during his Kauswagan,LanaodelNorte.
incumbency, title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. If a Ascribingbothgraveabuseofdiscretionandreversibleerror
candidateisnotacitizenatthetimeheranforofficeorifhelost onthepartoftheCOMELECEnBancforrulingthatArnadoisa
his citizenship after his election to office, he is disqualified to Filipino citizen despite his continued use of a US passport,
serveassuch.Neitherdoesthefactthatrespondentobtainedthe MaquilingnowseekstoreversethefindingoftheCOMELECEn
pluralityofvotesforthe
BancthatArnadoisqualifiedtorunforpublicoffice.
_______________
Corollary to his plea to reverse the ruling of the
26Id.,atp.69,SeparateConcurringOpinion.
COMELECEn Bancor to affirm the First Divisions
441
disqualificationofArnado,Maquilingalsoseeksthereviewofthe
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 441
applicability
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections _______________
mayoralty post cure the latters failure to comply with the 27Id.,atpp.7273,DissentingOpinionofCommissionerRene
qualificationrequirementsregardinghiscitizenship.
V.Sarmiento,citingthecasesofTorayno,Sr.v.COMELEC,337
Sinceadisqualifiedcandidateisnocandidateatallintheeyes
ofthelaw,hishavingreceivedthehighestnumberofvotesdoes SCRA 574 [2000];Santos v. COMELEC, 103 SCRA 628
notvalidatehiselection.Ithasbeenheldthatwhereapetitionfor [1981];Sanchezv.DelRosario,1SCRA1102[1961];andReyesv.
disqualificationwasfiledbeforeelectionagainstacandidatebut COMELEC,97SCRA500[1980].
was adversely resolved against him after election, his having 442
obtainedthehighestnumberofvotesdidnotmakehiselection 442 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
valid.Hisousterfromofficedoesnotviolatetheprincipleofvox Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
populi suprema est lexbecause the application of the ofSection44oftheLocal GovernmentCode, claiming that the
constitutionalandstatutoryprovisionsondisqualificationisnota COMELEC committed reversible error in ruling that the
matter of popularity. To apply it is to breath[e] life to the successionofthevicemayorincasetherespondentisdisqualified
sovereignwillofthepeoplewhoexpresseditwhentheyratified isinorder.
theConstitutionandwhentheyelectedtheirrepresentativeswho Issues
enactedthelaw.27 There are three questions posed by the parties before this
ThePetitionbeforetheCourt Court which will be addressed seriatim as the subsequent
Maquilingfiledtheinstantpetitionquestioningthepropriety questionshingeontheresultofthefirst.
ofdeclaringArnadoqualifiedtorunforpublicofficedespitehis Thefirstquestioniswhetherornotinterventionisallowedin
continueduseofaUSpassport,andprayingthatMaquilingbe adisqualificationcase.
 The second question is whether or not the use of a foreign Sec.6.EffectofDisqualificationCase.Anycandidatewhohas
passportafterrenouncingforeigncitizenshipamountstoundoing been declaredby final judgment to bedisqualified shall not be
arenunciationearliermade. votedfor,andthevotescastforhimshallnotbecounted.Iffor
Abetterframingofthequestionthoughshouldbewhetheror anyreasonacandidateisnotdeclaredbyfinaljudgmentbefore
not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign anelectiontobedisqualifiedandheisvotedforandreceivesthe
citizenshipaffectsonesqualificationstorunforpublicoffice. winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Thethirdquestioniswhetherornottheruleonsuccessionin Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
theLocalGovernmentCodeisapplicabletothiscase. action,inquiry,orprotestand,uponmotionofthecomplainantor
OurRuling any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
Interventionofarivalcandidateinadisqualificationcase suspensionoftheproclamationofsuchcandidatewheneverthe
is proper when evidenceofhisguiltisstrong.
there has not yet been any proclama Mercadov.Manzano28clarifiedtherightofinterventionina
tionofthewinner. disqualificationcase.Inthatcase,theCourtsaid:
Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling intervened at the stage That petitioner had a right to intervene at that stage of the
whenrespondentArnadofiledaMotionforReconsiderationofthe proceedingsforthedisqualificationagainstprivaterespondentis
FirstDivisionResolutionbeforetheCOMELECEnBanc.Asthe clear from Section 6 ofR.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as the
candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes, Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which provides: Any candidate
Maquilingcontendsthathehasaninterestinthedisqualification whohasbeendeclaredbyfinaljudgmenttobedisqualifiedshall
casefiledagainstArnado,consideringthatintheeventthelatter notbevotedfor,andthevotescastforhimshallnotbecounted.If
isdisqualified,thevotescastfor for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
443 before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 443 receivesthewinningnumberofvotesinsuchelection,theCourt
orCommissionshallcontinuewiththetrialandhearingofthe
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
action,inquiry,orprotestand,uponmotionofthecomplainantor
himshouldbeconsideredstrayandthesecondplacershouldbe
any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
proclaimedasthewinnerintheelections.
suspensionoftheproclamationofsuchcandi
Itmustbeemphasizedthatwhiletheoriginalpetitionbefore
_______________
the COMELEC is one for cancellation of the certificate of
28367Phil.132;307SCRA630(1999).
candidacyand/ordisqualification,theCOMELECFirstDivision
444
andtheCOMELECEnBanccorrectlytreatedthepetitionasone
444 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
fordisqualification.
TheeffectofadisqualificationcaseisenunciatedinSection6 Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
ofR.A.No.6646:
date whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. Under this 30G.R.No.105919,6August1992,212SCRA309.
provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for 445
disqualificationevenafterelectioniftherehasyetbeennofinal VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 445
judgmentrendered.29 Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Clearlythen,Maquilinghastherighttointerveneinthecase. Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under
The fact that the COMELECEn Banchas already ruled that thisActshallenjoyfullcivilandpoliticalrightsandbesubjectto
Maquilinghasnotshownthattherequisitesfortheexemptionto allattendantliabilitiesandresponsibilitiesunderexistinglawsof
the secondplacer rule set forth inSinsuat v. COMELEC30are thePhilippinesandthefollowingconditions:
presentandthereforewouldnotbeprejudicedbytheoutcomeof xxxx
thecase,doesnotdepriveMaquilingoftherighttoelevatethe (2)Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall
matterbeforethisCourt. meetthequalificationforholdingsuchpublicofficeasrequiredby
Arnadosclaimthatthemaincasehasattainedfinalityasthe theConstitutionandexistinglawsand,atthetimeofthefilingof
originalpetitionerandrespondentsthereinhavenotappealedthe the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
decision of the COMELEC En Banc, cannot be sustained. The renunciationofanyandallforeigncitizenshipbeforeanypublic
elevationofthecasebytheintervenorpreventsitfromattaining officerauthorizedtoadministeranoath.xxx31
finality. It is only after this Court has ruled upon the issues RommelArnadotookallthenecessarystepstoqualifytorun
raised in this instant petition that the disqualification case forapublicoffice.HetooktheOathofAllegianceandrenounced
originallyfiledbyBaluaagainstArnadowillattainfinality. hisforeigncitizenship.Thereisnoquestionthatafterperforming
The use of foreign passport after thesetwinrequirementsrequiredunderSection5(2)ofR.A.No.
renouncing ones foreign citizen 9225ortheCitizenshipRetentionandReacquisitionActof2003,
ship is a positive and voluntary hebecameeligibletorunforpublicoffice.
act of representation as to ones Indeed,ArnadotooktheOathofAllegiancenotjustonlyonce
nationality and citizenship; it does buttwice:first,on10July2008whenheappliedforrepatriation
not divest Filipino citizenship beforetheConsulateGeneralofthePhilippinesinSanFrancisco,
USA,andagainon03April2009simultaneouswiththeexecution
regained by repatriation but it
ofhisAffidavitofRenunciation.BytakingtheOathofAllegiance
recants the Oath of Renunciation
totheRepublic,ArnadoreacquiredhisPhilippinecitizenship.At
required to qualify one to run for
the time, however, he likewise possessed American citizenship.
anelectiveposition.
Arnadohadthereforebecomeadualcitizen.
Section5(2)ofTheCitizenshipRetentionandReacquisition After reacquiring his Philippine citizenship, Arnado
Actof2003provides: renouncedhisAmericancitizenshipbyexecutinganAffidavitof
_______________ Renunciation,thuscompletingtherequirementsforeligibilityto
29Id.,atpp.142143;p.639. runforpublicoffice.
 _______________ lawaimstofacilitatethereacquisitionofPhilippine
31Section5(2)ofR.A.No.9225. citizenshipbyspeedymeans.However,hesaidthat
446 in one sense, it addresses the problem ofdual
446 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED citizenshipby requiring the taking of an oath. He
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections explained that the problem ofdual citizenshipis
By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be transferred from the Philippines to the foreign
solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such countrybecausethelatestoaththatwillbetakenby
renunciationunderthelawsoftheforeigncountry.32 the former Filipino is one of allegiance to the
_______________ PhilippinesandnottotheUnitedStates,asthecase
32See excerpts of deliberations of Congress reproduced may be. He added that this is a matter which the
inAASJS v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, 11 May 2007, 523 Philippine government will have no concern and
SCRA108. competenceover.Rep.Dilangalenaskedwhythiswillno
In resolving the aforecited issues in this case, resort to the longer be the countrys concern, when dual allegiance is
deliberationsofCongressisnecessarytodeterminetheintentof involved.
the legislative branch in drafting the assailed law. During the 447
deliberations,theissueofwhetherRep.ActNo.9225wouldallow VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 447
dualallegiancehadinfactbeenthesubjectofdebate.Therecord
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
ofthelegislativedeliberationsrevealsthefollowing:
However, this legal presumption does not operate per
xxxx
manentlyandisopentoattackwhen,afterrenouncingthe
Pursuing his point, Rep. Dilangalen noted that under
_______________
themeasure,twosituationsexisttheretentionofforeign
Rep. Locsinclarifiedthatthiswaspreciselyhisobjection to
citizenship,andthereacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenship.
theoriginalversionofthebill,whichdidnotrequireanoathof
In this case, he observed that there are two citizenships
allegiance.Since the measure now requires this oath, the
andtherefore,twoallegiances.Hepointedoutthatunder
the Constitution, dual allegiance is inimical to public problem of dual allegiance is transferred from the
interest.Hethereafteraskedwhetherwiththecreationof Philippinestotheforeigncountryconcerned,heexplained.
dualallegiancebyreasonofretentionofforeigncitizenship xxxx
andthereacquisition ofPhilippinecitizenship, therewill Rep. Dilangalen asked whether in the particular case, the
nowbeaviolationoftheConstitution. persondidnotdenouncehisforeigncitizenshipandthereforestill
Rep.Locsinunderscoredthatthemeasuredoesnotseek owesallegiancetotheforeigngovernment,andatthesametime,
toaddresstheconstitutionalinjunctionondualallegiance oweshisallegiancetothePhilippinegovernment,suchthatthere
asinimicaltopublicinterest.Hesaidthattheproposed isnowacaseofdualcitizenshipanddualallegiance.
 Rep. Locsin clarified thatby swearing to the supreme nolongertheproblemofthePhilippinesbutofthe
authorityoftheRepublic,thepersonimplicitlyrenounces otherforeigncountry.(Emphasissupplied)
his foreigncitizenship. However, he said that this is not a 33See Discussion of Senators Enrile and Pimentel on Sec.
matterthathewishestoaddressinCongressbecauseheisnota 40(d) of theLocal Government Code, reproduced in Cordora v.
memberofaforeignparliamentbutaMemberoftheHouse. COMELEC,G.R.No.176947,19February2009,580SCRA12.
xxxx By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at
Rep.Locsinrepliedthatitisimperativethatthosewhohave thesametimeforswearallegiancetotheothercountryof
dualallegiancecontrarytonationalinterestshouldbedealtwith which they arealso citizens and thereby terminate their
bylaw.However,hesaidthatthedualallegianceproblemisnot statusasdualcitizens.Itmaybethat,fromthepointof
addressedinthebill.HethencitedtheDeclarationofPolicyin viewoftheforeignstateandofitslaws,suchanindividual
thebillwhichstatesthatItisherebydeclaredthepolicyofthe hasnoteffectivelyrenouncedhisforeigncitizenship.That
State that all citizens who become citizens of another country is of no moment as the following discussion on 40(d)
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship betweenSenatorsEnrileandPimentelclearlyshows:
undertheconditionsofthisAct.Hestressedthatwhatthebill SENATORENRILE:
doesisrecognizePhilippinecitizenshipbutsaysnothing Mr.President,Iwouldliketoaskclarificationofline
abouttheothercitizenship. 41, page 17: Any person with dual citizenship is
Rep. Locsin further pointed out that the problem of dual disqualifiedtorunforanyelectivelocalposition.Underthe
allegiance is created wherein a naturalborn citizen of the present Constitution, Mr. President, someone whose
Philippinestakesanoathofallegiancetoanothercountryandin mother is a citizen of the Philippines but hisfather is a
that oath says that he abjures and absolutely renounces all foreignerisanaturalborncitizenoftheRepublic.Thereis
allegiancetohiscountryoforiginandswearsallegiancetothat no requirement that such a naturalborn citizen, upon
448 reaching the age of majority, must elect or give up
448 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Philippinecitizenship.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections On the assumption that this person would carry two
foreigncitizenship,thecitizenperformspositiveactsshowinghis passports,onebelongingtothecountryofhisorherfather
continuedpossessionofaforeigncitizenship.33 andonebelongingtotheRepublicofthePhilippines,may
_______________ such a situation disqualify the person to run for a local
foreign country. The original Bill had left it at this governmentposition?
stage, he explained.In the present measure, he SENATORPIMENTEL:
clarified, a person is required to take an oath and Tomymind,Mr.President,itonlymeansthatatthe
momentwhen hewouldwanttorunforpublicoffice, he
thelastheuttersisoneofallegiancetothecountry.
hastorepudiateoneofhiscitizenships.
Hethensaidthattheproblemofdualallegianceis
449
 VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 449 that is the citizenship invested upon him or her in the
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections ConstitutionoftheRepublic.
Arnadohimselfsubjectedtheissueofhiscitizenshiptoattack SENATORPIMENTEL:
when, after renouncing his foreign citizenship, he continued to Thatistrue,Mr.President.Butifheexercisesactsthat
use his US passport to travel in and out of the country before will prove that he also acknowledges other citizenships,
filing his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009. The thenhewillprobablyfallunderthisdisqualification.
pivotal question to determine is whether he was solely and 450
exclusivelyaFilipinocitizenatthetimehefiled 450 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________ Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
SENATORENRILE: hiscertificateofcandidacy,therebyrenderinghimeligibletorun
SupposehecarriesonlyaPhilippinepassportbutthe forpublicoffice.
countryoforiginorthecountryofthefatherclaimsthat Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign
person, nevertheless, as a citizen? No one can renounce. citizenship,and30November2009,thedatehefiledhisCOC,he
Therearesuchcountriesintheworld. usedhisUSpassportfourtimes,actionsthatruncountertothe
SENATORPIMENTEL: affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By using his
Well,theveryfactthatheisrunningforpublicoffice foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily represented
would,ineffect,beanelectionforhimofhisdesiretobe himself as an American, in effect declaring before immigration
consideredaFilipinocitizen. authoritiesofbothcountriesthatheisanAmericancitizen,with
SENATORENRILE: allattendantrightsandprivilegesgrantedbytheUnitedStates
But,precisely,Mr.President,theConstitutiondoesnot ofAmerica.
require an election. Under the Constitution, a person The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath
whosemotherisacitizenofthePhilippinesis,atbirth,a thatcansimplybeprofessedatanytime,onlytobeviolatedthe
citizenwithoutanyovertacttoclaimthecitizenship. nextday.Itrequiresanabsoluteandperpetualrenunciationof
SENATORPIMENTEL: the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and
Yes.Whatwearesaying,Mr.President,is:Underthe politicalrightsgrantedbytheforeigncountrywhichgrantedthe
Gentlemans example, if he does not renounce his other citizenship.
citizenship,thenheisopeninghimselftoquestion.So,ifhe Mercado v.Manzano34already hintedatthissituationwhen
isreallyinterestedtorun,thefirstthingheshoulddoisto theCourtdeclared:
sayintheCertificateofCandidacythat:IamaFilipino His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will
citizen,andIhaveonlyonecitizenship. fulfillhisundertakingmadeunderoath.Shouldhebetraythat
SENATORENRILE: trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his
ButwearetalkingfromtheviewpointofPhilippinelaw, Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate
Mr. President. He will always have one citizenship, and
proceedings.InYuv.DefensorSantiago,wesustainedthedenial _______________
ofentryintothecountryofpetitioneronthegroundthat,after 35UnderCommonwealthActNo.63,aFilipino citizenmay
taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied for the losehiscitizenship:
renewalofhisPortuguesepassportanddeclaredincommercial (1)Bynaturalizationinaforeigncountry;
documentsexecutedabroadthathewasaPortuguesenational.A (2)Byexpressrenunciationofcitizenship;
similar sanction can be taken against anyone who, in electing (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but constitutionorlawsofaforeigncountryuponattainingtwenty
subsequently does some act constituting renunciation of his oneyearsofageormore;
Philippinecitizenship. (4)By accepting commission in the military, naval or air
Whiletheactofusingaforeignpassportisnotoneoftheacts serviceofaforeigncountry;
enumeratedinCommonwealthActNo.63constituting (5)Bycancellationofthecertificateofnaturalization;
_______________ (6) By having been declared by competent authority, a
34Supranote28atp.153;pp.649650. deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless
451 subsequently,aplenarypardonoramnestyhasbeengranted;and
(7)Incaseofawoman,uponhermarriage,toaforeignerif,
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 451
by virtue of the laws in force in her husbands country, she
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
acquireshisnationality.
renunciationandlossofPhilippinecitizenship, 35itisnevertheless 36SeeNote7.
anactwhichrepudiatestheveryoathofrenunciationrequiredfor
37Id.
aformerFilipinocitizenwhoisalsoacitizenofanothercountry
tobequalifiedtorunforalocalelectiveposition. 38Id.
WhenArnadousedhisUSpassporton14April2009,orjust 452
eleven days after he renounced his American citizenship, he 452 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
recanted his Oath of Renunciation 36that he absolutely and Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
perpetuallyrenounce(s)allallegianceandfidelitytotheUNITED citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive; it took place the
STATESOFAMERICA37andthathedivest(s)[him]selfoffull instant Arnado represented himself as an American citizen by
employmentofallcivilandpoliticalrightsandprivilegesofthe usinghisUSpassport.
UnitedStatesofAmerica.38 This act of using a foreign passport after renouncing ones
WeagreewiththeCOMELECEnBancthatsuchactofusing foreigncitizenshipisfataltoArnadosbidforpublicoffice,asit
a foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino effectivelyimposedonhimadisqualificationtorunforanelective
citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by localposition.
representinghimselfasanAmericancitizen,Arnadovoluntarily Arnadoscategoryofdualcitizenshipisthatbywhichforeign
andeffectivelyrevertedtohisearlierstatusasadual citizenship is acquired through a positive act of applying for
naturalization.Thisisdistinctfromthoseconsidereddualcitizens orassumptionofofficebutduringtheofficersentiretenure.Once
byvirtueofbirth,whoarenotrequiredbylawtotaketheoathof any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be
renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy seasonablychallenged.xxx.41
already carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign The citizenship requirement for elective public office is a
citizenship.39Dualcitizensbynaturalization,ontheotherhand, continuingone.Itmustbepossessednotjustatthetimeofthe
are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the renunciationoftheforeigncitizenshipbutcontinuously.Anyact
Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce which violates the oath of renunciation opens the citizenship
foreigncitizenship inordertoqualify asacandidatefor public issuetoattack.
office. We agree with the pronouncement of the COMELEC First
By the time he filed his certificate of candidacy on 30 DivisionthatArnadosactofconsistentlyusinghisUSpassport
November 2009, Arnado was a dual citizen enjoying the rights effectivelynegatedhisAffidavitofRenunciation. 42Thisdoesnot
and privileges of Filipino and American citizenship. He was mean,thathefailedtocomplywiththetwinrequirementsunder
qualifiedtovote,butbytheexpressdisqualificationunderSection R.A.No.9225,forheinfactdid.Itwasaftercomplyingwiththe
40(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCode, 40hewasnotqualifiedtorun requirements that he performed positive acts which effectively
foralocalelectiveposition. disqualified him from running for an elective public office
Ineffect,ArnadowassolelyandexclusivelyaFilipinocitizen pursuanttoSection40(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.
onlyforaperiodofelevendays, orfrom 3April 2009 until 14 Thepurposeof theLocal Government Code in disqualifying
April 2009, on which date he first used his American passport dualcitizensfromrunningforanyelectivepublicofficewouldbe
afterrenouncinghisAmericancitizenship. thwartedifweweretoallowapersonwhohasearlierrenounced
ThisCourthaspreviouslyruledthat: hisforeigncitizenship,butwhosubsequentlyrepresentshimself
_______________ asaforeigncitizen,toholdanypublicoffice.
39SeeCordorav.COMELEC,G.R.No.176947,19February ArnadojustifiesthecontinueduseofhisUSpassportwiththe
2009,580SCRA12. explanation that he was not notified of the issuance of his
40Sec.40.Disqualifications.The following persons are Philippinepassporton18June2009,asaresultofwhichhewas
disqualifiedfromrunningforanyelectivelocalposition: only able to obtain his Philippine passport three (3) months
xxxx later.43
(d)Thosewithdualcitizenship;xxx. _______________
453 41Frivaldov.COMELEC,255Phil.934,944;174SCRA245,
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 453 255(1989).
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 42Rollo,p.46,Resolutiondated5October2010.
Qualificationsforpublicofficearecontinuingrequirementsand 43Id.,atp.219,AmendedMotionforReconsideration.
mustbepossessednotonlyatthetimeofappointmentorelection 454
454 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED be deserving of the publictrust. Holding public office demands
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections fullandundividedallegiancetotheRepublicandtonoother.
_______________
TheCOMELECEnBancdifferentiatedArnadofromWillyYu,
thePortuguesenationalwhosoughtnaturalizationasaFilipino 44Id.,atp.66,Resolutiondated02February2011.
citizen and later applied for the renewal of his Portuguese 455
passport.ThatArnadodidnotapplyforaUSpassportafterhis VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 455
renunciationdoesnotmakehisuseofaUSpassportlessofanact Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
that violated the Oath of Renunciation he took. It was still a WethereforeholdthatArnado,byusinghisUSpassportafter
positive act of representation as a US citizen before the renouncinghisAmericancitizenship,hasrecantedthesameOath
immigrationofficialsofthiscountry. ofRenunciationhetook.Section40(d)oftheLocalGovernment
TheCOMELEC,inrulingfavorablyforArnado,statedYet,as Code applies to his situation. He is disqualified not only from
soon as he was in possession of his Philippine passport, the holdingthepublicofficebutevenfrombecomingacandidatein
respondent already used the same in his subsequent travels theMay2010elections.
abroad.44We cannot agree with the COMELEC. Three months Wenowresolvethenextissue.
from June is September. If indeed, Arnado used his Philippine Resolving the third issue necessitates revisitingTopacio v.
passportassoonashewasinpossessionofit,hewouldnothave Paredes45whichisthejurisprudentialspringoftheprinciplethat
usedhisUSpassporton24November2009. asecondplacercannotbeproclaimedasthewinnerinanelection
Besides, Arnados subsequent use of his Philippinepassport contest. This doctrine must be reexamined and its soundness
does not correct the fact that after he renounced his foreign onceagainputtothetesttoaddresstheeverrecurringissuethat
citizenshipandpriortofilinghiscertificateofcandidacy,heused a secondplacer who loses to an ineligible candidate cannot be
his US passport. In the same way that the use of his foreign proclaimedasthewinnerintheelections.
passportdoesnotundohisOathofRenunciation,hissubsequent Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
useofhisPhilippinepassportdoesnotundohisearlieruseofhis OnJune4,1912,ageneralelectionwasheldinthetownofImus,
USpassport. ProvinceofCavite,tofilltheofficeofmunicipalpresident.The
Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of petitioner, Felipe Topacio, and the respondent, Maximo Abad,
identity that comes with attendant civil and political rights were opposing candidates for that office. Topacio received 430
accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the votes,andAbad281.Abadcontestedtheelectionuponthesole
concomitantdutytomaintainallegiancetoonesflagandcountry. groundthatTopaciowasineligibleinthathewasreelectedthe
Whilethosewhoacquiredualcitizenshipbychoiceareafforded secondtimetotheofficeofthemunicipalpresidentonJune4,
therightofsuffrage,thosewhoseekelectionorappointmentto 1912, without the four years required by Act No. 2045 having
publicofficearerequiredtorenouncetheirforeigncitizenshipto intervened.46
 AbadthusquestionedtheeligibilityofTopacioonthebasisof a [plurality] of the legally cast ballots. In the latter case, no
astatutoryprohibitionforseekingasecondreelectionabsentthe question as to the correctness of the returns or the manner of
fouryearinterruption. castingandcountingtheballotsisbeforethedecidingpower,and
The oftenquoted phrase inTopacio v. Paredesis that the generallytheonlyresultcanbethattheelectionfailsentirely.In
wreath of victory cannot be transferred from an ineligible the former, we have a contest in the strict sense of the word,
candidatetoanyothercandidatewhenthesolequestionis becauseoftheopposingpartiesarestrivingforsupremacy.Ifitbe
_______________ found that the successful candidate (according to the board of
4523Phil.238(1912). canvassers)obtainedapluralityinanillegalmanner,andthat
46Id.,atp.240. anothercandidatewastherealvictor,theformermustretirein
456 favor of the latter. In the other case, there is not, strictly
456 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED speaking, a contest, asthe wreath of victory cannot be
transferred from an ineligible candidate to any other
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
candidatewhenthesolequestionistheeligibilityofthe
theeligibilityoftheonereceivingapluralityofthelegallycast
onereceivingapluralityofthelegallycastballots.Inthe
ballots.47
one case the question is as to who received a plurality of the
Thisphraseisnoteventheratiodecidendi;itisamereobiter
legallycastballots;inthe
dictum.TheCourtwascomparingtheeffectofadecisionthata _______________
candidate is not entitled to the office because of fraud or
47Id.,atp.255.
irregularities in the elections xxx [with] that produced by
457
declaringapersonineligibletoholdsuchanoffice.
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 457
Thecompletesentencewherethephraseisfoundispartofa
comparisonandcontrastbetweenthetwosituations,thus: Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Again,theeffectofadecisionthatacandidateisnotentitled other, the question is confined to the personal character and
totheofficebecauseoffraudorirregularitiesintheelectionsis circumstancesofasingleindividual.48(Emphasissupplied)
quitedifferentfromthatproducedbydeclaringapersonineligible Notethatthesentencewherethephraseisfoundstartswith
to hold such an office. In the former case the court, after an In the othercase, thereis not,strictly speaking, acontestin
examinationoftheballotsmayfindthatsomeotherpersonthan contrast to the earlier statement, In the former, we have a
thecandidatedeclaredtohavereceivedaplura[l]itybytheboard contestinthestrictsenseoftheword,becauseoftheopposing
of canvassers actually received the greater number of votes, in partiesarestrivingforsupremacy.
which case the court issues itsmandamusto the board of TheCourtinTopaciov.Paredescannotbesaidtohaveheld
canvasserstocorrectthereturnsaccordingly;oritmayfindthat thatthewreathofvictorycannotbetransferredfroman
themannerofholdingtheelectionandthereturnsaresotainted ineligiblecandidatetoanyothercandidatewhenthesole
withfraudorillegalitythatitcannotbedeterminedwhoreceived
questionistheeligibilityoftheonereceivingapluralityof On closer scrutiny, the phrase relied upon by a host of
thelegallycastballots. decisionsdoesnotevenhavealegalbasistostandon.Itwasa
Aproperreadingofthecaserevealsthattherulingthereinis mere pronouncement of the Court comparing one process with
thatsincetheCourtofFirstInstanceiswithoutjurisdictiontotry another and explaining the effects thereof. As an independent
adisqualificationcasebasedontheeligibilityofthepersonwho statement,itisevenillogical.
obtained the highest number of votes in the election, its Letusexaminethestatement:
jurisdictionbeingconfinedtodeterminewhichofthecontestants xxxthewreathofvictorycannotbetransferredfrom
hasbeendulyelectedthejudgeexceededhisjurisdictionwhen an ineligiblecandidatetoanyothercandidatewhen the
hedeclaredthatnoonehadbeenlegallyelectedpresidentofthe sole question is the eligibility of the one receiving a
municipalityofImusatthegeneralelectionheldinthattownon pluralityofthelegallycastballots.
4June1912wheretheonlyquestionraisedwaswhetherornot Whatpreventsthetransferofthewreathofvictoryfromthe
Topacio was eligible to be elected and to hold the office of ineligiblecandidatetoanothercandidate?
municipalpresident. When the issue being decided upon by the Court is the
TheCourtdidnotrulethatTopaciowasdisqualifiedandthat eligibilityoftheonereceivingapluralityofthelegallycastballots
Abadasthesecondplacercannotbeproclaimedinhisstead.The andineligibilityisthereafterestablished, whatstopstheCourt
Courtthereinruled: fromadjudginganothereligiblecandidatewhoreceivedthenext
Fortheforegoingreasons,weareoftheopinionandsohold highestnumberofvotesasthewinnerandbestowinguponhim
that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in thatwreath?
declaringinthoseproceedingsthatnoonewaselect[ed]municipal An ineligible candidate who receives the highest number of
presidentofthemunicipalityofImusatthelastgeneralelection; votesisawrongfulwinner.Byexpresslegalmandate,hecould
andthatsaidorderandallsubsequentproceedingsbasedthereon notevenhavebeenacandidateinthefirstplace,butbyvirtueof
arenullandvoidandofnoeffect;and,althoughthisdecisionis thelackofmaterialtimeoranyotherinterveningcircumstances,
rendered on respondents answer to the order to show cause, hisineligibilitymightnothavebeenpasseduponpriortoelection
unlessrespondents date. Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold
_______________ himselfout totheelectorateas alegitimateand duly qualified
48Id.,atpp.254255. candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the
458 elections, his ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged.
Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a
458 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
candidate butnecessarily affects his right to hold publicoffice.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Thenumberofballots
raisedsomenewandadditionalissues,letjudgmentbeentered _______________
accordinglyin5days,withoutcosts.Soordered.49
49Id.,atp.258.
459
 VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 459 the candidate was qualified.Obviously, this rule requires
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections strictapplicationwhenthedeficiencyislackofcitizenship.Ifa
castinhisfavorcannotcurethedefectoffailuretoqualifywith personseekstoserveintheRepublicofthePhilippines,hemust
thesubstantivelegalrequirementsofeligibilitytorunforpublic _______________
office. 50Supranote41.
The popular vote does not cure the 460
ineligibilityofacandidate. 460 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
requirements for qualifications and disqualifications of owehistotalloyaltytothiscountryonly,abjuringandrenouncing
candidates. When the law requires certain qualifications to be allfealtyandfidelitytoanyotherstate.51(Emphasissupplied)
possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by ThisissuehasalsobeenjurisprudentiallyclarifiedinVelasco
persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those v.COMELEC52wheretheCourtruledthattherulinginQuizon
qualificationsmustbemetbeforeoneevenbecomesacandidate. and Sayaang cannot be interpreted without qualifications lest
Whenapersonwhoisnotqualifiedisvotedforandeventually Electionvictoryxxxbecomesamagicformulatobypasselection
garners the highest number of votes, even the will of the eligibilityrequirements.53
electorateexpressedthroughtheballotcannotcurethedefectin [W]e have ruled in the past that a candidates victory in the
thequalificationsofthecandidate.Toruleotherwiseistotrample electionmaybeconsideredasufficientbasistoruleinfavorofthe
upon and rent asunder the very law that sets forth the candidate sought to be disqualified if the main issue involves
qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. We might as defects in the candidates certificate of candidacy. We said
wellwriteoffourelectionlawsifthevoiceoftheelectorateisthe
thatwhile provisions relating to certificates of candidacy are
soledeterminantofwhoshouldbeproclaimedworthytooccupy
electivepositionsinourrepublic. mandatoryinterms,itisanestablishedruleofinterpretationas
This has been, in fact, already laid down by the Court regardselectionlaws,thatmandatoryprovisionsrequiringcertain
inFrivaldov.COMELEC50whenwepronounced: steps before elections will be construed as directory after the
xxx.The fact that he was elected by the people of elections, to give effect to the will of the people.We so ruled
Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the inQuizonv.COMELECandSayaangv.COMELEC:
salutaryrulelimitingpublicofficeandemploymentonly The present case perhaps presents the proper time and
to the citizens of this country. The qualifications opportunitytofinetuneouraboveruling.Wesaythiswiththe
prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the realization that a blanket and unqualified reading and
electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed application of this ruling can be fraught with dangerous
through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, significancefortheruleoflawandtheintegrityofourelections.
especiallyiftheymistakenlybelieved,asinthiscase,that For one, such blanket/unqualified reading may provide a way
around the law that effectively negates election requirements andstatutoryprovisionsonqualificationsanddisqualificationsof
aimedatprovidingtheelectoratewiththebasicinformationto candidates?
make an informed choice about a candidates eligibility and Itisimperativetosafeguardtheexpressionofthesovereign
fitnessforoffice. voicethroughtheballotbyensuringthatitsexerciserespectsthe
The first requirement that may fall when an unqualified ruleoflaw.Toallowthesovereignvoicespokenthroughtheballot
readingismadeisSection39oftheLGCwhichspecifiesthebasic totrumpconstitutionalandstatutoryprovisionsonqualifications
qualificationsoflocalgovernmentofficials.Equallysusceptiveof and disqualifications of candidates is not democracy or
beingrenderedtoothlessisSection74oftheOECthatsetsout republicanism. It is electoral anarchy. When set rules are
what should be stated in a COC. Section 78 may likewise be disregarded and only the electorates voice spoken through the
emasculated ballotismadetomatterintheend,itpreciselyservesasanopen
_______________ invitationforelectoralanarchytosetin.
51Id.,atpp.944945,p.255. Maquiling is not a secondplacer as
52G.R.No.180051,24December2008,575SCRA590,614 he obtained the highest number of
615. votes from among the qualified
53Id.,atp.615,citingQuizonv.COMELEC,G.R.No.177927, candidates.
15February2008,545SCRA635,Sayaangv.COMELEC,462 With Arnados disqualification, Maquiling then becomes the
Phil.373;416SCRA650(2003). winnerintheelectionasheobtainedthehighestnumberofvotes
461 fromamongthequalifiedcandidates.462
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 461 462 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
asmeredelayintheresolutionofthepetitiontocancelordeny We have ruled in the recent cases ofAratea v.
duecoursetoaCOCcanrenderaSection78petitionuselessifa COMELEC54andJalosjosv.COMELEC55thatavoidCOCcannot
candidate with false COC data wins. To state the obvious, produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of the
candidates may risk falsifying their COC qualifications if they ineligiblecandidatearenotconsideredatallindeterminingthe
knowthatanelectionvictorywillcureanydefectthattheirCOCs winnerofanelection.
may have. Election victory then becomes a magic formula to Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are
bypasselectioneligibilityrequirements.(Citationsomitted) disregarded,thewilloftheelectorateisstillrespected,andeven
Whatwillstopanotherwisedisqualifiedindividualfromfiling moreso.Thevotescastinfavorofanineligiblecandidatedonot
a seemingly valid COC, concealing any disqualification, and constitutethesoleandtotalexpressionofthesovereignvoice.The
employingeverystrategytodelayanydisqualificationcasefiled votescastinfavorofeligibleandlegitimatecandidatesformpart
againsthimsohecansubmithimselftotheelectorateandwin,if ofthatvoiceandmustalsoberespected.
winningtheelectionwillguaranteeadisregardofconstitutional
 As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that Thatthedisqualifiedcandidatehasalreadybeenproclaimed
determine the qualifications and disqualifications of those who and has assumed office is of no moment. The subsequent
areallowedtoparticipateasplayers.Whenthereareparticipants disqualificationbasedonasubstantivegroundthatexistedprior
whoturnouttobeineligible,theirvictoryisvoidedandthelaurel tothefilingofthecertificateofcandidacyvoidsnotonlytheCOC
isawardedtothenextinrankwhodoesnotpossessanyofthe butalsotheproclamation.
disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the Section6ofR.A.No.6646provides:
rulestobeeligibleascandidates. Section6.EffectofDisqualificationCase.Anycandidatewho
There is no need to apply the rule cited inLabo v. hasbeendeclaredbyfinaljudgmenttobedisqualifiedshallnotbe
COMELEC56that when the voters are well aware within the votedfor,andthevotescastforhimshallnotbecounted.Iffor
realmofnotorietyofacandidatesdisqualificationandstillcast anyreasonacandidateisnotdeclaredbyfinaljudgmentbefore
their votes in favor said candidate, then the eligible candidate anelectiontobedisqualifiedandheisvotedforandreceivesthe
obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
elected.Thatruleisalsoamereobiterthatfurthercomplicated Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
the rules affecting qualified candidates who placed second to action,inquiry,orprotestand,uponmotionofthecomplainantor
ineligibleones. any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
Theelectoratesawarenessofthecandidatesdisqualification suspensionoftheproclamationofsuchcandidatewheneverthe
is not a prerequisite for the disqualification to attach to the evidenceofhisguiltisstrong.
candidate. The very existence of a disqualifying circumstance There was no chance for Arnados proclamation to be
makesthecandidateineligible.Knowledgebytheelectorateofa suspended under this rule because Arnado failed to file his
candidates disqualification is not necessary before a qualified answertothepetitionseekinghisdisqualification.Arnadoonly
candidatewhoplacedsecondtoadisquali filedhis Answer on 15 June 2010, long afterthe elections and
_______________ afterhewasalreadyproclaimedasthewinner.
54G.R.No.195229,9October2012,683SCRA105,145. The disqualifying circumstance surrounding Arnados
55G.R.Nos.193237/193536,9October2012,683SCRA1,32. candidacy involves his citizenship. It does not involve the
56G.R.No.105111,3July1992,211SCRA297,312. commission of election offenses as provided for in the first
463 sentenceofSection68oftheOmnibusElectionCode,theeffectof
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 463 which is to disqualify the individual from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has already been elected, from holding the
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
office.
fiedonecanbeproclaimedasthewinner.Thesecondplacerin
The disqualifying circumstance affecting Arnado is his
the vote count is actually the firstplacer among the qualified
citizenship.Asearlierdiscussed,ArnadowasbothaFilipinoand
candidates.
anAmericancitizenwhenhefiledhiscertificateofcandidacy.
464
464 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED running for any local elective position. CASAN MACODE
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections MAQUILING is hereby DECLARED the duly elected Mayor of
Hewasadualcitizendisqualifiedtorunforpublicofficebasedon Kauswagan,LanaodelNorteinthe10May2010elections.
Section40(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCode. ThisDecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.465
Section40startswiththestatementThefollowingpersons VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 465
aredisqualifiedfromrunningforanyelectivelocalposition.The Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
prohibitionservesasabaragainsttheindividualswhofallunder Let a copy of this Decision be served personally upon the
anyoftheenumerationfromparticipatingascandidatesinthe partiesandtheCommissiononElections.
election. Nopronouncementastocosts.
With Arnadobeing barredfrom evenbecoming a candidate, SOORDERED.
his certificate of candidacy is thus rendered void from the Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
beginning. It could not have produced any other legal effect ReyesandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
except that Arnado rendered it impossible to effect his
Carpio,J.,SeeConcurringOpinion.
disqualificationpriortotheelectionsbecausehefiledhisanswer
tothepetitionwhentheelectionswereconductedalreadyandhe LeonardoDeCastro,DelCastillo,MendozaandLeonen,JJ.,
wasalreadyproclaimedthewinner. JointhedissentofJusticeBrion.
To hold that such proclamation is valid is to negate the Brion,J.,See:Dissent.
prohibitory character of the disqualification which Arnado Abad,J.,SeeSeparateandConcurringOpinion.
possessedevenpriortothefilingofthecertificateofcandidacy.
TheaffirmationofArnadosdisqualification,althoughmadelong CONCURRINGOPINION
aftertheelections,reachesbacktothefilingofthecertificateof
candidacy.Arnadoisdeclaredtobenotacandidateatallinthe CARPIO,J.:
May2010elections. I concur in the ponencia. Respondent Rommel Arnado
Arnado being a noncandidate, the votes cast in his favor (Arnado) is disqualified from running for any local elective
should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the position. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) should be
qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. directed to proclaim Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling
Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local Government (Maquiling)asthedulyelectedMayorofKauswagan,Lanaodel
Codewillnotapply. NorteintheMay2010elections.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is ArnadoreceivedthehighestnumberofvotesintheMay2010
GRANTED. The Resolution of the COMELECEn Bancdated 2 elections and was proclaimed Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
February 2011 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Norte. Respondent Linog G. Balua (Balua), one of Arnados
RespondentROMMELARNADOyCAGOCOisdisqualifiedfrom opponents,filedapetitionbeforetheCOMELECagainstArnado.
Baluas petition to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his
certificateofcandidacyrestsontheallegationthatArnadolacks AcertificationfromtheBureauofImmigrationshowedthat
the residency and citizenship requirements. Balua presented ArnadoarrivedinthePhilippineson12January2010,aswellas
evidence to show that Arnado used his American passport to on23March2010.BotharrivaldatesshowthatArnadousedthe
enteranddepartthePhilippines.Maquiling,ontheotherhand, sameUSApassportheusedin2009.
wasalsooneofArnadosoppo DespiteBaluaspetitionbeforetheCOMELEC,theelections
466 proceededwithoutanyrulingonArnadosqualification.Arnado
466 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED receivedthehighestnumberofvotesintheMay2010
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 467
nents. Maquiling received the second highest number of votes VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 467
nexttoArnado.Maquilingfiledmotionsforinterventionandfor Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
reconsideration before the COMELECEn Banc. Maquiling elections and was proclaimed Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
assertedthatheshouldhavebeenproclaimedasMayorforbeing Norte.
thelegitimatecandidatewiththehighestnumberofvotes. TheCOMELEC FirstDivision issued its ruling on Arnados
ArnadoisanaturalbornFilipinoCitizenwholosthisFilipino qualification after his proclamation. The COMELEC First
citizenship upon his naturalization as an American citizen. Divisiontreated Baluas petitionto disqualifyArnadoand/orto
Arnadoappliedforrepatriation,andsubsequentlytooktwoOaths cancel his certificate of candidacy as a petition for
ofAllegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines,thenrenounced disqualification. The COMELEC First Division granted Baluas
hisAmericancitizenship.Therelevanttimelineisasfollows: petition and annulled Arnados proclamation. The COMELEC
10 July 2008 Arnado pledgedhis OathofAllegianceto First Division stated that Arnados continued use of his US
theRepublicofthePhilippines. passportisastrongindicationthatArnadohadnorealintention
to renounce his US citizenship and that he only executed an
3April2009ArnadoagainpledgedhisOathofAllegiance
Affidavit of Renunciation to enable him to run for office. The
totheRepublicofthePhilippinesandexecutedanAffidavit
COMELEC First Division decreed that the order of succession
ofRenunciationofhisAmericancitizenship.
underSection44oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991 1should
14Aprilto25June2009ArnadousedhisUnitedStates takeeffect.
ofAmerica (USA)PassportNo. 057782700 todepart and Arnado filed a motion for reconsideration before the
enterthePhilippines.
COMELECEn Banc. Maquiling intervened, and asserted that
29Julyto24November2009ArnadoagainusedhisUSA although the COMELEC First Division correctly disqualified
Passport No. 057782700 to depart and enter the Arnado, the law on succession should not apply. Instead,
Philippines. MaquilingshouldhavebeenproclaimedasMayorforbeingthe
30 November 2009 Arnado filed his Certificate of legitimatecandidatewiththehighestnumberofvotes.
CandidacyforMayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte.
 TheCOMELECEnBancreversedandsetasidetherulingof MayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorteintheMay2010elections
the COMELEC First Division. In granting Arnados motion for for being the qualified candidate who received the highest
reconsideration,theCOMELECEnBancstatedthatArnadosuse numberofvotes.
of his USA passport does not operate to revert back [sic] his OnArnadosUseofaNonPhilippinePassport
statusasadualcitizenpriortohisrenunciationasthereisno Philippinecourtshavenopowertodeclarewhetheraperson
law saying such. COMELEC Chair Sixto Brillantes concurred, possesses citizenship other than that of the Philippines.
and stated that Arnado after reacquiring his Philippine InMercado v. Manzano,2Constitutional Commissioner Joaquin
citizenship should be presumed to have remained a Filipino G. Bernas was quoted as saying, [D]ual citizenship is just a
despitehisuseofhisAmericanpassportintheabsenceofclear, realityimposedonusbecausewehavenocontrolofthelawson
unequivocalandcompetentproofofex citizenshipofothercountries.WerecognizeachildofaFilipino
_______________ mother.Butwhetherornotsheisconsideredacitizenofanother
1Section44.Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the country is something completely beyond our control.3In the
presentcase,wehavenoauthoritytodeclarethatArnadoisan
Governor, ViceGovernor, Mayor, and ViceMayor.If a
American citizen. Only the courts of the USA, using American
permanentvacancyoccursintheofficeofthegovernorormayor,
law,havetheconclusiveauthoritytomakeanassertionregarding
the vicegovernor or vicemayor concerned shall become the
ArnadosAmericancitizenship.
governorormayor.xxx.
Arnado,asanaturalizedAmericancitizenandarepatriated
468
Filipino,isrequiredbylawtosweartoanOathofAlle
468 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 2367Phil.132;307SCRA630(1999)citing1Recordofthe
patriation. Commissioner Rene Sarmiento dissented, and ConstitutionalCommission203(23June1986).
declared that Arnado failed to prove that he abandoned his
3Id.,atp.147;p.643.
allegiance to the USA and that his loss of the continuing
469
requirementofcitizenshipdisqualifieshimtoserveasanelected
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 469
official. Moreover, having received the highest number of votes
doesnotvalidateArnadoselection. Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
giance to the Republic of the Philippines and execute a
Theponenciagranted Maquilings petition before this Court,
RenunciationofForeignCitizenshipbeforehemayseekelective
andannulledandsetasidetherulingoftheCOMELECEnBanc.
Philippinepublicoffice.ThepertinentsectionsofR.A.No.9225
TheponenciadeclaredthatArnadosuseofhisUSApassportdid read:
notdivesthimofhisFilipinocitizenshipbutvestedbackinhim
Section3.RetentionofPhilippineCitizenship.Anyprovisionof
theAmericancitizenshipheearlierrenounced.Theponenciaalso lawtothecontrarynotwithstanding,naturalborncitizenshipby
directedtheCOMELECtoproclaimMaquilingasthedulyelected reasonoftheirnaturalizationascitizensofaforeigncountryare
hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon aretractionof his renunciation. When Arnado filed his
takingthefollowingoathofallegiancetotheRepublic: Certificate of Candidacy on 30 November 2009, there was no
I_____________________,solemnlyswear(oraffirm)thatI longeraneffectiverenunciationofhisAmericancitizenship.Itis
willsupportanddefendtheConstitutionoftheRepublicof asifheneverrenouncedhisAmericancitizenshipatall.Arnado,
the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders therefore, failed to comply with the twin requirements of
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the swearingtoanOathofAllegianceandexecutingaRenunciation
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and of Foreign Citizenship as found in Republic Act No. 9225. We
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will previously discussed the distinction betweendual
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I citizenshipanddual allegiance, as well as the different acts
imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without requiredofdualcitizens,whomayeitherhaveinvoluntarydual
mentalreservationorpurposeofevasion. citizenshiporvoluntarydualallegiance,whodesiretobeelected
NaturalborncitizensofthePhilippineswho,aftertheeffectivity toPhilippinepublicofficeinCordorav.COMELEC:4
ofthisAct,becomecitizensofaforeigncountryshallretaintheir Wehavetoconsiderthepresentcaseinconsonancewithour
Philippinecitizenshipupontakingtheaforesaidoath. rulingsinMercadov.Manzano,Vallesv.COMELEC,andAASJS
Section5.Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities.Those v. Datumanong. Mercado and Valles involve similar operative
who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under this Act factsasthepresentcase.ManzanoandValles,likeTambunting,
shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all possessed dual citizenship by the circumstances of their birth.
attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of ManzanowasborntoFilipinoparentsintheUnitedStateswhich
thePhilippinesandthefollowingconditions:
followsthedoctrineofjussoli.ValleswasborntoanAustralian
xxxx
mother and a Filipino father in Australia. Our rulings
(2)ThoseseekingelectivepublicofficeinthePhilippinesshall
meetthequalificationforholdingsuchpublicofficeasrequiredby inManzanoandVallesstated that dual citizenship is different
theConstitutionandexistinglawsand,atthetimeofthefilingof fromdualallegiancebothbycauseand,forthosedesiringtorun
the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn for public office, by effect. Dual citizenship is involuntary and
renunciationofanyandallforeigncitizenshipbeforeanypublic arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the
officerauthorizedtoadministeranoath; differentlawsoftwoormorestates,apersonissimultaneously
xxxx. considered a national by the said states. Thus, like any other
470 naturalborn Filipino, it is enough for a person with dual
470 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of
candidacyandsweartotheoathofallegiancecontainedtherein.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, is brought about by the
ArnadosuseofhisAmericanpassportafterhisexecutionof
individuals active participation in the naturalization process.
an Affidavit of Renunciation of his American Citizenship is
AASJSstatesthat,underR.A.No.9225,aFilipinowhobecomesa
naturalized citizen of another country is allowed to retain his and, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, make a
Filipinocitizenshipby personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
_______________ citizenshipbeforeanypublicofficerauthorizedtoadministeran
4G.R.No.176947,19February2009,580SCRA12.Citations oathasidefromtheoathofallegianceprescribedinSection3of
omitted. R.A.No.9225.ThetwinrequirementsofswearingtoanOathof
471 AllegianceandexecutingaRenunciationofForeignCitizenship
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 471 served as the bases for our recent rulings inJacot v.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections DalandCOMELEC, Velasco v. COMELEC, andJapzon v.
swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic of the COMELEC,allofwhichinvolvenaturalbornFilipinoswholater
Philippines.Theactoftakinganoathofallegianceisanimplicit becamenaturalizedcitizensofanothercountryandthereafterran
renunciationofanaturalizedcitizensforeigncitizenship. for elective office in the Philippines. In the present case,
R.A.No.9225,ortheCitizenshipRetentionandReacquisition Tambunting, a naturalborn Filipino, did not subsequently
Act of 2003, was enacted years after the promulgation becomeanaturalizedcitizenofanothercountry.Hence,thetwin
ofManzanoandValles. The oath found in Section 3 of R.A. No. requirementsinR.A.No.9225donotapplytohim.5
9225readsasfollows: _______________
I__________,solemnlyswear(oraffirm)thatIwillsupport 5Id.,atpp.2325.
and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the 472
Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders 472 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and
Hence,Arnadosfailuretocomplywiththetwinrequirements
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
ofR.A.No.9225isclearlyafailuretoqualifyasacandidatefor
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
Philippine elective public office. He is still deemed, under
impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without
Philippine law, holding allegiance to a foreign country, which
mentalreservationorpurposeofevasion.
disqualifieshimfromrunningforanelectivepublicoffice.Such
InSections2and3ofR.A.No.9225,the framerswere not
failuretocomplywiththetwinrequirementsofR.A.No.9225is
concerned with dual citizenshipper se, but with the status of includedamongthegroundsfordisqualificationinSection68of
naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their
the Omnibus Election Code: Disqualifications.xxx. Any
countriesoforiginevenaftertheirnaturalization.Section5(2)of
person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a
R.A. No. 9225 states that naturalized citizens who reacquire
foreigncountryshallnotbequalifiedtorunforanyelectiveoffice
Filipinocitizenshipanddesiretorunforelectivepublicofficein
underthisCode,unlesssaidpersonhaswaivedhisstatusasa
the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws
accordance with the residence requirement provided for in counted.Thus,suchnoncandidatecanneverbeafirstplacerin
electionlaws. the elections. If a certificate of candidacy voidab initiois
OntheSelectionoftheLawfulMayorofKauswagan,Lanao cancelledontheday,orbeforetheday,oftheelection,prevailing
delSur jurisprudence holds that all votes for that candidate are stray
Arnado used his USA passportafterhis Renunciation of votes.Ifacertificateofcandidacyvoidabinitioiscancelledone
American Citizenship andbeforehe filed his Certificate of dayormoreaftertheelections,allvotesforsuchcandidateshould
Candidacy. This positive act of retraction of his renunciation also be stray votes because the certificate of candidacy is void
beforethefilingoftheCertificateofCandidacyrendersArnados fromtheverybeginning.Thisisthemoreequitableandlogical
Certificate of Candidacyvoidab initio. Therefore, Arnado approach on the effect of the cancellation of a certificate of
wasnevera candidate at any time, and all the votes for him candidacy that is voidab initio. Otherwise, a certificate of
arestray votes. We reiterate our ruling inJalosjos v. candidacyvoidabinitiocanoperatetodefeatoneormorevalid
COMELEC6onthismatter: certificatesofcandidacyforthesameposition.7
DecisionsofthisCourtholdingthatthesecondplacercannot It is undisputed that Arnado had to comply with the twin
beproclaimedwinnerifthefirstplacerisdisqualifiedordeclared requirementsofallegianceandrenunciation.However,Arnados
ineligibleshouldbelimitedtosituationswherethecertificateof use of his USA passport after the execution of his Affidavit of
candidacy ofthe firstplacerwasvalidatthetimeof filing but Renunciationconstitutedaretractionofhisrenunciation,andled
subsequentlyhadtobecancelledbecauseofaviolationoflawthat tohisfailuretocomplywiththerequirementofrenunciationat
tookplace,oralegalimpedimentthattookeffect,afterthefiling the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. His certiticate of
ofthe candidacywasthusvoidabinitio.Garneringthehighestnumber
_______________ of votes for an elective position does not cure this defect.
6G.R.Nos.193237and193536,9October2012,683SCRA1, Maquiling, the alleged second placer, should be proclaimed
3132.Citationsomitted.SeealsoCayatv.COMELEC,G.R.Nos. Mayor because Arnados certificate of candidacy was void ab
initio.Maquilingisthequalifiedcandidatewhoactuallygarnered
163776and165736,24April2007,522SCRA23;andArateav.
thehighestnumberofvotesforthepositionofMayor.
COMELEC,G.R.No.195229,9October2012,683SCRA105. _______________
473
7Id.
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 473 474
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 474 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
certificateofcandidacy.Ifthecertificateofcandidacyisvoidab Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
initio,thenlegallythepersonwhofiledsuch void certificateof
candidacywasneveracandidateintheelectionsatanytime.All DISSENTINGOPINION
votesforsuchnoncandidatearestrayvotesandshouldnotbe
BRION,J.: Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
Idissentfromtheponenciasconclusionsthat: 5)At any rate, all doubts should be resolved in favor of
(1)respondent Rommel C. Arnados (Arnado) use of his US Arnados eligibility afterthiswas confirmedby themandate of
passport in traveling twice to the US violated his Oath of the people of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte by his election as
Renunciation so that he reverted back to the status of a dual Mayor;and
citizenadistinctgroundfordisqualificationunderSection40(d) 6)Theassailedfindingsoffactsandconsequentconclusions
of the Local Government Code (LGC) that barred him from of law are based on evidence on record and are correct
assumingtheofficeofMayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte;and applicationsoflaw;hence,nobasisexistsforthisCourttorule
(2)the petitioner, Casan Macode Maquiling (Maquiling), the thattheComelecenbanccommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionin
secondplacerinthe2010elections,shouldberightfullyseated rulingonthecase.
asMayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte. TheAntecedentFacts
IbasethisDissentonthefollowinggrounds: RespondentRommelCagocoArnadoisanaturalbornFilipino
1)ArnadohasperformedallactsrequiredbySection5(2)or citizen,borntoFilipinoparentsonJuly22,1957atIliganCity,
Republic Act No. 92251(RA 9225) to reacquire Philippine LanaodelNorte.2In1985,heimmigratedtotheUnitedStatesfor
citizenshipandtoqualifyandrunforpublicoffice; jobpurposes.3HewasdeemedtohavelosthisFilipinocitizenship
2)TheevidenceonrecordshowsthatArnadosuseofhisUS byoperationoflaw4whenhebecameanaturalizedcitizenofthe
passportintwotripstotheUSafterreacquiringhisPhilippine UnitedStatesofAmericawhileinAmerica.
citizenship under RA 9225 and renouncing his US citizenship, In2003,CongressdeclareditthepolicyoftheStatethatall
weremereisolatedactsthatweresufficientlyjustifiedunderthe Philippinecitizenswhobecomecitizensofanothercountryshall
givencircumstancesthatArnadofullyexplained; be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship upon
3)Arnados use of his US passport did not amount to an compliancewiththestatuteCongresspassedRA9225.5
expressrenunciationofhisPhilippinecitizenshipunderSection1 Arnado,likemanyotherFilipinosbeforehim,atage51and
ofCommonwealthActNo.63(CA63); afterastayof23yearsintheU.S.,optedtoreaffirmhisFilipino
4)Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,Arnadodidnotdo citizenshipbyfilingtherequiredapplicationand
anythingtonegatetheoathofrenunciationhetook; _______________
_______________ 2Rollo,p.229.
1AnActMakingTheCitizenshipOfPhilippineCitizensWho 3Id.,atp.162.
Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending For the 4Section1ofCommonwealthActNo.63states:
PurposeCommonwealthActNo.63.AsAmendedAndForOther Section1.How citizenship may be lost.A Filipino citizen
may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or
Purposes.
events:
475
(1)Bynaturalizationinaforeigncountry;
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 475
 5Otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re 12,2010(Arrival),January31,2010(Departure),March31,2010
acquisitionActof2003. (Arrival),April11,2010
476 _______________
476 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 6Rollo,p.239.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 7Id.,atp.240.
takinghisoathbeforethePhilippineConsulateGeneralinSan 8Id.,atp.160.
Francisco,USA.HisapplicationwasapprovedbyConsulWilfredo 9Id.,atp.191.
C. Santos, evidenced by an Order of Approval dated July 10,
10Id.,atp.218.
2008.6He took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
11Id.,atp.219.
Philippines (Republic) on the same day and was accordingly
477
issued Identification Certificate Number SF152408/2008
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 477
declaringhimoncemorepurelyacitizenoftheRepublic. 7
OnApril3,2009,ArnadotookanotherOathofAllegianceto Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his (Departure) April 16, 2010 (Arrival), May 20, 2010 (Departure)
foreigncitizenship.8 andJune4,2010(Arrival).12
Eleven days later or onApril 14, 2009, Arnado left the OnNovember30,2009orsixmonthsafterhefullycomplied
country for the United States. According to Bureau of with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225,Arnado filed his
Immigrationrecords,ArnadothenusedapassportUSPassport Certificate of Candidacy(CoC) for the position of Mayor of
(No. 057782700)that identified his nationality as USA Kauswagan,LanaodelNorte.13
AMERICAN.ThesamerecordalsoindicatedthatArnadoused FivemonthsafteroronApril28,2010,respondentmayoralty
thesameU.S.PassportwhenhereturnedtothecountryonJune candidate Linog C. Balua (Balua) filed a petition to disqualify
25,2009.ThishappenedagainwhenheleftfortheUnitedStates Arnadoand/ortocancelhisCoC.BaluacontendedthatArnadois
onJuly29,2009andreturnedtothecountryonNovember24, aforeignerandisnotaresidentofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte.
2009.9 Balua attached to his petition a Bureau of Immigration (BI)
TherecorddoesnotshowtheexactdatewhenArnadoapplied certificationdatedApril23,2010indicatingArnadosnationality
for a Philippine passport; it shows however that Consulate asUSAAmericanandcertifyingthatthenameArnadoRommel
General of the Philippines in San Francisco, USA, approved Cagoco appears in the Computer Database/Passenger Manifest
andissuedaPhilippinePassport(No.XX3979162)forArnado withthefollowingpertinenttravelrecords:14
onJune18,2009.10Hereceivedthispassportthree(3)months DATEOFArrival : 01/12/2010
later.11Thereafter,heusedhisPhilippinepassportinhistravels NATIONALITY : USAAMERICAN
onthefollowingdates:December11,2009(Departure),January PASSPORT : 057782700

 DATEOFArrival : 01/12/2010 default.TheComelec,however,failedtoactonthemotionasthe
DATEOFArrival : 03/23/2010 casewasovertakenbytheMay10,2010elections.
Arnado won the election, garnering 5,952 votes over the
NATIONALITY : USAAMERICAN
second placer, Maquiling, who garnered 5,357 votes. The
PASSPORT : 057782700
MunicipalBoardofCanvasserssubsequentlyproclaimedhimas
(Significantly, Arnado also submitted the photocopy of his
thedulyelectedmayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte.18
PhilippinepassportshowingthatheusedhisPhilippinepassport
IntheAnswerwhichhefiledafterhisproclamation,Arnado
ontravelsonthesedates.)15
averredthathedidnotcommitanymaterialmisrepresentationin
Balua also presented a computer generated travel record
hisCoC,andthathewaseligibletorunfortheofficeofmayorof
datedDecember3,2009indicatingthatArnadohasbeenusing
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; he had fully complied with the
hisUSPassportNo.057782700inenteringanddepart
requirements of RA 9225 by taking the required Oath of
_______________
AllegianceandexecutinganAffidavitofRenunciationofhisU.S.
12Id.,atpp.242245. citizenship.19To support his allegations, Arnado also submitted
13Id.,atp.139. thefollowingdocumentaryevidence:
14Id.,atp.192. _______________
15Annexes A1A4 of Respondents Motion for 16Id.,atp.191.
Reconsideration,Id.,atpp.204208. 17Balua filed the petition to disqualify and/or to cancel
478 Arnados CoC on April 28, 2010, prior to the May 10, 2010
478 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED elections.Id.,atpp.134136.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 18Id.,atp.161.
ing the Philippines. The record showed that Arnado left the 19Id.,atpp.148156.
country on April 14, 2009 and returned on June 25, 2009; he 479
departedagainonJuly29,2009andarrivedbackinthecountry VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 479
on November 24, 2009.16In these lights, Arnados Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
disqualificationwasaliveelectionissue,wellknowntothe
Kauswaganelectorate,whoneverthelessvotedArnadointo (1)Affidavit of Renunciation and Oath of Allegiance to the
officeasMayor.17 RepublicofthePhilippinesdatedApril3,2009;
TheComelecFirstDivisionorderedArnadotofilehisAnswer (2)JointAffidavit dated May 31, 2010 of Engr. Virgil Seno,
(toBaluaspetition)andaMemorandum.Withthepetitionfileda Virginia Branzuela, Leoncio Daligdig, and Jessy Corpin, all
meretwoweeksfromelectionday,Arnadofailedtocomply,thus neighborsofArnado,attestingthatArnadoisalongtimeresident
givingBaluatheopportunitytomovethatArnadobedeclaredin of Kauswagan and that he has been conspicuously and
continuously residing in his familys ancestral house in 480 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Kauswagan; Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
(3)Certification from the Punong Barangay of Poblacion, his US passport was a strong indication that he had no real
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte dated June 3, 2010 stating that intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he only
ArnadoisabonafideresidentofhisbarangayandthatArnado executedanOathofRenunciationtoenablehimtorunforoffice.
wenttotheUnitedStatesin1985toworkandreturnedtothe The Division noted in this regard the glaring inconsistency
Philippinesin2009; between Arnados unexplained use of his US passport and his
(4)CertificationdatedMay31,2010fromtheMunicipalLocal claim that he had reacquired Philippine citizenship and had
Government Operations Office of Kauswagan stating that Dr. renouncedhisUScitizenship.
Maximo P. Arnado, Sr. served as Mayor of Kauswagan from Based on these premises, the Comelec First Division
January1964toJune1974andfromFebruary15,1979toApril disqualifiedArnado,annulledhisproclamation,andorderedthat
15,1986; theorderofsuccessiontothemayoraltyunderSection44ofthe
(5)Voter Certification issued by the Election Officer of LGCbegiveneffect.21
KauswagancertifyingthatArnadohasbeenaregisteredvoterof MaquilingsIntervention
KauswagansinceApril3,2009.20 While Arnados motion for reconsideration was pending,
TheComelecFirstDivisionRuling MaquilingintervenedandfiledaMotionforReconsiderationand
The Comelec First Division treated Baluas petition as a anoppositiontoArnadosmotionforreconsideration.
petitionfordisqualificationinsteadofapetitionforcancellationof Maquiling argued that while the First Division correctly
CoCbasedonmisrepresentation.BecauseBaluafailedtopresent disqualifiedArnado,theorderofsuccessionunderSection44is
evidencetosupporthiscontentionthatArnadoisaresidentofthe notapplicable;heclaimedthatwiththecancellationofArnados
UnitedStates,theFirstDivisionfoundnobasistoconcludethat CoC and the nullification of his proclamation, he should be
Arnaldodidnotmeettheoneyearresidencyrequirementunder proclaimedthewinnersincehewasthelegitimatecandidatewho
theLGC. obtainedthehighestnumberofvotes.22
Ontheissueofcitizenship,theFirstDivisionheldArnados TheComelecenbancRuling
actofusinghisUSpassportafterrenouncinghisUScitizenship TheComelecenbancaffirmedtheFirstDivisionstreatment
onApril3,2009,effectivelynegatedhisOathofRenunciation.As ofthepetitionasapetitionfordisqualification.Italsoagreed
basis,theFirstDivisioncitedtheCourtsrulinginInRePetition withthedisposition ofthe First Division to followthe orderof
for Habeas Corpus of Willie Yu v. DefensorSantiago, et al.It succession under Section 44, thus ruling out second placer
concludedthatArnadoscontinueduseof MaquilingsentitlementtothepostofMayor.
_______________ TheComelecenbanchowever,reversedtheFirstDivision
20Id.,atpp.160164. rulingandgrantedArnadosMotionforReconsideration.Itheld
480 thatbyrenouncinghisUScitizenship,Arnado
 _______________ American passport in theabsence of clear and unequivocal
21Id.,atpp.3849. proofofexpatriation.Inaddition,alldoubtsshouldberesolved
22Id.,atpp.8996. infavorofArnadosretentionofcitizenship.25
481 _______________
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 481 23G.R.No.L83882,January24,1989,169SCRA364.
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 24Rollo,pp.5067.
becameapurePhilippinecitizenagain.Itruledthattheuseofa 25Id.,atpp.6869.
USpassportdoesnotoperatetorevertArnadosstatusasadual 482
citizen prior to his renunciation; it does not operate to un 482 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
renouncewhathadearlierbeenrenounced. Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
TheComelecenbancfurtherruledthattheFirstDivisions In hisDissenting Opinion, Commissioner Rene V.
reliance onIn Re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Willie Yu v. SarmientoemphasizedthatArnadofailedtoprovethathetruly
DefensorSantiago,etal.,23wasmisplacedasthefactsofthiscited abandonedhisallegiancetotheUnitedStates;hiscontinueduse
casearenot thesameorcomparable withthoseof thepresent ofhisUSpassport andenjoyment ofallthe privilegesof a US
case. Unlike the present case, the petitioner in Yu was a citizenrancountertohisdeclarationthathechosetoretainonly
naturalized citizen who, after taking his oath as a naturalized hisPhilippinecitizenship.Henotedthatqualificationsforelective
Filipinocitizen,appliedforarenewalofhisPortuguesepassport. office, such as citizenship, are continuing requirements; once
Finally,theComelecenbancfoundthatArnadopresenteda citizenshipislost,titletotheofficeisdeemedforfeited. 26
plausibleandbelievableexplanationjustifyingtheuseofhisUS TheIssues
passport.WhilehisPhilippinepassportwasissuedonJune18, ThecompleteissuesposedfortheCourtsconsiderationare:
2009,hewasnotimmediatelynotifiedoftheissuancesothathe (1)Whetherinterventionisallowedinadisqualificationcase;
failed to actually get it until after three months later. He (2)Whether the use of a foreignpassport after renouncing
thereafterusedhisPhilippinepassportinhissubsequenttravels foreign citizenship amounts to undoing a renunciation
abroad.24 made, and whether the use of a foreign passport after
TheSeparateandDissentingOpinions renouncingforeigncitizenshipaffectsonesqualificationsto
Significantly,Comelec Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes runforpublicoffice;
issued a Separate Opinion concurring with the Comelec (3)Assuming Arnado is disqualified, whether the rule on
successionintheLGCisapplicableinthepresentcase;27
majority.Heopinedthattheuseofaforeignpassportisnotone
(4)Howshoulddoubtinthepresentcaseberesolvedinlight
of the grounds provided for under Section 1 of CA 63 through
ofArnadoselection;and
whichPhilippinecitizenshipmaybelost.Hecitestheassimilative
principle of continuity of Philippine citizenship: Arnado is
presumed to have remained a Filipino despite his use of his
 (5)Whether,basedonthefactspresentedandtheapplicable Section40(d)oftheLGC,hewasnotqualifiedasacandidateto
law, the Comelecen banccommitted grave abuse of runforalocalelectiveposition.28
discretion. With Arnado barred from candidacy, theponenciafurther
_______________ concludes that his CoC was void from the beginning. The
26Id.,atpp.7073. affirmationofArnadosdisqualification,althoughmadelongafter
27Ponencia,p.10. theelections,reachesbacktothefilingoftheCoCsothathewas
483 notacandidateatallintheMay10,2010elections.Hence,the
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 483 votescastinhisfavorshouldnotbecountedandMaquiling,as
thequalifiedcandidatewhoobtainedthe
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
_______________
ThePonencia
28Ponencia,p.17.
Theponenciagrants Maquilings petition for certiorari, thus
484
holding that the Comelec en banc committed grave abuse of
484 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
discretioninconsideringthefactsandthelawpresented.Itthus
holdsthatArnadoisadualcitizendisqualifiedtorunforpublic Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
office under Section 40(d) of the LGC. On this basis, highestnumberofvote,shouldbedeclaredthedulyelectedmayor
theponenciarules that with Arnados disqualification, second ofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte.29Inthismanner,theponencia
placerMaquilingshouldbeproclaimedasthedulyelectedMayor effectivelydisenfranchised5,952or52.63%ofthosewhovoted
ofKauswagan,LanaodelNorte. for the top two contending candidatesfor the position of
Mayor;itrulesforaminorityMayor.
Based on this conclusion, theponenciaresolves all doubts
RefutationofthePonencia
against Arnado and disregards the democratic decision of the
Kauswaganelectorate. Arnado performed all acts required by
Section 5(2) of RA 9225 to reacquire
As theponenciareasons it out, the act of using a foreign
passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino citizenship. By Philippine citizenship and run for
representing himself as an American citizen, however, Arnado public office; in fact, he actively fol
voluntarilyandeffectivelyrevertedtohisearlierstatusasdual lowed up his reaffirmed citizenship
citizen. It emphasizes that such reversion is not retroactive; it byrunningforpublicoffice.
took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an RA9225wasenactedtoallowthereacquisitionandretention
AmericancitizenbyusinghisUSpassport. of Philippine citizenship by: 1) naturalborn citizens who were
Thus,bythetimeArnadofiledhisCoConNovember30,2009, deemedtohavelosttheirPhilippinecitizenshipbyreasonoftheir
theponenciaconcludesthat Arnadowas adual citizenenjoying naturalization as citizens of a foreign country; and 2) natural
therightsandprivilegesofFilipinoandAmericancitizenship;he borncitizensofthePhilippineswho,aftertheeffectivityofthe
wasqualifiedtovote,butbytheexpressdisqualificationunder law,becamecitizensofaforeigncountry.Thelawprovidesthat
theyaredeemedtohavereacquiredorretainedtheirPhilippine Under the given facts, Arnado indisputably reacquired
citizenshipupontakingtheoathofallegiance.30 PhilippinecitizenshipaftertakingtheOathofAllegiancenotonly
Section3ofRA9225onthesepointsreads: oncebuttwiceonJuly10,2008andApril3,2009.Separately
Section3.Retention of Philippine Citizenship.Any fromthisoathofallegiance,Arnadotookanoathrenouncinghis
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, naturalborn American citizenship as additionally required by RA 9225 for
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a thoseseekingpublicoffice.
foreigncountryareherebydeemedtohavereacquiredPhilippine Section5ofRA9225onthispointprovides:
citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Section5.Civil and Political Rights and
Republic: Liabilities.Those who retain or reacquire Philippine
I_____________________,solemnlyswear(oraffirm)thatI citizenshipunderthisActshallenjoyfullcivilandpoliticalrights
willsupportanddefendtheConstitutionoftheRepub and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
_______________ under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
29Id.,atp.26. conditions:
30DeGuzmanv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.180048, (2)ThoseseekingelectivepublicofficeinthePhilippines
June19,2009,590SCRA141,156. shallmeetthequalificationforholdingsuchpublicofficeas
485 requiredbytheConstitutionandexistinglawsand,atthe
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 485 time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
citizenship before any public officer authorized to
licof thePhilippinesand obeythe lawsand legalorders
administeranoath.
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
486
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and
486 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without InJapzonv.CommissiononElections,31weruledthatSection
mentalreservationorpurposeofevasion. 5(2)ofRA9225requiresthetwinrequirementsoftakinganOath
NaturalborncitizensofthePhilippineswho,aftertheeffectivity ofAllegianceandtheexecutionofasimilarlyswornRenunciation
ofthisAct,becomecitizensofaforeigncountryshallretaintheir ofForeignCitizenship.Wesaid:
Philippinecitizenshipupontakingtheaforesaidoath. Breakingdowntheaforequotedprovision,foranaturalborn
ArnadofallsunderthefirstcategoryasanaturalbornFilipino Filipino, who reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship
citizen who was deemed to have lost his Philippine citizenship underRepublicActNo.9225,torunforpublicoffice,hemust:(1)
uponhisnaturalizationasanAmericancitizen. meetthequalificationsforholdingsuchpublicofficeasrequired
bytheConstitutionandexistinglaws;and(2)makeapersonal
andswornrenunciationofanyandallforeigncitizenshipsbefore Americancitizenship,solelyretaininghisPhilippinecitizenship
anypublicofficerauthorizedtoadministeranoath.32 asthelawrequires.Inthisway,Arnadoqualifiedfortheposition
Thus,therespondentinthatcase,JaimeTyanaturalborn ofMayorofKauswagan,LanaodelNorteandfiledavalidCoC.
FilipinocitizenwhosubsequentlybecameanaturalizedAmerican The evidence on record shows that
citizenbecameapurePhilippinecitizenagainaftertakingthe Arnados use of his US passport after
OathofAllegianceandexecutinganOathofRenunciationofhis his compliance with the terms of RA
Americancitizenship.ToquoteourDecision: 9225, was an isolated act that was
He was born and raised in the Municipality of General sufficientlyexplainedandjustified.
Macarthur,EasternSamar,Philippines.However,helefttowork TherecordsbearoutthatArnadousedhisUSpassportintwo
in the USA and eventually became an American citizen. On 2 tripstoandfromtheUSafterhehadexecutedhisAffidavitof
October2005,TyreacquiredhisPhilippinecitizenshipbytaking Renunciation on April 3, 2009. He travelled on the following
hisOathofAllegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesbefore dates:
NoemiT.Diaz,ViceConsulofthePhilippineConsulateGeneral
Date Destination
in Los Angeles, California, USA, in accordance with the
provisionsofRepublicActNo.9225.Atthispoint,Tystillheld April14,2009 totheU.S.
dualcitizenship,i.e.,AmericanandPhilippine.Itwasonlyon19 June25,2009 tothePhilippines
March2007thatTyrenouncedhisAmericancitizenshipbeforea July29,2009 totheU.S.
notarypublicand,resultantly,becameapurePhilippinecitizen. 33 November24,2009 tothePhilippines
In the present case, Arnado indisputably complied with the ArnadosPhilippinepassportwasissuedonJune18,2009,but
secondrequirementofSection5(2)ofRA9225.OnApril3,2009, hewasnotimmediatelynotifiedoftheissuancesothatandhe
hepersonallyexecutedanAffidavitofRenunciationan only received his passport three months after or sometime
_______________ inSeptember 2009.34Clearly, when Arnado travelled on
31G.R.No.180088,January19,2009,576SCRA331. April14,2009,June25,2009andJuly29,2009,hehadno
32Id.,atp.346. Philippinepassportthathecouldhaveusedtotraveltothe
33Id.,atp.344. UnitedStatestoattendtothewindingupofhisbusiness
487 andotheraffairsinAmerica.Atravel
VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 487 _______________
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections 34Rollo,p.219.
Oath of Allegiance before notary public Thomas Dean M. 488
Quijano. Therefore, when he filed his CoC for the position of 488 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mayor of the Municipality of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte on Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
November 30, 2009, he had already effectively renounced his
document issued by the proper Philippine government agency 489
(e.g., a Philippine consulate office in theUS) would not suffice VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 489
becausetraveldocumentscouldnotbeused;theyareissuedonly Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
incriticalinstances,asdeterminedbytheconsularofficer,and
Theponenciafails to consider that under RA 9225, natural
allowthebeareronlyadirect,onewaytriptothePhilippines. 35
born citizens who were deemed to have lost their Philippine
AlthoughArnadoreceivedhisPhilippinepassportbythetime
citizenshipbecauseoftheirnaturalizationascitizensofaforeign
hereturnedtothePhilippinesonNovember24,2009,hecould
countryandwhosubsequentlycompliedwiththerequirementsof
not use this without risk of complications with the US
RA 9225, aredeemednot to have losttheir Philippine
immigration authorities for using a travel document different
citizenship.RA 9225 cured and negated the presumption
from what he used in his entry into the US on July 29, 2009.
Plainpracticalitythendemandedthatthetraveldocumentthat made under CA 63. Hence, as inJapzon, Arnado assumed
he used to enter the US on July 29, 2009 be the same travel pure Philippine citizenship again after taking the Oath of
documentheshoulduseinleavingthecountryonNovember24, Allegiance and executing an Oath of Renunciation of his
2009. AmericancitizenshipunderRA9225.
Giventhesecircumstances,ArnadosuseofhisUSpassportin Inthislight,theproperframingofthemainissueinthiscase
travellingbacktothePhilippinesonNovember24,2009wasan shouldbewhetherArnadosuseofhisUSpassportaffectedhis
isolatedactthatcouldnot,byitself,beanexpressrenunciationof status as a pure Philippine citizen. In question formdid
thePhilippinecitizenshipheadoptedashissolecitizenshipunder ArnadosuseofaUSpassportamounttoagroundunder
RA9225. the law for the loss of his Filipino citizenship under CA
Arnados use of his US passport 63?Oralternatively,theretentionofhisdualcitizenshipstatus?
was not an express renunciation of IloathetorulethatArnadosuseofhisUSpassportamounts
his Philippine citizenship under toanexpressrenunciationofhisFilipinocitizenship,whenitsuse
Section1ofCA63. was an isolated act that he sufficiently explained and fully
I disagree with theponencias view that by using his US justified. I emphasize that the law requiresexpress
passport and representing himself as an American citizen, renunciationin order to lose Philippine citizenship. The term
Arnado effectively reverted to the status of a dual means a renunciation that is madedistinctly and explicitly
citizen.Interestingly,theponenciafailedtociteanylawor and is not left to inference or implication; it is a
controlling jurisprudence to support its conclusion, and renunciation manifested by direct and appropriate
thusmerelymakesabareassertion. language, as distinguished from that which is inferred
_______________ fromconduct.36
35Seehttp://www.philippineconsulatela.org/FAQs/FAQS Aclearandvividexample,takenfromjurisprudence,ofwhat
passport.htm#TD1(lastvisitedApril14,2013). express renunction is nottranspired inAznar v.
Comelec37where the Court ruled that the mere fact that people of Kauswagan, Lanao del
respondentOsmeawasaholderofacertificatestatingthatheis Norteastheirdulyelectedmayor
anAmericandidnotmeanthatheisnolongeraFilipino, I completely agree with theponenciathat the Oath of
_______________ Renunciation is not an empty or formal ceremony that can be
36BoardofImmigrationCommissionersv.GoCallano,G.R. perfunctorilyprofessedatanygivenday,onlytobedisregarded
No.L24530,October31,1968,25SCRA890,899. onthenext.AsamandatoryrequirementunderSection5(2)of
37G.R.No.83820,May25,1990,185SCRA703. RA9225,itallowsformernaturalbornFilipinocitizenswhowere
490 deemed to have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
490 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED naturalizationascitizensofaforeigncountrytoenjoyfullcivil
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections andpoliticalrights,foremostamongthem,theprivilegetorunfor
andthatanapplicationforanaliencertificateofregistrationdid publicoffice.491
notamounttoarenunciationofhisPhilippinecitizenship. VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 491
Inthepresentcase,otherthantheuseofhisUSpassportin Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
twotripstoandfromtheUnitedStates,therecorddoesnotbear I disagree however, with the conclusion that Arnado
outanyindication,supportedbyevidence,ofArnadosintention effectivelynegatedhisOathofRenunciationwhenheusedhisUS
toreacquireUScitizenship.Tomymind,intheabsenceofclear passportfortraveltotheUnitedStates.Toreiterateifonlyfor
and affirmative acts of reacquiring US citizenship either by emphasis,ArnadosufficientlyjustifiedtheuseofhisUSpassport
naturalizationorbyexpressacts(suchasthereestablishmentof despitehisrenunciationofhisUScitizenship;whenhetravelled
permanentresidencyintheUnitedStates), Arnadosuseofhis onApril14,2009,June25,2009andJuly29,2009,hehadno
USpassportcannotbutbeconsideredanisolatedactthatdidnot Philippine passport that he could have used to travel to the
undo hisrenunciationof hisUS citizenship. What he might in UnitedStatestoattendtothebusinessandotheraffairsthathe
fact have done was to violate American law on the use of was leaving. If at all, he could be faulted for using his US
passports, but this is a matter irrelevant to the present case. passportbythetimehereturnedtothePhilippinesonNovember
Thus,ArnadoremainstobeapureFilipinocitizenandtheloss 24,2009becauseatthattime,hehadpresumablyreceivedhis
ofhisPhilippinecitizenshipcannotbepresumedorinferredfrom Philippinepassport.However,giventhecircumstancesexplained
hisisolatedactofusinghisUSpassportfortravelpurposes. aboveandthatheconsistentlyusedhisPhilippinepassportfor
Arnado did not violate his oath of travelafterNovember24,2009,thetruecharacterofhisuseof
renunciation; at any rate, all doubts his USpassport stands out and cannot but be an isolated and
should be resolved in favor of Ar convenientactthatdidnotnegatehisOathofRenunciation.
nados eligibility considering that he The People of Kauswagan have spoken
received the popular mandate of the and any doubt should be resolved in
favoroftheirverdict.
 SeparatelyfromtheissueofArnadosisolatedactofusinghis candidates eligibility; to rule otherwise would be to defeat the
USpassport,wecannotignorethefactinacommunityassmall willofthepeople.
as Kauswaganwherethetwo mayoraltycandidates garnered a Wellentrenchedinourjurisprudenceisthedoctrinethatin
totalof11,309votes,BaluasclaimofArnadosforeigncitizenship caseofdoubt,politicallawsmustbesoconstructedastogivelife
andeventhelattersresidencystatuscouldnotbeavoidedbutbe andspirittothepopularmandatefreelyexpressedthroughthe
live election issues.The people of Kauswagan, Lanao del ballot.Publicinterestandthesovereignwillshould,atalltimes,
Norte,therefore,madetheirownrulingwhentheyelected betheparamountconsiderationsinelectioncontroversies.Forit
Arnadoastheirmayordespitetheforeignerlabelsought wouldbebettertoerrinfavorofthepeopleschoicethantobe
tobepinnedonhim.Atthispoint,eventhisCourtshouldheed rightincomplexbutlittleunderstoodlegalisms.
thisverdictbyresolvingalldoubtsregardingArnadoseligibility Indeed,thisCourthasrepeatedlystressedtheimportanceof
inhisfavor.Thisap givingeffecttothesovereignwillinordertoensurethesurvival
492 of our democracy. In any action involving the possibility of a
492 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert
utmostefforttoresolvetheissuesinamannerthatwouldgive
Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public
proach, incidentally, is not a novel one 38as inSinaca v. policytocauseelectiveofficestobefilledbythosewhoarethe
Mula,39theCourthasalreadyruled: choice of the majority. To successfully challenge a winning
_______________ candidates qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
38SeeJ.PanganibansConcurringOpinioninBengsonIIIv. demonstrativethattheineligibilityissopatentlyantagonisticto
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal(G.R. No. 142840, constitutional and legal principles that overriding such
May7,2001,357SCRA545)whererespondentTeodoroC.Cruz ineligibilityandtherebygivingeffecttotheapparentwillofthe
citizenshipwasalsoquestioned,viz.: people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very
4.InCaseofDoubt,PopularWillPrevails democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our
Fourth,thecourthasasolemndutytoupholdtheclearand Constitutionandlawssozealouslyprotectandpromote.
unmistakable mandate of the people. It cannot supplant the See alsoFernandez v. House of Representatives Electoral
sovereignwilloftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanwithfractured Tribunal,G.R.No.187478,December21,2009,608SCRA733.
legalism. The people of the District have clearly spoken. They 39373Phil.896;315SCRA266(1999).
overwhelmingly and unequivocally voted for private respondent 493
torepresentthemintheHouseofRepresentatives.Thevotesthat VOL.696,APRIL16,2013 493
Cruzgarnered(80,119)inthelastelectionsweremuchmorethan Maquilingvs.CommissiononElections
thoseofallhisopponentscombined(66,182).Insuchinstances, [When] a candidate has received popular mandate,
all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the winning overwhelminglyandclearlyexpressed,allpossibledoubtsshould
be resolved in favor of the candidates eligibility for to rule Sec.5(2)ofRepublicAct9225providesthemeansbywhicha
otherwiseistodefeatthewillofthepeople.Aboveandbeyondall, formerPhilippinecitizenwhohasacquiredforeigncitizenshipto
the determination of the true will of the electorate should be later reacquire his old citizenship by complying with certain
paramount.Itistheirvoice,notoursorofanyoneelse,thatmust requirements. RespondentRommelArnadocomplied withthese
prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy wecontinue to hold requirementsforregainingPhilippinecitizenshipbut,becausehe
sacred. wanted to run for public office, he also renounced his United
No Basis to Rule that the States (U.S.) Citizenship when he filed his certificate of
Comelec Committed Grave candidacy,conformablywiththeprovisionsofRepublicAct9225
AbuseofDiscretion. thatreads:
Asmylastpoint,theComelecenbancconsideredandaccepted (2)ThoseseekingelectivepublicinthePhilippinesshall
asitsfactualfindingthatArnadosexplanationontheuseofhis meetthequalificationforholdingsuchpublicofficeas
USpassportwassufficient justificationtoconcludethathe did requiredbytheConstitutionandexistinglawsand,at
notabandonhisOathofRenunciation.Thisfindingisundeniably the timeofthefilingofthecertificate ofcandidacy,
basedonevidenceonrecordastheabovecitationsshow.InaRule makeapersonalandswornrenunciationofanyand
64petition,whetherthisconclusioniscorrectorincorrectisnot all foreign citizenship before any public officer
material for as long as it is made on the basis of evidence on authorizedtoadministeranoath.
record,andwasmadewithinthecontemplationoftheapplicable Buthiscompliancewiththeabovewaschallengedbeforethe
law.40 Commission on Elections (Comelec) because Arnado afterwards
twiceusedhisU.S.passportingoingtoandcomingfromtheU.S.,
In other words, the Comelecen bancproperly exercised its
thecountrywhosecitizenshiphehadrenounced.
discretioninactingonthematter;thus,evenifithaderredinits
The majority opinion amply states that by his acts, Arnado
conclusions,anyerrorinreadingtheevidenceandinapplyingthe
showedthathedidnoteffectivelyrenouncehisU.S.citizenship.
law was not sufficiently grave to affect the exercise of its
To this I add that he also failed to comply with the U.S.
jurisdiction.41Fromtheseperspectives,thisCourthasnorecourse
requirementsforcitizenswishingtorenouncetheircitizenships.
buttodismissthepresentpetitionforfailuretoshowanygrave
Section 349 (a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
abuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheComelec.
(INA)1sets the procedure that those who have moved their
Intheselights,Ivoteforthedismissalofthepetition.
residencetoothercountriesmustobservewhenrenouncingtheir
U.S.citizenship.Itprovidesthat(a)Apersonwhoisanationalof
SEPARATEANDCONCURRINGOPINION
theUnitedStateswhetherbybirthornaturalization,shalllose
hisnationalitybyvoluntarilyperforminganyofthefollowingacts
ABAD,J.:
with the intention of relinquishing United States
I fully concur with the majority but would add another
nationalityxxx(5)makingaformalrenunciationofnationality
argumentinsupportofthedecision.
beforeadiplomaticorconsularofficeroftheUnitedStatesina
foreignstate,insuchformasmaybeprescribedbytheSecretary o0o
of State. He does not effectively renounce his citizenship who G.R.No.188314.January10,2011.*
doesnotcomplywithwhathiscountryrequiresofhim. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff
Here,thereisnoshowingthatArnado,aU.S.citizen,fulfilled appellee,vs.KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN
the above requirement. To the eyes of the U.S. government, a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, GAPPAL
Arnadoremainsitscitizen,owingobligationsofloyaltytoitand BANNAH ASALI a.k.a. Maidan or Negro, JAINAL SALI a.k.a.
subject to its laws wherever he may be. Indeed, the U.S. AbuSolaiman,ROHMATABDURROHIMa.k.a.JackieorZaky,
governmenthadnotcancelledhispassport,permittinghimtouse andotherJOHNandJANEDOES,accused,
thesame anumberoftimes afterhe reacquiredhis Philippine GAMALB.BAHARANa.k.a.Tapay,ANGELOTRINIDADa.k.a.
citizenship.IftheU.S.continuestoregardArnadoasitscitizen, AbuKhalil,andROHMATABDURROHIMa.k.a.AbuJackieor
then he has two citizenships, a ground for cancelling his Zaky,accusedappellants.
certificateofcandidacyforapublicofficeinthePhilippines. Criminal Procedure; Plea of Guilty; All trial judges must
Petition granted, COMELEC En Banc resolution dated 2 refrainfromacceptingwithalacrityanaccusedspleaofguilty,for
February2011annulledandsetaside. whilejusticedemandsaspeedyadministration,judgesareduty
Notes.Itisasettledrulethatonlylegitimatechildrenfollow
boundtobeextrasolicitousinseeingtoitthatwhenanaccused
the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate children are
pleadsguilty,heunderstandsfullythemeaningofhispleaand
under the parental authority of the mother and follow her
theimportofaninevitableconviction;Therequirementforajudge
nationality.(Go,Sr.vs.Ramos,598SCRA266[2009])
R.A. No. 9225 categorically demands naturalborn Filipinos to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re
who reacquire their citizenship and seek elective office, to arraignment.As early as inPeople v. Apduhan, 24 SCRA 798
executeapersonalandswornrenunciationofanyandallforeign theSupremeCourthasruledthatalltrialjudgesmustrefrain
citizenships before an authorized public officer prior to or fromacceptingwithalacrityanaccusedspleaofguilty,forwhile
simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to justicedemandsaspeedyadministration,judgesaredutybound
qualifyascandidates in Philippine elections. (SobejanaCondon tobeextrasolicitousinseeingtoitthatwhenanaccusedpleads
guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the
vs.CommissiononElections,678SCRA267[2012])
importofaninevitableconviction.Thus,trialcourtjudgesare
o0o
requiredtoobservethefollowingprocedureunderSection3,Rule
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
116oftheRulesofCourt:SEC.3.
reserved.
_______________
Caselawteachesthattheissueastotheidentityofthedrugs
allegedlysoldiscommonlyresolvedbyascrutinyofthechainof
*THIRDDIVISION.
custodyoftherecovereddrugs.(Peoplevs.Bernardino,602SCRA 158
270[2009])
 1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED understoodthatthepenaltyofdeathwouldstillbemetedoutto
58 him;andthathehadnotbeenintimidated,bribed,orthreatened.
Wehavereiteratedinalonglineofcasesthattheconductofa
Peoplevs.Baharan
searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are
Pleaofguiltytocapitaloffense;receptionofevidence.When
mandatedbytherulestosatisfythemselvesthattheaccusedhad
the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, thecourt shall not been under coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or a
conduct a searching inquiryinto the voluntariness and misunderstandingofthesignificance,effects,andconsequencesof
full comprehension of the consequences of his pleaand theirguiltyplea.Thisrequirementisstringentandmandatory.
shall requiretheprosecution toprovehisguiltand theprecise Same; Same; Convictionsbasedonanimprovidentplea of
degreeofculpability.Theaccusedmayalsopresentevidencein
guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the
his behalf. The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry
judgment.InPeoplev.Oden,427SCRA634(2004),theCourt
appliesmoresoincasesofrearraignment.InPeoplev.Galvez,
declaredthateveniftherequirementofconductingasearching
378 SCRA 389 (2002), the Court noted that since accused
inquirywasnotcompliedwith,[t]hemannerbywhichthepleaof
appellantsoriginalpleawasnotguilty,thetrialcourtshould
guilt is made loses much of great significance where the
haveexertedcarefuleffortininquiringintowhyhechangedhis
convictioncanbebasedonindepend
pleatoguilty.
159
Same;Same;Therequirementtoconductasearchinginquiry
VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 15
shouldnotbedeemedsatisfiedincasesinwhichitwasthedefense 9
counselwhoexplainedtheconsequencesofaguiltypleatothe
Peoplevs.Baharan
accusedtheconductofasearchinginquiryremainsthedutyof entevidenceprovingthecommissionbythepersonaccused
judges, as theyaremandated bythe rulestosatisfythemselves oftheoffensecharged.Thus,inPeoplev.Nadera,324SCRA490
thattheaccusedhadnotbeenundercoercionorduress;mistaken (2000), the Court stated:Convictions based on an
impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, improvidentpleaofguiltaresetasideonlyifsuchpleais
and consequences of their guilty plea.The requirement to thesolebasisofthejudgment.Ifthetrialcourtreliedon
conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused,
cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the the conviction must be sustained, because then it is
consequencesofaguiltypleatotheaccused,asitappearsin predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on
thiscase.InPeoplev.Alborida,359SCRA495(2001),thisCourt evidenceprovinghiscommissionoftheoffensecharged.
foundthattherewasstillanimprovidentpleaofguilty,evenif Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Principals; One who gave
theaccusedhadalreadysignifiedinopencourtthathiscounsel instructions and training to another on how to make bombs
had explained the consequences of the guilty plea; that he
coupled with their careful planning and persistent attempts to
understood the explanation of his counsel; that the accused
bombdifferentareasinMetroManilaandhisconfirmationthat 1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
anotherwouldbegettingTNTfromoneoftheaccusedaspartof 60
theirmissionmakehimaprincipalbyinducementsinceitishis Peoplevs.Baharan
coinducement which was the determining cause of the undertherule,statementsmadebyaconspiratoragainsta
commissionofthecrime.Inthelightoftheforegoingevidence, coconspirator are admissible only when made during the
theCourtupholdsthefindingofguiltagainstRohmat.Article17 existenceoftheconspiracy.However,astheCourtruledinPeople
of the Revised Penal Code reads: Art. 17.Principals.The v. Buntag, 427 SCRA 180 (2004), if the declarant repeats the
following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct statementincourt,hisextrajudicialconfessionbecomesajudicial
part in the execution of the act 2. Those who directly force or admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
induce others to commit it 3. Those who cooperate in the conspirators.Thus,inPeoplev.Palijon,343SCRA486(2000),the
commissionoftheoffensebyanotheractwithoutwhichitwould Court held the following: [W]e must make a distinction
not have been accomplished Accused Rohmat is criminally between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial
responsible under the second paragraph, or the provision on confessionmaybegiveninevidenceagainsttheconfessantbut
principalbyinducement.Theinstructionsandtraininghehad notagainsthiscoaccusedastheyaredeprivedoftheopportunity
given Asali onhow to make bombscoupled with their careful tocrossexaminehim.Ajudicialconfessionisadmissibleagainst
planning and persistent attempts to bomb different areas in the declarants coaccused since the latter are afforded
MetroManilaandRohmatsconfirmationthatTrinidadwouldbe opportunitytocrossexaminetheformer.Section30,Rule130
getting TNT from Asali as part of their missionprove the oftheRulesofCourtappliesonlytoextrajudicialactsor
findingthatRohmatscoinducementwasthedeterminingcause admissionsandnottotestimonyattrialwheretheparty
ofthecommissionofthecrime.Suchcommandoradvice[was]of adversely affected has the opportunity to crossexamine
such nature that, without it, the crime would not have the declarant.Mercenes admission implicating his coaccused
materialized. was given on the witness stand. It is admissible in evidence
Same;Same;Evidence;Whileitistruethatstatementsmade against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several accused are
by a conspirator against a coconspirator are admissible only triedtogetherforthesameoffense,thetestimonyofacoaccused
whenmadeduringtheexistenceoftheconspiracy,ifthedeclarant implicating his coaccused is competent evidence against the
repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession latter.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
becomesajudicialadmission,makingthetestimonyadmissibleas
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
to both conspirators.Accused contend that the testimony of
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
AsaliisinadmissiblepursuanttoSec.30,Rule130oftheRulesof
Court.Itistruethat PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
160 SERENO,J.:
 BeforetheCourtisanappealfromtheDecisionoftheCourtof the bus. Atthe time,there wereonly15passengersinsidethe
Appeals(CA)dated30June2008,whichaffirmedtheDecisionof bus.Healsonoticedthattheeyesofoneofthemenwerereddish.
theRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCityinCriminalCaseNos.05 Whenheapproachedthepersonnearthedriverandaskedhim
476 and 054777 dated 18 October 2005. The latter Decision whether he was paying for two passengers, the latter looked
convicted the three accusedappellantsnamely, Gamal B. dumbstruckbythequestion.Hethenstutteredandsaidhewas
Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, Angelo Trinidad a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and paying for two and gave PhP20. Andales grew more concerned
RohmatAbdurrohima.k.a.AbuJackieorZakyofthecomplex when the other man seated at the back also paid for both
crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder, and passengers.Atthispoint,Andalessaidhebecamemorecertain
sentencedthemtosufferthepen that the two were up to no good, and that there might be a
161 holdup.
VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 161 Afterwards,Andalessaidhebecamemoresuspiciousbecause
Peoplevs.Baharan bothmenkeptonaskinghimifthebuswasgoingtostopatAyala
altyofdeathbylethalinjection.TheCAmodifiedthesentence Avenue. The witness also noticed that the man at the back
appearedtobeslouching,withhislegsstretchedoutinfrontof
toreclusionperpetuaasrequiredbyRepublicActNo.9346(Act
himandhisarmshangingoutandhiddenfromviewasifhewas
AbolishingtheImpositionofDeathPenalty).
tinkeringwithsomething.WhenAndales
StatementofFacts 162
162 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Thepertinentfacts,asdeterminedbythetrialcourt,areas Peoplevs.Baharan
follows: wouldgetneartheman,thelatterwouldglareathim.Andales
On 14 February 2005, an RRCG bus was plying its usual admitted, however, that he did not report the suspicious
southbound route, from its Navotas bus terminal towards its characterstothepolice.
AlabangbusterminalviaEpifaniodelosSantosAvenue(EDSA). AssoonasthebusreachedthestoplightatthecornerofAyala
Around6:30to7:30intheevening,whiletheywereabouttomove AvenueandEDSA,thetwomeninsistedongettingoffthebus.
out of the GuadalupeEDSA southbound bus stop, the bus AccordingtoAndales,thebusdriverinitiallydidnotwanttolet
conductor noticed two men running after the bus. The two them off the bus, because a Makati ordinance prohibited
insistedongettingonthebus,sotheconductorobligedandlet unloadinganywhereexceptatdesignatedbusstops.Eventually,
themin. thebusdrivergaveinandallowedthetwopassengerstoalight.
According to Elmer Andales, the bus conductor, he The two immediately got off the bus and ran towards Ayala
immediatelybecamewaryofthetwomen,because,evenifthey Avenue.Momentsafter,Andalesfeltanexplosion.Hethensaw
gotonthebustogether,thetwosatawayfromeachotherone firequicklyengulfingthebus.Heranoutofthebustowardsa
sattwoseatsbehindthedriver,whiletheothersatatthebackof nearbymall.Afterawhile,hewentbacktowherethebuswas.
Hesawtheirbuspassengerseitherlyingonthegroundorlooking
traumatized.Afewhoursafter,hemadeastatementbeforethe frustrated murdercharge (Crim. Case No. 05477), accused
MakatiPoliceStationnarratingthewholeincident. Asali pledguilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan plednot
The prosecution presented documents furnished by the guilty. Rohmat plednot guiltyto both charges. During the
Department of Justice, confirming that shortly before the pretrialhearing,thepartiesstipulatedthefollowing:
explosion, the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf GroupAbu 1.)Thejurisdictionofthiscourtovertheoffensescharged.
Solaimanannounced over radio station DZBB that the group 2.)Thatall three accusednamelyalias Baharan, Trinidad,
had a Valentines Day gift for former President Gloria andAsaliadmittedknowingoneanotherbeforeFebruary
MacapagalArroyo. After the bombing, he again went on radio 14,2005.
andwarnedofmorebombattacks. 3.)Allthesamethreeaccusedlikewiseadmittedthatabomb
As stipulated during pretrial, accused Trinidad gave ABS exploded inthe RRCG bus while thebuswas plyingthe
CBNNewsNetworkanexclusiveinterviewsometimeafterthe EDSAroutefrontingtheMRTterminalwhichisinfrontof
incident, confessing his participation in the Valentines Day theMakatiCommercialCenter.
bombingincident.Inanotherexclusiveinterviewonthenetwork, 4.)AccusedAsaliadmittedknowingtheotheraccusedalias
accused Baharan likewise admitted his role in the bombing Rohmatwhomheclaimstaughthimhowtomakeexplosive
incident. Finally, accused Asali gave a television interview, devices.
confessingthathehadsuppliedtheexplosivedevicesforthe14 5.)The accused Trinidad also admitted knowing Rohmat
February2005bombing.Thebusconductoridentifiedtheaccused beforetheFebruary14bombingincident.
Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed that they were the two 6.)TheaccusedBaharan,Trinidad,andAsalialladmittedto
men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 causingthebombexplosioninsidetheRRCGbuswhichleft
February.163 fourpeopledeadandmoreorlessfortypersonsinjured.
VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 163 7.)Both Baharan and Trinidad agreed to stipulate that
Peoplevs.Baharan within the period March 2024 each gave separate
Members of the Abu Sayyaf Groupnamely Khaddafy interviewstotheABSCBNnewsnetworkadmittingtheir
Janjalani,GamalB.Baharan,AngeloTrinidad,GappalBannah participationinthecommissionofthesaidcrimes,subject
Asali, Jainal Asali, Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or ofthesecases.164
Zaky,andotherJohnandJaneDoeswerethenchargedwith 164 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
multiplemurderandmultiplefrustratedmurder.OnlyBaharan, Peoplevs.Baharan
Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the other 8.)AccusedTrinidadandBaharanalsoadmittedtopleading
accusedremainatlarge. guilty to these crimes, because they were guiltstricken
Ontheirarraignmentforthemultiplemurdercharge(Crim. after seeing a man carrying a child in the first bus that
CaseNo.05476),Baharan,Trinidad,andAsaliallenteredaplea theyhadentered.
ofguilty.Ontheotherhand,uponarraignmentforthemultiple
 9.)Accused Asali likewise admitted that in the middle of 165
March2005hegaveatelevisionnewsinterviewinwhich VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 165
headmittedthathesuppliedtheexplosivedeviceswhich Peoplevs.Baharan
resultedinthisexplosioninsidetheRRCGbusandwhich laimanandRohmat,tosecureeightkilosofTNT,asolderinggun,
resultedinthefilingofthesecharges. aluminumpowder,atester,andChristmaslights,allofwhichhe
10.)Finally,accusedBaharan,Trinidad,andAsaliadmitted knew would be used to make a bomb. He then recalled that
thattheyaremembersoftheAbuSayyaf.1 sometimeinNovembertoDecember2004,Trinidadaskedhimfor
Inthelightofthepretrialstipulations,thetrialcourtasked a total of 4 kilos of TNTthat is, 2 kilos on two separate
whether accused Baharan and Trinidad were amenable to occasions.RohmatallegedlycalledAsalitoconfirmthatTrinidad
changing their not guilty pleas to the charge ofmultiple wouldgetTNTfromAsalianduseitfortheirfirstmission.The
frustrated murder, considering that they pled guilty to the TNT was allegedly placed in two buses sometime in December
heavier charge ofmultiple murder, creating an apparent 2004,butneitheroneofthemexploded.
inconsistency in their pleas. Defense counsel conferred with AsalithentestifiedthatthenightbeforetheValentinesDay
accused Baharan and Trinidad and explained to them the bombing, Trinidad and Baharan got another two kilos of TNT
consequences of the pleas. The two accused acknowledged the fromhim.Lateintheeveningof14February,hereceivedacall
inconsistencies and manifested their readiness for re fromAbuSolaiman.ThelattertoldAsalinottoleavehomeorgo
arraignment.AftertheInformationwasreadtothem,Baharan tocrowdedareas,sincetheTNTtakenbyBaharanandTrinidad
and Trinidad pled guilty to the charge ofmultiple frustrated had already been exploded in Makati. Thirty minutes later,
murder.2 Trinidad called Asali, repeating the warning of Abu Solaiman.
Afterbeingdischargedasstatewitness,accusedAsalitestified The next day, Asali allegedly received a call from accused
thatwhileundertrainingwiththeAbuSayyafin2004,Rohmat, Rohmat, congratulating the former on the success of the
a.k.aAbuJackieorZaky,andtwootherpersonstaughthimhow mission.3According to Asali, Abu Zaky specifically said, Sa
tomakebombsandexplosives.Thetraineesweretoldthatthey wakasnagsuccessdinyungtinurokosayo.
weretowagebattlesagainstthegovernmentinthecity,andthat
theirfirstmissionwastoplantbombsinmalls,theLightRailway AssignmentofErrors
Transit(LRT),andotherpartsofMetroManila.
As found by the trial court, Asali, after his training, was Accusedappellantsraisethefollowingassignmentoferrors:
requiredbytheAbuSayyafleadership,specificallyAbuSo I.The trial court gravely erred in accepting accused
_______________ appellantspleaofguiltdespiteinsufficiencyofsearching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of
1OmnibusDecisionoftheTrialCourtat6,CARolloatp.97. theconsequencesofthesaidplea.
2TSN,18April2005,at317. _______________
 3CARolloatp.29. 4BrieffortheAccusedAppellantsat12,CARolloat7374.
166 167
166 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 167
Peoplevs.Baharan Peoplevs.Baharan
II.Thetrialcourtgravelyerredinfindingthattheguiltof themaboutthiswithregardtothemultiplemurdercase.
accusedappellantsforthecrimeschargedhadbeenproven
beyondreasonabledoubt.4 Court:Okay.Soletusproceednow.Atty.Pea,canyouassist
FirstAssignmentofError the two accused because if they are interested in
AccusedappellantsBaharanandTrinidadarguethatthetrial withdrawingtheir[pleas],Iwanttohearitfromyourlips.
courtdidnotconductasearchinginquiryaftertheyhadchanged Atty.Pea:Yes,yourHonor.
their plea from not guilty to guilty. The transcript of (Atthisjuncture,Atty.Peaconferswiththetwoaccused,
stenographic notes during the 18 April 2005 rearraignment namelyTrinidadandBaharan)
beforetheMakatiRegionalTrialCourtisreproducedbelow: Ihavetalkedtothem,yourHonor,andIhaveexplainedto
Court:Anyway,Ithinkwhatweshouldhavetodo,considering themtheconsequenceoftheirpleas,yourHonor,andthat
the stipulations that were agreed upon during the last thepleaofguilttothemurdercaseandpleaofnotguiltyto
hearing, is to address this matter of pleas of not guilty
thefrustrated multiple murderactually are inconsistent
entered for the frustrated murder charges by the two
withtheirpleas.
accused,Mr.TrinidadandMr.Baharan,becauseifyouwill
Court:Withmattersthattheystipulatedupon?
recalltheyenteredpleasofguiltytothemultiplemurder Atty. Pea:Yes, your Honor. So, they are now, since they
charges, but then earlier pleas of not guilty for alreadypleadguilttothemurdercase,thentheyarenow
thefrustratedmultiplemurdercharges changingtheirpleas,yourHonor,fromnotguiltytotheone
remain [I]s that not inconsistent considering the of guilt. They are now ready, your Honor, for re
stipulations that were entered into during the initial arraignment.
pretrialofthiscase?[If]youwillrecall,theyadmittedto
havecausedthebombexplosionthatledtothedeathofat INTERPRETER:(Readagainthatportion[oftheinformation]
least four people and injury of about forty other persons and translated it in Filipino in a clearer way and asked
and so under the circumstances, Atty Pea, have you bothaccusedwhattheirpleasare).
discussedthismatterwithyourclients? YourHonor,bothaccusedareenteringseparatepleasof
guilttothecrimecharged.
Atty.Pea:Thenweshouldbegivenenoughtimetotalkwith COURT:Allright.Soaftertheinformationwasrereadtothe
them.Ihaventconferredwith accused,theyhavewithdrawntheirpleasofnotguiltyand
_______________ changedittothepleasofguiltytothechargeoffrustrated
 murder. Thank you. Are there any matters you need to _______________
addressatpretrial
168 5TSN,18April2005,at34,1415.
168 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 6People v. Apduhan,G.R. No. L19491, 30 August 1968, 24
Peoplevs.Baharan SCRA798.
now? If there are none, then I will terminate pretrial and 7Peoplev.Galvez,G.R.No.135053,6March2002,378SCRA
accommodate5 389;seealsoPeoplev.Chua,G.R.No.137841,1October2001,366
As early as inPeople v. Apduhan,the Supreme Court has SCRA283.
ruledthatalltrialjudgesmustrefrainfromacceptingwith 169
alacrityanaccusedspleaofguilty,forwhilejusticedemandsa VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 169
speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra Peoplevs.Baharan
solicitousinseeingtoitthatwhenanaccusedpleadsguilty,he theaccusedmighthavemisunderstoodthenatureofthecharge
understandsfullythemeaningofhispleaandtheimportofan andtheconsequencesoftheplea.8
inevitable conviction.6Thus, trial court judges are required to Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry
observethefollowingprocedureunderSection3,Rule116ofthe should not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the
RulesofCourt: defensecounselwhoexplainedtheconsequencesofaguiltyplea
SEC.3.Pleaofguiltytocapitaloffense;receptionofevidence. totheaccused,asitappearsinthiscase.InPeoplev.Alborida,
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, thecourt this Court found that there was still an improvident plea of
shall conduct a searching inquiryinto the voluntariness guilty,eveniftheaccusedhadalreadysignifiedinopencourtthat
and full comprehension of the consequences of his his counsel had explained the consequences of the guilty plea;
pleaandshallrequiretheprosecutiontoprovehisguiltandthe that he understood the explanation of his counsel; that the
precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present accusedunderstoodthatthepenaltyofdeathwouldstillbemeted
evidenceinhisbehalf.(Emphasissupplied) out to him; and that he had not been intimidated, bribed, or
Therequirementtoconductasearchinginquiryappliesmore threatened.9
soincasesofrearraignment.InPeoplev.Galvez,theCourtnoted Wehavereiteratedinalonglineofcasesthattheconductofa
thatsinceaccusedappellantsoriginalpleawasnotguilty,the searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are
trialcourtshouldhaveexertedcarefuleffortininquiringintowhy mandatedbytherulestosatisfythemselvesthattheaccusedhad
hechangedhispleatoguilty.7AccordingtotheCourt: not been under coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or a
The stringent procedure governing the reception of a plea of misunderstandingofthesignificance,effects,andconsequencesof
guilt,especiallyinacaseinvolvingthedeathpenalty,isimposed their guilty plea.10This requirement is stringent and
uponthetrialjudgeinordertoleavenoroomfordoubtonthe mandatory.11
possibilitythat
 Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the context under SecondAssignmentofError
whichtherearraignmentwasconductedorofthefactualmilieu InPeople v. Oden, the Court declared that even if the
surroundingthefindingofguiltagainsttheaccused.TheCourt requirementofconductingasearchinginquirywasnotcomplied
observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled with,[t]hemannerbywhichthepleaofguiltismadeloses
guilty to another chargemultiple murderbased on the same muchofgreatsignificancewheretheconvictioncanbebasedon
actrelieduponinthemultiplefrustrated independent evidence proving the commission by the person
_______________ accusedoftheoffensecharged. 13Thus,inPeoplev.Nadera,the
Courtstated:
8Peoplev.Galvez,G.R.No.135053,6March2002,378SCRA Convictionsbasedonanimprovidentpleaofguiltareset
389,citingPeoplev.Magat,332SCRA517,526(2000). asideonlyifsuchpleaisthesolebasisofthejudgment.If
9People v. Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, 25 June 2001, 359 thetrialcourtreliedonsufficientandcredibleevidenceto
SCRA495. convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained,
10Peoplev.Dayot,G.R.No.88281,20July1990,187SCRA becausethenitispredicatednotmerelyontheguiltypleaofthe
637;People v. Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, 25 June 2001, 359 accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense
SCRA495,citingPeoplev.Sevilleno,305SCRA519(1999) charged.14(Emphasissupplied.)
Intheirsecondassignmentoferror,accusedappellantsassert
11People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, 6 March 2002, 378
thatguiltwasnotprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.They
SCRA389.
_______________
170
170 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
12People v. Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, 25 June 2001, 359
Peoplevs.Baharan SCRA495.
murdercharge.TheCourtfurthernotesthatpriortothechange 13People v. Oden, G.R. Nos. 15551122, 14 April 2004, 427
ofpleatooneofguilt,accusedBaharanandTrinidadmadetwo
SCRA634,citingPeoplev.Galas,354SCRA722(2001).
other confessions of guiltone through an extrajudicial
14Peoplev.Nadera,G.R.Nos.13138487,2February2000,
confession(exclusivetelevisioninterviews,asstipulatedbyboth
324SCRA490.
accused during pretrial), and the otherviajudicial admission
171
(pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing circumstances,
VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 171
we deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the
searchinginquiryinthisinstance.Remandingthecaseforre Peoplevs.Baharan
arraignmentisnotwarranted,astheaccusedspleaofguiltwas pointed out that the testimony of the conductor was merely
not the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment under circumstantial, while that of Asali as to the conspiracy was
consideration.12 insufficient.
 Insofar as accusedappellants Baharan and Trinidad are SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
concerned, the evidence fortheprosecution, inadditiontothat Peoplevs.Baharan
which can be drawn from the stipulation of facts, primarily A:Abu Zaky, Abu Solaiman, Khadaffy Janjalani, the
consistedofthetestimoniesofthebusconductor,ElmerAndales, threeofthem,thatAngeloTrinidadandmyselfbethe
andoftheaccusedturnedstatewitness,Asali.Andalespositively onetobetrainedtomakeanexplosive,sir.
identifiedaccusedBaharanandTrinidadasthetwomenwhohad Q:Mr.witness,howlongthattraining,orhowlongdidit
acted suspiciously while inside the bus; who had insisted on takethattraining?
gettingoffthebusinviolationofaMakatiordinance;andwho A:IfIamnotmistaken,wewerethoughttomakebomb
had scampered away from the bus moments before the bomb aboutonemonthandtwoweeks.
exploded. On the other hand, Asali testified that he had given
accused Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the bombing Q:Now,speakingofthatmission,Mr.witness,whileyou
incidentinMakati City. Theguilt of the accused Baharanand were still in training at Mr. Cararao, is there any
Trinidad was sufficiently established by these corroborating mission that you undertook, if any, with respect to
testimonies, coupled with their respective judicial admissions thatmission?
(pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive
televisioninterviews,astheybothstipulatedduringpretrial)that A:Our first mission was to plant a bomb in the malls,
they were indeed the perpetrators of the Valentines Day LRT,andotherpartsofMetroManila,sir.16
bombing.15Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings of guilt ThewitnessthentestifiedthathekepteightkilosofTNTfor
madebythetrialcourtasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals. accusedBaharanandTrinidad.
Anent accused Rohmat, the evidence for the prosecution Q:Now, going back to the bomb. Mr. witness, did you
consistedofthetestimonyofaccusedturnedstatewitnessAsali. know what happened to the 2 kilos of bomb that
Belowisareproductionofthetranscriptofstenographicnoteson Trinidad and Tapay took from you sometime in
the state prosecutors direct examination of statewitness Asali November2004?
duringthe26May2005trial: A:ThatwastheexplosivethatheplantedintheGliner,
Q:YoustatedthatZakytrainedyouandTrinidad.Under whichdidnotexplode.
whatcircumstancesdidhetrainyou,Mr.Witness,to Q:Howdidyouknow,Mr.witness?
assemblethoseexplosives,youandTrinidad? A:Hewastheonewhotoldme,Mr.AngeloTrinidad,sir.
_______________
Q:Whathappenednext,Mr.witness,whenthebombdid
15Alanov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.111244,15December notexplode,astoldtoyoubyTrinidad?
1997, 283 SCRA269, citingPeoplev. Hernandez,260 A:OnDecember29,AngeloTrinidadgot2morekilosof
SCRA25(1996). TNTbombs.
172
 Q: DidTrinidadtellyouwhyheneededanotheramount Q:Sobesidesthesetwoincidents,werethereanyother
ofexplosiveonthatdate,December29,2004?Willyou incidents that Angelo Trinidad and Tapay get an
kindlytellusthereasonwhy? explosiveforyou,Mr.witness?

_______________ A:IfIamnotmistaken,sir,onFebruary13,2005at6:30
p.m.
16TSN,26May2005,at2436. Q:WhogotfromyoutheexplosiveMr.witness?
173 A:ItsAngeloTrinidadandTapay,sir.
VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 173
Peoplevs.Baharan Q:How many explosives did they get from you, Mr.
A:HetoldmethatAbuSolaimaninstructedmetogetthe witness,atthattime?
TNTsothathecoulddetonateabomb A:Theygot2kilosTNTbomb,sir.
Q:Didtheytellyou,Mr.witness,wherearetheygoingto
Q:Werethere any otherperson, besidesAbu Solaiman, usethatexplosive?
whocalledyouup,withrespecttothetakingofthe A:No,sir.174
explosivesfromyou? SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
A:Thereis,sirAbuZaky,sir,calledupalso. Peoplevs.Baharan
Q:WhatdidAbuZakytellyouwhenhecalledyouup? Q:Doyouknow,Mr.witness,whathappenedtothethird
A:Hetoldmethatthisisyourfirstmission. batch of explosives, which were taken from you by
Q:Please enlighten the Honorable Court. What is that TrinidadandTapay?
missionyouarereferringto?
A:Thatisthefirstmissionwherewecanshowouranger A:ThatisthebombthatexplodedinMakati,sir.
towardstheChristians. Q:Whydidyouknow,Mr.witness?
A:BecauseIwascalledintheeveningofFebruary14by
Q:The second time that he got a bomb from you, Mr. Abu Solaiman. He told me not to leave the house
witness,doyouknowifthebombexplode? becausetheexplosivethatweretakenbyTapayand
A: I did not know what happened to the next 2 kilos AngeloTrinidadexploded.
takenbyAngeloTrinidadfrommeuntilafterIwas
caught, because I was told by the policeman that Q:Was there any other call during that time, Mr.
interviewedmeafterIwasarrestedthatthe2kilos Witness?
wereplantedinabus,whichalsodidnotexplode.
A:IwastoldbyAngeloTrinidadnottoleavethehouse congratulated by Abu Zaky, to the mission, which
becausetheexplosivethathetookexplodedalready, havebeenindoctrinatedtoyou,whileyouwereinMt.
sir. Cararao,Mr.witness?
Q: Howsurewereyou,Mr. witness,atthattime,that A:Theyareconnected,sir.
indeed,thebombexplodedatMakati,besidethecall Q:Connectedinwhatsense,Mr.witness?
ofAbuSolaimanandTrinidad? A:Becausewhenwewereundergoingtraining,wewere
A:It was told by Abu Solaiman that the bombing in toldthattheAbuSayyafshouldnotwagewartothe
MakatishouldcoincidewiththebombinginGeneral forest,butalsowageourbattlesinthecity.
Santos. Q:Wagethebattleagainstwho,Mr.witness?
A:Thegovernment,sir.17
A:He told it to me, sir I cannot remember the date WhatcanbeculledfromthetestimonyofAsaliisthattheAbu
anymore, but I know it was sometime in February SayyafGroupwasdeterminedtosowterrorinMetroManila,so
2005. that they could show their anger towards the Christians. 18It
Q:Anyothercall,Mr. witness,fromAbuSolaimanand canalsobeseenthatRohmat,togetherwithJanjalaniandAbu
TrinidadafterthebombingexplodedinMakati,any Solaiman, had carefully planned the Valentines Day bombing
othercall? incident,monthsbeforeithappened.RohmathadtrainedAsali
andTrinidadtomakebombsandexplosives.Whileintraining,
A:Thereis,sirThecallcamefromAbuZaky. Asaliandothersweretoldthattheirmissionwastoplantbombs
Q:WhatdidAbuZakytellyou,Mr.witness? inmalls,theLRT,andotherpartsofMetroManila.Accordingto
A:Hejustgreeteduscongratulations,becausewehavea Asali,Rohmatcalledhimon29December2004toconfirmthat
successfulmission. Trinidad would get two kilos of TNT from Asali, as they were
about to commence their first mission. 19They made two
A:Hetoldmethatsawakas,nagsuccessdinyungtinuro separateattemptstobombabusinMetroManila,buttonoavail.
kosayo. The day before the Valentines Day bombing, Trinidad got
175 anothertwokilosofTNTfromAsali.OnValentinesDay,theAbu
VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 175 Sayyaf Group announced that they had a gift for the former
Peoplevs.Baharan President,GloriaMacapagalArroyo.Ontheirthirdtry,theirplan
Q:By theway, Mr. witness, I would justliketoclarify finally
this. You stated that Abu Zaky called you up the _______________
following day, that was February 15, and
congratulatingyouforthesuccessofthemission.My 17Id.,atpp.2451.
questiontoyou,Mr.witness,ifyouknowwhatisthe 18Id.,atp.36.
relation of that mission, wherein you were 19Id.,atpp.2451.
176 20Id.,atp.49.
176 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 21SeegenerallyU.S.v.Indanan,24Phil.203(1913);People
Peoplevs.Baharan v.KiichiOmine,61Phil.609(1935).
succeeded.Rightafterthebombexploded,theAbuSayyafGroup 22People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, 14 November 1990, 191
declaredthattherewouldbemorebombingsinthefuture.Asali SCRA377,385.
thenreceivedacallfromRohmat,praisingtheformer:Sawakas 23Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law
nagsuccessdinyungtinurokosayo.20 BookOne,529(2008).
Inthelightoftheforegoingevidence,theCourtupholdsthe 177
findingofguiltagainstRohmat.Article17oftheRevisedPenal VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 177
Codereads: Peoplevs.Baharan
Art. 17.Principals.The following are considered notwithstandingthefactthatMayorSanchezwasnotatthe
principals: crimescene,evidenceprovedthathewasthemastermindofthe
1.Thosewhotakeadirectpartintheexecutionoftheact criminalactortheprincipalbyinducement.Thus,becauseMayor
2.Thosewhodirectlyforceorinduceotherstocommitit Sanchezwasacoprincipalandcoconspirator,andbecausethe
3.Thosewhocooperateinthecommissionoftheoffenseby actofoneconspiratoristheactofall,themayorwasrendered
another act without which it would not have been liable for all the resulting crimes. 24The same finding must be
accomplished. appliedtothecaseatbar.
Accused Rohmat is criminally responsible under the second The Court also affirms the finding of the existence of
paragraph, or the provision on principal by inducement. The conspiracy involving accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Rohmat.
instructions and training he had given Asali on how to make Conspiracywasclearlyestablishedfromthecollectiveactsofthe
bombscoupled with their careful planning and persistent accusedappellantsbefore,duringandafterthecommissionofthe
attemptstobombdifferentareasinMetroManilaandRohmats crime. As correctly declared by the trial court in its Omnibus
confirmationthatTrinidadwouldbegettingTNTfromAsalias Decision:
part of their missionprove the finding that Rohmats co Asalis clear and categorical testimony, which remains
inducementwasthedeterminingcauseofthecommissionofthe unrebutted on its major points, coupled with the judicial
crime.21Such command or advice [was] of such nature that, admissionsfreelyandvoluntarilygivenbythetwootheraccused,
withoutit,thecrimewouldnothavematerialized.22 are sufficient to prove the existence of a conspiracy hatched
Further,theinducementwassoinfluentialinproducingthe betweenandamongthefouraccused,allmembersoftheterrorist
criminal act that without it, the act would not have been groupAbuSayyaf,towreakchaosandmayheminthemetropolis
performed.23InPeoplev.Sanchez,etal.,theCourtruledthat, by indiscriminately killing and injuring civilian victims by
_______________ utilizingbombsandothersimilardestructiveexplosivedevices.
 Whilesaidconspiracyinvolvingthefourmalefactorshasnot personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
been expressly admitted by accused Baharan, Angelo Trinidad, sentiments.26
and Rohmat, more specifically with respect to the latters Accusedcontend that the testimony of Asali is inadmissible
participationinthecommissionofthecrimes,nonethelessithas pursuanttoSec.30,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt.Itistruethat
beenestablishedbyvirtueoftheaforementionedevidence,which undertherule,statementsmadebyaconspiratoragainstaco
established the existence of the conspiracy itself and the conspiratorareadmissibleonlywhenmadeduringtheexistence
indispensableparticipationofaccusedRohmatinseeingtoitthat of the conspiracy. However, as the Court ruled inPeople v.
theconspiratorscriminaldesignwouldberealized. Buntag, if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his
Itiswellestablishedthatconspiracymaybeinferredfromthe extrajudicialconfessionbecomesajudicialadmission,makingthe
acts of the accused, which clearly manifests a concurrence of
testimonyadmissibleastobothconspirators. 27Thus,inPeoplev.
wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime (People v.
Palijon,theCourtheldthefollowing:
Lenantud, 352 SCRA 544). Hence, where acts of the accused [W]e must make a distinction between extrajudicial and
collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a judicialconfessions.Anextrajudicialconfessionmaybegivenin
commondesigntowardsthe evidenceagainsttheconfessantbutnotagainsthiscoaccusedas
_______________ they are deprived of the opportunity to crossexamine him. A
judicial confession is admissible against the declarants co
24Peoplev.Sanchez,etal.,G.R.No.131116,27August1999, accusedsincethelatterareaffordedopportunitytocrossexamine
313SCRA254. the former.Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
178 appliesonlytoextrajudicial
178 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Peoplevs.Baharan
accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is 25OmnibusDecisionoftheTrialCourtat6,CARolloatp.
evidentandalltheperpetratorswillbeheldliableasprincipals 123.
(Peoplev.Ellado,353SCRA643).25 26Peoplev.Geronimo,G.R.No.L35700,15October1973,53
InPeoplev.Geronimo,theCourtpronouncedthatitwouldbe SCRA 246, 254, citingPeople v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64, 66
justifiedinconcludingthatthedefendantsthereinwereengaged (1922);Peoplev.Carbonell,48Phil.868(1926).
inaconspiracywhenthedefendantsbytheiractsaimedatthe
27People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April 2004, 427
sameobject,oneperformingonepartandtheotherperforming
anotherpartsoastocompleteit,withaviewtotheattainmentof SCRA180;seealsoPeoplev.Palijon,343SCRA486(2000).
thesameobject;andtheiracts,thoughapparentlyindependent, 179
were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of VOL.639,JANUARY10,2011 179
Peoplevs.Baharan
actsoradmissionsandnottotestimonyattrialwherethe
party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross
examinethedeclarant.Mercenesadmissionimplicatinghisco
accused was given on the witness stand. It is admissible in
evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several
accusedaretriedtogetherforthesameoffense,thetestimonyofa
coaccused implicating his coaccused is competent evidence
againstthelatter.28
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheDecisionofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofMakati,asaffirmedwithmodificationby
theCourtofAppeals,isherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
CarpioMorales (Chairperson), Brion, Bersaminand
Villarama,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Appealdenied.
Notes.Itbearstonotethatasearchinginquirymustfocus G.R.No.152375.December13,2011.*
onthevoluntarinessofthepleaandthefullcomprehensionofthe REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
consequences of the plea. (People vs. Aranzado, 365 SCRA 649 petitioner,vs.SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE
[2001]) L.AFRICA(substitutedbyhisheirs),MANUELH.NIETO,JR.,
Theprocedureismandatoryandajudgewhofailstoobserveit FERDINANDE.MARCOS(substitutedbyhisheirs),IMELDAR.
MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., JUAN PONCE
commitsgraveabuseofdiscretion.(Peoplevs.Chua,366SCRA
ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by his
283[2001])
heirs),respondents.
o0o
_______________ Remedial Law; Distinction between a Final Judgment or
Order and an Interlocutory Order.Case law has conveniently
28Peoplev.Palijon,G.R.No.123545,18October2000,343 demarcated the line between afinal judgment or orderand an
SCRA 486, citingPeople v. Flores, 195 SCRA 295, 308 interlocutory one on the basis of the disposition made. A
judgmentororderisconsideredfinaliftheorderdisposesofthe
(1991);Peoplev.Ponce,197SCRA746,755(1991).
actionorproceedingcompletely,orterminatesaparticularstage
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights of the same action; in such case, the remedy available to an
reserved. aggrievedpartyisappeal.If
_______________
 pleading,practice,andprocedureinallcourts,theadmission Same; An interlocutoryorder remainsunderthe controlof
tothepracticeoflaw,theIntegratedBar,andlegalassistanceto the court until the case is finally resolved on the merits.We
the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and clarify,too,thataninterlocutoryorderremainsunderthecontrol
inexpensiveprocedureforthespeedydispositionofcases,shallbe ofthecourtuntilthecaseisfinallyresolvedonthemerits.The
uniformforallcourtsofthesamegrade,andshallnotdiminish, courtmaythereforemodifyorrescindtheorderuponsufficient
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of Procedure of groundsshownatanytimebeforefinaljudgment.Inthislight,
special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective the Sandiganbayans 1998 resolutionwhich merely denied the
unlessdisapprovedbytheSupremeCourt. adoptionoftheBanedepositionaspartoftheevidenceinCivil
*ENBANC. CaseNo.0009couldnothaveattainedfinality(inthemanner
153 that a decision or final order resolving the case on the merits
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 15 does) despite the petitioners failure to move for its
reconsiderationortoappeal.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Same; The proscription against a second motion for
theorderorresolution,however,merelyresolvesincidental reconsideration is directed against a judgment or final order;
matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the Althoughasecondmotionforreconsiderationofaninterlocutory
meritsofthecase,theorderisinterlocutoryandtheaggrieved
ordercanbedeniedonthegroundthatitisamererehashofthe
partys remedy is a petition forcertiorariunder Rule 65.
arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court, it
Jurisprudencepointedlyholdsthat:Asdistinguishedfromafinal
order which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or cannotberejectedonthegroundthatitisforbiddenbythelawor
terminatesaparticularproceedingoraction,leavingnothingelse by the rules as a prohibited motion.We also agree with the
tobedonebuttoenforcebyexecutionwhathasbeendetermined petitioner that its 3rd motion cannot be considered as a
by the court, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case proscribed third (actually second) motion for reconsideration of
completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. theSandiganbayans1998resolution.AsSection5,Rule37ofthe
The term final judgment or order signifies a judgment or an RulesofCourtclearlyprovides,theproscriptionagainstasecond
orderwhichdisposesofthecaseastoalltheparties,reservingno motion for reconsideration is directed against a judgment
furtherquestionsordirectionsforfuturedetermination.Onthe orfinalorder. Although a second motion for reconsideration of
otherhand,acourtorderismerelyinterlocutoryincharacterifit aninterlocutoryordercanbedeniedonthegroundthatitisa
leavessubstantialproceedingsyettobehadinconnectionwith mererehashofthearguments
the controversy. It does not end the task of the court in 154
adjudicatingthepartiescontentionsanddeterminingtheirrights 1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
and liabilities as against each other. In this sense, it is 54
basicallyprovisionalinitsapplication. Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
 alreadypasseduponandresolvedbythecourt,itcannotbe available alternative remedy, if such remedy is inadequate or
rejectedonthegroundthatitisforbiddenbythelaworbythe insufficient in relieving the aggrieved party of the injurious
rulesasaprohibitedmotion. effectsoftheordercomplainedof.
Same; Certiorari; WhileSection 1,Rule 41of the Rulesof Same; Same; Without clear showing that its action was a
Court prohibits an appeal from an interlocutory order, the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment affecting its
aggrievedpartyisaffordedthechancetoquestionaninterlocutory exercise of jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayans erroneous legal
orderthroughaspecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65. conclusionwasonlyanerrorofjudgmentoratbestanabuseof
Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved discretionbutnotagraveone.Inlightoftheabovediscussions
party may appeal from a judgment or final order which and conclusions, the Sandiganbayan undoubtedlyerred on a
completelydisposesofacaseorfromanorderthattheRulesof question of lawin its ruling, but this legal error did not
Courtdeclarestobeappealable.Whilethisprovisionprohibitsan necessarilyamounttoagraveabuseofdiscretionintheabsence
appeal from an interlocutory order, the aggrieved party is ofaclearshowingthatitsactionwasacapriciousandwhimsical
affordedthechancetoquestionaninterlocutoryorderthrougha exerciseofjudgmentaffectingitsexerciseofjurisdiction.Without
specialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65;thepetitionmust thisshowing,theSandiganbayanserroneouslegalconclu
befiledwithinsixtydaysfromnoticeoftheassailedjudgment, 155
order,resolution,ordenialofamotionforreconsideration. VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 15
Same;Same;Forapetitionforcertioraritoprosper,Section 5
1,Rule65oftheRulesofCourtrequiresamongothersthatneither Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the sionwasonlyanerrorofjudgment,or,atbest,anabuse
ordinary course of law is available to the aggrieved party; of discretionbut not a grave one.For this reason alone, the
Exception.Whilethe1998resolutionisaninterlocutoryorder, petitionshouldbedismissed.
ascorrectlyarguedbythepetitionerandimpliedlyconcededby Same;Evidence;UnderSection5,Rule30,afterapartyhas
therespondents,theclaimthatthe1998resolutionshouldhave adduced his direct evidence in the course of discharging the
beenimmediatelyquestionedbythepetitioneroncertiorariisnot burdenofproof,heisconsideredtohaverestedhiscase,andis
totallycorrectasapetitionforcertiorariisnotgroundedsolelyon thereafterallowedtoofferrebuttingevidenceonly.Althoughthe
the issuance of a disputed interlocutory ruling. For a petition word rested nowhere appearsin the Rules of Court, ordinary
forcertioraritoprosper,Section1,Rule65oftheRulesofCourt courtprocedurehasinferreditfromanoverviewoftrialsequence
requires, among others, that neither an appeal nor any plain, under Section 5, Rule 30 (which capsulizes the order of
speedy and adequateremedyin the ordinary course of law is presentationofapartysevidenceduringtrial),readinrelationto
available to the aggrieved party. As a matter of exception, the Rule18onPreTrial,bothoftheRulesofCourt.UnderSection5,
writofcertiorarimay issuenotwithstanding theexistenceofan Rule 30, after a party has adduced his direct evidence in the
courseofdischargingtheburdenofproof,heisconsideredtohave evidencefromonepartytotheotherorwheretheevidencesought
rested his case, and is thereafter allowed to offer rebutting tobepresentedisinthenatureofnewly
evidence only. Whether a party has rested his case in some 156
measuredependsonhismanifestationincourtonwhetherhehas
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
concludedhispresentationofevidence.
56
Same;Same;TheRulesofCourtdoesnotprohibitaparty
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
fromrequestingthecourttoallowittopresentadditionalevidence
discovered evidence, the partys right to introduce further
evenafterithasresteditscase.Ontheotherend,though,there
evidence must be recognized.A partys declaration of the
wasnothingintrinsicallyobjectionableinthepetitionersmotion
completionofthepresentationofhisevidencepreventshimfrom
to reopen its case before the court ruled on its formal offer of
introducing further evidence; but where the evidence
evidence. The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from
requesting the court to allow it to present additional evidence isrebuttalincharacter,whosenecessity,forinstance,arosefrom
evenafterithasresteditscase.Anysuchopportunity,however, theshiftingoftheburdenofevidencefromonepartytotheother;
fortheultimatepurposeoftheadmissionofadditionalevidenceis or where the evidence sought to be presented is in the nature
alreadyaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthecourt.Itisfrom ofnewly discoveredevidence, the partys right to introduce
the prism of the exercise of this discretion that the further evidence must be recognized. Otherwise, the aggrieved
Sandiganbayans refusal to reopen the case (for the purpose of partymayavailoftheremedyofcertiorari.
introducing, marking and offering additional evidence) should Same; Civil Procedure; Consolidation of Cases;
beviewed.WecandeclarethisSandiganbayanactioninvalidifit Consolidationisaproceduraldevicegrantedtothecourtasan
hadactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion. aidindecidinghowcasesinitsdocketaretobetriedsothatthe
Same;Same;UnderSection5Rule30,apartywhohasthe businessofthe courtmay bedispatchedexpeditiouslyandwith
burden of proof must introduce, at the first instance, all the economywhileprovidingjusticetotheparties.Consolidationisa
evidence he relies upon and such evidence cannot be given proceduraldevicegrantedtothecourtasanaidindeciding
piecemeal.Underthisrule,apartywhohastheburdenofproof howcasesinitsdocketaretobetriedsothatthebusinessof
must introduce, at the first instance, all the evidence he relies the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy
uponandsuchevidencecannotbegivenpiecemeal.Theobvious whileprovidingjusticetotheparties.Topromotethisend,the
rationaleoftherequirementistoavoidinjurioussurprisestothe rulepermitstheconsolidationandasingletrialofseveralcases
other party and the consequent delay in the administration of inthecourtsdocket,ortheconsolidationofissueswithinthose
justice. cases.
Same; Where the evidence is rebuttal in character, whose Same;Same;Deposition;Beforeapartycanmakeuseofthe
necessity, for instance, arose from the shifting of the burden of depositiontakenatthetrialofapendingaction,Section4,Rule
23oftheRulesofCourtdoesnotonlyrequiredueobservanceofits principallymadeavailabletothepartiesasameansofinforming
subparagraphs (a) to (d), it also requires as a condition for themselvesofalltherelevantfacts,depositionsarenotmeant
admissibility,compliancewiththerulesonevidence.Beforea assubstitutefortheactualtestimonyinopencourtofa
party can makeuseof the deposition taken at the trial of a partyorwitness.Generally,thedeponentmustbepresentedfor
pendingaction,Section4,Rule23oftheRulesofCourtdoesnot oralexaminationinopencourtatthetrialorhearing.Thisisa
only require due observance of its subparagraphs (a) to (d); it requirementoftherulesonevidenceunderSection1,Rule132of
also requires, as a condition for admissibility, compliance with theRulesofCourt.
therulesonevidence.Thus,evenSection4,Rule23oftheRules Same;Same;Same;Undercertainconditionsandforcertain
ofCourtmakesanimpliedreferencetoSection47,Rule130ofthe limitedpurposeslaiddowninSection4,Rule23oftheRulesof
RulesofCourtbeforethedepositionmaybeusedinevidence.By Court, the deposition may be used without the deponent being
readingRule23inisolation,thepetitionerfailedtorecognizethat actually called to the witness stand.That opportunity for
theprincipleconcedingadmissibilitytoadepositionunderRule crossexamination was afforded during thetakingof the
23shouldbeconsistentwiththerulesonevidenceunderSection deposition alone is no argument, as the opportunity for
47, Rule 130. In determining the admissibility of the Bane crossexamination must normally be accorded apartyat
deposition,therefore,reliancecannotbegivenononeprovisionto the time that the testimonial evidence is
the exclusion of the other;both provisions must be actuallypresentedagainsthimduringthetrialorhearing
considered. This is particularly true in this case where the of a case.However, under certain conditions and for
evidence in the prior proceeding does not simply refer to a certainlimitedpurposeslaiddowninSection4,Rule23ofthe
witnesstestimonyinopencourtbuttoadepositiontakenunder RulesofCourt,thedepositionmaybeusedwithoutthedeponent
anotherandfartherjurisdiction. beingactuallycalledtothewitnessstand.
Same;Same;Same;Depositionsarenotmeantassubstitute Same;Same;Same;Section47,Rule130explicitlyrequires
fortheactualtestimonyinopencourtofapartyorwitness.A interalia,fortheadmissibilityofaformertestimonyordeposition
depositionischieflya that the adverse party must have had an opportunity to cross
157
examine the witness or the deponent in the prior proceeding.
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 15
Section 47, Rule130oftheRulesofCourt isan entirely
different provision.While aformer testimony or
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
depositionappearsundertheExceptionstotheHearsayRule,the
modeofdiscoverywhoseprimaryfunctionistosupplement
the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real points of classification offormer testimony or depositionas an admissible
dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual hearsayisnotuniversallyconceded.Afundamentalcharacteristic
basis during the preparation for trial. Since depositions are ofhearsayevidenceistheadversepartyslackofopportunityto
crossexamine the outofcourt declarant. However, Section 47, Baneinopencourtmaystillconstituteinabilitytotestifyunder
Rule 130 explicitly requires,inter alia, for the admissibility of the same rule. This is not to say, however, that resort to
aformertestimonyordepositionthattheadversepartymusthave deposition on this instance of unavailability will always be
hadanopportunitytocrossexaminethewitnessorthedeponent upheld.Where the deposition is taken not for discovery
inthepriorproceeding. purposes, but to accommodate the deponent, then the
Same; Same; Same; Requisites for the admission of a depositionshouldberejectedinevidence.
testimony or deposition given at a former case or proceeding. Same;Same;Same;Thewitnesshimself,ifavailable,must
Section47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtlaysdownthefollowing be produced in court as if he were testifying de novo since his
requisitesfortheadmissionofatestimonyordepositiongivenata testimonygivenattheformertrialismerehearsay.Althoughthe
former case or proceeding. 1. The testimony or deposition of a testimonyofawitnesshasbeengiveninthecourseofaformer
witnessdeceasedorotherwiseunabletotestify;2.Thetestimony proceedingbetweenthepartiestoacaseontrial,thistestimony
was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or aloneisnotagroundforitsadmissioninevidence.Thewitness
administrative;3.Involv himself, if available, must be produced in court as if he were
158 testifyingdenovosincehistestimonygivenattheformertrialis
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED merehearsay.Thedepositionofawitness,otherwiseavailable,is
58 alsoinadmissibleforthesamereason.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Same;Witnesses;CrossExamination;Thefunctionofcross
ingthesameparties;4.Relatingtothesamematter;5.The examination is to test the truthfulness of the statements of a
adversepartyhavinghadtheopportunitytocrossexaminehim. witness made on direct examination; this right is available of
Same;Same;Same;Thephraseunabletotestifyappearing course,atthetakingofdeposition,aswellasontheexamination
inbothRule23andRule130oftheRulesofCourtreferstoa ofwitnessesatthetrial.Thefunctionofcrossexaminationisto
physical inability to appear at the witness stand and to give a test the truthfulness of the statements of a witness made on
testimony; Where the deposition is taken not for discovery direct examination. The opportunity of crossexamination has
purposes,buttoaccommodatethedeponent,thenthedeposition been regarded as an essential safeguard of the accuracy and
completeness of a testimony. In civil cases, the right of cross
should be rejected in evidence.The phrase unable to testify
examinationisabsolute,andisnotamereprivilegeoftheparty
appearing in both Rule 23 and Rule 130 of the Rules ofCourt
referstoaphysicalinabilitytoappearatthewitnessstandandto againstwhomawitnessmaybecalled.Thisrightisavailable,of
give a testimony. Hence notwithstanding the deletion of the course,atthetakingofdepositions,aswellasontheexamination
phrase out of the Philippines, which previously appeared in ofwitnessesatthetrial.Theprincipaljustificationforthegeneral
Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,absence from exclusion of hearsay statements and for the admission, as an
jurisdictionthe petitioners excuse for the nonpresentation of exceptiontothe
 159 therecordsofanothercaseorcases,wheresufficientbasisexists
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 15 intherecordsofthecasebeforeit,warrantingthedismissalof
thelattercase.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) CARPIO,J.,DissentingOpinion:
hearsay rule, of reported testimony taken at a former Civil Procedure; Consolidation of Cases; In Philippine
hearing where the present adversary was afforded the jurisprudence, the consolidation of cases merges the different
opportunity to crossexamine, is basedon the premise that the actionsintooneandtherightsofthepartiesareadjudicatedina
opportunity of crossexamination is an essential safeguard single judgment.In Philippine jurisprudence,the
againstfalsehoodsandfrauds.
consolidationofcasesmergesthedifferentactionsintoone
Same;Evidence;JudicialNotice;Inadjudicatingacaseon and the rights ofthe parties areadjudicated in a single
trial, courts are not authorized to take a judicial notice of the judgment,thus:Theeffectofconsolidationofactionsisto
contentsoftherecordsofothercases,evenwhensuchcaseshave uniteandmergeallofthedifferentactionsconsolidated
beentriedorarependinginthesamecourtandnotwithstanding intoasingleaction,inthesamemannerasifthedifferent
thatbothcasesmayhavebeentriedorareactuallypendingbefore causesofactioninvolvedhadoriginallybeenjoinedina
thesamejudge;Ruleadmitsofexceptions.Inadjudicatingacase singleaction,andtheorderofconsolidation,ifmadebyacourt
on trial, generally, courts are not authorized to take judicial ofcompetentjurisdiction,isbindinguponallthepartiestothe
notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when different actions until it is vacated or set aside.After the
suchcaseshavebeentriedorarependinginthesamecourt,and consolidationtherecanbenofurtherproceedingsinthe
notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are separateactions,whicharebyvir
actuallypendingbeforethesamejudge.Thisrulethoughadmits 160
of exceptions. As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a 1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
courtmayproperlytreatalloranypartoftheoriginalrecordofa 60
casefiledinitsarchivesasreadintotherecordofacasepending Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
before it, when,with the knowledge of,andabsent an tueoftheconsolidationdiscontinuedandsuperseded
objectionfrom,theadverseparty,referenceismadetoit by a single action, which should be entitled in such
forthatpurpose,bynameandnumberorinsomeothermanner manner as the court may direct, and all subsequent
bywhichitissufficientlydesignated;orwhentheoriginalrecord proceedings therein be conducted and the rights of the
oftheformercaseoranypartofit,isactuallywithdrawnfrom partiesadjudicatedinasingleaction.
thearchivesatthecourtsdirection,attherequestorwiththe
Same;Same;Same;Unlikeamereorderofajointhearingor
consentoftheparties,andadmittedasapartoftherecordof
thecasethenpending.Courtsmustalsotakejudicialnoticeof trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions, the
consolidation of actions merges the different actions into one Beforeusisthepetitionforcertiorari1filedbytheRepublicof
singleaction;thismeansthatevidencesuchasdepositionstaken the Philippines (petitioner) to set aside the February 7, 2002
after the consolidation is admissible in all the actions resolution (2002 resolution)2of the Sandiganbayan3denying the
consolidatedwheneverrelevantormaterial.The12April1993 petitionersMotiontoAdmitSupplementalOfferofEvidence(Re:
ResolutionoftheSandiganbayanorderedtheconsolidationofthe DepositionofMauriceV.Bane)(3rdmotion).
incidental cases, including Civil Case No. 0130, with the main
case, Civil Case No. 0009.Unlike a mere order of a joint TheAntecedents
hearingortrialofanyorallthematters inissueinthe
actions,theconsolidationofactionsmergesthedifferent OnJuly22,1987,thepetitionerRepublicofthePhilippines,
actionsintoonesingleaction.Thismeansthatevidence,such through the Presidential Commission on Good Government
asdepositions,takenaftertheconsolidationisadmissibleinall (PCGG),fileda complaint(docketed asCivil Case No.0009)
the actions consolidated whenever relevant or material. In this against Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E.
case, since the notice and the depositiontaking was after the Marcos,ImeldaR.Marcos,FerdinandR.Marcos,Jr.,JuanPonce
consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with the main case, Civil Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio (collectively,therespondents)
CaseNo.0009,thedepositioncouldbeadmittedasevidencein forreconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution,
theconsolidatedcases. anddamagesbefore the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
alleged,interalia,thattherespondentsillegallymanipulatedthe
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless
TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
LimitedinEasternTelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc.(ETPI),
YolandaQ.JavellanaforsubstitutedheirsofJ.L.Africa. whichshareholdingsrespondentsJoseAfricaandManuelNieto,
AgcaoiliLawOfficesforP.Ilusorio. Jr. held for themselves and, through their holdings and the
RobertA.C.SisonandVicenteMilloraforImeldaR.Marcos. corporations they organized, beneficially for respondents
M.M.LazaroandAssociatesforrespondentNieto,Jr. FerdinandE.MarcosandImeldaR.Marcos. 4
EdgarDennisPadernalforJuanPonceEnrile. CivilCaseNo.0009 isthemain casesubject ofthe present
petition.Victor Africa (Africa), son of the late Jose L.
Marcos, Ochoa, Serapio andTan Law Firmfor Ferdinand
Africa,wasnotimpleadedinandsoisplainlynotaparty
Marcos,Jr.
161 toCivilCaseNo.0009.5
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 161 _______________
1UnderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
BRION,J.:
 2Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, and agentofETPI,andfromparticipating,directlyorindirectly[,]in
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesNarcisoS.NarioandNicodemo themanagementofETPI.9
T.Ferrer;Rollo,pp.6067. DuringthependencyofAfricaspetition,CivilCaseNo.0130,
3FourthDivision. AfricafiledamotionwiththeSandiganbayan,allegingthatsince
4PetitionersMotiontoAdmitSupplementalOfferofEvidence January29,1988thePCGGhadbeenillegallyexercisingthe
rightsofstockholdersofETPI,10especiallyintheelectionofthe
andComment/OppositionAdCautelam;Rollo,pp.370371.
membersoftheboardofdirectors.Africaprayedfortheissuance
5SeeRepublic v. Sandiganbayan, 334 Phil. 475; 266 SCRA of an order for the calling and holding of [ETPI] annual
515(1997). stockholdersmeetingfor
162 _______________
162 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
6PetitionersReply;id.,atpp.744745.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
7EntitledVictorAfricav.PresidentialCommissiononGood
Civil Case No. 0009 spawned numerous incidental
Government.
cases,6among them, Civil Case No. 0130. 7The present
8 SeeRepublicofthePhils.v.Sandiganbayan,450Phil.98,
respondentswerenotmadepartieseitherinCivilCaseNo.
104;402SCRA84,86(2003).
0130.
CivilCaseNo.0130 9Id.,atp.103;p.85.
In the August 7, 1991 PCGGconducted ETPI stockholders 10Id.,atp.104;p.86.
meeting,aPCGGcontrolledboardofdirectorswaselected.Later, 163
theregisteredETPIstockholdersconvenedaspecialstockholders VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 163
meetingwhereinanothersetofboardofdirectorswaselected.As Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
aresult,twosetsofETPIboardandofficerswereelected. 8 1992underthe[c]ourtscontrolandsupervisionandprescribed
Thereafter, Africa, as an ETPI stockholder, filed a petition guidelines.11
forcertiorari, with prayer for a temporary restraining In its November 13, 1992 resolution, the Sandiganbayan
order/preliminaryinjunctionwiththeSandiganbayan(docketed favoredAfricasmotioninthiswise:
asCivilCaseNo.0130),seekingtonullifytheAugust5,1991 WHEREFORE, it is ordered that an annual stockholders
andAugust9,1991OrdersofthePCGG.TheseOrdersdirected meetingofthe[ETPI],for1992beheldonFriday,November27,
Africa: 1992,at2:00oclockintheafternoon,attheETPIBoardRoom,
[T]oaccountforhissequesteredsharesinETPIandtocease Telecoms Plaza, 7th Floor, 316 Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati,
anddesistfromexercisingvotingrightsonthesequesteredshares MetroManila.xxxThestockholdersmeetingshallbeconducted
in the special stockholders meeting to be held on August 12, under the supervision and control of this Court, through Mr.
1991,fromrepresentinghimselfasadirector,officer,employeeor JusticeSabinoR.deLeon,Jr.[O]nlytheregisteredowners,their
dulyauthorized representatives ortheir proxiesmay vote their DuringthependencyofPCGGspetition(G.R.No.107789),the
correspondingshares. PCGGfiledwiththisCourtaVeryUrgentPetitionforAuthority
Thefollowingminimumsafeguardsmustbesetinplaceand toHoldSpecialStockholdersMeetingfor[the] SolePurpose of
carefullymaintaineduntilfinaljudicialresolutionofthequestion Increas
ofwhetherornotthesequesteredsharesofstock(orinaproper _______________
case the underlying assets of the corporation concerned) PCGG, its commissioners, officers, employees, agents and/or
constituteillgottenwealth[.]12 representatives from enforcing and/or implementing a writ of
The PCGG assailed this resolution before this Courtviaa sequestration.
petition forcertioraridocketed asG.R. No. 10778913(PCGGs 2.Civil Case No. 0044 (Aerocom Investors and Managers,
petition), imputing grave abuse of discretion on the Inc. v. PCGG)a complaint praying that the Writ of
Sandiganbayan for holding,inter alia, that the registered SequestrationdatedJune15,1988andMissionOrderNo.MER
stockholdersofETPIhadtherighttovote.14InourNovember26, 8820datedAugust1,1988bedeclarednullandvoidabinitio.
1992 Resolution, we enjoined the Sandiganbayan from 3.Civil Case No. 0045 (Africa v. PCGG)an amended
implementingitsassailedresolution. complaint praying that judgment be rendered restraining (a)
In the meantime, in anApril 12, 1993 resolution,the defendantEduardoM.Villanuevafromrepresentinghimselfand
Sandiganbayan ordered theconsolidation of Civil Case No. acting as Director, President and/or General Manager of ETPI
0130,amongothers,withCivilCaseNo.0009,withthelatter and committing or continuing to exercise the power, authority
asthemaincaseandtheformermerelyanincident.15 and functions appertaining to such office; and (b) defendant
_______________ PCGG from directly or indirectly interfering with the
11Id.,atp.103;p.86. managementofETPI.
12Id.,atpp.104105;pp.8687. 4.Civil Case No. 0047 (Africa v. Gutierrez, et al.)a
13ResolvedbythisCourtonApril30,2003. complaint praying that defendants be enjoined from acting as
directorsofETPI.
14RepublicofthePhils.v.Sandiganbayan,supranote8.
5.CivilCaseNo.0131(TradersRoyalBankv.PCGG,Africa,
15Rollo,p. 304. The other incident cases which were
consolidatedwiththemaincaseareasfollows: et al.)complaint praying that defendants be ordered to
interpleadandlitigatetheirconflictingclaims.
1.CivilCaseNo.0043(PolygonInvestorsandManagers,Inc.
6.CivilCaseNo.0139(FarEastBankandTrustCompanyv.
v. PCGG)a complaint praying that judgment be rendered
enjoiningthe PCGG, Africa, et al.)a complaint praying that defendants be
164 directedtointerpleadandlitigatetheirrespectiveclaimsonthe
164 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED proceeds of the deposit accounts maintained with plaintiff and
thatjudgmentbeaccordinglyrendered.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
 7.CivilCaseNo.0143(StandardCharteredBankv.PCGG, corporationsandtoenjoinPCGGanditsofficers,agents,
Africa, Nieto, et al.)a complaint praying that judgment be andnomineesfrominterferingwiththemanagementand
rendered requiring all the defendants to interplead among operationsoftheplaintiffscorporations.(Records,Volume
themselves and litigate to determine who are the legitimate III,pp.451452;841843.)
signatoriesofOWNIinitsaccountswiththeplaintiff. 16ResolutiondatedDecember13,1996;id.,atp.300.
8.Civil Case No. 0128 ( Traders Royal Bank v. PCGG)a 17Ibid.
complaintprayingthatdefendantsbedirectedtointerpleadand 18Petitioner sent to the respondents aNotice to Take Oral
litigatetheirconflictingclaimsbetweenthem,andthatjudgment Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Banedated August 30,
berenderedaccordingly. 1996,pursuanttoSection1,Rule24oftheRevisedRulesof
9.CivilCaseNo.0106(DomesticSatellitePhilippines,Inc.v. Court (Records, Volume XXXVI, pp. 1153411535), which the
PCGG and Asset Privatization Trust)a petition praying that Sandiganbayan noted. Considering Victor Africas
PCGG be ordered to withdraw its objection to the alleged manifestation, among others, that he was not available on the
settlementagreeduponbetweenDOMSATandAPT. previouslyscheduleddates,onSeptember25,1996,thepetitioner
165 filed and sent aSecond Amended Notice to Take Deposition of
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 165 Mr.MauriceV.BaneuponOralExamination(Rollo,pp.6871).
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) TheSecondAmendedNoticereads:
ing[ETPIs]AuthorizedCapitalStock(UrgentPetition).Inour The right to take depositionde bene esseis a
May7,1996Resolution,wereferredthisUrgentPetitiontothe precautionaryprivilegetoprevent[the]lossofevidencein
Sandiganbayan for reception of evidence theeventtheattendanceofthewitnessatthetrialcannot
andimmediateresolution.16TheSandiganbayanincludedthe beprocured.Hence,Section1,Rule24oftheRevisedRules
UrgentPetitioninCivilCaseNo.0130.17 of Court, specifically grants the plaintiffthe right to
In the proceedings to resolve the Urgent Petition, the depose Mr. Maurice Bane without leave of court.
testimonyofMr.MauriceV.Bane(formerdirectorandtreasurer xxx.
intrust of ETPI) was takenat the petitioners instance and It should moreover be noted that Mr. Maurice Bane,
afterservingnoticeofthedepositiontakingontherespondents 18 who resides in England, has resigned from Cable and
on October 23 and 24, 1996 by way of deposition upon oral Wireless and is unable to travel to Manila to attend or
examination(Banedeposition)before testify before this Honorable Court. Section 4, Rule 24,
_______________ allows Plaintiff to use Mr. Maurice V. Banes proposed
10.CivilCaseNo.0114(PHILCOMSATandPOTCv. deposition in evidenceinsofar as the same may be
admissibleundertheRulesofEvidence.(underscoring
PCGG)a complaint seeking to declare as null and void
thewritsofsequestrationissuedbyPCGGoverplaintiffs andboldfacingsupplied)
166 meeting (to amend the articles of incorporation to increase the
166 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED authorizedcapitalstock),againfailedtoapplythetwotiered
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) _______________
Consul General Ernesto Castro of the Philippine Embassy in 19Rollo,pp.292297.
London,England. 20Id., at pp. 6869. The records show that Maurice Bane
Invoking Section 1, Rule 24 (of the old Rules of Court), executedtheaforesaidaffidavitdatedJanuary1991inMakati,
purportedly allowing the petitioner to depose Banewithout MetroManila,Philippines.Records,VolumeIII,pp.683688.
leaveofcourt,i.e.,asamatterofrightafterthedefendants 21Id.,atp.69.
havefiledtheiranswer,thenoticestatedthat[t]hepurposeof 22Id.,atpp.299321.
thedepositionisfor[Bane]toidentifyandtestifyonthefactsset 23RepublicofthePhils.v.Sandiganbayan,supranote8,atp.
forthinhisaffidavit19xxxsoastoprovetheownershipissuein 109.
favor of [the petitioner] and/or establish theprima faciefactual 24ResolvedbythisCourtonApril30,2003.
foundationforsequestrationof[ETPIs]ClassAstockinsupport 167
of the [Urgent Petition].20The notice also states that the VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 167
petitioner shall use the Bane deposition in evidence in the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
maincaseofCivilCaseNo.0009. 21Onthescheduleddeposition
test.Onsuchdeterminationhingesthevalidityofthevotescast
date,onlyAfricawaspresentandhecrossexaminedBane.
bythePCGGinthestockholdersmeetingofMarch17,1997.This
On December 13, 1996, the Sandiganbayan resolved the
lapse by the Sandiganbayan leaves this Court with no other
UrgentPetitionbygrantingauthoritytothePCGG(i)tocause
choice but to remand these questions to it for proper
theholdingofaspecialstockholdersmeetingofETPIforthesole
determination.
purposeofincreasingETPIsauthorizedcapitalstockand(ii)to
xxxx
votethereinthesequesteredClassAsharesofstock. 22Thus,a
WHEREFORE,thisCourtResolvedtoREFERthepetitionsat
specialstockholdersmeetingwasheld,aspreviouslyscheduled,
bartotheSandiganbayanforreceptionofevidencetodetermine
onMarch17,1997andtheincreaseinETPIsauthorizedcapital
stock was unanimously approved.23From this ruling, Africa whether there is aprima facieevidence showing that the
sequestered shares in question are illgotten and there is an
wenttothisCourtviaapetitionforcertiorari24docketedasG.R.
imminentdangerofdissipationtoentitlethePCGGtovotethem
No.147214(Africaspetition).
in astockholders meeting toelecttheETPI BoardofDirectors
We jointly resolved the PCGGs and Africas petitions, and
and to amend the ETPI Articles of Incorporation for the sole
ruled:
purposeofincreasingtheauthorizedcapitalstockofETPI.
This Court notes that, like in Africas motion to hold a
The Sandiganbayan shall render a decision thereon within
stockholders meeting (to elect a board of directors), the
sixty(60)daysfromreceiptofthisResolutionandinconformity
Sandiganbayan, in the PCGGs petition to hold a stockholders
herewith.
CivilCaseNo.0009 a.CesarO.V.Parlade
AlthoughCivilCaseNo.0009wasfiledonJuly22,1987,it b.MauriceBane
wasonlyonNovember29,1996andMarch17,1997thatthefirst c.EvelynSingson
pretrialconferencewasscheduledandconcluded.25 d.LeonorioMartinez
InitsPreTrialBrief26datedAugust30,1996,thepetitioner e.RicardoCastro;and
offeredtopresentthefollowingwitnesses: f.RolandoGapud
WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED AND A BRIEF 2.[Thepetitioner]wishestoadoptin[CivilCaseNo.0009]
DESCRIPTIONOFTHEIRTESTIMONIES their testimonies and the documentary exhibits presented and
(1)MauriceV.BanerepresentativeofCableandWireless identified by them, since their testimonies and the said
Limited(C&W)atthetimeETPIwasorganized. documentaryexhibitsareveryrelevanttoprovethecaseofthe
xxxx [petitioner]in[CivilCaseNo.0009].
(2)Mr.ManuelH.Nietoxxx 3.Theadversepartiesintheaforementionedincidentshad
(3)Ms.EvelynSingsonxxx theopportunitytocrossexaminethem.
(4)Mr.SeverinoP.Buan,Jr.xxx TherespondentsfiledtheirrespectiveOppositionstothe1st
(5)Mr.ApolinarioK.Medinaxxx motion;29inturn,thepetitionerfiledaCommonReply 30tothese
_______________ Oppositions.
25Sandiganbayan Third Division PreTrial Order dated _______________
March17,1997,p.1;Rollo,p.576.PennedbyAssociateJustice 27Dated January 21, 1998;id., at pp. 322329. Originally,
Sabino R. de Leon, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices whatthepetitionerfiledwasaManifestationthatitwasadopting
CiprianoA.delRosarioandLeonardoI.Cruz. thetestimoniesofspecifiedwitnesses,amongothers.However,on
26Records,VolumeXXXVI,p.11405. January8,1998,theSandiganbayanrequiredthepetitionerto
168 file a corrected pleading in the form of a motion in lieu of the
168 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Manifestation.(Records,VolumeXLIV,pp.128130,175).
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) 28Civil Case Nos. 0048, 0050 and 0146 were ordered
(6)Mr.PotencianoA.Roquexxx consolidatedwithCivilCaseNo.0009bytheCourtinAfricav.
(7)CaesarParladexxx PCGG, G.R. Nos. 83831, 85594, 85597, and 85621, January 9,
IIa.MotiontoAdmittheBaneDeposition 1992,205SCRA38.
At the trial of Civil Case No. 0009, the petitioner filed 29Records,VolumeXLIV,pp.278282and497500;Volume
aMotion27(1stmotion),statingthat XLV,pp.36and2226.
1.Inthehearingsoftheincidentsof[CivilCaseNo.0009], 30DatedMarch13,1998;Rollo,pp.593597.
i.e., Civil Case Nos. 0048, 0050, 0130, 0146 28the following 169
witnesseswerepresentedtherein: VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 169
 Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) 32Penned by Associate Justice Sabino R. de Leon, Jr., and
On April 1, 1998, the Sandiganbayan31promulgated a concurredinbyAssociateJusticesNarcisoS.NarioandTeresita
resolution32(1998resolution)denyingthepetitioners1stmotion, J.LeonardodeCastro(nowaMemberofthisCourt);Rollo,pp.
asfollows: 331338.
Wherefore,the[petitioners]Motionxxxis 33Id.,atp.18.
1.partlydeniedinsofaras[thepetitioner]praysthereinto 34Id.,atpp.339346.
adoptthetestimoniesonoraldepositionofMauriceV.Baneand 170
Rolando Gapudas part of its evidence in Civil Case No. 170 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
0009for the reason that said deponents according to the Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
[petitioner]arenotavailableforcrossexaminationinthis 1.An order forthwith be issuedreopeningthe plaintiffs
Courtbythe[respondents].(emphasisadded) caseandsettingthesamefortrialanydayinApril2000forthe
2. partly Granted, in the interest of speedy disposition of solepurposeofintroducingadditionalevidenceandlimitedonly
thislongpendingcase,insofarasplaintiffpraysthereintoadopt to the marking and offering of the [Bane deposition] which
certain/particular testimonies of Cesar O. Parlade, Evelyn alreadyformspartoftherecordsandusedinCivilCaseNo.0130
Singson,LeoncioMartinez,andRicardoCastroanddocumentary xxx;
exhibits which said witnesses have identified in incident Civil 2.In the alternative, x x x the [Sandiganbayan] to take
CaseNos.xxx0130xxx,subjecttothefollowingconditions: judicialnoticeofthefactsestablishedbythe[Banedeposition],
xxx togetherwiththemarkedexhibitsappendedthereto.[emphasis
xxx ours]
That the said witnesses be presented in this Court so that On August 21, 2000, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a
they can be crossexamined on their particular testimonies in resolution35(2000resolution)denyingthepetitioners2ndmotion:
incidentCivilCasesxxx[bytherespondents]. JudicialnoticeisfoundunderRule129whichistitledWhat
IIb.UrgentMotionand/orRequestforJudicialNotice Need Not Be Proved. Apparently, this provision refers to the
The petitioner did not in any way question the 1998 Courtsdutytoconsideradmissionsmadebythepartiesinthe
resolution,andinsteadmadeitsFormalOfferofEvidence pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in
onDecember14,1999.33Significantly,theBanedeposition resolvingcasesbeforeit.ThedutyoftheCourtismandatoryand
wasnotincludedaspartofitsofferedexhibits.Rectifying inthosecaseswhereitisdiscretionary,theinitiativeisuponthe
the omission, the petitioner filed anUrgent Motion and/or Court. Suchbeingthecase, theCourtfindstheUrgentMotion
and/orRequestforJudicialNoticeassomethingwhichneednot
Request for Judicial Notice34(2nd motion) dated February 21,
beacteduponasthesameisconsideredredundant.
2000,withthealternativeprayerthat:
Onthematterofthe[Banedeposition],[its]admission
_______________
31FourthDivision. is done through the ordinary formal offer of exhibits
whereinthedefendantisgivenampleopportunitytoraise any need to dwell on these matters in view of this
objection on grounds provided by law.Definitely, it is not CourtsResolutionrendered on April 1, 1998 which already
underArticle(sic)129onjudicialnotice.[Emphasisours] denied the introduction in evidence of Banes deposition
On November 6, 2000 and on several dates thereafter, the andwhichhasbecomefinalinviewofplaintiffsfailureto
respondents separately filed their respective demurrers to file any motion for reconsideration or appeal within the
evidence.36On the other hand, the petitioner moved for the 15dayreglementaryperiod.Rightlyorwrongly,theresolution
reconsiderationofthe2000resolution,butwasrebuffedbythe standsandforthiscourttograntplaintiffsmotionatthispoint
SandiganbayaninitsApril3,2001resolution37(2001resolution). intimewouldineffectsanctionplaintiffsdisregardfortherules
_______________ ofprocedure.Plaintiffhassleptonitsrightsforalmosttwoyears
35Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, and anditwasonlyinFebruaryof2000thatitsoughttorectifyits
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesNarcisoS.NarioandNicodemo ineptitudebyfilingamotiontoreopenitscaseastoenableitto
T.Ferrer;id.,atpp.352355. introduceandofferBanesdepositionasadditionalevidence,orin
36Id.,atpp.777778. the alternative for the court to take judicial notice of the
allegations of the deposition. But how can such a motion be
37Id.,atpp.357359.
granted when it has been resolved as early as 1998 that the
171
deposition is inadmissible. Without plaintiff having moved for
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 171 reconsiderationwithinthereglementaryperiod,theresolution
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) has attainedfinalityand its effect cannot be undone by the
IIc.Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of simpleexpedientoffilingamotion,whichthoughpurportingtobe
Evidence(Re:DepositionofMauriceBane) anovelmotion,isinrealityamotionforreconsiderationof
On November 16, 2001, the petitioner filed its 3rd Motion, thiscourts1998ruling.[emphasesours]
seeking once more the admission of the Bane deposition. 38On _______________
February 7, 2002 (pending resolution of the respondents
38Id.,atpp.360368.
demurrers to evidence),39the Sandiganbayan promulgated
39The Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) promulgated on
theassailed2002resolution,40denyingthepetitioners3rd April1,2003aresolutiondenyingthedemurrerstoevidencefiled
motion.TheSandiganbayanruled:
bytherespondents;id.,atpp.777790.
Butinthecourtsview,itisnotreallyaquestionofwhetheror
40Supranote2.
notplaintiffhasalreadyresteditscaseastoobviatethefurther
172
presentationofevidence.Itisnotevenaquestionofwhetherthe
nonappearingdefendantsaredeemedtohavewaivedtheirright 172 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
to crossexamine Bane as to qualify the admission of the Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
deposition sans such crossexamination. Indeed, We do not see Theresolutiontriggeredthefilingofthepresentpetition.
 ThePetition 41RepresentedbytheOfficeof theSolicitor General.While
this case was pending, then Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
The petitioner filed the present petition claiming that the Eduardo Antonio Nachura was appointed Solicitor General,
Sandiganbayancommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion: formerlyaMemberofthisCourt.
I. 42Rollo,p.28,citingPeoplev.MTCofQuezonCity,333Phil.
xxxINHOLDINGTHATITSINTERLOCUTORYORDER 500;265SCRA645(1996).
IN1998HADBECOMEFINAL. 173
II. VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 173
xxx IN xxx REFUSING TO ADMIT THE BANE Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
DEPOSITION WHICH WAS ALREADY ADMITTED AS admittedinevidence)isbutachildoftheparentcase,Civil
EVIDENCE IN AN INCIDENT CASE (CIVIL CASE NO. Case No. 0009; under this relationship, evidence offered and
0130) AS PART OFPETITIONERS EVIDENCE IN THE admittedinanyofthechildrencasesshouldbeconsideredas
MAINxxxCASE(CIVILCASENO.0009). evidenceintheparentcase.
III. Lastly,thepetitionerclaimsthatgiventhecrucialimportance
x x x IN REFUSING TO ADMIT A HIGHLY RELEVANT of the Bane deposition, the Sandiganbayan should not have
AND IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE denieditsadmissiononflimsygrounds,consideringthat:
PETITIONERONTHEBASISOFFLIMSYANDTENUOUS 1.Itwasalsoalreadystatedinthenotice(ofthetakingofthe
TECHNICALGROUNDS. Banedeposition)thatitwouldbeusedasevidencein
The petitioner41argues that the 1998 resolution of the CivilCaseNo.0009.Noticeshavingbeendulyservedon
Sandiganbayan is merely an interlocutory order; thus, the allthepartiesconcerned,theymustaccordinglybedeemed
petitionersfailuretoquestionthis1998resolutioncouldnothave to havewaivedtheir right to crossexamine the witness
givenitacharacteroffinalitysolongasthemaincaseremains whentheyfailedtoshowup.
pending.42On this basis, the petitioner concludes that the 2.TheBanedepositionwasavery vitalcoginthecaseofthe
Sandiganbayansdenialofits3rdmotionwasplainlytaintedwith petitioner relative to its allegation that the respondents
graveabuseofdiscretion. interestinETPIandrelatedfirmsproperlybelongstothe
On the issue of the Sandiganbayans refusal (in its 2002 government.
resolution)eithertotakejudicialnoticeofortoadmittheBane 3.ThenoninclusionoftheBanedepositioninthepetitioners
depositionaspartofitsevidence,thepetitionerassertsthatCivil formal offer of evidence was
CaseNo.0130(wheretheBanedepositionwasoriginallytaken, obviouslyexcusableconsidering the period that had
introducedand lapsedfromthetimethecasewasfiledandthevoluminous
_______________ recordsthatthepresentcasehasgenerated.43
 THERESPONDENTSCOMMENTS Therespondentsfurtherclaimthatafterapartyhasrestedits
andTHEPETITIONERSREPLY case,theadmissionofasupplementalofferofevidencerequires
thereopeningofthecaseatthediscretionofthetrialcourt;the
In therespondents Comments44(filed in compliance with Sandiganbayansimplyexerciseditssounddiscretioninrefusing
ourResolutionofApril10,200245),theyclaimthatthepresent toreopenthecasesincetheevidencesoughttobeadmittedwas
petition was filed out of timei.e., beyond the 60day within the knowledge of the [petitioner] and available to [it]
reglementaryperiodprescribedunderSection4,Rule65ofthe before[it]rested itscase.48Therespondentsalsoadvertto the
RulesofCourt.46Thisas belated filing of the petitioners 3rd motioni.e., after the
_______________ respondentshadfiledtheirrespectivedemurrerstoevidence.
43Id.,atpp.3550. On the petitioners claim of waiver, the respondents assert
44InhisManifestation,respondentFerdinandR.Marcos,Jr. that they have not waived their right to crossexamine the
statedthathewasadoptingtheCommentofrespondentNieto;id. deponent; the Sandiganbayan recognized this right in its 1998
at856857.Ontheotherhand,respondentJuanPonceEnrileand resolution and the petitioner never questioned this recognition.
thesubstitutedheirsofrespondentJoseAfricamerelyreiterated They also assert that the allegations in the Bane deposition
theargumentsadvancedbyrespondentNieto. cannotbeapropersubjectofjudicialnoticeunderRule129ofthe
Rules of Court. The respondents lastly submit that the Bane
45Id.,atp.471.
deposition is inadmissible in evidence because the petitioner
46Section4,Rule65oftheRulesofCourtreads:
failedtocomplywiththerequisitesforadmissionunderSection
174
47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt.
174 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Whenandwherepetitionfiled.Thepetitionshallbefiled
sertionproceedsfromtheviewthatthepetitioners3rdmotion, notlaterthansixty(60)daysfromnoticeofthejudgment,order
being a mere rehash of similar motions earlier filed by the orresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialis
petitioner, likewise simply assails the Sandiganbayans 1998 timelyfiled,whethersuchmotionisrequiredornot,thesixty(60)
resolution.Alongthesame line, they positthatthepetitioners day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said
3rd motion actually partakes of a proscribed third motion for motion.
reconsideration of the Sandiganbayans 1998 resolution. 47They
47RespondentNietosComment,citingGSISv.CA,334Phil.
likewise assert, on the assumption that the 1998 resolution is
interlocutoryincharacter,thatthepetitionersfailuretocontest 163(1997);Rollo,p.490.
theresolutionbywayofcertiorariwithintheproperperiodgave 48Respondent NietosComment, citing Vicente J.
the1998resolutionacharacteroffinality. Francisco,The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, p.
338;id.,atp.489.
175
 VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 175 their comments,weresolve todispensewiththefilingofthese
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) commentsandtoconsiderthispetitionsubmittedfordecision.
In itsReply,49the petitioner defends the timeliness of the _______________
presentpetitionbyarguingthatapartymayopttowaitoutand 49Id.,atpp.521528.
collect a pattern of questionable acts before resorting to the 50PetitionersReply(to NietosComment), citing
extraordinaryremedyofcertiorari.Thepetitionerstressesthatit Regalado,RemedialLawCompendium,p.582,2001ed.;id.,atp.
filed the 3rd motion precisely because of the Sandiganbayans 522.
2000 resolution, which held that the admission of the Bane 176
deposition should be done through the ordinary formal offer of 176 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
evidence.Thus,theSandiganbayanseriouslyerredinconsidering Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
the petitioners 3rd motion as a proscribed motion for TheIssues
reconsideration. The petitioner generally submits that the Onthebasisofthepleadings,wesummarizethepivotalissues
dictates of substantial justice should have guided the forourresolution,asfollows:
Sandiganbayantoruleotherwise. 1.Whetherthepetitionwasfiledwithintherequiredperiod.
Thepetitioneralsoclarifiesthatithasnotyetresteditscase 2.Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
althoughithasfiledaformalofferofevidence.Apartynormally discretion
restshiscaseonlyaftertheadmissionofthepiecesofevidencehe i.In holding that the 1998 resolution has already
formally offered; before then, he still has the opportunity to attainedfinality;
present further evidence to substantiate his theory of the case ii.Inholdingthatthepetitioners3rdmotionpartakes
shouldthecourtrejectanypieceoftheofferedevidence. 50 ofaprohibitedmotionforreconsideration;
The petitioner further maintains that the mere reasonable iii.In refusing to reopen the case given the critical
opportunity to crossexamine the deponent is sufficient for the importanceoftheBanedepositiontothepetitioners
admissionoftheBanedepositionconsideringthatthedeponentis cause;and
not an ordinary witness who can be easily summoned by our iv.In refusing to admit the Bane deposition
courts in light of his foreign residence, his citizenship, and his notwithstandingthepriorconsolidationofCivilCase
advancedage.ThepetitionerassertsthatRule24(nowRule23), No.0009andCivilCaseNo.0130.
andnotSection47,Rule130,oftheRulesofCourtshouldapply 3.WhethertheBanedepositionisadmissibleunder
to the present case, as explicitly stated in the notice of the i.Rule 23, Section 4, par. (c) alone orin relation to
depositiontaking. Section47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt;and
To date, respondents Imelda Marcos and the heirs of ii.Theprincipleofjudicialnotice.
PotencianoIlusoriohaveyettofiletheirrespectivecommentson TheCourtsRuling
thepetition. Giventhetimethathadlapsedsince werequired Wedenythepetitionforlackofmerit.
I.PreliminaryConsiderations judgmentorordersignifiesajudgmentoranorderwhichdisposes
I (a).The interlocutory nature of the ofthecaseastoalltheparties,reservingnofurtherquestionsor
Sandiganbayans1998resolution. directionsforfuturedetermination.
Indeterminingtheappropriateremedyorremediesavailable, On the other hand, a court order is merely interlocutory in
aparty aggrieved byacourtorder, resolutionor decisionmust character if it leaves substantial proceedings yet to be had in
first correctly identify the nature of the order, resolution or connectionwiththecontroversy.Itdoesnotendthetaskofthe
decisionheintendstoassail.51Inthiscase,wemustpreliminarily court in adjudicating the parties contentions and determining
determinewhetherthe1998resolutionisfinalorinterlocutory theirrightsandliabilitiesasagainsteachother.Inthissense,it
innature. is basicallyprovisional in its application.54(emphasis
_______________ supplied)
51Raymundo v. Isagon Vda. de Suarez, G.R. No. 149017, Undertheseguidelines,weagreewiththepetitionerthatthe
November28,2008,572SCRA384. 1998 resolution is interlocutory. The Sandiganbayans denial of
177 thepetitioners1stmotionthroughthe1998Resolutioncameata
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 177 timewhenthepetitionerhadnotevenconcludedthepresentation
ofitsevidence.Plainly,thedenialofthemotiondidnotresolve
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
themeritsofthecase,assomethingstillhadtobedonetoachieve
Case law has conveniently demarcated the line between a
thisend.
finaljudgmentororderandaninterlocutoryoneonthebasisof
_______________
thedispositionmade.52Ajudgmentororderisconsideredfinalif
52Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 231 Phil. 302; 147
the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or
terminatesaparticularstageofthesameaction;insuchcase,the SCRA 334 (1987), cited inDenso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate
remedyavailabletoanaggrievedpartyisappeal.Iftheorderor AppellateCourt,232Phil.256;148SCRA280(1987).
resolution, however, merely resolves incidental matters and 53RudeconManagementCorp.v.Singson,494Phil.581;454
leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the SCRA612(2005).
case,theorderisinterlocutory53andtheaggrievedpartysremedy 54TomacruzLactaov.Espejo,478Phil.755;434SCRA588
isapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65.Jurisprudencepointedly (2004).
holdsthat: 178
As distinguished from a final order which disposes of the 178 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to Weclarify,too,thataninterlocutoryorderremainsunderthe
enforcebyexecutionwhathasbeendeterminedbythecourt,an controlofthecourtuntilthecaseisfinallyresolvedonthemerits.
interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely, but The court may therefore modify or rescind the order upon
leavessomethingmoretobeadjudicatedupon.Thetermfinal sufficientgroundsshownatanytimebeforefinaljudgment. 55In
this light, the Sandiganbayans 1998 resolutionwhich merely (c)Aninterlocutoryorder;
deniedtheadoptionoftheBanedepositionaspartoftheevidence xxxx
inCivilCaseNo.0009couldnothaveattainedfinality(inthe Inalltheaboveinstanceswherethejudgmentorfinalorderis
mannerthatadecisionorfinalorderresolvingthecaseonthe not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate
merits does) despite the petitioners failure to move for its specialcivilactionunderRule65.
reconsiderationortoappeal.56 179
I (b).The 3rd motion was not VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 179
prohibitedbytheRules. Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Wealsoagreewiththepetitionerthatits3rdmotioncannot theargumentsalreadypasseduponandresolvedbythecourt,it
beconsideredasaproscribedthird(actuallysecond)motionfor cannotberejectedonthegroundthatitisforbiddenbythelawor
reconsideration of the Sandiganbayans 1998 resolution. As bytherulesasaprohibitedmotion.57
Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court clearly provides, the I (c).The 1998 resolution was not
proscription against a second motion for reconsideration is ripeforapetitionforcertiorari.
directed against a judgment orfinalorder. Althougha second UnderSection1,Rule41oftheRulesofCourt,anaggrieved
motionforreconsiderationofaninterlocutoryordercanbedenied party may appeal from a judgment or final order which
onthegroundthatitisamererehashof completelydisposesofacaseorfromanorderthattheRulesof
_______________ Courtdeclarestobeappealable.Whilethisprovisionprohibitsan
55Jose Y. Feria and Maria Concepcion Noche, 2 Civil appeal from an interlocutory order, the aggrieved party is
Procedure Annotated, 2001 ed., pp. 151152, citingManila affordedthechancetoquestionaninterlocutoryorderthrougha
ElectricCo.v.ArtiagaandGreen,50Phil.144,147(1927).This specialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65;thepetitionmust
proceeds from the courts inherent power to control its process befiledwithinsixtydaysfromnoticeoftheassailedjudgment,
andorderssoastomakethemconformabletolawandjustice. order,resolution,ordenialofamotionforreconsideration.
Theonlylimitationisthatthejudgecannotactwithgraveabuse On the premise that the 1998 resolution is interlocutory in
of discretion, or that no injustice results thereby (Bangko nature,therespondentsinsistthatthe60dayperiodforfilinga
SilanganDevelopmentBankv.CourtofAppeals,412Phil.755; petition forcertiorarishould be reckoned from the petitioners
360SCRA322[2001]). noticeoftheSandiganbayans1998resolution.Theyarguethat
56Rule41,Section1oftheRulesofCourtreads: since this ruling had long been rendered by the court, the
Subjectofappeal.Anappealmaybetakenfroma petitioners subsequent filing of similar motions was actually a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the deviousattempttoresuscitatethelongdeniedadmissionofthe
case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by Banedeposition.
theseRulestobeappealable.Noappealmaybetakenfrom: Wedonotfindtherespondentssubmissionmeritorious.While
xxxx the1998resolutionisaninterlocutoryorder,ascorrectlyargued
bythepetitionerandimpliedlyconcededbytherespondents,the in its formal offer61as the petitioner presumably did in Civil
claim that the 1998 resolution should have been immediately CaseNo.0130.
questionedbythepetitioneroncertiorariisnottotallycorrectas Thus,atthatpoint,thecasewasnotyetripeforthefilingofa
apetitionforcertiorariisnotgroundedsolelyontheissuanceofa petitionforcertiorari,andthedenialofthe1stmotioncouldnot
disputed interlocutory ruling.58For a petition forcertiorarito have been the reckoning point for the period of filing such a
prosper,Section1,Rule65oftheRulesofCourtrequires,among petition.
others, that neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and II.The Sandiganbayans ruling on
adequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw the finality of its 1998 resolution was
_______________ legally erroneous but did not consti
57Rollo,p.31,citingPhilgreenTradingConstructionCorp.v. tutegraveabuseofdiscretion
In light of the above discussions and conclusions, the
CourtofAppeals,338Phil.433;271SCRA719(1997).
Sandiganbayanundoubtedlyerredonaquestionoflawinits
58Indiana Aerospace University v. Commission on Higher
ruling,butthislegalerrordidnotnecessarilyamounttoagrave
Education,408Phil.483;356SCRA367(2001). abuseofdiscretion
180 _______________
180 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 59Africa v. Hon. Sandiganbayan,350 Phil. 846; 287 SCRA
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) 408(1998).
isavailabletotheaggrievedparty.Asamatterofexception,the 60Whenadepositionispresentedattrialandadmittedbythe
writofcertiorarimay issuenotwithstanding theexistenceofan court,itiscompetentevidenceforthepartyinwhosebehalfit
available alternative remedy, if such remedy is inadequate or was taken, although it may not have been actually read when
insufficient in relieving the aggrieved party of the injurious introducedinevidence.(VicenteJ.Francisco,2TheRevisedRules
effectsoftheordercomplainedof.59 ofCourtinthePhilippines,p.127,1966,citingBaronv.David,51
Wenotethatatthetimeofits1stmotioninCivilCaseNo. Phil.1[1927].)
0009,thepetitionerhadnotyetconcludedthepresentationofits 61Section34,Rule132oftheRulesofCourtreads:
evidence, muchlessmadeany formal offer ofevidence. At this Offer of evidence.The court shall consider no evidence
stage of the case, the prematurity of using the extraordinary whichhasnotbeenformallyoffered.Thepurposeforwhichthe
remedy ofcertiorarito question the admission of the Bane evidenceisofferedmustbespecified.
depositionisobvious.Afterthedenialofthe1stmotion,theplain 181
remedy available to the petitioner was to move for a VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 181
reconsideration to assert and even clarify its position on the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
admission of the Bane deposition. The petitioner could
intheabsenceofaclearshowingthatitsactionwasacapricious
introduce60anewtheBanedepositionandincludethisasevidence
and whimsical exercise of judgment affecting its exercise of
jurisdiction.62Without this showing, the Sandiganbayans (b)A summary of admitted facts and proposed
erroneouslegalconclusionwasonlyanerrorofjudgment,or,at stipulationoffacts;
best,anabuseofdiscretionbutnotagraveone.Forthisreason (c)Theissuestobetriedorresolved;
alone,thepetitionshouldbedismissed. (d)Thedocuments or exhibits to be presented,
Despitethisconclusion,however,weoptnottoimmediately statingthepurposethereof;
dismissthepetitioninlightoftheuniquecircumstancesofthis (e) A manifestation of their having availed or their
case where the petitioner cannotentirelybe faulted for not intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or
availingoftheremedyattheopportunetime,andwherethecase, referraltocommissioners;and
byitsnature,isundoubtedlyendowedwithpublicinterestand 182
hasbecomeamatterofpublicconcern. 63Inotherwords,weoptto 182 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
resolvethepetitiononthemeritstolaytheissuesraisedtorest Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
andtoavoidtheirrecurrenceinthecourseofcompletelyresolving Rule 30, after a party has adduced his direct evidence in the
themeritsofCivilCaseNo.0009. course of discharging the burden of proof, 65he is considered to
AlthoughthewordrestednowhereappearsintheRulesof haverestedhiscase,andisthereafterallowedtoofferrebutting
Court,ordinarycourtprocedurehasinferreditfromanoverview evidence only.66Whether a party has rested his case in some
oftrialsequenceunderSection5,Rule30(whichcapsulizesthe measuredependsonhismanifestationincourtonwhetherhehas
orderofpresentationofapartysevidenceduringtrial),readin concludedhispresentationofevidence.67
relation to Rule 18 on PreTrial, 64both of the Rules of Court. In its second and third motions, respectively, the petitioner
UnderSection5, expresslyadmittedthatduetooversight,[thepetitioner]closed
_______________ andresteditscase;68andthatithadterminatedthepresentation
62Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, ofitsevidenceinxxxCivilCaseNo.0009. 69Inthefaceofthese
2010, 615 SCRA 619, 633, citingDueas, Jr. v. House of categoricaljudicial admissions,70the petitioner cannot
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 185401, July 21, suddenlymakean
2009,593SCRA316,344. _______________
63Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 453 Phil. (f)Thenumberandnamesofthewitnesses,and
1059;406SCRA190(2003). thesubstanceoftheirrespectivetestimonies.
64Section6,Rule18oftheRulesofCourtrequirestheparties Failure to file the pretrial brief shall have the same
tostateintheirrespectivePreTrialBriefsthefollowing: effect as failure to appear at the pretrial. (emphases
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into added)
amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute 65Section1,Rule131oftheRulesofCourtreads:
resolution,indicatingthedesiredtermsthereof; Burdenofproof.Burdenofproofisthedutyofapartyto
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
hisclaimordefensebytheamountofevidencerequiredbylaw. ofevidenceandthuscouldnothavebeenadmittedorrejectedby
(emphasisadded) thetrialcourt.
66SeeManuelV.Moran,2CommentsontheRulesofCourt, The Court observes with interest that it was only in this
1996ed.,p.140. present petition forcertiorarithat the petitioner had firmly
67Section1,Rule33oftheRulesofCourtreads: deniedhavingresteditscase. 71Beforethen,thepetitionernever
Demurrer to evidence.After the plaintiff founditappropriatetoquestiononcertioraritheSandiganbayans
hascompleted the presentation of his evidence, the denial of its 2nd motion which prayed,inter alia, for
defendantmaymovefordismissalonthegroundthatupon thereopeningofthecase.Thisisafataldefectinthepetitioners
thefactsandthelawtheplaintiffhasshownnorightto case.
relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to Although the denial of the petitioners first motion did not
presentevidence.Ifthemotionisgrantedbutonappealthe necessitate an immediate recourse to the corrective writ
orderofdismissalisreversedheshallbedeemedtohave ofcertiorari, the denial of the 2nd motion dictated a different
waivedtherighttopresentevidence.(emphasisadded) course of action. The petitioners nonobservance of the proper
68PetitionersUrgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial procedure for the admission of the Bane deposition, while
Notice,p.3;Rollo,p.341. seemingly innocuous, carried fatal implications for its case.
69PetitionersMotion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Having been rebuffed on its first attempt to have the Bane
Evidence,p.6;id.,atp.365. depositionadoptedinCivilCaseNo.0009,andwithoutseeking
70Section4,Rule129oftheRulesofCourtreads: reconsideration ofthe denial, thepetitionerpresenteditsother
Judicial admissions.An admission, verbal or pieces ofevidenceand eventuallyresteditscase. Thistime, the
written,madebythepartyinthecourseoftheproceedings petitioner forgot about the Bane deposition and so failed to
in the same case, does not require proof. The admission includethatpieceofevidenceinitsformalofferofevidence.
maybecontradictedonlybyshowingthat More than two years later, the petitioner again tried to
183 squeeze in the Bane deposition into its case. In resolving the
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 183 petitioners motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayans
2000 resolution, the Sandiganbayan held that the Bane
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
depositionhasbecomepartandparcelofCivilCaseNo.0009.
aboutfaceandinsistontheintroductionofevidenceoutofthe
Thispronouncementhasobscuredthe
usualorder.Contrarytothepetitionersassertion,therestingof
_______________
itscasecouldnothavebeenconditionedontheadmissionofthe
itwasmadethroughpalpablemistakeorthatnosuch
evidenceitformallyoffered.Tobeginwith,theBanedeposition,
admissionwasmade.
whichisthelonepieceofevidencesubjectofthispresentpetition,
71Inpage6ofthepetitionersMotiontoAdmitSupplemental
wasnotamongthepiecesofevidenceincludedinitsformaloffer
OfferofEvidence,thepetitioneradmittedtheterminationofthe
presentation of its evidence; yet, in page 4 of the petitionercouldnothavebeenpreventedfromtakingtheproper
petitionersReply(to respondent Nietos opposition to remedy notwithstanding any perceived ambiguity in the
petitionersMotiontoAdmitSupplementalOfferofEvidence),the resolutions.
petitionerstatedthatithasnotyetresteditscase. On the other end, though, there was nothing intrinsically
184 objectionableinthepetitionersmotiontoreopenitscasebefore
thecourtruledonitsformalofferofevidence.TheRulesofCourt
184 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
doesnotprohibitapartyfromrequestingthecourttoallowitto
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
presentadditionalevidenceevenafterithasresteditscase.Any
real status of the Bane deposition as evidence (considering such opportunity, however, for the ultimate purpose of the
that,earlier,theSandiganbayanalreadydeniedthepetitioners admission of additional evidence is already addressed to
attempttoadopttheBanedepositionasevidenceinCivilCase
thesound discretion of the court. It is from the prism of the
No. 0009 for the deponent cannot be crossexamined in court).
exerciseofthisdiscretionthattheSandiganba
Nevertheless, the Sandiganbayanultimately deniedthe
_______________
petitionersmotiontoreopenthecase.Havingjudiciallyadmitted
72DatedAugust21,2000andApril3,2001.
the resting of its case, the petitioner should have already
73Rollo,pp.31and34.
questionedthedenialofits2ndmotionbywayofcertiorari,since
185
thedenialofitsattempttoreopenthecaseeffectivelyforeclosed
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 185
all avenues available to it for the consideration of the Bane
deposition.Insteadofdoingso,however,thepetitionerallowed Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
yansrefusaltoreopenthecase(forthepurposeofintroducing,
the60dayreglementaryperiod,underSection4,Rule65
markingandofferingadditionalevidence)shouldbeviewed.We
oftheRulesofCourt,tolapse,andproceededtofileits3rd
candeclarethisSandiganbayanactioninvalidifithadactedwith
motion.
graveabuseofdiscretion.
Significantly, the petitioner changed its legal position in its
III.TheSandiganbayangravelyabusedits
3rdmotionbydenyinghavingresteditscaseandinsistingonthe
discretioninultimatelyrefusingtoreopen
introduction of the Bane deposition. Rebuffed once more, the
thecaseforthepurposeofintroducingand
petitionerfiledthepresentpetition,invitingourattentiontothe
Sandiganbayans resolutions,72which allegedly gave it mixed admittinginevidencetheBanedeposition
signals.73By pointing to these resolutions, ironically, even the Thebasisforamotiontoreopenacasetointroducefurther
petitionerimpliedlyrecognizedthattheywerethenalreadyripe evidenceisSection5,Rule30oftheRulesofCourt,whichreads:
forreviewoncertiorari.Whatthepetitionershouldhaverealized Sec.5.Orderoftrial.Subjecttotheprovisionsofsection2
wasthatits2ndmotionunequivocallyaimedtoreopenthecase of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons otherwise
for the introduction of further evidence consisting of the Bane directs,thetrialshallbelimitedtotheissuesstatedinthepre
trialorderandshallproceedasfollows:
deposition. Having beenultimatelydenied by the court, the
 xxxx introduce further evidence must be recognized. Otherwise, the
(f)The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting aggrievedpartymayavailoftheremedyofcertiorari.
evidence only,unlessthe court, forgood reasons and in the Largely, the exercise of the courts discretion80under the
furtherance of justice, permits them toadduce evidence exceptionofSection5(f),Rule30oftheRulesofCourtdependson
upontheiroriginalcase[.][emphasesours] theattendantfactsi.e.,onwhethertheevidencewouldqualify
Under this rule, a party who has the burden of proof must as a good reason and be in furtherance of the interest of
introduce, at the first instance, all the evidence he relies justice.Forareviewingcourttoproperlyinterferewiththelower
upon74and such evidence cannot be given piecemeal. 75The courtsexerciseofdiscretion,thepetitionermustshowthatthe
obvious rationale of the requirement is to avoid injurious lower courts action was attended by grave abuse of discretion.
surprises to the other party and the consequent delay in the Settledjurisprudencehasdefinedthistermasthecapriciousand
administrationofjustice.76 whimsicalexerciseofjudgment,equivalenttolackofjurisdiction;
Apartysdeclarationofthecompletionofthepresentationof or, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of
his evidence prevents him from introducing further passion,prejudice,orpersonalhostility,sopatentorsogrossasto
evidence;77butwheretheevidenceisrebuttalincharacter,whose amounttoanevasionofapositiveduty,toavirtualrefusalto
necessity,forinstance,arosefromtheshiftingoftheburdenof performthemandatedduty,ortoactatallincontemplationof
evidencefromonepartyto the law.81Grave abuse of discretion goes beyond the bare and
_______________ unsupportedimputationofcaprice,whimsicalityorarbitrariness,
74James M. Henderson, 6Commentaries on the Law of and beyond allegations that merely constitute errors of
EvidenceinCivilCasesBasedUpontheWorksofBurrW.Jones, judgment82ormereabuseofdiscretion.83
2502,pp.49504951. InLopez v. Liboro,84we had occasion to make the following
75DirectorofLandsv.RomanArchbishopofManila,41Phil. pronouncement:
121(1920). Afterthepartieshaveproducedtheirrespectivedirectproofs,
theyareallowedtoofferrebuttingevidenceonly,but,ithasbeen
76Ibid.
held, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of justice,
77JohnHenryWigmore,6ATreatiseontheAngloAmerican maypermitthemtoofferevidenceupontheiroriginalcase,and
SystemofEvidenceinTrialsatCommonLaw,1940,p.519. itsrulingwillnotbedisturbedintheappellate
186 _______________
186 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 78Director of Lands v. Roman Archbishop of Manila,
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) supranote75.
theother;78orwheretheevidencesoughttobepresentedisinthe 79Seares v. Hernando, etc., et al.,196Phil. 487; 110 SCRA
nature ofnewly discoveredevidence,79the partys right to 343(1981).
 8088C.J.S.104,p.217;5AC.J.S.1606,p.102;andLopez These principles find their echo in Philippine remedial law.
v.Liboro,81Phil.431(1948). While the general rule is rightly recognized, the Code of Civil
Procedure authorizes the judge for special reasons, to change
81LandBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,456Phil.
theorderofthetrial,andforgoodreason,inthefurtheranceof
755;409SCRA455(2003).
justice, to permit the parties to offer evidence upon their
82San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. v. Pampanga Omnibus original case. These exceptions are made stronger when one
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 168088, April 4, 2007, 520 considersthecharacter ofregistrationproceedings andthefact
SCRA564. that where so many parties are involved, and action is taken
83Levistev.CourtofAppeals,supranote62. quicklyandabruptly,conformitywithpreciselegalrulesshould
84Supranote80,atp.434. not always be expected.Even at the risk of violating
187 legalformul,anopportunityshouldbegiventopartiesto
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 187 submit additional corroborative evidence in support of
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) their claims of title, if the ends of justice so require.
court where no abuse of discretion appears.So, generally, (emphasesours)
additional evidence is allowedwhen it is newly discovered, Inhiscommentaries,ChiefJusticeMoranhadthistosay:
orwhere it has been omitted through inadvertence or However,thecourtforgoodreasons,may,inthefurtherance
mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct ofjustice,permitthepartiestoofferevidenceupontheiroriginal
case, and its ruling will not be disturbed where no abuse of
evidencepreviouslyoffered.Theomissiontopresentevidenceon
discretion appears, Generally,additionalevidenceis allowed
the testators knowledgeof Spanishhadnot been deliberate. It
wasduetoamisapprehensionoroversight. (citations omitted; whenxxx;butitmaybeproperlydisallowedwhereitwas
emphasesours) withhelddeliberatelyandwithoutjustification.86
Likewise, inDirector of Lands v. Roman Archbishop of _______________
85Supranote75,atp.124.
Manila,85weruled:
Thestrictruleisthattheplaintiffmusttryhiscaseoutwhen 86ManuelV.Moran,supranote66,atp.141,citing64C.J.
hecommences.Nevertheless,arelaxationoftheruleispermitted 160163.
in the sound discretion of the court. The proper rule for the 188
exerciseofthisdiscretion,ithasbeensaidbyaneminentauthor, 188 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
is,thatmaterialtestimonyshouldnotbeexcludedbecause Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
offered by the plaintiff after the defendant has rested, The weight of the exception is also recognized in foreign
althoughnotinrebuttal,unlessithasbeenkeptbackbya jurisprudence.87
trick,andforthepurposeofdeceivingthedefendantand Under these guidelines, we hold that the
affectinghiscaseinjuriously. Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in refusing
to reopen the case.Instead of squarely ruling on the formal point which has been inadvertently
petitioners 2nd motion to avoid any uncertainty on the overlooked,sinceitisoroughttobetheaimofthe
evidentiary status of the Bane deposition, the Sandiganbayans court,inorderingthecourseofproof,tofurther,not
action actually left the petitioners concern in limbo by todefeattheendsofjustice.
considering the petitioners motion redundant. This is 88Rollo,p.18.
tantamounttoarefusaltoundertakeapositivedutyasmandated
89Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 336 Phil.
by the circumstances and is equivalent to an act outside the
304;269SCRA316(1997).
contemplationoflaw.
189
Ithasnotescapedournoticethatatthetimethepetitioner
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 189
moved to reopen its case, the respondents had not yet even
presented their evidence in chief. The respondents, therefore, Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
would not have been prejudiced by allowing the petitioners Onthebasisofthisconclusion,aremandofthiscaseshould
introduction of the Bane deposition, which was concededly followasamatterofcourse.Thestateofthepartiessubmissions
omittedthroughoversight.88Thehigherinterestofsubstantial andthedelaythathasalreadyattendedthisaspectofCivilCase
justice,ofcourse,isanotherconsiderationthatcannotbetaken No.0009,however,dictateagainstthisobviouscourseofaction.
lightly.89 Atthispoint,thepartieshavemorethanextensivelyarguedfor
Inlightofthesecircumstances,theSandiganbayanshouldnot oragainsttheadmissionoftheBanedeposition.CivilCaseNo.
haveperfunctorilyappliedSection5,Rule30oftheRulesofCourt 0009isa25yearoldsequestrationcasethatisnowcryingoutfor
onthepetitionersrequesttoreopenthecaseforthesubmissionof complete resolution. Admissibility, too, is an issue that would
theBanedeposition. haveagainbeenraisedonremandandwouldsurelystareusin
_______________ the face after remand.90We are thus left with no choice but to
87InHampson v. Taylor(8 A. 331, 23 A. 732, 15 R.I. 83, resolvetheissueofadmissibilityoftheBanedepositionhereand
now.
January11,1887)theRhodeIslandSupremeCourtruled:
IV.TheadmissibilityoftheBanedeposition
We are of the opinion that it was entirely within the
IV(a).TheconsolidationofCivilCase
discretion of the court to open the case for further
testimony.Thecounselfortheplaintiffsays,inexcusefor No.0009andCivilCaseNo.0130didnotdispense
the omission, that it was conceded at the former trial, withtheusualrequisitesofadmissibility
withoutcontest,thattheplaceoftheaccidentwasapartof _______________
thepublichighway,andhewasthusputoffhisguard.Itis 90InW.W.Dearingv.FredWilson&Co.,Inc.,187Phil.488,
quite common for the court to allow a party to 493494;98SCRA758,764(1980),weheld:
submitfurthertestimony,afterhehasrested,when Anentgraveabuseofdiscretion,inIcutanimv.Hernandez,xx
his opponent attempts to take advantage of some xitwasheldthatappealandnotcertiorari,istheproperremedy
forthecorrectionofanyerrorastothecompetencyofawitness Rule31
committedbyaninferiorcourtinthecourseoftrial,sincesucha ConsolidationorSeverance
situationinvolvesanerroroflawconstitutingaviolationofthe Section1.Consolidation.When actions involving a
commonquestionoflaworfactarependingbeforethecourt,it
rulesofevidence,apartfromthefactthattoallowanyspecialcivil
actionunderthecircumstanceswouldleadtomultiplicityofsuits mayorderajointhearingortrialofanyorallthemattersin
issue in the actions;it may order all the actions
andleadtoprotractedifnotendlesstrials.Similarlyandforthe
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
samereasons,thatrulewouldapplytotheadmissionorrejection
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or
ofadepositionbeingofferedasevidence.Thus,thejurisprudential
delay.94(emphasesours)
ruleisthattheadmissionorrejectionofcertaininterrogatoriesin Consolidationisaproceduraldevicegrantedtothecourtas
thecourseofdiscoveryprocedurecouldbeanerroroflawbutnot
anaidindecidinghowcasesinitsdocketaretobetriedso
anabuseofdiscretion,muchlessagraveone.Again,thereason
that thebusiness of the court may be dispatched expeditiously
forthisrule[isthat]theprocedureforthetakingofdepositions
and with economy while providing justice to the parties. To
whether oral or thru written interrogatories is outlined in the
promotethisend,therulepermitstheconsolidationandasingle
rulesleavingnodiscretiontotheCourttoadoptanyothernot
trialofseveralcasesinthecourtsdocket,ortheconsolidationof
substantiallyequivalentthereto.Shouldthejudgesubstantially
issueswithinthosecases.95
deviatefromwhattheruleprescribes,hecommitsalegalerror,
_______________
not an abuse of discretion. (citation omitted; emphases and
underscoringours) 91PetitionersReplytotheOpposition(filedbythesubstituted
190 heirsofrespondentJoseAfrica),p.7;Rollo,p.462.
190 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 92Section9ofPresidentialDecree1606,ineffectatthetime
oftheconsolidation,provides:
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Rulemaking Power.The Sandiganbayan shall have the
In support of its 3rd motion, the petitioner argues that the
powertopromulgateitsownrulesofprocedureand,pendingsuch
Banedepositioncanbeadmittedinevidencewithoutobserving
promulgation,theRulesofCourtshallgovernitsproceedings.
theprovisionsofSection47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt. 91The
931964 Rules of Court. This provision was copied verbatim
petitionerclaimsthatinlightofthepriorconsolidationofCivil
underthepresentrules.
Case No. 0009 and Civil Case No. 0130, among others, 92the
94This provision, in turn, is an exact reproduction of Rule
formercaseorproceedingthatSection47,Rule130speaksofno
42(a)ofthe1938FederalRulesofCivilProcedureoftheUnited
longer exists. Rule 31 of the old Rules of Court 93the rule in
States.
effect at the time Civil Case Nos. 0009 and 0130 were
consolidatedprovidedthat: 95WrightandMiller,FederalPracticeandProcedure:Civil2d
2381,p.427.
191
 VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 191 (1)Whereallexceptoneofseveralactionsarestayeduntil
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) one is tried, in which case the judgment in the one trial is
AreadingofRule31oftheRulesofCourteasilylendsitselfto conclusiveastotheoth
_______________
twoobservations.First,Rule31iscompletelysilentontheeffect/s
ofconsolidationonthecasesconsolidated;onthepartiesandthe 96SeePeople v. Sandiganbayan, 456 Phil. 707; 409 SCRA
causesofactioninvolved;andontheevidencepresentedinthe 419, 424 (2003);Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
consolidated cases.Second, while Rule 31 gives the court the 37404, November 18, 1991, 203 SCRA 619;Caos v. Hon.
discretioneithertoorderajointhearingortrial,ortoorderthe Peralta,etc.,etal.,201Phil.422;115SCRA843(1982).
actions consolidated, jurisprudence will show that the term 97WrightandMiller,supranote95,atp.429.
consolidationisusedgenericallyandevensynonymouslywith 192
joint hearing or trial of several causes. 96In fact, the title 192 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
consolidation of Rule 31 covers all the different senses of
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
consolidation,asdiscussedbelow.
ers.Thisisnotactuallyconsolidationbutisreferredtoassuch.
These observations are not without practical reason.
(quasiconsolidation)98
Consideringthatconsolidationisbasicallyafunctiongiventothe
(2)Whereseveralactionsarecombinedintoone,losetheir
court, the latter is in the best position to determine for itself
separateidentity,andbecomeasingleactioninwhichasingle
(given the nature of the cases, the complexity of the issues
judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a situation where
involved, the parties affected, and the courts capability and
several actions are pending between the same parties stating
resourcesvisvisall the official business pending before it,
claimswhichmighthavebeensetoutoriginallyinonecomplaint.
amongother things)what consolidationwill bring,bearingin
(actualconsolidation)99
mindtherightsofthepartiesappearingbeforeit.
(3)Whereseveralactionsareorderedtobetriedtogetherbut
Todisregardthekindofconsolidationeffectedbythe
each retains its separate character and requires the entry of a
Sandiganbayanonthesimpleandconvenientpremisethat
separatejudgment.Thistypeofconsolidationdoesnotmergethe
the depositiontaking took placeafterthe Sandiganbayan
suitsintoasingleaction,orcausethepartiestooneactiontobe
ordered the consolidation is to beg the question.It is
partiestotheother.(consolidationfortrial)100
precisely the silence of our Rules of Procedure and the
Considering that theSandiganbayans order101to consolidate
dearth of applicable case law on theeffectof
severalincidentcasesdoesnotatallprovideahintontheextent
consolidation that strongly compel this Court to of the courts exercise of its discretion as to the effects of the
determinethekindofconsolidationeffectedtodirectly consolidationitorderedinviewofthefunctionofthisprocedural
resolvetheveryissueofadmissibilityinthiscase. devicetoprincipallyaidthecourtitselfindealingwithitsofficial
Inthecontextoflegalprocedure,thetermconsolidationis businesswe arecompelled to lookdeeper intothe voluminous
usedinthreedifferentsenses:97
recordsoftheproceedingsconductedbelow.Wenotethatthereis actuallyresultedfromtheorderofconsolidation,forinthatcase,
nothingthatwouldeven theSandiganbayancanalreadytakejudicialnoticeofthesame.
_______________ Significantly, even the petitioner itself viewed
981C.J.S.107,p.1341;WrightandMiller,FederalPractice consolidation, at most, to be merely a consolidation for
andProcedure:Civil2d2382. trial.103Accordingly, despite the consolidation in 1993, the
991C.J.S.107,id.;WrightandMiller,id.,atp.429.SeeYu, petitioneraccededtotheSandiganbayans1998Resolution(which
denied the petitioners 1st Motion on the ground that the
Sr. v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development
witnesses,whosetestimonyintheincidentcasesissoughttobe
Enterprises, Inc., G.R. Nos. 13870102, October 17, 2006, 504
adopted, are not available for crossexamination in the
SCRA618.
Sandiganbayan)bypresentingtheseotherwitnessesagaininthe
1001C.J.S.107,id.;1Am.Jur.2d131,p.804;Wrightand
maincase,sothattherespondentscancrossexaminethem.
Miller,id.
These considerations run counter to theconclusion that the
101The April 15, 1993 Resolution ordering consolidation
Sandiganbayansorderofconsolidationhadactuallyresultedin
reads:
thecompletemergeroftheincidentcaseswiththemaincase,in
SubmittedforresolutionistheMotionforConsolidation,dated
thesense of actual consolidation, and that the parties in these
June 22, 1992, filed by the Republic of the Philippines
consolidatedcases
(representedbythePCGG),counsel.
_______________
The record shows that there is no opposition in the above
entitledcasestothesaidmotion.Italsoappearsthatthesubject 102SeeVictor Africas Motion (Records, Volume XVIII, pp.
mattersoftheaboveentitledcasesareand/ormaybetreatedas 67176722).
mereincidentsinCivilCaseNo.0009. 103InitsMotionforConsolidation,thepetitionerargued:
WHEREFORE, the aboveentitled cases are hereby ordered 4. On various dates, several actions were filed which are
consolidated withCivil Case No. 0009, and shall henceforth be intimatelyrelatedwithCivilCaseNo.0009,involvingastheyare
consolidatedandtreatedasmereincidentsofsaidCivilCaseNo. thesamesubjectmatterandsubstantiallythesamepartiesxxx.
0009.(Records,VolumeIII,pp.843844.) xxxx
193 10.Besides, the present Motion for Consolidation is not
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 193 without a paradigm which was recently sketched by [the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Sandiganbayan].During the hearing on April 6, 1992
suggest that the Sandiganbayan in fact intended a merger of ofAfricavs.PCGG
,docketedasCivilCaseNo.0127,[the
causesofaction,partiesandevidence. 102Tobesure,therewould Sandiganbayan]resolvedtoconductajointtrialofthesaid
havebeennoneedforamotiontoadopt(whichdidnotremain case and ofOWNI vs. Africa, docketed as Civil Case No. 0126,
unopposed) the testimonies in the incident cases had a merger inasmuch as both cases are intimately related.The
consolidation of the abovecaptioned cases would be Attheverybeginningofthediscussiononconsolidation
merely a step in the same directionalready taken by [the of actions in theCorpus Juris Secundum, the following
Sandiganbayan]inAfricaandOWNI.(Records,VolumeXV,pp. caveatappears:
56175622.) The term consolidation is used in three different
194 senses.First,whereseveralactionsarecombinedintoone
194 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED andlosetheirseparateidentityandbecomeasingleaction
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) inwhichasinglejudgmentisrendered;second,whereall
had(atleastconstructively)beenawareofandhadallowedactual exceptoneofseveralactionsarestayeduntiloneistried,in
consolidationwithoutobjection.104 whichcasethejudgmentintheoneisconclusiveastothe
Considering,too,thattheconsolidatedactionswereoriginally others;third,whereseveralactionsareorderedtobetried
independentofoneanotherandthefactthatinthepresentcase together but each retains its separate character and
the party respondents to Civil Case No. 0009 (an action for requirestheentryofaseparatejudgment.Thefailureto
reconveyance, accounting, restitution and damages) distinguish between these methods of procedure,
arenotpartiestoCivilCaseNo.0130(aspecialcivilactionfiled which are entirely distinct, the two latter, strictly
byanETPIstockholderinvolving speaking,notbeingconsolidation,afactwhichhas
_______________
not always been noted, has caused some confusion
104Inthe1966editionofVicenteJ.FranciscosRevisedRules
andconflictinthecases.(1C.J.S.,107,pp.13411342)
ofCourt,Franciscowrote:
(Emphasisadded).
The effect of consolidation of actions is to unite and
In defining the term consolidation of actions, Francisco
mergeallofthedifferentactionsconsolidatedintoasingle
providedacolatillathatthetermconsolidationisusedinthree
action, in the same manner as if the different causes of
different senses, citing 1 C.J.S. 1341 and 1 Am. Jur. 477
actions involved had originally been joined in a single
action,andtheorderofconsolidation,ifmadebyacourtof (Francisco,RevisedRulesofCourt,p.348).
competent jurisdiction, is binding upon all the parties to 195
thedifferentactionsuntilitisvacatedorsetaside.After VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 195
theconsolidationtherecanbenofurtherproceedingsinthe Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
separateactions,whicharebyvirtueoftheconsolidation a corporate squabble within ETPI), the conclusion that the
discontinued and superseded by a single action, which Sandiganbayan in fact intended anactual consolidationand,
shouldbeentitledinsuchmannerasthecourtmaydirect, together with the parties affected, 105acted towards that end
andallsubsequentproceedingsthereinbeconductedand where the actions become fused and unidentifiable from one
therightsofthepartiesadjudicatedinasingleaction(1 anotherandwheretheevidenceappreciatedinoneactionisalso
C.J.S.,113,pp.13711372). appreciated in another actionmust find support in the
proceedingsheldbelow.Thisisparticularlytrueinacasewith Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 18238283, February 24, 2010, 613
themagnitudeandcomplexityofthepresentcase.Otherwise,to SCRA 528;Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
imposeupontherespondentstheeffectsofanactualconsolidation
G.R. No. 86603, February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA774;DeltaMotor
(which find no clear support in the provisions of the Rules of
SalesCorporationv.Mangosing,No.L41667,April30,1976,70
Court, jurisprudence,106and even in the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan itself and despite the aforementioned SCRA598;Sidecov.Paredes,etal.,74Phil.6(1942).
considerations) results in an outright deprivation of the 107DatedMarch17,1997;Rollo,pp.576587.
petitioners right to due process. We reach this conclusion 196
especiallywheretheevidencesoughttobeadmittedisnotsimply 196 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
a testimonytaken in one of the several cases, but a deposition Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
uponoral examinationtakeninanotherjurisdictionandwhose tive,toCivilCaseNo.0130.108Interestingly,initsPreTrialBrief
admission is governed by specific provisions on our rules on dated August 30, 1996,109the petitioner even made a
evidence. representationtopresentBaneasoneofitswitnesses.
We stress on this point, too, that while the Sandiganbayan IV (b).Use of deposition under Section
ordered the consolidation in 1993 (that is,beforethe deposition 4, Rule 23 and as a former testimony un
was taken), neither does the PreTrial Order 107issued by the derSection47,Rule130
Sandiganbayanin 1997in Civil Case No. 0009 contain any SincethepresentconsolidationdidnotaffectCivilCaseNo.
reference,formalorsubstan 0130asan original, albeit incidental, case, theadmissibility of
_______________ the Bane deposition cannot avoid being measured against the
105The respondents vigorously opposed the petitioners requirementsofSection47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtthe
motiontoadoptthetestimonyof,amongothers,MauriceBane, ruleontheadmissibilityoftestimoniesordepositiontakenina
andtheSandiganbayanruledinfavoroftherespondents,without different proceeding. In this regard, the petitioner argues that
thepetitionerquestioningthisdevelopmentuntilaftertwoyears Section4,Rule23oftheRulesofCourt(thenRule24) 110must,at
later. This circumstance cannot be taken lightly in view of the anyrate,prevailoverSection47,Rule130111ofthesameRules.
petitioners gross procedural deficiency in the handling of this At the outset, we notethat when thepetitioners motion to
maincase. adoptthetestimoniestakenintheincidentcasesdrewindividual
106Inthose cases where the Court ordered or affirmed the oppositions from the respondents, the petitioner represented to
orderof consolidation,evenwithout expresslyprovidingfor the theSandiganbayanitswillingnesstocomplywiththeprovisions
admissibility of evidence in all of the consolidated cases, the ofSection47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt, 112and,infact,again
parties are the same and/or the issues are relatively simple presentedsomeof
and/orthecausesofactioncouldhaveactuallybeenstatedinone _______________
complaint (seeDomdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the
 108UnderSection7,Rule18oftheRulesofCourt,aPreTrial representedatthetakingofthedepositionorwhohadduenotice
Order controls the subsequent course of the action, unless thereof,inaccordancewithanyoneofthefollowingprovisions:
modifiedbeforetrialtopreventmanifestinjustice. xxxx
109Records,VolumeXXXVI,p.11405. (c)Thedepositionofawitness,whetherornotaparty, may
1101964RulesofCourt,Rule24,DepositionsandDiscovery. beusedbyanypartyforanypurposeifthecourtfinds:(1)
111PetitionersReply with Manifestation to Respondent that the witness is dead; or (2) that the witness resides at a
EnrilesComment,pp.1213;Rollo,pp.679680. distancemorethanonehundred(100)kilometersfromtheplace
112Records,VolumeXLV,pp.110112.PetitionersCommon oftrialorhearing,orisoutofthePhilippines,unlessitappears
Replyreads: that his absence was procured by the party offering the
1.WhileitistruethatSection47,Rule130oftheRulesof deposition;or(3)thatthewitnessisunabletoattendortestify
Courtprovides: becauseofage,sickness,infirmity,orimprisonment;or(4)that
xxxx thepartyofferingthedepositionhasbeenunabletoprocurethe
[petitioner]wishestoinformthisHonorableCourtthat attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application
inordertosubstantiallycomplywiththeaforementioned andnotice,thatsuchexceptionalcircumstancesexistastomake
requirements, it would be willing to present subject itdesirable,intheinterestofjusticeandwithdueregardtothe
witnesses, except for Maurice Bane and Rolando Gapud importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in
whose availability are difficult to obtain being foreign opencourt,toallowthedepositiontobeused[.][emphasisours]
residents,onlytobecrossexaminedbythe Ontheotherhand,Section47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt
197 provides:
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 197 SEC.47.Testimony or deposition at a former
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) proceeding.Thetestimonyordepositionofawitnessdeceased
the witnesses. The petitioners aboutface two years thereafter orunabletotestify,giveninaformercaseorproceeding,judicial
even contributed to the Sandiganbayans own inconsistency on or administrative, involving the same parties and subject
howtotreattheBanedeposition,inparticular,asevidence. matter,may be given in evidenceagainst the adverse party
Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on Deposition whohadtheopportunitytocrossexaminehim.
_______________
Pending Action (depositionde bene esse) provides for the
defendants who had no opportunity to crossexamine
circumstanceswhendepositionsmaybeusedinthetrial,orat
theminsaidpreviousproceeding.
thehearingofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding.
198
SEC.4.Use of depositions.At the trial or upon the
198 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
hearingofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding,anypartorall
of a deposition,so far as admissible under the rules of Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
evidence, may beused against any party who was present or
 AplainreadingofRule23oftheRulesofCourtreadilyrejects _______________
thepetitionerspositionthattheBanedepositioncanbeadmitted 113Dasmarias Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 108229,
intoevidencewithoutobservingtherequirementsofSection47, August24,1993,225SCRA622.
Rule130oftheRulesofCourt. 114JonathanLandoilInternationalCo.,Inc.v.Mangudadatu,
Before a party can makeuseof the deposition taken at the G.R. No. 155010, August 16, 2004, 436 SCRA 559, 573,
trialofapendingaction,Section4,Rule23oftheRulesofCourt
citingFortuneCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.108119,
doesnotonlyrequiredueobservanceofitssubparagraphs(a)to
January19,1994,229SCRA355,362.
(d);italsorequires,asaconditionforadmissibility,compliance
199
withtherulesonevidence.Thus,evenSection4,Rule23ofthe VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 199
RulesofCourtmakesanimpliedreferencetoSection47,Rule130
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
of the Rules of Court before the deposition may beusedin witness. Generally, the deponent must be presented for oral
evidence.ByreadingRule23inisolation,thepetitionerfailedto examination in open court at the trial or hearing. This is a
recognize that the principle conceding admissibility to a requirementoftherulesonevidenceunderSection1,Rule132of
depositionunderRule23shouldbeconsistentwiththeruleson theRulesofCourt.115
evidence under Section 47, Rule 130.113In determining the Examinationtobedoneinopencourt.Theexamination
admissibilityoftheBanedeposition,therefore,reliancecannotbe ofwitnessespresentedinatrialorhearingshallbedoneinopen
given on one provision to the exclusion of the other;both court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
provisions must be considered. This is particularly true in incapacitatedtospeak,orthequestioncallsforadifferentmode
this case where the evidence in the prior proceeding does not ofanswer,theanswersofthewitnessshallbegivenorally.
simply refer to a witness testimony in open court but to a Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the facts set forth
depositiontakenunderanotherandfartherjurisdiction. therein, inlieuoftheactual oral testimony ofthe deponentin
A common thread that runs from Section 4, Rule 23 of the opencourt,maybeopposedbytheadversepartyandexcluded
RulesofCourtandSection47,Rule130ofthesameRulesistheir underthehearsayrulei.e.,thattheadversepartyhadorhasno
mutualreferencetodepositions. opportunitytocrossexaminethedeponentatthetimethathis
A deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery whose primary testimonyisoffered.Thatopportunityforcrossexamination
function is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of wasaffordedduringthetakingofthedepositionaloneis
disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and no argument, as the opportunity for crossexamination
affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for
must normally be accorded a party at the time that the
trial.114Since depositions are principally made available to the
testimonial evidence is actuallypresentedagainst him
parties as a means of informing themselves of all the relevant
during the trial or hearing of a case. 116However, under
facts,depositionsarenotmeantassubstitutefortheactual
certainconditionsandforcertainlimitedpurposeslaiddownin
testimonyinopencourtofapartyor
Section4,Rule23oftheRulesofCourt,thedepositionmaybe therewith. Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
usedwithout thedeponent being actually called tothe witness contemplates a different kind of crossexamination, whether
stand.117 actual or a mere opportunity, whose adequacy depends on the
Section47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtisanentirely requisiteidentityofissuesintheformercaseorproceedingandin
different provision.While aformer testimony or the present case where the former testimony or deposition is
soughttobeintroduced.
depositionappearsundertheExceptionstotheHearsayRule,the
Section47,Rule130requiresthattheissuesinvolvedinboth
classification offormer testimony or depositionas an admissible
casesmust,atleast,besubstantiallythesame;otherwise,thereis
hearsay is not universally conceded.118A fundamental
nobasisinsayingthattheformerstatementwasorwouldhave
characteristicofhearsayevidenceisthe
beensufficiently tested by crossexamination or by an
_______________
opportunity to do so.120(The requirement of similarity though
115DasmariasGarments,Inc.v.Reyes,supranote113. doesnotmeanthatalltheissuesinthetwoproceedingsshouldbe
116Ibid. thesame.121Althoughsomeissuesmaynotbethesameinthetwo
117Ibid. actions,theadmissibilityofaformertestimonyonanissuewhich
118JovitoR.Salonga,PhilippineLawofEvidence,p.540,2nd issimilarinbothactionscannotbequestioned.122)
ed.,1958.JohnHenryWigmore,supranote77,at5153.Butthe These considerations, among others, make Section 47, Rule
generallyacceptedview,followedbyourownrulesonevidence,is 130 a distinct rule on evidence and therefore should not be
that prior testimony or deposition is an exception to hearsay confusedwiththegeneralprovisionsondepositionunderRule23
of the Rules of Court. In other words, even if the petitioner
prohibition.(McCormickonEvidencebyEdwardCleary,254,p.
complieswithRule23oftheRulesof
759,3rded.,HornbookSeries,Lawyersed.,1984).
_______________
200
119Section6,Rule132oftheRulesofCourtreads:
200 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Crossexamination; its purpose and extent.Upon the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) terminationofthedirectexamination,thewitnessmaybecross
adverse partyslack ofopportunity tocrossexaminetheoutof examinedbytheadversepartyastoanymattersstatedinthe
court declarant. However, Section 47, Rule 130 explicitly direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient
requires,interalia,fortheadmissibilityofaformertestimonyor fullness and freedom to testhis accuracy and truthfulnessand
depositionthattheadversepartymusthavehadanopportunity freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
to crossexamine the witness or the deponent in the prior importantfactsbearingupontheissue.
proceeding. 120JohnHenryWigmore,supranote77,atp.83.
Thisopportunitytocrossexaminethoughisnottheordinary 121Oscar M. Herrera, 5Remedial Law, 1999, pp. 773, 774
crossexamination119afforded an adverse party in usual trials 775.
regardingmattersstatedinthedirectexaminationorconnected
 122Id.,atp.773,citingGibsonv.Gagnon,82Colo108,257,p. 5.Theadversepartyhavinghadtheopportunitytocross
348;2Jones,Sec.9:25. examinehim.123
201 The reasons for the admissibility of testimony or deposition
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 201 taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) testimonyanditstrustworthiness.124However, beforetheformer
Courtontheuseofdepositions,theobservanceofSection47,Rule testimony or depositioncan be introduced in evidence,the
130 of the Rules of Court cannot simply be avoided or proponentmustfirstlaythe
disregarded. _______________
Undisputably, the Sandiganbayan relied on the Bane 123ManuelV.Moran,5CommentsontheRulesofCourt,1980
deposition,takeninCivilCaseNo.0130,forpurposesofthisvery ed.,p.409.
same case. Thus,what the petitioner establishedandwhat the 124VicenteJ.Francisco,Evidence,1955,p.646.
Sandiganbayanfound,forpurposesofusingtheBanedeposition, 202
referonlytothecircumstanceslaiddownunderSection4(c),Rule 202 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
23oftheRulesofCourt,notnecessarilytothoseofSection47, Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,asadistinctruleonevidencethat
proper predicatetherefor,125i.e., the party must establish the
imposes further requirements in the use of depositions in
basis for the admission of the Bane deposition in the realm of
adifferentcaseorproceeding.Inotherwords,theprioruseofthe admissibleevidence.Thisbasisisthepriorissuethatwemust
deposition under Section 4(c), Rule 23 cannot be taken as nowexamineandresolve.
compliancewithSection47,Rule130whichconsidersthesame IV(c).Unavailabilityofwitness
deposition as hearsay, unless the requisites for its admission
Fortheadmissionofaformertestimonyordeposition,Section
underthisruleareobserved.Theachingquestioniswhetherthe
petitionercompliedwiththelatterrule. 47,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtsimplyrequires,interalia,that
Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court lays down the thewitnessordeponentbedeceasedorunabletotestify.Onthe
followingrequisitesfortheadmissionofatestimonyordeposition other hand, in using a deposition that was takenduring the
givenataformercaseorproceeding. pendencyofanaction,Section4,Rule23oftheRulesofCourt
1.Thetestimonyor deposition ofawitnessdeceasedor provides several grounds that will justify dispensing with the
otherwiseunabletotestify; actualtestimonyofthedeponentinopencourtandspecifies,inter
2.The testimony was given in a former case or alia, the circumstances of the deponents inability to attend or
proceeding,judicialoradministrative; testify,asfollows:
3.Involvingthesameparties; (3)that the witness isunable toattend ortestifybecause
4.Relatingtothesamematter;
ofage,sickness,infirmity,orimprisonment[.][emphasesours] 126
 ThephraseunabletotestifyappearinginbothRule23and purposes, but to accommodate the deponent, then the
Rule130of theRulesof Courtreferstoaphysical inabilityto depositionshouldberejectedinevidence.129
appear at the witness stand and to give a testimony. 127Hence Although the testimony of a witness has been given in the
notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase out of the courseofaformerproceedingbetweenthepartiestoacaseon
Philippines,whichpreviouslyappearedinSection47,Rule130of trial, this testimony alone is not a ground for its admission in
theRulesofCourt,absencefrom evidence.Thewitnesshimself,ifavailable,mustbeproducedin
_______________ courtasifheweretestifyingdenovosincehistestimonygivenat
125RicardoJ.Francisco,7TheRevisedRulesofCourtinthe theformertrialismerehearsay.130Thedepositionofawitness,
Philippines,Evidence,PartI,1997ed.,pp.628629. otherwiseavailable,isalsoinadmissibleforthesamereason.
126Priortotherevisionoftherulesonevidence,thephrase Indeed,theSandiganbayansrelianceontheBanedeposition
out ofthe Philippines appearedinthecontext ofthe witness intheothercase(CivilCaseNo.0130)isanargumentinfavorof
unavailability(Section41,Rule130ofthe1964RulesofCourt). the requisite unavailability of the witness. For purposes of
Aftertherevision(thelatestamendmentstotherulesonevidence thepresentcase (Civil Case No. 0009), however, the
becameeffectiveonJuly1,1989),thisphrasewasdeletedfrom Sandiganbayanwouldhavenobasistopresume,andneithercan
the present Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In or should we, that the previous condition, which previously
contrast, the same phrase, which appeared in Rule 24 of the allowed the use of the deposition, remains and would thereby
oldRules(Rule 24, Deposition and Discovery, 1964 Rules of justify the use of the same deposition inanother case or
Court),wasretainedinthepresentRule23oftheRulesofCourt
proceeding,eveniftheothercaseorproceedingisbeforethesame
ondepositions.Thephraseunabletotestify,however,survived
court.SincethebasisfortheadmissionoftheBanedeposition,in
theamendmentoftherulesandwasretainedinbothSection47,
principle, being necessity,131the burden of establishing its
Rule130oftheRulesofCourtandSection4(c),Rule23ofthe
existence rests on the party who seeks the admission of the
sameRules.
evidence. This burden cannot be supplantedby assumingthe
127VicenteJ.Francisco,Evidence,supranote124,atp.649.
continuityofthepreviousconditionorconditionsinlightofthe
203
general rule against the nonpresentation of the deponent in
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 203 court.132
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) _______________
jurisdiction thepetitionersexcuseforthenonpresentationof
128
128JohnHenryWigmore,5ATreatiseontheAngloAmerican
Baneinopencourtmaystillconstituteinabilitytotestifyunder SystemofEvidenceinTrialsatCommonLaw,1404,p.149.
the same rule. This is not to say, however, that resort to
129NorthwestAirlines,Inc.v.Cruz,376Phil.96;317SCRA
deposition on this instance of unavailability will always be
761(1999).
upheld.Where the depositionis taken not for discovery
 130Ricardo J. Francisco,supranote 125, at 627, cited in opportunity to crossexamine the deponent is imputed may not
theCommentfiled by the substituted heirs of respondent Jose after all be the same adverse party who actually had such
Africa,p.3. opportunity.
Torenderthetestimonyofawitnessadmissibleatalatertrial
131JohnHenryWigmore,supranote128,atp.148.
oraction,thepartiestothefirstproceedingmustbethesameas
132To make matters worse, by not questioning the
thepartiestothelaterproceeding.Physicalidentity,however,is
Sandiganbayansdenialofits1stMotion(toAdopt),thepetitioner
not required; substantial identity136or identity of
hasimpliedlyaccededtothe
interests137suffices,as
204
_______________
204 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sandiganbayans ruling that the nonpresentation of the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) deponent in court for crossexamination is unjustified.
IV(d).Therequirementofopportunityof Unfortunately, the petitioner realized its mistake only two
theadversepartytocrossexamine;identity preciousyearslater.
ofparties;andidentityofsubjectmatter 133RicardoJ.Francisco,supranote125,atp.220.
Thefunctionofcrossexaminationistotestthetruthfulnessof 134Id.,atp.219.
thestatementsofawitnessmadeondirectexamination. 133The
135EdwardCleary,supranote118,atp.48.
opportunity of crossexamination has been regarded as an
essential safeguard of the accuracy and completeness of a 136ManuelV.Moran,supranote123,atp.410.
testimony. In civil cases, the right of crossexamination is 137JovitoR.Salonga,supranote118,atp.542.
absolute,andisnotamereprivilegeofthepartyagainstwhoma 205
witnessmaybecalled.134Thisrightisavailable,ofcourse,atthe VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 205
takingofdepositions,aswellasontheexaminationofwitnessesat Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
thetrial.Theprincipaljustificationforthegeneralexclusionof where the subsequent proceeding is between persons who
hearsaystatementsandfortheadmission,asanexceptiontothe representthepartiestothepriorproceedingbyprivityinlaw,in
hearsay rule, of reported testimony taken at a former hearing blood, or in estate. The term privity denotes mutual or
where the present adversary was afforded the opportunity to successiverelationshipstothesamerightsofproperty.138
crossexamine, is based on the premise that the opportunity of Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerfailedtoimpute,muchless
crossexaminationisanessentialsafeguard 135againstfalsehoods establish, the identity of interest or privity between the then
andfrauds. opponent, Africa, and the present opponents, the respondents.
In resolving the question of whether the requirement of WhileAfricaisthesonofthelaterespondentJoseAfrica,atmost,
opportunity to crossexamine has been satisfied, we have to thedepositionshouldbeadmissibleonlyagainsthimasanETPI
consider first the required identity of parties as the present stockholder who filed thecertioraripetition docketed as Civil
opponent to theadmissionof theBanedeposition towhomthe CaseNo.0130(and,unavoidably,assuccessorininterestofthe
late respondent Jose Africa). While Africa and the respondents 206 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
areallETPIstockholders,thiscommonalitydoesnotestablishat Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
allanyprivitybetweenthemforpurposesofbindingthelatterto
InitsfirstNoticetoTakeOralDepositionofMr.MauriceV.
the acts or omissions of the former respecting the cross
examinationofthedeponent. Thesequestration oftheir shares BanedatedAugust30,1996,141thepetitioneroriginallyintended
doesnotresultintheintegrationoftheirrightsandobligationsas todeposeMr.BaneonSeptember25261996.Becauseitfailedto
specifyinthenoticethepurposefortakingMr.Banesdeposition,
stockholderswhichremaindistinctandpersonaltothem,visa
thepetitionersentaSecondAmendedNoticetoTakeDeposition
visotherstockholders.139
IV(d1).Therespondentsnoticeof ofMr.MauriceV.BaneUponOralExaminationwhereitlikewise
movedthescheduleddepositiontakingtoOctober2326,1996.
takingofBanedepositionisinsuffi
The records show that Africa moved several times for
cientevidenceofwaiver
protective orders against the intended deposition of Maurice
The petitioner staunchly asserts that the respondents have
Bane.142On the other hand, among the respondents, only
waivedtheirrighttocrossexaminethedeponentfortheirfailure
respondent Enrile appears to have filed an Opposition 143to the
to appear at the depositiontaking despite individual notices
petitioners first notice, where he squarely raised the issue of
previouslysenttothem.140
reasonability ofthe petitionersnineteenday firstnotice. While
_______________
the Sandiganbayan denied Africas motion for protective
138OscarM.Herrera,supranote121,atp.772.Priviesare
orders,144it strikes us thatno ruling was ever handed downon
distributedintoseveralclasses,accordingtothemannerofthe
respondentEnrilesOpposition.145
relationship. Thus, there are privies in estate, as donor and
_______________
donee, lessor and lessee, and jointtenants; privies in blood, as
141Records,VolumeXXXVI,p.11534.
heir and ancestor; privies in representation as executor and
142Records, Volume XXXVI, pp. 1157411578; Volume
testator,administratorandintestate;priviesinlawforthelaw
XXXVII,pp.1164911654;1170411709.
withoutprivityofbloodandestatecaststhelanduponanotheras
143Records,VolumeXXXVI,pp.1161011612.
byescheat.(Id.,atp.542.) 144Records,VolumeXXXVII,pp.1171911720.
139Notably,AfricawasnotimpleadedinCivilCaseNo.0009 145WhiletheSandiganbayanrecognized thatthepetitioner
(Republicv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.106244,January22,1997, intends to use the Bane deposition in Civil Case No. 0009 (as
266SCRA515). statedintheSecondAmendedNoticeoftheTakingoftheBane
140PetitionersReplyto Nietos Comment, p. 4; and Deposition), the Sandiganbayan denied Africas Motion as if
petitionersReply with ManifestationtoRespondent Enriles Africahimselfwasimpleadedinandisapartywhocanbebound
Comment,pp.1112.Rollo,pp.678679. by the proceedings and the judgment in Civil Case No. 0009
206 (except only as a substituted heir of the late respondent Jose
Africa). In denyingVictor Africasmotion (forgetting about the
concernraisedbyrespondentEnrilewhichisequallyapplicable may be committed by a party in the exercise of his
totheotherrespondents),theSandiganbayanseemedobliviousof unlimited right to discovery. As a writer said: Any
thefactthattherespondentswhowerenonpartiestoCivilCase discoveryinvolvesapryingintoanotherpersonsaffairs
0130 (where the deposition was taken) should be heard. pryingthatisquitejustifiedifitistobealegitimateaidto
Apparently,theSandiganbayanreliedblindlyonthepetitioners litigation,butnotjustifiedifitisnottobesuchanaid.For
assertionthatthetakingofdepositionisamatterofrightand this reason, courts are given ample powers to forbid
failedtoaddresstheconsequencesand/orissuesthatmayarise discoverywhichisintendednotasanaidtolitigation,but
from the apparently innocuous statement that the petitioner merelytoannoy,embarrassoroppresseitherthedeponent
intendstousetheBanedepositioninCivilCaseNo.0009(where ortheadverseparty,orboth.(emphasisours)
only the respondents, and not Africa, are parties). The In the present case, not only did the Sandiganbayan fail to
Sandiganbayanruled: rule on respondent Enriles Opposition (which is equally
Moreimportantly,underSection1ofRule24thetakingof applicabletohiscorespondents),italsofailedtoprovideeventhe
suchdeposition,aftertheanswerhasbeenserved,isamatterof bareminimumsafeguardsfortheprotectionof,(moreso)non
rightand parties,147andtoensure
207 _______________
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 207 canberesortedtowithoutleaveofcourt.(Records,XXXVII,
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) pp.1171911720)
ItmustbeemphasizedthatevenunderRule23,theadmission 146376Phil.111112;317SCRA761(1999).
ofthedepositionuponoralexaminationisnotsimplybasedon 147InitsMotionforSummaryJudgment,datedJanuary28,
the fact of prior notice on the individual sought to be bound 1997, the petitioner itself conceded that respondents
thereby.InNorthwestAirlinesv.Cruz,146weruledthat arenotpartiestoCivilCaseNo.0130,wherethedepositionwas
The provision explicitly vesting in the court the power to taken:
order that the deposition shall not be taken connotes the 7.In this connection, we are not unmindful of the
authority to exercise discretion on the matter. However, the observationof[theSandiganbayan]that:
discretionconferredbylawisnotunlimited.Itmustbeexercised, The principal issue in the main case, Civil Case No.
notarbitrarilyoroppressively,butinareasonablemannerandin 0009 xxx which is an action for reversion, forfeiture,
consonancewiththespiritofhelaw.Thecourtsshouldalways accounting and damages, is whether or not there is
see to it that the safeguards for the protection of the preponderanceofevidencethattheClassAshareholding
parties and deponents are firmly maintained.As aptly inETPIisillgottenwealthxxx.
statedbyChiefJusticeMoran: 208
....(T)hisprovisionaffordstheadverseparty,aswell 208 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
asthedeponent,sufficientprotectionagainstabusesthat Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
that these safeguards are firmly maintained. Instead, the preponderance of evidence of alleged illgotten wealth of the
Sandiganbayansimplyboughtthepetitionersassertion(thatthe defendantstherein,especiallyJoseAfrica,RobertoS.Benedicto
taking ofBane depositionisamatterofright)and treatedthe and Manuel H. Nieto, Jr.,none of whom is a party either in
lingeringconcernse.g.,reasonabilityofthenotice;andthenon incidentCivilCaseNo.0130orinthesubjectG.R.No.107789.
partystatusoftherespondentsinCivilCaseNo.0130atwhose (Italicssupplied)(Records,XL,pp.1256812569.)
incident(docketedasG.R.No.107789)theBanedepositionwas 148MabayoFarms,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.140058,
takenratherperfunctorilytotheprejudiceoftherespondents.
August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA 110; andDevelopment Bank of the
Inconjunctionwiththeorderofconsolidation,thepetitioners
Philippinesv.Bautista,etal.,135Phil.201;26SCRA366(1968).
reliance on the prior notice on the respondents, as adequate
209
opportunityforcrossexamination,cannotoverridethenonparty
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 209
statusof the respondents in Civil Case No. 0130the effect of
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
consolidationbeingmerelyfortrial.Asnonparties,theycannot
Effect ofsubstitutionofparties.Substitutionof parties
beboundbyproceedingsinthatcase.Specifically,theycannotbe
doesnotaffecttherighttousedepositionspreviouslytaken;and,
bound by the taking of the Bane deposition without the
whenanactionhasbeendismissedandanotheractioninvolving
consequent impairment of their right of cross
the same subject is afterward brought betweenthe same
examination.148Opportunityfor crossexamination, too, even
assuming its presence, cannot be singled out as basis for the partiesor their representatives or successors in interest, all
depositionslawfullytakenanddulyfiledintheformeractionmay
admissibility of aformer testimony or depositionsince such
beusedinthelatterasiforiginallytakentherefor.[italicsand
admissibilityisalsoanchoredontherequisiteidentityofparties.
underscoringours]
To reiterate, although the Sandiganbayan considered the Bane
Inlightoftheseconsiderations,werejectthepetitionersclaim
deposition in resolving Civil Case No. 0130, its action was
that the respondents waived their right to crossexamination
premised on Africas status as a party in that case where the
when they failed to attend the taking of the Bane deposition.
Banedepositionwastaken.
Incidentally,therespondentsvigorousinsistenceontheirrightto
Corollarily,theideaofprivityalsopermeatesRule23ofthe
crossexamine the deponent speaks loudly that they never
RulesofCourtthroughitsSection5whichprovides:
intendedanywaiverofthisright.
_______________
Interestingly, the petitioners notice of the depositiontaking
Thatpointshouldnotbepreemptedintheresolutionof
reliedonRule23oftheRulesofCourt.Section15ofthisrule
thesubjectincidentinG.R.No.107789xxx
reads:
8.Nor are we unmindful that this Honorable Court made
Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time and
clearthatthefindinginitsDecember13,1996resolutiondoes
place.A party desiring to take the deposition of any person
not render moot and academic the principal issue in the main
case, Civil Case No. 0009, which is: whether or not there is uponoralexaminationshallgivereasonablenoticeinwritingto
everyotherpartytotheaction.Thenoticeshallstatethetime Lastly,weseenoreasonwhytheBanedepositioncouldnot
andplacefortakingthedepositionandthenameandaddressof have been taken earlier in Civil Case No. 0009theprincipal
each person to be examined, if known, and if the name is not actionwhereitwassoughttobeintroducedwhileBanewasstill
known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the here in the Philippines. We note in this regard that the
particularclassorgrouptowhichhebelongs.Onmotionofany PhilippineswasnolongerundertheMarcosadministrationand
partyuponwhomthenoticeisserved,thecourtmayforcause hadreturnedtonormaldemocraticprocesseswhenCivilCaseNo.
shownenlargeorshortenthetime. 0009wasfiled.Infact,thepetitionersnoticeitselfstatesthatthe
Under this provision, we do not believe that the petitioner purposeofthedepositionisforMr.MauriceBanetoidentifyand
couldreasonablyexpectthattheindividualnoticesitsenttothe testifyonthefactssetforthinhisAffidavit,whichMr.Banehad
respondentswouldbesufficienttobindthemtotheconductofthe
longexecutedin1991inMakati,Metro
thenopponents(Africas)crossexaminationsince,tobeginwith,
_______________
theywerenotevenpartiestotheaction.Additionally,weobserve
149Section6,Rule23oftheRulesofCourtreads:
thatinthenoticeofthedepositiontaking,conspicuouslyabsent
Objections to admissibility.Subject to the provisions of
wasanyindicationsufficienttoforewarnthenotifiedpersonsthat
section 29 of this Rule, objection may be made at the trial or
theirinexcusablefailuretoappearatthedepositiontakingwould
hearingtoreceivinginevidenceanydepositionorpartthereoffor
amounttoawaiveroftheirrightofcrossexamination,without
anyreasonwhichwouldrequiretheexclusionoftheevidenceif
prejudicetotherightoftherespondentstoraisetheirobjections
thewitnesswerethenpresentandtestifying.
attheappropriatetime.149We
Section17,Rule23oftheRulesofCourtreads:
_______________
Record of examination; oath; objections.The officer
149Section6,Rule23oftheRulesofCourtreads:
beforewhomthedepositionistobetakenshallputthewitnesson
210
oath and shall personally, or by someone acting under his
210 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
directionandinhispresence,recordthetestimonyofthewitness.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Thetestimonyshallbetakenstenographicallyunlesstheparties
wouldbetreadingondangerousgroundsindeedwerewetohold agree otherwise. All objections made at the time of the
thatonenotapartytoanaction,andneitherinprivitynor examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the
insubstantialidentityofinterestwithanyofthepartiesin deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the evidence
thesameaction,canbeboundbytheactionoromissionof presented,ortotheconductofanyparty,andanyotherobjection
the latter, by the mere expedient of a notice. Thus, we to the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the
cannotsimplydeduce aresultant waiverfromthe respondents deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the
merefailuretoattendthedepositiontakingdespitenoticesentby objections.Inlieuofparticipatingintheoralexamination,parties
thepetitioner. servedwithnoticeoftakingadepositionmaytransmitwritten
interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound them to the take the depositionin anincidentcase (instead of the main
witnessandrecordtheanswersverbatim. case)atatimewhenitbecamethetechnicalrightofthepetitioner
211 todoso.
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 211 _______________
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) 150Records,VolumeXXXVII,pp.1162811623.
Manila. Clearly, a deposition could then have been taken
150 151See the petitioners PreTrial Brief (Records, Volume
withoutcompromisingtherespondentsrighttocrossexaminea XXXVI,p.11405)wherethepetitionermadearepresentationto
witnessagainstthemconsideringthattheprincipalpurposeof present Mr. Maurice Bane. See the petitioners Common Reply
thedepositionischieflyamodeofdiscovery.These,toourmind, (Records, Volume XLV, pp. 110112) where the petitioner
are avoidable omissions that, when added to the deficient conceded the applicability of Section 47, Rule 130; see the
handlingofthepresentmatter,adduptothegrossdeficiencies petitionersMotionforSummaryJudgment(Records,VolumeXL,
ofthepetitionerinthehandlingofCivilCaseNo.0009. pp. 1256812569) where the petitioner admitted that the
respondentswerenotpartiestoCivilCaseNo.0130(wherethe
AfterfailingtotakeBanesdepositionin1991andinviewof
deposition wastaken)andVictor Africawasneither a partyto
the peculiar circumstances of this case, theleastthat the
CivilCaseNo.0009.
petitionercouldhavedonewastomoveforthetakingoftheBane 212
deposition and proceed with the deposition immediately upon 212 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
securingafavorablerulingthereon.Onthatoccasion,wherethe
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
respondents would havea chance to beheard, therespondents
V.The petitioner cannot rely on principle of
cannot avoid a resultant waiver of their right of cross
judicialnotice
examination if they still fail to appear at the deposition
taking.Fundamental fairness dictates this course of ThepetitioneralsoclaimsthatsincetheBanedepositionhad
already been previously introduced and admitted in Civil Case
action.Itmustbestressedthatnotonlyweretherespondents
No. 0130, then the Sandiganbayan should have taken judicial
nonpartiestoCivilCaseNo.0130,theylikewisehavenointerest
noticeoftheBanedepositionaspartofitsevidence.
in Africascertioraripetition asserting his right as an ETPI Judicialnoticeisthecognizanceofcertainfactsthatjudges
stockholder. mayproperlytakeandactonwithoutproofbecausethesefacts
Setting aside the petitioners flipflopping on its own arealreadyknowntothem.152Putdifferently,itistheassumption
representations,151thisCourtcanonlyexpressdismayonwhythe byacourtofafactwithoutneedoffurthertraditionalevidentiary
petitionerhadtoletBaneleavethePhilippinesbeforetakinghis support.Theprincipleisbasedonconvenienceandexpediencyin
depositiondespitehavingknowledgealreadyofthesubstanceof securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not
whathewouldtestifyon.ConsideringthatthetestimonyofBane
ordinarilycapableofdisputeandarenotbonafidedisputed.153
is allegedly a vital cog in the petitioners case against the
respondents,theCourtislefttowonderwhythepetitionerhadto
 Thefoundationforjudicialnoticemaybetracedtothecivil In adjudicating a case on trial, generally, courts are not
and canon law maxim,manifesta(or notoria)non indigent authorizedtotakejudicialnoticeofthecontentsoftherecordsof
probatione.154Thetakingofjudicialnoticemeansthatthecourt othercases,evenwhensuchcaseshavebeentriedorarepending
will dispense with the traditional form of presentation of inthesamecourt,andnotwithstandingthatbothcasesmayhave
evidence. In so doing, the court assumes that the matter is so beentriedorareactuallypendingbeforethesamejudge. 158This
notoriousthatitwouldnotbedisputed. rulethoughadmitsofexceptions.
TheconceptofjudicialnoticeisembodiedinRule129ofthe As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a
RevisedRulesonEvidence.Rule129eitherrequiresthecourtto courtmayproperlytreatalloranypartoftheoriginalrecordofa
take judicial notice,inter alia, of the official acts of the xxx casefiledinitsarchivesasreadintotherecordofacasepending
judicialdepartmentsofthePhilippines, 155orgivesthecourtthe before it, when,with the knowledge of,andabsent an
discretiontotakejudicialnoticeofmattersoughttobeknownto objection from,theadverse party,reference is made toit
judgesbecauseoftheirjudicialfunctions.156Ontheotherhand,a forthatpurpose,bynameandnumberorinsomeothermanner
partylitigant may ask the court to take judicial notice of any bywhichitissufficientlydesignated;orwhentheoriginalrecord
matterandthecourtmayallowthepartiestobeheardonthe oftheformercaseoranypartofit,isactuallywithdrawnfrom
proprietyoftakingjudicialnotice thearchivesatthecourtsdirection,attherequestorwiththe
_______________ consentoftheparties,andadmittedasapartoftherecordof
152RicardoJ.Francisco,supranote125,atp.69. thecasethenpending.159
153OscarM.Herrera,supranote121,atp.72. _______________
154Manifest things requirenoproof; what is knownbythe 157Id.,Section3.
magistrateneednotbeproved;JovitoR.Salonga,supranote118, 158Manuel V. Moran,supranote 123, at pp. 4748,
at p. 45; and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.,Perspectives of Evidence, citingMunicipalCouncilofSanPedroLagunav.ColegiodeSan
2005,p.52,citing1JonesonEvidence,p.209. Jose,65Phil.318(1938);andPrietov.Arroyo,121Phil.1335;14
155Section1,Rule129oftheRevisedRulesonEvidence. SCRA549(1965).
156Id.,Section2. 159InOccidental Land Transportation Co., Inc. v. Court of
213 Appeals, G.R. No. 96721, March19, 1993, 220 SCRA 167, 176,
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 213
citingTabuena v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650 (1991), we
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) stated:
ofthematterinvolved.157Inthepresentcase,afterthepetitioner AndunlikethefactualsituationinTabuenav.CA,the
filed itsUrgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice, the decisioninCivilCaseNo.3156formedpartoftherecords
respondents were also heard through their corresponding of the instant case (Civil Case No. 2728) with the
oppositions. knowledge of the parties and in the absence of their
 objection.Thisfactwaspointedoutbythelowercourt,to judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall
wit: dismisstheclaim.(underscoringours)
ThexxxfindingsoftheOroquietaCourtbecame InLewinv.Galang,etc.,109Phil.1041,1045(1960),citedby
as conclusive upon the company and its driver by thepetitioner,theCourtheld:
their acquiescence and silence x x x. (Decision of Inviewofthisspecialdefense[resjudicata],thecourt
lowercourt,p.12;records,p.239)
below should have taken judicial notice of thehabeas
xxxx
corpusproceedingsinstitutedbypetitionerbeforethesame
Returning to Exhibit O,supra(Decision, Civil
Court of First Instance of Manila and before the same
CaseNo.3156,CFI,BranchIII,OroquietaCity),the
judge, Case No. 28409,Ted Lewin v. Commissioner of
Courthastenstoadd:
214 Immigration and Commissioner of Customs, and we find
214 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED thatpracticallythesamefactsrelieduponinpetitioners
presentpetitionfordeclaratoryjudgmentaretheveryfacts
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
uponwhichpetitionerbasedhisrequestfortheissuanceof
Courtsmustalsotakejudicialnoticeoftherecordsofanother
caseorcases,wheresufficientbasisexistsintherecordsofthe thewritofhabeascorpusinthepreviouscase.
casebeforeit,warrantingthedismissalofthelattercase. 160 InTiburcio, et al. v. Peoples Homesite and Housing
_______________ Corporation,etal.,106Phil.477,483484(1959),likewisecitedby
Said exhibit has not been objected to nor commented thepetitioner,weheld:
upon by the defendants Company and Enerio, through Appellants finally claim that thelower court erred in
theircounsel,xxx. dismissingthecomplaintonthegroundofresjudicataby
Thisbeingthecase,petitionerswereawarethatExhibitO taking judicial notice of its own records in Land
(DecisioninCivilCaseNo.3156)hadformedpartoftherecordsof Registration Case No. L3 invoking in support of their
thecaseandwouldtherebybeconsideredbythetrialcourtinits contention theprinciple thatacourtcannottakejudicial
decision. notice of the contents of the records of other cases even
160Section1,Rule9oftheRulesofCourtreads: when such cases had been tried by the same court and
Defensesandobjectionsnotpleaded.Defensesand notwithstandingthe[fact]thatbothcasesmayhavebeen
objectionsnotpleadedeitherinamotiontodismissorin triedbeforethesamejudge.Whiletheprincipleinvokedis
theansweraredeemedwaived.However,whenitappears consideredtobethegeneralrule,thesameisnotabsolute.
fromthepleadingsortheevidenceonrecordthatthecourt 215
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 215
another action pendingbetween thesameparties forthe Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
 Theissuebeforeusdoesnotinvolvetheapplicabilityofthe courtdidnoterrindismissingthecomplaintontheground
rule on mandatory taking of judicial notice; neither is the ofresjudicata.
applicabilityoftheruleondiscretionarytakingofjudicialnotice 161PetitionersReply with Manifestation(to respondent
seriouslypursued.Rather,thepetitionerapproachestheconcept
EnrilesComment)enumeratesthevariousfamilymembercases
of judicial notice from agenealogical perspectiveof treating
whicharosefromthepresentandmaincase,CivilCaseNo.0009.
whatever evidence offered in any of the children casesCivil
162De los Angeles v. Hon. Cabahug, et al., 106 Phil. 839
Case0130asevidenceintheparentcaseCivilCase0009or
ofthewholefamilyofcases. 161Tothepetitioner,thesupposed (1959);Lewinv.Galang,etc.,supranote160;andTiburcio,etal.
relationshipofthesecaseswarrantsthetakingofjudicialnotice. v.PeoplesHomesiteandHousingCorporation,etal.,supranote
We strongly disagree.First, the supporting cases162the 160.
petitioner cited are inapplicable either because these cases 163Lewin v. Galang,etc., supra; andTiburcio, et al. v.
involveonlyasingleproceedingoranexceptiontotherule,which PeoplesHomesiteandHousingCorporation,etal.,supra.
proscribesthecourtsfromtakingjudicialnoticeofthecontentsof 216
therecordsofothercases.163Second,thepetitionerspropositionis 216 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
obviously obnoxious to a system of orderly procedure. The Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
petitioneritselfadmitsthatthe presentcasehasgeneratedalotofcases,which,inalllikelihood,
_______________ involveissuesofvaryingcomplexity.Ifwefollowthelogicofthe
There are exceptions to this rule. Thus, as noted by petitionersargument,wewouldbeespousingjudicialconfusion
formerChiefJusticeMoran: by indiscriminately allowing the admission of evidence in one
In some instance[s], courts have taken judicial case, which was presumably found competent and relevant in
notice of proceedings in other causes, because of anothercase,simplybasedonthesupposedlineageofthecases.
their close connection with the matter in Itisthedutyofthepetitioner,asapartylitigant,toproperlylay
controversy.xxx beforethecourttheevidenceitreliesuponinsupportoftherelief
Moreover,appellantsobjectiontotheactionofthetrial it seeks, instead of imposing that same duty on the court. We
courtonthismatterismerelytechnicalbecausetheydonot invitethepetitionersattentiontoourprefatorypronouncement
dispute the fact that appellant x x x, who instituted the inLopezv.Sandiganbayan:164
presentcase,isthesamepersonwhofiledtheapplication Downtheofttroddenpathinourjudicialsystem,bycommon
inLandRegistrationCaseNo.L3fortheregistrationof sense,traditionandthelaw,theJudgeintryingacaseseesonly
thesameparceloflandwhichapplicationwasdeniedby withjudicialeyesasheoughttoknownothingaboutthefactsof
the court xxx. It may therefore besaid thatin the two the case, except those which have been adduced judicially in
cases there is not only identity of subject matter but evidence.Thus,whenthecaseisupfortrial,thejudicialheadis
identity of parties and causes of action. Indeed, the trial
emptyastofactsinvolvedanditisincumbentuponthelitigants
totheactiontoestablishbyevidencethefactsuponwhichthey First:ContentsoftheBanedepositionnotanIssue.The
rely.(emphasisours) dissent perfectly identified what is at issue in this casei.e.,
Wethereforerefuse,inthestrongestterms,toentertainthe theadmissibilityof the Bane deposition. Admissibility is
petitionersargumentthatweshouldtakejudicialnoticeofthe concerned with the competenceandrelevance166of the evidence,
Banedeposition. whoseadmissionissought.Whilethedissentquotedatlengththe
VI.Summation Bane deposition, it may not be amiss to point out thatthe
Torecapitulate,weholdthat:(1)theSandiganbayansdenial relevance of the Bane deposition(or, to adopt the dissents
ofthepetitioners3rdmotiontheMotiontoAdmitSupplemental characterization,whetherMauriceV.Baneisavitalwitness)
OfferofEvidence(Re:DepositionofMauriceBane)wasalegal isnotan issue here unless it can be establishedfirstthat the
error that did not amount to grave abuse of discretion;(2)the Banedepositionisacompetentevidence.
Sandiganbayans refusal to reopen the case at the petitioners Second:Misrepresentation of Cited Authority.The
instance was tainted with grave abuse of discretion; dissent insists that in Philippine Jurisprudence, the
and(3)notwithstanding the grave abuse of discretion,the consolidationofcasesmergesthedifferentactionsintooneand
petition must ultimately failas the Bane deposition is not therightsofthepartiesareadjudicatedinasinglejudgment,
admissibleundertherulesofevidence.165 citingVicenteJ.Francisco.Inourdiscussiononconsolidation,we
_______________ footnotedthefollowinginresponsetothedissentsposition,which
164319Phil.387,389;249SCRA281,282(1995). wewillrestatehereforemphasis:
165RulesofCourt,Rule130,Section47. Inthe1966editionofVicenteJ.FranciscosRevisedRulesof
217 Court,Franciscowrote:
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 217 Theeffectofconsolidationofactionsistouniteandmergeall
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) ofthedifferent actions consolidatedintoasingleaction,inthe
VII.RefutationofJusticeCarpiosLastMinuteModified samemannerasifthe differentcausesof actionsinvolvedhad
originally been joined in a single action, and the order of
Dissent
consolidation, if made by a court of competent jurisdiction, is
At the last minute, Justice Carpio circulated a modified
bindinguponallthepartiestothedifferentactionsuntilitisva
dissent,quotingtheBanedeposition.Hiscoveringnotestates:
_______________
I have revised my dissenting opinion to include the Bane
166REVISEDRULESONEVIDENCE,Rule128,Section3.
depositionsothattheCourtandthepublicwillunderstandwhat
218
theBanedepositionisallabout.(underliningadded)
218 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
In light of this thrust, a discussion refuting the modified
dissentisinorder. Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
catedorsetaside.Aftertheconsolidationtherecanbenofurther
proceedingsin the separate actions, whichare by virtueofthe
consolidation discontinued and superseded by a single action, 167ThedissentthencomparestheproceedingsintheCourt
whichshouldbeentitledinsuchmannerasthecourtmaydirect, when cases are consolidated to support its position that
and all subsequent proceedings therein be conducted and the consolidation results in the merger of the different causes of
rightsofthepartiesadjudicatedinasingleaction(1C.J.S.,113, action.However,itisnotexactlyappropriatetocomparethe
pp.13711372). consolidation of cases in the Supreme Court with the
At the very beginning of the discussion on consolidation of consolidationorderedbytheSandiganbayanbecausethe
actions in theCorpus Juris Secundum, the following caveat SupremeCourtisNOTatrieroffacts.First,thescopeofour
appears: reviewislimitedgenerallytoquestionsoflaw.Hence,noissue
Thetermconsolidationisusedinthreedifferentsenses.First, of prejudice to other parties can arise should petitions in the
where several actions are combined into one and lose their Court be consolidated.Second,unlike consolidated cases in
separateidentity and become a single action in which a single theSupremeCourt,theSandiganbayan
judgment is rendered;second, where all except one of several 219
actionsarestayeduntiloneistried,inwhichcasethejudgment VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 219
in the one is conclusive as to the others;third, where several Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its
Third:Misappreciation of the Purpose of Consoli
separate character and requires the entry of a separate
dation.Thedissentthenturnstothepurposeofconsolidation
judgment.Thefailuretodistinguishbetweenthesemethods
to expeditiously settle the interwoven issues involved in the
of procedure, which are entirely distinct, thetwolatter, consolidatedcasesandthesimplificationoftheproceedings.It
strictlyspeaking,notbeingconsolidation,afactwhichhas arguesthatthiscanonlybeachievediftherepetitionofthesame
not always been noted, has caused some confusion and evidenceisdispensedwith.
conflictinthecases.(1C.J.S.,107,pp.13411342)(Emphasis Itisunfortunatethatthedissentrefusestorecognizethefact
added). that since consolidation is primarily addressed to the court
In defining the term consolidation of actions,Francisco concernedtoaiditindispatchingitsofficialbusiness,itwouldbe
providedacolatillathatthetermconsolidationisused in keeping with the orderly trial procedure if the court should
inthreedifferentsenses,citing1C.J.S.1341and1Am.Jur. have a say on what consolidation would actually
477(Francisco,RevisedRulesofCourt,p.348). bring168(especiallywhere several cases are involved which have
Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthatthedissentappearstohave becomerelativelycomplex).Inthepresentcase,thereisnothing
quotedFranciscosstatementoutofcontext.Asitis,theissueof in the proceedings below that would suggest that the
the effect of consolidation on evidence is at most an unsettled Sandiganbayanorthepartiesthemselves(thepetitionerandthe
matter that requires the approach we did in the majoritys respondents)hadinmindaconsolidationbeyondjointhearingor
discussiononconsolidation.167 trial.WhyshouldthisCourtwhichisnotatrialcourtimposea
_______________ purportedeffectthathasnofactualorlegalgrounds?
 Fourth:The Due Process Consideration.The dissent the request for the depositiontaking. For emphasis,
argues that even if the consolidation only resulted in a joint theSandiganbayan did not grant the requestsince the
hearing or trial, the respondents are still bound by the Bane petitioner staunchly asserted that the depositiontaking was
deposition considering that they were given notice of the amatterofright.Noonecandenythecomplexityoftheissues
depositiontaking.Theissuehereboilsdowntooneofdue that these consolidated cases have reached. Considering the
processthefundamentalreasonwhyahearsaystatement(not consolidation of cases of this nature,the most minimum of
subjectedtotherigorofcrossexamination)isgenerallyexcluded fairness demands upon the petitioner tomovefor the
intherealmofadmissibleevidenceespeciallywhenreadinlight takingoftheBanedepositionandfortheSandiganbayan
ofthegeneralrulethatdepositionsarenotmeantassubstitute to make a ruling thereon(including the opposition filed by
fortheactualtestimony,inopencourt,ofapartyorwitness. respondent Enrile which equally applies to hiscorespondents).
RespondentEnrilehadapendingOppositiontothenoticeof Theburgeoningomissionandfailuresthathaveprevailedinthis
depositiontaking (questioning the reasonableness thereofan casecannotbecuredbythisCourtwithoutitselfbeingguiltyof
issue applicable to the rest of the respondents) which the violatingtheconstitutionalguaranteeofdueprocess.
Sandiganbayanfailedtoruleon.TomaketheSandiganbayans Sixth:Issues Posed and Resolved Go Beyond
omission worse, the Sandiganbayan blindly relied on the Technicalities.The above conclusions, contrary to the
petitionersassertionthatthe petitioners claim, are not only matters of technicality.
_______________ Admittedly,rulesofprocedureinvolvetechnicality,towhichwe
itselfhad,infact,separatelyadjudgedanincidentofCivil haveappliedtheliberalitythattechnicalrulesdeserve.Butthe
CaseNo.0130andthefewotherincidentcasesindependentof resolution of the issues raised goes beyond pure or mere
CivilCaseNo.0009. technicalities as the preceding discussions show. They involve
168CorrectibleunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt. issues of due process and basic unfairness to the respondents,
220 particularlytorespondentEnrile,whoisportrayedintheBane
220 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED deposition to beacting in behalf of the Marcoses so that these
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) shares should be deemed to be those of the Marcoses. They
depositiontaking was a matter of right and, thus, failed to involved, too, principles upon which our rules of procedure are
addresstheconsequencesand/orissuesthatmayarisefromthe foundedandwhichwecannotdisregardwithoutflirtingwiththe
apparentlyinnocuousstatementofthepetitioner(thatitintends violation of guaranteed substantive rights and without risking
tousetheBanedepositioninCivilCaseNo.0009,whereonlythe thedisorderthattheseruleshavesoughttoavertinthecourseof
respondents,andnotAfrica,aretheparties). 169Thereissimply theirevolution.
theabsenceofdueindueprocess. _______________
Fifth:MisstatementoftheSandiganbayansAction.The 169WhenitdeniedAfrica'sseparateopposition.
dissent repeatedly misstates that the Sandiganbayan granted 221
 VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 221 _______________
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) 1UnderRule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
222
IntheCourtEnBancdeliberationsofDecember6,2011,the
222 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Courtfailedtoarriveataconclusivedecisionbecauseofatievote
(77,withoneJusticetakingnopart).Thesamevoteresultedin Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
therevotingofDecember13,2011.Inthislight,theponenciais The case pertains to the complaint filed before the
deemedsustained. Sandiganbayan by petitioner against private respondents for
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weDISMISSthepetition reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages.
forlackofmerit.Nocosts. Thecomplaint,whichwasfiledon22July1987,wasdocketedas
SOORDERED. CivilCaseNo.0009.CivilCaseNo.0009involves,amongothers,
thesharesofprivaterespondentsinEasternTelecommunications
Corona (C.J.), Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Philippines,Inc.(ETPI),whichwereallegedlyillgottenandwere
PerezandMendoza,JJ.,concur. eventuallysequesteredbythegovernment.2
Carpio,J.,SeeDissentingOpinion. The issue in thiscertiorariproceeding concerns the
Velasco,Jr.,J.,IjointheopinionofJ.A.T.Carpiowiththe admissibility of the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, taken
qualification that the Bane deposition cannot be used against primarilyfortestimonyregardingtheinterlocutoryissueinCivil
respondentJuanPonceEnrilebecauseofhisoppositionthereto. CaseNo.0130,whichisoneoftheincidentcasesofCivilCaseNo.
LeonardoDeCastro,J.,NoPart. 0009.
Abad,J.,IjointhedissentofJ.Carpio. CivilCaseNo.0130isapetitionforcertiorarifiledwiththe
Villarama,Jr.,J.,IjointhedissentofJ.Carpio. SandiganbayanbyVictorAfrica,sonofJoseL.Africa, 3whoisone
Sereno,J.,IjointhedissentofJ.Carpio. of the defendants in Civil Case No. 0009, against the PCGG.
Victor Africa filed the petition, seeking to nullify the PCGG
Reyes,J.,IjointhedissentofJ.Carpio.
ordersdirectinghim,amongothers,toaccountforhissequestered
PerlasBernabe,J.,IjointhedissentofJ.Carpio. shares in ETPI.In aResolution dated 12 April 1993,4the
DISSENTINGOPINION
Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of the main
CARPIO,J.: case, Civil Case No. 0009, with several incident cases
Thisisaspecialcivilactionforcertiorari1filedbytheRepublic includingCivilCaseNo.0130.5
of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Presidential On25September1996,inCivilCaseNo.0009inconnection
CommissiononGoodGovernment(PCGG), seekingtosetaside withIncidentCaseNo.0130andG.R.No.107789,petitionerfiled
the Resolution dated 7 February 2002 of the Sandiganbayan,
with the Sandiganbayan aSecond Amended Notice to Take
whichdeniedpetitionersMotiontoAdmitSupplementalOfferof
DepositionofMr.MauriceV.BaneUponOralExamination. 6On
Evidence(Re:DepositionofMauriceV.Bane). 23and24October1996,thedepositionuponoralexaminationof
MauriceV.Bane,formerdirectorandtreasurerintrustofETPI, On 14 December 1999, petitioner made itsFormal Offer of
was taken before Consul General Ernesto Castro at the EvidenceconsistingofExhibitsAtoXX27.However,through
PhilippineEmbassyinLondon,Eng oversight, petitioner failed to include among its exhibits the
_______________
depositionofMauriceV.Bane.Thus,initsUrgentMotionAnd/Or
2SeePetition forCertiorari, dated 14 March 2002, p.
Request for Judicial Noticedated 21 February 2000, petitioner
12;Rollo,p.13. prayedthatitbeallowedtointroduceasadditionalevidencethe
3Uponhisdemise,JoseL.Africawaseventuallysubstituted deposition of Maurice V. Bane, or in the alternative, for the
byhisheirsasdefendantsinCivilCaseNo.0009.VictorAfricais Sandiganbayantotakejudicialnoticeofthefactsestablishedby
one of the legal representatives/forced heirs of deceased the said deposition. On 21 August 2000, the Sandiganbayan
respondentJoseL.Africa;SandiganbayanResolutionissuedon1 issuedaResolutiondenyingpetitionersmotion.TheResolution
April1998,p.6;Rollo,p.336. stated:
4Promulgatedon15April1993. AllegedlythedepositionofMauriceV.Banewasintroduced
5SeeSandiganbayan Resolution issued on 1 April 1998, p. asPCGGsevidenceinCivilCaseNo.0130(inrelationtoG.R.No.
5;Rollo,p.335;Records,pp.66466649. 107789)whichisanincidentofandconsolidatedwiththeabove
6Rollo,pp.6871. entitledcaseinconnectionwithPCGGsVeryUrgentPetitionfor
223 AuthoritytoHoldSpecialStockholdersMeetingforthePurposeof
Increasing ETPIs Authorized Capital Stock and the said
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 223
deposition of Maurice V. Bane is now a part and parcel of the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
recordofthismaincase.
land.AmongthedefendantsinthemainCivilCaseNo.0009,only JudicialnoticeisfoundunderRule129whichistitledWhat
VictorAfricaappearedduringthetakingofthedeposition. Need Not Be Proved. Apparently, this provision refers to the
On22January1998,petitionerfiledamotion 7prayingthatit Courtsdutytoconsideradmissionsmadebythepartiesinthe
beallowedtoadoptthetestimoniesofseveralofitswitnessesin pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in
incidentalCivilCaseNos.0048,0050,0130and0146,including resolvingcasesbeforeit.ThedutyoftheCourtis
the depositionof Maurice V.Bane,asitsevidence in themain _______________
case,CivilCaseNo.0009.On1April1998,theSandiganbayan
7Id.,atpp.322329.
issuedaResolution,denying in partthe motionas regards the
adoptionofthetestimonyonoraldepositionofMauriceV.Bane 8SeeSandiganbayan Resolution issued on 1 April 1998, p.
(andRolandoGapud)aspartofpetitionersevidenceinCivilCase 6;Rollo,p.336.
No. 0009, for the reason that said deponents according to the 224
plaintiff,arenotavailableforcrossexaminationinthisCourtby 224 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thedefendants.8 Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
mandatory and in those cases where it is discretionary, the The only issue that the court is actually called upon to
initiativeisupontheCourt.Suchbeingthecase,theCourtfinds addressinthependingincidentiswhetherornotWeshouldallow
theUrgentMotionand/orRequestforjudicialnoticeassomething plaintiffmovantsSupplemental Offer of Evidenceconsisting of
which need not be acted upon as the same is considered thedepositionofMauriceV.Bane.
redundant. _______________
On the matter of the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, the 9SandiganbayanResolutionissuedon21August2000,pp.3
admissionofthesameisdonethroughtheordinaryformalofferof 4;Rollo,pp.354355.
exhibits wherein the defendant is given ample opportunity to 10Sandiganbayan Resolution issued on 3 April 2001, p.
raiseobjectionongroundsprovidedbylaw.Definitely,itisnot
2;Rollo,p.358.
underArticle129onjudicialnotice.9
225
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 225
Sandiganbayan denied in a Resolution issued on 3 April 2001.
TheResolutionstated: Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
In the subject Resolution [issued on 21 August 2000], this xxx
CourtruledthattheUrgentMotionand/orRequestforJudicial DefendantsOppositionto the pending incident as well as
Noticewassomethingthatneednotbeacteduponasthesame plaintiffsReplyto theOppositiongave various reasons why the
wasalreadyconsideredredundant,thedepositionofBane, motionshouldorshouldnotbegranted.Butinthecourtsview,it
havingbecomepartandparceloftherecordofthismain isnot really a question of whether or not plaintiffhas already
casesinceCivilCaseNo.0130isanincidenttothesame. resteditscaseastoobviatethefurtherpresentationofevidence.
This Courtfurtherheldthattheadmission ofsame isdone Itisnotevenaquestionofwhetherthenonappearingdefendants
through ordinary formal offer of exhibits wherein defendant is aredeemedtohavewaivedtheirrighttocrossexamineBaneas
givenampleopportunitytoraiseobjectionongroundsprovidedby to qualify the admission of the deposition sans such cross
law,andnotunderRule129onjudicialnotice. examination.Indeed,Wedonotseeanyneedtodwellonthese
WHEREFORE, there being no other issue which merit matters in view of this courtsResolutionrendered in April 1,
consideration of this Court, the Motion for Reconsideration is 1998whichalreadydeniedtheintroductioninevidenceofBanes
herebydenied.10(Emphasissupplied) depositionandwhichhasbecomefinalinviewofplaintiffsfailure
On 16 November 2001, petitioner filed aMotion to Admit tofileanymotionforreconsiderationorappealwithinthe15day
Supplemental Offer of Evidence (Re: Deposition of Maurice V. reglementary period. Rightly or wrongly, the resolution stands
andforthiscourttograntplaintiffsmotionatthispointintime
Bane),seekingonceagaintheadmissionofthedeposition.On7
would in effect sanction plaintiffs disregard for the rules of
February 2002, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed
procedure.Plaintiffhassleptonitsrightsforalmosttwoyears
Resolution, denying petitioners motion. The Sandiganbayan
anditwasonlyinFebruaryof2000thatitsoughttorectifyits
ruled:
ineptitudebyfilingamotiontoreopenitscaseastoenableitto
introduceandofferBanesdepositionasadditionalevidence,orin JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,
the alternative for the court to take judicial notice of the Defendants.
allegations of the deposition. But how can such a motion be It should be noted that the late Jose L. Africa, one of the
granted when it has been resolved as early as 1998 that the defendantsinCivilCaseNo.0009,hasbeensubstitutedbyhis
deposition is inadmissible. Without plaintiff having moved for heirs, including his son Victor Africa. Thus, Justice Brions
reconsideration within the reglementary period, the resolution statementthatVictorAfricaisplainlynotapartytoCivilCase
hasattainedfinalityanditseffectcannotbeundonebythesimple No. 000912is misleading. Although Victor Africa was not
expedient of filing a motion, which though purporting to be a originallyimpleadedinCivilCaseNo.0009,VictorAfricabecame
novel motion, is in reality a motion for reconsideration of this oneofthesubstitutedefendantsinCivilCaseNo.0009uponthe
courts1998ruling.Hence,thesubsequentmotions,includingthe demise of Jose L. Africa. In fact, Victor Africa, as substitute
presentincidentaredeemedmootandacademic. 11 defendant in Civil Case No. 0009, has filed with the
Hence,thispetitionforcertiorari. Sandiganbayanseveralpleadings13andhisOfferofEvidence.14
Ivotetograntthepetition. AllthedefendantsofCivilCaseNo.0009weregivennoticeof
It is important to note that theSecond Amended Notice to thescheduledtestimonybyoraldepositionofMauriceV.Bane.
TakeDepositionofMr.MauriceV.BaneUponOralExamination, Furthermore, the notice stated that [t]he deposition of said
filedon25September1996,wasaftertheconsolidationofCivil witnessshallbeusedinevidenceinIncidentCaseNo.0130G.R.
No.107789aswell
CaseNo.0130withthemaincase,CivilCaseNo.0009,through
_______________
the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 12 April 1993. This is
12JusticeBrionsmodifieddraftDecision,p.2.
evidentinthecaptionofthenotice,thus:
_______________ 13CommentcumOpposition,filedon18July2008,SBrecords
11Rollo,pp.63,6567. (CivilCaseNo.0009),Volume66,pp.126136;Rejoinder,filedon
226 14September2009,SBrecords(CivilCaseNo.0009),Volume67,
226 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED pp. 206210;Comment cum Opposition, filed on 14 September
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) 2009, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 67, pp. 212
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES 213;Memorandum, filed on 8 February 2010, SB records (Civil
SANDIGANBAYAN CaseNo.0009),Volume68,pp.6273.
MANILA 14OfferofEvidencefiledon14May2008,SBrecords(Civil
ThirdDivision CaseNo.0009),Volume65,pp. 539545;SupplementalOfferof
Republic of the Philippines, Evidencefiledon4September2008,SBrecords(CivilCaseNo.
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 0009 0009),Volume66,pp.242243.
versus (IncidentCaseNo.0130 227
andG.R.No.107789) VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 227
 Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) thepartyofferingthedepositionhasbeenunabletoprocurethe
asinthemaincaseofCivilCaseNo.0009.15Sincenoticeshave attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application
beendulyservedonallthedefendants,thosewhofailedtoshow andnotice,thatsuchexceptionalcircumstancesexistastomake
upatthedepositiontakingaredeemedtohavewaivedtheirright itdesirable,intheinterestofjusticeandwithdueregardtothe
toappearandcrossexaminethedeponent.Indeed,underSection importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in
4,Rule23oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,thedepositionmaybe opencourt,toallowthedepositiontobeused;and
usedagainstanypartywhowaspresentorrepresentedat (d) ifonlypartofthedepositionisofferedinevidencebya
party,the adverse partymayrequire him to introduceallof it
the taking of the deposition or who had due notice
whichisrelevanttothe
thereof.Section4,Rule23reads:
_______________
Sec.4.Useofdepositions.Atthetrialoruponthehearing 15Underscoringintheoriginal.
ofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding,anypartorallofa 228
deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of 228 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
evidence,maybeusedagainstanypartywhowaspresent
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
orrepresentedatthetakingofthedepositionorwhohad
partintroduced,andanypartymayintroduceanyotherparts.
duenoticethereof,inaccordancewithanyoneofthefollowing (Emphasissupplied)
provisions: GrantingthatamongthedefendantsinthemainCivilCase
(a)Anydepositionmaybeusedbyanypartyforthepurpose No.0009,onlyVictorAfricaisapartytotheincidentCivilCase
of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as No. 0130, still all the other defendants in Civil Case No. 0009
witness; weregivennoticeofthescheduleddepositiontaking.Thereason
(b)Thedepositionofapartyorofanyonewhoatthetimeof whyallthedefendantsweregivennoticeofthesaiddeposition
thetakingofthedepositionwasanofficer,director,ormanaging takingwasbecauseatthattime,CivilCaseNo.0130wasalready
agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or consolidatedwithCivilCaseNo.0009andasemphasizedinthe
associationwhichisapartymaybeusedbyanadversepartyfor secondamendednotice,[t]hedepositionofsaidwitnessshall
anypurpose; be used in evidence in Incident Case No. 0130G.R. No.
(c)Thedepositionofawitness,whetherornotaparty,may
107789aswellasinthemaincaseofCivilCaseNo.0009.16
beusedbyanypartyforanypurposeifthecourtfinds:(1)that
The Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 12 April 1993 which
the witness is dead; or (2)that the witness resides at a
consolidated the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, with several
distancemorethanonehundred(100)kilometersfromthe
incidentcasesincludingCivilCaseNo.0130,reads:
placeoftrialorhearing,orisoutofthePhilippines,unless RepublicofthePhilippines
itappearsthathisabsencewasprocuredbythepartyofferingthe SANDIGANBAYAN
deposition;or(3)thatthewitnessisunabletoattendortestify Manila
becauseofage,sickness,infirmity,orimprisonment;or(4)that
 JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,
THIRDDIVISION Plaintiffs,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, versusCIVILCASENO.0045
Plaintiff, EDUARDO M. VILLANUEVA and
versusCIVILCASENO.0009 PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL., GOOD GOVERNMENT,
Defendants. Defendants.
xx xx
VICTOR AFRICA, ET AL., JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,
Intervenors, Plaintiffs,
xx versusCIVILCASENO.0047
_______________ MELQUIADES GUTIERREZ, ET AL.,
16Underscoringintheoriginal;boldfacingsupplied. Defendants.
229 xx
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 229 VICTOR AFRICA, ET AL.,
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Plaintiffs,
POLYGON INVESTORS AND MANAGERS, versusCIVILCASENO.0130230
INC., 230 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Plaintiff, Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
versusCIVILCASENO.0043 PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,
GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Defendants.
Defendants. xx
xx TRADERS ROYAL BANK,
AEROCOM INVESTORS AND MANAGERS, Plaintiff,
INC., versusCIVILCASENO.0131
Plaintiff, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
versusCIVILCASENO.0044 GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON Defendants.
GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL., xx
Defendants. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO.,
xx Plaintiff,
versusCIVILCASENO.0139
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON Plaintiffs,
GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL., versusCIVILCASENO.0114
Defendants. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION Present:
xx ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, HERMOSISIMA,J.,
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, Defendant. Chairman,
Plaintiff, DEL ROSARIO &
versusCIVILCASENO.0143 DE LEON,JJ.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON Promulgated:April15,1993
GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL., xx
Defendants. RESOLUTION
xx
DELEON,J.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK,
SubmittedforresolutionistheMotionforConsolidation,dated
Plaintiff,
June 22, 1992, filed by the Republic of the Philippines
versusCIVILCASENO.0128
(representedbythePCGG),throughcounsel.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
The record shows that there is no opposition in the
GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,
aboveentitled cases to the said motion. It also appears
Defendants.
that the subject matters of the aboveentitled cases are
xx231
and/ormaybetreatedasmereincidentsinCivilCaseNo.
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 231
0009.232
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
232 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
DOMESTIC SATELLITE
PHILIPPINES, INC., Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Petitioner, WHEREFORE, the aboveentitled cases are hereby
versusCIVILCASENO.0106 ordered consolidated withCivilCaseNo. 0009, andshall
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON henceforthbeconsideredandtreatedasmereincidentsof
GOOD GOVERNMENT AND THE saidCivilCaseNo.0009.
ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, SOORDERED.
Respondents. Manila,Philippines,April12,1993.17
xx Section1,Rule31oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS Section1.Consolidation.When actions involving a
SATELLITE CORPORATION AND commonquestionoflaworfactarependingbeforethecourt,it
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOM mayorderajointhearingortrialofanyorallthemattersinissue
MUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
intheactions;itmayorderalltheactionsconsolidated;and In this kind of consolidation, the cases are merely tried
itmaymakesuchordersconcerningproceedingsthereinasmay togetherbutadecisionisrenderedseparatelyineachcase.
tendtoavoidunnecessarycostsordelay.(Emphasissupplied) In Philippine jurisprudence,the consolidation of cases
The 12 April 1993 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan mergesthedifferentactionsintooneandtherightsofthe
orderedaconsolidationofallthecases,notmerelyajoint partiesareadjudicatedinasinglejudgment,thus:
hearingortrial. The effect ofconsolidationofactionsis tounite and
Justice Brion maintains that to resolve the issue of the mergeallofthedifferentactionsconsolidatedintoasingle
admissibility of the Bane deposition, the effect of the action, in the same manner as if the different causes of
consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with Civil Case No. 0009 action involved had originally been joined in a single
shouldfirstbedetermined.JusticeBrionemphasizesthatdespite action, and the order of consolidation, if made by a court of
the consolidation, the two cases remain distinct and separate competent jurisdiction, is binding upon all the parties to the
from each other, such that a mere notice of deposition taking, different actions until it is vacated or set aside.After the
even if under the expressed intent of using the testimony in consolidationtherecanbenofurtherproceedingsinthe
evidenceinthemaincase,cannotautomaticallybindtheprivate
separateactions,whicharebyvirtueoftheconsolidation
respondentswhowerenotpreviouslyheardthereon.
discontinued and superseded by a single action, which
InhismodifieddraftDecision,JusticeBrionpositsthatthe
shouldbeentitledinsuchmannerasthecourtmaydirect,
consolidationofCivilCaseNo.0009withseveralincidentcases
includingCivilCaseNo.0130ismerelyaconsolidationfortrial. andallsubsequentproceedingsthereinbeconductedand
Onpage31ofthemodifiedDraftDecision,aconsolidationfor the rights of the parties adjudicated in a single
trial,asdefinedinAmericanjurisprudenceis: action.18(Emphasissupplied)
Whereseveralactionsareorderedtobetriedtogetherbuteach Indeed,whenconsolidatedcasesareappealedtotheSupreme
retains its separate character and requires entry of a separate CourtorwhentheCourtordersconsolidationofcases,theJustice
judgment.Thistypeof to whom the consolidated cases are assigned renders a single
_______________ decision, adjudicating all the rights of the parties in the
17SB Records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 18, pp. 6646 consolidated cases.19The Chief Justice assigns the consolidated
6649.(Boldfacingsupplied) cases to the MemberinCharge to whom the case having the
233 lowerorlowestdocketnumberhasbeenraffled.20
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 233 _______________
182 V. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Philippines352353(1973).
consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or
causethepartiestooneactiontobepartiestotheother. 19SeeRepublic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 166859, 169203 & 180702, 12 April 2011, 648 SCRA
47;RaquelSantosv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.174986,175071
& 181415, 7 July 2009, 592 SCRA 169;Grefalde v. The Sandiganbayan has a similar rule regarding the
Sandiganbayan,401Phil.553;348SCRA367(2000). consolidationof cases.Section 2,Rule XII ofthe Revised
Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan (A.M. No. 02607SB
20Active Wood Products, Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 260
dated28August2002)provides:
Phil.825;181SCRA774(1990).Section5,Rule9oftheInternal
RulesoftheSupremeCourtreads: SEC.2.Consolidation of Cases.Cases arising from
234 the same incident or series of incidents, or involving
commonquestionsoffactandlaw,maybeconsolidatedin
234 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
theDivisiontowhichthe casebearing thelowest docket
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
numberisraffled.
The12April1993ResolutionoftheSandiganbayanordered
(a)BeforeCasesAreRaffledShouldtheproprietyof
theconsolidationoftheincidentalcases,includingCivilCaseNo.
consolidationappearuponthefilingofthecasesconcerned
0130,withthemaincase,CivilCaseNo.0009.Unlikeamere asdeterminedbytheRaffleCommittee,allsuchcasesshall
orderofajointhearingortrialofanyorallthemattersin beconsolidatedandconsideredasonecaseforpurposesof
issue in the actions, theconsolidation of actions merges theraffleandinventoryofpendingcasesassignedtoeach
thedifferentac oftheDivisions.
_______________ (b)After Cases Are RaffledShould the propriety of
SEC.5.Consolidationofcases.TheCourtmayorder such consolidation become apparent only after the cases
the consolidation of cases involving common questions of are raffled, consolidation may be effected upon written
laworfact.TheChiefJusticeshallassigntheconsolidated motionofalitigantconcernedfiledwiththeDivisiontaking
casesto theMemberinCharge towhomthecasehaving cognizanceofthecasetobeconsolidated.Ifthemotionis
thelowerorlowestdocketnumberhasbeenraffled,subject granted, consolidation shall be made to the Division in
toequalizationofcasesloadbyraffle.TheJudicialRecords whichthecasewiththelowestdocketnumberisassigned.
Officeshallseetoitthat(a)therollosoftheconsolidated The Division to which the cases are consolidated shall
casesarejoinedtogethertopreventtheloss,misplacement transfertotheDivisionfromwhichtheconsolidatedcases
or detachment of any of them; and (b) the cover of came,anequivalentnumberofcasesofapproximatelythe
eachrolloindicates the G.R. or UDK number of the case sameage,natureandstageintheproceedings,withproper
withwhichtheformerisconsolidated. noticetothepartiesinsaidcases.
TheMemberinChargewhofindsafterstudythatthe 235
casesdonotinvolvecommonquestionsoflaworoffactmay VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 235
requesttheCourttohavethecaseorcasesreturnedtothe Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
originalMemberinCharge. tionsintoonesingleaction.Thismeansthatevidence,suchas
depositions,takenaftertheconsolidationisadmissibleinallthe
actionsconsolidatedwheneverrelevantormaterial.Inthiscase, thempriortotheconsolidationisadmissibleonthetrialofthe
since the notice and the depositiontaking was after the consolidatedaction.(1C.J.S.1375)
consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with the main case, Civil 22Philippine National Bank v. Gotesco Tyan Ming
CaseNo.0009,thedepositioncouldbeadmittedasevidencein Development, Inc.,G.R. No. 183211, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA
theconsolidatedcases.21
798;RepublicofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,451Phil.497;
Thepurposeofconsolidationistoavoidmultiplicityofsuits,
403SCRA403(2003).
preventdelay,clearcongesteddockets,simplifytheworkofthe
23G.R.No.172393,20October2010,634SCRA107.
trial court, and save unnecessary costs and expenses. 22The
24G.R.Nos.18238283,24February2010,613SCRA528.
consolidation of actions involving a common question of law or
236
fact seeks to prevent a repetition of evidence, such that the
236 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
testimonyofwitnessesmaybeusedinalltheconsolidatedcases
wheneveritisrelevantormaterial. Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
InBank of Commerce v. PerlasBernabe,23the Court ordered The rule allowing consolidation is designed to avoid
multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression or abuse, to
theconsolidationoftwocaseswhichinvolvethesamefocalissue
prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and to simplify the
and require substantially the same evidence on the matter.
workofthetrialcourtinshort,theattainmentofjusticewith
Similarly, inDomdom v. Third and Fifth Division of the
theleastexpenseandvexationtothepartieslitigants.
Sandiganbayan,24theCourtorderedtheconsolidationofcasesin xxx
the Sandiganbayan, where the core element of the cases is Inthepresentcase,itwouldbemoreinkeepingwithlawand
substantially the sameandthemainwitness isalso thesame. equityifallthecasesfiledagainstpetitionerwereconsolidated
TheCourtheld: with that having the lowest docket number pending with the
InTestonv.DevelopmentBankofthePhilippines,theCourt Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The only notable
laiddowntherequisitesfortheconsolidationofcases,viz.: differencesinthesecaseslieinthedateofthetransaction,the
Acourtmayorderseveralactionspendingbeforeittobetried entitytransactedwithandtheamountinvolved.Thechargeand
together where they arise fromthe same act, event or core element are the sameestafathrough falsification of
transaction,involve the same or like issues, and depend documents based on alleged overstatements of claims for
largelyorsubstantiallyonthesameevidence,providedthat miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses. Notably, the main
thecourthasjurisdictionoverthecasestobeconsolidatedand witnessisalsothesameHilconedaP.Abril.
thatajointtrialwillnotgiveonepartyanundueadvantageor Itneednotbeunderscoredthatconsolidationofcases,when
prejudicethesubstantiverightsoftheparties. proper, results in the simplification of proceedingswhich saves
_______________ time, the resources of the parties and the courts and the
21ItisevenheldinAmericanjurisprudencethat[w]heretwo abbreviation of trial. It contributes to the swift dispensation of
or more actions are consolidated, a deposition taken in one of justice,andisinaccordwiththeaimofaffordingthepartiesa
just,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationoftheircasesbefore REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES
the courts. Above all, consolidation avoids the possibility of SANDIGANBAYAN
renderingconflictingdecisionsintwoormorecaseswhichwould MANILA
otherwise require a single judgment.25(Emphasis and ThirdDivision
underscoringintheoriginal) Republic of the Philippines,
Inthiscase,MauriceV.Baneisavitalwitnessinthemain Plaintiff,
CivilCaseNo.0009andtheincidentalCivilCaseNo.0130.In CIVIL CASE NO. 0009
fact, as pointed out by Justice Brion, in petitioners PreTrial versus (IncidentCaseNo.0130
Briefdated30August1996,petitionerofferedtopresentMaurice andG.R.No.107789)
V.BaneasoneofthewitnessesinthemainCivilCaseNo.0009. JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,
Thus, when petitioner filed on 25 September 1996 itsSecond Defendants.
AmendedNoticetoTakeDepositionofMr.MauriceV.BaneUpon xx
Oral Examination, in Civil Case No. 0009 in connection with SECONDAMENDEDNOTICETOTAKEDEPOSITIONOFMR.
Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789, petitioner MAURICEV.BANEUPONORALEXAMINATION
emphasized that [t]he deposition of said witness shall be
usedinevidenceinIncidentCaseNo.0130G.R.No.10779
aswellasinthemaincaseofCivilCaseNo.0009.Infact, PursuanttoRule2426oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,noticeis
alltherespondentsweregiventhechancetobeheardconsidering herebygiventodefendantsJoseL.Africa(deceased)thru
thatallthedefendantsofCivilCaseNo.0009weregivennoticeof hisEstaterepresentedbyVictorAfricaandAtty.Juande
_______________ OcampoandAtty.YolandaJavellana,ManuelH.Nieto,Jr.,
25
Id.,atpp.535536. Ferdinand E. Marcos (deceased) thru his Estate
237 representedbySpecialAdministratrixBIRCommissioner
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 237 LiwaywayVinzonsChato,ImeldaR.Marcos,FerdinandR.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Marcos, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio
thescheduledtestimonybyoraldepositionofMauriceV.Bane, thru their counsels on records that Plaintiff thru the
whichwastakenon23and24October1996.Thisisveryclear undersigned counsel will take the testimony by oral
from petitionersSecond Amended Notice to Take Deposition of depositionofMr.MauriceV.Banec/oCable&WirelessPlc.,
Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral Examination, filed on 25 124TheobaldsRoad,LondonWC1X8RX,EnglandonOctober23,
September 1996, in Civil Case No. 0009 in connection with 24and25,1996at9:00a.m.and2:00p.m.,untilfinishedbefore
IncidentCaseNo.0130andG.R.No.107789,thus: thePhilippineConsulGeneralinLondon,England,inhisofficeor
inasuitableplaceinLondonorinWales,England,asmaybe
advisedtotheparties.
 _______________ parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their
26NowRule23ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure. cases before the courts can be achieved when repetition of the
238 sameevidenceorpresentationofidenticalwitnessesisdispensed
238 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED with.Thismeansthatevidence,suchasdepositions,takenafter
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) the consolidation is admissible in all the actions consolidated
ThepurposeofthedepositionisforMr.MauriceBane wheneverrelevantormaterial.Inthiscase,sincethenoticeand
toidentifyandtestifyonthefactssetforthinhisAffidavit thedepositiontakingwasaftertheconsolidationofCivilCaseNo.
0130 with the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, the deposition
heretoattachedasAnnexAsoastoprovetheownership
could be admitted as evidence in the consolidated cases. This
issue in favor of plaintiff and/or establishprima
CourthasevenheldinYu,Sr.v.BasilioG.MagnoConstruction
faciefactual foundation for sequestration of Easterns
ClassAstockinsupportoftheVeryUrgentPetitionFor andDevel
_______________
AuthorityToHoldSpecialStockholdersMeetingForthe
27JusticeBrionsmodifieddraftDecision,p.47.
Sole Purpose of Increasing Easterns Authorized Capital
239
Stock (Incident Case No. 0130 G.R. No. 107789).The
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 239
deposition of said witness shall be used in evidence in
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Incident Case No. 0130G.R. No. 107789 as well as in the
main case of Civil Case No. 0009.(Underscoring in the opment Enterprises, Inc.28that in consolidated cases, [t]he
original;boldfacingsupplied) evidenceineachcaseeffectivelybecametheevidenceofboth,and
InhismodifieddraftDecision,JusticeBrionmaintainsthat there ceased to exist any need for the deciding judge to take
respondents notice of the taking of the Bane deposition is judicialnoticeoftheevidencepresentedineachcase.Besides,
insufficientwaiveroftheirrighttoappearandcrossexaminethe even assuming that the 12 April 1993 Resolution of the
deponentwhentheyfailedtoshowupatthedepositiontaking. Sandiganbayanmerelyorderedajointhearingoraconsolidation
JusticeBrioninsiststhatrespondentscannot be boundby the for trial, private respondents are still bound by the Bane
takingoftheBanedepositionwithouttheconsequentimpairment deposition considering that they were given notice of the
oftheirrighttocrossexamine.27 depositiontaking.Theevidenceadducedinajointtrialbindsall
I disagree. The 12 April 1993 Resolution of the theparties.Otherwise,whatwouldbethepointofholdingajoint
Sandiganbayan,orderingtheconsolidationoftheincidentalcases, trialifcommonwitnesseshavetobepresentedagainineachof
includingCivilCaseNo.0130,withthemaincase,CivilCaseNo. the cases and the same evidence offered again and again?
0009, effectively merged the different actions into one single Precisely,ajointtrialaimstopreventrepetitionofthesameor
action.Theconsolidationofthecaseswasmeanttoexpeditiously commonevidenceand tosparethecommonwitnesses from the
settle the interwovenissuesinvolved inthe consolidated cases. unnecessary inconvenience of testifying on the same issues in
Thesimplificationoftheproceedingswiththeaimofaffordingthe separateproceedingsifthecaseswerenotjointlytried.Torule
otherwiseistofrustratethepurposeofajointtrialwhichisto be applied in a very rigid, technical case as they are devised
preventdelayandsaveunnecessarycostsandexpense.29 chieflytosecureandnotdefeatsubstantialjustice.31
InTanv.Lim,30theCourtevenallowedevidencethathasnot Furthermore, Justice Brion posits that in determining the
been formally offered in a case which was jointly heard with admissibilityoftheBanedeposition,notonlySection4,Rule23
another case because evidence offered during the joint hearing must be considered but also Section 47, Rule 130. The said
wasdeemedevidenceforbothcaseswhichwerejointlyheard.The provisionsread:
Courtruled: Sec.4.[Rule 23]Use of depositions.At the trial or upon
ItmaybetruethatSection34,Rule132oftheRulesdirects thehearingofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding,anypart
the court to consider no evidence which has not been formally orallofadeposition,sofarasadmissibleundertherules
offered and that under Section 35, documentary evidence is of evidence, may be used against any party who was
offered after presentation of testimonial evidence. However, a presentorrepresentedatthetakingofthedepositionor
liberal interpretation of these Rules would have convinced the whohadduenoticethereof,inaccordancewithanyoneofthe
trialcourtthataseparateformalofferofevidenceinCivilCase followingprovisions:
No. 6518 was superfluous because not only was an offer of (a)Anydepositionmaybeusedbyanypartyforthepurpose
evidence made in Civil Case No. 6521 that was being jointly of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as
heardbythetrialcourt,counselforJoseRenatoLimhadalready witness;
declaredhewasadoptingtheseevidencesforCivilCaseNo.6518. (b)Thedepositionofapartyorofanyonewhoatthetimeof
Thetrialcourtitselfstatedthatitwouldfreelyutilizeinonecase thetakingofthedepositionwasanofficer,director,ormanaging
evidenceadducedintheotheronlytolaterabandonthisposture. agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or
JoseRenatoLimtestifiedinCivilCaseNo.6518.Thetrialcourt associationwhichisapartymaybeusedbyanadversepartyfor
shouldhaveatleastconsideredhistestimonysinceatthetimeit anypurpose;
wasmade,the (c)Thedepositionofawitness,whetherornotaparty,may
_______________ beusedbyanypartyforanypurposeifthecourtfinds:(1)that
28G.R.Nos.13870102,17October2006,504SCRA618,634. the witness is dead; or (2)that the witness resides at a
29Mendozav.CourtofAppeals,240Phil.561;156SCRA597 distancemorethanonehundred(100)kilometersfromthe
(1987). placeoftrialorhearing,orisoutofthePhilippines,unless
30357Phil.452;296SCRA455(1998).
itappearsthathisabsencewasprocuredbythepartyofferingthe
240 deposition;or(3)thatthewitnessisunabletoattendortestify
240 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED becauseofage,sickness,infirmity,orimprisonment;or(4)that
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) thepartyofferingthedepositionhasbeenunabletoprocurethe
Rulesprovidedthattestimonialevidenceisdeemedofferedatthe attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application
timethewitnessiscalledtotestify.Rulesofprocedureshouldnot andnotice,thatsuchexceptionalcircumstancesexistastomake
itdesirable,intheinterestofjusticeandwithdueregardtothe Justice Brions reliance on Section 47, Rule 130 is misplaced.
importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in Besides,evenifSection47isapplicable,theBanedepositionmay
opencourt,toallowthedepositiontobeused;and stillbegiveninevidenceagainsttherespondentssinceallofthem
(d) ifonlypartofthedepositionisofferedinevidencebya weregivennoticeofthedeposition,andthushadtheopportunity
party,the adverse partymayrequire him to introduceallof it to crossexamine the deponent had they participated in the
which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may depositiontaking.Sincenoticeshavebeendulyservedonallthe
introduceanyotherparts. respondents,thosewhofailedtoshowupatthedepositiontaking
_______________ are deemed to have waived their right to appear and cross
31Id.,atpp.478479;p.482. examinethedeponent.
241 Inthiscase,theSandiganbayangrantedtherequestforthe
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 241 takingofthedepositionofMauriceV.Bane,whowasExecutive
VicePresident and Treasurer of ETPI from 1974 until his
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
retirement in 1987.32In October 1996, during the deposition
Sec.47.[Rule 130]Testimony or deposition at a former
taking,MauriceV.Banewasalready72yearsoldandresidingat
proceeding.Thetestimonyordepositionofawitnessdeceasedor 1EctonHall,Church
unable to testify,given in a former case or proceeding, _______________
judicialoradministrative,involvingthesamepartiesandsubject 32Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V.
matter,maybegiveninevidenceagainsttheadversepartywho Bane,p.10;Rollo,p.89.
hadtheopportunitytocrossexaminehim.(Emphasissupplied) 242
Inmyopinion,Section47,Rule130doesnotapplyinthiscase
242 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
since the Bane deposition was not taken in a former case or
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
proceeding. The records show that theBane deposition was
Way,Ecton,Northants(England).33Clearly,underSection4(c)(2)
taken when the cases were already consolidated.Clearly,
of Rule 23,34the deposition of Maurice V. Bane can be used as
thereisnoformerproceedingtospeakofwhichwouldrequire
direct evidence. Infact, initsResolutions issuedon21August
the application of Section 47, Rule 130.The Bane deposition
2000 and 3 April 2001, the Sandiganbayan stated that the
wastakeninCIVILCASENO.0009(IncidentCaseNo.0130
depositionofMauriceV.Banehasbecomepartandparcelof
andG.R.No.107789).Infact,intheSecondAmendedNoticeto the record of this main case (Civil Case No. 0009) since
Take Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral CivilCaseNo.0130isanincidenttothesame.
Examination,filedon25September1996,thetitleofthecasewas AcursoryreadingoftheBanedeposition,whichtooktwodays
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,versusJOSEL. tocompleteandcovers211pagesofthetranscriptofrecordofthe
AFRICA,ETAL.,DefendantswithcasenumberCIVILCASE proceedings and the testimony, reveals that it is a critical and
NO.0009(IncidentCaseNo.0130andG.R.No.107789).Thus, vital evidence in the case of petitioner against private
respondentswithregardtoitsallegationinCivilCaseNo.0009 and/or forfeiture in favor of the Plaintiff Republic of the
that private respondents shareholdings in ETPI were illegally Philippinesinthiscase.Specifically,thetestimonyisofferedto
purchasedandrightlybelongstotheGovernment. establish the environmental facts and attendant circumstances
Thetestimonyofthewitness,MauriceV.Bane,wasofferedfor surroundingtheformationandorganizationofEasternin1974;
thefollowingpurposes: thattherewasduressand/orcompulsionexerteduponCable&
[I]ngeneralthetestimonyisofferedtoprovethattheClassA Wirelessanditswhollyownedsubsidiary,theEasternExtension
stockholdingsinEasternTelecommunicationsPhilippinesInc,or Australasia Telegraph Company, of which the witness was the
Eastern for short, otherwise referred to as the Filipino 60% then General Manager in the Philippines, such that Cable &
equity, isill gotten in nature; that theactual and/or beneficial Wireless and Eastern Extension Australasia were forced or
ownerofsaidshareswasthelatePresidentFerdinandMarcos; compelled to give up their legitimate business activities in the
andthataccordingly,saidsharesaresubjecttoreversion Philippineswhichwas100%BritishownedinfavorofEastern,
_______________ which was tobe newly organized as a 60/40 Filipinocompany,
33Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. with40%beingfortheaccountofthecompanyofthewitness,Mr.
Bane,p.8;Rollo,p.87. Bane.
34Sec.4.[Rule23]Useofdepositions.Atthetrialorupon Inshort,thewitnesswillestablishintheseproceedingsthat
thehearingofamotionoraninterlocutoryproceeding,anypart PresidentMarcosand/orhisemissariesorpartiesactingonhis
behalfgavethewitnessonlytwopossibleoptionswhichwas:(1)a
orallofadeposition,sofarasadmissibleundertherules
40% equity in the company to be newly organized, which is
of evidence, may be used against any party who was
Eastern in exchange for surrendering all of the assets and
presentorrepresentedatthetakingofthedepositionor
franchiseofEasternExtensionAustralasia;or100%ofnothing,
whohadduenoticethereof,inaccordancewithanyoneofthe meaningthatifthewitnessandhiscompanyrefusedtogiveup
followingprovisions: theirlegitimatebusinessinthePhilippinesthenMarcosmadeit
xxx clearthattherewillbenomoreEasternExtensionAustralasia
(c)Thedepositionofawitness,whetherornotaparty,may thatwouldbeoperatinginthePhilippines.
beusedbyanypartyforanypurposeifthecourtfinds:(1)that
Lastly,thetestimonyisofferedtoprovetheownershipissue
the witness is dead; or (2)that the witness resides at a
that is involved in this case in favor of the Plaintiff, and also
distancemorethanonehundred(100)kilometersfromthe
supportthependingpetitionofEasternTelecomstoincreaseits
placeoftrialorhearing,orisoutofthePhilippines,unless authorizedcapitalstockfromthepresent250millionpesosto4
itappearsthathisabsencewasprocuredbythepartyofferingthe billionpesosbyallowingthePCGGtovotethesequesteredClass
deposition;(Emphasissupplied) A stock in the company. Hence, the testimony will establish
243
theprima faciefactual foundation for maintaining the
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 243 sequestrationoftheClassAstock.35
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
 In the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, he identified and 3.In the late 60s the possibility of establishing earth
affirmed his Affidavit36dated 9 January 1999. Excerpts from satellite stations in the Philippines arose as a result of heavy
Banestestimony pressurefromtheU.S.Militarywhoweretobeitsmajorusers.
_______________ Manycompaniesandconsortiums,includingEEATCbiddedfor
35Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. thecontract.ThenPresidentMarcosfinallyawardedthecontract
Bane,pp.89;Rollo,pp.8788. together with the franchise to the Philippines Overseas
36AFFIDAVIT Telecommunications Corp. (POTC) which at that time was
I,MAURICEV.BANE,oflegalagemarried,aBritish[words relatively unknown in the international communications
missingfromphotocopy],andwithbusinessaddressatEastern industry.TheprimemoversofPOTCwereMessrs.Potenciano
Telecommunications [missing words] Inc., Telecoms Plaza, Sen. Ilusorio,HonorioPoblador,ManuelH.Nieto,Jr.andRobertoS.
Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati, Manila, after being duly sworn, do Benedicto, who were all known Marcos associates. This group
herebydeposeandsay, becameverymuchapartofthePhilippinestelecommunications
244 scene.
244 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 4. EEATC forged a partnership with POTC for the
establishment of a tropospheric scatter system communications
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
with Taiwan. A franchise, Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. was
duringthedepositiontakingareasfollow:
purchased and all government approvals were obtained by
_______________
Messrs.NietoandIlusorio.Thesystemwasinstalledandduring
1.I am presently the Senior Adviser of Eastern
its inauguration, the principal guests were President and Mrs.
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), a Philippine
Marcos, showing perhaps the political influence of Nieto and
corporation duly registered and authorized to engage in the
Ilusorio.
businessoftelecommunicationsinthePhilippinessince1974;
5.When President Marcos declared Martial Law in
2. Until my retirement, I served as the representative of
September 1972, it was clearthat his grip on the country was
Cable and Wireless, Ltd., (C&W) a British company that
virtuallycomplete.C&Wwasfullyawareofitsuneasytenurein
presentlyowns40%oftheoutstandingcapitalstocksofETPI,
the Philippines. In March 1973, then Secretary of National
C&W,throughitswhollyownedsubsidiary,EasternExtension
Defense Juan Ponce Enrile called us to a conference at Camp
AustralasiaandChinaTelephoneCo.,(EEATC),wasformerly
Crame. I attended the said meeting together with the
thesoleownerandoperatorofthefranchisethatisnowowned
representatives of RCA and Globe Mackay. Secretary Enrile
and held by ETPI. The company has been operating in the
firmlytoldusthatwehaduntilJuly,1974toorganizeourselves
Philippinessince1880initiallyunderaroyaldecreefromSpain.
into60/40corporationswithFilipinomajorityownershipand,if
FollowingthePacificWarin1945,thefranchisewasrenewedin
we did not comply, the Government would take the necessary
1952bythePhilippineGovernmentunderthenPresidentElpidio
action.
Quirino;
 6.I pointed out that EEATC was not covered by the accounting group of SyCip, Gorres and Velayo as
LaurelLangley Act since we were a British corporation with a intermediary.Atthesaidmeeting,wefoundthatAtty.
fullyconstitutionalfranchise.SecretaryEnrilesaidthatifwedid Jose Africa was the main representative of
notcomplywithhisdirective,therewouldbenomoreEEATC; Nieto/POTC. He had previously not seemed a major
245 figureinthegroupalthoughhehadattendedseveral
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 245 board meetings of Oceanic Wireless. Africa quickly
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) speltouttherulesthattheywereinterestedinthe
MR.LIM:Mr.Bane,paragraph2ofyouraffidavitrefers proposition and that we were to deal only with the
to a company ETPI, the acronym in letter ETPI. DANgroup(composedofRobertoBenedicto,JoseAfrica
MayIaskyou,sir,whatisETPI? and Manuel Nieto, Jr.). We were informed that this
_______________ wasattheexpresswishofPresidentMarcoswhohad
7.Whilewemighthavelegalandvalidgroundstocontest appointed their group to control the
the directive, under the prevailing martial law telecommunicationsinterests;
restrictionswehadlittlerecoursebuttocomply.After 11. Negotiations were thereafter commenced with Mr.
considering all economic and political factors, it was EduardoM.VillanuevaofSGVasintermediary,David
felt that some form of partnership with the POTC West and W. H. Davies were the major C&W
groupwouldbethemostadvantageousoption; participants.WealsorequestedAtty.LucianoSalazar
8. Prior to the above, discussions had been held with LawOfficetorepresentusonlegalmatters;
IlusorioandPoblador,whothenappearedinchargeof 12. The figure eventually negotiated for the assets (net
POTCdiscussionsweregenerallyunsatisfactorysince book value only and no good will) was Ten Million
itwasquitehardtopinIlusoriodownandwegained Pesos(P10,000,000.00)onthebasisofwhichtheBAN
theimpressionthattheywantedustogivethemtheir group will put up Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00).
participation in EEATC with minimal monetary Furthermeetingstookplacetofinalizethedetailsbut
considerationinreturnforpoliticalprotection; Africalaterinformedusthattheycouldnotraisethe
9.In approximately April/May 1973, rapid changes took requiredamount.Asacompromise,hesuggestedthat
placeinPOTC.IlusorioandPobladorappearedtohave the new corporation raise a bank loan from which
losttheir control inPOTCandNietoemergedasthe C&Wcouldbepaid.Whilewewerenothappywith
controllingfigure.Welearnedmuchlaterthatthiswas this arrangement, we resigned ourselves to the fact
upon the instructions of President Marcos. Thus, that we would have to accede. It was agreed that
discussions concerning EEATC were continued with stockholderscontributionwouldbeFiveMillionPesos
Nieto; (P5,000,000.00)plusabankloanofSevenMillionPesos
10.ThetimefactorwasimportantwithJuly1974overthe (P7,000,000.00) to cover asset payment and working
horizonanditwasagreedtocallameetingwiththe capital.Africathenadvisedthattheycouldonlyraise
 246 who committed to secure President Marcos approval
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED and signature. True enough, Marcos signed the P.D.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Drafted by Atty. Salazar in its entirety, without any
AThats Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, revisionoramendment.Thiswasconvincingevidence
Incorporated. ofthepoliticalpowerandinfluenceoftheBANgroup;
QETPIandEasternrefertothesamecompany,whichis 14. Aftercomplyingwithalltheregistrationrequirements
Eastern Telecoms or the full name thereof, Eastern andothergovernmentregulations,ETPIcommenced
TelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc? to fully operate as a telecommunications company
AThatscorrect,yes. underitsnewfranchiseinAugust1974;
QAgain,yourHonor,forconsistencyintheproceedings, 15. Iamexecutingthisaffidavittoattesttothetruthof
insteadofETPI,thequestionsandtheanswerswill theforegoingfactsinordertoelucidateontheevents
refer to Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, andcircumstancesthatledtothetransferoftheassets
Inc as simply Eastern. Paragraph 2 also of your andfranchiseofEEATCinfavorofETPIandthe
affidavitrefers to EEATC. Please, sir, tell us, Mr. emergenceofBANgroupthereat.
Bane,whatposition,whatparticularpositionyouheld Affiantfurthersayethnaught.
inEEATCwhenitwasoperatinginthePhilippines? 09January1991,Makati,MetroManila.
AIwasthegeneralmanager.
QWasthatthehighestpositioninthePhilippines?Was (signed)
that the highest office in EEATC in the Philippine
operation? MAURICE V. BANE
_______________
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) and C&W could loan Affiant
them Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). Again, we 247
wereunhappybutagainwecomplied; VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 247
13. All the necessary documents, articles, bylaws and Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
stockholdersagreementsweredrawnupbytheSalazar AYes, it was, yes, the British terminology for these
Law Office. Of particular delicacy was the issue of thingsquiteoftenisthatwealwaysusedtoreferto
franchise.Itwasdecidedthattheoldfranchiseshould managersbuttheAmericanterminology,ofcourse,
beretainedinalldetailbutthiswastobetransferred isusuallypresidentitwastheequivalentof.
to a new company to be called Eastern QThankyou,sir.Now,justforclaritycanyouelaborate
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. Atty. Salazar onwhatwasEEATCinrelationtoCableandWireless
draftedthePresidentialDecreeforthetransferofthe orC&W?
franchise.ThedraftwaspersonallydeliveredtoNieto MR.AFRICA:Hehasalreadyanswered,yourHonor.
 AYes,itwasawholly,100%ownedsubsidiaryofCable 37TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV.
andWireless.37 Bane,pp.1617;Rollo,pp.9596.
xxx 38TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV.
QxxxMr.Bane,Iwouldreferyoubacktoparagraph3 Bane,pp.1920;Rollo,pp.9899.
ofyouraffidavit,sir.Inotedfromyournarrationin 248
paragraph3thattheearthsatellitestationscontract
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
which you had just explained was awarded after
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
bidding by President Marcos to a company you
formedandthatveryshortlyafterourbidsallwentin,we
mentioned here which is Philippines Overseas
heard that it had been, that the contract had been
Telecommunications Corporation, or POTC. My
awardedtoPhilippinesOverseasTelecommunications
questionis:doyouknowthisPOTC,whatwasit?
Corporation.
AYes,itwastheIthinkImcorrectinsayingitwas
the management arm of Philcomsat. Philcomsat, QThank you, sir. (Off the record) May I proceed, your
Philippines Telecommunications Satellite Honor?Didyoufindoutwhowerethepeoplebehind
Corporation.POTC,wellthemanagersofPhilcomsat, POTC?
and I understand that the shareholders were the AYes.
sameineachcase. QAndwhowerethey?
QIn this paragraph, sir, you stated in reference to ATo the best of my recollection the incorporators were
PhilippineOverseasTelecommunicationsCorporation Potenciano Ilusorio, Honorio Poblador, Ambassador
or POTC that it was relatively unknown in the Nieto,AmbassadorBenedicto,andIthinktherewere
international telecommunications industry. Could two other gentlemen, one of them I think was the
youexplainthat?38 brotherinlawofMr.NietoandtheotheroneIcannot
xxx recall no, I cant recall his name. He died fairly
AWell,thereweresome,Ishouldimagine,sometenor soonafter,Ithink,thatwasformed.39
twelve companies were bidding or hoping to be xxx
awardedtheearthstationcontract.Amongthosewas MR. LIM:Mr. Bane, you mentioned personalities like
my own company, Eastern EEATC. We had not PotencianoIlusorio,HonorioPoblador,ManuelNieto
heard of, any of us: RCA, ITT, the large number of Jr., Roberto Benedicto. My question to you, sir, is:
otherdomesticcompaniessuchasClaviciliandothers, what was your personal impression of these
wereallbiddingforthisearthstationandnoneofus gentlemenvisavis, for instance, the Marcos
hadheardofPOTCuntilitsuddenlyemergedthatit administration?
wasacompanythathadbeen
_______________
 AWell, it was common knowledge among the expatriate, xxx
senior expatriate community that these gentlemen QSo that tropospheric scatter system became
werecloseassociatesofPresidentMarcos. operational?
MR.AFRICA:MayIalsoobjectagain,yourHonorplease, AOhyes,yes.
to the statement of the witness. Again, its not a QDoyouknowifthesystemwasinaugurated?
statement of fact but only a matter of discussion AItwas,yes.
among his coworkers, but facts again are different QWho were the principal guests during the
fromwhathisperceptionwas. inauguration?
MR.LIM:Thatisnoted,yourHonor. APresidentandMrs.Marcos.
CONSULGENERAL:Thatisnoted,Mr.Africa. QNow what technical qualification did your company,
MR. LIM:Mr. Witness, was this group of people, these EEATC, have to operate that tropospheric scatter
gentlemenorpersonalitiesthatyouhavementioned, system?
doyouknowiftheywerelateronidentifiedwithany AIn addition to being a 20% stockholder, my company
particular business or industry sector in the was appointed as managers. Eastern, with the
Philippines? backingofCable&Wireless,wasabletoprovideall
AYes, they were identified with telecommunication the necessary technical expertise for the
interests. implementationandoperationofthesystem.Cable&
QWas there an occasion when your own company, Wireless as such has done these systems, a large
EEATC,forgedapartnershiporbusinesswithPOTC? numberofthesesystemsworldwide,sowehadallthe
_______________ experiencenecessary.
39TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV. QAt that time, meaning at the time this tropospheric
Bane,pp.2021;Rollo,pp.99100. scatter system was established, what was your
249 companythen,whatwasyourcompanyatthattime?
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 249 AEasternExtensionAustralasiaandChinaTelegraph.
QEEATC?
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
AEEATC.
AYes,therewas.
QIfyoudontmind,sir,kindlyrefertothatasEEATC
QWhatwasthebusinessthatthetwocompaniesforged
instead of Eastern. What technical qualification did
orengagedin?
POTChavetobeabletobeEEATCspartnerinthis
AThat business was to establish a tropospheric scatter
troposphericsystembusiness?
systembetweenthePhilippinesandTaiwan.Inactual
ATo the best of my knowledge little or no technical
fact, it was three companies involved: it was POTC
qualification.40
andalsoWesternUnionInternationalintheUnited
xxx
States,andEasternExtensionorEEATC.
_______________ QNowyoumadementioninthisparagraphthatIreadof
40TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV. other companies, namely RCA and Globe Mackay.
Bane,pp.2325;Rollo,pp.102104. Whatwerethesecompanies?
250 ATheyweresimilartoEEATC,operatinginexactlythe
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED same fashion, doing the same type of business, all
three of us were competing against each other for
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
internationalbusiness.
QNowMr.Bane,letmenowtakeyoutoparagraph5of
QDo you know the nationality of RCA and Globe
youraffidavitandifImayreadtoyou,sir.Paragraph
Mackay?
5: When President Marcos declared Martial Law in
ATheywereboth100%Americancorporations.
September 1972, it was clear that his grip on the
QWhereasEEATCwas,accordingtoyou,100%British?
countrywasvirtuallycomplete.C&Wwasfullyaware
AThatiscorrect,yes.
of its uneasy tenure in the Philippines. In March
QExceptforthatdifferenceinthenationalitythethreeof
1973,thenSecretaryofNationalDefenseJuanPonce
you,meaningEEATC,RCAandGlobeMackay,were
Enrile called us to a conference at Camp Crame. I
engaged in the same kind of business which was
attended said meeting together with the
telecommunicationsinthePhilippines?
representativesofRCAandGlobeMackay.Secretary
ACorrect.
EnrilefirmlytoldusthatwehaduntilJuly1974to
xxx251
organize ourselves into 60/40 corporations with
Filipinomajorityownershipand,ifwedidnotcomply, VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 251
the Government would take the necessary action. Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
First of all, please explain and elucidate on your QNow, can you remember where in Camp Crame this
statement C&Wwasawareofitsuneasytenure in meetingtookplace?
thePhilippines. AYes,itwasinafairlylargeboardroom.Iwouldimagine
AWell, prior to Martial Law we were operating quite thetablewaslargeenoughtoaccommodateabout16
comfortably as a company, but with the people. I had the impression that it was the board
implementationofMartialLawtherewasgreatdeal roomperhapsattachedtotheSecretaryofDefenses
ofuncertaintyastowhatmighthappeninthecountry officeinCampCrame.
under Martial Law. In other countries it had been QNow, was it actually Secretary of National Defense
knownthatthingswere,shallwesay,nationalizedor JuanPonceEnrilewhometwithyou?
takenoverand,ofcourse,therewasacertaindegree AYes,itwas.
ofuneaseamonguswhenwediscussedintheCable& QInperson?
Wirelessthatsomethingsimilarmighthappeninthe AInperson.
Philippines.
QNow, in paragraph 6 of your affidavit which is a Isabella of Spain, I think, and after the War, the
reference to what transpired in that meeting, you SecondWorldWar,the
stated,andIwouldliketoquotetheshortsentencein 252
paragraph6:IpointedoutthatIwithdrawthe SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
question. Mr. Witness, what transpired in this Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
meetingwithSecretaryEnrile?Inotherwords,why franchise was renewed by President Quirino in 1952, I
didhecallyoutogetherwithRCAandGlobeMackay thinkitwas.
peopletoameeting? xxx
AWell,hesaid,asfarasIcanrecallandafterallitsa QYoumeantotellthecourtthatSecretaryEnrilealso
longtimeago,herecalledthatthemeetingwastoin includedyourcompanyEEATCtobemade60/40?
effect spell out the rules in terms of AOhyes.
telecommunications.HepointedouttoRCAandITT QNow, your companion, Attorney Luciano Salazar, did
thatundertheLaurelLangleyAct,whichwasdueI hesayanythingtoMr.Enrile?
thinkinJuly1974toexpire,thattheywouldhaveto AYes,hedid.
go60%Philippineownership.IthinkthatImpretty QWhatwashisremarkorexplanationifany?
surethat Mr. Vossor hislawyer didsay that their AHesaidthatthefranchisewasperfectlyconstitutional
franchiseinactualfactwasestablishedin1924and andthatMr.Banewasquitecorrectandthatlegally
therefore it fell without, beyond the LaurelLangley therewasnoreasonforEasterntogo60/40.
Act,butIseemtorecallthatAttorneyEnrilesaidthat QWhenyousaynow,justnowEasternyouarereferring
thatsnotgermane,youwillgo60/40.Healsosaidto toEEATC?
us,EEATC,thatyouwillgo60/40. AEEATC,yes.
xxx xxx
MR. LIM:x x x My question, sir, is: what exactly did MR.LIM:DidSecretaryEnrilerespondfavorablytothe
SecretaryEnriletellyou,andIrefertoyourperson, explanationsofAttorneySalazar?
andyourlawyerwhowaswithyou,AttorneyLuciano ANo,hedidnot.HesaidthatifEEATCdidnotmovetoa
Salazar? 60/40positionthentherewouldbenoEEATC.
AAfterhedealtwithRCAandGlobeMackay,Isaidto xxx
him:well, the LaurelLangleyAct doesnotapply to QWhatoptionsdidSecretaryEnrilegiveyouduringthis
EEATC; we are 100% British corporation, our meeting?
franchise goes back to 1880 and we were the first MR.AFRICA:Sameobjection,yourHonorplease,which
company, actually, to connectthePhilippinestothe is that Secretary Enrile is the best witness for this
outsideworldin communications, grantedbyQueen particularaspect.
 MR.LIM:Samerequestforsubjecttoacourtruling and that I had already spoken to one or two other
later. telecommunication corporations but that I had to
ATwooptionsreally:tobecome60/40Filipinocorporation return to London to discuss it with my senior
orto,ineffect,have100%ofnothing,becausethere directors.Itwasdifficultatthattimebecauseitwas
wouldnotbeanyEEATC.41 Martial Law. No people were allowed to leave the
xxx Philippines so, through that letter, I made an
MR. LIM:Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Bane, we ended applicationtoleaveandIwasgrantedleavetocome
yourtestimonywithyourconfirmationthattheevents backtotheUKtodiscusswithCable&Wirelessthe
narratedinparagraph7uptoparagraph14ofyour formationofa60/40corporation.
affidavit all transpired after that meeting in March QEventually,afterclearingallthosehurdles,afterdoing
1973withSecretaryEnrile,somyquestionnow allthegroundwork,Imeanafterpassingthroughall
_______________ the groundwork and the details, eventually what
41TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV. transpiredwastheorganizationofEasternin1974as
Bane,pp.2631,33,35;Rollo,pp.105110,112,114. a60/40Filipinocorporation?
253 AThatiscorrect,yes.
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 253 QAnd the 40% or minority equity was taken by your
company,Cable&Wireless?
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
ACorrect,yes.
is: in particular what followed after that meeting with
QMr.Bane,wouldyou,andIrefertoyourperson,have
SecretaryEnrile,wastheformationandorganization
agreed to divest of 100% British owned EEATC if
ofEasternin1974?
pressurewasnotexertedonyoubySecretaryEnrile?
AMmm.
MR. AFRICA:Objected to, your Honor please, no
QIsthatcorrect?
relevance.
AWell,yes,theeventsreallywereIhadtoadviseCable
MR.LIM:Iamaskingthewitnessforhisanswertothe
& Wireless Hong Kong, who were very closely
basicfactsthatnowpresentthemselvesasaresultof
connectedwiththePhilippines,ofthesituationandI
theprevioustestimony.
said we had no alternative but to go to a 60/40
MR.AFRICA:Thesameobjection,yourHonor.Itcallsfor
corporation.ItwasdecidedthatIshouldcomebackto
apersonalopinion.254
LondonanddiscussitwiththedirectorsofCable&
Wireless in London. Also, we were asked at the SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
meeting, which perhaps I forgot earlier on, by Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Secretary Enrile for progress reports of moving to MR. LIM:Subject to the courts ruling may I ask the
60/40 corporation. So I wrote a letter to Secretary witness to answer? May I repeat the question, sir?
Enrileandsaidthatwewerenowactivelyplanning Wouldyou,andIrefertoyouperson,haveaccededor
 agreed to divesting yourself of 100% British owned MR.LIM:Andwhenyousayno,youwouldnot,youare
EEATC in favor of only 40% equity in a new saying that your person and C&W would not have
corporation, if pressure was not exerted on you by agreedtodivestingEEATCof100%Britishcontrol?
SecretaryEnrile? MR.AFRICA:Sameobjection,yourHonor,please.
ANo,Iwouldnot;IwouldhavecontinuedwithEEATC ACorrect.
as 100% British Corporation. You see, you have to MR.LIM:HesaidThatscorrect.Didyou,andIreferto
appreciate that I had all the resources and all the yourperson,orAttorneySalazarcheckortrytofind
backing and all the financial support of Cable & out if Secretary Enrile was acting for President
Wireless who were the largest telecommunications MarcosinreferencetothisMarch1973meeting?255
operatorin the world. Wecould have quite easily VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 255
and I know that finance would have been available Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
fromthemwecouldhavequiteeasilycontinuedas ANo,nowedidnt.ItwasunderMartialLawandImean
100%Britishcorporation. when you spoke of President Marcos you spoke of
QWould Cable & Wireless, your own company, have SecretaryEnrile,theywerethetwoveryclosepeople.
agreed to the divestment of 100% British owned MartialLaw,afterall,wasdeclaredasaresultofan
EEATC if pressure was not exerted by Secretary apparent attempted assassination on Secretary
Enrile? Enrile.Therewasnopointinustryingtoappealto
ANo,Idontthinktheywould. President Marcos. We had to accept that what
xxx SecretaryEnrilesaidwasineffectPresidentMarcos. 42
MR.LIM:Inotherwords,youaresayingthathaditnot xxx
been for that fateful meeting with Secretary Enrile MR LIM.:Now, subject to the same request for a later
andthepressurewasbroughttobearonyourperson rulingfromthecourt,doIunderstandit,Mr.Bane,
and your company you would not have agreed to that initially you were talking to Ilusorio and
organizingEasternin1974? Poblador?
MR.AFRICA:Sameobjection,yourHonor,please,calling AThatscorrect.
foranopinionandaconclusion. QButlaterinthenegotiationsthetwowereoutandyou
ANo,Iwouldnot. werenowjusttalkingtoMrNieto?
MR.LIM:Andthesamethingistruewithyourcompany, ANotjusttoMr.Nieto;wewerealsotalkingtoAttorney
C&W, there would have been no permission or JoseAfrica.
approvalfromC&W? QSo let me clarify that. After the Enrile meeting and
MR.AFRICA:Sameobjection,yourHonor,please. because of your decision to just goalong with what
ANo,theywouldnot. Enrilewanted,therewasthisprocesssetintomotion
 to organize a new outfit and at the start you were AYes.
talkingtoIlusorioandPoblador,isthatright? MR.LIM:Thankyou,sir.MayIrequest,yourHonor,that
ACorrect. theentireparagraph10besubmarkedasExhibitC
QLateron,andthiswasbeforeEasternwasorganized, 12C1 and that the last sentence therein reading:
you continued the negotiations, this time with Africa quickly speltout the rules that they were
AmbassadorManuel Nieto juniorandAttorney Jose interestedinthepropositionandthatweweretodeal
L.Africa,isthatcorrect? only with the BAN group (composed of Roberto
ACorrect. Benedicto, Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr.,). We
QNow,thereisastatementinparagraph9:Welearned were informed that this was at the express wish of
much later that this was upon the instructions of President Marcos who had appointed their group to
President Marcos. Who told you that President control telecommunications interests; that that
Marcoshadissuedtheinstructiontobedealingwith particular sentence be now underscored but same
Nieto? would be part of C12C1 which is the entire
MR.AFRICA:Objectedto,yourHonor,askingfor paragraph10,butthelastsentenceIrequestthatit
MR.LIM:Iamaskingthesourceofthestatement. beunderlinedorunderscoredforemphasis.(Marked)
MR. AFRICA:My objections, I am just putting it on QWhatparticipationdidyouhaveintheorganizationof
record:objectedtoforaskingforhearsayevidence. Eastern?
MR.LIM:Subjecttoalaterruling,yourHonor. AIwasverydeeplyinvolved,togetherwithourdirector
_______________ fromLondon,WilfredH.Daviesandalsoourfinance
42TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV. director,DavidWest.
Bane,pp.3741;Rollo,pp.116120. QWereyouoneoftheincorporatorsofEastern?
256 AIwas,yes.
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED QDidyousigntheArticlesofIncorporationofEastern?
AIdid.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
QWouldyouhaveagreedtobeoneoftheincorporatorsof
AItwaseitherAmbassadorNietoorAttorneyAfrica.
Eastern and signed its Articles if no pressure was
QNow,Ishowyouparagraph10ofyouraffidavitwhich
exertedonyoubySecretaryEnrile?
iscontinued,IamsorryIshowyouparagraph10,I
MR.AFRICA:Objectedto,yourHonor,please.
drawyourattentiontoparagraph10ofyouraffidavit
MR.LIM:Irequestananswerforthesamereason.
whichisfoundonpage4.Doyouconfirmandratifyin
ANo,IdontthinkIwould.
particular what is stated in paragraph 10 of the
QWhatisthat,MrBane?
affidavit?
ANo,Iwouldnot,no.257
MR. AFRICA:Subject to question and answer later on,
yourHonor,please. VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 257
 Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) would be five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) plus a
QYouaretellingthehonorablecourtthatyouragreeing bank loan of seven million pesos (P7,000,000.00) to
to incorporate Eastern and your having signed the coverassetpaymentandworkingcapital.Africathen
Articles of Eastern was the result of that pressure advisedthattheycouldonlyraiseonemillionpesos
duringtheEnrilemeetinginMarchof1973? (P1,000,000.00) and C&W could loan them two
MR.AFRICA:Sameobjection,yourHonor. million pesos (P2,000,000.00). Again, we were
AYes,thatiscorrect,becausewewouldhavecontinued unhappybutagainwecomplied.Myquestionis:do
as 100% British corporation. So the pressure was youconfirmthecorrectnessofthisnarrationincluding
broughttobearuponustogotoa60/40corporation. thefiguresmentionedhere?
MR. LIM:I notice from the Articles of Incorporation of _______________
EasternthatyouaretheTreasurerinTrust,thatyou 43TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV.
weretheTreasurerinTrust,meaningtheTreasurer Bane,pp.4750;Rollo,pp.126129.
upontheincorporationofEastern? 258
AYes,thatstrue.43 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
xxx Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
MR.LIM:Thatisthetenoroftheaffidavit.Justtosatisfy MR. AFRICA:Subject to question and answer, your
that concern I will rephrase the question. Do you Honor please, as there are statements which are of
know what happened to the assetsof EEATC when conclusionand/orhearsay.
EasternwasincorporatedonJune10,1974? AYes,Idoconfirmthatthatspreciselywhathappened.
AYes,EasternpurchasedalltheassetsofEEATC. MR. LIM:What this one million pesos which was the
QIwouldliketodrawyourattentiontoparagraph12of amount that the Africa group said they could only
your affidavit which I read: The figure eventually raise,whatwasthisonemillion?
negotiatedfortheassets(netbookvalueonlyandno AWell, it was their contribution to the capital of the
goodwill)wastenmillionpesos(P10,000,000.00)on company.
the basis of which the BAN group will put up six QAside from the one million pesos contribution to the
millionpesos(P6,000,000.00).Furthermeetingstook capital of Eastern from the Filipino group of
placetofinalizethedetailsbutAfricalaterinformed Benedicto, Africa, and Nieto, do you know if
usthattheycouldnotraisetherequiredamount.Asa additionalcontributionsintermsofmoneyweremade
compromise, he suggested that the new corporation bythemafterwards?
raise a bank loan from which C&W could be paid. AWell, in as much as that they repaid the loans that
Whilewewerenothappywiththisarrangement,we C&W granted them out of the dividends yes, there
resignedourselvestothefactthatwewouldhaveto wereineffectcontributions,Isuppose.
accede.Itwasagreedthatstockholderscontribution QHowmuchwastheamountoftheloan?
ATwomillionpesos. Mr. Bane, wouldyou or your company Cable& Wireless
QThattwomillionpesosloanwasrepaidbytheFilipino have agreed to that kind of payment arrangement,
groupoutofstockdividends? which is to pay in dividends, if it were not for the
ANo,outofyes,stockdividends,yes,cashdividends. pressurefromSecretaryEnrile?
QCashdividends? MR.AFRICA:Sameobjection,yourHonorplease.
ACashdividendsasIrecall. ANo, we would not; it wasnt, it was not standard
QNow, aside from that were there any subsequent business practice in any way at all. We would not
contributions to the capital of Eastern from the normallyhaveagreedtoaconditionsuchasthat.
Filipinogroup? xxx
ANotasfarasIcanrecall,no. QMrBane,whatwasthepositionofManuelNietoJr.in
QSo in terms of cold cash or money, what they Easternafterincorporation?
contributedinitiallywasonlyonemillionpesos? AHewasthePresident.
ACorrect. xxx
QTheloanthattheygotfromC&Woftwomillionwas QNow,MrBane,paragraph13ofyouraffidavitmentions
repaid to the company, or to C&W in terms of the that: Attorney Luciano Salazar drafted the
dividends? Presidential Decree for the transfer of EEATCs
MR.AFRICA:Alreadyanswered,yourHonor. franchise to Eastern, that said draft decree was
AYes,yes,correct. personally delivered to Manuel Nieto, Jr., who
MR.LIM:WhograntedtheloantotheFilipinogroup? committedtosecurePresidentMarcosapprovaland
ATheHongKongandShanghaiBank.Well,theydidnt signature. Do I take it that this was in 1974
grant it to the Filipino group; they granted it to contemporaneouslywiththeorganizationofEastern?
Eastern. AYes,itwas.
QAndwasthereaguaranteemadeforthatloan? QYousaidManuelNietoJr.,wastheEasternPresident?
MR.AFRICA:Leading,yourHonorplease.259 AThatscorrect.
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 259 QWasMr.NietoabletosecuretheapprovalofPresident
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) Marcos to the transfer of EEATCs franchise to
AYes,aguaranteewasmadebyCable&Wireless. Eastern?
MR. LIM:I request, your Honor, for emphasis that AYes,hewas,itwasissuedunderPresidentialDecree.
paragraph12oftheaffidavitwhichhasbeenreadinto QIfIshowyouacopyofthatPresidentialDecreewould
the record and which has been confirmed by the youbeabletorecognizeitinthesensethatitrefersto
witnessbebracketedandsubmarkedasExhibitC your company, the former EEATC, not former, the
12d1,paragraph12.(Marked) EEATC?
AYes.(Handed)
QAt this point, yourHonor,Imakeofrecordthatthis AWell,Mr.Nietoundertookandpromisedusthathewould
representation has handed to Mr. Maurice Bane getthedraftPresidentialDecreesignedintolawby
ExhibitCMotionIncreaseinCapital.260 PresidentMarcos.
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED MR.LIM:Andwasheabletodeliveronhispromise?
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) AHe certainly was. You can see the signature on the
AYes,thatisindeedthePresidentialDecree. bottom.
QYour Honor, may I make a little correction in my QWitnessreferringto
manifestation. What I handed to the witness is a AIdorecognizethatsignature,yes,asPresidentMarcos
photocopy of Presidential Decree 48944with the signature.
Exhibit marking being reproduced as part of the QYourHonor,atthispointmayIrequestthatthisdraft
document,thedocumentactuallymarkedasExhibitC ImsorrythatthiscopyofPD489beagainmarked
is now part of the case records. Now, Mr. Witness, inthisdepositionpro
please tell the court whether you had any personal _______________
participation in the preparation of this particular 44Authorizing The Eastern Extension Australasia and
decreePD489? China Telegraph Company, Limited to Transfer the
AYes,Idid.IconsultedwithAttorneySalazar.Wewent Franchise Granted to that Company Under Republic
throughtheEasternfranchiseandsotothatextent, ActNo.808,asAmendedbyRepublicActNo.5002,to
in putting this together, yes I did cooperate with theEasternTelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc.
AttorneySalazar,althoughofcourseAttorneySalazar 261
wastheprimepersonbehinddraftingthedocument. VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 261
QYour affidavit mentions that this was approved by Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
PresidentMarcosintheentiretyofthedraftdecreeas ceedingsasExhibitDDepositionBaneandthesignatureof
prepared by Attorney Salazar and you, meaning no PresidentMarcosatthebottomofpage2pointedat
correctionwasmadebyMalacaang.Myquestionis: bythewitnessbesubmarkedandbracketedasD1
what did that convey to you, meaning the fact that Deposition Bane. (Marked) Mr. Bane, did you also
Marcos approved thePresidential Decree drafted by serve as director of Eastern, one of the directors, I
Attorney Salazar and yourself without revision or mean,ofEastern?
amendment? AYes,Iwasforatime,ashortperiodoftime.
MR.AFRICA:Objectedto,yourHonorplease,askingfor QNow, after Easterns incorporation in 1974 did you
anopinionandaconclusion. carryonasanofficerofEastern?
MR.LIM:Thatisveryrelevant,yourHonor,thewitness AYes,Idid.
havingparticipatedinpreparingthis. QWhatpositions?
MR.AFRICA:Anyway,myobjectionisontherecord. AExecutiveVicePresidentandTreasurer.
QAndasyousaidthiswasupto1987? AWell, once the company was formed and under the
AYes. formation of the company Eastern or Cable &
xxx Wirelesshadamanagementcontracttomanagethe
QWouldyouhaveaccededtothatkindofsetup,meaning company, we could see that telecommunications
havingFilipinopartnersinthepersonsofMr.Nieto development was very badly needed in the
and later Attorney Africa if it were not for the Philippines. The satellite earth station had been
pressure from Secretary Enrile during your March constructedandtheTropohadgonein,buttherewas
1973meeting? still a very large demand for circuits. We therefore
MR.AFRICA:Alreadyanswered,yourHonorplease. devised a plan to put underseas cables, telephone
AIcanonlyrepeatwhatIsaidbefore,thatno,ofcourseI cables, from the Philippines to Japan, from the
wouldnot. Philippines to Hong Kong, Philippines to Singapore
MR. LIM:Now, during your stint with Eastern in andthenlatterlyPhilippinestoTaiwan.Forthatwe
association with Mr. Nieto and later with Attorney obviouslyneededapprovalsrightatthetop,because
JoseAfrica,doyouknowofinstanceswhenPresident wewere,ineffect,incompetitionwithPLDT.PLDT
Marcos intervened on behalf of Eastern, or showed were really dragging their heels in development,
personalinterestforEastern? perhapsbecauseoflackoffinancingorwhatever.So
MR.AFRICA:Questionisvagueandinterveneisanall wesawanopportunitytoperhapsestablishEastern
encompassingword. as a major player in the Philippines
MR.LIM:Ireform,yourHonor.MrBane,yousaidthat telecommunications.Ithereforedraftedaletterwhich
from 1974 continuously up to 1987 you were was what is the word Im looking for perhaps
associatedwithEastern,youwereoneofitsofficers which was fine tuned perhaps is the best word, by
and you were working with Filipino directors or AttorneyJoseAfrica.AndthissetoutEasternsplans
officers. During this time the President of the for development of submarine cable systems and
Philippines of course was continuously Mr. Marcos. everything else, and we asked at the bottom of the
My question, sir, is: during your incumbency in letter for Presidential approval. And this letter was
Eastern do you know of instances when President signed by Ambassador Nieto; it was taken to
Marcos helped your company obtain Malacaanganditwassigned,writtenacrossthetop
correspondenceships, or in its competition with ofthepage,Ithinkthe wordswere justApproved,
PLDT? President Marcos so we received approval, direct
AYes,Ido,yes.262 approvalfromPresidentMarcostoproceedwiththe
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED implementationofthisverybigcableproject.Itmeant
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) to say that we had bypassed the national
QInwhatwaydidMarcoshelpEastern? telecommunications commission under whose
 authority thiswould normally havebeen submitted, AWithEEATCandwithEastern.
but knowing as wedid thatwithPLDTs opposition xxx
weprobablywouldnthavegotitthroughtheNTC. QMr. Bane, were there other stockholders of Class A
QSo it was President Marcos himself who gave the duringthis21yearperiod?
approvalforEasterntoundertaketheconstructionof ATheonlychangesthatIwasawareofthatweremade
thesesubmarinecablesthatyoumentioned? wasthatAttorneyJoseAfricapointedouttome,after
AThatscorrect,yes. theincorporation,thattheywantedtoputsomeofthe
QAndcanyoutellusthesignificanceofthatdesignation, stock,ortheywouldputsomeofthestockinthename
whathappenedtoEasternbecauseitgotthisproject? of various companies. He also mentioned that of
AWell,byputtinginthesubmarinecablesystems,since course they were going to put some small, a very
wewerefinancingthem,wehadtohavetheapproval small minority of shares in the names of family
of,ofcourse,thedistantadministrationinthiscase members.ThatsasfarasIknew.
Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, so one of the QThese companies, what companies were these? Or
benefitsthataccruedfromthiswasthatwe rather, excuse me sir, rather what would be the
263 natureofthesecompanies?
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 263 AIdontknow,Idontknowwhatthecompanieswere.I
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision) doknowthenames.IthinkAmbassadorNietoswas
becameatelephonecorrespondenttothesecountries.After Aerocom, was Ambassador Benedictos Universal
all, these cableswerevery high capacity. Ithinkto Molasses,Icantremember?AndthenAttorneyJose
Hong Kong they were 1380 telephone circuits, to Africa,Ithink,wasPolygon.
Japan 960 telephone circuits, so that what it did it QNowhavingbeenassociatedwithManuelNietoJr.and
wasforthegreatbenefitofthePhilippines.Weused JoseL.AfricaandalsoMr.Benedictoformanyyears,
thephraseinthelettertomakethePhilippinesthe didyoucometoknowatanytimeduringthatperiod
huboftelecommunicationsinSouthEastAsia,which of association with them whether President Marcos
wehopedweweregoingtodoandIthinktoalarge hadanyparticipationorcontrolintheirstockholdings
extentwediddo.TheultimatebenefittoEasternwas inEastern?
quiteconsiderable,itenormouslyincreasedcashflow _______________
andofcoursefromthatwefinancedthecables.45 45TranscriptofthenotesontheDepositionofMauriceV.
xxx Bane,pp.5665;Rollo,pp.135144.
QMr.Bane,youstatedthatyouwerewithEasternfor21 264
years? SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AThatscorrect,yes. Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Q21continuousyears.
 MR. AFRICA:Please, objected to, your Honor, witness andinvolvementinthecircumstancesleadingtotheformationof
isnt competent. The best witnesses would be the ETPI in 1974, which is crucial to petitioners allegation that
persons themselves, notwhatthiswitness has been private respondents interest in ETPI rightfully belongs to the
told. Government. To dismiss the Bane deposition as inadmissible
MR.LIM:Ifthewitnessknows,yourHonor. basedonthetenuousgroundthatthere
MR.AFRICA:Butwhathewastold,notwhatistrue,or _______________
whatistrueandcorrect? 46Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V.
ANo, I was not told that President Marcos had a Bane,pp.7678;Rollo,pp.155157.
stockholding in Eastern. There was, of course, 47515Phil.1;479SCRA1(2006).
speculationamongourselvesastoinavaguesortof 48Id.,atp.46;p.54.
wayweoftenwondered.TheonlytimethatIactually 265
knew that President Marcos had a significant
VOL.662,DECEMBER13,2011 265
stockholding in Eastern was when, after
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
sequestration,AmbassadorNietowentontotelevision
wasnoactualconsolidationofcasesistodisregardtheobvious
and stated on television that I think first of all he
statedsomethingaboutPhilcomsatPOTCandhethen fact that the Bane deposition was taken inCIVIL CASE NO.
statedontelevisionthatPresidentMarcosowned40% 0009(IncidentCaseNo.0130andG.R.No.107789)andthat
of the stock of Eastern. Thats the only time that I all the defendants (now private respondents) in Civil Case No.
was, I had any direct, shall we say, or had been 0009weredulynotifiedofthescheduleddepositiontaking.
directly informed by television of course that Although petitioner, in its formal offer of evidence in Civil
PresidentMarcoswasastockholder.46 CaseNo.0009,inadvertentlyomittedthedepositionofMauriceV.
Bane,petitionerthereafterfiledanurgentmotionprayingthatit
Inthe2006caseofYuchengcov.Sandiganbayan,47thisCourt
beallowedtointroduceasadditionalevidencethedepositionof
overturned the ruling of the Sandiganbayans Partial Decision
MauriceV.Bane.TheSandiganbayanshouldhavegrantedthis
andheldthatthetestimoniesthroughdepositionsofCampos,
Gapud and de Guzman established the Marcoses beneficial motionorthesucceedingMotiontoAdmitSupplementalOfferof
ownershipofPrimeHoldingIncorporated(PHI).TheCourtruled Evidence (Re: Deposition ofMaurice V. Bane)filed on 16
thatthetestimoniesofCampos,Gapud,anddeGuzman,persons November 2001. As held in the 1997 case ofRepublic v.
who actually participated in the formation and early years of Sandiganbayan(ThirdDivision):49
operationofPHI,constituteevidencethatdirectlyaddressesthe Inallcasesinvolvingallegedillgottenwealthbroughtbyor
criticalissue.48 againstthePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment,itis
Inthiscase,thedeponentMauriceV.BanewastheExecutive thepolicyofthisCourttosetasidetechnicalitiesandformalities
VicePresident and Treasurer of ETPI from 1974 until his thatservemerelytodelayorimpedetheirjudiciousresolution.
retirementin1987.MauriceV.Banehadpersonalknowledgeof This Court prefers to have such cases resolved on the merits
beforetheSandiganbayan.Substantialjusticetoallparties,not
merelegalismsorperfectionofform,shouldnowberelentlessly
pursued.Elevenyearshavepassedsincethegovernmentstarted
itssearchforandreversionofsuchallegedillgottenwealth.The
definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long
overdue. If there is adequate proof of illegal acquisition,
accumulation,misappropriation,fraudorillicitconduct,letitbe
broughtoutnow.50
Accordingly,theSandiganbayanResolutiondated7February
2002shouldbereversedandsetaside.ThedepositionofMaurice
V. Bane taken on 23 to 24 October 1996, together with the
accompanyingdocumentaryexhibits,shouldbeadmittedaspart
of petitioners evidence. I vote toGRANTthe petition
andREMANDthis case to the Sandiganbayan for further CASESREPORTED
proceedings. SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Petitiondismissed.
_______________ ____________________
49G.R.No.113420,7March1997,269SCRA316.
G.R.No.200751.August17,2015.*
50Id.,atp.334.
MONICO LIGTAS, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE
266
PHILIPPINES,respondent.
266 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
RemedialLaw;CivilProcedure;Appeals;PetitionforReview
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision)
Note.Lestitbeforgotten,therationaleforconsolidationis onCertiorari;Onlyquestionsoflawareallowedinapetitionfor
tohaveallcaseswhichareintimatelyrelated,acteduponbyone reviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.Factualfindingsofthe
branchofthecourttoavoidthepossibilityofconflictingdecisions Regional Trial Court (RTC) are conclusive and binding on the
being rendered. (Philippine Airlines, Incorporated vs. Zamora, SupremeCourt(SC)whenaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals(CA).
564SCRA50[2008]) Onlyquestionsoflawareallowedinapetitionforreviewunder
Rule45oftheRulesofCourt.FactualfindingsoftheRegional
o0o TrialCourtareconclusive
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved. _______________
 *SECONDDIVISION. admissionsofboththeappellantandtheappellee,(7)whenthe
CAsfindingsarecontrarytothosebythetrialcourt,(8)whenthe
findingsare conclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceon
2
whichtheyarebased,(9)whentheactssetforthinthepetitionas
2 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
wellasinthepetitionersmainandreplybriefsarenotdisputed
Ligtasvs.People bytherespondent,(10)whenthefindingsoffactarepremisedon
and binding on this court when affirmed by the Court of
thesupposedabsenceofevidenceandcontradictedbytheevidence
Appeals.Thiscourthasdifferentiatedbetweenaquestionoflaw
on record, or (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
andquestionoffact:Aquestionoflawexistswhenthedoubtor
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
controversy concerns the correct application of law or
considered,wouldjustifyadifferentconclusion.
jurisprudencetoacertainsetoffacts;orwhentheissuedoesnot
call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence Same; Same; Same; Same; The issue of tenancy, in that
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. whetherapersonisanagriculturaltenantornot,isgenerallya
Aquestionoffactexistswhenthedoubtordifferencearisesasto questionoffact.Theissueoftenancy,inthatwhetheraperson
the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites isanagriculturaltenantornot,isgenerallyaquestionoffact.To
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the beprecise,however,theexistenceofatenancyrelationshipisa
credibilityofthewitnesses,theexistenceandrelevancyofspecific legalconclusion
surroundingcircumstancesaswellastheirrelationtoeachother
andtothewhole,andtheprobabilityofthesituation.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thereareexceptionstotherule 3
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 3
thatonlyquestionsoflawshouldbethesubjectofapetitionfor
reviewunderRule45.PetitioneradmitsthatthePetitionraises Ligtasvs.People
substantiallyfactualissuesthatarebeyondthescopeoftheRule based on facts presented corresponding to the statutory
heseeksredressfrom.However,thereareexceptionstotherule elementsoftenancy.
thatonlyquestionsoflawshouldbethesubjectofapetitionfor Administrative Proceedings; Generally, decisions in
reviewunderRule45:(1)whenthefindingsaregroundedentirely administrative cases are not binding on criminal
on speculation, surmises or conjectures, (2) when the inference proceedings;Thus,anabsolutionfromacriminalchargeisnota
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible, (3) when bartoanadministrativeprosecution,orviceversa.Weholdthat
thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion,(4)whenthejudgmentisbased aDARABdecisionontheexistenceofatenancyrelationshipis
on misapprehension of facts, (5) when the findings of fact are conclusive and binding on courts if supported by substantial
conflicting,(6)wheninmakingitsfindings,theCAwentbeyond evidence. Generally, decisions in administrative cases are not
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the binding on criminal proceedings. This court has ruled in a
number of cases that: It is indeed a fundamental principle of 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
administrative law that administrative cases are independent Ligtasvs.People
from criminal actions for the same act or omission.Thus, an RemedialLaw;Evidence;JudicialNotice;Itistruethattrial
absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of decisions of
administrative prosecution, or vice versa. One thing is othercourtsorevenrecordsofothercasesthathavebeentriedor
administrative liability; quite another thing is the criminal
arependinginthesamecourtorbeforethesamejudge.Itistrue
liabilityforthesameact....Thus,consideringthedifferencein
that trial courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of
thequantumofevidence,aswellastheprocedurefollowedand
decisionsofothercourtsorevenrecordsofothercasesthathave
the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative
beentriedorarependinginthesamecourtorbeforethesame
proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not
judge. In declaring that the DARABs findings on the tenancy
necessarily be binding on the other. Notably, the evidence
relationship between petitioner and private complainant are
presentedintheadministrativecasemaynotnecessarilybethe
immaterial to the criminal case for theft, the Court ofAppeals
sameevidencetobepresentedinthecriminalcases.
reliedonCornes,etal.v.LealRealtyCentrumCo.,Inc.,560SCRA
Tenancy Relationship; Department of Agrarian Reform
545(2008).
Adjudication Board; Jurisdiction; The Department of Agrarian
CriminalLaw;Theft;Elementsof.Theessentialelements
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is the quasijudicial oftheftare:(1)takingofpersonalproperty;(2)thepropertytaken
tribunalthathastheprimaryjurisdictiontodeterminewhether belongstoanother;(3)thetakingwasdonewithouttheowners
there is a tenancy relationship between adverse parties.The consent;(4)therewasintenttogain;and(5)thetakingwasdone
DARAB is the quasijudicial tribunal that has the primary without violence against or intimidation of the person or force
jurisdictiontodeterminewhetherthereisatenancyrelationship uponthings.
between adverse parties. This court has held that judicial AgrarianReform;Tenants,Defined;WordsandPhrases.
determinations[oftheDARAB]havethesamebindingeffectas Tenantshavebeendefinedas:personswhointhemselvesand
judgmentsandordersofaregularjudicialbody.Disputesunder with the aid available from within their immediate farm
thejurisdictionoftheDARABincludecontroversiesrelatingto: households cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by
tenurialarrangements,whetherleasehold,tenancy,stewardship another, with the latters consent, for purposes of production,
orotherwise,overlandsdevotedtoagriculture,includingdisputes sharingtheproducewiththelandholderunderthesharetenancy
concerningfarmworkersassociationsorrepresentationofpersons system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to ascertainable in produce or money or both under the leasehold
arrangetermsorconditionsofsuchtenurialarrangements. tenancysystem.(Citationomitted)Underthisdefinition,atenant
isentitledtotheproductsofthelandheorshecultivates.The
landowners share in the produce depends on the agreement
4
betweentheparties.Hence,theharvestingdonebythetenantis Binabawiponiyaangakingsaka,sumbongniTataSelo.
withthelandownersconsent. Saanpapoakopupuntakungwalanaakongsaka?
ConstitutionalLaw;RighttobePresumedInnocent;Noless ....
thantheConstitutionprovidesthattheaccusedshallbepresumed Habangnakakapitsarehasatnakatinginsalabas,sinasabi
innocentofthecrimeuntilprovenguilty.Inthiscase,petitioner niyang lahat ay kinuha na sa kanila, lahat, ay! ang lahat ay
harvestedtheabaca,believingthathewasentitledtotheproduce
kinuhanasakanila.
as a legitimate tenant cultivating the land owned by private
TataSelo(1963)byRogelioR.Sikat
complainant. Personal property may have been taken, but it is
with the consent of the owner. No less than the Constitution
providesthattheaccusedshallbepresumedinnocentofthecrime The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian
untilprovenguilty.[I]tisbettertoacquittenguiltyindividuals Reform Adjudication Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant
thantoconvictoneinnocentperson.Thus,courtsmustconsider negates a finding of theft beyond reasonable doubt. Tenants
[e]verycircumstanceagainstguiltandinfavorofinnocence[.] havingrightstotheharvestcannotbedeemedtohavetakentheir
Equally settled is that [w]here the evidence admits of two ownproduce.
interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the
other with innocence, the accusedmust be given thebenefit of ThisisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1underRule45ofthe
doubtandshouldbeacquitted. Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision 2dated
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution March16,2010andtheResolution 3datedFebruary2,2012.4The
oftheCourtofAppeals. Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision 5of the Regional Trial
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Court finding Monico Ligtas (Ligtas) guilty beyond reasonable
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent. doubtoftheft.6
LigtaswaschargedwiththecrimeoftheftunderArticle308of
LEONEN,J.:
theRevisedPenalCode.7TheInformationprovides:
Bakitniyababawiinangakingsaka?tanongniTataSelo. That on or about the 29thday of June 2000
Dinayakonabasiyasapartihan?Tinusokonabasiya?Siya atSitioLamak,BarangaySan Juan, Municipality of Sogod,
angmayaringlupaatkasamalangniyaako.Hindibatkaya Province of Southern Leyte, Philippines and within the
maramingnagagalitsaakinaydahilsaayawkongmagpamigay jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused,
ngkahitisangpinangkokunganihan? withintentofgain,enteredintotheabacaplantationbelongingto
Hindi pa rin umaalis sa harap ng istaked si Tata Selo. oneAnecitaPacate,andonceinsidetheplantation,didthenand
therewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyharvested1,000kilosof
Nakahawakparinsiyasarehas.Nakatinginsiyasalabasngunit
abaca fibers, valued at Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo,
walasiyangsinomangtinitingnan. withouttheconsentofsaidowner,AnecitaPacate,toherdamage
....
and prejudice in the aforestated amount of TwentyNine Ligtasvs.People
ThousandPesos(Php29,000.00),Philippinecurrency. On July 2, 2000, Cabero and Cipres went back to the
CONTRARYTOLAW.8 plantation and conducted a survey on the condition of the
plantation.Theyfoundthat1,000kilosofabaca,valuedatP28.00
Ligtaspleadednotguilty.9 perkilo,wereharvestedbyLigtas.12
The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses during trial: OnJuly3,2000,LigtasandAnecitaPacateconfrontedeach
EfrenCabero(Cabero),ModestoCipres(Cipres),AnecitaPacate, other before the Sogod Police Station. 13Ligtas admitted to
SPO2EnriqueVillaruel,andErnestoPacate.10 harvesting the abaca but claimed that he was the plantation
According to the prosecution witnesses, Anecita Pacate was owner.14
the owner of an abaca plantation situated Thedefensepresentedthree(3)witnessesduringtrial:Ligtas;
atSitioLamak,BarangaySan Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte. On PabloPalo,hisneighbor;andDeliaLigtas,hiswife. 15Accordingto
June 29, 2000, Cabero, the plantations administrator, and Ligtas, he had been a tenant of Anecita Pacate and her late
severalmen,includingCipres,wenttotheplantationtoharvest husband,AndresPacatesince1993. 16AndresPacateinstalledhim
abaca upon Anecita Pacates instructions. At about 10:00 a.m., as tenant of the 1.5 to two hectares of land involved in the
Cabero and his men were surprised to find Ligtas harvesting criminalcase.17
abaca at the plantation. Ligtas was accompanied by three (3) Ligtas allegedly made his first harvest in 1997. 18He then
unidentifiedmen.Allegedly,Ligtasthreatenedthattherewould gaveAnecitaPacatehersharetotheharvest. 19However,hecould
belossoflifeiftheypersistedinharvestingtheabaca.Cabero not remember the exact amount anymore. 20Previously, Ligtas
reportedtheincidenttoAnecitaPacateandthepolice.11 andPabloPalowereworkersinanotherland,around15hectares,
ownedbyAnecitaPacateandAndresPacate.21
_______________ Ligtas alleged that on June 28, 2000, Anecita Pacate sent
workerstoharvestabacafromthelandhecultivated.Ligtas
uponthesameorshallgatherfruits,cereals,orotherforestor
farmproducts. _______________
8Id.,atp.93.
9Id. 12Id.,atpp.94and96.
10Id. 13Id.,atpp.94and9699.Theconfrontationwaspursuantto
11Id.,atpp.9398. asummonssenttoLigtasbytheSogodpolice.
14Id.,atp.94.
15Id.,atpp.4247.
8 16Id.,atpp.45and99.RecordsshowthatAnecitaPacate
8 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED and Andres Pacate, Sr. (id., at p. 17) had two sons: Ernesto
Pacate and Andres Pacate, Jr. (id., at p. 42). However, Andres In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial
Pacate,Sr.isreferredtointherecordsasAndresPacate. Courtheldthattheprosecutionwasabletoprovetheelementsof
17Id. theft[.]30Ligtas defense of tenancy was not supported by
concrete and substantial evidencenor washis claim of harvest
18Id.,atp.45.
sharingbetweenhimand[AnecitaPacate]dulycorroboratedby
19Id.
anywitness.31Hisdefenseofalibicannot
20Id.
21Id.,atpp.4247. _______________

