LIST OF CASES

(Admission, Res Inter Alios Acta, Compromise, Hearsay Evidence) (A) Admissions and Confessions 1. People v. Paragsa . People v. Alegre !. "#rg#l#o $o% vs. Pp 4. S#-a%ga% vs. Pp (. 84 SCRA 105 (1978) 94 SCRA 109 (1979) &R 'o.15 1(0) 1! *a%+ar, 004 &R 'o.157984) 8 *+l, 004

5. People vs. Re%a.o Espa%ol) &.R. 'o.175(0!) 1! Fe/r+ar, 009 Es.ra0a v. 1es#er.o) e. al. !5( SCRA 108 (! Apr#l 001)

(B) Compromises 1. 2.S. v. Torres . People v. &o0o, !. People v. 1e &+4-a% 4. People v. 5parr#g+#rre 5. People v. 6a7+# !4 P3#l. 994 (191() 50 SCRA (7( (1995) (5 SCRA 8 (199() (8 SCRA !5 (1997) 7 P3#l. 97 (1914)

(C) Res Inter Alios Acta 1. . !. 4. 5. (. 7. 8. 9. People v. Alegre People v. Ra7+el $a%8 o9 Co--er:e v. 6a%alo People v. Ca/rera People v. 5a.:o People v. C3a; 5a; S3+% People v. Serra%o C#., o9 6a%#la v. 1el Rosar#o &evero vs. IAC 94 SCRA 109 (1979 (5 SCRA 48 (199() 9 Fe/r+ar, 00( 57 SCRA 715 (1974) 97 P3#l. 941 (1955) ! SCRA 1 7 (19(8) 105 P3#l. 5!1 (1959) 5 P3#l. 7 (1905) 189 SCRA 01

(D) Conduct and Character As Evidence 1. . !. 4. 5. (. 2.S. v. P#%e0a People vs. Ira%g People v. Sol#-a% People v. $a/#era 2.S. v. 6er:a0o &o%4ales v. People !7 P3#l. 457 (1918) (4 P3#l. 85 (19!7) 5! O.&. 808! (1957) 5 P3#l. 97 (19 8) ( P3#l. 1 7 (191!) 515 SCRA 480 (1 Fe/r+ar, 007)

(E)

Hearsay Evidence Rule

Page1

1. . !. 4. 5. (. 7. 8. 9. 10.

People v. &a00# Es.ra0a v. 1es#er.o Cor%e<o v. Sa%0#ga%/a,a% People vs. Cer#lla Ar#a.e vs. Pp People v. Sal#so% People v. $a+.#s.a People vs. 1e *o,a People v. 6a<+r# F+e%.es v. CA

170 SCRA (49 (1989) !5( SCRA (! Apr#l 001) !1 *+l, 1987 &.R. 'o. 177147) 8 'ove-/er 007 &.R. 'o.17!(08) 0 'ove-/er 008 &.R. 'o. L=115(90) Fe/. 0) 199( 1 *+%e 1999 0! SCRA 40!) 8 'ove-/er 1991 9( SCRA 47 (1980) 5! SCRA 4!0 (199() 74 SCRA 197 (19 *+%e 1997) 487 SCRA (19 Apr#l 00( !5( SCRA (! Apr#l 001) 0 SCRA 74 (19(7 01 SCRA !7 (1991) 7( SCRA 58 (1997) 01 SCRA (75 !71 SCRA (10 1e:e-/er 001) 8( SCRA 495 ( 4 Fe/r+ar, 1998) !8 P3#l. 905 (1918) 1( SCRA 100 (1988) 50( SCRA 4(( (!1 O:.o/er 00() 180 SCRA (15 6ar:3 1990) 7 *a%+ar, 00( *+l, 198( &.R. 'o.17 0!1) 14 *+l, 008 409 SCRA (14 A+g+s. 00!) !05 SCRA 579 (! SCRA 174 99 P3#l. (1( A+g+s. 195() &.R. 'o.155550) !1 *a%+ar, 008 &.R. 'o.17(8(4) 14 1e:e-/er 010 1( SCRA 448 (19(() 117 SCRA !8 (198 ) 17 SCRA (75 (199!) &.R. 'o. L=1077!5) Fe/. 1) 199( 519 SCRA 1 ( ! 6ar:3 007) &.R. 'o.1570(4) 7 A+g+s. 00( 99 SCRA 40 (1999) 0 SCRA 54 (19(7) 51 SCRA (4! ( 5 *a%+ar, 007) &.R. 'o.15!911) 10 1e:e-/er 004 Page1

11. People v. $er%al 1 . Parel v. Pr+0e%:#o 1!. Es.ra0a v. 1es#er.o 14. &rava0or v. 6a-#go 15. People v. Alega0o 1(. T#so% v. CA 17. 6e%0o4a v. CA 18. Sol#%ap v. Lo:s#%) *r. 19 *#so% v. CA 0. Ferrer v. 0e 5%:3a+s.# 1. People v. L+%ga,a% . People v. C+0al !. A/alle v. People 4. 1$P Pool v. R6' 5. People v. T+laga% (. Tal#0a%o v. Fal:o% 6ar#.#-e 7. Lao v. S.a%0ar0 I%s+ra%:e 8. Ca%a7+#e v. CA 9. >alle% 6ar#.#-e v. 'LRC !0. 6a%alo v. Ro/les !1. 'or.3;es. A#rl#%es v. C3#o%g ! . Pp vs. ?+/er. >e//) e. al. !!. Cal.e@ v. A9r#:a !4. People v. Leo%es !5. People v. Ca/+a%g !(. People v. &a/r#el !7. Es:o/ar v. L+%a !8. $ar:elo% v. Co-. O9 $IR !9. P'OC S3#pp#%g v. CA 40. Ta% v. CA 41. 6a%l#:l#: vs. Cala+%a% 4 . 6allar# vs. People

A. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS EN BANC G.R. No. L-44060 July 20, 1978 T E !EO!LE OF T E ! ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. "IEN#ENIDO !ARAGSA, $l%$& '"EN"EN', defendant-appellant. MA(ASIAR, J.: Bienvenido Paragsa, alias "Benben", appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu !udge Agapito "ontanosas, presiding#, the dispositive portion of $hich reads as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered convicting the accused Bienvenido Paragsa of the cri*e of 'ape as charged in the Infor*ation be+ond reasonable doubt and appl+ing the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$, hereb+ sentences hi* to suffer the indeter*inate penalt+ of t$elve ./# +ears of prision *a+or as *ini*u* to seventeen .0# +ears, four 1# *onths and one .# da+ of reclusion te*poral as the *a2i*u* and to inde*nif+ the co*plaining $itness in the a*ount of P3,444.44 People vs. 'ogato 'ivera, 53, (.6. and People vs. Chan et al., CA No. 47515-6', August .., .890# $ith all legal accessories and to pa+ the costs. Being a detention prisoner, he is entitled to the full credit of his preventive i*prison*ent fro* the ti*e of his confine*ent up to the date of the pro*ulgation of this )udg*ent. 222 222 222 pp. .4-.8, rollo#. Because the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua $as i*posed b+ the Court of Appeals on the accused, this case is no$ before :, for revie$ pursuant to ,ection 71, 'epublic Act No. /89, as a*ended, other$ise ;no$n as the !udiciar+ Act of .813. <he evidence for the prosecution consists of the testi*on+ of =irasol =agallanes, the alleged rape victi*, her aunt-in-la$, =rs. -ita Parochel, and >r. -uis -. 6andiongco of the Banta+an E*ergenc+ "ospital, Banta+an, Cebu, $ho e2a*ined the offended part+ and sub*itted E2hibit A e*bod+ing his findings thereon, ,ubstantiall+, the records sho$ that in the afternoon of !ul+ .7, .80., =irasol, $ho $as then a little over t$elve and a half ./?# +ears old E2hibit B, p. 0, rec.#, $as alone in her parents@ house in ,itio <abagac of Barrio Bunacan, =unicipalit+ of =adride)os, Cebu, coo;ing hog feed. "er parents $ere a$a+ at the ti*e A her father $as in CadiB, $hile her *other $as in ,aga+, both in Negros (ccidental p. .9, t.s.n., !an. 5, .80/# $hile the rest of the fa*il+ $ere $ith =irasol@s grand*other in Barrio CodiaC also in =adride)os, Cebu. =irasol $as a 9th grade student of the Bunacan Ele*entar+ ,chool p. 9, t.s.n., >ec. 7, .80.#. :pon instruction of her *other, she did not go to school that afternoon so that she could loo; after the pigs and coo; their feed. <hus, she $as alone in the ground floor of their house coo;ing hog feed $hen the accused, Bienvenido Paragsa, ar*ed $ith a hunting ;nife, entered the house and closed the door after hi*. Approaching fro* behind, he placed his left ar* around =irasol@s nec;, encircled her abdo*en $ith his right ar*, at the sa*e ti*e pointing the hunting ;nife $ith s right hand at her breast, and threatened her not to shout other$ise she $ould be ;illed. <hereafter, the accused pushed her to a ba*boo bed nearb+, rolled up her dress and, $ith his t$o hands, re*oved her panties. <he accused then placed his hunting ;nife on the bed b+ =irasol@s side, opened the Bipper of his pants $hile ;neeling on the bed, opened =irasol@s thighs, pic;ed up the hunting ;nife again, placed hi*self on top of =irasol, inserted his erect penis into her se2ual organ and then *ade four push and pull *ove*ent until he e)aculated pp. 0, .4-.., ./, .7, .1, t.s.n., Ibid#. In the process, =irasol@s dress and panties $ere not torn, since, because of fear, she allo$ed the accused to roll up her dress and pull her panties $ithout an+ resistance $hatsoever. >uring the intercourse, the accused $as not holding the hunting ;nife. After the accused had discharged, he ran to the storeroo* of the house upstairs because he heard =rs. -ita Parochel, $ife of the +ounger brother of =irasol@s father, calling fro* outside the gate of the house, as;ing =irasol to open the gate. =irasol did not ans$er because she $as then in the act of putting on her panties p. .1, t.s.n., Ibid; p. .4, t.s.n., !an. 5, .80/#. After she had put on her panties, she opened the gate and sa$ her aunt -ita, $ho as;ed her $hat the accused did to her, but she did not ans$er because she $as afraid as the accused $as still inside the house. ,he also did not tell her aunt -ita that the accused had se2ual intercourse $ith her under threats and against her $ill. "er aunt -ita then $al;ed a$a+. <hereafter, the accused reappeared in the roo* and told =irasol that if she $ould tell her aunt -ita $hat he did, he $ould ;ill her pp. .7-.1, t.s.n., >ec. 7, .80.#. After the incident, =irasol $ent to Barrio Codia later in the afternoon of the sa*e da+ and )oined her brother and sister and grand*other. ,he did not reveal to an+ of the* $hat transpired bet$een her and the accused in <abagac. =irasol@s father returned fro* CadiB, Negros (ccidental that sa*e da+C but =irasol did not also reveal the incident to hi* because she $as afraid her father *ight punish her. "er *other returned ho*e on !ul+ .9, .80. fro* ,aga+, Negros (ccidentalC but =irasol did not also tell her *other about $hat happened to her on !ul+ .7 in <abagac It $as her aunt -ita $ho revealed the *atter to =irasol@s *other, $ho thereupon confronted her daughter. =irasol had to reveal the incident of !ul+ .7 to her *other onl+ $hen her *other as;ed her about itC because, according to her, she $anted to ta;e revenge on the accused p. .5, >ec. 7, .80.#. <hree da+s after her return fro* ,aga+, Negros (ccidental A on !ul+ .8, .80. A =irasol@s *other brought her to the Banta+an E*ergenc+ "ospital in Banta+an, Cebu, $here she $as e2a*ined b+ >r. -uis -. 6andiongco, $ho sub*itted his findings as follo$s% Abrasion of inguinal region Abrasion, left thigh, *edial side IN<E'NA- FIN>IN6,% .. >ischarges stic;+, *il;+ in color, found at the anterior forni2 but negative for sper*atoBoa E2h. A, p. 3, rec.C p. /, t.s.n., Nov. .9, .80.#. =rs. -ita Parochel, the aunt-in-la$ of =irasol, testified that she is the $ife of the +ounger brother of =irasol@s father. "er house is fift+ 54# *eters a$a+ fro* the house of her brother-in-la$, 'uperto =agallanes. In the afternoon of !ul+ .7, .80., she $ent to the house of her brother-in-la$ in <abagac Arriving there, she sa$, through the gate $hich $as *ade of split ba*boos, the accused running a$a+ $hen she shouted to =irasol, $ho $as then in the act of putting on her panties, to

Page1

open the gate p. .4, t.s.n., !an. .5, .80/#. =irasol opened the gate after she had put on her panties. Entering the house, =rs. Parochel as;ed =irasol $hat the accused did to her, but =irasol did not ans$er. ,o, she hid and fro* her hiding place she sa$ the accused e*erge fro* his hiding place and run a$a+, passing through the gate of the fence. <hereupon, she told =irasol to go ho*e to barrio Codia because she $as also going there p. .5, t.s.n., Ibid#. =rs. Parochel *et =irasol@s father at about 1%44 o@cloc; the sa*e afternoon but she did not tal; to hi* about $hat she sa$ earlier in <abaga; "o$ever, she revealed the incident to her husband p. .0, t.s.n., Ibid#. &hen =irasol@s *other returned fro* ,aga+, Negros (ccidental, =rs. Parochel had a conversation $ith her regarding the person of the accused and thereafter =irasol@s *other filed the corresponding co*plaint against the accused p. .3, t.s.n., Ibid#. Incidentall+, in support of the co*plaint of Bernandina =agallanes, *other of =irasol, =rs. Parochel e2ecuted an affidavit $hich she subscribed and s$ore to before the *unicipal )udge of =adride)os, Cebu, on !ul+ 74, .80., $herein she stated, a*ong other things% .. <hat at about 7%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon of !ul+ .7, .80., I $ent to the house of 'uperto =agallanes, *+ neighborC /. <hat $hen I entered their fence, I found out that one Benben Paragsa ran fro* the bed $here =irasol =agallanes $as sitting on $hile putting on her pantiesC 7. <hat she, =irasol =agallanes, upon *+ arrival, did not sa+ an+thing to *e about the happeningC and that I $as onl+ thin;ing that so*ething had happened E2h. ., p. 5, rec.#. In his t+pe$ritten brief, the appellant enu*erated and discussed five errors as having been co**itted b+ the trial court. <hese errors *a+, ho$ever, be boiled do$n to the issue of credibilit+. Appellant ad*its having se2ual intercourse $ith =irasol, the co*plaining $itness, but he stoutl+ denied that he did so b+ e*plo+ing force or inti*idation against =irasol. "e clai*s he and =irasol $ere s$eetheartsC that on the da+ of the incident, it $as =irasol $ho invited hi* to the latter@s house $here the+ had se2ual intercourse after ;issing each otherC and that the intercourse the+ had that afternoon $as, as a *atter of fact, their third se2ual intercourse pp. /, 7, 5, 9, 3-8, t.s.n., =arch /., .80/#. <he foregoing testi*on+ of the accused $as substantiall+ corroborated b+ t$o $itnesses for the defense, =ercado Batosbatosan and Eduardo >uca+ pp. 5, 9-0, ./, .5-.9, .0, .3, .8, /4, /5, t.s.n., Feb. ., .80/#. A careful scrutin+ of the record reveals that the prosecution@s evidence is $ea;, unsatisfactor+ and inconclusive to )ustif+ a conviction. Certain circu*stances negate the co**ission b+ the appellant of the cri*e charged and point to the conclusion that the se2ual intercourse bet$een the appellant and the co*plaining $itness $as voluntar+. Force and inti*idation $ere not proven. =irasol did not offer an+ resistance or vocal protestation against the alleged se2ual assault. ,he could have easil+ *ade an outcr+ or resisted the appellant@s advances $ithout endangering her life. But she did not. ,he $as allegedl+ raped in her o$n ho*e, not far fro* her neighbors and during the da+ti*e. If, indeed, she $as raped under the circu*stances narrated b+ her, she could have revealed the sa*e the ver+ *o*ent she $as confronted b+ her aunt -ita $ho as;ed her $hat the accused did to her upon entering the house i**ediatel+ after the intercourse too; place and $hen the accused ran fro* the bed to a storeroo* of the house to hide upon seeing andDor hearing the voice of her aunt -ita. or, she could have grabbed the hunting ;nife b+ her side $hen the copulation $as going on, and $ith it she could have possibl+ prevented the accused fro* consu**ating the se2ual act. But she did not. Another circu*stance is that =irasol did not reveal i**ediatel+ to her parents that she $as raped. It $as onl+ after her *other arrived fro* ,aga+, Negros (ccidental, three 7# da+s after the incident, and confronted her about the rape incident that her *other learned through her aunt -ita that she eventuall+ revealed to her *other $hat the accused did to her in the afternoon of !ul+ .7, .80.. ,till another circu*stance is the fact that =irasol did not bother at all to rebut the testi*on+ of the appellant and his $itnesses to the effect that the accused and =irasol $ere actuall+ s$eetheartsC and that the+ had had t$o previous se2ual co**unications before !ul+ .7, .80., one of $hich happened on !une /8, .80. in the house of the accused, $here =irasol and the accused slept together in the evening of the sa*e da+ after the *other of the accused and =irasol had returned fro* the to$n fiesta of Banta+an, Cebu p. .4, t.s.n., =arch /., .80/#. <he rule allo$ing silence of a person to be ta;en as an i*plied ad*ission of the truth of the state*ents uttered in his presence is applicable in cri*inal cases. But before the silence of a part+ can be ta;en as an ad*ission of $hat is said, it *ust appear% .# that he heard and understood the state*entC /# that he $as at libert+ to interpose a denialC 7# that the state*ent $as in respect to so*e *atter affecting his rights or in $hich he $as then interested, and calling, naturall+, for an ans$erC 1# that the facts $ere $ithin his ;no$ledgeC and 5# that the fact ad*itted or the inference to be dra$n fro* his silence $ould be *aterial to the issue IE Francisco, <he 'evised 'ules of Court in the Philippines, .807 ed., p. 7.9#. <hese reFuisites of ad*ission b+ silence all obtain in the present case. "ence, the silence of =irasol on the facts asserted b+ the accused and his $itnesses *a+ be safel+ construed as an ad*ission of the truth of such assertion. (ne *ore circu*stance $hich engenders serious doubt on the truthfulness of =irasol is the testi*on+ of >r. 6andiongco that he did not notice an+ laceration in the $alls of =irasol@s vagina, thus A G >octor, +ou testified that according to +our findings a foreign bod+ *ight have inserted the internal organ of the offended part+H A Ies, sir. G And as a *atter of fact, in +our e2a*ination there $as no lacerationH A There was no laceration p 5, t.s.n., Nove*ber .9, .80.C E*phasis supplied#. Considering =irasol@s tender age, if she had no previous se2ual e2perience, she *ust have been a virgin $hen she $as allegedl+ raped b+ the accused. Iet she did not state that she felt so*e pain as the accused tried to insert his organ into her private part. Neither did she state that she $as bleeding during and after the alleged forced coition. Instead, she *atter-offactl+ narrated that the accused *ade four push and pull *ove*ents after $hich the latter e)aculated A indicating that he had an eas+ ti*e doing it.

Page1

If &E are to believe her stor+, certainl+ the doctor $ho e2a*ined her could have noticed the lacerations even after the lapse of three 7# da+s fro* the coition, if the intercourse on !ul+ .7, .80. $as in fact her first e2perience. &E believe the absence of lacerations in the $alls of =irasol@s vagina, as testified to b+ >r. 6andiongco, supra,eloFuentl+ confir*s the truth of the accused@s assertion that before the incident in Fuestion, he and =irasol had t$o prior copulations. And still another circu*stance $hich casts serious doubt on the credibilit+ of the co*plaining $itness and her aunt -ita is the *atter of the hunting ;nife. &hile it is true that on the $itness stand these t$o $itnesses practicall+ corroborated each other on this particular point, the *atter of the accused having a hunting ;nife $ith hi* on the da+ of the incident $as not, ho$ever, *entioned b+ =rs. Parochel in her affidavit, E2hibit ., $hich she e2ecuted on !ul+ 74, .80. A five *onths before she testified in court. Besides, at the trial, the prosecution did not bother to present such "hunting ;nife". A last circu*stance $hich also engenders serious doubt on the veracit+ of =rs. Parochel, $hose testi*on+ the trial court su**ariBed, runs thus% ... <he victi* did not ans$er the call of her aunt nor did she open the barred door. ... ,he returned to the opened door and as;ed =irasol $hat had happened. =irasol $as ver+ pale, tre*bling and in a state of shock, did not ans$er her inFuiries ... p. 7, >ecisionC p. 91, rec.C e*phasis added#. <he ,olicitor 6eneral adopted the above factual su**ar+ *ade b+ the trial court b+ stating that A =irasol@s aunt, -ita Parochel ... found her niece in a state of shock p. 1, Brief for the Plaintiff-AppelleeC p. 18, rec.C E*phasis supplied#. A painsta;ing scrutin+ of the record, particularl+ the transcript of stenographic notes, sho$s that contrar+ to the finding of the trial court, =irasol ans$ered the call of her aunt and opened the gate of the house after she had put on her panties p. .1, t.s.n., >ec. 7, .80.#C and that =irasol onl+ see*ed to be afraid, besides tre*bling p. /7, t.s.n., .80/#C no$here in the record is an+ evidence of =irasol having been in a state of shoc;. If =irasol $as in fact in a state of shoc; A .. "o$ co*e she $as able to put on her panties and thereafter open the gate of the house $hen she heard her aunt -ita calling fro* the outsideH /. "er aunt -ita $ould feel so alar*ed and so concerned that she $ould not lose an+ ti*e to bring her to a doctor or to a hospital for *edical treat*ent or assistanceC 7. "er aunt -ita $ould have confronted the accused $ho $as still hiding in the closet in a corner of the ground floor, or she $ould have gone to the nearest police authorit+ or barrio captain, $ho could have easil+ apprehended the accused% 1. "er aunt could have sought the assistance of their barrio*ates or neighborsC or 5. ,he could have brought =irasol to her o$n house $hich $as on about 54 *eters a$a+ pp. 0, /4, t.s.n., !an. 5, .80/#. But $hat did she doH ,he abandoned =irasol "because" she =irasol had to feed her hogs p. /1, Idem#. <hat =irasol $as pale, afraid and tre*bling can onl+ be attributed to the fact that her aunt discovered her having se2ual intercourse at so +oung an age and that she feared that her aunt $ould report the sa*e to her parents. And if =rs. Parochel reall+ believed that her niece =irasol $as raped b+ appellant about 7 o@cloc; that afternoon of !ul+ .7, .80., $h+ did she not report the outrage to =irasol@s father A her husband@s brother A $ho* she *et about 1 o@cloc; that sa*e afternoon, )ust one hour after the alleged rapeH =rs. Parochel@s close relationship to her niece-daughter of her brother-in-la$ A vitiates her credibilit+. Appellant cannot be legall+ convicted of si*ple seduction under Article 773 of the 'evised Penal Code, for the sa*e is not $arranted b+ the $ording of the infor*ation, $hich does not alleged deceit, although appellant testified that he pro*ised to *arr+ =irasol if "so*ething happens to her bod+." =uch less can si*ple seduction include rape. &"E'EF('E, APPE--AN< BIENEENI>( PA'A6,A, A-IA, "BENBEN", I, "E'EBI ACG:I<<E>, &I<" C(,<, de oficio AN> "I, I==E>IA<E 'E-EA,E I, "E'EBI ('>E'E> :N-E,, "E I, BEIN6 >E<AINE> (N (<"E' C"A'6E,. ,( ('>E'E>.

EN BANC G.R. No. L-)042) No*+,-+. 7, 1979 T E !EO!LE OF T E ! ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMIRO ALEGRE y CERDONCILLO, MARIO COMA/AS y C0DILLAN, MELECIO C0DILLAN y ARCILLAS, $12 JES0S MEDALLA y C0DILLAN, defendants-appellants. ANTONIO, J.: <his is an auto*atic revie$ of a decision of the court of First Instance of 'iBal, ,eventh !udicial >istrict, Branch EII, Pasa+ Cit+ finding all the accused, na*el+, 'a*iro Alegre + Cerdoncillo, =ario Co*a+as + Cudillan, =elecio Cudillan + Arcillas and !esus =edalla + Cudillan, guilt+ of the cri*e of 'obber+ $ith "o*icide and sentencing the* as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, this Court finds accused =elecio Cudillan, ,!esus =edalla, 'a*iro Alegre, and =ario Co*a+as guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of '(BBE'I &I<" "(=ICI>E, co**itted $ith four 1# aggravating circu*stances, not offset b+ an+ *itigating circu*stance, and hereb+ sentences all of the* to suffer the penalt+ of death, to be carried out pursuant to the applicable provisions of la$, to inde*nif+ )ointl+ and severall+ the heirs of Adlina ,a)o in the a*ount of P754,444.44, representing the value of the pieces of )e$elr+ unrecovered, to pa+ )ointl+ and severall+ also the heirs of Adelina ,a)o the a*ount of P./,444.44. and to pa+ the costs. &ith or $ithout appeal, let this case be elevated to the ,upre*e Court for revie$, pursuant to la$.

