LEGAL TECHNIQUE

1.Ang vs CA

GR 182835, April 20, 2010

Rules on Electronic Evidence

Facts: Complainant Irish Sagud and accused Rustan Ang were sweethearts. However, Irish broke up with him when she learned

he had taken a live-in partner whom he had gotten pregnant. Rustan convinced her to elope with him for he did not love the

woman whom he was about to marry, but Irish rejected the proposal. She changed her cellphone number but Rustan managed to

get hold of it and send her text messages.

Irish received through multimedia message a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with her face superimposed on the

figure. The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was one of the numbers used by Rustan. After she got the obscene

picture, she received text messages from Rustan threatening her that he will spread the picture he sent through the Internet.

Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone number he used in sending the picture and text message.

She asked him to meet her at a resort and he did. Upon parking his motorcycle and walking towards Irish, the police intercepted

and arrested him. The police seized his cellphone and several SIM cards.

Issue: whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.

Held: Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it

should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Electronic

Evidence.

The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the pictures on such ground at the time it was offered in

evidence. He should be deemed to have waived such ground for objection.

Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil

actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings. Petition denied.

2. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

Patula v. people G.R. No. 164457

April 11, 2012

Facts:

In a Estafa case, witness auditor based her testimony on the entries found in the receipts supposedly issued by petitioner and in the ledgers corresponding to each customer, as well as on the unsworn statements of some of the customers.

Issue: Is the testimony hearsay?

RulingYes

Analysis: Sec. 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court , states that a witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from herown perception, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court . Witness-lady-auditor witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.

3. Act or declaration about pedigree

Tison vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 121027July 31, 1997FACTS:

The case involves an action for reconveyance filed by petitioners Corazon and Rene against private respondent Teodora Domingo. The petitioners herein are the niece and nephew of spouses Teodora Guerrero and Martin Guerrero. Teodora Guerrero died without any ascendant or descendant. When she died, the petitioners sought to inherit the parcel of land from Teodora by right of representation. Martin, however, sold the land to private respondents Teodora Domingo. Just the same, the petitioners sought

reconveyance, saying that they are entitled to inherit ½ of the property in question by right of representation. In this regard, private respondent Domingo maintains that the petitioners failed to establish their legitimate filiation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the legitimacy of petitioners may be properly challenged in the present action for reconveyance

HELD:

No. The private respondent is not the proper party to impugn the legitimacy of herein petitioners. The presumption consequently continues to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is rebutted. Even assuming that the issue is allowed to be resolved, the burden of proof rests not on the petitioners who have the benefit of the presumption in their favor, but on the private respondent who is disputing the same.

4. ESTATE OF ROGELIO ONG VS JOANNE RODGIN DIAZ G.R. No. 171713 December 17 2007

Rule on DNA Evidence

FACTS:The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate and Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the minor Joanne. Trial court formerly rendered a decision and declared the minor to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to support the child until she reaches the age of majority. Rogelio died during the pendency of the case with the CA. The Estate filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a dead person cannot be subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity testing, as current jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of settling the present paternity dispute."

ISSUE: Whether or not DNA analysis can still be done despite the death of Rogelio.

RULING:Yes. The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. New Rules on DNA Evidence   allows the conduct of DNA testing by using biological samples--organic material originating from the person's body, ie., blood, saliva, other body fluids, tissues, hair, bones, even inorganic materials- that is susceptible to DNA testing.

In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. (People vs Umanito, citing Tecson vs Comelec 424 SCRA 277)