8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

1/22

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

2/22

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

3/22

G.R. No. "$) Fe/0&a0' ), $$%

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,

"s.

RI1ALDY G-AMOS al2as  3PO4S3, accusedappellant.

acts: 6ichelle declared in open court that, on 3& Septem$er &''7, at around 8:77 o9cloc) in the

afternoon, while she was on her way from school to her grandfather9s house, she was accosted $y

4uamos. 4uamos dragged her to the poultry house of her grandfather. There in the poultry house,

4uamos remo"ed her panty, and inserted his penis into her se/ organ. After satisfying his carnal

feelings, the accused 4uamos warned her not to tell anyone a$out the incident, otherwise he would

strangle her. Two 3; days later, while 6ichelle9s mother was collecting their clothes which needed

to $e laundered, she disco"ered traces of $lood in 6ichelle9s underpants. She as)ed her daughter

a$out the traces of $lood and 6ichelle, after a while, admitted that she and $een se/ually

assaulted. She told her parents that it was olorical in the amount of =%7,777.77 and as well as to

pay her =87,777.77 as moral damages.

-n this appeal, 4uamos raises a lone assignment of error:

The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty $eyond reasona$le dou$t of the

crime of rape.

Appellant 4uamos also asserts that the testimony of 6ichelle laying the se/ual assault upon her at

his feet should not ha"e $een admitted $ecause her testimony had not $een su$0ected to cross

e/amination. This is a no"el argument made possi$le $y the curious way in which that cross

e/amination was handled $y 4uamos9 counsel.

-SS*?: W#2 the testimony of the "ictim should $e discredited.

1?L>: 2#

-t is, of course, the right of e"ery party to crosse/amine a witness

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

4/22

re"erse, and to elicit all important facts $earing upon the issue.<  -t is also the duty of the witness

to answer uestions put to him or her, su$0ect to certain e/ceptions. -n the instant case, defense

counsel did not as) the Bourt to enforce his right and to compel the witness 6ichelle; to perform

her duty. As noted earlier, the trial 0udge had instructed defense counsel to simplify his uestions.

>efense counsel, for his part, neither complained a$out this directi"e nor complied with it.

Bounsel for appellant see)s to ma)e much of the fact that 6ichelle >olorical did not answer some

of the uestions of defense counsel on crosse/amination. We do not find, howe"er, that this

failure detracts from the admissi$ility or credi$ility of 6ichelle9s testimony. irstly, this appears

to the Bourt to $e a case of failure of 6ichelle to answer some uestions rather than an o$stinate

refusal to do so. -n formulating those uestions on crosse/amination, defense counsel o$"iously did

not ta)e into account that he was crosse/amining a child of tender age 6ichelle was appro/imately

nine @' years of age at the time she ga"e her testimony in open court; suscepti$le to confusion and

pro$a$ly easily intimidated.

The uestions posed $y defense counsel to 6ichelle appear to us to ha"e $een long, ela$orate and

circumlocutious difficult to comprehend e"en for adults. Thus, at one point, the trial court directedthe defense counsel to simplify his uestions. >efense counsel, after that directi"e from the trial

court, tried once more $ut did not succeed in simplifying his uestions. =romptly thereafter,

defense counsel ceased crosse/amination after stating for the record that 6ichelle was

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

5/22

*. LIM4ET4AI SONS MILLING, IN+., petitioner, "s.+O-RT OF APPEALS, BAN4 OF THE

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and NATIONAL BOO4 STORE, respondents.