Page1

>uring the pendenc+ of this appeal, =elecio Cudillan died on arrival at the Ne$ Bilibid Prison "ospital on August .9, .804, and the case as against the said accused, insofar as his cri*inal liabilit+ is concerned, $as dis*issed on August /8, .801. <his decision, therefore, is li*ited to appellants 'a*iro Alegre, =ario Co*a+as and !esus =edalla. <his case arose fro* the death of Adelina ,a)o + =aravilla, ,pinster, 50 +ears old, $hose bod+ $as found in her bathroo* inside her house at the =aravilla co*pound, Ignacio ,treet, Pasa+ Cit+, in the earl+ *orning of !ul+ /9, .899. According to the Necrops+ 'eport, she died of asph+2ia b+ *anual strangulation, and the ti*e of her death $as placed bet$een eighteen to t$ent+-t$o hours before ./%74 p.*. of !ul+ /9, .899. "er bedroo* $as in "sha*bles," evidentl+ indicating that it $as ransac;ed. <he dra$ers and several cabinets $ere open, and so*e personal gar*ents, hadbags and papers $ere scattered on the floor. No $itness sa$ the co**ission of the cri*e. Appellant 'a*iro Alegre, $ho $as then living $ith relatives in one of the rented roo*s on the ground floor of the victi*@s house, $as ta;en to the Pasa+ Cit+ police headFuarters for investigation in connection $ith the case, but $as later released that sa*e da+ for lac; of an+ evidence i*plicating hi* in the cri*e. >uring the latter part of !ul+, .899, =elecio Cudillan $as apprehended in <acloban Cit+, -e+te, in the act of pa$ning a bracelet, one of the pieces of )e$elr+ ta;en fro* the victi*. In e2plaining ho$ he ca*e into possession of the stolen pieces of )e$elr+, he ad*itted his participation in the ;illing and robber+ of Adlina ,a)o. <his appears in his e2tra)udicial confession before the police authorities of <acloban Cit+ on !ul+ /8, .899 E2hibits "F", "F-." and "F-/"#. In this state*ent, $hich $as $ritten in the English language, =elecio Cudillan i*plicated a certain "Eso;" of Eillalon, Calubian, -e+teC !esus =edalla, of Eillaher*osa, Calubian, -e+teC =ario Cudillan, also of Eillaher*osa, Calubian, -e+teC one ">ann+" FernandeB, of BalaFuid, Cabucga+an, Biliran ,ub-provinceC and one "'a**+, " another -e+teno. &hen brought to =etro =anila and $hile he $as inside the Pasa+ Cit+ police headFuarters, =elecio Cudillan again e2ecuted an e2tra)udicial confession E2hibits "A ", "A-. " to "A-9" on !ul+ 7., .899. <his $as s$orn to before the Assistant Cit+ Fiscal of Pasa+ Cit+ on August ., .899. In this second state*ent, he narrated in detail the participation in the co**ission of the cri*e of !esus =edalla, "Celso" FernandeB, "'a*i" and "=ario." According to said state*ent, the declarant $ent near the cell $ithin the (ffice of the Investigation ,ection, ,ecret ,ervice >ivision, and Identified 'a*iro Alegre, !esus =edalla and =ario Co*a+as as the persons he referred to as !esus =edalla, "'a*i" and "=ario" in his declaration. (n the basis of the afore*entioned e2tra)udicial confession of =elecio Cudillan, an Infor*ation for 'obber+ $ith "o*icide $as filed b+ the ,pecial Counsel of Pasa+ Cit+ against Celso FernandeB, alias "Eso;," !esus =edalla + Cudillan, 'a*iro Alegre + Cerdoncillo, =ario Co*a+as + Cudillan, =elecio Cudillan + Arcillas, and one !ohn >oe." &hen arraigned on August .4, .899, =ario Co*a+as, =elecio Cudillan, !esus =edalla and 'a*iro Alegre entered a plea of not guilt+. <he prosecution presented nine 8# $itnesses. None of the*, ho$ever, testified on the actual co**ission of the cri*e. <he recital of facts contained in the decision under revie$ $as based principall+ and *ainl+ on the e2tra)udicial confessions of =elecio Cudillan. <hus, the details of the planning and the e2ecution of the cri*e $ere ta;en fro* the "Pasa+ ,$orn ,tate*ent" E2hibits "A", "A-." to "A-9"#. <he onl+ evidence, therefore, presented b+ the prosecution to prove the guilt of appellants are the testi*onies of ,gt. =ariano Isla and "ernando Carillo. <he testi*on+ of ,gt. =ariano Isla of the Pasa+ Cit+ police is to the effect that $hen he $as investigating =elecio Cudillan, the latter pointed to 'a*iro Alegre, =ario Co*a+as and !esus =edalla as his co*panions in the co**ission of the cri*e. According to hi*, said appellants ")ust stared at hi* =elecio Cudilla# and said nothing." G. In $hat particular place in the Police >epart*ent did +ou have to confront the accused =elecio Cudillan $ith the other suspects@H A. In the office of the ,ecret ,ervice >ivision. G. &hen +ou said there $as a confrontation bet$een the accused =elecio Cudillan and other suspects $ho* do +ou refer to as other suspectsH A. !esus =edalla, Celso FernandeB, 'osario >e)ere and =ario. <here $as another person Eduardo Co*a+as. "e $as also one of those suspects but =elecio Cudillan failed to point to hi* as his co*panion. G. &ho $ere those persons or suspects pointed to b+ =elecio Cudillan in the Police >epart*ent of Pasa+ Cit+ as his co*panionsH A. <o !esus =edalla, 'a*iro Alegre and =ario Co*a+as. G. &hen =elecio Cudilla pointed to these persons $hat did these three persons doH A. <he+ )ust stared at hi* and said nothing. t.s.n., pp. .5-.9, "earing of (ctober /3, .899#. According to the trial court, had the appellants "reall+ been innocent the+# should have protested vigorousl+ and not *erel+ ;ept their silence." "ernando Carillo, a detention prisoner in the Pasa+ Cit+ )ail, declared that the three 7# appellants ad*itted to hi* that the+ too; part in the robber+ and ho*icide co**itted in the residence of the deceased, viz.% A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. >o +ou ;no$ the other accused 'a*iro AlegreH A. Ies, sir. G. If he is inside the court roo*, $ill +ou please point hi* outH IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness points to the fello$ in the second ro$, fourth fro* the left $ho, upon being as;ed, gave his na*e as 'a*iro Alegre. A<<I. >EPA,:CA<%

A. Ies, sir.

Page1

G. >id +ou have an+ occasion to tal; to 'a*iro AlegreH

G. &hereH A. In the cit+ )ail because our cells are also near each other. G. And $hat did +ou and 'a*iro Alegre tal; aboutH A. Concerning his case and he told *e that he has also anticipated in the co**ission of the ;illing of Adelina ,a)o. G. B+ the $a+, $hen did +ou tal; $ith 'a*iro Alegre, *ore or lessH A. About the *iddle of !une. G. And $hat else did 'a*iro Alegre tell +ou, if an+H A. <hat he $as also inside the roo* $hen the+ ;illed Adelina ,a)o. G. No$, regarding that conversation +ou had $ith the accused !esus =edalla, $hen did that ta;e place, *ore or lessH A. About that *onth also of !une, about the *iddle of !une. G. &hat +earH A. .890. G. >o +ou ;no$ the other accused =ario Co*a+asH A. Ies, sir. G. &h+ do +ou ;no$ hi*H A. "e is also one of the prisoners and our cells are near each other. G. If he is inside the courtroo*, $ill +ou please point hi* outH IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness indicating to the fello$ $ho gave his na*e as =ario Co*a+as. A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. >id +ou have an+ occasion to tal; $ith the accused =ario Co*a+asH A. Ies, sir. G. &hen $as that, *ore or lessH A. In the *onth of !une, about the *iddle part also of !une. G. And $hat did +ou tal; aboutH A. 'egarding this case of Adelina ,a)o and he ad*itted to *e that he $as one of those $ho planned and ;illed Adelina ,a)o. G. I seeJ And $hat, else did he tell +ou, if an+H A. <hat $hile the ;illing $as being perpetrated upstairs he $as told to b+ the door. G. "o$ about the other accused =elencio Cudillan, do +ou ;no$ hi*H A. Ies, sir. G. If he is in court, $ill +ou please point hi* outH IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness pointing to the accused $ho gave his na*e as =elecio Cudillan. A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. &h+ do +ou ;no$ =elecio CudillanH A. Because he is $ith *e in one cell. G. &ere +ou able also to tal; $ith =elecio CudillanH A. =ost of the ti*e because $e used to tal; about our case. G. &hen have +ou tal;ed $ith =elecio Cudillan, *ore or lessH A. <hree da+s after *+ confine*ent and subseFuentl+ thereafter up to about the first $ee; of !une, .890. G. And $hat did the accused =elecio Cudillan tell +ou about this caseH A<<I. 'A=I'EK% (b)ection, Iour "onor, leading. C(:'<% &itness *a+ ans$er, there is alread+ a basis. A. <hat the+ $ere the ones $ho planned and ;illed Adelina ,a)o. t.s.n., pp. /39-/38, "earing of !ul+ /., .890#.

Page1

"o$ever, during the trial, =elecio Cudillan repudiated both the <acloban Cit+ and Pasa+ Cit+ s$orn state*ents as the product of co*pulsion and duress. "e clai*ed that he $as not assisted b+ counsel $hen he $as investigated b+ the police. Appellants !esus =edalla and =ario Co*a+as denied an+ involve*ent in the cri*e. <he+ testified that at the ti*e of the incident in Fuestion. the+ $ere attending the intern*ent of the deceased child of Ciriaco Abobote. According to !esus =edalla, he and his co*panions left the =aravilla co*pound at .4%44 o@cloc; in the *orning of !ul+ /5, .899 to attend the intern*ent. @<he+ left the ce*eter+ at about 5%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon and proceeded directl+ to his house at -everiBa ,treet $here he sta+ed the $hole night. =ario Co*a+as confir*ed that he and !esus =edalla $ere at the house of Ciriaco Abobote in the *orning of !ul+ /5, .899, until after 5%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon $hen he returned to the ba;er+ $here he $as e*plo+ed to resu*e his $or;. Appellant 'a*iro Alegre did not testif+ but presented three 7# $itnesses to support his defense. <hus, :rbano Eillanueva testified that he $as a sub-contractor of !ose Inton for the $elding pro)ect of >avid =. Consun)i at the ,heraton "otel constructionC that 'a*iro Alegre began $or;ing at the construction as a $elder on !ul+ .7, .899, and that fro* 0%44 o@cloc; in the *orning to 1%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon, Alegre $or;ed in the pro)ect and that he ;ne$ this because he is the fore*an and ti*e;eeper in the pro)ect. "e Identified the <i*e 'ecord of 'a*iro Alegre E2hibit "."#. 'odolfo Eillanueva and 'o*eo (rigenes testified that fro* 0%44 o@cloc; in the *orning up to 1%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon of !ul+ /5, .899, appellant 'a*iro Alegre $as at the ,heraton "otel construction at 'o2as Boulevard. <heir testi*on+ is confir*ed b+ the <i*e 'ecord of 'a*iro Alegre E2hibit "."# $hich contained the nu*ber of hours he actuall+ $or;ed at the ,heraton "otel construction pro)ect. Appellants no$ contend that the lo$er court erred in utiliBing the e2tra)udicial confessions of =elecio Cudillan no$ deceased# as evidence against herein appellantsC in concluding fro* the alleged ",ilence" of appellants $hen allegedl+ pointed to b+ =elecio Cudillan as "his co*panions" in the co**ission of the cri*e, an ad*ission of guiltC and in giving undue $eight and credence to the testi*on+ of an in*ate of the Pasa+ Cit+ !ail that appellants ad*itted to hi* their participation in the cri*e. I <he e2tra)udicial confessions of =elecio Cudillan E2hibits "A", "A- I " to "A-9" and "F", "F-." and "F-/"#, on the basis of $hich the trial court $as able to reconstruct ho$ =elecio Cudillan co**itted the cri*e in Fuestion, cannot be used as evidence and are not co*petent proof against appellants 'a*iro Alegre and !esus =edalla, under the principle of " res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet" 1 there being no independent evidence of conspirac+. 2As a general rule, the e2tra)udicial declaration of an accused, although deliberatel+ *ade, is not ad*issible and does not have probative value against his coaccused. It is *erel+ hearsa+ evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. ) &hile there are recogniBed e2ceptions to this rule, the facts and circu*stances attendant in the case at bar do not bring it $ithin the purvie$ of such e2ceptions. <he onl+ evidence, therefore, lin;ing the appellants to the cri*e $ould be their purported tacit ad*issions andDor failure to den+ their i*plications of the cri*e *ade b+ =elecio Cudillan, andDor their purported verbal confessions to "ernando Carillo, an in*ate of the Pasa+ Cit+ )ail. II <he ne2t Fuestion to be resolved is $hether or not the silence of appellants $hile under police custod+, in the face of state*ents of =elecio Cudillan i*plicating the* as his co*panions in the co**ission of the cri*e, could be considered as tacit ad*ission on their part of their participation therein. <he settled rule is that the silence of an accused in cri*inal cases, *eaning his failure or refusal to testif+, *a+ not be ta;en as evidence against hi*, 4 and that he *a+ refuse to ans$er an incri*inating Fuestion. 3 It has also been held that $hile an accused is under custod+, his silence *a+ not be ta;en as evidence against hi* as he has a right to re*ain silentC his silence $hen in custod+ *a+ not be used as evidence against hi*, other$ise, his right of silence $ould be illusor+. 6 <he leading case of Miranda v. Arizona 7 held that the prosecution *a+ not use at trial the fact that an individual stood *ute, or clai*ed his privilege against self-incri*ination, in the face of an accusation *ade at a police custodial interrogation. Prior to =iranda, it $as the vie$ of *an+ authorities that a *an to $ho* a state*ent i*plicating hi* in a cri*e is directed *a+ fail to repl+ if he is in custod+ under a charge of the co**ission of that cri*e, not because he acFuiesces in the truth of the state*ent, but because he stands on his constitutional right to re*ain silent, as being the safest course for hi* to pursue and the best $a+ out of his predica*ent. 8 (ther courts have held that the circu*stance that one is under arrest b+ itself does not render the evidence inad*issible, and that an accusation of a cri*e calls for a repl+ even fro* a person under arrest or in the custod+ of an officer, $here the circu*stances surrounding hi* indicate that he is free to ans$er if he chooses. 9 &e hold that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under custod+, or his failure to den+ state*ents b+ another i*plicating hi* in a cri*e, especiall+ $hen such accused is neither as;ed to co**ent or repl+ to such i*plications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the co**ission of the cri*e. ,uch an inference of acFuiescence dra$n fro* his silence or failure to den+ the state*ent $ould appear inco*patible $ith the right of an accused against self-incri*ination. <he right or privilege of a person accused of a cri*e against self- incri*ination is a funda*ental right. It is a personal right of great i*portance and is given absolutel+ and uneFuivocabl+. <he privilege against self-incri*ination is an i*portant develop*ent in *an@s struggle for libert+. It reflects *an@s funda*ental values and his *ost noble of aspirations, the un$illingness of civiliBed *en to sub)ect those@ suspected of cri*e to the cruel trile**a of self-accusation, per)ur+ or conte*ptC the fear that self-incri*inating state*ents *a+ be obtained b+ inhu*ane treat*ent and abuses, and the respect for the inviolabilit+ of the hu*an personalit+ and of the right of each individual "to a private enclave $here he *a+ lead a private life." 10 In the $ords of Chavez v. Court of Appeals% 11 ... this right is @not *erel+ a for*al technical rule the enforce*ent of $hich is left to the discretion of the courtC@ it is *andator+C it secures to a defendant a valuable and substantive rightC it is funda*ental to our sche*e of )ustice ... <herefore, the court *a+ not e2tract fro* a defendant@s o$n lips and against his $ill an ad*ission of his guilt. Nor *a+ a court as *uch as resort to co*pulsor+ disclosure, directl+ or indirectl+, of facts usable against hi* as a confession of the cri*e or the tendenc+ of $hich is to prove the co**ission of a cri*e. Because, it is his right to forego testi*on+, to re*ain silent, unless he chooses to ta;e the $itness stand A $ith undiluted, unfettered e2ercise of his o$n free, genuine $ill.

Page1

It *ust be stressed here that even under a regi*e of *artial la$, the operations of our la$s governing the rights of an accused person are not open to doubt. :nder the code for the ad*inistration of detainees, all officers, civilian and *ilitar+ personnel are s$orn to uphold the rights of detainees. A*ong such funda*ental rights are the right against co*pulsor+ testi*onial self-incri*ination, the right, $hen under investigation for the co**ission of an offense, to re*ain silent, to have counsel, and to be infor*ed of his rightsC the right not to be sub)ected to force, violence, threats, inti*idation and degrading punish*ent or torture in the course of one@s detention, and the safeguard that an+ confession obtained in violation of the foregoing rights shall be inad*issible in evidence. 12<he .807 Constitution gives e2plicit constitutional sanction to the right to silence. <hus, in ,ection /4 of Article IE of the Constitution, there is this categorical *andate% "An+ person under investigation for the co**ission of an offense shall have the right to re*ain silent and to counsel, and to be infor*ed of such right. No force, violence, threat, inti*idation, or an+ other *eans $hich vitiates the free $ill shall be used against hi*. An+ confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inad*issible in evidence." <his privilege against self-incri*ination guaranteed b+ the Constitution protects, therefore, the right of a person to re*ain silent unless he chooses to spea; in the unfettered e2ercise of his o$n $ill, and to suffer no penalt+ for such silence. 1) <his aspect of the right has been co*prehensivel+ e2plained b+ then Associate !ustice EnriFue =. Fernando, no$ Chief )ustice, in Pascual r. v. !oard of Medical "#aminers, 14 thus% <he constitutional guarantee protects as $ell the right to silence. As far bac; as .845, $e had occasion to declare% @<he accused has a perfect right to re*ain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presu*ption of his guilt.@ (nl+ last +ear, in ChaveB v. Court of Appeals, spea;ing through !ustice ,ancheB, $e reaffir*ed the doctrine ane$ that it is the right of a defendant @to forego testi*on+, to re*ain silent, unless he chooses to ta;e the $itness stand A $ith undiluted, unfettered e2ercise of his o$n free, genuine $ill.@ Identif+ing the right of an accused to re*ain silent $ith right to privac+, this Court, in Pascual e2plained that the privilege against self-incri*ination "enables the citiBen to create a Bone of privac+ $hich govern*ent *a+ not force to surrender to its detri*ent." &e hold, therefore, that it $as error for the trial court to dra$ fro* appellants@ silence $hile under police custod+, in the face of the incri*inator+ state*ents of =elecio Cudillan, the conclusion that the aforesaid appellants had tacitl+ ad*itted their guilt. &e hold, further, that in vie$ of the inad*issibilit+ of the e2tra)udicial confession of =elecio Cudillan i*plicating herein appellants, the re*aining evidence against the*, consisting in the testi*onies of ,gt. =ariano Isla and "ernando Carillo, is insufficient to sustain the )udg*ent of conviction. Indeed, it is inherentl+ i*probable that herein appellants $ould have readil+ confessed their participation in the co**ission of a heinous cri*e to a casual acFuaintance in a prison detention cell, considering that on the sa*e occasion the+ strongl+ denied an+ involve*ent in such cri*e before the police authorities. &"E'EF('E, the )udge*ent appealed fro* is reversed, and appellants 'a*iro Alegre + Cerdoncillo, =ario Co*a+as + Cudillan and !esus =edalla + Cudillan are hereb+ ACG:I<<E> of the cri*e $ith $hich the+ are charged. <heir i**ediate release fro* detention is ordered, unless the+ or an+ one of the* is other$ise held for so*e other la$ful cause. ,( ('>E'E>.

G.R. No. 132160

J$1u$.y 1), 2004

#IRGILIO "ON, petitioner, vs. !EO!LE OF T E ! ILI!!INES, respondent. DECISION !ANGANI"AN, J.4 <esti*on+ of $hat one heard a part+ sa+ is not necessaril+ hearsa+. It is ad*issible in evidence, not to sho$ that the state*ent $as true, but that it $as in fact *ade. If credible, it *a+ for* part of the circu*stantial evidence necessar+ to convict the accused. T5+ C$&+ Before us is a Petition for 'evie$ . under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court, see;ing to nullif+ the August //, /44. >ecision / and the Februar+ .5, /44/ 'esolution7 of the Court of Appeals CA# in CA - 6' C' No. .5907. <he dispositive part of the assailed >ecision reads as follo$s% "6 EREFORE, the >ecision dated August /7, .887 convicting LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon is hereb+ AFFIRMED 7%85 ,o2%9%:$8%o1 on the penalt+ in that LpetitionerM is sentenced to suffer an indeter*inate penalt+ of i*prison*ent ranging fro* ten .4# +ears of prision ma$or, as *ini*u* to fourteen .1# +ears LandM eight 3# *onths of reclusion temporal, as *a2i*u*. Accused-appellant Ale)andro !eniebre, !r. is hereb+ AC;0ITTED."1 <he assailed 'esolution, on the other hand, denied petitionerNs =otion for 'econsideration. T5+ A18+:+2+18& <he antecedents are su**ariBed b+ the CA as follo$s% "LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon and Ale)andro !eniebre, !r. $ere charged for violating ,ection 93 of P> 045, as a*endedL,M together $ith 'osalio Bon under an Infor*ation, the accusator+ portion of $hich reads as follo$s% O<hat so*eti*e in the *onth of !anuar+ or Februar+, .884, at Baranga+ Basud, =unicipalit+ of ,orsogon, Province of ,orsogon, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, did then and there, $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+, conspiring, confederating and *utuall+ helping one another, cut, gather and *anufacture into lu*ber four 1# narra trees, one .# cu+ao-+ao tree, and one .# a*ugis tree, $ith an appro2i*ate volu*e of 1,7.5 bd. ft. and valued at appro2i*atel+ P/5,444.44, $ithout the ;no$ledge and consent of the o$ner <eresita >angalan-=endoBa and $ithout having first obtained fro* proper authorities the necessar+ per*it or license andDor legal supporting docu*ents, to the da*age and pre)udice of the 6overn*ent and the o$ner in the afore*entioned a*ount of P/5,444.44.

