compilation 2015-11-14 for evidence

7/23/2019 Compilation 2015-11-14 for Evidence

1/53

Contents

Betty Gepulle-Garbo v. Sps. Victorey Antonio and Josephine Garabato 1

Dela Llana v Biong...............................................................3

arcos v !eirs o" #avarro$ Jr...............................................%

&D'(# )ABA* y +&,& vs. +&*+L& * )!& +!(L(++(#&S...../+&*+L& * )!& +!(L(++(#&S v #*&L L&&............ .......... ...11

(D'A0 A,()(& A#D )&!#*L*G(AL *2#DA)(*#$ represented by its hairan4+resident +hD in &ducation D,. SAB(#* .A#GL(*) vs. A,(SSA &. AS),*$ &) AL.$.............. ..13

J2A#()A &,()A#* v. LA(LA#(& +AGLAS 567138.................1%

+#B v S+*2S&S AL&JA#D,* A#D 0,#A ,&BLA#D*......1/

+eople v. Lagahit$ G.,. #o. 6779::$ #oveber 16$ 671; 5+ere abusao.....................67

Spouses anuel vs *ng....................................................66

)arapen v +eople....................................................... ........63

2ni?ide Sales ,ealty and ,esources orp v )itan-(@eda onstruction and Devt orp 6:

+eople v asabuena..........................................................37

Baculi v Belen....................................................................31

S+S. A,+* v. A0ALA LA#D$ (#*,+*,A)&D............... .....36

+&*+L& v. G* 5S2+,A8.......................................................33

&lena Duarte v. iguel Duran............................................39

&D2A,D* +. A#2&L v +&*+L& * )!& +!(L(++(#&S........;7

,A#(S* #. V(LLA#2&VA vs. V(,G(L(* +. BALAG2&, and (#)&,*#)(#)AL B,*ADAS)(#G *,+*,A)(*# !A##&L-13..........................................................................................;1

Atien


2/53

B&))0 G&+2LL&-GA,B* V. S+S. V()*,&0 A#)*#(* A#D

J*S&+! (#& GA,AB A)*

1; January 671%J. Villaraa Jr. 3rdDivision

Facts:1. #ic@ Garbo/5#ic@8 ?as arried to &duviges Garabato

5&duviges8. )hey had a daughter naed lorence Garabato5lorence8 ?ho in turn had a son$ respondent VictoreyAntonio Garabato 5Victorey8.

6. During the subsistence o" #ic@ and &duviges arriage$ #ic@cohabited ?ith petitioner Betty Gepulle-Garbo 5Betty8.

3. /41:41C:: &duviges and lorence eEecuted a Deed o" Sale51stDeed o" Sale8. &duviges sold to lorence a parcel o" landin +asay city. #ic@ signed the deed o" sale.

;. %41641C:9 &duviges died. #ic@ arried Betty 3 onthsa"ter.

%. 1746/41C99 lorence registered the property in her naeand ?as issued a ne? )). She died on arch ;$ CC6 ?hile#ic@ died on eb. 69$ 1CC/.

/. 11C/ Victorey registered the sae property in his nae byvirtue o" a Deed o" Sale 56nd Deed o" Sale8 eEecuted bylorence in his "avor. A ne? )) ?as issued in his nae.

:. 94646771 Betty Fled a petition for cancellation of TCTagainst sps Garabato on the "ollo?ing grounds

o 1stDeed o" Sale ?as invalid the signatures o" #ic@and &duviges being "orged by lorence$ and

o 6nd Deed o" Sale ?as invalid 5?alang rason siBettyboop. (nvalid lang8

9. Betty #ic@ had previously sought the eEaination o" hisalleged signature on the 1st Deed o" Sale by the #B(.Albacea$ the #B( docuent eEainer and a hand?ritingeEpert$ allegedly "ound that the uestioned signature andthe standard signatures o" #ic@ ?ere not ?ritten by one andthe sae person. #ic@ had Fled a criinal coplaint "or"alsiFcation against lorence though the case ?as disisseddue to lac@ o" probable cause. Also$ on ebruary /$ 1CC3$#ic@ ?rote a letter16to respondent Victorey reinding hithat the sub=ect property ?as his despite the trans"er o"

title. She prayed that Victoreys )) be cancelled and theproperty be registered in her nae.

o During the trial$ Betty presented Albacea as ?itness.!e stated that in 1CC6$ he ?as reuested to eEainethe signatures o" #ic@ appearing in the 1stDeed o"Sale and copared it ?ith the specien signaturesappearing in the Alien ,egistration or #o. 3$ adocuent1:"ro the )reasurers *Hce o" +asay ity

and several receipts issued by #ic@ to his lessees.A"ter he conducted an eEaination o" the signaturesin these docuents$ he concluded that theuestioned and the standard signatures o" #ic@ ?erenot ?ritten by one and the sae person.

C. Spouses Garabato Denied the allegation o" "orgery$ that theaction had prescribed and4or barred by laches$ that Bettyhas no cause o" action as the sub=ect property is theparaphernal property o" &duviges$ and that the sale ?asregular$ valid and genuine. )hey asserted that thesignatures appearing on the deeds o" sale are true and

genuine signatures o" the parties including #ic@ Garbo.o Victorey aditted that he purchased the property

"ro lorence "or a valid consideration and registeredit late because he had no oney

o Victorey presented a docuent entitled AHdavit o"'aiver dated June 1:$ 1C:: eEecuted by #ic@ statingthat &duviges acuired the sub=ect parcel o" land andthat #ic@ did not contribute a single centavo to buythe parcel o" land. (t "urther stated that #ic@ ?aivedall his rights$ title and interest and possession to landin "avor o" his ?i"e$ &duviges.

17. ,) Disissed the coplaint "or cancellation o" title. ,)"ound that Betty "ailed to prove that the signatures o" #ic@and &duviges ?ere "orgeries. )he ,) did not give credenceto the testiony o" Albacea$ holding that courts are notbound by eEpert testionies and that the relative ?eightand suHciency o" eEpert testiony is peculiarly ?ithin theprovince o" the trial court to decide.

11. A AHred ,) Decision. )he A also held that r.Albaceas opinion as to the truth or "alsity o" the signature o"#ic@ Garbo is not binding and conclusive upon the courtsince the reuest "or eEaination o" the deed o" sale ?asnot upon the order o" the trial court but at the instance o"

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 2o" 53
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_200013_2015.html#fnt6


3/53

the petitioner. Such eEaination brings suspicion as to thebias or pre=udice o" the eEaining party. )he A alsoephasi


4/53

su>ered "ro a ?hiplash in=ury1. Despite 3 os o" eEtensivephysical therapy$ petitioners condition did not iprove.

A"ter?ards$ she consulted 3 other doctors. 2pon suggestiono" her neurosurgeon$ she under?ent a cervical spinesurgery. )he operation released ipingeent o" the nervebut incapacitated her "ro the practice o" her pro"ession

+etitioner then deanded "ro respondent copensation"or her in=uriesK respondent re"used

)hus$ pet sued resp "or daages be"ore the ,)$ allegingthat she lost the obility o" her ar as a result o" thevehicular accident and claied 1%7 "or her ed eEpensesand an average onthly incoe o" 37 since June 6777. She"urther prayed "or actual$ oral$ eEeplary daages M A

,esp aintained that pet had no cause o" action as noreasonable relation eEisted bet?een the accident and petsin=uryK pointed out that pets illness becae ani"est 1 oand 1 ?@ "ro the date o" the accidentK deanded payento" A and costs o" the suit as counterclai

.et presented herself as an ordinar #itness anddrier .riero as a hostile #itness

+et aintained that she lost obility o" her ar due to theaccidentK to prove clai$ she identiFed and authenticated aed cert dated #ov 67$ 6777 issued by the rehab edspecialist 5Dr. illa8. ed cert stated that she has ?hiplashin=ury.

+riero testiFed that his truc@ hit the car because thetruc@s bra@es got stuc@.

,esp testiFed that pet ?as phys Ft and strong ?hen theyet several days a"ter the vehicular accident. She alsoasserted she observed the diligence o" a good "ather in theselection and supervision o" +riero6.

echanic ?ho conducted driving s@ills test "or +riero alsotestiFed. !e aHred that the truc@ ?as in good conditionprior to the accident and opined that the cause o" theaccident ?as a daaged copressor ?hich ?as caused bythe absence o" air inside the tan@.

1in=ury caused by the sudden =er@ing o" the spine in the nec@ area.

6she reuired +riero to subit a certiFcation o" good oral character as ?ell asbarangay$ police$ and #B( clearances prior to his eployentK only hired +riero

a"ter he success"ully passed the driving s@ills test conducted by a licensed driver-echanic

&TC:+rieros rec@less driving is the proEiate cause o"+ets ?hiplash in=ury. ,espondent is vicariously liable3 aseployer o" +riero. A?arded actual and oral daages.

C,:,eversed ,). +etitioner "ailed to establish a reasonableconnection bet the vehicular accident and her ?hiplashin=ury by preponderance o" evidence.In this petition:+et asserts

o that she has established by preponderance o"

evidence that +rieros negligent act ?as theproEiate cause o" her ?hiplash in=ury. 5First(pictures o" her daaged car sho? that the collision?as strong. She posits that it can be reasonablyin"erred "ro these pictures that the assive ipactresulted in her ?hiplash in=ury. "econd$ Dr. illacategorically stated in the edical certiFcate thatDra. dela Llana su>ered "ro ?hiplash in=ury. Third(her testion that the ehicular accidentcaused the inur is credi0le 0ecause she #as asurgeon$

o edical certiFcate has probative value.o e4pert opinion is unnecessar if the opinion

erel relates to atters of coonkno#ledge. She aintains that a =udge is ualiFedas an eEpert to deterine the causation bet?eenJoels rec@less driving and her ?hiplash in=ury. )rial=udges are a?are o" the "act that ?hiplash in=uriesare coon in vehicular collisions

I""E/6%-!IN7/&,TI%: W/N )oel8s reckless driing is thepro4iate cause of .et8s #hiplash inur$ N%$ !ra$ dela-lana failed to esta0lish her case 0 preponderance ofeidence$ .etition denied$

33 eleents necessary to establish ,ebeccas liability ?ere present 518 that theeployee ?as chosen by the eployer$ personally or through anotherK 568 that theservices ?ere to be rendered in accordance ?ith orders ?hich the eployer had the

authority to give at all tiesK and 538 that the illicit act o" the eployee ?as on theoccasion or by reason o" the "unctions entrusted to hi.

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age *o" 53


5/53

2nder # Art 61:/;$ the eleents necessary to establish auasi-delict case are

518 daages to the plainti>K568 negligence$ by act or oission$ o" the de"endant or by soe

person "or ?hose acts the de"endant ust respond$ ?as guiltyK and538 the connection o" cause and e>ect bet?een such negligence

and the daages

Based on these reuisites$ Dra. dela Llana ust Frst establishby preponderance o" evidence the 3 eleents o" uasi-delict be"ore,esps liability%as +rieros eployer can be deterined.