G.R. No. #%"$ De5e6/e0 , $$%

FA+TS

=hilippine emnants Bo., -nc. constituted !=- as its trustee to manage, administer, and sell its real

estate property. #ne such piece of property placed under trust was the disputed lot at =asig,

6etro 6anila. =edro e"illa, Jr., a licensed real estate $ro)er was gi"en formal authority $y !=- to

sell the lot in cash for =&,777.77 per suare meter. This arrangement was concurred in $y the

owners of the =hilippine emnants. !ro)er e"illa contacted Alfonso Lim of petitioner company who

agreed to $uy the land. #n July (, &'((, petitioner9s officials and e"illa were gi"en permission $y

olando C. Aromin, !=- Assistant Cice=resident, to enter and "iew the property they were $uying.#n July ', &'((, e"illa formally informed !=- that he had procured a $uyer, herein petitioner. #n

July &&, &'((, petitioner9s officials, Alfonso Lim and Al$ino Lim)et)ai, went to !=- to confirm the

sale. They were entertained $y Cice=resident 6erlin Al$ano and Asst. Cice=resident Aromin.

=etitioner as)ed that the price of =&,777.77 per suare meter $e reduced to ='77.77 while Al$ano

stated the price to $e =&,&77.77. The parties finally agreed that the lot would $e sold at =&,777.77

per suare meter to $e paid in cash. Alfonso Lim as)ed if it was possi$le to pay on terms. -t was the

understanding, howe"er, that should the term payment $e disappro"ed, then the price shall $e paid

in cash. Alfonso Lim, on the same date, July &&, &'((, wrote !=- through 6erlin Al$ano em$odying

the payment initially of &7D and the remaining '7D within a period of '7 days. Two or three days

later, petitioner learned that its offer to pay on terms had $een froEen. Alfonso Lim went to !=- on

July &(, &'(( and tendered the full payment of =%%,75F,777.77 to Al$ano. The payment was

refused $ecause Al$ano stated that the authority to sell that particular piece of property in =asig

had $een withdrawn from his unit. The same chec) was tendered to !=- Cice=resident 2elson !ona

who also refused to recei"e payment.

An action for specific performance with damages was thereupon filed $y petitioner against !=-. -n

the course of the trial, !=- informed the trial court that it had sold the property under litigation

to 2!S. The complaint was thus amended to include 2!S.

TB: there was perfected sale $etween petitioner and !=-. -t ordered to cancel the TBT of 2!S

BA: e"ersed.

ISS-ES

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

6/22

& W#2 there was perfected contract of sale $etween petitioner and !=-. G?S

3 W#2 respondent Bourt of Appeals erred in ruling that the statute of frauds is applica$le.

G?S

HELD

&. The negotiation or preparation stage started with the authority gi"en $y =hilippine emnants to

!=- to sell the lot, followed $y a; the authority gi"en $y !=- and confirmed $y =hilippine emnants

to $ro)er e"illa to sell the property, $; the offer to sell to Lim)et)ai, c; the inspection of the

property and finally d; the negotiations with Aromin and Al$ano at the !=- offices.

The perfection of the contract too) place when Aromin and Al$ano, acting for !=-, agreed to sell

and Alfonso Lim with Al$ino Lim)et)ai, acting for petitioner Lim)et)ai, agreed to $uy the disputed

lot at =&,777.77 per suare meter. Aside from this there was the earlier agreement $etween

petitioner and the authoriEed $ro)er. There was a concurrence of offer and acceptance, on the

o$0ect, and on the cause thereof.

The fact that the deed of sale still had to $e signed and notariEed does not mean that no contract

had already $een perfected. A sale of land is "alid regardless of the form it may ha"e $een entered

into.

3. -n A$renica "s . 4onda %8 =hil. H%' @&'&F; wherein it was held that contracts infringing the

Statute of rauds are ratified when the defense fails to o$0ect, or as)s uestions on cross

e/amination.

-n the instant case, counsel for respondents crosse/amined petitioner9s witnesses at length on the

contract itself, the purchase price, the tender of cash payment, the authority of Aromin and

e"illa, and other details of the litigated contract. *nder the A$renica rule, e"en assuming that

parol e"idence was initially inadmissi$le, the same $ecame competent and admissi$le $ecause of the

crosse/amination, which elicited e"idence pro"ing the e"idence of a perfected contract. The cross

e/amination on the contract is deemed a wai"er of the defense of the Statute of rauds. The

reason for the rule is that as pointed out in A$renica  

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

7/22

6oreo"er, under Article &87% of the Bi"il Bode, an e/ception to the unenforcea$ility of contracts

pursuant to the Statute of rauds is the e/istence of a written note or memorandum e"idencing the

contract. The memorandum may $e found in se"eral writings, not necessarily in one document. The

memorandum or memoranda isIare written e"idence that such a contract was entered into. While

there is no written contract of sale of the =asig property e/ecuted $y !=- in fa"or of plaintiff,

there are a$undant notes and memoranda e/tant in the records of this case e"idencing theelements of a perfected contract.