22Id.,atpp.46and99.
9 23Id.
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015
24Id.,atpp.28and196.
Ligtasvs.People
25Id.,atpp.2834.ThecasewasdocketedasDARABCase
preventedthemenfromharvestingtheabacasincehewasthe
No. VIII319SL2000. The Decision was penned by Provincial
rightfultenantoftheland.22
AdjudicatorMiguelG.Polinar.
Furthermore, Ligtas denied harvesting abaca at the
26Id.,atp.33.
plantationonJune29,2000.HeclaimedthathewaswithCabero
27Id.,atp.49.
and Cipres attending abarangay fiestaatSitioHubasan, San
Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte, when the alleged harvesting 28Id.,atp.104.
happened.23 29Id.,atp.178.
Meanwhile,LigtasfiledaComplaintbeforetheDepartmentof 30Id.,atp.48.
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) of Sogod, 31Id.
Southern Leyte for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession on
November21,2000.24OnJanuary22,2002,theDARABrendered
the Decision25ruling that Ligtas was abona fidetenant of the 10
land.26 10 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
WhilerecordsarebereftastowhentheDARABDecisionwas Ligtasvs.People
formally offered as evidence before the trial court, records are prevail over the positive identification ... by prosecution
clearthattheDARABDecisionwasconsideredbyboththetrial witnesses.32
court27andCourtofAppeals28andwithoutanyobjectiononthe ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
partofthePeopleofthePhilippines.29
 WHEREFORE, finding the accused Monico Ligtas guilty 34Id.,atp.109.
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofTheft,thiscourthereby
rendersjudgment,sentencinghim:
1.Tosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyoffour(4)years,nine 11
(9)monthsandten(10)daysasminimumtoeight(8)yearsand VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 11
eight(8)monthsasmaximum;
Ligtasvs.People
2.Toindemnifytheoffende[d]party:
ancy relationship35belonged to Ligtas. He was not able to
a.The amount of P29,000.00 for the value of the abaca
establishalltheessentialelementsofatenancyagreement.36
stole[n];
The Court of Appeals declared that Ligtas reliance on the
b.TheamountofP5,000.00asmoraldamages;
DARABDecisiondeclaringhimasabonafidetenantofthe...
c.TheamountofP10,000.00aslitigationexpenses/attorneys
landisirrelevantinthecaseatbar:37
fees;
Jurisprudenceisrepletewithcasesdeclaringthatfindingsof
3.Topaythecosts.
orcertificationsissuedbytheSecretaryofAgrarianReform,or
SOORDERED.33
hisauthorizedrepresentative,inagivenlocalityconcerningthe

presence or absence of a tenancy relationship between the
I
contendingparties,aremerelypreliminaryorprovisionalandare

notbindinguponthecourts.[]38
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial

court.34Accordingtoit,theburdentoprovetheexistenceofthe
Astotheownershipoftheland,theCourtofAppealsheldthat
ten
Ligtashadtakenconflictingpositions.Whileheclaimedtobea
legitimatetenant,LigtasalsoassailedAnecitaPacatestitleover
_______________
the land. Under Rule 131, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a
tenantcannotdenythetitleofhisorherlandlordatthetimeof
32Id.,atp.100.
thecommencementofthetenancyrelation.39
33Id.,atp.49A.Perthetestimoniesofthewitnessesbefore The Court of Appeals remained unconvinced as to Ligtas
the trial court and as adopted by the Court of Appeals, the allegations on ownership. He claims that the parcel of land
Kasabutan or Agreement dated February 24, 2007 was owned by [Anecita Pacate] is different from the subject abaca
previously executed between Ligtas and Anecita Pacate. The land.However,suchassertionwasbasedmerelyonthetestimony
AgreementinvolvedanotherincidentoftheftcommittedbyLigtas of the municipal assessor, not an expert competent to identify
againstAnecitaPacate.Hewasalsochargedwiththeftin1988; parcelsofland.40
however,thecasewasultimatelydismissed(id.,atpp.1819,37, More importantly, the Court of Appeals ruled that Ligtas
40,4143,4647,and49). committedtheftbyharvestingabacafromAnecitaPacates
_______________ established. [W]here an accusedsalibiis established only by
himself,hisrelativesandfriends,hisdenialofculpabilityshould
35Id.,atp.101. beaccordedthestrictestscrutiny.48
36Id.,atpp.101103. Ligtas attack on the credibility of the witnesses did not
37Id.,atp.104. prosper.49He failed to show that the case was initiated only
38Id., citingCornes v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., 582 through Anecita Pacates quest for revenge or to ensure that
Ligtaswouldbeevictedfromtheland.50
Phil.528,552;560SCRA545,571(2008)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,
TheCourtofAppealsdismissedLigtasappealandaffirmed
ThirdDivision].
thetrialcourtsDecisionfindingLigtasguiltybeyondreason
39Id.,atp.108.
40Id. _______________

41Id.,atp.105.
12 42Id.
12 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 43Id.
Ligtasvs.People 44Id.,atpp.105106.
plantation.41Ligtashadconstructivepossessionofthesubjectof
45Id.,atp.106.
thetheftwithouttheownersconsent. 42Thesubjectofthecrime
neednotbecarriedawayoractuallytakenoutfromthelandin 46Id.
ordertoconsummatethecrimeoftheft.43 47Id.
Furthermore, Ligtas argument that the abaca did not 48Id.,atpp.107108.
constituteaspersonalpropertyunderthemeaningofArticle308 49Id.,atp.107.
of the Revised Penal Code was erroneous. 44Following the 50Id.,atp.108.
definitionofpersonalproperty,theabacahempwascapableof
appropriation [and] [could] be sold and carried away from one
placetoanother.45TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourts 13
finding that about 1,000 kilos of abaca were already VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 13
harvested.46Hence,alltheelementsoftheftunderArticle308of
Ligtasvs.People
the Revised Penal Code were sufficiently established by the
able doubt of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
prosecution.
Code.51ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
TheCourtofAppealsruledthatLigtasdefenseofalibicould
WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal isDISMISSED.
notexcusehimfromcriminalliability. 47Hisalibiwasdoubtfully Accordingly,theassailedDecisiondated...August16,2006of
theRegionalTrialCourtofSogod,SouthernLeyte,Branch39,in PetitionerfiledhisReply(id.,atpp.147149)datedOctober14,
Criminal Case No. R225, finding accusedappellant Monico 2013,whichwenotedonJanuary15,2014(id.,atp.152).Inthe
LigtasguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofTheftunderArticle308
Resolution (id., at pp. 165167) dated July 14, 2014, this court
of the Revised Penal Code, is herebyAFFIRMED in all
gaveduecoursetothepetitionandrequiredthepartiestosubmit
respects.
their respective Memoranda within 30 days from notice.
SOORDERED.52
PetitionersMemorandum(id.,atpp.184201)datedOctober8,

2014waspostedonOctober10,2014(id.,atp.184).Re
LigtasfiledaMotionforReconsideration, 53whichtheCourtof

AppealsdeniedonFebruary2,2012.54


14
II
14 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

OnApril4,2012,LigtasfiledthisPetitionassailingtheCourt Ligtasvs.People
ofAppealsDecisionandResolution.55ThiscourtrequiredPeople Theissuesforconsiderationofthiscourtare:
ofthePhilippinestofileitsCommentonthePetitionwithin10 First,whetherquestionsoffactmayberaisedinapetitionfor
daysfromnotice.56 reviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt;
Second, whether the DARAB Decision, finding petitioner
_______________ MonicoLigtasastenantofthelandownedbyprivatecomplainant
AnecitaPacateandlocatedatSitioLamak,BarangaySanJuan,
51Id.,atp.109.
Sogod, Southern Leyte is conclusive or can be taken judicial
52Id. noticeofinacriminalcasefortheft;and
53Id.,atpp.112115. Third, whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible
54Id.,atpp.118119. errorwhenitupheldtheconvictionofpetitionerMonicoLigtasfor
55Id., at p. 21. Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of theftunderArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCode.
TimetoFilePetitionforReviewfor30daysdatedMarch2,2012 ThePetitionismeritorious.
(id.,atpp.24),whichthecourtgranted(id.,atp.122).
56Id.,at p.122.TheResolutionwasdatedMarch4,2013. III
Respondent,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,filedits
Petitioner argues that the findings of fact of both the trial
CommentonJune27,2013(id.,atpp.128143).IntheResolution
court and Court of Appeals must be revisited for being
(id., at p. 145) dated August 14, 2013, this court noted the
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on record and
CommentandrequiredpetitionertofileaReplytotheComment.
premised on the supposed absence of evidence on the claim of Aquestion of lawexists when the doubt or controversy
petitioner[as]tenant.57 concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a
Only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
under Rule 4558of the Rules of Court. 59Factual findings of the examinationoftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresented,the
RegionalTrialCourtareconclusiveandbindingonthiscourt truthorfalsehoodoffactsbeingadmitted.Aquestionoffactexists
whenthedoubtordifferencearisesastothetruthorfalsehoodof
_______________ factsorwhenthequeryinvitescalibrationofthewholeevidence
consideringmainlythecredibilityofthewitnesses,theexistence
spondent filed its Memorandum (id., at pp. 174182) dated and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as
October2,2014beforethiscourtonOctober3,2014(id.,atp. theirrelationtoeachotherandtothewhole,andtheprobability
174). ofthesituation.61(Emphasissupplied)
57Id.,atp.190.
58RulesofCourt,Rule45,Sec.1provides: PetitioneradmitsthatthePetitionraisessubstantiallyfactual
SECTION1.Filing of petition with Supreme Court.A issues that are beyond the scope of the Rule he seeks redress
party desiring to appeal bycertiorarifrom a judgment or final from.62However, there are exceptions to the rule that only
questions of law should be the subject of a petition for review
orderorresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayan,
underRule45:
theRegionalTrialCourtorothercourtswheneverauthorizedby
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for
surmises or conjectures, (2) when the inference made is
reviewoncertiorari.Thepetitionshallraiseonlyquestionsoflaw manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible, (3) when there is
whichmustbedistinctlysetforth. grave abuse of discretion, (4) when the judgment is based on
59SeeDelosReyesVda.DelPradov.People,G.R.No.186030, misapprehension of facts, (5) when the findings of fact are
March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 768, 778 [PerJ.Reyes, Second conflicting,(6)wheninmakingitsfindings,theCAwentbeyond
Division]. the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissionsofboththeappellantandtheappellee,(7)whenthe
CAsfindingsarecontrarytothosebythetrialcourt,(8)whenthe
15 findingsare
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 15
Ligtasvs.People _______________
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 60This court has
differentiatedbetweenaquestionoflawandquestionoffact:
 60SeePeoplev.Cardenas,G.R.No.190342,March21,2012, precise,however,theexistenceofatenancyrelationshipisalegal
668 SCRA 827, 844845 [PerJ.Sereno (nowCJ.), Second conclusion based on facts presented corresponding to the
Division]. statutoryelementsoftenancy.66
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its
61Ruizv.People,512Phil.127,135;475SCRA476,484485
assailedDecisionwhenitheldthatalltheessentialelementsof
(2005)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision],quotingRepublicv. the crime of theft were duly proven by theprosecution despite
Sandiganbayan, 425 Phil. 752, 765766; 375 SCRA 145, 154 petitionerhavingbeenpronouncedabonafidetenantofthe
(2002)[PerCJ.Davide,Jr.,EnBanc].
62Rollo,p.190. _______________

63Supranote59atpp.779780.
16 64Pitog v. People, 268 Phil. 413, 420; 190 SCRA 386, 393
16 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED (1990)[PerCJ.Fernan,ThirdDivision].
Ligtasvs.People 65Cornesv.LealRealtyCentrumCo.,Inc.,supranote38at
conclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyare p.548;p.567,citingMonv.CourtofAppeals,471Phil.65,78;
based,(9)whentheactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthe 427SCRA165,173(2004)[PerJ.Carpio,FirstDivision].
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the 66SeeHeirsofNicolasJugalbotv.CourtofAppeals,547Phil.
respondent,(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the
113, 120; 518 SCRA 202, 210 (2007) [PerJ.YnaresSantiago,
supposedabsenceofevidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceon Third Division]: Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship
record, or (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain dependentonwhattheallegedtenantdoesupontheland.Itis
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly alsoalegalrelationship[.]
considered, would justify a different conclusion. 63(Emphasis
supplied,citationomitted)
17
Thiscourthasheldbeforethatareexaminationofthefactsof VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 17
the case is justified when certain material facts and Ligtasvs.People
circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court which, if landfromwhichheallegedlystole. 67Areviewoftherecordsofthe
takenintoaccount,wouldaltertheresultofthecaseinthatthey caseis,thus,propertoarriveatajustandequitableresolution.
would introduce an element of reasonable doubt which would
entitletheaccusedtoacquittal.64
IV
The issue of tenancy, in that whether a person is an

agriculturaltenantornot,isgenerallyaquestionoffact. 65Tobe
 Petitionerclaimsthatprivatecomplainantsfilingofcriminal 18
chargeswasmotivatedbyillwillandrevenge. 68Thechargeswere 18 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
designedtoremovepetitionerfromthelandhehaslegitimately Ligtasvs.People
occupiedastenant.69Telling is the fact thatpetitioner filedhis peal.TheDARABsfindingastothepartiestenancyrelationship
ComplaintbeforetheDARABonNovember21,2000,whilethe
constitutesasresjudicata.75
InformationforTheftwasfiledonDecember8,2000.70
On the other hand, respondent argues that the Court of
Petitioner argues that he has sufficiently established his
Appeals correctly disregarded the DARAB Decision. 76The trial
statusasprivatecomplainantstenant. 71TheDARABDecisionis
courtcouldnothavetakenjudicialnoticeoftheDARABDecision:
entitledtorespect,evenfinality,astheDepartmentofAgrarian
While the DARAB . . . ruled that petitioner is abona
Reform is the administrative agency vested with primary
jurisdiction and has acquired expertise on matters relating to fidetenantofPacate,courts arenotauthorized totakejudicial
tenancyrelationship.72 noticeofthecontentsoftherecordsofothercasesevenwhensuch
ThefindingsoftheDARABwerealsosupportedbysubstantial cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
evidence.73To require petitioner to prove tenancy relationship notwithstandingthefactthatbothcasesmayhavebeenheardor
through evidence other than the DARAB Decision and the areactuallypendingbeforethesamejudge.77(Citationomitted)
testimonies of the witnesses is absurd and goes beyond the
requiredquantumofevidence,whichissubstantialevidence.74 Moreover, according to respondent, petitioner invokes
Also, according to petitioner, the DARAB Decision has conflicting defenses: that there is a legitimate tenancy
attainedfinalitysinceprivatecomplainantdidnotfileanap relationshipbetween himandprivatecomplainantandthathe
did not take the abaca hemp.78Nevertheless, respondent
_______________ maintains that petitioner failed to prove all the essential
elements of a tenancy relationship between him and private
67Rollo,p.33. complainant.79Privatecomplainantdidnotconsenttothealleged
tenancy relationship.80Petitioner alsofailedto provideevidence
68Id.,atpp.194195.
astoanysharingofharvestbetweentheparties. 81
69Id.,atp.195.
WeholdthataDARABdecisionontheexistenceofatenancy
70Id.,atp.196. relationshipisconclusiveandbindingoncourtsifsupportedby
71Id.,atp.191. substantialevidence.
72Id. Generally, decisions in administrative cases are not binding
73Id.,atpp.193194. on criminal proceedings. This court has ruled in a number of
74Id.,atp.194. casesthat:

_______________

 75Id.,atp.192. SL2000 involves a determination of whether there exists a
76Id.,atp.177. tenancyrelationshipbetweenpetitionerandprivatecomplainant,
whileCriminalCaseNo.R225involvesdeterminationofwhether
77Id.,atp.178.
petitionercommittedtheft.However,thetenancyrelationshipisa
78Id.,atp.179. factor in determining whether all the elements of theft were
79Id.,atpp.179180. provenbytheprosecution.
80Id.,atp.180. InitsDecisiondatedJanuary22,2002,theDARABfound:
81Id.,atp.178. All the necessary requisites in order to establish tenancy
relationship as required in the above quoted Supreme Court
ruling, has been established by the evidence submitted by
19 plaintiff; And these evidences were not controverted by any
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 19 evidencesubmittedbytherespondent.
Ligtasvs.People
_______________
Itisindeedafundamentalprincipleofadministrativelawthat
administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for
82Paredesv. Court ofAppeals,555 Phil.538,549550;528
the same act or omission.Thus, an absolution from a criminal
SCRA577,587589(2007)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,ThirdDivision].
chargeisnotabartoanadministrativeprosecution,orviceversa.

Onethingisadministrativeliability;quiteanotherthingisthe

criminalliabilityforthesameact.
20
....
20 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Thus,consideringthedifferenceinthequantumofevidence,
aswellastheprocedurefollowedandthesanctionsimposedin Ligtasvs.People
criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and In fine, this board found plaintiff abona fidetenant of the
conclusionsinoneshouldnotnecessarilybebindingontheother. landinquestionandassuchisentitledtoasecurityoftenure,in
Notably,theevidencepresentedintheadministrativecasemay which case he shall not be dispossessed of his holdings by the
not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the landownerexceptforanyofthecausesprovidedbylawandonly
criminalcases.82(Emphasissupplied,citationsomitted) afterthesamehasbeenprovedbefore,andthedispossessionis
authorized by the Court and in the judgment that is final and
However,thiscasedoesnotinvolveanadministrativecharge executory[.]83(Citationsomitted)
stemming from the same set of facts involved in a criminal
proceeding. This is not a case where one act results in both ThedispositiveportionoftheDARABDecisionprovides:
criminalandadministrativeliability.DARABCaseNo.VIII319
 WHEREFORE, premises being considered, judgment is Findingsoffactofadministrativeagenciesintheexerciseof
herebyrendered,findingMonicoLigtasabonafidetenantofthe theirquasijudicialpowersareentitledtorespectifsupportedby
landsubjectinthiscaseandwelldescribedinparagraphthree(3) substantial evidence.85This court is not tasked to weigh again
inthecomplaint,andorderingasfollows,towit: the evidence submitted before the administrative body and to
1.Therespondentandallotherpersonsactingforandinher substituteitsownjudgment[asto]thesufficiencyofevidence.86
behalftomaintainplaintiffinthepeacefulpossessionoftheland
indispute. V
2.TheMAROofSogod,SouthernLeyte,andconcurrentlythe
clusterManagerofSogodBayDARClustertocallthepartiesand The DARAB is the quasijudicial tribunal that has the
assistthemintheexecutionofaleaseholdcontractcoveringthe primary jurisdiction to determine whether there is a tenancy
landindispute,andforthepartiestorespectandobeysuchcall relationshipbetweenadverseparties.87Thiscourthasheldthat
ofthesaidMAROincompliancewiththelegalmandate.
3.OrderingtherespondenttopayplaintifftheamountofFive _______________
Thousand(P5,000.00)Pesosrepresentingtheexpensesincurred
by plaintiff in vindicating his right and other actual expenses 85SeeMirov.MendozaVda.deErederos,G.R.Nos.172532&
incurredinthislitigation. 17254445,November20,2013,710SCRA371,383[PerJ.Brion,
Otherreliefsoughtareherebyordereddismissedforlackof SecondDivision].
evidence. 86SeeAutenciov.Maara,489Phil.752,761;449SCRA46,
Nocost. 56(2005)[PerJ.Panganiban,ThirdDivision].
SODECIDED.84 87Rep.ActNo.6657(1988),Sec.50provides:
SEC.50.QuasiJudicial Powers of the DAR.The DAR is
_______________
hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
83Rollo,p.33. adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
84Id.,atpp.3334. original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementationofagrarianreform,exceptthosefallingunderthe
exclusivejurisdictionoftheDepartmentofAgriculture(DA)and
21 theDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 21 Itshallnotbeboundbytechnicalrulesofprocedureandevidence
Ligtasvs.People but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or
PrivatecomplainantdidnotappealtheDARABsfindings. controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in
accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. indirectcontemptsinthesamemannerandsubjecttothesame
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to penaltiesasprovidedintheRulesofCourt.
achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent
everyactionorproceedingbeforeit. themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any
Itshallhavethepowertosummonwitnesses,administeroaths, proceedingsbeforetheDAR:Provided,however,Thatwhenthere
take testimony, require submission of reports, compel the aretwoormorerepresentativesforanyindividualorgroup,the
production of books and documents and answers to representatives should choose only one among themselves to
interrogatories and issue subpoena, andsubpoenaduces representsuchpartyorgroupbeforeanyDARproceedings.
tecumand NotwithstandinganappealtotheCourtofAppeals,thedecision
oftheDARshallbeimmediatelyexecutory.(Emphasissupplied)
88Martillanov.CourtofAppeals,447Phil.226,236237;433
22 SCRA 195, 202 (2004) [PerJ.YnaresSantiago, First
22 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Division],citingRep.ActNo.6657(1988),Secs.50and51.
Ligtasvs.People 89Suarez v. Saul, 510 Phil. 400, 409; 473 SCRA 628, 637
judicialdeterminations[oftheDARAB]havethesamebinding (2005) [PerJ.YnaresSantiago, First Division],citingRep. Act
effect as judgments and orders of a regular judicial No.6657(1988),Sec.3(d)inrelationtoSec.50andDARABRules
body.88Disputes under the jurisdiction of the DARAB include ofProcedure,RuleII,Sec.1.
controversiesrelatingto:
90596Phil.472;576SCRA447(2009)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,

ThirdDivision].
tenurialarrangements,whetherleasehold,tenancy,stewardship

orotherwise,overlandsdevotedtoagriculture,includingdisputes

concerningfarmworkersassociationsorrepresentationofpersons
23
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 23
arrangetermsorconditionsofsuchtenurialarrangements.89
InSalazarv.DeLeon,90thiscourtupheldtheDepartmentof Ligtasvs.People
Agrarian Reforms primary jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, andtenants.91TheDARABDecisionisconclusiveandbindingon
whichincludestherelationshipbetweenlandowners courtswhensupportedbysubstantialevidence. 92Thiscourtruled
thatadministrativeresjudicataexistsinthatcase:
_______________ Significantly,respondentdidnotappealtheDecisiondated17
November1995oftheDARABinDARABCase#II380ISA94;
to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized consequently,thesamehasattainedfinalityandconstitutesres
officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and
judicataon the issue of petitioners status as a tenant of 94G.R. No. 187317, April 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 240
respondent. [PerCJ.Sereno,EnBanc].
Resjudicataisaconceptappliedinthereviewoflowercourt
decisions in accordance with the hierarchy of courts.But
24
jurisprudencehasalsorecognizedtheruleofadministrativeres
24 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
judicata:Therulewhichforbidsthereopeningofamatteronce
judiciallydeterminedbycompetentauthorityapplies as wellto Ligtasvs.People
the judicial and quasijudicial facts of public, executive or cialorquasijudicialproceedingsandnottopurelyadministrative
administrativeofficersandboardsactingwithintheirjurisdiction proceedings:
astothejudgmentsofcourtshavinggeneraljudicialpowers.It The CA was correct in ruling that the doctrine ofres
has been declared that whenever final adjudication of persons judicataappliesonlytojudicialorquasijudicialproceedings,and
investedwithpowertodecideonthepropertyandrightsofthe not to the exercise of administrative powers. Administrative
citizenisexaminablebytheSupremeCourt,uponawritoferror powers here refer to those purely administrative in nature, as
or acertiorari, such final adjudication may be pleaded asres opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi
judicata.To be sure, early jurisprudence was already mindful judicialcharacter.
Inadministrativelaw,aquasijudicialproceedinginvolves(a)
thatthedoctrineofresjudicatacannotbesaidtoapplyexclusively
takingandevaluatingevidence;(b)determiningfactsbasedupon
to decisions rendered by what are usually understood as courts the evidence presented; and (c) rendering an order or decision
withoutunreasonablycircumscribingthescopethereof;andthat supported by the facts proved. The exercise of quasijudicial
themoreequitableattitudeistoallowextensionofthedefenseto functionsinvolvesadetermination,withrespecttothematterin
decisions of bodies upon whom judicial powers have been controversy, of what the law is; what the legal rights and
conferred.93(Emphasissupplied,citationsomitted) obligationsofthecontendingpartiesare;andbasedthereonand
thefactsobtaining,theadjudicationoftherespectiverightsand
obligationsoftheparties.95(Citationsomitted)
InEncinas v. Agustin, Jr.,94this court clarified thatres

judicataappliesonlytodecisionsrenderedbyagenciesinjudi
Wefinditnecessarytoclarifythetwoconceptsofresjudicata:
_______________ barbypriorjudgmentandconclusivenessofjudgment.InSocial
SecurityCommissionv.RizalPoultryandLivestockAssociation,
91Id.,atpp.484486;p.457. Inc., et al.,96this court discussed and differentiated the two
92Id.,atp.489;p.462. conceptsofresjudicata:
93Id.,atpp.488489;p.461.
 Resjudicataembracestwoconcepts:(1)barbypriorjudgment Thus,ifaparticularpointorquestionisinissueinthesecond
as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil action,andthejudgmentwilldependonthedeterminationofthat
Procedure;and(2)conclusivenessofjudgmentinRule39,Section particularpointorquestion,aformerjudgmentbetweenthesame
47(c).
partiesortheirprivieswillbefinalandconclusiveinthesecondif
Thereisbarbypriorjudgmentwhen,asbetweenthefirst
thatsamepointorquestionwasinissueandadjudicatedinthe
casewherethejudgmentwasrenderedandthesecondcasethat
issoughttobebarred,thereisidentityofparties,subjectmatter, first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely
andcausesofaction.Inthisinstance,thejudgmentinthefirst identityofissue.
caseconstitutesanabsolutebartothesecondaction. Theelementsofresjudicataare:(1)thejudgmentsoughtto
barthenewactionmustbefinal;(2)thedecisionmusthavebeen
_______________ renderedbyacourthavingjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter
andtheparties;(3)thedispositionofthecasemustbeajudgment
95Id.,atpp.260261. on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and
96665 Phil. 198; 650 SCRA 50 (2011) [PerJ.Perez, First secondaction,identityofparties, subjectmatter, andcausesof
Division]. action.Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
actionbeshowninthetwocases,thenresjudicatainitsaspectas
a bar by prior judgment would apply. If as between the two
25
cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 25
causesofaction,thenresjudicataasconclusivenessofjudgment
Ligtasvs.People
applies.97(Emphasissupplied,citationsomitted)
Butwherethereisidentityofpartiesinthefirstandsecond
cases, but noidentity ofcauses of action, the first judgment is
_______________
conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
97Id.,atpp.205206;pp.5658.
involved therein. This is the concept ofres judicataknown as

conclusivenessofjudgment.Stateddifferently,anyright,factor

matterinissuedirectlyadjudicatedornecessarilyinvolvedinthe
26
determination of an action before a competent court in which
26 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
judgmentisrenderedonthemeritsisconclusivelysettledbythe
judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the Ligtasvs.People
parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, InMartillano v. Court of Appeals,98the DARAB Decision
purpose,orsubjectmatterofthetwoactionsisthesame. finding for the existence of a tenancy relationship betweenthe
parties was declared by this court as conclusive on the Nos.A308399issuedinfavorof[petitioner]NicanorMartillano.
parties.99As in this case, the DARAB OnApril4,1990,Valenzuelasold19parcelsofland[,]...moreor
Decision100inMartillanoattained finality when the landowner less1.3785hectares[,]toprivaterespondent[William]PoCham.
didnotappealtheDecision.101Thiscourtruledthatthedoctrine 101Id.,atpp.236237;p.202.
ofresjudicataapplies:
UndertheaforecitedsectionsofRA6657,theDepartmentof
AgrarianReformisempowered,throughitsadjudicatingarmthe 27
regionalandprovincialadjudicationboards, toresolveagrarian VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 27
disputes and controversies on all matters pertaining to the Ligtasvs.People
implementationoftheagrarianlaw.Section51thereofprovides ents. The same effect is sought with the institution of DARAB
thatthedecisionoftheDARABattainsfinalityafterthelapseof Case No. 512Bul 94, which is an action to withdraw and/or
fifteen(15)daysandnoappealwasinterposedtherefrombyany cancel administratively the CLT and Emancipation Patents
oftheparties. issuedtopetitioner.ConsideringthatDARABCase062Bul89
In the instant case, the determination of the DARAB in hasattainedfinalitypriortothefilingofDARABCaseNo.512
DARABCaseNo.062Bul89,therebeingnoappealinterposed Bul 94, no strenuous legal interpretation is necessary to
therefrom,attainedfinality.Accordingly,thematterregardingthe understandthattheissuesraisedinthepriorcase,i.e.,DARAB
status of Martillano asa tenant farmer and the validity of the CaseNo.062Bul89,whichhavebeenresolvedwithfinality,may
notbelitigatedanew.
CLTandEmancipationPatentsissuedinhisfavoraresettledand
The instant case is complicated by the failure of the
nolongeropentodoubtandcontroversy. complainanttoincludeMartillanoaspartydefendantinthecase
.... beforetheadjudicationboardandtheDARAB,althoughhewas
We recall that DARAB Case 062Bul 89 was for the finallyimpleadedonappealbeforetheCourtofAppeals.
cancellationofpetitionersCLTandEmancipationpat The belated inclusion of Martillano as respondent in the
petitionwillnotaffecttheapplicabilityofthedoctrineofbarby
_______________
prior judgment.What is decisive is that the issues which have
98Supranote88. already been litigated in a final and executory judgment
99Id.,atpp.236237;p.205. precludes,bytheprincipleofbarbypriorjudgment,anaspectof
100Id.,atpp.229230;p.197.TheDARABDecisionpertains thedoctrineofresjudicata,andevenunderthedoctrineoflawof
to DARAB Case No. 062Bul 89, which resolved Abelardo thecase,therelitigationofthesameissueinanotheraction.Itis
Valenzuela,Jr.sComplaintforthecancellationoftheCertificate wellestablishedthatwhenarightorfacthasbeenjudiciallytried
ofLandTransfer(CLT)No.0042751and/orEmancipationPatent anddeterminedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction,solongasit
remainsunreversed,itshouldbeconclusiveuponthepartiesand reason back from a judgment to the basis on which it stands,
thoseinprivitywiththem.Thedictumthereinlaiddownbecame upon the obvious principle that where a conclusion is
indisputable, and could have been drawn only from certain
thelawofthecaseandwhatwasonceirrevocablyestablishedas
premises, the premises are equally indisputable with the
the controlling legal rule or decision, continues to be binding conclusion.Whenafacthasbeenoncedeterminedinthecourseof
betweenthesamepartiesaslongasthefactsonwhichthedecision ajudicialproceeding,andafinaljudgmenthasbeenrenderedin
was predicated, continue to be the facts of the case before the accordance therewith, it cannot be again litigated between the
court.Hence, the binding effect and enforceability of samepartieswithoutvirtuallyimpeachingthecorrectnessofthe
thatdictumcan no longer be resurrected anew since said issue formerdecision,which,frommotivesofpublicpolicy,thelawdoes
hadalreadybeenresolvedandfinallylaidtorest,ifnotbythe notpermittobedone.
principle ofres judicata, at least by conclusiveness of Res judicatahas two concepts. The first is bar by prior
judgment.102(Emphasissupplied,citationsomitted) judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(b), and the second is
conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(c). Both
_______________ conceptsarefoundedontheprincipleofestoppel,andarebased
onthesalutarypublicpolicyagainstunnecessarymultiplicityof
102Id.,atpp.237239;pp.203205. suits. Like the splitting of causes of action,res judicatais in
pursuance of such policy. Matters settled by a Courts final
judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again. Re
28 litigationofissuesalreadysettledmerelyburdensthe
28 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Ligtasvs.People
InCov.People,etal.,103thiscourtheldthatthedoctrineof
103610Phil.60;592SCRA381(2009)[PerJ.Corona,First
conclusiveness of judgment also applies in criminal
Division].
cases.104Petitionerinthatcasewaschargedwiththeviolationof
104Id.,atp.69;p.390.
Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, for the alleged non
remittanceofSocialSecuritySystemcontributions. 105Thiscourt 105Id.,atpp.6364;p.384.
upheldthefindingsoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission 106Id.,atp.67;p.387.
inaseparatecase,whichdeclaredtheabsenceofanemployer
employeerelationshipandhadattainedfinality. 106Thiscourtheld
that: 29
Thereasonsforestablishingtheprincipleofconclusivenessof VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 29
judgmentarefoundedonsoundpublicpolicy....Itisallowableto Ligtasvs.People
Courtsandthetaxpayers,createsuneasinessandconfusion,and agriculturalproduction;(5)thereispersonalcultivation;and(6)
wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to thereissharingoftheharvests.
worthiercases.107(Citationsomitted) 111Rollo,p.33.SeeRulesofCourt,Rule133,Sec.5provides:
SECTION5.Substantial evidence.In cases filed before
InVHJConstructionandDevelopmentCorporationv.Courtof administrative or quasijudicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
Appeals,108this court ruled that tenancy relationship must be established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
dulyproven: amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
[A]tenancyrelationshipcannotbepresumed.Theremustbe acceptasadequatetojustifyaconclusion.
evidence to prove this allegation. The principal factor in
determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent.
Tenancyisnotapurelyfactualrelationshipdependentonwhat
the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal 30
relationship.109(Citationomitted) 30 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ligtasvs.People
TheDARAB,inDARABCaseNo.VIII319SL2000,heldthat and affidavits of both petitioner and private complainant. 112It
alltheessentialelementsofatenancyrelationshipwereproven wasconvincedbypetitionersevidence,whichconsistedofsworn
bypetitioner.110Itfoundthatthere wassubstantialevidenceto statementsofpetitionerswitnessesthatpetitionerwasinstalled
support petitioners claim as tenantof theland. 111In rendering astenantbyAndresPacatesometimein1993. 113Petitionerand
theDecision,theDARABexaminedpleadings Andres Pacate had an agreement to share the produce after
harvest.114However, Andres Pacate had died before the first
_______________ harvest.115Petitionerthengavethelandownerssharetoprivate
complainant, and had done so every harvest until he was
107Id.,atpp.7071;pp.392393. disturbedinhiscultivationofthelandonJune29,2000.116
108480 Phil. 28; 436 SCRA 392 (2004) [PerJ.Callejo, Sr., WeemphasizethatafterfilingherAnswerbeforetheDARAB,
SecondDivision]. private complainantfailed toheed the Notices sent to her and
109Id.,atp.35;p.398. refused to attend the scheduled hearings. 117The DARAB even
110Rollo, p. 33. SeeVHJ Construction and Development quotedinitsDecisionthereasonofferedbyprivatecomplainants
Corporationv.CourtofAppeals,id.,atp.35;pp.398399:The counselinhisMotiontoWithdrawascounsel:
requisitesofatenancyrelationshipareasfollows:(1)theparties That as early as the preliminary hearings of the case, the
arethelandownerandthetenant;(2)thesubjectisagricultural respondenthasalreadyshownherintentionnottoparticipatethe
land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is proceedingsofthecaseforreasonsknownonlytoher;
 Thatdespitetheadvi[c]eoftheundersigned,respondentstood Appeals120relied onCornes, et al. v. Leal Realty Centrum Co.,
patwithherdecisionnottoparticipateintheproceedingsofthe Inc.121
case;
InCornes, petitioners, who were farmers of a 21hectare
That in view of this predicament, the undersigned can do
agriculturallandinTarlacthatwasprincipallydevotedtosugar
nothingexcepttowithdrawasheisnowwithdrawingascounsel
and rice and who claim the rights of their predecessorsin
fortherespondentoftheaboveentitledcase[.]118
interest, filed separate Complaints before the Provincial
AdjudicationBoardofRegionIIIinTarlac,Tarlac.Theyclaimed
_______________
that when the registered owner of the land, Josefina Roxas
Omaa,soldthelandtorespondents,respondentswereawareof
112Rollo,pp.2932.
thetenancyrelationshipbetweenpetitionersandJosefinaRoxas
113Id.,atpp.2930. Omaa.122
114Id.,atp.30.
115Id.
116Id.The DARAB Decision states that Ligtas had _______________
peacefullycultivatedthelandfrom1993toJune29,2000,when
respondentAnecitaPacateorderedmentoharvestabacafromthe 119SeeRulesofCourt,Rule129,Secs.1and2provide:
land. SECTION1.Judicial notice, when mandatory.A court
117Id.,atp.28. shalltakejudicialnotice,withouttheintroductionofevidence,of
118Id.,atp.29. the existence and territorial extent of states, their political
history,formsofgovernmentandsymbolsofnationality,thelaw
ofnations,theadmiraltyandmaritimecourtsoftheworldand
31 their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 31
judicialdepartmentsofthePhilippines,thelawsofnature,the
Ligtasvs.People
measureoftime,andthegeographicaldivisions.
Itistruethattrialcourtsarenotmandatedtotakejudicial
SECTION2.Judicial notice, when discretionary.A court
noticeofdecisionsofothercourtsorevenrecordsofothercases
maytakejudicialnoticeofmatterswhichareofpublicknowledge,
thathavebeentriedorarependinginthesamecourtorbefore
orarecapable ofunquestionabledemonstration,oroughtto be
thesamejudge.119IndeclaringthattheDARABsfindingsonthe
knowntojudgesbecauseoftheirjudicialfunctions.
tenancyrelationshipbetweenpetitionerandprivatecomplainant
are immaterial to the criminal case for theft, the Court of SeealsoTabuenav.CourtofAppeals,274Phil.51,5657;196
SCRA650,655656(1991)[PerJ.Cruz,FirstDivision].
120Rollo,p.104.
 121Cornesv.LealRealtyCentrumCo.,Inc.,supranote38. _______________
122Id.,atpp.533534;p.551.
123Id.,atp.534;pp.551552.
124Id.,atpp.533537;pp.551554.
32 125Id.,atp.537;p.554.
32 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 126Id.
Ligtasvs.People 127Id.,atpp.540541;p.559.
Respondentsofferedacompensationpackagetopetitionersin 128Id.,atpp.543544;p.560.
exchangefortherenunciationoftheirtenancyrightsunderthe
129Id.,atp.558;p.577.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. However, they failed to

comply with their obligations under the terms of the

compensation package.123Petitioners then filed a series of
33
ComplaintsbeforetheDARAB.Thecaseswereconsolidatedand
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 33
resolvedbytheProvincialAdjudicator.124
The Provincial Adjudicator ruled, among other things, that Ligtasvs.People
there was no tenancy relationship [that] existed between the Attheoutset,thepartiesdonotappeartobethelandowner
parties.125He found that petitioners and their predecessorsin and the tenants. While it appears that there was personal
interestweremerehiredlaborers,nottenants.Tenancycannotbe cultivationbypetitionersandtheirpredecessorsininterestofthe
presumedfromrespondentsofferofacompensationpackage.126 subject landholding, whatwasestablishedwasthatpetitioners
Onappeal,theDARABreversedtheDecisionoftheProvincial claim of tenancy was founded on the selfserving testimony of
Adjudicator.Itfoundthattherewasanimpliedtenancybetween petitioner Rodolfo Cornes that his predecessorsininterest had
theparties.Petitionersweredeemedtenantsofthelandformore beeninpossessionofthelandholdingformorethan30yearsand
than30years.Theywereentitledtosecurityoftenure.127 had engagedina5050sharingschemewithJOSEFINA and
The Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB Decision and JOSEFINAs grandmother, the previous owner thereof. Self
reinstated the Provincial Adjudicators Decision. It held that serving statements in pleadings are inadequate; proof must be
therewasnosubstantialevidencetoprovethatalltherequisites adduced.Suchclaimsdonotsufficeabsentconcreteevidenceto
of tenancy relationship existed. However, despite the lack of supportthem.Theburdenrestsontheshouldersofpetitionersto
tenancyrelationship,thecompensationpackageagreementmust provetheiraffirmativeallegationoftenancy,whichburdenthey
beupheld.128 failedtodischargewithsubstantialevidence.Suchajuridicaltie
ThiscourtaffirmedtheCourtofAppealsDecision. 129Itheld mustbeaptlyshown.Simplyput,hewhoallegestheaffirmative
that petitioners failed to overcome the burden of proving the oftheissuehastheburdenofproof,andfromtheplaintiffina
existenceofatenancyrelationship: civilcase,theburdenofproofneverparts.Thesameruleapplies
toadministrativecases.Infact,ifthecomplainant,uponwhom
reststheburdenofprovinghiscauseofaction,failstoshowina findings of orcertifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian
satisfactorymannerthefactsuponwhichhebaseshisclaim,the Reform, or his authorized representative, in a given locality
respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or
concerning the presence or absence of a tenancy relationship
defense....
between the contending parties, are merely preliminary or
Neither was it shown to the satisfaction of this Court that
there existeda sharing ofharvestsinthe context of atenancy provisionalandarenotbindinguponthecourts.Thisrulingholds
relationship between petitioners and/or their predecessorsin with greater effect in the instant case in light of the fact that
interest and JOSEFINA. Jurisprudence is illuminating to the petitioners,ashereinshown,werenotabletoprovethepresenceof
effect that to prove such sharing of harvests, a receipt or any all the indispensable elements of tenancy.130(Emphasis supplied,
otherevidencemustbepresented.Nonewasshown.Noreceipts citationsomitted)
werepresentedastestamentstotheclaimedsharingofharvests.
Theonlyevidencesubmittedtoestablishthepurportedsharingof
Thus,inCornes,thiscourtdidnotcategoricallyholdthatthe
harvests was the testimony of petitioner Rodolfo Cornes. The
DARABsfindingsweremerelyprovisionaland,thus,notbinding
sharing arrangement cannot be deemed to have existed on the
oncourts.Whatwasdeemedasapreliminarydeterminationof
basisaloneofpetitionerRodolfoCornesclaim.Itisselfserving
tenancywasthetestimonyoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform
and is without evidentiary value. Selfserving statements are
employeestatingthatthelandinvolvedwastenanted.Further,
deemedinadequate;competentproofmustbeadduced.Ifatall,
the tribunals had conflicting findings on whether petitioners

werebonafidetenants.

In this case, records are bereft as to whether private
34
complainantappealedtheDARABDecision.Thus,itispresumed
34 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thattheDecisionhaslonglapsedintofinality.131Itisalsoes
Ligtasvs.People
thefactaloneofsharingisnotsufficienttoestablishatenancy _______________
relationship.
We also sustain the conclusion reached by the Provincial 130Id.,atpp.550552;pp.568571.
AdjudicatorandtheCourtofAppealsthatthetestimonyofAraceli 131SeeRep.ActNo.6657(1988),Sec.51provides:
Pascua, an employee of the DAR in Victoria, Tarlac, that the SEC.51.Finality of Determination.Any case or controversy
subject landholding was tenanted cannot overcome substantial before it shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is
evidencetothecontrary.Toprovetheallegedtenancynoreliance submittedforresolution.Onlyone(1)motionforreconsideration
may be made upon the said public officers testimony. What shallbeallowed.Anyorder,rulingordecisionshallbefinalafter
thelapseoffifteen(15)daysfromreceiptofacopythereof.
cannotbeignoredistheprecedentrulingofthisCourtthatthe

 by the DARAB in a judgment that is final and
35 executory.135(Citationomitted)
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 35
Ligtasvs.People _______________
tablished that private complainant participated in the initial
stagesoftheDARABproceedings. 132Therefore, theissueofthe 132Rollo,pp.2829and42.
existenceofatenancyrelationshipisfinalasbetweentheparties.
WecannotcollaterallyreviewtheDARABsfindingsatthisstage. 133Id.,atp.199.
The existence of the final Decision that tenancy exists creates 134Id.
seriousdoubtsastotheguiltoftheaccused. 135Id.

VI
36
Accordingtopetitioner,theelementsoftheftunderArticle308 36 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
of the Revised Penal Code were not established since he was Ligtasvs.People
abona fidetenant of the land.133The DARABs recognition of Petitioner argues that the constitutional presumption of
petitioner as a legitimate tenant necessarily implie[d] that he innocencemustbeupheld:
ha[d] the authority to harvest the abaca hemp from [private Wellsettled is the rule that where inculpatory facts and
complainants land].134This shows that petitioner had no circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
criminalintent. which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
As to the existence of another element of theft that the otherconsistentwithhisguilt,thentheevidencedoesnotfulfill
takingwasdonewithouttheconsentoftheownerpetitioner the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
argues that this, too, was negated by his status as private conviction.Inacquittinganappellant,wearenotsayingthathe
complainantstenant: islilywhite,orpureasdrivensnow.Rather,wearedeclaringhis
The purported lack of consent on the part of the private innocence because theprosecutionsevidencefailedtoshow his
complainantasallegedbytheprosecution,ismisplaced.Infact,it guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For that is what the basic law
was even improper for...Anecita Pacate to stop or prevent requires. Where the evidence is insufficient to overcome the
petitionerfromharvestingtheproduceofthelandholdingbecause presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, then his
astenant,petitionerisentitledtosecurityoftenure.Thisright acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental
entitled him to continue working on his landholding until the law.136(Citationsomitted)
leaseholdrelationisterminatedoruntilhisevictionisauthorized
 TheCourtofAppealserredwhenitaffirmedthefindingsof Tenantshavebeendefinedas:
thetrialcourtfindingpetitionerguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt personswhointhemselvesandwiththeaidavailablefrom
oftheft. within their immediate farm households cultivate the land
Article308oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovides: belongingtoorpossessedbyanother,withthelattersconsent,for
ARTICLE308.Who are Liable for Theft.Theft is committed purposesofproduction,sharingtheproducewiththelandholder
by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence under theshare tenancy system,orpayingtothe landholdera
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall pricecertainorascertainableinproduceormoneyorbothunder
takepersonalpropertyofanotherwithoutthelattersconsent. theleaseholdtenancysystem.138(Citationomitted)
Theftislikewisecommittedby:
1.Anypersonwho,havingfoundlostproperty,shallfailto Underthisdefinition,atenantisentitledtotheproductsof
deliverthesametothelocalauthoritiesortoitsowner; the land he or she cultivates. The landowners share in the
2.Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the producedependsontheagreementbetweentheparties.Hence,
property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or the harvesting done by the tenant is with the landowners
objectofthedamagecausedbyhim;and consent.
TheexistenceoftheDARABDecisionadjudicatingtheissueof
_______________ tenancybetweenpetitionerandprivatecomplainantnegatesthe
existence of the element that thetaking was done withoutthe
136Id.,atpp.199200. ownersconsent.TheDARABDecisionimpliesthatpetitionerhad
legitimateauthoritytoharvesttheabaca.

37 _______________
VOL.767,AUGUST17,2015 37
137SeeGanv.People,550Phil.133,159;521SCRA550,577
Ligtasvs.People
3.Anypersonwhoshallenteranenclosedestateorafield (2007)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,FirstDivision];UnitedStatesv.De
where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and Vera, 43 Phil. 1000, 1003 (1921) [PerJ.Villamor,En Banc];
withouttheconsentofitsowner,shallhuntorfishuponthesame andPeople v. Yusay, 50 Phil. 598, 607 (1927) [PerJ.Villa
orshallgatherfruits,cereals,orotherforestorfarmproducts. Real,EnBanc].
138Cornesv.LealRealtyCentrumCo.,Inc.,supranote38at
The essential elements of theft are: (1) taking of personal p.548;p.566.
property;(2)thepropertytakenbelongstoanother;(3)thetaking
was done without the owners consent; (4) there was intent to
gain; and (5) the taking was done without violence against or 38
intimidationofthepersonorforceuponthings.137
38 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Inviewofpetitionersacquittalbasedonreasonabledoubt,we
Ligtasvs.People finditunnecessarytodiscussfurthertheothererrorsraisedby
Theprosecution,therefore,failedtoestablishalltheelementsof petitioner.
theft. WHEREFORE, the Petition isGRANTED. The Court of
AppealsDecisiondatedMarch16,2010andtheResolutiondated
InPitogv.People,139thiscourtacquittedpetitioneroftheftof
February 2, 2012 areREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. Petitioner
sugarcane and banana crops on the basis of reasonable
doubt.140Theprosecutionfailedtoprovelackofcriminalintenton MonicoLigtasisACQUITTEDofthecrimeoftheftunderArticle
petitionerspart.141Itfailedtoclearlyidentifythepersonwho,as 308 of the Revised Penal Code. If detained, he is ordered
aresultofacriminalact,withouthisknowledgeandconsent,was immediatelyRELEASED, unless he is confined for any other
wrongfully deprivedof athingbelongingto him. 142There were lawful cause. Any amount paid by way of a bailbond is
doubtsastowhethertheplantstakenbypetitionerwereindeed orderedRETURNED.
plantedonprivatecomplainantslotwhenpetitionerhadplanted SOORDERED.
herownplantsadjacenttoit. 143Thus,itwasnotprovenbeyond Carpio(Chairperson),Brion,DelCastilloandMendoza,JJ.,
reasonable doubt that the property belonged to private concur.
complainant.Thiscourtfoundthatpetitionertookthesugarcane Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set
andbananasbelievingthemtobeherown.Thatbeingthecase, aside. Petitioner Monico Ligtas acquitted and ordered
shecouldnothavehadacriminalintent.144
immediatelyreleased.
Inthiscase,petitionerharvestedtheabaca,believingthathe
Notes.In adjudicating a case on trial, courts are not
wasentitledtotheproduceasalegitimatetenantcultivatingthe
authorizedtotakeajudicialnoticeofthecontentsoftherecords
landownedbyprivatecomplainant.Personalpropertymayhave
of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
beentaken,butitiswiththeconsentoftheowner.
pendinginthesamecourtandnotwithstandingthatbothcases
NolessthantheConstitutionprovidesthattheaccusedshall
may have been tried or are actually pending before the same
bepresumedinnocentofthecrimeuntilprovenguilty. 145[I]tis
bettertoacquittenguiltyindividualsthantoconvictoneinnocent judge; Rule admits of exceptions. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
person.146Thus, courts must consider [e]very circumstance [FourthDivision],662SCRA152[2011])
againstguiltandinfavorofinnocence[.] 147Equallysettledisthat TheSupremeCourttakesjudicialnoticethatproceedingsat
[w]heretheevidenceadmitsoftwoin thefirstlevelcourts,especiallyincitiesandcapitaltowns,are
terpretations,oneofwhichisconsistentwithguilt,andtheother relativelyslowerthanthoseattheRegionalTrialCourtbecause
withinnocence,theaccusedmustbegiventhebenefitofdoubt ofitsmorenumerouspendingcases.(Botovs.Villena,706SCRA
andshouldbeacquitted.148 1[2013])


 o0o substancehavebeenoverlooked,misapprehendedormisappliedin
acaseunderappeal.Althoughthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact
areentitledtogreatweightandwillnotbedisturbedonappeal,
_______________ thisruledoesnotapplywherefactsofweightandsubstancehave
beenoverlooked,misapprehendedormisappliedinacaseunder
148Id.,atpp.257258;p.271,citingPeoplev.Mijares,358 appeal.Inthecaseatbar,severalcircumstancesobtainwhich,if
Phil. 154, 166; 297 SCRA 520, 534 (1998) [PerJ.Panganiban, properlyappreciated,wouldwarrantaconclusiondifferentfrom
FirstDivision];Peoplev.Corpuz,459Phil.100,113;412SCRA thatarrivedatbythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals.
479,489(2003)[PerJ.YnaresSantiago,FirstDivision]. Same; Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs; Chain of
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights CustodyRule;Themerefactofunauthorizedpossessionwillnot
reserved. sufficetocreateinareasonablemindthemoralcertaintyrequired
tosustainafindingofguiltmorethanjustthefactofpossession,
thefactthatthesubstanceillegallypossessedinthefirstplaceis
the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
establishedwiththesameunwaveringexactitudeasthatrequisite
tomakeafindingofguilt.Prosecutionsforillegalpossessionof
prohibiteddrugsnecessitatesthattheelementalactofpossession
of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty,
togetherwiththefactthatthesameisnotauthorizedbylaw.The
dangerous drug itself constitutes the verycorpus delictiof the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction.Essentialthereforeinthesecasesisthattheidentity
oftheprohibiteddrugbeestablishedbeyonddoubt.Bethatasit
may,themerefactofunauthorizedpossessionwillnotsufficeto
G.R.No.172953.April30,2008.* create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to
JUNIE MALILLIN y LOPEZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE sustainafindingofguilt.Morethanjustthefactofpossession,
thefactthatthesubstanceillegallypossessedinthefirstplaceis
PHILIPPINES,respondent.
the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
CriminalLaw;Appeals;Althoughthetrialcourtsfindingsof
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody
appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and requirementperformsthis
_______________ notalwaysthestandardbecauseitisalmostalwaysimpossibleto
obtain,anunbrokenchainofcustodybecomesindispensableand
*SECONDDIVISION. essentialwhentheitemofrealevidenceisnotdistinctiveandis
620 not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED testingortrialiscritical,orwhenawitnesshasfailedtoobserve
20 itsuniqueness.Thesamestandardlikewiseobtainsincasethe
Malillinvs.People evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts andevensubstitutionandexchange.Inotherwords,theexhibits
concerningtheidentityoftheevidenceareremoved. level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering
withoutregardtowhetherthesameisadvertentorotherwisenot
Same;Same;Same;Asamethodofauthenticatingevidence,
dictatesthelevelofstrictnessintheapplicationofthechainof
thechainofcustodyrulerequiresthattheadmissionofanexhibit custodyrule.Indeed,thelikelihoodoftampering,lossormistake
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the withrespecttoanexhibitisgreatestwhentheexhibitissmall
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be; The and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature
likelihoodoftampering,lossormistakewithrespecttoanexhibit andsimilarinformtosubstancesfamiliartopeopleintheirdaily
isgreatestwhentheexhibitissmallandisonethathasphysical lives.621
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 621
substancesfamiliartopeopleintheirdailylives.Asamethodof Malillinvs.People
authenticatingevidence,thechainofcustodyrulerequiresthat Same; Same; Same; A unique characteristic of narcotic
theadmissionofanexhibitbeprecededbyevidencesufficientto substancesisthattheyarenotreadilyidentifiableasinfactthey
support a finding that the matter in question is what the are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition
proponentclaimsittobe.Itwouldincludetestimonyaboutevery andnaturehence,inauthenticatingthesame,astandardmore
linkinthechain,fromthemomenttheitemwaspickeduptothe
stringentthanthatappliedtocasesinvolvingobjectswhichare
timeitisofferedintoevidence,insuchawaythateveryperson
whotouchedtheexhibitwoulddescribehowandfromwhomit readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard
wasreceived,whereitwasandwhathappenedtoitwhileinthe that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
witness possession, the condition in which it was received and completenessifonlytorenderitimprobablethattheoriginalitem
the condition in which it was delivered tothe next link inthe haseitherbeenexchangedwithanotherorbeencontaminatedor
chain.Thesewitnesseswouldthendescribetheprecautionstaken tamperedwith.Auniquecharacteristicofnarcoticsubstancesis
toensurethattherehadbeennochangeintheconditionofthe thattheyarenotreadilyidentifiableasinfacttheyaresubjectto
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have scientificanalysistodeterminetheircompositionandnature.The
possessionofthesame.Whiletestimonyaboutaperfectchainis Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at
least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of Malillinvs.People
custody over the same there could have been tampering, facttheapprehendingteamwasabletorecordandmarkthe
alteration or substitution of substances from other casesby seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt
accidentorotherwiseinwhichsimilarevidencewasseizedorin therefor.Lestitbeforgotten,theraidingteamhashadenough
which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means
Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent thatithashadasmuchtimetoprepareforitsimplementation.
than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily WhilethefinalprovisoinSection21oftheruleswouldappearto
identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that excuse noncompliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the
entailsachainofcustodyoftheitemwithsufficientcompleteness prosecution as it failed to offer any acceptable justification for
ifonlytorenderitimprobablethattheoriginalitemhaseither Esternonscourseofaction.
beenexchangedwithanotherorbeencontaminatedortampered Same;Same;Same;SearchesandSeizures;Theapprovalby
with.
the court which issued the search warrant is necessary before
Same; Same; Same; Section 21 of the Implementing Rules
policeofficerscanretainthepropertyseizedandwithoutit,they
andRegulationsofR.A.No.9165clearlyoutlinesthepostseizure
wouldhavenoauthoritytoretainpossessionthereofandmoreso
procedureintakingcustodyofseizeddrugsitmandatesthatthe
todeliverthesametoanotheragencymeretolerancebythetrial
officeracquiringinitialcustodyofdrugsunderasearchwarrant
court of a contrary practice does not make the practice right
mustconductthephotographingandthephysicalinventoryofthe
becauseitisviolativeofthemandatoryrequirementsofthelaw
itemattheplacewherethewarranthasbeenserved.Section21
and it thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment.
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165
Esternons failure to deliver the seized items to the court
clearly outlines the postseizure procedure in taking custody of
demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search
seized drugs. In a language too plain to require a different
warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the
construction,itmandatesthattheofficeracquiringinitialcustody
trial court with a true and verified inventory of the same, as
ofdrugsunderasearchwarrantmustconductthephotographing
and the physical inventory of the item at the place where the requiredbyRule126,Section12oftheRulesofCourt.Peoplev.
warranthasbeenserved.Esternondeviatedfromthisprocedure. Go, 411 SCRA 81 (2003)characterized this requirement as
It was elicited from him that at the close of the search of mandatoryinordertoprecludethesubstitutionofortampering
petitionershouse,hebroughttheseizeditemsimmediatelytothe with said items by interested parties. Thus, as a reasonable
policestationfortheallegedpurposeofmakingatrueinventory safeguard,Peoplevs.DelCastillo,439SCRA601(2004)declared
thereof,butthereappearstobenoreasonwhyatrueinventory thattheapprovalbythecourtwhichissuedthesearchwarrantis
couldnotbemadeinpetitionershousewhenin622 necessarybeforepoliceofficerscanretainthepropertyseizedand
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED without it, they would have no authority to retain possession
22 thereofandmoresotodeliverthesametoanotheragency.Mere
tolerancebythetrialcourtofacontrarypracticedoesnotmake matter of right.In our constitutional system, basic and
the practice right because it is violative of the mandatory elementaryisthepresuppositionthattheburdenofprovingthe
requirementsofthelawandittherebydefeatstheverypurpose guiltofanaccusedliesontheprosecutionwhichmustrelyonthe
fortheenactment. strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
Same;Same;Same;PresumptionofInnocence;Presumption defense.Theruleisinvariablewhatevermaybethereputationof
ofRegularity;Thepresumptionofregularityismerelyjustthata theaccused,forthelawpresumeshisinnocenceunlessanduntil
merepresumptiondisputablebycontraryproofandwhichwhen thecontraryisshown.Indubioproreo.Whenmoralcertaintyas
challengedbytheevidencecannotberegardedasbindingtruth, toculpabilityhangsinthebalance,acquittalonreasonabledoubt
inevitablybecomesamatterofright.
anditcannotpreponderateoverthepresumptionofinnocencethat
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. oftheCourtofAppeals.
GiventheforegoingdeviationsofpoliceofficerEsternonfromthe ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the
LynetteJ.Tanforpetitioner.
warrantandintak623
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 623
Malillinvs.People
TINGA,J.:
ingpostseizurecustodyoftheevidence,theblindreliance
bythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsonthepresumptionof The presumption of regularity in the performance of official
regularityintheconductofpolicedutyismanifestlymisplaced. functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional
The presumption of regularity is merely just thata mere presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable
presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when doubtandnothingelsecaneclipsethehypothesisofguiltlessness.
challengedbytheevidencecannotberegardedasbindingtruth. Andthisburdenismetnotbybestowingdis624
Sufficeittosaythatthispresumptioncannotpreponderateover
624 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thepresumptionofinnocencethatprevailsifnotoverthrownby
proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case the lack of Malillinvs.People
conclusiveidentificationoftheillegaldrugsallegedlyseizedfrom trust on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all
petitioner,coupledwiththeirregularityinthemannerbywhich doubtsastohisculpability.
thesamewereplacedunderpolicecustodybeforeofferedincourt, In this Petition for Review1under Rule 45 of the Rules of
stronglymilitatesafindingofguilt. Court,JunieMalillinyLopez(petitioner)assailstheDecision2of
the Court of Appeals dated 27 January 2006 as well as its
Same;Same;PresumptionofInnocence;EquipoiseRule;In
Resolution3dated 30 May 2006 denying his motion for
dubioproreowhenmoralcertaintyastoculpabilityhangsinthe
reconsideration. The challenged decision has affirmed the
balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a Decision4of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City,
Branch525whichfoundpetitionerguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt 625
of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 625
knownasshabu,aprohibiteddrug. Malillinvs.People
Theantecedentfactsfollow. as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in a
Onthestrengthofawarrant6ofsearchandseizureissuedby criminalinformationwhoseinculpatoryportionreads:
theRTCofSorsogonCity,Branch52,ateamoffivepoliceofficers
raidedtheresidenceofpetitionerinBarangay Tugos, Sorsogon _______________
City on 4 February 2003. The team was headed by P/Insp.
Catalino Bolanos (Bolanos), with PO3 Roberto Esternon sand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
(Esternon), SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala and SPO2 shallbeimposeduponanyperson,who,unlessauthorizedbylaw,
RomeoGallinera(Gallinera)asmembers.Thesearchconducted shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities,
in the presence ofbarangay kagawadDelfin Licup as well as regardlessofthedegreeofpuritythereof;
petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, Norma
allegedly yielded two (2) plastic sachets ofshabuand five (5) (1)10gramsormoreofopium;
(2)10gramsormoreofmorphine;
empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said
(3)10gramsormoreofheroin;
substance.
(4)10gramsormoreofcocaineorcocainehydrochloride;
Accordingly,petitionerwaschargedwithviolationofSection
(5)50gramsormoreofmethamphetaminehydrochlorideor
11,7ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165,otherwiseknown
shabu;
_______________ (6)10gramsormoreofmarijuanaresinormarijuanaresin
oil;
(7)500gramsormoreofmarijuana;and
1Rollo,pp.822.
(8)10gramsormoreofotherdangerousdrugssuchas,but
2InCAG.R.No.28915.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRenato
not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or
C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas P.
ecstasy, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
BersaminandCeliaC.LibreaLeagogo.CARollo,pp.8190.
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamide
3Id.,atp.109. (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly
4InCriminalCaseNo.20035844.Records,pp.114119. designedornewlyintroduceddrugsandtheirderivatives,without
5PresidedbyJudgeHonestoA.Villamor. havinganytherapeuticvalueorifthequantitypossessedisfar
6Records,pp.1112. beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
7Sec.11.Possession ofDangerousDrugs.Thepenalty oflife promulgatedbytheBoardinaccordancetoSection93,ArticleXI
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred ofthisAct.
thou
 Otherwise,ifthequantityinvolvedislessthantheforegoing Takingthewitnessstand,Bolanos,theleaderoftheraiding
quantities,thepenaltiesshallbegraduatedasfollows: team, testified on the circumstances surrounding thesearch as
(1)Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four follows:thatheandhismenwereallowedentry
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of _______________
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is ten (10)
gramsormorebutlessthanfifty(50)grams; or shabu, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not
(2)Imprisonmentoftwenty(20)yearsandone(1)day limited to, MDMA or ecstasy, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
tolifeimprisonmentandafinerangingfromFourhundred and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs valueorifthequantitypossessedisfarbeyondtherapeutic
arefive(5)gramsormorebutlessthanten(10)gramsof requirements; orthree hundred(300)gramsormorebut
opium,morphine,heroin,cocaineorcocainehydrochloride, lessthanfivehundred(500)gramsofmarijuana;and
marijuanaresinormarijuanaresinoil,methamphetamine
hydrochloride (3)Imprisonmentoftwelve(12yearsandone(1)day
626 to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
626 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of
Malillinvs.People
dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
Thatonoraboutthe4thdayofFebruary2003,atabout8:45
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
in the morning inBarangay Tugos, Sorsogon City, Philippines,
marijuanaresinormarijuanaresinoil,methamphetamine
the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) hydrochloride or shabu, or other dangerous drugs such
as, but not limited to, MDMA or ecstasy, PMA, TMA,
plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride [or] shabu
LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
withanaggregateweightof0.0743gram,andfouremptysachets
introduceddrugsandtheirderivatives,withouthavingany
containing shabu residue, without having been previously therapeuticvalueorifthequantitypossessedisfarbeyond
authorizedbylawtopossessthesame. therapeuticrequirements;orlessthanthreehundred(300)
CONTRARYTOLAW.8 gramsofmarijuana.
Petitionerenteredanegativeplea. 9Attheensuingtrial,the 8Records,p.2.
prosecution presented Bolanos, Arroyo and Esternon as
9Id.,atpp.41,43.
witnesses.
627
VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 627
 Malillinvs.People 10TSN,22April2003,pp.69.
intothehousebypetitionerafterthelatterwasshownthesearch 11Id.,atpp.1516.
warrant;thatuponenteringthepremises,heorderedEsternon 12TSN,23July2003,pp.67,10.
andbarangay kagawadLicup, whose assistance had previously 13Id.,atpp.1617.
beenrequestedinexecutingthewarrant,toconductthesearch; 14TSN,23July2003,pp.1315.
thattherestofthepoliceteampositionedthemselvesoutsidethe 15Id.,atp.9.
housetomakesurethatnobodyflees;thathewasobservingthe 628
conductofthesearchfromaboutameteraway;thatthesearch 628 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
conducted inside the bedroom of petitioner yielded five empty Malillinvs.People
plastic sachets with suspectedshaburesidue contained in a Supt. Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), the forensic chemist who
denimbagandkeptinoneofthecabinets,andtwoplasticsachets administeredtheexaminationontheseizeditems,waspresented
containingshabuwhichfellofffromoneofthepillowssearched as an expert witness to identify the items submitted to the
by Esternona discovery that was made in the presence of laboratory.Sherevealedthatthetwofilledsachetswerepositive
petitioner.10Oncrossexamination,Bolanosadmittedthatduring ofshabuandthatofthefiveemptysachets,fourwerepositiveof
thesearch,hewasexplainingitsprogresstopetitionersmother,
containingresidueofthesamesubstance. 16Shefurtheradmitted
Norma, but that at the same time his eyes were fixed on the
that all seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory by
searchbeingconductedbyEsternon.11
Esternonintheafternoonofthesamedaythatthewarrantwas
Esternon testified that the denim bag containing the empty
executed except that it was not she but rather a certain Mrs.
plasticsachetswasfoundbehindthedoorofthebedroomand
Ofelia Garcia who received the items from Esternon at the
notinsidethecabinet;thathethenfoundthetwofilledsachets
laboratory.17
under a pillow onthebed andforthwith calledon Gallinerato
Theevidenceforthedefensefocusedontheirregularityofthe
havetheitemsrecordedandmarked. 12Oncross,headmittedthat
searchandseizureconductedbythepoliceoperatives.Petitioner
itwashealonewhoconductedthesearchbecauseBolanoswas
testified that Esternon began the search of the bedroom with
standingbehindhiminthelivingroomportionofthehouseand
Licupandpetitionerhimselfinside.However,itwasmomentarily
thatpetitionerhandedtohimthethingstobesearched,which
interrupted when one of the police officers declared to Bolanos
included the pillow in which the two sachets ofshabuwere
thatpetitionerswife,Sheila,wastuckingsomethinginsideher
kept;13that he brought the seized items to the Balogo Police underwear.Forthwith,aladyofficerarrivedtoconductthesearch
Station for a true inventory, then to the trial court 14and ofSheilasbodyinsidethesamebedroom.Atthatpoint,everyone
thereaftertothelaboratory.15 exceptEsternonwasaskedtostepoutoftheroom.So,itwasin
his presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer.
_______________
Petitionerwasthenaskedbyapoliceofficertobuycigarettesata
nearbystoreandwhenhereturnedfromtheerrand,hewastold
thatnothingwasfoundonSheilasbody.18Sheilawasorderedto On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered its Decision
transfertotheotherbedroomtogetherwithherchildren. 19 declaringpetitionerguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtoftheoffense
Petitionerassertedthatonhisreturnfromtheerrand,hewas charged.Petitionerwascondemnedtoprisonfortwelveyears(12)
summoned by Esternon to the bedroom and once inside, the and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of
officerclosedthedoorandaskedhimtoliftthemattressonthe P300,000.00.23The trial court reasoned that the fact
bed.Andashewasdoingastold,Esternonstopped thatshabuwas found in the house of petitioner wasprima
facieevidenceofpetitionersanimuspossidendisufficientto
_______________
_______________
16TSN, 28 May 2003, p. 14. The results of the chemical
analysis are embodied in Chemistry Report No. D03703. See
20Id.,atpp.1112.
Records,p.18.
21TSN,11November2003,p.3;TSN,23March2004,p.4.
17Id.,atp.3. 22TSN,4February2004,pp.45,9.
18TSN,2December2003,pp.610.
23Records,p. 119. The dispositive portion of the decision
19Id.,atp.13. reads:
629 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds
VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 629 accused Junie Malillin y Lopez guilty beyond reasonable
Malillinvs.People doubtofthecrimeofViolationofSec.11,ArticleIIofR.A.
himandorderedhimtolifttheportionoftheheadboard.Inthat No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive
instant,Esternonshowedhimsachetofshabuwhichaccording DangerousDrugsActof2002andheisherebysentence[d]
tohimcamefromapillowonthebed. 20Petitionersaccountinits tosufferthepenaltyofTwelve(12)yearsandone(1)dayto
entirety was corroborated in its material respects by Twenty(20)yearsandfineofP300,000.00.
Norma,barangaykagawadLicupandSheilaintheirtestimonies. Theshaburecoveredisherebyorderedforfeitedinfavor
NormaandSheilapositivelydeclaredthatpetitionerwasnotin ofthegovernmentandthesameshallbeturnedovertothe
the house for the entire duration of the search because at one Boardforproperdisposalwithoutdelay.
pointhewassentbyEsternontothestoretobuycigaretteswhile SOORDERED.
Sheilawasbeingsearchedbytheladyofficer. 21Licupforhispart 630
testified on the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the 630 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
plastic sachets. He recountedthat after the five empty sachets Malillinvs.People
werefound,hewentoutofthebedroomandintothelivingroom convict him of the charge inasmuch as things which a person
andafteraboutthreeminutes,Esternon,whowasleftinsidethe possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership are
bedroom,exclaimedthathehadjustfoundtwofilledsachets.22 presumptivelyownedbyhim.Italsonotedpetitionersfailureto
ascribe ill motives to the police officers to fabricate charges (17)yearsasmaximum.Inallotherrespects,thejudgment
againsthim.24 appealed from is hereby MAINTAINED. Costs against
Aggrieved,petitionerfiledaNoticeofAppeal.25InhisAppeal accusedappellant.
Brief26filed with the Court of Appeals, petitioner called the SOORDERED.
attentionofthecourttocertainirregularitiesinthemannerby 631
which the search of his house was conducted. For its part, the VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 631
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) advanced that on the Malillinvs.People
contrary, the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitioners same was denied by the appellate court. 29Hence, the instant
convictionandthatthedefenseneveradvancedanyprooftoshow petitionwhichraisessubstantiallythesameissues.
thatthemembersoftheraidingteamwasimproperlymotivated InitsComment,30theOSGbidstoestablishthattheraiding
tohurlfalsechargesagainsthimandhencethepresumptionthat team had regularly performed its duties in the conduct of the
theyhadregularlyperformedtheirdutiesshouldprevail.27 search.31It points to petitioners incredulous claim that he was
On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the framedupbyEsternononthegroundthatthediscoveryofthe
assailed decision affirming the judgment of the trial court but two filled sachets was made in his and Licups presence. It
modifyingtheprisonsentencetoanindeterminatetermoftwelve likewise notes that petitioners bare denial cannot defeat the
(12) years as minimum to seventeen (17) years as positiveassertionsoftheprosecutionandthatthesamedoesnot
maximum.28Petitionermovedforreconsiderationbutthe
suffice to overcome theprima facieexistence ofanimus
_______________ possidendi.
Thisargument,however,hardlyholdsuptowhatisrevealed
bytherecords.
24Id.,atpp.117118.
Prefatorily, although the trial courts findings of fact are
25Id.,atp.121.
entitledtogreatweightandwillnotbedisturbedonappeal,this
26CARollo,pp.3547. rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have
27Id.,atpp.6573. beenoverlooked,misapprehendedormisappliedinacaseunder
28Id.,atp.89.TheCourtofAppealsdisposedoftheappealas appeal.32Inthecaseatbar,severalcircumstancesobtainwhich,if
follows: properlyappreciated,wouldwarrantaconclusiondifferentfrom
UPONTHEVIEWWETAKEOFTHISCASE,THUS, thatarrivedatbythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals.
the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with necessitatesthattheelementalactofpossessionofaprohibited
MODIFICATIONinthesensethattheaccusedappellantis substancebeestablishedwithmoralcertainty,togetherwiththe
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term factthatthesameisnotauthorizedbylaw.Thedangerousdrug
rangingfromtwelve(12)years,asminimum,toseventeen
itselfconstitutestheverycorpusdelictioftheoffenseandthefact itemwaspickeduptothetimeitisofferedintoevidence,insuch
ofitsexistenceisvitaltoajudgmentof awaythateverypersonwhotouchedtheexhibitwoulddescribe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
_______________ happenedtoitwhileinthewitnesspossession,theconditionin
whichitwasreceivedandtheconditioninwhichitwasdelivered
29Id.,atp.109. tothenextlinkinthechain.Thesewitnesseswouldthendescribe
30Rollo,pp.102112. theprecautionstakentoensurethattherehadbeennochangein
the
31Id.,atp.107.
32People v. Pedronan, G.R. No. 148668, 17 June 2003, 404 _______________
SCRA 183, 188;People v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 146277, 20 June
2002, 383 SCRA 390, 398;Peoplev. Laxa, G.R. No. 138501, 20 33People v. Simbahon, G.R. No. 132371, 9 April 2003, 401
July2001,361SCRA622,627. SCRA94,100;Peoplev.Laxa,G.R.No.138501,20July2001,361
632 SCRA622,634;Peoplev.Dismuke,234SCRA51(1994);Peoplev.
632 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mapa,220SCRA670(1993).
Malillinvs.People
34People v. Simbahon, G.R. No. 132371, 9 April 2003, 401
conviction.33Essentialthereforeinthesecasesisthattheidentity
SCRA94,100;Peoplev.Kimura,G.R.No.130805,27April2004,
oftheprohibiteddrugbeestablishedbeyonddoubt. 34Bethatasit
428SCRA51,70.
may,themerefactofunauthorizedpossessionwillnotsufficeto
create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to 35An Analytical Approach to Evidence,Ronad J. Allen,
sustainafindingofguilt.Morethanjustthefactofpossession, RichardB.Kuhns,byLittleBrown&Co.,USA,1989,p.174.
thefactthatthesubstanceillegallypossessedinthefirstplaceis 36UnitedStatesv.HowardArias,679F.2d363,366;United
the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be Statesv.Ricco,52F.3d58.
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that 633
requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 633
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that Malillinvs.People
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of theevidence are conditionoftheitemandnoopportunityforsomeonenotinthe
removed.35 chaintohavepossessionofthesame.37
Asamethodofauthenticatingevidence,thechainofcustody While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in unbrokenchainofcustodybecomes indispensableand essential
questioniswhattheproponentclaimsittobe. 36Itwouldinclude whentheitemofrealevidenceisnotdistinctiveandisnotreadily
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
identifiable,orwhenitsconditionatthetimeoftestingortrialis 42Grahamv.State,255N.E2d652.
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its 634
uniqueness.38The same standard likewise obtains in case the 634 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
Malillinvs.People
contamination39and even substitution and exchange.40In other
that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the
words,theexhibitslevelofsusceptibilitytofungibility,alteration
continuouswhereaboutsoftheexhibitatleastbetweenthetimeit
ortamperingwithoutregardtowhetherthesameisadvertent
cameintothepossessionofpoliceofficersuntilitwastestedin
or otherwise notdictates the level of strictness in the
thelaboratorytodetermineitscomposition,testimonyofthestate
applicationofthechainofcustodyrule.
astothelaboratorysfindingsisinadmissible.43
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with
Auniquecharacteristicofnarcoticsubstancesisthattheyare
respecttoanexhibitisgreatestwhentheexhibitissmallandis
not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific
one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and
analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court
similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily
cannotreluctantlycloseitseyestothelikelihood,oratleastthe
lives.41Graham vs. State42positively acknowledged this danger. possibility,thatatanyofthelinksinthechainofcustodyover
In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroinwas the same there could have been tampering, alteration or
handledbytwopoliceofficerspriortoexaminationwhohowever substitution of substances from other casesby accident or
didnottestifyincourtontheconditionandwhereaboutsofthe otherwisein which similar evidence was seized or in which
exhibitatthetimeitwasintheirpossessionwasexcludedfrom similarevidencewassubmittedforlaboratorytesting.Hence,in
theprosecutionevidence, the courtpointingoutthat thewhite authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that
powderseizedcouldhavebeenindeedheroinoritcouldhavebeen appliedto cases involving objectswhicharereadilyidentifiable
sugarorbakingpowder.Itruled mustbeapplied,amoreexactingstandardthatentailsachainof
custodyoftheitemwithsufficientcompletenessifonlytorender
_______________ itimprobablethat theoriginal itemhas eitherbeenexchanged
withanotherorbeencontaminatedortamperedwith.
37EvidenceLaw,RogerC.Park,DavidP.Leonard,StevenH. Amerefleetingglanceattherecordsreadilyraisessignificant
Goldberg,1998,610OppermanDrive,St.PaulMinnesota,p.507.
doubtsastotheidentityofthesachetsofshabuallegedlyseized
38EvidenceLaw,RogerC.Park,DavidP.Leonard,StevenH. frompetitioner.Ofthepeoplewhocameintodirectcontactwith
Goldberg,1998,610OppermanDrive,St.PaulMinnesota,p.507; the seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the
29AAm.Jur.2dEvidence946. specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence.
3929AAm.Jur.2dEvidence946. Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the
40SeeGrahamv.State,255N.E.2d652,655. confiscatedsachetsforrecordingandmarking,aswellasGarcia,
41Grahamv.State,255N.E2d652,655. the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized
items for chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not holdstruenotonlywithrespecttothetwofilledsachetsbutalso
presented in court to establish the circumstances under which tothefivesachetsallegedlycontainingmorselsofshabu.
theyhandledthesubjectitems.Anyreasonablemindmightthen Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the
askthequestion:Arethe prosecution that the search and seizure was conducted in a
regular manner and must be presumed to be so, the records
_______________ discloseaseriesofirregularitiescommittedbythepoliceofficers
fromthecommencementofthesearchofpetitionershouseuntil
43Grahamv.State,255N.E2d652,655. thesubmissionoftheseizeditemstothelaboratoryforanalysis.
635 TheCourttakesnoteoftheunrebuttedtestimonyofpetitioner,
VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 635 corroboratedbythatofhiswife,thatpriortothediscoveryofthe
Malillinvs.People two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to buy
sachets ofshabuallegedly seized from petitioner the very same cigarettesatanearbystore.Equallytellingisthetestimonyof
objectslaboratorytestedandofferedincourtasevidence? Bolanosthathepostedsomeofthemembersoftheraidingteam
The prosecutions evidence is incomplete to provide an atthedoorofpeti636
affirmative answer. Considering that it was Gallinera who 636 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
recordedandmarkedtheseizeditems,histestimonyincourtis Malillinvs.People
crucial to affirm whether the exhibits were the same items tioners house in order to forestall the likelihood of petitioner
handed over to him by Esternon at the place of seizure and fleeing the scene. By no stretch of logic can it be conclusively
acknowledgetheinitialsmarkedthereonashisown.Thesameis explainedwhypetitionerwassentoutofhishouseonanerrand
trueofGarciawhocouldhave,butneverthelessfailed,totestify when in the first place the police officers were in fact
on the circumstances under which she received the items from apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. This fact
Esternon,whatshedidwiththemduringthetimetheywerein assumes prime importance because the two filled sachets were
herpossessionuntilbeforeshedeliveredthesametoArroyofor allegedly discovered by Esternon immediately after petitioner
analysis. returnedtohishousefromtheerrand,suchthathewasnotable
The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its towitnesstheconductofthesearchduringthebriefbutcrucial
burdenofestablishingtheidentityoftheseizeditemsbecauseit interludethathewasaway.
failedtooffernotonlythetestimonyofGallineraandGarciabut It is also strange that, as claimed by Esternon, it was
alsoanysufficientexplanationforsuchfailure.Ineffect,thereis petitionerhimselfwhohandedtohimtheitemstobesearched
no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits includingthepillowfromwhichthetwofilledsachetsallegedly
inasmuchasitfailedtoruleoutthepossibilityofsubstitutionof fell. Indeed, it is contrary to ordinary human behavior that
theexhibits,whichcannotbutinuretoitsowndetriment.This petitionerwouldhandoverthesaidpillowtoEsternonknowing
fully wellthat illegaldrugs areconcealed therein. Inthesame
breath, the manner by which the search of Sheilas body was making a true inventory thereof, but there appears to be no
broughtupbyamemberoftheraidingteamalsoraisesserious reason why a true inventory could not be made in petitioners
doubtsastothenecessitythereof.Thedeclarationofoneofthe housewheninfacttheapprehendingteamwasabletorecordand
police officers that he saw Sheila tuck something in her mark the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure
underwear certainly diverted the attention of the members of receipttherefor. Lestit be forgotten,theraidingteam hashad
petitionershouseholdawayfromthesearchbeingconductedby enoughopportunitytocausetheissuanceofthewarrantwhich
Esternonpriortothediscoveryofthetwofilledsachets.Lestitbe means that it has had as much time to prepare for its
omitted, theCourt likewise takes note of Esternons suspicious implementation.WhilethefinalprovisoinSection21oftherules
presence inthebedroomwhileSheilawasbeing searched by a would appear to excuse noncompliance therewith, the same
lady officer. The confluence of these circumstances by any cannotbenefittheprosecutionasitfailedtoofferanyacceptable
objectivestandardofbehaviorcontradictstheprosecutionsclaim justificationforEsternonscourseofaction.
ofregularityintheexerciseofduty. Likewise,Esternonsfailuretodelivertheseizeditemstothe
Moreover, Section 2144of the Implementing Rules and courtdemonstratesadeparturefromthedirectiveinthesearch
RegulationsofR.A.No.9165clearlyoutlinesthepostseizure warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the
trial court with a true and verified inventory of the same, 45as
_______________ requiredbyRule126,Section1246oftheRulesofCourt.Peoplev.
Go47characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to
44Section21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items by
Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of interested parties.48Thus, asa reasonable safeguard,Peoplevs.
DangerousDrugs,ControlledPrecursorsandessentialChemicals, Del Castillo49declared that the approval by the court which
Instruments/Paraphernaliaand/orLaboratoryEquipment.xxx issuedthesearchwarrantisnecessarybeforepoliceofficerscan
637 retain the property seized and without it, they would have no
VOL.553,APRIL30,2008 637 authoritytoretainpossessionthereofandmoresotodeliverthe
Malillinvs.People sametoanotheragency.50Meretolerancebythetrialcourtofa
procedureintakingcustodyofseizeddrugs.Inalanguagetoo contrarypracticedoesnotmakethepracticerightbecauseitis
plain to require a different construction, it mandates that the violativeofthemandatoryrequirementsofthelawanditthereby
officeracquiringinitialcustodyofdrugsunderasearchwarrant defeatstheverypurposefortheenactment.51
mustconductthephotographingandthephysicalinventoryofthe GiventheforegoingdeviationsofpoliceofficerEsternonfromthe
itemattheplacewherethewarranthasbeenserved.Esternon standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the
deviatedfromthisprocedure.Itwaselicitedfromhimthatatthe warrantandintakingpostseizurecustodyoftheevidence,the
close of the search of petitioners house, he brought the seized blindreliancebythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsonthe
itemsimmediatelytothepolicestationfortheallegedpurposeof presumptionofregularityintheconductof
 Malillinvs.People 52People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378, 14 April 2004, 427
police duty is manifestly misplaced. The presumption of SCRA312,318citingPeoplev.Tan,382SCRA419(2002).
regularityismerelyjustthatamerepresumptiondisputableby 53People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378, 14 April 2004, 427
contraryproofandwhichwhenchallengedbytheevidencecannot
SCRA312,318citingPeoplev.Tan,382SCRA419(2002).
be regarded as binding truth. 52Suffice it to say that this
54Peoplev.Laxa,id.,atp.627;Peoplev.Diopita,4December
presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of
innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond 2000, 346 SCRA 794;People v. Malbog, 12 October 2000, 342
reasonable doubt.53In the present case the lack of conclusive SCRA620;Peoplev.Ferras,289SCRA94(1998).
identificationoftheillegaldrugsallegedlyseizedfrompetitioner,
coupledwiththeirregularityinthemannerbywhichthesame Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
wereplacedunderpolicecustodybeforeofferedincourt,strongly reserved.
militatesafindingofguilt.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the
presuppositionthattheburdenofprovingtheguiltofanaccused
liesontheprosecutionwhichmustrelyonthestrengthofitsown
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is
invariablewhatevermaybethereputationoftheaccused,forthe
law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is
shown.54Indubioproreo.Whenmoralcertaintyastoculpability
hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably G.R.No.179029.August9,2010.*
becomesamatterofright. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.FELIMON
WHEREFORE,theassailedDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals PAGADUANyTAMAYO,appellant.
dated27January2006affirmingwithmodificationthejudgment Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of
ofconvictionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSorsogonCity,Branch ProhibitedDrug;Evidence;Toremoveanydoubtoruncertaintyon
52,anditsResolutiondated30May2006denyingreconsideration
the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Junie
Malillin y Lopez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is definitelyshowthattheillegaldrugpresentedincourtisthesame
accordinglyorderedimmediatelyreleasedfromcustodyunlesshe illegaldrugactuallyrecoveredfromtheappellant;otherwise,the
isbeinglawfullyheldforanotheroffense. prosecutionforpossessionorfordrugpushingunderRepublicAct
(R.A.) No. 9165 fails.In a prosecution for illegal sale of a
_______________ prohibiteddrugunderSection5ofR.A.No.9165,theprosecution
mustprovethefollowingelements:(1)theidentityofthebuyer
and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these Same; Same; Same; Same; Strict compliance with the
require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled prescribed procedure is required.Strict compliance with the
withthepresentationincourtofthecorpusdelicti,i.e.,thebody prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drugs
or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
actuallybeencommitted,asshownbypresentingtheobjectofthe identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
illegal transaction. To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the substitutioneitherbyaccidentorotherwise. Therecordsofthe
identityandintegrityoftheseizeddrug,evidencemustdefinitely present case are bereft of evidence showing that the buybust
showthattheillegaldrugpresentedincourtisthesameillegal team followed the outlined procedure despite its mandatory
drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the terms.
prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. Same;Same;Same;Same;Procedurallapseshowevermust
9165fails. berecognizedandexplainedintermsoftheirjustifiablegrounds,
Same;Same;Same;Same;Requiredprocedureontheseizure andtheintegrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheevidenceseizedmust
and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, be shownto have been preserved.We recognize thatthe strict
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.The required compliancewiththerequirementsofSection21ofR.A.No.9165
procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in may not always be possible under field conditions; the police
Section21,paragraph1,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165,whichstates: operatesundervariedconditions,andcannotatalltimesattend
(1)Theapprehendingteam toallthenicetiesoftheproceduresinthehandlingofconfiscated
evidence.Forthisreason,thelastsentenceoftheimplementing
_______________ rules provides that noncompliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
*THIRDDIVISION. evidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditemsareproperlypreservedby
309 theapprehendingofficer/team,shallnotrendervoidandinvalid
VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 309 such seizures of and custody over said items[.] Thus,
Peoplevs.Pagaduan noncompliancewiththestrictdirectiveofSection21ofR.A.No.
having initial custody and control of the drugsshall, 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case; police
immediately after seizure and confiscation,physically proceduresinthehandlingofconfiscatedevidencemaystillhave
inventoryandphotographthe same in the presence of the some lapses, as in the present case.These lapses, however,
accusedortheperson/sfromwhomsuchitemswereconfiscated must be recognized and explained in terms of their
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary
representative from the media and the Department of Justice valueoftheevidenceseizedmustbeshowntohavebeen
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to preserved.
signthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopythereof[.]
 Same; Same; Same; Same; The justifiable ground for timeitisofferedinevidence,insuchawaythateverypersonwho
noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot toucheditwoulddescribehowandfromwhomitwasreceived,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.We
possession, the condition in which it was received and the
emphasizethatforthe
conditioninwhichitwasdeliveredtothenextlinkinthechain.
310
Same; Same; Same; Evidentiary presumption that official
310 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
dutieshavebeenregularlyperformedcannotbyitselfovercomethe
Peoplevs.Pagaduan
savingclausetoapply,itisimportantthattheprosecution constitutional presumption of innocence.In sustaining the
explainthe reasonsbehind the procedural lapses, andthat the appellants conviction, the CA relied on the evidentiary
integrityandvalueoftheseizedevidencehadbeenpreserved.In presumptionthatofficialdutieshavebeenregularlyperformed.
other words, the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. It
provenasafact.Thecourtcannotpresumewhatthesegrounds cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of
areorthattheyevenexist. innocence.Anytaintofirregularityaffectsthewholeperformance
and should make the presumption unavailable. In the present
Same;Same;Same;Same;ChainofCustodyRule;Definition
case,thefailureoftheapprehending
of Chain of Custody.Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
311
RegulationNo.1,Seriesof2002whichimplementsR.A.No.9165
VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 311
definesChainofCustodyasfollows:ChainofCustodymeans
the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized Peoplevs.Pagaduan
drugsorcontrolledchemicalsorplantsourcesofdangerousdrugs teamtocomplywithparagraph1,Section21,ArticleIIof
or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of R.A.No.9165,andwiththechainofcustodyrequirementofthis
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to Acteffectivelynegatesthispresumption.
safekeepingtopresentationincourtfordestruction.Suchrecord PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
of movements and custody of seized item shall include the Appeals.
identityandsignatureofthepersonwhoheldtemporarycustody ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforappellee.
custodyweremadeinthecourseofsafekeepinganduseincourt PublicAttorneysOfficeforappellant.
asevidence,andthefinaldisposition[.]
Same; Same; Same; Same; Chain of Custody explained in BRION,J.:
Malillinv.People,553SCRA619(2008).InMalillinv.People,
553 SCRA 619 (2008), the Court explained that the chain of Wereviewthedecision1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA
custodyrulerequiresthattherebetestimonyabouteverylinkin G.R.CRH.C.No.01597whichaffirmedintotothedecision2ofthe
thechain,fromthemomenttheobjectseizedwaspickeduptothe
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva gram,moreorless,ofmethamphetaminehydrochloride(shabu),a
Vizcaya, inCriminal Case No. 4600, finding appellant Felimon dangerousdrug,ascontainedinaheatsealedtransparentplastic
PagaduanyTamayo(appellant)guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtof sachettoPO3PeterC.Almarez,amemberofthePhilippineDrug
illegalsaleofshabu,underSection5,ArticleIIofRepublicAct EnforcementAgency(PDEA)whoposedasabuyerofshabuin
the amount of P200.00, to the damage and prejudice of the
(R.A.) No. 9165 or theComprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
RepublicofthePhilippines.
2002. CONTRARYTOLAW.3


Theappellantpleadednotguiltyonarraignment.Trialonthe
merits,thereafter,followed.
BackgroundFacts
Theevidencefortheprosecutionrevealsthefollowingfacts.
After having received information that the appellant was

selling illegal drugs in Nueva Vizcaya, Captain Jaime de Vera
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with
called, on his cellular phone, PO3 Peter Almarez and SPO1
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under an
DomingoBalidowhowerebothinSantiagoCityandinformed
Informationthatstates:
themofaplannedbuybustoperation.Theyagreedtomeetatthe
ThatonoraboutDecember27,2003atabout4:30oclock(sic) SSS Building near LMN Hotel in Bayombong, Nueva
intheafternoon,intheMunicipalityofSolano,ProvinceofNueva Vizcaya.4On their arrival there, Captain de Vera conducted a
Vizcaya,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
briefing and designated PO3 Almarez as theposeurbuyer.
Court, the abovenamed accused did then and there willfully,
Thereafter, Captain de Vera introduced PO3 Almarez to the
unlawfullyandfeloniouslysell,trade,dispense,deliverandgive
away0.01 policeinformant(tipster),5andgavehim(PO3Almarez)twoP100
bills (Exhibits D and E) which the latter marked with his
_______________ initials.6
Afterthisbriefing,thebuybustteamwenttoBintawanRoad,
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarianoC.delCastillo(nowa Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to conduct the entrapment
member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justice operation.7PO3Almarezandtheinformantrodeatricycle,while
Arcangelita Romilla Lontok and Associate Justice Romeo F. Captain de Vera and SPO1 Balido followed on board a tinted
Barza;Rollo,pp.215. van.8Thebuybustteamarrivedatthetargetareaat
2PennedbyJudgeJoseB.Rosales;CARollo,pp.915.
_______________
312
312 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
3Id.,atp.8.
Peoplevs.Pagaduan
 4TSN,July5,2004,pp.34;TSN,July26,2004,p.3;seealso Dulnuan.15Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Alfredo Quintero, the
JointAffidavit,Records,p.4. Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, conducted an
5TSN,July5,2004,p.4;Records,p.4. examination on the specimen submitted, and found it to be
6TSN,July19,2004,pp.7,1314;TSN,July26,2004,p.11; positiveforthepresenceofshabu(Exh.B).16
Records,p.4.
7TSN,July5,2004,p.4. _______________
8TSN,July19,2004,pp.4and6.
313 9 TSN, July 5, 2004, pp. 68; TSN, July 19, 2004, pp. 56;
VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 313 Records,p.4.
Peoplevs.Pagaduan 10TSN,July5,2004,p.9;TSN,July19,2004,pp.1617.
around4:30p.m.,andsawtheappellantalreadywaitingforthe 11TSN,July26,2004,p.5.
informant. The informant approached the appellant and 12TSN,July5,2004,p.10.
introducedPO3Almareztohimasabuyer.PO3Almareztoldthe 13Id.,atpp.1011.
appellant that he neededshabuworth P200, and inquired from 14Id.,atp.10;TSN,July19,2004,p.11;Records,pp.2324.
him(appellant)ifhehadastock.Theappellantrepliedinthe 15Records,p.5.
affirmative,andthenhandedoneheatsealedtransparentplastic 16TSN,July19,2004,pp.2223;Records,p.12.
sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO3 Almarez. 314
PO3Almarez,inturn,gavethetwopremarkedP100billstothe 314 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
appellant.9Immediately after, PO3 Almarez made the pre Peoplevs.Pagaduan
arranged signal to his companions, who then approached the
appellant. Captain de Vera took the marked money from the OnthehearingofAugust13,2004,theprosecutionofferedthe
appellantsrightpocket,andthenarrestedhim.10PO3Almarez, followingasexhibits:
forhispart,markedthesachetwithhisinitials. 11Thereafter,the ExhibitAtheshabuconfiscatedfromtheappellant
buybustteambroughttheappellanttotheDiadiPoliceStation ExhibitBthereportbythePNPCrimeLaboratory
forinvestigation.12 ExhibitCtherequestforlaboratoryexamination
Atthepolicestation,CaptaindeVerapreparedarequestfor ExhibitsDandEthebuybustmoney
laboratory examination (Exh. C).13The appellant was Exhibit Fthe request for laboratory examination
transferred to the Diadi Municipal Jail where he was receivedbyForensicChemistQuintero
detained.14Two days later, or on December 29, 2003, PO3
Almarez transmitted the letterrequest, for laboratory The defense presented a different version of the events,
examination, and the seized plastic sachet to the PNP Crime summarizedasfollows:
Laboratory, where they were received by PO2 Fernando
 Ataround4:30p.m.ofDecember27,2003,JojoJosecameto penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC likewise ordered the
theappellantshouseandinformedhimthatCaptaindeVerawas appellanttopayaP500,000.00fine.
invitinghimtobeanasset.TheappellantandJojoboardeda TheappellantappealedtotheCA,docketedasCAG.R.CR
tricycle and proceeded to the SSS Building where Captain de H.C. No. 01597. The CA, in its decision 22dated May 22, 2007,
Vera was waiting for them. 17As the tricycle approached the affirmedtheRTCdecision.
Methodist Church along Bintawan Road, Jojo dropped his The CA found unmeritorious the appellants defense of
slippersandorderedthedrivertostop.Immediatelyafter,avan instigation, and held that the appellant was apprehended as a
stoppedinfrontofthetricycle;CaptaindeVeraalightedfromthe resultofalegitimateentrapmentoperation.Itexplainedthatin
vanandhandcuffedtheappellant.CaptaindeVerabroughtthe inducementorinstigation,aninnocentpersonisluredbyapublic
appellant inside the van, frisked him, and took P200 from his officerorprivatedetectivetocommitacrime.Inthecaseatbar,
pocket.18Afterwards,CaptaindeVeratooktheappellanttothe the buybust operation was planned only after the police had
SSS Building, where he (Captain de Vera) and the building receivedinformationthattheappellantwassellingshabu.
manager drank coffee. Captain de Vera then brought the TheCAalsoheldthatthefailureofthepolicetoconducta
appellanttotheDiadiMunicipalJailwherehewasdetainedfor prior surveillance on the appellant was not fatal to the
almosttwodays.19 prosecutionscase.Itreasonedoutthatthepolicearegivenwide
On the morning of December 29, 2003, the appellant was discretiontoselecteffectivemeanstoapprehenddrugdealers.A
transferredtotheProvincialJail.Hesignedadocumentwithout priorsurveillanceis,therefore,notnecessary,especiallywhenthe
theassistanceofalawyerafterbeingtoldthatitwouldresultin policearealreadyaccompaniedbytheirinformant.
hisimmediaterelease.20 The CA further ruled that the prosecution was able to
sufficientlyproveanunbrokenchainofcustodyoftheshabu.It
_______________ explainedthatPO3Almarezsealedtheplasticsachetseizedfrom
theappellant,markeditwithhisinitials,andtransmitteditto
17TSN,September13,2004,pp.56.
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PSI Quintero
18Id.,atpp.78. conducted a qualitative examination and found the specimen
19Id.,atpp.89. positive for the presence ofshabu. According to the CA, the
20Id.,atp.10. prosecutionwasabletoprovethatthesubstanceseizedwasthe
315 same specimen submitted to the laboratory and presented in
VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 315 court,notwithstandingthatthisspecimenwasturnedovertothe
Peoplevs.Pagaduan crimelaboratoryonlyaftertwodays.

TheRTC, inits decision21ofAugust 16, 2005, convicted the _______________
appellantofthecrimecharged,andsentencedhimtosufferthe
 21Supranote2. Afterdueconsideration,weresolvetoacquittheappellantfor
22Supranote1. the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
316 doubt.Specifically,theprosecutionfailedtoshowthatthepolice
316 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED compliedwithparagraph1,Section21,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165,
andwiththechainofcustodyrequirementofthisAct.
Peoplevs.Pagaduan
_______________
Inhisbrief,23theappellantclaimsthatthelowercourtserred
inconvictinghimofthecrimechargeddespitetheprosecutions
23CARollo,pp.3044.
failuretoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.Heharpson
24Id.,atpp.5770.
thefactthatthepolicedidnotconductapriorsurveillanceonhim
beforeconductingthebuybustoperation. 317
Theappellantfurthercontendsthattheprosecutionfailedto VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 317
showanunbrokenchainofcustodyinthehandlingoftheseized Peoplevs.Pagaduan
drug. He claims that there was no evidence to show when the The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
markingsweredone.Moreover,aperiodoftwodayshadelapsed Act:ABriefBackground
from the time theshabuwas confiscated to the time it was
forwardedtothecrimelaboratoryforexamination. R.A.No.9165wasenactedin2002topursuetheStatespolicy
TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)counterswiththe tosafeguardtheintegrityofitsterritoryandthewellbeingofits
citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of
argumentthatthechainofcustodyoftheshabuwassufficiently
dangerousdrugsontheirphysicalandmentalwellbeing,andto
established.Itexplainedthattheshabuwasturnedoverbythe
defend the sameagainstacts or omissions detrimental to their
policeofficerstothePNPCrimeLaboratory,whereitwasfound
developmentandpreservation.
bytheforensicchemisttobepositiveforthepresenceofshabu. R.A.No.9165repealedandsupersededR.A.No.6425,known
TheOSGlikewiseclaimedthattheappellantfailedtorebutthe as the Dangerous Drugs Act of1972. Realizing that dangerous
presumptionofregularityintheperformanceofofficialdutiesby drugs are one of the most serious social ills of the society at
thepolice.TheOSGfurtheraddedthatapriorsurveillanceisnot present,Congresssawtheneedtofurtherenhancetheefficacyof
indispensabletoaprosecutionforillegalsaleofdrugs.24 thelawagainstdangerousdrugs.Thenewlawthusmandatesthe
government to pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign
against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other
similar substances through an integrated system of planning,
TheCourtsRuling
implementation and enforcement of antidrug abuse policies,
programsandprojects.25

 (1)Theapprehendingteamhavinginitialcustodyandcontrolof
Illegal Sale of Drugs under Section 5 the drugsshall, immediately after seizure and
visvis the Inventory and Photograph confiscation,physically inventoryandphotographthe same
RequirementunderSection21 inthepresenceoftheaccusedortheperson/sfromwhomsuch
itemswereconfiscatedand/orseized,orhis/herrepresentativeor
In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under counsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentof
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
followingelements:(1)theidentityofthebuyerandtheseller,the requiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopy
object,andtheconsideration;and(2)thedeliveryofthethingsold thereof[.]
andthepaymenttherefor.Alltheserequireevidencethatthesale This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of
transactiontranspired,coupledwiththepresentationincourtof theImplementingRulesandRegulationsofR.A.No.9165,which
thecorpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that reads:
establishesthatacrimehasactuallybeencommitted,asshown (a)Theapprehendingofficer/teamhavinginitialcustodyand
bypresentingtheobjectofthe control of the drugsshall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation,physically inventoryandphotographthe same
_______________ inthepresenceoftheaccusedortheperson/sfromwhomsuch
itemswereconfiscatedand/orseized,orhis/herrepresentativeor
25IntegrityofEvidenceinDangerousDrugsCasesbyJustice counsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentof
(ret.)JosueN.Bellosillo,596SCRA278(2009). Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
318 requiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopy
318 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED thereof:Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
Peoplevs.Pagaduan shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
illegaltransaction.26Toremoveanydoubtoruncertaintyonthe served;oratthenearestpolicestationoratthenearestofficeof
identityandintegrityoftheseizeddrug,evidencemustdefinitely theapprehendingofficer/team,whicheverispracticable,incaseof
showthattheillegaldrugpresentedincourtisthesameillegal warrantlessseizures;Provided,
drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the
prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. _______________
9165fails.27
Therequiredprocedureontheseizureandcustodyofdrugsis 26Peoplev.Garcia,G.R.No.173480,February25,2009,580
embodiedinSection21,paragraph1,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165, SCRA259,266.
whichstates: 27SeePeoplev.Denoman,G.R.No.171732,August14,2009,
596SCRA257,267.
319 A:WhenwewerealreadyinDiadiPoliceStation,wefirstput
VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 319 himinjailintheMunicipalJailofDiadi,NuevaVizcaya,
Peoplevs.Pagaduan sir.
further, that noncompliance with these requirements under
_______________
justifiablegrounds,aslongastheintegrityandtheevidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
28Peoplev.Kamad,G.R.No.174198,January19,2010,610
apprehendingofficer/team,shallnotrendervoidandinvalidsuch
SCRA295.
seizuresofandcustodyoversaiditems[.]
320

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required 320 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
because of the illegal drugs unique characteristic rendering it Peoplevs.Pagaduan
indistinct,notreadilyidentifiable,andeasilyopentotampering, Q:Whatdidyoudowiththeshabu?
alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 28The A:Therequestforlaboratoryexaminationwasprepared
recordsofthepresentcasearebereftofevidenceshowingthatthe andwasbroughttotheCrimeLab.ofSolano,Nueva
buybust team followed the outlined procedure despite its Vizcaya,sir.
mandatory terms. The deficiency is patent from the following xxxx
exchangesatthetrial: Q:Aftermakingtherequest,whatdidyoudonext[,]if
PROSECUTOR[EMERSONTURINGAN]: any[,]Mr.Witness?
Q:Afteryouhandedthisbuybustmoneytotheaccused,what A:AftersubmissionoftherequesttotheCrimeLab.[,]
happenednext? wepreparedourjointaffidavitforsubmissionofthe
[PO3ALMAREZ:]
casetotheCourt,sir.29
A:WhentheshabuwasalreadywithmeandIgavehimthe

money[,] I signaled the two, Captain Jaime de Vera and
Fromtheforegoingexchangesduringtrial,itisevidentthat
SPO1Balido,sir.
the apprehending team, upon confiscation of the drug,
xxxx
immediately brought the appellant and the seized items to the
Q:Afteryougavethatsignal,whathappened?
policestation,and,oncethere,madetherequestforlaboratory
A:Then they approached us and helped me in arresting
examination.Nophysicalinventoryandphotographoftheseized
FelimonPagaduan,sir.
itemsweretakeninthepresenceoftheaccusedorhiscounsel,a
Q:AfterPagaduanwasarrested,whathappenednext?
representative from the media and the Department of Justice,
A:After arresting Pagaduan[,] we brought him directly in
andanelectiveofficial.PO3Almarez,oncrossexamination,was
DiadiPoliceStation,sir.
unsure and could not give a categorical answer when asked
Q:WhathappenedwhenyoubroughttheaccusedtothePolice
StationinDiadi? whether he issued a receipt for theshabuconfiscated from the
appellant.30Atanyrate,nosuchreceiptorcertificateofinventory Werecognizethatthestrictcompliancewiththerequirements
appearsintherecords. ofSection21ofR.A.No.9165maynotalwaysbepossibleunder
In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of fieldconditions;thepoliceoperatesundervariedconditions,and
compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and cannotatalltimesattendtoallthenicetiesoftheproceduresin
dispositionoftheseizeddrugs.Wehaverepeatedlydeclaredthat the handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason, the last
thedeviationfromthestandardproceduredismallycompromises sentenceoftheimplementingrulesprovidesthatnoncompliance
theintegrityoftheevidence.InPeoplev.Morales,31weacquitted withtheserequirementsunderjustifiablegrounds,aslongasthe
theaccusedforfailureofthebuybustteamtophotographand integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
inventorytheseizeditems,withoutgivinganyjustifiableground properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
for the nonobservance of the required procedures.People v. render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items[.]Thus,noncompliancewiththestrictdirectiveofSection
Garcia32likewiseresultedinanacquit
21ofR.A.No.9165isnotnecessarilyfataltotheprosecutions
case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence
_______________
maystillhavesomelapses,asinthepresentcase.Theselapses,
29TSN,July5,2004,pp.913. however, must be recognized and explained in terms of
30TSN,July19,2004,pp.1718. their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and
31G.R.No.172873,March19,2010,616SCRA223. evidentiaryvalueoftheevidenceseizedmustbeshownto
32Supranote26. havebeenpreserved.39
321 Inthepresentcase,theprosecutiondidnotbothertoofferany
VOL.627,AUGUST9,201 321 explanation to justify the failure of the police to conduct the
requiredphysicalinventoryandphotographoftheseizeddrugs.
Peoplevs.Pagaduan
The apprehending team failed to show why an inventory and
tal because no physical inventory was ever made, and no
photographoftheseizedevidencehadnotbeenmadeeitherinthe
photograph of the seized items was taken under the
place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station (as
circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing
required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless
rules.InBondad,Jr.v.People,33wealsoacquittedtheaccusedfor
arrests).Weemphasizethatforthesavingclausetoapply,
thefailureofthepolicetoconductaninventoryandtophotograph
it is important that the prosecution explain the reasons
theseizeditems,withoutjustifiablegrounds.
behind the procedural lapses, andthat the integrity and
We had the same rulings inPeople v. Gutierrez,34People v.
valueoftheseizedevidencehadbeenpreserved. 40Inother
Denoman,35People v. Partoza,36People v. Robles,37andPeople v.
words,thejustifiablegroundfornoncompliancemustbe
dela Cruz,38where we emphasized the importance of complying proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these
withtherequiredmandatoryproceduresunderSection21ofR.A. groundsareorthattheyevenexist.41
No.9165.

TheChainofCustodyRequirement InMalillinv.People,43theCourtexplainedthatthechainof
custodyrulerequiresthattherebetestimonyabouteverylinkin
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering thechain,fromthemomenttheobjectseizedwaspickeduptothe
exactitude be observed in establishing thecorpus delictithe timeitisofferedinevidence,insuchawaythateverypersonwho
bodyofthecrimewhosecoreistheconfiscatedillicitdrug.Thus, toucheditwoulddescribehowandfromwhomitwasreceived,
everyfactnecessarytoconstitutethecrimemustbeestablished. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
Thechainofcustodyrequirementperformsthisfunctioninbuy possession, the condition in which it was received and the
bustoperationsasitensuresthatdoubtsconcerningtheidentity conditioninwhichitwasdeliveredtothenextlinkinthechain.
oftheevidenceareremoved.42 In the present case, the prosecutions evidence failed to
establish the chain that would have shown that theshabupre
BlacksLawDictionaryexplainschainofcustodyinthiswise: sented in court was the very same specimen seized from the
In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as the appellant.
narcoticsinatrialofdrugcase,mustaccountforthecustodyof Thefirstlinkinthechainofcustodystartswiththeseizureof
the evidence from the moment in which it reaches his custody theheatsealedplasticsachetfromtheappellant.PO3Almarez
until the moment in which it is offered in evidence, and such mentionedoncrossexaminationthatheplacedhisinitialsonthe
evidencegoestoweightnottoadmissibilityofevidence.Com.V. confiscated sachet after apprehending the appellant. Notably,
White,353Mass.409,232N.E.2d335. this testimony constituted the totality of the prosecutions
evidenceonthemarkingoftheseizedevidence.PO3Almarezs
Likewise,Section1(b)ofDangerousDrugsBoardRegulation testimony,however,lackedspecificsonhowhemarkedthesachet
No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines andwhowitnessedthemarking.InPeoplev.Sanchez,weruled
chainofcustodyasfollows: thatthemarkingoftheseizeditemstotrulyensurethatthey
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized arethesameitemsthatenterthechainandareeventuallythe
movementsandcustodyofseizeddrugsorcontrolledchemicalsor onesofferedinevidenceshouldbedone(1)inthepresenceof
plantsourcesofdangerousdrugsorlaboratoryequipmentofeach theapprehendedviolator(2)immediatelyuponconfiscation.In
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the thepresentcase,nothingintherecordsgivesusaninsightonthe
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for manner and circumstances that attended the marking of the
destruction.Suchrecordofmovementsandcustodyofseizeditem confiscated sachet. Whether themarking had been doneinthe
shallincludetheidentityandsignature ofthepersonwhoheld presenceoftheappellantisnotatallclearfromtheevidencethat
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when merelymentionedthattheevidencehadbeenmarkedafterthe
suchtransferofcustodyweremadeinthecourseofsafekeeping appellantsapprehension.
anduseincourtasevidence,andthefinaldisposition[.]
 Thesecondlinkinthechainofcustodyisitsturnoverfromthe drugsconfiscatedfromtheappellantwerethesamedrugs
apprehendingteamtothepolicestation.PO3Almareztestified that were brought to the crime laboratory for chemical
thattheappellantwasbroughttotheDiadiPoliceStationafter analysis,andeventuallyofferedincourtasevidence.Inthe
his arrest. However, he failed to identify the person who had absenceofconcreteevidenceontheillegaldrugsboughtandsold,
control and possession of the seized drug at the time of its the body of the crimethecorpus delictihas not been
transportation to the police station. In the absence of clear adequatelyproven.44Ineffect,theprosecutionfailedtofullyprove
evidence, we cannot presume that PO3 Almarez, as theelementsofthecrimecharged,creatingreasonabledoubton
theposeurbuyer,handledtheseizedsachettotheexclusionof theappellantscriminalliability.
othersduring its transfer from the place of arrest and
confiscationtothepolicestation.Theprosecutionlikewisefailed Presumption of Regularity in the
to present evidence pertaining to the identity of the duty desk PerformanceofOfficialDuties
officerwhoreceivedtheplasticsachetcontainingshabufromthe
buybust team. This is particularly significant since the seized Insustainingtheappellantsconviction,theCAreliedonthe
specimen was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratoryonly evidentiarypresumptionthatofficialdutieshavebeenregularly
after two days. It was not, therefore, clear who had temporary performed.Thispresumption,itmustbeempha
custody of the seized itemsduring this significant intervening
period of time. Although the records show thatthe request for _______________
laboratoryexaminationoftheseizedplasticsachetwasprepared
sized, is not conclusive.45It cannot, by itself, overcome the
byCaptaindeVera,theevidencedoesnotshowthathewasthe
constitutionalpresumptionofinnocence.Anytaintofirregularity
officialwhoreceivedthemarkedplasticsachetfromthebuybust
affectsthewholeperformanceandshouldmakethepresumption
team.
unavailable.Inthepresentcase,thefailureoftheapprehending
Asforthesubsequentlinksinthechainofcustody,therecords
teamtocomplywithparagraph1,Section21,ArticleIIofR.A.
showthattheseizedspecimenwasforwardedbyPO3Almarezto
No.9165,andwiththechainofcustodyrequirementofthisAct
thePNPCrimeLaboratoryonDecember29,2003,whereitwas
effectivelynegatesthispresumption.AsweexplainedinMalillin
receivedbyPO2Dulnuan,andlaterexaminedbyPSIQuintero.
However,thepersonfromwhomPO3Almarezreceivedtheseized v.People:46
illegaldrugfortransfertothecrimelaboratorywasnotidentified. The presumption of regularity is merely just thata mere
As earlier discussed, the identity of the duty desk officer who presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when
challengedbytheevidencecannotberegardedasbindingtruth.
received theshabu, as well as the person who had temporary
Sufficeittosaythatthispresumptioncannotpreponderateover
custodyoftheseizeditemsfortwodays,hadnotbeenestablished.
thepresumptionofinnocencethatprevailsifnotoverthrownby
Theprocedurallapsesmentionedaboveshowtheglaringgaps
proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case the lack of
inthechainofcustody,creatingareasonabledoubtwhetherthe
conclusiveidentificationoftheillegaldrugsallegedlyseizedfrom CarpioMorales (Chairperson), Bersamin,
petitioner,coupledwiththeirregularityinthemannerbywhich Abad andVillarama,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
**

thesamewereplacedunderpolicecustodybeforeofferedincourt,
Judgmentreversedandsetaside,appellantFelimonPagaduan
stronglymilitatesafindingofguilt.
yTamayoacquitted.

Wearenotunmindfuloftheperniciouseffectsofdrugsinour Note.Thepresumptionofregularityintheperformanceof
society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of
relationships,andengendercrimes.TheCourtisonewithallthe innocencenorconstituteproofbeyondreasonabledoubt.(People
agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting vs.Agulay,566SCRA571[2008])
campaignagainstthissocialdilemma.Regardlessofhowmuch
wewanttocurbthismenace,wecannotdisregardtheprotection o0o
providedbytheConstitution,mostparticularlythepresumption
ofinnocencebestowedontheappellant.Proofbeyondreasonable
doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral
certaintythatwouldconvinceandsatisfytheconscienceofthose
who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this
constitutionalpresumption.Iftheprosecutionhasnotproved,in
the firstplace, allthe elementsof thecrimecharged,whichin
G.R.No.180284.September11,2013.*
thiscaseisthecorpusdelicti,thentheappellantdeservesnoless
thananacquittal. NARCISO SALAS, petitioner,vs. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby REVERSE respondent.
and SET ASIDE the May 22, 2007 Decision of the Court of RemedialLaw;CivilProcedure;Venue;Inpersonalactions,
Appeals in CAG.R. CRH.C. No. 01597. Appellant Felimon theRulesgivetheplaintifftheoptionofchoosingwheretofilehis
PagaduanyTamayo is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the complaint.Hecanfileitintheplace(1)wherehehimselforanyof
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is themresides,or(2)wherethedefendantoranyofthedefendants
ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is residesormaybefound.Itisalegaltruismthattherulesonthe
confinedforanotherlawfulcause. venue of personal actions are fixed for the convenience of the
LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheDirector,Bureau plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the
of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a
TheDirectoroftheBureauofCorrectionsisdirectedtoreportthe plaintiffscaprice;thematterisregulatedbytheRulesofCourt.
actionhehastakentothisCourtwithinfivedaysfromreceiptof Inpersonalactionssuchastheinstantcase,theRulesgivethe
thisDecision. plaintifftheoptionofchoosingwheretofilehiscomplaint.Hecan
SOORDERED.
fileitintheplace(1)wherehehimselforanyofthemresides,or courtsdutytoensurethattrialproceedsdespitethedeliberate
(2)wherethedefendantoranyofthedefendantsresidesormay delayandrefusaltoproceedonthepartofoneparty.
befound.Theplaintifforthedefendantmustberesidentsofthe DueProcess;Whereapartywasaffordedanopportunityto
placewheretheactionhasbeeninstitutedatthetimetheaction participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot
iscommenced.
complain of deprivation of due process.With our finding that
Same;Same;Same;UndertheRulesofCourtbeforethe1997 therewasnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourtsdenialofthe
amendments, an objection to an improper venue must be made motionforpostponementfiledbypetitionerscounsel,petitioners
beforearesponsivepleadingisfiled.Otherwise,itwillbedeemed contentionthathewasdeprivedofhisdayincourtmustlikewise
waived.Petitioner raised the issue of improper venue for the fail. The essence of due process is that a party is given a
first time in the Answer itself and no prior motion to dismiss reasonableopportunitytobeheardandsubmitanyevidenceone
basedonsuchgroundwasfiled.UndertheRulesofCourtbefore mayhaveinsupportofonesdefense.Whereapartywasafforded
the1997amendments,anobjectiontoanimpropervenuemustbe anopportunitytoparticipateintheproceedingsbutfailedtodo
madebeforearesponsivepleadingisfiled.Otherwise,itwillbe so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If the
deemed waived. Not having been timely raised, petitioners opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited
objectiononvenueisthereforedeemedwaived. withoutviolatingtheconstitutionalguarantee.
Same; Same; Motion for Postponement; A motion for Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations; Filiation;
continuanceorpostponementisnotamatterofright,butarequest IllegitimateChildren;UnderArticle175oftheFamilyCodeofthe
addressed to the sound discretion of the court.A motion for Philippines,illegitimatefiliationmaybeestablishedinthesame
continuance or postponement is not a matter of right, but a way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.Under
request addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Parties Article 175 of theFamily Code of the Philippines, illegitimate
askingforpostponementhave filiation may be established inthe same way and on the same
_______________ evidenceaslegitimatechildren.Article172oftheFamilyCodeof
*FIRSTDIVISION. the Philippinesstates: The filiation of legitimate children is
561 established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 56 appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2)
Anadmission of legitimate filiationin a public document or
Salasvs.Matusalem aprivate handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the
absolutelynorighttoassumethattheirmotionswouldbe
legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) Theopen and
granted.Thus,theymustbepreparedonthedayofthehearing.
continuous possession ofthe status ofalegitimate child;or (2)
Indeed, anorderdeclaring aparty to have waived theright to
AnyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtandspeciallaws.
presentevidenceforperformingdilatoryactionsupholdsthetrial
 Same; Same; Paternity; Evidence; Birth Certificates; A Same; Same; Evidence; Pictures; Pictures taken of the
certificateoflivebirthpurportedlyidentifyingtheputativefather mother and her child together with the alleged father are
isnotcompetentevidenceofpaternitywhenthereisnoshowing inconclusive evidence to prove paternity.Pictures taken of the
that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the mother and her child together with the alleged father are
certificate.We have held that a certificate of live birth inconclusive evidence to prove paternity. Exhibits E and F
purportedlyidentifyingthe showingpetitionerandrespondentinsidetherentedapartment
562 unitthushavescantevidentiaryvalue.TheStatementofAccount
(ExhibitC)fromtheGoodSamaritanGeneralHospitalwhere
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
respondent herself was indicated as the payee is likewise
62
incompetent to prove that petitioner is the father of her child
Salasvs.Matusalem notwithstanding petitioners admission in his answer that he
putativefatherisnotcompetentevidenceofpaternitywhen shoulderedtheexpensesinthedeliveryofrespondentschildas
thereisnoshowingthattheputativefatherhadahandinthe anactofcharity.
preparationofthecertificate.Thus,ifthefatherdidnotsignin
Same; Same; Same; Handwritten Notes; As to the
the birth certificate, the placing of his name by the mother,
handwritten notes of petitioner and respondent showing their
doctor, registrar, or other person is incompetent evidence of
paternity. Neither can such birth certificate be taken as a exchangeofaffectionatewordsandromantictrysts,thesearenot
recognitioninapublicinstrumentandithasnoprobativevalue sufficienttoestablishChristianPaulosfiliationtopetitioneras
toestablishfiliationtotheallegedfather. theywerenotsignedbypetitionerandcontainednostatementof
Same; Same; Same; Same; Baptismal Certificates; While admissionbypetitionerthatheisthefatherofsaidchild.Asto
baptismalcertificatesmaybeconsideredpublicdocuments,they thehandwrittennotes(ExhibitsDtoD13)ofpetitionerand
canonlyserveasevidenceoftheadministrationofthesacraments respondent showing their exchange of affectionate words and
on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent romantictrysts,these,too,arenotsuffi
563
evidenceoftheveracityofentriesthereinwithrespecttothechilds
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 56
paternity.As to the Baptismal Certificate (Exhibit B) of
3
ChristianPauloSalasalsoindicatingpetitionerasthefather,we
haveruled that while baptismal certificates may be considered Salasvs.Matusalem
public documents, they can only serve as evidence of the cienttoestablishChristianPaulosfiliationtopetitioneras
administrationofthesacramentsonthedatessospecified.They theywerenotsignedbypetitionerandcontainednostatementof
arenotnecessarilycompetentevidenceoftheveracityofentries admissionbypetitionerthatheisthefatherofsaidchild.Thus,
thereinwithrespecttothechildspaternity. even if these notes were authentic, they do not qualify under
Article 172 (2) visvis Article 175 of the Family Code which
admits as competent evidence of illegitimate filiation an partiessothatitmustbeissuedonlyifpaternityorfiliationis
admissionoffiliationinaprivatehandwritteninstrumentsigned establishedbyclearandconvincingevidence.564
bytheparentconcerned. 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; Filiation; Illegitimate Children; An 64
illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed Salasvs.Matusalem
filiationbyanyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtand Same; Same; Support; Illegitimate Children; The death of
speciallaws,likehisbaptismalcertificate,ajudicialadmission, theputativefatherisnotabartotheactioncommencedduring
a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common his lifetime by one claiming to be his illegitimate child.The
reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the action for support having been filed in the trial court when
testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible petitionerwasstillalive,itisnotbarredunderArticle175(2)of
under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.An illegitimate child is theFamilyCode.Wehavealsoheldthatthedeathoftheputative
nowalsoallowedtoestablishhisclaimedfiliationbyanyother fatherisnotabartotheactioncommencedduringhislifetimeby
meansallowedbytheRulesofCourtandspeciallaws,likehis oneclaimingtobehisillegitimatechild.Theruleonsubstitution
baptismalcertificate,ajudicialadmission,afamilyBibleinwhich ofpartiesprovidedinSection16,Rule3ofthe1997RulesofCivil
his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his Procedure,thusapplies.SEC.16.Deathofparty;dutyofcounsel.
pedigree, admissionbysilence,thetestimoniesofwitnesses,and Wheneverapartytoapendingactiondies,andtheclaimisnot
other kindsofproofadmissible under Rule130 ofthe Rules of therebyextinguished,itshallbethedutyofhiscounseltoinform
Court.Reviewingtherecords,wefindthetotalityofrespondents the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
evidenceinsufficienttoestablishthatpetitioneristhefatherof thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
ChristianPaulo.ThetestimoniesofrespondentandMurilloasto representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply
the circumstances of the birth of Christian Paulo, petitioners withhisdutyshallbeagroundfordisciplinaryaction.Theheirs
financialsupportwhilerespondentlivedinMurillosapartment ofthedeceasedmaybeallowedtobesubstitutedforthedeceased,
andhisregularvisitstoheratthesaidapartment,thoughreplete without requiring the appointment of an executor or
with details, do not approximate the overwhelming evidence, administratorandthecourtmayappointaguardianadlitemfor
documentaryandtestimonialpresentedinIlano. the minor heirs. The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative or representatives to appear and be substituted
Same;Same;Same;Paternity;TheSupremeCourthasruled
within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. If no legal
thata high standard of proof isrequiredto establishpaternity representativeisnamedbythecounselforthedeceasedparty,or
andfiliation.Timeandagain,thisCourthasruledthatahigh if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified
standardofproofisrequiredtoestablishpaternityandfiliation. period,thecourtmayordertheopposingparty,withinaspecified
Anorderforrecognitionandsupportmaycreateanunwholesome timetoprocuretheappointmentofanexecutororadministrator
situationormaybeanirritanttothefamilyorthelivesofthe forthe estate ofthe deceased and the latter shall immediately
appearforandonbehalfofthedeceased.Thecourtchargesin attemptedsuicideduetodepressionbutstillpetitionerrefusedto
procuring suchappointment,ifdefrayedby theopposingparty, supportherandtheirchild.
mayberecoveredascosts. Respondentthusprayedforsupportpendenteliteandmonthly
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution supportintheamountofP20,000.00,aswellasactual,moraland
oftheCourtofAppeals. exemplarydamages,andattorneysfees.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. _______________
JenniferPatacsilArceoforpetitioner. 1Rollo,pp.7584.PennedbyAssociateJusticeArcangelitaM.
OscarC.Sahagunforrespondent. RomillaLontok with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and
565 MarioL.GuariaIII,concurring.
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 565 2Id., at p. 93. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M.
Salasvs.Matusalem RomillaLontokwithAssociateJusticesMarioL.GuariaIIIand
VILLARAMA,JR.,J.: LucenitoN.Tagle.
3Records,pp.16.
Before the Court is a petition for review oncertiorariwhich
566
seekstoreverseandsetasidetheDecision 1datedJuly18,2006
andResolution2datedOctober19,2007oftheCourtofAppeals 566 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.64379. Salasvs.Matusalem
Thefactualantecedents: Petitioner filed his answer4with special and affirmative
OnMay26,1995,AnnabelleMatusalem(respondent)fileda defensesandcounterclaims.Hedescribedrespondentasawoman
complaint3for Support/Damages against Narciso Salas ofloosemorals,havingborneherfirstchildalsooutofwedlock
(petitioner)intheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofCabanatuanCity whenshewenttoworkinItaly.Joblessuponherreturntothe
(CivilCaseNo.2124AF). country, respondent spent time riding on petitioners jeepney
Respondent claimed that petitioner is the father of her son which was then being utilized by a female real estate agent
Christian Paulo Salas who was born on December 28, 1994. namedFelicisimadeGuzman.Respondenthadseducedasenior
Petitioner,already56yearsoldatthetime,enticedherasshe policeofficerinSanIsidroandherchargeofsexualabuseagainst
was then only 24 years old, making her believe that he is a said police officer was later withdrawn in exchange for the
widower. Petitioner rented an apartment where respondent quashingofdrugchargesagainstrespondentsbrotherinlawwho
stayedandshoulderedallexpensesinthedeliveryoftheirchild, was then detained at the municipal jail. It was at that time
including the cost of caesarian operation and hospital respondentintroducedherselftopetitionerwhomshepleadedfor
confinement. However, when respondent refused the offer of charityasshewaspregnantwithanotherchild.Petitionerdenied
petitioners family to take the child from her, petitioner paternityofthechildChristianPaulo;hewasmotivatedbyno
abandonedrespondentandherchildandleftthemtothemercyof otherreasonexceptgenuinealtruismwhenheagreedtoshoulder
relatives and friends. Respondent further alleged that she the expenses for the delivery of said child, unaware of
respondentschicaneryanddeceitdesignedtoscandalizehimin 28, 1994 at the Good Samaritan Hospital in Cabanatuan City.
exchangeforfinancialfavor. Beforedelivery,petitionerevenwalkedheratthehospitalroom
At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo andmassagedherstomach,sayinghehadnotdonethistohis
testified. Petitioner was declared to have waived his right to wife.Shefilledouttheformforthechildsbirthcertificateand
present evidence and the case was considered submitted for wrotealltheinformationsuppliedbypetitionerhimself.Itwas
decisionbasedonrespondentsevidence. also petitioner who paid the hospital bills and drove her baby
Respondenttestifiedthatshefirstmetpetitioneratthehouse home.Hewasexcitedandhappytohaveasonathisadvanced
of his kumadre Felicisima de Guzman at Bgy. Malapit, San age who is his lookalike, and this was witnessed by other
Isidro,NuevaEcija.Duringtheirsubsequentmeeting,petitioner boarders,visitorsandGraceMurillo,theowneroftheapartment
toldherheisalreadyawidowerandhehasnomorecompanionin unitpetitionerrented.However,onthe18thdayafterthebabys
lifebecausehischildrenareallgrownup.Shealsolearnedthat birth,petitionerwenttoBaguioCityforamedicalcheckup.He
petitionerownsaricemill,aconstructionbusinessandahousing confessed to her daughter and eventually his wife was also
subdivision(petitionerofferedherajobattheirfamilyownedMa. informedabouthishavingsiredanillegitimatechild.Hisfamily
CristinaVillage).Petitioneratthetimealreadyknowsthatsheis thendecidedtoadoptthebabyandjustgiverespondentmoneyso
a single mother as she had a child by her former boyfriend in shecangoabroad.Whensherefusedthisoffer,petitionerstopped
Italy.Hethenbroughthertoamotel,promisingthathewilltake seeingherandsendingmoneytoher.Sheandherbabysurvived
care throughthehelpofrelativesandfriends.Depressed,shetriedto
_______________ commitsuicidebydrugoverdoseandwasbroughttothehospital
4Id.,atpp.2426. by Murillo who paid the bill. Murillo sought the help of the
567 Cabanatuan City Police Station which set their meeting with
petitioner.However,itwasonlypeti
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 567
_______________
Salasvs.Matusalem
5TSN,October6,1995,p.21;TSN,November17,1995,pp.4
of her and marry her. She believed him and yielded to his 7,13;TSN,March22,1996,pp.1425;TSN,June3,1996,pp.19
advances, with the thought that she and her child will have a 29,3337.
betterlife.Thereafter,theysaweachotherweeklyandpetitioner
568
gavehermoneyforherchild.Whenshebecamepregnantwith
568 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
petitionerschild,itwasonlythenshelearnedthatheisinfact
not a widower. She wanted to abort the baby but petitioner Salasvs.Matusalem
opposeditbecausehewantedtohaveanotherchild.5 tioners wife who showed up and she was very mad, uttering
Onthefourthmonthofherpregnancy,petitionerrentedan unsavorywordsagainstrespondent.6
apartmentwhereshestayedwithahousemaid;healsoprovided Murillo corroborated respondents testimony as to the
foralltheirexpenses.ShegavebirthtotheirchildonDecember paymentbypetitionerofapartmentrental,hisweeklyvisitsto
respondentandfinancialsupporttoher,hispresenceduringand
after delivery of respondents baby, respondents attempted infindingthatpetitioneristheputativefatherofChristianPaulo
suicide through sleeping pills overdose and hospitalization for andorderinghimtogivemonthlysupport.
which she paid the bill, her complaint before the police ByDecisiondatedJuly18,2006,theCAdismissedpetitioners
authorities and meeting with petitioners wife at the appeal.Theappellatecourtfoundnoreasontodisturbthetrial
headquarters.7 courts exercise of discretion in denying petitioners motion for
OnApril5,1999,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecision8infavor postponement on April 17, 1998, the scheduled hearing for the
ofrespondent,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads: initial presentation of defendants evidence, and the motion for
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is reconsideration of the said order denying the motion for
hereby renderedinfavor ofthe plaintiff and against the postponementandsubmittingthecasefordecision.
defendantasfollows: Onthepaternityissue,theCAaffirmedthetrialcourtsruling
1.Orderingthedefendanttogiveasmonthlysupport thatrespondentsatisfactorilyestablishedtheillegitimatefiliation
of TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS for the child of her son Christian Paulo, and consequently no error was
ChristianPaulothroughthemother; committedbythetrialcourtingrantingrespondentsprayerfor
2.Directingthedefendanttopaytheplaintiffthesum support.Theappellatecourtthusheld:
ofP20,000.00bywayoflitigationexpenses;and Christian Paulo, in instant case, does not enjoy the
3.Topaythecostsofsuit. benefitofarecordofbirthinthecivilregistrywhichbears
SOORDERED.9 acknowledgmentsignedbyNarcisoSalas.Hecannotclaim
PetitionerappealedtotheCAarguingthat:(1)thetrialcourt open and continuous possession of the status of an
decided the case without affording him the right to introduce illegitimatechild.
evidenceonhisdefense;and(2)thetrialcourterred Ithadbeenestablishedbyplaintiffsevidence,however,
_______________ that during her pregnancy, Annabelle was provided by
6Id.,atpp.821;id.,atpp.1012;id.,atpp.711;id.,atpp.9 NarcisoSalaswithanapartmentatarentalofP1,500.00
10,1418,4346;TSN,February19,1996,pp.6,1012. whichhepaid for(TSN, October 6, 1995, p. 18). Narciso
7TSN,July8,1996,pp.511;TSN,November29,1996,pp.4 provided her with a household help with a salary of
9,1526. P1,500.00 a month (TSN, October 6, 1995, ibid). Healso
8Rollo,pp.6573.PennedbyActingPresidingJudgeJohnson providedheramonthlyfoodallowanceofP1,500.00(Ibid,
L.Ballutay. p. 18). NarcisowaswithAnnabelleat the hospital while
9Id.,atpp.7273. the latter was in labor, walking her around and
569 massaging her belly (Ibid, p. 11). Narciso brought home
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 569 ChristianPaulototherentedapartmentafterAnnabelles
Salasvs.Matusalem discharge from the hospital. People living in the same
apartment units were witnesses to Narcisos delight to
 fatherasonathisagewhichwashislookalike.Itwas As a necessary consequence of the finding that
onlyafterthe18thdaywhenAnnabellerefusedtogivehim ChristianPauloisthesonofdefendantNarcisoSalas,heis
ChristianPaulothatNarcisowithdrewhissupporttohim entitledtosupportfromthelatter(Ilanovs.CA,supra).
andhismother.570 Itshallbedemandablefromthetimethepersonwho
570 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED hastherighttorecoverthesameneedsitformaintenance
Salasvs.Matusalem xx.(Art.203,FamilyCodeofthePhilippines).10
Said testimony of Annabelle aside from having been _______________
corroboratedbyGraceMurillo,theowneroftheapartment 10Id.,atpp.8283.
which Narciso rented, was never rebutted on record. 571
Narciso did not present any evidence, verbal or VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 571
documentary,torepudiateplaintiffsevidence. Salasvs.Matusalem
InthecasesofLimvs.CA(270SCRA1)andRodriguez Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutitwasdenied
vs.CA(245SCRA150),theSupremeCourtmadeitclear bytheCA.
that Article 172 of the Family Code is an adaptation of Hence,thispetitionsubmittingthefollowingarguments:
Article283oftheCivilCode.Saidlegalprovisionprovides 1.THE VENUE OF THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY LAID
that the father is obliged to recognize the child as his BEFORETHEREGIONALTRIALCOURTOFCABANATUAN
naturalchildxx3)whenthechildhasinhisfavorany CITY CONSIDERING THAT BOTH PETITIONER AND
evidenceorproofthatthedefendantishisfather. RESPONDENT ARE ACTUAL RESIDENTS OF BRGY.
Infact,inIlanovs.CA(230SCRA242,258259),itwas MALAPIT,SANISIDRO,NUEVAECIJA.
heldthat 2.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
The last paragraph of Article 283 contains a PRONOUNCING THAT PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THE
blanketprovisionthatpracticallycoversalltheother FULLMEASUREOFHISRIGHTTODUEPROCESSOFLAW
cases in the preceding paragraphs. Any other AND IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT
evidenceorproofthatthedefendantisthefatheris GRAVELYABUSEITSDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACK
broad enough to render unnecessary the other OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECIDED THE
paragraphs of this article. When the evidence INSTANT CASE WITHOUT AFFORDING PETITIONER THE
submittedintheactionforcompulsoryrecognitionis RIGHTTOINTRODUCEEVIDENCEINHISDEFENSE.
notsufficienttomeet[the]requirementsofthefirst 3.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
threeparagraphs,itmaystillbeenoughunderthe HOLDING THAT THE FILIATION OF CHRISTIAN PAULO
lastparagraph.Thisparagraphpermitshearsayand WASDULYESTABLISHEDPURSUANTTOARTICLE175IN
reputation evidence, as provided in the Rules of RELATION TO ARTICLE 172 OF THE FAMILY CODE AND
Court,withrespecttoillegitimatefiliation.
EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE AND THEREFORE ENTITLED Astothedenialofthemotionforpostponementfiledbyhis
TOSUPPORTFROMTHEPETITIONER.11 counsel for the resetting of the initial presentation of defense
Wegrantthepetition. evidenceonApril17,1998,wefindthatitwasnotthefirsttime
It isa legal truismthattherulesonthevenue of personal petitioners motion for postponement was denied by the trial
actionsare fixed fortheconvenienceoftheplaintiffsandtheir court.
witnesses.Equallysettled,however,istheprinciplethatchoosing Recordsdisclosedthataftertheterminationofthetestimony
thevenueofanactionisnotlefttoaplaintiffscaprice;thematter ofrespondentslastwitnessonNovember29,1996,thetrialcourt
isregulatedbytheRulesofCourt.12 asprayedforbytheparties,setthecontinuationofhearingfor
Inpersonalactionssuchastheinstantcase,theRulesgivethe the reception of evidence for the defendant (petitioner) on
plaintifftheoptionofchoosingwheretofilehiscomplaint. January 27, February 3, and February 10, 1997. In the Order
_______________ datedDecember17,1996,petitionerwasadvisedtobereadywith
11Id.,atpp.180181. his evidence at those hearing dates earlier scheduled. At the
12Angv.Ang,G.R.No.186993,August22,2012,678SCRA hearing on January 27, 1997, petitioners former counsel, Atty.
RolandoS.Bala,requestedforthecan
699,705,citingHyattElevatorsandEscalatorsCorp.v.Goldstar
_______________
Elevators, Phils., Inc., 510 Phil. 467, 476; 473 SCRA 705, 714 131997RulesofCivilProcedure,Rule4,Section2.
(2005).
14Angv.Ang,supranote12,atpp.705706,citingBarituav.
572
CourtofAppeals,335Phil.12,1516;267SCRA331,335(1997).
572 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
15Fernandezv.InternationalCorporateBank,374Phil.668,
Salasvs.Matusalem
677;316SCRA326,334(1999),citingRule14,Section4ofthe
Hecanfileitintheplace(1)wherehehimselforanyofthem
pre1997 Rules of Court which provides that [w]hen improper
resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of the defendants
venue is not objected to in a motion to dismiss, it is deemed
residesormaybefound.13Theplaintifforthedefendantmustbe
waived.TheComplaintinthiscasewasfiledonMay26,1995
residentsoftheplacewheretheactionhasbeeninstitutedatthe
andtheAnswerwasfiledonJuly3,1995.
timetheactioniscommenced.14
573
However,petitionerraisedtheissueofimpropervenueforthe
first time in the Answer itself and no prior motion to dismiss VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 573
basedonsuchgroundwasfiled.UndertheRulesofCourtbefore Salasvs.Matusalem
the1997amendments,anobjectiontoanimpropervenuemustbe cellationoftheFebruary3and10,1997hearingsinordertogive
madebeforearesponsivepleadingisfiled.Otherwise,itwillbe himtimetoprepareforhisdefense,whichrequestwasgrantedby
deemed waived.15Not having been timely raised, petitioners thetrialcourtwhichthusresetthehearingdatestoMarch3,14
objectiononvenueisthereforedeemedwaived. and17,1997.OnMarch3,1997,uponoralmanifestationbyAtty.
Bala and without objection from respondents counsel, Atty.
FelicianoWycoco,thetrialcourtagainresetthehearingtoMarch OnApril17,1998,petitionerandhiscounselfailedtoappear
14and17,1997.Withthenonappearanceofbothpetitionerand butthetrialcourtreceivedonApril16,1998anurgentmotionto
Atty. Bala on March 14, 1997, the trial court upon oral cancelhearingfiledbyAtty.Villarosa.Thereasongivenbythe
manifestationbyAtty.Wycocodeclaredtheirabsenceasawaiver latter was the scheduled hearing on the issuance of writ of
oftheirrighttopresentevidenceandaccordinglydeemedthecase preliminary injunction in another case under the April 8, 1998
submittedfordecision.16 OrderissuedbytheRTCofGapan,NuevaEcija,Branch36in
OnJuly4,1997,Atty.Balawithdrewascounselforpetitioner CivilCaseNo.1946.Butasclearlystatedinthesaidorder,itwas
and Atty. Rafael E. Villarosa filed his appearance as his new the plaintiffs therein who requested the postponement of the
counsel on July 21, 1997. On the same date he filed entry of hearing and it behoved Atty. Villarosa to inform the RTC of
appearance,Atty.Villarosafiledamotionforreconsiderationof Gapanthathehadapreviouscommitmentconsideringthatthe
the March 14, 1997 Order pleading for liberality and April 17, 1998 hearing wasscheduled as early asFebruary 16,
magnanimityofthetrialcourt,withoutofferinganyexplanation 1998. Acting on the motion for postponement, the trial court
forAtty. Balas failure to appear for the initial presentation of
deniedforthesecond timepetitionersmotionforpostponement.
theirevidence.ThetrialcourtthereuponreconsidereditsMarch
Even at the hearing of their motion for reconsideration of the
14, 1997 Order, finding it better to give petitioner a chance to
April17,1998OrderonSeptember21,1998,Atty.Villarosafailed
presenthisevidence.OnAugust26,1997,Atty.Villarosareceived
toappearandinsteadfiledanothermotionforpostponement.The
a notice of hearing for the presentation of their evidence
trialcourtthusorderedthatthecasebesubmittedfordecision
scheduledonSeptember22,1997.OnAugust29,1997,thetrial
stressingthatthecasehadlongbeenpendingandthatpetitioner
court received his motion requesting that the said hearing be
and his counsel have been given opportunities to present their
resettoOctober10,1997forthereasonthathehadrequestedthe
evidence.Itlikewisedeniedasecondmotionforreconsideration
postponementofahearinginanothercasewhichwasincidentally
filed by Atty. Villarosa, who arrived late during the hearing
scheduledonSeptember22,23and24,1997.Asprayedfor,the
thereofonDecember4,1998.18
trialcourtresetthehearingtoOctober10,1997.Onsaiddate,
Amotionforcontinuanceorpostponementisnotamatterof
however,thehearingwasagainmovedtoDecember15,1997.On
right,butarequestaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthecourt.
February16,1998,thetrialcourtitselfresetthehearingtoApril
Parties asking for postponement have absolutely no right to
17, 1998 since it was unclear whether Atty. Wycoco received a
assumethattheirmotionswouldbegranted.Thus,theymustbe
copyofthemotion.17
preparedonthedayofthehearing.19Indeed,an
_______________
_______________
16Records,pp.8183,109,111and113.
18Id.,atpp.131138,140and142146.
17Id.,atpp.115126,128and130.
19Gochanv.Gochan,446Phil.433,454;398SCRA323,341
574
574 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED (2003),citingTiomicov.CourtofAppeals,363Phil.558,571;304
Salasvs.Matusalem SCRA216,229(1999);PepsiColaProductsPhils.,Inc.v.Courtof
Appeals,359Phil.859,867;299SCRA518,525(1998);Republic proceedingsbutfailedtodoso,hecannotcomplainofdeprivation
of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 361 Phil. 186, 196; 301 ofdueprocess.Iftheopportunityis
_______________
SCRA237,246(1999)andIrigaTelephoneCo.,Inc.v.NLRC,350
Phil.245,252;286SCRA600,606(1998). 20Memita v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, May 28, 2007,
575 523 SCRA 244, 254, citingRockwell Perfecto Gohu v. Spouses
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 575 Gohu,397Phil.126,135;343SCRA114,122(2000).
Salasvs.Matusalem 21Supranote19.
order declaring a party to have waived the right to present 22Id.,atp.572,citingCingHongSov.TanBoonKong,53
evidenceforperformingdilatoryactionsupholdsthetrialcourts Phil.437(1929)andSuarezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.91133,
dutytoensurethattrialproceedsdespitethedeliberatedelayand March22,1993,220SCRA274,279.
refusaltoproceedonthepartofoneparty.20 576
Atty. Villarosas plea for liberality was correctly rejected by 576 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thetrialcourtinviewofhisownnegligenceinfailingtoensure
Salasvs.Matusalem
there will be no conflict in his trial schedules. As we held
notavailedof,itisdeemedwaivedorforfeitedwithoutviolating
inTiomicov.CourtofAppeals:21 theconstitutionalguarantee.23
Motionsforpostponementaregenerallyfrownedupon We nowproceedtothe mainissue ofwhetherthetrialand
by Courts if there is evidence of bad faith, malice or appellate courts erred in ruling that respondents evidence
inexcusable negligence on the part of the movant. The sufficientlyprovedthathersonChristianPauloistheillegitimate
inadvertenceofthedefensecounselinfailingtotakenote childofpetitioner.
ofthetrialdatesandinbelatedlyinformingthetrialcourt Under Article 175 of theFamily Code of the Philippines,
of any conflict in his schedules of trial or court illegitimatefiliationmaybeestablishedinthesamewayandon
appearances,constitutesinexcusablenegligence.Itshould thesameevidenceaslegitimatechildren.
be borne in mind that a client is bound by his counsels Article172oftheFamilyCodeofthePhilippinesstates:
conduct,negligenceandmistakesinhandlingthecase.22 Thefiliationoflegitimatechildrenisestablishedbyany
Withourfindingthattherewasnoabuseofdiscretioninthe ofthefollowing:
trial courts denial of the motion for postponement filed by (1)Therecordofbirthappearinginthecivilregister
petitionerscounsel,petitionerscontentionthathewasdeprived orafinaljudgment;or
ofhisdayincourtmustlikewisefail.Theessenceofdueprocess (2) Anadmission of legitimate filiationin a public
isthatapartyisgivenareasonableopportunitytobeheardand documentoraprivatehandwritteninstrumentandsigned
submitanyevidenceonemayhaveinsupportofonesdefense. bytheparentconcerned.
Whereapartywasaffordedanopportunitytoparticipateinthe Intheabsenceoftheforegoingevidence,thelegitimate
filiationshallbeprovedby:
 (1)Theopenandcontinuouspossessionofthestatus of the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not
ofalegitimatechild;or necessarilycompetentevidenceoftheveracityofentriestherein
(2)AnyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtand withrespecttothechildspaternity.30
speciallaws.(Underscoringsupplied.) _______________
Respondent presented the Certificate of Live Birth 24(Exhibit 25Cabataniav.CourtofAppeals,484Phil.42,51;441SCRA
A1)ofChristianPauloSalasinwhichthenameofpetitioner 96,103(2004).
appearsashisfatherbutwhichisnotsignedbyhim.Admittedly, 26Berciles,etal.v.GSIS,etal.,213Phil.48,71;128SCRA
itwasonlyrespondentwhofilleduptheentriesandsignedthe
53,77(1984);Rocesv.LocalCivilRegistrarofManila,102Phil.
saiddocumentthoughsheclaimsit
1050,1054(1958).
_______________
27Reyes,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,etal.,220Phil.116,128
23Memitav.Masongsong,supranote20,atp.253,citingAir
(1985),citingIntestateEstateofParejav.Pareja,95Phil.167,172
Phils. Corp. v. International Business Aviation Services Phils.,
(1954).
Inc.,481Phil.366,386;438SCRA51,6667(2004)andTiomico
28SeeNepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18,
v.CourtofAppeals,supranote19,atpp.570571;p.228.
2010,616SCRA145,153andPunov.PunoEnterprises,Inc.,G.R.
24Records,p.88.
No.177066,September11,2009,599SCRA585,590591.
577
29Records,p.90.
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 577
30Fernandezv.Fernandez,416Phil.322,339;363SCRA811,
Salasvs.Matusalem
825826(2001);Fernandezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.108366,
waspetitionerwhosuppliedtheinformationshewrotetherein.
We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly February16,1994,230SCRA130,136;Reyes,etal.v.Courtof
identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of Appeals,etal.,supranote27;Macadangdangv.CourtofAppeals,
paternitywhenthereisnoshowingthattheputativefatherhada No.L49542,September12,1980,100SCRA73,84.
handinthepreparationofthecertificate.25Thus,ifthefatherdid 578
notsigninthebirthcertificate,theplacingofhisnamebythe 578 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
mother,doctor,registrar,orotherpersonisincompetentevidence Salasvs.Matusalem
of paternity.26Neither can such birth certificate be taken as a The rest of respondents documentary evidence consists of
recognitioninapublicinstrument 27andithasnoprobativevalue handwritten notes and letters, hospital bill and photographs
toestablishfiliationtotheallegedfather. 28 takenofpetitionerandrespondentinsidetheirrentedapartment
As to the Baptismal Certificate29(Exhibit B) of Christian unit.
PauloSalasalsoindicatingpetitionerasthefather,wehaveruled Picturestakenofthemotherandherchildtogetherwiththe
that while baptismal certificates may be considered public alleged father are inconclusive evidence to prove
documents,theycanonlyserveasevidenceoftheadministration paternity.31Exhibits E and F32showing petitioner and
respondent inside the rented apartment unit thus have scant ofpetitionercontainedaclearadmissionthatheisthefatherof
evidentiaryvalue.TheStatementofAccount 33(ExhibitC)from privaterespondentsdaughterandweresignedbyhim.TheCourt
theGoodSamaritanGeneralHospitalwhererespondentherself therein considered the totality of evidence which established
wasindicatedasthepayeeislikewiseincompetenttoprovethat beyondreasonabledoubtthatpetitionerwasindeedthefatherof
petitioneristhefatherofherchildnotwithstandingpetitioners private respondents daughter. On the other hand, inIlano v.
admissioninhisanswerthatheshoulderedtheexpensesinthe Court of Appeals,37the Court sustained the appellate courts
deliveryofrespondentschildasanactofcharity. finding that private respondents evidence to establish her
As to the handwritten notes34(Exhibits D to D13) of filiation with and paternity of petitioner was overwhelming,
petitionerandrespondentshowingtheirexchangeofaffectionate particularly the latters public acknowledgment of his amorous
words and romantic trysts, these, too, are not sufficient to relationship with private respondents mother, and private
establishChristianPaulosfiliationtopetitionerastheywerenot respondent as his own child through acts and words, her
signedbypetitionerandcontainednostatementofadmissionby testimonial evidence to that effect was fully supported by
petitionerthatheisthefatherofsaidchild.Thus,evenifthese documentaryevidence.TheCourtthusruledthatrespondenthad
noteswere authentic,theydonotqualifyunderArticle 172 (2) adduced sufficient proof of continuous possessionof status of a
visvis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as spuriouschild.
competent evidence of illegitimate filiation an admission of Here,whiletheCAheldthatChristianPauloSalascouldnot
filiationinaprivatehandwritteninstrumentsignedbytheparent claimopenandcontinuouspossessionofstatusofanillegitimate
concerned.35 child, it nevertheless considered the testimonial evidence
Petitioners reliance on our ruling inLim v. Court of sufficientprooftoestablishhisfiliationtopetitioner.
Appeals36ismisplaced.Inthesaidcase,thehandwrittenletters An illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his
_______________ claimed filiation by any other means allowed by the Rules of
31Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, id., at pp. 135136, Courtandspeciallaws,likehisbaptismalcertificate,ajudicial
citingTan v. Trocio, A.C. No. 2115, November 27, 1990, 191 admission,afamilyBibleinwhichhisnamehasbeenentered,
SCRA764,769. common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by
32Records,pp.103104. silence,the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof
33Id.,atp.92. admissibleunderRule130oftheRulesofCourt. 38Reviewingthe
records,wefindthetotalityofrespondentsevi
34Id.,atpp.93102.
_______________
35Nepomucenov.Lopez,supranote28. 37G.R.No.104376,February23,1994,230SCRA242.
36G.R.No.112229,March18,1997,270SCRA1,57.
38Gotardov.Buling,G.R.No.165166,August15,2012,678
579
SCRA436,443,citingCruzv.Cristobal,529Phil.695,710711;
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 579
498 SCRA 37, 51 (2006),Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of
Salasvs.Matusalem
Appeals, 360 Phil. 536, 548549; 300 SCRA 345, 357 (1998) Merceditas(sic)(id.,atp.34)anddoesallwhatafather
andTrinidadv.CourtofAppeals,352Phil.12,3233;289SCRA shoulddoforhischildbringinghomegoodies,candies,
188,206207(1998);Uyguangcov.CourtofAppeals,258APhil. toysandwhateverhecanbringherwhichachildenjoys
467,472473;178SCRA684,689690(1989). which Artemio gives to Merceditas (sic) (TSN, pp. 3839,
580 5/17/74)arepositiveevidencethatMerceditas(sic)isthe
580 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED childofArtemioandrecognizedbyArtemioassuch.Special
Salasvs.Matusalem attentioniscalledtoExh.E7whereArtemiowastelling
dence insufficient to establish that petitioner is the father of Leoncia the need for a frog test to know the status of
ChristianPaulo. Leoncia.
The testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the Plaintiff pointed out that the support by Artemio for
circumstances of the birth of Christian Paulo, petitioners LeonciaandMerceditas(sic)wassometimesintheformof
financialsupportwhilerespondentlivedinMurillosapartment cashpersonallydeliveredtoherbyArtemio,thruMelencio,
andhisregularvisitstoheratthesaidapartment,thoughreplete thruElynia(Exhs.E2andE3,andD6),
with details, do not approximate the overwhelming evidence, 581
documentaryandtestimonialpresentedinIlano.Inthatcase,we VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 581
sustainedtheappellatecourtsrulinganchoredonthefollowing Salasvs.Matusalem
factualfindingsbytheappellatecourtwhichwasquotedatlength orthruMerceditas(sic)herself(TSN,p.40,5/17/74)and
intheponencia: sometimesintheformofacheckastheManilaBanking
ItwasArtemiowhomadearrangementforthedelivery CorporationCheckNo.81532(Exh.G)andthesignature
ofMerceditas(sic)attheManilaSanitariumandHospital. appearingthereinwhichwasidentifiedbyLeonciaasthat
Prior to the delivery, Leoncia underwent prenatal of Artemio because Artemio often gives her checks and
examinationaccompaniedbyArtemio(TSN,p.33,5/17/74). ArtemiowouldwritethecheckathomeandsawArtemio
Afterdelivery,theywenthometotheirresidenceatEDSA sign the check (TSN, p. 49, 7/18/73). Both Artemio and
Nildaadmittedthatthecheckandsignaturewerethoseof
inacarownedanddrivenbyArtemiohimself(id.,atp.36).
Artemio(TSN,p.53,10/17/77;TSN,p.19,10/9/78).
Merceditas(sic)borethesurnameofIlanosincebirth DuringthetimethatArtemioandLeonciawereliving
withoutanyobjectiononthepartofArtemio,thefactthat as husband andwife, Artemio has shown concern as the
sinceMerceditas(sic)hadherdiscernmentshehadalways father of Merceditas (sic). When Merceditas (sic) was in
knownandcalledArtemioasherDaddy(TSN,pp.2829, Grade1attheSt.JosephParochialSchool,Artemiosigned
10/18/74);thefactthateachtimeArtemiowasathome,he
the Report Card of Merceditas (sic) (Exh. H) for the
would play with Merceditas (sic), take her for a ride or fourthandfifthgradingperiod(s)(Exh.H1andH2)as
restaurants to eat, and sometimes sleeping with
theparentofMerceditas(sic).ThosesignaturesofArtemio
 [were] both identified by Leoncia and Merceditas (sic) Finally, we note the Manifestation and Motion 41filed by
because Artemio signed Exh. H1 and H2 at their petitionerscounselinformingthisCourtthatpetitionerhaddied
residenceinthepresenceofLeoncia,Merceditas(sic)andof onMay6,2010.
Elynia(TSN,p.57,7/18/73;TSN,p.28,10/1/73).xxx. The action for support having been filed in the trial court
xxxxxxxxx whenpetitionerwasstillalive,itisnotbarredunderArticle175
When Artemio run as a candidate in the Provincial (2)42oftheFamilyCode.Wehavealsoheldthatthedeathofthe
Board of Cavite[,] Artemio gave Leoncia his picture with putativefatherisnotabartotheactioncommencedduringhis
the following dedication: To Nene, with best regards, lifetimebyoneclaimingtobehisillegitimatechild. 43Theruleon
Temiong.(Exh.I).(pp.1920,AppellantsBrief) substitutionofpartiesprovidedinSection16,Rule3ofthe1997
The mere denial by defendant of his signature is not RulesofCivilProcedure,thusapplies.
sufficienttooffsetthetotalityoftheevidenceindubitably SEC.16.Deathofparty;dutyofcounsel.Whenevera
showing that the signature thereon belongs to him. The partytoapendingactiondies,andtheclaimisnot
entry in the Certificate of Live Birth that Leoncia and _______________
Artemio was falsely stated therein as married does not 40Cabataniav.CourtofAppeals,supranote25,atp.50;pp.
mean that Leoncia is not appellees daughter. This 102103, citingBaluyut v. Baluyut, G.R. No. 33659, June 14,
particularentrywascausedtobemadebyArtemiohimself 1990, 186SCRA 506, 513 andConstantino v. Mendez,G.R.No.
inordertoavoidembarrassment.39 57227,May14,1992,209SCRA18,2324.
_______________
41Rollo,pp.212213.
39Supranote37,atpp.255256. 42ART.175.xxx
582 The action must be brought within the same period
582 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED specifiedinArticle173,exceptwhentheactionisbasedon
Salasvs.Matusalem the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the
In sum, we hold that the testimonies of respondent and action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged
Murillo,bythemselvesarenotcompetentproofofpaternityand parent.
thetotalityofrespondentsevidencefailedtoestablishChristian 43Mendozav.CourtofAppeals,278Phil.687,694;201SCRA
Paulosfiliationtopetitioner. 675, 682 (1991), citingMasecampo v. Masecampo, 11 Phil. 1, 3
Timeandagain,thisCourthasruledthatahighstandardof (1908).
proofisrequiredtoestablishpaternityandfiliation.Anorderfor 583
recognitionandsupportmaycreateanunwholesomesituationor
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 583
maybeanirritanttothefamilyorthelivesofthepartiessothat
Salasvs.Matusalem
itmustbeissuedonlyifpaternityorfiliationisestablishedby
clearandconvincingevidence.40 therebyextinguished,itshallbethedutyofhiscounselto
informthecourtwithinthirty(30)daysaftersuchdeathof
 thefactthereof,andtogivethenameandaddressofhis 584
legalrepresentativeorrepresentatives.Failureofcounsel 584 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
tocomplywithhisdutyshallbeagroundfordisciplinary Salasvs.Matusalem
action. Notes.To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
properaction,firstestablishthefiliationofthechild,ifthesame
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
is not admitted or acknowledged; Illegitimate children are
appointmentofanexecutororadministratorandthecourt
entitledtosupportandsuccessionalrightsbuttheirfiliationmust
mayappointaguardianadlitemfortheminorheirs.
bedulyproved.(Dolinavs.Vallecera,638SCRA707[2010])
Thecourtshallforthwithordersaidlegalrepresentative
Timeandagain,thisCourthasruledthatahighstandardof
or representativesto appearandbesubstitutedwithina
proofisrequiredtoestablishpaternityandfiliation.Anorderfor
periodofthirty(30)daysfromnotice.
support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an
Ifnolegalrepresentativeisnamedbythecounselfor
irritanttothefamilyorthelivesofthepartiessothatitmustbe
the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to
issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
appearwithinthespecifiedperiod,thecourtmayorderthe
convincingevidence.(Perlavs.Baring,685SCRA101[2012])
opposing party, within a specified time to procure the
appointmentofanexecutororadministratorfortheestate o0o
ofthedeceasedandthelattershallimmediatelyappearfor
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
reserved.
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing
party,mayberecoveredascosts.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review
oncertiorariisGRANTED.TheDecisiondatedJuly18,2006and
ResolutiondatedOctober19,2007oftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R. CV No. 64379 are herebyREVERSEDandSET ASIDE.
Civil Case No. 2124AF of the Regional Trial Court of
CabanatuanCity,Branch26isDISMISSED.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro,
BersaminandReyes,JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set
aside.
 inabetterpositiontoassessandweightheevidencepresented
duringtrial.Settledtooistherulethatthefactualfindingsofthe
appellatecourtsustainingthoseofthetrialcourtarebindingon
thisCourt,unlessthereisaclearshowingthatsuchfindingsare
taintedwitharbitrariness,capriciousnessorpalpableerror.
_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.
205
VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 205
Peoplevs.Rosauro
CriminalLaw;DangerousDrugsAct;BuyBustOperations;
DecoySolicitation;Itisnodefensetotheperpetratorofacrime
thatfacilitiesforitscommissionwerepurposelyplacedinhisway,
or that the criminal act was done at the decoy solicitation of

personsseekingtoexposethecriminal,orthatdetectivesfeigning
G.R.No.209588.February18,2015.*
complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,vs.ERIC commission.The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of
accusedappellant to be the result of a legitimate entrapment
ROSAUROyBONGCAWIL,accusedappellant.
procedure, and we find nothing inthe records as to warrant a
RemedialLaw;CriminalProcedure;Appeals;Wherethereis
contrary finding. InPeople v. Bartolome,690 SCRA 159 (2013),
noshowingthatthetrialcourtoverlookedormisinterpretedsome
we had the occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a decoy
materialfactsorthatitgravelyabuseditsdiscretion,theSupreme solicitation,towit:Itisnodefensetotheperpetratorofacrime
Court(SC)willnotdisturbthetrialcourtsassessmentofthefacts that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his
andthecredibilityofthewitnessessincetheRegionalTrialCourt way,orthatthecriminalactwasdoneatthedecoysolicitation
(RTC)wasinabetterpositiontoassessandweightheevidence of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives
presentedduringtrial.Itisapropostoreiterateherethatwhere feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently
there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or assistingitscommission.Especiallyisthistrueinthatclassof
misinterpretedsomematerialfactsorthatitgravelyabusedits cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the
discretion,theCourtwillnotdisturbthetrialcourtsassessment solicitationmerelyfurnishesevidenceofacourseofconduct.As
ofthefactsandthecredibilityofthewitnessessincetheRTCwas here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant
utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of dulyestablishedforasuccessfulprosecutionofoffensesinvolving
conduct.Thepolicereceivedanintelligencereportthatappellant the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, likeshabu,
hasbeenhabituallydealinginillegaldrugs.Theydulyactedonit underSection5,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165,towit:(1)theidentity
by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
appellant.Therewasnoshowingthattheinformantinducedthe consideration;and(2)thedeliveryofthethingsoldandpayment
appellanttosellillegaldrugstohim. therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur
Same; Same; Informants; As a rule, the informant is not buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller
presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to successfully consummate the buybust transaction. What is
protecttheinformantfromtheretaliationoftheculpritarrested material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale
throughhisefforts.Similarly,thepresentationofaninformant transpired,coupledwiththepresentationincourtofthecorpus
as witnessisnotregarded asindispensable to thesuccessofa delicti.
prosecutionofadrugdealingaccused.Asarule,theinformantis Same; Same; Same; Chain of Custody; The identity of the
notpresentedincourtforsecurityreasons,inviewoftheneedto prohibiteddrugmustbeprovedwithmoralcertainty.Itmustalso
protecttheinformantfromtheretaliationoftheculpritarrested beestablishedwiththesamedegreeofcertitudethatthesubstance
throughhisefforts.Thereby,theconfidentialityoftheinformants
boughtorseizedduringthebuybustoperationisthesameitem
identityisprotectedindeferencetohisinvaluableservicestolaw
offered in court as exhibit.Indeed, as we held inPeople v.
enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is
consideredabsolutelyessentialinobtainingtheconvictionofthe Torres,697 SCRA 452 (2013), equally important in every
culpritshouldtheneedtoprotecthissecuritybedisregarded.In prosecutionforillegalsaleofdangerousorprohibiteddrugsisthe
thepresentcase,asthebuybustoperationwasdulywitnessedby presentationofevidenceoftheseizeddrugasthecorpusdelicti.
the Provincial AntiIllegal DrugsSpecial Operation Task Unit Theidentityoftheprohibiteddrugmustbeprovedwithmoral
(PAIDSOTU)elementsledbySPO4 certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of
206 certitudethatthesubstanceboughtorseizedduringthebuybust
206 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit. In this
Peoplevs.Rosauro regard,paragraph1,Section21,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165(the
LorenzoLarot(SPO4Larot)andPO3JuanchoDizon,their chainofcustodyrule)providesforsafeguardsfortheprotectionof
testimonies can take the place of that of the confidential theidentityandintegrityofdangerousdrugsseized.
informant. Same;Same;ChainofCustody;Theprosecutionsfailureto
Same;Same;BuyBustOperations;Thedeliveryoftheillicit submitinevidencethephysicalinventoryandphotographofthe
drugtotheposeurbuyerandthereceiptofthemarkedmoneyby seizeddrugsasrequiredunderArticle21ofRepublicAct(RA)No.
thesellersuccessfullyconsummatethebuybusttransaction.Ina 9165, will not render the accuseds arrest illegal or the items
catenaofcases,thisCourtlaiddowntheessentialelementstobe seized from him inadmissible.This Court has, in many cases,
heldthatwhilethechainofcustodyshouldideallybeperfect,in C.A.G.R. CRH.C. No. 00552MIN, which affirmed the
reality it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken Judgment2dated24November2006oftheRegionalTrialCourt
chain. The most important factor is the preservation of the (RTC), Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 in Criminal Case No.
integrityandtheeviden 2004856, finding accusedappellant Eric RosauroyBongcawil
207 (accusedappellant)guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofillegalsale
VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 207 ofshabuunderSec.5,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165(R.A.
Peoplevs.Rosauro No.9165)ortheComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof
tiary value of the seized items as they will be used to _______________
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the
prosecutionsfailuretosubmitinevidencethephysicalinventory 1Rollo, pp. 317; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean
andphotographoftheseizeddrugsasrequiredunderArticle21 PaulB.Inting,withAssociateJusticesEdgardoA.Camelloand
ofR.A.No.9165,willnotrendertheaccusedsarrestillegalorthe JhosepY.Lopez,concurring.
itemsseizedfromhiminadmissible.Thechainofcustodyisnot
2CARollo,pp.7275;pennedbyJudgeNoliT.Catli.
established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical
208
inventoryandphotographingoftheseizeddrugsinthepresence
208 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
of the enumerated persons. The Implementing Rules and
RegulationsofR.A.No.9165onthehandlinganddispositionof Peoplevs.Rosauro
seized dangerous drugs states: xxxProvided, further, that 2002, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable imprisonmentandorderinghimtopayafineofP500,000.00.
grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the InanAmendedInformationdated21February2005, 3accused
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending appellantwaschargedwithviolationofSec.5,Art.IIofR.A.No.
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of 9165,towit:
andcustodyoversaiditems. Thatonthe3rddayofJuly,2004atabout5:30oclockinthe
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals. afternoon, more or less, atPurok3,BarangayPoblacion,
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Municipality of Villanueva, Province of Misamis Oriental,
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee. Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,notbeingauthorized
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
by law to possess and to sell any dangerous drugs, knowingly,

willfullyandfeloniously,didthenandthere,sellandconveytoa
PEREZ,J.:
thirdperson,whoactedasadecoyinabuybustoperation,one(1)

sachetofshabu,containing0.04grams(sic)ofshabu,whichwhen
For the consideration of the Court is an appeal of the
Decision1dated 19 June 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
examined gave POSITIVE result to test for the presence of Misamis Oriental conducted a testbuy operation in the
MethamphetamineHydrochloride(Shabu),adangerousdrug.4 MunicipalityofVillanueva,MisamisOrientalusingaconfidential
agent. The confidential agent boughtshabufrom Rosauro
Uponrearraignment,accusedappellantpleadednotguiltyto atPurok2,BarangayKatipunan, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental.
the crime charged.5Thereafter, pretrial and trial on the merits ThesubstanceboughtfromRosaurowasexaminedbythePNP
ensued. crime laboratory and yielded a positive result for
_______________ MethamphetamineHydrochloride(commonlyknownasshabu).
On July 3, 2004, the policeauthorities received information
3Records,p.1;TheOriginalInformationdated21September that again drugs were being distributed
2004reads:
atPurok3,BarangayPoblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental.
Thatonthe3rddayofJuly,2004atabout5:30oclockinthe
Thus,at5:30oclockintheafternoon,theProvincialAntiIllegal
afternoon, more or less, atPurok3,BarangayPoblacion,
DrugsSpecial Operation Task Unit (PAIDSOTU) elements led
Municipality of Villanueva, Province of Misamis Oriental, by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned
Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this themselvesinthehouseoftheirconfidentialagent.
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,notbeingauthorized There,thePAIDSOTUelementssawRosauronegotiatewith
by law to possess and to sell any dangerous drugs, knowingly, the confidential agent. In exchange for the one (1) sachet
willfullyandfeloniouslydidthenandtheresellandconveytoa
ofshabugiven by Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter
thirdpersonone(1)sachetofShabu,containing0.08grams(sic)
gavehimamarked100pesobillwithserialnumberYZ712579.
ofshabu,whichwhenexaminedgavePOSITIVEresulttothetest After the transaction, Larot and Dizon came out of their
forthepresenceofMethamphetamineHydrochloride(Shabu),a hiding place and arrested Rosauro. Thereafter, the confidential
dangerousdrug. agenthandedthesachettoLarot,whotapedit,markeditwith
4Rollo,p.6;CADecision. themarkingExhibitA,andplaceditinsidehispocket.Healso
5CARollo,p.72;RTCJudgment. tookpicturesofRosauroandthedrugs.Inthepolicestation,he
preparedaCertificateofInventoryandaRequestforLaboratory
209 Examination.BoththedrugsandRosaurowerethenturnedover
VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 209 totheCrimelaboratory.
On the basis of the request made by Larot, Police Chief
Peoplevs.Rosauro
InspectorMa.LeocyMagabo,theForensicChemi
Basedontherecords,theprosecutionsversionofthefactsis
210
asfollows:
210 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
OnOctober13,2002,onthebasisofunconfirmedreportsthat
accusedappellantEricRosauro(Rosauroforbrevity)wasselling Peoplevs.Rosauro
anddistributingdrugs,theProvincialDrugEnforcementUnitof
 calOfficerofPNPCrimeLaboratoryconductedalaboratory _______________
examinationonthecontentsofthesachet,onaccusedappellant,
and the marked money. The examination of the seized item 6Rollo,p.35;CADecision.
yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride 7Id.,atp.5.
(shabu); while the accusedappellant and the marked money 211
testedpositiveforthepresenceofultravioletfluorescentpowder. 6 VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 211
Peoplevs.Rosauro
Forhispart,accusedappellantclaimsthathewasmerelya a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred
victimofinstigation: Thousand(Php500,000.00)Pesosandtopaythecost.
AccusedappellantRosauro,ontheotherhand,tellsadifferent The accused ERIC B. ROSAURO who has undergone
tale.HetestifiedthatonJuly3,2004,thepoliceassetwenttohis preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his
housefour(4)timesandconvincedhimtodoanerrandforhim. sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time
Rosaurorefusedtobuyshabuashedidnotknowwheretobuy duringwhichhehasundergonepreventiveimprisonmentifthe
one.Itwastheconfidentialinformantwhotoldhimtobuythe detentionprisoneragreesvoluntarilyinwritingtoabidebythe
prohibited drug from a certain Kael and to deliver it to the samedisciplinaryruleimposeduponconvictedprisoners,except
formershouse.Itwasalsotheinformantwhogavethemoneyto thosedisqualifiedbylaw.
Rosaurotobuytheshabu.ButRosaurowasnotabletomeetor Thesachetofshabu,Exh.Aisconfiscatedandforfeitedin
buydirectlyfromKaelbecauseitwasayoungmanwhogotand favorofthegovernmenttobedestroyedinaccordancewithlaw. 8
handedtohimtheshabuontheroad.WhenRosaurowenttothe
houseoftheconfidentialinformantasinstructed,hewasarrested Accusedappellant appealed before the CA, assigning a lone
by SPO4 Larot and Dizon. The sachet ofshabuwas not even error:
recoveredfromhimbutfromtheconfidentialinformant.7 I
THE COURTA QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
Findingtheevidenceoftheprosecutionsufficienttoestablish THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT
theguiltofaccusedappellant,theRTCrenderedajudgmentof PROVENBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.9
conviction,viz.:
INTHELIGHTOFTHEFOREGOING,thisCourthereby After a review of the records, the CA affirmed the RTC
renders Judgment finding accused ERIC Judgment.Theappellatecourtruledthatwhattranspiredinthe
ROSAUROyBONGCAWIL, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of caseatbarwasanentrapmentandnotaninstigation; 10thatall
thecrimechargedintheinformationforsellinganddeliveringa theelementsofillegalsaleofregulatedorprohibiteddrugswere
dulyproven;11thatthenonpresentationoftheconfidentialagent
sachet ofshabuto the poseurbuyer a Violation of Section 5,
incourtisnotfatal;12thattheinconsistenciesinthetestimonyof
ArticleIIofR.A.9165andimposes
thelonewitnessoftheprosecutiondonotaffecttheresultofthe rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining
case;13andthattheapprehending thoseofthetrialcourtarebindingonthisCourt,unlessthereisa
_______________ clearshowingthatsuchfindingsaretaintedwitharbitrariness,
capriciousnessorpalpableerror.16
8CARollo,pp.7475;RTCJudgment. The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of accused
9Id.,atp.49;BrieffortheAccusedAppellant. appellanttobetheresultofalegitimateentrapmentprocedure,
and we find nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary
10Rollo,p.8;CADecision.
finding.InPeoplev.Bartolome,17wehadtheoccasiontodiscuss
11Id.,atpp.1112.
thelegitimacyofadecoysolicitation,towit:
12Id.,atp.12.
_______________
13Id.,atp.13.
212 14Id.,atp.15.
212 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
15Id.,atp.17.
Peoplevs.Rosauro
16Peoplev.Vasquez,G.R.No.200304,15January2014,714
SCRA78,101.
17G.R. No. 191726, 6 February 2013, 690 SCRA 159, 172,
teamwasabletopreservetheintegrityofthesubjectdrugand
citingPeoplev.Sta.Maria,545Phil.520,528529;516SCRA621,
thattheprosecutionwasabletopresenttherequiredunbroken
628(2007).
chaininthecustodyofthesubjectdrug.14Thus,theCAheld:
213
WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated November 24, 2006 of
VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 213
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City in
CriminalCaseNo.2004856isherebyAFFIRMED.15 Peoplevs.Rosauro
Itisnodefensetotheperpetratorofacrimethatfacilitiesfor
AccusedappellantisnowbeforetheCourtseekingareviewof its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the
hisconviction. criminal act was done at the decoy solicitation of persons
Afterathoroughreviewoftherecords,however,wedismiss seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning
theappeal. complicity in the actwere present and apparently assisting its
Itisapropostoreiterateherethatwherethereisnoshowing commission.Especiallyisthistrueinthatclassofcaseswhere
thatthetrialcourtoverlookedormisinterpretedsomematerial theofficeisonehabituallycommitted,andthesolicitationmerely
factsorthatitgravelyabuseditsdiscretion,theCourtwillnot furnishesevidenceofacourseofconduct.
disturbthetrialcourtsassessmentofthefactsandthecredibility As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the
ofthewitnessessincetheRTCwasinabetterpositiontoassess informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a
andweightheevidencepresentedduringtrial.Settledtooisthe courseofconduct.Thepolicereceivedanintelligencereportthat
appellanthasbeenhabituallydealinginillegaldrugs.Theyduly wit:(1)theidentityofthebuyerandtheseller,theobjectofthe
actedonitbyutilizinganinformanttoeffectadrugtransaction sale,andtheconsideration;and(2)thedeliveryofthethingsold
withappellant.Therewasnoshowingthattheinformantinduced andpaymenttherefor.Briefly,thedeliveryoftheillicitdrugto
theappellanttosellillegaldrugstohim. the poseurbuyer and the receipt of the marked money by the
sellersuccessfullyconsummatethebuybusttransaction.Whatis
Similarly,thepresentationofaninformantaswitnessisnot material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale
regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a transpired,coupledwiththepresentationincourtofthecorpus
drugdealingaccused.Asarule,theinformantisnotpresentedin delicti.19
court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale of
informantfromtheretaliationoftheculpritarrestedthroughhis dangerous or prohibited drugs were proven by the prosecution:
efforts.Thereby,theconfidentialityoftheinformantsidentityis the identity of accusedappellant as the seller, and that of the
protected in deference to his invaluable services to law confidentialinformantasposeurbuyerwereestablished,aswell
enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is
astheexchangeofthesachetofshabuandthemarkedmoney.It
consideredabsolutelyessentialinobtainingtheconvictionofthe
wasalsoascertainedthattheseizeditemwaspositiveforshabu,
culpritshouldtheneedtoprotecthissecuritybedisregarded. 18In
thepresentcase,asthebuybustoperationwasdulywitnessedby adangerousdrug,andthatthesameitemwasproperlyidentified
the Provincial AntiIllegal DrugsSpecial Operation Task Unit in open court by SPO4 Larot. Moreover, the P100.00bill with
(PAIDSOTU)elementsledbySPO4LorenzoLarot(SPO4Larot) serialnumberYZ712579,orthesubjectmarkedmoney,aswellas
andPO3JuanchoDizon,theirtestimoniescantaketheplaceof thelivingbodyoftheaccusedappellantrevealedapositiveresult
thatoftheconfidentialinformant. forultravioletfluorescentpowder.
As to whether accusedappellants guilt was established Accusedappellantaversthattheprosecutionwasnotableto
beyondreasonabledoubt,weruleintheaffirmative. prove thecorpus delicti, and that the statutory safeguards
_______________ providedforinSec.21ofR.A.No.9165werenotfollowed.
Indeed,asweheldinPeoplev.Torres,20equallyimportantin
18Id.,atp.175. everyprosecutionforillegalsaleofdangerousorprohibiteddrugs
214 isthepresentationofevidenceoftheseizeddrugasthecorpus
214 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED delicti.Theidentityoftheprohibiteddrugmustbeprovedwith
Peoplevs.Rosauro moralcertainty.Itmustalsobeestablishedwith
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential _______________
elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of
offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited 19Peoplev.Torres,G.R.No.191730,5June2013,697SCRA
drugs,likeshabu,underSection5,ArticleIIofR.A.No.9165,to 452,462463.
 20Id.,atp.464. important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the
215 evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to
VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 215 determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the
prosecutionsfailuretosubmitinevidencethephysicalinventory
Peoplevs.Rosauro
andphotographoftheseizeddrugsasrequiredunder
the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or
216
seizedduringthebuybustoperationisthesameitemofferedin
courtasexhibit.Inthisregard,paragraph1,Section21,ArticleII 216 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
of R.A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for Peoplevs.Rosauro
safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of Article 21 of R.A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
dangerousdrugsseized,towit: arrestillegalortheitemsseizedfromhiminadmissible.21
SEC.21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, Thechainofcustodyisnotestablishedsolelybycompliance
withtheprescribedphysicalinventoryandphotographingofthe
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, PlantSources of
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. The
Dangerous Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 on the
Drugs,ControlledPrecursorsandEssentialChemicals,Instrumen handlinganddispositionofseizeddangerousdrugsstates:
ts/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.The PDEA xxxProvided, further, that noncompliance with these
shalltakechargeandhavecustodyofalldangerousdrugs,plant requirementsunderjustifiablegrounds,aslongastheintegrity
sources of dangerous drugs, controlledprecursors and essential andevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditemsareproperlypreserved
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
laboratoryequipmentso confiscated, seized and/orsurrendered, invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. 22(Italics,
forproperdispositioninthefollowingmanner: emphasis,underscoringomitted)
(1)Theapprehendingteamhavinginitialcustodyandcontrol
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the
physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthepresenceof confidentialinformantgavetheseizeditemtoSPO4Larotwho
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were placed tape on the sachet and marked it Exhibit A. Upon
confiscatedand/orseized,orhis/herrepresentativeorcounsel,a reachingthepolicestation,SPO4LarotexecutedtheCertificate
representative from the media and the Department of Justice ofInventory,aswellastherequestforlaboratoryexamination.
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to The request, the specimen, as well as the marked money and
signthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopythereof. accusedappellant were then brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratoryforexamination.TheywerereceivedbySPO2Ricardo
However,thisCourthas,inmanycases,heldthatwhilethe Maisog,theReceivingClerkofthePNPCrimeLaboratoryOffice,
chainofcustodyshouldideallybeperfect,inrealityitisalmost whothenforwardedthemtoPoliceInspectorMa.LeocyJabonillo
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. The most
Magabo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Informantsareusuallynotpresentedincourtbecauseofthe
Laboratory.23Moreover, the seized item was duly identified by needtohidetheiridentityandpreservetheirinvaluableservice
SPO4Larotinopencourtasthesameitemseizedfromaccused tothepolice.(Id.)
appellant. o0o
Accusedappellantsguilthavingbeenestablished,welikewise _______________
affirmthepenaltyimposedbytheRTCandtheCA.
_______________ 24Supranote19atp.469.
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
21Peoplev.Loks,G.R.No.203433,27November2013,711 reserved.
SCRA187,196197.
22Supranote19atpp.465466.
23Rollo,p.15;CADecision.
217
VOL.751,FEBRUARY18,2015 217
Peoplevs.Rosauro
Underthelaw,theoffenseofillegalsaleofshabucarrieswith
itthepenaltyoflifeimprisonmenttodeathandafineranging
fromFiveHundredThousandPesos(P500,000.00)toTenMillion
Pesos(P10,000,000.00),regardlessofthequantityandpurityof
thesubstance.24Thus,theRTCandCAwerewithinboundswhen
theyimposedthepenaltyoflifeimprisonmentandafineofFive
HundredThousandPesos(P500,000.00).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal
isDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro,
BersaminandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
Appealdismissed.
Notes.Thepresentationofaninformantisnotarequisite
for the prosecution of drug cases. (Quinicot vs. People, 590
SCRA458[2009])
 [o]bjectsintheplainviewofanofficerwhohastherighttobein
thepositiontohavethatviewaresubjecttoseizureandmaybe
presentedasevidence.Thedoctrineisusuallyappliedwherea
G.R.No.203984.June18,2014.* policeofficer is not searching for evidence against the accused,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating
appellee,vs.MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, accused object xxx. [It] serves to supplement the prior justification
appellant. whetherit be a warrant for anotherobject, hotpursuit,search
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
beingpresentunconnectedwithasearchdirectedagainsttheac
Searches and Seizures; The purpose of allowing a warrantless
_______________
search and seizureincident to a lawful arrest is to protect the
*FIRSTDIVISION.
arrestingofficerfrombeingharmedbythepersonarrested,who 21cusedandpermitsthewarrantlessseizure.ThePlain
mightbearmedwithaconcealedweapon,andtopreventthelatter ViewDoctrinethusfindsnoapplicabilityinCalantiaossituation
fromdestroyingevidencewithinreach.Thepurposeofallowing because the police officers purposely searched him upon his
awarrantlesssearchandseizureincidenttoalawfularrestisto arrest.Thepoliceofficersdidnotinadvertentlycomeacrossthe
protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person blackbag,whichwasinCalantiaospossession;theydeliberately
arrested,whomightbearmedwithaconcealedweapon,andto opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful
preventthelatterfromdestroyingevidencewithinreach.Itis arrest.
therefore a reasonable exercise of the States police power to Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody
protect(1)lawenforcersfromtheinjurythatmaybeinflictedon Rule; Marking; The failure to strictly comply with Section 21,
thembyapersontheyhavelawfullyarrested;and(2)evidence
Article II ofRepublicAct(R.A.)No. 9165, suchas immediately
frombeingdestroyedbythearrestee.Itseekstoensurethesafety
markingseizeddrugs,willnotautomaticallyimpairtheintegrity
ofthearrestingofficersandtheintegrityoftheevidenceunder
thecontrolandwithinthereachofthearrestee. ofchainofcustodybecausewhatisofutmostimportanceisthe
Same; Same; Same; Plainview Doctrine; The Plain View preservationoftheintegrityandtheevidentiaryvalueoftheseized
Doctrineisactuallytheexceptiontotheinadmissibilityofevidence items,asthesewouldbeutilizedintheinthedeterminationofthe
obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest guiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.ThisCourthasheldthatthe
outside the suspects person and premises under his immediate failuretostrictlycomplywithSection21,ArticleIIofRepublic
ActNo.9165,suchasimmediatelymarkingseizeddrugs,willnot
control.ThePlainViewDoctrineisactuallytheexceptiontothe
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody because
inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search
whatisofutmostimportanceisthepreservationoftheintegrity
incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person and
andtheevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditems,asthesewouldbe
premises under his immediate control. This is so because
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.Section21anditsIRRdonotevenmentionmarking. and frameup have been invariably viewed by this Court with
Whattheyrequire are(1) physicalinventory,and(2)takingof disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and
photographs.AsthisCourtheldinPeoplev.Ocfemia,706SCRA standarddefenseployinprosecutionsforviolationofDangerous
312 (2013): What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its DrugsAct.Inordertoprosper,thedefensesofdenialandframe
implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of upmustbeprovedwithstrongandconvincingevidence.Inthe
markingoftheseizeditemsinwarrantlessseizurestoensure casesbeforeus,appellantfailedtopresentsufficientevidencein
thattheevidenceseizeduponapprehensionisthesameevidence supportofhisclaims.Asidefromhisselfservingassertions,no
subjectedtoinventoryandphotographywhentheseactivitiesare plausibleproofwaspresentedtobolsterhisallegations.Hence,as
undertakenatthepolicestationratherthanattheplaceofarrest. Calantiaofailedtoshowclearandconvincingevidencethatthe
Consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that the apprehending officers were stirred by illicit motive or failed to
markingoftheseizeditemstotrulyensurethattheyarethe properlyperformtheirduties,theirtestimoniesdeservefullfaith
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones andcredit.
offeredinevidenceshouldbedone(1)inthepresenceofthe APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
apprehendedviolator(2)immediatelyuponconfiscation. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Same;Same;Same;Unlessitcanbeshownthattherewas TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
badfaith,illwill,ortamperingoftheevidence,thepresumption PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
thattheintegrityoftheevidencehasbeenpreservedwillremain. LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:
Unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or ThisisanappealfromtheJanuary17,2012Decision 1ofthe
tamperingoftheevidence,thepresumptionthattheintegrityof Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CRH.C. No. 04069, affirmingin
the evidence has been preserved will remain. The burden of tototheJuly23,2009Decision2oftheRegionalTrial
showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the _______________
policeofficershandledtheseized 1Rollo, pp. 218; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G.
22drugswithregularity,andthattheyproperlydischarged TolentinowithAssociateJusticesRamonR.GarciaandSamuel
their duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to H.Gaerlan,concurring.
dischargesuchburden.
2CARollo,pp.2229;pennedbyJudgeVictorianoB.Cabanos
Same; Same; Marking; Denial; FrameUp; The defenses of anddocketedasCriminalCaseNo.69566.
denial and frameup have always been frowned upon by the 23Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127, finding accused
SupremeCourt(SC).Histheory,fromtheverybeginning,was appellant Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta (Calantiao) guilty
thathedidnotdoit,andthathewasbeingframedforhaving beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of
offendedthepoliceofficers.Simplyput,hisdefensetacticwasone Republic ActNo. 9165or the ComprehensiveDangerous Drugs
of denial and frameup. However, those defenses have always Actof2002.
beenfrowneduponbytheCourt,towit:Thedefensesofdenial
 OnNovember13,2003,CalantiaowaschargedbeforetheRTC armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them
ofviolationofSection11,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165inan (police officers) and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez
Information,3thepertinentportionofwhichreads: chasedthembuttheyweresubdued.PO1Marianorecoveredfrom
Thatonoraboutthe11thdayofNovember,2003inCaloocan Calantiao a black bag containing two (2) bricks of dried
City,MetroManila,Philippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthis marijuanafruitingtopsandamagazineofsuper38stainlesswith
Honorable Court, the above named accused, without any ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered from Calantiaos
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and companion[a].38revolver.
feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) Thesuspectsandtheconfiscateditemswerethenturnedover
bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight of to SPO3 PABLO TEMENA, police investigator atBagong
997.9grams,knowingthesametobeadangerousdrug. BarrioPolice Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano
The facts, as synthesized by the RTC and adopted by the markedthebricksofmarijuanacontainedinablackbagwithhis
CourtofAppeals,areasfollows: initials,NM.Thereafter,saidspecimenwereforwardedtothe
EVIDENCEOFTHEPROSECUTION PNPCrime Laboratoryforchemical analysis. The resultofthe
OnNovember13,2003[,]ataround5:30xxxintheafternoon, examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA
whilePO1NELSONMARIANOandPO3EDUARDORAMIREZ revealedthatthesamewaspositiveformarijuana,adangerous
wereonduty,acertainEDWINLOJERAarrivedattheiroffice drug.
andaskedforpoliceassistanceregardingashootingincident.Per TheforegoingtestimonyofPO1MARIANOwascorroborated
reportofthelatter,itappearsthatwhiledrivingatowingtruck by PO3 RAMIREZ who testified that he personally saw those
andtraversingalongEDSA,Balintawak,QuezonCity,hehada bricksofmarijuanaconfiscatedfromtheaccused.Heconfirmed
trafficdispute(gitgitan)withawhitetaxicabpromptinghimto that he was with PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said
follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th Avenue Street accusedandhiscompanionandtestifiedthatwhilePO1Mariano
cornerC3Road,CaloocanCity.Thereat,thepassengersofsaid recoveredfromtheaccusedablackbagcontainingmarijuana,on
taxicab,oneofthemwasaccusedCalantiao,alightedandfired hispart,heconfiscatedfromaccusedscompaniona.38revolver.
theirguns.Surprised,Lojeracouldnotdoanythingbutcontinued MR.CRISENDOAMANSEC,thedriverofthetaxiwherethe
his driving until he reached a police station nearby where he suspectsboardedwasalsopresentedinopencourtandtestifiedas
reportedtheincident. towhatheknowsabouttheincident.Heconfirmedthatonthat
3Records,p.A. date,two(2)personsboardedonhistaxianduponreachingC3
24 Road,theyalightedandfiredthree(3)shotsandranaway.
The police officers on duty then were PO1 NELSON 25
MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano Aside from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, the
testified that they immediately responded to said complaint by prosecution also offered the following documentary evidence to
proceedingto5thAvenuecorner8thStreet,CaloocanCitywhere boosttheirchargeagainsttheaccused:
they found the white taxi. While approaching said vehicle, two
 Exh. A Request for Laboratory Examination dated Reyes were then handcuffed and were brought to the police
November12,2003 station.Thereat,theyweresubjectedtobodyfrisking
26andtheirwalletsandmoneyweretaken.PO1Marianothen
Exh.BPhysicalSciencesReportNo.D142303dated
preparedsomedocumentsandinformedthemthattheywillbe
November12,2003
chargedfordrugs.Anewspapercontainingmarijuanawasshown
Exh. C1 Picture of First brick of marijuana fruiting to them and said police officer told them that it would be
tops sufficient evidence against them. They were detained and
Exh.C2PictureofSecondbrickofmarijuanafruiting subjectedtomedicalexaminationbeforetheyweresubmittedfor
tops inquestattheprosecutorsoffice.4
RulingoftheRTC
Exh.DReferralSlipdatedNovember12,2003
On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision giving
Exh. E Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
credencetotheprosecutionscase.Thedispositiveportionofthe
November 12, 2003 of PO3 Eduardo Ramirez and PO1 Decisionreads:
NelsonMariano WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
Exh.E1Theirrespectivesignatures rendered declaring accused MEDARIO CALANTIAO y
Exh. F Sinumpaang Salaysay of Crisendo Amansec DIMALANTA,GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTof
(ErroneouslymarkedasExh.E) the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, for
illegally possessing 997.9 grams of marijuana fruiting tops.
EVIDENCEOFTHEDEFENSE Henceforth,thisCourtherebysentenceshimtosufferthepenalty
Theaccusedofferedadifferentversionofthestory.According oflifeimprisonmentandafineofFiveHundredThousandPesos
to his testimony, this instant case originated from a traffic (Php500,000.00).5
mishapwherethetaxiheandhiscompanionRommelReyeswere In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that the illegal drug
ridingalmost collidedwith anothercar. Reyesthenopened the seizedwasadmissibleinevidenceasitwasdiscoveredduringa
windowandmadeafuckyousignagainstthepersonsonboard body search after Calantiao was caughtin flagrante delictoof
of that car. That prompted the latter to chase them and when possessingagunandfiringatthepoliceofficers.Moreover,the
theywerecaughtinatrafficjam,PO1NelsonMariano,oneofthe RTC found all the elements of the offense to have been duly
personsonboardofthatothercaralightedandkickedtheirtaxi. establishedbytheprosecution.6
CalantiaoandReyesalightedandPO1Marianoslappedthelatter Aggrieved,Calantiaoappealed7hisconvictiontotheCourtof
anduttered,Putanginamobakitmoakopinakyuhindimoba Appeals,assigningthefollowingerrors:
_______________
akokilala?Saidpoliceofficerpokedhisgunagain[st]Reyesand
when Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and 4CARollo,pp.2324.
5Id.,atp.29.
 6Id.,atp.28. 9Rollo,pp.710.
7Records,p.326. 28Finding that all the elements of the charge of illegal
27 possession of dangerous drugs to be present and duly
I proven,10theCourtofAppeals,onJanuary17,2012,promulgated
THE COURTA QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE itsDecision,affirmingintototheRTCsruling.
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE Undaunted,CalantiaoisnowbeforethisCourtprayingforan
DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, acquittal, adding the following arguments in support of his
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT position:
THATTHEALLEGEDLYSEIZEDITEMSAREINADMISSIBLE First,theplainviewdoctrineisnotanexceptiontoasearch
INEVIDENCE. incidenttoavalidwarrantlessarrest.
II xxxx
THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINCONVICTINGTHE Second, Calantiao did not waive the inadmissibility of the
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DESPITE THE ARRESTING seizeditems.
OFFICERS PATENT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE xxxx
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED Finally,theseizeditemscustodialchainisbroken.11
DANGEROUSDRUGS. In essence, Calantiao is questioning the admissibility of
III themarijuanafound in his possession, as evidenceagainsthim
THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINCONVICTINGTHE onthegroundsofeitheritwasdiscoveredviaanillegalsearch,or
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS becauseitscustodialchainwasbroken.
FAILURETOPROVETHEPROPERCHAINOFCUSTODYOF RulingofthisCourt
THESEIZEDDANGEROUSDRUGS.8 ThisCourtfindsnomeritinCalantiaosarguments.
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals Search and Seizure of
TheCourtofAppealsfoundnoreasontooverturnCalantiaos Marijuanavalid
conviction.Itfoundthattherewassufficientreasontojustifya ThisCourtcannotsubscribetoCalantiaoscontentionthatthe
warrantless arrest, as the police officers were acting on a marijuana in his possession cannot be admitted as evidence
legitimate complaint and had a reasonable suspicion that the against him because it was illegally discovered and seized, not
persons identified at the scene were the perpetrators of the havingbeenwithintheapprehendingofficersplainview.12
offense.Likewise,theCourtofAppealsheldthatthesearchand _______________
subsequentseizureofthemarijuanainquestionwaslawfuland 10Id.,atp.13.
valid,beingincidentaltoalawfularrest.9 11Id.,atpp.3739.
_______________
12CARollo,pp.5052.
8CARollo,p.46.
 29Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are 14Id.,atp.251;pp.5556.
governedbySection13,Rule126oftheRevisedRulesofCriminal 30
Procedure,towit: Moreover,inlawfularrests,itbecomesboththedutyandthe
Section13.Search incident to lawful arrest.A person rightoftheapprehendingofficerstoconductawarrantlesssearch
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or notonlyonthepersonofthesuspect,butalsointhepermissible
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the area within the latters reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest
commissionofanoffensewithoutasearchwarrant. allowstheseizureofevidenceordangerousweaponseitheronthe
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
incidenttoalawfularrestistoprotectthearrestingofficerfrom control. The phrase within the area of his immediate control
beingharmedbythepersonarrested,whomightbearmedwitha
meanstheareafromwithinwhichhemightgainpossessionofa
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying
weaponordestructibleevidence.Agunonatableorinadrawer
evidencewithinreach.13Itisthereforeareasonableexerciseof
in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the
the States police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the
arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person
injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have
arrested.(Citationsomitted)
lawfullyarrested;and(2)evidencefrombeingdestroyedbythe
InValeroso, however, the Court held that the evidence
arrestee.Itseekstoensurethesafetyofthearrestingofficersand
searched and seized from him could not be used against him
the integrity of the evidence under the control and within the
becausetheywerediscoveredinaroom,differentfromwherehe
reachofthearrestee.
wasbeingdetained,andwasinalockedcabinet.Thus,thearea
InValerosov.CourtofAppeals,14thisCourthadtheoccasion
searched could not be considered as one within his immediate
toreiteratethepermissiblereachofavalidwarrantlesssearch
controlthat hecouldtakeany weaponor destroy any evidence
andseizureincidenttoalawfularrest,viz.: againsthim.15
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting Inthecaseatbar,themarijuanawasfoundinablackbagin
officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any
Calantiaospossessionandwithinhisimmediatecontrol.Hecould
weaponthatthelattermightuseinordertoresistarrestoreffect
have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to
his escape. Otherwise, the officers safety might well be
destroy the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing
endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is
themarijuanawas in Calantiaos possession, it was within the
entirelyreasonableforthearrestingofficertosearchforandseize
permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly
any evidence on the arrestees person in order to prevent its
conductawarrantlesssearch.
concealmentordestruction.
_______________ Calantiaos argument that themarijuanacannot be used as
evidenceagainsthimbecauseitsdiscoverywasinviolationofthe
13Valerosov.CourtofAppeals,614Phil.236,252;598SCRA
PlainViewDoctrine,ismisplaced.
41,58(2009).
 The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the 16Peoplev.Leangsiri,322Phil.226,248;252SCRA213,230
inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search (1996).
incidenttoalawfularrestoutsidethesuspectspersonand 17Valerosov.CourtofAppeals,supranote13atp.253;p.58,
_______________
citingPeoplev.Cubcubin,Jr.,413Phil.249,271272;360SCRA
15Id.,atp.252;p.57.
690,709(2001);Peoplev.Leangsiri,supraatpp.249250;p.231.
31premises under his immediate control. This is so because
18CARollo,p.53.
[o]bjectsintheplainviewofanofficerwhohastherighttobein
thepositiontohavethatviewaresubjecttoseizureandmaybe 32ThepertinentprovisionsofRepublicActNo.9165provide
presentedasevidence.16Thedoctrineisusuallyappliedwherea asfollows:
policeofficer is not searching for evidence against the accused, Section21.CustodyandDispositionofConfiscated,Seized,
but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
object xxx. [It] serves to supplement the prior justification Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
whetherit be a warrant for anotherobject, hotpursuit,search Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
Equipment.ThePDEAshalltakechargeandhavecustodyofall
being present unconnected with a search directed against the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
accusedandpermitsthewarrantlessseizure.17
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
Calantiaos situation because the police officers purposely
confiscated,seizedand/orsurrendered, forproperdispositionin
searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not
thefollowingmanner:
inadvertentlycomeacrosstheblackbag,whichwasinCalantiaos
(1)The apprehending team having initial custody and
possession; they deliberately opened it, as part of the search
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
incidenttoCalantiaoslawfularrest.
confiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthe

presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
Inventory and Chain of
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
CustodyofEvidence
counsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentof
Calantiao claims that even if the search and seizure were Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
validly effected, themarijuanais still inadmissible as evidence requiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopy
against him for failure of the apprehending officers to comply thereof[.]
withtherulesonchainofcustody,astheitemwasmarkedatthe ItsImplementingRulesandRegulationsstate:
policestation.18 SECTION21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
_______________
Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory evidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditems,asthesewouldbeutilizedin
Equipment.ThePDEAshalltakechargeandhavecustodyofall thedeterminationoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused. 19
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled Section21anditsIRRdonotevenmentionmarking.What
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as they require are (1) physical inventory, and (2) taking of
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so photographs.AsthisCourtheldinPeoplev.Ocfemia:20
confiscated,seizedand/orsurrendered, forproperdispositionin _______________
thefollowingmanner:33 19Peoplev.Ocfemia,G.R.No. 185383,September25,2013,
(a)Theapprehendingofficer/teamhavinginitialcustodyand 706SCRA312.
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and 20Id.
confiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthe 34
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items WhatSection21ofR.A.No.9165anditsimplementingruledo
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or not expressly specify is the matter of marking of the seized
counsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentof itemsinwarrantlessseizurestoensurethattheevidenceseized
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be upon apprehensionisthesame evidence subjected toinventory
requiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopy and photography when these activities are undertaken at the
thereof;Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph policestationratherthanattheplaceofarrest.Consistencywith
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the
served;oratthenearestpolicestationoratthenearestofficeof seizeditemstotrulyensurethattheyarethesameitemsthat
theapprehendingofficer/team,whicheverispracticable,incaseof enterthechainandareeventuallytheonesofferedinevidence
warrantlessseizures;Provided,further,thatnoncompliance shouldbedone(1)inthepresenceoftheapprehendedviolator(2)
withtheserequirementsunderjustifiablegrounds,aslong immediatelyuponconfiscation.
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized Theprosecutionwasabletoestablishthechainofcustodyof
items are properly preserved by the apprehending theseizedmarijuanafromthetimethepoliceofficersconfiscated
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such it,tothetimeitwasturnedovertotheinvestigatingofficer,upto
seizures of and custody over said items[.](Emphasis the time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory
supplied) examination.21ThisCourthasnoreasontooverruletheRTCand
This Court has held that the failure to strictly comply theCourtofAppeals,whichbothfoundthechainofcustodyofthe
with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, such as seized drugs to have not been broken so as to render
immediatelymarkingseizeddrugs,willnotautomaticallyimpair themarijuanaseizedfromCalantiaoinadmissibleinevidence.
the integrity of chain of custody because what is of utmost Furthermore,unlessitcanbeshownthattherewasbadfaith,
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the illwill,ortamperingoftheevidence,thepresumptionthatthe
integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain. The
burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption SOORDERED.
thatthepoliceofficershandledtheseizeddrugswithregularity, Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and
and that they properly dischargedtheirduties isonCalantiao. Reyes,JJ.,concur.
Unfortunately,Calantiaofailedtodischargesuchburden.22
Judgmentaffirmed.
Itisworthytonotethattheseargumentswereonlyraisedby
_______________
Calantiaoonhisappeal.Hehimselfadmitsthis.23His
_______________ 24Peoplev.Lazaro,Jr.,G.R.No.186418,October16,2009,
604SCRA250,269.
21Rollo,p.14.
25Peoplev.Valencia,439Phil.561,568;390SCRA696,702
22Peoplev. Amansec,G.R. No. 186131, December14, 2011,
(2002).
662SCRA574,594595.
36
23Rollo,p.40 Notes.As an incident to the lawful arrest of the accused
35theory,fromtheverybeginning,wasthathedidnotdoit,and aftertheconsummationofthebuybustoperation,thearresting
thathewasbeingframedforhavingoffendedthepoliceofficers. officers had the authority to search the person of the accused.
Simply put, hisdefense tactic was one of denial and frameup.
(Peoplevs.Mantalaba,654SCRA188[2011])
However,thosedefenseshavealwaysbeenfrowneduponbythe
The plain view doctrine applies when the following
Court,towit:
requisitesconcur:(a)thelawenforcementofficerinsearchofthe
The defenses of denial and frameup have been invariably
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
viewedbythisCourtwithdisfavorforitcaneasilybeconcocted
position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
andisacommonandstandarddefenseployinprosecutionsfor
discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the
immediatelyapparenttotheofficerthattheitemheobservesmay
defensesofdenialandframeupmustbeprovedwithstrongand
beevidenceofacrime,contrabandorotherwisesubjecttoseizure.
convincing evidence. In the cases before us, appellant failed to
presentsufficientevidenceinsupportofhisclaims.Asidefrom (Miclat,Jr.vs.People,656SCRA539[2011])
his selfserving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to
bolsterhisallegations.24 o0o
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
evidence that the apprehending officers were stirred by illicit reserved.
motiveorfailedtoproperlyperformtheirduties,theirtestimonies
deservefullfaithandcredit.25 G.R.No.199689.March12,2014.*
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff
herebyAFFIRMStheJanuary17,2012DecisionoftheCourtof appellee,vs.HERMANOS CONSTANTINO,
AppealsinC.A.G.R.CRH.C.No.04069. JR.yBINAYUG,a.k.a.JOJIT,accusedappellant.
 Criminal Law; Denials; Denial is an inherently weak _______________
defense,consistentlyviewedwithdisfavorbythecourts,beinga *FIRSTDIVISION.
selfserving negative evidence.Admittedly, denial is an 178stage,fromthetimeofseizure/confiscationtoreceiptin
inherentlyweakdefense,consistentlyviewedwithdisfavorbythe theforensiclaboratorytosafekeepingtopresentationincourtfor
courts,beingaselfservingnegativeevidence.Inview,however, destruction.Section1(b)ofDangerousDrugsBoardRegulation
of the constitutional presumption that an accused is innocent No.1,seriesof2002,defineschainofcustodyasfollows:Chain
untilthecontraryisprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt,theburden ofCustodymeansthedulyrecordedauthorizedmovementsand
lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption by custodyofseizeddrugsorcontrolledchemicalsorplantsourcesof
presenting the required quantum of evidence. In so doing, the dangerousdrugsorlaboratoryequipmentofeachstage,fromthe
prosecutionmustrestonitsownmeritsandmustnotrelyonthe timeofseizure/confiscationtoreceiptintheforensiclaboratoryto
weaknessofthedefense. safekeepingtopresentationincourtfordestruction.Suchrecord
Same; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Shabu; In of movements and custody of seized item shall include the
prosecutionsforillegalsaleofshabu,whatismaterialistheproof identityandsignatureofthepersonwhoheldtemporarycustody
of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
thatthetransactionorsaleactuallytookplace,coupledwiththe
custodyweremadeinthecourseofsafekeepinganduseincourt
presentation in court of thecorpus delictias evidence.In a asevidence,andthefinaldisposition.
prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following
Same;Same;Same;Same;LinksThatMustbeEstablished
elementsmustbeproven:(1)theidentityofthebuyerandthe
seller,theobject,andtheconsideration;and(2)thedeliveryofthe intheChainofCustodyinaBuyBustSituation.Thefollowing
thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, [in] linksmustbeestablishedinthechainofcustodyinabuybust
prosecutionsforillegalsaleofshabu,whatismaterialistheproof situation:first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
thatthetransactionorsaleactuallytookplace,coupledwiththe illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
presentationincourtofthecorpusdelictiasevidence.Andinthe officer;second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the
prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to apprehending officer totheinvestigatingofficer;third, the turn
ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and overbytheinvestigatingofficeroftheillegaldrugtotheforensic
other related articles have been preserved from the time they chemistforlaboratoryexamination;andfourth,theturnoverand
were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as submissionofthemarkedillegaldrugsseizedfromtheforensic
evidenceincourt. chemisttothecourt.
Same;Same;Evidence;ChainofCustodyRule;Wordsand Same;Same;Same;Same;Marking;Crucialinprovingthe
Phrases; Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized chainofcustodyisthemarkingoftheseizeddangerousdrugsor
movementsandcustodyofseizeddrugsorcontrolledchemicalsor other related items immediately after they are seized from the
plantsourcesofdangerousdrugsorlaboratoryequipmentofeach accused,forthemarkinguponseizureisthestartingpointinthe
custodiallinkthatsucceedinghandlersoftheevidencewilluseas TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
reference point.The Court already emphasized inPeople v. PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
Zakaria,686 SCRA 390 (2012), the importance of marking the
seized item right after seizure: Crucial in proving the chain of LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:
custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs or other ThisappealchallengestheDecision[1]datedJuly29,2011of
relateditemsimmediatelyaftertheyareseizedfromtheaccused, theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRH.C.No.03353,affirmingthe
forthemarkinguponseizureisthestartingpointinthecustodial Decision[2]dated April 15, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court
linkthatsucceedinghandlersoftheevidencewilluseasreference (RTC),Branch5ofTuguegaraoCity,Cagayan,inCriminalCase
point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to No. 10516, which found accusedappellant Hermanos
separatethemarkedevidencefromthecorpusofallothersimilar Constantino, Jr.yBinayug,a.k.a.Jojit (Constantino), guilty of
or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused thecrimeofillegalsaleofmethamphetaminehydrochloride,more
until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating popularlyknownasshabu,underArticle
switching,plantingorcontaminationofevi ______________
179dence.Afailuretomarkatthetimeoftakingofinitial [1]Rollo,pp. 216; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R.
custodyimperilstheintegrityofthechainofcustodythatthelaw Rosario with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and
requires. DantonQ.Bueser,concurring.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thefailureoftheprosecutionto [2]Records,pp.143147;pennedbyPresidingJudgeJezarene
establishtheevidenceschainofcustodyisfataltoitscaseasthe C.Aquino.
Court can no longer consider or even safely assume that the 180II,Section5ofRepublicActNo.9165,otherwiseknownas
integrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheconfiscateddangerousdrug theComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002.
TheInformation[3]filedbeforetheRTCchargedConstantino,
were properly preserved.The failure of the prosecution to
asfollows:
establishtheevidenceschainofcustodyisfataltoitscaseasthe
ThatonJanuary20,2005,intheCityofTuguegarao,Province
Court can no longer consider or even safely assume that the
ofCagayanandwithinthejurisdictionoftheHonorableCourt,
integrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheconfiscateddangerousdrug
theabovenamedaccused,withoutauthorityoflawandwithout
wereproperlypreserved.Inlightoftheforegoing,Constantinois
permittosell,transport,deliveranddistributedangerousdrugs,
acquitted of the crime charged, not because the Court accords
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
credencetohisdefenseofframeup,butbecausetheprosecution
transport,distributeanddelivertwo(2)heatsealedtransparent
failed to discharge its burden of proving his guilt beyond
plastic sachets containing 0.14 gram of Methamphetamine
reasonabledoubt.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals. Hydrochloridecommonlyknownasshabu,adangerousdrugto
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. amemberofthePNP,TuguegaraoCitywhoactedasaposeur
buyer;thatafterreceivingthetwo(2)plasticsachets,theposeur
buyersimultaneouslyhandedtotheaccusedthemarkedmoney Around 8:00 in the evening of the same day, the team
consisting of one (1) piece of FIVE HUNDRED PESO BILL proceededtoReynovillaSt.,CaritanCentro,TuguegaraoCity,the
(P500.00)withSerialNo.QP278070andfive(5)piecesofONE place where, according to the CI, Jojit was sellingshabu. PO3
HUNDREDPESOBILLwithSerialNos.SM989053,PS724429, Domingopositionedhimselfbesideastreetlightwhiletherestof
XM484584, BB048002, and EK6900025 or a total of P1,000.00 theteamhidbehind anearby concretefence. After waitingfor
and this led to the apprehension of the accused and the about45minutes,Constantinoarrivedonboardatricycle.PO3
confiscation of the dangerous drug together with the buybust DomingorecognizedConstantinoastheJojitdescribedbytheCI.
moneybythesaidapprehendinglawenforcersoftheTuguegarao PO3DomingoapproachedConstantinoandaskedhimifhewas
CityPoliceStationwhoformedthebuybustteamincoordination Jojit.WhenConstantinorepliedintheaffirmative,PO3Domingo
withthePDEA. next asked, Mayroon ka bangstuff? (Do you have stuff?) In
When arraigned on July 8, 2005, Constantino pleaded not response, Constantino inquired of PO3 Domingo how much he
guiltytothecrimecharged.[4]Thereafter,pretrialandtrialon wantedto buy.PO3 Domingosaidhe wanted tobuy P1,000.00
themeritsensued.
worthofshabu,simultaneouslyhandingoverthebuybustmoney
Evidencefortheprosecutionpresentedthefollowingversionof
toConstantino,who,inturn,handedtwoplasticsachetstoPO3
events:
Domingo. Thereupon, PO3 Domingo turned his cap backwards,
_______________
theprearrangedsignalfortheconsummatedsale.Uponseeing
[3]Id.,atp.1. thesignal,theothermembersofthebuybustteamapproached
[4]Id.,atp.36. the scene at once and arrested Constantino, from whom SPO2
181 Taguiamrecoveredthebuybustmoney.[6]
OnJanuary20,2005,ataround2:00intheafternoon,Police _______________
Superintendent (P/Supt.) Mariano Rodriguez (Rodriquez), the [5]TSN,July25,2006,pp.89.
Chief of Police of Tuguegarao City, received a report from a [6]Id.,atpp.1116.
confidentialinformant(CI)thatacertainJojitwassellingillegal 182Thereafter,Constantinowasbroughttothepolicestation
drugsinthesaidcity.P/Supt.Rodriguezimmediatelyformeda wheretherecovereddrugsandmoney were turnedovertothe
buybust group composed of Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Noel investigator, SPO2 Tamang.[7]The recovered drugs were then
Taguiam(Taguiam), SPO2AlexanderTamang(Tamang), SPO1 marked with the initials A1 and A2. The incident was
Arthur Blaquera (Blaquera), Police Officer (PO)3 Edwin recordedinthepoliceblotterwithaninventoryoftherecovered
Hernandez(Hernandez),andPO3RolandoDomingo(Domingo). drugsandmoney.[8]
PO3Domingowasdesignatedastheposeurbuyer.Thebuybust Laterthatevening,ataroundtenoclock,P/Supt.Rodriguez
money,consistingofoneP500.00billandfiveP100.00bills,were andSPO2 Tamangsubmittedto the PhilippineNational Police
dusted with fluorescent powder and their respective serial (PNP) Crime Laboratory Services, Camp Marcelo Adduru,
numberswererecordedinthepoliceblotter.[5] Tuguegarao City, a request for laboratory examination of two
plasticsachetswithwhitecrystallinesubstancemarkedasA1 bringouttheshabu.Constantinoansweredthathedidnotknow
and A2 to determine the presence of dangerous drugs;[9]as what the men were talking about. The men then forced
wellasbothhandsofConstantino,onepieceP500.00bill,andfive Constantinointooneofthevehicles.Insidethevehicle,oneofthe
piecesP100.00bills,todeterminethepresenceoftheultraviolet menfriskedandsearchedConstantino,andtoldhimthathewas
powder.[10]Per Chemistry Report No. D082005[11]and being arrested for sellingshabu. The men, who were now
Physical Identification Report No. PI042005,[12]prepared by apparentlypoliceofficers,broughtConstantinototheTuguegarao
Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Mayra Matote Madria, CityPoliceStation.Atthepolicestation,thepoliceofficerstook
[13]Forensic Chemist, the contents of the two plastic sachets Constantinoscellphoneandwallet.Alsoatthepolicestation,one
tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; while the ofthearrestingpoliceofficersbroughtouttwopiecesofplastic
otherspecimenstestedpositiveforthepresenceofbrightyellow sachetsandmoneyandturneditovertooneofhiscompanions.
ultravioletfluorescentpowder. At around 9:30 in the evening, the police officers brought
Constantinodeniedtheaccusationagainsthimandasserted ConstantinotothePNPCrimeLaboratory,butnothinghappened
thathewasmerelyframedup. becauseheheardthatthepersonwhowassupposedtoconduct
According to Constantino, at around 8:00 in the evening on the examination was not around, so, Constantino was brought
January20,2005,hewasenjoyingajoyridewithhisfriend,Jeff backtothepolicestation.[14]
Abarriao,onthelattersmotorcycle,withinthevicinityofCaritan
Thefollowingday,January21,2005,thepoliceofficersagain
Centro.After30minutes,Constantinodecidedtogo
brought Constantino to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Along the
_______________
way,oneofthepoliceescortsforcedConstantinotoholdacertain
[7]Id.,atp.17.
amount of money. Constantino tried to resist but he could not
[8]Id.,atpp.2122. really do anything because he was handcuffed. After his
[9]Records,p.54;ExhibitF. examination,Constantinowasdetainedandwastoldthathewas
[10]Id.,atp.55;ExhibitF1. suspectedofsellingshabu.
[11]Id.,atp.56;ExhibitD. TheRTCpromulgateditsDecisiononApril15,2008,finding
[12]Id.,atp.53;ExhibitC. Constantino guilty as charged. The trial court rejected the
[13]BythetimeP/SInsp.MadriatestifiedbeforetheRTCon argumentsofthedefense,thus:
October 7, 2005, she already got married and was using her 1.The Prosecution failed to give a detailed account of the
marriednameMayraMatoteMadriaTulauan. arrangementwiththeaccusedforthepurchaseoftheshabu.
183home. While walking along Reyno or Reynovilla St., two _______________
vehiclessuddenlystopped,oneinfrontandtheotherbehindhim. [14]TSN,September3,2007,pp.511.
Fivemen,allincivilianclothes,alightedfromthetwovehicles. 184
TwoofthemenheldConstantinoshands,whileanotherpokeda The Courts response: The testimony of PO3 Domingo was
gunathim,askinghimwherehecamefromandorderinghimto detailedenough,corroboratedbyotherwitnesses.Itisthedefense
thathasfailedtoshow inwhat crucialdetailtheprosecutions b.ExhibitF:DatedJanuary20,2005,arequestto
accountiswanting. thePNPCrimeLabServices
2.The police officers categorically admitted that they did not 185for the examination of two plastic sachet (sic)
personallyknowtheaccuseduntiltheywereattheallegedplace with white crystalline substance marked A1 and
oftransaction. A2;
TheCourtsresponse:Substantivelawdoesnotrequirethis;the
rulesofevidencedonot.DidtheyknowhewasJojit?Yes,from c.ExhibitD:ChemistryReportNo.D
thedescriptiongiventheinformant.Domingoaskedwhetherhe 082005 completed 21 January 2005
wasJojit.HeansweredYes. reporting a qualitative examination of
3.Thearrestingofficersfailedtocomplywiththerequirements thecontentsoftwoheatsealedsachets
of Article II, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 that requires that an marked as A1 NBT and A2 NBT and
inventorybetakenandthatphotographsbetakenoftheitems identifying the substance as
seized. MethamphetamineHydrochloride.
The Courts comment: The Police Blotter Entry No. 0270 5.TherewasnopriorcoordinationwithPDEA.
enumerates the items seized. This, the Court holds to be The Courts response: None was needed. Exhibit H clearly
substantialcompliance.Evenassuming,withoutadmitting,that evidences that SPO1 Blaquera was authorized to conduct anti
notalltherequirementsmaynothavebeencompliedwith,these drug operations. Domingo also answered the question about
omissions do not operate to exclude the evidence nor to cause coordinationwithPDEAwhenhetestified:Duringthattime3
suppression thereof. They are directory, not mandatory representativesoftheIntelligenceOperativesweredeputizedin
provisions. thePDEAinthepersonsofNoelTaguiam,ArthurBlaqueraand
4.Thechainofcustodywasnotestablishedwithcertainty. theChiefofPolice.

TheCourtscomment:Thechainisnotdifficulttotrace,and Hermanos testified in his behalf and his testimony can be

hasbeenestablishedbyevidence,thus: reducedtothefollowingstory:

a.Exhibit B: The police blotter 1.Hewentonajoyridethatnightwith

recording that on 20 January 2005 at hisfriendaboardamotorcycle;
2100hours,mentioningthetwosachets 2.Tiring, he alighted and started to walk along
ReynoVillaStreet;
ofshabuwhichaccordingtotheblotter
3.He was accosted by police officers who, at the
theaccusedadmittedhehandedoverto
time,hedidnotknowtobepoliceofficers;
Domingo; Domingo had testified that
4.Theytookhimtothepolicestationandproduced
the markings A1 NBT and A2 NBT
thesachets;
were placed on the sachets by
InvestigatorAlexanderTamang;
 5.Next day, while on the way to the Crime Lab,
theyforcedhimtoholdmarkedbills,althoughhe In its Decision dated July 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals
wascuffed. affirmedin totothe judgment of conviction of the RTC against
Alltold,itisastorythatismeanttoendeavortoexplainthe Constantino.TheappellatecourtheldthatConstantinosdefense
circumstancesaroundtheaccusedsarrestandapprehension.For offrameupwasnotworthyofcredenceashisversion
onething,itisselfserving;for _______________
186another,wearenottoldanyreasonwhythepoliceofficers [15]Records,pp.145147.
shouldhavewantedtoapprehendhimasupposedlyguiltless [16]Id.,atp.147.
man; third, the Court never heard the testimony of his friend 187oftheincidentwasnotatallcorroborated.Constantinowas
withwhomhewassupposedtohavehadajoyridethatnight.In caughtin flagrante delictosellingshabuto PO3 Domingo, who
sum, his story does not convince this Court.[15](Citations acted as the poseurbuyer,therefore, he was legally arrested
omitted.) withoutawarrant.Theappellatecourtalsofoundthatthechain
of custody of theshabuhad been preserved from the time said
TheRTCimposedthefollowingsentenceuponConstantino: drugs were confiscated from Constantino to the time the same
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond drugs were delivered to the crime laboratory and thereafter
reasonabledoubtofViolationofSec.5,Art.IIofR.A.9165and retrievedandpresentedasevidencebeforethetrialcourt.Lastly,
sentences him to suffer the penalty ofLIFE the appellate court stressed that between the positive and
IMPRISONMENTandafineofP500,000.00.[16] categorical declarations of the prosecution witnesses, on one
Maintaininghisinnocence,ConstantinoappealedtotheCourt hand,andtheunsubstantialdenialornegativestatementsofthe
ofAppeals,arguingthat: appellant,ontheotherhand,theformergenerallyprevails;and
thatnegativeaverments,unsubstantiatedbyclearandconvincing
1.The trial court gravely erred in giving full credence to the evidence,deservenoweightinlaw,especiallyvisvisthetime
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the patent testedpresumptionofregularityofperformanceofofficialdutyon
irregularitiesintheconductofthebuybustoperation. thepartoftheapprehendingofficers.
2.Thetrialcourtgravelyerredinconvictingaccusedappellant Intheend,theCourtofAppealsdecreed:
despitetheprosecutionsfailuretoestablishthatchainofcustody WHEREFORE,the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
of the drug specimens allegedly confiscated from the accused Tuguegarao City, Branch 5, dated 15 April 2008, in Criminal
appellant. CaseNo.10516,isAFFIRMED.[17]
3.The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused Consequently, Constantino comes before this Court seeking
appellant despite the prosecutions failure to establish the thereversalofhisconvictionbythetrialcourtandtheCourtof
identityoftheprohibiteddrugsconstitutingthecorpusdelictiof Appeals.
theoffense.
 In his Supplemental Brief, Constantino contests his ArticleII,Section21(1)ofRepublicActNo.9165laysdown
conviction, averring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of
prosecutionwitnesses,particularly,onthecircumstancesofthe dangerousdrugs:
marking of the two plastic sachets containingshabuallegedly _______________
confiscated from him. Different people claim to have made the [18]People v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, October 20, 2010,
marking NBT on the two plastic sachets and gave various 634SCRA441,447.
explanationsastowhattheinitialsNBTstandfor.Inshort, [19]Peoplev.DelRosario,G.R.No.188107,December5,2012,
_______________ 687SCRA318,326327.
[17]Rollo,p.15. [20]Peoplev.Secreto,G.R.No.198115,February27,2013,692
188Constantinoarguesthattheprosecutionfailedtoestablisha SCRA298,307.
cruciallinkinthechainofcustodyoftheshabuinthiscase. 189
Theappealisimpressedwithmerit.
Admittedly,denialisaninherentlyweakdefense,consistently Section21.CustodyandDispositionofConfiscated,Seized,
viewedwithdisfavorbythecourts,beingaselfservingnegative and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
evidence.Inview,however,oftheconstitutionalpresumptionthat Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
an accused is innocent until the contrary is proven beyond
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
reasonabledoubt,theburdenliesontheprosecutiontoovercome
such presumption by presenting the required quantum of Equipment.ThePDEAshalltakechargeandhavecustodyofall
evidence.Insodoing,theprosecutionmustrestonitsownmerits dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
andmustnotrelyontheweaknessofthedefense.[18] precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
Inaprosecutionforthesaleofadangerousdrug,thefollowing instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
elementsmustbeproven:(1)theidentityofthebuyerandthe confiscated,seizedand/orsurrendered, forproperdispositionin
seller,theobject,andtheconsideration;and(2)thedeliveryofthe thefollowingmanner:
thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, [in] (1)The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
prosecutionsforillegalsaleofshabu,whatismaterialistheproof
confiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthe
thatthetransactionorsaleactuallytookplace,coupledwiththe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
presentationincourtofthecorpusdelictiasevidence.[19]Andin
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
theprosecutionoftheseoffenses,theprimaryconsiderationisto
counsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentof
ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
other related articles have been preserved from the time they
requiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopy
were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as
thereof[.]
evidenceincourt.[20]
 Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Whilepoliceofficersareenjoinedtostrictlycomplywiththe
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 describes in more procedure prescribed by law, the IRR also explicitly excuses
detailhowtheforegoingprocedureistobeapplied: noncomplianceunderjustifiablegrounds,butonlyiftheintegrity
SECTION21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly
Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of preserved by the apprehending officers. The integrity and
evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
longasthechainofcustodyofthesamearedulyestablished.
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1,
Equipment.ThePDEAshalltakechargeandhavecustodyofall seriesof2002,[21]defineschainofcustodyasfollows:
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as movementsandcustodyofseizeddrugsorcontrolledchemicalsor
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so plantsourcesofdangerousdrugsorlaboratoryequipmentofeach
confiscated,seizedand/orsurrendered, forproperdispositionin stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
thefollowingmanner: forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
(a)Theapprehendingofficer/teamhavinginitialcustodyand destruction.Suchrecordofmovementsandcustodyofseizeditem
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and shallin
confiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthe _______________
presenceoftheaccusedortheper [21]Guidelines of the Custody and Disposition of Seized
190son/sfromwhomsuchitemswereconfiscatedand/orseized, DangerousDrugs,ControlledPrecursorsandEssentialChemicals
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the andLaboratoryEquipment.
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected 191clude the identity and signature of the person who held
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
inventoryandbegivenacopythereof;Provided,thatthephysical suchtransferofcustodyweremadeinthecourseofsafekeeping
inventoryandphotographshallbeconductedattheplacewhere anduseincourtasevidence,andthefinaldisposition.
thesearchwarrantisserved;oratthenearestpolicestationorat
thenearestofficeoftheapprehendingofficer/team,whicheveris InMalillinv.People,[22]theCourtdiscussedhowthechainof
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;Provided, custodyofseizeditemsisestablished:
further,that noncompliance with these requirements under Asamethodofauthenticatingevidence,thechainofcustody
justifiablegrounds,aslongastheintegrityandtheevidentiary rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
apprehendingofficer/team,shallnotrendervoidandinvalidsuch questioniswhattheproponentclaimsittobe.Itwouldinclude
seizuresofandcustodyoversaiditems[.] testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
itemwaspickeduptothetimeitisofferedintoevidence,insuch
awaythateverypersonwhotouchedtheexhibitwoulddescribe To recall, the first crucial link in the chain of custody is
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what seizure and marking of the illegal drug. In this case, PO3
happenedtoitwhileinthewitnesspossession,theconditionin Domingo, as poseurbuyer, received two plastic sachets
whichitwasreceivedandtheconditioninwhichitwasdelivered ofshabufromConstantinoinexchangeforP1,000.However,PO3
tothenextlinkinthechain.Thesewitnesseswouldthendescribe Domingo himself did not put any markings on the two plastic
theprecautionstakentoensurethattherehadbeennochangein sachetsofshabu.Instead,uponarrivalofthebuybustteamwith
theconditionoftheitemandnoopportunityforsomeonenotin Constantinoatthepolicestation,PO3Domingoturnedoverthe
thechaintohavepossessionofthesame.(Citationsomitted.)
two plastic sachets ofshabuto theinvestigator, SPO2 Tamang,
Thus,thefollowinglinksmustbeestablishedinthechainof who was also a member of the buybust team. PO3 Domingo
testifiedthatitwasSPO2TamangwhoputthemarkingNBT
custodyinabuybustsituation:first,theseizureandmarking,if
practicable,oftheillegaldrugrecoveredfromtheaccusedbythe on thesaidsachetsofshabu.Beloware theexcerptsfromPO3
Domingostestimony:
apprehending officer;second, the turn over of the illegal drug
QIf that plastic sachets which was sold to you by
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
HermanosConstantinoisshowntoyouwillyoubeable
officer;third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the
toidentifythesame?
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; AYes,maam.
andfourth,theturnoverandsubmissionofthe QHowwereyouabletoidentifytheplasticsachets?
_______________ AThereisaninitials(sic),maam.
[22]576Phil.576,587;553SCRA619,632633(2008). QWhatinitialsareyoureferringto?
192markedillegaldrugsseizedfromtheforensicchemisttothe AA1initialNBTandA2initialNBT.
court.[23] _______________
Afteracarefulscrutinyofthetestimoniesoftheprosecution
[23]People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 197550, September 25,
witnesses, the Court finds glaring inconsistencies affecting the
2013,706SCRA337.
integrityoftheshabupurportedlyconfiscatedfromConstantino.
193
TheinconsistenttestimoniesofPO3 Domingo, PO3 Hernandez, QWhoplacedthoseinitialsintheplasticsachets?
andP/SInsp.Tulauanastowho,when,andwherethetwoplastic ATheInvestigator,maam.
sachetsofshabuweremarkedleadtheCourttoquestionwhether QAndwhoistheinvestigator?
thetwoplasticsachetsofshabuidentifiedincourtwerethevery AAlexanderTamang,maam.
sameonesconfiscatedfromConstantino.Thedoubtfulmarkings QWheredidheplacethoseinitials?
alreadybrokethechainofcustodyoftheseizedshabuatavery AIn the police station after the apprehension,maam.
earlystage. [24](Emphasissupplied.)
 However, PO3 Hernandez, another member of the buybust xxxx
team,categoricallypointedtoSPO2Taguiam,alsoamemberof
AItwasNoelB.Taguiam,sir.
thebuybustteam,astheonewhoputthemarkingNBTonthe
The witness is pointing to the marking NBT partly
plasticsachetsupontheteamsreturntothepolicestation,thus:
hidden.
PROS.NICOLAS:
QDuring the buy bust operation you stated that the COURT:
accused handed to theposeur buyer inthe person of QWhoisNoelB.Taguiam?
PO3 Rolando Domingo two plastic sachets containing AAmemberofthebuybustteamalso,sir.
asyouclaimedmethamphetaminehydrochloride,have PROS.NICOLAS:
youseentheseplasticsachetsatthattimewhenthey
handedtoPO3RolandoDomingo? QYou stated this NBT was placed by one Noel B.
AYes,sir. Taguiam,whydoyouknowthathewastheonewho
QIfthesetwoplasticsachetswillbeshowntoyouagain placedthis?
today will you be able to tell that these two plastic ABecauseIwaspresentduringthattimewhenheplaced
sachets were the same plastic sachets that were hisinitial,sir.
handedbytheaccusedtoPO3RolandoDomingo? QDoyouknowwhenthisNoelB.Taguiamplacedthose
AYes,sir. initialsonthosetwoplasticsachets?
QIamshowingtoyouthesetwoplasticsachetskindly AAfterweconductedthebuybustoperation,sir.
tellusifthesearetheplasticsachetsthatwerehanded QHowsoonNoelB.Taguiamplacedthoseinitialsafter
toPO3RolandoDomingo? theconductofthebuybustoperation?
AThesearetheones,sir. AAfterafewhours,sir.
QWhydoyousaythatthesearethetwoplasticsachets QWheredidheplacethoseinitials?
handedbytheaccused? AInouroffice,sir.[25](Emphasissupplied.)
_______________ To complicate things even further, P/SInsp Tulauan,[26]the
[24]TSN,July25,2006,pp.2021. ForensicChemist,alsodeclaredbeforethetrialcourtthatthe
194 _______________
ABecauseIwasthereandIsawtheaccusedhandedthe [25]TSN,April2,2007,pp.1314.
twoplasticsachetstoPO3RolandoDomingo,sir. [26]Seenote13.
QWhydoyouknowthatthesearethesameplasticsachets? 195marking NBT on the two plastic sachets ofshabuwere
AThesearetheones,sir. made by SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray (Tamaray), the duty officer
QMr. Witness, there are markings on these two plastic who received the specimens at the crime laboratory. P/SInsp.
sachets,doyouknowwhosemarkingsarethese? Tulauantestified:
 [27]TSN,October7,2005,pp.2021.
PROS.ISRAEL: 196
QWhenyoureceivedthesetwospecimensMadamWitness, On crossexamination, P/SInsp. Tulauan confirmed her
willyoupleasetellusthephysicalappearanceofthese previousdeclarationthatSPO3Tamarayhadclaimedmakingthe
itemswhenyoureceivedthesame? markingonthesachetsofshabu:
ATheywereheatsealedandwithmarkingsA1andA
2,yourHonor. Atty.Aquino
QAnd will you please point to us these markings Madam Witness, with respect to that marking made
A1andA2whenyoureceivedtheseitemsMadam whichareA1andA2,theyarenotyourmarkings,
Witness? isitnot?
AThisisthemarkingsA1andA2,Maam. AYes,sir.
INTERPRETER: QAndwithrespectalsotothatNBTmarkedandplaced
ThewitnessispointingtothemarkingsA1andA2 inthatexhibit whichyouhave earlieridentified,you
withtheuseofablackpentelpen. did not see this duty officer placed his markings
thereon,isitnot?
PROS.ISRAEL: AYessirbutIaskedhimwhoplacedthatmarkingandhe
QThereisanothermarkinginthisplasticsachetMadam saidthathewastheonewhoplacedtheinitialNBT,
Witness marked as NBT, what is this marking all sir.[28]
about?
AThat is the marking ofSPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray,
Maam. The Court already emphasized inPeople v. Zakaria[29]the
QIsheauthorizedtomakethenecessarymarkingwhich importanceofmarkingtheseizeditemrightafterseizure:
wasrequestedtobeexaminedMadamWitness? Crucialinprovingthechainofcustodyisthemarkingofthe
AYes, Maam because he is the one who received the seizeddangerousdrugsorotherrelateditemsimmediatelyafter
specimenfromtheonewhodeliverit,Maam. theyareseizedfromtheaccused,forthemarkinguponseizureis
thestartingpointinthecustodiallinkthatsucceedinghandlers
QInthissecondplasticsachetMadamWitnesswhichyou
oftheevidencewilluseasreferencepoint.Moreover,thevalueof
identifiedearlier,thatthereisamarkingA1,there
markingoftheevidenceistoseparatethemarkedevidencefrom
is another marking NBT, what is this marking all
aboutMadamWitness? thecorpusofallothersimilarorrelatedevidencefromthetimeof
A That is the marking ofSPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray, seizurefromtheaccuseduntildispositionattheendofcriminal
proceedings,obviatingswitching,plantingorcontaminationof
Maam.[27](Emphasessupplied.)
evidence.Afailuretomarkatthetimeoftakingofinitialcustody
_______________
imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law WHEREFORE,theappealisGRANTED.TheDecisiondated
requires.(Citationomitted.) July29,2011oftheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R.CRH.C.No.
_______________ 03353,affirmingtheDecisiondatedApril15,2008of
[28]Id.,atpp.2526. _______________
[29]G.R.No.181042,November26,2012,686SCRA390,403. Notes.While a perfect chain of custody is almost always
197 Herein,theprosecutioniscompletelysilentastowhy impossibletoachieve,anunbrokenchainbecomesindispensable
PO3 Domingo, the poseurbuyer, despite having immediate and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to
custody of the two plastic sachets ofshabupurchased from susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and
Constantino,failedtoimmediatelymarktheseizeddrugsbefore evensubstitution and exchangehence, every link must be
turning over the custody of the same to another police officer. accountedfor.(Peoplevs.Gatlabayan,653SCRA803[2011])
Thislapseinprocedureopenedthedoorforconfusionanddoubt Thepresumption ofregularity inthe performanceofofficial
astotheidentityofthedrugsactuallyseizedfromConstantino dutyobtainsonlywherenothingintherecordsissuggestiveof
duringthebuybustandtheonespresentedbeforethetrialcourt, the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the
especially considering that three different people, during the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law
interval,supposedlyreceivedandmarkedthesame.Toclarifythe otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its
matter, the prosecution could have presented as witness either face,anadversepresumptionarisesasamatterofcourse.(People
SPO2TamangorSPO2Taguiamtodirectlyvalidatethemarking vs.Lorena,639SCRA139[2011])
in court, but unfortunately, the prosecution chose to dispense o0o
with the testimonies of both officers. This omission diminished Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
the importance of the markings as the reference point for the reserved.
subsequent handling of the evidence. As a consequence, an
objective person could now justifiably suspect
theshabuultimatelypresentedasevidenceincourttobeplanted
orcontaminated.[30]
Thefailureoftheprosecutiontoestablishtheevidenceschain
ofcustodyisfataltoitscaseastheCourtcannolongerconsider
orevensafelyassumethattheintegrityandevidentiaryvalueof
theconfiscateddangerousdrugwereproperlypreserved.[31]
Inlightoftheforegoing,Constantinoisacquittedofthecrime
charged,notbecausetheCourtaccordscredencetohisdefenseof
frameup, but because the prosecution failed to discharge its G.R.No.212171.September7,2016.*
burdenofprovinghisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff appellantwasabletoevadethearrestimmediatelyafterthesale
appellee,vs.MERCURY DELA CRUZaliasDEDAY, accused andthatshewasarrestedonlyafter,byvirtueofawarrantof
appellant. arrest, did not change the fact that the crime she committed
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of earlierhadbeenconsummated.
_______________
DangerousDrugs; Thedeliveryoftheillicitdrugtotheposeur
buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money *THIRDDIVISION.
successfully consummate the buybust transaction.We have
consistentlyheldthatinordertosecureaconvictionforillegal
sale of dangerousdrugs, itis necessary that theprosecutionis 382
abletoestablishthefollowingessentialelements:(1)theidentity 382 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its Peoplevs.DelaCruz
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its
RemedialLaw;Evidence;PresumptionofRegularity;Inthe
payment. Whatis material is theproofthat the transactionor
saleactuallytookplace,coupledwiththepresentationincourtof absenceofanyintentorillmotiveonthepartofthepoliceofficers
thecorpusdelictiasevidence.Thedeliveryoftheillicitdrugto tofalsely impute commission of a crime against the accused
the poseurbuyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
moneysuccessfullyconsummatethebuybusttransaction.Here, officialdutyisentitledtogreatrespectanddeservestoprevailover
all the aforesaid elements necessary for accusedappellants the bare, uncorroborated denial and selfserving claim of the
prosecution have been sufficiently complied with, indubitably accusedofframeup.Weagreewiththelowercourtsthatinthe
establishing that she has indeed committed the crime. PO1 absenceofanyintentorillmotiveonthepartofthepoliceofficers
Reales testified in detail how he was introduced by the to falsely impute commission of a crime against the accused
confidential informant to accusedappellant. The confidential appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
informant,thereafter,manifestedtotheaccusedappellanttheir officialdutyisentitledtogreatrespectanddeservestoprevail
intention to buy worth P200.00. Upon giving the accused overthebare,uncorroborateddenialandselfservingclaimofthe
appellantthe2markedP100.00bills,she,inreturn,handedto accused of frameup. Also, we reject the appellants contention
PO1 Reales a small plastic containing white crystalline that the police officers failed to comply with the provisions of
substance. The plastic sachet later on tested positive for the Section21,paragraph1ofR.A.No.9165,whichprovidesforthe
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The testimony procedureinthecustodyanddispositionofseizeddrugs.
givenbyPO1RealeswascorroboratedbySPO1Batobalonosand
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody
PO1Bullidoinallmaterialdetails.Itisthereforeclearbeyond
any shadow of doubt that the buybust operation had been Rule;Tobeadmissibleinevidence,theprosecutionmustbeableto
substantiallycompletedandconsummated.Thefactthataccused present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the
dangerousdrugsfromthetimethesewereseizedfromtheaccused was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the
bythearrestingofficers;turnedovertotheinvestigatingofficer; presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their officers and the presumption that public officers properly
composition; andupto the timethese areoffered inevidence. discharged their duties.The integrity of the evidence is
Althoughideallytheprosecutionshouldofferaperfectchainof presumedtohavebeenpreservedunlessthereisashowingofbad
custodyinthehandlingofevidence,substantialcompliancewith faith,illwill,orproofthattheevidencehasbeentamperedwith.
the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item is Accusedappellantbearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidence
sufficient.This Court has consistently ruled that even if the was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the
arrestingofficersfailedtostrictlycomplywiththerequirements presumption ofregularity inthe handling of exhibits by public
underSection21ofR.A.No.9165,suchprocedurallapseisnot officers and the presumption that public officers properly
fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in dischargedtheir duties.Accusedappellant in thiscase failed to
evidence.Whatisofutmostimportanceisthepreservationofthe presentanyplausiblereasontoimputeillmotiveonthepartof
integrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditems,asthesame thearrestingofficers.Thus,thetestimoniesoftheapprehending
wouldbeutilizedinthedeterminationoftheguiltorinnocenceof officersdeservefullfaithandcredit.Infact,accusedappellantdid
the accused.In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the notevenquestionthecredibilityoftheprosecutionwitnesses.She
prosecutionmustbeabletopresentthroughrecordsortestimony, simplyanchoredherdefenseondenialandalibi.
thewhereaboutsofthedangerousdrugsfromthetimethesewere APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
seizedfromtheaccusedbythearrestingofficers;turnedoverto ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
determinationoftheircomposition;anduptothetimetheseare
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
offeredinevidence.Foraslongasthechainofcustodyremains

unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural
PEREZ,J.:
requirementsprovidedforinSec.21ofR.A.

We resolve the appeal, filed by accusedappellant Mercury
383 DelaCruzaliasDeday,fromthe27September2013Decision 1of
VOL.802,SEPTEMBER7,2016 383 theCourtofAppeals(CA)inC.A.G.R.CRH.C.No.01103.
_______________
Peoplevs.DelaCruz
No. 9165 were not faithfully observed, the guilt of the
1Rollo, pp. 421; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita
accusedwillnotbeaffected.
SalandananManahan, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity;
HernandoandMa.LuisaC.QuijanoPadilla,concurring.
Accusedappellantbearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidence
 WefindnoreasontoreversetheRTCsfindings,asaffirmed
bytheCA.Inthesamemannerasthelowercourts,wegivefull
384 credittothepositive,spontaneousandstraightfor
384 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Peoplevs.DelaCruz
In a Decision dated 27 November 2008, the Regional Trial
2 2Records, pp. 6774; docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU
Court(RTC),Branch58,CebuCity,foundtheaccusedappellant 80787.
3OtherwiseknownastheComprehensiveDangerousDrugs
guilty of illegal sale ofshabuunder Section 5, Article II of
Actof2002.
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 91653and sentenced him to suffer the
4Records,pp.7374.
penaltylifeimprisonmentandtopayafineofP500,000.00.