)he burden o" proving the proEiate causation bet?een+rieros negligence +ets ?hiplash in=ury rests on +et. She ustestablish by preponderance o" evidence that +rieros negligence$in its natural and continuous seuence$ unbro@en by any eHcientintervening cause$ produced her ?hiplash in=ury$ and ?ithout ?hichher ?hiplash in=ury ?ould not have occurred.

.eitioner anchors her clai ainl on 3 pieces ofeidence$ None of these pieces of eidence sho# the causalrelation 0et#een the ehicular accident and the #hiplashinur:

91 the pictures of her damaged car"C:)he pictures o" the daaged car only deonstrate the

ipact o" the collision. (t is a "ar-"etched assuption that the?hiplash in=ury can also be in"erred "ro these pictures.

568 the medical certicate dated !o"em#er $0% $000(and"C: )he edical certiFcate cannot be considered because it

?as not aditted in evidence. &ven i" S considers the edicalcertiFcate in the disposition o" this case$ the edical certiFcate hasno probative value "or being hearsay. &vidently$ it ?as Dr. illa ?hohad personal @no?ledge o" the contents o" the edical certiFcate.

;Article 61:/ o" the ivil ode provides that NO?Phoever by act or oission causesdaage to another$ there being "ault or negligence$ is obliged to pay "or the daagedone. Such "ault or negligence$ i" there is no pre-eEisting contractual relationbet?een the parties$ is a uasi-delict.

%2nder Article 61:/ o" the ivil ode$ in relation ?ith the %thparagraph o" Article6197$ Nan action predicated on an eployees act or oission ay be instituted

against the eployer ?ho is held liable "or the negligent act or oission coittedby his eployee.

!o?ever$ she ?as not presented to testi"y in court and ?as noteven able to identi"y and aHr the contents o" the edicalcertiFcate. ourt also pointed out that the edical certiFcate didnot eEplain the chain o" causation in "act bet?een +rierosrec@less driving and +ets ?hiplash in=ury.8

93her testimonial e"idence$"C +ets opinion that +rieros negligence caused her

?hiplash in=ury has no probative value. +et ?as the lonephysician-?itness during trial. T%.IC,-; SigniFcantly( sheerel testiects o" ?hiplash in=ury.urtherore$ +et$ during trial$ nonetheless did not provide aedical eEplanation on the nature as ?ell as the cause ande>ects o" ?hiplash in=ury in her testiony.

&ther:SC cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidentscause whiplash injuries.)his proportion is not public @no?ledge$ oris capable o" unuestionable deonstration$ or ought to be @no?nto =udges because o" their =udicial "unctions. Justices have noeEpertise in the Feld o" edicine. Justices and =udges are onlytas@ed to apply and interpret the la? on the basis o" the parties

pieces o" evidence and their corresponding legal arguents



6/53

A,*S V !&(,S * #AVA,,*$ J,.

Villaraa$ Jr.$JJuly 3$ 6713

Appeal of a CA decision

F,CT": Spouses Andres #avarro$ Sr. and oncepcion #avarro le"t

behind several parcels parcels o" land including a Q179 halot 5sub=ect lot8 located in asbate. Spouses ?ere survived by their daughters Luisa 5petitioner8

and Lydia$ and the heirs o" their only son Andres$ Jr.5respondents8

+et and Lydia discovered that respondents are claiingeEclusive o?nership o" the sub=ect lot$ based on the AHdavito" )rans"er o" ,eal +roperty ?here allegedly Andres$ Sr.donated the sub=ect lot to Andres.

Believing that the aHdavit is a "orgery$ the sisters reuesteda hand?riting eEa o" the aHdavit.

+#+ hand?riting eEpert$ +*6 Alvare< "ound that Andres Srs

signature on the aHdavit and the subitted standardsignatures o" Andres$ Sr ?ere not ?ritten by the saeperson

)he sisters sued the respondents "or annulent o" the deedo" donation be"ore the ,) 5ivil ase #o. %61%8

A"ter pre-trial$ resp oed to dis>ualif .%2 ,lare? asa #itness( arguing that the &TC did not authori?e thehand#riting e4a of the a@dait. +resenting +*6Alvare< as a ?itness ?ill violate their consti right to dueprocess since no notice ?as given to the be"ore the eEa.)estiony ?ould be useless and irrelevant.

,) granted resps otion$ Alvare< disualiFed as ?itness.Alvareualiualifing ,lare?

Section 67$ ,ule 137 o" the ,ules on &vidence provides

SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualications.!E"cept asprovided in the ne"t succeedin# section$ all personswho can perceive$ and perceivin#$ can %ake knowntheir perception to others$ %a& 'e witnesses.

(eli#ious or political 'elief$ interest in the outco%e ofthe case$ or conviction of a cri%e unless otherwiseprovided '& law$ shall not 'e a #round fordisqualication.

SpeciFc rules o" ?itness disualiFcation are provided under

Sections 61 to 6;/$ ,ule 137 o" the ,ules on &vidence.Sections 1C and 67: o" ,ule 137 provide "or speciFcdisualiFcations.

As a hand?riting eEpert o" the +#+$ +*6 Alvare< can surelyperceive and a@e @no?n her perception to others. Sdeclared that she is ualiFed as a ?itness and cannot 0edis>ualiuali


7/53

pointing out distinguishing ar@s$ characteristics anddiscrepancies in and bet?een genuine and "alse specienso" ?riting ?hich ?ould ordinarily escape notice or detection"ro an unpracticed observer. )hus$ S disagreed ?ith the,) that +*6 Alvare


8/53

(SS2&S

1. 'hether or not the conviction o" the accused shouldbe aHred - 0&S

6. 'hether or not the A O&,,&D (# 2+!*LD(#G !(SP*#V()(*# O*# )!& BAS(S * )!&P (#,&D(BL&A#D 2#,&L(ABL& )&S)(*#0 * V()*, S*,(A#* -#*

3. 'hether or not the A erred in disregarding the?itness o" the accused - #*

!&LD

1. ,ec@less iprudence$ generally deFned by our penal la?$consists in voluntarily$ but ?ithout alice$ doing or "ailing todo an act "ro ?hich aterial daage results by reason o"ineEcusable lac@ o" precaution on the part o" the personper"oring or "ailing to per"or such act$ ta@ing intoconsideration his eployent or occupation$ degree o"intelligence$ physical condition and other circustancesregarding persons$ tie and place. (prudence connotes adeFciency o" action. (t iplies a "ailure in precaution or a"ailure to ta@e the necessary precaution once the danger orperil becoes "oreseen. )hus$ in order "or conviction to bedecreed "or rec@less iprudence$ the aterial daagesu>ered by the victi$ the "ailure in precaution on the parto" the accused$ and the direct lin@ bet?een aterialdaage and "ailure in precaution ust be establishedbeyond reasonable doubt. All three ?ere established in thiscase in accordance ?ith the reuired level o" evidence incriinal cases.The petitioner failed to e4ercise precaution inoperating his ehicle$)he petitioner repeatedly aditted that as he drove hisvehicle on his ?ay hoe "ro ?or@$ he did not notice theisland diider at the "oot o" the #agtahan lyover. As aresult$ his car raped on the island so that both its rear?heels becae NelevatedN "ro the road and he could nolonger aneuver the vehicle.33)he petitioner even testiFedthat his car had to be to?ed. Later$ during cross-eEaination$ he aditted that all"our ?heels o" his car$ not=ust the t?o rear ?heels entioned in his earlier testiony$lost contact ?ith the ground. )he entire vehicle$ there"ore$ended up on top o" the island divider. !e puts the blae "orthe raping and$ essentially$ his "ailure to notice the island

on the dar@ness o" nighttie and the alleged ne?ness o" theisland.)!& "act that the petitioners entirevehicle ended upraped on the island divider strongly indicates ?hatactually happened in the un"ortunate incident. )he vehiclecould not have ended up in that condition had the petitionerbeen driving at a reasonable speed. 'e are not persuadedby the petitioners rather siplistic account that ere

dar@ness$ coupled ?ith the traHc islands alleged ne?ness$caused his car to veer o> the traHc tra=ectory o" Governororbes Street and to end up =uping on top o" the traHcisland intended to channel vehicular traHc going to the#agtahan lyover.

6. )he petitioner ?as positively identiFed by an eye?itness.An eye?itness account established that the petitionersvehicle actually hit ,ochelle Lanete. &ye?itnessidentiFcation is vital evidence$ and$ in ost cases$ decisiveo" the success or "ailure o" the prosecution. *ne o" theprosecution ?itnesses$ Victor Soriano$ un"ortunately "or thepetitioners cause$ sa? the incident in its entiretyK Victor

thus provided direct evidence as eye?itness to the very acto" the coission o" the crie.6;(n his testiony$Victor positiel identi


9/53

ention$ or ?hen the narration in the s?orn stateentsubstantially contradicts the testiony in court. (n thepresent case$ the ourt sees no substantial contradiction inVictors aHdavit and in his court stateents as he declaredin both that he sa? the petitioners car rap on the islanddivider and bup ,ochelle. As to ?hether the car raped onthe center island be"ore or a"ter it buped the victi doesnot detract "ro the "undaental "act that Victor sa? and

identiFed the petitioner as the driver o" the car that rapedon the island divider and hit ,ochelle.Victor$ ?ho stood only : eters "ro the incident$ clearlyand in a straight"or?ard anner described ho? thepetitioners car had buped the victi. 'e thus see noreason to overturn the lo?er courts Fnding regardingVictors credibility$ ore so since the petitioner did notipute any ill otive that could have induced Victor totesti"y "alsely. )he "undaental and settled rule is that thetrial courtTs assessent regarding the credibility o"?itnesses is entitled to the highest degree o" respect and?ill not be disturbed on appeal$ especially ?hen the

assessent is aHred by the A.)he positive identiFcation in this case$ coupled ?ith the"ailure o" the de"ense to ipute any ill-otive on theeye?itness$ to our ind$ ?or@s to dispel reasonable doubton the "act that the petitioners car had in "act hit ,ochelle.)he eye?itness account provides the necessary lin@bet?een the petitioners "ailure to eEercise

3. 'eigh o" eEpert testiony)he petitioner li@e?ise clais that the A violated Sec. ;C$,ule 137 ?hen it disregarded the testiony o" de"ense?itness +olice Senior (nspector Danilo ornelio ?ho testiFedthat the petitioners car could not have buped the victi

because the latters body ?as not thro?n in line ?ith thecar$ but on its side. )he petitioner argues that +4Sr. (nsp.ornelio is highly ualiFed in the Feld o" traHc accidentinvestigation$ and as such$ his stateents are Nbac@ed-upby OtheP principles o" applied physics$ engineering$ andatheatics.USec. ;C$ ,ule 137 states that the opinion o" a ?itness on aatter reuiring special @no?ledge$ s@ill$ eEperience ortraining$ ?hich he is sho?n to possess$ ay be received inevidence. )he use o" the ?ord NayN signiFes that the useo" opinion o" an eEpert ?itness is perissive and notandatory on the part o" the courts. Allo?ing the testiony

does not ean$ too$ that courts are bound by the testionyo" the eEpert ?itness. )he testiony o" an eEpert ?itness

ust be construed to have been presented not to s?ay thecourt in "avor o" any o" the parties$ but to assist the court inthe deterination o" the issue be"ore it$ and is "or the courtto adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation o" theattendant "acts and the applicable la?. (t has been held o"eEpert testionies

Although courts are not ordinarily bound by eEperttestionies$ they ay place ?hatever ?eight they

ay choose upon such testionies in accordance?ith the "acts o" the case. )he relative ?eight andsuHciency o" eEpert testiony is peculiarly ?ithinthe province o" the trial court to decide$ consideringthe ability and character o" the ?itness$ his actionsupon the ?itness stand$ the ?eight and process o"the reasoning by ?hich he has supported his opinion$his possible bias in "avor o" the side "or ?ho hetestiFes$ the "act that he is a paid ?itness$ therelative opportunities "or study and observation o"the atters about ?hich he testiFes$ and any otheratters ?hich deserve to illuinate his stateents.