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

8/22

8. =eople "s 4ener >e 4uEman

4.. 2o. &&H3&H. >ecem$er 3, &''F

C-BT-6: 4ilda !. Am$ray %3year old wife of Auilino lores Am$ray and a mother of twochildren

ABB*S?>: 4ener >e 4uEman

>#BT-2?: The principal o$0ect of redirect e/amination is to pre"ent in0ustice to the witness and

the party who has called him $y affording an opportunity to the witness to e/plain the testimonygi"en on crosse/amination, and to e/plain any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his

statements, an opportunity which is ordinarily afforded to him during crosse/amination. The re

direct e/amination ser"es the purpose of completing the answer of a witness, or of adding a new

matter which has $een omitted, or of correcting a possi$le misinterpretation of testimony.

ABTS:

Bomplainant 4ilda Am$ray filed with the 6unicipal Trial Bourt 6TB; of !acoor, Ba"ite, a

complaint  charging accused 4ener de 4uEman y Sico with the crime of rape allegedly committedat $"" p.6. o7 * Ma058 $$) in 6eadow Wood, ?/ecuti"e Cillage, !arangay =anapaan,!acoor, Ba"ite. The accused was arrested $ut was  0eleased on /a2l. The accused pleaded not

guilty upon arraignment. The trial court cancelled the $ail $ond of 4ener de 4uEman on the groundthat the e"idence of his guilt was strong for an offense punisha$le reclusion perpetua and was thus

rearrested. 1is motion for reconsideration of cancellation of $ail $ond was denied $y trial court.

PROSE+TION 9ERSION 3 Witnesses: esurreccion Talu$ uiocho, a )umadre  of the accused,

and Auilino lores Am$ray, the hus$and of the complainant;

4ilda was home$ound from Anson >epartment Store where she wor)ed as a sales cler) and

was at the gate of 6eadow Wood Su$di"ision, =anapaan, !acoor, Ba"ite, at a$out (:85 p.m. waiting

for a tricycle ride toward her residence. She noticed the accused, then wearing army pants, sitting

at the guardhouse, she approached him and as)ed him some uestions. 1e answered in a stammeringmanner. The complainant recogniEed the accused "ery well $ecause it was summertime and the gate

of the su$di"ision was welllit. She started to wal) when accused offered her a ride to which sheagreed. The accused too) a different route and would once stop in a while, telling her that the

motor was not in good condition. *pon reaching =hase -- of the su$di"ision, near an unfinished

house, the accused reuested that she push the tricycle. She alighted and offered him P%."" $ut

was refused. *pon wal)ing &7 steps, the accused em$raced her from $ehind, co"ered her mouthand held her nec) tightly. The accused then dragged her to a va5ant lot ten 6ete0s a:a' from

the unfinished house. She attempted to shout again, $ut he threatened to )ill her if she made

noise. 1e tried to raise her Tshirt while holding her nec) tightly. 1e shouted and commanded her

to raise her Tshirt, which she o$ligingly followed $ecause of fear. 1e remo"ed her $ra and )issedher $reast. She shouted Sa;lolo< T&l&n=an n2n'o a;o , $ut the accused co"ered her mouth and again

held her nec) that she could hardly $reathe. 1e held her hand tightly and positioned himself on topof her. 1e unEipped her pants and pulled it down her )nees. When she tried to stand, he pushed

her down and, in the process, was a$le to completely pull down her pants and underwear. 1e warned

her: 1uwag )ang sisigaw, papatayin )ita . The accused too) her hand and let her hold his penis to

ma)e it stiff. T8e a55&sed t02ed to 2nse0t 82s pen2s 2nto 8e0 t80ee t26es /&t onl' s&55eeded on