The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of Senior

PoliceOfficer(SPO)2AlejandroBatobalanos,PoliceOfficer(PO)
385
1 Angsgar Babyboy A. Reales, and PO1 Leopoldo Bullido who
VOL.802,SEPTEMBER7,2016 385
conductedthebuybustoperationagainsttheaccusedappellant,
Peoplevs.DelaCruz
and rejected the selfserving defenses of denial andalibiof
ward testimonies of the police officers pointing to accused
accusedappellant and her livein partner. The RTC noted that
the categorical affirmation of accusedappellant and her livein appellantasthesellerandpossessoroftheconfiscatedshabu.
partnerthatthearrestingofficersdidnotdemandanythingfrom Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatinordertosecureaconviction
theminexchangefortheaccusedappellantslibertycreatedthe for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the
presumption that the arresting officers were performing their prosecutionisabletoestablishthefollowingessentialelements:
officialfunctionsregularly.4 (1)theidentityofthebuyerandtheseller,theobjectofthesale
Onintermediateappellatereview,theCAaffirmedintotothe anditsconsideration;and(2)thedeliveryofthethingsoldandits
payment. Whatis material is theproofthat the transactionor
RTCsruling.TheCAagreedwiththeRTCingivingweighttothe
saleactuallytookplace,coupledwiththepresentationincourtof
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and held that the
arresting officers complied with the proper procedure in the thecorpusdelictiasevidence.Thedeliveryoftheillicitdrugto
custodyanddispositionoftheseizeddrugs. the poseurbuyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
moneysuccessfullyconsummatethebuybusttransaction. 5Here,
OurRuling all the aforesaid elements necessary for accusedappellants
prosecution have been sufficiently complied with, indubitably
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the accusedappellants establishing that she has indeed committed the crime. PO1
guilt. Reales testified in detail how he was introduced by the
confidential informant to accusedappellant. The confidential
informant,thereafter,manifestedtotheaccusedappellanttheir Also, we reject the appellants contention that the police
intention to buy worth P200.00. Upon giving the accused officers failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21,
appellantthe2markedP100.00bills,she,inreturn,handedto paragraph1ofR.A.No.9165, 7whichprovidesfortheprocedure
PO1 Reales a small plastic containing white crystalline inthecustodyanddispositionofseizeddrugs.
substance. The plastic sachet later on tested positive for the Afteracarefulperusaloftherecords,weagreewiththeCA
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The testimony that the prosecution had established the unbroken chain of
givenbyPO1RealeswascorroboratedbySPO1Batobalonosand custodyovertheseizeddrugs.Thiswasestablishedthroughthe
PO1Bullidoinallmaterialdetails.Itisthereforeclearbeyond testimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesses,towit:Ataround7:15
any shadow of doubt that the buybust operation had been oclock in the evening of November 10, 2006, PO3 Batobalonos,
substantiallycompletedandconsummated.Thefactthataccused
PO1 Reales, PO1 Bullido and their civilian asset proceeded to
appellantwasabletoevadethearrestimmediatelyafterthesale
Sitio Cogon, A. Lopez St., Barangay Labangon. When the team
andthatshewasarrestedonlyafter,byvirtueofawarrantof
arrest, did not change the fact that the crime she committed went inside the interior portion of Sitio Cogon, PO1 Reales
earlierhadbeenconsummated. together with the civilian asset approached the house of Dela
_______________ Cruz,whilePO3BatobalonosandPO1Bullidowerestrategically
hiddenmoreorlessten(10)metersaway.
5Peoplev.DelosSantos,645Phil.587,601;631SCRA350, _______________
363(2010),citingPeoplev.Guiara,616Phil.290,302;600SCRA
310,322323(2009),furthercitingPeoplev.Gonzales,430Phil. 6Peoplev.Dumlao,584Phil.732,740;562SCRA762,769
504,513;380SCRA689,697(2002). (2008).
7Section21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
386
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
386 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Peoplevs.DelaCruz
Equipment.xxx
We agree with the lower courts that in the absence of any
(1)Theapprehendingteamhavinginitialcustodyandcontrolof
intent or ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely
the drugs shall immediately after seizure and confiscation,
imputecommissionofacrimeagainsttheaccusedappellant,the
physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthepresenceof
presumptionofregularity intheperformance of official duty is
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
entitled to great respect anddeserves to prevail over the bare,
confiscatedand/orseized,orhis/herrepresentativeorcounsel,a
uncorroborated denial and selfserving claim of the accused of
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
frameup.6
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to Office7,CampSoteroCabahug,GorordoAvenue,CebuCityby
signthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopythereof[.] PO1Realesataround1:10oclockinthemorningofNovember11,

2006.

Thereafter Forensic Chemist PCI Salinas issued Chemistry
387
VOL.802,SEPTEMBER7,2016 387 ReportNo.D17712006,8withthefindingthatthespecimengave
Peoplevs.DelaCruz positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine
ThecivilianassetcalledDelaCruzandtoldherthattheywillbuy hydrochloride.9
_______________
shabuworthP200.00.Thereafter,DelaCruzhandedPO1Realesa
small plastic containing white crystalline substance and in
8Rollo,pp.89.(Emphasissupplied)
exchangehehandedtotheformertheP200.00bills.Upongetting 9Records, p. 9; as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D
holdofthemoney,PO3BatobalonosandPO1Bullido,whosaw 17712006.
theconsummationofthetransactionrushedto the scene. When
PO3BatobalonosgotholdofDelaCruz,thelattershoutedforhelp
andresistedarrest.DelaCruzwasabletorunandsotheteam 388
388 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
chased her, however, her neighbor Arthur Tabasa Ortega
Peoplevs.DelaCruz
(Ortega)blockedtheirway.Theteamintroducedthemselvesas
The confiscated dangerous drug which also constitutes
policemenbutOrtegadidnotlisten,soPO3Batobalonosfireda
thecorpus delictiof the crime was validly considered by the
warningshotasthepeoplelikewisestartedtogatheraroundthem.
courtsinarrivingatthedecisiondespitethefactthattheforensic
Meanwhile, DelaCruzwasable toevade arrest. Theteam then chemist who examined it did not testify in court. The relevant
arrestedOrtegaforobstructionofjustice. portionoftheRTCdecisionreads:
Ontheirwaytothepolicestationaboardtheirpatrolcar,PO1 ThepresentationofthetestimonyofForensicchemistPSI
RealeshandedtoPO3Batobalonosthesmallplasticcontaining MUTCHIT G. SALINASwas dispensed with, the defense
whitecrystallinesubstancewhichhepurchasedfromDelaCruz. havingADMITTED: the existence of the Letter Request dated
Thereafter, upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Batobalonos November10,2006fromthePNPStation10;theexistenceofone
(1) small plastic pack containing white crystalline substance
markedtheseizeditemwithDDM11/10/06.
whichisthesubjectforexamination,howeverDENIEDastothe
Afterwards, a Request for Laboratory Examination of the
ownershipofsaidevidence;theexistenceanddueexecutionofthe
seizeditemwaspreparedbyPO3Batobalonos.TheRequestand ChemistryReportNo.D17712006executedbywitnessMutchit
theseizeditemweredeliveredtotheRegionalCrimeLaboratory G.Salinas;thattheintendedwitnessisandexpertwitnesswho
examined the specimen found to contain the presence of (a)Theapprehendingofficer/teamhavinginitialcustodyand
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride locally known asshabu, a control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
dangerousdrug.10 confiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthe
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
Anent accusedappellants contention that the drugs were were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
markednotattheplacewhereshewasapprehendedbutatthe counsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentof
policestationandthattherewasnophysicalinventorymadeon Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
the seized item nor was it photographed, we find the same requiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopy
untenable. Thealleged non compliance with Section21 of R.A. thereof:Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
No. 9165 was not fatal to the prosecutions case because the shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
apprehending team properly preserved the integrity and served;oratthenearestpolicestationoratthenearestofficeof
evidentiaryvalueoftheseizeddrugs.11 theapprehendingofficer/team,whicheverispracticable,incaseof
Relevanttotheinstantcaseistheproceduretobefollowedin warrantlessseizures;Provided,further,thatnoncompliancewith
thecustodyandhandlingoftheseizeddangerousdrugsas these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
_______________ integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
10Id.,atp.67. render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
11InPeoplev. Sanchez(590 Phil. 214, 234; 569 SCRA194, items[.]
211212 [2008]), we held that noncompliance with the strict
directiveofSection21ofR.A.No.9165isnotnecessarilyfatalto The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the
theprosecutionscase;[buttheselapses]mustberecognizedand exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of
explainedintermsoftheirjustifiablegroundsandtheintegrity Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution
andevidentiary valueof theevidenceseized must beshownto shouldofferaperfectchainofcustodyinthehandlingofevidence,
havebeenpreserved. substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the
handling of the seized item is sufficient. 12This Court has
consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to
389 strictlycomply withthe requirementsunderSection 21ofR.A.
VOL.802,SEPTEMBER7,2016 389 No.9165,suchprocedurallapseisnotfatalandwillnotrender
Peoplevs.DelaCruz theitemsseizedinadmissibleinevidence.13Whatisof
outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules _______________
andRegulationsofR.A.No.9165,whichstates:
12Peoplev.Cortez,611Phil.360,381;593SCRA743,764
(2009).
 13Peoplev.Almodiel,694Phil.449,467;680SCRA306,323 (2010),citingPeoplev.Concepcion,578Phil.957,971;556SCRA
(2012);Peoplev.Campos,643Phil.668,673;629SCRA462,468 421,436437(2008).
14Peoplev.Magundayao,683Phil.295,321;667SCRA310,
326(2012);Peoplev.Le,636Phil.586,598;622SCRA571,580
390 (2010), citingPeople v. De Leon, 624 Phil. 786, 801; 611 SCRA
390 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 118,133(2010),furthercitingPeoplev.Naquita,582Phil.422,
Peoplevs.DelaCruz 442;560SCRA430,448(2008);Peoplev.Concepcion,id.
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
15People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 440441; 639 SCRA
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the 455,469470(2011),citingPeoplev.Rosialda,643Phil.712,726;
accused.14In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the 629 SCRA 507, 522 (2010), further citingPeople v. Rivera, 590
prosecutionmustbeabletopresentthroughrecordsortestimony, Phil.894,912913;569SCRA879,899(2008).
thewhereaboutsofthedangerousdrugsfromthetimethesewere 16TSN,16September2008,p.6;TSN,21October2008,p.6.
seizedfromtheaccusedbythearrestingofficers;turnedoverto
the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for
determinationoftheircomposition;anduptothetimetheseare 391
offeredinevidence.Foraslongasthechainofcustodyremains VOL.802,SEPTEMBER7,2016 391
unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural Peoplevs.DelaCruz
requirementsprovidedforinSec.21ofR.A.No.9165werenot thepersonwhointervenedinthearrestofaccusedappellant,in
faithfullyobserved,theguiltoftheaccusedwillnotbeaffected. 15 orderforthemtopacifythepeoplearoundthem.
In the instant case, the failure to strictly comply with the The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been
requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was satisfactorily preservedunlessthereisashowingofbadfaith,illwill,orproof
explained by the apprehending officers. They testified that a that the evidence has been tampered with. Accusedappellant
commotioneruptedwhenaccusedappellantresistedandshouted bearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidencewastamperedor
forhelpwhileshewasbeingarrested.Thecommotioneventually meddledwithinordertoovercomethepresumptionofregularity
gaveaccusedappellanttheopportunitytorunandeludearrest. inthehandlingofexhibitsbypublicofficersandthepresumption
The arresting officers further alleged that the people who that public officers properly discharged their duties.17Accused
gatheredaroundthemwerealreadyaggressivepromptingthem appellant in this casefailed to present any plausible reason to
to decide to immediately proceed to the police station for their imputeillmotiveonthepartofthearrestingofficers.Thus,the
safety.16Infact,thearrestingofficersevenhadtofireawarning testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and
shotandarrestArthurTabasaOrtega, credit.18In fact, accusedappellant did not even question the
_______________
credibilityoftheprosecutionwitnesses.Shesimplyanchoredher police to mark, inventory and photograph the seized plastic
defenseondenialandalibi. sacheteffectivelynegatedthepresumptionofregularity.(People
Weaffirmthepenaltiesimposedastheyarewellwithinthe vs.Sabdula,722SCRA90[2014])
ranges provided by law. Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 The Prosecution cannot avoid confronting the issue of the
prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death 19and a fine broken chain of custody by embellishing its case with the
rangingfromP500,000.00toP10,000,000.00forthesaleofany presumption of regularity. (People vs. Angngao,752 SCRA531
dangerousdrug,regardlessofthequantityorpurityinvolved. [2015])
WHEREFORE,thedecisiondated27September2013ofthe
Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CRH.C. No. 01103 is o0o
herebyAFFIRMED. Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
SOORDERED. reserved.
Velasco,Jr.(Chairperson),PeraltaandLeonen,**JJ.,concur.
_______________

17Peoplev.Miranda,560Phil.795,810;534SCRA552,568
569(2007).
18SeePeoplev.Macabalang,538Phil.136,155;508SCRA
282,300(2006).
G.R.No.181045.July2,2014.*
19Theimpositionofthedeathpenaltyhasbeenproscribed
SPOUSES EDUARDO and LYDIA SILOS, petitioners, vs.
withtheeffectivityofR.A.No.9346,otherwiseknownasAnAct
PHILIPPINENATIONALBANK,respondent.
ProhibitingtheimpositionofDeathPenaltyinthePhilippines.
**Designated additional member per Raffledated 8 August
2016. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; It is not the
function of the Supreme Court (SC) to reexamine or
reevaluate evidence adduced by the parties in the
392 proceedings below. The rule admits of certain well
392 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED recognized exceptions.Before anything else, it must be
Peoplevs.DelaCruz saidthatitisnotthefunctionoftheCourttoreexamineor
reevaluate evidence adduced by the parties in the
Reyes,J.,OnWellnessLeave.
proceedings below. The rule admits of certain well
Judgmentaffirmed.
recognizedexceptions,though,aswhenthelowercourts
Notes.The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal
findingsarenotsupportedbytheevidenceonrecordor
drugs allegedly seized from petitioner due to the failure of the
arebasedonamisapprehensionoffacts,orwhencertain 619
relevantandundisputedfactsweremanifestlyoverlooked VOL.728,JULY2,2014 619
that, if properly considered, would justify a different Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
conclusion.Thiscasefallswithinsuchexceptions. theuserbyusingafulldisclosureofsuchcostwithaviewof
preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the
BanksandBanking;InterestRates;Inanumberofdecided national economy.Accordingly, petitioners are correct in
cases,theSupremeCourt(SC)struckdownprovisionsincredit arguing that estoppel should not apply to them, for [e]stoppel
documents issued by Philippine National Bank (PNB) to, or cannotbepredicatedonanillegalact.Asbetweenthepartiestoa
required of, its borrowers which allow the bank to increase or contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is
decreaseinterestrateswithinthelimitsallowedbylawatany prohibitedbylaworisagainstpublicpolicy.Itappearsthatby
its acts, respondent violated the Truth in Lending Act, or
timedependingonwhateverpolicyitmayadoptinthefuture.A
Republic Act No. 3765, which was enacted to protect xxx
not factors which influence the fixing of interest rates to be
citizensfromalackofawarenessofthetruecostofcredittothe
imposedonhim.Clearly,respondentsmethodoffixinginterest
user by using a full disclosure of such cost with a view of
ratesbasedon onesided, indeterminate,and subjectivecriteria
preventingtheuninformeduseofcredittothedetrimentofthe
suchasprofitability,costofmoney,bankcosts,etc.isarbitrary
nationaleconomy.Thelawgivesadetailedenumerationofthe
for there is no fixed standard or margin above or below these
specificinformationrequiredtobedisclosed,amongwhicharethe
considerations.
interest and other charges incident to the extension of credit.
Same;Same;Anymodificationinthecontract,suchasthe Section 4thereof provides thata disclosure statement must be
interestrates,mustbemadewiththeconsentofthecontracting furnishedpriortotheconsummationofthetransaction.
parties.Any modification in the contract, such as the interest Same;Same;Same;Byrequiringthepetitionerstosignthe
rates,mustbemadewiththeconsentofthecontractingparties. credit documents and the promissory notes in blank, and then
The minds of all the parties must meet as to the proposed
unilaterally filling them up later on, respondent violated the
modification,especiallywhenitaffectsanimportantaspectofthe
Truth in Lending Act, and was remiss in its disclosure
agreement.Inthecaseofloanagreements,therateofinterestis
aprincipalcondition,ifnotthemostimportantcomponent.Thus, obligations.By requiring the petitioners to sign the credit
any modification thereof must be mutually agreed upon; documents and the promissory notes in blank, and then
otherwise,ithasnobindingeffect. unilaterally filling them up later on, respondent violated the
Same; Same; Truth in Lending Act (R.A. No. 3765); The Truth in Lending Act, and was remiss in its disclosure
obligations.
Truth in Lending Act, or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3765, was
Same;Same;Same;Loanandcreditarrangementsmaybe
enactedtoprotectcitizensfromalackofawarenessofthetrue
madeenticingby,orsweetenedwith,offersoflowinitialinterest
costofcreditto
rates,butactuallyaccompaniedbyprovisionswritteninfineprint rate of 12% per annum. This is the uniform ruling adopted in
thatallowlenderstolateronincreaseordecreaseinterestrates previouscases,includingthosecitedhere.Theinterestspaidby
petitioners should be applied first to the payment of the
unilaterally,withouttheconsentoftheborrower,anddepending
stipulatedorlegalandunpaidinterest,asthecasemaybe,and
oncomplexandsubjectivefactors.Loanandcreditarrangements later,tothecapitalorprincipal.Respondentshouldthenrefund
maybemadeenticingby,orsweetenedwith,offersoflowinitial theexcessamountofinterestthatithasillegallyimposedupon
interestrates,butactuallyaccompaniedbyprovisionswrittenin petitioners;[t]heamounttoberefundedreferstothatpaidby
fine print that allow lenders to later on increase or decrease petitioners when they had no obligation to do so. Thus, the
interestratesunilaterally,withouttheconsentoftheborrower, parties original agreement stipulated the payment of 19.5%
anddependingoncomplexandsubjectivefactors.Becausethey interest;however,thisratewasintendedtoapplyonlytothefirst
have been lured into these contracts by initially low interest promissory note which expired onNovember 21, 1989 and was
rates,borrowersgetcaughtandstuckinthewebofsubsequent paid by petitioners; it was not intended to apply to the whole
steepratesandpenalties,surchargesandthelike.Beingordinary durationoftheloan.Subsequenthigherinterestrateshavebeen
individualsorentities,theynaturallydreadlegalcomplications declared illegal; but because only the rates are found to be
andcannotaffordcourtlitiga improper,theobligationtopayinterestsubsists,thesametobe
620 fixed at the legal rate of 12% per annum. However, the 12%
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED interest shall apply only until June 30, 2013. Starting July 1,
20 2013, the prevailing rate of interest shall be 6% per annum
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank pursuanttoourrulinginNacarv.GalleryFrames,703SCRA439
tion;theysuccumbtowhateverchargesthelendersimpose. (2013)andBangkoSentralngPilipinasMonetaryBoardCircular
Attheveryleast,borrowersshouldbechargedrightly;butthen No.799.
againthisisnotpossibleinaonesidedcreditsystemwherethe RemedialLaw;CivilProcedure;Appeals;Itisanelementary
temptation to abuse is strong and the willingness to rectify is principleinthesubjectofappealsthatanappelleewhodoesnot
madeweakbytheeternaldesireforprofit.
himself appeal cannot obtain from the appellate court any
Same; Same; Starting July 1, 2013, the prevailing rate of
affirmativereliefotherthanthosegrantedinthedecisionofthe
interestshallbe6%perannumpursuanttotheSupremeCourts
courtbelow.Withregardtoattorneysfees,itwasplainerrorfor
(SCs)rulinginNacarv.GalleryFrames,703SCRA439(2013) theCAtohavepassedupontheissuesinceitwasnotraisedby
and Bangko Sentral ng PilipinasMonetary Board Circular No. the petitioners in their appeal; it was the respondent that
799.With regard to interest, the Court finds that since the improperlybroughtitupin
escalationclauseisannulled,theprincipalamountoftheloanis 621
subject to the original or stipulated rate of interest, and upon VOL.728,JULY2,2014 621
maturity,theamountdueshallbesubjecttolegalinterestatthe Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
 its appellees brief, when it should have interposed an choosewhethertocontinuewithorwithdrawfromtheagreement
appeal,sincethetrialcourtsDecisiononthisissueisadverseto ifitdiscoversthatwhattheotherpartyhasbeendoingallalong
it.Itisanelementaryprincipleinthesubjectofappealsthatan isimproperorillegal.622
appellee who does not himself appeal cannot obtain from the 622 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
appellatecourtanyaffirmativereliefotherthanthosegrantedin Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
thedecisionofthecourtbelow.xxx[A]nappellee,whoisatthe ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari 1questionstheMay8,
sametimenotanappellant,mayonappealbepermittedtomake 2007Decision2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inC.A.G.R.CVNo.
counter assignments of error in ordinary actions, when the 79650,whichaffirmedwithmodificationstheFebruary28,2003
purposeismerelytodefendhimselfagainstanappealinwhich Decision3andtheJune4,2003Order4oftheRegionalTrialCourt
errorsareallegedtohavebeencommittedbythetrialcourtboth (RTC),Branch6ofKalibo,AklaninCivilCaseNo.5975.
intheappreciationoffactsandintheinterpretationofthelaw,in FactualAntecedents
order to sustain the judgment in his favor but not when his
SpousesEduardoandLydia Silos(petitioners) have beenin
purpose is to seek modification or reversal of the judgment, in
businessforabouttwodecadesofoperatingadepartmentstore
which case it is necessary for him to have excepted to and
and buying and selling of readytowear apparel. Respondent
appealedfromthejudgment.Sincepetitionersdidnotraisethe
Philippine National Bank (PNB) is a banking corporation
issue of reduction of attorneys fees, the CA possessed no
organizedandexistingunderPhilippinelaws.
authoritytopassuponitattheinstanceofrespondent.Theruling
To secure a oneyear revolving credit line of P150,000.00
ofthetrialcourtinthisrespectshouldremainundisturbed.
obtained from PNB, petitioners constituted in August 1987

aRealEstateMortgage5overa370squaremeterlotinKalibo,
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
AklancoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(TCT)T14250.
Appeals.
InJuly1988,thecreditlinewasincreasedtoP1.8millionandthe
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
mortgagewascorrespondinglyincreasedtoP1.8million. 6Andin
StephenC.Arceoforpetitioners. July 1989, aSupplementto the Existing Real Estate
LynaB.BrotarloPascoforrespondent. Mortgage7wasexecutedtocoverthesamecreditline,whichwas
DELCASTILLO,J.: increasedtoP2.5million,andadditionalsecuritywasgiveninthe
In loan agreements, it cannot be denied that the rate of form of a 134square meter lot covered by TCT T16208. In
interest is a principal condition, if not the most important addition,petitionersissuedeight
component. Thus, any modification thereof must be mutually _______________
agreed upon; otherwise, ithas no binding effect. Moreover, the 1Rollo,pp.945.
Courtcannotconsiderastipulationgrantingapartytheoptionto
2Id.,atpp.4764;pennedbyAssociateJusticeFranciscoP.
prepay the loan if said party is not agreeable to the arbitrary
AcostaandconcurredinbyExecutiveJusticeArsenioJ.Magpale
interest rates imposed. Premium may not be placed upon a
andAssociateJusticeAgustinS.Dizon.
stipulation in a contract which grants one party the right to
 3Records,pp.361367;pennedbyJudgeNiovadyM.Marin. Board.11TheRealEstateMortgageagreementprovidedthesame
4Rollo,pp.7273. righttoincreaseorreduceinterestratesatanytimedepending
5Records,p.94. onwhateverpolicyPNBmayadoptinthefuture.12
6SeeWhereasClauseofSupplementtoExistingRealEstate Petitioners religiously paid interest on the notes at the
Mortgage,id.,atp.10. followingrates:
7Id.,atpp.1011. 1.1stPromissoryNotedatedJuly24,198919.5%;
623 _______________
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 623 8Rollo,p.148.
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 9Records,pp.4754.
PromissoryNotes8andsignedaCreditAgreement.9ThisJuly 10Id.,atp.47.
1989CreditAgreementcontainedastipulationoninterestwhich 11Id.,atp.192.
providesasfollows: 12Id.,atp.74,dorsalportion.
1.03.Interest.(a)TheLoanshallbesubjecttointerest 624
attherateof19.5%perannum.Interestshallbepayablein 624 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
advanceeveryonehundredtwentydaysattherateprevailingat Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
thetimeoftherenewal. 2.2ndPromissoryNotedatedNovember22,198923%;
(b)TheBorroweragreesthattheBankmaymodifythe 3.3rdPromissoryNotedatedMarch21,199022%;
interest rate in the Loan depending on whatever policy 4.4thPromissoryNotedatedJuly19,199024%;
the Bank may adopt in the future, including without 5.5thPromissoryNotedatedDecember17,199028%;
limitation,theshiftingfromthefloatinginterestratesystemto 6.6thPromissoryNotedatedFebruary14,199132%;
thefixedinterestratesystem,orviceversa.WheretheBankhas 7.7thPromissoryNotedatedMarch1,199130%;and
imposedontheLoaninterestatarateperannum,whichisequal 8.8thPromissoryNotedatedJuly11,199124%.13
totheBanksspreadoverthecurrentfloatinginterestrate,the In August 1991, anAmendment to Credit
BorrowerherebyagreesthattheBankmay,withoutneed Agreement14was executed by the parties, with the following
ofnoticetotheBorrower,increaseordecreaseitsspread stipulationregardinginterest:
overthe floatinginterest rateat anytimedependingon 1.03.Interest on Line Availments. (a)The Borrowers
whatever policy it may adopt in the future.10(Emphases agreetopayinterest on eachAvailmentfrom date of each
supplied) Availment up to but not including the date of full payment
TheeightPromissoryNotes,ontheotherhand,containeda thereofattherateperannumwhichisdetermined bythe
stipulationgrantingPNBtherighttoincreaseorreduceinterest Banktobeprimerateplusapplicablespreadineffectasof
rates within the limits allowed by law or by the Monetary thedateofeachAvailment.15(Emphasessupplied)
 The 9thup to the 17thpromissory notes provide for the
Under this Amendment to Credit Agreement, petitioners paymentofinterestattheratetheBankmayatanytimewithout
issued in favor of PNB the following 18 Promissory Notes, notice,raisewithinthelimitsallowedbylawxxx.17Ontheother
whichpetitionerssettledexceptthelast(thenotecoveringthe hand, the 18thup to the 26thpromissory notes including PN
principal)atthefollowinginterestrates: 9707237, which is the 26thpromissory note carried the
1.9thPromissoryNotedatedNovember8,199126%; followingprovision:
2.10thPromissoryNotedatedMarch19,199225%; xxxForthispurpose,I/Weagreethattherateofinterest
3.11thPromissoryNotedatedJuly11,199223%; herein stipulated may be increased or decreased forthe
4.12thPromissoryNotedatedNovember10,199221%;
subsequent Interest Periods, with prior notice to the
5.13thPromissoryNotedatedMarch15,199321%;
Borrower in the event of changes in interest rate
6.14thPromissoryNotedatedJuly12,199317.5%;
prescribedbylawortheMonetaryBoardofthe Central
7.15thPromissoryNotedatedNovember17,199321%;
Bank of thePhilippines, orin the Banks overall cost of
_______________
13Id.,atpp.192199. funds. I/We hereby agree that in the event I/we are not
14Id.,atpp.5558. agreeabletotheinterestratefixedforanyInterestPeriod,
15Id.,atp.56. I/we shall have the option to prepay the loan or credit
625 facilitywithoutpenaltywithinten(10)
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 625 _______________
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 16Id.,atpp.174191.
8.16thPromissoryNotedatedMarch28,199421%; 17Id.,atp.191.
9.17thPromissoryNotedatedJuly13,199421%; 626
10.18thPromissoryNotedatedNovember16,199416%; 626 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
11.19thPromissoryNotedatedApril10,199521%; Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
12.20thPromissoryNotedatedJuly19,199518.5%; calendar days from the Interest Setting
13.21stPromissory Note dated December 18, 1995 Date.18(Emphasissupplied)
18.75%; Respondent regularly renewed the line from 1990 up to
14.22ndPromissoryNotedatedApril22,199618.5%; 1997, and petitioners made good on the promissory notes,
15.23rdPromissoryNotedatedJuly22,199618.5%; religiouslypayingtheinterestswithoutobjectionorfail.Butin
16.24thPromissoryNotedatedNovember25,199618%; 1997,petitionersfalteredwhentheinterestratessoareddueto
17.25thPromissoryNotedatedMay30,199717.5%;and the Asian financial crisis. Petitioners sole outstanding
18.26thPromissoryNote(PN9707237)datedJuly30,1997 promissorynoteforP2.5millionPN9707237executedinJuly
25%.16 1997 anddue 120 days lateror on October 28, 1997 became
past due, and despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to theamountofP4,324,172.96.21Thesheriffscertificateofsalewas
makegoodonthenote. registeredonMarch11,1999.
Incidentally,PN9707237providedforthepenaltyequivalent Morethanayearlater,oronMarch24,2000,petitionersfiled
to24%perannumincaseofdefault,asfollows: Civil CaseNo. 5975, seeking annulmentof theforeclosure sale
Withoutneedfornoticeordemand,failuretopaythisnoteor andanaccountingofthePNBcredit.Petitionerstheorizedthat
anyinstallmentthereon,whendue,shallconstitutedefaultand afterthefirstpromissorynotewheretheyagreedtopay19.5%
in such cases or in case of garnishment, receivership or interest,thesucceedingstipulationsforthepaymentofinterestin
bankruptcyorsuitofanykindfiledagainstme/usbytheBank, their loan agreements with PNB which allegedly left to the
theoutstandingprincipalofthisnote,attheoptionoftheBank latterthesolewilltodeterminetheinterestratebecamenull
and without prior notice of demand, shall immediately become andvoid.Petitionersaddedthatbecausetheinterestrateswere
dueandpayableandshallbesubjecttoapenaltychargeof fixed by respondent without their prior consent or agreement,
twentyfour percent (24%)per annumbased on the theseratesarevoid,andasaresult,petitionersshouldonlybe
defaultedprincipalamount.xxx19(Emphasissupplied) made liable for interestatthelegalrateof 12%.Theyclaimed
PNBpreparedaStatementofAccount 20asofOctober12, furtherthattheyoverpaidinterestsonthecredit,andconcluded
1998,detailingtheamountdueanddemandablefrompetitioners thatduetothisoverpaymentofsteepinterestcharges,theirdebt
inthetotalamountofP3,620,541.60,brokendownasfollows: shouldnowbedeemedpaid,andtheforeclosureandsaleofTCTs
PrincipalP2,500,000.00 T14250andT16208becameunnecessaryandwrongful.Asfor
Interest538,874.94 theimposedpenaltyofP581,666.66,petitionersallegedthatsince
_______________ the Real Estate Mortgage and the Supplement thereto did not
18Id.,atp.174. includepenaltiesaspartofthesecuredamount,thesameshould
19Id. beexcludedfromtheforeclosureamountorbidprice,evenifsuch
20Id.,atp.12. penalties are provided for in the final Promissory Note, or PN
627 9707237.22
In addition, petitioners sought to be reimbursed an alleged
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 627
overpaymentofP848,285.00madeduringtheperiodAugust21,
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 1991toMarch5,1998,resultingfromrespondentsimpo
Penalties581,666.66 _______________
TotalP3,620,541.60
21Id.,atp.13.

Despite demand, petitioners failed to pay the foregoing 22Id.,atpp.6870.
amount.Thus,PNBforeclosedonthemortgage,andonJanuary 628
14,1999,TCTsT14250andT16208weresoldtoitatauctionfor 628 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
sition of the alleged illegal and steep interest rates. They also 25Id.,atp.165.
prayedtobeawardedP200,000.00bywayofattorneysfees. 23 26Id.,atp.149.
InitsAnswer,24PNBdeniedthatitunilaterallyimposedorfixed 629
interestrates;thatpetitionersagreedthatwithoutpriornotice,
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 629
PNB may modify interest rates depending on future policy
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
adopted by it; and that the imposition of penalties was agreed
allPromissoryNotessheandEduardoissuedwerealwaysleftin
upon in the Credit Agreement. It added that the imposition of
blank when they executed them, with respondents mere
penalties is supported by the allinclusive clause in the Real
assurancethatitwouldbetheonetoenterorindicatethereonthe
Estate Mortgage agreement which provides that the mortgage
prevailinginterestrateatthetimeofavailment;andthatthey
shall stand as security for any and all other obligations of
agreedtosuch arrangement. Shefurthertestified thatthetwo
whatever kind and nature owing to respondent, which thus
RealEstateMortgageagreementsshesigneddidnotstipulatethe
includes penalties imposed upon default or nonpayment of the
payment of penalties; that she and Eduardo consulted with a
principalandinterestonduedate.
lawyer,andweretoldthatPNBsactionswereimproper,andso
On pretrial, the parties mutually agreed to the following
on March 20, 2000, they wrote to the latter seeking a
materialfacts,amongothers:
recomputationoftheiroutstandingobligation;andwhenPNBdid
a)Thatsince1991upto1998,petitionershadpaidPNBthe
notoblige,theyinstitutedCivilCaseNo.5975.27
totalamountofP3,484,287.00;25and
On crossexamination, Lydia testified that she has been in
b)ThatPNBsent,andpetitionersreceived,aMarch10,2000
business for 20 years; that she also borrowed from other
demandletter.26
individualsandanotherbank;thatitwasonlywithbanksthat
Duringtrial,petitionerLydiaSilos(Lydia)testifiedthatthe
shewasaskedtosignloandocumentswithnoindicatedinterest
Credit Agreement, the Amendment to Credit Agreement, Real
rate; that she did not bother to read the terms of the loan
EstateMortgageandtheSupplementtheretowereallprepared
documentswhichshesigned;andthatshereceivedseveralPNB
byrespondentPNBandwerepresentedtoherandherhusband
statementsofaccountdetailingtheiroutstandingobligations,but
Eduardoonlyforsignature;thatshewastoldbyPNBthatthe
shedidnotcomplain;thatsheassumedinsteadthatwhatwas
latter alone would determine the interest rate; that as to the
writtenthereiniscorrect.28
AmendmenttoCreditAgreement,shewastoldthatPNBwould
For his part, PNB Kalibo Branch Manager Diosdado Aspa, Jr.
fill up the interest rate portion thereof; that at the time the
(Aspa), the sole witness for respondent, stated on cross
partiesexecutedthesaidCreditAgreement,shewasnotinformed
examinationthatasapractice, the determination ofthe prime
about the applicable spread that PNB would impose on her
ratesofinterestwastheresponsibilitysolelyofPNBsTreasury
account;thattheinterestrateportionof
Department which is based in Manila; that these prime rates
_______________
were simply communicated to all PNB branches for
23Id.,atp.71.
implementation; that there are a multitude of considerations
24Id.,atpp.3743.
which determine the interest rate, such as the cost of money, While it may be acceptable, for practical reasons given the
foreigncurrencyvalues,PNBsspread,bankadministrativecosts, fluctuating economic conditions, for banks to stipulate that
profitability, and the practice in the banking industry; that in interest rates on a loan not be fixed and instead be made
everyrepricingofeachloanavailment,theborrowerhastheright dependent upon prevailing market conditions, there should
toquestiontherates,butthatthiswas always be a reference rate upon which to peg such variable
_______________ interestrates.Anexampleofsuchavalidvariableinterestrate
27Rollo,pp.5152. wasfoundinPolotan,Sr.v.CourtofAppeals.Inthatcase,the
28Id.,atp.52. contractualprovisionstatingthatifthereoccursanychangein
630 theprevailing marketrates, thenew interest rate shallbe the
630 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED guiding rate in computing the interest due on the outstanding
obligationwithoutneedofservingnoticetotheCardholderother
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
thantherequiredpostingonthemonthlystatementservedtothe
notdonebythepetitioners;andthatanythingthatisnotfoundin
Cardholderwasconsideredvalid.Theaforequotedprovisionwas
the Promissory Note may be supplemented by the Credit
upheldnotwithstandingthatitmaypartakeofthenatureofan
Agreement.29
escalation clause,becauseat the same timeit provides for
RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt
the decrease in the interest rate in case the prevailing
On February 28, 2003, the trial court rendered judgment
dismissingCivilCaseNo.5975.30Itruledthat: marketratesdictateitsreduction.Inotherwords,unlikethe
1.While the Credit Agreement allows PNB to unilaterally stipulationsubjectoftheinstantcase,theinterestrate
increase its spread over the floating interest rate at any time 631
depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future, it VOL.728,JULY2,2014 631
likewiseallowsforthedecreaseatanytimeofthesame.Thus, Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
such stipulation authorizing both the increase and decrease of 2.Banks are allowed to stipulate that interest rates on
interest rates as may be applicable is valid, 31as was held in loans need not be fixed and instead be made dependent on
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. prevailingratesuponwhichtopegsuchvariableinterestrates; 33
CourtofAppeals;32 3.ThePromissoryNote,astheprincipalcontractevidencing
_______________ petitionersloan,prevailsovertheCreditAgreementandtheReal
29Id.,atpp.5253. Estate Mortgage. As such, the rate of interest, penalties and
30Records,pp.361367;pennedbyJudgeNiovadyM.Marin. attorneys fees stipulated in the Promissory Note prevail over
31Id.,atpp.365366. those mentioned in the Credit Agreement and the Real Estate
32408 Phil. 803, 811812; 356 SCRA 671, 679 (2001). The Mortgageagreements;34
Courtthereinheld: 4.Roughly, PNBs computation of the total amount of
petitionersobligationiscorrect;35
 5.Becausetheloanwasadmittedlydueanddemandable,the WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered upholding the
foreclosurewasregularlymade;36 validityoftheinterestratechargedbytherespondentaswellas
6.By the admission of petitioners during pretrial, all the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and the Certificate of
payments made toPNB wereproperlyapplied totheprincipal, Sale.However,respondentisdirectedtorefundtothepetitioner
interestandpenalties.37 the amount of P356,589.90 representing the excess interest
ThedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsDecisionreads: chargedagainstthelatter.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby Nopronouncementastocosts.
renderedinfavoroftherespondentandagainstthepetitionersby SOORDERED.40
DISMISSINGthelatterspetition. RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
Costsagainstthepetitioners. PetitionersappealedtotheCA,whichissuedthequestioned
_______________ Decisionwiththefollowingdecretalportion:
involvedinthePolotan caseis designedto bebased on the WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theinstantappealis
prevailing market rate. On the other hand, a stipulation PARTLYGRANTED.ThemodifiedDecisionoftheRegionalTrial
ostensiblysignifyinganagreementtoanyincreaseordecreasein CourtperOrderdatedJune4,2003isherebyAFFIRMEDwith
theinterestrate,withoutmore,cannotbeacceptedbythisCourt MODIFICATIONS,towit:
asvalidforitleavessolelytothecreditorthedeterminationof 1.[T]hattheinterestratetobeappliedaftertheexpiration
what interest rate to charge against an outstanding loan. ofthefirst30dayinterestperiodforPNNo.9707237shouldbe
(Emphasissupplied) 12%perannum;
33Records,p.365. 2.[T]hattheattorneysfeesof10%isvalidandbinding;and
34Id.,atp.366. _______________
35Id. 38Id.
36Id. 39Rollo,pp.7273.
37Id.,atp.367. 40Id.,atp.73.
632 633
632 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED VOL.728,JULY2,2014 633
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
SOORDERED. 38 3.[T]hat[PNB]isherebyorderedtoreimburse[petitioners]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration. In an Order39dated theexcessinthebidpriceofP377,505.99whichisthedifference
June4,2003,thetrialcourtgrantedonlyamodificationinthe betweenthetotalamountdue[PNB]andtheamountofitsbid
award of attorneys fees, reducing the same from 10% to 1%. price.
Thus, PNB was ordered to refund to petitioner the excess in SOORDERED.41
attorneysfeesintheamountofP356,589.90,viz.: Ontheotherhand,respondentdidnotappealtheJune4,
2003 Order of the trial court which reduced its award of
attorneysfees.Itsimplyraisedtheissueinitsappelleesbriefin inclusion of the PN 9707237 stipulated 24% penalty in the
theCA,andincludedaprayerforthereversalofsaidOrder. amounttobesecuredbythemortgagedproperty,thus
Ineffect, theCAlimitedpetitionersappealtothefollowing Forandinconsiderationofcertainloans,overdraftsandother
issues: creditaccommodationsobtainedfromtheMORTGAGEEandto
1)Whetherxxxtheinterestratesonpetitionersoutstanding secure the payment of the same andthose others that the
obligationwereunilaterallyandarbitrarilyimposedbyPNB; MORTGAGEEmayextendtotheMORTGAGOR,including
2)Whetherxxxthepenaltychargesweresecuredbythereal interestandexpenses,andotherobligationsowingbythe
estatemortgage;and MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE, whether direct or
3)Whether xxx the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale are indirect, principal or secondary, as appearing in the
valid.42 accounts, books and records of the MORTGAGEE, the
TheCAnotedthat,basedonreceiptspresentedbypetitioners MORTGAGOR does hereby transfer and convey by way of
duringtrial,thelatterdutifullypaidatotalofP3,027,324.60in mortgageuntotheMORTGAGEExxx.43(Emphasissupplied)
interestfortheperiodAugust7,1991toAugust6,1997,overand The CA believes that the 24% penalty is covered by the
abovetheP2.5millionprincipalobligation.Andthisisexclusive
phrase and other obligations owing by the mortgagor to the
ofpaymentsforinsurancepremiums,documentarystamptaxes,
andpenalty.Allthewhile,petitionersdidnotcomplainnorobject mortgageeandshouldthusbeaddedtotheamountsecuredby
totheimpositionofinterest;theyinfactpaidthesamereligiously the mortgages.44The CA then proceeded to declare valid the
andwithoutfailforsevenyears.Theappellatecourtruledthat foreclosureandsaleofpropertiescoveredbyTCTsT14250andT
petitionersarethusestoppedfromquestioningthesame. 16208,whichcameasanecessaryresultofpetitionersfailureto
TheCAneverthelessnotedthatfortheperiodJuly30,1997to paytheoutstandingobligationupondemand. 45TheCAsawfitto
August14,1997,PNBwronglyappliedaninterest increasethetrialcourtsawardof1%to10%,findingthelatter
_______________ rate to be reasonable and citing the Real Estate Mortgage
agreementwhichauthorizedthecollectionofthehigherrate.46
41Id.,atpp.6364.
_______________
42Id.,atp.55. 43Records,p.74.
634
44Rollo,p.61.
634 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
45Id.,atpp.6162.
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
46Id.,atp.62.
rate of 25.72% instead of the agreed 25%; thus it overcharged

petitioners,andthelatterpaid,anexcessofP736.56ininterest.
635
Ontheissueofpenalties,theCAruledthattheexpresstenor
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 635
of the Real Estate Mortgage agreements contemplated the
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
 Finally, the CA ruled that petitioners are entitled to 636 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
P377,505.09surplus,whichisthedifferencebetweenPNBsbid Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
priceofP4,324,172.96andpetitionerstotalcomputedobligation RATE OF THE ADMITTED PAYMENTS MADE BY
as of January 14, 1999, or the date of the auction sale, in the PETITIONER[S]FROM19911998INTHEADMITTEDTOTAL
amountofP3,946,667.87.47 AMOUNT OF P3,484,287.00, TO PAYMENT OF THE
Hence,thepresentPetition. PRINCIPALOFP2,500,000.[00]LEAVINGANOVERPAYMENT
Issues OF P984,287.00 REFUNDABLE BY RESPONDENT TO
ThefollowingissuesareraisedinthisPetition: PETITIONER[S]WITHINTERESTOF12%PERANNUM.
I II
A.THE COURT OF APPEALS AS WELL AS THE LOWER THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT
COURTERREDINNOTNULLIFYINGTHEINTERESTRATE ERREDINHOLDINGTHATPENALTIESAREINCLUDEDIN
PROVISIONINTHECREDITAGREEMENTDATEDJULY24, THE SECURED AMOUNT, SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE,
1989 XXX AND IN THE AMENDMENT TO CREDIT WHENNOPENALTIESAREMENTIONED[NOR]PROVIDED
AGREEMENTDATEDAUGUST21,1991XXXWHICHLEFT FOR IN THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AS A SECURED
TO THE SOLE UNILATERAL DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNTANDTHEREFORETHEAMOUNTOFPENALTIES
RESPONDENT PNB THE ORIGINAL FIXING OF INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM [THE]
RATE AND ITS INCREASE, WHICH AGREEMENT IS FORECLOSUREAMOUNT.
CONTRARYTOLAW,ART.1308OFTHE[NEWCIVILCODE], III
AS ENUNCIATED IN PONCIANO ALMEIDA V. COURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE
APPEALS, G.R. [NO.] 113412, APRIL 17, 1996, AND RULING OF THE LOWER COURT, WHICH REDUCED THE
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST, ATTORNEYSFEESOF10%OFTHETOTALINDEBTEDNESS
ANDINAPPLYINGTHEPRINCIPLEOFESTOPPELARISING CHARGED IN THE XXX EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
FROM THE ALLEGED DELAYED COMPLAINT OF TOONLY1%,AND[AWARDING]10%ATTORNEYSFEES.48
PETITIONER[S],AND[THEIR]PAYMENTOFTHEINTEREST PetitionersArguments
CHARGED. PetitionersinsistthattheinterestrateprovisionintheCredit
B.CONSEQUENTLY,THECOURTOFAPPEALSANDTHE AgreementandtheAmendmenttoCreditAgreementshouldbe
LOWERCOURTERREDINNOTDECLARINGTHATPNBIS declarednullandvoid,fortheyrelegatedtoPNBthesolepower
NOT AT ALL ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST EXCEPT THE tofixinterestratesbasedonarbitrarycriteriaorfactorssuchas
LEGAL RATE FROM DATE OF DEMAND, AND IN NOT bankpolicy,profitability,costofmoney,foreigncurrencyvalues,
APPLYINGTHEEXCESSOVERTHELEGAL andbankadministrativecosts;spacesforinterestratesinthetwo
_______________ CreditAgreementsand
47Id.,atp.63. _______________
636
 48Id.,atpp.2324. 49Whichremovedtheceilingoninterestratesforsecuredand
637 unsecuredloans,regardlessofmaturity(Section1),butrequired
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 637 that the rate of interest on a floating rate loan during each
interestperiodshallbestatedonthebasisofareferencerateplus
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
amarginasmaybeagreeduponbytheparties(Section7).
thepromissorynoteswereleftblankforPNBtounilaterallyfill,
50Rollo, p. 167, citing United Coconut Planters Bank v.
and their consent or agreement to the interest rates imposed
SpousesBeluso,557Phil.326;530SCRA567(2007).
thereafterwasnotobtained;theinterestrate,whichconsistsof
51323Phil.297;253SCRA241(1996).
the prime rate plus the bank spread, is determined not by
638
agreementofthepartiesbutbyPNBsTreasuryDepartmentin
Manila. Petitioners conclude that by this method of fixing the 638 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
interestrates,theprincipleofmutualityofcontractsisviolated, Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
and public policy as well as Circular 905 49of the then Central mortgagortothemortgagee52inthemortgageagreementscannot
Bank had been breached. Petitioners question the CAs embracetheP581,666.66penalty,because,asheldinthePBCom
applicationoftheprincipleofestoppel, saying that noestoppel case, [a] penalty charge does not belong to the species of
can proceed from an illegal act. Though they failed to timely obligationsenumeratedinthemortgage,hence,thesaidcontract
questiontheimpositionoftheallegedillegalinterestratesand cannot be understood to secure the penalty;53while the
continuedtopaytheloanonthebasisoftheserates,theycannot mortgages are the accessory contracts, what items are secured
bedeemedtohaveacquiesced,andhencecouldrecoverwhatthey may only be determined from the provisions of the mortgage
erroneouslypaid.50 contracts,andnotfromtheCreditAgreementorthepromissory
Petitionersarguethatiftheinterestrateswerenullified,then notes.
theirobligationtoPNBisdeemedextinguishedasofJuly1997; Finally, petitioners submit that the trial courts award of 1%
moreover,itwouldappearthattheyevenmadeanoverpayment attorneysfeesshouldbemaintained,giventhatinforeclosures,a
tothebankintheamountofP984,287.00. lawyersworkconsistsmerelyinthepreparationandfilingofthe
Next,petitionerssuggestthatsincetheRealEstateMortgage petition,andinvolvesminimalstudy. 54Toallowtheimpositionof
agreements did not include nor specify, as part of the secured a staggering P396,211.00 for such work would be contrary to
amount, the penalty of 24% authorized in PN 9707237, such equity. Petitioners state that the purpose of attorneys fees in
amount of P581,666.66 could not be made answerable by or cases of this nature is not to give respondent a larger
collected from the mortgages covering TCTs T14250 and T compensation for the loan than the law already allows, but to
16208. Claiming support fromPhilippine Bank of protectitagainstanyfuturelossordamagebybeingcompelledto
Communications[PBCom]v.CourtofAppeals,51petitionersinsist retain counsel x x x to institute judicial proceedings for the
collectionofitscredit.55Andbecausetheinstantcaseinvolvesa
thatthephraseandotherobligationsowingbythe
simpleextrajudicialforeclosure,attorneysfeesmaybeequitably
_______________
tempered.
RespondentsArguments to its choosing; and 5) interest rates based on prime rate plus
For its part, respondent disputes petitioners claim that applicable spread are indeterminate and arbitrary PNB
interestrateswereunilaterallyfixedbyit,takingreliefintheCA counters:
pronouncement that petitioners are deemed estopped by their a.ThatCreditAgreementsandpromissorynotesweresigned
failuretoquestiontheimposedratesandtheircontin bypetitioner[s]inblankRespondentclaimsthatthisissuewas
_______________ never raisedinthe lower court. Besides, documentaryevidence
52Records,p.74. prevailsovertestimonialevidence;LydiaSilostestimonyinthis
53Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of regardisselfserving,unsupportedanduncorroborated,andfor
Appeals,supranote51atp.313;p.254. beingtheloneevidenceonthisissue.Thefactremainsthatthese
documents are in proper form, presumed regular, and endure,
54CitingMambulaoLumberCo.v.PhilippineNationalBank,
against arbitrary claims by Silos who is an experienced
130Phil.366,380381;22SCRA359,372(1968).
businesspersonthatshesignedquestionableloandocuments
55CitingNew Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. v. whoseprovisionsforinterestrateswereleftblank,andyetshe
PhilippineNationalBank,479Phil.483,510;435SCRA565,592 continued topay the interests without protest for a number of
(2004). years.56
639 _______________
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 639 56Rollo,pp.100,102.
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 640
uedpaymentthereofwithoutopposition.Itaddsthatbecausethe 640 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Credit Agreement and promissory notes contained both an Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
escalationclauseandadeescalationclause,itmaynotbesaid b.ThatinterestrateswereatshortperiodsRespondent
that the bank violated the principle of mutuality. Besides, the argues that the law which governs and prohibits changes in
increaseordecreaseininterestrateshavebeenmutuallyagreed interestratesmademorethanonceeverytwelvemonthshasbeen
uponbytheparties,asshownbypetitionerscontinuouspayment removed57withtheissuanceofPresidentialDecreeNo.858.58
without protest. Respondent adds that the alleged unilateral c.Thatnointerestratescouldbechargedwherenoagreement
impositionofinterestratesisnotapropersubjectforreviewby oninterestrateswasmadeinwritinginviolationofArticle1956
theCourtbecausetheissuewasneverraisedinthelowercourt. oftheCivilCode, whichprovidesthatnointerestshall be due
Asforpetitionersclaimthatinterestratesimposedbyitare unlessithasbeenexpresslystipulatedinwritingRespondent
nullandvoidforthereasonsthat1)theCreditAgreementsand
insists that the stipulated 25%per annumas embodied in PN
thepromissorynotesweresignedinblank;2)interestrateswere
9707237shouldbeimposedduringtheinterim,ortheperiodafter
atshortperiods;3)nointerestratescouldbechargedwhereno
theloanbecamedueandwhileitremainsunpaid,andnotthe
agreementoninterestrateswasmadeinwriting;4)PNBfixed
legalinterestof12%asclaimedbypetitioners. 59
interestratesonthebasisofarbitrarypoliciesandstandardsleft
 d.That PNB fixed interest rates on the basis of arbitrary payment of interest in the event of noncompliance. 62And the
policies and standards left to its choosing According to promissorynotebeingtheprincipalagreementasopposedto
respondent, interest rates were fixed taking into consideration themortgage,whichisamereaccessoryshouldprevail.This
increases or decreases as provided by law or by the Monetary beingthecase,itsinclusionaspartofthesecuredamountinthe
Board,thebanksoverallcostsoffunds,anduponagreementof mortgageagreementsisvalidandnecessary.
theparties.60 Regarding the foreclosure of the mortgages, respondent
e.That interest rates based on prime rate plus applicable accusespetitionersofpreemptingconsolidationofitsownership
spread are indeterminate and arbitrary On this score, overTCTsT14250andT16208;thatpetitionersfiledCivilCase
respondent submits there are various factors that influence No. 5975 ostensibly to question the foreclosure and sale of
interestrates,frompoliticaleventstoeconomicdevelopments, propertiescoveredbyTCTsT14250andT16208inadesperate
_______________ move to retain ownership over these properties, because they
57Id.,atp.103. failedtotimelyredeemthem.
58Amending Further Act Numbered Two Thousand Six RespondentdirectstheattentionoftheCourttoitspetitionin
Hundred FiftyFive, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the G.R.No.181046,63wheretheproprietyoftheCAsrulingonthe
UsuryLaw. followingissuesissquarelyraised:
59Rollo,pp.103104. _______________
60Id.,atpp.104105. 61Id.,atpp.106107.
641 62CitingArticle1226oftheCivilCodeandParas,CivilCode
of the Philippines Annotated (Commentaries) Vol. IV, p. 298,
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 641
1989,12thedition.
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
63Philippine National Bank, petitioner, versusSpouses
etc.; the cost of money, profitability and foreign currency
EduardoandLydiaSilos,respondents.
transactionsmaynotbediscounted.61
642
On the issue of penalties, respondent reiterates the trial
courtsfindingthatduringpretrial,petitionersadmittedthatthe 642 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Statementof AccountasofOctober12, 1998 whichdetailed Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
and included penalty charges as part of the total outstanding 1.Thattheinterestratetobeappliedaftertheexpirationof
obligationowingtothebankwascorrect.Respondentjustifies thefirst30dayinterestperiodforPN9707237shouldbe12%per
the impositionand collectionofa penaltyas anormalbanking annum;and
practice, and the standard rate per annum for all commercial 2.That PNB should reimburse petitioners the excess in the
banks,atthetime,was24%.Respondentaddsthatthepurposeof bidpriceofP377,505.99whichisthedifferencebetweenthetotal
the penalty or a penal clause for that matter is to ensure the amountduetoPNBandtheamountofitsbidprice.
performanceoftheobligationandsubstitutefordamagesandthe OurRuling
 TheCourtgrantsthePetition. interest rates within the limits allowed by law at any time
Beforeanythingelse,itmustbesaidthatitisnotthefunction dependingonwhateverpolicyitmayadoptinthefuture.Thus,
oftheCourttoreexamineorreevaluateevidenceadducedbythe
inPhilippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,64such
partiesintheproceedingsbelow.Theruleadmitsofcertainwell
stipulationandsimilaronesweredeclaredinviolationofArticle
recognizedexceptions,though,aswhenthelowercourtsfindings
130865of the Civil Code. In a second case,Philippine National
arenotsupported by the evidence on recordorarebasedon a
misapprehension of facts, or when certain relevant and Bankv.CourtofAppeals,66theverysamestipulationsfoundin
undisputed facts were manifestly overlooked that, if properly the credit agreement and the promissory notes prepared and
considered, would justify a different conclusion. This case falls issued by the respondent were again invalidated. The Court
withinsuchexceptions. thereinsaid:
The Court notes that on March 5, 2008, a Resolution was TheCreditAgreementprovidedinteralia,that
issuedbytheCourtsFirstDivisiondenyingrespondentspetition (a)TheBANKreservestherighttoincreasetheinterest
in G.R. No. 181046, due to late filing, failure to attach the rate within the limits allowed by law at any time
requiredaffidavitofserviceofthepetitiononthetrialcourtand depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the
the petitioners, and submission of a defective verification and future;Provided, that the interest rate on this
certificationofnonforumshopping.OnJune25,2008,theCourt
accommodation shall be correspondingly decreased in the
issued another Resolution denying with finality respondents
eventthattheapplicablemaximuminterestisreducedbylaw
motionforreconsiderationoftheMarch5,2008Resolution.And
orbytheMonetaryBoard.Ineithercase,theadjustmentin
on August 15, 2008, entry of judgment was made. This thus
the interest rate agreed upon shall take effect on the
settlestheissues,asabovestated,coveringa)theinterestrate
effectivity date of the increase or decrease in the maximum
or12%perannumthatappliesuponexpirationofthefirst30 interestrate.
daysinterestperiodprovidedunderPN9707237,andb)theCAs ThePromissory Note, in turn,authorized the PNB to
decreethatPNBshouldreimbursepetitionertheexcessinthebid raise the rate of interest, at any time without notice,
priceofP377,505.09. beyond the stipulated rate of 12% but only within the
It appears that respondents practice, more than once
limitsallowedbylaw.
proscribedbytheCourt,hasbeencarriedoveroncemoretothe
TheRealEstateMortgagecontractlikewiseprovidedthat
643
_______________
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 643
64273Phil.789,796797,799;196SCRA536,543(1991).
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 65Art. 1308.The contract must bind both contracting
petitioners.Inanumberofdecidedcases,theCourtstruckdown parties;itsvalidityorcompliancecannotbelefttothewillofone
provisionsincreditdocumentsissuedbyPNBto,orrequiredof, ofthem.
its borrowers which allow the bank to increase or decrease 66G.R.No.107569,November8,1994,238SCRA20.
 644 VOL.728,JULY2,2014 645
644 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank creasedintheeventthattheapplicablemaximumrateofinterest
(k)INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE:The rate of interest is increased by law or by the Monetary Board;Provided, That
chargedontheobligationsecuredbythismortgageaswellas suchstipulationshallbevalidonlyifthereisalsoastipulationin
theinterestontheamountwhichmayhavebeenadvancedby the agreement that the rate of interest agreed upon shall be
the MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provision reducedintheeventthattheapplicablemaximumrateofinterest
hereof,shallbesubjectduringthelifeofthiscontractto is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board;Provided,further,
suchanincreasewithintherateallowedbylaw,asthe Thattheadjustmentintherateofinterestagreeduponshalltake
BoardofDirectorsoftheMORTGAGEEmayprescribe effectonoraftertheeffectivityoftheincreaseordecreaseinthe
foritsdebtors. maximumrateofinterest.
xxxx Section1ofP.D.No.1684alsoempoweredtheCentralBanks
Inmakingtheunilateralincreasesininterestrates,petitioner MonetaryBoardtoprescribethemaximumratesofinterestfor
bank relied on the escalation clause contained in their credit loansandcertainforbearances.Pursuanttosuchauthority,the
agreementwhichprovides,asfollows: Monetary Board issued Central Bank (C.B.) Circular No. 905,
TheBankreservestherighttoincreasetheinterestratewithin Seriesof1982,Section5ofwhichprovides:
thelimitsallowedbylawatanytimedependingonwhatever Sec.5.Section 1303 of the Manual of Regulations (for Banks
policyitmayadoptinthefutureandprovided,that,the and Other Financial Intermediaries) is hereby amended to
interestrateonthisaccommodationshallbecorrespondingly readasfollows:
decreasedintheeventthattheapplicablemaximuminterest Sec.1303.Interest and Other Charges.The rate of interest,
rateis reducedbylaw orbytheMonetary Board. Ineither includingcommissions,premiums,feesandothercharges,on
case, the adjustment in the interest rate agreed upon shall any loan, or forbearance of any money, goods or credits,
takeeffectontheeffectivitydateoftheincreaseordecreasein regardless of maturity and whether secured or unsecured,
maximuminterestrate. shall not be subject to any ceiling prescribed under or
ThisclauseisauthorizedbySection2ofPresidentialDecree pursuanttotheUsuryLaw,asamended.
(P.D.)No.1684whichfurtheramendedActNo.2655(TheUsury P.D.No.1684andC.B.CircularNo.905nomorethanallow
Law),asamended,thus: contractingpartiestostipulatefreelyregardinganysubsequent
Section2.The same Act is hereby amended by adding a new adjustment in the interest rate that shall accrue on a loan or
sectionafterSection7,toreadasfollows: forbearanceofmoney,goodsor
Sec.7a.Parties to an agreement pertaining to a loan or 646
forbearanceofmoney,goodsorcreditsmaystipulatethattherate 646 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
ofinterestagreeduponmaybein645 Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
credits.Infine,theycanagreetoadjust,upwardordownward, mutualityofcontractsordainedinArticle1308oftheCivil
the interest previously stipulated.However, contrary to the Code:
stubborn insistence of petitioner bank, the said lawand 647
circular did not authorize either party to unilaterally VOL.728,JULY2,2014 647
raisetheinterestratewithouttheothersconsent. Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
It is basic that there can be no contract in the true Art.1308.Thecontractmustbindbothcontractingparties;
sense in the absence of the element of agreement, or of itsvalidityorcompliancecannotbelefttothewillofoneofthem.
mutualassentoftheparties.Ifthisassentiswantingon Inorderthatobligationsarisingfromcontractsmayhavethe
the part of the one who contracts, his act has no more force of law between the parties, there must be mutuality
efficacy than if it had been done under duress or by a betweenthepartiesbasedontheiressentialequality.Acontract
personofunsoundmind. containing a condition which makes its fulfillment dependent
Similarly,contract changes must be made with the exclusivelyupontheuncontrolledwill ofone ofthe contracting
consent of the contracting parties. The minds of all the parties, is void . . . . Hence, even assuming that the . . . loan
agreementbetweenthePNBandtheprivaterespondentgavethe
parties must meet as to the proposed modification,
PNBalicense(althoughinfacttherewasnone)toincreasethe
especially when it affects an important aspect of the
interest rate at will during the term of the loan, that license
agreement. In the case of loan contracts, it cannot be
wouldhavebeennullandvoidforbeingviolativeoftheprinciple
gainsaid that the rate of interest is always a vital of mutuality essential in contracts. It would have invested the
component,for itcan makeor breaka capitalventure.Thus, loan agreement with the character of a contract of adhesion,
anychangemustbemutuallyagreedupon,otherwise,itisbereft where the parties do not bargain on equal footing, the weaker
ofanybindingeffect. partys(thedebtor)participationbeingreducedtothealternative
We cannot countenance petitioner banks posturing totakeitorleaveit....Suchacontractisaveritabletrapfor
thattheescalationclauseatbenchgivesitunbridledright theweakerpartywhomthecourtsofjusticemustprotectagainst
to unilaterally upwardly adjust the interest on private abuseandimposition.67(Emphasessupplied)
respondentsloan.Thatwouldcompletelytakeawayfrom Then again, in a third case,Spouses Almeda v. Court of
private respondents the right to assent to an important Appeals,68theCourtinvalidatedtheverysameprovisionsinthe
modification in their agreement, and would negate the respondentspreparedCreditAgreement,declaringthus:
element of mutuality in contracts. InPhilippine National The binding effect of any agreement between parties to a
Bankv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,196SCRA536,544545(1991)we contract is premised on two settled principles: (1) that any
held obligationarisingfromcontracthastheforce
xxxTheunilateralactionofthePNBinincreasingthe _______________
interestrateontheprivaterespondentsloanviolatedthe 67Id.,atpp.2226.
 68326Phil.309;256SCRA292(1996). usesthephraseinterestrateagreedupon,inreference
648 totheoriginal21%interestrate.xxx
648 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED xxxx
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank Petitioners never agreed in writing to pay the increased
oflawbetweentheparties;and(2)thattheremustbemutuality interestratesdemandedbyrespondentbankincontraventionto
between the parties based on their essential equality. Any thetenoroftheircreditagreement.Thatanincreaseininterest
contractwhichappearstobeheavilyweighedinfavorofoneof rates from 18% to as much as 68% is excessive and
thepartiessoastoleadtoanunconscionableresultisvoid.Any unconscionable is indisputable.Between 1981 and 1984,
stipulation regarding thevalidity or compliance of the contract petitioners had paid an amount equivalent to virtually
whichisleftsolelytothewillofoneoftheparties,islikewise, halfoftheentire
invalid. 649
It is plainly obvious, therefore, from the undisputed VOL.728,JULY2,2014 649
factsofthecasethatrespondentbankunilaterallyaltered Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
thetermsofitscontractwithpetitionersbyincreasingthe principal (P7,735,004.66) which was applied to interest
interestratesontheloanwithoutthepriorassentofthe alone. By the time the spouses tendered the amount of
latter. In fact, the manner of agreement is itself explicitly P40,142,518.00 in settlement of their obligations;
stipulatedbytheCivilCodewhenitprovides,inArticle1956that respondentbankwasdemandingP58,377,487.00overand
Nointerestshallbedueunlessithasbeenexpresslystipulated above those amounts already previously paid by the
in writing.What has been stipulated in writing from a spouses.
perusalofinterestrateprovisionofthecreditagreement Escalation clauses are not basically wrong or legally
signedbetweenthepartiesisthatpetitionerswerebound objectionablesolongastheyarenotsolelypotestativebutbased
merelytopay21%interest,subjecttoapossibleescalation onreasonableandvalidgrounds.Here,asclearlydemonstrated
ordeescalation,when1)thecircumstanceswarrantsuch above, not only [are] the increases of the interest rates on the
escalationordeescalation;2)withinthelimitsallowedby basis of the escalation clause patently unreasonable and
law;and3)uponagreement. unconscionable, but also there are no valid and reasonable
Indeed, the interest rate which appears to have been standardsuponwhichtheincreasesareanchored.
agreeduponbythepartiestothecontractinthiscasewas xxxx
the 21% rate stipulated in the interest provision. Any Inthefaceoftheunequivocalinterestrateprovisionsinthe
doubt about this is in fact readily resolved by a careful creditagreementandinthelawrequiringthepartiestoagreeto
readingofthecreditagreementbecausethesameplainly changes in the interest rate in writing, we hold that the
unilateralandprogressiveincreasesimposedbyrespondentPNB
were null and void. Their effect was to increase the total
obligation on an eighteen million peso loan to an amount way extensionshereofthatwillleaveanyportionoftheamountstill
over three times that which was originally granted to the unpaidafter730daysshallautomaticallyconverttheoutstanding
borrowers. That these increases, occasioned by crafty balanceintoamediumorlongtermobligationasthecasemaybe
manipulations in the interest rates is unconscionable and andgive the Bank the right to charge the interest rates
neutralizes the salutary policies of extending loans to spur prescribedunderitspoliciesfromthedatethe accountwas
businesscannotbedisputed.69(Emphasessupplied) originallygranted.
Still,inafourthcase,PhilippineNationalBankv.Courtof To secure payment of the loan the parties executed a real
Appeals,70theabovedoctrinewasreiterated: estatemortgagecontractwhichprovided:
Thepromissorynotecontainedthefollowingstipulation: (k)INCREASEOFINTERESTRATE:
For value received, I/we, [private respondents] jointly and Therateofinterestchargedontheobligationsecuredby
severally promise to pay to the ORDER of the PHILIPPINE thismortgageaswellastheinterestontheamountwhichmay
NATIONALBANK,atitsofficeinSan havebeenadvancedbytheMORTGAGEE,inaccordancewiththe
_______________ provision hereof,shall be subject during the life of this
69Id.,atpp.316317,322,325;pp.299308. contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by
70328Phil.54;258SCRA549(1996). law, as the Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may
650 prescribeforitsdebtors.
650 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED xxxx
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank Tobeginwith,PNBsargumentrestsonamisapprehensionofthe
JoseCity,Philippines,thesumofFIFTEENTHOUSANDONLY import of the appellate courts ruling. The Court of Appeals
(P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, togetherwith interest nullifiedtheinterestrateincreases651
thereon at the rate of 12%per annumuntil paid, which VOL.728,JULY2,2014 651
interest rate the Bank may at any time without notice, Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
raisewithinthelimitsallowedbylaw,andI/wealsoagreeto not because the promissory note did not comply with P.D. No.
pay jointly and severally ____%per annumpenalty charge, by 1684byprovidingforadeescalation,butbecausetheabsenceof
wayofliquidateddamagesshouldthisnotebeunpaidorisnot such provision made the clause so onesided as to make it
renewedonduedated. unreasonable.
Paymentofthisnoteshallbeasfollows: Thatrulingiscorrect.ItisinlinewithourdecisioninBanco
*THREEHUNDREDSIXTYFIVEDAYS*AFTERDATE FilipinoSavings&MortgageBankv.NavarrothatalthoughP.D.
On the reverse side of the note the following condition was No.1684isnottoberetroactivelyappliedtoloansgrantedbefore
stamped: itseffectivity,theremustneverthelessbeadeescalationclauseto
AllshorttermloanstobegrantedstartingJanuary1,1978 mitigate the onesidedness of the escalation clause. Indeed
shall be made subject to the condition that any and/or all becauseofconcernfortheunequalstatusofborrowersvisvis
thebanks,ourcasesafterBancoFilipinohavefashionedtherule equality. A contract containing a condition which makes its
thatanyincreaseintherateofinterestmadepursuantto fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of
an escalation clause must be the result of agreement oneofthecontractingparties,isvoid(Garciavs.RitaLegarda,
betweentheparties. Inc.,21SCRA555).Hence,evenassumingthattheP1.8million
ThusinPhilippineNationalBankv.CourtofAppeals, loan agreement between the PNB and the private respondent
two promissory notes authorized PNB to increase the gave the PNB a license (although in fact there was none) to
stipulatedinterestperannumwithinthelimitsallowed increasetheinterestrateatwillduringthetermoftheloan,that
bylawat anytimedependingonwhateverpolicy [PNB] licensewouldhavebeennullandvoidforbeingviolativeofthe
mayadoptinthefuture;Provided,thattheinterestrate principle of mutuality essential in contracts. It would have
on this note shall be correspondingly decreased in the investedtheloanagreementwiththecharacterofacontractof
event that the applicable maximum interest rate is adhesion,wherethepartiesdonotbargainonequalfooting,the
reducedbylaworbytheMonetaryBoard.Therealestate weaker partys (the debtor) participation being reduced to the
mortgagelikewiseprovided: alternativetotakeitorleaveit(Quavs.LawUnion&Rock
Therateofinterestchargedontheobligationsecured InsuranceCo.,95Phil.85).Suchacontractisaveritabletrapfor
by this mortgage as well as the interest on the amount theweakerpartywhomthecourtsofjusticemustprotectagainst
whichmayhavebeenadvancedbytheMORTGAGEE,in abuseandimposition.
accordance with the provisions hereof, shall be subject AsimilarrulingwasmadeinPhilippineNationalBank
duringthelifeofthiscontracttosuchanincreasewithin v. Court of Appeals. The credit agreement in that case
therateallowedbylaw,astheBoardofDirectorsofthe provided:
MORTGAGEEmayprescribeforitsdebtors. The BANK reserves the right to increase the interest
Pursuant to these clauses, PNB successively increased the rate within the limits allowed by law at any time
interest from 18% to 32%, then to 41% and then to 48%.This dependingonwhateverpolicyitmayadoptinthefuture:
Court declared the increases unilaterally imposed by Provided,thattheinterestrateonthisaccommodationshallbe
[PNB] to be in violation of the principle of mutualityas correspondingly decreased in the event that the applicable
maximuminterestisreducedbylaworbytheMonetaryBoard...
embodied in Art. 1308 of the Civil Code, which provides that
.
[t]hecontractmustbindbothcontractingparties;itsvalidityor
Asinthefirstcase,PNBsuccessivelyincreasedthestipulated
compliancecannotbelefttothewillofoneofthem.AstheCourt
explained: interestsothatwhatwasoriginally12%perannumbecame,after
In order that obligations arising from contracts may onlytwoyears,42%.Indeclaringtheincreasesinvalid,weheld:
havetheforceoflawbetweentheparties,theremustbe 653
mutuality between the parties based on their essential VOL.728,JULY2,2014 653
 Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank notice to and securing the consent of the borrowers. This
Wecannotcountenance petitionerbanksposturing thatthe unilateralauthorityisanathematothe
escalationclauseatbenchgivesitunbridledrighttounilaterally _______________
upwardlyadjusttheinterestonprivaterespondentsloan.That 71Id.,atpp.5657,6063;pp.550557.
wouldcompletelytakeawayfromprivaterespondentstherightto 72Supranote55.
assent to an important modification in their agreement, and 654
wouldnegatetheelementofmutualityincontracts. 654 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Onlyrecentlyweinvalidatedanotherroundofinterest Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
increasesdecreedbyPNBpursuanttoasimilaragreement mutuality of contracts and enable lenders to take undue
ithadwithotherborrowers: advantage of borrowers. Although the Usury Law has been
[W]hiletheUsuryLawceilingoninterestrateswasliftedby effectively repealed, courts may still reduce iniquitous or
C.B.Circular905,nothinginthesaidcircularcouldpossibly unconscionable rates charged for the use of
be read as granting respondent bank carte blanche money.Furthermore, excessive interests, penalties and
authority to raise interest rates to levels which would otherchargesnotrevealedindisclosurestatementsissued
eitherenslaveitsborrowersorleadtoahemorrhagingof by banks, even if stipulated in the promissory notes,
theirassets. cannot be given effect under the Truth in Lending
InthiscasenoattemptwasmadebyPNBtosecurethe Act.73(Emphasissupplied)
conformity of private respondents to the successive Yetagain,inasixthdisposition,PhilippineNationalBank
increasesintheinterestrate.Privaterespondentsassent v. Spouses Rocamora,74the above pronouncements were
to the increases cannot be implied from their lack of reiteratedtodebunkPNBsrepeatedrelianceonitsinvalidated
responsetotheletterssentbyPNB,informingthemofthe contractstipulations:
increases. For as stated in one case, no one receiving a We repeated this rule in the 1994 case ofPNB v. CA and
proposal to change a contract is obliged to answer the JaymeFernandezandthe1996caseofPNBv.CAandSpouses
proposal.71(Emphasissupplied) Basco.Takingnoheedoftheserulings,theescalationclause
We made the same pronouncement in a fifth case,New PNB used in the present case to justify the increased interest
Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. v. Philippine National rates is no different from the escalation clause assailed in the
Bank,72thus 1996PNBcase;inboth,theinterestrateswereincreasedfrom
Courts have the authority to strike down or to modify theagreed12%perannumrateto42%.xxx
provisions in promissory notes that grant the lenders xxxx
unrestrainedpowertoincreaseinterestrates,penaltiesandother Onthestrengthofthisruling,PNBsargumentthat
charges at the latters sole discretion and without giving prior the spouses Rocamoras failure to contest the increased
interest rates that were purportedly reflected in the (b)The Borrower agrees thatthe Bank may modify the
statementsofaccountandthedemandletterssentbythe interest rate in the Loan depending on whatever policy
bankamountedtotheirimpliedacceptanceoftheincrease the Bank may adopt in the future, including without
shouldlikewisefail. limitation,theshiftingfromthefloatinginterestratesystemto
Evidently, PNBs failure to secure the spouses Rocamoras thefixedinterestratesystem,orviceversa.WheretheBankhas
consenttotheincreasedinterestratespromptedthelowercourts imposedontheLoaninterestatarateperannumwhichisequal
todeclareexcessiveandillegaltheinterestratesimposed.Togo totheBanksspreadoverthecurrentfloatinginterestrate,the
aroundthislowercourtfinding,PNBallegesthattheP206,297.47 BorrowerherebyagreesthattheBankmay,withoutneed
deficiency ofnoticetotheBorrower,increaseordecreaseitsspread
_______________ overthe floatinginterest rateat anytimedependingon
73Id.,atp.486;p.571. whatever policy it may adopt in the future.76(Emphases
74616Phil.369;600SCRA395(2009). supplied)
655 while the eight promissory notes issued pursuant thereto
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 655 grantedPNBtherighttoincreaseorreduceinterestrates
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank _______________
claim was computed using only the original 12%per 75Id.,atpp.382383;409410.
76Records,p.74.
annuminterestrate.Wefindthisunlikely.Ourexaminationof
656
PNBs own ledgers, included in the records of the case, clearly
656 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
indicatesthatPNBimposedinterestrateshigherthantheagreed
12%per annumrate. This confirmatory finding, albeit based Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
solelyonledgersfoundintherecords,reinforcestheapplication withinthelimitsallowedbylawortheMonetaryBoard77and
inthiscaseoftherulethatfindingsoftheRTC,whenaffirmedby theRealEstateMortgageagreementincludedthesamerightto
theCA,arebindinguponthisCourt.75(Emphasessupplied) increase or reduce interest rates at any time depending on
Verily, all these cases, including the present one, involve whateverpolicyPNBmayadoptinthefuture.78
identical or similar provisions found in respondents credit On the basis of the Credit Agreement, petitioners issued
agreements and promissory notes. Thus, the July 1989 Credit promissory notes which they signed in blank, and respondent
Agreementexecutedbypetitionersandrespondentcontainedthe lateronenteredtheircorrespondinginterestrates,asfollows:
followingstipulationoninterest: 1stPromissoryNotedatedJuly24,198919.5%;
1.03.Interest.(a)TheLoanshallbesubjecttointerestatthe 2ndPromissoryNotedatedNovember22,198923%;
rateof19.5%[perannum].Interestshallbepayableinadvance 3rdPromissoryNotedatedMarch21,199022%;
everyonehundredtwentydaysattherateprevailingatthetime 4thPromissoryNotedatedJuly19,199024%;
oftherenewal. 5thPromissoryNotedatedDecember17,199028%;
 6thPromissoryNotedatedFebruary14,199132%; 18thPromissoryNotedatedNovember16,199416%;
7thPromissoryNotedatedMarch1,199130%;and 19thPromissoryNotedatedApril10,199521%;
8thPromissoryNotedatedJuly11,199124%.79 20thPromissoryNotedatedJuly19,199518.5%;
On the other hand, the August 1991 Amendment to Credit 21stPromissoryNotedatedDecember18,199518.75%;
Agreementcontainsthefollowingstipulationregardinginterest: 22ndPromissoryNotedatedApril22,199618.5%;
1.03.Interest on Line Availments. (a)The Borrowers 23rdPromissoryNotedatedJuly22,199618.5%;
agreetopayinterest on eachAvailmentfrom date of each 24thPromissoryNotedatedNovember25,199618%;
Availment up to but not including the date of full payment 25thPromissoryNotedatedMay30,199717.5%;and
thereofattherateperannumwhichisdetermined bythe 26thPromissoryNote(PN9707237)datedJuly30,1997
Banktobeprimerateplusapplicablespreadineffectasof 25%.81
thedateofeachAvailment.80(Emphasessupplied) The 9thup to the 17thpromissory notes provide for the
andunderthisAmendmenttoCreditAgreement,petitioners payment of interest at the rate the Bank may at any time
againexecutedandsignedthefollowingpromissorynotesin withoutnotice,raisewithinthelimitsallowedbylawxxx. 82On
_______________ theotherhand,the18thuptothe26thpromissorynoteswhich
77Id.,atp.192. includesPN9707237carriedthefollowingprovision:
78Id.,atp.74,dorsalportion. xxxForthispurpose,I/Weagreethattherateofinterest
79Id.,atpp.192199. herein stipulated may be increased or decreased forthe
80Id.,atp.56. subsequentInterestPeriods,with
657 _______________
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 657 81Id.,atpp.174191.
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 82Id.,atp.191.
blank, for the respondent to later on enter the corresponding 657
interestrates,whichitdid,asfollows: VOL.728,JULY2,2014 657
9thPromissoryNotedatedNovember8,199126%; Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
10thPromissoryNotedatedMarch19,199225%; prior notice to the Borrower in the event of changes in
11thPromissoryNotedatedJuly11,199223%; interestrateprescribedbylawortheMonetaryBoardof
12thPromissoryNotedatedNovember10,199221%;
the Central Bank of the Philippines, or in the Banks
13thPromissoryNotedatedMarch15,199321%;
overallcostoffunds.I/Weherebyagreethatintheevent
14thPromissoryNotedatedJuly12,199317.5%;
I/we are not agreeable to the interest rate fixed for any
15thPromissoryNotedatedNovember17,199321%;
InterestPeriod,I/weshallhavetheoptiontoprepaythe
16thPromissoryNotedatedMarch28,199421%;
17thPromissoryNotedatedJuly13,199421%; loan or credit facility without penalty within ten (10)
calendar days from the Interest Setting Date.83(Emphasis encethefixingofinterestratestobeimposedonhim.Clearly,
supplied) respondentsmethodoffixinginterestratesbasedononesided,
indeterminate,andsubjectivecriteriasuchasprofitability,costof
Thesestipulationsmustbeoncemoreinvalidated,aswasdone money,bankcosts,etc.isarbitraryforthereisnofixedstandard
inpreviouscases.Thecommondenominatorinthesecasesisthe ormarginaboveorbelowtheseconsiderations.
lackofagreementofthepartiestotheimposedinterestrates.For Thestipulationinthepromissorynotessubjectingtheinterest
thiscase,thislackofconsentbythepetitionershasbeenmade ratetoreviewdoesnotrendertheimpositionbyUCPBofinterest
obviousbythefactthattheysignedthepromissorynotesinblank ratesontheobligationsofthespousesBelusovalid.Accordingto
fortherespondenttofill.WefindcrediblethetestimonyofLydia saidstipulation:
in this respect. Respondent failed to discredit her; in fact, its Theinterestrateshallbesubjecttoreviewandmaybeincreased
witnessPNBKaliboBranchManagerAspaadmittedthatinterest or decreased by the LENDERconsidering among others
rates were fixed solely by its Treasury Department in Manila, the prevailing financial and monetary conditions; or
whichwerethensimplycommunicatedtoallPNBbranchesfor therateofinterestandchargeswhichotherbanksor
implementation. If this were the case, then this would explain financial institutions charge or offer to charge for
whypetitionershadtosignthepromissorynotesinblank,since similar accommodations; and/or the resulting
theimposableinterestrateshaveyettobedeterminedandfixed profitabilitytotheLENDERafterdueconsiderationofall
byrespondentsTreasuryDepartmentinManila. dealingswiththeBORROWER.
Moreover,inAspasenumerationofthefactorsthatdetermine It should bepointed out that theauthorityto review
the interest rates PNB fixes such as cost of money, foreign
theinterestratewasgiven[to]UCPBaloneasthelender.
currency values, bank administrative costs, profitability, and
Moreover, UCPB may apply the considerations enumerated in
considerationswhichaffectthebankingindustryitcanbeseen
this provision as it wishes. As worded in the above provision,
thatconsiderationswhichaffectPNBsborrowersareignored.A
UCPB may give as much weight as it desires to each of the
borrowerscurrentfinancialstate,hisfeedbackoropinions,the
following considerations: (1) the prevailing financial and
nature and purpose of his borrowings, the effect of foreign
monetary condition; (2) the rate of interest and charges which
currency values or fluctuations on his business or
otherbanksorfinancialinstitutionschargeoroffertochargefor
borrowing,etc.thesearenotfactorswhichinflu similaraccommodations;and/or(3)theresultingprofitabilityto
_______________ theLENDER(UCPB)afterdueconsiderationofalldealingswith
83Id.,atp.174. theBORROWER(thespousesBeluso).Again,asinthecaseof
theinterestrateprovision,thereisnofixedmarginabove
659
orbelowtheseconsiderations.
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 659
Inviewoftheforegoing,theSeparabilityClausecannotsave
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank eitherofthetwooptionsofUCPBastothe
660 Whereas,inthepresentcreditagreementsunderscrutiny,it
660 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED isstatedthat:
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank _______________
interest to be imposed, as both options violate the principle of 84United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses
mutualityofcontracts.84(Emphasessupplied) Beluso,supranote50atpp.342343;p.584.
85SeePhilippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,supra
To repeatwhathasbeen saidin theabovecitedcases, any note66atp.22.
modificationinthecontract,suchastheinterestrates,mustbe 661
madewiththeconsentofthecontractingparties.Themindsofall VOL.728,JULY2,2014 661
thepartiesmustmeetastotheproposedmodification,especially
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
whenitaffectsanimportantaspectoftheagreement.Inthecase
INTHEJULY1989CREDITAGREEMENT
ofloanagreements,therateofinterestisaprincipalcondition,if
(b)The Borrower agreesthat the Bank may modify the
not the most important component. Thus, any modification
interestrateontheLoandependingonwhateverpolicytheBank
thereof must be mutually agreed upon; otherwise, it has no
mayadoptinthefuture,includingwithoutlimitation,theshifting
bindingeffect.
fromthefloatinginterestratesystemtothefixedinterestrate
What is even more glaring in the present case is that, the
stipulationsinquestionnolongerprovidethatthepartiesshall system,orviceversa.WheretheBankhasimposedontheLoan
agreeupontheinterestratetobefixed;instead,theyareworded interestatarateperannum,whichisequaltotheBanksspread
insuchawaythattheborrowershallagreetowhateverinterest over the current floating interest rate,the Borrower hereby
rate respondent fixes. In credit agreements covered by the agreesthat the Bank may,without need of notice to the
abovecitedcases,itisprovidedthat: Borrower, increase or decrease its spread over the floating
The Bank reserves the right to increase the interest rate interest rate atany time depending on whatever policy it may
within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on adoptinthefuture.86(Emphasessupplied)
whatever policy it may adopt in the future:Provided, that, the IN THE AUGUST 1991 AMENDMENT TO CREDIT
interest rate on this accommodation shall be correspondingly AGREEMENT
decreasedintheeventthattheapplicablemaximuminterestrate 1.03.Interest on Line Availments. (a)The Borrowers
isreducedbylaworbytheMonetaryBoard.Ineithercase,the agreeto pay interest on each Availment from date of each
adjustmentintheinterestrateagreeduponshalltakeeffect Availmentuptobutnotincludingthedateoffullpaymentthereof
ontheeffectivity dateoftheincreaseordecreasein maximum at the rateper annumwhich is determined by the Bank to be
interestrate.85(Emphasissupplied) primerateplusapplicablespreadineffectasofthedateofeach
Availment.87(Emphasissupplied)

 Plainly, with the present credit agreement, the element of (2)the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment
consentoragreementbytheborrowerisnowcompletelylacking, and/ortradein;
which makes respondents unlawful act all the more (3)the difference between the amounts set forth under
reprehensible. clauses(1)and(2);
Accordingly, petitioners are correct in arguing that estoppel (4)thecharges,individuallyitemized,whicharepaidortobe
shouldnotapplytothem,for[e]stoppelcannotbepredicatedon paidbysuchpersoninconnectionwiththetransactionbutwhich
an illegal act. As between the parties to a contract, validity arenotincidenttotheextensionofcredit;
cannotbegiventoitbyestoppelifitisprohibitedby (5)thetotalamounttobefinanced;
_______________ _______________
86Records,p.47. 88United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses
87Id.,atp.56. Beluso,supranote50atp.343;p.585.
662 89Section2thereof.
662 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 90HeirsofZoiloEspirituv.SpousesLandrito,549Phil.180,
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 190191;520SCRA383,391392(2007).
law or is against public policy.88It appears that by its acts, 663
respondentviolatedtheTruthinLendingAct,orRepublicActNo. VOL.728,JULY2,2014 663
3765,whichwasenactedtoprotectxxxcitizensfromalackof Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
awareness ofthe true cost ofcredittothe userby using afull (6)the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and
disclosureofsuchcostwithaviewofpreventingtheuninformed centavos;and
useofcredittothedetrimentofthenationaleconomy. 89Thelaw (7)thepercentagethatthefinancebearstothetotalamount
givesadetailedenumerationofthespecificinformationrequired to be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on the
tobedisclosed,amongwhicharetheinterestandothercharges outstandingunpaidbalanceoftheobligation.
incident to the extension of credit.90Section 4 thereof provides
that a disclosure statement must be furnished prior to the UnderSection4(6),financechargerepresentstheamounttobe
consummationofthetransaction,thus: paid by the debtor incident to the extension of credit such as
SEC.4.Anycreditorshallfurnishtoeachpersontowhom interest or discounts, collection fees, credit investigation fees,
creditisextended,priortotheconsummationofthetransaction,a attorneys fees, and other service charges. The total finance
clearstatementinwritingsettingforth,totheextentapplicable charge represents the difference between (1) the aggregate
andinaccordancewithrulesandregulationsprescribedbythe consideration(downpaymentplusinstallments)onthepartofthe
Board,thefollowinginformation: debtor, and (2) the sum of the cash price and nonfinance
(1)thecashpriceordeliveredpriceofthepropertyorservice charges.91
tobeacquired;
 Byrequiringthepetitionerstosignthecreditdocumentsand (5)thetotalamounttobefinanced;
thepromissorynotesinblank,andthenunilaterallyfillingthem (6)thefinancechargeexpressedintermsofpesosandcentavos;
uplateron,respondentviolatedtheTruthinLendingAct,and and
wasremissinitsdisclosureobligations.Inonecase,whichthe (7)thepercentagethatthefinancebearstothetotalamountto
Courtfindsapplicablehere,itwasheld: be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on the
UCPBfurtherarguesthatsincethespousesBelusowere outstandingunpaidbalanceoftheobligation.
duly given copies of the subject promissory notes after The rationale of this provision is to protect users of
theirexecution,thentheyweredulynotifiedoftheterms credit fromalackofawareness ofthetruecostthereof,
thereof, in substantial compliance with the Truth in proceeding from the experience that banks are able to
LendingAct. concealsuchtruecostbyhiddencharges,uncertaintyof
Oncemore,wedisagree.Section4oftheTruthinLendingAct interest rates, deduction of interests from the loaned
clearlyprovidesthatthedisclosurestatementmustbefurnished amount, and the like. The law thereby seeks to protect
priortotheconsummationofthetransaction: debtors by permitting them to fully appreciate the true
SEC.4.Any creditor shall furnish to each person to whom costoftheirloan,toenablethemtogivefullconsenttothe
credit is extended, prior to the consummation of the contract, and to properly evaluate their options in
transaction,aclearstatementinwritingsettingforth,tothe arriving at business decisions. Upholding UCPBs claim of
extentapplicableandinaccordancewithrulesandregulations substantialcompliancewoulddefeatthesepurposesoftheTruth
prescribedbytheBoard,thefollowinginformation: in Lending Act.The belated discovery of the true cost of
_______________
creditwilltoooftennotbeabletoreversetheilleffectsof
91CentralBankCircularNo.158.
analreadyconsummatedbusinessdecision.
664
Inaddition,thepromissorynotes,thecopiesofwhich
664 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
werepresentedtothespousesBelusoafterexecution,are
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
not sufficient notification from UCPB. As earlier
(1)thecashpriceordeliveredpriceofthepropertyorserviceto
discussed, the interest rate provision therein does not
beacquired;
sufficientlyindicatewithparticularitytheinterestrateto
(2)theamounts,ifany,tobecreditedasdownpaymentand/or
tradein; be applied to the loan covered by said promissory
(3)thedifferencebetweentheamountssetforthunderclauses notes.92(Emphasessupplied)
(1)and(2);
(4)thecharges,individuallyitemized,whicharepaidortobe However, the oneyear period within which an action for
paid by such person in connection with the transaction but violation of the Truth in Lending Act may be filed evidently
whicharenotincidenttotheextensionofcredit; prescribed long ago, or sometime in 2001, one year after
petitioners received the March 2000 demand letter which tionsandcannotaffordcourtlitigation;theysuccumbtowhatever
containedtheillegalcharges. chargesthelendersimpose.Attheveryleast,borrowersshould
Thefactthatpetitionerslaterreceivedseveralstatementsof bechargedrightly;butthenagainthisisnotpossibleinaone
account detailing its outstanding obligations does not cure sidedcreditsystemwherethetemptationtoabuseisstrongand
respondentsbreach.Torepeat,thebelateddiscoveryofthetrue thewillingnesstorectifyismadeweakbytheeternaldesirefor
cost of credit does not reverse the ill effects of an already profit.
consummatedbusinessdecision.93Neithermaythestatementsbe Given the above supposition, the Court cannot subscribe to
considered proposals sent to secure the petitioners conformity; respondentsargumentthatineveryrepricingofpetitionersloan
theyweresentaftertheimpositionandapplicationoftheinterest availment,theyaregiventherighttoquestiontheinterestrates
rate, and not before. And even if it were to be presumed that imposed.Theimportofrespondentslineofreasoningcannotbe
these are proposals or offers, there was no acceptance by otherthanthatifoneoutofeveryhundredborrowersquestions
petitioners. No one receiving a proposal to modify a loan respondents practice of unilaterally fixing interest rates, then
contract, especially regarding interest, is obliged to answer the onlytheloanarrangementwiththatlonecomplainingborrower
proposal.94 will enjoy the benefit of review or renegotiation; as to the 99
Loanandcreditarrangements may bemadeenticing by, or others, the questionable practice will continue unchecked, and
sweetenedwith,offersoflowinitialinterestrates,butactually respondent will continue to reap the profits from such
accompaniedbyprovisionswritteninfineprintthatallowlenders unscrupulouspractice.TheCourtcannomorecondoneaviewso
to later on increase or decrease interest rates unilaterally, perverse. This is exactly what the Court meant in the
withouttheconsentoftheborrower,anddependingoncomplex immediatelyprecedingcitedcasewhenitsaidthatthebelated
andsubjectivefactors.Becausetheyhavebeenluredintothese discoveryofthetruecostofcreditdoesnotreversetheilleffects
contractsbyinitiallylowinterestrates,borrowersgetcaughtand of an already consummated business decision;95as to the 99
stuck in the web of subsequent steep rates and penalties, borrowerswhodidnotorcouldnotcomplain,theillegalactshall
surchargesandthelike. Beingordinary individuals orentities, have become afait accompli to their detriment, they
theynaturallydreadlegalcomplica
havealreadysufferedtheoppressiverates.
_______________
Besides,thatpetitionersare giventherightto questionthe
92United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses Beluso, supra
interestratesimposedis,underthecircumstances,irrelevant;we
note50atpp.356358;p.600.
have a situation where the petitioners do not stand on equal
93Id.,atp.358;id.
footingwiththerespondent.Itisdoubtfulthatanyborrowerwho
94Supranote55atp.500;p.583.
finds himself in petitioners position would dare question
666
respondents power to arbitrarily modify interest rates at any
666 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
time. In the second place, on what basis could any borrower
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank questionsuchpower,whenthecriteriaorstan
_______________
 95Id. rate of 12%per annum. This is the uniform ruling adopted in
667 previouscases,includingthosecitedhere. 96Theinterestspaidby
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 667 petitioners should be applied first to the payment of the
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank stipulatedorlegalandunpaidinterest,asthecasemay
dardswhicharereallyonesided,arbitraryandsubjective _______________
fortheexerciseofsuchpowerarepreciselylostonhim? 96SeealsoEquitablePCIBankv.NgSheungNgor,565Phil.
Forthesamereasons,theCourtcannotvalidlyconsiderthat, 520,539;541SCRA223,241242(2007).
as stipulated in the 18thup to the 26thpromissory notes, 668
petitioners are granted the option to prepay the loan or credit 668 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
facilitywithoutpenaltywithin10calendardaysfromtheInterest Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
SettingDateiftheyarenotagreeabletotheinterestratefixed.It be,andlater,tothecapitalorprincipal. 97Respondentshouldthen
has been shown that the promissory notes are executed and refundtheexcessamountofinterestthatithasillegallyimposed
signedinblank,meaningthatbythetimepetitionerslearnofthe uponpetitioners;[t]heamounttoberefundedreferstothatpaid
interestrate,theyarealreadyboundtopayitbecausetheyhave bypetitionerswhentheyhadnoobligationtodoso. 98Thus,the
already presigned the note where the rate is subsequently parties original agreement stipulated the payment of 19.5%
entered.Besides,premiummaynotbeplaceduponastipulation interest;however,thisratewasintendedtoapplyonlytothefirst
inacontractwhichgrantsonepartytherighttochoosewhether promissory note which expired onNovember 21, 1989 and was
tocontinuewithorwithdrawfromtheagreementifitdiscovers paid by petitioners; it was not intended to apply to the whole
thatwhattheotherpartyhasbeendoingallalongisimproperor durationoftheloan.Subsequenthigherinterestrateshavebeen
illegal. declared illegal; but because only the rates are found to be
Thus said, respondents arguments relative to the credit improper,theobligationtopayinterestsubsists,thesametobe
documents that documentary evidence prevails over fixed at the legal rate of 12%per annum. However, the 12%
testimonial evidence; that the credit documents are in proper interest shall apply only until June 30, 2013. Starting July 1,
form,presumedregular,andendure,againstarbitraryclaimsby
2013, the prevailing rate of interest shall be 6%per
petitioners, experienced business persons that they are, they
annumpursuant to our ruling inNacar v. Gallery
signedquestionableloandocumentswhoseprovisionsforinterest
rateswereleftblank,andyettheycontinuedtopaytheinterests Frames99andBangko Sentral ng PilipinasMonetary Board
withoutprotestforanumberofyearsdeservenoconsideration. CircularNo.799.
With regard to interest, the Court finds that since the Nowtotheissueofpenalty.PN9707237providesthatfailureto
escalationclauseisannulled,theprincipalamountoftheloanis pay it or any installment thereon, when due, shall constitute
subject to the original or stipulated rate of interest, and upon default, and a penalty charge of 24% per annum based on the
maturity,theamountdueshallbesubjecttolegalinterestatthe defaulted principal amount shall be imposed. Petitioners claim
thatthispenaltyshouldbeexcludedfromtheforeclosureamount
or bid price because the Real Estate Mortgage and the revealsthatnowhereisitstatedthatpenaltiesaretobeincluded
Supplementtheretodidnotspecificallyincludeitaspartofthe in the secured amount. Construing this silence strictly against
securedamount.Respondentjustifiesitsinclusioninthesecured therespondent,theCourtcanonlyconcludethatthepartiesdid
amount,sayingthatthepurposeofthepenaltyorapenalclause notintendtoincludethepenaltyallowedunderPN9707237as
istoensuretheperformanceoftheobligationandsubstitutefor partofthesecuredamount.Givenitsresources,respondentcould
damagesandthepayment have if it truly wanted to conveniently prepared and
_______________ executedanamendedmortgageagreementwiththepetitioners,
97Hodgesv.Salas,63Phil.567,574(1936),citingAguilarv. therebyincludingpenaltiesintheamounttobesecuredbythe
Rubiato and Gonzalez Vila, 40 Phil. 570 (1920);Go Chioco v. encumberedproperties.Yetitdidnot.
Withregardtoattorneysfees,itwasplainerrorfortheCAto
Martinez,45Phil.256,279282(1923);GuiJong&Co.v.Rivera
have passed upon the issue since it was not raised by the
andAvellar,45Phil.778,784(1924);Sajov.Gustilo,48Phil.451, petitionersintheirappeal;itwastherespondentthatimproperly
462(1925). brought it up in its appellees brief, when it should have
98SeePhilippineSavingsBankv.Castillo,G.R.No.193178, interposedanappeal,sincethetrialcourtsDecisiononthisissue
May30,2011,649SCRA527,538. isadversetoit.Itisanelementaryprincipleinthe
99G.R.No.189871,August13,2013,703SCRA439. _______________
669 100CitingArticle1226oftheCivilCodeandParas,CivilCode
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 669 of the Philippines Annotated (Commentaries) Vol. IV, p. 298,
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank 1989,12thedition.
ofinterestintheeventofnoncompliance. 100Respondentaddsthat 101PhilippineBank ofCommunications,supranote 51atp.
the imposition and collection of a penalty is a normal banking 314;p.255.
practice, and the standard rateper annumfor all commercial 670
banks,atthetime,was24%.Itsinclusionaspartofthesecured 670 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
amountinthemortgageagreementsisthusvalidandnecessary. Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
TheCourtsustainspetitionersviewthatthepenaltymaynotbe subjectofappealsthatanappelleewhodoesnothimselfappeal
includedaspartofthesecuredamount.Havingfoundthecredit cannotobtainfromtheappellatecourtanyaffirmativereliefother
agreementsandpromissorynotestobetainted,wemustaccord thanthosegrantedinthedecisionofthecourtbelow.
thesametreatmenttothemortgages.Afterall,[a]mortgageand xxx[A]nappellee,whoisatthesametimenotanappellant,
anotesecuredbyitaredeemedpartsofonetransactionandare mayonappealbepermittedtomakecounterassignmentsoferror
construedtogether.101Beingsotaintedandhavingtheattributes inordinaryactions,whenthepurposeismerelytodefendhimself
ofacontractof adhesionasthe principal credit documents, we against an appeal in which errors are alleged to have been
must construe the mortgage contracts strictly, and against the committedbythetrialcourtbothintheappreciationoffactsand
partywhodraftedit.Anexaminationofthemortgageagreements
intheinterpretationofthelaw,inordertosustainthejudgment appliedtotheprincipal,whichshallagainbereducedaccordingly.
inhisfavorbutnotwhenhispurposeistoseekmodificationor Thereducedprincipalshallthenbesubjectedtothe12%interest
reversalofthejudgment,inwhichcaseitisnecessaryforhimto on the 4th promissory note, and the excess over 12% interest
haveexceptedtoandappealedfromthejudgment.102 paymentonthe4thpromissorynoteshallagainbeappliedtothe
Since petitioners did not raise the issue of reduction of principal, which shall again be reduced accordingly. And so on
attorneysfees,theCApossessednoauthoritytopassuponitat andsoforth;
theinstanceofrespondent.Therulingofthetrialcourtinthis 3.After the above procedure is carried out, the trial
respectshouldremainundisturbed. courtshallbeabletoconcludeifpetitionersa)stillhave
For the fixing of the proper amounts due and owing to the an OUTSTANDING BALANCE/OBLIGATION or b) MADE
partiestotherespondentascreditorandtothepetitionerswho PAYMENTS OVER AND ABOVE THEIR TOTAL
are entitled to a refund as a consequence of overpayment OBLIGATION(principalandinterest);
consideringthattheypaidmorebywayofinterestchargesthan 4.Suchoutstandingbalance/obligation,iftherebeany,
the 12%per annum103herein allowed the case should be shall then be subjected to a12% per annum interestfrom
remanded to the lower court for proper accounting and October28,1997untilJanuary14,1999,whichisthedateofthe
computation,applyingthefollowingprocedure: auctionsale;
1.The 1stPromissory Note with the 19.5% interest rate is 5.Such outstanding balance/obligation shall alsobe charged
deemedproperandpaid; a24%perannumpenaltyfromAugust14,1997untilJanuary
2.All subsequent promissory notes (from the 2nd to the
14, 1999. But from this total penalty, the petitioners previous
26thpromissorynotes)shallcarryaninterestrateofonly12%per payment of penalties in the amount of P202,000.00 made on
annum.104Thus,interestpaymentmade January27,1998106shallbeDEDUCTED;
_______________ 6.Tothisoutstandingbalance(3.),theinterest(4.),penalties
102Saenzv.Mitchell,60Phil.69,80(1934). (5.), and the final and executory award of1% attorneys
103Or6%perannum,whenapplicable. feesshallbeADDED;
104Id. _______________
671 105Id.
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 671 106Rollo,p.63.
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
inexcessof12%onthe2ndpromissorynoteshallimmediatelybe 7.Thesumtotaloftheoutstandingbalance(3.),interest(4.)
applied to the principal, and the principal shall be accordingly and 1% attorneys fees (6.) shall be DEDUCTED from the bid
reduced. The reduced principal shall then be subjected to the priceofP4,324,172.96.Thepenalties(5.)arenotincludedbecause
12%105interestonthe3rdpromissorynote,andtheexcessover theyarenotincludedinthesecuredamount;
12%interestpaymentonthe3rdpromissorynoteshallagainbe
 8.Thedifferencein(7.)[P4,324,172.96LESSsumtotalofthe 14.Thedifferencein(13.)[P4,324,172.96LESSsumtotalof
outstandingbalance(3.),interest(4.),and1%attorneysfees(6.)] theinterest(4.)and1%attorneysfees(6.)]shallbeDELIVERED
shallbeDELIVEREDTOTHEPETITIONERS; TOTHEPETITIONERS;
9.Respondent may then proceed to consolidate its title to 15.Respondent may then proceed to consolidate its title to
TCTsT14250andT16208; TCTs T14250 and T16208. The outstanding penalties, if any,
10.ON THE OTHER HAND, if after performing the shallbecollectedbyothermeans.
procedure in (2.), it turns out that petitioners made Fromtheabove,itwillbeseenthatif,afterproperaccounting,
anOVERPAYMENT, the interest (4.), penalties (5.), and the itturnsoutthatthepetitionersmadepaymentsexceedingwhat
awardof1%attorneysfees(6.)shall be DEDUCTEDfromthe they actually owe by way of principal, interest, and attorneys
overpayment. There is no outstanding balance/obligation fees, then the mortgaged properties need not answer for any
preciselybecausepetitionershavepaidbeyondtheamountofthe outstandingsecuredamount,becausethereisnotany;quitethe
principalandinterest; contrary, respondent must refund the excess to petitioners. In
11.Iftheoverpaymentexceedsthesumtotaloftheinterest suchcase,theextrajudicialforeclosureandsaleoftheproperties
(4.),penalties(5.),andawardof1%attorneysfees(6.),theexcess shallbedeclarednullandvoidforobviouslackofbasis,thecase
shallbeRETURNEDtothepetitioners,withlegalinterest,under beingoneofsolutioindebitiinstead.If,ontheotherhand,itturns
theprincipleofsolutioindebiti;107 outthatpetitionersoverpaymentsininterestsdonotexceedtheir
12.Likewise,iftheoverpaymentexceedsthetotalamountof total obligation, then the respondent may consolidate its
interest(4.)andawardof1%attorneysfees(6.),thetrialcourt ownership over the properties, since the period for redemption
shall INVALIDATE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE has expired. Itsonly obligation will be to return the difference
ANDSALE; between its bid price (P4,324,172.96) and petitioners total
13.HOWEVER,ifthetotalamountofinterest(4.)andaward obligationoutstandingexceptpenaltiesafterapplyingthe
of1%attorneysfees(6.)exceedpetitioners lattersoverpayments.
_______________ WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition
107Also, under the Civil Code, Art. 1413, interest paid in isGRANTED.TheMay8,2007DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
excessoftheinterestallowedbytheusurylawsmayberecovered in C.A.G.R. CV No. 79650 isANNULLEDandSET ASIDE.
bythedebtor,withinterestthereonfromthedateofthepayment. Judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
673 1.Theinterestratesimposedandindicatedinthe2 nduptothe
VOL.728,JULY2,2014 673 26 Promissory Notes are DECLARED NULL AND VOID, and
th

Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank suchnotesshallinsteadbesubjecttointerestattherateoftwelve
overpayment,thentheexcessshallbeDEDUCTEDfromthebid percent(12%)perannumuptoJune30,2013,andstartingJuly
priceofP4,324,172.96; 1,2013,sixpercent(6%)perannumuntilfullsatisfaction;
674
674 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 675
Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank VOL.728,JULY2,2014 675
2.The penalty charge imposed in Promissory Note No. Silosvs.PhilippineNationalBank
9707237shallbeEXCLUDEDfromtheamountssecuredbythe SOORDERED.
realestatemortgages; Carpio (Chairperson), LeonardoDe
3.Thetrialcourtsawardofonepercent(1%)attorneysfees **
Castro, PerezandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
isREINSTATED; Petitiongranted,judgmentannulledandsetaside.
4.The case is orderedREMANDEDto the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 6 of Kalibo, Aklan for the computation of Notes.Sincethestipulationontheinterestrateisvoid,itis
overpayments made by petitioners spouses Eduardo and Lydia
asiftherewasnoexpresscontractthereon.(Macalinaovs.Bank
Silos to respondent Philippine National Bank, taking into
consideration the foregoing dispositions, and applying the ofthePhilippineIslands,600SCRA67[2009])
procedurehereinabovesetforth; Thepaymentofinterestinloansorforbearanceofmoneyis
5.Thereafter, the trial court isORDEREDto make a allowed only if: (1) there was an express stipulation for the
payment of interest; and (2) the agreement for thepayment of
determinationas to the validity of theextrajudicial foreclosure
andsale,declaringthesamenullandvoidincaseofoverpayment interest was reduced in writing. (Prisma Construction &
and ordering the release and return of Transfer Certificates of DevelopmentCorporationvs.Menchavez,614SCRA590[2010])
TitleNos.T14250andTCTT16208topetitioners,orordering
thedeliverytothepetitionersofthedifferencebetweenthebid o0o
priceandthetotalremainingobligationofpetitioners,ifany;
6.Inthemeantime,therespondentPhilippineNationalBank G.R. No. 201001.November 10, 2014.*
isENJOINEDfromconsolidatingtitletoTransferCertificatesof
Title Nos. T14250 and T16208 until all the steps in the MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., petitioner, vs.
procedureabovesetforthhavebeentakenandapplied; MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP., respondent.
7.The reimbursement of the excess in the bid price of Remedial Law; Evidence; Best Evidence Rule;
P377,505.99, which respondent Philippine National Bank is Documentary Evidence; The Best Evidence Rule, a
ordered to reimburse petitioners, should beHELD IN basic postulate requiring the production of the original
ABEYANCEuntil the true amount owing to or owed by the document whenever its contents are the subject of
partiesasagainsteachotherisdetermined; inquiry, is contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the
8.Consideringthatthiscasehasbeenpendingforsuchalong Rules of Court.The Best Evidence Rule, a basic
time and that further proceedings, albeit uncomplicated, are postulate requiring the production of the original
required,thetrialcourtisORDEREDtoproceedwithdispatch. document whenever its contents are the subject of
inquiry, is contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court which provides: Section 3. Original VELASCO, JR.,J.:
document must be produced; exceptions.When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no For consideration of the Court is a Petition for Review
evidence shall be admissible other than the original on Certiorari dated April 20, 20121 filed by MCMP
document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When
Construction Corp. under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot beThe petition seeks the reversal of the Decision dated
October 14, 20112 and Resolution dated March 9, 20123
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror; (b) When the original is in the custody or under
issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
the control of the party against whom the evidence is91860 entitled Monark Equipment Corporation v. MCMP
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after Construction Corporation. The CA Decision affirmed the
reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists of Decision dated November 20, 20074 and Order dated
numerous accounts or other documents which cannot April 28, 20085 issued by the Regional Trial Court,
be examined in court without great loss of time and the
Branch 96 in Quezon City (RTC) in Civil Case No.Q-02-
fact sought to be established from them is only the 47092 entitled Monark Equipment Corporation v. MCMP
Construction Corporation.
general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is
a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
The facts of the case are as follows:
recorded in a public office. MCMP Construction Corporation (MCMP) leased heavy
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision andequipment from Monark Equipment Corporation
resolution of the Court of Appeals. (Monark) for various periods in 2000, the lease covered
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. by a Rental Equipment Contract (Contract). Thus,
Henry Ll. Yusingco, Jr. for petitioner. Monark delivered five (5) pieces of heavy equipment to
Pestelero Law Office for respondent. the project site of MCMP in Tanay, Rizal and Llavac,
_______________ Quezon, the delivery evidenced by invoices as well as
* THIRD DIVISION. Documents Acknowledgment Receipt Nos. 04667 and
433 5706, received and signed by representatives of MCMP,
namely, Jorge Samonte on December 5, 2000 and Rose
VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
Takahashi on January 29, 2001, respectively. Notably,
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
the invoices state:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 8-25.
RESOLUTION 2 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C.
Lantion, concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Php1,282,481.83, broken down as follows:
Dimaampao (Chairperson, 17th Division) and Ramon A.
Cruz; id., at pp. 50-63.
3 Id., at pp. 65-69.
4 Penned by Judge Afable E. Cajigal; id., at pp. 26-
40.
5 Id., at pp. 41-48.
434

43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4
Thus, on June 18, 2002, Monark filed a suit for a Sum of
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
Money with the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-
47092.7 In its Answer filed on July 5, 2002, 8 MCMP
alleged in defense that the complaint was premature as
Credit sales are payable within 30 days from the date Monark has refused to give a detailed breakdown of its
of invoice. Customer agrees to pay interest at 24% p.a. claims. MCMP further averred that it had an agreement
on all amounts. In addition, customer agrees to pay a with Monark that it would not be charged for the whole
collection fee of 1% compounded monthly and 2% per time that the leased equipment
month penalty charge for late payment on amounts _______________
overdue. Customer agrees to pay a sum equal to 25% of 6 Id., at pp. 28-29.
any amount due as attorneys fees in case of suit, and 7 Id., at p. 51.
expressly submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of 8 Id., at p. 9.
Quezon City, Makati, Pasig or Manila, Metro Manila, for 435
any legal action arising from, this transactions.
VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
Despite the lapse of the thirty (30)-day period indicated MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
in the invoices, MCMP failed to pay the rental fees.
Upon demands made upon MCMP to pay the amount
due, partial payments were made in the amount of was in its possession but rather only for the actual time
Php100,000.00 on April 15, 2001 and Php100,000.00 on that the equipment was used although still on the
August 15, 2001. Further demands went unheeded. As project site. MCMP, however, admitted that this
of April 30, 2002, MCMP owed Monark the amount of agreement was not contained in the Contract.
During trial, Monark presented as one of its witnesses,
Reynaldo Peregrino (Peregrino), its Senior Account
6
Manager. Peregrino testified that there were two (2)
original copies of the Contract, one retained by Monark, MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
while the other was given to MCMP. He further testified
that Monarks copy had been lost and that diligent
efforts to recover the copy proved futile. Instead, From this Decision of the RTC, MCMP filed a Motion for
Peregrino presented a photocopy of the Contract which Reconsideration dated January 31, 2008 while Monark
he personally had on file. MCMP objected to the interposed a Motion for Clarification and/or Partial
presentation of secondary evidence to prove the Reconsideration.10 On April 28, 2008, the RTC issued an
contents of the Contract arguing that there were no Order, disposing as follows:
diligent efforts to search for the original copy. Notably, WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court finds
MCMP did not present its copy of the Contract no reversible error in the assailed decision henceforth,
notwithstanding the directive of the trial court to the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant is hereby
produce the same.9 DENIED for lack of merit. On the other hand, the
On November 20, 2007, the RTC issued its Decision plaintiffs Motion for Clarification and/or Partial
finding for Monark as plaintiff, the dispositive portion of Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED for being
which reads: meritorious. Therefore, in the dispositive portion of the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings and assailed decision dated 20 November 2007, the
legal premises, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of following should be included:
the plaintiff, and ordering the defendant to pay the The payment of interests, charges and fees due after
former: April 30, 2002 and up to the time when all the
1. Php1,282,481.83 as balance for the rental fees of the obligations of the defendant to the plaintiff shall have
subject heavy equipments (sic) as of April 30, 2002, been fully paid, computed in accordance with the
inclusive of the interests thereof; stipulations entered into between the parties under
2. Twenty-Five percent (25%) of the total amount to be Exhibits A to G, and uniformly stated in the following
recovered as payment for the attorneys fees; and wise:
3. The costs of suit. Credit sales are payable within 30 days from the date of
SO ORDERED. invoice. Customer agrees to pay interest at 24% p.a. on
_______________ all amounts. In addition, customer agrees to pay a
9 Id., at pp. 57-58. collection fee of 1% compounded monthly and 2% per
436 month penalty charge for late payment on amounts
overdue. Customer agrees to pay a sum equal to 25% of
43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
any amount due as attorneys fees in case of suit, and was not even reported to management or the police;
expressly submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of and 3) Monark only searched for the original copy of the
Quezon City, Makati, Pasig or Manila, document for the purposes of the instant case.
_______________ Petitioners contention is erroneous.
10 Dated January 29, 2008; id., at p. 55. The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the
437 production of the original document whenever its
contents are the subject of inquiry, is contained in
VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
provides:
Section3.Original document must be produced;
exceptions.When the subject of inquiry is the
Metro Manila, for any legal action arising from, this contents of a document, no evidence shall be
transactions. admissible other than the original document itself,
SO ORDERED. except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
Unsatisfied, MCMP appealed the RTCs Decision and cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the
Order to the Court of Appeals (CA). Eventually, the part of the offeror;
appellate court, by a Decision dated October 14, 2011, 438
affirmed in toto the Decision and Order of the RTC.
MCMPs motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision 43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated March 9, 8
2012. MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
Hence, the instant petition.
MCMP challenges the ruling of the CA arguing that the
appellate court should have disallowed the (b) When the original is in the custody or under the
presentation of secondary evidence to prove the control of the party against whom the evidence is
existence of the Contract, following the Best Evidence offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
Rule. MCMP specifically argues that based on the reasonable notice;
testimony of Peregrino, Monark did not diligently (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
search for the original copy of the Contract as other documents which cannot be examined in court
evidenced by the fact that: 1) the actual custodian of without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
the document was not presented; 2) the alleged loss established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and 777.
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody 439
of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
(Emphasis supplied)
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
Relative thereto, Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 130 provide
the relevant rules on the presentation of secondary
evidence to prove the contents of a lost document: Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the
Section5.When original document is unavailable. offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or
due execution of the original; (2) the loss and
When the original document has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof destruction of the original or the reason for its non-
production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror,
of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of
the original can be attributed. The correct order of
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and
contents.
witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Section 6.When original document is in adverse
In the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that the
partys custody or control.If the document is in the
custody or under the control of adverse party, he must above requisites are present. Both the CA and the RTC
gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that the
have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he original Contract in the possession of Monark has been
lost and that diligent efforts were exerted to find the
fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may
be presented as in the case of its loss. same but to no avail. Such testimony has remained
uncontroverted. As has been repeatedly held by this
In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman ,11 Court, findings of facts and assessment of credibility
of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court.12
the Court set down the requirements before a party
may present secondary evidence to prove the contents Hence, the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial
court on the credibility of Peregrino.
of the original document whenever the original copy
has been lost: MCMP, to note, contends that the Contract presented by
Monark is not the contract that they entered into. Yet, it
_______________
11 G.R. No. 165487, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 765, has failed to present a copy of the Contract even
despite the request of the trial court for it to produce compounded monthly and a 2% per month penalty
its copy of the Contract.13 Normal business practice charge. In all then, the effective interest rate foisted
dictates that MCMP should have asked for and retained upon MCMP is 60% per annum. On top of this, MCMP
a copy of their agreement. Thus, MCMPs failure to was assessed for attorneys fees at the rate of 25% of
present the same and even explain its failure, not only the total amount due. These are exorbitant and
justifies the presentation by Monark of secondary unconscionable rates and, following jurisprudence,
evidence in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 130 of must be equitably reduced.
the Rules of Court, but it also gives rise to the In Macalinao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands ,15 the
disputable presumption adverse to MCMP under Section Court reduced the interest imposed by the bank of 36%
3(e) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that evidence for being excessive and unconscionable:
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. x x x Nevertheless, it should be noted that this is not
_______________ the first time that this Court has considered the
12 G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 182. interest rate of 36% per annum as excessive and
13 Rollo, pp. 57-58. unconscionable. We held in Chua v. Timan:
440 The stipulated interest rates of 7% and 5% per month
imposed on respondents loans must be equitably
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
reduced to 1% per month or 12% per annum. We need
0
not unsettle the principle we had affirmed in a plethora
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% per
_______________
14 Id., at p. 15.
Next, MCMP claims that the pieces of equipment were 15 G.R. No. 175490, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA
not actually delivered to it by Monark. It bears pointing 67, 76-78, citing Imperial v. Jaucian, G.R. No. 149004,
out, however, that the witnesses of MCMP itself, Jorge April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 517, Tongoy v. Court of
Samonte, a Budget Supervisor of MCMP, and Engr. Appeals, No. L-45645, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 99.
Horacio A. Martinez, Sr., General Manager of MCMP, 441
both acknowledged the delivery of the equipment to the
project sites.14 Clearly, the contention of MCMP is false. VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
Evidently, the instant petition must be dismissed. MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
Nevertheless, the Court takes notice that the trial court
imposed upon MCMP a 24% per annum interest on the
rental fees as well as a collection fee of 1% per month month and higher are excessive, iniquitous,
unconscionable and exorbitant. Such stipulations are
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law.
2
While C.B. Circular No. 905-82, which took effect on
January 1, 1983, effectively removed the ceiling on MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
interest rates for both secured and unsecured loans,
regardless of maturity, nothing in the said circular
could possibly be read as granting carte blanche In the more recent case of Pentacapital Investment
authority to lenders to raise interest rates to levels Corporation v. Mahinay,16 the Court reduced the interest
which would either enslave their borrowers or lead to a and penalties imposed in a contract as follows:
hemorrhaging of their assets. (Emphasis supplied) Aside from the payment of the principal obligation of
Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it is as P1,936,800.00, the parties agreed that respondent pay
if there was no express contract thereon. Hence, courts interest at the rate of 25% from February 17, 1997 until
may reduce the interest rate as reason and equity fully paid. Such rate, however, is excessive and thus,
demand. void. Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it
The same is true with respect to the penalty charge. is as if there was no express contract thereon. To be
Notably, under the Terms and Conditions Governing the sure, courts may reduce the interest rate as reason and
Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card, it was also equity demand. In this case, 12% interest is reasonable.
stated therein that respondent BPI shall impose an The promissory notes likewise required the payment of
additional penalty charge of 3% per month. Pertinently, a penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per annum.
Article 1229 of the Civil Code states: We find such rates unconscionable. This Court has
Art.1229.The judge shall equitably reduce the recognized a penalty clause as an accessory obligation
penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or which the parties attach to a principal obligation for
irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there the purpose of ensuring the performance thereof by
has been no performance, the penalty may also be imposing on the debtor a special prestation (generally
reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or consisting of the payment of a sum of money) in case
unconscionable. the obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or
In exercising this power to determine what is iniquitous inadequately fulfilled. However, a penalty charge of 3%
and unconscionable, courts must consider the per month is unconscionable; hence, we reduce it to 1%
circumstances of each case since what may be per month or 12% per annum, pursuant to Article 1229
iniquitous and unconscionable in one may be totally of the Civil Code which states:
just and equitable in another. Art.1229.The judge shall equitably reduce the
442 penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or
irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there the Court, the interest and penalty charges imposed
has been no performance, the penalty may also be upon MCMP must also be considered as iniquitous,
reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable and, therefore, void. As such, the rates
unconscionable. may validly be reduced. Thus, the interest rate of 24%
Lastly, respondent promised to pay 25% of his per annum is hereby reduced to 12% per annum.
outstanding obligations as attorneys fees in case of Moreover, the interest shall start to accrue thirty (30)
nonpayment thereof. Attorneys fees here are in the days after receipt of the second set of invoices on
nature of liquidated damages. As long as said January 21, 2001, or March 1, 2001 in accordance with
stipulation does not contravene law, morals, or public the provisions in the invoices themselves.
order, it is strictly bind- Additionally, the penalty and collection charge of 3%
_______________ per month, or 36% per annum, is also reduced to 6%
16 G.R. No. 171736,July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 284, 305- per annum. And the amount of attorneys fees is
306. reduced from 25% of the total amount due to 5%.
443 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit with the
VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
MODIFICATION that the dispositive portion of the RTCs
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
Decision dated November 20, 2007, as amended in an
Order dated April 28, 2008, should read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings and legal
premises, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
ing upon respondent. Nonetheless, courts are plaintiff, and ordering the defendant to pay the former:
empowered to reduce such rate if the same is 1. Php765,380.33 representing the unpaid rental fees;
iniquitous or unconscionable pursuant to the above 444
quoted provision. This sentiment is echoed in Article
2227 of the Civil Code, to wit: 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Art.2227.Liquidated damages, whether intended as 4
an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Hence, we reduce the stipulated attorneys fees from
25% to 10%. 2. Interest of 12% per annum on the unpaid rental fees
to be computed from March 1, 200117 until payment;
Following the above principles previously laid down by 3. Penalty and collection charge of 6% per annum on
the unpaid rental fees to be computed from March 1,
2001;
4. Attorneys Fees of five percent (5%) of the total
amount to be recovered; and
5. The costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.
Villarama, Jr., Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe** and
Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Petition denied with modification.
Notes.Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3(d)
of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, except when the original is a public
record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office. (Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, 714 SCRA
565 [2014])
When the subject of inquiry is the content of a
document, submission of a certified true copy is
justified only in clearly delineated instances. ( Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan, 722 SCRA 211 [2014])
o0o
_______________
17 Thirty (30) days from the date when the second
set of invoices were received by MCMP.
* * Acting member per Special Order No. 1866 dated
November 4, 2014. G.R.No.189404.December11,2013.*
WILGEN LOON, JERRY ARCILLA, ALBERT PEREYE,
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights ARNOLD PEREYE, EDGARDO OBOSE, ARNEL MALARAS,
reserved. PATROCINO TOETIN, EVELYN LEONARDO, ELMER
GLOCENDA,RUFOCUNAMAY,ROLANDOSAJOL,ROLANDO
ABUCAYON, JENNIFER NATIVIDAD, MARITESS TORION, [1]EvirdlyHaqueintheCourtofAppealsdecision;Rollo,p.
ARMANDO LONZAGA, RIZAL GELLIDO, EVIRDE HAQUE, 55.
[1]MYRNA VINAS, RODELITO AYALA, WINELITO OJEL, 441tendedtoassuretheworkersthattheywillreceivethe
RENATO RODREGO, NENA ABINA, EMALYN OLIVEROS, money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the
LOUIEILAGAN,JOELENTIG,ARNELARANETA,BENJAMIN employersappeal.
COSE, WELITO LOON and WILLIAM ALIPAO, Same;Same;ProceduralRulesandTechnicalities;Inlabor
petitioners,vs.POWER MASTER, INC., TRIC GENERAL cases,strictadherencetothetechnicalrulesofprocedureisnot
SERVICES, and SPOUSES HOMER and CARINA ALUMISIN,
required. Time and again, we have allowed evidence to be
respondents.
submitted for the first time onappeal with the National Labor
LaborLaw;Appeals;Bond;Paragraph2,Article223ofthe
Relations Commission (NLRC) in the interest of substantial
Labor Code provides that [i]n case of a judgment involving a
justice.Inlaborcases,strictadherencetothetechnicalrulesof
monetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonly
procedure is not required. Time and again, we have allowed
uponthepostingofacashorsuretybondissuedbyareputable evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the
bonding companyduly accredited by the Commissionin the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice. Thus, we have
amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment consistentlysupportedtherulethatlaborofficialsshoulduseall
appealed from.Paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code reasonablemeanstoascertainthefactsineachcasespeedilyand
provides that [i]n case of a judgment involving a monetary objectively,withoutregardtotechnicalitiesoflaworprocedure,in
award,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthe the interest of due process.However, this liberal policy should
postingofacashorsuretybondissuedbyareputablebonding stillbesubjecttorulesofreasonandfairplay.Theliberalityof
companydulyaccredited by theCommissionin the amount procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) a
equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed party should adequately explain any delay in the
from.Contrarytotherespondentsclaim,theissueoftheappeal submissionofevidence;and(2)apartyshouldsufficiently
bondsvaliditymayberaisedforthefirsttimeonappealsinceits prove the allegations sought to be proven. The reason for
proper filing is a jurisdictional requirement. The requirement these requirements is that the liberal application of the rules
thattheappealbondshouldbeissuedbyanaccreditedbonding before quasijudicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate
company is mandatory and jurisdictional. The rationale of injusticeandhamperthejustresolutionofthecase.Neitheris
requiring an appeal bond is to discourage the employers from theruleonliberalconstructionalicensetodisregardtherulesof
usinganappealtodelayorevadetheemployeesjustandlawful procedure.
claims.Itisin Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Administrative
_______________
Proceedings;While we generally admit in evidence and give
*SECONDDIVISION.
probative value to photocopied documents in administrative
proceedings,allegationsofforgeryandfabricationshouldprompt thattheburdenrestsonthedefendanttoprovepaymentrather
theadversepartytopresenttheoriginaldocumentsforinspection. thanontheplaintifftoprovenonpaymentofthesemoneyclaims.
Whytherespondentsphotocopiedandcomputerizedcopiesof Therationaleforthisruleisthatthepertinentpersonnelfiles,
documentary evidence were not presented at the earliest payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents
opportunity is a serious question that lends credence to the which will show that differentials, service incentive leave and
petitionersclaimthattherespondentsfabricatedtheevidencefor other claims of workers have been paid are not in the
purposes of appeal.While we generally admit in evidence possessionoftheworkerbutareinthecustodyandcontrolofthe
employer.
and give probative value to photocopied documents in
administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and Same; Same; Overtime Pay; Premium Pay; The burden of
fabricationshouldprompttheadversepartytopresentthe provingentitlementtoovertimepayandpremiumpayforholidays
originaldocumentsforinspection.Itwasincumbentuponthe andrestdaysrestsontheemployeebecausethesearenotincurred
respondentstopresenttheoriginals,especiallyinthiscasewhere in the normal course of business.The CA was correct in its
thepetitionershadsubmittedtheirspecimensignatures.Instead, finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient factual
therespondentseffectivelydeprivedthepetitionersofthe basisfortheawardofovertime,andpremiumpaysforholidays
442opportunity to examine and controvert the alleged andrestdays.Theburdenofprovingentitlementtoovertimepay
spurious evidence by not adducing the originals. This Court is and premium pay for holidays and rest days rests on the
thusleftwithnooptionbuttorulethattherespondentsfailureto employeebecausethesearenotincurredinthenormalcourseof
present the originals raises the presumption that evidence business.Inthepresentcase,thepetitionersfailedtoadduceany
willfullysuppressedwouldbeadverseifproduced. evidencethatwouldshowthattheyactuallyrenderedservicein
Same; Burden of Proof; Termination of Employment;In excessoftheregulareightworkinghoursaday,andthattheyin
terminationcases,theburdenofprovingjustandvalidcausefor factworkedonholidaysandrestdays.443
dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the Same;AttorneysFees;Anemployeeisentitledtoanawardof
employer.Interminationcases,theburdenofprovingjustand attorneysfeesequivalenttotenpercent(10%)oftheamountofthe
validcausefordismissinganemployeefromhisemploymentrests wagesinactionsforunlawfulwithholdingofwages.Theaward
upon the employer. The employers failure to discharge this of attorneys fees is also warranted underthe circumstances of
burden results in the finding that the dismissal is unjustified. thiscase.Anemployeeisentitledtoanawardofattorneysfees
Thisisexactlywhathappenedinthepresentcase. equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the wages in
Same; Same; Payment; As in illegal dismissal cases, the actionsforunlawfulwithholdingofwages.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove
oftheCourtofAppeals.
paymentratherthanontheplaintifftoprovenonpaymentofthese
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
moneyclaims.Asinillegaldismissalcases,thegeneralruleis NenitaC.Mahinayforpetitioners.
BRION,J.: pays.Theyfurtheraverredthattherespondentsmadethemsign
We resolve the petition for review oncertiorari,[2]filed by blankpayrollsheets.OnJune11,2001,thepetitionersamended
petitioners Wilgen Loon, Jerry Arcilla, Albert Pereye, Arnold their complaintand includedillegaldismissal astheircauseof
Pereye,EdgardoObose,ArnelMalaras,PatrocinoToetin,Evelyn action. They claimed that the respondents relieved them from
Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando Sajol, serviceinretaliationforthefilingoftheiroriginalcomplaint.
Rolando Abucayon, Jennifer Natividad, Maritess Torion, Notably, the respondents did not participate in the
Armando Lonzaga, Rizal Gellido, Evirde Haque, Myrna Vinas, proceedingsbeforetheLaborArbiterexceptonApril19,2001
Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato Rodrego, Nena Abina, andMay21,2001whenMr.RomuloPacia,Jr.appearedon
Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Joel Entig, Arnel Araneta, the respondents behalf.[5]The respondents counsel also
Benjamin Cose, Welito Loon, William Alipao (collectively, appearedinapreliminarymandatoryconferenceonJuly
thepetitioners),tochallengetheJune5,2009decision[3]andthe 5, 2001.[6]However, the respondents neither filed any position
August28,2009resolution[4]oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA papernorprofferedpiecesofevidenceintheirdefensedespitetheir
G.R.SPNo.95182. knowledgeofthependencyofthecase.
_______________ TheLaborArbitersRuling
[2]Rollo, pp. 1854; datedOctober 23, 2009 andfiledunder In a decision[7]dated March 15, 2002, Labor
Rule45oftheRulesofCourt. Arbiter(LA)Elias H. Salinas partially ruled in favor of the
[3]Id., at pp. 5565; penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. petitioners.TheLAawardedthepetitionerssalarydifferential,
Marella,Jr.,andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRebeccade service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays.In
GuiaSalvadorandJaparB.Dimaampao. awarding
[4]Id.,atpp.6667. _______________
444 [5]Id.,atp.407.
TheFactualAntecedents [6]Id.,atp.321.
RespondentsPowerMaster,Inc.andTriCGeneralServices
[7]Id.,atpp.405413.
employedandassignedthepetitionersasjanitorsandleadsmen
445theseclaims,the LAstatedthatthe burdenofprovingthe
in various Philippine Long Distance Telephone
paymentofthesemoneyclaimsrestswiththeemployer.TheLA
Company(PLDT)officesinMetroManilaarea.Subsequently,the
also awardedattorneys feesin favor of the petitioners,
petitioners filed a complaint for money claims against Power
pursuanttoArticle111oftheLaborCode.[8]
Master, Inc., TriC General Services and their officers, the
However, the LA denied the petitioners claims
spouses Homer and Carina Alumisin
forbackwages, overtime, holiday, and premium pays.The
(collectively,therespondents). The petitioners alleged in their LA observed that the petitioners failed to show that they
complaint that they were not paid minimum wages, overtime, rendered overtime work and worked on holidays and rest days
holiday,premium,serviceincentiveleave,andthirteenthmonth
without compensation. The LA further concluded that the On January 3, 2003, the respondents filed an unverified
petitioners cannot be declared to have been dismissed from supplemental appeal.They attached photocopied and
employmentbecausetheydidnotshowanynoticeoftermination computerizedcopiesoflistofemployeeswithautomated
of employment. They were also not barred from entering the teller machine (ATM)cards to the supplemental
respondentspremises. appeal.Thislistalsoshowedtheamountsallegedlydepositedin
the employees ATM cards.[11]They also attached
TheProceedingsbeforetheNLRC documentaryevidenceshowingthatthepetitionerswere
BothpartiesappealedtheLAsrulingwiththeNationalLabor dismissedforcauseandhadbeenaccordeddueprocess.
RelationsCommission.ThepetitionersdisputedtheLAsdenialof
On January 22, 2003, the petitioners filed anUrgent
theirclaimforbackwages,overtime,holidayandpremiumpays.
Manifestation and Motion[12]where they asked for the
Meanwhile, the respondents questioned the LAs ruling on the
deletionofthesupplementalappealfromtherecordsbecauseit
ground that the LA did not acquire jurisdiction over their
allegedly suffered from infirmities.First, the supplemental
persons.
Therespondentsinsistedthattheywerenotpersonallyserved appealwasnotverified.Second,itwasbelatedlyfiledsixmonths
withsummonsandotherprocesses.Theyalsoclaimedthatthey from the filing of the respondents notice of appeal with
paidthepetitionersminimumwages,serviceincentiveleaveand memorandum on appeal. The petitioners pointed out that they
thirteenthmonthpays.Asproofs,theyattachedphotocopied only agreed to the respondents filing of a responsive pleading
until December 18, 2002.[13]Third, the attached documentary
andcomputerizedcopiesofpayroll
evidenceonthesupplementalappealborethepetitionersforged
_______________
signatures.
[8]Article111oftheLaborCodeprovides:
_______________
1.Incasesofunlawfulwithholdingofwages,theculpable
party may be assessed attorneys fees equivalent to ten [9]Id., at pp. 781879; the payroll sheets cover the periods
percentoftheamountofwagesrecovered. fromNovember1,1998toDecember30,1998;fromNovember1,
2.Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersontodemandoraccept, 1999 to December 30, 1999; and from November 1, 2000 to
inanyjudicialoradministrativeproceedingsfortherecovery February28,2001.
of wages, attorneys fees which exceed ten percent of the [10]Id.,atpp.548780.
amountofwagesrecovered. [11]Id.,atpp.880985;thepayrollsheetscovertheperiods
446sheetstotheirmemorandumonappeal.[9]Theyfurther fromNovember1,2000toDecember30,2000,andfromJanuary
maintained that the petitioners were validly dismissed. They 1,2001toFebruary15,2001.
arguedthatthepetitionersrepeateddefiancetotheirtransferto [12]Id.,atpp.359382.
different workplaces and their violations of the company rules [13]Id.,atp.360.
and regulations constituted serious misconduct and willful 447
disobedience.[10]
 They reiterated these allegations in anUrgent Motion to [16]Rollo, pp. 148180. Penned by Commissioner Tito F.
ResolveManifestationandMotion(ToExpungefromthe Genilo,andconcurredinbyPresidingCommissionerLourdesC.
RecordsRespondentsSupplementalAppeal,Replyand/or JavierandCommissionerErnestoC.Verceles.
Rejoinder)dated January 31, 2003.[14]Subsequently, the 448process.Furthermore,theRulesofCourtdonotrequirethe
petitioners filed anUrgent Manifestation with Reiterating verificationofasupplementalpleading.
Motion to StrikeOff the Record Supplemental The NLRC also vacated the LAs awards ofsalary
Appeal/Reply, Quitclaims and Spurious Documents differential,thirteenthmonthandserviceincentiveleave
Attached to Respondents Appealdated August 7, 2003. pays. In so ruling, it gave weight to the pieces of evidence
[15]Thepetitionersarguedinthislastmotionthatthepayrolls attached to the memorandum on appeal and the supplemental
should not be given probative value because they were the appeal. It maintained that the absence of the petitioners
respondents fabrications. They reiterated that the genuine signatures in the payrolls was not an indispensable factor for
payrolls bore their signatures, unlike the respondents their authenticity. It pointed out that the payment of money
photocopies of the payrolls. They also maintained that their claimswasfurtherevidencedbythelistofemployeeswithATM
signatures in the respondents documents (which showed their cards. It also found that the petitioners signatures were not
receiptofthirteenthmonthpay)hadbeenforged. forged.Ittookjudicialnoticethatmanypeopleuseatleasttwoor
moredifferentsignatures.
TheNLRCRuling The NLRC further ruled that the petitioners werelawfully
InaresolutiondatedNovember27,2003,theNLRCpartially dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct and willful
ruled in favor of the respondents.[16]The NLRC affirmed the disobedience.Itfoundthatthepetitionersfailedtocomplywith
LAs awards ofholiday pay and attorneys fees. It also various memoranda directing them to transfer to other
maintainedthattheLAacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonsof workplaces and to attend training seminars for the intended
therespondentsthroughtheirvoluntaryappearance. reorganizationandreshuffling.
However,itallowedtherespondentstosubmitpiecesof TheNLRCdeniedthepetitionersmotionforreconsideration
evidenceforthefirsttimeonappealonthegroundthat inaresolutiondatedApril28,2006.[17]Aggrieved,thepetitioners
they had been deprived of due process.It found that the filedapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt
respondents did not actually receive the LAs processes. It also beforetheCA.[18]
admittedtherespondentsunverifiedsupplementalappealonthe
groundthattechnicalitiesmaybedisregardedtoservethegreater TheCARuling
interestofsubstantialdue The CA affirmed the NLRCs ruling. The CA held that the
_______________ petitionerswereaffordedsubstantiveandproceduraldueprocess.
[14]Id.,atpp.384389. Accordingly, the petitioners deliberately did not explain their
[15]CARollo,pp.249254. side. Instead, they continuously resisted theirtransfer to other
PLDTofficesandviolatedcompanyrulesandregulations.Italso Thiscasepresentstousthefollowingissues:
upheldtheNLRCsfindingsonthepetitionersmonetaryclaims. 1)WhethertheCAerredwhenitdidnotfindthattheNLRC
_______________ committedgraveabuseofdiscretioningivingduecourse
[17]Id.,atpp.181189. totherespondentsappeal;
[18]Id.,atpp.128144. a)Whethertherespondentsperfectedtheirappealbefore
449 theNLRC;and
TheCAdeniedthepetitionersmotionforreconsiderationina _______________
resolution dated August 28, 2009, prompting the petitioners to [19]Supranote2.
filethepresentpetition.[19]
[20]Ibid.
ThePetition [21]Rollo,pp.475502,506512.
450
InthepetitionbeforethisCourt,thepetitionersarguethatthe b)WhethertheNLRCproperlyallowedtherespondents
CA committed a reversible error when it did not find that the supplementalappeal
NLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion.Theyreiteratetheir
2)Whether the respondents were estopped from submitting
argumentsbeforethelowertribunalsandtheCAinsupportof
piecesofevidenceforthefirsttimeonappeal;
thisconclusion.Theyalsopointoutthattherespondentsposteda
bondfromasuretythatwasnotaccreditedbythisCourtandby 3)Whetherthepetitionerswereillegallydismissedandare
theNLRC.Ineffect,therespondentsfailedtoperfecttheirappeal thusentitledtobackwages;
beforetheNLRC.TheyfurtherinsistthattheNLRCshouldnot 4)Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary differential,
haveadmittedtherespondentsunverifiedsupplementalappeal. overtime,holiday,premium,serviceincentiveleave,and
[20] thirteenthmonthpays;and
5)Whetherthepetitionersareentitledtoattorneysfees.
TheRespondentsPosition
TheCourtsRuling
IntheirComments,therespondentsstressthatthepetitioners
onlyraisedtheissueofthevalidityoftheappealbondforthefirst The respondents perfected their
time onappeal. They also reiterate their arguments before the appeal with the NLRC because the
NLRCandtheCA.Theyadditionallysubmitthatthepetitioners revocation of the bonding companys
argumentshavebeenfullypasseduponandfoundunmeritorious authority has a prospective
bytheNLRCandtheCA.[21] application
TheIssues
 Paragraph2,Article223oftheLaborCodeprovidesthat[i]n statesthat[a]cashorsuretybondshallbevalidandeffective
caseofajudgmentinvolvingamonetaryaward,anappealbythe from the date of deposit or posting,until the case is finally
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or decided,resolvedorterminatedortheawardsatisfied.
surety bond issued by a reputable bonding companyduly
accreditedbytheCommissionintheamountequivalenttothe The CA correctly ruled that the
monetaryawardinthejudgmentappealedfrom. NLRCproperlygaveduecoursetothe
Contrary to the respondents claim, the issue of the appeal respondentssupplementalappeal
bondsvaliditymayberaisedforthefirsttimeonappealsinceits
properfilingisajurisdictionalrequirement.[22]Therequirement TheCAalsocorrectlyruledthattheNLRCproperlygavedue
thattheappealbondshouldbeissuedbyanaccreditedbonding coursetotherespondentssupplementalappeal.Neitherthelaws
company is mandatory and jurisdictional. The rationale of northerulesrequiretheverificationofthesupple
requiring an appeal bond is to discourage the employers from _______________
usinganappealtodelayorevadetheemploy [23]Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission, 386
_______________ Phil. 648, 657; 330 SCRA 440, 447 (2000); andBorja Estate v.
[22]Oca v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 696, 702; 378 SCRA SpousesBallad,498Phil.694,706;459SCRA657,668(2005).
642,647(2002). [24]PerCertificationdatedAugust22,2013ofMr.JamesD.V.
451ees just and lawful claims. It is intended to assure the Navarrete,OCAAssistantChiefofOffice,LegalOffice.
workersthattheywillreceivethemoneyjudgmentintheirfavor [25]G.R.No.181516,August19,2009,596SCRA515,522
uponthedismissaloftheemployersappeal.[23] 523.
Inthepresentcase,therespondentsfiledasuretybondissued 452mentalappeal.[26]Furthermore,verificationisaformal,not
by Security Pacific Assurance Corporation(Security Pacific)on a jurisdictional, requirement. It is mainly intended for the
June 28, 2002. At that time, Security Pacific was still an assurancethatthemattersallegedinthepleadingaretrueand
accredited bonding company. However, the NLRC revoked its correct and not of mere speculation.[27]Also, a supplemental
accreditation on February 16, 2003.[24]Nonetheless, this appealismerelyanaddendumtotheverifiedmemorandumon
subsequentrevocationshouldnotprejudicetherespondentswho appeal that was earlier filed in the present case; hence, the
requirementforverificationhassubstantiallybeencompliedwith.
relied on its then subsisting accreditation in good faith. InDel
Therespondentsalsotimelyfiledtheirsupplementalappeal
Rosario v. Philippine Journalists, Inc.,[25]we ruled that a
on January 3, 2003. The records of the case show that the
bonding companys revocation of authority is prospective in
petitioners themselves agreed that the pleading shall be filed
application.
untilDecember18,2002.TheNLRCfurtherextendedthefilingof
However,therespondentsshouldpostanewbondissuedby the supplemental pleading until January 3, 2003 upon the
anaccreditedbondingcompanyincompliancewithparagraph4, respondentsmotionforextension.
Section6,Rule6oftheNLRCRulesofProcedure.Thisprovision
 Apartymayonlyadduceevidence allegations sought to be proven.[30]The reason for these
for the first time on appeal if he requirements is that the liberal application of the rules before
adequately explains his delay in the quasijudicialagenciescannotbeusedtoperpetuateinjusticeand
submission of evidence and he hamper the just resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on
sufficiently proves the allegations liberalconstructionalicensetodisregardtherulesofprocedure.
soughttobeproven [31]
Guidedbytheseprinciples,theCAgrosslyerredinrulingthat
In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of theNLRCdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninarbitrarily
procedure is not required. Time and again, we have allowed admitting and giving weight to the respondents pieces of
evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the evidenceforthefirsttimeonappeal.
NLRC in the interest of substantial justice.[28]Thus, we have
consistentlysupportedtherulethatlaborofficialsshoulduse A.The respondents failed to
_______________ adequatelyexplaintheirdelay
[26]NLRCRulesofProcedure,Rule1,Section3,inrelation inthesubmissionofevidence
toRulesofCourt,Rule7,Section4.
We cannot accept the respondents cavalier attitude in
[27]Roy Pasos v. Philippine National Construction
blatantly disregarding the NLRC Rules of Procedure. The CA
Corporation,G.R. No. 192394, July 3, 2013; 700 SCRA 608; gravelyerredwhenitoverlookedthattheNLRCblindlyadmitted
andMillennium Erectors Corporation v. Magallanes,G.R. No. andarbitrarilygaveprobativevaluetotherespondentsevidence
184362, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 708, 713714, despite their failure to adequately explain their delay in the
citingPacquing v. CocaCola Philippines,Inc.,G.R. No. 157966, submission of evidence. Notably, the respondents delay was
January31,2008,543SCRA344,356357. anchoredontheirassertionthatthey
[28]Casimirov.SternRealEstateInc.,519Phil.438,454455; _______________
484SCRA463,479(2006);andIranvs.NLRC,352Phil.264265, [29]Iranv.NLRC,supra,atp.274;p.442.
273274;289SCRA433,442(1998). [30]Tanjuanv.Phil.PostalSavingsBank,Inc.,457Phil.993,
453all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case 10041005;411SCRA168,176(2003).
speedilyandobjectively,withoutregardtotechnicalitiesoflawor [31]Favilav.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,367Phil.
procedure,intheinterestofdueprocess.[29] 584,593;308SCRA303,313(1999).
However,thisliberalpolicyshouldstillbesubjecttorulesof 454wereobliviousoftheproceedingsbeforetheLA.However,the
reason and fairplay.The liberality of procedural rules is respondents did not dispute the LAs finding that Mr. Romulo
qualified by two requirements: (1) a party should Pacia,Jr.appearedontheirbehalfonApril19,2001andMay21,
adequately explain any delay in the submission of 2001.[32]The respondents also failed to contest the petitioners
evidence; and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the
assertionthattherespondentscounselappearedinapreliminary 455documents for inspection.[35]It was incumbent upon the
mandatoryconferenceonJuly5,2001.[33] respondentstopresenttheoriginals,especiallyinthiscasewhere
Indeed,theNLRCcapriciouslyandwhimsicallyadmittedand thepetitionershadsubmittedtheirspecimensignatures.Instead,
gaveweighttotherespondentsevidencedespiteitsfindingthat the respondents effectively deprived the petitioners of the
they voluntarily appeared in the compulsory arbitration opportunity to examine and controvert the alleged spurious
proceedings. The NLRC blatantly disregarded the fact that the evidence by not adducing the originals. This Court is thus left
respondents voluntarily opted not to participate, to adduce withnooptionbuttorulethattherespondentsfailuretopresent
evidenceintheirdefenseandtofileapositionpaperdespitetheir the originals raises the presumption that evidence willfully
knowledgeofthependencyoftheproceedingsbeforetheLA.The suppressedwouldbeadverseifproduced.[36]
respondentswerealsogrosslynegligentinnotinformingtheLA It was also gross error for the CA to affirm the NLRCs
of the specific building unit where the respondents were propositionthat[i]tisofcommonknowledgethattherearemany
conducting their business and their counsels address despite peoplewhouseatleasttwoormoredifferentsignatures.[37]The
theirknowledgeoftheirnonreceiptoftheprocesses.[34] NLRCcannottakejudicialnoticethatmanypeopleuseatleast
two signatures, especially in this case where the petitioners
B.The respondents failed to
themselves disown the signatures in the respondents assailed
sufficiently prove the
documentary evidence.[38]TheNLRCs position is unwarranted
allegationssoughttobeproven
andispatentlyunsupportedbythelawandjurisprudence.
Furthermore,therespondentsfailedtosufficientlyprovethe Viewedintheselights,thescalesofjusticemusttiltinfavorof
allegations sought to be proven. Why the respondents theemployees.Thisconclusionisconsistentwiththerulethatthe
photocopied and computerized copies of documentary evidence employers cause can only succeed on the strength of its own
were not presented at the earliest opportunity is a serious evidenceandnotontheweaknessoftheemployeesevidence.[39]
question that lends credence to the petitioners claim that the
The petitioners are entitled to
respondents fabricated the evidence for purposes of
backwages
appeal.While we generally admit in evidence and give
probative value to photocopied documents in Basedontheaboveconsiderations,wereversetheNLRCand
administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and theCAsfindingthatthepetitionerswereterminatedfor
fabricationshouldprompttheadversepartytopresentthe _______________
original [35]Nicariov.NLRC,356Phil.936,941;295SCRA619,625
_______________ (1998).
[32]Supranote5. [36]RulesofCourt,Rule131,Section3(e).
[33]Supranote6. [37]Rollo,p.164.
[34]NLRCRulesofProcedure,Rule3,Sections4and6(e). [38]RulesofCourt,Rule129,Section2.
 [39]The CocaCola Export Corporation v. Gacayan,G.R. No. _______________
149433, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 377, 400401, citations [40]Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc. v. Bea,512
omitted. Phil.749,759;476SCRA384,394(2005).
456just cause and were afforded procedural due process. In [41]Pigcaulanv.SecurityandCreditInvestigation,Inc.,G.R.
terminationcases,theburdenofprovingjustandvalidcausefor No.173648,January16,2012,663SCRA1,1415;andBuilding
dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the
Care Corp. v. NLRC,335 Phil. 1131, 1139; 268 SCRA666, 672
employer.Theemployersfailuretodischargethisburdenresults
(1997).
inthefindingthatthedismissalisunjustified.[40]Thisisexactly
[42]Villarv.NLRC,387Phil.706,716;331SCRA686,695
whathappenedinthepresentcase.
(2000).
The petitioners are entitled to 457The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay and
salary differential, service premium pay for holidaysand rest days restson the employee
incentive,holiday, and thirteenth becausethesearenotincurredinthenormalcourseofbusiness.
monthpays [43]In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce any
evidencethatwouldshowthattheyactuallyrenderedservicein
We also reverse the NLRC and the CAs finding that the excessoftheregulareightworkinghoursaday,andthattheyin
petitioners are not entitled to salary differential, service factworkedonholidaysandrestdays.
incentive, holiday, and thirteenth month pays. As in illegal
dismissalcases,thegeneralruleisthattheburdenrestsonthe Thepetitionersare entitled
defendanttoprovepaymentratherthanontheplaintifftoprove toattorneysfees
nonpaymentofthesemoneyclaims.[41]Therationaleforthisrule
The award of attorneys fees is also warranted under the
is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records,
circumstancesofthiscase.Anemployeeisentitledtoanawardof
remittancesandothersimilardocumentswhichwillshowthat
attorneysfeesequivalenttotenpercent(10%)oftheamountof
differentials,serviceincentiveleaveandotherclaimsofworkers
thewagesinactionsforunlawfulwithholdingofwages.[44]
havebeenpaidarenotinthepossessionoftheworkerbutare
Asafinalnote,weobservethatRodelitoAyala,WinelitoOjel,
inthecustodyandcontroloftheemployer.[42]
RenatoRodregoandWelitoLoonarealsonamedaspetitionersin
Thepetitionersare notentitledto this case. However, we deny their petition for the reason that
overtimeandpremiumpays theywerenotpartoftheproceedingsbeforetheCA.Theirfailure
totimelyseekredressbeforetheCAprecludesthisCourtfrom
However,theCAwascorrectinitsfindingthatthepetitioners awardingthemmonetaryclaims.
failedtoprovidesufficientfactualbasisfortheawardofovertime, All told, we find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
andpremiumpaysforholidaysandrestdays. discretion in admitting and giving probative value to the
respondentsevidenceonappeal,whicherrorstheCAreplicated upon the employer. (Marc II Marketing, Inc. vs. Joson, 662
whenitupheldtheNLRCrulings. SCRA35[2011])
WHEREFORE,based on these premises, An employer has the right to require the performance of
weREVERSEandSETASIDEthedecisiondatedJune5,2009, overtime service in any of the situations contemplated under
andtheresolutiondatedAugust28,2009oftheCourtofAppeals Article89oftheLaborCodeandanemployeesnoncomplianceis
inCAG.R.SPNo.95182.ThiscaseisREMANDEDtotheLabor willful disobedience. (Realda vs. New Age Graphics, Inc., 671
Arbiter for the sole purpose of computing petitioners (Wilgen
SCRA410[2012])
Loon,JerryArcilla,AlbertPereye,ArnoldPereye,
o0o
_______________
_______________
[43]Lagaticv.NLRC,349Phil.172,185186;285SCRA251, **DesignatedasActingMemberinlieuofAssociateJustice
262(1998). JoseP.PerezperSpecialOrderNo.1627datedDecember6,2013.
[44]LaborCode,Article111.
458Edgardo Obose, Arnel Malaras, Patrocino Toetin, Evelyn Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando Sajol, reserved.
Rolando Abucayon, Jennifer Natividad, Maritess Torion,
Armando Lonzaga, Rizal Gellido, Evirdly Haque, Myrna Vinas,
Nena Abina, Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Joel Entig, Arnel
Araneta, Benjamin Cose and William Alipao) full backwages
(computedfromthedateoftheirrespectivedismissalsuptothe
finality of this decision) and their salary differential, service
incentive leave, holiday, thirteenth month pays, and attorneys
feesequivalenttotenpercent(10%)ofthewithheldwages.The
respondents are further directed to immediately post a
satisfactory bond conditioned on the satisfaction of the awards
affirmedinthisDecision.
SOORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perlas

BernabeandLeonen,**JJ.,concur.
Judgmentandresolutionreversedandsetaside. G.R.No.201011.January27,2014.*
Notes.Interminationcases,theburdenofprovingjustand THERESITA,JUAN,ASUNCION,PATROCINIA,RICARDOand
validcausefordismissinganemployeefromhisemploymentrests GLORIA, all surnamed DIMAGUILA, petitioners,vs.JOSE and
SONIAA.MONTEIRO,respondents.
 RemedialLaw;Evidence;Admissions;Section4ofRule129 Same; Same; Best Evidence Rule; Anent the best evidence
oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatanadmissionmadebyaparty rule,Section3(d)ofRule130oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat
inthecourseoftheproceedingsinthesamecasedoesnotrequire when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
proof,andmaybecontradictedonlybyshowingthatitwasmade evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
throughpalpablemistake.Section4ofRule129oftheRulesof itself,exceptwhentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthecustodyof
Courtprovidesthatanadmissionmadebyapartyinthecourseof apublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.Anentthebest
theproceedingsinthesamecasedoesnotrequireproof,andmay evidence rule, Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
be contradicted only by showing that it was made through provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
palpablemistake.Thepetitionersarguethatsuchadmissionwas document,noevidenceshallbeadmissibleotherthantheoriginal
thepalpablemistakeoftheirformercounselinhisrushtofilethe documentitself,exceptwhentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthe
answer,acopyofwhichwasnotprovidedtothem. custodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.Section
Same;Same;Same;Article1431oftheCivilCodeprovides 7ofthesameRuleprovidesthatwhentheoriginalofadocument
thatthroughestoppel,anadmissionisrenderedconclusiveupon isinthecustodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice,
the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as itscontentsmaybeprovedbyacertifiedcopyissuedbythepublic
officerincustodythereof.Section24ofRule132providesthatthe
againstthepersonrelyingthereon.Article1431oftheCivilCode
recordofpublicdocumentsmaybeevidencedbyacopyattested
provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered
bytheofficerhavingthelegalcustodyortherecord.
conclusiveuponthepersonmakingit,andcannotbedeniedor
disprovedasagainstthepersonrelyingthereon.Therespondent Same;Same;HearsayEvidenceRule;Theruleprovidesthat
spouses had clearly relied on the petitioners admission and so entriesinofficialrecordsmadeintheperformanceofthedutyofa
amendedtheiroriginalcomplaintforpartitiontooneforrecovery publicofficerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonintheperformance
ofpossessionofaportionofthe ofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylaw,areprimafacieevidenceofthe
______________ factsthereinstated.Astothehearsayrule,Section44ofRule
*THIRDDIVISION. 130oftheRulesofCourtsimilarlyprovidesthatentriesinofficial
566subjectproperty.Thus,thepetitionersarenowestopped records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that
fromdenyingorattemptingtoprovethattherewasnopartition entriesinofficialrecordsmadeintheperformanceofthedutyofa
oftheproperty.Consideringthatanadmissiondoesnotrequire publicofficerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonintheperformance
proof,theadmissionofthepetitionerswouldactuallybesufficient
ofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylaw,areprimafacieevidenceofthe
toprovethepartitionevenwithoutthedocumentspresentedby
facts therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the
therespondentspouses.Ifanything,theadditionalevidencethey
inconvenienceanddifficultyofrequiringtheofficialsattendance
presentedonlyservedtocorroboratethepetitionersadmission.
as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the
courseofhisduty.Thedocumentstrustworthinessconsistsinthe 1Rollo, pp. 2943; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S.
presumptionofregularityofperformanceofofficialduty. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and
567 AssociateJusticeRodilV.Zalameda,concurring.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution 2Id.,atpp.4445.
oftheCourtofAppeals.
3Id.,atpp.144157.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
568executed in their favor by the heirs of Pedro
Riguera&RigueraLawOfficeforpetitioners.
Dimaguila(Pedro).
EdgardoM.Salandananforrespondents.
In their Answer, the Dimaguilas and the other defendants
counteredthattherewasnocoownershiptospeakofinthefirst
MENDOZA,J.: place. They alleged that the subject property, then owned by
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe Maria Ignacio Buenaseda, had long been partitioned equally
Rules ofCourtassailing theAugust 15,2011 Decision1andthe betweenhertwosons,PerfectoandVitalianoDimaguila,through
March5,2012Resolution2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),inCA aDeedofExtrajudicialPartition,withitssouthernhalfportion
G.R. CV No. 92707, which affirmed the August 23, 2007 assignedtoPerfectoandthenorthernhalfportiontoVitaliano.
Decision3of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Santa Cruz, They claimed that they were the heirs of Vitaliano and that
Laguna(RTC),inCivilCaseNo.SC3108. Spouses Monteiro had nothing to do with the property asthey
werenotheirsofeitherPerfectoorVitaliano.
TheFacts Duringthecourseoftheproceedings,severalincidentswere
On July 5, 1993, the respondent spouses, Jose and Sonia initiated,namely:(a)MotiontoDismissforlackoflegalcapacity
Monteiro(Spouses Monteiro), along with Jose, Gerasmo, Elisa, to sue of Spouses Monteiro and for lack of cause of action; (b)
and Clarita Nobleza, filed their Complaint for Partition and MotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderofdenialthereof,which
Damages before the RTC, against the petitioners, Theresita, was denied; (c) Motion for Production and Inspection of
Juan,Asuncion,Patrocinia,Ricardo,andGloriaDimaguila(The Documents;(d)MotionforReconsiderationoftheOrdergranting
Dimaguilas),togetherwithRosalina,Jonathan,Eve,Sol,Venus, the same, which was denied; (e) Motion to Defer Pretrial; (f)
Enrique, Nina, Princess Arieta, and Evangelina Borlaza. The NoticeofConsignationbythepetitionersintheexerciseoftheir
complaintallegedthatallthepartieswerecoownersandprayed alleged right of redemption of the share being claimed by the
for the partition of a residential house and lot located at Gat. SpousesMonteiroinlightofthedeedofsaletheyproducedand
TayawSt.,Liliw,Laguna,withanareaof489squaremeters,and claimedtohavebeenexecutedbytheheirsofPedrointheirfavor;
coveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.1453.SpousesMonteiroanchored (g)MotiontoRemoveSoniaMonteiro(Sonia)asplaintiff,which
theirclaimonadeedofsale was denied; (h) Motion for Reconsideration thereof, which was
_______________ also denied; (i) Motion for Clarification and/or Extended
Resolution; and (j) Motion to Suspend Proceedings due to a
pendingPetitionforCertioraribeforetheCAassailingseveralof Pedro, they discovered that the subject portion was being
theRTCorders.Theproceedingsresumedafterthepromulgation occupiedbytheDimaguilas.
by the CA of its April 5, 2000 Resolution in CAG.R. No. SP In their Answer5to the amended complaint, the Dimaguilas
52833,whichupheldtheassailedRTCorders. admittedthatthesubjectpropertywasinheritedby,and
On January 2, 2001, upon resumption of the proceedings, _______________
SpousesMonteirofiledtheirMotionforLeavetoAmend 4Records,Vol.II,pp.289308.
569and/or Admit Amended Complaint.4The RTC granted their 5Id.,atpp.315328.
motion.Theamendedcomplaintabandonedtheoriginalclaimfor 570divided equally between Perfecto and Vitaliano, but denied
partition and instead sought the recovery of possession of a theadmissionintheiroriginalanswerthatithadbeenactually
portionofthesubjectpropertyoccupiedbytheDimaguilasand dividedintosouthernandnorthernportions.Instead,theyargued
otherdefendants,specifically,theportionsoldtothecouplebythe thattheExtrajudicialPartitionmentionedonlythedivisionofthe
heirs of Pedro. Furthermore, only Spouses Monteiro were subjectpropertyintotwoandshareandsharealike.Ineffect,
retainedasplaintiffsandtheDimaguilasasdefendants. they argued the existence of a coownership, contrary to their
Inamendingtheircomplaint,SpousesMontieroadoptedthe original position. The Dimaguilas further argued that
Dimaguilasadmissionintheiroriginalanswerthatthesubject theBilihandidnotspecifythemetesandboundsoftheproperty
property had already been partitioned between Perfecto and sold,inviolationofArticle1458oftheCivilCode.Evenassuming
Vitaliano, through a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, dated that such had been specified, they averred that the sale of a
October 5, 1945, and that during their lifetime, the brothers definiteportionofapropertyownedincommonwasvoidsincea
agreedthatPerfectowouldbecometheownerofthesouthernhalf coownercouldonlysellhisundividedshareintheproperty.
portionandVitalianoofthenorthernhalfportion,whichdivision Duringthetrial,SpousesMonteiropresentedPedritoAdrieta,
wasobservedandrespectedbythemaswellastheirheirsand brotherofSoniaMonteiro(Sonia),whotestifiedthatPerfectowas
successorsininterest. hisgrandfatherandthatatthetimeofPerfectosdeath,hehad
SpousesMonteirofurtheraverredthatPerfectowassurvived twoproperties, oneofwhichwasthe subjectproperty inLiliw,
byEsperanza,LeandroandPedro,whohaddividedthesouthern Laguna, which went to his children, Esperanza, Leonardo and
halfportionequallyamongstthemselves,withtheirrespective1/3 Pedro. Pedro was survived by his children Pedrito, Theresita,
sharesmeasuring81.13squaremeterseach;thatPedrosshare Francisco, and Luis, who, in turn, sold their rights over the
pertainstothe1/3ofthesouthernhalfimmediatelyadjacentto subjectpropertytoSonia.
the northernhalf adjudicated to the Dimaguilas as heirs of Sonia testified that she was approached by Pedros son,
Vitaliano;thatonSeptember29,1992,Pedrossharewassoldby Francisco, and was asked if she was interested in purchasing
hisheirstothemthroughaBilihanngLahatNamingKarapatan Pedros1/3shareofthesouthernportionoftheBahaynaBato,
(Bilihan)with the acquiescence of the heirs of Esperanza and andthatheshowedheradeedofextrajudicialpartitionexecuted
LeandroappearinginanAffidavitofConformityandWaiver;and by and between Perfecto and Vitaliano, as well as the tax
that when they attempted to take possession of the share of
declarationofthepropertytoprovethatthepropertyhadalready WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
beenpartitionedbetweenthetwobrothers. plaintiffsandagainstthedefendants:
EngineerBaltazarF.Mesinatestifiedthathewasthegeodetic a.Orderingthedefendantsandallpersonsclaimingrightsunder
engineer hired by Spouses Monteiro to survey the property in themtopeacefullyvacateandturnoverpossessionof1/3ofthe
Liliw,andrecountedthathecheckedtheboundaryofthesubject southernportionofthepropertycoveredbyTaxDeclaration
property,subdividedthelotintotwoandcameupwithasurvey No.1453,specificallydescribedasAofLot877inthesketch
plan. planmarkedasExhibitI,within60daysfromthefinalityof
Crisostomo Arves, an employee from the Office of the thisDecision,failingwhichletawritofpossessionissue;
Municipal Assessor, presented a certified true copy of the b.Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
cadastralmapofLiliwandalistofclaimants/owners. solidarily,the
571 572amountofP500permonthintheformofrentforthe
Dominga Tolentino, a record officer of the Department of use of the property from July 1993 until the property is
Environment and Natural Resources(DENR), testified that as vacated;
part of her duties, she certifies and safekeeps the records of c.Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
surveyedland,includingcadastralmapsfromtheregion. solidarily,attorneysfeesofP30,000andlitigationexpenseof
OneoftheDimaguilas,Asuncion,wasthesolewitnessforthe P20,000.
defendants.Shetestifiedthattheirfirstcounselmadeamistake SOORDERED.6
whenheallegedintheiroriginalanswerthatthepropertyhad
already been partitioned into northern and southern portions The RTC found that although the extrajudicial partition
betweenthetwobrothers,astheoriginalanswerhadbeenrushed merely divided the property into two share and share alike,
and they were never given a copy of it. She claimed that the evidencealiundewas appreciated to show that there was an
mistakewasonlypointedouttoherbytheirnewcounselafter actual division of the property into south and north between
theirformercounselwithdrewduetocancer.Shefurthertestified PerfectoandVitaliano,andthatsuchpartitionwasobservedand
thattherewasnointentiontopartitionthebahaynabatowhich honored by their heirs. These pieces of evidence were the
stoodonthesubjectproperty,inordertopreserveitshistorical cadastral map of Liliw7and a corresponding list of claimants,
andsentimentalvalue. whichshowedthatthesubjectpropertyhadlongbeenregistered
as Lot 876 (northernhalf), claimed by Buenaventura
RulingoftheRTC Dimaguila(Buenaventura), an heir of Vitaliano, and Lot 877
In its August 23, 2007 Decision, the RTC ruled in favor of (southernhalf),claimedbyPerfecto.
SpousesMonteiroandorderedtheDimaguilastoturnoverthe
possessionofthesubject1/3portionofthesouthernhalfofthe TheRTCheldthatthemannerofpartitionwasadmittedby
property,towit: the Dimaguilasthemselves intheir originalanswer. It gaveno
credence to the claim of Asuncion that such admission was an
error of their former counsel andthat she was unaware of the estopped from denying their admission of partition after the
contentsof their original answer. It noted that the Dimaguilas respondentspouseshadreliedontheirjudicialadmission.
hadstronglymaintainedtheirtheoryofpartitionfrom1992when TheDimaguilasalsoinsistedontheirargument,whichwas
thecomplaintwasfirstfiled,andonlychangedtheirdefensein raisedbeforetheRTC,butnotaddressed,thattheBilihanshould
2001 when Spouses Monteirofiled their amended complaint. It not have been admitted as evidence for lack of a documentary
keenly observed that it was precisely their admission which stamp tax, in accordance with Section 201 of the National
propelledSpousesMonteirotoamendtheircomplaintfromoneof Internal Revenue Code(NIRC). CitingGabucan v. Manta10and
partitiontorecoveryofpossession.Thus,theRTCconcludedthat
DelRosariov.Hamoy,11theCA,however,ruled
therewasindeedapartitionofthesubjectpropertyintosouthern
_______________
halfandnorth
8Records,Vol.III,ExhibitJ,p.519.
_______________
9Records,Vol.I,ExhibitA,pp.2425.
6Rollo,pp.156157. 10184Phil.588;95SCRA752(1980).
7Records,Vol.I,ExhibitA,pp.2425. 11235Phil.719;151SCRA719(1987).
573ernhalfportionsbetweenPerfectoandVitalianoandthatthe 574that if a document which did not bear the required
Dimaguilaswereestoppedfromdenyingthesame. documentarystampwaspresentedinevidence,thecourtshould
AstotheauthenticityoftheBilihan,wherethe1/3shareof requiretheproponenttoaffixtherequisitestamp.TheCAnoted
PedrowassoldtoSpousesMonteiro,theRTCfoundthedocument thattheRTChadfailedtodirectSpousesMonteirotoaffixthe
toberegularandauthenticabsentanypieceofevidencetothe stamp and merely reminded the presiding judge to be more
contrary. It stated that the proper persons to contest the sale vigilantonsimilarsituationsinthefuture.Nonetheless,itheld
werenottheDimaguilas,whoweretheheirsofVitaliano,butthe thatthepetitionersdidnotpossessthenecessarypersonalityto
heirsofPerfecto.Itnotedthattherecordsshowedthattheheirs assailthesalebetweenSpousesMonteiroandtheheirsofPedro
ofEsperanzaandLeandro(Pedrossiblings),hadsignifiedtheir becauseitpertainedtothesouthernhalfofthepropertytowhich
conformitytothepartitionandtothesaleofPedros1/3portion. theyhadnoclaim.
TheCAlikewisefoundsufficientbasisfortheawardofrentals
RulingoftheCA as compensatory damages since Spouses Monteiro were
InitsassailedAugust15,2011Decision,theCAaffirmedthe wrongfully deprived of possession of the 1/3 portion of the
rulingoftheRTC. southernhalfofthesubjectproperty.Italsoupheldtheawardof
The CA found that Spouses Monteiro had established their attorneys fees andlitigation expenses by the RTC, considering
casebyapreponderanceofevidencethrutheirpresentationofthe that Spouses Monteiro were compelled to litigate and incur
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition,8the cadastral map and the expensestoprotecttheirrightsandinterest.
municipalassessorsrecords.9Itnoted,moreimportantly,thatthe InitsassailedMarch5,2012Resolution,theCAdeniedthe
Dimaguilas themselves corroborated the claim of partition in petitionersmotionforreconsiderationforlackofmerit.
theiroriginalanswer.Itlikewiseruledthatthepetitionerswere Hence,thispetition.
 AssignmentofErrors VII
I THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDWHEN
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS
FINDING THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO AMENDED
PARTITIONOFTHEPROPERTYCOVEREDBYTAX COMPLAINT AND TO GRANT THE
DECLARATIONNO.1453. COUNTERCLAIMSINTERPOSEDTHEREIN.12
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN TheDimaguilasarguethattheiroriginalallegationregarding
FINDING THAT THE 1/3 PORTION OF THE thepartitionofthesubjectpropertyintonorthernandsouthern
SOUTHERNHALFOFTHEPROPERTYWASSOLD portionswasamistakeoftheirformer counsel,and itwasnot
TOTHERESPONDENTS. theirintentiontopartitionthepropertybecausetodosowould
575 damagethehousethereon.Evenassumingan
III _______________
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN 12Rollo,pp.1314.
ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE EXHIBIT C, THE 576admissionwasmade,thepetitionersaverthatsuchwasmade
BILIHANNGLAHATNAMINGKARAPATAN. onlybysome,butnotall,ofthecoowners;andthatpartitioncan
only be made by all coowners, and allowing the admission is
IV
tantamount to effecting partition by only some coowners.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
SpousesMonteirothemselves,intheiroriginalcomplaint,made
RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE
an admission that they were coowners of the property and
ENTITLEDTORECOVERPOSSESSIONOFTHE1/3 asserted that there was no partition. The
PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE
evidencealiundeconsidered by the RTC, consisting of the
PROPERTY.
cadastralmapandthelistofclaimants,weretimelyobjectedto
V duringthetrialashearsayandaviolationofthebestevidence
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN rule.
FINDING THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR The petitioners reiterate that theBilihanshould not have
RENTALS FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY beenadmittedintoevidencebecauseitlackedthedocumentary
FROMJULY1993UNTILVACATED. stamptaxrequiredbySection201oftheNIRC,providingthatno
VI documentshallbeadmittedinevidenceuntiltherequisitestamps
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN have been affixed thereto. They argue that the ruling of
HOLDING THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR petitioners lack of personality to assail the deed of sale is
ATTORNEYSFEESANDLITIGATIONEXPENSES. different from the issue of the deed of sales admissibility as
evidence. They conclude that considering that no documentary evidence,whichistheweight,credit,andvalueoftheaggregate
stamp was ever affixed on the deed of sale, such should never evidence on either side, synonymous with the term greater
havebeenadmittedintoevidenceandconsequently,shouldnot weight of the evidence. Preponderance of evidence is evidence
havebeenrelieduponbythelowercourtstoprovethesaleof1/3 which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
ofthesouthernportion;andthatconsideringthattheBilihanis thatwhichisofferedinoppositionthereto.14
inadmissibleasevidence,therespondentspouseshavenobasis To prove their claim of partition, the respondent spouses
fortheirclaimtothesubject1/3portionofthesouthernhalfof presentedthefollowing:(1)theDeedofExtrajudicialPartition,
the property. Thus, they insist that the lower courts erred in dated October 5, 1945, executed by and between the brothers
awarding to Spouses Monteiro the possession of the subject PerfectoandVitaliano;(2)thecadastralmapofLiliw
property,therentals,attorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses,and
in failing to rule on their counterclaim for demolition of _______________
improvementsandpaymentofdamages.
Theassignmentoferrorsboilsdowntotwomainissues: 13Heirs of Vda. Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Fajardo,G.R. No.
1.Whethertherewasapartitionofthesubjectproperty;and 184966,May30,2011,649SCRA463,470.
577 14BankofthePhilippineIslandsv.SpousesRoyeca,581Phil.
2.Whether the 1/3 portion of the southernhalf of the subject 188,194;559SCRA207,215(2008).
propertywassoldtotherespondentspouses. 578Cadm484,15datedAugust6,1976,showingthatthesubject
propertyhadbeendividedintosouthernandnorthernportions,
RulingoftheCourt registered as Lot Nos. 876 and 877; and (3) the Municipal
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the petitioners Assessorsrecords16showingthatthesaidlotswererespectively
assignment of errors calls for the Court to again evaluate the claimedbyBuenaventuraandPerfecto.
evidence to determine whether there was a partition of the ItisundisputedthattheDeedofExtrajudicialPartitionstated
property and whether the 1/3 portion of the southern half was thatPerfectoandVitalianoagreedtodividebetweentheminto
soldtotherespondentspouses.Theseclearlyentailquestionsof twoandshareandsharealikethesubjectproperty,includingthe
factwhicharebeyondtheCourtsambitofreviewunderRule45 house situated thereon. It appears, however, that the property
oftheRulesofCourt,especiallyconsideringthatthefindingsof wasactuallypartitionedintodefiniteportions,namely,southern
factoftheRTCwereaffirmedbytheCA. 13Onthisgroundalone, andnorthernhalves,asreflectedinthecadastralmapofLiliw,
thepresentpetitionmustbedenied.Nonetheless,theCourtshall which were respectively claimed by an heir of Vitaliano and
delveintothesefactualissuestofinallyputthiscasetorest. Perfectohimself.It,thus,appearsthatthesubjectpropertyhad
alreadybeenpartitionedintodefiniteportionsmorethan20years
PartitionoftheSubjectProperty priortotheoriginalcomplaintforpartitionfiledin1993,andthat
SpousesMonteiro,asplaintiffsintheoriginalcase,hadthe suchdivisionhadbeenobservedbythebrothersheirs.Asearlier
burden of proof to establish their case by a preponderance of
pointedout,thepetitionersthemselvesadmittedtothisveryfact showing that it was made through palpable mistake. The
intheiroriginalanswer,towit: petitionersarguethatsuchadmissionwasthepalpablemistake
(b)OnSeptember5,1945thebrothersPERFECTOand oftheirformercounselinhisrushtofiletheanswer,acopyof
VITALIANO DIMAGUILA executed a deed of whichwasnotprovidedtothem.PetitionerAsunciontestified:
EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION of the aforedescribed QSo,whywasthatallegations(sic)madeintheAnswer?
property dividing the same into two (2) equal parts as AMaybe,(sic)inhisrushtofiletheAnswer,Atty.Paredesfiled
indicatedintheaforesaiddeedasfollows,towit: thesamewithoutgivingusacopy19
xxx _______________
(c)Asaresultoftheforegoingpartitionandasknownby 17Records,Vol.I,pp.1112.
allthepartiesinthiscasefromthebeginningorassoonas 18Section4.Judicialadmissions.Anadmission,verbalor
they reached the age of discernment PERFECTO written,madebythepartyinthecourseoftheproceedingsinthe
DIMAGUILAbecamethesoleandexclusiveownerofthe same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
southern half of the aforedescribed property and contradictedonlybyshowingthatitwasmadethroughpalpable
VITALIANODIMAGUILAbecamethe mistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwasmade.
_______________ 19TSN,December1,2005,p.15.
15Records,Vol.III,ExhibitJ,p.519. 580
16Records,Vol.III,ExhibitL,p.556. This contention is unacceptable. It is a purely selfserving
579soleownerofthenorthernhalfofthesameproperty; claim unsupported by any iota of evidence. Bare allegations,
thehousethat wasbuilt thereonandstill existing upto unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to
thistimewaslikewiseequallydividedbetweenthetwo(2) proof.20Furthermore, the Court notes that this position was
DIMAGUILAbrothersinaccordancewiththeextrajudicial adoptedbythepetitionersonlyalmosteight(8)yearsaftertheir
partitionofhalfequalshares; originalanswerwasfiled,inresponsetotheamendedcomplaint
xxx of the respondent spouses. In their original answer to the
2.Inotherwords,theshareofVITALIANODIMAGUILA complaint for partition, their claim that there was already a
in the above described property has already been long partitionintonorthernhalfandsouthernhalfportions,wasthe
segregatedandhadpassedontohisheirsasisverywell very essence of their defense. It was precisely this admission
knownbyallthepartiesinthiscase;17 whichmovedtherespondentspousestoamendtheircomplaint.
xxx The petitioners cannot now insist that the very foundation of
(EmphasesintheOriginal) theiroriginaldefensewasapalpablemistake.
Article143121oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatthroughestoppel,
Section418ofRule129oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatan anadmissionisrenderedconclusiveuponthepersonmakingit,
admissionmadebyapartyinthecourseoftheproceedingsinthe andcannotbedeniedordisprovedasagainstthepersonrelying
samecasedoesnotrequireproof,andmaybecontradictedonlyby thereon. The respondent spouses had clearly relied on the
petitioners admission and so amended their original complaint _______________
forpartitiontooneforrecoveryofpossessionofaportionofthe 22Section3.Original document must be produced;
subject property. Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from exceptions.When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
denyingorattemptingtoprovethattherewasnopartitionofthe document,noevidenceshallbeadmissibleotherthantheoriginal
property. documentitself,exceptinthefollowingcases:
Considering that an admission does not require proof, the xxx
admissionofthepetitionerswouldactuallybesufficienttoprove (d)Whentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthecustody
the partition even without the documents presented by the ofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.
respondent spouses. If anything, the additional evidence they
23Section7.Evidenceadmissiblewhenoriginaldocumentis
presentedonlyservedtocorroboratethepetitionersadmission.
apublicrecord.Whentheoriginalofdocumentisinthecustody
The petitioners argue that they timely objected to the
cadastralmapandthelistofclaimantspresentedbythere ofpublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice,itscontentsmay
_______________ be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in
custodythereof.
20Rosaroso v. Soria,G.R. No. 194846, June 19, 2013, 699
24Section24.Proofofofficialrecord.Therecordofpublic
SCRA232.
21Art. 1431.Through estoppel an admission or documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
representationisrenderedconclusiveuponthepersonmakingit, admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
andcannotbedeniedordisprovedasagainstthepersonrelying publicationthereoforbyacopyattestedbytheofficerhavingthe
thereon. legalcustodyoftherecord,orbyhisdeputy,andaccompanied,if
581spondentspouses,onthegroundthattheyviolatedtherule therecordisnotkeptinthePhilippines,withacertificatethat
onhearsayandthebestevidencerule. suchofficerhasthecustody.Iftheofficeinwhichtherecordis
Anentthebestevidencerule,Section3(d)ofRule130ofthe kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
RulesofCourtprovidesthatwhenthesubjectofinquiryisthe secretaryoftheembassyorlegation,consulgeneral,consul,vice
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other consul,orconsularagentorbyanyofficerintheforeignserviceof
thantheoriginaldocumentitself,exceptwhentheoriginalisa the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
publicrecordinthecustodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedina recordiskept,andauthenticatedbythesealofhisoffice.
publicoffice.22Section7ofthesameRuleprovidesthatwhenthe 582
Certified true copies of the cadastral map of Liliw and the
originalofadocumentisinthecustodyofapublicofficeroris
corresponding list of claimants ofthe area covered by the map
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a
werepresentedbytwopublicofficers.ThefirstwasCrisostomo
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
Arves,ClerkIIIoftheMunicipalAssessorsOffice,arepositoryof
thereof.23Section24ofRule132providesthattherecordofpublic
such documents. The second was Dominga Tolentino, a DENR
documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer
employee,who,asarecordofficer,certifiesandsafekeepsrecords
havingthelegalcustodyortherecord.24
ofsurveyedlandinvolvingcadastralmaps.Thecadastralmaps Even granting that the petitioners had not admitted the
andthelistofclaimants,ascertifiedtruecopiesoforiginalpublic partition,theypresentednoevidencetocontradicttheevidenceof
records,fallundertheexceptiontothebestevidencerule. therespondentspouses.Thus,evenwithouttheadmissionofthe
Astothehearsayrule,Section44ofRule130oftheRulesof petitioners,therespondentspousesprovedbyapreponderanceof
Court similarly provides that entries in official records are an evidence that there had indeed been a partition of the subject
exceptiontotherule.25Theruleprovidesthatentriesinofficial property.
recordsmadeintheperformanceofthedutyofapublicofficerof
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty Saleof1/3PortionoftheSouthernhalf
specially enjoined by law, areprima facieevidence of the facts Toprovethat1/3ofthesouthernhalfportionofthesubject
therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the propertywassoldtothem,SpousesMonteiropresentedadeedof
inconvenienceanddifficultyofrequiringtheofficialsattendance sale entitledBilihan ng Lahat Naming Karapatan,28dated
as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the September29,1992,whereinPedrossharewassoldbyhisheirs
courseofhisduty.Thedocumentstrustworthinessconsistsinthe to them, with the acquiescence of the heirs of Esperanza and
presumptionofregularityofperformanceofofficialduty.26 Leandro in an Affidavit of Conformity and Waiver. 29The
Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The petitionersarguethattheBilihanshouldnothavebeenadmitted
DENR is the department tasked to execute, supervise and into evidence because it lacked the documentary stamp tax
managetheconductofcadastralsurveys. 27Itis,therefore,clear requiredbySection201oftheNIRC.
that thecadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants On August 29, 1994, the petitioners filed a motion for the
qualifyasentriesinofficialrecordsastheywerepreparedbythe productionand/orinspectionofdocuments,30prayingthatSpouses
DENR,asmandatedbylaw.Assuch,they Monteirobeorderedtoproducethedeedofsale,whichtheycited
_______________ asthesourceoftheirrightsascoowners.OnNovember20,1995,
25Section44.Entriesinofficialrecords.Entriesinofficial Spouses Monteiro submitted their compliance,31furnishing the
recordsmadeintheperformanceofhisdutybyapublicofficerof RTCandthepetitionerswithacopy 32oftheBilihan.OnJanuary
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty 3,1996,thepetitionersfiledanoticeofconsignation, 33manifesting
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts thattheyhadattemptedtoexercisetheirrightofredemptionas
thereinstated. coownersofthe1/3portionofthesouthernhalfoftheproperty
26Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law: Vol. V, (Quezon City, underArticle
Philippines,RexPrintingCompany,Inc.,2004),p.740. _______________
27DENRAdmin.Order200123. 28Records,Vol.III,ExhibitC,p.514.
583are exceptions to the hearsay rule and areprima 29Records,Vol.I,pp.303305.
facieevidenceofthefactsstatedtherein. 30Id.,atpp.7576.
31Id.,atp.111.
 32Id.,atp.112. Property,unlessaccompaniedbyanaffidavitofthevendorthat
33Id.,atpp.113115. hehasgivenwrittennoticethereoftoallpossibleredemptioners.
584162334oftheCivilCodebysendingandtenderingpaymentof The right of redemption of coowners excludes that of
redemptiontoSpousesMonteiro,whichwas,however,returned. adjoiningowners.
By filing the notice of consignation and tendering their 35Records,Vol.I,p.112.
paymentfortheredemptionofthe1/3portionofthesouthernhalf 585quiescedtothesaleandwaivedtheirrighttothepropertyin
oftheproperty,thepetitioners,ineffect,admittedtheexistence, the affidavit presented by Spouses Monteiro. 36As such, the
petitionershavenorighttotheircounterclaimsofdemolitionof
dueexecutionandvalidityoftheBilihan.Consequently,theyare
improvementsandpaymentofdamages.
now estopped from questioning its admissiblity in evidence for
WithSpousesMonteirohavingsufficientlyprovedtheirclaim
relying on such for their right of redemption. Additionally, the
overthesubject1/3portionofthesouthernhalfoftheproperty
Court notes that the copy35of theBilihanwhich was originally
through theBilihan, the lower courts did not err in awarding
submitted by Spouses Monteiro with its compliance filed on
possession, rentals, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses to
November20,1995,doesinfactbearadocumentarystamptax.It
them.
couldonlymeanthatthedocumentarystamptaxonthesalewas
TheCourt,however,findsthattheawardofrentalsshouldbe
properlypaid.TheBilihanwas,therefore,properlyadmittedinto reckonedfromJanuary2,2001,thedatetheSpousesMonteiro
evidenceandconsideredbytheRTC. filed their Amended Complaint seeking recovery of the subject
In any case, as correctly held by the lower courts, the
portion. Interest at the rate of6% per annumshall also be
petitioners,asheirsofVitaliano,whoinheritedthenorthernhalf
imposed on the total amount of rent due from finality of this
portion of the subject property, do not possess the necessary
Decisionuntilfullypaid.37
personalitytoassailthesaleofthesouthernhalfportionbetween
WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIED. The August 15,
Spouses Monteiro and the heirs of Pedro. They are not real
2011DecisionandtheMarch5,2012ResolutionoftheCourtof
partiesininterest who stand to be benefited or injured by the
Appeals, in CAG.R. CV No. 92707 areAFFIRMED with
saleofthe1/3portionofthesouthernhalfoverwhichtheyhave
absolutelynoright.Ascorrectlyruledbythecourtsbelow,only MODIFICATION,inthat:
fellowcoownershavethepersonalitytoassailthesale,namely, a. TheawardofrentattherateofP500.00permonthshall
theheirsofPedrossiblings,EsperanzaandLeandro.Theyhave, be reckoned from January 2, 2001 until the property is
however,expresslyac vacated;and
_______________ b.Interestattherateof6%perannumshallbeimposedon
34Art. 1623.Therightoflegalpreemptionorredemption thetotalamountofrentduefromfinalityofthisDecision
shallnotbeexercisedexceptwithinthirtydaysfromthenoticein untilfullypaid.
writingbytheprospectivevendor,orbythevendor,asthecase SOORDERED.
maybe.ThedeedofsaleshallnotberecordedintheRegistryof
 Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,
JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with
modification.
_______________
36Id.,atpp.303304.
37Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13,
2013,703SCRA439.
586
Notes.Acts of facts admitted do not require proof and
cannotbecontradictedunlessitisshownthattheadmissionwas
madethroughpalpablemistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwas
made.(Vidarvs.People,611SCRA216[2010])
Judicialadmissionsmadebypartiesinthepleadings,orinthe
course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are
conclusive and so does not require further evidence to prove
them.(Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs.
Pingol,630SCRA413[2013])
o0o

Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

reserved.

G.R.No.201011.January27,2014.*
THERESITA,JUAN,ASUNCION,PATROCINIA,RICARDOand
GLORIA, all surnamed DIMAGUILA, petitioners,vs.JOSE and
SONIAA.MONTEIRO,respondents.
 RemedialLaw;Evidence;Admissions;Section4ofRule129 Same; Same; Best Evidence Rule; Anent the best evidence
oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatanadmissionmadebyaparty rule,Section3(d)ofRule130oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat
inthecourseoftheproceedingsinthesamecasedoesnotrequire when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
proof,andmaybecontradictedonlybyshowingthatitwasmade evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
throughpalpablemistake.Section4ofRule129oftheRulesof itself,exceptwhentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthecustodyof
Courtprovidesthatanadmissionmadebyapartyinthecourseof apublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.Anentthebest
theproceedingsinthesamecasedoesnotrequireproof,andmay evidence rule, Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
be contradicted only by showing that it was made through provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
palpablemistake.Thepetitionersarguethatsuchadmissionwas document,noevidenceshallbeadmissibleotherthantheoriginal
thepalpablemistakeoftheirformercounselinhisrushtofilethe documentitself,exceptwhentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthe
answer,acopyofwhichwasnotprovidedtothem. custodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.Section
Same;Same;Same;Article1431oftheCivilCodeprovides 7ofthesameRuleprovidesthatwhentheoriginalofadocument
thatthroughestoppel,anadmissionisrenderedconclusiveupon isinthecustodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice,
the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as itscontentsmaybeprovedbyacertifiedcopyissuedbythepublic
officerincustodythereof.Section24ofRule132providesthatthe
againstthepersonrelyingthereon.Article1431oftheCivilCode
recordofpublicdocumentsmaybeevidencedbyacopyattested
provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered
bytheofficerhavingthelegalcustodyortherecord.
conclusiveuponthepersonmakingit,andcannotbedeniedor
disprovedasagainstthepersonrelyingthereon.Therespondent Same;Same;HearsayEvidenceRule;Theruleprovidesthat
spouses had clearly relied on the petitioners admission and so entriesinofficialrecordsmadeintheperformanceofthedutyofa
amendedtheiroriginalcomplaintforpartitiontooneforrecovery publicofficerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonintheperformance
ofpossessionofaportionofthe ofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylaw,areprimafacieevidenceofthe
______________ factsthereinstated.Astothehearsayrule,Section44ofRule
*THIRDDIVISION. 130oftheRulesofCourtsimilarlyprovidesthatentriesinofficial
566subjectproperty.Thus,thepetitionersarenowestopped records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that
fromdenyingorattemptingtoprovethattherewasnopartition entriesinofficialrecordsmadeintheperformanceofthedutyofa
oftheproperty.Consideringthatanadmissiondoesnotrequire publicofficerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonintheperformance
proof,theadmissionofthepetitionerswouldactuallybesufficient
ofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylaw,areprimafacieevidenceofthe
toprovethepartitionevenwithoutthedocumentspresentedby
facts therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the
therespondentspouses.Ifanything,theadditionalevidencethey
inconvenienceanddifficultyofrequiringtheofficialsattendance
presentedonlyservedtocorroboratethepetitionersadmission.
as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the
courseofhisduty.Thedocumentstrustworthinessconsistsinthe 1Rollo, pp. 2943; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S.
presumptionofregularityofperformanceofofficialduty. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and
567 AssociateJusticeRodilV.Zalameda,concurring.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution 2Id.,atpp.4445.
oftheCourtofAppeals.
3Id.,atpp.144157.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
568executed in their favor by the heirs of Pedro
Riguera&RigueraLawOfficeforpetitioners.
Dimaguila(Pedro).
EdgardoM.Salandananforrespondents.
In their Answer, the Dimaguilas and the other defendants
counteredthattherewasnocoownershiptospeakofinthefirst
MENDOZA,J.: place. They alleged that the subject property, then owned by
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe Maria Ignacio Buenaseda, had long been partitioned equally
Rules ofCourtassailing theAugust 15,2011 Decision1andthe betweenhertwosons,PerfectoandVitalianoDimaguila,through
March5,2012Resolution2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),inCA aDeedofExtrajudicialPartition,withitssouthernhalfportion
G.R. CV No. 92707, which affirmed the August 23, 2007 assignedtoPerfectoandthenorthernhalfportiontoVitaliano.
Decision3of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Santa Cruz, They claimed that they were the heirs of Vitaliano and that
Laguna(RTC),inCivilCaseNo.SC3108. Spouses Monteiro had nothing to do with the property asthey
werenotheirsofeitherPerfectoorVitaliano.
TheFacts Duringthecourseoftheproceedings,severalincidentswere
On July 5, 1993, the respondent spouses, Jose and Sonia initiated,namely:(a)MotiontoDismissforlackoflegalcapacity
Monteiro(Spouses Monteiro), along with Jose, Gerasmo, Elisa, to sue of Spouses Monteiro and for lack of cause of action; (b)
and Clarita Nobleza, filed their Complaint for Partition and MotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderofdenialthereof,which
Damages before the RTC, against the petitioners, Theresita, was denied; (c) Motion for Production and Inspection of
Juan,Asuncion,Patrocinia,Ricardo,andGloriaDimaguila(The Documents;(d)MotionforReconsiderationoftheOrdergranting
Dimaguilas),togetherwithRosalina,Jonathan,Eve,Sol,Venus, the same, which was denied; (e) Motion to Defer Pretrial; (f)
Enrique, Nina, Princess Arieta, and Evangelina Borlaza. The NoticeofConsignationbythepetitionersintheexerciseoftheir
complaintallegedthatallthepartieswerecoownersandprayed alleged right of redemption of the share being claimed by the
for the partition of a residential house and lot located at Gat. SpousesMonteiroinlightofthedeedofsaletheyproducedand
TayawSt.,Liliw,Laguna,withanareaof489squaremeters,and claimedtohavebeenexecutedbytheheirsofPedrointheirfavor;
coveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.1453.SpousesMonteiroanchored (g)MotiontoRemoveSoniaMonteiro(Sonia)asplaintiff,which
theirclaimonadeedofsale was denied; (h) Motion for Reconsideration thereof, which was
_______________ also denied; (i) Motion for Clarification and/or Extended
Resolution; and (j) Motion to Suspend Proceedings due to a
pendingPetitionforCertioraribeforetheCAassailingseveralof Pedro, they discovered that the subject portion was being
theRTCorders.Theproceedingsresumedafterthepromulgation occupiedbytheDimaguilas.
by the CA of its April 5, 2000 Resolution in CAG.R. No. SP In their Answer5to the amended complaint, the Dimaguilas
52833,whichupheldtheassailedRTCorders. admittedthatthesubjectpropertywasinheritedby,and
On January 2, 2001, upon resumption of the proceedings, _______________
SpousesMonteirofiledtheirMotionforLeavetoAmend 4Records,Vol.II,pp.289308.
569and/or Admit Amended Complaint.4The RTC granted their 5Id.,atpp.315328.
motion.Theamendedcomplaintabandonedtheoriginalclaimfor 570divided equally between Perfecto and Vitaliano, but denied
partition and instead sought the recovery of possession of a theadmissionintheiroriginalanswerthatithadbeenactually
portionofthesubjectpropertyoccupiedbytheDimaguilasand dividedintosouthernandnorthernportions.Instead,theyargued
otherdefendants,specifically,theportionsoldtothecouplebythe thattheExtrajudicialPartitionmentionedonlythedivisionofthe
heirs of Pedro. Furthermore, only Spouses Monteiro were subjectpropertyintotwoandshareandsharealike.Ineffect,
retainedasplaintiffsandtheDimaguilasasdefendants. they argued the existence of a coownership, contrary to their
Inamendingtheircomplaint,SpousesMontieroadoptedthe original position. The Dimaguilas further argued that
Dimaguilasadmissionintheiroriginalanswerthatthesubject theBilihandidnotspecifythemetesandboundsoftheproperty
property had already been partitioned between Perfecto and sold,inviolationofArticle1458oftheCivilCode.Evenassuming
Vitaliano, through a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, dated that such had been specified, they averred that the sale of a
October 5, 1945, and that during their lifetime, the brothers definiteportionofapropertyownedincommonwasvoidsincea
agreedthatPerfectowouldbecometheownerofthesouthernhalf coownercouldonlysellhisundividedshareintheproperty.
portionandVitalianoofthenorthernhalfportion,whichdivision Duringthetrial,SpousesMonteiropresentedPedritoAdrieta,
wasobservedandrespectedbythemaswellastheirheirsand brotherofSoniaMonteiro(Sonia),whotestifiedthatPerfectowas
successorsininterest. hisgrandfatherandthatatthetimeofPerfectosdeath,hehad
SpousesMonteirofurtheraverredthatPerfectowassurvived twoproperties, oneofwhichwasthe subjectproperty inLiliw,
byEsperanza,LeandroandPedro,whohaddividedthesouthern Laguna, which went to his children, Esperanza, Leonardo and
halfportionequallyamongstthemselves,withtheirrespective1/3 Pedro. Pedro was survived by his children Pedrito, Theresita,
sharesmeasuring81.13squaremeterseach;thatPedrosshare Francisco, and Luis, who, in turn, sold their rights over the
pertainstothe1/3ofthesouthernhalfimmediatelyadjacentto subjectpropertytoSonia.
the northernhalf adjudicated to the Dimaguilas as heirs of Sonia testified that she was approached by Pedros son,
Vitaliano;thatonSeptember29,1992,Pedrossharewassoldby Francisco, and was asked if she was interested in purchasing
hisheirstothemthroughaBilihanngLahatNamingKarapatan Pedros1/3shareofthesouthernportionoftheBahaynaBato,
(Bilihan)with the acquiescence of the heirs of Esperanza and andthatheshowedheradeedofextrajudicialpartitionexecuted
LeandroappearinginanAffidavitofConformityandWaiver;and by and between Perfecto and Vitaliano, as well as the tax
that when they attempted to take possession of the share of
declarationofthepropertytoprovethatthepropertyhadalready WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
beenpartitionedbetweenthetwobrothers. plaintiffsandagainstthedefendants:
EngineerBaltazarF.Mesinatestifiedthathewasthegeodetic a.Orderingthedefendantsandallpersonsclaimingrightsunder
engineer hired by Spouses Monteiro to survey the property in themtopeacefullyvacateandturnoverpossessionof1/3ofthe
Liliw,andrecountedthathecheckedtheboundaryofthesubject southernportionofthepropertycoveredbyTaxDeclaration
property,subdividedthelotintotwoandcameupwithasurvey No.1453,specificallydescribedasAofLot877inthesketch
plan. planmarkedasExhibitI,within60daysfromthefinalityof
Crisostomo Arves, an employee from the Office of the thisDecision,failingwhichletawritofpossessionissue;
Municipal Assessor, presented a certified true copy of the b.Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
cadastralmapofLiliwandalistofclaimants/owners. solidarily,the
571 572amountofP500permonthintheformofrentforthe
Dominga Tolentino, a record officer of the Department of use of the property from July 1993 until the property is
Environment and Natural Resources(DENR), testified that as vacated;
part of her duties, she certifies and safekeeps the records of c.Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and
surveyedland,includingcadastralmapsfromtheregion. solidarily,attorneysfeesofP30,000andlitigationexpenseof
OneoftheDimaguilas,Asuncion,wasthesolewitnessforthe P20,000.
defendants.Shetestifiedthattheirfirstcounselmadeamistake SOORDERED.6
whenheallegedintheiroriginalanswerthatthepropertyhad
already been partitioned into northern and southern portions The RTC found that although the extrajudicial partition
betweenthetwobrothers,astheoriginalanswerhadbeenrushed merely divided the property into two share and share alike,
and they were never given a copy of it. She claimed that the evidencealiundewas appreciated to show that there was an
mistakewasonlypointedouttoherbytheirnewcounselafter actual division of the property into south and north between
theirformercounselwithdrewduetocancer.Shefurthertestified PerfectoandVitaliano,andthatsuchpartitionwasobservedand
thattherewasnointentiontopartitionthebahaynabatowhich honored by their heirs. These pieces of evidence were the
stoodonthesubjectproperty,inordertopreserveitshistorical cadastral map of Liliw7and a corresponding list of claimants,
andsentimentalvalue. whichshowedthatthesubjectpropertyhadlongbeenregistered
as Lot 876 (northernhalf), claimed by Buenaventura
RulingoftheRTC Dimaguila(Buenaventura), an heir of Vitaliano, and Lot 877
In its August 23, 2007 Decision, the RTC ruled in favor of (southernhalf),claimedbyPerfecto.
SpousesMonteiroandorderedtheDimaguilastoturnoverthe
possessionofthesubject1/3portionofthesouthernhalfofthe TheRTCheldthatthemannerofpartitionwasadmittedby
property,towit: the Dimaguilasthemselves intheir originalanswer. It gaveno
credence to the claim of Asuncion that such admission was an
error of their former counsel andthat she was unaware of the estopped from denying their admission of partition after the
contentsof their original answer. It noted that the Dimaguilas respondentspouseshadreliedontheirjudicialadmission.
hadstronglymaintainedtheirtheoryofpartitionfrom1992when TheDimaguilasalsoinsistedontheirargument,whichwas
thecomplaintwasfirstfiled,andonlychangedtheirdefensein raisedbeforetheRTC,butnotaddressed,thattheBilihanshould
2001 when Spouses Monteirofiled their amended complaint. It not have been admitted as evidence for lack of a documentary
keenly observed that it was precisely their admission which stamp tax, in accordance with Section 201 of the National
propelledSpousesMonteirotoamendtheircomplaintfromoneof Internal Revenue Code(NIRC). CitingGabucan v. Manta10and
partitiontorecoveryofpossession.Thus,theRTCconcludedthat
DelRosariov.Hamoy,11theCA,however,ruled
therewasindeedapartitionofthesubjectpropertyintosouthern
_______________
halfandnorth
8Records,Vol.III,ExhibitJ,p.519.
_______________
9Records,Vol.I,ExhibitA,pp.2425.
6Rollo,pp.156157. 10184Phil.588;95SCRA752(1980).
7Records,Vol.I,ExhibitA,pp.2425. 11235Phil.719;151SCRA719(1987).
573ernhalfportionsbetweenPerfectoandVitalianoandthatthe 574that if a document which did not bear the required
Dimaguilaswereestoppedfromdenyingthesame. documentarystampwaspresentedinevidence,thecourtshould
AstotheauthenticityoftheBilihan,wherethe1/3shareof requiretheproponenttoaffixtherequisitestamp.TheCAnoted
PedrowassoldtoSpousesMonteiro,theRTCfoundthedocument thattheRTChadfailedtodirectSpousesMonteirotoaffixthe
toberegularandauthenticabsentanypieceofevidencetothe stamp and merely reminded the presiding judge to be more
contrary. It stated that the proper persons to contest the sale vigilantonsimilarsituationsinthefuture.Nonetheless,itheld
werenottheDimaguilas,whoweretheheirsofVitaliano,butthe thatthepetitionersdidnotpossessthenecessarypersonalityto
heirsofPerfecto.Itnotedthattherecordsshowedthattheheirs assailthesalebetweenSpousesMonteiroandtheheirsofPedro
ofEsperanzaandLeandro(Pedrossiblings),hadsignifiedtheir becauseitpertainedtothesouthernhalfofthepropertytowhich
conformitytothepartitionandtothesaleofPedros1/3portion. theyhadnoclaim.
TheCAlikewisefoundsufficientbasisfortheawardofrentals
RulingoftheCA as compensatory damages since Spouses Monteiro were
InitsassailedAugust15,2011Decision,theCAaffirmedthe wrongfully deprived of possession of the 1/3 portion of the
rulingoftheRTC. southernhalfofthesubjectproperty.Italsoupheldtheawardof
The CA found that Spouses Monteiro had established their attorneys fees andlitigation expenses by the RTC, considering
casebyapreponderanceofevidencethrutheirpresentationofthe that Spouses Monteiro were compelled to litigate and incur
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition,8the cadastral map and the expensestoprotecttheirrightsandinterest.
municipalassessorsrecords.9Itnoted,moreimportantly,thatthe InitsassailedMarch5,2012Resolution,theCAdeniedthe
Dimaguilas themselves corroborated the claim of partition in petitionersmotionforreconsiderationforlackofmerit.
theiroriginalanswer.Itlikewiseruledthatthepetitionerswere Hence,thispetition.
 AssignmentofErrors VII
I THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDWHEN
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS
FINDING THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO AMENDED
PARTITIONOFTHEPROPERTYCOVEREDBYTAX COMPLAINT AND TO GRANT THE
DECLARATIONNO.1453. COUNTERCLAIMSINTERPOSEDTHEREIN.12
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN TheDimaguilasarguethattheiroriginalallegationregarding
FINDING THAT THE 1/3 PORTION OF THE thepartitionofthesubjectpropertyintonorthernandsouthern
SOUTHERNHALFOFTHEPROPERTYWASSOLD portionswasamistakeoftheirformer counsel,and itwasnot
TOTHERESPONDENTS. theirintentiontopartitionthepropertybecausetodosowould
575 damagethehousethereon.Evenassumingan
III _______________
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN 12Rollo,pp.1314.
ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE EXHIBIT C, THE 576admissionwasmade,thepetitionersaverthatsuchwasmade
BILIHANNGLAHATNAMINGKARAPATAN. onlybysome,butnotall,ofthecoowners;andthatpartitioncan
only be made by all coowners, and allowing the admission is
IV
tantamount to effecting partition by only some coowners.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
SpousesMonteirothemselves,intheiroriginalcomplaint,made
RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE
an admission that they were coowners of the property and
ENTITLEDTORECOVERPOSSESSIONOFTHE1/3 asserted that there was no partition. The
PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE
evidencealiundeconsidered by the RTC, consisting of the
PROPERTY.
cadastralmapandthelistofclaimants,weretimelyobjectedto
V duringthetrialashearsayandaviolationofthebestevidence
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN rule.
FINDING THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR The petitioners reiterate that theBilihanshould not have
RENTALS FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY beenadmittedintoevidencebecauseitlackedthedocumentary
FROMJULY1993UNTILVACATED. stamptaxrequiredbySection201oftheNIRC,providingthatno
VI documentshallbeadmittedinevidenceuntiltherequisitestamps
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN have been affixed thereto. They argue that the ruling of
HOLDING THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR petitioners lack of personality to assail the deed of sale is
ATTORNEYSFEESANDLITIGATIONEXPENSES. different from the issue of the deed of sales admissibility as
evidence. They conclude that considering that no documentary evidence,whichistheweight,credit,andvalueoftheaggregate
stamp was ever affixed on the deed of sale, such should never evidence on either side, synonymous with the term greater
havebeenadmittedintoevidenceandconsequently,shouldnot weight of the evidence. Preponderance of evidence is evidence
havebeenrelieduponbythelowercourtstoprovethesaleof1/3 which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
ofthesouthernportion;andthatconsideringthattheBilihanis thatwhichisofferedinoppositionthereto.14
inadmissibleasevidence,therespondentspouseshavenobasis To prove their claim of partition, the respondent spouses
fortheirclaimtothesubject1/3portionofthesouthernhalfof presentedthefollowing:(1)theDeedofExtrajudicialPartition,
the property. Thus, they insist that the lower courts erred in dated October 5, 1945, executed by and between the brothers
awarding to Spouses Monteiro the possession of the subject PerfectoandVitaliano;(2)thecadastralmapofLiliw
property,therentals,attorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses,and
in failing to rule on their counterclaim for demolition of _______________
improvementsandpaymentofdamages.
Theassignmentoferrorsboilsdowntotwomainissues: 13Heirs of Vda. Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Fajardo,G.R. No.
1.Whethertherewasapartitionofthesubjectproperty;and 184966,May30,2011,649SCRA463,470.
577 14BankofthePhilippineIslandsv.SpousesRoyeca,581Phil.
2.Whether the 1/3 portion of the southernhalf of the subject 188,194;559SCRA207,215(2008).
propertywassoldtotherespondentspouses. 578Cadm484,15datedAugust6,1976,showingthatthesubject
propertyhadbeendividedintosouthernandnorthernportions,
RulingoftheCourt registered as Lot Nos. 876 and 877; and (3) the Municipal
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the petitioners Assessorsrecords16showingthatthesaidlotswererespectively
assignment of errors calls for the Court to again evaluate the claimedbyBuenaventuraandPerfecto.
evidence to determine whether there was a partition of the ItisundisputedthattheDeedofExtrajudicialPartitionstated
property and whether the 1/3 portion of the southern half was thatPerfectoandVitalianoagreedtodividebetweentheminto
soldtotherespondentspouses.Theseclearlyentailquestionsof twoandshareandsharealikethesubjectproperty,includingthe
factwhicharebeyondtheCourtsambitofreviewunderRule45 house situated thereon. It appears, however, that the property
oftheRulesofCourt,especiallyconsideringthatthefindingsof wasactuallypartitionedintodefiniteportions,namely,southern
factoftheRTCwereaffirmedbytheCA. 13Onthisgroundalone, andnorthernhalves,asreflectedinthecadastralmapofLiliw,
thepresentpetitionmustbedenied.Nonetheless,theCourtshall which were respectively claimed by an heir of Vitaliano and
delveintothesefactualissuestofinallyputthiscasetorest. Perfectohimself.It,thus,appearsthatthesubjectpropertyhad
alreadybeenpartitionedintodefiniteportionsmorethan20years
PartitionoftheSubjectProperty priortotheoriginalcomplaintforpartitionfiledin1993,andthat
SpousesMonteiro,asplaintiffsintheoriginalcase,hadthe suchdivisionhadbeenobservedbythebrothersheirs.Asearlier
burden of proof to establish their case by a preponderance of
pointedout,thepetitionersthemselvesadmittedtothisveryfact showing that it was made through palpable mistake. The
intheiroriginalanswer,towit: petitionersarguethatsuchadmissionwasthepalpablemistake
(b)OnSeptember5,1945thebrothersPERFECTOand oftheirformercounselinhisrushtofiletheanswer,acopyof
VITALIANO DIMAGUILA executed a deed of whichwasnotprovidedtothem.PetitionerAsunciontestified:
EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION of the aforedescribed QSo,whywasthatallegations(sic)madeintheAnswer?
property dividing the same into two (2) equal parts as AMaybe,(sic)inhisrushtofiletheAnswer,Atty.Paredesfiled
indicatedintheaforesaiddeedasfollows,towit: thesamewithoutgivingusacopy19
xxx _______________
(c)Asaresultoftheforegoingpartitionandasknownby 17Records,Vol.I,pp.1112.
allthepartiesinthiscasefromthebeginningorassoonas 18Section4.Judicialadmissions.Anadmission,verbalor
they reached the age of discernment PERFECTO written,madebythepartyinthecourseoftheproceedingsinthe
DIMAGUILAbecamethesoleandexclusiveownerofthe same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
southern half of the aforedescribed property and contradictedonlybyshowingthatitwasmadethroughpalpable
VITALIANODIMAGUILAbecamethe mistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwasmade.
_______________ 19TSN,December1,2005,p.15.
15Records,Vol.III,ExhibitJ,p.519. 580
16Records,Vol.III,ExhibitL,p.556. This contention is unacceptable. It is a purely selfserving
579soleownerofthenorthernhalfofthesameproperty; claim unsupported by any iota of evidence. Bare allegations,
thehousethat wasbuilt thereonandstill existing upto unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to
thistimewaslikewiseequallydividedbetweenthetwo(2) proof.20Furthermore, the Court notes that this position was
DIMAGUILAbrothersinaccordancewiththeextrajudicial adoptedbythepetitionersonlyalmosteight(8)yearsaftertheir
partitionofhalfequalshares; originalanswerwasfiled,inresponsetotheamendedcomplaint
xxx of the respondent spouses. In their original answer to the
2.Inotherwords,theshareofVITALIANODIMAGUILA complaint for partition, their claim that there was already a
in the above described property has already been long partitionintonorthernhalfandsouthernhalfportions,wasthe
segregatedandhadpassedontohisheirsasisverywell very essence of their defense. It was precisely this admission
knownbyallthepartiesinthiscase;17 whichmovedtherespondentspousestoamendtheircomplaint.
xxx The petitioners cannot now insist that the very foundation of
(EmphasesintheOriginal) theiroriginaldefensewasapalpablemistake.
Article143121oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatthroughestoppel,
Section418ofRule129oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatan anadmissionisrenderedconclusiveuponthepersonmakingit,
admissionmadebyapartyinthecourseoftheproceedingsinthe andcannotbedeniedordisprovedasagainstthepersonrelying
samecasedoesnotrequireproof,andmaybecontradictedonlyby thereon. The respondent spouses had clearly relied on the
petitioners admission and so amended their original complaint _______________
forpartitiontooneforrecoveryofpossessionofaportionofthe 22Section3.Original document must be produced;
subject property. Thus, the petitioners are now estopped from exceptions.When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
denyingorattemptingtoprovethattherewasnopartitionofthe document,noevidenceshallbeadmissibleotherthantheoriginal
property. documentitself,exceptinthefollowingcases:
Considering that an admission does not require proof, the xxx
admissionofthepetitionerswouldactuallybesufficienttoprove (d)Whentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthecustody
the partition even without the documents presented by the ofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.
respondent spouses. If anything, the additional evidence they
23Section7.Evidenceadmissiblewhenoriginaldocumentis
presentedonlyservedtocorroboratethepetitionersadmission.
apublicrecord.Whentheoriginalofdocumentisinthecustody
The petitioners argue that they timely objected to the
cadastralmapandthelistofclaimantspresentedbythere ofpublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice,itscontentsmay
_______________ be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in
custodythereof.
20Rosaroso v. Soria,G.R. No. 194846, June 19, 2013, 699
24Section24.Proofofofficialrecord.Therecordofpublic
SCRA232.
21Art. 1431.Through estoppel an admission or documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
representationisrenderedconclusiveuponthepersonmakingit, admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
andcannotbedeniedordisprovedasagainstthepersonrelying publicationthereoforbyacopyattestedbytheofficerhavingthe
thereon. legalcustodyoftherecord,orbyhisdeputy,andaccompanied,if
581spondentspouses,onthegroundthattheyviolatedtherule therecordisnotkeptinthePhilippines,withacertificatethat
onhearsayandthebestevidencerule. suchofficerhasthecustody.Iftheofficeinwhichtherecordis
Anentthebestevidencerule,Section3(d)ofRule130ofthe kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
RulesofCourtprovidesthatwhenthesubjectofinquiryisthe secretaryoftheembassyorlegation,consulgeneral,consul,vice
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other consul,orconsularagentorbyanyofficerintheforeignserviceof
thantheoriginaldocumentitself,exceptwhentheoriginalisa the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
publicrecordinthecustodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedina recordiskept,andauthenticatedbythesealofhisoffice.
publicoffice.22Section7ofthesameRuleprovidesthatwhenthe 582
Certified true copies of the cadastral map of Liliw and the
originalofadocumentisinthecustodyofapublicofficeroris
corresponding list of claimants ofthe area covered by the map
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a
werepresentedbytwopublicofficers.ThefirstwasCrisostomo
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
Arves,ClerkIIIoftheMunicipalAssessorsOffice,arepositoryof
thereof.23Section24ofRule132providesthattherecordofpublic
such documents. The second was Dominga Tolentino, a DENR
documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer
employee,who,asarecordofficer,certifiesandsafekeepsrecords
havingthelegalcustodyortherecord.24
ofsurveyedlandinvolvingcadastralmaps.Thecadastralmaps Even granting that the petitioners had not admitted the
andthelistofclaimants,ascertifiedtruecopiesoforiginalpublic partition,theypresentednoevidencetocontradicttheevidenceof
records,fallundertheexceptiontothebestevidencerule. therespondentspouses.Thus,evenwithouttheadmissionofthe
Astothehearsayrule,Section44ofRule130oftheRulesof petitioners,therespondentspousesprovedbyapreponderanceof
Court similarly provides that entries in official records are an evidence that there had indeed been a partition of the subject
exceptiontotherule.25Theruleprovidesthatentriesinofficial property.
recordsmadeintheperformanceofthedutyofapublicofficerof
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty Saleof1/3PortionoftheSouthernhalf
specially enjoined by law, areprima facieevidence of the facts Toprovethat1/3ofthesouthernhalfportionofthesubject
therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the propertywassoldtothem,SpousesMonteiropresentedadeedof
inconvenienceanddifficultyofrequiringtheofficialsattendance sale entitledBilihan ng Lahat Naming Karapatan,28dated
as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the September29,1992,whereinPedrossharewassoldbyhisheirs
courseofhisduty.Thedocumentstrustworthinessconsistsinthe to them, with the acquiescence of the heirs of Esperanza and
presumptionofregularityofperformanceofofficialduty.26 Leandro in an Affidavit of Conformity and Waiver. 29The
Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The petitionersarguethattheBilihanshouldnothavebeenadmitted
DENR is the department tasked to execute, supervise and into evidence because it lacked the documentary stamp tax
managetheconductofcadastralsurveys. 27Itis,therefore,clear requiredbySection201oftheNIRC.
that thecadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants On August 29, 1994, the petitioners filed a motion for the
qualifyasentriesinofficialrecordsastheywerepreparedbythe productionand/orinspectionofdocuments,30prayingthatSpouses
DENR,asmandatedbylaw.Assuch,they Monteirobeorderedtoproducethedeedofsale,whichtheycited
_______________ asthesourceoftheirrightsascoowners.OnNovember20,1995,
25Section44.Entriesinofficialrecords.Entriesinofficial Spouses Monteiro submitted their compliance,31furnishing the
recordsmadeintheperformanceofhisdutybyapublicofficerof RTCandthepetitionerswithacopy 32oftheBilihan.OnJanuary
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty 3,1996,thepetitionersfiledanoticeofconsignation, 33manifesting
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts thattheyhadattemptedtoexercisetheirrightofredemptionas
thereinstated. coownersofthe1/3portionofthesouthernhalfoftheproperty
26Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law: Vol. V, (Quezon City, underArticle
Philippines,RexPrintingCompany,Inc.,2004),p.740. _______________
27DENRAdmin.Order200123. 28Records,Vol.III,ExhibitC,p.514.
583are exceptions to the hearsay rule and areprima 29Records,Vol.I,pp.303305.
facieevidenceofthefactsstatedtherein. 30Id.,atpp.7576.
31Id.,atp.111.
 32Id.,atp.112. Property,unlessaccompaniedbyanaffidavitofthevendorthat
33Id.,atpp.113115. hehasgivenwrittennoticethereoftoallpossibleredemptioners.
584162334oftheCivilCodebysendingandtenderingpaymentof The right of redemption of coowners excludes that of
redemptiontoSpousesMonteiro,whichwas,however,returned. adjoiningowners.
By filing the notice of consignation and tendering their 35Records,Vol.I,p.112.
paymentfortheredemptionofthe1/3portionofthesouthernhalf 585quiescedtothesaleandwaivedtheirrighttothepropertyin
oftheproperty,thepetitioners,ineffect,admittedtheexistence, the affidavit presented by Spouses Monteiro. 36As such, the
petitionershavenorighttotheircounterclaimsofdemolitionof
dueexecutionandvalidityoftheBilihan.Consequently,theyare
improvementsandpaymentofdamages.
now estopped from questioning its admissiblity in evidence for
WithSpousesMonteirohavingsufficientlyprovedtheirclaim
relying on such for their right of redemption. Additionally, the
overthesubject1/3portionofthesouthernhalfoftheproperty
Court notes that the copy35of theBilihanwhich was originally
through theBilihan, the lower courts did not err in awarding
submitted by Spouses Monteiro with its compliance filed on
possession, rentals, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses to
November20,1995,doesinfactbearadocumentarystamptax.It
them.
couldonlymeanthatthedocumentarystamptaxonthesalewas
TheCourt,however,findsthattheawardofrentalsshouldbe
properlypaid.TheBilihanwas,therefore,properlyadmittedinto reckonedfromJanuary2,2001,thedatetheSpousesMonteiro
evidenceandconsideredbytheRTC. filed their Amended Complaint seeking recovery of the subject
In any case, as correctly held by the lower courts, the
portion. Interest at the rate of6% per annumshall also be
petitioners,asheirsofVitaliano,whoinheritedthenorthernhalf
imposed on the total amount of rent due from finality of this
portion of the subject property, do not possess the necessary
Decisionuntilfullypaid.37
personalitytoassailthesaleofthesouthernhalfportionbetween
WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIED. The August 15,
Spouses Monteiro and the heirs of Pedro. They are not real
2011DecisionandtheMarch5,2012ResolutionoftheCourtof
partiesininterest who stand to be benefited or injured by the
Appeals, in CAG.R. CV No. 92707 areAFFIRMED with
saleofthe1/3portionofthesouthernhalfoverwhichtheyhave
absolutelynoright.Ascorrectlyruledbythecourtsbelow,only MODIFICATION,inthat:
fellowcoownershavethepersonalitytoassailthesale,namely, a. TheawardofrentattherateofP500.00permonthshall
theheirsofPedrossiblings,EsperanzaandLeandro.Theyhave, be reckoned from January 2, 2001 until the property is
however,expresslyac vacated;and
_______________ b.Interestattherateof6%perannumshallbeimposedon
34Art. 1623.Therightoflegalpreemptionorredemption thetotalamountofrentduefromfinalityofthisDecision
shallnotbeexercisedexceptwithinthirtydaysfromthenoticein untilfullypaid.
writingbytheprospectivevendor,orbythevendor,asthecase SOORDERED.
maybe.ThedeedofsaleshallnotberecordedintheRegistryof
 Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,
JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with
modification.
_______________
36Id.,atpp.303304.
37Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13,
2013,703SCRA439.
586
Notes.Acts of facts admitted do not require proof and
cannotbecontradictedunlessitisshownthattheadmissionwas
madethroughpalpablemistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwas
made.(Vidarvs.People,611SCRA216[2010])
Judicialadmissionsmadebypartiesinthepleadings,orinthe
course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are
conclusive and so does not require further evidence to prove
them.(Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs.
Pingol,630SCRA413[2013])
o0o

Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

reserved.

G.R. No. 181892.September 8, 2015.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, the
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS, and MANILA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. HON. JESUS M.
MUPAS, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the Republic vs. Mupas
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region,
Branch 117, Pasay City, and PHILIPPINE
INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC.,
respondents. G.R. No. 209731.September 8, 2015.*

G.R. No. 209917.September 8, 2015.* PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC.
petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, as
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita,
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, and COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AUTHORITY, TAKENAKA CORPORATION, and
petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, respondents.
TERMINALS COMPANY, INC., TAKENAKA CORPORATION Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Expropriation
and ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, respondents. Proceedings; Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides
that the clerk of court shall serve copies of the
G.R. No. 209696.September 8, 2015.* commissioners final report on all interested parties
upon the filing of the report. Each party shall have ten
TAKENAKA CORPORATION and ASAHIKOSAN (10) days within which to file their objections to the
CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE reports findings.Rule 67 of the Rules of Court
PHILIPPINES, represented by Executive Secretary provides that the clerk of court shall serve copies of
Eduardo Ermita, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the commissioners final report on all interested parties
AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL upon the filing of the report. Each party shall have ten
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, and PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL days within which to file their objections to the reports
AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC., respondents. findings. Upon the expiration of the ten-day period or
_______________ after all the parties have filed their objections and after
* EN BANC. hearing, the trial court may: (a) accept the report and
render judgment in accordance therewith; (b) for cause
shown, recommit the report to the commissioners for
385 further report of facts; (c) set aside the report and
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 appoint new commissioners; (d) partially accept the
report; and (e) make such order or render such
judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property of due process.
essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation; Same; Words and Phrases; Eminent domain is a
and to the defendant, the just compensation for the fundamental state power that is inseparable from
property so taken. sovereignty. It is the power of a sovereign state to
Eminent Domain; Due Process; The procedural appropriate private property within its territorial
due process requirements in an eminent domain case sovereignty to promote public welfare.Eminent
are satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to domain is a fundamental state power that is
present their evidence before the commissioners inseparable from sovereignty. It is the power of a
whose findings (together with the pleadings, evidence sovereign state to appropriate private property within
of the parties, and the entire record of the case) are its territorial sovereignty to promote public welfare.
reviewed and considered by the expropriation court. The exercise of this power is based on the States
The essence of procedural due process is the right to primary duty to serve the common need and advance
be heard. The procedural due process requirements in the general welfare. It is an inherent power and is not
an eminent domain case are satisfied if the parties are conferred by the Constitution. It is inalienable and no
given the opportunity to present their evidence before legislative act or agreement can serve to abrogate the
the commissioners whose findings (together with the power of eminent domain when public necessity and
pleadings, evidence of the parties, convenience require its exercise. The decision to
exercise the power of eminent domain rests with the
legislature which has the exclusive power to prescribe
386 how and by whom the power of eminent domain is to be
exercised. Thus, the Executive Department cannot
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
condemn properties for its own use without direct
6
authority from the Congress. The exercise of eminent
Republic vs. Mupas
domain necessarily derogates against private rights
which must yield to demand of the public good and the
common welfare. However, it does not confer on the
and the entire record of the case) are reviewed and State the authority to wantonly disregard and violate
considered by the expropriation court. It is the parties the individuals fundamental rights.
total failure to present evidence on just compensation Same; Expropriation Proceedings; Just
that renders the trial courts ruling void. The Compensation; Words and Phrases; Just compensation
opportunity to present evidence during the trial is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the
remains to be the vital requirement in the observance property taken from its owner by the expropriator.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a
expropriator. The word just is used to qualify the price to be given and received for a property. Fair
meaning of the word compensation and to convey the market value is not limited to the assessed value of the
idea that the amount to be tendered for the property to property or to the schedule of market values
be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. On determined by the provincial or city appraisal
the other hand, the word compensation means a full committee. However, these values may serve as factors
indemnity or remuneration for the loss or damage to be considered in the judicial valuation of the
sustained by the owner of property taken or injured for property.
public use. Simply stated, just compensation Same; Same; Same; Same; In cases where the fair
market value of the property is difficult to ascertain,
the court may use other just and equitable market
387 methods of valuation in order to estimate the fair
market value of a property. In cases where the fair
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
market value of the property is difficult to ascertain,
Republic vs. Mupas
the court may use other just and equitable market
methods of valuation in order to estimate the fair
market value of a property.
means that the former owner must be returned to the Same; Same; Same; Replacement Cost; Words and
monetary equivalent of the position that the owner had Phrases; Replacement cost is a different standard of
when the taking occurred. To achieve this monetary valuation from the fair market value; Replacement cost
equivalent, we use the standard value of fair market is the amount necessary to replace the
value of the property at the time of the filing of the improvements/structures, based on the current market
complaint for expropriation or at the time of the taking prices for materials, equipment, labor, contractors
of property, whichever is earlier. profit and overhead, and all other attendant costs
Same; Same; Same; Fair Market Value; Words and associated with the acquisition and installation in
Phrases; Jurisprudence broadly defines fair market place of the affected improvements /structures.
value as the sum of money that a person desirous but Replacement cost is a different standard of valuation
not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not from the fair market value. As we previously stated, fair
compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given market value is the price at which a property may be
and received for a property.Jurisprudence broadly sold by a seller who is not compelled to sell and bought
defines fair market value as the sum of money that a by a buyer who is not compelled to buy. In contrast,
 substitute with like utility. The cost approach
considers the principles of substitution, supply and
388 demand, contribution and externalities. The value of
the land and the value of improvements are determined
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
separately according to their highest and best use.
8
Buyers assess the value of a piece of property not only
Republic vs. Mupas
based on the existing condition of the property, but also
in terms of the cost to alter or improve the property to
make it functional specifically for the purposes of the
replacement cost is the amount necessary to buyers use. This may include building new structures,
replace the improvements/structures, based on the renovating existing structures, or changing the
current market prices for materials, equipment, labor, components of an existing structure to maximize its
contractors profit and overhead, and all other utility.
attendant costs associated with the acquisition and Same; Same; Same; Reproduction Cost; Words and
installation in place of the affected Phrases; Reproduction cost is the estimated current
improvements/structures. We use the replacement cost to construct an exact replica of the subject
cost method to determine just compensation if the building, using the same materials, construction
expropriated property has no market-based evidence of standards, design, layout, and quality of workmanship;
its value. and incorporating all the deficiencies,
Same; Same; Same; Same; The replacement cost superadequacies, and obsolescence of the subject
method is a cost approach in appraising real estate for building.Reproduction cost is the estimated current
purposes of expropriation. This approach is premised cost to construct an exact replica of the subject
on the principle of substitution which means that all building, using the same materials, construction
things being equal, a rational, informed purchaser standards, design, layout, and quality of workmanship;
would pay no more for a property than the cost of and incorporating all the deficiencies,
building an acceptable substitute with like utility. superadequacies, and obsolescence of the subject
The replacement cost method is a cost approach in building. It is the cost of
appraising real estate for purposes of expropriation.
This approach is premised on the principle of
substitution which means that all things being equal, a 389
rational, informed purchaser would pay no more for a
property than the cost of building an acceptable VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
 Republic vs. Mupas replacement cost approach is the method of valuation
which provides the current cost of replacing an asset
with its modern equivalent asset less deductions for all
duplicating the subject property at current prices physical deterioration and all relevant forms of
or the current cost of reproducing a new replica of the obsolescence and optimisation.Depreciated
property being appraised using the same, or closely replacement cost approach is the method of valuation
similar, materials. In the United States, the recognized which provides the current cost of replacing an asset
and used method in eminent domain cases in with its modern equivalent asset less deductions for all
appraising specialized properties is the reproduction physical deterioration and all relevant forms of
cost less depreciation approach. obsolescence and optimisation. Depreciated
Same; Same; Same; Replacement Cost New; replacement cost is a method of appraising assets that
Words and Phrases; Replacement cost new is the are usually not exposed to the open market. A general
estimated cost to construct a building with utility formula of this method is as follows: Cost of
equivalent to the appraised building using modern constructing the building(s) (including fees) Plus: Cost
materials and current standards, design, and layout or of the land (including fees) = Total Costs Less:
the current cost of a similar new property having the Allowance for age and depreciation = Depreciated
nearest equivalent utility as the property being Replacement Cost Under this method, the appraiser
valued.Replacement cost new is the estimated cost assesses the current
to construct a building with utility equivalent to the
appraised building using modern materials and current
standards, design, and layout or the current cost of a 390
similar new property having the nearest equivalent 39 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
utility as the property being valued. It is the cost of 0
acquiring a modern, functional equivalent of the subject
Republic vs. Mupas
property and views the building as if reconstructed
with modern methods, design and materials that would
most closely replace the use of the appraised building
gross replacement of the assets, usually comprised of
but provide the same utility. Replacement cost does
the land and the building. If the asset is an
not consider the most common forms of functional
improvement, the appraiser assesses the cost of its
obsolescence.
replacement with a modern equivalent and deducts
Same; Same; Same; Depreciated Replacement
depreciation to reflect the differences between the
Cost Approach; Words and Phrases; Depreciated
hypothetical modern equivalent and the actual asset. maintenance. Physical depreciation is curable if
The appraiser has to establish the size and capital investment can bring the building to a state in
specification that the hypothetical buyer ideally which the degree of obsolescence is mitigated (e.g.,
requires at the date of valuation in order to provide the standards of finishes and services). It is incurable if
same level of productive output or an equivalent no amount of capital investment can rectify the
service. [depreciation] (for example, building structural
Same; Same; Same; Construction Cost; Attendant flexibility). Curable physical depreciation is measured
Cost; Words and Phrases; Construction costs are the by the cost to cure or retrofitting which could extend
costs that are normally and directly incurred in the the life of the building. Incurable depreciation or
purchase and installation of an asset, or group of deterioration is estimated by a variety of age-life or
assets, into functional use. On the other hand, economic-age calculation methods.
attendant costs are the costs that are normally
required to purchase and install a property but that are
not usually included in the vendor invoice. 391
Construction costs are the costs that are normally and
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
directly incurred in the purchase and installation of an
Republic vs. Mupas
asset, or group of assets, into functional use. On the
other hand, attendant costs are the costs that are
normally required to purchase and install a property but
that are not usually included in the vendor invoice. Same; Same; Same; Functional Obsolescence;
Under Section 10 of the RA 8974 IRR, construction cost Words and Phrases; Functional obsolescence reflects
is the current market price of materials, equipment, the advances in technology which allow for a more
labor, the contractors profit and overhead, while the efficient delivery of services and goods from a building
attendant cost is the cost associated with the of different designs and specifications.Functional
acquisition and installation in place of the affected obsolescence reflects the advances in technology
improvement. which allow for a more efficient delivery of services
and goods from a building of different designs and
Same; Same; Same; Physical Obsolescence;
Words and Phrases; Physical obsolescence refers to specifications. Functional obsolescence arises where
the design or specification of the asset no longer
the wear and tear over the years, which might be
combined with a lack of maintenance.Physical fulfills the function for which it was originally
designed.
obsolescence refers to the wear and tear over the
years, which might be combined with a lack of Same; Same; Same; Economic Obsolescence;
Words and Phrases; Economic obsolescence results essentially and exclusively a judicial function. Fixing
from the impact of changing external macro- and micro- the formula with definitiveness and particularity in just
economic conditions on the property and should not
include internal factors which affect the profitability of
the occupying business, the writing down of such 392
factors to reflect the profitability of the business being
39 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
a matter for the occupier.Economic obsolescence
2
results from the impact of changing external macro-
Republic vs. Mupas
and micro-economic conditions on the property and
should not include internal factors which affect the
profitability of the occupying business, the writing
down of such factors to reflect the profitability of the compensation is not the function of the executive nor
of the legislative branches, much less of the parties in
business being a matter for the occupier. Within
economic obsolescence, the prospect of extending the this case. Any valuation for just compensation laid
down in the statutes may not replace the courts own
life of the building by capital investment should be
considered, as well as the fact that lack of judgment as to what amount should be awarded and
how this amount should be arrived at. Legislative
maintenance can accelerate the rate of depreciation.
Same; Same; Same; Just compensation must not enactments, as well as executive issuances, providing
the method of computing just compensation are treated
extend beyond the property owners loss or injury.
Just compensation must not extend beyond the as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount of just
compensation.
property owners loss or injury. This is the only way for
the compensation paid to be truly just, not only to the Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Court of
individual whose property is taken, but also to the Appeals; Under Section 3, Rule 6 of the Internal Rules
public who will shoulder the cost of expropriation. Even of the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA may receive
as undervaluation would deprive the owner of his evidence.Under Section 3, Rule 6 of the Internal Rules
property without due process, so too would its of the CA, the CA may receive evidence in the following
cases: (a) In actions falling within its original
overvaluation unduly favor him to the prejudice of the
public. jurisdiction, such as (1) certiorari, prohibition and
Same; Same; Same; The determination of just mandamus, (2) annulment of judgment or final order, (3)
compensation in eminent domain cases is essentially quo warranto, (4) habeas corpus, (5) amparo, (6)
and exclusively a judicial function.The determination habeas data, (7) anti-money laundering, and (8)
of just compensation in eminent domain cases is application for judicial authorization under the Human
Security Act of 2007; (b) In appeals in civil cases
where the Court grants a new trial on the ground of of proof fails. The reason for this rule is that the
newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and
53 of the Rules of Court; (c) In appeals in criminal not on the weakness of the defendants claim. Thus,
cases where the Court grants a new trial on the ground even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger
of newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule than that of the defendant, there is no preponderance
124 of the rules of Court; and (d) In appeals involving of evidence on his side when this evidence is
claims for damages arising from provisional remedies. insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action.
Same; Evidence; Equiponderance of Evidence Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Best
Rule; Under the equiponderance of evidence rule, when Evidence Rule; Under the best evidence rule, when the
the scale of justice shall stand on equipoise and subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a
nothing in the evidence inclines a conclusion to one (1) document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
side or the other, the court will find for the defendant. the original document itself. In proving the terms of a
Under the equiponderance of evidence rule, when the written document, the original of the document must
scale of justice shall stand on equipoise and nothing in be produced in court.Under the best evidence rule,
the evidence inclines a conclusion to one side or the when the subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a
other, the court will find for the defendant. If the facts document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
and circumstances are capable of two or more the original document itself. In proving the terms of a
explanations, one of which is consistent with the written document, the original of the document must
allegations of the plaintiff and the other consistent with be produced in court. The best evidence rule ensures
the defense of the defendant, the evidence does not that the exact contents of a document are brought
fulfill the requirement of preponderance of evidence. before the court. In deeds, wills, and contracts, a slight
When the evidence of the parties is in equipoise, or variation in words may mean a great difference in the
when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance rights and obligations of the parties. A substantial
of evidence lies, the party with the burden hazard of inaccuracy exists in the human process of
making a copy by handwriting or typewriting. Moreover,
with respect to oral testimony purporting to give the
393 terms of a document from memory, a special risk of
error is present, greater than in the case of attempts at
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
describing other situations generally. The best
Republic vs. Mupas
evidence rule likewise acts as an insurance against
fraud. If a party is in the possession of the best
evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute Rule 130 of the Rules of Court does away with the item-
inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally
by-item court identification and authentication of
arises that the better evidence is withheld for voluminous exhibits which would only be burdensome
fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and tedious for the parties and the court.
and defeat. The rule likewise protects against Same; Same; Same; Best Evidence Rule;
misleading inferences resulting from the intentional orWhenever a party seeks an exemption under the best
unintentional introduction of selected portions of a evidence rule pursuant to Section 3(c), Rule 130 of the
larger set of writings. Rules of Court, he asks permission from the trial court
Same; Same; Same; Voluminous Exhibits; Section to produce a summary of numerous documents, whose
3(c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court does away with theoriginals are available to the adverse party for
item-by-item court identification and authentication ofinspection.Whenever a party seeks an exemption
voluminous exhibits which would only be burdensome under the best evidence rule pursuant to Section 3(c),
and tedious for the parties and the court.We agree Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, he asks permission from
with PIATCO that it need not submit numerous and the trial court to produce a summary of numerous
voluminous invoices, official receipts, and other documents, whose originals are available to the
relevant documents before adverse party for inspection. He does not ask
permission from the trial court to present in evidence
the numerous non-original documents . Otherwise, the
394 very purpose of Section 3(c), Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court would be defeated. In that case, every exhibit of
39 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
non-original documents would be identified,
4
authenticated, and cross-examined, leading to a
Republic vs. Mupas
tedious and protracted litigation. Thus, if a party
desires to present photocopies of the original
documents, he must first establish that the
the trial court to prove the attendant costs that it presentation of photocopies is justified under Section
incurred in the construction of the NAIA-IPT III. The 3(a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court . He
trial court may admit a summary of voluminous original must establish the presence of all the elements under
documents, in lieu of original documents, if the party these provisions.
has shown that the underlying writings are numerous Same; Same; Same; Same; Lost or Destroyed
and that an in-court examination of these documents Documents; Elements that Must be Proved Before
would be inconvenient. In other words, Section 3(c), Secondary Evidence of Lost or Destroyed Documents
are Admitted.In the case of lost or destroyed Damages; Temperate Damages; Temperate or
documents, the offeror of non-original documents must moderate damages, which are more than nominal but
first prove the following elements before secondary less than compensatory damages, may be recovered
evidence is admitted before the court: (a) the existence when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has
or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of
destruction of the original, or the reason for its non- the case, be proved with certainty.In a case for
damages, we allow the party to receive temperate
damages in the absence of competent proof on the
395 amount of actual damages. Temperate or moderate
damages, which are more than nominal but less than
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
compensatory damages, may be recovered when the
Republic vs. Mupas
court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered
but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be
proved with certainty.
production in court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on Same; A complaint for damages seeks to
the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the vindicate a legal wrong through damages, which may
original can be attributed. To conclude otherwise is to be actual, moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated, or
allow the party to circumvent the best evidence rule exemplary.An eminent domain case is different from a
and the requirements under Section 3(a), (b), and (d), complaint for damages. A complaint for damages is
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court by merely invoking based on tort and emanates from the transgression of a
Section 3(c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. right. A complaint for damages seeks to vindicate a
Just Compensation; Just compensation must be legal wrong through damages, which may be actual,
duly proven by preponderance of evidence or greater moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated, or exemplary.
weight of credible evidence.The mean percentage When a right is exercised in a manner not conformable
range is highly speculative and devoid of any factual with Article 19 of the Civil Code and other provisions on
basis. As a court of law, we should only measure just human relations in the Civil Code, and the exercise
compensation using relevant and actual evidence as results in the
basis in fixing the value of the condemned property.
Just compensation must be duly proven by
preponderance of evidence or greater weight of 396
credible evidence. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence, are not equivalent to proof. 39 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
6
 Republic vs. Mupas Same; Same; Same; Interest Rates; Just
compensation would not be just if the State does not
pay the property owner interest on the just
damage of another, a legal wrong is committed and the compensation from the date of the taking of the
wrongdoer is held responsible. property.Section 9, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
Eminent Domain; Expropriation Proceedings; Just provides that [n]o private property shall be taken for
Compensation; Under Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of public use without just compensation. The 1987
Court, the property sought to be expropriated shall be Constitution thus commands the condemnor to pay the
appraised as of the date of taking of the property or the property owner the full and fair equivalent of the
filing of the complaint for expropriation, whichever is property from the date of taking. This provision likewise
earlier.Under Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, presupposes that the condemnor incurs delay if it does
the property sought to be expropriated shall be not pay the property owner the full amount of just
appraised as of the date of taking of the property or the compensation on the date of taking. The reason is that
filing of the complaint for expropriation, whichever is just compensation would not be just if the State does
earlier, thus: Section 4. Order of expropriation.If the not pay the property owner interest on the just
objections to and the defenses against the right of the compensation from the date
plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or
when no party appears to defend as required by this
Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation 397
declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
property sought to be expropriated, for the public use
Republic vs. Mupas
or purpose described in the complaint, upon the
payment of just compensation to be determined as of
the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the
of the taking of the property. Without prompt payment,
complaint, whichever came first. A final order
the property owner suffers the immediate deprivation
sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be
of both his land and its fruits or income . The owners
appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal,
loss, of course, is not only his property but also its
however, shall not prevent the court from determining
income-generating potential.
the just compensation to be paid. After the rendition of
Same; Same; Same; Same; Taking; When the
such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to
taking of the property precedes the filing of the
dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such
complaint for expropriation, the Supreme Court (SC)
terms as the court deems just and equitable.
orders the condemnor to pay the full amount of just this case, the Government not the property owner or
compensation from the date of taking whose interest third party intervenors, i.e., Takenaka and Asahikosan,
shall likewise commence on the same date. When the who shall shoulder the costs of the expropriation
taking of the property precedes the filing of the before the court of origin. Since the expenses of the
complaint for expropriation, the Court orders the BOC form part of the costs of the suit as these are
condemnor to pay the full amount of just compensation expenses necessary in prosecuting or defending an
from the date of taking whose interest shall likewise action or a distinct proceeding within an action the
commence on the same date. The Court does not rule
that the interest on just compensation shall commence
the date when the amount of just compensation 398
becomes certain, e.g., from the promulgation of the
39 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Courts decision or the finality of the eminent domain
8
case.
Republic vs. Mupas
Interest Rates; Loans; On June 21, 2013, the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued Circular No.
799, pursuant to Monetary Board (MB) Resolution No.
Government solely bears the expenses of the BOC. The
796 dated May 16, 2013, reducing the legal interest on
loans and forbearance of money from twelve percent property owner shall only bear the costs of the appeal
if he loses in his appeal.
(12%) to six percent (6%) per annum. BSP Circular No.
799 took effect on July 1, 2013. On June 21, 2013, the Same; Same; Parties; Under Sections 8 and 14 of
BSP issued Circular No. 799, pursuant to MB Resolution Republic Act (RA) No. 8974 Implementing Rules and
No. 796 dated May 16, 2013, reducing the legal interest Regulations (IRR), in relation with Section 9, Rule 67 of
on loans and forbearance of money from 12% to 6% per the Rules of Court, all persons who claim to have lawful
annum. BSP Circular No. 799 took effect on July 1, interest in the property to be condemned should be
2013. included as defendants in the complaint for
Eminent Domain; Expropriation Proceedings; expropriation.The defendants in an expropriation
case are not limited to the owners of the property
Based on the clear terms of Section 12, Rule 67, it is
the plaintiff in this case, the Government not the condemned. They include all other persons owning,
occupying, or claiming to own the property. Under
property owner or third party intervenors, i.e., Takenaka
and Asahikosan, who shall shoulder the costs of the Sections 8 and 14 of RA 8974 IRR, in relation with
Section 9, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, all persons
expropriation before the court of origin. Based on the
clear terms of Section 12, Rule 67, it is the plaintiff in who claim to have lawful interest in the property to be
condemned should be included as defendants in the
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
complaint for expropriation.
Same; Same; Same; Just Compensation; All Republic vs. Mupas
persons who have lawful interest in the property
sought to be expropriated should be impleaded in the
complaint for purposes of determining who shall be Note that the last paragraph, Section 4 of RA 8974
entitled to just compensation. All persons who have states: When the decision of the court becomes final
lawful interest in the property sought to be and executory, the implementing agency shall pay the
expropriated should be impleaded in the complaint for owner the difference between the amount already paid
purposes of determining who shall be entitled to just and the just compensation as determined by the court.
compensation. If a known owner is not joined as This provision thus envisions a situation where the
defendant, he may intervene in the proceeding. If the court determines with finality, for purposes of payment
owner is joined but not served with process and the of just compensation, the conflicting claims of the
proceeding is already closed before he came to know of defendants and intervenors.
the condemnation, he may maintain an independent Same; Same; The expropriation courts
suit for damages. Consequently, Takenaka and determination of the lawful property owner is merely
Asahikosan are correct in invoking Section 9, Rule 67 of provisional; The Courts disposition with respect to the
the Rules of Court for purposes of determining who ownership of the property is not conclusive, and it
shall be entitled to just compensation in this case. This remains open to challenge through proper actions. We
rule is likewise their proper basis of intervention in the clarify that the expropriation courts determination of
RTCs March 12, 2007 order in Civil Case No. 04-0876. the lawful property owner is merely provisional. By
Same; Same; Just Compensation; From the filing an action for expropriation, the condemnor merely
express provision of Section 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. serves notice that it is taking title to and possession of
8974, just compensation shall only be paid to the the property, and that the defendant is asserting title to
property owner.From the express provision of Section or interest in the property, not to prove a right to
4 of RA 8974, just compensation shall only be paid to possession, but to prove a right to compensation for
the property owner. We implead persons with lawful the taking. The Courts disposition with respect to the
interests in the property in order to determine the ownership of the property is not conclusive, and it
person who shall receive just compensation. remains open to challenge through proper actions. The
courts resolution of the title to the land at the time of
taking has no legal consequences beyond the eminent
399 domain proceedings. The courts decision cannot be
pleaded as a defense of res judicata or collateral conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in
estoppel in any action to determine title to the all later suits on points and matters determined in the
property. former suit.
Same; Finality of Judgments; To avoid future Same; Expropriation Proceedings; Just
litigation, the Supreme Court (SC) emphasizes that a Compensation; Taking; To clarify and to avoid confusion
final disposition in the eminent domain case with in the implementation of our judgment, the full payment
respect to the order to pay a particular person shall be of just compensation is not a prerequisite for the
final and executory upon the lapse of relevant periods Governments effective taking of the property; When
under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. To avoid future the taking of the property precedes the payment of just
litigation, we emphasize that a final disposition in the compensation, the Government shall indemnify the
eminent domain case with respect to the order to pay a property owner by way of interest. To clarify and to
particular person shall be final and executory upon the avoid confusion in the implementation of our judgment,
lapse of relevant periods under Rule 39 of the Rules of the full payment of just compensation is not a
Court. The recourse of the person claiming ownership prerequisite for the Governments effective taking of
over the expropriated property in any subsequent case the property. As discussed above, RA 8974 allows the
is against the adjudged property owner in the Government to enter the property and implement
expropriation case. The principle of res judicata appliesnational infrastructure projects upon the issuance of
in this particular matter because the issues on the the writ of possession. When the taking of the property
amount of just compensation precedes the payment of just compensation, the
Government shall indemnify the property owner by way
of interest.
400 Same; Same; Taking; Words and Phrases; Taking
under the power of eminent domain means entering
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
upon private property for more than a momentary
0
period, and under the warrant or color of legal
Republic vs. Mupas
authority, devoting it to public use, or otherwise
informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in
such a way as substantially to oust the owner and
and the person to be paid just compensation are deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.
the central issues in the second phase of expropriation. Taking under the power of eminent domain means
Based on this principle, a final judgment or decree on entering upon private property for more than a
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is momentary period, and under the warrant or color of
legal authority, devoting it to public use, or otherwise sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the
informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in person entitled under the judgment. Section 4 of RA
such a way as substantially to oust the owner and 8974 further states that the writ of possession is an
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof. Taking order to take possession of the property and to start
of property takes place when: (1) the owner is actually the implementation of the project.
deprived or dispossessed of his property; (2) there is a Same; Same; The Government is provisionally
practical destruction or a material impairment of the authorized to take the property for public purpose or
value of his property; (3) the owner is deprived of the public use whenever the court issues a writ of
ordinary use of the property, or (4) when he is deprived possession in favor of the Government. The
of the jurisdiction, supervision and control of his Government is provisionally authorized to take the
property. property for public purpose or public use whenever the
court issues a writ of possession in favor of the
Government. It may take possession of the property or
401 effectively deprive the property owner of the ordinary
use of the property. If the court, however, later on
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
determines that the State has no right of expropriation,
Republic vs. Mupas
then the State shall immediately restore the defendant
of the possession of the property and pay the property
owner damages that he sustained.
Same; Same; Just Compensation; Writs of Same; Same; The States taking of the property is
Possession; Under Section 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. not based on trust or contract, but is founded on its
8974, the Government is only entitled to a writ of inherent power to appropriate private property for
possession upon initial payment of just compensation public use.The States taking of the property is not
to the defendant, and upon presentment to the court of based on trust or contract, but is founded on its
a certificate of availability of funds.Under Section 4 of inherent power to appropriate private property for
RA 8974, the Government is only entitled to a writ of public use. It is also for this reason to compensate
possession upon initial payment of just compensation the property owner for the deprivation of his right to
to the defendant, and upon presentment to the court of enjoy the ordinary use of his property until the naked
a certificate of availability of funds. A writ of title to the property passed to the State that the
possession does not transfer title to the Government; it State pays interest from the time of the taking of the
is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment property until full payment of just compensation.
to recover the possession of land. It commands the
 conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal
402 claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe
for judicial resolution.An actual case or controversy
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an
2
assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties
Republic vs. Mupas
that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution. A
justiciable controversy must not be moot and academic
or have no practical use or value. In other words, there
Expropriation Proceedings; Commissioners must be a definite and concrete dispute touching on
Report; Under Section 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the legal relations of the parties who have adverse
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) may accept or reject, legal interests. Otherwise, the Court would simply
whether in whole or in part, the Bureau of Customs render an advisory opinion on what the law would be on
(BOCs) report which is merely advisory and a hypothetical state of facts. The disposition of the
recommendatory in character.These developments case would not have any practical use or value as there
render the appointment of DG Jones and Partners as an is no actual substantial relief to which the applicant
independent appraiser of the NAIA-IPT III ineffective. would be entitled to and which would be negated by the
An appraiser is a person selected or appointed by dismissal or denial of the petition.
competent authority to ascertain and state the true
value of goods or real estate. The purpose of appointing LEONEN,J., Concurring Opinion:
DG Jones and Partners as an independent appraiser
was to assist the BOC in appraising the NAIA-IPT III. In Eminent Domain; Expropriation Proceedings; View
fact, the BOC requested the RTC to engage the that the improvements built by Philippine International
services of an independent appraiser because the BOC Air Terminals Co.,
had no technical expertise to conduct the valuation of
the NAIA-IPT III. In turn, the BOC was to recommend to
the RTC the replacement cost of the NAIA-IPT III. Under 403
Section 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the RTC may
accept or reject, whether in whole or in part, the BOCs VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
report which is merely advisory and recommendatory in Republic vs. Mupas
character.
Judicial Review; Actual Case or Controversy; An
actual case or controversy exists when there is a Inc. through its subcontractors may have been
private, but it was the product of a procurement take into consideration the present value of the
contract that would later be declared as illegal and property.I reiterate the view that while just
void ab initio. Thus, view that it is not the kind of compensation must be the value of the property at the
private property protected under Article III, Section 9 time of the taking, the actual amount to be paid should
of the Constitution. It is not the kind of property that take into consideration the present value of the
should be the subject of expropriation.I entertain property. I had occasion to point this out in my
serious doubts about the propriety of the remedy Separate Opinions in Secretary of the Department of
pursued by the government to comply with the Decision Public Works and Highways v. Spouses Tecson , 700
of this court in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air SCRA 243 (2013), and Heirs of Spouses Tria v. Land
Terminals Co., Inc., 420 SCRA 575 (2004). The Bank of the Philippines, 700 SCRA 188 (2013).
improvements built by Philippine International Air PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and
Terminals Co., Inc. through its subcontractors may have resolution of the Court of Appeals; and SPECIAL CIVIL
been private, but it was the product of a procurement ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
contract that would later be declared as illegal and void The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
ab initio. Thus, in my view, it is not the kind of private Enrique W. Galang for Takenaka Corporation and
property protected under Article III, Section 9 of the Asahikosan Corporation.
Constitution. It is not the kind of property that should Quasha, Ancheta, Pea & Nolasco for Philippine
be the subject of expropriation. Otherwise, the essence International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO).
of the illegality of the contract will be nullified. Mario V. Andres and Katharina C. Cases-De Vera for
Same; Same; Just Compensation; View that Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide
instead of the fair market value of the property at the (Fraport) Stockholder of PIATCO.
time of the taking, the government would have had to BRION,J.:
pay the value of the property based on its utility at
present.Nonetheless, the rules on valuation will be Before the Court are the consolidated petitions for
different should government be made to pay the owner review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated
so that there is no unjust enrichment. Instead of the August 22, 2013, and the Resolution dated October 29,
fair market value of the property at the time of the 2013, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
taking, the government would have had to pay the value 98029; and the petition for certiorari assailing the May
of the property based on its utility at present. 3, 2007; May 18, 2008; and January 7, 2008 Decision of
Same; Same; Same; View that while just the Regional Trial Court ( RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 117,
compensation must be the value of the property at the in Civil Case No. 04-0876.1
time of the taking, the actual amount to be paid should _______________
 1 In G.R. No. 209917, the Government filed a petition and Partners as an independent appraiser of the NAIA-
for review on certiorari seeking to partially reverse the IPT III, and ordered the Government to submit a
CAs August 22, 2013 Amended Decision and October Certificate of Availability of Funds to cover DG Jones
29, 2013 Resolution in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 98029. In G.R. and Partners appraisal fee of $1,900,000.00.
No. 209696, Takenaka and Asahikosan filed a petition For ease of presentation, the Courts discussion shall
for review on certiorari seeking to partially reverse the be under the following structure:
same CA rulings. In G.R. No. 209731, PIATCO filed a I. The Factual Antecedents
petition for review on certiorari filed seeking to reverse A. The NAIA-IPT IIII Contract and PIATCO
the same CA rulings. 1. The NAIA-IPT III Contract
2. PIATCO
3. PIATCO and the Services of Takenaka and
405 Asahikosan
B. The Agan v. PIATCO Case, G.R. No. 155001
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
1. The Case and the Decision dated May 5, 2003
Republic vs. Mupas
2. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Resolution
dated January 21, 2004
C. The Expropriation Case, Civil Case No. 04-0876
In G.R. No. 181892, the Government filed a petition for _______________
certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary 2 Rollo, pp. 10-40; penned by Associate Justice
restraining order assailing the January 7, 2008 order of Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and concurred in by
the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117 in Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and
Civil Case No. 04-0876. Samuel J. Gaerlan.
In C.A.-G.R. CV No. 98029, the CA ordered petitioners
Republic of the Philippines, Department of
Transportation and Communications, and Manila 406
International Airport Authority ( Government for brevity)
to pay the Philippine International Airport Terminals 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co., Inc. (PIATCO) the amount of $371,426,688.24 with 6
interest at 6% per annum as just compensation for the Republic vs. Mupas
expropriation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport-
International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA-IPT III).2
In Civil Case No. 04-0876, the RTC appointed DG Jones D. The Republic v. Gingoyon Case, G.R. No. 166429
1. The Case and the Decision dated December 19, 2005
2. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Resolution
dated February 1, 2006 V. The Parties Positions
E. Proceedings in Civil Case No. 04-0876 after the A. The Governments Position
Finality of the Gingoyon Case B. PIATCOs Position
1. The Appointment of DG Jones and Partners as an C. Takenaka and Asahikosans Position
Independent Appraiser VI. The Issues
2. The BOCs Expenses VII. The Courts Rulings
F. The Parties and the BOCs Appraisal of the NAIA-IPT A. G.R. Nos. 209917, 209696, and 209731
III 1. The parties were afforded procedural due process
1. The Governments Appraisal despite their nonreceipt of the BOC Final Report prior
2. PIATCOs Appraisal to the promulgation of the May 23, 2011 Decision in
3. Takenaka and Asahikosans Appraisal Civil Case No. 04-0876.
4. The BOCs Appraisal 2. Framework: Eminent domain is an inherent power of
II. The RTCs Rulings in Civil Case No. 04-0876 the State
A. The Main Decision 2.a. The power of eminent domain is a fundamental
B. The RTCs Interlocutory Order on the Validity of the state power that is inseparable from sovereignty
Escrow Account 2.b. Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of
1. The Government and the Creation of an Escrow the property taken from the owner by the condemnor
Account for the Payment of Just Compensation 2.b.1. Fair market value is the general standard of value
2. The Omnibus Order dated October 11, 2011 in determining just compensation
III. The CAs Rulings 2.b.2. Replacement cost is a different standard of value
A. C.A.-G.R. CV No. 98029 from fair market value
B. C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 123221 2.b.3. Replacement cost is only one of the standards
IV. The Action to Enforce the London Awards, Civil Case that the Court should consider in appraising the NAIA-
No. 06-171 IPT III

407 408

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Mupas 8
 Republic vs. Mupas
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
Republic vs. Mupas
2.b.4. The use of depreciated replacement cost method
is consistent with the principle that the property owner
7. Interests, Fruits, and Income
should be compensated for his actual loss
7.a. Computation of Interests
3. Construction cost of the NAIA-IPT III
7.b. PIATCO is not entitled to the fruits and income of
3.a. The base valuation of the NAIA-IPT III
the NAIA-IPT III
3.b. Structural defects on the NAIA-IPT III
8. The BOCs Expenses
3.b.1. The Court cannot consider the additional
8.a. Takenaka and Asahikosan should not share in the
evidence submitted by Takenaka and Asahikosan
BOCs expenses
before the Court of Appeals
9. PIATCO as the Proper Recipient of Just
3.b.2. Equiponderance of evidence on the alleged
Compensation
structural defects of the NAIA-IPT III favors PIATCO,
9.a. Takenaka and Asahikosans intervention in the
Takenaka, and Asahikosan
case as unpaid subcontractors is proper
3.c. The unnecessary areas
9.b. The property owner is entitled to just
4. Attendant cost of the NAIA-IPT III
compensation
4.a. PIATCOs attendant cost
9.c. A final disposition in the eminent domain case with
4.b. The BOC and the RTCs attendant cost
respect to the order of payment to a particular person
4.c. The Governments attendant cost
shall be final and executory
5. Deductions to the Replacement Cost of the NAIA-IPT
9.d. The determination of whether the NAIA-IPT III shall
III
be burdened by liens and mortgages even after the full
5.a. Depreciation should be deducted from the
payment of just compensation is premature
replacement cost
10. The exercise of eminent domain from the
5.b. Rectification for contract compliance should not be
perspective of taking.
deducted from the replacement cost
10.a. The Government may take the property for public
6. Adjustments to the Replacement Cost
purpose or public use upon the issuance and effectivity
6.a. The replacement cost should be adjusted to
of the writ of possession
December 2004 values
B.G.R. No. 181892
1. The issue on the appointment of an independent
409 appraiser is already moot and academic
 Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC).5

410 Both AEDC and Paircargo Consortium offered to

build the NAIA-IPT III for at least $350 million at no
41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
cost to the Government and to pay the Government: 5%
0
share in gross revenues for the first five years of
Republic vs. Mupas
operation, 7.5% share in gross revenues for the next ten
years of operation, and 10% share in gross revenues for
the last ten years of operation. However,
I.The Factual Antecedents _______________
3 Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic
A.The NAIA-IPT III Contract and PIATCO Act No. 7718.
4 Agan v. PIATCO, 450 Phil. 789; 402 SCRA 612
1.The NAIA-IPT III Contract (2003).
On October 5, 1994, Asias Emerging Dragon Corp. 5 Id., at pp. 792-793; p. 635.
(AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal to the
Government through the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the 411
Manila International Airport Authority ( MIAA) for the
construction and development of the NAIA-IPT III under VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
a build-operate-and-transfer (BOT) arrangement. The Republic vs. Mupas
DOTC and the MIAA invited the public to submit
competitive and comparative proposals to AEDCs
unsolicited proposal in accordance with the BOT Law3 Paircargo Consortium offered to pay the Government a
and its implementing rules.4 total of P17.75 billion as guaranteed payment for 27
years while AEDC offered to pay the Government a total
2.PIATCO of P135 million for the same period.6
On September 20, 1996, Paircargo Consortium After finding that Paircargo Consortium submitted a bid
composed of Peoples Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., superior to the AEDCs unsolicited proposal and after
Inc. (Paircargo), Philippine Air and Grounds Services, the AEDCs failure to match the competitive bid, the
Inc. (PAGS), and Security Bank Corporation ( Security DOTC awarded, through a notice of award, the NAIA-IPT
Bank) submitted its competitive proposal to the III project to the Paircargo Consortium (that later
organized itself as PIATCO).7 3. PIATCO and the Services of Takenaka and
On July 12, 1997, the Government executed a Asahikosan
Concession Agreement with PIATCO for the
On March 31, 2000, PIATCO engaged the services of
construction, development, and operation of the NAIA-
IPT III under a build-operate-transfer scheme. On Takenaka, a local branch of a foreign corporation duly
November 26, 1998, the Amended and Restated organized under the laws of Japan and doing business
Concession Agreement (ARCA) superseded the 1997 in the Philippines, for the construction of the NAIA-IPT
Concession Agreement. The Government and PIATCO III under an Onshore Construction Contract.10
likewise entered into a series of supplemental On the same date, PIATCO, through an Offshore
agreements, namely: the First Supplement signed on Procurement Contract,11 likewise contracted the
August 27, 1999; the Second Supplement signed on services of Asahi-
September 4, 2000; and the Third Supplement signed on
_______________
June 22, 2001.8 10 This agreement was further supplemented by the
Under the 1997 Concession Agreement, the ARCA and following contracts:
the Supplemental Agreement (for brevity, PIATCO (a) First Supplement to the Agreement Re: the Ninoy
contracts), the Government authorized PIATCO to build,
Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III
operate, and maintain the NAIA-IPT III during the Onshore Construction Contract dated January 26, 2001;
concession period of twenty-five (25) years.9 (b) Second Supplement Agreement Relating to the
_______________ Onshore Construction Contract Re: the Ninoy Aquino
6 Id., at p. 794; p. 636. International Airport Passenger Terminal III Onshore
7 Id., at pp. 794-795; p. 637. Construction Contract dated February 21, 2001;
8 Id., at pp. 795-796; p. 638. (c) Agreement between Takenaka and Asahikosan
9 Id., at p. 795; p. 637. and Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide
Relating to the Deeds of Guaranteed Re: Ninoy Aquino
International Airport Passenger Terminal III dated
412 February 21, 2001;
(d) Third Supplemental Agreement relating to the
41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Onshore Construction Contract dated April 11, 2002;
2
and
Republic vs. Mupas
(e) Fourth Supplemental Agreement relating to the
Onshore Construction Contract dated September 11,
2002.
 See CA Rollo, Volume XXXII-Q, pp. 10-155, 183-201 _______________
and 381-398. Airport Passenger Terminal III dated February 21, 2001;
11 The Offshore Procurement Contract was and
supplemented by the following agreements: (c) Agreement between Takenaka and Asahikosan and
(a) First Supplement to the Agreement Re: the Ninoy Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide
Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III Relating to the Deeds of Guaranteed Re: Ninoy Aquino
Offshore Procurement Contract dated January 26, International Airport Passenger Terminal III dated
2001; February 21, 2001;
(b) Second Supplement Agreement relating to the (d) Third Supplement Agreement Relating to the
Offshore Procurement Contract Re: Ninoy Aquino Offshore Procurement Contract Re: Ninoy Aquino
International International Airport Passenger Terminal III dated April
11, 2002;
(e) Fourth Supplement Agreement relating to the
413 Offshore Procurement Contract dated September 11,
2002.
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
Id., at pp. 183-201 and 238-398.
Republic vs. Mupas
12Id.
13 Id., at pp. 214-237.
14 Id., at pp. 381-398.
kosan, a foreign corporation duly organized under the
laws of Japan, for the design, manufacture, purchase,
test and delivery of the Plant12 in the NAIA-IPT III.
In May 2002, PIATCO defaulted on its obligation to pay 414
Takenaka and Asahikosan pursuant to their respective
contracts. To settle the problem, Takenaka and 41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Asahikosan agreed to defer PIATCOs payments until 4
June 2003, conditioned on their receipt of adequate Republic vs. Mupas
security from PIATCO as stipulated in the Fourth
Supplemental Agreement (relating to the Onshore
Construction Contract)13 and the Fourth Supplement On November 29, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal
Agreement (relating to the Offshore Procurement Arroyo declared in her speech that the Government
Contract), respectively.14 would not honor the PIATCO contracts. On the same
day, Takenaka and Asahikosan notified PIATCO that representing 15% of its entire net worth. We concluded
they were suspending the construction of the NAIA-IPT that the total net worth of the Paircargo Consortium
III for PIATCOs failure to provide adequate security.15 after considering the maximum amounts that may be
validly invested by
B.The Agan v. PIATCO Case, G.R. No. 155001

1. The Case and the Decision dated May 5, 2003 415

On September 17, 2002, petitioners Demosthenes
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
Agan, et al., asked the Court to nullify the PIATCO
Republic vs. Mupas
contracts, and to prohibit the DOTC and the MIAA from
implementing these contracts for being contrary to law.
The case, entitled Agan v. PIATCO, was docketed as
Court further found that the PIATCO contracts
G.R. No. 155001.16
On May 5, 2003, the Court nullified the PIATCO contained provisions that substantially departed from
contracts after finding that Paircargo Consortium (that the draft Concession Agreement. These substantial
later incorporated into PIATCO) was not a duly modification of the PIATCO contracts violated the
public policy for being repugnant to the principle that
prequalified bidder for failure to meet the minimum
equity requirements for the NAIA-IPT III project, as all bidders must be on equal footing during the public
bidding.18
required under the BOT Law and the Bid Documents.
The Court also ruled that Security Bank (member of the
2. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Resolution
Paircargo Consortium) invested its entire net worth in a
single undertaking or enterprise in gross violation of dated January 21, 2004
Section 21-B of the General Banking Act (which limits a
commercial banks equity investment, whether allied or We denied PIATCO, et al.s motion for reconsideration in
our January 21, 2004 resolution. 19 Significantly, we
non-allied, to fifteen percent (15%) of its net worth). 17
The stated in the resolution that the Government should
_______________ first pay PIATCO as a prerequisite before taking
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), Volume II, p. 415. over the NAIA-IPT III, to wit:
This Court, however, is not unmindful of the reality that
16 Supra note 4 at p. 797; p. 639.
17 The Court ruled in Agan that the maximum the structures comprising the NAIA-IPT III facility are
almost complete and that funds have been spent by
amount that Security Bank could validly invest in the
Paircargo Consortium is only P528,525,656.55, PIATCO in their construction. For the Government to
take over the said facility, it has to compensate P3,002,125,000.00, representing the NAIA-IPT IIIs
respondent PIATCO as builder of the said structures. assessed value.22
The compensation must be just and in accordance with On the same day, the RTC issued a writ of
law and equity for the Government cannot unjustly possession in favor of the Government. Citing City of
enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its Manila v. Serrano,23 the RTC held that that it had the
investors.20 (Underlines and emphases ours) ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession upon: (1)
_______________ the filing of the complaint for expropriation sufficient in
each of its members is P558,384,871.55 or only form and substance, and (2) the Governments deposit
6.08% of the project cost. This amount is substantially of the amount equivalent to the propertys assessed
less than the prescribed minimum equity investment value, pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.24
required for the project in the amount of On January 4, 2005, the RTC modified its
P2,755,095,000.00 or 30% of the project cost. December 21, 2004 order and directed: (1) the Land
18 Supra note 4 at pp. 744-841; p. 664. Bank to immediately release to PIATCO the amount of
19 Agan v. PIATCO, 465 Phil. 545, 586; 420 SCRA US$62,343,175.7725 that would be deducted from the
575, 607 (2004). just compensation; (2) the Gov-
20 Id., at p. 582; p. 603. _______________
21 The case is entitled Republic of the Philippines,
represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita,
416 the Department of Transportation and Communications,
and the Manila International Airport Authority,
41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
plaintiffs, -versus- Philippine Air Terminals Co., Inc.,
6
defendant. See G.R. No. 209731, Volume I, pp. 363-383.
Republic vs. Mupas
22 Republic v. Gingoyon, 514 Phil. 678; 478 SCRA
474 (2005). See also RTC Rollo, Volume II, pp. 1050-1066
and Rollo (G.R. No. 209731), Volume I, pp. 363-374.
C.The Expropriation Case, Civil Case No. 04-087621 23 411 Phil. 754, 765; 359 SCRA 231, 238 (2001).
24 Republic v. Gingoyon, supra at pp. 678-679; p.
On December 21, 2004, the Government filed a 595. See also RTC Rollo, Volume II, p. 1072 and Rollo
complaint for expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III before (G.R. No. 209731), Volume I, pp. 384-385.
the RTC of Pasay, Branch 117. The Government 25 The MIAA held guaranty deposits in the sum of
informed the RTC that it had deposited with the Land $62,343,175.77 with Land Bank for purposes of
Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) the amount of expropriating the NAIA-IPT III. See Rollo (G.R. No.
209731), Volume I, pp. 380-382. which amount shall be held by the depositary subject to
the orders of the court. In contrast, Section 4 of RA
8974, as a rule, requires the Government to immediately
417 pay the property owner the amount equivalent to 100%
of the value of the property based on the BIRs relevant
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
zonal valuation and the value of the improvements/and
Republic vs. Mupas
or structures, upon the filing of the complaint and after
due notice to the defendant.
_______________
ernment to submit to the RTC a Certificate of 26 Supra note 22 at pp. 679-680; pp. 509-510. See
Availability of Funds for the payment of just also RTC Rollo, Volume II, pp. 818-821 and Rollo (G.R.
compensation; and (3) the Government to maintain and No. 209731), Volume I, pp. 390-396.
preserve the NAIA-IPT III pending the expropriation 27 Id., at pp. 680-681; p. 568. See also RTC Rollo,
proceedings and the full payment of just compensation. Volume II, pp. 823-829.
The RTC likewise prohibited the Government from
performing acts of ownership over the NAIA-IPT III such
as awarding concessions or leasing any part of the 418
NAIA-IPT III to other parties.26
The Government sought reconsideration of the January 41 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
4, 2005 Order, arguing that Rule 67 of the Rules of 8
Court, and not RA 8974, applied to the case since the Republic vs. Mupas
NAIA-IPT III was not a national government
infrastructure project.27
RA 8974 is otherwise known as An Act to Facilitate the On January 7, 2005, the RTC appointed three
Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for Commissioners28 to determine just compensation
National Government Infrastructure Projects and for without consulting the Government and PIATCO.29 Due
Other Purposes. to these successive adverse rulings, the Government
The Government argued that under Section 2, Rule 67 sought to inhibit Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon, the RTCs
of the Rules of Court, it shall have the right to a writ of presiding judge, from hearing the case.30 (The judge
possession upon deposit with the authorized was ambushed and killed on December 31, 2005)31
government depositary of an amount equivalent to the On January 10, 2005, the RTC denied the Governments
assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation, urgent motion for reconsideration and motion for
inhibition.32
On December 14, 2005, Asahikosan filed a motion for 419
leave to intervene in Civil Case No. 04-0876 (the
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
expropriation case).33 On the other hand, Takenaka filed
Republic vs. Mupas
a Manifestation dated December 15, 2005, 34 with the
attached Manifestation and Motion dated December 14,
2005.35 Takenaka alleged that the Government
impleaded it as an additional defendant in an amended but was not served summons. Takenaka thus
manifested its voluntary appearance before the RTC.36
complaint for expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III,
_______________ Takenaka and Asahikosan informed the RTC that they
had previously filed two collection cases against
28 The RTC appointed Dr. Fiorello R. Estuar, Atty.
Sofronio B. Ursal, and Capt. Angelo I. Panganiban. Dr. PIATCO, docketed as Claim Nos. HT-04-248 and HT-05-
269, before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench
Estuar and Atty. Ursal were succeeded by Engr. Adam
Abinales and Atty. Alfonso V. Tan, Jr., respectively. Division, Technology and Construction Court in London,
England, (London Court) on August 9, 2004.
29 Supra note 22 at pp. 680-681; p. 540. See also
RTC Rollo, Volume II, pp. 942-943 and Rollo (G.R. No. In both instances, the London Court ruled in their favor.
The dispositive part of the judgment award in Claim No.
181892), pp. 306-307.
30 Rollo (G.R. No. 209731), Volume I, pp. 397-398; HT-04-248 provides:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
RTC Rollo, Volume II, pp. 944-950.
31 On January 20, 2006, Judge Jesus M. Mupas of 1. Judgment be entered for the First Claimant 37 in the
sum of 6,602,971.00 United States dollars, together
RTC-Pasay, Branch 119 was designated by the Supreme
Court to replace Judge Henrick Gingoyon in the with interest in the sum of 116,825,365.34 Philippine
pesos up to and including 18 February 2005.
expropriation case. See RTC Rollo, Volume XXVI-A,
unpaged. 2. Judgment be entered for the Second Claimant 38 in
the sum of 8,224,236.00 United States dollars, together
32 Supra note 22 at p. 681; p. 568. See also RTC
Rollo, Volume II, pp. 958-965 and Rollo (G.R. No. with interest in the sum of 2,947,564.87 United States
dollars up to and including 18 February 2005, being a
209731), Volume I, pp. 399-406.
33 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), Volume I, pp. 266-286; total of 11,171,800.87 United States dollars.
3. Save for the costs of and caused by the amendment
RTC Rollo, Volume IV, pp. 4244-4247.
34 Id., at pp. 229-231; id., at pp. 4224-4226. of the particulars of claim, which will be the subject of
a separate Order, the Defendant do pay the First
35 RTC Rollo, Volume IV, pp. 4248-4264.
Claimants and the Second Claimants costs in the
action, to be subject to detailed assessment if not action, to be subject to detailed assessment if not
agreed. agreed.
_______________ DATED this 2 (sic) day of December 2005.40
36 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), Volume I, pp. 229-231;
id., at pp. 4224-4226. Takenaka and Asahikosan asked the RTC to: (a) hold in
37 The First Claimant refers to Takenaka abeyance the release of just compensation to PIATCO
Corporation. until the London awards are recognized and enforced in
38 The Second Claimant refers to Asahikosan the Philippines; and (b) order that the just
Corporation. compensation be deposited with the RTC for the
benefit of PIATCOs creditors.4
During the hearing of the motions, the Government
420 clarified that it neither filed an amended complaint for
expropriation nor impleaded Takenaka as a necessary
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
party in the case.42
0
_______________
Republic vs. Mupas
39 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), Volume I, p. 245; RTC
Rollo, Volume IV, p. 4239.
40 Id., at p. 227; id., at p. 4241.
DATED this 18th day of February 2005.39 41 Id., at pp. 242-243 and 284.
42 Id., at pp. 332-333.
On the other hand, the dispositive part of the judgment
award in Claim No. HT-05-269 states:
IT IS ORDERED THAT: 421
1. Judgment be entered for the First Claimant in the
sum of 21,688,012.18 United States dollars, together VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
with interest in the sum of 6,052,805.83 United States Republic vs. Mupas
dollars. The RTC initially denied Takenaka and Asahikosans
2. Judgment be entered for the Second Claimant in the respective motions43 in the August 8, 2006 Order, but
sum of 30,319,284.36 United States dollars, together subsequently reconsidered its ruling.44 In a March 12,
with interest in the sum of 5,442,628.26 United States 2007 Order, the RTC treated Takenakas Manifestation
dollars. with the attached Manifestation and Motion as a
3. The defendant to pay the Claimants costs in the motion to intervene and allowed Takenaka and
Asahikosan to intervene in the case as PIATCOs 45 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), Volume I, pp. 332-333.
creditors.45
Pending the RTCs resolution of Takenaka and
Asahikosans motions for leave to intervene in the 422
expropriation case, the Government went directly to
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the Court seeking Judge Gingoyons inhibition from the
2
case; the nullification of the order of release of the sum
Republic vs. Mupas
of $62.3 million to PIATCO; and the nullification as well
of the appointment of the commissioners.

propriation case.46 The case, entitled Republic v.

D.The Republic v. Gingoyon Case, G.R. No. 166429
Gingoyon, was docketed as G.R. No. 166429.
The Government argued that the RTC should not have
1. The Case and the Decision dated December 19,
2005 ordered the release of $62.3 Million since the NAIA-IPT
IIIs assessed value was only P3 billion. Moreover, the
On January 12, 2005, the Government, et al., filed a RTCs prohibition against the Government to perform
acts of ownership on the NAIA-IPT III was contrary to
petition for certiorari with the Court assailing the
validity of the January 4, 7, and 10, 2005 orders of the the essence of a writ of possession. It 47 asserted that
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court governed the
RTC in the ex-
_______________ expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III since it was not a
national government infrastructure project.
In a decision dated September 6, 2010, the RTC
recognized the validity of the London awards in Claim The Government likewise contended that the
commissioners appointment was void. It claimed that
Nos. HT-04-248 and HT-05-269 and declared these
awards as enforceable in the Philippine jurisdiction. it had been deprived of due process since it was not
given the opportunity to contest the appointment of the
The RTC thus ordered PIATCO to pay Takenaka and
Asahikosan the sum of $85.7 million. commissioners. The Government likewise sought Judge
Gingoyons inhibition from the case due to his alleged
PIATCO appealed the case to the CA which affirmed the
RTC rulings in a decision dated March 13, 2012. The CA manifest partiality to PIATCO.48
The Court partly granted the petition and rendered the
likewise denied PIATCOs motion for reconsideration in
a resolution dated May 31, 2012. following rulings:
43 RTC Rollo, Volume X, pp. 7548-7573. First, under the 2004 Resolution in Agan: (a) PIATCO
44 Rollo (G.R. No. 209731), Volume II, p. 1788. must receive payment of just compensation determined
in accordance with law and equity; and (b) the expropriation complaint. However, the rules on the
Government is barred from taking over the NAIA-IPT III mode of deposit differ because Rule 67 of the Rules of
until just compensation is paid. Court merely requires the Government to deposit the
Second, RA 8974 applies in the expropriation case assessed value of the property sought to be
insofar as the law: (a) requires the Government to expropriated with an authorized government depositary
immediately pay PIATCO at least the proffered value of before the issuance of a writ of possession.
the NAIA-IPT III; and (b) provides valuation standards in In contrast, RA 8974 commands the Government to
determining the amount of just compensation. make a direct payment to the property owner prior to
_______________ the issuance of a writ of possession. Under RA 8974,
46 Supra note 22 at p. 681; p. 510. the payment shall be based on: (a) the BIRs zonal
47 For simplicity and ease of reading, the Court valuation in case of land; and (b) the value of the
shall use it, instead of they. improvements or structures under the replacement
48 RTC Rollo, Volume II, pp. 971-1036. cost method. If the completion of a government
infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and
importance and if there is no existing valuation of the
423 property, the implementing agency shall immediately
pay the proffered value of the property.49
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
_______________
Republic vs. Mupas
49 Section 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court
provides:
SEC.2.Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value
RA 8974 is the governing law in cases where the with authorized government depository.Upon the
national government expropriates property for the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and
purpose of commencing national government after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall
infrastructure projects such as the construction of the have the right to take or enter upon the possession of
NAIA-IPT III. However, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court the real property involved if he deposits with the
applies in determining the assessed value and the authorized government depositary an amount
mode of deposit of just compensation if the national equivalent to the assessed value of the property for
government initiates the expropriation complaint for purposes of taxation to be held by such
purposes other than national infrastructure projects.
Under both Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and RA 8974,
the Government initiates the expropriation by filing an 424
 Section 7 hereof;
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
xxxx
4
c)In case the completion of a government
Republic vs. Mupas infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and
importance, and there is no existing valuation of the
area concerned, the implementing agency shall
We thus observed that Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered
of Court is contrary to our January 21, 2004 Resolution value taking into consideration the standards
which required the Government to make prior payment prescribed in Section 5 hereof.
of just com- Upon completion with the guidelines above mentioned,
_______________ the court shall immediately issue to the implementing
bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit agency an order to take possession of the property and
shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court start the implementation of the project.
authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the
government bank of the Republic of the Philippines implementing agency shall present to the court a
payable on demand to the authorized government certificate of availability of funds from the proper
depositary. official concerned.
In contrast, Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8974 states:
SEC.4.Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings.
Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for 425
the right-of-way, site or location for any national
government infrastructure project through VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
expropriation, the appropriate proceedings before the Republic vs. Mupas
proper court under the following guidelines:
a)Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due
notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall pensation to PIATCO before it could take over the NAIA-
immediately pay the owner of the property the amount IPT III.
equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent The Court at the same time qualified the applicability
(100%) of the value of the property based on the of RA 8974 to the expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III. We
current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of held that the Congress may legislate on the valuation
Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the standards of just compensation and the manner of its
improvements and/or structures as determined under payment since these are substantive matters. We made
clear, however, that the Congress cannot legislate on
6
the procedural aspects of expropriation since this
power lies with the Court. In fact, Section 14 of RA 8974 Republic vs. Mupas
IRR provides that Rule 67 of the Rules of Court shall
apply to all matters regarding defenses and objections
to the complaint, issues on uncertain ownership and Fourth, we authorized the Government to perform acts
conflicting claims, effects of appeal on the rights of the essential to the operation of the NAIA-IPT III as an
parties, and such other incidents affecting the international airport terminal once the writ of
complaint. possession becomes effective. This authority covers
Third, we held in abeyance the implementation of the the repair, reconditioning, and improvement of the
writ of possession until the Government directly pays complex; maintenance of the existing facilities and
to PIATCO the proffered value of P3 billion. The zonal equipment; installation of new facilities and equipment;
valuation method under Section 4 of RA 8974 shall not provision of services and facilities pertaining to the
apply since the Government owns the land on which facilitation of air traffic and transport; and other
the NAIA-IPT III stands. Consequently, PIATCO should services that are integral to a modern-day international
only be paid the value of the improvements and/or airport. This is consistent with Section 4 of RA 8974
structures using the replacement cost method. 50 which provides that the court shall immediately issue
Pending the determination of just compensation, the to the implementing agency an order to take
Government shall pay the sum of P3 billion as the possession of the property and start the
provisional amount of just compensation because there implementation of the project upon fulfillment of
was no expedited means by which the Government certain conditions.
could immediately take possession of the NAIA-IPT III. This ruling qualified the Courts statement in its
We also stated that the replacement cost method is January 21, 2004 Resolution that [f]or the Government
only one of the factors to be considered in determining to take over the said facility, it has to compensate
just compensation. Equity should likewise be respondent PIATCO as builder of the said structures.
considered in determining just compensation. Nonetheless, we clarified that the title to the NAIA-IPT
_______________ III shall pass to the Government only upon full payment
50 RA 8974 IRR, Section 7. of the just compensation since the proffered value is
merely a provisional determination of just
compensation.
426 Fifth, we ordered the RTC to complete its determination
of just compensation within sixty (60) days from finality
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of our decision since it was no longer possible for the January 2005 of the lower court. Said orders are
RTC to determine just compensation within sixty (60) AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
days from the filing of the complaint under Section 4 of 1) The implementation of the Writ of Possession dated
RA 8974. 21 December 2005 is HELD IN ABEYANCE, pending
Sixth, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in payment by petitioners to PIATCO of the amount of
appointing the commissioners. Neither Rule 67 of the Three Billion Two Million One Hundred Twenty-Five
Rules of Court nor RA 8974 requires the RTC to consult Thousand Pesos (P3,002,125,000.00), representing the
the parties in the expropriation case prior to the proffered value of the NAIA-IPT III facilities;
appointment of commissioners. We also stated that 2) Petitioners, upon the effectivity of the Writ of
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court shall apply insofar as it is Possession, are authorized [to] start the
consistent with RA 8974, the IRR, and the Courts implementation of the Ninoy Aquino International
rulings in Agan. Airport-International Passenger Terminal III project by
performing the acts that are essential to the operation
of the said International Airport Passenger Terminal
427 project;
3) RTC Branch 117 is hereby directed, within sixty (60)
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
days from finality of this Decision, to determine the just
Republic vs. Mupas
compensation to be paid to PIATCO by the Government.
_______________
51 Supra note 22 at pp. 657-719; pp. 548-549.
Considering that the expropriation proceedings were
effectively suspended seven days after the
appointment of the commissioners, the parties may file 428
their objections with the RTC within five days from
finality of the decision in accordance with Section 5, 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. 8
Seventh, there was no ground to order Judge Republic vs. Mupas
Gingoyons inhibition since the Government failed to
show his alleged partiality.51
The dispositive portion of the Decision states: The Order dated 7 January 2005 is AFFIRMED in all
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED in PART with respects subject to the qualification that the parties
respect to the orders dated 4 January 2005 and 10 are given ten (10) days from finality of this Decision to
file, if they so choose, objections to the appointment of 53 Republic v. Gingoyon, 517 Phil. 7, 8; 481 SCRA
the commissioners decreed therein. 457, 463 (2006). See also RTC Rollo, Volume V, pp. 4446-
The Temporary Restraining Order dated 14 January 4487.
2005 is hereby LIFTED. 54 Id., at pp. 7-8; p. 464; id., at pp. 4547-4579 and
No pronouncement as to costs.52 4665-4732.

2. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Resolution

dated February 1, 2006 429

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

On January 2, 2006, the Government, et al., filed a
Republic vs. Mupas
motion for partial reconsideration of the Courts
December 19, 2005 Decision.53 Asahikosan,
Takenaka, and Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina also filed a
motion for leave to intervene and asked the Courts peals55 as basis for their intervention. In that case, the
Court took the extraordinary step of allowing the
reconsideration of its December 19, 2005
Decision.54 motion for intervention even after the challenged order
of the trial court had already become final. On the other
The Government raised the question of who between
PIATCO, on the one hand, and Takenaka and hand, Rep. Baterina invoked his prerogative as
legislator and taxpayer to curtail the payment of just
Asahikosan, on the other was the NAIA-IPT IIIs
builder. The Government informed the Court that compensation without any appropriation in PIATCOs
favor.
Takenaka and Asahikosan, as the unpaid
contractors in the NAIA-IPT III project, claimed The Court denied the motions and held that the alleged
liens over the NAIA-IPT III have not been judicially
significant liens on the NAIA-IPT III. The
Government opined that it would end up established. Takenaka and Asahikosan were not parties
to Gingoyon and did not present their claims before the
expropriating the NAIA-IPT III with liens and claims
in excess of its actual value if the proffered value Court. The Court did not make any declaration
regarding Takenaka and Asahikosans rights to any form
would be directly released to PIATCO.
As PIATCOs unpaid creditors, Takenaka and of compensation for the construction of the NAIA-IPT
III.
Asahikosan intervened in the case. They relied on
Mago v. Court of Ap- Moreover, the Court did not recognize the London
awards in favor of Takenaka and Asahikosan. Under
_______________
52 Id., at pp. 718-719; pp. 549-550. Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a foreign
judgment would not bind Philippine courts unless the conclusively established in this jurisdiction.56
judgment is recognized and enforced in this _______________
jurisdiction. Philippine courts may annul a foreign 56 Another related case is Asias Emerging Dragon
judgment for lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice to the Corp. v. DOTC, docketed as G.R. Nos. 169914 & 174166.
party, collusion, fraud, clear mistake of law or fact, or In G.R. No. 169914, AEDC filed a petition for mandamus
when the foreign judgment is contrary to public policy. and prohibition before the Court: (a) seeking to compel
Even assuming that PIATCO is indeed liable to other the Government to execute in its favor an approved
parties, the creditors have other judicial avenues to Draft Concession Agreement for the operation of the
ventilate and prove their claims against PIATCO. NAIA-IPT III; and (b) seeking to prohibit the DOTC and
The Court also categorically stated that PIATCO, as the MIAA from awarding the NAIA-IPT III project to or
builder of the NAIA-IPT III, must first receive just negotiating into any concession contract with third
compensation in accordance with law and equity parties. The case, entitled AEDC v. DOTC, was docketed
before the Government may take over the NAIA-IPT III. as G.R. No. 169914.
The Court likewise denied the motions for intervention AEDC contended that it had the exclusive, clear, and
for serious procedural errors. Under Section 2, Rule 19 vested statutory right to the award of the NAIA-IPT III
of the project on the ground that it remained the unchallenged
_______________ original proponent of the NAIA-IPT III project as a result
55 363 Phil. 225, 338; 303 SCRA 600, 613 (1999). of the Courts nullification of PIATCO contracts.
The Court denied the petition.
We noted that AEDC belatedly filed the petition
430 twenty months after the Courts promulgation of Agan
in violation of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Furthermore, the petition was barred by res judicata.
0
The RTC already dismissed Civil Case No. 66213 upon
Republic vs. Mupas
the execution of a compromise agreement by AEDC, on
one hand, and the DOTC Secretary and the PBAC, on
the other hand.
Rules of Court, the motion to intervene should be filed Under Section 10.6 of the RA 6957 IRR, the
before the courts rendition of judgment, and not after Governments acceptance of the unsolicited proposal
the resolution of the case. Moreover, Takenaka and is limited to its commitment to pursue the project and
Asahikosan failed to establish their legal interest in the to the recognition of the proponent as the original
case since their claims against PIATCO have not been proponent. Thus, the Governments commitment is
limited to the pursuit of the project; it does not award The Court also stated that AEDCs original proposal
the project to the original proponent. The acceptance was to undertake the building, operation, and transfer
of the unsolicited proposal only prevents the to the Government of the NAIA-IPT III. This proposal
Government from entertaining other similar proposals was no longer feasible since the NAIA-IPT III was
until the solicitation of comparative proposals. already substantially built. Furthermore, AEDC was not
financially qualified to undertake the NAIA-IPT III
project since it then had a paid-in capital of only
431 P150,000,000.00 at the time of the submission of the
bids.
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
In G.R. No. 174166, Congressman Baterina, et al., filed a
Republic vs. Mupas
petition for certiorari opposing the expropriation
proceedings on the ground that the NAIA-IPT III is a
public property. They posited that PIATCO should not be
_______________ paid just compensation and was only entitled to
Upon the submission of comparative proposals, the recovery on quantum meruit as the builder of the NAIA-
original proponent has the right to match the lowest or IPT III.
most advantageous proposal within thirty working days The Court denied the petition. We held that PIATCO was
from notice thereof. If the original proponent is able to entitled to just and equitable consideration for its
match the lowest or most advantageous proposal construction of the NAIA-IPT III. Furthermore, the
submitted, then the original proponent has the right to propriety of the expropriation proceedings was already
the award of the project. The right to be awarded the recognized and upheld by the Court in Agan and
project, however, is contingent upon the original Gingoyon.
proponents actual exercise of his right to match the In a resolution dated April 7, 2009, the Court denied
lowest or most advantageous proposal. In other words, AEDC, et al.s motion for reconsideration. The Court
if the original proposal failed to match the most stated that the project would be awarded to the original
advantageous comparative proposal, then the original proponent if there was no other competitive bid
proponent has no right to be awarded the project. submitted for the BOT project. However, if other
AEDC failed to match PIATCOs more advantageous proponents
proposal. Consequently, AEDC had no enforceable right
to be awarded the NAIA-IPT III project. Moreover, the
nullification of the award to PIATCO neither revived the 432
proposal nor reopened the bidding.
43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 a. Incomplete design coordination as shown by the
2
absence of detailed shop drawings during the
Republic vs. Mupas construction, an absence described as unusual for a
BOT project of this size.
_______________
E.Proceedings in Civil Case No. 04-0876after the submitted competitive bids, then the original proponent
Finality of the Gingoyon Case must be able to match the most advantageous or
lowest bid to enjoy his preferential right to the award of
1. The Appointment of DG Jones and Partners as an the project.
Independent Appraiser 57 Rollo (G.R. No. 181892), pp. 68-69.

On April 11, 2006, the RTC ordered the BOC to

resume its duties. In compliance, the BOC submitted its 433
Inception Report and Inception Framework to the RTC.
On April 24, 2007, the parties and the BOC conferred to VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
set the ground rules and procedure in determining the Republic vs. Mupas
just compensation due to the NAIA-IPT III.
On April 26, 2006, the Government asked the RTC to
stop the payment of P3 billion proffered value in view of b. Wrong choice of ceiling and wall components and
an alleged supervening event the collapse of the fixing materials, e.g., use of rivets instead of clips,
ceiling of the arrival lobby section of the north side of screws or wire; use of furring channels instead of
the NAIA-IPT III on March 27, 2006. The Government stronger C channels; use of wall angles thinner than
claimed that the collapse created a 100-square foot required; and
hole in the ceiling and caused heavy asbestos pipes to c. Poor workmanship, e.g., uneven distribution and
fall on the floor of the NAIA-IPT III. The Government improper attachment of rivets, lack of ceiling supports
likewise informed the Court that the MIAA requested in the presence of mechanical fixtures.58
the Association of Structural Engineers of the The ASEP concluded that the likely cause of the
Philippines (ASEP) to investigate the cause of the collapse was the syncretic effect of all these factors
collapse.57 In its Final Report dated June 2006, the working over time since the construction of the
ASEP identified the following factors that contributed ceiling.59
to the collapse: Upon the BOCs request,60 on May 5, 2006, the RTC
ordered the engagement of the services of an
internationally accepted independent appraiser who this order, the Government tendered to PIATCO a P3
shall conduct the valuation of the NAIA-IPT III.61 billion check on September 11, 2006. On the same day,
On May 23, 2006, the Government manifested that it the RTC reinstated the writ of possession in favor of
engaged the services of: (a) TCGI Engineer to the Government.63
determine the structural integrity of NAIA-IPT III; (b)
Thereafter, the Government and PIATCO submitted their
Ove Arup & Partners Massachusetts, Inc. (Ove Arup) to list of nominees for the appointment of an independent
conduct a design and technical review of the NAIA-IPT appraiser.64 On May 3, 2007, the RTC appointed DG
III and to conduct a peer review of TCGI Engineers Jones and Partners as independent appraiser.65
methodology and test results; and (c) Gleeds On May 18, 2007, the RTC directed the Government to
International to determine the value of the NAIA-IPT submit a Certificate of Availability of Funds to cover DG
III.62 Jones and Partners $1.9 Million appraisal fee.66
On June 20, 2006, the RTC ordered Land Bank to _______________
immediately release the amount of P3 billion to PIATCO. 63 Rollo (G.R. No 209696), Volume I, p. 331.
The RTC ruled that the collapse of a portion of the 64 Rollo (G.R. No. 181892), p. 174. After the conduct
NAIA-IPT III was of a Pre-Final Evaluation of Prequalification of
_______________ Consultant, the BOC shortlisted DG Jones and Partners
58 Id., at pp. 74-80. as well as Sallmans Far East Ltd. HK. ( Sallmans) as
59 Id., at pp. 68-69. independent appraisers.
60 Id., at pp. 16 and 61. 65 Prior to the appointment, Judge Mupas
61 Id., at p. 16. interviewed the representatives of DG Jones and
62 Id., at p. 150; RTC Rollo, Volume VIII, p. 5591.
Partners, and Sallmans. The RTC concluded that DG
Jones and Partners was more qualified than Sallmans
as independent appraiser since the former submitted a
434 lower appraisal fee of US$1,900,000.00 ($1.9 Million).
Moreover, DG Jones and Partners has a wide
43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
experience and track record in the appraisal of airport
4
facilities. See Prior to the appointment, Judge Mupas
Republic vs. Mupas
interviewed the representatives of DG Jones and
Partners, and Sallmans. The RTC concluded that DG
Jones and Partners was more qualified than Sallmans
not a supervening event that would hinder the payment as independent appraiser since the former submitted a
of the proffered value to PIATCO. In compliance with lower appraisal fee of US$1,900,000.00 ($1.9 Million).
Moreover, DG Jones and Partners has a wide
experience and track record in the appraisal of airport
facilities.
See Rollo (G.R. No. 181892), pp. 64-66.
66 The appraisal fee is itemized as follows:

435

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

Republic vs. Mupas

See Rollo (G.R. No. 181892), pp. 60 and 358.

The Government sought the reconsideration of the May 67 The Government further argued that there were
3 and 18, 2007 orders. The Government complained that no laws or rules that empowered the RTC and the BOC
the appointment of an appraiser apart from those hired to appoint an independent appraiser. The Government
by the Government would result in the unnecessary opined that the RTC should exclusively choose among
depletion of its funds since it would be compelled to its nominees pursuant to Section 7 of RA 8974 as well
pay two appraisers.67 as Sections 10 and 11 of RA 8974 IRR. Furthermore, the
In response, PIATCO argued that the RTC has the appointment of an independent appraiser would only
inherent power to appoint an independent appraiser result in the duplication of tasks since the BOC and the
pursuant to Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court. independent appraiser essentially perform the same
The RTC has function. The BOC would serve no purpose since the
appraisal of the NAIA-IPT III would be derived from the
findings of DG Jones and Partners.
_______________ It opined that the DG Jones and Partners appraisal
fee was unjust and exorbitant. The Government also
pointed out that PIATCO manifested its willingness to
share one-half of the expenses in the valuation of the
NAIA-IPT III during the valuation hearings. The
Government further raised doubts on DG Jones and
Partners qualifications since the RTC allegedly 69 The RTC stated that it would be grossly unfair to
appointed the firm without disclosing DG Jones and choose exclusively among the Governments nominees;
Partners qualifications and proposals. otherwise, the independence of the appraiser would be
Id., at pp. 170-182. questionable. The Government pointed out that the
government tax assessors valuation of expropriated
property was not even conclusive on trial courts. In
436 fact, the BOC itself requested the appointment of an
independent appraiser since it had no technical
43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
expertise to ascertain the just compensation due to
6
PIATCO.
Republic vs. Mupas
The RTC also held that the Government was
estopped from objecting to the appointment of an
independent appraiser since it did not previously object
wide discretion on how it shall carry its mandate under to the engagement of the services of an appraiser. The
RA 8974 and Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.68 Government even nominated several firms for the
In an order dated January 7, 2008, the RTC sustained purpose of appointing an independent appraiser,
the appointment of DG Jones and Partners. The RTC particularly, Gleeds International, Ove Arup, and
ruled that its power to appoint the members of the BOC Gensler.
under Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court includes The RTC likewise imposed on the Government the
the power to appoint an independent appraiser.69 sole responsibility of paying the appraisal fee of DG
_______________ Jones and Partners. Under Section 12, Rule 67 of the
68 PIATCO contended that the Government was Rules of Court, the commissioners fees shall be taxed
estopped from assailing the appointment of DG Jones as part of the costs of the proceedings. The plaintiff
and Partners. The Government participated in the shall pay all costs, except those of rival claimants
appointment process by nominating other firms as an litigating their claims. If the property owner appeals
independent appraiser. Furthermore, it would be from the expropriation courts
iniquitous for the Government to solely appraise the
replacement cost of the NAIA-IPT III. PIATCO asserted
that the Government should solely bear the cost of the 437
appraisal. The Government should have anticipated the
appointment of an independent appraiser when it filed VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
a complaint for expropriation. Id., at pp. 183-190. Republic vs. Mupas
 availability of funds from Plaintiffs for the
necessary full compensation to PIATCO, the
The Government directly challenged before the Court costs and the expenses entailed in this
the May 3, May 18, and January 7, 2008 orders in a expropriation is clearly justified and should be
petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a submitted to this Court within 15 days from
temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary plaintiffs receipt of this order.
injunction. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 181892.70 SO ORDERED.
Id., at pp. 60-63.
On January 9, 2008, the Court issued a temporary 70 Id., at pp. 2-54.
restraining order against the implementation of the 71 Id., at pp. 231-232.
May 3 and 18, 2007 Orders as well as the January 7,
2008 Order.71
_______________ 438
judgment, he shall pay for the costs of the appeal.
43 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
According to the RTC, PIATCO should not shoulder the
8
appraisal fee since it is constitutionally entitled to just
Republic vs. Mupas
compensation.
The RTC also affirmed DG Jones and Partners
independence. The RTC impartially chose this firm upon
a thorough review of its qualifications and upon the 2. The BOCs Expenses
On June 15, 2006, the BOC filed a request for the
BOCs recommendation. The Government would
likewise not directly communicate with and pay the release of a mobilization fund of P1,600,000.00 to
support the discharge of its functions.72 The RTC
appraisal fee to DG Jones and Partners. The
Government shall deposit the appraisal fee with the approved the request and directed the Government and
PIATCO to equally share the BOCs expenses.73 The
RTC who shall in turn pay DG Jones and Partners.
The dispositive portion of the RTC order provides: Government and PIATCO complied with this order and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the tendered the sum of P1,600,000.00 to the BOC.74
Orders dated May 3, 2007 and May 18, 2007 are On November 24, 2009, the BOC requested
additional funds in the amount of P5,250,000.00. 75 On
affirmed without modification. Consequently,
Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion dated June 15, 2007 December 7, 2010, the RTC directed the Government
and PIATCO to equally defray the BOCs expenses. 76 The
is denied. This expropriation having been
initiated in December 2004, the certificate of Government contested this order and insisted that
Takenaka and Asahikosan should likewise shoulder the F.The Parties and the BOCs Appraisalof the NAIA-
BOCs expenses as intervenors in the case.77 IPT III
In an order dated March 11, 2011, the RTC ordered
Takenaka and Asahikosan to share in the BOCs After the Court issued the January 9, 2008
expenses. The RTC thus ordered each party to pay temporary restraining order, the parties and the BOC
P1,750,000.00. PIATCO complied with this order and conducted a preliminary conference on April 22, 2010,
paid the amount of P1,750,000.00 to the BOC.78 to adopt an alternative course of action to avoid further
Takenaka and Asahikosan sought the partial delay in the determination of just compensation.80
reconsideration of this order. They argued that they The Government manifested that it was ready to
should not be made to pay the BOCs expenses since present its own valuation of the NAIA-IPT III and other
their prayer to defer the release of a portion of the just supporting evidence. PIATCO, Takenaka, and
compensation pending the conclusion of the Asahikosan did not object to this manifestation.81
enforcement proceedings was addressed to the RTC[,] On August 5, 2010, the RTC ordered the parties to
and not to the BOC.79 submit their appraisal reports of NAIA-IPT III with
_______________ supporting documents and affidavits.82 The Government
72 Id., at p. 144. appraised the NAIA-IPT III at $149,448,037.00 while
73 Id., at p. 145. PIATCO concluded that its replacement cost was
74 Id., at p. 146; RTC Rollo, Volume XVII, pp. 11175- $905,867,549.47. On the other hand, Takenaka and
11181. Asahikosan claimed that the NAIA-IPT IIIs construction
75 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), Volume II, p. 576. cost amounted to $360,969,790.82.
76 Id., Volume I, pp. 80-81.
77 Id., at p. 81 1. The Governments Appraisal
78 Id. Based on the Gleeds Report dated November 15,
79 Id. 2010, the Government computed the valuation of the
NAIA-IPT III as follows: 83
December 2002 CCV December 200
439 Base valuation $USD @3Q01 $300,206,693 $300,206,693
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 Deterioration $USD @2Q09 $0 $1,738,318
Depreciation $USD 3Q01 $0 $35,076,295
Republic vs. Mupas
_______________
80 Id., Volume II, p. 576.
81 Id.
 82 Id., at p. 577. designated time and specific location, adding
83 Rollo (G.R. No. 209917), Volume II, pp. 1861-1899. the cost of works in, on, and around the
structure, and then accounting for inferior and
nonperforming works, and rectification of those
440 works.84
Gleeds arrived at the CCV by considering the rates
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and prices for the third quarter of 2001, which
0
represented the midpoint of the construction
Republic vs. Mupas
period from June 2000 (the commencement of
construction) to December 2002 (the suspension
of construction). It claimed that calculating the
cost of construction based on its midpoint was a
Total Base CCVs $USD $300,206,693 recognized standard practice in the construction
Rectification for Contract Compliance $USD industry. The base CCV excluded the following
@2Q09 items:
Not compliant with bid documents -$30,670,894 _______________
Inferior quality -$7,702,640 84 Gleeds Report dated November 15, 2010, p.8.
Additional areas to be built (63,490 m2) -$75,570,510
Total Contract Compliance -$113,944,044
Deductions $USD ___________ 441
Total CCVs $USD $186,262,649
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
$300,206,693.00 as base current cost valuation Republic vs. Mupas
(CCV). Based on the Gleeds report, the
construction cost of the NAIA-IPT III as of
December 2002 was $300,206,693.00, consisting 1. Failed structural elements of the Terminal, as
of the cost of constructing the terminal building, identified in the Arup Seismic Evaluation Report and
aprons, car park, elevated roadways, and other Gravity Loading and Element Capacity Assessment;
related items. 2. The inferior quality of material used and works,
Gleeds appraised the NAIA-IPT III by multiplying the including floor tiling, plasterboard wall finishes and
structures dimensions (i.e., quantities) by a ceilings, internal and external metal paneling;
price (i.e., rate) for constructing the works at a 3. Constructed areas that are unnecessary to the
functioning of an international airport terminal and
therefore of no benefit to the Republic. These areas _______________
identified in the Arup Site Observation Report include
areas where the requirements stated in the Bid
Documents have been grossly overprovided. They also
include the multilevel retail mall that, with its own
internal circulation, is functionally separate from the
Terminal and accessible only through the multi-storey
car park (20,465 m2), and excess retail concession
space (1,727 m2);
4. The cost of seismic and gravity load structural
retrofits for the failed elements in the terminal
buildings and multi-storey car park structures, as those
retrofits are described in Arups Drawings listed in
Appendix B Drawing List 2 and other rectification
works required to bring the terminal to compliance with
applicable building and airport codes (as indicated in
the Appendices of Arups Site Observation Report);
5. The cost of completing the items listed in the JAC
project status summary report of 28 February 2003; 85
and
_______________
85 Outstanding Project Works and Tests on
Completion Status:

442

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2
Republic vs. Mupas
 443

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

Republic vs. Mupas

_______________
 444

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4
Republic vs. Mupas

_______________
 445

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

Republic vs. Mupas

6. The cost of seismic and gravity load structural

retrofits for the failed elements in the elevated roadway
structures as those retrofits were described in Arups
Drawings listed in Appendix B Drawing List 3, Arup
Review on TCGI Report of Civil Design Review and
Evaluation Elevated Roadway, dated March 2009,
and other rectification works required to bring the
elevated roadways to compliance with applicable
building and airport codes (as indicated in the
Appendices of Arups Site Observation Report).86

$263,392,081 as total base CCV as of December

2004. The Government asserted that the NAIA-
IPT III suffered from depreciation and
deterioration in the sum of US$36,814,612.00
from December 2002 until December 2004. The
base value CCV at the time of expropriation
should be US$263,392,081.00 after deducting
depreciation and deterioration.
$113,944,044 as total contract compliance
deductions. The Government further deducted
items which
_______________
 b. Moving walkways underprovision
c. Sun shading to external glazing
d. Lack of 400hz PC air to loading bridges
e. Completion of testing, commissioning, and operation
of the facility
f. Provision of as-built documentation
The Government likewise deducted the replacement
cost of inferior quality items and additional areas that
the Government had to build to finish the NAIA-IPT III
project.87

2.PIATCOs Appraisal

PIATCO claimed that the total replacement value of

the NAIA-IPT III as of December 31, 2010 amounted to
$905,867,550.00.
Actual Costs @ Inflation Base V
2002 Rate @ 2004
See CA Rollo, Volume 32-D, pp. 117-118. I.Materials, Equipment and
86 Rollo (G.R. No. 209696), pp. 585-586. Labor Engineering & 360,969,791 1.0971 396,01
Procurement
II.Attendant Costs
446
Engineering and Architecture 19,372,539 1.0971 21,253
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Quality Assurance 6,923,720 1.0971 7,596,0
6 Construction Supervision 4,302,227 1.0971 4,719,9
Republic vs. Mupas Construction Insurance 4,329,272 1.0971 4,749,6
Site Development 8,358,169 1.0971 9,169,7

were noncompliant with bid documents, including,

among others:
a. FIDS monitors not flat screen
 subdivided portion of the property covered by TCT No.
258628 known as Lot No. 684-G-1-B-2 in favor of RAFAEL S.
ORTANEZ, of legal age, Filipino. whose marriage is under a
regime of complete separation of property, and a resident of
942 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City, his heirs or assigns."[1]

while the second deed of absolute sale covering TCT No. 243273
provides:

"That for and in consideration of the sum of TWENTY

THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS receipt of which in full is
hereby acknowledged, we have sold, transferred and
conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey, that
consolidated-subdivided portion of the property covered by
TCT No. 243273 known as Lot No. 5 in favor of RAFAEL S.
[G.R. No. 107372. January 23, 1997] RAFAEL S.
ORTANEZ, of legal age, Filipino, whose marriage is under a
ORTAEZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR
regime of complete separation of property, and a resident of
INOCENTES, AND ASUNCION LLANES
942 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City his heirs or assigns.[2]
INOCENTES, respondents.