)he opinion o" the eEpert ay not be arbitrarilyre=ectedK it is to be considered by the court in vie? o"all the "acts and circustances in the case and ?hencoon @no?ledge utterly "ails$ the eEpert opinionay be given controlling e>ect. )he proble o" thecredibility o" the eEpert ?itness and the evaluation o"his testiony is le"t to the discretion o" the trial court?hose ruling thereupon is not revie?able in theabsence o" abuse o" discretion.

+4Sr. (nsp. ornelio ?as not an eye?itness to the incidentKhis testiony ?as erely based on the )raHc Accident,eport prepared by S+*; &dgar ,eyes ?ho hisel" did not

?itness the incident. At any rate$ no?here in +4Sr. (nsp.ornelios testiony did he conclusively state that thepetitioner could not have been involved in the incident.ro +4Sr. (nsp. ornelios testion$ it is clear that +4Sr. (nsp.ornelio did not discount the possibility that the victi couldhave been thro?n on the side. !e li@e?ise aditted that thelocation o" an accident victi in relation to the vehicle ?ouldalso depend on the speed o" the vehicle and the point o"ipact.

!ernande< v. San Juan Santos: August 677C

orona$ J.

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age Do" 53


10/53

acts

1. aria Lourdes San Juan !ernande< 5or Lulu8 ?as to thespouses eliE !ernande< and aria San Juan !ernandeuainted$ -ulus attending phsicians spoke andinteracted #ith her$ "uch occasions allo#ed the tothoroughl o0sere her 0ehaior and conclude thather intelligence leel #as 0elo# aerage and herental stage 0elo# noral$ Their opinions #ereadissi0le in eidence$

urtherore$ ?here the sanity o" a person is at issue$eEpert opinion is not necessary. )he observations o" the trial=udge coupled ?ith evidence establishing the personTs state

o" ental sanity ?ill suHce. !ere$ the trial =udge ?as givenaple opportunity to observe Lulu personally ?hen shetestiFed be"ore the ,).

2nder Section 6$ ,ule C6 o" the ,ules o" ourt$persons ?ho$ though o" sound ind but by reason o" age$disease$ ?ea@ ind or other siilar causes are incapable o"

ta@ing care o" theselves and their property ?ithout outsideaid$ are considered as incopetents ?ho ay properly beplaced under guardianship. )he ,) and the A both "oundthat Lulu ?as incapable o" ta@ing care o" hersel" and her

properties ?ithout outside aid due to her ailents and ?ea@ind.

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 1+o" 53


11/53

S v. Belagan1C *ctober 677;Sandoval-Gutierreenses be"ore theunicipal )rial ourt 5)8 o" Baguio ity$ thus 66 criinalcases "or light oral de"aation$ slight physical in=uries$ gravethreats$ alicious ischie"$ light threats$ grave oralde"aation$ light oral de"aation$ and un=ust veEation.

/. (n addition$ the "ollo?ing coplaints against agdalena?ere Fled ?ith the Barangay hairen o" Barangay GabrielaSilang and Barangay !illside$ both in Baguio ity 63 caseso" grave threats$ un=ust veEation$ ruor ongering$ oralde"aation$ harassent$ habitual trouble a@er$ etc.

(SS2&4!&LD

1. '*# coplaining ?itness$ agdalena Gapu


12/53

the above provision because they do not establish theprobability or iprobability o" the o>ense charged.

*bviously$ in invo@ing the above provision$ ?hatrespondent ?as trying to establish is agdalenas lac@ o"credibility and not the probability or the iprobability o" thecharge. (n this regard$ a di=erent proision applies$

redibility eans the disposition and intention to tell

the truth in the testiony given. (t re"ers to a personsintegrity$ and to the "act that he is ?orthy o" belie". Section11$ ,ule 136 o" the sae ,evised ,ules on &vidence reads

N"EC$ 11$,%peach%ent of adverse part&*s witness. RA?itness ay be ipeached by the party against ?ho he?as called$ by contradictory evidence$ 0 eidence thathis general reputation for truth( honest( or integritis 0ad$ or by evidence that he has ade at other tiesstateents inconsistent ?ith his present testiony$0ut not0 eidence of particular #rongful acts$ eEcept that itay be sho?n by the eEaination o" the ?itness$ or therecord of the udgent( that he has 0een conictedof an o=ense.N

(s agdalenas derogatory record suHcient todiscredit her credibilityW #o.

irst$ ost o" the 66 cases Fled ?ith the ) o"

Baguio ity relate to acts coitted in the 97s$

particularly$ 1C9% and 1C9/. 'ith respect to the coplaintsFled ?ith the hairen o" Barangay Gabriela Silang andBarangay !illside$ the acts coplained o" too@ place in 1C:9to 1C:C. (n the instant adinistrative case$ the o>ense ?ascoitted in 1CC;. Surely$ those cases and coplaints areno longer reliable proo"s o" agdalenas character orreputation. Settled is the principle that evidence o" ones

character or reputation ust be conFned to a tie not tooreote "ro the tie in uestion. (n other ?ords$ ?hat is tobe deterined is the character or reputation o" the personat the tie o" the trial and prior thereto$ but not at a period

reote "ro the coenceent o" the suit. ertainly$every person is capable to change or re"or.

Second$ respondent "ailed to prove that agdalena?as convicted in any o" the criinal cases speciFed byrespondent. (t is not perissible to sho? that a ?itness hasbeen arrested or that he has been charged ?ith orprosecuted "or a criinal o>ense$ or conFned in =ail "or the

purpose o" ipairing his credibility on "ollo?ing grounds ortheories 5a8 that a ere unproven charge against the?itness does not logically tend to a>ect his credibility$ 5b8that innocent persons are o"ten arrested or accused o" a

crie$ 5c8 that one accused o" a crie is presued to beinnocent until his guilt is legally established$ and 5d8 that a?itness ay not be ipeached or discredited by evidence o"particular acts o" isconduct.

+&*+L& * )!& +!(L(++(#&S V #*&L L&&

7$&$ No$ 13D+B+ Ga 2D( 2++2 .N%('(:

acts

(n"oration ?as Fled against accused-appellant charginghi ?ith the crie o" urder coitted as "ollo?s

N)hat on or about the 6Cth day o" Septeber 1CC/$ inaloo@an ity$ etro anila$ and ?ithin the =urisdiction o"this !onorable ourt$ the above-naed accused$ ?ith intentto @ill$ ?ith treachery and evident preeditation did then

and there ?ill"ully$ unla?"ully and "eloniously attac@ andshoot one J*S&+! A,I2& y LAGA#D($ ?ith the use o" ahandgun$ thereby inicting upon the latter serious physical

in=uries$ ?hich ultiately caused the victis death.U

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty

)he prosecution established the "ollo?ing "actso At C77 in the evening o" Septeber 6C$ 1CC/$

!erinia arue


13/53

o (n their living roo$ other and son ?ere ?atching abas@etball gae on television.

o !erinia ?as seated on an archair and thetelevision set ?as to her le"t.

o Across her$ Joseph sat on a so"a against the ?all and?indo? o" their house and the television ?as to hisright.

o )o her coplete surprise$ she sa? a hand holding a

gun coing out o" the open ?indo? behind Joseph.She loo@ed up and sa? accused-appellant #oel Leepeering through the ?indo? and holding the gunaied at Joseph.

o Be"ore she could ?arn hi$ Joseph turned his bodyto?ards the ?indo?$ and siultaneously$ appellantFred his gun hitting Josephs head.

o !erinia stood up but could not ove as accused-appellant Fred a second shot at Joseph and three 538shots ore t?o hit the so"a and one hit the ceentoor.

o 'hen no ore shots ?ere Fred$ !erinia ran to the

?indo? and sa? accused-appellant$ in a blue sando$ee to?ards the direction o" his house.

De"ense clais !e ?as in his house located at 31: . deastro St.$ Bagong Barrio$ aloocan ity. !e ?as havingsoe drin@s ?ith his neighbor$ *rlando Berude


14/53

A !indi naan po butas$ @undi bu@as na bintana.#a@abu@as iyong bintana nain.

I So in your sinupaang salaysay in thestateent that you said butas na bintana is notcorrectW

A ali ho @asi$ hindi @o na napansin iyan$ @asi itonapansin @o$ @inorect @o.

*2,) 0ou sho? to the ?itness. )here$ butas nabintana.

'()#&SS ali po ang letra$ Bu@as hindi butas.

!erinia corrected her aHdavit by saying in open court thatshe sa? the hand and the gun coing out o" the open?indo?$ not "ro a hole in the ?indo?. (n her directtestiony$ !erinia presented a photograph o" her livingroo =ust the ?ay it loo@ed "ro her side on the night o" theshooting. AHdavits are generally considered in"erior to opencourt declarations because aHdavits are ta@en eE-parte andare alost al?ays incoplete and inaccurate.

)he lone eye?itness account o" the @illing Fnds support inthe edico-legal report. Dr. ,osalie osidon "ound that thedeceased sustained t?o gunshot ?oundsone to the righto" the "orehead$ and the other$ to the le"t side o" the bac@ o"the victis head.

'*# the bad reputation o" the icti is adissible as characterevidenceW #*.

Accused-appellant the victis drug habit led hi tocoit other cries and he ay have been shot by any o"the persons "ro ?ho he had stolen.

haracter evidence is governed by Section %1$ ,ule 137 o"the ,evised ,ules on &vidence$ vi+

-Section /. Character evidence not #enerall& ad%issi'le;e"ceptions--

538 )he good or bad oral character o" theo=ended part a 0e proed if it tends to

esta0lish in an reasona0le degree the

pro0a0ilit or ipro0a0ilit of the o=ensecharged$

Both sub-paragraphs 518 and 568 o" Section %1 o" ,ule137 re"er to character evidence o" the accused. Sub-paragraph 538 o" Section %1 o" the said ,ule re"ers to thecharacter o" the o=ended part.haracter evidence$?hether good or bad$ o" the o>ended party ay be proved

Ni" it tends to establish in any reasonable degree theprobability or iprobability o" the o>ense charged.N

(n hoicide cases$ a pertinent character trait o" the victi isadissible in t?o situations 518 as evidence o" the deceasedsaggressionK and 568 as evidence o" the state o" ind o" theaccused.