Page1

OContrar+ to la$.N ":pon arraign*ent on =a+ .9, .88., LPetitionerM Eirgilio BonL,M Ale)andro !eniebre, !r. and 'osalio Bon entered a plea of ONot 6uilt+N to the cri*e charged. <hereafter, the trial of the case proceeded. <he prosecution presented Nestor -aba+anLeM, LPrivate Co*plainantM <eresita >angalan-=endoBa, LBaranga+M <anod !ulian -ascano, Ale2ander =endones LandM =anuel >angalan as its $itnesses. <he defense, on the other hand, presented accused Ale)andro !eniebre, !r., 'osalio Bon and Eirgilio Bon. "<he evidence for the prosecution L$Mas s+nthesiBed b+ the trial court, as follo$s% OProsecutionNs evidence $as supplied b+ !ulian -ascano, (scar NarvaeB, Ale2ander =endones, =anuel >angalan, Nestor -aba+anLeM and <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM $hich sho$s that <eresita L>angalan=endoBaM o$ns a titled agricultural land under <itle No. 9999 located in Basud, ,orsogon, ,orsogon, ad*inistered b+ Eirgilio Bon. 'eceiving infor*ation that trees inside the land $ere being stolen, cut LandM sa$ed into lu*ber b+ her ad*inistrator andDor $or;ers, she sent her brother =anuel >angalan to investigate the report. (n Februar+ 0, .884, =anuel >angalan sought the help of Baranga+ Captain Nestor -aba+ane, $ho in turn $rote a letter to one of the LbMaranga+ LtManodLsM, !ulian -ascano, to assist and investigate <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaNsM co*plaint of Illegal Cutting of <rees. (n Februar+ ./, .884, together $ith !ulian -ascano, =anuel >angalan, 'icardo Ealladolid, Natividad -egaspi and Eirgilio Bon repaired to the land of <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM. >uring their investigation, the group discovered si2 9# stu*ps of treesL%M four 1# Narra trees, one cu+ao-+ao tree and one a*LuMgis tree. Pictures $ere ta;en of the stu*ps 2 2 2. (n the land, Eirgilio Bon ad*itted ordering the cutting and sa$ing of the trees into lu*ber. (scar NarvaeB testified that so*eti*e in !anuar+, .884, he sa$ed the trees into si2 flitches upon instruction of Ale)andro !eniebre, !r.C Ale2ander =endones, CEN'( (fficer, upon co*plaint of <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM for Illegal Cutting of <rees repaired to the land on !ul+ .0, .884, and found four stu*ps of trees. ,caling the four stu*ps, it $as his esti*ate that the lu*ber produced $as ...80 cubic *eters oLrM 1,7.5 board feet, $ith a value of P/5,709.44 2 2 2.N "In their defense, all the three accused too; the $itness stand and denied the accusation. <heir testi*onies $ere su**ariBed b+ the trial court, as follo$s% OAll the accused testified in their defense. 'osalio Bon, the son of Eirgilio Bon denied the chargeL.M L"e saidM that he $as in =anila fro* >ece*ber .838 and returned to ,orsogon on =arch /., .884. "e *entioned that the purpose of filing this case $as to e)ect his father as tenant of the land. OEirgilio Bon testified that he is the tenant of the land of <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM Land $asM instituted Las suchM b+ <eresitaNs father. "e developed the landL,M planting coconuts, abaca and fruit trees. <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM $anted to e)ect hi* as tenant. "e and the private co*plainant LhaveM an agrarian case. ,ince <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM refused to receive the lando$nerNs share of produce, he deposited the *one+ in the 'ural Ban; of ,orsogon in the na*e of <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM 2 2 2. "e denied cutting and gathering the trees in the land and pointed to <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM as the one $ho ordered the trees Lto be cutM and sa$ed b+ (scar NarvaeB. <eresita L>angalan-=endoBaM upon being confronted about the cutting of trees, ignored his co*plaint. OAle)andro !eniebre, !r., son-in-la$ of Eirgilio Bon, denied that he hired (scar NarvaeB to sa$ the lu*ber. (scar NarvaeB LindictedM hi* of the cri*e because the for*er had a grudge against hi*. In a drin;ing spree, he happened to bo2 (scar NarvaeBL,M after L$hich heM heard Lthe latter threaten hi* $ithM revenge.N "(n August /7, .887, the trial court rendered its decision convicting LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon and Ale)andro !eniebre, !r. for the cri*e charged. Co-accused 'osalio Bon $as acFuitted. Aggrieved b+ the said decision, LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon and Ale)andro !eniebre, !r. interposed LanM appeal Lto the CAM." 5 In their appeal to the CA, petitioner and !eniebre Fuestioned the prosecution $itnessesN credibilit+ and the sufficienc+ of the evidence proving their guilt. Rul%1< o9 85+ Cou.8 o9 A==+$l& <he CA sustained the trial courtNs assess*ent of the credibilit+ of Prosecution &itnesses !ulian -ascano and =anuel >angalan. Both testified that petitioner had ad*itted to having ordered the cutting of trees on <eresita >angalan-=endoBaNs land. Further*ore, the appellate court held that despite the absence of direct evidence in this case, the circu*stantial evidence $as sufficient to convict petitioner. It ruled that the reFuire*ents for the sufficienc+ of the latter t+pe of evidence under ,ection 1 of 'ule .779 of the 'ules of Court $ere a*pl+ satisfied b+ the follo$ing established facts% .# in the presence of >angalan, -ascano and Natividad -egaspi, petitioner ad*itted that he had ordered the cutting of the treesC /# on Februar+ ./, .884, he and his son 'osalio $ent to >angalan-=endoBa, de*anding that she pa+ the value of the trees cutC and 7# on Februar+ .7, .884, petitioner as;ed her to forgive hi* for cutting the trees. <he CA held, ho$ever, that the sa*e circu*stances did not support the conviction of !eniebre. Aside fro* the testi*on+ of (scar NarvaeB that !eniebre hired hi* to cut the trees into flitches, no other evidence $as presented to sho$ the latterNs participation in the offense charged. =oreover, the appellate court held that the res inter alios acta rule under ,ection /3 of 'ule .740 of the 'ules of Court $ould be violated b+ binding !eniebre to petitionerNs ad*ission, $hich did not constitute an+ of the e2ceptions3 to this provision. It thus acFuitted hi*. As to petitioner, the CA *odified the penalt+ i*posed, pursuant to ,ection 93 of the 'evised Forestr+ Code as a*ended, Articles 748 and 7.4 of the 'evised Penal Code, and ,ection . of the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$. "ence, this Petition.8 I&&u+& Petitioner sub*its the follo$ing issues for our consideration% 'I &hether hearsa+ testi*on+L,M $hich is denied b+ the alleged author under oath in open court, is ad*issible in evidence against hi*.

Page1

'II &hether hearsa+ testi*on+ allegedl+ *ade to potential prosecution $itnesses $ho are not police operatives or *edia representatives is ad*issible in evidence against the author because $hat a *an sa+s against hi*selfL,M if voluntar+, is believable for the reason that it is fair to presu*e that LitM correspondLsM $ith the truth and it is his fault if the+ do not :.,. v. Ching Po, /7 Phil. 503, 537 .8./#. 'III &hether or not 2 2 2 the Ltesti*onies of theM prosecution $itnesses 2 2 2 that 2 2 2 petitioner Bon ad*itted his guilt to the* should be given high credence b+ the courts of )ustice considering that 2 2 2 *an+ people $ho are being Fuoted in *edia toda+ 2 2 2 have been found to be 2 2 2 l+ing. In other $ords, ho$ *uch probit+ should $e give a l+ing $itnessH 'I# Assu*ing arguendo that petitioner Bon *aLdMe the e2tra-)udicial ad*ission to the prosecution $itnesses, L$hether or notM 2 2 2 the sa*e Lis constitutionall+M ad*issible in evidence against hi*H" .4 ,i*pl+ put, the points challenged b+ petitioner are as follo$s% .# the ad*issibilit+ of his purported e2tra)udicial ad*ission of the allegation, testified to b+ the prosecution $itnesses, that he had ordered the cutting of the treesC and /# the credibilit+ and the sufficienc+ of the testi*onies of those $itnesses. T5+ Cou.8>& Rul%1< <he Petition has no *erit. F%.&8 I&&u+4 Admissibility of the Extrajudicial Admission At the outset, it *ust be e*phasiBed that the present Petition is grounded on 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court. :nder ,ection . thereof, "onl+ Fuestions of la$ $hich *ust be distinctl+ set forth" *a+ be raised. A reading of the pleadings reveals that petitioner actuall+ raised Fuestions of fact -- the credibilit+ of the prosecution $itnesses and the sufficienc+ of the evidence against hi*. Nonetheless, this Court, in the e2ercise of its sound discretion and after ta;ing into account the attendant circu*stances, opts to ta;e cogniBance of and decide the factual issues raised in the Petition, in the interest of the proper ad*inistration of )ustice... In the *ain, petitioner contends that -ascanoNs and >angalanNs separate testi*onies ./ regarding his alleged e2tra)udicial ad*ission constitute hearsa+ evidence and are, therefore, inad*issible. "e also argues that his supposed ad*ission should not have been ad*itted, because it had been ta;en $ithout the assistance of counsel at a ti*e $hen he $as alread+ regarded as a suspect. &e disagree. ,ection 79 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court states the rule on hearsa+ evidence as follo$s% ",ec. 79. Testimon$ %enerall$ confined to personal knowled%e; hearsa$ e#cluded . - A $itness can testif+ onl+ to those facts $hich he ;no$s of his personal ;no$ledgeC that is, $hich are derived fro* his o$n perception, e2cept as other$ise provided in these rules." :nder the above rule, an+ evidence -- $hether oral or docu*entar+ -- is hearsa+ if its probative value is not based on the personal ;no$ledge of the $itness, but on that of so*e other person $ho is not on the $itness stand. .7 "ence, infor*ation that is rela+ed to the for*er b+ the latter before it reaches the court is considered hearsa+. .1 In the instant case, -ascano and >angalan testified that on Februar+ ./, .884, the+ had heard petitioner ad*it to having ordered the cutting of the trees. <heir testi*onies cannot be considered as hearsa+ for three reasons. &irst, the+ $ere indisputabl+ present and $ithin hearing distance $hen he allegedl+ *ade the ad*ission. <herefore, the+ testified to a *atter of fact that had been derived fro* their o$n perception. 'econd, $hat $as sought to be ad*itted as evidence $as the fact that the utterance $as actuall+ *ade b+ petitioner, not necessaril+ that the *atters stated therein $ere true. (n this basis, a state*ent attributed to a person $ho is not on the $itness stand is ad*issibleC it is not covered b+ the hearsa+ rule. .5 (otesco Investment Corporation v. Chatto .9 ruled that evidence regarding the *a;ing of such state*ent is not secondar+ but pri*ar+, because the state*ent itself *a+ constitute a fact in issue or be circu*stantiall+ relevant as to the e2istence of that fact. Third, even assu*ing that the testi*onies $ere hearsa+, petitioner is barred fro* Fuestioning the ad*ission of >angalanNs testi*on+, because he failed to ob)ect to it at the ti*e it $as offered. It has been held that $hen parties fail to ob)ect to hearsa+ evidence, the+ are dee*ed to have $aived their right to do soC thus, it *a+ be ad*itted. .0 <he absence of an ob)ection is clearl+ sho$n b+ the transcript of the stenographic notes, fro* $hich $e Fuote% "Att+. Fa)ardo% G >id +ou reach the land in FuestionH A Ies, sir. G And upon reaching the land in Fuestion, $hat did +ou doH A &e $ere able to see the cut trees. G And $ere +ou able to see $ho cut the treesH A &e $ere not able to see. G And ho$ *an+ trees $ere cutH A <here $ere ne$l+ cut trees and 1 others $hich have been cut for a long ti*e. G &hat ;ind of trees $ere cut according to +ouH A Narra, a*ogis and ;u+a$+a$.

Page1

G :pon seeing these cut trees, $hat did +ou doH A I as;ed Eirgilio Bon $h+ those trees $ere LcutM do$n and he said that he too; the libert+ of cutting those trees. G In +our o$n understanding, L=Mr. L&Mitness, $hat did the accused *ean $hen he said that he too; LtheM libert+ of cutting those treesH A "e caused the cutting of the trees. G And during the ti*e +ou $ere conversing, $ere +ou aloneH A I $as $ith the baranga+ tanod. G And $ho $ere the *e*bers of the baranga+ tanod $ho $ere $ith +ou at that ti*eH A !ulian -ascano, !r. and Natividad -egaspi.".3 =oreover, a part+Ns verbal ad*ission that is established through the testi*onies of the persons $ho heard it .8 fall under ,ection /9 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court. According to this provision, "LtMhe act, declaration or o*ission of a part+ as to a relevant fact *a+ be given in evidence against hi*." <his rule is based upon the notion that no *an $ould *a;e an+ declaration against hi*self, unless it is true. /4 <he testi*on+ of petitioner *a+, therefore, be received in evidence against hi*. 'egarding his alleged uncounselled ad*ission, suffice it to stress that it $as not given during a custodial investigation and, certainl+, not to police authorities. Custodial investigation has been defined as an+ Fuestioning initiated b$ law enforcement officers after a person has been ta;en into custod+ or other$ise deprived of freedo* of action in an+ significant $a+. /. &e have ruled previousl+ that constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not appl+ to a spontaneous state*ent that is not elicited through Fuestioning b+ the authorities, but is given in an ordinar+ *anner. // Eeril+, the inFuir+ on the illegal cutting of trees, $hich -- $ith the assistance of the baranga+ tanods/7 -- $as conducted b+ the o$nerNs brother, =anuel >angalan cannot be dee*ed a custodial investigation. ConseFuentl+, the guarantees of ,ection ./ .# of Article III/1 of the .830 Constitution, or the so-called =iranda rights, cannot be successfull+ invo;ed b+ petitioner. /5 Further*ore, allegations of i*propriet+ co**itted during custodial investigation are relevant and *aterial onl+ to cases in $hich an e2tra)udicial ad*ission or confession is the basis of conviction. /9 In the present case, the conviction of petitioner $as not deduced solel+ fro* his ad*ission, but fro* the confluence of circu*stantial evidence sho$ing his guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. S+:o12 I&&u+4 Credibility and Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence <he ti*e-tested rule is that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibilit+ of $itnesses deserve to be respected because of its uniFue advantage of having observed their de*eanor as the+ testified. /0 EFuall+ established is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carr+ even *ore $eight $hen such findings affir* those of the trial court,/3 as in this case. <his Court refrains fro* disturbing the CANs findings, if no glaring errors bordering on a gross *isapprehension of facts can be gleaned fro* the*. /8 &e have no reason to depart fro* this rule. "ence, $e affir* the lo$er courtsN assess*ent of the credibilit+ of the prosecution $itnesses. &e no$ co*e to the sufficienc+ of the prosecutionNs evidence. ,ection 93 of the Forestr+ Code, as a*ended,74 provides% ",EC. 93. Cuttin%, (atherin% and)or Collectin% Timber, or *ther &orest Products +ithout ,icense . A An+ person $ho shall cut, gather, collect, re*ove ti*ber or other forest products fro* an+ forest land, or ti*ber fro* alienable or disposable public land, or fro* private land, $ithout an+ authorit+, or possess ti*ber or other forest products $ithout the legal docu*ents as reFuired under e2isting forest la$s and regulations, shall be punished $ith the penalties i*posed under Articles 748 and 7.4 of the 'evised Penal Code% Provided, <hat in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers $ho ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, the+ shall, in addition to the penalt+, be deported $ithout further proceedings on the part of the Co**ission on I**igration and >eportation. "<he Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the govern*ent of the ti*ber or an+ forest products cut, gathered, collected, re*oved, or possessed, as $ell as the *achiner+, eFuip*ent, i*ple*ents and tools illegall+ used in the area $here the ti*ber or forest products are found." Punishable under the above provision are the follo$ing acts% .# cutting, gathering, collecting or re*oving ti*ber or other forest products fro* the places therein *entioned $ithout an+ authorit+C and b# possessing ti*ber or other forest products $ithout the legal docu*ents.7. Petitioner $as charged $ith the first offense.7/ It $as thus necessar+ for the prosecution to prove the alleged illegal cutting, gathering or *anufacture of lu*ber fro* the trees. It is undisputed that no direct evidence $as presented. <his ;ind of evidence, ho$ever, is not the onl+ *atri2 fro* $hich the trial court *a+ dra$ its conclusions and findings of guilt. 77 Conviction *a+ be based on circu*stantial evidence, as long as the circu*stances proven constitute an unbro;en chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt.71 <o sustain a conviction based on circu*stantial evidence, it is necessar+ that the follo$ing ele*ents concur% .. <here is *ore than one circu*stance. /. <he facts fro* $hich the inferences are derived are proven. 7. <he co*bination of all the circu*stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt. 75

"2 2 2 Accused Eirgilio BonL,M being the tenant is in actual possession and control over the land, fruit trees and big trees. Eirgilio Bon has a better chance to cut and sa$ the lu*ber. "e ad*itted before the LbMaranga+ LtManodL,M

Page1

>id the circu*stances in this case satisf+ the above reFuire*entsH &e rule in the affir*ative. In its assess*ent of the evidence, the regional trial court '<C# considered the follo$ing proven facts and circu*stances%

!ulian -ascanoL,M $ith other $itnesses presentL,M that he ordered the cutting of the treesL, and theM sa$Ling thereofM b+ his son-in-la$, accused Ale)andro !eniebre, !r. "is ad*ission $as corroborated b+ (scar NarvaeB, the one hired b+ Ale)andro !eniebre, !r., to sa$ the lu*ber. "is e2tra)udicial confession is ad*issible evidence against hi* as it $as voluntar+ and not under custodial investigation."79 <he appellate court, on the other hand, found that the follo$ing circu*stances sufficientl+ proved petitionerNs culpabilit+% "2 2 2 .# LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon ad*itted in the presence of =anuel >angalan, !ulian -ascano and Natividad -egaspi that he caused the cutting of the Fuestioned treesC /# LoMn Februar+ ./, .884, LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon and his sonL,M 2 2 2 'osalio BonL,M $ent to private co*plainantL,M de*anding LthatM the latter 2 2 2 pa+ the value of the Fuestioned trees $hich the+ had cutC 7# LoMn Februar+ .7, .884, LPetitionerM Eirgilio Bon $ent to private co*plainant to as; forgiveness for cutting the trees." 70 A revie$ of the records also sho$s that the fact of the alleged cutting, gathering and *anufacture of lu*ber fro* the trees $as proven b+ the prosecution through the follo$ing pieces of docu*entar+ evidence% photographs of tree stu*ps, 73 the investigation report of an officer of the Co**unit+ Environ*ent and Natural 'esources CEN'(# that no per*it $as secured for the cutting of the trees, 78 and the CEN'(Ns co*putation of the value 14 of the ti*ber generated fro* the felled trees. <his fact, together $ith the circu*stantial evidence, indubitabl+ points to no other conclusion than that petitioner $as guilt+ as charged. Correct Penalty &e no$ go to the penalt+. &e dee* it necessar+ to discuss this *atter because of the differing penalties i*posed b+ the appellate and the trial courts. <he '<C i*posed an indeter*inate sentence of seven 0# +ears, four 1# *onths and one .# da+ of prision ma$or as *ini*u*C to eleven ..# +ears, si2 9# *onths and t$ent+-one /.# da+s of prision ma$or as *a2i*u*. <he CA, ho$ever, increased the penalt+ to i*prison*ent ranging fro* ten .4# +ears of prision ma$or as *ini*u*C to fourteen .1# +ears and eight 3# *onths of reclusion temporal as *a2i*u*. Article 93 of the 'evised Forestr+ -a$, as a*ended b+ E2ecutive (rder No. /00, 1. provides that an+ violation thereof "shall be punished $ith the penalties i*posed under Articles 748 1/ and 7.417 of 'evised Penal Code." <his a*end*ent -- $hich eli*inated the phrase "shall be guilt+ of Fualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 748 and 7.4 of the 'evised Penal Code" -- has alread+ been interpreted b+ this Court. According to its interpretation, the Fuoted phrase *eans that the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting, re*oving or possessing forest products $ithout authorit+ constitute distinct offenses that are no$ independent of the cri*e of theft under Articles 748 and 7.4 of the 'evised Penal Code 'PC#, but that the penalt+ to be i*posed is that $hich is provided under these articles.11 Both the trial court15 and the CA19 found that the value of the lu*ber $as P./,444. :nder Articles 748 and 7.4 of the 'PC, the statutor+ penalt+ should be t$o degrees higher than prision correccional in its *ediu* and *a2i*u* periodsC10 or prision ma$or in its *a2i*u* period to reclusion temporal in its *ini*u* period. <he Indeter*inate ,entence -a$,13 ho$ever, reduces the sentence to an indeter*inate penalt+ an+$here in the range of si2 9# +ears and one .# da+ of prision ma$or, as *ini*u*, to .1 +ears and eight 3# *onths of reclusion temporal as *a2i*u*. Clearl+, the sentences i*posed b+ the trial court and the CA are $ithin the allo$able range. In vie$, ho$ever, of the finding of the '<C that no *itigating or aggravating circu*stance attended the co**ission of the offense, the penalt+ it i*posed $as *ore in accord $ith the liberal spirit of the la$ to$ards the accused. "ence, $e adopt the trial courtNs indeter*inate sentence of seven 0# +ears, four 1# *onths and one .# da+ of prision ma$or as *ini*u*C to eleven ..# +ears, si2 9# *onths and t$ent+-one /.# da+s of prision ma$or as *a2i*u*. 6 EREFORE, the assailed >ecision of the Court of Appeals is hereb+ A&&I-M". $ith the M*.I&ICATI*/ that petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeter*inate penalt+ of i*prison*ent of seven 0# +ears, four 1# *onths and one .# da+ of prision ma$or as *ini*u*C to eleven ..# +ears, si2 9# *onths and t$ent+-one /.# da+s of prision ma$or as *a2i*u*. Costs against appellant. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 137984

July 8, 2004

MOISES SIMANGAN, petitioner, vs. !EO!LE OF T E ! ILI!!INES, respondent. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.4 Before us is a petition for revie$ of the >ecision . of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. C' No. ..80. and its 'esolution den+ing the petitionerNs *otion for reconsideration of the said decision. T5+ A18+:+2+18& <he petitioner =oises ,i*angan and -oreto Bergado $ere charged $ith *urder in an Infor*ation filed $ith the Circuit Cri*inal Court in Caga+an, the accusator+ portion of $hich reads% <hat on or about Februar+ .4, .834, in the *unicipalit+ of ,olana, province of Caga+an, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the said accused, =oises ,i*angan + <rinidad and -oreto Bergado + 'igor alias Bo+, together $ith Bening 6o*abong sic#, $ho is still at large and not +et apprehended, and t$o /# !ohn >oes, $ho $ere not identified, ar*ed $ith guns and ;nives, conspiring together and helping one another, $ith intent to ;illC $ith evident pre*editation and $ith treacher+, did then and there $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ attac;, assault and stab one Ernesto Flores, inflicting upon hi* several $ounds on his bod+ $hich caused his death. Contrar+ to la$./ <he accused, assisted b+ counsel, $ere dul+ arraigned, and pleaded not guilt+ to the charge.