Private respondents received the payments for the above-

mentioned lots, but failed to deliver the titles to petitioner. On April 9,
R E S O L U T I O N FRANCISCO, J.: 1990 the latter demanded from the former the delivery of said titles.
[3]
Private respondents, however, refused on the ground that the title
of the first lot is in the possession of another person, [4] and
petitioner's acquisition of the title of the other lot is subject to certain
conditions.
On September 30, 1982, private respondents sold to petitioner
two (2) parcels of registered land in Quezon City for a consideration Offshoot, petitioner sued private respondents for specific
of P35,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively. The first deed of performance before the RTC. In their answer with counterclaim
absolute sale covering Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 258628 private respondents merely alleged the existence of the following oral
provides in part: conditions[5] which were never reflected in the deeds of sale:[6]

"That for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY FIVE "3.3.2 Title to the other property (TCT No. 243273) remains
THOUSAND (P35,000.00) PESOS, receipt of which in full is with the defendants (private respondents) until plaintiff
hereby acknowledged, we have sold, transferred and (petitioner) shows proof that all the following requirements
conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey, that have been met:
(i) Plaintiff will cause the segregation of his right of way other than the contents thereof. [11] Considering that the written deeds
amounting to 398 sq. m.; of sale were the only repository of the truth, whatever is not found in
said instruments must have been waived and abandoned by the
(ii) Plaintiff will submit to the defendants the approved plan parties.[12] Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot even make an
for the segregation; inference that the sale was subject to any condition. As a contract, it
is the law between the parties.[13]
(iii) Plaintiff will put up a strong wall between his property Secondly, to buttress their argument, private respondents rely
and that of defendants' lot to segregate his right of way; on the case of Land Settlement Development, Co. vs. Garcia
Plantation[14] where the Court ruled that a condition precedent to a
(iv) Plaintiff will pay the capital gains tax and all other contract may be established by parol evidence. However, the
expenses that may be incurred by reason of sale. x x x." material facts of that case are different from this case. In the former,
the contract sought to be enforced [15] expressly stated that it is
During trial, private respondent Oscar Inocentes, a former subject to an agreement containing the conditions-precedent which
judge, orally testified that the sale was subject to the above were proven through parol evidence. Whereas, the deeds of sale in
conditions,[7] although such conditions were not incorporated in the this case, made no reference to any pre- conditions or other
deeds of sale. Despite petitioner's timely objections on the ground agreement. In fact, the sale is denominated as absolute in its own
that the introduction of said oral conditions was barred by the parol terms.
evidence rule, the lower court nonetheless, admitted them and Third, the parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would
eventually dismissed the complaint as well as the counterclaim. On vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument,
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the court a quo. Hence, [16]
hence, contrary to the rule that:
this petition.
We are tasked to resolve the issue on the admissibility of parol The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to x x x the
evidence to establish the alleged oral conditions-precedent to a terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to
contract of sale, when the deeds of sale are silent on such show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or
conditions. different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties.[17]
The parol evidence herein introduced is inadmissible. First,
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a
private respondents' oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming
contract, "it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the
from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case,
contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not
depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as
mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or
written or documentary evidence.[8] Spoken words could be
mistake." [18] No such fraud or mistake exists in this case.
notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a
uniform language.[9] Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule Fourth, we disagree with private respondents' argument that
130[10] of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were their parol evidence is admissible under the exceptions provided by
reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the the Rules, specifically, the alleged failure of the agreement to
terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted
express the true intent of the parties. Such exception obtains only in One last thing, assuming arguendo that the parol evidence is
the following instance: admissible, it should nonetheless be disbelieved as no other
evidence appears from the record to sustain the existence of the
"[W]here the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in alleged conditions. Not even the other seller, Asuncion Inocentes,
terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be was presented to testify on such conditions.
understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the
case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the records of this case REMANDED to the trial court for proper
contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of disposition in accordance with this ruling.
the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they
entered into the contract may be received to enable the SO ORDERED.
court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument." [19]
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.
In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any ambiguity,
mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the terms
thereof.
Fifth, we are not persuaded by private respondents contention
that they "put in issue by the pleadings" the failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Record
shows[20] that private respondents did not expressly plead that the
deeds of sale were incomplete or that it did not reflect the
intention[21] of the buyer (petitioner) and the seller (private
respondents). Such issue must be "squarely presented." [22] Private
respondents merely alleged that the sale was subject to four (4)
conditions which they tried to prove during trial by parol evidence.
[23]
Obviously, this cannot be done, because they did not plead any of
the exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule. [24] Their case is
covered by the general rule that the contents of the writing are the
only repository of the terms of the agreement. Considering that
private respondent Oscar Inocentes is a lawyer (and former judge)
he was "supposed to be steeped in legal knowledge and practices"
and was "expected to know the consequences" [25] of his signing a
deed of absolute sale. Had he given an iota's attention to scrutinize
the deeds, he would have incorporated important stipulations that the
transfer of title to said lots were conditional.[26]
 SECONDDIVISION.
*

329
VOL.421,JANUARY29,2004 329
LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
Same;Same;Parol evidence cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous
conditionswhicharenotmentionedatallinwriting.Evidenceof
a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
admissibletovary,contradictordefeattheoperationofavalid
contract. While parol evidence is admissible to explain the
meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous
conditionswhicharenotmentionedatallinwriting,unlessthere
hasbeenfraudormistake.Nosuchallegationhadbeenmadeby
thepetitionersinthiscase.
G.R.No.126006.January29,2004.* Corporation Law;Corporate Officers;Powers;If a
LAPULAPU FOUNDATION, INC. and ELIAS Q. TAN,
corporationknowinglypermitsoneofitsofficerstoactwithinthe
petitioners,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS(SeventeenthDivision)and
scopeofanapparentauthority,itholdshimouttothepublicas
ALLIEDBANKINGCORP.,respondents.
possessingthepower todo thoseacts.Itisafamiliardoctrine
Evidence;Parol Evidence Rule;No other evidence to be
thatifacorporationknowinglypermitsoneofitsofficers,orany
received other than the contents of the written agreement.The otheragent,toactwithinthescopeofanapparentauthority,it
parol evidence rule likewise constrains this Court to reject holdshimouttothepublicaspossessingthepowertodothose
petitioner Tans claim regarding the purported unwritten acts;andthus,thecorporationwill,asagainstanyonewhohasin
agreement between him and the respondent Bank on the good faith dealt with it through such agent, be estopped from
payment of the obligation Section 9, Rule 130 of the of the denyingtheagentsauthority.
Revised Rules of Court provides that [w]hen the terms of an
agreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itistobeconsideredas PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtof
containingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,between Appeals.
thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuch
termsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
RomeoD.Tagraforpetitioners.
_______________
 EduardoF.Roselloforprivaterespondents. P/NNo. DateofP/N Maturity DateAmountasof
1/23/79
CALLEJO,SR.,J.: BDNo.716 Dec.12,1977 Apr.11,1978 P122,322.21
BDNo.839 Jan.5,1978 May5,1978 P120,455.542
BeforetheCourtisthepetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledby As of January 23, 1979, the entire obligation amounted to
the Lapulapu Foundation, Inc. and Elias Q. Tan seeking to P493,566.61 and despite demands made on them by the
reverse and set aside the Decision1dated June 26, 1996 of the respondent Bank, the petitioners failed to pay the same. The
Court of Appeals (CA) inCAG.R. CV No. 37162ordering the respondentBankwasconstrainedtofilewiththeRegionalTrial
petitioners, jointly and solidarily, to pay the respondent Allied CourtofCebuCity,Branch15,acomplaintseekingpaymentby
Banking Corporation the amount of P493,566.61 plus interests thepetitioners,jointlyandsolidarily,ofthesumofP493,566.61
andothercharges.Likewise,soughttobereversedandsetaside representingtheirloanobligation,exclusiveofinterests,penalty
istheappellatecourtsResolutiondatedAugust19,1996denying charges,attorneysfeesandcosts.
thepetitionersmotionforreconsideration. In its answer to the complaint, the petitioner Foundation
Thecasestemmedfromthefollowingfacts: deniedincurringindebtednessfromtherespondentBankalleging
that theloans were obtained by petitioner Tan in his personal
_______________ capacity,forhisownuseandbenefitandonthestrengthofthe
personal information he furnished the respondent Bank. The
1
PennedbyAssociateJusticeDelilahVidallonMagtoliswith
petitioner Foundation maintained that it never authorized
Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos and Artemio G.
petitioner Tan to cosign in his capacity as its President any
Tuqueroconcurring.
promissorynoteandthattherespondentBankfullyknew that
330
the loans contracted were made in petitioner Tan's personal
330 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED capacityandforhisownuseandthatthepetitionerFoundation
LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals never benefited, directly or indirectly therefrom. The petitioner
Sometimein1977,petitionerEliasQ.Tan,thenPresidentofthe FoundationtheninterposedacrossclaimagainstpetitionerTan
copetitionerLapulapuFoundation,Inc.,obtainedfourloansfrom allegingthathe,havingexceededhisauthority,shouldbesolely
the respondent Allied Banking Corporation covered by four liableforsaidloans,andacounterclaimagainsttherespondent
promissorynotesintheamountsofP100,000each.Thedetailsof Bankfordamagesandattorneysfees.
thepromissorynotesareasfollows: Forhispart,petitionerTanadmittedthathecontractedthe
P/NNo. DateofP/N Maturity DateAmountasof loans from the respondent Bank in his personal capacity. The
1/23/79 parties,however,agreedthattheloansweretobepaidfromthe
BDNo.504 Nov.7,1977 Feb.5,1978 P123,377.76 pro
BDNo.621 Nov.28,1977 Mar.28,1978 P123,411.10
_______________
 2
Rollo,p.24. includingall otherchargesincluded inthesame,with
s interestat14%perannum,computedfromJanuary24,
331 1979, until the same are fully paid, plus 2% service
VOL.421,JANUARY29,2004 331 chargesand1%monthlypenaltycharges.
LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
ceedsofpetitionerTanssharesofcommonstocksintheLapulapu 2. 2.RequiringthedefendantsEliasQ.TanandLapulapu
IndustriesCorporation,arealestatefirm.Theloanswerecovered Foundation,Inc.,topayjointlyandsolidarily,attorneys
bypromissorynoteswhichwereautomaticallyrenewable(rolled feesintheequivalentamountof25%ofthetotalamount
over)everyyearatanamountincludingunpaidinterests,until due from the defendants on the promissory notes,
suchtimeaspetitionerTanwasabletopaythesamefromthe includingallcharges;
proceedsofhisaforesaidshares.
AccordingtopetitionerTan,therespondentBanksemployee 3. 3.RequiringthedefendantsEliasQ.TanandLapulapu
required him to affix twosignatures on every promissory note, Foundation,Inc.,topayjointlyandsolidarilylitigation
assuring him that the loan documents would be filled out in expensesofP1,000.00pluscostsofthesuit.3
accordancewiththeiragreement.However,afterhesignedand
deliveredtheloandocumentstotherespondentBank,thesewere Onappeal,theCAaffirmedwithmodificationthejudgmentofthe
filledoutinamannernotinaccordwiththeiragreement,such courtaquobydeletingtheawardofattorneysfeesinfavorofthe
that the petitioner Foundation was included as party thereto. respondentBankforbeingwithoutbasis.
Further,priortoitsfilingofthecomplaint,therespondentBank
madenodemandonhim. _______________
After due trial, the courta quorendered judgment the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads: 3
Id.,atp.25.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing evidences [sic], 332
arguments and considerations, this court hereby finds the 332 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff and hereby LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
rendersjudgmentasfollows: The appellate court disbelieved petitioner Tans claim that the
loanswerehispersonalloansasthepromissorynotesevidencing
1. 1.RequiringthedefendantsEliasQ.TanandLapulapu themshowedupontheirfacesthatthesewereobligationsofthe
Foundation, Inc. [the petitioners herein] to pay jointly petitionerFoundation,ascontractedbypetitionerTanhimselfin
andsolidarilytotheplaintiffAlliedBankingCorporation hisofficialandpersonalcharacter.Applyingtheparolevidence
[the respondent herein] the amount of P493,566.61 as rule, the CA likewise rejected petitioner Tans assertion that
principal obligation for the four promissory notes, there was an unwritten agreement between him and the
respondentBankthathewouldpaytheloansfromtheproceeds DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE VEIL OF
ofhissharesofstocksintheLapulapuIndustriesCorp. CORPORATEENTITYASBASISFORADJUDGING
Further, the CA found that demand had been made by the
respondent Bank on the petitioners prior to the filing of the _______________
complainta quo.It noted that the two letters of demand dated
January3,19794andJanuary30,19795askingsettlementofthe
4
ExhibitR.
obligationweresentbytherespondentBank.Thesewerereceived
5
ExhibitS.
by the petitioners as shown by the registry return
6
ExhibitsR2andS1.
cards6presentedduringtrialinthecourtaquo. 333
Finally,likethecourtaquo,theCAappliedthedoctrineof VOL.421,JANUARY29,2004 333
piercing the veil of corporate entity in holding the petitioners LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
jointlyandsolidarilyliable.Theevidenceshowedthatpetitioner
Tan hadrepresented himself as the President of the petitioner 1. JOINTANDSOLIDARYLIABILITYONTHEPARTOF
Foundation, opened savings and current accounts in its behalf, PETITIONERS ELIAS Q. TAN AND LAPULAPU
andsignedtheloandocumentsforandinbehalfofthelatter.The FOUNDATION,INC.7
CA,likewise,foundthatthepetitionerFoundationhadallowed
petitionerTantoactasthoughhehadtheauthoritytocontract Thepetitionersassailtheappellatecourtsfindingthattheloans
theloansinitsbehalf.Ontheotherhand,petitionerTancould had become due and demandable in view of the two demand
notescapeliabilityashehadusedthepetitionerFoundationfor letters sent to them by the respondent Bank. The petitioners
hisbenefit. insist that there was nopriordemand asthey vigorously deny
Aggrieved, the petitioners now come to the Court alleging receiving those letters. According to petitioner Tan, the
that: signaturesontheregistryreturncardswerenothis.
The petitioners denial of receipt of the demand letters was
1. I.THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN rightfullygivenscantconsiderationbytheCAasitheld:
HOLDINGTHATTHELOANSSUBJECTMATTEROF ExhibitsRandSaretwolettersofdemand,respectivelydated
THEINSTANTPETITIONAREALREADYDUEAND January3,1979andJanuary30,1979,askingsettlementofthe
DEMANDABLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF PRIOR obligationscoveredbythepromissorynotes.Thefirstletterwas
DEMAND. writtenbyBenTioPengSeng,VicePresidentofthebank,and
addressedtoLapulapuFoundation,Inc.,attentionofMr.EliasQ.
2. II.THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN Tan,President,whilethesecondwasafinaldemandwrittenby
APPLYINGTHEPAROLEVIDENCERULEANDTHE theappelleescounsel,addressedtobothdefendantsappellants,
andgivingthemfive(5)daysfromreceiptwithinwhichtosettle
orjudicialactionwouldbeinstitutedagainstthem.Bothletters wrong.Itisthepetitionersburdentoovercomethepresumptions
weredulyreceivedbythedefendants,asshownbytheregistry bysufficientevidence,andotherthantheirbarefaceddenial,the
return cards, marked as Exhibits R2 and S1, respectively. petitionersfailedtosupporttheirclaimthattheydidnotreceive
TheallegationofTanthathedoesnotknowwhosignedthesaid the demand letters; therefore, no prior demand was made on
registryreturnreceiptsmeritsscantconsideration,forthereisno thembytherespondentBank.
showing that the addresses thereon were wrong. Hence, the Having established that the loans had become due and
disputable presumptionthat a letter duly directed and mailed demandable,theCourtshallnowresolvetheissueofwhetherthe
wasreceivedintheregularcourseofmail(perpar.V,Section3, CA correctly held the petitioners jointly and solidarily liable
Rule131oftheRevisedRulesonEvidence)stillholds.8 therefor.
There is no dispute that the promissory notes had already In disclaiming any liability for the loans, the petitioner
matured.However,thepetitionersinsistthattheloanshadnot Foundation maintains that these were contracted by petitioner
become due and demandable as they deny receipt of the Taninhispersonalcapacityandthatitdidnotbenefittherefrom.
respondentBanksdemandletters.Whenpresentedtheregistry On the other hand, while admitting that the loans were his
returncardsduringthetrial,petitionerTanclaimedthathedid personal obligation, petitioner Tan avers that he had an
notrecognizethesignaturesthereon.Thepetitionersallegation unwrittenagreementwiththerespondentBankthattheseloans
anddenialareselfserving.Theycannotprevailovertheregistry would be renewed on a yeartoyear basis and paid from the
return cardswhichconstitute documentary evidenceandwhich proceedsofhissharesofstockintheLapulapuIndustriesCorp.
enjoythepresumptionthat,absentclearandconvincingevidence Thesecontentionsareuntenable.
tothecontrary,thesewereregularlyissuedbythepostalofficials The Court particularly finds as incredulous petitioner Tans
inthe allegationthathewasmadetosignblankloandocumentsand
thatthephraseINMYOFFICIAL/PERSONALCAPACITYwas
_______________ superimposed by the respondent Banks employee despite
petitionerTansprotestation.TheCourtishardpressedtobelieve
7
Rollo,p.14. thatabusinessmanofpetitionerTansstaturecouldhavebeen
8
Id.,atp.30. socarelessastosignblankloandocuments.
334 Incontrast,asfoundbytheCA,thepromissorynotes 11clearly
334 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED showed upon their faces that they are the obligation of the
LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals petitioner Foundation, as contracted by petitioner Tan in his
performance of their official duty and that they acted in good official and personal capacity.12Moreover, the application for
faith.9Further,astheCAcorrectlyopined,mailsarepresumedto creditaccommodation,13thesignaturecardsofthetwoaccountsin
havebeenproperlydeliveredandreceivedbytheaddresseein thename
the regular course of the mail.10As the CA noted, there is no
showing that the addresses on the registry return cards were _______________
 9
GoldLineTransit,Inc.v.Ramos,363SCRA262(2001).
17
Theprovisionreadsinfull:
10
Section3(V),Rule131oftheRevisedRulesofCourt. Sec. 9.Evidence of written agreements.When the terms of an
11
ExhibitsHtoL. agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
12
Rollo,p.26. containingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,between
13
ExhibitD. thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuch
335 termsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement.
VOL.421,JANUARY29,2004 335 However,apartymaypresentevidencetomodify,explainor
LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals addtothetermsofthewrittenagreementifheputsinissuein
of petitioner Foundation,14as well as New Current Account hispleadings:
Record,15allaccompanyingthepromissorynotes,weresignedby (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
petitioner Tan for and in the name of the petitioner writtenagreement;
Foundation.16These documentary evidence unequivocally and (b)Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthetrue
categorically establish that the loans were solidarily contracted intentandagreementofthepartiesthereto;
bythepetitionerFoundationandpetitionerTan. (c)Thevalidityofthewrittenagreement;or
Asacorollary,theparolevidencerulelikewiseconstrainsthis (d)Theexistenceofothertermsagreedtobythepartiesor
Court to reject petitioner Tans claim regarding the purported their successorsininterest after the execution of the written
unwrittenagreementbetweenhimandtherespondentBankon agreement.
thepaymentoftheobligationSection9,Rule130oftheofthe Thetermagreementincludeswills.
Revised Rules of Court provides that [w]hen the terms of an 336
agreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itistobeconsideredas 336 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
containingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,between LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuch notes were to be paid on these dates is clear and explicit.
termsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement.17 Nowherewasitstatedthereinthattheywouldberenewedona
In this case, the promissory notes are the law between the yeartoyear basis or rolledover annually until paid from the
petitioners and the respondent Bank. These promissory notes proceeds of petitioner Tans shares in the Lapulapu Industries
containedmaturitydatesasfollows:February5,1978,March28, Corp.Accordingly,thispurportedunwrittenagreementcouldnot
1978,April11,1978andMay5,1978,respectively.Thatthese be made to vary or contradict the terms and conditions in the
promissorynotes.
_______________ Evidenceofapriororcontemporaneousverbalagreementis
generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the
14
ExhibitsAandB. operationofavalidcontract.18Whileparolevidenceisadmissible
15
ExhibitC. toexplainthemeaningofwrittencontracts,itcannotservethe
16
Ibid. purpose of incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in 337
writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake.19No such VOL.421,JANUARY29,2004 337
allegationhadbeenmadebythepetitionersinthiscase. LapulapuFoundation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
Finally, the appellate court did not err in holding the Per its Secretarys Certificate, the petitioner Foundation had
petitionersjointlyandsolidarilyliableasitappliedthedoctrineof given its President, petitioner Tan, ostensible and apparent
piercing the veil of corporate entity. The petitioner Foundation
authority tointer aliadeal with the respondent Bank.
assertsthatithasapersonalityseparateanddistinctfromthatof
Accordingly, the petitioner Foundation is estopped from
itsPresident,petitionerTan,andthatitcannotbeheldsolidarily
questioning petitioner Tans authority to obtain the subject
liablefortheloansofthelatter.
loansfromtherespondentBank.Itisafamiliardoctrinethatifa
TheCourtagreeswiththeCAthatthepetitionerscannothide
corporation knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other
behindthecorporateveilunderthefollowingcircumstances:
agent,toactwithinthescopeofanapparentauthority,itholds
TheevidenceshowsthatTanhasbeenrepresentinghimselfas
himouttothepublicaspossessingthepowertodothoseacts;
thePresidentofLapulapuFoundation,Inc.Heopenedasavings
andthus,thecorporationwill,asagainstanyonewhohasingood
accountandacurrentaccountinthenamesofthecorporation,
faithdealtwithitthroughsuchagent,beestoppedfromdenying
andsignedtheapplicationformaswellasthenecessaryspecimen
theagentsauthority.21
signaturecards(ExhibitsA,BandC)twice,forhimselfand
In fine, there is no cogent reason to deviate from the CAs
for the foundation. Hesubmitted a notarized Secretarys rulingthatthepetitionersarejointlyandsolidarilyliableforthe
Certificate (Exhibit G) from the corporation, attesting that he loanscontractedwiththerespondentBank.
hasbeenauthorized,interalia,tosignforandinbehalfofthe WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIED
LapulapuFoundationanyandallchecks,draftsorotherorders and the Decision dated June 26, 1996 and Resolution dated
with respect to the bank; to transact business with the Bank, August19,1996oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.37162
negotiate loans, agreements, obligations, promissory notes and areAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.
other commercial documents; and to initially obtain a loan for
Puno(Chairman),Quisumbing,AustriaMartinezandTi
P100,000.00 from any bank(Exhibits G1 and G2). Under
thesecircumstances, thedefendantcorporation isliable forthe nga,JJ.,concur.
transactionsenteredintobyTanonitsbehalf.20 Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmedintoto.
Note.Thesocalledparoleevidenceruleforbidsanyaddition
_______________ to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by
testimonyofotherevidencepurportingtoshowthat,atorbefore
18
MCEngineeringv.CourtofAppeals,380SCRA116(2002). theexecutionofthepartieswrittenagreement,otherordifferent
19
Ibid. termswereagreeduponbytheparties,varyingthepurportofthe
20
Rollo,p.31(Italicsours.)
written contract. (Manufacturers Building, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals,354SCRA521[2001])

o0o

_______________

G.R.No.169985.June15,2011.*
MODESTO LEOVERAS, petitioner,vs.CASIMERO VALDEZ,
respondent.
Property;LandTitles;Ownership;Reconveyance;Anaction
forreconveyanceisalegalandequitableremedygrantedtothe
rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously
registeredinthenameofanother,tocompeltheregisteredowner
to transfer or reconvey the land to him.An action for
reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously
registeredinthenameofanother,tocompeltheregisteredowner
totransferorreconveythelandtohim.Theplaintiffinthisaction
mustallegeandprovehisownershipofthelandindisputeand
thedefendantserroneous,fraudulentorwrongfulregistrationof extinguishment of coownership.The Civil Code of the
theproperty. Philippines defines partition as the separation, division and
assignmentofathingheldincommonamongthosetowhomit
_______________ maybelong.Partitionisthedivisionbetweentwoormorepersons
ofrealorpersonalproperty,ownedincommon,bysettingapart
**PerSpecialOrderNo.1003datedJune8,2011.
their respective interests so that they may enjoy and possess
***Additional member per Special Order No. 1000 dated
theseinseveralty,resultinginthepartialortotalextinguishment
June8,2011.
ofcoownership.
*THIRDDIVISION.
Same; Same; One of the legal effects of partition is to
62
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED terminatethecoownership andtomakethe previouscoowners
2 theabsoluteandexclusiveowneroftheshareallottedtohim.
Contrary to the petitioners claim that his actual possession
Leoverasvs.Valdez
determines the extent of his ownership, it is the
Evidence;ParolEvidenceRule;Toavoidtheoperationofthe
partiesAgreementthatdefines theextentoftheir ownershipin
parolevidencerule,theRulesofCourtallowsapartytopresent thesubjectproperty.Oneofthelegaleffectsofpartition,whether
evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the byagreementamongthecoownersorbyjudicialproceeding,isto
writtenagreementifheputsinissueinhispleadingthefailureof terminate the coownership and, consequently, to make the
thewrittenagreementtoexpressthetrueintentandagreementof previouscoownerstheabsoluteandexclusiveowneroftheshare
theparties.Toavoidtheoperationoftheparolevidencerule,the allottedtohim.
Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence modifying, PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
explainingoraddingtothetermsofthewrittenagreementifhe oftheCourtofAppeals.
putsinissueinhispleading,asinthiscase,thefailureofthe ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.63
writtenagreementtoexpressthetrueintentandagreementof VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 63
theparties.Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthe Leoverasvs.Valdez
trueintentionofthepartiesiseitherbyreasonofmistake,fraud, AoananLawOfficeforpetitioner.
inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not SheilaCresenciaElasinforrespondent.
preventameetingofthemindsoftheparties.
BRION,J.:
Property;Partition;Partitionisthedivisionbetweentwoor
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari1assailing
morepersonsofrealorpersonalproperty,ownedincommon,by
the March 31, 2005 decision2and the October 6, 2005
settingaparttheirrespectiveinterestssothattheymayenjoyand
resolution3oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.68549.
possess these in severalty, resulting in the partial or total The CA decision reversed the June 23, 2000 decision 4of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, Urdaneta City, Leoverasvs.Valdez
Pangasinan,dismissingrespondentCasimeroValdezscomplaint Josefa each owned onehalf () of Benignas threefourths ()
for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages against share.
petitionerModestoLeoveras. OnJune 14,1969,Alejandrasheirs sold theirpredecessors
onehalf()share(roughlyequivalentto10,564squaremeters)to
FactualAntecedents therespondent,asevidencedbyaDeedofAbsoluteSale.9
AlsoonJune14,1969,Josefasoldherownonehalf()share
MariaSta.MariaandDomingaMananganweretheregistered
(subject property) to the respondent and the petitioner, as
ownersthreefourths () and onefourth ()proindiviso, evidencedbyanotherDeedofAbsoluteSale. 10Onevendate,the
respectivelyofaparceloflandlocatedinPoblacion,Manaoag,
respondentandthepetitionerexecutedanAgreement,11allotting
Pangasinan, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. theirportionsofthesubjectproperty.
24695,withanareaof28,171squaremeters.5 WITNESSETH
In September 1932, Sta. Maria sold her threefourths () Thatwe[petitionerandrespondent]aretheabsoluteowners
share to Benigna Llamas.6The sale was duly annotated at the of [the subject property] which is particularly described as
backofOCTNo.24695.WhenBenignadiedin1944, 7shewilled follows:
her threefourths () share equally to her sisters Alejandra xxx
LlamasandJosefaLlamas.8Thus,Alejandraand Thatourownershipoverthesaidportionmentionedaboveis
evidencedbyaDeedofAbsoluteSalexxx
_______________ That in said deed of sale mentioned in the immediate
preceding paragraph, our respective share consist of 5,282.13
1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[onehalfof10,564squaremeters]squaremetereach.
2Rollo,pp. 1221; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. That we hereby agreed and covenanted that our respective
Veloso, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Roberto A. shareshallbeasfollows:
BarriosandAmelitaG.Tolentino. Modesto Leoveras3,020 square meters residential portion
3Id.,atp.10.
4Id.,atpp.2225;pennedbyJudgeModestoC.Juanson. on the northern part near the
5AnnexQ. Municipal road of Poblacion Pugaro,
6AnnexQ2. Manaoag,Pangasinan;
7AnnexJ.
8AnnexK,par.5,andAnnexC,par.3. _______________
64
64 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 9 Annex A. The deed was registered in the Office of the a.11,568squaremeterstotherespondentand
Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan on June 20, 1977, petitioner17
underEntryNo.456592.
10Annex C. The deed was registered in the Office of the _______________
Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan on June 20, 1977,
underEntryNo.456594;Records,pp.23. 12Theareaofthesubjectpropertyis10,564squaremeters.
11AnnexD. The Agreement itself states thatpriorto the allotment of the
65 parties respective portions, the parties own aproindivisoone
VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 65 halfshare,thatis,5,282squaremetersofthesubjectland.The
Leoverasvs.Valdez RTCfoundthatundertheAgreement,therespondentisentitled
Casimero Valdez7,544.2712square meters of the to7,544sq.m.
parceloflanddescribedabove.13 13Supranote11;AnnexO.
OnJune8,1977,thepetitionerandtherespondentexecuted 14TheAffidavitofAdverseClaimwasannotatedattheback
an Affidavit of Adverse Claim over the subject property. 14The ofOCTNo.24695asEntryNo.456593,AnnexN.
partiestookpossessionoftheirrespectiveportionsofthesubject 15Rollo,pp.2324.
propertyanddeclareditintheirnamefortaxationpurposes.15 16Records,pp.45.
In 1996, the respondent asked the Register of Deeds of 17AnnexF.
Lingayen, Pangasinan on the requirements for the transfer of 66
titleovertheportionallottedtohimonthesubjectproperty.To 66 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
his surprise, the respondent learned that the petitioner had
Leoverasvs.Valdez
already obtained in his name two transfer certificates of title
b.8, 689 square meters to one Virgilia Li
(TCTs):one,TCTNo.195812coveringanareaof3,020square Meneses18
meters; andtwo, TCT No. 195813covering an area of 1,004 2.Deed of Absolute Sale(Benigna Deed) also dated
squaremeters(oratotalof4,024squaremeters). June14,1969executedbyBenigna19whichreads:
TheRegisterofDeedsinformedtherespondentthattheycould I,BenignaLlamas,Fernandezxxxdosellxxxbywayof
not find the record of OCT No. 24695; instead, the Register of ABSOLUTE SALE unto the said Casimero
Deedsfurnishedtherespondentwiththefollowing16(collectively, Valdez,Modesto Leoverasand Virgilia Meneses their
petitionersdocuments): heirsandassigns,7,544sq.m.;4,024sq.m.and8,689sq.
1.Two(2)deedsofabsolutesaledatedJune14,1969, m. more or lessrespectivelyof a parcel of land which is
bothexecutedbySta.Maria,purportedlyconveying particularlydescribedasfollows:
anunspecifiedportionofOCTNo.24695asfollows: A parcel of land xxx covered by [OCT No.] 24695.
(Emphasesadded)
 3.SubdivisionPlanofPSU21864ofOCTNo.24695 20 portion (disputed property) covered by TCT No. 195813, on the
4.AffidavitofConfirmationofSubdivision21datedMay ground that the petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square
3,1994(Affidavit),whichreads: metersidentifiedinthepartiesAgreement.
That we, Virgilia Li Meneses, xxx Dominga Manangan; The respondent sought the nullification of the petitioners
ModestoLeoveras;andCasimeroValdezxxx titlesbycontestingtheauthenticityofthepetitionersdocuments.
xxxarecoownersofacertainparceloflandwithanareaof Particularly, the respondent assailed the Benigna Deed by
28, 171 sq. m. more or less in subdivision plan Psu21864 xxx presenting Benignas death certificate. The respondent argued
coveredby[OCTNo.]24695situatedatPoblacion(nowPugaro), thatBenignacouldnothaveexecutedadeed,whichpurportsto
Manaoag,Pangasinan; convey 4,024 square meters to the petitioner, in 1969 because
xxx we agree xxx to subdivide and hereby confirmed the Benignaalreadydiedin1944.Therespondentaddedthatneither
subdivisioninthefollowingmannerxxx: couldSta. Maria havesold tothepartiesher threefourths()
Lot2withanareaof3,020sq.m.xxxtoModestoLeo sharein1969becauseshehadalreadysoldhersharetoBenigna
verasxxx; in 1932.22The respondent denied his purported signature
Lot3withanareaof1,004sq.m.xxxtoModestoLeo appearingintheAffidavit,23andprayedfor:
verasxxx; a)xxxthecancellationofthe[petitionersdocuments];
Lot4withanareaof7,544sq.m.xxxtoCasimeroValdezxxx; b)thecancellation of TCT No. 195813 in the name of
Lot5withanareaof8,689sq.m.xxxtoVirgiliaMeneses; Modesto Leoveras and that it be reconveyedto the
Lot6withanareaof7,043sq.m.xxxtoDomingaManangan [respondent];
(Emphasissupplied.) c)thecancellation and nullification of [TCT No.
195812]coveringanareaof3,020squaremetersxxx;
_______________ d)[theissuanceof]titlexxxinthenameof[respondent]over
an area of 17,104 square meters of OCT
18AnnexH. 24695;24(Underscoringsupplied)
19AnnexG. Inhisdefense,thepetitionerclaimedthatthepartiesalready
20AnnexS. had(i)delineatedtheirrespectiveportionsofthesubjectproperty
21AnnexI. even before they acquired it in 1969 and (ii) agreed that upon
67 acquisition,eachwouldowntheportionas
VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 67
_______________
Leoverasvs.Valdez
On June 21, 1996, the respondent filed a complaint for
22TSN,September9,1996,p.13.
Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and Damages against the
23TSN,September4,1996,p.6.
petitioner, seeking the reconveyance of the 1,004square meter
24Records,pp.78.
68 weight to Benignas death certificate which shows the
68 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED impossibilityofBenignasexecutionofthedeedin1969.TheCA
Leoverasvs.Valdez alsonotedthediscrepancybetweentherespondentssignatures
delineated;thattheareaheactuallypossessedandsubsequently asappearingintheAffidavit,ononehand,andthe
acquired has a total area of 4,024 square meters, which he
subdividedintotwoportionsandcausedtobecoveredbythetwo _______________
TCTs in question. The petitioner claimed that in signing the
Agreement, he was led to believe, based on the parties rough 25Id.,atpp.7273.
estimation, that the area he actually possessed is only 3,020 26Id.,atpp.7475.
square meters contrary to the parties real intentioni.e., the 69
extent of their ownership would be based on their actual VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 69
possession.25 Leoverasvs.Valdez
Thepetitionerfurtherclaimedthattherespondentvoluntarily documents on record, on the other. 27The CA added that the
participated in executing the Affidavit, which corrected the respondents failure to compare his genuine signature from his
mistake in the previously executed Agreement 26and confirmed purportedsignaturesappearinginthepetitionersdocumentsis
the petitioners ownership over the disputed property. The notfatal,sinceSection22,Rule132oftheRulesofCourtallows
petitioner asked for the dismissal of the complaint and for a thecourttomakeitsowncomparison.Inlightofitsobservations,
declaration that he is the lawful owner of the parcels of land theCAruled:
coveredbyhistitles. As the totality of the evidence presented sufficiently sustains
[therespondents]claimthatthetitlesissuedto[thepetitioner]
RtcRuling werebasedonforgedandspuriousdocuments, itbehoovesthis
Courttoannulthesecertificatesoftitle.
TheRTC dismissed thecomplaint. The courtruled thatthe WHEREFORE,theassailedDecisiondatedJune23,2000is
respondentfailedtopreponderantlyprovethattheBenignaDeed SETASIDE.DeclaringTCTNo.195812andTCTNo.195813as
and the Affidavit are fabricated and, consequently, no ground NULL and VOID,[thepetitioner] is hereby directed to
existstonullifythepetitionerstitles.Thecourtobservedthatthe reconvey the subjectparcelsof land to
respondentdidnotevencomparehisgenuinesignaturewiththe [therespondent].28(Emphasisadded.)
signaturesappearinginthesedocuments. UnwillingtoaccepttheCAsreversaloftheRTCruling,the
petitionerfiledthepresentappealbycertiorari,claimingthatthe
CARuling
CA committed gross misappreciation of the facts 29by going
beyondwhattherespondentsoughtinhiscomplaint.
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC by ruling against the
authenticityoftheBenignaDeedandtheAffidavit.TheCAgave
 ThePetition The respondent claims that since the petitioner himself
admitted using a spurious document in obtaining his titles (as
ThepetitionerclaimsthattheCAshouldnothaveorderedthe allegedinthecomplaintandasfoundbytheCA),thentheCA
reconveyance of both parcels of land covered by the TCTs in correctlycancelledthelatterstitles.30
questionsincetherespondentonlyseeksthereconveyanceofthe The petitioner forged the respondents signature in the
disputed propertyi.e., the parcel of land covered by TCT No. Affidavit to make it appear that he agreed to the division
195813. indicated in the document. The respondent defended the CAs
reconveyanceofbothparcelsofland,coveredbythepetitioners
_______________ titles,totherespondentbyarguingthatifthedistributioninthe
Affidavitisfollowed,theoriginalintendmentofthepartieson
27Thesedocumentsare:theAgreement,executedin1994,the their shares of the subject property would be grievously
respondentsAffidavitofAdverseClaimovertheportionsoldto impaired31
him by the heirs of Alejandra, executed in 1977, and the
Verification and Certification against NonForum Shopping TheIssues
attachedtotheComplaint.
28Rollo,pp.4950. Thetwobasicissues32forourresolutionare:
1.WhethertheCAerredinnullifyingthepetitionerstitles.
29Id.,atp.30.
70
_______________
70 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Leoverasvs.Valdez 30Id.,atpp.122123.
Thepetitionerassertsthatafterthesubjectsale,theparties
31Id.,atp.124.
physically partitioned the subject property and possessed their
32Id.,atp.122;therespondentsComment.
respectiveportions,therebysettingthelimitsoftheirownership.
71
ThepetitioneradmitsthattheBenignaDeedisfabricated
buthastenstoaddthatitwasonlydesigned(i)toaffirmthetrue VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 71
intent and agreement of the parties on the extent of their Leoverasvs.Valdez
ownership,asshownbytheiractualphysicalpossession,and(ii) 2.WhethertheCAerredinorderingthereconveyanceofthe
asaconvenienttooltofacilitatethetransferoftitletohisname. parceloflandcoveredbythepetitionerstitles.

TheRespondentsComment TheRuling

Wepartiallygrantthepetition.
 An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy SEC.9.Evidence of written agreements.When
grantedtotherightfullandowner,whoselandwaswrongfullyor thetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,it
erroneously registered in the name of another, to compel the is
registered ownerto transfer orreconvey the landtohim. 33The 72
plaintiffinthisactionmustallegeandprovehisownershipofthe 72 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
land in dispute and the defendants erroneous, fraudulent or Leoverasvs.Valdez
wrongfulregistrationoftheproperty. are reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to
Werulethattherespondentadequatelyprovedhisownership containallthetermsagreeduponandnoevidenceoftheseterms
ofthedisputedpropertybyvirtueofthe(i)DeedofAbsoluteSale can be admitted other than what is contained in the written
executedbyJosefainfavoroftheparties;(ii)thepartiesAffidavit agreement.36Whateverisnotfoundinthewritingisunderstood
ofAdverseClaim;and(iii)thepartiesAgreement,whichcover tohavebeenwaivedandabandoned.37
thesubjectproperty. Toavoidtheoperationoftheparolevidencerule,theRulesof
The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and the Courtallowsapartytopresentevidencemodifying,explainingor
authenticity of these documents,34particularly the Agreement. addingtothetermsofthewrittenagreementifheputsinissuein
However,heclaimsthatsincetheAgreementdoesnotreflectthe hispleading,asinthiscase,thefailureofthewrittenagreement
true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The
executedinordertoreflectthepartiestrueintention. failureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthetrueintentionof
Thepetitionersargumentcallstoforetheapplicationofthe the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable
parolevidencerule,35i.e.,whenthetermsofanagreement conductoraccident,whichneverthelessdidnotpreventameeting
ofthemindsoftheparties.38
_______________
_______________
33Esconde v. Barlongay, No. L67583, July 31, 1987, 152
SCRA603. consideredascontainingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecan
34InPermanentSavingsandLoanBankv.Velarde(G.R.No. be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
140608,September23,2004,439SCRA1),theCourtruledthat evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
theallegationthat thewrittenagreementdoesnot express the agreement.
true intentionof theparties does notcarry with it the specific
denial of the genuineness and due execution of the written However,apartymaypresentevidencetomodify,explainor
instrument. addtothetermsofthewrittenagreementifheputsinissuein
35Section9,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtreads: hispleading:
(a)Anintrinsicambiguity,mistakeorimperfectionin
thewrittenagreement;
 (b)Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthe the Affidavit, placed in serious doubt the reliability of this
trueintentandagreementofthepartiesthereto; document,supposedlythebedrockofthepetitionersdefense.
(c)Thevalidityofthewrittenagreement;or Curiously, if the parties truly intended to include in the
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the petitionerssharethedisputedproperty,thepetitionerobviously
partiesortheirsuccessorsininterestaftertheexecutionof neednotgoatlengthoffabricatingadeedofsaletosupporthis
thewrittenagreement. applicationforthetransferoftitleofhisrightfulportionofthe
Thetermagreementincludeswills. subjectproperty.Notably,thereisnothingintheAffidavit(that
36Ortaezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.107372,January23, supposedlycorrectedthemistakeintheearlierAgreement)that
1997,266SCRA561. supports the petitioners claim that the partition ofthe subject
37HeirsofCarmenCruzZamorav.MultiwoodInternational, propertyisbasedonthepartiesactualpossession.
Note that the RTC dismissed the complaint based on the
Inc.,G.R.No.146428,January19,2009,576SCRA137.
respondentsallegedfailuretoprovethespuriousnessofthe
38Article1359oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesreads:
When,therehavingbeenameetingofthemindsoftheparties
_______________
toacontract,theirtrueintentionisnotexpressedin
73 the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by
VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 73 reasonofmistake,fraud,inequitableconductoraccident,oneof
Leoverasvs.Valdez thepartiesmayaskforthereformationoftheinstrumenttothe
At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol endthatsuchtrueintentionmaybeexpressed.
evidence,theallegedtrueintentionofthepartiesbypresenting If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has
the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the mistake in the prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper
previously executed Agreement and confirmedhis ownership of remedyisnotreformationoftheinstrumentbutannulmentofthe
theparcelsoflandcoveredbyhistitles.Itwasthepetitioners contract.
staunchassertionthattherespondentcoexecutedthisAffidavit 74
supposedlytoreflectthepartiestrueintention. 74 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a Leoverasvs.Valdez
damaging admission that theBenigna Deedisfabricated, documentssubmittedbythepetitionertotheRegisterofDeeds.
therebycompletelybolsteringtherespondentscauseofactionfor However, by admitting the presentation of a false deed in
reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground of securing his title, the petitioner rendered moot the issue of
fraudulentregistrationoftitle.SincetheAffidavitmerelyreflects authenticityoftheBenignaDeedandrelievedtherespondentof
whatisembodiedintheBenignaDeed,thepetitionersadmission, the burden of proving its falsity as a ground to nullify the
coupledwiththerespondentsdenialofhispurportedsignaturein petitionerstitles.
 Byfraudulentlycausingthetransferoftheregistrationoftitle 75
overthedisputedpropertyinhisname,thepetitionerholdsthe VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 75
title to this disputed property in trust for the benefit of the Leoverasvs.Valdez
respondentasthetrueowner; 39registrationdoesnotvesttitlebut Q:Howmanysquaremetersdidyougetfromthelandandhow
merelyconfirmsorrecordstitlealreadyexistingandvested.The manysquaremeterswastheshareof[respondent]?
Torrenssystemofregistrationcannotbeusedtoprotectausurper A:4[0]20 square meters and my brotherinlaw 6,000 plus
from the true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the squaremeters.
commission of fraud, or to permit one to enrich oneself at the xxx
expense of others.40Hence, the CA correctly ordered the Q:Wasthereaboundarybetweenthe4,020squaremetersand
reconveyance ofthe disputed property, covered by TCT No. the rest of the property which (sic) designated by your
195813,totherespondent. brotherinlaw?
The parties Agreement effectively A:Thereissir,andtheboundaryisthefence.
partitionedthesubjectproperty Q:Whendidyouputupthatfencewhichistheboundary?
Thepetitioneralsoreliesonhisallegedactualpossessionof A:Afterthedeedofsalewasmade.
thedisputedpropertytosupporthisclaimofownership.Notably, Q:And that boundary fence which you put according to you
both parties make conflicting assertions of possession of the sincetheexecutionoftheDeedofAbsoluteSalein1969up
disputedproperty.41Thepetitionertestifiedonhispossessionas tothepresentdoesitstillexist?
follows: A:Yes,sir.
Q:Sincethetimeyoupurchasedthepropertyaccordingtoyou
_______________ youalreadydividedtheproperty,isthatcorrect?
A:Yes,sir.
39Article1456oftheCivilCodereads: Q:And that as of today who is in possession of that 4,020
If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the squaremeters?
personobtainingitis,byforceoflaw,consideredatrustee A:I,sir.42
ofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitofthepersonfromwhom Thepetitionerandtherespondentwereoriginallycoownersof
thepropertycomes. thesubjectpropertywhentheyjointlyboughtitfromthesame
40Lopezv.Lopez,G.R.No.161925,November25,2009,605 vendor in 1969. However, the parties immediately terminated
SCRA358. thisstateofindivisionbyexecutinganAgreement,whichisinthe
41Therespondenttestifiedthathehasbeeninpossessionof natureofapartitionagreement.
thelandinlitigationsince1969.(TSN,September9,1996,p.2.) The Civil Code of the Philippines defines partition as the
Ontheotherhand,thepetitionertestifiedthathehasbeenin separation,divisionandassignmentofathingheldincommon
possessionofthe4,020squaremeters.(TSN,June19,1997,pp. among those to whom it may belong.43Partition is the division
34.)
betweentwoormorepersonsofrealorpersonalproperty,owned nonpossession does not negate ownership, neither does
incommon,bysettingaparttheirrespectiveinterestssothatthey possessionautomaticallyproveown
mayenjoyandpossesstheseinsever
_______________
_______________
44Arturo M. Tolentino, 2Commentaries and Jurisprudence
42TSN,June19,1997,pp.34. ontheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,p.210.
43Article1079. 45Article494oftheCivilCodereads:
76 Nocoownershallbeobligedtoremaininthecoownership.
76 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Eachcoownermaydemandatanytimethepartitionofthething
Leoverasvs.Valdez ownedincommon,insofarashisshareisconcerned.
alty,44resulting in the partial or total extinguishment of co 46Supranote11;AnnexO.
ownership.45 47DelaCruzv.Cruz,No.L27759,April17,1970,32SCRA
Inthepresentcase,thepartiesagreedtodividethesubject 307.
property by giving the petitioner the 3,020 square meters 77
residential portion on the northern part near the Municipal VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 77
road.46Thereisnodisputethatthis3,020squaremeterportion
Leoverasvs.Valdez
isthesameparceloflandidentifiedasLotNo.2(whichisnotthe
ership,48especially in the face of an unambiguous document
subject of the respondents actionfor reconveyance) in the executedbythepartiesthemselves.
Affidavit and the Subdivision Plan presented by the petitioner Contrary tothepetitionersclaimthathisactualpossession
beforetheRegisterofDeeds.ThefactthattheAgreementlacks determines the extent of his ownership, it is the
technicaldescriptionofthepartiesrespectiveportionsorthatthe partiesAgreementthatdefines theextentoftheir ownershipin
subjectpropertywasthenstillembracedbyasinglecertificateof
thesubjectproperty.Oneofthelegaleffectsofpartition,whether
title could not legally prevent a partition, where the different
byagreementamongthecoownersorbyjudicialproceeding,isto
portionsallottedtoeachweredeterminedandbecameseparately
terminate the coownership and, consequently, to make the
identifiable,asinthiscase.47
previouscoownerstheabsoluteandexclusiveowneroftheshare
Whatisstrikinglysignificantisthateventhepetitionersown
allottedtohim.49
testimonymerely attemptedtoconfirmhis actualpossession of
Parenthetically,therespondentdeclaredfortaxationpurposes
thedisputedproperty,without,however,supportinghisclaim
theportionheclaimsinDecember1987. 50Thetotalarea(7,544
contrarytothewrittenAgreementthatthepartiesownershipof
squaremeters)ofthepropertiesdeclaredisequivalenttothearea
thesubjectpropertywouldbecoextensivewiththeirpossession.
allotted to the respondent under the Agreement. On the other
Thisisthecoreofthepetitionersdefense.Atanyrate,justas
hand,thepetitionerdeclaredthe1,004squaremeterportiononly
inSeptember1994,underTaxDeclarationNo.9393, 51despitehis owner,mustcomplywiththestatutoryprovisionsonthetransfer
claimofexclusiveandadversepossessionsince1969. ofregisteredtitletolands.53Section53of
Nullification of the petitioners title over
the3,020squaremeterportion _______________
Whilethepetitioneradmittedusingaspuriousdocumentin
securing his titles, nonetheless, he questions the CAs 52Ownershipofapieceoflandisonething,andregistration
under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite
nullificationofTCTNo.195812onthegroundthat,perthere
another(Grandev.CourtofAppeals,No.L17652,June30,1962,
_______________ 5SCRA524).
53Section51ofPresidentialDecreeNo.(P.D.)1529reads:
48Medina v. Greenfield Development Corporation, G.R. No. Conveyanceandotherdealingsbyregisteredowner.An
140228,November19,2004,443SCRA150. owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease,
49EduardoP.Caguioa,2CommentsandCasesonCivilLaw, chargeorotherwisedealwiththesameinaccordancewith
1966ed.,p.151,citingArticle1091oftheCivilCodewhichreads: existinglaws.Hemayusesuchformsofdeeds,mortgages,
Apartitionlegallymadeconfersuponeachheirtheexclusive leasesorothervoluntaryinstrumentsasaresufficientin
ownershipofthepropertyadjudicatedtohim. law.xxx
50IntherespondentsTaxDeclarationNo.3131(Markedas Section53ofP.D.1529reads:
Annex E), he declared the following with their corresponding Presentation of owners duplicate upon entry of new
area: Residential750 [square meters]; Unirrig. Rice land certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered
4,794.27[squaremeters];PastureLand2000[squaremeters]. by the Register of Deeds, unless the owners duplicate
51Records,Annex6. certificate is presented with such instrument, except in
78 casesexpresslyprovidedforinthisDecreeoruponorderof
78 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED thecourt,forcauseshown.
Leoverasvs.Valdez xxx
spondentsownadmissionandthepartiesAgreement,heisthe Section57ofP.D.1529reads:
rightfulownerofthelandcoveredbythistitle. Procedure in registration of conveyances. An owner
Wedisagree. desiring to conveyhisregisteredlandinfee simple shall
Thepetitioners argument confuses registration oftitle with execute and register a deed of conveyance in a form
ownership.52While the petitioners ownership over the land sufficient in law. The Register of Deeds shall thereafter
covered by TCT No. 195812 is undisputed, his ownership only makeoutintheregistrationbookanewcertificateoftitle
gavehimtherighttoapplyforthepropertransferoftitletothe to the grantee and shall prepare and deliver to him an
propertyinhisname.Obviously,thepetitioner,evenasarightful owners duplicate certificate. The Register of Deeds shall
 noteupontheoriginalandduplicatecertificatethedateof CarpioMorales (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama,
transfer,thevolumeandpageofthe Jr.andSereno,JJ.,concur.
79
Petitionpartiallygranted,judgmentandresolutionmodified.
VOL.652,JUNE15,2011 79
Note.Theregimeofcoownershipexistswhenownershipof
Leoverasvs.Valdez anundividedthingorrightbelongstodifferentpersons.Bythe
Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that the subsequent nature of a coownership, a coowner cannot point to a specific
registrationoftitleprocuredbythepresentationofaforgeddeed portionofthepropertyownedincommonashisownbecausehis
or other instrument is null and void. Thus, the subsequent sharethereinremainsintangible.(Dailisanvs.CourtofAppeals,
issuanceofTCTNo.195812gavethepetitionernobetterright
560SCRA351[2008])
thanthetaintedregistrationwhichwasthebasisfortheissuance
ofthesametitle.TheCourtsimplycannotallowthepetitioners o0o
attempt to get around the proper procedure for registering the
transferoftitleinhisnamebyusingspuriousdocuments. Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
Reconveyance is the remedy of the reserved.
rightfulowneronly
WhiletheCAcorrectlynullifiedthepetitionerscertificatesof
title, the CA erred in ordering the reconveyance of
theentiresubject property in the respondents favor. The
respondenthimselfadmittedthatthe3,020squaremeterportion
coveredbyTCTNo.195812isthepetitionersjustshareinthe
subject property.54Thus, although the petitioner obtained TCT
No.195812usingthesamespuriousdocuments,thelandcovered
bythistitleshouldnotbereconveyedinfavoroftherespondent G.R.No.171601.April8,2015.*
since he isnot the rightful ownerof the property covered by
thistitle.55 SPOUSES BONIFACIO and LUCIA PARAS,
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The petitioners,vs.KIMWA CONSTRUCTION AND
assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,respondent.
MODIFIED. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to Remedial Law; Evidence; Parol Evidence Rule; Rule 130,
RECONVEYtotherespondenttheparceloflandcoveredbyTCT Section9oftheRevisedRulesonEvidenceprovidesfortheParol
No.195813.Costsagainstpetitioner. EvidenceRule,theruleonadmissibilityofdocumentaryevidence
SOORDERED.
whenthetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedintowriting;
Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the
formalitiesobserved,forbidsanyadditionto,orcontradictionof, Same;Same;Same;Two(2)thingsmustbeestablishedfor
thetermsofawrittenagreementbytestimonyorotherevidence parolevidencetobeadmitted:first,thattheexistenceofanyof
purportingtoshowthatdifferenttermswereagreeduponbythe thefour(4)exceptionshasbeenputinissueinapartyspleading
parties, varyingthepurportofthewrittencontract.Rule130, orhasnotbeenobjectedtobytheadverseparty;andsecond,that
Section9oftheRevisedRulesonEvidenceprovidesfortheParol theparolevidencesoughttobepresentedservestoformthebasis
EvidenceRule,theruleonadmissibilityofdocumentaryevidence oftheconclusionproposedbythepresentingparty.Providedthat
whenthetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedintowriting: a party puts in issue in its pleading any of the four (4) items
Section9.Evidenceofwrittenagreements.Whenthetermsofan enumeratedinthesecondparagraphofRule130,Section9,a
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as partymaypresentevidencetomodify,explainoraddtotheterms
containingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,between oftheagreement[.]Raisinganyoftheseitemsasanissueina
thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuch pleadingsuchthatitfallsundertheexceptionisnotlimitedto
termsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement.However, thepartyinitiatinganaction.InPhilippineNationalRailwaysv.
a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
CourtofFirstInstanceofAlbay,83SCRA569(1978),thiscourt
termsofwrittenagreementifheputsinissueinhispleading:(a)
notedthatifthedefendantsetuptheaffirmativedefensethat
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
thecontractmentionedinthecomplaintdoesnotexpressthetrue
agreement;(b)Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthe
agreement of the parties, then parol evidence is admissible to
trueintentandagreementofthepartiesthereto;(c)Thevalidity
provethetrueagreementoftheparties[.]Moreover,aswithall
of the written agreement; or (d) The existence of other terms
possibleobjectionstotheadmissionofevidence,apartysfailure
agreedtobythepartiesortheirsuccessorsininterestafterthe
totimelyobjectisdeemedawaiver,andparolevidencemaythen
execution of the written agreement. The term agreement
beentertained.Apartfrompleadingtheseexceptions,itisequally
includeswills.Perthisrule,reductiontowrittenform,regardless
imperativethattheparolevidencesoughttobeintroducedpoints
of the formalities observed, forbids any addition to, or
totheconclusionproposedbythepartypresentingit.Thatis,it
contradictionof,thetermsofawrittenagreementbytestimonyor
mustberelevant,tendingtoinducebeliefin[the]existenceof
other evidence purporting to show that different terms were
theflaw,trueintent,orsubsequentextraneoustermsaverredby
agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written
the party seeking to introduce parol evidence. In sum, two (2)
contract.
thingsmustbeestablishedforparolevidencetobeadmitted:first,
_______________
thattheexistenceofanyofthefour(4)exceptionshasbeenputin
*SECONDDIVISION. issue in a partys pleading or has not been objected to by the
242 adverseparty;andsecond,thattheparolevidencesoughttobe
242 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED presentedservestoformthebasisoftheconclusionproposedby
thepresentingparty.
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
 Same;Same;Ourevidentiaryrulesimpelustoproceedfrom 2006oftheCourtofAppealsSpecial20thDivisioninC.A.G.R.
the position (unless convincingly shown otherwise) that CVNo.74682bereversedandsetaside,andthattheDecision 4of
Branch55oftheRegionalTrialCourt,MandaueCitydatedMay
individuals act as rational human beings, i.e., [t]hat a person
16,2001inCivilCaseNo.MAN2412bereinstated.5
takesordinarycareofhisconcerns.Ourevidentiaryrulesimpel The trial courts May 16, 2001 Decision ruled in favor of
us to proceed from the position (unless convincingly shown petitionersSpousesBonifacioandLuciaParas(plaintiffsbefore
otherwise) that individuals act as rational human beings,i.e., theRegionalTrialCourt)intheiractionforbreachofcontract
[t]hatapersontakesordinarycareofhisconcerns[.]Thisbasic _______________
evidentiary stance, taken with the supporting evidence
petitioners Spouses Paras adduced, respondent Kimwas 1Rollo,pp.1128.
awarenessoftheconditionsunderwhichpetitionerLuciaParas
2Id., at pp. 3239. The Decision was penned by Associate
wasbound,andtheAgreementsowntextspecifyingexclusive
JusticeIsaiasP.Dicdican(Chair)andconcurredinbyAssociate
243
JusticesSesinandoE.VillonandEnricoA.Lanzanas.
VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 243
3Id.,atpp.4748.TheResolutionwaspennedbyAssociate
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation JusticeIsaiasP.Dicdican(Chair)andconcurredinbyAssociate
allotment for respondent Kimwa, supports petitioners JusticesPampioA.AbarintosandEnricoA.Lanzanas.
Spouses Paras position that respondent Kimwa was obliged to
4Id.,atpp.6670.
haul40,000cubicmetersofaggregatesonorbeforeMay15,1995.
As it admittedly hauled only 10,000 cubic meters, respondent 5Id.,atp.26.
Kimwaisliableforbreachofcontractinrespectoftheremaining 244
30,000cubicmeters. 244 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
oftheCourtofAppeals. with damages against respondent Kimwa Construction and
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. DevelopmentCorporation(Kimwa).6
EscasinasPartner&Companyforpetitioners. TheassailedDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsreversedandset
P.B.Flores&Associatesforrespondent. aside the trial courts May 16, 2001 Decision and dismissed
Spouses Paras Complaint.7The Court of Appeals assailed

ResolutiondeniedSpousesParasMotionforReconsideration.8
LEONEN,J.:
LuciaParas(Lucia)wasaconcessionaireofasandandgravel

permit at Kabulihan, Toledo City[.] 9Kimwa is a construction
ThisresolvesthePetitionforReviewonCertiorari1underRule firm that sells concrete aggregates to contractors and haulers
45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureprayingthattheassailed in...Cebu.10
Decision2dated July 4, 2005 and Resolution3dated February 9,
 On December 6, 1994, Lucia and Kimwa entered into a KIMWA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
contract denominated Agreement for Supply of Aggregates CORP.,acorporationdulyorganizedandexistingunderthelaws
(Agreement) where 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates were ofthePhilippineswithofficeaddressatSubangdaku,Mandaue
allotted11byLuciaassuppliertoKimwa. 12Kimwawastopick City,hereinafterrepresentedbyitsPresidentMRS.CORAZONY.
up the allotted aggregates at Lucias permitted area in Toledo LUA, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Subangdaku,
City13atP240.00pertruckload.14 MandaueCity[,]hereinafterreferredtoastheCONTRACTOR;
TheentiretyofthisAgreementreads: WITNESSETH:
AGREEMENTFORSUPPLYOFAGGREGATES ThattheSUPPLIERis[sic]SpecialPermitteeof(Rechanelling

Block#VIofSapangDacoRiveralongBarangayIlihan)located
KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS:
atToledoCityunderthetermsandconditions:
ThisAgreementmadeandenteredintobyandbetween:
1. That the aggregates is [sic] to be picked up by the
LUCIAPARAS,oflegalage,Filipino,marriedandresidentof
Poblacion,ToledoCity,ProvinceofCebu,hereinafterreferredto CONTRACTORattheSUPPLIER[sic]permittedareaattherate
astheSUPPLIER: ofTWOHUNDREDFORTY(P240.00)PESOSpertruckload;
_______________ 2.That the volume allotted by the SUPPLIER to the
CONTRACTORislimitedto40,000cu.m.;
6Id.,atp.70. 3.ThatthesaidAggregatesis[sic]fortheexclusiveuseofthe
7Id.,atp.38. Contractor;
8Id.,atp.48. 4. That the terms of paymentis Fifteen(15) days after the
9Id.,atp.32. receiptofbilling;
10Id. 5.Thatthereis[sic]nomodification,amendment,assignment
11Id.,atp.36. ortransferofthisAgreement afteracceptance shallbe binding
upontheSUPPLIERunlessagreedtoinwritingbyandbetween
12Id.,atp.33.
theCONTRACTORandSUPPLIER.
13Id.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our
14Id.,atp.66. signaturesthis6thdayofDecember,1994atMandaueCity,Cebu,
Philippines.
246
245 246 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 245
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation LUCIAPARAS(sgd.)CORAZONY.LUA(sgd.)
and SupplierContractor15
 (Emphasissupplied) 23Id.
24Id.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Kimwa hauled 10,000 cubic 247
meters of aggregates. Sometime after this, however, Kimwa
VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 247
stoppedhaulingaggregates.16
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
Claiming that in so doing, Kimwa violated the Agreement,
SpousesParasaddedthatwithinafewdays,Kimwawasable
Lucia,joinedbyherhusband,Bonifacio,filedtheComplaint 17for
toextractandhaul10,000cubicmetersofaggregates.However,
breach of contract with damages that is now subject of this
after extracting and hauling this quantity, Kimwa allegedly
Petition.
transferredtotheconcessionareaofacertainMrs.Remediosdela
IntheirComplaint,SpousesParasallegedthatsometimein
Torre in violation of their Agreement. They then addressed
December1994,LuciawasapproachedbyKimwaexpressingits
demand letters to Kimwa. As these went unheeded, Spouses
interesttopurchasegravelandsandfromher.18Kimwaallegedly
ParasfiledtheirComplaint.25
asked that it be assured19of 40,000 cubic meters worth of
In its Answer,26Kimwa alleged that it never committed to
aggregates.20Luciacounteredthatherconcessionareawasdueto
obtain40,000cubic meters ofaggregatesfromLucia.It argued
be rechanneled on May 15, 1995, when her Special Permit
thatthecontroversialquantityof40,000cubicmetersrepresented
expires.21Thus,sheemphasizedthatshewouldbewillingtoenter
only an upper limit or the maximum quantity that it could
into a contract with Kimwa provided the forty thousand cubic
haul.27Itlikewiseclaimedthatitneithermadeanycommitment
meter[s] w[ould] be withdrawn orcompletelyextracted and
tohaul40,000cubicmetersofaggregatesbeforeMay15,1995nor
hauledbefore15May1995[.] 22KimwathenassuredLuciathatit
representedthatthehaulingofthisquantitycouldbecompleted
wouldtakeonlytwotothreemonthsforittocompletelyhaulthe
in two to three months.28It denied that the hauling of 10,000
40,000 cubic meters of aggregates. 23Convinced of Kimwas
cubicmetersofaggregateswascompletedinamatterofdaysand
assurances,LuciaandKimwaenteredintotheAgreement.24
counteredthatittookweekstodoso.Italsodeniedtransferring
_______________
totheconcessionareaofacertainMrs.RemediosdelaTorre.29
Kimwa asserted thatthe Agreement articulatedthe parties
15RTCRecords,p.97.
trueintentthat40,000cubicmeterswasamaximumlimitand
16Rollo,p.33. thatMay15,1995wasneversetasadeadline.InvokingtheParol
17Id.,atpp.5659. EvidenceRule,itinsistedthatSpousesParaswerebarredfrom
18Id.,atp.56. introducing evidence which would show that the parties had
19Id. agreeddifferently.30
20Id.,atpp.5657. On May 16, 2001, the Regional Trial Court rendered the
DecisioninfavorofSpousesParas.Thetrialcourtnotedthatthe
21Id.,atp.57.
22Id.
Agreementstipulatedthattheallottedaggregatesweresetaside Hence,thisPetitionwasfiled.
exclusivelyforKimwa.Itreasonedthatitwascon The issue for resolution is whether respondent Kimwa
_______________ ConstructionandDevelopmentCorporationisliabletopetitioners
SpousesParasfor(admittedly)failingtohaul30,000cubicmeters
25Id. ofaggregatesfrompetitionerLuciaParaspermittedareabyMay
26Id.,atpp.6063. 15,1995.
To resolve this, it is necessary to determine whether
27Id.,atp.60.
petitionersSpousesParaswereabletoestablishthatrespondent
28Id.,atpp.6061.
Kimwa was obliged to haul a total of 40,000 cubic meters of
29Id.,atpp.6162. aggregatesonorbeforeMay15,1995.
30Id.,atpp.6263. _______________
248
248 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 31Id.,atp.70.
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation 32Id.,atp.96.
trarytohumanexperienceforKimwatohaveenteredintoan 33Id.,atp.70.
AgreementwithLuciawithoutverifyingthelattersauthorityas 34Id.,atpp.3637.
aconcessionaire.31ConsideringthattheSpecialPermit32granted
35Id.,atp.48.
to Lucia (petitioners Exhibit A before the trial court) clearly
249
indicatedthatherauthoritywasgoodforonlysix(6)monthsfrom
November14,1994,thetrialcourtnotedthatKimwamusthave VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 249
beenawarethatthe40,000cubicmetersofaggregatesallottedto Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
itmustnecessarilybehauledbyMay15,1995.Asitfailedtodo WereversetheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsandreinstate
so,itwasliabletoSpousesParasforthetotalsumofP720,000.00, thatoftheRegionalTrialCourt.RespondentKimwaisliablefor
thevalueofthe30,000cubicmetersofaggregatesthatKimwadid failingtohaultheremainderofthequantitywhichitwasobliged
nothaul,inadditiontoattorneysfeesandcostsofsuit.33 toacquirefrompetitionerLuciaParas.
Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedtheRegionalTrial
CourtsDecision.Itfaultedthetrialcourtforbasingitsfindings I
onevidencepresentedwhichweresupposedlyinviolationofthe
ParolEvidenceRule.ItnotedthattheAgreementwasclearthat Rule130,Section9oftheRevisedRulesonEvidenceprovides
Kimwawasunder noobligation tohaul 40,000 cubicmetersof for the Parol Evidence Rule, the rule on admissibility of
aggregatesbyMay15,1995.34 documentaryevidencewhenthetermsofanagreementhavebeen
In a subsequent Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied reducedintowriting:
reconsiderationtoSpousesParas.35
 Section9.Evidenceofwrittenagreements.Whentheterms their agreementintowriting,theyare deemed tohave done so
ofanagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itisconsideredas meticulouslyandcarefully,employingspecificfrequently,even
containingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,between technicallanguageasareappropriatetotheircontext.Froman
thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuch evidentiarystandpoint,thisisalsobecauseoraltestimony...
termsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement. comingfromapartywhohasaninterestintheoutcomeofthe
However,apartymaypresentevidencetomodify,explainor case,dependingexclusivelyonhumanmemory,isnotasreliable
addtothetermsofwrittenagreementifheputsinissueinhis as written or documentary evidence. Spoken words could be
pleading: notoriouslyunreliableunlikeawrittencontractwhichspeaksofa
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the uniformlanguage.38AsillustratedinAbellav.CourtofAppeals:39
writtenagreement; Without any doubt, oral testimony as to a certain fact,
(b)Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthetrue depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as
intentandagreementofthepartiesthereto; reliableaswrittenordocumentaryevidence.Iwouldsoonertrust
(c)Thevalidityofthewrittenagreement;or the smallest slip of paper for truth, said Judge Limpkin of
(d)Theexistenceofothertermsagreedtobythepartiesor Georgia, than the strongest and most retentive memory ever
their successorsininterest after the execution of the written bestowed on mortal man. This is especially true in this case
agreement. wheresuchoraltestimonyisgivenby...apartytothecasewho
Thetermagreementincludeswills. hasaninterestinitsoutcome,andby...awitnesswhoclaimed
tohavereceivedacommissionfromthepetitioner. 40
Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the _______________
formalitiesobserved,36forbidsanyadditionto,orcontradict
_______________ 38Ortaezv.CourtofAppeals,334Phil.514,518;266SCRA
561,565(1997)[PerJ.Francisco,ThirdDivision].
36SeeInciong,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,327Phil.364,371;256 39327 Phil. 270; 257 SCRA 482 (1996) [PerJ.Francisco,
SCRA578,585(1996)[PerJ.Romero,SecondDivision]. ThirdDivision].
250 37SeaoilPetroleumCorporationv.AutocorpGroup,590Phil.
250 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 410, 418; 569 SCRA 387, 395 (2008) [PerJ.Nachura, Third
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation Division], citingEdrada v. Ramos, 505 Phil. 672, 677678; 468
tionof,thetermsofawrittenagreementbytestimonyorother
SCRA597,604(2005)[PerJ.Tinga,SecondDivision].
evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed
uponbytheparties,varyingthepurportofthewrittencontract. 37 40Id.,atp.276;p.487,citingDeLeonv.CourtofAppeals,
Thisruleisanimatedbyaperceivedwisdomindeferringto 205 SCRA 612, 622623 (1992) [PerJ.Cruz, First Division]
thecontractingpartiesarticulatedintent.Inchoosingtoreduce andMillerv.Cotten,5Ga.341,349.
 251 247U.S.385,HeirsofDelaRamav.TalisaySilayMillingCo.,54
VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 251 Phil. 580, 588 (1930) [PerJ.Romualdez,En Banc], andLand
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation Settlement and Development Corporation v. Garcia Plantation
This,however,ismerelyageneralrule.Providedthataparty Co., Inc., 117 Phil. 761, 765; 7 SCRA 750, 752 (1963)
putsinissueinitspleadinganyofthefour(4)itemsenumerated
[PerJ.Paredes,EnBanc].
in the second paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, a party may
present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the 44Rev.RulesonEvid.,Rule128,Secs.3and4provide:
agreement[.]41Raising any of these items as an issue in a Section3.Admissibilityofevidence.Evidenceisadmissible
pleadingsuchthatitfallsundertheexceptionisnotlimitedto whenitisrelevanttotheissueandisnotexcludedbythelawof
thepartyinitiatinganaction.InPhilippineNationalRailwaysv. theserules.
Court of First Instance of Albay,42this court noted that if the Section4.Relevancy; collateral matters.Evidence must
defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract havesucharelationtothefactinissueastoinducebeliefinits
mentionedinthecomplaintdoesnotexpressthetrueagreement existence or nonexistence. Evidence on collateral matters shall
oftheparties,thenparolevidenceisadmissibletoprovethetrue notbeallowed,
agreement of the parties[.]43Moreover, as with all possible 252
objectionstotheadmissionofevidence,apartysfailuretotimely 252 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
entertained. of the flaw, true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms
Apartfrompleadingtheseexceptions,itisequallyimperative averredbythepartyseekingtointroduceparolevidence.
that the parol evidence sought to be introduced points to the Insum,two(2)thingsmustbeestablishedforparolevidence
conclusionproposedbythepartypresentingit.Thatis,itmustbe to be admitted:first, that the existence of any of the four (4)
relevant,tendingtoinducebeliefin[the]existence44 exceptionshasbeenputinissueinapartyspleadingorhasnot
_______________ beenobjectedtobytheadverseparty;andsecond,thattheparol
evidencesoughttobepresentedservestoformthebasisofthe
41ACI Philippines, Inc. v. Coquia, 580 Phil. 275, 284; 558 conclusionproposedbythepresentingparty.
SCRA300,310(2008)[PerJ.Tinga,SecondDivision].
42173 Phil. 5; 83 SCRA 569 (1978) [PerJ.Aquino, Second II
Division].
43Id.,at p. 11; p. 576, citingEnriquezv. Ramos, 116 Phil. Here,theCourtofAppealsfoundfaultintheRegionalTrial
525,531;6SCRA219,220221(1962)[PerJ.BautistaAngelo,En Courtforbasingitsfindingsonthebasisofevidencepresentedin
Banc],PhilippineSugarE.D.Co.v.Philippines,62L.Ed.1177, violation of the parol evidence rule. 45It proceeded to fault
petitionersSpousesParasforshowingnoproof...of[respondent
Kimwas]obligation.46Then,itstatedthat[t]hestipulationsin to petitioners Spouses Paras pleading of these issues. This is,
the agreement between the parties leave no room for thus,anexceptionalcaseallowingadmissionofparolevidence.
interpretation.47 Paragraphs6to10ofpetitionersComplaintread:
TheCourtofAppealsisinseriouserror. 6.Sensingthatthebuyerscontractorsandhaulersalikecould
At the onset, two (2) flaws in the the Court of Appeals easily consumed [sic] the deposits defendant proposed to the
reasoningmustbeemphasized.First,itisinconsistenttosay,on plaintiffwifethatitbeassuredofafortythousand(40,000)cubic
one hand, that the trial court erred on the basis of evidence meter[sic];
presented48(albeitsupposedlyinviolationoftheParolEvidence 7. Plaintiff countered that the area is scheduled to be
Rule),and,ontheother,thatpetitionersSpousesParasshowed rechanneled on 15 May 1995 and by that time she will be
no proof.49Second,without even accounting fortheexceptions prohibitedtoselltheaggregates;
provided by Rule 130, Section 9, the Court of Appeals 8.Shefurthertoldthedefendantthatshewouldbewillingto
immediately concluded that whatever evidence petitioners enterintoacontractprovidedthefortythousandcubicmeter[sic]
SpousesParaspresentedwasinviolationoftheParolEvidence willbewithdrawnorcompletelyextractedandhauledbefore15
Rule. May1995,thescheduledrechanneling;
_______________ 9.Defendantassuredherthatitwilltakethemonlytwoto
threemonthstohaulcompletelythedesiredvolumeasdefendant
exceptwhenittendsinanyreasonabledegreetoestablishthe hasallthetrucksneeded;
probabilityorimprobabilityofthefactinissue. 10. Convinced of the assurances, plaintiffwife and the
45Rollo,p.36. defendantenteredintoacontractforthesupplyoftheaggregates
46Id.,atp.37. sometimeon6December1994orthereabouts,atacostofTwo
47Id. HundredForty(P240.00)Pesospertruckload[.]50
48Id.,atp.36.
ItistruethatpetitionersSpousesParasComplaintdoesnot
49Id.,atp.37.
specifically state words and phrases such as mistake,
253
imperfection, or failure to express the true intent of the
VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 253 parties.Nevertheless,itisevidentthatthecruxofpetition
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation _______________
Contrary to the Court of Appeals conclusion, petitioners
SpousesParaspleadedintheComplainttheyfiledbeforethetrial 50Id.,atpp.5657.
courtamistakeorimperfectionintheAgreement,aswellasthe 254
Agreements failure to express the true intent of the parties. 254 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Further,respondentKimwa,throughitsAnswer,alsoresponded
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
 ers Spouses Paras Complaint is their assertion that the VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 255
Agreement entered into . . . on 6 December 1994 or Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
thereabouts51was founded on the parties supposed 4.Theallegationinparagraphnineofthecomplaintishereby
understandingthatthequantityofaggregatesallottedinfavorof denied.Thedefendantnevermadeanyassurancetotheplaintiff
respondent Kimwa must be hauled by May 15, 1995, lest such wife that it will take only two to three months to haul the
haulingberenderedimpossiblebytherechannelingofpetitioner aforesaidvolumeofaggregates.Likewise,thecontractissilenton
LuciaParaspermittedarea.Thisassertionistheveryfoundation thisaspectforinfactthereisnodefinitetimeframeagreedupon
ofpetitionershavingcometocourtforrelief. by the parties within which defendant is to quarry and haul
Proof of how petitioners Spouses Paras successfully pleaded aggregatesfromtheconcessionoftheplaintiffs.
and put this in issue in their Complaint is how respondent 5. The allegation in paragraph ten of the complaint is
Kimwa felt it necessary to respond to it or address it in its admitted insofar as the execution of the contract is concerned.
Answer.Paragraphs2to5ofrespondentKimwasAnswerread: However,thecontractwasexecuted,notbyreasonofthealleged
2.Theallegationinparagraphsixofthecomplaintisadmitted assurancesofthedefendanttotheplaintiffs,asclaimedbythe
subject to the qualification that when defendantoffered tobuy latter,butbecauseoftheintentandwillingnessoftheplaintiffs
aggregatesfromtheconcessionoftheplaintiffs,itsimplyasked tosupplyandsellaggregatestoit.Itwasupontheinstanceofthe
theplaintiffconcessionaireifshecouldsellasufficientsupplyof plaintiffthatthedefendantsignthesubjectcontracttoexpressin
aggregates to be used in defendants construction business and writing their agreement that the latter would haul aggregates
plaintiffconcessionaireagreedtoselltothedefendantaggregates from plaintiffs concession up to such point in time that the
fromherconcessionuptoalimitof40,000cubicmetersatthe maximum limit of 40,000 cubic meters would be quarried and
priceofP240.00percubicmeter. hauled without a definite deadline being set. Moreover, the
3. The allegations in paragraphs seven and eight of the contractdoesnotobligatethedefendanttoconsumetheallotted
complaintarevehementlydeniedbythedefendant.Thecontract volumeof40,000cubicmeters.52
which was entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendant
provides only that the former supply the latter the volume of Considering how the Agreements mistake, imperfection, or
40,000.00 cubic meters of aggregates. There is no truth to the supposed failure to express the parties true intent was
allegationthattheplaintiffwifeenteredintothecontractunder successfullyputinissueinpetitionersSpousesParasComplaint
theconditionthattheaggregatesmustbequarriedandhauledby (andevenrespondedtobyrespondentKimwainitsAnswer),this
defendantcompletelybeforeMay15,1995,otherwisethiswould casefallsundertheexceptionsprovidedbyRule130,Section9of
havebeenunequivocallystipulatedinthecontract. theRevisedRulesonEvidence.Accordingly,thetestimonialand
_______________ documentary parol evidence sought to be introduced by
petitionersSpousesParas,whichattesttothesesupposedflaws
51Id.,atp.57. andwhattheyavertohavebeenthepartiestrueintent,maybe
255 admittedandconsidered.
_______________ ToAllWhomItMayConcern:
PERMISSIONisherebygrantedto:
52Id.,atpp.6061. NameAddress
256 LUCIAPARASPoblacion,ToledoCity
256 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
III 53Id.,atp.64.
54RTCRecords,pp.93and96.
Ofcourse,thisadmissionandavailabilityforconsiderationis 55Id.,atp.93.
noguaranteeofhowexactlytheparolevidenceadducedshallbe 257
appreciated by a court. That is, they do not guarantee the VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 257
probative value, ifany, that shall be attached tothem. In any Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
case, wefindthatpetitionershave established thatrespondent toundertaketherechannellingofBlockNo.VIofSapangDaco
Kimwawasobligedtohaul40,000cubicmetersofaggregateson River alongBarangayIlihan, Toledo City, subject to following
orbeforeMay15,1995.Consideringitsadmissionthatitdidnot termsandconditions:
haul 30,000 cubic meters of aggregates, respondent Kimwa is 1.That the volume to be extracted from the area is
liabletopetitioners. approximately40,000cubicmeters;
The PreTrial Order issued by the Regional Trial Court in ....
Civil Case No. MAN2412 attests to respondent Kimwas Thispermit whichisvalidforsix(6) monthsfromthe date
admissionthat: hereofisrevocableanytimeuponviolationofanyoftheforegoing
6) Prior to or during the execution of the contract[,] the conditionsorintheinterestofpublicpeaceandorder.
Plaintiffs furnished the Defendant all the documents and CebuCapitol,CebuCity,November14,1994.56
requisitepapersinconnectionwiththecontract,oneofwhichwas
a copy of the Plaintiffs [sic] special permit indicating that the Having been admittedly furnished a copy of this Special
Plaintiffs [sic] authority was only good for (6) months from Permit,respondentKimwawaswell awarethata totalof only
November14,1994.53 about 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates may be extracted by
petitioner Lucia from the permitted area, and that petitioner
ThisSpecialPermitwas,inturn,introducedbypetitionersin Lucia Paras operations cannot extend beyond May 15, 1995,
evidence as their Exhibit A,54with its date of issuance and whentheSpecialPermitexpires.
effectivity being specifically identified as their Exhibit A The Special Permits condition that a total of only about
1.55RelevantportionsofthisSpecialPermitread: 40,000cubicmetersofaggregatesmaybeextractedbypetitioner
Lucia Paras from the permitted area lends credence to the
positionthattheaggregatesallottedtorespondentKimwawas beyondMay15,1995wouldmakeherguiltyofmisrepresentation,
in consideration of its corresponding commitment to haul all andanyprospectiveincomeforherwouldberenderedillusory.
40,000 cubic meters. This is so, especially in light of the Ourevidentiaryrules impelustoproceedfromthe position
AgreementsownstatementthatthesaidAggregatesisforthe (unless convincingly shown otherwise) that individuals act as
exclusive use of [respondent Kimwa.]57By allotting the entire rationalhumanbeings,i.e.,[t]hatapersontakesordinarycareof
40,000 cubic meters, petitioner Lucia Paras bound her entire his concerns[.]58This basic evidentiary stance, taken with the
businesstorespondentKimwa.Rationalhumanbehaviordictates supporting evidence petitioners Spouses Paras adduced,
thatshemusthavedoneso withthe corresponding assurances respondent Kimwas awareness of the conditions under which
fromit.Itwouldhavebeenirrational,ifnotridiculous,ofherto petitionerLuciaParaswasbound,andtheAgreementsowntext
obligeherselftomakethisallotment specifying exclusive allotment for respondent Kimwa, supports
_______________ petitionersSpousesParaspositionthatrespondentKimwawas
obliged to haul 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates on or before
56Id.,atp.96. May15,1995.Asitadmittedlyhauledonly10,000cubicmeters,
57Id.,atp.97. respondentKimwaisliableforbreachofcontractinrespectofthe
258 remaining30,000cubicmeters.
258 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED WHEREFORE,the Petition isGRANTED. The assailed
Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation Decision dated July 4, 2005 and Resolution dated February 9,
withoutrespondentKimwasconcomitantundertakingthatit 2006oftheCourtofAppealsSpecial20thDivisioninC.A.G.R.CV
wouldobtaintheentireamountallotted. No.74682areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheDeci
Likewise,theconditionthattheSpecialPermitshallbevalid _______________
foronlysix(6)monthsfromNovember14,1994lendscredenceto
petitioners Spouses Paras assertion that, in entering into the 58Rev.RulesonEvid.,Rule131,Sec.3(d).
AgreementwithrespondentKimwa,petitionerLuciaParasdidso 259
because of respondent Kimwas promise that hauling can be VOL.755,APRIL8,2015 259
completed by May 15, 1995. Bound as she was by the Special Parasvs.KimwaConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation
Permit,petitionerLuciaParasneededtomakeiteminentlyclear sionofBranch55oftheRegionalTrialCourt,MandaueCity
to any party she was transacting with that she could supply dated May 16, 2001 in Civil Case No. MAN2412
aggregatesonlyuptoMay15,1995and thatthe otherpartys isREINSTATED.
hauling must be completed by May 15, 1995. She was merely Alegalinterestof6%perannumshalllikewisebeimposedon
actingwithduediligence,forotherwise,anycontractshewould thetotaljudgmentawardfromthefinalityofthisDecisionuntil
enterintowouldbenegated; anycommitmentshewouldmake fullsatisfaction.
SOORDERED.
 Carpio(Chairperson),Brion,DelCastilloandMendoza,JJ.,
concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set
aside.
Notes.Toavoidtheoperationoftheparolevidencerule,the
Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence modifying,
explainingoraddingtothetermsofthewrittenagreementifhe
putsinissueinhispleadingthefailureofthewrittenagreement
toexpressthetrueintentandagreementoftheparties.(Leoveras
vs.Valdez,652SCRA61[2011])
Unsubstantiated testimony, offered as proof of verbal
agreements which tend to vary the terms of the written
agreement,isinadmissibleundertherule.(Sarazavs.Francisco,
711SCRA95[2013])
o0o
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved.

G.R.No.205590.September2,2015.*

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,vs.LIGAYA M.
PASIMIO,respondent.
 Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Court of Appeals; ormixedquestionsoffactandlaw.Thus,ininsistingthatitisnot
Section9ofBatasPambansa(BP)Blg.129,otherwiseknownas atrieroffactsandimplyingthatithadnochoicebuttoadoptthe
RTCs factual findings, the CA shirked from its function as an
theJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980,categoricallystatesthat
appellatecourttoindependentlyevaluatethemeritsofthiscase.
theCourtofAppeals(CA)has,interalia,thepowertotrycases, To accept the CAs aberrant stance is to trivialize its review
receive function,but,perhapsworse,renderuselessoneofthereasonsfor
_______________ itsinstitution.
Same; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; Words and
*THIRDDIVISION.
Phrases;Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and

value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
71 considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 71 evidence or greater weight of credible evidence.It is settled
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio thattheburdenofprooflieswiththepartywhoassertsaright
evidenceandperformanyandallactsnecessarytoresolve and the quantum of evidence required by law in civil cases is
preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the
factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and
weight,credit,andvalueoftheaggregateevidenceoneitherside
appellate jurisdiction.Before proceeding to the main issue of and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
this case, there is a need to clarify the assailed decisions greater weight of evidence or greater weight of credible
perplexingbutflawedpronouncementthat theCA, notbeinga evidence.
trier of facts, is without competence to review the factual
Same;Same;Justassettledistherulethattheplaintiffin
determinationoftheRTC.Section9ofBatasPambansaBlg.(BP)
civilcasesmustrelyonstrengthofhisorherownevidenceand
129,otherwiseknownastheJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980,
notupontheweaknessofthatofthedefendant.Justassettledis
categoricallystatesthattheCAhas,interalia,thepowertotry therulethattheplaintiffincivilcasesmustrelyonstrengthof
cases,receiveevidenceandperformanyandallactsnecessaryto hisorher
resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original
andappellatejurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The parties in Rule 41 appeal 72
proceedingsmayraisequestionsoffactormixedquestionsoffact 72 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
and law.The CAs regrettable cavalier treatment of PNBs PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
appealisinconsistentwithRule41oftheRulesofCourtandwith own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the
the usual course of judicial proceedings. Be reminded that the defendant.Inthecaseatbench,thismeansthatonPasimiorests
partiesinRule41appealproceedingsmayraisequestionsoffact
the burden of proof and theonusto produce the required a promissory note is the best evidence of the transaction
quantumofevidencetosupporthercause/sofaction. embodiedtherein;also,toprovetheexistenceoftheloan,thereis
Same; Same; Clear and Convincing Evidence; The noneedtosubmitaseparatereceipttoprovethattheborrower
receivedtheloanproceeds.Indeed,apromissorynoterepresents
employment of fraud, duress, or undue influence is a serious
asolemnacknowledgmentofadebtandaformalcommitmentto
charge, and to be sustained it must be supported by clear and repayitonthedateandundertheconditionsagreeduponbythe
convincing proof; it cannot be presumed.The employment of borrowerandthelender.Ashasbeenheld,apersonwhosigns
fraud,duress,orundueinfluenceisaseriouscharge,andtobe suchaninstrumentisboundtohonoritasale
sustaineditmustbesupportedbyclearandconvincingproof;it
cannot be presumed.There is no allegation or evidence that
Gregorio and Miranda influenced Pasimio by employing means 73
shecouldnotwellresist,andwhichcontrolledhervolitionand VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 73
inducedhertosigntheloandocumentsandtheApril10,2003
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
Affidavit, which otherwise she would not have executed. Also,
gitimate obligation duly assumed by him through the
there was no evidence showing that Gregorio and Mirandas
signature he affixes thereto as a token of his good faith. If he
influence interfered with Pasimios exercise of independent
renegesonhispromisewithoutcause,heforfeitsthesympathy
discretionnecessarytodeterminetheadvantageordisadvantage
and assistance of this Court and deserves instead its sharp
ofsigningthesedocuments.
repudiation.
Same;Same;DisputablePresumptions;Rule131,Sec.3of
Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; Settled is
the Rules of Court specifies that a disputable presumption is
therulethatadefectivenotarizationwillstripthedocumentofits
satisfactoryifuncontradictedandnotovercomebyotherevidence.
publiccharacterandreduceittoaprivateinstrument, andthe
ItisgermanetoobserveatthisjuncturethatPNBhas,inits
favor, certain presumptions which Pasimio failed to overturn. evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on
Rule131,Sec.3oftheRulesofCourtspecifiesthatadisputable preponderanceofevidence.TheabsenceofPasimioscommunity
presumptionissatisfactoryifuncontradictedandnotovercomeby tax certificate number in: said loan documents neither vitiates
otherevidence. the transaction nor invalidates the document. If at all, such
Mercantile Law; Promissory Notes; A promissory note absencerendersthenotarizationoftheloandocumentsdefective.
represents a solemn acknowledgment of a debt and a formal Underthenotarialrulesatthattime,i.e.,Sec.163(a)ofRepublic
commitment to repay it on the date and under the conditions ActNo.7160,otherwiseknownastheLocalGovernmentCodeof
agreeduponbytheborrowerandthelender.Inupholdingthe 1991,where an individual subject to the community tax
RTCs finding respecting Pasimios never having received any acknowledgesanydocumentbeforeanotarypublic,itshallbethe
loanproceeds,theCAdoubtlessdisregardedtheruleholdingthat duty of the administering officer to require such individual to
exhibitthecommunitytaxcertificate.Thedefectivenotarization relevant as evidence. Pollards transaction with PNB is
oftheloan documentsonlymeansthatthese documentswould entirelydifferentandtotallyunrelatedtoPasimiosdealingswith
not be carrying the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with thebank.
respect to its due execution; that they should be treated as a Same; Same; Parol Evidence; That when the terms of an
privatedocumenttobeexaminedinappropriatecasesunderthe agreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itistobeconsideredas
parameters of Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which
containingallsuchterms,and,therefore,therecanbe,betweenthe
providesthatbeforeanyprivatedocumentofferedasauthenticis
partiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofthetermsof
receivedinevidence,itsdueexecutionandauthenticitymustbe
provedeither:(a)byanyonewhosawthedocumentexecutedor theagreementotherthanthecontentsofthewriting.Itiswellto
written;or(b)byevidenceofthegenuinenessofthesignatureor consider this rule: that when the terms of an agreement have
handwriting of the maker xxx. Settled is the rule that a beenreducedtowriting,itistobeconsideredascontainingall
defective notarization will strip the document of its public suchterms,and,therefore,therecanbe,betweenthepartiesand
character and reduce it to a private instrument, and the their successorsininterest, no evidence of the terms of the
evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on agreementotherthanthecontentsofthewriting.Underthisrule,
preponderanceofevidence. parol evidence or oral evidence cannot be given to contradict,
Same;Same;ResInterAliosActa;Actsanddeclarationsof change or vary a written document, except if a party presents
evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of a written
persons strangers to a suit should, as a rule, be irrelevant as
agreement and puts in issue in his pleadings: (a) an intrinsic
evidence.It was wrong for the CA to make the foregoing ambiguity,mistake,orimperfectioninthewrittenagreement;(b)
conclusionsmerelybecauseanotherbankclient,VirginiaPollard the failureof thewrittenagreement to express thetrue intent
(Pollard),testifiedtobeingavictimofirregularbanktransactions and agreement of the parties; (c) the validity of the written
of PNB Sucat. Even if Pollard were telling the truth, her agreement;and(d)theexistenceofothertermsagreedtobythe
testimonyshouldnothavebeenconsideredproofthatwhatshe parties or their successorsininterestafter theexecutionof the
underwent is what actually transpired between Pasimio and writtenagreement.
PNB.Res inter alios acta.Acts and declarations of persons PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
strangerstoasuitshould,asarule,beir Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Antonio M. Elicano and Salvador J. Ortega, Jr.for
74 petitioner.
74 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Rondain&Mendiolaforrespondent.
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio VELASCO,JR.,J.:

 In this petition for review under Rule 45, the Philippine husbandtookoutthreeloansagainstdepositholdout 4fromthe
NationalBank(PNB)assailsandseekstosetasidetheJanu PNBSucatbranch,asfollows:aThreeMillion
_______________

75 1Rollo,pp.824.PennedbyAssociateJusticeAgnesReyes
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 75 Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio AsuncionVicenteandPriscillaJ.BaltazarPadilla.
ary23,2013Decision1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inC.A.G.R. 2Id.,atpp.7680.
CVNo.94079dismissingpetitionersappealfromthedecisionof 3Id.,atpp.8195.
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofParaaqueCity,Branch196, 4AloanagainstdepositholdoutisaPNBproductwhere
whichruledforrespondentLigayaPasimio(Pasimio)inanaction theloanissecuredbythePNBdepositoftheborrower.
forasumofmoneyshecommencedthereatagainstthebank.

TheFacts 76
76 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
From the petition, the comment thereon, their respective PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
annexes, and other pleadings filed by the parties, the Court One Hundred Thousand Peso (P3,100,000) loan on March 21,
gathersthefollowingrelevantfacts: 2001;aOneMillionSevenHundredThousandPeso(P1,700,000)
On May 19, 2005, Pasimio filed suit against PNB for the loanonApril2,2001;andaThirtyOneThousandOneHundred
recovery of a sum of money and damages before the RTC of USDollar(US$31,100)loanonDecember7,2001.
Paraaque City. In her complaint,2docketed as Civil Case No. PNB further alleged the following: (1) each loan
CV050195andeventuallyraffledtoBranch196ofthecourt,she accommodationwassecuredbyadepositaccountofPasimio;(2)
allegedhavingapesoanddollartimedepositaccountswithPNB theproceedsofthefirstandsecondloanswerereleasedtoand
in the total amount of P4,322,057.57 and US$5,170.80, receivedbythePasimiospousesintheformofPNBManagers
respectively;thatbothinvestmentplacementshavematured;and Checks(MCs)whiletheproceedsofthethirdloanwerereleased
when she sought to withdraw her deposit money with accrued andreceivedincash;(3)theloanproceedswereacknowledgedby
interests,PNBrefusedtooblige. Pasimioincorrespondingnotarizedpromissorynotes(PNs)and
In its Answer with Counterclaim, 3with annexes, PNB Disclosure Statements of Loan/Credit Transaction; (4) Pasimio
admitted the fact of deposit placement for the amount thenrelenttheproceedsofthethirdloantoacertainPaoloSun;
aforestated.ButitclaimedthatPasimioiswithoutrighttoinsist (5) contrary to Pasimios allegations on maturing deposit
ontheirwithdrawal,thedepositedamounthavingalreadybeen instruments, she in fact renewed/rolled over her placements
usedinpaymentofheroutstandingloanobligationstothebank. severaltimes;and(6)Pasimiohadfailedtopayheroutstanding
PNBnarratedhowthesetoffofsortcameabout:Pasimioandher
loan obligations forcing the bank to apply her deposits to the PasimiowouldalsodenyrelendingtheloanproceedstoPaolo
unpaid loans pursuant to the legal compensation arrangement Sun. She asserted in this regard that Gregorio repaired to her
embodiedintheholdoutprovisounderClause5ofthePN.5 residence with a duly accomplished affidavit detailing the
To this answer, Pasimio filed her reply and answer to relendingeventandurgedhertosignthesameifshewishedto
counterclaimallegingfactsshewouldalsolaterventuretoprove. recoverherplacements.
Duringthetrialfollowingthejoinderofissues,Pasimiodenied In all, Pasimio depicted herself as victim of a nefarious
obtaining any loan from PNB, let alone receiving the lendingscam, orchestrated by GregorioandMiranda whoPNB
corresponding loan proceeds. While conceding signing certain had ordered dismissed following the exposure of their
documents which turned out to be the Peso Loans Against involvement in anomalous loan transactions with unsuspecting
Peso/FX Deposit Loan Applications, the Promissory Notes and PNBdepositors.
Holdout on Savings Deposit/Peso/FX Time Deposit and Pasimiosubmittedthefollowingasevidence:
AssignmentofDepositSubstituteandtheDisclosureStatements 1. Passbook for PNB Mint Placement No. 61281001164164
ofLoan/CreditTransaction(LoanDocuments),sheprofessednot (sameasPNBMintPlacementNo.6128100115590)to
_______________ provethatsheinvestedP3,100,000withPNBSucatunder
PNBMintPlacementNo.6128100115590;
5Clause 5 of the PNs reads: By virtue of the Hold 2. Passbook for PNB Mint Placement No. 61281001164688
out/assignment, the BANK has the right to offset the amount (sameasPNBMintPlacementNo.6128100115632)to
assigned/heldoutagainstthisnotewithoutanyneedofnoticeto provethatsheinvestedP1,700,000withPNBSucatunder
ordemandontheCLIENT/Sinanyofthefollowingevents(i)any PNBMintPlacementNo.6128100115632;
default or premature acceleration of due date of the Loan or 3.CertificateofTimeDepositfor$CTDNo.6628100116575
OtherObligationxxx. to prove that she invested US$5,160.84 with PNBSucat
under Certificate of Time Deposit $CTD No.
6628100116575;
77 4. Letter dated April 22, 2004 addressed to the PNB Sucat
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 77 branchmanagertoprovethatshemadeademandforthe
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio releaseofherinvestments;
understandingwhattheyreallymeant. Sheagreedto affixher 5.LettersdatedJuly21,2004fromPNBsInternalAuditorto
signatureontheseloandocumentsinblankorinanincomplete PasimiotoprovethatPNBconfirmedherdepositsand
state,sheadded,onlybecausethePNBSucatbranchmanager, investmentwithPNBSucatbutthatshe
Teresita Gregorio (Gregorio), and Customer Relations Officer,
GloriaMiranda(Miranda),ledhertobelievethatwhatshewas
signingwererelatedtonewhighyieldingPNBproducts. 78
78 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio _______________
corrected entries pertaining to their amounts and denied
havingadepositholdoutonanyofherinvestments; 6Records,pp.349352.
6. Engagement letter dated February 2, 2005 from the law 7Id.,atpp.564568.
firmRondain&Mendiola;
7. An unsigned affidavit to prove that Gregorio had
preparedanaffidavittomakeitappearthatPasimioand 79
other depositors entered into loan agreements with a VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 79
certainPaoloSun,tocoverher(Gregorios)illegalschemes PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
and that Gregorio went to thehomes of thesedepositors March 21, 2001 and that she renewed the said loan on
beggingthemtosigntheaffidavitasshewasalreadybeing differentdates;
auditedbyPNBsmainoffice;6and 3. Disclosure Statement of Loan/Credit Transaction dated
8.AMemorandumonIrregularLendingOperationonLoansv. March 21, 2001 to prove that Pasimios loan for
DepositHoldOut(SucatBranch)datedFebruary18,2003 P3,100,000 was also supported with a Disclosure
detailing the allegedmodus operandiof Gregorio and Statement, a copy of which she acknowledged to have
Miranda and stating that the latter were dismissed for received prior to the consummation of the credit
theirinvolvementinshadyloanpractices.7 transaction,whereshevoluntarilyagreedtothetermsand
conditionsofherloanbysigningthesaidstatement;
Ontheotherhand,PNBofferedthefollowingforpurposesas 4.MCNo.0000166650datedMarch21,2001forP3,049,188.94
stated: toprovethatPasimioencashedthischeckandreceived
theproceedsofherP3,100,000loan,netofbankcharges;
1.PesoLoansAgainstPeso/FXDepositLoanApplicationForm 5. Peso Loans Against Peso/FX Deposit Loan
datedMarch21,2001toprovethatPasimioappliedfora Application/ApprovalFormdatedApril2,2001toprove
PNBloanandvoluntarilyexecutedaloanapplicationform thatPasimioappliedforanotherloanonApril2,2001in
datedMarch21,2001fortheamountofP3,100,000secured theamountofP1,700,000andthatthesamewassecured
byherownPNBMintAccountNo.612810011393asloan byPasimiosownPNBMintAccountNo.6128100113429.
collateral; As in the first loan, Pasimio also voluntarily affixed her
2.PNandHoldoutonPeso/FXSavingsDeposit/Peso/FXTime signatureonthedocument;
DepositandAssignmentofDepositSubstitutedatedMarch 6.PNandHoldoutonPeso/FXSavingsDeposit/Peso/FXTime
21, 2001 to prove that Pasimios P3,100,000 loan was DepositandAssignmentofDepositSubstitutedatedApril
supported with a PN which she and her husband 2,2001toprovethatPasimiossecondloanofP1,700,000
voluntarilysignedandexecutedon is supported by a PN which she voluntarily signed and
 executedonApril2,2001togetherwithherhusbandand US$31,100 was also supported with a Disclosure
thatsherenewedthesaidloanondifferentdates; Statement, a copy of which she acknowledged to have
7. Disclosure Statement of Loan/Credit Transaction dated received prior to the consummation of the credit
April2,2001toprovethatPasimiosloanforP1,700,000 transaction,whereshevoluntarilyagreedtothetermsand
wasalsosupportedwithaDisclosureStatement,acopyof conditionsofherloanbysigningthesaidstatement;
which she acknowledged to have received prior to the 12. Miscellaneous Ticket dated December 7, 2001 in the
consummation of the credit transaction, where she amountofUS$30,981.28toprovethatPasimioreceived
voluntarilyagreedtothetermsandconditionsofherloan theproceedsofherUS$31,100loan,netofbankcharges;
bysigningthesaidstatement; 13.BillsPaymentFormdatedJuly26,2004toprovethat
her failure to settle her peso/dollar loan obligations was
subsequentlysettledbyoffsettingtheavailablebalanceof
80 herdepositaccountsthatwereusedascollateralsagainst
80 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED theseloans,inaccordancewiththePNssheexecuted;
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
8.MCNo.0000166682datedApril2,2001intheamountof
P1,672,797.50toprovethatPasimioencashedthischeck 81
and received the proceeds of her P1,700,000 loan, net of VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 81
bankcharges; PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
9. Peso Loans Against Peso/FX Deposit Loan 14. Demand letter addressed to Pasimio dated July 5, 2004
Application/Approval Form dated December 7, 200 to signedbyNoelR.Millaresonbehalfofthebanktoprove
provethatPasimioappliedforaUS$31,100loanwhichher thatPNBdemandedpaymentofherloansintheaggregate
ownPNBFXCTDNo.6628100115637(US$20,393.78)and amount of P4,623,458.03 and US$5,277.34 which had
CTD No. 6628100115716 (US$10,766.25) secured as alreadybecomedueandpayable;
collateral. As in the first two loans, Pasimio also 15. Pasimios Affidavit dated April 10, 2003 to prove
voluntarilyaffixedhersignatureonthedocument; Pasimios execution of an affidavit lending US$31,100 to
10. PN and HoldOut on Peso/FX Savings Deposit/Peso/FX PaoloSun;
TimeDepositandAssignmentofDepositSubstitutedated 16.PasimiosletterdatedFebruary25,2003toprovethat
December 7, 2001 to prove that Pasimios US$31,100 thePasimioseffectedachangeintheirPNBMintAccount
loanissupportedbyaPNnotewhichsheandherhusband Nos.depositedatPNBSucatfromtheoldaccountnumber
voluntarilysignedandexecutedonDecember7,2001and 6128100113393tothenewaccountnumber6128100116464
thatsherenewedthesaidloanondifferentdates; (pertainingtothedepositofP3,100,000);andfromtheold
11. Disclosure Statement of Loan/Credit Transaction dated account number 6128100113429 to the new account
December 7, 2001 to prove that Pasimios loan for
 number 6128100116488 (pertaining to the deposit of deposit document were used as collateral for Pasimios
P1,700,000); dollarloanofUS$31,100;
17. PNB Mint Savings Account Passbook with Serial No. 23.CTDdatedJune4,2001intheamountofUS$34,030.18
046783 to prove that the deposit covered by this to prove that Pasimio was issued a Certificate of Time
passbook in the amount of P3,100,000 was used as Deposit for the amount of US$34,030.18 with an annual
collateral for Pasimios P3,100,000 loan. As proof of this interestrateof4.5%;
fact, the passbook is stamped with the notation HOLD 24.CTDdatedJuly27,2001intheamountofUS$20,187.10
OUTtoindicateawithdrawalrestrictiononthisaccount; to prove that Pasimio was issued a Certificate of Time
18.PNBMintSavingsAccountPassbookwithSerialNumber Deposit for the amount of US$20,187.10 with an annual
046781 to prove that the deposit covered by this, interestrateof4.125%;
passbook in the amount of P1,700,000 was used as 25. CTD dated December 23, 2003 in the amount of
collateral for Pasimios P1,700,000 loan. As proof of this US$5,136.03 to prove that Pasimio had an existing
fact,thepassbookisstampedwiththenotationHOLD dollartimedepositwithPNBwhichsheusedascollateral
OUTtoindicateawithdrawalrestrictiononthisaccount; forthedollarholdoutloanthatshetookout.Thedollar
19.PortionofPNBMintPassbookstampedHoldOutto certificateisstampedwithanotationthatreadsHOLD
provethatthesavingsaccountcoveredbythispassbookis OUT;
underaholdoutrestriction; 26.StatementofAccount(SOA)toprovethatPNBSucat
20. Pasimios Certificate of Time Deposit Ledger for PNBig issued aSOAfor Pasimios DollarHoldOut Loan, which
SavingsAccountNo.22254768387toprovethat showedanoutstandingbalanceofUS$5,100.ThisSOAwas
usedasbasisfortheoffsettingofPasimiospastdueloan
obligationwithherPNBMintAccountascollateral;and
82 27.StatementofAccount(SOA)toprovethatPNBSucat
82 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED issued aSOAfor Pasimios DollarHoldOut Loan, which
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio showedanoutstandingbalanceofP4,321,781.06.
PasimioopenedanaccountwithPNBSucatonMarch21,
2001 under Account No. 22254768387 which was
constitutedascollateraloftheP3,100,000loan;
21.PNBigSavingsAccountfromOctober29,2003uptoMay
3,2004toprovethatPasimioopenedanaccountwith ThisSOAwasusedasbasisfortheoffsettingofPasimios
PNBSucat under Account No. 2815254913 which past due loan obligation with her PNB Mint Account as
constitutedascollateralfortheP1,700,000loan; collateral.8
22.TheCertificateofDepositLedgerfromJune4,2001toJuly
25, 2004 to prove that the amounts covered by this RTCsDecision
 84 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
OnOctober30,2009,theRTCrenderedjudgment 9infavorof PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
Pasimio,asplaintiff,disposing: CAsDecision
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds the

Complaint dated May 16, 2005 with merit, and Defendant,
In its assailed Decision dated January 23, 2013, the CA
PhilippineNationalBankisorderedtopayplaintiff,LIGAYAM.
affirmedthattheRTC,towit:
P[A]SIMIO[,] the amount of xxx (P3,100,000.00), xxx
WHEREFORE,theinstantappealisDENIED.TheDecision
(P1,222,000.00) and xxx (US$5,170), respectively, representing
dated 30 October 2009 rendered by the [RTC], Branch 196,
her peso/dollar time deposit placements with said bank, with
ParaaqueCityinCivilCaseNo.050195isherebyAFFIRMED. 11
legal interest on said amounts, and the amount of xxx
EvenasitfoundanddeclaredPNBsbankpersonnelgrossly
(P180,000.00)representingattorneysfees,andcosts.
negligent and their transactions with Pasimio highly
SOORDERED.10
unacceptable,12the appellate court held that no loan proceeds

were ever released to Pasimio, thus sustaining the RTC
The disposition is predicated on the postulate that Pasimio
appreciation of the evidence thus presented on the matter by
hadprovenbyconvincingevidencethatshedidnotobtainany
Pasimio.13TheCAwrote:
loanaccommodationfromPNB.Asacorollary,thetrialcourtheld
Hence,WeareonewiththeRTCwhenitruledthattherewas
thattherewasnoevidence snowing thereleaseby PNBofthe
no release of proceeds of bank loans to plaintiffappellee
loanproceedstoPasimio.Pushingthepoint,theRTCstatedthat
[Pasimio],viz.:
the transaction documents were highly questionable for the
reasonsstatedinsomedetailinitsdecisiontobereproducedby No release of proceeds of purported bank loans to plaintiff.
theCAinitsassaileddecision. Theevidenceathanddoesnotshowthatanyamountoftheloans,
Therefrom,PNBappealedtotheCA,therecoursedocketedas iftherewereany,wereeverreleasedby[PNB]toplaintiff.
C.A.G.R.CVNo.94079. The[PNB]presentedamiscellaneousticketdatedDecember
_______________ 7, 2001 for the discounted amount of xxx (US$30,981.28)
attendingthereleaseofsuchfundsoverthepurportedthirdloan
8Id.,atpp.446452. intheamountofxxx(US$31,100.00)extendedtoplaintiffandas
9Rollo,pp.104120.PennedbyJudgeBrigidoArtemonM. affectingherFXdollartimedeposits.Thisdocumentremainsto
LunaII. be a simple ticket advice and [would] not amount to fact of
10Id.,atp.120. paymentofloanproceedsintheabsenceofanycogentandbetter

evidence

_______________
84
 11Id.,atp.23. outasevidencedocsnotprofferthattheamountindicatedtherein
12Id.,atpp.1617. was properly released for the purpose, to only draw a farce
13Id.,atp.15. conclusionthatitwasproperlytransactedandfundswasindeed
releasedtoplaintiff.
The [PNB] presented a document for Manager Check No.
166682 dated April 2, 2001 in the discounted amount of xxx
(P1,679,797.50) to prove the alleged release of proceeds of a
85
second loan allegedly secured by plaintiff for the amount xxx
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 85
(P1,700,000.00).Lookingoverthedorsalportionofthecheck,the
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
machine validation entry by the teller reads of entry005 502
28102AP01PCOUT1,672,797.50
whichisavailabletothebank.Thereisnostatementofaccount
oracorrespondingcheckdocumentpresentedtocomplimentsuch
ticket advice to clearly show an amount was debited from the 86
account of the bank to ably pay off the amount of the loan 86 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
proceeds.Themiscellaneousticketstandingbyitselfisno[t]an PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
adequateproofoffactofpaymentofaloanxxx.
The [PNB] presented a document for Manager Check No. AN14021226incomparisonwiththefrontportionofthevery
166650 dated March 21, 2001 at a discounted amount of xxx check does not tally with the check no. 166682 neither the
(P3,049,188.94)toprovethepossiblereleaseofproceedsofafirst checkingaccountfromwhichtheamountisdrawnatreference
loan allegedly secured by plaintiff for the amount of xxx number 002810222222 which makes it an invalid validation
(P3,100,000.00).Lookingoverthedorsalportionofthecheck,itis entryandwillnotprovethefactthatdebitedamountsweremade
highlyunnatural andirregularthattheverycheckinquestion from the bank account number 002810222222 [to cover the
doesnothaveamachineprintedvalidationofthetransactionto releasetoplaintiffofproceeds]ofthesecondloan.Therebeingno
reflectthedebitentryoftheaccountfromwhichthereleaseof explanationbytheverybankemployeespresentedbythebankon
funds might have been secured. With exception to the stamp thediscrepancyofthetellervalidationentrieswiththechecking
markingandafewsignaturesatthebackofthecheck,itbecomes accountusedtopossiblepayoffthereleaseofloanproceeds,there
highly inconceivable for a bank teller to forget a machine can be no indication that the loan was properly paid for to
validation of a check, not unless the checks was not properly plaintiff.
clearedbutwasonlyreceivedbytheteller.Thecheckstanding
 Simply stated, there is really no loan ever released by appelleetoevaluatetheconsequencesofthetransactionofferedto
defendantbankinfavorofplaintifftoengagetheoperativeright herbythebankpersonnelof[PNB].15
toholdoutonthedepositsofthelatter.14
And agreeing with the RTC on what it viewed as the
On arelated matter, theCA found, ashighly irregular,the questionable nature of the transactions PNB entered into with
PNBpersonnelsactofsecuringPasimiossignatureandconsent Pasimio, as purportedly evidenced by a combination of related
tohavetheproceedsoftheUS$31,100loanrelenttoPaoloSun. circumstancesreflectingdocumentarytampering,theCAquoted
Itexpounded: withapprovaltheensuingexcerptsfromtheRTCsdecision:
Thetransactiondocumentsarehighlyquestionable.Theloan
Second,itcanbegleanedfromthefactsofthecasethat[PNB]
applicationformdatedMarch21,2001overthepurportedfirst
wasabletoobtainthesignatureandassentofplaintiffappellee
peso loan in the amount of xxx (P3,100,000.00) which was
inrelendingtheloanproceedstoacertainPaoloSun,inamanner
verifiedwithanotarypubliconApril30,2001didnotutilize
notinaccordancewiththeordinarycourseofbusinessofbanks.
anyresidencecertificateofplaintiffxxxwhichalsomissed
Accordingtoplaintiffappellee,BankManagerGregoriowentto
herhouseforhertosignadocument,tellingherthatitwasthe out for a residence certificate number in the promissory note
onlywayforplaintiffappelleetogethermoneybackbyrelending dated March 21, 2001,the same former document carried
hermoneydepositswith[PNB]toacertainPaoloSunwhomshe boldertypewrittenentriesforthenamesofdepositorsbut
doesnotknow.Plaintiffappelleealsocontendsthatshewasnot faintentriesfortheamountandthesecuritydepositaccount
awarethatthedocumentshesignedwasnotarized. whichonlyshowsthatsuchentriesweremadeondifferentdates
usingdifferenttypesetscompoundedbythecolumnsideforthe
verified balance of deposit and the recommendation of interest
87 wereleftunfilled.Whichcircumstancesbringinaquestion
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 87 onthevalidityandveracityoftheloandocumentswhenin
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio facttheentriesandthemissingitemsthereto[do]notspeakwell
Forthatalone,theactionperformedbythebankmanagerin ofafullyaccomplishedandperfectedloandocumentbetweenthe
the transactions is definitely exposed to a high incident of parties.Sadtosay,thiscourt
negligence. It bears stressing that banks must exercise the
highestdegreeofdiligenceandbydoingthetransactionsoutside
thebankwithoutanyproperexplanationoftheconsequencesof 88
the document to be signed by plaintiffappellee asclient of the 88 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
bankisreprehensiblexxx.Thebankpersonnelmisrepresented PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
the true nature of the transaction which deprived plaintiff cannotevenbelieve[PNBs]witness,EdnaPalomaresinstating
thatshecheckedtheentries[in]theloanapprovalformbelore
she placed her signature considering there are valuable and 16Id.,atpp.1920.
important entries that are left unfulfilled by a bank officer as
herself to even downgrade her line of credibility on the true
circumstancestotheexecutionofsuchdocument. 89
The same circumstances attend the loan documents that VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 89
allegedly covered the second loan in the amount of xxx
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
(P1,700,000.00) and the third loan in the amount of xxx
pectedofofficialsandemployeesofthebankisfargreaterthan
(US$31,100.00), and this court need not discuss further to
those of ordinary officers and employees in the other business
emphasize the line of anomalous circumstances attending the
firms.
executionandexistenceofsuchdocuments.16(emphasisadded)
Unquestionably, [PNB] xxx had the direct obligation to

supervise very closely the employees handling its depositors
The CA explained that even if both parties may have been
accounts,andshouldalwaysbemindfulofthefiduciarynatureof
negligentintheconductoftheirrespectiveaffairs,PNBcannot
itsrelationshipwiththedepositors.Suchrelationshiprequiredit
evadeliabilityforitsshortcomings.Asstressedbytheappellate
and its employees to record accuratelyeverysingle transaction,
court, the banking industry is impressed with public interest.
and as promptly as possible, considering that the depositors
Accordingly,allbanksandtheirpersonnelareburdenedwitha
accounts should always reflect the amounts of money the
highlevelofresponsibilityandexpectedtobemorecarefulthan
depositorscoulddisposeofastheysawfitxxx.Ifitfellshortof
ordinary persons. The CA held that since PNB was grossly
that obligation, it should bear the responsibility for the
negligent,itshouldbeartheconsequences:
consequencestothedepositorxxx.
Third,althoughitmaybearguedthatbothpartiesseemedto
Inthiscase,[PNBs]personnelwereinviolationoftheirduties
havebeennegligentintheirownaffairs,[PNB]cannotputallthe
andresponsibilitiesasitsemployees.Theyhavecommittedgross
blametocoveritsnegligenceonplaintiffappellee.Thedegreeof
negligenceindealingwiththeirbanktransactionswhichconnotes
care is more paramount and expected with that of banks than
wantofcareintheperformanceofonesduties.[PNBs]failure
thatofanordinaryperson.
to observe basic procedure constituted serial negligence. The
Asthebankingindustryisimpressedwithpublicinterest,all
repealed failure to carefully observe theduties of its personnel
bankpersonnelareburdenedwithahighlevelofresponsibility
clearlyshowedutterwantofcare.Asgatheredfromtherecordsof
insofarascareanddiligenceinthecustodyandmanagementof
thecase,itwasshownthatthisisnotanisolatedtransactionas
funds are concerned. Banks handle transactions involving
otherclientsofthebankhavebeenlikewisevictimized.Witness
millionsofpesosandpropertiesxxx.Indeed,bytheverynature
VirginiaPollardhasstatedinhertestimonybeforetheRTCthat
of their work, the degree of responsibility, care and
atonepoint,shetoo,wasavictimofirregularbanktransactions
trustworthinessex
of the same branch of [PNB] as offered by its bank personnel.
_______________
Thus, it was [PNBs] action that defies the ordinary banking
transactions and between an ordinary person like plaintiff The findings of Fact of the CA are subject to welldefined
appellee and a bank like [PNB], [PNB] carries more burden, exceptions,21amongwhicharewhensuchfindingsarenot
whichunfortunately,itfailedtoovercome. _______________
Verily,fromtheforegoinginstances,(PNB]wasindeedgrossly
negligent in its transactions with plaintiffappellee. Even 17Id.,atpp.2022.
assumingthatplaintiffappelleewasconcoctingherversionofthe 18G.R.No.157049,August11,2010,628SCRA22.
facts, We still find irregularities and inconsistencies that have 19G.R.No.186359,March5,2010,614SCRA391.
attributedtotheun 20Rollo,p.23.
21Development Rank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal

Bank,G.R.No.171982,18August2010,628SCRA404,413414.
90
ThejurisdictionoftheCourtincasesbroughtbeforeitfromthe
90 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
appellatecourtislimitedtoreviewingerrorsoflawandfindings
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio offactoftheCAareconclusiveupontheCourtsinceitisnotthe
justifiedrefusaltoreturntheinvestmentplacementandtothe Courtsfunctiontoanalyzeandweightheevidencealloveragain.
commissionofnegligence.17 Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the
exceptionstotherulethatfactualfindingsoftheCAarebinding
Finally, the CA would state the observation, citingCitytrust on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
Banking Corporation v. Cruz18andTypoco v. Commission on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference
Elections,19that the errors PNB sought reviewed relate to the made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when
RTCsfactualfindingswhentheappellatecourtisnotatrierof thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion;(4)whenthejudgmentisbased
facts,necessarilyimplyingthatitisimproperfortheCAunder onamisapprehensionoffacts;(5)whenthefindingsoffactare
thepremisestodowhatPNBseeks.TheCAexplainedthatthe conflicting;(6)wheninmakingitsfindingstheCourt
stateddoctrineregardingthefactualfindingsoftheRTCapplies
withinforceintheinstantcase.20
91
Issue VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 91
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
WhetherornottheCAerredinaffirmingtheRTCDecision supported by substantial evidence, grounded on surmises or
grantingPasimioscomplaintforasumofmoney. conjecturesorarepatentlyarbitrary,bindingandconclusiveand
this Court will not review them on appeal. This case squarely
TheCourtsRuling fallsundertheexceptionsofthegeneralrule.
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.

TheCAhasthepower 92
toresolvefactualissues 92 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
Before proceeding to the main issue of this case, there is a anyandallactsnecessarytoresolvefactualissuesraisedincases
need to clarify the assailed decisions perplexing but flawed fallingwithinitsoriginalandappellatejurisdiction,includingthe
pronouncementthattheCA,notbeingatrieroffacts,iswithout power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
competence to review the factual determination of the RTC. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must becontinuous
Section9ofBatasPambansaBlg.(BP)129,otherwiseknownas andmustbecompletedwithinthree(3)monthsunlessextended
theJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980,categoricallystatesthat bytheChiefJustice.
the CA has,inter alia, the power to try cases, receive evidence
andperformanyandallactsnecessarytoresolvefactualissues To be sure, the cases22the CA cited to support its adverted
raised in cases falling within its original and appellate pronouncement are inapposite. In context, the issue involved
jurisdiction,thus: inCitytrustandTypocorelates to the nature and extent of this
Sec.9.Jurisdiction.TheCourtofAppealsshallexercise: Courts, and not the CAs, power to review factual findings of
xxxx lowercourtsandadministrativeagenciesinpetitionsforreview
TheCourtofAppealsshallhavethepowertotrycasesand and in originalcertiorariand prohibition cases.
conducthearings,receiveevidenceandperform Clearly,CitytrustandTypocohave been misread and
_______________ consequentlymisapplied.
Itisalsoworthytonotethattheappellatecourtsrelianceon
ofAppealswentbeyondtheissuesofthecase,oritsfindingsare the factual findings of the trial court is hinged on the latters
contrarytotheadmissionsofboththeappellantandtheappellee; firsthandopportunitytohearthewitnessesandtoobservetheir
(7)whenthefindingsarecontrarytothatofthetrialcourt;(8) demeanorduringthetrial.However,whensuchfindingsarenot
when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific anchored on their credibility and their testimonies, but on the
evidenceonwhichtheyarebased;(9)whenthefactssetforthin assessment of documents that are available to appellate
thepetitionaswellasinthepetitionersmainandreplybriefsare magistrates and subject to their scrutiny, reliance on the trial
notdisputedbytherespondent;(10)whenthefindingsoffactare courtsfactualfindingsfindsnoapplication.23
premisedonthesupposedabsenceofevidenceandcontradicted The CAs regrettable cavalier treatment of PNBs appeal is
by the evidence on record; or (11) when the CA manifestly inconsistent with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and with the
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, usualcourseofjudicialproceedings.Beremindedthattheparties
which,ifproperlyconsidered,wouldjustifyadifferentconclusion. in Rule 41 appeal proceedings may raise questions of fact or
mixedquestionsoffactandlaw.24Thus,ininsisting
_______________ greaterweightofcredibleevidence. 25Section1,Rule133ofthe
RulesofCourtprovides:
22Citytrust Banking Corporation v. Cruz,supranote Section1.Preponderance of evidence, how determined.In
18;Typocov.CommissiononElections,supranote19. civilcases,thepartyhavingtheburdenofproofmustestablish
23Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and his caseby a preponderanceofevidence.Indeterminingwhere
RelationsoftheUnitedPresbyterianChurchintheUSA,G.R.No. thepreponderanceofevidenceorsuperiorweightofevidenceon
theissuesinvolvedlies,thecourtmayconsiderallthefactsand
140472,June10,2002,383SCRA326,334.
circumstances of the case, the witnesses manner of testifying,
24Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v.
their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.115104,October12,1998,297SCRA factstowhichtheyaretestifying,thenatureofthefactstowhich
602. theytestify,theprobabilityorimprobabilityoftheirtestimony,
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibilitysofarasthesamemaylegitimatelyappearuponthe
93 trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses,
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 93 though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio number.
thatitisnotatrieroffactsandimplyingthatithadnochoicebut _______________
to adopt the RTCs factual findings, the CA shirked from its
function as an appellate court to independently evaluate the 25Ogawa v. Menigishi,G.R. No. 193089, July 9, 2012, 676
merits of this case. To accept the CAs aberrant stance is to SCRA14,22.
trivializeitsreviewfunction,but,perhapsworse,renderuseless
oneofthereasonsforitsinstitution.
94
Pasimiofailedtoproveherclaim 94 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
bypreponderanceofevidence PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
Justassettledistherulethattheplaintiffincivilcasesmust
Itissettledthattheburdenofprooflieswiththepartywho rely on strength of his or her own evidence and not upon the
assertsarightandthequantumofevidencerequiredbylawin weakness of that of the defendant. In the case at bench, this
civil cases is preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of meansthatonPasimioreststheburdenofproofandtheonusto
evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
producetherequiredquantumofevidencetosupporthercause/s
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
ofaction.26
synonymous with the term greater weight of evidence or
 With the view we take of the case, Pasimio has failed to On the witness stand, PNBs witness Edna Palomares, the
dischargethisburden. banksPerProOfficer,categoricallytestifiedhavingpreparedand
TherecanbenoquibblingthatPasimiohad,duringthetime processedallofPasimiosloandocuments,andwitnessedPasimio
material,openedandmaintaineddepositaccountswithPNB.For and her husband signing the same. 27Palomares also testified
thispurpose,shesubmittedtwopassbooksandonecertificateof aboutPasimiosreceiptoftheproceedsofthesubjectloansand
timedeposittoestablishherpesoanddollarplacementswiththe identifiedthesignaturesappearingonthedorsalportionofthe
bank.However,PNBalsosucceededinsubstantiatingitsdefense PNBmanagerschecksandmiscellaneousticketcoveringtheloan
forrefusingtoreleasePasimiosfundsbypresentingdocuments processedasgenuinesignaturesofPasimio.28
showing that her accounts were, pursuant to holdout Pasimio,ontheotherhand,deniedapplyingforanyloanwith
arrangement,madecollateralsfortheloanssheobtainedfromthe PNBandreceivinganyloanproceedsorauthorizingthebankto
bank and were eventually used to pay her outstanding loan useherdepositascollateral.Whileadmittingtosigningcertain
obligations.Unfortunately,PasimiofailedtotrumpPNBsdefense papers,sheprofessedunawarenessthatwhatshesignedwerein
aftertheburdenofevidenceshiftedbacktoher. factloandocumentsasnobodycameforwardtoexplainwhatthey
Torecall,PNB,tobolsteritscase,presentedthesedocuments: were,addingthatshewasconvincedtosignthemonlybecause
loanapplicationforms,PNsanddisclosurestatementstoprove shewasmadetobelievebybankofficersthatthedocumentswere
thatPasimioobtainedthedisputedbankloans;managerschecks relatedtoanewPNBhighyieldinginvestmentproduct.
and a miscellaneous ticket to establish the release of the loan Unfortunately,thecourtsaquochosetodisregardallofPNBs
proceedstoPasimio;passbooksandacertificateoftimedeposit documentaryevidenceandruledinfavorofPasimio.Thistousis
with the stamp HOLDOUT to indicate restrictions on the ablatantmistakeonthepartoftheRTCandtheCAbecauseall
withthrawalofPasimiosdeposit;abillspaymentformtoprove thatPasimioput forwardagainstPNBsevidence, for themost
that Pasimios deposits were made to pay for her outstanding partdocumentary,wereunsubstantiateddenialsandbare,self
obligations in accordance with the provisions of Pasimios serving assertions. To borrow fromPecson v. Commission on
promissorynotes;andasignedandnotarizedaffidavitrecounting
Elections,29citingAlmeidav.CourtofAppeals,30theuseofwrong
thatshelenttheproceedsofherdollarloantoPaoloSun.
orirrelevantconsiderations,relianceonclearlyerroneousfactual
_______________
findingsorgivingtoomuchweighttoonefactorindecidingan
issue is sufficient to tainta decisionmakers action with grave
26VitarichCorporationv.Losin,G.R.No.181560,November
abuseofdiscretion.
15,2010,634SCRA671,680. As between Pasimios barefaced denials and Palomares
positiveassertions,thetrialcourtoughttohaveaccorded
_______________
95
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 95 27TSN,September9,2008,pp.1131.
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
 28TSN,March27,2007,pp.14,3031,1922and2325;TSN, A:Thatsright.
May22,2007,pp.3132,3940,and4344. Q:Whyisthisso,MadamWitness?
29G.R.No.182865,December24,2008,575SCRA634,649. A:BecauseItrustedthebank,Itrustedtheemployeesofthe
30G.R.No.159124,January17,2005,448SCRA681. bank having been a depositor for the past two (2)
decades.
_______________
96
96 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 31Manalo v. RoldanConfesor, G.R. No. 102358, November
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio 19,1992,215SCRA808,821.
greater weight to Palomares testimony, especially considering 32TSN,March27,2007,pp.67,1819,2223;TSN,May22,
that Pasimio never put in issue the due execution and 2007,pp.28,30,38,and42.
authenticity of the loan documents. As between a positive and 33Id.,atpp.14,3031,1922and2325;id.,atpp.3132,39
categoricaltestimonywhichhasatruth,ononehand,andabare 40and4344.
denial,ontheother,theformerisgenerallyheldtoprevail. 31
It cannot be stressed enough that Pasimio unequivocally
admitted that the signatures appearing in the Loan 97
Application/ApprovalFormsdatedMarch21,2001,April2,2001 VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 97
andDecember7,2001,32inallthreePromissoryNotes, 33andthe PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
DisclosureStatementdatedDecember7,2001werehersandher Q:Butyouknow,MadamWitness,theconsequencesofyour
husbands.Shealsowasawareoftheconsequencesofheractof actsinsigningproformadocuments?
signing.Hertestimoniesonthematterarequotedhereunder:
A:Well,Itrustedthosepeople.So...
Q: But you know the consequences of signing blank
Atty.Banzuela:
documents?
Q:Thankyou.MadamWitness,youtestifiedthatyousigned
A:Yes.34
thesedocumentswhichareblankinitsdetails,whatdo

youmeanbyblankindetails.
Pasimiohadtaggedasforgerieshersignaturesappearingin
A:Nothing.Blankasinitsaproformaformbutblank. theDisclosureStatementsofMarch21,2001andApril2,2001.
Q: Madam Witness, but you read what these documents She, however, never presented any competent proof to
were? successfully support hercontention. While testimoniesofhand
A:No,Ididnotread. writingexpertsarenotamusttoproveforgeries,Pasimiodidnot
Q:YouentrustedtoPNBthathugeamountofUS$31,100, submitanyevidencefortheRTCtoconsiderandreadilyconclude
P1,700,000 and US$3,100 without going through the thatthesignaturesintheseDisclosureStatementswereforged.
documentsthatyouweresigningwithPNB?
 Likewise, Pasimio also denied, having appeared before a debithisdepositaccountforsuchamountequivalenttothe
notarypublictosubscribeandsweartotheloandocuments,but charges/interestdueonmyloan.
neversubstantiatedthisallegation.Itissettledthatanotarial 4.PNBapprovedmyloanapplication,andso,afterIhave
document, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with lent the loan proceeds to PAOLO SUN, the latter has
thelaw,mustbesustainedinfullforceandeffect,absentstrong, dutifullyandpromptlypaidallbankchargesandinterest
complete,andconclusiveproofofitsfalsityornullityonaccount undertheaforesaidarrangement.36
ofsomeflawordefectprovidedbylaw.35
The RTC and the CA, for unexplained reason, ignored Again, Pasimio did not deny the due execution of this
PasimiosadmissionsinherApril10,2003Affidavitinwhichshe affidavit.Rather,shelamelyinsistedshewasonlyforcedtosign
stated that she relent the proceeds of the US$31,100 loan to thisaffidavituponGregoriosrepresentationsthatthiswasthe
PaoloSun.Aportionofthisaffidavitreads: onlywaythatshewouldrecoverherinvestments.Pasimiodenied
2.I agreed to lend the amount of Dollars: ThirtyOne knowingPaoloSunandhavingloanarrangementswithhim.She
ThousandOneHundredOnly($31,100.00)toPAOLOSUN, would stick to her story that she signed the document under
payable on an agreed maturity date and at an agreed duress,needing,asshedidatthattime,moneytosupportadying
interestrateoutofaLoanAgainstDepositHoldoutthatI spouse.GregorioalsoallegedlydivulgedthatsheneededPasimio
willsecurefromPNBusingmytimedepositsascollateral. tosigntheAffidavitasshe(Gregorio)wasalreadybeingaudited
_______________ andinvestigatedbythePNBMainoffice.
As between Pasimios empty assertions about the above
34TSN,May22,2007,pp.4849. affidavitanditscontentsandthecategoricalstatementsinthe
35Sierrav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.90270,July24,1992, notarized affidavit detailing her arrangement with PNB and
211SCRA785,793;citingChilianchinv.Coquinco,84Phil.714 PaoloSun,thechoiceastowhichismorecredibleshouldbeclear
(1949). andsimple. Infact, Pasimiooughtto havebeenestopped from
denyingthecontentsofthataffidavit.
Verily, Pasimios version of the case taxes credulity. By her
98 owntestimonialaccount,sheisaholderofaBSCommercedegree
98 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED and used to work as a personnel director of an advertising
agency.37It is, therefore, not believable that a person of her
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
educationalattainmentandstature,whoappearedtobeofgood
3.PAOLOSUNandIagreedthatshouldIlendhimthe
physicalandmentalhealth,wouldsimplyhandover
proceedsofmyLoanAgainstDepositHoldoutfromPNB,
_______________
he would pay all the bank charges and interest on such
PNBloan,whichheagreedtodosobyauthorizingPNBto
36Rollo,p.214.
37TSN,March27,2007,pp.45.
 before,justasitisalsohardtoimaginethatherhusbanddidnot
noticethetitlesofthesedocumentsandhadnocluewhatthey
99 were.
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 99 Pasimio would parlay the idea that she signed certain loan
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio documentsandtheApril10,2003affidavitunderduressorundue
millionsof pesos, nomeanamountby ordinarystandards,to a influence. Like her other unsubstantiated assertions, her
bank and then blindly sign documents involving her money allegationsofimproperinfluence,duressorfraudprac
without exercising a modicum of care by verifying, or at least
takingacursorylookatwhatthesedocumentsmean.Andyet,
100
thecourtsaquochosetoclosetheireyestotheseabsurdities.
Lestitbeoverlooked,PasimioshusbandRenealsoaffixedhis 100 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
signature on the subject promissory notes and loan application PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
formstosignifyhisconsenttohiswifesfinancialdealings.There tisedonherbybankofficersdeservescantconsideration.Undue
is no allegation, let alone proof, that Rene did not likewise influenceisdescribedundertheCivilCode,thus:
understandwhathewassigningandgivinghisconsentto.These Art.1337.There is undue influence when a person
loan documents have, on their face, the words Peso Loans takes improper advantage of his power over the will of
Against Peso/FX Deposit Loan Application/Approval Form, another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of
Promissory Note and Holdout on Peso/FX Savings choice.Thefollowingcircumstancesshallbeconsidered:the
Deposit/Peso/FX Time Deposit and Assignment of Deposit confidential,family,spiritualandotherrelationsbetween
Substitute, and Disclosure Statements of Loan/Credit theparties,orthefactthatthepersonallegedtohavebeen
Transaction printed in big letters. Thus, it is reasonable to undulyinfluencedwassufferingfrommenialweakness,or
assume that, atfirst glance, Pasimioand husbandRene would wasignorantorinfinancialdistress.
havebeenputonnoticeofwhatthesedocumentswere.Whatthey
signedwereproformabankdocuments,printedinfullbutwith Asregardsfraud,theCivilCodesays:
blanks to be filled up with specific terms thereof such as loan Art.1338.There is fraud when, through insidious
amount,interestrate,andsecurity,amongothers.Theywerenot, wordsormachinationsofoneofthecontractingparties,the
infine,emptywhitesheetsofpaper.ItmaybethatPasimiowas other is induced to enter into a contract which without
indeedmadetosigntheblankspacesoftheloandocuments.Be them,hewouldnothaveagreedto.
thatasitmay,itiswellnighimpossiblethatshehadabsolutely Art.1344.In order that fraud may make a contract
noideawhattheyactuallywere,shehavingtestifiedbeingaPNB voidable, it should be serious and should not have been
depositor for some twenty years. Indeed, the Court is hard employedbybothcontractingparties.
pressedtobelievethatshehasnotencounteredthesedocuments
 The employment of fraud, duress, or undue influence is a SEC.3.Disputable presumptions.The following
seriouscharge,andtobesustaineditmustbesupportedbyclear presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may
and convincing proof; it cannot be presumed. 38There is no becontradictedandovercomebyotherevidence:
allegation or evidence that Gregorio and Miranda influenced xxxx
Pasimiobyemployingmeansshecouldnotwellresist,andwhich (r)Thattherewassufficientconsiderationforacontract;
controlledhervolitionandinducedhertosigntheloandocuments (s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed
andtheApril10,2003Affidavit,whichotherwiseshewouldnot forasufficientconsideration.
haveexecuted.Also,therewasnoevidenceshowingthatGregorio
and Mirandas influence interfered with Pasimios exercise of andSec.24oftheNegotiableInstrumentsLawreads:
independentdiscretionnecessarytodeterminetheadvantageor SEC.24.Presumption of consideration.Every
disadvantageofsigningthesedocuments.
negotiableinstrumentisdeemedprimafacietohavebeen
_______________
issued for a valuable consideration; and every person
whosesignatureappearsthereontohavebecomeaparty
38Sierrav.CourtofAppeals,supranote35.
theretoforvalue.

Pasimio also failed to overcome the presumptions that a
101 persontakesordinarycareofhisconcerns,40thatprivate
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 101 _______________
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
Then,too,PasimiofailedtoprovethatGregorioandMiranda 39Id.
defraudedher.Takingintoconsiderationthepersonalconditions 40RulesofCourt,Rule131,Sec.3,par.(d).
ofPasimio,thereisnoclearandconvincingevidenceestablishing
seriousfraudordeceit,insidiouswordsormachinationsonthe
partofPNBoritsofficers,sufficienttoimpressorleadherinto 102
error.39 102 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
ItisgermanetoobserveatthisjuncturethatPNBhas,inits
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
favor, certain presumptions which Pasimio failed to overturn.
transactionshavebeenfairandregular, 41andthattheordinary
Rule131,Sec.3oftheRulesofCourtspecifiesthatadisputable
courseofbusinesshasbeenfollowed.42
presumptionissatisfactoryifuncontradictedandnotovercomeby
Certainly, the trial court erred in saying that Pasimio had
otherevidence.Corollarythereto,paragraphs(r)and(s)thereof
provedbyconvincingevidencethatshehadnotsecuredanyloan
read:
accommodations from the defendant bank xxx and, thus, is
entitledforthereturnofsaiddepositxxxandthat[t]hefactum
probansto sustain parties cause has been successfully hurdled VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 103
and undertaken by plaintiff, in contradistinction to defendants PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
mere denial of a transport obligation, the latter failing to
overcomethequantumofevidencepresentedbyplaintifftotilt ThedismissalofPNBspeti
thescaleofjusticeinfavorofplaintiffherein. 43Intruth,other tionisbasedonmerespecu
than her selfserving statements, Pasimio had nothing else to lationsandsurmises
show against PNBs evidence. The greater weight of credible
evidenceastowhetherPasimiosecuredfromPNBloanscovered In denying Pasimios appeal, the CA adopted verbatim the
bypromissorynoteswithholdoutprovisionsisdecidedlyinfavor trialcourtsfindingsthattherewasnoevidenceprovingPasimios
ofpetitionerbank. receipt of the loan proceeds and that the loan documents were
Tobesure,theRTCdidnotexplainitsreasonsforcomingup highlyquestionable.Theappellatecourtalsoreasonedthatsince
with these conclusions and did not even bother to discuss its PNBwasgrosslynegligentintransactingwithPasimio,thebank
evaluation of the merits of Pasimios evidence. The Court also shouldsuffertheconsequences.
notes that the trial court never even declared that, indeed, In upholding the RTCs finding respecting Pasimios never
Pasimio and her husband were fooled into signing the loan havingreceivedanyloanproceeds,theCAdoubtlessdisregarded
documents and made to believe that the loan documents were theruleholdingthatapromissorynoteisthebestevidenceofthe
relatedtoahighyieldingPNBproduct. transactionembodiedtherein;also,toprovetheexistenceofthe
Hence,itmaybesaidthatthetrialcourtviolatedinasense loan,thereisnoneedtosubmitaseparatereceipttoprovethat
the constitutional caveat enjoining courts from rendering a the borrower receivedthe loan proceeds. 44Indeed, a promissory
decision without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the noterepresentsasolemnacknowledgmentofadebtandaformal
factsandthelawonwhichitisbased.TheRTChadfailedto commitment to repay it on the date and under the conditions
dischargeitsdutytoinformpartiestolitigationonhowthecase agreeduponbytheborrowerandthelender.Ashasbeenheld,a
wasdecided,withanexplanationofthefactualandlegalreasons personwhosignssuchaninstrumentisboundtohonoritasa
thatledtotheconclusionsofthecourt. legitimateobligationdulyassumedbyhimthroughthesignature
_______________ heaffixestheretoasatokenofhisgoodfaith.Ifherenegesonhis
promisewithoutcause,heforfeitsthesympathyandassistanceof
41Id.,Rule131,Sec.3,par.(p). thisCourtanddeservesinsteaditssharprepudiation.45
42Id.,Rule131,Sec.3,par.(q). TheCourthasalsodeclaredthatameredenialofthereceipt
43Rollo,pp.119120. oftheloan,whichisstatedinaclearandunequivocalmannerin
a public instrument, is not sufficient to assail its validity. To
overthrowtherecitalsofsuchinstrument,convincingandmore
103
thanmerelypreponderantevidenceisnecessary.Acontraryrule stepstocontractloansfromPNBandwasawareoftheirterms
wouldthrowwideopendoorsto andconditions.
_______________ Further, thisCourtdoesnot agree thatthe loandocuments
were highly questionable. The trial court arrived at this
44Ycongv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.153758,February22, conclusionuponobservingthattheMarch21,2001,April2,2001,
2006,483SCRA72,78. and December 7, 2001 loan application forms and promissory
45Sierrav.CourtofAppeals,supranote35atp.795. notes did not bear Pasimios community tax certificate number
andbecauseitappearedthattheblanksforthespecifictermsof
theseloandocumentswerefilledupondifferentdatesconsidering
104 that some typewritten entries appeared to be bolder or darker
104 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED thantheothers.
Thesereasonsarespeciousastheyareflimsy.
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
_______________
fraud.46Following this doctrine, Pasimios notarized promissory
notes bearing her signature and that of her husband must be
46Id.,atp.793.
upheld,absent,ashere,strong,complete,andconclusiveproofof
theirnullity. 47SeeCov.AdmiralUnitedSavingsBank,G.R.No.154740,
Thepromissorynotes,bearingPasimiossignature,speakfor April16,2008,551SCRA472.
themselves. To repeat, Pasimio has not questioned the
genuineness and due execution of the notes. By signing the
promissory notes, she is deemed to acknowledge receipt of the 105
correspondingloanproceeds.Withal,shecannotplausiblysetup VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 105
thedefensethatshedidnotapplyforanyloan,andreceivethe PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
valueofthenotesoranyconsiderationthereforinordertoescape First,theauthenticityoftheseloandocumentsshouldnotbe
herliabilitiesunderthesepromissorynotes.47 affectedmerelybecausetheirblankspacesappearedtohavebeen
But the foregoing is not all. PNB presented evidence that filledup,ifthatbethecase,ondifferentdates,usingdifferent
strengthened its allegation on the existence of the loan. Here, typewriters.AsPNBaptlyputsit,thereisnothingsuspiciousor
each promissory note was supported by a corresponding loan inherentlywrongabout bank formsbeingfilled up ondifferent
application form and disclosure statement, all of which carried dates since these are usually
Pasimiossignatures.Isolatedfromeachother,thesedocuments pretyped,withtheblanksthereontobefilledupsubsequently,
might not prove the existence of the loan, but when taken dependingonthespecifictermsofthetransactionwithaclient,
together,collectively,theyshowthatPasimiotookthenecessary andthereafterpresentedtothelatterforsigning.
 Second, the absence of Pasimios community tax certificate PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
numberin:saidloandocumentsneithervitiatesthetransaction It must be stressed that the adverted defective notarization
norinvalidatesthedocument.Ifatall,suchabsencerendersthe shouldnothavebeenmadeanissueatallinthefirstplace,for
notarizationoftheloandocumentsdefective.Underthenotarial Pasimioalreadyadmittedexecutingthedocumentsinquestion,or
rules at that time,i.e., Sec. 163(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, to put it in anotherway, shedid notdeny that the signatures
otherwiseknownastheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,wherean appearing thereon were hers and her husbands. Thus, the
individual subject to the community tax acknowledges any requirementsofSec.20,Rule132oftheRulesofCourthavebeen
document before a notary public, it shall be the duty of the sufficientlymetandalldoubtsastotheirauthenticityanddue
administering officer to require such individual to exhibit the executionshouldhavebeenputtorest.
communitytaxcertificate.Thedefectivenotarizationoftheloan More importantly, the records do not show that Pasimio
documents only means that these documents would not be allegedtheregoingdefectsandpresentedanyproofforthetrial
carryingtheevidentiaryweightconferreduponitwithrespectto courttoconsiderandruleon.
its due execution; that they should be treated as a private Furthermore, the Court does not find sufficient evidence to
document to be examined in appropriate cases under the supporttheCAsfindingthatPNBisguiltyofgrossnegligence
parameters of Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which and,thus,mustsuffertheconsequencesofitstransactionswith
providesthatbeforeanyprivatedocumentofferedasauthenticis Pasimio. In this regard, the CA explained that PNB foiled to
receivedinevidence,itsdueexecutionandauthenticitymustbe exercisethehighestdegreeofdiligencerequiredofbanksbecause
provedeither:(a)byanyonewhosawthedocumentexecutedor allegedly, Gregorio was able to obtain Pasimios signature and
written;or(b)byevidenceofthegenuinenessofthesignatureor assent to relend the dollar loan proceeds to Paolo Sun in
handwriting of the maker xxx. Settled is the rule that a amannernotinaccordancewiththeordinarycourseofbusiness
defective notarization will strip the document of its public of banks.Also, the appellate court found PNB reprehensible
character and reduce it to a private instrument, and the fordoing transactions outside the bank without any proper
evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on explanation of the consequences of the document to be signed
preponderanceofevidence.48
by[Pasimio] and because thebank personnelmisrepresented the
_______________
truenatureofthetransaction.49
48Heirs of Victorino Sarili v. Lagrosa,G.R. No. 193517, There is no sufficient evidence to support the foregoing. It
January15,2014,713SCRA726,736737. must be stressed that these were solely drawn from Pasimios
testimony that Gregorio went to her house for her to sign the
April10,2003Affidavitandthatthelattertoldherthattheonly
way she could get her money back was to relend her money
106
depositstoPaoloSun.OtherthanPasimiosstory,theCAhadno
106 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
otherevidencetobolsterthesefindings.
_______________ hadnobasisinsayingthat[e]venassumingthat[Pasimio]was
concoctingherversionofthefacts,[it]stillfind[s]irregularities
49Rollo,p.19. andinconsistenciesthathaveattributedtotheunjustifiedrefusal
to return the investment placement and to the commission of
negligence.
107 Much is attempted to be made by theMemorandum on
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 107 IrregularLendingOperationonLoansv.DepositHoldOut(Sucat
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio Branch)dated February 18, 2003. The memorandum does not
Further, the CAs conclusions that PNBs personnel werein pertain to Pasimio or her accounts and transactions with the
violationoftheirdutiesandresponsibilitiesasitsemployees;that bank, albeit it discusses Garcia and Mirandas sham dealings
theycommitted gross negligence in dealing with their bank with other bank clients. Hence, the memorandum is really not
determinativeofthecriticalquestionofwhetheror
transactions;andthatthebankrepeatedlyfailedtoobservebasic

proceduresthus,wasguiltyofserialnegligence,arenotsupported
bysufficientevidence. 108
It was wrong for the CA to make the foregoing conclusions 108 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
merely because another bank client, Virginia Pollard (Pollard),
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio
testifiedtobeingavictimofirregularbanktransactionsofPNB
notPasimiosoughtandeventuallysecuredloanaccommodations
Sucat. Even if Pollard were telling the truth, her testimony
fromPNB.
shouldnothavebeenconsideredproofthatwhatsheunderwent
Here,theRTCandtheCAfocusedonfindingtrivialflawsand
iswhatactuallytranspiredbetweenPasimioandPNB.Resinter
weaknessesinPNBsevidenceandtotallydisregardedthebanks
alios acta.Acts and declarations of persons strangers to a suit mosttellingproof,foremostofwhicharethenotarizednotes.Had
should,asarule,beirrelevantasevidence.Pollardstransaction
the courtsa quolooked at and considered the totality of the
withPNBisentirelydifferentandtotallyunrelatedtoPasimios
banksevidence,thenitwouldhaverealizedhowpreposterousthe
dealingswiththebank.
storythatPasimiospunwas,astoryfeaturing,atbottom,awell
WhatmaybetrueinthecaseofPollardmaynotholdtruefor
educated, accomplished woman signing several pieces of bank
Pasimio.Itwasquiteerroneousfortheappellatecourttodeclare
documentsinvolvingmillionsofpesos,withoutknowing,nayeven
PNBgrosslynegligentinitstransactionswithPasimiowhenthe
reading,whatsheissigning.
only evidence it had discussed on the matter was Pollards
Finally,itiswelltoconsiderthisrule:thatwhenthetermsof
testimony.ItmaybetruethatthePNBwasgrosslynegligentin
anagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itistobeconsidered
dealingwithPollard,butthisdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat
as containing all such terms, and, therefore, there can be,
PNBwasgrosslynegligenttowardPasimioaswell.Hence,theCA
betweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidence
of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the isREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. Respondent Ligaya M.
writing.50 Pasimios complaint in Civil Case No. CV050195 before the
Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch 196
Under this rule, parol evidence or oral evidence cannot be isDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
giventocontradict,changeorvaryawrittendocument,exceptifa Nocosts.
partypresentsevidencetomodify,explain,oraddtothetermsof SOORDERED.
a written agreement and puts in issue in his pleadings: (a) an Peralta,Villarama,Jr.,Perez**andJardeleza,JJ.,concur.
intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written
Petitiongranted,judgmentreversedandsetaside.
agreement;(b)thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthe
Notes.UndertheParolEvidenceRule,whenthetermsofan
trueintentandagreementoftheparties;(c)thevalidityofthe
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
writtenagreement;and(d)theexistenceofothertermsagreedto
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as
bythepartiesortheirsuccessorsininterestaftertheexecutionof
betweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidence
thewrittenagreement.51
ofsuchtermsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement.
Suchevidence,however,mustbeclearandconvincingandof
suchsufficientcredibilityastooverturnthewrittenagree (DuvazCorporationvs.ExportandIndustryBank,523SCRA405
_______________ [2007])
Adisputablepresumptionissatisfactoryifuncontradictedand
50NortonResourcesandDevelopmentCorporationv.AllAsia not overcome by other evidence. (Siain Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Bank Corporation,G.R. No. 162523, November 25, 2009, 605 CupertinoRealtyCorp.,590SCRA435[2009])
SCRA370,380.
51RulesofCourt,Rule130,Sec.9.
o0o
_______________
109
VOL.769,SEPTEMBER2,2015 109 52Sierrav.CourtofAppeals,supranote35atp.790.
PhilippineNationalBankvs.Pasimio ** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2084
ment.52SincenoevidenceofsuchnatureisbeforetheCourt,the datedJune29,2015.
documentsembodyingtheloanagreementofthepartiesshouldbe Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
upheld. reserved.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
isGRANTED.The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated January 23, 2013 in C.A.G.R. CV No. 94079
692 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa exactcopies.Pleadingsfiledviafaxmachinesarenotconsidered
G.R.No.152807.August12,2003.* originals and are at best exact copies. As such, they are not
HEIRS OF LOURDES SAEZ SABANPAN: BERNARDO S. admissibleinevidence,asthereisnowayofdeterminingwhether
SABANPAN, RENE S. SABANPAN, DANILO S. SABANPAN theyaregenuineorauthentic.
andTHELMAS.CHU;HEIRSOFADOLFOSAEZ:MA.LUISA Same;Offer of Evidence;Exception;Neither the rules of
SAEZ TAPIZ, MA. VICTORIA SAEZ LAPITAN, MA. BELEN procedure nor jurisprudence would sanction the admission of
SAEZandEMMANUELSAEZ;andHEIRSOFCRISTINASAEZ evidence that has not been formally offered during the trial.
GUTIERREZ: ROY SAEZ GUTIERREZ and LUIS SAEZ, JR., Neithertherulesofprocedurenorjurisprudencewouldsanction
petitioners,vs.ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA, HERDIN C. theadmissionofevidencethathasnotbeen
COMORPOSA, OFELIA C. ARIEGO,1REMEDIOS
COMORPOSA, VIRGILIO A. LARIEGO,2BELINDA M. _______________
COMORPOSAandISABELITAH.COMORPOSA,respondents.
Public Land Act;Jurisdiction;Homestead Patent;Courts
*
THIRDDIVISION.
have no jurisdiction to intrude upon matters properly falling
1
AlsospelledAriegainthepleadings.
2
AlsospelledLariegainthepleadings.
within the powers of the Lands Management Bureau (LMB).
693
UnderthePublicLandAct,themanagementandthedisposition
VOL.408,AUGUST12,2003 693
ofpubliclandisundertheprimarycontrolofthedirectoroflands
(now the director of the Lands Management Bureau or LMB), HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
subjecttoreviewbytheDENRsecretary.Asarule,then,courts formallyofferedduringthetrial.Butthisevidentiaryruleis
have no jurisdiction to intrude upon matters properly falling applicableonlytoordinarytrials,nottocasescoveredbytherule
withinthepowersoftheLMB.ThepowersgiventotheLMBand onsummaryprocedurecasesinwhichnofullblowntrialisheld.
the DENR to alienate and dispose of public land does not, Same;Admissibility;Probative Value;Distinction;The
however, divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory admissibilityofevidenceshouldnotbeconfusedwithitsprobative
actions instituted by occupants or applicants to protect their value.Theadmissibilityofevidenceshouldnotbeconfusedwith
respectivepossessionsandoccupations.Thepowertodetermine its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of
whohasactualphysicalpossessionoroccupationofpublicland whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all,
andwhohasthebetterrightofpossessionoveritremainswith while probative value refers to the question of whether the
thecourts.ButoncetheDENRhasdecided,particularlythrough admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular item of
thegrantofahomesteadpatentandtheissuanceofacertificate evidencemaybeadmissible,butitsevidentiaryweightdepends
oftitle,itsdecisiononthesepointswillnormallyprevail. onjudicialevaluationwithintheguidelinesprovidedbytherules
Evidence;Documentary Evidence;Facsimiles;Pleadings ofevidence.
filedviafaxmachinesarenotconsideredoriginalsandareatbest
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution ASIDEthe Decision ofthe Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Cruz,
oftheCourtofAppeals. DavaodelSu[r].5
The assailed Resolution6denied petitioners Motion for
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Reconsideration.
CariagaLawOfficesforpetitioners. TheFacts
WilliamG.Carpenteroforrespondents. The CA summarized the factual antecedents of the case as
follows:
PANGANIBAN,J.: A[C]omplaintforunlawfuldetainerwithdamageswasfiledby
[petitioners]against[respondents]beforetheSantaCruz,Davao
The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its delSurMunicipalTrialCourt.
probativevalue.Justbecauseapieceofevidenceisadmitteddoes The[C]omplaintallegedthatMarcosSaezwasthelawfuland
notipsofactomeanthatitconclusivelyprovesthefactindispute. actualpossessorofLotNo.845,Land275locatedatDarong,Sta.
TheCase Cruz,DavaodelSurwithanareaof1.2hectares.In1960,hedied
leavingallhisheirs,hischildrenandgrandchildren.
BeforeusisaPetitionforReview 3underRule45oftheRulesof
In1965,FranciscoComorposawhowasworkinginthelandof
Court,seekingtosetasidetheAugust7,2001Decisionandthe
Oboza was terminated from his job. The termination of his
February27,2002ResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals4(CA)inCA
employment caused a problem in relocating his house. Being a
GRSPNo.60645.ThedispositiveportionoftheassailedDecision
close family friend of [Marcos] Saez, Francisco Comorposa
readsasfollows:
approached the late Marcos Saezs son, [Adolfo] Saez, the
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby
husbandofGloriaLeanoSaez,abouthisproblem.Outofpityand
AFFIRMStheDecisiondated22June2000renderedbyBranch
for humanitarian consideration, Adolfo allowed Francisco
18 of the Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur,
ComorposatooccupythelandofMarcosSaez.Hence,hisnipahut
REVERSINGandSETTING
wascarriedbyhisneighborsandtransferredtoaportionofthe
_______________ landsubjectmatterofthiscase.Suchtransferwaswitnessedby
several people, among them, Gloria Leano and Noel Oboza.
3
Rollo,pp.1137. FranciscoComorposaoccupiedaportionofMarcosSaezproperty
4
Eighth Division. Written by Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona withoutpayinganyrental.
and concurred in by Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria (Division Francisco Comorposa left for Hawaii, U.S.A. He was
chairman)andEloyR.Bello,Jr.(member). succeededinhispossessionbytherespondentswholikewisedid
694 not pay any rental and are occupying the premises through
694 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED petitionerstolerance.
On 7 May 1998, a formal demand was made upon the
HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
respondents to vacate the premises but the latter refused to
vacate the same and claimed that they [were] the legitimate courtheldthatalthoughnotyetfinaltheOrderissuedbythe
claimantsandtheactualandlawfulpossessor[s]ofthepremises. regionalexecutivedirectoroftheDepartmentofEnvironmentand
A[C]omplaintwasfiledwiththebarangayofficeofSta.Cruz[,] Natural Resources (DENR) remained in full force and effect,
Davao del Sur, but the parties failed to arrive at an amicable unless declared null and void. The CA added that the
settlement.Thus,thecorrespondingCertificatetoFileActionwas CertificationissuedbytheDENRscommunityenvironmentand
issuedbythesaidbarangayandanactionforunlawfuldetainer natural resources (CENR) officer was proof that when the
wasfiledbypetitionersagainstrespondents. cadastralsurveywasconducted,thelandwasstillalienableand
wasnotyetallocatedtoanyperson.
_______________ According to the CA, respondents had the better right to
possess alienable and disposable land of the public domain,
5
AssailedDecision,p.6;Rollo,p.49. becausetheyhavesufficientlyproventheiractual,physical,open,
6
Rollo,p.52. notorious, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession
695 thereof since 1960. The appellate court deemed as selfserving,
VOL.408,AUGUST12,2003 695 andthereforeincredible,theAffidavitsexecutedbyGloriaLeano
HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa Saez,NoelObozaandPaulinaParan.
Respondents,intheirAnswer,deniedthematerialallegationsof Hence,thisPetition.8
the[C]omplaintandallegedthattheyenteredandoccupiedthe
premisesintheirownrightastrue,validandlawfulclaimants, _______________
possessorsandownersofthesaidlotwaybackin1960andupto
the present time; that they have acquired just and valid
7
AssailedDecision,pp.23;Rollo,pp.4546.
ownership and possession of the premises by ordinary or
8
ThiscasewasdeemedsubmittedfordecisiononJanuary15,
extraordinaryprescription,andthattheRegionalDirectorofthe 2003, upon the Courts receipt of respondents Memorandum,
DENR,RegionXIhasalreadyupheldtheirpossessionoverthe signed by Atty. William G. Carpentero. Petitioners
land in question when it ruled that they [were] the rightful Memorandum, filed on January 10, 2003, was signed by Atty.
claimants and possessors and [were], therefore, entitled to the OswaldoA.Macadangdang.
issuanceofatitle. 696
The Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur 696 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
renderedjudgmentinfavorofpetitionersbuttheRegionalTrial HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
CourtofDigos,DavaodelSur,onappeal,reversedandsetaside TheIssue
thesaiddecision.xxx7 IntheirMemorandum,petitionersraisethefollowingissuesfor
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals theCourtsconsideration:
Affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the CA upheld the
rightofrespondentsasclaimantsandpossessors.Theappellate I
DidtheCourtofAppealsgravelyabuseitsdiscretionand[err]in Petitioners Memorandum, p. 8; Rollo, p. 283. Original in
9

sustainingtherulingoftheRegionalTrialCourtgivingcredence uppercase.
totheOrderdated2April1998issuedbytheregionalexecutive 697
director? VOL.408,AUGUST12,2003 697
HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
II
First Issue:
TheDENROrderofApril2,1998
DidtheCourtofAppealsgravelyabuseitsdiscretionanderr
insustainingtheRegionalTrialCourtsrulinggivingweightto PetitionersclaimthattherelianceoftheCAupon theApril2,
theCENROfficersCertification,whichonlybearsthefacsimileof 1998 Order issued by the regional director of the DENR was
theallegedsignatureofacertainJoseF.Tagordaand,[worse],it erroneous.ThereasonwasthattheOrder,whichhadupheldthe
isanewmatterraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal? claimofrespondents,wassupposedlynotyetfinalandexecutory.
AnotherOrderdatedAugust23,1999, 10issuedlaterbytheDENR
III regionaldirector,allegedlyheldinabeyancetheeffectivityofthe
earlierone.
DidtheCourtofAppealsgravelyabuseitsdiscretionanderr Under the Public Land Act,11the management and the
in holding that the land subject matter of this case has been disposition of public land is under the primary control of the
acquiredbymeansofadversepossessionandprescription? director of lands12(now the director of the Lands Management
BureauorLMB),13subjecttoreviewbytheDENRsecretary. 14As
IV arule,then,courtshavenojurisdictiontointrudeuponmatters
properlyfallingwithinthepowersoftheLMB.
DidtheCourtofAppealsgravelyabuseitsdiscretion,anderr ThepowersgiventotheLMBandtheDENRtoalienateand
in declaring that, neither is there error on the part of the disposeofpubliclanddoesnot,however,divestregularcourtsof
Regional Trial Court, when it did not give importance to the jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or
affidavitsbyGloriaLeanoSaez,Noel[Oboza],andPaulinaParan applicants to protect their respective possessions and
forallegedlybeingselfserving?9 occupations.15The power to determine who has actual physical
Tofacilitatethediscussion,thefourthandthethirdissuesshall possessionor occupationofpubliclandandwho hasthebetter
bediscussedinreversesequence. rightofpossessionoveritremainswiththecourts. 16Butoncethe
TheCourtsRuling DENRhasdecided,particularlythroughthegrantofahomestead
ThePetitionhasnomerit. patentand

_______________ _______________

10
AnnexI;Rollo,pp.9192.
 11
CommonwealthAct141asamended. new matter being raised by respondents for the first time on
12
4ofCA141asamended. appeal.
13
The LMB absorbed the functions of the Bureau of Lands, Wearenotpersuaded.
which was abolished by Executive Order No. 131, except those InGarvida,theCourtheld:
linefunctionsthatweretransmittedtotheregionalfieldoffices. A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the
14
3ofCA141asamended. transmissionandreproductionofprintedandgraphicmatterby
15
Omandamv.CourtofAppeals,349SCRA483,January18, scanning an original copy, one elemental area at a time, and
2001;Solisv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,198SCRA267,June representingtheshadeortoneofeachareabyaspecifiedamount
19,1991;Rallonv.Ruiz,Jr.,138Phil.347;28SCRA331,May26, ofelectriccurrent.xxx19
1969;Molina v. Bacud,126 Phil. 166;19 SCRA 956, April 27, Pleadingsfiledviafaxmachinesarenotconsideredoriginals
andareatbestexactcopies.Assuch,theyarenotadmissible
1967;Bohayang v. Maceren,96 Phil. 390, December 29,
inevidence,asthereisnowayofdeterminingwhethertheyare
1954;Pitarguev.Sorilla,92Phil.5,September17,1952. genuineorauthentic.20
16
Solisv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supra,citingNational The Certification, on the other hand, is being contested for
Development Company v. Hervilla,151 SCRA 520, June 30, bearing a facsimile of the signature of CENR Officer Jose F.
1987;Espejov.Malate,205Phil.216;120SCRA269,January27, Tagorda.Thefacsimilereferredtoisnotthesameasthatwhich
1983. is alluded to inGarvida.The one mentioned here refers to a
698 facsimilesignature,whichisdefinedasasignatureproducedby
698 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED mechanical
HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
theissuanceofacertificateoftitle,itsdecisiononthesepoints _______________
willnormallyprevail.17
Therefore, while theissue as to who among the parties are
17
Omandamv.CourtofAppeals,supra.
entitledtoapieceofpubliclandremainspendingwiththeDENR,
18
338Phil.484;271SCRA767,April18,1997.
thequestionofrecoveryofpossessionofthedisputedpropertyisa
19
Id., p. 496, per Puno,J., citing WebstersThird New
matterthatmaybeaddressedtothecourts. InternationalDictionary(1976),p.813.
Second Issue: 20
Ibid.
CENROfficersCertification 699
PetitionerscontendthattheCENRCertificationdatedJuly22, VOL.408,AUGUST12,2003 699
1997 is a sham document, because the signature of the CENR HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
officer is a mere facsimile. In support of their argument, they meansbutrecognizedasvalidinbanking,financial,andbusiness
citeGarvidav.Sales,Jr.18andarguethattheCertificationisa transactions.21
 Note that the CENR officer has not disclaimed the 24
34,Rule132oftheRulesofCourt.
Certification. In fact, the DENR regional director has 25
Peoplev.Carino,165SCRA664,September26,1988;Veran
acknowledgedanduseditasreferenceinhisOrderdatedApril2, v.CourtofAppeals,157SCRA438,January29,1988.
1998: 26
RepublicofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,277SCRA
x x x. CENR Officer Jose F. Tagorda, in a CERTIFICATION
633, August 18, 1997;De los Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate
dated22July1997,certifiedamongothers,that:xxxperrecords
availableinhisOffice,xxxthecontrovertedlotxxxwasnot Court,176SCRA394,August11,1989.
700
allocatedtoanypersonxxx.22
700 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
If the Certification were a sham as petitioner claims, then the
regionaldirectorwouldnothaveuseditasreferenceinhisOrder. HeirsofLourdesSaezSabanpanvs.Comorposa
Instead,hewouldhaveeitherverifieditordirectedtheCENR Third Issue:
officertotaketheappropriateaction,asthelatterwasunderthe AffidavitofPetitionersWitnesses
formersdirectcontrolandsupervision. PetitionersassertthattheCAerredindisregardingtheAffidavits
PetitionersclaimthattheCertificationwasraisedforthefirst oftheirwitnesses,insistingthattheRuleonSummaryProcedure
timeonappealisincorrect.Asearlyasthepretrialconferenceat authorizestheuseofaffidavits.Theyalsoclaimthatthefailureof
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), the CENR Certification had respondents to file their position paper and counteraffidavits
alreadybeenmarkedasevidenceforrespondentsasstatedinthe beforetheMTCamountstoanadmissionbysilence.
Pretrial Order.23The Certification was not formally offered, Theadmissibilityofevidenceshouldnotbeconfusedwithits
however, because respondents had not been able to file their probativevalue.Admissibilityreferstothequestionofwhether
positionpaper. certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while
Neither the rules of procedure24nor jurisprudence25would probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted
sanction the admission of evidence that has not been formally evidence proves an issue.27Thus, a particular item of evidence
offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is applicable maybeadmissible,butitsevidentiaryweightdependsonjudicial
only to ordinary trials, not to cases covered by the rule on evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of
summaryprocedurecasesinwhichnofullblowntrialisheld. 26 evidence.28
Whileinsummaryproceedingsaffidavitsareadmissibleasthe
_______________ witnessesrespectivetestimonies,thefailureoftheadverseparty
toreplydoesnotipsofactorenderthefacts,setforththerein,duly
21
Facsimile signature,Websters Third New International proven.Petitionersstillbeartheburdenofprovingtheircauseof
Dictionary(1976),p.813. action,becausetheyaretheonesassertinganaffirmativerelief. 29
22
Rollo,p.104.
23
Id.,p.121.
Fourth Issue: G.R.No.193531.December6,2011.*
DefenseofPrescription ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES, petitioner,vs.PHILIPPINE
Petitioners claim that the courta quoerred in upholding the AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION, represented by
defenseofprescriptionprofferedbyrespondents.Itistheformers ATTY.CARLOSR.BAUTISTA,JR.,respondent.
contention that since the latters possession of the land was Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Motion for
merely being tolerated, there was no basis for the claim of Reconsideration;Amotionforreconsiderationmayeitherbefiled
prescription.Wedisagree. bymailorpersonaldelivery;Movanthas15daysfromreceiptof
For the Court to uphold the contention of petitioners, they thedecisionwithinwhichtofileamotionforreconsiderationor
have first to prove that the possession of respondents was by
anappealtherefrom.Amotionforreconsiderationmayeitherbe
mere tolerance. The only pieces of evidence submitted by the
filed by mail or personal delivery. When a motion for
formertosupporttheirclaimwereatechnicaldescriptionanda
reconsiderationwassentbymail,thesameshallbedeemedfiled
vicinitymapdrawninaccordancewiththesurveydatedMay22,
onthedateshownbythepostmarkontheenvelopewhichshall
1936.30BothofthesewerediscreditedbytheCENRCertification,
beattachedtotherecordsofthecase.Ontheotherhand,incase
whichindicatedthatthecontestedlothadnotyetbeenallocated
of personal delivery, the motion is deemed filed on the date
toanypersonwhenthesurveywasconducted. 31Thetestimonyof
stamped thereon by the proper office. And the movant has 15
petitioners witnesses alone cannot prevail over respondents
daysfromreceiptofthedecisionwithinwhichtofileamotionfor
continued and uninterrupted possession of the subject lot for a
reconsiderationoranappealtherefrom.
considerablelengthoftime.
Furthermore,thisisanissueoffactthatcannot,asarule,be Same;Same;Same;Themodeusedbypetitionerinfilinghis
raisedinapetitionforreviewunderRule45.32 reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.Even
DecisionAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioners. assumingarguendothat petitioner indeed submitted a letter
SOORDERED. reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile
Puno(Chairman),SandovalGutierrez,CoronaandCarpi transmission,suchletterreconsiderationdidnottolltheperiodto
oMorales,JJ.,concur. appeal.Themodeusedbypetitionerinfilinghisreconsideration
Petitiondenied,assaileddecisionaffirmed. isnotsanctionedbytheUniformRulesonAdministrativeCases
Note.The burden of proof in land registration cases is intheCivilService.Aswestated
incumbentontheapplicantwhomustshowthatheisthereal _______________
and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. *ENBANC.
622
(Turquesavs.Valera,322SCRA573[2000])
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
o0o 22
 Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible aselectronic
earlier,themotionforreconsiderationmaybefiledonlyin evidence.
twoways,eitherbymailorpersonaldelivery. PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
PleadingsandPractice;Evidence;ElectronicCommerceAct; oftheCourtofAppeals.
Afacsimileisnotagenuineandauthenticpleading;Itis,atbest, ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
anexactcopypreservingallthemarksofanoriginal.InGarvida JacksonVisdaYabutforpetitioner.
v. Sales, Jr., 271 SCRA 767 (1997), we found inadmissible in Roderick R. Consolacion, Arnold Ferdinand C.
evidencethefilingofpleadingsthroughfaxmachinesandruled SalvosaandMarianitoV.Sagsagatforprivaterespondent.
that: xxxxxx A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic 623
pleading.Itis,atbest,anexactcopypreservingallthemarksof VOL.661,DECEMBER6,2011 623
anoriginal.Withouttheoriginal,thereisnowayofdetermining Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and PERALTA,J.:
authenticandwasoriginallysignedbythepartyandhiscounsel. PetitionerElleryMarchG.Torresseekstoannulandsetaside
Itmay,infact,beashampleading. theDecision1datedApril22,2010oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)in
Same; Same; Same; A facsimile transmission is not CAG.R. SP No. 110302, which dismissed his petition seeking
considered as an electronic evidence under the Electronic reversal of the Resolutions dated June 23, 2008 2and July 28,
Commerce Act; The terms electronic data message and 20093oftheCivilServiceCommission(CSC).Alsoassailedisthe
electronicdocumentasdefinedundertheElectronicCommerce CAResolution4datedJuly30,2010denyingpetitionersmotionfor
reconsideration.
Actof2000,donotincludeafacsimiletransmission.Afacsimile
PetitionerwasaSlotMachineOperationsSupervisor(SMOS)
transmissionisnotconsideredasanelectronicevidenceunderthe
of respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
ElectronicCommerceAct.InMCCIndustrialSalesCorporation
(PAGCOR). On the basis of an alleged intelligence report of
v.SsangyongCorporation,536SCRA408(2007),Wedetermined paddingoftheCreditMeterReadings(CMR)oftheslotmachines
thequestionofwhethertheoriginalfacsimiletransmissionsare at PAGCORHyatt Manila, then Casino FilipinoHyatt (CF
electronic data messagesor electronicdocuments withinthe Hyatt), which involved the slot machine and internal security
context of the Electronic Commerce Act, and We said: We, personnel of respondent PAGCOR, and in connivance with slot
therefore,concludethatthetermselectronicdatamessageand machine customers, respondent PAGCORs Corporate
electronicdocument,asdefinedundertheElectronicCommerce InvestigationUnit(CIU)allegedlyconductedaninvestigationto
Actof2000,donotincludeafacsimiletransmission.Accordingly,a verifytheveracityofsuchreport.TheCIUdiscoveredthescheme
facsimile transmission cannot be considered aselectronic ofCMRpaddingwhichwascommittedbyaddingzeroafterthe
firstdigitoftheactualCMRofaslotmachineoraddingadigit
evidence.Itisnotthefunctionalequivalentofanoriginalunder
beforethefirstdigitoftheactualCMR,e.g.,aslotmachinewith
anactualCMRofP5,000.00willbeissuedaCMRreceiptwiththe Theseanomaloustransactionswereconsummatedthroughyour
amountofeitherP50,000.00orP35,000.00.5BasedontheCIUs directparticipationandactivecooperationofyourcoemployees
investigation of all the CMR receipts and slot machine jackpot and customers. With malice afterthought, you embezzled and
slipsissuedbyCFHyattforthemonthsofFebruaryandMarch stole monies from PAGCOR, thereby resulting in substantial
2007,theCIUidentifiedthemembersofthesyndicatewhowere lossestotheproprietaryinterestofPAGCOR.8
responsible for such CMR padding, which included herein Onthesameday,anotherMemorandumofCharges 9signedby
petitioner.6 Rogelio Y. Bangsil, Jr., Senior Branch Manager, CF Hyatt
_______________ Manila,wasissuedtopetitionerinforminghimofthechargeof
1Penned by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with dishonesty(paddingofanomalousSMjackpotreceipts).Petitioner
Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Stephen C. Cruz, wasthenrequiredtoexplaininwritingwithinseventytwo(72)
concurring;Rollo,pp.3344. hours from receipt thereof why he should not besanctioned or
2Penned by Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Fernandez dismissed. Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension
Mendoza;id.,atpp.6273. effectiveimmediatelyuntilfurtherorders.
On May 7, 2007, petitioner wrote Manager Bangsil a letter
3Id.,atpp.7583.
explanation/refutation10of the charges against him. He denied
4Penned by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with
anyinvolvementorparticipationinanyfraudulentmanipulation
Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Stephen C. Cruz,
oftheCMRorpaddingoftheslotmachinereceipts,andheasked
concurring;id.,atpp.129131. foraformalinvestigationoftheaccusationsagainsthim.
5CARollo,p.84. OnAugust4,2007,petitionerreceivedaletter 11datedAugust
6Id.,atpp.8586. 2, 2007 from Atty. Lizette F. Mortel, Managing Head of
624 PAGCORs
624 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation 7Rollo,p.91.
On May 4, 2007, the CIU served petitioner with a 8Id.
Memorandum of Charges7for dishonesty, serious misconduct, 9Id.,atp.92.
fraud and violation of office rules and regulations which were 10Id.,atpp.9394.
considered grave offenses where the penalty imposable is
11Id.,atp.95.
dismissal.Thesummarydescriptionofthechargesstated:
625
Sometime between November 2006 and March 2007, you
facilitated and actively participated in the fraudulent scheme VOL.661,DECEMBER6,2011 625
withrespecttoirregularmanipulationofCreditMeterReading Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
(CMR) which, in turn, led to the misappropriation of money HumanResourceandDevelopmentDepartment,dismissinghim
earmarked for the slot machine jackpot at CF Hyatt Manila. fromtheservice.Theletterreadsinpart,towit:
 PleasebeinformedthattheBoardofDirectors,initsmeeting _______________
on July 31, 2007, approved the recommendation of the 12Id.
AdjudicationCommitteetodismissyoufromtheserviceeffective 13Id.,atpp.8490.
uponapprovalduetothefollowingoffense: 626
Dishonesty,grossmisconduct,seriousviolationsofofficerules
626 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
andregulations,conductprejudicialtothebestinterestsofthe
Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
companyandlossoftrustandconfidence,committedasfollows:
and manner provided by the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Foractivelyanddirectlyparticipatinginaschemetodefraudthe
CasesintheCivilServiceLaw.
companyinconspiracywithcoemployeesandSMcustomersby
OnJune23,2008,theCSC,treatingpetitionerscomplaintas
padding slot machine Credit Meter Reading (CMR) receipts in
anappealfromthePAGCORsdecisiondismissingpetitionerfrom
favorofcoconspiratorcustomerswhohadsaid(sic)CMRreceipts
the service, issued Resolution No. 081204 denying petitioners
paid at the tellers booth on numerous occasions which caused
appeal.Thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:
substantiallossestotheproprietaryinterestsofPAGCOR.12
WHEREFORE,theinstantappealofElleryMarchG.Torres
On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed with the CSC a
isherebyDENIED.Accordingly,thedecisioncontainedinaletter
Complaint13againstPAGCORanditsChairmanEfraimGenuino
dated August 2, 2007 of Lizette F. Mortel, Managing Head,
for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of backwages and other
Human Resource and Development Department (HRDD),
benefits.Thecomplaintallegedamongothers:(1)thathedenied
PAGCOR, finding him guilty of Dishonesty, Gross Misconduct,
all the charges against him; (2) that he did ask for a formal
Serious Violation of Office Rules and Regulations, Conduct
investigationoftheaccusationsagainsthimandforPAGCORto
PrejudicialtotheBestInterestoftheServiceandLossofTrust
produce evidence and proofs to substantiate the charges, but
andConfidenceandimposinguponhimthepenaltyofdismissal
respondentPAGCORdidnotcallforanyformaladministrative
fromtheservice,isherebyAFFIRMED.Thepenaltyofdismissal
hearing; (3) that he tried to persuade respondent PAGCOR to
carrieswithittheaccessorypenaltiesofforfeitureofretirement
reviewandreverseitsdecisioninaletterofreconsiderationdated
benefits,cancellationofeligibility,perpetualdisqualificationfrom
August13,2007addressedtotheChairman,themembersofthe
reemployment in the government service, and bar from taking
BoardofDirectorsandtheMeritSystemsProtectionBoard;and
futureCivilServiceExamination.14
(4) that no resolution was issued on his letter reconsideration,
Insoruling,theCSCfoundthattheissueforresolutionwas
thus, the filing of the complaint. Petitioner claimed that as a
whether petitioners appeal had already prescribed which the
result of his unlawful, unjustified and illegal
formeransweredinthepositive.TheCSCdidnotgivecreditto
termination/dismissal,hewascompelledtohiretheservicesofa
petitioners claim that he sent a facsimile transmission of his
counselinordertoprotecthisrights.
letter reconsideration within the period prescribed by the
Respondent PAGCOR filed its Comment wherein it alleged,
UniformRules onAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService.It
amongothers,thatpetitionerfailedtoperfectanappealwithin
found PAGCORs denial of having received petitioners letter
theperiod
morecredibleasitwassupportedbycertificationsissuedbyits resolutionrevealedthatthetelephonenumberswherepetitioner
employees. It found that a verification of one of the telephone claimedtobetherecipientofthefaxeddocumentsentwasnot
numberswherepetitionerallegedlysenthisletterreconsideration that of PAGCORs Office of Board of Directors. The CA found
disclosed that such number did not belong to the PAGCORs baseless and conjectural petitioners claim that PAGCOR can
OfficeoftheBoardofDirectors;andthatpetitionershouldhave easily deny having receivedtheletter by giving orderstotheir
mentioned about theallegedfacsimile transmission at the first employeestoexecuteanaffidavitofdenialunderpainandthreat
instance when he filed his complaint and not only when ofadministrativesanctionorterminationfromservice.
respondent PAGCOR raised the issue of prescription in its The CA then concluded that PAGCORs decision which was
Comment. containedinaletterdatedAugust4,2007dismissingpetitioner
PetitionersmotionforareconsiderationwasdeniedinCSC fromtheservicehadalreadyattainedfinalitysincetherewasno
ResolutionNo.091105datedJuly28,2009. motionforreconsiderationfiledbypetitionerinthemannerand
_______________ withintheperiodprovidedforundertheRevisedUniformRules
14Id.,atp.73. ontheAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService.
627 Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied in a
VOL.661,DECEMBER6,2011 627 ResolutiondatedJuly30,2010.
Hence, this petition where petitioner states the errors
Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
committedbytheCAinthiswise:
PetitionerfiledwiththeCAapetitionforreviewunderRule
Thefirstissuethatshouldberesolvedis:
43oftheRulesofCourtseekingtosetasidethetwinresolutions
1.Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it
issuedbytheCSC.
affirmedthedismissalofpetitionerbasedmerelyontechnicality
On April 22, 2010, the CA issued its assailed decision
withoutconsideringthe
dismissingthepetitionforlackofmerit.
628
Indismissingthepetition,theCAfoundthatpetitionerfailed
to adduce clear and convincing evidence that he had filed a 628 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
motion for reconsideration. It found insufficient to merit Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
consideration petitioners claim that he had sent through a allegations on summary and arbitrary dismissal based on
facsimiletransmissionaletter/reconsiderationdatedAugust13, fabricatedandunfoundedaccusations.
2007addressedtoPAGCORsChairman,membersoftheBoardof Nexttoberaisedweretheissuespropoundedinpetitioners
Directors and the Merit Systems Protection Board; that Memorandumdated29January2010butwerenottackledupon
assumingarguendothataletterreconsiderationwasindeedsent bytheCourtofAppeals,thus:
throughafacsimiletransmission,suchfacsimiletransmissionis A.Whether or not the Civil Service Commission erred in
inadmissible as electronic evidence under the Electronic rulingthat therewas novalidletter/motionforreconsideration
Commerce Act of 2000; and that a review of the CSC assailed submittedtoreconsiderpetitionersdismissalfromtheservice;
 B.Whether or not the Civil Service Commission erred in Wearenotpersuaded.
giving more weight to PAGCORs denial of having received Sections37,38,39,and43oftheRevisedUniformRuleson
petitionersletterofreconsideration; AdministrativeCasesintheCivilService,whichareapplicableto
C.WhetherornottheCivilServiceCommissionerredinnot thiscase,respectivelyprovide,towit:
acting/resolving theExParteMotion to IssueSubpoenaDuces Section37.Finality of Decisions.A decision rendered by
Tecum; headsofagencieswherebyapenaltyofsuspensionfornotmore
D. Whether or not the Civil Service Commission erred in thanthirtydaysorafineinanamountnotexceedingthirty(30)
rulingthatpetitionersfailuretosendhisletterreconsideration dayssalaryisimposed,shallbefinalandexecutory.However,if
throughmailorbypersonalserviceassetforthintheRulesof thepenaltyimposedissuspensionexceedingthirtydays,orfine
Court,heforfeitedhisrighttoappeal;and in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, the same shall be
E.Whether or not the Civil Service Commission erred in finalandexecutoryafterthelapseofthereglementaryperiodfor
favoring PAGCORs dismissal of petitioner from employment filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such
basedonhearsay,imaginaryandnonexistentevidence. 15 pleadinghasbeenfiled.
The threshold issue for resolution is whether the CA erred Section38.Filingofmotionforreconsideration.Theparty
whenitaffirmedtheCSCsdismissaloftheappealforbeingfiled adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for
beyondthereglementaryperiod. reconsiderationwiththediscipliningauthoritywhorenderedthe
Petitionercontendsthathefiledhisletterreconsiderationof samewithinfifteendaysfromreceiptthereof.
hisdismissal16onAugust13,2007,whichwaswithinthe15day Section39.When deemed filed.A motion for
period for filing the same; and that he did so by means of a reconsideration sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date
facsimiletransmissionsenttothePAGCORsOfficeoftheBoard shownbythepostmarkontheenvelopewhichshallbeattached
of Directors. He claims that the sending of documents thru totherecordsofthecaseandincaseofpersonaldelivery,thedate
electronicdatamessage,whichincludesfacsimile,issanctioned stampedthereonbytheproperoffice.
under Republic Act No. 8792, the Electronic Commerce Act of Section43.Filing of Appeals.Decisions of heads of
2000. Petitioner further contends that since his letter departments,agencies,provinces,cities,municipalitiesandother
reconsiderationwasnotacteduponbyPAGCOR,hethenfiledhis instrumentalitiesimposingapenaltyexceedingthirty(30)days
complaintbeforetheCSC. suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days
_______________ salary,maybeappealedtotheCommissionProperwithinaperiod
15Id.,atpp.1011. offifteen(15)daysfromreceiptthereof.
16Id.,atpp.96100. Clearly, a motion for reconsideration may either be filed by
629 mailorpersonaldelivery.Whenamotionforreconsiderationwas
VOL.661,DECEMBER6,2011 629 sentbymail,thesameshallbedeemedfiledonthedateshownby
Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation the postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the
records of the case. On the other hand, in case of personal receivertoreproduceanimageoftheelementalareaintheproper
delivery,themotionisdeemedfiledonthedatestampedthereon positionandthecorrectshade.Thereceiverisequippedwitha
bytheproperoffice.Andthemovanthas15daysfromreceiptof stylus or other device that produces a printed record on paper
thedecisionwithinwhichtofileamotionforreconsiderationor referredtoasafacsimile.
anappealtherefrom. xxxAfacsimileisnotagenuineandauthenticpleading.Itis,at
Petitionerreceivedacopyoftheletter/noticeofdismissalon best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original.
August4,2007;thus,themotionforreconsiderationshouldhave Withouttheoriginal,thereisnowayofdeterminingonitsface
beensubmittedeitherbymailorbypersonaldeliveryonorbefore whetherthefacsimilepleadingisgenuineandauthenticandwas
August 19, 2007. However, recordsdo not show that petitioner originallysignedbythepartyandhiscounsel.Itmay,infact,bea
hadfiledhis shampleading.xxx18
630 Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered as an
630 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED electronicevidenceundertheElectronicCommerceAct.InMCC
Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation,19We
motionforreconsideration.Infact,theCSCfoundthatthenon determined the question of whether the original facsimile
receiptofpetitioners letterreconsiderationwasdulysupported transmissions are electronic data messages or electronic
bycertificationsissuedbyPAGCORemployees. documentswithinthecontextoftheElectronicCommerceAct,
Even assumingarguendothat petitioner indeed submitted a andWesaid:
letter reconsideration which he claims was sent through a _______________
facsimiletransmission,suchletterreconsiderationdidnottollthe 17G.R.No.124893,April18,1997,271SCRA767.
period to appeal. The mode used by petitioner in filing his 18Id.,atp.779.(Citationsomitted.)
reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on 19G.R.No.170633,October17,2007,536SCRA408.
AdministrativeCasesintheCivilService.Aswestatedearlier, 631
the motion for reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, VOL.661,DECEMBER6,2011 631
eitherbymailorpersonaldelivery. Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
InGarvidav.Sales,Jr.,17wefoundinadmissibleinevidence We, therefore, conclude thatthe terms electronic data
thefilingofpleadingsthroughfaxmachinesandruledthat:
message and electronic document, as defined under the
A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not includeafacsimile
transmissionandreproductionofprintedandgraphicmatterby
scanning an original copy, one elemental area at a time, and transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be
representingtheshadeortoneofeachareabyaspecifiedamount considered aselectronic evidence. It is not the functional
of electric current. The current is transmitted as a signal over equivalentofanoriginalundertheBestEvidenceRuleandisnot
regulartelephonelinesorviamicrowaverelayandisusedbythe admissibleaselectronicevidence.(Italicsours.)20
 We,therefore,foundnoreversibleerrorcommittedbytheCA 20Id.,atp.455.
when it affirmed the CSC in dismissing petitioners appeal. 21G.R.No.159520,September19,2006,502SCRA383.
PetitionerfiledwiththeCSCacomplaintagainstPAGCORand 632
itsChairmanforillegaldismissal,nonpaymentofbackwagesand 632 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
other benefits on September 14, 2007. The CSC treated the
Torresvs.PhilippinesAmusementandGamingCorporation
complaint as an appeal from the PAGCORs dismissal of
andexecutoryjudgmentscannolongerbeattackedbyanyofthe
petitioner.UnderSection43whichweearlierquoted,petitioner
partiesorbemodified,directlyorindirectly,evenbythehighest
had 15 days from receipt of the letter of dismissal to file his
courtoftheland.Justasthelosingpartyhastherighttofilean
appeal.However,atthetimepetitionerfiledhiscomplaintwith
appealwithintheprescribedperiod,soalsothewinningpartyhas
the CSC, which was considered as petitioners appeal, 41 days
thecorrelativerighttoenjoythefinalityoftheresolutionofthe
had already elapsed from the time he received his letter of
case.22
dismissalonAugust4,2007;hence,theCSCcorrectlyfoundthat
WHEREFORE,the petitionisDENIED. The Decision dated
it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal since petitioners
April 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated July 30, 2010 of the
dismissal had already attained finality. Petitioners dismissal
CourtofAppealsareherebyAFFIRMED.
fromtheservicebecamefinalandexecutoryafterhefailedtofile
SOORDERED.
his motion for reconsideration or appeal in the manner and
Corona (C.J.), Carpio, LeonardoDe Castro, Brion,
withintheperiodprovidedforundertheRevisedUniformRules
onAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService. Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza,
InPea v. Government Service and Insurance System,21We Sereno,ReyesandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
said: Velasco,Jr.,J.,OnOfficialLeave.
Noteworthyisthattherighttoappealisneitheranatural Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.
right nor a part of due process, except where it is granted by Note.RepublicAct(R.A.)No.8792,otherwiseknownasthe
statuteinwhichcaseitshouldbeexercisedinthemannerandin ElectronicCommerceActof2000,doesnotmaketheinterneta
accordancewiththeprovisionsoflaw.Inotherwords,appealisa mediumfor publishing laws, rulesandregulations. (Garcillano
rightofstatutoryandnotofconstitutionalorigin.Theperfection
vs. The House of Representatives Committees on Public
ofanappealinthemannerandwithintheperiodprescribedby
Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and
lawisnotonlymandatorybutalsojurisdictionalandthefailure
Security, Information and Communications Technology, and
ofapartytoconformtotherulesregardingappealwillrenderthe
SuffrageandElectoralReforms,575SCRA170[2008]).
judgmentfinalandexecutoryand,hence,unappealable,foritis
more important that a case be settled than it be settled right. o0o
Furthermore,itisaxiomaticthatfinal _______________
_______________ 22Id.,atpp.396397.(Italicssupplied.)
 Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights commonchild,oragainstherchildwhetherlegitimateor
reserved. illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which
result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
includingthreatsofsuch acts,battery,assault,coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. x x x
xSection 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence
against womenandthese includeany formofharassmentthat
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to a
woman.Thus:SEC.5.ActsofViolenceAgainstWomenand
TheirChildren.Thecrimeofviolenceagainstwomenand
theirchildreniscommittedthroughanyofthefollowing
acts: x x x x h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or
reckless conduct, personally or through another, that
G.R.No.182835.April20,2010.* alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological
RUSTAN ANGyPASCUA, petitioner,vs. THE HONORABLE distresstothewomanorherchild.Thisshallinclude,but
COURTOFAPPEALSandIRISHSAGUD,respondents. notbelimitedto,thefollowingacts:xxxx5.Engagingin
Criminal Law; Violence against Women; Republic Act No. anyformofharassmentorviolence.
9262; Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against Same; Same; Same; Elements of the Crime of Violence
womenincludesanactoractsofapersonagainstawomanwith againstWomen.Theelementsof thecrime ofviolence against
whomhehasorhadasexualordatingrelationshipthatinclude women through harassment are: 1. The offender has or had a
any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or sexualor
psychological distress to a woman.Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262
providesthatviolenceagainstwomenincludesanactoractsofa _______________
personagainstawomanwithwhomhehasorhadasexualor
*SECONDDIVISION.
dating relationship. Thus:SEC.3.Definition of Terms.As
583
used in this Act, (a) Violence against women and their
VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 583
childrenreferstoanyactoraseriesofactscommittedby
anypersonagainstawomanwhoishiswife,formerwife, Angvs.CourtofAppeals
oragainstawomanwithwhomthepersonhasorhada dating relationship with the offended woman; 2. The
offender,byhimselforthroughanother,commitsanactorseries
sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
ofactsofharassmentagainstthewoman;and3.Theharassment Same;Same;Same;Section3(a)ofR.A.9262punishesany
alarmsorcausessubstantialemotionalorpsychologicaldistress actorseriesofactsthatconstitutesviolenceagainstwomenthis
toher.
means that a single act of harassment, which translates into
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Dating
violence, would be enough.Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes
Relationship, Defined; A dating relationship includes a any act or series of acts that constitutes violence against
situation where the parties are romantically involved over time women. This means that a single act of harassment, which
andonacontinuingbasisduringthecourseoftherelationship. translatesintoviolence,wouldbeenough.Theobjectofthelawis
Section 3(e) provides that a dating relationship includes a toprotectwomen and children. Punishingonly violence thatis
situationwherethepartiesareromanticallyinvolvedovertime repeatedlycommittedwouldlicenseisolatedones.594
andonacontinuingbasisduringthecourseoftherelationship. 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Thus:(e) Dating relationship refers to a situation 94
whereinthepartiesliveashusbandandwifewithoutthe Angvs.CourtofAppeals
benefitofmarriageorareromanticallyinvolvedovertime
Evidence; Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01701SC);
and on a continuing basis during the course of the
The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions,
relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary
quasijudicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.
socialization between two individuals in a business or
Rustan claimsthatthe obscenepicturesenttoIrish througha
socialcontextisnotadatingrelationship.
textmessageconstitutesanelectronicdocument.Thus,itshould
Same; Same; Same; Same; Sexual Relations, Defined; beauthenticatedbymeansofanelectronicsignature,asprovided
Sexualrelationsreferstoasinglesexualactwhichmayormay underSection1,Rule5oftheRulesonElectronicEvidence(A.M.
notresultinthebearingofacommonchild.R.A.9262provides 01701SC). But,firstly,Rustan is raisingthisobjection tothe
inSection3thatviolenceagainstwomenxxxreferstoanyact admissibilityoftheobscenepicture,ExhibitA,forthefirsttime
oraseriesofactscommittedbyanypersonagainstawomanxxx beforethisCourt.Theobjectionistoolatesinceheshouldhave
with whom the person has or had objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the
asexualordatingrelationship. Clearly, the law itself time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have
distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. alreadywaivedsuchgroundforobjection.Besides,theruleshe
Indeed, Section 3(e) above defines dating relationship while citesdonotapplytothepresentcriminalaction.TheRuleson
Section 3(f) defines sexual relations. The latter refers to a Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasijudicial
singlesexualactwhichmayormaynotresultinthebearingofa proceedings,andadministrativeproceedings.
commonchild.Thedatingrelationshipthatthelawcontemplates PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
can, therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse taking oftheCourtofAppeals.
placebetweenthoseinvolved. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
 Padilla, Padolina, Padilla, Ignacio & Associates Law University in Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they
Officesforpetitioner. becameonandoffsweetheartstowardstheendof2004.When
IrishlearnedafterwardsthatRustanhadtakenaliveinpartner
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
(nowhiswife),whomhehadgottenpregnant,Irishbrokeupwith
ABAD,J.: him.
This case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of BeforeRustangotmarried,however,hegotintouchwithIrish
violenceagainstwomenwhenaformerboyfriendsenttothegirl andtriedtoconvincehertoelopewithhim,sayingthathedidnot
thepictureofanakedwoman,nother,butwithherfaceonit. lovethewomanhewasabouttomarry.Irishrejectedtheproposal
TheIndictment andtoldRustantotakeonhisresponsibilitytotheotherwoman
ThepublicprosecutorchargedpetitioneraccusedRustanAng andtheirchild.IrishchangedhercellphonenumberbutRustan
(Rustan)beforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBaler,Aurora, somehowmanagedtogetholdofitandsenthertextmessages.
of violation of the AntiViolence Against Women and Their Rustan used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages,
ChildrenActorRepublicAct(R.A.)9262inaninformationthat namely,09204769301and09218084768.Irishrepliedtohistext
reads:595 messagesbutitwastoaskhimtoleaveheralone.
VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 595 IntheearlymorningofJune5,2005,Irishreceivedthrough
Angvs.CourtofAppeals multimediamessageservice(MMS)apictureofanakedwoman
ThatonoraboutJune5,2005,intheMunicipalityof withspreadlegsandwithIrishsfacesuperim
MariaAurora,ProvinceofAurora,Philippinesandwithin
thejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccused _______________
willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,inapurposefuland
1DocketedasCriminalCase3493.
reckless conduct, sent through the Short Messaging
596
Service (SMS) using his mobile phone, a pornographic
596 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
picturetooneIrishSagud,whowashisformergirlfriend,
Angvs.CourtofAppeals
whereby the face of the latter was attached to a
posedonthefigure(ExhibitA). 2Thesenderscellphonenumber,
completely naked body of another woman making it to
stated in the message, was 09218084768, one of the numbers
appearthatitwassaidIrishSagudwhoisdepictedinthe
thatRustanused.Irishsurmisedthathecopiedthepictureofher
said obscene and pornographic picture thereby causing face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003
substantialemotionalanguish,psychologicaldistressand (ExhibitB).3
humiliationtothesaidIrishSagud.1 After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text
TheFactsandtheCase messagesfromRustan.Heboastedthatitwouldbeeasyforhim
TheevidencefortheprosecutionshowsthatcomplainantIrish tocreatesimilarlyscandalouspicturesofher.Andhethreatened
Sagud(Irish)andaccusedRustanwereclassmatesatWesleyan to spread the picture he sent through the internet. One of the
messageshesenttoIrish,writtenintextmessagingshorthand, the body and the face had a lighter color. In his opinion, the
read:Madalilangikalatyun,mychatrumangtarlacraytpwede picture was fake and the face on it had been copied from the
ringsendsalahatngchatter.4 pictureofIrishinExhibitB.Finally,Gonzalesexplainedhow
IrishsoughtthehelpofthevicemayorofMariaAurorawho thiscouldbedone,transferringapicturefromacomputertoa
referred her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish cellphoneliketheSonyEricssonP900seizedfromRustan.
contacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers he used in Forhispart,RustanadmittedhavingcourtedIrish.Hebegan
sendingthepictureandhistextmessages.IrishaskedRustanto visitingherinTarlacinOctober2003andtheirrelationlasted
meetherattheLorentessResortinBrgy.Ramada,MariaAurora, untilDecemberofthatyear.Heclaimedthataftertheirrelation
andhedid.Hecameinamotorcycle.Afterparkingit,hewalked ended,Irishwantedreconciliation.TheymetinDecember2004
towards Irish but the waiting police officers intercepted and but,afterhetoldherthathisgirlfriendatthattime(laterhis
arrestedhim.They searched himandseizedhisSonyEricsson wife)wasalreadypregnant,Irishwalkedoutonhim.
P900cellphoneandseveralSIMcards.WhileRustanwasbeing Sometimelater,RustangotatextmessagefromIrish,asking
himtomeetheratLorentessResortassheneededhishelpin
questionedatthepolicestation,heshoutedatIrish:Malandika
selling her cellphone. When he arrived atthe place, two police
kasi! officersapproachedhim,seizedhiscellphoneandthecontentsof
JosephGonzales,aninstructorattheAuroraStateCollegeof hispockets,andbroughthimtothepolicestation.
Technology,testifiedasanexpertininformationtechnologyand RustanfurtherclaimsthathealsowenttoLorentessbecause
computergraphics.Hesaidthatitwasverymuchpossibleforone Irishaskedhimtohelpheridentifyapranksterwhowassending
toliftthefaceofawomanfromapictureandsuperimposeiton hermalicioustextmessages.Rustangotthesendersnumberand,
thebodyofanotherwomaninanotherpicture.Picturescanbe pretendingtobeIrish,contactedtheperson.Rustanclaimsthat
manipulatedandenhancedbycomputertomakeitappearthat he got back obscene messages from the prankster, which he
thefaceandthebodybelongedtojustoneperson. forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. This explained, he said,
whytheobscenemessagesappearedtohaveoriginatedfromhis
_______________
cellphone number. Rustanclaims that it was Irish herself who
senttheobscenepicture(ExhibitA)tohim.Hepresentedsix
2Records,p.69.
picturesofawomanwhomheidentifiedasIrish(Exhibits2to
3Id.,atp.70. 7).5
4ExhibitDandsubmarkings,id.,atpp.7276. MichelleAng(Michelle),Rustanswife,testifiedthatshewas
597 sureIrishsentthesixpictures.Michelleclaimsthatshereceived
VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 597 thepicturesandhidthememorycard(Exhibit8)
Angvs.CourtofAppeals
Gonzales testified that the picture in question (Exhibit A) _______________
hadtwodistinctirregularities:thefacewasnotproportionateto
 5Id.,atpp.156159. _______________
598
598 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 6Rollo,p.38.
Angvs.CourtofAppeals 7DocketedasCAG.R.CR30567.
thatcontainedthembecauseshewasjealousandangry.Shedid 8 PennedbythenAssociateJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo
notwanttoseeanythingofIrish.But,whilethewomaninthe (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate
picturesposedinsexyclothing,innonedidsheappearnakedas JusticesArcangelitaRomillaLontokandRomeoF.Barza.
inExhibitA.Further,thefaceofthewomaninExhibits2,4, 599
5 and 6 could not be seen. Irish denied that she was the VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 599
woman in those four pictures. As for Exhibits 3 and 7, the Angvs.CourtofAppeals
womaninthepicturewasfullydressed. Thesubordinateissuesare:
After trial, the RTC found Irishs testimony completely 1.Whether or not a dating relationship existed between
credible,giveninanhonestandspontaneousmanner.TheRTC RustanandIrishasthistermisdefinedinR.A.9262;
observed that she wept while recounting her experience, 2.Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the
prompting the court to comment: Her tears were tangible sending of the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a
expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she violationofSection5(h)ofR.A.9262;
sufferedinthehandsofherformersweetheart.Thecryingofthe 3.WhetherornottheevidenceusedtoconvictRustanwas
victimduringhertestimonyisevidenceofthecredibilityofher obtainedfromhiminviolationofhisconstitutionalrights;and
charges with the verity borne out of human nature and 4.WhetherornottheRTCproperlyadmittedinevidencethe
experience.6Thus,initsDecisiondatedAugust1,2001,theRTC obscenepicturepresentedinthecase.
foundRustanguiltyoftheviolationofSection5(h)ofR.A.9262. TheCourtsRulings
OnRustansappealtotheCourtofAppeals(CA), 7thelatter Section3(a)ofR.A.9262providesthatviolenceagainstwomen
renderedadecisiondatedJanuary31,2008,8affirmingtheRTC includesanactoractsofapersonagainstawomanwithwhomhe
decision.TheCAdeniedRustansmotionforreconsiderationina hasorhadasexualordatingrelationship.Thus:
resolutiondatedApril25,2008.Thus,Rustanfiledthepresentfor SEC.3.DefinitionofTerms.AsusedinthisAct,
reviewoncertiorari. (a)Violence against women and their children
TheIssuesPresented refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any
The principal issue in this case is whether or not accused personagainstawomanwhoishiswife,formerwife,or
RustansentIrishbycellphonemessagethepicturewithherface against a womanwith whom the person has or had a
pasted on the body of a nude woman, inflicting anguish, sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
psychological distress, and humiliation on her in violation of commonchild,oragainstherchildwhetherlegitimateor
Section5(h)ofR.A.9262. illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which
result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, One. The parties to this case agree that the prosecution
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse neededtoprovethataccusedRustanhadadatingrelationship
includingthreatsofsuch acts,battery,assault,coercion, with Irish. Section 3(e) provides that a dating relationship
harassmentorarbitrarydeprivationofliberty. includesasituationwherethepartiesareromanticallyinvolved
xxxx over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the
Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence relationship.Thus:
against womenandthese includeany formofharassmentthat (e)Datingrelationshipreferstoasituationwherein
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to a thepartiesliveashusbandandwifewithoutthebenefitof
woman.Thus:600 marriageorareromanticallyinvolvedovertimeandona
600 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED continuingbasisduringthecourseoftherelationship.A
Angvs.CourtofAppeals casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between
SEC.5.Acts of Violence Against Women and Their two individuals in a business or social context is not a
Children.Thecrimeofviolenceagainstwomenandtheir datingrelationship.(Underscoringsupplied.)
childreniscommittedthroughanyofthefollowingacts: 601
xxxx VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 601
h.Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless Angvs.CourtofAppeals
conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or Here, Rustan claims that, being romantically involved,
causes substantial emotionalorpsychologicaldistressto implies that theoffenderandthe offended womanhaveor had
the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be sexual relations. According to him, romance implies a sexual
act. He cites Websters ComprehensiveDictionary Encyclopedia
limitedto,thefollowingacts:
Edition whichprovidesacolloquial orinformalmeaning to the
xxxx
wordromanceusedasaverb,i.e.,tomakelove;tomakelove
5.Engaginginanyformofharassmentorviolence;
toasinHeromancedher.
The above provisions, taken together, indicate that the
Butitseemsclearthatthelawdidnotuseinitsprovisionsthe
elements of the crime of violence against women through
colloquialverbromancethatimpliesasexualact.Itdidnotsay
harassmentare:
that the offender must have romanced the offended woman.
1.The offender has or had a sexual or dating
Rather, it used the noun romance to describe a couples
relationshipwiththeoffendedwoman;
2.The offender, by himself or through another, relationship,i.e.,aloveaffair.9
commitsanactorseriesofactsofharassmentagainstthe R.A.9262providesinSection3thatviolenceagainstwomen
woman;and xxxreferstoanyactoraseriesofactscommittedbyanyperson
3.The harassment alarms or causes substantial against a woman x x x with whom the person has or had
emotionalorpsychologicaldistresstoher. asexualordatingrelationship. Clearly, the law itself
distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. that such would unduly ruin him personally and set a very
Indeed, Section 3(e) above defines dating relationship while dangerousprecedent.ButSection3(a)ofR.A.9262punishesany
Section 3(f) defines sexual relations. The latter refers to a act or series of acts that constitutes violence against women.
singlesexualactwhichmayormaynotresultinthebearingofa Thismeansthatasingleactofharassment,whichtranslatesinto
commonchild.Thedatingrelationshipthatthelawcontemplates violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect
can, therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse taking womenandchildren.Punishingonlyviolencethatisrepeatedly
placebetweenthoseinvolved. committedwouldlicenseisolatedones.
RustanalsoclaimsthatsincetherelationshipbetweenIrish Rustanallegesthattodayswomen,likeIrish,aresousedto
and him was of the onandoff variety (awaybati), their obscenecommunicationsthathergettingonecouldnotpossibly
romancecannotberegardedashavingdevelopedovertimeand haveproducedalarminherorcausedhersubstantialemotional
on a continuing basis. But the two of them were romantically orpsychologicaldistress.Heclaimshavingpreviouslyexchanged
involved,asRustanhimselfadmits,fromOctobertoDecemberof obscene pictures with Irish such that she was already
2003.Thatwouldbetimeenoughfornurturingarelationshipof desensitizedbythem.
mutualtrustandlove. But,firstly, the RTC which saw and heard Rustan and his
Anawaybatiorafightandkissthingbetweentwoloversis wife givetheir testimonies was not impressed with their claim
acommonoccurrence.Theirtakingplacedoesnotmeanthatthe that it was Irish who sent the obscene pictures of herself
romanticrelationbetweenthetwoshouldbedeemed (Exhibits 27). Itis doubtfulifthewomaninthepicturewas
Irishsinceherfacedidnotclearlyshowonthem.
_______________ Michelle,Rustanswife,claimedthatshedeletedseveralother
pictures that Irish sent, except Exhibits 2 to 7. But her
9WebstersNewWorldCollegeDictionary,ThirdEdition,p. testimonydid notmakesense. Shesaid thatshedidnotknow
1164. thatExhibits2to7hadremainedsavedaftershedeletedthe
602 pictures.Later,however,shesaidthatshedidnothavetimeto
602 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED delete them.11And, if she thought that she had deleted all the
Angvs.CourtofAppeals picturesfromthememorycard,thenshehad
brokenupduringperiodsofmisunderstanding.Explainingwhat
_______________
awaybatimeant,Irishexplainedthatattimes,whenshecould
notreplytoRustansmessages,hewouldgetangryather.That
10TSN,April11,2006,pp.2224.
was all. Indeed, she characterized their threemonth romantic
11TSN,July19,2006,pp.1012.
relationascontinuous.10
603
Two.Rustanarguesthattheoneactofsendinganoffensive
VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 603
pictureshouldnotbeconsideredaformofharassment.Heclaims
Angvs.CourtofAppeals
noreasonatalltokeepandhidesuchmemorycard.Therewould incommunication.Indeed,toprovethatthecellphonenumbers
havebeennothingtohide.Finally,ifsheknewthatsomepictures belongedtoRustan,Irish andthe police usedsuchnumbersto
remainedinthecard,therewasnoreasonforhertokeepitfor summonhimtocometoLorentessResortandhe
severalyears,giventhatasshesaidshewastoojealoustowant 604
toseeanythingconnectedtoIrish.Thus,theRTCwascorrectin 604 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
notgivingcredencetohertestimony. Angvs.CourtofAppeals
Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish did. Consequently,theprosecutiondidnothavetopresentthe
12

experiencedbasedonRustanslowregardfortheallegedmoral confiscatedcellphoneandSIM cards to provethatRustansent

sensibilitiesoftodaysyouth.Whatisobsceneandinjurioustoan thosemessages.
offendedwomancanofcourseonlybedeterminedbasedonthe Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text
circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the messages to Irish.13His defense was that he himself received
picture,herlegsspreadopenandbearingIrishsheadandface, thosemessagesfromanunidentifiedpersonwhowasharassing
was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and Irish and he merely forwarded the same to her, using his
offensive one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who is not in the cellphone.ButRustanneverpresentedthecellphonenumberof
pornographytrade,wouldbescandalizedandpainedifshesees the unidentified person who sent the messages to him to
herselfinsuchapicture.Whatmakesitfurtherterrifyingisthat, authenticate the same. The RTC did not give credence to such
asIrishtestified,Rustansentthepicturewithathreattopostit versionandneitherwillthisCourt.Besides,itwasmostunlikely
in the internet for all to see. That must have given her a forIrishtopinthethingsonRustanifhehadmerelytriedtohelp
nightmare. heridentifythesender.
Three.Rustanarguesthat,sincehewasarrestedandcertain Four. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish
itemswereseized from himwithoutany warrant, theevidence throughatextmessageconstitutesanelectronicdocument.Thus,
presented against him should be deemed inadmissible. But the itshouldbeauthenticatedbymeansofanelectronicsignature,as
factisthattheprosecutiondidnotpresentinevidenceeitherthe provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic
cellphoneortheSIMcardsthatthepoliceofficersseizedfromhim Evidence(A.M.01701SC).
atthetimeofhisarrest.Theprosecutiondidnotneedsuchitems But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the
to prove its case. Exhibit C for the prosecution was but a admissibilityoftheobscenepicture,ExhibitA,forthefirsttime
photographdepictingtheSonyEricssonP900cellphonethatwas beforethisCourt.Theobjectionistoolatesinceheshouldhave
used, which cellphoneRustanadmittedowning during the pre objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the
trialconference. time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have
Actually, though, the bulk of the evidence against him alreadywaivedsuchgroundforobjection.14
consisted in Irishs testimony that she received the obscene Besides,theruleshecitesdonotapplytothepresentcriminal
pictureandmalicioustextmessagesthatthesenderscellphone action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil
numbersbelongedtoRustanwithwhomshehadbeenpreviously
actions, quasijudicial proceedings, and administrative (MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation,
proceedings.15 536SCRA408[2008])
Section3ofR.A.No.9262defines[v]iolenceagainstwomen
_______________ andtheirchildrenasanyactoraseriesofactscommittedby
any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
12TSN,April11,2006,p.28. againstawomanwithwhomthepersonhasorhadasexualor
13TSN,June27,2006,pp.2324. dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
14Peoplev.Mendoza,G.R.No.180501, December24, 2008, against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
575SCRA616,625626. withoutthefamilyabode,whichresultinorislikelytoresultin
15A.M.No.01701SC,Rule1,Section2. physical,sexual,psychologicalharmorsuffering,oreco
605
VOL.618,APRIL20,2010 605 _______________
Angvs.CourtofAppeals
Inconclusion,thisCourtfindsthattheprosecutionhasproved ** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate
eachandeveryelementofthecrimechargedbeyondreasonable JusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo,perraffledatedSeptember14,
doubt. 2009.
WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIESthepetitionandAFFIRMS Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR30567dated reserved.
January31,2008anditsresolutiondatedApril25,2008.
SOORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,**BrionandPerez,
JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.
Notes.A facsimile transmission cannot be considered as
electronic evidenceit is not the functional equivalent of an
originalundertheBestEvidenceRuleandisnotadmissibleas G.R.No.204894.March10,2014.*
electronic evidence. (MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs. NOEL
SsangyongCorporation,536SCRA408[2007]) ENOJASyHINGPIT, ARNOLDGOMEZyFABREGAS,
Since a facsimile transmission is not an electronic data FERNANDO SANTOSyDELANTAR and ROGER
messageoranelectronicdocument,andcannotbeconsidered JALANDONIyARI,appellants.
as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a
photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence.
 Criminal Law; Aggravating Circumstances; Aid of Armed *THIRDDVISION.
Men;UseofUnlicensedFirearms;Inaidofarmedmen,themen 314phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal
knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on
act as accomplices only. They must not be acting in the
them.
commissionofthecrimeunderthesamepurposeastheprincipal
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
accused,otherwisetheyaretoberegardedascoprincipalsorco ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
conspirators.Theuseofunlicensedfirearm,ontheotherhand,is OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforappellee.
a special aggravating circumstance that is not among the PublicAttorneysOfficeforappellants.
circumstancesmentionedinArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode
asqualifyingahomicidetomurder.Inaidofarmedmen,the ABAD,J.:
men act as accomplices only. They must not be acting in the On September 4, 2006 the City Prosecutor of Las Pias
commissionofthecrimeunderthesamepurposeastheprincipal charged appellants Noel EnojasyHingpit (Enojas), Arnold
accused,otherwisetheyaretoberegardedascoprincipalsorco GomezyFabregas(Gomez),FernandoSantosyDelantar(Santos),
conspirators.Theuseofunlicensedfirearm,ontheotherhand,is
and Roger JalandoniyAri (Jalandoni) with murder before the
a special aggravating circumstance that is not among the
LasPiasRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)inCriminalCase060854.
circumstancesmentionedinArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode
[1]
asqualifyingahomicidetomurder.Consequently,theaccusedin
PO2 Eduardo Gregorio, Jr. (PO2 Gregorio) testified that at
thiscasemaybeheldliableonlyforhomicide,aggravatedbythe
around 10:30 in the evening of August 29, 2006, he and PO2
use of unlicensed firearms, a circumstance alleged in the
Francisco Pangilinan (PO2 Pangilinan) were patrolling the
information.
vicinityofToyotaAlabangandSMSouthmallwhentheyspotted
RemedialLaw;Evidence;TextMessages;Textmessagesare
ataxithatwassuspiciouslyparkedinfrontoftheAguilaAuto
tobeprovedbythetestimonyofapersonwhowasapartytothe Glass shop near the intersection of BF Almanza and Alabang
sameorhaspersonalknowledgeofthem.Astotheadmissibility Zapote Roads. The officers approached the taxi and asked the
ofthetextmessages,theRTCadmittedtheminconformitywith driver,lateridentifiedasaccusedEnojas,forhisdocuments.The
the Courts earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic latter complied but, having entertained doubts regarding the
Evidencetocriminalactions.Textmessagesaretobeprovedby veracityofdocumentsshownthem,theyaskedhimtocomewith
thetestimonyofapersonwhowasapartytothesameorhas them to the police station in their mobile car for further
personal knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the questioning.[2]
accusedEnojas,exchangedtextmessageswiththeotheraccused AccusedEnojasvoluntarilywentwiththepoliceofficersand
in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient ofthose lefthistaxibehind.Onreachingthe711conveniencestoreonthe
messagessentfromandtothemobile ZapoteAlabangRoad,however,theystoppedandPO2Pangilinan
_______________ wentdowntorelievehimselfthere.Ashe
_______________ PO3 Cambi and PO2 Rosarito testified that they monitored
[1]Records,p.1. the messages in accused Enojas mobile phone and, posing as
[2]TSN,February8,2007,pp.47. Enojas,communicatedwiththeotheraccused.Thepolice
_______________
315approached the stores door, however, he came upon two [3]TSN,May3,2007,pp.1014.
suspectedrobbersandshotitoutwiththem.PO2Pangilinanshot [4]CARollo,p.28.
onesuspectdeadandhittheotherwhostillmanagedtoescape. 316thenconductedanentrapmentoperationthatresultedinthe
ButsomeonefiredatPO2Pangilinancausinghisdeath. arrestofaccusedSantosandJalandoni.Subsequently,thepolice
Onhearingtheshots,PO2Gregoriocamearoundandfiredat were also able to capture accused Enojas and Gomez. The
anarmedmanwhomhesawrunningtowardsPilarVillage.He prosecution presented the transcripts of the mobile phone text
sawanotherman,whocamefromtheJollibeeoutlet,runtowards messagesbetweenEnojasandsomeofhiscoaccused.[5]
AlabangZapoteRoadwhilefiringhisgunatPO2Gregorio.The Thevictimsfather,RicardoPangilinan,testifiedthathisson
latter returned fire but the men were able to take a taxi and wasatthetimeofhisdeath28yearsold,unmarried,andwas
escape.PO2Gregorioradioedforhelpandforanambulance.On receiving police pay ofP8,000.00 toP10,000.00 per month.
returningtohismobilecar,herealizedthataccusedEnojas,the Ricardo spentP99,999 for burial expense,P16,000.00 for the
taxidrivertheyhadwiththemhadfled. intermentservices,andP50,000.00forpurchaseofthecemetery
P/Insp. Ferjen Torred (Torred), the Chief of Investigation lot.[6]
DivisionoftheLasPiasPolice,testifiedthatheandPO2Teoson Manifestinginopencourtthattheydidnotwanttoadduce
Rosarito(PO2Rosarito)immediatelyrespondedtoPO2Gregorios anyevidenceortestifyinthecase,[7]theaccusedoptedtoinstead
urgentcall.SuspectingthataccusedEnojas,thetaxidriverwho file a trial memorandum on March 10, 2008 for their defense.
fled, was involved in the attempted robbery, they searched the They pointed out that they were entitled to an acquittal since
abandonedtaxiandfoundamobilephonethatEnojasapparently theywereallillegallyarrestedandsincetheevidenceofthetext
left behind. P/Ins. Torred instructed PO3 Joel Cambi (PO3 messageswereinadmissible,nothavingbeenproperlyidentified.
Cambi)tomonitoritsincomingmessages.[3] On June 2, 2008 the RTC rendered judgment,[8]finding all
The police later ascertained that the suspect whom PO2 theaccusedguiltyofmurderqualifiedbyevidentpremeditation
Pangilinan had killed was someone named Reynaldo Mendoza anduseofarmedmenwiththespecialaggravatingcircumstance
whowasarmedwitha.38caliberrevolver.Thepolicefoundspent ofuseofunlicensedfirearms.Itthussentencedthemtosufferthe
9 mm and M16 rifle shells at the crime scene. Followup penaltyofreclusionperpetua,withoutthepossibilityofparoleand
operationsatnearbyprovincesresultedinfindingthedeadbody to indemnify the heirs of PO2 Pangilinan withP165,999.00 as
ofoneofthesuspects,AlexAngeles,attheMetroSouthMedical actual damages,P50,000.00 as moral damages,P25,000.00 as
CenteralongMolino,Bacoor,Cavite.[4] exemplarydamages,andP2,080,000.00ascompensationforloss
ofearningcapacity.
 UponreviewinCAG.R.CRH.C.03377,onJune14,2012the documentsheshoweduponquery.Subsequentinspectionof
Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal and affirmedin the taxicab yielded Enojas mobile phone that contained
tototheconvictionoftheaccused.[9]TheCA,however,found messages which led to the entrapment and capture of the
_______________ otheraccusedwhowerealsotaxicabdrivers.
[5]Records,pp.431438. 2.Enojas fled during the commotion rather than
[6]TSN,December14,2006,pp.47. remaininthecabtogotothepolicestationwherehewas
abouttobetakenforquestioning,tendingtoshow
[7]Rollo,p.6.
_______________
[8]Id.,atpp.2734.
[10]Id.,atp.18.
[9]Id.,atpp.217.
[11]Bacolodv. People, G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013, 701

SCRA229.
317the absence of evident premeditation since the prosecution
failedtoprovethattheseveralaccusedplannedthecrimebefore [12]Peoplev.Garcia,577Phil.483,500;554SCRA616,633
committingit.TheaccusedappealedfromtheCAtothisCourt. (2008).
[10]
Thedefensepointsoutthattheprosecutionfailedtopresent 318thathehadsomethingtohide.Hecertainlydidnotgo
direct evidence that the accused Enojas, Gomez, Santos, or tothepoliceafterwardstoclearupthematterandclaim
Jalandoni took part in shooting PO2 Pangilinan dead.[11]This histaxi.
may be true but the prosecution could prove their liability by 3.PO2GregoriopositivelyidentifiedaccusedGomezas
circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of oneofthemenhesawrunningawayfromthesceneofthe
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that shooting.
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 4.ThetextmessagesidentifiedKuaJustinasoneof
1)thereismorethanonecircumstance;2)thefactsfromwhich those who engaged PO2 Pangilinan in the shootout; the
theinferencesarederivedareproven;and3)thecombinationof messagesalsoreferredtoKuaJustinastheonewhowas
allthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyond hitinsuchshootoutandlaterdiedinahospitalinBacoor,
reasonabledoubt.[12] Cavite.Thesemessageslinkedtheotheraccused.
Here the totality of the circumstantial evidence the 5.During the followup operations, the police
prosecution presented sufficiently provides basis for the investigators succeeded in entrapping accused Santos,
convictionofalltheaccused.Thus: Jalandoni,Enojas,andGomez,whowereallnamedinthe
1.PO2GregoriopositivelyidentifiedaccusedEnojasas textmessages.
thedriverofthetaxicabsuspiciouslyparkedinfrontofthe 6.Thetextmessagessenttothephonerecoveredfrom
AguilaAutoGlassshop.Theofficerswerebringinghimwith thetaxidrivenbyEnojasclearlymadereferencestothe711
them to the police station because of the questionable
 shootout and to the wounding of Kua Justin, one of the messageswiththeotheraccusedinordertoidentifyandentrap
gunmen,andhissubsequentdeath. them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the
7.Thecontextofthemessagesshowedthattheaccused mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal
were members of an organized group of taxicab drivers knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on
engagedinillegalactivities. them.
Theaccusedlamentthattheywerearrestedwithoutavalid
8.Uponthearrestoftheaccused,theywerefoundin
warrantofarrest.But,assumingthatthiswasso,itcannotbea
possession of mobile phones with call numbers that
groundforacquittingthemofthecrimechargedbutforrejecting
correspondedtothesendersofthemessagesreceivedonthe
anyevidencethatmayhavebeentakenfrom
mobilephonethataccusedEnojasleftinhistaxicab.[13]
_______________
TheCourtmust,however,disagreewiththeCAsrulingthat
theaggravatingcircumstancesofa)aidofarmedmenandb)use [14]SeePeoplev.Candado,174Phil.12,2728;84SCRA508,
ofunlicensedfirearmsqualifiedthekillingofPO2Pangilinanto 524(1978).
murder.Inaidofarmedmen,themenactasaccomplicesonly. [15]A.M. No. 01701SC, Re: Expansion of the Coverage of
Theymustnotbeactinginthecommissionofthecrimeunderthe theRulesonElectronicEvidence,September24,2002.
samepurposeastheprincipalaccused,
Rule 1, Sec.2.Cases covered.These Rules shall apply to
_______________
thecriminalandcivilactionsandproceeding,aswellasquasi
[13]CARollo,pp.3233. judicialandadministrativecases.
319otherwise they are to be regarded as coprincipals or co [16]Id.,Rule11,Section2:
conspirators.Theuseofunlicensedfirearm,ontheotherhand,is Section2.Ephemeral electronic communications.
a special aggravating circumstance that is not among the Ephemeralelectronic communications shall be proven by the
circumstancesmentionedinArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has
asqualifyingahomicidetomurder.[14]Consequently,theaccused personal knowledge thereof. In theabsence or unavailability of
inthiscasemaybeheldliableonlyforhomicide,aggravatedby suchwitnesses,othercompetentevidencemaybeadmitted.
the use of unlicensed firearms, a circumstance alleged in the

information.
320them after an unauthorized search as an incident of an
Astotheadmissibilityofthetextmessages,theRTCadmitted
unlawfularrest,apointthatisnotinissuehere.Atanyrate,a
theminconformitywiththeCourtsearlierResolutionapplying
crimehadbeencommittedthekillingofPO2Pangilinanand
the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions.[15]Text
theinvestigatingpoliceofficershadpersonalknowledgeoffacts
messagesaretobeprovedbythetestimonyofapersonwhowasa
indicatingthatthepersonstheyweretoarresthadcommittedit.
partytothesameorhaspersonalknowledgeofthem.[16]Here,
[17]Thetextmessagestoandfromthemobilephoneleftatthe
PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text
scene by accused Enojas provided strong leads on the
participation and identities of the accused. Indeed, the police viewofSection9,Rule117oftheRulesofCourt,whichinessence
caughttheminanentrapmentusingthisknowledge. partiallyprovidesthatthedefenseofextinctionofcriminalaction
Theawardofdamagesbythecourtsbelowhastobemodified or liability,e.g., prescription, is not deemed waived even if the
toconformtocurrentjurisprudence.[18] accusedhadnotraisedthesameinamotiontoquash.InRiveras
case, the issue of prescription is raised in her comment to the
WHEREFORE, the CourtMODIFIESthe Court of Appeals instant petition before this Court. Syhunliong does not
DecisionofJune14,2012inCAG.R.CRHC03377.TheCourt specificallyrefuteRiverasaverment,thus,itisdeemedadmitted.
insteadFINDSaccusedappellantsNoelEnojasyHingpit,Arnold Remedial Law; Evidence; Privileged Communication;The
GomezyFabregas, Fernando SantosyDelantar, and Roger rule on privileged communication means that a communication
JalandoniyAriGUILTYofthelessercrimeofHOMICIDEwith made in good faith on any subject matter in which the
the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed communicatorhasaninterest,orconcerningwhichhehasaduty,
firearms. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding duty.
CourtSENTENCESeachofthemto12yearsofprisionmayor,as
The rule on privileged communication means that a
minimum, to 20 years ofreclusion temporal,as maximum. The communicationmadeingoodfaithonanysubjectmatterinwhich
Court alsoMODIFIESthe award of exemplary damages by thecommunicatorhasaninterest,orconcerningwhichhehasa
increasingittoP30,000.00,withanadditionalP50,000.00forcivil duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding
indemnity. duty.Inordertoprovethatastatementfallswithinthepurview
SOORDERED. ofaqualifiedprivilegedcommunicationunderArticle354,No.1,
thefollowingrequisitesmustconcur:(1)thepersonwhomadethe
communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
G.R.No.200148.June4,2014.* communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which
interestmayeitherbehisownoroftheonetowhomitismade;
(2)thecommunicationisaddressedto an officeror a board, or
RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG, petitioner,vs. TERESITA D.
superior,havingsomeinterestordutyinthematter,andwhohas
RIVERA,respondent.
thepowertofurnishtheprotectionsought;and(3)thestatements
Criminal Law; Prescription of Crimes; Motion to inthecommunicationaremadeingoodfaithandwithoutmalice.
Quash;Section9,Rule117oftheRulesofCourt,whichinessence
partiallyprovidesthatthedefenseofextinctionofcriminalaction _______________
or liability, e.g., prescription, is not deemed waived even if the
*FIRSTDIVISION.
accused had not raised the same in a motion to quash.

WhilePeople v. Castro,95 Phil. 462 (1954),is an old

jurisprudence, it still finds application in the case at bench in
 163 1Rollo,pp.827.
2Penned by Associate Justice MarioL.Guaria III, with
Same; Same; Same; Text Messages; Riveras text message AssociateJusticesJaparB.DimaampaoandManuelM.Barrios,
falls within the ambit of a qualified privileged communication concurring;id.,atpp.2938.
sinceshewasspeakinginresponsetoduty[toprotectherown 3Id.,atpp.4041.
interest] and not out of an intent to injure the reputation of 4IssuedbyPresidingJudgeLuisitoG.Cortez;id.,atpp.56
Syhunliong.The Court thus finds no error in the CAs 59.
declarationthatRiverastextmessagefallswithintheambitofa 5Id.,atpp.6063.
qualified privileged communication since she was speaking in
responsetoduty[toprotectherowninterest]andnotoutofan
intenttoinjurethereputationofSyhunliong.Besides,[t]here 164miss/Quash on Jurisdictional Challenge6(Motion to Quash)
was no unnecessary publicity of the message beyond [that] of filed by the herein respondent, Teresita D. Rivera (Rivera), in
conveyingittothepartyconcemed. CriminalCaseNo.Q07147802,anactionforlibel.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
oftheCourtofAppeals. Antecedents
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
Cruz,Neria&CarpioLawOfficesforpetitioner. Syhunliong and Rivera are respectively the private
RicardoM.Perezforrespondent. complainant and defendant in Criminal Case No. Q07
147802.Syhunliong is the President of BANFF Realty and
RESOLUTION DevelopmentCorporation (BANFF)andlikewise ownsinterests
inconstruction,restaurantandhospitalbusinesses.Ontheother
REYES,J.: hand,RiverausedtobetheAccountingManagerofBANFF.She
was hired in September of 2002 with a monthly salary of
For review is the instant Petition1 filed by Ramon A. Php30,000.00.
Syhunliong (Syhunliong) seeking the reversal of the About three years after, Rivera, citing personal and family
Decision2rendered on July 11, 2011 and Resolution3issued on matters,tenderedherresignationtobeeffectiveonFebruary3,
January6,2012bytheCourtofAppeals(CA)inC.A.G.R.S.P. 2006. However, Rivera actually continued working for BANFF
No. 110335. The CA set aside the Orders dated December 4, untilMarchofthesameyeartocompletetheturnoverofpapers
20084and June 18, 20095of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of under her custody to Jennifer Lumapas (Lumapas), who
QuezonCity,Branch84,whichdeniedtheMotiontoDis succeededher.
SometimeinAprilof2006,RiveracalledLumapastorequest
_______________ for the payment of her remaining salaries, benefits and
incentives.LumapasinformedRiverathatherbenefitswouldbe On April16,2007,12pendingthe resolution ofthe aforecited
paid,butthecheckrepresentinghersalarieswasstillunsigned, laborcase,SyhunlionginstitutedagainstRiveraacomplaintfor
andherincentiveswereputonholdbySyhunliong.7 libel, the origin of the instant petition. The information, dated
On April 6, 2006, at around 11:55 a.m., Rivera sent the June21,2007,chargedRiverawiththefollowing:
followingtextmessagetooneofBANFFsofficialcellularphones Thatonoraboutthe6thdayofApril,2006,inQuezonCity,
heldbyLumapas: Philippines,thesaidaccused,withmaliciousintentofimpeaching
I am expecting that[.][G]rabe talagasufferingsko dyan the honor, virtue, character and reputation of one RAMON A.
hanggangpagkuhanglastpayko.Idontdeservethis[because]I SYHUNGLIONG[sic]and
didmyjobwhenI[was]stillthere.God
_______________
_______________
8TheinitialsofSyhunliong.
6Id.,atpp.4654. 9Rollo,p.30.
7Id.,atpp.2930. 10Id.
11Id.,atpp.4647.
12Per Syhunliongs narration in the instant petition, the
165 complaintwasfiledonAugust18,2007(id.,atp.14).However,
bless ras[.]8[S]ana yung pagsimba niya, alam niyareal theinformationforlibelfiledwiththeRTCagainstRiverawas
meaning.9(Italicsours) datedJune21,2007(id.,atp.44).Thesaidinformationcouldnot
have been filed earlier than Syhunliongs complaint. The CA
Minutes later, Rivera once again texted another message, decision and the orders of the RTC do not indicate when
whichreads: Syhunliong filed the complaint. However, in Riveras Petition
Kailanganreleaseniya lahat [nang] makukuha ko forCertiorarifiled before the CA, it was indicated that
diyanincludingincentiveuptothelastdatenanandyanakopara SyhunliongscomplaintwasinstitutedonApril16,2007(id.,atp.
dinakamiabotsalabor.10(Italicsours) 68).

Subsequently, on December of 2006, Rivera filed before the
National Labor Relations Commission a complaint against
Syhunliong for underpaid salaries, 13 thto 16thmonth and 166
incentive pay, gratuities and tax refund in the total sum of with evident intent of exposing the complainant to public
Php698,150.48.11 dishonor, discredit, contempt and ridicule, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously publish in the
form of text messages and/or caused to be publish[ed] the 15Id.,atp.55.
followingdefamatorystatementsthroughthecompanyscellular
phone,towit:
xxxx 167
that with the said text message, the said accused meant and TheOrdersoftheRTC
intendedtoconveyasinfactshedidmeanandconvey,malicious
and offensive insinuations and imputations that tends [sic] to On December 4, 2008, the RTC issued an Order 16denying
destroythegoodnameandreputationofRamonSyhunliong,with RiverasMotiontoQuashonthesegrounds:
no good or justifiable motive but solely for the purpose of [T]he grounds raised by [Rivera] in the motion to quash [are]
maligningandbesmirchingthegoodname,honor,characterand evidentiaryinnature[,]whichcanonlybethreshedoutinafull
reputationofthesaidcomplainantandtoexposeit,asinfact[he] blownhearingtodetermineifsaid[t]extmessagefallssquarely
was exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, to the within the parameters of Privileged Communication or the
damageandprejudiceofsaidoffendedparty. elementsofArticle353oftheRevisedPenalCode[are]notfully
CONTRARYTOLAW.13 establishedbytheProsecutionsevidence.
The Rule on Criminal Procedure in the prosecution of any
Rivera filed a Motion to Quash 14the aforequoted felonyoroffenserequiresonlytheexistenceofprobablecausein
information.She argued that the text message, which was the ordertoindictanaccusedofthecrimecharged.xxx[P]robable
subjectofthelibelcomplaint,merelyreflectedtheunduestress cause was established seasonably during the preliminary
she hadsuffereddue tothedelay in thereleaseofher unpaid investigation. [Rivera] should have participated during
salaries, benefits and incentives.Further, the facts charged in thepreliminaryinvestigationorfiledaMotion for re
the information did not constitute the crime of libel as the investigation[if]shewasnotaccordedsuchrightandraisedthese
elementsofmaliceandthemakingofdefamatoryimputationfor grounds,beforesheenter[ed]herpleaduringarraignment.
public consumption were wanting.Her text message was not TheSupremeCourtruledthat[i]tshouldbenotedthatthe
promptedbyillwillorspite,butwasmerelysentaspartofher libelousmaterial[ortext]mustbeviewedasawhole.Inorderto
dutytodefendherowninterests. ascertainthemeaningof[the]publishedarticle[ortextmessage],
DuringthearraignmentonOctober11,2007,Riveraentereda thewholeofthearticlemustbeconsidered,eachphrasemustbe
pleaofnotguilty.15 construedinthelightoftheentirepublication.
TheSupremeCourtheldthatwriting[ortexting]toaperson
_______________ other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute
publication,forthepersontowhomtheletter[textmessage]is
13Id.,atp.44. addressedisathirdpersoninrelationtoitswriterandtheperson
14Id.,atpp.4654. defamedtherein.Inthiscase,thewifeofthecomplainant[,]who
receivedtheunsealedletter[,]isheldathirdpersontowhomthe hadalegal,moral,orsocialdutytomakethecommunication,or
publicationismade.[]17(Citationsomitted) atleast,hadaninteresttoprotect,whichinterestmayeitherbe
hisownoroftheone[for]whomitismade;(2)thecommunication
_______________ is addressed toan officer or a board, or superior, having some
interestordutyinthematter,andwhohasthepowertofurnish
16Id.,atpp.5659. the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the
17Id.,atpp.5859. communication are made in good faith and without
malice.23Riveralikewise

168 _______________
The RTC thereafter issued an Order18on June 18, 2009
denying Riveras motion for reconsideration to the 18Id.,atpp.6063.
foregoing.CitingLuChuSingandLuTianChiongv.LuTiong 1976Phil.669(1946).
Gui,19the RTC explained that the privileged character of a 20Rollo,pp.6484.
communication merely does away with the presumption of 21Id.,atp.79.
malice.However,theplaintiffisnotprecludedfromprovingthe 22483Phil.568;440SCRA541(2004).
existenceofsuchmalice.TheRTConceagainconcurredwiththe 23Rollo,p.80.
Public Prosecutors finding that there was probable cause to
indictRiveraforhavingascribedtoSyhunliongthepossessionof
aviceordefect,orforhavingcommittedanact,tendingtocause 169stressedthatunderSections3(a)24and9,25Rule11726ofthe
dishonorordiscredittothelattersname. RulesofCourt,anaccusedmaymovetoquashtheinformation
Rivera challenged the orders issued by the RTC through a even after arraignment if the facts charged therein do not
PetitionforCertiorari20filedbeforetheCA.QuotingArticle354of constituteanoffense.Shethusconcludedthatthetextmessage
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), she emphasized that every shesenttoLumapaswasinthenatureofaqualifiedprivileged
defamatoryimputationispresumedtobemalicious,evenifitbe communication,it being merely an expression ofherlegitimate
true,ifnogoodintentionandjustifiablemotiveformakingitis grievancesoverthedelayinthereleaseofherunpaidsalariesand
shown,exceptinaprivatecommunicationmadebyanyperson otherentitlements.RiveratextedLumapasbecausethelatterwas
to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social in the best position to help expedite the release of the checks.
duty.21CitingBrillantev.CourtofAppeals,22Riveraenumerated Riverahadnointenttoinjureanyonesreputation.Lastly,Rivera
the requisites,compliance withwhich would makea statement labeled as erroneous the RTCs declaration regarding the
fall within the purview of a qualified privileged necessity of a full blown trial since facts sufficient for the
communication,viz.:(1)thepersonwhomadethecommunication
resolution of the case were allegedly already extant in the Thefocalissuetothepartiesinthepresentcaseiswhether
records. thefactschargedintheinformation[,]aswellastheundeniable
factsappearingontherecord[,]showthatanoffenseoflibelhas
TheCAsRuling beencommitted.Ourcriminallawconvincinglyprovideuswitha
definitionoflibelItisapublicandmaliciousimputationofa
On July 11, 2011, the CA rendered the herein assailed crime, or of a vice or defect ... or any act, omission, condition,
Decision27directingthedismissaloftheinformationforlibelfiled
statusorcircumstancetendingtocausethedishonor,discreditor
againstRivera.TheCAfavorablyconsideredherargumentthat
contemptof...aperson.xxx.
when the facts in an informationfail to chargeanoffense, the
The first procedural requisite in the determination of the
saidgroundcanbeinvokedbytheaccusedina
existenceoflibeliswhetherthereisadefamatoryimputation.The
_______________ historyofthelawonlibelaboundsinexamplesofutterancesor
statements thatare notnecessarilyconsideredlibelousbecause
24Sec.3.Grounds.The accused may move to quash the theyarea[sic]mereexpression[s]ofan[sic]opinion[s]ofa[sic]
complaintorinformationonanyofthefollowinggrounds: person[s]inconnectionwitha[sic]plea[s]orgrievance[s].Libelis
(a)Thatthefactschargeddonotconstituteanoffense; inherentlyalimitationonthelibertyofspeechandpressfreedom,
xxxx andmustbeconstruedinamannerthatdoesnottrenchupon
25Sec.9.Failuretomoveorquashortoallegeanyground constitutionallyprotectedfreedoms.
therefor.The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a xxxTherecanbelibelonlyifthewordsusedarecalculatedto
motiontoquashbeforehepleadstothecomplaintorinformation, inducethehearerorreadertosupposeandunderstandthemas
eitherbecausehedidnotfileamotiontoquashorfailedtoallege impeaching the honesty, virtue or reputation of another. The
the same in the said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any questionisnotwhatthewriterorspeakermeantbyhiswordsbut
objections except those based on the grounds provided for in whattheyconveytothosewhoheardorreadthem.
paragraphs(a) [thefactschargeddonotconstitute an offense], xxxx
(b),(g)[thecriminalactionorliabilityhasbeenextinguished]and Wecanbreakupthetextmessageof[Rivera]to[Lumapas]
(i)ofSection3ofthisRule. intothreeparts.Theutteranceismercifullyshortsothatitcould
26MotiontoQuash. notbedifficulttoinferthewholesenseandunderstandingofthe
messagefromthestandpointofLumapastowhomthemessage
27Rollo,pp.2938.
wasconveyed. Incontext,[Rivera]wasseeking payment ofher

wage claims consequent to her resignation and receiving

[BANFFs] response through Lumapas. [Rivera] retorted with
170motion to quash filed even after arraignment. The CA
threethingsinhermessagetoLumapas(1)thatshesuffereda
likewiseexplainedthat:
lotincollectingherlastpayfrom[BANFF]
 integrity[,] there being no direct and personal imputation of a
venalitytohim.Atbest,thestatementthat[Syhunliong]should
171 understandthemeaningofthemasssuggeststhat[Syhunliong]
Grabetalagasufferingskodyanhanggangpagkuhanglastpay shouldbemorecompassionateandcaringtotheemployee.Butis
ko.[;](2)thatshedoesnotdeservetosufferthisway[becauseshe] being the converse ofcompassionateandcaringsuggestive of a
did [her] job when [she was] still there[;] and (3) turning to viceordefectinthepersonalludedto?Wedonotthink
[Syhunliong]himself[she]saidGodblessras[.][S]anayung
pagsimbaniya,alamniyarealmeaning.
Iflibelistobeunderstoodasanimputationofacrime,viceor 172
defecttoanother,therecanbenolibelinthefirsttwoofthethree so. Otherwise, even courts should be exposed to contempt and
statements which announced only the sufferings, albeit ridicule for reaching at times decisions in favor of capital and
undeserved[,]of[Rivera].Thepropositiongetstobediceyinthe against labor. x x x To follow the intent of the message as
third statement because now she makes a distinct reference to ordinarilyconveyedbythewordsandthecontextinwhichthey
aresaid,itcanonlysuggesttheintentionof[Rivera]todescribe
[Syhunliong][,][b]utistheimputationdefamatory?Wehesitateto
[Syhunliong] as strict and selfish. But[,] there are legitimate
reach this conclusion, and all doubts in criminal law, we are
reasonswhy a person who acts intheinterestoftheemployer
basically taught, must be resolved in favor of the accused. To
mayappearstrictandselfishtotheotherside.Onemayhaveto
articulatethelegalwisdom,[Rivera]hastherighttoexpressan
be so to protect the interest of his company and, indeed, the
opinioninamatterinwhichshehasanundeniableinterest.
outcome of the labor case vindicates the stand of [Syhunliong]
[Rivera said] in the last part of the text that [Syhunliong]
againstgiving[Rivera]theclaimsshesoughtafter.
shouldunderstandtherealmeaningofthemasswhenhegoesto Aresponsibleofficerwhosedecisionsmayaffectthefortunes
attendit.Itisinthistailendofthemessagethat[Syhunliong]is of others and who is faced with criticism such as in this case
mentioned.Butwhatisconveyedbythewords[]sanaalamniya shouldnotbesoonionskinnedastoreactthroughthecriminal
real meaning?[] Does it impute a crime, vice or defect in law.Instead,heshouldusemethodsofdiscussionandpersuasion
[Syhunliong], either directly or by way ofinnuendo? But to dispel the misgivings over his decisions. He should, in
theinnuendocanonlybeexplanatoryofalibelousimputationand particular,explainthroughthesamesourcethattoldhimofthe
cannotalterthesenseofthewordsclaimedtobelibelous.Ifthe commentwhy[BANFF]cannotsatisfyall[ofRiveras]claims.
xxxThemattercontainedinthetextmessageisprivileged
publicationisnotactionableperse,aninnuendocannotmakeit
communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code
so,andifthepublicationisactionableperse,theinnuendowould
which [negates] the existence of malice in a private
notevenbenecessary.
communicationmadebyanypersontoanotherintheperformance
Weholdthatthetextmessageisnotactionablelibel.Itdoes
not serve to cast a shadow on [Syhunliongs] character and ofanylegal,[moral]orsocialduty.xxxItwasLumapaswhotold
herofthestandof[Syhunliong]onthematterofherwageclaims, ontheputativegroundthattheallegedlylibeloustextmessages
andherreactionthroughthetextmessagemaybedeemedapart wereprivilegedcommunication.30
ofherdutytoseekredressofhergrievancesthroughthesame Insupportofthepetition,SyhunliongcitesSoriano,etal.v.
source.Shewasspeakinginresponsetodutyandnotoutofan People, et al.31where the Court declared that in assailing the
intent to injure the reputation of the person who claims to be denialofamotiontoquashaninformation,theaccusedshould
defamed. There was no unnecessary publicity of the message
not fileaspecialcivilactionforcertiorari.Instead,theaccused
beyond the necessity of conveying it to the party
should enter a plea, go to trialsansprejudice to present the
concerned.28(Citationsomittedanditalicssupplied)
specialdefensesheorshehadinvokedinthemotiontoquash,
_______________ andifanadversedecisionisrendered,fileanappealtherefrom.
Syhunliong further avers that Rivera was arraigned on
28Id.,atpp.3337. October11,2007.Section1,Rule117oftheRulesofCourtclearly
providesthattheaccusedmayonlybeallowedtofileamotionto

quashatanytimebeforeenteringaplea.In

173
_______________
TheCAdeniedSyhunliongsmotionforreconsiderationtothe
abovethroughthehereinassailedResolution 29datedJanuary6,
2012. 29Id.,atpp.4041.
30Id.,atpp.1617.
IssuesandArgumentsoftheParties 31609Phil.31;591SCRA244(2009).

Undaunted,SyhunliongnowpresentstothisCourttheissues
ofwhetherornot:(a)thetrialcourtsdenialofamotiontoquash 174Riveras case, she had already voluntarily entered a plea;
informationmaybevalidlyassailedthroughaspecialcivilaction hence, it was tantamount to an effective abandonment of her
forcertiorari; (b) Rivera may validly question the denial of her motiontoquash.
motiontoquashbeforetheCAaftervoluntarilyallowingherself It is also Syhunliongs argument that the CA improperly
to be arraigned even during the pendency of such motion to arrogateduntoitselfthepowertoreviewthePublicProsecutor
and RTCs uniform finding of the existence of probable
quash;(c)theCAmayvalidlyreviewoncertiorariwhatwas,at
cause.EvenifitweretobeassumedthattheRTCerredinits
best,anerrorofjudgmentmadebytheRTC;(d)theCAcorrectly
disposition,itwasamistakeofjudgmentandnotofjurisdiction.
ruledthatthefactschargedintheinformationdonotconstitute
SyhunliongalsorefutestheCAsfindingthatthefactscharged
theoffenseoflibel;and(e)theCAcommittedreversibleerrorin
intheinformationdidnotconstitutethecrimeoflibel.Thetext
orderingtheoutrightdismissalofCriminalCaseNo.Q07147802
message was apparently an indictment of his personality and Riveraalsolamentsthatshewasdeprivedofdueprocessand
charactersinceitportrayedhimasahypocrite. of the opportunity to submit countervailing evidence during
Lastly, Syhunliong invokesPeople v. Judge Gomez32which preliminaryinvestigation.
enunciatedthedoctrinethatinalibelcase,theprivilegednature
ofacommunicationisnotagroundforamotiontoquash,butis OurRuling
merelyamatterofdefensetobeprovenduringthetrial.
In Riveras Comment,33she reiterates the arguments in the
MotiontoQuashfiledwiththeRTC.Additionally,shecontends
that the RTC no longer had jurisdiction to take cognizance of Thereisnomeritintheinstantpetition.
Syhunliongscomplaint.ThetextmessagewassentonApril6,
2006. Per Syhunliongs narration in the instant petition, his Prescriptionhadsetin.
complaint was filed on August 18, 2007, 34beyond the one year
prescriptiveperiodforinstitutingactionsforlibelprovidedforin
Articles9035and9136oftheRPC.
Syhunliong raised five issues before this Court, but the
_______________ Courtsresolutionofthesamewouldbeasuperfluityinthelight
ofRiverasunrefutedavermentthatprescriptionhadsetinbefore
32187Phil.110;98SCRA181(1980). thecomplaintforlibelwasinstituted.
33Rollo,pp.86105. InRomualdez v. Hon. Marcelo,37the Court, partially
34Id.,atp.14. quotingPeople v. Moran,38stressed the reason behind and the
35Art.90.Prescriptionofcrime.xxx characterofprescriptionofpenaloffenses,towit:
xxxx
Thecrimeoflibelorothersimilaroffensesshallprescribein Here the State is the grantor,
oneyear. surrendering by act of grace its rights to
prosecute,anddeclaringtheoffensetobeno
longerthesubjectofprosecution.Thestatute
175 isnotastatuteofprocess,tobescantilyand
Further,thegroundthatthefactschargedintheinformation grudgingly applied, but an amnesty,
didnotconstituteanoffensecanberaisedevenafterarraignment declaringthataftera
andisbroad enoughtocover withinitsambitlackofprobable
cause.This,thecourtcanreassessintheexerciseofitsinherent _______________
powerofjudicialreview.
 36Art.91.Computation of prescription of offenses.The justice in the attenuation and distortion,
period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on even by mere natural lapse of memory, of
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the testimony. It is the policy of the law that
authorities,ortheiragents,andshallbeinterruptedbythefiling prosecutions should be prompt, and that
ofthecomplaintorinformation,andshallcommencetorunagain statutes,enforcingsuchpromptitudeshould
when such proceedings terminate without the accused being be vigorously maintained. They are not
convictedoracquitted,orareunjustifiablystoppedforanyreason merelyactsofgrace,butchecksimposedby
notimputabletohim. the State upon itself, to exact vigilant
37529Phil.90;497SCRA89(2006). activityfromitssubalterns,andtosecurefor
3844Phil.387(1923). criminaltrialsthebestevidencethatcanbe
obtained.
Indeed,thereisnoreasonwhyweshoulddenypetitionerthe
176 benefits accruing from the liberal construction of prescriptive
laws on criminal statutes. Prescription emanates from
certain time oblivion shall be cast over theliberalityoftheState.xxxAnydoubtonthismattermustbe
the offence; xxx that from henceforth[,] he resolved in favor of the grantee thereof, the
may cease to preserve the proofs of his accused.39(Italicssupplied)
innocence, for the proofs of his guilt are

blotted out. Hence[,] it is that statutes of
limitation are to be liberally construed in Inthecaseatbar,itisextantintherecordsthatSyhunliong
favorofthedefendant,notonlybecausesuch filedhiscomplaintagainstRiveramorethanoneyearafterthe
liberalityofconstructionbelongstoallactsof allegedlylibelousmessagewassenttoLuma
amnesty and grace, but because the very
existenceofthestatute,isarecognitionand _______________
notificationbythelegislatureofthefactthat
time,whileitgraduallywearsoutproofsof 39Supranote37atpp.112113;pp.111112.
innocence, has assigned to it fixed and
positiveperiodsinwhichitdestroysproofsof
guilt.Independentlyoftheseviews,itmust 177pas.WhetherthedateofthefilingofthecomplaintisApril
be remembered that delay in instituting 16,2007orAugust18,2007, 40itwouldnotalterthefactthatits
prosecutions is not only productive of institutionwasmadebeyondtheprescriptiveperiodprovidedfor
expense to the State, but of peril to public inArticle90oftheRPC.TheCourtfindsnopersuasivereason
whyRiverashouldbedeprivedofthebenefitsaccruingfromthe _______________
prescriptionofthecrimeascribedtoher.
Peoplev.Castro,41ontheotherhand,isinstructiveanentthe 40Supranote12.
effectincriminalproceedingsofthefailureofanaccusedtoraise 4195Phil.462(1954).
prescription as a ground in a motion to quash an

information,viz.:
178
Doesthefailureoftheaccusedtomovetoquashbeforepleading waivedsuchright,thedefendantmay,atany
constituteawaivertoraisethequestionofprescriptionatalater stageoftheproceeding,demandandaskthat
stageofthecase? the same be finally dismissed and he be
acquitted from the complaint, and such
A case in point isPeople vs. Moran, 44 Phil. 387.
petition is proper and effective even if the
xxx [T]he court ruled that the crime had already prescribed
court taking cognizance of the case has
holdingthatthisdefensecannot[b]edeemedwaivedevenifthe
already rendered judgment and said
casehadbeendecidedbythelowercourtandwaspendingappeal
judgmentismerelyinsuspense,pendingthe
intheSupremeCourt.Thephilosophybehindthisrulingwasaptly
resolutionofamotion fora reconsideration
statedasfollows:Althoughthegeneralruleisthatthedefenseof
andnewtrial,andthisisthemoresosince
prescriptionisnotavailableunlessexpresslysetupinthelower
insuchacasethereisnotyetanyfinaland
court, as in that case it is presumed to have been waived and
irrevocablejudgment.
cannotbetakenadvantageofthereafter,yetthisruleisnotalways
Therulingaboveadvertedtosquarelyappliestothepresent
of absolute application in criminal cases, such as that in which
case.Here,theruleprovidesthatthepleaofprescriptionshould
prescriptionofthecrimeisexpresslyprovidedbylaw,fortheState
besetupbeforearraignment,orbeforetheaccusedpleadstothe
nothavingthentherighttoprosecute,orcontinueprosecuting,nor charge,asotherwisethedefensewouldbedeemedwaived;but,as
topunish,orcontinuepunishing,theoffense,ortocontinueholding was well said in the Moran case, this rule is not of absolute
thedefendantsubjecttoitsactionthroughtheimpositionofthe application, especially when it conflicts with a substantive
penalty, the court must so declare. And elaborating on this provisionsofthelaw,suchasthatwhichreferstoprescriptionof
proposition,theCourtwentontostateasfollows: crimes. Since, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has
Asprescriptionofthecrimeisthelossby onlythepowertopromulgaterulesconcerningpleadings,practice
the State of the right to prosecute and and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law, and
punish the same, it is absolutely cannotcoversubstantiverights(Section13,ArticleVIII,ofthe
indisputablethatfromthemomenttheState Constitution),theruleweareconsideringcannotbeinterpreted
haslostor or given such scope or extent that would come into conflict or
defeatanexpressprovisionofoursubstantivelaw.Oneofsuch Prescription of the crime is already
provisionsisarticle89oftheRevisedPenalCodewhichprovides a compelling reason for this Court to
that the prescription of crime has the effect of totally order the dismissal of the libel in
extinguishing the criminal liability. And so we hold that formation, but the Court still
therulinglaiddownintheMorancasestillholdsgoodevenifit stresses that the text message which
were laid down before the adoption of the present Rules of Rivera sent to Lumapas falls within
Court.42(Italicssupplied)
the purview of a qualified privileged

communication.
WhileCastroisanoldjurisprudence,itstillfindsapplication
inthecaseatbenchinviewofSection9,Rule117oftheRulesof
Court, which in essence partially provides that the defense of
extinctionofcriminalactionorliability,e.g.,pre The rule on privileged communication means that a
communicationmadeingoodfaithonanysubjectmatterinwhich
_______________ thecommunicatorhasaninterest,orconcerningwhichhehasa
duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding
42Id.,atpp.464466. duty.43
Inordertoprovethatastatementfallswithinthepurviewof
aqualifiedprivilegedcommunicationunderArticle354,No.1,the
179scription,isnotdeemedwaivedeveniftheaccusedhadnot following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the
raisedthesameinamotiontoquash.InRiverascase,theissue communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
ofprescriptionisraisedinhercommenttotheinstantpetition communication,oratleast,hadaninteresttopro
beforethisCourt.SyhunliongdoesnotspecificallyrefuteRiveras
averment,thus,itisdeemedadmitted. _______________
Insum,eveniftheCourtweretosustainSyhunliongsstance
that Rivera availed of the wrong remedy when she resorted to 43Noviciov.Aggabao,463Phil.510,517;418SCRA138,144
filing a petition forcertioraribefore the CA to assail the RTC (2003).
ordersdenyingthemotiontoquash,theresultwouldonlyprove
circuitous.Evenifthetrialproceedsandanadversedecisionis
renderedagainstRivera, she can appeal the same, but theCA 180tect,whichinterestmayeitherbehisownoroftheoneto
andthisCourtwouldstillbecompelledtoorderthedismissalof whomitismade;(2)thecommunicationisaddressedtoanofficer
theinformationonaccountofprescriptionofthecrime. or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the
matter,andwhohasthepowertofurnishtheprotectionsought;
and(3)thestatementsinthecommunicationaremadeingood RemedialLaw;Certiorari;GraveAbuseofDiscretion;Words
faithandwithoutmalice.44 andPhrases;Graveabuseofdiscretiondefiesexactdefinition,but
Inthecaseatbar,itwasLumapaswhoinformedRiveraof
itgenerallyreferstocapriciousorwhimsicalexerciseofjudgment
either the delay or denial of the latters claims for payment of
asisequivalenttolackofjurisdiction.Graveabuseofdiscretion
salaries,benefitsandincentivesbySyhunliong.Riveraexpressed
throughthesubjecttextmessagehergrievancestoLumapas.At defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or
thattime,Lumapaswasthebestperson,whocouldhelpexpedite whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
thereleaseofRiverasclaims. jurisdiction.Theabuseofdiscretionmustbepatentandgrossas
Prescindingfromtheabove,theCourtthusfindsnoerrorin toamounttoanevasionofapositivedutyoravirtualrefusalto
theCAsdeclarationthatRiverastextmessagefallswithinthe performadutyenjoinedbylaw,ortoactatallincontemplationof
ambit of a qualified privileged communication since she was law,aswherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryanddespotic
speakinginresponsetoduty[toprotectherowninterest]andnot manner by reason of passion and hostility. Grave abuse of
outofanintenttoinjurethereputation 45ofSyhunliong.Besides, discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the
[t]here was no unnecessary publicity of the message beyond Constitution or grossly disregards the law or existing
[that]ofconveyingittothepartyconcemed.46 jurisprudence.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,the petition Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Specific rules of witness
isDENIED.The Decision rendered on July 11, 2011 and disqualificationareprovidedunderSections21to24,Rule130of
ResolutionissuedonJanuary6,2012bytheCourtofAppealsin theRulesonEvidence.Section21disqualifiesawitnessbyreason
C.A.G.R. S.P.No.110335 ordering theRegional Trial Court of of mental incapacity or immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a
QuezonCity,Branch84,todismisstheinformationforlibelfiled witnessbyreasonofmarriage.Section23disqualifiesawitnessby
by Ramon A. Syhunliong against Teresita D. Rivera
reason of death or insanity of the adverse party. Section 24
areAFFIRMED.
disqualifies a witness by reason of privileged
G.R.No.198240.July3,2013.* communication.InArmedForcesofthePhilippinesRetirement
LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS,** petitioner,vs.THE HEIRS OF and Separation Benefits System v. Republic of the Philippines,
THE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., namely NONITA 694SCRA118(2013),wesaidthatawitnessmustonly
NAVARRO, FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD _______________
NAVARRO BROCHLER, NONITA BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., *FIRSTDIVISION.
IMELDA NAVARRO, ANDRES NAVARRO III, MILAGROS **Rollo,pp.14,42.WhileLydiaNavarroGragedaisnamed
NAVARRO YAP, PILAR NAVARRO, TERESA NAVARRO as copetitioner in the title of the petition, only Luisa Navarro
TABITA,andLOURDESBARRUNREJUSO,respondents. Marcoshasverifiedit.
659
VOL.700,JULY3,2013 659
 Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr. in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and
possess all the qualifications and none of the discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of
disqualificationsprovidedintheRulesofCourt.Section20,Rule writingwhichwouldordinarilyescapenoticeordetectionfroman
130oftheRulesonEvidenceprovides:SEC.20.Witnesses;their unpracticedobserver.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Handwriting Experts;
qualifications.Except as provided in the next succeeding
section,allpersonswhocanperceive,andperceiving,canmake Jurisprudence is replete with instances wherein this Court
knowntheirperceptiontoothers,maybewitnesses.Religiousor dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to prove
politicalbelief,interestintheoutcomeofthecase,orconvictionof forgeries.Jurisprudenceisalsorepletewithinstanceswherein
acrimeunlessotherwiseprovidedbylaw,shallnotbeaground thisCourtdispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to
fordisqualification.Specificrulesofwitnessdisqualificationare prove forgeries. However, we have also recognized that
provided under Sections 21 to 24, Rule 130 of theRules on handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses
Evidence.Section21disqualifiesawitnessbyreasonofmental consideringthetechnicalnatureoftheprocedureinexam
incapacity or immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness by 660
reasonofmarriage.Section23disqualifiesawitnessbyreasonof 6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
deathorinsanityoftheadverseparty.Section24disqualifiesa 60
witnessbyreasonofprivilegedcommunication.
Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr.
Same;Same;Same;ExpertWitnesses;Section49,Rule130 ining forged documents. More important, analysis of the
of the Rules of Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert questionedsignatureinthedeedofdonationexecutedbythelate
witness may be received in evidence.Section 49, Rule 130 of AndresNavarro,Sr.incrucialtotheresolutionofthecase.
theRules of Evidenceis clear that the opinion of an expert PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
witnessmaybereceivedinevidence,towit:SEC.49.Opinionof oftheCourtofAppeals.
expertwitness.Theopinionofawitnessonamatterrequiring ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
specialknowledge,skill,experienceortrainingwhichheisshown SiguionReyna,Montecillo&Ongsiakoforpetitioner.
topossess,maybereceivedinevidence.Forinstance,inTamani RubenA.SongcoandRicardoButalidforrespondents.
v. Salvador, 647 SCRA 132 (2011), we were inclined to believe VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
that Tamanis signature was forged after considering the PetitionerLuisaNavarroMarcosappealstheDecision 1dated
testimonyofthePNPdocumentexaminerthatthecaseinvolved February 28, 2011 and Resolution2dated July 29, 2011 of the
simulated or copied forgery, such that the similarities will be CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.92460.
superficial.Wesaidthatthevalueoftheopinionofahandwriting Theantecedentfactsfollow:
expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a SpousesAndresNavarro,Sr.andConcepcionMedinaNavarro
writingisgenuineorfalse,butupontheassistancehemayafford died in 1958 and 1993, respectively. They left behind several
parcels of land including a 108.3997hectare lot (subject lot) the handwriting examination of the affidavit. They added that
locatedinCayabon,Milagros,Masbate.3 presenting PO2 Alvarez as a witness will violate their
hespousesweresurvivedbytheirdaughtersLuisaNavarro constitutionalrighttodueprocesssincenonoticewasgivento
Marcos,hereinpetitioner,andLydiaNavarroGrageda,andthe thembeforetheexaminationwasconducted.8Thus,PO2Alvarezs
heirsoftheironlysonAndresNavarro,Jr.TheheirsofAndres, reportisaworthlesspieceofpaperandhertestimonywouldbe
Jr.aretherespondentsherein.4 uselessandirrelevant.9
Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents In its Order10dated August 19, 2004, the RTC granted
areclaimingexclusiveownershipofthesubjectlot.Respondents respondentsmotionanddisqualifiedPO2Alvarezasawitness.
basedtheirclaimontheAffidavitofTransferofReal TheRTCruledthatPO2Alvarezssupposedtestimonywouldbe
_______________ hearsay as she has no personal knowledge of the alleged
1Id.,atpp.4752.PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarioV.Lopez handwritingofAndres,Sr.Also,thereisnoneedforPO2Alvarez
withtheconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesMagdangalM.DeLeon tobepresented,ifsheistobepresentedasanexpertwitness,
andFranchitoN.Diamante. becausehertestimonyisnotyetneeded.
2Id.,atpp.5457. _______________
3Id.,atp.48. 5Id.
4Id. 6Id.
661 7Id.
VOL.700,JULY3,2013 661 8Id.,atpp.4849.
Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr. 9Id.,atp.211.
Property dated May 19, 1954 where Andres, Sr. donated the 10CARollo,pp.2425.
subjectlottoAndres,Jr.5 662
Believingthattheaffidavitisaforgery,thesisters,through 662 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Assistant Fiscal Andres Marcos, requested a handwriting Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr.
examinationoftheaffidavit.The PNP handwritingexpertPO2 ThesisterssoughtreconsiderationoftheorderbuttheRTC
Mary Grace Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.s signature on the deniedtheirmotioninanOrder11datedOctober11,2005.
affidavit and the submitted standard signatures of Andres, Sr.
Aggrieved,thesistersfiledapetitionforcertioraribeforethe
werenotwrittenbyoneandthesameperson.6
CA, which however, dismissed their petition in the assailed
Thus,thesisterssuedtherespondentsforannulmentofthe
Decision dated February 28, 2011 on the ground that the
deed of donation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215 has mooted the issue of PO2
Masbate,wherethecasewasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.5215. 7
Alvarezsdisqualificationasawitness.
After the pretrial, respondents moved to disqualify PO2
Later,theCAlikewisedeniedtheirmotionforreconsideration
Alvarezasawitness.TheyarguedthattheRTCdidnotauthorize
in its Resolution dated July 29, 2011. The CA refused to take
judicial notice of the decision of another CA Division which dismissedCivilCaseNo.5215,weareunabletoagreewithits
reinstatedCivilCaseNo.5215.TheCAheldthataCAJustice refusal to take judicial notice of the Decision 16of another CA
cannottakejudicialnoticeofdecisionsormatterspendingbefore Division which reinstated Civil Case No. 5215. Subsequent
anotherDivisionoftheappellatecourtwhereheorsheisnota proceedingswereevenheldinthereinstatedCivilCaseNo.5215
member. The CA also held that the sisters were negligent for perOrders17issuedbytheRTCwhichwerealreadysubmittedto
belatedlyinformingitthatCivilCaseNo.5215wasreinstated. theCA.ThatCivilCaseNo.5215wasreinstatedisafactthat
Hence,thisappeal. cannotbeignored.
PetitionerarguesthattheCAerredinrefusingtoreconsider WealsoagreewithpetitionerthattheRTCcommittedgrave
theassaileddecisioninlightofthereinstatementofCivilCase abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness.
No.5215.PetitioneraddsthattheCAerredinnotrulingthatthe Graveabuseofdiscretiondefiesexactdefinition,butitgenerally
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
Alvarez as a witness.12They stress that PO2 Alvarez will be equivalenttolackofjurisdiction.Theabuseofdiscretionmustbe
presentedasanexpertwitnesstorenderanopiniononwhether patentandgrossastoamounttoanevasionofapositivedutyor
the disputed handwriting was indeed made by Andres, Sr. or avirtualrefusaltoperformadutyenjoinedbylaw,ortoactatall
whetheritisaforgery.13 incontemplationoflaw,aswherethepowerisexercisedinan
Intheircomment,14respondentscounterthattheCAproperly arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and
disqualifiedPO2Alvarez.TheyalsoagreedwiththeCAthather hostility.18Graveabuseofdiscretionariseswhenalowercourtor
disqualification was mooted by the dismissal of Civil Case No. tribunalviolatestheConstitutionorgrosslydisregardsthelawor
5215. existingjurisprudence.19
Wefindinfavorofpetitioner. InArmedForcesofthePhilippinesRetirementandSeparation
_______________ Benefits System v. Republic of the Philippines,20we said that a
11Id.,atp.26. witnessmustonlypossessallthequalificationsand
12Rollo,p.29. _______________
13Id.,atp.35. 15CARollo,pp.262,267268.
14Id.,atpp.530532. 16Id.,atpp.297306.
663 17Id.,atpp.307308.
VOL.700,JULY3,2013 663 18Deutsche Bank AG v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 193065,
Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr. February27,2012,667SCRA82,100.
TheCArulingthatthedismissalofCivilCaseNo.5215has 19RepublicofthePhilippinesv.Hon.RamonS.Caguioa,et
mootedtheissueofPO2Alvarezsdisqualificationasawitness al.,G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013, p. 10, 691 SCRA 306,
cannolongerbejustified.Hence,wereversetheCAruling.While 322.
we agree with the CA in considering the RTCs Orders 15which 20G.R.No.188956,March20,2013,p.5;694SCRA118,125.
664 Section20providesfordisqualificationbasedonconflictsof
664 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED interest or on relationship. Section 21 provides for
Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr. disqualification based on privileged communications.
none of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. Section15ofRule132maynotbearuleondisqualification
Section20,Rule130oftheRulesonEvidence
provides: _______________
21238Phil.597,602603;154SCRA610,615616(1987).
SEC.20.Witnesses; their qualifications.Except as
665
provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their VOL.700,JULY3,2013 665
perceptiontoothers,maybewitnesses. Marcosvs.HeirsoftheLateDr.AndresNavarro,Jr.
Religiousorpoliticalbelief,interestintheoutcomeof ofwitnessesbutitstatesthegroundswhenawitnessmay
thecase,orconvictionofacrimeunlessotherwiseprovided beimpeachedbythepartyagainstwhomhewascalled.
bylaw,shallnotbeagroundfordisqualification. ThereisnoprovisionoftheRulesdisqualifyingparties
Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under declaredindefaultfromtakingthewitnessstandfornon
Sections21to24,Rule130oftheRulesonEvidence.Section21 disqualifiedparties.Thelawdoesnotprovidedefaultasan
disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or exception.The specific enumeration of disqualified
immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of witnesses excludes the operation of causes of
marriage.Section23disqualifiesawitnessbyreasonofdeathor disabilityotherthanthosementionedintheRules.It
insanityoftheadverseparty.Section24disqualifiesawitnessby is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the
reasonofprivilegedcommunication. construction of statutes that an express exception,
InCaviliv.JudgeFlorendo,21wehaveheldthatthe specific exemption,orsavingclauseexcludesotherexceptions.xxx
enumeration ofdisqualifiedwitnesses excludesthe operationof Asageneralrule,wherethereareexpressexceptionsthese
causesofdisabilityotherthanthosementionedintheRules.The comprisetheonlylimitationsontheoperationofastatute
Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not and no other exception will be implied. xxxThe Rules
embodiedtherein.Wesaid: should not be interpreted to include an exception
The generosity with which the Rule allows people to not embodied therein.(Emphasis supplied; citations
testify is apparent. Interest in the outcome of a case, omitted.)
convictionofacrimeunlessotherwiseprovidedbylaw,and AsahandwritingexpertofthePNP,PO2Alvarezcansurely
religiousbeliefarenotgroundsfordisqualification. perceiveandmakeknownherperceptiontoothers.Wehaveno
Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 provide for specific doubt that she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be
disqualifications. Section 19 disqualifies those who are disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the
mentally incapacitatedand children whose tenderage or disqualificationsspecifiedundertheRules.Respondentsmotion
immaturity renders them incapable of being witnesses. todisqualifyhershouldhavebeendeniedbytheRTCforitwas
notbasedonanyofthesegroundsfordisqualification.TheRTC Courtdispensedwiththetestimonyofexpertwitnessestoprove
rather confused the qualification of the witness with the forgeries.24However, we have also recognized that handwriting
credibilityandweightofhertestimony. experts are often offered as expert witnesses considering the
Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of theRules
of Evidenceis technical nature of the procedure in examining forged
clear thatthe opinion of an expert witness may be received in documents.25More important, analysis of the questioned
evidence,towit: signature in the deed of donation executed by the late Andres
SEC.49.Opinionofexpertwitness.Theopinionofa Navarro,Sr.incrucialtotheresolutionofthecase.
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, Insum,theRTCshouldnothavedisqualifiedPO2Alvarezas
experienceortrainingwhichheisshowntopossess,may awitness.Shehasthequalificationsofwitnessandpossessnone
bereceivedinevidence. of the disqualifications under the Rules. The Rules allow the
Forinstance,inTamaniv.Salvador,22wewereinclinedtobelieve opinion of an expert witness to be received as evidence.
that Tamanis signature was forged after considering the InTamani,weusedtheopinionofanexpertwitness.Thevalueof
testimonyofthePNPdocumentexaminerthatthecaseinvolved PO2 Alvarezs expert opinion cannot be determined if PO2
simulated or copied forgery, such that the similarities will be Alvarez is not even allowed to testify on the handwriting
superficial.Wesaidthatthevalueoftheopinionofahandwriting examinationsheconducted.
expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetition.WeSETASIDEthe
writingisgenuineorfalse,butupontheassistancehemayafford (1)DecisiondatedFebruary28,2011andResolutiondatedJuly
in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and 29,2011oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.92460,and(2)
discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of Orders dated August 19, 2004 and October 11, 2005 of the
writingwhichwouldordinarilyescapenoticeordetectionfroman Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 5215.
unpracticedobserver. WeDENYrespondents motion to disqualify PO2 Mary Grace
Thus,wedisagreewiththeRTCthatPO2Alvarezstestimony Alvarezasawitness.
would be hearsay. Under Section 49, Rule 130 of theRules on Nopronouncementastocosts.
Evidence,PO2Alvarezisallowedtorenderanexpertopinion,as VOL.427,APRIL2,2004 15
the PNP document examiner was allowed in Tamani. But the Peoplevs.Golimlim
RTCalreadyruledattheoutsetthatPO2Alvarezstestimonyis
G.R.No.145225.April2,2004.*
hearsayevenbeforehertestimonyisofferedandsheiscalledto
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.SALVADOR
thewitnessstand.Underthecircumstances,theCAshouldhave
GOLIMLIM@BADONG,appellants.
issuedacorrectivewritofcertiorariandannulledtheRTCruling.
True, the use of the word may in Section 49, Rule 130 of Witnesses;Mental Retardates;That a person is a mental
theRules on Evidencesignifies that the use of opinion of an retardate does not disqualify her as a witness nor render her
expertwitnessispermissiveandnotmandatoryonthepartofthe testimony bereft of truth.The trial judges assessment of the
courts.23Jurisprudenceisalsorepletewithinstanceswhereinthis credibility of witnesses testimonies is, as has repeatedly been
held by this Court, accorded great respect on appeal in the 1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
absenceofgraveabuseofdiscretiononitspart,ithavinghadthe 6
advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial
Peoplevs.Golimlim
evidenceincludingthedemeanorofthewitnesses.Inthepresent
cludingsuchawitnesswhomaybetheonlypersonavailable
case,nocogentreasoncanbeappreciatedtowarrantadeparture
fromthefindingsofthetrialcourtwithrespecttotheassessment whoknowsthefacts,seemineptandprimitive.Itcannotthenbe
ofEvelynstestimony.ThatEvelynisamentalretardatedoesnot gainsaidthatamentalretardatecanbeawitness,dependingon
disqualify her as a witness nor render her testimony bereft of hisorherabilitytorelatewhatheorsheknows.Ifhisorher
truth. testimonyiscoherent,thesameisadmissibleincourt.Tobesure,
Same;Same;Itisnowuniversallyacceptedthatintellectual modernrulesonevidencehavedowngradedmentalincapacityas
agroundtodisqualifyawitness.AsobservedbyMcCormick,the
weakness,nomatterwhatformitassumes,isnotavalidobjection
remedyofexcludingsuchawitnesswhomaybetheonlyperson
tothecompetencyofawitnesssolongasthelattercanstillgivea available whoknows the facts, seems inept and primitive. Our
fairlyintelligentandreasonablenarrativeofthemattertestified rulesfollowthemoderntrendofevidence.Thus,inalonglineof
to.InPeople v.Trelles, where the trial court relied heavily on cases,thisCourthasupheldtheconvictionoftheaccusedbased
the therein mentally retarded private complainants testimony mainly on statements given in court by the victim who was a
irregardless of her monosyllabic responses and vacillations mentalretardate.
between lucidity and ambiguity, this Court held: A mental Criminal Law;Rape;Mental Retardates;Statutory
retardate or a feebleminded person is not,per se,disqualified Rape;Sexualintercoursewithawomanwhoisamentalretardate
frombeingawitness,hermentalconditionnotbeingavitiationof constitutes statutoryrapewhich does notrequireproof that the
her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual
accusedusedforceorintimidationinhavingcarnalknowledgeof
weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid
the victim for conviction; A quantum of force which may not
objectiontothecompetencyofawitnesssolongasthelattercan
still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the suffice when the victim is a normal person may be more than
mattertestifiedto. enough when employed against an imbecile.It is settled that
Same;Same;To be sure, modern rules on evidence have sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate
downgraded mental incapacity as a ground to disqualify a constitutesstatutoryrapewhichdoesnotrequireproofthatthe
accusedusedforceorintimidationinhavingcarnalknowledgeof
witnesstheremedyofex
thevictimforconviction.ThefactofEvelynsmentalretardation
was not, however, alleged in the Information and, therefore,
_______________
cannot be the basis for conviction. Such notwithstanding, that
forceandintimidationattendedthecommissionofthecrime,the
THIRDDIVISION.
*

modeofcommissionallegedintheInformation,wasadequately
16
proven. It bears stating herein that the mental faculties of a ThatsometimeinthemonthofAugust,1996,atBarangayBical,
retardate being different from those of a normal person, the Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and
degreeofforceneededtooverwhelmhimorherisless.Hence,a withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourttheabovenamed
quantum of force which may not suffice when the victim is a accused,armedwithabladedweapon,bymeansofviolenceand
normalperson,maybemorethanenoughwhenemployedagainst intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
animbecile. feloniously, have carnal knowledge of one Evelyn Canchela
against her will and without her consent, to her damage and
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSorsogon, prejudice.
Sorsogon,Br.65. Contrarytolaw.2
Upon arraignment on December 15, 1997, 3appellant, duly
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. assistedbycounsel,pleadednotguiltytotheoffensecharged.
TheSolicitorGeneralforappellee. Thefactsestablishedbytheprosecutionareasfollows:
PublicAttorneysOfficeforappellants. PrivatecomplainantEvelynG.Canchela(Evelyn),isamental
retardate.Whenhermother,AmparoHachero,leftforSingapore
CARPIOMORALES,J.: on May 2, 1996 to work as a domestic helper, she entrusted
Evelyn to the care and custody of her (Amparos) sister Jovita
OnappealistheDecision1ofJune9,2000oftheRegionalTrial GubanandherhusbandSalvadorGolimlim,hereinappellant,at
Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 65 in Criminal Case No. BarangayBical,Bulan,Sorsogon.4
241, SometimeinAugust1996,Jovitalefttheconjugalresidenceto
meet a certain Rosing,5leaving Evelyn with appellant. Taking
_______________ advantage of the situation, appellant instructed private
complainanttosleep,6andsoonaftershehadlaiddown,hekissed
1
Rolloatpp.3145. herandtookoffherclothes.7Ashepokedatheranobjectwhich
17 toEvelynfeltlikeaknife, 8heproceededtoinserthispenisinto
VOL.427,APRIL2,2004 17 hervagina.9Hislustsatisfied,appellantfellasleep.
Peoplevs.Golimlim
_______________
findingappellantSalvadorGolimlimaliasBadongguiltybeyond
reasonable doubt of rape, imposing on him the penalty 2
Id.,atp.10.
ofreclusionperpetua,andholdinghimcivillyliableintheamount 3
Recordsatp.29.
ofP50,000.00asindemnity,andP50,000.00asmoraldamages. 4
TSN,August12,1998atp.12.
TheInformationdatedApril16,1997filedagainstappellant 5
TSN,October14,1998atp.6.
readsasfollows: 6
TSN,January27,1999atp.9.
 7
Id.,atp.6. FINDINGS: LMP [last menstrual period]: Aug. 96 ?
8
Id.,atp.8. Abd [abdomen]: 7 months AOG [age of gestation]
FHT [fetal heart tone]: 148/min
9
Id.,atpp.10and13.
Presentation: Cephalic
18
Hymen:oldlacerationat3,5,7,&11oclockposition14
18 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
On the same day, the sisters went back to the Investigation
Peoplevs.Golimlim SectionoftheBulanMunicipalPoliceStationbeforewhichthey
WhenJovitaarrived,Evelyntoldheraboutwhatappellantdidto executedtheirswornstatements.15
her.Jovita,however,didnotbelieveherandinfactshescolded
her.10 _______________
Sometime in December of the same year, Lorna Hachero,
Evelynshalfsister,receivedaletterfromtheirmotherAmparo 10
Id.,atp.10.
instructinghertofetchEvelynfromSorsogonandallowherto 11
TSN,June2,1998atp.7.
stay in Novaliches, Quezon City where she (Lorna) resided. 12
Id.,atp.8.
Dutifully, Lorna immediately repaired to appellants home in 13
TSN,August12,1998atp.3.
Bical,andbroughtEvelynwithhertoManila. 14
ExhibitE,Recordsatp.16.
A week after she brought Evelyn to stay with her, Lorna 15
ExhibitB,Recordsatp.12.
suspectedthathersisterwaspregnantasshenoticedhergrowing
19
belly. She thereupon brought her to a doctor at the Pascual
VOL.427,APRIL2,2004 19
GeneralHospitalatBaeza,Novaliches,QuezonCityforcheckup
andultrasoundexamination. Peoplevs.Golimlim
Lornas suspicions were confirmed as the examinations OnFebruary27,1997,Evelyn,assistedbyLorna,filedacriminal
revealedthatEvelynwasindeedpregnant.11Shethusaskedher complaintforrape16againstappellantbeforetheMunicipalTrial
sister how she became pregnant, to which Evelyn replied that CourtofBulan,Sorsogon,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.6272.
appellanthadsexualintercoursewithherwhileholdingaknife.12 InthemeantimeoronMay7,1997,Evelyngavebirthtoa
InFebruaryof1997,thesistersleftforBulan,Sorsogonfor girl,JoanaCanchela,atGuruyan,Juban,Sorsogon.17
thepurposeoffilingacriminalcomplaintagainstappellant.The Appellant, on being confronted with the accusation, simply
police in Bulan, however, advised them to first have Evelyn saidthatitisnottrue[b]ecausehermindisnotnormal, 18she
examined.Obliging,thetworepairedonFebruary24,1997tothe havingmentionedmanyothernamesofmenwhoha[d]sexual
Municipal Health Office of Bulan, Sorsogon where Evelyn was intercoursewithher.19
examined by Dr. Estrella Payoyo.13The Medicolegal Report Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, by the present
appealed Decision, convicted appellant as charged. The
revealedthefollowingfindings,quotedverbatim:
dispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,accusedSalvadorGolimlim Peoplevs.Golimlim
havingbeenfoundguiltyofthecrimeofRAPE(Art.335R.P.C.as AppellantarguesthatEvelynstestimonyisnotcategoricalandis
amended by RA 7659) beyond reasonable doubt is hereby repletewithcontradictions,thusengenderinggravedoubtsasto
sentencedtosufferthepenaltyofRECLUSIONPERPETUA,and hiscriminalculpability.
toindemnifytheoffendedpartyEvelynCanchelaintheamount IngivingcredencetoEvelynstestimonyandfindingagainst
of P50,000.00 as indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral appellant, the trial court made the following observations,
damage[s],andtopaythecosts. quotedverbatim:
SOORDERED.20
Hence,thepresentappeal,appellantassigningtothetrialcourt 1. 1)Despiteherweakanddullmentalstatethevictimwas
thefollowingerrors: consistentinherclaimthatherPapayBadong(accused
Salvador Golimlim) had carnal knowledge of her and
1. I.THE COURTA QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING wastheauthorofherpregnancy,andnobodyelse(See:
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE ForcomparisonherSwornStatementonp.3/Record;her
CONTRADICTORYANDIMPLAUSIBLETESTIMONY narration in the Psychiatric Report on pp. 47 &
OF EVELYN CANCHELA, A MENTAL RETARDATE, 48/Record;theTSNsofhertestimonyinopencourt);
[AND]
2. 2)She remains consistent that her Papay Badong raped
2. II.THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINFINDING heronlyonce;
THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT
FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN 3. 3)That the contradictory statements she made in open
BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.21 court relative to the details of how she was raped,
althoughwould seem derogatory toher credibility and
_______________ reliability as a witness under normal conditions, were
amplyexplainedbythepsychiatristwhoexaminedher
16
Recordsatp.7. andsupportedbyherfindings(See:ExhibitsFtoF
17
ExhibitD,Recordsatp.127. 2);
18
TSN,September20,1999atp.4.
19
Ibid. 4. 4)Despiteherclaimthatseveralpersonslaidontopofher
20
Rolloatp.45. (which is still subject to question considering that the
21
Id.,atp.80. victimcouldnotelaborateonitsmeaning),thelucidfact
20 remainsthatsheneverpointedtoanybodyelseasthe
20 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED authorofherpregnancy,butherPapayBadong.Which
 only shows that the trauma that was created in her perceiving,canmakeknowntheirperceptiontoothers,maybe
mind by the incident has remained printed in her witnesses.
memory despite her weak mental state. Furthermore, xxx
grantingforthesakeofargumentthatothermenalso SEC. 21.Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
laidontopofher,thisdoesnotdeviatefromthefactthat immaturity.Thefollowingpersonscannotbewitnesses:
herPapayBadong(theaccused)hadsexualintercourse
withher.22
1. (a)Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are
The trial judges assessment of the credibility of witnesses incapableofintelligentlymakingknowntheirperception
testimonies is, as has repeatedly been held by this Court, toothers;
accordedgreatrespectonappealintheabsenceofgraveabuseof
discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of actually
2. (b)Childrenwhosementalmaturityissuchastorender
examining both real and testimonial evidence including the
themincapableofperceivingthefactsrespectingwhich
demeanorofthewitnesses.23
theyareexaminedandofrelatingthemtruthfully.
Inthe present case, no cogent reason can beappreciated to
warrant a departure from the findings of the trial court with
respecttotheassessmentofEvelynstestimony. InPeoplev.Trelles,24wherethetrialcourtreliedheavilyonthe
therein mentally retarded private complainants testimony
_______________ irregardless of her monosyllabic responses and vacillations
betweenlucidityandambiguity,thisCourtheld:
Id.,atpp.3839.
22 A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not,per
People v. De Guzman,372 SCRA 95, 101 (2001),People v.
23 se,disqualified from being a witness, her mental condition not
Balisnomo,265SCRA98,104(1996)(citationsomitted). beingavitiationofhercredibility.Itisnowuniversallyaccepted
21 thatintellectualweakness, no matter whatformitassumes, is
notavalidobjectiontothecompetencyofawitnesssolongasthe
VOL.427,APRIL2,2004 21
lattercanstillgiveafairlyintelligentandreasonablenarrativeof
Peoplevs.Golimlim themattertestifiedto.25
ThatEvelynisamentalretardatedoesnotdisqualifyherasa It can not then be gainsaid that a mental retardate can be a
witnessnorrenderhertestimonybereftoftruth. witness,dependingonhisorherabilitytorelatewhatheorshe
Sections20and21ofRule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourt knows.26If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is
provide: admissibleincourt.27
SEC.20.Witnesses;theirqualifications.Exceptasprovidedin Tobesure,modernrulesonevidencehavedowngradedmental
the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and incapacity as a ground to disqualify a witness. As observed by
McCormick,theremedyofexcludingsuchawitnesswhomaybe statusexaminationforthree(3)timesandItriedtoseetheconsistencyin
theonlypersonavailablewho thenarrationbutverypoor(sic)ingivingdetails.
xxx
_______________
Q: Mayweknowwhatsherelatedtoyou?
24
340SCRA652(2000). A: SherelatedtomethatshewasrapedbyheruncleTatayBadong.Whatshe
25
Id.,atp.658(citationsomitted). mentionedwasthat,andIquote:hinilaangpantyko,pinasokangpisotat
26
Peoplev.DelosSantos,364SCRA142,156(2001). bayagniyasapipiko.Shewouldlaughinappropriatelyaftertellingmethat
27
People v. Lubong,332 SCRA 672, 690 (2000) (citation particularincident.Ialsotriedtoaskherregardingthedates,thetimeofthe
omitted). incident,butshecouldnotreally....Itriedtoelicitthoseimportantthings,
22 butthepatienthadahardtimerememberingthosedates.
22 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Peoplevs.Golimlim
knowsthefacts,seemsineptandprimitive.Ourrulesfollowthe
People v. Espanola,271 SCRA 689, 709 (1997) (citations
28
moderntrendofevidence.28
omitted).
Thus, in a long line of cases,29this Court has upheld the
conviction of the accused based mainly on statements given in
29
People v. Agravante,338 SCRA 13(2000),People
courtbythevictimwhowasamentalretardate. v.Padilla,301 SCRA 265(1999),People v. Malapo,294 SCRA
Fromameticulousscrutinyoftherecordsofthiscase,thereis 579(1998),People v.Balisnomo,265 SCRA 98(1996),People
noreasontodoubtEvelynscredibility.Tobesure,hertestimony v.Gerones,193SCRA263(1991).
is not without discrepancies, given of course her 30
TSN,December21,1998atp.10.
feeblemindedness. 23
By the account of Dr. Chona CuyosBelmonte, Medical VOL. 23
SpecialistIIatthePsychiatricDepartmentoftheBicolMedical 427,
Center, who examined Evelyn, although Evelyn was suffering
APRIL2,
from moderate mental retardation with an IQ of 46, 30she is
2004
capableofperceivingandrelatingeventswhichhappenedtoher.
Thusthedoctortestified: Peoplevs.Golimlim
Q: Sodoyoutrytoimpressthatalthoughsheanswersingeneraltermsitdoes Q: Butconsideringthatyouhaveevaluatedhermentally,gaveherI.Q.
notnecessarilymeanthatshemightbeinventinganswersonlythatshe test,inyourhonestopinion,doyoubelievethatthisnarrationbythe
couldnotgotothespecificdetailsbecauseofdullness? patienttoyouabouttherapeisreliable?
A: IdontthinkshewasinventingheranswerbecauseIconductedmental A: Yes,sir.
Q: Whydoyouconsiderthatreliable? patientfromansweringquestions.
A: Beinga(sic)moderatelyretarded,Ihavenoticedthespontaneityof xxx
heranswersduringthetimeofthetesting.Shewasnoteven Q: Whatifthevictimisbeingcoachedorledbysomeoneelse,willshe
hesitatingwhenshetoldmeshewasrapedonceathomebyher beabletoanswerthequestions?
TatayBadong;andshewaslaughingwhenshetoldmeabouthowit A: Yes,shemaybeabletoanswerthequestions,butyouwouldnotice
wasdoneon(sic)her.So,althoughshemaybeinappropriatebut theinconsistencyoftheanswersbecausewhatwenormallydoisthat
(sic)shewasspontaneous,shewasconsistent. wepresentthequestionsindifferentways,andweexpectthesame
Q: Now,Iwouldliketorelatetoyouanincidentthathappenedinthis answer.Thisishowwetrytoevaluatethe
Courtforyoutogiveusyourexpertopinion.Itriedtopresentthe 24
victiminthiscasetotestify.Whileshetestifiedthatshewasraped 24 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
byheruncleBadong,whenaskedaboutthedetails,thereof,she Peoplevs.Golimlim
wouldnotmake(sic)thedetail.Sheonlyansweredwala(no).Iask patient.Iftheperson,especiallyaretarded,isbeingcoachedbysomebody,
thisquestionbecausesomehowthisseemsrelatedtoyourprevious theanswerswillnolongerbeconsistent.
evaluationthatwhileshegaveananswer,shegavenodetail.Now,I Q: Youalsomentionedawhileagothattheanswersgivenbythepatient,taken
wasthinkingbecauseIamamanandIwastheoneaskingandthe allinall,wereconsistent?
Judgeisamanalso.Andwhilethemotherwouldsaythatshewould A: Yes,sir.31(Italicssupplied)
relatetoherandsherelatedtoyou,canyouexplaintouswhywhen AsnotedintheabovequotedtestimonyofDr.Belmonte,Evelyn
shewaspresentedincourtthatoccurrence,thateventhappened? couldgivespontaneousandconsistentanswerstothesamebut
differently framed questions under conditions which do not
A: Therearealotofpossibleanswerstothatquestion;one,isthe
inhibitherfromanswering.Itcouldhavebeeninthislightthat
courtsatmosphereitself.Thismayhavebroughtalittleanxietyon
Evelynwasabletorelateincourt,uponexaminationbyafemale
thepartofthepatientandthisinhibitsherfromrelatingsomeofthe governmentprosecutorandtheexclusionofthepublicfromthe
detailsrelativetotheincidentinquestion.WhenIconductedmy proceedings, on Dr. Belmontes suggestion,32how, as quoted
interviewwiththepatient,therewereonlytwo(2)ofusintheroom. below,shewasrapedandthatitwasappellantwhodidit:
Inormallydonotaskthisquestionduringthefirstsessionwiththe Q: LornaHacherotestifiedbeforethisCourtthatyougavebirthtoababygirl
patientbecausetheseareemotionallyleadingquestions,andIdonot namedJohanna,isthistrue?
expectthepatienttobeverytrusting.So,Iusuallyaskthistypeof A: (Thewitnessnods,yes.)
questionsduringthelaterpartofmyexaminationtomakeherrelax xxx
duringmyevaluation.Sointhisway,shewillbemorecooperative Q: WhoisthefatherofJohanna?
withme.Idontthinkthatthiskindofatmospherewithinthe A: PapayBadong
courtroomwithsomepeoplearound,thiscouldhaveinhibitedthe
Q: WhoisthisPapayBadongthatyouarereferringto? A: Iwasscoldedbythewife,MamayBita.
A: ThehusbandofMamayBita. Q: Iamreferringtothatverymomentwhenyouwereundressed.
Q: Ishehereincourt? ImmediatelyafteryourPapayBadongundressedyou,whatdidyou
A: Heishere. do?
Q: Pleaselookaroundandpointhimtous. xxx
A: (Thewitnesspointingtothelonemansittinginthefirstrowofthegallery A: Helaidontopofme.
wearingaregularprisonorangetshirtwhogavehisnameasSalvador Q: Whatwasyourpositionwhenhelaidontopofyou?
Golimlimwhenasked.) A: Iwaslyingdown.
Q: WhywereyouabletosaythatitisPapayBadongwhoisthefatherofyour Q: Thenafterhewentontopofyou,whatdidhedothere?
childJohanna? A: Hemade(sic)sexualintercoursewithme.
A: BecausethenIwasleftatMamayBitashouse,althoughIamnotthere Q: Whenyousaidhehada(sic)sexualintercoursewithyou,whatdid
now. hedoexactly?
Q: AndthathousewhereyouwereleftisalsothehouseofyourPapay A: Hekissedme.
Badong? Q: Where?
A: Yesmaam. A: Onthecheeks(witnessmotioningindicatinghercheeks).
Q: Whatelsedidhedo?PleasedescribebeforethisHonorableCourt
_______________ thesexualintercoursewhichyouarereferringtowhichtheaccused
didtoyou.
Id.,atpp.921.
31
A: Initoyandhesleptafterthat.
Id.,atpp.1314.
32
(toCourt)
25
Nevertheless,maywerequestthatthelocaltermforsexual
VOL.427, 25
intercourse,thewordInitoywhichwasusedbythewitnessbeput
APRIL2,
ontherecord,andwerequestjudicialnoticeofthefact
2004
thatinitoyisthelocaltermforsexualintercourse.
Peoplevs.Golimlim
xxx
Q: WhatdidSalvadorGolimlimoryourPapayBadongdotoyou
Q: WhatdidyoufeelwhenyourPapayBadonghadsexualintercourse
thatswhyyouwereabletosaythatheisthefatherofyourchild?
withyou?
A: Iwasundressedbyhim.
A: Ifeltaknife;itwaslikeaknife.
xxx
Q: Wheredidyoufeelthatknife?
Q: Whatdidyoudoafteryouwereundressed?
A: Iforgot.
 Q: WhydidyouallowyourPapayBadongtohavesexualintercourse thecrimewascommittedin1996),thetrialcourtdidnotspecify
withyou? under which mode the crime was committed. Under the said
A: Iwillnotconsenttoit. article,rapeiscommittedthus:
xxx ART.335.Whenandhowrapeiscommitted.Rapeiscommitted
26 by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
26 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED followingcircumstances.