In the instant case( proof of the 0ad oral character ofthe icti is irreleant to deterine the pro0a0ilit oripro0a0ilit of his killing$ ,ccusedappellant has notalleged that the icti #as the aggressor or that thekilling #as ade in selfdefense$ There is no connection0et#een the deceased8s drug addiction and thieer

#ith his iolent death in the hands of accusedappellant$ Goreoer( proof of the icti8s 0ad oral character is

not necessar in cases of urder coitted #ithtreacher and preeditation$5.eople $ "olian

(n the case at bar$ accused-appellant is charged ?ith urdercoitted through treachery and evident preeditation. )heevidence sho?s that there ?as treachery. Joseph ?as sitting inhis living roo ?atching television ?hen accused-appellantpeeped through the ?indo? and$ ?ithout any ?arning$ shot hit?ice in the head.

As to the aggravating circustance o" evident preeditation$

this cannot be appreciated to increase the penalty in theabsence o" direct evidence sho?ing that accused-appellantdeliberately planned and prepared the @illing o" the victi.

#either can the aggravating circustance o" d?elling "ound bythe trial court be applied in the instant case. )he (n"orationalleges only treachery and evident preeditation$ not d?elling.

7$&$ No$ 1D+A1 ,ugust A( 2+1*

(D'A0 A,()(& A#D )&!#*L*G(AL *2#DA)(*#$

,&+,&S)&D B0 ()S !A(,A#4+,&S(D) +!D (#

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 1*o" 53


15/53

&D2A)(*# D,. SAB(#* . A#GL(*) VS. A,(SSA

&. AS),*$ &) AL.$

&EE"('(:

acts

id?ay aritie and )echnological oundation 5petitioner8is the lessee o" t?o parcels o" land in abanatuan ity. )hepresident o" the copany is Dr. Sabino anglicot. !e isarried to Adoracion loa$ the registered o?ner o" theland.

(nside said property stands a residential building o?ned bythe respondents.

)he t?o parcels o" land ?ere originally o?ned by therespondents "ather Louis astro$ Sr. )he elder astro ?asalso the president o" abanatuan ity olleges 58.

*n August 1%$ 1C:;$ astro ortgaged the property to

Banco Developent orporation 5Banco8 to secure aloan.

During the subsistence o" the ortgage$ s board o"directors agreed to a 1%-year lease o" a portion o" theproperty to the astros children$ herein respondents$ ?hosubseuently built the residential house no?in dispute.

)he lease ?as to eEpire in 1CC6.

'hen "ailed to pay its obligation$ Banco "oreclosedthe ortgage and the property ?as sold at public auction in1C:C$ ?ith Banco as the highest bidder.

Banco therea"ter assigned the credit to 2nion Ban@ o" the+hilippines 52nion Ban@8$ and later on$ 2nion Ban@consolidated its o?nership over the properties in 1C9; dueto s "ailure to redee the property.

'hen 2nion Ban@ sought the issuance o" a ?rit o"possession over the properties$ ?hich included theresidential building$ respondents opposed the sae.

)he case reached the ourt entitled$ astro$ Jr. v. A$ and ina Decision$ the ourt ruled that the residential house ?aso?ned by the respondents.

(n the eantie$ Adoracions "ather$ )oas loa 5)oas8$bought the t?o parcels o" land "ro 2nion Ban@ in anauction sale conducted on July 13$ 1CC3. )oas

subseuently leased the property to the petitioner andtherea"ter$ sold the sae to Adoracion.

Several suits ?ere brought by the respondents against thepetitioner$ including the case at bench$ ?hich is an action"or *?nership$ ,ecovery o" +ossession and Daages$doc@eted as ivil ase #o. 3:77 5A8.

(n their Aended oplaint the respondents allegedo 518 they are the o?ners o" the residential building$?hich they used "ro 1C:: to 1C9% ?hen they le"t "or the2nited States o" Aerica and instituted their uncle$ JoseFno

. astro 5JoseFno8$ as the careta@erK 568 anglicot$ leasedthe building 5eEcept "or the portion occupied by JoseFno8"ro Lourdes astro$ other o" the respondentsK 538 thepetitioner "ailed to pay rent starting August 1CC%$ thuspropting the respondents to Fle the action.

)he petitioner$ ho?ever$ denied respondents o?nership o"the residential building and claied that Adoracion o?ns thebuilding$ having bought the sae together ?ith the land on?hich it stands.

,egional )rial ourt rendered =udgent in "avor o" therespondents$ declared the as the absolute o?ners o" theresidential building

A disissed the petitioners appeal

(ssue4!olding4,atio

'*# there ?as a lease agreeent bet?een the petitioner andrespondent regarding the residential buildingW 0&S$ the petitionerthus cannot clai o?nership over the building.

Such issue is a uestion o" "act already resolved by the ,)in the aHrative.

Xro June 1CC3 to July 6%$ 1CC% or "or a period o" 6/onths$ the OpetitionerP has been paying rentals "or thebuilding in uestion and paid a rental o" O+P1%/$777.77?hich rental ?as increased to +17$777.77 beginning *ctober1CC% ?hen the careta@er o" the OrespondentsP r. JoseFnoastro ?as e=ected there"ro and the entire building ?asleased to the OpetitionerP$ represented by Dr. Sabinoanglicot.N

&vidence cash disburseent voucher issued by thepetitioner to rs. Lourdes astro. )he voucher contained thestateent Npayent o" building rentals E E E "ro June 71 toDeceber 71$ 1CC3N in the total aount o" +3/$777.77.

O)*+(AL; It is settled that Jo;nce a contact of leaseis sho#n to e4ist 0et#een the parties( the lessee



16/53

cannot 0 an proof( ho#eer strong( oerturn theconclusie presuption that the lessor has a alidtitle to or a 0etter right of possession to the su0ectpreises than the lessee$J"ection 290( &ule 131 ofthe &ules of Court prohi0its a tenant fro deningthe title of his landlordat the tie o" the coenceento" the relation o" landlord and tenant bet?een the.

Santos v. #ational Statistics *Hce - ourt eEpounded on the

rule on estoppel against a tenant and "urther clariFedthat #hat a tenant is estopped fro dening is thetitle of his landlord at the tie of the coenceentof the landlordtenant relation$(" the title asserted isone that is alleged to have been acuired subseuent to thecoenceent o" that relation$ the presuption ?ill notapply.

(n this case$ Adoracions o?nership dates bac@ to herpurchase o" the t?o parcels o" land "ro her "ather$ )oas.(t ?as )oas ?ho bought the property in an auction sale by2nion Ban@ in 1CC3 and leased the sae to the petitioner inthe sae year. #ote ust be ade that the petitioners

president$ anglicot$ is the husband o" Adoracion and son-in-la? o" )oas. (t is not iprobable that at the tie thepetitioner leased the residential building "ro therespondents other in 1CC3$ it ?as a?are o" thecircustances surrounding the sale o" the t?o parcels o"land and the natureo" the respondents clai over theresidential house. 0et$ the petitioner still chose to lease thebuilding. onseuently$ the petitioner is no? estopped "rodenying the respondents title over the residential building.

'hat )oas bought "ro 2nion Ban@ in the auction sale?ere the t?o parcels o" land originally o?ned andortgaged by to Banco$ and ?hich ortgage ?as

later assigned by Banco to 2nion Ban@. Contrar to thepetitioner8s assertion( the propert su0ect of theortgage and conse>uentl the auction sale pertainsonl to these t#o parcels of land and did not includethe residential house

(n astro$ Jr. v. A$ the ourt nulliFed the ?rit o" possessionissued by the trial court inso"ar as it a>ected the residentialhouse constructed by the respondents on the ortgagedproperty as it ?as not o?ned by $ ?hich ?as theortgagor.

'*# the sale o" the property included all iproveents$including the buildingW #*.

As regards the ruling o" the ,) o" abanatuan ity that theadvertised sale o" the property included all theiproveents thereon$ that said case involved an action "ore=ectent and any resolution by the ,) on the atter o"the o?nership o" the iproveents o" the property iserely provisional and cannot surpass the ourtspronounceent in astro and in the present case.

Also$ Adoracions subseuent acuisition o" the t?o parcels

o" land "ro her "ather does not necessarily entail theacuisition o" the residential building. NA building by itsel" isa real or iovable property distinct "ro the land on ?hichit is constructed and there"ore can be a separate sub=ect o"contracts.N

'*# the lease had already eEpired ?hen Adoracion bought theproperty "ro )oasW )he issue cannot be resolved in thepresent case$ but nothing supports that vie?.

)he petitioner also insists that the lease bet?een andthe respondents already eEpired ?hen Adoracion bought theproperty "ro )oas. )he "oregoing issue$ ho?ever$ cannotbe considered in the present action. )here is also nothing onrecord that ?ill prove the petitioners clai that the leasebet?een and the respondents already eEpired. )he "actthat Adoracion subseuently bought the property did notipso "acto terinate the lease. 'hile the lease bet?een and the respondents contained a 1%-year period$ to end in1CC6$ the petitioner "ailed to sho? that the subseuenttrans"erors4purchasers o" the t?o parcels o" land opted toterinate the lease or instituted any action "or itsterination.

Banco bought the property at an auction sale in 1C:CK2nion Ban@$ in 1C9;K )oas$ and later$ Adoracion$ acuiredthe property in 1CC3. (t cannot be denied that thetrans"erors4purchasers o" the property all had @no?ledge o"the lease bet?een and the respondentsK yet$ not any o"the trans"erors4purchasers oved to terinate the lease.

J2A# ()A &,()A#* V. LA (L A# (& +AGLA S 567138

+eralta J. By ,on San Juan

Facts:

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 1Ao" 53


17/53

,espondent and petitioner eEecuted a ontract o" lease ?hereinpetitioner leased in "avor o" respondent a 33/ s residential lotand a house standing thereon. )he contract period is one 518 year$?hich coenced on #oveber ;$ 1CCC$ ?ith a onthly rentalrate o" +13$%77.77.

Subseuent to the eEecution o" the lease contract$ respondentreceived in"oration that petitioner ortgaged the sub=ect

property in "avor o" a 0ap and that the sae ?as already "oreclosed?ith 0ap as the purchaser o" the disputed lot in an eEtra=udicial"oreclosure sale ?hich ?as registered on ebruary 66$ 6777. *nJune 1$ 6777$ respondent bought the sub=ect property "ro 0ap thru

a Deed o" Sale o" ,eal +roperty ?hich clearly indicated that it ?asstill sub=ect to petitionerTs right o" redeption.

+rior to said sale$ petitioner Fled a suit "or the declaration o" nullityo" the ortgage in "avor o" 0ap. ean?hile$ petitioner sent t?oletters deanding respondent to pay the rentals ?hich are due andto vacate the leased preises. ,espondent ignored both letters.