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

9/22

t8e t820d :8en G2lda /e5a6e too :ea; to st0&==le a=a2nst t8e a55&seds se>&al advan5es. 1e

then pulled out his penis and fingered her pri"ate organ for a short while. The accused then warned

4ilda not to tell any$ody, otherwise, he would )ill her and all mem$ers of her family. 1e told herthat she was his third "ictim $ut the two did not complain. When 4ilda arri"ed home, she told her

mother and her hus$and, Auilino lores Am$ray, that she was raped $y the accused.

At 6idnight of 6arch %& &''3, 4ilda with her mother reported the incident to the=resident of the 1omeowner+s Association who then sent an in"estigator =#% ?fren !autista, towhom 4ilda descri$ed her assailant as a t025'5le d02ve0, tall, st0on=, :2t8 5&0l' 8a20 and 2n a06'

5&t with trycicle as $lue in color with the name >imple at the $ac). 1er medico legal confirmed

presence of spermatoEoa and physical in0uries indicati"e of force applied. The accused parents

wife and children and sister in law met 4ilda to as) her forgi"eness $ut was to no a"ail.

>??2S? C?S-#2 Witness: Alfredo ernandeE and Teotimo Bamogong;

After tra"eling a$out half a )ilometer, his tricycle malfunctioned. 1e told 4ilda that she$etter wal) home $ecause her house was already near. 1e pushed his tricycle home, and on his way,

one Alfredo ernandeE approached him and helped him push the tricycle towards his home, and

upon arri"al thereat, he told Alfredo not to lea"e at once. At around ':&7 p.m., they started to drin)

liuor until &&:77 p.m., and after their drin)ing spree, he cleaned their mess and slept.

6TB 4*-LTG

-SS*?:

&; W1?T1? # 2#T T1? B#*T ??> -2 -2>-24 T1AT ABB*S?> 1AS -2>*!-TA!LG

?6=L#G?> #B? A2> -2T-6->AT-#2 -2 T1? A=? # T1? C-BT-6.

3; W1?T1? # 2#T T1? B#*T ??> -2 -2>-24 T1AT ABB*S?> WAS =#S-T-C?LG

->?2T--?> !G T1? C-BT-6.

*? @8et8e0 o0 not t8e a55&sed s8o&ld /e 5onv25ted o7 * 5o&nts o7 Rape as pe0 test26on' o7

G2lda on Red20e5t e>a62nat2on 2nstead o7 onl' one

1?L>:

& A2> 3: G?S, the two issues and the determination of the guilt of the accused depend primarilyon the 50ed2/2l2t' o7 t8e 5o6pla2nant G2lda A6/0a', since only she and the accused witnessed the

incident when it happened. 1er testimony alone, if credi$le, would render the accuseds con"iction

ine"ita$le

A meticulous assessment of 4ildas testimony demonstrates $eyond dou$t the truthfulnessof her story, which she narrated in a categorical, straightforward and candid manner. urther

strengthening her credi$ility in recounting her ordeal at the hands of the accused was her conductimmediately after the se/ual assault. She ran home without loo)ing $ac), and upon her arri"al she

reported the rape to her hus$and and her mother at once and to the =resident of 1omeownersassociation. When the policemen $rought the accused to the residence of Antonio, 4ilda forthwith

pointed to the accused as the person who raped her. 4ilda "oluntarily su$mitted herself to a

medical e/amination at the Las =ias 1ospital and then to an e/amination of her pri"ate parts $y >r.

!ernales of the 2!-. She su$mitted herself to in"estigation and filed a complaint the following day.T8e C&25;ness and spontane2t' o7 t8ese deeds 6an27ested t8e nat&0al 0ea5t2ons o7 a v20t&o&s

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

10/22

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

11/22

=?#=L? # T1? =1-L-==-2?S, plaintiffappellee, "s. J?S*S =?? y S?!*24A, accused

appellant.