Peoplevs.Golimlim
1. 1.Byusingforceorintimidation;
Q: Didyoulikewhathedidtoyou?
A: Idonotwantit. 2. 2.When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
Q: Butwhydidithappen? unconscious;and
A: Iwasforcedto.
xxx _______________
Q: DidyoufeelanythingwhenheinsertedintoyourvaginawhenyourPapay
Badonglaidontopofyou?
33
TSN,January27,1999atpp.413.
A: Hissexualorgan/penis.
34
People v. De Guzman,372 SCRA 95, 111 (2001) (citations
Q: HowdidyouknowthatitwasthepenisofyourPapayBadongthatwas omitted),People v. Glabo,371 SCRA 567, 573 (2001) (citations
enteredintoyourvagina? omitted),People v. Lalingjaman,364 SCRA 535, 546 (2001)
A: Itwasputontopofme. (citationsomitted),Peoplev.Agravante,338SCRA13,20(2000).
Q: Diditenteryourvagina? 27
A: Yes,YourHonor. VOL.427,APRIL2,2004 27
xxx Peoplevs.Golimlim
Q: MadamWitness,isittruethatyourPapayBadonginsertedhispenisinto
yourvaginaorsexualorganduringthattimethathewasontopofyou? 1. 3.When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
A: (Thewitnessnods,yes.)33(Italicssupplied)
Appellantsbaredenialisnotonlyaninherentlyweakdefense.It
isnotsupportedbyclearandconvincingevidence.Itcannotthus Thecrimeofrapeshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetua.
prevailoverthepositivedeclarationofEvelynwhoconvincingly Wheneverthecrimeof rape iscommittedwiththeuse of a
identifiedhimasherrapist.34 deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
InconvictingappellantunderArticle335oftheRevisedPenal bereclusionperpetuaordeath.
Code,asamendedbyRepublicAct7659(thelawinforcewhen xxx
It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a 72 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
mental retardate constitutes statutory rape which does not Alvarezvs.Ramirez
require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in
G.R.No.143439.October14,2005.*
havingcarnalknowledgeofthevictimforconviction. 35Thefactof
MAXIMO ALVAREZ, petitioner,vs.SUSAN RAMIREZ,
Evelyns mental retardation was not, however, alleged in the
Information and, therefore, cannot be the basis for conviction. respondent.
Suchnotwithstanding,thatforceandintimidationattendedthe Remedial Law;Evidence;Witnesses;Words and
commissionofthecrime,themodeofcommissionallegedinthe Phrases;MaritalDisqualification;Duringtheirmarriage,neither
Information,wasadequatelyproven.Itbearsstatinghereinthat the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other
thementalfacultiesofaretardatebeingdifferentfromthoseofa withouttheconsentoftheaffectedspouse,exceptinacivilcaseby
normalperson,thedegreeofforceneededtooverwhelmhimor
oneagainsttheother,orinacriminalcaseforacrimecommitted
herisless.Hence,aquantumofforcewhichmaynotsufficewhen
by one against the other or the latters direct descendants or
thevictimisanormalperson,maybemorethanenoughwhen
employedagainstanimbecile.36 ascendants.Section22,Rule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourt
Still under the abovequoted provision of Art. 335 of the provides: Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.
RevisedPenalCode,whenthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwith During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may
testifyfororagainsttheotherwithouttheconsentoftheaffected
the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall bereclusion
spouse, exceptin a civil case by one against the other, orina
perpetuatodeath.Inthecaseatbar,however,althoughthereis
criminalcaseforacrimecommittedbyoneagainsttheotheror
adequateevidenceshowingthatappellantindeedusedforceand
thelattersdirectdescendantsorascendants.Thereasonsgiven
intimidation, that is not the case with respect to the use of a
fortheruleare:1.Thereisidentityofinterestsbetweenhusband
deadlyweapon.
andwife;2.Ifoneweretotestifyfororagainsttheother,thereis
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial
consequentdangerofperjury;3.Thepolicyofthelawistoguard
CourtofSorsogon,Sorsogon,Branch65inCriminalCaseNo.241
thesecurityandconfidencesofprivatelife,evenattheriskofan
finding appellant, Salvador Golimlim alias Badong, GUILTY
occasionalfailureofjustice,andtopreventdomesticdisunionand
beyondreasonabledoubtofrape,whichthisCourtfindstohave
unhappiness;and4.Wherethereiswantofdomestictranquility
been committed under paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised
there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
Penal Code, and holding him civilly liable therefor, is hereby
testimonyoftheother.
AFFIRMED.
Costsagainstappellant. PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
 MarvinH.Mesiaforpetitioner. ATTY.MESIAH:(sic)
PonceEnrile,Reyes&Manalastasforrespondent. YourHonor,weareofferingthetestimonyofthiswitnessforthepurposeof
provingthattheaccusedMaximoAlvarezcommittedalltheelementsofthe
_______________ crimebeingchargedparticularlythataccusedMaximoAlvarezpour

THIRDDIVISION.
*
_______________
73
VOL.473,OCTOBER14,2005 73 1
UnderRule45,Section1ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCivil
Alvarezvs.Ramirez Procedure,asamended.
2
PennedbyJusticePortiaAlioHormachuelosandconcurred
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.: inbyJusticeMa.AliciaAustriaMartinez(nowamemberofthis
Court)andJusticeElviJohnS.Asuncion.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1assailing the
3
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 19933MN and captioned
Decision2oftheCourtofAppealsdatedMay31,2000inCAG.R. PeopleofthePhilippinesvs.MaximoAlvarez.
SP No. 56154, entitled SUSAN RAMIREZ, petitioner, versus, 74
HON. BENJAMIN M. AQUINO, JR., as JUDGE RTC, 74 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MALABON,MM,BR.72,andMAXIMOALVAREZ,respondents. Alvarezvs.Ramirez
SusanRamirez,hereinrespondent,isthecomplainingwitness
onMay29,1998gasolineinthehouselocatedatBlk.5,Lot9,Phase1C,
in Criminal Case No. 19933MN for arson 3pending before the
Dagatdagatan,Navotas,MetroManila,thehouseownedbyhissisterin
RegionalTrialCourt, Branch72,MalabonCity.Theaccusedis
Maximo Alvarez, herein petitioner. He is the husband of lawSusanRamirez;thataccusedMaximoAlvarezafterpouringthe
EsperanzaG.Alvarez,sisterofrespondent. gasolineonthedoorofthehouseofSusanRamirezignitedandsetitonfire;
On June 21, 1999, the private prosecutor called Esperanza thattheaccusedatthetimehesuccessfullysetthehouseonfire(sic)of
Alvarez to the witness stand as the first witness against SusanRamirezknewthatitwasoccupiedbySusanRamirez,themembers
petitioner, her husband. Petitioner and his counsel raised no ofthefamilyaswellasEsperanzaAlvarez,theestrangedwifeofthe
objection. accused;thatasaconsequenceoftheaccusedinsuccessfullysettingthe
Esperanzatestifiedasfollows:
firetothehouseofSusanRamirez,thedoorofsaidhousewasburnedand
ATTY.ALCANTARA:
togetherwithseveralarticlesofthehouse,includingshoes,chairsand
WearecallingMrs.EsperanzaAlvarez,thewifeoftheaccused,YourHonor.
others.
COURT: COURT:
Swearinthewitness. Youmayproceed.
xxx
 xxx pursuanttoRule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourtonmarital
DIRECTEXAMINATION disqualification.
ATTY.ALCANTARA: Respondent filed an opposition6to the motion. Pending
resolutionofthemotion,thetrialcourtdirectedtheprosecution
xxx
toproceedwiththepresentationoftheotherwitnesses.
Q: Whenyouwereabletofindthesource,incidentallywhatwasthesourceof
OnSeptember2,1999,thetrialcourtissuedthequestioned
thatscent? Order disqualifying Esperanza Alvarez from further testifying
A: WhenIstandbythewindow,sir,Isawamanpouringthegasolineinthe and deleting her testimony from the records. 7The prosecution
houseofmysister(andwitnesspointingtothepersonoftheaccusedinside filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in the other
thecourtroom). assailedOrderdatedOctober19,1999.8
Q: Fortherecord,Mrs.Witness,canyoustatethenameofthatperson,ifyou This prompted respondent Susan Ramirez, the complaining
know? witnessinCriminalCaseNo.19933MN,tofilewiththeCourtof
Appealsapetitionforcertiorari 9withapplicationforpreliminary
A: Heismyhusband,sir,MaximoAlvarez.
injunctionandtemporaryrestrainingorder.10
Q: IfthatMaximoAlvarezyouwereabletosee,canyouidentifyhim?
On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision
A: Yes,sir. nullifyingandsettingasidetheassailedOrdersissuedbythetrial
Q: IfyoucanseehiminsidetheCourtroom,canyoupleasepointhim? court.
A: Witnesspointingtoapersonandwhenaskedtostandandaskedhisname, Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
hegavehisnameasMaximoAlvarez.4 TheissueforourresolutioniswhetherEsperanzaAlvarezcan
testifyagainstherhusbandinCriminalCaseNo.19933MN.
_______________
_______________
4
TranscriptofStenographicNotes(TSN),June21,1999atpp.
37. 5
Rolloatpp.4447.
75 6
Id.,atpp.4858.
VOL.473,OCTOBER14,2005 75 7
Id.,atpp.8587.
Alvarezvs.Ramirez 8
Id.,atp.88.
InthecourseofEsperanzasdirecttestimonyagainstpetitioner, 9
UnderRule65,Section1ofthe1997RevisedRulesonCivil
the latter showed uncontrolled emotions, prompting the trial Procedure,asamended.
judgetosuspendtheproceedings. 10
Rolloatpp.101134.
On June 30, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a 76
motion5to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him 76 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Alvarezvs.Ramirez reasonbaseduponsuchharmonyandtranquilityfails.Insucha
Section22,Rule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovides: case,identityofin
Sec. 22.Disqualification by reason of marriage.During their
_______________
marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
Peoplevs.Francisco,No.L568,July16,1947,78Phil.694,
11
exceptinacivilcasebyoneagainsttheother,orinacriminal
caseforacrimecommittedbyoneagainsttheotherorthelatters andCargillvs.State,220,Pac.,64,65;25Okl.Cr.,314;35A.L.R.,
directdescendantsorascendants. 133.
Thereasonsgivenfortheruleare: 77
VOL.473,OCTOBER14,2005 77
1. 1.Thereisidentityofinterestsbetweenhusbandandwife; Alvarezvs.Ramirez
terestsdisappearsandtheconsequentdangerofperjurybasedon
2. 2.Ifoneweretotestifyfororagainsttheother,thereis that identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the
consequentdangerofperjury; security and confidences of private life, which the law aims at
protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which through their
3. 3.The policy of the law is to guard the security and absence,merelyleaveavoidintheunhappyhome.12
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an InOrdoovs.Daquigan,13thisCourtheld:
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this
disunionandunhappiness;and jurisdiction,isthatlaiddowninCargilvs.State,35ALR133,220
Pac.64,25Okl.314,whereinthecourtsaid:
4. 4.Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is Therulethattheinjurymustamounttoaphysicalwrongupon
danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile thepersonistoonarrow;andtherulethatanyoffenseremotely
testimonyoftheother.11 or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the
exceptionistoobroad.Thebetterruleisthat,whenanoffense
Butlikeallothergeneralrules,themaritaldisqualificationrule directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal
hasitsownexceptions,bothincivilactionsbetweenthespouses relation,itcomeswithintheexceptiontothestatutethatoneshall
andincriminalcasesforoffensescommittedbyoneagainstthe not be a witness against the other except in a criminal
other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound prosecutionforacrimecommittee(by)oneagainsttheother.
reasonswhich,intheexceptedcases,outweighthoseinsupportof Obviously,theoffenseofarsonattributedtopetitioner,directly
thegeneralrule.Forinstance, wherethemaritalanddomestic impairs the conjugal relation between him and his wife
relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be Esperanza.Hisact,asembodiedintheInformationforarsonfiled
preservednorpeaceandtranquilitywhichmaybedisturbed,the againsthim,eradicatesallthemajoraspectsofmaritallifesuch
as trust, confidence, respect and love by which virtues the andfactspresentedrevealthatthepreservationofthemarriage
conjugalrelationshipsurvivesandflourishes. between petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an interest the
AscorrectlyobservedbytheCourtofAppeals: Stateaimstoprotect.
Theactofprivaterespondentinsettingfiretothehouseofhis At this point, it bears emphasis that the State, being
sisterinlawSusanRamirez,knowingfullywellthathiswifewas interestedinlayingthetruthbeforethecourtssothattheguilty
there,andinfactwiththeallegedintentofinjuringthelatter,is may be punished and the innocent exonerated, must have the
an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of marital righttoofferthedirecttestimonyofEsperanza,evenagainstthe
relationwhichthedisqualificationprimarilyseekstoprotect.The objection of the accused, because (as stated by this Court
criminalactcomplainedofhadtheeffectofdirectlyandvitally inFrancisco14), it was the latter himself who gave rise to its
impairingthe necessity.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
_______________ AFFIRMED.Thetrialcourt,RTC,Branch72,MalabonCity,is
orderedtoallowEsperanzaAlvareztotestifyagainstpetitioner,
Peoplevs.Francisco,Id.
12
her husband, in Criminal Case No. 19933MN. Costs against
No.L39012,January31,1975,62SCRA270.
13
petitioner.
78 SOORDERED.
78 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Panganiban(Chairman),Corona,CarpioMoralesandGa
Alvarezvs.Ramirez rcia,JJ.,concur.
conjugal relation. It underscored the fact that the marital and Judgmentaffirmed.
domestic relations between her and the accusedhusband have
become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace or _______________
tranquilitytobepreserved.TheSupremeCourthasheldthatin
such a case, identity is nonexistent. In such a situation, the 14
Supra.
security and confidences of private life which the law aims to
562 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
protect are nothing but ideals which through their absence,
Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr.
merely leave a void in the unhappy home. (People v.
No.L46306.February27,1979.*
Castaeda,271SCRA504[1997]).Thus,thereisnolongerany
reasontoapplytheMaritalDisqualificationRule. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.HON.
Itshouldbestressedthatasshownbytherecords,priortothe MARIANOC.CASTAEDA,JR.,asJudgeoftheCourtofFirst
commission of the offense, the relationship between petitioner Instance of Pampanga, Branch III, and BENJAMIN F.
andhiswifewasalreadystrained.Infact,theywereseparatedde MANALOTO,respondents.
factoalmostsixmonthsbeforetheincident.Indeed,theevidence
 Criminal Procedure;Wife may testify against husband for voidintheunhappyhome.Thus,thereisnoreasontoapplythe
crimeoffalsificationofadeedofsaleofconjugalhouseandlot maritaldisqualificationrule.
wherewifewasmadetoappearashavinggivenfarconsenttothe
ORIGINALACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorariand
sale.Withmorereasonmusttheexceptionapplytotheinstant injunction.
casewherethevictimofthecrimeandthepersonwhostandsto
bedirectlyprejudic ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Fiscal Regidor Y. AglipayandSpecial Counsel Vicente
_______________
Macalinoforpetitioner.
SECONDDIVISION.
* MoisesSevillaOcampoforprivatepetitioner.
563 CiceroJ.Punzalanforrespondent.
VOL.88,FEBRUARY27,1979 563
Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr. SANTOS,J.:
ed by the falsification is not a third person but the wife
herself.Anditisundeniablethatthecriminalactcomplainedof Onthebasisofthecomplaint 1ofhiswife,VictoriaM.Manaloto,
had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal hereinprivaterespondentBenjaminManalotowaschargedbefore
relation. This is apparent not only in the act of the wife in theCourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga,presidedbyrespondent
personallylodginghercomplaintwiththeofficeoftheProvincial Judge, Hon, Mariano C. Castaeda, Jr., with the crime of
Fiscal, but also in her insistent efforts in connection with the Falsification of Public Document committed, according to the
instantpetition,whichseekstosetasidetheorderdisqualifying Information,asfollows:
herfromtestifyingagainstherhusband.Takencollectively,the Thatonoraboutthe19thdayofMay,1975,intheMunicipalityof
actuations of the witnesswife underscore the fact that the SanFernando,provinceofPampanga,Philippines,andwithinthe
martial and domestic relations between her and the accused jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
husbandhavebecomesostrainedthatthereisnomoreharmony BEN
to be preserved nor peace and tranguility which may be
disturbed. In such a case, as We have occasion to point out in _______________
previous decisions, identity of interests disappears and the 1
SeeAnnexesA,B,andB1ofthePetition(Rollo,pp,11
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is
15).
nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and
564
confidencesofprivatelifewhichthelawaimsatprotectingwillbe
nothingbutidealswhich,throughtheirabsence,merelyleavea 564 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr.
JAMIN F. MANALOTO, with deliberate intent to commit Hence, this petition for certiorari filed by the office of the
falsification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Provincial Fiscal, on behalf of the People of the Philippines,
feloniously counterfeit, imitate and forge the signature of his seekingtosetasidetheaforesaidordersoftherespondentJudge
spouseVictoriaM.Manalotoinadeedofsaleexecutedbysaid andprayingthatapreliminaryinjunctionoratem
accusedwhereinhesoldahouseandlotbelongingtotheconjugal
partnershipofsaidspouseinfavorofPoncianoLacsamanaunder _______________
Doc. No. 1957, Page No. 72, Book No. LVII, Series of 1975,
notarized by Notary Public Abraham Pa. Gorospe, thereby
2
AnnexCofthePetition(Rollo,pp.1617).
makingitappearthathisspouseVictoriaM.Manalotogaveher 565
marital consent tosaid salewhen in fact and in truth she did VOL.88,FEBRUARY27,1979 565
not.2 Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr.
At the trial, theprosecution called the complainantwifeto the poraryrestrainingorder beissuedbythisCourtenjoiningsaid
witness stand but the defense moved to disqualify her as a judgefromfurtherproceedingwiththetrialofaforesaidCriminal
witness,invokingSec.20,Rule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourt CaseNo.1011.
whichprovides: On June 20, 1977, this Court resolved(a) to issue a
SEC.20.Disqualificationbyreasonofinterestorrelationship. temporary restraining order, and (b) to require the Solicitor
Thefollowingpersonscannottestifyastomattersinwhichthey Generaltoappearascounselforthepetitioner. 3TheOfficeofthe
areinterested,directlyorindirectly,ashereinenumerated: Solicitor General filed its Notice of Appearance on June 27,
xxxxxxxxxx 1977,4anditsMemoranduminsupportofthePetitiononAugust
(b) A husband can not be examined for or against his wife 30, 1977.5The respondents filed their Memorandum on
without her consent; nor a wife for or against her husband September 5, 1977.6Whereupon, the case was considered
without his consent, except in a civil case by one against the submittedfordecision.7
other,orinacriminalcaseforacrimecommittedbyoneagainst From the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents
theother. emergesthesoleissuesdeterminativeoftheinstantpetition,to
Theprosecutionopposedsaidmotiontodisqualifyontheground wit:WhetherornotthecriminalcaseforFalsificationofPublic
that the case falls under the exception to the rule, contending Document filed against herein private respondent Benjamin F.
thatitisacriminalcaseforacrimecommittedbyoneagainst Manalotowhoallegedlyforgedthesignatureofhiswife,Victoria
the other. Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent Judge M.Manaloto,inadeadofsale,therebymakingitappearthatthe
granted the motion, disqualifying Victoria Manaloto from latter gave her marital consent to the sale of a house and lot
testifyingfororagainstherhusband,inanorderdatedMarch31, belongingtotheirconjugalpartnershipwheninfactandintruth
1977.Amotionforreconsiderationwasfiledbutwasdeniedby she did notmay be considered as a criminal case for a crime
respondentJudgeinanorderdatedMay19,1977. committed by a husband against his wife, and, therefore, an
exceptiontotheruleonmaritaldisqualification.
 Wesustainpetitionersstandthatthecaseisanexceptionto 2.Thisisnotthefirsttimethattheissueofwhetheraspecific
themaritaldisqualificationrule,asacriminalcaseforacrime offense may be classified as a crime committed by one spouse
committedbytheaccusedhusbandagainstthewitnesswife. againsttheotherispresentedtothisCourtforresolution.Thus,
1. The act complained of as constituting the crime of in the case ofOrdoo v. Daquigan,8this Court, through Mr.
FalsificationofPublicDocumentistheforgerybytheaccusedof JusticeRamonC.Aquino,setupthecriteriontobefollowedin
hiswifessignatureinadeedofsale,therebymakingitappear resolvingtheissue,statingthat:
thereinthatsaidwife consented tothesale of ahouseandlot We think that the correct rule, which may be adopted in this
belongingtotheirconjugalpartnershipwheninfactandintruth jurisdiction,isthatlaiddowninCargillvs.State,35ALR,133.
shedidnot.Itmustbenotedthathadthesaleofthesaidhouse 220,Pac.64,26Okl.314,whereinthecourtsaid:
andlot,andthesigningofthewilesnamebyherhus Therulethattheinjurymustamounttoaphysicalwrongupon
thepersonistoonarrow;andtherulethatanyoffenseremotely
_______________ or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the
exception is too broad. The better rule is that, WHEN AN
3
Rollo,p.39. OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND
4
Ibid.,p.44. VITALLYIMPAIRS,THECONJUGALRELATION,ITCOMES
5
Ibid.,p.76. WITHINTHEEXCEPTION,tothestatutethatoneshallnotbea
6
Ibid.,p.87. witnessagainsttheotherexceptinacriminalprosecutionfora
7
Ibid.,p.99. crimecommitted(by)oneagainsttheother.
566
Applying the foregoing criterion in mid case ofOrdoo v.
566 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Daquigan, this Court held that the rape committed by the
Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr. husbandofthewitnesswifeagainsttheirdaughterwasacrime
bandinthedeedofsale,beenmadewiththeconsentofthewife, committedbythehusbandagainsthiswife.Althoughthevictim
nocrimecouldhavebeenchargedagainstsaidhusband.Clearly, ofthecrimecommittedbytheaccusedinthatcasewasnot
therefore,itisthehusbandsbreachofhiswifesconfidencewhich
gave rise tothe offense charged. And it is this same breach of _______________
trustwhichpromptedthewifetomakethenecessarycomplaint
withtheOfficeoftheProvincialFiscalwhich,accordingly,filed 8
G.R.No.L39012,January31,1975,62SCRA270,at273.
the aforesaid criminal ease with the Court of First Instance of 567
Pampanga.Torule,therefore,thatsuchcriminalcaseisnotone VOL.88,FEBRUARY27,1979 567
for a crime committed by one spouse against the other is to
Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr.
advance a conclusion which completely disregards the factual
antecendentsoftheinstantcase.
hiswifebuttheirdaughter,thisCourt,nevertheless,appliedthe certiorari(rollo,pp.910).Furthermore,shefiledonAug.22,1977
exception for the reason that said criminal act positively amemoranduminsupportofthepetition(rollo,pp.6874),and,
undermine(d)theconnubialrelationship.9 onDec.28,1977,apleadingentitledChronologicallyEffected
Withmorereasonmusttheexceptionapplytotheinstantcase Observations and Circumstances in Support of or to Butress
wherethevictimofthecrimeandthepersonwhostandstobe MemorandumforPrivatePetitionerVictoriaM.Manaloto,dated
directlyprejudicedbythefalsificationisnotathirdpersonbut August 18, 1977 informing this Court that the trouble in her
the wife herself. And it is undeniable that the criminal act maritalrelationwithherhusband,thehereinprivaterespondent,
complainedofhadtheeffectofdirectlyandvitallyimpairingthe isbeyondrepair.(rollo,pp.105108).
conjugalrelation.Thisisapparentnotonlyintheactofthewife 11
Peoplevs.Francisco,78Phil.694,704(citedinOrdoovs.
in personally lodging her complaint with the Office of the Daquigan,supra.).
ProvincialFiscal,butalsoinherinsistentefforts 10inconnection 568
with the instant petition, which seeks to set aside the order 568 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
disqualifying her from testifying against her husband. Taken Peoplevs.Castaeda,Jr.
collectively,theactuationsofthewitnesswifeunderscorethefact againstherhusbandintheinstantcase.For,asaptlyobservedby
that the martial and domestic relations between her and the the Solicitor General, (t)o espouse the contrary view would
accusedhusbandhavebecomesostrainedthatthereisnomore spawnthedangerousprecedentofahusbandcommittingasmany
harmonytobepreservednorpeaceandtranquillitywhichmaybe falsificationsagainsthiswifeashecouldconjure,seekingshelter
disturbed. In such a case, as We have occasion to point out in intheantimaritalprivilegeasalicensetoinjureandprejudice
previous decisions, identity of interests disappears and the herinsecretallwithunabashedandcompleteimpunity.
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,theorderofthelower
nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and courtdatedMarch31,1977,disqualifyingVictoriaManalotofrom
confidencesofprivatelifewhichthelawaimsatprotectingwillbe testifying for or against her husband, Benjamin Manaloto, in
nothingbutidealswhich,throughtheirabsence,merelyleavea CriminalCaseNo.1011,aswellastheorderdatedMay19,1977,
voidintheunhappyhome.11Thus,thereisnoreasontoapplythe denyingthemotionforreconsiderationareherebySETASIDE.
martialdisqualificationrule. ThetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedbythisCourtishereby
3.Finally,overridingconsiderationsofpublicpolicydemand liftedandtherespondentJudgeisherebyorderedtoproceedwith
thatthewifeshouldnotbedisqualifiedfromtestifying thetrialofthecase,allowingVictoriaManalotototestifyagainst
herhusband.
_______________ SOORDERED.
Fernando(Chairman),Barredo,Antonio,AquinoandCon
Id.,p.274.
9

Victoria Manaloto, through her counsel, assisted the

10 cepcionJr.,JJ.,concur.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga in filing theinstant petition for Ordersetaside.
 Note.Thehusbandssaleofconjugallotwithoutthewifes oftheestateofJuanChuidian)andthedefendantagreedinthe
consentisnotvalid.(Villocinovs.Doyon,18SCRA1094;Reyesvs. lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock in E.
DeLeon,20SCRA369). Razon, Inc. are actually owned by the defendant unless the
deceased Juan Chuidian opted to pay the same which never
Thewifemayaskthecourttorenouncetheadministrativeof
happened.Thecasewasfiledbytheadministratoroftheestateof
conjugalpropertiesfromthehusbandforherprotection.(Ysasi
thelateJuanChuidiantorecoversharesofstockinE.Razon,Inc.
vs.Fernandez,23SCRA1079).
allegedly owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian. It is clear,
A debt contracted by the wife is a debt of the conjugal
therefore,thatthetestimonyofthepetitionerisnotwithinthe
partnership where the husband was negligent in allowing the
prohibition of the rule. The case was not filedagainstthe
wifetoincurdebts.(Garciavs.Cruz,25SCRA224).
administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon
Anillegaldetainerjudgmentagainstthehusbandaloneovera
claimsagainsttheestate.Furthermore,therecordsshowthatthe
pieceoflandparaphernalincharactercannotbindnoraffectthe
private respondent never objected to the testimony of the
wifespossessionthereof.(Platavs.Yatco,12SCRA718).
petitionerasregardsthetruenatureofhistransactionwiththe
late elder Chuidian. The petitioners testimony was subject to
o0o
crossexamination by the private respondents counsel. Hence,
grantingthatthepetitionerstestimonyiswithintheprohibition
569
of Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the private
234 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
respondentisdeemedtohavewaivedtherule.
Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt
CorporationLaw;Transferofstockcertificates.Thelawis
G.R.No.74306.March16,1992.* clearthatinorderforatransferofstockcertificatetobeeffective,
ENRIQUE RAZON, petitioner,vs.INTERMEDIATE the certificate must be properlyindorsedand that title to such
APPELLATE COURT and VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN, in his certificateofstockisvestedinthetransfereebythedeliveryof
capacityasAdministratoroftheEstateoftheDeceasedJUANT.
theduly indorsedcertificate of stock. (Section 35, Corporation
CHUIDIAN,respondents.
Code)Sincethecertificateofstockcoveringthequestioned1,500
G.R.No.74315.March16,1992.* sharesofstockregisteredinthe
VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN, petitioner,vs.INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATECOURT,ENRIQUERAZON,andE.RAZON,INC., _______________
respondents.
Evidence;Dead mans statute.In the instant case, the THIRDDIVISION.
*

testimonyexcludedbytheappellatecourtisthatofthedefendant 235
(petitionerherein)totheeffectthatthelateJuanChuidian,(the VOL.207,MARCH16,1992 235
fatherofprivaterespondentVicenteChuidian,theadministrator Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt
 nameofthelateJuanChuidianwasneverindorsedtothe courts decision affirmedwhileVicente Chuidianasked thatall
petitioner,theinevitableconclusionisthatthequestionedshares cashandstockdividendsandallthepreemptiverightsaccruing
ofstockbelongtoChuidian.Thepetitionersasseverationthathe to the 1,500 shares of stock be ordered delivered to him. The
didnotrequireanindorsementofthecertificateofstockinview appellatecourtdeniedbothmotions.Hence,thesepetitions.
ofhisintimatefriendshipwiththelateJuanChuidiancannot Therelevantantecedentfactsareasfollows:
overcomethefailuretofollowtheprocedurerequiredbylawor In his complaint filed on June 29, 1971, and amended on
theproperconductofbusinessevenamongfriends.Toreiterate, November16,1971,VicenteB.Chuidianprayedthatdefendants
indorsement of the certificate of stock is a mandatory EnriqueB.Razon,E.Razon,Inc.,GeronimoVelasco,Franciscode
requirement of law for an effective transfer of a certificate of Borja,JoseFrancisco,AlfredoB.deLeon,Jr.,GabrielLlamasand
stock. LuisM.de
236
PETITIONStoreviewthedecisionandresolutionofthethen 236 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
IntermediateAppellateCourt. Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt
Razonbeorderedtodelivercertificatesofstocksrepresentingthe
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
shareholdingsofthedeceasedJuanT.ChuidianintheE.Razon,
RafaelT.DurianforEnriqueRazon. Inc.withaprayerforanordertorestrainthedefendantsfrom
ManuelR.SingsonforVicenteB.Chuidian. disposing of the said shares of stock, for a writ of preliminary
attachment v. properties of defendants having possession of
GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.: sharesofstockandforreceivershipofthepropertiesofdefendant
corporationxxx.
The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on the xxxxxxxxx
ownershipof1,500sharesofstockinE.Razon,Inc.coveredby In their answer filed on June 18, 1973, defendants alleged
StockCertificateNo.003issuedonApril23,1966andregistered thatallthesharesofstockinthenameofstockholdersofrecord
under the name of Juan T. Chuidian in the books of the ofthecorporationwerefullypaidforbydefendant,Razon;that
corporation. The then Court of First Instance of Manila, now saidsharesaresubjecttotheagreementbetweendefendantsand
RegionalTrialCourtofManila,declaredthatEnriqueRazon,the incorporators;thatthesharesofstockwereactuallyownedand
petitioner inG.R. No. 74306is the owner of the said shares of remainedinthepossessionofRazon.Appelleesalsoallegedxxx
stock. The then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of thatneitherthelateJuanT.Chuidiannortheappellanthadpaid
Appeals, however, reversed the trial courts decision and ruled anyamountwhatsoeverforthe1,500sharesofstockinquestionx
thatJuanT.Chuidian,thedeceasedfatherofpetitionerVicente xx.
B.ChuidianinG.R.No.74315istheownerofthesharesofstock. xxxxxxxxx
Bothpartiesfiledseparatemotionsforreconsideration.Enrique The evidence of the plaintiff shows that he is the
Razonwantedtheappellatecourtsdecisionreversedandthetrial administratoroftheintestateestateofJuanTelesforoChuidian
in Special Proceedings No. 71054, Court of First Instance of ofAttorneySilverioB.deLeonwhowashimselfanassociateof
Manila. the Chuidian Law Office (Exhs. C & 11). Since then, Enrique
Sometime in 1962, Enrique Razon organized the E. Razon, Razonwasinpossessionofsaidstockcertificateevenduringthe
Inc.forthepurposeofbiddingforthearrastreservicesinSouth lifetime of the late Chuidian, from the time the late Chuidian
Harbor, Manila. The incorporators consisted of Enrique Razon, deliveredthesaidstockcertificatetodefendantRazonuntilthe
EnriqueValles,LuisaM.deRazon,JoseTuason,Jr.,VictorLim, time(sic)ofdefendantRazon.Byagreementoftheparties(sic)
JoseF.CastroandSalvadorPerezdeTagle. delivereditfordepositwiththebankunderthejointcustodyof
OnApril23,1966,stockcertificateNo.003for1,500sharesof thepartiesasconfirmedbythetrialcourtinitsorderofAugust7,
stockofdefendantcorporationwasissuedinthenameofJuanT. 1971.
Chuidian. Thus, the 1,500 shares of stock under Stock Certificate No.
On the basis of the 1,500 shares of stock, the late Juan T. 003 were delivered by the late Chuidian to Enrique because it
Chuidianandafterhim,theplaintiffappellant,wereelectedas wasthelatterwhopaidforallthesubscriptiononthesharesof
directorsofE.Razon,Inc.Bothofthemactuallyservedandwere stock in the defendant corporation and the understanding was
paidcompensationasdirectorsofE.Razon,Inc. that he (defendant Razon) wastheownerofthesaidsharesof
From the time the certificate of stock was issued on April stockandwastohavepossessionthereofuntilsuchtimeashe
1966 up to April 1971, Enrique Razon had not questioned the waspaidthereforbytheothernominalincorporators/stockholders
ownershipbyJuanT.Chuidianofthesharesofstockinquestion (TSN.,pp.4,8,10,2425,2526,2831,3132,60,6668,July22,
andhadnotbroughtanyactiontohavethecertificateofstock 1980,Exhs.C,11,1314).(Rollo74306,pp.6668)
overthesaidsharescancelled. InG.R.No.74306,petitionerEnriqueRazonassailstheappellate
The certificate of stock was in the possession of defendant courtsdecision onitsallegedmisapplicationofthedeadmans
Razonwhorefusedtodeliversaidsharestotheplaintiff,untilthe statuteruleunderSection20(a)Rule130oftheRulesofCourt.
same was surrendered by defendant Razon and deposited in a Accordingtohim,thedeadmansstatuteruleisnotapplicable
safetyboxinPhilippineBankofCommerce. totheinstantcase.Moreover,theprivaterespondent,asplaintiff
Defendants allege that after organizing the E. Razon, Inc., inthecasedidnotobjecttohisoraltestimonyregardingtheoral
Enrique Razon distributed shares of stock previously placed in agreementbetweenhimandthedeceasedJuanT.Chuidianthat
the names of the withdrawing nominal incorporators to some theownershipofthesharesofstockwasactuallyvestedinthe
friendsincludingJuanT.Chuidian. petitionerunlessthedeceasedoptedtopaythesame;andthat
StockCertificateNo.003covering1,500sharesofstockupon the petitioner was subjected to a rigid cross examination
237 regardingsuchtestimony.
VOL.207,MARCH16,1992 237 Section20(a)Rule130oftheRulesofCourt(Section23ofthe
Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt RevisedRulesonEvidence)states:
instructionofthelateChuidianonApril23,1966waspersonally
deliveredbyChuidianonJuly1,1966totheCorporateSecretary
SEC.20.Disqualificationbyreasonofinterestorrelationship representativeofanestateuponaclaimagainsttheestateofthe
Thefollowingpersonscannottestifyastomattersinwhichthey deceasedperson.(SeeTongcov.Vianzon,50Phil.698[1927])
areinteresteddirectlyorindirectly,ashereinenumerated. Intheinstantcase,thetestimonyexcludedbytheappellate
(a) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in courtisthatofthedefendant(petitionerherein)totheeffectthat
whose behalf a case is prosecuted,against an executor or thelateJuanChuidian,(thefatherofprivaterespondentVicente
administratoror other representative of a deceased person, or Chuidian,theadministratoroftheestateofJuanChuidian)and
thedefendantagreedinthelifetimeofJuanChuidianthatthe
against a person of unsound mind,upon a claim or demand
1,500sharesofstockinE.Razon,Inc.areactuallyownedbythe
againsttheestateofsuchdeceasedpersonoragainstsuchperson defendantunlessthedeceasedJuan Chuidianoptedto pay the
ofunsoundmind,cannottestifyastoanymatteroffactaccruing same which never happened. The case was filed by
beforethedeathofsuchdeceased
theadministratorof the estate of the late Juan Chuidian to
238
recoversharesofstockinE.Razon,Inc.allegedlyownedbythe
238 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
lateJuanT.Chuidian.
Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt Itisclear,therefore,thatthetestimonyofthepetitionerisnot
personorbeforesuchpersonbecameofunsoundmind.(Italics within the prohibition of the rule. The case was not
supplied) filedagainsttheadministratoroftheestate,norwasitfiledupon
xxxxxxxxx
claimsagainsttheestate.
ThepurposeoftherulehasbeenexplainedbythisCourtinthis
Furthermore, the records show that the private respondent
wise:
neverobjectedtothetestimonyofthepetitionerasregardsthe
Thereasonfortheruleisthatifpersonshavingaclaimagainst
truenatureofhistransactionwiththelateelderChuidian.The
theestateofthedeceasedorhispropertieswereallowedtotestify
petitionerstestimonywassubjecttocrossexaminationbythe
asto the supposedstatementsmadebyhim(deceased person),
239
manywouldbetemptedtofalselyimputestatementstodeceased
persons as the latter can no longer deny or refute them, thus VOL.207,MARCH16,1992 239
unjustly subjecting their properties or rights to false or Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt
unscrupulous claims or demands. The purpose of the law is to private respondents counsel. Hence, granting that the
guardagainstthetemptationtogivefalsetestimonyinregardto petitionerstestimonyiswithintheprohibitionofSection20(a),
thetransaction inquestion onthepartof thesurviving party. Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,theprivaterespondentisdeemed
(Tongcov.Vianzon,50Phil.698;GoChiGun,etal.v.CoCho,et tohavewaivedtherule.WeruledinthecaseofCruzv.Courtof
al.,622[1955]) Appeals(192SCRA209[1990]):
The rule, however, delimits the prohibition it contemplates in Itisalsosettledthatthecourtcannotdisregardevidencewhich
that it is applicable to a caseagainstthe administrator or its would ordinarily be incompetent under the rules but has been
rendered admissibleby the failure of a party to object thereto. in1966deliveredtothepetitionerthestockcertificatecovering
Thus: the1,500sharesofstockofE.Razon,
xxxTheacceptance ofanincompetent witnesstotestifyina 240
civilsuit,aswellastheallowanceofimproperquestionsthatmay 240 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
be put to him while on the stand is a matter resting in the Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt
discretion of the litigant. He may assert his right by timely Inc.Sincethen,thepetitionerhadinhispossessionthecertificate
objectionorhemaywaiveit,expresslyorbysilence.Inanycase of stock until the time, he delivered it for deposit with the
theoptionrestswithhim.Onceadmitted,thetestimonyisinthe Philippine Bank of Commerce under the parties joint custody
caseforwhatitisworthandthejudgehasnopowertodisregard pursuant to their agreement as embodied in the trial courts
itforthesolereasonthatitcouldhavebeenexcluded,ifithad order.
beenobjectedto,nortostrikeitoutonitsownmotion(Emphasis Thepetitionermaintainsthathisaforesaidoraltestimonyas
supplied).(Marellavs.Reyes,12Phil.1.) regards the true nature of his agreement with the late Juan
The issue as to whether or not the petitioners testimony is Chuidian on the 1,500 shares of stock of E. Razon, Inc. is
admissible having been settled, we now proceed to discuss the sufficient to prove his ownership over the said 1,500 shares of
fundamentalissueontheownershipofthe1,500sharesofstock stock.
inE.Razon,Inc. Thepetitionerscontentionisnotcorrect.
E. Razon, Inc. was organized in 1962 by petitioner Enrique In the case ofEmbassy Farms, Inc. v. Court of Appeals(188
Razon for the purpose of participating in the bidding for the SCRA492[1990])weruled:
arrastre services in South Harbor, Manila. The incorporators xxx For an effective transfer of shares of stock the mode and
were Enrique Razon, Enrique Valles, Luisa M. de Razon, Jose manneroftransferasprescribedbylawmustbefollowed(Navea
Tuazon,Jr.,VictorL.Lim,JoseF.CastroandSalvadorPerezde v. Peers Marketing Corp.,74 SCRA 65). As provided under
Tagle.Thebusiness,however,didnotstartoperationsuntil1966. Section3ofBatasPambansaBilang68,otherwiseknownasthe
Accordingtothepetitioner,someoftheincorporatorswithdrew Corporation Code of the Philippines, shares of stock may be
from the said corporation. The petitioner then distributed the transferredbydeliverytothetransfereeofthecertificateproperly
stockspreviouslyplacedinthenamesofthewithdrawingnominal indorsed.Titlemaybevestedinthetransfereebythedeliveryof
incorporators to some friends, among them the late Juan T. the duly indorsed certificate of stock (18 C.J.S. 928, cited
Chuidiantowhomhegave1,500sharesofstock.Thesharesof inRiverav.Florendo,144SCRA643).However,notransfershall
stockwereregisteredinthenameofChuidianonlyasnominal be valid, except as between the parties until the transfer is
stockholderandwiththeagreementthatthesaidsharesofstock properly recorded in the books of the corporation (Sec. 63,
wereownedandheldbythepetitionerbutChuidianwasgiven CorporationCodeofthePhilippines;Section35oftheCorporation
theoptiontobuythesame.Inviewofthisarrangement,Chuidian Law)
Intheinstantcase,thereisnodisputethatthequestioned1,500
sharesofstockofE.Razon,Inc.areinthenameofthelateJuan
Chuidianinthebooksofthecorporation.Moreover,therecords friendship with the late Juan Chuidian can not overcome the
showthatduringhislifetimeChuidianwaselectedmemberofthe failure to follow the procedure required by law or the proper
BoardofDirectorsofthecorporationwhichclearlyshowsthathe conduct of business even among friends. To reiterate,
wasastockholderofthecorporation.(SeeSection30,Corporation indorsement of the certificate of stock is a mandatory
Code) From the point of view of the corporation, therefore, requirement of law for an effective transfer of a certificate of
Chuidianwastheownerofthe1,500sharesofstock.Insucha stock. Moreover, the preponderance of evidence supports the
case, the petitioner who claims ownership over the questioned appellate courts factual findings that the shares of stock were
sharesofstockmustshowthatthesameweretransferredtohim giventoJuanT.Chuidianforvalue.JuanT.Chuidianwasthe
byprovingthatalltherequirementsfortheeffectivetransferof legalcounselwhohandledthelegalaffairsofthecorporation.We
sharesofstockinaccordancewith thecorporations by laws, if givecredencetothetestimonyoftheprivaterespondentthatthe
any,werefollowed(SeeNavav.PeersMarketingCorporation,74 sharesofstockweregiventoJuanT.Chuidianinpaymentofhis
SCRA65[1976]) legal services to the corporation. Petitioner Razon failed to
241 overcomethistestimony.
VOL.207,MARCH16,1992 241 InG.R.No.74315,petitionerVicenteB.Chuidianinsiststhat
Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt theappellatecourtsdecisiondeclaringhisdeceasedfatherJuan
orinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoflaw. T.Chuidianasownerofthe1,500sharesofstockofE.Razon,Inc.
Thepetitionerfailedinbothinstances.Thepetitionerdidnot should have included all cash and stock dividends and all the
presentanybylawswhichcouldshowthatthe1,500sharesof preemptiverightsaccruingtothesaid1,500sharesofstock.
stockwereeffectivelytransferredtohim.Intheabsenceofthe Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
corporations by laws or rules governing effective transfer of Thecashandstockdividendsandallthepreemptiverights
sharesofstock,theprovisionsoftheCorporationLawaremade areallincidentsofstockownership.
applicabletotheinstantcase. Therightsofstockholdersaregenerallyenumeratedasfol
Thelawisclearthatinorderforatransferofstockcertificate 242
tobeeffective,thecertificatemustbeproperlyindorsedandthat 242 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
titletosuchcertificateofstockisvestedinthetransfereebythe Razonvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt
delivery of theduly indorsedcertificate of stock. (Section 35, lows:
Corporation Code) Since the certificate of stock covering the xxxxxxxxx
questioned1,500sharesofstockregisteredinthenameofthelate x x x [F]irst, to have a certificate or other evidence of his
Juan Chuidian was never indorsed to the petitioner, the statusasstockholderissuedtohim;second,tovoteatmeetingsof
inevitableconclusionisthatthequestionedsharesofstockbelong thecorporation; third, toreceivehisproportionateshare of the
toChuidian.Thepetitionersasseverationthathedidnotrequire profits of the corporation; and lastly, to participate
anindorsementofthecertificateofstockinviewofhisintimate proportionately inthedistributionofthecorporateassets upon
the dissolution or winding up. (Purdys Beach on Private
Corporations,sec.554)(Pascualv.DelSazOrozco,19Phil.82, 243
87) Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
WHEREFORE,judgmentisrenderedasfollows: reserved.

1. a)InG.R. No. 74306, the petition is DISMISSED. The

questioned decision and resolution of the then
IntermediateAppellateCourt,nowtheCourtofAppeals,
areAFFIRMED.Costsagainstthepetitioner.

2. b)InG.R. No. 74315, the petition is GRANTED. The

questioned Resolution insofar as it denied the
petitioners motion to clarify the dispositive portion of
thedecisionofthethenIntermediateAppellate Court,
nowCourtofAppealsisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
ThedecisionoftheappellatecourtisMODIFIEDinthat
allcashandstockdividendsaswellasallpreemptive
rights that have accrued and attached to the 1,500
shares in E. Razon, Inc., since 1966 are declared to
belongtotheestateofJuanT.Chuidian.

SOORDERED.
Bidin,Davide,Jr.andRomero,JJ.,concur. VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 249
Feliciano,J.,Onleave. SungaChanvs.Chua
G.R.No.74306dismissed;decisionandresolutionaffirmed. G.R.No.143340.August15,2001.*
LILIBETH SUNGACHAN and CECILIA SUNGA,
G.R.No.74315,granted.Resolutionanddecisionreversedand
petitioners,vs.LAMBERTOT.CHUA,respondent.
setaside.
Note.Foraneffectivetransferofsharesofstock,themode Partnership;Contracts;Apartnershipmaybeconstitutedin
andmanneroftransferasprescribedbylawshouldbefollowed. any form, except where immovable property or real rights are
(EmbassyFarms,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,188SCRA492.) contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be
necessary.Apartnershipmaybeconstitutedinanyform,except
o0o whereimmovablepropertyorrealrightsarecontributedthereto,
in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Hence,
basedontheintentionoftheparties,asgatheredfromthefacts necessarythat:1.Thewitnessisapartyorassignorofapartyto
and ascertained from their language and conduct, a verbal a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. 2. The
contractofpartnershipmayarise.Theessentialpointsthatmust action is against an executor or administrator or other
be proven to show that a partnership was agreed upon are(1) representativeofadeceasedpersonorapersonofunsoundmind;
mutualcontributiontoacommonstock,and(2)ajointinterestin 3.Thesubjectmatteroftheactionisaclaimordemandagainst
theprofits.Understandablyso,inviewoftheabsenceofawritten theestateofsuchdeceasedpersonoragainstpersonofunsound
contract of partnership between respondent and Jacinto, mind;4.Histestimonyreferstoanymatteroffactwhichoccurred
respondent resorted to the introduction of documentary and beforethedeathofsuchdeceasedpersonorbeforesuchperson
testimonialevidencetoprovesaidpartnership.Thecrucialissue becameofunsoundmind.
tosettletheniswhetherornottheDeadMansStatute Same;Same;Same;Same;When it is the executor or
administrator or representatives of the estate that sets up the
_______________
counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to
*
THIRDDIVISION. occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the
250 counterclaim.TworeasonsforestalltheapplicationoftheDead
2 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED MansStatutetothiscase.First,petitionersfiledacompulsory
50 counterclaimagainstrespondentintheiranswerbeforethetrial
court, and with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners
SungaChanvs.Chua
themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit of the
appliestothiscasesoastorenderinadmissiblerespondents
DeadMansStatute.Wellentrenchedistherulethatwhenitis
testimonyandthatofhiswitness,Josephine.
theexecutororadministratororrepresentativesoftheestatethat
Same;Evidence;Dead Mans Statute;Requirements;The
sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may
Dead Mans Statute provides that if one party to the alleged testifytooccurrencesbeforethedeathofthedeceasedtodefeat
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim,
other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to respondentisnotdisqualifiedfromtestifyingastomattersoffact
undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and occurringbeforethedeathofthedeceased,saidactionnothaving
beenbroughtagainstbutbytheestateorrepresentativesofthe
unexplained account of the transaction.The Dead Mans
deceased.
Statuteprovidesthatifonepartytotheallegedtransactionis
251
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental
disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 251
advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained SungaChanvs.Chua
accountofthetransaction.Butbeforethisrulecanbesuccessfully Same;Same;Words and Phrases;Assignor of a party
invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is meansassignorofacauseofactionwhichhasarisen,andnotthe
assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has personality is retained until the complete winding up of its
arisen.ThetestimonyofJosephineisnotcoveredbytheDead business,culminatinginitstermination.
MansStatuteforthesimplereasonthatsheisnotapartyor
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
assignorofapartytoacaseorpersonsinwhosebehalfacaseis
Appeals.
prosecuted.Recordsshowthatrespondentofferedthetestimony
ofJosephinetoestablishtheexistenceofthepartnershipbetween
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
respondentandJacinto.PetitionersinsistencethatJosephineis
thealteregoofrespondentdoesnotmakeheranassignorbecause ManuelT.Chanforpetitioners.
thetermassignorofapartymeansassignorofacauseofaction PacatangLawOfficeforrespondent.
whichhasarisen,andnottheassignorofarightassignedbefore 252
anycauseofactionhasarisen.Plainlythen,Josephineismerely 252 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
awitnessofrespondent,thelatterbeingthepartyplaintiff. SungaChanvs.Chua
Same;Dissolution;The Civil Code expressly provides that
upon dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal GONZAGAREYES,J.:
personality is retained until the complete winding up of its
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45of
business culminating in its termination.With regard to
theRulesofCourtoftheDecision 1oftheCourtofAppealsdated
petitionersinsistencethatlachesand/orprescriptionshouldhave
January 31, 2000 in the case entitled Lamberto T. Chua vs.
extinguished respondents claim, we agree with the trial court
LilibethSunga Chanand Cecilia Sungaand of the Resolution
andtheCourtofAppealsthattheactionforaccountingfiledby
dated May 23, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration of
respondentthree(3)yearsafterJacintosdeathwaswellwithin
herein petitioners Lilibeth Sunga Chan and Cecilia Sunga
theprescribedperiod.TheCivilCodeprovidesthatanactionto
(hereaftercollectivelyreferredtoaspetitioners).
enforceanoralcontractprescribesinsix(6)yearswhiletheright
Thepertinentfactsofthiscaseareasfollows:
todemandanaccountingforapartnersinterestasagainstthe
OnJune22,1992,LambertoT.Chua(hereafterrespondent)
personcontinuingthebusinessaccruesatthedateofdissolution,
filed a complaint against Lilibeth Sunga Chan (hereafter
intheabsenceofanycontraryagreement.Consideringthatthe
petitioner Lilibeth) and Cecilia Sunga (hereafter petitioner
deathofapartnerresultsinthedissolutionofthepartnership,in
Cecilia),daughterandwife,respectivelyofthedeceasedJacinto
this case, it was after Jacintos death that respondent as the
L. Sunga (hereafter Jacinto), for Winding Up of Partnership
survivingpartnerhadtherighttoanaccountofhisinterestas
Affairs, Accounting, Appraisal and Recovery of Shares and
againstpetitioners.ItbearsstressingthatwhileJacintosdeath
Damages with Writ of Preliminary Attachment with the
dissolved the partnership, the dissolution did not immediately
Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del
terminatethepartnership.TheCivilCodeexpresslyprovidesthat
Norte.
upon dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal
 Respondentallegedthatin 1977,he verballyenteredintoa amount indicated in these documents were understated and
partnershipwithJacintointhedistributionofShellaneLiquefied undervalued by Jacinto and Josephine for their own selfish
Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Manila. For business convenience, reasonsandfortaxavoidance.
respondentandJacintoallegedlyagreedtoregisterthebusiness UponJacintosdeathinthelaterpartof1989,hissurviving
name of their partnership, SHELLITE GAS APPLIANCE wife,petitionerCeciliaandparticularlyhisdaughter,petitioner
CENTER(hereafterShellite),underthenameofJacintoasasole Lilibeth, took over the operations, control, custody, disposition
proprietorship.Respondentallegedlydeliveredhisinitialcapital and management of Shellite without respondents consent.
contribution of P100,000.00 to Jacinto while the latter in turn Despite respondents repeated demands upon petitioners for
produced P100,000.00 ashis counterpart contribution, with the accounting, inventory, appraisal, winding up and restitution of
intentionthattheprofitswouldbeequallydividedbetweenthem. his net shares in the partnership, petitioners failed to comply.
The partnership allegedly had Jacinto as manager, assisted by PetitionerLilibethallegedlycontinuedtheoperationsofShellite,
Josephine Sy (hereafter Josephine), a sister of the wife of convertingtoherownuseandadvantageitsproperties.
respondent,ErlindaSy.Ascompensation,Jacintowouldreceivea OnMarch31,1991,respondentclaimedthatafterpetitioner
managers fee or remuneration of 10% of the gross profit and Lilibeth ran out of alibis and reasons to evade respondents
Josephinewouldreceive10%ofthenetprofits,inadditiontoher demands,shedisbursedoutofthepartnershipfundstheamount
wagesandotherremunerationfromthebusiness. of P200,000.00 and partially paid the same to respondent.
Petitioner Lilibeth allegedly informed respondent that the
_______________ P200,000.00representedpartialpaymentofthelatterssharein
thepartnership,withapromisethattheformerwouldmakethe
Per Associate Justice Delilah VidallonMagtolis and
1
complete inventory and winding up of the properties of the
concurred in by Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and business establishment. Despite such commitment, petitioners
MercedesGozoDadole,CourtofAppeals,FourteenthDivision. allegedly failed to comply with their duty to account, and
253 continuedtobenefitfromtheassetsandincomeofShellitetothe
VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 253 damageandprejudiceofrespondent.
SungaChanvs.Chua OnDecember19,1992,petitionersfiledaMotiontoDismiss
Allegedly,fromthetimethatShelliteopenedforbusinessonJuly on the ground that the Securities and Exchange Commission
8,1977,itsbusinessoperationwentquitewellandwasprofitable. (SEC)inManila,nottheRegionalTrialCourtinZamboangadel
Respondentclaimedthathecouldattesttothesuccessoftheir Nortehadjurisdictionovertheaction.Respondent opposedthe
businessbecauseofthevolumeofordersanddeliveriesoffilled motiontodismiss.
Shellane cylinder tanks supplied by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum On January 12, 1993, the trial court finding the complaint
Corporation. While Jacinto furnished respondent with the sufficientinformandsubstancedeniedthemotiontodismiss.
merchandiseinventories,balancesheetsandnetworthofShellite 254
from 1977 to 1989, respondent however suspected that the 254 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 SungaChanvs.Chua On February 20, 1995, entry of judgment was made by the
On January 30, 1993, petitioners filed their Answer with ClerkofCourtandthecasewasremandedtothetrialcourton
Compulsory Counterclaims, contending that they are not liable April26,1995.
for partnership shares, unreceived income/profits, interests, On September 25, 1995, the trial court terminated the pre
damages and attorneys fees, that respondent does not have a trialconferenceandsetthehearingofthecaseonJanuary17,
cause of action against them, and that the trial court has no 1996.
jurisdiction over the nature of the action, the SEC being the
agencythathasoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoverthecase. _________________
Ascounterclaim,petitionersoughtattorneysfeesandexpensesof
litigation.
2
Rollo,p.185.
OnAugust2,1993,petitionerfiledasecondMotiontoDismiss 255
this time on the ground that the claim for winding up of VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 255
partnership affairs, accounting and recovery of shares in SungaChanvs.Chua
partnership affairs, accounting and recovery of shares in Respondent presented his evidence while petitioners were
partnershipassets/propertiesshouldbedismissedandprosecuted consideredtohavewaivedtheirrighttopresentevidencefortheir
againsttheestateofdeceasedJacintoinaprobateorintestate failure to attend the scheduled date for reception of evidence
proceeding. despitenotice.
OnAugust16,1993,thetrialcourtdeniedthesecondmotion On October 7, 1997, the trial court rendered its Decision
todismissforlackofmerit. ruling for respondent. The dispositive portion of the Decision
On November 26, 1993, petitioners filed their Petition for reads:
Certiorari,ProhibitionandMandamuswiththeCourtofAppeals WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.32499questioningthedenialofthe plaintiffandagainstthedefendants,asfollows:
motiontodismiss.
OnNovember29,1993,petitionersfiledwiththetrialcourta 1. (1)DIRECTING them to render an accounting in
MotiontoSuspendPretrialConference. acceptable form under accounting procedures and
OnDecember13,1993,thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionto standardsoftheproperties,assets,incomeandprofitsof
suspendpretrialconference. the Shellite Gas Appliance Center since the time of
On November 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the death of Jacinto L. Sunga, from whom they continued
petitionforlackofmerit. thebusinessoperationsincludingallbusinessesderived
On January 16, 1995, this Court denied the petition for from the Shellite Gas Appliance Center; submit an
review,oncertiorarifiledbypetitioner,aspetitionersfailedto inventory,andappraisalofalltheseproperties,assets,
show that a reversible error was committed by the appellate income, profits, etc. to the Court and to plaintiff for
court.2 approvalordisapproval;
2. (2)ORDERING them to return and restitute to the 256
partnershipanyandallproperties,assets,incomeand 256 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
profitstheymisappliedandconvertedtotheirownuse SungaChanvs.Chua
andadvantagethatlegallypertaintotheplaintiffand NOspecialpronouncementsastoCOSTS.
accountforthepropertiesmentionedinpars.AandBon SOORDERED.3
pages45ofthispetitionasbasis; OnOctober28,1997,petitionersfiledaNoticeofAppealwiththe
trialcourt,appealingthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.
3. (3)DIRECTINGthemtorestituteandpaytotheplaintiff On January 31, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
1/2sharesandinterestoftheplaintiffinthepartnership appeal.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
of the listed properties, assets and good will (sic) in WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed. The appealed
schedulesA,BandC,onpages45ofthepetition; decisionisAFFIRMEDinallrespects.4
On May 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
4. (4)ORDERING them to pay the plaintiff earned but reconsiderationfiledbypetitioner.
unreceivedincomeandprofitsfromthepartnershipfrom Hence, this petition wherein petitioner relies upon the
1988toMay30,1992,whentheplaintifflearnedofthe followinggrounds:
closure of the store the sum of P35,000.00 per month,
withlegalrateofinterestuntilfullypaid; 1. 1.The Court of Appeals erred in making a legal
conclusion that there existed a partnership between
5. (5)ORDERING them to wind up the affairs of the respondent Lamberto T. Chua and the late Jacinto L.
partnership and terminate its business activities Sunga upon the latters invitation and offer and that
pursuanttolaw,afterdeliveringtotheplaintiffallthe uponhisdeaththepartnershipassetsandbusinesswere
1/2 interest, shares, participation and equity in the takenoverbypetitioners.
partnership, orthe value thereof in money or moneys
worth,ifthepropertiesarenotphysicallydivisible; 2. 2.The Court of Appeals erred in making the legal
conclusionthatlachesand/orprescriptiondidnotapply
6. (6)FINDINGthemespeciallyLilibethSungaChanguilty intheinstantcase.Petitionersquestionthecorrectness
ofbreachoftrustandinbadfaithandholdthemliable ofthefindingofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals
to the plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as moral and that a partnership existed between respondent and
exemplarydamages;and, Jacintofrom1977untilJacintosdeath.Intheabsence
of any written document to show such partnership
7. (7)DIRECTING them to reimburse and pay the sum of betweenrespondentandJacinto,petitionersarguethat
P25,000.00 as attorneys (sic) and P25,000.00 as these courts were proscribed from hearing the
litigationexpenses. testimoniesofrespondentand
 3. 3.The Court of Appeals erred in making the legal againsttheestateofsuchdeceasedperson,oragainstsuchperson
conclusion that there was competent and credible ofunsoundmind,cannottestifyastoanymatteroffactoccurring
evidence to warrant the finding of a partnership, and beforethedeathofsuchdeceasedpersonorbeforesuchperson
assumingarguendothatindeedtherewasapartnership, becameofunsoundmind.
thefindingofhighlyexaggeratedamountsorvaluesin PetitionersthusimplorethisCourttorulethatthetestimoniesof
thepartnershipassetsandprofits.5 respondent and his alter ego, Josephine, should not have been
admitted to prove certain claims against a deceased person
Petitioners question the correctness of the finding of the trial (Jacinto),nowrepresentedbypetitioners.
court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership existed Wearenotpersuaded.
betweenrespondentandJacintofrom1977untilJacintosdeath. Apartnershipmaybeconstitutedinanyform,exceptwhere
Intheansenceofanywrittendocumenttoshowsuchpartnership immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in
between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners argue that these whichcaseapublicinstrumentshallbenecessary.6Hence,based
courts were proscribed from hearing the testimonies of on the intentionof theparties, as gatheredfromthe facts and
respondentand ascertainedfromtheirlanguageandconduct,averbalcontractof
partnershipmayarise.7Theessentialpointsthatmustbeproven
________________ to show that a partnership was agreed upon are (1) mutual
contribution to a common stock, and (2) a joint interest in the
3
Records,pp.7576;Decision,pp.2526. profits.8Understandablyso,inviewoftheabsenceofawritten
4
Rollo,p.46;Decision,p.11. contract of partnership between respondent and Jacinto,
5
Rollo,pp.1314;Petition,pp.67. respondent resorted to the introduction of documentary and
257 testimonialevidencetoprovesaidpartnership.Thecrucialissue
VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 257 tosettletheniswhetherornotthe
SungaChanvs.Chua
________________
his witness, Josephine, to prove the alleged partnership three
yearsafterJacintosdeath.Tosupportthisargument,petitioners 6
JOSE C. VITUG,COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND
invoke the Dead Mans Statute or Survivorship Rule under JURISPRUDENCE,REV.ED.(1993),p.712.
Section23,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtthatprovides: 7
RAMON C. AQUINO AND CAROLINA C. GRIO
SEC. 23.Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of AQUINO,THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VOL. 3
adverse party.Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or (1990),p.295.
personsinwhosebehalfacaseisprosecuted,againstanexecutor 8
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO,COMMENTARIES AND
oradministratororotherrepresentativeofadeceasedperson,or JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE
against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand PHILIPPINES,VOLUME5(1997),p.320.
 258 First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim 11against
258 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED respondentintheiranswerbeforethetrialcourt,andwiththe
SungaChanvs.Chua filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively
Dead Mans Statute applies to this case so as to render removed this case from the ambit of the Dead Mans
inadmissible respondents testimony and that of his witness, Statute.12Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the
Josephine. executor or administrator or representatives of the estate that
The Dead Mans Statute provides that if one party to the sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may
alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, testifytooccurrencesbeforethedeathofthedeceasedtodefeat
insanity,orothermentaldisabilities,thesurvivingpartyisnot the counterclaim.13Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim,
entitledtotheundueadvantageofgivinghisownuncontradicted respondentisnotdisqualifiedfrom
andunexplainedaccountofthetransaction. 9Butbeforethisrule
canbesuccessfullyinvokedtobartheintroductionoftestimonial ________________
evidence,itisnecessarythat:
Tanvs.CourtofAppeals,295SCRA247(1998),p.258.
9

1. 1.Thewitnessisapartyorassignorofapartytoacase OSCAR M. HERRERA,REMEDIAL LAW, REVISED

10

orpersonsinwhosebehalfacaseisprosecuted. RULESONEVIDENCE,VOL.V(1999),pp.308309.
11
Records,pp.4751.
2. 2.The action is against an executor or administrator or
12
SeeGonivs.CourtofAppeals,144SCRA222(1986).
otherrepresentativeofadeceasedpersonorapersonof
13
HERRERA,supra,p.310.
unsoundmind; 259
VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 259
3. 3.Thesubjectmatteroftheactionisaclaimordemand SungaChanvs.Chua
against the estate of such deceased person or against testifyingastomattersoffactoccurringbeforethedeathofthe
personofunsoundmind; deceased,saidactionnothavingbeenbroughtagainstbutbythe
estateorrepresentativesofthedeceased.14
4. 4.His testimony refers to any matter of fact which Second,thetestimonyofJosephineisnotcoveredbytheDead
occurred before the death of such deceased person or MansStatuteforthesimplereasonthatsheisnotapartyor
beforesuchpersonbecameofunsoundmind.10 assignorofapartytoacaseorpersonsinwhosebehalfacaseis
prosecuted.Recordsshowthatrespondentofferedthetestimony
TworeasonsforestalltheapplicationoftheDeadMansStatute ofJosephinetoestablishtheexistenceofthepartnershipbetween
tothiscase. respondentandJacinto.PetitionersinsistencethatJosephineis
thealteregoofrespondentdoesnotmakeheranassignorbecause
thetermassignorofapartymeansassignorofacauseofaction 260 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
whichhasarisen,andnottheassignorofarightassignedbefore SungaChanvs.Chua
any cause of action has arisen.15Plainly then, Josephine is respondentassufficienttoprovetheformationofapartnership,
merely a witness of respondent, the latter being the party albeitaninformalone.
plaintiff. Notably, petitioners did not present any evidence in their
We are not convinced by petitioners allegation that favorduringtrial.Bytheweightofjudicialprecedents,afactual
Josephines testimony lacks probative value because she was matterlikethefindingoftheexistenceofapartnershipbetween
allegedlycoercedbyrespondent,herbrotherinlaw,totestifyin respondentandJacintocannotbeinquiredintobythisCourton
his favor. Josephine merely declared in court that she was review.17ThisCourtcannolongerbetaskedtogoovertheproofs
requested by respondent to testify and that if she were not presentedbythepartiesandanalyze,assessandweighthemto
requestedtodososhewouldnothavetestified.Wefailtoseehow ascertainifthetrialcourtandtheappellatecourtwerecorrectin
we can conclude from this candid admission that Josephines accordingsuperiorcredittothisorthatpieceofevidenceofone
testimony is involuntary when she did not in any way partyortheother.18Itmustbealsopointedoutthatpetitioners
categorically say that she was forced to be a witness of failed to attend the presentation of evidence of respondent.
respondent.Also,thefactthatJosephineisthesisterofthewife Petitioners cannot now turn to this Court to question the
ofrespondentdoesnotdiminishthevalueofhertestimonysince admissibility and authenticity of the documentary evidence of
relationshipperse,withoutmore,doesnotaffectthecredibilityof respondentwhenpetitionersfailedtoobjecttotheadmissibilityof
witnesses.16 theevidenceatthetimethatsuchevidencewasoffered.19
Petitioners reliance alone on the Dead Mans Statute to With regard to petitioners insistence that laches and/or
defeatrespondentsclaimcannotprevailoverthefactualfindings prescription should have extinguished respondents claim, we
ofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsthatapartnershipwas agreewiththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsthattheaction
establishedbetweenrespondentandJacinto.Basednotonlyon foraccountingfiledbyrespondentthree(3)yearsafterJacintos
thetestimonialevidence,butthedocumentaryevidenceaswell, death was well within the prescribed period. The Civil Code
thetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsconsideredtheevidence providesthatanactiontoenforceanoralcontractprescribesin
for six (6) years20while the right to demand an accounting for a
partnersinterestasagainstthepersoncontinuingthebusiness
__________________ accruesatthedateofdissolution,intheabsenceofanycontrary
agreement.21Consider
14
Gonivs.CourtofAppeals,supra,p.233.
15
RICARDOJ.FRANCISCO,EVIDENCE,THIRDEDITION ________________
(1996),p.135.
16
Peoplevs.Nang,289SCRA16(1998),p.32. 17
Alicbusanvs.CourtofAppeals,269SCRA336(1997),p.341
260
 18
Ibid. partnerships with a capital of P3,000.00 or more must register
19
SeeChuavs.CourtofAppeals,301SCRA356(1999). with the SEC, however, this registration requirement is not
20
Thefollowingactionsmustbecommencedwithinsixyears: mandatory. Article 1768 of the Civil Code 25explicitly provides
that the partnership retains its juridical personality even if it
failstoregister.Thefailuretoregisterthecontractofpartnership
1. (1)Uponanoralcontract;and
doesnotinvalidatethesameasamongthepartners,solongas
the contract has the essential requisites, because the main
2. (2)Uponaquasicontract.
purposeofregistrationistogivenoticetothirdparties,anditcan
beassumedthatthemembersthemselvesknewofthecontentsof
Art.1842,CivilCode:
21
their contract.26In the case at bar, noncompliance with this
The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to any
directoryprovisionofthelawwillnotinvalidatethepartnership
partner, or his legal representative as against the winding up
consideringthatthetotalityoftheevidence
partnersorthesurvivingpartnersorthepersonorpartnership
continuingthebusiness,atthedateofdissolution,intheabsence __________________
ofanyssagreementtothecontrary.
261 22
Article1830,CivilCode
VOL.363,AUGUST15,2001 261 24
Syvs.CourtofAppeals,313SCRA328(1999),p.347.
SungaChanvs.Chua 23
Art.1828.Thedissolutionofapartnershipisthechangein
ingthatthedeathofapartnerresultsinthedissolutionofthe therelationofthepartnerscausedbyanypartnerceasingtobe
partnership,22in this case, it was after Jacintos death that associatedinthecarryingonasdistinguishedfromthewinding
respondentasthesurvivingpartnerhadtherighttoanaccountof
up of thebusiness.Art. 1829. On dissolutionthepartnershipis
hisinterestasagainstpetitioners.Itbearsstressingthatwhile
notterminated,butcontinuesuntilthewindingupofpartnership
Jacintosdeathdissolvedthepartnership,thedissolutiondidnot
affairsiscompleted.
immediately terminate the partnership. The Civil 25
The partnership has a juridical personality separate and
Code23expresslyprovidesthatupondissolution,thepartnership
distinctfromthatofeachofthepartners,evenincaseoffailureto
continuesanditslegalpersonalityisretaineduntilthecomplete
complywiththerequirementsofarticle1772,firstparagraph.
windingupofitsbusiness,culminatinginitstermination. 24 26
TOLENTINO,supra,p.325.
In a desperate bid to cast doubt on the validity of the oral
partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners 262
maintain that said partnership that had an initial capital of 262 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
P200,000.00shouldhavebeenregisteredwiththeSecuritiesand GoldLineTransit,Inc.vs.Ramos
Exchange Commission (SEC) since registration is mandated by provesthatrespondentandJacintoindeedforgedthepartnership
theCivilCode.True,Article1772oftheCivilCoderequiresthat inquestion.
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
DENIEDandtheappealeddecisionisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Melo(Chairman),Vitug,PanganibanandSandoval
Gutierrez,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
Notes.Dissolution of a partnership is the change in the
VOL.374,JANUARY25,2002 555
relation of the parties caused by any partner ceasing to be
associatedinthecarryingon,asmightbedistinguishedfromthe Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
windingup,ofitsbusinesses.(Syvs.CourtofAppeals,313SCRA G.R.No.112443.January25,2002.*
328[1999]) TERESITAP.BORDALBA,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,
The partnership although dissolved, continues to exist until HEIRS OF NICANOR JAYME, namely, CANDIDA FLORES,
itstermination,atwhichtimethewindingupofitsaffairsshould EMANNUEL JAYME, DINA JAYME DEJORAS, EVELIA
have been completed and the net partnership assets are JAYME, and GESILA JAYME; AND HEIRS OF ASUNCION
partitioned and distributed to the partners. (Sy vs. Court of JAYMEBACLAY, namely, ANGELO JAYMEBACLAY,
Appeals,313SCRA328[1999]) CARMEN JAYMEDACLAN and ELNORA JAYME BACLAY,
respondents.
o0o Appeals;Evidence;Itisdoctrinalthatfindingsoffactsofthe
CourtofAppealsupholding thoseof the trial courtare binding
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights upontheSupremeCourt.Thecontentionsarewithoutmerit.It
reserved. is doctrinal that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals
upholding those of the trial courtare binding upon this Court.
While there are exceptions to this rule, petitioner has not
convincedusthatthiscasefallsunderoneofthem.
LandRegistration;LandTitles;Itisasettledrulethatthe
LandRegistrationActprotectsonlyholdersoftitleingoodfaith,
anddoesnotpermititsprovisiontobeusedasashieldforthe
commission of fraud, or as a means to enrich oneself at the
expenseofothers.TheCourtseesnoreasontodeviatefromthe
findingsofthetrial courtthat petitionerresorted tofraudand
misrepresentationinobtainingafreepatentandtitleoverthelot
underscrutiny.TheCourtofAppealscorrectlypointedoutthat witnesses in the present case is based,inter alia, on the 1947
misrepresentationtaintedpetitionersapplication,insofarasher DeedofExtrajudicialPartitionandotherdocuments,andnoton
declarationthatthelandappliedforwasnotoccupiedorclaimed dealingsandcommunicationswiththedeceased,thequestioned
by any other person. Her declaration is belied by the extra testimonieswereproperlyadmittedbythetrialcourt.
judicialpartitionwhichsheacknowledged,hermothersaborted Succession;Inorderthatanheirmayasserthisrighttothe
attempt to have the lot registered, private respondents
propertyofadeceased,nopreviousjudicialdeclarationofheirship
predecessorsininterests opposition thereto, and by the
isnecessary.Likewiseuntenableistheclaimofpetitionerthat
occupancyofaportionofthesaidlotbyNicanorJaymeandhis
familysince1945.ItisasettledrulethattheLandRegistration private respondents are not legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme and
Actprotectsonlyholdersoftitleingoodfaith,anddoesnotpermit Asuncion JaymeBaclay. Other than their bare allegations to
itsprovisiontobeusedasashieldforthecommissionoffraud,or disputetheirheirship,nohardevidencewaspresentedbythemto
asameanstoenrichoneselfattheexpenseofothers. substantiatetheirallegations.Besides,inorderthatanheirmay
asserthisrighttothepropertyofadeceased,nopreviousjudicial
Same;Same;Evidence;DeadMansStatute;Thedeadmans
declarationofheirshipisnecessary.
statutedoesnotoperatetoclosethemouthofawitnessastoany
Evidence;Admissions Against Interest;Where one derives
matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any other way than
titletopropertyfromanother,theact,declaration,oromissionof
through personal dealings with the deceased person, or
thelatter,while holding the title,inrelationtotheproperty,is
communicationmadebythedeceasedtothewitness.Astothe
evidence against the former.Anent the issue of identity, the
allegedviolationofthedeadmansstatute,sufficeittostatethat
disparityintheboundariesofLotNo.1242(799C)visavisthe
saidrulefindsnoapplicationinthepresentcase.Thedead
boundariesofthelotreferredtointhe1947DeedofExtrajudicial
_______________ PartitioncanbeexplainedbythefactthatLotNo.1242(799C)is
onlyaportionoftheentireparceloflanddescribedintheDeed,a
*
FIRSTDIVISION. 1/3pro indivisoportion of which was adjudicated each to, first,
556 petitioners mother, second, to the predecessorsininterest of
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED privaterespondents,andthird,toanunidentifiedparty.Logically
56 therefore,theirboundarieswillnotbesimilar.Atanyrate,the
records show that the parcel of land adjudicated to the
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
predecessorsininterestofthepartieshereinwasthelotfoundon
mans statute does not operate to close the mouth of a
thecornerofPlaridelandMabiniStreetsinLooc,MandaueCity.
witnessastoanymatteroffactcomingtohisknowledgeinany
As admittedfurtherbyboth parties, LotNo. 1242(799C)was
other way than through personal dealings with the deceased
partofthelandallottedtotheirpredecessorsininterestinthe
person,orcommunicationmadebythedeceasedtothewitness.
1947 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. Moreover, petitioners
Sincetheclaimofprivaterespondentsandthetestimonyoftheir
mother acknowledged in her application for registration of Lot notabletoshowtheextentoftheir1/3proindivisorightoverLot
No.1242thattheDeedofExtrajudicialPartitionwasthesource No.1242(799C),theyhaveneverthelessestablishedtheirclaim
of her claim over the lot sought to be registered. She further over the said lot. Hence, in line with our ruling in the case
admitted that thelot now known asLot No. 1242 (799C) was ofLaluanv.Malpaya,theprudentrecoursewouldbetoremand
partoftheparceloflandinheritedbyherandhercoheirs,tothe thecasetothelowercourtforanewtrial.
extent of 1/3 share each. Under Section 31, Rule 130, of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, where one derives title to property PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
fromanother,theact,declaration,oromissionofthelatter,while Appeals.
holdingthetitle,inrelationtotheproperty,isevidenceagainst
theformer. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
557 V.L.Legaspiforpetitioner.
VOL.374,JANUARY25,2002 557
PedroAlbinoforRuralBankofMandaue.
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals Palma,Palma&Associatesforprivaterespondents.
Land Titles;When the record does not show that the land
subjectmatterofactionhasbeenexactlydetermined,theaction YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
cannotprosper,inasmuchastheplaintiffsownershiprightsinthe
landclaimeddonotappearsatisfactorilyandconclusivelyproven ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt
seekingtosetasidetheOctober20,1992DecisionoftheCourtof
at the trial; In the present case, while it is true that private
Appeals1inCAG.R.CVNo.27419,whichaffirmedwithmodifica
respondentswerenotabletoshowtheextentoftheirproindiviso
rightoveralot,theyhaveneverthelessestablishedtheirclaimover _______________
thesame,thecaseshouldberemandedtothelowercourtforanew
trial.InBeo v. Courtof Appeals,the Court heldthatin order
1
NinthDivision,composedofAssociateJusticesNathanielP.
that an action for recovery of possession may prosper, it is DePano,Jr.(ponenteandchairman),JesusM.Elbinias(member)
indispensablethathewhobringstheactionmustfullyprovenot andAngelinaS.Gutierrez(member).
onlyhisownershipbutalsotheidentityofthepropertyclaimed 558
bydescribingthelocation,areaandboundariesthereof.Sothat 558 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
whentherecorddoesnotshowthatthelandsubjectmatterofthe Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
action has been exactly determined, the action cannot prosper, tiontheDecision2oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMandaue,Branch
inasmuchastheplaintiffsownershiprightsinthelandclaimed 28,inCivilCaseNo.MAN386.
donotappearsatisfactorilyandconclusivelyprovenatthetrial. TheinstantcontroversystemmedfromLotNo.1242(LotNo.
Inthepresentcase,whileitistruethatprivaterespondentswere 799C)withanareaof1,853squaremetersandlocatedatBarrio
Looc, MandaueCity.The subject lot is partofaparcel ofland CARMENOJAYME,YDOAMARGARITAESPINADEJAYME
situatedonthecornerofMabiniandPlaridelStreetsinMandaue CELEBRADO EL... DE.......DE 1947, POR SUS HIJOS,
City,andoriginallyownedbythelatespousesCarmenoJayme MARIANO JAYME, SEGUNDO JAYME, ANDRES JAYME,
and Margarita Espina de Jayme. In 1947, an extrajudicial GENEROSA JAYME, TEOFILA JAYME DE OUANO,
partition,3written in the Spanish language was executed, FELECITASJAYMEDELATONIOYELENAJAYME,VIUDA
describingsaidparceloflandas DE PEREZ, CON LA CONCURRENCIA DE LOS DOS
2.otraparceladeterrenourbanoenelbarriodeLook,Mandawe, SOBRINOS ASUNCION JAYME DE BACLAY Y NICANOR
Cebu, que linda al N. con la Calle Mabini y propiodades de F. JAYME, HIJOS DE LA FINADA ESPIRIDIONA JAYME...
Jayme;alE.lindaconpropiodadesdeFernandoAntigua;alS. (ExhibitA,Records,p.76).
lindaconpropiodadesdeLucasyVictorianoJayme,yalO.linda 4
ExhibitA2,Records,p.77.
con la Calle Plaridel. La propiodad descrita esta avaluada, con 559
todassusmejoras,enlacantidaddeMILYCINCUENTAPESOS VOL.374,JANUARY25,2002 559
........................................................P1,050.00. 4 Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
anddisposing,interalia,thesameparceloflandasfollows: Built on the land adjudicated to the heirs of the spouses is
NicanorJaymeshouse,whichhisfamilyoccupiedsince1945.
1. 1)1/3infavorof(a)theirgrandchildNicanorJayme,the Sometime in July 1964, Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez,
deceased spouse of private respondent Candida Flores petitionersmother,filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofCebu,
andthefatherofprivaterespondentsEmmanuel,Dina, BranchIV,anamendedapplicationfortheregistration 5ofthelot
Evelia and Gesila, all surnamed Jayme; and (b) their describedwiththefollowingboundaries:
grandchild Asuncion JaymeBaclay, whose heirs are NFruelanaJayme&Road
private respondents Agelio Baclay, Elnora Baclay and SFelicitasdeLatonio
CarmenJaymeDaclan; EAgustindeJayme
WPorfirioJayme,LotNo.1andVivencioAbellana
2. 2)1/3 to their daughter Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez, Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez alleged that the lot sought to be
motherofpetitionerTeresitaP.Bordalba;and registered was originally a part of a land owned by her late
parents,thespousesCarmenoJaymeandMargaritaEspinade
3. 3)1/3toanunidentifiedparty. Jayme; and that1/3 ofsaid land was adjudicated to her in an
extrajudicialpartition.Shefurtherstatedthataportionofthe
_______________ lotforwhichtitleisappliedforisoccupiedbyNicanorJaymewith
herpermission.
PennedbyJudgeMercedesGozoDadole.
2 Consequently, Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion JaymeBaclay
CONVENIO DE REPARTICION Y DISTRIBUCION
3 filed their opposition6contending that said application included
EXTRAJUDICIALESDELOSBIENESDELOSESPOSOSDON the 1/3 portion inherited by them in the 1947 extrajudicial
partition.Thecasewas,however,dismissedforlackofinterestof 2. 2)Lot No. 1242B with an area of 420 square meters
the parties. Subsequently, petitioner filed with the Bureau of covered by TCT No. 22772 in the name of Teresita P.
Lands of Cebu City an application 7dated January 10, 1979, Bordalba, and which the latter mortgaged with the
seekingtheissuanceofaFreePatentoverthesamelotsubjectof RuralBankofMandaue;
theabortedapplicationofhermother,ElenaJayme,nowknown
asLotNo.1242(799C),describedasfollows: 3. 3)Lot No. 1242C with an area of 210 square meters
North: FroilanJaymeandRoad covered by TCT 22773 in the name of Teresita P.
East: AgustinJayme Bordalba;
South: AlfredoAlivioandSpousesHilarioGandecila
West: HilarioGandecilaPorferioJaymeandHeirsofVevencioAbellanosa8 4. 4)Lot No. 1242D with an area of 210 square meters
coveredbyTCT22774inthenameofTeresitaBordalba;
_______________
5. 5)Lot No. 1242E with an area of 216 square meters
5
ExhibitB,Records,pp.8183. covered by TCT 22775 in the name of Teresita P.
6
ExhibitC,Records,pp.8485. Bordalba;
7
ExhibitD,Records,p.86.
8
Exhibit3,Records,p.117. 6. 6)LotNo.1242Fwithanareaof216squaremetersand
560 covered by TCT No. 22776 in the name of Teresita P.
560 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Bordalba.
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
On April 16, 1980, petitioner was successfully granted Free Upon learning of the issuance in favor of petitioner of the
PatentNo.(VIII)11421andOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.0 aforesaidFreePatentandOriginalCertificateofTitleoverLot
571 (FP) over said lot.9Thereafter, petitioner caused the No.1242,aswellastheconveyancesmadebypetitionerinvolving
subdivisionandtitlingofLotNo.1242(799C), into6lots, 10as thelotsubjectofthecontroversy,privaterespondentsfiledwith
wellasthedispositionoftwoparcelsthereof,thus: theRegionalTrialCourtofMandaueCity,Branch28,theinstant
complaintagainstpetitionerTeresita Bordalba,spousesGenaro
1. 1)Lot No. 1242A with an area of 581 square meters U.Cabahug,andRitaCapala,RuralBankofMandaueandthe
coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.22771(FP)in DirectoroftheBureauofLands.
the name of spouses Genaro U. Cabahug and Rita Inthesaidcomplaint,privaterespondentsprayedthatFree
Capala,towhompetitionersoldsaidlot; PatentNo.(VIII)11421andOCTNo.0571(FP),aswellasTCT
Nos.2277122776bedeclaredvoidandorderedcancelled.Private
respondentsalsoprayedthattheybeadjudgedownersofLotNo.
1242 (799C), and that spouses Genaro V. Cabahug and Rita
CapalaaswellastheRuralBankofMandauebedeclaredbuyers Mandaue are purchasers and mortgagee in good faith,
and respectively;andconsequentlyupheldasvalidthesaleofLotNo.
1242AcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.22771(FP)to
_______________ spousesGenaroU.CabahugandRitaCapala,andthemortgage
ofLotNo.1242BcoveredbyTCTNo.22772infavoroftheRural
ExhibitJ,Records,p.96.
9
BankofMandaue.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
ExhibitK,Records,p.100andExhibitsLQ,Records,
10
WHEREFORE,foregoingpremisesconsidered,Decisionishereby
pp.101107. renderedinfavoroftheplaintiffsby:
561
VOL.374,JANUARY25,2002 561 1. 1)declaringFreePatentNo.(VIII)11421aswellasthe
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals Original Certificate of Title No. 057 (FP) and all
mortgageeinbadfaith,respectively.Inaddition,theyaskedthe subsequent certificates of title as a result of the
courtto awardthemactual,compensatory,and moraldamages subdivisionofLotNo.1242exceptTCTNO.22771(FP)
plusattorneysfeesintheamountofP20,000.00. asnullandvoidandorderingtheRegisterofDeedsof
Petitioner,ontheotherhand,averredthatLotNo.1242(799 MandaueCitytocancelthem;
C)wasacquiredbyherthroughpurchasefromhermother, 11who
wasinpossessionofthelotintheconceptofanownersince1947. _______________
Inheranswer,petitionertracedhermothersownershipofthelot
partlyfromthe1947deedofextrajudicialpartitionpresentedby 11
Exhibit2,Records,p.115.
private respondents,12and claimed that Nicanor Jayme, and 12
Records,p.32.
Candida Flores occupied a portion of Lot No. 1242 (799C) by 13
TSN,November14,1989,p.18.
mere tolerance of her mother. On crossexamination, petitioner 562
admitted that the properties of the late Carmeno Jayme and 562 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Margarita Espina de Jayme were partitioned by their heirs in Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
1947,butclaimedthatshewasnotawareoftheexistenceofsaid
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. She, however, identified one of 1. 2)declaringspousesdefendants Genaro U.Cabahug and
the signatures in the said Deed to be the signature of her RitaCapalaasbuyersingoodfaithandarethelegaland
mother.13 rightfulownersofLotNo.1242AasdescribedinTCT
On May 28, 1990, the trial court, finding that fraud was No.22771(FP);
employedbypetitionerinobtainingFreePatentNo.(VIII)11421
andOCTNo.0571(FP),declaredsaidpatentandtitlevoidand
2. 3)declaring the Rural Bank of Mandaue, Inc. as
ordered its cancellation. However, it declared that spouses
mortgagee in good faith and the mortgage lien in its
GenaroU.CabahugandRitaCapalaaswellastheRuralBankof
 favor be carried over to and be annotated in the new TitleissuedandtheirdeclarationastheownersofLotNo.1242in
certificateoftitletobeissuedunderthenamesofthe itsentirety.TherestisAFFIRMEDintoto.
plaintiffs; SOORDERED.15
Thus,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetition,assailingthedecisionof
3. 4)declaringtheplaintiffsasthelegalandrightfulowners the Court of Appeals. Petitioner contends that the testimonies
ofLot1242andorderingtheissuanceofthecertificateof givenbythewitnessesforprivaterespondentswhichtouchedon
titleintheirnames;
_______________
4. 5)dismissingtheclaimsofthedefendantspousesCabahug
andCapalaandthedefendantRuralBankofMandaue, Records,pp.205206.
14

Inc.forlackofmerit; Rollo,p.33.
15

563
5. 6)ordering the defendant Teresita Bordalba to pay VOL.374,JANUARY25,2002 563
plaintiffsthefollowingamounts: Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
matters occurring prior to the death of her mother should not
1. (a)P5,000.00asactualandlitigationexpenses; havebeenadmittedbythetrialcourt,asthesameviolatedthe
dead mans statute. Likewise, petitioner questions the right of
2. (b)P20,000.00asattorneysfees,and, privaterespondentstoinheritfromthelateNicanorJaymeand
Asuncion JaymeBaclay, as well as the identity between the
1. 7)orderingdefendantBordalbatopaythecosts. disputed lot and the parcel of land adjudicated in the Deed of
ExtrajudicialPartition.
SOORDERED.14 Thecontentionsarewithoutmerit.Itisdoctrinalthatfindings
Both petitioner Teresita Bordalba and private respondents offactsoftheCourtofAppealsupholdingthoseofthetrialcourt
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with arebindinguponthisCourt.Whilethereareexceptionstothis
modification the decision of the trial court. It ruled that since rule,petitionerhasnotconvincedusthatthiscasefallsunderone
private respondents are entitled only to 1/3 portion of Lot No. ofthem.16
1242(799C),petitionershouldbeorderedtoreconvey1/3ofLot TheCourtseesnoreasontodeviatefromthefindingsofthe
No.1242(799C)toprivaterespondents.Thedecretalportionof trialcourtthatpetitionerresortedtofraudandmisrepresentation
therespondentcourtsdecisionstates: inobtainingafreepatentandtitleoverthelotunderscrutiny.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision is MODIFIED to order TheCourtofAppealscorrectlypointedoutthatmisrepresentation
thereconveyanceofonethirdofthesubjectlandinfavorofthe tainted petitioners application, insofar as her declaration that
plaintiffappelleesinlieuofthecancellationoftheCertificatesof the land applied for was not occupied or claimed by any other
person. Her declaration is belied by the extrajudicial partition
whichsheacknowledged,hermothersabortedattempttohave Likewise untenable is the claim of petitioner that private
thelotregistered,privaterespondentspredecessorsininterests respondentsarenotlegalheirsofNicanorJaymeandAsuncion
oppositionthereto,andbytheoccupancyofaportionofthesaid JaymeBaclay.Otherthantheirbareallegationstodisputetheir
lotbyNicanorJaymeandhisfamilysince1945. heirship,nohardevidencewaspresentedbythemtosubstantiate
ItisasettledrulethattheLandRegistrationActprotectsonly their allegations.Besides,inorder that an heirmayasserthis
holdersoftitleingoodfaith,anddoesnotpermititsprovisionto right to the property of a deceased, no previous judicial
beusedasashieldforthecommissionoffraud,orasameansto declarationofheirshipisnecessary.20
enrichoneselfattheexpenseofothers.17 Anenttheissueofidentity,thedisparityintheboundariesof
Astotheallegedviolationofthedeadmansstatute, 18sufficeit LotNo.1242(799C)visavistheboundariesofthelotreferredto
tostatethatsaidrulefindsnoapplicationinthepresentcase. inthe1947DeedofExtrajudicialPartitioncanbeexplainedby
Thedeadmansstatutedoesnotoperatetoclosethemouthofa thefactthatLotNo.1242(799C)isonlyaportionoftheentire
witnessastoanymatteroffactcomingtohisknowledgeinany parceloflanddescribedintheDeed,a1/3proindivisoportionof
otherway whichwasadjudicatedeachto,first,petitionersmother,second,
tothepredecessorsininterestofprivaterespondents,andthird,
_______________ toanunidentifiedparty.Logicallytherefore,theirboundarieswill
notbesimilar.Atanyrate,therecordsshowthattheparcelof
16
Pua, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,345 SCRA 233, 243 land adjudicated to the predecessorsininterest of the parties
(2000); citingLagandaon v. Court of Appeals,290 SCRA herein was the lot found on the corner of Plaridel and Mabini
330(1998). Streets in Looc, Mandaue City. As admitted further by both
17
Esquivias,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,etal.,272SCRA803, parties,LotNo.1242(799C)waspartofthelandallottedtotheir
816(1997];citingAngelesv.Samia,66Phil.444(1938). predecessorsininterest in the 1947 Deed of Extrajudicial
18
RulesofCourt,Rule130,Section23. Partition. Moreover, petitioners mother acknowledged in her
564 application for registration of Lot No. 1242 that the Deed of
564 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED ExtrajudicialPartitionwasthesourceofherclaimoverthelot
sought to be registered. She further admitted that the lot now
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
known as Lot No. 1242 (799C) was part of the parcel of land
than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or
inheritedbyherandhercoheirs,to
communicationmadebythedeceasedtothewitness. 19
Sincetheclaimofprivaterespondentsandthetestimonyof
_______________
their witnesses in the present case is based,inter alia, on the
1947DeedofExtrajudicialPartitionandotherdocuments,and 19
VolumeV,Herrera,RemedialLaw,p.312(1999).
not on dealings and communications with the deceased, the
questionedtestimonieswereproperlyadmittedbythetrialcourt.
 HeirsofIgnacioConti,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,300SCRA
20
West: CallePlaridel
345, 353 (1998), citingMarabilles v. Quito,110 Phil. 64(1956) theydidnot,however,showwheretheseboundariesarefoundin
andHernandezv.Padua,14Phil.194(1909). relationtotheboundariesofLotNo.1242(799C).Absentafixed
565 boundary of the parcel of land adjudicated in the Deed, which
they claim LotNo. 1242(799C)is apartof, theCourt cannot
VOL.374,JANUARY25,2002 565
determinetheextenttowhichthelotnowknownasLotNo.1242
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals (799C) is included. Admittedly, the north boundary of Lot No.
theextentof1/3shareeach.UnderSection31,Rule130,ofthe 1242 (799C) (Property of Froilan Jaime and Mabini Street) is
Revised Rules on Evidence, where one derives title to property similartothenorthboundaryofthelandmentionedintheDeed.
fromanother,theact,declaration,oromissionofthelatter,while Withonlyonereferencepoint,however,thesouth,eastandwest
holdingthetitle,inrelationtotheproperty,isevidenceagainst boundariesof
theformer. 566
ConsideringthatLotNo.1242(799C)ispartoftheparcelof
566 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
land over whichprivate respondentspredecessorsininterestis
Bordalbavs.CourtofAppeals
entitled to 1/3 proindiviso share, which was disregarded by
petitioner when she secured a Free Patent and Original LotNo.1242(799C)cannotbeestablishedwithcertaintytobe
Certificate of Title in her name, to the exclusion of private withintheparceloflanddescribedintheDeedofExtrajudicial
respondents predecessorsininterest, the trial court and the Partition.
CourtofAppeals,therefore,didnoterrinupholdingtherightof InBeov.CourtofAppeals,21theCourtheldthatinorderthat
privaterespondentsascoowners,andorderingthepetitionerto an action for recovery of possession may prosper, it is
reconvey1/3ofthelotinquestiontothem. indispensablethathewhobringstheactionmustfullyprovenot
Notwithstandingtheforegoing,however,theCourtisunable onlyhisownershipbutalsotheidentityofthepropertyclaimed
to determine what part of Lot No. 1242 (799C) is within the bydescribingthelocation,areaandboundariesthereof.Sothat
boundaries of the parcel of land inherited in the 1947 Deed of whentherecorddoesnotshowthatthelandsubjectmatterofthe
Extrajudicial Partition by the predecessorsininterest of the action has been exactly determined, the action cannot prosper,
parties herein. This is so because private respondents did not inasmuchastheplaintiffsownershiprightsinthelandclaimed
showtheextentofthesaidlandmentionedinthe1947Deedof donotappearsatisfactorilyandconclusivelyprovenatthetrial.
ExtrajudicialPartitioninrelationtoLotNo.1242(799C).While Inthepresentcase,whileitistruethatprivaterespondents
theypresentedtheboundariesoftheparceloflandadjudicatedin were not able toshow theextent of their 1/3proindivisoright
theDeed,towit: over Lot No. 1242 (799C), they have nevertheless established
North: CalleMabiniypropiodadesdeF.Jayme theirclaimoverthesaidlot.Hence,inlinewithourrulinginthe
East: PropiodadesdeFernandoAntigua case ofLaluan v. Malpaya,22the prudent recourse would be to
South: PropiodadesdeLucasyVictorianoJayme remandthecasetothelowercourtforanewtrial.
 WHEREFORE, in view of all theforegoing, the October 20,
1992DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.27419, G.R.No.179786.July24,2013.*
and the May 28, 1990 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of JOSIELENE LARA CHAN, petitioner,vs. JOHNNY T. CHAN,
MandaueCity,Branch28,inCivilCaseNo.MAN386,insofaras respondent.
itrelatestotherecognitionofthe1/3shareofprivaterespondents Remedial Law; Evidence; PhysicianPatient Privileged
overLotNo.1242(799C)isAFFIRMED.Thecaseisremandedto
Communication Rule; The physicianpatient privileged
thetrialcourtinordertodeterminewhatpartofLotNo.1242
communicationruleessentiallymeansthataphysicianwhogets
(799C)isincludedintheparceloflandadjudicatedinthe1947
DeedofExtrajudicialPartitiontothepredecessorsininterestof informationwhileprofessionallyattendingapatientcannotina
thepartiesherein. civilcasebeexaminedwithoutthepatientsconsentastoanyfacts
SOORDERED. which would blacken the latters reputation.The physician
Davide,Jr.(C.J.,Chairman),Puno,KapunanandPardo, patientprivilegedcommunicationrule essentiallymeans thata
JJ.,concur. physicianwhogetsinformationwhileprofessionallyattendinga
Judgmentaffirmed,caseremandedtotrialcourt. patientcannotinacivilcasebeexaminedwithoutthepatients
againstinterestisentitledtoovercomebyevidencetheapparent consent as to any facts which would blacken the latters
inconsistency,anditiscompetentforthepartyagainstwhomthe reputation.Thisruleisintendedtoencouragethepatienttoopen
pleading is offered to show that the statements were uptothephysician,relatetohimthehistoryofhisailment,and
give him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a
inadvertentlymadeorweremadeunderamistakeoffact.(Bitong
correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate
vs.CourtofAppeals,292SCRA503[1998]) cure.Anyfearthataphysiciancouldbecompelledinthefutureto
TheobjectandpurposeoftheDeadMansStatuteistoguard cometocourtandnarrateallthathadtranspiredbetweenhim
against the temptation togive false testimony in regard of the andthepatientmightpromptthelattertoclamup,thusputting
transactioninquestion on thepart of the survivingparty, and hisownhealthatgreatrisk.
furthertoputthetwopartiestoasuitupontermsofequalityin
Same; Same; Objection to Evidence; Section 36, Rule 132,
regardtotheopportunitytogivingtestimony.(Tanvs.Courtof
statesthatobjectionstoevidencemustbemadeaftertheofferof
Appeals,295SCRA247[1998])
suchevi
_______________
o0o
*THIRDDIVISION.
77
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
VOL.702,JULY24,2013 77
reserved.
Chanvs.Chan
 dence for admission in court.The case presents a disclosedarenotprivileged.Josieleneofcourseclaimsthatthe
proceduralissue,giventhatthetimetoobjecttotheadmissionof hospitalrecordssubjectofthiscasearenotprivilegedsinceitis
evidence,suchasthehospitalrecords,wouldbeatthetimethey thetestimonialevidenceofthephysicianthatmayberegarded
are offered. The offer could be made part of the physicians asprivileged.Section24(c)ofRule130statesthatthephysician
testimonyorasindependentevidencethathehadmadeentriesin cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
thoserecordsthatconcernthepatientshealthproblems.Section examined regarding their professional conversation. The
36, Rule 132, states that objections to evidence must be made privilege,saysJosielene,doesnotcoverthehospitalrecords,but
aftertheofferofsuchevidenceforadmissionincourt.Thus:SEC. only the examination of the physician at the trial. To allow,
36.Objection.Objectiontoevidenceofferedorallymustbemade however,thedisclosureduringdiscoveryprocedureofthehospital
immediately after the offer is made. Objection to a question records the results of tests that the physician ordered, the
propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness diagnosisofthepatientsillness,andtheadviceortreatmenthe
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become 78
reasonably apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be 7 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
objectedtowithinthree(3)daysafternoticeoftheofferunlessa 8
differentperiodisallowedbythecourt.Inanycase,thegrounds Chanvs.Chan
fortheobjectionsmustbespecified.Sincetheofferofevidenceis gave him would be to allow access to evidence that is
madeatthetrial,Josielenesrequestforsubpoenaducestecumis inadmissible without the patients consent. Physician
premature.Shewillhavetowaitfortrialtobeginbeforemaking memorializes all these information in the patients records.
a request for the issuance of a subpoenaduces tecumcovering Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the
Johnnyshospitalrecords.Itiswhenthoserecordsareproduced physiciantotestifyonprivilegedmattershegainedwhiledealing
forexaminationatthetrial,thatJohnnymayopttoobject,not withthepatient,withoutthelatterspriorconsent.
just to their admission in evidence, but more so to their LEONEN,J.,ConcurringOpinion:
disclosure.Section24(c),Rule130oftheRulesofEvidencequoted Remedial Law; Evidence; PhysicianPatient Privileged
aboveisaboutnondisclosureofprivilegedmatters. CommunicationRule;Viewthatthehospitalrecordsofrespondent
Same; Same; PhysicianPatient Privileged Communication Johnny Chan may not be produced in court without his/her
Rule; Toallow thedisclosureduring discovery procedureofthe consent.IagreethatthehospitalrecordsofrespondentJohnny
hospitalrecordstheresultsofteststhatthephysicianordered, Chan may not be produced in court without his/her consent.
thediagnosisofthepatientsillness,andtheadviceortreatment Issuanceofasubpoenaducestecumforitsproductionwillviolate
he gave him would be to allow access to evidence that is thephysicianpatientprivilegeruleunderRule130,Sec.24(c)of
inadmissiblewithoutthepatientsconsent.Therighttocompel the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, this privilege is not
theproductionofdocumentshasalimitation:thedocumentstobe absolute. The request of petitioner for a copy of the medical
recordshasnotbeenproperlylaid.Insteadofarequestforthe
issuanceofasubpoenaducestecum,JosieleneLaraChanshould Same;Same;Same;Viewthatthephysicianpatientprivilege
avail of the mode of discovery under Rule 28 of Rules of Civil doesnotcoverinformationdiscoveredunderRule28oftheRules
Procedure. Rule 28 pertains to the physical or mental of Court.Discovery procedures provide a balance between the
examinationofpersons.Thismaybeorderedbythecourt,inits needoftheplaintifforclaimanttofullyandfairlyestablishher
discretion, upon motion and showing of good cause by the case and the policy to protect to a certain extent
requesting party, in cases when the mental and/or physical communicationsmadebetweenapatientandhisdoctor.Hence,
conditionofapartyisincontroversy.Asidefromshowinggood the physicianpatient privilege does not cover information
cause,therequestingpartyneedsonlytonotifythepartytobe discovered under Rule 28. This procedure is availed with the
examined (and all other parties) and specify the time, place, intention of making the results public during trial. Along with
manner,conditions,andscopeoftheexamination,includingthe othermodesofdiscovery,thiswouldpreventthetrialfrombeing
nameofthephysicianwhowillconducttheexamination. carriedoninthedark.
Same; Same; Same; View that the examined party may PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
obtain a copy of the examining physicians report concerning Appeals.
his/her mental or physical examination.The examined party ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
mayobtainacopyoftheexaminingphysiciansreportconcerning Ubano,Sianghio,Lozada&Cabantacforpetitioner.
his/her mental or physical examination. The requesting party Fragante,Pooten,Ferrer,Fayre&Associatesforrespondent.
shalldeliverthisreporttohim/her.Aftersuchdelivery,however, ABAD,J.:
the requesting party becomes entitled to any past or future
Thiscaseisabouttheproprietyofissuingasubpoenaduces
medicalreportinvolvingthesamementalorphysicalcondition.
tecumfor the production and submission in court of the
Uponmotionandnotice,thecourtmayordertheexaminedparty
to deliver those medical reports to the requesting party if the respondenthusbandshospitalrecordinacasefordeclarationof
examinedpartyrefusestodoso.Moreover,iftheexaminedparty nullityofmarriagewhereoneoftheissuesishismentalfitnessas
requestsacopyoftheexaminingphysicians ahusband.
79 TheFactsandtheCase
VOL.702,JULY24,2013 79 On February 6, 2006 petitioner Josielene Lara Chan
(Josielene)filedbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMakati
Chanvs.Chan
City,Branch144apetitionforthedeclarationofnul
report or if he/she takes the examining physicians
80
deposition, the request waives the examined partys privileges
80 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
whenthetestimonyofanypersonwhoexaminedorwillexamine
his/hermentalofphysicalstatusistakenintheactionorinany Chanvs.Chan
actioninvolvingthesamecontroversy. lity of her marriage to respondent Johnny Chan (Johnny), the
dissolutionoftheirconjugalpartnershipofgains,andtheaward
ofcustodyoftheirchildrentoher.JosieleneclaimedthatJohnny 2Rollo,pp.6972.
failedtocareforandsupporthisfamilyandthatapsychiatrist 81
diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant drinking VOL.702,JULY24,2013 81
andexcessiveuseofprohibiteddrugs.Indeed,shehadconvinced
Chanvs.Chan
him to undergo hospital confinement for detoxification and
beforetheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SP97913,imputing
rehabilitation.
graveabuseofdiscretiontotheRTC.
Johnnyresistedtheaction,claimingthatitwasJosielenewho
OnSeptember17,2007theCA3deniedJosielenespetition.It
failedinherwifelyduties.Tosavetheirmarriage,heagreedto
ruled that, if courts were to allow the production of medical
marriage counseling but when he and Josielene got to the
records, then patients would be left with no assurance that
hospital,twomenforciblyheldhimbybotharmswhileanother
whatever relevant disclosures they may have made to their
gavehimaninjection.Themarriagerelationsgotworsewhenthe
physicianswouldbekeptconfidential.Theprohibitioncoversnot
policetemporarilydetainedJosieleneforanunrelatedcrimeand
only testimonies, but also affidavits, certificates, and pertinent
releasedheronlyafterthecaseagainstherended.Bythen,their
hospitalrecords.TheCAaddedthat,althoughJohnnycanwaive
marriagerelationshipcouldnolongerberepaired.
the privilege, he did not do so in this case. He attached the
During the pretrial conference, Josielene premarked the
Philhealthformtohisanswerforthelimitedpurposeofshowing
Philhealth Claim Form1that Johnny attached tohis answer as
hisallegedforcibleconfinement.
proofthathewasforciblyconfinedattherehabilitationunitofa
QuestionPresented
hospital. The form carried a physicians handwritten note that
Thecentralquestionpresentedinthiscaseis:
Johnny suffered from methamphetamine and alcohol abuse.
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the trial court
Following up on this point, on August 22, 2006 Josielene filed
correctlydeniedtheissuanceofasubpoenaducestecumcovering
with the RTC a request for the issuance of a subpoenaduces
Johnnyshospitalrecordsonthegroundthatthesearecoveredby
tecumaddressed to Medical City, covering Johnnys medical theprivilegedcharacterofthephysicianpatientcommunication.
records when he was there confined. The request was TheRulingoftheCourt
accompaniedbyamotiontobeallowedtosubmitinevidence
Josielene requested the issuance of a subpoenaduces
therecordssoughtbysubpoenaducestecum.2
tecumcovering the hospital records of Johnnys confinement,
Johnnyopposedthemotion,arguingthatthemedicalrecords
which records she wanted to present in court as evidence in
were covered by physicianpatient privilege. On September 13,
supportofheractiontohavetheirmarriagedeclaredanullity.
2006 the RTC sustained the opposition and denied Josielenes
RespondentJohnnyresistedherrequestforsubpoena,however,
motion.Italsodeniedhermotionforreconsideration,prompting
invoking the privileged character of those records. He cites
hertofileaspecialcivilactionofcertiorari
Section24(c),Rule130oftheRulesofEvidencewhichreads:
_______________
_______________
1AnnexB.
 3PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.andconcurred records,wouldbeatthetimetheyareoffered.Theoffercouldbe
inbyAssociateJusticesJoseC.Reyes,Jr.andMyrnaDimaranan made part of the physicians testimony or as independent
Vidal. evidencethathehadmadeentriesinthoserecordsthatconcern
82 thepatientshealthproblems.
82 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Chanvs.Chan 4Francisco,The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines,
SEC.24.Disqualification by reason of privileged VolumeVII,PartI,1997ed.,p.282,citingWillofBruendi,102
communication.Thefollowingpersonscannottestifyasto Wis.47,78N.W.169andMcRaev.Erickson,1Cal.App.326.
matterslearnedinconfidenceinthefollowingcases: 83
xxxx VOL.702,JULY24,2013 83
(c)Apersonauthorizedtopracticemedicine,surgery Chanvs.Chan
orobstetricscannotinacivilcase,withouttheconsentof Section36,Rule132,statesthatobjectionstoevidencemust
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment bemadeaftertheofferofsuchevidenceforadmissionincourt.
given by him or any information which he may have Thus:
acquired in attending such patient in a professional SEC.36.Objection.Objection to evidence offered
capacity,whichinformationwasnecessarytoenablehimto orallymustbemadeimmediatelyaftertheofferismade.
act in that capacity, and which would blacken the Objectiontoaquestionpropoundedinthecourseofthe
reputationofthepatient. oralexaminationofawitnessshallbemadeassoonasthe
The physicianpatient privileged communication rule groundsthereforshallbecomereasonablyapparent.
essentially means that a physician who gets information while An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to
professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a
examined without the patients consent as to any facts which differentperiodisallowedbythecourt.
would blacken the latters reputation. This rule is intended to In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
encouragethepatienttoopenuptothephysician,relatetohim specified.
the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, Since the offer of evidence is made at the trial, Josielenes
enablingthephysiciantomakeacorrectdiagnosisofthatailment
requestforsubpoenaducestecumispremature.Shewillhaveto
andprovidetheappropriatecure.Anyfearthataphysiciancould
waitfortrialtobeginbeforemakingarequestfortheissuanceof
becompelledinthefuturetocometocourtandnarrateallthat
asubpoenaducestecumcoveringJohnnyshospitalrecords.Itis
had transpiredbetweenhim andthepatientmight promptthe
lattertoclamup,thusputtinghisownhealthatgreatrisk. 4 whenthoserecordsareproducedforexaminationatthetrial,that
1.Thecasepresentsaproceduralissue,giventhatthetime Johnnymayopttoobject,notjusttotheiradmissioninevidence,
to object to the admission of evidence, such as the hospital but more so to their disclosure. Section 24(c), Rule 130 of the
Rules of Evidence quoted above is about nondisclosure of thephysicianthatmayberegardedasprivileged.Section24(c)of
privilegedmatters. Rule130statesthatthephysiciancannotinacivilcase,without
2.ItisofcoursepossibletotreatJosielenesmotionforthe the consent of the patient, be examined regarding their
issuanceofasubpoenaducestecumcoveringthehospitalrecords professionalconversation.Theprivilege,saysJosielene,doesnot
asamotionforproductionofdocuments,adiscoveryprocedure cover the hospital records, but only the examination of the
availabletoalitigantpriortotrial.Section1,Rule27oftheRules physicianatthetrial.
ofCivilProcedureprovides: Toallow,however,thedisclosureduringdiscoveryprocedure
SEC.1.Motionforproductionorinspection; order. ofthehospitalrecordstheresultsofteststhatthephysician
Uponmotionofanypartyshowinggoodcausetherefor,the ordered,thediagnosisofthepatientsillness,andtheadviceor
courtinwhichanactionispendingmay(a)orderanyparty treatmenthegavehimwouldbetoallowaccesstoevidence
to produce and permit the inspection and copying or that is inadmissible without the patients consent. Physician
photographing,byoronbehalfofthemovingparty,ofany memorializes all these information in the patients records.
designateddocuments,papers,books,ac Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the
84 physiciantotestifyonprivilegedmattershegainedwhiledealing
withthepatient,withoutthelatterspriorconsent.
84 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
3.JosielenearguesthatsinceJohnnyadmittedinhisanswer
Chanvs.Chan
to the petition before the RTC that he had been confined in a
counts,letters,photographs,objectsortangiblethings,not hospitalagainsthiswillandinfactattachedtohisan
privileged,whichconstituteorcontainevidencematerial 85
toanymatterinvolvedintheactionandwhichareinhis VOL.702,JULY24,2013 85
possession, custody or control; or (b) order any party to
Chanvs.Chan
permitentryupondesignatedlandorotherpropertyinhis
swer a Philhealth claim form covering that confinement, he
possession or control for the purpose of inspecting,
shouldbedeemedtohavewaivedtheprivilegedcharacterofits
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or
records. Josielene invokes Section 17, Rule 132 of the Rules of
any designated relevant object or operation thereon. The
Evidencethatprovides:
ordershallspecifythetime,placeandmannerofmaking
theinspectionandtakingcopiesandphotographs,andmay SEC.17.Whenpartoftransaction,writingorrecord
prescribesuchtermsandconditionsasarejust.(Emphasis giveninevidence,theremainderadmissible.Whenpartof
supplied) anact,declaration,conversation,writingorrecordisgiven
Buttheaboverighttocompeltheproductionofdocumentshas in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject
alimitation:thedocumentstobedisclosedarenotprivileged. maybeinquiredintobytheother, andwhenadetached
Josieleneofcourseclaimsthatthehospitalrecordssubjectof act,declaration,conversation,writingorrecordisgivenin
thiscasearenotprivilegedsinceitisthetestimonialevidenceof evidence,anyotheract,declaration,conversation,writing
 orrecordnecessarytoitsunderstandingmayalsobegiven However, this privilege is not absolute. The request of
inevidence. petitionerforacopyofthemedicalrecordshasnotbeenproperly
But, trial in the case had not yet begun. Consequently, it laid.
cannotbesaidthatJohnnyhadalreadypresentedthePhilhealth Instead of a request for the issuance of a subpoenaduces
claimforminevidence,theactcontemplatedabovewhichwould tecum,JosieleneLaraChanshouldavailofthemodeofdiscovery
justifyJosieleneintorequestinganinquiryintothedetailsofhis underRule28ofRulesofCivilProcedure.
hospital confinement. Johnny was not yet bound to adduce Rule 28 pertains to the physical or mental examination of
evidenceinthecasewhenhefiledhisanswer.Anyrequestfor persons.Thismaybeorderedbythecourt,initsdiscretion, 2upon
disclosureofhishospitalrecordswouldagainbepremature. motion and showing of good cause3by the requesting party, in
For all of the above reasons, the CA and the RTC were caseswhenthementaland/orphysicalconditionofapartyisin
justified in denying Josielene her request for the production in controversy.4Aside from showing good cause, the requesting
courtofJohnnyshospitalrecords. partyneedsonlytonotifythepartytobeexamined(andallother
ACCORDINGLY, the CourtDENIESthe petition parties)andspecifythetime,place,man
andAFFIRMStheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R. _______________
SP97913datedSeptember17,2007. 1RulesofCourt,Rule130,Sec.24(c)provides:
SOORDERED. Apersonauthorizedtopracticesurgeryorobstetricscannotin
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), PeraltaandMendoza, JJ., acivilcase,withouttheconsentofthepatient,beexaminedasto
concur. anyadviceortreatmentgivenbyhimoranyinformationwhich
Leonen,J.,SeeSeparateConcuringOpinion. hemayhaveacquiredinattendingsuchpatientinaprofessional
86 capacity,whichinformationwasnecessarytoenablehimtoactin
86 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the
patient.
Chanvs.Chan
2RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.1.
3RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.2.
CONCURRlNGOPINION
4RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.1.
87
LEONEN,J.:
VOL.702,JULY24,2013 87
Iconcurbutaddthefollowingpoints:
IagreethatthehospitalrecordsofrespondentJohnnyChan Chanvs.Chan
maynotbeproducedincourtwithouthis/herconsent.Issuanceof ner,conditions,andscopeoftheexamination,includingthename
a subpoenaduces tecumfor its production will violate the ofthephysicianwhowillconducttheexamination.5
The examined party may obtain a copy of the examining
physicianpatientprivilegeruleunderRule130,Sec.24(c) 1ofthe
physicians report concerning his/her mental or physical
RulesofCivilProcedure.
examination.6The requesting party shall deliver this report to Chanvs.Chan
him/her.7After such delivery, however, the requesting party Inviewoftheforegoing,IvotetoDENYthepetition.
becomesentitledtoanypastorfuturemedicalreportinvolving
thesamementalorphysicalcondition. 8Uponmotionandnotice, Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
thecourtmayordertheexaminedpartytodeliverthosemedical
Notes.Forlackofaspecificlawgearedtowardsthetypeof
reportstotherequestingpartyiftheexaminedpartyrefusestodo
negligencecommittedbymembersofthemedicalprofession,such
so.9
claim for damages is almost always anchored on the alleged
Moreover, if the examined party requests a copy of the
violationofArticle2176oftheCivilCode;Inmedicalnegligence
examining physicians report or if he/she takes the examining
cases, also called medical malpractice suits, there exist a
physiciansdeposition,the requestwaives theexaminedpartys
physicianpatientrelationshipbetweenthedoctorandthevictim.
privilegeswhenthetestimonyofanypersonwhoexaminedorwill
(Lucasvs.Tuao,586SCRA173[2009])
examinehis/hermentalofphysicalstatusistakenintheactionor
inanyactioninvolvingthesamecontroversy.10 When a patient engages the services of a physician, a
Discoveryproceduresprovideabalancebetweentheneedof physicianpatientrelationshipisgenerated;Thus,intreatinghis
theplaintifforclaimanttofullyandfairlyestablishhercaseand patient, a physician is under a duty to exercise that degree of
the policy to protect to a certain extent communications care, skill and diligence which physicians in the same general
made between a patient and his doctor. Hence, the physician neighborhoodandinthesamegenerallineofpracticeordinarily
patient privilege does not cover information discovered under possess and exercise in like cases. (Jarcia, Jr. vs. People, 666
Rule28.Thisprocedureisavailedwiththeintentionofmaking SCRA336[2012])
the results public during trial. Along with other modes of o0o
discovery,thiswouldpreventthetrialfrombeingcarriedonin Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
thedark.11 reserved.
_______________
5RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.2.
6RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.3.
7RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.3.
8RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.3.
9RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.3.
10RulesofCourt,Rule28,Sec.4.
11Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Tantoco and Santiago, G.R.
No.90478,November21,1991,204SCRA212.
89
VOL.702,JULY24,2013 89
 This administrative case arose from a complaint filed on 22 October
2001 by Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom ("Judge Lacurom"), Pairing
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 30, against
respondent-spouses Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-
Jacoba ("respondents"). Complainant charged respondents with
violation of Rules 11.03,1 11.04,2 and 19.013 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

The Facts

The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff

Alejandro R. Veneracion ("Veneracion") in a civil case for unlawful
detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos ("Barrientos"). 4 The
Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City rendered judgment in favor
of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court.
The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting
as pairing judge.
THIRD DIVISION
On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution ("Resolution")
reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. 5 The
A.C. No. 5921 March 10, 2006 dispositive portion reads:

JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, Presiding Judge, Regional WHEREFORE, this Court hereby REVERSES its Decision dated
Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, December 22, 2000, as well as REVERSES the Decision of the court
Branch 30, Complainant, a quo dated July 22, 1997.
vs.
ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA and ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO-
JACOBA, Respondents. Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to
CEASE and DESIST from ejecting the defendant-appellant Federico
Barrientos from the 1,000 square meter homelot covered by TCT No.
DECISION T-75274, and the smaller area of one hundred forty-seven square
meters, within the 1,000 sq.m. covered by TCT No. T-78613, and the
CARPIO, J.: house thereon standing covered by Tax Declaration No. 02006-
01137, issued by the City Assessor of Cabanatuan City; and
The Case Barrientos is ordered to pay Veneracion P10,000.00 for the house
covered by Tax Declaration No. 02006-01137.
SO ORDERED.6 INSULT to the Judiciary and an ANACHRONISM in the Judicial
Process. Need we say more?
Veneracions counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with
Request for Inhibition)7 dated 30 July 2001 ("30 July 2001 motion"), xxxx
pertinent portions of which read:
4. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in Holding
II. PREFATORY STATEMENT That the Defendant is Entitled to a Homelot, and That the Residential
LOT in Question is That Homelot:
This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as
it is entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal THIS ERROR IS STUPENDOUS and a real BONER. Where did the
MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL Honorable PAIRING JUDGE base this conclusion? x x x
COURT acted as if it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform This HORRENDOUS MISTAKE must be corrected here and now!
ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE!
The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x xxxx

xxxx 6. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED Grievously

in Holding and Declaring that The [court] A QUO Erroneously Took
III. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION Cognizance of the Case and That It Had No Jurisdiction over the
Subject-Matter:
1. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in
Peremptorily and Suddenly Reversing the Findings of the Lower Another HORRIBLE ERROR! Even an average Law Student knows
Court Judge and the Regular RTC Presiding Judge:1awph!l.net that JURISDICTION is determined by the averments of the
COMPLAINT and not by the averments in the answer! This is backed
x x x The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and after a up by a Litany of Cases!
very questionable SHORT period of time, came this STUNNING and
SUDDEN REVERSAL. Without any legal or factual basis, the Hon. xxxx
Pairing Judge simply and peremptorily REVERSED two (2) decisions
in favor of the plaintiff. This is highly questionable, if not suspicious, 7. FINALLY, the Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge
hence, this Motion for Reconsideration. Ridiculously ERRED in Ordering the Defendant To Pay P10,000.00
to the Plaintiff As Payment for Plaintiffs HOUSE:
xxxx
THIS IS the Last STRAW, but it is also the Best ILLUSTRATION of
[The Resolution] assumes FACTS that have not been established the Manifold GLARING ERRORS committed by the Hon. Pairing
and presumes FACTS not part of the records of the case, all "loaded" Court Judge.
in favor of the alleged "TENANT." Clearly, the RESOLUTION is an
 xxxx We most respectfully submit that plaintiff & counsel did not just fire a
staccato of incisive and hard-hitting remarks, machine-gun style as to
This Order of the Court for the plaintiff to sell his RESIDENTIAL be called contumacious and contemptuous. They were just
HOUSE to the defendant for the ridiculously LOW price articulating their feelings of shock, bewilderment and disbelief at the
of P10,000.00 best illustrates the Long Line of Faulty reasonings and sudden reversal of their good fortune, not driven by any desire to just
ERRONEOUS conclusions of the Hon. Pairing Court Presiding cast aspersions at the Honorable Pairing judge. They must believe
Judge. Like the proverbial MONSTER, the Monstrous Resolution that big monumental errors deserve equally big adjectives, no more
should be slain on sight!8 no less. x x x The matters involved were [neither] peripheral nor
marginalized, and they had to call a spade a spade. x x x 14
The 30 July 2001 motion prayed that (1) Judge Lacurom inhibit
himself "in order to give plaintiff a fighting chance" and (2) the Nevertheless, Velasco-Jacoba expressed willingness to apologize
Resolution be reconsidered and set aside.9 Atty. Olivia Velasco- "for whatever mistake [they] may have committed in a moment of
Jacoba ("Velasco-Jacoba") signed the motion on behalf of the unguarded discretion when [they] may have stepped on the line and
Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm. gone out of bounds." She also agreed to have the allegedly
contemptuous phrases stricken off the record.15
On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to
appear before his sala and explain why she should not be held in On 13 September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty
contempt of court for the "very disrespectful, insulting and of contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five days and a
humiliating" contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.10 In her fine of P1,000.16
Explanation, Comments and Answer,11 Velasco-Jacoba claimed that
"His Honor knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration of the 13 September
Motion; records will show that the undersigned counsel did not 2001 order. She recounted that on her way out of the house for an
actually or actively participate in this case."12 Velasco-Jacoba afternoon hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba ("Jacoba") stopped her and said
disavowed any "conscious or deliberate intent to degrade the honor "O, pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na, baka mahuli." (Sign this as it
and integrity of the Honorable Court or to detract in any form from the is due today, or it might not be filed on time.) She signed the pleading
respect that is rightfully due all courts of justice." 13She rationalized as handed to her without reading it, in "trusting blind faith" on her
follows: husband of 35 years with whom she "entrusted her whole life and
future."17 This pleading turned out to be the 30 July 2001 motion
x x x at first blush, [the motion] really appears to contain some which Jacoba drafted but could not sign because of his then
sardonic, strident and hard-striking adjectives. And, if we are to pick suspension from the practice of law.18
such stringent words at random and bunch them together, side-by-
side x x x then collectively and certainly they present a cacophonic Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty
picture of total and utter disrespect. x x x of contempt without conducting any hearing. She accused Judge
Lacurom of harboring "a personal vendetta," ordering her
xxxx imprisonment despite her status as "senior lady lawyer of the IBP
Nueva Ecija Chapter, already a senior citizen, and a grandmother
many times over."19At any rate, she argued, Judge Lacurom should IBP Commissioner Navarro, in her Report and Recommendation of
have inhibited himself from the case out of delicadeza because 10 October 2002, recommended the suspension of respondents from
"[Veneracion] had already filed against him criminal cases before the the practice of law for six months.29 IBP Commissioner Navarro
Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and before the found that "respondents were prone to us[ing] offensive and
Ombudsman."20 derogatory remarks and phrases which amounted to discourtesy and
disrespect for authority."30 Although the remarks were not directed at
The records show that with the assistance of counsel Jacoba and the Judge Lacurom personally, they were aimed at "his position as a
Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm, Veneracion had executed an judge, which is a smack on the judiciary system as a whole." 31
affidavit on 23 August 2001 accusing Judge Lacurom of knowingly
rendering unjust judgment through inexcusable negligence and The IBP Board of Governors ("IBP Board") adopted IBP
ignorance21 and violating Commissioner Navarros Report and Recommendation, except for
the length of suspension which the IBP Board reduced to three
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 ("RA 3019").22 The first charge months.32 On 10 December 2002, the IBP Board transmitted its
became the subject of a preliminary investigation23 by the City recommendation to this Court, together with the documents
Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City. On the second charge, Veneracion pertaining to the case.
set forth his allegations in a Complaint-Affidavit24 filed on 28 August
2001 with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Several days later, Velasco-Jacoba sought reconsideration of the IBP
Board decision, thus:33
Judge Lacurom issued another order on 21 September 2001, this
time directing Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in xxxx
contempt.25 Jacoba complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion
for Inhibition, wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 3. For the information of the Honorable Commission, the
July 2001 motion. Against Velasco-Jacobas statements implicating present complaint of Judge Lacurom is sub judice; the
him, Jacoba invoked the marital privilege rule in evidence. 26 Judge same issues involved in this case are raised before the
Lacurom later rendered a decision27 finding Jacoba guilty of Honorable Court of Appeals presently pending in CA-
contempt of court and sentencing him to pay a fine of P500. G.R. SP No. 66973 for Certiorari and Mandatory
Inhibition with TRO and Preliminary Injunction x x x;
On 22 October 2001, Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint
against respondents before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 4. We filed an Administrative Case against Judge Lacurom
(IBP). before the Supreme Court involving the same issues we
raised in the aforementioned Certiorari case, which was
Report and Recommendation of the IBP dismissed by the Supreme Court for being premature, in
view of the pending Certiorari case before the Court of
Respondents did not file an answer and neither did they appear at Appeals;
the hearing set by IBP Commissioner Atty. Lydia A. Navarro ("IBP
Commissioner Navarro") despite sufficient notice.28
 5. In like manner, out of respect and deference to the Court Until there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment
of Appeals, the present complaint should likewise be is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether
dismissed and/or suspended pending resolution of the the judge is administratively liable.37
certiorari case by the Court of Appeals.34(Emphasis supplied)
The respondents are situated differently within the factual setting of
The Courts Ruling this case. The corresponding implications of their actions also give
rise to different liabilities. We first examine the charge against
On a preliminary note, we reject Velasco-Jacobas contention that Velasco-Jacoba.
the present complaint should be considered sub judice in view of the
petition for certiorari and mandatory inhibition with preliminary There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-Jacoba
injunction ("petition for certiorari")35 filed before the Court of Appeals. appears on the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-Jacobas responsibility
as counsel is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
The petition for certiorari, instituted by Veneracion and Velasco-
Jacoba on 4 October 2001, seeks to nullify the following orders SEC. 3.Signature and address.Every pleading must be signed by
issued by Judge Lacurom in Civil Case No. 2836: (1) the Orders the party or counsel representing him x x x.
dated 26 September 2001 and 9 November 2001 denying
respondents respective motions for inhibition; and (2) the 13 The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he
September 2001 Order which found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of has read the pleading, that to the best of his knowledge,
contempt. The petitioners allege that Judge Lacurom acted "with information, and belief there is good ground to support it, and
grave abuse of discretion [amounting] to lack of jurisdiction, in that it is not interposed for delay.
violation of express provisions of the law and applicable decisions of
the Supreme Court."36 x x x Counsel who x x x signs a pleading in violation of this Rule,
or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein x x x shall be
Plainly, the issue before us is respondents liability under the Code of subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (Emphasis supplied)
Professional Responsibility. The outcome of this case has no bearing
on the resolution of the petition for certiorari, as there is neither By signing the 30 July 2001 motion, Velasco-Jacoba in effect
identity of issues nor causes of action. certified that she had read it, she knew it to be meritorious, and it
was not for the purpose of delaying the case. Her signature supplied
Neither should the Courts dismissal of the administrative complaint the motion with legal effect and elevated its status from a mere scrap
against Judge Lacurom for being premature impel us to dismiss this of paper to that of a court document.
complaint. Judge Lacuroms orders in Civil Case No. 2836 could not
be the subject of an administrative complaint against him while a Velasco-Jacoba insists, however, that she signed the 30 July 2001
petition for certiorari assailing the same orders is pending with an motion only because of her husbands request but she did not know
appellate court. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor its contents beforehand. Apparently, this practice of signing each
cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the others pleadings is a long-standing arrangement between the
aggrieved parties and the same has not been resolved with finality. spouses. According to Velasco-Jacoba, "[s]o implicit is [their] trust for
each other that this happens all the time. Through the years, [she] The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived
already lost count of the number of pleadings prepared by one that is by failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any
signed by the other."38 By Velasco-Jacobas own admission, conduct that may be construed as implied consent. 43 This waiver
therefore, she violated Section 3 of Rule 7. This violation is an act of applies to Jacoba who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July
falsehood before the courts, which in itself is a ground 2001 motion.

for subjecting her to disciplinary action, independent of any other The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
ground arising from the contents of the 30 July 2001 motion. 39
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
We now consider the evidence as regards Jacoba. His name does menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
not appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts the inadmissibility
of Velasco-Jacobas statement pointing to him as the author of the Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
motion. supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hook. Firstly, his Answer No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly
with Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wifes exceeded the vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his clients
account. Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion cause. We recall his use of the following words and
by stating that he "trained his guns and fired at the errors which he phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental." 40 mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an
anachronism in the judicial process. Even Velasco-Jacoba
Secondly, we find Velasco-Jacobas version of the facts more acknowledged that the words created "a cacophonic picture of total
plausible, for two reasons: (1) her reaction to the events was and utter disrespect."44
immediate and spontaneous, unlike Jacobas defense which was
raised only after a considerable time had elapsed from the eruption Respondents nonetheless try to exculpate themselves by saying that
of the controversy; and (2) Jacoba had been counsel of record for every remark in the 30 July 2001 motion was warranted. We
Veneracion in Civil Case No. 2836, supporting Velasco-Jacobas disagree.
assertion that she had not "actually participate[d]" in the prosecution
of the case. Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
Moreover, Jacoba filed a Manifestation in Civil Case No. 2836, legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.45 However, even
praying that Judge Lacurom await the outcome of the petition for the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack
certiorari before deciding the contempt charge against him. 41 This made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution.
petition for certiorari anchors some of its arguments on the premise On its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided
that the motion was, in fact, Jacobas handiwork.42 the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a
lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession.46 The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we In these cases, the Court sternly warned respondents that a
are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial repetition of similar acts would merit a stiffer penalty. Yet, here again
administration.47 we are faced with the question of whether respondents have
conducted themselves with the courtesy and candor required of them
In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely as members of the bar and officers of the court. We find respondents
enjoined to use dignified language but also to pursue the clients to have fallen short of the mark.
cause through fair and honest means, thus:
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice
Rule 19.01.A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to of law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this Decision. We
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. We STERNLY WARN respondentsthat a repetition of the same or
similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.
Shortly after the filing of the 30 July 2001 motion but before its
resolution, Jacoba assisted his client in instituting two administrative Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
cases against Judge Lacurom. As we have earlier noted, Civil Case Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal records as
No. 2836 was then pending before Judge Lacuroms sala. The attorneys; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the
Courts attention is drawn to the fact that the timing of the filing of country for their information and guidance.
these administrative cases could very well raise the suspicion that
the cases were intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom. SO ORDERED.

Respondent spouses have both been the subject of administrative

cases before this Court. In Administrative Case No. 2594, we
suspended Jacoba from the practice of law for a period of six months
because of "his failure to file an action for the recovery of possession
of property despite the lapse of two and a half years from receipt by
him of P550 which his client gave him as filing and sheriffs fees." 48 In
Administrative Case No. 5505, Jacoba was once again found remiss
in his duties when he failed to file the appellants brief, resulting in
the dismissal of his clients appeal. We imposed the penalty of one
year suspension.49

As for Velasco-Jacoba, only recently this Court fined her P5,000 for
appearing in barangay conciliation proceedings on behalf of a party,
knowing fully well the prohibition contained in Section 415 of the
Local Government Code.50

Samalavs.Valencia
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shallnotrepresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsent
ofallconcernedgivenafterafulldisclosureofthefacts.Alawyer
maynot,withoutbeingguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct,actas
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his
presentorformerclient.Hemaynotalsoundertaketodischarge
conflictingdutiesanymorethanhemayrepresentantagonistic
interests. Thissternruleisfoundedon theprinciples ofpublic
policyandgoodtaste.Itspringsfromtherelationofattorneyand
clientwhichisoneoftrustandconfidence.Lawyersareexpected
notonlytokeepinviolatetheclientsconfidence,butalsotoavoid
A.C.No.5439.January22,2007.* theappearanceoftreacheryanddoubledealingforonlythencan
CLARITA J. SAMALA, complainant,vs.ATTY. LUCIANO D. litigantsbeencouragedtoentrusttheirsecretstotheirlawyers,
VALENCIA,respondent. which is of paramount importance in the administration of
Legal Ethics;Attorneys;Conflict of Interest;Test;A lawyer justice.Oneofthetestsofinconsistencyofinterestsiswhether
maynotundertaketodischargeconflictingdutiesanymorethan theacceptanceofanewrelationwouldpreventthefulldischarge
hemayrepresentantagonisticinterests,asternrulefoundedon ofthelawyersdutyofundividedfidelityandloyaltytotheclient
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the
theprinciplesofpublicpolicyandgoodtaste;Oneofthetestsof
performanceofthatduty.
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
Same;Same;Same;The bare attorneyclient relationship
relationwouldpreventthefulldischargeofthelawyersdutyof
with a client precludes an attorney from accepting professional
undividedfidelityandloyaltytotheclientorinvitesuspicionof
employmentfromtheclientsadversaryeitherinthesamecaseor
unfaithfulnessordoubledealingintheperformanceofthatduty.
inadifferentbutrelatedaction.Anattorneyowesloyaltytohis
Rule15.03,Canon15ofthe
clientnotonlyinthecaseinwhichhehasrepresentedhimbut
alsoaftertherelationofattorneyandclienthasterminated.The
_______________
bare attorneyclient relationship with a client precludes an
attorneyfromacceptingprofessionalemploymentfromtheclients
ENBANC.
*
adversary either in the samecase or in a different but related
2
action. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent
2 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
client against a former client when the subject matter of the
presentcontroversyisrelated,directlyorindirectly,tothesubject misleadbyanyartifice.Itmattersnotthatthetrialcourtwasnot
matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the misled by respondents submission of TCT No. 273020 in the
formerclient. nameofValdez,asshownbyitsdecisiondatedJanuary8,2002
Same;Same;Same;Knowledge acquired by a lawyer from dismissingthecomplaintforejectment.Whatisdecisiveinthis
hisclientscaselearningtheweakpointsoftheactionaswellas case is respondents intent in trying to mislead the court by
presentingTCTNo.273020despitethefactthatsaidtitlewas
thestrongones,mustbeconsideredsacredandguardedwithcare.
alreadycancelledandanewone,TCTNo.275500,wasalready
RespondentisboundtocomplywithCanon21oftheCodeof
issuedinthenameofAlba.
Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall
preservetheconfidencesandsecretsofhisclientevenafterthe Same;Same;Same;Alawyershouldbearinmindthatasan
attorneyclient relation is terminated. The reason for the officerofthecourthishighvocationistocorrectlyinformthecourt
prohibitionisfoundintherelationofattorneyandclient,whichis uponthelawandthefactsofthecaseandtoaiditindoingjustice
oneoftrustandconfidence and arriving at correct conclusion.InYoung v. Batuegas, 403
3 SCRA 123 (2003), we held that a lawyer must bea disciple of
VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 truth.HesworeuponhisadmissiontotheBarthathewilldono
falsehoodnorconsenttothedoingofanyincourtandheshall
Samalavs.Valencia conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
ofthehighestdegree.Alawyerbecomesfamiliarwithallthe knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
factsconnectedwithhisclientscase.Helearnsfromhisclient courtsastohisclients.Heshouldbearinmindthatasanofficer
theweak points ofthe actionaswell asthestrong ones. Such ofthecourthishighvocationistocorrectlyinformthecourtupon
knowledgemustbeconsideredsacredandguardedwithcare. thelawandthefactsofthecaseandtoaiditindoingjusticeand
arrivingatcorrectconclusion.Thecourts,ontheotherhand,are
Same;Same;Falsehood;It matters not that the trial court
entitledtoexpectonlycompletehonestyfromlawyersappearing
wasnotmisled by alawyerssubmissionof acertificateoftitle
andpleadingbeforethem.Whilealawyerhasthesolemndutyto
whichwasalreadycancelledandanewoneissuedinthenameof defendhisclients rightsandisexpected todisplay theutmost
someotherpersonwhatisdecisiveinthiscaseishisintentin zealindefenseofhisclientscause,hisconductmustneverbeat
tryingtomisleadthecourt.Respondentcannotfeignignorance theexpenseoftruth.Alawyeristheser
ofthefactthatthetitlehesubmittedwasalreadycancelledin 4
lieuofanewtitleissuedinthenameofAlbain1995yet,asproof 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
ofthelattersownership.RespondentfailedtocomplywithCanon
10oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovidesthat Samalavs.Valencia
alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood,norconsenttothedoingof vantofthelawandbelongstoaprofessiontowhichsociety
any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be hasentrustedtheadministrationoflawandthedispensationof
justice.Assuch,heshouldmakehimselfmoreanexemplarfor qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a
otherstoemulate. lawyer,immoralconducthasbeendefinedasthatconductwhich
Same;Same;Administrative Complaints;The filing of an is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
administrativecaseagainstalawyerforprotectingtheinterestof indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.Thus,inseveralcases,theCourtdidnothesitateto
his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a
disciplinealawyerforkeepingamistressindefianceofthemores
practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the and sense of morality of the community. That respondent
right of his client.Respondent filed I.S. Nos. 004439 and 01 subsequentlymarriedLagmayin1998afterthedeathofhiswife
036162bothentitledValenciav.Samalaforestafaandgrave andthatthisishisfirstinfractionasregardsimmoralityserveto
coercion, respectively, to protect his clients rights against mitigatehisliability.
complainantwhofiledI.S.No.004306forestafaagainstLagmay, 5
and I.S. No. 004318 against Alvin Valencia for trespass to VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 5
dwelling.Wefindthechargetobewithoutsufficientbasis.The Samalavs.Valencia
act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the ADMINISTRATIVECASEintheSupremeCourt.Disbarment.
interestofhisclient,ononehand,andhisowninterest,onthe ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge
RESOLUTION
unlessitcanbeclearlyshownthatthesamewasbeingdoneto
abuse judicial processes to commit injustice. The filing of an
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
administrativecaseagainstrespondentforprotectingtheinterest
ofhisclientandhisownrightwouldbeputtingaburdenona
Beforeusisacomplaint1datedMay2,2001filedbyClaritaJ.
practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the
Samala (complainant) against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia
rightofhisclient.
(respondent)forDisbarmentonthefollowinggrounds:(a)serving
Same;Same;Immorality;Words and Phrases;It may be ontwoseparateoccasionsascounselforcontendingparties;(b)
difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may knowinglymisleadingthecourtbysubmittingfalsedocumentary
qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for
lawyer,immoralconducthasbeendefinedasthatconductwhich nonpaymentofrentalfees;and(d)havingareputationofbeing
is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral immoralbysiringillegitimatechildren.
After respondent filed his Comment, the Court, in its
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
ResolutionofOctober24,2001,referredthecasetotheIntegrated
community.Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in recommendation.2
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be The investigation was conducted by Commissioner Demaree
difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may JesusB.Raval.Afteraseriesofhearings,thepartiesfiledtheir
respective memoranda3and the case was deemedsubmittedfor InCivilCaseNo.986804filedintheMetropolitanTrialCourt
resolution. (MTC),Branch75,MarikinaCity,entitledEdithaS.Valdezand
CommissionerWilfredoE.J.E.ReyespreparedtheReportand Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. Salve Bustamante and her husband for
Recommendation4datedJanuary12,2006.Hefoundrespondent ejectment,respondentrepresentedValdezagainstBustamante
guiltyofviolatingCanons15and21oftheCodeofProfessional one of the tenants in the property subject of the controversy.
Responsibilityandrecommendedthepenaltyofsuspensionforsix Defendants appealed to the RTC, Branch 272, Marikina City
months. docketedasSCACaseNo.99341MK.InhisdecisiondatedMay
2, 2000,8Presiding Judge Reuben P. dela Cruz9warned
_______________ respondenttorefrainfromrepeatingtheactofbeingcounselof
recordofbothpartiesinCivilCaseNo.95105MK.
1
Rollo,pp.14. ButinCivilCaseNo.2000657MK,filedintheRTC,Branch
2
Id.,atp.106. 273,MarikinaCity,entitledEdithaS.Valdezv.JosephJ.Alba,
3
Id.,atpp.118125;129134. Jr.andRegisterofDeedsofMarikinaCity,
4
Id.,atpp.569579.
6 _______________
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Samalavs.Valencia
5
Id.,atp.568.
InaminuteResolution5passedonMay26,2006,theIBPBoardof 6
Id.,atpp.411417.
Governorsadoptedandapprovedthereportandrecommendation 7
Id.,atpp.57.
ofCommissionerReyesbutincreasedthepenaltyofsuspension 8
Id.,atpp.1113.
fromsixmonthstooneyear. 9
NowAssistantCourtAdministrator.
WeadoptthereportoftheIBPBoardofGovernorsexceptas 7
totheissueonimmoralityandastotherecommendedpenalty.
VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 7
Onservingascounselforcontendingparties.
Samalavs.Valencia
Records show that inCivil Case No. 95105MK, filed in the
respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint for
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch272,MarikinaCity,entitled
Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of
LeonoraM.Avillev.EdithaValdezfornonpaymentofrentals, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 275500 against Alba,
hereinrespondent,whilebeingthecounselfordefendantValdez, respondents former client inCivil Case No. 986804and SCA
also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, CaseNo.99341MK.
Bustamante and Bayuga6by filing an Explanation and Records further reveal that at thehearing of November 14,
CompliancebeforetheRTC.7 2003,respondentadmittedthatinCivilCaseNo.95105MK,he
was the lawyer for Lagmay (one of the tenants) but not for
Bustamante and Bayuga10albeit he filed the Explanation and 8 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. 11Respondent also Samalavs.Valencia
admitted that he represented Valdez inCivil Case No. 98 mayrepresentantagonisticinterests.Thissternruleisfounded
6804andSCACaseNo.99341MKagainstBustamanteandher ontheprinciplesofpublicpolicyandgoodtaste. 16Itspringsfrom
husbandbutdeniedbeingthecounselforAlbaalthoughthecase the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and
is entitled Valdezand Albav. Bustamante and her husband, confidence.Lawyersareexpectednotonlytokeepinviolatethe
because Valdez told him to include Alba as the two were the clientsconfidence,butalsotoavoidtheappearanceoftreachery
ownersoftheproperty 12anditwasonlyValdezwhosignedthe anddoubledealingforonlythencanlitigantsbeencouragedto
complaintforejectment.13But,whileclaimingthatrespondentdid entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
notrepresentAlba,respondent,however,aversthathealready importanceintheadministrationofjustice.17
severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged Oneofthetestsofinconsistencyofinterestsiswhetherthe
respondentwithestafa.14Thus,thefilingofCivilCaseNo.2000 acceptanceofanewrelationwouldpreventthefulldischargeof
657MKagainstAlba. thelawyersdutyofundividedfidelityandloyaltytotheclientor
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent performanceofthatduty.18
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned Thesternruleagainstrepresentationofconflictinginterestsis
givenafterafulldisclosureofthefacts. foundedonprinciplesofpublicpolicyandgoodtaste.Itsprings
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional from the attorneys duty to represent his client with undivided
misconduct,actascounselforapersonwhoseinterestconflicts fidelityandtomaintaininviolatetheclientsconfidenceaswellas
with that of his present or former client. 15He may not also fromtheinjunctionforbiddingtheexaminationofanattorneyas
undertaketodischargeconflictingdutiesanymorethanhe toanyoftheprivilegedcommunicationsofhisclient.19
Anattorneyowesloyaltytohisclientnotonlyinthecasein
_______________ which he has represented him but also after the relation of
attorney and client has terminated.20The bare attorneyclient
Rollo,pp.397398;407410.
10
relationshipwith aclientprecludes anattorney fromaccepting
Id.,atpp.1113.
11
professionalemploymentfromtheclientsadversaryei
12
Id.,atp.439.
_______________
13
Id.,atp.441.
14
Id.,atp.434. 16
Agpalo,LegalEthics,6thEdition,pp.219,225;citingcases.
15
Frias v. Lozada,A.C. No. 6656, December 13, 2005,477 17
Hiladov.David,84Phil.569,579(1949).
SCRA393,400.
8
 18
Santos,Sr.v.Beltran,463Phil.372,383;418SCRA17,25 representinganewclientwhoseinterestisadversetohisformer
26(2003). client.Albamaynotbehisoriginalclientbutthefactthathefiled
19
Tiania v. Ocampo,A.C. No. 2285, August 12, 1991,200 a case entitled Valdezand Albav. Bustamante and her
SCRA472,479. husband,isaclearindicationthatrespondentisprotectingthe
20
LorenzanaFoodCorporationv.Daria,Adm.CaseNo.2736, interestsofbothValdezandAlbainthesaidcase.Respondent
May27,1991,197SCRA428,435;Butedv.Hernando,Adm.Case cannotjustclaimthatthelawyerclient
No.1359,October17,1991,203SCRA1,8.
9 _______________
VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 9 21
Natanv.Capule,91Phil.640,648(1952).
Samalavs.Valencia 22
Nombrado v. Hernandez,135 Phil. 5, 9;26 SCRA 13, 17
ther in the same case or in a different but related action. 22A
21

(1968).
lawyerisforbiddenfromrepresentingasubsequentclientagainst
a former client when the subject matter of the present
23
Pormento, Sr. v. Pontevedra,A.C. No. 5128, March 31,
controversyisrelated,directlyorindirectly,tothesubjectmatter 2005,454SCRA167,177178.
of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former
24
Nombradov.Hernandez,supra.
client.23 25
Natanv.Capule,supraatp.648.
WeheldinNombradov.Hernandez24thattheterminationof 26
Ibid.,atp.648.
therelationofattorneyandclientprovidesnojustificationfora 10
lawyertorepresentaninterestadversetoorinconflictwiththat 10 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
oftheformerclient.Thereasonfortheruleisthattheclients Samalavs.Valencia
confidenceoncereposedcannotbedivestedbytheexpirationof relationshipbetweenhimandAlbahaslongbeenseveredwithout
the professional employment.25Consequently, a lawyer should observingSection26,Rule138oftheRulesofCourtwhereinthe
not,evenaftertheseveranceoftherelationwithhisclient,do writtenconsentofhisclientisrequired.
anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any
InGonzalesv.Cabucana,Jr.,27citingthecaseofQuiambaov.
matter in which he previously represented him nor should he
disclose or use any of the clients confidences acquired in the Bamba,28weheldthat:
previousrelation.26 The proscription against representation of conflicting interests
Inthiscase,respondentsavermentthathisrelationshipwith applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present
Albahaslongbeenseveredbytheactofthelatterofnotturning clientsinthesameactionorinanunrelatedaction.Itisofno
over the proceeds collected inCivil Case No. 986804, in momentthatthelawyerwouldnotbecalledupontocontendfor
connivancewiththecomplainant,isunavailing.Terminationof oneclientthatwhichthelawyerhastoopposefortheotherclient,
the attorneyclient relationship precludes an attorney from or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
informationacquiredfromonetothedisadvantageoftheotheras representationinCivilCaseNo.95105MKuponbeingwarned
the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the by the court,31but the same will not exculpate him from the
opposingpartiesinonecase,oneofwhomwouldlosethesuit,are chargeofrepresentingconflictinginterestsinhisrepresentation
present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers inCivilCaseNo.2000657MK.
respective retainers with each of them would affect the Respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting
performanceofthedutyofundividedfidelitytobothclients. 29 professional employments, to refrain from all appearances and
Respondent is bound to comply with Canon 21 of the Code of actsofimproprietyincludingcircumstancesindicatingconflictof
Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall interests, and to behave at all times with circumspection and
preservetheconfidencesandsecretsofhisclientevenafterthe dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing
attorneyclientrelationisterminated. candor,fairnessandloyaltyinalltransactionswithhisclients. 32
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of On knowingly misleading the court by submitting
attorneyandclient,whichisoneoftrustandconfidenceofthe falsedocumentaryevidence.
highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts Complainant alleges that inCivil Case No. 007137filed before
connected with his clients case. He learns from his client the MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment, respondent submitted TCT No.
weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such 273020asevidenceofValdezsownershipdespitethefactthata
knowledgemustbeconsideredsacredandguardedwithcare. 30 newTCTNo.275500wasalreadyissuedinthenameofAlbaon
From the foregoing, it is evident that respondents February2,1995.
representationofValdezandAlbaagainstBustamanteandher RecordsrevealthatrespondentfiledCivilCaseNo.007137on
November27,2000andpresentedTCTNo.273020asevidenceof
_______________ Valdezsownershipofthesubjectproperty.33Duringthehearing
before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the
27
A.C.No.6836,January23,2006,479SCRA320.
Answerwasfiledinthesaidcase,thatwasthetimethathecame
28
A.C.No.6708,August25,2005,468SCRA1.
toknowthatthetitlewasalreadyinthenameofAlba;sothat
29
Id.,atp.11. whenthecourtdismissedthecom
30
Maturan v. Gonzales,350 Phil. 882, 887;287 SCRA 443,
446447(1998);U.S.v.Laranja,21Phil.500,510(1912). _______________
11
VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 11
31
Rollo,pp.423427.
Samalavs.Valencia
32
Gamillav.Mario,Jr.,447Phil.419,432;399SCRA308,
husband,inonecase,andValdezagainstAlba,inanothercase,is 321(2003).
aclearcaseofconflictofinterestswhichmeritsacorresponding 33
Rollo,pp.3032.
sanctionfrom thisCourt. Respondent may havewithdrawnhis 12
12 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Samalavs.Valencia
plaint, he did not do anything anymore.34Respondent further
34
Id.,atpp.459474.
avers that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were
35
Id.,atpp.1416;471473.
revealed to him only when the case for rescission was filed in 36
Id.,atpp.127128.
2002. 37
451Phil.155;403SCRA123(2003).
Uponexaminationoftherecord,itwasnotedthatCivilCase 13
No. 2000657MKfor rescission of contract and cancellation of VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 13
TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000, 35before Samalavs.Valencia
RTC,Branch273,MarikinaCity,thusbelyingtheavermentof hewilldonofalsehoodnorconsenttothedoingofanyincourt
respondentthathecametoknowofAlbastitleonlyin2002when andheshallconducthimselfasalawyeraccordingtothebestof
the case for rescission was filed. It was revealed during the hisknowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityaswelltothe
hearingbeforeCommissionerRavalthatCivilCaseNos.007137 courts as to his clients.38He should bear in mind that as an
and 2000657MKwere filed on the same date, although in officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the
differentcourtsandatdifferenttimes. courtuponthelawandthefactsofthecaseandtoaiditindoing
Hence,respondentcannotfeignignoranceofthefactthatthe justice and arriving at correct conclusion.39The courts, on the
title he submitted was already cancelled in lieu of a new title other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from
issuedinthenameofAlbain1995yet,asproofofthelatters lawyersappearingandpleadingbeforethem.Whilealawyerhas
ownership. thesolemndutytodefendhisclientsrightsandisexpectedto
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his
ProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovidesthatalawyershallnot conductmustneverbeattheexpenseoftruth.
doanyfalsehood, norconsenttothedoingofanyincourt;nor Alawyeristheservantofthelawandbelongstoaprofession
shallhemislead,orallowtheCourttobemisleadbyanyartifice. towhichsocietyhasentrustedtheadministrationoflawandthe
Itmattersnotthatthetrialcourtwasnotmisledbyrespondents dispensationofjustice.40Assuch,heshouldmakehimselfmore
submissionofTCTNo.273020inthenameofValdez,asshown anexemplarforotherstoemulate.41
byitsdecisiondatedJanuary8,2002 36dismissingthecomplaint
Oninitiatingnumerouscasesinexchangefornonpayment
forejectment.Whatisdecisiveinthiscaseisrespondentsintent
ofrentalfees.
in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020
Complainant alleges that respondent filed the following cases:
despitethefactthatsaidtitlewasalreadycancelledandanew
(a)CivilCaseNo.2000657MKattheRTC,Branch272;(b)Civil
one,TCTNo.275500,wasalreadyissuedinthenameofAlba.
CaseNo.007137attheMTC,Branch75;and(c)I.S.Nos.00
InYoung v. Batuegas,37we held that a lawyer must be a
4439and01036162bothentitledValenciav.Samalaforestafa
discipleoftruth.HesworeuponhisadmissiontotheBarthat
and grave coercion, respectively, before the Marikina City
Prosecutor.Complainantclaimsthatthetwocriminalcaseswere The filing of an administrative case against respondent for
filed in retaliation for the cases she filed against Lagmay protectingtheinterestofhisclientandhisownrightwouldbe
docketed as I.S. No. 004306 for estafa and I.S. No. 004318 putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to
against Alvin Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to defendandprosecutetherightofhisclient.
dwelling. On having a reputation for being immoral by siring
illegitimatechildren.
_______________ Wefindrespondentliableforbeingimmoralbysiringillegitimate
children.
38
Id.,atp.161;p.126. Duringthehearing,respondentadmittedthathesiredthree
39
Ibid.,atp.161;pp.126127. childrenbyTeresitaLagmaywhoareallover20years
40
TingDumali v. Torres,A.C. No. 5161, April 14, 2004,427
SCRA108,117. _______________
41
Ibid.,atp.117.
14
42
Rollo,p.485.
14 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
43
Id.,atpp.144146.
Samalavs.Valencia
44
Id.,atp.100.
As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer
45
Id.,atpp.4143.
agreementwithrespondent.Aspaymentforhisservices,hewas 46
Id.,atpp.4445.
allowedtooccupythepropertyforfreeandutilizethesameashis 47
Son of respondent and one of the tenants in the subject
officepursuanttotheirretaineragreement.42 property.
Respondent filed I.S. Nos. 00443943and 0103616244both 15
entitled Valencia v. Samala for estafa and grave coercion, VOL.512,JANUARY22,2007 15
respectively,toprotecthisclientsrightsagainstcomplainantwho Samalavs.Valencia
filedI.S.No.00430645forestafaagainstLagmay,andI.S.No.00 ofage,48whilehisfirstwifewasstillalive.Healsoadmittedthat
431846againstAlvinValencia47fortrespasstodwelling. hehaseightchildrenbyhisfirstwife,theyoungestofwhomis
Wefindthechargetobewithoutsufficientbasis.Theactof over20yearsofage,andafterhiswifediedin1997,hemarried
respondentoffilingtheaforecitedcasestoprotecttheinterestof Lagmayin1998.49RespondentfurtheradmittedthatLagmaywas
hisclient,ononehand,andhisowninterest,ontheother,cannot stayinginoneoftheapartmentsbeingclaimedbycomplainant.
bemadethebasisofanadministrativechargeunlessitcanbe However, he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a
clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial relationship50and does not consider the latter as his second
processestocommitinjustice. family.51He reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay
because he has twohouses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Samalavs.Valencia
Marikina.52 flagrant,orshameless,andwhichshowsamoralindifferenceto
In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more theopinionofrespectablemembersofthecommunity. 54Thus,in
than enough to hold him liable on the charge of immorality. severalcases,theCourtdidnothesitatetodisciplinealawyerfor
During the hearing, respondent did not show any remorse. He keepingamistressindefianceofthemoresandsenseofmorality
evenjustifiedhistransgressionbysayingthathedoesnothave of the community.55That respondent subsequently married
anyrelationshipwithLagmayanddespitethefactthathesired Lagmayin1998afterthedeathofhiswifeandthatthisishis
three children by the latter, he does not consider them as his first infraction as regards immorality serve to mitigate his
second family. It is noted that during the hearing, respondent liability.
boasts in telling the commissioner that he has two housesin ACCORDINGLY,theCourtfindsrespondentAtty.LucianoD.
Muntinlupa,wherehisfirstwifelived,andinMarikina,where ValenciaGUILTYofmisconductandviolationofCanons21,10
Lagmay lives.53It is of no moment that respondent eventually and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
marriedLagmayafterthedeath ofhisfirstwife.Thefact still SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years,
remainsthatrespondentdidnotliveuptotheexactingstandard effectiveimmediatelyuponreceiptofhereinResolution.
ofmoralityanddecorumrequiredofthelegalprofession. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional land,theIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesaswellastheOfficeof
Responsibility,alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest, theBarConfidantfortheirinformationandguidance,andletit
immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the beenteredinrespondentspersonalrecords.
degreeofmoraldelinquencythatmayqualifyanactasimmoral, SOORDERED.
yet, forpurposesofdisciplining alawyer, immoral conduct has Puno(C.J.),Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,Sandoval
beendefinedasthatconductwhichiswillful,
Gutierrez,Carpio,Corona,CarpioMorales,Callejo,
_______________ Sr.,Azcuna,Tinga,ChicoNazario,GarciaandVelasco, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
48
Rollo,pp.514515. Atty.LucianoD.Valenciasuspendedfrompracticeoflawfor
49
Id.,atpp.517519. three(3)yearsformisconductandviolationofCanons21,10and
50
Id.,atp.521. 1ofCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
51
Id.,atp.524.
_______________
52
Id.,atpp.520524.
53
Id.,atpp.520521.
Rau Sheng Mao v. Velasco,459 Phil. 440, 445;413 SCRA
54

16 108,112(2003).
16 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Mendozav.Mala,A.C.No.1129,July27,1992,211SCRA
55 isnoclaimthatmilitaryordiplomaticsecretswillbedisclosedby
839, 841;Vda. de Mijares v. Villaluz,A.C. No. 4431, June 19, theproductionofrecordspertainingtothepersonneloftheEIIB.
Indeed, EIIBs function is the gathering and evaluation of
1997,274 SCRA 1, 6;Paras v. Paras,397 Phil. 462, 475;343
intelligence reports andinformation regarding illegalactivities
SCRA 414, 426 (2000);Cambaliza v. CristalTenorio,A.C. No. affecting the national economy, such as, but not limited to,
6290,July 14, 2004,434 SCRA288,294;Gov. Achas, MTJ04 economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar salting.
1564, March 11, 2005,453 SCRA 189, 201;Zaguirre v. Consequently,whileincaseswhichinvolvestatesecretsitmaybe
Castillo,A.C.No.4921,August3,2005,465SCRA520,530. sufficient todeterminefromthe circumstancesofthecasethat
17 thereisreasonabledangerthatcompulsionoftheevidencewill
VOL.512,JANUARY22, 17 expose military matters without compelling production, no
2007 similar excuse can be made for a privilege resting on other
considerations.
286 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS
Same;Neitheristhereanylaworregulationwhichconsiders
ANNOTATED
personnelrecordsoftheEIIBasclassifiedinformation.Norhas
Almontevs.Vasquez
ourattentionbeencalledtoanylaworregulationwhichconsiders
G.R.No.95367.May23,1995.* personnel records of the EIIB as classified information. To the
COMMISSIONERJOSET.ALMONTE,VILLAMORC.PEREZ, contrary,COACircularNo.88293,whichpetitionersinvoketo
NERIO ROGADO, and ELISA RIVERA, supporttheircontentionthatthereisadequatesafeguardagainst
petitioners,vs.HONORABLE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ and
misuse of public funds, provides that the onlyitem of
CONCERNEDCITIZENS,respondents.
expenditurewhichshouldbetreatedstrictlyconfidentialisthat
Ombudsman;At common law a governmental privilege which refers to the purchase of information and payment of
against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets rewards.
bearingonmilitary,diplomaticandsimilarmatters.Atcommon
law a governmental privilege against disclosure is recognized _______________
withrespecttostatesecretsbearingonmilitary,diplomaticand
similar matters. This privilege is based upon public interest of ENBANC.
*

suchparamountimportanceasinandofitselftranscendingthe 287
individual interests of a private citizen, even though, as a VOL.244,MAY23,1995 287
consequencethereof,theplaintiffcannotenforcehislegalrights. Almontevs.Vasquez
Same;Inthecaseatbar,thereisnoclaimthatmilitaryor Same;Thestatutesandregulationsinvokedbypetitionersdo
diplomaticsecretswillbedisclosedbytheproductionofrecords notexempttheEIIBfromthedutytoaccountforitsfundstothe
pertainingtothepersonneloftheEIIB.Inthecaseatbar,there proper authorities.Theotherstatutes andregulationsinvoked
bypetitionersinsupportoftheircontentionthatthedocuments Same;TheConstitutionexpresslyenjoinstheOmbudsmanto
sought in the subpoenaduces tecumof the Ombudsman are actonanycomplaintfiledinanyformormannerconcerning
classified merely indicate the confidential nature of the EIIBs officialactsoromissions.PetitionerscontendthatunderArt.XI,
functions, but they do not exempt the EIIB from the duty to 13(4)theOmbudsman can actonly inany appropriate case,
accountforitsfundstotheproperauthorities.Indeedbydenying andsubjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylawand
thatthereweresavingsmadefromcertainitemsintheagency that because the complaint in this case is unsigned and
and alleging that the DBM had released to the EIIB only the unverified, the case is not an appropriate one. This contention
allocations needed for the 947 personnel retained after its lacksmerit.Asalreadystated,theConstitutionexpresslyenjoins
reorganization, petitioners in effect invited inquiry into the the Ombudsman to act on any complaint filed in any form or
veracity oftheirclaim. If,aspetitionersclaim, the subpoenaed mannerconcerningofficialactsoromissions.
recordshavebeenexaminedbytheCOAandfoundbyittobe 288
regular in all respects, there is no reason why they cannot be 2 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
shown to another agency of the government which by
88
constitutional mandate is required to look into any complaint
concerningpublicoffice. Almontevs.Vasquez
Same;TheOmbudsmanandhisDeputiesaredesignatedby Same;Testimony given at a factfinding investigation and
the Constitution protectorsofthepeople andas such theyare charges made in a pleading in a case in court constituted a
required by it to act promptly on complaints in any form or sufficient basis for the Ombudsman to commence investigation,
manneragainstpublicofficialsoremployeesoftheGovernment, because a formal complaint was really not necessary.
oranysubdivision, agencyor instrumentalitythereof,including Accordingly, inDiaz v. Sandiganbayanthe Court held that
testimonygivenatafactfindinginvestigationandchargesmade
governmentowned or controlled corporation.On the other
inapleadinginacaseincourtconstitutedasufficientbasisfor
hand,theOmbudsmanisinvestigatingacomplaintthatseveral
the Ombudsman to commence investigation, because a formal
itemsintheEIIBwerefilledbyfictitiouspersonsandthatthe
complaintwasreallynotnecessary.
allotmentsfortheseitemsin1988wereusedforillegalpurposes.
The plantilla and other personnel records are relevant to his Same;Thephraseinanappropriatecasemeansanycase
investigation. He and his Deputies are designated by the concerningofficialactoromissionwhichisallegedtobeillegal,
Constitution protectors of the people and as such they are unjust, improper or inefficient.Rather than referring to the
required by it to act promptly on complaintsin any form or formofcomplaints,therefore,thephraseinanappropriatecase
manneragainstpublicofficialsoremployeesoftheGovernment, inArt.XI,12meansanycaseconcerningofficialactoromission
oranysubdivision,agencyorinstrumentalitythereof,including which is alleged to be illegal, unjust, improper, orinefficient.
governmentownedorcontrolledcorporation. The phrase subject to such limitations as may beprovided by
lawreferstosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbyCongressor,
intheabsencethereof,tosuchlimitationsasmaybeimposedby VOL.244,MAY23,1995 289
thecourts.Suchlimitationsmaywellincludearequirementthat Almontevs.Vasquez
the investigation be conductedin camera, with the public mattersaffectingtheeconomyofthenation.Assuch,EIIBs
excluded,asexceptiontothegeneralnatureoftheproceedingsin functionsarerelatedtomattersaffectingnationalsecurity.Inthe
theOfficeoftheOmbudsman.Areconciliationistherebymade performance of its function in relation with the gathering of
betweenthedemandsofnationalsecurityandtherequirementof intelligence information executive privilege could as well be
accountabilityenshrinedintheConstitution. invokedbytheEIIB,especiallyinrelationtoitscovertoperations.
Same;ThegeneralinvestigationintheOmbudsmansoffice Same;Courtcannotinterferewithadetermination,properly
is precisely for the purpose of protecting those against whom a made,onaquestionaffectingeconomicsecuritylestitisprepared
complaint is filed against hasty, malicious and oppressive to ride roughshod over certain prerogatives of our political
prosecution as much as securing the State from useless and branches.Thedetermination,bytheexecutivebranch,through
expensive trials.What has been said above disposes of itsappropriateagencies,ofaquestionasaffectingthenational
petitioners contention that the anonymous lettercomplaint securityisapolicydecisionforwhichthisCourthasneitherthe
against them is nothing but a vexatious prosecution. It only competencenorthemandatetoinfringeupon.Intheabsenceofa
remains to say that the general investigation in the clear showing a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Ombudsmans office is precisely for the purpose of protecting Executive,actingthroughits(nationalsecurity)agencies,Iamof
thoseagainstwhomacomplaintisfiledagainsthasty,malicious, the opinion that we cannot interfere with a determination,
andoppressiveprosecutionasmuchassecuringtheStatefrom properlymade,onaquestionaffectingeconomicsecuritylestwe
uselessandexpensivetrials.Theremayalsobebenefitresulting arepreparedtorideroughshodovercertainprerogativesofour
from such limitedin camerainspection in terms of increased politicalbranches.
public confidence that the privilege is not being abused and Same;The constitutional right allowing disclosure of
increasedlikelihoodthatnoabuseisinfactoccurring. governmentaldocuments,i.e.,therighttoinformationonmatters
of public concern is not absolute.The constitutional right
KAPUNAN,J,DissentingOpinion: allowingdisclosureofgovernmentaldocuments,i.e.,therightto
informationonmattersofpublicconcernisnotabsolute.While
Ombudsman;EIIBs functions are related to matters access to official records may not be prohibited, it may be
affecting national security.Disclosure of the documents as regulated. Regulation includes appropriate authority to
requiredbytheOmbudsmanwouldnecessarilydefeatthelegal determinewhatdocumentsareofpublicconcern,themannerof
mandate of the EIIB as the intelligence arm of the executive access to information contained in such documents and to
branchofgovernmentrelatingto withhold information under certain circumstances, particularly,
289 as in this case, those circumstances affecting the national
security.
PETITIONforcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamusinthe 1. 1.ThesearethethingsthatIhavebeenobserving.During
SupremeCourt. the implementation of E.O. 127 on May 1, 1988, one
hundredninety(190)personnelweredismissed.Before
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. that implementation, we had a monthly savings of
ValmonteLawOfficesforpetitioners. P500,000.00 from unfilled plantilla position plus the
implementationofRA6683whereinseventy(70)regular
MENDOZA,J.: employeesavailedatotalamountofP1,400,000.00was
saved from the government monthly. The question is,
This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to howdotheyusedordisbursedthissavings?TheEIIB
annulthesubpoenaducestecumandordersissuedbyrespondent hasasyndicateheadedbytheChiefofBudgetDivision
Ombudsman, requiring petitioners Nerio Rogado and Elisa whoismanipulatingfundsandalsothebrainoftheso
Rivera,aschiefaccountantandrecordcustodian,respectively,of called ghost agents or the Emergency Intelligence
theEconomicIntelligenceandInvestigationBureau(EIIB)to Agents(EIA).TheCommissionerofEIIBhasabiggest
290 shareonthis.Amonghisactivitiesare:
290 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
1. a)Supporting RAM wherein he is involved. He
Almontevs.Vasquez
gives big amount especially during the Dec. Failed
produceall documentsrelating toPersonal ServicesFundsfor
coup.
theyear1988andallevidence,suchasvouchers(salary)forthe
wholeplantillaofEIIBfor1988andtoenjoinhimfromenforcing
2. b)Paymentforthirtyfive(30)miniUZIs.
hisorders.
PetitionerJoseT.AlmontewasformerlyCommissionerofthe
EIIB,whileVillamorC.PerezisChiefoftheEIIBsBudgetand 3. c)Payment for the purchased of Maxima 87 for
personalusedoftheCommissioner.
Fiscal Management Division. The subpoenaduces tecumwas
issuedbytheOmbudsmaninconnectionwithhisinvestigationof
an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings 4. d)Anotherobservation was theagentsunderthe
fromunfilledpositionsintheEIIBhadbeenillegallydisbursed. DirectorofNCREIIBisthesoleoperatingunitwithin
Theletter,purportingtohavebeenwrittenbyanemployeeofthe MetroManilawhichwasapprovedbynolessthanthe
EIIBandaconcernedcitizen,wasaddressedtotheSecretaryof Commissioner due toanomalous activities of almost
Finance, with copies furnished several government offices, allagentsassignedatthecentralofficedirectlyunder
includingtheOfficeoftheOmbudsman. theCommissioner.RetiredBrig.Gen.Almonteasone
Theletterreadsinpertinentparts: oftheAntiGraftboardmemberoftheDepartmentof
Finance should not tolerate this. However, the
 Commissioner did not investigate his own men assorted high powered firearms. Agents plus one
instead,heplacedthemunderthe1530payroll. personnel from the legal proclaimed only five (5)
firearms and the remaining was pilfered by
291 them.Another observation is almost all EIIB agents
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 291 collects payroll from the big time smuggler syndicate
Almontevs.Vasquez monthly and brokers every week for them not to be
apprehended.Another observation is the commissioner
allocatesfundscomingfromtheintelligencefundstothe
1. e)Manymorewhicharepersonal.
mediatosustaintheirgoodimageofthebureau.

1. 2.Sir,myquestionisthis.Canyourgoodofficeinvestigate
In his comment1on the lettercomplaint, petitioner Almonte
EIIB intelligence funds particularly Personal Services
deniedthatasaresultoftheseparationofpersonnel,theEIIB
(01)Funds?IwonderwhytheDeptofBudget&Mgmt.
hadmadesomesavings.Heaverredthattheonlyfundsreleased
cannot compel EIIB to submit an actual filled up
to his agency by the Department of Budget and Management
position because almost half of it are vacant and still
(DBM)werethosecorrespondingto947plantillapositionswhich
they are releasing it. Are EIIB plantilla position
werefilled.Healsodeniedthattherewereghostagentsinthe
classified? It is included in the Personal Services
Itemization(PSI)andIbelieveitisnotclassifiedanda EIIB and claimed that disbursements for open (i.e., overt
rulingfromCivil ServiceCommissionthat EIIB isnot personnel)andclosed(i.e.,covertpersonnel)plantillasofthe
exemptedfromCivilService.Anotherinfo,whenwehad agencyhadbeenclearedbytheCommissiononAudit(COA);that
salarydifferentiallastOct88allmoneyforthewhole thecaseofthe30Uzishadalreadybeeninvestigatedby
plantilla were released and from that alone, Millions
weresavedandconvertedtoghostagentsofEIA. _______________

2. 3.Another thing that I have observed was the Chief

1
Rollo,pp.3637.
BudgetDivisionpossesseshighcaliberfirearmssuchas 292
a mini UZI, Armalite rifle and two (2) 45 cal. pistol 292 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
issuedtohimbytheAssistantCommissionerwhereinhe Almontevs.Vasquez
isnotanagentofEIIBandauthorizedassuchaccording Congress,whereitwasshownthatitwasnottheEIIBbutan
to memorandum order number 283 signed by the agentwhohadspentforthefirearmsandtheywereonlyloaned
PresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippineseffective9 totheEIIBpendingappropriationbyCongress;that,contraryto
Jan. 1990.Another observation was when EIIB agents thechargethataMaximacarhadbeenpurchasedforhisuse,he
apprehendedacertaincivilianwhopossessesnumerous wasusingagovernmentissuedcarfromtheNICA;thatitwashis
prerogativeasCommissionertogroundagentsintheEIIBmain 3
Id.,p.39.
office so that they could be given reorientation and retraining; 4
Id.,p.41.
that the allegation that the EIIB operatives pilfered smuggled 5
Id.,p.42.
firearmswaswithoutfactualbasisbecausethefirearmswerethe
293
subject of seizure proceedings before the Collector of Customs,
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 293
PortofManila;thattheEIIBhadbeenuncompromisingtoward
employees found involved in anomalous activities; and that Almontevs.Vasquez
intelligencefundshadnotbeenusedformediapropagandaandif ChiefoftheEIIBsAccountingDivisionorderinghimtobringall
media people went to the EIIB it was because of newsworthy documentsrelatingtoPersonalServicesFundsfortheyear1988
stories.Petitioneraskedthatthecomplaintbedismissedandthe andallevidence,suchasvouchers(salary)forthewholeplantilla
caseconsideredclosed. ofEIIBfor1988.
SimilarlypetitionerPerez,budgetchiefoftheEIIB,deniedin PetitionersAlmonteandPerezmovedtoquashthesubpoena
hiscomment2datedApril3,1990thatsavingshadbeenrealized and the subpoenaduces tecum. In his Order dated June 15,
fromtheimplementationofE.O.No.127,sincetheDBMprovided 1990,6respondentOmbudsmangrantedthemotiontoquashthe
allocationsforonlytheremaining947personnel.Hesaidthatthe subpoenainviewofthefactthattherewerenoaffidavitsfiled
disbursementoffundsfortheplantillapositionsforovertand against petitioners. But he denied their motion to quash the
covert personnel had been cleared by the COA and that the subpoenaducestecum.Heruledthatpetitionerswerenotbeing
highpoweredfirearmshadbeenissuedfortheprotectionofEIIB forced to produce evidence against themselves, since the
personnel attending court hearings and the Finance Officer in subpoenaduces tecumwas directed to the Chief Accountant,
withdrawingfundsfromthebanks. petitionerNerioRogado.InadditiontheOmbudsmanorderedthe
The Graft Investigation Officer of the Ombudsmans office, ChiefoftheRecordsSectionoftheEIIB,petitionerElisaRivera,
Jose F. Sao, found the comments unsatisfactory, being to produce before the investigator all documents relating to
unverified and plying only on generalizations without meeting PersonnelServiceFunds,fortheyear1988,andalldocuments,
specificallythepointsraisedbycomplainantasconstitutiveofthe salary vouchers for the whole plantilla of the EIIB for 1988,
allegedanomalies.3He,therefore,askedforauthoritytoconduct withinten(10)daysfromreceipthereof.
apreliminaryinvestigation.Anticipatingthegrantofhisrequest, Petitioners Almonte and Perez moved for a reconsideration,
heissuedasubpoena4topetitionersAlmonteandPerez,requiring arguingthatRogadoandRiverawereEIIBemployeesundertheir
themtosubmittheircounteraffidavitsandtheaffidavitsoftheir supervisionandthattheOmbudsmanwasdoingindirectlywhat
witnesses,aswellasasubpoenaducestecum5tothe he could not do directly,i.e., compelling them (petitioners
AlmonteandPerez)toproduceevidenceagainstthemselves.
_______________ Petitioners motion was denied in respondent Ombudsmans
orderdatedAugust6,1990.Hence,thispetitionwhichquestions
2
Id.,p.38.
the orders of June 15, 1990 and August 6, 1990 of respondent 1988 AND ALL EVIDENCES, SUCH AS VOUCHERS
Ombudsman. (SALARY) FOR THE WHOLE PLANTILLA OF EIIB
Toputthiscaseinperspectiveitshouldbestatedattheoutset FOR1988.
that itdoesnotconcern ademandbya citizenfor information
under the freedom of information guarantee of the 2. II.WHETHERORNOTALLDOCUMENTSRELATING
Constitution.7Rather it concerns the power of theOffice of the TO PERSONAL SERVICES FUNDS FOR THE YEAR
Ombudsman to obtain evidence in connection with an 1988 AND ALL EVIDENCE, SUCH AS VOUCHERS
investigationconductedby (SALARY) FOR THE WHOLE PLANTILLA OF EIIB
FOR 1988 ARE CLASSIFIED AND, THEREFORE,
_______________ BEYOND THE REACHOF PUBLICRESPONDENTS
SUBPOENADUCESTECUM.
6
Id.,pp.5354.
7
Art.III,7provides:Therightofthepeopletoinformation I.
onmattersofpublicconcernshallberecognized.Accesstoofficial
records,andtodocuments,andpaperspertainingtoofficialacts, Thereareseveralsubsidiaryissuesraisedbypetitioners,butthe
transactions,ordecisions,aswellastogovernmentresearchdata principalonesrevolveonthequestionwhetherpetitionerscanbe
usedasbasisforpolicydevelopment,shallbeaffordedthecitizen, orderedtoproducedocumentsrelatingtopersonalservicesand
subjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw. salary vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that such
294 documentsareclassified.Disclosureofthedocumentsinquestion
294 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED is resisted on theground that knowledge of EIIBs documents
Almontevs.Vasquez relativetoitsPersonalServicesFundsanditsplantilla...will
itvisavistheclaimofprivilegeofanagencyoftheGovernment. necessarily [lead to] knowledge of its operations, movements,
Thuspetitionersraisethefollowingissues.8 targets,strategies,andtacticsandthewholeofitsbeingandthis
coulddestroytheEIIB.9
1. I.WHETHERORNOTACASEBROUGHTABOUTBY PetitionersdonotquestionthepoweroftheOmbudsmanto
AN UNSIGNED AND UNVERIFIED LETTER issueasubpoenaducestecumnortherelevancyormaterialityof
COMPLAINTISANAPPROPRIATE CASEWITHIN the documents required to be produced, to the pending
THECONCEPTOFTHECONSTITUTIONINWHICH investigationintheOmbudsmansoffice.Accordingly,thefocusof
PUBLICRESPONDENTCANOBLIGEPETITIONERS discussionshouldbeontheGovernmentsclaimofprivilege.
BYVIRTUEOFHISSUBPOENADUCESTECUMTO
PRODUCE TO HIM ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING ________________
TO PERSONAL SERVICES FUNDS FOR THE YEAR
8
PetitionersMemorandum,p.6.
 9
PetitionersMemorandum,p.27. Thus, the Court for the first time gave executive privilege a
295 constitutionalstatusandanewname,althoughnotnecessarilya
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 295 newbirth.12
Almontevs.Vasquez Theconfidentialityofjudicialdeliberationsmentionedinthe
opinionoftheCourtreferredtothefactthatJusticesoftheU.S.
A. SupremeCourtandjudgesoflowerfederalcourtshavetradition

At common law a governmental privilege against disclosure is _______________

recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on military,
diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon
10
Anno.,Government Privilege Against Disclosure of Official
publicinterestofsuchparamountimportanceasinandofitself Information,95L.Ed.34and7,pp.42729,434.
transcending the individual interests of a private citizen, even 11
418U.S.683,7089,41L.Ed.2d1039,10614(1973).
though,asaconsequencethereof,theplaintiffcannotenforcehis 12
Freund,The Supreme Court 1973 TermForeword: On
legalrights.10 PresidentialPrivilege,88HARV.L.REV.13,1835(1974).
Inaddition,inthelitigationovertheWatergatetapesubpoena 296
in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of the
296 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
President to the confidentiality of his conversations and
Almontevs.Vasquez
correspondence,whichitlikenedtotheclaimofconfidentialityof
ally treated their working papers and judicial notes as private
judicialdeliberations.SaidtheCourtinUnitedStatesv.Nixon:11
property.A1977proposalintheU.S.CongressthatJusticesand
The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his
judgesoflowerfederalcourtsshouldbeencouragedtomakesuch
conversations and correspondence, like the claim of
arrangements as will assure the preservation and eventual
confidentialityofjudicialdeliberations,forexample,hasallthe
availability of their personal papers, especially the deposit of
valuestowhichweaccorddeferencefortheprivacyofallcitizens
theirpapersinthesamedepositorytheyselectfor[their]Public
and,addedtothosevalues,isthenecessityforprotectionofthe
Papers13was rebuffed by the Justices who, in a letter to the
public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulation and Government
opinionsinPresidentialdecisionmaking.APresidentandthose
Information of the U.S. Senate, referred to difficult concerns
whoassisthimmustbefreetoexplorealternativesintheprocess
respecting the appropriate separation that must be maintained
ofshapingpoliciesandmakingdecisionsandtodosoinaway
betweenthelegislativebranchandthisCourt.14
manywouldbeunwillingtoexpressexceptprivately.Theseare
There are, inaddition tosuch privileges, statutorilycreated
the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for
onessuchastheGovernmentsprivilegetowithholdtheidentity
Presidentialcommunications.Theprivilegeisfundamentaltothe
ofpersonswhofurnishinformationofviolationsoflaws.15
operation of the government and inextricably rooted in the
separationofpowersundertheConstitution....
 Withrespecttotheprivilegebasedonstatesecret,therule strongshowingofnecessity,theclaimofprivilegeshouldnotbe
wasstatedbytheU.S.SupremeCourtasfollows: lightlyaccepted,buteventhemostcompellingnecessitycannot
Judicialcontrolovertheevidenceinacasecannotbeabdicatedto overcometheclaimofprivilegeifthecourtisultimatelysatisfied
thecapriceofexecutiveofficers.Yetwewillnotgosofarastosay thatmilitarysecretsareatstake.Afortiori,wherenecessityis
thatthecourtmayautomaticallyrequireacompletedisclosureto dubious, a formal claim of privilege, made under the
the judge before the claim of privilege will be accepted in any circumstancesofthiscase,willhavetoprevail.16
case. It may be possible to satisfy the court, from all the On the other hand, where the claim of confidentiality does not
circumstancesofthecase,thatthereisareasonabledangerthat restontheneedtoprotectmilitary,diplomaticorothernational
compulsionoftheevidencewillexposemilitarymatterswhich,in security secrets but on a general public interest in the
the interest of national security, should not be divulged. When confidentialityofhisconversations,courtshavedeclinedtofindin
thisisthecase,theoccasionfortheprivilegeisappropriate,and theConstitutionanabsoluteprivilegeofthePresidentagainsta
thecourtshouldnotjeopardizethesecuritywhichtheprivilegeis subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of criminal
meant to protect by insisting upon an examination of the laws.17
evidence,evenbythejudgealone,inchambers....Ineachcase,
theshowingofnecessitywhichismadewilldeterminehowfar ________________
the court should probe in satisfying itself that the occasion for
invokingtheprivilegeisappropriate.Wherethereisa
16
UnitedStatesv.Reynolds,345U.S.1,1011,97L.Ed.727,
73435 (1953). In this case the U.S. Supreme Court reverseda
_______________ lowercourtorderrequiringthegovernmenttoproducedocuments
relating to the crash of a military aircraft which had been
13
FinalReportoftheNationalStudyCommissiononRecords engagedinasecretmissiontotestelectronicequipment.Thefact
and Documents of Federal Officials(March 31, 1977), quotedin conceded by the respondents, that the aircraft was on a secret
BLOCH & KRATTENMAKER, SUPREME COURT POLITICS: military mission, justified nonproduction of the report of the
THEINSTITUTIONANDITSPROCEDURES67787(1994). accident.Itwasapparentthereportcontainedstatesecretswhich
14
LetterofChiefJusticeWilliamH.RehnquistdatedJune7, intheinterestofnationalsecuritycouldnotbedivulgedevenin
1993toSen.JosephI.Lieberman,Chairman,Subcommitteeon thechambersofthejudgeorincamera.Therewasareasonable
RegulationandGovernmentInformation,U.S.Senate,quotedin dangerthattheinvestigationreportwouldcontainreferencesto
BLOCH&KRATTENMAKER,id.,at6878. thesecretelectronicequipmentwhichwastheprimaryconcernof
15
COACircularNo.88293. themission.
297
17
InUnitedStatesv.Nixon,418U.S.683,41L.Ed.2d1039
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 297 (1974),theCourt,whileacknowledgingthatthePresidentsneed
forcompletecandorandobjectivityfromadviserscallsforgreat
Almontevs.Vasquez
deference from the courts, nonetheless held that such
generalized claim of confidentiality could not prevail over the Nor has our attention been called to any law or regulation
specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. which considers personnel records of the EIIB as classified
Accordingly the Court ordered the tapes of conversations of information. To the contrary, COA Circular No. 88293, which
President Nixon to be turned over to the trial judge forin petitioners invoke to support their contention that there is
camerainspectiontodetermine whethertheywererelevantand adequatesafeguardagainstmisuseofpublicfunds,providesthat
admissible apart from being privileged. Similarly inNixon v. the onlyitem of expenditure which should be treated strictly
confidentialisthatwhichreferstothepurchaseofinformation
AdministratorofGeneralServices,433U.S.425,53L.Ed.2d867
and payment of rewards. Thus, part V, No. 7 of the Circular
(1977) it was held that the mere screening of tapes and other
reads:
recordsofPresidentNixonsconversationswithemployeesofthe
Theonlyitemofexpenditurewhichshouldbetreatedasstrictly
FederalGovernment,tobedonebyprofessionalarchivistsforthe
confidential because it falls under the category of classified
purpose of legitimate historical and governmental purpose,
information is that relating to purchase of information and
constituted a very limited intrusion . . . into executive
payment of rewards. However, reasonable records should be
confidentialitycomparabletothoseheldtojustifyin maintainedandkeptforinspectionoftheChairman,Commission
298 on Audit or his duly authorized representative. All other
298 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED expenditures are to be considered unclassified supported by
Almontevs.Vasquez invoices,receiptsandotherdocuments,and,therefore,subjectto
reasonable inquiry by the Chairman or his duly authorized
B. representative.20

Inthecaseatbar,thereisnoclaimthatmilitaryordiplomatic _______________
secretswillbedisclosedbytheproductionofrecordspertainingto
thepersonneloftheEIIB.Indeed,EIIBsfunctionisthegathering camerainspection.433U.S.at45152,53L.Ed.2d.at89697.
andevaluationofintelligencereportsandinformationregarding Accordingly the validity of the law, entitled Presidential
illegalactivitiesaffectingthenationaleconomy,suchas,butnot RecordingsandMaterialsPreservationAct,wasupheldagainst
limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar theclaimthatthePresidentialprivilegeshieldstherecordsfrom
salting.18Consequently, while in cases which involve state archivalscrutiny.
secretsitmaybesufficienttodeterminefromthecircumstances 18
E.O.No.127.
ofthecasethatthereisreasonabledangerthatcompulsionofthe 19
UnitedStatesv.Reynolds,supra,note16.
evidence will expose military matters without compelling 20
QuotedinPetitionersMemorandum,p.27.
production,19nosimilarexcusecanbemadeforaprivilegeresting
299
onotherconsiderations.
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 299
 Almontevs.Vasquez Effectiveimmediately,allrequestsfortheallocationorrelease
Itshouldbenotedthattheregulationrequiresthatreasonable of intelligence funds shall indicate in full detail the specific
recordsbekeptjustifyingtheconfidentialorprivilegedcharacter purposesforwhichsaidfundsshallbespentandshallexplainthe
of the information relating to informers. There are no such circumstancesgivingrisetothenecessityfortheexpenditureand
reasonable records in this case to substitute for the records theparticularaimstobeaccomplished.(LetterofInstructionsNo.
claimedtobeconfidential. 1282datedJanuary12,1983).
Theotherstatutesandregulations21invokedbypetitionersin Anydisbursementofintelligencefundsshouldnotbeallowed
support of their contention that the documents sought in the inaudit,unlessitisinstrictcompliancewiththeprovisionsof
subpoenaduces tecumof the Ombudsman are classified merely LettersofInstructionNo.XXXand1282.Anyofficeroremployee
who violates the provisions of the aforementioned Letter of
indicatetheconfidentialnatureoftheEIIBsfunctions,butthey
Instructionshallbedealtwithadministrativelywithoutprejudice
donotexempttheEIIBfromthedutytoaccountforitsfundsto
to any criminal action that may be warranted. (Memorandum
theproperauthorities.Indeedbydenyingthatthereweresavings
CircularNo.1290oftheOfficeofthePresidentdatedAugust19,
madefromcertainitemsintheagencyandallegingthattheDBM
1985).
hadreleasedtotheEIIBonlytheallocationsneededforthe947
personnel retained after its reorganization, petitioners in effect 300
invitedinquiryintotheveracityoftheirclaim.If,aspetitioners 300 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
claim,thesubpoenaedrecordshavebeenexaminedbytheCOA Almontevs.Vasquez
andfoundbyittoberegularinallrespects,thereisnoreason governmentwhichbyconstitutionalmandateisrequiredtolook
whytheycannotbeshowntoanotheragencyofthe intoanycomplaintconcerningpublicoffice.
On the other hand, the Ombudsman is investigating a
_______________ complaintthatseveralitemsintheEIIBwerefilledbyfictitious
personsandthattheallotmentsfortheseitemsin1988wereused
Petitioners cite in their Memorandum, at p. 19, the
21
forillegalpurposes.Theplantillaandotherpersonnelrecordsare
following: relevanttohisinvestigation.HeandhisDeputiesaredesignated
19.ReleaseofIntelligenceandConfidentialFunds.Intelligence bytheConstitutionprotectorsofthepeopleandassuchtheyare
and confidential funds provided for in the budgets of required by it to act promptly on complaintsin any form or
departments, bureaus, offices or other agencies of the national manneragainstpublicofficialsoremployeesoftheGovernment,
government,including amounts from savingsauthorized by oranysubdivision,agencyorinstrumentalitythereof,including
Special Provisions to be used for intelligence and counter governmentownedorcontrolledcorporation.22
intelligenceactivities,shallbereleasedonlyuponapprovalofthe His need for the documents thus outweighs the claim of
PresidentofthePhilippines.(RA6642GAAforCY1988) confidentiality of petitioners. What is more, while there might
havebeencompellingreasonsfortheclaimofprivilegein1988
whenitwasassertedbypetitioners,now,sevenyearslater,these courts. InLansang v. Garcia23this Court held closed door
reasons may have been attenuated, if they have not in fact sessions, with only the immediate parties and their counsel
ceased. Theagents whose identities couldnotthen berevealed present,todetermineclaimsthatbecauseofsubversiontherewas
mayhaveceasedfromtheserviceoftheEIIB,whilethecovert imminent dangertopublicsafetywarranting thesuspension of
missionstowhich they mighthavebeen deployedmighteither the writ ofhabeas corpusin 1971. Again inMarcos v.
have been accomplished or abandoned. On the other hand, the
Manglapus24the Court met behind closed doors to receive
Ombudsmansdutytoinvestigatethecomplaintthattherewere
militarybriefingsonthethreatposedtonationalsecuritybythe
in1988unfilledpositionsintheEIIBforwhichcontinuedfunding
returntothecountryoftheformerPresidentandhisfamily.In
wasreceivedbyitsofficialsandputtoillegaluse,remains.
theUnitedStates,asimilarinquiryintothedangertonational
Aboveall, evenifthesubpoenaeddocuments aretreated as
securityasaresultofthepublicationofclassifieddocumentson
presumptivelyprivileged,thisdecisionwouldonlyjustifyordering
theVietnamwarwasupheldbytheU.S.SupremeCourt.25Wesee
theirinspectionincamerabutnottheirnonproduction.However, noreasonwhysimilarsafeguardscannotbemadetoenablean
asconcessiontothenatureofthefunctionsoftheEIIBandjustto agencyoftheGovernment,liketheOfficeoftheOmbudsman,to
besurenoinformationofaconfidentialcharacterisdisclosed,the carryoutitsconstitutionaldutytoprotectpublicinterests 26while
examination of records in this case should be made in strict insuringthe
confidencebytheOmbudsmanhimself.Referencemaybemadeto
the documentsinany decisionororder whichtheOmbudsman _______________
mayrenderorissuebutonlytotheextentthatitwillnotreveal
covert activities of the agency. Above all, there must be a 23
42SCRA448(1971).
scrupulousprotectionofthedocumentsdelivered. 24
117SCRA668(1989).
With these safeguards outlined, it is believed that a 25
NewYorkTimesCo.v.UnitedStates[ThePentagonPapers
satisfactoryresolutionoftheconflictingclaimsofthepartiesis Case],403U.S.713,29L.Ed.2d822(1971).
achieved. 26
Art.XI,13.TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallhavethe
followingpowers,functions,andduties:
_______________
1. (1)Investigateonitsown,oroncomplaintbyanyperson,
Art.XI,12.
22
anyactoromissionofanypublicofficial,employee,office
301
or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 301 illegal,unjust,improper,orinefficient.
Almontevs.Vasquez
Itisnotamisstostatethatevenmattersofnationalsecurityhave 2. (2)Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any
been inquired into in appropriatein cameraproceedings by the public official or employee of the Government, or any
 subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well TheOmbudsmanandhisDeputies,asprotectorsofthepeople,
as of any governmentowned or controlled corporation shall act promptly on complaintsfiled in any form or
withoriginalcharter,toperformandexpediteanyactor manneragainstpublicofficialsoremployeesoftheGovernment,
dutyrequiredbylaw,ortostop,preventandcorrectany oranysubdivision,agency,orinstrumentalitythereof,including
abuseorimproprietyintheperformanceofduties. governmentowned or controlled corporations and shall
inappropriatecases,notifythecomplainantsoftheactiontaken
3. (3)Directtheofficerconcernedtotakeappropriateaction
andtheresultthereof.(Emphasisadded)
against a public official or employee at fault, and
Similarly, the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Rep. Act No. 6770)
recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
providesin26(2):
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance
TheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanshallreceivecomplaintsfromany
therewith.
sourceinwhateverformconcerninganofficialactoromission.It
4. (4)Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, shall
and subjecttosuchlimitations as maybeprovidedby
_______________
law,to
furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or
302 transactionsenteredintobyhisofficeinvolvingthedisbursement
302 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED oruseofpublicfundsorproperties,andreportanyirregularityto
Almontevs.Vasquez theCommissiononAuditforappropriateaction.
confidentialityofclassifieddocuments. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and
informationnecessaryinthedischargeofitsresponsibilities,and
C. toexamine,ifnecessary,pertinentrecordsanddocuments.
....
PetitionerscontendthatunderArt.XI,13(4)theOmbudsman (7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
can act only in any appropriate case, and subject to such mismanagement, fraud, and corruption inthe Government and
limitations as may be provided by law and that because the makerecommendationsortheireliminationandtheobservance
complaintinthiscaseisunsignedandunverified,thecaseisnot ofhighstandardsofethicsandefficiency.Intheperformanceof
an appropriate one. This contention lacks merit. As already hisfunctionstheOmbudsmanisgivenunderRep.ActNo.6770,
stated,theConstitutionexpresslyenjoinstheOmbudsmantoact 15(8)thepowertoissuesubpoenaandsubpoenaducestecum.
onanycomplaintfiledinanyformormannerconcerningofficial
303
actsoromissions.Thus,Art.XI,12provides:
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 303
Almontevs.Vasquez
actonthecomplaintimmediatelyandifitfindsthesameentirely 27
219SCRA675(1993).
baseless,itshalldismissthesameandinformthecomplainantof 28
Art.XI,13(1).
suchdismissalcitingthereasonstherefor.Ifitfindsareasonable 29
Art. XI, 13(6) requires the Office of the Ombudsman to
groundtoinvestigatefurther,itshallfirstfurnishtherespondent publicize matters covered by its investigation when
publicofficeroremployeewithasummaryofthecomplaintand circumstancessowarrantandwithdueprudence.
requirehimtosubmitawrittenanswerwithinseventytwohours 30
Art.XI,1provides:Publicofficeisapublictrust.Public
fromreceiptthereof.Iftheanswerisfoundsatisfactory,itshall officers and employees must atall times be accountable to the
dismissthecase.(Emphasisadded) people,servethemwithutmostresponsibility,integrity,loyalty,
Accordingly, inDiaz v. Sandiganbayan27the Court held that and efficiency,actwithpatriotismandjusticeandlead modest
testimonygivenatafactfindinginvestigationandchargesmade lives.
inapleadinginacaseincourtconstitutedasufficientbasisfor 304
the Ombudsman to commence investigation, because a formal 304 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
complaintwasreallynotnecessary. Almontevs.Vasquez
Ratherthanreferringtotheformofcomplaints,therefore,the purpose of protecting those against whom a complaint is filed
phraseinanappropriatecaseinArt.XI,12meansanycase againsthasty,malicious,andoppressiveprosecutionasmuchas
concerningofficialactoromissionwhichisallegedtobeillegal, securingtheStatefromuselessandexpensivetrials.Theremay
unjust, improper, or inefficient.28The phrase subject to such alsobebenefitresultingfromsuchlimitedincamerainspectionin
limitationsasmaybeprovidedbylawreferstosuchlimitations terms of increased public confidence that the privilege is not
asmaybeprovidedbyCongressor,intheabsencethereof,tosuch being abused and increased likelihood that no abuse is in fact
limitations as may be imposed by the courts. Such limitations occurring.
may well include a requirement that the investigation be
conductedincamera,withthepublicexcluded,asexceptiontothe II.
general nature of the proceedings in the Office of the
Ombudsman.29A reconciliation is thereby made between the Noristhereviolationofpetitionersrighttotheequalprotection
demands of national security and the requirement of ofthelaws.Petitionerscomplainthatinallforumandtribunals.
accountability enshrined in the Constitution. 30What has been ..theaggrievedparties...canonlyhalerespondentsviatheir
saidabovedisposesofpetitionerscontentionthattheanonymous verifiedcomplaintsorswornstatementswiththeiridentitiesfully
lettercomplaint against them is nothing but a vexatious disclosed, while in proceedings before the Office of the
prosecution.Itonlyremainstosaythatthegeneralinvestigation Ombudsmananonymousletterssufficetostartaninvestigation.
intheOmbudsmansofficeispreciselyforthe In the first place, there can be no objection to this procedure
because it is provided in the Constitution itself. In the second
_______________ place,itisapparentthatinpermittingthefilingofcomplaintsin
anyformandinamanner,theframersoftheConstitutiontook
intoaccountthewellknownreticenceofthepeoplewhichkeep personallyin cameraby the Ombudsman, and with all the
them from complaining against official wrongdoings. As this safeguardsoutlinedinthisdecision.
Courthadoccasiontopointout,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmanis SOORDERED.
differentfromtheotherinvestigatoryandprosecutoryagenciesof Narvasa(C.J.),Feliciano,Padilla,Regalado,Davide,
thegovernmentbecausethosesubjecttoitsjurisdictionarepublic
Jr.,Romero,Bellosillo,Melo,Quiason,PunoandVitug, JJ.,
officialswho,throughofficialpressureandinfluence,canquash,
concur.
delayordismissinvestigationsheldagainstthem.31Ontheother
Kapunan,J.,Seedissentingopinion.
handcomplainantsaremoreoftenthannotpoorandsimplefolk
whocannotaffordtohirelawyers.32 Francisco,J.,Onleave.
DISSENTINGOPINION
III.
KAPUNAN,J.:
Finally,itiscontendedthattheissuanceofthesubpoenaduces
tecumwouldviolatepetitionersrightagainstselfincrimination. The wellwrittenponenciaof Mr. Justice Mendoza would
Itisenoughtostatethatthedocumentsrequiredtobe postulate that the Economic Intelligence and Investigation
Bureau(EIIB)documentsrelatingtothePersonalServicesFunds
_______________ fortheyear1988andalldocumentaryevidence,includingsalary
vouchersforthewholeplantillaoftheEIIBfor1988beproduced
31
Delosov.Domingo,191SCRA545,551(1990). before the Ombudsman over the objections of the EIIB
32
2 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, Commissioneronthegroundthatthedocumentscontainhighly
pp.369370. confidential matters, apart from the fact that the expenditures
305 hadbeenclearedinauditbytheCommissiononAudit(COA).The
VOL.244,MAY23,1995 305 reasons relied upon in theponenciaare a) that the EIIB
Almontevs.Vasquez documentsatissuearenotclassifiedunderCOA(Commissionon
producedinthiscasearepublicrecordsandthosetowhomthe Audit) Circular No. 88293, Part V No. 7 which limits such
subpoenaduces tecumis directed are government officials in matters exclusively to expenditures relating to the purchase of
whosepossessionorcustodythedocumentsare.Moreover,if,as information and payments of rewards; and b) the documents
petitioners claim the disbursement by the EIIB of funds for relating to disbursement and expenditures of the EIIB for
personalservicehasalreadybeenclearedbytheCOA,thereisno personal fundshad already been previously examinedby the
reason why they should object to the examination of the CommissiononAuditwhensuchoutlayhadbeenpasseduponin
documentsbyrespondentOmbudsman. 306
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED,butitisdirected 306 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
that the inspection of subpoenaed documents be made
 Almontevs.Vasquez onAudit.Therehasbeennoallegationofanyirregularityinthe
audit in the said Office, such that there is no confidentiality COAsearlierexamination,andintheabsenceofsubstantiated
privilegetoprotect. allegations,thepreviousdeterminationoughttobeaccordedour
Withduerespect,Ibegtodisagree. respectunlesswewanttoencourageunnecessary andtiresome
DisclosureofthedocumentsasrequiredbytheOmbudsman foraysandinvestigationsintogovernmentactivitieswhichwould
would necessarily defeat the legal mandate of the EIIB as the notonlyendupnowherebutwhichwouldalsodisruptorderail
intelligencearmoftheexecutivebranchofgovernmentrelatingto suchactivities.
matters affecting the economy of the nation. As such, EIIBs 307
functionsarerelatedtomattersaffectingnationalsecurity.Inthe VOL.244,MAY23,1995 307
performance of its function in relation with the gathering of Almontevs.Vasquez
intelligence information executive privilege could as well be The confidentiality privilege invoked by petitioners attaches in
invokedbytheEIIB,especiallyinrelationtoitscovertoperations. theexerciseofthefunctionsoftheEIIB,aspresidentialimmunity
The determination, by the executive branch, through its is bestowed by reason of the political functions of the Chief
appropriate agencies, of a question as affecting the national Executive,asaseparateandcoequalbranchofgovernment.By
securityisapolicydecisionforwhichthisCourthasneitherthe the same parity of reasoning, the disclosure of the EIIB
competencenorthemandatetoinfringeupon.Intheabsenceofa documents required to be examined by the Ombudsman even
clear showingofagrave abuse ofdiscretionon thepart ofthe incameraproceedingswillunderthepretextofascertainingthe
Executive,actingthroughits(nationalsecurity)agencies,Iamof properdisbursementsoftheEIIBfundswillunnecessarilyimpair
the opinion that we cannot interfere with a determination, the performance by the EIIB of its functions especially those
properlymade,onaquestionaffectingeconomicsecuritylestwe affectingnationalsecurity.
arepreparedtorideroughshodovercertainprerogativesofour Theconstitutional rightallowingdisclosureofgovernmental
political branches. In an area obviously affecting the national documents, i.e., the right to information on matters of public
security,disclosureofconfidentialinformationonthepromptings concernisnotabsolute.Whileaccesstoofficialrecordsmaynotbe
of some dissatisfied employees would potentially disturb a prohibited,itmayberegulated. 1Regulationincludesappropriate
numberofcarefullylaidoutoperationsdependentonsecrecyand authoritytodeterminewhatdocumentsareofpublicconcern,the
I am not prepared to do this. The characterization of the mannerofaccesstoinformationcontainedinsuchdocumentsand
documentsasclassifiedinformationisnotashieldforwrongdoing to withhold information under certain circumstances,
but a barrier against the burdensome requests for information particularly, as in this case, those circumstances affecting the
whichnecessarilyinterferewiththeproperperformanceoftheir nationalsecurity.2
duties.Togivein,ateveryturn,tosuchrequestswouldbegreatly Besides, as I emphasized earlier, the determination of the
disruptiveofgovernmentalfunctions.Moresointhiscase,since legality of EIIBs disbursements of funds allocated to it are
expenditures of the EIIB for personal funds had already been properly within the competence of the Commission on Audit,
previouslyexaminedandpasseduponinauditbytheCommission whichastheponenciaofJusticeMendozafinds,hasbeencleared
inaudit.TheCommissiononAudithadadopted,asinthepast,
measures to protect classified information pertaining to
examination of expenditures of intelligence agencies. In the
presentcase,disclosureofinformationtoanyotheragencywould
unnecessarily expose the covert operations of EIIB, as a
governmentagencychargedwithnationalsecurityfunctions.
I,therefore,votetogiveduecoursetothepetition. G.R.No.181508.October2,2013.*
OSCAR CONSTANTINO, MAXIMA CONSTANTINO and
Petitiondismissed.
Note.The constitutional provision on the right to public CASIMIRA MATURINGAN, petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF PEDRO
CONSTANTINO, JR., represented by ASUNCION
recordsisselfexecutoryandsuppliestherulesbywhichthe
LAQUINDANUM,respondents.
_______________ InPariDelictoDoctrine;Undertheinparidelictodoctrine,
the parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they
1
BERNAS,ITHECONSTITUTIONOFTHEREPUBLICOF shall have no action against each other, and it shall leave the
THEPHILIPPINES,265(1987). parties where it finds them.Latin for in equal fault, in pari
2
Seeid.,at267. delictoconnotesthattwoormorepeopleareatfaultorareguilty
308 ofacrime.Neithercourtsoflawnorequitywillinterposetogrant
308 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED relieftotheparties,whenanillegalagreementhasbeenmade,
FortuneInsuranceandSuretyCo.,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals and both parties stand inpari delicto. Under thein pari
right to information may be enjoyed by guaranteeing the right delictodoctrine,thepartiestoacontroversyareequallyculpable
andmandatorythedutytoaffordaccesstosourcesofinformation. or guilty, they shall have no action against each other, and it
(AquinoSarmientovs.Morato,203SCRA515[1991]) shallleavethepartieswhereitfindsthem.
_______________
o0o *SECONDDIVISION.
581
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 581
reserved.
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
Thisdoctrinefindsexpressioninthemaximsexdolomalo
non oritur actio and in pari delicto potior est conditio
defendentis.
 Same; In pari delicto situations involve the parties in one Same; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; Judicial admissions
contractwhoarebothatfault,suchthatneithercanrecovernor arelegallybindingonthepartymakingtheadmissions.Judicial
haveanyactionagainsteachother.Findingtheinapplicability admissions are legally binding on the party making the
of the in pari delicto doctrine, We find occasion to stress that admissions. Pretrial admission in civil cases is one of the
Article1412oftheCivilCodethatbreatheslifetothedoctrine instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under
speaksoftherightsandobligationsofthepartiestothecontract Section7,Rule18oftheRulesofCourt,whichmandatesthatthe
with an illegal cause or object which does not constitute a contentsofthepretrialordershallcontrolthesubsequentcourse
criminal offense. It applies to contracts which are void for oftheaction,thereby,definingandlimitingtheissuestobetried.
illegalityofsubjectmatterandnottocontractsrenderedvoidfor InBayas,etal.v.Sandi
beingsimulated,orthoseinwhichthepartiesdonotreallyintend 582
tobeboundthereby.Specifically,inparidelictosituationsinvolve 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the parties in one contract who are both at fault, such that 82
neithercanrecovernorhaveanyactionagainsteachother. Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
RemedialLaw;CivilProcedure;Parties;Privies;Wordsand ganbayan, et al., 391 SCRA 415 (2002) this Court
Phrases;Bythetermpriviesismeantthosebetweenwhoman emphasizedthat:Oncethestipulationsarereducedintowriting
actionisdeemedbindingalthoughtheyarenotliterallypartiesto andsignedbythepartiesandtheircounsels,theybecomebinding
the saidaction.Bythetermpriviesis meantthosebetween on the parties who made them.They become judicial
whomanactionisdeemedbindingalthoughtheyarenotliterally admissionsofthefactorfactsstipulated.Evenifplacedata
parties to the said action. This Court, inCorrea v. Pascual, 99 disadvantageousposition,apartymaynotbeallowedtorescind
Phil. 696 (1956) had occasion to explain that privity in estate them unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of the
disadvantage.
denotes the privity between assignor and assignee, donor and
Same; Same; Same; The general rule regarding
donee, grantor and grantee, joint tenant for life and
conclusivenessofjudicialadmissionuponthepartymakingitand
remainderman or reversioner and their respective assignees,
thedispensationofproofadmitsoftwoexceptions:1)whenitis
vendorbydeedofwarrantyandaremotevendeeorassignee.A
shownthattheadmission was made through palpablemistake,
privyinestateisone,ithasbeensaid,whoderiveshistitletothe
and2)whenitisshownthatnosuchadmissionwasinfactmade.
propertyinquestionbypurchase;onewhotakesbyconveyance.In
Section4ofRule129oftheRulesofCourt,providesthat:An
fine, respondents, as successorsininterest, derive their right
admission,verbalorwritten,madebyapartyinthecourseofthe
fromandareinthesamepositionastheirpredecessorinwhose
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
shoestheynowstand.
admissionmaybecontradictedonlybyshowingthatitwasmade
throughpalpablemistakeorthatnosuchadmissionwasmade.
AscontemplatedintheaforementionedprovisionoftheRulesof TaxDeclaration208143consistingof240squaremeterssituated
Court, the general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial at Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Pedro, Sr., upon his death,
admissionuponthepartymakingitandthedispensationofproof was survived by his six (6) children, namely: 1) PEDRO
admitsoftwoexceptions:1)whenitisshownthattheadmission CONSTANTINO, JR. (Pedro, Jr.), the grandfather of the
wasmadethroughpalpablemistake,and2)whenitisshownthat respondents; 2) ANTONIA CONSTANTINO, who later died
nosuchadmissionwasinfactmade.Thelatterexceptionallows without issue; 3) CLARA CONSTANTINO, who also later died
onetocontradictanadmissionbydenyingthathemadesuchan withoutissue;4)BRUNOCONSTANTINO,whowassurvivedby
admission. his 6 children including petitioner Casimira Constantino
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof Maturingan;5)EDUARDOCONSTANTINO,whoissurvivedby
Appeals. his daughter Maura; and 6) SANTIAGO CONSTANTINO, who
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. was survived by his five (5) children which includes petitioner
JefferyC.Cruzforpetitioners. OscarConstantino.4
BurgosandVillabertLawOfficeforrespondents. _______________
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeMoninaArevaloZenarosaand
PEREZ,J.:
concurred in by Associate Justices Portia AlioHormachuelos
BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunder
andEdgardoF.Sundiam.CARollo,pp.4053.
Rule45oftheRulesofCourtassailingthe31May2007583
2PennedbyJudgeVictoriaC.FernandezBernardo,records,
VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 583 pp.190194.
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. 3ExhibitF,id.,atp.10.
Decision oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.81329,
1
4Id.,atpp.34.
which reversed the 27 October 2003 Decision2of the Regional
584
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 of Malolos City, Bulacan, in a
584 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
complaintforDeclarationofNullityofPagmamanasaLabasng
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
Hukuman, Tax Declaration Nos. 961002202653 & 1002655,
On 17 June 1999, respondents Asuncion Laquindanum
With Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction & Damages
(Asuncion)andJosefinaCailipan(Josefina),greatgrandchildren
docketedasCivilCaseNo.630M99.
of Pedro Sr., in representation of Pedro, Jr. filed a
TheFacts
complaint5against petitioners Oscar Constantino, Maxima
Thisinvolvesacontroversyoveraparceloflandclaimedtobe Constantino and Casimira Maturingan, grandchildren of Pedro
part of an estate which needed to beproportionally subdivided Sr., for the nullification of a document denominated as
amongheirs.
PagmamanasaLabasngHukumandated10August1992,6Tax
PedroConstantino,Sr.,(PedroSr.)ancestorsofthepetitioners
Declaration Nos. 9610022 (02653) 7and 9610022 (02655)8and
andrespondents,ownedseveralparcelsofland,oneofwhichisan
unregisteredparceloflanddeclaredfortaxationpurposesunder
reinstatementofTaxDeclarationNo.208149inthenameofPedro The share of Maxima was eventually conveyed to her sister,
Sr. petitionerCasimirainwhosenameanewTaxDeclarationNo.96
Inthesaidcomplaint,respondentsallegedthatsometimein 100220265512wasissued.
October1998,petitionersassertedtheirclaimofownershipover Thus,respondentssoughttoannulthePagmamanasaLabas
thewholeparcelofland(240sqm)ownedbythelatePedroSr.,to ngHukumanaswellastheTaxDeclarationsthatwereissuedon
theexclusionofrespondentswhoareoccupyingaportionthereof. thebasisofsuchdocument.
Upon verification, respondents learned that a Tax Declaration Thepetitioners,ontheotherhand,averredintheirAnswer
No. 02010217033235 in the name of petitioner Oscar WithCounterclaim13thatPedroSr.,uponhisdeath,leftseveral
ConstantinoandhiscousinMaximaConstantinowasunlawfully parcelsofland,namely:1)alotwithanareaof240sqmcovered
issued,whichineffectcanceledTaxDeclarationNo.20814inthe byTaxDeclarationNo.20814;2)alotwithanareaof192sqm
name of their ancestor Pedro Sr. The issuance of the new tax also situated at Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, previously
declaration was allegedly due to the execution of a simulated, coveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.9534;and3)anagriculturalland
fabricatedandfictitiousdocumentdenominatedasPagmamana withanareaofFour(4)hectares,moreorless.Thepetitioners
saLabasngHukuman,whereinthepetitionersmisrepresented claimedthatthedocumentPagmamanasaLabasngHukuman
themselvesasthesoleandonlyheirsofPedroSr.Itwasfurther pertainingtothe240sqmlotwasperfectlyvalidandlegal,asit
allegedthatsubsequently,thesubjectlandwasdividedequally wasaproductofmutualandvoluntaryagreementbetweenand
betweenpetitionersOscarandMaximaresultingintheissuance amongthedescendantsofthedeceasedPedroSr.
of Tax Declaration No. 96100220265310in the name of Oscar, Further, petitioners alleged that the respondents have no
with an area of 120 sq m and the other half in the name of cause of action against them considering that the respondents
MaximacoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.961002202652. 11 lawful share over the estate of Pedro Sr., had already been
_______________ transferred to them as evidenced by the Deed of Extrajudicial
5Id.,atpp.28. Settlement with Waiver14dated 5 December 1968, executed by
6ExhibitE,id.,atp.11. Angelo Constantino, Maria Constantino (mother of respondent
7ExhibitC,id.,atp.14. Asuncion), Arcadio Constantino and Mercedes Constantino, all
heirsofPedroJr.Inthesaiddeed,respondentsadjudicatedunto
8ExhibitD,id.,atp.16.
themselvestotheexclusionofotherheirs,theparceloflandwith
9ExhibitF,id.,atp.10. anareaof192sqmbymisrepresentingthattheyweretheonly
10Id.,atp.98. legitimateheirsofPedroSr.Thus,petitionersclaimedthatinthe
11Id.,atp.99. manner similar to the assailed Pagmamana sa Labas ng
585
Hukuman,theyas
VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 585
_______________
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
12Id.,atp.101.
 13Id.,atpp.2428. of them. (See:Yu Bun Guan v. Ong, 367 SCRA 559).
14Id.,atpp.3031. Parties who are equally guilty cannot complain against
586 eachother.(Sarmientov.Salud,45SCRA213.)
586 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. 15Id.,atpp.7071.
sertedtheirrightsandownershipoverthesubject240sqmlot 16Id.,atpp.190194.
withoutdamagetotherespondents. 587
In essence, petitioners position was that the Deed of VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 587
ExtrajudicialSettlementwithWaiverwhichledtotheissuanceof Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
TaxDeclarationNo.9534wasacquiescedinbytheotherheirsof Supplementing the law on the matter, that is, the
Pedro Sr., including thepetitioners, on the understanding that provisionofArticle19oftheNewCivilCodewherebyevery
the respondent heirs of Pedro Jr. would no longer share and person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
participateinthesettlementandpartitionoftheremaininglot performanceofhisduties,actwithjustice,giveeveryone
coveredbythePagmamanasaLabasngHukuman. hisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith,isthelegal
On 15 August 2000, pretrial conference15was conducted maximthathewhocomestocourttodemandequitymust
whereinthepartiesenteredintostipulationsandadmissionsas come with clean hands. (LBC Express, Inc. v. Court of
wellasidentificationoftheissuestobelitigated.
Appeals,236SCRA602).
Thereupon, trial on the merits ensued.On 27 October 2003,
Although, plaintiffsheirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr.,
theRTCrenderedaDecision16infavoroftherespondentsfinding
including Asuncion Laquindanum and Josefina Cailipan,
that:
are not parties or signatories to the Extrajudicial
As a result of execution of Extrajudicial Settlement
SettlementwithWaiverdatedDecember5,1968,theyare
withWaiverdatedDecember5,1968(Exh.2)executed
successorsininterest of Pedro Constantino, Jr. They are
by theHeirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., a son of Pedro
considered privies to said deed, and are bound by said
Constantino,Sr.andthesubsequentexecutionofanother
extrajudicialsettlement.(See:Cabresosv.Tiro,166SCRA
deeddenominatedasPagmamanasaLabasngHukuman 400). In other words, they are PRIVIES IN ESTATE.
datedAugust10,1992(Exh.E)executedbytheheirsof
(Correav.Pascual,99Phil.696,703).
SantiagoandBrunoConstantino,alsoothersonsofPedro
Consequently, plaintiffs are now estopped from
Constantino, Sr., to the exclusion of the other heirs,
claimingotherwise.(See:PNBv.CA,94SCRA357).They
namely, those of ANTONIA, CLARA, and EDUARDO
CONSTANTINO, both plaintiffs and defendants acted areestoppedtoshareintherealpropertysubjectmatterof
equallyatfault.Theyareinparidelicto,wherebythelaw thiscase.Infine,theyarenotentitledtothereliefsprayed
leavesthemastheyareanddeniesrecoverybyeitherone
 for.(CommunicationMaterials &Design,Inc.v. CA,260 1968amongtheheirsofPedroJr.namelyAngelo,Maria,
SCRA673). ArcadioandMercedesisapropertybelongingtoPedroJr.
With respect to alleged damages claimed by plaintiffs althoughthereisatypographicalerrorinthatthenameof
againstdefendantsintheirComplaintandcounterclaimfor Pedro Jr. was inadvertently typed only asPedro
damagesbydefendantsagainstplaintiffsintheirAnswer, Constantino.Itisclearfromthereadingofthedocument
bothclaimsareherebydismissedforlackofvalidfactual thatatypographicalerrorwascommittedbecausethefour
andlegalfoundations (4) children of Pedro Jr. by Felipa dela Cruz were
Disposition specificallyidentified.Further,duringthepresentationof
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises and evidenceoftheplaintiffsappellants,itwasrebuttedthat
disquisition, the deed denominated as Pagmamana sa PedroSr.hadsix(6)legitimatechildrennamely:PedroJr.,
Labas ng Hukuman of August 10, 1992 and Tax Antonia,Clara,Santiago,BrunoandEduardo19andPedro
Declaration No. 961002202653 in the name of Oscar Jr.hadfour(4).20
Constantino and Tax Declaration No. 961002202655 in Thus,theCAwentontostatethattherespondents,heirsof
the name of Casimira C. Maturingan (from Maxima PedroJr.,didnotadjudicatethe192sqmlotuntothemselvesto
ConstantinotoCasimiraC.Maturingan)stand.Plaintiffs theexclusionofalltheotherheirsofPedroSr.
588 _______________
588 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 17Id.,atpp.193194.
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. 18Rollo,pp.3245.
Complaintfornullificationthereofwithdamagesishereby 19TSN,23October2000,pp.47.
DISMISSED.17 20Rollo,p.41.
Not convinced, the respondents appealed the aforequoted 589
decisiontotheCourtofAppeals(CA)raising,amongothers,the VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 589
erroneousapplicationbythetrialcourtofthedoctrineofinpari Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
delictoindeclaringthevalidityofthedocumentPagmamanasa Rather,theadjudicationinthedocumententitledExtrajudicial
LabasngHukuman. Settlement with Waiver dated 5 December 1968 pertains to a
In its 31 May 2007 Decision,18the CA ruled in favor of the different property and is valid absent any evidence to the
respondentsheirsofPedro,Jr.,declaringthattheExtrajudicial contrary.Hence,itiserroneousforthetrialcourttodeclarethe
SettlementwithWaiverdated5December1968theyexecuted partiesinparidelicto.
coveringthe192sqmlotactuallybelongstoPedroJr.,hence,not TheIssue
partoftheestateofPedroSr.TheCArationatedinthiswise: The petitioners now question the said ruling assigning as
The192squaremeterslotwhichwasadjudicatedinthe error, among others, the failure of the CA to appreciate the
ExtrajudicialSettlementwithWaiverdated5December existence of misrepresentation in both documents, thereby
ignoring the propriety of the application of thein pari and enforce an illegal and immoral arrangement. (See
delictodoctrine.Likewiseassailedistheerroneousdisregardby Articles1409,1411,and1412oftheCivilCode).Kickback
the CA of stipulations and admissions during the pretrial arrangementsinthepurchaseofrawmaterials,equipment,
supplies and other needs of offices, manufacturers, and
conference on which the application of the doctrine ofin pari
industrialistsaresowidespreadandpervasivethatnobody
delictowasbased. seemstoknowhowtoeliminatethem.xxx.
OurRuling
Boththepetitionersandtheprivaterespondentarein
Latinforinequalfault,inparidelictoconnotesthattwoor
pari delicto. Neither one may expect positive relief from
morepeopleareatfaultorareguiltyofacrime.Neithercourtsof
courtsofjusticeintheinterpretationoftheircontract.The
lawnorequitywillinterposetograntrelieftotheparties,when
courtswillleavethemastheywereatthetimethecase
an illegal agreement has been made, and both parties stand
wasfiled.24
inparidelicto.21Undertheparidelictodoctrine,thepartiestoa
Asadoctrineincivillaw,theruleonparidelictoisprincipally
controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they shall have no
governedbyArticles1411and1412oftheCivilCode,whichstate
actionagainsteachother,anditshallleavethepartieswhereit
that:
findsthem.Thisdoctrinefindsexpressioninthemaximsexdolo Article1411.When the nullity proceeds from the
malo non oritur actio and in pari delictopotior est conditio illegalityofthecauseorobjectofthecontract,andtheact
defendentis.22 constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari
Whencircumstancesarepresentedfortheapplicationofsuch delicto,theyshallhavenoactionagainsteachother,and
doctrine,courtswilltakeahandsoffstanceininterpretingthe bothshallbeprosecuted.
contractfororagainstanyoftheparties.Thisisillus xxxxxx
_______________ Article1412.If the act in which the unlawful or
21AlawDictionary,AdaptedtotheConstitutionandLawsof forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal
theUnitedStates.ByJohnBouvier.Published1856. offense,thefollowingrulesshallbeobserved:
22Ubarrav.Mapalad,A.M.No.MTJ91622,22March1993, xxxxxx
220SCRA224,235. 1.When the fault is on the part of both contracting
590 parties,neithermayrecoverwhathehasgivenbyvirtueof
590 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
23236Phil.225;152SCRA210(1987).
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
24Id.,atpp.234235;p.218.
trated in the case ofPackaging Products Corporation v.
591
NLRC,23wherethisCourtpronouncedthat:
VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 591
This Court cannot give positive relief to either
petitionerorrespondentbecauseweareaskedtointerpret Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
 the contract, or demand the performance of the others 25Answer with Counterclaim filed by defendants, herein
undertaking; petitioners,records,pp.2428.
xxxxxx. 26Id.,atp.26.
The petition at bench does not speak of an illegal cause of 592
contract constituting a criminal offense under Article 1411. 592 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NeithercanitbesaidthatArticle1412findsapplicationalthough
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
suchprovisionwhichispartofTitleII,BookIVoftheCivilCode
theunderlyingagreementandthereforetheyhavenorecourseor
speaksofcontractsingeneral,aswellascontractswhicharenull
reason to question it taking cue from the doctrine ofin pari
and voidab initiopursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code
delicto. This was the basis of the trial courts findings that
suchasthesubjectcontracts,whichasclaimed,areviolativeof
respondentsarenowestoppedfromclaimingotherwise.27
themandatoryprovisionofthelawonlegitimes.
Wefindthatthetrialcourterroneouslyappliedthedoctrine.
Wedonotdisputethathereinparties,throughtheDeedsthey
This is not to say, however, that the CA was correct in
separatelyexecuteddeprivedeachotherofrightfulsharesinthe
upholding the validity of the contract denominated as
twolotssubjectoftheseparatecontractsthatis,ifthetwo(2)
parcelsoflandsubjectmatterthereof,formpartoftheestateof Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman. The CA decision being,
thelatePedroSr. likewise,basedonparidelicto,isalsoincorrect.
Itisassertedbythepetitionersthattheirexecutionin1992of Findingtheinapplicabilityoftheinparidelictodoctrine,We
the contract denominated as Pagmamana sa Labas ng find occasion tostress that Article 1412 of the Civil Code that
HukumanwhichexcludedotherheirsofPedroSr.,waswithan breatheslifetothedoctrinespeaksoftherightsandobligationsof
thepartiestothecontractwithanillegalcauseorobjectwhich
underlying agreement with the other heirs including Maria
does not constitute a criminal offense. It applies to contracts
Constantino, daughter of Pedro Jr. and grandmother of
whicharevoidforillegalityofsubjectmatterandnottocontracts
respondents.25Theagreementwasfortheotherheirstorecognize
renderedvoidforbeingsimulated, 28orthoseinwhichtheparties
the 192 square meters lot subject matter of the Extrajudicial
Settlement with Waiver executed in 1968 as the share of the do not really intend to be bound thereby. Specifically,in pari
heirsofPedroSr.intheestateofPedroSr.,Petitionersrespected delictosituationsinvolvethepartiesinonecontractwhoareboth
suchagreement,asinfact,MariaLaquindanumandthatofher atfault,suchthatneithercanrecovernorhaveanyactionagainst
heirs,hereinrespondents,werenotdisturbedintheirpossession eachother.
orownershipoverthesaidparcelofland;thus,theheirsofPedro Inthiscase,therearetwoDeedsofextrajudicialassignments
Jr.weresaidtohaveacquiesced 26tothePagmamanasaLabas untothesignatoriesoftheportionsoftheestateofanancestor
ngHukumanand commontothemandanothersetofsignatorieslikewiseassigning
untothemselvesportionsofthesameestate.TheseparateDeeds
_______________
cameintobeingoutofanidenticalintentionofthesignatoriesin
bothtoexcludetheircoheirsoftheirrightfulshareintheentire
estateofPedroSr.Itwas,inreality,anassignment ofspecific Laquindanum,theirpredecessorininterest,andtheotherheirs,
portionsoftheestateofPedroSr.,withoutresortingtoalawful includingpetitionersherein,basedonthefactthattheyarenot
partitionofestateasbothsetsofheirsintendedtoexcludethe signatoriestosaidagreement,thus,thelackofanybindingeffect
otherheirs. tothem.Respondentsarguedandsetforthasanissueduringthe
_______________ trial that they were not signatories to any of the contract or
27Page5oftheDecisiondated27October2003,id.,atp.194. priviestosuchanarrangement.Itisnotdisputed,however,that
28LectureNotesonCivilCodebyProfessorRubenF.Balane, respondentsaresuccessorsin
p.352. _______________
593 29CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.IV,Tolentino,1973Ed.,
VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 593 p.592,alsocitedinTongoyv.CourtofAppeals,208Phil.95,113;
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. 123SCRA99,119(1983).
Clearly,theprincipleofinparidelictocannotbeapplied.The 594
inapplicabilityisdictatednotonlybythefactthattwodeeds,not 594 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
one contract, are involved, but because of the more important Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
reasonthatsuchanapplicationwouldresultinthevalidationof interest of Maria Laquindanum, one of the signatories in the
bothdeedsinsteadoftheirnullificationasnecessitatedbytheir ExtrajudicialSettlementwithWaiverwhowasalsoallegedlyin
illegality.Itmustbeemphasizedthattheunderlyingagreement agreementwiththepetitioners.
resulting in the execution of the deeds is nothing but a void Onthisnote,Weagreewiththetrialcourtthatrespondents
agreement.Article1409oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat: are privies to Maria Laquindanum. By the term privies is
ART.1409.The following contracts are inexistent and meantthosebetweenwhomanactionisdeemedbindingalthough
voidfromthebeginning: theyarenotliterallypartiestothesaidaction. 30ThisCourt,in
(1)Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to Correav.Pascual,31hadoccasiontoexplainthatprivityinestate
law;morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublicpolicy; denotes the privity between assignor and assignee, donor and
xxxxxxxxx
donee, grantor and grantee, joint tenant for life and
Corollarily, given the character and nature of the deeds as
remainderman or reversioner and their respective assignees,
beingvoidandinexistent,ithas,asaconsequence,ofnoforceand
effectfromthebeginning,asifithadneverbeenenteredintoand vendorbydeedofwarrantyandaremotevendeeorassignee.A
whichcannotbevalidatedeitherbytimeorratification. 29 privyinestateisone,ithasbeensaid,whoderiveshistitletothe
That said, we cannot give credence to the contention of propertyinquestionbypurchase;onewhotakesbyconveyance.In
respondentsthatnofaultcanbeattributedtothemorthatthey fine, respondents, as successorsininterest, derive their right
arefreefromtheeffectsofviolationofanylawsarisingfromthe fromandareinthesamepositionastheirpredecessorinwhose
supposed unlawful agreement entered into between Maria shoestheynowstand.Assuchsuccessors,respondentssituation
is analogous to that of a transfereependente liteillustrated theestateofPedroSr.,theircommonancestor,nootherevidence
inSantiago Land Development Corporation v. Court of was offered to support it. The CA in giving credence to the
respondents claim, merely relied on the alleged typographical
Appeals,32reiteratingFetalinov.Sanz33wherethisCourtheld:
error in the Deed. The basis for the CAs conclusion was the
Assuch,hestandsexactlyintheshoesofhispredecessorin
inclusionofthewifeofPedroJr.andthatoftheirchildren,which
interest, the original defendant, and is bound by the
theCAconsideredasproofthatthepropertywasownedbyPedro
proceedings had in the case before the property was
Jr.andnotpartoftheestateofPedroSr.Aspointedoutbythe
transferred to him. He is a proper, but not an
petitioners,thementionofthenamesofthechildrenofPedroJr.
indispensable,partyashewould,inanyevent,havebeen
intheExtrajudicialSettlementisnotproofthatthesubjectofthe
boundbythejudgmentagainsthispredecessor. 34
deedisthepropertyofPedroJr.Meanttoexcludealltheother
_______________
heirsofPedroSr.,onlythechildrenofPedroJr.appearedinthe
30Cabresosv.JudgeTiro,248Phil.631,636637;166SCRA ExtrajudicialSettlementasheirs.
400,405(1988). Weak as the reasoning is, the CA actually contradicted the
3199Phil.696,703(1956)quoting50C.J.,407and33Words admissionsmadenolessbytherespondentsduringthepretrial
andPhrases,800. conference where they stipulated thatthe land covered by Tax
32334Phil.741,747;267SCRA79,87(1997). Declaration No. 9534 consisting of 192 sq. m belongs to Pedro
3344Phil.691(1923). Sr.35
34Id.,atp.694. A portion of the admission and stipulations made by both
595 partiesduringthepretrialishereunderquoted,thus:
VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 595 Respondentsadmissions:
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. _______________
Thus,anyconditionattachedtothepropertyoranyagreement 35Records,pp.7071.
precipitating the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial 596
Settlement with Waiver which was binding upon Maria 596 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laquindanumisapplicabletorespondentswhomerelysucceeded Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
Maria. 1.That the land covered by TaxDeclaration No. 9534
This notwithstanding, it must however be shown that the previously owned by Pedro Constantino, Sr. was
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver, referred to a transferred to Maria Constantino under Tax
propertyownedbyPedroSr.Thereissuchbasisfromthefactsof
DeclarationNo.9535;(highlightingours)
thiscase.
1.TheexistenceofExtrajudicialSettlementwithWaiverper
The records show that apart from respondent Asuncion
Doc.No.319,PageNo.44,BookNo.11,Seriesof1968by
Laquindanumssstatementthattheparceloflandsubjectmatter
NotaryPublicRomericoFlores,Jr.
oftheDeedofExtrajudicialSettlementwithWaiverisnotpartof
 Clearly, the above stipulation is an admission against Evenifplacedatadisadvantageousposition,apartymay
respondentsinterestofthefactofownershipbyPedro,Sr.ofthe notbeallowedtorescindthemunilaterally,itmustassume
192 sq m lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 9534, which was theconsequencesofthedisadvantage.39(Highlightingours)
transferred to respondents mother, the daughter of Pedro, Jr. Moreover,inAlfelorv.Halasan,40thisCourtdeclaredthat:
Suchthat,inoneoftheissuessubmittedtoberesolvedbythe A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
trial court, this was included: Whether or not the Deed of challenge the fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of
ExtrajudicialSettlementwithWaiverisenforceableagainstthe proof;productionofevidenceisdispensedwith.Ajudicial
plaintiffs, thus curing the legal infirmities, if any, of the admissionalsoremovesanadmittedfactfromthefieldof
Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman36 an issue earlier controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the
mentioned. pleadingscannotbecontrovertedbythepartymakingsuch
Judicialadmissionsarelegallybindingonthepartymaking admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all
the admissions. Pretrial admission in civil cases is one of the proofstothecontraryorinconsistenttherewithshouldbe
instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or
Section7,Rule18oftheRulesofCourt,whichmandatesthatthe not.Theallegations,statementsoradmissionscontainedin
contentsofthepretrialordershallcontrolthesubsequentcourse apleadingareconclusiveasagainstthepleader.Aparty
oftheaction,thereby,definingandlimitingtheissuestobetried. cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or
InBayas,etal.v.Sandiganbayan,etal.,37thisCourtemphasized inconsistentwithwhatwaspleaded.41(Citationsomitted)
that: WeareawarethatthelastparagraphofSection7,Rule18of
Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and the Rules of Court serves as a caveat for the rule of
signed by the parties and their counsels, they become conclusiveness of judicial admissions for, in the interest of
binding on the parties who made them.They become justice,issuesthatmayariseinthecourseoftheproceedingsbut
judicialadmissionsofthefactorfactsstipulated.38 whichmaynothavebeentakenupinthepretrialcanstillbe
_______________ takenup.
Section7,Rule18oftheRulesofCourtreads:
36Id.,atp.71.
37440Phil.54;391SCRA415(2002). Section7.Recordofpretrial.Theproceedingsinthe
pretrialshallberecorded.Upontheterminationthereof,
38Id.,atp.69;p.426,citingSchreiberv.Rickert,50NE2d
thecourtshallissueanorderwhichshallreciteindetail
879,13October1943.
thematterstakenupintheconference,theactiontaken
597
thereon,theamendmentsallowedtothe
VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 597
_______________
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
39Id.
40520Phil.982;486SCRA451(2006).
 41Id.,atp.991;pp.459460. 42FlorentinoAtillo,IIIv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,334Phil.
598 546,552;266SCRA596,602(1997).
598 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 43TSN,23November2000,p.6.
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. 599
pleadings,andtheagreementsoradmissionsmadebythe VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 599
parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
actionproceedtotrial,theordershall,explicitlydefineand ATTY.DOMINGO:
limittheissuestobetried.Thecontentsoftheordershall Q:Do you know if as part of the estate of the late Pedro
controlthesubsequentcourseoftheaction,unlessmodified Constantino,Sr.isanotherparceloflandalsosituatedat
beforetrialtopreventinjustice. Sta.Maria,Hagonoy,Bulacanwithanareaof192square
In addition, Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, meters?
providesthat: A:It is not owned by Pedro Constantino, Sr., sir. It is our
Anadmission,verbalorwritten,madebyapartyinthe property owned by Pedro Constantino, Jr. that was
courseoftheproceedingsinthesamecase,doesnotrequire inheritedbymymotherMariaConstantino.
proof.Theadmissionmaybecontradictedonlybyshowing Q:AnddoyouknowhowPedroConstantino,Jr.acquired
thatitwasmadethroughpalpablemistakeorthatnosuch thatparcelofland,theonethatyoumentionedawhile
admissionwasmade. ago?
AscontemplatedintheaforementionedprovisionoftheRules A:Kinagisnankonapoyonglupangyonpagkabatapa
of Court, the general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial nayoneamin.(Highlightingours)
admissionuponthepartymakingitandthedispensationofproof The above assertion of denial is simply a selfserving
admitsoftwoexceptions:1)whenitisshownthattheadmission declarationunsupportedbyevidence.Thisrendersconclusivethe
wasmadethroughpalpablemistake,and2)whenitisshownthat stipulationsmadeduringthepretrialconference.Consequently,
nosuchadmissionwasinfactmade.Thelatterexceptionallows respondentsareboundbytheinfirmitiesofthecontractonwhich
onetocontradictanadmissionbydenyingthathemadesuchan theybasedtheirrightoverthepropertysubjectmatterthereof.
admission.42 Considering that the infirmities in the two deeds relate to
However, respondents failed to refute the earlier exclusionofheirs,acircumventionofanheirsrighttohisorher
admission/stipulationbeforeandduringthetrial.Whiledenying legitime,itisapttoreiterateourrulinginNeriv.HeirsofHadji
ownershipbyPedroSr.ofthe192sqmlot,respondentAsuncion
YusopUy,44disposingthat:
Laquindanum, when placed on the stand, offered a vague
Hence,intheexecutionoftheExtrajudicialSettlement
explanationastohowsuchparceloflandwasacquiredbyPedro
of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale in favour of
Jr.Aportionofhertestimony43isheretoreproducedasfollows:
spouses Uy, all the heirs of Anunciation should have
_______________
participated.ConsideringthatEutropiaandVictoriawere
 admittedlyexcluded and that then minors Rosa and In the ultimate analysis, therefore, both acted in
Douglaswerenotproperlyrepresentedtherein,the violationoflaws.However,theparidelictoruleexpressed
settlementwasnotvalidandbindinguponthemand in the maximsEx dolo malo non oritur action and in
consequently,atotalnullity.(Highlightingours) paridelictopotiorestconditiondefendentis,whichrefuses
_______________ remedytoeitherpartytoanillegalagreementandleaves
44G.R.No.194366,10October2012,683SCRA553,560. themwheretheyaredoesnotapplyinthiscase.
600 _______________
600 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 45Id.,atp.561citingSegurav.Segura,247APhil.449,456;
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr. 165SCRA368,373(1988).
Furtherhighlighting theeffectofexcluding theheirs in the 46DeLeonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.80965,6June1990,
settlement of estate, the case ofSegura v. Segura,45elucidated 186SCRA345,359.
thus: 47Id.
ItisclearthatSection1ofRule74doesnotapplytothe 601
partitioninquestionwhichwasnullandvoidasfarasthe VOL.706,OCTOBER2,2013 601
plaintiffs were concerned. The rule covers only partition. Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.
The partition in the present case was invalid because it xxxxxxxxx
excludedsixofthenineheirswhowereentitledtoequal SincetheLetterAgreementwasrepudiatedbeforethe
shares in the partitioned property. Under the rule no purposehasbeenaccomplishedandtoadheretothepari
extrajudicialsettlementshallbebindinguponanyperson delicto rule in this case is to put a premium to the
whohasnotparticipatedthereinorhadnonoticethereof. circumventionofthelaws,positivereliefshouldbegranted
Asthepartitionwasatotalnullityanddidnotaffectthe toMacaria.Justicewouldbeservedbyallowinghertobe
excludedheirs,itwasnotcorrectforthetrialcourttohold placed in the position in which she was before the
thattheirrightto challenge thepartition hadprescribed transactionwasenteredinto.
aftertwoyearsfromitsexecutionxxx. Accordingly, in order not to put a premium to the
Inlightoftheforegoing,whilebothpartiesactedinviolation circumventionofthelawsascontemplatedbythepartiesinthe
of the law on legitimes, thepari delictorule, expressed in the instantcase,wemustdeclarebothcontractsasvoid.Indeed,any
maxims Ex dolo malo non oritur actionand in pari delicto circumventionofthelawcannotbecountenanced.48
potiorestconditiondefendentis,whichrefusesremedytoeither WHEREFORE, the 31 May 2007 Decision of the Court of
party to an illegal agreement and leaves them where they Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 81329 is herebyREVERSED.
are,does not apply in this case. (Underline supplied)46As held ThePagmamana sa Labas ng Hukumanand Extrajudicial
inDeLeonv.CA:47 Settlement with Waiver are hereby declared void without
prejudicetothepartitionoftheestateofPedroConstantinoSr.
withthefullparticipationofallthelattersheirs.
SOORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del CastilloandPerlas
Bernabe,JJ.,concur.
Judgmentreversed.
Notes.Partiestoavoidagreementcannotexpecttheaidof
the law; the courts leave them as they are, because they are
deemedinparidelictoorinequalfault.Thisrule,however,isnot
absolute.Article1142oftheCivilCodeprovidesanexception,and
permitsthereturnofthatwhichmayhavebeengivenundera
void contract. (QueenslandTokyo Commodities, Inc. vs. George,
630SCRA304[2010])
_______________
48Magsulinv.NationalOrganizationofWorkingMen,etal.,
451Phil.254,262;403SCRA199,205(2003).
602
602 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Constantinovs.HeirsofPedroConstantino,Jr.

Theinpari delictorule provides that when two parties are
equally at fault, the law leaves them as they are and denies
recoverybyeitheroneofthem.(LandBankofthePhilippinesvs.
Poblete,691SCRA613[2013]) 520 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
o0o
Peoplevs.Gaudia
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
G.R.No.146111.February23,2004.*
reserved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.ROLENDO
GAUDIA@LENDOYorDODO,appellant.
Criminal Law;Circumstantial Evidence;Requisites;The
rulingcaselawisthatforcircumstantialevidencetobesufficient
tosupportaconviction,allcircumstancesmustbeconsistentwith thewitness.Inthecaseatbar,appellantcannotimputeanyill
each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is motiveforMiktotestifyadverselyagainsthim.
guilty,andatthesametimeinconsistentwiththehypothesisthat Same;Rape;Child Witnesses;Words and Phrases;Studies
heisinnocentandwitheveryotherrationalhypothesisexceptthat show that children, particularly very young children, make the
ofguilt.UnderRule133,Section4oftheRevisedRulesofCourt, perfectvictimsofrape;Certainly,childrenhavemoreproblems
conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence provided inproviding accountsof eventsbecausetheydonotunderstand
threerequisitesconcur:(a)thereismorethanonecircumstance; everything they experience; Moreover, children have a limited
(b)thefacts fromwhichthe inferences are derived are proven; vocabulary; It must also be considered that there is no actual
and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to counterpart for the word rape in Visayan parlance.Next,
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling case appellanttriedtocapitalizeonthefactthatRemelynnevermade
lawisthatforcircumstantialevidencetobesufficienttosupport anystatementthathesexuallymolestedher.Thisisaspecious
aconviction,allcircumstancesmustbe argument. Remelyn had toldher mother, CrazyLendoy forced
me.Remelynwas31/2yearsoldatthetime.Atsuchaninfantile
_______________ age, shecould not beexpected to have acomprehension of the
concept of rape. Studies show that children, particularly very
ENBANC.
*
youngchildren,maketheperfectvictims.Theynaturallyfollow
521
the authority of adults as the socialization process teaches
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 521 children that adults are to be respected. The childs age and
Peoplevs.Gaudia developmental level will govern how much she comprehends
consistent with each other, consistent withthe hypothesis abouttheabuseandthereforehowmuchitaffectsher.Ifthechild
thattheaccusedisguilty,andatthesametimeinconsistentwith istooyoungtounderstandwhathashappenedtoher,theeffects
thehypothesisthatheisinnocentandwitheveryotherrational will be minimized because she has no comprehension of the
hypothesisexceptthatofguilt. consequences. Certainly, children have more problems in
Same;Witnesses;It is hoary jurisprudence that mere providing accounts of events because they do not understand
relationshiptooneoftheparties,withoutashowingofanyother everything they experience. They do not have enough life
impropermotive,isnotsufficientbasistoimpairthecredibilityof experiencesfromwhich todraw uponinmaking senseof what
they see, hear, taste, smell and feel. Moreover, they have a
thewitness.First,appellantsattempttodiscreditthetestimony
limited vocabulary. The fact that Remelyn called appellant
ofMikcannotsucceed.ItistruethatMikisarelativebyaffinity
ofAmaliaLoyola.Itishoaryjurisprudence,however,thatmere Buangorcrazyshowsthathedidsomethingwhichsheknew
relationshiptooneoftheparties,withoutashowingofanyother was not right or proper. By saying iya kong lugos, Remelyn
impropermotive,isnotsufficientbasistoimpairthecredibilityof clearlyconveyedthatheforcedhertodosomethingbad.Withher
limitedcomprehension,thechildcouldnothaveaperfectwayof
relatingthatshehadbeensexuallyabused.Finally,itmustalso compromise made by them to the mother of the victim. They
be considered that there is no actual counterpart for the word cannot be considered as evidence against appellant but we
rapeinVisayanparlance. reiterate that these errors are not enough to reverse the
522 convictionoftheappellant.
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Same;Same;Right to be Informed;Pleadings and
22 Practice;WheretheInformationmerelydescribedtherapevictim
Peoplevs.Gaudia asaminoranddidnotallegethatshewasbelowsevenyears
Same;Same;Witnesses;Hearsay;OffersofCompromise;Res old,theaccusedwasthereforechargedwithsimplerapeonly.We
Inter Alios Acta Principle;A witness can only testify on facts nowreviewthepenaltyofdeathimposeduponappellant.Inthe
which are based on his personal knowledge or perception; caseatbar,theInformationstatesthatappellant,bymeansof
forceandintimidation. .. willfully, unlawfully andfeloniously
Following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non
(had) carnal knowledge with Remelyn Loyola, aminor, against
debet, the actions of the accuseds parents in offering to
her will to her damage and prejudice. (emphasis ours) The
compromisecannotprejudicetheaccused,sincehewasnotaparty
InformationdidnotallegethatRemelynwasbelowsevenyears
tothesaidconversation,norwasitshownthathewasprivytothe
oldwhenshewasviolated.Appellantwasthereforechargedwith
offerofcompromisemadebythemtothemotherofthevictim. simple rape, under Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Similarly, appellants charge that the offers of compromise amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (the Death Penalty Law).
allegedlymadebytheparentsoftheappellanttoAmalia,andby Uponitspassage,R.A.No.7659introducedsevennewattendant
theappellanthimselftoAmaliashusbandshouldnothavebeen circumstances,whichwhenpresent,willtransformthecrimeto
takenagainsthimbythetrialcourt,evenifsustained,willnot qualifiedrape,punishablebydeath.Weagainstressthatthese
exculpatehim.Tobesure,theofferofcompromiseallegedlymade new attendant circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
byappellanttoAmaliaLoyolashusbandishearsayevidence,and information to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The
ofnoprobativevalue.ItwasonlyAmaliawhotestifiedastothe factsstatedinthebodyoftheinformationdeterminethecrimefor
allegedoffer,andshewasnotapartytotheconversationwhich whichtheaccusedstandschargedandforwhichhemustbetried.
allegedlytranspiredattheHagonoyMunicipalJail.Awitnesscan Themainpurposeofrequiringalltheelementsofacrimetobe
onlytestifyonfactswhicharebasedonhispersonalknowledgeor set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably
perception. The offer of compromise allegedly made by the prepare his defense. It would be a denial of the right of the
appellants parents to Amalia may have been the subject of accused to be informed of the charges against him and,
testimonyofAmalia.However,followingtheprincipleofresinter consequently,a
aliosactaalterinocerenondebet,theactionsofhisparentscannot 523
prejudice the appellant, since he was not a party to the said VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 523
conversation,norwasitshownthathewasprivytotheofferof Peoplevs.Gaudia
 denialofdueprocess,ifheischargedwithsimplerapeand That on or about March 24, 1997 at about 6:30 oclock in the
beconvictedofitsqualifiedformpunishablewithdeath,although evening,intheMunicipalityofHagonoy,ProvinceofDavaodel
theattendantcircumstancequalifyingtheoffenseandresulting Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
incapitalpunishmentwasnotallegedintheindictmentonwhich Court, the abovenamed accused, by means of force and
hewasarraigned. intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgewithRemelynLoyola,aminor,
AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt againstherwilltoherdamageandprejudice.
ofDigos,DavaodelSur,Br.19.
_______________
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforappellee.
1
WrittenbyRTCJudgeHilarioI.Mapayo.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforappellant.
2
AlsoknownbythenameLendoyorDodo.
524
PUNO,J.: 524 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Gaudia
Therecanbenogreaterviolationofapersonsrighttofeelsafe TheprosecutionpresentedRemelynsmother,AmaliaLoyola,as
and secure than the crime of rape. When one commits such a itsprimarywitness.Amaliatestifiedthaton24March1997,she
horribleactonanother,hedegradesnotonlythatpersonsbody; lefthertwochildrenRemelyn(31/2yearsold) 3andKimberly(1
moreimportantly,hedefilesthatpersonsmind.Whenthevictim year old)4at their house in Clib, Hagonoy, Davao del Sur to
is a little child, the act and the perpetrator himself assume a gather pigs food at Bulatukan. At the time, her husband was
bestiality beyond the comprehension of normal human beings. working in Tulunan, South Cotabato. At about 4:00 in the
Yet,thelawmustapplyequallyuponsaintsandsinnersalike, afternoon, Amalia returned home and could not find Remelyn.
eventothemostsalaciousruffian. Shewenttofetchwaterandproceededtoaneighbortoaskabout
BeforeusistheDecision1dated10July2000ofBranch19of the whereabouts of Remelyn. Nobody could provide her any
the Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, finding information. On her way home, she shouted and called out
appellant Rolendo Gaudia2guilty of the crime of rape, meting Remelyns name. At about 6:00 p.m., Amalia heard Remelyn
uponhimthepenaltyofdeath,andorderinghimtopaytoprivate calling out to her, Ma, I am here, from a grove ofipil
complainantRemelynLoyolatheamountsoffiftythousandpesos ipiltrees.5Amalia rushed toward the place, but was met by
(P50,000.00) as moral damages, thirty thousand pesos Remelynatthemangotrees,somethirty(30)metersfromtheir
(P30,000.00)asexemplarydamages,andcostsofsuit.
house.6She found Remelyn crying, naked,nagbakaang(walking
TheInformationfiledagainsttheaccusedappellantreadsas
withherlegsspreadapart)andwithfreshanddriedbloodonher
follows:
body.Ipilipilleavesclungtoherforehead.Bloodwasoozingfrom
her private organ. Amalia brought Remelyn home and washed Police officers came and brought Amalia, Remelyn and two
her. Upon closer inspection, she found a whitish mucuslike barangay officials (kagawads)tothe police precinctofHagonoy
substancecomingfromRemelynsprivateorgan.7 forinvestigation.Amaliasstatementwastaken.12
Thefollowingday,2March1997,AmaliabroughtRemelynto On25March1997,AmaliabroughtRemelyntotheHagonoy
thehouseofacertainTiyaCoring,aquackdoctor,fortreatment. Health Center in Davao del Sur. Dr. Patricio Hernane, the
Amongthepeoplepresentinthepremisesweretherelativesand municipal health officer,13conducted a genital examination of
parentsoftheappellant.8Thequackdoctorfoundbothdriedblood Remelyn,andmadethefollowingfindings:
and fresh blood oozing in Remelyns vagina, and told
Amalia,Hoy!Amalia,yourdaughterwasbeing(sic)raped.9At GENITALEXAMINATION:
about 10:00 a.m., Tulon Mik, a neighbor, came and informed
Amaliathathehadseentheappellantpassbyherhouseandtake AbsenceofPubicHair(TannerStageI).Nocontusionsarenoted
Remelyn.10At this point, the parents of appellant told Amalia, ontheexternalgenitalia.Driedbloodare(sic)notedonthelabia
Mal,letustalkaboutthismatter,wewilljustsettlethis,weare minora. Fresh hymenal lacerations are noted at 12, 3, 6, 10
willingtopaytheamountofP15,000.00,forthecrimethatmy oclock(sic)arenotedwithfreshvaginallacerationnotedatthe
soncommitted.11 posterior commissure but not extending to the perineum. No
lacerationswerenotedattheanalopening.
_______________ Speculumexaminationisnotdonebecauseevenexposureof
thelabiaminoramakethechildcry.(sic)
3
TSN, 5 January 1998, p. 4. According to Amalia Loyola, CONCLUSION:Physicalvirginitylost.14
Remelynwasbornon9August1993. Thedoctoropinedthatthelacerationscouldhavebeencausedby
4
Id.,atp.5. theinsertionofaforeignobject,suchasthepenisofaman. 15On
5
Id.,atp.8. 26March1997,Amaliaexecutedheraffidavitcomplaint. 16Amalia
6
Id.,atp.7. statedthereinthatRemelynhadtoldherBuangLendoyiyakong
7
Id.,atpp.57. lugos.17(Meaning crazy lendoy he forced me in the Visayan
8
TSN,5January1998,p.19. dialect.)Amaliaconfirmedinhertestimonythattwoweeksafter
9
Id.,atp.8. the incident, Remelyn told her, Ma, Lendoy is crazy, she (sic)
10
TSN, 5 January 1998, pp. 1415, and TSN, 26 February broughtmetotheipilipiltrees.18
1998,pp.45. The prosecution also presented Tulon Mik, Remelyns
11
Id.,atp.19. neighbor and a barangaykagawadin their area. Mik testified
525 thaton24March1997,atabout4:00p.m.,heandhiswifewere
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 525 ontheirwayhomeafterregisteringattheCOMELECoffice.They
Peoplevs.Gaudia
were in a hurry as their child was running a fever. Mik saw NationalElections.WithhimwasTotongLoyola,thebrotherin
appellantcar law of Amalia Loyola. They finished at 5:00 p.m., left and
repairedtothehouseofCatalinaCabano,appellantsaunt,toask
_______________ forvinegarfortheirkinilaw(adishcomposedofrawfishsteeped
invinegar).TheyfoundDaylenCabano,thesmallgrandchildof
12
TSN,5January1998,p.8. Catalina, alone at her house. Daylen was crying, hence, they
13
TSN,8December1997,p.4. brought her with them as they proceeded to the place where
14
ExhibitsA2andA3fortheprosecution,alsoExhibit1
Catalina was collectingtuba(fermented coconut wine). It was
Cforthedefense,p.46oftheOriginalRecords.
appellant who carried Daylen.23They reached Catalinas place
15
TSN,8December1997,pp.78.
after5:00p.m.Thereafter,theywenttothehouseofappellant.
16
ExhibitBfortheprosecution,p.5oftheOriginalRecords.
DodoMalonandappellantsparentswereinthehouse.Ataround
17
Id. 9:00 p.m., Totong and Dodo Malon left, after partaking of
18
TSN,5January1998,p.9.
thekinilaw.Appellant stayed home. The following morning (25
526
March1997),appellantandDodoMilonwenttotherivertofish.
526 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Atabout12:00noon,appellantrepairedtothehouseofhisaunt,
Peoplevs.Gaudia VictoriaGayod,inMahayahaytodrinktuba.Hewaslocatedby
rying a small girl in his arms. 19He identified the little girl as thepoliceandinvestigated.24HeclaimedthatitwasDaylenand
Remelyn Loyola, daughter of Amalia Loyola. Appellant and notthevictimRemelynwhomhewascarrying.
Remelynwereontheirwaytowardtheipilipiltrees.20
The next morning, 25 March 1997, at about 7:00 a.m., a _______________
neighbor informed Mik that Remelyn had been raped. He
proceededtothehouseofthequackdoctorwhereAmaliabrought 19
ExhibitDfortheprosecution,p.6oftheOriginalRecords.
Remelynforexamination.AmaliaconfirmedtoMikthatRemelyn 20
TSN,26February1998,pp.45.
hadbeenraped.MiktoldAmaliathatappellantcommittedthe 21
Id.,atp.9.
crime.MiktheninformedBarangayOfficialRodrigoMalud 21and 22
Id.,atp.7.
the othertanodsof the incident. They were instructed tolocate 23
Id.,atpp.610.
the appellant. They passed to the police the information that 24
Id.,atp.10.
appellantwasinBarangayMahayahay.Thepolicemencameand
527
tookappellantforinvestigation.22
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 527
Theappellant,ROLENDOGAUDIA,interposedthedefenseof
alibi.Heaverredthaton24March1997,atabout4:00p.m.,he Peoplevs.Gaudia
wenttotheBarangayCentertoregisterattheCOMELECforthe As corroborative witness, appellant presented Alex Totong
Loyola. Totong testified that on 24 March 1997, at about 4:00
p.m.,theyregisteredasvotersinthebarangay.Afterregistering, (P50,000.00) as moral damages, thirty thousand pesos
theywenthometoappellantshouse,butagainlefttogetvinegar (P30,000.00)asexemplarydamages,andtopaythecostsofsuit.
from his aunt Catalina Cabano, for theirkinilaw.In Catalinas
house,theyfoundherdrunkhusband,her10yearolddaughter, _______________
and her 3year old grandchild Daylen. 25Catalinas daughter 25
TSN,16July1999,p.7.
directed them to the place where she was gatheringtuba.As
Daylen was crying, appellant carried her on their way to
26
Id.,atpp.47.
Catalina. It was then about 4:00 p.m. After Catalina finished
27
Id.,atpp.910.
gatheringtuba,thefourofthemappellant,Totong,Catalinaand
28
TSN,16July1999,pp.1113.
Daylen, left together and repaired to Catalinas house for the
29
Id.,atp.15.
vinegar. Appellant and Totong returned to appellants house 528
where they spent the night.26Totong woke up at 6:00 a.m. the 528 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
followingday,andleftappellantshouse.Totongcametoknowof Peoplevs.Gaudia
appellantsarrestthefollowingday.27 InhisBrief30totheCourt,appellantassignedthefollowingerrors
Catalina Cabano also corroborated appellants story. She inthejudgmentofthetrialcourt:
relatesthaton24March1997,shewasgatheringtuba,ataplace
around 2 kilometers from her house. She left Maritess, her I.
youngest child and Daylen, her grandchild, at her house. 28At
about 5:30 p.m., appellant and Totong arrived. Appellant was THETRIALCOURTERREDINCONVICTINGTHEACCUSED
carrying Daylen. They waited for Catalina to finish APPELLANT, ROLANDO (sic) GAUDIA DESPITE THE FACT
gatheringtubauntil6:00p.m.AppellantandTotongwenttothe THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
formershouse, had adrinking spree, and thenpartedways at REASONABLEDOUBT.
about6:30p.m.Thatnight,accordingtoCatalina,shetalkedto
TulonMikatthepremisesnearthehouse.Mikwaslookingfor II.
Remelyn. At that time, appellant was already at the house of
Catalinasyoungersister,whichislocatedacrosstheriver,about EVEN GRANTING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT
4kilometersaway.29 ACCUSEDAPPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME
After trial, the trial court found that there was sufficient CHARGED,THETRIALCOURTSTILLERREDINIMPOSING
circumstantialevidencetoconvictappellantforthecrimeofrape THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH DESPITE THE
withthequalifyingcircumstancethatthevictimwasbelowseven FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO STATE WITH
years of age. Appellant was sentenced to death and ordered to CERTAINTYTHEQUALIFYINGCIRCUMSTANCEOFAGEIN
indemnify the victim the sums of fifty thousand pesos THEINFORMATION.
Weconvictappellantforsimplerape,andnotforqualifiedrape. ipilipilgrove, withipilipilleaves clinging to her forehead.
Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, Remelynwascryingandwalkingwithherlegsspreadfarapart.
conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence provided Remelyns private organ was bleeding and excreting a white
threerequisitesconcur:(a)thereismorethanonecircumstance; mucuslikesubstance.33
(b)thefacts fromwhichthe inferences are derived are proven; The third circumstantial evidence against appellant is
and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to Remelynsstatementtohermotherthatitwasappellantwhohad
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling case broughthertotheipilipilgrove34andforcedhertodosomething
lawisthatforcircumstantialevidencetobesufficienttosupport againstherwill.35
a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each There is no question that Remelyn was violated. After
other,consistentwiththehypothesisthattheaccusedisguilty, examiningRemelyn,Dr.PatricioHernane,theMunicipalHealth
andatthesametimeinconsistentwiththehypothesisthatheis OfficerofHagonoy,foundhertohaveabrokenhymen,aswellas
innocentandwitheveryotherrationalhypothesisexceptthatof freshvaginallacerations.
guilt.31 From these, theculpability of theappellant can be inferred
Thefirstcircumstantialevidenceagainsttheappellantisthe withmoralcertainty.Alltheaforementionedcircumstanceshave
testimonyofprosecutionwitnessTulonMikthatat4:00p.m.on been indubitably proven, both by the testimonial and
24 March 1997, he saw him carrying Remelyn toward the documentaryevidencepresentedbytheprosecution,andbythe
direction of theipilipilgrove, some 130 meters from her inabilityoftheappellanttodiscredittheirveracity.
house.32AsaneighborandrelativeofRemelynsstepfather,Mik The attempt of appellant to discredit the circumstantial
hadsufficientfamiliaritywiththechildRemelyn.Thepossibility evidence against him is futile. Appellant contends,first, that
thathecouldhavebeenmistakeninidentifyingthevictimisnil. Tulon Miks testimony is weak, on the ground that Mik is a
The second circumstantial evidence against the appellant is relative of the husband of Amalia. 36He also questions the
AmaliastestimonythatRemelynemergednakedfromthesame credibility of Mik because of his failure to confront appellant
when he saw him carrying Remelyn. Neither did Mik inform
_______________ Amalia about what he saw when Amalia was looking for
Remelyn.AppellantinsiststhatitwasDaylenwhomhecarried
30
Rollo,pp.3745.
andnotRemelyn.Second,hestressesthefactthatRemelyndid
31
Peoplev.Gallarde,325SCRA835(2000).
not make any categorical statement that he sexually molested
32
TSN,26February1998,p.11.
her.Third,hemaintainsthattheaccusationofflightagainsthim
529
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 529 is false.Fourth, he avers that the offer of compromise by his
parentsastenderedtoAmaliaLoyolashouldnotbetakenagainst
Peoplevs.Gaudia
him,37while the offer of compromise he allegedly made to
Amaliashusband,asrelayedbyAmaliainhertestimony,should towardtheipilipilgroveonlywhenhelearnedofRemelynsfate.
beexcludedasevidenceforbeinghearsay.38Finally,he But thereafter, he lost no time in reporting the matter to the
barangaychairman.41Asabarangaykagawad,healsoassistedin
_______________ the pursuit and arrest of appellant at Barangay
Mahayahay.42These subsequent actions strengthen Miks
33
TSN,5January1998. credibility.
34
ExhibitBfortheprosecution,p.5oftheOriginalRecords. ThetrialcourtaccordedmorecredencetoMiksnarrationof
35
TSN,5January1998,p.9. the events over the testimonies of Cabano and Loyola. It is a
36
TSN,5January1998,p.6,asquotedinp.7ofAppellants cornerstoneofourjurisprudencethatthetrialjudgesevaluation
Brief,p.38,Rollo. ofthetestimonyofawitnessanditsfactualfindingsareaccorded
37
Sec.28,Rule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourt. not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some
38
Sec.36,Rule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourt. weightycircumstancehasbeenignoredormisunderstoodwhich
530 could alter the result ofthe judgmentrendered. Inthecaseat
530 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED bar,thereisnoirregularityintheassessmentofevidencebythe
Peoplevs.Gaudia lower court. It granted utmost credibility to Miks testimony.
submitsthatinconsistenciesinthetestimonyofAlexLoyolaand Giventhedirectopportunitytoobservethewitnessonthestand,
Cabanoshouldnotbecountedagainsthimonthegroundthatany thetrialjudgewasinavantagepositiontoassesshisdemeanor
finding of guilt must rest on the strength of the prosecutions anddetermineif
evidence.
Werejectappellantsarguments. _______________
First, appellants attempt to discredit the testimony of Mik
cannot succeed. It is true that Mik is a relative by affinity of 39
Peoplevs.Antonio,303SCRA414(1999).
Amalia Loyola. It is hoary jurisprudence, however, that mere 40
TSN,26February1998,p.11.
relationshiptooneoftheparties,withoutashowingofanyother 41
Id.,atp.6.
impropermotive,isnotsufficientbasistoimpairthecredibilityof 42
Id.,atp.7.
thewitness.39Inthecaseatbar,appellantcannotimputeanyill 531
motiveforMiktotestifyadverselyagainsthim.
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 531
AppellantquestionsthefailureofMiktochallengehimwhy
Peoplevs.Gaudia
he was carrying Remelyn. Also, he assails Mik for failing to
informAmaliaLoyolaofsuchasight.Mikhadanexplanationfor he was telling the truth or not. 43The trial court found Miks
theinadvertence.Hesaidhisownchildwasdownwithafever, testimony more worthy of credence over those of Catalina and
andheandhiswifewerehurryinghome. 40Forthissamereason, Loyola.Wehavenoreasontoreverseitsfindings.
he revealed the fact that he saw appellant carrying Remelyn
 Next, appellanttriedto capitalizeonthe factthatRemelyn 43
People vs. Manalo,G.R. Nos. 14498990, 31 January
nevermadeanystatementthathesexuallymolestedher.Thisis 2003,396 SCRA 573;People vs. Glabo,371 SCRA
a specious argument. Remelyn had told her mother, Crazy
567(2001);People vs. Navida,346 SCRA 821(2000);People vs.
Lendoyforcedme.44Remelynwas31/2yearsoldatthetime.At
Valla,323 SCRA 74(2000);People vs. Lopez,302 SCRA
such an infantile age, she could not be expected to have a
comprehensionoftheconceptofrape.Studiesshowthatchildren, 669(1999).
particularlyveryyoungchildren,maketheperfectvictims.They
44
ExhibitBfortheprosecution,p.5oftheOriginalRecords.
naturally follow the authority of adults as the socialization
45
Goldstein,SethL.,TheSexualExploitationofChildren,A
process teaches children that adults are to be respected. The Practical Guide to Assessment, Investigation and Intervention,
childs age and developmental level will govern how much she 2ndEdition,CRCPressLLC:1999.
comprehendsabouttheabuseandthereforehowmuchitaffects 532
her.Ifthechildistooyoungtounderstandwhathashappenedto 532 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
her, the effects will be minimized because she has no Peoplevs.Gaudia
comprehension of the consequences. Certainly, children have will it affect the penalty or the award of damages rendered
moreproblemsinprovidingaccountsofeventsbecausetheydo againsthim.
not understand everything they experience. They do not have Similarly, appellants charge that the offers of compromise
enoughlifeexperiencesfromwhichtodrawuponinmakingsense allegedlymadebytheparentsoftheappellanttoAmalia,andby
ofwhattheysee,hear,taste,smellandfeel.Moreover,theyhave theappellanthimselftoAmaliashusbandshouldnothavebeen
a limited vocabulary.45The fact that Remelyn called appellant takenagainsthimbythetrialcourt,evenifsustained,willnot
Buangorcrazyshowsthathedidsomethingwhichsheknew exculpatehim.Tobesure,theofferofcompromiseallegedlymade
was not right or proper. By saying iya kong lugos, Remelyn byappellanttoAmaliaLoyolashusbandishearsayevidence,and
clearlyconveyedthatheforcedhertodosomethingbad.Withher ofnoprobativevalue.ItwasonlyAmaliawhotestifiedastothe
limitedcomprehension,thechildcouldnothaveaperfectwayof allegedoffer,46andshewasnotapartytotheconversationwhich
relatingthatshehadbeensexuallyabused.Finally,itmustalso allegedlytranspiredattheHagonoyMunicipalJail.Awitnesscan
be considered that there is no actual counterpart for the word onlytestifyonfactswhicharebasedonhispersonalknowledgeor
rapeinVisayanparlance. perception.47The offer of compromise allegedly made by the
Appellantschargethatthetrialcourterredwhenitruledthat appellants parents to Amalia may have been the subject of
hefledarrest,evenifcorrect,isnotpivotaltohisguilt.Thereare testimony48of Amalia. However, following the principle ofres
enoughpiecesofcircumstantialevidencetoconvicthim.Neither interaliosactaalterinocerenondebet,49theactionsofhisparents
cannotprejudicetheappellant,sincehewasnotapartytothe
_______________ saidconversation,norwasitshownthathewasprivytotheoffer
ofcompromisemadebythemtothemotherofthevictim.They
cannot be considered as evidence against appellant but we arenotmeretrivialdetailswhichcouldbeforgottenbywitnesses
reiterate that these errors are not enough to reverse the because of the passage of time. To make matters worse, the
convictionoftheappellant. appellants testimony was, at times, contradicted by his own
Appellantsdefensehardlyimpresses.Itisinterestingtonote witnesses. Particularly telling was the conflict between
thatappellantandhiswitnessesclaimthatitwasataround5:00 appellantsstatementthatTotonghadalreadylefthishouseon
p.m. when appellant carried the child Daylen toward her the night of 24 March 1997 and Totong and Catalinas own
grandmother Catalina at the place where she was avermentsthatTotonghadstayedthenightatappellantshouse.
gatheringtuba.Miktestifiedthatitwasaround4:00p.m.when These contradictory testimonies only made more incredulous
he saw appellant carrying Remelyn toward theipilipilgrove. appellantstale.
Wenowreviewthepenaltyofdeathimposeduponappellant.
Giventhe130meterdistancebetweentheipilipilgroveandthe
In the case at bar, the Information states that appellant, by
housesofappellantandofAmaliaLoyola,appellantcouldhave
means of force and intimidation . . . willfully, unlawfully and
easily taken Remelyn from her house, raped her at theipil feloniously (had) carnal knowledge with Remelyn Loyola,
ipilgrove,andleftherthere,allinamatterofafewminutes. aminor, against her will to her damage and
Sometime past 4:00 p.m., he could then have returned to his
prejudice.50(emphasis ours)The Information did not allege that
house, and together with Alex Loyola, proceeded to the
Remelyn was below seven years old when she was violated.
COMELECofficetoregister,anddidallthesubsequentactshe
Appellantwasthereforechargedwithsimplerape,underSection
claimstohavedone.
335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.
7659(theDeathPenaltyLaw).Uponitspassage,R.A.No.7659
_______________
introduced seven new attendant circumstances, which when
present,willtransformthecrimetoqualifiedrape,punishableby
46
Id.,atp.20.
death.Weagainstressthatthesenewattendantcircumstances
47
Section36,Rule130,RevisedRulesofCourt.
must be properly pleaded in the information to justify the
48
TSN,25January1998,p.19.
impositionofthedeathpenalty.Thefactsstatedinthebodyof
49
AscodifiedinSection28,Rule130,RevisedRulesofCourt.
theinformationdeterminethecrimeforwhichtheaccusedstands
533
charged and for which he must be tried. 51The main purpose of
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 533 requiring all the elements of a crime to be set out in the
Peoplevs.Gaudia information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
The Court also notes the inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be
Catalina and Loyola. The discrepancies in the witnesses informedofthechargesagainsthimand,consequently,adenial
narrationastothetimeofarrivalofappellantattheplacewhere ofdueprocess,ifheischargedwithsimplerapeandbeconvicted
Catalinawasgatheringtuba,histimeofarrivalathisownhouse, of its qualified form punishable with death, although the
andthetimewhenLoyola andappellantactually parted ways, attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in
capitalpunishmentwasnotallegedintheindictmentonwhichhe crime of simple rape, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
wasarraigned.52 ofreclusion perpetua.He is ordered to pay to complainant
RemelynLoyolatheamountsofP50,000.00ascivilindemnityex
_______________
delicto,P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as
50
OriginalRecords,p.2.Emphasisours. exemplarydamages.Costsagainsttheappellant.
51
Peoplevs.LimSan,17Phil.273(1910).
52
Peoplevs.DavidGarcia,281SCRA463(1997).
534
534 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Gaudia
Wenowreviewthedamagesawardedbythetrialcourt.Timeand
again,wehaveruledthatwhenthereisafindingthatrapehad
been committed, the award of civil indemnityex delictois
mandatory.53If the death penalty has been imposed, the
indemnityshouldbeP75,000.00;otherwisethevictimisentitled
to P50,000.00 for each count of rape. 54Thus, the appellant is
ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to
RemelynLoyola.55 VOL.470,SEPTEMBER20,2005 373
Weaffirmtheawardofmoraldamages.Thisisautomatically Doldolvs.People
awardedinrapecaseswithoutneedoffurtherproofotherthan G.R.No.164481.September20,2005.*
thecommissionofthecrime,asitisassumedthatarapevictim
CONRADO C. DOLDOL, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE
hassufferedmoralinjuriesentitlinghertosuchanaward.56
PHILIPPINESand THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,
We alsofindtheaward ofexemplary damages madebythe
respondents.
lower court in favor of complainant as proper because
Criminal Law;Malversation;Evidence;Admissions;Partial
complainanthasbeencorrectlygrantedmoraldamagesandthe
offense against her was committed with the aggravating restitution of the cash shortage is an implied admission of
circumstance57of age. However, the amount awarded must be misappropriation of the missing funds.Except for his bare
reducedtoP25,000.00inlinewithprevailingjurisprudence.58 testimony, the petitioner offered no competent and credible
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the Regional evidence to prove that the missing funds were actually cash
TrialCourt,Branch19,ofDigos,DavaodelSurinCriminalCase advancesofemployeesinthemunicipality.Thepetitionercould
No.213(97)isherebyMODIFIED.Appellantisfoundguiltyofthe haveofferedinevidencethedocumentsevidencingthenamesof
therecipientsandamountsofthecashadvances,butfailedtodo Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. The audit covered the General Fund,
so.Moreover,thepetitionerwrote Special Education Fund and Trust Fundinhiscustody forthe
period of November 30, 1994 to June 8, 1995. Doldol and the
_______________ MunicipalAccountantwerepresentduringtheaudit.TheState
AuditorsdiscoveredthatDoldolhada shortage of P801,933.26.
*
SECONDDIVISION. TheyalsonotedthatonJune5,1995,hemadecashwithdrawals
374 from the municipalitysdeposit accountwiththeLand Bank of
3 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED the Philippines (LBP) amounting to P360,000.59. The
74 withdrawal,purportedlyforsalaries,wages,allowancesandmid
Doldolvs.People yearbonusesofmunicipalofficersandemployees,hadnotbeen
the Provincial Auditor and offered to refund the missing recordedintheGeneralFundCashbookasofJune8,1995.The
funds as follows: P200,000.00 on September 15, 1995, StateAuditorsalsonotedthatDoldolmadeadjustmentsinthe
P200,000.00onorbeforeOctober31,1995,andP884,139.66on said cashbook on June 8, 1995, increasing his P801,933.26
November 30, 1995. He was able to pay only P200,000.00 on shortagetoP1,134,421.54.
September 15, 1995, and failed to remit the balance of his
shortage. Suchpartial restitution of the petitioners of the cash _______________
shortage is an implied admission of misappropriation of the 1
ExhibitA.
missingfunds.
375
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof VOL.470,SEPTEMBER20,2005 375
Appeals. Doldolvs.People
InaLetter datedJuly5,1995,theStateAuditorsdemandedthe
2

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. immediaterefundofthesaidamount,andforDoldoltosubmit
VillamorA.Toleteforpetitioner. within 72 hours a written explanation on the said shortage.
TheSolicitorGeneralforthePeople. Doldol failed to respond and was, thereafter, relieved of his
duties.OnJuly20,1995,hewasdirectedtotransfertheaccount
CALLEJO,SR.,J.: toAssistantMunicipalTreasurerLoidaCancino.
TheStateAuditorsthenconductedanotherauditofthesaid
Conformably to the Memorandum1dated April 6, 1995 of the account,thistimecoveringtheperiodofJune8,1995toJuly19,
ProvincialAuditor,ateamofStateAuditorsledbyStateAuditor 1995. They discovered that Doldol incurred an added cash
EmilieS.Ritua,withStateAuditorsLydiaNaoeandBeverlyT. shortage of P149,905.92. In a Letter to Doldol dated July 27,
Cruz as members, conducted an audit of the cash and cash 1995,theStateAuditorsdemandedtheimmediaterestitutionof
account of Conrado C. Doldol, the Municipal Treasurer of themissingfund,anddirectedhimtosubmitwithin72hoursa
writtenexplanationwhyheincurredsuchshortage.Again,Doldol ThatonoraboutJune8,1995,orsometimepriororsubsequent
failedtorespond.TheStateAuditorssubmittedtheirReportto thereto, in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the
the Provincial Auditor on their examinations showing his jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,CONRADOC.DOLDOL,a
shortages.OnAugust3,1995,theStateAuditorssubmittedtheir publicofficer,beingthentheMunicipalTreasurer,Municipality
Memorandum on the result of the audits to the Provincial of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, and as such accountable for public
Auditor. funds received and/or entrusted to him by reason of his office,
On the same day, Doldol wrote the Provincial Treasurer actinginrelationofhisofficeandtakingadvantageofthesame,
requesting that a reaudit be conducted on his cash and cash didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,useand
account,takingexceptiontothefindingsoftheStateAuditors. benefittheamountofONEMILLIONONEHUNDREDTHIRTY
Insteadofpursuinghisrequestforareaudit,Doldoloptedto FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTYONE PESOS
refundthemissingfunds. OnSeptember15, 1995, heremitted and 54/100 (P1,134,421.54) from such public funds received by
P200,000.00totheActingMunicipalTreasurerforwhichhewas himbyreasonofhisoffice,tothedamageofthegovernmentin
issued Official Receipt No. 436756. Doldol promised to pay the theamountaforestated.
balance of his shortage, as follows: P200,000.00 on October 31, CONTRARYTOLAW.3
1995,andP884,139.66onorbeforeNovember30,1995.However, The second Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. SCC
herenegedonhispromise. 2763,reads:
OnFebruary6,1996,theProvincialAuditortransmittedthe That sometime between June 8, 1995 and July 19, 1995 or
MemorandumandConsolidatedReportoftheStateAuditorsto sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Urbiztondo,
theOmbudsman,andrequestedthatDoldolbe Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
HonorableCourt,CONRADOC.DOLDOL,apublicofficer,being
_______________ then the Municipal Treasurer, Municipality of Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan, and as such accountable for public funds received
2
ExhibitE. and/orentrustedtohimbyreasonofhisoffice,actinginrelation
376 ofhisofficeandtakingadvantageofthesame,didthenandthere
376 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, misappropriate and
Doldolvs.People convert to his personal use and benefit the amount of ONE
chargedformalversationofpublicfunds.Despitetheextensions HUNDREDFORTYNINETHOUSANDNINEHUNDREDFIVE
giventohim,Doldolfailedtofilehiscounteraffidavit. PESOSand92/100(P149,905.92)fromsuchpublicfundsreceived
Twoinformationsformalversationofpublicfundswerethen byhimbyreasonofhisoffice,tothedamageofthegovernmentin
filed against Doldol in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San theamountaforestated.
CarlosCity.ThefirstInformation,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.
SCC2760,reads: _______________
 3
Rollo,pp.5455. imposed upon him which includes perpetual absolute
377 disqualification(Art.41,Rev.PenalCode)andtopaythecosts.
VOL.470,SEPTEMBER20,2005 377 SOORDERED.5
Doldolvs.People OnappealtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),Doldolalleged:
CONTRARYTOLAW.4
Doldol testified that the funds which the State Auditors found 1. 1.Thatthetrialcourterredinrejectingthedefensesput
missingwere,infact,cashadvancesavailedofbythemunicipal upbytheaccusedasfollows:
employees.Heinsistedthatnotasinglecentavowasusedforhis
personalbenefit.Heaverredthatthechargeslodgedagainsthim _______________
wereprematurebecausethesamewerebasedonanincomplete
audit. 4
Id.,atpp.5758.
InaJointDecision,thetrialcourtconvictedtheaccusedofthe 5
Rollo,pp.8788.
crimescharged.Thefalloofthedecisionreads: 378
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theaccusedConradoDoldol 378 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
ishereby foundguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt ofthe crimeof Doldolvs.People
MalversationofPublicFundsinCriminalCaseNo.SCC2760and
inCriminalCaseNo.SCC2763,asdefinedandpenalizedbyArt. 1. a.The evidence shows that the audits were not yet
217oftheRevisedPenalCode.Inbothcases,theamountinvolved completedwhenthelettersofdemandwereservedupon
is more than P22,000.00, as such the penalty to be imposed himtoproducetheallegedmissingfunds.
isreclusiontemporalinitsmaximumperiodtoreclusionperpetua.
Considering that the accused surrendered to the police in 2. b.He was not given the chance to further verify the
Urbiztondo,Pangasinan(SeeExh.4)andbeingentitledtothe recordsdespitehisrequesttothateffect.
provision of [the] Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby
sentencedtosufferanindeterminatepenaltyof10years,1day 3. c.Thereisnoevidencethathetookthemoneyfromthe
ofprisionmayorasminimumto18years,8monthsofreclusion vaultorbroughtithome.
temporalas maximum in each of the two cases. Further, he is
orderedtopaytheamountofP1,134,421.54inCriminalCaseNo. d.Themissingfunds,ifany,werecashadvancesofcertain
SCC2760andanotheramountofP149,905.92inCriminalCase municipalemployees.
No. SCC2763 minus, of course, his advance payment of
P200,187.80. In addition, he should be made to suffer the 4. e.Hishavingborrowedmoneyfromthebanknegatesthe
accessory penalties corresponding to the principal penalty chargeofmisappropriationofpublicfunds.
 1. 2.That the trial court erred in convicting the accused 7
Rollo,p.15.
based on the testimonies of the auditors and the 379
documentaryevidenceadducedbythem. VOL.470,SEPTEMBER20,2005 379
Doldolvs.People
2. 3.Thatthetrialcourterredinsentencingtheaccusedto depositsofthemunicipality.ThepetitionerinsiststhattheState
suffer the penalties imposed by the assailed joint Auditorsdidnotsubmitanybankreconciliationstatement.The
decision.6 petitionerarguesthathewasnevergivenachancetoexplainand
pointoutthathedidnotincuranyshortageofpublicfunds,and
OnFebruary11,2001,theCArenderedjudgmentaffirmingthe thatthechargesagainsthimshouldbedismissed.Tobolsterhis
appealed decision, and, likewise, denied Doldols motion for claim, he cites the ruling of this Court inDumagat v.
reconsiderationthereof. Sandiganbayan8andSection560oftheManualofInstructionsto
Doldol,nowthepetitioner,forthwithfiledthepresentpetition Treasurers and Auditors and other Guidelines to bolster his
forreviewoncertiorari,faultingtheCAasfollows: claim.
Thepetitionerassertsthattheprosecutionfailedtoprovethat
1. 1.In affirming the joint decision of the Regional Trial thepublicfundswereforhispersonaluse.Infact,thepetitioner
Court,Branch56,SanCarlosCity,PangasinaninCrim. insists,theevidenceshowsthattheallegedmissingfundswere
CaseNos.SCC2760andSCC2763; unliquidated cashadvancesofemployees. Hence, thepetitioner
concludes,theprimafaciepresumptionunderthelastparagraph
2. 2.Inconvictingtheaccusedpetitioneronthebasisofan ofArticle217oftheRevisedPenalCodedoesnotapply.
erroneousandincompleteaudit; In its comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor
General(OSG)assertsthattheissuesraisedbythepetitionerare
3. 3.In not dismissing the cases against the accused factualand,underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,onlyquestionsof
petitioner.7 lawmayberaised.TheOSGpositsthatthefindingsoffactsof
the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this
The petitioner reiterates his arguments that the audit of his Court, absent a showing that the trial court ignored,
accountabilities had not been completed because the State misconstrued or misunderstood cogent facts and circumstances
Auditorshadyettoconductaverificationoftheirinitialfindings which,ifconsidered,wouldchangetheoutcomeofthecase.The
basedonthecashbookandareconciliationofthebank OSG maintains that the prosecution adduced proof beyond
reasonabledoubtthatthepetitionermalversedthepublicfunds
_______________ subject of the two Informations. Moreover, the petitioners
contentionthatthechargesagainsthimwerepremature,because
6
Id.,atp.64. theauditofhisaccountabilitieshadnotyetbeencompletedand
he was not given a chance to explain the whereabouts of the discovered if only the auditor took into consideration the
subjectfundsbeforethesaidchargeswerefiled,isbeliedbythe contentsofthetwovaultsinSindanganandTampisilanandthe
factthatheevenmadeapartialrestitutionofthepublicfunds. factthathercollectioninDipologCityweredepositedwiththe
The OSG notes that as found by the trial court, thepetitioner NFAcashier.Intheinstantcase,therewassufficientcompliance
evenfailedtospecifythe withtheManualof Instructions toTreasurersandAuditorsas
thetwo(2)auditingteamshadcompletedtheirexaminationand,
_______________ thereafter, required herein petitioner to produce or explain the
shortagesoffundsinhiscustody.Notwithstandingthedemand
8
G.R.No.96915,3July1992,211SCRA171. for him to explain the shortages, petitioner totally disregarded
380 thesameandfurtherfailedtoproduceupondemandthemissing
380 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED fundsamountingtoP1,134,421.54andP149,905.92.Therewas,
Doldolvs.People thus, nothing leftfor the team ofauditorsto dointheinstant
namesoftheemployeeswhoweregrantedcashadvancesandthe case. If at all, State Auditor Ritua requested for the return of
accountsofthesaidadvances.Itfurtheraversthattherulingof petitioners cashbook and passbooks merely to reconcile and
thisCourtinDumagatv.Sandiganbayan9doesnotapplybecause: confirmthecorrectnessoftheirfindings.10
Inhisvainattempttoexculpatehimselffromcriminalliability, Thepetitionhasnomerit.
petitionerinvokesthedoctrineestablishedinDumagatvs.Sandi
_______________
ganbayan, et al., [211 SCRA 171, 177 (1992)], wherein this
Honorable Court acquitted the accused of the crime of 9
Ibid.
malversation of public funds, holding that [s]ince the audit 10
Rollo,pp.139140.
examinationleftmuchtobedesiredintermsofthoroughnessand
381
completenessastherewereaccountswhichwerenotconsidered,
thesamecannotbemadethebasisforholdingpetitionerliablefor VOL.470,SEPTEMBER20,2005 381
malversation. Doldolvs.People
It is submitted that the ruling inDumagat vs. The evidence on record shows that the team of State Auditors
conducteditsfirstauditofcashandcashaccountsoftheGeneral
Sandiganbayan(supra)isnotapplicabletotheinstantcaseasthe
Fund,SpecialEducationFundandTrustFundinthecustodyof
twocasesarebasedondifferentfactualcircumstances.
the petitioner, and discovered that he had a shortage of
Inthefirstplace,inDumagatvs.Sandiganbayan(supra,atp. P1,134,421.54.11
178),therewasafindingthatthehaphazardexaminationofthe InaLetter12datedJuly5,1995,theStateAuditorsdemanded
cash accountability of petitioner was made by the auditor in that the petitioner immediately produce the missing funds. He
violation of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and was also required to submit within 72 hours a written
Auditors and that the missing funds would have been explanation why the shortage occurred. In the meantime, the
State Auditors conducted another audit of the cash and cash was not barred from examining and receiving the same,
accountsofthepetitioner during theperiodofJune 8, 1995 to preparatory to the submission of his explanation to the State
July 19, 1995, and he was found to have a shortage of Auditorsdemandletters.Indeed,thepetitionerwasevenableto
P149,905.92. The petitioner was informed of the results of the writetheProvincialTreasureronAugust3,1995,andrequested
auditinaLetterdatedJuly27,1995,wherehewasdirectedto his objection to such findings. The following findings and
refund his shortage of P149,905.92 and to submit a written ratiocinationoftheCA,assupportedbytheevidenceonrecord,
explanation thereon within 72 hours.13However, the petitioner negatethesubmissionofthepetitioner:
failed to respond to such demand, and failed to object to the . . . [T]he records at the depository banks confirmed the
findingsandconclusionsoftheStateAuditors.Itbearsstressing correctness of the COAs findings that there were, indeed,
thatthepetitionerwaspresentduringthesaidaudit. shortagesinthefundsunderappellantscontrol,thus,rendering
Whileitistruethatthepetitionerrequestedforareauditon appellants request for a reaudit as a mere superfluous and
August3,1995andobjectedtosomeofthefindingsoftheaudit redundant procedure (TSN, Amando T. Sison; Emelie
team,headdressedtheletterrequesttotheProvincialTreasurer, Ritua,supra).
andnotto the Provincial AuditorofPangasinan. Wenotethat Appellants contention that he was not given the chance to
whiletheProvincialAuditorhadalreadysignedtheTransmittal verify the records under audit despite a request to that effect
LetterdatedAugust3,1995ontheStateAuditorsReportand deserves scant consideration. The records show that appellant
requestforthepetitionersprosecutionformalversationofpublic wastwiceaffordedampleopportunitytoreplenishthefundsor
funds,itwasfiledonlyonFebruary6,1996.Inthemeantime,the explainthereasonforitsdisappearance.Verily,thiscouldhave
ProvincialAuditorneverreceivedanyletterfromthepetitioner been the perfect opportunity for the appellant to verify the
requestingforareauditofhisaccount. recordsandprovideanacceptablereasonbehindtheshortagesin
the municipal funds under his custody. Appellant, however, on
_______________ bothinstancesfailedtoreplytothedemandsgivenbytheCOA.
For having refused to face the music, so to speak, and
11
ExhibitF. disregarded the demands sent by the COA, appellant has only
12
ExhibitE. himselftoblameifhehaslostanyopportunitytofurtherverify
13
Ibid. thefinancialrecordsofthemunicipality.14
382 The record of the Ombudsman shows that the petitioner was
382 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED requiredtosubmithiscounteraffidavit,butrequestedfortimeto
Doldolvs.People doso,onhisrepresentationthathisrequesttotheCommission
Admittedly, State Auditor Ritua conducted an audit of the onAuditforareauditwasstillpending.Itturnedoutthatthe
General Fund, the Special Education Fund and Trust Fund petitionermadenosuchrequest.Moreover,thepetitionerfailed
Passbook,andtheLBPandDBPPassbooksonJuly11,1995for to submit his counteraffidavit to the Ombudsman. Thus, the
verificationandreconciliationpurposes.However,thepetitioner petitionerssubmissionthatthe
_______________ Evidence,Weholdthatsaidpayment,particularlywhentakenin
conjunction with appellants commitment to gradually pay the
Rollo,pp.3839.
14
remainder of the missing funds, is a clear offer of compromise
383 which must be treated as an implied admission of appellants
VOL.470,SEPTEMBER20,2005 383 guilt that he embezzled or converted the missing funds to his
Doldolvs.People personaluse.15
auditofhisaccounthadnotbeencompletedbeforethereportof
theStateAuditorswasreferredtotheOmbudsmanisnotcorrect. _______________
Except for his bare testimony, the petitioner offered no
competentandcredibleevidencetoprovethatthemissingfunds Rollo,p.40.
15

were actually cash advances of employees in the municipality. 384

The petitioner could have offered in evidence the documents 384 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
evidencingthenamesoftherecipientsandamountsofthecash ManlySportwearManufacturing,Inc.vs.DadodetteEnterprises
advances,butfailedtodoso.Moreover,thepetitionerwrotethe INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionisDENIED
Provincial Auditor and offered to refund the missing funds as forlackofmerit.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
follows: P200,000.00 onSeptember15, 1995, P200,000.00 onor CRNo.25845isAFFIRMED.Costsagainstthepetitioner.
beforeOctober31,1995,andP884,139.66onNovember30,1995. SOORDERED.
HewasabletopayonlyP200,000.00onSeptember15,1995,and Puno(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,TingaandChico
failed to remit the balance of his shortage. Such partial Nazario,JJ.,concur.
restitutionofthepetitionersofthecashshortageisanimplied Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
admissionofmisappropriationofthemissingfunds.Therulingof
Notes.The act of encashing a check intended for a
theCAonthismatteriscorrect:
particular project and subsequently using the money for some
AsWehavealreadystatedhereinabove,onSeptember15,1995,
other purpose constitutes misappropriation. (Nizurtado vs.
not too long after the shortages in the municipal funds were
discovered,appellantmadeapartialpayment/settlementinthe Sandiganbayan,239SCRA33[1994])
amountof200,187.80pesosasevidencedbyOfficialReceiptNo. Oneessentialelementofthecrimeofmalversationisthata
436756(Exhibit8,Record,VolumeIII,p.6).Withrespecttothe public officer must take public funds, money or property, and
balanceofthemissingfunds,appellantpromisedtopaythesame misappropriateitforhisownprivateuseorbenefit.(Aquinovs.
ininstallmentbasis.Appellant,though,failedtocomplywithhis Olivares,399SCRA475[2003])
undertaking(Record,VolumeI,p.457;TSN,AmandoT.Sison,
July 27, 1998, pp. 3233). Said payment is of no moment and o0o
couldnothavelegallybroughtacquittalfortheappellant.Onthe
contrary, as guided by Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules on
 Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights therightsenumeratedintheconstitutionalprovisionexistonlyin
reserved. custodial interrogations, or incustody interrogation of accused
persons.It is wellsettled that the foregoing legal formalities
requiredbythefundamentallawofthelandapplyonlytoextra
judicialconfessionsoradmissionsobtainedduring

_______________

10
Gonzalesvs.CourtofAppeals,268SCRA322(1998).
*
THIRDDIVISION.
420
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
20
Ladianavs.People
custodialinvestigations. Indeed, the rights enumerated in
theconstitutionalprovisionexistonlyincustodialinterrogations,
orincustodyinterrogationofaccusedpersons.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Definition.Custodial
interrogationis the questioning initiated by law enforcement
officersafterapersonhasbeentakenintocustodyorotherwise
deprivedofhisfreedomofactioninanysignificantway.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Distinguished from Preliminary
Investigation; Definition.Apreliminary investigationis an
inquiryoraproceedingtodeterminewhetherthereissufficient
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 419
groundtoengenderawellfoundedbeliefthatacrimehasbeen
Ladianavs.People committed,andthattherespondentisprobablyguiltythereofand
G.R.No.144293.December4,2002.* shouldbeheldfortrial.
JOSUE R. LADIANA, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;The Court has
PHILIPPINES,respondent. unequivocally declared that a defendant on trial or under
Criminal Law;Homicide;Rights of the Accused;Custodial preliminaryinvestigationisnotundercustodialinterrogation.
Investigations;ExtraJudicialConfessionsorAdmissions;Indeed, Evidently,apersonundergoingpreliminaryinvestigationbefore
the public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under ofRule130oftheRevisedRulesonEvidencedistinguishonefrom
custodial investigation. In fact, this Court has unequivocally theotherasfollows:SEC.26.Admissionsofaparty.Theact,
declared that a defendant on trial or under preliminary declarationoromissionofapartyastoarelevantfactmaybe
investigationisnotundercustodialinterrogation.Itexplainedas given in evidence against him. SEC. 33.Confession.The
follows: His [accused] interrogation by the police, if any there declarationofanaccusedacknowledginghisguiltoftheoffense
hadbeenwouldalreadyhavebeenendedatthetimeofthefiling charged, or ofanyoffense necessarily includedtherein, maybe
of the criminal case in court (or the public prosecutors office). given in evidence against him. In a confession, there is an
Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case already acknowledgment of guilt; in an admission, there is merely a
pending in court (or the public prosecutors office), there is no statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgment of
occasiontospeakofhisrightwhileundercustodialinterrogation
guiltorofthecriminalintenttocommittheoffensewithwhichone
laiddownbythesecondandsubsequentsentencesofSection20,
ischarged.
ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution[nowSection12,ArticleIIIof
Same;Same;Same;Admissions;Ingeneral,admissionsmay
the1987Constitution],fortheobviousreasonthatheisnolonger
undercustodialinterrogation. berebuttedbyconfessingtheiruntruthorbyshowingtheywere
Same;Same;Same;The accusedwhether in court or made by mistake.In general, admissions may be rebutted by
undergoingpreliminaryinvestigationbeforethepublicprosecutor confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by
mistake. The party may also establish that the response that
unquestionablypossessrightsthatmustbesafeguarded.The
formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious,
accusedwhether in court or undergoing preliminary
manner;orthattheadmissionwasmadeinignoranceofthetrue
investigation before the public prosecutorunquestionably
state of facts. Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization
possess rights that must be safeguarded. These include: 1) the
why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving them
righttorefusetobemadewitnesses;2)therightnottohaveany
unrebutted.Inaddition,admissionsmadeunderoath,asinthe
prejudice whatsoever imputed to them by such refusal; 3) the
caseatbar,areevidenceofgreatweightagainstthedeclarant.
righttotestifyontheirownbehalf,subjecttocrossexamination
Theythrowonhimtheburdenofshowingamistake.
bytheprosecution;and4)whiletestifying,therighttorefuseto
Same;Same;Justifying Circumstances;SelfDefense;It is
answer a specific question that tends to incriminate them for
somecrimeotherthanthatforwhichtheyarebeingprosecuted. hornbookdoctrinethatselfdefensemustbeprovedwithcertainty
421 by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 421 any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person
Ladianavs.People invoking it.It is hornbook doctrine that selfdefense must be
Same;Same;Evidence;Admissions Distinguished from proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing
Confessions;Sections26and33ofRule130oftheRevisedRules evidencethatexcludesanyvestigeofcriminalaggressiononthe
part of theperson invoking it. It cannot be entertained ifit is
onEvidencedistinguishonefromtheother.Sections26and33
uncorroboratedbyanyseparateandcompetentevidence,anditis competent and independent counsel during
also doubtful. The question whether the accused acted in self acustodialinvestigation.However,acounteraffidavitvoluntarily
defenseisessentiallyaquestionoffactproperlyevaluatedbythe presented by the accused during thepreliminaryinvestigation,
lowercourt;inthiscase,theSandiganbayan. evenifmadewithouttheassistanceofcounsel,maybeusedas
Same;Same;Mitigating Circumstances;Voluntary evidenceagainsttheaffiant.
Surrender;Elements.For voluntary surrender to mitigate TheCase
criminal liability, the following elements must concur: 1) the BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewunderRule45oftheRulesof
offender has not been actually arrested, 2) the offender Court,assailingtheApril10,2000Decision1andAugust4,2000
surrenders himself to a person in authority or to the latters Resolution2of theSandiganbayan(First Division) in Criminal
agent, and 3) the surrender is voluntary. To be sufficient, the CaseNo.16988.ThedispositiveportionoftheassailedDecision
surrender must be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly readsasfollows:
indicatingtheintentoftheaccusedtosurrenderunconditionally, WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
eitherbecausethey JOSUE R. LADIANA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
422 crime of homicide and, in the absence of any modifying
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED circumstance, sentencing the said accused to: (a) suffer an
22 indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of ten (10) years
Ladianavs.People ofprisionmayor,asminimum,toseventeen(17)yearsandfour
acknowledgetheirguiltorwishtosavetheauthoritiesthe (4)monthsofreclusiontemporal,asmaximum[;](b)sufferallthe
trouble and the expense that will necessarily be incurred in
searchingforandcapturingthem. _______________

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution 1
AnnexAofthePetition;Rollo,pp.7185.PennedbyJustice
oftheSandiganbayan. Gregory S. Ong with the concurrence of Justices Francis E.
Garchitorena(thenDivisionchairmanandpresidingjustice)and
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. CatalinoR.Castaeda,Jr.(member).
JoseA.AlmoandAngelR.PurisimaIIIforpetitioner. 2
AnnexCofthePetition;id.,pp.93101.
TheSolicitorGeneralforthePeople. 423
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 423
PANGANIBAN,J.: Ladianavs.People
appropriateaccessorypenaltiesconsequentthereto;(c)indemnify
TheConstitutionbarstheadmissioninevidenceofanystatement theheirsofthevictim,FranciscoSanJuan,inthetotalamountof
extractedbythepolicefromtheaccusedwithouttheassistanceof
FiftySixThousandFiveHundredPesos(P56,500.00);and(d)pay thatthelatterhasnobusinessinstoppinghim,saidaccusedwho
thecosts.3 wasarmedwithafirearm,withintenttokillandwithtreachery,
The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack
Reconsideration. andsho[o]tFran
Petitioner was originally charged with murder before
theSandiganbayanin an Information4dated August 5, 1991. _______________
However,theantigraftcourtissuedanOrder 5datedOctober14,
1991, noting that besides the allegation that the crime was
3
SandiganbayanDecision,p.13;id.,p.84.
allegedly committed by the accused while he was taking
4
Records,pp.12.
advantage of his official position, nothing else is in the 5
Id.,p.56.
Information to indicate this fact so that, as the Information 6
Id.,pp.8889.ThiswassignedbySpecialProsecutionOfficer
stands, nothing except a conclusion of fact exists to vest FidelD.GalindezandapprovedbythenOmbudsmanConradoM.
jurisdiction[in]thisCourtovertheaccusedandoverthecrimefor Vasquez.
whichheischarged. 424
Further, the Order gave the government sufficient time to 424 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
amend the Information to show adequate facts to vest
Ladianavs.People
theSandiganbayanwithjurisdictionoverthecase.Subsequently, ciscoSanJuanwiththefirearmhittingFranciscoSanJuanathis
anAmendedInformation,6stillchargingpetitionerwithmurder, headandneckinflictinguponhimfatalwoundstherebycausing
was filed on April 1, 1992. The accusatory portion reads as thedeathofFranciscoSanJuan.7
follows: DuringhisarraignmentonMay8,1992,petitioner,assistedby
That on or about the 29th day of December 1989, in the
his counselde parte,8pled not guilty.9After due trial,
Municipality of Lumban, Laguna, Philippines, and within the
theSandiganbayanfoundhimguiltyofhomicide,notmurder.
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,a
public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National TheFacts
Police (INP now PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, In their Memoranda, both the prosecution and the defense
Lumban,Laguna,actinginrelationtohisdutywhichisprimarily substantially relied upon theSandiganbayans narration of the
to enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking factsasfollows:
advantageofhisofficialpositionconfrontedFranciscoSanJuan Theprosecutionpresentedfive(5)witnesses,namely:CaridadM.
why the latter was removing the steel pipes which were San Juan, PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda, Dr. Rogelio M. Javan, SPO2
previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of Percival A. Gabinete, and Maria T. Cortez. Their respective
vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac, Lumban, testimonies,inessenceareasfollows,towit:
Laguna,purposelytoinsurethesafetyofpersonspassingalong 1. CARIDAD MARGALLO SAN JUAN (hereinafter,
the said street and when Francisco San Juan told the accused Caridad) declared that she is the wife of Francisco San Juan
(hereinafter Francisco), the victim in the case atbar. Caridad before police investigator PFC Virgilio Halili (hereinafter,
testifiedthatFranciscowastheBarangayCaptainofBarangay Halili).
Salac,Lumban,Laguna,untilhewasshotandkilledbyaccused Additionally,CaridadpresentedtheDeathCertificateofher
Ladiana, who happens to be also a distant relative of the husband and testified that he was eventually buried at the
decedent. Lumban Cemetery. She declared that she had incurred about
Caridadrecountedthat,onDecember29, 1989, shewasin TwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)forthefuneral,burialand
herhousewhenanunidentifiedwomancameandtoldherthat otherincidentalexpensesbyreasonofthedeathofFrancisco.
her husband was killed by accused Ladiana. She immediately On crossexamination, Caridad testified that, on December
calleduphersisterinlawbeforerushingtoJacintoStreetwhere 29, 1989, she was in her house and that she did not hear any
thegruesomeincidentallegedlytranspired.Thereat,manypeople gunshot between 10:30 and 11:00 oclock a.m. Caridad also
were milling around, and Caridad saw the lifeless body of admittedshedidnotwitnessthekillingofherhusband.
Franciscolyinginthemiddleoftheroadandbeingexaminedby On questions propounded by the Court, Caridad narrated
[SPO2]PercivalA.Gabinete. thatherhusbandsufferedtwogunshotwoundsoneontheupper
Caridadrecalledthatitwasaround11:00oclocka.m.when righttempleandtheotherontheleftcheek.However,Caridad
she reached the place of the subject incident. At that point in statedthatshewastoldthatthewoundsweretheentryandthe
time,shewasnotevenallowedbythepolicetotouch,muchless exitpoints.ShealsotoldtheCourtthatherhusbandwaswearing
get near to, the cadaverof Francisco. Caridad, expectedly, was short pants at the time of his death and that she found some
cryingandoneofherauntsadvisedhertogohome. bruisesonhisknees.
Finally,Caridadrecalledthat,onthedateoftheincident,her
_______________ husbandwaswithhisclosefriend,acertainRodolfoCabrera,and
someotherpersons,andthattheywenttoJacintoStreettorepair
7
AmendedInformation,p.1;id.,p.88. thesteelhumpswhichwereusedtoblockthestreetduringschool
8
Atty.BalagtasP.Ilagan. daysfortheprotectionandsafetyoftheschoolchildren.
9
SeeCertificateofArraignment;Records,p.100. 2.PO2LEOPOLDODERAMOSCACALDA,JR.(hereinafter,
425 CACALDA) declared that he is a policeman assigned at the
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 425 Lumban Police Station in Lumban, Laguna. He has been
designatedastheradiooperatorofthestationsince1989.
Ladianavs.People
Cacalda recounted that, on December 29, 1989, at around
Caridadmaintainedthatshewasawarethatherhusbandwas
11:00 oclock a.m., somebody, whose name he could no longer
killed by accused Ladiana because this was what the woman
recall, reported to him about an existing trouble along Jacinto
actuallytoldher.Moreover,accusedLadianahadgivenhimself
Street in Barangay Salac. Cacalda responded by going to the
uptothepoliceauthorities.
scene,wherehewasaccompaniedbyAlbertoMercado,amember
Caridadwentontonarratethat,onDecember30,1989,she
of the CAGFIL. Thereat, Cacalda saw the lifeless body of
wasatthepolicestation,whereshegaveherwrittenstatement
Franciscolyingfaceupontheroad.Cacaldadidnotexaminethe Javan recounted that he was the one who performed the
bodyofFrancisco.Helefttheplaceoftheincidentwhen[SPO2] necropsyonthecadaverofFranciscoandthathehadprepared
PercivalA.Gabineteandotherpolicemensubsequentlyarrived. the corresponding reports and/or documents relating thereto.
Cacalda had gathered from the people milling around the Javan made a sketch representing the anterior and posterior
bodyofFranciscothatitwasaccusedLadianawhoshotandkilled views of the body of Francisco, and labeled and placed red
Francisco. markingsonthegunshotwoundsfoundonthesaidcadaver.The
426 markingGunshotwoundAisthepointofentry,whichisone(1)
426 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED centimeterindiameterandsituatedtwo(2)inchesbehindtheleft
Ladianavs.People ear. The marking Gunshot wound B is the point of exit of
CacaldaimmediatelylefttolookforaccusedLadiana.However, GunshotwoundA,whichistwo(2)centimetersindiameterand
heeventuallysawaccusedLadianaalreadyinsidethejailofthe foundabovetherightcheekboneandone(1)inchbelowtheright
police station and thereafter learned that said accused had eye.Javanalsotestifiedthatthereisanothergunshotwoundand
surrenderedtothepoliceauthority. thepointofentryandexitarelabeledasGunshotwoundCand
CacaldarecalledthathewaslateroninvestigatedbyHalili GunshotwoundD,respectively.GunshotwoundDisoneand
becausehewastherespondingpolicemanwhowenttothescene onehalf (11/2) centimeters in diameter and located at the left
of the incident. Consequently, Cacalda executed a written cheek,threeandonehalf(31/2)centimetersbelowthelefteye,
statementinrelationtothesubjectincident. whileGunshotwoundCisone(1)centimeterindiameterand
Oncrossexamination,Cacaldatestifiedthathewasaradio foundattherightlateralaspectoftheneck,atthelevelofthe
operator and not an investigator of the police station. He also adamsapple.
testifiedthathedidnotwitnesstheincidentsubjectmatterofthe AccordingtoJavan,theassailantmustbebehindthevictim
caseatbar. whenheinflictedGunshotwoundA.AsregardsGunshotwound
Cacaldawentontotestifythatthepeoplemillingaroundthe C,theassailantlikewisemustbebehindthevictim,atadistance
placeoftheincidenttoldhimthataccusedLadianahadalready ofmorethantwentyfour(24)inchesaway.
left.Becauseofthisdevelopment,Cacaldaproceededtoaccused 427
Ladianaa house but was told that he had already gone to the VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 427
police station. Cacalda accordingly went to the police station Ladianavs.People
wherehesawaccusedLadianaalreadylockedinsidethejail.He Lastly,Javantestifiedthathewasnotabletoretrieveanybullet
alsosawastabwoundonaccusedLadianasrightbicepbuthedid during the examination. However, judging from the size of the
notanymoreaskhimhowhesustainedthesaidinjury. woundandthepointofentry,Javanopinedthatthefirearmused
3.DR.ROGELIOJAVANyMAGRACIA(hereinafter,Javan) wasprobablyacaliber38.
declaredthatheisaphysicianandtheMunicipalHealthOfficer OnquestionspropoundedbytheCourt,Javantestifiedthat
ofLumban,Laguna. Gunshot wound A could have been fired first because the
trajectoryisonthesamelevelsomuchsothattheassailantand
the victim could have been both standing. Javan inferred that After the presentation of Cortez, the prosecution filed its
GunshotwoundCcouldhavebeeninflictedwhilethevictimwas formalofferofevidenceandresteditscase.
alreadyfallingdown.Javanthenstressedthatbothwoundsare OnMay31,1995,thisCourtissuedaresolutionadmittingall
fatalinnature. thedocumentaryevidencesubmittedbytheprosecution.
4. SPO2 PERCIVAL AMBROSIO GABINETE (hereinafter, 428
Gabinete)declaredthatheisapoliceofficerandaresidentofNo. 428 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
4055VillaJosefinaSubdivision,Sta.Cruz,Laguna. Ladianavs.People
ThetestimonyofGabinetewassubsequentlydispensedwith, OnAugust20,1996,accusedLadianafiledaMotionforLeaveof
upontheadmissionofthedefensethathewaspartofthegroupof Court to File Demurrer to Evidence dated August 16, 1995,
policemenwhoproceededtotheplaceofthesubjectincidentand claiming that: (i) a review of the documentary and testimonial
that he found the body of Francisco lying along the road. evidenceadducedbytheprosecutionallegedlyfailedtoshowthat
Additionally, the defense admitted the existence of the receipt the accused is guilty of the offense charged; (ii) at best, the
issuedbyFunerariadeMesadatedJanuary3,1990inthesumof evidencesubmitted by the prosecution areallegedly hearsay in
SixThousandFiveHundredPesos(P6,500.00). character,consideringthatthesupposedeyewitnessintheperson
5. MARIO TALAVERA CORTEZ (hereinafter, Cortez) of Rodolfo Cabrera was never presented in court; and (iii) the
declaredthatheisaretiredAssistantProsecutorofLaguna. prosecutionwasallegedlymerelyabletoprovethefactofdeathof
PriortotheconductoftheexaminationinchiefonCortez,the the victim, but not the identity of the person who caused said
defense counsel made an admission as to the authorship, death.
authenticity,and voluntarinessoftheexecutionofthecounter OnAugust23,1996,thisCourtissuedanOrderofevendate
affidavitofaccusedLadiana,whichwassubscribedandswornto holding that the filing of a demurrer to evidence is no longer
beforeCortez.Insaidcounteraffidavit,accusedLadianaallegedly appropriateconsideringthataccusedLadianareceivedacopyof
admitted to making the fatal shots on Francisco. However, thisCourtsresolutiondatedMay31,1995ontheadmissionof
accusedLadianaallegedlydidsoinselfdefenseasFranciscowas theprosecutionsdocumentaryexhibitsasearlyasMay25,1995.
then purportedly attacking accused Ladiana and had, in fact, On September 2, 1996, in view of his perception that the
alreadyinflictedastabwoundonthearmofaccusedLadiana. evidencesubmittedbytheprosecutionisallegedlyinadequateto
However, Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who sustaina conviction, accused Ladiana, through counsel, waived
conductedthe preliminaryinvestigationof thecomplaint which hisrighttopresentcontrovertingevidence.Instead,heaskedfor
ledtothefilingofthesubjectcase.Additionally,Corteztestified timetofileawrittenmemorandum.Thus,bothpartiesweregiven
thathewouldnotbeabletoanymorerecognizethefaceofthe timewithinwhichtodoso,afterwhichthecaseshallbedeemed
affiant in the said counteraffidavit, but maintained that there submittedforresolution.
was a person who appeared and identified himself as Josue Thereafter,thisCourtreceivedonOctober25,1996bymail
Ladianabeforeheaffixedhissignatureonthecounteraffidavit. theMemorandumforthedefense.Asfortheprosecution,itopted
nottofileany.10(Citationsomitted)
RulingoftheSandiganbayan prosecutor who had administered the oath on the
TheSandiganbayanruledthattheprosecutionhadbeenableto Counteraffidavitfiledbypetitioneraccused.
establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The
courta quoheld that his CounterAffidavit,11in which he had 2. II.Whether or not the prosecution has presented proof
admittedtohavingfiredthefatalshotsthatcausedthevictims beyondreasonabledoubttoovercometheconstitutional
death,12maybeusedasevidenceagainsthim.Itunderscoredthe presumption of innocence of the accused and his right
admission made by the defense as to the authorship, the against selfincrimination on thebasis of the Counter
authenticity and the voluntariness of the execution of the affidavitwhoseexecutionwasadmittedbythecounselof
CounterAffidavit.13In short, it ruled that the document had thepetitioner,butnotbytheaccusedpersonally.
sufficientlyestablishedhisrespon
3. III.WhetherornottheCounteraffidavitoftheaccused
_______________ petitioner which was considered by
theSandiganbayanin its decision as similar to an
10
SandiganbayanDecision,pp.29;Rollo,pp.7380. extrajudicialconfessionmay[be]admittedagainsthim
11
ExhibitH,prosecutionsexhibitsfolder. asevidenc[e]ofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtevenifhe
12
SandiganbayanDecision,p.10;Rollo,p.81. was not assi[s]ted then by counsel and while he was
undercustodialinvestigation.
13
Ibid.
429
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 429 4. IV.WhetherornottheSandiganbayanisconstitutionally
and legally correct in issuing the Order of August 23,
Ladianavs.People
1996 denying the Motion for Leave of Court to File
sibilityforthedeathofthevictim.However,itfoundnoevidence
DemurrertoEvidencedatedAugust16,1995filedbythe
oftreachery;thus,itconvictedhimofhomicideonly.14
accused in accordance with Sec. 15 of Rule 120 of the
Hence,thisPetition.15
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure in relation to Rule
Issues
XXIoftheRevisedRulesofSandiganbayan.
InhisMemorandum,petitionerraisesthefollowingissuesforthis
Courtsconsideration:
_______________