+etitioner Fled ?ith the ) a case o" unla?"ul detainer againstrespondent. ) disissed the case Fled by petitioner. *nappeal$ ,) aHred ). A aHred ,). !ence$ this petition.

Issues/6eld A aHred ?ith odiFcations.

'hether or not the Fndings o" the lo?er courts o" the presuedvalidity o" the real estate ortgage is correct. 50&S8

(n an unla?"ul detainer case$ the sole issue "or resolution is thephysical or aterial possession o" the property involved$independent o" any clai o" o?nership by any o" the party litigants.'here the issue o" o?nership is raised by any o" the parties$ thecourts ay pass upon the sae$ albeit provisionally$ in order todeterine ?ho has the right to possess the property.

(n the instant case$ pending Fnal resolution o" the suit Fled bypetitioner "or the declaration o" nullity o" the real estate ortgagein "avor o" 0ap$ the )$ the ,) and the A ?ere unanious insustaining the presuption o" validity o" the real estate ortgage

as ?ell as the presuption o" regularity in the per"orance o" theduties o" the public oHcers ?ho subseuently conducted its"oreclosure sale and issued a provisional certiFcate o" sale. Basedon the presued validity o" the ortgage and the subseuent

"oreclosure sale$ the )$ the ,) and the A also sustained the

validity o" respondentTs purchase o" the disputed property "ro 0ap.ourt agreed ?ith the lo?er courts. )hus$ "or purposes o" resolvingthe issue as to ?ho bet?een petitioner and respondent is entitledto possess the sub=ect property$ this presuption stands.

'hether or not the petitioner is entitled to possession o" theproperty.

50es$ during the period o" redeption. A"ter that$ respondent

acuired the right to possess the property. +etitioner is entitledonly to bac@ rentals due her during the redeption period.8

(n unla?"ul detainer$ one unla?"ully ?ithholds possession thereo"a"ter the eEpiration or terination o" his right to hold possessionunder any contract$ eEpress or iplied (n such case$ thepossession ?as originally la?"ul but becae unla?"ul by the

eEpiration or terination o" the right to possessK hence$ the issue o"right"ul possession is decisive "or$ in such action$ the de"endant isin actual possession and the plainti>s cause o" action is theterination o" the de"endants right to continue in possession.

+etitioner argues She reains the o?ner o" the sub=ect property.Based on her contract o" lease ?ith respondent$ respondent is notperitted to deny her title over the said property in accordance?ith the provisions o" Section 6 5b8$ ,ule 131 o" the ,ules o" ourt.

S #o. )he conclusive presuption "ound in Section 6 5b8$ ,ule131 o" the ,ules o" ourt$ @no?n as estoppel against tenants$

provides NOtPhe tenant is not peritted to deny the title o" hislandlord at the tie o" the coenceent o" the relation o"landlord and tenant bet?een the.N

'hat a tenant is estopped "ro denying is the title o" his landlordat the tie o" the coenceent o" the landlord-tenant relation.(" the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acuired

subseuent to the coenceent o" that relation$ thepresuption ?ill not apply. !ence$ the tenant ay sho? that thelandlordTs title has eEpired or been conveyed to another or hisel"Kand he is not estopped to deny a clai "or rent$ i" he has beenousted or evicted by title paraount. (n the present case$ ?hatrespondent is claiing is her supposed title to the sub=ect property?hich she acuired subseuent to the coenceent o" thelandlord-tenant relation bet?een her and petitioner. !ence$ thepresuption under Section 6 5b8$ ,ule 131 o" the ,ules o" ourtdoes not apply.

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 1Bo" 53


18/53

!*'&V&,$ even i" respondent is not estopped "ro denyingpetitionerTs clai "or rent$ her basis "or such denial$ ?hich is hersubseuent acuisition o" o?nership o" the disputed property$ isnonetheless$ an insuHcient eEcuse "ro re"using to pay the rentalsdue to petitioner.

)here is no dispute that at the tie that respondent purchased0apTs rights over the sub=ect property$ petitionerTs right o"

redeption as a ortgagor has not yet eEpired. (t is settled thatduring the period o" redeption$ it cannot be said that theortgagor is no longer the o?ner o" the "oreclosed property$ sincethe rule up to no? is that the right o" a purchaser at a "oreclosure

sale is erely inchoate until a"ter the period o" redeption haseEpired ?ithout the right being eEercised. (t is only upon theeEpiration o" the redeption period$ ?ithout the =udgent debtorhaving ade use o" his right o" redeption$ that the o?nership o"the land sold becoes consolidated in the purchaser.

During the period o" redeption$ the ortgagor$ being still the

o?ner o" the "oreclosed property$ reains entitled to the physical

possession thereo" sub=ect to the purchaserTs right to petition thecourt to give hi possession and to Fle a bond pursuant to theprovisions o" Section : o" Act #o. 313%$ as aended. )he erepurchase and certiFcate o" sale alone do not con"er any right to thepossession or beneFcial use o" the preises.

(n the instant case$ there is neither evidence nor allegation thatrespondent$ as purchaser o" the disputed property$ Fled a petitionand bond. (n addition$ respondent de"aulted in the payent o" herrents. )hus$ absent respondentTs Fling o" such petition and bondprior to the eEpiration o" the period o" redeption$ coupled ?ith her

"ailure to pay her rent$ she did not have the right to possess thesub=ect property.

*n the other hand$ petitioner$ as ortgagor and o?ner$ ?asentitled not only to the possession o" the disputed house and lotbut also to the rents$ earnings and incoe derived there"ro.

)he situation becae di>erent$ ho?ever$ a"ter the eEpiration o" theredeption period. Since there is no allegation$ uch lessevidence$ that petitioner redeeed the sub=ect property ?ithin oneyear "ro the date o" registration o" the certiFcate o" sale$respondent becae the o?ner thereo". onsolidation o" title

becoes a right upon the eEpiration o" the redeption period.

!aving becoe the o?ner o" the disputed property$ respondent isthen entitled to its possession.

As a conseuence$ petitionerTs e=ectent suit Fled againstrespondent ?as rendered oot ?hen the period o" redeptioneEpired on ebruary 63$ 6771 ?ithout petitioner having redeeedthe sub=ect property. )he only reaining right that petitioner canen"orce is his right to the rentals during the tie that he ?as still

entitled to physical possession o" the sub=ect property R that is "roay 6777 until ebruary 63$ 6771.

+#B V S+*2S&S AL&JA#D,* A#D 0,#A ,&BLA#D*

Septeber 16$ 6716Velasco Jr. By ,on San Juan

Facts:

January 69$ 1CC6 - ,espondent spouses ,eblando obtained aloan "ro +#B secured by a real estate ortgage 5,&8 over

t?o 568 parcels o" land$ the Frst covered by )) #o. )-;793C andthe second by )aE Declaration 5)D8 #o. %C77/ and designatedas Lot #o. 17. )he pro "ora ,& contract consisted o" t?o 568pages plus a duly-signed suppleental page$ providing adescription o" Lot #o. 17. )) #o. )-;793C ?as then registeredin the nae o" Letecia ,eblando-Bartoloe$ ?ho earliereEecuted an S+A authori


19/53

July 6;$ 1CC% - ean?hile$ Ale=andro and the Bliss DevTt orp.5BD8 entered into a ontract to Sell over a d?elling unit 52nit#o. 178 in the ,ural Bliss 1 +ro=ect located at alupang$ Gen.Santos ity ?ith an area o" 3/ s.

,eblandos de"aulted in their loan obligation$ propting the +#Bto eEtra-=udicially "oreclose the ortgage over )) #o. )-;793C.+#B bought the land as the lone bidder. ollo?ing the lapse o"the redeption period$ +#B consolidated its o?nership over the

sub=ect parcels o" land and ?as able to secure a ne? title overthe property. )he ,eblandos Fled a coplaint be"ore the ,) to declare the

nullity o" the ortgage over Lot #o. 17 allegedly constitutedon)anuar 13( 1DD5?hen +#B and the ,eblandos eEecutedthe XAendent to ,&.U According to the$ they could nothave validly created a ortgage over Lot #o. 17$ not being theo?ner ?hen the ortgage ?as constituted 5since it ?as stillpublic land8. )hey only included Lot #o. 17 in the ortgagepac@age$ albeit it did not belong to the$ because +#Breuired the to post Lot #o. 17 as additional collateral.

+#BTs arguents *n January 69$ 1CC6$ the ,eblandos$ via a

contract o" ,& o" even date$ already conveyed by ?ay o"ortgage Lot #o. 17 covered by )D #o. %C77/$ inclusive o" the,eblandos possessory and other rights. And together ?ith thelot covered by )) #o. )-;793C$ Lot #o. 17 is listed asortgaged property. )he ,eblandos deliberately oitted toattach the suppleental page in their basic coplaint in anattept to islead the court and conceal the siultaneousconstitution o" the ortgage over Lot #o. 17 and the titled lot.Lot #o. 17 ?as not an additional security$ noting that the verysae lot ?as already an eEisting collateral. As an aHrativede"ense$ +#B raised the issue o" estoppel.

,) "or the ,eblandos. A aHred.

Issues/6eld: +etition granted.

'hether or not the both parcels o" land ?ere ortgagesiultaneously. 50&S8

irst$ on its "ace$ the ,& sho?s that it ?as eEecuted on January69$ 1CC6. Second$ the January 69$ 1CC6 ,& contract speciFcallycovered$ as collaterals$ t?o parcels o" land$ albeit the secondcollateral ?as reected in the suppleental page o" the contract$?hich page respondents neglected or indeed oitted to attach totheir basic coplaint$ ?hether purposely or not. )hat respondents

did not include said suppleental page is buttressed by a siple

annotation at the botto o" the last page o" their AnneE XAU5pertaining to the ,&8$ reading X- ADD()(*#AL *LLA)&,AL A))!& S2++L&)AL +AG& -.U 'ithout eEplanation$ respondentscannot plausibly deny that it re"erred to Lot #o. 17. )heXAendent to ,&$U eEecuted and signed by the parties onJanuary 6/$ 1CC%$ ade a cross-re"erence to the January 69$ 1CC6,& contract and the properties ortgaged.

And lest it be overloo@ed$ the ortgage over Lot #o. 17 is reectedin )D #o. %C77/ Fled by Ale=andro "or taE purposes$ through anannotation by stap-ar@$ signed by ity Assessor Angel S.Dapro


20/53

respondent Ale=andro ?as the declared o?ner o" Lot #o. 17. !iso?nership is reected in )D #o. %C77/ issued in 1CC7 ?hich ?asprior to the constitution o" the ortgage on Lot #o. 17 in January1CC6. )he "act o" being in actual possession o" the property isanother indication o" such o?nership.

)he records are bere"t o" evidence$ other than respondents bareand sel"-serving assertion$ to support their contention about beingere applicants in a social housing pro=ect at the tie and that Lot#o. 17 ?as$ indeed$ governent property. And as ay be noted$ )D#o. %C77/ ?as issued in Ale=andros nae$ t?o 568 years prior tothe constitution o" the ,&.