ABTS: #n January &H, &''H, a$out noontime, in Sitio !aco, !arangay 6acarang, =alauig, am$ales,

si/year old 6ayia =onseca was wal)ing along Sulo) on her way to her house in Sitio Bamiling when

appellant Jesus Se$unga =ereE approached her. Appellant introduced himself as Johnny andimmediately afterwards, strangled her nec) and $o/ed her a$domen. Still in shoc), 6ayia fell down.At that point, a dog arri"ed and $ar)ed at them.

6ayia was raped then the appellant raised his pants and ran away. 2otwithstanding that her "agina

was $leeding profusely and her dress now co"ered with her own $lood, 6ayia managed to stand up

and see) help. She ran to the house of Cirginia 4iron, which was only fifty 57; meters away from

the scene of the crime. 4iron saw a confused 6ayia approaching her with $lood dripping from herpri"ate parts and thighs. When 4iron as)ed 6ayia what happened, the latter shouted uring her confinement at the hospital, the =onseca

couple reported the incident to the =alauig =2= =olice Station and recounted their daughters

narration including the name of the culprit as Johnny who, according to their neigh$ors, was a

wor)er at the fishpond of !artolome Tolentino . =olice operati"es then proceeded to the saidfishpond and arrested appellant. After her discharge from the hospital, 6ayia learned that

appellant was already apprehended. -n the police station, she was a$le to positi"ely identify the

appellant.

After trial, the court a uo rendered 0udgment against =ereE for rape.

Appellant contends that his identification in open court $y 6ayia was highly irregular. Appellant

points out that the prosecutor had already identified him as the man wearing an orange tshirt

when the prosecutor as)ed 6ayia to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant stresses that when 6ayia

identified him in open court, she referred to him as a man named Johnny and did not gi"e anydescription or any identifying mar). 6oreo"er, appellant claims he was alone in the cell when 6ayia

identified him after the police arrested him. Appellant $ewails that the identification was not done

with the usual police lineup.

-SS*?: Whether or not the court erred and con"iction should $e re"ersed.

1?L>: 2#. As a rule, leading uestions are not allowed. 1owe"er, the rules pro"ide for e/ceptions

when the witness is a child of tender years as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts

without prompting or suggestion. Leading uestions are necessary to coa/ the truth out of their

reluctant lips. -n the case at $ar, the trial court was 0ustified in allowing leading uestions to 6ayiaas she was e"idently young and unlettered, ma)ing the recall of e"ents difficult, if not uncertain.

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

12/22

The trend in procedural law is to gi"e wide latitude to the courts in e/ercising control o"er the

uestioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our ule on ?/amination of a Bhild

Witness, which too) effect on >ecem$er &5, 3777, namely, &; to facilitate the ascertainment ofthe truth, 3; to ensure that uestions are stated in a form appropriate to the de"elopmental le"el

of the child, %; to protect children from harassment or undue em$arrassment, and 8; a"oid waste

of time. Leading uestions in all stages of e/amination of a child are allowed if the same will furtherthe interests of 0ustice.

The Bourt has repeatedly stated that it is highly inconcei"a$le for a child of tender age,ine/perienced in the ways of the world, to fa$ricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical

e/amination of her pri"ate part, su$0ect herself to pu$lic trial, and tarnish her family9s honor and

reputation, unless she was moti"ated $y a strong desire to see) 0ustice for the wrong committed

against her.

6ayia9s simple, positi"e and straightforward recounting on the witness stand of her harrowing

e/perience lends credence to her accusation. 1er tender age $elies any allegation that her

accusation was a mere in"ention impelled $y some illmoti"e. As the Bourt has stressed in numerouscases, when a woman or a child "ictim says that she has $een raped, she in effect says all that is

necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.

6ayia had a clear sight of appellants face since the rape occurred at noontime. 1er pro/imity to

appellant during the se/ual assault lea"es no dou$t as to the correctness of her identification for a

man and woman cannot $e physically closer to each other than during the se/ual act. Thus, e"en if6ayia did not gi"e the identifying mar)s of appellant, her positi"e identification of appellant

sufficed to esta$lish clearly the identity of her se/ual assailant.