1. I.Whether or not theSandiganbayanmay convict the

Ibid.
14
accusedpetitionerbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrime
This casewasdeemed submitted for resolution onMay9,
15
ofhomicideevenintheabsenceofanyeyewitnesswho
2001,uponreceiptofpetitionersMemorandum,signedbyJoseA.
personally saw the sho[o]ting of the victim by the
Almo and Angel R. Purisima III. Respondents Memorandum,
accused, basing it only on the testimony of the
filed on April 18, 2001, was signed by Special Prosecutor remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
LeonardoP.Tamayo,DeputySpecialProsecutorRobertE.Kallos, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
ActingASABDirectorRodrigoV.Coquia,andSpecialProsecution servicesofcounsel,hemustbeprovidedwithone.Theserights
Officer Manuel T. Soriano, Jr. of the Office of the Special cannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.
Prosecutor(OSP). xxxxxxxxx
430 (3)Anyconfessionoradmissionobtainedinviolationofthisor
430 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Section17hereofshallbeinadmissibleinevidenceagainsthim. 18
Ladianavs.People
_______________

1. V.Whether or not accused is entitled to the mitigating 16

Petitioners Memorandum, pp. 56; Rollo, pp. 169170;
circumstance of voluntary surrender which fact was originalinuppercase.
admittedbytheprosecutionasitevenusedthesameas 17
Exh.Hoftheprosecutionsevidence.
proofoftheguiltoftheaccused.16 18
Art.III,12,1987Constitution.
431
Inshort,petitionerraisesthefollowingquestionsinthisappeal: VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 431
(1) whether the CounterAffidavit he executed during the
Ladianavs.People
preliminaryinvestigationofthiscaseisadmissibleproofshowing
Itiswellsettledthattheforegoinglegalformalitiesrequiredby
hiscomplicityinthecrime,(2)whethertheSandiganbayanerred
the fundamental law of the land apply only to extrajudicial
indenyinghisMotionforLeavetoFileaDemurrertoEvidence,
confessions or admissions obtained
and(3)whetherheisentitledtothemitigatingcircumstanceof
duringcustodialinvestigations. Indeed, the rights enumerated
19
voluntarysurrender.
in the constitutional provision exist only in custodial
ThisCourtsRuling
interrogations,orincustodyinterrogationofaccusedpersons. 20
ThePetitionisnotmeritorious.
Custodial interrogationis the questioning initiated by law
First Issue:
enforcementofficersafterapersonhasbeentakenintocustodyor
AdmissibilityofCounterAffidavit
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
Undeniably, the resolution of this case hinges mainly on the way.21
admissibility of the CounterAffidavit17submitted by petitioner In the present case, petitioner admits that the questioned
duringthepreliminaryinvestigation.Hearguesthatnocounsel statementsweremadeduringthepreliminaryinvestigation,not
waspresentwhentheAffidavitwasexecuted.Insupportofhis duringthecustodialinvestigation.However,hearguesthatthe
argument,hecitestheConstitutionthus: righttocompetentandindependentcounselalsoappliesduring
SEC.12.(1)Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommission preliminaryinvestigations.
ofanoffenseshallhavetherighttobeinformedofhisrightto
 We disagree. Apreliminary investigationis an inquiry or a Ladianavs.People
proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to Section20,ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution[nowSection12,
engenderawellfoundedbeliefthatacrimehasbeencommitted, ArticleIIIofthe1987Constitution],fortheobviousreasonthat
andthattherespondentisprobablyguiltythereofandshouldbe heisnolongerundercustodialinterrogation.24
heldfortrial.22 There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the
Evidently, a person undergoing preliminary investigation admissions made by petitioner in his CounterAffidavit are not
beforethepublicprosecutorcannotbeconsideredasbeingunder violative of his constitutional rights. It is clear from the
custodial investigation. In fact, this Court has unequivocally undisputedfactsthatitwasnotexactedbythepolicewhilehe
declared that a defendant on trial or under preliminary was under custody or interrogation. Hence, the constitutional
investigationis notundercustodial interrogation.23Itexplained rightsofapersonundercustodialinvestigationasembodiedin
asfollows: ArticleIII,Section12ofthe1987Constitution,arenotatissuein
His[accused]interrogationbythepolice,ifanytherehadbeen thiscase.
wouldalreadyhave been endedat thetime ofthe filing ofthe However, the accusedwhether in court or undergoing
criminalcaseincourt(orthepublicprosecutorsoffice).Hence, preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor
withrespecttoadefendantinacriminalcasealreadypendingin unquestionably possess rightsthat mustbesafeguarded. These
court (or the public prosecutors office), there is no occasion to include:1)therighttorefusetobemadewitnesses;2)theright
speakofhisrightwhileundercustodialinterrogationlaiddown nottohaveanyprejudicewhatsoeverimputedtothembysuch
bythesecondandsubsequentsentencesof refusal;3)therighttotestifyontheirownbehalf,subjecttocross
examinationbytheprosecution;and4)whiletestifying,theright
_______________ torefusetoansweraspecificquestionthattendstoincriminate
them for some crime other than that for which they are being
19
People v. Salonga,G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001,359 prosecuted.25
SCRA310. We do not, however, agree with the Sandiganbayans
20
People vs. Ayson,175 SCRA 216, 230, July 7, 1989, per characterization of petitioners CounterAffidavit as an
Narvasa,J.(later,C.J.). extrajudicialconfession.Itisonlyanadmission.Sections26and
21
Peoplev.Marra,236SCRA565,September20,1994;People 33ofRule130oftheRevisedRulesonEvidencedistinguishone
fromtheotherasfollows:
v. Logronio,214 SCRA 519, October 13, 1992;People v. Ayson,
SEC. 26.Admissions of a party.The act, declaration or
supra.
omissionofapartyastoarelevantfactmaybegiveninevidence
22
Rule112,1,2000RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.
againsthim.
23
Peoplev.Ayson,supra.
SEC. 33.Confession.The declaration of an accused
432
acknowledginghisguiltoftheoffensecharged,orofanyoffense
432 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against confessionorasanadmission,itisadmissibleinevidenceagainst
him. him.
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in an Further, we do not doubt the voluntariness of the Counter
admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly Affidavit.Petitionerhimselfsubmittedittothepublicprosecutor
involvinganacknowledgmentofguiltorofthecriminalintentto to justify his actions in relation to the charges hurled against
committhe him.ItescapesthisCourthowhecancavalierlydenyadocument
thathehasvoluntarilysubmittedandoriginallyrelieduponin
_______________ hisdefense.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
Id.,p.232.
24 untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party
mayalsoestablishthattheresponsethatformedtheadmission
Id.,p.234.
25
was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the
433
admissionwasmadeinignoranceofthetruestateoffacts. 29Yet,
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 433
petitionerneverofferedanyrationalizationwhysuchadmissions
Ladianavs.People had been made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. In addition,
offensewith which one is charged. 26Thus, in the case atbar, a admissionsmadeun
statement by the accused admitting the commission of the act
chargedagainsthimbutdenyingthatitwasdonewithcriminal _______________
intentisanadmission,notaconfession.27
TheCounterAffidavitinquestioncontainsanadmissionthat 26
Peoplev.Lorenzo,240SCRA624,January26,1995.
petitioneractuallyshotthevictimwhenthelatterwasattacking 27
Francisco,The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines
him.Wequotethepertinentportion: Evidence,Vol.VII,PartI,1997ed.,p.303.
[K]ayaitongsiKapitanSanJuanaysumugodathinawakanako 28
Petitioners CounterAffidavit, p. 2; Exhibit H,
sa may leeg ng aking suot na Tshirt upang ako ay muling prosecutionsexhibitsfolder.
saksakin;sadahilanghindiakomakatakboomakaiwassakabila 29
Francisco,supra,p.319.
ngakingpananalaghanggangmagpaputokakongpasumalasa 434
kanya; sa bilis ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay 434 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
tinamaan;28 Ladianavs.People
Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the der oath, as in the case at bar, are evidence of great weight
victimwhich eventually led to the latters deathbut denies againstthedeclarant.Theythrowonhimtheburdenofshowinga
havingdoneitwithanycriminalintent.Infact,heclaimshedid mistake.30
it in selfdefense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a
 Petitioner contends that nowhere in the transcripts of this 32
Ramos v. Dajoyag, Jr.,AC 5174, February 28, 2002,378
casecanitbefoundthathehasadmittedtotheauthorship,the SCRA 229;Villanueva v. People,330 SCRA 695, April 12,
authenticity or the voluntariness of the CounterAffidavit. We
2000;Sublayv.NLRC,324SCRA188,January31,2000;Alarcon
quoteverbatimtheproceedingsintheSandiganbayan:
v. CA,323 SCRA 716, January 28, 2000;Velasquez v. CA,309
PJGARCHITORENA SCRA539,June30,1999.
Well,hewillidentifythepersonwhotooktheoathbeforehim.Willyou 33
People v. Remudo,G.R. No. 127905, August 30, 2001,364
denythatitwasyourclientwhotooktheoathbeforetheFiscalatthe
SCRA 61;Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos,G.R. No. 144813,
preliminaryinvestigation?
August15,2001,363SCRA262;Peoplev.Villanueva,339SCRA
ATTY.ILAGAN 482,August31,2000.
Wewilladmitthat,yourHonor. 435
PJGARCHITORENA VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 435
Sointhatcasewewillhavenoquestionabouttheauthorship,authenticity Ladianavs.People
andthevoluntarinessoftheexecutionofthecounteraffidavitdatedJuly31, mayerrastothecompetencyofwitnesses,thesufficiencyandthe
1990?Companiero? relevanceofevidence,theproperdefense,theburdenofproof,the
ATTYILAGAN introductionorthewithholdingofwitnessesorpiecesofevidence,
Admitted,yourHonor.31 orthemannerofarguingthecase.ThisCourt,however,hasruled
Theadmissionsofpetitionermadethroughhiscounselcannotbe severaltimesthatthosearenotevenpropergroundsforanew
anyclearer.Tobesure,theunbrokenstreamofjudicialdictais trial,unlessthecounselsincompetenceissogrossthattheclients
that,intheconductoftheircase,clientsareboundbytheactions arepreventedfromfairlypresentingtheircase.34
of their counsels, save whenthe latters negligenceis so gross, Havingadmittedthathehadfatallyshotthevictim,petitioner
recklessandinexcusablethattheformeraredeprivedoftheirday hadthedutyofshowingthatthekillingwasjustified,andthat
in court.32Also, clients, being bound by the actions of their the latter incurred no criminal liability therefor.35Petitioner
counsels,cannotcomplainthattheresultofthelitigationmight shouldhavereliedonthestrengthofhisownevidenceandnoton
havebeendifferent had theirlawyers proceeded differently. 33A theweaknessofthatfortheprosecution.Evenifhisevidencebe
counsel weak,itcannotbedisbelievedaftertheaccusedhasadmittedthe
killing.36
_______________ Petitionerarguesthatitwastheprosecutionthatindirectly
raisedtheissueofselfdefense.Hence,hecouldnotbeboundby
30
Ibid. it. This argument deserves scant consideration. As discussed
31
TSN,April18,1995,pp.45. earlier, the declarations contained in his CounterAffidavit are
admissions that may be used as evidence against
him.37TheSandiganbayandidnotunfairlypresumethathehad justified.Itishornbookdoctrinethatselfdefensemustbeproved
indeedraised thetheoryofselfdefense, becausethisargument withcertaintybysufficient,satisfactoryandconvincingevidence
had already been laid out in his CounterAffidavit. No thatexcludesanyvestigeofcriminalaggressiononthepartofthe
presumptionwasnecessary,becausetheadmissionwasclearand person invoking it.39It cannot be entertained if it is
unequivocal. uncorroboratedbyanyseparateandcompetentevidence,anditis
Neither do we believe petitioners claim that the antigraft alsodoubtful.40Thequestionwhethertheaccused actedinself
courtmiserablyfailedtogiveequaleffectortreatmenttoallthe defenseisessentiallyaquestionoffactproperlyevaluatedbythe
allegations found therein (CounterAffidavit) choosing lowercourt;inthiscase,theSandiganbayan.41
deliberately and without reasonable basis the parts which are Byitself,theCounterAffidavitmiserablyfailstoestablishthe
incriminatingin requisitesofselfdefenseenumeratedinthelaw. 42Hadpetitioner
been more vigilant in protecting his rights, he could have
_______________ presentedclearandcogentevidencetoprovethoseelements.But,
asfound by the courta quo,henotonly failedtodischargethe
34
Abrajanov.CA,343SCRA68,October13,2000;Peoplev. burdenofprovingtheexistenceofthejustifyingcircumstanceof
Salido,258SCRA291,July5,1996. selfdefense; he did not evenbotherto present any evidence at
35
People v. Obzunar,265 SCRA 547, December 16, all.43So,wedonotseehowtheSandiganbayancouldhavebeen
1996;Peoplev.Doepante,263SCRA691,October30,1996. selectiveinitstreatmentofhisCounterAffidavit.
36
Peoplev.Damitan,G.R.No.140544,December7,2001,371 Verily,iftheaccusedfailstodischargetheburdenofproving
the existence of selfdefense or of any other circumstance that
SCRA 629;People v. Iglesia,G.R. No. 132354, September 13,
eliminates criminal liability, his conviction shall of necessity
2001,365SCRA156;Peoplev.Nepomuceno,Jr.,298SCRA450, follow,on
November11,1998;Peoplev.Bautista,254SCRA621,March12,
1996. _______________
37
26,Rule130,RulesofCourt.
436 38
PetitionersMemorandum,p.9;Rollo,p.173.
436 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 39
People v. Suyum,G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002,378
Ladianavs.People SCRA 415;People v. Sanchez,308 SCRA 264, June 16,
character, and ignoring without sufficient legal basis the 1999;Peoplev.Balamban,264SCRA619,November21,1996.
exculpatoryassertionsoftheaccused.38 40
Peoplev.Suyum,supra;Peoplev.Sarabia,317SCRA684,
The unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statements of
October29,1999.
petitioner in his CounterAffidavit are utterly insufficient to 41
People v. Suyum, supra;People v. Dano,339 SCRA 515,
discharge his burden of proving that the act of killing was
September1,2000;Peoplev.Sarabia,supra.
 Art.II,RevisedPenalCode.
42 44
Peoplev.Suyum,supra;Peoplev.Templa,G.R.No.121897,
SandiganbayanDecision,p.11,Rollo,p.82.
43
August16,2001,363SCRA291;Peoplev.Cawaling,293SCRA
437 267,July28,1998;Peoplev.Vallador,257SCRA515,June20,
VOL.393,DECEMBER4,2002 437 1996.
Ladianavs.People 45
Peoplev.Gemoya,342SCRA63,October4,2000.
thebasisofhisadmissionofthekilling. 44Upholdingthisprinciple 46
Exh.Boftheprosecutionsevidence.
does not in any way violate his right to be presumed innocent 47
Exh.Eoftheprosecutionsevidence.
untilprovenguilty.Whenheadmittedtohavingkilledthevictim, 48
Exh.Foftheprosecutionsevidence.
the burden of proving his innocence fell on him. It becamehis 49
Peoplev.Gemoya,supra.
duty to establish by clear and convincing evidence the lawful 50
PetitionersMemorandum,p.15;Rollo,p.179.
justificationforthekilling. 51
Bernardov.CA,278SCRA782,September5,1997.
Therefore, petitionercannolonger invokehisconstitutional
righttobepresumedinnocentofthecrimecharged. 45Asfarashe
52
Bernardo v. CA, supra;People v. Mercado,159 SCRA 453,
isconcerned,homicidehasalreadybeenestablished.Thefactof March30,1988.
deathanditscausewereestablishedbyhisadmissionscoupled 438
withtheotherprosecutionevidenceincludingtheCertificateof 438 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Death,46the Certificate of PostMortem Examination47and the Ladianavs.People
MedicoLegalFindings.48Theintenttokillislikewisepresumed Final Issue:
fromthefactofdeath.49 VoluntarySurrender
Second Issue: After vigorously arguing against his own CounterAffidavit,
DenialofMotionforLeavetoFileDemurrer petitioner,inasurprisingchangeoftenor,imploresthisCourtto
Petitioner then argues that theSandiganbayanerred in not consider his voluntary surrender to the police authorities as a
giving due course to his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to mitigatingcircumstance.Hearguesthattwooftheprosecution
Evidence. He brands this denial as legally and constitutionally witnesses testified that he had surrendered to the police
wrong.50 authorities after the shooting incident. 53To buttress his
We disagree. Prior leave to file a demurrer to evidence is argument,he contendsthatthemain reasonforhis voluntary
discretionary upon the trial court.51And, unless there is grave surrender is that he sincerely believe[d] that he was legally
abuseamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictioninitsdenial,the justifiedindefendinghimselfasapolicemanwhenhefoughtthe
trialcourtsresolutionmaynotbedisturbed.52 victim after he was attacked by the latter. 54It goes without
saying that this statement only reaffirms the admissions
_______________ containedinhisCounterAffidavit,whichhesovehementlytried
todiscredit.
 For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the
following elements must concur: 1) the offender has not been 374 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
actuallyarrested,2)theoffendersurrendershimselftoaperson Peoplevs.Ulit
in authority or to the latters agent, and 3) the surrender is
G.R.Nos.131799801.February23,2004.*
voluntary.55Tobesufficient,thesurrendermustbespontaneous
andmadeinamannerclearlyindicatingtheintentoftheaccused THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,vs.FELICIANO
to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge ULITyTAMPOY,appellant.
their guilt or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the CriminalProcedure;Appeals;Theappealinacriminalcase
expense that will necessarily be incurred in searching for and isareviewdenovoandthecourtisnotlimitedtotheassigned
capturingthem.56 errorsan appeal opens the whole case for review, and the
Theonlypiecesofevidenceinsupportofthepleaofvoluntary appellate tribunal may consider and correct errors though
surrender made by petitioner are statements made by two (2)
unassignedandevenreversethedecisionofthetrialcourtonthe
prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other
peoplethathehadalreadygonetothepolicestation.Thereisno grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.The
showingthathewasnotactuallyarrested;orthatwhenhewent appellant does not contest his conviction for rape in Criminal
to the police station, he surrendered himself to a person in CasesNos.97385and97386,andthevalidityoftheproceedings
authority. Neither is there any finding that he has evinced a inthesaid
desiretoowntoanycomplicityinthekilling.
_______________
Wehaveruledinthepastthattheaccusedwhohadgoneto
thepoliceheadquartersmerelytoreporttheshootingincidentdid
ENBANC.
*
notevinceanydesiretoadmitresponsibilityforthekilling.Thus,
375
hecouldnotbedeemedtohavevoluntarilysurrendered. 57Inthe
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 375
absenceofsufficientandconvincingproofshowingtheexistence
of indispensable circumstances, wecannot appreciatevoluntary Peoplevs.Ulit
surrendertomitigatepetitionerspenalty. cases in the trial court. He pleads, however, that he be
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed sparedthedeathpenalty.Heassertsthathewassoremorseful
DecisionandResolutionAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner. for the crimes he committed and that he pleaded guilty in
SOORDERED. CriminalCasesNos.97385and97387;henolongerpresented
anyevidenceinCriminalCaseNo.97388sothattheproceedings
SandovalGutierrez,CoronaandCarpioMorales,
beforethecourtwouldbeshortenedandsimplified.Nevertheless,
JJ.,concur.
theappealinacriminalcaseisareviewdenovoandthecourtis
Puno(Chairman),J.,AbroadonOfficialBusiness. not limited to the assigned errors. An appeal thus opens the
Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed. wholecase for review,and theappellatetribunalmayconsider
and correct errors though unassigned and even reverse the carewheretheimposablepenaltyisdeath,consideringthatthe
decision of the trial court on the groundsother than those the executionofsuchsentenceisirrevocable.Experiencehasshown
partiesraisedaserrors. that even innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty.
Same;GuiltyPleas;CapitalOffenses;Whentheaccusedina Improvidentpleasofguiltytoacapitaloffenseonthepartofthe
capitaloffenseinformsthetrialcourtofhisdecisiontochangehis accusedmustbeavertedsincebyadmittinghisguiltbeforethe
trialcourt,theaccusedwouldforfeithislifeandlibertywithout
pleaofnotguiltytoguilty,itbehoovesthetrialcourttoconduct
having fully understood the meaning, significance and the dire
asearchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessandfullcomprehension consequencesofhisplea.
oftheconsequenceofhisplea.InCriminalCaseNo.97385,the 376
appellant was charged with qualified rape,i.e., the rape of his 3 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
niece,whowasaminor,punishablebydeathunderArticle335of 76
theRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659.
Peoplevs.Ulit
Undoubtedly,theappellantwaschargedwithacapitaloffense.
Same;Same;Same;Guidelines in Conducting Searching
When the appellant informed the trial court of his decision to
changehispleaofnotguiltytoguilty,itbehoovedthetrial Inquiry;Thefocusoftheinquirymustbeonthevoluntarinessof
courttoconductasearchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessand hispleaofguiltysothatitcantrulybesaidthatitisbasedona
fullcomprehensionoftheconsequencesofhispleaasmandated freeandinformedjudgment.Thereisnohardandfastruleasto
by Section 6, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal howthetrialjudgemayconductasearchinginquiry.Ithasbeen
Procedure. InPeople vs. Camay, this Court enumerated the held, however, that the focus of the inquiry must be on the
following duties of the trial court under the rule: 1. The court voluntarinessofthepleaandthefullorcompletecomprehension
mustconductasearchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessandfull bytheaccusedofhispleaofguiltysothatitcantrulybesaidthat
comprehension[bytheaccused]oftheconsequencesofhisplea;2. it is based on a free and informed judgment. InPeople vs.
The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to Aranzado,we formulated the following guideline as to how the
prove the guilt of the accused and precise degree of his trialcourtmayconductitssearchinginquiry:(1)Ascertainfrom
culpability; and 3. The court must require the prosecution to theaccusedhimself(a)howhewasbroughtintothecustodyof
presentevidenceinhisbehalfandallowhimtodosoifhedesires. thelaw;(b)whetherhehadtheassistanceofacompetentcounsel
Same;Same;Same;Improvidentpleasofguiltytoacapital duringthecustodialandpreliminaryinvestigations;and(c)under
offense on the part of the accused must be averted since by what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the
admittinghisguiltbeforethetrialcourt,theaccusedwouldforfeit investigations.Thesethecourtshalldoinordertoruleoutthe
hislifeandlibertywithouthavingfullyunderstoodthemeaning, possibilitythattheaccusedhasbeencoercedorplacedundera
stateofduresseitherbyactualthreatsofphysicalharmcoming
significance and the dire consequences of his plea.Theraison
frommalevolentoravengingquarters.(2)Askthedefensecounsel
detrefortheruleisthatthecourtsmustproceedwithextreme aseriesof questionsastowhetherhe hadconferredwith,and
completely explained to, the accused the meaning and Peoplevs.Ulit
consequencesofapleaofguilty.(3)Elicitinformationaboutthe Criminal Law;Rape;Guiding Considerations in
personalityprofileoftheaccused,suchashisage,socioeconomic
DeterminingGuiltinRapeCases.Indeterminingtheguiltofthe
status, and educational background, which may serve as a
accused in rape cases, the Court is guided by the following
trustworthyindexofhiscapacitytogiveafreeandinformedplea
considerations:(a)thatanaccusationofrapecanbemadewith
ofguilty.(4)Informtheaccusedtheexactlengthofimprisonment
facility;itisdifficulttoprove,butmoredifficultfortheperson
ornatureofthepenaltyunderthelawandthecertaintythathe
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the
will serve such sentence. Not infrequently indeed an accused
intrinsicnatureofthecrimewhichusuallyinvolvestwopersons,
pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
advice orbecause ofpromises ofthe authoritiesorpartiesofa
extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution
lighterpenaltyshouldheadmitguiltorexpressremorse.Itisthe
must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot beallowed to
dutyofthejudgetoseetoitthattheaccuseddoesnotlaborunder
drawstrengthfromtheweaknessoftheevidenceofthedefense.
these mistaken impressions. (5) Require the accused to fully
It, likewise, bears stressing that in all criminal prosecutions,
narrate the incident that spawned the charges against him or
withoutregard to thenature of the defense which the accused
makehimreenactthemannerinwhichheperpetratedthecrime,
may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the
orcausehimtosupplymissingdetailsorsignificance.
prosecutiontoestablishhisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Same;Same;Same;Evidence;Wherethetrialcourtreceives,
Same;Same;Due Process;Evidence;Hearsay
independentlyofthepleaofguilty,evidencetodeterminewhether
Evidence;WordsandPhrases;Byhearsayevidenceismeantthat
theaccusedcommittedthecrimeschargedandtheprecisedegree
kindofevidencewhichdoesnotderiveitsvaluesolelyfromthe
of his criminal culpability therefor, he may still be convicted if
credencetobeattributedtothewitnessherselfbutrestssolelyin
thereisampleproofonrecord,notcontingentonthepleaofguilty,
partontheveracityandcompetenceofsomepersonsfromwhom
on which to predicate conviction.As a rule, this Court has set
thewitnesshas receivedtheinformation; In criminalcases,the
aside convictions based on pleas of guilty in capital offenses
becauseoftheimprovidencethereof,andwhensuchpleaisthe admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the
sole basis of the condemnatory judgment. However, where the constitutional provision guaranteeing the accused the right to
trialcourtreceives,independentlyofhispleaofguilty,evidence confrontandcrossexaminethewitnesstestifyingagainsthim.We
todeterminewhethertheaccusedcommittedthecrimescharged donotagreewiththerulingofthetrialcourtthatthecontentsof
andtheprecisedegreeofhiscriminalculpabilitytherefor,hemay theswornstatementofLucellearehearsay,simplybecauseshe
stillbeconvictedifthereisampleproofonrecord,notcontingent did not testify thereon and merely identified her signatures
onthepleaofguilty,onwhichtopredicateconviction. therein. By hearsay evidence is meant that kind of evidence
377 which does not derive its value solely from the credence to be
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 377 attributedtothewitnessherselfbutrestssolelyinpartonthe
veracityandcompetenceofsomepersonsfromwhomthewitness an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police
hasreceivedtheinformation.Itsignifiesallevidencewhichisnot interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion,
foundeduponthepersonalknowledgeofthewitnessfromwhom physicalandpsychological,isforcefullyapparent.Asintendedby
it is elicited, and which, consequently, is not subject to cross the 1971 Constitutional Convention, this covers investigation
examination.Thebasisfortheexclusionappearstolieinthefact conductedbypoliceauthoritieswhichwillincludeinvestigations
thatsuchtestimonyisnotsubjecttothetestwhichcanordinarily conductedbythemunicipalpolice,thePCandtheNBIandsuch
beappliedfortheascertainmentoftruthoftestimony,sincethe otherpoliceagenciesinourgovernment.Thebarangaychairman
declarantisnotpresentandavailableforcrossexamination.In isnotdeemedalawenforcementofficerforpurposesofapplying
criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. Under
violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that the
enjoy the right to confront and crossexamine the witness appellants statement before thebarangaychairman is
testifying against him.Generally,theaffidavits ofpersonswho inadmissible.
arenotpresentedtotestifyonthetruthofthecontentsthereof Criminal Law;Qualified Rape;Guidelines in Appreciating
arehearsayevidence.Suchaffidavitmustbeformallyofferedin
Age, Either as an Element of the Crime or as a Qualifying
evidence and accepted by the court; otherwise, it shall not be
Circumstance.Thesamecannot,however,besaidwithrespectto
consideredbythecourtforthesimplereasonthatthecourtshall
considersuchevidenceformallyofferedandaccepted. theageofthevictim.InPeoplev.Pruna,theCourt,afternoting
Custodial Investigations;Right to Counsel;Exclusionary thedivergentrulingsonproofofageofthevictiminrapecases,
set out certain guidelines in appreciating age, either as an
Rule;Thebarangaychairmanisnot deemed alaw enforcement
elementofthecrimeorasqualifyingcircumstance:1.Thebest
officerforpurposesofapplyingSection12(1)and(3)ofArticleIII evidencetoprovetheageoftheoffendedpartyisanoriginalor
oftheConstitutionasuspects certifiedtruecopyofthecertificateoflivebirthofsuchparty;2.
378 In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic
3 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED documentssuchasbaptismalcertificateandschoolrecordswhich
78 showthedateofbirthofthevictimwouldsufficetoproveage;3.
Peoplevs.Ulit Ifthecertificateoflivebirthorauthenticdocumentisshownto
uncounselled statement before the barangay chairman is have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a
admissible.Althoughtheappellantwasnotassistedbycounsel
memberofthefamilyeitherbyaffinityorconsanguinitywhois
atthetimehegavehisstatementtothebarangaychairmanand
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
whenhesignedthesame,itisstilladmissibleinevidenceagainst
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
him because he was not under arrest nor under custodial
Section40,Rule130oftheRulesonEvidenceshallbesufficient
investigationwhenhegavehisstatement.Theexclusionaryrule
underthefollowingcircumstances:a.Ifthevictimisallegedtobe
ispremisedonthepresumptionthatthedefendantisthrustinto
below3yearsofageandwhatissoughttobeprovedisthatsheis same.Moreover,thetrialcourtdidnotmakeacategoricalfinding
lessthan7yearsold;b.Ifthevictimisallegedtobebelow7years of the victims minority, another requirement mandated
ofageandwhatissoughttobeprovedisthatsheislessthan12 byPruna.
yearsold;c.Ifthevictimisallegedtobebelow12yearsofage Same;Same;AlternativeCircumstances;Relationship;While
andwhatissoughttobeprovedisthatsheislessthan18years
it is true that the alternative circumstance of relationship is
old; 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
always aggravating in crimes against chastity, it is only taken
document, or the testimony of the victims mother or relatives
concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will into consideration under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code
sufficeprovidedthatitisexpresslyandclearlyadmittedbythe when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant,
accused;5.Itistheprosecutionthathastheburdenofproving legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
theageoftheoffendedparty.Thefailureoftheaccusedtoobject affinity in the same degree of the offenderthe relationship of
to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken
uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships
againsthim;6.Thetrialcourtshouldalwaysmakeacategorical
mentioned.In the determination of whether the death penalty
findingastotheageofthevictim.
should be imposed on the appellant, the presence of an
379
aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime is
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 379
crucial.Inthecasesatbar,althoughtherelationshipofuncleand
Peoplevs.Ulit niecebetweentheappellantandthevictimhasbeendulyproven,
Same;Same;Same;Thefactthattherewasnoobjectionfrom thealternativecircumstanceofrelationshipunderArticle15of
thedefenseregardingthevictimsagecannotbetakenagainstthe theRevisedPenalCodecannotbeappreciatedasanaggravating
accusedsinceitistheprosecutionthathastheburdenofproving circumstance against the appellant. While it is true that the
thesame.Inthepresentcase,nobirthcertificateoranysimilar alternativecircumstanceofrelationshipisalwaysaggravatingin
authentic document was presented and offered in evidence to crimesagainstchastity,regardlessofwhethertheoffenderisa
proveLucellesage.Whilethevictimtestifiedthatshewasborn relativeofahigherorlowerdegreeoftheoffendedparty,itisonly
onFebruary19,1986,therefore11yearsoldwhentheappellant taken into consideration under Article 15 of the Revised Penal
twicerapedher,thesamewillnotsufficeastheappellantdidnot Code when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or
expresslyandclearlyadmitthesameasrequiredbyPruna.The
relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. The
corroborationofLucellesmotherastoherageisnotsufficient
relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the
either,as thereis noevidencethatthe said certificateof birth
relationshipsmentioned.
waslostordestroyedorwasunavailablewithoutthefaultofthe
prosecution.Thefactthattherewasnoobjectionfromthedefense
AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt
regardingthevictimsagecannotbetakenagainsttheappellant
ofMakatiCity,Br.62.
since it is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. ThatsometimeinthemonthofNovember1996,intheCityof
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee. Makati,MetroManila,Philippines,aplacewithinthejurisdiction
PublicAttorneysOfficeforappellant. of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, who is the
380 uncleofthecomplainantLUCELLESERRANOyULIT,hence,
herrelativebyconsanguinitywithinthethirdcivildegree,while
380 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
armedwithaknife,bymeansofforce,violenceandintimidation,
Peoplevs.Ulit
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the complainant LUCELLE SERRANO y
CALLEJO,SR.,J.: ULIT, an eleven (11) year old girl, without her consent and
againstherwill,toherdamageandprejudice.
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision1dated CONTRARYTOLAW.3
December 17,1997 ofthe Regional Trial Court ofMakatiCity,
Branch 62, in Criminal Cases Nos. 97385 to 97388 finding _______________
appellantFelicianoUlityTampoyguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
of two counts of qualified rape.2In the same decision, the 1
PennedbyJudgeRobertoC.Diokno.
appellant was convictedof two countsof acts of lasciviousness. 2
CriminalCasesNos.97385and97386.
Foreachcountofrape,thetrialcourtsentencedhimtosufferthe 3
Records,p.2.
supreme penalty of death, while for each count of acts of 381
lasciviousness, the appellant was sentenced to suffer VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 381
imprisonmentfromeight(8)years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)
Peoplevs.Ulit
dayofprisionmayorinitsmediumperiod,asminimum,tofifteen
(15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days ofreclusion CriminalCaseNo.97386
temporalinitsmediumperiod,asmaximum.Theappellantwas,
likewise, ordered to indemnify the victim Lucelle Serrano, the That sometime in the month of February 1997, in theCity of
amountofP50,000foreachcountofrapeandP20,000foreach Makati,MetroManila,Philippines,aplacewithinthejurisdiction
countofactsoflasciviousness. of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, who is the
TheIndictments uncle of complainant LUCELLE SERRANO y ULIT, hence her
Upon the sworn complaint of the victim Lucelle Serrano, four relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, while
Informations were filed against her uncle, the appellant. The armedwithaknife,bymeansofforce,violenceandintimidation,
docket number and the accusatory portion of each Information did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
reads: carnal knowledge of the complainant LUCELLE SERRANO y
ULIT, an eleven (11) year old girl, without her consent and
CriminalCaseNo.97385 againstherwill,toherdamageandprejudice.
 CONTRARYTOLAW.4 4
Id.,atp.4.
5
Id.,atp.6.
CriminalCaseNo.97387 6
Id.,atp.8.
382
ThatsometimeinthemonthofDecember1996,intheCityof
382 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Makati,MetroManila,Philippines,aplacewithinthejurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with lewd Peoplevs.Ulit
designbymeansofforce,violenceandintimidation,didthenand Inthemeantime,Lucellewasundergoingpsychiatrictreatment
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of at the Philippine General Hospital. On May 5, 1997, the
lasciviousnessuponcomplainantLUCELLESERRANOyULIT, prosecutionpresentedherasitsfirstwitness.
aneleven(11)yearoldgirl,bythenandtherekissingherand Ondirectexamination,Lucelletestifiedthatshewasbornon
touchinghersexualorgan,withoutherconsentandagainsther February19,1986.7InNovember1996,heruncle,theappellant,
will,toherdamageandprejudice. did something to her. When the prosecution asked her what
CONTRARYTOLAW.5 happened,Lucelledidnotanswer.Whenaskedifshewantedto
continuewithhertestimony,again,shedidnotrespond.Thetrial
CriminalCaseNo.97388 wasresettoJune2and9,1997.WhentrialresumedonJune9,
1997, Lucelle was questioned by the prosecution on direct
Thatonoraboutthe2nddayofMarch1997,intheCityof examination,butstill,shegavenoanswer.Shecriedprofuselyin
Makati,MetroManila,Philippines,aplacewithinthejurisdiction open court. When asked by the court if she wanted to proceed
of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with lewd withthetrial,sheremainedsilent.Thetrialwasresetanewto
designbymeansofforce,violenceandintimidation,didthenand July9and14,1997.
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of In the meantime, the trial court ordered that Lucelle be
lasciviousnessuponcomplainantLUCELLESERRANOyULIT, subjected to physical and psychological examinations at the
aneleven(11)yearoldgirl,bythenandtheredraggingherinside National Center for Mental Health (NCMH). Dr. Rochelflume
Samson examined Lucelle and submitted her Report dated
a bathroom and repeatedly kissing her on her checks [sic],
August29,1997withthefollowingremarksandrecommendation:
without her consent and against her will, to her damage and
Based on clinical history, mental status examination and
prejudice.
psychological evaluation, this patient is suffering from Post
CONTRARYTOLAW.6
Traumatic Stress Disorder. This illness is characterized by
Theappellant,assistedbycounsel,pleadednotguiltyduringthe
intensefearandfeelingofhelplessnesswheneversherecallsher
arraignment.Jointtrialofallthecasesensued.
traumatic experience of being raped. It causes her intense
_______________ psychological distress whenever asked to talk about the rape
sceneorincident.Thus,sheavoidsrecollectionsofthetrauma.
 Atpresent,sheisstillmanifestingsymptomsdescribedabove. firm, the appellant was employed at the Department of
She would be having difficulties testifying in court because of Environment and Sanitation in Makati City, while her
this. She requires psychiatric treatment at the OutPatient grandmother,wholivedwithher,workedasamaidinBelAir
Section.8 Subdivison.Hermotherworkedforoneofherfatherscousins.On
During the trial on July 14, 1997, Lucelle refused to take the redirectexamination,theprosecutionelicitedfromLucellethat
witnessstand.ThetrialwasresettoJuly21,1997. theappellantrapedherinNovember1996at11:00p.m.inside
During the hearing on October 20, 1997, the prosecution theroomofherauntMarinainhergrandmothershouseatNo.
presentedLucelleanewtocontinuewithhertestimonyondirect 7104 San Maximo Street, Olympia, Makati City, and that her
examination. She declared that the appellant raped her in aunt,Marina,andherAteSharonwereinsidetheroom.When
November1996andmanyothertimesthereafterinherresidence askedwhereherauntandAteSharonwerewhenshewasbeing
atNo.7104SanMaximoStreet,MakatiCity.Insteadofasking rapedinherauntsroom,Lucelledidnotrespond.Whenasked
questionstoelicitthefactsandcircumstancesbeforeandduring why she did not respond to the questions propounded to her
thecommis during the previous hearings and why she had been crying in
opencourt,Lucellerepliedthatshewasafraidofheruncle,the
_______________ appellant.
In her sworn statement,11Lucelle alleged that sometime in
7
AnnexA,Records,p.13. November1996,shewassleepinginaroominthehouse.Itwas
8
Id.,atp.67. about6oclockintheevening.Shewasawakenedwhenshefelt
383 someonekissingheronthecheek.Whensheopenedhereyes,she
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 383 saw her uncle, the appellant, armed with bladed weapon
Peoplevs.Ulit (balisong).Hepokedtheweaponontheleftsideofherneck.He
sion ofthe crimes,the prosecutoraskedLucelleto identifyher warned her that if she told her parents, he would kill her. He
signatureinherswornstatement9andtoaffirmthetruthofits removed her panties, undressed himself and mounted her. He
contents. She did so. The public prosecutor then marked the then inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain in her
swornstatementinevidenceasExhibitH,andthenmanifested privatepartandcried.Theappellant,thereafter,lefttheroom.
to the court that he had no more questions for the witness on AlsoduringthemonthofNo
directexamination.
Onclarificatoryquestionsbythecourt,Lucelletestifiedthat _______________
shewasbornonFebruary19,1986.Theappellantmountedher,
removedherpants,pokedaknifeatherandthreatenedher. 10
9
ExhibitH,Records,p.80.
Oncrossexamination,Lucelletestifiedthattheappellantwas
10
TSN,20October1997,pp.56.
her mothers older brother. In November 1996, she was not
11
ExhibitH.
enrolledinanyschool.Herfatherwasworkingataconstruction 384
384 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED intheeveningsinthesalaofthehousewhileMarinasleptinher
Peoplevs.Ulit bedroom.Attimes,MarinaallowedhernieceLucelletosleepin
vember1996,theappellantcontinuedkissingherwheneverher herbedroom.At11:00p.m.onFebruary19,1997,Lourdesnoticed
parentswereoutofthehouse. thatLucellewasnotatherside.Theappellant,whousuallyalso
In December 1996, Lucelle was in the room when the sleptinthesala,wasnotthereeitherLourdeswenttoMarinas
appellantenteredandkissedherandmashedherprivateparts. bedroomandsawLucelleinbed(papag),coveredwithablanket.
Sometime in February 1997, the appellant again abused her Beside her was the appellant who was wearing a pair of short
(sinalbahe) while she was in the same room. It was about 11 pantsandundershirt.WhentheappellantsawLourdes,heslid
oclockintheevening.Heagainwarnedhernottodivulgetoher downfromthebed,wentunderthepapag,andfurtivelyleftthe
parents what he did to her. At 9:00 p.m. on March 2, 1997, room.WhenLourdesremovedthe
Lucelleurinatedinthebathroomandwhenshewasabouttogo
_______________
out,theappellantentered,pushedherinsideandkissedheron
hercheeksseveraltimes.
ExhibitA,Records,p.71(CertificateofBaptism).
12
Celso Serrano, Lucelles father, testified that sometime in
385
November 1996, at dawn, he was in bed and noticed that the
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 385
appellant was in the bedroom of his cousininlaw. Sometime
later,hewenttothebathroom.Hethenheardhiswifeaskthe Peoplevs.Ulit
appellantwherehehadcomefromandthelatterrepliedthathe blanket,shesawLucellelyingsidewayswithherkneesuptoher
justcamefromtheroofofthehouse.Onanotheroccasion,one chin (nakabaluktot). Lucelle was trembling with fear. When
earlySundaymorning,henoticedbloodstainsonLucellesshort Lourdes asked Lucelle what happened, she did not respond.
pants.Whenshedeclaredthatshehadhermonthlyperiod, he Lourdeslefttheroomandwentbacktothesala.Shewantedto
gave her P5.00 with which to buy sanitary napkins. Lucelle talktothe appellantbut decidedagainstitwhenshesawhim
refusedtoacceptthemoney.Hesuggestedthatshewashherself seatedinthesala,playingwithhisbalisong.
butshejustnoddedherhead.Whenheaskedherwhysherefused Lourdesfurthertestifiedthatat9:00p.m.onMarch2,1997,
toacceptthemoney,Lucellerepliedthatshewasafraidtotell sheandherhusbandwerehavingdinnerwhenshenoticedthat
himbecauseshemightbekilled. Lucellewasnowheretobefound.Shelookedforherdaughterin
Lourdes Serrano testified that she was Lucelles mother. thehouse,butfailedtofindher.ShethenaskedhercousinNitaif
LucellewasbornonFebruary19,1986. 12Sheandherhusband shehadseenLucelle.Nitarepliedinthenegative.WhenLourdes
Celso Serrano and their daughter Lucelle resided with her asked Nita if Lucelle was inside thebathroom, Nita responded
mother, Guadalupe Ulit, at No. 7104 San Maximo Street, thattheappellantwasusingit.Momentarily,Lourdessawthe
Olympia,MakatiCity.HersisterMarinaandtheappellant,her appellantemergefromthebathroom.Hewasinhisshortpants
brother,alsoresidedinthesamehouse.Thefamilyslepttogether andhisshirtwasonhisshoulder.Hewasperspiringprofusely.
LourdeswasflabbergastedwhenshesawLucellecomeoutofthe laciviousness.SPO4LiliaHogaroftheWomensDeskUnittook
bathroomaftertheappellant.Lucellewascryingandlookedpale. theswornstatementsofLourdesandLucelle. 14Sheconducteda
When Lourdes asked Lucelle why she wascrying, she told her custodialinvestigationoftheappellantwhowaswithoutcounsel
motherthatshehadjusturinated.Theappellantlatertoldher duringwhichthelatteradmittedhavingrapedthevictim.SPO4
sisterLourdesthathedidnotdoanythingtoLucelle. Hogaralsopreparedareportonherinvestigationofthevictims
Believingthattheappellanthadbeenabusingtheirdaughter, complaint.15
Celso and Lourdes brought Lucelle on March 5, 1997, to On July 28, 1997, Dr. Armie M. SoretaUmil, NBI Medico
Barangay Chairman Romeo Medina. On their way, Lucelle Legal Officer, testified that on March 12, 1997, she conducted
adamantlyrefusedtotellherparentswhattheappellantdidto genital and vaginal examinations on Lucelle and submitted
her. However, when they reached the barangay headquarters, LivingCaseReportNo.MG97355whichcontainedthefollowing
Lucelletoldthebarangaychairmanthattheappellantsexually findings:
abused her. Thereafter, Lourdes filed a complaint with the
barangaychairmanagainsttheappellantforsexuallymolesting GENERALPHYSICALEXAMINATION:
Lucelle.
Barangay TanodFernando DavidtestifiedthatonMarch6, Height:141cm.Weight:78lbs.
1997,thebarangaychairmanorderedhimandBarangayTanod Normallydeveloped,fairlynourished,conscious,coherent,
Antonio Echavez to invite and bring the appellant to the cooperative,ambulatorysubject.
barangayhall.Thebarangaychairmanaskedtheappellantifhe Breasts,developing,conical,firm.Areolae,lightbrown,2.6
rapedLucelleandthelatterrepliedthathedid.ASinumpaang cms. in diameter. Nipples, lightbrown, protruding, 0.8 cm. in
diameter.
SalaysaywaspreparedintheOfficeoftheBarangayChairmanin
Noextragenitalphysicalinjuriesnoted.
whichtheappellantadmittedthatherapedLucelleinFebruary
1997,andonMarch2,1997,despiteherresistance,andthathe
GENERALEXAMINATION:
threatenedtokillherandherfamilyifshedivulgedtheincidents
toherpar
Pubic hair, fully grown, moderate. Labia majora, gaping.
386 Labia minora, coaptated. Fourchette, lax. Vestibular mucosa,
386 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED pinkish.Hymen,tall,thick,intact,distensible.Hymenalorifice,
Peoplevs.Ulit admitsatube2.5cms.indiameter.Vaginalwalls,lax.Rugosities,
ents. Theappellantsignedhisstatementinthepresenceofthe
13
shallow.
barangaychairmanandthebarangaytanods.
Fromthebarangayheadquarters,theappellantwasbrought CONCLUSIONS
totheMakatiCityPoliceHeadquarterswhereCelso,Lourdesand
Lucelle filed a complaint against him for rape and acts of
 1. 1.)Noevidentsignofextragenitalphysicalinjuriesnoted counselmanifestedtothecourtthattheappellantwaschanging
onthebodyofthesubjectatthetimeofexamination. his plea in Criminal Cases Nos. 97385 and 97387 from not
guilty to guilty.He also manifested that he would no longer
2. 2.)Hymen,intactbutdistensible,anditsorificewide(2.5 adduceanyevidenceinhisdefenseinCriminalCasesNos.97386
cms.indiameter)astoallowcompletepenetrationbyan and 97388 because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
averagesizedadultFilipinomaleorganinfullerection beyondreasonabledoubtforthecrimeschargedtherein.Thetrial
withoutproducinganygenitalinjury.16 courtsuspendedtheproceedingsandgavetheappellantfortyfive
minutes to confer with his counsel. When trial resumed, the
_______________ appellantreiteratedhisearliermanifestation.Whentoldbythe
courtthathecouldbesentencedtodeathfortherapecharges,the
13
ExhibitF,Records,p.77. appellant stood pat on his decision to plead guilty in Criminal
14
ExhibitsBandE. Cases Nos. 97385 and 97387, and to no longer present any
15
ExhibitG,Recordsp.78. evidenceinhisdefenseintheothertwocases.Theappellantwas
16
ExhibitC,Id.,atp.74. rearraignedinCriminalCasesNos.97385and97387withthe
assistanceofthesamecounselandenteredhispleaofguiltyto
387
thecharges.
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 387
On December 15, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment
Peoplevs.Ulit convictingtheappellantofallthecrimescharged.Thedecretal
When the prosecution offered in evidence the portionofthedecisionreads:
appellantsSinumpaany Salaysaybefore the barangay WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
chairman17aspartofthetestimonyofBarangayTanodFernando renderedasfollows:
David,theappellantobjectedtoitsadmissiononthegroundthat
theappellantwasnotassistedbycounselandthat,hewasforced 1. 1.InCriminalCaseNos.97385and97386,forrape,the
andcoercedintosigningthesame.Nevertheless,thetrialcourt prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the
admitted the statement as part of Davids testimony. The guiltoftheaccused,FELICIANOULITYTAMPOY,as
appellants counsel, likewise, objected to the admissibility of principalinthetwocountsofstatutoryrapedefinedand
Lucelles sworn statement on the ground that she was penalizedunderArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode,
incompetenttogivethesamebecauseofhermentalillness.The
trialcourtadmittedtheswornstatementofLucelleinevidenceas _______________
partofhertestimony.
Aftertheprosecutionhadresteditscase,thetrialcourtreset
ExhibitF,Id.,atp.77.
17

thehearingtoNovember5,1997fortheappellanttoadducehis
388
evidence. When the case was called for trial on that date, his
388 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Peoplevs.Ulit The appellant did not appeal from the decision in Criminal
asamended.Heisherebydeclare[d]CONVICTEDineachof Cases Nos. 97387 and 97388. In view of the trial courts
the cases. Accordingly he is sentenced to suffer the supreme imposition of the death penalty on the appellant in Criminal
penalty[of]DEATHineachofthetwocases;andindemnifythe CasesNos.97385and97386,thesaidcaseswerebroughttothis
victimLUCELLESERRANO,intheamountofP50,000asmoral Courtonautomaticappeal.
damagesforeachofthecases; Theappellantassailsthedecisionofthetrialcourtwiththe
loneassignmentoferror,towit:
1. 2.InCriminalCaseNos.97387and97388,foractsof THETRIALCOURTERREDINSENTENCINGTHEACCUSED
lasciviousness, the prosecution has proven beyond FELICIANO ULIT WITH A DEATH PENALTY DESPITE HIS
reasonabledoubttheguiltoftheaccused,FELICIANO ADMISSIONOFGUILT.20
ULITYTAMPOY,asprincipalintwocountsofactsof
_______________
lasciviousnessdefinedunderArticle336oftheRevised
Penal Code and penalized under Section 5(b) of R.A. 18
Records,pp.226227.
7610.HeisherebydeclaredCONVICTEDineachofthe
twocases;and,accordingly,heissentencedtosufferin
19
AnnexA,Id.,atp.13.
each of the cases an indeterminate prison term from
20
Rollo,p.65.
eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day 389
ofprisionmayorinitsmediumperiod,asminimum,to VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 389
fifteen(15)years,six(6)monthsandtwenty(20)days Peoplevs.Ulit
ofreclusiontemporalinitsmediumperiod,asmaximum; TheappellantdoesnotcontesthisconvictionforrapeinCriminal
and,indemnifythevictim,LUCELLESERRANO,inthe CasesNos.97385and97386,andthevalidityoftheproceedings
amount of P20,000 as moral damages for each of the inthesaidcasesinthetrialcourt.Hepleads,however,thathebe
cases. sparedthedeathpenalty.Heassertsthathewassoremorseful
for the crimes he committed and that he pleaded guilty in
CriminalCasesNos.97385and97387;henolongerpresented
SOORDERED.18
anyevidenceinCriminalCaseNo.97388sothattheproceedings
The trial court declared that even prescinding from the
beforethecourtwouldbeshortenedandsimplified.Nevertheless,
appellants plea of guilty, the prosecutor adduced proof beyond
reasonabledoubtoftheguiltoftheappellantforqualifiedrapein theappealinacriminalcaseisareviewdenovoandthecourtis
CriminalCasesNos.97385and97386.Thetrialcourtruledthat not limited to the assigned errors.21An appeal thus opens the
although Lucelle did not testify on the contents of her sworn wholecase for review,and theappellatetribunalmayconsider
statement19the same were admissible in evidence as part of and correct errors though unassigned and even reverse the
decision of the trial court on the groundsother than those the
theresgestae.
partiesraisedaserrors.22
Appellants Plea of Guilty in Criminal Case No. 97385 was Peoplevs.Ulit
ImprudentlyMade.
In Criminal Case No. 97385, the appellant was charged with 1. 3.The court must require the prosecution to present
qualified rape,i.e., the rape of his niece, who was a minor, evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he
punishablebydeathunderArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode, desires.24
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Undoubtedly, the
appellantwaschargedwithacapitaloffense.Whentheappellant Theraisondetrefortheruleisthatthecourtsmustproceedwith
informedthetrialcourtofhisdecisiontochangehispleaofnot extremecarewheretheimposablepenaltyisdeath,considering
guilty to guilty, it behooved the trial court to conduct a thattheexecutionofsuchsentenceisirrevocable.Experiencehas
searchinginquiryintothevoluntarinessandfullcomprehension shownthateveninnocentpersonshaveattimespleadedguilty.
oftheconsequencesofhispleaasmandatedbySection6,Rule Improvidentpleasofguiltytoacapitaloffenseonthepartofthe
116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. InPeople vs. accusedmustbeavertedsincebyadmittinghisguiltbeforethe
Camay,23thisCourtenumeratedthefollowingdutiesofthetrial trialcourt,theaccusedwouldforfeithislifeandlibertywithout
courtundertherule: having fully understood the meaning, significance and the dire
consequencesofhisplea.25
1. 1.The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the Thereisnohardandfastruleastohowthetrialjudgemay
voluntarinessandfullcomprehension[bytheaccused]of conductasearchinginquiry.Ithasbeenheld,however,thatthe
theconsequencesofhisplea; focusoftheinquirymustbeonthevoluntarinessofthepleaand
thefullorcompletecomprehensionbytheaccusedofhispleaof
2. 2.The court must require the prosecution to present guiltysothatitcantrulybesaidthatitisbasedonafreeand
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and precise informedjudgment.InPeoplevs.Aranzado,26weformulatedthe
degreeofhisculpability;and following guideline as to how the trial court may conduct its
searchinginquiry:
_______________
1. (1)Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was
21
People v. Espejon,377 SCRA 412(2002);People v. broughtintothecustodyofthelaw;(b)whetherhehad
Feliciano,365SCRA613(2001). the assistance of a competent counsel during the
custodialandpreliminaryinvestigations;and(c)under
22
Peoplev.Lucero,355SCRA93(2001).
what conditions he was detained and interrogated
23
152SCRA401(1987).
during the investigations. These the court shall do in
390
order to rule out the possibility that the accused has
390 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
beencoercedorplacedunderastateofduresseitherby
 actualthreatsofphysicalharmcomingfrommalevolent ofthejudgetoseetoitthattheaccuseddoesnotlabor
oravengingquarters. underthesemistakenimpressions.

2. (2)Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to 2. (5)Requiretheaccusedtofullynarratetheincidentthat

whether he had conferred with, and completely spawnedthechargesagainsthimormakehimreenact
explainedto,theaccusedthemeaningandconsequences themannerinwhichheperpetratedthecrime,orcause
ofapleaofguilty. himtosupplymissingdetailsorsignificance.27

3. (3)Elicitinformationaboutthepersonalityprofileofthe InPeoplevs.Ostia,28weheldthatthetrialcourtisalsorequired
accused, such as his age, socioeconomic status, and toprobethoroughlyintothereasonsormotivations,aswellasthe
educational background, which may serve as a factsandcircumstancesforachangeofpleaoftheaccusedand
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and hiscomprehensionofhisplea;explaintohimtheelementsofthe
informedpleaofguilty. crimeforwhichheischargedaswellasthenatureandeffectof
anymodifyingcircumstancesattendanttothecommissionofthe
4. (4)Informtheaccusedtheexactlengthofimprisonmentor offense,inclusiveofmitigatingandaggravatingcircumstances,as
nature ofthe penaltyunder thelawand thecertainty wellasthequalifyingandspecialqualifyingcircumstances,and
thathewillservesuchsentence.Notinfrequentlyindeed informhimoftheimposablepenaltyandhiscivilliabilitiesfor
anaccusedpleadsguiltyinthehopeofa thecrimeforwhichhewouldpleadguiltyto.29
Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfailedtomakeasearchinginquiry
_______________ intotheappellantsvoluntarinessandfullcomprehensionofhis
pleaofguilty.Thisisevidentbythetranscriptofstenographic
24
Ibid. notestakenonNovembers1998:
25
Peoplev.Alborida,359SCRA495(2001). ATTY.MANALO
26
365SCRA649(2001). Your Honor, at todays reception of defense evidence,
391 accused informed this representation that he will no longer
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 391 presentevidenceandinsteadwillingtochangehispleafromnot
guiltytothatofguilty.Thisaccusedsrepresentationistherefore
Peoplevs.Ulit
prayingthathebeallowedtochangehispleafromthatofnot
guiltytoguilty.
1. lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of
COURT
promisesoftheauthoritiesorpartiesofalighterpenalty
Youbetterconferwithyourclientandexplaintohimthe
shouldheadmitguiltorexpressremorse.Itistheduty
consequences of his intended change of plea from not guilty to
thatofguilty.
ATTY.MANALO Do you know that you are accused here for the crime of
Yes,YourHonor. rape,acapitaloffensewhichcarrieswithitacapitalpunishment?
ACCUSED
_______________ Yes,YourHonor.
COURT(toaccused)
27
Id.,atpp.661662. Despiteyourknowledgethatyouarechargedwithacapital
28
G.R.No.131804,February26,2003,398SCRA132. offensewhichcarrieswithitacapitalpenaltyyoustillinsiststhat
29
Id.,atpp.1415. youarepleadingguilty?
392 ACCUSED
392 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Yes,YourHonor.
COURT(toaccused)
Peoplevs.Ulit
Wasthereanyonewhoforcedyoutochangeyourpleaofnot
COURT(totheaccused)
guiltytothatofguilty?
Isyourcounselsmanifestationtrue,thatyouwouldliketo
ACCUSED
changeyourpleafromnotguiltytothatofguiltyandthatyouare
None,YourHonor.
nolongerpresentingevidenceinCriminalCasesNos.97386and
COURT
97388?
(toaccused)
ACCUSED
Doyouknowthatbypleadingguiltyyouwillbesentenced
Yes,YourHonor.
inaccordancewith[what]thelawprovides?
COURT
393
(totheaccused)
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 393
Youtalkwithyourlawyerandthinktwicebeforeasking
thecourttochangeyourpleaofnotguiltytothatofguilty.The Peoplevs.Ulit
Courtwillcallyourcaseagain.... ACCUSED
COURT Yes,YourHonor.
(totheaccused) COURT
Mr.Ulit,earlieryourcounselinformedthecourtthatyou (toaccused)
wouldliketochangeyourpleafromnotguiltytothatofguilty,in Doyouknowthatthepenaltyprovidedforbylawisdeath
Criminal Case No. 97385, forrape and Criminal CaseNo. 97 penaltybecausetheInformationstatesthatthevictimiseleven
387,forActsofLasciviousness,doyouaffirmthemanifestationof yearsoldandyournieceandthatyouusedadeadlyweaponin
yourcounsel? thecommissionoftherape?
ACCUSED ACCUSED
Yes,YourHonor. Yes,YourHonor.Iamwillingtopleadguilty.
COURT(toaccused) COURT
 Alright,arraigntheaccused.30 394
First.The trial court did not ask the appellant his reasons for 394 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
changinghisplea,fromnotguiltytothatofguilty,andthecogent Peoplevs.Ulit
circumstancesthatledhimtodecidetodoso. Fourth.Thetrial courtfailed toasktheappellantwhy hewas
Second.It appears in the Informations filed by the Public pleadingguiltytoarapecommittedinNovember1996,whenin
Prosecutor that the appellant opted not to avail himself of his hisSinumpaang Salaysay,31he confessed to having raped the
right to a regular preliminary investigation and refused to victimonlyinFebruary1997andMarch2,1997.Theappellant
execute a waiver under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. didnotadmithavingrapedherinNovember1996asallegedin
TherecordsalsoshowthattheappellantexecutedaSinumpaang theInformationinCriminalCaseNo.97385.Thetrialcourtdid
Salaysaywhiledetainedatthebarangayhallwhereheconfessed not even inquire from the appellant who prepared and typed
tohavingrapedthevictiminFebruary1997andMarch2,1997. hisSinumpaang Salaysayand if the contents of his statement
However,thetrialcourtdidnotasktheappellantwhetherhewas wereexplainedtohimbeforehesignedthesame.
assisted by counsel when he was brought to the Office of the Fifth. The trial court did not explain the following to the
Public Prosecutor for inquest investigation. Neither did the appellant,inplainandsimpletermssoastobeunderstoodby
courtaquoinquireaboutthecircumstancesandtheappellants him: (a) the elements of the crime of qualified rape; (b) the
reasonsforrefusingtoexecutethesaidwaiver. circumstancesofrelationshipandtheminorityofthevictim;and
The records show that when the prosecution offered the (c)thathispleaofguiltytoqualifiedrapewouldnotmitigatethe
appellantsSinumpaang Salaysayin evidence to prove that he penaltyforthecrimeinlightofArticle63oftheRevisedPenal
confessedtohavingrapedthevictiminFebruary1997andMarch Code.
2,1997,theappellantobjectedtheretoonthegroundthathewas Sixth.Itwasnotexplainedtotheappellantthatifconvictedof
notassistedbycounselandthathewascoercedintosigningthe qualified rape, he would be civilly liable to the victim in the
same. amount of P50,000 as moral damages and P75,000 as civil
Third. The trial court also failed to ascertain from the indemnityexdelicto.
appellantwhetherhewasassistedbycounselwhenheexecuted Seventh. Neither did the trial court inquire from the
hisSinumpaang Salaysaywhile detained at the barangay hall; appellantscounselwhetherthemeaningandtheconsequencesof
and,ifhewasnotsoassistedbycounsel,whetherhehadwaived a guilty plea were explained to the appellant in a language or
his right thereto, before and when he signed hisSinumpaang dialectknowntoandunderstoodbyhim.
Salaysay. Eighth.Thetrialcourtfailedtodelveintoandascertainfrom
theappellanthisage,educationalattainmentandsocioeconomic
_______________ status.

30
TSN,5November1997,pp.24.
 Ninth.Thetrialcourtfailedtoasktheappellanttonarrate In determining the guilt of the accused in rape cases, the
thefactsandcircumstancessurroundingtheincidentofqualified Court is guided by the following considerations: (a) that an
rapeaschargedinCriminalCaseNo.97385. accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
Tenth.Theappellantwasnot asked ifhedesired toadduce prove,butmoredifficultforthepersonaccused,thoughinnocent,
evidenceinCriminalCaseNo.97385inspiteofhispleaofguilty. todisprove;(b)thatinviewoftheintrinsicnatureofthecrime
Asarule,thisCourthassetasideconvictionsbasedonpleas which usually involves two persons, the testimony of the
ofguiltyincapitaloffensesbecauseoftheimprovidencethereof, complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c)
and when such plea is the sole basis of the condemnatory thattheevidencefortheprosecutionmuststandorfallonitsown
judgment.32However, where the trial court receives, meritsandcannotbeallowedtodrawstrengthfromtheweakness
independentlyofhispleaofguilty,evidencetodeterminewhether oftheevidenceofthedefense.34It,likewise,bearsstressingthat
theaccusedcommitted inallcriminalprosecutions,withoutregardtothenatureofthe
defensewhichtheaccusedmayraise,theburdenofproofremains
_______________ at all times upon the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond
reasonabledoubt.35
ExhibitF.
31
The Prosecution Adduced Proof
Peoplev.Derilo,271SCRA633(1997).
32
of the Appellants Guilt Beyond
395 Reasonable Doubt of the Crime
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 395 of Rape in Criminal Case
Peoplevs.Ulit No.97385
the crimes charged and the precise degree of his criminal Wehavereviewedtheevidenceonrecordandweareconvinced
culpability therefor, he may still be convicted ifthere isample thattheprosecutionadducedproofbeyondreasonabledoubtthat
proofonrecord,notcontingentonthepleaofguilty,onwhichto the appellant raped the victim in November 1996. The victim
predicateconviction.33 declaredinherswornstatement,ondirectexaminationandher
Inthiscase,theprosecutionhadalreadyresteditscasewhen tes
theappellantdecidedtochangehisplea.Infact,thetrialcourt
granted the prosecutions motion that the evidence it had _______________
presentedbeconsideredproofofthedegreeofculpabilityofthe
appellant. It is, thus, incumbent upon this Court to determine Peoplev.Rodriguez,375SCRA224(2002).
33

whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution in Criminal Peoplev.Mariano,345SCRA1(2000);Peoplev.Tacipit,242

34

CaseNo.97385issufficienttoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubt SCRA241(1995).
theappellantsguiltforqualifiedrape. 35
Ibid.
396
396 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED ...
Peoplevs.Ulit COURT
timony on clarificatory questions made by the trial court, that Q NoongNobyembre1996,ayonsaiyoayginahasakangiyongTito.Saanka
indeed, the appellant raped her in November 1996. Quoted ginahasangTitomo?
hereunderisthetestimonyofLucelleondirectandonredirect A Sa7104SanMaximoSt.,po.
examination:
Fiscal _______________
Q So,mataposmongituroangtiyuhinmo,anoangginawaniyasaiyo?
A Ginahasaniyaako. TSN,20October1997,pp.34.
36

Q Ilangulitkangginahasa? Id.,atp.14.
37

A Maramipo. 397
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 397
Q Kailankaginahasangtiyuhinmo?
A Novemberpo. Peoplevs.Ulit
Q 19? Q Doondinsabahaynaiyongtinitirhan?
A 1996,po. A Opo.38
In her Sworn Statement, Lucelle narrated in detail how the
39
Q Saankaginahasa?
appellantravishedher:
A 7104SanMaximoSt.,MakatiCity,po.36
06.T:KailankaunangsenalbahengiyongTITOELY?
...
S:Noon pong Nobyembre 1996 hindi ko na po matandaan ang
Fiscal
petsa,mgabandang6:00nggabiponangakoaynatutulogsa
Q Humigitkumulang,anongorasnggabinanggahasainkangTitoElymo
noongNobyembre1996? loob po ng kuwarto ay nagising na lang po ako nang
A Alasonseponggabi. maramdamankonamayhumahaliksaakingpisngi,atnang
Q Samakatuwid,hindinasiyanagtratrabaho,walanasiyasatrabaho? ako po ay magising ay nakita ko po si TITO ELY na may
A Walanapo. hawakna balisong na humigit kumulangposa10 pulgada
Q Saanglugarkaginahasa? ang haba na nakatutok sa aking kaliwang leeg habang
A Sa7104SanMaximoSt. humahalikposaakingpisngiatangsabiaykungakodawpo
Q Saloobbangbahay? aymagsusumbongsaakingmagulangaypapatayinponiya
A Opo. (TITOELY)ako.Pagkatapospoayhinubaranpoakongpanty
Q SaangpartengbahaykaginahasangTitomo? atnaghubadnarinposiTITOELYngkanyangshortpantsat
A Sakuwartopo.37 pumatong na po sa akin. Ipinasok po ni TITO ELY and
 kanyang (TITO ELY) ari sa aking PEPE at ako po ay enjoy the right to confront and crossexamine the witness
nasaktanatumiyaknalangpoakoatnangmakaraosposi testifyingagainsthim.43Generally,theaffidavitsofpersonswho
arenotpresentedtotestifyonthetruthofthecontentsthereof
TITOELYayumalisnalang....40
arehearsayevidence.44Suchaffidavitmustbeformallyofferedin
We do not agree with the ruling of the trial court that the
evidence and accepted by the court; otherwise, it shall not be
contentsoftheswornstatementofLucelle arehearsay, simply
consideredbythecourtforthesimplereasonthatthecourtshall
because she did not testify thereon and merely identified her
considersuchevidenceformallyofferedandaccepted.45
signatures therein. By hearsay evidence is meant that kind of
Inthiscase,Lucelletestifiedonandaffirmedthetruthofthe
evidencewhichdoesnotderiveitsvaluesolelyfromthecredence
contentsofherswornstatementwhichsheherselfhadgiven.As
tobeattributedtothewitnessherselfbutrestssolelyinparton
gleanedfromthesaidstatement,shenarratedhowandwhenthe
the veracity and competence of some persons from whom the
appellant raped and subjected her to lascivious acts. She was
witness has received the information. 41It signifies all evidence
crossexaminedbytheappellantscounselandansweredthetrial
whichisnotfoundeduponthepersonalknowledgeofthewitness
courtsclarificatoryquestions.Theprosecutionofferedhersworn
fromwhomitiselicited,andwhich,consequently,isnotsubject
statementas partofher testimonyand thecourtadmittedthe
tocrossexamination.42Thebasisfortheexclusionappearstoliein
same for thesaid purpose without objection on thepart of the
thefactthatsuchtestimonyisnotsubjecttothetestwhichcan
appellant.
ordinarilybeappliedfortheascertainmentoftruthoftestimony,
since the declarant is not present and available for cross The Prosecution Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt that the
examination.In AppellantRapedtheVictiminFebruary1997
ThetrialcourtconvictedtheappellantofrapeinCriminalCase
_______________ No. 97386 on the basis of Lucelles sworn statement, 46the
testimony of her mother, Lourdes Serrano, the appellants
38
Id.,atp.16. statement47executedintheBarangayChairmansOffice,andthe
39
ExhibitH. testimony of Dr. Armie SoretaUmil. We agree with the trial
40
Ibid. courtsfindingsandconclusion.
41
RulesonEvidence,HerreraRemedialLaw,VolumeV,1999 First. In Lucelles sworn statement,48she declared that the
ed.,pp.563564. appellantsubjectedhertosexualabuse.
42
Id.,atp.564. Second.LourdessawLucelleinbed(papag)inMarinasroom,
398 coveredwithablanketbesidetheappellantwhowaswearinga
398 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Peoplevs.Ulit
criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a
violationoftheconstitutional provision whiletheaccusedshall
 43
Fernando,The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, labasmasoksakanyangari.Nangakoaymakaraosaytinakotko
PartI,Vol.VIII,1997ed.,pp.515518. siyanghuwagmagsusumbogsakanyangmgamagulang.49
44
Vallartav.CourtofAppeals,163SCRA587(1988);Peoplev. Althoughtheappellantwasnotassistedbycounselatthetimehe
Santos,139SCRA583(1985). gavehisstatementtothebarangaychairmanandwhenhesigned
45
Section34,Rule132,RulesofCourt. thesame,itisstilladmissibleinevidenceagainsthimbecausehe
46
Supra. wasnotunderarrestnorundercustodialinvestigationwhenhe
gavehisstatement.50
47
Supra.
Theexclusionaryruleispremisedonthepresumptionthatthe
48
Supra. defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs
399 through menacing police interrogation procedures where the
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 399 potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is
Peoplevs.Ulit forcefully apparent. As intended by the 1971 Constitutional
pairofshortpantsandundershirt.Hesliddownfromthepapag, Convention, this covers investigation conducted by police
wentunderthebedandslippedoutside.WhenLourdesremoved authorities which will include investigations conducted by the
theblanket,shesawLucelletremblingwithfear,lyingsidewise, municipal police, the PC and the NBI and such other police
herkneesnearherchin(nakabaluktot). agencies in our government.51The barangay chairman52is not
Third.Theappellantadmittedtothebarangaychairmanon deemedalawenforcementofficer
March5,1997,thatherapedLucelleinFebruary1997:
_______________
Na,noongisangarawngPEBRERO1997,saloobngkuwartong
akingkapatidnababae,pumasokakonanadatnangnakahigasi 49
Supra.
LUCILLEULITsaisangpapagnaanyongnatutulog.Lumapit 50
Peoplevs.Diano,339SCRA515(2000).
akosakanyaatpinaghihipuansamaseselangpartengkanyang 51
Peoplevs.Andan,269SCRA95(1997).
katawan at nang siyay magising tinakot ko siyang huwag 52
R.A.7160(LocalGovernmentCodeof1991).
sisigaw, habang siya ay aking hinuhubaran ng Short na SECTION 389.Chief Executive: Powers, Duties and
kasamapatiangkanyangpanty.Nagpupumiglassiyahabang Functions.
akoaynakadagansakanyananoondinayhinuhubadkoang 400
aking brief. Pinaghahalikan ko po siya habang siya ay 400 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
nagpupumiglas at umiiyak at noon din ay aking pinasok ang Peoplevs.Ulit
akingarisakanyangari.Umiiyaksiyahabangangakingariay forpurposesofapplyingSection12(1)and(3)ofArticleIIIofthe
Constitution. Under these circumstances, it cannot be
successfully
_______________ thebarangaytreasurer, thebarangaysecretary, and
otherappointedbarangayofficials;
(a) Thepunong barangay, as the chief executive of
thebarangaygovernment, shall exercise such powers and 6. (6)Organizeandleadanemergencygroupwheneverthe
performsuchdutiesandfunctions,asprovidedbythisCodeand samemaybenecessaryforthemaintenanceofpeaceand
otherlaws. order or on occasions of emergency or calamity within
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance, the thebarangay,
purposeofwhichisthegeneralwelfareofthebarangayandits
inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, thepunong 7. (7)In coordination with thebarangaydevelopment
barangayshall: council,preparetheannualexecutiveandsupplemental
budgetsofthebarangay;
1. (1)Enforcealllawsandordinanceswhichareapplicable
withinthebarangay; 8. (8)Approve vouchers relating to the disbursement
ofbarangayfunds;
2. (2)Negotiate, enter into, and sign contracts for and in
behalf of the barangay, upon authorization of 9. (9)Enforce laws and regulations relating to pollution
thesangguniangbarangay; controlandprotectionoftheenvironment;

3. (3)Maintain public order in thebarangayand, in 10. (10)Administer the operation of thekatarungang

pursuance thereof, assist the city or municipal mayor pambarangayinaccordancewiththenprovisionsofthis
and thesangguniangmembers in the performance of Code;
theirdutiesandfunctions;
11. (11)Exercise general supervision over the activities of
4. (4)Callandpresideoverthesessionsofthesangguniang thesangguniangkabataan;
barangayand thebarangayassembly, and vote only to
breakatie; 401
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 401
5. (5)Upon approval by a majority of all the members of Peoplevs.Ulit
thesangguniang barangay, appoint or replace claimed that the appellants statement before
thebarangaychairmanisinadmissible.
The Sufficiency of Evidence on Lucelles Relationship with the 3. (14)Promotethegeneralwelfareofthebarangay;and
Appellant,herMinority,andtheProprietyoftheImpositionofthe
DeathPenalty 4. (15)Exercise such other powers and perform such other
Theappellantsconvictionfortwocountsofrapehavingbeenduly duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or
establishedbytheprosecution,wenowcometothequestionof ordinance.
thepenaltytobemeteduponhim.
Article335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbySection (c) In the performance of his peace and order functions,
11ofRepublicActNo.7659,whichwasthelawineffectatthe thepunongbarangayshallbeentitledtopossessandcarrythe
timeofthecommissionofthesubjectrapes,providesinpart: necessaryfirearmwithinhisterritorialjurisdiction,subjectto
ART.335.\Whenandhowrapeiscommitted.Rapeiscommitted appropriaterulesandregulations.
by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the 402
followingcircumstances. 402 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ulit
1. 1.Byusingforceorintimidation; Wheneverthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwiththeuseofadeadly
weaponorbytwoormorepersons,thepenaltyshallbereclusion
2. 2.When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise perpetuatodeath.
unconscious;and ...
Thedeathpenaltyshallalsobeimposedifthecrimeofrapeis
3. 3.When the woman is under twelve years of age or is committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
demented.
1. 1.Whenthevictimisundereighteen(18)yearsofageand
Thecrimeofrapeshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetua. the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian,relativebyconsanguinityoraffinitywithinthe
_______________ third civil degree, or the commonlaw spouse of the
parentofthevictim.
1. (12)Ensure the delivery of basic services as mandated
underSection17ofthisCode; ...
Thequalifyingcircumstancesofminorityandrelationshipmust
2. (13)Conduct an annualpalarong barangaywhich shall concur.Moreimportantly,theymustbebothallegedandproved,
feature traditional sports and discipline included in inordertoqualifythecrimeofrapeandwarranttheimpositionof
nationalandinternationalgames,incoordinationwith the death penalty.53In addition to the requirement that the
theDepartmentofEducation,CultureandSports; qualifying and aggravating circumstance must be specifically
allegedintheinformation,itmustbeestablishedwithcertainty tofurtherallegethatsuchrelationshipwaswithinthethirdcivil
thatthevictimwasbeloweighteen(18)yearsofageorthatshe degree.56
wasaminoratthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime.Itmust Theprosecutionsevidencehasalsoshownthattheappellantis
bestressedthattheseverityofthedeathpenalty,especiallyits thevictimsuncle,beingtheolderbrotherofthevictimsmother,
irreversibleandfinalnatureoncecarriedout,makesthedecision afactthattheappellanthimselfadmitted.
making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most Thesamecannot,however,besaidwithrespecttotheageof
exactingrulesofprocedureandevidence.54 the victim. InPeople v. Pruna,57the Court, after noting the
The relationship between the appellant and the victim has divergentrulingsonproofofageofthevictiminrapecases,set
beenadequatelyestablished.TheallegationsinbothInformations outcertainguidelinesinappreciatingage,eitherasanelementof
that the appellant is the victims uncle, a relative by thecrimeorasqualifyingcircumstance:
consanguinitywithinthethirdcivildegreeisspecificenoughto
satisfythespecialqualifyingcircumstanceofrelationship. 1. 1.Thebestevidencetoprovetheageoftheoffendedparty
InPeoplev.Ferolino,55wesaid isanoriginalorcertifiedtruecopyofthecertificateof
InthiscasetheallegationthatFERLYNisANTONIOsnieceis livebirthofsuchparty.
notspecificenoughtosatisfythespecialqualifyingcircumstances
ofrelationship.Iftheoffenderismerelyarelationnotaparent, 2. 2.In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
ascendant,stepparent,orguardianorcommonlawspouseofthe authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and
motherofthevictimitmustbeallegedintheinformationthathe schoolrecordswhichshowthedateofbirthofthevictim
is a relative by consanguinity or affinity[as the case may wouldsufficetoproveage.
be]withinthethirdcivildegree.Thatrela
3. 3.Ifthecertificateoflivebirthorauthenticdocumentis
_______________ shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable,thetestimony,ifclearandcredible,ofthe
53
Peoplev.Emperador,390SCRA1(2002). victims mother or a member of the family either by
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on
54
People v. Ilagan,G.R. No. 144595, August 6, 2003,408
matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or
SCRA442.
dateofbirthoftheoffendedpartypursuanttoSection
55
329SCRA719(2000).
40,Rule130oftheRulesonEvidenceshallbesufficient
403
underthefollowingcircumstances:
VOL.423,FEBRUARY23,2004 403
Peoplevs.Ulit
tionship by consanguinity or affinity was not alleged in the
informationsinthesecases.Evenifitwas,itwasstillnecessary
 1. a.Ifthevictimisallegedtobebelow3yearsofageand 1. 6.Thetrialcourtshouldalwaysmakeacategoricalfinding
whatissought tobe provedisthatshe islessthan7 astotheageofthevictim.58
yearsold;
Inthepresentcase,nobirthcertificateoranysimilarauthentic
2. b.Ifthevictimisallegedtobebelow7yearsofageand document was presented and offered in evidence to prove
whatissoughttobeprovedisthatsheislessthan12 Lucelles age. While the victim testified that she was born on
yearsold; February 19, 1986, therefore 11 years old when the appellant
twicerapedher,thesamewillnotsufficeastheappellantdidnot
3. c.Ifthevictimisallegedtobebelow12yearsofageand expresslyandclearlyadmitthesameasrequiredbyPruna.The
whatissoughttobeprovedisthatsheislessthan18 corroborationofLucellesmotherastoherageisnotsufficient
yearsold. either,as thereis noevidencethatthe said certificateof birth
waslostordestroyedorwasunavailablewithoutthefaultofthe
1. 4.In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic prosecution.Thefactthattherewasnoobjectionfromthedefense
document, or the testimony of the victims mother or regardingthevictimsagecannotbetakenagainsttheappellant
relativesconcerningthevictimsage,thecomplainants since it is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the
testimonywillsufficeprovidedthatitisexpresslyand same.Moreover,thetrialcourtdidnotmakeacategoricalfinding
clearlyadmittedbytheaccused. of the victims minority, another requirement mandated
byPruna.
2. 5.Itistheprosecutionthathastheburdenofprovingthe Anotherissuethatneedstobesettledisthethirdparagraph
ageoftheoffendedparty.Thefailureoftheaccusedto of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which
objecttothetestimonialevidenceregardingageshallnot providesthat,[w]heneverrape iscommittedwiththeuseof a
betakenagainsthim. deadlyweaponorbytwoormorepersons,theimposablepenalty
shallbereclusionperpetuatodeath.
_______________ TheevidenceonrecordshowsthattheappellantrapedLucelle
withtheuseofadeadlyweaponinbothrapeincidentsasalleged
56
Id.,atp.735(Emphasisours). inbothinformations,andunderArticle335oftheRevisedPenal
57
390SCRA577(2002). Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the imposable
404 penaltyforthecrimeisreclusionperpetuatodeath.
404 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Inthedeterminationofwhetherthedeathpenaltyshouldbe
Peoplevs.Ulit imposed on the appellant, the presence of an aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime is crucial. In the
casesatbar,althoughtherelationshipofuncleandniecebetween
the appellant and the victim has been duly proven, the thesumofP50,000ascivilindemnityforeachcountofrape.In
alternativecircumstanceofrelationshipunderArticle15ofthe additiontothis,appellantisorderedtopaythevictimP25,000as
Revised Penal Code cannot be appreciated as an aggravating exemplarydamages,thequalifyingaggravatingcircumstanceof
circumstance against the appellant. While it is true that the useofadeadlyweaponhavingattendedthecommissionofthe
alternativecircumstanceofrelationshipisalwaysaggravatingin crime.62
crimesagainstchastity,regardlessofwhethertheoffenderisa WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
relativeofahigherorlowerdegreeoftheoffendedparty,itisonly MakatiCity,Branch62,inCriminalCasesNos.97385to97388
taken into consideration under Article 15 of the Revised Penal is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The appellant Feliciano
Code when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, UlityTampoyisfoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtoftwo
descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or countsofrapeinCriminalCasesNos.97385and97386,andin
relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. The each
relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the case, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty ofreclusion
relationshipsmentioned.59 perpetuaandorderedtopaythevictim,LucelleSerrano,P50,000
Hence, for the prosecutions failure to prove the age of the as moral damages; P50,000 as civil indemnity; and P25,000 as
victimbyanymeanssetforthinPruna,andconsideringthatthe exemplarydamages.Costsdeoficio.
relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the SOORDERED.
relationshipsmentionedinArticle15oftheRevisedPenalCode,
Davide,
as amended, the appellant can only be convicted of rape in its
Jr.(C.J.),Puno,Vitug,Panganiban,Quisumbing,Ynares
aggravated form, the imposable penalty for which isreclusion
G.R.No.179448.June26,2013.*
perpetuatodeath.
CARLOS L. TANENGGEE, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE
There being no modifying circumstances attendant to the
PHILIPPINES,respondent.
commissionofthecrimes,theappellantshouldbesentencedto
Constitutional Law; Custodial Interrogation; Words and
sufferreclusion perpetuafor each count of rape, conformably to
Phrases;Custodialinterrogationmeansanyquestioninginitiated
Article69oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Thevictimisentitledtomoraldamageswithoutneedofproof bylawenforcementauthoritiesafterapersonistakenintocustody
otherthanthefactoftherapeitselfbecauseitisassumedthat orotherwisedeprivedofhisfreedomofactioninanysignificant
the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an manner.The constitutional proscription against the
award.60We find the trial courts award of P50,000 as moral admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in
damagestothevictimineachrapetobeinorder. violationofSection12,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution,ascorrectly
However,thetrialcourterredinnotawardingcivilindemnity observedbytheCAandtheOSG,isapplicableonlyincustodial
tothevictimineachcase,thesamebeingmandatoryuponthe interrogation. Custodial interrogation means any questioning
findingofthefactofrape.61Thus,thisCourtawardsthevictim initiatedbylawenforcementauthoritiesafterapersonistaken
intocustodyorotherwisedeprivedofhisfreedomofactioninany Commission, 630 SCRA 202 (2010): However, it must be
significant manner. Indeed, a person under custodial rememberedthattherighttocounselunderSection12oftheBill
investigationisguaranteedcertainrightswhichattachuponthe of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial
commencement thereof, viz.: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2),
competentandindependentcounselpreferablyofhisownchoice, Section12oftheBillofRightsappliesonlytoadmissionsmadein
and (3) to be informed of the two other rights above. In the a criminal investigation but not to those made in an
present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an administrativeinvestigation.Here,petitionerswrittenstatement
uncounselledwrittenstatementregardingananomalydiscovered was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his
in the branch he managed, the following are clear: (1) the employerinconnectionwithananomaly/irregularityheallegedly
questioningwasnotinitiatedbyalawenforcementauthoritybut committed in the course of his employment. No error can
merely by an internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2) therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in
petitionerwasneitherarrestednorrestrainedofhislibertyinany evidence andingivingdueconsiderationtopetitionerswritten
significant manner during the questioning. Clearly, petitioner statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its
cannot be said to be under custodial investigation and to have admissibility.
beendeprivedoftheconstitutionalprerogativeduringthetaking Same;Evidence;Confessions;Aconfession[oradmission]is
ofhiswrittenstatement.
presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the
Same; Right to Counsel; In Remolona v. Civil Service
confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary.[I]t is
Commission, 414 Phil. 590 (2001), the Supreme Court declared settled that a confession [or admission] is presumed voluntary
thattherighttocounselappliesonlytoadmissionsmadeina untilthecontraryisprovedandtheconfessantbearstheburden
criminalinvestigationbutnottothosemadeinanadministrative of proving the contrary. Petitioner failed to overcome this
investigation.InRemolona v. Civil Service Commission, 362 presumption.Onthecontrary,hiswrittenstatementwasfoundto
SCRA304(2001),wedeclaredthattherighttocounselapplies havebeenexecutedfreelyandconsciously.Thepertinentdetails
only to admissionsmade in a criminal investigation but not to henarratedinhisstatementwereofsuchnatureandqualitythat
thosemadeinanadministra onlyaperpetratorofthecrimecouldfurnish.
_______________ Same; Same; ExtrajudicialConfessions;Itisasettledrule
*SECONDDIVISION. thatwherethedefendantdidnotpresentevidenceofcompulsion,
640 wherehedidnotinstituteanycriminaloradministrativeaction
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED againsthissupposedintimidators,wherenophysicalevidenceof
40
violence was presented, his extrajudicial statement shall be
Tanenggeevs.People
considered as having been voluntarily executed.The fact that
tive investigation. Amplifying further on the matter, the petitionerdidnotraiseawhimperofprotestandfileanycharges,
CourtmadeclearintherecentcaseofCarbonelv.CivilService
criminaloradministrative,againsttheinvestigatorandthetwo RemedialLaw;CriminalProcedure;Appeals;Aruleoflong
policemenpresentwhoallegedlyintimidatedhimandforcedhim standinginthisjurisdictionisthatfindingsofatrialcourt,when
tosignnegatehisbareassertionsofcompulsionandintimidation.
affirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,areaccordedgreatweightand
It is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present
respect.Inthiscase,thefindingofforgeryonthesignatureof
evidenceofcompulsion,wherehedidnotinstituteanycriminalor
administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where RomeoTan(Tan)appearinginthepromissorynotesandcashiers
nophysicalevidenceofviolencewaspresented,hisextrajudicial checkswasnotanchoredsolelyontheresultoftheexamination
statement shall be considered as having been voluntarily conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
executed.Neitherwillpetitionersassertionthathe DocumentExaminer.Thetrialcourtalsomadeanindependent
641 examinationofthequestionedsignaturesandafteranalyzingthe
same, reached the conclusion that the signatures of Tan
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 641
appearinginthepromissorynotesaredifferentfromhisgenuine
Tanenggeevs.People signatures appearing in his Deposit Account Information and
didnotreadthecontentsofhisstatementbeforeaffixinghis SpecimenSignatureCardsonfilewiththebank.Thus,wefindno
signaturethereonjusttogetitoverwithpropuptheinstant reason to disturb the above findings of the RTC which was
Petition. To recall, petitioner has a masteral degree from a affirmedbytheCA.Aruleoflongstandinginthisjurisdictionis
reputableeducationalinstitutionandhadbeenabankmanager that findings of a trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are
for quite a number of years. He is thus expected to fully accordedgreatweightandrespect.Absentanyreasontodeviate
understand and comprehend the significance of signing an fromthesaidfindings,asinthiscase,thesameshouldbedeemed
instrument. It is just unfortunate that he did not exercise due conclusiveandbindingtothisCourt.642
diligence in the conduct of his own affairs. He can therefore
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
expectnoconsiderationforit.
42
CriminalLaw;Forgery;Forgeryispresentwhenanywriting
Tanenggeevs.People
is counterfeited bythe signing of anothers name with intent to
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; The prosecution has the
defraud.Forgeryispresentwhenanywritingiscounterfeited
bythesigningofanothersnamewithintenttodefraud.Itcanbe prerogative to choose the evidence or the witnesses it wishes to
established by comparing the alleged false signature with the present.The prosecution has the prerogative to choose the
authenticorgenuine one.Afindingofforgery doesnotdepend evidence or the witnesses it wishes to present. It has the
entirely on the testimonies of government handwriting experts discretion as to how it should present its case. Moreover, the
whoseopinionsdonotmandatorilybindthecourts.Atrialjudge presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not
is not precluded but is even authorized by law to conduct an applywheretheevidencewasatthedisposalofboththedefense
independentexaminationofthequestionedsignatureinorderto and the prosecution. In the present case, if petitioner believes
arriveatareasonableconclusionastoitsauthenticity. thatTanistheprincipalwitnesswhocouldexculpatehimfrom
liabilitybyestablishingthatitwasTanandnothimwhosigned advantageofisofficialposition,ofpublic,privateorcommercial
thesubjectdocuments,themostprudentthingtodoistoutilize document.
him as his witness. Anyway, petitioner has the right to have 643
compulsory process to secure Tans attendance during the trial
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 643
pursuant to Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution. The
Tanenggeevs.People
recordsshow,however,thatpetitionerdidnotinvokesuchright.
Falsificationofdocumentsunderparagraph1,Article172in
Inviewofthese,nosuppressionofevidencecanbeattributedto
relationtoArticle171oftheRevisedPenalCode(RPC)refersto
theprosecution.
falsification by a private individual or a public officer or
CriminalLaw;Denials;Denialswhichareunsubstantiated
employee,whodidnottakeadvantageofhisofficialposition,of
by clear and convincing evidence are negative and selfserving public, private or commercial document. The elements of
evidence.Theymeritnoweightinlawandcannotbegivengreater falsificationofdocumentsunderparagraph1,Article172ofthe
evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who RPCare:(1)thattheoffenderisaprivateindividualorapublic
testifiedonaffirmativematters.TheCourtisalsonotpersuaded officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official
bythebareanduncorroboratedallegationofpetitionerthatthe position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification
loanscoveredbythepromissory notesand thecashierschecks enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and, (3) that the
werepersonallytransactedbyTanagainsthisapprovedletterof falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial
credit,althoughheadmittedlyneversawTanaffixhissignature document.Alltheabovementionedelementswereestablishedin
thereto.Again,thisallegation,astheRTCaptlyobserved,isnot thiscase.First,petitionerisaprivateindividual.Second,theacts
supported by established evidence. It is settled that denials of falsification consisted in petitioners (1) counterfeiting or
whichareunsubstantiatedbyclearandconvincingevidenceare imitatingthehandwritingorsignatureofTanandcausingitto
negativeandselfservingevidence.[Theymerit]noweightinlaw appearthatthesameistrueandgenuineinallrespects;and(2)
andcannotbegivengreaterevidentiaryvalueoverthetestimony causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or
ofcrediblewitnesseswhotestifiedonaffirmativematters.The proceeding when he did not in fact so participate.Third, the
chain of events in this case, from the preparation of the falsificationwascommittedinpromissorynotesandcheckswhich
promissory notes to the encashment of the cashiers checks, as are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in
narratedbytheprosecutionwitnessesandbasedonpetitioners general,documentsorinstrumentswhichareusedbymerchants
own admission, established beyond reasonable doubt that he or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit
committedtheunlawfulactsallegedintheInformations. transactions. Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions
Same;FalsificationofCommercialDocuments;Falsification whileacheckisameansofpaymentusedinbusinessinlieuof
ofdocumentsunderparagraph1,Article172inrelationtoArticle moneyforconvenienceinbusinesstransactions.Acashierscheck
171oftheRevisedPenalCodereferstofalsificationbyaprivate necessarilyfacilitatesbanktransactionsforitallowstheperson
individual or a public officer or employee, who did not take
whosenameandsignatureappearthereontoencashthecheck Same; Estafa; Estafa is generally committed when (a) the
andwithdrawtheamountindicatedtherein. accuseddefraudedanotherbyabuseofconfidence,orbymeansof
Same; Complex Crimes; Words and Phrases; A complex deceit,and(b)theoffendedpartyorathirdpartysuffereddamage
crimemayrefertoasingleactwhichconstitutestwoormoregrave orprejudicecapableofpecuniaryestimation.Estafaisgenerally
or lessgrave felonies ortoanoffenseasanecessarymeansfor committedwhen(a)theaccuseddefraudedanotherbyabuseof
committing another.When the offender commits on a public, confidence,orbymeansofdeceit,and(b)theoffendedpartyora
official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary means to commit estimation. [D]eceit is the false representation of a matter of
anothercrimelikeestafa,theftormalversation,thetwocrimes fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
formacomplexcrime.UnderArticle48oftheRPC,therearetwo allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been
classesofacomplexcrime.Acomplexcrimemayrefertoasingle disclosedwhichdeceivesorisintendedtodeceiveanothersothat
actwhichconstitutestwoormoregraveorlessgravefeloniesor heshallactuponittohislegalinjury.Theelementsofestafa
to an offense as a necessary means for committing another. obtain in thiscase. By falsely representing that Tan requested
InDomingo v. People, 603 SCRA 488 (2009), we held: The himtoprocesspurportedloansonthelattersbehalf,petitioner
falsificationofapublic,official,orcommercialdocumentmaybea counterfeited or imitated the signature of Tan in the cashiers
meansofcommittingestafa,becausebeforethefalsifieddocument checks. Through these, petitioner succeeded in withdrawing
isactuallyutilizedtodefraudanother,the money from the bank. Once in possession of the amount,
644 petitioner thereafter invested the same in Eurocan Future
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Commodities.Clearly,petitioneremployeddeceitinordertotake
44 holdofthemoney,misappropriatedandconvertedittohisown
personaluseandbenefit,andtheseresultedtothedamageand
Tanenggeevs.People
prejudiceofthebankintheamountofaboutP43million.
crime of falsification has already been consummated,
Same; Estafa Through Falsification of Commercial
damageorintenttocausedamagenotbeinganelementofthe
crimeoffalsificationofpublic,officialorcommercialdocument.In Documents;Penalties;Thecrimeoffalsificationwasestablishedto
other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. beanecessarymeanstocommitestafa.PursuanttoArticle48of
Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial theRevisedPenalCode,thepenaltytobeimposedinsuchcase
documenttodefraudanotherisestafa.Butthedamageiscaused shouldbethatcorrespondingtothemostseriouscrime,thesame
by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the tobeappliedinitsmaximumperiod.Petitionerinthiscaseis
document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or found liable for the commission of the complex crime of estafa
commercialdocumentisonlyanecessarymeanstocommitestafa. through falsification of commercial document. The crime of
falsificationwasestablishedtobeanecessarymeanstocommit S.Villarama,Jr.andLucasP.Bersamin(nowmembersofthis
estafa.PursuanttoArticle48ofthe Court).
645 3Records of Criminal Case No. 98163806, pp. 396405;
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 645 pennedbyJudgeSenecioO.Ortile.
Tanenggeevs.People 4CARollo,pp.277279.
Code,thepenaltytobeimposedinsuchcaseshouldbethat 5Id.,atpp.231243.
correspondingtothemostseriouscrime,thesametobeappliedin 6Id.,atpp.247257.
itsmaximumperiod.Theapplicablepenaltythereforeisforthe 646
crimeofestafa,beingthemoreseriousoffensethanfalsification. 646 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
Tanenggeevs.People
oftheCourtofAppeals.
FactualAntecedents
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
On March 27, 1998, five separate Informations 7for estafa
Gabionza,DeSantos&Partnersforpetitioner.
throughfalsificationofcommercialdocumentswerefiledagainst
Perez, Calima, Maynigo & Roque Law Officesfor private petitioner. The said Informations portray the same mode of
complainantMetrobank. commissionofthecrimeasinCriminalCaseNo.98163806but
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent. differwithrespecttothenumbersofthechecksandpromissory
DELCASTILLO,J.: notesinvolvedandthedatesandamountsthereof,viz.:
AssailedinthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1underRule ThatonoraboutJuly24,1997,intheCityofManila,
45oftheRulesofCourtistheDecember12,2006Decision 2ofthe Philippines, the said accused, being then a private
CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRNo.23653affirmingwith individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
modification the June 25, 1999 Decision 3of the Regional Trial feloniously defraud, thru falsification of commercial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 30, in Criminal Case Nos. 98 document, the METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO.
16380610findingCarlosL.Tanenggee(petitioner)guiltybeyond (METROBANK), represented by its Legal officer, Atty.
reasonabledoubtoffivecountsofestafathroughfalsificationof Ferdinand R. Aguirre, in the following manner: herein
commercial documents. Likewise questioned is the CAs accused, being then the Manager of the COMMERCIO
September 6, 2007 Resolution4denying petitioners Motion for BRANCHOFMETROBANKlocatedattheNewDivisoria
Reconsideration5andSupplementalMotionforReconsideration.6 MarketBldg.,Divisoria,Manila,andtakingadvantageof
_______________ hispositionassuch,preparedandfilleduporcausedtobe
1Rollo,pp.18103. prepared and filled up METROBANK Promissory Note
Form No.366857with letters and figures reading
2CARollo,pp.206230;pennedbyAssociateJusticeMonina
BD#083/97 after the letters reading PN, with figures
ArevaloZenarosaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesMartin
reading07.24.97afterthewordDATE,withtheamount
 ofP16,000,000.00inwordsandinfigures,andwithother ofP16,000,000.00fromMETROBANK,whenintruthand
words and figures now appearing thereon, typing or infact,asthesaidaccusedwellknew,suchwasnotthe
causingtobetypedattherightbottomthereofthename caseinthatsaidRomeoTandidnotobtainsuchloanfrom
readingROMEOTAN,feigningandforgingorcausingto METROBANK, neither did he participate in the
befeignedandforgedontopofsaidnamethesignatureof preparation,executionandsigningofthesaidpromissory
RomeoTan,affixinghisownsignatureattheleftbottom noteandsigningandendorsementofsaidMETROBANK
thereofpurportedlytoshowthathewitnessedthealleged CASHIERSCHECK,muchlessauthorizehereinaccused
signing of the said note by Romeo Tan, thereafter to prepare, execute and affix his signature in the said
preparingandfillinguporcausingtobe documents;thatoncethesaiddocumentswereforgedand
_______________ falsified in the manner aboveset forth, the said accused
7RecordsofCriminalCaseNo.98163806,pp.23;recordsof released, obtained and received from the METROBANK
CriminalCaseNo.98163807,pp.12;recordsofCriminalCase the sum ofP15,363,666.67purportedly representing the
No.98163808,pp.12;recordsofCriminalCaseNo.98163809, proceeds of the said loan, which amount, once in his
pp.12;recordsofCriminalCaseNo.98163810,pp.12. possession, with intent to defraud, he misappropriated,
647 misapplied and converted to his own personal use and
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 647 benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Tanenggeevs.People METROBANK in the same sum ofP15,363,666.67,
preparedandfilledupMETROBANKCASHIERSCHECK Philippinecurrency.
NO.CC 0000001531, a commercial document, with date CONTRARYTOLAW.8
reading July 24, 1997, with the name reading Romeo _______________
Tan as payee, and with the sum ofP15,362,666.67in 8RecordsofCriminalCaseNo.98163806,pp.23.
wordsandinfigures,whichpurportstobetheproceedsof 648
the loan being obtained, thereafter affixing his own 648 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
signature thereon, and [directing] the unsuspecting bank Tanenggeevs.People
cashier to also affix his signature on the said check, as OnMay27,1998,theRTCenteredapleaofnotguiltyforthe
authorized signatories, and finally affixing, feigning and petitionerafterherefusedtoenteraplea. 9Thecaseswerethen
forging or causing to be affixed, feigned and forgedfour consolidatedandjointlytried.
(4)timesatthebackthereofthesignatureofsaidRomeo TheproceedingsbeforetheRTCasaptlysummarizedbythe
Tan,therebymakingitappear,asitdidappearthatRomeo CAareasfollows:
Tan had participated in the [preparation], execution and During the pretrial, except for the identity of the
signingofthesaid PromissoryNoteandthe signingand accused,thejurisdictionofthecourt,andthataccusedwas
endorsement of the said METROBANK CASHIERS thebranchmanagerofMetrobankCommercioBranchfrom
CHECK and that he obtained a loan July 1997 to December 1997, no other stipulations were
 enteredinto.ProsecutionmarkeditsexhibitsAtoLand said interview, appellant admitted having committed the
submarkings. allegations in the Informations, specifically forging the
xxxx promissory notes; that the proceeds of the loan were
The prosecution alleged that on different occasions, securedorpersonallyreceivedbytheappellantalthoughit
appellant caused to be prepared promissory notes and should be the client of the bank who should receive the
cashierschecksinthenameofRomeoTan,avaluedclient same; and that all the answers of the appellant were
of the bank since he has substantial deposits in his containedinatypewrittendocumentvoluntarilyexecuted,
account, inconnectionwiththepurportedloansobtained thumbmarked,andsignedbyhim(ExhibitN).
bythelatterfromthebank.Appellantapprovedandsigned Rosemarie Tan Apostol, assistant branch manager,
the cashiers check as branch manager of Metrobank testifiedthatthesignaturesappearingonthepromissory
CommercioBranch.Appellantaffixed,forgedorcausedto notes were not the signatures of Romeo Tan; that the
besignedthesignatureofTanasendorserandpayeeofthe promissorynotesdidnotbearhersignaturealthoughitis
proceedsofthechecksatthebackofthesametoshowthat required,duetothefactthatRomeoTanisavaluedclient
thelatterhadindeedendorsedthesameforpayment.He and her manager accommodated valued clients; that she
handed the checks to the Loans clerk, Maria Dolores signed the corresponding checks upon instruction of
Miranda, for encashment. Once said documents were appellant;andthataftersigningthechecks,appellanttook
forgedandfalsified,appellantreleasedandobtainedfrom thesame[which]remainedinhiscustody.
Metrobank the proceeds of the alleged loan and Eliodoro M. Constantino, NBI Supervisor and a
misappropriatedthesametohisuseandbenefit.Afterthe handwritingexpert,testifiedthatthesignaturesappearing
discovery of the irregular loans, an internal audit was on the promissory notes and specimen signatures on the
conductedandanadministrativeinvestigationwasheldin signaturecardofRomeoTanwerenotwrittenbyoneand
the Head Office of Metrobank, during which appellant thesameperson.
signedawrittenstatement(markedasExhibitN)inthe Maria Dolores Miranda, a Loans Clerk at Metrobank
formofquestionsandanswers. CommercioBranch,testifiedthatseveralcashierschecks
Theprosecutionpresentedthefollowingwitnesses: were issued in favor of Romeo Tan; that appellant
_______________ instructed her to encash the same; and that it was
9Id.,atp.73. appellantwhoreceivedtheproceedsoftheloan.
649 Forhisdefense,appellantCarlosLoTanenggeetestified
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 649 that he is a holder of a Masters degree from the Asian
InstituteofManagement,andwastheBranchManagerof
Tanenggeevs.People
Metrobank Commercio Branch from 1994 until he was
Valentino Elevado, a member of the Internal Affairs
charged in 1998 [with] theabovenamed offense. He was
[D]epartment of Metrobank[,] testified that he conducted
with Metrobank for nine (9) years starting as assistant
and interviewed the appellant in January 1998; that in
 manager of Metrobank Dasmarias Branch, Binondo, samethroughthebanksmessengertoTansoffice,which
Manila.Asmanager,heoversawthedaytoday was located across the [street]. The latter would then
650 return to the bank, through his own messenger, the
650 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED promissory notes already signed by him. Upon receipt of
Tanenggeevs.People thepromissorynote,appellantwouldorderthepreparation
operationsofthe[branch],solicitedaccountsandprocessed of the corresponding cashiers check representing the
loans,amongothers. proceedsoftheparticularloan,sendthesamethroughthe
AppellantclaimedthathewasabletosolicitRomeoTan banksmessengertotheofficeofTan,andthelatterwould
asaclientdepositorwhenhewasthebranchmanagerof return the same through his own messenger already
MetrobankCommercio.Asavaluedclient,RomeoTanwas endorsed together with a deposit slip under Current
granted a credit line for forty million pesos Account No. 2582501337 of Jose Tan. Only Cashiers
([P]40,000,000.00)byMetrobank.Tanwasalsoallowedto Checkdated21November1997forsix
open a fictitious account for his personal use and was 651
assisted personally by appellant in his dealings with the VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 651
bank. In the middle of 1997, Tan allegedly opened a Tanenggeevs.People
fictitious account and used the name Jose Tan. Such teenmillionpesos([P]16,000,000.00)wasnotendorsedand
practiceforvaluedclientswasallowedbyandknowntothe deposited for, allegedly, it was used to pay the loan
banktohidetheirfinancesduetorampantkidnappingsor obtainedon24July1997.Appellantclaimedthatallthe
fromtheBureauofInternalRevenue(BIR)orfromtheir signaturesofTanappearingonthepromissorynotesand
spouses. the cashiers checks were the genuine signatures of Tan
According to appellant, Tan availed of his standing althoughheneversawthelatteraffixthemthereon.
creditline(throughpromissorynotes)forfive(5)timeson In the middle of January 1998, two (2) Metrobank
the following dates: 1) 24 July 1997 for sixteen million auditorsconductedanauditoftheCommercioBranchfor
pesos([P]16,000,000.00),2)27October1997forsixmillion more than a week. Thereafter or on 26 January 1998,
pesos ([P]6,000,000.00), 3) 12 November 1997 for three appellant was asked by Elvira OngChan, senior vice
million pesos ([P]3,000,000.00), 4) 21 November 1997 for presidentofMetrobank,toreporttotheHeadOfficeonthe
sixteen million pesos ([P]16,000,000,00), 5) 22 December followingday.Whenappellantarrivedatthesaidoffice,he
1997fortwomillionpesos([P]2,000,000.00).Onallthese was surprised that there were seven (7) other people
occasions except the loan on 24 July 1997 when Tan present: two (2) senior branch officers, two (2) bank
personally went to the bank, Tan allegedly gave his lawyers,two(2)policemen(oneinuniformandtheotherin
instructions regarding the loan through the telephone. plainclothes),andarepresentativeoftheInternalAffairs
Uponreceivingtheinstructions,appellantwouldorderthe unitofthebank,ValentinoElevado.
Loansclerktopreparethepromissorynoteandsendthe
 Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to sign a 2. In Criminal Case No. 98163807[,] to suffer the
paper (Exhibit N) in connection with the audit indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentfromeight(8)years
investigation;thatheinquiredwhathewasmadetosign ofprision mayoras minimum to twenty (20) years
but was not offered any explanation; that he was ofreclusiontemporalasmaximumincludingtheaccessory
intimidatedtosignandwasthreatenedbythepolicethat penaltiesprovidedbylaw,andtoindemnifyMetrobankthe
hewillbebroughttotheprecinctifhewillnotsign;thathe
sum of P16 Million with interest [at] 18%per
wasnotabletoconsultalawyersincehewasnotapprised
annumcountedfrom27November1997untilfullypaid.
ofthepurposeofthemeeting;[and]thatjusttogetitover
with he signed the paper which turned out to be a 3.In Criminal Case No. 98163808[,] to suffer the
confession. After the saidmeeting, appellant wenttosee indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentfromeight(8)years
Tanathisofficebutwasunabletofindthelatter.Healso ofprision mayoras minimum to twenty (20) years
triedtophonehimbuttonoavail.10 ofreclusiontemporalasmaximumincludingtheaccessory
RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt penaltiesprovidedbylaw,andtoindemnifyMetrobankthe
After the joint trial, the RTC rendered a consolidated sum of P6 Million with interest [at] 18%per
Decision11dated June 25, 1999 finding petitioner guilty of the annumcountedfrom27October1997untilfullypaid.
crimescharged,thedecretalportionofwhichstates: 4.In Criminal Case No. 98163809[,] to suffer the
_______________ indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentfromeight(8)years
10CARollo,pp.210215. ofprision mayoras minimum to twenty (20) years
11RecordsofCriminalCaseNo.98163806,pp.396405. ofreclusiontemporalasmaximumincludingtheaccessory
652 penaltiesprovidedbylaw,andtoindemnifyMetrobankthe
652 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
sum of P2 Million with interest [at] 18%per
Tanenggeevs.People
annumcountedfrom22December1997untilfullypaid.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, Carlos Lo
5.In Criminal Case No. 98163810[,] to suffer the
Tanenggee,guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtoftheoffenseofestafa
indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentfromeight(8)years
thru falsification of commercial document[s] charged in each of
ofprision mayoras minimum to twenty (20) years
thefive(5)Informationsfiledandherebysentenceshimtosuffer
thefollowingpenalties: ofreclusiontemporalasmaximumincludingtheaccessory
1.In Criminal Case No. 98163806[,] to suffer the penaltiesprovidedbylaw,andtoindemnifyMetrobankthe
indeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentfromeight(8)years sum of P3 Million with interest [at] 18%per
ofprision mayoras minimum to twenty (20) years annum[counted] from 12 November 1997 until fully
ofreclusiontemporalasmaximumincludingtheaccessory paid.653
penaltiesprovidedbylaw. VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 653
 Tanenggeevs.People 14Id.,atpp.229230.
Accused shall serve the said penalties imposed 15Id.,atp.231.
successively. 16Id.,atpp.277279.
AsmandatedinArticle70oftheRevisedPenalCode, 654
themaximumdurationofthesentenceimposedshallnot 654 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
bemorethanthreefoldthelengthoftimecorrespondingto
Tanenggeevs.People
the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him and
such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40) Hence, the present Petition for Review onCertiorariunder
years. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising the basic issues of: (1)
SOORDERED.12 whether the CA erred in affirming the RTCs admission in
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals evidenceofthepetitionerswrittenstatementbasedonitsfinding
Petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction to the CA thathewasnotinpolicecustodyorundercustodialinterrogation
where the case was docketed as CAG.R. CR No. 23653. On when the same was taken; and, (2) whether the essential
December12,2006,theCApromulgateditsDecision 13affirming elementsofestafathroughfalsificationofcommercialdocuments
withmodificationtheRTCDecisionanddisposingoftheappeal wereestablishedbytheprosecution.17
asfollows: ThePartiesArguments
WHEREFORE,theappealisDENIEDforlackofmerit While he admits signing a written statement, 18petitioner
andtheDecisiondated25June1999oftheRegionalTrial refutesthetruthofthecontentsthereofandallegesthathewas
Court(RTC)ofManila,Branch30convictingtheaccused only forced to sign the same without reading its contents. He
appellant Carlos Lo [Tanenggee] on five counts assertsthatsaidwrittenstatementwastakeninviolationofhis
rights under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution,
ofestafathrough falsification of commercial documents is
particularly of his right to remain silent, right to counsel, and
herebyAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONthat in
right to be informed of the first two rights. Hence, the same
Criminal Case No. 98163806, he is further ordered to
shouldnothavebeenadmittedinevidenceagainsthim.
indemnify Metrobank the sum of [P]16 Million with
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines,
interest [at] 18%per annumcounted from 24 July 1997 throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),maintainsthat
untilfullypaid. petitionerswrittenstatementisadmissibleinevidencesincethe
SOORDERED.14 constitutionalproscriptioninvokedbypetitionerdoesnotapplyto
OnDecember29,2006,15petitionermovedforreconsideration, inquiries made in the context of private employment but is
whichtheCAdeniedperitsSeptember6,2007Resolution.16 applicableonlyincasesofcustodialinterrogation.TheOSGthus
_______________ praysfortheaffirmanceoftheappealedCADecision.
12Id.,atpp.404405. OurRuling
13CARollo,pp.206230. WefindthePetitionwantinginmerit.
 _______________ Moreover, inRemolona v. Civil Service Commission,20we
17Rollo,p.671. declared that the right to counsel applies only to admissions
18ExhibitN,recordsofCriminalCaseNo.98163806,pp. made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an
189194. administrativeinvestigation.Amplifyingfurtheronthemat
655 _______________
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 655 19People v. Bandula, G.R. No. 89223, May 27, 1994, 232
Tanenggeevs.People SCRA566,574.
Petitionerswrittenstatementis 20414Phil.590,599;362SCRA304,311312(2001).
656
admissibleinevidence.
The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of 656 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
admissionorconfessionofguiltobtainedinviolationofSection Tanenggeevs.People
12,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution,ascorrectlyobservedbytheCA ter,theCourtmadeclearintherecentcaseofCarbonelv.Civil
andtheOSG,isapplicableonlyincustodialinterrogation. ServiceCommission:21
Custodial interrogation means any questioning initiated by However, it must be remembered that the right to
lawenforcementauthoritiesafterapersonistakenintocustody counselunderSection12oftheBillofRightsismeantto
orotherwisedeprivedofhisfreedomofactioninanysignificant protectasuspectduringcustodialinvestigation.Thus,the
manner. Indeed, a person under custodial investigation is exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the
guaranteedcertainrightswhichattachuponthecommencement BillofRightsappliesonlytoadmissionsmadeinacriminal
thereof,viz.: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have competent and investigationbutnot tothose made in an administrative
independentcounselpreferablyofhisownchoice,and(3)tobe investigation.22
informed of the two other rights above. 19In the present case, Here, petitioners written statement was given during an
while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled administrativeinquiryconductedbyhisemployerinconnection
writtenstatementregardingananomalydiscoveredinthebranch with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the
hemanaged,thefollowingareclear:(1)thequestioningwasnot courseofhisemployment.Noerrorcanthereforebeattributedto
initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an the courts below in admitting in evidence and in giving due
internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2) petitioner was consideration to petitioners written statement as there is no
neitherarrestednorrestrainedofhis liberty in any significant constitutionalimpedimenttoitsadmissibility.
mannerduringthequestioning.Clearly,petitionercannotbesaid Petitioners written statement was given
tobeundercustodialinvestigationandtohavebeendeprivedof voluntarily,knowinglyandintelligently.
the constitutional prerogative during the taking of his written Petitioner attempts to convince us that he signed, under
statement. duress and intimidation, an already prepared typewritten
statement. However, his claim lacks sustainable basis and his
supposition is just an afterthought for there is nothing in the investigatingofficerscouldnothaveknownandcouldnothave
recordsthatwouldsupporthisclaimofduressandintimidation. suppliedwithouttheknowledgeandinformationgivenby[him].
Moreover, [i]t is settled that a confession [or admission] is Also,thefactthatpetitionerdidnotraiseawhimperofprotest
presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the and file any charges, criminal or administrative, against the
confessantbearstheburdenofprovingthecontrary. 23Petitioner investigator and the two policemen present who allegedly
failedtoovercomethispresumption.Onthecontrary,hiswritten intimidatedhimandforcedhimtosignnegatehisbareassertions
statement was found to have been executed freely and ofcompulsionandintimidation.Itisasettledrulethatwherethe
consciously.Thepertinentdetailshenarratedinhisstate defendantdidnotpresentevidenceofcompulsion,wherehedid
_______________ not institute any criminal or administrative action against his
21G.R.No.187689,September7,2010,630SCRA202. supposedintimidators,wherenophysicalevidenceofviolencewas
22Id.,atp.207. presented, his extrajudicial statement shall be considered as
23Peoplev.Rapeza,549Phil.378,404;520SCRA596,626 havingbeenvoluntarilyexecuted.26
(2007). _______________
657 24CARollo,p.220.
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 657 25G.R.No.181043,October8,2008,568SCRA251,268.
Tanenggeevs.People 26People v. Del Rosario, 411 Phil. 676, 690691; 359 SCRA
mentwereofsuchnatureandqualitythatonlyaperpetratorof 166,178(2001),citingPeoplev.Santalani,181Phil.481,490;93
thecrimecouldfurnish.Thedetailscontainedthereinattesttoits SCRA
voluntariness.AscorrectlypointedoutbytheCA: 658
Asthetrialcourtnoted,thewrittenstatement(Exhibit 658 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
N)ofappellantisrepletewithdetailswhichcouldonlybe Tanenggeevs.People
suppliedbyappellant.Thestatementreflectsspontaneity Neither will petitioners assertion that he did not read the
andcoherencewhichcannotbeassociatedwithamindto contents of his statement before affixing his signature thereon
whichintimidationhasbeenapplied.Appellantsanswers justtogetitoverwithpropuptheinstantPetition.Torecall,
to questions 14 and 24 were even initialed by him to petitioner has a masteral degree from a reputable educational
indicate his conformity to the corrections made therein. institutionandhadbeenabankmanagerforquiteanumberof
Theresponsetoeveryquestionwasfullyinformative,even years.Heisthusexpectedtofullyunderstandandcomprehend
beyond the required answers, which only indicates the thesignificanceofsigninganinstrument.Itisjustunfortunate
mindtobefreefromextraneousrestraints.24 thathedidnotexerciseduediligenceintheconductofhisown
InPeople v. Muit,25it was held that [o]ne of theindiciaof affairs.Hecanthereforeexpectnoconsiderationforit.
voluntariness in the execution of [petitioners] extrajudicial Forgerydulyestablished.
[statement]isthat[it]containsmanydetailsandfactswhichthe
 Forgeryispresentwhenanywritingiscounterfeitedbythe CA,areaccordedgreatweightandrespect.Absentanyreasonto
signing of anothers name with intent to defraud. 27It can be deviatefromthesaidfindings,asinthiscase,thesameshouldbe
established by comparing the alleged false signature with the deemedconclusiveandbindingtothisCourt.
authenticorgenuine one.Afindingofforgery doesnotdepend No suppression of evidence on the part
entirely on the testimonies of government handwriting experts oftheprosecution.
whoseopinionsdonotmandatorilybindthecourts.Atrialjudge Petitionerclaimsthattheprosecutionshouldhavepresented
is not precluded but is even authorized by law 28to conduct an Tanincourt toshedlightonthematter. His nonpresentation
independentexaminationofthequestionedsignatureinorderto created the presumption that his testimony if given would be
arriveatareasonableconclusionastoitsauthenticity. adversetothecaseoftheprosecution.Petitionerthuscontends
Inthiscase,thefindingofforgeryonthesignatureofRomeo thattheprosecutionsuppresseditsownevidence.
Tan(Tan)appearinginthepromissorynotesandcashierschecks Such contention is likewise untenable. The prosecution has
was not anchored solely on the result of the examination theprerogativetochoosetheevidenceorthewitnessesitwishes
conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) topresent.Ithasthediscretionastohowitshouldpresentits
DocumentExaminer.Thetrialcourtalsomadeanindependent case.29Moreover, the presumption that suppressed evidence is
examinationofthequestionedsignaturesandafteranalyzingthe unfavorable does not apply where the evidence was at the
same,reachedtheconclusionthatthesigna disposalofboththedefenseandtheprosecution. 30Inthepresent
_______________ case,ifpetitionerbelievesthatTanistheprincipalwitnesswho
315,324325(1979),Peoplev.Balane,208Phil.537,556;123 couldexculpatehimfromliabilitybyestablishingthatitwasTan
SCRA 614, 635 (1983) andPeople v. Villanueva, 213 Phil. 440, andnothimwhosignedthesubjectdocuments,themostprudent
453454;128SCRA488,501(1984). thingtodoistoutilizehimashiswitness.Anyway,petitionerhas
27Ocampov.LandBankofthePhilippines,G.R.No.164968, therighttohavecompul
July3,2009,591SCRA562,570. _______________
28RulesofCourt,Rule132,Section22. 29People v. Daco, G.R. No. 168166, October 10, 2008, 568
659 SCRA348,361.
VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 659 30People v. Mazo, 419 Phil. 750, 768; 367 SCRA 462, 480
Tanenggeevs.People (2001), citingPeople v. Padiernos, 161 Phil. 623, 632633; 69
turesofTanappearinginthepromissorynotesaredifferentfrom SCRA484,491(1976).
his genuine signatures appearing in his Deposit Account 660
InformationandSpecimenSignatureCardsonfilewiththebank. 660 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Thus,wefindnoreasontodisturbtheabovefindingsoftheRTC Tanenggeevs.People
whichwas affirmedby theCA. Arule oflong standingin this soryprocesstosecureTansattendanceduringthetrialpursuant
jurisdictionisthatfindingsofatrialcourt,whenaffirmedbythe to Article III, Section 14(2) 31of the Constitution. The records
show,however,thatpetitionerdidnotinvokesuchright.Inview 661
of these, no suppression of evidence can be attributed to the VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 661
prosecution. Tanenggeevs.People
Petitionersdenialisunavailing. reasonabledoubtthathecommittedtheunlawfulactsallegedin
The Court is also not persuaded by the bare and theInformations.
uncorroboratedallegationofpetitionerthattheloanscoveredby Elements of falsification of commercial
the promissory notes and the cashiers checks were personally
documentsestablished.
transactedbyTanagainsthisapprovedletterofcredit,although
Falsificationofdocumentsunderparagraph1,Article172in
headmittedlyneversawTanaffixhissignaturethereto.Again,
relationtoArticle171oftheRevisedPenalCode(RPC)refersto
thisallegation,asthe RTCaptlyobserved, isnotsupported by
falsification by a private individual or a public officer or
established evidence. It is settled that denials which are
employee,whodidnottakeadvantageofhisofficialposition,of
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative
public, private or commercial document. The elements of
and selfserving evidence. [They merit] no weight in law and
falsificationofdocumentsunderparagraph1,Article172ofthe
cannotbegivengreaterevidentiaryvalueoverthetestimonyof
RPCare:(1)thattheoffenderisaprivateindividualorapublic
credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. 32The
officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official
chain of events in this case, from the preparation of the
position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification
promissory notes to the encashment of the cashiers checks, as
enumeratedinArticle171oftheRPC;33and,(3)that
narratedbytheprosecutionwitnessesandbasedonpetitioners
_______________
ownadmission,establishedbeyond
33ART. 171.Falsification by public officer, employee; or
_______________
31Section14.(1)xxx notary or ecclesiastical minister.The penalty ofprision
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be mayorandafinenottoexceed5,000pesosshallbeimposedupon
presumedinnocentuntilthecontraryisproved,andshallenjoy anypublicofficer,employee,ornotarywho,takingadvantageof
therighttobeheardbyhimselfandcounsel,tobeinformedofthe hisofficialposition,shallfalsifyadocumentbycommittinganyof
natureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim,tohaveaspeedy, thefollowingacts:
impartial,andpublictrial,tomeetthewitnessesfacetoface,and 1.Counterfeitingorimitatinganyhandwriting,signature,or
tohavecompulsoryprocesstosecuretheattendanceofwitnesses rubric;
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after 2.Causingittoappearthatpersonshaveparticipatedinany
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of actorproceedingwhentheydidnotinfactsoparticipate;
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his 3.Attributingtopersonswhohaveparticipatedinanactor
failuretoappearisunjustifiable. proceedingstatementsotherthanthoseinfactmadebythem;
32Peoplev.Sison,G.R.No.172752,June18,2008,555SCRA 4.Makinguntruthfulstatementsinanarrationoffacts;
156,170. 5.Alteringtruedates;
 6.Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine Whentheoffendercommitsonapublic,officialorcommercial
documentwhichchangesitsmeaning; document any of the acts of falsification enumerated inArticle
7. Issuinginanauthenticatedformadocumentpurporting 171asanecessarymeanstocommitanothercrimelikeestafa,
tobeacopyofanoriginaldocumentwhennosuchoriginalexists, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime.
or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different UnderArticle48oftheRPC,therearetwoclassesofacomplex
from,thatofthegenuineoriginal;or crime.Acomplexcrimemayrefertoasingleact
8.Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the _______________
issuancethereofinaprotocol,registry,orofficialbook. xxxx
662 34Monteverdev.People,435 Phil.906,921;387SCRA196,
662 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 210(2002).
Tanenggeevs.People 35Domingov.People,G.R.No.186101,October12,2009,603
thefalsificationwascommittedinapublic,officialorcommercial SCRA488,505506.
document. 663
All the abovementioned elements were established in this VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 663
case.First,petitionerisaprivateindividual.Second,theactsof Tanenggeevs.People
falsification consisted in petitioners (1) counterfeiting or whichconstitutestwoormoregraveorlessgravefeloniesortoan
imitatingthehandwritingorsignatureofTanandcausingitto offenseasanecessarymeansforcommittinganother.
appearthatthesameistrueandgenuineinallrespects;and(2) InDomingov.People,36weheld:
causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or The falsification of a public, official, or commercial
proceeding when he did not in fact so participate.Third, the documentmaybeameansofcommittingestafa,because
falsificationwascommittedinpromissorynotesandcheckswhich beforethefalsifieddocumentisactuallyutilizedtodefraud
are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in another, the crime of falsification has already been
general,documentsorinstrumentswhichareusedbymerchants consummated,damageorintenttocausedamagenotbeing
or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit anelementofthecrimeoffalsificationofpublic,officialor
transactions.34Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions commercial document. In other words, the crime of
whileacheckisameansofpaymentusedinbusinessinlieuof falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that
moneyforconvenienceinbusinesstransactions.Acashierscheck falsifiedpublic,officialorcommercialdocumenttodefraud
necessarilyfacilitatesbanktransactionsforitallowstheperson another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the
whosenameandsignatureappearthereontoencashthecheck commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the
andwithdrawtheamountindicatedtherein.35 document.Therefore,thefalsificationofthepublic,official
Falsification as a necessary means or commercial document is only a necessary means to
tocommitestafa. commitestafa.
 Estafais generally committed when (a) the accused necessarymeanstocommitestafa,andfalsificationwasalready
defraudedanotherbyabuseofconfidence,orbymeansofdeceit, consummated evenbefore thefalsified documents were usedto
and (b)the offended partyor a thirdparty suffered damageor defraud the bank. The conviction of petitioner for the complex
prejudicecapableofpecuniaryestimation. 37[D]eceitisthefalse crimeofEstafathroughFalsificationofCommercialDocumentby
representationofamatteroffact,whetherbywordsorconduct, thelowercourtswasthusproper.
by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that TheProperImposablePenalty
whichshouldhavebeendisclosedwhichdeceivesorisintendedto Thepenaltyforfalsificationofacommercialdocumentunder
deceiveanothersothatheshallactuponittohislegalinjury. 38
Article172oftheRPCisprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumand
The elements ofestafaobtain in this case. By falsely maximumperiodsandafineofnotmorethanP5,000.00.
representingthatTanrequestedhimtoprocesspurportedloans Thepenaltyin estafacases, ontheotherhand, as provided
onthelattersbehalf,petitionercounterfeitedorimitatedthe
under paragraph 1, Article 315 of the RPC isprision
_______________
correccionalin its maximum period toprision mayorin its
36Id.,atpp.506507.
minimumperiod39iftheamountdefraudedisoverP12,000.00but
37Eugeniov.People,G.R.No.168163,March26,2008,549 doesnotexceedP22,000.00.Iftheamountinvolvedexceedsthe
SCRA433,447. latter sum, the same paragraph provides the imposition of the
38Josonv.People,G.R.No.178836,July23,2008,559SCRA penaltyinitsmaximumperiodwithanincrementalpen
649,656citingPeoplev.Menil,Jr.,394Phil.433,452;340SCRA _______________
125,142(2000). 39Minimum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5
664 monthsand10days
664 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Medium:5years,5monthsand11daysto6years,8months
Tanenggeevs.People and20days
signatureofTaninthecashierschecks.Throughthese,petitioner Maximum:6years,8monthsand21daysto8years.
succeeded in withdrawing money from the bank. Once in 665
possessionoftheamount,petitionerthereafterinvestedthesame VOL.699,JUNE26,2013 665
in Eurocan Future Commodities. Clearly, petitioner employed Tanenggeevs.People
deceitinordertotakeholdofthemoney,misappropriatedand altyofoneyearimprisonmentforeveryP10,000.00butinnocase
converted it to his own personal use and benefit, and these shallthetotalpenaltyexceed20yearsofimprisonment.
resultedtothedamageandprejudiceofthebankintheamountof Petitionerinthiscaseisfoundliableforthecommissionofthe
aboutP43million. complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial
Taken in its entirety, the proven facts show that petitioner document. The crime of falsification was established to be a
could not have withdrawn the money without falsifying the necessarymeanstocommitestafa.PursuanttoArticle48ofthe
questioned documents. The falsification was, therefore, a Code, the penalty to be imposed in such case should be that
correspondingtothemostseriouscrime,thesametobeappliedin oftheindeterminatepenaltyatfour(4)yearsandtwo(2)months
itsmaximumperiod.Theapplicablepenaltythereforeisforthe ofprisioncorreccional.Petitioneristhereforesentencedineach
crimeofestafa,beingthemoreseriousoffensethanfalsification. casetosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyoffour(4)yearsandtwo
TheamountsinvolvedinthiscaserangefromP2millionto (2) months ofprision correccionalas minimum to twenty (20)
P16 million. Said amounts being in excess of P22,000.00, the yearsofreclusiontemporalasmaximum.
penaltyimposableshouldbewithinthemaximumtermofsix(6) WHEREFORE, the Petition isDENIED. The Decision and
years, eight (8) months and twentyone (21) days to eight (8) Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 23653
years ofprision mayor, adding one (1) year for each additional dated December 12, 2006 and September 6, 2007, respectively,
P10,000.00. Considering the amounts involved, the additional are herebyAFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONthat the
penalty of one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 would minimumtermoftheindeterminatesentencetobeimposedupon
surely exceed the maximum limitation provided under Article the petitioner should be four (4) years and two (2) months
315,whichistwenty(20)years.Thus,theRTCcorrectlyimposed
ofprisioncorreccional.
themaximumtermoftwenty(20)yearsofreclusiontemporal. SOORDERED.
Thereisneed,however,tomodifythepenaltiesimposedbythe
Carpio(Chairperson),Brion,PerezandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,
trial court as affirmed by the CA in each case respecting the
concur.
minimum term of imprisonment. The trial court imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with
ofprisionmayorasminimumwhichisbeyondthelawfulrange. modification.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of Notes.Where the prosecution has sufficiently established
thepenaltyshouldbewithintherangeofthepenaltynextlower thattherespectiveextrajudicialconfessionsoftheaccusedwere
to that prescribed by law for the offense. Since the penalty obtainedinaccordancewiththeconstitutionalguarantees,these
prescribed for theestafacharge against petitioner isprision confessions are admissible, and are evidence of a high order.
(Peoplevs.Reyes,581SCRA691[2009])
correccionalmaximum toprision mayorminimum, the penalty
The roadside questioning of a motorist does not fall under
nextlowerwouldthenbeprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumand
custodialinterrogation,norcanitbeconsideredaformalarrest.
mediumperiodswhichhasadurationofsix(6)monthsandone
(Luzvs.People,667SCRA421[2012])
(1)daytofour(4)yearsandtwo(2)months.Thus,theCourtsets
o0o
theminimumterm
666 Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved.
666 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tanenggeevs.People
 Same; Same; Same; Elements of Qualified Theft.
Conviction for qualified theft committed with grave abuse of
confidenceentails
_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.


153
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 153
Frontrerasvs.People
the presence of all the following elements: 1. Taking of
personalproperty;2.Thatthesaidpropertybelongstoanother;3.
Thatthesaidtakingbedonewithintenttogain;4.Thatitbe
done without the owners consent; 5. That it be accomplished
withouttheuseofviolenceorintimidationagainstpersons,norof
G.R.No.190583.December7,2015.* force upon things; 6. That it be done with grave abuse of
confidence.
MARIA PAZ FRONTRERASyILAGAN, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE Same; Same; Same; Intent to Gain; Intent to gain can be
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent.
deducedfromthepetitionerspossessionofthepawnticketswhich
Criminal Law; Theft; Qualified Theft; Theft becomes
weresurrendered,togetherwiththeredemptionpaymentbytheir
qualified if it is among others, committed with grave abuse of
respective pledgors.Intent to gain can be deduced from the
confidence.Theftiscommittedbyanypersonwho,withintentto
petitionerspossessionoftheforegoingpawnticketswhichwere
gainbutwithoutviolenceagainst,orintimidationofpersonsnor surrendered, together with the redemption payment by their
forceuponthings,shalltakepersonalpropertyofanotherwithout respective pledgors. She submitted them during the spot audit
the latters consent. Intent to gain oranimus lucrandiis an along with a confession letter stating that portions of the
internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the P1,250,800.00 missing value of jewelry were actually already
offender of the thing subject of asportation. Theft becomes redeemed,thus:Yungibapongitemaymgatubosnaatnakatago
qualified if it is among others, committed with grave abuse of
langpoangpapel.NagsimulapoitonoongbuwanngHulyo.Dala
confidence.
narinpongmatindingpangangailangansapera.Itolamangpo
angtangikongmailalahadatiyandinpoangkatotohanan.The
tenor of the foregoing declarationandthecircumstancesofthe will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the
petitioneratthetimeshewroteandsignedit,allmilitateagainst perpetratorofacrime,unlesspromptedbytruthandconscience.
her bare allegation that she was threatened with an Aconfession,whetherjudicialorextrajudicial,ifvoluntarilyand
administrativecaseunlesssheadmitshertransgression. freely made, constitutes evidence of a high order since it is
Same; Same; It is obvious that losing ones job in an supportedbythestrongpresumptionthatnosanepersonorone
administrativecaseislesscumbersomethanriskingonesliberty ofnormalmindwilldeliberatelyandknowinglyconfesshimselfto
by confessing to a crime one did not really commit. It is thus be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by truth and
implausibleforonetobecajoledintoconfessingtoawrongdoing conscience. Theadmissibilityandvalidityofaconfession,thus
hinges on its voluntariness, a condition vividly present in this
atthemereprospectoflosinghis/herjob.Thelanguageofthe
case.
confessionletterwasstraightforward,coherentandclear.Itbore
no suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its Criminal Law; Qualified Theft; Penalties; Since the
integrity and it was replete with details which could only be petitionercommittedqualifiedtheft,thepenaltyshallbetwo(2)
knowntothepetitioner.Moreover,itisobviousthatlosingones degreeshigherorreclusiontemporalinitsmediumandmaximum
job in an administrative case is less cumbersome than risking periods,whichshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiodwhichhas
oneslibertybyconfessingtoacrimeonedidnotreallycommit.It arangeofseventeen(17)years,four(4)monthsandone(1)dayto
is thus implausible for one to be cajoled into confessing to a
twenty(20)years.Sincethepetitionercommittedqualifiedtheft,
wrongdoing at the mere prospect of losing his/her job. The
thepenaltyshallbetwodegreeshigherorreclusiontemporalin
petitioners declarations to Talampas show that she fully
understoodtheconsequencesofherconfession.Shealsoexecuted itsmediumandmaximumperiods,whichshallbeimposedinits
the letter even before Finolan came to the Old Balara branch, maximumperiodwhichhasarangeofseventeen(17)years,four
thus,negatingherclaimthatthelatterthreatenedherwithan (4)monthsandone(1)daytotwenty(20)years.
administrativesanction. Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Analogous to Voluntary
Surrender; Anent the appreciation of mitigating circumstances,
the Supreme Court (SC) agrees with the Regional Trial Court
154
(RTC) that the petitioners extrajudicial confession through the
154 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
handwritten letter coupled with her act of surrendering the
Frontrerasvs.People
redeemedpawnticketsandthereaftergoingtothepolicestation
RemedialLaw;Evidence;Confessions;Aconfession,whether
canbetakenasananalogouscircumstanceofvoluntarysurrender
judicial or extrajudicial, if voluntarily and freely made,
underArticle13,paragraph10inrelationtoparagraph7ofthe
constitutesevidenceofahighordersinceitissupportedbythe
RevisedPenalCode(RPC).Anenttheappreciationofmitigating
strongpresumptionthat nosane person oroneofnormalmind circumstances, the Court agrees with the RTC that the
petitioners extrajudicial confession through the handwritten present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that
lettercoupledwithheractofsurrenderingtheredeemedpawn prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable,
ticketsandthereaftergoingtothepolicestationcanbetakenas
according to the number and nature of such circumstances.A
ananalogouscircumstanceofvoluntarysurrenderunderArticle
reductionintheimposablepenaltybyonedegreeisthusinorder
13,paragraph10inrelationtoparagraph7oftheRPC.
pursuanttoArticle64(5)oftheRPCwhichstatesthatwhenthere

are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating

circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty
155
nextlowertothatprescribedbylaw,intheperiodthatitmay
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 155
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
Frontrerasvs.People circumstances.Assuch,thepenaltynextlowerindegreewhich
Same;Same;NoIntentiontoCommitSoGraveaWrong;The isprisinmayorinitsmediumperiodshouldbeimposed.
petitioner misappropriated the redemption payments under her PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
custody and control because she was constrained by extreme Appeals.
necessityformoney.Basedonthesameextrajudicialconfession, ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
thepetitionerisalsoentitledtothemitigatingcircumstanceofno ManuelR.Bustamanteforpetitioner.
intentiontocommitsograveawrongunderparagraph3againin
relationtoparagraph10bothofArticle13.Basedonherletter,
the petitioner misappropriated the redemption payments under
hercustodyandcontrolbecauseshewasconstrainedbyextreme 156
necessityformoney.Thisisnottopromotemonetarycrisisasan 156 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
excusetocommitacrimeortoemboldenapersonentrustedwith Frontrerasvs.People
fundsorpropertiestofeloniouslyaccessthesame,butratherto
underscoretheutmostconsiderationintheCourtsexerciseofits OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
discretionalpowertoimposepenalties,thatisaguiltyperson REYES,J.:
deserves the penalty given the attendant circumstances and
commensurate with the gravity of the offense committed. From BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforReview 1underRule45ofthe
such standpoint, the Court finds it prudent that unless the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the
foregoinganalogousmitigatingcircumstancesareappreciatedin Decision2dated July 29, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
herfavor,thepetitionerwillbepenalizedexcessively. C.A.G.R. CR No. 30909, which affirmed with modification the
Same; Same; Penalties; When there are two (2) or more Decision3datedMay8,2006oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
mitigatingcircumstancesandnoaggravatingcircumstancesare Quezon City, Branch 104, in Criminal Case No. Q9984626,
convicting Maria Paz Frontreras4yIlagan (petitioner) of the Frontrerasvs.People
crimeofQualifiedTheftandsentencinghertosufferthepenalty monitoredthedistrictbankaccountandhandledtheappraisal
ofreclusionperpetua. ofpawneditemsandtherecordingofcash.5
OnOctober27,1998,asurpriseauditwasconductedatthe
TheFacts OldBalarabranchbyCebuanasinternalauditors,MilaEscartin
(Escartin)andCynthiaTalampas(Talampas).Theauditrevealed
ThepetitionerwastheVaultCustodianofthe685OldBalara, that 156 pieces of jewelry, with an aggregate value of
Tandang Sora, Quezon City branch (Old Balara branch) of P1,250,800.00 were missing. A cash shortage of P848.60 was
CebuanaLhuillierPawnshop(Cebuana).Shewastaskedtosafe likewisediscovered.Whenthepetitionerwasaskedtoexplainthe
keepallthepawneditemsandjewelryinsidethebranchvault. discrepancy, she told Escartin that she would reduce her
Likewise employed in the same branch were Teresita Salazar explanationintowriting.Thenextday,anauditreportwassent
(Salazar)andJeannelynCarpon(Carpon)whoservedasBranch toMarcelinoFinolan(Finolan),AreaManagerofCebuana.6
Manager and District Manager, respectively. Salazar was UponreceiptoftheauditreportonOctober28,1998,Finolan
responsiblefortheoveralloperationoftheOldBalarabranchand immediately proceededtothe Old Balara branchto conductan
wasalsotaskedtohandletheappraisalofpawneditemsandthe investigation.HecalledEscartinandthepetitionerforameeting
recording of such transactions. Carpon, on the other hand, during which the petitioner handed over several pawn
supervised the overall operations of the branches within her tickets7whileEscartingavehimahandwrittenlettermadebythe
district ensuring that they are operating within the objectives, petitioner,8whichreads:
procedures,andpoliciesofCebuana;shealso
_______________ Oct.28,1998
SaKinauukulan:
1Rollo,pp.931. Sir,nagconductpongauditkahaponOct.27,1998ditosaOld
2Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with BalaraIatnadiskubreponamaramingnawawalangitem.Sir
AssociateJusticesMartinS.Villarama,Jr.(nowamemberofthis anglahatpongitoaymgasanlanamin.Anginvolvepoditoay
Court)andJoseC.Reyes,Jr.,concurring;CARollo,pp.136155.
angappraiserTessSalazar,Dist.ManagerJeannelynUy
3Issued by Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada; Records (Vol. II),
Carpon,atakopoVaultCustodianMa.PazFrontreras.Yong
pp.492511.
4Fronterasinotherdocumentsofthecase. ibapongitemaymgatubosnaatnakatagolangpoangpapel.
Nagsimula po ito noong buwan ng Hulyo. Dala na rin pong
matindingpangangailangansapera.Itolamangpo
157 _______________
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 157
 5CARollo,pp.137138. jewelries and redemption payments, belonging to said
6Id.,atp.138. [CEBUANA], to the damage and prejudice of the said
7TSN,December13,1999,pp.1013. offendedpartyintheamountaforementioned.
8FolderofExhibits,ExhibitB. CONTRARYTOLAW.11

Salazar and Carpon entered a Not Guilty plea upon
158 arraignmentonJuly13,1999.12Thepetitionerlikewisepleaded
NotGuiltyduringherarraignmentonAugust9,1999.13
158 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Frontrerasvs.People
angtangikongmailalahadatiyandinpoangkatotohanan. 9Id.
Sumasainyo, 10Records(Vol.I),pp.12.
[signed] 11Id.
Ma.PazFronteras9 12Id.,atp.172.
13Id.,atp.178.
On May 10, 1999, an Information10for Qualified Theft was
filedbeforetheRTCagainstthepetitioner,Salazar,andCarpon.
TheaccusatoryportionoftheInformationreads: 159

VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 159
That on or about the period comprised from June 6,
Frontrerasvs.People
1998uptoOctober17,1998,inQuezonCity,Philippines,
Trial thereafter ensued. According to prosecution witness
the above named accused, conspiring, confederating and
Finolan,asidefromreceivingthepetitionershandwrittenletter
mutuallyhelpingoneanother,beingthenemployedasthe
onOctober28,1998,thepetitioneralsogavehimoriginalpawn
BranchManager,DistrictManager andVault Custodian,
tickets,thebackportionofwhichshowedthesignaturesoftheir
respectively of [CEBUANA] represented by [FINOLAN]
respective pledgors. These signatures mean that the pledgors
locatedatUnit1119B&C685TandangSora,OldBalara,
have already redeemed the jewelry covered by each ticket by
Quezon City and such have free access to the jewelries
paying the amount for which they stand as a security. No
pawned to [CEBUANA], with grave abuse of confidence
payments were, however, recorded nor turned over to the
reposedonthembytheiremployer,withintenttogainand
pawnshop.ThepetitioneralsointimatedtohimthatCarpontook
withouttheknowledgeandconsentoftheownerthereof,
someofsuchcashpaymentsbutfailedtoreturnthesame.14These
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
declarations were corroborated by the testimonies of the other
take, steal and carry away the amount of P1,263,737.60,
prosecutionwitnesses,Escartin15andTalampas.16
Philippine Currency, representing the value of the
 All of the accused took the witness stand and proffered in administrative case will be filed against her. The prospect of
defense that the internal audit for June, July, August and losing her job frightened her. The police car outside the Old
Septemberof1998showednoreportofanomalyorshortage;that Balarabranchalsointimidatedher.Shewasbroughttothepolice
had there been any anomaly or shortage, it could have been stationandwaseventuallysubjectedtoinquestproceedingsbut
discoveredthrutheperiodicauditbeingconductedbyCebuana; was released for lack of evidence. She denied that there were
they were not holding cash and there was no complaint from missingjewelriesfromtheOldBalarabranch.Shestressedthat
clientsregardingmissingpawneditems.17 what was actually missing was cash, over which she had no
Carpon denied liability for the missing jewelry and custodialduty.20
redemption payments and averred that she had no official On rebuttal, Finolan clarified that the purpose of the
capacity to hold cash for Cebuana and that the pawned items spot/surprise audit was to check for fake or overappraised
were handled by the vault custodian. When Finolan asked her pawneditemsandnottocheckforinventoryanomalies. 21
aboutthemissingitems,shetoldhimtherewasnone.Shewas
broughttothepolicestationandthensubmittedforinquestbut TheRulingoftheRTC
wasthereafterreleasedbasedoninsufficiencyofevidence.18
_______________ InaDecision22datedMay8,2006,theRTCfoundsufficient
circumstantial evidence establishing that the petitioner
14TSN,October5,1999,pp.614,1617;TSN,December13, perpetrated the offense. The petitioner was entrusted with the
1999,pp.46,1213,1617. positionofvaultcustodiantaskedwiththeresponsibilityforall
15TSN,June19,2000,pp.45,1314. pawned wares and to make sure that they were all intact and
16TSN,November7,2001,pp.69,1213,1519,2324. safelykeptinthevault.Duringtheaudit,therewereopenitems
17Records(Vol.II),p.502. (unredeemedpawneditems)whichshecouldnotlocate.
18Id.,atpp.502505. She had in her possession pawn tickets pertaining to items
whichwerealreadyredeemed.Shesurrenderedthepawntickets
toFinolan,butwithoutthecorrespondingredemptionpayment.
160 Her position of vault custodian created a high degree of
160 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED confidence between her and the pawnshop which she gravely
Frontrerasvs.People abused.23Based on the appraisal value of the pieces of jewelry
SalazarwasabsentonOctober27and28,1998becauseshe coveredbythepawnticketssurrenderedbythepetitionerduring
wassick.Shewassurprisedwhenshewasinformedthatthere auditbutwithoutthecorrespondingredemption
are missing pawned items at the Old Balara branch because _______________
Finolanconductsanaudittwiceamonth.19
ThepetitionerclaimedthatFinolanandtheauditorprodded 19Id.,atpp.505506.
hertoadmitliabilityforthemissingpawneditemsotherwisean 20Id.,atpp.507508.
 21Id.,atp.508. _______________
22Id.,atpp.492511.
23Id.,atp.509.
24Id.,atpp.509511.
161 25Id.,atp.511.
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 161 26Id.
Frontrerasvs.People 27Id.,atpp.512515.
payment, Cebuana suffered injury in the aggregate sum of 28Id.,atpp.525540.
P414,050.00.24
ThepetitionerscoaccusedSalazarandCarponwereacquitted
onthegroundofreasonabledoubt.25Accordingly,thedispositive 162
portionoftheRTCdecisionreadsasfollows: 162 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Frontrerasvs.People
WHEREFORE, the Court finds [the petitioner] guilty
ithadearlierimposedtofour(4)years,two(2)monthsand
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of
QUALIFIEDTHEFTdefinedandpenalizedinArticle310 one(1)dayofprisincorreccionalasminimumtoten(10)years
oftheRevisedPenalCode,sentencinghertherefortoan andone(1)dayofprisinmayorasmaximum,explainingthus:
indeterminatepenaltyoffourteen(14)yearsandeight(8)
months ofreclusion temporalas minimum to twenty (20) TheCourtishoweverinclinedtoreducethepenaltyby
considering the surrender of the pawn tickets as a
yearsofreclusiontemporalasmaximum,andorderingher
mitigatingcircumstanceanalogoustovoluntarysurrender
topayto[Cebuana]theamountofP414,050.00.
underArticle13,paragraph7,andthenecessitymentioned
On ground of reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby
inthehandwrittenexplanationasanalogoustoincomplete
renderedacquittingaccused[Salazar]and[Carpon]ofthe
justificationunderArticle11,paragraph4,xxxinrelation
offensechargedagainstthem.
toArticle13,paragraph1,oftheRevisedPenalCode.29
SOORDERED.26

Consequently, the previous RTC ruling was modified as
The petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing for her
follows:
acquittal for failure of the prosecution to establish her guilt

beyondreasonabledoubt.Shealsoquestionedthecorrectnessof
WHEREFORE,theCourtmaintainstheDecisiondated
thepenaltyimposedbytheRTC.27
May 8, 2006 finding [the petitioner] guilty beyond
In an Order28dated November 6, 2006, the RTC denied
reasonabledoubtasprincipalofthecrimeofQUALIFIED
reconsiderationonitsfindingofguiltbutitreducedthepenalty
 THEFTdefinedandpenalizedinArticle310oftheRevised petitionerhadtheexclusiverighttoenterthepawnshopsvault;
PenalCode,and,consideringthetwoanalogousmitigating (c)nocomplaintfromclientsregardingthemissingpawneditems
circumstances, modifies the penalty by sentencing her waseverfiled.33
therefortoanindeterminatepenaltyoffour(4)years,two The CA rejected the petitioners arguments and upheld the
(2) months and one (1) day ofprisin correccionalas RTCsfindingsandconclusions.TheCAobservedthattheaudits
minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day ofprisin wereactuallynotauditreportspersebutratherreportsmadein
mayoras maximum, and ordering her to pay to ordertodeterminetheprofitabilityofthepawnshop.Evenifthey
[CEBUANA]theamountofP414,050.00 areconsideredasregularaudits,theirnaturewillnotpreclude
SOORDERED.30 theexistenceoffraudbecausetheywereconductedonlyforthe
purpose of ascertaining fake items or if there was over
Undeterred, thepetitioner fileda MotionforAmendmentof appraisal.34
ModifiedPenalty31arguingthattheRTCerredintheapplication Anentthepetitionersinsinuationthatanotherpersoncould
oftheIndeterminateSentenceLaw.TheRTCdeniedthemotion haveaccessedthevault,theCAheld:
inanOrder32datedMarch8,2007.
_______________ [O]nly the Vault Custodian and the Area Manager,
Finolaninthiscase,knowsthecombinationofthevault.
29Id.,atp.539. Finolan, however, has no keys to the main door of the
branchandlikewisehasnokeystotheinnerdoor/gateof
30Id.,atp.540.
the branch. Furthermore, nobody is allowed to enter the
31Id.,atpp.541543. vaultwithoutthepresenceoftheVaultCustodian.Thus,
32Id.,atpp.547549. thereissimplynowayforFinolanoranyotherpersonfor
thatmatter,tohavebeenabletoremoveitemsfromthe
vault.Consideringthecircumstancesandthesafeguards
163 employed,itisabsurdtoimputethecrimetoanyperson
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 163 otherthan[thepetitioner].
Frontrerasvs.People [Thepetitioner],ontheotherhand,asVaultCustodian,
TheRulingoftheCA hasdailyandunsupervisedaccesstothevault.Again,
_______________
The petitioner appealed to the CA contending that the
inferences made by the RTC were based on unfounded facts, 33CARollo,pp.7677.
since:(a)basedontheauditreportsforJune,July,Augustand 34Id.,atpp.145146.
September of 1998, there were no anomalies occurring in
Cebuana;(b)noevidencewaspresentedtendingtoprovethatthe
 164 35Id.,atpp.146147.
164 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 36Id.,atpp.147148.
Frontrerasvs.People 37Id.,atpp.152154.
she hasthe duty toensure the safekeeping of all the 38Id.,atpp.136155.
pawneditemsandjewelryinsidethebranchvault.Ifthere
39Id.,atpp.154155.
wasanyloss,sheshouldhaveimmediatelyreporteditto

hersuperiors.Thefactthatshefailedtodosoleadstoa

reasonable inference that she is the author of the
165
loss.35(Citationsomittedandunderscoringintheoriginal)
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 165

TheCAfurtherheldthattheabsenceofanycomplaintfrom Frontrerasvs.People
Cebuanasclients does not necessarily mean that there was no Thepetitionermovedforreconsideration40buthermotionwas
loss.Inthepawnshopbusiness,itisnotuncommonforpeopleto deniedintheCAResolution 41datedDecember18,2009.Hence,
fail to redeem the valuables they pawned. The CA, thus, thepresentpetition42arguingthattheCA:
concludedthattheprosecutionwasabletoestablish:(1)thefact
ofloss;(2)thatthelosswasduetoanunlawfultaking;and(3) I.
that the unlawful taking was committed with grave abuse of COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT FINDING
confidence.36 THAT THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
TheCA,however,disagreedwiththeRTCthatthereturnby RENDERINGJUDGMENTUPONCONJECTURESAND
thepetitionerofthepawnticketscanbedeemedasthemitigating SURMISESVISVISTHE ABSENCE OF
circumstanceofvoluntarysurrender.TheCAexplainedthatthe CIRCUMSTANTIALEVIDENCE.
petitionerdidnotsurrenderherselftoapersoninauthorityand II.
thusmodifiedthepenaltyimposedonhertoreclusionperpetua.37 COMMITTEDANERROROFLAWBYCONCLUDING
Accordingly, the CA Decision38dated July 29, 2009 was THAT THE PETITIONER HAS TO SUFFER THE
disposedinthismanner: PENALTYOFRECLUSIONPERPETUA.43

WHEREFORE,theinstantappealisDISMISSEDforlackof TheRulingoftheCourt
merit and the assailed decision isAFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONinthatthe[petitioner]issentencedtosuffer TheCourtdeniesthepetition.
thepenaltyofreclusionperpetua. Theftiscommittedbyanypersonwho,withintenttogainbut
SOORDERED.39(Emphasisintheoriginal) without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force
uponthings,shalltakepersonalpropertyofanotherwithoutthe
_______________
lattersconsent.44Intenttogainoranimuslucrandiisaninternal Ontheotherhand,theelementsofcorpusdelictiintheftare:
actthatispresumedfromtheunlawfultakingbytheoffenderof (1)thatthepropertywaslostbytheowner;and(2)thatitwas
thethingsubjectofasportation.45Theftbecomesqualifiedifitis lostbyfelonioustaking.48
amongothers,committedwithgraveabuseofconfidence. 46 Theevidenceonrecordshowsthattheforegoingelementsare
_______________ present in this case. The prosecution has established beyond
reasonable doubt that the petitioner unlawfully deprived
40Id.,atpp.156169. Cebuana of cash/money when she took out pawned items and
41Id.,atpp.223227. releasedthemtoredeemingpledgorsinexchangeforredemption
42Rollo,pp.931. paymentswhichshe,however,didnotturnovertothepawnshop,
andinsteadpocketedthemforherowngain.Shegravelyabused
43Id.,atp.14.
theconfidenceconcurrentwithhersensitivepositionasavault
44RevisedPenalCode,Article308,paragraph1.
custodianwhensheexploitedherexclusiveandunlimitedaccess
45People v. Anabe, 644 Phil. 261, 282; 630 SCRA 10, 28 to the vault to facilitate the unlawful taking. Her position
(2010). entailedahighdegreeofconfidencereposedbyCebuanaasshe
46Id.;RevisedPenalCode,Article310. hadbeengranteddailyunsupervisedaccesstothevault. 49Also,
thepetitionerknew
_______________
166
166 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 47People v. Mirto, 675 Phil. 895, 906; 659 SCRA 796, 807
Frontrerasvs.People (2011).
Convictionforqualifiedtheftcommittedwithgraveabuseof 48Ganv.People,550Phil.133,161162;521SCRA550,580
confidenceentailsthepresenceofallthefollowingelements: (2007).
1.Takingofpersonalproperty; 49CARollo,p.147.
2.Thatthesaidpropertybelongstoanother;
3.Thatthesaidtakingbedonewithintenttogain;
4.Thatitbedonewithouttheownersconsent; 167
5.Thatitbeaccomplishedwithouttheuseofviolenceor VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 167
intimidationagainstpersons,norofforceuponthings;
Frontrerasvs.People
6.Thatitbedonewithgraveabuseofconfidence. 47
the combinations of the branchs vault 50and nobody was

allowedtoenterthevaultwithoutherpresence.51
The petitioner gravely abused such relation of trust and
confidence when she accessed and released the pawned items
under her custody, received the payments for their redemption submitted them during the spot audit along with a confession
butfailedtorecordsuchredemptionandremitthepaymentsto letterstatingthatportionsoftheP1,250,800.00missingvalueof
the cash collections of Cebuana. Without the authority and jewelrywereactuallyalreadyredeemed,thus:
consentofheremployer,sherepeatedlytookandappropriatedfor
herselftheredemptionpaymentspaidforthepawneditemswith Yungibapongitemaymgatubosnaatnakatagolang
theaggregateappraisedvalueofP414,050.00,52viz.: po ang papel. Nagsimula po ito noong buwan ng Hulyo.
Dalanarinpongmatindingpangangailangansapera.Ito
_______________
lamangpoangtangikongmailalahadatiyandinpoang
50TSN,February7,2000,pp.34. katotohanan.53

51Id.,atp.10.
Thetenoroftheforegoingdeclarationandthecircumstances
52FolderofExhibits,Exhibits"D""D61."
ofthepetitioneratthetimeshewroteandsignedit,allmilitate

against her bare allegation that she was threatened with an

administrativecaseunlesssheadmitshertransgression.
168
The petitioner wrote and signed the confession letter
168 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
spontaneously. When Escartin asked her if there are any
Frontrerasvs.People problemsintheOldBalarabranch,thepetitioneransweredthat
044867 4,000.00 042712 22,000.00 she will write down her explanation and will submit it to
044903 3,000.00 042576 13,000.00 Escartin.54The petitioner also told Talampas that if she will
044714 2,500.00 043394 10,000.00 escape,shewilljustbeafraidthatsomeonewillgoafterher
044938 2,300.00 043395 16,000.00 _______________
042988 2,500.00 042147 7,500.00
045029 2,300.00 041972 15,000.00 53Id.,atExhibitB.
043858 5,500.00 044060 12,000.00 54TSN,June19,2000,pp.1314.
043766 3,500.00 043027 7,000.00
043641 1,750.00 042987 2,500.00
045068 2,000.00 043035 5,200.00 169
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 169
Frontrerasvs.People
Intenttogaincanbededucedfromthepetitionerspossession andthatshewilljustfacetheconsequences.55Talampasthen
oftheforegoingpawnticketswhichweresurrendered,together saw the petitioner make and sign the confession letter. 56When
withtheredemptionpaymentby theirrespectivepledgors. She
FinolanwenttotheOldBalarabranchforfurtherinvestigation,
Escartinhandedhertheconfessionletterfromthepetitioner. 57
The language of the confession letter was straightforward, 170
coherentandclear.Itborenosuspiciouscircumstancestendingto 170 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
castdoubtuponitsintegrityanditwasrepletewithdetailswhich Frontrerasvs.People
couldonlybeknowntothepetitioner.Moreover,itisobviousthat 1.OnOctober27,1998,EscartinandTalampasconducteda
losingonesjobinanadministrativecaseislesscumbersomethan spotauditattheOldBalarabranchofCebuana.59
riskingoneslibertybyconfessingtoacrimeonedidnotreally 2. Escartin counterchecked the computer list of all pawned
commit.Itisthusimplausibleforonetobecajoledintoconfessing
items not yet redeemedvisvisthe actual stocks in the vault
toawrongdoingatthemereprospectoflosinghis/herjob.The
anddiscoveredthatthereweremissingitems. 60
petitioners declarations to Talampas show that she fully
3.Escartinaskedthepetitionerifthereareanyproblemsin
understoodtheconsequencesofherconfession.Shealsoexecuted
the branch. The latter answered that she will just write down
the letter even before Finolan came to the Old Balara branch,
everything that happened and hand over her explanation to
thus,negatingherclaimthatthelatterthreatenedherwithan
Escartin.61
administrativesanction.
4. After receiving the audit report on October 28, 1998,
Aconfession,whetherjudicialorextrajudicial,ifvoluntarily
Finolan proceeded to the Old Balara branch and conducted an
andfreelymade,constitutesevidenceofahighordersinceitis
investigation.62
supportedbythestrongpresumptionthatnosanepersonorone
5.WhenTalampasreportedforworkonOctober28,1998,the
ofnormalmindwilldeliberatelyandknowinglyconfesshimselfto
petitioner told her that she thought about what happened and
be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by truth and
thatsheisafraidthatsomeonewillbegoingafterherifshewill
conscience. The admissibility and validity of a confession, thus
runawayandsoshehastofacetheconsequences.63
hingesonitsvoluntariness,58aconditionvividlypresentinthis
6. Talampas thereafter saw the petitioner write and sign a
case.
confessionletter.64
Thepetitionersextrajudicialwrittenconfessioncoupledwith
7.TheletterwasgiventoFinolanwhenhewenttotheOld
the following circumstantial evidence all point to her as the
Balarabranchtoinvestigate.65
perpetratoroftheunlawfultaking:
8. In the letter, the petitioner admitted that some of the
_______________
missing pawned items were already redeemed. She also stated
thatshehadextremeneedformoney.66
55TSN,November7,2001,p.17.
_______________
56Id.,atpp.1819.
57TSN,October5,1999,pp.910. 59TSN,June19,2000,pp.56.
58Peoplev.Satorre,456Phil.98,107;408SCRA642,647 60Id.,atp.11.
(2003).
 61Id.,atpp.1314. pesos,butifthevalueofthethingstolenexceedsthe
62TSN,October5,1999,pp.89. latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum
63TSN,November7,2001,p.17. periodoftheoneprescribedinthis
64Id.,atpp.1819. _______________
65TSN,October5,1999,p.10.
66CARollo,p.224. 67TSN,October5,1999,p.17;TSN,November7,2001,p.24.
68TSN,December13,1999,pp.1213.
69Id.,atp.14.
171 70Id.,atp.15.
VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 171 71Art.310.Qualified theft.The crime of theft shall be
Frontrerasvs.People punishedbythepenaltiesnexthigherbytwodegreesthanthose
9.ThepetitionerthenhandedovertoFinolanoriginalpawn respectivelyspecifiedinthenextprecedingarticle,ifcommitted
tickets.67 byadomesticservant,orwithgraveabuseofconfidence,orifthe
10. Finolan observed that the pawn tickets were already property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or
redeemed or paid by their respective pledgors as evidenced by consistsofcoconutstakenfromthepremisesoftheplantationor
theirsignaturesofvalidation.68 fishtakenfromafishpondorfishery,orifpropertyistakenon
11.Therearenorecordsofredemptiontransactionsunderthe the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
saidpawntickets.69 anyothercalamity,vehicularaccidentorcivildisturbance.
12.Thepetitionerdidnotconveyanyredemptionpaymentto
Finolanortothepawnshop.70
172
Penalty 172 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Frontrerasvs.People
Under Article 31071of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the paragraph,andoneyearforeachadditionalten
penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which
specifiedinArticle309whichstates: may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
suchcases,andinconnectionwiththeaccessorypenalties
Art.309.Penalties.Anypersonguiltyof theftshall which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other
bepunishedby: provisionsofthisCode,thepenaltyshallbetermedprisin
1.The penalty ofprisin mayorin its minimum
mayororreclusiontemporal,asthecasemaybe.
andmediumperiods,ifthevalueofthethingstolen xxxx(Emphasisoursanditalicsintheoriginal)
ismorethan12,000pesosbutdoesnotexceed22,000
 Considering that the value involved in the present case VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 173
exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty isprisin mayorin its Frontrerasvs.People
minimumandmediumperiods. Anenttheappreciationofmitigatingcircumstances,theCourt
Anent the graduation of penalty for qualified theft and the agreeswiththeRTCthatthepetitionersextrajudicialconfession
imposition of incremental penalty for the amount in excess of through the handwritten letter coupled with her act of
P22,000.00, the ruling espoused inRingor v. People72is hereby surrenderingtheredeemedpawnticketsandthereaftergoingto
adopted. thepolicestationcanbetakenasananalogouscircumstanceof
Since the petitioner committed qualified theft, the penalty voluntarysurrenderunderArticle13,paragraph10 77inrelation
shallbetwodegreeshigherorreclusiontemporalinitsmedium toparagraph778oftheRPC.
andmaximumperiods,73whichshallbeimposedinitsmaximum Basedonthesameextrajudicialconfession,thepetitioneris
periodwhichhasarangeofseventeen(17)years,four(4)months also entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intention to
andone(1)daytotwenty(20)years.74 commitsograveawrongunderparagraph379againinrelationto
The incremental penalty shall then be determined by paragraph 10 both of Article 13. Based on her letter, the
deductingP22,000.00fromtheamountinvolvedorP414,050.00. petitionermisappropriated theredemptionpayments underher
ThiswillyieldtheamountofP392,050.00whichwouldthenbe custody and control because she was constrained by extreme
divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less than necessityformoney.
P10,000.00.75Theendresultisthat39yearsshouldbeaddedto Thisisnottopromotemonetarycrisisasanexcusetocommit
the principal penalty. The total imposable penalty, however, a crime or to embolden a person entrusted with funds or
shouldnotexceed20yearsandassuch,themaximumimposable properties to feloniously access the same, but rather to
underscoretheutmostconsiderationintheCourtsexerciseofits
penaltyinthiscaseis20yearsofreclusiontemporal.76
_______________ discretionalpowertoimposepenalties,thatisaguiltyperson
deservesthepenaltygiventheattendantcircumstances
72Ringorv.People,G.R.No.198904,December11,2013,712 _______________
SCRA622.
73Id.,atp.634. 77Art.13.Mitigating circumstances.The following are
74RevisedPenalCode,Article76. mitigatingcircumstances:xxxx
10.Andfinally,anyothercircumstancesofasimilarnature
75SeePeople v. Ocden, 665 Phil. 268, 294; 650 SCRA 124,
andanalogoustothoseabovementioned.
151(2011).
78Art.13.Mitigating circumstances.The following are
76Ringorv.People,supraatp.634.
mitigatingcircumstances:

xxxx

173
 7.Thattheoffenderhadvoluntarilysurrenderedhimselftoa mediumperiodoreight(8)yearsandone(1)daytoten(10)years.
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily The penalty imposed by the CA should thus be modified to
confessedhisguiltbeforethecourtpriortothepresentationofthe conformtotheforegoingfindings.
evidencefortheprosecution. WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theDecisiondatedJuly
79Art.13.Mitigating circumstances.The following are 29, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CR No. 30909
mitigatingcircumstances: isAFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONas to the imposed
xxxx penaltysuchthatthepetitioner,Ma.PazFrontrerasyIlagan,is
3.Thattheoffenderhadnointentiontocommitsogravea sentencedtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyoffour(4)years,
wrongasthatcommitted. two (2) months and one (1) day ofprisin

correccionalasminimumto ten (10) years ofprisin

mayorasmaximum.
174
SOORDERED.
174 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Frontrerasvs.People
and commensurate with the gravity of the offense 80Perez v. People, 568 Phil. 491, 524; 544 SCRA 532, 568
committed.80From such standpoint, the Court finds it prudent (2008).
thatunlesstheforegoinganalogousmitigatingcircumstancesare
appreciated in her favor, the petitioner will be penalized
excessively. 175
Areductionintheimposablepenaltybyonedegreeisthusin VOL.776,DECEMBER7,2015 175
orderpursuanttoArticle64(5)oftheRPCwhichstatesthatwhen
Frontrerasvs.People
there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Del
aggravatingcircumstancesarepresent,thecourtshallimposethe
penaltynextlowertothatprescribedbylaw,intheperiodthatit Castillo**andJardeleza,JJ.,concur.
maydeemapplicable,accordingtothenumberandnatureofsuch Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
circumstances.Assuch,thepenaltynextlowerindegreewhich Notes.A confession [or admission] is presumed voluntary
isprisinmayorinitsmediumperiodshouldbeimposed. untilthecontraryisprovedandtheconfessantbearstheburden
ApplyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,theminimumterm of proving the contrary. (Tanenggee vs. People,699 SCRA639
shallbetakenfromthepenaltynextloweroranywherewithin [2013])
thefullrangeofprisincorreccionalorsix(6)monthsandone(1) Graveabuseofconfidence,asanelementofQualifiedTheft,
daytosix(6)years,whiletheindeterminatemaximumpenalty must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence,
shallbefixedanywherewithintherangeofprisinmayorinits guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the
offended party that might create a high degree of confidence
between them which the appellant abused. (People vs.
Cahilig,731SCRA414[2014])


o0o
_______________

**DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledatedJanuary5,
2015viceAssociateJusticeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved. VOL.221,MAY11,1993 715
Peoplevs.Santos
G.R.Nos.10022526.May11,1993.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,vs.RAUL
SANTOS y NARCISO, MARIO MORALES y BACANI, PETER
DOEandRICHARDDOE,accused.RAULSANTOSyNARCISO,
accusedappellant.
Criminal Procedure;Right to Counsel;There exists no real
necessitytoaffordservicesofcounseltoasuspectofacrimeinthe
course of a police lineup provided that said suspect is not
subjectedtoanyinvestigationorinterrogationinordertoextract
admissionorconfessionwithouttheassistanceofcounsel.Since
appellant Santos then had no lawyer present nor was one
provided,hiscounselargues,Santossidentificationwastainted
and inadmissible. The argument is creative, but has no legal
basis. InGamboav.Cruz,theCourtsaidthatthere isnoreal
needtoaffordasuspecttheserviceofcounselatpolicelineup,a
declaration reiterated inPeople v. Loveria.The customary
practiceis,ofcourse,thatitisthewitnesswhoisinvestigatedor
interrogated in the course of a police lineup and who gives a
statement to the police, rather than the accused who is not waived the hearsay character of this evidence by failure
questionedatallatthatstage.TheCourtisawareofthecaveat seasonablytoobjecttotheadmissionoftheaffidavit;itistoolate
inGamboa.Butthereisnothingintherecordofthiscasewhich in that day to raise the hearsay rule in the appellants
showsthatinthecourseofthelineup,thepoliceinvestigators memorandumafterprosecutionanddefensehadpresentedtheir
sought to extract any admission or confession from appellant respectivecasesandhadmadetheirrespectiveoffersofevidence.
Santos. The investigators did not in fact interrogate appellant Same;DefenseofAlibi;Defenseofalibicannotprevailover
Santosduring thelineup and heremainedsilentafterhehad the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses,
beenidentifiedbyBautistaandBohol. especiallywherethewitnessisthevictimcomplainanthimself.
Evidence;Similar Acts as Evidence;An affidavit of a Inrespectoftheweightproperlygiventoadefenseofalibi,the
prosecutionwitnessinacase,otherthantheinstantone,shallbe Courthas,timesbeyondnumbering,ruledthatsuchdefenseis
admissible in evidence for the limited purpose of proving weakmostespeciallywhenestablishedexclusivelyormainlyby
knowledge,planorschemeemployedbytheaccusedandfailureto theaccusedhimselfandhisrelativesandnotbyindependentand
crediblepersons,andthatsuchadefensewillnotprevailoverthe
seasonablyobjecttoitsadmissionisdeemedwaiverofthehearsay
positive identification made by credible witnesses, especially
character ofsaid evidence; Case at bar.Appellant Santos now wherethewitnessisthevictimcomplainanthimself.
complains that the affidavit of Ronaldo Guerrero was hearsay
evidence, considering that the prosecution did not present APPEALfromthejudgmentoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
RonaldoGuerreroasawitnessduringthetrial.Weconsiderthat Malabon,Br.72.
thetrialcourtdidnotcommitreversibleerrorinadmittingthe
Guerreroaffidavitforthelimitedpurposeforprovingknowledge ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
or plan or scheme, and more specifically, that appellant knew TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
thattheparticularcorneroftwo(2)particularstreetsinMalabon
ValmonteLawOfficesforaccusedappellant.
was a good place to ambush a vehicle and its passengers.
Appellantalsohad
FELICIANO,J.:
_______________
Raul N. Santos appeals from a judgment of the trial court
*
THIRDDIVISION. convictinghimofmurderandfrustratedmurder.
716 On26October1989,appellantSantoswaschargedwiththe
7 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED crimes of murder with the use of unlicensed firearms and
frustratedmurder,underthefollowinginformations:
16
Peoplevs.Santos InCrim.CaseNo.8517MN:1
Thatonoraboutthe26thdayofMay,1989inNavotas,Metro efficientmedicalattendancerenderedtothevictimattheTondo
ManilaandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,the MedicalCenter,Manila.
abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating together and ContrarytoLaw.
mutuallyhelpingwithoneanother,withoutanyjustifiablecause, Three(3)otherpersonswerechargedinthesameinformations.
with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and evident Upon request of the City Prosecutor who had conducted a re
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and investigationofthecases,thetrialcourtorderedtheamendment
feloniouslyshootGLICERIOCUPCUPINy oftheinformationson4April1990soastoinsertthenameofone
MarioMorales,inlieuofJohnDoe,asacoaccused.Moralesfor
_______________ whomawarrantofarrestwasissued,is,however,stillatlarge.
Theidentitiesofthetwo(2)otheraccusedremainunknown.
1
Records,p.73. Atarraignment,RaulSantosenteredapleaofnotguilty.A
717 jointtrialofthetwo(2)criminalcasesensued,culminatingina
VOL.221,MAY11,1993 717 judgmentofconviction.Thedispositiveportionofthisjudgment
Peoplevs.Santos readsasfollows:
REYESwiththeuseofunlicensedfirearmsofunknowncaliber, WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
therebyinflictinguponthelatterseriousphysicalinjurieswhich renderedfindingaccusedRaul Santos guiltybeyond reasonable
causedhisdeathattheTondoMedicalCenter,Manila. doubtoftheoffenseschargedagainsthiminthesecases.Heis
ContrarytoLaw. accordinglysentencedtotwo(2)prisontermsasfollows:

InCrim.CaseNo.8518MN:2 1. 1)InCrim.CaseNo.8517MNforMurder,tolifeimprison

Thatonoraboutthe26thdayofMay,1989inNavotas,Metro _______________
ManilaandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,the
abovenamedaccused,conspiringtogetherandmutuallyhelping 2
Id.at71.
withoneanother,withoutanyjustifiablecause,withdeliberate 718
intenttokill,treacheryandevidentpremeditationdid,thenand 718 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot ALBERTO
Peoplevs.Santos
BAUTISTAYCAYETANO,withtheuseoffirearmsofunknown
caliber, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical
injuries, thus performing all the acts of execution which would 1. ment,thedeathpenaltywhichshouldhavebeenimposed
haveproducedthecrimeofMURDERasaconsequencebutwhich in this case having been abolished under the present
neverthelessdidnotproduceitbyreasonofcausesindependentof Constitution;
thewillofthehereinaccused,thatisduetothetimely,ableand
 2. 2)InCrim.CaseNo.8518MNforFrustratedMurder,toa couldnotsayiftherewereotherpersonswhoshotathimand
prison term ranging from SIX (6) YEARS ofprision Cupcupin. After hearing a shout that the ambushers were no
correccional, as minimumto TWELVE (12) YEARS longeraround,helearnedthatawomanbystanderwashitand
was boarded on a jeep to be brought to the hospital. He was
ofprisionmayorasmaximum.
boarded on said jeep too but later transferred to a tricycle
somewhere at Bayanbayanan. Bautista was brought to the
Accused Santos is also ordered to proportionately pay the
Martinez General Hospital and to the Mary Johnston Hospital
heirsofGlicerioCupcupinthesumofP30,000.00forthelossof
wherehewastreated.Bautistawasoperatedon(Exhs.B,B1,C,
the latters life and to pay said heirs, proportionately also,
D and E). Upon the apprehension of accused Santos, Bautista
P100,000.00bywayofindemnificationfortheexpensesincurred
wenttothepoliceheadquarterswherehe
inconnectionwithCupcupinsdeath.
Costsagainstaccusedinbothcases. _______________
SOORDERED.3
Therelevantfactsasfoundbythetrialcourtarethefollowing: 3
Id.,p.191;underscoringintheoriginal.
Glicerio Cupcupin and Alberto Bautista were riding on a jeep
719
drivenbytheformeronMay26,1989.Ataround11:45oclockin
VOL.221,MAY11,1993 719
themorningofsaiddate,thejeepwasatastopatthecornerof
EstrellaandYangcoStreetsinNavotas,MetroManilaandwas Peoplevs.Santos
about to make a right turn when two (2) persons armed with pickedoutfromalineupaccusedRaulSantos.Inanotherline
short guns approached the jeep and fired at Cupcupin and up, he also picked out accused Morales. Bautista also gave a
Bautista.Cupcupinwashitseveraltimesindifferentpartsofhis swornstatementnarratingtheshootingincident(Exh.F).
bodyandhediedasaresultofthemultiplegunshotwoundshe PoliceAideVictorinoBoholwasondutyanddirectingtraffic
sustained(Exh. V). Bautistasustainedgunshotwounds, one at atthecornerofPlazaRizalandEstrellaStreetswhenheheard
theleftthigh,oneinthelowerabdomen,oneatthebackofthe gunshots. When he looked around he saw two (2) persons who
rightfootandanotheratthebackofthebody.Bautistawasable wereholdingCal.45pistolsfiringatpersonsonboardastainless
torunawayevenashewasbeingfiredupon.Hetookcoverina steelownerjeep.Boholwasnotabletoapproachthemenfiring
store.Theonefiringthegunathimwasamanhelateridentified theirgunsbecausehewasnotprovidedwithagun.Whathedid
tobeaccusedRaulSantos.Theotheronewhichhesawsimilarly was to run to headquarters to call for policemen and when he
firinghisgunwasaimingatCupcupin.Heidentifiedthemanto returnedtothesceneoftheshootinghelearnedthatoneofthe
be one Mario Morales. He added that he saw Cupcupin hit by passengersofthejeepwaskilled.Helearnedalsothattheslain
gunshotsattheleftsideofthebodynearthewaistwhichmade manwasGlicerioCupcupinandthathiscompanionwasAlberto
Cupcupin falloff the steering wheel. After running away, BautistaaliasTiwa.Boholalsoaddedthatthereweretwo(2)
Bautista couldnot rememberanymorewhatelsehappened.He otherpersonswhowerealsofiringatthepassengersofthejeep
althoughhedidnotrecognizethesetwo(2)otherpersons.After
thearrestofaccusedSantos,Boholwascalledtothepolicestation 720
and through a oneway mirror he was able to identify accused 720 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Santos as oneofthepersonswhoshotCupcupin andBautista. Peoplevs.Santos
Boholalsogaveaswornstatementtothepolice(Exh.A). spent in connection with the death of her husband who was
Oncrossexamination,Boholadmittedthatatthetimeofthe earning P5,000.00 a month as a businessman dealing in junk
shootinghewasattheJimBreadStoretalkingtosomeone.When materialsandmarble.4
heheardgunshotshestoodupatonceandsawfour(4)menfiring The trial court found that the accused Raul Santos had been
their guns at the same time at the jeep. He added that the identified positively by the surviving victim of the shooting
accused was arrested some months later in connection with incidentAlberto Bautista, and by the Traffic Aide who had
another shooting incident wherein Santos was suspected of witnessed the execution of the crimeVictorino Bohol. The
involvement.HeconfirmedthatBautistawasbeingshotatwhile defense of alibi offered by the accused and supported by the
runningawayfromtheplace. testimonies of a friend and a sister, was rejected as weak and
Cpl.SabinoPatoodoftheNavotasPolicedeclaredthathewas unavailing.Asnoted,ajudgmentofconvictionfollowed.
investigatingashootingincidentwhichresultedinthedeathof In his appeal, Raul Santos assigns the following as errors
oneAbdulRosaswhereinthesuspectwasaccusedSantoswhen committedbythetrialcourt:
hewastippedbypoliceintelligenceoperativesthatSantoswas
involved in the ambush of Cupcupin. This made him conduct 1. ithe lower court erred in holding that accuseds
further investigation by calling for Bautista and Bohol. Patood identification by prosecutions witnesses was positive
also interviewed Santos who admitted his participation in the and,thereforeiterredwhenitrejectedaccusedsdefense
ambush to him. He did not take any written statement from ofalibi.
accused Santos because there was no counsel available at that
time and because Santos was not willing to give any written
2. iithelowercourterredinconsideringoneofthetwocases
statement.
(not the instant ones) filed against the accused in
Dr. Maximo Reyes of the NBI Medico Legal Division
holdingalsoforhisguilt.
performed an autopsy on the cadaver of victim Cupcupin and
foundoutthatthelattersustainednineteen(19)gunshotwounds
in different parts of his body. The cause of death was severe 3. iiithelowercourterredinconvictingtheaccused.5
hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds. Dr. Reyes
added that the assailants were probably at the left side of the Inrespectofthefirstassignederror,appellantSantoscontends
victimastheywereshootingatthelatterwiththevictimpossibly thatthetestimoniesoftheprincipalprosecutionwitnessesdonot
seatedatthetimehewasshotandhit. conform with the knowledge and common experience of
ThevictimswifeLuciaCupcupindeclaredthatP100,000.00 mankind. Appellant argues that the two (2) prosecution
was witnesses, the victim Bautista and Police Aide Bohol, testified
thattheysawtheaccusedforthefirsttimeintheirliveswhenthe Aide Bohol, had a duty to maintain law and order. Alberto
crimewascommittedandyetidentifiedhimasoneofthegunmen Bautistawhohadbeenridingonajeepandwhoescapeddeath
five(5)monthslaterinthePoliceHeadquartersinNavotas.The (but not gunshot wounds) by reason of his quick reflexes, had
ambuscadeandtheslayingofGlicerioCupcupinhappenedon26 everyreasontorememberthefacesofthosewhomhesawfiring
May1989;appellantSantoswasidentifiedatthepolicestationon atthejeepandathimself.Thishasbeenrecognizedanumberof
25 October 1989. Appellant argues that this lapse of time was timesinourcaselaw.InPeoplev.Jacolo,etal.,6theCourtsaid:
unreasonable, which, when coupled with the brief, limited and [W]hileevidenceastotheidentityoftheaccusedastheperson
obstructed view which the prosecution witnesses had of the who committed the crime should be carefully analyzed, x x
gunmenatthetimeoftheshooting,castsseriousdoubtonthe xwheretheconditionsofvisibilityarefavorableandthewitness
accuracyandreliabilityoftheidentificationbythewitnesses.
doesnotappeartobebiasedagainstthemanonthedock,hisor
Appellantsargumentdoesnotpersuade.
herassertionsastotheidentityofthemalefactorshouldnormally
_______________ beaccepted.Andthisismoresowherethewitnessisthevictimor
his nearrelative, as in this case, because these (people) usually
Id.at19294. strivetorememberthefacesoftheassailants.7(Italicssupplied).
4

5
Rollo,pp.6364;AppellantsBrief,pp.67. AppellantSantosalsocontendedthatPoliceAideBoholcouldnot
721 have had a clear view of the ambuscade and the shooting of
VOL.221,MAY11,1993 721 Cupcupin since he (Bohol) was situated on the left side of the
Peoplevs.Santos gunmen.AsobservedbytheSolicitorGeneral,however,thetrial
PoliceAideBohol wasonlyabouttwelve(12) armlengthsaway courthadpointedoutthatifhe[Bohol]wastothefrontrightof
from the ambush vehicle. The ambush slaying occurred under
conditions of high visibility: the victim Cupcupin was shot to _______________
deathat11:45oclockinthemorning,ingoodweather,whenthe
sunwasalmostatitszenith.Oncrossexamination,Boholstated
6
G.R.No.94470,16December1992.
thattherewerenopassingvehiclesthatblockedhisviewofthe
7
People v. Jacolo, et al.,G.R. No. 94470, December 16,
slayingofthevictimasthevehiclesstoppedsomedistanceaway 1992;People v. Alvarez,169 SCRA 731(1989);People v.
from the jeep when the shooting began. In addition, Bohol Bernat,120SCRA918(1983).
testifiedthathesawoneofthegunmentakeawristwatchanda 722
gun from Cupcupins lifeless body. Clearly, Bohol had the 722 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
opportunity to observe the extraordinary and startling events Peoplevs.Santos
which unfolded on thecorner of two (2)busy streets almost at thejeepthenhemust[havebeen]alittlebytheleftsideofthe
high noon, events which may be expected to leave a strong persons firing atthe jeep x x x. 8Bohols view, therefore, the
impression upon the minds of an eyewitness who, like Police SolicitorGeneralcontinued,wasnotlimitedtotheleftsideofthe
assailants,especiallysincehewasabletoseethem[thegunmen] _______________
move around the site of the ambush after they [had] stopped
firing,specificallywhenoneofthemstrippedvictimCupcupinof 8
TSN,7February1990,p.27.
his gun and jewelry and they all walked away from that 9
AppelleesBrief,pp.56;TSN,10January1990,pp.1315.
place.9ThetrialcourtobviouslyconcludedthatBoholhadample 723
opportunityactuallytoobservetheeventsonwhichhetestified, VOL.221,MAY11,1993 723
andwefindnobasisforoverturningthisconclusionofthetrial Peoplevs.Santos
court. courseof thepolicelineup, atthepolicestationwhere hewas
In respect of the identification by Bautista, accused also identifiedbytheprosecutionwitnesses.Thisargument,ofcourse,
suggeststhatBautistahadnorealopportunitytoseeandimpress assumes that during the police lineup, accused was under
upon his memory the faces of the assailants. In his testimony, custodialinvestigation,astagewhich, pertheappellant,began
Bautistastatedthattwo(2)menarmedwithhandgunssuddenly the instant the police suspected him of involvement in the
approachedthejeepinwhichheandCupcupinwereriding.He ambuscade.SinceappellantSantosthenhadnolawyerpresent
agreed that his attention had been focused (defense counsels norwasoneprovided,hiscounselargues,Santossidentification
own language) on vehicles passing along Estrella Street as wastaintedandinadmissible.Theargumentiscreative,buthas
Cupcupinmaneuveredthejeeptoturnrightatthecornerandto nolegalbasis.InGamboav.Cruz,10theCourtsaidthatthereis
head towards Navotas. When the assailants started shooting, norealneedtoaffordasuspecttheserviceofcounselatpolice
Bautistajumpedfromthejeep,washitontheleftthighandother
lineup,11a declaration reiterated inPeople v. Loveria.12The
parts ofthe body, but managed torun forcover fromrepeated
customary practice is, of course, that it is the witness who is
shotsorburstsofgunfire.Bautistatestifiedfurtherthathewas
investigatedorinterrogatedinthecourseofapolicelineupand
shotbyappellantRaulSantoswhileMoralespumpedbulletsinto
whogivesastatementtothepolice,ratherthantheaccusedwho
Cupcupin;thatthegunmenfiredatCupcupinandBautistafrom
isnotquestionedatallatthatstage.TheCourtisawareofthe
closerange,Moralesbeingamerehalfanarmlengthtotheleftof
CupcupinwhileappellantSantoswasabouttwo(2)armlengths caveatinGamboa.13Butthereisnothingintherecordofthiscase
away from the ambushed jeep; and that Bautista saw his which shows that in the course of the lineup, the police
companion,Cupcupin,slumponthesteeringwheelasthebullets investigatorssoughttoextractanyadmissionorconfessionfrom
crashedintohim.Oncemore,thetrialcourtwasledbytheabove appellant Santos. The investigators did not in fact interrogate
circumstances to conclude that Bautista had adequate appellantSantosduringthelineupandheremainedsilentafter
opportunitytoseeappellantSantosandtoretainhisfaceinhis hehadbeenidentifiedbyBautistaandBohol.
memory.Wefindnobasisforrejectingthisfactualconclusionof AppellantSantosssecondcontentionisthattherehadbeen
thetrialcourt. improper suggestiveness in the course of the police lineup
AppellantSantosmakestwo(2)additionalarguments.Firstly, amounting to an uncounselled confession. In effect, defense
hecomplainsthathewasnotaffordedhisrighttocounselinthe counsel claims that Bautista and Bohol were induced by the
police investigators to point to appellant Santos as one of the No,sir.Somebodyapproachedmeandsaid,iyanpo.Butbeforeanswering,
gunmen.Therecorddoesnotshowthatthepoliceinvestigators Imadeaverycarefullookattheperson.14
had coached Bautista. Appellant Santos counsel directed the We are not convinced, however, that the phraseiyan
attentionofthisCourttoaportionofBoholstestimonyduring
poconstituted an improper suggestion, certainly not in the
crossexamination,towit:
context of a situation where, as here, appellant Santos was
_______________ identified successively by Bautista and Bohol from a group of
persons. We consider that the phraseiyan pois too cryptic.
10
162SCRA643(1988). WhatthisCourtwarnedagainstinPeoplev.Acosta,15i.e.,against
11
162SCRAat651. an identification process that was pointedly suggestive, or
12
187SCRA47(1990). generated confidence when there was none, activated visual
13
...themomentthereisamoveorevenanurgeofsaid imagination,andalltold,subverted[apersons]reliabilityas[an]
investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain eyewitness[..],hasnotbeensuccessfullyshowninthecaseat
informationwhichmayappearinnocentorinnocuousatthetime, bar.
from said suspect, he should there and then be assisted by Appellant Santos next seeks to assail the credibility of
counsel,unlesshewaivestheright,butthewaivershallbemade Bautista and Bohol by citing supposed inconsistencies between
inwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.(Gamboa,162SCRA statements made in their affidavits before trial and their
651). testimony given in the course of the trial. Appellants counsel
724 complains16that while witness Bohol could recall the gunmens
724 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED generalappearance,hecouldnotrememberthekindofshoesthat
appellantSantoswaswearingnorthecoloroftheirguns;thathe
Peoplevs.Santos
had stated in his sworn statement that he had picked out
Atty.Valmonte:
appellantSantosfromalineupconsistingofseven(7)persons,
Alright,thatsomebodywhotoldyoutogototheofficeofCapt.Puzonyou whilehetestifiedinopencourtthathehadidentifiedappellant
wereinformedthatontheothersideoftheofficeofCapt.Puzontherewas when thelatter was togetherwith onlyone (1)detaineeinthe
alreadythepersonwhomtheywouldliketoidentify? investi
VictorinoBohol:
Yes,sir. _______________
Atty.Valmonte: 14
TSN,14February1990,at27.
Andwastheresomebodywhoaskedyouwhoamongthoseinthe 15
SeePeoplev.Acosta,187SCRA39,45(1990).
investigationroomthepersonwhomyousaw? 16
AppellantsBrief,pp.1418;Rollo,pp.7173.
VictorinoBohol: 725
 VOL.221,MAY11,1993 725 testimonyofawitnesstendtostrengthenratherthantoweaken
Peoplevs.Santos the credibility of the witness as they erase any suspicion of
gationroomofthepolicestation;thatBoholhadinitiallystated rehearsedtestimony.20
thatBautistawasdrivingthejeepbutondirectexamination,he
_______________
stated that it was Cupcupininstead who had been driving the
jeep;thatinhisswornstatement,Boholhadclaimedthathewas 17
SeeTSN,10January1990,pp.2628.
directing traffic when he first heard gunshots, but on cross 18
AppelleesBrief,p.10.
examination,statedthatatthatpointhewasengagedintaking 19
People v. Salviero, 198 SCRA 357 (1991);People v.
hismerienda. Espiritu,191SCRA503(1990).
Closeexaminationoftherecordwill,however,showthatthe 20
People v. Kalubiran,196 SCRA 447(1991);People v.
supposedinconsistenciesadducedbyappellantSantosareeither Lagota,194 SCRA 92(1991);People v. Martinada,194 SCRA
nonexistent or clearly minor and inconsequential in character. 36(1991);People
ThefactthatwitnessBoholmightnothaverememberedthekind 726
ofshoesappellantSantoswaswearingonthatviolentoccasion
726 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
northecolorofthegunmensweapons,isclearlyinconsequential
Peoplevs.Santos
ClosescrutinyoftheswornstatementofBohol(ExhibitA)does
notrevealanystatementthathe(Bohol)hadpickedoutappellant In his second assignment of error, appellant Santos in effect
Santos from a seven (7)person lineup nor does the transcript questionsthetrialcourtforadmittingaswornstatementbyone
show that witness Bohol had identified appellant Santos when RonaldoGuerrero(ExhibitEE),awitnessinanothercriminal
appellantwasalonewithonlyonedetaineeintheinvestigation case(CriminalCaseNo.8117)whereappellantSantoswasalso
roomatthepolicestation,17Appellantscounseldidnotdocument chargedwiththemurderofoneDanielNuguerawhichhadtaken
his averments. Moreover, as pointed out by the Solicitor placeintheverysamesitewhereBautistaandCupcupinwere
General,18whetherapolicelineupconsistedoftwo(2)orseven(7) ambushed,i.e.,atthecornerofYangcoStreetandEstrellaStreet,
persons is actually immaterial since a police lineup is not Malabon,MetroManila.Whentheprosecutionfirstpresentedthe
essentialtoaproperandpositiveidentification. 19Whetheritwas swornstatementofGuerreroinordertoshowcriminalpropensity
BautistaorCupcupinwhohadbeendrivingthejeepandwhether onthepartofappellantSantos,thedefenseobjectedtoadmission
ofsuchswornstatement;thetrialcourtsustainedtheobjection
Bohol was directing traffic or enjoying hismeriendawhen the
andrejectedtheevidenceforthepurposeitwasinitiallyoffered.
firstgunshotsrangout,cannotberegardedascriticalinnature;
However,thetrialcourtadmittedthesameasfallingwithinone
suchquestionsdonotdetractfromthebasicfactsthatBoholwas
ormoreoftheexceptionssetoutinSection34,Rule130ofthe
inapositiontoseeanddidseetheambushandtheshootingof
RulesofCourt,whichreads:
CupcupinandBautistaandsawbothassailantsandthevictims.
The entrenched principle is that minor inconsistencies in the Sec.34.SimilarActsasEvidence.Evidencethatonedidordid
notdoacertainthingatonetimeisnotadmissibletoprovethat
hedidordidnotdothesameorasimilarthingatanothertime; positiveidentificationofappellantSantosasoneofthegunmen
butit may be received to provea specific intent byBautistaandBohol.
orknowledge,identity,plan,system,scheme,habit, custom or Thatittookthepoliceauthoritiesfive(5)monthstolocateand
apprehendappellantSantoswho,itturnedout,residedcloseby
usageandthelike.(Italicssupplied).
theverylocaleoftheambushslaying,didnotinanywayweaken
Appellant Santos now complains that the affidavit of Ronaldo
the evidence of the prosecution or detract from the conclusions
Guerrerowashearsayevidence,consideringthattheprosecution
reachedbythetrialcourt.Thelengthofthatperiodoftimeshows
didnotpresentRonaldoGuerreroasawitnessduringthetrial.
only that police procedures are not always as efficient as they
Weconsiderthatthetrialcourtdidnotcommitreversibleerrorin
couldbeandthatwitnessesarefrequentlyreluctanttovolunteer
admitting the Guerrero affidavit for the limited purpose for
information to the police authorities in criminal cases, a point
provingknowledgeorplanorscheme,andmorespecifically,that
notedsofrequentlyastohavebecomeamatterofjudicialnotice. 22
appellant knew that the particular corner of two (2) particular
Finally,wecometothedefenseofalibiwhichappellantSantos
streetsinMalabonwasagoodplacetoambushavehicleandits
raisedbeforethetrialcourtandwhichwasrecountedbythetrial
passengers.Appellantalsohadwaivedthehearsaycharacterof
courtinthefollowingmanner:
thisevidencebyfailureseasonablytoobjecttotheadmissionof
AccusedRaulSantos,afterdenyingtheaccusationsagainsthim,
theaffidavit;itistoolateinthatdaytoraisethehearsayrulein
insisted that he was on the date and time that Cupcupin and
theappellantsmemorandumafterprosecutionanddefensehad
BautistawereambushedsomewhereinIbaan,Batangastowhich
presented theirrespectivecasesand had made their respective
place he went on May 20, 1989, because his sister Teresita
offers of evidence.21Finally, and in any case, as pointed out by
received a subpoena in a case involving one Apolonio Nuguera
the
andwhichsubpoenawasgiventohimbyanothersisternamed
Isabel. Accused Santos claimed that he was surprised and
_______________
confused by said subpoena(Exh. 2)andhadto gotoBatangas
v.Calixto,193SCRA303(1991). whilehissistersareverifyingthecomplaintagainsthim.Accused
21
TSN,25July1990,pp.2425;TSN,1August1990,pp.13 Santosalsomaintainedthatfromthetimehelefttheplaceon
18; Records, pp. 575580. SeePeople v. Nebreja,203 SCRA June12,1989,heremainedcontinuouslyinsaidplace.
45(1991); xxxxxxxxx
727 The testimony of accused Santos regarding his stay in
BatangaswascorroboratedbyMelindaDavidinwhosehousehe
VOL.221,MAY11,1993 727
stayedandbyhissisterIsabelSantos.23
Peoplevs.Santos
In respect of the weight properly given to a defense of alibi,
SolicitorGeneral,theexclusion ofthe Guerrero affidavitwould theCourthas,timesbeyondnumbering,ruledthatsuchdefense
notresultinanychangeintheresultreachedbythetrialcourt. isweakmostespeciallywhenestablishedexclusivelyormainlyby
For that result is essentially and adequately based upon the theaccusedhimselfandhisrelativesandnotbyindependentand
crediblepersons,24and that such a defensewillnotprevail over deserveonlyscantconsideration.Bethatasitmay,recantations
thepositiveidentificationmadebycrediblewitnesses, 25especially arefrowneduponbythecourts.Arecantationofatestimonyis
wherethewitnessisthevictimcomplainanthimself. exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, we hold that the such recantationmaylater onbeitselfrepudiated. Courtslook
judgmentofconvictionrenderedbythetrialcourtmustbe,andit with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be
ishereby,AFFIRMEDwiththefollowingmodifications:thecivil obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary
indemnity payable to the heirs of Glicerio Cupcupin shall be consideration.Aretractiondoesnotnecessarilynegateanearlier
INCREASEDtoP50,000.00;thepenaltyoflifeimprisonmentin declaration.Especially,recantationsmadeaftertheconvictionof
Criminal Case No. 8517MN shall be CHANGED toreclusion theaccuseddeserveonlyscantconsideration.
perpetua,which is the proper imposable penalty under the Same;Same;Same;The pardon to justify the dismissal of
RevisedPenalCode.Costsagainstappellant. the complaint should be made prior to the institution of the
SOORDERED. criminal action.Any recantation or affidavit of desistance, by
Bidin,Davide,Jr.,RomeroandMelo,JJ.,concur. itself,evenwhenconstruedasapardoninthesocalledprivate
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification. crimes,isnotagroundforthedismissalofthecriminalcaseonce
Note.Hearsay evidencewhether objectedto ornot has no theactionhasbeeninstituted.Thepardontojustifythedismissal
probativevalue(Peoplevs.Nebreja,203SCRA45). ofthecomplaintshould bemadepriortotheinstitution ofthe
The suspects, under custodial investigation, have the criminalaction.Parenthetically,thecrimeinthecaseatbarwas
constitutionalrighttocounsel(Peoplevs.Cavite,203SCRA383). committedin1996,i.e.,priortothepassageoftheR.A.8353,the
AntiRapeLawof1997,whichreclassifiedrapeasacrimeagainst
o0o persons.
Same;Same;Same;An affidavit of recantation, being
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 339 usually taken ex parte, would be considered inferior to the
Peoplevs.Nardo testimonygiveninopencourt.Evenifitweresworn,Lorielyns
G.R.No.133888.March1,2001.* recantationcouldhardlysufficetooverturnthefindingofguiltby
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff thetrialcourtwhichwasbasedonherownclearandconvincing
appellee,vs.ALFREDONARDOyROSALES,accusedappellant. testimony, given during a fullblown trial. An affidavit of
recantation, being usually taken ex parte, would be considered
Criminal Law;Rape;Evidence;Courts look with disfavor
inferior to the testimony given in open court. It would be a
upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of
witnesses through intimidation or for monetary justicesimplybecausethewitnesswhogaveitlateronchanged
consideration;Retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier his/hermindforonereasonoranother.Sucharulewouldmakea
declaration;Recantationsmadeaftertheconvictionoftheaccused
solemntrialamockery,andplacetheproceedingsatthemercyof finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and
unscrupulouswitnesses. consistentwithhumannatureandthecourseofthings.
Same;Same;Same;Inconsistencies in the testimony of
_______________ prosecutionwitnesseswithrespecttominordetailsandcollateral
matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration,
*
ENBANC.
340 their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.Minor
3 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED inconsistenciesdonotaffectthecredibilityofwitnesses,asthey
mayeventendtostrengthenratherthanweakentheircredibility.
40
Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with
Peoplevs.Nardo
respecttominordetailsandcollateralmattersdonotaffecteither
Same;Same;Same;As a rule, Court does not disturb the thesubstanceoftheirdeclaration,theirveracity,ortheweightof
findings by the trial court on the credibility of witnesses.As theirtestimony.Suchminorflawsmayevenenhancetheworthof
stated,thetrialcourtarrivedatitsfindingofguiltafteracareful atestimony,fortheyguardagainstmemorizedfalsities.Besides,
assessmentoftheevidencepresented,foremostofwhichwasthe arapevictimcannotbeexpectedtorecallvividlyallthesordid
testimonyofthevictiminopencourt,wherethetrialjudgewas detailsoftheviolationcommittedagainsthervirtue.
able to personally evaluate her manner of testifying, and from Same;Same;Same;Alibi;Inordertoovercometheevidence
therereachastudiedopinionastohercredibility.Asarule,we of the prosecution with the defense of alibi, accusedappellant
donotdisturbthefindingsbythetrialcourtonthecredibilityof
must establish not only that he was somewhere else when the
witnesses,forthetrialcourtisinabetterpositiontopassupon
thesame. crimewascommittedbutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefor
Same;Same;Same;Itissettledthatapersonaccusedofrape him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was
canbeconvictedsolelyonthetestimonyofthevictimifthetrial committed.Asagainstthepositiveandcategoricaltestimonyof
Lorielyn,accusedappellantcanonlyprofferthedefenseofalibi.
courtfindssaidtestimonytobecredible,natural,convincing,and
However,inordertoovercometheevidenceoftheprosecution
consistentwithhumannatureandthecourseofthings.Wefind
341
nothingintherecordswhichwouldindicatethatthefindingsof
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 341
factofthetrialcourtarenotsupportedbytheevidenceorwere
arrived at in manifest or palpable error, such as to warrant a Peoplevs.Nardo
departurefromtheforegoingrule.Thetrialcourtwascorrectin withthedefenseofalibi,hemustestablishnotonlythathe
lending credibility to the testimony of Lorielyn. The sole wassomewhereelsewhenthecrimewascommittedbutalsothat
testimony of Lorielyn was sufficient to establish the guilt of itwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtohavebeenatthesceneof
accusedappellant.Itissettledthatapersonaccusedofrapecan thecrimeatthetimeitwascommitted.Intheinstantcase,the
beconvictedsolelyonthetestimonyofthevictimifthetrialcourt testimonies for the defense sought to establish that accused
appellantwas400to500meters,or15minutes,awayfromthe _______________
scene of the crime. This hardly qualifies as proof that it was
physicallyimpossibleforhimtobeatthesceneofthecrimewhen 1
CertificateofBaptism,ExhibitD.
it was committed. Accusedappellants defense of alibi must, 342
therefore,necessarilyfail. 342 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AUTOMATICREVIEWofthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt Peoplevs.Nardo
ofLegazpiCity,Albay,Br.3. cry,whileAlfredotookoffhisclothes.Then,helayontopofher
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. andhadsexualintercoursewithher.Hekissedherfromtheneck
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee. down.ShetriedtofreeherselfbutAlfredotookholdofaknife
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant. from a nearby cabinet and pointed it at her right ear. He
threatenedtokilltheirwholefamilyifLorielyntoldanyonewhat
PERCURIAM: hedid.Whenhewasfinished,Alfredoleftthehouse.Duringall
this time, Lorielyns mother, Elizabeth Nardo, was washing
This case is before this Court on automatic review from the clothesaboutfivehousesaway.2
Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Albay, Branch III, which Elizabethreturnedhomeatabout3:00oclockp.m.Shesaw
imposed on accusedappellant the death penalty for rape in Lorielyncryingwhilewashingthedishes.SheaskedLorielynwhy
CriminalCaseNo.7170. shewascrying,butherdaughtersaidnothing.3
The victim, Lorielyn R. Nardo, is the eldest daughter of OnMarch19,1996,Lorielynwaswashingclotheswhenher
accusedappellant.ShewasbornonSeptember11,1981and,at fatherapproachedherandwhispered,Wewillplaytonightnear
thetimeoftheincident,wasfourteen(14)yearsold.1 the river.Lorielyn understood this to mean that her father
On February 24, 1996, around noon, Lorielyn was in their wantedtohavesexualintercoursewithheragain.Shefinished
houselocatedinBarangay3,Camalig,Albay,togetherwithher thelaundryandleftthehouse.Shetookapassengerjeepneyto
father, accusedappellant Alfredo Nardo, two younger brothers, BarangayLibod,Camalig,Albayandproceededtothehouseof
LeonelandLouie,andmaternalgrandfather,VicenteRemot.At heraunt,CarolNavera.Shestayedthereuntilherauntarrived
1:30oclockintheafternoon,aftertheyhadlunch,Vicenteleftfor at around 5:00 oclock in the afternoon. When it became late,
work.Alfredotoldhissons,LeonelandLouie,togoout.Hethen CaroltoldLorielyntogohome,butshedecidedtospendthenight
ordered Lorielyn to get his cigarettes in his bedroom. When atherauntshousebecauseshewasafraidtoundergotheordeal
Lorielyn went inside the bedroom, her father followed her. He fromherfatheragain.4
embracedLorielynfrombehindandbeganmashingherbreasts. The next day, Lorielyns brother, Leonel, was sent by her
Lorielyn pleaded,Papa, please stop it Have mercy.Her father father to fetch her, but she refused to go with him. Her aunt
ignoredher.Instead,heundressedherandpushedhertothebed. askedheragainwhyshedidnotwanttogohome.Shemerely
Lorielynstartedto saidshehadaproblem.Shesleptatherauntshouseagainthat
night.Thefollowingday,hermothercametofetchher.Lorielyn Camalig, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the
toldhermothershedidnotwanttogohome.Shesaid,Mama, jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused,
doyouwantmetobecomepregnantinthathouse?Hermother being the father of the herein victim, with lewd and unchaste
design,bymeansofviolence,forceandintimidation,armedwith
asked,Who will impregnate you there?Lorielyn replied,Your
aknife,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously
husband.HermotherretortedthatAlfredocouldnotdothatto
havecarnalknowledgewithher(sic)owndaughter,LORIELYN
her,thenleft.5
R.NARDO,a14yearoldgirl,againstherwillandconsent,toher
LorielynstayedatherauntshouseuntilMarch22,1996.On
damageandprejudice.
thatdate,CarolagainaskedLorielynwhatherproblemwas.Fi
ACTSCONTRARYTOLAW.9
AtthearraignmentonAugust8,1996,accusedappellantpleaded
_______________
notguilty.10
2
TSN,April2,1997,pp.59;p.28. TheprosecutionpresentedDr.MelvynOrbe,whotestifiedon
thefollowingfindingsasaresultofhisexaminationofthevictim,
3
Ibid.,p.11.
LorielynNardo:
4
Id.,pp.1416. PelvicExamination:
5
Id.,pp.1719.
343 whitishtoyellowishdischarge
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 343
Peoplevs.Nardo irritationlateralaspectoftheposteriorvulvaat3oclock
nally,shetoldherauntthatherfatherrapedher.Immediately,
Carolwenttoreportthemattertothepolice.Shelaterreturned _______________
homewithtwopolicemen,andtogethertheybroughtLorielynto
theCamaligPoliceStation.Therapewasenteredinthepolice 6
Exh.C.
blotter.6The policemen then brought Lorielyn to the Municipal 7
Exh.A.
HealthOfficeofCamalig,Albay,whereshewasexaminedbyDr. 8
Exh.E.
Melvyn P. Orbe, the Municipal Health Officer. 7From there 9
Record,p.2.
Lorielynwas brought totheMunicipalTrialCourtof Camalig 10
Id.,p.47.
Albay to file a formal complaint for rape against her father, 344
AlfredoNardo.8 344 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
OnMay29,1996,anInformationforrapewasfiledagainst
Peoplevs.Nardo
AlfredoNardo,chargingasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe24thdayofFebruary1996,atmoreorless
1:30 oclock in the afternoon, at Brgy. No. 3, Municipality of
 *healedlacerationhymenalinoriginposterioraspectof LorielynsbirthcertificatewasburnedintheMunicipalBuilding
thefourchet11 ofMisamisOrien

Dr.Orbestatedthatbasedonthesefindings,itispossiblethat _______________
Lorielynhadsexualintercourse.12
CarolinaNavera,testifyingfortheprosecution,corroborated
11
Exh.A.
LorielynsstatementthatthelatterwenttoherhouseonMarch
12
TSN,November5,1996,p.8.
20,1996.Lorielyncriedandtoldherthatshedidnotwanttogo
13
TSN,November6,1996,pp.510.
homebecauseshehadaproblem.Elizabeth,Lorielynsmother,
14
Exh.B
cametofetchherbutsherefusedtogohome,sayingthatshewas
15
TSN,November6,1996,pp.1316.
rapedbyherfather. Uponhearingthis,Elizabethleftandtold
16
TSN,December16,1996,p.6.
CarolinanottoletLorielynleaveherhouse.AfterElizabethwas 345
gone,Carolinawenttothepolicestation.Shereturnedlaterwith VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 345
two policemen, who then brought Lorielyn to the police Peoplevs.Nardo
headquarters.13 tal.17However, Elizabeth presented and identified Lorielyns
Ma. Francia Aguilar, the social welfare officer of the baptismalcertificateshowingthatshewasbornonSeptember11,
Department of Social Welfare and Development, also testified 1981.18
thatintheeveningofMarch22,1996,sherespondedtoareport Thedefense,ontheotherhand,presentedlawyerSanterG.
of a rape incident. She met the victim, Lorielyn Nardo, at the Gonzales, the employer of accusedappellant. He testified that
house of Cely Bantog, a social worker, at Camalig, Albay. She accusedappellantworkedasahelperathisfarminQuirangay,
interviewedLorielynandhermother,Elizabeth,forthepurpose Camalig,Albay.OnFebruary24,1996,accusedappellantarrived
of preparing a Social Case Study Report. 14Thereafter, she athisfarmbefore8:00oclockinthemorning.Hewasfollowedby
endorsed Lorielyn to the DSWD Center for Girls in Sorsogon, hisfatherinlaw,VicenteRemot,wholivedwithhiminthesame
Sorsogontoundergotherapeutics.15 house.Itstartedtorainhard,sotheydecidednottoworkthat
SPO3 Jose Nuylan, a member of the Camalig police force, day.VicenteRemotwenthomeataround8:30or9:00oclockin
testified that he investigated the rape incident and took the the morning. Accusedappellant stayed behind. After a while,
statementofLorielynNardo.16 Paterno Ramas, a neighbor of Atty. Gonzales, arrived. They
Elizabeth Nardo, the victims mother, was called to the started to drink. None of them left the farmhouse since Atty.
witnessstand.ShetestifiedthatsheandAlfredoarenotmarried, Gonzaleskeptbottlesofginandcigarettesinstock.Theywere
buttheyhavebeenlivingtogether.Theyhavesevenchildren,the joined later in the afternoon by Didjo Mujar, another friend of
eldestofwhomisLorielyn.ShestatedthatLorielynwasbornon Atty. Gonzales. They drank about five bottles of gin and sang
September 11, 1981 at Anei, Claveria, Misamis Oriental; that while Atty. Gonzales played the guitar. The rain subsided at
around3:30oclockintheafternoon,sotheystoppeddrinking.At
4:00oclockintheafternoon,accusedappellantleft.19Thefarmis Lorielyn,Lewcherd,Lailani,Leonel,LouieBoyandLeoBoy.All
locatedaround400to500metersawayfromBarangay3,where her children were at home because it was a Saturday. She
accusedappellantandthevictimreside,andcanbereachedin15 claimed that Lorielyn filed the complaint for rape against her
minutes.20 father because he was very strict with her. She learned from
Whenaskedtocommentonthevictim,LorielynNardo,Atty. Lorielynsbestfriendthatshehadaproblemwithherboyfriend,
Gonzalesdescribedherasonecapableoftellingalie.Henarrated acertainErwinLoreno.Atonetime,Lorielynaskedpermissionto
thatonce,shewenttohisfarmtocollecttheamountofP50.00as attend a holy retreat, but Elizabeth found out from the school
dailywageofhergrandfather,VicenteRemot,butshegaveonly thattherewasnosuchretreat.Lorielynliedonanotheroccasion,
P35.00tohermother.ElizabeththuswenttoAtty.Gonzalesto whenshetoldMrs.BonifaciaPazNievathathergrandfather
ask about the deficiency. They later learned from Lorielyns wassicksoshecanborrowmoney.23
youngersisterthatshespentthemissingP15.00onsnacks.21 Mrs. Bonifacia Nieva testified that her daughter was a
VicenteRemot,accusedappellantsfatherinlaw,corroborated classmateofLorielyn.Once,Lorielynvisitedhersayingthatshe
Atty.Gonzalestestimonythathereportedforworkatthelatters wassentbyElizabethtoborrowmoneybecausehergrandfather
farminthemorningofFebruary24,1996,buthewasunableto was sick. Mrs. Nieva gave Lorielyn P200.00. Later, when she
went to see Elizabeth to collect payment, she found out that
_______________ Lorielynsgrandfatherdidnotgetsick.Lorielynadmittedtoher
thatsheliedaboutittobeabletoborrowmoney.24
17
TSN,February11,1997,pp.34. TheprosecutionrecalledLorielyntothewitnessstandbyway
18
Exh.D. ofrebuttalevidence.SherefutedAtty.Gonzalesstatementthat
19
TSN,June9,1997,pp.37,12;Exh.5. shedidnotturnoverinfullthesalaryofhergrandfatherinthe
20
Ibid.,p.8. amountofP50.00.Shedeniedthatsheliedtohermotherabouta
21
Id.,p.7. holyretreatheldbyherschool.AnenttheamountofP200.00she
346 borrowed from Mrs. Nieva, she asserted that it was her father
346 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED whoorderedhertodothat,andthatshegavethewholesumof
P200.00tohim.25
Peoplevs.Nardo
work because of the rain, so he went home instead, leaving
_______________
accusedappellantinthefarm.At1:00oclockintheafternoonof
thatday,hewasathomewatchingtelevisionwithElizabethand 22
Id.,pp.1416.
hisgrandchildren,includingLorielyn.HerefutedLorielynsclaim 23
TSN,July10,1997,pp.410.
that he left after lunch to work, saying that he stayed in the 24
TSN,August11,1997,pp.35.
housethewholeafternoonsinceitwasraining.22 25
TSN,October7,1997,pp.36.
ElizabethalsotestifiedthatonFebruary24,1996,shewasat
347
homewatchingtelevisionwithherfatherandchildren,namely,
 VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 347 NardotheamountofFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00)formoral
Peoplevs.Nardo damages.
On clarificatory questioning by the presiding judge, Lorielyn Forhumanitarianreasons,however,itisrecommendedthat
maintained that her grandfather, Vicente Remot, indeed came theDEATHpenaltybecommutedtoRECLUSIONPERPETUA.
homeinthemorningofFebruary24,1996,butheleftagaintogo
_______________
toAtty.Gonzalesfarmafterlunch.Thatafternoon,hermother
was at the public faucet located far away from their house
washingclothes.Thejudgewonderedaloudwhyshewasdoing
26
Ibid.,pp.913.
the laundry in the afternoon when this is usually done in the
27
TSN,November24,1997,pp.311.
morning.Lorielynrepliedthathermotherhadstarteddoingthe
28
Ibid.,pp.1316.
laundryinthemorningbutthatshewasnotabletofinishit,so 348
shereturnedintheafternoontocontinueherchore.Shedenied 348 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
havinganymalefriends,sayingallherfriendsaregirls.When Peoplevs.Nardo
askedoncemorebythejudge,Lorielynreiteratedthatherfather SOORDERED.29
hadsexualintercoursewithher.26 Accusedappellantraisesthefollowingassignmentoferrors:
Carolina Nieva and Elizabeth Nardo were presented as
surrebuttalwitnesses.TheytestifiedinsumthatLorielynhada I
boyfriend.27
Accusedappellant was presented as the last witness. He THETRIALCOURTERREDINGIVINGCREDENCETOTHE
deniedthatherapedhisdaughteronFebruary24,1997,saying TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM LORIELYN AND
thathewasatthefarmofAtty.Gonzales.HescoldedLorielyn DISREGARDINGTHEEVIDENCEFORTHEDEFENSE.
whenhelearnedfromhersisterandbrotherthatshewasalways
goingaroundwithaboy.HealsostatedthatLorielyngotmadat II
himbecausehedidnotpermithertoleavethehousewhenever
shewantedto.28 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO RECITE
On March 3, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment as THEREASONSWHYITWASRECOMMENDINGEXECUTIVE
follows: CLEMENCYFORTHEACCUSED.30
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING Accusedappellant assails the trial courts finding that Atty.
CONSIDERATIONS, this court finds the accused ALFREDO Gonzaleswashisemployerandthereforewaslikelytotestifyin
NARDOYROSALESGUILTYBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT hisfavor;andthathecouldnothavenoticedaccusedappellant
ofthecrimeofRAPEandsentenceshimtosufferthepenaltyof leavethefarmintheafternoonofFebruary24,1996becausehe
DEATH. The said accused in likewise ordered to pay Lorielyn had one drink too many. Accusedappellant contends that the
courtshouldnothavebeentooquicktocondemnhimwhenhis
witness was a lawyer. Furthermore, he argues that Lorielyns On May 4, 2000, counsel for accusedappellant filed a
conductaftertheallegedrape,specificallyfromFebruary25to Supplemental Reply Brief,33alleging that she received another
March19,1996,duringwhichshestayedinthehousewithher letterfromLorielynNardowhichstates:
fatherandcontinuedtodoherdailychores,createsadoubtonthe 04172000
veracityofthecharge. DearAtty.TeresitadeGuzman,
In the Reply Brief for accusedappellant, 31defense counsel Unanguna po sa lahat ay nagpapasalamat po ako sa pag
revealsthatLorielynwroteherthefollowingletter: responsemosaletter.AkongapopalasiLorielynNardonaanak
71399 ni Mr. Alfredo Nardo na nakapiit ngayon sa DORM ID ng
DearAtty.DeGuzman: Muntinlupa,akopoyungnagpadalanglihamsainyo.Attorney,
AkongapopalasiLorielynNardonaanakniAlfredoNardo lagikopongipinagdarasalnanawaymataposnaangpaghihirap
na nakabinbin pa sa ngayon sa Maximum Security Compound atpagdunisangakingamasaloobngpiitan,nawaymataposna
NBP ID Mimtinlupa City. Sumulat po ako sa inyo upang ang lahat ng problema upang manumbalik muli ang sigla ng
humingingtulongnagawinposanaanglahat,walapotalagang amingpamilya.Nagpapasalamatngarinpopalaakosaginagawa
kasalananangakingamaakonapo mongpagtulongsaamin,attorneynawapoaymakamitnyoang
tagumpay.
_______________ Hanggangnalamangpoangakingliham,umaasapoakosa
inyongpangunawaattagumpay.
29
Record,p.149. Nagpapasalamatatumaasa,
30
AppellantsBrief;Rollo,p.53. LorielynNardo34
31
Rollo,pp.117129. In compliance with the Courts Resolution dated November 14,
349 2000,35theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralfileditscommentonthe
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 349
Peoplevs.Nardo _______________
mismongnagakusaangnagsasabinawalangkatotohananang
lahatngmgasinabikonapinagsamantalahanniyaako.Nagawa
32
Ibid.,pp.118119.
kolangpoyondahilmasyadopokasisiyangmahigpitsaaming 33
Id.,pp.134136.
magkakapatid.Atty.tulunganninyosanaako,nalamankonga 34
Id.,p.137.
popalaanginyongaddressdahildumalawpoangmamakonoon 35
Id.,p.141.
sapapakoathiningikonamanpoparamasulatankopokayo. 350
Umaasapoakonglubosnaakoyinyongmatutulungan.
350 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lubosnaumaasa
Peoplevs.Nardo
LORIELYNNARDO32
lettersofLorielynNardo,36contendingthatthereisnomentionof _______________
herfathersinnocenceinherletterdatedApril17,2000.Rather,
shemerelyexpressedthereinherdeepsympathyforherfathers 36
Id.,pp.154158.
situation in prison. The Solicitor General argues that a 37
Id.,pp.144148.
recantation is not sufficient to warrant the exoneration of 38
Id.,p.151.
accusedappellant after he has been proven guilty beyond
351
reasonable doubt based on Lorielyns candid, categorical and
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 351
straightforwardtestimonybeforethetrialcourt.
Inthemeantime,counselforaccusedappellant,bywayofa Peoplevs.Nardo
Manifestation and Motion,37submitted two more letters from January17,2001
LorielynNardowhicharehereunderreproduced,viz.:
August10,2000 DearAtty.TeresitaDeGuzman,

DearAttorney, Ako po muli si Lorielyn Nardo na anak ni Alfredo Nardo na

nakabinbin sa NBP DormID Muntinlupa. Kahit hindi po
Unanguna posa lahat ay ang taospuso kong pasasalamat, sa natupad ang hinihiling kong sanay makalaya ang aking ama
dahilangpagpapaunlakniyosakahilingankongmaipasasakorte noongnakaraangDisyembreaypatuloykoparinponginaasahan
angisanglihamngkatotohanan,atkahitwalapapoangisang athinihilinganginyongtulongnasanapoaymakalayanaang
desisyonmtilasakorteaylubospoakongumaasaatnagtitiwala aking ama. Patuloy pong nangingibabaw ang aking konsensiya
sa inyong kakayahan. Attorney, kung alam niyo lang po ng dahil sa aking ginawa, umaasa po ako na sana ay lalo pang
matanggap at mabasa ang isang letter na nagmula sayo ay mapadaliangpaglabasniyasaloobngkulungan,maniwalapo
punungpuno po ng kaligayahan ang aking puso dahil kahit kayowalasiyangkasalanan.Attorney,alamkoponaginagawa
papaanoaynabawasannaangpagaalinlangansaakingisipan. niyo(po)anglahatkayatngayonpalangpoaynagpapasalamat
Sangayonpoaypatuloynalangakongumaasanasanaisang ako sa inyo at patuloy na umaasa ng inyong tulong at sanay
araw ay makita kong muling masaya ang aking pamilya. maunawaanniyoako.
Attorney, isang pabor po ang nais kong hilingin, na sana bago Patuloynaumaasa,
magpaskoaymulikongmakasamaangakingama,atgustoko LorielynNardo
pongmagingninyotosaakinsadaratingnapasko. (anak)39
Hanggang dito na lamang po ang aking liham, at lubos po Accusedappellantreliesontheseletterstoobtainareversalof
akongnagtitiwalasainyongkakayahannamapapawalangsala the trial courts judgment of his conviction. However, the said
angakingama. letterswerenotsubscribedandsworntobyLorielyn.
Trulyyours, Be that as it may, recantations are frowned upon by the
LorielynNardo38 courts.Arecantationofatestimonyisexceedinglyunreliable,for
thereisalwaystheprobabilitythatsuchrecantationmaylateron giveninopencourt.Itwouldbeadangerousruletorejectthe
beitselfrepudiated.Courtslookwithdisfavoruponretractions, testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the
because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through witnesswhogaveitlateronchangedhis/hermindforonereason
intimidationorformonetaryconsideration.Aretractiondoesnot oranother.Sucharulewouldmakeasolemntrialamockery,and
necessarily negate an earlier declaration. 40Especially, placetheproceedingsatthemercyofunscrupulouswitnesses.44
recantationsmadeaftertheconvictionoftheaccuseddeserveonly Asstated,thetrialcourtarrivedatitsfindingofguiltaftera
scantconsideration.41 carefulassessmentoftheevidencepresented,foremostofwhich
Moreover,anyrecantationoraffidavitofdesistance,byitself, was the testimony of the victim in open court, where the trial
even when construed as a pardon in the socalled private judgewasabletopersonallyevaluatehermanneroftestifying,
crimes,isnotagroundforthedismissalofthecriminalcaseonce andfromtherereachastudiedopinionastohercredibility.Asa
theac rule, we do not disturb the findings by the trial court on the
credibilityofwitnesses,forthetrialcourtisinabetterpositionto
_______________ passuponthesame.45
Thetrialjudgeisinabetterpositiontodecidethequestionof
39
Id.,p.149. credibility,sincehepersonallyheardthewitnessesandobserved
40
Peoplev.Navarro,297SCRA331,348(1998). theirdeportmentandmanneroftestifying.Hehadbeforehimthe
41
Villanuevav.People,G.R.No.135098,April12,2000,330 essential aids to determine whether a witness was telling the
SCRA695. truthorlying.Truthdoesnotalwaysstalkboldlyforthnaked;she
352 oftenhidesinnooksandcranniesvisibleonlytothemindseyeof
352 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED thejudgewhotriedthecase.Tohimappearsthefurtiveglance,
Peoplevs.Nardo the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or
tionhasbeeninstituted.42Thepardontojustifythedismissalof flippantorsneeringtone,theheat,thecalmness,the
the complaint should be made prior to the institution of the
criminalaction.43Parenthetically,thecrimeinthecaseatbarwas _______________
committedin1996,i.e.,priortothepassageoftheR.A.8353,the
Alontev.Savellano,Jr.,287SCRA245,266(1998).
42

AntiRapeLawof1997,whichreclassifiedrapeasacrimeagainst
Ibid.,citingPeoplev.Entes,103SCRA162(1981).
43
persons. 44
Peoplev.Agbayani,284SCRA315,342(1998).
Even if it were sworn, Lorielyns recantation could hardly 45
People v. Diasanta,G.R. No. 128108, July 6, 2000,335
sufficetooverturnthefindingofguiltbythetrialcourtwhichwas
SCRA218.
basedonherownclearandconvincingtestimony,givenduringa
353
fullblown trial. An affidavit of recantation, being usually
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 353
takenex parte, would be considered inferior to the testimony
Peoplevs.Nardo
yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full 46
People v. Mitra,G.R. No. 130669, March 27, 2000,328
realizationofthesolemnityofanoath,thecarriageandmien. 46 SCRA774;citingPeoplev.Agbayani,284SCRA315(1998).
We find nothing in the records which would indicate that the 47
People v. Bacule,G.R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000,323
findingsoffactofthetrialcourtarenotsupportedbytheevidence SCRA734,Peoplev.Reyes,315SCRA563,57172(1999).
or were arrived at in manifest or palpable error, such as to 48
Peoplev.Antonio,G.R.No.122473,June8,2000,333SCRA
warrantadeparturefromtheforegoingrule.Thetrialcourtwas 201;People v. Magdato,G.R. Nos. 13412227, February 7,
correctinlendingcredibilitytothetestimonyofLorielyn.Thesole 2000,324SCRA785.
testimony of Lorielyn was sufficient to establish the guilt of 354
accusedappellant.Itissettledthatapersonaccusedofrapecan 354 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
beconvictedsolelyonthetestimonyofthevictimifthetrialcourt Peoplevs.Nardo
finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and theculpritapprehendedandpunished. 49Ayounggirlsrevelation
consistentwithhumannatureandthecourseofthings.47 thatshehasbeenraped,coupledwithhervoluntarysubmission
Indeed,adaughter,especiallyoneinherminority,wouldnot to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public
accuseherownfatherofsuchanunspeakablecrimeasincestuous trialwhereshecouldbecompelledtogiveoutthedetailsofan
rape had she really not been aggrieved. 48More importantly, assaultonherdignityby,asinthiscase,herownfather,cannot
Lorielyn withstood all the rigors of the case, starting from the besoeasilydismissedasamereconcoction. 50Courtsusuallygive
initialpoliceinterrogation,themedicalexamination,theformal credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual
charge, the public trial, to the crossexamination. She went assault, particularly if it constitutes incestuous rape because,
throughthecourthearings,whereshecamefacetofacewithher normally,nopersonwouldbewillingtoundergothehumiliation
father.Ifitwastruethatshemerelymadeupthecharge,she ofapublictrialandtotestifyonthedetailsofherordealwereit
shouldhavebeenbotheredbyherconscienceatthesightofher not to condemn an injustice. Needless to say, it is settled
fatherinprisongarbandupontherealizationofhissorrystate jurisprudence that testimonies of childvictims are given full
whileindetention.Thefactthatshemaintainedherstoryduring weightandcredit,sincewhenawoman,moresoifsheisaminor,
hertestimonyinchiefallthewayuptoherrebuttaltestimony says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
onlyservestosubstantiatetheveracityofherclaim. necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and
Wellsettledistherulethatnowomanwouldconcoctastoryof immaturityaregenerallybadgesoftruthandsincerity.51
defloration,allowanexaminationofherprivatepartsandsubmit Duringthetrial,thedefenseendeavoredtoportrayLorielyn
herselftopublichumiliationandscrutinyviaanopentrial,ifher as an incorrigible liar. Occasions were cited wherein Lorielyn
sordidtalewasnottrueandhersolemotivationwasnottohave supposedly lied in order to obtain money or her parents
permissiontoleavethehouse.However,Rule130,Section34,of
_______________ theRulesofCourtprovidesthat:Evidencethatonedidordidnot
doacertainthingatonetimeisnotadmissibletoprovethathe
didnordidnotdothesameorasimilarthingatanothertime;but
it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, perfunctory yesorno answers to the leading questions
identity,plan,system,scheme,habit,customorusage,andthe propoundedtoheroncrossexamination.Ratherthansustainthis
like. While lying may constitute a habit, we believe that the argument, we rely instead on the observations of the Social
falsehoodscommittedbyLorielyn,assumingthemforthemoment WelfareOfficer,whomwefindtobeanimpartialwitness,inthis
tobetrue,arepettyandinconsequential.Theyarenotasserious wise:
aschargingonesownfatherofthesordidcrimeofrape,withall Per observation, Lorielyn is a shy and silent type person. She
ofitsseriousrepercussions. talkedinaverysmallvoiceand duringthe interviewshe only
Accusedappellant argues that the trial court should have talkswhenbeingasked.Shealsoappearstobeverysadandhave
givencredencetohiswitness,Atty.SanterG.Gonzales,because beenstaringblankly(sic)52.
heisa Accusedappellantassignsaserrorthetrialcourtsfailuretogive
thereasonsforrecommendingthecommutationofhissentence
_______________
from death toreclusion perpetua. As correctly observed by the
49
People v. Tao,G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000,331 SCRA SolicitorGeneral,thetrialcourtwasimpelledbyhumanitarian
449;People v. Amigable,G.R. No. 133857, March 31, 2000,329 reason.53Moreover,thecommutationofsentenceisaprerogative
SCRA 527;People v. Sampior,G.R. No. 117691, March 1, oftheChiefExecutive.
2000,327SCRA31. AsagainstthepositiveandcategoricaltestimonyofLorielyn,
50
Peoplev.Antipona,274SCRA328,335(1997). accusedappellantcanonlyprofferthedefenseofalibi.However,
51
Peoplev.Lusa,288SCRA296,303(1998). in order to overcome the evidence of the prosecution with the
defense of alibi, he must establish not only that he was
355
somewhereelsewhenthecrimewascommittedbutalsothatit
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 355
wasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtohavebeenatthesceneofthe
Peoplevs.Nardo crime at the time it was committed. 54In the instant case, the
member of the bar. Atty. Gonzales, however, took the witness testimoniesforthe
standnotasalawyerbutasanordinaryperson.Hetestifiedin
hiscapacityasaccusedappellantsemployer.Assuch,nospecial _______________
privilegeshouldbeaccordedhimbythetrialcourtbyreasononly
ofhisbeingamemberofthebar.Hedidnotappearinthatcase 52
SocialCaseStudyReport,p.2;Exh.B(emphasisours).
asanofficerofthecourtbutasamerewitness,andhenceshould 53
BrieffortheAppellee,p.18;Rollo,p.109.
betreatedasone. 54
Peoplev. Dando,G.R. No. 120646, February 14, 2000,325
Likewise, accusedappellant insists that Lorielyns conduct SCRA406;Peoplev.Paraiso,319SCRA422,433(1999).
aftertherape,duringwhichshecontinuedtoperformhertasks 356
andlivedwithherfatherintheirhouse,negatesthecommission 356 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
ofrape.AccusedappellantspropositionisderivedfromLorielyns
 Peoplevs.Nardo The concurrence of the two special qualifying circumstances,
defensesoughttoestablishthataccusedappellantwas400to500 namely the victims minority and the relationship between the
meters, or 15 minutes, away fromthescene ofthe crime. This victim and the culprit, increases the penalty of rape to one (1)
hardlyqualifiesasproofthatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforhim degree,thusresultingintheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.In
tobeatthesceneofthecrimewhenitwascommitted.Accused order to be appreciated as qualifying circumstances, however,
appellantsdefenseofalibimust,therefore,necessarilyfail. thesemust
Carefullysiftingthroughtheentirebodyofevidencepresented
in this case, we find nothing which would destroy the moral _______________
certaintyofaccusedappellantsguilt.Whiletheremaybesome
inconsistenciesinthetestimonyofLorielyn,thesetoourmindare
55
55People v. Dreu,G.R. No. 126282, June 20, 2000,334
minorinconsistencieswhichservetostrengthenhercredibilityas SCRA62.
theyarebadgesoftruthratherthanindiciaoffalsehood. 55Minor
56
Peoplev.Flora,G.R.No.125909,June23,2000,334SCRA
inconsistenciesdonotaffectthecredibilityofwitnesses,asthey 262.
mayeventendtostrengthenratherthanweakentheircredibility.
57
R.A.7659,Sec.11,seventhparagraph.
Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with 357
respecttominordetailsandcollateralmattersdonotaffecteither VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 357
thesubstanceoftheirdeclaration,theirveracity,ortheweightof Peoplevs.Nardo
theirtestimony.Suchminorflawsmayevenenhancetheworthof be properly pleaded in the indictment. 58In addition, the
atestimony,fortheyguardagainstmemorizedfalsities. 56Besides, qualifyingcircumstancesshouldbedulyprovedduringthetrial. 59
arapevictimcannotbeexpectedtorecallvividlyallthesordid These requirements are met in this case. The Information
detailsoftheviolationcommittedagainsthervirtue. sufficiently alleges that accusedappellant is the father of the
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by victim,andthatthelatterwasfourteen(14)yearsoldatthetime
RepublicActNo.7659,provides: of commission of the rape. These elements, furthermore, were
Thedeathpenaltyshallalsobeimposedifthecrimeofrapeis categorically affirmed by Elizabeth Nardo, the victims mother
committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances: and the most competent witness. She testified that accused
appellant is Lorielyns father, and that Lorielyn was born on
1. 1.whenthevictimisundereighteen(18)yearsofageand September11,1981,60thusplacingherageatthetimeoftherape
the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, atfourteen(14)years.Moreover,theLorielynsbirthdateandher
guardian,relativebyconsanguinityoraffinitywithinthe relationshiptoaccusedappellantareshownbyherCertificateof
third civil degree, or the commonlawspouse of the Baptism.61Thiswaspresentedbyhermother,Elizabeth,inlieuof
parentofthevictim,xxx.57 herCertificateofLiveBirth,whichwasdestroyedbyfire. 62The
baptismal certificate, coupled by her mothers testimony, is
sufficienttoestablishLorielynsage.63
 Wethereforeaffirmthetrialcourtsimpositionofthedeath awardedtothevictiminthecriminalproceeding,insuchamount
penalty. astheCourtdeemsjust,withouttheneedforpleadingorproofof
Four justices of the Court have continued to maintain the thebasisthereofashasheretoforebeenthepractice.Indeed,the
unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 insofar as it conventionalrequirementofallegataelprobataincivilprocedure
prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless they submit to the and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in
rulingofthemajoritytotheeffectthatthislawisconstitutional criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included
andthatthedeathpenaltycanbelawfullyimposedinthecaseat therein, since no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such
bar. allegationscanbemade.
WelikewiseaffirmtheawardofP50,000.00formoraldamages Corollarily,thefactthatcomplainanthassufferedthetrauma
which is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 64No proof is ofmental,physicalandpsychologicalsufferingswhichconstitute
required to substantiate the award of moral damages in rape thebasesformoraldamagesaretooobvioustostillrequirethe
cases.InPeoplevs.Prades,65weheld: recital thereof at the trial by the victim, since the Court itself
even assumes and acknowledges such agony on her part as a
_______________ gaugeofhercredibility.Whatexistsbynecessaryimplicationas
being ineludibly present in the case need not go through the
58
Peoplev.Mendez,G.R.No.132546,July5,2000,335SCRA superfluityofstillbeingprovedthroughatestimonialcharade.
147. In addition to moral damages, the amount of P75,000.00, is
59
People v. Alvero,G.R. Nos. 13453638, April 5, 2000,329 awardedtothevictimasindemnity.
SCRA 737;People v. Llamo,G.R. No. 132138, January 28, xxx.Indictmentsforrapecontinueunabatedandthelegislative
2000,323SCRA791. response has been in the form of higher penalties. The Court
60
TSN,February11,1997,pp.34. believesthat,onlikeconsiderations,thejurisprudentialpathon
61
Exh.D. thecivilaspectshouldfollowthesamedirection.Hence,starting
62
TSN,February11,1997,p.4. with the case at bar, if the crime of rape is committed or
63
Peoplev.Rebancos,172SCRA425,429(1989). effectivelyqualifiedbyanyofthecircumstancesunderwhichthe
64
People v. Mendiola,G.R. No. 134846, August 8, 2000,337 death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the
SCRA418;Peoplev.Castillo,G.R.No.130205,July5,2000,335 indemnityforthevictimshallbeintheincreasedamountofnot
SCRA100. lessthanP75,000.00.Thisisnotonlyareactiontotheapathetic
65
293SCRA411(1998). societalperceptionofthepenallawandthefinancialfluctuations
358 overtime,butalsoanexpressionofthedispleasureoftheCourt
358 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED overtheincidenceofheinouscrimesagainstchastity.66
Peoplevs.Nardo WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of
xxx.TheCourthasalsoresolvedthatincrimesofrape,suchas Legaspi City, Albay, Branch III, convicting accusedappellant
that under consideration, moral damages may additionally be AlfredoNardoyRosalesofthecrimeofrape,sentencinghimto
death,andorderinghimtopaythevictim,LorielynNardomoral ROQUETAALEJAGA,FELIPEALEJAGA,JR.,MARIADULLA
damages in the amount of P50,000.00, is AFFIRMED with the ALEJAGA, FELIPE ALEJAGA III, ROQUETA ALEJAGA,
MODIFICA JENNIFER ALEJAGA, EVERETTE CAPUNDAN, AND
LYNETTE ALEJAGA; THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
_______________ andTHEREGISTEROFDEEDSOFROXASCITY,respondents.
LandTitles;FreePatent;Fraud;Thepartyallegingfraudor
Peoplev.Victor,292SCRA186,200201(1998).
66
mistakeinatransactionbearstheburdenofproof.Webeginour
359
resolutionofthisissuewiththewellsettledrulethattheparty
VOL.353,MARCH1,2001 359 alleging fraud or mistake in a transaction bears the burden of
Belovs.PhilippineNationalBank proof. The circumstancesevidencing fraud are asvaried as the
TIONthataccusedappellantis,further,orderedtopaythevictim peoplewhoperpetrate itineach case.Itmay assumedifferent
civilindemnityintheamountofP75,000.00. shapes and forms; it may be committed in as many different
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, ways.Thus,thelawrequiresthatitbeestablishedbyclearand
amendingArticle83oftheRevisedPenalCode,uponfinalityof convincingevidence.
this decision, let certified true copies thereof, as well as the Same;Same;Same;Evidence;Doctrine on Independently
recordsofthiscase,beforwardedwithoutdelaytotheOfficeof
Relevant Statements Defined.The doctrine on independently
thePresidentforpossibleexerciseoftheclemencyorpardoning
relevantstatementsholdsthatconversationscommunicatedtoa
power.
witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that,
SOORDERED.
regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made.
Davide, Evidenceastothemakingofsuchstatementsisnotsecondary
Jr.(C.J.),Bellosillo,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,Pang butprimary,forinitselfit(a)constitutesafactinissueor(b)is
aniban,Quisumbing,Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyes,Ynares circumstantiallyrelevanttotheexistenceofsuchfact.
Santiago,DeLeon,Jr.andSandovalGutierrez,JJ.,concur. Same;Same;Same;Registration;TorrensTitle;Thedoctrine
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification. thattheregistrationofapatentundertheTorrensSystemdoesnot
by itself vest titleit merely confirms the registrants already
VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 361 existing one.True, once a patent is registered and the
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. correspondingcertificateoftitleissued,thelandcoveredbythem
G.R.No.146030.December3,2002.* ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the property.Further,theTorrensTitleissuedpursuanttothepatent
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, becomes indefeasible a year after the issuance of the latter.
petitioner,vs.HEIRSOFFELIPEALEJAGA,SR.,representedby However, this indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles
secured by fraud and misrepresentation. Wellsettled is the
doctrine that the registration of a patent under the Torrens theStatetolanddestitutecitizensfortheirhomeandcultivation.
System does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the PursuanttosuchbenevolentintentiontheStateprohibitsthesale
registrants already existing one. Verily, registration under the orencumbranceofthehomestead(Section116)withinfiveyears
TorrensSystemisnotamodeofacquiringownership. afterthegrantofthepatent.

_______________ PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
*
THIRDDIVISION.
362 ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
3 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
62 BenjaminDesturaforprivaterespondents.
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. LegalDepartmentforprivaterespondentPNB.
Same;Same;Same;Under Section 101 of Commonwealth
ActNo.141,theStateevenafterthelapseofoneyearmaystill PANGANIBAN,J.:
bringanactionforthereversiontothepublicdomainofland.
We reiterate the familiar doctrine that a free patent obtained
Under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the State
throughfraudormisrepresentationisvoid.Furthermore,theone
evenafterthelapseofoneyearmaystillbringanactionforthe
yearprescriptiveperiodprovidedinthePublicLandActdoesnot
reversiontothepublicdomainoflandthathasbeenfraudulently
bartheStatefromaskingforthereversionofpropertyacquired
granted to private individuals. Further, this indefeasibility
throughsuchmeans.
cannotbeabartoaninvestigationbytheStateastohowthetitle
has been acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to 363
determinewhetherfraudhasinfactbeencommittedinsecuring VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 363
thetitle. Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
Same;Same;Same;Encumbrance;Prohibition;The State StatementoftheCase
prohibitsthesaleorencumbranceofthehomestead(Section116) BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45of
theRulesofCourt,assailingtheNovember15,2000Decision 1of
withinfiveyearsafterthegrantofthepatent.AsearlyasPascua
theCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAGRCVNo.44568.Thedecretal
v. Talens,we have explained the rationale for the prohibition
portionofthechallengedDecisionreadsasfollows:
againsttheencumbranceofahomesteaditsleaseandmortgage WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED,
includedan encumbrance which, by analogy, applies to a free SETASIDEandRECALLED.2
patent.Weruledasfollows:Itiswellknownthatthehomestead
laws were designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of
TheFacts 1
Rollo,pp.2838.PennedbyJusticeMarianoM.Umaliand
ThefactualantecedentsofthecasearesummarizedbytheCA concurredinbyJusticesRubenT.Reyes(Divisionchairman)and
thus: RebeccadeGuiaSalvador(member).
OnDecember28,1978, [Respondent]Felipe Alejaga,Sr.xxx
2
Assailed CA Decision, p. 12; rollo, p. 38. Emphasis in the
filed with the District Land Office, Roxas City, Free Patent original.
ApplicationNo.(VI2)8442coveringaparceloflandidentifiedas 364
Lot1,Mli06000020D,withanareaof.3899hectares,moreor 364 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
less located at Dumolog, Roxas City (Exh. A; Exh 9). It Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
appears that on December 27, 1978, when the application was LegalDivision,LandManagementBureau,Manila,recommended
executedunderoath,EfrenL.Recio,LandInspector,submitteda to the Director of Lands appropriate civil proceeding for the
report of his investigation and verification of the land to the cancellation of Free Patent Title No. (VI2) 3358 and the
DistrictLandOffice,BureauofLands,CityofRoxas.OnMarch correspondingOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P15inthenameof
14, 1979, the District Land Officer of Roxas City approved the [respondent].
applicationandtheissuanceof[a]FreePatenttotheapplicant. In the meantime, [respondent] obtained a NACIDA loan
OnMarch16,1979,thepatentwasalsoorderedtobeissuedand under the Cottage Industry Guarantee and Loan Fund by the
thepatentwasforwardedtodefendantRegisterofDeeds,Cityof defendant Philippine National Bank (hereinafter referred to as
Roxas, for registration and issuance of the corresponding PNB) executed in Cebu City in the amount of P100,000.00 on
CertificateofTitle.Thereafter,OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P August18,1981.Theloanwassecuredbyarealestatemortgage
15 Free Patent No. (VI2) 3358 was issued to [respondent] by infavorofdefendantPNB.Thepromissorynoteofappellantwas
defendantRegisterofDeeds. annotatedatthebackofthetitle.
On April 4, 1979, the heirs of Ignacio Arrobang, through On April 18, 1990, the government through the Solicitor
counsel in a lettercomplaint requested the Director of Lands, General instituted an action for Annulment/Cancellation of
Manila,foraninvestigationoftheDistrictLandOfficer,Roxas PatentandTitleandReversionagainst[respondent],thePNBof
City, and the Regional Office, Region VI, Iloilo City, for Roxas City and defendant Register of Deeds of Roxas City
irregularitiesintheissuanceof thetitleofa foreshorelandin coveringFreePatentApplication(VI2)8442oftheparcelofland
favor of [respondent]. Isagani Cartagena, Supervising Special withanareaof.3899hectaresmoreorlesslocatedatDumolog,
Investigator,LegalDivision,LandManagementBureau(formerly RoxasCity.
BureauofLands)submittedhisReportdatedApril17,1989.The On November 17, 1990, whilethe case is pending hearing,
Chief, [respondent] died. He was substituted by his wife Roqueta
Alejaga and his children, namely: Everette Alejaga, Lynnette
_______________ Alejaga, Felipe Alejaga, Jr., Maria Dulla Alejaga, Roqueta
Alejaga,JenniferAlejagaandFelipeAlejagaIII.
xxxxxxxxx
 After hearing, the [trial] court in its dispositive portion duplicatecopyofsaidtitlesurrenderedbyabovestated
decreedasfollows: defendants;
WHEREFORE,judgmentisrendereddeclaringthattheapproval
of Free Patent Application No. 3358 and issuance of Original 2. f)defendants, Philippine National Bank, crossclaim is
CertificateofTitleNo.P15inthenameofFelipeAlejagaisby dismissed.
meansoffraudhence,nullandvoidabinitioandthecourtorders:
CostsagainstthedefendantsHeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.3
1. a)thecancellationoftheapprovaloftheapplicationNo. RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
(VI2)8442coveringLotNo.1,Mli06000020Dwithan InreversingtheRTC,theCAruledthatpetitionerfailedtoprove
areaof.3899hectares,moreorless,locatedatDumulog, itsallegationthatrespondentshadobtainedthefreepatentand
RoxasCity; theCertificateofTitlethroughfraudandmisrepresentation. 4The
appellate court likewise held that, assuming there was
2. b)thecancellationofOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P15, misrepresentationorfraudasclaimedbypetitioner,theactionfor
Free Patent No. (VI2) 3358 in the name of Felipe reversionshouldhavebeenbroughtwithinone(1)yearfromthe
Alejaga; registrationofthepatentwiththeRegistryofDeeds.5
Further,theCAbrushedasideashearsayIsaganiCartagenas
3. c)thelandcoveredtherebyasabovedescribedisreverted testimonythatLandInspectorEfrenL.Reciohadnotconducted
tothemassofthepublicdomain; aninvestigationonthefreepatentapplicationofFelipeAlejaga,
Sr.6TheCAaddedthatpetitionerhadfailedtosupportitsclaim
4. d)the defendants, Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr. or that the lot covered by respondents free patent and title was
defendant, Philippine National Bank, Roxas City foreshoreland.7
Branch,tosurrendertheownersduplicatecopyofabove Hence,thisPetition.8
described Original Certificate of Title No. P15 to the
Register of Deeds (now Registries of Land Titles and _______________
Deeds),RoxasCity;
3
Id.,pp.15.
365
4
Id.,p.6;Rollo,p.32.
VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 365 5
Id.,p.12;id.,p.38.
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. Id.,p.7;id.,p.33.
6

7
Id.,p.11;id.,p.37.
1. e)thedefendant,RegisterofDeeds,RoxasCity,tocancel 8
The case was deemed submitted for decision on April 15,
Original Certificate of Title No. P15 and the owners 2002, upon the Courts receipt of Respondent Alejagas
MemorandumsignedbyAtty.BenjaminB.Distura.Respondent First Issue:
PNBsMemorandum,filedonJuly20,2001,wassignedbyAtty. EfficacyoftheGrant
Edwin M. Alaestante. Petitioners Manifestation, adopting its Petitioner argues that it has proven fraud in the issuance of
Petition as its Memorandum was filed on July 20, 2001 and RespondentAlejagasfreepatentandCertificateofTitle. 10Italso
signedbyAssistantSolicitorGeneralFernandaLampasPeralta aversthatRespondentPNBhasfailedtofileatimelyNoticeof
andSolicitorBrigidoArtemonM.LunaII. Appeal.
366 On the other hand, the Alejagas contend that they have
366 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED acquiredavestedrightovertheparceloflandcoveredbyOCT
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. No.P
Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for this Courts _______________
consideration:
Petition for Review, p. 10; Rollo, p. 15. Original in upper
9

I case.
10
Id.,p.13;id.,p.18.
TheHonorableCourtofAppealserredinnotfindingthatthecase 367
isalreadyfinalandexecutoryasagainstrespondentPNB. VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 367
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
II 15 by virtue of their proven open, actual, exclusive and
undisputedpossessionofthelandformorethan30years.11
TheCourtofAppealserredinnotconsideringthatpetitioner
Attheoutset,wemustimmediatelyclarifythattherecords
hasproventheallegationstotheComplaint.
show receipt by Respondent PNB of a copy of the Decision on
October 27, not on October 3, 1993 as alleged by
III
petitioner.12Further, the bank filed its Notice of Appeal on
November9,1993,withinthe15dayreglementaryperiod.
TheHonorableCourtofAppealserredindeclaringthatthe
Inaddition,wemustpointoutthattheessentialissueraised
actionforreversionisunavailing.9
inthisPetitionthepresenceoffraudisfactual.Asageneral
Simply stated, the issues can be summed up into two: (1) the
rule,thisCourtdoesnotreviewfactualmatters. 13However,the
efficacyofthegrantofthefreepatentand(2)theindefeasibility
instant case falls under one of the exceptions, because the
oftheCertificateofTitleissuedinconsequencethereof.
findingsoftheCAconflictwiththoseoftheRTCandwiththe
ThisCourtsRuling
evidenceonrecord.14
ThePetitionismeritorious.
 Webeginourresolutionofthisissuewiththewellsettledrule Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
thatthepartyallegingfraudormistakeinatransactionbears tionerhadresortedtomisrepresentationorfraud,signsofwhich
theburdenofproof.15Thecircumstancesevidencingfraudareas were20ignoredbytheCourtofAppeals.21
varied as the people who perpetrate it in each case. 16It may First,the issuance of the free patent was not made in
assume different shapes and forms; it may be committedin as
accordancewiththeprocedurelaiddownbyCommonwealthAct
many different ways.17Thus, the law requires that it be
No.141,otherwiseknownasthePublicLandAct. 22UnderSection
establishedbyclearandconvincingevidence.18
91thereof,aninvestigationshouldbeconductedforthepurpose
Inthecasebeforeus,wefindthatpetitionerhasadduceda
of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the
preponderance of evidence before the trial court, showing
applicationaretrue.23
manifestfraudinprocuringthepatent. 19ThisCourtagreeswith
Further, after thefiling oftheapplication,thelaw requires
the RTC that in obtaining a free patent over the lot under
sufficientnoticetothemunicipalityandthebarriowheretheland
scrutiny,peti
is
_______________
_______________
11
RespondentAlejagasMemorandum,p.29;Rollo,p.321. 20
Bordalbav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.112443,January25,
12
Seerecords,p.349.
2002,374SCRA555.
13
Tandov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.127984,December14, 21
Alonsov.CebuCountryClub,Inc.,G.R.No.130876,January
2001,372SCRA321.
31,2002,375SCRA390.
14
Lercana v. Jalandoni,G.R. No. 132286, February 1, 22
Anacttoamendandcompilethelawsrelativetolandofthe
2002,375SCRA604. publicdomain,effectiveDecember1,1936.
15
Mangahas v. Court of Appeals,304 SCRA 375, March 10, 23
Section91ofthePublicLandActprovides:
1999;citingCayabyabv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,232SCRA SEC. 91. The statements made in the application shall be
1,April28,1994. considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession,
16
Siguanv.Lim,318SCRA725,November19,1999. title,orpermitissuedonthebasisofsuchapplication,andany
17
Destura v. Court of Appeals,325 SCRA 341, February 10, falsestatementthereinoromissionoffactsaltering,changing,or
modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such
2000.
statements, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or
18
Cuizonv.CourtofAppeals,260SCRA645,August22,1996.
changeofthematerialfactssetforthintheapplicationshallipso
19
Mangahasv.CourtofAppeals,supra.
factoproducethecancellationof theconcession,title,orpermit
368
granted.ItshallbethedutyoftheDirectorofLands,fromtimeto
368 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the
necessaryinvestigationsforthepurposeofascertainingwhether the rule cannot be condoned because, obviously, the required
thematerialfactssetoutintheapplicationaretrue,orwhether noticetoadverseclaimantswasnotserved.
theycontinuetoexistandaremaintainedandpreservedingood Evidently,thefilingoftheapplicationandtheverificationand
faith,andforthepurposesofsuchinvestigation,theDirectorof investigationallegedly conducted byRecio wereprecipitate and
Lands is hereby empowered to issuesubpoenasandsubpoenas beyondthepaleofthePublicLandAct.27Ascorrectlypointedout
ducestecumand,ifnecessary,toobtaincompulsoryprocessfrom bythetrialcourt,investigationandverificationshouldhavebeen
thecourts.Ineveryinvestigationmadeinaccordancewiththis doneonlyafterthefilingoftheapplication.Hence,itwouldhave
section, the existence of bad faith, fraud, concealment, or beenhighlyanomalousforReciotoconducthisowninvestigation
fraudulent and illegal modification of essential facts shall be and verification on December 27, 1998, a day before Felipe
presumedifthegranteeorpossessorofthelandshallrefuseor Alejaga,Sr.filedtheApplicationforFreePatent 28Itmustalsobe
fail to obey asubpoenaorsubpoena duces tecumlawfully issued noted that while the Alejagas insist that an investigation was
bytheDirectorofLandsorhisauthorizeddelegatesoragents,or conducted,they
shallrefuseorfailtogivedirectandspecificanswerstopertinent
_______________
questions, and on the basis of such presumption, an order of
cancellationmayissuewithoutfurtherproceedings. 24
Section46ofthePublicLandActprovides:
369
SEC. 46. If, after the filing of the application and the
VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 369
investigation, the Director of Lands shall be satisfied with the
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. truth of the allegations contained in the application and the
located, in order to give adverse claimants the opportunity to applicant comes within the provisions of this chapter, he shall
presenttheirclaims.24Notethatthisnoticeandtheverification causeapatenttoissuetotheapplicantorhislegalsuccessorfor
andinvestigationoftheparceloflandaretobeconductedafteran thetractsooccupiedandcultivated,provideditsareadoesnot
application for free patent has been filed with the Bureau of exceedtwentyfourhectares:Provided,Thatnoapplicationshall
Lands. befinallyacteduponuntilnoticethereofhasbeenpublishedin
Inthiscase,however,FelipeAlejaga,Sr.sApplicationforFree the municipality and barrio in which the land is located and
Patent25wasdatedandfiledonDecember28,1978.Ontheother adverse claimants have had an opportunity to present their
hand,theInvestigation&VerificationReport 26preparedbyLand claims.
InspectorEfrenL.ReciooftheDistrictLandOfficeoftheBureau 25
ExhibitA;exhibitsfolder,p.1.
of Lands of Roxas City was dated December 27, 1978. In that 26
ExhibitB;id.,p.2.
Report, he stated that he had conducted the necessary 27
Espinov.Salubre,352SCRA668,February26,2001.
investigationand verification in the presence of the applicant. 28
RTCDecision,p.6;Rollo,p.76.
Evenifweacceptthisstatementasgospeltruth,theviolationof
370
370 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
do not dispute the fact that it preceded the filing of the
29
Roblesv.CourtofAppeals,328SCRA97,March14,2000.
application.29
30
SeeExhibitB;exhibitsfolder,p.2.
Second,theclaimoftheAlejagasthatanactualinvestigation
31
RevisedRulesofCourt,Rule131,Sec.3(m)provides:
was conducted is not sustained by the Verification & (m)Thatofficialdutyhasbeenregularlyperformed.Whenthe
Investigation Report itself, which bears no signature.30Their lawimposescertaindutiesandobligations,itwillbepresumed
relianceonthepresumptionofregularityintheperformanceof thatsuchdutiesandobligationshavebeenperformedunlessitis
officialduty31isthusmisplaced.SinceReciossignaturedoesnot expressly made to appear to the contrary. All things are
appear on the December 27, 1978 Report, there can be no presumedtohavebeenrightlyanddulyperformeduntilthereis
presumptionthataninvestigationandverificationoftheparcelof prooftothecontrary.
land was actually conducted. Strangely, respondents do not 32
Francisco,BasicEvidence,2nded.,(1999),pp.214215.
proffer any explanation why the Verification & Investigation 33
ExhibitG;exhibitsfolder,pp.810.
ReportwasnotsignedbyRecio.Evenmoreimportantandaswill 371
later on be explained, this alleged presumption of regularity VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 371
assumingiteverexistedisovercomebytheevidencepresented Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
bypetitioner. histestimony.Thoseportionsofthereportthatconsistedofhis
Third,thereportofSpecialInvestigatorIsaganiP.Cartagena personal knowledge, perceptions and conclusions are not
has not been successfully rebutted. In that report, Recio hearsay.34Ontheotherhand,thepartreferringtothestatement
supposedly admitted that he had not actually conducted an madebyReciomaybeconsideredasindependentlyrelevant.35
investigation and ocular inspection of the parcel of land. Thedoctrineonindependentlyrelevantstatementsholdsthat
Cartagenas statement on Recios alleged admission may be conversationscommunicatedtoawitnessbyathirdpersonmay
consideredasindependentlyrelevant.Awitnessmaytestifyas beadmittedasproofthat,regardlessoftheirtruthorfalsity,they
tothestateof mindof anotherpersonthe lattersknowledge, were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such
belief,orgoodorbadfaithandtheformersstatementsmaythen statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a)
be regarded as independently relevant without violating the constitutesafactinissue 36or(b)iscircumstantiallyrelevantto
hearsayrule.32 theexistenceofsuchfact.37
Thus,becauseCartagenatookthewitnessstandandopened Since Cartagenas testimonywasbased onthereportof the
himself to crossexamination, the Investigation Report 33he had investigation he had conducted, his testimony was not hearsay
submittedtothedirectoroftheBureauofLandsconstitutespart andwas,hence,properlyadmittedbythetrialcourt.38
of Basedontheforegoingbadgesoffraud,wesustainpetitioners
contentionthatthefreepatentgrantedtoFelipeAlejaga,Sr.is
_______________ Second Issue:
IndefeasibilityofTitle
34
Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals,273 SCRA 607, June 17, PetitionercontendsthattheStatehasanimprescriptiblerightto
1997. causethereversionofapieceofpropertybelongingtothepublic
35
CountryBankersInsuranceCorporationv.LiangaBayand domain.43Ontheotherhand,theAlejagasclaimthat,pursuantto
Community MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc.,G.R. No. 136914, Section32ofPD152944otherwiseknownasthePropertyRegis
January25,2002,374SCRA653.
36
Francisco,The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines _______________
PartI(1997),p.518;citing31C.J.S.988. 39
Roblesv.CourtofAppeals,328SCRA97,March14,2000.
37
Therearefivekindsofindependentlyrelevantstatements
thatarecircumstantialevidenceofthefactsinissue:
40
Menesesv.CourtofAppeals,246SCRA162,July14,1995.
1.Statementsofapersonshowinghisstateofmind;thatis,his
41
Daezv.CourtofAppeals,325SCRA856,February17,2000.
mentalcondition,knowledge,belief,intention,illwillandother 42
Barrerav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.123935,December14,
emotions 2001,372SCRA312.
2.Statementsthatmayidentifythedate,placeandcondition 43
PetitionforReview,p.18;Rollo,p.23.
asillnessandthelike 44
Section32ofP.D.No.1529provides:
3. Statements of a person from which an inference may be SEC.32.Reviewofdecreeofregistration;Innocentpurchaserfor
drawn as to the state of mind of another person; i.e., the value.Thedecreeofregistrationshallnotbereopenedorrevised
knowledge,belief,goodorbadfaithnoticedofthelatter byreasonofabsence,minority,orotherdisabilityofanyperson
4.Statementsthatmayidentifythedate,placeandpersonin adverselyaffectedthereby,norbyanyproceedinginanycourtfor
question reversingjudgment,subject,however,totherightofanyperson,
5.Statementsshowingthelackofcredibilityofawitness includingthegovernmentandthebranchesthereof,deprivedof
38
Bordalbav.CourtofAppeals,supra. land of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or
372 confirmationoftitleobtainedbyactualfraud,tofileintheproper
372 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED CourtofFirstInstanceapetitionforreopeningandreviewofthe
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. decreeofregistrationnotlaterthanoneyearfromandafterthe
void.39Suchfraudisagroundforimpugningthevalidityofthe date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case
Certificate of Title.40The invalidity of the patent is sufficient shallsuchpetitionbeentertainedbythecourtwhereaninnocent
basisfornullifyingtheCertificateofTitleissuedinconsequence purchaserforvaluehasacquiredthelandoraninteresttherein,
thereof,sincethelatterismerelyevidenceoftheformer. 41Verily, whoserightsmaybeprejudiced.Wheneverthephraseinnocent
we must uphold petitioners claim that the issuance of the purchaserofvalueoranequivalentphraseoccursinthisDecree,
Alejagaspatentandtitlewastaintedwithfraud.42
itshallbedeemedtoincludeaninnocentlessee,mortgagee,or _______________
otherencumbrancerforvalue.
Upontheexpirationofsaidperiodofoneyear,thedecreeof casemaypursuehisremedybyactionfordamagesagainstthe
registration and the certificate of title issued shall become applicantoranyotherpersonsresponsibleforthefraud.
incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of 45
RespondentAlejagasMemorandum,p.43;Rollo,p.336.
registrationinany 46
Baguiov.Republic,301SCRA450,January21,1999.
373 47
Ibid.
VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 373 48
J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Macalindong,6 SCRA 938,
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. December29,1962.
tration Decreethe oneyear period for reversion has already 49
Thissectionprovides:
lapsed.45Thus, the States Complaint for reversion should be SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of
dismissed. lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be
Weagreewithpetitioner. instituted by the SolicitorGeneral or the officer acting in his
True, once a patent is registered and the corresponding stead,inthepropercourts,inthenameoftheCommonwealthof
certificateoftitleissued,thelandcoveredbythemceasestobe thePhilippines.
partofthepublicdomainandbecomesprivateproperty.Further, 50
Republic v. Court of Appeals,255 SCRA 335, March 29,
the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes 1996.
indefeasibleayearaftertheissuanceofthelatter. 46However,this 51
Republicv.CourtofAppeals,111SCRA721,April10,1989.
indefeasibilityofatitledoesnotattachtotitlessecuredbyfraud
374
and misrepresentation.47Wellsettled is the doctrine that the
374 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
registration of a patent under the Torrens System does not by
itself vest title; it merely confirms the registrants already Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
existingone.Verily,registrationundertheTorrensSystemisnot Inthe casebeforeus, theindefeasibility ofacertificate oftitle
amodeofacquiringownership.48 cannotbeinvokedbytheAlejagas,whoseforebearobtainedthe
Therefore, under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. titlebymeansoffraud.52Publicpolicydemandsthatthosewho
141,49theStateevenafterthelapseofoneyearmaystillbring have done so should not be allowed to benefit from their
anactionforthereversiontothepublicdomainoflandthathas misdeed.53Thus,prescriptionandlacheswillnotbaractionsfiled
beenfraudulentlygrantedtoprivateindividuals. 50Further,this bytheStatetorecoveritsownpropertyacquiredthroughfraud
indefeasibilitycannotbeabartoaninvestigationbytheStateas byprivateindividuals.54Thisissettledlaw.55
to how the title has been acquired, if the purpose of the ProhibitionAgainstAlienationorEncumbrance
investigation is to determine whether fraud has in fact been Assumingarguendothat the Alejagas title was validly issued,
committedinsecuringthetitle.51 thereisanotherbasisforthecancellationofthegrantandthe
reversion of the land to the public domain. Section 118 of
Commonwealth Act No. 14156proscribes the encumbrance of a VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 375
parcelof Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
landacquiredunderafreepatentorhomesteadwithinfiveyears
_______________
from its grant.57The prohibition against any alienation or
encumbrance of the land grant is a proviso attached to the
52
Republicv.RegisterofDeedsofQuezon,244SCRA537,May approvalofeveryapplication.58
31,1995. Further,corporationsareexpresslyforbiddenbylawtohave
53
Republicv.CourtofAppeals,supra,p.343. anyrightortitleto,orinterestin,landsthataregrantedunder
54
Republic v. Heirs of Agustin L. Angeles,G.R. No. 141296, freeorhomesteadpatents; orany improvements thereon. They
October7,2002,390SCRA502. areforbiddenfromenjoyingsuchright,titleorinterest,ifthey
55
Baguio v. Republic, supra;Republic v. Court of Appeals, havenotsecuredtheconsentofthegranteeandtheapprovalof
supraat note 51;Republic v. Court of Appeals,183 SCRA 620, the secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources;andifsuchlandsaretobedevotedtopurposesother
March 23, 1990;Republic v. Mina,114 SCRA 945, June 29,
thaneducation,charity,oreasementofway.59
1982;Director of Lands v. Abanilla,124 SCRA 358, August 31,
1983. _______________
56
Thissectionprovides:
SEC. 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its and legal grounds. (As amended by Com. Act No. 456,
branches,units,orinstitutions,landsacquiredunderfreepatent approvedJune8,1939.)
orhomesteadprovisionsshallnotbe subject toencumbrance or 57
Republicv.CourtofAppeals,281SCRA639,November14,
alienationfromthedateoftheapprovaloftheapplicationandfor 1997.
a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the Republicv.Ruiz,23SCRA348,April29,1968.
58

patentorgrant,norshalltheybecomeliabletothesatisfactionof
59
The following are the pertinent provisions of the Public
anydebtcontractedpriortotheexpirationofsaidperiod,butthe LandAct,asamendedbyCom.ActNo.615,approvedonMay5,
improvementsorcropsonthelandmaybemortgagedorpledged 1941:
toqualifiedpersons,associations,orcorporations. SEC. 121. Except with the consent of the grantee and the
Noalienation,transfer,orconveyanceofanyhomesteadafter approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, and
fiveyearsandbeforetwentyfiveyearsafterissuanceoftitleshall solely for educational, religious, or charitable purposes or for a
bevalidwithouttheapprovaloftheSecretaryofAgricultureand right of way, no corporation, association, or partnership may
Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on acquire or have any right, title, interest, or property right
constitutional whatsoevertoanylandgrantedunderthefreepatent,homestead,
375
or individual sale provisions of this Act or to any permanent creditinvestigatedtheloanapplicantFelipeAlejagaandyouhave
improvementonsuchland. personallyexaminedthis?
SEC.122.Nolandoriginallyacquiredinanymannerunder A Yes,yourHonor.
the provisions of this Act, nor any permanent improvement on
COURT DoyouconcludethatthisOriginalCertificateofTitleisa[free]
suchland,shallbeencumbered,alienated,ortransferred,except
patent?
topersons, corporations, associations, or partnershipswho may
acquire lands of the public domain under this Act or to A Yes,yourHonor.
corporationsorganizedinthePhilippinesauthorizedthereforby COURT Andthis[free]patentwasgrantedonMarch19,1979.
theircharters. A Yes,yourhonor.
Except in cases of hereditary succession, no land or any COURT Andassuch[free]patentitcannotbealienatedexcept[to]the
portion thereof originally acquired under the free patent, governmentorwithinfiveyearsfromitsissuance?
homestead, or individual sale provisions of this Act, or any A Yes,yourhonor.
permanent improvement on such land, shall be transferred or
COURT Whydidyourecommendtheloan?
assignedtoanyindividual,norshallsuchlandoranypermanent
A Becauseitisjustamortgage.64
improvementthereonbeleasedtosuchindividual,whenthearea
Thus,themortgageexecutedbyRespondentFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
ofsaidland,addedtothatofhisown,shallexceedonehundred
andfortyfourhectares.Any fallssquarelywithinthetermencumbranceproscribedbySection
376
_______________
376 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr. transfer,assignment,orleasemadeinviolationhereofshall
Inthe caseatbar,FreePatentNo. (VI2)3358 60wasapproved benullandvoid.
andissuedonMarch14,1979.CorrespondingOriginalCertificate 60
ExhibitC;exhibitsfolder,p.3.
ofTitleNo.P1561wasissuedonthesamedate.OnAugust18, 61
ExhibitE;id.,p.5.
1981,ortwo(2)yearsafterthegrantofthefreepatent,Felipe 62
SeePromissoryNote;Records,p.24.
Alejaga, Sr. obtained from Respondent PNB a loan 62in the
amountofP100,000.Despitethestatementonthetitlecertificate
63
SeeCreditAgreement;id.,p.25.
itself that the land granted under the free patent shall be
64
TSN,July24,1991,p.9.
inalienable for five (5) years from the grant, a real estate 377
mortgage was nonetheless constituted on the parcel of land VOL.393,DECEMBER3,2002 377
coveredbyOCTNo.P15.63Inhistestimony,GabrielD.Aranas, Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
Jr.,thenCashierIIIofrespondentbank,evenadmittedthatthe 118 of the Public Land Act. 65A mortgage constitutes a legal
PNBwasawareofsuchrestriction. limitation on the estate, and the foreclosure of the mortgage
COURT YoutestifiedMr.Aranasthatyouinspectedthetitlealsowhenyou wouldnecessarilyresultintheauctionoftheproperty.66
 As early asPascua v. Talens,67we have explained the 65
Siyv.TanGunGa,119Phil.676;10SCRA398,February
rationale for the prohibition against the encumbrance of a 29,1964.
homesteadits lease and mortgage includedan encumbrance 66
PrudentialBankv.Panis,153SCRA390,August31,1987.
which,byanalogy,appliestoafreepatent.Weruledasfollows: 67
80Phil.792,April30,1948,perBengzon,J.(laterC.J.).
It is wellknown that the homestead laws were designed to 68
281SCRA639,November14,1997.
distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land 378
destitutecitizensfortheirhomeandcultivation.Pursuanttosuch 378 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
benevolentintentiontheStateprohibitsthesaleorencumbrance
Republicvs.HeirsofFelipeAlejaga,Sr.
ofthehomestead(Section116)withinfiveyearsafterthegrantof
Theforegoinglegalprovisionsclearlyproscribetheencumbrance
thepatent.
of a parcel of land acquired under a free patent or homestead
Further, an encumbrance ona parcel of land acquired through
within five years from the grant of such patent. Furthermore,
free patent constitutes sufficient ground for the nullification of
suchencumbranceresultsinthecancellationofthegrantandthe
suchgrant,asprovidedunderCommonwealthActNo.141,which
reversionofthelandtothepublicdomain.69
wequote:
To comply with the condition for the grant of the free patent,
SEC. 124. Anyacquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or
withinfiveyearsfromitsissuance,FelipeAlejaga,Sr.shouldnot
other contract made or executed in violation of any of the
haveencumberedtheparcellandgrantedtohim.Themortgage
provisionsofsectionsonehundredandeighteen,onehundredand he made over the land violated that condition.70Hence, the
twenty,onehundredandtwentyone,onehundredandtwenty propertymustnecessarilyreverttothepublicdomain,pursuant
two, and one hundred and twentythree of this Actshall be toSection124ofthePublicLandAct.
unlawfulandnullandvoidfromitsexecutionandshallproduce WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed
the effect of annulling and canceling the grant, title, patent, or Decision SET ASIDE. The Decision of the RTC of Roxas City
permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or (Branch15)datedOctober27,1993isREINSTATED.Nocosts.
presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its SOORDERED.
improvementstotheState. SandovalGutierrez,CoronaandCarpioMorales,
Mortgage over a parcel of land acquired through a free patent JJ.,concur.
grantnullifiestheawardandconstitutesacauseforthereversion Puno(Chairman),J.,AbroadonOfficialBusiness.
ofthepropertytothestate,asweheldinRepublicv.Courtof Petition granted, judgment set aside. That of the trial court
Appeals:68 reinstanted.
Note.Wherepubliclandisacquiredbyanapplicantthrough
_______________ fraud and misrepresentation, the State may institute reversion
proceedings even after the lapse of one year. (Republic vs. De
Guzman,326SCRA574[2000])

o0o

_______________

69
Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 648, per
Panganiban,J.
Republic of the Philippines
70
RepublicofthePhilippinesv.Garcia,etal.,105Phil.826, Supreme Court
May27,1959. BaguioCity
379
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights FIRST DIVISION
reserved.
ANNA LERIMA PATULA, G.R. No. 164457
Petitioner,
Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
-versus- LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR.,JJ.
Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, April 11, 2012
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:
 benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said company
In the trial of everycriminal case, a judge must rigidlytest the
in the aforesaid amount of P131,286.97.
States evidence of guilt in order to ensure that such evidenceadheres to the
Contrary to Art. 315, par 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
basic rules of admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of the [1]

crime charged upon such evidence. Nothing less is demanded of the judge;
otherwise, the guarantee of due process of law is nullified.The accused need Petitioner pled not guiltyto the offense charged in the
notadduceanythingto rebut evidence that is discredited for failing the information. At pre-trial, no stipulation of factswas had, and petitioner did
test.Acquittal should then follow. not avail herself of plea bargaining. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

Antecedents The Prosecutions first witness was Lamberto Go, who testified that
he was the branch manager of Footluckers Chain of Stores, Inc.
Petitioner was charged withestafaunder an informationfiled in the Regional
(Footluckers) in Dumaguete City since October 8, 1994; that petitioner was
Trial Court (RTC) in DumagueteCitythat averred:
an employee of Footluckers, starting as a saleslady in 1996 until she became
That on or about and during the period from March 16 to
a sales representative; that as a sales representative she was authorized to
20, 1997 and for sometime prior thereto, in the City of
Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this take orders from wholesale customers coming from different towns (like
Honorable Court, the said accused, being then a
Bacong, Zamboanguita, Valencia, Lumbangan and Mabinay in Negros
saleswoman of Footluckers Chain of Stores, Inc.,
Dumaguete City, having collected and received the total Oriental, and Siquijor), and to collect payments from them; that she could
sum of P131,286.97 from several customers of said
company under the express obligation to account for the issue and sign official receipts of Footluckers for the payments, which she
proceeds of the sales and deliver the collection to the said would then remit; that she would then submit the receipts for the payments
company, but far from complying with her obligation and
after a reasonable period of time despite repeated for tallying and reconciliation; that at first her volume of sales was quite
demands therefore, and with intent to defraud the said high, but later on dropped, leading him to confront her; that she responded
company, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously fail to deliver the said collection to the said that business was slow; that he summoned the accounting clerk to verify;
company but instead, did, then and there willfully
that the accounting clerk discovered erasures on some collection receipts;
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and
convert the proceeds of the sale to her own use and that he decided to subject her to an audit by company auditor Karen
Guivencan; that he learned from a customer of petitioners that the Differences in Records as per Audit Duly Verified March 16-20, 1997
customers outstanding balance had already been fully paid although that marked as Exhibit A; and that based on the report, petitioner had
balance appeared unpaid in Footluckers records; and that one night later on, misappropriated the total amount ofP131,286.92.[3]
petitioner and her parents went to his house to deny having misappropriated
any money of Footluckers and to plead for him not to push through with a During Guivencans stint as a witness, the Prosecution marked the
case against her, promising to settle her account on a monthly basis; and that ledgers of petitioners various customers allegedly with discrepancies as
she did not settle after that, but stopped reporting to work.[2] Exhibits B to YYand their derivatives, inclusive. Each of the ledgers had a
first column that contained the dates of the entries, a second that identified
On March 7, 2002, Gos cross examination, re-direct examination the invoices by the number, a third that statedthe debit, a fourth that noted
and re-crossexamination were completed. the credit (or the amounts paid), and a fifth that summed the balances (debit
minus credit).Only 49 of theledgerswere formally offered and admitted by
The only other witness for the Prosecution was Karen Guivencan, the RTC because the 50thledger could no longer be found.
whomFootluckers employed as its store auditor since November 16,
1995 until her resignation on March 31, 2001. She declared that Go had In the course of Guivencansdirect-examination,petitioners counsel
requested her to audit petitioner after some customers had told him that they interposed a continuing objection on the ground that the figuresentered in
had already paid their accounts but the office ledger had still reflected Exhibits B to YYand their derivatives, inclusive, were hearsay because the
outstandingbalances for them; that she first conducted her audit by going to persons who had made the entries were not themselves presented in court.
[4]
the customers in places from Mabinay to Zamboanguitain Negros Oriental, With that, petitioners counsel did not anymore cross-examine Guivencan,
and then in Siquijor; thatshe discovered in the course of her audit that the apparently regarding her testimony to be irrelevant because she thereby
amounts appearing on the original copies of receipts in the possession of tended to prove falsification, an offense not alleged in the information.
around 50 customers varied from the amounts written on the duplicate
copies of the receipts petitioner submitted to the office; that upon TheProsecution thenformally offered its documentary exhibits,
completing her audit, she submittedto Go a written report denominated as including Exhibits B to YYand their derivatives (like the originals and
List of Customers Covered by Saleswoman LERIMA PATULA w/ duplicates of the receipts supposedly executed and issued by petitioner),
 shall be effective only until the promulgation of this
inclusive, the confirmation sheets used by Guivencan in auditing the
judgment.
accounts served by petitioner, and Guivencans so-called Summary (Final
SO ORDERED.[8]
Report) of Discrepancies.[5]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, butthe RTC denied

After the Prosecution rested its case, the Defense decided not to
the motion on May 7, 2004.[9]
file a demurrer to evidence although it had manifested the intention to do so,
and instead rested itscase.The Prosecution and Defense submitted their
Issues
respective memoranda, and submitted the case for decision.[6]

Insisting that the RTCs judgment grossly violated [her]

On January 28, 2004, the RTC, stating that inasmuch as petitioner
Constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of
had opted not to present evidence for her defense the Prosecutions evidence
the accusation against her because, while the charge against her is estafa
remained unrefuted and uncontroverted,[7]rendered its decision finding
under Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, the evidence presented
petitioner guilty of estafa, to wit:
against her and upon which her conviction was based, was falsification, an
Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing facts and offense not alleged or included in the Information under which she was
circumstances, the Court finds ANNA LERIMA
arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and that said judgment likewise blatantly
PATULA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Estafa under Art. 315 par (1b) of the Revised Penal Code ignored and manifestly disregarded the rules on admission of evidence in
and accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer an
that the documentary evidence admitted by the trial court were all private
INDETERMINATE PENALTY of imprisonment of 8
years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 18 years documents, the due execution and authenticity of which were not proved in
and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum with all
the accessory penalties provided by law and to indemnify accordance with Sec. 20 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence,
private complainant the amount of P131,286.92 with petitioner has directly appealed to the Court via petition for review
interest at 12% per annum until fully paid and to pay the
costs. on certiorari, positing the following issues, to wit:

Pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules 1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED OR ANY
of Criminal Procedure, the cash bail put up by the accused ACCUSED FOR THAT MATTER , CHARGED
OF ESTAFA UNDER ART. 315, PAR. 1 (B) OF THE IMMATERIAL SINCE THE CHARGE AGAINST THE
REVISED PENAL CODE CAN BE CONVICTED ACCUSED IS ESTAFA UNDER ART. 315, PAR. 1 (B)
UPON OR BY EVIDENCE OF FALSIFICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
WHICH IS EVEN (SIC) NOT ALLEGED IN THE
INFORMATION. 5. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSEDS THE PROSECUTION REMAINS UNREFUTED AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE UNCONTROVERTED DESPITE ACCUSEDS
INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT SAID EVIDENCE IS
ACCUSATION AGAINST HER WAS VIOLATED IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT TO THE CRIME
WHEN SHE WAS CONVICTED UPON OR BY CHARGED.
EVIDENCE OF FALSIFICATION CONSIDERING
THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST HER 6. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENSES NOT
IS ESTAFA THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER CROSS-EXAMINING KAREN GUIVENCAN FOR
ART. 315, PAR. 1 (B) OF THE REVISED PENAL THE REASON THAT HER TESTIMONY IS
CODE. IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT AS IT TENDED TO
PROVE AN OFFENSE NOT CHARGED IN
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT INFORMATION RESULTED IN THE ADMISSION OF
ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE, EXHIBITS B SAID TESTIMONY AS BEING UNREFUTED AND
TO YY-YY-2, ALL PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, THE DUE UNCONTROVERTED, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE
EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH DEFENSES OBJECTION WOULD NOT BE
WERE NOT PROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. CONSIDERED WAIVED IF THE DEFENSE CROSS-
20, RULE 132 OF THE SAID REVISED RULES ON EXAMINED SAID WITNESS.
EVIDENCE ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT SAID 7. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT
EXHIBITS TEND TO PROVE FALSIFICATION BY ERRED IN RULING THAT EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS
THE ACCUSED, A CRIME NEITHER CHARGED NOR THE LIST OF CUSTOMERS COVERED BY
ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. SALESWOMAN LERIMA PATULA WITH
DIFFERENCE IN RECORD IS NOT HEARSAY AND
4. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT SELF-SERVING.[10]
ERRED IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF
KAREN GUIVENCAN DESPITE THE OBJECTION
THAT SAID TESTIMONY WHICH TRIED TO PROVE The foregoing issues are now restatedas follows:
THAT THE ACCUSED FALSIFIED EXHIBITS B TO
YY-YY-2INCLUSIVE VIOLATED THE ACCUSEDS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF 1. Whether or not the failure of the information
THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION for estafa to allege the falsification of the duplicate
AGAINST HER, FOR BEING IRRELEVANT AND receipts issued by petitioner to her customersviolated
 petitioners right to be informed of the nature and
of the duplicate receipts, and (b) when it convicted her of estafa under
cause of the accusation;
Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Codeby relying on the
2. Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in admitting
evidence of the falsification of the duplicate evidence on falsification.
receiptsdespite the information not alleging the
falsification;
The contentionof petitioner cannot be sustained.
3. Whether or not the ledgers and receipts (Exhibits B
to YY, and their derivatives, inclusive) were
admissible as evidence of petitioners guilt The Bill of Rights guaranteessome rightsto every person accused of
for estafaas charged despite their not being duly
a crime, among them the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
authenticated;and
4. Whether or not Guivencanstestimony onthe ledgers accusation, viz:
and receipts (Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives,
inclusive) to prove petitioners misappropriation or
conversion wasinadmissible for being hearsay. Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due process of law.

Ruling (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
The petition is meritorious.
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
I compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
Failure of information to allege falsification and the production of evidence in his behalf. However,
did not violate petitioners right to be informed after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
of thenatureand cause of the accusation absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Petitioner contends that the RTC grossly violated her Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rule then in effect
Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation when the information was filed in the RTC, contained the following
when: (a) it held that the information did not have to allege her falsification provisions on the proper manner of alleging the nature and cause of the
accusation in the information, to wit:
 Section 8.Designation of the offense. Whenever Article 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who
possible, a complaint or information should state the shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
designation given to the offense by the statute, besides the hereinbelow shall be punished by:
statement of the acts or omissions constituting the same,
and if there is no such designation, reference should be 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period,
it. (7) if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does
not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
Section 9.Cause of accusation. The acts or latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
omissions complained of as constituting the offense must imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
be stated in ordinary and concise language without additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may
repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statute be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases,
defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to and in connection with the accessory penalties which may
enable a person of common understanding to know what be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty
offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to shall be termed prision mayoror reclusion temporal, as
pronounce proper judgment. (8) the case may be.
The importance of the proper manner of alleging the nature and
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its
cause of the accusation in the informationshould never be taken for granted minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud
is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
by the State. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not
clearly charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of an 3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period if
offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000
violative of the Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause pesos; and

of the accusation.[11] Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, 4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if
such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in
even if duly proven, unless the crime is alleged or necessarily included in
the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any
the information filed against him. of the following means:

xxx
The crime of estafacharged against petitioner was defined and
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,
penalized by Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), Revised Penal Code, viz: namely:
 xxx According to the theory and proof of the Prosecution, petitioner
misappropriated or converted the sums paid by her customers, and later
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other falsified the duplicates of the receipts before turning such duplicates to her
personal property received by the offender in trust or
employer to show that the customers had paid less than the amounts actually
on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of reflected on the original receipts. Obviously, she committed the falsification
or to return the same, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by in order to conceal her misappropriation or conversion. Considering that the
denying having received such money, goods, or other falsificationwas not an offense separate and distinct from the estafacharged
property.
against her, the Prosecution could legitimately prove her acts of falsification
xxx as its means of establishing her misappropriation or conversion as an
essential ingredient of the crime duly alleged in the information. In that
The elements of the offense charged were as follows:
manner, her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
(a) That the offender received money, goods or other against her was not infringed or denied to her.
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, We consider it inevitable to conclude that the information herein
the same;
completely pleaded the estafa defined and penalized under Article 315,
(b) That the offender misappropriated or converted such paragraph 1 (b), Revised Penal Codewithin the context of the substantive
money, goods or other personal property, or denied
his part in its receipt; lawand the rules. Verily, there was no necessity for the information to allege
the acts of falsification by petitioner because falsification was not an
(c) That the misappropriation or conversion or denial was
to the prejudice of another; and element of the estafacharged.

(d) That the offended party made a demand on the

offender for the delivery or return of such money, Not surprisingly,the RTC correctly dealt in its decision with
goods or other personal property.[12]
petitioners concern thuswise:
 In her Memorandum, it is the contention of [the] when one has to falsify certain documents to be able to
accused that [the] prosecutions evidence utterly fails to obtain money or goods from another person. In other
prove the crime charged. According to the defense, the words, the falsification is a necessary means of
essence of Karen Guivencans testimony is that the committing estafa. However, if the falsification is
accused falsified the receipts issued to the customers committed to conceal the misappropriation, two
served by her by changing or altering the amounts in the separate offenses of estafa and falsification are
duplicates of the receipts and therefore, her testimony is committed. In the instant case, when accused collected
immaterial and irrelevant as the charge is payments from the customers, said collection which
misappropriation under Art. 315, paragraph (1b) of the was in her possession was at her disposal. The falsified
Revised Penal Code and there is no allegation whatsoever or erroneous entries which she made on the duplicate
of any falsification or alteration of amounts in the copies of the receipts were contrived to conceal some
[i]nformation under which the accused was arraigned and amount of her collection which she did not remit to the
pleaded NOT GUILTY. Accused, thus, maintains that the company xxx.[13]
testimony of Karen Guivencan should therefore not be
considered at all as it tended to prove an offense not
II
charged or included in the [i]nformation and would
Testimonial and documentary evidence,being hearsay,
violate [the] accuseds constitutional and statutory right to
did not prove petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against her. The Court is not in accord with such posture
of the accused.

It would seem that the accused is of the idea that Nonetheless, in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the
because the crime charged in the [i]nformation is
merely [e]stafa and not [e]stafa [t]hru [f]alsification of burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
documents, the prosecution could not prove discharging this burden, the Prosecutions duty is to prove each and every
falsification. Such argumentation is not correct. Since
the information charges accused only of element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt
misappropriation pursuant to Art. 315, par. (1b) of the
for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. [14] The
Revised [P]enal Code, the Court holds that there is no
necessity of alleging the falsification in the Information Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the
as it is not an element of the crime charged.
commission of the offense. [15]In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely
Distinction should be made as to when the on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the
crimes of Estafa and Falsification will constitute as one
complex crime and when they are considered as two weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the
separate offenses. The complex crime of Estafa Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the
Through Falsification of Documents is committed
accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. [16]Conversely, as On his part, Go essentially described for the trial court the various
[17]
to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be duties of petitioner as Footluckers sales representative. On her part,
acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption Guivencan conceded having no personal knowledge of the amounts actually
of innocence in his favor.In other words, the weakness of the defense put up received by petitioner from the customersor remitted by petitioner to
by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Footluckers.This means that persons other than Guivencan prepared
Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the Exhibits B to YY and their derivatives, inclusive,and that Guivencan based
commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the her testimony on the entries found in the receipts supposedly issued by
malefactor responsible for it. petitioner and in the ledgers held by Footluckers corresponding to each
customer, as well as on the unsworn statements of some of the customers.
Did the Prosecution adduce evidence that proved beyond Accordingly, her being the only witness who testified on the entries
reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner for the estafa charged in the effectively deprived the RTC of the reasonable opportunity to validate and
information? test the veracity and reliability of the entries as evidence of petitioners
misappropriation or conversion through cross-examination by petitioner.
To establish the elements of estafaearlier mentioned, the The denial of that opportunity rendered theentire proof of misappropriation
Prosecution presented the testimonies of Go and Guivencan, and various or conversion hearsay, and thus unreliable and untrustworthy for purposes
documentsconsisting of: (a) the receipts allegedly issued by petitioner to of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
each of her customers upon their payment, (b) the ledgers listing the
accounts pertaining to each customer with the corresponding notations of
the receipt numbers for each of the payments, and (c) the confirmation To elucidate why the Prosecutions hearsay evidence was unreliable
[18]
sheets accomplished by Guivencan herself. The ledgers and receipts were and untrustworthy, and thus devoid of probative value, reference is made
marked and formally offered as Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives, toSection 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a rule that states that a witness
inclusive. can testify only to those facts that she knows of her personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from her own perception, except as otherwise
provided in the Rules of Court. The personal knowledge of a witness is a
substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to cross-examine the
the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft ofpersonal knowledge of the witness, it is hearsay just the same.[21]
disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony
derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human
testifying but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of
of her information. the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can
be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the
In case a witness is permitted to testify based on what she has heard test of cross-examination. However, if an extrajudicial utterance is offered,
another person say about the facts in dispute, the person from whom the not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but without reference to the
witness derived the information on the facts in dispute is not in truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in
court and under oath to be examined and cross-examined. The weight of a slander case, if a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say
such testimony thendepends not upon theveracity of the witness but upon the that the complainant was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to prove
veracity of the other person giving the information to the witness without that the complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that the accused
oath. The information cannot be tested because the declarant is not standing uttered those words.[22] This kind of utterance ishearsay in character but is
in court as a witness andcannot, therefore, be cross-examined. not legal hearsay.[23]The distinction is, therefore, between (a) the fact that the
statement was made, to which the hearsay rule does not apply, and (b) the
It is apparent, too, that a person who relates a hearsay is not obliged truth of the facts asserted in the statement, to which the hearsay rule applies.
[24]
to enter into any particular, to answer any question, to solve any difficulties,
to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to remove any
ambiguities; and that she entrenches herself in the simple assertion that she Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is understandably not
was told so, and leaves the burden entirely upon the dead or absent author. the only rule that explains why testimony that is hearsay should be excluded
[19]
Thus, the rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that from consideration. Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve the right of the
there was no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. [20] The testimony opposing party to cross-examine the originaldeclarant claiming to have a
may have been given under oath and before a court of justice, but if it is direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence.[25]If hearsay is allowed,
 as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
the right stands to be denied because the declarant is not in court. [26]It is then
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom
to be stressed that the right to cross-examine the adverse partys witness, to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
being the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice. Although the second solution traces its existence to a Constitutional precept
relevant to criminal cases, i.e., Section 14, (2), Article III, of the
To address the problem of controlling inadmissible hearsay as 1987 Constitution,which guarantees that: In all criminal prosecutions, the
evidence to establish the truth in a dispute while also safeguardinga partys accused shall xxx enjoy the right xxx to meet the witnesses face to face xxx ,
right to cross-examine her adversarys witness,the Rules of Court offers two the rule requiring the cross-examination by the adverse party equally applies
solutions. The firstsolution is to require that allthe witnesses in a judicial to non-criminal proceedings.
trial or hearing be examined only in courtunder oath or affirmation. Section
1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court formalizes this solution,viz:
We thus stress that the rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. - upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
of hearsay evidence due to its not being given under oath or solemn
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-examination by the
answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and articulateness
The secondsolution is to require that all witnesses besubject to the cross-
of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability the worth of the
examination by the adverse party. Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of
out-of-court statement depends.[27]
Courtensuresthis solutionthusly:

Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and

extent. Upon the termination of the direct examination,
the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party
 Based on the foregoing considerations, Guivencans testimony as
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary
well as Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives, inclusive, must be entirely public except last wills and testaments, and
rejected as proof of petitioners misappropriation or conversion. (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be entered therein.
III
Lack of their proper authentication rendered All other writings are private.
Exhibits B to YY and their derivatives
inadmissible as judicial evidence
The nature of documents as either public or private determines
how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. A public
document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has
Petitioner also contends that the RTC grossly erred in admitting as
been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a
evidence Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives, inclusive, despite their
competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it
being private documents that were not duly authenticated as required by
is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be
presented as evidence in court.In contrast, a private document is any other
Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Courtdistinguishes between a
writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the
public document and a private document for the purpose of their
intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some
presentation in evidence, viz:
disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or
Section 19. Classes of documents. For the sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by
purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents
law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by
are either public or private.
law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The
Public documents are:
requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four
(a) The written official acts, or records of the instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, context of Section 21,[28] Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the
or of a foreign country;
genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been
specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; [29](c) when The Prosecutionattempted to have Go authenticate the signature of
thegenuineness and authenticity of the document petitioner in various receipts, to wit:

ATTY. ABIERA:
have been admitted;[30] or (d) when the document is not being offered as Q. Now, these receipts which you mentioned which do not
genuine.[31] tally with the original receipts, do you have
copies of these receipts?
A. Yes, I have a copy of these receipts, but its not now in
my possession.
There is no question that Exhibits B to YY and their derivatives
Q. But when asked to present those receipts before this
were private documents because private individuals executed or generated Honorable Court, can you assure this
them for private or business purposes or uses. Considering that none of the (Next Page)
exhibits came under any of the four exceptions, they could not be presented
ATTY ABIERA (continuing):
and admitted as evidence against petitioner without the Prosecution Honorable Court that you will be able to present those
dutifully seeing to their authentication in the manner provided in Section20 receipts?
A. Yes.
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,viz: Q. You are also familiar with the signature of the
accused in this case, Anna Lerima Patula?
Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before A. Yes.
any private document offered as authentic is received in Q. Why are you familiar with the signature of the
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be accused in this case?
proved either: A. I used to see her signatures in the payroll and in the
receipts also.
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed Q. Okay, I have here a machine copy of a receipt which
or written; or we would present this,or offer the same as
soon as the original receipts can be
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the presented, but for purposes only of your
signature or handwriting of the maker. testimony, Im going to point to you a
certain signature over this receipt number
Any other private document need only be identified FLDT96 20441, a receipt from Cirila
as that which it is claimed to be. Askin, kindly go over the signature and
 tell the Honorable Court whether you are
familiar with the signature? (Next Page)
A. Yes, that is her signature.
INTERPRETER: COURT:
Witness is pointing to a signature above the printed word Bracket the signature &mark it as Exh. A-1. What is the
collector. number of that receipt?