At 3%44 p.*. on Februar+ .4, .834, the petitioner, -oreto Bergado, Bening 6u*abong and t$o other *ale persons arrived at the store of the spouses Ernesto Flores and ,ofronia ,aFuing in Baranga+ =aasin, ,olana, Caga+an. <he Flores ,pouses,

Page1

T5+ C$&+ 9o. 85+ !.o&+:u8%o1

along $ith fifteen-+ear-old -orna ,aFuing, ,ofroniaNs niece, $ere then having dinner. <he five *en $ere in fatigue unifor*s and $ere ar*ed $ith long firear*s. &hen the+ ;noc;ed on the door, -orna responded and inFuired $hat the+ $anted, and she $as told that the+ $anted to bu+ cigarettes. Ernesto and ,ofronia entertained the *en, t$o of $ho* $ere their neighbors, -oreto Bergado and Bening 6u*abong. =o*entaril+, the petitioner as;ed Ernesto to go $ith the* to serve as a guide. In response, Ernesto invited the *en to sleep at their house, but the latter refused. Ernesto then agreed to acco*pan+ the visitors. <he petitioner $arned Ernesto and ,ofronia not to tell an+one that the+ had been to the store. As the+ $ere leaving, 'o*eo 6alano, the coupleNs helper at the store, arrived. Ernesto ordered 'o*eo to go $ith hi*, and the latter did as he $as told. "o$ever, at about 8%44 p.*., 'o*eo returned to the store and told ,ofronia that Ernesto had sent hi* bac; to get *one+, *atches and cigarettes. "e also told ,ofronia that he and Ernesto $ere seated as the+ conversed $ith each other. ,ofronia gave P54.44, a bo2 of *atches and a rea* of "ope cigarettes. 'o*eo left the store at about 8%74 p.*. 7 Ernesto did not return that evening. 1 <he ne2t *orning, 'o*eo Balungga+a arrived at ,ofroniaNs house and told her that Ernesto $as dead, and that his bod+ had been found about three hundred 744# *eters a$a+. ,ofronia and -orna rushed to the place, and found ErnestoNs bod+ near the cree;.5 Ernesto $as l+ing on the ground, face do$n, $ith his hands tied behind his bac;. Police investigators Pagula+an and Caronan arrived, along $ith a photographer. Pictures of the victi* $ere ta;en. 9 >r. Anastacia <aguba, the =unicipal "ealth (fficer, perfor*ed an autops+ of the cadaver and found that the victi* sustained *ultiple stab$ounds. ,he concluded that the victi* died because of shoc; due to *assive internal and e2ternal he*orrhage fro* *ultiple stab $ounds.0 ,he also signed the Certificate of >eath of Ernesto. 3 (n Februar+ .3, .834, Fernando ,aFuing attended his classes in civil engineering at the ,t. -ouis :niversit+ in <uguegarao, Caga+an. "e noticed his seat*ate and close friend, petitioner =oises ,i*angan, $riting on a piece of paper. "e grabbed the paper, read it, and sa$ that the petitioner had $ritten the follo$ing% "Andres Buena alias Pa 'en, Cel+ PeQa alias Pa -aarni, =oises ,i*angan alias Pa 'onie -edes*a." <he petitioner $arned Fernando not to divulge his secret to an+bod+. 8 (n Februar+ /1, .834, Fernando and the petitioner $ere on their $a+ ho*e fro* their '(<C classes at the ,t. -ouis :niversit+. <he petitioner then narrated to Fernando that at about 0%44 p.*. on Februar+ .4, .834, after bu+ing cigarettes fro* a store, the store-o$ner agreed to go $ith hi* and his four co*panions. <he petitioner revealed that the+ brought the victi* over to the place $here t$ent+ of his other co*rades $ere $aiting. "e also told Fernando that he and his co*panions stabbed the victi* over and over again, and tasted the latterNs blood so that "the+ $ould not get sic;." <he petitioner $arned that if Fernando divulged to an+one $hat he had )ust revealed, he the petitioner#, $ould drin; his blood, too. .4 <he petitioner did not ;no$ that Fernando $as the first cousin of ,ofronia, the $ido$ of Ernesto Flores, $ho $as, in turn, the store-o$ner referred to b+ =oises... Fernando i**ediatel+ told ,ofronia $hat the petitioner had told hi*. (n =arch /., /1 and /5, .834, ,ofronia, Fernando and -orna gave their respective state*ents ./ to ,gt. Guirino Espiritu of the Philippine Constabular+ in <uguegarao, Caga+an, in $hich the+ identified =oises as one of ErnestoNs assailants. T5+ C$&+ 9o. 85+ D+9+1&+ <he petitioner denied an+ involve*ent in the ;illing of Ernesto. "e testified that on the da+ that Ernesto $as ;illed, he $as in his boarding house in <uguegarao. "e $as the class*ate of Fernando at the ,t. -ouis :niversit+ in <uguegarao, Caga+an, $here the+ $ere enrolled in the civil engineering course. .7 ,o*eti*e in Februar+ .834, Fernando as;ed hi* about Andres Balbuena $ho $as fro* ,olana, Caga+an. A $ee; later, he $as arrested on suspicions that he had so*ething to do $ith the death of Ernesto..1 Fernando, $ho $as in the PC barrac;s, pointed to hi* as one of the assailants of Ernesto. "e $as surprised at FernandoNs accusation..5 <he petitioner also denied ;no$ing -oreto Bergado, clai*ing that he onl+ *et the latter at the provincial )ail. .9 "e had not been to Baranga+ =aasin, ,olana. <he accused -oreto Bergado also denied ;illing Ernesto. "e testified that he did not ;no$ Ernesto and the latterNs $ife, ,ofronia. (n Februar+ .4, .834, he $as in his house at Nangalasauan, A*ulung, Caga+an. After $a;ing up the ne2t da+, he $ent to his far*..0 <o corroborate his testi*on+, Bergado presented his neighbor, Feliciano <rinidad, $ho testified that after his classes on Februar+ .4, .834, he $ent out of their house at Baranga+ Nangalasauan, A*ulung, Caga+an, to get a breath of fresh air. "e then sa$ Bergado and spo;e $ith hi* until 8%44 p.*..3 Cornelia <rinidad corroborated the testi*on+ of the petitioner that she boarded in the house of 'osendo <uddao in Februar+ .834. <he defense also presented -eona Balungga+a, $ho testified that bet$een 1%44 and 5%44 a.*. on Februar+ .., .834, ,ofronia and -eon 'igor arrived at their house, cr+ing. ,ofronia inFuired if Ernesto had passed b+, because her husband had not slept in their house. Balungga+a replied in the negative. &hen Balungga+a as;ed ,ofronia if she recogniBed the ar*ed *en $ho $ere $ith her husband, ,ofronia replied that she did not because their faces $ere ne$ to her. .8 Aside fro* their house, there $ere no other houses in the vicinit+ of ,ofroniaNs place. 'ight after ,ofronia and -eon had left, she and her husband 'o*eo $ent to their far* to drive a$a+ the birds and sa$ the cadaver of Ernesto, about three hundred 744# *eters a$a+. After trial, the court rendered )udg*ent finding the accused guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of ho*icide. <he decretal portion of the decision reads% &"E'EF('E, the accused =oises ,i*angan + <rinidad and -oreto Bergado + 'igor having been found b+ the Court guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of "o*icide defined and penaliBed under Art. /18 of the 'evised Penal code, and considering the presence of t$o aggravating circu*stances, are hereb+ sentenced each to an indeter*inate penalt+ of ten .4# +ears and one .# da+ of prision ma$or, as *ini*u*, to seventeen .0# +ears, four 1# *onths and one .# da+ of reclusion temporal, as *a2i*u*, to inde*nif+ the heirs of the victi* Ernesto Flores the su* of P74,444.44, proportionatel+ and to pa+ costs pro rata. ,( ('>E'E>./4

T5+ !.+&+18 !+8%8%o1

Page1

(n appeal to the Court of Appeals, it rendered )udg*ent, affir*ing $ith *odification, the decision of the trial court. It found the testi*onies of ,ofronia, -orna, and Fernando, credible and entitled to full probative $eight.

Petitioner =oises ,i*angan filed the instant petition for revie$ on certiorari, asserting that% I <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN BE-IEEIN6 <"E P'(,EC:<I(N &I<NE,,E, AN> >I,'E6A'>IN6 <"E EEI>ENCE F(' <"E >EFEN,E. II <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN FIN>IN6 <"E ACC:,E> 6:I-<I BEI(N> 'EA,(NAB-E >(:B< (F <"E C'I=E (F "(=ICI>E./. <he petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to adduce circu*stantial evidence sufficient to prove his guilt of the cri*e of ho*icide be+ond reasonable doubt. "e asserts that ,ofronia and -orna pointed to and identified hi* onl+ upon the prodding of Fernando, $ho told ,ofronia that he the petitioner# had ad*itted to stabbing and ;illing the victi* together $ith t$ent+ of his other co*panions. <he petitioner contends that the testi*on+ of Fernando is hearsa+, as he had no personal ;no$ledge that he $as one of those $ho ;illed the victi*. (n the other hand, the Court of Appeals declared in its assailed decision that the arra+ of circu*stantial evidence adduced b+ the prosecution constitutes proof be+ond cavil that the petitioner $as one of those $ho ;illed the victi*. As catalogued b+ the appellate court% .# at about 3%44 oNcloc; in the evening of Februar+ .4, .834, accused =oises ,i*angan, -oreto Bergado, Bening 6u*abong and t$o unidentified co*panions each of $ho* $ere ar*ed $ith long rifles, $ent to the store of the victi* Ernesto Flores at ,itio =asin sic#, Iraga, ,olana and bought cigarettesC /# that =oises ,i*angan as;ed Ernesto Flores to guide ,i*angan, Bergado, 6u*abong and their t$o co*panions on their $a+ to the roadC 7# that ,i*angan, Bergado and their t$o co*panions, together $ith Ernesto Flores and 'o*eo 6alano, $ere out of the houseC 1# that ,i*angan $arned ,ofronia and -orna not to tell an+bod+ that he and his co*panions $ent to the houseC 5# that five da+s after the death of Ernesto, ,i*angan beca*e $orried $hen told b+ his class*ate Fernando ,aFuing that several persons $ere arrested at Nangalasauan, A*ulung, for the death of ErnestoC 9# that t$o $ee;s after the death of the victi*, ,i*angan ad*itted to Fernando that he and t$ent+ others had )ust ;illed a person in =asin, sic# Iraga, ,olana, after the victi* acco*panied the* to sho$ the* the $a+C 0# and that Fernando $as $arned not to relate it to an+ other person $ith the threat that if it $ill be ;no$n b+ others, ,i*angan $ill drin; his blood.// T5+ Rul%1< o9 85+ Cou.8 &e find the contention of the petitioner to be un*eritorious. ,ofronia narrated in detail ho$ the petitioner and his co*panions, ar*ed $ith long firear*s, *anaged to convince Ernesto to go $ith the* and be their guide on the road. ,ofronia pointed to and identified the petitioner in open court. <hus% G (n Februar+ .4, .834, at 3%44, do +ou recall $here +ou $ereH A Ies, ,ir. G &here $ere +ouH A &e $ere at ho*e, ,ir. G And +ou *entioned . . . and $ho $ere +our co*panions at that ti*eH A =+ husband, *+ sister -orna ,aFuing, *+ daughter, ,ir. G &hat is the na*e of +our daughterH A !annet, ,ir. G "o$ old $as she at that ti*eH A <$o /# +ears old, ,ir. G &hat is the na*e of +our sisterH A -orna, ,ir. G And +our husbandH A Ernesto Flores, ,ir. G &hat $ere +ou doing at that ti*eH A Eating, ,ir. G &here is +our house locatedH A =asi* 0sic1, ,olana, Caga+an, ,ir. G >o +ou recall of an+thing unusual that happened on Februar+ .4, .834, $hen +ou $ere actuall+ eating $ith +our fa*il+, if an+H A (n Februar+ .4, .834, $hile $e $ere actuall+ ta;ing our supper, there $as a person $ho $ent to bu+ cigarette in our store and it $as *+ sister -orna $ho $ent to open the store and sa$ five persons holding gun 0sic1, ,ir.

A In =asi* 0sic1, ,olana, Caga+an, ,ir.

Page1

G &here is +our store locatedH

G Is +our store also a part of +our house $here +ou live-in 0sic1H A Ies, ,ir. G &hen these five persons ca*e to +our house and -orna ,aFuing, +our sister, $as the one $ho opened the door, $hat happened ne2tH A &hen those five persons entered our store, -orna ca*e to us in the ;itchen and called for us and the three of us proceeded to the store and loo;ed to those five persons, ,ir. G And $hat happened ne2t $hen +ou $ent to see those five personsH A &e sa$ five persons $ith long firear*s, ,ir. G >o +ou ;no$ the na*es of those five persons $ho* +ou sa$H A I ;no$ the three of the* onl+, ,ir. G &hat are the na*es of these three persons $ho* +ou ;no$H A =oises ,i*angan, Bo+ Bergado and Bening Bungabong 0sic1, ,ir. G <his Bening Bungabong 0sic1, if he is in court, can +ou point hi* outH A No, he is not here in court, ,ir. G Ies, but this -oreto Bergado, if +ou can see hi* in the courtroo*, can +ou point hi* outH A Ies, ,ir. IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness pointing to that person in bro$n t-shirt $ho identified hi*self to be -oreto Bergado + 'igor $hen he $as pointed to b+ the $itness. G "o$ about this person b+ the na*e of =oises ,i*angan, $ill +ou loo; around the courtroo* and see if he is hereH A "e is there, ,ir. IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness pointing to a person seated in the courtroo* $ho stood up $hen he $as pointed to b+ the $itness and identified hi*self to be =oises ,i*angan + <rinidad./7 <he petitioner even $arned ,ofronia and Ernesto not to tell an+one that he and his co*panions had been in their house% G And $hen =oises ,i*angan ca*e to ;no$ that +our baranga+ captain in Iraga $as =r. =ario =arsan, $hat happened ne2t, if an+H A <hen =oises ,i*angan reFuested *+ husband to acco*pan+ the* to the road because =oises ,i*angan is ne$ in our place, ,ir. G And $hat did +our husband sa+, if an+H A <hen *+ husband told the* if it $ill be alright for the*, the+ *a+ sleep in the house, ,ir. G And $hat did he sa+H A <hen =oises ,i*angan ans$ered *+ husband that% "$e cannot sleep in +our place because $e *ight be late to*orro$," ,ir. G And $hat happened ne2tH A And then =oises ,i*angan told us not to tell an+bod+ about their going to our store, ,ir. G And $hen =oises ,i*angan $arned +ou not to tell an+bod+ about their presence in +our place, $hat happened ne2t, if an+H A <hen *+ husband told *e that he $ould acco*pan+ the* to the road, ,ir. G And $hen +our husband told +ou that he $ould bring the* to the road, $hat happened ne2t, if an+H A And then =oises ,i*angan and his co*panions too; *+ husband to the road and not long after$ards, *+ bo+ b+ the na*e of 'o*eo 6alano, $ent bac; to the store and told *e that *+ husband told hi* to go bac; to get *one+ and cigarette and also LaM *atch, ,ir. G And $hat ti*e did the+ ta;e a$a+ +our husband fro* +our houseH A 3%44 oNcloc; in the evening, ,ir. G &as it e2actl+ 3%44 oNcloc; or past 3%44H A Past 3%44, it could be past 3%44 oNcloc; alread+, ,ir. /1 -orna also testified that $hen she attended to the petitioner and his co*panions, she sa$ their faces% G No$, $hile at about that ti*e on Februar+ .4, .834, do +ou re*e*ber an+ unusual incident that happened in the house of +our sisterH A Ies, ,ir.

A (n that evening, ,ir, $hile $e $ere eating I heard a voice calling outside or I heard so*eone calling outside $ith the $ord 2.i$os Apo2 and $hen I finished eating, I $ent inside the house and as;ed $ho $as that, and nobod+

Page1

G &hat $as that incident that happenedH

ans$ered, and so, $hat I did $as to open the door and I $as surprised there $ere five ar*ed *en at our door $ho $ent inside our house. G Iou said that these five *en $ho entered the house $ere ar*ed, $ill +ou please tell this "onorable Court $hat $ere their ar*sH A All the five *en $ho entered our house $ere ar*ed $ith long rifle each of the* 0sic1. G No$, do +ou ;no$ the identit+ of these five ar*ed *en $ho entered the house $here +ou $ere sta+ingH A<<I. EE-A,C(% <he Fuestion is vague, Iour "onor. &hether he refers to the present or at that ti*e of the incident. C(:'<% 'efor*ed. 0sic1 FI,CA- "E'NAN>(% G At the ti*e of the incident, of these five ar*ed *en $ho entered the house of +our sister upon +our opening the door, do +ou ;no$ the identit+ of these five ar*ed *en or an+ of the*H A Ies, ,ir, I ;no$ the*. G &ill +ou please tell this "onorable Court $ho $ere the+H A =oises ,i*angan, Bo+ Bergado, Bening 6u*abong and t$o others $ho* I do not ;no$. G Iou said that at the ti*e +ou opened the door and these five *en entered, +ou alread+ ;ne$ three of the*, na*el+ =oises ,i*angan, Bening 6u*abong and Bo+ Bergado, $h+ do +ou ;no$ the*H A I $as able to recogniBe the*, ,ir, through their faces. G &h+ $ere the+ fa*iliar to +ouH A &hen I opened the door, ,ir, and the five ar*ed *en entered our house, I stared at their faces. G &ill +ou please ans$er *+ Fuestion, $h+ $ere +ou able or $h+ $ere +ou fa*iliar $ith the faces of these *en $hen the+ entered the house of +our sister that evening of Februar+ .4, .834H A<<I. ,('IAN(% ,he ans$ered, "I sa$ their faces." C(:'<% &itness *a+ ans$er. A <hese Bo+ Bergado and Bening 6u*abong $ere *+ barcada in =aasi*, ,olana, Caga+an. FI,CA- "E'NAN>(% G &hat do +ou *ean b+ sa+ing that 6u*abong and Bergado $ere +our barcadaH A <he+ $ere *+ co*panions, ,ir. G For ho$ long $ere the+ +our barcada before the incidentH A <hree +ears, ,ir. G No$, $ith respect to =oises ,i*angan, $h+ do +ou sa+ that his face is fa*iliar to +ou at the ti*e of the incidentH A I stared at his face because he $as ne$ in our place./5 It $as onl+ $hen Fernando told his cousin ,ofronia that the petitioner had ad*itted to being one of those $ho inveigled Ernesto into going $ith the*, and thereafter ;illed the victi*, that she and -orna heard the petitionerNs na*e for the first ti*e. G No$, do +ou ;no$, I $ithdra$ that Fuestion, Iour "onor. "o$ about =oises ,i*angan, did +ou ;no$ hi* alread+ before Februar+ .4, .834H A No, ,ir. G &h+ do +ou ;no$ his na*e thenH A I ca*e to ;no$ his na*e $hen =oises ,i*angan infor*ed Fernando, *+ cousin, about those things that the+ have done to *+ husband, but Fernando did not *ention to hi* that I a* his cousin and it $as Fernando, *+ cousin, $ho infor*ed *e about his na*e, ,ir./9 <he testi*on+ of Fernando, that the petitioner ad*itted to hi* that he $as one of the victi*Ns ;illers, is not hearsa+. <he testi*on+ of Fernando $as offered to prove the petitionerNs e2tra)udicial ad*ission of his involve*ent in the ;illing of Ernesto. ,uch ad*ission is an ad*ission against personal interest, and is ad*issible against the petitioner. /0 &e note that the petitioner ad*itted during trial that he and Fernando $ere class*ates in a civil engineering sub)ect at ,t. -ouis :niversit+, and in the '(<C training. <he petitioner also ad*itted that he and Fernando $ere friends. "ence, it $as not i*possible for the petitioner to have revealed his involve*ent in the ;illing to Fernando. <he petitioner did not hesitate to infor* Fernando that he and his co*panions had ;illed Ernesto because an infor*er had told the* that Ernesto $as "bad." <he testi*on+ of Fernando reads, viB% G &hat else did he tell +ouH

Page1

A<<I. ,('IAN(% =a+ $e as; the $itness that he be directed to spea; louder. C(:'<% Iou spea; louder. A <here, ,ir. FI,CA- "E'NAN>(% G And $hat $as thatH A "e infor*ed *e that the+ had )ust ;illed a person in =aasi* 0sic1, ,olana, Caga+an and $e thre$ hi* beside a cree;. And I as;ed =oises ,i*angan, ""o$ co*e that that person is bad," and he ans$ered *e, "&e had an infor*er $ho is their neighbor." FI,CA- "E'NAN>(% G No$, +ou said that there $ere so*e co*panions of =oises ,i*angan because he used the $ord "&E," $ere +ou able to find out fro* hi* ho$ *an+ persons $ere those $ho perpetrated the cri*e in =aasi* 0sic1, ,olana, Caga+an, as +ou stated recentl+H A<<I. ,('IAN(% =a+ $e reFuest that $itness should stop. FI,CA- "E'NAN>(% <hat is the narration, Iour "onor. A<<I. ,('IAN(% =a+ $e reFuest that the narration should be in a Fuestion and ans$er 0sic1. C(:'<% Continue. A &hat =oises ,i*angan narrated to *e, ,ir, is "&e $ere five persons $ho $ent to the store of that person and 0sic1 to bu+ cigarette. At the ti*e the persons $ere $aiting in the store and after $e bought the cigarette, $e let the person acco*pan+ us on our $a+ because $e do not ;no$ the $a+ and then =oises ,i*angan brought the person to the place $here there $ere t$ent+ persons $aiting $ho $ere their co*panions and then the+ stabbed the person and in stabbing, each person tasted the blood 0sic1 that, according to =oises ,i*angan, the+ $ill not get sic;. FI,CA- "E'NAN>(% G >id +ou or did +ou not as; hi* $hat ti*e of the da+ or night $as thatH A No, ,ir. &hen the+ visited the house of the victi* to bu+ cigarette I $as infor*ed b+ =oises ,i*angan that it $as 0%74 in the evening. G No$, after having revealed to +ou all these things, do +ou re*e*ber if =oises ,i*angan told +ou an+thing elseH A Ies, ,ir. G &hat did he tell +ouH A "e told *e that Nanding, I no$ $arn +ou, and +ou ;no$ *e, "once the+ ;no$ these, I a* going to drin; +our blood."/3 <he petitionerNs alibi and denial of the cri*e charged cannot prevail over the positive and straightfor$ard identification *ade b+ -orna and ,ofronia that he $as one of the ar*ed *en $ho left $ith Ernesto, coupled $ith the petitionerNs o$n ad*ission that he $as one of the victi*Ns assailants. &e note that there is no evidence, nor an+ sho$ing of an+ ill-*otive on the part of -orna, ,ofronia and Fernando to prevaricate. In fact, the petitioner and Fernando $ere close friends. <hus, the presu*ption is that the said $itness acted in good faithC hence, their testi*onies *ust be accorded credence and full probative $eight. <he three $itnesses cannot be faulted, and their credibilit+ denigrated for giving their state*ents to ,gt. Espiritu of the Philippine Constabular+ onl+ on =arch /. to /5, .834. As copiousl+ e2plained b+ the Court of Appeals% AppellantNs atte*pt to cast doubt on the credibilit+ of LtheM positive identification *ade b+ ,ofronia and -orna that the+ $ere a*ong those five 5# ar*ed persons $ho too; along the victi* Ernesto Flores on the prete2t that appellant ,i*angan being ne$ to the place $ould need said victi* to guide hi* on the road. Both -orna and ,ofronia ;ne$ personall+ appellant Bergado and 6u*abong being -ornaNs for*er friends and ,ofroniaNs neighbors. (n the other hand, the dela+ in revealing the identities of appellants Bergado and ,i*angan had been sufficientl+ e2plained. It *ust be recalled that appellant ,i*angan had *ade a stern $arning before the+ left that ,ofronia and -orna should not tell an+bod+ about their presence in the place that night. <hose *en being then ar*ed and deter*ined to ta;e along $ith the* the victi* out on the road, even threatening ,ofronia and -orna not to divulge the incident to others, there $as strong reason for said $itnesses to ;eep *u* on the identities of appellants even $hen the police investigators arrived the follo$ing *orning and as;ed the* about the na*es of the five 5# persons or at least an+ of the* the+ had recogniBed. It is understandable $hen a $itness does not i**ediatel+ report the identit+ of the offender after a startling occurrence, *ore so $hen he is related to the victi* as this *a;es it all the *ore trau*atic. It is, li;e$ise, understandable for a $itness to fear for his safet+ especiall+ $hen to$n *ates are involved in the co**ission of the cri*e. Even if the principal $itnesses, -orna and ,ofronia, did not $itness the actual ;illing of Ernesto Flores, the circu*stances that the latter $as last seen alive together $ith the appellants and 6u*abong, along $ith t$o /# other unidentified co*panions that night $ho $ere ar*ed $ith guns, that he $as never to return ho*e that night, and his dead bod+ discovered in a nearb+ field, l+ing face do$n on the ground, both his ar*s tied at his bac; $ith *ultiple stab $ounds on his nec; and bac; R the co*bination of these circu*stances leave no doubt on their *inds that those five 5# persons $ere responsible for

Page1

ErnestoNs grueso*e death and such conviction $as enough to te*poraril+ silence the* fro* revealing i**ediatel+ to the police investigators the identities of appellant Bergado and 6u*abong, and subseFuentl+, ,i*angan./8 In su*, then, $e find and so rule that the appellate court correctl+ affir*ed the decision of the trial court convicting the petitioner of ho*icide. "o$ever, the appellate court erred in appreciating against the petitioner the aggravating circu*stances of cruelt+ and nightti*e. In the first place, such circu*stances $ere not alleged in the Infor*ation as *andated b+ ,ection 3, 'ule ..4 of the 'evised 'ules of Cri*inal Procedure. 74 Although the petitioner co**itted the cri*e before the effectivit+ date of said 'ules, the sa*e should be applied retroactivel+ as it is favorable to hi*. 7. =oreover, the cri*e is not aggravated b+ cruelt+ si*pl+ because the victi* sustained ten stab $ounds, three of $hich $ere fatal. For cruelt+ to be considered as an aggravating circu*stance, there *ust be proof that, in inflicting several stab $ounds on the victi*, the perpetrator intended to e2acerbate the pain and suffering of the victi*. 7/ <he nu*ber of $ounds inflicted on the victi* is not proof of cruelt+. ConseFuentl+, then, the penalt+ i*posed b+ the trial court on the petitioner *ust be *odified. <here being no *odif+ing circu*stances attendant to the cri*e, the *a2i*u* of the indeter*inate penalt+ shall be ta;en fro* the *ediu* period of the i*posable penalt+ of ho*icide $hich is reclusion temporal. <he *ini*u* of the indeter*inate penalt+ shall be ta;en fro* the full range of the penalt+ lo$er b+ one degree for reclusion temporal, $hich is prision ma$or. IN LIG T OF T E FOREGOING , the petition is PA'<IA--I 6'AN<E>. <he assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. C' No. ..80. is AFFI'=E> $ith =(>IFICA<I(N. <he petitioner is hereb+ sentenced an indeter*inate penalt+ of fro* <en .4# Iears and (ne .# >a+ of prision ma$or in its *a2i*u* period, as *ini*u*, to ,i2teen .9# Iears of reclusion temporal in its *ediu* period, as *a2i*u*. No costs. SO ORDERED.