)he ontract to Sell sho?s that it conteplates a di>erent ob=ect.)he contract$ to stress$ is one "or the sale o" 2nit #o. 17 in the ,uralBliss ( +ro=ect$ having an area o" 3/ s. (ts lause (V speciFcallyre"ers to the unit being sold as a Xd?elling unitN 5read house8. )heontract to Sell o" 2nit #o. 17 presented by respondents hasnothing to do ?ith this case$ as it is not in any ?ay related to theortgage contract. And as bet?een the ontract to Sell and )D #o.%C77/$ categorically stating that respondent Ale=andro is the o?nero" Lot #o. 17 since the tie o" its issuance on Septeber 16$ 1CC7$the latter ought to be the superior evidence as to ?ho o?ns Lot #o.17.

#ot only ?as the taE declaration in Ale=andros nae$ but also$respondents adittedly possessed the property ortgaged$ theirresidence being constructed on it--apri%a facieproo" o" o?nership?hich respondents "ailed to rebut.

'hether or not the respondents ?ere guilty o" estoppel by deed.50&S8

,ule 131$ Section 65a8 o" the ,ules o" ourt$ enunciating theprinciple o" estoppel$states$ X'henever a party has$ by his o?ndeclaration$ act or oission$ intentionally and deliberately ledanother to believe a particular thing to be true$ and to act uponsuch belie"$ he cannot$ in any litigation arising out o" suchdeclaration$ act or oission$ be peritted to "alsi"y it.U

,espondents act o" entering into the ortgage contract ?ithpetitioner$ beneFting through the receipt o" the loaned aount$de"aulting in payent o" the loan$ letting the property be"oreclosed$ "ailing to redee the property ?ithin the redeption

period$ and therea"ter insisting that the ortgage is void$ cannotbe countenanced. ,espondents are estopped "ro contesting the

validity o" the ortgage$ absent any proo" that +#B coerced or"raudulently induced respondents into posting Lot #o. 17 ascollateral.

&ven i" 'e assue$ "or the sa@e o" arguent$ that respondents didnot intend to deceive petitioner ?hen they used Lot #o. 17 ascollateral$ still respondents cannot arbitrarily reverse their positionto the daage and pre=udice o" the ban@ absent any sho?ing thatthe latter accepted the ortgage over Lot #o. 17 in bad "aith.

+&*+L& V. LAGA!()$ G.,. #*. 6779::$ #*V&B&, 16$ 671;

5+&,&$ J8

Topic: !isputa0le presuptions

)?o criinal charges ?ere Fled against harve John Lagahit$ one

"or selling to a poseur-buyer 7.;C gras o" ari=uana 5; handrolled

stic@s8 and another "or possession o" 7.99 gras o" ari=uana 59

handrolled stic@s8. !e pleaded not guilty to both in"orations.

+rosecution ?itness +*3 La?as Jr testiFed that they conducted a

buy-bust operation against Lagahit a"ter reports in Brgy Lahug in

ebu about the LagahitTs selling o" illegal drugs near the stair?ay

o" the yover. ost o" his custoers ?ere students o" the night

high school o" Brgy Lahug. )hey used ar@ed oney and a trusted

in"orant acted as poseur buyer ?ho too@ do?n his bull cap as

signal o" the consuation o" the sale.

Appellant Lagahit testiFed that he ?as ?aiting "or a "riend and 3

persons out o" no?here and "or no reason arrested hi. !e resisted

arrest but a gun ?as pointed at the bac@ o" his head. 'hen he ?as

brought to the brgy hall$ the arresting oHcers told hi they "ound

the stic@s inside his poc@et. !e denied o?ning the.

,) convicted hi and sentenced hi to li"e iprisonent. A

aHred.

(SS2& '*# LagahitTs guilt ?as proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Lagahit contends that the sole ?itness 5+*3 La?as Jr8 never

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 2+o" 53


21/53

testiFed as to ho? he ?as able to recover the ; stic@s o" ari=uana

and so the prosecution "ailed to prove the identity o" the corpus

delicti.

S Guilt not proed0eond reasona0le dou0t.

Lagahit is presued innocent until proven guilty under Article (((

Section 1;568 o" constitution and Section 6$ ,ule 133 o" the ,ules o"

ourt ?hich states

,n a cri%inal case$ the accused is entitled to an acquittal$ unless his

#uilt is proved 'e&ond reasona'le dou't. )roof 'e&ond reasona'le

dou't does not %ean such a de#ree of proof$ e"cludin# possi'ilit&

of error$ produces a'solute certaint&. 1nl& %oral certaint& is

required$ or that de#ree of proof which produces conviction in an

unprejudiced %ind.

&leents "or prosecution o" illegal sale o" dangerous drugs li@e

ari=uana

1. identities o" buyer and seller$ the o0ect$ and consideration

6. delivery o" the thing soldand payent "or it

&leents "or prosecution o" illegal possession o" dangerous drugs

li@e ari=uana

1. accused is in possession o" an ite or ob=ect ?hich is

identiFed as a prohibited drug

6. possession is not authori


22/53

latter. (n the sae anner$ .%3 -a#as()r$ failed to state that

he actuall sei?ed the sold four sticks of handrolled

ariuana cigarettes$onsidering that +*3 La?as$ Jr. ?as not

the poseur-buyer and he ?as not even ?ith the poseur buyer

during the sale transaction as he ?as on the opposite side o" the

road$ the turning over to hi by the trusted in"orant o" the "our

stic@s o" handrolled ari=uana cigarettes sold by the appellant ?as

the supposed Frst lin@ in the chain o" custody. Given this issinglin@$ reasonable doubt arises as to the Frst charge 5selling o"

ari=uana8.

,s for the possession case$ prosecution satisFed the eleents

o" the crie but they "ailed to sho? that theapprehending tea

coplied ?ith the reuired procedure "or the custody and

disposition o" conFscated$ sei


23/53

eleent. )his ay be sho?n$ ho?ever$ by the nature o" the act$ the

circustances under ?hich it ?as coitted$ the eans eployed

and the otive o" the accused.)he la? provides that$ in estafa(

pria facie eidence of deceit is esta0lished upon proof

that the dra#er of the check failed to deposit the aount

necessar to coer his check #ithin three 93 das fro

receipt of the notice of dishonor for lack or insu@cienc of

funds$

)hus in esta"a$ good "aith is a de"ense 5lac@ o" alice8 but it ust

be proved.

,ecuerdo raised the de"ense o" good "aith as a ere a"terthought

because she raised it only in her otion "or ,econsideration o" the

A decision. (n +ascual v. ,aos$ the S held that i" an issue is

raised only in the , o" the appellate courtTs decision$ it is as i" it

?as never raised in that court at all.

Besides$ other evidence sho?s her lac@ o" good "aith. She

intransigently re"used to a@e payents despite deands and

only started a@ing payents a"ter the A aHred her conviction.

)he deposit slips she appended in her , did not even sho? ?hich

chec@s they ?ere ade in payent "or.

Also$ even i" C o" the 1: chec@s ?ere honored$ and even i" she paid

every bit o" the aounts in the chec@s$ her criinal liability is not

eEtinguished.

,ecuerdo cannot rely on the *=eda case because *=eda ade

propt gradual payents until she paid all o" her debt.

onviction aHred.

,A(#&S VS. J2DG& *,ALL*S$ S!&,( AB2SA*

Austria:artine+$ J.

Facts:

,acines Fled a oplaint against Judge Jose +. orallos

5Judge orallos8 and Sheri> Ben=ain abusao$ Jr. 5Sheri>

abusao8 "or

[ @no?ingly rendering an un=ust =udgent$[ other deceits$[ violation o" the Anti-Gra"t and orrupt +ractices

Act$[ violation o" Article 36 o" the #e? ivil ode$

Section 1$ Article ((( o" the 1C9: onstitution$ andthe ode o" Judicial onduct.

)he S Fnding erit in the recoendation o" the *Hce o"the ourt Adinistrator$ disissed the coplaint.[ )he ourt held that there ?as nothing in the

records to sho? that Judge orallos ?as ovedby iproper otive ?hen he rendered the

decision$ neither ?as there anything to sho? thatSheri> abusao used his position to inuence theoutcoe o" the decision

)he ourt in the sae resolution that disissed the

coplaint ordered ,acines to sho? cause ?hy he should notbe held in contept o" court "or Fling an utterly baselessand un"ounded adinistrative case.

&acines:)he coplaint ?as prepared by his la?yer in &nglish andalthough it ?as not eEplained to hi$ he signed the coplaintbecause he trusted his la?yer - Atty. *no"re analad. !ad Atty.analad "ully eEplained the docuents to hi$ he ?ould not havesigned the sae$ as he had no intention o" Fling a baselessadinistrative case against respondents. (" there ?as anyone ?hoshould be punished$ it ?as Atty. analad because he deceived hi

into Fling a baseless adinistrative case.

,tt Ganalad:'hen as@ed to coent on ?hat ,acines averred$Atty analad said that ,acines ?as being used against hi by

people ?ho ?ere the opposing parties in one o" the other casesthat hes representing. !e ?ould not have initiated an actionagainst an incubent trial court =udge had no grievous correctibleerror been coitted in bad "aith at the eEpense o" truth and=ustice. inally$ he also asserts that the allegations in the coplaintagainst Judge orallos are substantiated by the adission o" the

parties in their pleadings$ and that he Fled the charges against



24/53

respondents at the instance o" ,acines ?ho ?as even crying ?henhe ?as pleading be"ore Atty. analad "or legal assistance.

Issue: '4# ,acines and Atty analad are guilty o" indirectcontept.E"( 0oth are guilt of indirect contept$

+ersons guilty o" any iproper conduct tending$ directly or

indirectly$ to ipede$ obstruct$ or degrade the adinistration o"=ustice ay be punished "or indirect contept.

)he Fling o" clearly un"ounded or alicious coplaints seriously

a>ects the eHciency o" the ebers o" the =udiciary inadinistering "air$ speedy and ipartial =ustice. )he ourt$ ind"ulo" the proli"eration o" un"ounded or alicious adinistrative orcriinal cases Fled by losing litigants and disgruntled la?yersagainst ebers o" the =udiciary$ there"ore issued A.. #o. 73-17-71-S.

+aragraph 1 provides that i" upon in"oral preliinary

inuiry it is "ound that the coplaint is un"ounded$ baselessand erely intended to harass respondent$ coplainantay be reuired to sho? cause ?hy he should not be held incontept o" court. And i" the coplainant is a la?yer$ heay be "urther reuired to sho? cause ?hy he or she shouldnot be adinistratively sanctioned as a eber o" the Barand as an oHcer o" the court.

,acines tries to escape liability by saying that Atty. analad did noteEplain the contents o" the pleadings to hi$ because i" Atty.analad did$ he ?ould not have signed the sae.