(Next Page)

ATTY. ABIERA:
Q. Is this the only receipt wherein the name, the
signature rather, of the accused in this ATTY. ABIERA:
case appears? Receipt No. 20441 dated August 4, 1996 the statement
A. That is not the only one, there are many receipts. that: received from Cirila Askin.[32]
ATTY. ABIERA: xxx
In order to save time, Your Honor, we will just be
presenting the original receipts Your
Honor, because its quite voluminous, so we As the excerpts indicate, Gos attempt at authentication of the signature of
will just forego with the testimony of the
witness but we will just present the petitioner on the receipt with serial number FLDT96 No. 20441 (a
same using the testimony of another document that was marked as Exhibit A, while the purported signature of
witness, for purposes of identifying the
signature of the accused. We will request petitioner thereon was marked as Exhibit A-1) immediately fizzled out after
that this signature which has been identified the Prosecution admitted that the document was a meremachinecopy, not the
to by the witness in this case be marked,
Your Honor, with the reservation to present original. Thereafter, as if to soften its failed attempt, the Prosecution
the original copy and present the same to
expressly promised to produce at a later date the originalsof the receipt with
offer as our exhibits but for the meantime,
this is only for the purposes of recording, serial number FLDT96 No. 20441 and other receipts. But that promise was
Your Honor, which we request the same, the
receipt which has just been identified awhile not even true, because almost in the same breath the Prosecution offered to
ago be marked as our Exhibit A You Honor. authenticate the signature of petitioner on the receiptsthrougha different
COURT:
Mark the receipt as Exhibit A. witness (though then still unnamed). As matters turned out in the end, the
ATTY. ABIERA: effort to have Go authenticate both themachinecopy of the receiptwith serial
And the signature be bracketed and be marked as Exhibit
A-1. number FLDT96 No. 20441 and the signature of petitioner on that receipt
was wasteful because the machine copy was inexplicablyforgotten and was had not seen petitioner affix her signature on the receipts, as the following
no longer evenincluded in the Prosecutions Offer of Documentary excerpts from her testimony bear out:
Evidence.
ATTY. ZERNA to witness:
Q. There are two (2) receipts attached here in the
It is true that the original of the receipt bearing serial number confirmation sheet, will you go over these
Miss witness?
FLDT96 No. 20441was subsequentlypresented as Exhibit Bthrough A. This was the last payment which is fully paid by
Guivencan. However,the Prosecution did not establishthat the signature the customer. The other receipt is the one
showing her payment prior to the last
appearing on Exhibit B was the same signature that Go had earliersought to payment.
identify to be the signature of petitioner (Exhibit A-1) on the machine copy COURT:
Q. Where did you get those two (2) receipts?
(Exhibit A). This is borne out by the fact that the Prosecution abandoned A. From the customer.
Q. And who issued those receipts?
Exhibit A as the marking nomenclature for the machine copyof the receipt
A. The saleswoman, Miss Patula.
bearing serial number FLDT96 No. 20441 for all intents and purposes of ATTY. ZERNA:
We pray, Your Honor, that this receipt identified be
this case, and used the same nomenclature to referinstead toan entirely marked as Exhibit B-3, receipt number
differentdocument entitled List of Customers covered by ANA LERIMA 20441.
PATULA w/difference in Records as per Audit duly verified March 16-20, (Next Page)
1997.
COURT:
Mark it.
In her case, Guivencans identification of petitioners signature on ATTY. ZERNA:
The signature of the collector be marked as
two receipts based alone on the fact that the signatures contained the legible Q. By the way, there is a signature above the name of
the collector, are your familiar with that
family name of Patula was ineffectual, and exposed yet another deep flaw
signature? (shown to witness)
infecting the documentary evidence against petitioner. Apparently, A. Yes.
Q. Whose signature is that?
Guivencan could not honestly identify petitioners signature on the receipts A. Miss Patula.
either because she lacked familiarity with such signature, or because she Q. How do you know?
A. It can be recognized because of the word Patula.
 Q. Are you familiar with her signature?
her lack of independent knowledge of the veracity of the entries, as the
A. Yes.
ATTY. ZERNA: following excerpts of her testimony show:
We pray that the signature be bracketed and marked as ATTY. ZERNA to witness:
Exhibit B-3-a Q. What is your basis of saying that your office records
COURT: showed that this Cecilia Askin has an
Mark it. account of P10,791.75?
ATTY. ZERNA: ATTY. DIEZ:
The other receipt number 20045 be marked as Exhibit B-4 The question answers itself, You Honor, what is the basis,
and the signature as Exhibit B-4-a. office record.
COURT: COURT:
Mark it.[33] Let the witness answer.
WITNESS:
xxx A. I made the basis on our ledger in the office. I just
copied that and showed it to the customers
ATTY. ZERNA: for confirmation.
Q. Ms. Witness, here is a receipt colored white, number
26603 issued to one Divina Cadilig. Will ATTY. ZERNA to witness:
you please identify this receipt if this is the Q. What about the receipts?
receipt of your office? COURT:
A.Yes. Make a follow-up question and what was the result when
Q.There is a signature over the portion for the you copied that amount in the ledger and
collector. Whose signature is this? you had it confirmed by the customers, what
A.Ms. Patula. was the result when you had it confirmed by
Q.How do you know that this is her signature? the customers?
A.Because we can read the Patula.[34] WITNESS:
A. She has no more balance but in our office she has still
a balance of P10,971.75.
We also have similar impressions of lack of proper authentication as to the ATTY. ZERNA to witness:
Q. Do you have a-whats the basis of saying that the
ledgers the Prosecution presented to prove the discrepancies between the
balance of this customer is still P10,971.75
amountspetitioner hadallegedly received from the customers and the
(Next Page)
amounts she had actually remitted to Footluckers. Guivencanexclusively
relied on the entries of the unauthenticated ledgersto support her audit ATTY. ZERNA (continuing):
[i]n your office?
report on petitioners supposed misappropriation or conversion, revealing COURT:
That was already answered paero, the office has a ledger. The confirmation sheet was the one you referred to as
Q. Now, did you bring the ledger with you? the receipt in your earlier testimony? Is that
A. No, Maam.[35] what you referred to as the receipts, the
original receipts?
(Continuation of the Direct Examination of A. This is what I copied from the ledger.
Karen Guivencan on August 13, 2002) Q. So where was that(sic) original receipt which you said
showed that that particular customer still has
ATTY. ZERNA to witness: a balance of Ten Thousand something?
Q. Okay, You said there are discrepancies between the A. The receipt is no longer here.
original and the duplicate, will you please Q. You mean the entry of that receipt was already
enlighten the Honorable Court on that entered in the ledger?
discrepancy which you said?
A. Like in this case of Cirila Askin, she has already fully A. Yes.[36]
paid. Her ledger shows a zero balance she
has fully paid while in the original
In the face of the palpable flaws infecting the Prosecutions evidence, it
(Next page)
should come as no surprise that petitioners counsel interposed timely
WITNESS (continuing):
[r]eceipt she has a balance of Ten Thousand Seven objections. Yet, the RTC mysteriously overruled the objections and
hundred Ninety-one Pesos and Seventy- allowedthe Prosecutionto present the unauthenticated ledgers, as follows:
five Centavos (10,791.75).
COURT:
Q. What about the duplicate receipt, how much is (Continuation of the Direct Examination of
indicated there? Witness Karen Guivencan on September 11, 2002)
A. The customer has no duplicate copy because it was
already forwarded to the Manila Office. ATTY. ZERNA:
Q. What then is your basis in the entries in the ledger
showing that it has already a zero balance? CONTINUATION OF DIRECT-EXAMINATION
A. This is the copy of the customer while in the office, in
the original receipt she has still a balance. Q Ms. Witness, last time around you were showing us
xxx several ledgers. Where is it now?
ATTY. ZERNA: A It is here.
The confirmation sheet --- Q Here is a ledger of one Divina Cadilig. This Divina
Cadilig, how much is her account in your
office?
COURT: ATTY. DIEZ:
Your Honor please before the witness will proceed to I think, I remember in the last setting also, she testified
answer the question, let me interpose our where those entries were taken. So, you
objection on the ground that this ledger answer the query of counsel.
has not been duly identified to by the xxx
person who made the same. This witness
will be testifying on hearsay matters ATTY. DIEZ:
because the supposed ledger was not Your Honor please, to avoid delay, may I interpose a
identified to by the person who made the continuing objection to the questions
same. profounded(sic) on those ledgers on the
COURT: ground that, as I have said, it is hearsay.
Those ledgers were already presented in the last hearing. I
think they were already duly identified by COURT:
this witness. As a matter of fact, it was she Okey(sic). Let the continuing objection be noted.
who brought them to court
Q (To Witness) The clerk who allegedly was the one
(Next Page) who prepared the entries on those ledgers,
is she still connected with Footluckers?
COURT (cont.):
because these were the ledgers on file in their office. A She is no longer connected now, Your Honor,
ATTY. DIEZ
That is correct, Your Honor, but the person who made COURT:
the entries is not this witness, Your Honor. Alright proceed.
How do we know that the entries there is
(sic) correct on the receipts submitted to (Next Page)
their office.
COURT: ATTY. ZERNA:
Precisely, she brought along the receipts also to support Your Honor, these are entries in the normal course of
that. Let the witness answer. business. So, exempt from the hearsay
WITNESS: rule.
A Its the office clerk in-charge. COURT:
COURT: Okey(sic), proceed.[37]
The one who prepared the ledger is the office clerk.
ATTY. ZERNA:
She is an auditor, Your Honor. She has been qualified and
she is the auditor of Footluckers.
COURT: The mystery shrouding the RTCs soft treatment of the Prosecutions
flawed presentation was avoidable simply by the RTC adhering to the
 packing list, bill of lading, SGS Report, and the Marine
instructions of the rules earlier quoted, as well as withSection 22 of Rule
Cargo Policy. Petitioner avers that even though King was
132 of the Rules of Court,which contains instructions on how to prove the personally assigned to handle and monitor the importation
of Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation, herein
genuineness of a handwriting in a judicial proceeding, as follows: respondent, this cannot be equated with personal
knowledge of the facts which gave rise to respondents
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting cause of action. Further, petitioner asserts, even though
proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved by she personally prepared the summary of weight of steel
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such billets received by respondent, she did not have personal
person because he has seen the person write, or has seen knowledge of the weight of steel billets actually shipped
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness and delivered.
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence At the outset, we must stress that respondents cause
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a of action is founded on breach of insurance contract
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with covering cargo consisting of imported steel billets. To
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party hold petitioner liable, respondent has to prove, first, its
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be importation of 10,053.400 metric tons of steel billets
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Emphases valued at P67,156,300.00, and second, the actual steel
supplied) billets delivered to and received by the importer, namely
the respondent. Witness Jeanne King, who was assigned
If it is already clear that Go and Guivencan had not themselves to handle respondents importations, including their
seen the execution or signing of the documents,the Prosecution surely did insurance coverage, has personal knowledge of the
volume of steel billets being imported, and therefore
not authenticate Exhibits B to YY and their derivatives conformably with competent to testify thereon. Her testimony is not hearsay,
as this doctrine is defined in Section 36, Rule 130 of the
the aforequoted rules. Hence, Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives,
Rules of Court.However, she is not qualified to testify
inclusive, were inescapably bereft of probative value as evidence. That was on the shortage in the delivery of the imported steel
billets. She did not have personal knowledge of the
the onlyfair and just result, as the Court held in Malayan Insurance Co., actual steel billets received. Even though she prepared
Inc. v. Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation:[38] the summary of the received steel billets, she based the
summary only on the receipts prepared by other
persons. Her testimony on steel billets received was
On the first issue, petitioner Malayan Insurance hearsay. It has no probative value even if not objected
Co., Inc., contends that Jeanne Kings testimony was to at the trial.
hearsay because she had no personal knowledge of the
execution of the documents supporting respondents On the second issue, petitioner avers that King
cause of action, such as the sales contract, invoice, failed to properly authenticate respondents documentary
evidence. Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of In sum, we find no sufficient competent evidence to
Court, before a private document is admitted in prove petitioners liability.
evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person
who executed it, the person before whom its execution
was acknowledged, any person who was present and That the Prosecutions evidence was left uncontested because
saw it executed, or who after its execution, saw it and
recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the petitioner decided not to subject Guivencan to cross-examination, and did
parties to the instruments had previously confessed not tender her contrary evidencewas inconsequential. Although the trial
execution thereof. In this case, respondent admits that
King was none of the aforementioned persons. She court had overruled the seasonable objections to Guivencans testimony
merely made the summary of the weight of steel billets bypetitioners counsel due to the hearsay character, it could not be denied
based on the unauthenticated bill of lading and the
SGS report. Thus, the summary of steel billets actually thathearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, had no probative value.
received had no proven real basis, and Kings [39]
Verily, the flaws of the Prosecutions evidence were fundamental and
testimony on this point could not be taken at face
value. substantive, not merely technical and procedural, and were defects that the

xxx Under the rules on evidence, documents are adverse partys waiver of her cross-examination or failure to rebutcould not
either public or private. Private documents are those that set right or cure. Nor did the trial courts overruling of petitioners objections
do not fall under any of the enumerations in Section 19,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.Section 20of the same law, imbue the flawed evidence with any virtue and value.
in turn, provides that before any private document is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either by anyone who saw the document Curiously, the RTC excepted the entries in the ledgers from the
executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of application of the hearsay rule by also terselystating that the ledgers were
the signature or handwriting of the maker. Here,
respondents documentary exhibits are private prepared in the regular course of business. [40]Seemingly, the RTC applied
documents. They are not among those enumerated in
Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 19, thus, their due execution and authenticity
need to be proved before they can be admitted
in evidence.With the exception concerning the Section 43. Entries in the course of business.
summary of the weight of the steel billets imported, Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to
respondent presented no supporting evidence which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to
concerning their authenticity. Consequently, they testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein
cannot be utilized to prove less of the insured cargo stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
and/or the short delivery of the imported steel billets. person made the entries in his professional capacity or in
 the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular
admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of the crime charged
course of business or duty.
upon such evidence. The failure of the judge to do so herein nullified the
guarantee of due of process of law in favor of the accused, who had no
This was another grave error of the RTC.The terse yet sweeping
obligation to prove her innocence. Heracquittal should follow.
mannerof justifying the application of Section 43 was unacceptable due to
the need to show the concurrence of the several requisites before entries in IV
No reliable evidence on damage
the course of business could be excepted from the hearsay rule. The
requisites are as follows:
Conformably with finding the evidence of guilt unreliable, the
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or
Court declares that the disposition by the RTC ordering petitioner to
unable to testify;
indemnify Footluckers in the amount of P131,286.92 with interest of
(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer; 12% per annum until fully paid was not yet shown to be factually founded.
Yet, she cannot now be absolved of civil liability on that basis. Heracquittal
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated
in the entries; has to bedeclared as without prejudice to the filing of a civil action against
her for the recovery of any amount that she may still owe to Footluckers.
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or
in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral, or religious;
WHEREFORE, the Court SETS ASIDE ANDREVERSESthe
(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular decision convicting ANNA LERIMA PATULAof estafa as charged,
course of business or duty.[41]
and ACQUITS her for failure of the Prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, without prejudice to a civil action brought against her for

The Court has to acquit petitioner for failure of the State to

the recoveryof any amount still owing in favor of Footluckers Chain of
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterates that in the
Stores, Inc.
trial of every criminal case, a judge must rigidly test the States evidence of
guilt in order to ensure that such evidence adhered to the basic rules of
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
 SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO

C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

G.R.No.198022.April7,2014.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,vs.SONNY
GATARINyCABALLERO@JAYR and EDUARDO
QUISAYAS,accused,
EDUARDOQUISAYAS,accusedappellant.
Criminal Law; Robbery with Homicide; Elements of.To
sustaina conviction forrobbery with homicide, theprosecution
must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal
propertybelongingtoanother;(2)withintenttogain;(3)withthe
useofviolenceorintimidationagainstaperson;and(4)onthe
occasionor by reasonoftherobbery,thecrimeofhomicide, as
usedinthegenericsense,wascommitted.
 Same;CorpusDelicti;WordsandPhrases;Corpusdelictihas killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. What is
been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its crucialforaconvictionforthecrimeofrobberywithhomicideis
fortheprosecutiontofirmlyestablishtheoffendersintenttotake
primarysense, refers to thefactthatacrime hasactuallybeen
personalpropertybeforethekilling,regardlessofthetimewhen
committed.The prosecution did not convincingly establish thehomicideisactuallycarriedout.Inthiscase,therewasno
thecorpusdelictiofthecrimeofrobbery.Corpusdelictihasbeen showing of the appellants intention, determined by their acts
definedasthebodyorsubstanceofthecrimeand,initsprimary prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the
sense,referstothefactthatacrimehasactuallybeencommitted. commissionofthecrime,tocommitrobbery.Noshredofevidence
Asappliedtoaparticularoffense,itmeanstheactualcommission is on record that could support the conclusion that appellants
by someone of the particular crime charged. In this case, the primary motive was to rob Januario and that he was able to
elementoftaking,aswellastheexistenceofthemoneyallegedto accomplish it. Mere speculation and probabilities cannot
have been lost and stolen by appellant, was not adequately substitute for proof required in establishing the guilt of an
established.Wefindnosufficientevidence accusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION. Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Dying
17to show either the amount of money stolen, or if any Declaration;RequisitesfortheAdmissibilityofDyingDeclaration
amount was in fact stolen from Januario. Even if we consider as an Exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule.A dying
Januarios dying declaration, the same pertains only to the declaration,althoughgenerallyinadmissibleas evidencedueto
stabbingincidentandnottotheallegedrobbery. its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the
followingrequisitesconcur,namely:(a)thedeclarationconcerns
Same;RobberywithHomicide;Assumingthatrobberywas
thecauseandthesurroundingcircumstancesofthedeclarants
indeedcommitted, theprosecutionmustestablishwithcertitude death;(b)itismadewhendeathappearstobeimminentandthe
thatthekillingwasamereincidenttotherobbery,thelatterbeing declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the
the perpetrators main purpose and objective.Assuming that declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she
robbery was indeed committed, the prosecution must establish survived; and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in
withcertitudethatthekillingwasamereincidenttotherobbery, whichthesubjectofinquiryinvolvesthedeclarantsdeath.
thelatterbeingtheperpetratorsmainpurposeandobjective.Itis 18
not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the
homicide was to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is not Same;Same;Same;Same;Theruleisthat,inordertomake
sufficient.Stated in a different manner, a conviction requires a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and
certitudethattherobberyisthemainpurpose,andobjectiveof imminentdeathmustbeenteredbythedeclarant.Inthecaseat
themalefactorandthekillingismerelyincidentaltotherobbery. bar,itappearsthatnotalltherequisitesofadyingdeclaration
Theintenttorobmustprecedethetakingofhumanlifebutthe arepresent.Fromtherecords,noquestionsrelativetothesecond
requisitewaspropoundedtoJanuario.Itdoesnotappearthatthe victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength
declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which the latter
whenhemadethestatements.Theruleisthat,inordertomake
selected or took advantage of in the commission of the crime.
a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and
From the evidence presented, we find that as alleged in the
imminentdeathmustbeenteredbythedeclarant.Itisthebelief
information,abuseofsuperiorstrengthattendedthecommission
inimpendingdeathandnottherapidsuccessionofdeathinpoint
ofthecrime,andthus,qualifiestheoffensetomurder.Abuseof
of fact thatrendersa dying declaration admissible. The test is
superior strength is considered whenever there is a notorious
whetherthedeclaranthasabandonedallhopesofsurvivaland
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
looked on death as certainly impending. Thus, the utterances
assessingasuperiorityofstrengthnotori
madebyJanuariocouldnotbeconsideredasadyingdeclaration.
19ously advantageous for the aggressor which the latter
Same; Same; Same; Res Gestae; Words and Phrases;Res selectedortookadvantageofinthecommissionofthecrime.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
gestaerefers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that
growoutofthemainfactandservetoillustrateitscharacterand ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
aresospontaneousandcontemporaneouswiththemainfactasto OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.Even if
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
Januarios utterances could not be appreciated as a dying
PERALTA,J.:
declaration, his statements may still be appreciated as part of
Assailed in this appeal is the Court of
theres gestae.Res gestaerefers tothe circumstances, facts, and
Appeals(CA)Decision1datedFebruary23,2011inC.A.G.R.CR
declarationsthatgrowoutofthemainfactandservetoillustrate
itscharacterandaresospontaneousandcontemporaneouswith H.C. No. 03593 affirming the Regional Trial
the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and Court(RTC)2Decision3datedJune20,2008inCriminalCaseNo.
fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of 13838 convicting appellant Eduardo Quisayas ofRobbery with
theres gestaeis, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or Homicidecommitted against the victim Januario
exclamation,issointerwovenorconnectedwiththeprincipalfact CastilloyMasangcay(Januario).
oreventthatitcharacterizesastoberegardedasapartofthe Thefactsofthecasefollow:
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any Appellant and accused Sonny GatarinyCaballero were
premeditationorpurposetomanufacturetestimony.
charged in an Information4withRobbery with
Criminal Law; Aggravating Circumstances; Abuse of Homicidecommittedasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe3rddayofNovember,2004,atabout8:00
Superior Strength; Abuse of superior strength is considered
oclock(sic)intheevening,atBarangayPoblacion,Municipality
whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
of Mabini, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the The prosecution presented the testimonies of the following
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, witnesses:(1) MariaCastillo,thevictimswife;(2)HowelUmali
armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating (Umali),whoallegedlysawhowtheaccusedmauledthevictim;
together, acting in common accord and mutually helping each (3) SPO3 Gregorio G. Mendoza (SPO3 Mendoza) of the Mabini
other,withintenttogain,withouttheknowledgeandconsentof Police Station, who saw the victim lying on the floor and the
the owner thereof and with violence against or intimidation of accusedrunningawayfromthecrimescene,andtestifiedonthe
person,didthenandtherewill dying declaration of Januario; (4) Dr. Catalino Ike A. Rasa Jr.
_______________
(Dr.Rasa),whoattendedtothevictimwhenhewasbroughtto
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeStephenC.Cruz,withAssociate
thehospital;and(5)PO1RogelioDizonCoronel(PO1Coronel),
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Rodil V. Zalameda,
whosawtheaccusedrunningfastnearthecrimesceneandwho,
concurring;Rollo,pp.214.
likewise,testifiedonJanuariosantemortemstatement.
2Branch3,PallocanWest,BatangasCity.
From the testimonies of the abovenamed witnesses, the
3PennedbyJudgeRubenA.Galvez,CARollo,pp.511.
prosecutionestablishedthefollowingfacts:
4Records,pp.23.
OnNovember3,2004,at8oclockintheevening,Umaliwas
20fully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob, and carry away
riding a bicycle on his way home when he saw Januario being
cashmoneyamountingtoTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00),
mauled by two persons opposite Doms Studio in Poblacion,
PhilippineCurrency,belongingtoJanuarioCastilloyMasangcay Mabini,Batangas.Uponseeingtheincident,hestayedinfrontof
aliasKaManing,tothedamageandprejudiceofthelatterin thechurchuntilsuchtimethattheaccusedran
the aforementioned amount and that on the occasion and by _______________
reasonofsaidrobbery,thesaidaccusedwithintenttokilland 5Id.
takingadvantageoftheirsuperiorstrength,didthenandthere 21away and were chased by policemen who alighted from the
willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandstabwith policepatrolvehicle.6
the said weapon Januario CastilloyMasangcay alias Onthesamenight,SPO3MendozaandPO1Coronelwereon
KaManing,therebyinflictinguponthelatterthestabwounds board their patrol vehicle performing their routine patrol duty
to[the]anteriorchestandrightshoulderandrightaxilla,which whentheymettwomen,lateridentifiedastheaccused,whowere
directlycausedhisdeath. runningatafastspeed.Whenaskedwhytheywererunning,the
Contrarytolaw.5 accuseddidnotanswerpromptingthepolicementochasethem.
Thepolicemen,however,wereunsuccessfulincatchingthemand

whenitbecameevidentthattheycouldnolongerfindthem,they
Appellant was arrested, while his coaccused remained at
continuedpatrollingthearea.TheretheysawJanuariolyingon
large. When arraigned, he pleaded Not Guilty. Trial on the
thestreetinfrontofDomsstudio.Ashewasseverelyinjured,the
meritsthereafterensued.
policemen immediately boarded Januario to the patrol vehicle
andbroughthimtotheZigzagHospital.Whileinsidethevehicle, OnJune20,2008,theRTCrenderedaDecisionagainstthe
SPO3MendozaaskedJanuariowhohurthim.Heansweredthat appellant,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
itwasJayRandhisunclewhostabbedhim.Theuncleturned WHEREFORE,thePeoplehavingproventheguiltofaccused
outtobetheappellantherein,whileJayRishiscoaccusedwho EduardoQuisayasbeyondreasonabledoubt,heisherebydeclared
remainsatlarge.7 GUILTY of the offense as charged. Accordingly, he is hereby
AttheZigzagHospital,JanuariowasattendedtobyDr.Rasa sentencedtoaprisontermofReclusionPerpetua.
whofoundhimincriticalcondition.Threefatalwoundscausedby
Further,heisherebyorderedtopayhereinoffendedpartyof
abladedweaponwerefoundinJanuariosbodywhicheventually
thefollowing:
causedhisdeath.8
MariaCastillo, forher part,testifiedonhowshelearnedof (a)civilindemnityintheamountofPhp50,000.00;
what happened to her husband, the victim herein, the amount (b)actual damages in the amount of Php20,000.00, plus
allegedlystolenfromherhusband,aswellasontheexpensesand Php35,310.00(funeralandhospitalexpenses);and
loss incurred by reason of Januarios death. She, further, (c)moraldamagesintheamountofPhp100,000.00.
quantifiedthesorrowandanxietythefamilysufferedbyreasonof
SOORDERED.12
suchdeath.9
Inhisdefense,appellantdeniedtheaccusationagainsthim.
HeclaimedthatheisfromtheProvinceofSamarbuthasbeen The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Maria
residinginCupang,MuntinlupaCitysince1987.He CastillonotonlyastothefactoftakingmoneyfromJanuariobut
_______________ alsotheamounttaken.13Thefactofdeathwas,likewise,found
6TSN,February20,2006,pp.57. bythecourttohavebeenadequatelyprovenbythetestimonyof
Dr.Rasa.14Thoughtherewasnoevidencewhethertheunlawful
7Rollo,p.5.
takingprecededthekillingofJanuario,
8Id.
_______________
9CARollo,p.6. 10TSN,November27,2007,pp.113.
22deniedknowing,muchmoreresidingin,Mabini,Batangas,as 11TSN,January31,2008,pp.114.
heonlyheardabouttheprovincefromhisemployerwhohappens 12Records,pp.187188.
to be a resident therein. He claimed that he did not know 13Id.,atpp.185186.
Januarioandthathewas,infact,workinginMuntinlupaCityon
14Id.,atp.186.
thedateandtimethecrimewasallegedlycommitted.10
23thecourtheldthattherewasdirectandintimateconnection
TheprosecutionsrebuttalwitnessMr.BienvenidoCaponpon,
betweenthetwoacts.15
however,beliedappellantsclaimandinsistedthatappellantwas
Astotheidentityoftheperpetrators,thecourtconsideredthe
rentingahouseinMabini,Batangasandthathewasseenthere
victims response to SPO3 Mendozas question as to who
untilthedaythecrimewascommitted.11
committedthecrimeagainsthimaspartoftheresgestae,which
isanexceptiontothehearsayrule.16Astoappellantsdefenseof First,inordertosustainaconvictionforthecrimeofrobbery
alibi, the court gave more weight to the prosecutions rebuttal withhomicide,itisnecessarythattherobberyitselfbeprovenas
evidencethatindeedtheformerwasanactualresidentofMabini, conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.21In
Batangas.17 orderforthecrimeofrobberywithhomicidetoexist,itmustbe
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Contrary, establishedthatarobberyhasactuallytakenplaceandthat,asa
however,totheRTCsconclusion,theappellatecourtconsidered consequence or on the occasion of robbery, a homicide be
Januarios statement to SPO3 Mendoza, that the accused were committed.22
theoneswhostabbedhimandtookhiswallet,notonlyaspart For there to be robbery, there must be taking of personal
ofresgestaebutalsoasadyingdeclaration.18 propertybelongingtoanother,withintenttogain,bymeansof
Hence,theappealbeforetheCourt. violenceagainstorintimidationofanypersonorbyusingforce
We find appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt not of upon on things.23Both the RTC and the CA concluded that
robberywithhomicidebutofmurder. robbery was committed based on the testimonies of Maria
Thetrialcourtsfactualfindings,includingitsassessmentof Castillo,SPO3Mendoza,andPO1Coronel.Acloserlookatthe
the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimoniesofthesewitnesses,however,failedtoconvinceusthat
testimonies,andtheconclusionsdrawnfromthefactualfindings indeedrobberytookplace.
are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect. We, MariaCastillostestimonywasofferedbytheprosecutionto
nevertheless, fully scrutinize the records, since the penalty prove that her husband, the victim herein, was a victim of
ofreclusionperpetuathattheCAimposedonappellantdemands robberywithhomicideandthatheisabusinessman,andthatshe
nolessthanthiskindofcarefulanddeliberateconsideration.19 suffereddamagesbyreasonofsuchdeath.Thepertinentportion
To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the ofherdirecttestimonyisquotedbelowforacloserscrutiny:
prosecutionmustprovethefollowingelements:(1)thetakingof ATTY.MASANGYA:
personalpropertybelongingtoanother;(2)withintenttogain;(3) QThevictiminthiscaseJanuarioCastillo,howareyou
withtheuseofviolenceorintimidationagainsta relatedtohim?
_______________ _______________
15Id. 20Id.,atp.621;Peoplev.Latam,G.R.No.192789,March
16Id. 23,2011,646SCRA406,410;Peoplev.Baron,G.R.No.
17Id.,atp.187. 185209,June28,2010,621SCRA646,656.
18Rollo,p.8. 21People v. Orias, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010, 622
SCRA417,430.
19Peoplev.Algarme,G.R.No.175978,February12,2009,578
SCRA601,613. 22Peoplev.Abundo,402Phil.616,635636;349SCRA577,
24person;and(4)ontheoccasionorbyreasonoftherobbery,the 594(2001),citingPeoplev.Pacala,58SCRA370,377
crimeofhomicide,asusedinthegenericsense,wascommitted.20
 378;(1974);Peoplev.Arondain,418Phil.354,367;366 Wewillobject.Thatwillbemisleading.
SCRA98,104(2001). COURT:
23Peoplev.Obedo,451Phil.529,538;403SCRA431,438 Ifsheisaware.
(2003). ATTY.EBORA:
25 Wesubmit.
WITNESS: COURT:
AMyhusband,sir. Youaskherifsheisawarewhotheperpetratorsare.
QOn November 3, 2004, do you remember of any 26
unusualincidentthathasoccurred? ATTY.MASANGYA:
AYes,sir. QMadam Witness, were you informed who are the
QAndwhatisthatevent? perpetratorsofthecrimeonyourhusband?
AAtaround8:30oclockintheeveningofNovember3, WITNESS:
2004 while I was at home, policemen arrived and ANot yet, sir. It was not told to me by the policemen
informedmethatmyhusbandwaswounded,sir. becausethepolicemenwereinahurry.
ATTY.MASANGYA:
QDidthesepoliceofficersinformyouthelocation(sic)of
QAfterthepolicemenwenttoyourhouse,wasthere[any]
whereyourhusbandwaslocated?
personwhoinformedyouwhoweretheperpetratorsof
AAccordingtothepolicemen,myhusbandwasatZigzag
thecrime?
Hospital,sir.
AYes,sir.Myniece.
QDidyougotoZigzagHospital,MadamWitness?
QAndwhoisthatnieceofyours,MadamWitness?
AYes,sir.
AJosephineBorbon,sir.
QWhat happened, Madam Witness, whenyou arrived
QDid Miss Borbon tell you about the identity of the
atthehospital?
perpetratorsofthecrime,MadamWitness?
AIwasinformedbythenursetherethatmyhusband
AYes,sir.
wasalreadydead.
QAndwhoarethepersonsdidMissBorbonmention?
ATTY.MASANGYA:
AMy former helper Sonny Gatarin and his uncle
QWere you informed of the cause of the death of your
EduardoQuisayas,sir.
husband?
QYouweretoldthatyourhusbandwasrobbed,howmuch
WITNESS:
wastakenfromyourhusband,MadamWitness?
AAccording to them my husband was wounded, many
AP20,000.00.
woundsandhewasrobbed,sir.
QAndcanyoutell,MadamWitness,whyisyourhusband
QMadam Witness, were you able to know who are the
carrying that amount of money at the time of his
personsresponsibleforthedeathofyourhusband?
death?
ATTY.EBORA:
AYes,sir. AWe felt deep sorrow together with my three (3)
WITNESS: children,sir.(Witnessiscrying)
AThoseweretheearningsforthatdayforhedelivered xxxx24
merchandiseandgroceries,sir.
ATTY.MASANGYA: From the above testimony, it can be inferred that Maria
QDo you know, Madam Witness, if your husband is Castilloobviouslywasnotatthesceneofthecrimeonthatfateful
engagedinanybusiness? nightasshewasonlyinformedthattheincidenttookplaceand
AYes,sir. that Januario was broughtto the Zigzag Hospital. It, likewise,
QAnd what is your proof in saying your husband is appearsthatshehadnopersonalknowledgethatJanuariowas
engagedinbusiness? robbed. While she claimed that P20,000.00 was illegally taken
AOur business was we delivered bottled goods and from him, no evidence was presented to show that Januario
groceries,sir. indeedhadthatamountatthattimeandthatthesamewasinhis
27 possession.AsMariaCastilloclaimedthatthesaidamountwas
QThebusinesswhereinyourhusbandisengagedhasan allegedlyreceivedfromtheirclients
existinglicensewiththeappropriatelocalgovernment? _______________
AYes,sir. 24TSN,November24,2005,pp.38.
QIf a copy will be shown to you, will you be able to 28intheirgrocerybusiness,saidfactcouldhavebeenprovenby
identifythesame? receiptsortestimoniesofsaidclients.Theprosecutionsfailureto
AYes,sir. present such evidence creates doubt as to the existence of the
QIamshowingtoyou[a]certifiedcopyof[the]Mayors money.
permitpreviouslymarkedasExhibitH? Thetrialandappellatecourtslikewisereliedonthetestimony
AThisisit,sir. ofSPO3MendozaandPO1CoronelonthestatementofJanuario
QIf you know, Madam Witness, how much is your afterthecommissionofthecrime.Whilebothpolicementestified
husbandearninginhissarisariorgrocerybusiness? as to thedying declaration ofJanuariopertainingtothecause
WITNESS: and circumstances surrounding his death, only PO1 Coronel
AYes,sir. testified during his direct examination that when asked who
ATTY.MASANGYA: stabbedhim,JanuariorepliedthatitwasJayArandhisuncle
QHowmuchisheearningatthetime? who stabbed him and took his wallet.25In response to the
AHeearnsP40,000.00. Presiding Judges clarificatory question, however, PO1 Coronel
QInamonthoryear? admitted that when he asked Januario who stabbed him, he
AP40,000.00amonth,sir. repliedthatitwasJayArandhisuncle.Afterwhich,nofurther
QHow do you feel or confront the situation that your question was asked.26On the other hand, nowhere in SPO3
husbandisalreadydead?
Mendozas testimony did he talk about the alleged taking of ANone,yourHonor.
wallet.Thepertinentportionsoftheirtestimoniesread: xxxx28
DirectTestimonyofSPO3Mendoza:
DirectExaminationofPO1Coronel: xxxx
xxxx QAnd when you saw Januario Castillo lying on the
QWhat did you do next after boarding him inside your street,whatdidyoudo?
vehicle? AWeliftedhimandboardedhiminourvehiclethenwe
AWebroughthimattheZigzagHospitalandweasked broughthimtothehospital.
himwhostabbedhim. QWhileyouweretravelling,wereyouabletotalktothe
QWhatwashisreplyMr.Witness? victimJanuarioCastillo?
AHetoldusthatJayarandhisunclestabbedhimand AYes,sir.
tookhiswallet. QWhatwasyourconversationallabout?
xxxx27 AI askedKaManing Castillo as to who stabbed him
_______________ andheansweredJayRandhisuncle.
25TSN,July10,2007,p.8. xxxx29
26Id.,atp.20. _______________
27Id.,atp.8.
29PO1CoronelsAnswers tothequestionspropoundedby 28Id.,atp.20.
thePresidingJudge: 29TSN,May30,2006,pp.67.
THECOURT: 30
Alright,theCourtwillask. It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the evidence
QWhendidyoutalkwiththevictim? presentedtoprovetherobberyaspectofthespecialcomplexcrime
AWhenwewereinsidethepatrolcar,yourHonor. of robbery with homicide, does not show that robbery actually
QWhatexactlydidyouaskfromthevictim? took place. The prosecution did not convincingly establish
AIaskedhimwhostabbedhim,yourHonor. thecorpusdelictiofthecrimeofrobbery.Corpusdelictihasbeen
QDidyoutellthevictimhiscondition? definedasthebodyorsubstanceofthecrimeand,initsprimary
ANo,yourHonor. sense,referstothefactthatacrimehasactuallybeencommitted.
QYoujustaskedthevictimwhostabbedhim? Asappliedtoaparticularoffense,itmeanstheactualcommission
AYes,yourHonor. by someone of the particular crime charged.30In this case, the
QWhatwastheanswerofthevictim? elementoftaking,aswellastheexistenceofthemoneyallegedto
AThat he was stabbed by Jayar and his uncle, your have been lost and stolen by appellant, was not adequately
Honor. established.31Wefindnosufficientevidencetoshoweitherthe
QAndnootherquestiondidyouaskhim? amountofmoneystolen,orifanyamountwasinfactstolenfrom
Januario.EvenifweconsiderJanuariosdyingdeclaration,the substitute for proof required in establishing the guilt of an
samepertainsonlytothestabbingincidentandnottothealleged accusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.37
robbery. Wheretheevidencedoesnotconclusivelyprovetherobbery,
Moreover,assumingthatrobberywasindeedcommitted,the the killing of Januario would be classified either as a simple
prosecutionmustestablishwithcertitudethatthekillingwasa homicideormurder,dependingupontheabsenceorpresenceof
mereincidenttothe robbery, thelatterbeing the perpetrators anyqualifyingcircumstance,andnotthecrimeofrobberywith
mainpurposeandobjective.Itisnotenoughtosupposethatthe homicide.38
purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob; a mere Toestablishthefactthatappellantandhiscoaccusedkilled
presumptionofsuchfactisnotsufficient.32Statedinadifferent thevictimbystabbinghimwithabladedweapon,theprosecution
manner, aconvictionrequires certitude that the robbery isthe presentedUmaliasaneyewitnesstothemaulingincident.Itwas
mainpurpose,andobjectiveofthemalefactorandthekillingis thissamewitnesswhoidentifiedtheperpetrators.Thetrialand
merelyincidentaltotherobbery.Theintenttorobmustprecede appellatecourtsalsoreliedonthestatementofJanuarioastothe
thetakingofhumanlifebutthekillingmayoccurbefore,during circumstancesofhisdeath,testifiedtobyPO1CoronelandSPO3
or after the robbery.33What is crucial for a conviction for the Mendozaasdyingdeclarationandaspartofresgestae.
crimeof robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to firmly A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as
establish the offenders intent to take personal property before evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be
thekilling,regardlessofthetimewhenthehomicideisactually admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) the
carriedout.34Inthiscase, declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding
_______________ circumstancesofthedeclarantsdeath;(b)itismadewhendeath
30Peoplev.Obedo,supranote23atpp.538539;pp.438439. appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
31Id.,atp.539;p.439. consciousnessofimpendingdeath;(c)thedeclarantwouldhave
32Peoplev.Algarme,supranote19atp.625. beencompetenttotestifyhadheorshesurvived;and(d)the
_______________
33Id.,atp.621;Peoplev.Latam,supranote20atp.410.
35SeePeoplev.Algarme,supranote19atpp.625626.
34Peoplev.Canlas,423Phil.665,684;372SCRA401,417
(2001). 36Peoplev.Canlas,supranote34.
31therewasnoshowingoftheappellantsintention,determined 37Id.,atpp.684685;p.418.
bytheiractspriorto,contemporaneouswith,andsubsequentto 38Peoplev.Orias,supranote21.
the commission of the crime, to commit robbery.35No shred of 32dyingdeclarationisofferedinacaseinwhichthesubjectof
evidence is on record that could support the conclusion that inquiryinvolvesthedeclarantsdeath.39
appellantsprimarymotivewastorobJanuarioandthathewas Inthecaseatbar,itappearsthatnotalltherequisitesofa
abletoaccomplishit.36Merespeculationandprobabilitiescannot dying declaration are present. From the records, no questions
relativetothesecondrequisitewaspropoundedtoJanuario.It
doesnotappearthatthedeclarantwasundertheconsciousnessof The requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of
hisimpendingdeathwhenhemadethestatements.Theruleis theresgestaeconcurherein.WhenJanuariogavetheidentityof
that, in order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed theassailantstoSPO3Mendoza,hewasreferringtoastartling
beliefininevitableandimminentdeathmustbeenteredbythe occurrencewhichisthestabbingbyappellantandhiscoaccused.
declarant.Itisthebeliefinimpendingdeathandnottherapid Atthattime,Januarioandthewitnesswereinthevehiclethat
succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying wouldbringhimtothehospital,andthus,hadnotimetocontrive
declaration admissible. The test is whether the declarant has hisidentificationoftheassailant.Hisutteranceaboutappellant
abandonedallhopesofsurvivalandlookedondeathascertainly andhiscoaccusedhavingstabbedhim,inanswertothequestion
impending.40Thus,theutterancesmadebyJanuariocouldnotbe ofSPO3Mendoza,wasmadeinspontaneityandonlyinreaction
consideredasadyingdeclaration. tothestartlingoccurrence.Definitely,thestatementisrelevant
However, even if Januarios utterances could not be because it identified the accused as the authors of the crime.
appreciatedas adyingdeclaration, hisstatementsmay stillbe Verily, the killing of Januario, perpetrated by appellant, is
appreciated as part of theres gestae.Res gestaerefers to the adequatelyprovenbytheprosecution.
circumstances,facts,anddeclarationsthatgrowoutofthemain Fromtheevidencepresented,wefindthatasallegedinthe
factandservetoillustrateitscharacterandaresospontaneous information,abuseofsuperiorstrengthattendedthecommission
andcontemporaneouswiththemainfactastoexcludetheideaof ofthecrime,andthus,qualifiestheoffensetomurder.Abuseof
deliberationandfabrication.Thetestofadmissibilityofevidence superior strength is considered whenever there is a notorious
as a part of theres gestaeis, therefore, whether the act, inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
declaration,or exclamation,issointerwoven orconnectedwith assessingasuperiorityofstrengthnotoriouslyadvantageousfor
theprincipalfactoreventthatitcharacterizesastoberegarded theaggressorwhichthelatterselectedortookadvantageofinthe
as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly commissionofthecrime.42
negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture ItisclearfromtherecordsofthecasethatJanuariowasthen
testimony.41 fiftyfour(54)yearsold.Appellant,ontheotherhand,wasthen
_______________ forty(40)yearsold.Appellantcommittedthecrimewithhisco
39Peoplev.Rarugal,G.R.No.188603,January16,2013,688 accused, his nephew. Clearly, assailants are younger than the
victim.ThesetwoaccusedwereseenbyUmaliasthepersonswho
SCRA646,654;Peoplev.Maglian,G.R.No.189834,March30,
mauledJanuario.Moreover,assailantswerearmedwithabladed
2011,646SCRA770,778.
weapon,whileJanuariowasunarmed.Thissamebladedweapon
40Belbis,Jr.v.People,G.R.No.181052,November14,2012, wasusedinrepeatedlystabbingJanuario,whonolongershowed
685SCRA518,530531. anyactofdefense.Dr.Rasa,themedicaldoctorwhoattendedto
41Peoplev.Salafranca,G.R.No.173476,February22,2012, Januariowhenhewasbroughttothehospital,alsotestifiedasto
666SCRA501,514. thenatureandextentoftheinjurysustainedbyJanuario.He
33 _______________
 42Peoplev.Calpito,462Phil.172,179;416SCRA491,495 2.Stab wound over the right anterior deltoid muscle,
(2003). penetrating3intotherightaxillaspace;injuringtheaxilla
34clearly stated that Januario sustained three fatal injuries bloodvessels.
which caused his death. The pertinent portion of Dr. Rasas 3. Stabwoundovertherightaxilla,penetratingtotheright
testimonyreads: chestcavity.
ATTY.MASANGYA: _______________
QHow many injuries were sustained by the victim, Mr. 43TSN,May24,2007,pp.56.
Witness? 35
AThree. CAUSESOFDEATH
QInwhatpartsofthebodywasthevictiminjured? ImmediateCause:HypovolemicShock
AThevictimsustainedthreeinjuries:oneontheleftside Antecedent Cause:Multiple stab wounds to the anterior
of the parasternal border the heart (sic) and it chest, right axilla, and right axilla penetrating the chest
penetrated,andthenthesecondonewasontheright cavity.
sideofthechestneartheshoulderandthethirdone xxxx44
wasunderthearmpitalsotothechest.

ATTY.MASANGYA:
Fromthetestimonyoftheeyewitnessandcorroboratedbythe
QWhich of those injuries caused the death of the
medicalcertificateofDr.Rasa,itcanbeinferredthatindeedthe
victim?
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended
AAll of them are fatal, because the one over the heart
the commission of the crime.To be sure, with two assailants
penetrated the heart and the aorta. The one in the
younger than the victim, armed with a bladed weapon and
anterior chest near the right shoulder hit the blood
inflictingmultiplemortalwoundsonthevictim,thereisdefinitely
vesselsofthearmpitandthewoundunderthearmpit
abuse of superior strength deliberately taken advantage of by
apparentlyhitthelungs.
appellantandhiscoaccusedinordertoconsummatetheoffense.
xxxx43
Now on the penalty.Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code

provides:
ThissamephysicianissuedtheMedicalCertificateexplaining
ART.248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithinthe
thelocationofthestabwoundsaswellasthecauseofdeathof
Januario,towit: provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
LocationofStabWounds: murder and shall be punished byreclusion perpetuato death if
1. Stab wound penetrating 2ndintercostal space left para committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
sternal border, 6 deeppenetrating the heart chambers and 1.With treachery,taking advantage of superior
aorta. strength,with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense or of means or persons toinsure or afford ofMURDERandissentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusion
impunity. perpetua.
xxxx45 We, likewise,ORDERappellantTO PAYthe heirs of the

There being neither mitigating nor aggravating victim Januario CastilloyMasangcay the following: (1)
P35,300.00 actual damages; (2) P50,000.00 civil indemnity; (3)
circumstances,appellantshallbemetedthepenaltyofreclusion
P50,000.00 moral damages; (4) P30,000.00 exemplary damages;
perpetua. plus(5)sixpercent(6%)interestonalldamagesawardedfrom
Finally,theawardofdamages.Inmurder,thegrantofcivil thedateofthefinalityofthisdecisionuntilfullpayment.
indemnitywhichhasbeenfixedbyjurisprudenceat _______________
_______________
46Peoplev.Gutierrez,G.R.No.188602,February4,2010,611
44Records,p.144.
SCRA633,646647.
45Emphasissupplied.
47Peoplev.Camat,G.R.No.188612,July30,2012,677SCRA
36P50,000.00requiresnoproofotherthanthefactofdeathasa
result of the crime and proof of the accuseds responsibility 640, 672;People v. Concillado, G.R. No. 181204, November 28,
therefor.Moraldamages,ontheotherhand,whichinthiscaseis 2011, 661 SCRA363, 384;Peoplev. Rebucan, G.R.No. 182551,
alsoP50,000.00areawardedinviewoftheviolentdeathofthe July27,2011,654SCRA726,760.
victim.46Moreover, exemplary damages in the amount of 37SOORDERED.
P30,000.00shouldlikewisebegiven,consideringthattheoffense Velasco,Jr.(Chairperson),Abad,MendozaandLeonen,JJ.,
wasattendedbyanaggravatingcircumstancewhetherordinary, concur.
orqualifyingasinthiscase.AsdulyprovenbyMariaCastillo, Judgmentmodified,EduardoQuisayasguiltyofmurder.
actualdamagesrepresentingthehospitalandfuneralexpenses,
asevidencedbyreceiptsintheamountofP35,300.00,beawarded.
Finally,inadditionandinconformitywithcurrentpolicy,wealso
G.R. No. 214453.June 17, 2015.*
imposeonallthemonetaryawardsfordamagesaninterestatthe
legalrateofsixpercent(6%)fromdateoffinalityofthisdecision
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
untilfullpayment.47
BERNABE P. PALANAS alias ABE, accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weMODIFYtheCourt
Criminal Law; Murder; Murder is defined and
of Appeals Decision dated February 23, 2011 in C.A.G.R. CR
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
H.C. No. 03593, affirming the Regional Trial Court Decision
(RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659 .
dated June 20, 2008 in Criminal Case No. 13838, convicting
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of
appellantEduardoQuisayasofRobberywithHomicide.Wefind
the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659, as
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
follows: Art. 248. Murder.Any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, granting the
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by victim no chance to
reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of _______________
the following attendant circumstances: 1. With * FIRST DIVISION.
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with 319
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015
the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford
People vs. Palanas
impunity.
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery;
There is treachery when the offender commits any of resist or escape. The attack must be sudden and
unexpected rendering the victim unable and
the crimes against a person, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend unprepared to put up a defense. With the foregoing in
mind, the Court agrees with the findings of the RTC and
directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the the CA that Palanas killed SPO2 Borre, and that the
qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the
offended party might make.Treachery is a well-
established concept in criminal law. There is treachery same. The records show that SPO2 Borre was outside
carrying his grandson when two (2) assailants shot him.
when the offender commits any of the crimes against a
person, employing means, methods or forms in the During the attack, SPO2 Borre had no opportunity to
raise any meaningful defense against his assailants;
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising and consequently, he suffered multiple gunshot wounds
on his head and trunk, causing his death.
from the defense which the offended party might
make. There are two (2) conditions therefore that must Remedial Law; Evidence; Dying Declaration;
be met for treachery to be appreciated: ( a) the Hearsay Evidence Rule; Conditions for a dying
employment of means of execution that gives the declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to evidence rule.For a dying declaration to constitute an
retaliate; and (b) the means of execution was exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4)
conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must
deliberately or consciously adopted.
Same; Same; Same; The essence of treachery is concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of
the declarants death; (b) that at the time the
that the attack comes without warning in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, granting the victim declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his
impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a
no chance to resist or escape .The essence of
treachery is that the attack comes without warning in a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal
case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the credence since no person aware of his impending death
declarant is the victim. On the other hand, a statement
would make a careless and false accusation. Verily,
to be deemed to form part of the res gestae, and thus,
because the declaration was made in extremity, when
constitute another exception to the rule on hearsay the party is at the point of death and when every
evidence, requires the concurrence of the following motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced
requisites: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a
by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth,
startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made the law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
as creating an obligation equal to that which is
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in imposed by an oath administered in court.
question and its immediately attending circumstances. Same; Same; Res Gestae; The test of admissibility
Same; Same; Same; Same; Because the of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore,
declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at
whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so
the point of death and when every motive of falsehoodintimately interwoven or connected with the principal
is silenced and the mind is induced by the most fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as
powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it
deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to
creating an obligation equal to that which is imposedmanufacture testimony.In the same vein, SPO2
by an oath administered in court .In the case at bar,
Borres statements may likewise be deemed to form
SPO2 Borres statements constitute a part of the res gestae. Res gestae refers to the
dying
declaration, given that they pertained to the cause and
circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of
circumstances of his death and taking into
the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and
consideration the number and severity of his wounds, it
are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the
may be reasonably presumed that he uttered the same main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
under a fixed belief that his own death was already fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a
imminent. This declaration is considered evidence of part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act,
the highest order and is entitled to utmost declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven
320 or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates
0
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
People vs. Palanas
testimony. In this case, SPO2 Borres statements refer
to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot by
Palanas and his companion. While on his way to the had access to a motorcycle that allowed him to travel
hospital, SPO2 Borre had no time to contrive the faster on the date and time of the incident. Under the
identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance circumstances, there is the possibility that Palanas
was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the could have been present at the locus criminis at the
startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is time of the shooting. Accordingly, his defense of alibi
relevant because it identified Palanas as one of the must fall.
authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of SPO2 Same; Penalties; Section 3 of Republic Act (RA)
Borre, perpetrated by Palanas, is adequately proven by No. 9346 provides that [p]ersons convicted of offenses
the prosecution. punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences
Criminal Law; Alibi; It is axiomatic that alibi is an will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this
inherently weak defense, and may only be considered if Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103,
the following circumstances are shown: (a) he was otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law
somewhere else when the crime occurred; and (b) it (ISL), as amended.Anent the proper penalty to be
would be physically impossible for him to be at the imposed upon Palanas, Section 3 of RA No. 9346
locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime .On the provides that [p]ersons convicted of offenses punished
other hand, the Court does not find credence in with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
Palanas defense of alibi. It is axiomatic that alibi is an reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act,
inherently weak defense, and may only be considered if shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103,
the following circumstances are shown: ( a) he was otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
somewhere else when the crime occurred; and ( b) it as amended. Pursuant thereto, Palanas should be
would be physi- sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
321 without eligibility for parole.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
People vs. Palanas
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorneys Office for accused-appellant.
cally impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at PERLAS-BERNABE,J.:
the time of the alleged crime. In this case, the RTC
correctly observed that aside from the admission that Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by
travel from Paraaque City to Pasig City only takes accused-appellant Bernabe P. Palanas alias Abe
about one (1) hour, the incident occurred on a Sunday (Palanas) assailing the Decision 2 dated January 16,
when traffic is not usually heavy. Moreover, Palanas 2014 of the Court of Appeals
_______________ evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,
1 See Notice of Appeal dated January 30, 2014; unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and shot one
Rollo, pp. 19-21. SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio on his head and different
2 Id., at pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu parts of his body which directly caused his death, and
A. Ybaez, with Associate Justices Japar B. thereafter, took the firearm of the said victim, boarded
Dimaampao and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang, concurring. a motorcycle driven by the accused who thereafter,
322 drove the motorcycle away from the scene of the crime.
Contrary to Law.5
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
2
The prosecution presents the following version of the
People vs. Palanas
facts:
At around 6:40 in the morning of March 26, 2006, SPO2
(CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04925, which affirmed the Borre took his five (5)-month-old grandson outside his
Decision3 dated October 20, 2010, of the Regional Trial residence at Block 14, Kenneth Street corner Eusebio
Court of Pasig City, Branch 157 (RTC) in Criminal Case Avenue, Pasig City. PO3 Leopoldo Zapanta (PO3
No. 133352-H finding Palanas guilty beyond reasonable Zapanta), who slept at SPO2 Borres residence, was
doubt of the crime of Murder under the Revised Penal watching television when four
Code (RPC). _______________
3 CA Rollo, pp. 27-41. Penned by Pairing Judge
The Facts Nicanor A. Manalo, Jr.
4 Id., at pp. 11-12.
An Information4 was filed before the RTC charging 5 Id.
Palanas of the murder of SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio 323
(SPO2 Borre), viz.:
On or about March 26, 2006, in Pasig City, and within VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused People vs. Palanas
[Palanas], acting in conspiracy with one male person
who is at-large, whose true identity and whereabout[s] (4) successive gunshots rang out. PO3 Zapanta looked
are still unknown acted as coprincipal in the killing of through the open door of SPO2 Borres house and saw
one SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio, committed as follows: two (2) men armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a
said male person, armed with a gun, with intent to kill meter away from SPO2 Borre. He saw Palanas deliver
and with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and the fourth shot to SPO2 Borre, but he could not identify
the other shooter. Thereafter, the two (2) assailants fled 6 Rollo, p. 3.
on a motorcycle.6 7 Id., at pp. 3-4.
PO3 Zapanta, together with SPO2 Borres stepson 8 CA Rollo, pp. 31-32.
Ramil Ranola (Ramil), brought SPO2 Borre to the Pasig 9 Id., at pp. 27-41.
City General Hospital. On the way to the hospital, SPO2 324
Borre told Ramil and PO3 Zapanta that it was Abe,
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aspog, or Abe Palanas referring to his neighbor,
4
Palanas who shot him. This statement was repeated
People vs. Palanas
to his wife, Resurreccion Borre (Resurreccion), who
followed him at the hospital. At around 11 oclock in the
indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; ( c)
morning of even date, SPO2 Borre died due to gunshot
wounds on his head and trunk.7 P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) P2,464,865.0710
as actual damages.11
For his part, Palanas interposed the defense of denial
and alibi. He claimed that on March 25, 2006 he was in The RTC found that the prosecution had established
beyond reasonable doubt that Palanas and his
Paraaque City attending to the needs of his sick
father. The next day, he went to a baptism in Tondo, companion were the ones who killed SPO2 Borre
through the positive identification of the eyewitnesses
Manila and stayed there from morning until 9 oclock in
the evening, after which he returned to his father in to the incident. Moreover, SPO2 Borres statements that
Palanas shot him constituted an ante mortem
Paraaque City. He maintained that he was not aware
of the death of SPO2 Borre until he was informed by a statement and formed part of the res gestae, and, thus,
admissible as evidence against Palanas. It further
neighbor that Resurreccion was accusing him of killing
her husband. He also denied any knowledge why opined that treachery attended SPO2 Borres killing as
he had no inkling that the attack would take place, and
Resurreccion would blame him for SPO2 Borres death. 8
that he was in no position to mount any feasible
defense.12 The RTC, however, did not appreciate evident
The RTCs Ruling
premeditation because of the absence of the following
elements: (a) the time when the offender determined to
In a Decision9 dated October 20, 2010, the RTC
convicted Palanas of the crime of Murder and commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that
the accused clung to his determination; and ( c) a
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of SPO2 sufficient lapse of time between determination and
execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the
Borre the amounts of: (a) P50,000.00 as civil
_______________ consequences of his act.13
On the other hand, the RTC gave no credence to exemplary damages.
Palanas defense of alibi. It observed that it was not The CA found all the elements of the crime of Murder to
physically impossible for Palanas to be at the locus be present, giving probative weight to the dying
criminis as his own witness even stated that the declaration of SPO2 Borre that it was Palanas who shot
distance between Pasig City and Paraaque City could him. It also found the presence of treachery as SPO2
be traversed in less than one (1) hour.14 Borre was in no position to defend himself when he was
_______________ successively shot.17
10 Id., at p. 41. The RTC provided a breakdown of Aggrieved, Palanas filed the instant appeal.18
the amount awarded as actual damages:
The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not

Palanas conviction for the crime of Murder should be
upheld.
11 Id.
The Courts Ruling
12 Id., at pp. 36-39.
13 Id., at p. 36.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
14 Id., at pp. 38-39.
325 Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of
the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659, 19
VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 as follows:
People vs. Palanas _______________
15 See Notice of Appeal dated February 18, 2011;
Dissatisfied, Palanas appealed his conviction to the id., at p. 42.
CA.15 16 Rollo, pp. 2-18.
17 Id., at pp. 11-16.
The CAs Ruling 18 See Notice of Appeal dated January 30, 2014; id.,
at pp. 19-21.
In a Decision16 dated January 16, 2014, the CA affirmed 19 Entitled An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on
the RTCs ruling with modification increasing the Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the
amounts awarded to the heirs of SPO2 Borre to Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P30,000.00 as Laws, and for Other Purposes (approved on December
13, 1993). The essence of treachery is that the attack comes
326 without warning in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, granting the victim no chance to resist or
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
escape. The attack must be sudden and unexpected
6
rendering the victim unable and unprepared to put up a
People vs. Palanas
defense.22
With the foregoing in mind, the Court agrees with the
findings of the RTC and the CA that Palanas killed SPO2
Art.248.Murder.Any person who, not falling within Borre, and that the qualifying circumstance of
the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be treachery attended
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion _______________
perpetua to death if committed with any of the 20 Item 16, Article 14 of the RPC.
following attendant circumstances: 21 See People v. Umawid, G.R. No. 208719, June 9,
1.With treachery, taking advantage of superior 2014, 725 SCRA 597, citing People v. Lacaden, 620 Phil.
strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing 807, 824; 605 SCRA 784, 800 (2009).
means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons 22 See People v. Warriner, G.R. No. 208678, June 16,
to insure or afford impunity. 2014, 726 SCRA 469.
xxxx 327

Treachery is a well-established concept in criminal law. VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015
There is treachery when the offender commits any of People vs. Palanas
the crimes against a person, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend the same. The records show that SPO2 Borre was
directly and specially to insure its execution, without outside carrying his grandson when two (2) assailants
risk to himself arising from the defense which the shot him. During the attack, SPO2 Borre had no
offended party might make.20 There are two (2) opportunity to raise any meaningful defense against his
conditions therefore that must be met for treachery to assailants; and consequently, he suffered multiple
be appreciated: (a) the employment of means of gunshot wounds on his head and trunk, causing his
execution that gives the person attacked no death.23
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and ( b) the The CA is also correct in admitting SPO2 Borres
means of execution was deliberately or consciously statements on his way to the hospital as evidence, both
adopted.21 as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae.
For a dying declaration24 to constitute an exception to by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place
the hearsay evidence rule,25 four (4) conditions must or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with
concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and respect to
surrounding circumstances of the declarants death; ( b) 328
that at the time the declaration was made, the
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
declarant is conscious of his impending death; ( c) the
8
declarant was competent as a witness; and ( d) the
People vs. Palanas
declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide,
Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim. 26
On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form rule on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of
the following requisites: (a) the principal act, the res
part of the res gestae,27 and thus, constitute another
exception to the gestae, is a startling occurrence; ( b) the statements
were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
_______________
23 Rollo, pp. 3-5. devise; and (c) the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending
24 Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides: circumstances.28
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borres statements constitute
Section37.Dying declaration.The declaration of
a dying person, made under the consciousness of an a dying declaration, given that they pertained to the
cause and circumstances of his death and taking into
impending death, may be received in any case wherein
his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the consideration the number and severity of his wounds, it
may be reasonably presumed that he uttered the same
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
25 Evidence is hearsay when its probative force under a fixed belief that his own death was already
imminent.29 This declaration is considered evidence of
depends in whole or in part on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence
since no person aware of his impending death would
whom it is sought to produce. (See Espineli v. People,
G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 365) See also make a careless and false accusation. 30 Verily, because
the declaration was made in extremity, when the party
Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
26 People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February is at the point of death and when every motive of
falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the
22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501, 512.
27 Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the
law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as
provides:
Section42.Part of res gestae.Statements made creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed
by an oath administered in court.31 characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
In the same vein, SPO2 Borres statements may transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates
likewise be deemed to form part of the res gestae. Res any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
32
gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and testimony. In this case, SPO2 Borres statements
declarations that grow out of the refer to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot by
_______________ Palanas and his companion. While on his way to the
the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as hospital, SPO2 Borre had no time to contrive the
part of the res gestae. So, also, statements identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is
part of the res gestae. relevant because it identified Palanas as one of the
28 People v. Villarico, Sr., 662 Phil. 399, 418; 647 authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of SPO2
SCRA 43, 58-59 (2011). Borre, perpetrated by Palanas, is adequately proven by
29 People v. Cerilla, 564 Phil. 230, 240; 539 SCRA the prosecution.33
251, 262 (2007). On the other hand, the Court does not find credence in
30 Id., citing People v. Cortezano, 425 Phil. 696, 715; Palanass defense of alibi. It is axiomatic that alibi is an
375 SCRA 95, 112 (2002). inherently weak defense,34 and may only be considered
31 Id., at p. 241, citing United States v. Gil, 13 Phil. if the following circumstances are shown: (a) he was
530, 549 (1909); People v. Saliling, 161 Phil. 559, 572- somewhere else when the crime occurred; and ( b) it
573; 69 SCRA 427, 438 (1976). would be physically impossible for him to be at the
329 locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.35 In this
case, the RTC correctly observed that aside from the
VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015
admission that travel from Paraaque City to Pasig City
People vs. Palanas
only takes about one (1) hour, the incident
_______________
main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are 32 See People v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7,
so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main 2014, 721 SCRA 16, citing People v. Salafranca, G.R. No.
fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501, 514.
fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a 33 Id.
part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, 34 People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9,
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 394, citing People v. Abulon, 557
or connected with the principal fact or event that it Phil. 428, 447; 530 SCRA 675, 696 (2007).
 35 People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, the date of finality of judgment until the same are fully
2011, 658 SCRA 842, 847. paid.40
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision
330 dated January 16, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04925 finding accused-appellant
33 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bernabe P. Palanas alias Abe, GUILTY beyond
0
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and
People vs. Palanas
punished under Article 248 of the
_______________
occurred on a Sunday when traffic is not usually heavy. 36 CA Rollo, pp. 38-39.
Moreover, Palanas had access to a motorcycle that 37 Entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
allowed him to travel faster on the date and time of the Death Penalty in the Philippines (approved on June 24,
incident.36 Under the circumstances, there is the 2006).
possibility that Palanas could have been present at the 38 See People v. Arguta, G.R. No. 213216, April 22,
locus criminis at the time of the shooting. Accordingly, 2015, 756 SCRA 376. See also People v. Gani, G.R. No.
his defense of alibi must fall. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 540.
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed upon Palanas, 39 People v. Serenas, 636 Phil. 495, 512-513; 622
Section 3 of RA 934637 provides that [p]ersons SCRA 485, 502 (2010).
convicted of offenses punished with reclusion 40 See People v. Balute, G.R. No. 212932, January
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to 21, 2015, 748 SCRA 172.
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be 331
eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known
as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015
Pursuant thereto, Palanas should be sentenced to People vs. Palanas
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without
eligibility for parole.38 Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
Finally, to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, the MODIFICATION, in that he is sentenced to suffer the
Court increases the amounts of damages awarded to penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
the heirs of SPO2 Borre, as follows: ( a) P75,000.00 as parole, and ordered to pay the heirs of SPO2 Ramon
civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and Borre y Orio the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
39
(c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from as exemplary damages, and P2,464,865.07 as actual
damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six Criminal Law;Kidnapping;Evidence;In kidnapping, what
percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment isimportantistodetermineandprovethefactofseizure,andthe
until full payment. subsequent disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an
SO ORDERED.
accused from prosecution therefor.TheCourt notes that up to
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
thisday,neitherthevictimnorhisbodyhasbeenfound.This,
Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
however,doesnotprecludetheCourtfromrulingonthemeritsof
Appeal denied, judgment affirmed with
thecase.Inkidnapping,whatisimportantistodetermineand
modification. provethefactofseizure,andthesubsequentdisappearanceofthe
Notes.The statement of the victim an hour before victim willnot exonerate an accusedfromprosecution therefor.
his death and right after the hacking incident bore all Otherwise,kidnapperscaneasilyavoidpunishmentbythesimple
the earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of the expedientofdisposingoftheirvictimsbodies.
res gestae either of which was an exception to the
Same;Same;Same;Forthechargeofkidnappingtoprosper,
hearsay rule. (People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA 501
the deprivation of the victims liberty, which is the essential
[2013])
The rule is that, in order to make a dying elementof the offense, must beduly proved.For the charge of
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and kidnapping to prosper, the deprivation of the victims liberty,
imminent death must be entered by the declarant. whichistheessential
(People vs. Quisayas, 721 SCRA 16 [2014])
_______________
o0o
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights *
SECONDDIVISION.
reserved. 198
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
98
Peoplevs.Bernal
elementoftheoffense,mustbedulyproved.Inthecaseat
bar,Bernalindisputablyactedinconspiracywiththetwoother
VOL.274,JUNE19,1997 197
unknown individuals as shown by their concerted acts
Peoplevs.Bernal evidentiary of a unity of thought and community of purpose.
G.R.No.113685.June19,1997.* Proofofconspiracyisperhapsmostfrequentlymadebyevidence
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff of a chain of circumstances only. The circumstances present in
appellee,vs.THEODORE BERNAL, JOHN DOE and PETER thiscasesufficientlyindicatetheparticipationofBernalinthe
DOE,accusedappellants. disappearanceofOpenda,Jr.
 Same;Same;Same;Motive;Motive is generally irrelevant, entitledtorespectonappeal,absentanystrongandcogentreason
unlessitisutilizedinestablishingtheidentityoftheperpetrator. to the contrary, since it is in a better position to decide the
Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in questionofcredibilityofwitnesses.
establishingtheidentityoftheperpetrator.Coupledwithenough 199
circumstantialevidenceorfactsfromwhichitmaybereasonably VOL.274,JUNE19,1997 199
inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive may be Peoplevs.Bernal
sufficient to support a conviction. Openda, Jr.s revelation to
Enriquez regarding his illicit relationship with Bernals wife is APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofDavao
admissibleinevidence,pursuanttoSection38,Rule130ofthe City,Br.10.
RevisedRulesonEvidence.
Same;Same;Same;Declaration Against Interest;Requisites ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
before a statement may be admissible.A statement may be TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
admissiblewhenitcomplieswiththefollowingrequisites,towit: JohnnyP.LanderoforaccusedTheodoreBernal.
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that it
relatestoafactagainsttheinterestofthedeclarant;(3)thatat ROMERO,J.:
thetimehemadesaiddeclarationthedeclarantwasawarethat
thesamewascontrarytohisaforesaidinterest;and(4)thatthe Accusedappellant Theodore Bernal, together with two other
declaranthadnomotivetofalsifyandbelievedsuchdeclaration persons whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown,
tobetrue. werechargedwiththecrimeofkidnappinginCriminalCaseNo.
Same;Same;Same;Appeals;Findingsoffactofatrialcourt 2665898oftheRegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCity,Branch10,
under an information1dated July 13, 1992, which reads as
carrygreatweightandareentitledtorespectonappeal,absent
follows:
anystrongandcogentreasontothecontrary,sinceitisinabetter
That on or about August 5, 1991, in the City of Davao,
position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses.The Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
courta quocommitted no error in finding the testimonies of theabovementionedaccused,armedwithhandguns,conspiring,
Enriquez,RacasaandSagarinosufficienttoconvictBernal.The confederatingandcooperatingtogetherandhelpingoneanother,
courtsaidthatSagarinosforthrightanswerstothequestionsof andbymeansofforce,violence,intimidationandthreat,wilfully,
the prosecutor and defense counsel clearly establish the unlawfully, and feloniously grabbed and kidnapped one
participationofBernalintheabductionorkidnappingofOpenda, BienvenidoOpenda,Jr.,whilethelatterwasdrinkingliquorwith
Jr. Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the hisfriendsatBoltonIsla,thisCityandwasbrought,handcuffed
mouthofacrediblewitness,butmustbecredibleinitself.This andcarriedawayusingaPUthenfledtogetherwithBienvenido
Courtonceagainfindsoccasiontoreiteratetheestablishedrule Openda,Jr.,therebydeprivingthesaidBienvenidoOpenda,Jr.of
thatthefindingsoffactofatrialcourtcarrygreatweightandare hislibertyagainsthiswill.
 CONTRARYTOLAW. anillicitaffairwithBernalswifeNatyandthiswasthemotive
A plea of not guilty having been entered by Bernal during his behind the formers kidnapping. Until now, Openda, Jr. is still
arraignment, trial ensued. The prosecution presented four missing.
witnesses.2Ontheotherhand,TheodoreBernaltestifiedforhis Ontheotherhand,thedefenseassertsthatOpenda,Jr.wasa
defense. drugpusherarrestedbythepoliceonAugust5,1991,andhence,
wasneverkidnapped.4
_______________ On December 10, 1993, the courta quorendered
judgment5findingBernalguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthe
1
Rollo,p.5. crime of kidnapping for the abduction and disappearance of
2
Namely, Salito Enriquez, a tailor and resident of Kasilac, BienvenidoOpenda, Jr. underArticle267oftheRevised Penal
Bucana, Davao City; Roberto Racasa, a mason and resident of
Code and hereby sentences him toreclusion perpetuaand to
Kasilac, Bucana, Davao City; Adonis Sagarino, a student and
indemnify his mother Teresita Openda in the amount of
resident of Boston Isla; and Teresita Openda, the mother of
P50,000.00forhermentalanguishandmoralsuffering.6
BienvenidoOpenda,Jr.
200 _______________
200 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Bernal 3
TSN,May10,1993,p.9.
Thematerialfactsandeventsasfoundbythecourtaquoare:
4
Rollo,p.9.
It appears that on August 5, 1991, around 11:30 in the
5
PennedbyJudgeAugustoV.Breva.
morning,whileRobertoRacasaandOpenda,Jr.wereengagedin
6
Rollo,p.24.
adrinkingspree,theyinvitedBernal,whowaspassingby,tojoin 201
them. VOL.274,JUNE19,1997 201
After a few minutes, Bernal decided to leave both men, Peoplevs.Bernal
apparently because hewasgoing to fetchhischild. Thereafter, Bernalassailsthelowercourtforgivingweightandcredenceto
twomenarrived,approachedOpenda,Jr.,andaskedthelatterif theprosecutionwitnessesallegedlyillusorytestimoniesandfor
hewasPayat.3Whenhesaidyes,oneofthemsuddenlypulled convictinghimwhenhisguiltwasnotprovedbeyondreasonable
outahandgunwhiletheotherhandcuffedhimandtoldhimnot doubt.
to run because they were policemen and because he had an Wefindnocompellingreasontooverturnthedecisionofthe
atrasoorascoretosettlewiththem.Theythenhastilytookhim lowercourt.
away.RacasaimmediatelywenttothehouseofOpenda,Jr.and TheCourtnotesthatuptothisday,neitherthevictimnorhis
informedthelattersmotheroftheabduction. bodyhasbeenfound.This,however,doesnotprecludetheCourt
Thetheoryoftheprosecution,asculledfromthetestimonyof from ruling on the merits of the case. In kidnapping, what is
acertainSalitoEnriquez,tendstoestablishthatOpenda,Jr.had importantistodetermineandprovethefactofseizure,andthe
subsequent disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an 202
accused from prosecution therefor. Otherwise, kidnappers can 202 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
easilyavoidpunishmentbythesimpleexpedientofdisposingof Peoplevs.Bernal
theirvictimsbodies. unityofthoughtandcommunityofpurpose.7Proofofconspiracy
Article267oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthus: is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of
ART.267.Kidnappingandseriousillegaldetention. circumstances only.8The circumstances present in this case
Anyprivateindividualwhoshallkidnapordetainanother,or sufficiently indicate the participation of Bernal in the
inanyothermannerdeprivehimofhisliberty,shallsufferthe disappearanceofOpenda,Jr.
penaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath: Theprosecutionhasprofferedsufficientevidencetoshowthat,
indeed, Bernal, together with his two companions, abducted
1. 1.If thekidnapping or detentionshall havelastedmore Openda, Jr. on August 5, 1991. A certain Adonis Sagarino, a
thanfivedays. childhoodfriendandneighborofthevictim,testifiedthathesaw
Bernal at the billiard hall at about 11:00 a.m. with his two
2. 2.If it shall have been committed simulating public companions and overheard him dispatching one of them to
authority. TarsingsStoretocheckifacertainpersonwasstillthere.This
personlaterturnedouttobeOpenda,Jr.Headdedthatafterthe
3. 3.Ifanyseriousphysicalinjuriesshallhavebeeninflicted latters presence was confirmed, thethree menleft the billiard
uponthepersonkidnappedordetained,orifthreatsto hall.Minuteslater,Openda,Jr.,already handcuffed,passedby
killhimshallhavebeenmade. thebilliardhallwithBernalscompanions.
Equally important is the testimony of Roberto Racasa, a
4. 4.Ifthepersonkidnappedordetainedshallbeaminor, residentofBucana,DavaoCitywhoknewbothBernalandthe
femaleorapublicofficer. victim,theformerbeinghisneighborandcompadre.Henarrated
thatheandthevictimweredrinkingatTarsingsStoreonthat
Thepenaltyshallbedeathwherethekidnappingordetention fatefuldaywhenBernalpassedbyandhadadrinkwiththem.
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the After a few minutes, Bernal decided to leave, after which, two
victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances mencametothestoreandaskedforPayat.WhenOpenda,Jr.
abovementionedwerepresentinthecommissionoftheoffense. confirmed that he was indeed Payat, he was handcuffed and
Forthechargeofkidnappingtoprosper,thedeprivationofthe takenawaybytheunidentifiedmen.Likewise,acertainSalito
victims liberty, which is the essential element of the offense, Enriquez, a tailor and a friend of Openda, Jr., testified that
mustbedulyproved.Inthecaseatbar,Bernalindisputablyacted sometimeinJanuary1991,Openda,Jr.confidedtohimthathe
inconspiracywiththetwootherunknownindividualsasshown and Bernals wife Naty were having an affair. One time, Naty
bytheirconcertedactsevidentiaryofa evengaveOpenda,Jr.moneywhichtheyusedtopayforamotel
room.HeadvisedNatynottodoitagainbecauseshe(was)a against interest has been expanded to include all kinds of
marriedwoman.9 interest,thatis,pecuniary,proprietary,moralorevenpenal.11
A statement may be admissible when it complies with the
_______________ following requisites, to wit: (1) that the declarant is dead or
unabletotestify;(2)thatitrelatestoafactagainsttheinterestof
7
Peoplev.Puno,219SCRA85(1993). thedeclarant;(3)thatatthetimehemadesaiddeclarationthe
8
Peoplev.Minanday,242SCRA620(1995). declarantwasawarethatthesamewascontrarytohisaforesaid
9
TSN,May10,1993,p.5. interest;and(4)thatthedeclaranthadnomotivetofalsifyand
203 believedsuchdeclarationtobetrue.12
VOL.274,JUNE19,1997 203 Openda,Jr.,havingbeenmissingsincehisabduction,cannot
Peoplevs.Bernal becalledupontotestify.HisconfessiontoEnriquez,definitelya
Undoubtedly,hiswifesinfidelitywasamplereasonforBernalto declarationagainsthisowninterestsincehisaffair
contemplaterevenge.
Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in _______________
establishingtheidentityoftheperpetrator.Coupledwithenough
circumstantialevidenceorfactsfromwhichitmaybereasonably
10
Peoplev.Evangelista,256SCRA611(1996).
inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive may be
11
FranciscoonEvidence,1993edition,p.275.
sufficient to support a conviction.10Openda, Jr.s revelation to
12
Regalado,RemedialLawCompendium,7thRevisedEd.,p.
Enriquez regarding his illicit relationship with Bernals wife is 609.
admissibleinevidence,pursuanttoSection38,Rule130ofthe 204
RevisedRulesonEvidence,viz.: 204 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sec.38.Declarationagainstinterest.Thedeclarationmadebya Peoplevs.Bernal
persondeceased,orunabletotestify,againsttheinterestofthe withNatyBernalwasacrime,isadmissibleinevidence 13because
declarant,ifthefactassertedinthedeclarationwasatthetimeit nosanepersonwillbepresumedtotellafalsehoodtohisown
was made so far contrary to declarants own interest, that a detriment.14
reasonable man in his position would not have made the In his brief, Bernal highlights supposed inconsistencies in
declarationunlesshebelievedittobetrue,maybereceivedin Sagarinos testimony. Heallegesthat thelatter couldnot have
evidenceagainsthimselforhissuccessorsininterestandagainst seentheactualhandcuffingbecauseTarsingsStorecouldnotbe
seenfromthebilliardhall.Sagarinostestimonyshowsthatafter
thirdpersons.
Bernalandtwoothersleftthebilliardhall,thelattercameback
With the deletion of the phrase pecuniary or moral interest
withOpenda,Jr.,alreadyhandcuffed.
fromthepresentprovision,itissafetoassumethatdeclaration
Q Thethreeofthemtogether?
A Yes,sir. IfonehadadirectviewofTarsingsStorefromthebilliardhall,
Q Andwhataboutyou,wheredidyoustay? Bernal would not have requested his companion to check if
A Ijuststayedinthebilliardhall. Openda, Jr. were still there drinking with Racasa. Another
discrepancypointedoutbyBernalarosefromthetestimoniesof
Q Whileyoustay(sic)inthebilliardhall,afterawhile,whatdidyousee
RacasaandSagarino.Racasa,oncrossexamination,stated:
next?
Q AfterTheodoreBernalleftyouhaveseenhimalsoreturned(sic)withhis
A Thetwocameback.
child,isthatcorrect?
Q Whowerethesetwowhomyousaidwho(sic)cameback?
A Yes,sir,becauseIwasstillinthestore.17
A ThecompanionsofBernal.
Ontheotherhand,Sagarinoaverredthat:
Q Andwhatdidthesetwomendo?
Q WhenTheodoreBernallefttheplace,howlong(sic)wereyouabletosee
A TheyapprehendedJunjunOpenda.15
himagain?
From this proceeding, Bernal wrongly inferred that Sagarino
A Quiteatime,sir,becausewhentheyleft,histwocompanionscameback
actually saw Openda, Jr. arrested. The lower court correctly
rejectedthisargumentbyholdingthat: andproceededtoTarcingStoreandarrestedJunJunOpenda.Whenthese
ButSagarinohasnotsaidthathesawtheactualhandcuffingof twomenbroughtoutJunjunOpenda,fifteenminuteslater,Bernalcame.
Openda,Jr.attheTarsingorTarcingstore.Onthecontrary,he Q DoyouknowwherethisBernalfrom?(sic)
says that he had not known who the person was that Bernal A Hewascomingfromoutside.
referredtowhenherequestedoneofthistwocompanionstogo Q Hehaswithhimhisson?
seeifthatpersonwasstillthereatthestore,andthathecameto A Hewaswithnobody,sir.
knowthathewasOpenda,Jr.onlyafterhesawOpenda,Jr.pass Q Areyousureofthat?
bythebilliardhallalreadyhandcuffed,withthetwounidentified
A Yes,sir.
companions of Bernal with him, on their way out to the main
Q Hewasalone?
road.16
A Yes,sir.18
_______________ The testimonies of Racasa and Sagarino are not absolutely
inconsistentwitheachotherastobeirreconcilable.Considering
13
Rollo,p.11. the proximity of the store from the billiard hall, there is a
14
Peoplev.ToledoandHolgado,51Phil.825. possibilitythatwhenRacasasawBernalwithhissonatthestore,
15
TSN,July28,1993,pp.78. the latter could have already brought home his son before
16
TSN,October13,1993,pp.35. proceeding alone to the billiard hall where he was seen by
205 Sagarino.19
VOL.274,JUNE19,1997 205
_______________
Peoplevs.Bernal
 17
TSN,May10,1993,p.13. latters allegations were true, then Sagarino should have been
18
TSN,July28,1993,pp.2122. arrestedbythepoliceatthetimehegavehistestimonyincourt.
19
Rollo,p.90. Nosucharrestwas,however,made.
206 Thecourtaquocommittednoerrorinfindingthetestimonies
206 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED of Enriquez, Racasa and Sagarino sufficient to convict Bernal.
Peoplevs.Bernal ThecourtsaidthatSagarinosforthrightanswersto
BernalwouldliketheCourttodismissSagarinostestimonyby
imputingrevengeashismotivefortestifying.Heallegesthaton _______________
July 29, 1991, or six days before the alleged kidnapping, five
policemen arrived at Kasilak, Bucana on board a patrol car TSN,October13,1993,p.4.
20

asking for Openda, Jr., Sagarino, Joseph Mendoza, Dansoy 207

MadeloandDagoyBalagan.Herepliedthattheywereresidents VOL.274,JUNE19,1997 207
oftheplaceandstayingatthebilliardhallandmahjonghouse. Peoplevs.Bernal
Thepolicemendepartedandwenttotheplaceshementioned. the questions of the prosecutor and defense counsel clearly
Q Minuteslaterdoyouknowwhathappened? establish the participation of Bernal in the abduction or
A Theycameback. kidnappingofOpenda,Jr.Evidence,tobebelieved,mustnotonly
Q Whatdidyoudoaftertheycameback? proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be
credible in itself.21This Court once again finds occasion to
A Iaskedthesepoliceofficersiftheyfoundthese(sic)personstheywere
reiteratetheestablishedrulethatthefindingsoffactofatrial
looking(for)?
courtcarry great weight and are entitled to respect onappeal,
Q Whatwastheiranswer? absentanystrongandcogentreasontothecontrary,sinceitisin
A Theyansweredinthenegative. a better position to decide the question of credibility of
Q Sincetheanswerisinthenegative,whatdidyoudo? witnesses.22
A Iaskedthepoliceofficerswhytheywerelookingforthesepersons.(?) Wenotethatafteralapseofaconsiderablelengthoftime,the
Q Whatwastheanswerofthepolicemen? victimhasyettoresurface.Consideringthecircumstances,itis
A Thepoliceofficersaidthatthosepeoplewerewantedbythembecause safetoassumethatOpenda,Jr.isalreadydead.
Finally,theSolicitorGeneral,pursuanttotheIndeterminate
accordingly(sic)theyweremarijuanapushers.20
Bernals position is that no abduction or kidnapping ever took Sentence Law, recommended to this Court the penalty of
placebutthatanarrestwasmadebypursuingpolicemen.This seventeen (17) years ofreclusion temporal, as minimum,
contentionisquiteimprobable,ifnothighlypreposterous. toreclusionperpetua,asmaximum.Themaximumpenaltymust
The trial court correctly appreciated the testimony of be determined in accordance with rules and provisions of the
Sagarino,itbeingfreefromanyillmotiveagainstBernal.Ifthe Revised Penal Code. With respect to the minimum penalty,
however,itisleftentirelywithinthediscretionofthecourttofix Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
itanywherewithintherangeofthepenaltynextlowerwithout reserved.
reference to the periods into which it may be
subdivided.23Consistent with this ruling, this Court
imposesreclusion temporal, in its maximum period, as the
minimumpenalty,toreclusionperpetua,asmaximum.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theinstantappealis
DISMISSEDandtheappealeddecisiondatedNovember18,1993,
isAFFIRMEDintoto.
CostsagainstaccusedappellantTheodoreBernal.

_______________

21
Peoplev.Ulpindo,256SCRA201(1996).
22
People v. Catoltol, Sr.,G.R. No. 122359, November 28,
1996;People v. Balisnomo,G.R. No. 118990, November 28,
1996;Peoplev.Vallena,244SCRA685(1995).
23
Peoplev.Ducosin,59Phil.109.
208
208 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Sahagun
SOORDERED.
Regalado(Chairman),Puno,MendozaandTorres, Jr.,
JJ.,concur.
Appealdismissed,judgmentaffirmedintoto.
Note.For kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable
proofthattheactualintentofthemalefactorwastodeprivethe
offended party of her liberty. (People vs. Godoy,250 SCRA 582 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
676[1995]) Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
G.R.No.121027.July31,1997.*
o0o
CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R. DEZOLLER, VOL.276,JULY31,1997 583
petitioners,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORA Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
DOMINGO,respondents. assuming that the issue is allowed to be resolved in this
Filiation;Parent and Child;Presumptions;There is no case,theburdenofproofrestsnotonhereinpetitionerswhohave
presumptionofthelawmorefirmlyestablishedandfoundedon the benefit of the presumption in their favor, but on private
sounder morality and more convincing reason than the respondent who is disputing the same. This fact alone should
have been sufficient cause for the trial court to exercise
presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate.It
appropriatecautionbeforeacting,asitdid,onthedemurrerto
seemsthatboththecourtaquoandrespondentappellatecourt
evidence. It would have delimited the issues for resolution, as
have regrettably overlooked the universally recognized
wellasthetimeandeffortnecessitatedthereby.
presumptiononlegitimacy.Thereisnopresumptionofthelaw
Same;Same;Same;Evidence;In order to destroy the
more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and
moreconvincingreasonthanthepresumptionthatchildrenborn presumption of legitimacy, the party against whom it operates
inwedlockarelegitimate.Andwellsettledistherulethatthe mustadducesubstantialandcredibleevidencetothecontrary.
issueoflegitimacycannotbeattackedcollaterally. Ordinarily,whenafactispresumed,itimpliesthatthepartyin
Same;Same;Same;Actions;Actions for Reconveyance;The whose favor the presumption exists does not have to introduce
evidencetoestablishthatfact,andinanylitigationwherethat
issueoflegitimacycannotbeproperlycontrovertedinanactionfor
factisputinissue,thepartydenyingitmustbeartheburdenof
reconveyance.Theissue,therefore,astowhetherpetitionersare
proof to overthrow the presumption. The presumption of
the legitimate children of Hermogenes Dezoller cannot be
legitimacyissostrongthatitisclearthatitseffectistoshiftthe
properlycontrovertedinthepresentactionforreconveyance.This
burdenofpersuasiontothepartyclaimingillegitimacy.Andin
is aside, of course, from the further consideration that private
order to destroy the presumption, the party against whom it
respondentisnottheproperpartytoimpugnthelegitimacyof
operates must adduce substantial and credible evidence to the
herein petitioners. The presumption consequently continues to
contrary.
operateinfavorofpetitionersunlessanduntilitisrebutted.
Same;Same;Same;Same;A presumption is prima facie
Same;Same;Same;Burden of Proof;The burden of proof
proofofthefactpresumed,andunlessthefactthusestablished
rests on the party who disputes the legitimacy of a particular
primafaciebythelegalpresumptionofitstruthisdisproved,it
party.Even
must stand as proved.Where there is an entire lack of
______________ competent evidence to the contrary, and unless or until it is
rebutted,ithasbeenheldthatapresumptionmaystandinlieuof
SECONDDIVISION.
* evidence and support a finding or decision. Perforce, a
583 presumption must be followed if it is uncontroverted. This is
basedonthetheorythatapresumptionisprimafacieproofofthe declarantberelatedtothepersonwhosepedigreeisthesubjectof
factpresumed,andunlessthefactthusestablishedprimafacieby inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other
thelegalpresumptionofitstruthisdisproved,itmuststandas thanthedeclaration;and(4)thatthedeclarationwasmadeante
proved. litemmotam,thatis,notonlybeforethecommencementofthe
Same;Same;Same;Same;Pleadings and Practice;When a suit involving the subject matter of the declaration, but before
partyoptsnottopresentcountervailingevidencetoovercomethe anycontroversyhasarisenthereon.
presumption,bymerelyfilingademurrertoevidenceinstead,he Same;Evidence;Hearsay Rule;Declarations About
or she in effect impliedly admits the truth of such fact. Pedigree;Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a
Indubitably, when private respondent opted not to present relative common to both claimant and declarantnot from the
countervailingevidencetoovercomethepresumption,bymerely declaranthimselforthedeclarantsestatetherelationshipofthe
filing a demurrer to evidence instead, she in effect impliedly declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the
admitted the truth of such fact. Indeed, she overlooked or declarationitself,butthisrequirementdoesnotapplywhereitis
disregardedtheevidentialrule
soughttoreachtheestateofthedeclaranthimselfandnotmerely
584
to establish a right through his declarations to the property of
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
someothermemberofthefamily.Thegeneralrule,therefore,is
84
thatwherethepartyclaimingseeksrecoveryagainstarelative
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
common to both claimant and declarant, but not from the
that presumptions like judicial notice and admissions, declaranthimselforthedeclarantsestate,therelationshipofthe
relieve the proponent from presenting evidence on the facts he declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the
allegedandsuchfactsaretherebyconsideredasdulyproved. declarationitself.Theremustbesomeindependentproofofthis
Same;Same;Same;Same;Hearsay Rule;Declarations fact.Asanexception,therequirementthattherebeotherproof
About Pedigree;Conditions for the admission of declarations thanthedeclarationsofthedeclarantastotherelationship,does
about pedigree.The primary proof to be considered in notapplywhereitissoughttoreachtheestateofthedeclarant
ascertainingtherelationshipbetweenthepartiesconcernedisthe himself and not merely to establish a right through his
testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora declarationstothepropertyofsomeothermemberofthefamily.
Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime in 1946, Same;Same;Same;Same;Whereapartyclaimsarighttoa
categoricallydeclaredthattheformerisTeodorasniece.Sucha partoftheestateofthedeclarant,thedeclarationofthelatterthat
statement is considered a declaration about pedigree which is the
admissible,asanexceptiontothehearsayrule,underSection39,
585
Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,subjecttothefollowingconditions:
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 585
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the
 Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals offeredtoestablish.Thepreliminaryproofwouldrenderthemain
former is her niece is admissible and constitutes sufficient evidenceunnecessary.
Same;Same;Same;PleadingsandPractice;Itiselementary
proofofsuchrelationship,notwithstandingthefactthattherewas
that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged
nootherpreliminaryevidencethereof,thereasonbeingthatsuch
inadmissible document is offered in evidence, otherwise, the
declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of
objectionshallbetreatedaswaived.Applyingthegeneralrulein
receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of justice.We are
thepresentcasewouldnonethelessproducethesameresult.For
sufficientlyconvinced,andsohold,thatthepresentcaseisone
whilethedocumentaryevidencesubmittedbypetitionersdonot
instancewherethegeneralrequirementonevidencealiundemay
strictly conform to the rules on their admissibility, we are
berelaxed.Petitionersareclaimingarighttopartoftheestateof
howeveroftheconsideredopinionthatthesamemaybeadmitted
the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration made by
byreasonofprivaterespondentsfailuretointerposeanytimely
TeodoraDezollerGuerrerothatpetitionerCorazonisherniece,is
objectiontheretoatthetimetheywerebeingofferedinevidence.
admissible and constitutes sufficientproof of such relationship,
Itiselementarythatanobjectionshallbemadeatthetimewhen
notwithstanding the fact that there was no other preliminary
anallegedinadmissible
evidence thereof, the reason being that such declaration is
586
renderedcompetentbyvirtueofthenecessityofreceivingsuch
5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
evidencetoavoidafailureofjustice.Moreimportantly,thereisin
thepresentcaseanabsolutefailurebyallandsundrytorefute 86
thatdeclarationmadebythedecedent. Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
Same;Same;Same;Same;Where the subject of the document is offered in evidence, otherwise, the objection
shallbetreatedaswaived,sincetherighttoobjectismerelya
declarationisthedeclarantsownrelationshiptoanotherperson,
privilegewhichthepartymaywaive.
itseemsabsurdtorequire,asafoundationfortheadmissionof
Same;Same;Same;Same;Even if certain documents are
the declaration, proof of the very fact which the declaration is
inadmissibleforbeinghearsay,butonaccountofapartysfailure
offered to establish.From the foregoing disquisitions, it may
to object thereto, the same may be admitted and considered as
thus be safely concluded, on the sole basis of the decedents
declaration and without need for further proof thereof, that sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted.The situation is
petitioners are the niece and nephew of Teodora Dezoller aggravated by the fact thatcounsel for private respondent
Guerrero. As held in one case, where the subject of the unreservedly crossexamined petitioners, as the lone witness, on
declarationisthedeclarantsownrelationshiptoanotherperson, thedocumentaryevidencethatwereoffered.Atnotimewasthe
itseemsabsurdtorequire,asafoundationfortheadmissionof issueofthesupposedinadmissibilitythereof,orthepossiblebasis
the declaration, proof of the very fact which the declaration is for objection thereto, ever raised. Instead, private respondents
counselelicitedanswersfromthewitnessonthecircumstances
and regularity of her obtention of said documents: The Actions;PleadingsandPractice;DemurrertoEvidence;Ifa
observationslatermadebyprivaterespondentinhercommentto demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal the order of
petitionersofferofexhibits,althoughthegroundsthereforwere
dismissalisreversed,themovantshallbedeemedtohavewaived
already apparent at the time these documents were being
the right to present evidence.All told, on the basis of the
adduced in evidence during the testimony of Corazon Dezoller
Tisonbutwhichobjectionswerenottimelyraisedtherein,mayno foregoing considerations, the demurrer to plaintiffs evidence
longer serve to rectify the legal consequences which resulted should have been, as it is hereby, denied. Nonetheless, private
respondent may no longer be allowed to present evidence by
therefrom.Hence,evenassumingexgratiaargumentithatthese
reasonofthemandateunderSection1ofrevisedRule3ofthe
documentsareinadmissibleforbeinghearsay,butonaccountof
RulesofCourtwhichprovidesthatifthemotionisgrantedbut
herein private respondents failure to object thereto, the same
onappealtheorderofdismissalisreversedheshallbedeemedto
maybeadmittedandconsideredassufficienttoprovethefacts
havewaivedtherighttopresentevidence.
thereinasserted.
Succession;Whereadecedentissurvivedbythespouseand PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
nephewsandnieces,theformershallbeentitledtoonehalfofthe Appeals.
inheritanceandthenephewsandniecestotheotherhalf.Upon
thedeathofTeodora DezollerGuerrero, onehalf ofthe subject ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
property was automatically reserved to the surviving spouse, BenjaminP.Quitorianoforpetitioners.
Martin Guerrero, as his share in the conjugal partnership. RamosoLawOfficeforprivaterespondent.
Applyingtheaforequotedstatutoryprovisions,theremaininghalf
shall be equally divided between the widower and herein REGALADO,J.:
petitionerswhoareentitledtojointlyinheritintheirownright.
Hence, Martin Guerrero could only validly alienate his total The present appeal by certiorari seeks the reversal of the
undivided threefourths (3/4) share in the entire property to judgmentrenderedbyrespondentCourtofAppealsonJune30,
herein private respondent. Resultantly, petitioners and private 19951whichaffirmedtheOrderofDecember3,1992issuedbythe
respondent are deemed coowners of the property covered by RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch98,grantingherein
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.374012intheproportionofan private respondents Demurrer to Plaintiffs Evidence filed in
undividedonefourth(1/4)andthreefourths(3/4)sharethereof, CivilCaseNo.Q881054pendingtherein.
respectively. The present appellate review involves an action for
587 reconveyance filed by herein petitioners against herein private
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 587 respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals Branch98,docketedastheaforesaidCivilCaseNo.Q881054,
overaparceloflandwithahouseandapartmentthereonlocated
at San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City and which was 2,1988,claimingthattheyareentitledtoinheritonehalfofthe
originally owned by the spouses Martin Guerrero and Teodora propertyinquestionbyrightofrepresentation.
DezollerGuerrero.ItappearsthatpetitionersCorazonTisonand At the pretrial conference, the following issues were
ReneDezollerarethenieceandnephew, presentedbybothpartiesforresolution:

______________ 1. (1)whether or not the plaintiffs (herein petitioners) are

thenephewandnieceofthelateTeodoraDezoller;
1
PennedbyAssociateJusticeGloriaC.Paras,withAssociate
JusticesQuirinoAbadSantos,Jr.andDelilahVidallonMagtolis, 2. (2)whetherornottheplaintiffsareentitledtoinheritby
concurring;AnnexK,Petition,Rollo,74. right of representation from the estate of the late
588 TeodoraDezoller;
588 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals 3. (3)whetherornotdefendant(hereinprivaterespondent)
respectively, of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who is mustreconveythereservedparticipationoftheplaintiffs
the sister of petitioners father, Hermogenes Dezoller. Teodora totheestateofthelateTeodoraDezollerunderSection
DezollerGuerrerodiedonMarch5,1983withoutanyascendant 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court which was duly
or descendant, and was survived only by her husband, Martin annotatedonthetitleofthedefendant;
Guerrero, and herein petitioners. Petitioners father,
Hermogenes,diedonOctober3,1973,hencetheyseektoinherit 4. (4)whetherornottheplaintiffsareentitledtodamages,
fromTeodoraDezollerGuerrerobyrightofrepresentation.The moralandexemplary,plusattorneysfeesforthewillful
recordsrevealthatuponthedeathofTeodoraDezollerGuerrero, and
hersurvivingspouse,Martin,executedonSeptember15,1986an
Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement2adjudicatinguntohimself, ______________
allegedly as sole heir, the land in dispute which is covered by
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.66886,asaconsequenceofwhich 2
AnnexB,id.;ibid.,41.
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.358074wasissuedinthenameof 589
MartinGuerrero.OnJanuary2,1988,MartinGuerrerosoldthe
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 589
lottohereinprivaterespondentTeodoraDomingoandthereafter,
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.374012wasissuedinthelatters Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
name. malicious refusal of defendant to reconvey the participation of
Martin Guerrero died on October 25, 1988. Subsequently, plaintiffsintheestateofTeodoraDezoller,despitedemandsand
hereinpetitionersfiledanactionforreconveyanceonNovember knowingfullywellthatplaintiffsarethenieceandnephewofsaid
deceased;and
 (5)whetherornotthesubjectpropertynowinlitigationcanbe 3
OriginalRecord,207208.
consideredasconjugalpropertyofthespousesMartinGuerrero 4
Ibid.,224229.
andTeodoraDezollerGuerrero.3 5
Ibid.,233234.
During the hearing, petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison was 590
presented as the lone witness, with the following documentary
590 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
evidenceofferedtoprovepetitionersfiliationtotheirfatherand
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
their aunt, to wit: a family picture; baptismal certificates of
RegistrarofHimamaylan, NegrosOccidental is merely proofof
Teodora and Hermogenes Dezoller; certificates of destroyed
theallegeddestructionoftherecordsreferredtotherein,andthe
records of birth of Teodora Dezoller and Hermogenes Dezoller;
joint affidavit executed by Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar
deathcertificatesofHermogenesDezollerandTeodoraDezoller
certifying to the date, place of birth and parentage of herein
Guerrero; certification of destroyed records of live birth of
petitioners is inadmissible for being hearsay since the affiants
CorazonandReneDezoller;jointaffidavitsofPabloVerzosaand
wereneverpresentedforcrossexamination.6
MelitonSitjarattestingtotheparents,dateandplaceofbirthof
OnDecember3,1992,thetrialcourtissuedanordergranting
CorazonandReneDezoller;jointaffidavitofJulianaCariagaand
the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint for
Manuela Cariaga attesting to the fact of marriage between
reconveyance.7
Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller; and the marriage
In upholding the dismissal, respondent Court of Appeals
certificate of Martin and Teodora Guerrero. 4Petitioners
declared that the documentary evidence presented by herein
thereafterrestedtheircaseandsubmittedawrittenofferofthese
petitioners,suchasthebaptismalcertificates,familypicture,and
exhibits to which a Comment5was filed by herein private
jointaffidavitsareallinadmissibleandinsufficienttoproveand
respondent.
establishfiliation.Hence,thisappeal.
Subsequently, private respondent filed a Demurrer to
Wefindforpetitioners.
PlaintiffsEvidenceonthegroundthatpetitionersfailedtoprove
The bone of contention in private respondents demurrer to
theirlegitimatefiliationwiththedeceasedTeodoraGuerreroin
evidenceiswhetherornothereinpetitionersfailedtomeetthe
accordance with Article 172 of the Family Code. It is further
quantumofproofrequiredbyArticle172oftheFamilyCodeto
averredthatthetestimonyofpetitionerCorazonDezollerTison
establish legitimacy and filiation. There are two points for
regarding her relationship with her alleged father and aunt is
selfserving, uncorroborated and incompetent, and that it falls consideration before us:firstis the issue on petitioners
shortofthequantumofproofrequiredunderArticle172ofthe legitimacy, andsecondis the question regarding their filiation
FamilyCodetoestablishfiliation.Also,thecertificationissuedby withTeodoraDezollerGuerrero.
theOfficeoftheLocalCivil I.Itisnotdebatablethatthedocumentaryevidenceadduced
bypetitioners,takenseparatelyandindependentlyofeachother,
______________ arenotpersesufficientproofoflegitimacynorevenofpedigree.It
is important to note, however, that the rulings of both lower
courts in the case are basically premised on the erroneous propercomplaintbeforethecompetentcourt;anycontestmadein
assumptionthat,inthefirstplace,theissueoflegitimacymaybe anyotherwayisvoid.ThisprincipleappliesunderourFamily
validly controverted in an action for reconveyance, and, in the Code.Articles170and171ofthecodeconfirmthisview,because
second place, that herein petitioners have theonus probandito theyrefertotheactiontoimpugnthelegitimacy.Thisaction
provetheirlegitimacyand,corollarily,theirfiliation.Wedisagree canbebroughtonlybythehusbandorhisheirsandwithinthe
onbothcounts.Itseemsthatboththecourtaquoandrespondent periodsfixedinthepresentarticles.
appellatecourthaveregrettablyoverlookedtheuniversallyrecog UpontheexpirationoftheperiodsprovidedinArticle170,the
action to impugn the legitimacy of a child can no longer be
______________ brought. The status conferred by the presumption, therefore,
becomes fixed, and can no longer be questioned. The obvious
6
Ibid.,259267. intentionofthelaw is toprevent the status of achildborn in
wedlockfrombeinginastateofuncertaintyforalongtime.It
7
Ibid.,275.
also aims to force early action to settle any doubt as to the
591
paternity of such child, so that the evidence material to the
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 591
matter, which must necessarily be facts occurring during the
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals periodoftheconceptionofthechild,maystillbeeasilyavailable.
nizedpresumptiononlegitimacy.Thereisnopresumptionofthe xxx
lawmorefirmlyestablishedandfoundedonsoundermoralityand
moreconvincingreasonthanthepresumptionthatchildrenborn ______________
inwedlockarelegitimate.8Andwellsettledistherulethatthe
issueoflegitimacycannotbeattackedcollaterally. 8
Jones,CommentariesonEvidence,Vol.1,2nded.,118119.
Therationalefortheseruleshasbeenexplainedinthiswise: 592
ThepresumptionoflegitimacyintheFamilyCodexxxactually 592 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
fixesacivilstatusforthechildborninwedlock,andthatcivil Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
statuscannotbeattackedcollaterally.Thelegitimacyofthechild Onlythehusbandcancontestthelegitimacyofachildborntohis
canbeimpugnedonlyinadirectactionbroughtforthatpurpose, wife. He is the one directly confronted with the scandal and
bytheproperparties,andwithintheperiodlimitedbylaw. ridiculewhichtheinfidelityofhiswifeproduces;andheshould
The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of decidewhethertoconcealthatinfidelityorexposeit,inviewof
defenseorasacollateralissueinanotheractionforadifferent themoralandeconomicinterestinvolved.Itisonlyinexceptional
purpose. The necessity of an independent action directly cases that his heirs are allowed to contest such legitimacy.
impugning the legitimacy is more clearly expressed in the Outside of these cases, noneeven his heirscan impugn
Mexican Code (Article 335) which provides: The contest of the legitimacy;thatwouldamounttoaninsulttohismemory. 9
legitimacyofachildbythehusbandorhisheirsmustbemadeby
Theissue,therefore,astowhetherpetitionersarethelegitimate thepartyagainstwhomitoperatesmustadducesubstantialand
childrenofHermogenesDezollercannotbeproperlycontroverted credibleevidencetothecontrary.12
inthepresentactionforreconveyance.Thisisaside,ofcourse, Where there is an entire lack of competent evidence to the
fromthefurtherconsiderationthatprivaterespondentisnotthe contrary,13andunlessoruntilitisrebutted,ithasbeenheldthat
properpartytoimpugnthelegitimacyofhereinpetitioners.The a presumption may stand in lieu of evidence and support a
presumption consequently continues to operate in favor of findingordecision.14Perforce,apresumptionmustbefollowedif
petitionersunlessanduntilitisrebutted. it is uncontroverted. This is based on the theory that a
Evenassumingthattheissueisallowedtoberesolvedinthis presumptionisprimafacieproofofthefactpresumed,andunless
case,theburdenofproofrestsnotonhereinpetitionerswhohave thefactthusestablishedprimafaciebythelegalpresumptionof
the benefit of the presumption in their favor, but on private itstruthisdisproved,itmuststandasproved. 15
respondent who is disputing the same. This fact alone should Indubitably, when private respondent opted not to present
have been sufficient cause for the trial court to exercise countervailingevidencetoovercomethepresumption,bymerely
appropriatecautionbeforeacting,asitdid,onthedemurrerto filing a demurrer to evidence instead, she in effect impliedly
evidence. It would have delimited the issues for resolution, as admitted the truth of such fact. Indeed, she overlooked or
wellasthetimeandeffortnecessitatedthereby. disregarded the evidential rule that presumptions like judicial
Ordinarily,whenafactispresumed,itimpliesthattheparty notice and admissions, relieve the proponent from presenting
inwhosefavorthepresumptionexistsdoesnothavetointroduce evidence on the facts he alleged and such facts are thereby
evidencetoestablishthatfact,andinanylitigationwherethat consideredasdulyproved.
factisputinissue,thepartydenyingitmustbeartheburdenof II. The weight and sufficiency of the evidence regarding
proof to overthrow the presumption.10The presumption of petitioners relationship withTeodora DezollerGuerrero, whose
legitimacyissostrongthatitisclearthatitseffectistoshiftthe estateisthesubjectofthepresentcontroversy,requiresamore
burdenofpersuasiontothepartyclaimingillegitimacy. 11Andin intensiveandextensiveexamination.
ordertodestroythepresumption, Petitionersevidence,asearlierexplained,consistsmainlyof
the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison, the baptismal, death
______________ andmarriagecertificates,thevariouscertificationsfromthecivil
registrar,afamilypicture,andseveraljointaffidavitsexecutedby
Tolentino, A., Civil Code of thePhilippines, Commentaries
9
third persons all of which she identified and explained in the
andJurisprudence,Vol.1,1990ed.,535537.
courseandaspartofhertestimony.
10
Op.cit.,535. The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the
11
JonesonEvidence,Vol.1,5thed.,178. relationship between the parties concerned is the testimony of
593 CorazonDezollerTisontotheeffectthatTeodoraDezoller
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 593
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals ______________
 12
95ALR883. Onesituationtobenotedisthatwhereoneseekstosetupa
13
31ACJS,Evidence,Sec.114,195. claimthrough,butnotfrom,thedeclarantandtoestablishthe
14
Ibid.,Sec.119,216. admissibility of a declaration regarding claimants pedigree, he
15
Brawsellvs.Tindall,294SW2d685. may not do so by declarants own statements as to declarants
594 relationship to the particular family. The reason is that
594 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED declarantsdeclarationofhisownrelationshipisofaselfserving
nature. Accordingly there must be precedent proof from other
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
sources that declarant is what he claimed to be, namely, a
Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime in 1946, categorically
member of the particular family; otherwise the requirement to
declaredthattheformerisTeodorasniece.16Suchastatementis
admissibilitythatdeclarantsrelationshiptothecommonfamily
consideredadeclarationaboutpedigreewhichisadmissible,as
mustappear is notmet.But whentheparty claimingseeksto
anexceptiontothehearsayrule,underSection39,Rule130of
establishrelationshipinordertoclaim
theRulesofCourt,subjecttothefollowingconditions:(1)thatthe
declarantisdeadorunabletotestify;(2)thatthedeclarantbe
______________
relatedtothepersonwhosepedigreeisthesubjectofinquiry;(3)
that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the
TSN,February14,1992,58.
16

declaration; and (4) that the declaration was madeante litem 595
motam, that is, not only before the commencement of the suit VOL.276,JULY31,1997 595
involving the subject matter of the declaration, but before any Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
controversyhasarisenthereon. directlyfromthedeclarantorthedeclarantsestate,thesituation
Thereisnodisputewithrespecttothefirst,secondandfourth
andthepolicyofthelawapplicablearequitedifferent.Insuch
elements.Whatremainsforanalysisisthethirdelement,thatis,
whether or not the other documents offered in evidence casethedeclarationofthedecedent,whoseestateisincontroversy,
sufficientlycorroboratethedeclarationmadebyTeodoraDezoller thathewasrelatedtotheonewhoclaimshisestate,isadmissible
Guerrero in her lifetime regarding the pedigree of petitioner withoutotherproofofthefactofrelationship.Whilethenatureof
Corazon Dezoller Tison or, if at all, it is necessary to present thedeclarationisthendisserving,thatisnottherealgroundfor
evidenceotherthansuchdeclaration. its admission. Such declarations do not derive their evidential
Americanjurisprudencehasitthatadistinctionmustbemade valuefromthatconsideration,althoughitisauseful,ifnotan
astowhentherelationshipofthedeclarantmaybeprovedbythe artificial,aidindeterminingtheclasstowhichthedeclarations
verydeclarationitself,orbyotherdeclarationsofsaiddeclarant, belong.Thedistinctionwehavenotedissufficientlyapparent;in
andwhenitmustbesupportedbyevidencealiunde.Theruleis theonecasethedeclarationsareselfserving,intheotherthey
statedthus: arecompetentfromreasonsofnecessity.17(Italicsours.)
The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming absolutefailurebyallandsundrytorefutethatdeclarationmade
seeksrecoveryagainstarelativecommontobothclaimantand bythedecedent.
declarant,butnotfromthedeclaranthimselforthedeclarants From the foregoing disquisitions, it may thus be safely
estate,therelationshipofthedeclaranttothecommonrelative concluded, on the sole basis of the decedents declaration and
maynotbeprovedbythedeclarationitself.Theremustbesome without need for further proof thereof, that petitioners are the
independentproofofthisfact.18Asanexception,therequirement nieceandnephewofTeodoraDezollerGuerrero.Asheldinone
thattherebeotherproofthanthedeclarationsofthedeclarantas case,21wherethesubjectofthedeclarationisthedeclarantsown
totherelationship,doesnotapplywhereitissoughttoreachthe relationshiptoanotherperson,itseemsabsurdtorequire,asa
estateofthedeclaranthimselfandnotmerelytoestablisharight foundationfortheadmissionofthedeclaration,proofofthevery
throughhisdeclarationstothepropertyofsomeothermemberof factwhichthedeclarationisofferedtoestablish.Thepreliminary
thefamily.19 proofwouldrenderthemainevidenceunnecessary.
We aresufficientlyconvinced, andsohold, thatthepresent Applying the general rule in the present case would
case is one instance where the general requirement on nonethelessproducethesameresult.Forwhilethedocumentary
evidencealiundemayberelaxed.Petitionersareclaimingaright evidencesubmittedbypetitionersdonotstrictlyconformtothe
to part of the estate of the declarant herself. Conformably, the rules on their admissibility, we are however of the considered
declaration made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner opinion that the same may be admitted by reason of private
Corazonisherniece,isadmissibleandconstitutessufficientproof respondentsfailuretointerposeanytimelyobjectiontheretoat
ofsuchrelationship,notwithstandingthefactthattherewasno thetimetheywerebeingofferedinevidence. 22Itiselementary
other preliminary evidence thereof, the reason being that such that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged
declarationisrenderedcompetentby inadmissibledocumentisofferedinevi

______________ ______________

17
Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, Vol. 3, 2nd ed., 2094
20
InreClarksEstate,110P.828.
2095.
21
HartmansEstate,107P.105,citedinMoran,Commentson
18
Op.cit.,2096. theRulesofCourt,Vol.5,1980ed.,322.
22
Onofferofevidence,theRulesofCourtpertinentlyprovide:
19
Op.cit.,2098.
596 Sec. 35.When to make offer.x x x Documentary and object
evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a partys
596 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
allowedbytheCourttobedonebywriting.
virtueofthenecessityofreceivingsuchevidencetoavoidafailure
Sec.36.Objection.Objectiontoevidenceofferedorallymust
of justice.20More importantly, there is in the present case an
be made immediately after the offer is made. Objection to a
questionpropoundedinthecourseoftheoralexaminationofa circumstancesandregularityofherobtentionofsaiddocuments:
witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall Theobservationslatermadeby
becomereasonablyapparent.
597 ______________
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 597
23
Martin,RulesofCourt,Vol.5,3rded.,611.
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals 24
People vs. De la Cruz,G.R. No. 108180, February 8,
dence, otherwise, the objection shall be treated as
23
1994,229SCRA754.
waived,24sincetherighttoobjectismerelyaprivilegewhichthe 25
Moran,CommentsontheRulesofCourt,Vol.6,1980ed.,
partymaywaive.25
125.
As explained inAbrenica vs. Gonda, et al.,26it has been 26
34Phil.745(1916).
repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or 27
Conluvs.Araneta,etal.,15Phil.387(1910).
objectionagainsttheadmissionofanyevidencemustbemadeat 28
SeeTalosig vs. Vda. De Nieba, et al.,G.R. No. L29557,
thepropertime,otherwiseitwillbedeemedtohavebeenwaived.
February29,1972,43SCRA472.
The proper time is when from the question addressed to the
598
witness,orfromtheanswerthereto,orfromthepresentationof
598 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the proof, the inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be
inferred. Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
Thus,afailuretoexcepttotheevidencebecauseitdoesnot private respondent in her comment to petitioners offer of
conformwiththestatuteisawaiveroftheprovisionsofthelaw. exhibits,althoughthegroundsthereforwerealreadyapparentat
Thatobjectiontoaquestionputtoawitnessmustbemadeatthe thetimethesedocumentswerebeingadducedinevidenceduring
time the question is asked. An objection to the admission of the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison but which objections
evidence on the ground of incompetency, taken after the werenottimelyraisedtherein,maynolongerservetorectifythe
testimonyhasbeengiven,istoolate.27Thus,forinstance,failure legal consequences which resulted therefrom. Hence, even
toobjecttoparolevidencegivenonthestand,wherethepartyis assumingex gratia argumentithat these documents are
inapositiontoobject,isawaiverofanyobjectionsthereto. 28 inadmissibleforbeinghearsay,butonaccountofhereinprivate
Thesituationisaggravatedbythefactthatcounselforprivate respondentsfailuretoobjectthereto,thesamemaybeadmitted
andconsideredassufficienttoprovethefactsthereinasserted. 29
respondent unreservedly crossexamined petitioners, as the lone
Accordingly,theCertificateofMarriage(ExhibitS)whereinit
witness,onthedocumentaryevidencethatwereoffered.Atnotime
is indicated that the parents of Teodora Dezoller are Isabelo
was the issue of the supposed inadmissibility thereof, or the DezollerandCeciliaCalpo,aswellastheCertificatesofBaptism
possiblebasisforobjectionthereto,everraised.Instead,private of Teodora Dezoller30(Exhibit H) and Hermogenes Dezoller
respondents counsel elicited answers from the witness on the (Exhibit J) which both reflect the names of their parents as
Isabelo Dezoller and Cecilia Calpo, to show that Hermogenes
Dezoller is the brother of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero; and the Art. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and
DeathCertificateofHermogenesDezoller(ExhibitK)theentries ascendants, and illegitimate children and their descendants,
whereinweremadebypetitionerCorazonDezollerTisonashis whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall
daughter,togetherwiththeJointAffidavitsofPabloVerzosaand inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of
MelitonSitjar(ExhibitsNandP),toprovethathereinpetitioners brothersand sisters, nephewsand nieces, shouldtherebe any,
arethechildrenofHermogenesDezollerthesecanbedeemedto underArticle1001.
have sufficiently established the relationship between the Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children
declarantandhereinpetitioners.Thisisinconsonancewiththe survivewiththewidoworwidower,thelattershallbeentitledto
rulethataprimafacieshowingissufficientandthatonlyslight onehalfoftheinheritanceandthebrothersandsistersortheir
proofoftherelationshipisrequired. 31Finally,itmaynotbeamiss childrentotheotherhalf.
toconsiderasinthenatureofcircumstantialevidencethefact Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, onehalf of the
thatboththedeclarantandtheclaimants,whoarethesubjectof subject property was automatically reserved to the surviving
thedeclaration,bearthesurnameDezoller.32 spouse, Martin Guerrero, as his share in the conjugal
partnership. Applying the aforequoted statutory provisions, the
______________ remaininghalfshallbeequallydividedbetweenthewidowerand
hereinpetitionerswhoareentitledtojointlyinheritintheirown
29
Op.cit.,128. right.Hence,MartinGuerrerocouldonlyvalidlyalienatehistotal
30
Thisparochialrecordisanofficialdocument,havingbeen undivided threefourths (3/4) share in the entire property to
madepriortothepassageofG.O.No.68andActNo.190(U.S.vs. herein private respondent. Resultantly, petitioners and private
Evangelista,29Phil.215[1915],andcasesthereincited). respondent are deemed coowners of the property covered by
31
Fulkerson,etal.vs.Holmes,etal.,117U.S.389. TransferCertificateofTitleNo.374012intheproportionofan
32
Francisco,RulesofCourt,Vol.7,1973ed.,494. undividedonefourth(1/4)andthreefourths(3/4)sharethereof,
599 respectively.
VOL.276,JULY31,1997 599 All told, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, the
demurrertoplaintiffsevidenceshouldhavebeen,asitishereby,
Tisonvs.CourtofAppeals
denied.Nonetheless,privaterespondentmaynolongerbeallowed
III. The following provisions of the Civil Code provide for the
topresentevidencebyreasonofthemandateunderSection1of
mannerbywhichtheestateofthedecedentshallbedividedin
revisedRule3oftheRulesofCourtwhichprovidesthatifthe
thiscase,towit:
motionisgrantedbutonappealtheorderofdismissalisreversed
Art.975.Whenchildrenofoneormorebrothersorsistersofthe
he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present
deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
evidence.33WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of
representation,iftheysurvivewiththeirunclesoraunts.Butif
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET
theyalonesurvive,theyshallinheritinequalportions.
ASIDE, and herein petitioners and private respondent are
declaredcoownersofthesubjectpropertywithanundividedone *
FIRSTDIVISION.
fourth(1/4)andthreefourths(3/4)sharetherein,respectively. 496
SOORDERED. 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Romero,PunoandMendoza,JJ.,concur. 96
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 495 Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals be impairment of vested rights, which does not hold true
G.R.No.124853.February24,1998.* here,itappearingthatneithertheputativeparentnorthechild
FRANCISCOL.JISON,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSand has passed away and the former having actually resisted the
MONINAJISON,respondents. lattersclaimbelow.
Courts;Appeals;Whileitisageneralrulethatfactualissues Same;Same;IllegitimateChildren;Evidence;Forthesuccess
arenotwithintheprovinceoftheSupremeCourt,suchruledoes of an action to establish illegitimate filiation under the second
notapplywherethereareconflictingfindingsoffactsofthetrial paragraphofArt. 172oftheFamilyCode, ahighstandardof
courtandtheCourtofAppeals.Inissueiswhetherornotpublic proof is requiredspecifically, to prove open and continuous
respondentCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleerror,which, possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be
inthisinstance,necessitatesaninquiryintothefacts.Whileasa evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the
general rule, factual issues are not within the province of this supposedfathertoconsiderthechildashis,bycontinuousand
Court,nevertheless,inlightoftheconflictingfindingsoffactsof clearmanifestationsofparentalaffectionandcare,whichcannot
thetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals,thiscasefallsunderan
be attributed to pure charity.For the success of an action to
exceptiontothisrule.
establishillegitimatefiliationunderthesecondparagraph,which
ParentandChild;PaternityandFiliation;FamilyCode;The MONINA relies upon given that she has none of the evidence
FamilyCodehasretroactiveeffectunlesstherebeimpairmentof mentionedinthefirst paragraph, a highstandard of proof is
vested rights.Beforeaddressing themeritsof thecontroversy, required.Specifically,toproveopenandcontinuouspossessionof
wefirstdisposeofpreliminarymattersrelatingtotheapplicable thestatusofanillegitimatechild,theremustbeevidenceofthe
law and the guiding principles in paternity suits. As to the manifestationofthepermanentintentionofthesupposedfather
former, plainly, the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear
OrderNo.209)governsthepresentcontroversy.Ascorrectlycited manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be
by the Court of Appeals,Uyguangcoserved as a judicial attributedtopurecharity.Suchacts mustbeofsuchanature
confirmation of Article 256 of the Family Code regarding its thattheyrevealnotonlytheconvictionofpaternity,butalsothe
retroactiveeffectunlessthere apparentdesiretohaveandtreatthechildassuchinallrelations
in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously. By
_______________
continuousismeantuninterruptedandconsistent,butdoesnot The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to evidence
requireanyparticularlengthoftime. which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is
Same;Same;Evidence;RationalefortheHighStandardof offeredinoppositiontoit;atbottom,itmeansprobabilityoftruth.
Proof Requirement in Filiation Proceedings.The foregoing Same;Same;Same;Unlawful intercourse will not be
standardofproofrequiredtoestablishonesfiliationisfounded presumed merely from proof of an opportunity for such
on theprinciple thatanorderforrecognitionandsupportmay indulgence;Akintothecrimeofrapewhere,inmostinstances,the
createanunwholesomeatmosphereormaybeanirritantinthe onlywitnessestothefelonyaretheparticipantsinthesexualact
family or lives of the parties, so that it mustbe issued only if
themselves,indecidingpaternitysuits,theissueofwhethersexual
paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing
intercourseactuallyoccurredinevitablyredoundstothevictims
evidence.
Same;Same;Same;Words and Phrases;Quantum of or mothers word, as against the accuseds or putative fathers
Evidence;The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to protestations.FRANCISCOs arguments in support of his first
assigned error deserve scant consideration. While it has been
evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that
observedthatunlawfulintercoursewillnotbepresumedmerely
which is offered in opposition to itat bottom, it means fromproof ofanopportunityforsuch indulgence,this does not
probabilityoftruth.Theforegoingdiscussion,however,mustbe favor FRANCISCO. Akin to the crime of rape where, in most
situated within the general rules on evidence, in light of the instances,theonlywitnessestothefelonyaretheparticipantsin
burdenofproofincivilcases,i.e.,prepon thesexualactthemselves,indecidingpaternitysuits,theissueof
497 whethersexualintercourseactuallyoccurredinevitablyredounds
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 497 to the victims or mothers word, as against the accuseds or
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals putative fathers protestations. In the instant case, MONINAs
derance of evidence, and the shifting of the burden of mothercouldnolongertestifyastothefactofintercourse,asshe
evidenceinsuchcases.Simplyput,hewhoallegestheaffirmative had,unfortunately,passedawaylongbeforetheinstitutionofthe
oftheissuehastheburdenofproof,andupontheplaintiffina complaintforrecognition.ButthisdidnotmeanthatMONINA
civilcase,theburdenofproofneverparts.However,inthecourse couldnolongerproveherfiliation.Thefactofherbirthandher
parentage may be established by evidence other than the
oftrialinacivilcase,onceplaintiffmakesoutaprimafaciecase
testimony of her mother. The paramount question then is
inhisfavor,thedutyortheburdenofevidenceshiftstodefendant
whetherMONINAsevidenceiscoherent,logicalandnatural.
to controvert plaintiffsprima faciecase, otherwise, a verdict
Same;Same;Same;Birth Certificates;Baptismal
mustbereturnedinfavorofplaintiff.Moreover,incivilcases,the
partyhavingtheburdenofproofmustproduceapreponderance Certificates;Acertificateoflivebirthpurportedlyidentifyingthe
ofevidencethereon,withplaintiffhavingtorelyonthestrength putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of
ofhisownevidenceandnotupontheweaknessofthedefendants. paternity,whenthereisno
 498 despite the inadmissibility of the school recordsper seto prove
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED paternity,theymaybeadmittedaspartofMONINAstestimony
98 to corroborate her claim that FRANCISCO spent for her
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals education.
showing that the putative father had a hand in the Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Wherethebirthcertificate
preparationofsaidcertificates,andtheLocalCivilRegistraris andthebaptismalcertificateareperseinadmissibleinevidence
devoidofauthoritytorecordthepaternityofanillegitimatechild as proof of filiation, they cannot be admitted indirectly as
upontheinformationofathirdperson;Lackofparticipationby circumstantialevidencetoprovethesame.Welikewisedisagree
theputativefatherinthepreparationofthebaptismalcertificates withtherulingoftheCourtofAppealsthatthecertificatesissued
bytheLocalCivilRegistrarandthebaptismalcertificatesmaybe
andschoolrecordsrenderssuchdocumentsincompetenttoprove
taken as circumstantial evidence to prove MONINAs filiation.
paternity, the former being competent merely to prove the
Since they areper seinadmissible in evidence as proof of such
administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so filiation, they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial
specified.MONINAsrelianceonthecertificationissuedbythe evidencetoprovethesame.
Local Civil Registrar concerning her birth (Exhs. E and F) is Same;Same;Same;Evidence of Pedigree;Words and
clearly misplaced. It is settled that a certificate of live birth
Phrases;Family Possessions, Explained;Statutory
purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent
Construction;Ejusdem
evidenceastotheissueofpaternity,whenthereisnoshowing
499
that theputative father had a handin the preparation of said
certificates,andtheLocalCivilRegistrarisdevoidofauthorityto VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 499
recordthepaternityofanillegitimatechildupontheinformation Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
of a third person. Simply put, if the alleged father did not Generis;Theenumerationcontainedinthesecondportionof
interveneinthebirthcertificate,e.g.,supplyingtheinformation Rule 130,Section40,inlightof the ruleof ejusdemgeneris, is
himself,theinscriptionofhisnamebythemotherordoctoror limited to objects which are commonly known as family
registrar is null and void; the mere certificate by the registrar possessions,orthosearticleswhichrepresent,ineffect,afamilys
without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary
jointstatementofitsbeliefastothepedigreeofaperson.Wehold
acknowledgment on the latters part. In like manner,
thatthescopeoftheenumerationcontainedinthesecondportion
FRANCISCOs lack of participation in the preparation of the
baptismalcertificates(Exhs.CandD)andschoolrecords(Exhs.Z ofthisprovision,inlightoftheruleofejusdemgeneris,islimited
andAA)rendersthesedocumentsincompetenttoprovepaternity, toobjectswhicharecommonlyknownasfamilypossessions,or
theformerbeingcompetentmerelytoprovetheadministrationof thosearticleswhichrepresent,ineffect,afamilysjointstatement
the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified. However, of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been
described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the Miller&Cruzfive(5)monthspriortotheexecutionofthesworn
family,orthosewhich,ifpreservedinafamily,mayberegarded statementinquestion,hence
as giving a family tradition. Other examples of these objects 500
which are regarded as reflective of a familys reputation or 5 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, 00
monumentsorcoffinplates. Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Common Reputation, negatingFRANCISCOstheoryoftheneedtoquashrumors
Explained;Itisthegeneralrepute,thecommonreputationinthe circulating within Miller & Cruz regarding the identity of
family,andnotthecommonreputationincommunity,thatisa MONINAs father. Hence, coupled with the assessment of the
materialelementofevidencegoingtoestablishpedigree.Plainly credibility of the testimonial evidence of the parties discussed
then, Exhibits S to V, as private documents not constituting above, it is evident that the standard to contradict a notarial
familypossessionsasdiscussedabove,maynotbeadmittedon document,i.e., clear and convincing evidence and more than
thebasisofRule130,Section40.Neithermaytheseexhibitsbe merelypreponderant,hasbeenmetbyMONINA.
admittedonthebasisofRule130,Section41regardingcommon Same;Same;Same;Denials;Perjurers usually confine
reputation, it having been observed that: [T]he weight of themselves to theincidentsimmediatelyrelated to theprincipal
authorityappearstobeinfavorofthetheorythatitisthegeneral fact about which they testify, and when asked about collateral
repute,thecommonreputationinthefamily,andnotthecommon
factsbywhichtheirtruthfulnesscouldbetested,theiranswersnot
reputationincommunity,thatisamaterialelementofevidence
infrequently take the stereotyped form of such expressions as I
goingtoestablishpedigree.xxx[Thus]mattersofpedigreemay
dont know or I dont remember.Two (2) glaring points in
beprovedbyreputationinthefamily,andnotbyreputationin
FRANCISCOs defense beg to be addressed: First, that his
the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in
testimony was comprised of mere denials, rife with bare,
questionismarriagewhichmaybeprovedbycommonreputation
unsubstantiatedresponsessuchasThatisnottrue,Idonot
inthecommunity.
believethat,or None thatI know. In declining then to lend
Same;Same;Same;Notarial Law;Quantum of credence to FRANCISCOs testimony, we resort to a guiding
Evidence;Thestandardtocontradictanotarialdocumentisclear principle in adjudging the credibility of a witness and the
andconvincingevidence, i.e.,morethanmerelypreponderant. truthfulnessofhisstatements,laiddownasearlyas1921:The
Indeed, if MONINA were truly not FRANCISCOs illegitimate experience of courts and the general observation of humanity
daughter,itwouldhavebeenunnecessaryforhimtohavegoneto teachusthatthenaturallimitationsofourinventivefacultiesare
suchgreatlengthsinorderthatMONINAdenounceherfiliation. suchthatifawitnessundertakestofabricateanddeliverincourt
For as clearly established before the trial court and properly a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost
appreciatedbytheCourtofAppeals,MONINAhadresignedfrom certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to make statements
whichcanbereadilyrefuted,ortoexposeinhisdemeanorthe asserting her claim, but miserably failed to prove the last
falsity of his message. For this reason it will be found that element.Inanyevent,itmustbestressedthatlachesisbased
perjurersusuallyconfinethemselvestotheincidentsimmediately upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of
relatedtotheprincipalfactaboutwhichtheytestify,andwhen society,thediscouragementofstaleclaims,andisprincipallya
askedaboutcollateralfactsbywhichtheirtruthfulnesscouldbe question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or
tested,theiranswersnotinfrequentlytakethestereotypedform claimtobeenforcedorasserted.Thereisnoabsoluteruleasto
ofsuchexpressionsasIdontknoworIdontremember. whatconstituteslaches;eachcaseistobedeterminedaccording
Laches;Elements;Doctrine of Stale Demands.The last to its particular circumstances. The question of laches is
assigned errorconcerninglacheslikewise failsto convince. The addressedtothesounddiscretionofthecourt,andsinceitisan
essentialelementsoflachesare: (1) conduct on the part ofthe equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to
situation of which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in perpetuate fraud and injustice. Since the instant case involves
assertingthecomplainantsrights,thecomplainanthavinghad paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate, MONINA filed her
knowledge or notice of the defendants conduct as having been actionwellwithintheperiodgrantedherbyapositiveprovision
affordedanopportunitytoinstituteasuit;(3)lackofknowledge of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would
ornoticeonthepartofthedefendantthatthecomplaintwould clearlybeinequitableandunjust.
asserttherightinwhichhebaseshis
501 PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 501 Appeals.
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
suit;and(4)injuryorprejudicetothedefendantintheevent
Salonga,Hernandez&Mendozaforpetitioner.
relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held
barred.Thelastelementistheoriginofthedoctrinethatstale ApelesL.Padillaforprivaterespondent.
demandsapplyonlywherebyreasonofthelapseoftimeitwould
beinequitabletoallowapartytoenforcehislegalrights. DAVIDE,JR.,J.:
Same;Lachesisbasedupongroundsofpublicpolicywhich
ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtof
requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale
the27April1995decisionoftheCourtofAppeals
claims,andisprincipallyaquestionoftheinequityorunfairness 502
of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.As 502 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
FRANCISCO set up laches as an affirmative defense, it was Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
incumbent upon him to prove the existence of its elements.
(CA) inCAG.R. CV No. 328601which reversed the decision of
However, he only succeeded in showing MONINAs delay in
Branch24oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofIloiloCityinCivil
Case No. 16373.2The latter dismissed the complaint of private CA,246 SCRA 193, 198 [1995]; andSuntay v. Court of
respondentMoninaJison(hereafterMONINA)forrecognitionas Appeals,251SCRA430,446[1995].
an illegitimate child of petitioner Francisco Jison (hereafter 4
OriginalRecord(OR),vol.1,13.
FRANCISCO). 503
InissueiswhetherornotpublicrespondentCourtofAppeals VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 503
committedreversibleerror,which,inthisinstance,necessitates Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
aninquiryintothefacts.Whileasageneralrule,factualissues Inhisanswer, FRANCISCOallegedthathecouldnothavehad
5

arenotwithintheprovinceofthisCourt,nevertheless,inlightof sexual relations with Esperanza Amolar during the period

theconflictingfindingsoffactsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtof specifiedinthecomplaintasshehadceasedtobeinhisemployas
Appeals,thiscasefallsunderanexceptiontothisrule.3 earlyas1944,anddidnotknowofherwhereaboutssincethen;
In her complaint4filed with the RTC on 13 March 1985, further,heneverrecognizedMONINA,expresslyorimpliedly,as
MONINA alleged that FRANCISCO had been married to a his illegitimate child. As affirmative and special defenses,
certainLiliaLopezJisonsince1940.Attheendof1945orthe FRANCISCOcontendedthatMONINAhadnorightorcauseof
startof1946,however,FRANCISCOimpregnatedEsperanzaF. actionagainsthimandthatheractionwasbarredbyestoppel,
Amolar(whowasthenemployedasthenannyofFRANCISCOs laches and/or prescription. He thus prayed for dismissal of the
daughter,Lourdes).Asaresult,MONINAwasbornon6August complaintandanawardofdamagesduetothemaliciousfilingof
1946, in Dingle, Iloilo, and since childhood, had enjoyed the thecomplaint.
continuous, implied recognition as an illegitimate child of AfterMONINAfiledherreply,6pretrialwasconductedwhere
FRANCISCObyhisactsandthatofhisfamily.MONINAfurther thepartiesstipulatedonthefollowingissues:
alleged that FRANCISCO gave her support and spent for her
education, such that she obtained a Masters degree, became a 1. 1.Did Francisco Jison have any sexual relation[s] with
certifiedpublicaccountant(CPA)andeventually,aCentralBank EsperanzaAm[o]larabouttheendof1945orthestartof
examiner.InviewofFRANCISCOsrefusaltoexpresslyrecognize 1946?
her,MONINAprayedforajudicialdeclarationofherillegitimate
statusandthatFRANCISCOsupportandtreatherassuch.
2. 2.IsMoninaJisontherecognizedillegitimatedaughterof
FranciscoJisonbythelattersownactsandthoseofhis
_______________
family?
1
Rollo, 6580, per Jacinto, G.A.,J., withPurisima, F.P. and
3. 3.IsMoninaJisonbarredfrominstitutingorprosecuting
Montoya,S.A.,JJ.,concurring.
the present action by estoppel, laches and/or
2
Rollo,8491,perJudgeNorbertoE.Devera,Jr. prescription?
3
SeeGeagonia v. Court of Appeals,241 SCRA 152, 160
[1995];ConsolidatedBankandTrustCorporation(Solidbank)v.
 4. 4.Damages.7 for support. As a result,Pansayand Lilia Jison, FRANCISCOs
wife, quarreled in the living room, and in the course
Attrialonthemerits,MONINApresentedatotalofeleven(11) thereof,PansayclaimedthatFRANCISCOwasthefatherofher
witnesses, namely: herself, Ruben Castellanes, Sr., Adela baby.Towhich,Liliareplied:Ididnottellyoutomakethatbaby
Casabuena, Arsenio Duatin, Zafiro Ledesma, Danthea Lopez, soitisyourfault.Duringthequarrelwhichlastedfrom10:30till
Romeo Bilbao, Rudy Tingson, Alfredo Baylosis, Dominador 11:00 a.m., FRANCISCO was supposedly inside the house
ZavarizandLopeAmolar. listening.
RubenCastellanes,Sr.,a63yearoldresidentofIloiloCity, Arsenio Duatin, a 77year old retired laborer, testified that
testifiedthathehadworkedforFRANCISCOforatotalofsix(6) from1947until1977,heworkedasFRANCISCOshouseboyat
yearsatNellyGarden,FRANCISCOsIloiloresidence.Towards the latters house on 12th Street, Capitol Subdivision, Bacolod
theendoftheJapaneseoccupation,FRANCISCOs City. Arsenio met MONINA in 1967, when Felipe Lagarto, the
bookkeeper at Nelly Garden, informed Arsenio that MONINA,
_______________ FRANCISCOs daughter, would arrive at Bacolod City with a
letterofintroductionfromLagarto.
5
Id.,1013. Initially, Arsenio identified seven (7) blackandwhite
6
Id.,1416. photographs(Exhs.X5toX11)ofMONINA, 8andashepaidfor
7
OR,vol.1,39. thetelephonebills,helikewiseidentifiedsix(6)telephonecards
504 (Exhs.GtoL).ArseniothendeclaredthatwhenMON
504 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
wife suffered a miscarriage or abortion, thereby depriving 8
ExhibitX5showedMONINAstandingatthemainentrance
FRANCISCO of consortium; thereafter, FRANCISCOs wife
ofFRANCISCOshouse;ExhibitX9showedMONINAsbedroom
managedanightclubonthegroundfloorofNellyGardenwhich
in FRANCISCOs house; and Exhibit X11 showed MONINA
operateddailyfrom6:00p.m.till3:00a.m.ofthefollowingday,
standing on the lawn of FRANCISCOs house. These exhibits
therebyallowingFRANCISCOfreeaccesstoMONINAsmother,
were offered to prove that MONINA had free use of
EsperanzaAmolar,whowasnicknamedPansay. FRANCISCOshouseinBacolodCityandphonethereat.
Adela Casabuena, a 61year old farmer, testified that she 505
served as theyaya(nanny) of Lourdes from July 1946 up to VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 505
February 1947. AlthoughPansayhad left Nelly Garden two (2) Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
weeks before Adela started working for the INA arrived in Bacolod City, she introduced herself to him as
Jisons,Pansayreturned sometime in September 1946, or about FRANCISCOsdaughter.ShestayedatFRANCISCOshouse,but
onemonthaftershegavebirthtoMONINA,toaskFRANCISCO when the latter and his wife would come over, Arsenio would
concealthepresenceofMONINAbecauseMrs.Jisondidnotlike 506 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
to see her face. Once, Arsenio hid MONINA in the house of Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
FRANCISCOs sister, Mrs. Luisa Jison Alano, in Silay City; theformerVicePresidentandothermembersoftheLopezfamily.
another time, at the residence of FRANCISCOs cousin, Mrs. Zafiro further testifiedthat whileMONINA lived with Mrs.
ConchaLopezCuaycong.Finally,Arseniodeclaredthatthelast Cuaycong,thelatterpaidforsomeofMONINAsschoolneedsand
timehesawMONINAwaswhensheleftforManila,afterhaving even asked MONINA to work in a hospital owned by Mrs.
finishedherschoolingatLaSalleCollegeinBacolodCity. Cuaycong;andthatanotherfirstcousinofFRANCISCOswife,a
On redirect and upon questions by the court, Arsenio certain RemediosLopez Franco, likewisehelpedMONINA with
disclosedthatitwasFRANCISCOwhoinstructedthatMONINA her studies and problems, and even attended MONINAs
behiddenwheneverFRANCISCOandhiswifewerearound;that graduation in 1978 when she obtained a masteral degree in
although FRANCISCO and MONINA saw each other at the Business Administration, as evidenced by another photograph
Bacolod house only once, they called each other through long (Exh. X12). Moreover, upon Remedios recommendation,
distance,andthatMONINAaddressedFRANCISCOasDaddy MONINA was employed as a secretary at Merchant Financing
during their lone meeting at the Bacolod house and were Company,whichwasmanagedbyacertainDantheaLopez,the
affectionate to each other. Arsenio likewise declared that wife of another first cousin of FRANCISCOs wife, and among
MONINAstayedatFRANCISCOsBacolodhousetwice:firstfora whose directors were Zafiro himself, his wife and Dantheas
month,thenforaboutaweekthesecondtime.Onbothoccasions, husband.Inclosing,ZafiroidentifiedMONINAsSocialSecurity
however,FRANCISCOandhiswifewereabroad.Finally,Arsenio Record(Exh.W),whichwassignedbyDantheaasemployerand
recalled that FRANCISCO likewise bade Arsenio to treat whereMONINAdesignatedRemediosasthebeneficiary.
MONINAlikehis(FRANCISCOs)otherdaughters. Danthea Lopez, a 58year old housekeeper, declared that
Thetestimony ofZafiroLedesma, a74yearold banker and FRANCISCO was the first cousin of her husband, Eusebio D.
formermayorofIloiloCity,initiallytouchedonhowheandhis Lopez;andthatshecametoknowMONINAinthelatterpartof
wife were related to FRANCISCO, FRANCISCOs wife and 1965 when Remedios Franco recommended MONINA for
MONINA. Zafiro first identified Exhibit R, a diagram of the employmentatMerchantFinancingCo.,whichDantheamanaged
familytreesoftheJisonandLopezfamilies,whichshowedthat atthattime.RemediosintroducedMONINAtoDantheaasbeing
former VicePresident Fernando Lopez was the first cousin of reputedly the daughter of Mr. Frank Jison; and on several
FRANCISCOswife,thentoldthecourtthatthefamilyofVice occasions thereafter, Remedios made Danthea and the latters
President Lopez treated MONINA very well because she is husbandunderstandthatMONINAwasreputedlythedaughter
consideredarelativexxxbyreputation,byactualperception. of [FRANCISCO]. While MONINA worked at Merchant
Zafiro likewise identified Exhibits X13 to X18, photographs Financing, Danthea knew that MONINA lived with Remedios;
takenatthe14April1985birthdaycelebrationofMrs.Fernando however,inthelatterpartof1966,asRemediosleftforManila
Lopez,whichshowedMONINAwith and MONINA was still studying at San Agustin University,
506 Danthea and her husband invited MONINA to live with them.
DuringMONINAs6monthstaywiththem,shewasnotcharged MilitaryInstituteinBaguioCity;thenin1965,Rudyworkedat
forboardandlodgingandwastreatedasarelative,notamere FRANCISCOs office at Nelly Garden recording hacienda
employee, all owing to what Remedios had said regarding expenses,typingvouchersandofficepapers,and,attimes,acting
MONINAsfiliation.AsDantheaunderstood,MONINAresigned as paymaster for the haciendas. From the nature of his work,
from Rudy knew the persons receiving money from FRANCISCOs
507 office, andclearlyrememberedthatin1965,aspartofhisjob,
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 507 Rudy gave MONINA her allowance from FRANCISCO four (4)
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals times, upon instructions of a certain Mr. Lagarto to give
MerchantFinancingasshewascalledbyMrs.Cuaycong,afirst MONINA P15.00 a month. Rudy likewise recalled that hefirst
cousinofDantheashusbandwholivedinBacolodCity. metMONINAin1965,andthatshewouldgotoNellyGarden
Romeo Bilbao, a 43year old seaman, testified that he had wheneverFRANCISCOswife
workedforFRANCISCOfrom1969upto1980atNellyGardenin 508
various capacities: as a procurement officer, hacienda overseer 508 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
and, later, as hacienda administrator. Sometime in May, 1971, Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
Romeo saw and heard MONINA ask her Daddy (meaning was not around. On some of these occasions, MONINA would
FRANCISCO) for the money he promised to give her, but speak with and address FRANCISCO as Daddy, without
FRANCISCOansweredthathedidnothavethemoneytogive, objection from FRANCISCO. In fact, in 1965, Rudy saw
thentoldMONINAtogoseeMr.JoseCruzinBacolodCity.Then FRANCISCOgiveMONINAmoneythrice.Rudyfurtherdeclared
inthemiddleofSeptemberthatyear,FRANCISCOtoldRomeoto that in April 1965, FRANCISCOs office paid P250.00 to
pickupMr.CruzattheIloilopierandbringhimtotheofficeof FunerariaBernalforthefuneralexpensesofMONINAsmother.
Atty. Benjamin Tirol. At said office, Atty. Tirol, Mr. Cruz and Finally,astoRudysmotivesfortestifying,hetoldthecourtthat
MONINAenteredaroomwhileRomeowaitedoutside.Whenthey hesimplywantedtohelpbringoutthetruthandnothingbutthe
cameout,Atty.TirolhadpapersforMONINAtosign,butshe truth, and that MONINAs filiation was common knowledge
refused. Atty. Tirol said that a check would be released to amongthepeopleintheofficeatNellyGarden.
MONINAifshesignedthepapers,soMONINAacceded,although On redirect, Rudy declared that the moneys given by
Atty.TirolintendednottogiveMONINAacopyofthedocument FRANCISCOsofficetoMONINAwerenotreflectedinthebooks
shesigned.Thereafter,Mr.CruzgaveMONINAacheck(Exh.Q), oftheoffice, butwerekeptinaseparatebook,asMr.Lagarto
thenMONINAgrabbedacopyofthedocumentshesignedand explainedthatFRANCISCOswifeandchildrenshouldnotknow
ranoutside.RomeothenbroughtMr.CruztoNellyGarden.Asto [of]this.Rudyfurtherrevealedthatastothegardenmeetings
his motive for testifying, Romeo stated that he wanted to help between FRANCISCO and MONINA, Rudy saw MONINA kiss
MONINAberecognizedasFRANCISCOSdaughter. FRANCISCOonthecheekbothuponarrivingandbeforeleaving,
RudyTingson,a45yearoldantiquedealer,testifiedthatin andFRANCISCOsreactionuponseeingherwastosmileandsay
19631964,hewasemployedbyFRANCISCOswifeattheBaguio in the Visayan dialect: Kamusta ka iha? (How are you,
daughter?);andthatMONINAwasfreetogoinsidethehouseas DominadorSavariz,a55yearoldcaretaker,testifiedthathe
the household staff knew of her filiation, and that, sometimes, worked as FRANCISCOs houseboy at Nelly Garden from
MONINAwouldjointhemforlunch. November1953upto1965.OnemorninginApril1954,MONINA
Alfredo Baylosis, a 62year old retired accountant, testified and her motherPansaywent to Nelly Garden and spoke with
thatheworkedforFRANCISCOatCentralSantosLopezinIloilo FRANCISCOforaboutanhour,duringwhichtime,Dominador
from1951upto1961,thenatNellyGardenfrom1961until1972. wasvacuumingthecarpetaboutsix(6)toseven(7)metersaway.
AlfredofirstservedFRANCISCOasabookkeeper,thenwhenMr. Due to the noise of the vacuum cleaner, FRANCISCO and
Lagarto died in 1967 or 1969, Alfredo replaced Mr. Lagarto as MONINAspokeinloudvoices,thusDominadoroverheardtheir
officemanager. conversation. As FRANCISCO askedPansaywhy they
AlfredoknewMONINAsince1961assheusedtogotoNelly
came,Pansayansweredthattheycametoaskforthesustenance
Garden to claim her P15.00 monthly allowance given upon
of his child MONINA. FRANCISCO then touched MONINAs
FRANCISCOs standing order. Alfredo further declared that
head and asked: How are you Hija?, to which MONINA
MONINAsfiliationwasprettywellknownintheoffice;thathe
answered: Good morning, Daddy. After FRANCISCO
hadseenMONINAandFRANCISCOgofromthemainbuilding
toldPansayandMONINAtowait,hepulledsomethingfromhis
to the office, with FRANCISCOs arm on MONINAs shoulder;
andthattheofficepaidfortheburialexpensesofPansay,butthis walletandsaidtoPansay:Iamgivingthisforthechild.
wasnotrecordedinthebooksin InMay1954,DominadorsawMONINAatMr.Lagartosoffice
509 where Dominador was to get the days expenses, while
MONINAwasclaimingherallowancefromMr.Diasnes.Thenext
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 509
month,DominadorsawMONINAatNellyGardenandheardin
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals theofficethatMONINAwastheretogetherallowancefromher
ordertohideitfromFRANCISCOswife.Alfredoalsodisclosed Daddy. In December 1960, Dominador saw MONINA at Nelly
thatthedisbursementsforMONINAsallowancestartedin1961 Garden, in the room of Don Vicente (father of FRANCISCOs
and were recorded in a separate cash book. In 1967, the wife),wheresheaskedforaChristmasgift
allowances ceased when MONINA stopped schooling and was 510
employedinBacolodCitywithMiller,Cruz&Co.,whichserved
510 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
asFRANCISCOsaccountantauditor.Once,whenAlfredowentto
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
theofficesofMiller,Cruz&Co.toseethemanager,Mr.Atienza,
and arrange for the preparation of FRANCISCOs income tax and she was calling Don Vicente,Lolo(grandfather). At that
return,AlfredochanceduponMONINA.WhenAlfredoaskedher time,FRANCISCOandhiswifewerenotaround.Thensometime
how she came to work there, she answered that her Daddy, in1961,whenDominadorwenttoMr.Lagartosofficetogetthe
FRANCISCO,recommendedher,afactconfirmedbyMr.Atienza. marketing expenses, Dominador saw MONINA once more
Alfredo then claimed that Mr. Jose Cruz, a partner at Miller, claimingherallowance.
Cruz&Co.,wasthemosttrustedmanofFRANCISCO.
 Dominadorfurthertestified thatinFebruary 1966, after he Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
hadstopped working for FRANCISCO, DominadorwasatMrs. FRANCISCO.9MONINA first studied at Sagrado where she
Francosresidenceassherecommendedhimforemploymentwith stayedasaboarder.WhileatSagradofrom1952until1955(upto
hersister,Mrs.ConchaCuaycong.There,hesawMONINA,who Grade4),herfather,FRANCISCO,paidforhertuitionfeesand
was then about 15 years old, together with Mrs. Francos other school expenses. She either received the money from
daughterandson.Mrs.FrancopointedatMONINAandasked FRANCISCO or from Mr. Lagarto, or saw FRANCISCO give
DominadorifheknewwhoMONINAwas.Dominadoranswered moneytohermother,orMr.LagartowouldpaySagradodirectly.
that MONINA was FRANCISCOs daughter withPansay, and After Sagrado, MONINA studied in different schools, 10but
thenMrs.FrancoremarkedthatMONINAwasstayingwithher FRANCISCOcontinuouslyansweredforherschooling.
(Mrs.Franco)andthatshewassendingMONINAtoschoolatthe Forhercollegeeducation,MONINAenrolledattheUniversity
UniversityofSanAgustin. ofIloilo,butshelaterdroppedduetoanaccidentwhichrequired
LopeAmolar,a50yearoldresidentofDingle,Iloilo,andthe aweekshospitalization.AlthoughFRANCISCOpaidforpartof
youngerbrotherofEsperanzaAmolar(Pansay),testifiedthathe the hospitalization expenses, her mother shouldered most of
workedforFRANCISCOasahouseboyfromMarchtoNovember them. In 1963, she enrolled at the University of San Agustin,
1945 at Nelly Garden. Thereafter, FRANCISCO sent Lope to where she stayed with Mrs. Franco who paid for MONINAs
work at Elena Apartments in Manila. By November tuition fees. However, expenses for books, school supplies,
1945,PansaywasalsoworkingatElenaApartments,whereshe uniformsandthelikewereshoulderedbyFRANCISCO.Atthe
revealedtoLopethatFRANCISCOimpregnatedher.Lopethen startofeachsemester,MONINAwouldshowFRANCISCOthat
confrontedFRANCISCO,whotoldLopedontgethurtanddont shewasenrolled,thenhewouldaskhertocanvassprices,then
cause any trouble, because I am willing to support yourInday giveherthemoneysheneeded.Afterfinishingtwo(2)semesters
atUniversityofSanAgustin,asevidencedbyhertranscriptof
Pansayand my child. Three (3) days after this confrontation,
records (Exh. Z showing that FRANCISCO was listed as
Lope asked for and received permission from FRANCISCO to
Parent/Guardian [Exh. Z1]), she transferred to De Paul
resignbecausehe(Lope)washurt.
College,justinfrontofMrs.Francoshouse,andstudiedthere
On21October1986,MONINAherselftookthewitnessstand.
forayear.Thereafter,MONINAenrolledatWesternInstituteof
Atthattime,shewas40yearsoldandaCentralBankExaminer.
Technology (WIT), where she obtained a bachelors degree in
SheaffirmedthatasevidencedbycertificationsfromtheOfficeof
CommerceinApril1967.Duringhersenioryear,shestayedwith
the Local Civil Registrar (Exhs. E and F) and baptismal
Eusebio and Danthea Lopez at Hotel Kahirup, owned by said
certificates(Exhs.CandD),shewasbornon6August1946in
couple.ShepassedtheCPAboardexamsin1974,andtookupan
Barangay Tabugon, Dingle, Iloilo, to Esperanza Amolar (who
M.B.A.atDeLaSalleUniversityasevidencedbyhertran
passedawayon20April1965)and
511 _______________
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 511
 9
SpelledEsperanzaAmadorandFrankHesononExhibits would start working first week of September,sansexamination.
EandF,andFranqueJisononExhibitD. She resigned from Miller & Cruz in 1971 and lived with Mrs.
10
Iloilo Central Elementary for Grade 5; Rizal Elementary CuaycongatherForbesParkresidenceinMakati.MONINAwent
SchoolforGrade6;NegrosOccidentalProvincialHighSchoolup toseeFRANCISCO,toldhimthatsheresignedandaskedhimfor
toherjunioryearinhighschool;andIloiloProvincialHighSchool moneytogotoSpain,butFRANCISCOrefusedasshecouldnot
forhersenioryearinhighschool. speak Spanish and would not be able find a job. The two
512 quarreledandFRANCISCOorderedahelpertosendMONINA
512 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED outofthehouse.Intheprocess,MONINAbrokemanyglassesat
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals thepantryandcutherhand,afterwhich,FRANCISCOhugged
script (Exh. AA), wherein FRANCISCO was likewise listed as her,gavehermedicine,calmedherdown,askedhertoreturnto
Guardian(Exhs.AA1andAA2). BacolodCityandpromisedthathewouldgiveherthemoney.
MONINAenumeratedthedifferentmembersofthehousehold MONINAreturnedtoBacolodCitybyplane,usingaFilipinas
staff at Nelly Garden, to wit: Luz, the household cook; the OrientAirwaysplaneticket(Exh.M)whichFRANCISCO
houseboys Silvestre and Doming; the housemaid Natang; 513
theyayaoftheadoptedtriplets, Deling;theyayaofLoloVicente, VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 513
Adelina;andothers.MONINAlikewiseenumeratedthemembers Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
of the office staff (Messrs. Baylosis, Lagarto, Tingson, Diasnes, gave.ShecalledMr.Cruz,thenAtty.Tirol,asinstructedbyMr.
Jalandoni,Supertisioso,Doroy,andothers),andidentifiedthem Cruz.ThesecallswereevidencedbyPLDTlongdistancetollcards
fromaphotographmarkedasExhibitX2.Shethencorroborated (Exhs. GtoL), with annotations attheback reading: charged
the prior testimony regarding her employment at Merchant andpaidunderthenameofFrankL.Jisonandweresignedby
FinancingCo.,andherhavinglivedatHotelKahirupandatMrs. ArsenioDuatin(Exhs.G1toL1).PLDTissuedacertificationas
Cuaycongs residence in Bacolod City, while working at the to the veracity of the contents of the toll cards (Exh. BB).
hospitalownedbyMrs.Cuaycong. Likewise introduced in evidence was a letter of introduction
MONINA further testified that in March 1968, she went to prepared by Mr. Cruz addressed to Atty. Tirol, on MONINAs
ManilaandmetFRANCISCOatElenaApartmentsatthecorner behalf(Exh.N).
ofRomeroandSalasStreets,Ermita.ShetoldFRANCISCOthat MONINAalsodeclaredthatAtty.Tirolthentoldherthatshe
shewasgoingforavacationinBaguioCitywithMrs.Francos wouldhavetogotoIloiloandsignacertainaffidavit,beforeMr.
mother,withwhomshestayeduptoJune1968.Uponherreturn CruzwouldturnoverthemoneypromisedbyFRANCISCO.She
fromBaguioCity,MONINAtoldFRANCISCOthatshewantedto wenttoAtty.TirolsofficeinIloilo,butaftergoingoverthedraft
work,sothelatterarrangedforheremploymentatMiller&Cruz oftheaffidavit,refusedtosignitasitstatedthatshewasnot
inBacolodCity.MONINAwenttoBacolodCity,wasinterviewed FRANCISCOsdaughter.Sheexplainedthatallshehadagreed
byMr.JoseCruz,apartneratMiller&Cruz,whotoldhershe with FRANCISCO was that he would pay for her fare to go
abroad,andthatsinceshewasalittlegirl,sheknewabouther
illegitimacy.Shestartedcrying,beggedAtty.Tiroltochangethe MONINAthenpreparedtotravelabroad,forwhichpurpose,
affidavit,towhichAtty.Tirolrespondedthathewasalsoafather sheprocuredlettersofintroduction(Exhs.SandT)fromacousin,
anddidnotwantthistohappentohischildrenastheycouldnot Mike Alano (son of FRANCISCOs elder sister Luisa); and an
be blamed for being brought into the world. She then wrote a uncle, EmilioJison(FRANCISCOselder brother), addressedto
letter(Exh.O)toFRANCISCOandsentittothelattersForbes anothercousin,BethJison(Emiliosdaughter),forBethtoassist
Parkresidence(BauhiniaPlace)byJRScourierservice(Exhs.O MONINA.ExhibitScontainedastatement(Exh.S1)expressly
5 toO7). MONINA subsequently met FRANCISCO inBacolod recognizing that MONINA was FRANCISCOs daughter.
Citywheretheydiscussedtheaffidavitwhichsherefusedtosign. Ultimately though, MONINA decided not to go abroad, opting
FRANCISCOtoldherthattheaffidavitwasforhiswife,thatin insteadtospendtheproceedsoftheP15,000.00checkforherCPA
casesheheardaboutMONINAgoingabroad,theaffidavitwould review, board exam and graduate studies. After finishing her
keepherpeace. graduatestudies,sheagainplannedtotravelabroad,forwhich
MONINAthennarratedthatthefirsttimeshewenttoAtty. reason, she obtained a letter of introduction from former Vice
Tirols office, she was accompanied by one Atty. Fernando President Fernando Lopez addressed to then United States
Divinagracia,whoadvisedherthattheaffidavit(Exh.P) 11would ConsulVernonMcAnnich(Exh.V).
boomerang against FRANCISCO as it is contrary to law. As to other acts tending to show her filiation, MONINA
MONINA returned to Bacolod City, then met with Atty. Tirol relatedthatononeoccasion,asFRANCISCOswifewasgoingto
once more to reiterate her plea, but Atty. Tirol did not relent. arriveatthelattersBacolodCityresidence,FRANCISCOcalled
Thus,onthemorningof20or21September1971, ArsenioDuatinandinstructedArseniotohideMONINA.Thus,
MONINA stayed with Mrs. Luisa Jison forthe duration of the
_______________ stayofFRANCISCOswife.MONINAalsoclaimedthatsheknew
Vice President Fernando Lopez and his wife, Mariquit, even
AlsomarkedasExhibit2forFRANCISCO.
11
before starting to go to school. Thus, MONINA asked for a
514 recommendation letter (Exh. U) from Mrs. Mariquit Lopez for
514 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED possible employment with Mrs. Rosario Lopez Cooper, another
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals secondcousinofFRANCISCO.InExhibitU,Mrs.Lopezexpressly
shesignedtheaffidavitasshewasjoblessandneededthemoney recognized MONINA as FRANCISCOs daughter. As additional
tosupportherselfandfinishherstudies.Inexchangeforsigning proofofhercloserelationshipwiththefamilyofVicePresident
the document, MONINA received a Bank of Asia check for Lopez,MONINA
P15,000.00(Exh.Q),whichwaslessthantheP25,000.00which 515
FRANCISCO allegedly promisedto give. As Atty. Tirol seemed VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 515
hesitant to give her a copy of the affidavit after notarizing it, Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
MONINAmerelygrabbedacopyandimmediatelyleft. identifiedphotographstakenatabirthdaycelebrationon14April
1985.
 MONINAfinallyclaimedthatsheknewthethree(3)children formersabsence.FRANCISCOlikewisefiredRudyTingsonand
ofFRANCISCObywife,namely,Lourdes,Francisco,Jr.(Junior) RomeoBilbao,butdidnotgivethereasonstherefor.
and Elena, but MONINA had met only Lourdes and Junior. 516
MONINAstestimonydealtlengthilyonherdealingswithJunior 516 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
andthetwo(2)occasionswhenshemetwithLourdes.Thelast Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
timeMONINAsawFRANCISCOwasinMarch1979,whenshe Finally, FRANCISCO denied knowledge of MONINAs long
soughthisblessingstogetmarried. distancecallsfromhisBacolodresidence;nevertheless,whenhe
In his defense, FRANCISCO offered his deposition taken subsequentlydiscoveredthis,hefiredcertainpeopleinhisoffice
beforethenJudgeRomeoCallejooftheRegionalTrialCourtof fortheirfailuretoreportthisanomaly.Asregardsthecaretaker
Manila, Branch 48. As additional witnesses, FRANCISCO of his Bacolod residence, FRANCISCO explained that since
presented Nonito Jalandoni, Teodoro Zulla, Iigo Supertisioso, MONINA lived at Mrs. Cuaycongs residence, the caretaker
LourdesLedesma,JoseCruzandDoloresArgenal. thought that he could allow people who lived at the Cuaycong
FRANCISCOdeclaredthatPansaysemploymentceasedasof residencetousethefacilitiesathis(FRANCISCOs)house.
October, 1944, and that while employed by him,Pansaywould Nonito Jalandoni, bookkeeper and paymaster at Nellys
sleep with the other female helpers on the first floor of his Gardenfrom1963 upto1974, thenfrom 1980 upto1986, the
residence,whilehe,hiswifeanddaughtersleptinaroomonthe assistant overseer of Hacienda Lopez, testified that he did not
secondfloor.Atthattime,hishouseholdstaffwascomposedof knowMONINA;thathelearnedofheronlyinJune1988,when
three (3) female workers and two (2) male workers. hewasinformedbyFRANCISCOthatMONINAhadsuedhim;
AfterPansayleftinOctober1944,shenevercommunicatedwith andthatheneversawMONINAatNellysGarden,neitherdidhe
himagain,neitherdidheknowofherwhereabouts.FRANCISCO know of any instructions for anyone at Nellys Garden to give
staunchly denied having had sexual relations withPansayand moneytoMONINA.
disavowed any knowledge about MONINAs birth. In the same TeodoroZulla,FRANCISCOsbookkeeperandpaymasterfrom
vein,hedeniedhavingpaidforMONINAstuitionfees,inperson 1951 up to 1986, testified that FRANCISCO dismissed Alfredo
orotherwise,andassertedthatheneverknewthatMr.Lagarto Baylosis due to certain unspecified discrepancies; and that he
paidforthesefees.Moreover,FRANCISCOcouldnotbelievethat neversawMONINAreceivefundsfromeitherMr.LagartoorMr.
Lagartowouldpayforthesefeesdespiteabsenceofinstructions Baylosis.Uponquestionsfromthetrialcourt,however,Teodoro
orapprovalfromFRANCISCO.Helikewisecategoricallydenied admittedthathepreparedvouchersforonlyoneofFRANCISCOs
thathetoldanyone,beitDantheaLopez,ZafiroLedesma,Concha haciendas, and not vouchers pertaining to the latters personal
CuaycongorRemediosFranco,thatMONINAwashisdaughter. expenses.
FRANCISCO also disclosed that upon his return from the IigoSupertisiosotestifiedthatheworkedforFRANCISCOat
UnitedStatesin1971,hefiredAlfredoBaylosisupondiscovering Nellys Garden from 1964 up to 1984 as a field inspector,
that Alfredo had taken advantage of his position during the paymaster, cashier and, eventually, officerincharge (OIC). He
confirmed Alfredo Baylosis dismissal due to these unspecified
irregularities, then denied that FRANCISCO ever ordered that Atty.TiroltoldJosetosendMONINAandherlawyertohis
MONINA be given her allowance. Likewise, Iigo never heard (Atty. Tirols) office in Iloilo. Jose then wrote out a letter of
FRANCISCO mention that MONINA was his (FRANCISCOs) introductionforMONINAaddressedtoAtty.Tirol.Joserelayed
daughter. Atty. Tirols message to MONINA through Mr. Atienza, then
LourdesLedesma,FRANCISCOsdaughter,testifiedthatshe later, Atty. Tirol told Jose to go to Iloilo with a check for
saw (but did not know) MONINA at the Our Lady of Mercy P15,000.00. Jose complied, and at Atty. Tirols office, Jose saw
Hospital,ontheoccasionofthebirthofLourdesfirstson,Mark. MONINA,Atty.Tirolandhissecretaryreadingsomedocuments.
Overlunchoneday,LourdesauntcasuallyintroducedLourdes MONINA then expressed her willingness to sign the
andMONINAtoeachother,buttheywere document,sansrevisions. Jose alleged that he drew the
517 P15,000.00 from his personal funds, subject to reimbursement
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 517 fromandduetoanunderstandingwithFRANCISCO.
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals Dolores Argenal, a househelper at Nelly Garden from May
referredtoonlybytheirfirstnames.Thensometimein1983or 1944 up to May 1946, testified that she knew thatPansaywas
1984, MONINA allegedly went to Lourdes house in Sta. Clara Lourdesnanny;thatLourdessleptinherparentsroom;thatshe
Subdivisionrequestingforaletterofintroductionorreferralas hadnotseenFRANCISCOgivespecialtreatmenttoPansay;that
MONINAwasthenjobhunting.However,Lourdesdidnotcomply therewasnounusualrelationshipbetween
withtherequest. 518
Jose Cruz, a partner at Miller, Cruz & Co., testified that 518 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MONINA worked at Miller & Cruz from 1968 up to 1971,
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
however, he did not personally interview her before she was
FRANCISCO andPansay, and if there was any, Dolores would
accepted for employment. Moreover, MONINA underwent the
usualscreeningprocedurebeforebeinghired.Joserecalledthat have easily detected it since she slept in the same room
one of the accountants, a certain Mr. Atienza, reported that asPansay. Dolores further declared that whenever
MONINAclaimedtobeFRANCISCOsdaughter.Josethentold FRANCISCOswifewasoutoftown,PansaywouldbringLourdes
Mr.AtienzatospeakwithMONINAandseeifhe(Mr.Atienza) downstairsatnighttime,andthatPansaywouldnotsleepinthe
couldstopherfromspreadingthisrumor.Mr.Atienzareported room where FRANCISCO slept. Finally, Dolores declared
thathespokewithMONINA,whotoldhimthatsheplannedto thatPansaystopped working for FRANCISCO and his wife in
leave for the United States and needed P20,000.00 for that October,1944.
purpose,andinexchange,shewouldsignadocumentdisclaiming Thereceptionofevidencehavingbeenconcluded,theparties
filiationwithFRANCISCO.Thus,JoseinstructedMr.Atienzato filedtheirrespectivememoranda.
request that MONINA meet with Jose, and at that meeting, It need be recalled that Judge Catalino Castaeda, Jr.
MONINA confirmed Mr. Atienzas report. Jose then informed presidedovertrialupto21October1986,therebyhearingonly
Atty.Tirol,FRANCISCOspersonallawyer,aboutthematter.
the testimonies of MONINAs witnesses and about half of Thetrialcourtresolvedthefirstissueinthenegative,holding
MONINAstestimonyondirectexamination.JudgeNorbertoE. thatitwasimprobableforwitnessLopeAmolartohavenoticed
Devera,Jr.heardtherestofMONINAstestimonyandthoseof thatPansaywas pregnant upon seeing her at the Elena
FRANCISCOswitnesses. ApartmentsinNovember1945,sincePansaywasthenonlyinher
Initsdecisionof12November1990 12thetrialcourt,through first month of pregnancy; that there was no positive assertion
Judge Devera, dismissed the complaint with costs against that copulation did indeed take place between Francisco and
MONINA.Intheopeningparagraphthereof,itobserved: Esperanza;andthatMONINAsattempttoshowopportunityon
This is a complaint for recognition of an illegitimate child thepartofFRANCISCOfailedtoconsiderthattherewasalso
institutedbyplaintiffMoninaJisonagainstdefendantFrancisco theopportunityforcopulationbetweenEsperanzaandoneofthe
Jison.Thiscomplaintwas filedonMarch13, 1985 atthetime several domestic helpers admittedly also residing at Nellys
when plaintiff, reckoned from her death of birth, was already Garden at that time. The RTC also ruled that the probative
thirtynine years old. Noteworthy also is the fact that it was valueofthebirthandbaptismalcertificatesofMONINApaledin
instituted twenty years after the death of plaintiffs mother, light of jurisprudence, especially whenthe misspellings therein
Esperanza Amolar. For the years between plaintiffs birth and wereconsidered.
Esperanzasdeath,noactionofanykindwasinstitutedagainst The trial court likewise resolved the second issue in the
defendanteitherbyplaintiff,hermotherEsperanzaorthelatters negative,findingthatMONINAsevidencethereonmayeitherbe
parents. Neither had plaintiff brought such an action against one of three categories, namely: hearsay evidence, incredulous
defendant immediately upon her mothers death on April 20, evidence,orselfservingevidence.Tothefirstcategorybelonged
1965,consideringthatshewasthenalreadynineteenyearsold thetestimoniesofAdelaCasabuenaandAlfredoBaylosis,whose
or,withinareasonabletimethereafter.Twentyyearsmorehadto knowledgeofMONINAsfiliationwasbased,astotheformer,on
supervenebeforethiscomplaintwaseventuallyinstituted. utterances of defendants wife Lilia and Esperanza allegedly
The trial court then proceeded to discuss the four issues duringtheheatoftheirquarrel,whileastothelatter,Alfredos
stipulatedatpretrial,without,however,summarizingthe conclusion was based from the rumors going [around] that
plaintiffisdefendantsdaughter,fromhispersonalobservationof
_______________ plaintiffs facial appearance which he compared with that of
defendantsandfromthewaythetwo(plaintiffanddefendant)
Supranote2.
12
actedandtreatedeachotherononeoccasionthathehadthen
519 opportunity to closely observe them together. To the second
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 519 categorybelongedthatofDominadorSavariz,as:
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals At each precise time that Esperanza allegedly visited Nellys
testimonies of the witnesses norreferring to thetestimonies of Gardenandallegedlyonthoseoccasionswhendefendantswife,
thewitnessesotherthanthosementionedinthediscussionofthe LiliawasinManila,thiswitnesswasthereandallegedlyheard
issues.
piecesofconversationbetweendefendantandEsperanzarelated I
tothepaternityofthelatterschild.xxx
520 THETRIALCOURTWASERRONEOUSLYPREDISPOSEDTO
520 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED ADJUDGE THIS CASE AGAINST APPELLANT DUE TO ITS
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals MISPERCEPTION THAT APPELLANTS DELAY IN FILING
TheRTCthenplacedMONINAstestimonyregardingtheactsof HERCOMPLAINTWASFATALTOHERCASE.
recognition accorded her by FRANCISCOs relatives under the 521
thirdcategory,sincethelatterwereneverpresentedaswitnesses, VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 521
for which reason the trial court excluded the letters from Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
FRANCISCOsrelatives(Exhs.StoV).
Astothethirdissue,thetrialcourtheldthatMONINAwas II
notbarredbyprescriptionforitwasoftheperception...that
thebenefitsofArticle268accordedtolegitimatechildrenmaybe THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS REJECTION OF THE
availedoforextendedtoillegitimatechildreninthesamemanner TESTIMONIES OF APPELLANTS WITNESSES AS TAILOR
astheFamilyCodehassoprovided;orbylaches,whichis[a] MADE,INADEQUATEANDINCREDIBLE.
creationofequityappliedonlytobringequitableresults,and...
addressed to the sound discretion of the court [and] the III
circumstances[here]wouldshowthatwhetherplaintifffiledthis
case immediately upon the death of her mother Esperanza in THETRIALCOURTERREDINITSREJECTIONOFTHE
1965ortwentyyearsthereafterin1985,xxxthereseemstobe ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF PUBLIC
noinequitableresulttodefendantasrelatedtothesituationof DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY APPELLANT AS PART OF
plaintiff. HEREVIDENCE.
The RTC ruled, however, that MONINA was barred by
estoppelbydeedbecauseoftheaffidavit(Exh.P/Exh.2)which IV
she signed when she was already twentyfive years, a
professionaland...undertheableguidanceofcounsel. THETRIALCOURTERREDINITSREQUIREMENTTHAT
Finally, the RTC denied FRANCISCOs claim for damages, A WITNESS TO THE ACTUAL ACT OF COPULATION
findingthatMONINAdidnotfilethecomplaintwithmalice,she BETWEEN THE APPELLEE AND APPELLANTS MOTHER
havingbeenpropelledbyanhonestbelief,foundedonprobable SHOULDHAVEPOSITIVELYTESTIFIEDTOSAIDEFFECT.
cause.
V
MONINAseasonablyappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA
G.R. CV No. 32860) and sought reversal of the trial courts
decisiononthegroundsthat:
 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE judicialadmission,afamilybiblewhereinthenameofthechildis
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DULY IDENTIFIED NOTES AND entered, common reputation respecting pedigree, admission by
LETTER OF THE RELATIVES OF THE APPELLEE AS silence,testimoniesofwitnessesxxx. 17TotheCourtofAppeals,
HEARSAY. thebottomlineissuewaswhetherornotMONINAestablished
her filiation as FRANCISCOs illegitimate daughter by
VI preponderanceofevidence,astowhichissuesaidcourtfound:
[N]otjustpreponderantbutoverwhelmingevidenceonrecordto
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT prove that [MONINA] is the illegitimate daughter of
APPELLANTS AFFIDAVIT (EXH. P) SERVED AS A BAR [FRANCISCO]andthatshehadcontinuouslyenjoyedsuchstatus
AGAINST HER CLAIM FOR RECOGNITION INSTEAD OF bydirectactsof[FRANCISCO]and/orhisrelatives.
REINFORCINGSAIDCLAIM.13 Insoruling,theCourtofAppealsobservedthatthetestimoniesof
Expectedly, FRANCISCO refuted these alleged errors in his Lope Amolar, Adela Casabuena and Dominador Savariz were
AppelleesBrief.14 alreadysufficienttoestablishMONINAsfiliation:
Initsdecisionof27April1995, 15theCourtofAppealsinitially Asadvertedtoearlier,thetrialcourtdiscreditedLopeAmolars
declaredthatasnovestedoracquiredrightswereaffected,the testimony by saying that Lope could not have detected
instantcasewasgovernedbyArticle175,inrela EsperanzaspregnantstateinNovember,1945sinceatthatpoint
in time [sic] she was still in the initial stage of pregnancy.
_______________ Apparently, the trial court paid more emphasis on the date
mentionedbyLopeAmolarthanonthetenorandimportofhis
13
OR,vol.2,AnnexC,BriefforPlaintiffAppellant,12.
testimony.AsxxxLopexxxwasaskedaboutanincidentthat
14
OR,vol.2,192etseq. transpiredmorethan41yearsback,[u]nderthecircumstances,it
15
Supranote1. isunreasonabletoexpectthatLopecouldstillbedeadrighton
522 thespecificmonthin1945that[he]metandconfrontedhissister.
522 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Atanyrate,whatisimportantis
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
tion to Articles 172 and 173, of the Family Code. 16While the _______________
Court of Appeals rejected the certifications issued by the Local
CivilRegistrarofDingle,Iloilo(Exhs.EandF)asFRANCISCO CitingUyguangcov.CourtofAppeals,178SCRA684[1989].
16

didnotsignthem,saidcourtfocuseditsdiscussionontheother Citing ALICIA SEMPIODIY,HANDBOOK ON THE

17

FAMILYCODE246(1988ed.)(hereafterSEMPIODIY).
means by which illegitimate filiation could be proved,i.e., the
523
open and continuouspossession of the status of an illegitimate
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 523
childor,byanyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtand
special laws, such as the baptismal certificate of the child, a Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
notthemonththattheymetbuttheessenceofhistestimonythat deposition,onlycasuallydismissed[MONINAs]exhaustiveand
his sister pointed to their employer [FRANCISCO] as the one detailedtestimonyasuntrue,andwithrespecttothosegivenby
responsibleforherpregnancy, andthatuponbeing confronted, [MONINAs] witnesses, he merely explained that he had fired
[FRANCISCO] assured him of support for Esperanza and their [them]fromtheiremployment.Needlesstostate,[FRANCISCOs]
child.Itwouldappearthenthatinanattempttofindfaultwith vague denial is grossly inadequate to overcome the probative
Lopestestimony,thetrialcourthasfallenoblivioustothefact weightof[MONINAs]testimonialevidence.
thateven[FRANCISCO],inhisdeposition,didnotdenythathe 524
wasconfrontedbyLopeaboutwhathehaddonetoEsperanza, 524 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
during which he unequivocally acknowledged paternity by Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
assuringLopeofsupportforbothEsperanzaandtheirchild. Eventheaffidavit (Exh 2)which[FRANCISCO]hadfoistedon
TheCourtofAppealsfurthernotedthatCasabuenaandSavariz thetrialcourtxxxdoesnotholdswayinthefaceof[MONINAs]
testified on something that they personally observed or logicalexplanationthatsheatfirstdidagreetosigntheaffidavit
witnessed,whichmattersFRANCISCOdidnotdenyorrefute. which contained untruthful statements. In fact, she promptly
Finally,saidcourtaptlyheld: complainedto[FRANCISCO]who,howeverexplainedtoherthat
Takingintoaccountalltheforegoinguncontrovertedtestimonies the affidavit wasonlyfor theconsumptionof hisspousexxx.
xxxletalonesuchcircumstantialevidenceas[MONINAs]Birth Further,thetestimonyofJoseCruzconcerningtheeventsthat
Certificates x x x and Baptismal Certificates which invariably ledtotheexecutionoftheaffidavitxxxcouldnothavebeentrue,
bear the name of [FRANCISCO] as her father, We cannot go foraspointedoutby[MONINA],shesignedtheaffidavitxxx
alongwiththetrialcourtstheorythat[MONINAs]illegitimate almostfivemonthsaftershehadresignedfromtheMiller,Cruz
filiationhasnotbeensatisfactorilyestablished. &Co.xxx
xxx Atanyrate,if[MONINA]werenothisillegitimatedaughter,
Significantly, [MONINAs] testimony finds ample itwouldhavebeenuncalledfor,ifnotabsurd,for[FRANCISCO]
corroboration from [FRANCISCOs] former employees, Arsenio orhislawyertohavesecured[MONINAs]swornstatementxxx
Duatin,RudyTingsonandAlfredoBaylosis.xxx Onthecontrary,inasking[MONINA]tosignthesaidaffidavitat
xxx thecostofP15,000,[FRANCISCO]clearlybetrayedhisintention
Carefullyevaluatingappellantsevidenceonherenjoymentof toconcealorsuppresshispaternityof[MONINA].xxx
the status of an illegitimate daughter of [FRANCISCO]visa Infine,Weholdthat[MONINAs]filiationas[FRANCISCOs]
vis[FRANCISCOs]controversionthereof,Wefindmoreweightin illegitimate daughter has been conclusively established by the
the former. The positive testimonies of [MONINA] and [her] uncontroverted testimonies of Lope Amolar, Adela Casabuena
witnessesxxxallbearingon[FRANCISCOs]actsand/orconduct and Dominador Savariz to the effect that appellee himself had
indubitably showing that he had continuously acknowledged admittedhispaternityoftheappellee,andalsobythetestimonies
[MONINA] as his illegitimate daughter have not been of appellant; Arsenio Duatin, Romeo Bilbao, Rudy Tingsonand
succeessfully[sic]refuted.Infact,[FRANCISCO]himself,inhis Alfredo Baylosis unerringly demonstrating that by his own
conductorovertactslikesendingappellanttoschool,payingfor declaredthatsometimeinFebruary,1966appelleesrelative,Ms.
hertuitionfees,schooluniforms,books,boardandlodgingatthe RemediosLopezFrancopointedtoappellantasthedaughterof
Colegio del Sagrado Corazon de Jesus, defraying appellants appelleeFranciscoJison.
hospitalization expenses, providing her with [a] monthly Finally, the Certifications of the Local Civil Registrar of
allowance,payingforthefuneralexpensesofappellantsmother, Dingle (Exhs E and F) as well as [MONINAs] Baptismal
acknowledging appellants paternal greetings and calling Certificates (Exhs C & D) which the trial court admitted in
appellanthisHija or child, instructing hisofficepersonnel to evidence as part of [MONINAs] testimony, may serve as
giveappellantsmonthlyallowance,recommendingappellantfor circumstantial evidence to further reinforce [MONINAs] claim
employmentattheMiller,Cruz&Co.,allowingappellanttouse thatsheis[FRANCISCOs]illegitimatedaughterbyEsperanza
hishouseinBacolodandpayingforherlongdistancetelephone Amolar.
calls, having appellant spend her vacation in his apartment in Trueitisthatatrialjudgesassessmentofthecredibilityof
ManilaandalsoathisForbesresidence,allowingappellanttouse witnessesisaccordedgreatrespectonappeal.Buttheruleadmits
hissurnameinherscholasticandotherrecords(ExhsZ,AA,AA ofcertainexceptions.Onesuchexceptioniswherethejudgewho
1 to AA5, W & W5), appellee had continuously recognized renderedthejudgmentwasnottheonewhoheardthewitnesses
appellantashisillegitimatedaughter.Addedtothesearetheacts testify.[citationsomitted]Theotheriswherethetrialcourthad
of [FRANCISCO's] relatives acknowledging or treating overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated some facts or
[MONINA] as [FRANCISCOs] daughter (Exh U) or as their circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly
relative (Exhs T & V). On this point, witness Zafiro Ledesma, considered,mightaffecttheresultofthecase.[citationsomitted]
formerMayorofIloiloCity,whosespousebelongstotheLopez Inthe present case, both exceptions obtain. All of [MONINAs]
clanjustlike[FRANCISCO],testifiedthat[MONINA]hasbeen witnessesxxxwhosetestimonieswerenotgivencredencedidnot
consideredbythe testifybeforethejudgewhorenderedthedisputedjudgment.xx
525 x
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 525 TheCourtofAppealsthendecreed:
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the trial
Lopezesasarelative.Heidentifiedpicturesoftheappelleeinthe court is SET ASIDE and another one is hereby entered for
company of the Lopezes (Exhs X16 & X17). Another witness, appellant Monina Jison, declaring her as the illegitimate
Danthea H. Lopez, whose husband Eusebio Lopez is appellees daughter of appellee Francisco Jison, and entitled to all rights
first cousin, testified that appellant was introduced to her by andprivilegesgrantedbylaw.
appellees cousin, Remedios Lopez Franco, as the daughter of Costsagainstappellee.
appelleeFranciscoJison,forwhichreason,shetookherinas[a] SOORDERED.
secretaryintheMerchantsFinancingCorporationofwhichshe 526
wasthemanager,andfurtherallowedhertostaywithherfamily 526 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
freeofboardandlodging.Stillonthisaspect,DominadorSavariz Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
HismotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendeniedbytheCourtof . . . IN INTERPRETING THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
Appeals in its resolution of 29 March 1996,18FRANCISCO filed SWORNSTATEMENT(EXH.P/EXH.2)INAMANNERNOT
theinstantpetition.Heurgesustoreversethejudgmentofthe IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULINGS OF THE
Court of Appeals, alleging that said court committed errors of HONORABLESUPREMECOURT.
law:
V.
I.
. . . IN NOT CONSIDERING THE LONG AND
...INREVERSINGTHEDECISIONOFTHETRIALCOURT UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT
AND DECLARING PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS THE PATERNITYSUITASEQUIVALENTTOLACHES.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILD OF PETITIONER, CONSIDERING
[THE] IMPOSSIBILITY OF SEXUAL CONTACT BETWEEN _______________
THE PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
MOTHERATTHETIMECONCEPTIONWASSUPPOSEDTO OR,vol.2,192etseq.
18

HAVEOCCURRED. 527
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 527
II. Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
Asregardsthefirsterror,FRANCISCOinsiststhattakinginto
. . . IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDING
account thesecond paragraph of MONINAscomplaint wherein
CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
she claimed that he andPansayhad sexual relations by about
TESTIMONIALEVIDENCEOFPATERNITYANDFILIATION
theendof1945orthestartof1946,itwasphysicallyimpossible
ISNOTCLEARANDCONVINCING.
forhimandPansaytohavehadsexualcontactwhichresultedin
III. MONINAsbirth,consideringthat:
Thenormalperiodofhumanpregnancyisnine(9)months.Ifas
. . . IN GIVING CREDENCE TO DOCUMENTARY claimedbyprivaterespondentinhercomplaintthathermother
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT wasimpregnatedbyFRANCISCOattheendof1945orthestart
AS EVIDENCE OF FILIATION CONSIDERING THAT THE of1946,shewouldhavebeenbornsometimeinlateSeptember
SAMEAREHEARSAY,SELFSERVINGANDCANNOTBIND orearlyOctoberandnotAugust6,1946xxx.Theinstantcase
THE PETITIONER UNDER THE BASIC RULES OF findsfactualandlegalparallelsinConstantinovs.Mendez,19thus:
EVIDENCE. xxx
FRANCISCOfurtherclaimsthathistestimonythatPansaywas
IV. no longer employed by him at the time in question was
unrebutted,moreover,othermenhadaccesstoPansayduringthe uncorroborated by any receipt or other documentary evidence;
timeoforevenafterheremploymentbyhim. and assuming he did, such should be interpreted as a
Astotheseconderror,FRANCISCOsubmitsthatMONINAs manifestationofkindnessshowntowardsthefamilyofaformer
testimonialevidenceisshaky,contradictoryandunreliable,and householdhelper.
proceedstoattackthecredibilityofherwitnessesbyclaiming,in AnentthetreatmentgivenbyhisrelativestoMONINAashis
themain,that:(a)LopeAmolarcouldnothavedetectedPansays daughter, FRANCISCO points to the fact thatPansaywas the
pregnancy in November 1945 when they met since she would formerlaundrywomanofMrs.Franco;MONINAresidedwiththe
have been only one (1) month pregnant then; (b) Dominador familiesofEusebioLopezandConchaCuaycongbecauseshewas
Savariz did not in fact witness the meeting between in their employ at Kahirup Hotel and Our Lady of Mercy
FRANCISCO,PansayandMONINA; (c)Zafiro Ledesmahadan Hospital, respectively; MONINA failed to present Mrs. Franco,
ulteriormotiveintestifyingforMONINAasheownedabankin EusebioLopezandMrs.Cuaycong;andMONINAsemployment
Iloilo which was then under Central Bank supervision and attheaccountingfirmofMiller,Cruz&Co.wasattributableto
MONINA was the Bank Examiner assigned to Iloilo; and (d) hereducationalattainment,therebeingabsolutelynoevidenceto
Danthea Lopez was not related to him by blood and whatever provethatFRANCISCOeverfacilitatedheremploymentthereat.
favorabletreatmentMONINAreceivedfromDantheawasdueto Hence,inlightofBaluyotv.Baluyot,21thequantumofevidenceto
theformersemploymentatMerchantsFinancingCompanyand prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence, not merely a
additionalservicesrenderedatKahirupHotel;besides,Danthea preponderancethereof,wasnotmet.
admittedthatshehadnopersonalknowledgeastotheissueof Withrespecttothethirdassignederror,FRANCISCOargues
paternityand that the Court of Appeals reliance on the certifications of the
LocalCivilRegistrar(Exhs.EandF)andBaptismalCertificates
_______________ (Exhs. CandD)ascircumstantialevidenceismisplaced. First,
their genuineness could not be ascertained asthe persons who
19
209SCRA18,23[1992]. issuedthemdidnottestify.Second,inlightofReyesv.Courtof
528 Appeals,22thecontentsofthebaptismalcertificateswerehearsay,
528 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED asthedatawasbasedonly
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
filiationofthecontendingparties,henceSections39and40 20of _______________
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court did not come into play.
FRANCISCO likewise reechoes the view of the trial court as
20
Actordeclarationaboutpedigreeandfamilyreputationor
regardsthetestimoniesofAdelaCasabuenaandAlfredoBaylosis. traditionregardingpedigree,respectively.
FRANCISCOfurtherassertsthatMONINAstestimonythat
21
186SCRA506[1990].
he answered for her schooling was selfserving and
22
135SCRA439[1985].
529
 VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 529 Astothelastassignederror,FRANCISCObewailstheCourt
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals ofAppealsfailuretoconsiderthelongandunexplaineddelayin
onwhatwastoldtothepriestwhosolemnizedthebaptism,who thefilingofthecase.
likewisewasnotpresentedasawitness.Additionally,thename
_______________
ofthefatherappearingthereinwasFranqueJison,whichwas
not FRANCISCOs name. Third, in both Exhibits Eand F, the 23
134SCRA260[1985].
namesofthechilds parentswerelisted asFrankHeson and 24
135SCRA47[1985].
Esperanza Amador (not Amolar). FRANCISCO further points 25
66SCRA504[1975].
out that in Exhibit F, the status of the child is listed as
530
legitimate, while the fathers occupation as laborer. Most
530 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
importantly, there was no showing that FRANCISCO signed
ExhibitsEandForthathewastheonewhoreportedthechilds Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
birthtotheOfficeoftheLocalCivilRegistrar.AstoMONINAs In her comment, MONINA forcefully refuted FRANCISCOs
educational records, FRANCISCO invokesBaas v. arguments,leadingFRANCISCOtofilehisreplythereto.
On20November1996,wegaveduecoursetothispetitionand
Baas23which recognized that school records are prepared by
requiredthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivememoranda,which
schoolauthorities,notbyputativeparents,thusincompetentto
theysubsequentlydid.
prove paternity. And, as to the photographs presented by
Apainstakingreviewoftheevidenceandargumentsfailsto
MONINA,FRANCISCOcitesColoradov.CourtofAppeals,24and supportpetitioner.
furtherassertsthatMONINAdidnotpresentanyofthepersons Before addressing the merits of the controversy, we first
withwhomsheisseeninthepicturestotestifythereon;besides disposeofpreliminarymattersrelatingtotheapplicablelawand
thesepersonswere,atbest,meresecondcousinsofFRANCISCO. theguidingprinciplesinpaternitysuits.Astotheformer,plainly,
Helikewiseassailsthevariousnotesandletterswrittenbyhis the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209)
relatives(Exhs.StoV)astheywerenotidentifiedbytheauthors. governsthepresentcontroversy.AscorrectlycitedbytheCourtof
Finally, he stresses that MONINA did not testify as to the
Appeals,Uyguangco26servedasajudicialconfirmationofArticle
telephone cards (Exhs. G to L) nor did these reveal the
256 of the Family Code27regarding its retroactive effect unless
circumstancessurroundingthecallsshemadefromhisresidence.
therebeimpairmentofvestedrights,whichdoesnotholdtrue
Anentthefourthassignederror,FRANCISCOcontendsthat
here,itappearingthatneithertheputativeparentnorthechild
theCourtofAppealsinterpretationofMONINAsaffidavitof21
has passed away and the former having actually resisted the
September 1971 ran counter toDequito v. Llamas,25and lattersclaimbelow.
overlookedthatatthetimeofexecution,MONINAwasmorethan Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation,
25yearsoldandassistedbycounsel. suchasMONINAs,maybeestablishedinthesamewayandon
the same evidence as that of legitimate children. Article 172
thereofprovidesthevariousformsofevidencebywhichlegitimate ThisArticlereproduces,withamendments,Articles265,266and
filiationisestablished,thus: 267oftheCivilCode.
ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by Forthesuccessofanactiontoestablishillegitimatefiliation
anyofthefollowing: underthesecondparagraph,whichMONINAreliesupongiven
that she has none of the evidence mentioned in the first
1. (1)Therecordofbirthappearinginthecivilregisterora paragraph,ahighstandardofproof 28isrequired.Specifically,to
finaljudgment;or prove open and continuous possession of the status of an
illegitimatechild,theremustbeevidenceofthemanifestationof
2. (2)An admission of legitimate filiation in a public thepermanentintentionofthesupposedfathertoconsiderthe
documentoraprivatehandwritteninstrumentsignedby childashis,bycontinuousandclearmanifestationsofparental
theparentconcerned. affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity.
Suchactsmustbeofsuchanaturethattheyrevealnotonlythe
_______________ convictionofpaternity,butalsotheapparentdesiretohaveand
treatthechildassuchinallrelationsinsocietyandinlife,not
Supranote16.
26 accidentally,butcontinuously.29
Thisarticleprovides:
27 By continuous is meant uninterrupted and consistent, but
This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not doesnotrequireanyparticularlengthoftime.30
prejudiceorimpairvestedoracquiredrightsinaccordancewith The foregoing standard of proof required to establish ones
theCivilCodeorotherlaws. filiationisfoundedontheprinciplethatanorderforrecognition
531 andsupportmaycreateanunwholesomeatmosphereormaybe
anirritantinthefamilyorlivesoftheparties,sothatitmustbe
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 531
issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
convincingevidence.31
Intheabsenceoftheforegoingevidence,thelegitimatefiliation
shallbeprovedby: _______________

1. (1)Theopenandcontinuouspossessionofthestatusofa 28
SeeBaluyutv.Baluyut,supranote21,at513.
legitimatechild;or 29
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, 1CIVIL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES:COMMENTARIESANDJURISPRUDENCE602
2. (2)Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and 605(1985);seeMendozav.CourtofAppeals,201SCRA675,683
speciallaws. [1991].
30
SEMPIODIY,at245246.
31
Constantinov.Mendez,209SCRA18,2324[1992].
 532 _______________
532 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
32
See7 VICENTE J. FRANCISCO,THE REVISED RULES
Theforegoingdiscussion,however,mustbesituatedwithinthe OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES, EVIDENCE(PART II,
generalrulesonevidence,inlightoftheburdenofproofincivil RULES 131134), at 24, 542543 [1973] (citations omitted)
cases,i.e., preponderance of evidence, and the shifting of the (hereafterFRANCISCO).
burdenofevidenceinsuchcases.Simplyput,hewhoallegesthe
33
10C.J.S.,Bastards81and10AM.JUR.2DBastards105,
affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the citingWalker v. State, 74 NE 614 [1905], 86 NE 502 (1908)
plaintiffinacivilcase,theburdenofproofneverparts.However, andStatev.Breeden,82NE1020[1908].
in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out 533
aprimafaciecaseinhisfavor,thedutyortheburdenofevidence VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 533
shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffsprima faciecase, Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. theinstantcase,MONINAsmothercouldnolongertestifyasto
Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof thefactofintercourse, asshehad, unfortunately, passedaway
mustproduceapreponderanceofevidencethereon,withplaintiff longbeforetheinstitutionofthecomplaintforrecognition.But
havingtorelyonthestrengthofhisownevidenceandnotupon this did not mean that MONINA could no longer prove her
theweaknessofthedefendants.Theconceptofpreponderanceof filiation. The fact of her birth and her parentage may be
evidencereferstoevidencewhichisofgreaterweight,ormore establishedbyevidenceotherthanthetestimonyofhermother.
convincing,thatwhichisofferedinoppositiontoit;atbottom,it TheparamountquestiontheniswhetherMONINAsevidenceis
meansprobabilityoftruth.32 coherent,logicalandnatural.34
Withtheseinmind,wenowproceedtoresolvethemeritsof ThecomplaintstatedthatFRANCISCOhadcarnalknowledge
theinstantcontroversy. ofPansayby about the end of 1945. Weagreewith MONINA
FRANCISCOs arguments in support of his first assigned that thiswasbroad enoughtocover thefourthquarterofsaid
errordeservescantconsideration.Whileithasbeenobservedthat year,henceherbirthon6August1946couldstillbeattributedto
unlawfulintercoursewillnotbepresumedmerelyfromproofof sexualrelationsbetweenFRANCISCOandMONINAsmother.In
an opportunity for such indulgence,33this does not favor anyevent,sinceitwasestablishedthathermotherwasstillin
FRANCISCO.Akintothecrimeofrapewhere,inmostinstances, theemployofFRANCISCOatthetimeMONINAwasconceived
theonlywitnessestothefelonyaretheparticipantsinthesexual asdeterminedbythedateofherbirth,sexualcontactbetween
actthemselves,indecidingpaternitysuits,theissueofwhether FRANCISCOandMONINAsmotherwasnotatallimpossible,
sexual intercourse actually occurred inevitably redounds to the especially in light of the overwhelming evidence, as hereafter
victims or mothers word, as against the accuseds or putative shown,thatFRANCISCOfatheredMONINA,hasrecognizedher
fathersprotestations.In ashisdaughterandthatMONINAhasbeenenjoyingtheopen
and continuous possession of the status as FRANCISCOs paying for her long distance telephone calls, having appellant
illegitimatedaughter. spendher vacation in hisapartmentinManilaandalsoathis
Wereadilyconcludethatthetestimonialevidenceofferedby Forbesresidence,allowingappellanttousehissurnameinher
MONINA, wovenbyhernarration ofcircumstancesand events scholasticandotherrecords(Exhs.Z,AA,AA1toAA5,W&W
thatoccurredthroughtheyears,concerningherrelationshipwith 5)...
FRANCISCO, coupled with the testimonies of her witnesses,
overwhelminglyestablishedthefollowingfacts: 1. 3)Such recognition has been consistently shown and
manifested throughout the years
1. 1)FRANCISCO is MONINAs father and she was publicly,35spontaneously, continuously and in an
conceived at the time when her mother was in the uninterruptedmanner.36
employoftheformer;
Accordingly,inlightofthetotalityoftheevidenceonrecord,the
2. 2)FRANCISCOrecognizedMONINAashischildthrough secondassignederrormustfail.
hisovertactsandconductwhichtheCourtofAppeals There is some merit, however, in the third assigned error
tookpainstoenumerate,thus: againsttheprobativevalueofsomeofMONINAsdocumentary
evidence.
_______________ MONINAs reliance on the certification issued by the Local
Civil Registrar concerning her birth (Exhs. E and F) is clearly
SeeIlano v. Court of Appeals,230 SCRA 242, 256257
34
misplaced.Itissettledthatacertificateoflivebirthpurportedly
[1994]. identifyingtheputativefatherisnotcompetentevidenceastothe
534 issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative
534 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED fatherhadahandinthepreparationofsaidcertificates,andthe
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals LocalCivilRegistrarisdevoidofauthoritytorecordthepaternity
[L]ike sending appellant to school, paying for her tuition fees, of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third
school uniforms, books, board and lodging at the Colegio del person.37Simplyput,iftheallegedfatherdid
SagradodeJesus,defrayingappellantshospitalizationexpenses,
_______________
providingherwith[a]monthlyallowance,payingforthefuneral
expenses of appellants mother, acknowledging appellants
paternal greetings and calling appellant his Hija or child,
35
SeeBaluyot v. Baluyot,supranote 21;Alberto v. Court of
instructing his office personnel to give appellants monthly Appeals,232SCRA745,757[1994].
allowance,recommendingappellantforemploymentattheMiller,
36
SeeOngv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.95386,29May1997,
Cruz&Co.,allowingappellanttousehishouseinBacolodand at11.
 SeeFernandezv.CourtofAppeals,230SCRA130,136137
37 admitted, there being no showing that the declarantsauthors
[1994],citingRocesv.LocalCivilRegistrar,102Phil.1050(1958). were dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship
535 betweenthedeclarantsandMONINA
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 535
_______________
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
not intervene in the birth certificate,e.g., supplying the 38
SeeBercilesv.GSIS,128SCRA53,7778[1984](citations
informationhimself,theinscriptionofhisnamebythemotheror
omitted).
doctor or registrarisnull andvoid; themerecertificatebythe 39
SeeFernandezv.CA,supranote37;andReyesv.Courtof
registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of
voluntaryacknowledgmentonthelatterspart. 38Inlikemanner, Appeals,supranote22,at450.
FRANCISCOs lack of participation in the preparation of the
40
Rule132,Section20(a),RulesofCourt.
baptismalcertificates(Exhs.CandD)andschoolrecords(Exhs.Z 536
andAA)rendersthesedocumentsincompetenttoprovepaternity, 536 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
theformerbeingcompetentmerelytoprovetheadministrationof Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified. 39However, shownbyevidenceotherthanthedocumentsinquestion.41Asto
despite the inadmissibility of the school recordsper seto prove theadmissibilityofthesedocumentsunderRule130,Section40,
paternity,theymaybeadmittedaspartofMONINAstestimony however,thisrequiresfurtherelaboration.
to corroborate her claim that FRANCISCO spent for her Rule130,Section40,provides:
education. Section 40.Family reputation ortradition regarding pedigree.
WelikewisedisagreewiththerulingoftheCourtofAppeals Thereputationortraditionexistinginafamilyprevioustothe
thatthecertificatesissuedbytheLocalCivilRegistrarandthe controversy,inrespecttothepedigreeofanyoneofitsmembers,
baptismalcertificatesmaybetakenascircumstantialevidenceto may be received in evidenceif the witness testifying thereonbe
proveMONINAsfiliation.Since they areperseinadmissiblein also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or
evidence as proof of such filiation, they cannot be admitted affinity.Entriesinfamilybiblesorotherfamilybooksorcharts,
indirectlyascircumstantialevidencetoprovethesame. engravingsonrings,familyportraitandthelike,maybereceived
As to Exhibits S, T, U and V, the various notes and asevidenceofpedigree.(italicssupplied)
letterswrittenbyFRANCISCOsrelatives,namelyMikeAlano, Itisevidentthatthisprovisionmaybedividedintotwo(2)parts:
EmilioJison,MariquitLopezandFernandoLopez,respectively, theportioncontainingthefirstunderscoredclausewhichpertains
allegedly attesting to MONINAs filiation, while their due totestimonialevidence,underwhichthedocumentsinquestion
execution and authenticity are not in issue,40as MONINA may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the
witnessedtheauthorssigningthedocuments,nevertheless,under witnessstand;andthesectioncontainingthesecondunderscored
Rule130,Section39,thecontentsofthesedocumentsmaynotbe phrase.WhatmustthenbeascertainediswhetherExhibitsSto
V,asprivatedocuments,fallwithinthescopeoftheclauseand exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 41
thelikeasqualifiedbytheprecedingphrase[e]ntriesinfamily regardingcommonreputation,47ithavingbeenobservedthat:
biblesorotherfamilybooksorcharts,engravingsonrights[and] [T]heweightofauthorityappearstobeinfavorofthetheorythat
familyportraits. itisthegeneralrepute,thecommonreputationinthefamily,and
Weholdthatthescopeoftheenumerationcontainedinthe not the common reputation in community, that is a material
second portion of thisprovision, inlightof therule ofejusdem element of evidence going to establish pedigree. x x x [Thus]
generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as mattersofpedigreemaybeprovedbyreputationinthefamily,
familypossessions,orthosearticleswhichrepresent,ineffect,a and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except
familys joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a wherethepedigreeinquestionismarriagewhichmaybeproved
person.42Thesehavebeendescribedasobjectsopenlyexhibited bycommonreputationinthecommunity.48
andwellknowntothefamily,43orthosewhich,if Their inadmissibility notwithstanding, Exhibits S to V,
inclusive, may, in like manner as MONINAs school records,
_______________ properlybeadmittedaspartofhertestimonytostrengthenher
claimthat,indeed,relativesofFRANCISCOrecognizedherashis
41
SeeMendozav.CourtofAppeals,supranote29,at685for daughter.
requisites of admissibility of an act or declaration regarding
pedigree. _______________
42
SeeFRANCISCO,at498.
43
5MANUELV.MORAN,COMMENTSONTHERULESOF
44
5 RUPERTO G. MARTIN,RULES OF COURT IN THE
COURT329[1980](hereafterMORAN). PHILIPPINES WITH NOTES AND COMMENTS 325(3rd ed.
537 1974)(hereafterMARTIN).
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 537
45
Id.
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
46
MORAN,supranote43.
preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family
47
Theprovisionreads:
tradition.44Otherexamplesoftheseobjectswhichareregarded Section41.Commonreputation.Commonreputationexisting
as reflective of a familys reputation or tradition regarding previoustothecontroversy,respectingfactsofpublicorgeneral
pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, 45monuments or coffin interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or
plates.46 moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
Plainly then, Exhibits S to V, as private documents not inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of
constitutingfamilypossessionsasdiscussedabove,maynotbe commonreputation.
admittedonthebasisofRule130,Section40.Neithermaythese 48
MORAN,supranote43,at328and336.
538
538 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Onthecontrary,inasking[MONINA]tosignthesaidaffidavitat
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals thecostofP15,000,[FRANCISCO]clearlybetrayedhisintention
We now direct our attention to MONINAs 21 September 1971 toconcealorsuppresshispaternityof[MONINA].xxx
affidavit (Exh. P/Exh. 2), subject of the fourth assigned error, Indeed, if MONINA were truly not FRANCISCOs illegitimate
wheresheatteststhatFRANCISCOisnotherfather.MONINA daughter,itwouldhavebeenunnecessaryforhimtohavegoneto
suchgreatlengthsinorderthatMONINAdenounceherfiliation.
contendsthatshesigneditunderduress,i.e.,shewasjobless,had
Forasclearlyestablishedbeforethetrial
nosavingsandneededthemoneytosupportherselfandfinish
539
herstudies.Moreover, shesignedExhibitPupontheadviceof
VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 539
Atty. Divinagracia that filiation could not be waived and that
FRANCISCOsploywouldboomeranguponhim.Ontheother Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
hand,FRANCISCOassertsthatfullcredenceshouldbeafforded courtandproperlyappreciatedbytheCourtofAppeals,MONINA
ExhibitPasMONINAwasalready25yearsoldatthetimeofits had resigned from Miller & Cruz five (5) months prior to the
executionandwasadvisedbycounsel;further,beinganotarized execution of the sworn statement in question, hence negating
document, its genuineness and due execution could not be FRANCISCOs theory of the need to quash rumors circulating
questioned.HereliesonthetestimonyofJoseCruz,apartnerat withinMiller&CruzregardingtheidentityofMONINAsfather.
the accounting firm of Miller & Cruz, who declared that he Hence, coupled with the assessment of the credibility of the
intervened in the matter as MONINA was spreading rumors testimonialevidenceofthepartiesdiscussedabove,itisevident
about her filiation within the firm, which might have had thatthestandardtocontradictanotarialdocument,i.e.,clearand
deleterious effects upon the relationship between the firm and convincing evidence and more than merely preponderant, 49has
FRANCISCO. beenmetbyMONINA.
On this issue, we find for MONINA and agree with the Plainly then, the burden of evidence fully shifted to
followingobservationsoftheCourtofAppeals: FRANCISCO.
Eventheaffidavit (Exh 2)which[FRANCISCO]hadfoistedon Two (2) glaring points in FRANCISCOs defense beg to be
thetrialcourtxxxdoesnotholdswayinthefaceof[MONINAs] addressed: First, that his testimony was comprised of mere
logical explanation that she at first did not agree to sign the denials,rifewithbare,unsubstantiatedresponsessuchasThat
affidavit which contained untruthful statements. In fact, she is not true, I do not believethat,or None thatI know. In
promptlycomplainedto[FRANCISCO]who,howeverexplainedto decliningthentolendcredencetoFRANCISCOstestimony,we
herthattheaffidavitwasonlyfortheconsumptionofhisspousex resort to a guiding principle in adjudging the credibility of a
xx. witnessandthetruthfulnessofhisstatements,laiddownasearly
Atanyrate,if[MONINA]werenothisillegitimatedaughter, as1921:
itwouldhavebeenuncalledfor,ifnotabsurd,for[FRANCISCO] Theexperienceofcourtsandthegeneralobservationofhumanity
orhislawyertohavesecured[MONINAs]swornstatementxxx teachusthatthenaturallimitationsofourinventivefacultiesare
suchthatifawitnessundertakestofabricateanddeliverincourt
a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost unable to provide the basis for a finding of bias against
certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to make statements FRANCISCOonthepartofhisformeremployees.
whichcanbereadilyrefuted,ortoexposeinhisdemeanorthe As to FRANCISCOs other witnesses, nothing substantial
falsityofhismessage. couldbeobtainedeither.NonitoJalandoniavowedthatheonly
Forthisreasonitwillbefoundthatperjurersusuallyconfine came to know of MONINA in June 1988; 51that during his
themselvestotheincidentsimmediatelyrelatedtotheprincipal employmentatNellyGardenfrom1963upto1974,hedidnot
fact about which they testify, and when asked about collateral recalleverhavingseenMONINAthere,neitherdidheknowof
factsbywhichtheirtruthfulnesscouldbetested,theiranswers any instructions from FRANCISCO nor Mr. Lagarto
notinfre (FRANCISCOs office manager before passing away) regarding
the disbursement of MONINAs allowance. 52Teodoro Nulla
_______________ corroborated Jalandonis testimony regarding not having seen
MONINA at Nelly Garden and MONINAs allowance; declared
49
SeeYturralde v. Azurin,28 SCRA 407, 417 [1969], that Alfredo Baylosis was dismissed due to discrepancies
citingMendezona v. Philippine Sugar Estates Development discovered after an audit, without any further elaboration,
Co.,41 Phil. 475, 493 [1921], in turn, citingCamacho v. however; but admitted that he never prepared the vouchers
Municipality of Baliuag,28 Phil. 466[1914] andCentenera v. pertaining to FRANCISCOs personal expenses, merely those
Garcia Palicio,29 Phil. 470[1915]; andSalame v. Court of intended for one of FRANCISCOs haciendas.53Then, Iigo
Appeals,239SCRA356,359[1994]. Superticiosoconfirmedthataccordingtothereportofacertain
540 Mr.Atienza,BaylosiswasdismissedbyMr.
540 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals _______________
quentlytakethestereotypedformofsuchexpressionsasIdont 50
UnitedStatesv.Burns,41Phil.418,428429[1921];People
knoworIdontremember.xxx50
v.NemesioV.Ganan,Jr.,HarleyS.Fabicon,G.R.No.119722,2
Second,thereasonsforthedismissalsofTingson,Baylosisand
December1996,at25.
Savariz were unspecified or likewise unsubstantiated, hence 51
TSN,15November1988,1011.
FRANCISCOsattempttoproveillmotiveontheirparttofalsely 52
TSN,15November1988,1417.
testifyinMONINAsfavormaynotsucceed.Asmaybegleaned, 53
TSN,16January1989,8;2425.
the only detail which FRANCISCO could furnish as to the
541
circumstances surrounding the dismissals of his former
employees was that Baylosis allegedly took advantage of his VOL.286,FEBRUARY24,1998 541
positionwhileFRANCISCOwasintheUnitedStates.Butaside Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
from this bare claim, FRANCISCOs account is barren, hence Jison for irregularities, while Superticioso was informed by
FRANCISCOthatTingsonwasdismissedforlossofconfidence.
SuperticiosolikewisedeniedthatMONINAreceivedmoneyfrom 55
People v. Antonio,233 SCRA 283, 299 [1994];Batiquin v.
FRANCISCOs office, neither was there a standing order from CourtofAppeals,258SCRA334,343[1996].
FRANCISCOtoreleasefundstoher.54 56
TSN,17April1989,13.
Itisatonceobviousthatthetestimoniesofthesewitnessesfor 57
TSN,17April1989,2931.
FRANCISCO are likewise insufficient to overcome MONINAs 542
evidence. The former merely consist of denials as regards the 542 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
latters having gone to Nelly Garden or having received her Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals
allowancefromFRANCISCOsoffice,which,beingintheformof thepartofthedefendant,orofoneunderwhomheclaims,giving
negativetestimony,necessarilystandinfirmasagainstpositive risetothesituationofwhichthecomplaintseeksaremedy;(2)
testimony;55bareassertionsasregardsthedismissalofBaylosis; delay in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant
ignorance of FRANCISCOs personal expenses incapable of having had knowledge or notice of the defendants conduct as
evincing that FRANCISCO did not provide MONINA with an havingbeenaffordedanopportunitytoinstituteasuit;(3)lackof
allowance; or hearsay evidence as regards the cause for the knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
dismissals of Baylosis and Tingson. But what then serves as complaintwouldasserttherightinwhichhebaseshissuit;and
thecoupdegrceisthatdespiteSuperticiososclaimthathedid (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
not know MONINA,56when confronted with Exhibit H, a accordedtothecomplainant,orthesuitisnotheldbarred. 58The
telephonetollticketindicatingthaton18May1971,MONINA lastelementistheoriginofthedoctrinethatstaledemandsapply
called a certain Eing at FRANCISCOs office, Superticioso onlywherebyreasonofthelapseoftimeitwouldbeinequitable
admittedthathisnicknamewasIingandthattherewasno toallowapartytoenforcehislegalrights.59
otherpersonnamedIinginFRANCISCOsoffice.57 As FRANCISCO set up laches as an affirmative defense, it
All told, MONINAs evidence hurdled the high standard of wasincumbentuponhimtoprovetheexistenceofitselements.
proof required for the success of an action to establish ones However, he only succeeded in showing MONINAs delay in
illegitimatefiliationwhenrelyingupontheprovisionsregarding asserting her claim, but miserably failed to prove the last
openandcontinuouspossessionoranyothermeansallowedby element.Inanyevent,itmustbestressedthatlachesisbased
theRulesofCourtandspeciallaws;moreover,MONINAproved upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of
herfiliationbymorethanmerepreponderanceofevidence. society,thediscouragementofstaleclaims,andisprincipallya
The last assigned error concerning laches likewise fails to question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or
convince.Theessentialelementsoflachesare:(1)conducton claimtobeenforcedorasserted.Thereisnoabsoluteruleasto
whatconstituteslaches;eachcaseistobedeterminedaccording
_______________ to its particular circumstances. The question of laches is
addressedtothesounddiscretionofthecourt,andsinceitisan
54
TSN,17April1989,6,8,1012,29. equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to
perpetuatefraud andinjustice. 60Sincetheinstant case involves aninformationisfiledbytheprosecutoragainsttheaccused,in
paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate, MONINA filed her compliancewiththedueprocessofthelaw.Itisenshrinedinour
actionwellwithintheperiodgrantedherbyapositiveprovision Bill of Rights that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a
of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would criminal offense without dueprocess oflaw.This includes the
clearlybeinequitableandunjust. rightoftheaccusedtobepresumedinnocentuntilprovenguilty
WHEREFORE,INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,thepetition andtobeinformedofthenatureandaccusationagainsthim.
ishereby DENIED andthechallengeddecisionof theCourtof Uponafindingof
Appealsof27April1995inCAG.R.CVNo.32860isAFFIRMED. _______________
Costsagainstpetitioner. *THIRDDIVISION.
SOORDERED. 149
Bellosillo,Vitug,PanganibanandQuisumbing, VOL.724,MAY5,2014 149
JJ.,concur. Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
Petitiondenied;Challengeddecisionaffirmed. probable cause, an information is filed by the prosecutor
Notes.ThephrasevestedoracquiredrightsunderArticle against the accused, in compliance with the due process of the
256isnotdefinedbytheFamilyCode,leavingittothecourtsto law.Rule110,Section1,paragraph1oftheRulesofCriminal
determinewhatitmeansaseachparticularissueissubmittedto Procedureprovidesthat:Acomplaintorinformationissufficient
them.(Aruego,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,254SCRA711[1996]) ifitstatesthenameoftheaccused;thedesignationoftheoffense
IntheabsenceoftitlesindicatedinArt.265oftheCivilCode, given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
thefiliationofchildrenmaybeprovenbycontinuouspossessionof constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
thestatusofalegitimatechildandbyanyothermeansallowed approximatedateofthecommissionoftheoffense;andtheplace
by the Rules of Court or special laws. (Balogbog vs. Court of wheretheoffensewascommitted.
Appeals,269SCRA259[1997]) CriminalLaw;AggravatingCircumstances;Failuretostate
anaggravatingcircumstance,evenifdulyprovenattrial,willnot
be appreciated as such.Itshould be remembered that every
G.R.No.196735.May5,2014.* aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.DANILO information.Failuretostateanaggravatingcircumstance,evenif
FELICIANO,JR.,JULIUSVICTORMEDALLA,CHRISTOPHER duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such.Itwas,
SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL therefore,incumbentontheprosecutiontostatetheaggravating
BELTRANALVIR,accusedappellants. circumstanceofwearingmasksand/orotherformsofdisguisein
RemedialLaw;CriminalProcedure;ProsecutionofOffenses; theinformationinorderforalltheevidence,introducedtothat
effect,tobeadmissiblebythetrialcourt.
ProbableCause;DueProcess;Uponafindingofprobablecause,
 Same; Same; Disguise; In criminal cases, disguise is an RemedialLaw; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Asa general
aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the rule,thefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt,whenaffirmedbythe
accusedtoremainanonymousandunidentifiableashecarriesout appellatecourt,aregivengreatweightandcredenceonreview.
his crimes.In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating As a general rule, the findingsof fact by the trial court, when
circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to affirmed by the appellate court, are given great weight and
remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his credenceonreview.TherationaleforthiswasexplainedinPeople
crimes. The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial v.DanielQuijada,259SCRA191(1996),asfollows:Settledisthe
evidencethattendstoprovethattheaccusedweremaskedbut rulethatthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,especiallyonthe
themasksfelloffdoesnotpreventthemfromincludingdisguise credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect.
as an aggravating circumstance.What is important in alleging For,thetrialcourthastheadvantageofobservingthewitnesses
disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was throughthedifferentindicatorsoftruthfulnessorfalsehood,such
aconcealmentofidentitybytheaccused.Theinclusionofdisguise astheangryflushofaninsistedassertionorthesuddenpallorof
intheinformationwas,therefore,enoughtosufficientlyapprise adiscoveredlieorthetremulousmutterofareluctantansweror
theaccusedthatinthecommissionoftheoffensetheywerebeing the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the
chargedwith,theytriedtoconcealtheiridentity. blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the
Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracypresupposesthat theact of flippantorsneeringtone,theheat,thecalmness,theyawn,the
oneistheactofall.Theinformationchargesconspiracyamong sigh,thecandororlackofit,thescantorfullrealizationofthe
theaccused.Conspiracypresupposesthattheactofoneistheact solemnityofanoath,thecarriageandmien.Thereare,ofcourse,
of all.This would mean all the accused had been one intheir recognized exceptions to this rule. InPeoplev.Leticia
plantoconcealtheiridentityeveniftherewasevidencelateron Labarias,217SCRA 483 (1993), thiscourtstated that:Itisthe
toprovethatsomeofthemmightnothavedoneso.Inanycase, policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial
theaccused courtonthereasonableassumptionthatitisinabetterposition
150 toassesstheevidencebeforeit,particularlythetestimoniesofthe
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED witnesses,whorevealmuchofthemselvesbytheirdeportmenton
50 thestand.Theexceptionthatmakestheruleiswheresuch
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. findings areclearly arbitrary or erroneousas when they
were being charged with the crime of murder, frustrated aretainted with bias or hostilityor areso lacking in
murder, and attempted murder. All that is needed for the basisas to suggest that they were reached without the
informationtobesufficientisthattheelementsofthecrimehave carefulstudyandperceptivenessthatshouldcharacterize
beenallegedandthattherearesufficientdetailsastothetime, ajudicialdecision.
place,andpersonsinvolvedintheoffense.
 Same;Evidence;Witnesses;Itwouldbeinlinewithhuman actmaterialtotheissue,andgivingitalegalsignificance,maybe
experience that a victim or an eyewitness of a crime would receivedaspartoftheresgestae.
endeavortofindwaystoidentifytheassailantsothatintheevent Same;Same;ResGestae;Consideringthatthestatementsof
that he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended. the bystanders were made immediately after the startling
Itwould be in line with human experience that a victim or an occurrence,theyare,infact,admissibleasevidencegiveninres
eyewitnessofacrimewouldendeavortofindwaystoidentifythe gestae.There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group
assailantsothatinthe peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling
151 occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 151 weremadeimmediatelyafterthestartlingoccurrence,theyare,
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. infact,admissibleasevidencegiveninresgestae.
eventthat he or she survives, the criminal could be Criminal Law; Alibi; It is settled that the defense of alibi
apprehended.Ithasalsobeenpreviouslyheldthat:Itisthemost cannotprevailoverthepositiveidentificationofthevictim.Itis
naturalreactionforvictimsofcriminalviolencetostrivetosee
settledthatthedefenseofalibicannotprevailoverthepositive
thelooksandfacesoftheirassailantsandobservethemannerin
which the crime was committed. Most often the face of the identificationofthevictim.InPeoplev.BenjaminPeteluna,689
assailant and body movements thereof, creates a lasting SCRA 190 (2013), this court is stated that: xxx In this
impressionwhichcannotbeeasilyerasedfromtheirmemory. case,thevictims wereableto positively identify their attackers
Same;Same;Same;Asageneralrule,awitnesscantestify whiletheaccusedappellantsmerelyofferedalibisanddenialsas
theirdefense.Thecredibilityofthevictimswasupheldbyboth
only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
thetrialcourtandthe
whicharederivedfromhisownperception.As a generalrule, 152
[a]witnesscantestifyonlytothefactsheknowsofhispersonal
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
knowledge;thatis,whichare derivedfromhis ownperception,
52
xxx.All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissibleasevidence.TheRulesof Court,however,provide Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
severalexceptionstothegeneralrule,andoneofwhichiswhen appellatecourtwhilegivinglittlecredencetotheaccused
the evidence is part ofres gestae,thus: Section 42.Part of res appellantsalibis. There is, thus, no reason to disturb their
gestae.Statementsmadebyapersonwhileastartingoccurrence findings.
istakingplaceorimmediatelypriororsubsequenttheretowith Same;AggravatingCircumstances;Treachery;Theswiftness
respecttothecircumstancesthereof,maybegiveninevidenceas and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the
partofresgestae.So,also,statementsaccompanyinganequivocal victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery,
therefore, was present in this case.The victims, who were
unarmed,werealsoattackedwithleadpipesandbaseballbats. upontheconspiratorsisclearlyexplainedinonecasewherethis
Theonlywaytheycouldparrytheblowswaswiththeirarms.In Court held that ... it is impossible to graduate the separate
asituationwheretheywereunarmedandoutnumbered,itwould liabilityofeach(conspirator)with
beimpossibleforthemtofightbackagainsttheattackers.The 153
attackalsohappenedinlessthanaminute,whichwouldpreclude VOL.724,MAY5,2014 153
any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them until Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
aftertheincident.Theswiftnessandthesuddennessoftheattack out taking into consideration the close and inseparable
gavenoopportunityforthevictimstoretaliateoreventodefend relationofeachofthemwiththecriminalact,forthecommission
themselves.Treachery,therefore,waspresentinthiscase. ofwhichtheyallactedbycommonagreement...Thecrimemust
Same;Conspiracy;Conspiracy,onceproven,hastheeffectof therefore in view of the solidarity of the act and intent which
attachingliabilitytoalloftheaccused,regardlessoftheirdegree existedbetweenthe...accused,beregardedastheactoftheband
of participation.Itshould be remembered that the trial court or party created by them, and they are all equally
found that there was conspiracy among the accused responsible.Verily, the moment it is established that the
appellantsand the appellate court sustained this malefactors conspired and confederated in the
finding.Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching commissionofthefelonyproved,collectiveliabilityofthe
liability to all ofthe accused, regardless of their degree of accusedconspiratorsattachesbyreasonoftheconspiracy,
participation,thus:Onceanexpressorimpliedconspiracyis andthecourtshallnotspeculatenoreveninvestigateas
proved,alloftheconspiratorsareliableascoprincipals to the actual degree of participation of each of the
regardlessoftheextentandcharacteroftheirrespective perpetratorspresentatthesceneofthecrime.xxx.
active participation in the commission of the crime or ABAD,J.,DissentingOpinion:
crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt;
becauseincontemplationoflawtheactofoneistheactof
View that in every criminal action, the prosecution has to
all.Theforegoing ruleisanchoredon the soundprinciplethat
establishtheidentityoftheoffender,likethecrimeitself,byproof
whentwoormorepersonsunitetoaccomplishacriminalobject,
beyond reasonable doubt.In every criminal action, the
whetherthrough thephysical volitionofone,orall, proceeding
prosecutionhastoestablishtheidentityoftheoffender,likethe
severallyorcollectively,eachindividualwhoseevilwillactively
crime itself, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, its first
contributestothewrongdoingisinlawresponsibleforthewhole,
duty is to prove the identity of the offender for, even if the
thesameasthoughperformedbyhimselfalone.Althoughitis
commissionoftheoffensecanbeestablished,noconvictioncan
axiomaticthatnooneisliableforactsotherthanhisown,when
takeplacewithoutproofofhisidentitybeyondreasonabledoubt.
twoormorepersonsagreeorconspiretocommitacrime,eachis
responsibleforalltheactsoftheothers,doneinfurtheranceof CriminalLaw;Alibi;Viewthattrue,alibiisaweakdefense
theagreementorconspiracy.Theimpositionofcollectiveliability inthefaceofpositivetestimoniesofprosecutionwitnessesthatthe
accused committed the crime.True,alibiis a weak defense in Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae.Statements made by a person
thefaceofpositivetestimoniesofprosecutionwitnessesthatthe whileastartlingoccurrenceistakingplaceorimmediatelyprior
accused committed the crime. But such testimonies must be orsubsequenttheretowithrespecttothecircumstancesthereof,
credible and must come from credible witnesses. Several maybegiveninevidenceaspartoftheresgestae.xxxThese
circumstancesmilitateagainstthemaulingvictimstestimonies statementsarespontaneousreactionsinspiredbytheexcitement
thattheywereabletoidentifytheirattackers. ofthemoment.Itmaybeassumedthat,unliketardywitnesses,
RemedialLaw;Evidence;Viewthatthecircumstancesofthe thebystanderswhomadethestatementshadnoopportunityto
separateidentifications,takingplaceinsplitseconds,defybelief. deliberate or fabricate. The words they uttered are part of the
Justwhatarethechancesthatfouroutoffivewitnesseswho commotiontheydescribed.Theresgestaecontradictstheattempt
werefleeingand,indeed,runningfortheirliveswouldjustlook ofprosecutionwitnessestoshowthatanumberoftheattackers
back,riskstumblingandcrashingdown,toputinevidencethe woremasksorthatidentificationwaspossiblebecausethemasks
identitiesofsomeofthosewhomtheRTCandtheCAconvicted? ofsomefelloff.
Verylittle.Itappearsaconvenientexcuseforprovidingevidence ConstitutionalLaw;RighttoRemainSilent;Viewthatthe
wherenone righttosilenceisgiventopersonsundersuspicionforcommitting
154
somecrimes,nottothevictimswhosedutyistopromptlyassist
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thepoliceinvestigatorsinpinpointingcriminalresponsibilities.
54
The right to silence is given to persons under suspicion for
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. committing some crimes, not to the victims whose duty is to
existed. The circumstances of the separate identifications, promptly assist the police investigators in pinpointing criminal
takingplaceinsplitseconds,defybelief.Whatbafflesmeisthe responsibilities.Noevidencehasbeenpresentedtoshowthatthe
factthatthetrialcourtacquittedSJMoranowhomSRFortesand UPpoliceforcewaspartialtotheopposingfraternity.Iamthus
GastonidentifiedwhilelookingbackontherunbutconvictedSJ unabletoblametheaccusedforbelievingthattheonlypossible
Zingapan,Soliva,andMedallawhowerealsotargetsoflookback reason in this case for withholding informationfromthe police
testimonies. fromdayonewasthatthevictimsandtheircounselhadyetto
Same; Same; Res Gestae; View that the statement of the puttheiractstogether.
bystanders,madewhilesomeofthewoundedwerebleedingthere CriminalLaw;AggravatingCircumstances;Treachery;View
andtheexcitementlingered,maybegiveninevidenceaspartof thatwhiletheattackbymaskedmenisdoublycondemnable,not
the res gestae.The statement of the bystanders, made while only for the treachery involved but also for the cowardice and
some of the wounded were bleeding there and the excitement deception
lingered, may be given in evidence as part of theres gestae. 155
Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides: VOL.724,MAY5,2014 155
 Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. Yet,thereareelementswithinthisacademicmilieuthattrade
thatcamewithit,theSupremeCourtcannothastilysendto misplaced concepts of perverse brotherhood for these hopes.
Fraternityrumblesexistbecauseofpastimpunity.
prison those charged with these crimes without proof beyond
156
reasonabledoubtthattheycommittedthem.Whiletheattackby 156 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
maskedmen is doublycondemnable,notonlyforthetreachery
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
involvedbutalsoforthecowardiceanddeceptionthatcamewith
Thishasresultedinasenselessdeathwhosejusticeisnowthe
it, the Court cannot hastily send to prison those charged with
subject matter of this case.Itis rare that these cases are
these crimes without proof beyond reasonable doubt that they
prosecuted.Itisevenmoreextraordinarythattherearecredible
committed them. The Constitution ordains this. In a case like
witnesses who present themselves courageously before an able
this, where the identities and participations of the several
andexperiencedtrialcourtjudge.
accused involved are difficult to prove, the ideal solution is to
Thiscultureofimpunitymuststop.Thereisnospaceinthis
convincetheleastguiltyofthem,theonewhoshowedthemost
society for hooliganism disguised as fraternity rumbles. The
reluctance and delivered the lightest blows, to turn state
perpetrators must stand and suffer the legal consequences of
witness.Iamunabletosayifeffortsinthisdirectionweretaken
theiractions.Theymustdosoforthereisanindividualwhonow
bytheNBIortheprosecutorstoensurethattheyhadagoodcase.
lies dead, robbed of his dreams and the dreams of his family.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
Excruciatinggriefforthemwillneverbeenough.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
ItisundisputedthatonDecember8,1994,ataround12:30to
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of theSigma
DeCastro & Cagampang Law Officesforaccusedappellant
RhoFraternitywereeatinglunchattheBeachHouseCanteen,
ChristopherSoliva.
near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines,
Villareal, Rosacia, Dino & Patag Law Officesfor appellant Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men
Alvir. carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained
EstelitoP.MendozaforappellantZingapan. injuries that required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis
LEONEN,J.: Venturina,diedfromhisinjuries.
Itisinthehallowedgroundsofauniversitywherestudents, Aninformation[1]formurder,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.
faculty,andresearchpersonnelshouldfeelsafest.Afterall,thisis Q9561133, was filed against several members of theScintilla
whereideasthatcouldprobablysolvethesordidrealitiesinthis JurisFraternity, namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius
worldarepeacefullynurturedanddebated.Universitiesproduce VictorL.Medalla, WarrenL.Zingapan, Robert Michael Beltran
hope.Theyincubateallouryouthfuldreams. Alvir,ChristopherL.Soliva,ReynaldoG.Ablanida,CarloJolette
Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle
Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Pealosa, Jr. with
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219. The Thefacts,accordingtotheprosecution,areasfollows:
informationreads: Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, Dennis Venturina, Mervin
That on or about the 8thday of December 1994, in Quezon Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng,[7]and Cesar
City, Philippines, the abovenamed accused, wearing masks Mangrobang, Jr. are all members of theSigma RhoFraternity.
and/orotherformsofdisguise,conspiring,confederatingwith OnDecember8,1994, at around12:30 to 1:00 p.m., theywere
otherpersonswhosetrue havinglunchatBeachHouseCanteen,locatedatthebackofthe
_______________ MainLibraryoftheUniversityofthePhilippines,
[1]Originalrecords,Vol.I,p.3. _______________
157 [2]DocketedasQ9561134.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 157 [3]DocketedasQ9561135.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [4]DocketedasQ9561136.
names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been [5]DocketedasQ9561137.
ascertained, and mutually helping one another, with intent to [6]DocketedasQ9561138.
kill, qualified with treachery, and with evident premeditation, [7]Felix Tumaneng was not presented as a witness by the
takingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,armedwithbaseballbats, prosecution.
leadpipes,andcutters,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully 158
andfeloniouslyattack,assaultandemploypersonalviolenceupon 158 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thepersonofDENNISF.VENTURINA,bythenandtherehitting Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
himontheheadandclubbinghimondifferentpartsofhisbody Diliman, Quezon City.[8]Suddenly,Dennis Venturina
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal injuries which shouted,Brods,brods![9]
werethedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamage According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon ofSigma
and prejudice of the heirs of said DENNIS F. VENTURINA.
RhoFraternity,helookedaroundwhenVenturinashouted,and
(Emphasissupplied)
he saw about ten (10) men charging toward them.[10]Themen

werearmedwithbaseballbatsandleadpipes,andtheirheads
Separate informations were also filed against them for the
were covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts.[11]Within a
attempted murder ofSigmaRhoFraternity members Cesar fewseconds,five(5)ofthemenstartedattackinghim,hittinghim
Mangrobang, Jr.,[2]Cristobal Gaston, Jr.,[3]and Leandro withtheirleadpipes.[12]Duringtheattack,herecognizedoneof
Lachica,[4]and the frustrated murder ofSigma RhoFraternity theattackersasRobertMichaelBeltranAlvirbecausehismask
membersMervinNatalicio[5]andArnelFortes.[6]Only11ofthe felloff.[13]
accusedstoodtrialsinceoneoftheaccused,BenedictGuerrero, Lachica tried to parry the blows of his attackers, suffering
remainedatlarge. scratchesandcontusions.[14]Hewas,however,abletoruntothe
Atrialonthemeritsensued. nearby College of Education.[15]Just before reaching it, he
looked back and saw Warren Zingapan and Julius (30)seconds,theystoppedhittinghim.[26]Hewaslyingonhis
VictorL.Medalla holding lead pipes and standing where the backandwhenhelookedup,hesawanothergroupoffour(4)to
commotionwas.[16]Bothofthemdidnothavetheirmaskson. five (5) men coming toward him, led by Benedict Guerrero.
[17]HewasfamiliarwithAlvir,Zingapan,andMedallabecause [27]This group also beat him up.[28]He did not move until
he often saw them in the College of Social Sciences and anothergroupofmaskedmenbeathimupforaboutfive(5)to
Philosophy (CSSP) andZingapanused tobe hisfriend.[18]The eight (8) seconds.[29]When the attacks ceased, he was found
attacklastedaboutthirty(30)tofortyfive(45)seconds.[19] lyingontheground.[30]Severalbystandersbroughthimtothe
According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon U.P. Infirmary where he stayed for more than a week for the
ofSigmaRho,helookedtohisleftwhenVenturinashouted.[20] treatmentofhiswoundsandfractures.[31]
_______________ AccordingtoCesarMangrobang,Jr.,memberofSigmaRho,
[8]TSN,June5,1995,pp.911. healsolookedbackwhenVenturinashoutedandsawagroupof
[9]TSN,July3,1995,p.7. menwithbaseballbatsandleadpipes.Someofthemworepieces
[10]TSN,June5,1995,p.25. ofclotharoundtheirheads.[32]Heranwhentheyattacked,but
[11]Id.,atpp.1112. two (2) men, whose faces were covered with pieces of cloth,
[12]Id.,atp.12. blockedhiswayandhithimwithleadpipes.[33]Whilerunning
andparryingtheblows,herecognizedthemas
[13]Id.
_______________
[14]Id.,atp.13.
[21]Id.
[15]Id.,atpp.1314.
[22]Id.,atp.10.
[16]Id.,atpp.4546.
[23]Id.
[17]Id.,atpp.1314.
[24]Id.,atpp.1213.
[18]Id.
[25]Id.,atpp.1416.
[19]Id.,atp.33.
[26]Id.,atp.16.
[20]TSN,July3,1995,p.7.
159Hesawabout fifteen(15)totwenty(20)men, mostof who [27]Id.,atpp.1617.
werewearingmasks,runningtowardthem.[21]Hewasstunned, [28]Id.,atp.17.
and he started running.[22]He stumbled over the protruding [29]Id.,atp.19.
rootsofatree.[23]Hegotup,buttheattackerscameafterhim [30]Id.,atpp.1920.
andbeathimupwithleadpipesandbaseballbatsuntilhefell [31]Id.
down.[24]Whilehewasparryingtheblows,herecognizedtwo(2) [32]TSN,September28,1995,pp.1415.
oftheattackersasWarrenZingapanandChristopherL.Soliva
[33]Id.,atp.16.
since they were not wearing any masks.[25]After about thirty
160
160 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED [39]Id.,atp.28.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [40]Id.,atpp.2829.
GilbertMerleMagpantayandCarloJoletteFajardobecause [41]Id.,atp.33.
theirmasksfelloff.[34]Hesuccessfullyevadedhisattackersand [42]Id.,atp.34.
rantotheMainLibrary.[35]Hethendecidedthatheneededto
[43]Id.,atp.35.
helphisfraternitybrothersandturnedbacktowardBeachHouse.
[44]Id.,atp.36.
[36]There, he saw Venturina lying on the ground.[37]Danilo
[45]TSN,October11,1995,p.15.
Feliciano,Jr.wasbeatingVenturinaupwithaleadpipewhile
RaymundE.NaragwasaimingtohitVenturina.[38]Whenthey [46]Id.
sawhim,theywenttowardhisdirection.[39]Theywereaboutto [47]Id.,atpp.1617.
hit him when somebody shouted that policemen were coming. 161
FelicianoandNaragthenranaway.[40] VOL.724,MAY5,2014 161
Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. then saw Arnel Fortes. Fortes Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
accompaniedhimtohiscarsotheycouldbringVenturinatothe of the attackers approached him.[48]One struck him with a
U.P.Infirmary.[41]Whentheybroughtthecarover,otherpeople, heavypipewhiletheotherstabbedhimwithabladedinstrument.
presumably bystanders, were already loading Venturina into [49]Hewasabletoparrymostoftheblowsfromtheleadpipe,
another vehicle.[42]They followed that vehicle to the U.P. but he sustained stab wounds on the chest and on his left
Infirmary where they saw Natalicio.[43]He stayed at the forearm.[50]Hewasabletorunaway.[51]Whenhesensedthatno
infirmaryuntilthefollowingmorning.[44] onewaschasinghim,helookedbacktoBeachHouseCanteenand
AccordingtoCristobalGaston,Jr.,memberofSigmaRho,he sawDaniloFeliciano,Jr.,WarrenZingapan,andGeorgeMorano.
immediately stood up when he heard someone [52]Hedecidedtogobacktothecanteentohelphisfraternity
shout,Brods![45]Hesawagroupofmenchargingtowardthem brothers.[53]Whenhearrived,hedidnotseeanyofhisfraternity
carrying lead pipes and baseball bats.[46]Most of them had brothersbutonlysawtheoneswhoattackedthem.[54]Heended
piecesofclothcoveringtheirfaces.[47]Hewasabouttorunwhen up going to their hangout instead to meet with his other
two(2) fraternity brothers.[55]They then proceeded to the College of
_______________ Lawwheretherestofthefraternitywasalreadydiscussingthe
[34]Id.,atpp.1718. incident.[56]
[35]Id.,atpp.2021. AccordingtoArnelFortes,memberofSigmaRho,healsoran
when he saw the group of attackers coming toward them.
[36]Id.,atpp.2122.
[57]When he looked back, he saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr. hitting
[37]Id.,atp.23.
Venturina.[58]He was also able to see Warren Zingapan and
[38]Id.,atpp.2326. GeorgeMoranoatthescene.[59]
 LeandroLachica,inthemeantime,uponreachingtheCollege U.P. where theSigma RhoFraternity members held a meeting.
ofEducation,boardedajeepneytotheCollegeofLawtowaitfor [65]
theirotherfraternitybrothers.[60]Oneofhisfraternitybrothers, On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers ofSigma
PeterCorvera,toldhimthathereceivedinforma Rhoadvised the victims to lodge their complaints with the
_______________ NationalBureauofInvestigation.[66]Theircounsel,Atty.Frank
[48]Id.,atpp.1718. Chavez,toldtheU.P.Policethatthevictimswouldbegivingtheir
[49]Id.,atpp.1920. statements before the National Bureau of Investigation,
[50]Id.,atp.24. promisingtogivetheU.P.Policecopiesoftheirstatements.Inthe
[51]Id.,atp.31. meantime,VenturinawastransferredfromtheU.P.Infirmaryto
St.LukesHospitalonDecember8,1994.HediedonDecember
[52]Id.,atpp.3132.
10,1994.[67]
[53]Id.,atp.33. On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was conducted on the
[54]Id.,atpp.3435. cadaverofDennisVenturina.[68]Dr.RolandoVictoria,amedico
[55]Id.,atp.40. legalofficeroftheNationalBureauofInvestigation,foundthat
[56]Id.,atpp.4445. Venturina had several contusions located at the back of the
[57]TSN,October30,1995,p.74. upper left arm and hematoma on the back of both
[58]Id.,atpp.3031. hands,[69]two(2)laceratedwoundsatthebackofthehead,[70]
_______________
[59]Id.,atpp.7778.
[61]TSN,June5,1995,p.14.
[60]TSN,June21,1995,pp.56.
162 [62]Id.
162 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED [63]Id.,atpp.1415.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [64]Id.,atp.17.
tionthatmembersofScintillaJuriswereseeninthewestwingof [65]Id.,atp.15.
theMainLibraryandwereregroupinginSMNorth.[61]Lachica [66]Id.,atp.20.
and his group then set off for SM North to confrontScintilla [67]TSN,September16,1996,pp.1014.
Jurisandidentifytheirattackers.[62] [68]TSN,July24,1995,pp.67.
When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones were [69]Id.,atpp.1416.
thrown at them.[63]Lachica saw Robert Michael Beltran Alvir [70]Id.,atpp.1617.
andWarrenZingapanandacertainCarloTaparan.[64]Theyhad 163
nochoicebuttogetawayfromthemallandproceedinsteadto VOL.724,MAY5,2014 163
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
generalizedhematomaontheskull,[71]severalfracturesonthe [77]TSN,June5,1995,p.17.
head,[72]and intercranial hemmorrhage.[73]The injuries, [78]TSN,July31,1995,p.14.
accordingtoDr.Victoria,couldhavebeencausedbyahardblunt [79]Id.,atp.46.
object.[74]Dr. Victoria concluded that Venturina died of [80]Id.,atpp.2628.
traumaticheadinjuries.[75]
[81]Id.,atp.46.
On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang,
164
Fortes,andGastonexecutedtheirrespectiveaffidavits[76]before
164 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
theNationalBureauofInvestigationandunderwentmedicolegal
examinations[77]with their medicolegal officer, Dr. Aurelio Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
Villena.AccordingtoDr.Villena,hefoundthatMervinNatalicio (1)tonine(9)daysofmedicalattention.[82]HefoundonLeandro
hadlaceratedwoundsonthetopofthehead,abovetheleftear, Lachica contusions on the mid auxiliary left side, left forearm
andonthefingers;contusedabrasionsonbothknees;contusion andlaceratedwoundontheinfrascapulararea,leftside.[83]On
ontheleftlegandthigh,[78]allofwhichcouldhavebeencaused Christopher Gaston, Jr. he found lacerated wounds on the
by any hard, blunt object. These injuries required medical anterior chest, left side, left forearm; swollen knuckles of both
attendanceforaperiodoften(10)daystothirty(30)daysfrom hands;contusionsonthemidauxiliaryleftside,leftforearmand
thedateofinfliction.[79] laceratedwoundontheinfrascapulararea,leftside.[84]
Dr.VillenafoundonArnelForteslaceratedwoundsonthe On September 18, 1997, after the prosecution presented its
head and on the right leg which could have been caused by a evidenceinchief,thecourtgrantedthedemurrertoevidencefiled
bluntinstrument.[80]Theseinjuriesrequiredhospitalizationfor byRodolfoPealosa,Jr.onthegroundthathewasnotidentified
aperiodoften(10)daystothirty(30)daysfromdateofinfliction. bytheprosecutionswitnessesandthathewasnotmentionedin
[81]HealsofoundonCesarMangrobang,Jr.ahealedabrasion anyofthedocumentaryevidenceoftheprosecution.[85]
ontheleftforearmwhichcouldpossiblybecausedbycontactwith Upon the presentation of their evidence, the defense
[a]roughhardsurfaceandwouldrequireone introducedtheirownstatementofthefacts,asfollows:
_______________ AccordingtoRomeoCabrera,[86]amemberoftheU.P.Police,
[71]Id.,atp.18. he was on foot patrol with another member of the U.P. Police,
OscarSalvador,atthetimeoftheincident.Theywerenearthe
[72]Id.,atpp.1920.
CollegeofArtsandSciences(PalmaHall)whenhevaguelyheard
[73]Id.,atp.22. somebodyshouting,Rumble!Theywenttotheplacewherethe
[74]Id.,atp.41. allegedrumblewashappeningandsawinjuredmenbeinghelped
[75]Id.,atp.23. bybystanders.Theyhelpedaninjuredpersonboardtheservice
[76]TSN,June5,1995,p.17;TSN,July3,1995,p.20;TSN, vehicleoftheBeachHouseCanteen.Theyaskedwhathisname
September28,1995,pp.116117;TSN,October20,1995,p.34; was,andherepliedthathewasMervinNatalicio.Whenheasked
TSN,October11,1995,p.48. Nataliciowhohithim,thelatterwasnotabletoreplybutinstead
told him that his attackers were wearing masks. Oscar commotionhappened.Shesawaroundfifteen(15)toeighteen(18)
Salvador[87]corroboratedhistestimony. maskedmenattackagroupofSigmaRhoans.Shedidnotseeany
_______________ maskfalloff.HersororitysisterandanotherU.P.student,Luz
[82]Id.,atp.401. Perez,[91]corroborated her story that the masked men were
[83]Id.,atpp.3133. unrecognizablebecauseoftheirmasks.Perez,however,admitted
[84]Id. that a member ofScintilla Jurisapproached her to make a
[85]RTCDecision,p.15. statement.
[86]TSN,November11,1995. Another sorority sister, Bathalani Tiamzon,[92]testified on
[87]TSN,November20,1995. substantially the same matters as Panganiban and Perez. She
165 alsostatedthatshesawapersonlyingonthegroundwho
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 165 _______________
[88]TSN,November27,1995.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
[89]TSN,December4,1995.
Benjamin Lato,[88]a utility worker of the Beach House
[90]TSN,December11,1995.
Canteen, likewise testified that the identities of the attackers
were unrecognizable because of their masks. He, however, [91]Id.
admitted that he did not see the attack; he just saw a man [92]TSN,December18,1995.
sprawledonthegroundatthetimeoftheincident. 166
FriscoCapilo,[89]autilityworkerofU.P.assignedtotheMain 166 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Library,wasbuyingacigaretteatavendorlocatednearby.From Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
there,heallegedlysawthewholeincident.Hetestifiedthatten wasbeingbeatenupbyaboutthree(3)tofive(5)maskedmen.
(10)men,wearingeithermasksofredandblackbonnetsorwith Shealsostatedthatsomeofthemenwerewearingblackmasks
shirtscoveringtheirfaces,camefromaredcarparkednearby.He whilesomewerewearingwhitetshirtsasmasks.Shedidnotsee
alsosawthree(3)menbeinghitwithleadpipesbythemasked anymaskfalloffthefacesoftheattackers.
men.Two(2)ofthemenfellafterbeinghit.Oneofthevictims AccordingtoFelicianaFeliciano,[93]accusedappellantDanilo
wasliftingtheothertohelphim,buttheattackersovertookhim. Feliciano,Jr.smother,hersonwasinPampangatovisithissick
Afterwards, the attackers ran away. He then saw students grandfatheratthetimeoftheincident.Sheallegedthatherson
helpingthosewhowereinjured.Helikewisehelpedincarrying wenttoPampangabeforelunchthatdayandvisitedtheschool
oneoftheinjuredvictims,whichhelaterfoundouttobeArnel wheresheteachestogettheirhousekeyfromher.
Fortes. According to Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,[94]he had not
AU.P.studentandmemberoftheSigmaAlphaNuSorority, beenfeelingwellsinceDecember5,1994.Hesaidthathecould
Eda Panganiban,[90]testified that she and her friends were in nothavepossiblybeeninU.P.onDecember8,1994sincehewas
line to order lunch at the Beach House Canteen when a absentevenfromwork.Healsotestifiedthatheworeglassesand,
thus, could not have possibly been the person identified by buyagiftforafriendsweddingbutranintoafraternitybrother.
LeandroLachica.HealsostatedthathewasnotenrolledinU.P. He also alleged that someSigma Rhoansattacked them in SM
atthetimesincehewasworkingtosupporthimself. Norththatday.
According to Julius Victor Medalla,[95]he and another On February 28, 2002, the trial court rendered its
classmate, Michael Vibas, were working on a school project on decision[100]withthefindingthatRobertMichaelAlvir,Danilo
December 8, 1994. He also claimed that he could not have Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and
participated in the rumble as he had an injury affecting his WarrenZingapanwereguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofmurder
balance. The injury was caused by an incident inAugust 1994 and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other
whenhewasstruckintheheadbyanunknownassailant.His penalties,thepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.[101]Thetrialcourt,
testimonywascorroboratedbyJoseVictorSantos[96]whostated however, acquitted Reynaldo Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo,
that after lunch that day, Medalla played darts with him and, Gilbert Magpantay, George Morano, and Raymund Narag.
afterwards,theywenttoJollibee. [102]Thecase against BenedictGuerrerowasorderedarchived
Christopher Soliva,[97]on the other hand, testified that he bythecourtuntilhisapprehension.[103]
was eating lunch with his girlfriend and another friend in The trial court, in evaluating the voluminous evidence at
Jollibee,Philcoa,onDecember8,1994.Theywentbackto hand,concludedthat:
_______________ Afterajudiciousevaluationofthematter,theCourtisofthe
[93]TSN,November27,1995. consideredview thatoftheten accused, some weresufficiently
[94]TSN,February2,2000. identifiedandsomewerenot.TheCourtbelievesthatoutofthe
[95]TSN,September22,1999. amorphousimagesduring
[96]TSN,August11,1999. _______________
[97]TSN,June16,1999. [98]TSN,November23,1998.
167 [99]TSN,May12,1999.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 167 [100]Penned by the Hon. Jose Catral Mendoza, now an
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. AssociateJusticeofthisCourt(CARollo,pp.576644).
U.P.before1:00p.m.andwentstraighttotheirfraternityhang [101]RTCDecision,pp.8183.
outwherehewastoldthattherehadbeenarumbleattheMain [102]Id.,atpp.8283.
Library.HealsometseveralSigmaRhoansactingsuspiciouslyas [103]Id.,atp.83.
theypassedbythehangout.Theywerealsotoldbytheirhead, 168
Carlo Taparan, not to react to theSigma Rhoansand just go 168 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
home.AnnaCabahug,[98]hisgirlfriend,corroboratedhisstory.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
WarrenZingapan[99]alsotestifiedthathewasnotinU.P.at
thepandemonium,thebeleagueredvictimswereabletoespyand
thetimeoftheincident.HeclaimedtohavegonetoSMNorthto
identifysomeoftheattackersetchinganindelibleimpressionin
theirmemory.Inthisregard,theprosecutioneyewitnesseswere LeagogoandIsaiasP.Dicdicanalsovoluntarilyinhibited,butthe
emphaticthattheysawtheattackersrushtowardsthemwielding reasonwasnotshownintherecords.
deadlyweaponslikebaseballbats,leadpipes,piecesofwoodand 169
bladedones,andpounceontheirhaplessvictims,runafterthem, VOL.724,MAY5,2014 169
and being present with one another at the scene of the crime Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
during the assault. Although each victim had a very strong OnDecember26,2010,theCourtofAppeals,inaSpecialFirst
motivetoplacehisfraternityrivalspermanentlybehindbars,not DivisionofFive,affirmed[108]thedecisionoftheRegionalTrial
one of them testified against all of them.Ifthe prosecution Court, with three (3) members concurring[109]and one
eyewitnesses,whowereallSigmaRhoans,weresimplybenton (1)dissenting.[110]
convictingScintilla Jurismembers for that matter, they could ThedecisionoftheCourtofAppealswasthenbroughttothis
haveeasilytaggedeachandeverysingleaccusedasaparticipant courtforreview.
intheatrociousandbarbaricassaulttomakesurethatnoone The issue before this court is whether the prosecution was
else would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accusedappellants
onlyoneortwoandsomewerecandidenoughtosaythattheydid attacked private complainants and caused the death of Dennis
notseewhodeliveredtheblowsagainstthem.[104] Venturina.
On the basis, however, of the arguments presented to this
Because one of the penalties meted outwas reclusion courtbybothparties,theissuemaybefurtherrefined,thus:
perpetua,thecasewasbroughttothiscourtonautomaticappeal. 1.Whether accusedappellants constitutional
However,duetotheamendmentoftheRulesonAppeal,[105]the rights were violated when the information against
casewasremandedtotheCourtofAppeals.[106]IntheCourtof them contained the aggravating circumstance of the
Appeals,thecasehadtobereraffledseveraltimes[107]beforeit use of masks despite the prosecution presenting
waseventuallyassignedtoPresidingJusticeAndresB.Reyes,Jr. witnessestoprovethatthemasksfelloff;and
forthewritingofthedecision. 2.Whether the Regional Trial Court and the
_______________ Court of Appeals correctly ruled, on the basis of the
[104]Id.,atpp.4849. evidence, that accusedappellants were sufficiently
[105]PerPeoplev.Mateo,G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004, identified.
433SCRA640,whichmodifiedtherulesondirectappealtothe
SupremeCourt. I
[106]Per resolution of this Court dated April 13, 2005, An information is sufficient when
CARollo,p.297. the accused is fully apprised of
[107]Justice Romeo F. Barza voluntarily inhibited due to the charge against him to enable
membership inSigma RhoFraternity. Justices Celia C. Librea himtopreparehisdefense
 Itis the argument of appellants that the information filed ThetestofsufficiencyofInformationiswhetheritenablesa
againstthemviolatestheirconstitutionalrighttobeinformed personofcommonunderstandingtoknowthechargeagainsthim,
_______________ andthecourttorenderjudgmentproperly.xxxThepurposeisto
[108]Rollo,pp.472;CARollo,pp.14801551. allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding
[109]Justices Amelita G. Tolentino, Jose C. Reyes, Jr., and surprisesduringthetrial.[114]
MariflorP.PunzalanCastillo. _______________
[110]JusticeStephenC.Cruz. [111]Const.,Art.III,Sec.14(1).
170 [112]Const.,Art.III,Sec.14(2).
170 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED [113]424Phil.482;373SCRA461(2002)[PerJ.Carpio,Third
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. Division].
of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They [114]Peoplev.WilsonLabeo,424Phil.482,497;373SCRA461,
arguethattheprosecutionshouldnothaveincludedthephrase 473 (2002) [PerJ. Carpio, Third Division],citingJumawan v.
wearingmasksand/orotherformsofdisguiseintheinformation Eviota,
sincetheywerepresentingtestimonialevidencethatnotallthe 171
accusedwerewearingmasksorthattheirmasksfelloff. VOL.724,MAY5,2014 171
ItisenshrinedinourBillofRightsthat[n]opersonshallbe
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
Contrarytotheargumentsoftheappellants,theinclusionof
law.[111]Thisincludestherightoftheaccusedtobepresumed
thephrasewearingmasksand/orotherformsofdisguiseinthe
innocentuntilprovenguiltyandtobeinformedofthenatureand
informationdoesnotviolatetheirconstitutionalrights.
accusationagainsthim.[112]
Itshouldberememberedthateveryaggravatingcircumstance
Uponafindingofprobablecause,aninformationisfiledby
beingallegedmustbestatedintheinformation.Failuretostate
theprosecutoragainsttheaccused,incompliancewiththedue
anaggravatingcircumstance,evenifdulyprovenattrial,willnot
processofthelaw.Rule110,Section1,paragraph1oftheRules
beappreciatedassuch.[115]Itwas,therefore,incumbentonthe
ofCriminalProcedureprovidesthat:
prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of wearing
Acomplaintorinformationissufficientifitstatesthenameof
masksand/orotherformsofdisguiseintheinformationinorder
theaccused;thedesignationoftheoffensegivenbythestatute;
foralltheevidence,introducedtothateffect,tobeadmissibleby
theactsoromissionscomplainedofasconstitutingtheoffense;
thetrialcourt.
the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance
commissionoftheoffense;andtheplacewheretheoffensewas
because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain
committed.
anonymousandunidentifiableashecarriesouthiscrimes.
InPeoplev.WilsonLabeo,[113]thiscourthasstatedthat: The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence
thattendstoprovethattheaccusedweremaskedbutthemasks
fell off does not prevent them from including disguise as an Findings of the trial court, when
aggravating circumstance.[116]What is important in alleging affirmedbythe appellate court,
disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was are entitled to great weight and
aconcealmentofidentitybytheaccused.Theinclusionofdisguise credence
intheinformationwas,therefore,enoughtosufficientlyapprise Asageneralrule,thefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt,when
theaccusedthatinthecommissionoftheoffensetheywerebeing affirmed by the appellate court, are given great weight and
chargedwith,theytriedtoconcealtheiridentity. credenceonreview.TherationaleforthiswasexplainedinPeople
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the
v.DanielQuijada,[118]asfollows:
accusedwerenotwearingmasksisalsonotviolativeoftheirright Settledistherulethatthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,
tobeinformedoftheiroffenses. especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great
_______________ weight and respect. For, the trial court has the advantage of
G.R. Nos. 8551213, July 28, 1994, 234 SCRA 524 [PerJ. observing the witnesses through the different indicators of
Mendoza,EnBanc]. truthfulnessorfalsehood,suchastheangryflushofaninsisted
[115]RulesofCriminalProcedure,Rule110,Sec.8. assertionorthesuddenpallorofadiscoveredlieorthetremulous
[116]SeePeoplev.SabanganCabato,243Phil.262;160SCRA mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready
98(1988)[PerJ.Cortes,ThirdDivision]andPeoplev.Veloso,197 reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the
hesitation,thesincereortheflippantorsneeringtone,
Phil.846;112SCRA173(1982)[PerCuriam,EnBanc].
_______________
172
[117]People v. Halil Gambao,G.R. No.172707, October 1,
172 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
2013,706SCRA508[PerJ.Perez,EnBanc].
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
The information charges conspiracy among the accused. [118]328Phil.505;259SCRA191(1996)[PerJ.Davide,En
Conspiracy presupposes that the act of one is the act of Banc].
all.[117]Thiswouldmeanalltheaccusedhadbeenoneintheir 173
plantoconcealtheiridentityeveniftherewasevidencelateron VOL.724,MAY5,2014 173
toprovethatsomeofthemmightnothavedoneso. Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
Inanycase,theaccusedwerebeingchargedwiththecrimeof theheat,thecalmness,theyawn,thesigh,thecandororlackof
murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder. All that is it, the scant orfull realization of the solemnity ofanoath, the
neededfortheinformationtobesufficientisthattheelementsof carriageandmien.[119]
thecrimehavebeenallegedandthattherearesufficientdetails There are, of course, recognized exceptions to this rule.
astothetime,place,andpersonsinvolvedintheoffense. InPeoplev.LeticiaLabarias,[120]thiscourtstatedthat:
II
 ItisthepolicyofthisCourttosustainthefactualfindingsof 174 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thetrialcourtonthereasonableassumptionthatitisinabetter Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
position to assess the evidence before it, particularly the decision,thetrialcourtacquittedsix(6)andconvictedfive(5)of
testimoniesofthewitnesses,whorevealmuchofthemselvesby theaccused.Onthebasisofthesenumbersalone,itcannotbe
theirdeportmentonthestand.Theexceptionthatmakesthe saidthatthetrialcourtactedarbitrarilyorthatitsdecisionwas
rule is where such findings areclearly arbitrary or solackinginbasisthatitwasarrivedatwithoutajudiciousand
erroneousaswhentheyaretaintedwithbiasorhostilityor exhaustivestudyofalltheevidencepresented.
areso lacking in basisas to suggest that they were Inasmuch, however, as the trial courts findings hold great
reachedwithoutthecarefulstudyandperceptivenessthat persuasivevalue,thereisalsonothingthatprecludesthiscourt
should characterize a judicial decision.[121](Emphasis from coming to its own conclusions based on an independent
supplied) reviewofthefactsandtheevidenceonrecord.
Incriminalcases,theexceptiongainsevenmoreimportance The accused were sufficiently
sincethepresumptionisalwaysinfavorofinnocence.Itisonly identified by the witnesses for the
uponproofofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtthataconvictionis prosecution
sustained. Thetrialcourt,inweighingalltheevidenceonhand,found
Inthiscase,atotalofeleven(11)witnessesfortheprosecution thetestimoniesofthewitnessesfortheprosecutiontobecredible.
andfortytwo(42)witnessesforthedefensewereputonthestand Initsdecision,thetrialcourtstatedthat:
from1995to2001.Inaneightythree(83)page xxx.Althougheachvictimhadaverystrongmotivetoplace
_______________ his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, notone testified
[119]People v. Daniel Quijada,328 Phil. 505, 530531; 259 against all of them.If the prosecution eyewitnesses, who
SCRA191,212213(1996)[PerJ.Davide,EnBanc],citingPeople were allSigma Rhoans, were simply bent on
v.DeGuzman,G.R.No.76742,August7,1990,188SCRA407 convictingScintilla Jurismembers for that matter, they
[PerJ.Cruz,FirstDivision];Peoplev.DeLeon,315Phil.584;248 could have easily tagged each and every accused as a
SCRA 609 (1995) [PerJ. Davide, Jr., First Division];People v. participantintheatrociousandbarbaricassaulttomake
sure no one would escape conviction. Instead, each
Delovino,317Phil.741;247SCRA637(1995)[PerJ.Davide,Jr.,
eyewitnessnamedonlyoneortwoandsomewerecandid
First Division];Creamer v. Bivert,214 MO 473, 474 (1908); M.
enough to say that they did not see who delivered the
FrancesMcnamara,200FamousLegalQuotations,p.548(1967).
blowsagainstthem.
[120]G.R.No.87165,January25,1993,217SCRA483[PerJ. Thus, the prosecution witnesses, Ernest Paulo Tan, Dennis
Cruz,FirstDivision]. GaioandDarwinAsuncion,testifiedtohaveseenitallbutthey
[121]Id.,atp.484. couldnot,anddidnot,discloseanyname.Lachica,ontheother
174 hand, said that he did not have the opportunity to see and
identifythepersonwhohithiminthebackandinflictedatwo while the other may not observe or remember. In fact,
inchcut.Hisforearmwasalsohitbyaleadpipebuthedidnot jurisprudence even warns against a perfectdovetailing of
see who did it. Natalicio, one of the other three who were narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their
hospitalized,was testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed.
175 [125](Emphasissupplied)
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 175 _______________
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [122]RTCDecision,p.49.
severelybeatenbythreewavesofattackerstotallingmorethan [123]Id.,atp.57.
15buthecouldonlyname3ofthem.Headded,however,thathe [124]G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA
would be able to recognize those he saw if he would see them 174[PerJ.DelCastillo,FirstDivision].
again.Ofthem,Mangrobangpointedtoatleast5buthestressed [125]Id., at p. 191,citingPeople v. Lacbayan,393 Phil. 800,
that he did not see Zingapan, Soliva, Guerrero, Del Rosario, 807; 339 SCRA 396, 401 (2000) [PerJ. YnaresSantiago, First
Daraoay, Denoista, and Pealosa during the onslaught. Gaston
Division].
couldhavenamedanyoftheaccusedastheonewhorepeatedly
176
hithimwithaheavypipeandstabbedhimbuthefranklysaid
176 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
their faces were covered. Like Natalicio, Fortes was repeatedly
beatenbyseveralgroupsbutdidnotnameanyoftheaccusedas Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
one ofthosewhoattacked him.The personsheidentifiedwere According to their testimonies, Lachica was able to identify
those leading the pack with one of them as the assailant of Alvir,Zingapan,andMedalla;[126]Nataliciowasabletoidentify
Venturina,andthetwootherswhohesawstandingwhilehewas Medalla, Zingapan, and Soliva;[127]and Fortes was able to
runningaway.Headdedthathesawsomeoftheaccusedduring identify Feliciano, Medalla, and Zingapan.[128]Their positive
the attack but did not know then their names.[122](Emphasis identificationwasduetothefactthattheyeitherworenomasks
supplied) orthattheirmasksfelloff.
Itwouldbeinlinewithhumanexperiencethatavictimoran
Weagree. eyewitnessofacrimewouldendeavortofindwaystoidentifythe
Thetrialcourtcorrectlyheldthatconsideringtheswiftnessof assailantsothatintheeventthatheorshesurvives,thecriminal
theincident,[123]therewouldbeslightinconsistenciesintheir couldbeapprehended.Ithasalsobeenpreviouslyheldthat:
statements.InPeoplev.AdrianoCabrillas,[124]itwaspreviously Itisthemostnaturalreactionforvictimsofcriminalviolence
observedthat: tostrivetoseethelooksandfacesoftheirassailantsandobserve
the mannerinwhichthe crimewascommitted.Mostoftenthe
Itisperfectlynaturalfordifferentwitnessestestifying face of the assailant and body movements thereof, creates a
on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their
theremaybesomedetailswhichonewitnessmaynotice memory.[129]
 Inthe commotion, itwasmorethanlikelythat themasked AYes,sir.[134]
assailants could have lost their masks.Ithad been testified by
thevictimsthat some of the assailantswerewearing masks of While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims would
either a piece of cloth or a handkerchief and that Alvir, havehadthepresenceofmindtotakealookattheirassailantsif
[130]Zingapan,[131]Soliva,[132]and Feliciano[133]had masks they were identifiable. Their positive identification, in the
onatfirstbuttheirmasksfelloffandhungaroundtheirnecks. absenceofevidencetothecontrary,mustbeupheldtobecredible.
EquallytellingwasthetestimonyofdefensewitnessFrisco Ithas been argued that the trial court did not give
_______________ MangrobangstestimonycredencewhileGastonstestimonywas
[126]TSN,June5,1995,pp.1113. foundtobehazy.Thisargumentisunmeritorious.
[127]TSN,July3,1995,pp.2122. Itshouldbenotedthatitwasthetrialcourtitselfthatstated
[128]TSN,October30,1995,pp.91,112. that the acquittal of theScintilla Jurismembers identified by
[129]People v. Opiniado Dolar,G.R. No. 100805, March 24, Mangrobang should not be. misinterpreted to mean that the
1994, 231 SCRA 414, 423 [PerJ. Puno, Second testimonyofMangrobangwasanabsolutefabrication.[135]The
Division],citingPeople v. Sartagoda,G.R. No. 97525, April 7, courtwentontostatethattheywereexoneratedmerelybecause
theywereaccordedthebenefitofthedoubtastheiridentification
1993,221SCRA251,257[PerJ.Campos,Jr.,SecondDivision].
by Mangrobang, under tumultuous and chaotic circumstances
[130]TSN,June21,1995,p.33.
[131]TSN,July5,1995,p.24. were [sic] not corroborated and theiralibis, not
refuted.[136]Therewas,therefore,nobasistosay
[132]Id.,atpp.4852.
_______________
[133]TSN,September28,1995,p.24.
177 [134]TSN,December4,1995,p.47;SeealsoRTCDecision,p.
51.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 177
[135]RTCDecision,p.64.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
[136]Id.
Capiloduringcrossexaminationwhoobservedthatsomeofthe
178
attackerswerewearingmasksandsomewerenot,thus:
178 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
QMr.Capilo,doyouknowthisScintillaJurisFraternity?
ANo,sir. Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
QDuringtheincidentofDecember8,1994,therewerealot thatMangrobangwasnotcredible;itwasonlythattheevidence
of people eating in the Beach House Canteen, and then presentedwasnotstrongenoughtoovercomethepresumptionof
runningtowardsdifferentdirections,isitnot? innocence.
AYes,sir. Gastons testimony, on the other hand, was considered
QAnd some people were wearing masks and some were hazy[137]by the trial court only with regard to his
not? identificationofZingapanscompanion.Gastontestifiedthathe
sawZingapanwithMorano,withZingapanmovingandMorano Asageneralrule,[a]witnesscantestifyonlytothefactshe
staying in place. Fortes, however, testified that both Zingapan knowsofhispersonalknowledge;thatis,whicharederivedfrom
andMoranowererunningafterhim.Lachicaalsotestifiedthatit hisownperception,xxx.[140]Allotherkindsoftestimonyare
was Medalla, not Morano, who was with Zingapan. Because of hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court,
thisconfusion,thetrialcourtfoundthattherewasdoubtasto however,provideseveralexceptionstothegeneralrule,andone
whowasreallybesideZingapan.Theuncertaintyresultedintoan ofwhichiswhentheevidenceispartofresgestae,thus:
acquittalforMorano.Despitethis,thecourtstilldidnotimpute Section42.Part of res gestae.Statements made by a
doubt in their testimonies that Zingapan was present at the personwhileastartingoccurrenceistakingplaceorimmediately
scene. prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
Be that as it may, the acquittals made by the trial court
thereof,maybegiveninevidenceaspartofresgestae.So,also,
further prove that its decision was brought about only upon a
statementsaccompanyinganequivocalactmaterialtotheissue,
thoroughexaminationoftheevidencepresented.Itacceptedthat
and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of
therewereinconsistenciesinthetestimoniesofthevictimsbut
theresgestae.[141]
thatthesewereminoranddidnotaffecttheircredibility.Itruled
that [s]uch inconsistencies, and even probabilities, are not InPeoplev.RodrigoSalafranca,[142]thiscourthaspreviously
unusual for there is no person with perfect faculties or discussed the admissibility of testimony taken as part ofres
senses.[138] gestae,statingthat:
Evidence as part of theres gestae A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of theres
may be admissible but have little gestaeand thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the
persuasivevalueinthiscase hearsayrulewhenthefollowingrequisitesconcur,towit:(a)the
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, principal act, theres gestae,is a startling occurrence; (b) the
[139]whenhearrivedatthescene,heinterviewedthebystanders statementsaremadebeforethedeclaranthadtimetocontriveor
whoalltoldhimthattheycouldnotrecognizethe devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in
_______________ questionanditsimmediatelyattendingcircumstances.
[137]Id.,atp.65.
[138]Id.,atp.58. xxxx
_______________
[139]TSN,November20,1995,p.20.
[140]RulesofCivilProcedure,Rule130,Sec.36.
179
[141]RulesofCivilProcedure,Rule130(C)(6),Sec.42.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 179
[142]G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
[PerJ.Bersamin,FirstDivision].
attackerssincetheywereallmasked.This,itisargued,couldbe
180
evidencethatcouldbegivenaspartoftheresgestae.
180 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. 600[PerJ.Puno,SecondDivision];AlhambraBldg.&LoanAssn
v.DeCelle,118P.2d19,47C.A.2d409;ReillyTar&Chemical
Thetermresgestaehasbeendefinedasthosecircumstances
Corp. v. Lewis,61 N.E. 2d 297, 326 Ill. App. 117;Kaiko v.
whicharetheundesignedincidentsofaparticularlitigatedact
and which are admissible when illustrative of suchact.In a Dolinger,440A.2d198,184Conn.509;SouthernSuretyCo.v.
general way,res gestaerefers to the circumstances, facts, and Weaver, Com. App.,273 S.W. 838;People v. Sanchez,G.R. No.
declarationsthatgrowoutofthemainfactandservetoillustrate 74740, August 28, 1992, 213 SCRA 70, 79 [PerJ. Davide, Jr.,
itscharacterandaresospontaneousandcontemporaneouswith Third Division];Molloy v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co.,166 N.E.
the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and 530, 335 Ill. 164;Campbell v. Gladden,118 A. 2d 133, 383 Pa.
fabrication.Theruleonresgestaeencompassestheexclamations 144,53A.L.R.2d1222.
and statements made by either the participants,victims,or 181
spectatorstoacrimeimmediatelybefore,during,orimmediately VOL.724,MAY5,2014 181
after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
suchthatthestatementsweremadeasaspontaneousreactionor rence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders were
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there madeimmediatelyafterthestartlingoccurrence,theyare,infact,
wasnoopportunityforthedeclaranttodeliberateandtofabricate admissibleasevidencegiveninresgestae.
afalsestatement.Thetestofadmissibilityofevidenceasapartof InPeoplev.Albarido,[144]however,thiscourthasstatedthat
theres gestaeis, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or inaccordtoordinaryhumanexperience:
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the xxx persons who witness an event perceive the same from
principalfactoreventthatitcharacterizesastoberegardedasa theirrespectivepointsofreference.Therefore,almostalways,
partofthetransactionitself,andalsowhetheritclearlynegatives theyhavedifferentaccountsofhowithappened.Certainly,
anypremeditationorpurposetomanufacturetestimony.[143] we cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be
consistentinallaspectsbecausedifferentpersonshavedifferent
Thereisnodoubtthatasuddenattackonagrouppeacefully impressions and recollections of the same incident.
eatinglunchonaschoolcampusisastartlingoccur xxx[145](Emphasissupplied)
_______________
Thestatementsmadebythebystanders,althoughadmissible,
[143]Peoplev.RodrigoSalafranca,G.R.No.173476,February
havelittlepersuasivevaluesincethebystanderscouldhaveseen
22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501, 512514 [PerJ. Bersamin, First
theeventstranspiringatdifferentvantagepointsandatdifferent
Division],citingPeoplev.Peralta,G.R.No.94570,September28, pointsintime.EvenFriscoCapilo,oneofthebystandersatthe
1994,237SCRA218,224[PerJ.Cruz,FirstDivision];Peoplev. timeoftheattack,testifiedthattheattackershadtheirmaskson
Maguikay,G.R.Nos.10322628,October14,1994,237SCRA587,
at first, but later on, some remained masked and some were effect that when she asked Natalicio who attacked them,
unmasked. Natalicio answered that he did not know because they were
Whenthebystanderstestimoniesareweighedagainstthose masked.
of the victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from Itmustberememberedthatthepartiesinvolvedinthiscase
beginning to end at close range, the former become merely belong to rival fraternities. While this court does not condone
corroborativeofthefactthatanattackoccurred.Theiraccountof their archaic and oftentimes barbaric traditions, it is conceded
the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less weight that there are certain practices that are unique to fraternal
thanthatofthevictims. organizations.
_______________ Itisquitepossiblethatatthispointintime,theyknewthe
[144]420 Phil. 235; 368 SCRA 194 (2001) [PerJ. Sandoval identitiesoftheirattackersbutchosenottodiscloseitwithout
Gutierrez,ThirdDivision]. first conferring with their other fraternity brothers. This
[145]Id.,atp.245;pp.202203,citingPeoplev.Real,367Phil. probability is bolstered by the actions ofSigma Rhoafterthe
524; 308 SCRA 244 (1999) [PerJ. Pardo, First Division]. This incident, which showed that they confronted the members
statementwasusedinordertojustifythatminorinconsistencies ofScintilla Jurisin SM North. Because of the tenuous
donotaffectthewitnessescredibilitysolongastheyconcuron relationshipofrivalfraternities,itwouldnothavebeenprudent
thematerialaspectsoftheincident. forSigmaRhotoretaliateagainstthewrongfraternity.
182 TheiractofnotdisclosingthecorrectinformationtotheU.P.
182 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED PoliceortoDr.Mislangdoesnotmakethepoliceofficerorthe
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. doctorstestimoniesmorecrediblethanthatofthe
The belated identification by the _______________
victims do not detract from their [146]TSN,November13,1995,pp.3738.
[147]TSN,September16,1998,p.20.
positive identification of the ap
183
pellants
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 183
Itisarguedthatthefactthatthevictimsstayedsilentabout
the incident to the U.P. Police or the Quezon City Police but Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
instead executed affidavits with the National Bureau of victims.Itshould not be forgotten thatthevictims actually
Investigationfour(4)daysaftertheincidentgivesdoubtastothe witnessed the entire incident, while Officer Salvador, Officer
credibilityoftheirtestimonies. Cabrera, and Dr. Mislang were merely relaying secondhand
U.P.PoliceOfficerRomeoCabrera[146]testifiedthatontheir information.
waytotheU.P.Infirmary,heinterviewedthevictimswhoalltold The fact that they went to the National Bureau of
himtheycouldnotrecognizetheattackersbecausetheywereall Investigationfour(4)daysaftertheincidentalsodoesnotaffect
wearing masks. Meanwhile, Dr. Mislang[147]testified to the their credibilitysincemostofthemhad been hospitalizedfrom
theirinjuriesandneededtorecoverfirst.Sinceafraternitymoves It can be seen that the U.P. Police is employed by U.P.
asoneunit,itwouldbeunderstandablethattheydecidedtowait primarilyforcampussecurity.Theyarebynomeansanactual
untilallofthemwerewellenoughtogototheNationalBureauof police force that is equipped to handle a fullblown murder
Investigationheadquartersinordertogivetheirstatements. investigation. Fraternityrelated violence in U.P. has also
Seniorityisalsooftenthenorminfraternities.Itwasuponthe increasingly become more frequent, which might possibly have
advice of their seniorbrodsand their legal counsel that they desensitized the U.P. Police in such a way that would prevent
executedtheirswornstatements beforethe National Bureauof their objectivity in the conduct of their investigations. The
Investigationfour(4)daysaftertheincident. victims reliance on the National Bureau of Investigation,
ThedecisiontoreporttheincidenttotheNationalBureauof therefore,isunderstandable.
InvestigationinsteadoftotheU.P.Policewasthecalloftheir
III
legal counsel who might have deemed the National Bureau of
Alibicannot prevail over the posi
Investigation moreequippedto handle the investigation. This
tiveidentificationofthevictim
does not, however, affect the credibility of the witnesses since
theyweremerelyfollowingthelegaladviceoftheircounsel. Itis settledthat the defense ofalibicannot prevail over the
Indeed,thereisreasontobelievethattheNationalBureauof positive identification of the victim.[149]InPeople v. Benjamin
Investigation isbetterequipped than the U.P. Police to handle Peteluna,[150]thiscourtisstatedthat:
the investigation of the case. As stated in the U.P. College of Itisatimehonoredprinciplethatthepositiveidentificationof
Economicswebsite: the appellant by a witness destroys the defense ofalibiand
TheUPDilimanPolice(UPDP)istaskedwithmaintaining denial.Thus:
campussecurity.TheirstationislocatedinfrontoftheCollege
ofArchitecture. xxx.Itis wellentrenched thatalibiand
The primary missions of the UPDP are to maintain peace and
denialareinherentlyweakandhavealways
order,secureandprotectlivesandproperty,enforcebasiclaws,
beenviewedwithdisfavorbythecourtsdue
applicable Quezon City Ordinances, and University Rules and
to the facility with which they can be
Regulationsincludingpoliciesandstandards;andtoperformsuch
concocted.Theywarranttheleastcredibility
otherfunctionsrelative
_______________
184
[148]UP Diliman Police,<http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/up
184 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
diliman
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. police/>(visitedMarch4,2014).
tothegeneralsafetyandsecurityofthestudents,employees,and
[149]Peoplev.BenjaminPeteluna,G.R.No.187048,January
residents in the U.P. Diliman Campus. xxx.[148](Emphasis
23,2013,689SCRA190,197[PerJ.Perez,SecondDivision].
supplied)
 [150]G.R. No. 187048, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 190 Accusedappellants were correctly
[PerJ.Perez,SecondDivision]. charged with murder, and there
185 was treachery in the commission
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 185 ofthecrime
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. _______________
[151]Id., at p. 197,citingPeople v. Barde,G.R. No. 183094,
ornoneatallandcannotprevailoverthe September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 211 [PerJ. Perez, First
positiveidentificationoftheappellantbythe Division];Peoplev.Estepano,367Phil.209,217218;307SCRA
prosecutionwitnesses.Foralibitoprosper,it 701,708709(1999)[PerJ.Bellosillo,SecondDivision];Peoplev.
is not enough to prove that appellant was Berdin,462 Phil. 290, 304; 416 SCRA 582, 593 (2003) [PerJ.
somewhere else when the crime was
SandovalGutierrez,EnBanc];Peoplev.Francisco,397Phil.973,
committed;hemustalsodemonstratethatit
was physically impossible for him to have 985; 344 SCRA 110, 120121 (2000) [PerCJ. Davide, Jr.,En
beenatthesceneofthecrimeatthetimeof Banc].
its commission. Unless substantiated by 186
clear and convincing proof, such defense is 186 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
negative, selfserving, and undeserving of Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
any weight in law. Denial, likealibi, as an AccordingtotheprovisionsofArticle248oftheRevisedPenal
exonerating justification[,] is inherently Code,theaccusedappellantswerecorrectlychargedwithmurder.
weak and if uncorroborated regresses to Article248states:
blatant impotence. Likealibi, it also ART.248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithinthe
constitutes selfserving negative evidence provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of
whichcannotbeaccordedgreaterevidentiary murderandshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetua,todeathif
weight than the declaration of credible committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
witnesseswhotestifyonaffirmativematters. 1.Withtreachery,takingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,
[151] with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
Inthiscase,thevictimswereabletopositivelyidentifytheir weakenthedefense,orofmeansorpersonstoinsureor
attackerswhiletheaccusedappellantsmerelyofferedalibisand affordimpunity;
denialsastheirdefense.Thecredibilityofthevictimswasupheld xxxx
byboththetrialcourtandtheappellatecourtwhilegivinglittle
credence to the accusedappellantsalibis. There is, thus, no Itis undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of men
reasontodisturbtheirfindings. armed with lead pipes and baseball bats attacked Dennis
Venturina and his companions, which resulted in Venturinas thehapless,unarmed,andunsuspectingvictimnochance
death. to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two
Ascorrectlyfoundbythetrialcourtandtheappellatecourt, elementsmustconcur:(1)theemploymentofmeansofexecution
theoffensecommittedagainstDennisVenturinawascommitted that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
byagroupthattookadvantageofitssuperiorstrengthandwith themselves or retaliate; and (2) themeans of execution were
theaidofarmedmen.Theappellatecourt,however,incorrectly deliberatelyorconsciouslyadopted.[154](Emphasissupplied)
ruled out the presence of treachery in the commission of the
offense. Theappellatecourt,inaffirmingtheconvictionoftheaccused
Ithasbeenstatedpreviouslybythiscourtthat: appellants,ruledthatcontrarytothefindingsofthetrialcourt,
there was no treachery involved. Inparticular, they ruled that
[T]reacheryispresentwhentheoffendercommitsanyofthe althoughtheattackwassuddenandunexpected,[i]twasdonein
crimesagainstpersons,employingmeans,methods,orformsin broaddaylightwithalotofpeoplewhocouldseethem[155]and
the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its thattherewasapossibilityfor
execution,withoutrisktotheoffenderarisingfromthedefense _______________
whichtheoffendedpartymightmake.[152] Laurio,G.R.No.182523,September13,2012,680SCRA560,
_______________
571572[PerJ.LeonardoDeCastro,FirstDivision].
[152]Peoplev.GaryVergara,G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013, [153]G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738
700 SCRA 412, 423 [PerJ. De Castro, First [PerJ.Velasco,ThirdDivision].
Division],citingPeoplev. [154]Peoplev.LeozarDelaCruz,G.R.No.188353,February
187
16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 747 [PerJ.Velasco, Third
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 187
Division],citingPeoplev.Amazan,402Phil.247,270;349SCRA
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
218, 233 (2001) [PerJ. Mendoza, Second Division];People v.
Similarly,inPeoplev.LeozarDelaCruz,[153]thiscourtstated Bato,401Phil.415,431;348SCRA253,260(2000)[PerJ.Pardo,
that: FirstDivision];Peoplev.Albarido,420Phil.235,252;368SCRA
194, 208 (2001) [PerJ. SandovalGutierrez, Third
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the Division],citingPeoplev.Francisco,389Phil.243,266;333SCRA
crimesagainstpersons,employingmeans,methods,orformsin
725,746(2000)[PerJ.Kapunan,FirstDivision].
the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
[155]CADecision,p.59.
execution,withoutrisktotheoffenderarisingfromthedefense
188
which the offended party might make.The essence of
188 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
treacheryisthattheattackcomeswithoutawarningand
in aswift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
thevictimstohavefoughtbackorthatthepeopleinthecanteen 189
couldhavehelpedthevictims.[156] VOL.724,MAY5,2014 189
Thisreasoningisclearlyerroneous.Thevictimsinthiscase Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
were eating lunchon campus. They were notat a placewhere pursuing them and from inflicting harm to them, which shows
theywouldbereasonablyexpectedtobeonguardforanysudden thattheydidnothavetheintenttodomorethantomakethem
attackbyrivalfraternitymen. suffer pain by slightly injuring them.[158]Italso pointed out
Thevictims,whowereunarmed,werealsoattackedwithlead thatthewoundinflictedonGastonwastooshallowtohavebeen
pipesandbaseballbats.Theonlywaytheycouldparrytheblows done with an intent to kill.[159]Thus, it concluded that the
waswiththeirarms.Inasituationwheretheywereunarmedand accusedappellantswouldhavebeenguiltyonlyofslightphysical
outnumbered, it would be impossible for them to fight back injuries.
againstthe attackers.Theattackalsohappened inlessthana Thisiserroneous.
minute,whichwouldprecludeanypossibilityofthebystanders Itshouldberememberedthatthetrialcourtfoundthatthere
beingabletohelpthemuntilaftertheincident. was conspiracy among the accusedappellants[160]and the
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no appellate court sustained this finding.[161]Conspiracy, once
opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend proven,hastheeffectofattachingliabilitytoalloftheaccused,
themselves.Treachery,therefore,waspresentinthiscase. regardlessoftheirdegreeofparticipation,thus:
The presence of conspiracy makes Onceanexpressorimpliedconspiracyisproved,allof
all of the accusedappellants liable theconspirators are liable as coprincipals regardless of
formurderandattemptedmurder the extent and character of their respective active
Inthedecisionofthetrialcourt,alloftheaccusedappellants participation in the commission of the crime or crimes
were found guilty of the murder of Dennis Venturina and the perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,
contemplationoflawtheactofoneistheactofall.The
Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr. The
foregoingruleisanchoredonthesoundprinciplethatwhentwo
appellatecourt,however,modifiedtheirliabilitiesandfoundthat
ormorepersonsunitetoaccomplishacriminalobject,whether
the accusedappellants were guilty of attempted murder only
throughthephysicalvolitionofone,orall,proceedingseverallyor
against Natalicio and Fortes, and not against Mangrobang,
collectively,eachindividualwhoseevilwillactivelycontributesto
Lachica,andGaston.
thewrongdoingisinlawresponsibleforthewhole,thesameas
ItistheappellatecourtsreasoningthatbecauseLachicaand
thoughperformedbyhimselfalone.Althoughitisaxiomaticthat
Mangrobang were no longer chased by the attackers,[157]it
nooneisliableforactsotherthanhisown,whentwoormore
concludedthataccusedappellantsvoluntarydesistedfrom
personsagreeorconspiretocommitacrime,eachisresponsible
_______________
foralltheactsoftheothers,doneinfurtheranceoftheagreement
[156]Id. orconspiracy.The
[157]CADecision,p.61.
_______________ Theliabilitiesoftheaccusedappellantsinthiscasearosefrom
[158]Id. asingleincidentwhereintheaccusedappellantswerearmedwith
[159]Id. baseballbatsandleadpipes,allinagreementtodothehighest
amountofdamagepossibletothevictims.Somewereabletorun
[160]SeeRTCDecision,pp.7879.
awayandtakecover,buttheotherswouldfallpreyatthehands
[161]SeeCADecision,pp.2223. oftheirattackers.Theintenttokillwasalreadypresentatthe
190 moment of attack and that intent was shared by all of the
190 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED accusedappellantsalikewhen
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. _______________
imposition of collective liability upon the conspirators is [162]People v. Peralta, et al.,134 Phil. 703; 25 SCRA 759
clearlyexplainedinonecasewherethisCourtheldthat (1968) [Per Curiam,EnBanc],citingU.S. v. Ramos,2 Phil. 434
(1903)[PerJ.Willard,EnBanc];U.S.v.Maza,5Phil.346(1905)
... it is impossible to graduate the
[PerJ. Johnson,En Banc];U.S.v. Grant and Kennedy,18 Phil.
separate liability of each (conspirator)
without taking into consideration the close 122 (1910) [PerJ. Trent,En Banc];U.S.v. Ipil,27 Phil. 530
andinseparablerelationofeachofthemwith (1914) [PerJ. Johnson,En Banc];U.S.v. Synder,3 McCrary,
thecriminalact,forthecommissionofwhich 377;People v. Bannaisan,49 Phil. 423 (1926) [PerJ. Villa
theyallactedbycommonagreement...The Real,En Banc];U.S.v. Bundal,et al., 3 Phil. 89 (1903) [PerJ.
crimemustthereforeinviewofthesolidarity
Torres,EnBanc].
oftheactandintentwhichexistedbetween
191
the...accused,beregardedastheactofthe
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 191
bandorpartycreatedbythem,andtheyare
allequallyresponsible. Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
Verily, the moment it is established that the thepresenceofconspiracywasproven.Itis,therefore,immaterial
malefactors conspired and confederated in the todistinguishbetweentheseriousnessoftheinjuriessufferedby
the victims to determine the respective liabilities of their
commissionofthefelonyproved,collectiveliabilityofthe
attackers.Whatisrelevantisonlyastowhetherthedeathoccurs
accusedconspiratorsattachesbyreasonoftheconspiracy,
asaresultofthatintenttokillandwhethertherearequalifying,
andthecourtshallnotspeculatenoreveninvestigateas
aggravatingormitigatingcircumstancesthatcanbeappreciated.
to the actual degree of participation of each of the Theappellate court, therefore, erred infindingthe accused
perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. xxx. appellants guilty only of slight physical injuries.Itwould be
[162](Emphasissupplied) illogicaltopresumethatdespitetheswiftnessandsuddennessof
the attack, the attackers intended to kill only Venturina,
Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended to injure Lachica, isAFFIRMEDinsofar as the accusedappellants Danilo
Mangrobang, and Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident Feliciano,Jr.,JuliusVictorMedalla,ChristopherSoliva,Warren
fromthemomenttheaccusedappellantstooktheirfirstswing,all L. Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are
ofthemwereliableforthatintenttokill. foundGUILTYbeyondreasonable doubt of Murderin Criminal
Forthisreason,theaccusedappellantsshouldbeliableforthe Case No. Q9561133 with theMODIFICATIONthat they be
murderofDennisVenturinaandtheattemptedmurderofMervin foundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofAttemptedMurderin
Natalicio,CesarMangrobang,Jr.,LeandroLachica,ArnelFortes, Criminal Case Nos. Q9561136, Q9561135, Q9561134, Q95
andCristobalGaston,Jr. 61138,andQ9561137.
AFinalNote SOORDERED.
Itisnotonlythelossofonepromisingyounglife;rather,itis
Sereno**(CJ.)andDelCastillo,***JJ.,concur.
alsotheeffectonthefiveotherliveswhoseoncebrightfutures
Peralta,J.,****IjointhedissentofJ.Abad.
arenowputinjeopardybecauseofonesenselessactofbravado.
Thereisnowmorehonorforthemtoaccepttheirresponsibility Abad,J.,SeeDissentingOpinion.
and servethe consequencesoftheiractions.Thereis,however, _______________
nothingthattheycandotobringbackDennisVenturinaorfully **ChiefJusticeMariaLourdesP.A.Serenowasdesignatedas
compensateforhissenselessandpainfulloss. acting member of the Third Division, vice Associate Justice
This is not the first fraternityrelated case to come to this PresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,perRaffledatedFebruary1,2012.
court; neither will it be the last. Perhaps this case and many ***AssociateJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillowasdesignated
cases like it can empower those who have a better view of as acting member of the Third Division, vice Associate Justice
masculinity:onewhichvalorizescourage,sacrificeandhonorin Jose Catral Mendoza who penned the lower court decision, per
morelifesavingpursuits.192 RaffledatedApril29,2014.
192 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED ****AssociateJusticeDiosdadoM.Peraltawasdesignatedas
ActingChairpersonoftheThirdDivision,viceAssociateJustice
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
PresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.recusedhimselfduetocloserelationto
GitingatdangalarewordsoftheanthemoftheUniversity oneoftheparties.
of the Philippines.Itcolors the stories of many who choose to 193
expend their energy in order that our people will have better VOL.724,MAY5,2014 193
lives. Fraternity rumbles are an anathema, an immature and
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
useless expenditure of testosterone.Itfosters aculture that
DISSENTINGOPINION
retardsmanhood.Itisdevoidofgitingatdangal.
ABAD,J.:
Thiskindofshamefulviolencemuststop.
IstronglydissentfromthemajorityDecision.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinC.A.
The incident in this case was an offshoot of a campus war
G.R. CR No. 01158 dated November 26, 2010
between members of two fraternities at the University of the
Philippines (UP) where one group, allegedly masked, surprised thatattack,themaskofoneofthem,SJRobertMichaelBeltran
andbeatuptheother,resultingininjuriestosomeanddeathto Alvir,withwhomhewasfamiliar,felloff.SRLachicagotaway
one. from those who were beating him but he looked back while
Allegingconspiracy,theCityProsecutorofQuezonCityfiled runningandsawSJWarrenZingapanandJuliusVictorMedalla,
an information for murder, two informations for frustrated twooftheattackers,nolongerwearingmasks.Theattacklasted
murder,andthreeinformationsforattemptedmurderagainst12 forabout30to45seconds.[1]
accused, belonging to theScintilla JurisFraternity, before the SRMervinNatalicio,a4thyearlawstudentandViceGrand
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Cases Archonofhisfraternity,testifiedthatwhilemostoftheattackers
Q9561133 to 38 with no bail recommended. Only 11 of the running towards their group wore masks, one of them, SJ
accused were tried, however, since accused Benedict Guerrero Medalla, wore none. Natalicio tried to scamper away but he
remainedatlarge. trippedonatreerootandfell.About10attackers,includingSJ
TheFactsandCase Zingapan and Christopher Soliva who also wore no masks,
The evidence for the prosecution shows that sevenSigma bludgeonedhimontheback,arms,leftshoulder,hips,toes,and
righthand.[2]
RhoFraternitymembersweretakinglunchattheBeachHouse
AfterhisinitialattackersleftSRNatalicio,agroupoffouror
CanteeninsidetheUPcampusinDiliman,QuezonCity,between
fiveothersledbySJBenedictGuerrero,tookoverandbeathim
12:30 and1:00p.m.onDecember8,1994 whenabout 15men,
up,too.Athirdgroupcameandalsomauledhimontheleftside
carryingbaseballbatsorleadpipes,withsomewearingmasks,
ofhisbody.WhenNataliciowassohurthecouldnolongermove,
swooped down upon them. SR Dennis Venturina shouted an
somepeoplebroughthimtotheUPInfirmarywheretheytreated
alarm, Brods!Brods! Hisbrodsscampered away but the hisinjuries.[3]
attackersgottosomeofthem.(Toavoidconfusion,SRorSJis SR Natalicio later went to the National Bureau of
affixedbeforethenamesofthoseinvolvedtodistinguishmembers Investigation(NBI),gavehisstatement,andsubmittedhimselfto
of theSigma RhoFraternity from members of theScintilla medicolegal examination. He said thatScintilla Jurismembers
JurisFraternity.) attackedthemasanoffshootofanAugust1994rumbledespitea
signedtruce.[4]
SRLeandroLachica,hisfraternitysGrandArchon,testified SR Cesar Mangrobang testified that after SR Venturina
thattheattackersallworeimprovisedmasksofclothortshirts. sounded the alarm, he saw a group of men, some with cloth
FiveofthemwentafterSRLachica,hittinghimonthebackand masks,approachwithleadpipesandclubs.Ashereceivedablow
forearmsasheparriedtheblows.Inthecourseof onhisback,hetriedtorunbuttwomaskedmenblockedhisway
194 andrepeatedlybeathimup.Whentheirmasksfell
194 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [1]TSN,June5,1995,pp.1114.
[2]TSN,July3,1995,pp.616.
 [3]Id.,atpp.1719. none.SRFortesmanagedtorunawaybut,ashelookedback,he
[4]Id.,atpp.2023. sawSJZingapanandMorano,whoalsoworenomasks,running
195 afterhim.Theyhithimontheback,
_______________
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 195
[5]TSN,September28,1995,pp.1419.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
[6]Id.,atpp.2030.
off, the two turned out to be SJ Gilbert Magpantay and Carlo
Fajardo.[] [7]Id.,atpp.2834.
SRMangrobangsucceededinrunningawayuntilhereached [8]TSN,October11,1995,pp.1738.
thecorneroftheMainLibrary.Onglancingback,hesawnoone [9]Id.,atpp.4446.
after him. He then decided to return to the scene of the 196
commotion where he saw from three to four meters away SJ 196 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
DaniloFeliciano,Jr.andRaymundNaraghittingSRVenturina Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
with lead pipes. SJ Felicianos cloth mask had fallen off. SR causing him to fall. He stood up and tried to run again but a
MangrobangalsosawSJReynaldoAblanidawieldingaleadpipe groupof10menattackedhimforfivetoeightseconds,hittinghis
whilerunning.[6] headfivetoseventimes.Theyalsohithimonthelegs.Hedidnot
SJNaragandFelicianowereabouttoturnonSRMangrobang recognizeanyofhisattackers.But,standingupagainafterthe
when somebody shouted,Pulis! Takbo! Takbo!prompting the second attack, SR Fortes saw SJ Feliciano beating up SR
twotoruninthedirectionoftheMainLibrary.SRMangrobang Venturina.SJFelicianosmaskfelloffintheprocess.[10]
andothershelpedcarrySRVenturinaintoapassengerjeepneyto Dr.RolandoVictoriadescribedtheinjuriesthatSRVenturina
bringhimtotheInfirmary.[7] suffered.[11]Dr.AureaVillena,ontheotherhand,testifiedonthe
SRCristobalGaston,Jr.testifiedthat,ofthemenwhocame, results of her medical examinations of SR Natalicio, Fortes,
twoattackedhim:thefirstwithaleadpipe,hittinghimonthe Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston four days after the mauling
armsandhandsashetriedtocoverhishead,whilethesecond incident.[12]
stabbedhimontheleftchestandforearm.Thetwoworemasks. EmmanuelBatungbakaltestifiedthathesawagroupofmen
SR Gaston got away and ran towards Palma Hall but, as he boardthreecarsthathadnoplatenumbers.Thecarsspedpast
lookedback,hesawSJZingapan,FelicianoandGeorgeMorano the back of the law library. SJ Feliciano was one of those on
at the scene.[8]SR Gaston went to confer with his fraternity board. Batungbakal did not, however, witness the reported
brothersattheCollegeofLawbuilding.Laterthatevening,they incidentthatfollowed.[13]
metwiththeiralumnibrothers.[9] ErnestoPaoloTantestifiedthathewasattheBeachHouse
SRArnelFortestestifiedthatsomeofthemenwhoattacked Canteen during the incident. He saw three separate groups of
themworemasksbutsomedidnot.HesawSJFeliciano,whom men,someofwhomworemasks,attackSRNatalicio.Afterthe
he recognized despite a cloth mask, and SJ Medalla who wore attackersleft,hehelpedNatalicioboardaservicevehicle.[14]
 Dennis Gaio testified that he was having lunch outside the whereSRVenturinawasattackedbuthecouldnotidentifyanyof
canteen when three of the attackers came from the Arts and theattackersbecausetheywereallwearingmasksandnoneof
ScienceBuildingfollowedby 10morefromtheCollegeofLaw. thesefelloffduringtheattack.[18]
Someworemasksbuttheothersdidnot.Theyattackedthegroup Alpha Sigma NuSorority members, Eda Pangilinan, Luz
thatwashavinglunch,includingSRVenturina.Hetriedtohelp Perez,andBathalaniTiamsontestifiedthattheywereunableto
the latter after he had fallen but one of the attackers stopped identify theattackers because they allwore masks. Pangilinan
him.Gaiohadtwowomencompanionsbuthe andTiamsoninsistedthattheydidnotseeanyoftheattackers
_______________ masksfalloff.[19]
[10]TSN,October16,1995,pp.4263. UPpoliceofficerRomeoCabreratestifiedthatheandfellow
[11]TSN,July24,1995,pp.1124. officer, Oscar Salvador, were at the Arts and Science Building
[12]TSN,July31,1995,pp.910. whentheyrespondedtoreportsthatarumblewastakingplaceat
[13]TSN,November6,1995,pp.3339,6162. thebackoftheMainLibrary.Onarrivalat
[14]TSN,September3,1996,pp.1617,2454. _______________
197 [15]TSN,April3,1997,pp.1022.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 197 [16]TSN,November27,1995,pp.1012.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [17]TSN,December4,1995,p.13.
toldthemtoruntowardsthesunkengardenwhenhesensedthe [18]TSN,September17,1997,pp.716.
arrivalofthemaskedmen.[15] [19]RTCDecision,p.37.
Thedefensepresented42witnesses.Toproveitsclaimthat 198
the identities of the attackers were unrecognizable because of 198 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
their masks, the defense presented, among others, Benito Lato Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
andFriscoCapilo,bothutilityworkersatUPandsomestudent the BeachHouseCanteen,theysawthe woundedSRNatalicio
customers at the canteen. Lato recalled that he was collecting with some companions. They put him on board a jeepney and
plates at the canteen when the attackers came. But he was broughthimtothe UPInfirmarywithhiscompanions. Onthe
unabletorecognizethembecausetheyworemasksandhecould way, Cabrera asked SR Natalicio who attacked his group. He
seeonlytheireyes.[16]Capilo,ontheotherhand,testifiedthathe repliedthathedidnotrecognizeanyofthembecausetheywore
wasonhiswaytotheMainLibrarytoworkwhenseveralmen,all masks. CabreraaskedSR Nataliciothe samequestion afterhe
wearing masks and carrying lead pipes, rushed towards the had received treatment. SR Natalicio gave the same answer.
canteenandattackedsomewhowereeatingthere.[17] Cabrera could not interrogate SR Venturina because the latter
DanielMabazzatestifiedthathewasonhiswayoutofthe sufferedseriousinjuries.[20]
canteenwhen15menarrivedfromtheSouthwingoftheMain UPpoliceofficerSalvadortestifiedthatwhenheandCabrera
Library and attacked some customers who were eating at the respondedtoreportsofcommotion,theynoticedamaulingvictim,
tables.Hetestifiedfurtherthathewasabout3to5metersfrom SRNatalicio,surroundedbysomepeople.Salvadoraskedsomeof
the bystanders who the culprits were. They said they did not suffered from an August 1994 head injury that affected his
recognizethemsincetheywerewearingmass.[21] balance.[26]Jose Victor Santos testified that he and Medalla
The police officers brought SR Natalicio and his three playeddartsafterlunchonDecember8andtheylaterwentto
companionstotheInfirmaryusingthecanteensjeepney.Onthe Jollibee since Medalla had to treat him after losing the game.
way,CabreraaskedSRNatalicioandtheotherswithhimwho [27]Dr. Gerardo Legaspi corroborated Medallas testimony
attackedthem.Theyrepliedthattheycouldnottellsincethemen regardinghispreviousheadinjuries.[28]
wore masks. Salvador saw SR Venturina and Gaston being SJ Soliva testified that he was having lunch with his
treatedattheInfirmary.AfterSRNataliciowastreated,Cabrera girlfriend and her lady friend at Jollibee Philcoa when the
askedhimagainifherecognizedthemenwhohithim.Natalicio incident took place. They returned to UP at around 1:00 p.m.
replied that he did not because they wore masks. When asked Solivawentstraighttohistambayanwherehelearnedofthe
howmanyhithim,Nataliciosaidthathecouldnottellbecausehe rumble at the main library.[29]Anna Cabahug, Solivas
hadhisbackonthem.[22] girlfriend,corroboratedhistestimony.[30]
SJFelicianotestifiedthathewasinPampangaonDecember SJZingapantestifiedthathecouldnothavetakenpartinthe
8,1994,visitinghisgrandfatherwhomhethoughthadundergone incident at UP since he was at that time having lunch with
surgeryoftheprostategland.[23]Hismother,Feliciana,andan TeodoroCanayinKamuning,QuezonCity.Fromthere,hewent
elementary school teacher, Rogelio Yumul, corroborated his to the SM City mall at around 1:00 p.m. to buy an electric
testimony.Yumultestifiedthathewasonhis thermosasaweddinggiftforatownmate.Hewasonhiswayout
_______________ ofthemallwhenhechancedupontwoofhisbrods.[31]
[20]TSN,November13,1995,pp.2253. _______________
[21]TSN,November20,1995,pp.1522. [24]TSN,November12,1997,pp.710.
[22]Id.,atpp.2240. [25]TSN,February2,2000,pp.916.
[23]TSN,February17,1999,pp.89. [26]TSN,September22,1999,pp.421.
199 [27]TSN,August11,1999,pp.712.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 199 [28]TSN,September15,1999,pp.1025.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. [29]TSN,June16,1999,pp.1221.
waytotheprincipalsofficeataroundnoonofDecember8when [30]TSN,November23,1998,pp.527.
hesawFelicianoseatedatawaitingshed.[24] [31]TSN,May12,1999,pp.718.
SJ Alvir testified that he had been ill since December 5. 200
Consequently,heneitherreported forwork norwent toUPon 200 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
December8.[25] Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
SJMedallatestifiedthatonthedayinquestionhewaswith
his classmate Michael Vibas working on a school project. He
claimedthathecouldnothavetakenpartintherumblesincehe
 The RTC absolved SJ Rodolfo Pealosa on a demurrer to withaparty,acounsel,orafraternityinvolvedinthecase.See:
evidencesincenoneoftheprosecutionwitnessestestifiedthathe CourtofAppealsDecision,pp.2627.
hadtakenpartintheattack. 201
OnFebruary28,2002theRTCrenderedjudgment[32]finding VOL.724,MAY5,2014 201
SJAlvir,Feliciano,Soliva,Medalla,andZingapanguiltybeyond
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
reasonable doubt of one count of murder and four counts of
over the latters defenses andalibis.Itregarded the
attemptedmurder.Thecomigavecredencetothetestimoniesof
inconsistenciesinthetestimoniesofthewitnessesastrivialand
thevictimswhoidentifiedtheirattackers.Itthoughtlittleofthe
didnottarnishtheircredibility.TheCAheldthatthedelayinthe
failureofsomeofthevictimstonamethemwhenaskedbythe
identificationoftheaccusedhadbeenexplained:SRNatalicioand
UPpoliceofficersandthephysiciansattheInfirmary.Itdidnot
Fortesneededmedicalattention;theotherswiththemwantedto
agree that the victims delayed identification of their attackers
cometogetherwhentheyfiledtheircomplaints.
tainted their testimonies. The RTC held that the accused
TheCAexplainedthatitcharacterizedthecrimeschargedin
conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. But it
CriminalCasesQ9561136,Q9561135,andQ9561134asmere
acquittedSJAblanida,Fajardo,Magpantay,Morano,andNarag
slightphysicalinjuriessincetheintenttokillwasnotevident,
for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
giventhatnoneoftheaccusedchasedthem.SRGaston,saidthe
reasonabledoubt.
CA,sufferedonlyalaceratedwoundnearhisbreast,precluding
Onappeal,theCourtofAppeals(CA),SpecialFirstDivisionof
anattemptonhislife.
Five,[33]withoneJusticedissenting,affirmedtheRTCDecision
and found SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan TheIssuePresented
guiltyofthreecountsofslightphysicalinjuriesinCriminalCases ThecentralissueinthiscaseiswhetherornottheCAerred,
Q9561136,Q9561135,andQ9561134;twocountsofattempted liketheRTC,innotrejectingthevictimsidentificationoftheir
murder in Criminal Cases Q9561138 and Q9561137; and one assailants as mere fabrications to go around the fact that the
countofmurderinCriminalCaseQ9561133.TheCAimposedon latterworemasksandinthusnotabsolvingtheaccusedofthe
theaccusedthepenaltiesthatcorrespondedtotheoffensesand charges.
orderedthemtopayvariouscivilindemnitiestothevictimsor,in Ineverycriminalaction,theprosecutionhastoestablishthe
thecaseofSRVenturina,tohisheirs. identity of the offender, like the crime itself, by proof beyond
TheCAruledthatthewitnessespositiveidentificationofSJ reasonabledoubt.Indeed,itsfirstdutyistoprovetheidentityof
Alvir,Feliciano,Soliva,Medalla,andZingapanprevailed the offender for, even if the commission of the offense can be
_______________ established, no conviction can take place without proof of his
[32]PennedbyHon.JoseCatralMendoza,nowamemberof identitybeyondreasonabledoubt.[34]
theCourt. True,alibiisaweakdefenseinthefaceofpositivetestimonies
[33]ThecaseswerereraffledmanytimesafterseveralCourt ofprosecutionwitnessesthattheaccusedcommitted
ofAppealsjusticesinhibitedthemselves,claimingcloserelation _______________
 [34]Peoplev.Pineda,473Phil.517,548;429SCRA478,504 SR Lachica also testified that as he ran away from his
(2004);Peoplev.Esmale,313Phil.471,492;243SCRA578,592 assailants, he looked back running and was able to place the
accusedSJZingapanandMedallaatthescene.[38]But,consid
(1995),citingTuasonv.CourtofAppeals,311Phil.813,817;241
_______________
SCRA695,697(1995).
202 [35]People v. Mansueto,391 Phil. 611, 633; 336 SCRA 715,
202 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 724(2000);Peoplev.Crispin,383Phil.919,932;327SCRA167,
179(2000).
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
[36]TSN,June5,1995,p.11.
thecrime.Butsuchtestimoniesmustbecredibleandmustcome
fromcrediblewitnesses.[35] [37]Id.,atp.29.
Several circumstances militate against the mauling victims [38]Id.,atp.13.
testimoniesthattheywereabletoidentifytheirattackers: 203
1.SRLachica,oneofthevictims,himselftestifiedthatthe VOL.724,MAY5,2014 203
menhesawcomingtoattackhisgroup,atleast10innumber,all Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
woremasks.Hesaid: eringthatSRLachicawastryingtogetawayfromthemenwho
Q:WhenoneofyourbrodyouheardshoutedBrods,whatdid were beating him up, it was not likely, having succeeded in
youdo? sprintingaway,thathewouldlookbackandriskslowingdown
A:IstoodupandIwasalarmed.Istoodupandlookedbackand hisescape.HedidnotevenclaimthatSJZingapanandMedalla
frommyside,Isawatleastten(10)armedmenandmasked were among those who attacked him. He appears to have just
men. made up the statement to get on record evidence that the two
Q: Yousaidarmedmen,yousawarmedmenwhenyoulooked werepartoftheattackers.
back.Withwhatweretheyarmedwith? 2.SR Natalicio testified that the men who attacked them
A:Theywerearmedwithleadpipesandbaseballbats. mostlyworemasksbutSJMedallawholedthosemenworeno
Q:You also mentioned that these men were wearing masks. mask.[201]ThisisnoteasytobelievesinceSRLachica,theother
Whatkindofmasks? prosecutionwitness,testifiedthattheattackersallworemasks
A:Theywerewearinghandkerchiefs,pieceofclothes,andsome butwhenhelookedbackwhilegettingaway,hesawSJMedalla
tshirts.[36] already without a mask, implying that the latter lost it, thus
belyingSRNataliciostestimonythatSJMedallaworenomask
SRLachicaalsosaidthat,asfiveoftheattackersbeathimup fromthestart.
on the back, he covered his head with his forearms. SRNataliciotestifiedthatwhileparryinghisattackersblows,
[37]Consequently,itwasnotlikelythat,ashewouldclaim,he he saw SJ Zingapan and Soliva.[202]These two must be near
sawSJAlvirsmaskfalloffhisface. each other since he saw them at glance. But, contradicting SR
Natalicio,SRGastonalsosawSJZingapan,notwithSolivabut whenhemoved,thelatterstoodinthesameplace.Later,hesaid
withMorano.[203] thatbothwerethereatthesametime.Grantingarguendothat
3.The RTC itself gave no credence to SR Mangrobangs Moranowasmoving,hisstorydoesnotentirelyjibewiththatof
testimony and for this reason acquitted SJ Magpantay and Fortes.[42]
Fajardo,twoofhisattackerswhosemaskssupposedlyfelloff.The
trialcourtalsoacquittedSJNarag,whomSRMangrobangsaid 5.SRForteswasthefourthwitnesstofoistthesamelook
hesaw,whenhereturnedtothesceneofthecommotion,hitting backproposition.Heranawayafterseeingabout15men,armed
SRVenturinawiththeaidofSJFeliciano.Itisquiteunbelievable with lead pipes and clubs, coming to attack his group. But he
that having narrowly escaped his attackers, SR Mangrobang looked back whileon the run to see SJ Zingapan and Morano,
wouldgobackwhilethemaulingwasstillinprogress.Finally, whosupposedlyhadnomasks,rightbehindhim.Theyhithimon
thetrialcourtacquittedSJAblanidawhomSRMangrobangsaid the back, causing him to fall. As he stood up and tried to run
hesawwieldingaleadpipewhilerunningbecauseitsimplycould again,agroupof10menattackedhimforfivetoeightseconds.
notbelievethiswitness. He recognized none of them. But, standing up again after the
_______________ secondattack,hesupposedlysawSJFelicianowhosemaskfelloff
[39]TSN,July3,1995,p.9. whilebeatingupSRVenturina.
[40]Id.,atpp.1416. Justwhatarethechancesthatfouroutoffivewitnesseswho
[41]TSN,October11,1995,p.143. werefleeingand,indeed,runningfortheirliveswouldjustlook
back,riskstumblingandcrashingdown,toputinevidencethe
204 identitiesofsomeofthosewhomtheRTCandtheCAconvicted?
204 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Verylittle.Itappearsaconvenientexcuse
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. _______________
4.AfterSRLachicaandNatalicio,thethirdwitnesstouse [42]RTCDecision,p.65.
thelookbackpropositionwasSRGaston.Hetestifiedthatoneof 205
twomaskedmentriedtobludgeonhimontheheadastheother VOL.724,MAY5,2014 205
lungedathimwithaknife,woundinghischestandforearm.As Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
SRGastonranandescapedfromthosetwomen,hemanagedto forprovidingevidencewherenoneexisted.Thecircumstancesof
lookbackjusttoplaceSJZingapanandMoranoatthesceneof the separate identifications, taking place in split seconds, defy
themauling. belief.Whatbafflesmeisthefactthatthetrialcourtacquitted
ThetrialcourtitselffoundsomethingterriblywrongwithSR SJMoranowhomSRFortesandGastonidentifiedwhilelooking
Gastonstestimonies.Itsaid: backontherunbutconvictedSJZingapan,Soliva,andMedalla
Inthisregard,Gastonrelatedahazystory.Atonepoint,he whowerealsotargetsoflookbacktestimonies.
saidthathesawZingapanandMoranoatthesameplacebutnot
atthesametimeexplainingthattheformerwastherefirstand
 The trial court had reason to further doubt SR Fortes 7.Notably, the two sides gave conflicting testimonies
testimonies.Itsaid: regardingthevictimsopportunitytoidentifytheirattackers.The
Bytheway,theCourthasnotignoredthetestimonyofArnel prosecutionwitnessesclaimthatsomeoftheattackerscouldbe
Fortes that Morano repeatedly struck him with a lead pipe. It identifiedbecausetheyworenomasksortheirmasksfelloff.The
was,however,givenduringtherebuttalstage.Whenhesatatthe defensewitnessestestifiedthatalltheattackersworemasksand
witnessstandforthefirsttime,hesaidnothingofthatsort.He noneofthesefelloff.Sinceidentificationoftheattackersisthe
couldhavebeensayingthetruthandthatwhatherelatedwas keyissue,theCourthastoconsiderwhichwitnessesandstories
notanafterthoughtbutstillthecloudofdoubtremains.Asthere appeartobemorecredible.
stillthathaziness,thebarrierremainsuncleared.[43] I amimpressed with the testimony of UP police officer
6.Emmanuel Batungbakal of course testified that he saw Salvador,whohadservedtheUPspoliceforcefor18yearsand
threeplatelesscarsrushouttowardstheMainLibrary[44]with hadnomotivetofabricateorlie.Hetestifiedthatwhenheand
SJFelicianoonboardonecar.Butthistestimonyisinconclusive fellow officer Cabrera arrived at the scene of the mauling, he
since Batungbakal admitted on crossexamination that he was asked the bystanders the identities of the assailants. The
not sure it was SJ Feliciano he saw. Besides, as pointed out bystandersrepliedthattheywereunabletoidentifytheattackers
above,nocredibletestimonysupportstheviewthatSJFeliciano becausetheyworemasks.Salvadortestified:
infacttookpartinthemauling. Q:Uponbeinginformedbytheblueguardthattherewasa
Thetrialcourtacquittedsomeoftheaccusedafterrejecting rumbleneartheBeachHousecanteen,telltheCourtwhat
thetestimoniesofSRMangrobangwhofingeredSJFelicianoas didyouandCabrerado?
well.Ontheotherhand,althoughSRGastondidnotmentionSJ A:Werushedtotheplacewheretheincidenttookplace,sir.
Feliciano on direct testimony, he brought up his name only on Q:And upon reaching the area of the Beach House Canteen,
cross,acatchupkindoftestimonythatthetrialcourtrejectedin whatdidyounotice?
SJ Moranos case. SR Fortes,thefinal witness against SJ A:Inoticedonevictimtogetherwithsomepeople,sir,andI
Feliciano,saidanuncannything:twogroupsofattackershadjust asked some of the bystanders if they saw what happened
bludgeonedhimoneaftertheother,yetSR andtheysaidtheydidnotrecognizetheattackersbecause
_______________ theywerewearingmask.[45]
[43]Id.
[44]TSN,November6,1995,pp.31,33. The statement of the bystanders, made while some of the
206 woundedwerebleedingthereandtheexcitementlingered,may
206 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED begiveninevidenceaspartoftheresgestae.Section42,Rule130
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. oftheRulesofEvidenceprovides:
Fortes claimed that he still managed to stand up in time to _______________
observeSJFelicianoattackingSRVenturina. [45]TSN,November20,1995,pp.1920.