EN BANC G.R. No. 17360) F+-.u$.y 1), 2009

!EO!LE OF T E ! ILI!!INES, Appellee, vs. RENATO ES!A?OL, Appellant. > E CI , I ( N CORONA, J.: <his is an appeal of the Nove*ber 74, /445 decision . and !une /8, /449 resolution/ of the Court of Appeals CA# in CA6.'. C'-".C. No. .705 $hich affir*ed the decision of the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of >agupan Cit+, Branch 1/ convicting appellant of the cri*e of parricide and sentencing hi* to reclusion perpetua. Appellant 'enato EspaQol $as charged $ith ;illing his $ife, 6loria Pascua EspaQol, in an Infor*ation that read% <hat on or about the /nd da+ of Februar+, /444, in the Cit+ of >agupan, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, 'ENA<( E,PAS(- T Atong, being then legall+ *arried to one 6-('IA E,PAS(-, $ith intent to ;ill the latter, did then and there, L$illfull+M, unla$full+ and cri*inall+, attac;, assault and use personal violence upon the latter b+ shooting her, hitting her on vital part of her bod+, thereb+ causing her death shortl+ thereafter due to ""+povole*ic shoc;, he*orrhage, *assive, due to *ultiple gunshot $ound" as per Autops+ 'eport issued b+ >r. Ben)a*in =arcial Bautista, 'ural "ealth Ph+sician, to the da*age and pre)udice of the legal heirs of said deceased, 6-('IA E,PAS(-, in the a*ount of not less than FIF<I <"(:,AN> PE,(, P54,444.44#, Philippine Currenc+, and other conseFuential da*ages. Contrar+ to Article /19 of the 'evised Penal Code. 7 &hen arraigned, appellant pleaded "not guilt+" to the charge. >uring the pre-trial, the prosecution and defense agreed on the follo$ing stipulations and ad*issions% .. <hat the appellant under detention and na*ed in the infor*ation $as the accused $ho had been arraignedC /. <hat the victi*, 6loria Pascua EspaQol, $as the legal $ife of appellantC 7. <hat 6loria and appellant $ere living together as husband and $ife prior to Februar+ /, /444 and that she $as shot to death at the earl+ da$n of Februar+ /, /444 at Pantal, >agupan Cit+C 1. <hat before the victi* $as shot, appellant borro$ed the tric+cle of Federico Ferrer and drove said tric+cle $ith his $ife inside the cab thereof fro* their house to$ards the house of Felicidad Ferrer, sister of the victi*C 5. <hat appellant and the victi* lived in their o$n house $ith their four children. 1 <hereafter, trial ensued. <he factual antecedents follo$. At about /%44 a.*. of Februar+ /, /444, >o*ingo Petilla $as $aiting for his co*panions at Pantal 'oad, >agupan Cit+. <he+ $ere on their $a+ to =anila. All of a sudden, he heard t$o successive gunshots. A fe$ *o*ents later, a +ello$ tric+cle sped past hi* along Pantal 'oad headed to$ards ,itio 6uibang, >agupan Cit+. <he tric+cle $as driven b+ a *an $earing a dar;-colored long-sleeved shirt.5 PetillaNs co*panions arrived shortl+ thereafter on board a van. As the+ started loading their things, the+ sa$, through the lights of their vehicle, a person l+ing on the pave*ent along Pantal 'oad. :pon closer scrutin+, the+ discovered the lifeless bod+ of 6loria EspaQol. <he+ i**ediatel+ reported the *atter to the police. 9 <he gunshots $ere also heard b+ "arold Eillanueva, 0 a boat*an $or;ing at the Pantal 'iver, $hile he $as $aiting for passengers at the doc; about .44 *eters a$a+ fro* the cri*e scene. <he shots $ere follo$ed b+ the sound of a *otorc+cleNs revving engine. "e then sa$ a speeding +ello$ tric+cle. <he tric+cle bore the na*e "'ina" in front of its cab. Its

Page1

driver $as $earing a dar; )ac;et and blue pants. <he boat*an $as later told b+ a tric+cle driver that there $as a dead bod+ nearb+. (ut of curiosit+, he the boat*an# $ent there and recogniBed the victi* as one of his regular passengers. 3 Felicidad Pascua Ferrer, sister of the victi*, $as told b+ the police and neighbors that her sister $as dead. ,he i**ediatel+ proceeded to the place. :pon confir*ing that it $as indeed her sister, she as;ed b+standers to infor* appellant about the death of his $ife.8 A fe$ *inutes later, appellant arrived. Even before he sa$ his dead $ife, he shouted ",he is *+ $ife, she is *+ $ife. &ho ;illed herH Eulva of +our *otherJ ,he $as held up." Appellant stepped across the bod+ and saluted the police investigator. "e told the police that he brought the victi* to the place $here she $as found and that she could have been robbed of the P/,444 he had earlier given her..4 =ean$hile, Eillanueva noticed that the appellant see*ed to be $earing the sa*e clothes as those $orn b+ the driver of the speeding tric+cle he sa$ along Pantal 'oad right after he heard the gunshots. .. At around 7%44 a.*., appellant $ent to the house of =ateo Pascua, brother of 6loria, to infor* hi* that 6loria $as held up and ;illed. <he+ then proceeded to the scene of the cri*e using the +ello$ tric+cle of their brother-in-la$, Federico Ferrer. <he tric+cle had the na*e "'ina" e*blaBoned in front. (n the $a+, =ateo noticed that the seats and floor of the tric+cle $ere $et. &hen as;ed about it, appellant did not ans$er. ./ <hereafter, at the *orgue, appellant refused to loo; at the bod+ and preferred to sta+ outside. .7 <he autops+ +ielded the follo$ing results% EU<E'NA- FIN>IN6, CA>AEE' &A, IN 'I6(' =('<I, AN> 'E6:-A' B:I-<. 6:N,"(< &(:N>, P(E, 4.0 C=, =I> F'(N<A- A'EA, -EEE- 5 C= AB(EE <"E EIEB'(&, C(--A' AB'A,I(N, N( 6:NP(&>E' B:'N, PENE<'A<IN6, ,P:-- F'AC<:'E, B'AIN <I,,:E. P(E2% N(NE 6:N,"(< &(:N>, P(E, ..5 C=, 'I6"< =I> AUI--IA'I -INE, -EEE- / C= BE-(& <"E 'I6"< NIPP-E, -E,, >EN,E, 6:NP(&>E' B:'N PE'IP"E'I, C(--A' AB'A,I(N, ,PIN AB'A,I(N P(,<E'I(', PENE<'A<IN6. P(E2% N(NE C(N<:,I(N "E=A<(=A A< <"E 'I6"< EIE A'EA. IN<E'NA- FIN>IN6, IN<'AC'ANIA- "E=(''"A6E, =(>E'A<E PENE<'A<IN6 PE'F('A<IN6 B'AIN <I,,:E IN<'A<"('ACIC 'I6"<, "E=(''"A6E =A,,IEE PENE<'A<IN6 AN> PE'F('A<IN6 <"': AN> <"': 'I6"< L-:N6M AN> "EA'<. 9th L'IBM F'AC<:'E, /.5 C=, -EF< =I> C-AEIC:-A' -INE, =E>IA,-:6 F(:N> AB(EE <"E 9th L'IBM, &I<"IN <"E =:,C-E,, -EF< <"('ACIC A'EA. .1 >isturbed b+ appellantNs actuations, Felicidad as;ed the police to interrogate her brother-in-la$. At the police station, $hile appellant $as being investigated, he reFuested ,enior Police (fficer ,P(#. Isagani Ico if he could tal; privatel+ $ith Felicidad. >uring their tal;, appellant begged FelicidadNs forgiveness and as;ed that he be spared fro* i*prison*ent. .5 >uring the victi*Ns $a;e in their house, appellant hardl+ loo;ed at his $ifeNs re*ains. "e chose to re*ain secluded at the second floor. "e repeatedl+ as;ed for FelicidadNs forgiveness during the first night of the $a;e. At one point, >elfin "ernandeB, a nephe$ of the victi*, approached appellant and as;ed $h+ the latter ;illed his aunt. Appellant )ust ;ept silent..9 It $as also disclosed b+ Nor*a Pascua "ernandeB, 6loriaNs other sister, that 6loria confided to her appellantNs illicit relationship $ith a $o*an na*ed Eva ,eragas. 6loria $ent to EvaNs house and confronted her about the adulterous relationship but appellant ca*e to EvaNs defense and forcibl+ dragged 6loria a$a+. -ater, 6loria had another heated argu*ent $ith Eva. Nor*a pacified her sister and brought her ho*e. .0 After the presentation of the prosecutionNs evidence in-chief, the defense filed a de*urrer to evidence. <he '<C denied the de*urrer in an order dated August /., /444. .3 For his defense, appellant testified that he had been an e*plo+ee of the >agupan Cit+ &ater >istrict since .884. In the earl+ *orning of Februar+ /, /444, he and his $ife $ere on their $a+ to do$nto$n >agupan Cit+ on board a tric+cle driven b+ hi* to bu+ binuburan fer*ented coo;ed rice#, a local *edication for his ulcer. "o$ever, upon reaching Gui*osing Alle+ along Pantal 'oad, 6loria decided to alight and $a;e up her sister Felicidad $ho lived nearb+. 6loria and Felicidad $ere engaged in the trading of fish in >agupan Cit+. .8 After sa+ing their goodb+es, appellant proceeded to the cit+ proper alone. "e bought binuburan and other ulcer *edications and $ent ho*e. Around /%74 a.*., a passing tric+cle driver infor*ed hi* that the $ater engine of the >agupan &ater >istrict $as creating too *uch noise. "e decided to verif+ the infor*ation. /4 (n his $a+ there, appellant noticed a co**otion along Pantal 'oad. An unidentified *an later told hi*, "EspaQol, co*e here. Iour $ife is dead." "e i**ediatel+ proceeded to the scene of the cri*e. As he $as about to e*brace the dead bod+ of his $ife, so*eone tapped hi* on the shoulder and said "No, donNt touch her, she is still to be investigated." At the *orgue, he noticed that his $ife had a bruise above her right elbo$ and that her Bipper $as partiall+ opened. After a fe$ *inutes, he as;ed to be e2cused for he could not bear the pain and sorro$. /.

Page1

"e denied that he as;ed forgiveness fro* his sister-in-la$ Felicidad for ;illing his $ifeC that he $as barel+ around during his $ifeNs $a;e and that he did not respond to his nephe$Ns accusation. "e li;e$ise denied having an adulterous relationship $ith Eva ,eragas.//

'achel and 'ich$ell EspaQol, appellantNs children, corroborated their fatherNs stor+ and *aintained that he $as at their house resting at the ti*e of the co**ission of the cri*e. <he+ insisted that he $as al$a+s beside the coffin of their *other during the $a;e and that he had no other $o*an. 'achel testified that she and her *other $ere close. If it $ere true that her father had illicit relations $ith another $o*an, her *other $ould have confided in her. 3avvphi3 (n Februar+ .8, /44., the '<C convicted appellant% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the accused 'ENA<( E,PAS(- alias "Atong" is hereb+ found guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of PA''ICI>E as defined b+ Article /19 of the 'evised Penal Code and penaliBed b+ '.A. 0958 other$ise ;no$n as the "einous Cri*e -a$. :nder the latter la$, the offense is punishable b+ reclusion perpetua to death and there being no aggravating circu*stance alleged in the infor*ation, accused is hereb+ sentenced to suffer the lesser penalt+ of reclusion perpetua. In addition, the death his $ife has to be inde*nified b+ hi* in the a*ount of P54,444.44 and is further ordered to pa+ to Felicidad Ferrer the a*ount ofP/4,444.44 as actual and co*pensator+ da*ages. No *oral da*ages is a$arded for the reason stated above. ,( ('>E'E>. Aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in this Court $hich $e referred to the CA in accordance $ith People v. Mateo./7 <he CA affir*ed the '<C in a decision pro*ulgated on Nove*ber 74, /445. It denied reconsideration in a resolution dated !une /8, /449. "ence this appeal. <he issue for our resolution is $hether appellant is guilt+ of the cri*e of parricide. :nder Article /19 of the 'evised Penal Code, parricide is the ;illing of oneNs legiti*ate or illegiti*ate father, *other, child, an+ ascendant, descendant or spouse and is punishable b+ the single indivisible penalt+ of reclusion perpetua to death% Article /19. Parricide. R An+ person $ho shall ;ill his father, *other or child, $hether legiti*ate or illegiti*ate, or an+ of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilt+ of parricide and shall be punished b+ the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua to death. In convicting the appellant, the '<C and CA found that the follo$ing circu*stances proved be+ond reasonable doubt that he $as guilt+ of parricide% .. appellant ad*itted that he $as the one $ho brought his $ife to the scene of the cri*e *inutes before the latterNs bod+ $as discovered. In other $ords, appellant $as $ith the victi* around the ti*e she $as shot and ;illed. /. the tric+cle $hich he used in transporting his $ife $as seen b+ "arold Eillanueva and >o*ingo Petilla traveling at a high speed co*ing fro* the direction $here the gunshots $ere heard. 7. appellant, i**ediatel+ after the incident, $as $earing the sa*e dar; )ac;et and blue )eans $orn b+ the driver of the speeding tric+cle. 1. appellant asserted that his $ife $as robbed, even before the investigation had started. "o$ever, the victi*Ns purse and other belongings $ere all found intact. 5. appellant did not respond to his brother-in-la$Ns Fuer+ as to $h+ the tric+cleNs sidecar $hich appellant had used in transporting his $ife $as $et. 9. appellant isolated hi*self during the nine-da+ $a;e of his $ife. 0. appellant repeatedl+ as;ed to be forgiven b+ Felicidad and spared fro* i*prison*ent during the investigation of the case, $hich $as corroborated b+ ,P(. Ico, and during the first night of the $a;e. 3. appellant had a para*our, a certain Eva ,eragas. A *onth prior to the ;illing, the victi* confided to her sister, Nor*a FernandeB, that she had a confrontation $ith her husbandNs para*our at the latterNs ho*e, but appellant dragged and pulled her a$a+. A fe$ da+s after, the t$o crossed paths again and Fuarreled. /1 &e agree $ith the CA. <hese circu*stances are proven facts. &e are convinced that at around /%44 a.*. of Februar+ /, /444, appellant shot his $ife t$ice on the head and breast, causing her death. <hough there is no direct evidence, $e have previousl+ ruled that direct evidence of the actual ;illing is not indispensable for convicting an accused $hen circu*stantial evidence can adeFuatel+ establish his or her guilt./5 Circu*stantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if a# there is *ore than one circu*stanceC b# the facts fro* $hich the inferences are derived have been proven and c# the co*bination of all the circu*stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt./9 Circu*stantial as it is, conviction based thereon can be upheld, provided the circu*stances proven constitute an unbro;en chain $hich leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to accused-appellant, to the e2clusion of all others, as the guilt+ person. >irect evidence of the co**ission of the cri*e is not the onl+ *atri2 fro* $hich the trial court *a+ dra$ its conclusions and findings of guilt. Circu*stantial evidence is of a nature identical to direct evidence. It is eFuall+ direct evidence of *inor facts of such a nature that the *ind is led, intuitivel+ or b+ a conscious process of reasoning, to a conclusion fro* $hich so*e other fact *a+ be inferred. No greater degree of certaint+ is reFuired $hen the evidence is circu*stantial than $hen it is direct. In either case, $hat is reFuired is that there be proof be+ond reasonable doubt that a cri*e $as co**itted and that accused-appellant co**itted it. /0 None of the prosecution $itnesses sa$ the actual ;illing of the victi* b+ appellant. "o$ever, their separate and detailed accounts of the surrounding circu*stances reveal onl+ one conclusion% that it $as appellant $ho ;illed his $ife. /3 Appellant argues that the lo$er courts should not have given $eight to the testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses because the+ $ere incredible and illogical./8 &e disagree. &ell-entrenched is the rule that the trial courtNs evaluation of the testi*onies of $itnesses is accorded great respect in the absence of proof that it $as arrived at arbitraril+ or that the trial court overloo;ed *aterial facts. <he rationale behind this rule is that the credibilit+ of a $itness can best be deter*ined b+ the trial court since it has the direct opportunit+ to observe the candor and de*eanor of the $itnesses at the $itness stand and detect if the+ are telling the truth or not. 74 &e $ill not interfere $ith the trial court@s assess*ent of the credibilit+ of $itnesses.

Page1

AppellantNs bare denial that he did not ;ill his $ife is a negative and self-serving assertion $hich *erits no $eight in la$ and cannot be given greater evidentiar+ value than the testi*on+ of credible $itnesses $ho testified on affir*ative *atters. 7. <he prosecution $itnesses $ere not sho$n to have an+ ill-*otive to fabricate the charge of parricide against appellant nor to falsel+ testif+ against hi*.3avvphi3 AppellantNs defense of alibi is li;e$ise $ea;. "e alleged that he $ent ho*e after he $ent do$nto$n to bu+ his *edications. "is children attested that he $as $ith the* in their house at the ti*e of the co**ission of the cri*e. "o$ever, LalibiM is eas+ to fabricate but difficult to prove. 222 &e have held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the reFuire*ents of ti*e and place or distance# *ust be strictl+ *et. It is not enough to prove that the accused $as so*e$here else $hen the cri*e $as co**itted. "e *ust also de*onstrate b+ clear and convincing evidence that it $as ph+sicall+ i*possible for hi* to have been at the scene of the cri*e during its co**ission. 7/ AppellantNs house $as *erel+ *inutes a$a+ fro* the place $here the cri*e too; place. Assu*ing that the children actuall+ ;ne$ that appellant $as ho*e $hen their *other $as ;illed, this did not prove that he $as not guilt+. It $as eas+ for hi* to hurr+ ho*e right after the cri*e. In fact, this is a reasonable conclusion fro* the circu*stantial evidence gathered. Another piece of evidence against appellant $as his silence $hen his $ifeNs nephe$ as;ed hi* $h+ he ;illed his $ife. "is silence on this accusation is dee*ed an ad*ission under ,ection 7/, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court% ,ection 7/. Ad*ission b+ silence. A An act or declaration *ade in the presence and $ithin the hearing observation of a part+ $ho does or sa+s nothing $hen the act or declaration is such as naturall+ to call for action or co**ent if not true, and $hen proper and possible for hi* to do so, *a+ be given in evidence against hi*. In addition, appellantNs act of pleading for his sister-in-la$Ns forgiveness *a+ be considered as analogous to an atte*pt to co*pro*ise, $hich in turn can be received as an i*plied ad*ission of guilt under ,ection /0, 'ule .74% 77 ,ection /0. (ffer of co*pro*ise not ad*issible. A 222 222 222 In cri*inal cases, e2cept those involving Fuasi-offenses cri*inal negligence# or those allo$ed b+ la$ to be co*pro*ised, an offer of co*pro*ise b+ the accused *a+ be received in evidence as an i*plied ad*ission of guilt. 222 222 222 In su*, the guilt of appellant $as sufficientl+ established b+ circu*stantial evidence. -eclusion perpetua $as correctl+ i*posed considering that there $as neither an+ *itigating nor aggravating circu*stance present. 71 <he heirs of the victi* are entitled to a civil inde*nit+ e# delicto of P54,444, $hich is *andator+ upon proof of the fact of death of the victi* and the culpabilit+ of the accused for the death.75 -i;e$ise, *oral da*ages in the a*ount of P54,444 should be a$arded even in the absence of allegation and proof of the e*otional suffering b+ the victi*Ns heirs. Although appellantNs t$o children sided $ith hi* in his defense, this did not negate the fact that the fa*il+ suffered e*otional pain brought about b+ the death of their *other. 79 &e also a$ard the* e2e*plar+ da*ages in the su* of P/5,444 considering that the Fualif+ing circu*stance of relationship is present, this being a case of parricide.70 6 EREFORE, the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. C'-".C. No. .705 finding the appellant, 'enato EspaQol, guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of parricide is hereb+ AFFIRMED 6IT MODIFICATION . Appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua and to pa+ the heirs of the victi*, 6loria EspaQol, in the a*ounts of P54,444 as civil inde*nit+, P/4,444 as actual da*ages, P54,444 as *oral da*ages and P/5,444 as e2e*plar+ da*ages. Costs against appellant. SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

@G.R. No&. 146710-13. A=.%l ), 2001A

JOSE!

E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. ANIANO DESIERTO, %1 5%& :$=$:%8y $& O,-u2&,$1, RAMON GONBALES, #OL0NTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORR0!TION, GRAFT FREE ! ILI!!INES FO0NDATION, INC., LEONARD DE #ERA, DENNIS F0NA, ROMEO CA!0LONG $12 ERNESTO ". FRANCISCO, JR., respondents.

@G.R. No. 1467)8. A=.%l ), 2001A

JOSE!