Appellants claim that the police improperly suggested to 6ayia to identify appellant is without

$asis. True, 6ayia did not identify appellant in a police lineup when 6ayia identified appellant in hiscell. 1owe"er, appellant, in his testimony admitted that he had two other companions in his cell.6oreo"er, the Bourt has held that there is no law reuiring a police lineup as essential to a proper

identification. ?"en without a police lineup, there could still $e a proper identification as long as

the police did not suggest such identification to the witnesses. The records are $ereft of any

indication that the police suggested to 6ayia to identify appellant as the rapist.

6ayias identification in open court of appellant as her rapist dispels any dou$t as to the proper

identification of appellant. 6ayia positi"ely identified and pointed to appellant as her rapist.

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

13/22

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Pla2nt277Appellee , v. TERESITA ARANDA Y

DORIA, A55&sedAppellant 

ABTS:

=#S?B*T-#2: At a$out 5:77 p.m. on August &H, &''7, =fc. Ale/ander BorpuE of the Anti2arcotics *nit of the Kaloo)an Bity =olice Station recei"ed a phone call at his office. The

-nformant told =fc. BorpuE that a dri"er of a tricycle with =late 2o. 268(%& was a$out to go to

the corner of 4en. Tinio and eparo Streets, !agong !arrio, Kaloo)an Bity, to $uy ??2S?: The accusedappellant was a resident and has $een a resident of 2o. H7 San Juan, =asay

Bity since &'H3. At a$out 5:77 =.6. on August &H, &''7 she went to the house of a friend 6elissa at

!agong !arrio, Kaloo)an Bity. The said friend, 6elissa had 0ust gi"en $irth $ut didn9t see herfriend. She left and too) a tricycle along eparo St., !agong !arrio, Kaloo)an Bity on her way $ac)to her residence at =asay Bity. As the tricycle was mo"ing along eparo St., policemen suddenly

appeared and arrested the tricycle dri"er whom the accusedappellant later came to )now as !enito

Cillanue"a she was then forced to alight from the said tricycle and li)ewise arrested. -t is also

esta$lished that at the time the accusedappellant was arrested there was no warrant for herarrest. -n fact when she was made to alight from the tricycle and $rought to the police

headuarters she was not informed why they were $ringing her to the police headuarters.

>uring the trial, !enito Cillanue"a was presented as prosecution witness. The trial court rendered

its 0udgment, finding appellant guilty $eyond reasona$le dou$t of deli"ering methamphetamine

hydrochloride or sha$u in "iolation of the >angerous >rugs Act hence, this appeal.

-SS*?: Whether or not the hostile witness9s testimony is admissi$le.

1?L>:G?S. There was no showing that Cillanue"a was declared $y the trial court as a hostilewitness as reuired in Section &3 of ule &%3 of the ules of ?"idence.

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

14/22

paragraphs d; and e; of Section &7, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his

credi$ility.

A witness may $e considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared $y the court upon adeuate

showing of his ad"erse interest, un0ustified reluctance to testify, or his ha"ing misled the party

into calling him to the witness stand. -talics supplied ;.<

The prosecution also failed to show that Cillanue"a had an ad"erse interest in the case, or was

un0ustifia$ly reluctant to testify, or had misled the prosecution into calling him to the witnessstand. 1ence, Cillanue"a cannot $e considered as a hostile witness and the prosecution is $ound $y

his testimony that nothing was deli"ered to him $y Appellant .

The telling $low that de"astated the case of the =eople of the =hilippines was the presentation of!enito Cillanue"a as prosecution witness. Cillanue"a, the other accused and the dri"er of the

tricycle which appellant was riding when arrested, was presented to elicit from him the identity ofthe person who deli"ered the drugs to him. 1owe"er, said witness when as)ed to identify the person

who deli"ered to him the said drugs, did not name Appellant .