 207 [47]TSN,December11,1995,pp.80,85.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 207 208
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. 208 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Sec.42.Part of the res gestae.Statements made by a Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
personwhileastartlingoccurrenceistakingplaceorimmediately his three companions admitted to the two UP police officers
prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances investigating the mauling incident that they could not identify
thereof,maybegiveninevidenceaspartoftheresgestae.xxx theirattackersbecausethelatterworemasks.UPpoliceofficer
Thesestatementsarespontaneous reactions inspiredbythe Cabreratestified:
excitementofthemoment.Itmaybeassumedthat,unliketardy QOn you way to the Infirmary, please tell the court if
witnesses, the bystanders who made the statements had no anythinghadtranspired.
opportunitytodeliberateorfabricate.Thewordstheyutteredare AIaskedMarvinNatalicioofhisnames,sir.
QWhatelsedidyouaskhim,ifany?
part of the commotion they described.[46]Theres
AIaskedhimwhohithim,sir.
gestaecontradicts theattemptof prosecution witnesses to show QWhatdidhesay?
thatanumberoftheattackersworemasksorthatidentification AHetoldmehedidnotrecognizeanyofthembecausethey
waspossiblebecausethemasksofsomefelloff. werewearingmasks,sir.
In fact, Luz Perez, a3rdyear Interior Design student, then QWhat about his companions who were with you in this
lininguptogetfoodattheBeachHouseCanteen,testifiedlike vehicle,didyounotaskthem?
many others that she was unable to identify the attackers ATheyansweredthesamething,theydidnotrecognizeany
becausetheyallworemasks.Shesaid: ofthem,sir.
Q.HowmanymaskedmendidyouseeMissPerez? xxxx
A.Therewereabouttentofifteenmaskedmen. QNow,uponarrivingattheInfirmary,pleasetelltheCourt
xxxx whattranspired?
ATTY.W.CHUA AAt the Infirmary, there were two (2) other persons who
Q.Andcanyouidentifyanyoftheattackersthatyousaw? werealsoinjured,Sir.
WITNESS QPleasetellthecourtwhatyoudidattheU.P.Infirmary?
A.No,Icannot. AI asked Marvin again if he recognized the two (2) other
Q.Whycanyounotidentifythem? persons who hit him and he answered the same thing as
A.Becausetheywerewearingmasks.[47] whatIhaveaskedhimwhenwewereatthevehicle,Sir.[48]
8.In the same way, while the startling incident and the
painsitcausedstilloccupiedtheirminds,SRNatalicioand Notably,asSRFortestestified,itwasSOPforallfratmento
_______________ familiarizethemselveswiththefacesandnamesofthemembers
[46]2Jones,Sec.10:1,6thEdition.
ofotherfraternities.[49]Thisbeingthecase,therewasnoreason SRNatalicioofcoursedeniedhavingsaidthathecouldnot
forSRNatalicioandhiscompanions,allfrat identifytheirassailantswhenthepoliceofficersandthedoctor
_______________ askedhimandhiscompanionsaboutit.Butbetweenthelatter,
[48]TSN,November13,1995,pp.3740. ontheonehand,andthoseofficersandthedoctor,ontheother,
[49]TSN,October30,1995,p.12. theCourtshouldhavebeenmoreinclinedtobelievethelatter.
209 Indeed, there is no evidence that SR Natalicio, Lachica,
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 209 Fortes,Gaston,Mangrobang,andTumaneng,whosurvived
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. _______________
men,nottopromptlynametheattackersfromtherivalfraternity [50]TSN,September16,1998,pp.2021.
whenfirstqueriedbythepoliceofficers. [51]Id.
9.Besides,Dr.CarmenMislang,aphysicianwhohadbeen 210
servingattheUPInfirmaryfor20years,alsotestifiedthatwhen 210 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
asked,SRNatalicioandhiscompanionstoldherthattheycould Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
not identify their attackers because the latter were masked. themauling,gavestatementsshortlyaftertheincidenteitherto
[212]Dr.Mislanginfactincludedthisinformationinhermedical the UP police officers or the Quezon City police which had
report.Shethustestified: primaryjurisdictionoverthecrimes.Theytookfourdaysmulling
QYousaiddoctor,inthishistoryofpresentillness,markedas overitbeforegoingtotheNBItonametheirassailants.
Exhibit 9a2=zingapan, that I quote: 10.SR Natalicio of course gave a different version of his
xxxhewasallegedlyhitbyaleadpipeduringtherumble interviewwiththeUPpoliceofficers.Whentheyaskedhimwho
by unknown assailants. What was the basis of your their assailants were, he said that he requested them to come
statementhere? backashewasnotfeelingwell.[52]Thereistestimonythattwoof
AHetoldus,thegroupbecausetheycamewithfriends,they hisSigma Rhobrothers conferred with him to discuss what
allegedthathewashitbyagroupofpeoplemaskedbya happenedandtheirstrategyforgettingbackatthosewhomthey
leadpipe.Iaskediftheyknowtheassailantsandtheysaid believed were responsible. Further to this, SR Lachica[53]and
nobecausetheyaremasked. Gaston[54]testifiedthattheymetwiththeiralumnibrothersthat
QYousaidhe,towhomareyoureferringto? evening.SRNataliciosaidthatwhenthepoliceofficerscameback
AThepatientandtheirfriendsaroundbecausetherearealso to ask him the identities of the attackers, a senior fraternity
commotionintheemergencyroom,sir. brotherlawyerwaspresentandhetoldthepoliceofficersthatthe
QAre you referring to the patient by the name of Mervin statements would be given to the NBI and they would just be
Natalicio? furnishedcopies.[55]
AYes,sir.[51] Thisisludicrous.Therighttosilenceisgiventopersonsunder
suspicionforcommittingsomecrimes,nottothevictimswhose
dutyistopromptlyassistthepoliceinvestigatorsinpinpointing Magpantay;and(e)SJFajardoperSRMangrobangstestimony
criminalresponsibilities.Noevidencehasbeenpresentedtoshow thatthemasksofthesetwofelloff.[58]SRFortesalsotestified
that the UP police force was partial to the opposing that he saw SJ Felicianos mask fell off as he was hitting SR
fraternity.Iamthus unable to blame the accused for believing Venturina.[59]
that the only possible reason in this case for withholding Just what are the chances that themasks of five out of 12
informationfromthepolicefromdayonewasthatthevictimsand accusedjustfelloffduringthemauling?Quitelittleornilsinceit
theircounselhadyettoputtheiractstogether. wasnotactuallyafraternityrumblewheretheprotagonistshit
11.The supposed identification of the accused came four each other creating the possibility that any mask they were
days lateratthe NBIofficeinManila.Admittedly,the victims wearingcouldfalloff.Here,thevictimstestifiedthattheybore
andtheirbrodswaitedforeveryonetobereadybeforethey the punishment and were unable to fight back since their
_______________ attackers were numerous and carried lead pipes and clubs.
[52]TSN,July12,1995,p.3. Indeed,noneofthevictimstestifiedthathisactioninprotecting
[53]TSN,June5,1995,p.15. his head resulted in the unmasking of one or some of his
[54]TSN,October11,1995,pp.46,148149. attackers. Evidently, the attackers deliberately wore masks to
[55]TSN,February7,2001,p.31. hide their identities.Itmade no sense for them to wear masks
211 thatwouldjustfalloffwhenonesneezes.
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 211 _______________
[56]TSN,June5,1995,p.12.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
cameasagrouptogivetheirstatementsattheNBIoffice.The [57]Id.,atp.13.
excusethatSRNatalicioandFortesneededmedicalattentionand [58]TSN,September28,1995,pp.1718.
that theothers with themwanted to come together when they [59]TSN,October16,1995,pp.6263.
filedtheircomplaintsattheNBIisnotavalidexcuse.Sincethey
claimthattheywereterriblyaggrievedandthatoneofthemlost 212
his life, the natural thing was for them to demand immediate 212 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
justiceandactionfromthepoliceortheNBIontheafternoonof Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr.
December8,1994. Thosewhoswingbatstostrikeatobjectsbeforethemrarely
12.Theprosecutionwitnessestestifiedthatthemasksoffive hittheirownfaces.OnlyinfunnymovieslikeTheThreeStooges
oftheaccusedjustfellofftorevealwhotheywere.Thesewere(a) canthathappen.Whatarethechancesthatamaskwouldjust
SJAlvirperSRLachicastestimony;[56](b)SJZingapan;and(c) fallofffromthefaceofthepersonwearingit?Constructionand
SJMedallaalsoperSRLachicastestimonythatthetwowerenot industriallaborersdoingstrenuousworkwearmaskalldaylong
wearingmaskswhenhelookedbackandsawthem,[57]implying to protect themselves from dusts, chemicals, or fumes. Food
that they had masks at the beginning of the attack; (d) SJ processing workers wear them at work to prevent food
contamination. They are not likely to be heard experiencing
unpredictablefallingoffofmaskstakingplaceingreatnumber. Inacaselikethis,wheretheidentitiesandparticipationsof
Here,iftheprosecutionweretobebelieved,fiveoutofjust12 the several accused involved are difficult to prove, the ideal
accusedlosttheirmasksinonly30to45seconds.Theoddsofthis solution is to convince the least guilty of them, the one who
happeningareunbelievable. showedthemostreluctanceanddeliveredthelightestblows,to
Indeed,prosecutionwitnessGaiohimselfwhowasatthescene turnstatewitness.Iamunabletosayifeffortsinthisdirection
ofthecommotiontestifiedthathedidnotseeanyoftheattackers weretakenbytheNBIortheprosecutorstoensurethattheyhad
losingtheirmasksatanypointintime.Hesaid: agoodcase.
ATTY.CHUA: Icondemn the senseless death of SR Venturina and
Q:Atanypointintime,didyouseeanymaskpulling[sic]off? commiserateswiththesufferingsofhisfamily.Fraternitywars,
WITNESS: many of them cruel and barbaric, are the scourge of many
A:Ididnotseeanything,sir.[60] campuses.Newrecruitsareromanticizedwiththemystery,pride,
GaioalsobeliedSRFortestestimonythatSJFelicianosmaskfell and drama of brotherhood or kinship with senior members of
offwhilehewashittingSRVenturina.Gaiosaid: greatreputation.Thisofcourseinvitesenvyandannoyancefrom
Q:Mr. Dennis Venturina was hit and fell down, was the otherbrotherhoodsfornoneisgreaterormorecourageousthan
personwhohitDenniswearingmask? ones own. They thus test each others unity, capability, and
A:Theirfaceswerecovered,sir. resolve, destroying each other, and subordinating the real
Q:Allofthem? purpose of their being in school. They forget that true
A:Yes,sir. brotherhoodcomesfrommutualkindnessandrespect.
Q:Thereisnowaytorecognizethem? ACCORDINGLY,I vote toGRANTthe petition,REVERSE
A:None,sir.[61] AND SET ASIDEthe judgment of conviction of the Regional
_______________ TrialCourtinCriminalCasesQ9561133to38datedFebruary
[60]TSN,April3,1997,pp.4849. 28, 2002, andACQUITthe accusedappellants Robert Michael
[61]Id.,atp.49. Beltran Alvir, Danilo A. Feliciano, Jr., Christopher L. Saliva,
213 Julius VictorL.Medalla, and WarrenL.Zingapan on ground of
VOL.724,MAY5,2014 213 reasonabledoubt.
Peoplevs.Feliciano,Jr. Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
Whiletheattackbymaskedmenisdoublycondemnable,not G.R.No.158362.April4,2011.*
only for the treachery involved but also for the cowardice and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff
deception that came with it, the Court cannot hastily send to appellee,vs.GILBERTO VILLARICO, SR. @ BERTING,
prison those charged with these crimes without proof beyond GILBERTOVILLARICO,JR.,JERRYRAMENTOS,andRICKY
reasonable doubt that they committed them. The Constitution VILLARICO,accusedappellants.
ordainsthis.
 Criminal Procedure; Evidence; The first duty of the seekingjusticeforthevictimandbringingthemalefactorbefore
prosecutionisnottoprovethecrimebuttoprovetheidentityofthe thelaw.
criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can be
_______________
established, there can be no conviction without proof of the
identityofthecriminalbeyondreasonabledoubt.Thefirstduty *THIRDDIVISION.
of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the 44
identityofthecriminal,for,evenifthecommissionofthecrime 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
canbeestablished,therecanbenoconvictionwithoutproofofthe 4
identityofthecriminalbeyondreasonabledoubt.Inthatregard,
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
anidentificationthatdoesnotprecludeareasonablepossibilityof
Same;ResGestae;Inageneralway,resgestaeincludesthe
mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force. The
interventionofanymistakeortheappearanceofanyweaknessin circumstances,facts,anddeclarationsthatgrowoutofthemain
theidentificationsimplymeansthattheaccusedsconstitutional fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so
rightofpresumptionofinnocenceuntilthecontraryisprovedis spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to
notovercome,therebywarrantinganacquittal,evenifdoubtmay exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.The termres
cloud his innocence. Indeed, the presumption of innocence
gestaerefers to those circumstances which are the undesigned
constitutionally guaranteed to every individual is forever of
incidentsofaparticularlitigatedactandwhichareadmissible
primaryimportance,andeveryconvictionforcrimemustreston
when illustrative of such act. In a general way,res
thestrengthoftheevidenceoftheState,notontheweaknessof
thedefense. gestaeincludes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that
growoutofthemainfactandservetoillustrateitscharacterand
Evidence;Witnesses;Thefamiliarityofthewitnesswiththe
which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main
assailanterasedanydoubtthatthewitnesscouldhaveerred.
fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The
ThecloserelationshipofRemediosandFranciscowiththevictim
ruleonresgestaeencompassestheexclamationsandstatements
as well as their familiarity with the accused who were their
neighborsassuredthecertaintyoftheiridentificationasHaides madebyeithertheparticipants,victims,orspectatorstoacrime
assailants.InMarturillasv.People,theCourtobservedthatthe immediatelybefore,during, orimmediatelyafter the commission
familiarity of the witness with the assailant erased any doubt ofthecrimewhenthecircumstancesaresuchthatthestatements
that the witness could have erred; and noted that a witness weremadeasaspontaneousreactionorutteranceinspiredbythe
related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the excitementoftheoccasionandtherewasnoopportunityforthe
facesofthepersoninvolvedintheattackonthevictim,because declaranttodeliberateandtofabricateafalsestatement.
relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with
 Same;Same;Testofadmissibilityofevidenceasapartofthe amongthemonperpetratingthecrime.Thus,theconcertedacts
resgestae;RequisitesofResGestae.Thetestofadmissibilityof ofthefourmanifestedtheiragreementtokillHaide,resultingin
eachofthembeingguiltyofthecrimeregardlessofwhetherhe
evidenceasapartoftheresgestaeiswhethertheact,declaration,
actually fired at the victim or not. It is axiomatic that once
orexclamationissointimatelyinterwovenorconnectedwiththe
conspiracyisestablished,theactofoneistheactofall;andthat
principalfactoreventthatitcharacterizesastoberegardeda
alltheconspiratorsarethenliableascoprincipals.
part of the principal fact or event itself, and also whether it
clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture Same; Same;PositiveIdentification; Two Types ofPositive
testimony.Adeclarationoranutteranceisthusdeemedaspartof Identification Distinguished.Relevantly, the Court has
theresgestaethatisadmissibleinevidenceasanexceptiontothe distinguished two types of positive identification inPeople v.
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835 (2000), namely: (a) that by direct
principal act, theres gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the
statementsweremadebeforethedeclaranthadtimetocontrive act;and(b)thatbycircumstantialevidence,suchaswherethe
ordevise;and(c)thestatementsmustconcerntheoccurrencein accusedislastseenwiththevictimimmediatelybeforeorafter
questionanditsimmediatelyattendingcircumstances. thecrime.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Conspiracy; A conspiracy exists Same; Same; Alibis; A positive identification that is
whentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerningthe categorical, consistent, and devoid of any showing of ill or vile
commissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit;Itisaxiomatic motiveon the part of the Prosecution witnessesalways prevails
thatonceconspiracyisestablished,theactofoneistheactofall. overalibianddenialthatareinthenatureofnegativeandself
Inthefaceofthepositiveidentificationofallthefouraccused, serving evidence.Long judicial experience instructs that their
it did not matter whether only one or two of them denial and alibis, being too easy to invent, could not overcome
hadactuallyfiredthefatalshots.Theiractionsindicatedthata their positive identification by credible Prosecution witnesses
conspiracyexistedamongthem.In whosemotivesfortheidentificationwerenotshowntobeillor
45 vile.Truly,apositiveidentificationthatiscategorical,consistent,
anddevoidofanyshowingofillorvilemotiveonthepartofthe
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 45
Prosecutionwitnessesalwaysprevailsoveralibianddenialthat
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
are in the nature of negative and selfserving evidence. To be
deed,aconspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometo accepted,thedenialandalibimustbesubstantiatedbyclearand
anagreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecideto convincingevidenceestablishingnotonlythattheaccuseddidnot
commit it. Direct proof of a previous agreement among the takepartinthecommissionoftheimputedcriminalactbutalso
accusedtocommitthecrimeisnotnecessary,forconspiracymay thatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefortheaccusedtobeatornear
beinferredfromtheconductoftheaccusedatthetimeoftheir theplaceofthecommissionoftheactatoraboutthetimeofits
commission of the crime that evincesa common understanding
commission. In addition, their proffered alibis were really On appeal by the accused is the decision of the Court of
unworthyofcreditbecauseonlytheaccusedthemselvesandtheir Appeals (CA) promulgated on June 6, 2003,1finding Gilberto
relativesandotherintimatessubstantiatedthem.46 Villarico,Sr.,GilbertoVillarico,Jr.,JerryRamentos, 2and
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
6 _______________
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
1CARollo,pp.173184;pennedbyAssociateJusticeHakimS.
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; It is the
Abdulwahid,andconcurredbyAssociateJusticeBennieAdefuin
suddennessoftheattackcoupledwiththeinabilityofthevictimto DelaCruz(retired)andJoseI.Sabio,Jr.(retired).
defend himself or to retaliate that brings about treachery; 2AttimesspelledasRamientosintherecordsandintheRTC
Treacherymaystillbeappreciatedevenifthevictimwasfacing decision.
the assailant.There is treachery when: (a) at the time of the 47
attack,thevictimwasnotinapositiontodefendhimself;and(b) VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 47
theaccusedconsciouslyanddeliberately adopted the particular Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
means,methods,orformsofattackemployedbyhim.Theessence RickyVillaricoguiltyofmurderforthekillingofHaideCagatan,
oftreacheryliesinthesuddennessoftheattackthatleavesthe andimposingthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaoneachofthem,
victimunabletodefendhimself,therebyensuringthecommission therebymodifyingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),
oftheoffense.Itisthesuddennessoftheattackcoupledwiththe Branch16,inTangubCitythathadpronouncedthemguiltyof
inabilityofthevictimtodefendhimselfortoretaliatethatbrings homicideaggravatedbydwelling.3
abouttreachery;consequently,treacherymaystillbeappreciated Withtreacheryhavingattendedthekilling,weaffirmtheCA
evenifthevictimwasfacingtheassailant. but correct the civil liability to accord with pertinent law and
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals. jurisprudence.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee. Antecedents
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellants.
OnOctober7,1999,aninformationformurderwasfiledinthe
BERSAMIN,J.:
RegionalTrialCourtinMisamisOccidental(RTC)againstallthe
Theidentificationoftheaccusedasthepersonresponsiblefor
accused,4theaccusatoryportionofwhichreads:
the imputed crime is the primary duty of the State in every
ThatonoraboutAugust8,1999,atabout7:50oclockinthe
criminalprosecution.Suchidentification,tobepositive,neednot
morning at Barangay Bolinsong, Municipality of Bonifacio,
always be by direct evidence from an eyewitness, for reliable
Province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines, and within the
circumstantialevidencecanequallyconfirmitastoovercomethe
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused,
constitutionallypresumedinnocenceoftheaccused.
conspiring,confederatingandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,with
intent to kill, armed with a short firearms (sic), did then and Sr. was at the right side, with Ramentos behind him. When
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously suddenly and Gilberto, Jr. noticed Remedios, he pointed his gun at her,
treacherouslyshootHAIDECAGATANatthebackpenetrating promptingRemediostodroptothegroundandtoshouttoLolita
throughtheneckwhichcause(d)theinstantdeathofsaidvictim Cagatan,hermotherinlawandHaidesmother:Nay,Naytawo
andthathehadnochancetoavoidordefendhimselffromthe Nay(Mother,mother,therearepeopleoutside,mother).Atthat
attack. instant,Remediosheardthreegunshots.5
CONTRARYTOLAW. Francisco Cagatan, the father of Haide, also heard the
AlltheaccusedpleadednotguiltyattheirDecember15,1999 gunshots just as he was coming out of the toilet, making him
arraignment. instinctivelyjumpintoahole,fromwherehewasabletoseeand
recognize Gilberto, Sr., Gilberto, Jr. and Ricky who were then
VersionoftheProsecution standing by the kitchen door. They were aiming their guns
upward,andsoonafterlefttogetherwithRamentos.6
At around 7:50 p.m. on August 8, 1999, Haide was busy Lolitaalsoheardthegunshotswhileshewasinthesala.She
preparing dinner in the kitchen of his familys residence in recalled that Haide then came towards her from the kitchen,
Bolinsong,Bonifacio,MisamisOccidental.Thekitchen,lo askingforhelp andsaying:Tabang kaygipusilkoni Berting(I
was shot by Berting).7At that, she and Remedios brought the
_______________
wounded Haide to Clinica Ozarraga, where he was treated for
gunshotwoundsonhisleftscapularregion(backofleftshoulder)
3Rollo,pp.4569;pennedbyJudgeResurrectionT.Inting.
and right elbow. He succumbed shortly thereafter due to
4Records,pp.12. hypovolemicshockormassivelossofblood.8
48
48 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
catedattherearoftheresidence,hadawallwhoseupperportion 5TSN,March29,2000,pp.56.
wasmadeofthreefeethighbambooslats(sasa)andwhoselower 6TSN,March10,2000,pp.67.
portionwasalsomadeofbambooslatsarrangedlikeachessboard 7TSN,February24,2000,pp.19and24.
withfourinchgapsinbetween.Atthattime,Haidessisterin 8SeeExhibits A and Bfor the Prosecution (Records, pp.
law Remedios Cagatan was attending to her child who was 5354).
answeringthecallofnaturenearthetoilet.Fromwhereshewas, 49
Remedios saw all the accused as they stood at the rear of the VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 49
kitchenaimingtheirfirearmsatthedoorRickyVillaricowasat Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
theleftside,andGilberto,Jr.stoodbehindhim,whileGilberto, VersionoftheDefense
 The accused denied the accusations and each proffered an 14TSN,April4,2000,pp.4557.
alibi. 50
Gilberto,Sr.claimedthathewassleepinginhishomewitha 50 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
feverwhenheheardagunshot.Heinsistedthathelearnedthat Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
Haidehadbeenshotonlyinthenextmorning. 9Hisdenialand TodiscreditthetestimonyaboutHaidebeingabletoidentify
alibiwerecorroboratedbyhiswifeCarmelita 10andhisdaughter his assailants, the Defense presented Peter Ponggos, who
Jersel.11
narratedthathehadbeenonboardamotorcycle(habalhabal)
Gilberto,Jr.testifiedthatonthedayoftheincident,hewent
whenLolitaandRemediosaskedforhishelp;andthathethen
toLiloan,Bonifacio,MisamisOccidentalataround5:00p.m.to
aided Lolita and Remedios in bringing Haide to the hospital.
visit his girlfriend together with Charlie Bacus and Randy
AccordingtoPeter,heaskedHaidewhohadshothim,butHaide
Hernan. They stayed there until 9:00 p.m. Thereafter, they
repliedthattherehadbeenonlyoneassailantwhomhedidnot
proceededtoTiamantoattendthewakeforoneHelenOligario
recognize.15
Cuizon, and were there for an hour. They then returned to
BolinsongandspentthenightinthehouseofRandy.Itwasonly RulingoftheRTC
inthemorningthatRandysfatherinformedthemthatHaidehad
beenshot.12 After trial, the RTC convicted the four accused of homicide
Rickydeclaredthathestayedthroughoutthewholeeveningof aggravatedbydwelling,disposing:16
August 8, 1999 in the house of his aunt Flordeliza. 13Myrna WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtfindsallthe
Hernan,aneighborofFlordeliza,corroboratedhistestimony.14 accusedguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofHomicide,
Ramentos alleged that he was drinkingtubawith others at withoneaggravatingcircumstanceofdwelling,andapplyingthe
thestoreownedbyCinderellaBacusatthetimeoftheshooting; IndeterminateSentenceLaw,herebysentenceseachoneofthem
andthathewenthomeataround9:00p.m.afterhisgroupwas toapenaltyofimprisonmentrangingfrom6yearsand1day,as
done drinking. He did not recall hearing any gunshots while itsminimumto17years,4monthsand1day,asitsmaximum,to
drinkingandcametoknowoftheshootingonlyfromacertain suffertheaccessorypenaltiesprovidedforbylaw,topayjointly
AnecitoDuyagonthefollowingmorning. andsolidarily,theheirsofthevictimP50,000.00,ascivilliability
andtopaythecosts.
_______________ Let all the accused be credited of the time that they were
placed in jail under preventive imprisonment, applying the
9TSN,May31,2000,pp.45. provisionsofArt.29oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.
10TSN,July21,2000,pp.317. SOORDERED.
11TSN,April11,2000,pp.4358. The RTC accorded faith to the positive identification of the
12TSN,May31,2000,p.1415. accused by the Prosecutions witnesses, and disbelieved their
13TSN,June29,2000,pp.45. denial and alibis due to their failure to show the physical
improbabilityforthemtobeatthecrimescene,forthedistances CriminalProcedure,WerenderJUDGMENTwithoutenteringit,
between the crime scene and the places where the accused asfollows:
allegedlywereatthetimeofthecommissionofthe 1.We find all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
MURDER. Each accused is hereby SENTENCED TO
_______________ SUFFERthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
2.TheDivisionClerkofCourtisherebydirectedtoCERTIFY
15TSN,April4,2000,pp.317. and ELEVATE the entire records of this case to the
16Records,p.138. SupremeCourtforreview.
51
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 51 _______________
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
crime were shown to range from only 100 to 700 meters. 17The 17ThedistancebetweenthehouseofGilberto,Sr.andHaides
RTCfound,however,thattheProsecutionwasnotabletoprove housewasonly100meters(TSN,May31,2000,p.21).Gilbert,
treacherybecause: Jr.testifiedthathisgirlfriendshousewasonly500metersaway
xxx The medical report of gunshot wound left scapular from Bolinsong (TSN, May 31, 2000, pp. 1921). Ricky claimed
regionwhichthedoctorinterpretedtobeatthebackoftheleft that the house of his aunt was only 700 meters from Haides
shoulderisnotsufficienttoprovetreachery,itbeingsusceptible house(TSN,June29,2000,p.9).
to 2 different interpretations: one: that victim had his back 18Records,p.137.
towardshisassailants,andtwo:thathewasactuallyfacingthem 19CARollo,p.173184.
butheturnedaroundforcoveruponseeingthearmedgroupof 52
Berting. The Court is inclined to believe the second 52 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
interpretationbecausethevictimwasabletoseeandidentifyhis Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
assailants. Two prosecution witnesses testified that the victim SOORDERED.20
identifiedtothemwhoshothim.18
CitingPeople v. Valdez,21the CA explained that the
attendance of treachery did not depend on the position of the
RulingoftheCA
victimatthetimeoftheattack,fortheessenceoftreacherywas
in the element of surprise the assailants purposely adopted to
Onintermediatereview,theCAmodifiedtheRTCsdecision,
ensure that the victim would not be able to defend himself.
holdinginsteadthatmurderwasestablishedbeyondreasonable
Considering that the accused had purposely positioned
doubtbecausethekillingwasattendedbytreachery,viz.:19
themselvesatnightoutsidethedoortothekitchenfromwhere
WHEREFORE,theappealedDecisionisherebyMODIFIED.
they could see Haide, who was then busy preparing dinner,
PursuanttoSection13,paragraph2ofRule124oftheRulesof
through the holes of the kitchen wall, the CA concluded that
Haide was thus left unaware of the impending assault against Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
him. THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE
ASSAILANT AS WELL AS ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS GUILT
Issues BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.
II
Inthisrecourse,theaccusedraisethefollowingerrors: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
I CONSIDERING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN TREACHERY, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT INDEED
CONVICTING ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS OF MURDER ACCUSEDAPPELLANTSAREGUILTY.
DESPITEFAILUREOF TheaccusedcontendthattheProsecutionwitnessesfailedto
positively identify them as the persons who had actually shot
_______________ Haide; that treachery was not attendant because there was no
proofshowingthattheyhadconsciouslyanddeliberatelyadopted
20Id.,atp.183. the modeofattackingthe victim; andthatassuming that they
21G.R.No.127663,March11,1999,304SCRA611,wherethe committedthekilling,theycouldonlybeconvictedofhomicide.
Courtpointedout: Thedecisivequeriesare,therefore,thefollowing:
Underparagraph16,Article14oftheRevisedPenalCode,the
(a)Shouldanidentification,tobepositive,havetobemade
qualifyingcircumstanceoftreacheryispresentwhentheoffender
byawitnesswhoactuallysawtheassailants?
employsmeans,methods,orformsintheexecutionofthecrime
(b)Was treachery attendant in the killing of Haide as to
whichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoensureitsexecutionwithout
qualifythecrimeasmurder?
risktohimselfarisingfromanydefensiveorretaliatoryactwhich
the victim might make (People vs. Santos,270 SCRA 650
Ruling
[1997]).Thesettledruleisthattreacherycanexistevenif
theattackisfrontalifitissuddenandunexpected,giving We affirm the finding of guilt for the crime of murder, but
the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself modifythecivilliability.
againstsuchattack.Whatisdecisiveisthattheexecution
of the attack, without slightest provocation from the 1.
victimwhoisunarmed,madeitimpossibleforthevictim Positiveidentificationrefersto
todefendhimselfortoretaliate(Peoplevs.Javier,269SCRA proofofidentityoftheassailant
181[1997]).
53 Thefirstdutyoftheprosecutionisnottoprovethecrimebut
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 53 toprovetheidentityofthecriminal,for,evenifthecommissionof
thecrimecanbeestablished,therecanbenoconvictionwithout Nos. 7274445, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 344, 377;People v.
proofoftheidentityofthecriminalbeyond Maongco, G.R. Nos. 10896365, March 1, 1994, 230 SCRA 562,
54 575.
54 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 24Peoplev.Raquel,G.R.No.119005,December2,1996,265
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. SCRA 248, 259;People v. Salguero, G.R. No. 89117, June 19,
reasonabledoubt. Inthatregard,anidentificationthatdoesnot
22
1991, 198 SCRA 357;Natividadv. Court of Appeals, G.R. L
precludeareasonablepossibilityofmistakecannotbeaccorded
40233,June25,1980,98SCRA335,346.
any evidentiary force.23The intervention of any mistake or the
appearanceofanyweaknessintheidentificationsimplymeans 25Pechov.People,G.R.No.111399,September27,1996,262
that the accuseds constitutional right of presumption of SCRA 518, 533;Perez v.Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 7620304,
innocenceuntilthecontraryisprovedisnotovercome,thereby December 6, 1989, 180 SCRA 9;People v. Sadie, No. L66907,
warranting an acquittal,24even if doubt may cloud his April 14, 1987, 149 SCRA 240;U.S. v.Gutierrez, 4 Phil. 493
innocence.25Indeed,thepresumptionofinnocenceconstitutionally (1905).
guaranteedtoeveryindividualisforeverofprimaryimportance, 26Peoplev.Pidia,G.R.No.112264,November10,1995,249
andeveryconvictionforcrimemustrestonthestrengthofthe SCRA687,702.
evidenceoftheState,notontheweaknessofthedefense.26 55
TheaccusedcontendthattheProsecutionwitnesses didnot VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 55
actuallyseewhohadshotHaide;hence,theiridentificationasthe
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
malefactorswasnotpositivelyandcrediblymade.
Haide. Their identification as his assailants by Remedios and
Wecannotupholdthecontentionoftheaccused.
Francisco was definitely positive and beyond reasonable doubt.
Theestablishedcircumstancesunerringlyshowthatthefour
Specifically,Remediossawallthefouraccusednearthedoorto
accusedweretheperpetratorsofthefatalshootingof
the kitchen immediatelybeforethe shots were fired and
_______________ recognized who they were. She even supplied the detail that
Gilberto, Jr. had trained his firearm towards her once he had
22People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004, 429 noticedherpresenceatthecrimescene.Onhispart,Francisco
attested to seeing the accused near the door to the kitchen
SCRA478;Peoplev.Esmale,G.R.Nos.10298182,April21,1995,
243SCRA578. holdingtheirfirearmsrightafterheheardthegunshots,andalso
recognizedthem.
23People v. Fronda, G.R. No. 130602. March 15, 2000, 328
The collective recollections of both Remedios and Francisco
SCRA185;Natividadv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L40233,June
about seeing the four accused standing near the door to the
25, 1980, 98 SCRA 335, 346;People v. Beltran, L31860,
kitchenimmediatelybeforeandaftertheshootingofHaideinside
November29,1974,61SCRA246,250;Peoplev.Manambit,G.R. the kitchen were categorical enough, and warranted no other
logicalinferencethanthatthefouraccusedwerethepersonswho A.Inthesala.
had just shot Haide. Indeed, neither Remedios nor Francisco Q.CouldyoupossiblytelltheHonorableCourtwhatactually
needed to have actually seen who of the accused had fired at tookplacewhenyoursonwasshot?
Haide,foritwasenoughthattheytestifiedthatthefourarmed A.HecamefromthekitchenatthattimewhenIheard
accused: (a) had strategically positioned themselves by the gunreports, he said Nay help me because I was
kitchendoorpriortotheshootingofHaide;(b)hadstillbeenin shotbyBerting.29
the same positionsafterthe gunshots were fired; and (c) had xxx
continuously aimed their firearms at the kitchen door even as Atty.Anonat:
theywereleavingthecrimescene. Q.And that affidavit was executed by you at the Bonifacio
The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the PoliceStation?
victim as well as their familiarity with the accused who were A.Yes.
their neighbors assured the certainty of their identification as
_______________
Haidesassailants.InMarturillasv.People,27theCourtobserved
thatthefamiliarityofthewitnesswiththeassailanterasedany
28Id.,atp.301;seealsoPeoplev.Evangelista,G.R.No.84332
doubtthatthewitnesscouldhaveerred;andnotedthatawitness
33, May 8, 1996, 256 SCRA 611 (holding that where the
related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the
identificationmadebythewifeofthevictimwasheldtobe
facesofthepersoninvolvedintheattackonthevictim,because
reliablebecauseshehadknowntheaccusedforalongtime
relatives,morethananybody
and was familiarwith him, considering herbeing positive
_______________ thatitwastheaccusedwhohadshotherhusbandalthough
she saw only the back part and the body contour of the
27G.R.No.163217,April18,2006,487SCRA273. assailant.Atthetimeshe saw him, theaccusedwas only
56 fourmetersaway,andtherewassufficientilluminationfrom
56 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED alamppostsixmetersawayfromthehouseofthevictim
andhiswife);Peoplev.Jacolo,G.R.No.94470,December16,
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
else,wouldbeconcernedwithseekingjusticeforthevictimand 1992,216SCRA631(holdingthatwheretheconditionsof
bringingthemalefactorbeforethelaw.28 visibilitywerefavorableandthewitnessdidnotappearto
Moreover, the following portions of Lolitas testimony show bebiasedagainstthemanonthedock,hisorherassertions
that Haide himself recognized and identified his assailants, to as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be
wit: accepted,moresowherethewitnesseswerethevictims,or
Atty.Fernandez: nearrelatives of the victims, because thesepeople usually
Q.Andwherewereyouatthattimewhenhewasshot? strovetorememberthefacesoftheassailants).
29TSN,February24,2000,p.19;boldemphasissupplied. thereof, may be given in evidence as part of theresgestae. So,
57 also,statementsaccompanyinganequivocalactmaterialtothe
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 57 issue,andgivingitalegalsignificance,maybereceivedaspartof
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. theresgestae.(36a)
xxx
Q.Andyouaffirmtothetruthofwhatyouhavestatedinthis _______________
affidavit?
A.Yes. 30Id.,atp.24;boldemphasissupplied.
Q.OnquestionNo.7youwereaskedinthismannerGiunsa 58
mannimopagkasayodngasilamaoyresponsiblesa 58 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
kamatayon sa imong anak? How do youknow that Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
they were responsible (for) the death of your son? Thetermresgestaereferstothosecircumstanceswhichare
And your answer is this Tungod kay ang biktima theundesignedincidentsofaparticularlitigatedactandwhich
nakasulti pa man sa wala pa siya namatay ug ang are admissible when illustrative of such act. 31In a general
iyangpulongmaongaTABANGNAYKAYGIPUSIL way,resgestaeincludesthecircumstances,facts,anddeclarations
KO NILA NI BERTING ug nasayod ako nga sila thatgrowoutofthemainfactandservetoillustrateitscharacter
gumikan sa akong mga testigos. which translated and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the
into EnglishBecause the victim was able to talk main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
beforehediedandthewordswhichhetoldmehelp fabrication.32Theruleonresgestaeencompassestheexclamations
meNayIamshotbythegroupofBertingandIknow and statements made by either the participants,victims, or
thisbecauseofmywitnesses.30 spectators to a crime immediatelybefore,during,
xxx orimmediatelyafter the commission of the crime when the
ThestatementofHaidetohismotherthathehadjustbeen circumstances are such that the statements were made as
shotbythegroupofBertingutteredintheimmediateaftermath aspontaneousreactionorutteranceinspiredbytheexcitementof
of the shooting where he was the victimwas a true part of theoccasionandtherewasnoopportunity for the declarantto
theresgestae.Thestatementwasadmissibleagainsttheaccused deliberateandtofabricateafalsestatement.33
asanexceptiontothehearsayruleunderSection42,Rule130of The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of theres
theRulesofCourt,whichprovides: gestaeis whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so
Section42.Partoftheresgestae.Statementsmadebya intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or
personwhileastartlingoccurrenceistakingplaceorimmediately event that it characterizes as to be regarded a part of the
prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances principalfactoreventitself,andalsowhetheritclearlynegatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. 34A aftertheshooting.And,thirdly,thestatementdirectlyconcerned
declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of theres the startling occurrence itself and its attending circumstance
gestaethat is admissible in evidence as an exception to the (that is, the identities of the assailants). Verily, the statement
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the was reliable as part of theres gestaefor being utteredin
principalact,theresgestae,isastartlingoccurrence;(b) spontaneityandonlyinreactiontothestartlingoccurrence.
Inthefaceofthepositiveidentificationofallthefouraccused,
_______________ it did not matter whether only one or two of them
hadactuallyfiredthefatalshots.Theiractionsindicatedthata
31AlhambraBldg.&LoanAssnv.DeCelle,118P.2d19,47 conspiracyexistedamongthem.Indeed,aconspiracyexistswhen
C.A. 2d 409;Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.v. Lewis, 61 N.E. 2d two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
297,326Ill.App.117. commissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit. 36Directproofofa
32Kaikov.Dolinger,440A.2d198,184Conn.509;Southern previousagreementamongtheaccusedtocommitthecrimeisnot
necessary,37for conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of
SuretyCo.v.Weaver,Com.App.273S.W.838.
the accused at the time of their commission of the crime that
33Peoplev. Sanchez, G.R.No. 74740, August28, 1992, 213 evincesacommonunderstanding
SCRA70.
34Molloyv.ChicagoRapidTransitCo.,166N.E.530,335Ill. _______________
164;Campbellv.Gladden,118A.2d133,383Pa.144,53A.L.R.
2d1222. 35People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004,
59 420SCRA326;Peoplev.DelaCruz,G.R.No.152176,October1,
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 59 2003, 412 SCRA 503;People v. Ignas, G.R. Nos. 14051415,
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. September30,2003,412SCRA311;Peoplev.Lobrigas,G.R.No.
the statements were made before the declarant had time to 147649, December 17, 2002, 394 SCRA 170;People v. Peralta,
contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the G.R. No. 94570, September 28, 1994, 237 SCRA 218;People v.
occurrence in question and its immediately attending
Maguikay,G.R.Nos.10322628,October14,1994,237SCRA587,
circumstances.35
600.
We find that the requisites concurred herein.Firstly, the
36Article8,RevisedPenalCode.
principal actthe shooting of Haidewas a startling
37People v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002, 380
occurrence.Secondly, his statement to his mother about being
SCRA266;Peoplev.Geguira,G.R.No.130769,March13,2000,
shotbythegroupofBertingwasmadebeforeHaidehadtimeto
328SCRA11,3233.
contriveortodeviseconsideringthatitwasutteredimmediately
60
60 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 39Peoplev.Sotes,G.R.No.101337,August7,1996,260SCRA
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. 353,365;Peoplev.Pablo,G.R.Nos.12039497,January16,2001,
amongthemonperpetratingthecrime.38Thus,theconcertedacts 349SCRA79.
ofthefourmanifestedtheiragreementtokillHaide,resultingin 40Peoplev.Peralta,G.R.No.L19069,October29,1968,25
eachofthembeingguiltyofthecrimeregardlessofwhetherhe SCRA759,776777;Peoplev.Pablo,supra.
actually fired at the victim or not. It is axiomatic that once 41G.R.No.133025,February17,2000,325SCRA835.
conspiracyisestablished,theactofoneistheactofall; 39andthat 61
alltheconspiratorsarethenliableascoprincipals. 40 VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 61
But did not the fact that the name Bertingwithout any
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
surnamebeingtoogenericopentheidentificationoftheaccused as where the accused is last seen with the victim immediately
astheassailantstodisquietingdoubtabouttheircomplicity? beforeorafterthecrime.TheCourtsaid:
Weholdthattherewasnoneedforasurnametobeattached xxxPositive identification pertains essentially to
tothenicknameBertinginordertoinsulatetheidentificationby proof of identity and notper seto that of being an
Haidefromchallenge.Thevictimsresgestaestatementwasonly eyewitness to thevery act of commission of the
oneofthecompetentandreliablepiecesofidentificationevidence. crime.Therearetwotypesofpositiveidentification.Awitness
As already shown, the accused were competently incriminated may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the
alsobyRemediosandFranciscoinamannerthatwarrantedthe perpetratorofthecrimeasaneyewitnesstotheveryactofthe
logical inference that they,and no others, were the assailants. commissionofthecrime.Thisconstitutesdirectevidence.There
Also,thatBertingwasthenaturalnicknameforapersonwhose may,however,beinstanceswhere,althoughawitnessmaynot
givennamewasGilberto, like herein accused Gilberto, Sr. and haveactuallyseentheveryactofcommissionofacrime,
Gilberto, Jr., was a matter of common knowledge in the he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or
Philippines. In fine, the pieces of identification evidence,
accusedastheperpetratorofacrimeasforinstancewhen
including Haidesres gestaestatement, collaborated to render thelatteristhepersonoroneofthepersonslastseenwith
theiridentificationunassailable.
the victim immediately before and right after the
Relevantly,theCourthasdistinguishedtwotypesofpositive
commission of thecrime.Thisis thesecondtypeofpositive
identification inPeople v. Gallarde,41namely: (a) that by direct
identification,whichformspartofcircumstantialevidence,which,
evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the
whentakentogetherwithotherpiecesofevidenceconstitutingan
act;and(b)thatbycircumstantialevidence,such unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable conclusion,
which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the
_______________ exclusion of all others. If the actual eyewitnesses are the only
onesallowedtopossiblypositivelyidentifyasuspectoraccusedto
38Peoplev.Geguira,supra.
theexclusionofothers,thennobodycaneverbeconvictedunless categorical, consistent, and devoid of any showing of ill or vile
thereisaneyewitness,becauseitisbasicandelementarythat motiveonthepartoftheProsecutionwitnessesalwaysprevails
there can be no conviction until and unless an accused is overalibianddenialthatareinthenatureofnegativeandself
positively identified. Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, servingevidence.43Tobeaccepted,thedenialandalibimustbe
becauseitissettledthatdirectevidenceofthecommissionofa substantiatedbyclearandconvincingevidenceestablishingnot
crimeisnottheonlymatrixwherefromatrialcourtmaydrawits onlythattheaccuseddidnottakepartinthecommissionofthe
conclusion and finding of guilt. If resort to circumstantial imputedcriminalactbutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefor
evidencewouldnotbeallowedtoproveidentityoftheaccusedon theaccusedtobeatorneartheplaceofthecommissionoftheact
theabsenceofdirectevidence,thenfelonswouldgofreeandthe atoraboutthetimeofitscommission.Inaddition,theirproffered
communitywouldbedeniedproperprotection.42 alibis were really unworthy of credit because only the accused
Toconclude,theidentificationofamalefactor,tobepositive themselvesandtheirrelativesandotherintimatessubstantiated
and sufficient for conviction, does not always require direct them.44
evidence from an eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be
possible in crimes where there are no eyewitnesses. Indeed, 2.
trustworthycircumstantialevidencecanequallycon Theessenceoftreacheryisinthemodeofattack,
notintherelativepositionofthevictim
_______________ andtheassailant

42Id.,atpp.849850;boldemphasissupplied. _______________
62
62 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 43People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 140676, July 31, 2002, 385
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. SCRA573,580;Peoplev.Ocampo,G.R.No.80262,September1,
firm the identification and overcome the constitutionally 1993, 226 SCRA 1;People v. Herico, G.R. Nos. 8968283,
presumedinnocenceoftheaccused. December21,1990,192SCRA655;Peoplev.Fulinara,G.R.No.
Facedwiththeirpositiveidentification,thefouraccusedhad
88326, August3, 1995, 247 SCRA28;Peoplev.Cardesan, G.R.
toestablishconvincingdefenses.Theyoptedtorelyondenialand
No.L29090,April29,1974,56SCRA631.
their respective alibis, however, but both the RTC and the CA
rightlyrejectedsuchdefenses. 44Peoplev.Abendan,G.R.Nos.13202627,June28,2001,360
The rejection was warranted. Long judicial experience SCRA106,121122.
instructs thattheir denial and alibis, being too easy to invent, 63
could not overcome their positive identification by credible VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 63
Prosecutionwitnesseswhosemotivesfortheidentificationwere Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
notshowntobeillorvile.Truly,apositiveidentificationthatis
 The RTC ruled out the attendance of treachery due to its 47People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 188610, June 29, 2010, 622
persuasionthatthevictimmusthavebeenfacinghisassailants SCRA 548;Peoplev. Dela Cruz, G.R.No. 188353, February 16,
atthetimeoftheassaultandwasthusnottakenbysurprise.The
2010, 612 SCRA 738, 747;People v. Escote, Jr.,supra, pp. 632
CAdifferedfromtheRTC,however,andstressedthatregardless
633.
of the position of the victim, the essence of treachery was the
48Peoplev.Aguilar,88Phil693(1951).
element of surprise that the assailants purposely adopted to
ensurethatthevictimwasnotabletodefendhimself.45 64
WeupholdtherulingoftheCA. 64 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
There is treachery when: (a) at the time of the attack, the Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
victimwasnotinapositiontodefendhimself;and(b)theaccused The argument of the accused that the Prosecution did not
show that they had consciously and deliberately adopted the
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
mannerofkillingHaidehadnosubstance,forthetestimoniesof
methods, or forms of attack employed by him. 46The essence of
RemediosandFranciscodisclosethecontrary.
treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack that leaves the
Remedios testimony about seeing the four accused taking
victimunabletodefendhimself,therebyensuringthecommission
positionsnearthedoortothekitchenimmediatelyprecedingthe
oftheoffense.47Itisthesuddennessoftheattackcoupledwith
shootingofHaidewasasfollows:
theinabilityofthevictimtodefendhimselfortoretaliatethat
Atty.Fernandez:
brings about treachery; consequently, treachery may still be
xxx
appreciatedevenifthevictimwasfacingtheassailant. 48
Q.WereyoupresentwhenthelateHaideCagatanwasshot?
Here,theelementsoftreacherywerepresent.Hisassailants
A.Yes,Iwaspresent.
gunnedHaidedownwhilehewaspreoccupiedinthekitchenof
Q.CouldyoupossiblytelltheCourtinwhatparticularplace
hisownabodewithgettingdinnerreadyforthehousehold.He
youwerewhentheallegedincidenttookplace?
was absolutely unaware of the imminent deadly assault from
A.Iwasinthegroundfloor.
outside the kitchen, and was for that reason in no position to
Q.Whatwereyoudoingthere?
defendhimselfortorepelhisassailants.
A.I attended my child (to) answer(ing) the call of his ( sic)
_______________ nature.
Q.Now, could you possibly describe before this Honorable
45CARollo,p.182. Court,Mrs.Cagatan,theexacteventthattookplacewhen
theallegedshootingincidenttookplaceinyourpresence?
46Peoplev.Escote,Jr.,G.R.No.140756,April4,2003,400
A.Atthattime,Iattendedmychild(to)answer(ing)the
SCRA603,632;Peoplev.Ave,G.R.Nos.13727475,October18,
callof(his)natureandafterdoingthatwhenIwas
2002,391SCRA225,246.
abouttostanduptogoupIsawtheVillaricoswas
(sic)atthebackofthekitchen.
Q.Atthetimeyousawthemwas(sic)anyoneofthem A.Gilberto Villarico, Sr. was on the right side; Ricky
sawyoulikewise? Villarico was on the left side and behind Gilberto
A.Therewas. Villarico,Sr.wasJerryRamientosandbehindRicky
Q.Whowashe? Villaricois(sic)GilbertoVillaricoJr.
A.GilbertoVillarico,Jr. Q.WhatwereRickyandGilbertoVillarico,Jr.doingat
Q.Atthatprecisetimewhenyousawthemandoneof thetime?
themsawyou,whatdidVillarico,Jr.do? A.They were also dropping themselves on the ground
A.Heaimedhisguntome.65 andaimedtheirguns.
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 65 Q.Towhatparticularobjectthattheywereaimingtheir
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. guns?
Q.CouldyoupossiblydemonstratethattotheCourt? A.Tothedoorofourkitchen.
A.(Witnessdemonstratedbysquattingposition) Q.How about Ramientos, where was he at that time
Q.NowatthatprecisemomentwhenyousawVillarico, when you saw the accused pointing their guns
Jr.onasquattingpositionpointinghisgunatyou, towardsthedoorofyourkitchen?66
whatwastheexactactionthatyoudid? SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
A.WhenheaimedhisguntomeIimmediatelydropped Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
totheground. A.Ramientos was standing behind Gilberto Villarico
xxx Sr.49
Q.Since you were personally present could you still Likewise, Francisco saw the four accused in the same
remember Mrs.Cagatan how many gun burst you positions that Remedios had seen them moments prior to the
headatthatprecisemomentwhenyoudroppedto shooting.Heclaimedthattheywereaimingtheirfirearmsatthe
thegroundbecauseVillaricoJr.wasaiminghisgun kitchenandcontinuedaimingtheirfirearmsevenastheywere
atyou.Howmanygunburstdidyouhear? leavingthecrimescene,viz.:
A.Threegunbursts. Atty.Fernandez:
Q.LetusgobacktothetimewhenVillarico,Jr.pointed xxx
hisguntoyou.Doyoustillrememberwhatwerethe Q.Nowyousaidthatyousawalloftheaccusedatthetime
other accused doing or where were they at that whenyourlatesonHaideCagatanwasmurderedin the
time? evening of August 8. Could you possibly explain to this
A.Icanremember. HonorableCourtattheveryfirsttimewhatdidyousee?
A.AfterIcamefromthetoiletIwasproceedingtothekitchen
Q.PleasetelltheHonorableCourt.
becauseHaidewaspreparingfoodandhewascallingfor
 dinner.WhenHaideCagatanwascallingfordinnerandat themselvescouldnotbutrevealtheirdeliberatedesigntothereby
thetimeIwasproceedingtothedoorofthekitchen,whenI ensuretheaccomplishmentoftheirdesigntokillHaidewithout
wasnearthedoorIheardthegunshots. anypossibilityofhisescapeorofanyretaliationfromhim.Aptly
Q.Atthetimewhenyouheardgunshots,whatdidyoudo? didtheCAobserve:
A.Ilaiddownflatonthegroundwhilemyheadis(sic) A perusal of the information shows that treachery was
lookingupandthereIsawthe3Villaricosbringing properlyallegedtoqualifythekillingofHeide[sic]Cagatanto
a revolver. They came from aiming their guns murder. The prosecution was likewise able to prove treachery
towards upstairs and they are about to withdraw throughtheelementofsurpriserenderingthevictimunableto
fromthatplacetogetherwithJerryRamientos. defendhimself.Inthiscase,theevidenceshowsthatthevictim,
xxx whowasinthekitchenpreparingdinner,couldbeseenfromthe
Q.Now, since you said that you saw the accused outsidethroughtheholesofthewall.Thewitnessesconsistently
Villaricos, could you possibly tell the Court, what describedthekitchenswallasthreefeethighbamboosplits(sa
weretheirresponsibleposition(s)inrelationtothe sa),accentedwithbamboosplitswoventolooklikeachessboard
doorofthekitchen? with4inch holes inbetween. The accusedappellants, likewise,
A.Theywereinshootingpositionastheyaimedupward positionedthemselvesoutsidethekitchendooratnightwherethe
victimcouldnotseethem.Whentheaccusedappellantsshothim,
andtheywerebringingrevolveraimingupstairs.
hewascaughtunaware.51
_______________
3.
49TSN,March29,2000,pp.56. PenaltyandDamages
67
ThereisnoquestionthattheCAjustlypronouncedallthefour
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 67
accusedguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofmurder,andpunished
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
them withreclusion perpetuapursuant to Article 24852of
Q.In relation to the door of the kitchen, could you
theRevisedPenalCode,inrelationtoArticle63,
possibly tell theCourt what were their responsible
positionatthattimewhenyousawthem?
_______________
A.Thefourofthemweresituatedinfrontofthekitchen
door.VillaricoJr.andVillaricoSr.werefacingeach 50TSN,March10,2000,pp.57.
other while Ricky Villarico and Jerry Ramientos 51CARollo,pp.182183.
werealsofacingeachother.50
52Article248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithin
ThetestimoniesofRemediosandFranciscoonhowandwhere
theprovisionsofArticle246shallkillanother,shallbeguiltyof
the four accused had deliberately and strategically positioned
68 53Article2206.Theamountofdamagesfordeathcausedby
68 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED a crime or quasidelict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr. eventhough there may havebeenmitigating circumstances.In
paragraph2,oftheRevisedPenalCode,consideringtheabsence addition:
ofanygenericaggravatingcircumstance. (1) Thedefendantshallbeliableforthelossoftheearning
However,theCAdidnotexplainwhyitdidnotreviewand capacityofthedeceased,andtheindemnityshallbepaidtothe
revise the grant by the RTC of civil liability in the amount heirsofthelatter;suchindemnityshallineverycasebeassessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
ofonlyP50,000.00. Thereby, the CA committed a plainly
permanentphysicaldisabilitynotcausedbythedefendant,had
reversible error for ignoring existing laws, like Article 2206 of
noearningcapacityatthetimeofhisdeath;
theCivilCode,53whichprescribesadeathindemnitysepa
(2)Ifthedeceasedwasobligedtogivesupportaccordingto
the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
_______________
called to the decedents inheritance by the law of testate or
intestatesuccession,
murderandshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetuatodeath,if 69
committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
VOL.647,APRIL4,2011 69
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
withtheaidofarmedmen,oremployingmeanstoweakenthe rately from moral damages, and Article 2230 of
defenseorofmeansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity. theCivilCode,54which requires exemplary damages in case of
2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise. death due to crime when there is at least one aggravating
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, circumstance;andapplicablejurisprudence,specifically,Peoplev.
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a Gutierrez,55where we held that moral damages should be
railroad,fallofanairship,orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwith awardedtotheheirswithoutneedofprooforpleadinginviewof
theuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin. theviolentdeathofthevictim,andPeoplev.Catubig,56
4.On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
precedingparagraph,orofanearthquake,eruptionofavolcano, _______________
destructivecyclone,epidemicorotherpubliccalamity.
5.Withevidentpremeditation. may demand support from the person causing the death, for a
6. Withcruelty,bydeliberatelyandinhumanlyaugmenting periodnotexceedingfiveyears,theexactdurationtobefixedby
thesufferingofthevictim,oroutragingorscoffingathisperson thecourt;
or corpse. (As amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 7659,
approvedonDecember13,1993).
 (3)Thespouse,legitimateandillegitimatedescendantsand 70
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for 70 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
mentalanguishbyreasonofthedeathofthedeceased. Peoplevs.Villarico,Sr.
54Art.2230.Incriminaloffenses,exemplarydamagesasa where we ruled that exemplary damages were warranted
part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was whenever the crime was attended by an aggravating
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary. Here, the
damagesareseparateanddistinctfromfinesandshallbepaidto aggravating circumstance of treachery, albeit attendant or
theoffendedparty. qualifyinginitseffect,justifiedthegrantofexemplarydamages.
55G.R.No.188602,February4,2010,611SCRA633. PlainoversightmighthavecausedboththeRTCandtheCA
56G.R.No.137842,August23,2001,363SCRA621,where to lapse into the serious omissions. Nonetheless, a rectification
theCourtexplained: shouldnowbemade,for,indeed,grossomissions,intendedornot,
The term aggravating circumstances used by should be eschewed. It is timely, therefore, to remind and to
the Civil Code, the law not having specified exhortallthetrialandappellatecourtstobealwaysmindfulof
otherwise,istobeunderstoodinitsbroadorgeneric andtoapplythepertinentlawsandjurisprudenceonthekinds
sense. The commission of an offense has a two andamountsofindemnitiesanddamagesappropriateincriminal
prongedeffect,oneonthepublicasitbreachesthe cases lest oversight and omission will unduly add to the
socialorderandtheotherupontheprivatevictimas sufferingsofthevictimsortheirheirs.Norshouldtheabsenceof
it causes personal sufferings, each of which is specific assignment of error thereon inhibit thesua
addressed by, respectively, the prescription of sponterectificationoftheomissions,forthegrantofalltheproper
heavier punishment for the accused and by an kindsandamountsofcivilliabilitytothevictimorhisheirsisa
award of additional damages to the victim. The matteroflawandjudicialpolicynotdependentuponorcontrolled
increaseofthepenaltyorashifttoagraverfelony by an assignment of error. An appellate tribunal has a broad
underscores the exacerbation of theoffense by the discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of
attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether errors and to consider errors not assigned,57for technicality
ordinaryorqualifying,initscommission.Unlikethe should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and
criminalliabilitywhichisbasicallyaStateconcern, completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.
Indeed, the trend in modern day procedure is to accord broad
the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not
discretionary powersuchthattheappellatecourtmayconsider
primarily, intended for the offended party who
mattersbearingontheissuessubmittedforresolutionthatthe
suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an
partiesfailedtoraiseorthatthelowercourtignored.58
awardofexemplarydamagestobeduetheprivate Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we grant to the
offended party when the aggravating circumstance heirs of Haide P75,000.00 as death indemnity; 59P75,000.00 as
isordinarybuttobewith
moral damages;60and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 61As statementsandverbalacts.(Talidanovs.FalconMaritimeand
clarifiedinPeoplev.Arbalate,62damagesinsuchamountsareto AlliedServices,Inc.,558SCRA279[2008])
begrantedwhenevertheaccusedareadjudgedguiltyofacrime
coveredbyRepublicActNo.7659,likethemurderchargedand o0o
proved herein. Indeed, the Court, observing inPeople v.
Sarcia,63citingPeople v. Salome64andPeople v. Quiachon,65that Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
theprincipalconsiderationfortheawardofdamagesxxxisthe reserved.
penaltyprovidedbylaworimposablefortheoffensebecauseofits
heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the
offender,announcedthat:
Thelitmustest[,]therefore,inthedeterminationofthecivil
indemnityistheheinouscharacterofthecrimecommitted,which
would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty, VOL.207,MARCH23,1992 461
regardless of whether the penalty actually imposed is reduced PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.Ramos
toreclusionperpetua. G.R.No.92740.March23,1992.*
WHEREFORE,weaffirmthedecisionpromulgatedonJune6, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,vs.JAIME M.
2003inCAG.R.CRNo.24711,findingGILBERTOVILLARICO, RAMOS, NILDA RAMOS, ERLINDA ILANO, MILAGROS
SR., GILBERTO VILLARICO, JR., JERRY RAMENTOS, and ILANO, DANIEL ILANO AND FELIPA JAVALERA,
RICKY VILLARICO guilty of murder and sentencing each of respondents.
themtosufferreclusionperpetua,subjecttothemodificationthat Evidence;Documentaryevidence;Writingordocumentmade
theyareheldjointlyandsolidarilyliabletopaytotheheirsofthe contemporaneously with transaction regarded as more reliable
late Haide Cagatan death indemnity of P75,000.00, moral
proofthanoraltestimony.Intheabsenceofanycontroverting
damagesofP75,000.00,andexemplarydamagesofP30,000.00.
evidence,thedocumentaryevidencepresentedtocorroboratethe
Theaccusedshallpaythecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED. testimonies of PALs witnesses areprima facieevidence of the
truth of their allegations. The plane tickets of the private
CarpioMorales (Chairperson), Brion, Villarama,
respondents,exhs.1,2,3,4,(withemphasisontheprinted
Jr.andSereno,JJ.,concur.
conditionofthecontractofcarriageregardingcheckintimeas
Judgmentaffirmed. wellasonthenotationlate4:02stampedontheflightcouponby
Note.Section42ofRule130oftheRulesofCourtmentions the checkin clerk immediately upon the checkin of private
twoactswhichformpartoftheresgestae,namely:spontaneous respondents)andthepassengerManifestofFlightPR264,exh.
5,(whichshowedthenonaccommodationofCapatiandGoand
theprivaterespondents)areentriesmadeintheregularcourseof actionorinactionandtheensuingcancellationoftheirticketsby
businesswhichtheprivaterespondentsfailedtoovercomewith PALisonlyproper.
substantialandconvincingevidenceotherthantheirtestimonies.
Consequently,theycarrymoreweightandcredence.Awritingor PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
_______________
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
*
FIRSTDIVISION. Ricardo V. Puno, Jr., Caesar R. Dulay & Marceliano C.
462 Calicaforpetitioner.
4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED MarcosL.Estrada,Jr.forprivaterespondents.
62
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.Ramos MEDIALDEA,J.:
document made contemporaneously with a transaction in
whichareevidencedfactspertinenttoanissue,whenadmittedas Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekstoreversethedecision
proofofthosefacts,isordinarilyregardedasmorereliableproof oftheCourtofAppealsdatedMarch15,1990affirmingintotothe
andofgreaterprobativeforcethantheoraltestimonyofawitness decisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofImus,Cavite,Branch21,
astosuchfactsbaseduponmemoryandrecollection(20AmJurS directingthePhilippineAirlines,Inc.(PAL,forshort)topaythe
1179, 1029 cited in Francisco,Revised Rules of Court in the private respondents the amounts specified therein as actual,
PhilippinesAnnotated,1973Edition,VolumeVII,PartII,p.654). moral and temperate damages as well as attorneys fees and
Same;Same;Exception to hearsay rule; Res gestae.The expensesoflitigation.
hearsay rule will not apply in this case as statements, acts or The antecedent facts are briefly recounted by the appellate
conduct accompanying or so nearly connected with the main court,asfollows:
transactionastoformapartofit,andwhichillustrate,elucidate, 463
qualifyorcharacterizetheact,areadmissibleaspartoftheres VOL.207,MARCH23,1992 463
gestae(32C.J.S.,S.411,3031). PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.Ramos
Plaintiffs Jaime Ramos, Nilda Ramos, Erlinda Ilano, Milagros
Commoncarriers;Contractofcarriage;Passengersboundby
Ilano,DanielIlanoandFelipaJavalera,areofficersoftheNegros
conditionsofcontract.Whentheprivaterespondentspurchased
TelephoneCompany who heldconfirmed ticketsforPALFlight
theirtickets,theywereinstantaneouslyboundbytheconditions
No. 264 from Naga City to Manila on September 24, 1985,
of the contract of carriage particularly the checkin time
scheduled to depart for Manila at 4:25 p.m. The tickets were
requirement.Thetermsofthecontractareclear.Theirfailureto
boughtsometimeinAugust1985.Amongtheconditionsincluded
comeontimeforcheckinshouldnotmilitateagainstPAL.Their
inplaintiffsticketsisthefollowing:
nonaccommodation on that flight was the result of their own
1.CHECKINTIMEPleasecheckinattheAirportPassenger 3. 3)P20,000.00for each of the plaintiffs for moral and
checkincounteratleastonehourbeforePUBLISHEDdeparture temperatedamages;and
timeofyourflight.Wewillconsideryouraccommodationforfeited
infavorofwaitlistedpassengersifyoufailtocheckinatleast30 4. 4)P5,000.00for attorneys fees and expenses of
minutesbeforePUBLISHEDdeparturetime.(Exhs.(1AA,2A litigation.
1,SA,OA1,tsn,Nov.23,1987,p.8).
Plaintiffs claim in their Complaint that they went to the (Rollo,pp.3536)
checkincounterofthedefendantsNagabranchatleastone(1) PALappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.OnMarch15,1990,the
hourbeforethepublisheddeparturetimebutnoonewasatthe appellate court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of
counteruntil30minutesbeforedeparture,butuponcheckingin which,reads:
and presentation of their tickets to the employee/clerk who WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMEDin
showedup,theirticketswerecancelledandtheseatsawardedto toto,withcostsagainstappellant.
chancepassengers;plaintiffshadtogotoManilabybus,andseek SOORDERED.(Rollo,p.42)
actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees for Hence,thispresentpetitionwiththefollowinglegalquestions:
breachofcontractofcarriage.
Defendant disclaims any liability, claiming that the non 1. 1.Can the Honorable Court of Appeals validly
accommodationofplaintiffsonsaidflightwasduetotheirhaving promulgate the questioned decision by the simple
checkin (sic) late for their flight. It is averred that even if expedientofadoptingintotothetrialcourtsfindingthat
defendantisfoundliabletotheplaintiffssuchliabilityisconfined defendantappellant is liable for damages on the sole
to, and limited by, the CAB Economic Regulations No. 7 in issueofcredibilityofwitnesseswithoutconsideringthe
conjunctionwithP.D.589. material admissions made by the plaintiffs and other
Thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentfindingdefendantguiltyof evidence on record that substantiate the defense of
breachofcontractofcarriageinbumpingofftheplaintiffsfrom defendantappellant.
itsF264flightofSeptember25,1985,andordereddefendantto
pay: 2. 2.Can the Honorable Court award legally moral and
temperate damages plus attorneys fees of P5,000.00
1. 1)P1,250.20thetotalvalueofthetickets; contrarytotheevidenceandestablishedjurisprudence.
(Rollo,p.9)
2. 2)P22.50the total value of airport security fees and
terminalfees; UnderSection1,Rule131oftheRulesofCourt,eachpartyina
caseisrequiredtoprovehisaffirmativeallegations.Incivilcases,
thedegreeofevidencerequiredofapartyinordertosupporthis
claimispreponderanceofevidenceorthatevidenceadducedby flightisnotfullybookedandseatsareavailable(ibid,pp.1718).
onepartywhichismoreconclusiveandcrediblethanthatofthe OnSeptember24,1985,flight264fromNagatoManilawasfully
other party (Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of booked owing to the Peafrancia Festival (TSN, January 25,
Appeals, et al.,G.R. No. 83376, May 29, 1989,173 SCRA 619, 1988,p.5).Inaddition,PALmorningflights261and262were
625). cancelled resulting in a big number of waitlisted passengers.
Thecaseatbarpresentsasimplequestionoffact:Whetheror (TSN,November23,1987,p.6).
not the private respondents were late in checkingin for their The private respondents claim that they were on time in
flight from Naga City to Manila on September 24, 1985. It is checkingin for their flight; that no PAL personnel attended to
immediately apparent from the records of this case that the them until much later which accounted for their late checkin;
claimsofthepartiesonthisquestionaredramaticallyopposed. thatPALadvancedthecheckintimeandthedepartureoftheir
Asarule,thedeterminationofaquestionoffactdependslargely flight resulting in their nonaccommodation; and that they
onthecredibilityofwitnessesunlesssomedocumentaryevidence sufferedphysicaldifficulties,anxietiesandbusinesslosses.
is available which clearly substantiates the issue and whose The evidence on record does not support the above
genuineness and probative value is not disputed (Legarda v. contentions. We note that there were two other confirmed
Miaile,88Phil.637,642).Theexceptiontotherulenowrunstrue passengerswhocameaheadoftheprivaterespondentsbutwere
inthiscase. refused accommodation because they were late. Edmundo
We reverse. This case once more illustrates Our power to Araquel, then the checkinclerk, testified on this point, as
reweigh the findings of lower courts when the same are not follows:
supported by the record or not based on substantial evidence Atty.MarcelinoC.Calica,counselforPAL
(seeCruz v. Villarin,G.R. No. 75679, January 12, 1990,181 Q Beforetheplaintiffsarrive(sic)atthecheckincounter,doyourecallifthere
SCRA53,61). wereotherpassengerswhoarrivedatthecounterandtheywereadvisedthat
Itisanadmittedfactthattheprivaterespondentsknewofthe
theywerelate?
required checkin time for passengers. The time requirement
A Yes,sir.
isprominentlyprintedasoneoftheconditionsofcarriageontheir
Q Whowerethosepersons?
tickets, i.e., that the airport passenger should checkinat least
A MyformerclassmatesatAteneo,sir,RoseCapatiandGo,Merly.
onehourbeforepublisheddeparturetimeofhisflightandPAL
shallconsiderhisaccommodationforfeitedinfavorofwaitlisted Q Werethesetwopassengersalsoconfirmedpassengersonthisflight?
passengersifhefailstocheckinatleast30minutes. A Yes,sir.
Wenotethatwhiletheaforequotedconditionhasalwaysbeen Q IshowtoyouadocumentwhichisentitledPassengerManifestofflight
appliedstrictlyandwithoutexception(TSN,December16,1987, 264,September24,1985,whichwerequesttobemarkedasExh.5you
p.11),thestationmanager,however,mayexercisehisdiscretion saidearlierthataside
to allow passengers who checkedin late to board provided the
fromtheplaintiffsherethereweretwootherpassengerswho A Yes,sir.
alsocheckedinbuttheywerealsolateandyoumentionedthe Q IamshowingtoyouExhs.A,B,C,andD,whicharetheticketsof
namesofthesepassengersasCapatiandGo,pleasepointto Mr.&Mrs.JaimeRamosforExh.A,Exh.BticketofMr.&Mrs.
usthatentrywhichwillshowthenamesofGoandCapati??
DanielIlano,CticketofFelipaJavaleraandDticketofErlindaIlano,
AHere,sir,numbers13and14oftheManifest.
willyoupleasegooverthesameandpointtousthenotationsyousaidyou
ATTY. CALICA:We request that passengers 13 and 14 be
467
markedinevidence,Gofor13andCapatifor14asExh.5A.
QYousaidthatthesetwopassengersyoumentionedwerealso VOL.207, 467
similarly denied accommodations because they checked in MARCH23,
late,didtheycheckinbeforeoraftertheplaintiffs? 1992
ABefore,sir. PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.Ramos
QWhattimedidtheyappearatthecounter? madeonthesetickets?
A4:01p.m.,sir. A Thisparticulartime,sir.(Witnesspointingtothenotation
QWhathappenedwhentheycheckedinat4:01?
Lateandthetime4:02appearingattheupperrighthandof
AI told them also that they were late so they cannot be
theticketsExhs.A,B,C,andD.)
accommodatedandtheytriedtoprotest,buttheydecidedlater
onjusttorefundtheticket.(TSNofNovember23,1987,pp. Q Howlongdidittakeaftertheticketsweretenderedtoyoufor
1112) checkinginandbeforeyoumadethisnotation?
Shortlyafter,theprivaterespondentsfollowedtheaforesaidtwo A Itwasjustseconds,sir.
passengers at the counter. At this juncture, Araquel declared, Q Ontheticketsbeingtenderedforcheckinandnotingthatthey
thus: werelate,youmeantosayyouimmediatelymade
Q Now,yousaidthatyoumettheplaintiffsinthiscasebecausetheywere annotations?
passengersofFlight264onSeptember24,1985andtheywerenot A Yes,sir.ThatisanS.O.P.oftheoffice.
accommodatedbecausetheycheckedinlate,whattimedidtheseplaintiffs Q Soonwhattimedidyoubasethat4:02?
checkin? A Atthecheckincounterclock,sir.
A Around4:02p.m.,sir. Q Atthetimeyouplacedthetime,whatwasthetimereflectedat
Q Whowastheclerkatthecheckincounterwhoattendedtothem? thecounterclock?
A Iwastheone,sir. A 4:02,sir.(ibid,pp.811)
xxx Theprivaterespondentssubmittednocontrovertingevidence.As
Q Yousaidwhenyouwerepresentedtheticketsoftheplaintiffsinthiscase clearly manifested above, the intervening time between Capati
andnotingthattheywerelateforcheckingin,immediatelyafteradvising andGoandtheprivaterespondentstookonlyameresecond.If
themthattheywerelate,yousaidyoumadeannotationonthetickets? indeed,theprivaterespondentswereatthecheckincounterat
3:30p.m.,theycouldhavebeenthefirstonestobeattendedtoby manytimes.Everytimethatyoucheckin,howmanypersonnelare
AraquelthanCapatiandGo.Theycouldhavealsoprotestedif manningthecheckincounter?
theyweretheearliestpassengersatthecounterbutwereignored A Thereareaboutthree(3)orfour(4),sir.
byAraquelinfavorofGoandCapati.Theydidnot.
Q Everytime,therearethree(3)orfour(4)?
ItislikewiseimprobablethatnotasinglePALpersonnelwas
A Everytimebutnotthattime.
in attendance at the counter when the checkin counter was
supposedtobeopenedat3:25p.m.Itmustberememberedthat Q Iamreferringtoyourprevioustrips,Iamnotreferringtothisincident.
themorningflighttoManilawascancelledandhence,itisnot OnpreviousoccasionswhenyoutooktheflightwithPiliAirportandyou
farfetched for Us to believe that the PAL personnel then have seethree(3)orfour(4)personneleverytime,areallthesethree(3)orfour
theirhandsfull indealing with the passengers of the morning (4)personnelatthecounterorsomearestandingatthecounterorothers
flightwhobecamewaitlistedpassengers.Moreover,theemphatic areseatedonthetabledoingsomethingorwhat?Willyoudescribetous?
assertionsofprivaterespondentDanielJavaloraIlanoregarding Q Somearehandlingthebaggagesandsomearecheckinginthetickets.
theabsenceofaPALpersonnellostitsimpactduringthecross
Q So,onmostoccasionswhenyoucheckinandsay,therewereatleastthree
examination:
(3)offour(4)peopleatthecheckincounter,onewouldattendtothe
ATTY.CALICA
tickets,anothertothecheckinbaggage,ifany.Now,doyounoticeif
Q So,youmaintainthereforethatforallthetimethatyouwaitedthereforthe
somebodyevadewhenyoucheckinyourticket.Thisotherpersonwould
wholetwenty(20)minutesthecheckincounterandotherPALOfficesthere
receivetheflightcouponwhichisdetachedfromyourticketandrecordit
thewholecounterwascompletelyunmanned?Iamreferringtothewhole
onwhatwecallpassengermanifest?
468
A Thatstrue.
468 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Q Now,itisclearonewouldattendtothebaggage,anotherpersonwould
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.Ramos
receivetheticket,detachthecouponandonewouldrecorditonthe
areatherewhereitisenclosedbyacounter.
passengermanifest.Whataboutthefourth,whatwashedoing,ifyou
Iwilldescribetoyou,forthebenefitofthecourt.
recall?
WhenyouapproachthecounteratNagaAirport,thecounterisenclosed,I
A Ithink,puttingtheidentificationtagsonthebaggages(sic).(TSN,
mean,youcannotjustgoinsidethePALoffice,right?thereissomesortof
November17,1986,p.38)
counterwhereyoudealwiththePALpersonnelandyouapproximatethis
Ilanosdeclarationbecomesevenmorepatentlyunreliableinthe
countertobefive(5)tosix(6)meters.Now,thisspaceafterthecounter, faceoftheDailyStationReportofPALdatedSeptember24,1985
didyouobservewhatfixturesorenclosuresarecontainedthereinsidethe whichcontainedtheworkinghoursofitspersonnelfrom
enclosedspace? 469
A Iamnotsurewhetherthereareofficesorenclosuresthere. VOL.207,MARCH23,1992 469
Q Youhavebeentravellingandhadopportunitytocheckinyourticketsso PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.Ramos
0600to1700andtheirrespectiveassignments,asfollows: personnelattheairport?
ATTY.CALICA A Yes,sir.
Q Normallyuponopeningofthecheckincounter,howmanyPALpersonnel Q Ishowtoyouadailystationreportfor24September1985coveringworking
areassignedtomanthecounter? hours0600to1700,willyoupleasegooverthesameandthereaftertellus
EDMUNDOARAQUEL fromthepersonnellistedinthisDailyStationReportwhatwerethename
A Atotaloffourpersonnelwiththeassistanceofothers. (sic)ofthepersonnelassignedtomanthecheckincounteratthattime?
Q Whoarethesepersonnelassignedtothecounterandwhatspecificduties AThere(sic)personsassignedwereMr.Oropesa,Mr. Espiritu,
theyperformed? Mr.Medevilla,myselfandMr.Valencia.
A Mr.Oropesahandledthecargo,Mr.Espirituhandledtheticketing,Mr. QYoumentionedaboutMr.Espiritu,whatwashisspecifictask
Valenciaandmehandledthecheckinginofpassengers. atthattime?
AHewashandlingtheticketing,sir.
Q Areyoureferringtothisparticularflight264onSeptember24,1985?
QWhataboutMr.Medevilla?
A Yes,sir.
AHewastakingcareoftheramphandling.
Q Whowasassignedascheckinclerkthatparticulartime? QAndMr.Oropesa?
A IwastheonewithMr.Valencia,sir. AHewashandlingtheincomingcargo.
Q WhatwasMr.Valenciadoing? ATTY. CALICA:We request that this Daily Station Report be
A Heassistedme,sir. markedExh.6andtheportionoftheReportwhichshowsthe
Q How? deploymentofpersonnelofPALNagaStationonSeptember
A Ifagroupofpassengerssimultaneouslycheckin,wedividedthework 24,1985as6A.
QPlaintiffsinthiscasetestifiedthatwhentheycheckedinthere
betweenus.(TSN,November23,1987,p.7)
was nobody manning the counter and they had to wait for
xxx
twentyminutesbeforesomeonecameintothecounter,what
Q WhentheplaintiffstestifiedinthiscaseparticularlyplaintiffDanielIlano canyousaytothat?
andFelipaJavaleraattheprevioushearingssaidplaintiffsstatedthatthey AItisnottruebecauseallthetimeweweretherefromthestart,
arrivedatthecheckincounteratabout3:25or3:30andtherewasnobodyin an hour before the flight we were there because we were
thecounter,whatcanyousaytothat? assignedthere.
A Wecannotleavethecounter,sir.Thatwasalwaysmannedfrom3:25upto QPlaintiff Daniel Ilano testified that he went to the counter
thelastminute.Wewerethereassignedtohandlethecheckinginof twice,firstat3:25anditwasonlyat4:00p.m.thatsomebody
passengers. went to the counter and attended to him and while he
expectedhisboardingpasshewastoldinsteadthatplaintiffs
Q Youmentionedearlierthatasidefromyoutherewereotherpersonnel
couldnotbeaccommodatedbecausetheywerelate,whatcan
assignedtothecheckincounterandyouevenmentionedaboutacertain
yousaytothat?
Valenciaassistingyou,doyouhaveanyevidencetoshowsaidassignmentof
AThe truth is we were always there and we never left the PhilippinesAnnotated,1973Edition,VolumeVII,PartII,p.654).
counterfromthestartofthecheckintimeof3:25wewereall Spokenwordscouldbenotoriouslyunreliableasagainstawritten
there,weneverleftthecounter. documentthatspeaksauniformlanguage(SpousesVicenteand
QUntilwhattimedidyouremainatthecheckincounter? SalomedeLeonv.CA,etal.,G.R.No.95511,January30,1992).
AAtaround4:15p.m.,sir. Thisdictumisamplydemonstratedbythediverseallegationsof
QYousaidthatthecheckincounterwasclosedat3:55,forwhat theprivaterespondentsintheircomplaint(wheretheyclaimed
purposewereyoustillmanningthecheckincounter? thatnoonewasatthecounteruntilthirty(30)minutesbeforethe
AToattendtothepassengerswhoarelateincheckinginbecause published departure time and thatthe employeewho finally
theyalsoneedassistanceinexplainingtothemthesituation. attendedtothemmarkedthemlate,Records,p.2)andintheir
QSoitwasforthatpurposeyouwerethere?
testimonies(wheretheycontendedthatthereweretwodifferent
AYes,sir.(ibid.,pp.1618)
PAL personnelwho attended to them at the checkin counter,
Itissignificanttonotethattherewerenootherpassengerswho
checkedinlateaftertheprivaterespondents(TSN,November23, TSNsofNovember17,1986,pp.4145andofMay18,1987,pp.5
1987, p. 13). In the absence of any controverting evidence, the 6).Privaterespondentsonlyobjectiontothesedocumentsisthat
documentaryevidencepresentedtocorroboratethetestimoniesof theyareselfservingcannotbesustained.Thehearsayrulewill
not apply in this case as statements, acts or conduct
PALs witnesses areprima facieevidence of the truth of their
accompanyingorsonearlyconnectedwiththemaintransaction
allegations. The plane tickets of the private respondents, exhs.
astoformapartofit,andwhichillustrate,elucidate,qualifyor
1,2,3,4,(withemphasisontheprintedconditionofthe
characterizetheact,areadmissibleaspartoftheresgestae(32
contract of carriage regarding checkin time as well as on the
notationlate4:02stampedontheflightcouponbythecheckin C.J.S., S. 411, 3031). Based on these circumstances, We are
clerkimmediatelyuponthecheckinofprivaterespondents)and inclined to believe the version of PAL. When the private
thepassengerManifestofFlightPR264,exh.5,(whichshowed respondents purchased their tickets, they were instantaneously
the nonaccommodation of Capati and Go and the private boundbytheconditionsofthecontractofcarriageparticularly
respondents)areentriesmadeintheregularcourseofbusiness the checkin time requirement. The terms of the contract are
whichtheprivaterespondentsfailedtoovercomewithsubstantial clear. Their failure to come on time for checkin should not
and convincing evidence other than their testimonies. militate against PAL. Their nonaccommodation on that flight
Consequently,theycarrymoreweightandcredence.Awritingor wasthe result of their ownaction or inactionand the ensuing
documentmadecontemporaneouslywithatransactioninwhich cancellationoftheirticketsbyPALisonlyproper.
areevidencedfactspertinenttoanissue,whenadmittedasproof Furthermore,Wedonotfindanythingsuspiciousinthefact
ofthosefacts,isordinarilyregardedasmorereliableproofandof that PAL flight 264 departed at 4:13 p.m. instead of 4:25 p.m.
greaterprobativeforcethantheoraltestimonyofawitnessasto Apartfromtheirverbalassertions,theprivaterespondents did
such facts based upon memory and recollection (20 Am Jur S notshowanyevidenceofirregularity.Itbeingclearthatallthe
passengershavealreadyboarded,therewasnosenseinkeeping
1179, 1029 cited in Francisco,Revised Rules of Court in the
themwaitingforthescheduledtimeofdeparturebeforetheplane _______________
couldtakeflight.
ACCORDINGLY, thepetitionisGRANTED. The questioned *
SECONDDIVISION.
decisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedMarch15,1990ishereby 44
ANNULLEDandSETASIDE.Nocosts. 4 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SOORDERED. 4
Narvasa(C.J.),CruzandGrioAquino,JJ.,concur. Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.
Bellosillo,J.,Onleave. neednotbeproved.Butacomplainantmuststillshowthat
Petitiongranted;decisionannulledandsetaside. he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider the question of whether or not
VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003 43 exemplarydamagesshouldbeawarded.
Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
G.R.No.140023.August14,2003.* Appeals.
RUDYLAO,petitioner,vs.STANDARDINSURANCECO.,INC.,
respondent. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Evidence:Documentary Evidence;Police Blotter;A police WilliamP.Demaisipforpetitioner.
blotter is admissible if the following requisites are met.The The Law Office of Mirano,Mirano & Miranofor private
police blotter was admitted under Rule 130, Section 44 of the respondent.
Rules of Court. Under the said rule, the following are the
requisitesforitsadmissibility:(a)thattheentrywasmadebya QUISUMBING,J.:
publicofficer,orbyanotherperson,speciallyenjoinedbylawto
doso;(b)thatitwasmadebythepublicofficerintheperformance TheinstantpetitionseeksthereversaloftheCourtofAppeals
ofhisduties,orbysuchotherpersonintheperformanceofaduty Decision1datedFebruary4,1999,aswellasitsResolution, 2dated
specially enjoined by law; (c) that the public officer or other September 7, 1999, inCAG.R. CV No. 47227. The assailed
personhadsufficientknowledgeofthefactsbyhimstated,which decisiondismissedpetitionersappealandtheresolutiondenied
must have been acquired by him personally or through official petitionersmotionforreconsideration.
information. TheoriginalactionwaslodgedbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt
Damages:Exemplary Damages;Although exemplary of IloiloCity, Branch 25, asCivil Case No. 17045for breach of
damagescannotberecoveredasamatterofright,theyalsoneed contract and damages, as a result of the insurance companys
notbeproved.Althoughexemplarydamagescannotberecovered refusalofpetitionersclaimontheinsurancepolicyofhistruck
asamatterofright,theyalso whichfiguredinanaccidentduringtheeffectivityofthepolicy.
 Thefollowingaretheantecedentfacts: addition,respondentcitedthefollowingexcerptsfromthepolice
PetitionerRudyLaoistheownerofaFusotruckwithPlate blotteroftheIloiloINP,towit:
No.FCG538.ThetruckwasinsuredwithrespondentStandard CUN85 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY W/ PHY INJURIES
InsuranceCo.,Inc.underPolicyNo.CV21074 3forthemaximum R/IMPRUDENCE
amountofP200,000andanadditionalsumofP50,000tocover 11:30PMSgt.A.Bernasinformedthisofficethatacollision
anydamagesthatmightbecausedtohisgoods. tookplaceatBrgy.Buhang,Jaro,IC.Investigationconductedby
Whilethepolicywasineffect,anaccidentoccurred.Ataround Pat. Villahermosa, assisted by Lt. P. Baclaron (OD), disclosed
8:00p.m.ofApril24,1985,inBarangayBuhang,Jaro,IloiloCity, thatatabout8:00PMthisdateattheaforementionedplace,a
theinsuredtruckbumpedanothertruck,withPlateNo.FBS917, collisiontookplacebetweenatruck(Hino)withPlateNrFB[S]
alsoownedbypetitionerLao.Thelattertruckwasrunningahead 917ownedbyRudyLaoanddrivenbyBOYGIDDIEYCOYEL,
oftheinsuredtruckandwasbumpedfromtherear.Theinsured 38yrs.,ares.ofBalasan,Iloilo,withLicenseNrDLR1108142
andanothertruckwithPlateNr.FCG538ownedbyRudy Lao
_______________ anddriver(sic)byLEONARDOANITYPANES,33yrs,ares,of
Brgy Lava, Balasan, Iloilo with License Nr 1836482. . . .
1
Rollo,pp.5664.
(Emphasissupplied.)6
2
Id.,atpp.7879.
3
Records,pp.67. _______________
45
VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003 45 Id.,atp.195;RestrictionCode2.
4

Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc. Id.,atp.121;AUTHORIZEDDRIVER:
5

trucksustaineddamagesestimatedtobearoundP110,692,while Anyofthefollowing:
thedamagetotheothertruckandtopropertiesinthevicinityof
theaccident,wereplacedatP35,000moreorless.
1. (a)Theinsured
Petitioner filed a claim with the insurance company for the
proceedsfromhispolicy.However,theclaimwasdeniedbythe
2. (b)AnypersondrivingontheInsuredsorderorwithhis
insurancecompanyonthegroundthatwhenitsadjusterwentto
permission.
investigatethematter,itwasfoundthatthedriveroftheinsured
truck,LeonardoAnit,didnotpossessaproperdriverslicenseat
the time of the accident. The restriction 4in Leonardo Anits Provided thatthepersondriving is permitted, inaccordance
drivers license provided that he can only drive fourwheeled withthelicensinglaworotherregulations,todrivetheScheduled
vehicles weighing not more than 4,500 kgs. Since the insured vehicle,orhasbeenpermittedandisnotdisqualifiedbyorderofa
truckhewasdrivingweighedmorethan4,500kgs.,hetherefore CourtofLaworbyreasonofanyenactmentorregulationthat
violatedtheauthorizeddriverclause5oftheinsurancepolicy.In behalf,providedthatforSectionsIandIIonlyofthisPolicyan
authorized driver shall include a duly licensed driver whose On appeal with the Court of Appeals, the RTC decision was
license at the time of the accident had expired. (Emphasis affirmed. The petition was dismissed and the motion for
supplied.) reconsiderationwasdenied.TheCAstated:
6
Records,p.193. INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,thedecisionappealedfromis
46 herebyAFFIRMED.Consequently,thecomplaintisDISMISSED
46 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED forlackofmerit.
Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc. SOORDERED.9
Petitionerclaimsthatatthetimeoftheaccident,itwasinfact In his petition for review now before us, petitioner cites the
anotherdrivernamedGiddieBoyYCoyelwhowasdrivingthe followingasgroundstherefor:
insuredtruck.GiddieBoypossessedadriverslicenseauthorizing
himtodrivevehiclessuchasthetruckwhichweighedmorethan 1. A.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSANDTHE
4,500 kgs. As evidence, petitioner presented the Motor Vehicle LOWER COURT RELIED MAINLYON SECTION 44,
AccidentReport7whereintheInvestigatingOfficer,Pat.FelipeD. RULE 130 OF THE RULES OF COURT IN
Villahermosa,statedthatitwasGiddieBoydrivingtheinsured UPHOLDINGTHEENTRYINTHEPOLICEBLOTTER
truck and not Leonardo Anit. The said report was made three WHICH STATED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE
daysaftertheaccidentoronApril27,1985.However,respondent INSUREDVEHICLE
insurancecompanywasfirminitsdenialoftheclaim.
Hence, petitioner filed the civil case before the RTC. After _______________
trial,thecourtdisposedofthecaseasfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds that 7
Id.,atp.11.
plaintifflackssufficientcauseofactionagainstthedefendantand 8
Rollo,p.30.
henceorderedhiscasedismissedandfurtherorderes(sic)himto 9
Id.,atp.63.
paythedefendantthefollowing: 47
VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003 47
1. 1)P20,000.00 as attorneys fees plus P500.00 for Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.
appearancefee;and
1. WASLEONARDOANITYPANES,WHOWASNOTAN
2. 2)P50,000.00asexemplarydamages. AUTHORIZEDDRIVER.UNDERTHESAIDSECTION
44, RULE 130 ITSELF HOWEVER, THE POLICE
SOORDERED.8 BLOTTER IS MERELY A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
OFTHEFACTSSTATEDTHEREINWHICHMAYBE
NULLIFIEDBYOTHEREVIDENCE;10
2. B.PERCEPTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF JURISPRUDENCE ESTABLISHED BY THIS
APPEALSONTHEDIMINISHEDCREDIBILITYOF HONORABLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS
PAT. FELIPE VILLAHERMOSA, THE TRAFFIC CLEAR MISAPPREHENSION OF THE FACTS IN
POLICE INVESTIGATOR, IS MISPLACED AND THISCASE.15
UNFOUNDED;11
Three issues must be resolved: (1) The admissibility and
3. C.THE DRIVER OF THE INSURED TRUCK WITH probative value of the police blotter as evidence; (2) The
PLATENR.FCG538WASGIDDIEBOYYCOYEL,AN assessmentofthecredibilityofwitnesses;and(3)Thepropriety
AUTHORIZED DRIVER OF THE SAID TRUCK. THE andbasisofthe
DRIVEROFTHEOTHERTRUCKINVOLVEDINTHE
ACCIDENT WITH PLATE NR. FBS917 WAS _______________
LEONARDOANITYPANES;12
10
Id.,atp.10.
4. D.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
11
Id.,atp.12.
MISAPPLIED ARTICLES 2232 AND 2208 OF THE
12
Id.,atp.13.
NEW CIVIL CODE IN GRANTING EXEMPLARY 13
Id.,atp.15.
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES TO 14
Id.,atp.17.
RESPONDENT. UNDER ARTICLES 2229 AND 2234 15
Id.,atp.19.
OFTHENEWCIVILCODE,EXEMPLARYDAMAGES 48
CANNOT BE AWARDED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
48 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AWARD FOR MORAL, TEMPERATE, LIQUIDATED
ORCOMPENSATORYDAMAGES;13 Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.
awardsforexemplarydamagesandattorneysfees.Alsopertinent
here is the factual issue of whether or not Leonardo Anit, an
5. E.TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES OF unauthorizeddriver,wasdrivingtheinsuredtruckatthetimeof
RESPONDENTNAMELY,SGT.BERNAS,THEDESK
theaccident.
OFFICER AND ROMEO GUIERGEN, INSURANCE
Petitioner assails the admissibility and evidentiary weight
ADJUSTER, WERE INCONSISTENT AND
giventothepoliceblotter,asabasisforthefactualfindingofthe
UNRELIABLE;14and
RTCandtheCA.Hecontendsthatthesameentrywasbeliedby
the Motor Vehicle Accident Report and testimony of the
6. F.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD investigatingpolicemanhimself,attestingthatitwasGiddieBoy
THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT DESPITE Coyel,notLeonardoAnit,whowasdrivingtheinsuredvehicle. 16
GLARING MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW AND
 Respondentaversthatthesamepolicereportandtestimony officerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonintheperformanceofa
wereofdubiousnature.Bothtrialandappellatecourtsnotedthat duty specially enjoined by law, areprima facieevidence of the
the reportwasmadethreedays aftertheaccidentand didnot factsthereinstated.
formpartoftheofficialpolicerecords.17 19
Africa v. Caltex (Phil.) Inc.,123 Phil. 272, 277;16 SCRA
ThepoliceblotterwasadmittedunderRule130,Section44of 448(1966).
theRulesofCourt.18Underthesaidrule,thefollowingarethe 20
People v. Dy,G.R. No. L74517, 23 February 1988,158
requisitesforitsadmissibility:
SCRA111,125.
49
1. (a)that the entry was made by a public officer, or by
VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003 49
anotherperson,speciallyenjoinedbylawtodoso;
Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.
evidenceofthefactthereinstated,andtheirprobativevaluemay
2. (b)that it was made by the public officer in the
be either substantiated or nullified by other competent
performanceofhisduties,orbysuchotherpersoninthe
evidence.21Althoughpoliceblottersareoflittleprobativevalue,
performanceofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylaw;
theyareneverthelessadmittedandconsideredintheabsenceof
competentevidencetorefutethefactsstatedtherein.
3. (c)that the public officer or other person had sufficient In this case, the entries in the police blotter reflected the
knowledgeofthefactsbyhimstated,whichmusthave information subject of the controversy. Stated therein was the
been acquired by him personally or through official factthatLeonardoAnitwasdrivingtheinsuredtruckwithplate
information.19
numberFCG538.ThisisunlikePeoplev.Mejia,22wherewesaid
that entries in the police blotters should not be given undue
Weagreewiththetrialandappellatecourtsinfindingthatthe
significanceorprobativevalue,sincetheCourttherefoundthat
policeblotterwasproperlyadmittedastheyformpartofofficial
the entries in question are sadly wanting in material
records.20Entriesinpolicerecordsmadebyapoliceofficerinthe
particulars.
performance of the duty especially enjoined by law areprima Furthermore,inthiscasethepoliceblotterwasidentifiedand
facie formally offeredas evidence. The person who made theentries
was likewise presented in court; he identified and certified as
_______________ correcttheentrieshemadeontheblotter.Theinformationwas
suppliedtotheentrantbytheinvestigatingofficerwhodidnot
16
Rollo,pp.1011. protestaboutanyinaccuracywhentheblotterwaspresentedto
17
Id.,atp.171. him. No explanation was likewise given by the investigating
18
Rule130,Section44.Entriesinofficialrecords.Entriesin officerfortheallegedinterchangeofnames.
officialrecordsmadeintheperformanceofhisdutybyapublic
 Petitioneralsoassailsthecredencegivenbythetrialcourtto instituting the claim for damages. Perforce, the award of
the version of the respondentsvisvisthe testimonies of the attorneysfeeswasimproper.
witnesses.Timeandagainwehavereiteratedthesettleddoctrine WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the
that great weight, and even finality, is given to the factual CourtofAppealsareAFFIRMED,withtheMODIFICATIONthat
conclusionsoftheCourtofAppealswhichaffirmthoseofthetrial the award of exemplary damages and attorneys fees is hereby
courts.23We find on this score no reason to overturn such DELETED.Nopronouncementastocosts.
conclusions. SOORDERED.
On the issueof damages, we agree with petitioner that the Bellosillo(Chairman),AustriaMartinezandTinga,
awardofexemplarydamageswasimproper.InTiongcov.Atty. JJ.,concur.
Deguma24we held that the entitlement to the recovery of Callejo,Sr.,J.,Onleave.
exemplary damages must be shown. In the case at bar, Judgmentandresolutionaffirmedwithmodification.
respondent have not shown sufficient evidence that petitioner Note.Thetestimoniesofthethreepoliceofficerscarrywith
indeed schemed to procure the dubious documents and lied it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
throughhisteethtoestablishhisversionofthefacts.Whatwas functions.(Peoplevs.Barita,325SCRA22[2000])
foundwasthatthedocumenthepresentedwasinadmissible,and
its contents were dubious. However, no proof was adduced to o0o
sufficiently establish that it came to his hands through his
employment of underhanded means. InTiongco,we further G.R.No.193261.April24,2012.*
stated: MEYNARDO SABILI, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON
Althoughexemplarydamagescannotberecoveredasamatterof ELECTIONSandFLORENCIOLIBREA,respondents.
right,theyalsoneednotbeproved.Butacomplainantmuststill Election Law; Election Protests; The additional rule
show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
requiringnoticetothepartiespriortopromulgationofadecision
damagesbeforethecourtmayconsiderthequestionofwhetheror
notexemplarydamagesshouldbeawarded.25 is not part of the process of promulgation.InLindo v.
Thus, it was error for the courts below to award exemplary CommissiononElections,194SCRA25(1991),petitionerclaimed
damages in the absence of any award for moral, temperate or thattherewasnovalidpromulgationofaDecisioninanelection
compensatorydamages. protest case when a copy thereof was merely furnished the
Theawardofattorneysfeesmustalsobedeleted.Suchaward parties,insteadoffirstnotifyingthepartiesofasetdateforthe
wasgiveninitsextraordinaryconceptasindemnityfordamages promulgationthereof,inaccordancewithSection20ofRule35of
tobepaidbythelosingpartytotheprevailingparty. 26Butitwas the COMELECs own Rules of Procedure, as follows: Sec.
not sufficiently shown that petitioner acted maliciously in 20.Promulgationand Finality ofDecision.Thedecisionof the
courtshallbepromulgatedonadatesetbyitofwhichduenotice
mustbegiventheparties.Itshallbecomefinalfive(5)daysafter relevantevidenceasareasonablemindwillacceptasadequateto
promulgation.Nomotionforreconsiderationshallbeentertained. supportaconclusion.
Rejecting petitioners argument, we held therein that the Same;Same;Residence;Itisnotrequiredthatacandidate
additional rule requiring notice to the parties prior to shouldhavehisownhouseinordertoestablishhisresidenceor
promulgation of a decision is not part of the process of
domicileinaplace.Itisenoughthatheshouldliveinthelocality,
promulgation. Since lack of such notice does not prejudice the
eveninarentedhouseorthatofafriendorrelative.TheDissent
rightsoftheparties,noncompliancewiththisruleisaprocedural
lapsethatdoesnotvitiatethevalidityofthedecision. claimsthattheregistrationofthepropertyinPalomaressname
does not prove petitioners residence as it merely showed
Same; Domicile; To establish a new domicile of choice,
donativeintentwithoutthenecessaryformalitiesorpaymentof
personal presence in the place must be coupled with conduct taxes.However,whateverthenatureofthetransactionmightbe,
indicativeoftheintentiontomakeitonesfixedandpermanent this point is immaterial for the purpose of ascertaining
placeofabode.Inthepresentcase,thepartiesareinagreement petitionersresidence.Wehavelongheldthatitisnotrequired
that the domicile of origin of Sabili was Brgy. Sico, San Juan, thatacandidateshouldhavehisownhouseinordertoestablish
Batangas.Heclaimsthatheabandonedhisdomicileoforiginand hisresidenceordomicileinaplace.Itisenoughthatheshould
establishedhisdomicileofchoiceinBrgy.Pinagtongulan,Lipa liveinthelocality,eveninarentedhouseorthatofafriendor
City,therebymakinghimqualifiedtorunforLipaCitymayor. relative. What is of central concern then is that petitioner
On the other hand, respondent COMELEC held that no such identifiedandestablishedaplaceinLipaCitywhereheintended
changeindomicileorresidencetookplaceand,hence,theentry toliveinandreturntoforanindefiniteperiodoftime.
inhisCertificateofCandidacyshowingthathewasaresidentof Same; Same; Same; Section 117 of the Omnibus Election
Brgy.Pinagtongulan,LipaCityconstitutedamisrepresentation Code provides that transfer of residence to any other place by
that disqualified him from running for Lipa City mayor. To
reasonofonesoccupation;profession;employmentinprivateand
establishanewdomicileofchoice,personalpresenceintheplace
public service; educational activities; work in military or naval
mustbecoupledwithconductindicativeofthe
_______________ reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the
*ENBANC. constabularyornationalpoliceforce;orconfinementordetention
665 ingovernmentinstitutionsinaccordancewithlawisnotdeemed
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 665 aslossofresidence.Wehaveheldthatabsencefromresidence
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a
intention to make it ones fixed and permanent place of voter other than in the place where one is elected, does not
abode. As in all administrative cases, the quantum of proof constitutelossofresidence.Infact,Section117oftheOmnibus
necessary in election cases is substantial evidence, or such Election Code provides that transfer of residence to any other
place byreasonof ones occupation;profession; employment in
privateandpublicservice;educationalactivities;workinmilitary facts must have been acquired by him personally or through
ornavalreservations;serviceinthearmy,navyorairforce,the officialinformation.
constabularyornationalpoliceforce;orconfinementordetention ElectionLaw;Domicile;Residence;Tosuccessfullychallenge
ingovernmentinstitutionsinaccordancewithlawisnotdeemed awinningcandidatesqualifications,thepetitionermustclearly
aslossofresidence.666
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to
6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
constitutional and legal principles that overriding such
66
ineligibilityandtherebygivingeffecttotheapparentwillofthe
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
people, would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very
Same; Same; Same; There is nothing wrong in an
democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our
individual changing residences so he could run for an elective
Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote.We
post,foraslongasheisabletoprovewithreasonablecertainty
reiterateourrulinginFrivaldov.CommissiononElections,337
thathehaseffectedachangeofresidenceforelectionlawpurposes SCRA 574 (2000), that (t)o successfully challenge a winning
fortheperiodrequiredbylaw.Moreimportantly,wehavegone candidates qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
so far asto rule that there is nothing wrong in an individual demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to
changingresidencessohecouldrunforanelectivepost,foras constitutional and legal principles that overriding such
longasheisabletoprovewithreasonablecertaintythathehas ineligibilityandtherebygivingeffecttotheapparentwillofthe
effectedachangeof residenceforelectionlawpurposes for the people, would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very
periodrequiredbylaw. democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our
RemedialLaw;Evidence;EntriesinOfficialRecords;Three Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote.
(3) requisites must concur for entries in official records to be Similarly,inJapzonv.CommissiononElections,576SCRA331
admissible in evidence.InCountry Bankers Insurance (2009),weconcludedthatwhentheevi
Corporation v. Lianga Bay and Community Multipurpose 667
Cooperative, Inc., 374 SCRA 653 (2002), we explained that the VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 667
following three (3)requisitesmust concur for entriesin official Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
recordstobeadmissibleinevidence:(a)Theentrywasmadebya dence of the alleged lack of residence qualification of a
publicofficer,orbyanotherpersonspeciallyenjoinedbylawtodo candidateforanelectivepositionisweakorinconclusiveandit
so;(b)Itwasmadebythepublicofficerintheperformanceofhis clearlyappearsthatthepurposeofthelawwouldnotbethwarted
duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty by upholding the victors right to the office, the will of the
specially enjoined by law; and (c) The public officer or other electorateshouldberespected.Forthepurposeofelectionlawsis
personhadsufficientknowledgeofthefactsstatedbyhim,which togiveeffectto,ratherthanfrustrate,thewillofthevoters.
VELASCO,JR.,J.,Dissenting:
 ElectionLaw;Domicile;Residence;Viewthattoestablisha primarily on his allegation that he purchased a house and lot
new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place must be thereatinthesamemonth,registeredthepropertyinthenameof
his commonlaw spouse, Bernadette Palomares (Palomares),
coupledwithconductindicativeofthatintention.Bodilypresence
andactuallyresidedthereinsinceApril2007togetherwith
inthenewlocalityisnottheonlyrequirement;theremustbea
668
declaredandprobableintenttomakeitonesfixedandpermanent 6 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
placeofabode.Forthepetitionertoovercomethepresumption 68
ofthecontinuityofhisdomicileoforigin,hemustshowbyclear
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
and convincing evidence of (1) an actual removal or an actual
Palomaresandtheirchildren.Tosaytheleast,thisclaimis
change of domicile; (2) a bona fideintention of abandoning the not only questionable but appalling. Petitioners temerity in
former place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) asserting that he had been living with Palomares for 20
definite acts which correspond with the purpose. Thus, years,while he was legally married to another, and so
toestablishanewdomicileofchoice,personalpresencein shouldbeconsideredtohavefollowedhisparamoursresidence
theplacemustbecoupledwithconductindicativeofthat simplygoesagainstthenormsofdecency,ifnotthelawagainst
intention.Bodily presence in the new locality is not the concubinageunderArticle334oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thus,
onlyrequirement;theremustbeadeclaredandprobable WecannotnowrecognizehisresidencyinLipaCityonthepretext
intent to make it ones fixed and permanent place of that his commonlaw spouse lives therein.Commodum ex
abode.Indeed, the most important requirements for the injuria sua non habere debet.No person ought to derive
establishment of a new domicile is (1) an actual and physical anyadvantageofhisownwrong.EveninRomualdezMarcos
presenceinthenewlocality;and(2)aclearanddeclaredintentto
v.COMELEC,248SCRA300(1995),thisCourtdidnotconsider
abandontheolddomicile(animusnonrevertendi)andremainin Mrs.MarcostohavefollowedtheresidenceofformerPresident
thenewplaceofresidence(animusmanendi). Marcos, her legal spouse. Why should this Court now consider
Same; Same; Same; View that petitioners temerity in SabilitohaveadoptedadomicileofchoiceinLipajustbecause
asserting that he had been living with Palomares for 20 years, his commonlaw spouse has a house registered in her name
while he was legally married to another, and so should be located in the same city? To consider a man to follow the
residence of the woman who he cannot marry is dangerous
consideredtohavefollowedhisparamoursresidencesimplygoes
precedent.
againstthenormsofdecency,ifnotthelawagainstconcubinage
Same;Same;Same;Viewthatalltherequisitesforavalid
underArticle334oftheRevisedPenalCode;Toconsideramanto
change of domicile or residence is necessary for election law
follow the residence of the woman who he cannot marry is
purposes.Intheabsenceofevenjustoneelement,thepresumption
dangerous precedent.Indeed, petitioner heavily anchors his
isinfavorofthemaintenanceandcontinuityofthedomicileof
claimedresidencyinPinagtongulan,LipaCitysinceApril2007
origin.Intheclearabsenceofthemostimportantelementinthe elections, he had been twice elected (in 1995 and in 1998) as
establishmentofadomicileanimusmanendiitisofnouseto Provincial Board Member representing the 4th District of
discusstheconsequenceoftestimoniesastohisbodilypresencein Batangas. During the 2007 elections, petitioner ran for the
the locality.As stated,alltherequisitesfora valid changeof position of Representative of the 4th District of Batangas, but
lost.The4thDistrictofBatangasincludesLipaCity. 2However,it
domicile or residence is necessary for election law purposes. In
isundisputedthatwhenpetitionerfiledhisCOCduringthe2007
theabsenceofevenjustoneelement,thepresumptionisinfavor
elections, he and his family were then staying at his ancestral
of the maintenance and continuity of the domicile of origin.
Hence,inthiscase,petitionerispresumedtostillbearesidentof homeinBarangay(Brgy.)Sico,SanJuan,Batangas.
SanJuan,Batangasanddisqualifiedfromtakingthemayoralty PrivaterespondentFlorencioLibrea(privaterespondent)filed
positioninLipaCity,Batangas. a Petition to Deny Due Course and to Cancel Certificate of
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari. Candidacy and to Disqualify a Candidate for Possessing Some
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. GroundsforDisqualification3againsthimbeforetheCOMELEC,
RomuloB. MacanlintalandEdgardo Carlo L. Vistan IIfor docketedasSPANo.09047(DC).CitingSection
_______________
petitioner.
1Rollo,p.79.
Manalo, Jocson & Enriquez Law Officefor private
2The 4th district of Batangas is composed of the
respondent.
municipalities of Ibaan, Padre Garcia, Rosario, San Jose, San
669
Juan and Taysan, and the City of
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 669
Lipa.http://www.batangas.gov.ph/index.php?p=15(last accessed
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections on30January2012).
SERENO,J.: 3Rollo,pp.7076.
BeforeusisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule64inrelation 670
toRule65oftheRulesofCourt,seekingtoannultheResolutions 670 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
inSPANo.09047(DC)dated26January2010and17August
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
2010oftheCommissiononElections(COMELEC),whichdenied
78inrelationtoSection74oftheOmnibusElectionCode, 4private
duecoursetoandcanceledtheCertificateofCandidacy(COC)of
respondent alleged that petitioner made material
petitionerMeynardoSabili(petitioner)forthepositionofMayor
misrepresentationsoffactinthelattersCOCandlikewisefailed
of Lipa City for the May 2010 elections. At the heart of the
tocomplywiththeoneyearresidencyrequirementunderSection
controversy is whether petitioner Sabili had complied with the
39oftheLocalGovernmentCode.5Allegedly,
oneyearresidencyrequirementforlocalelectiveofficials.
_______________
WhenpetitionerfiledhisCOC1formayorofLipaCityforthe
4Section78.Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
2010elections,hestatedthereinthathehadbeenaresidentof
thecityfortwo(2)yearsandeight(8)months.Priortothe2010 certificateofcandidacy.Averifiedpetitionseekingtodeny
duecourseortocancelacertificateofcandidacymaybe panlungsod, orsangguniangbayan, thedistrict wherehe
filedby any personexclusively on the ground that any intendstobeelected;aresident
material representation contained therein as required 671
underSection74hereofisfalse.Thepetitionmaybefiledat VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 671
any time not later than twentyfive days from the time of the Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
filingofthecertificateofcandidacyandshallbedecided,afterdue petitioner falsely declared under oath in his COC that he had
noticeandhearing,notlaterthanfifteendaysbeforetheelection. already been a resident of Lipa City for two years and eight
......... monthspriortothescheduled10May2010localelections.
Section74.Contents of certificate of candidacy.The Insupportofhisallegation,privaterespondentpresentedthe
certificateofcandidacyshallstatethatthepersonfilingit following:
isannouncinghiscandidacyfortheofficestatedtherein 1.Petitioners COC for the 2010 elections filed on 1
andthatheiseligibleforsaidoffice;ifforMemberofthe December20096
2.2009 Tax Declarations for a house and lot (TCT Nos.
BatasangPambansa,theprovince,includingitscomponent
173355,173356andbuildingsthereon)inPinagtongulan,
cities,highlyurbanizedcityofdistrictorsectorwhichhe
Lipa City registered under the name of Bernadette
seekstorepresent;thepoliticalpartytowhichhebelongs;
Palomares,petitionerscommonlawwife7
civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office 3.Lipa City Assessor Certification of Property Holdings of
address for all election purposes; his profession or propertiesunderthenameofBernadettePalomares8
occupation;thathewillsupportanddefendtheConstitutionof 4.AffidavitexecutedbyprivaterespondentFlorencioLibrea 9
the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance 5.SinumpaangSalaysayexecutedbyEladiodeTorres10
thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees 6.Voter Certification on petitioner issued by COMELEC
promulgatedbythedulyconstitutedauthorities;thatheisnota ElectionOfficerJuanD.Aguila,Jr.11
permanentresidentorimmigranttoaforeigncountry;thatthe 7.1997VoterRegistrationRecordofpetitioner12
obligationimposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without 8.National Statistics Office (NSO) Advisory on Marriages
mental reservation or purpose of evasion;and that the facts regardingpetitioner13
statedinthecertificateofcandidacyaretruetothebestof _______________
hisknowledge.(Emphasissupplied.) thereinforatleastone(1)yearimmediatelypreceding
5Section39.Qualifications. thedayoftheelection;andabletoreadandwriteFilipino
(a)Anelectivelocalofficialmustbeacitizenofthe or any otherlocallanguage or dialect. (Underscoring
Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, supplied.)
municipality,city,orprovinceor,inthecaseofamember 6Id.,atp.137.
of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang 7Id.,atpp.138,152155.
 8Id.,atp.139. _______________
9Id.,atpp.140141. 14Id.,atp.148.
10Id.,atpp.142143. 15Id.,atp.149.
11Id.,atp.144. 16Id.,atp.150.
12Id.,atpp.145146. 17Id.,atp.156.
13Id.,atp.147. 18Id.,atpp.157158.
672 19Id.,atp.159.
672 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 20Id.,atp.160.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 21Id.,atp.161.
9.Lipa City Assessor Certificate of No Improvement on 22Id.,atp.162.
Block2,Lot3,Brgy.Lood,LipaCityregisteredinthename 23Id.,atp.163.
ofpetitioner14 673
10.NSO Certificate of No Marriage of Bernadette
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 673
Palomares15
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
11.Lipa City Assessor Certificate of No Improvement on
Block2,Lot5,Brgy.Lood,LipaCityregisteredinthename 19.Petitioners 2007 COC for Member of House of
ofpetitioner16 Representative24
12.LipaCityPermitsandLicensingOfficeCertificationthat For ease of later discussion, private respondents evidence
petitionerhasnobusinesstherein17 shallbegroupedasfollows:(1)Certificatesregardingownership
13.ApparentprintoutofaFacebookwebpageofpetitioners of real property; (2) petitioners Voter Registration and
daughter,MeyBernadetteSabili18 Certification (common exhibits of the parties); (3) petitioners
14.Department of Education (DepEd) Lipa City Division COCs in previous elections; (3) Certifications regarding
Certification that the names Bernadette Palomares, Mey petitioners family members; and (4) Affidavits of Lipa City
BernadetteSabiliandFrancisMeynardSabili(petitioners residents.
son)donotappearonitslistofgraduates19 Ontheotherhand,petitionerpresentedthefollowingevidence
15.Certification from the Office of the Election Officer of toestablishthefactofhisresidenceinLipaCity:
Lipa City that Bernadette Palomares, Mey Bernadette 1.AffidavitexecutedbyBernadettePalomares25
SabiliandFrancisMeynardSabilidonotappearinitslist 2.BirthCertificateofFrancisMeynardSabili26
ofvoters20 3.AffidavitofLeonilaSuarez(Suarez)27
16.AffidavitexecutedbyVioletaFernandez21 4.Certification of Residency issued by Pinagtongulan
17.AffidavitexecutedbyRodrigoMacasaet22 BarangayCaptain,DominadorHonrade28
18.AffidavitExecutedbyPabloLorzano23 5.AffidavitexecutedbyRosalindaMacasaet29
 6.Certificate of Appreciation issued to petitioner by the 16.Joint Affidavit of twentyone (21) Pinagtongulan
parishofSto.NinoofPinagtongulan30 residents, including past and incumbent Pinagtongulan
7.Designation of petitioner in the Advisory Body (AB) of officials.40
Pinagtongulan,SanJose/LipaCityChapterofGuardians For ease of later discussion, petitioners evidence shall be
Brotherhood,Inc.31 groupedasfollows:(1)hisIncomeTaxReturnsandcorresponding
8.COMELEC Voter Certification on petitioner issued by Official Receipts for the years 2007 and 2008; (2) Certification
ElectionOfficerJuanAguila,Jr.32 fromthebarangaycaptainofPinagtongulan;(3)Affidavitofhis
_______________ commonlawwife,BernadettePalomares;and(4)Affidavitsfrom
24Id.,atp.164. apreviouspropertyowner,neighbors,CertificateofAppreciation
25Id.,atp.102. from thebarangayparish and Memorandum from the local
26Id.,atp.103. chapterofGuardiansBrotherhood,Inc.
27Id.,atp.104. _______________
28Id.,atp.105. 33Id.,atp.110.
29Id.,atp.106. 34Id.,atp.111.
30Id.,atp.107. 35Id.,atp.112.
31Id.,atp.108. 36Id.,atp.113.
32Id.,atp.109. 37Id.,atp.114.
674 38Id.,atp.187.
674 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 39Id.,atp.190.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 40Id.,atpp.211212.
9.COMELEC Application for Transfer/Transfer with 675
Reactivationdated6June2009signedbyElectionOfficer VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 675
JuanAguila,Jr.33 Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
10.PetitionersIncomeTaxReturnfor200734 TheCOMELECRuling
11.Official Receipt for petitioners income tax payment for In its Resolution dated 26 January 2010, 41the COMELEC
200735 Second Division granted the Petition of private respondent,
12.PetitionersIncomeTaxReturnfor200836 declared petitioner as disqualified from seeking the mayoralty
13.Official Receipt for petitioners income tax payment for postinLipaCity,andcanceledhisCertificateofCandidacyfor
200837 hisnotbeingaresidentofLipaCityandforhisfailuretomeet
14.BirthCertificateofMeyBernadetteSabili38 thestatutoryoneyearresidencyrequirementunderthelaw.
15.AffidavitexecutedbyJacintoCornejo,Sr.39
 Petitionermovedforreconsiderationofthe26January2010 thisCase)underRule64inrelationtoRule65oftheRulesof
ResolutionoftheCOMELEC,duringthependencyofwhichthe Court, seeking the annulment of the 26 January 2010 and 17
10 May 2010 local elections were held. The next day, he was August2010ResolutionsoftheCOMELEC.Petitionerattachedto
proclaimedthedulyelectedmayorofLipaCityaftergarnering hisPetitionaCertificateofCanvassofVotesandproclamationof
the highest number of votes cast for the said position. He WinningCandidatesforLipaCityMayorandViceMayorissued
accordinglyfiledaManifestation42withtheCOMELECenbancto bytheCity/MunicipalBoardofCanvassers, 44aswellasacopyof
reflectthisfact. his Oath of Office.45He also attached to his Petition another
InitsResolutiondated17 August2010, 43theCOMELECen Certification of Residency46issued by Pinagtong
bancdenied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner. ulanBarangayCaptainDominadorHonradeandsworntobefore
Although he was able toreceive his copy of the Resolution, no anotarypublic.
prior notice setting the date of promulgation of the said On 7 September 2010, this Court issued a StatusQuo
Resolution was received by him. Meanwhile, Section 6 of AnteOrder47requiring the parties to observe the
COMELECResolutionNo.8696(RulesonDisqualificationCases statusquoprevailing before the issuance of the assailed
FiledinConnectionwiththeMay10,2012AutomatedNational COMELEC Resolutions. Thereafter, the parties filed their
andLocalElections)requiresthepartiestobenotifiedinadvance responsivepleadings.
ofthedateofthepromulgationoftheResolution.
SEC.6.Promulgation.ThepromulgationofaDecisionor Issues
ResolutionoftheCommissionoraDivisionshallbemadeona
datepreviouslyfixed,noticeofwhichshallbeservedinadvance Thefollowingaretheissuesforresolution:
uponthe partiesor theirattorneyspersonally,or byregistered 1.WhethertheCOMELECactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion
mail,telegram,fax,orthruthefastestmeansofcommunication. whenitfailedtopromulgateitsResolutiondated17August
_______________ 2010inaccordancewithitsownRulesofProcedure;and
41Id.,atpp.4862. 2.WhethertheCOMELECcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion
42Id.,atpp.296299. inholdingthatSabilifailedtoprovecompliancewiththeone
yearresidencyrequirementforlocalelectiveofficials.
43Id.,atpp.6369.
_______________
676
44Id.,atp.294.
676 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
45Id.,atp.295.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
46Id.,atp.300.
Hence, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition (Petition
forCertiorariwithExtremelyUrgentApplicationfortheIssuance 47Id.,atpp.314315.
677
ofaStatusQuoOrderandfortheConductofaSpecialRaffleof
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 677
 Sabilivs.CommissiononElections Thelattershallwithintwo(2)daysthereaftercertifythecaseto
TheCourtsRuling theCommissionenbanc.
1.On whether the COMELEC acted The Clerk of the Commission shall calendar the Motion for
with grave abuse of discretion when Reconsideration for the resolution of the Commissionen
it failed to promulgate its Resolution bancwithinthree(3)daysfromthecertificationthereof.
dated 17 August 2010 in accordance 678
withitsownRulesofProcedure 678 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Petitioner argues that the assailed 17 August 2010 Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
COMELEC Resolution, which denied petitioners Motion for However,theCOMELECOrderdated4May201048suspended
Reconsideration,isnullandvoid.TheResolutionwasallegedly Section6ofCOMELECResolutionNo.8696byorderingthatall
notpromulgatedinaccordancewiththeCOMELECsownRules resolutions be delivered to the Clerk of the Commission for
ofProcedureand,hence,violatedpetitionersrighttodueprocess immediate promulgation in view of the proximity of the
oflaw. Automated National and Local Elections and lack of material
TherulesgoverningthePetitionforCancellationofCOCin time.TheOrderstates:
this case is COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 (Rules on ORDER
Disqualificationof CasesFiled in ConnectionwiththeMay10, Considering the proximity of the Automated National and
2010 Automated National and Local Elections), which was LocalElectionsandlackofmaterialtime,theCommissionhereby
promulgated on 11 November 2009. Sections 6 and 7 thereof suspendsSec.6ofResolutionNo.8696promulgatedonNovember
provideasfollows: 11,2009,whichreads:
SEC.6.Promulgation.ThepromulgationofaDecisionor Sec.6.Promulgation.The promulgation of a
ResolutionoftheCommissionoraDivisionshallbemadeona Decision or Resolution of the Commission or a Division
datepreviouslyfixed,noticeofwhichshallbeservedinadvance shallbemadeonadatepreviouslyfixed,noticeofwhich
uponthe partiesor theirattorneyspersonally,or byregistered shall be served upon the parties or their attorneys
mail,telegram,faxorthruthefastestmeansofcommunication. personally,orbyregisteredmail,telegram,faxorthruthe
SEC.7.MotionforReconsideration.Amotiontoreconsider fastestmeansofcommunication.
aDecision,Resolution,OrderorRulingofaDivisionshallbefiled LetallresolutionsbedeliveredtotheClerkoftheCommission
withinthree(3)daysfromthepromulgationthereof.Suchmotion, forimmediatepromulgation.
if not proforma, suspends the execution for implementation of SOORDERED.
theDecision,Resolution,OrderorRuling. Petitioner claims that he did not receive notice of the said
Within twentyfour (24) hours from the filing thereof, the suspensionofSection6ofCOMELECResolutionNo.8696.Thus,
ClerkoftheCommissionshallnotifythePresidingCommissioner. hisrighttodueprocesswasstillviolated.Ontheotherhand,the
COMELECclaimsthatithasthepowertosuspenditsownrules
of procedure and invokes Section 6, Article IXA of the ofImmigration,L24800,May27,1968,23SCRA812).Itisthe
Constitution, which gives it the power to promulgate its own delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for filing and
rulesconcerningpleadingsandpracticebeforeitorbeforeanyof publication(Aranetav.Dinglasan,84Phil.433).Itisthefilingof
itsoffices.
thesigneddecisionwiththeclerkofcourt(Sumbingv.Davide,
WeagreewiththeCOMELEConthisissue.
G.R.Nos.8685051,July20,1989,EnBancMinuteResolution).
InLindov.CommissiononElections,49petitionerclaimedthat
TheadditionalrequirementimposedbytheCOMELECrulesof
there was no valid promulgation of a Decision in an election
notice inadvance of promulgation is not part of the process of
protestcasewhenacopythereofwasmerelyfurnished
promulgation. Hence, We do not agree with petitioners
_______________
contention that there was no promulgation of the trial courts
48Id.,atp.739. decision.Thetrialcourtdidnotdenythatithadofficiallymade
49271Phil.844;194SCRA25(1991). thedecisionpublic.Fromtherecitaloffactsofbothparties,copies
679 of the decision were sent to petitioners counsel of record and
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 679 petitioners (sic) himself. Another copy was sent to private
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections respondent.
theparties,insteadoffirstnotifyingthepartiesofasetdatefor What was wanting and what the petitioner apparently
thepromulgationthereof,inaccordancewithSection20ofRule objected to was not the promulgation of the decision but the
35oftheCOMELECsownRulesofProcedure,asfollows: failure of the trial court to serve notice in advance of the
Sec.20.Promulgation and Finality of Decision.The promulgationofitsdecisionasrequiredbytheCOMELECrules.
decisionofthecourtshallbepromulgatedonadatesetbyitof Thefailuretoservesuchnoticeinadvanceofthepromulgation
whichduenoticemustbegiventheparties.Itshallbecomefinal maybeconsideredaproce
five (5) days after promulgation. No motion for reconsideration 680
shallbeentertained. 680 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rejecting petitioners argument, we held therein that the Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
additional rule requiring notice to the parties prior to durallapseonthepartofthetrialcourtwhichdidnotprejudice
promulgation of a decision is not part of the process of the rights of the partiesand didnot vitiate the validity of the
promulgation. Since lack of such notice does not prejudice the
decision of the trial court nor (sic) of the promulgation of said
rightsoftheparties,noncompliancewiththisruleisaprocedural
decision.
lapsethatdoesnotvitiatethevalidityofthedecision.Thus:
Moreover, quotingPimping v.
Thiscontentionisuntenable.Promulgationistheprocessby
whichadecisionispublished,officiallyannounced,madeknown COMELEC, citingMacabingkilv.Yatco, wefurtherheldinthe
50 51

tothepublicordeliveredtotheclerkofcourtforfiling,coupled same case that failure to receive advance notice of the

withnoticetothepartiesortheircounsel(Neriav.Commissioner promulgation of a decision is not sufficient to set aside the
COMELECsjudgment,aslongasthepartieshavebeenafforded ResolutionoftheCOMELECcannotbesetasideonthegroundof
anopportunitytobeheardbeforejudgmentisrendered,viz.: COMELECsfailuretoissuetopetitioneranoticesettingthedate
Thefactthatpetitionerswerenotservednoticeinadvanceof ofthepromulgationthereof.
thepromulgationofthedecisionintheelectionprotestcases,in 2.On whether the COMELEC com
Our view, does not constitute reversible error or a reason mitted grave abuse of discretion in
sufficientenoughtocompelandwarrantthesettingasideofthe holding that Sabili failed to prove
judgment rendered by the Comelec. Petitioners anchor their compliance with the oneyear resi
argumentonanallegeddenialtothem(sic)dueprocesstothe dency requirement for local elective
deviationbytheComelecfromitsownmaderules.However,the officials
essence of due process is that, the parties in the case were As a general rule, the Court does not ordinarily review the
affordedanopportunitytobeheard. COMELECsappreciationandevaluation ofevidence. However,
Inthepresentcase,wereadfromtheCOMELECOrderthat exceptions thereto have been established, including when the
the exigencies attendant to the holding of the countrys first COMELECsappreciationandevaluationofevidencebecomeso
automated national elections had necessitated that the grosslyunreasonableastoturnintoanerrorofjurisdiction.In
COMELECsuspendtheruleonnoticepriortopromulgation,and these instances, the Court is compelled by its bounden
thatitinsteaddirectthedeliveryofallresolutionstotheClerkof constitutional duty to intervene and correct the COMELECs
theCommissionforimmediatepromulgation.Notably,weseeno error.52
prejudicetothepartiescausedthereby.TheCOMELECsOrder InMitrav.CommissiononElections,(G.R.No.191938,2July
didnotaffecttherightofthepartiestodueprocess.Theywere 2010), we explained that the COMELECs use of wrong or
stillfurnishedacopyoftheCOMELECDecisionandwereableto irrelevantconsiderationsindecidinganissueissufficienttotaint
reckontheperiodforperfectinganappeal.Infact,petitionerwas itsactionwithgraveabuseofdiscretion
abletotimelylodgeaPetitionwiththisCourt. As a concept, grave abuse of discretion defies exact
Clearly,the COMELEC validly exercised itsconstitutionally definition;generally,itreferstocapriciousorwhimsicalexercise
grantedpowertomakeitsownrulesofprocedurewhenit ofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdiction;theabuseof
_______________ discretionmustbepatentandgrossastoamounttoanevasionof
50224Phil.326,359;140SCRA192,223(1985). apositivedutyoravirtualrefusaltoperformadutyenjoinedby
51128Phil165;21SCRA150(1967). law,ortoactatallincontemplationoflaw,aswherethepoweris
681 exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 681 passionandhostility.Mereabuseofdiscretionisnotenough;it
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections must be grave. We have held, too, that the use of wrong or
issuedthe4May2010OrdersuspendingSection6ofCOMELEC irrelevantconsiderationsindecid
Resolution No. 8696. Consequently, the second assailed _______________
 52Mitra v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191938, 19 PalomaressrelationshiptothePinagtongulanproperty,andits
October2010,633SCRA580. failure to consider in the first instance the certification of
682 residence issued by the barangay captain of Pinagtongulan.
682 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED PetitionerbewailsthattheCOMELECrequiredmoreevidence
toshowthechangeinhisresidence,notwithstandingthevarious
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
piecesofevidencehepresentedandthefactthatunderthelaw,
inganissueissufficienttotaintadecisionmakersactionwith
the quantum of evidence required in these cases is merely
graveabuseofdiscretion.
substantial evidence and not clear and convincing evidence.
Closelyrelatedwiththelimitedfocusofthepresentpetitionis
Petitioner further ascribes grave abuse of discretion in the
thecondition,underSection5,Rule64oftheRulesofCourt,that
COMELECsbrushingasideofthefactthathehasbeenfilinghis
findings of fact of the COMELEC, supported by substantial
ITRinLipaCity(where
evidence,shallbefinalandnonreviewable.Substantialevidence
683
isthatdegreeofevidencethatareasonablemindmightacceptto
supportaconclusion. VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 683
Inlightofourlimitedauthoritytoreviewfindingsoffact,we Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
do not ordinarily review in acertioraricase the COMELECs heindicatesthatheisaresidentofPinagtongulan)onthemere
appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Any misstep by the expedientthatthelawallowsthefilingoftheITRnotonlyinthe
COMELEC in this regard generally involves an error of placeoflegalresidencebut,alternately,inhisplaceofbusiness.
judgment,notofjurisdiction. Petitioner notes that private respondents own evidence shows
Inexceptionalcases,however,whentheCOMELECsaction that petitioner has no business in Lipa City, leaving only his
on the appreciation and evaluation of evidence oversteps the residencethereinasbasisforfilinghisITRtherein.
limitsofitsdiscretiontothepointofbeinggrosslyunreasonable, Hence, in resolving the issue of whether the COMELEC
theCourtisnotonlyobliged,buthastheconstitutionaldutyto gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner had not
intervene. When grave abuse of discretion is present, resulting sufficientlyshownthathehadresidedinLipaCityforatleast
errors arising from the grave abuse mutate from error of oneyearpriortotheMay2010elections,weexaminetheevidence
judgmenttooneofjurisdiction. adducedbythepartiesandtheCOMELECsappreciationthereof.
Beforeus,petitionerhasallegedandshowntheCOMELECs In the present case, the parties are in agreement that the
useofwrongorirrelevantconsiderationsindecidingtheissueof domicileoforiginofSabiliwasBrgy.Sico,SanJuan,Batangas.
whether petitioner made a material misrepresentation of his He claims that he abandoned his domicile of origin and
residency qualification in his COC as to order its cancellation. establishedhisdomicileofchoiceinBrgy.Pinagtongulan,Lipa
Amongothers,petitionerpointedtotheCOMELECsinordinate City,therebymakinghimqualifiedtorunforLipaCitymayor.
emphasis on the issue of property ownership of petitioners On the other hand, respondent COMELEC held that no such
declaredresidenceinLipaCity,itsinconsistentstanceregarding changeindomicileorresidencetookplaceand,hence,theentry
inhisCertificateofCandidacyshowingthathewasaresidentof
Brgy.Pinagtongulan,LipaCityconstitutedamisrepresentation theotherhand,thelatterpresentedthisdocumentasproofofhis
thatdisqualifiedhimfromrunningforLipaCitymayor. residency.
Toestablishanewdomicileofchoice,personalpresenceinthe The COMELEC correctly ruled that the Voter Certification
placemustbecoupledwithconductindicativeoftheintentionto issuedbytheCOMELECElectionOfficer,Atty.JuanB.Aguila,
make it ones fixed and permanent place of abode. 53As in all Jr.,wasnotconclusiveproofthatpetitionerhadbeenaresidentof
administrativecases,thequantumofproofnecessaryinelection Lipa City since April 2007. It noted that Aguila is not the
cases is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a competent public officer to certify the veracity of this claim,
reasonablemindwillacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion.54 particularly because petitioners COMELEC registration was
_______________ approvedonlyinOctober2009.
53Domino v. Commission on Elections, 369 Phil. 798; 310 TheVoterRegistrationRecordofpetitioneraccomplishedon
SCRA546(1999). 21June1997showingthathewasaresidentofSico,SanJuan,
54Enojas,Jr.v.CommissiononElections,347Phil.510;283 Batangas,aswellashisvariousCOCsdated21June1997and
SCRA229(1997). March2007indicatingthesamething,werenolongerdiscussed
684 by the COMELECand rightly so. These pieces of evidence
showingthathewasaresidentofSico,SanJuan,Batangason
684 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the said datesare irrelevant as, prior to April 2007, petitioner
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
wasadmittedlyaresidentofSico,San
The ruling on private respondents
685
evidence
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 685
WebeginwithanevaluationoftheCOMELECsappreciation
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
ofprivaterespondentsevidence.
JuanBatangas.Rather,therelevanttimeperiodforconsideration
a)PetitionersVoterCertification,Registrationand
isthatfromApril2007onwards,afterpetitionersallegedchange
COCs in previous
ofdomicile.
elections
b)Certificates regarding owner
Petitioners Voter Certification is a common exhibit of the
shipofrealproperty
parties.Itstates,amongothers,thatpetitionerisaresidentof
The various certificates and tax declarations adduced by
Pinagtongulan,LipaCity,Batangas;thathehadbeenaresident
private respondent showed that the Lipa property was solely
ofLipaCityfortwo(2)yearsandthree(3)months;andthathe
registered in the name of petitioners commonlaw wife,
wasso registered on31 October2009. The information therein
BernadettePalomares.Indiscussingtheimportofthisdocument,
was certified correct by COMELEC Election Officer Juan B.
the COMELEC reasoned that,being aseasonedpolitician,he
Aguila,Jr.
should have registered the Lipa property (which he claimed to
Private respondent presented this document as proof that
havepurchasedwithhispersonalfunds)inhisownname.Such
petitionermisrepresentedthatheisaresidentofLipaCity.On
action would have offered positive proof of intent to change
actual residence from San Juan, Batangas to Lipa City, thatitwasnotregisteredinhisname.Hestressesthattheissue
consideringthathehadpreviouslydeclaredhisancestralhomein shouldberesidence,notpropertyownership.
San Juan, Batangas as his domicile. Since Palomares and It is true that property ownership is not among the
petitionerarecommonlawspousesnotcapacitatedtomarryeach qualificationsrequiredofcandidatesforlocalelection. 56Rather,it
other,thepropertyrelationbetweenthemisgovernedbyArticle isacandidatesresidenceinalocalitythroughactualresidencein
148 of the Family Code,55where only the parties actual whatevercapacity.Indeed,wesustainedtheCOMELECwhenit
contributions are recognized. Hence, petitioner cannot prove consideredasevidencetendingtoestablishacandidatesdomicile
ownershipofapropertyandresidence ofchoicethemerelease(ratherthanownership)ofanapartment
_______________ byacandidateinthesameprovincewhereheranfortheposition
55Art. 148.Incasesofcohabitationnotfallingunderthe ofgovernor.57InthemorerecentcaseofMitrav.Commissionon
preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the Elections,58wereversedtheCOMELECrulingthatacandidates
partiesthroughtheiractualjointcontributionofmoney,property sparselyfurnished,leasedroomonthemezzanineofafeedmill
orindustryshallbeownedbythemincommoninproportionto could not be considered as his residence for the purpose of
their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the complying with the residency requirement of Section 78 of the
contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are OmnibusElectionCode.59
presumedtobeequal.Thesameruleandpresumptionshallapply _______________
tojointdepositsofmoneyandevidencesofcredit.
56Fernandez v. House of Representatives Electoral
Ifoneofthepartiesisvalidlymarriedtoanother,hisorher
Tribunal,G.R.No.187478,21December2009,608SCRA733.
shareinthecoownershipshallaccruetotheabsolutecommunity
or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the 57Perez v. Commission on Elections, 375 Phil. 1106; 317
partywhoactedinbadfaithisnotvalidlymarriedtoanother,his SCRA641(1999).Theotherpiecesofevidenceconsideredbythe
orhershareshallbeforfeitedinthemannerprovidedinthelast COMELEC in thePerezcase were the candidates marriage
paragraph of the preceding Article. The foregoing rules on certificate, the birth certificate of his daughter, and various
forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad lettersbearingtheaddress,allshowingthathewasaresidentof
faith. theprovinceforatleastone(1)yearbeforetheelections.
686 58G.R.No.191938,2July2010,622SCRA744.
686 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 59As further proof of his change in residence, Mitra had
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections adduced affidavits from the seller of the lot he purchased, the
inLipaCitythroughtheregisteredownershipofthecommonlaw owner of Maligaya Feedmill, the barangay captain and
wifeofthepropertyinLipaCity. sangguniangbarangaymembersofIsaub,Aborlan,aswellasan
Ontheotherhand,petitionerbewailstheinordinateemphasis Aborlan councilor. He also presented photographs of the
thattheCOMELECbestoweduponthequestionofwhetherthe residentialportionofMaligayaFeedmillwhereheresides,andof
Lipapropertycouldbeconsideredashisresidence,forthereason hisexperimentalpineappleplantation
 687 and cock farm. He further submitted the community tax
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 687 certificate he himself secured, and a House of Representatives
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections IdentificationCard,bothindicatingthatheresidesinAborlan.
The Dissent claims that the registration of the property in 60DelosReyesv.Solidum,61Phil.893(1935).
Palomaress name does not prove petitioners residence as it 688
merely showed donative intent without the necessary 688 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
formalitiesorpaymentoftaxes. Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
However, whatever the nature of the transaction might be, OfficerofLipaCitythatthenamesofthesefamilymembersof
this point is immaterial for the purpose of ascertaining petitionerdonotappearinitslistofvoters.
petitionersresidence.Wehavelongheldthatitisnotrequired As the issue at hand is petitioners residence, and not the
thatacandidateshouldhavehisownhouseinordertoestablish educational or voting record of his family, the COMELEC
hisresidenceordomicileinaplace.Itisenoughthatheshould properlydidnotconsiderthesepiecesofevidenceinarrivingat
liveinthelocality,eveninarentedhouseorthatofafriendor itsResolution.
relative.60What is of central concern then is that petitioner TheDissentneverthelessassertsthatbecausehischildrendo
identifiedandestablishedaplaceinLipaCitywhereheintended notattendeducationalinstitutionsinLipaandarenotregistered
toliveinandreturntoforanindefiniteperiodoftime. voters therein, and because petitioner does not maintain a
Hence, while the COMELEC correctly ruled that, of itself, business therein nor has property in his name, petitioner is
Palomares ownership of the Lipa property does not provethat unabletoshowtheexistenceofrealandsubstantialreasonforhis
sheorandinviewoftheircommonlawrelations,petitioner stayinLipaCity.
residesinLipaCity,nevertheless,theexistenceofahouseandlot AstotheDissentsfirstassertion,itmustbestressedthatthe
apparentlyownedbypetitionerscommonlawwife,withwhomhe children,likethewife,donotdictatethefamilydomicile.Evenin
hasbeenlivingforovertwodecades,makesplausiblepetitioners thecontextofmarriage,thefamilydomicileisjointlydecidedby
allegationofbodilypresenceandintenttoresideinthearea. bothhusbandandwife.61Inaddition,wenotethatthetransferto
c)Certifications regarding the Lipa City occurred in 2007, when petitioners children were
familymembersofpetitioner alreadywellintocollegeandcouldverywellhavechosentostudy
PrivaterespondentpresentedaCertificationfromtheDepEd, elsewherethaninLipaCity.
Lipa City Division, indicating that the names Bernadette Also,itispetitionersdomicilewhichisatissue,andnotthat
Palomares, Mey Bernadette Sabili (petitioners daughter) and ofhischildren.Butevenassumingthatitwaspetitionerhimself
FrancisMeynardSabili(petitionersson)donotappearonthelist (ratherthanhischildren)whoattendededucationalinstitutions
of graduates of Lipa City. Private respondent also presented a orwhoregisteredasavoterinaplaceotherthanLipaCity,we
CertificationfromtheOfficeoftheElection have held that absence from residence to pursue studies or
_______________ practiceaprofessionorregistrationasavoterotherthaninthe
place where one is elected, does not constitute loss of
residence.62In fact, Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code d)AffidavitsofLipaCityresidents
providesthattransferofresidencetoanyotherplacebyreasonof Private respondent also presented the affidavits of Violeta
onesoccupation;profession; employmentinprivateandpublic Fernandez66and RodrigoMacasaet,67who werealsoresidentsof
service; educational activities; work in military or naval Pinagtongulan.Bothstatedthatpetitionerdidnotreside
reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the _______________
constabularyornationalpoliceforce;orcon 63Rollo,pp.148and150,OfficeoftheCityAssessorofLipa
_______________ Certificationdated14December2009.
61FamilyCode,Article69. 64Maquerav.Borra,122Phil.412;15SCRA7(1965).
62Fayponv.Quirino,96Phil.294(1954). 65Japzon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180088, 19
689
January 2009, 576 SCRA 331, citingAquino v. Commission on
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 689
Elections,318Phil.467;248SCRA400(1995).
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
66Supranote21.
finementor detentioningovernmentinstitutions in accordance
withlawisnotdeemedaslossofresidence. 67Supranote22.
As to the Dissents second assertion, petitioner apparently 690
doesnotmaintainabusinessinLipaCity.However,apartfrom 690 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
the Pinagtongulan property which both Suarez (the previous Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
property owner) and Palomares swear was purchased with in Pinagtongulan, as they had rarely seen him in the area.
petitioners own funds, the records also indicate that there are Meanwhile, Pablo Lorzano,68in his Affidavit, attested that
twootherlotsinLipaCity,particularlyinBarangayLodlod,Lipa althoughtheLipapropertywassometimesusedforgatherings,
City63whichareregisteredjointlyinthenameofpetitionerand hedidnotrecallhavingseenpetitionerintheirbarangay.On
Palomares.Infact,itwasprivaterespondentwhopresentedthe theotherhand,privaterespondent69andEladiodeTorres,70both
LipaCityAssessorsCertificatetothiseffect.Evenassumingthat residentsofBrgy.Calamias,reasonedthatpetitionerwasnota
this Court were to disregard the two Lodlod lots, it is well residentofLipaCitybecausehehasnoworkorfamilythere.
established that property ownership (and similarly, business TheCOMELECdidnotdiscusstheseAffidavitsinitsassailed
interest)inthelocalitywhereoneintendstorunforlocalelective Resolution. It was correct in doing so, particularly considering
postisnotrequirementoftheConstitution.64 thattheseAffidavitsweredulycontrovertedbythosepresented
Moreimportantly,wehavegonesofarastorulethatthereis bypetitioner.
nothingwronginanindividualchangingresidencessohecould Moreover, evenassuming the truthof theallegation in the
runforanelectivepost,foraslongasheisabletoprovewith Affidavitsthatpetitionerwasrarelyseeninthearea,thisdoes
reasonablecertaintythathehaseffectedachangeofresidencefor notprecludethepossibilityofhisresidencetherein.InFernandez
electionlawpurposesfortheperiodrequiredbylaw.65 v.HouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal,71weheldthatthe
avermentsofcertainbarangayhealthworkersthattheyfailedto aCertificationfromtheCity PermitsandLicensingOffice of
see a particular candidate whenever they made rounds of the LipaCityshowedthattherewasnobusinessregisteredinthe
locality of which he was supposed to be a residentis of no Cityunderpetitionersname.
moment.Itispossiblethatthecandidatewasoutofthehouseto Thus,COMELECfailedtoappreciatethatpreciselybecause
attendtohisownbusinessatthetime.Thelawdoesnotrequirea anindividualincometaxreturnmayonlybefiledeitherinthe
persontobeinhishometwentyfour(24)hoursaday,seven(7) legalresidenceORtheprincipalplaceofbusiness,asprescribed
daysaweek,tofulfilltheresidencyrequirement. under the law, the fact that Sabili was filing his Income Tax
Therulingonpetitionersevidence Returns in Lipa City notwithstanding that he had no business
WenowevaluatehowtheCOMELECappreciatedpetitioners therein showed that he had actively elected to establish his
evidence: residenceinthatcity.
_______________ The Dissent claims that since the jurisdiction of RDO Lipa
68Supranote23. CityincludesbothSanJuanandLipaCity,petitionersfiling
_______________
69Rollo,pp.8283.
72SEC.51.IndividualReturn.
70Id.,atpp.8485.
(A)Requirements.......
71G.R.No.187478,21December2009,608SCRA733.
(B)Where to File.Except in cases where the
691
Commissionerotherwisepermits,thereturnshallbefiledwithan
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 691
authorizedagentbank,RevenueDistrictOfficer,CollectionAgent
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections ordulyauthorizedTreasurerofthecityormunicipalityinwhich
a)Petitioners Income Tax Re suchpersonhashislegalresidenceorprincipalplaceofbusiness
turnsfor2007and2008 in the Philippines, orif therebe no legal residence or place of
TheIncomeTaxReturnsofpetitionerpresentedbelowshowed businessinthePhilippines,withtheOfficeoftheCommissioner.
thatpetitionerhadbeenpayinghisIncomeTax(2007and2008) xxx
totheRevenueDistrictOfficeofLipaCity.Inwavingasidehis 692
Income Tax Returns, the COMELEC held that these were not 692 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
indications of residence since Section 51(B) of the National
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
InternalRevenueCodedoesnotonlystatethatitshallbefiledin
ofhisITRthereincanalsosupportanintenttoremaininSan
apersonslegalresidence,butthatitmayalternativelybefiledin
Juan,Batangaspetitionersdomicileoforigin.
apersonsprincipalplaceofbusiness.
However, a simple perusal of the Income Tax Returns and
Inparticular,Section51(B)oftheNationalInternalRevenue
RevenueOfficialReceiptsfor2007and2008showsthatpetitioner
Code72providesthattheIncomeTaxReturnshallbefiledeither
invariablydeclareshisresidencetobePinagtongulan,LipaCity,
intheplacewhereapersonresidesorwherehisprincipalplaceof
ratherthanSanJuan,Batangas. 73Hence,whilepetitionermaybe
businessislocated.However,privaterespondentsownevidence
submitting his income tax return in the same RDO, the specially enjoined by law, areprima facieevidence of the facts
declaration therein is unmistakable. Petitioner considers Lipa thereinstated.
Citytobehisdomicile. InCountryBankersInsuranceCorporationv.LiangaBayand
b)Certification from the Barangay
Community Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc.,75we explained that
CaptainofPinagtongulan
the following three (3) requisites must concur for entries in
The COMELEC did not consider in the first instance the officialrecordstobeadmissibleinevidence:
Certification issued by PinagtongulanBarangayCaptain (a)The entry was made by a public officer, or by another
DominadorHonrade74(Honrade)thatpetitionerhadbeenresiding personspeciallyenjoinedbylawtodoso;
in Brgy Pinagtongulan since 2007. When this oversight was (b)Itwasmadebythepublicofficerintheperformanceofhis
raisedasanissueinpetitionersMotionforReconsideration,the duties,orbysuchotherpersonintheperformanceofaduty
COMELEC brushed it aside on the ground that the said speciallyenjoinedbylaw;and
Certificationwasnotsworntobeforeanotarypublicand,hence, (c)The public officer or other person had sufficient
cannotbereliedon.Subsequently,petitionerpresentedanother, knowledge of the facts stated by him, which facts must
substantially identical, Certification from the said Pinagtong havebeenacquired by himpersonally or throughofficial
ulanBarangayCaptain, save for the fact that it had now been information.
sworntobeforeanotarypublic. Astothefirstrequisite,theBarangaySecretaryisrequiredby
We disagree with the COMELECs treatment of the Local Government Code to keep an updated record of all
theBarangayCaptains Certification and find the same tainted inhabitantsofthebarangay.76Regardingthesecondreq
withgraveabuseofdiscretion. _______________
Evenwithoutbeingsworntobeforeanotarypublic,Honrades 75425Phil.511;374SCRA653(2002).
Certificationwouldnotonlybeadmissibleinevidence,butwould 76SEC.394.Barangay Secretary: Appointment,
alsobeentitledtodueconsideration. Qualifications, Powers and Duties.(a)Thebarangay secretary
Rule130,Section44oftheRulesofCourtprovides: shallbeappointedbythepunongbarangaywiththeconcurrence
_______________ of the majority of all the sangguniang barangay members. The
73Rollo,pp.112114. appointment of the barangay secretary shall not be subject to
74Rollo,p.105. attestationbytheCivilServiceCommission.
693 (b)Thebarangaysecretaryshallbeoflegalage,aqualified
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 693 voterandanactualresidentofthebarangayconcerned.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections (c)Nopersonshallbeappointedbarangaysecretaryifheis
asangguniangbarangaymember,agovernmentemployee,ora
SEC.44.Entries in official records.Entries in official
relativeofthepunongbarangaywithinthefourthcivildegreeof
recordsmadeintheperformanceofhisdutybyapublicofficerof
consanguinityoraffinity.
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
 (d)Thebarangaysecretaryshall: 77Supranote56.
694 78SEC.389.Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, and
694 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Functions.(a) Thepunongbarangay,asthechiefexecutiveof
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections the barangay government, shall exercise such powers and
uisite, wehaveexplicitly recognizedinMitrav. Commissionon performsuchdutiesandfunctions,asprovidedbythisCodeand
Elections,77thatitisthebusinessofapunongbarangaytoknow otherlaws.
who the residents are in his own barangay. Anent the third (b) Forefficient, effectiveandeconomicalgovernance,the
requisite, theBarangayCaptains exercise of powers and purposeofwhichisthegeneralwelfareofthebarangayandits
duties78concomitant to his position requires him to be privy to inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the punong
barangayshall:
theserecordskeptbytheBarangaySecretary.
(1)Enforce all laws and ordinances which are applicable
_______________
withinthebarangay;
(1)Keepcustodyofallrecordsofthesangguniangbarangay
(2)Negotiate,enterinto,andsigncontractsforandinbehalf
andthebarangayassemblymeetings;
of the barangay, upon authorization of the sangguniang
(2)Prepare and keep the minutes of all meetings of the
barangay;
sangguniangbarangayandthebarangayassembly;
695
(3)Preparealistofmembersofthebarangayassembly,and
havethesamepostedinconspicuousplaceswithinthebarangay; VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 695
(4) Assistinthepreparationofallnecessaryformsforthe Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
conductofbarangayelections,initiatives,referendaorplebiscites, Accordingly,thereisbasisinfaultingtheCOMELECforits
incoordinationwiththeComelec; failuretoconsiderHonradesCertificationonthesolegroundthat
(5)Assistthemunicipalcivilregistrarintheregistrationof itwasinitiallynotnotarized.
births,deaths,andmarriages; Meanwhile,theDissentopinesthattheswornaffidavitofthe
(6) Keep an updated record of all inhabitants of the barangaychairofPinagtongulanthatpetitionerisaresidentof
barangay containing the following items of information: name, LipaCitydoesnothelppetitionerscasebecauseitwasnotshown
address, place and date of birth, sex, civil status, citizenship, thatthetermresidentasusedthereincar
occupation, and such other items of information as may be _______________
prescribedbylaworordinances; (3)Maintainpublicorderinthebarangayand,inpursuance
(7)Submit a report on the actual number of barangay thereof,assistthecityormunicipalmayorandthesanggunian
residents as often as may be required by the sangguniang membersintheperformanceoftheirdutiesandfunctions;
barangay;and (4)Call and preside over the sessions of the sangguniang
(8)Exercise such other powers and perform such other barangayandthebarangayassembly,andvoteonlytobreaka
dutiesandfunctionsasmaybeprescribedbylaworordinance. tie;
 (5) Uponapprovalbyamajorityofallthemembersofthe InMitra v. Commission on Elections,79the declaration of
sangguniang barangay, appoint or replace the barangay Aborlanspunong barangaythat petitioner resides in
treasurer,thebarangaysecretary,andotherappointivebarangay
hisbarangaywastakentohavethesamemeaningasdomicile,
officials;
inasmuch as the said declaration was made in the face of the
(6) Organize and lead an emergency group whenever the
CourtsrecognitionthatMitramightnothavestayedinAborlan
samemaybenecessaryforthemaintenanceofpeaceandorderor
norinPalawanformostof2008and2009becausehisofficeand
onoccasionsofemergencyorcalamitywithinthebarangay;
activitiesasaRepresentativewereinManila.
(7)Incoordinationwiththebarangaydevelopmentcouncil,
Assuming that the barangay captains certification only
prepare the annual executive and supplemental budgets of the
pertains to petitioners bodily presence in Pinagtongulan, still,
barangay;
the COMELEC cannot deny the strength of this evidence in
(8)Approve vouchers relating to the disbursement of
establishingpetitionersbodilypresenceinPinagtongulansince
barangayfunds;
2007.
(9)Enforcelawsandregulationsrelatingtopollutioncontrol
c)Affidavit of petitioners
andprotectionoftheenvironment;
commonlawwife
(10)Administer the operation of the Katarungang
Tosubstantiatehisclaimofchangeofdomicile,petitioneralso
PambarangayinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisCode;
presented the affidavit of Palomares, wherein the latter swore
(11)Exercise general supervision over the activities of the
thatsheandpetitionerbeganresidinginLipaCityin2007,and
sangguniangkabataan;
that the funds used to purchase the Lipa property were
(12)Ensurethedeliveryofbasicservicesasmandatedunder
petitioners personal funds. The COMELEC ruled that the
Section17ofthisCode;
Affidavitwasselfservingforhavingbeenexecutedbypetitioners
(13) Conduct an annual palarong barangay which shall
commonlawwife.Also,despitethepresentationbypetitionerof
featuretraditionalsportsanddisciplinesincludedinnationaland
otherAffidavitsstatingthatheandPalomareshadlivedinBrgy.
international games, in coordination with the Department of
Pinagtongulansince2007,thelattersAffidavitwasrejectedby
Education,CultureandSports;
theCOMELECforhavingnoindependentcollaboration.
(14)Promotethegeneralwelfareofthebarangay;and
PetitionerfaultstheCOMELECsstand,whichitclaimstobe
(15)Exercise such other powers and perform such other
inconsistent.Hearguesthatsincethepropertyregimebetween
dutiesandfunctionsasmaybeprescribedbylaworordinance.
himandPalomaresisgovernedbyArticle148oftheFamilyCode
696
(basedonthepartiesactualcontribution)asthe
696 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
_______________
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 79G.R.No.191938,2July2010,622SCRA744.
ries the same meaning as domicile, that is, not merely bodily 697
presence but also,animus manendior intent to return.This VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 697
Courthasruledotherwise.
 Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 81Unchuanv.Lozada,G.R.No.172671,16April2009,585
COMELECstressed,thenPalomaressAffidavitexpresslystating SCRA421.
thatpetitionersmoneyalonehadbeenusedtopurchasetheLipa 82Peoplev.Catalino,131Phil.194;22SCRA1091(1968).
property (notwithstanding that it was registered in her name) 698
was not selfserving, but was in fact, a declaration against 698 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
interest. Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
Petitioners argument that Palomaress affidavit was a her marriage to petitioner. However, this was not the reason
declarationagainstinterestis,strictlyspeaking,inaccurateand propounded by the COMELEC when it rejected Palomares
irrelevant.Adeclarationagainstinterest,undertheRulesofCivil affidavit.
Procedure,referstoadeclarationmadebyapersondeceased,or Moreover, it is notable that Palomares assertion in her
unableto testify against the interest of a declarant, ifthe fact affidavit that she and petitioner have been living in the
assertedinthedeclarationwasatthetimeitwasmadesofar PinagtongulanpropertysinceApril2007iscorroboratedbyother
contrarytodeclarantsowninterest,thatareasonablemaninhis evidence, including the affidavits of Pinagtongulan barangay
positionwouldnothavemadethedeclarationunlesshebelieved officialsandneighbors.
ittobetrue.80Adeclarationagainstinterestisanexceptionto d)Affidavits froma previous
thehearsayrule.81Assuch,itpertainsonlytotheadmissibility
property owner, neighbors, cer
of,nottheweightaccordedto,testimonialevidence.82
tificate from parish and desig
Nevertheless, wesee thelogic in petitioners claim that the
nation from sociocivic organi
COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion in being
inconsistent in its stand regarding Palomares, particularly zation
regarding her assertion that the Lipa property had been TheAffidavitissuedby LeonilaSuarez 83(erstwhile ownerof
purchased solely with petitioners money. If the COMELEC the Lipa house and lot) states that in April 2007, after she
acceptstheregistrationoftheLipapropertyinhernametobe receivedthedownpaymentfortheLipapropertyandsignedan
accurate,heraffidavitdisavowingownershipthereofinfavorof agreement that petitioner would settle her bank obligations in
petitionerwasfarfromselfservingasitrancountertoher(and connectionwiththesaidtransaction,heandPalomaresactually
herchildrens)propertyinterest. startedresidingatPinagtongulan.TheCOMELECbrushedthis
The Dissent states that it was not unreasonable for the Affidavit aside as one that merely narrates the circumstances
COMELEC to believe that Palomares may have committed surroundingthesaleofthepropertyandmentionsinpassingthat
misrepresentations in her affidavit considering that she had SabiliandPalomareslivedinPinagtongulansinceApril2007up
perjuredherselfasaninformantonthebirthcertificatesofher tothepresent.84
childrenwithrespecttothesupposeddateandplaceof WedisagreewiththeCOMELECsappreciationoftheSuarez
_______________ Affidavit.Sinceshewasitsowner,transactionsforthepurchase
80RulesofCourt,Rule130C(6),Sec.38. of the Lipa property was within her personal knowledge.
Ordinarily, this includes the arrangement regarding who shall andconcludedhistransferinearly2009andthus,hetransferred
payforthepropertyandwhen,ifever,itshallbeoccupiedbythe his residence from Puerto Princesa City to Aborlan within the
buyers.Wethusconsiderthatherstatementsimpactpositively period required by law. We cannot treat the transfer to the
onpetitionersclaimofresidence. PinagtongulanhouseanylessthanwedidMitrastransfertothe
_______________ MaligayaFeedmillsroom.
83Rollo,p.104. Moreover, the Joint Affidavit of twentyone (21) Pinagtong
84Id.,atp.66. ulan residents, including former and incumbent barangay
699 officials, attests that petitioner had begun living in the
PinagtongulanhouseandlotbeforetheMay2007electionssuch
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 699
thatitwaswherehiscoordinatorsfortheMay2007elections
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
_______________
The Dissent on the other hand argues that the claim that 85G.R.No.191938,19October2010,633SCRA580.
petitionerstartedlivingintheLipahouseandlotinApril2007is
700
madedubiousbythefactthat(1)theremightnotbeenoughtime
700 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
to effect an actual and physical change in residence a month
before the May 2007 elections when petitioner ran for Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
representativeofthe4thDistrictofBatangas;and(2)theDeedof went to meet him.86Jacinto Cornejo Sr., the contractor who
Absolute Sale was notarized, and the subsequent transfer of renovated the Pinagtongulan house when it was bought by
ownershipinthetaxdeclarationwasmade,onlyinAugust2008. petitioner,alsosworethatpetitionerandhisfamilybeganliving
Beforefurtherdiscussingthis,itispertinenttopointoutthat therein even while it was being renovated.87Another Affidavit
these were not the reasons adduced by the COMELEC in the petitioneradducedwasthatofRosalindaMacasaet,aresidentof
assailedResolutions.Assumingthattheabovereasonswerethe Brgy. Pinagtongulan,88who stated that she also sold a lot she
unutteredconsiderationsoftheCOMELECincomingupwithits ownedinfavorofpetitionerandPalomares.Thelatterboughther
conclusions, such reasoning still exhibits grave abuse of lotsinceitwasadjacenttotheLipahouseandlottheyhadearlier
discretion. acquired. Macasaet also swore that the couple had actually
As to the Dissents first argument, it must be remembered residedinthehouselocatedinPinagtongulansinceApril2007,
thatatransferofdomicile/residenceneednotbecompletedinone andthatsheknewthisbecauseherownhousewasverynearthe
couples own. Macasaets Affidavit is a positive assertion of
single instance. Thus, inMitra v. Commission on
petitioners actual physical presence in Brgy. Pinagtongulan,
Elections,85where the evidence showed that in 2008, petitioner LipaCity.
MitrahadleasedasmallroomatMaligayaFeedmillslocatedin While private respondent had adduced affidavits of two
Aborlanand,in2009purchasedinthesamelocalityalotwhere Pinagtongulan residents (that of Violeta Fernandez 89and
he began constructing his house, we recognized that petitioner Rodrigo Macasaet)90attesting that petitioner could not be a
transferred by incremental process to Aborlan beginning 2008 residentofPinagtongulanashewasrarelyseeninthearea,
these affidavits were controverted by the Joint affidavit of Affidavitofthepropertysseller,LeonilaSuarez,thatitwasnot
twentyone(21)Pinagtongulanresidentswhoplainlyaccusedthe yetfullypaidinApril2007,soitwasunderstandablethatadeed
twooflying.Meanwhile,theaffidavitsofprivaterespon ofabsolutesalewasnotexecutedatthetime.Thus:
_______________ That initially, the contract to sell was entered into by and
86Rollo, pp. 211212,PinagsamaSamang Salaysayexecuted between Mr. & Mrs. Meynardo Asa Sabili and Bernadette
by 21 Barangay Pingtongulan residents, namely Esmeraldo P. Palomaresandmyself,buteventuallythespouseschangedtheir
Macasaet(formerbarangaycaptainofPinagtongUlan),Eduardo mind,andafterthecouplesettledallmyloanobligationstothe
R.Lorzano(formerbarangaycaptainofPinagtongulan),Patricia bank,theyrequestedmetoputthenameofMs.BernadetteP.
L. Alvarez (incumbent councilor of Pinagtongulan), Pedro Y. Palomares instead of Mr. & Mrs. Meynardo Asa Sabili and
Montalba (former councilor of Pinagtongulan), Loida M. BernadettePalomaresintheabsolutedeedofsale;
Macasaet, Mario P. Lingao, Sancho M. Garcia, Jr., Atilano H. ThatitwasMr.MeynardoAsaSabiliwhocametomyformer
Macasaet,BabyJeanA.Mercado,LigayaC.Mercado,Rosalinda residenceatBarangayPinagtongulansometimeinthemonthof
M. Macasaet, Olga M. Reyes, Jennifer D. Garcia, Sancho C. April 2007. At that time, Mr. Meynardo Asa Sabili was still
Garcia,Sr.,MarissaG.Mercado,WilmaC.Mercado,AireenM. runningforRepresentative(Congressman)inthe4thDistrictof
Macasaet, Eden R. Suarez, Noemi R. Ubalde, Arthur A. del Batangas;
Rosario,andNorbertoM.Layog. Thatafterpaymentofthedownpaymentandsigningofan
87Rollo,p.190. agreementthatMr.MeynardoAsaSabiliwillbetheonetosettle
my bank obligations, Mr. & Mrs. Meynardo A. Sabili and
88Id.,atp.106.
BernadettePalomareshadanactualtransferoftheirresidenceat
89Rollo,p.161. BarangayPinagtongulan,LipaCity;
90Rollo,p.162. ThattheystartedlivingandresidinginPinagtongulaninthe
701 monthofApril,2007uptothispointintime;xxx93
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 701 _______________
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 91Rollo,pp.8283.
dent91and Eladio de Torres92stating that petitioner is not a 92Rollo,pp.8485.
residentofLipaCitybecausehehasnoworkorfamilythereis 93Rollo,p.188.
hardlyworthyofcredencesincebothareresidentsofBarangay
702
Calamias,whichis,andprivaterespondentdoesnotcontestthis,
702 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
about15kilometersfromPinagtongulan.
As to the Dissents second argument, the fact that the Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
notarizationofthedeedofabsolutesaleofthepropertywasmade Astotherestofthedocumentspresentedbypetitioner,the
monthsafterApril2007doesnotnegatepetitionersclaimthathe COMELECheldthattheMemorandumissuedbytheGuardians
started residing therein in April 2007. It is clear from the BrotherhoodInc.SanJose/LipaCityChaptermerelydeclaresthe
designationofpetitionerintheorganization,withoutanyshowing VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 703
that residence in the locality was a requirement for that Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
designation. Meanwhile, the Certificate of Appreciation was Considering all of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that
nothing more than an acknowledgment of petitioners material whileseparately,eachevidencepresentedbypetitionermightfail
andfinancialsupport,andnotanindicationofresidence. toconvincinglyshowthefactofhisresidenceatPinagtongulan
We agree that considered separately, the Guardians since 2007, collectively, these pieces of evidence tend to
Brotherhood Memorandum and the Pinagtongulan Parish sufficientlyestablishthesaidfact.
CertificateofAppreciationdonotestablishpetitionersresidence Petitioners actual physical presence in Lipa City is
inPinagtongulan,LipaCity.Nevertheless,coupledwiththefact establishednotonlybythepresenceofaplace(Pinagtongulan
that petitioner had twice been elected as Provincial Board houseandlot)hecanactuallylivein,butalsotheaffidavitsof
Member representing the Fourth District of Batangas, which various persons in Pinagtongulan, and the Certification of its
encompassesLipaCity,petitionersinvolvementinthereligious barangay captain. Petitioners substantial and real interest in
life of the community, as attested to by the certificate of establishinghisdomicileofchoiceinLipaCityisalsosufficiently
appreciationissuedtohimbythePinagtongulanparishforhis shownnotonlybytheacquisitionofadditionalpropertyinthe
material and financial support as President of the Barangay area and the transfer of his voter registration, but also his
Fiesta Committee in 2009, as well as his assumption of a participationinthecommunityssociocivicandreligiouslife,as
leadership role in the sociocivic sphere of the locality as a wellashisdeclarationinhisITRthatheisaresidentthereof.
member of the advisory body of the Pinagtongulan, San We therefore rule that petitioner has been able to adduce
Jose/Lipa City Chapter of the Guardians Brotherhood Inc., substantialevidencetodemonstratecompliancewiththeoneyear
manifestsasignificantlevelofknowledgeofandsensitivitytothe residencyrequirementforlocalelectiveofficialsunderthelaw.
needsofthesaidcommunity.Such,afterall,istherationalefor In view of this Courts finding that petitioner has not
theresidencyrequirementinourelectionslaws,towit: misrepresentedhisresidenceatPinagtongulanandtheduration
The Constitution and the law requires residence as a thereof, there is no need to further discuss whether there was
qualification for seeking and holding elective public office, in material and deliberate misrepresentation of the residency
ordertogivecandidatestheopportunitytobefamiliarwiththe qualificationinhisCOC.
needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and all Asafinalnote,wedonotlosesightofthefactthatLipaCity
matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies; likewise, it voters manifested their own judgment regarding the
enablestheelectoratetoevaluatetheofficeseekersqualifications qualifications of petitioner when they voted for him,
andfitnessforthejobtheyaspireforxxx.94 notwithstandingthattheissueofhisresidencyqualificationhad
_______________ been raised prior to the elections. Petitioner has garnered the
94Torayno v. Commission on Elections, 392 Phil. 343; 337 highestnumberofvotes(55,268votesasopposedtothe48,825
SCRA574(2000). votesinfavorofhisopponent,OscarGozos) 95legallycastforthe
703 positionofMayorofLipaCityandhasconse
 _______________ WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is
95http://www.comelec.gov.ph/results/2010_natl_local/res_reg GRANTED. The assailed COMELEC Resolutions dated 26
1014000.html(lastaccessedon3April2012). January 2010 and 17 August 2010 inFlorencio Librea v.
704 MeynardoA.Sabili[SPANo.09047(DC)]areANNULLED.
704 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED _______________
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 96Rollo,p.294.
quently been proclaimed duly elected municipal Mayor of Lipa 97G.R.No.137329,9August2000,337SCRA574.
CityduringthelastMay2010elections96 98G.R.No.180088,19January2009,576SCRA331.
In this regard, we reiterate our ruling inFrivaldo v. 99Sinacav.Mula,373Phil.896;315SCRA266(1999).
Commission on Elections97that (t)o successfully challenge a 705
winning candidates qualifications, the petitioner must clearly VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 705
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
constitutional and legal principles that overriding such Private respondents Petition to cancel the Certificate of
ineligibilityandtherebygivingeffecttotheapparentwillofthe
Candidacy of Meynardo A. Sabili is DENIED. The StatusQuo
people, would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very
AnteOrderissuedbythisCourton7September2010isMADE
democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our
Constitutionandlawssozealouslyprotectandpromote. PERMANENT.
SOORDERED.
Similarly, inJapzon v. Commission on Elections,98we
Carpio, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
concludedthatwhentheevidenceoftheallegedlackofresidence
qualification of a candidate for an elective position is weak or ReyesandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
inconclusiveand itclearly appearsthat thepurposeof thelaw Corona,J.,IjointhedissentofHon.JusticeVelasco,Jr.
wouldnotbethwartedbyupholdingthevictorsrighttotheoffice, Velasco,Jr.,J.,PleaseseeDissentingOpinion.
thewilloftheelectorateshouldberespected.Forthepurposeof LeonardoDeCastro,J.,IjointhedissentofJusticeVelasco.
electionlawsistogiveeffectto,ratherthanfrustrate,thewillof
DelCastillo,J.,Nopart.
thevoters.
Abad,J.,IjointhedissentofJ.P.J.Velasco,Jr.
In sum, we grant the Petition not only because petitioner
sufficiently established his compliance with the oneyear Mendoza,J.,Nopart.
residency requirement for local elective officials under the law. DISSENTINGOPINION
Wealsorecognizethat(a)boveandbeyondall,thedetermination VELASCO,JR.,J.:
ofthetruewilloftheelectorateshouldbeparamount.Itistheir BeforeUsisaPetitionforCertiorari1assailingandseekingto
voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must prevail. This, in setasidetheResolutions2datedJanuary26,2010andAugust17,
essence,isthedemocracywecontinuetoholdsacred.99 2010oftheCommissiononElections(COMELEC)inSPANo.09
047 (DC), which denied due course to, and canceled, the residencerequirementunderSection39oftheLocalGovernment
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner Meynardo Sabili Code.3
(Sabili)forthepositionofMayorofLipaCityintheMay2010 In resolving the controversy, the COMELEC held in its
elections on the ground of his misrepresentation that he is a January 26, 2010 Resolution that the evidence presented by
residentofBarangay(Brgy.)Pinagtongulan,LipaCity. petitioner, as respondent in SPA No. 09047 (DC), failed to
During the 1995 and 1998 elections, petitioner Sabili was establish an abandonment of his domicile of origin and the
electedasamemberoftheProvincialBoardrepresentingthe adoption of Lipa City as his domicileof choice or residence for
_______________ electionlawpurposes.Hence,petitionerwasdisqualifiedto
1UnderRule64inrelationtoRule65oftheRulesofCourt. _______________
2BothpennedbyJudgeJoseEmmanuelM.Castillo. 3Sec.39.Qualifications.
706 (a)An elective local official must bea citizen of the
706 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Philippines;aregisteredvoterinthebarangay,municipality,city,
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang
4thDistrictofBatangas.Duringthe2007elections,heranfor panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan,
theofficeofCongressmanofthe4thDistrictofBatangasbutlost. thedistrictwhereheintendstobeelected;aresidentthereinfor
Duringthesetimes,headmittedthathewasaresidentofBrgy. at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
Sico, San Juan, Batangas. On December 1, 2009, however, election;andableto readand writeFilipinoor any otherlocal
petitionerMeynardoSabilifiledaCOCforMayorofLipaCity, languageordialect.(Underscoringsupplied.)
BatangasfortheMay2010elections.InhisCOC,hewrotethat 707
hehadbeenaresidentofBrgy.Pinagtongulan,LipaCityfortwo VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 707
(2)yearsandeight(8)months. Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
On December 5, 2009, private respondent Florencio Librea runintheMay2010electionsforthemayoraltypositioninthat
(Librea)filedaverifiedPetitiontoDenyDueCourseandtoCancel city.TheCOMELECstated:
In the case before us, it is not denied that Respondents
Certificate of Candidacy and to Disqualify aCandidate for
domicile of origin is in San Juan, Batangas. What Respondent
Possessing Some Grounds for Disqualificationswith respondent repeatedlyassertsisthatsince2007,hetransferredhisdomicile
COMELEC,whichwasdocketedasSPANo.09047(DC).Inhis to Lipa City after allegedly acquiring theBgy. Pinagtong Ulan
petition, private respondent Librea maintained that petitioner propertyandclaimingthathecontinuouslylivedthere.
madeseveralmaterialmisrepresentationsinhisCOCwherehe Inthefirstplace,domicileororiginisnoteasilylost.Ifone
indicatedthathewasaresidentofBrgy.Pinagtongulanforthe
wishestosuccessfullyeffectachangeofdomicile,hemust
lasttwoyearswheninfacthewas,andis,aresidentofBrgy.
demonstratebyevidenceanactualremovaloranactual
Sico, San Juan, Batangas, and so failed to meet the oneyear
change of domicile, abona fideintention of abandoning
theformerplaceofresidenceandestablishinganewone, Toestablishanewdomicileofchoice,personalpresenceinthe
and definite acts which correspond with the placemustbecoupledwithconductindicativeofthatintention.It
purpose.These elements must concur, and absent clear and requiresnotonlysuchbodily presencein thatplace butalsoa
positiveproofoftheconcurrenceofthesethreerequirements,the declared and probable intent to make it ones fixed and
domicileoforigincontinuesxxx. permanentplaceofabode.
xxxx Inthiscase,Sabilisclaimofacommonlawrelationship
The above pieces of documentary evidence, all taken with Bernadette Palomaresdoes not establish hisactual
together however, fail to convince us that Respondent physical presence in Bgy. Pinagtongulan, Lipa City.In
Sabilisuccessfullyeffectedachangeofdomicile.Inall,the fact, the documents pertaining to Palomares actual place of
evidenceadducedbyRespondentSabiliplainlylacksthe residence are conflicting, sinceshe is listed as a resident of
degree of persuasiveness required to convince this ParaaqueCity.TheDeedofSaleandregistrationofthehouse
Commissionthatanabandonmentofdomicileororiginin in Bgy. Pinagtongulan, Lipa City, merely proves Palomares
favorofadomicileofchoiceindeedoccurred.Theclaimof ownership or that she own property in the city. And it is not
anincidentalchangeofresidence,lackingevidencedeterminative impossiblethat,asindicatedindocumentspresentedherein,she
ofabandonmentofdomicileoforigin,withoutmore,wouldnotbe isaresidentofParaaqueCityowningpropertyinLipaCity.4
sufficienttobreaktheprinciple,longfollowedincasesinvolving On January 28, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for
questionsofdomicilethattherewasclearintenttoabandonand ReconsiderationoftheCOMELECsJanuary26,2010Resolution,
repudiate his domicile in San Juan, Batangas.To effect andaSupplementalMotionthefollowingday.
On February 2, 2010, the case was elevated to the
abandonmentrequiresthevoluntaryactofrelinquishing
Petitioners former domicilewithintent to supplant the COMELECEn Banc.In the meantime, the May 10, 2010
electionswereconductedandpetitioneremergedasthewinning
formerdomicilewithoneofhisownchoosing.Sinceheisa
candidate for Mayor of Lipa City. 5He eventually took his oath
new voter of Lipa City, the records clearly indicating that
andassumedoffice.6
officially, his registration came into effect only on October 31,
InaManifestationdatedJune15,2010,petitionerinformed
2009;thesaidvotersdocumenthardlyfurnishessufficientproof
ofabandonmentofdomicileoforiginandachangeofdomicileof theCOMELECEnBancofthesedevelopmentsandagainprayed
choice.Indeed,whilewehaveruledinthepastthatvotinggives forthesettingasideoftheJanuary26,2010Resolution.
rise to a strong presumption of residence, it is not conclusive In its August 17, 2010 Resolution, however, the
evidencethereof.Sabili,infact,hasneverevenvotedinLipa COMELECEn Bancdenied petitioners Motion for
Cityxxx.708 Reconsideration.Discussingeachpointpetitionerraisedinthat
708 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED motion,theCOMELECEnBancheld:
_______________
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
4Rollo,pp.5961.Emphasissupplied.
 5AnnexPtothePetition. ornoweighttothefollowingpiecesofevidencepresented
6Rollo,p.293,AnnexQtothePetition. bySabili:a)AffidavitofBernadetteP.Palomareswhichis
709 selfserving for being executed by the commonlaw wife,
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 709 and has no independent corroboration that they are
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections residinginLipaCitysince2007orthatthepropertywas
We find that the Second Division fully appreciated the purchased with Sabilis personal funds; b) Affidavit of
evidence presented by both parties and correctly found Sabili LenilaG.Suarez,thepreviousownersofthepropertyin
disqualifiedforfailingtocomplywiththeone(1)yearresidency Lipa City supposedly occupied by Sabili and his family,
requirement. whichmerelynarratesthecircumstancessurroundingthe
AnentSabilisfirstgroundinhismotionforreconsideration, sale ofthepropertyand mentionsin passing that Sabili
WefinditimportanttostatethatSabiliadmittedinParagraph andPalomareslivedinPinagtongulansinceApril2007up
14ofhisAnswerthathisdomicileoforiginisinBrgy.Sico,San tothepresent;c)CertificationissuedbyHon.Dominador
Juan, Batangas. This admission on the part of Sabili was
B. Honrade, Barangay Captain of Brgy. Pinagtongulan,
construedinconjunctionwithrelatedjurisprudencethatdomicile
LipaCity,whichisunswornandthuscannotbereliedon;
of origin is not easily lost. In order [t]o successfully effect a
d) Certificate of Appreciation issued by the Parish of
change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual change of
SantoNio,
domicile;2)abonafideintentionofabandoningtheformerplace
710
of residence and establishing a new one; and 3) acts which
710 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
correspond with the purpose. Undoubtedly, Librea must prove
hisallegationsinsupportofhispetitionfordisqualification,but Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
since Sabili did not deny that his domicile of origin is Brgy. Pinagtongulan, Lipa City which is nothing more
differentfromtheplacewhereheintendstorun,henow thananacknowledgmentofSabilismaterialandfinancial
hastoprovethathehasabandonedhisdomicileoforigin supportandnotanindicationofresidence;e)Designation
infavorofLipaCity.Unfortunately,hefailedtoprovethe as member of the Advisory Body of Guardians
sametothesatisfactionoftheSecondDivision. Brotherhood,Inc.,SanJose/LipaCityChaptereffective02
Sabilis second and third grounds refer to the Second January 2009 which merely declares the designation of
Divisionssupposedfailuretoappreciatetheevidenceadducedin Sabiliwithoutanyshowingthatresidenceinthelocalityis
thiscase.Wedonotfindbasisforthesearguments.Theevidence arequirementforsuchdesignation;f)VoterCertification
presented, together with the arguments of the parties, were issued by Atty. Juan B. Aguila, Jr. Election Officer of
inextricably interrelated and were thoroughly discussed and COMELECLipaCityandtheApplicationforTransferof
resolved by the Second Division in the assailed 15page Registration Record Due to Change of Residence filed
Resolution.TheSecondDivisionwascorrectingivinglittle with the COMELEC on 06 June 2009 which are not
conclusive proof of change of domicile; g) Income Tax funds but decided to register theproperty only in the name of
Returnsofrespondentfortheyears2007and2008andthe Palomareswhichisquitepeculiar.
correspondingOfficialReceiptswhicharenotindications Finally,ontheeightground,WeherebydeclarethatSabilis
of residence since Sec. 51(B) of the National Internal residenceisamatterthatwillaffecthisqualificationtorunfor
RevenueCodedoesnotonlystatethatitshallbefiledina publicofficeinLipaCity.Inviewoftheevidencepresentedinthis
personslegalresidencebutthatitmayalsobefiledina case,hisdeclarationinhiscertificateofcandidacythatheisa
residentofLipaCity,wheninfacthehadnotyetabandonedhis
persons princip[al] place of business, and in most cases
domicileoforigininSanJuan,Batangas,mayconvincethevoters
thereturnisfiledwheretheindividualearnshisincome.
thathehasallthequalificationstorunforthepositionofmayor,
The only other evidence for Sabili on record are the
which tends to mislead the public from a fact that would
affidavitshesubmittedwhich,standingalone,cannotbe otherwise render him ineligible, is precisely what is being
considered, no matter how many, as sufficient proof of
referredtointhecaseofUgdoracion.7
oneschangeofdomicile.Therehastobemore.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed with this Court aPetition for
WithregardtoSabilisfourthground,WefindthattheSecond
Divisionmadenopronouncementaddingapropertyrequirement CertiorariwithExtremelyUrgentApplicationfortheIssuanceofa
asaqualificationofanelectiveofficial. Status Quo Orderunder Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
As to the fifth ground, We will sustain the position of the Rules of Court, seeking the nullification of the COMELECs
SecondDivisionwhenitruled: Resolutions for supposedly having been issued without or in
Inthiscase,Sabilisclaimofacommonlawrelationship excess of respondent COMELECs jurisdiction, or with grave
with Bernadette Palomares does not establish his actual abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
physicalpresenceinBgy.Pinagtongulan,LipaCityxxx Among the documents attached to his petition is a new
as indicated in documents presented herein, she is a Certification of Residency issued by the Pinagtong
residentofParaaqueCityowningpropertyinLipaCity. ulanbarangaychairman Dominador Honrade that had been
Sabilis sixth and seventh grounds deserve little merit. swornbeforeanotarypublic.8
Nothing in the Assailed Resolution reveals that Sabilis On September 7, 2010, this Court issued a StatusQuo
relationship with Palomares or the property regime governing AnteOrderrequiringthepartiestoobservethestatusquobefore
such relationship had direct bearing on the Second Divisions theissuanceoftheassailedCOMELECResolutions.
determination of Sabilis qualification. Sabilis relationship was AspointedoutbyJusticeSerenoinheropinion,thefollowing
merelydiscussedinrelationtotheallegationsthatSabilibought aretheissuesforOurResolution:
ahouseusinghispersonal (1)Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
711 discretion when it failed to promulgate its Resolution dated 17
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 711 August2010inaccordancewithitsownRulesofProcedure;and
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections _______________
 7Emphasissupplied. _______________
8Rollo,p.300,AnnexStothePetition. 9SEC.6.Promulgation.ThepromulgationofaDecisionor
712 ResolutionoftheCommissionoraDivisionshallbemadeona
712 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED datepreviouslyfixed,noticeofwhichshallbeservedinadvance
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections uponthe partiesor theirattorneyspersonally,or byregistered
(2)Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of mail,telegram,faxorthruthefastestmeansofcommunication.
discretioninholdingthatSabilifailedtoprovecompliancewith 713
theoneyearresidencyrequirementforlocalelectiveofficials. VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 713
Failuretoserveadvancenoticeofthepromulgationofthe Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
resolutiondoesnotaffectthevalidityoftheresolution COMELECs resolution. After all, as pointed out by Justice
Onthefirstissue,petitionerpositsthattheCOMELECacted Sereno,theadvancenoticeofthedateofpromulgationisnotpart
with grave abuse of discretion when it failed to serve advance of the process of promulgation. More than that, the
notice of the promulgation of the August 17, 2010 Resolution COMELECEnBancsResolutionwassufficientlymadeknownto
under Sec. 6, COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 (Rules on petitioner who was able to timely file the present petition to
Disqualificationof CasesFiled in ConnectionwiththeMay10, assailandquestionthesameResolution.Clearly,thesuspension
2010 Automated National and Local Elections). 9Hence, so ofSec.6,COMELECResolutionNo.8696andthenonserviceof
petitioner claims, his right to due process was violated. an advance notice to petitioner are of no consequence to the
Respondents,ontheotherhand,arguethatSec.9ofCOMELEC validityoftheResolutionandthefindingsoftheCOMELEC,orto
Resolution8696hadbeensuspendedbyCOMELECOrderdated theopportunitygrantedtopetitionertoassailtheResolution.
May4,2010inviewoftheexigenciesattendanttotheholdingof Acertiorari writ isnot availabletocorrect errorsin the
thecountrysfirstautomatednationalelections. appreciationofevidencebythelowertribunal
Justice Sereno is of the opinion that petitioner erred in his On the second issue, however, I respectfully disagree with
claim of having been deprived of due process, adding that the Justice Sereno who maintains that the COMELEC committed
August 17, 2010 Resolution was validly promulgated. On this errorsintheappreciationandevaluationofevidencesothatthe
issue,Ifullyagreewithmyesteemedcolleague. Court is compelled by it[s] bounden constitutional duty to
ThesuspensionofSec.6,COMELECResolutionNo.8696and interveneandcorrecttheCOMELECserrors.10
the consequential lack of advance notice regarding the date of Lestitbeforgotten,thepresentrecoursewasfiledunderthe
promulgation of the COMELECEn Bancs August 17, 2010 aegisofRule64inrelationtoRule65oftheRulesofCourt.Time
ResolutionisinaccordancewiththeCOMELECsconstitutionally and again, this Court has emphasized that a Rule 65 petition
grantedpowertomakeitsownrulesofprocedure.Thesuspension forcertiorariis a limited remedy to correct only errors of
action,withoutmore,didnotviolatethepetitionersrighttodue jurisdiction,notofjudgment.11Itsonlyfunctionistokeepalower
processorvitiatethevalidityofthe tribunal within its jurisdiction12and not to authorize the court
exercisingcertioraripowerstoreview,reconsider,reevaluate,and tantamounttolackorinexcessofjurisdictionandwhicherroris
recalibrate the evidence previously presented before and correctible only by the extraordinary writ
consideredbythelowertribunal. ofcertiorari.Certiorariwillnotbeissuedtocureerrorsof
_______________ thetrial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the
10Ponencia,p.12. parties,oritsconclusionsanchoredon thesaidfindings
11LydiaR.Pagaduanv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No. anditsconclusions oflaw.Itisnot forthisCourttore
172278,March29,2007,519SCRA512. examineconflictingevidence,reevaluatethecredibilityof
12Angarav.FedmanDevelopmentCorporation,483Phil.495; the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the
440SCRA467(2004);quotedinPCGGv.SilanganInvestorsand courtaquo.
Managers,Inc.,G.R.Nos.16705556&170673,March25,2010, This rule holds greater force in an application
616SCRA382. forcertiorariagainst the COMELEC as it is the institution
714 createdbytheConstitutionpreciselytohandleelectionmatters
714 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED andsopresumedtobemostcompetentinmattersfallingwithin
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections its domain.14Hence, the factual findings of the COMELECEn
InFirstCorporationv.FormerSixthDivisionoftheCourtof BancarebindingonthisCourt15absentanyshowingofagrave
abuseofitsdiscretion.
Appeals,13Wereiteratedthiselementaryprecept:
_______________
Itisafundamentalaphorisminlawthatareviewoffactsand
13G.R. No. 171989, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 564, 578
evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy
(emphasis supplied); quoted inSoriano v. Marcelo, G.R. No.
ofcertiorari, which isextra ordinembeyond the ambit of
160772,July13,2009,592SCRA394.
appeal.Incertiorariproceedings, judicial review does not
14Matalamv.CommissiononElections,338Phil.447,470;
go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the
271SCRA733,750(1997).
partiesandtoweightheprobativevaluethereof.Itdoes
15Japzon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180088,
not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the
evaluation of the evidence. Any error committed in the January19,2009,576SCRA331;citingDaglocv.Commisionon
evaluationoftheevidenceismerelyanerrorofjudgment Elect
that cannot be remedied bycertiorari.Anerror 715
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 715
ofjudgmentisonewhichthecourtmaycommitintheexerciseof
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
its jurisdiction. Anerror of jurisdictionis one where the act
Expectedly, petitioner Sabili attributes grave abuse of
complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of
discretion torespondentCOMELECto justify a review andre
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is
evaluationoftheevidencepresentedbytheparties.However,not
everyclaimofanexistenceofagraveabuseofdiscretiondeserves 716 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
consideration;otherwise,everyerroneousjudgmentwillbevoid, Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
appellatecourtswillbeoverburdenedandtheadministrationof duties in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. 20Thus, this
justicewillnotsurvive.16Mereabuseofdiscretionisnotenough. Court must not, as it cannot, stray beyond the confines of
Grave abuse of discretion exists only when there is a
acertiorarireviewandgosofarastoreexamineandreassess
capriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalentto
theevidenceofthepartiesandweighanewitsprobativevalue. 21
lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is
Nonetheless, Justice Sereno subscribes to the view that the
exercisedinanarbitrarymannerbyreasonofpassion,prejudice,
COMELECs appreciation and evaluation of evidence are so
or personal hostility, and itmust be so patent and grossas to
grossly unreasonable as to turn into errors of jurisdiction. 22I
amounttoanevasionofapositivedutyortoavirtualrefusalto
beg to disagree. Even if We consider the present case as an
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of
law.17An unfavorable evaluation of the sufficiency of the exceptiontotheruleonthelimitationsofacertiorarireview,the
evidencepresentedbyapartywillnotbeinquiredintounlessitis evidence presented by petitioner does not persuade an actual
shownthattheevaluationwasdoneinanarbitrarymannerby changeofhisdomicile.
reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility.18This, the Petitioner failed to establish compliance with
alltherequisitesforachangeofdomicile
petitionerhasfailedtoproveinhispetitionforcertiorari.
In fact, petitioner has not disputed or even mottled the PetitioneradmitsthatbeforeApril2007hewasaresidentof,
presumptionthattheCOMELEChasregularlyperformed19its andhisdomicileoforiginwas,SanJuan,Batangas.ThisCourt
_______________ has previously ruled that domicile and residence are
synonymous in election law. A domicile is the place where a
ions,463Phil.263,288;417SCRA574,594(2003);Mastura
partyactuallyorconstructivelyhashispermanenthome,where
v.CommissiononElections,349Phil.423,429;285SCRA493, he, no matter where he may be found, at any given time,
499(1998). eventuallyintendstoreturnandremain. 23Thus,thequestionof
16San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. v. Pampanga Omnibus domicileismainlyoneofintention24andcircumstances.25
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 168088, April 4, 2007, 520 _______________
SCRA564. 20Id.,id.,Sec.2(n).
17Id.;citingLeev.People,G.R.No.159288,October19,2004, 21Macawaig v. Balindong, G.R. No. 159210, September 20,
440SCRA662,678679. 2006,502SCRA454;citingGarciav.NationalLaborRelations
18Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Commission,G.R.No.147427,February7,2005,450SCRA535,
Processing Corporation, G.R. No. 152228, September 23, 2005, 547.
470SCRA650,661. 22Ponencia,p.12.
19RulesofCourt,Rule131,Sec.2(m).
23Japzonv.COMELEC,supranote15;emphasissupplied.
716
 24Limbona v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 186006, intention.Bodily presence in the new locality is not the
October16,2009,604SCRA240. onlyrequirement;theremustbeadeclaredandprobable
25Pundaodayav.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.179313, intenttomakeitonesfixedandpermanent
September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 178, 184185; citingDomino v. _______________
CommissiononElections,369Phil.798,818;310SCRA546,568 26Id.
(1999). 27In the Matter of the Petition for Disqualification of Tess
717 DumpitMichelena,G.R.Nos.16361920,November17,2005,475
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 717 SCRA290,303;Chesire,PrivateInternationalLaw218219.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 28PrivateInternationalLawbyChesire,pp.218219.
In the consideration of circumstances, three rules must be 29Bevilaquav.Bernstein,642F.Supp.1072,1073(S.D.N.Y.
borne in mind: (1) a man must have residence or domicile 1986);citedinIsraelv.Carpenter,NotReportedinF.Supp.,1995
somewhere;(2)aresidenceonceestablishedremainsuntilanew WL 640534 (S.D.N.Y.);Rich Products Corp. v. Diamond, 51
one is acquired; and(3) a man can only have one residenceor Misc.2d675,273N.Y.S.2d687,N.Y.Sup.1966,October11,1966.
domicileatatime.26Clearly,therefore,thereisapresumption 30Id.
in favor of a continuance of an existing domicile.27When 718
theevidencepresentedbythecontendingpartiesareinequipoise 718 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
thatitisimpossibleforthecourttodeterminewithcertaintythe
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
real intent of the person whose domicile is in question,the
placeofabode. Indeed,themostimportantrequirementsfor
31
presumption requires the Court to decide against a
theestablishmentofanewdomicileis(1)anactualandphysical
change of domicile and the retention of a domicile in
presenceinthenewlocality;and(2)aclearanddeclaredintentto
question.28Hence, the burden of proving a change of
abandontheolddomicile(animusnonrevertendi)andremainin
domicileliesonthepersonwhoclaimsthatachangehas
thenewplaceofresidence(animusmanendi).
occurred.29Inthiscase,theburdenliesonthepetitioner.
Intending to establish that petitioner failed to meet the
For the petitioner to overcome the presumption of the
foregoing requisites, respondent Librea presented the following
continuity ofhis domicileoforigin,he mustshow byclear and
documentaryexhibits:
convincingevidenceof(1)anactualremovaloranactualchange
1.PetitionerSabilisCOCfiledonDecember1,2009;32
of domicile; (2) abona fideintention of abandoning the former 2.Tax Declaration issued in 2009 covering the property in
place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) definite Brgy. Pinagtongulan, Lipa City and in the name of
acts which correspond with the purpose.30Thus, toestablish a BernadettePalomares(Palomares);33
new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place
must be coupled with conduct indicative of that
 3.CertificationofPropertyHoldingsissuedonNovember24, 9.CertificationofNoImprovementdatedDecember14,2009
2009coveringthepropertiesinPinagtongulan,LipaCity over Block 2, Lot 3, Brgy. Lodlod, Lipa City (TCT No.
inthenameofPalomares;34 164454)inthenameofSabiliandPalomares;40
4.Palomares Tax Declaration issued on December 14, 2009 10.CertificationofNoImprovementdatedDecember14,2009
over the lot bought from spouses Manolito and Leonila overBlock2, Lot5 Brgy. Lodlod, Lipa City (TCT No. T
SuarezandcoveredbyTCTNo.T173356;35 164455)inthenameofSabiliandPalomares;41
5.Palomares Tax Declaration issued on December 14, 2009 11.AffidavitofpetitionerFlorencioLibreadatedDecember4,
over the lot bought from spouses Rodolfo and Rosalinda 2009;42
MacasaetandcoveredbyTCTNo.T173355;36 12.SinumpaangSalysayEladiodeTorresdatedDecember4,
6.Palomares Tax Declaration issued on December 14, 2009 2009;43
overthebuildingonthelotcoveredbyTCTNo.TCTNo.T 13.Affidavit executed by Violeta Fernandez dated December
173356 bought from the spouses Suarez and covered by 28,2009;44
TCTNo.T173355;37 14.Affidavit executed by Rodrigo Macasaet dated December
7.Palomares Tax Declaration issued on December 14, 2009 28,2009;45
overthebuildingonthelotcoveredbyTCTNo.TCTNo. 15.AffidavitexecutedbyPabloLorzano;46
_______________ 16.Voter Certification on petitioner Sabili issued by
31Dominov.CommissiononElections,supranote25,atp.820 COMELECElectionOfficerJuanD.Aguila,Jr.;47
(1999);emphasissupplied. 17.Voters Registration Record No. 07361248 of petitioner
32Rollo,p.431. SabiliapprovedonJune21,1997;48
33Id. 18.1997VoterRegistrationRecordofpetitioner;
_______________
34Id.,atp.433.
38Id.,atp.447.
35Id.,atp.444.
39Id.,atp.448.
36Id.,atp.445.
40Id.,atp.442.
37Id.,atp.446.
719 41Id.,atp.443.
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 719 42Id.,atp.434.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 43Id.,atp.436.
T173355boughtfromthespousesSuarezandcoveredbyTCT 44Id.,atp.454.
No.T173355;38 45Id.,atp.455.
8.Palomares Tax Declaration issued on December 14, 2009 46Id.,atp.456.
over the building on the lot no. 5553 bought from the 47Id.,atp.438.
spousesSuarez;39
48Id.,atp.440. 49Id.,atp.457.
720 50Id.,atp.441.
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 51Id.,atp.439.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 52Id.,atp.449.
19.Sabilis2007COCforMemberofHouseofRepresentative;49 53Id.,atp.450.
20.Certification of No Marriage for Bernadette Palomares
54Id.,atp.452.
issuedbytheNationalStatisticsOffice(NSO)onDecember
22,2009; 55Id.,atp.453.
21.National Statistics Office (NSO) Advisory on Marriages 721
statingthatasofNovember28,2009,Sabiliismarriedto VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 721
DaisyCervas;50 Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
22.NSO Certification issued on December 22, 2009 stating 1.AffidavitofBernadattePalomares;56
thatPalomaresdoesnotappearintheNationalIndicesof 2.BirthCertificateofFrancisMeynardSabili;57
Marriages;51 3.BirthCertificateofMeyBernadetteSabili;58
23.LipaCityPermitsandLicensingOfficeCertificationthat 4.AffidavitofLeonilaG.Suarez;59
SabilihasnobusinessthereindatedDecember11,2009;52 5.Certification of Residency issued by Pinagtongulan
24.Printout of a Facebook webpage of petitioners daughter, Barangay Chairman Dominador Honrade dated October
Mey Bernadette Sabili stating that her hometown is 30,2009;60
Portofino,LasPias,Philippines;53 6.Notarized Certification of Residency issued by Pinagtong
25.Department of Education (DepEd) Lipa City Division ulan Barangay Chairman Dominador Honrade dated
Certification that the names Bernadette Palomares, Mey August25,2010;61
BernadetteSabiliandFrancisMeynardSabili(petitioners 7.AffidavitexecutedbyJacintoHonradeCornejo,Sr.;62
son)donotappearonitslistofgraduates;54 8.AffidavitexecutedbyRosalindaMacasaet;63
26.CertificationfromtheOfficeoftheElectionOfficerofLipa 9.CertificateofAppreciationissuedbytheparishofSto.Nio
CitydatedDecember28,2009thatBernadettePalomares, ofPinagtongulan;64
MeyBernadetteSabiliandFrancisMeynardSabilidonot 10.Designation of petitioner in the Advisory Body (AB) of
appearinitslistofvoters.55 Pinagtongulan,SanJose/LipaCityChapterofGuardians
On the other hand, to support his position that he has Brotherhood,Inc.;65
abandonedhisdomicileoforiginandadoptedLipaCity,Batangas 11.COMELEC Voter Certification on petitioner issued by
ashisdomicileofchoice,makinghimqualifiedtobeelectedasthe ElectionOfficerJuanAguila,Jr.;66
Citys Mayor, petitioner Sabili presented the following 12.COMELEC Application for Transfer/Transfer with
documentaryevidence: ReactivationdatedJune6,2009;67
_______________ 13.PetitionersIncomeTaxReturnfor2007;68
_______________ Petitionerclaimsthattheforegoingdocumentsaresufficient
56Annex1topetitionersAnswer;Id.,atp.102,394. to constitute substantial evidence of his change of domicile
57Annex2toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.103,395. pursuant to this Courts pronouncements inMitra v.
58Annex3toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atp.394. COMELEC.76A closer inquiry, however, will reveal a whale of
59Annex4toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.104,397. differencebetweenthepresentcaseandMitra.Consider:While
60Annex5toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.105,398. there were circumstances inMitrathat led the majority of this
61AnnexStoSabilisPetitionforCertiorari;Id.,atp.300. Court to conclude that petitioner Mitra made incremental
transfermovestochangehisdomicile(by,amongothers,leasing
62Annex6toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atp.399.
adwelling,purchasingalotforhispermanenthome,buildinga
63Annex7toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.106,400. house thereon, and maintaining substantial investments in the
64Annex8toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.107,401. newlocalityintheformofanexperimentalpineappleplantation,
65Annex9toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.108,402. farm, farmhouse, and a cock farm), the petitioner in this case,
66Annex10toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.109,403. Sabili, failed to adduce any evidence that would substantially
67Annex11toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.110,404. proveachangeofhisdomicile
_______________
68Annex12toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.111,405.
722 69Annex12AtoSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.112,407.
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 70Annex13toSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.113,406.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections 71Annex13AtoSabilisAnswer;Id.,atpp.114,408.
14.Official Receipt for petitioners income tax payment for 72Rollo,p.212.
2007;69 73Id.,atp.213.
15.PetitionersIncomeTaxReturnfor2008;70 74AnnexPtoPetitionforCertiorari.
16.Official Receipt for petitioners income tax payment for 75AnnexQtoPetitionforCertiorari.
2008;71
76G.R.No.191938,October19,2010,633SCRA580.
17.Pinagsamasamang Sinumpaang Salaysaydated January 723
16,2010;72 VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 723
18.SinumpaangSalaysaydatedJanuary16,2010executedby Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
DominadorMacuha;73 fromSanJuan, BatangastoLipa Citywhetherby incremental
19.Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of actsoranimmediatedeed.Thereliesthedifference.
WinningCandidatesforLipaCityMayorandViceMayor;74 AsshownbytheCertificationofNoImprovementissuedby
20.SabilisPanunumpasaKatungkulandatedJuly30,2010.75 theLipaCityassessor,petitionermadenoeffortstobuildahouse
onthelotslocatedinBrgy.Lodlodthatareactuallyregisteredin
hisownname.77Neitherhashemaintainedanybusinessinthe 79RimbunanHijauGroupofCompaniesandNiuginiLumber
locality despite his avowed profession as a businessman. 78As Merchants Pty., Ltd. v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation,
implied byMitra, having substantial investments and G.R.
constructing improvements on properties bought in the new 724
locality are indicative ofanimus manendi. Hence, the non 724 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
existence of such evidence in the present case supports Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
respondentsclaimofcontinuanceofhisdomicileoforigininSan
EveninRomualdezMarcosv.COMELEC,80thisCourtdidnot
Juan,Batangas.
consider Mrs. Marcos to have followed the residence of former
Indeed, petitioner heavily anchors his claimed residency in
PresidentMarcos,herlegalspouse.WhyshouldthisCourtnow
Pinagtongulan, Lipa City since April 2007 primarily on his
considerSabilitohaveadoptedadomicileofchoiceinLipajust
allegationthathepurchasedahouseandlotthereatinthesame
becausehiscommonlawspousehasahouseregisteredinher
month,registeredthepropertyinthenameofhiscommonlaw
namelocatedinthesamecity?Toconsideramantofollowthe
spouse,BernadettePalomares(Palomares),andactuallyresided
residence of the woman who he cannot marry is dangerous
therein since April 2007 together with Palomares and their
precedent.
children.
IfthisCourtisdisposedtoestablisharulethatamancan
To say the least, this claim is not only questionable but
followtheresidenceofawoman,thatwomanmustbethemans
appalling. Petitioners temerity in asserting that he had been
lawfulwife,nothisconcubine.Thisiscorollarytotheprovisions
living with Palomares for 20 years,while he was legally
of the Family Code explicitly imposing on the husband the
married to another, and so should be considered to have obligation to establish his domicile with his wife and live with
followedhisparamoursresidencesimplygoesagainstthenorms her:
ofdecency,ifnotthelawagainstconcubinageunderArticle334of Art.68.Thehusbandandwifeareobligedtolivetogether,
theRevisedPenalCode. observemutuallove,respectandfidelity,andrendermutualhelp
Thus,WecannotnowrecognizehisresidencyinLipaCityon andsupport.
the pretext that his commonlaw spouse lives Art.69.Thehusbandandwifeshallfixthefamilydomicile.
therein.Commodum ex injuria sua non habere debet.No Incaseofdisagreement,thecourtshalldecide.
personoughttoderiveanyadvantageofhisownwrong.79 Thecourtmayexemptonespousefromlivingwiththeotherif
the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and
_______________ compellingreasonsfortheexemption.However,suchexemption
77Rollo,pp.442443. shallnotapplyifthesameisnotcompatiblewiththesolidarityof
78Id.,atp.449. thefamily.
Further,evenassumingthatitwaspetitionerwhonegotiated
the purchase and paid for the property in Pinagtongulan (no
deedofsalewaspresented),hisactofhavingitregisteredinthe physicalchangeamonthbeforetheelections?Iftherewastimeto
nameofhiscommonlawspouseonlyindicatesadonativeintent relocate,whywerethedeedsofsaledrawnupandnotarizedonly
withoutthenecessaryformalitiesorthepay inAugust200882andthetaxdeclarationstransferredinthename
_______________ of Palomares only in the same month if they had already
No. 152228, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 650;European relocatedinApril2007?
Resources and Technologies, Inc. v. Ingenieuburo Birkhahn + AlltheseinconsistencieseasilyshowthatwhenSabilistated
inhisCOCthathehadlivedinBrgy.PinagtongulansinceApril
Nolte,Ingeniurgesellschaftmbh,G.R.No.159586,July26,2004,
2007, he had deliberately committed a material
435SCRA246;CommunicationMaterialsDesign,Inc.v.Courtof misrepresentationobviouslytodeceivethevotingpublic.
Appeals,G.R.No.102223,August22,1996,260SCRA673. It is also curious to note that even Sabilis commonlaw
80G.R.No.119976,September18,1995,248SCRA300. spouse,namedastheownerofthepropertyinBrgy.Pinagtong
725 ulan,isregisteredasaresidentof215ElizaldeStreet,BFHomes,
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 725 ParaaqueCityinthetaxdeclarationscovering
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections _______________
ment of taxes,notthe intent to abandon his domicile of origin 81Rollo,pp.444448;PrivaterespondentsAnnexB.
andmaintainanewdomicileofchoice. 82Id.
Infact,SabilisresoundingomissiontoprovidetheCOMELEC 726
andthisCourtthedeedsofsaleoverthepropertiesinPinagtong 726 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
ulan, Lipa City executed by the spouses Manolito and Leonila
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
SuarezandthespousesRodolfoandRosalindaMacasaetinfavor
thePinagtongulanproperty.83Clearly,theCOMELECcouldnot
of Palomares, as well as the certificates of title, puts doubton
beheldgrosslyunreasonableforholdingthatwhilePalomares
Sabilisallegationthattherewasatransferofownershipoverthe
mightbeaLipaCitypropertyowner,shewasaresidentof
propertiestoPalomaresinApril2007thatwouldhaveallowed
ParaaqueCity.OfficialdocumentsissuedbytheOfficeofthe
her and/or the petitioner to claim the right to reside in the
properties. This doubt is aggravated by the fact that the tax CityAssessorofLipaCityclearlyestablishsuchfact.Thisofficial
declarationsoverthepropertiesshowthatthedeedsofsalewere recordscannotbedefeatedbyaselfservingaffidavitdrawnupby
drawnupandnotarizedonlyinAugust2008.81 petitioners commonlaw wife that she resides in Lipa City in
Indeed, the claim of an actual and physical transfer on the ordertosupportpetitionersclaimthathetooisaresidentofthe
same month of the negotiation, April 2007, strains credulity city.
consideringthatitisadmittedbySabilithatheranforaposition Parenthetically,PalomaresAffidavitcannotbeconsideredas
in the lower house of Congress in the May 2007 elections (for a declaration against her interest under the rules on evidence
which he filed a COC indicating his domicile as San Juan, becausetheprimaryrequisiteofSec.38,Rule130 84isthatthe
Batangas). Was there enough time to effect an actual and
declarantisdeadorunabletotestify,anditisnotallegedthat married.86Thesemisrepresentationsareundeniablyimportantas
Palomareshasdiedorisnowunabletotestify. they determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children.
Instead, Palomares Affidavit should be taken with the Hence, the doctrine offalsus in uno, falsus in omnibusclearly
metaphoricalgrainofsalt.Thenumerousfalsitiescommittedby appliesand the COMELEC had reason not to find Palomares
Palomaresinvariousofficialandgovernmentaldocumentsnegate statementsworthyofcredit.
anyfaithonherwordandbetrayherpropensitytolietofavorher SoareSabilisstatements.ItshouldnotescapethisCourtthat
family so that it is not grossly unreasonable to hold that SabilihasadoptedtheuntruthfulstatementsofPalomaresinthe
Palomareshavecommittedamisrepresentationinheraffidavitin birth certificates of their children as his own evidence in the
order to support Sabili. This is readily apparent in the very proceedings before the COMELEC and this Court. He has,
documentspresentedbySabiliashisownevidence.Forinstance, therefore, clearly sanctioned the falsities boldly stated thereon.
Palomares had previously perjured herself as the informant in Worse,thesamepredilectionfortheuntruthcanbeobservedin
the birth certificates of her children sired by Sabilis Voters Certification that he presented as his own
petitioner.85Palomaresassertedinthebirthcertificateofherson evidence. While it is not denied that he is married to Daisy
that she married petitioner on December 2, 1980 in Bulacan, CervasSabili,hedidnotdisputetheentrymadeonhisstatusas
Bulacan.Ontheotherhand,sheclaimed single.Infact,inhisIncomeTaxReturns(ITRs)for2007and
_______________ 2008heclaimedthathisspousesnamewasSabiliBernadette
83Id. Palomares,whentheNSOcertifiedthatasofNovember2009,
84Section38.Declarationagainstinterest.Thedeclaration Sabili was still legally married to Daisy Cervas. Clearly,
made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the petitioner shows a pattern of false machinations intended to
interestofthedeclarant,ifthefactisassertedinthedeclaration assumeacovetedelectoralposition.Unfortunatelyforhim,deceit
wasatthetimeitwasmadesofarcontrarytodeclarant'sown cannot take the place of compliance with the statutory
interest, thata reasonable manin hispositionwould nothave qualificationsforoffice.
made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be ItisalsonotablethatpetitionerschildrenbyPalomareshave
receivedinevidenceagainsthimselforhissuccessorsininterest not attended any of the educational institutions in Lipa
andagainstthirdpersons. City,87nor have Palomares or the children been registered as
85Rollo,pp.5859. votersofLipaCity88despitethefactthatSabilifiledaCOCfor
727 theMayoraltyposition.Instead,Sabilisowndaughtermadean
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 727 extrajudicialdeclarationthatsheconsidersPortofino,LasPias
asherhometown,notBatangas.
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
_______________
thatsheandpetitionerweremarriedonMarch2,1983inManila
inthebirthcertificateofherdaughterwhenthefactcertifiedby 86Id.,atp.439;RespondentsAnnexF.
the NSO is that she and petitioner had never been 87Id.,atp.452.
 88Id.,atp.453. ToledoinApril2007, aboutamonthbeforeelectionday,
728 wheretheyhaveconstructedahomefortheirfamilysuse
728 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED asaresidence.Inall,petitionerhadadequatelyshownthathis
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections transfer of residence to Sta. Rosa was bona fide and was not
InthecaseofFernandezv.HouseofRepresentativesElectoral merely for complying with the residency requirement under
electionlaws.90
Tribunal,89this Court considered the existence of real and
Unlike inFernandezwhereWe sustained petitioners change
substantialreasontoindicateanimusmanendiinthepurported
ofdomicileandqualificationforhisoffice,Sabilihasnorealand
newdomicileofchoice:
substantial reason to establish his domicile in Lipa City and
Inthecaseatbar,therearerealandsubstantialreasons
abandonhisdomicileoforigininSanJuan,Batangas.
for petitioner to establish Sta. Rosa as his domicile of _______________
choice and abandon his domicile of origin and/or any 89G.R.No.187478,December21,2009,608SCRA733.
otherpreviousdomicile.Tobeginwith,petitionerandhis 90Emphasissupplied.
wife have owned and operated businesses in Sta. Rosa 729
since 2003. Their children have attended schools in Sta. VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 729
Rosa at least since 2005.Although ownership of property Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
should never be considered a requirement for any candidacy, With no children or wife actually residing in Lipa City, or
petitionerhadsufficientlyconfirmedhisintentiontopermanently businessintereststherein,itisnotgrosslyunreasonableforthe
resideinSta.Rosabypurchasingresidentialpropertiesinthat COMELEC to conclude that petitioner had no declared and
city even prior to the May 2007 election, as evidenced probativeintenttoadoptLipaCityashisdomicileofchoicein
bycertificatesoftitleissuedinthenameofpetitionerand theabsenceofarealandsubstantialreasontodoso.
hiswife.OneofthesepropertiesisaresidenceinBelAir,Sta. ContrarytoJusticeSerenosOpinion,Sabilisactoffilinghis
Rosa which petitioner acquired even before 2006 but which ITRinRevenueDistrictOfficeNo.(RDO)59inLipaCityforthe
petitionerhadbeenleasingout.Heclaimsthatherentedoutthis years2007and2008doesnotindicateachangeofdomicilefrom
propertybecausepriorto2006hehadnotdecidedtopermanently SanJuantoLipaCity,Batangas.RDO59sjurisdictionincludes
reside in Sta. Rosa. This could explain why in early 2006 bothSanJuanandLipaCity 91sothattheintenttoremaincannot
petitionerhadtorentatownhouseinVilladeToledohisBelAir immediatelybeascribedtoLipaCity.Onthecontrary,hisfiling
residencewasoccupiedbyatenant.Therelativelyshortperiodof oftheITRinRDO59canalsobeusedtosupporthisintentto
the lease was also adequately explained by petitionerthey remain in San Juan, Batangashis domicile of origin. In fact,
rented a townhouse while they were in the process of building petitionerleftthespaceforhisresidenceinhis2007ITRblank
theirownhouseinSta.Rosa.Trueenough,petitionerandhis withoutindicatingwherehewasactuallyresiding.Toreiterate,
spouse subsequently purchased a lot also in Villa de
anydoubtonresidencyordomicileshallberesolvedinfavorof before the COMELEC or this Court. Instead, the certification
thedomicileoforigin. plainly states in a proforma way: This is to certify that
In the clear absence of the most important element in the Meynardo A. Sabili, 53 years old is a resident of Zone 5 of
establishmentofadomicileanimusmanendiitisofnouseto Barangay Pinagtongulan Lipa City since April 2007. Neither
discusstheconsequenceoftestimoniesastohisbodilypresencein doesthecertificationmentionanyrecordkeptbytheBaranggay
the locality.As stated,alltherequisitesforavalidchangeof Secretary,orevenciteanyofitsentries.Clearly,Section44,Rule
domicile or residence is necessary for election law purposes. In 130 cannot clothe the certification executed by the Baranggay
theabsenceofevenjustoneelement,thepresumptionisinfavor Chairman of Pinagtongulan with finality and conclusiveness.
of the maintenance and continuity of the domicile of origin. Instead,asitisnotthedutyoftheBaranggayChairman,butthe
Hence,inthiscase,petitionerispresumedtostillbearesidentof dutyoftheBaranggaySecretary,tokeepanupdatedrecordofall
SanJuan,Batangasanddisqualifiedfromtakingthemayoralty inhabitants of the baranggay,92the certification must be
positioninLipaCity,Batangas. dismissedasnothingbutcontaininghearsaystatements.
The notarized certification of theBaranggay Chairmanof In fact, even if we considerarguendothe Baranggay
Brgy.Pinagtongulan,LipaCitydoesnotbarUsfromholdingthis Chairmanscertification stating that Sabili is a resident of his
position contrary to Justice Serenos opinion. My esteemed baranggay,thereisnoindicationthatthetermresidentused
colleaguebasesherappreciationofthenotarized thereincarriesthesamemeaningastheresidentusedinthe
_______________ provision requiring residence as a qualification for candidacy,
91<http://www.bir.gov.ph/directory/rdoinner.htm#66> visited which is equivalent to domicile that requires not just physical
March15,2012. presencebut,again,animusmanendi.Atmost,thecertification
730 may only attest to the bodily presence of petitioner in
730 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED hisbaranggay, but not the element of Sabilis intent to remain
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections thereinwhich,asindicatedbycircumstances,ispatentlyabsent.
certificationonSection44,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,which _______________
states: 92Section394(d)(6),LocalGovernmentCode.
Section44.Entries in official records.Entries in official 731
recordsmadeintheperformanceofhisdutybyapublicofficerof VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 731
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
specially enjoined by law, areprima facieevidence of the facts The certification is also negated given
thereinstated. theconflictingtestimonies of residents of the Brgy. Pinagtong
As is readily apparent, Section 44, Rule 130 pertains to ulanwherepetitionerclaimstoberesiding.93Again,theruleisin
entriesinofficialrecords.Needlesstostate,nosuchentriesor thepresenceofconflictingevidenceontheissueofdomicile,the
recordswerereferredtointhecertification,muchlesspresented
Courtisbehoovedtoupholdthepresumptionofthecontinuity 94Bevilaqua,supranote29.
ofthedomicileoforigin.94 732
Both the Certificate of Appreciation issued by the Parishof 732 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SantoNioandSabilisDesignationasaMemberoftheAdvisory Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
Body of Guardians Brotherhood Incorporated cannot be Indeed, it is not only that each evidence presented by
consideredtoestablishSabilisdomicileinBrgy.Pinagtongulan petitionerfail(s)toconvincinglyshowthatfactofhisresidence
since, as noted by the COMELEC, the first merely mentions at Pinagtongulan since 2007,95even collectively considered,
materialandfinancialsupporttothefiestacelebration.Andthere thesepiecesofevidencetendtosufficientlyestablishsuchfailure.
is nothing in the second document making residency in Brgy. AsSabilisactsbeliehisintenttochangehisdomicileandbea
PinagtongulanasarequisiteforthedesignationintheAdvisory resident of Lipa City, he had deliberately and falsely
Board. misrepresented in his COC that he is resident of Lipa City,
Furthermore,itnotablethatSabiliappliedfortransferofhis knowing fully well that he is not, in order to qualify as a
registration record only on June 9, 2009 and the same was candidate for the office of the Mayor. Sabilis statement in the
approved in October 31, 2009 as proven by Sabilis voter COC cannot be dismissed as a simple mistake that does not
certification.Technically,therefore,Sabiliisaregisteredvoterof warrantitscancellationsinceresidencebeingprimarilyamatter
LipaCityonlyinOctober2009,sevenmonthspriortotheMay of intent, any falsehood with regards thereto, as in this case,
2010elections. reveals an intentional and deliberate misrepresentation that
_______________ cannotbesanctionedbythisCourt.Hence,themisrepresentation
93RespondentLibreapresentedhisAffidavitaswellas the committedbySabiliregardinghisresidenceisacleargroundfor
Affidavits of Eladio de Torres, Violeta Fernandez, Rodrigo the cancellation of his COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus
MacasaetandPabloLorzano.Sabiliontheotherhand,presented ElectionCode(OEC)andhisdisqualificationfromtheofficeheis
the Affidavits of Leonila Suarez, Jacinto Cornejo Sr and presentlyoccupying.
RosalindaMacasaet.Notably,thewitnessesofSabiliallbenefited Sabilissubsequentelectionisofnoconsequenceconsidering
fromabusinesstransactionwithPalomares,Sabiliscommonlaw thataninvalidCOCcannotgiverisetoavalidcandidacy,much
wife. Suarez and Macasaet sold properties to Palomares while lessvalidvotes.Moreimportantly,whiletheelectorateswillis
Cornejowashiredbyhertorenovateahouse.Hence,itisnotfar indeedprimary,theelectoratelikewisedeservesapersonwhois
fetchedtoconcludethattheywouldbebiasedinfavourofSabili. unwillingtoresorttoaMachiavelliancircumventionofthelaws
Furthermore, thePinagsamasamang Sinumpaang andblatantfalsehoodjusttosuithisownpurposes.Heisnotonly
SalaysaydatedJanuary 16, 2010 and theSinumpaang disqualifiedfroma public office but more importantly does not
Salaysayexecuted by Dominador Macuha attributed familial deservethepublicstrust.
relations to the witnesses of Librea and the wife of Sabilis I, therefore, submit that the COMELECs Resolutions be
opponentforthemayoraltyposition. upheldandtheinstantpetitionforcertioraribedenied.
 Petitiongranted,COMELECResolutionsannulled.
Notes.The powers of the Commission on Elections are
essentiallyexecutiveandadministrativeinnature,andthisis
_______________
95Ponencia,pp.2324.
733
VOL.670,APRIL24,2012 733
Sabilivs.CommissiononElections
the reason why the question of whether or not there were
terrorism, votebuying and other irregularities in the elections
should be ventilated in regular election protests. (Suhuri vs. G.R.No.185374.March11,2015.*
CommissiononElections,602SCRA633[2009])
Thepurposetoremaininoratthedomicileofchoicemustbe SIMPLICIACERCADOSIGAandLIGAYACERCADO
foranindefiniteperiodoftime;thechangeofresidencemustbe
BELISON,petitioners,vs.VICENTECERCADO,JR.,MANUELA
voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new
C.ARABIT,LOLITAC.BASCO,MARIAC.ARALARandVIOLE
domicile must be actual. (Asistio vs. Aguirre,619 SCRA 518
[2010]) TAC.BINADAS,respondents.
o0o Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Private
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights Documents;AsearlyasinthecaseofU.S.v.Evangelista,29Phil.
reserved. 215 (1915),it has been settled that church registries of births,
marriages, and deathsmadesubsequenttothepromulgationof
GeneralOrderNo.68andthepassageofActNo.190arenolonger
public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public
officials.Insupportoftheexistenceoftheallegedfirstmarriage
,petitionerspresentedacopyoftheContrato
Matrimonial.Thereisnodisputethatsaidmarriagecontractwas
issuedbyIglesiaFilipinaIndependientechurch.TheCourtofApp
ealscorrectlyruledthatitisaprivatedocument.Asearlyasinth
ecaseofU.S. v. Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215 (1915),
ithasbeensettledthatchurchregistriesofbirths,marriages,and
deathsmadesubsequenttothepromulgationofGeneralOrderNo. uldsheidentifyBenitashandwritingbecauseSimpliciaadmitted
68andthepassageofActNo.190arenolongerpublicwritings,no thatsheisilliterate.
raretheykeptbydulyauthorizedpublicofficials.Theyareprivat Same; Same; Same; Carbon Copies; An unsigned and
ewritingsandtheirauthenticitymustthereforebeprovedasare uncertified document purporting to be a carbon copy is not
allotherprivatewritingsinaccordancewiththerulesofevidence. competent evidence.WehadpreviouslyruledinVallarta v.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Under Section 20, Rule 132, Court of Appeals,163 SCRA 587
RulesofCourt,beforeaprivatedocumentisadmittedinevidence, (1988),thatasignedcarboncopyorduplicateofadocumentexec
itmustbeauthenticatedeitherbythepersonwhoexecutedit,the utedatthesametimeastheoriginalisknownasaduplicateorigi
personbeforewhomitsexecutionwasacknowledged,anyperson nalandmaybeintroducedinevidencewithoutaccountingforthe
whowaspresentandsawitexecuted,orwhoafteritsexecution, nonproductionoftheoriginal.But,anunsignedanduncertifiedd
sawitandrecognizedthesignatures,orthepersontowhomthe ocumentpurportingtobeacarboncopyisnotcompetentevidence.
parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution Itisbecausethereisnopublicofficeracknowledgingtheaccuracy
thereof.UnderSection20,Rule132,RulesofCourt,beforeapriv ofthecopy.
atedocumentisadmittedinevidence,itmustbeauthenticatedeit Same;Same;Same;AncientDocuments;WordsandPhrases;
herbythepersonwhoexecutedit,thepersonbeforewhomitsexec Section21,Rule132definesanancientdocumentasonethat:1)
utionwasacknowledged,anypersonwhowaspresentandsawite ismorethanthirty(30)yearsold;2)isproducedfromcustodyin
xecuted,orwhoafter which it would naturally be found if genuine; and 3) is
_______________ unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of
suspicion.Whilepetitionersconcedethatthemarriagecontracti
*FIRSTDIVISION.
saprivatedocument,theynowarguethatitisanancientdocume
515
ntwhichneednotbeauthenticated.Petitionersargumentstillha
VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 515
snomerit.Section21,Rule132definesanancientdocumentason
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
ethat:1)ismorethan30
itsexecution,sawitandrecognizedthesignatures,ortheper
yearsold;2)isproducedfromcustodyinwhichitwouldnaturally
sontowhomthepartiestotheinstrumentshadpreviouslyconfess
befoundifgenuine;and3)isunblemishedbyanyalterationorby
edexecutionthereof.AsobservedbytheCourtofAppeals,petition
anycircumstanceofsuspicion.Themarriagecontractwasexecute
ersfailedtopresentanyoneofsuchwitnesses.Infact,onlySimpli
don 9October1929,henceitisclearlymorethan30
ciatestifiedthathermothergaveherthemarriagecontract.Unfo
yearsold.Onitsface,thereappearstobenoevidenceofalteration
rtunatelyhowever,shewasnotpresentduringitsexecutionnorco
.
Themarriagecontracthoweverdoesnotmeetthesecondrequirem urch,bythepriestwhobaptizedsubjectchild,butitdoesnotprov
ent.Ancientdocumentsareconsideredfrompropercustodyifthe etheveracityofthedeclarationsandstatementscontainedinthe
ycomefromaplacefromwhichtheymightreasonablybeexpected certificateconcerningtherelationshipofthepersonbaptized.As
tobefound.Custodyisproperifitisprovedtohavehadalegitima such,Simpliciacannotbeconsideredasanheir,inwhosecustody
teoriginorifthecircumstancesoftheparticularcasearesuchast themarriagecontractisexpectedtobefound.Itbearsreiteration
orendersuchanoriginprobable.Ifadocumentisfoundwhereit thatSimpliciatestifiedthatthemarriagecontractwasgiventohe
wouldnotprop rbyBenitabutthatSimpliciacannotmakeoutthecontentsofsai
516 ddocumentbecauseshecannotreadandwrite.
516 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Same; Same; Same; While the Supreme Court (SC)
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr. acknowledges the difficulty of obtaining old records, it simply
erlyandnaturallybe,itsabsencefromtheproperplacemus cannot ignore the rules on evidence, specifically the rule on
tbesatisfactorilyaccountedfor. authentication with respect to private documents which is
Same; Same; Same; Same; In Bartolome v. Intermediate preciselyinplacetopreventtheinclusionofspuriousdocuments
AppellateCourt,183SCRA102(1990),theSupremeCourt(SC) inthebodyofevidencethatwilldeterminetheresolutionsofan
ruledthattherequirementofpropercustodywasmetwhenthe issue.Whileweacknowledgethedifficultyofobtainingoldrecord
ancientdocumentinquestionwaspresentedincourtbytheproper s,wesimplycannotignoretherulesonevidence,specificallyther
custodian thereof who is an heir of the person who would uleonauthenticationwithrespecttoprivatedocumentswhichisp
naturally keep it. InBartolomev. Intermediate Appellate reciselyinplacetopreventtheinclusionofspuriousdocumentsin
Court,183 SCRA 102 (1990), thebodyofevidencethatwilldeterminetheresolutionsofanissu
theCourtruledthattherequirementofpropercustodywasmetw e.
hentheancientdocumentinquestionwaspresentedincourtbyth 517
epropercustodianthereofwhoisanheirofthepersonwhowould VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 517
naturallykeepit.Inthiscasehowever,wefindthatSimpliciaalso CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
failedtoproveherfiliationtoVicenteandBenita.Shemerelypres PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolution
oftheCourtofAppeals.
entedabaptismalcertificatewhichhaslongbeenheldasevidenc
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
eonlytoprovetheadministrationofthesacramentonthedatest
NapoleonUyGalitandAssociatesLawOfficesforpetitioners.
hereinspecified,butnottheveracityofthedeclarationsthereinst
WillieG.Purisimaforrespondents.
atedwithrespecttoherkinsfolk.Thesameisconclusiveonlyoft
hebaptismadministered,accordingtotheritesoftheCatholicCh
PEREZ,J.: 518 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
Nottoolongago,wewerecalledtopassupontheissueofthep CercadoBelison(Ligaya)claimedthattheyarethelegitimatec
robativevalueofamarriagecontractissuedbythechurchtoprov hildrenofthelateVicenteandBenitaCastillo(Benita),whowere
ethefactofmarriage.1Onceagain,itbehoovesuponustodetermi marriedlast9October1929inPililla,Rizal.Petitionersallegedth
newhetherthemarriagecontractorContrato atduringthelifetimeoftheirparents,theirfatheracquiredbygra
Matrimonial,asitisdenominatedinthiscase,issufficienttoprov tuitoustitleaparceloflandidentifiedasLotNo.7627Cad609Dl
ethefactofmarriage. ocatedatBarangayKinagatan,Binangonan,Rizalwithanareaof
ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorariassailsthe5August200 6,032squaremetersandcoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.BIP021
8Decision2oftheCourtofAppealsandits14November2008Reso 0253.PetitionersclaimedthatuponthedeathoftheirfatherVicen
lution3inC.A.G.R.CVNo.89585reversingthe30January2007 teandbyvirtueofintestatesuccession,ownershipoverthesubject
Decision4oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBinangonan,Rizal, landpertainedtothemasheirs;thatuponthedeathofBenita,he
Branch69,whichnullifiedtheExtrajudicialSettlementofEstate rsharewasacquiredbypetitionersbyoperationoflaw.Sometime
oftheDeceasedVicenteCercado,Sr.(Vicente)andLeonoraDitabla inSeptember1998,petitionersreadfromanewspaperanoticetha
n(Leonora). ttheestateofVicenteandacertainLeonoraDitablanhasbeenext
IntheirComplaintagainstrespondentsVicenteCercado,Jr., rajudiciallysettledbytheirheirs,respondentsherein.Uponverific
ManuelaC.Arabit,LolitaBasco,MariaC.Aralar,VioletaC.Bina ation,petitionerswerefurnishedacopyoftheExtrajudicialSettle
dasandtheRegistrarofDeedsofBinangonan,Rizal,petitionersS mentoftheEstate(Deed)executedandsignedbyrespondents.Pe
impliciaCercadoSiga(Simplicia)andLigaya titionersinsistthatVicenteandLeonorawerenotmarriedorifth
_______________ eyweresomarried,thensaidmarriagewasnullandvoidbyreaso
nofthesubsistingmarriageoftheirparents,VicenteandBenita.
1Macua Vda. de Avenido v. Avenido,G.R. No. 173540, 22
PetitionersprayedforthedeclarationoftheDeedasnullandvoid;
January2014,714SCRA447,457458.
fortheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofRizaltocorrecttheentryo
2Rollo, pp. 76108; Penned by Associate Justice Celia C.
LibreaLeagogo,withAssociateJusticesMarioL.GuariaIIIand nthemaritalstatusofVicente;andforthepaymentofdamagesa
MariflorP.PunzalanCastillo,concurring. ndattorneysfees.5
3Id.,atpp.142143. ToprovethemarriagebetweenVicenteandBenita,petitioners
4Id.,atpp.144171;PennedbyPresiding presentedthefollowingdocuments:1)Contrato
JudgeNarmoP.Noblejas. Matrimonialorthemarriagecontract;62)Certificationdated19N
518
ovember2000issuedbyIglesiaFilipinaIndependienteofitsaccep owingthatVicentewasmarriedtoBenitaisnotacertifiedtrueco
tanceoforiginalmarriagecontract;73)Certificationofnon py;andthattheyarenowestoppedbylaches.12
productionofrecordofbirthofSimpliciaissuedbytheOfficeofth On30January2007,theRTCrenderedjudgmentinfavorofpe
eMunicipalCivilRegistrarofPililla,Rizal;8 titioners.Thedispositiveportionreads:
_______________ WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrend
eredasfollows:
5Records,pp.15.
1. Extra
6Id.,atp.7.
JudicialSettlementofEstateofthedeceasedVicenteCercado,Sr.
7Id.,atp.20.
andBenitaDitablanisherebydeclarednullandvoidandtherefor
8Id.,atp.34.
enoforceandeffect;

2.
519
The[petitioners]andthe[respondents]areentitledtosharepro
VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 519
indivisointhesubjectpropertyasfollows:
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
a. 2,639squaremetersFor[petitioner]SimpliciaCercado
Siga;
4)CertificateofBaptismofSimplicia;95)Certificationofnon
_______________
productionofrecordofbirthofLigayaissuedbytheOfficeofthe
MunicipalCivilRegistrarofPililla,Rizal;10and6)JointAffidavito 9Id.,atp.35.
ftwodisinterestedpersonsattestingthatLigayaisthechildofVic 10Id.,atp.37.
enteandBenita.11 11Id.,atp.36.
IntheirAnswer,respondentsallegedthattheyarethelegitima 12Id.,atpp.7477.
teheirsofVicenteandLeonora,whoweremarriedon27June197 520
7asevidencedbyamarriagecertificateregisteredwiththeLocal 520 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
CivilRegistrarofBinangonan,Rizal.Theyaverredthatpetitioner CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
sarenotthereal partiesin b. 2,639squaremetersFor[petitioner] LigayaCercado
interesttoinstitutethecasebecausetheyfailedtopresenttheirbi Belison;
rthcertificatestoprovetheirfiliationtoVicente;thatthemarriag c. 150.8 square meters For [respondent]
ebetweenVicenteandBenitawasnotvalid;thatthedocumentsh VicenteCercado,Jr.;
d.150.8squaremetersFor[respondent]ManuelaC.Arabit;
e.150.8squaremetersFor[respondent]LolitaC.Basco;
 f. 150.8squaremetersFor[respondent] VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 521
MariaC.Aralar;and CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
g.150.8squaremetersFor[respondent]VioletaC.Binadas. Thetrialcourtfirstupheldthevalidityofthemarriagebetwee
3. nVicenteandBenitaandconsideredthesubsequentmarriagebet
Intheeventthatthepropertyhasalreadybeensoldbythe[respo weenVicenteandLeonoraasvoidandbigamousbeforeitconclude
ndents],theyareherebyorderedtopaythe[petitioners]theamou dthatthesubjectpropertywaspartoftheconjugalpropertyofVic
ntequivalenttotheirshare,atthetimethesubjectpropertywass enteandBenita.Consequently,thetrialcourtheldthattheDeedi
old; snullandvoidbecauseitdeprivedBenitaofhershareoftheprop
4.
ertyassurvivingspouseandimpairedthesharesandlegitimesof
[respondents]topay[petitioners]theamountofP30,000.00attorn
petitioners.15Thus,thetrialcourtruledthatpetitionersareentitle
eysfees;and
dtorecoverfromrespondentstheirshareinthepropertysubjecto
5.Topaythecostofsuit.13
fthisaction.

Respondentsappealedfromsaidjudgmentandassignedthefol
Thetrialcourtreducedtheissuesintothree:1)whethertheEx
lowingerrors:1)thetrialcourterredinpassinguponthevalidity
traJudicialSettlementoftheEstateoftheDeceasedVicenteCerc
ofthemarriagebetweenVicenteandLeonora;2)thetrialcourtfai
ado,Sr.andLeonoraDitablanCercadoisvalid;2)whetherpetitio
ledtoconsidertheprobativevalueofthecertificateofmarriagebe
nersareentitledtorecoverfromrespondentstheirshareinthepr
tweenVicenteandBenita;3)thetrialcourtfailedtoconsiderthe
operty;and3)whetherpetitionersareentitledtodamagesandatt
probativevalueofthecertificateoflivebirthtoprovefiliation;and
orneysfees.
4)thetrialcourterredwhenitreliedonthebaptismalcertificatet
Inresolvingtheissues,thetrialcourtreliedonthefollowingm
oprovefiliation.16
aterialfindings:
Theappellatecourtruledthatthetrialcourtcanpassuponth
The[petitioners]arethelegitimatechildrenofthelateVicente
eissueofthevalidityofmarriageofVicenteandLeonora[because
Cercado,Sr.andBenitaCastillote/CastillowhoweremarriedonO
]nojudicialactionisnecessarytodeclareamarriageanabsolute
ctober9,1929,asevidencedbyaContratoMatrimonialxxx.14
_______________ nullityandthecourtmaypassuponthevalidityofamarriageeve
ninasuitnotdirectlyinstitutedtoquestionthesame,aslongasi
13Rollo,pp.170171. tisessentialtothedeterminationofthecasebeforeit.17However,
14Id.,atp.167. theappellatecourtfoundthattheContrato
521 MatrimonialofVicenteandBenita,beingaprivatedocument,was
notproperlyauthenticated,hence,notadmissibleinevidence.Mor OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR AND THE
eover,theappellatecourtdidnotconsiderthebaptismalcertificat NATIONAL STATISTIC OFFICE. AND THE DUPLICATE
ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO CONSIDERED
esubmittedbypetitionersasconclusiveproofoffiliation.TheJoin
ORIGINAL (SECTION 4, RULE 130) (AND HENCE ALSO A
tAffidavitexecutedbyacertainMarioCasaleandBalasChimlan PUBLICDOCUMENTUNDERTHERULE)ONEVIDENCE.
gco
_______________ II
THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
15Id.,atp.168. COMMITTED ANOTHER REVERSIBLE ERROR, WHEN IT
16Id.,atpp.4546. DIDNOTCONSIDERTHESAIDDUPLICATEORIGINALOF
17Id.,atp.100. THE SUBJECT MARRIAGE CONTRACT AS AN ANCIENT
522 DOCUMENT,BESIDES,THESAIDDOCUMENT,MORETHAN
522 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED 30YEARSINEXISTENCEISCONSIDEREDASANANCIENT
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr. _______________
attestingtothebirthofLigayatoVicenteandBenitawasnotg
18Id.,atpp.142143.
ivencredencebytheappellatecourtforbeingahearsayevidence.
523
Forfailureofpetitionerstoprovetheircauseofactionbypreponde VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 523
ranceofevidence,theappellatecourtreversedandsetasidetheD
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
ecisionandResolutionoftheRTC. DOCUMENT,OUTSIDETHENEEDEDREQUIREMENTOF
PetitionersfiledaMotionforReconsideration,buttheCourtof AUTHENTICATIONAPPLICABLETOPRIVATEDOCUMENT.
AppealsdenieditinitsResolution18dated14November2008.
Hence,theinstantpetitionbasedonthefollowinggrounds: III
I THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE
THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDA ERRORWHENITIGNOREDTHEPROBATIVEVALUEOFA
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE AND PETITIONERS PARENTS
MARRIAGE CONTRACT AS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND YEARS [OF] COHABITATION. THE BAPTISMAL
SO WITH ITS DUPLICATE ORIGINAL. THECONTRATO CERTIFICATE WHILE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS DIRECT
EVIDENCEFORAMARITALCONTRACT,THESAMEISOF
MATRIMONIALBUTTRESSED A CERTIFICATION ISSUED
STRONGEVIDEN[T]IARYSUPPORTTOTHEEXISTENCEOF
BYTHEIGLESIAFILIPINAINDEPENDIENTEISAPUBLIC
MARRIAGEOF [PETITIONERS]PARENTS, EVIDENCED BY
DOCUMENT, [IT]BEING REQUIRED BY LAW TO BEKEPT
EXHIBITAANDEXHIBITA1ANDBYTHECERTIFICATE
NOT ONLY BY THE CHURCH CONCERNED BUT BY THE
OFITSDESTRUCTIONDURINGWORLDWARII,ALSO,BY
THE OPEN AND PUBLIC COHABITATION OF BIGAMOUS. THE NULLITY OF THE [RESPONDENTS]
[PETITIONERS]PARENTS,ADDEDTHEPRESUMPTIONIN PARENTSMARRIAGE,FORBEINGBIGAMOUS,ANDBEING
FAVOR OF SUCH MARRIAGE, BOLSTERED BY THE OPEN THE INCIDENT NECESSARILY INTERTWINED IN THE
ANDPUBLICCOHABITATION. ISSUES PRESENTED, AND IT BEING A BIGAMOUS
MARRIAGE, CAN BE COLLATERALLY ATTACK[ED] OR
IV SLAINATSIGHTWHEREVERANDWHENEVERITSHEAD
THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED ANOTHER (THE [RESPONDENTS] PARENTS MARRIAGE) IS
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT IGNORED THE WEIGHT EXHIBITED.19
AND PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF
TWO (2) DISINTERESTED PERSONS. THE AFFIDAVIT OF PetitionersinsistthattheContrato
TWO (2) DISINTERESTED PERSONS BEING A Matrimonialisapublicdocumentbecauseitisrequiredbylawto
REQUIREMENTBYTHELOCALCIVILREGISTRARAND/OR
berecordedinthelocalcivilregistrarandtheNationalStatisticsO
THE NSO TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF
ffice(NSO).Petitionersclaimtohaveintheirpossessionaduplica
[PETITIONERS]PARENTSMARRIAGE,ANDINTHATSINCE
BECOMESALSOAPUBLICDOCUMENTORATTHEVERY teoriginaloftheContrato
LEAST, A CIRCUMSTANTIAL DOCUMENTARY PROOF, Matrimonialwhichshouldberegardedasoriginal.Petitionersemp
WHICH IF ADDED TO THE BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE hasizethatthecertificationissuedbytheIglesiaFilipinaIndepen
EXHIBIT H1, THECONTRATO MATRIMONIALAND THE dienteChurch,thejointaffidavitoftwodisinterestedpersons,the
CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE IGLESIA FILIPINA baptismalcertificatepresentedbypetitioners,andtheopenandp
INDEPENDIENTE TAKEN TOGETHER, PLUS THE OPEN
ubliccohabitationofpetitionersparentsaresufficientproofofthei
ANDPUBLICCOHABITATIONOF
rmarriage.
524
524 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED GrantingthattheContrato
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr. Matrimonialisaprivatedocument,petitionersmaintainthatsaid
THE [PETITIONERS] PARENTS MARRIAGE, AND THE documentshouldbeconsideredanancientdocumentwhichshould
PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE PROVIDED FOR BY LAW, beexcludedfromtherequirementofauthentication.
BANDEDTOGETHER,ARESTRONGEVIDENCETOPROVE _______________
THEEXISTENCEOF[PETITIONERS]PARENTSMARRIAGE.
19Id.,atpp.6166.
V 525
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED ANOTHER YET VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 525
SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR, WHEN IT DID NOT CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
CONSIDER THE RESPONDENTS PARENTS MARRIAGE AS
 PetitionersaverthattheCourtofAppealsshouldhaveconside 20Id.,atpp.190196.
redthemarriagebetweenVicenteandLeonoraasbigamous. 21Id.,atp.178.
IntheirComment,20respondentssubmitthattheContrato 2229Phil.215(1915).
Matrimonialisaprivatedocumentandthefactthatmarriagesar 23OnDecember18,1899,atthebeginningoftheAmerican
occupationofthePhilippines,MajorGeneralOtis,exercisingthe
erequiredtoberegisteredinthelocalcivilregistrardoesnotipso
legis
factomakeitapublicdocument.Respondentsassertthatthecerti
526
ficateofbaptismislikewiseaprivatedocumentwhichtendstopro 526 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
veonlytheadministrationofthesacramentofbaptismandnotth CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
everacityofthedeclarationstherein.Respondentsmoreoverrefut publicwritings,noraretheykeptbydulyauthorizedpublicoffi
ethecertificationissuedbythelocalcivilregistryarguingthatit cials.Theyareprivatewritingsandtheirauthenticitymusttheref
doesnotprovefiliationbutonlythefactthatthereisnorecordof orebeprovedasareallotherprivatewritingsinaccordancewitht
Ligayaonfilewithsaidoffice. herulesofevidence.24
Withrespecttothejointaffidavitattestingtothemarriageof UnderSection20,Rule132,RulesofCourt,25beforeaprivated
VicenteandBenita,respondentsassertthatitisinadmissiblefor ocumentisadmittedinevidence,itmustbeauthenticatedeitherb
beingahearsayevidencebecausethetwoaffiantswereneverpres ythepersonwhoexecutedit,thepersonbeforewhomitsexecutio
entedonthewitnessstand. nwasacknowledged,anypersonwhowaspresentandsawitexec
ThevalidityoftheExtrajudicialSettlementoftheEstateofVic uted,orwhoafteritsexecution,sawitandrecognizedthesignatu
enteandLeonorahingesontheexistenceofthefirstmarriageofV res,orthepersontowhomthepartiestotheinstrumentshadprevi
icenteandBenita. ouslyconfessedexecutionthereof.26AsobservedbytheCourtofAp
Insupportoftheexistenceoftheallegedfirstmarriage,petitio peals,petitionersfailedtopresentanyoneofsuchwitnesses.Infa
nerspresentedacopyoftheContrato ct,onlySimpliciatestifiedthathermothergaveherthemarriage
Matrimonial.21Thereisnodisputethatsaidmarriagecontractwa contract.Unfortunatelyhowever,shewasnotpresentduringitse
sissuedbyIglesiaFilipinaIndependientechurch. xecutionnorcouldsheidentifyBenitashandwritingbecauseSimp
TheCourtofAppealscorrectlyruledthatitisaprivatedocume liciaadmittedthatsheisilliterate.
nt.AsearlyasinthecaseofU.S. v. Petitionersinsistontheadmissibilityofthemarriagecontract
Evangelista,22ithasbeensettledthatchurchregistriesofbirths, onthegroundthatitisaduplicateoriginal,hence,the
marriages,anddeathsmadesubsequenttothepromulgationofGe _______________
neralOrderNo.6823andthepassageofActNo.190arenolonger
_______________
 lative power vested in him as CommanderinChief of an Next,whilepetitionersconcedethatthemarriagecontractisa
Americanarmyinoccupiedterritory,promulgatedGeneralOrder privatedocument,theynowarguethatitisanancientdocument
No.68thepurposeofwhichwastoestablishrulesoflawrelating
whichneednotbeauthenticated.Petitionersargumentstillhasn
tomarriage.Itprovidesthatmarriagesmaybesolemnizedbya
omerit.Section21,Rule132definesanancientdocumentasonet
judgeofacourtinferiortotheSupremeCourt,byajusticeofthe
peace, or by a priest or minister of the gospel of any hat:1)ismorethan30yearsold;2)isproducedfromcustodyinw
denomination.xxx.<http://kahimyang. hichitwouldnaturallybefoundifgenuine;and3)isunblemished
info/kauswagan/articles/830/todayinphilippinehistory byanyalterationorbyanycircumstanceofsuspicion.Themarria
december181899majorgeneralotispromulgatedgeneralorder gecontractwasexecutedon9October1929,henceitisclearlymor
no68knownasthemarriagelaw.>(visited10November2014)
ethan30
24U.S.v.Evangelista,supranote22.
yearsold.Onitsface,thereappearstobenoevidenceofalteration
25Rule132,Section20.Proofofprivatedocument.Before .
anyprivatedocumentofferedasauthenticisreceivedinevidence,
Themarriagecontracthoweverdoesnotmeetthesecondrequi
itsdueexecutionandauthenticitymustbeprovedeither:
rement.
(a)Byanyonewhosawthedocumentexecutedorwritten;or
Ancientdocumentsareconsideredfrompropercustodyifthey
(b)By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwritingofthemaker. comefromaplacefromwhichtheymightreasonablybeexpectedt
26MalayanInsurance,Co.,Inc.v.PhilippineNailsandWires obefound.Custodyisproperifitisprovedtohavehadalegitimat
Corp.,430Phil.163,168;380SCRA374,379(2002). eoriginorifthecircumstancesoftheparticularcasearesuchast
527 orendersuchanoriginprobable.Ifadocumentisfoundwhereitw
VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 527 ouldnotproperlyandnaturally
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr. _______________
originalneednotbeproduced.Wedonotagree.Wehadprevio
27246 Phil. 596, 603; 163 SCRA 587, 592593 (1988),
uslyruledinVallarta v. Court of
citingMahilumv.CourtofAppeals,123Phil.1335;17SCRA482,
Appeals27thatasignedcarboncopyor
486 (1966); andU.S. v. Zapanta, 33 Phil. 567
duplicateofadocumentexecutedatthesametimeasthe
(1916).SeeHerrera,Remedial Law, Vol. V, pp. 182183, 1999
originalisknownasaduplicateoriginalandmaybeintroducedin
edition.
evidencewithoutaccountingforthenonproductionoftheoriginal. 28Id.
But,anunsignedanduncertifieddocumentpurportingtobeacarb 528
oncopyisnotcompetentevidence.Itisbecausethereisnopublic 528 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
officeracknowledgingtheaccuracyofthecopy.28
 CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr. theritwasreasonableandnaturalunderthecircumstancesinthe
be,itsabsencefromtheproperplacemustbesatisfactorilyacc particularcase,toexpectthat
ountedfor.29 _______________
Gibson v.
2929A Am. Jur. 2d Evidence 1204, citingMcGuire v.
Poor citedthereasonwhyitisrequiredthatanancientdocumen
30

Blount,199U.S.142,26S.Ct.1,50L.Ed.125(1905);Nicholson
tshallbeproducedfromtheproperdepository:
v.EurekaLumberCo.,156N.C.59,72S.E.86(1911);Gibsonv.
xxxthattherebycreditisgiventoitsgenuineness.Wereitno
Poor,21N.H.440,1850WL2344(1850).SeeHerrera,Remedial
tforitsantiquity,andthepresumptionthatconsequentlyarisest
Law,Vol.V,pp.186187,1999edition.
hatevidenceofitsexecutioncannotbeobtained,itwouldhavetob
30Gibsonv.Poor,id.
eproved.Itisnotthatanyoneparticularplaceofdepositcanhave
529
morevirtueinitthananother,ormakethattruewhichisfalse;b
VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 529
utthefactofitscomingfromthenaturalandproperplace,tendst
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
oremovepresumptionsoffraud,andstrengthensthebeliefinitsg
enuineness.Itmaybefalse,andsoshown,notwithstandingthepr theyshouldhavebeenintheplacewheretheyareactuallyfou
esumptionsinitsfavor.Iffoundwhereitwouldnotproperlyandn nd;foritisobvious,thatwhiletherecanbeonlyoneplaceofdepos
aturallybe,itsabsencefromtheproperplacemustbesatisfactoril itstrictlyandabsolutelyproper,theremaybemanyandvarioust
yaccountedfor;butthatbeingdoneandallsuspicionsagainstits hatarereasonableandprobable,thoughdifferingindegree;some
genuinenessremoved,wecandiscovernoreasonwhyitmaynotb beingmoreso,someless;andinthosecasesthepropositiontobed
ereadinevidence.Therealquestionwhichistoaffectitsconsider eterminedis,whethertheactualcustodyissoreasonablyandprob
ationis,whethertheinstrumentofferedisgenuine,andcontainsa ablyaccountedfor,thatitimpressesthemindwiththeconviction,
truestatementofwhatitpurportsto.IntheBishop of Meath v. thattheinstrumentfoundinsuchcustodymustbegenuine.Som
Marquis of eauthoritieshold,thattheantiquityofthedocumentisalonesuffi
Winchester,2Bing.183,Tindal,CJ.,speakingofancientdocumen cienttoentitleittoberead,andthattheothercircumstancesonly
ts,holdsthislanguage.Itisnotnecessarythattheyshouldbefou gotoitseffectinevidence.
ndinthebestandmostproperplaceofdeposit.Ifdocumentsconti
nuedinsuchcustody,thereneverwouldbeanyquestionastothei InBartolome v. Intermediate Appellate
rauthenticity;butitiswhendocumentsarefoundinotherthant Court, theCourtruledthattherequirementofpropercustodywa
31

heirproperplaceofdeposit,thattheinvestigationcommenceswhe smetwhentheancientdocumentinquestionwaspresentedincou
rtbythepropercustodianthereofwhoisanheirofthepersonwho tshewasborntoVicenteandBenita.Thesetwoaffiantswerenev
wouldnaturallykeepit.Inthiscasehowever,wefindthatSimplic erpresentedincourt.Thus,theirstatementistantamounttohear
iaalsofailedtoproveherfiliationtoVicenteandBenita.Shemere sayevidence.
lypresentedabaptismalcertificatewhichhaslongbeenheldase Petitionersalsopresentedcertificationsfromthelocalcivilregi
videnceonlytoprovetheadministrationofthesacramentonthed strarcertifyingthattherecordsofbirthfrom1930to1946werede
atesthereinspecified,butnottheveracityofthedeclarationsther stroyedbyfireand/orwar.Insaiddocuments,therecontainsana
einstatedwithrespecttoherkinsfolk.Thesameisconclusiveonl dvicethatpetitionersmaymakeafurtherverificationwiththeNS
yofthebaptismadministered,accordingtotheritesoftheCatholi Obecausethelocalcivilregistrarsubmitsacopyofthebirthcertif
cChurch,bythepriestwhobaptizedsubjectchild,butitdoesnot icateofeveryregisteredbirthwiththeNSO.Theadvicewasnothe
provetheveracityofthedeclarationsandstatementscontainedin eded.PetitionersfailedtopresentacertificationfromNSOwhethe
thecertificateconcerningtherelationshipofthepersonbaptized.3 rsuchrecordsdoexistornot.
2
Assuch,Simpliciacannotbeconsideredasanheir,inwhosecust Whileweacknowledgethedifficultyofobtainingoldrecords,w
odythemarriagecontractisexpectedtobefound.Itbearsreiterat esimplycannotignoretherulesonevidence,specificallytheruleo
ionthatSimpliciatestifiedthatthemarriagecontractwasgivent nauthenticationwithrespecttoprivatedocumentswhichisprecis
oherbyBenitabutthatSimpliciacannot elyinplacetopreventtheinclusionofspuriousdocumentsinthe
_______________ bodyofevidencethatwilldeterminetheresolutionsofanissue.
Consideringthatpetitionersfailedtoprovethevalidityofthe
31262Phil.113,122123;183SCRA102,109110(1990).
marriagebetweenVicenteandBenita,itfollowsthattheydonoth
32HeirsofPedroCabaisv.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.681,
aveacauseofactioninthecaseforthedeclarationofnullityofth
689;316SCRA338,344(1999),citingMacadangdangv.Courtof
eExtrajudicialSettlementoftheEstateofVicenteandLeonora.
Appeals,188Phil.192,201;100SCRA73,8485(1980);Paav.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.The5August2008
Chan,128Phil.815,822;21SCRA753,759(1967).
DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R.CVNo.89585reversi
530
530 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED ngandsettingasidethe30January2007Decisionand16April20
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr. 07ResolutionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch69ofBinangona
n,RizalinCivilCaseNo.R98047isAFFIRMED.
makeoutthecontentsofsaiddocumentbecauseshecannotrea
531
dandwrite.
VOL.752,MARCH11,2015 531
Ontheotherhand,thedocumentpresentedtoproveLigayask
CercadoSigavs.Cercado,Jr.
inshipisaJointAffidavitexecutedbytwopersonstotheeffecttha
SOORDERED.
 Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro, thepublicutilityfirmsemployees.Petitionerwarnsthatifthe
BersaminandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur. wageincreaseofP2,200.00permonthasorderedbytheSecretary
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed. isallowed,itwouldsimplypassthecostcoveringsuchincreaseto
Notes.Before private documents can be received in theconsumersthroughanincreaseintherateofelectricity.This
evidence,proofoftheirdueexecutionandauthenticitymustbe is anon sequitur.The Court cannot be threatened with such a
presented. (Ledesco Development Corporation vs. Worldwide misleadingargument.Anincreaseinthepricesofelectriccurrent
needs the approval of the appropriate regulatory government
StandardInternationalRealty,Inc.,636SCRA53[2010])
agencyanddoesnotautomaticallyresultfromamereincreasein
Proof of due execution and authenticity required beforeany
the wages of petitioners employees. Besides, this argument
private document offered as authentic is received in evidence.
presupposesthatpetitioneriscapableofmeetingawageincrease.
(Menesesvs.Venturozo,659SCRA577[2011])
Same;Same;Evidence;CommercialLists;Amerenewspaper
o0o
account is not considered a commercial listit is at most an
Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved. analysis or opinion which carries no persuasive weight in
determiningtherateofwageincrease.Undertheaforequoted
rule, statement of matters contained in a periodical may be
admittedonlyifthatcompilationispublishedforusebypersons
engagedinthatoccupationandisgenerallyusedandreliedupon
bythemtherein.AscorrectlyheldinourDecisiondatedJanuary
27,1999,thecitedreportisamerenewspaperaccountandnot
evenacommerciallist.Atmost,itisbutananalysisoropinion
172 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED whichcarriesnopersuasiveweightforpurposesofthiscaseasno
sufficient figures to support it were presented. Neither did
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said that
G.R.No.127598.February22,2000.*
businessmengenerallyrelyonnewsitemssuchasthisintheir
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner,vs.Hon. occupation. Besides, no evidence was presented that the
SECRETARY of LABOR LEONARDO QUISUMBING and publicationwasregularlypreparedbyapersonintouchwiththe
MERALCO EMPLOYEES and WORKERS ASSOCIATION market and that it is generally regarded as trustworthy and
(MEWA),respondents. reliable.Absentextrinsicproofoftheiraccuracy,thesereportsare
Labor Law;Collective Bargaining Agreements;Public notadmissible.In
Utilities;An increase in the prices of electric current needs the
approval of the appropriate regulatory government agency and __________________
doesnotautomaticallyresultfromamereincreaseinthewagesof
 SPECIALFIRSTDIVISION.
*
effectivitydependsontheagreementoftheparties.Ontheother
173 hand,thelawissilentastotheretroactivityofaCBAarbitral
VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 173 awardorthatgrantednotbyvirtueofthemutualagreementof
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing the parties but by intervention of the government. Despite the
the same manner, newspapers containingstockquotations silence of the law, the Court rules herein that CBA arbitral
arenotadmissibleinevidencewhenthesourceofthereportsis awardsgrantedaftersixmonthsfromtheexpirationofthelast
available.Withmorereason,mereanalysesorprojectionsofsuch CBAshallretroacttosuchtimeagreeduponbybothemployer
reportscannotbeadmitted.Inparticular,thesourceofthereport andtheemployeesortheirunion.Absentsuchanagreementasto
in this case can be easily made available considering that the retroactivity,theawardshallretroacttothefirstdayafterthe
same is necessary for compliance with certain governmental sixmonthperiodfollowingtheexpirationofthelastdayofthe
requirements. CBAshouldtherebeone.IntheabsenceofaCBA,theSecretarys
determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his
Same;Same;Arbitral Awards;Retroactive Effect; Collective
discretionarypowersoverarbitralawardsshallcontrol.
BargainingAgreementarbitralawardsgrantedaftersixmonths
Same;Same;Same;Anarbitralawardcanbeconsideredas
from theexpiration ofthelast CollectiveBargaining Agreement
an approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which
shallretroacttosuchtimeagreeduponbybothemployerandthe
wouldotherwisehavebeenenteredintobytheparties.Itistrue
employeesortheirunion,andintheabsenceofsuchanagreement
thatan
astoretroactivity,theawardshallretroacttothefirstdayafter
174
thesixmonthperiodfollowingtheexpirationofthelastdayofthe 1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
CollectiveBargainingAgreementshouldtherebeone,or,inthe 74
absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Secretarys ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his arbitralawardcannotpersebecategorizedasanagreement
discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.The voluntarily entered into by the parties because it requires the
CourtintheJanuary27,1999Decision,statedthattheCBAshall interferenceandimposingpoweroftheStatethrutheSecretary
beeffectiveforaperiodof2yearscountedfromDecember28, of Labor when he assumes jurisdiction. However, the arbitral
1996 up to December 27, 1999. Parenthetically, this actually award can be considered as an approximation of a collective
coversathreeyearperiod.Laborlawsaresilentastowhenan bargainingagreementwhichwouldotherwisehavebeenentered
arbitral award in a labor dispute where the Secretary had intobytheparties.ThetermsorperiodssetforthinArticle253A
assumedjurisdictionbyvirtueofArticle263(g)oftheLaborCode pertains explicitly to a CBA. But there is nothing that would
shall retroact. In general, a CBA negotiated withinsix months prevent its application by analogy to an arbitral award by the
after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day Secretaryconsideringtheabsenceofanapplicablelaw.
immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the
 Same;Same;Same;Cooperatives;The award of loans for VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 175
housingisjustifiedbecauseitpertainstoabasicnecessityoflife, ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
butprovidingseedmoneyfortheestablishmentofanemployees Same;Same;Same;Same;The management cannot be
cooperative is a matter in which the employer has no business deniedthefacultyofpromotingefficiencyandattainingeconomy
interest or legal obligation.On the allegation concerning the byastudyofwhatunitsareessentialforitsoperationithasthe
grant of loanto a cooperative, thereis no merit in theunions ultimatedeterminationofwhetherservicesshouldbeperformedby
claim thatitisno differentfromhousingloansgrantedbythe itspersonnelorcontractedtooutsideagencies;Contractingoutof
employer.Theawardofloansforhousingisjustifiedbecauseit
services is an exercise of business judgment or management
pertains to a basic necessity of life. It is part of a privilege
recognized by the employer and allowed by law. In contrast, prerogative.Hiring of workers is within the employers
providing seed money for the establishment of the employees inherent freedom to regulate and is a valid exercise of its
cooperativeis amatter inwhichthe employerhasnobusiness management prerogative subject only to special laws and
interestorlegalobligation.Courtsshouldnotbeutilizedasatool agreementsonthematterandthefairstandardsofjustice.The
tocompelanypersontograntloanstoanothernortoforceparties managementcannotbedeniedthefacultyofpromotingefficiency
toundertakeanobligationwithoutjustification.Onthecontrary, andattainingeconomybyastudyofwhatunitsareessentialfor
itisthegovernmentthathastheobligationtorenderfinancial its operation. It has the ultimate determination of whether
assistance to cooperatives and the Cooperative Code does not services should be performed by its personnel or contracted to
makeitanobligationoftheemployeroranyprivateindividual. outside agencies. While there should be mutual consultation,
eventuallydeferenceistobepaidtowhatmanagementdecides.
Same;Same;Management Prerogatives;Contracting Out of
Contractingoutofservicesisanexerciseofbusinessjudgmentor
Services;Theemployerisallowedtocontractoutservicesforsix managementprerogative.Absentproofthatmanagementactedin
months or more.The added requirement of consultation amaliciousorarbitrarymanner,theCourtwillnotinterferewith
imposedbytheSecretaryincasesofcontractingoutforsix(6) the exercise of judgment by an employer. As mentioned in the
monthsormorehasbeenrejectedbytheCourt.Sufficeittosay January27,1999Decision,thelawalreadysufficientlyregulates
that the employer is allowed to contract out services for six this matter. Jurisprudence also provides adequate limitations,
months or more. However, a line must be drawn between suchthattheemployermustbemotivatedbygoodfaithandthe
management prerogatives regarding business operations per se contractingoutshouldnotberesortedtocircumventthelawor
andthosewhichaffecttherightsofemployees,andintreating mustnothavebeentheresultofmaliciousorarbitraryactions.
thelatter,theemployershouldseetoitthatitsemployeesareat These are matters that may be categorically determined only
leastproperlyinformedofitsdecisionormodesofactioninorder whenanactualsuitonthematterarises.
to attain a harmonious labormanagement relationship and
enlightentheworkersconcerningtheirrights. MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONofadecisionofthe
175 SupremeCourt.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt. resolution
RolandoR.Arbues,AtilanoS.Guevarra,Jr.andMarianito Wages P1,900.00for199596 P2,200.00
D. Miranda and Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiakofor Xmasbonus modifiedtoonemonth 2months
petitioner. Retirees remandedtotheSecretary granted
PerfectoV.Fernandez,JoseP.FernandezandCristobalP. Loantocoops denied granted
FernandezforMeralcoEmployeesandWorkersAssociation. GHSIP,HMPandHousingloans granteduptoP60,000.00 granted
M.B.TomacruzLawOfficeandJesusS.SiloforFirstLine Signingbonus denied granted
Asso.ofMeralcoSupervisoryEmployees. Unionleave 40days(typoerror) 30days
176 Highvoltage/ notapplytothosewhoarenot members
176 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED pole exposedtotherisk ofateam
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing Collectors noneedforcashbond,noneed
RESOLUTION toreducequotaandMAPL

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.: _________________

In the Decision promulgated on January 27, 1999, the Court Decision promulgated January 27, 1999, G.R. No. 127598
1

disposedofthecaseasfollows: penned by Justice Antonio Martinez (now retired) with Chief

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisgrantedandtheordersofpublic Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and Justices Jose Melo, Santiago
respondent Secretary of Labor dated August 19, 1996 and KapunanandBernardoPardo,concurring.
December28,1996aresetasidetotheextentsetforthabove.The 177
partiesaredirectedtoexecuteaCollectiveBargainingAgreement VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 177
incorporating the terms and conditions contained in the ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
unaffectedportionsoftheSecretaryofLaborsordersofAugust
CBU excludeconfidentialemployees include
19,1996andDecember28,1996,andthemodificationssetforth
Unionsecurity maintenanceofmembership closedshop
above.TheretirementfundissueisremandedtotheSecretaryof
Labor for reception of evidence and determination of the legal Contractingout noneedtoconsultunion consult
personalityoftheMeralcoretirementfund.1 first
Themodificationsofthepublicrespondentsresolutionsinclude Allbenefits existingtermsandconditions allterms
thefollowing: Retroactivity Dec.28,1996Dec.27,199(9) from
January27,1999decision Secretary Dec.1,1995
s DissatisfiedwiththeDecision,someallegedmembersofprivate
respondent union (Union for brevity) filed a motion for
interventionandamotionforreconsiderationofthesaidDecision. passthecostcoveringsuchincreasetotheconsumersthroughan
A separate intervention was likewise made by the supervisors increase in the rate of electricity. This is anon sequitur.The
union (FLAMES2) of petitioner corporation alleging that it Courtcannotbethreatenedwithsuchamisleadingargument.An
hasbonafidelegalinterestintheoutcomeofthecase. 3TheCourt increaseinthepricesofelectriccurrentneedstheapprovalofthe
required the proper parties to file a comment to the three appropriate regulatory government agency and does not
motionsforreconsiderationbuttheSolicitorGeneralaskedthat automatically result from a mere increase in the wages of
hebeexcusedfromfilingthecommentbecausethepetitionfiled petitionersemployees.Besides,thisargumentpresupposesthat
in the instant case was granted by the Court. 4Consequently, petitioner is capable of meeting a wage increase. The All Asia
petitioner filed its own consolidated comment. An Appeal CapitalreportuponwhichtheUnionreliestosupportitsposition
SeekingImmediateReconsiderationwasalsofiledbythealleged regarding the wage issue can not be an accurate basis and
newly elected president of the Union. 5Other subsequent conclusivedeterminantoftherateofwageincrease.Section45of
pleadingswerefiledbythepartiesandintervenors. Rule130RulesofEvidenceprovides:
The issues raised in the motions for reconsideration had Commercial lists and the like.Evidence of statements of
alreadybeenpasseduponbytheCourtintheJanuary27,1999 mattersofinteresttopersonsengagedinanoccupationcontained
decision.Nonewargumentswerepresentedforconsiderationof in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is
theCourt.Nonetheless,certainmatterswillbeconsideredherein, admissibleastendingtoprovethetruthofanyrelevantmatterso
particularly those involving the amount of wages and the statedifthatcompilationispublishedforusebypersonsengaged
retroactivity of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) inthatoccupationandisgenerallyusedandrelieduponbythem
arbitralawards. therein. Under the aforequoted rule, statement of matters
Petitioner warns that if the wage increase of P2,200.00 per contained in a periodical may be admitted only if that
monthasorderedbytheSecretaryisallowed,itwouldsimply compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them
__________________ therein.
As correctly held in our Decision dated January 27, 1999, the
2
FirstLineAssociationofMeralcoSupervisoryEmployees. cited report is a mere newspaper account and not even a
3
MotionforLeavetoInterveneandtotreatthisasMovants commerciallist.Atmost,itisbutananalysisoropinionwhich
InterventionfiledbyFLAMES,p.4;Rollo,p.2476. carries no persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no
4
SolicitorGenerals Manifestation and Motion dated August sufficient figures to support it were presented. Neither did
10,1999,p.2;Rollo,p.2506. anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said that
5
Rollo,p.2495. businessmengenerallyrelyonnewsitemssuchasthisintheir
178 occupation. Besides, no evidence was presented that the
178 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED publicationwasregularlypreparedbyapersonintouchwiththe
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing market and that it is generally regarded as trustworthy and
reliable.Absentextrinsicproofoftheiraccuracy,thesereportsare increasegrantedtosupervisoryemployees.9Asmentionedinthe
notadmissible.6Inthesamemanner,newspaperscon January27,1999Decision,theCourtdoesnotseektoenumerate
inthisdecisionthefactorsthatshouldaffectwagedetermination
________________ becausecollectivebargainingdisputesparticularlythoseaffecting
the national interest and public service requires due
6
20Am.Jur.819. considerationandproperbalancingoftheinterestsoftheparties
179
tothedisputeandofthosewhomight
VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 179
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing _________________
tainingstockquotationsarenotadmissibleinevidencewhenthe
source of the reports is available.7With more reason, mere 7
20Am.Jur.819820.
analyses or projections of such reports cannot be admitted. In 8
Petitioners Comment to Motions for Reconsideration and
particular,thesourceofthereportinthiscasecanbeeasilymade MotionforIntervention,p.6;Rollo,p.2514.
availableconsideringthatthesameisnecessaryforcompliance 9
SeetheJanuary27,1999Decision.
withcertaingovernmentalrequirements. 180
Nonetheless, by petitioners own allegations, its actual total 180 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
netincomefor1996wasP5.1billion. 8AnestimatebytheAllAsia ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
financialanalyststatedthatpetitionersnetoperatingincomefor
beaffectedbythedispute.10TheCourttakesjudicialnoticethat
thesameyearwasaboutP5.7billion,afigurewhichtheUnion
thenewamountsgrantedhereinaresignificantlyhigherthanthe
relieson to support its claim. Assuming without admitting the
weightedaveragesalarycurrentlyenjoyedbyotherrankandfile
truth thereof, the figure is higher than the P4.171 billion
employees within the community. It should be noted that the
allegedly suggested by petitioner as its projected net operating
relations between labor and capital is impressed with public
income. The P5.7 billion which was the Secretarys basis for
interest which must yield to the common good. 11Neither party
granting theP2,200.00ishigherthanthe actualnetincome of
shouldactoppressivelyagainsttheotherorimpairtheinterestor
P5.1 billion admitted by petitioner. It would be proper then to
convenienceof thepublic.12Besides,matters ofsalary increases
increasethisCourtsawardofP1,900.00toP2,000.00forthetwo
arepartofmanagementprerogative.13
yearsoftheCBAaward.For1992,theagreedCBAwageincrease
OntheretroactivityoftheCBAarbitralaward,itiswellto
forrankandfilewasP1,400.00andwasreducedtoP1,350.00,for
recallthatthispetitionhaditsoriginintherenegotiationofthe
1993; further reduced to P1,150.00 for 1994. For supervisory
parties19921997CBAinsofarasthelasttwoyearperiodthereof
employees,theagreedwageincreasefortheyears19921994are
isconcerned.WhentheSecretaryofLaborassumedjurisdiction
P1,742.50, P1,682.50 and P1,442.50, respectively. Based on the
andgrantedthearbitralawards,therewasnoquestionthatthese
foregoingfigures,theP2,000.00increaseforthetwoyearperiod
arbitralawardsweretobegivenretroactiveeffect.However,the
awarded to the rankandfile is much higher than the highest
parties dispute the reckoning period when retroaction shall On the other hand, the Union argues that the award should
commence.Petitionerclaimsthattheawardshouldretroactonly retroacttosuchtimegrantedbytheSecretary,citingthe1993
fromsuchtimethattheSecretaryofLaborrenderedtheaward, decisionofSt.Lukes.16
invoking the 1995 decision inPier 8case14where the Court, Finally,theeffectivityoftheOrderofJanuary28,1991,must
citingUnionofFiliproEmployeesv.NLRC,15said: retroact to the date of the expiration of the previous CBA,
TheassailedresolutionwhichincorporatedtheCBAtobesigned contrarytothepositionofpetitioner.Underthecircumstancesof
by the parties was promulgated on June 5, 1989, (and hence, thecase,Article253Acannotbeproperlyappliedtohereincase.
outsidethe6monthperiodfromJune30,1987,)theexpirydateof AscorrectlystatedbypublicrespondentinhisassailedOrderof
thepastCBA.BasedontheprovisionofSection253A,itsretro April12,1991dismissingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration

__________________ Anent the alleged lack of basis for the retroactivity provisions
awarded,wewouldstressthattheprovisionoflawinvokedbythe
10
Manila Electric Company v. Quisumbing,302 SCRA 173, Hospital,Article253AoftheLaborCode,speaksofagreements
196(1999). byandbetweentheparties,andnotarbitralawards...
11
Article1700,NewCivilCode(NCC). Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision of law
12
Article1701,NCC. prohibiting retroactivity of the effectivity of arbitral awards
13
SeeNational Federation of Labor Unions v. NLRC,202 issuedbytheSecretaryofLaborpursuanttoArticle263(g)ofthe
SCRA346(1991). LaborCode,suchashereininvolved,publicrespondentisdeemed
vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the
14
Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. v.
effectivitythereof.
RoldanConfesor,(2ndDiv.),311Phil.311;241SCRA294(1995)
In the 1997 case ofMindanao Terminal,17the Court applied
penned by Justice Puno with Chief Justice Narvasa (ret.) and
JusticesBidin(ret.),Regalado(ret.)andMendoza,concurring,p. theSt.Lukesdoctrineandruledthat:
329.
_________________
15
192SCRA414(1990).
181 16
St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. v. Torres,(3rd Div.),223
VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 181
SCRA779(1993),pennedbyJusticeMelowithJusticesFeliciano
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
(ret.), Bidin (ret.), Davide, Jr. (now Chief Justice) and Romero
activity should be agreed upon by the parties. But since no (ret.),concurring,pp.792793.
agreement to that effect was made, public respondent did not 17
InMindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v.
abuseitsdiscretioningivingthesaidCBAaprospectiveeffect.
The action of the public respondent is within the ambit of its Confesor,(2ndDiv.),338Phil.671;272SCRA161(1997)penned
authorityvestedbyexistinglaws.
byJusticeMendozawithJusticesRegalado(ret.),Romero,(ret.), awardsgrantedaftersixmonthsfromtheexpirationofthelast
PunoandTorres(ret.),concurring,p.679. CBAshallretroacttosuchtimeagreeduponbybothemployer
182 andtheemployeesortheirunion.Absentsuchanagreementasto
182 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED retroactivity,theawardshallretroacttothefirstdayafterthe
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing sixmonthperiodfollowingtheexpirationofthelastdayofthe
CBAshouldtherebeone.IntheabsenceofaCBA,theSecretarys
InSt.LukesMedicalCenterv.Torres,adeadlockalsodeveloped
determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his
during the CBA negotiations between management and the
discretionarypowersoverarbitralawardsshallcontrol.
union.TheSecretaryofLaborassumedjurisdictionandordered
the retroaction of the CBA to the date of expiration of the
________________
previousCBA.Asinthiscase,itwasallegedthattheSecretaryof
Labor gravely abused its discretion in making his award
Article253A,LaborCode,asamended.
18

retroactive.IndismissingthiscontentionthisCourtheld: 183
Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision of law VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 183
prohibitingretroactiveoftheeffectivityofarbitralawardsissued
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing
bytheSecretaryofLaborpursuanttoArticle263(g)oftheLabor
Code, such as herein involved, public respondent is deemed Itistruethatanarbitralawardcannotpersebecategorizedas
vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the anagreementvoluntarilyenteredintobythepartiesbecauseit
effectivitythereof. requirestheinterferenceandimposingpoweroftheStatethru
TheCourtintheJanuary27,1999Decision,statedthattheCBA theSecretaryofLaborwhenheassumesjurisdiction.However,
shallbeeffectiveforaperiodof2yearscountedfromDecember thearbitralawardcanbeconsideredas anapproximationofa
28,1996uptoDecember27,1999.Parenthetically,thisactually collectivebargainingagreementwhichwouldotherwisehavebeen
coversathreeyearperiod.Laborlawsaresilentastowhenan entered into by the parties. 19The terms or periods set forth in
arbitral award in a labor dispute where the Secretary had Article253ApertainsexplicitlytoaCBA.Butthereisnothing
assumedjurisdictionbyvirtueofArticle263(g)oftheLaborCode thatwouldpreventitsapplicationbyanalogytoanarbitralaward
shall retroact. In general, a CBA negotiated withinsix months by the Secretary considering the absence of an applicable law.
after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day Under Article 253A: (I)f anysuch agreementis entered into
immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of
effectivitydependsontheagreementoftheparties. 18Ontheother retroactivity thereof. In other words, the law contemplates
hand,thelawissilentastotheretroactivityofaCBAarbitral retroactivity whether the agreement be entered into before or
awardorthatgrantednotbyvirtueofthemutualagreementof after the said sixmonth period. The agreement of the parties
the parties but by intervention of the government. Despite the neednotbecategoricallystatedfortheiractsmaybeconsidered
silence of the law, the Court rules herein that CBA arbitral indeterminingthedurationofretroactivity.Inthisconnection,
the Court considers the letter of petitioners Chairman of the
Board and its President addressed to their stockholders, which nor to force parties to undertake an obligation without
statesthattheCBAfortherankandfileemployeescoveringthe justification.Onthecontrary,itisthegovernmentthathasthe
periodDecember1,1995toNovember30,1997isstillwiththe obligationtorenderfinancialassistancetocooperativesandthe
SupremeCourt,20asindicativeofpetitionersrecognitionthatthe CooperativeCodedoesnotmakeitanobligationoftheemployer
CBA award covers the said period. Earlier, petitioners oranyprivateindividual.22
negotiatingpaneltransmittedtotheUnionacopyofitsproposed Anentthe40dayunionleave,theCourtfindsthatthesameis
CBAcoveringthesameperiodinclusive. 21Inaddition,petitioner atypographicalerror.Inordertoavoidanyconfusion,itisherein
does not dispute the allegation that in the past CBA arbitral declaredthattheunionleaveisonlythirty(30)daysasgranted
awards,theSecretarygrantedretroactivitycommencingfromthe by the Secretary of Labor and affirmed in the Decision of this
period immediately following the last day of the expired CBA. Court.
Thus, by petitioners own actions, the Court sees no reason to The added requirement of consultation imposed by the
retroactthesubjectCBAawardstoadifferentdate.Theperiodis Secretaryincasesofcontractingoutforsix(6)monthsormore
hereinsetattwo(2)yearsfromDecember1,1995toNovember hasbeenrejectedbytheCourt.Sufficeittosaythattheem
30,1997.
___________________
_________________
See Section 2, R.A. No. 6838 (Cooperative Code of the
22

19
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Philippines) which provides: It is the declared policy of
Confesor,338Phil.671;272SCRA161(1997). theStateto foster the creation and growth of cooperative as a
20
Rollo,p.2347. practical vehicle for promoting selfreliance and harnessing
21
AnnexCofthePetition. people power towards the attainment of economic development
184 andsocialjustice.TheStateshallencouragetheprivatesectorto
184 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED undertaketheactualformationofcooperativesandshallcreate
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing anatmospherethatisconducivetotheorganizationalgrowthand
Ontheallegationconcerningthegrantofloantoacooperative, development of the cooperatives. Towards this end,
thereisnomeritintheunionsclaimthatitisnodifferentfrom theGovernmentand all its branches, subsidiaries,
housingloansgrantedbytheemployer.Theawardofloansfor instrumentalities, and agencies shall ensure the provision of
housingisjustifiedbecauseitpertainstoabasicnecessityoflife. technical guidelines,financial assistance,and other services to
Itispartofaprivilegerecognizedbytheemployerandallowedby enablesaidcooperativetodevelopmentintoviableandresponsive
law.Incontrast,providingseedmoneyfortheestablishmentof economic enterprises and thereby bring about a strong
theemployeescooperativeisamatterinwhichtheemployerhas cooperativemovementthatisfreefromanyconditionsthatmight
no business interest or legal obligation. Courts should not be
utilizedasatooltocompelanypersontograntloanstoanother
infringe upon the autonomy or organizational integrity of categoricallydeterminedonlywhenanactualsuitonthematter
cooperatives. arises.
185 WHEREFORE,themotionforreconsiderationisPARTIALLY
VOL.326,FEBRUARY22,2000 185 GRANTEDandtheassailedDecisionisMODIFIEDasfollows:(1)
ManilaElectricCompanyvs.Quisumbing the arbitral award shall retroact from December 1, 1995 to
ployerisallowedtocontractoutservicesforsixmonthsormore. November30,1997;and(2)theawardofwageisincreasedfrom
However, a line must be drawn between management the original amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos
(P1,900.00)toTwoThousandPesos(P2,000.00)fortheyears1995
prerogatives regarding business operationsper seand those
and 1996. This Resolution is subject to the monetary advances
whichaffecttherightsofemployees,andintreatingthelatter,
granted by petitioner to its rankandfile employees during the
the employer should see to it that its employees are at least
pendencyofthiscaseassumingsuchadvanceshadactuallybeen
properlyinformedofitsdecisionormodesofactioninorderto
distributedtothem.TheassailedDecisionisAFFIRMEDinall
attain a harmonious labormanagement relationship and
otherrespects.
enlightentheworkersconcerningtheirrights. 23Hiringofworkers
SOORDERED.
is within the employers inherent freedom to regulate and is a
valid exercise of its management prerogative subject only to Davide,Jr.(C.J.),Melo,KapunanandPardo,JJ.,concur.
speciallawsandagreementsonthematterandthefairstandards Petitionpartiallygranted,judgmentmodified.
of justice.24The management cannot be denied the faculty of Notes.A public utility under the Constitution and the
promotingefficiencyandattainingeconomybyastudy ofwhat PublicServiceLawisoneorganizedforhireorcompensationto
units are essential for its operation. It has the ultimate servethepublic,whichisgiventherighttodemanditsservice.
determination of whether services should be performed by its (Bagatsingvs.CommitteeonPrivatization,246SCRA334[1995])
personnelorcontractedtooutsideagencies.Whilethereshouldbe ThesigningoftheCBAisnotdeterminativeofthequestion
mutualconsultation,eventuallydeferenceistobepaidtowhat whethertheagreementwasenteredintowithinsixmonthsfrom
managementdecides.25Contractingoutofservicesisanexercise thedateofexpiryofthetermofsuchotherprovisionsasfixedin
ofbusinessjudgmentormanagementprerogative. 26Absentproof such collective bargaining agreement withinthecontemplation
thatmanagementactedinamaliciousorarbitrarymanner,the ofArt.253AoftheLaborCodewherethepartiesalreadyhada
Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an meetingofthemindsbeforetheendofthesaidsixmonthperiod.
employer.27AsmentionedintheJanuary27,1999Decision,the (Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. vs. Roldan
law already sufficiently regulates this matter. 28Jurisprudence
Confesor,272SCRA161[1997])
alsoprovidesadequatelimitations,suchthattheemployermust
A CBA which is part of an arbitral award may be made
bemotivatedbygoodfaithandthecontractingoutshouldnotbe
retroactive to the date of expiration of the previous agreement
resortedtocircumventthelawormustnothavebeentheresultof
sinceArt.253AoftheLaborCodereferstoCBAsenteredintoby
maliciousorarbitrary actions.29Theseare mattersthat maybe
thepartiesasaresultoftheirmutualagreement,nottoarbitral
awards. (Manila Central Line Corporation vs. Manila Central Article39(c)oftheLaborCode.Corollarily,wheretheoffenseis
Line Free Workers UnionNational Federation of Labor,290 committedagainstthreeormorepersons,itisqualifiedtoillegal
SCRA690[1998]) recruitmentinlargescalewhichprovidesahigherpenaltyunder
Article39(a)ofthesameCode.
180 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Same;Same;Same;Right of Confrontation;The right of
Peoplevs.OrtizMiyake
confrontationhastwopurposes:first,tosecuretheopportunityof
G.R.Nos.11533839.September16,1997.*
crossexamination;and,second,toallowthejudgetoobservethe
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,vs.LANIE
ORTIZMIYAKE,accusedappellant. deportment and appearance of the witness while testifying.
Under the aforecited rules, the accused in a criminal case is
Labor Law;Criminal Law;Illegal Recruitment;Words and
guaranteedthe
Phrases;RecruitmentandPlacement,Defined.TheLaborCode
defines recruitment and placement as x x x any act of _______________
canvassing,enlisting,contracting,transporting,utilizing,hiring
or procuring workers and includes referrals, contract services, SECONDDIVISION.
*

promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, 181

whetherforprofitornotxxx. VOL.279,SEPTEMBER16,1997 181
Same;Same;Same;RepublicActNo.8042(MigrantWorkers Peoplevs.OrtizMiyake
andOverseasFilipinosActof1995);ExPostFactoLaws;R.A.No. rightofconfrontation.Suchrighthastwopurposes:first,to
8042doesnotapplytoanoffensecommittedbeforeitseffectivity. securetheopportunityofcrossexamination;and,second,toallow
During the pendency of this case, Republic Act No. 8042, the judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the
otherwiseknownastheMigrantWorkersandOverseasFilipinos witnesswhiletestifying.
Act of 1995, was passed increasing the penalty for illegal Same;Same;Same;Same;Hearsay Rule;The right of
recruitment.Thisnewlaw,however,doesnotapplytotheinstant confrontation is not absolute as it is recognized that it is
casebecausetheoffensechargedhereinwascommittedin1992,
sometimes impossible to recall or produce a witness who has
beforetheeffectivityofsaidRepublicActNo.8042.Hence,what
areapplicablearetheaforecitedLaborCodeprovisions. already testified in a previous proceeding, in which event his
Same;Same;Same;Inillegalrecruitmentcases,thenumber previous testimony is made admissible as a distinct piece of
of persons victimized is determinative.It is evident that in evidence, by way of exception to the hearsay rule.This right,
illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is however,isnotabsoluteasitisrecognizedthatitissometimes
determinative.Whereillegalrecruitmentiscommittedagainsta impossibletorecallorproduceawitnesswhohasalreadytestified
lone victim, the accused may be convicted of simple illegal inapreviousproceeding,inwhicheventhisprevioustestimonyis
recruitment which is punishable with a lower penalty under made admissible as a distinct piece of evidence, by way of
exception to the hearsay rule. The previous testimony is made Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Every conviction must be
admissiblebecauseitmakestheadministrationofjusticeorderly basedonthefindingsoffactmadebyatrialcourtaccordingtoits
andexpeditious.
appreciation of the evidence before ita conviction may not be
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Judgments;The exception
basedmerelyonthefindingsoffactofanothercourt.Asearlier
totherightofconfrontationcontemplatedbylawcoversonlythe stated, the Makati courts utilization of and reliance on the
utilization of testimonies of absent witnesses made in previous previousdecisionoftheParaaquecourtmustberejected.Every
proceedings,anddoesnotincludeutilizationofpreviousdecisions convictionmustbebasedonthefindingsoffactmadebyatrial
or judgments.Under these rules, the adoption by the Makati court according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A
trial court of the facts stated in thedecisionof the Paraaque conviction may not be based merely on the findings of fact of
trial court does not fall under the exception to the right of another court, especially where what is presented is only its
confrontationasthe exceptioncontemplatedbylawcoversonly decisionsansthetranscriptofthetestimonyofthewitnesseswho
theutilizationoftestimoniesofabsentwitnessesmadeinprevious testifiedthereinanduponwhichthedecisionisbased.
proceedings,anddoesnotincludeutilizationofpreviousdecisions Same;Same;Same;Words and Phrases;Simple Illegal
orjudgments. Recruitment and Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale,
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;A previous decision Distinguished.The distinction between simple illegal
orjudgment,whileadmissibleinevidence,mayonlyprovethatan recruitmentandillegalrecruitmentinlargescaleareemphasized
accusedwaspreviouslyconvictedofacrimeitmaynotbeusedto byjurisprudence.Simpleillegalrecruitmentiscommittedwhere
aperson:(a)undertakesanyrecruitmentactivitydefinedunder
provethattheaccusedisguiltyofacrimechargedinasubsequent
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under
case.A previous decision or judgment, while admissible in Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a
evidence, may only prove that an accused was previously license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
convictedofacrime.Itmaynotbeusedtoprovethattheaccused placementofworkers.Ontheotherhand,illegalrecruitmentin
isguiltyofacrimechargedinasubsequentcase,inlieuofthe largescalefurtherrequiresathirdelement,thatis,theoffenseis
requisiteevidenceprovingthecommissionofthecrime,assaid committed against three or more persons, individually or as a
previousdecisionishearsay.Tosanctionitsbeingusedasabasis group.
forconvictioninasubsequentcasewouldconstituteaviolationof
Same;Same;Same;Evidence;Inillegalrecruitmentinlarge
therightoftheaccusedtoconfrontthewitnessesagainsthim.
182 scale,whilethelawdoesnotrequirethatatleastthreevictims
1 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED testifyatthetrial,itisnecessarythatthereissufficientevidence
82 proving that the offense was committed against three or more
Peoplevs.OrtizMiyake persons.Inillegalrecruitmentinlargescale,whilethelawdoes
not require that at least three victims testify atthe trial, it is
necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the onacomplaintinitiatedbyElenitaMarasigan,ImeldaGenerillo
offensewascommittedagainstthreeormorepersons.ThisCourt andRosamardelRosario.Inaddition,shewasindictedforestafa
agrees with the trial court that the evidence presented bymeansoffalsepretensesinthesamecourt,theoffendedparty
sufficiently proves that illegal recruitment was committed by beingElenitaMarasiganalone.
appellantagainstMarasigan,butthesameconclusioncannotbe Theinformationinthechargeofillegalrecruitmentinlarge
madeasregardsGenerilloandDelRosarioaswell. scaleinCriminalCaseNo.926153readsasfollows:
Same;Same;Same;Estafa;Double Jeopardy;Conviction ThatinorabouttheperiodcomprisedfromJune1992toAugust
under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude 1992, in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila,
PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
punishmentundertheRevisedPenalCodeforthefelonyofestafa.
theabovenamedaccused,falselyrepresentingherselftohavethe
TheCourtlikewiseaffirmstheconvictionofappellantforestafa
capacity and power to contract, enlist and recruit workers for
whichwas
employmentabroaddidthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully,and
183
feloniouslycollectforafee,recruitandpromiseemployment/job
VOL.279,SEPTEMBER16,1997 183
placementabroadtothefollowingpersons,towit:1)Rosamardel
Peoplevs.OrtizMiyake Rosario;2)ElenitaMarasigan;3)ImeldaGenerillo,withoutfirst
committedagainstMarasigan.ConvictionundertheLabor securingtherequiredlicenseorauthorityfromtheDepartmentof
Codeforillegalrecruitmentdoesnotprecludepunishmentunder LaborandEmployment,thusamountingto