E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACA!AGAL-ARRO/O, respondent. RESOL0TION

!0NO, J.4

Page1

For resolution are petitionerNs =otion for 'econsideration in 6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5 and (*nibus =otion in 6.'. No. .19073 of the CourtNs >ecision of =arch /, /44.. In 6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5, petitioner raises the follo$ing grounds% VI. I< >I,'E6A'>E> <"E C-EA' AN> EUP-ICI< P'(EI,I(N, (F A'<. UI, ,EC<I(N 7 0# (F <"E C(N,<I<:<I(N AN> <"E ,E<<-E> !:'I,P':>ENCE <"E'E(N. II. I< "E-> <"A< PE<I<I(NE' CAN BE P'(,EC:<E> N(&, F(' <"I, ':-IN6 &(:-> EI(-A<E <"E >(:B-E !E(PA'>I C-A:,E (F <"E C(N,<I<:<I(N, C(N,I>E'IN6 <"A< PE<I<I(NE' &A, ACG:I<<E> IN <"E I=PEAC"=EN< P'(CEE>IN6,. III. I< "E-> <"A< PE<I<I(NE' I, N( -(N6E' EN<I<-E> <( AB,(-:<E I==:NI<I F'(= ,:I<. IE. I< "E-> <"A< PE<I<I(NE'N, >:E P'(CE,, 'I6"<, <( A FAI' <'IA- "AEE N(< BEEN P'E!:>ICE> BI P'E-<'IA- P:B-ICI<I. E. I< "E-> <"A< <"E'E I, N(< EN(:6" EEI>ENCE <( &A''AN< <"E C(:'< <( EN!(IN <"E P'E-I=INA'I INEE,<I6A<I(N (F <"E INC:=BEN< (=B:>,=AN, PE<I<I(NE' "AEIN6 FAI-E> <( P'(EE <"E I=PAI'E> CAPACI<I (F <"E (=B:>,=AN <( 'EN>E' A BIA,E> F'EE >ECI,I(N.W In 6.'. No. .19073, petitioner raises and argues the follo$ing issues% .. &"E<"E' PE<I<I(NE' 'E,I6NE> (' ,"(:-> BE C(N,I>E'E> 'E,I6NE> A, (F !AN:A'I /4, /44.C /. &"E<"E' <"E AN6A'A >IA'I I, INA>=I,,IB-E F(' BEIN6 EI(-A<IEE (F <"E F(--(&IN6 ':-E, (N EEI>ENCE% "EA',AI, BE,< EEI>ENCE, A:<"EN<ICA<I(N, A>=I,,I(N, AN> -"' I/T"- A,I*' ACTAC 7. &"E<"E' 'E-IANCE (N NE&,PAPE' AC(:N<, I, EI(-A<IEE (F <"E "EA',AI ':-EC 1. &"E<"E' C(N6'E,, P*'T &ACT* CAN >ECI>E PE<I<I(NE'N, C(N,I>E'IN6 ,EC<I(N .., A'<IC-E EII (F <"E C(N,<I<:<I(NC and INABI-I<I <( 6(EE'N

5. &"E<"E' P'E!:>ICIA- P:B-ICI<I "A, AFFEC<E> PE<I<I(NE'N, 'I6"< <( FAI' <'IA-. &e find the contentions of petitioner bereft of *erit. I

!.+Cu2%:%$l !u-l%:%8y o1 85+ Cou.8

Petitioner insists he is the victi* of pre)udicial publicit+. A*ong others, he assails the >ecision for adverting to ne$spaper accounts of the events and occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. In our >ecision, $e used the totalit+ test to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner has resigned. &e referred to and anal+Bed events that $ere prior, conte*poraneous and posterior to the oath-ta;ing of respondent Arro+o as president. All 85+&+ +*+18& $.+ 9$:8& 75%:5 $.+ 7+ll-+&8$-l%&5+2 $12 :$11o8 -+ .+9u8+2 . <hus, $e adverted to prior events that built up the irresistible pressure for the petitioner to resign. <hese are% .# the e2pose of 6overnor -uis VChavitW ,ingson on (ctober 1, /444C /# the VI accuseW speech of then ,enator <eofisto 6uingona in the ,enateC 7# the )oint investigation of the speech of ,enator 6uingona b+ the Blue 'ibbon Co**ittee and the Co**ittee on !usticeC 1# the investigation of the ,ingson e2pose b+ the "ouse Co**ittee on Public (rder and ,ecurit+C 5# the *ove to i*peach the petitioner in the "ouse of 'epresentativesC 9# the Pastoral -etter of Archbishop !ai*e Cardinal ,in de*anding petitionerNs resignationC 0# a si*ilar de*and b+ the Catholic Bishops conferenceC 3# the si*ilar de*ands for petitionerNs resignation b+ for*er Presidents CoraBon C. AFuino and Fidel E. 'a*osC 8# the resignation of respondent Arro+o as ,ecretar+ of the >,&> and her call for petitioner to resignC .4# the resignation of the *e*bers of petitionerNs Council of ,enior Econo*ic Advisers and of ,ecretar+ =ar 'o2as III fro* the >epart*ent of <rade and Industr+C ..# the defection of then ,enate President Fran;lin >rilon and then ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives =anuel Eillar and fort+ seven 10# representatives fro* petitionerNs -apiang =asang PilipinoC ./# the trans*ission of the Articles of I*peach*ent b+ ,pea;er Eillar to the ,enateC .7# the unseating of ,enator >rilon as ,enate President and of 'epresentative Eillar as ,pea;er of the "ouseC .1# the i*peach*ent trial of the petitionerC .5# the testi*onies of Clarissa (ca*po and for*er Finance ,ecretar+ Edgardo Espiritu in the i*peach*ent trialC .9# the ..-.4 vote of the senator-)udges den+ing the prosecutorNs *otion to open the /nd envelope $hich allegedl+ contained evidence sho$ing that petitioner held a P7.7 billion deposit in a secret ban; account under the na*e of V!ose EelardeWC .0# the prosecutorsN $al;out and resignationC .3# the indefinite postpone*ent of the i*peach*ent proceedings to give a chance to the "ouse of 'epresentatives to resolve the issue of resignation of their prosecutorsC .8# the rall+ in the E>,A ,hrine and its intensification in various parts of the countr+C /4# the $ithdra$al of support of then ,ecretar+ of National >efense (rlando =ercado and the then Chief of ,taff, 6eneral Angelo 'e+es, together $ith the chiefs of all the ar*ed servicesC /.# the sa*e $ithdra$al of support *ade b+ the then >irector 6eneral of the PNP, 6eneral Panfilo -acson, and the *a)or service co**andersC //# the strea* of resignations b+ Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefsC /7# petitionerNs agree*ent to hold a snap election and opening of the controversial second envelope. All 85+&+ =.%o. +*+18& $.+ 9$:8& 75%:5 $.+ 7%85%1 Cu2%:%$l 1o8%:+ -y 85%& Cou.8. T5+.+ 7$& 1o 1++2 8o :%8+ 85+%. 1+7& $::ou18&. T5+ .+9+.+1:+ -y 85+ Cou.8 8o :+.8$%1 1+7&=$=+.& .+=o.8%1< 85+, $& 85+y 5$==+1+2 2o+& 1o8 ,$D+ 85+, %1$2,%&&%-l+ +*%2+1:+ 9o. -+%1< 5+$.&$y. T5+ 1+7& $::ou18 o1ly -u88.+&&+2 85+&+ 9$:8& $& 9$:8&. Fo. $ll 5%& lou2 =.o8+&8$8%o1&, =+8%8%o1+. 5$& 1o8 &%1<l+2 ou8 $1y o9 85+&+ 9$:8& $& 9$l&+. &e no$ co*e to so*e events of !anuar+ /4, /44. conte*poraneous to the oath ta;ing of respondent Arro+o. &e used the Angara >iar+ to decipher the intent to resign on the part of the petitioner. -et it be e*phasiBed that it is not unusual for courts to distill a personNs sub)ective intent fro* the evidence before the*. Ever+da+, courts ascertain intent in cri*inal cases, in civil la$ cases involving last $ills and testa*ents, in co**ercial cases involving contracts and in other si*ilar cases. As $ill be discussed belo$, the use of the Angara >iar+ is not prohibited b+ the hearsa+ rule. Petitioner *a+

Page1

disagree $ith so*e of the inferences arrived at b+ the Court fro* the facts narrated in the >iar+ but that does not *a;e the >iar+ inad*issible as evidence. &e did not stop $ith the conte*poraneous events but proceeded to e2a*ine so*e events posterior to the oath-ta;ing of respondent Arro+o. ,pecificall+, $e anal+Bed the all i*portant press release of the petitioner containing his 9%1$l &8$8+,+18 $hich $as issued after the oath-ta;ing of respondent Arro+o as president. After anal+Bing its content, $e ruled that petitionerNs issuance of the press release and his abandone*nt of =alacaQang Palace confir*ed his resignation. L.M <hese areo*+.8 $:8& $hich leave no doubt to the Court that the petitioner has resigned. I1 l%<58 o9 85%& 9%12%1< 85$8 =+8%8%o1+. 5$& .+&%<1+2 -+9o.+ 12 o>:lo:D 1oo1 o9 J$1$u.y 20, 2001, 85+ :l$%, 85$8 85+ o99%:+ o9 85+ !.+&%2+18 7$& 1o8 *$:$18 75+1 .+&=o12+18 A..oyo 8ooD 5+. o$85 o9 o99%:+ $8 5$l9 =$&8 1oo1 o9 85+ &$,+ 2$y 5$& 1o l+< 8o &8$12 o1. &e also re)ect the contention that petitionerNs resignation $as due to 2u.+&& and an %1*olu18$.y .+&%<1$8%o1 is no resignation at all. V2 2 2 LIMt has been said that, in deter*ining $hether a given resignation is voluntaril+ tendered, the ele*ent of voluntariness is vitiated onl+ $hen the resignation is sub*itted under duress brought on b+ govern*ent action. <he 85.++-=$.8 8+&8 for such duress has been stated as involving the follo$ing ele*ents% .# $hether one side involuntaril+ accepted the otherNs ter*sC /# $hether circu*stances per*itted no other alternativeC and 7# $hether such circu*stances $ere the result of coercive acts of the opposite side. <he vie$ has also been e2pressed that a resignation *a+ be found involuntar+ if on the 8o8$l%8y o9 85+ :%.:u,&8$1:+& it appears that the e*plo+erNs conduct in .+Eu+&8%1< .+&%<1$8%o1 effectivel+ deprived the e*plo+er of free choice in the *atter. F$:8o.& 8o -+ :o1&%2+.+2, under this test, are% .# $hether the e*plo+ee $as given so*e alternative to resignationC /# $hether the e*plo+ee understood the nature of the choice he or she $as givenC 7# $hether the e*plo+e$e $as given a reasonable ti*e in $hich to chooseC and 1# $hether he or she $as per*itted to select the effective date of resignation. In appl+ing this totalit+ of the circu*stances test, the assess*ent $hether real alternatives $ere offered *ust be gauged b+ an ob)ective standard rather than b+ the e*plo+eeNs purel+ sub)ective evaluationC 85$8 85+ +,=loy++ ,$y =+.:+%*+ 5%& o. 5+. o1ly o=8%o1 8o -+ .+&%<1$8%o1 F 9o. +G$,=l+, -+:$u&+ o9 :o1:+.1& $-ou8 5%& o. 5+. .+=u8$8%o1 F %& %..+l+*$18. S%,%l$.ly, 85+ ,+.+ 9$:8 85$8 85+ :5o%:+ %& -+87++1 :o,=$.$-ly u1=l+$&$18 $l8+.1$8%*+& F 9o. +G$,=l+, .+&%<1$8%o1 o. 9$:%1< 2%&:%=l%1$.y :5$.<+& F 2o+& 1o8 o9 %8&+l9 +&8$-l%&5 85$8 $ .+&%<1$8%o1 7$& %12u:+2 -y 2u.+&& o. :o+.:%o1, $12 7$& 85+.+9o.+ %1*olu18$.y. <his is so even $here the onl+ alternative to resignation is facing possible ter*ination for cause, unless the e*plo+er actuall+ lac;ed good cause to believe that grounds for ter*ination e2isted. In this regard it has also been said that a resignation resulting fro* a choice bet$een resigning or facing proceedings for dis*issal is not tanta*ount to discharge b+ coercion $ithout procedural vie$ if the e*plo+ee is given sufficient ti*e and opportunit+ for deliberation of the choice posed. Futher*ore, a resignation b+ an officer charged $ith *isconduct is not given under duress, though the appropriate authorit+ has alread+ deter*ined that the officerNs alternative is ter*ination, $here such authorit+ has the legal authorit+ to ter*inate the officerNs e*plo+*ent under the particular circu*stances, since it is not duress to threaten to do $hat one has the legal right to do, or to threaten to ta;e an+ *easure authoriBed b+ la$ and the circu*stances of the case.WL/M In the cases at bar, =+8%8%o1+. 5$2 &+*+.$l o=8%o1& available to hi* other than resignation. "e proposed to the holding of snap elections. "e trans*itted to the Congress a $ritten declaration of te*porar+ inabilit+. "e could not clai* he $as forced to resign because i**ediatel+ before he left =alacaQang, he as;ed ,ecretar+ Angara% VEd, aalis na ba a;oHW $hich i*plies that he still had a choice of $hether or not to leave. To -+ &u.+, =.+&&u.+ 7$& +G+.8+2 9o. 85+ =+8%8%o1+. 8o .+&%<1. "u8 %8 %& 2%99%:ul8 8o -+l%+*+ 85$8 85+ =.+&&u.+ :o,=l+8+ly *%8%$8+2 85+ *olu18$.%1+&& o9 85+ =+8%8%o1+.>& .+&%<1$8%o1. <he =alacaQang ground $as then full+ protected b+ the Presidential ,ecurit+ 6uard ar*ed $ith tan;s and high-po$ered $eapons. <he then Chief of ,taff, 6eneral Angelo 'e+es, and other *ilitar+ officers $ere in =alacaQang to assure that no har* $ould befall the petitioner as he left the Palace. Indeed, no har*, not even a scratch, $as suffered b+ the petitioner, the *e*bers of his fa*il+ and his Cabinet $ho stuc; it out $ith hi* in his last hours. PetitionerNs entourage $as even able to detour safel+ to the =unicipal "all of ,an !uan and bade goodb+e to his follo$ers before finall+ going to his residence in Pol; ,treet, 6reenhills. <he onl+ incident before the petitioner left the Palace $as the stone thro$ing bet$een a s*all group of pro and anti Erap rall+ists $hich resulted in *inor in)uries to a fe$ of the*. Certainl+, there $ere no tan;s that ru*bled through the Palace, no attac; planes that fle$ over the presidential residence, no shooting, no large scale violence, e2cept verbal violence, to )ustif+ the conclusion that petitioner $as coerced to resign. II

E*%2+18%$.y I&&u+&

Petitioner devotes a large part of his argu*ents on the alleged i*proper use b+ this Court of the A1<$.$ D%$.y. It is urged that the use of the A1<$.$ D%$.y to deter*ine the state of *ind of the petitioner on the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the ad*ission of 5+$.&$y +*%2+1:+. &e are unpersuaded. <o begin $ith, 85+ A1<$.$ 2%$.y %& 1o8 $1 ou8 o9 :ou.8 &8$8+,+18 . <he A1<$.$ D%$.y %& =$.8 o9 85+ =l+$2%1<& %1 85+ :$&+& $8 -$. . Petitioner cannot co*plain he $as not furnished a cop+ of the Angara >iar+. Nor can he feign surprise on its use. <o be sure, the said >iar+ $as freFuentl+ referred to b+ the parties in their pleadings. L7M <he three parts of the >iar+ published in the P>I fro* Februar+ 1-9, /44. $ere attached as Anne2es A-C, respectivel+, of the =e*orandu* of private respondents 'o*eo <. Capulong, et al., dated Februar+ /4, /44.. <he second and third parts of the >iar+ $ere earlier also attached as Anne2es ./ and .7 of the Co**ent of private respondents Capulong, et al., dated Februar+ ./, /44.. In fact, petitioner even cited in his ,econd ,upple*ental 'epl+ =e*orandu* both the second part of the diar+, published on Februar+ 5, /44., L1M and the third part, published on Februar+ 9, /44.. L5M It $as also e2tensivel+ used b+ ,ecretar+ of !ustice "ernando PereB in his oral argu*ents. <hus, petitioner had all the opportunit+ to contest the use of the >iar+ but unfortunatel+ failed to do so. Even assu*ing arguendo that the Angara >iar+ $as an out of court state*ent, still its use is not covered b+the hearsa+ rule.L9M Evidence is called hearsa+ $hen its probative force depends, in $hole or in part, on the co*petenc+ and

Page1

credibilit+ of so*e persons other than the $itness b+ $ho* it is sought to produce it. L0M<here are three reasons for e2cluding hearsa+ evidence% .# absence of cross e2a*inationC /# absence of de*eanor evidence, and 7# absence of the oath. L3M Not at all hearsa+ evidence, ho$ever, is inad*issible as evidence. (ver the +ears, a huge bod+ of hearsa+ evidence has been ad*itted b+ courts due to their relevance, trust$orthiness and necessit+. L8M <he e*ergence of these e2ceptions and their $ide spread acceptance is $ell-e2plained b+ &einstein, =ansfield, Abra*s and Berger as follo$s% V2 2 2 (n the other hand, $e all *a;e decisions in our ever+da+ lives on the basis of other personsN accounts of $hat happened, and verdicts are usuall+ sustained and affir*ed even if the+ are based on hearsa+ erroneousl+ ad*itted, or ad*itted because no ob)ection $as *ade. ,ee ,hepp v. :ehlinger, 005 F /d 15/, 151-155 .st Cir. .835# hearsa+ evidence alone can support a verdict#. Although volu*es have been $ritten suggesting $a+s to revise the hearsa+ rule, no one advocates a rule that $ould bar all hearsa+ evidence. I12++2, 85+ 2+:%2+2 5%&8o.%:$l 8.+12 5$& -++1 8o +G:lu2+ :$8+<o.%+& o9 5%<5ly =.o-$8%*+ &8$8+,+18& 9.o, 85+ 2+9%1%8%o1 o9 5+$.&$y H&+:8%o1& 2 $12 ), %19.$I, $12 8o 2+*+lo= ,o.+ :l$&& +G:+=8%o1& 8o 85+ 5+$.&$y .ul+ H&+:8%o1& 4-11, %19.$I. Fu.85+.,o.+, ,$1y &8$8+& 5$*+ $22+2 8o 85+%. .ul+& 85+ .+&%2u$l, o. :$8:5$ll, +G:+=8%o1& 9%.&8 =%o1++.+2 -y 85+ F+2+.$l Rul+& 75%:5 $u85o.%J+ 85+ $2,%&&%o1 o9 5+$.&$y 85$8 2o+& 1o8 &$8%&9y $ :l$&& +G:+=8%o1, =.o*%2+2 %8 %& $2+Eu$8+ly 8.u&87o.85y $12 =.o-$8%*+ section ./, infra#. =oreover, &o,+ :o,,+18$8o.& -+l%+*+ 85$8 85+ 5+$.&$y .ul+ &5oul2 -+ $-ol%&5+2 $l8o<+85+. %1&8+$2 o9 -+%1< loo&+1+2. ,ee, e.g., Note, <he <heoretical Foundation of the "earsa+ 'ules, 87 "arv.-.'ev. .039, .341-.345, .3.5 .834# footnotes o*itted#% <he Federal 'ules of Evidence provide that OLaMlthough relevant, evidence *a+ be e2cluded if its probative value is substantiall+ out$eighed b+ the danger of unfair pre)udice.N :nder this structure, e2clusion is )ustified b+ fears of ho$ the )ur+ $ill be influenced b+ the evidence. "o$ever, it is not traditional to thin; of hearsa+ as *erel+ a subdivision of this structure, and the Federal 'ules do not conceive of hearsa+ in that *anner. Pre)udice refers to the )ur+Ns use of evidence for inferences other than those for $hich the evidence is legall+ relevantC b+ contrast, the rule against hearsa+ Fuestions the )ur+Ns abilit+ to evaluate the strength of a le%itimate inference to be dra$n fro* the evidence. For e2a*ple, $ere a )udge to e2clude testi*on+ because a $itness $as particularl+ s*ooth or convincing, there $ould be no doubt as to the usurpation of the )ur+Ns function. <hus, unli;e pre)udices recogniBed b+ the evidence rules, such as those ste**ing fro* racial or religious biases or fro* the introduction of photographs of a victi*Ns final state, the e2clusion of hearsa+ on the basis of *isperception stri;es at the root of the )ur+Ns function b+ usurping its po$er to process Fuite ordinar+ evidence, the t+pe of infor*ation routinel+ encountered b+ )urors in their ever+da+ lives. X ,ince virtuall+ all criteria see;ing to distinguish bet$een good and bad hearsa+ are either incoherent, inconsistent, or indeter*inate, the onl+ altenative to a general rule of ad*ission $ould be an absolute rule of e2clusion, $hich is surel+ inferior. =ore i*portant, the assu*ptions necessar+ to )ustif+ a rule against hearsa+ X see* insupportable and, in an+ event, are inconsistent $ith accepted notions of the function of the )ur+. <herefore, the hearsa+ rules should be abolished. ,o*e support for this vie$ can be found in the li*ited e*pirical research no$ available R $hich is, ho$ever, derived fro* si*ulations R that suggests that $2,%88%1< 5+$.&$y 5$& l%88l+ +99+:8 o1 8.%$l ou8:o,+& -+:$u&+ Cu.o.& 2%&:ou18 85+ *$lu+ o9 5+$.&$y +*%2+1:+. ,ee 'a;os Y -ands*an, 'esearching the "earsa+ 'ule% E*erging Findings, 6eneral Issues, and Future >irections, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 955 .88/#C =iene, Par;, Y Borgidas, !ur+ >ecision =a;ing and the Evaluation of "earsa+ Evidence, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 937 .88/#C Povera, Par;, Y Penrod, !urorsN Perceptions of E+e$itness and "earsa+ Evidence, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 047 .88/#C -ands*an Y 'a;os, 'esearch Essa+% A Preli*inar+ E*pirical EnFuir+ Concerning the prohibition of "earsa+ Evidence in A*erican Courts, .5 -a$ Y Ps+chol. 'ev. 95 .88.#. O85+.&, +*+1 %9 85+y :o1:+2+ 85$8 .+&8.%:8%o1& o1 5+$.&$y 5$*+ &o,+ u8%l%8y, Eu+&8%o1 75+85+. 85+ -+1+9%8& ou87+%<5 85+ :o&84 <he cost of *aintaining the rule is not )ust a function of its contribution to )ustice. It also includes the ti*e spent on litigating the rule. And of course this is not )ust a cost voluntaril+ borne b+ the parties, for in our s+ste* virtuall+ all the cost of the court R salaries, ad*inistrative costs, and capital costs R are borne b+ the public. As e2pensive as litigation is for the parties, it is supported b+ an enor*ous public subsid+. E$:5 8%,+ $ 5+$.&$y Eu+&8%o1 %& l%8%<$8+2, 85+ =u-l%: =$y&. <he rule i*poses other costs as $ell. Enor*ous ti*e is spent teaching and $riting about the hearsa+ rule, $hich are both costl+ enterprises. In so*e la$ schools, students spend over half their ti*e in evidence classes learning the intricacies of the hearsa+ rule, and X enor*ous acade*ic resources are e2pended on the rule. Allen, Co**entar+ on Professor Friend*anNs Article% <he Evolution of the "earsa+ 'ule to a 'ule of Ad*ission, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 080, 344 L.88/M but $ould abolish rule onl+ in civil cases#. ,ee also Fried*an, <o$ard a Partial Econo*ic, 6a*e-<heoretic Anal+sis of "earsa+, 09 =inn. -. 'ev. 0/7 .88/#.W L.4M A :o,=l+8+ $1$ly&%& of an+ hearsa+ proble* reFuires that $e 9u.85+. 2+8+.,%1+ $hether the hearsa+ evidence is one e2e*pted fro* the .ul+& o9 +G:lu&%o1. A ,o.+ :%.:u,&=+:8 +G$,%1$8%o1 o9 ou. .ul+& o9 +G:lu&%o1 7%ll &5o7 85$8 85+y 2o 1o8 :o*+. $2,%&&%o1& o9 $ =$.8y $12 85+ A1<$.$ D%$.y -+lo1<& 8o 85%& :l$&&. ,ection /9 of 'ule .74 provides that Vthe act, declaration or o*ission of a part+ as to a relevant fact *a+ be given in evidence against hi*.W L..M I8 5$& lo1< -++1 &+88l+2 85$8 85+&+ $2,%&&%o1& $.+ $2,%&&%-l+ +*+1 %9 85+y $.+ 5+$.&$y. 'etired !ustice (scar "errera of the Court of Appeals cites the various authorities $ho e2plain $h+ $2,%&&%o1& $.+ 1o8 :o*+.+2 -y 85+ 5+$.&$y .ul+4L./M V6%<,o.+, after pointing out that the =$.8y>& 2+:l$.$8%o1 has generall+ the probative value of an+ other personNs asssertion, argued that it had a &=+:%$l *$lu+ 75+1 o99+.+2 $<$%1&8 85+ =$.8y. In that circu*stance, the ad*ission discredits the part+Ns state*ent $ith the present clai* asserted in pleadings and testi*on+, *uch li;e a $itness i*peached b+ contradictor+ state*ents. =oreover, he continued, $2,%&&%o1& =$&& 85+ <$u18l+8 o9 85+ 5+$.&$y .ul+, $hich reFuires