The prosecution has failed to pro"e that appellant

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

15/22

=?#=L? # T1? =1-L-==-2?S "s. A2T#2-# =LAS?2B-A $y 4em;

 acts: Antonio =lasencia, o$erto >escartin and Joelito Julito; >escartin were accused of ro$$erywith homicide upon 1erminio 6ansueto. Joelito was in"ited to the police headuarters to shed light

on the case. Later, Joelito, wai"ing his right to counsel, e/ecuted a

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

16/22

e"idence must $e recei"ed with caution.

Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. -n thiscase, the e/ercise of that discretion has not $een a$used the witness herself has e/plained that

she merely wanted to $e accurate on dates and li)e details. Appellants see inad"ertency on

rancisca9s appearing to $e escartin that rancisca and her hus$and, a tu$agatherer, owedhim =%77.77, and the assertion made $y appellant Antonio =lasencia on the dog$iting story in"ol"ing

rancisca9s son truly were too petty to consider. -t would $e a$surd to thin) that rancisca, for

such tri"ial reasons was actually impelled to falsely implicate appellants for so gra"e an offense as

murder.

Appellants uestioned rancisca9s a$ility to recogniEe them from a distance. rancisca )new

appellants well they all were her neigh$ors while Antonio =lasencia himself was her cousin. The

crime occurred at around three o9cloc) in the afternoon only a$out fifty 57; meters away from

her. With an uno$structed "iew, rancisca9s positi"e identification of the culprits should $e aforegone matter. The alleged inconsistencies in rancisca9s testimony and in her sworn statementco"er matters of little significance. 6inor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not

detract from their credi$ility on the contrary, they ser"e to strengthen their credi$ility and are

ta)en as $adges of truth rather than as indicia of falsehood e"en as they also erase suspicion of

rehearsed testimony.

All considered, the case against the appellants has $een pro"en $eyond reasona$le dou$t e"en with

the retracted e/tra0udicial admission of Joelito >escartin. The testimony of a single witness, if

found to $e credi$le, is adeuate for con"iction. The defense of ali$i hardly can o"ercome thepositi"e identification of an unpre0udiced eyewitness.

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

17/22

PEOPLE 9S. PLASEN+IA /' Belo?

PLAINTIFF: =eople of the =hilippinesA++-SED: A2T#2-# =LAS?2B-A y >?SA6=AA># alias ?SBAT-2 y

=AS-BAA2 alias ?SBAT-2 y =AS-BAA2

DO+TRINE: ?ntire ruling.

FA+TS:Antonio =lasencia, o$erto >escartin and Joelito Julito; >escartin were accused of ro$$ery with

homicide for the death of 1erminio 6ansueto.

1erminio 6ansueto left on his $icycle for !arangay =atao, !antayan, Be$u. 1e had with him cashwhich he would use to purchase hogs from a certain escartin;

-n =atao, rancisca ?spina, also )nown in the locality as =ansing and whose house was 0ust across the

street from the respecti"e residences of the three accused, saw at the roadside 1erminio6ansueto and o$erto >escartin alias  

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

18/22

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

19/22

: Why, what was your purpose of writing that in your palmO

A: - wrote this in my palm $ecause - wanted to $e sure of what time the incident happened,

was the same as that - wrote in my palm.

: And who furnished you the data in which you wrote in the palm of your handO

A: - was the one who made that.

ATTG. 4#2AL?S:

: Gou don9t understand my uestion. Gou wrote that writing $ut where did you get that

dataO

A: This is 0ust of what - )now.

: Since you claim to ha"e all this )nowledge of your mind, why did you find it necessary to

write that in the palm of your hand and - notice during the trial that you used to loo) in your palm, why, is that necessary in your $elie"e sic; to testify here to what you )new

a$out the incident.

A: !ecause of the fact that - ha"e an headache.

: When did this headache occurO

A: After - left my house $ecause my sic) child.

ISS-E:

Whether or not the testimony of the witness should $e gi"en credit.

HELD:

Ges. The use of memory aids during an e/amination of a witness is not altogether proscri$ed.