The Court is not coninced$(t is presued that a person intendsthe ordinary conseuences o" his voluntary act and unless thereuireents "or proper substitution ?ere ade$ a la?yer en=oysthe presuption o" authority given hi by his client. ,acines doesnot deny that the signatures in the pleadings ?ere his. !e also doesnot clai that he ?as prevented by Atty. analad "ro reading thecontents thereo". !e only said that since he "ully trusted Atty.

analad. .enalt: &epriand

As to Atty. analad$ the ourt Fnds that a greater penalty is inorder. As a eber o" the bar$ he should @no? better than to Flean un"ounded adinistrative coplaint. !is clai that he Fled thecharges against respondent at the instance o" ,acines cannot "ree

hi "ro liability. La?yers ust al?ays @eep in perspective thatsince they are adinistrators o" =ustice$ oath-bound servants o"society$ their Frst duty is not to their clients$ as any suppose$ butto the adinistration o" =ustice. .enalt: .5(+++.

S+*2S&S A#2&L VS *#G

Joselito Sales attepted to personally serve

suons on the Spouses anuel at their address inLo?er Bacong$ Loacan$ (togon$ Benguet.

o Spouses anuel$ ho?ever$ reuested that service be

ade at another tie considering that petitionerSandra anuelTs other ?as then critically ill.

o Sheri> Sales ade another attept at personal

service to petitioner Sandra anuel but she re"usedto sign and receive the suons and the coplaint.Sheri> Sales ?as thus propted to erely tender the

suons.o As the Spouses anuel "ailed to Fle their ans?er

?ithin the reuired 1%-day period$ *ng as@ed thatthey be declared in de"ault.

&TC:issued an order granting *ngTs otion to declare the

Spouses anuel in de"ault. ,) also granted otion "or eEparte presentation o" evidence.

Spouses anuel Fled a otion to li"t the order o" de"ault.o )hey claied that it is the siblings o" petitioner

Sandra anuel ?ho resided in Lo?er Bacong$ (togon$

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 2*o" 53


25/53

Benguet so suons could not have been properlyserved on the in the "orer address.

&TC: denied otion to li"t order o" de"ault.

Issue L1 9topical: '4# =urisdiction over their person ?asacuiredWE"$

Issue L2:'4# the Spouses anuel ay be granted relie" "rothe order o" de"aultW N%$

&atio:

Issue L1:

Jurisdiction over the persons o" both de"endants ?as validlyacuired because personal service o" suons$ via tender topetitioner Sandra anuel$ ?as ade by Sheri> Joselito Sales.)he sheri>s return on suons indicated that Sheri> Joselito

Sales endeavored to personally hand the suons and a copyo" the coplaint to the Spouses anuel on t?o 568 separateoccasions.

)he Spouses anuel did not deny the occurrence o" the eventsnarrated in the sheri>s return but claied that no valid serviceo" suons ?as ade. )he Spouses anuel cannot capitalisreturn. )he acts o" Sheri> Joselito Sales and the events relatingto the attept to personally hand the suons and a copy o"the coplaint to the Spouses anuel$ as detailed in the sheri>sreturn$ en=oy the presuption o" regularity. oreover$ Sheri>

Joselito Sales ust be presued to have ta@en ordinary careand diligence in carrying out his duty to a@e service upon theproper person5s8 and not upon an ipostor.

A sheri>s return$ i" coplete on its "ace$ ust be accorded thepresuption o" regularity and$ hence$ ta@en to be an accurateand eEhaustive recital o" the circustances relating to the steps

underta@en by a sheri>. (n this case$ the Spouses anuel have

harped on their 5sel"-serving8 clai o" aintaining residenceelse?here but "ailed to even allege that there ?as anythingirregular about the sheri>s return or that it ?as other?iseincoplete.

Issue L2: )he reuisites "or declaring a party in de"ault ?eresatisFed by respondent *ng.

18 the claiing party ust Fle a otion as@ing the court todeclare the de"ending party in de"aultK

68 the de"ending party ust be notiFed o" the otion todeclare hi in de"aultK

38 the claiing party ust prove that the de"ending party has"ailed to ans?er ?ithin the period provided by the ,ule.N

(t is not disputed that *ng Fled a otion to declare the Spousesanuel in de"ault. (t is also not disputed that the latter Fled theirans?er a"ter the F"teen-day period had lapsed. (t is siilarly settledthat the Spouses anuel ?ere notiFed that a otion to declare

the in de"ault had been Fled.

#ot only ?ere the reuisites "or declaring a party in de"aultsatisFed$ the Spouses anuels otion to li"t order o" de"ault ?asalso sho?n to be procedurally inFr. )o li"t the order o" de"ault$there are 3 reuireents

1.8 the otion to li"t order o" de"ault6.8 an aHdavit sho?ing the invo@ed ground - "raud$ accident$

ista@e or eEcusable negligence3.8 the partyTs eritorious de"ense or de"enses

(n this case$ the ourt o" Appeals noted that the Spouses anuelsotion to li"t order o" de"ault ?as not ade under oath. 'e addthat this otion ?as not accopanied by an aHdavit o" eritspeci"ying the "acts ?hich ?ould sho? that their non-Fling o" anans?er ?ithin F"teen 51%8 days "ro arch 1/$ 6717 ?as due to"raud$ accident$ ista@e$ or eEcusable negligence.

ailing both in a@ing their otion under oath and in attaching anaHdavit o" erits$ the Spouses anuels otion to li"t order o"de"ault ust be deeed pro-"ora. (t is not even ?orthy o"

consideration



26/53

)A,A+ V +&*+L&

567798

+etitioner +&)&, )A,A+ y !*#G*0

,espondent +&*+L& * )!& +!(L(++(#&S

+onente J. hico-#a


27/53

sitting position$ accused ?as able to get hold o" the shovel ands?ing it$ hitting Jaes ?ho ?as approaching hi and about tostri@e ?ith a clenched Fst. )arapen stood up and tried to leave.'hen Jaes "ollo?ed hi$ the accused hit hi again ?ith theshovel. )arapen sa? Jaes boarding a taEi$ be"ore reportingthe atter to his supervisor at the oHce.

)arapen accopanied by his supervisor$ voluntarily surrendered tothe police authorities. +er his reuest$ he ?as brought to thehospital ?here he et Jaess ?i"e ?ho hit hi on the bac@. !e?as then brought to the ity Jail to avoid trouble. 2pon posting bail$he ?ent bac@ to the hospital "or treatent.

)he trial court convicted )arapen o" the crie o" hoicide. )his ?asaHred ?ith odiFcation in the A. !ence$ this petition "or revie?Fled be"ore the S.

(ssue

1. '*# the ourt should give credence to testiony o"prosecution ?itnesses R 0&S

6. '*# the accused acted in sel"-de"ense and should be acuitted- #*

,atio

1. redence should be given to prosecution ?itnesses testiony.

7arapen=)estionies o" olly and Silana Linglingen that there?as no prior uarrel or eEchange o" ?ords bet?een )arapen and

Jaes be"ore the victi ?as hit by a shovel ?as contrary to huaneEperience$ because )arapen could not have ta@en the li"e o" Jaes"or no reason at all.

SC=)hey never said that there ?as no uarrel or eEchange.'hat they said ?as that they never ?itnessed such. )hey$ho?ever$ sa? )arapen get a shovel and stri@e Jaes. Botholly and Silana Linglingen never ?itnessed the eventsprior to )arapens act o" getting the shovel. )his void ?assubstantially Flled up by the testiony o" Virginia ostales$?ho actually ?itnessed the altercation bet?een thepetitioner and the victi. )he de"ense cannot$ there"ore$

clai that the prosecutions ?itnesses established that)arapen too@ the li"e o" Jaes "or no reason.

7arapen=olly and Silana Linglingen are biased ?itnesses$ thus$unreliable$ because they ?ere to?n ates and co-vendors o" thevicti.

SC= ere relationship o" a ?itness to the victi does notipair the ?itness credibility. *n the contrary$ a ?itness

relationship to a victi o" a crie ?ould even a@e his orher testiony ore credible$ as it ?ould be unnatural "or arelative$ or a "riend as in this case$ ?ho is interested invindicating the crie$ to accuse soebody other than thereal culprit.

A ?itness is said to be biased ?hen his relation to the causeor to the parties is such that he has an incentive toeEaggerate or give "alse color to his stateents$ or tosuppress or to pervert the truth$ or to state ?hat is "alse. (tust thus be clearly sho?n that$ independently o" therelationship$ the testiony ?as inherently iprobable or

de"ective$ or that iproper or evil otives had oved the?itness to incriinate the accused "alsely. )he de"ense"ailed to sho? any evidence that prosecution ?itnesses hadiproper or evil otives to testi"y "alsely against petitioner.

,arapen: The prosecution #itnesses deli0eratelsuppressed aterial eidence faora0le to Tarapen$ It a0e safel presued that such eidence( haing 0een#illfull suppressed( #ould 0e aderse if produced$

&vidence ,ule 137 sections 6%-3; +age 2Bo" 53


28/53

S-: The defense failed to specif #hich eidence #assuppressed$ It sipl ade a general stateent thatthe prosecution #itnesses allegedl did not tell thetruth and thus deli0eratel suppressed aterialeidence faora0le to the petitioner$

The aderse presuption of suppression of eidenceis not applica0le #hen 91 the suppression is not#illfulK 92 the eidence suppressed or #ithheld iserel corro0oratie or cuulatieK 93 the eidenceis at the disposal of 0oth partiesK and 9* thesuppression is an e4ercise of a priilege$ In the caseat 0ar( the prosecution #itnesses #ho allegedlsuppressed aterial eidence #ere presented incourt and #ere crosse4ained 0 the defensecounsel$ 6o# then can the defense clai there #as

suppressionM

4i#ester*s 6ote= 6o %ention of (ule />/ Section > in theentire case 'ut this is pro'a'l& the issue that*s %ostrelevant to the topic3

7arapen: )he credibility o" Virginia ostales is uestionable$considering that her testiony in court$ ?hich says that she did not

see petitioner and the victi engage in a FstFght$ contradicts her

declaration in her s?orn stateent that that t?o engaged in aFstFght.

SC=ertain discrepancies bet?een declarations ade in anaHdavit and those ade on the ?itness stand seldocould discredit the declarant. S?orn stateents$ beingta@en eE parte$ are alost al?ays incoplete and o"teninaccurate "or various reasons$ soeties "ro partialsuggestion or "or ?ant o" suggestion and inuiries. )hey

are generally in"erior to the testiony o" the ?itness given

in open court.

o AHdavits are generally subordinated in iportance toopen-court declarationsK or$ ore bluntly stated$?henever there is inconsistency bet?een an aHdavitand the testiony o" a ?itness in court$ the testionycoands greater ?eight.

o )he alleged inconsistencies bet?een the testiony o"a ?itness in open court and his s?orn stateentbe"ore the investigators are not "atal de"ects that?ould =usti"y the reversal o" a =udgent o" conviction.

o 'hen rs.ostales ?as con"ronted ?ith thiscontradiction$ she eEplained that she never told thepolice that the petitioner and the victi had a FstFght.'hat she said ?as they had a uarrelK that is$ they"aced each other and eEchanged ?ords.