Page1

that e2tra)udicial assertions be e2cluded if there $as no opportunit+ for the opponent to cross-e2a*ine because it is the opponentNs o$n declaration, and O5+ 2o+& 1o8 1++2 8o :.o&& +G$,%1+ 5%,&+l9.> &ig*ore then added that the "earsa+ 'ule is satisfied since the part+ no$ as opponent has the full opportunit+ to put hi*self on the stand and e2plain his for*er assertion. 6%<,o.+ o1 +*%2+1:+, S+:. 1048 HC5$2-ou.1 R+*. 1972I, :%8+2 %1 S+:. 134, M:Co.,%:D # According to Mo.<$1% O<he ad*issibilit+ of an ad*ission *ade b+ the part+ hi*self rests not upon an+ notion that the circu*stances in $hich it $as *ade furnish the trier *eans of evaluating it fairl+, but upon the adversar+ theor+ of litigation. A =$.8y :$1 5$.2ly o-C+:8 85$8 5+ 5$2 1o o==o.8u1%8y 8o :.o&&-+G$,%1+ 5%,&+l9 o. 85$8 5+ %& u17o.85y o9 :.+2+1:+ &$*+ 75+1 &=+$D%1< u12+. &$1:8%o1 o9 $1 o$85. N A *anNs acts, conduct, and declaration, $herever *ade, if voluntar+, are ad*issible against hi*, for the reason that it is fair to presu*e that the+ correspond $ith the truth, and it is his fault if the+ do not. .S. vs. Chin! Po, "# Phil. $%&, $&##.W <he A1<$.$ D%$.y contains direct state*ents of petitioner $hich can be categoriBed as $2,%&&%o1& o9 $ =$.8y% his proposal for a snap presidential election $here he $ould not be a candidateC his state*ent that he onl+ $anted the five-da+ period pro*ised b+ Chief of ,taff Angelo 'e+esC his state*ents that he $ould leave b+ =onda+ if the second envelope $ould be opened b+ =onda+ and VPagod na pagod na a;o. A+o;o na, *as+ado nang *asa;it. Pagod na a;o sa red tape, bureaucrac+, intriga. I a* ver+ tired. I donNt $ant an+ *ore of this R itNs too painful. IN* tired of the red tape, the bureaucrac+, the intrigue#. I )ust $ant to clear *+ na*e, then I $ill go.W &e noted that da+s before, petitioner had repeatedl+ declared that he $ould not resign despite the gro$ing cla*or for his resignation. <he reason for the *eltdo$n is obvious - - - his $ill not to resign has $ilted. I8 %&, 5o7+*+., $.<u+2 85$8 85+ A1<$.$ D%$.y %& 1o8 85+ 2%$.y o9 85+ =+8%8%o1+., 5+1:+, 1o1--%12%1< o1 5%,. <he argu*ent o*+.looD& the doctrine of$2o=8%*+ $2,%&&%o1. An adoptive ad*ission is a part+Ns reaction to a state*ent or action b+ another person $hen it is reasonable to treat the part+Ns reaction $& $1 $2,%&&%o1 o9 &o,+85%1< &8$8+2 o. %,=l%+2 -y 85+ o85+. =+.&o1 .L.7M !ones e2plains that the Vbasis for ad*issibilit+ of $2,%&&%o1& ,$2+ *%:$.%ou&ly is that arising fro* the .$8%9%:$8%o1 o. $2o=8%o1 b+ the part+ of the state*ents $hich the other person had *ade.W L.1M <o use the blunt language of =ueller and Pir;patric;, V 85%& =.o:+&& o9 $88.%-u8%o1 %& 1o8 ,u,-o Cu,-o -u8 :o,,o1 &+1&+. WL.5M In the A1<$.$ D%$.y, the options of the petitioner started to d$indle $hen the ar*ed forces $ithdre$ its support fro* hi* as President and co**ander-in-chief. <hus, E2ecutive ,ecretar+ Angara had to as; ,enate President Pi*entel to advise petitioner to consider the option of V2%<1%9%+2 +G%8 o. .+&%<1$8%o1.W Petitioner did not ob)ect to the suggested option but si*pl+ said he could never leave the countr+. PetitionerNs silence on this and other related suggestions can be ta;en as an ad*ission b+ hi*.L.9M Petitioner further contends that the use of the A1<$.$ 2%$.y against hi* violated the rule on .+& %18+. $l%o& $:8$. <he rule is e2pressed in section /3 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court, viB% V<he rights of a part+ cannot be pre)udiced b+ an act, declaration, or o*ission of another, +G:+=8 $& 5+.+%1$98+. =.o*%2+2.W Again, petitioner errs in his contention. <he res inter alios acta rule has &+*+.$l +G:+=8%o1&. (ne of the* is provided in section /8 of 'ule .74 $ith respect to $2,%&&%o1& -y $ :o-=$.81+. o. $<+18. E2ecutive ,ecretar+ Angara as such $as an $l8+. +<o of the petitioner. "e $as the -ittle President. Indeed, 5+ 7$& $u85o.%J+2 -y 85+ =+8%8%o1+. 8o $:8 9o. 5%, %1 85+ :.%8%:$l 5ou.& $12 2$y& -+9o.+ 5+ $-$12o1+2 M$l$:$K$1< !$l$:+. <hus, according to the A1<$.$ D%$.y, the petitioner told ,ecretar+ Angara% V=ula u*pisa pa lang ng ;a*pan+a, Ed, i;a$ na lang pina;i;inggan ;o. At hanggang sa huli, i;a$ pa rin.W ,ince the start of the ca*paign, Ed, +ou have been the onl+ one INve listened to. And no$ at the end, +ou still are.#W L.0M T5%& &8$8+,+18 o9 9ull 8.u&8 7$& ,$2+ -y 85+ =+8%8%o1+. $98+. S+:.+8$.y A1<$.$ -.%+9+2 5%, $-ou8 85+ =.o<.+&& o9 85+ 9%.&8 1+<o8%$8%o1 . <rue to this trust, the petitioner had to as; ,ecretar+ Angara if he $ould alread+ leave =alacaQang after ta;ing their final lunch on !anuar+ /4, /44. at about .%44 p.*. <he A1<$.$ D%$.y Fuotes the petitioner as sa+ing to ,ecretar+ Angara% Ved, ;ailangan ;o na bang u*alisH >o I have to leave no$H#WL.3M,ecretar+ Angara told hi* to go and he did. Petitioner cannot den+ that ,ecretar+ Angara headed his tea* of negotiators that *et $ith the tea* of the respondent Arro+o to discuss the peaceful and orderl+ transfer of po$er after his relinFuish*ent of the po$ers of the presidenc+. <he D%$.y sho$s that petitioner $as al$a+s briefed b+ ,ecretar+ Angara on the progress of their negotiations. S+:.+8$.y A1<$.$ $:8+2 9o. $12 %1 -+5$l9 o9 85+ =+8%8%o1+. in the crucial da+s before respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President. ConseFuentl+, =+8%8%o1+. %& -ou12 -y 85+ $:8& $12 2+:l$.$8%o1& o9 S+:.+8$.y A1<$.$. 012+. ou. .ul+& o9 +*%2+1:+, $2,%&&%o1& o9 $1 $<+18 HS+:.+8$.y A1<$.$I $.+ -%12%1< o1 85+ =.%1:%=$l H=+8%8%o1+.I.L.8M !ones ver+ $ell e2plains the.+$&o1& 9o. 85+ .ul+, viB% V&hat is done, b+ agent, is done b+ the principal through hi*, as through a *ere instru*ent. ,o, $hatever is said b+ an agent, either in *a;ing a contract for his principal, or at the ti*e and acco*pan+ing the perfor*ance of an+ act $ithin the scope of his authorit+, having relation to, and connected $ith, and in the course of the particular contract or transaction in $hich he is then engaged, or in the language of the old $riters, dum fervet opus is, in legal effect, said b+ his principal and ad*issible in evidence against such principal.W L/4M =oreover, 85+ -$1 o1 5+$.&$y +*%2+1:+ 2o+& 1o8 :o*+. %12+=+12+18ly .+l+*$18 &8$8+,+18& . <hese are state*ents $hich are .+l+*$18 %12+=+12+18ly o9 75+85+. 85+y $.+ 8.u+ o. 1o8 . <he+ belong to 87o H2I :l$&&+&% .# those state*ents $hich are the ver+ facts in issue, and /# those state*ents $hich are :%.:u,&8$18%$l +*%2+1:+ o9 85+ 9$:8& %1 %&&u+. <he second class includes the follo$ing%L/.M a. S8$8+,+18 o9 $ =+.&o1 sho$ing his &8$8+ o9 ,%12, that is, his *ental condition, ;no$ledge, belief, intention, ill $ill and other e*otionsC b. ,tate*ents of a person $hich sho$ his ph+sical condition, as illness and the li;eC c. S8$8+,+18& o9 $ =+.&o1 fro* $hich an inference *a+ be *ade as to the &8$8+ o9 ,%12 o9 $1o85+. , that is, the ;no$ledge, belief, *otive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latterC d. ,tate*ents $hich *a+ identif+ the date, place and person in FuestionC and e. ,tate*ents sho$ing the lac; of credibilit+ of a $itness. Again, Jo1+& 8+ll& u& 75y 85+&+ %12+=+12+18ly .+l+*$18 &8$8+,+18& $.+ 1o8 :o*+.+2 -y 85+ =.o5%-%8%o1 $<$%1&8 5+$.&$y +*%2+1:+4L//M

Page1

VZ .433. =ental ,tate or Condition R Proof of Pno$ledge.- <here are a nu*ber of co*on issues, for*ing a general class, in proof of $hich hearsa+ is so obviousl+ necessar+ that it is not custo*ar+ to refer to its ad*issibilit+ as b+ virtue of an+ e2ception to the general e2clusionar+ rule. Ad*issibilit+, in such cases, is as of course. For e2a*ple, 75+.+ $1y ,+18$l &8$8+ o. :o12%8%o1 %& %1 %&&u+, such as *otive, *alice, ;no$ledge, intent, assent or dissent, unless direct testi*on+ of the particular person is to be ta;en as conclusive of his state of *ind, the o1ly ,+85o2 o9 =.oo9 $*$%l$-l+ %& 8+&8%,o1y o9 o85+.& 8o 85+ $:8& o. &8$8+,+18& o9 &u:5 =+.&o1. &here his acts or state*ents are against his interest, the+ are plainl+ ad*issible $ithin the rules hereinabove announced as to ad*issions against interest. And even $here not against interest, if the+ are so closel+ connected $ith the event or transaction in issue as to constitute one of the ver+ facts in controvers+, 85+y -+:o,+ $2,%&&%-l+ o9 1+:+&&%8y .W As aforediscussed, <he A1<$.$ D%$.y contains state*ents of the petitioner $hich reflect his state of *ind and are circu*stantial evidence of his intent to resign. It also contains state*ents of ,ecretar+ Angara fro* $hich $e can reasonabl+ deduce petitionerNs intent to resign. <he+ are ad*issible and the+ are not covered b+ the rule on hearsa+. <his has long been a Fuiet area of our la$ on evidence and petitionerNs atte*pt to fo*ent a belated te*pest cannot receive our i*pri*atur. !+8%8%o1+. $l&o :o18+12& 85$8 85+ .ul+& o1 $u85+18%:$8%o1 o9 =.%*$8+ 7.%8%1<& $12 -+&8 +*%2+1:+ $ere violated in our >ecision, viB% V<he use of the Angara diar+ palpabl+ breached several hornboo; rules of evidence, such as the rule on authentication of private $ritingsX 222 A. 'ule on Proof of Private &ritings Eiolated <he rule governing private docu*ents as evidence $as violated. <he la$ provides that before an+ private $riting offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due e2ecution and authenticit+ *ust be proved either% a# b+ an+one $ho sa$ the docu*ent e2ecuted or $ritten, or b# b+ evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand$riting of the *a;er. 222 B. Best Evidence 'ule Infringed Clearl+, the ne$spaper reproduction is not the best evidence of the Angara diar+. It is secondar+ evidence, of dubious authenticit+. It $as ho$ever used b+ this "onorable Court $ithout proof of the unavailabilit+ of the original or duplicate original of the diar+. <he VBest Evidence 'uleW should have been applied since the contents of the diar+ are the sub)ect of inFuir+. <he rule is that, e2cept in four 1# specific instances, VL$Mhen the sub)ect of inFuir+ is the contents of a docu*ent, no evidence shall be ad*issible other than the original docu*ent itself.W L/7M PetitionerNs contention is $ithout *erit. In regard to the "+&8 E*%2+1:+ .ul+, the 'ules of Court provides in sections / to 1 of 'ule .74, as follo$s% V,ec. /. >ocu*entar+ evidence. R >ocu*ents as evidence consist of $ritings or an+ *aterial containing letters, $ords, nu*bers, figures or other *odes of $ritten e2pressions offered as proof of their contents. ,ec. 7. (riginal docu*ent *ust be producedC e2ceptions. R &hen the sub)ect of inFuir+ is the contents of a docu*ent, no evidence shall be ad*issible other than the original docu*ent itself, e2cept in the follo$ing cases% a# &hen the original has been lost or destro+ed, or cannot be produced in court, $ithout bad faith on the part of the offerorC b# &hen the original is in the custod+ or under the control of the part+ against $ho* the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable noticeC c# &hen the original consists of nu*erous accounts or other docu*ents $hich cannot be e2a*ined in court $ithout great loss of ti*e and the fact sought to be established fro* the* is onl+ the general result of the $holeC and d# &hen the original is a public record in the custod+ of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. ,ec. 1. (riginal of docu*ent. R a# <he original of a docu*ent is one the contents of $hich are the sub)ect of inFuir+. b# &hen a docu*ent is in t$o or *ore copies e2ecuted at or about the sa*e ti*e, $ith identical contents, all such copies are eFuall+ regarded as originals. c# &hen an entr+ is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied fro* another at or near the ti*e of the transaction, all the entries are li;e$ise eFuall+ regarded as originals.W It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but onl+ cop+ of the A1<$.$ D%$.y as published in the Philippine >ail+ InFuirer on Februar+ 1-9, /44.. In doing so, 85+ Cou.8, 2%2 1o8, 5o7+*+., *%ol$8+ 85+ -+&8 +*%2+1:+ .ul+. 6%<,o.+ , in his boo; on evidence, states that%

Page1

VProduction of the original *a+ be dispensed $ith, in the trial courtNs discretion, $henever in the case in hand 85+ o==o1+18 2o+& 1o8 -o1$ 9%2+ 2%&=u8+ 85+ :o18+18& o9 85+ 2o:u,+18 and no other useful purpose $ill be served b+ reFuiring production.L/1M V2 2 2 VIn several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailabilit+ has been abandoned, for certain docu*ents in $hich ordinaril+ no real dispute arised. <his *easure is a sensible and progressive one and deserves universal adoption post, sec. ./77#. Its essential feature is that a cop$ ma$ be used unconditionall$, %9 85+ o==o1+18 5$& -++1 <%*+1 $1 o==o.8u1%8y 8o %1&=+:8 %8.W e*pahsis supplied# F.$1:%&:o>& opinion is of the sa*e tenor, viB% V6enerall+ spea;ing, an ob)ection b+ the part+ against $ho* secondar+ evidence is sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence rule into applicationC and freFuentl+, $here secondar+ evidence has been ad*itted, the rule of e2clusion *ight have successfull+ been invo;ed if proper and ti*el+ ob)ection had been ta;en. No general rule as to the for* or *ode of ob)ecting to the ad*ission of secondar+ evidence is set forth. ,uffice it to sa+ here that 85+ o-C+:8%o1 &5oul2 -+ ,$2+ %1 =.o=+. &+$&o1 F 85$8 %&, 75+1+*+. %8 $==+$.& 85$8 85+.+ %& -+88+. +*%2+1:+ 85$1 85$8 75%:5 %& o99+.+2 $12 -+9o.+ 85+ &+:o12$.y +*%2+1:+ 5$& -++1 $2,%88+2 . <he ob)ection itself should be sufficientl+ definite to present a tangible Fuestion for the courtNs consideration.W L/5M "e adds% V,econdar+ evidence of the content of the $riting $ill be received in evidence if no ob)ection is *ade to its reception.W L/9M In regard to the $u85+18%:$8%o1 o9 =.%*$8+ 7.%8%1<&, the 'ules of Court provides in section /4 of 'ule .7/, viB% V,ec. /4. Proof of private docu*ent. R Before an+ private docu*ent offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due e2ecution and authenticit+ *ust be proved either% a# B+ an+one $ho sa$ the docu*ent e2ecuted or $rittenC or b# B+ evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand$riting of the *a;er. An+ other private docu*ent need onl+ be identified as that $hich it is clai*ed to be.W (n the rule of authentication of private $ritings, Francisco states that% VA proper foundation *ust be laid for the ad*ission of docu*entar+ evidenceC that is, the identit+ and authenticit+ of the docu*ent *ust be reasonabl+ established as a pre-reFuisite to its ad*ission. 'ou$ v. Arts, .01 Ar;. 08, /81 ,.&. 887, 5/ A.-.'. ./97, and others# "o$ever, $ =$.8y 75o 2o+& 1o8 2+1y 85+ <+1u%1+1+&& o9 $ =.o99+.+2 %1&8.u,+18 ,$y 1o8 o-C+:8 85$8 %8 7$& 1o8 =.o=+.ly %2+18%9%+2 -+9o.+ %8 7$& $2,%88+2 %1 +*%2+1:+ . ,trand v. "alverson, //4 Io$a ./09, /91 N.&. /99, .47 A.-.'. 375#.WL/0M Petitioner cites the case of S8$8+ =.o&+:u8o.& v. Mu.o,L/3M $hich fro$ned on reliance b+ courts on ne$spaper accounts. In that case, !udge =uro $as dis*issed fro* the service for rel+ing on a ne$spaper account in dis*issing eleven ..# cases against =rs. I*elda 'o*ualdeB =arcos. <here is a &%<1%9%:$18 2%99+.+1:+ , ho$ever, bet$een the 'uro case and the cases at bar. In the Mu.o case, !udge =uro dis*issed the cases against =rs. =arcos on the basis of a ne$spaper account 7%85ou8 $99o.2%1< 85+ =.o&+:u8%o1 W the basic opportunit+ to be heard on the *atter b+ $a+ of a $ritten co**ent or on oral argu*ent. . . this is# not onl+ a blatant denial of ele*entar+ due process to the 6overn*ent but is palpabl+ indicative of bad faith and partialit+.W In the instant cases, ho$ever, the =+8%8%o1+. 5$2 $1 o==o.8u1%8y 8o o-C+:8 to the ad*issibilit+ of the A1<$.$ D%$.y $hen he filed his =e*orandu* dated Februar+ /4, /44., 'epl+ =e*orandu* dated Februar+ //, /44., ,upple*ental =e*orandu* dated Februar+ /7, /44., and ,econd ,upple*ental *e*orandu* dated Februar+ /1, /44.. "e $as therefore not denied due process. In the $ords of &ig*ore, supra, petitioner had Vbeen given an opportunit+ to inspectW the A1<$.$ D%$.y but did not ob)ect to its ad*issibilit+. It is alread+ too late in the da+ to raise his ob)ections in an (*nibus =otion, after the A1<$.$ D%$.y has been used as evidence and a decision rendered partl+ on the basis thereof. III

T+,=o.$.y I1$-%l%8y

&e cannot sustain the petitioner. L+&8 =+8%8%o1+. 9o.<+8&, 5+ 5%,&+l9 ,$2+ 85+ &u-,%&&%o1 in 6.'. No. .19073 that VCo1<.+&& 5$& 85+ ul8%,$8+ $u85o.%8y u12+. 85+ Co1&8%8u8%o1 8o 2+8+.,%1+ 75+85+. 85+ !.+&%2+18 %& %1:$=$-l+ o9

Page1

Petitioner argues that the Court *isinterpreted the *eaning of section .., Article EII, of the Constitution in that congress can onl+ decide the issue of inabilit+ $hen there is a variance of opinion bet$een a *a)orit+ of the Cabinet and the President. <he situation presents itself $hen *a)orit+ of the Cabinet deter*ines that the President is unable to governC later, the President infor*s Congress that his inabilit+ has ceased but is contradicted b+ a *a)orit+ of the *e*bers of the Cabinet. It is also urged that the presidentNs )udg*ent that he is unable to govern te*poraril+ $hich is thereafter co**unicated to the ,pea;er of the "ouse and the President of the ,enate is the political Fuestion $hich this Court cannot revie$.

=+.9o.,%1< 5%& 9u1:8%o1& %1 85+ ,$11+. =.o*%2+2 9o. %1 &+:8%o1 11 o9 A.8%:l+ #II .WL/8M 6+ &u&8$%1+2 85%& &u-,%&&%o1 and held that b+ its *an+ acts, Congress has alread+ deter*ined and dis*issed the clai* of alleged te*porar+ inabilit+ to govern proffered b+ petitioner. If petitioner no$ feels aggrieved b+ the ,$11+. Congress e2ercised its po$er, it is incu*bent upon hi* to see; redress fro* Congress itself. T5+ =o7+. %& :o1:+2+2 -y 85+ =+8%8%o1+. 8o -+ 7%85 Co1<.+&& $12 %8& $ll+<+2 +..o1+ou& +G+.:%&+ :$11o8 -+ :o..+:8+2 -y 85%& Cou.8 . <he recognition of respondent Arro+o as our de jure president *ade b+ Congress is unFuestionabl+ a =ol%8%:$l Cu2<,+18. It is significant that "ouse 'esolution No. .09 cited as the bases of its )udg*ent such factors as the V =+o=l+>& lo&& o9 :o19%2+1:+ on the abilit+ of for*er President !oseph E)ercito Estrada to effectivel+ governW and the V*e*bers of the %18+.1$8%o1$l :o,,u1%8y had e2tended their recognition of "er E2cellenc+, 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o as President of the 'epublic of the PhilippinesW and it has a constitutional dut+ Vof fealt+ to the &u=.+,+ 7%ll o9 85+ =+o=l+ 2 2 2.W T5%& =ol%8%:$l Cu2<,+18 ,$y -+ .%<58 o. 7.o1< -u8 Co1<.+&& %& $1&7+.$-l+ o1ly 8o 85+ =+o=l+ 9o. %8& Cu2<,+18 . Its $isdo* is fit to be debated before the tribunal of the people and not before a court of )ustice. Needles to state, the doctrine of &+=$.$8%o1 o9 =o7+. constitutes an %1&+=$.$-l+ -$. against this courtNs interposition of its po$er of )udicial revie$ to revie$ the )udg*ent of Congress re)ecting petitionerNs clai* that he is still the President, albeit on leave and that respondent Arro+o is *erel+ an acting President. Petitioner atte*pts to e2tricate hi*self fro* his sub*ission that Congress has the ulti*ate authorit+ to deter*ine his inabilit+ to govern, and $hose deter*ination is a political Fuestion b+ no$ arguing that 75+85+. o1+ %& $ de jure o. de facto !.+&%2+18 %& $ Cu2%:%$l Eu+&8%o1 . PetitionerNs change of theor+, ill disguised as it is, does not at all i*press. <he cases at bar do not present the <+1+.$l %&&u+ of $hether the respondent Arro+o is the de 4ure or a de facto President. S=+:%9%: %&&u+& $ere raised to the Court for resolution and 7+ .ul+2 o1 $1 %&&u+ -y %&&u+ -$&%& . (n the issue of resignation under section 3, Article EII of the Constitution, $e held that the issue is legal and ruled that petitioner has resigned fro* office before respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President. (n the issue of inabilit+ to govern under section .., Article EII of the Constitution, $e held that the Congress has the ulti*ate authorit+ to deter*ine the Fuestion as opined b+ the petitioner hi*self and that the deter*ination of Congress is a political )udg*ent $hich this Court cannot revie$. !+8%8%o1+. :$11o8 -lu. 85+&+ &=+:%9%: .ul%1<& -y 85+ <+1+.$l%J$8%o1 85$8 75+85+. o1+ %& $ 2+ Cu.+ o. 2+ 9$:8o !.+&%2+18 %& $ Cu2%:%$l Eu+&8%o1. !+8%8%o1+. 1o7 $==+$.& 8o 9$ul8 Co1<.+&& 9o. %8& *$.%ou& $:8& +G=.+&&+2 85.u .+&olu8%o1& 75%:5 -.u&5+2 o99 5%& 8+,=o.$.y %1$-%l%8y 8o <o*+.1 $12 !.+&%2+18-o1-l+$*+ $.<u,+18 . "e asserts that these acts of Congress should not be accorded an+ legal significance because% .# the+ are =o&8 9$:8o and /# a declaration of presidential incapacit+ cannot be i*plied. &e disagree. <here is nothing in section .. of Article EII of the Constitution $hich states that the declaration b+ Congress of the PresidentNs inabilit+ ,u&8 $l7$y& -+ $ =.%o.% or before the Eice-President assu*es the presidenc+. In the cases at bar, special consideration should be given to the fact that the events $hich led to the resignation of the petitioner happened at e2press speed and cul*inated on a ,aturda+. Co1<.+&& 7$& 85+1 1o8 %1 &+&&%o1 $12 5$2 1o .+$&o1$-l+ o==o.8u1%8y to act $ =.%o.% on petitionerNs letter clai*ing inabilit+ to govern. <o be sure, ho$ever, the petitioner cannot strictl+ *aintain that the President of the ,enate, the "onorable AFuilino Pi*entel, !r. and the then ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives, the "onorable Arnulfo P. Fuentebella, recogniBed respondent Arro+o as the Vconstitutional successor to the presidenc+W =o&8 9$:8o. Petitioner hi*self states that his letter alleging his inabilit+ to govern $as Vreceived b+ the (ffice of the ,pea;er on !anuar+ /4, /44. $8 84)0 A.M. and the (ffice of the ,enate at 8 P.=. of the sa*e da+.W L74M 'espondent too; her oath of office a fe$ *inutes past ./ oNcloc; in the afternoon of !anuar+ /4. Before the oath-ta;ing, ,enate President Pi*entel, !r. and ,pea;er Fuentebella had prepared a !oint ,tate*ent $hich states% L7.M V!oint ,tate*ent of ,upport and 'ecognition fro* the ,enate President and the ,pea;er (f the "ouse of 'epresentatives &e, the elected leaders of the ,enate and the "ouse of 'epresentatives, are called upon to address the constitutional crisis affecting the authorit+ of the President to effectivel+ govern our distressed nation. &e understand that the ,upre*e Court at that ti*e is issuing an en banc resolution recogniBing this political realit+. &hile $e *a+ differ on the *eans to effect a change of leadership, $e ho$ever, cannot be indifferent and *ust act resolutel+. T5u&, %1 l%1+ 7%85 ou. &7o.1 2u8y 8o .+=.+&+18 ou. =+o=l+ $12 %1 =u.&u%8 o9 ou. <o$l& 9o. =+$:+ $12 =.o&=+.%8y 8o $ll, 7+, 85+ S+1$8+ !.+&%2+18 $12 85+ S=+$D+. o9 85+ ou&+ o9 R+=.+&+18$8%*+&, 5+.+-y 2+:l$.+ ou. &u==o.8 $12 .+:o<1%8%o1 8o 85+ :o1&8%8u8%o1$l &u::+&&o. 8o 85+ !.+&%2+1:y. &e si*ilarl+ call on all sectors to close ran;s despite our political differences. =a+ 6od bless our nation in this period of ne$ beginnings. =abuha+ and Pilipinas at ang *a*a*a+ang Pilipino. ,gd.# AG:I-IN( PI=EN<E-, !'. ,enate President ,gd.# A'N:-F( P. F:EN<EBE--A ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentativesW <his $ =.%o.% .+:o<1%8%o1 b+ the President of the ,enate and the ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives of respondent Arro+o as the Vconstitutional successor to the presidenc+W 7$& 9ollo7+2 =o&8 9$:8o b+ various resolutions of the ,enate and the "ouse, in effect, confir*ing this recognition. <hus, 'esolution No. .09 e2pressed V2 2 2 the support of the "ouse of 'epresentatives to the assu*ption into office b+ Eice-President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o as President of the 'epublic of the Philippines, e2tending its congratulations and e2pressing its support for her ad*inistration as a partner in the attain*ent of the nationNs goal under the Constitution.L7/M 'esolution No. 3/ of the ,enate and 'esolution No. .03 of the "ouse of 'epresentatives both confir*ed the no*ination of then ,enator <eofisto 6uingona, !r., as Eice-President. L77M It also passed 'esolution No. 37 declaring the i*peach*ent court 9u1:8u& o99%:%o.L71M Both "ouses sent bills to respondent Arro+o to be signed b+ her into la$ as President of the Philippines. L75M T5+&+ $:8& o9 Co1<.+&&, $ =.%o.% $12 =o&8 9$:8o, :$11o8 -+ 2%&,%&&+2 $& ,+.+ly %,=l%+2 .+:o<1%8%o1& o9 .+&=o12+18 A..oyo, $& 85+ !.+&%2+18 o9 85+ R+=u-l%:. PetitionerNs insistence that respondent Arro+o is )ust a 2+ 9$:8o President because said acts of Congress V 2 2 2 are *ere circu*stances of acFuiescence calculated to induce people to sub*it to respondentNs e2ercise of the po$ers of the presidenc+W L79M is a guess$or; far divorced fro* realit+ to deserve further discussion.