Section &F, ule &%3, of the ules of Bourt states:

Sec. &F. When witness may refer to memorandum . N A witness may $e allowed to refresh

his memory respecting a fact, $y anything written or recorded $y himself or under his

direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other 

time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he )new that the same was correctly 

written or recorded  $ut in such case the writing or record must $e produced and may $e 

inspected $y the ad"erse party, who may, if he chooses, cross.e/amine the witness upon it and may read it in e"idence . So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or record,

though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is a$le to swear that the

writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made $ut such e"idence must $e

recei"ed with caution. ?mphasis supplied.;

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

20/22

Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. )* -n this

case, the e/ercise of that discretion has not $een a$used the witness herself has e/plained that

she merely wanted to $e accurate on dates and li)e details.People vs 4e6p2s

Do5t02nes REMEDIAL LA@ E9IDEN+E +REDIBILITY FINDINGS OF FA+T OF THE TRIAL

+O-RT GENERALLY -PHELD ON APPEAL REASON. N The issue of credi$ility is to $e resol"ed

primarily $y the trial court $ecause it is in a $etter position to decide the uestion, ha"ing heard

the witnesses and o$ser"ed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The trial

court+s findings on the matter of credi$ility are thus entitled to the highest degree of respect and

will not $e distur$ed on appeal in the a$sence of any showing that it o"erloo)ed, misunderstood or

misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and su$stance which would ha"e affected the

result of the case.

-NA9AILING IN THE FA+E OF POSITI9E IDENTIFI+ATION. N The defense of ali$i cannot

pre"ail o"er the positi"e identification of the accused.

RE-ISITE TO PROSPER AS A DEFENSE. N or it to prosper, it is not enough that an accused

show that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed he must, more importantly,

demonstrate that it was physically impossi$le for him to ha"e $een at the scene of the crime.

Fa5ts Accused Teofilo Kempis, then a mem$er of the =hilippine Bonsta$ulary =B;, was initially

charged with two 3; counts of murder: for the sta$$ing of Antonio 6iraflor and the shooting ofLolito i"ero, gra"e threats and a$use of authority.

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

21/22

proceeded to the =olice Station at 6ayorga, Leyte. =ostmortem ?/amination shows that fi"e of the

se"en wounds inflicted on i"era were gunshot wounds.<

#n the other hand, the a55&seds ve0s2on discloses that the incident in uestion actually occurred

on &F Septem$er &'(( N not on &5 Septem$er &'(( and that he )illed Lolito i"ero under

circumstances that could e/empt or mitigate his lia$ility.

iosdado Kempis. The court a uo o$ser"ed that

8/18/2019 Rule 132 (Sec. 1 to 18)

22/22

After the promulgation of the decision on ' #cto$er &''7, the accused seasona$ly filed a 6otion

for econsideration &' alleging therein that the trial court erred a; in not crediting him with the

mitigating circumstance of "oluntary surrender and $; in ruling that the incident actually too) place

on &F Septem$er &'(( and not on &5 Septem$er &'(( as testified to $y prosecution witnesses

osalina Adonis, *r$ano Adonis and Barmen 2a"arro, and as e"idenced $y the death certificate ofthe "ictim, a /ero/ copy of which was anne/ed to the motion. The prosecution opposed the motion.

37 -n its #rder of ( January &''&, the trial court denied the motion. #n 3& January &''&, the

accused filed his 2otice of Appeal.

#ne of the documents identified in court during the murder trial was an -n"estigation

eport prepared $y the egional -nspector 4eneral. The prosecution, howe"er, mar)ed and offered

only in e"idence a portion consisting of an entry in the =olice $lotter of 6ayorga, Leyte. When the

trial court decided the cases against the accused, howe"er, it too) into consideration the entre

document consisting of no less than fi"e pages.

Iss&e -s the court correct in appreciating the whole documentOHeld 2o. the trial court should not ha"e ta)en the rest into account in the formulation of its

conclusions, $ut only the portion offered in e"idence. Se5. ( o7 R&le *) pro"ides that