7arapen= olly and Silana Linglingens version that the victi ?ashit "ro behind$ on the right side o" the head is not tenable$considering that it is not corroborated by edical Fndings. ollyand Silana Linglingens clai ?as negated by the Fndings o" Dr.

ensalvas that Jaes su>ered in=uries on the Nle"t "ronto parietaland le"t "ronto teporo parietalN areas o" his head. )he Fndingsean that Jaes ?as "acing )arapen ?hen hit by the shovel.

SC= )he de"ense relies too uch on the Fndings ade byDr.Lindo ensalvas and copletely oits the Fndings adeby Dr. ,i


29/53

does not ean that the testionies o" olly andSilana Linglingen shall be disbelieved. (t is noted thatDr. ensalvas testiFed that the victi sustained a?ound on the right side o" his head$ possibly caused bya steel shovel.

o 'here a part o" the testiony o" a ?itness runscounter to the edical evidence subitted$ it is ?ithinthe sound discretion o" the court to deterine ?hichportions o" the testiony to re=ect as "alse and ?hichto consider ?orthy o" belie".

7arapen= )he trial court =udge ?as not able to observe the

deeanor o" the prosecution ?itnesses$ because they ?ere loo@ingat the court interpreter ?hen they ?ere testi"ying.

SC=)he trial court =udge ?as ephatic in saying that he hadthe chance to see the "ace o" the ?itness ?hile she testiFed.

6. )arapen "ailed to clearly and convincingly prove sel"-de"ense$?hether coplete or incoplete.

o Article 11$ paragraph 518 o" the ,evised +enal ode$provides "or the eleents and4or reuisites in order that aplea o" sel"-de"ense ay be validly considered in absolving aperson "ro criinal liability$ vi+

1. irst. 2nla?"ul aggressionK6. Second. ,easonable necessity o" the eans

eployed to prevent or repel itK3. )hird. Lac@ o" suHcient provocation on the part o"

the person de"ending hisel".o

)he burden o" evidence that one acted in sel"-de"enseshi"ted to )arapen. Li@e an alibi$ sel"-de"ense is inherently?ea@$ "or it is easy to "abricate. !e ust rely on the strengtho" his o?n evidence and not on the ?ea@ness o" theprosecutions evidence$ "or$ even i" the latter ?ere ?ea@$ itcould not be disbelieved a"ter his open adission o"responsibility "or the @illing.

o )he S conFrs the observations o" the trial court1. )arapen clai that the victi Jaes +angoden$

suddenly and ?ithout provocation$ boEed hi on hisright ear is siply unbelievable. By his o?n account$he ?as at that oent helping a road vendor carry

her sac@ o" eggplants a?ay "ro the path o" thetruc@. (" this is true$ then his testiony that Jaes

attac@ed and boEed hi "or no reason at all losescredibility. )estionies to be believed ust not onlycoe "ro the outh o" credible ?itnesses butshould by theselves be credible$ reasonable$ and inaccord ?ith huan eEperience.

6. (t is li@e?ise inconceivable ho? accused-appellantcould have hit the victi t?ice in the head ?hile he5accused8 ?as allegedly in a sitting position andholding the shovel by the iddle part o" its sha"t. !e

also ade a contradicting account$ sho?ing that he?as @neeling do?n$ ?hen as@ed during cross-eEaination to deonstrate ho? he hit the victi.

3. (t siply goes against the grain o" huan eEperience"or the victi to persist in his attac@ against )arapena"ter getting hit in the head ?ith a steel shovel$considering that he is unared and had nothing toatch the accused ?eapon on hand. )hat Jaes tillhad the resolution and po?er "or a second assault on)arapen$ after #ettin# hit with a steel shovel in thehead$ outs ordinary huan capacity and nature. (ncontrast$ )arapen clais that he N"ell do?nN and N"eltdi


30/53

the soiled eggplants to?ards the direction o" Jaesgoods ?ould negate the absence o" suHcientprovocation on the accuseds part. )hus$ the second andthird reuisites "or sel"-de"ense are not present in thiscase.

!I".%"ITIHE: '!&,&*,&$ all the "oregoing considered$ thedecision o" the ourt o" Appeals in A-G.,. , #o. 6//3/$ dated 31January 677/$ is A(,&D in toto. osts against the petitioner.

2#('(D& SAL&S ,&AL)0 A#D ,&S*2,&S *,+ V )()A#-

(&DA *#S),2)(*# A#D D&V) *,+

5677/8

+etitioner 2#('(D& SAL&S ,&AL)0 A#D ,&S*2,&S *,+*,A)(*#$

,espondent )()A#-(&DA *#S),2)(*# A#D D&V&L*+)*,+*,A)(*#$

+onente J. )inga

oncept ,ule 131 Section 3

acts

1. 3 construction contracts ?as entered into by )itan and 2ni?ide?hereby )itan undertoo@ to construct 2ni?ides 'arehouse luband Adinistration Building 5+ro=ect 18$ to construct anadditional oor and renovate 2ni?ides ?arehouse 5+ro=ect 68and$ to construct the 2ni?ide Sales Departent Store Building

5+ro=ect 38.6. )itan Fled an action against 2ni?ide ?ith the ,)$ "or the non-

payent o" certain clais billed by )itan a"ter copletion o" 3pro=ects covered by the said agreeents. 2pon 2ni?idesotion to disiss4suspend proceedings the case ?assuspended "or it to undergo arbitration. )itans coplaint ?asthus re-Fled ?ith the onstruction (ndustry Arbitrationoission 5(A8.

3. An Arbitral )ribunal ?as created in accordance ?ith the (A,ules. A"ter conducting a preliinary con"erence$ it issued a)ers o" ,e"erence 5)*,8 ?hich ?as signed by the parties. )hetribunal then proulgated a Decision$ holding 2ni?ide liable "or

the unpaid balance "or +ro=ects 6 and 3 5since 2ni?ide already

paid )itan "or additional ?or@s done on +ro=ect 18 and VA) on+ro=ect 3 5a"ter the ourt credited the VA) payent to +ro=ect18. )his ?as aHred by the A in a petition "or revie?.

;. !ence$ 2ni?ide coes to this ourt via a petition "or revie?under ,ule ;%.

(ssues

1. 'hether 2ni?ide is entitled to a return o" the aount itallegedly paid by ista@e to )itan "or additional ?or@s done on+ro=ect 1 R #* 5)he discussion o" this issue entions ,ule 131Section 3"8

6. 'hether the lo?er court ?as correct in crediting the payent o"VA) to +ro=ect 1 - 0&S

3. 'hether 2ni?ide is entitled to liuidated daages "or +ro=ects 1and 3 - #*

;. 'hether )itan is liable "or deFciencies in +ro=ect 6 - #*

,atio

As a rule$ Fndings o" "act o" adinistrative agencies anduasi-=udicial bodies$ ?hich have acuired eEpertise because their=urisdiction is conFned to speciFc atters$ are generally accordednot only respect$ but also Fnality$ especially ?hen aHred by theourt o" Appeals. As an eEception$ the S ho?ever ay inuire intothese "actual issues since the (A and the ourt o" Appealsdi>ered in their Fndings.

/st,ssue= )a&%ent '& istake

)he Frst issue re"ers to the +%$963$;91.:% paid by 2ni?ide "oradditional ?or@s done on +ro=ect 1.

2ni?ide )itan ?as not entitled to be paid this aount because theadditional ?or@s ?ere ?ithout any ?ritten authori


31/53

cites Article 1:6; o" the #e? ivil ode17as basis "or its clai thatit is not liable to pay "or additional ?or@s it did not authori


32/53

)he contract "or +ro=ect 1 is silent on ?hich party shouldshoulder the VA) ?hile the contract "or +ro=ect 3 contained aprovision to the e>ect that 2ni?ide is the party responsible"or the payent o" the VA). )hus$ ?hen 2ni?ide paid theaount o" +6$;77$777.77 as billed by )itan "or VA)$ itassued that it ?as the VA) "or +ro=ect 3. !o?ever$ the(A and the ourt o" Appeals "ound that the sae ?as "or+ro=ect 1.

)he S agreed ?ith the (A and the A that the aounto" +6$;77$777.77 ?as paid by 2ni?ide as VA) "or +ro=ect 1.)his conclusion ?as dra?n "ro an *rder o" +ayent$ ?hich?as approved by 2ni?ide and ?hich eEpressly indicatedthat the pro=ect involved ?as the 2#('(D& SAL&S'A,&!*2S& L2B \ AD(# BLDG. located at C7 &.,*D,(G2& J,. AV&.$ L(B(S$ I..

)he reduced base "or the coputation o" the taE$ accordingto the ourt o" Appeals$ ?as an indication that the partiesagreed to pass the VA) "or +ro=ect 1 to 2ni?ide but based ona lo?er contract price. (ndeed$ the (A "ound that theVA)is paid on labor only "or construction contracts since VA)

had already been paid on the aterials purchased. Sincelabor costs is proportionately placed at /7]-;7] o" thecontract price$ sipliFed accounting coputes VA) at ;] o"the contract price.

>rd,ssue= ered ust be speciFed because such evidence

ay be adissible "or several purposes under the

doctrine o" ultiple adissibility$ or ay beadissible "or one purpose and not "or another$other?ise the adverse party cannot interpose theproper ob=ection.

o &ven assuing$ "or the sa@e o" arguent$ that saidtestiony on the date o" copletion o" +ro=ect 1 isaditted$ the establishent o" the ere "act o" delayis not suHcient "or the iposition o" liuidateddaages. (t ust "urther be sho?n that delay ?as

attributable to the contractor i" not other?ise=ustiFable. ontrarily$ 2ni?ides belated claiconstitutes an adission that the delay ?as =ustiFedand iplies a ?aiver o" its right to such daages.

*n the allegation o" uanti"ying its clai "or liuidateddaages belatedly$ 2ni?ide asserts that (A should haveapplied procedural rules such as Section %$ ,ule 17 ?ithore liberality because it ?as an adinistrative tribunal"ree "ro the rigid technicalities o" regular courts. )he (Are=ected this position$ saying such iportation o" the ,uleso" ourt provision on aendent to con"or to evidence?ould contravene the spirit$ i" not the letter o" the (Arules.

o 2ni?ide only introduced and uantiFed its clai "orliuidated daages in its eorandu subitted tothe (A at the end o" the arbitration proceeding.

o Arbitration has been deFned as an arrangeent "orta@ing and abiding by the =udgent o" selectedpersons in soe disputed atter$ instead o" carryingit to established tribunals o" =ustice$ and is intendedto avoid the "oralities$ the delay$ the eEpense andveEation o" ordinary litigation. Voluntary arbitration$on the other hand$ involves the re"erence o" a

dispute to an ipartial body$ the ebers o" ?hichare chosen by the parties theselves$ ?hich parties"reely consent in advance to abide by the arbitrala?ard issued a"ter proceedings ?here both partieshad the opportunity to be heard. )he basic ob=ectiveis to provide a speedy and ineEpensive ethod o"settling disputes by allo?ing the parties to avoid the"ora

compilation 2015-11-14 for evidence

Documents