Page1

,i*ilarl+ $a+ off the *ar; is petitionerNs point that V$hile the Constitution has *ade Congress the national board of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections, this "onorable Court nonetheless re*ains the sole )udge in presidential and vice presidential contests.L70M "e thus postulates that Vsuch constitutional provision L73M is %12%:$8%*+ of the desire of the sovereign people to ;eep out of the hands of Congress Fuestions as to the legalit+ of a personNs clai* to the presidential office.WL78M Su99%:+ 8o &8$8+ 85$8 85+ %19+.+1:+ %& %llo<%:$l. Indeed, there is no roo* to resort to inference. <he Constitution clearl+ sets out the structure on ho$ vacancies and election contest in the office of the President shall be decided. <hus, &+:8%o1 7 o9 A.8%:l+ #II covers the instance $hen a# the President-elect fails to Fualif+, b# if a President shall not have been chosen and c# if at the beginning of the ter* of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have beco*e per*anentl+ disabled. S+:8%o1 8 o9 A.8%:l+ #II covers the situation of the death, per*anent disabilit+, re*oval fro* office or resignation of the President. S+:8%o1 11 o9 A.8%:l+ #II covers the case $here the President trans*its to the President of the ,enate and the ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives his $ritten declaration that he is unable to discharge the po$ers and duties of his office. I1 +$:5 :$&+, 85+ Co1&8%8u8%o1 &=+:%9%+& 85+ -o2y 85$8 7%ll .+&ol*+ 85+ %&&u+& 85$8 ,$y $.%&+ 9.o, 85+ :o18%1<+1:y. In case of election contest, section 1, Article EII provides that the contests shall be resolved b+ this Court sitting en banc. In case of resignation of the President, it is not disputed that this Court has )urisdiction to decide the issue. In case of inabilit+ to govern, section .. of Article EII gives the Congress the po$er to ad)udge the issue and petitioner hi*self sub*itted this thesis $hich $as shared b+ this Court. In light of these clear provisions of the Constitution, it is inappropriate, to sa+ the least, for petitioner to *a;e inferences that si*pl+ distort their *eanings.

I#

I,=+$:5,+18 $12 A-&olu8+ I,,u1%8y

Petitioner contends that this Court disregarded section 7 0# of Article UI of the Constitution $hich provides% V 0# !udg*ent in cases of i*peach*ent shall not e2tend further than re*oval fro* office and disFualification to hold an+ office under the 'epublic of the Philippines, but the part+ convicted should nevertheless be liable and sub)ect to prosecution, trial and punish*ent according to la$.W Petitioner reiterates the argu*ent that 5+ ,u&8 -+ 9%.&8 :o1*%:8+2 in the i*peach*ent proceedings before he could be cri*inall+ prosecuted. A plain reading of the provision $ill not +ield this conclusion. <he provision conve+s t$o unco*plicated ideas% 9%.&8, it tells us that )udg*ent in i*peach*ent cases has a l%,%8+2 .+$:5. . .i.e., it cannot e2tend further than re*oval fro* office and disFualification to hold an+ office under the 'epublic of the Philippines, and &+:o12, it tells us the:o1&+Eu+1:+ of the li*ited reach of a )udg*ent in i*peach*ent proceedings considering its nature, i.e., that the part+ convicted shall still be liable and sub)ect to prosecution, trial and punish*ent according to la$. No a*ount of *anipulation $ill )ustif+ petitionerNs non se(uitur sub*ission that the provision reFuires that his conviction in the i*peach*ent proceedings is a condition sine (ua non to his prosecution, trial and punish*ent for the offenses he is no$ facing before the respondent (*buds*an. Petitioner contends that the private and public prosecutorsN $al; out fro* the i*peach*ent proceedings Vshould be considered 9$%lu.+ 8o =.o&+:u8+ on the part of the public and private prosecutors, and the ter*ination of the case b+ the ,enate is +Eu%*$l+18 8o $:Eu%88$l. WL14M "e e2plains Vfailure to prosecuteW as the Vfailure of the prosecution to prove the case, hence dis*issal on such grounds is a dis*issal on the *erits.W L1.M "e then concludes that Vdis*issal of a case for failure to prosecute $,ou18& 8o $1 $:Eu%88$l 9o. =u.=o&+& o9 $==ly%1< 85+ .ul+ $<$%1&8 2ou-l+ C+o=$.2y.L L1/M 6%85ou8 .ul%1< o1 85+ 1$8u.+ o9 %,=+$:5,+18 =.o:++2%1<&, 7+ .+C+:8 =+8%8%o1+.>& &u-,%&&%o1. <he records $ill sho$ that the prosecutors 7$lD+2 ou8 in the J$1u$.y 16, /44. hearing of the i*peach*ent cases $hen b+ a vote of ..-.4, the ,enator-)udges refused to open the second envelope allegedl+ containing the P7.7 billion deposit of the petitioner in a secret ban; account under the na*e V !ose EelardeW. <he ne2t da+, J$1u$.y 17, the public prosecutors sub*itted a letter to the ,pea;er of the "ouse tendering their .+&%<1$8%o1. <he+ also filed their M$1%9+&8$8%o1 o9 6%852.$7$l o9 A==+$.$1:+ $ith the i*peach*ent tribunal. ,enator 'aul 'oco i**ediatel+ *oved for the %12+9%1%8+ &u&=+1&%o1 of the i*peach*ent proceedings u18%l 85+ ou&+ o9 R+=.+&+18$8%*+& &5$ll 5$*+ .+&ol*+2 85+ .+&%<1$8%o1 o9 85+ =u-l%: =.o&+:u8o.&. <he 'oco *otion $as then <.$18+2 b+ Chief !ustice >avide, !r. "+9o.+ the "ouse could resolve the issue of resignation of its prosecutors or on J$1u$.y 20, /44., petitioner relinFuished the presidenc+ and respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President of the 'epublic. <hus, on F+-.u$.y 7, /44., the ,enate passed R+&olu8%o1 No. 8) declaring that the i*peach*ent court is 9u1:8u& o99%:%o. !.+&:%12%1< 9.o, 85+&+ 9$:8&, =+8%8%o1+. :$11o8 %1*oD+ 2ou-l+ C+o=$.2y. >ouble )eopard+ attaches onl+% .# upon a valid co*plaintC /# before a co*petent courtC 7# after arraign*entC 1# $hen a valid plea has been enteredC and 5# $hen the defendant $as acFuitted or convicted or the case $as dis*issed or other$ise ter*inated $ithout the e2press consent of the accused.L17M Assu*ing ar!uendo that the first four reFuisites of double )eopard+ $ere co*plied $ith, petitioner failed to satisf+ the fifth reFuisite for 5+ 7$& 1o8 $:Eu%88+2 1o. 7$& 85+ %,=+$:5,+18 =.o:++2%1< 2%&,%&&+2 7%85ou8 5%& +G=.+&& :o1&+18. PetitionerNs clai* of double )eopard+ cannot be predicated on prior conviction for he $as not convicted b+ the i*peach*ent court. At best, his clai* of previous acFuittal *a+ be scrutiniBed in light of a violation of his right to speed+ trial, $hich a*ounts to a failure to prosecute. As Bernas points out, a failure to prosecute, $hich is $hat happens $hen the accused is not given a speed+ trial, *eans failure of the prosecution to prove the case. "ence, dis*issal on such grounds is a dis*issal on the *erits.L11M <his Court held in Esme)a v. Po!oyL15M, viz5 VIf the defendant $ants to e2ercise his constitutional right to a speed+ trial, he should as;, not for the dis*issal, but for the trial of the case. After the prosecutionNs *otion for postpone*ent of the trial is denied and upon order of the court the fiscal does not or cannot produce his evidence and, conseFuentl+ fails to prove the defendantNs guilt, the court upon defendantNs *otion shall dis*iss the case, such dis*issall a*ounting to an acFuittal of the defendant.W

Page1

In a *ore recent case, this Court held% VIt is true that in an unbro;en line of cases, $e have held that the dis*issal of cases on the ground of failure to prosecute is eFuivalent to an acFuittal that $ould bar further prosecution of the accused for the sa*e offense. It *ust be stressed, ho$ever, that these dis*issals $ere predicated on the clear right of the accused to speed+ trial. <hese cases are not applicable to the petition at bench considering that the right of the private respondents to speed+ trial has not been violated b+ the ,tate. For this reason, private respondents cannot invo;e their right against double )eopard+.W L19M !+8%8%o1+. 2%2 1o8 ,o*+ 9o. 85+ 2%&,%&&$l o9 85+ %,=+$:5,+18 :$&+ $<$%1&8 5%,. Even assu*ing ar!uendo that there $as a *ove for its dis*issal, not ever+ invocation of an accusedNs right to speed+ trial is *eritorious. &hile the Court accords due i*portance to an accusedNs right to a speed+ trial and adheres to a polic+ of speed+ ad*inistration of )ustice, this right cannot be invo;ed loosel+. :n)ustified postpone*ents $hich prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of ti*e are $hat offend the right of the accused to speed+ trial. L10M <he follo$ing provisions of the 'evised 'ules of Cri*inal Procedure are apropos% V'ule ..5, ,ection . h#. -i%hts of accused at the trial. 66 In all cri*inal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the follo$ing rights% h# <o have speed+, i*partial and public trial.W V'ule ..8, ,ection /. Continuous trial until ter*inatedC postpone*ents.-- <rial once co**enced shall continue fro* da+ to da+ as far as practicable until ter*inated. It *a+ be postponed for a reasonable length of ti*e for good cause. <he court shall, after consultation $ith the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a $ee;l+ or other short-ter* trial calendar at the earliest possible ti*e so as to ensure speed+ trial. In no case shall the entire trial period e2ceed one hundred eight+ .34# da+s fro* the first da+ of trial, e2cept as other$ise authoriBed b+ the ,upre*e Court.W !+8%8%o1+. 85+.+9o.+ 9$%l+2 8o &5o7 85$8 85+ =o&8=o1+,+18 o9 85+ %,=+$:5,+18 =.o:++2%1<& 7$& u1Cu&8%9%+2, ,u:5 l+&& 85$8 %8 7$& 9o. $1 u1.+$&o1$-l+ l+1<85 o9 8%,+. 'ecalling the facts, on !anuar+ .0, /44., the i*peach*ent proceeding $as suspended until the "ouse of 'epresentatives shall have resolved the issue on the resignation of the public prosecutors. <his $as )ustified and understandable for an i*peach*ent proceeding $ithout a panel of prosecutors is a *oc;er+ of the i*peach*ent process. "o$ever, three 7# da+s fro* the suspension or !anuar+ /4, /44., petitionerNs resignation supervened. &ith the sudden turn of events, the i*peach*ent court beca*e functus officio and the proceedings $ere therefore ter*inated. B+ no stretch of the i*agination can the four-da+ period fro* the ti*e the i*peach*ent proceeding $as suspended to the da+ petitioner resigned, constitute an unreasonable period of dela+ violative of the right of the accused to speed+ trial. No. :$1 85+ :l$%, o9 2ou-l+ C+o=$.2y -+ <.ou12+2 o1 85+ 2%&,%&&$l o. 8+.,%1$8%o1 o9 85+ :$&+ 7%85ou8 85+ +G=.+&& :o1&+18 o9 85+ $::u&+2. &e reiterate that the i*peach*ent proceeding $as closed onl+ after the petitioner had resigned fro* the presidenc+, thereb+ rendering the i*peach*ent court functus officio. B+ resigning fro* the presidenc+, petitioner *ore than consented to the ter*ination of the i*peach**ent case against hi*, for 5+ -.ou<58 $-ou8 the ter*ination of the i*peach*ent proceedings. &e have consistentl+ ruled that $hen the dis*issal or ter*ination of the case is *ade at the instance of the accused, there is no double )eopard+. L13M Petitioner stubbornl+ clings to the contention that he is entitled to $-&olu8+ %,,u1%8y 9.o, &u%8. "is argu*ents are *erel+ rec+cled and $e need not prolong the longevit+ of the debate on the sub)ect. In our >ecision, $e e2haustivel+ traced the origin of e2ecutive i**unit+ in our )urisdiction and its bends and turns up to the present ti*e. &e held that given the intent of the .830 Constitution to breathe life to the polic+ that a public office is a public trust, 85+ =+8%8%o1+., $& $ 1o1&%88%1< !.+&%2+18, :$11o8 :l$%, +G+:u8%*+ %,,u1%8y 9o. 5%& $ll+<+2 :.%,%1$l $:8& :o,,%88+2 75%l+ $ &%88%1< !.+&%2+18. PetitionerNs rehashed argu*ents including their thinl+ disguised ne$ spins are based on the re)ected contention that he is still President, albeit, a President on leave. "is stance that his i**unit+ covers his entire ter* of office or until !une 74, /441 disregards the realit+ that he has relinFuished the presidenc+ and there is no$ a ne$ de 4ure President. Petitioner goes a step further and avers that even a non-sitting President en)o+s i**unit+ fro* suit during his 8+., of office. "e buttresses his position $ith the deliberations of the Constitutional Co**ission, viz5 V=r. ,uareB. <han; +ou. <he last Fuestion is $ith reference to the Co**itteeNs o*itting in the draft proposal the i**unit+ provision for the President. I agree $ith Co**issioner Nolledo that the Co**ittee did ver+ $ell in stri;ing out this second sentence, at the ver+ least, of the original provision on i**unit+ fro* suit under the .807 Constitution. But $ould the Co**ittee *e*bers not agree to a restoration of at least the first sentence that the President shall be i**une fro* suit during his 8+1u.+, considering that if $e do not provide hi* that ;ind of an i**unit+, he *ight be spending all his ti*e facing litigations, as the President-in-e2ile in "a$aii is no$ facing litigations al*ost dail+H Fr. Bernas% <he reason for the o*ission is that $e consider it understood in present )urisprudence that during his 8+1u.+ he is i**une fro* suit. =r. ,uareB% ,o there is no need to e2press it here. Fr. Bernas% <here is no need. It $as that $a+ before. <he onl+ innovation *ade b+ the .807 Constitution $as to *a;e that e2plicit and to add other things.

I than; the Co**issioner for the clarification.W L18M

Page1

=r. ,uareBC (n the understanding, I $ill not press for an+ *ore Fuer+, *ada* President.

!+8%8%o1+., 5o7+*+., 9$%l& 8o 2%&8%1<u%&5 -+87++1 8+., $12 8+1u.+. <he 8+., *eans the ti*e during $hich the officer *a+ clai* to hold the office as of right, and fi2es the interval after $hich the several incu*bents shall succeed one another. <he tenure represents the ter* during $hich the incu*bent actuall+ holds office. <he 8+1u.+ *a+ be shorter than the ter* for reasons $ithin or be+ond the po$er of the incu*bent. L54M F.o, 85+ 2+l%-+.$8%o1&, 85+ %18+18 o9 85+ 9.$,+.& %& :l+$. 85$8 85+ %,,u1%8y o9 85+ =.+&%2+18 9.o, &u%8 %& :o1:u..+18 o1ly 7%85 5%& 8+1u.+ $12 1o8 5%& 8+.,. Indeed, petitionerNs stubborn stance cannot but bolster the belief that the cases at bar $ere filed not reall+ for petitioner to reclai* the presidenc+ but )ust to ta;e advantage of the i**unit+ attached to the presidenc+ and thus, derail the investigation of the cri*inal cases pending against hi* in the (ffice of the (*buds*an.

!.+Cu2%:%$l !u-l%:%8y o1 85+ O,-u2&,$1

Petitioner hangs tough on his sub*ission that his due process rights to a fair trial have been pre)udiced b+ pre-trial publicit+. In our >ecision, $e held that there is not enough evidence to sustain petitionerNs clai* of pre)udicial publicit+. :nconvinced, petitioner alleges that the vivid narration of events in our >ecision itself proves the pervasiveness of the pre)udicial publicit+. "e then posits the thesis that Vdoubtless, the national fi2ation $ith the probable guilt of petitioner fueled b+ the hate ca*paign launched b+ so*e high circulation ne$spaper and b+ the bull+ pulpit of priests and bishops left indelible i*pression on $ll sectors of the citiBenr+ and $ll regions, so harsh and so pervasive that the prosecution and the )udiciar+ can no longer assure petitioner a sporting chance.W L5.M <o be sure, petitioner engages in +G$<+.$8%o1 $hen he alleges that V$ll sectors of the citiBenr+ and $ll regionsW have been irrevocabl+ influenced b+ this barrage of pre)udicial publicit+. T5%& +G$<<+.$8%o1 :oll%2+& 7%85 =+8%8%o1+.>& :l$%, 85$8 5+ &8%ll +1Coy& 85+ &u==o.8 o9 85+ ,$Co.%8y o9 ou. =+o=l+, +&=+:%$lly 85+ ,$&&+&. Petitioner pleads that $e appl+ the doctrine of res ipsa lo(uitur the thing or the transaction spea;s for itself# to support his argu*ent. :nder the res ipsa lo(uitur rule in its broad sense, the fact of the occurrence of an in)ur+, ta;en $ith the surrounding circu*stances, *a+ per*it an inference or raise a presu*ption of negligence, or *a;e out a plaintiffNs prima facie case, and present a Fuestion of fact for defendant to *eet $ith an e2planation. L5/M It is not a rule of substantive la$ but *ore a procedural rule. Its *ere invocation does not e2e*pt the plaintiff $ith the reFuire*ent of proof to prove negligence. It *erel+ allo$s the plaintiff to present along $ith the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circu*stances to invo;e the doctrine, creating an inference or presu*ption of negligence and to thereb+ place on the defendant the burden of going for$ard $ith the proof.L57M &e hold that it is %1$==.o=.%$8+ to appl+ the rule on res ipsa lo(uitur, a rule usuall+ applied onl+ in tort cases, to the cases at bar. I12++2, 85+.+ %& 1o :ou.8 %1 85+ 75ol+ 7o.l2 85$8 5$& $==l%+2 85+ res ipsa lo(uitur .ul+ 8o .+&ol*+ 85+ %&&u+ o9 =.+Cu2%:%$l =u-l%:%8y. &e again stress that the issue before us is $hether the alleged pervasive publicit+ of the cases against the petitioner has pre)udiced the *inds of the *e*bers of the panel of investigators. &e reiterate the test $e laid do$n in !+o=l+ *. T++5$1D++,L51M to resolve this issue, viz5 V&e cannot sustain appellantNs clai* that he $as denied the right to i*partial trial due to pre)udicial publicit+. It is true that the print and broadcast *edia gave the case at bar pervasive publicit+, )ust li;e all high profile and high sta;e cri*inal trials. Then and now, we rule that the ri%ht of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. <o be sure, responsible reporting enhances an accusedNs right to a fair trial for, as $ell pointed out , a responsible press has al$a+s been regarded as the hand*aiden of effective )udicial ad*inistration, especiall+ in the cri*inal field 2 2 2. <he press does not si*pl+ publish infor*ation about trials but guards against the *iscarriage of )ustice b+ sub)ecting the police, prosecutors, and )udicial processes to e2tensive public scrutin+ and criticis*. Pervasive publicit+ is not per se pre)udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. <he *ere fact that the trial of appellant $as given a da+-to-da+, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not b+ itself prove that the publicit+ so per*eated the *ind of the trial )udge and i*paired his i*partialit+. For one, it is i*possible to seal the *inds of *e*bers of the bench fro* pre-trial and other off-court publicit+ of sensational cri*inal cases. <he state of the art of our co**unication s+ste* brings ne$s as he+ happen straight to our brea;fast tables and right to our bedroo*s. <hese ne$s for* part of our ever+da+ *enu of the facts and fictions of life. For another, our idea of a fair and i*partial )udge is not that of a her*it $ho is out of touch $ith the $orld. &e have not installed the )ur+ s+ste* $hose *e*bers are overl+ protected fro* publicit+ lest the+ lost their i*partialit+. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2. (ur )udges are learned in the la$ and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-ca*era perfor*ances of parties to a litigation. <heir *ere e2posure to publications and publicit+ stunts does not per se fatall+ infect their i*partialit+. At best, appellant can onl+ con)ure possibilit$ of pre4udice on the part of the trial )udge due to the barrage of publicit+ that characteriBed the investigation and trial of the case. In Martelino, et al. v. Ale4andro, et al., $e re)ected this standard of possibilit+ of pre)udice and adopted the test of actual pre4udice as $e ruled that to $arrant a finding of pre)udicial publicit+, there *ust be allegation and proof that the )udges have been undul+ influenced, not si*pl+ that the+ *ight be, b+ the barrage of publicit+. In the case at bar, the records do not sho$ that the trial )udge developed actual bias against appellant as a conseFuence of the e2tensive *edia coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. <he totalit$ of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial )udge acFuired a fi#ed opinion as a result of pre)udicial publicit+ $hich is incapable of change even b+ evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.W !+8%8%o1+. D++=& o1 =ou12%1< o1 85+ $2*+.&+ =u-l%:%8y $<$%1&8 5%, -u8 9$%l& 8o =.o*+ 5o7 85+ %,=$.8%$l%8y o9 85+ =$1+l o9 %1*+&8%<$8o.& 9.o, 85+ O99%:+ o9 85+ O,-u2&,$1 5$& -++1 %19+:8+2 -y %8. As $e held before and $e hold it again, =+8%8%o1+. 5$& :o,=l+8+ly 9$%l+2 to adduce an+ proof of $:8u$l =.+Cu2%:+ developed b+ the *e*bers of the Panel of Investigators. <his fact *ust be established b+ clear and convincing evidence and cannot be left to loose sur*ises and con)ectures. In fact, petitioner did not even identif+ the *e*bers of the Panel of Investigators. &e cannot replace this test

Page1

of $:8u$l =.+Cu2%:+ $ith the rule of res ipsa lo(uitur as suggested b+ the petitioner. <he latter rule assu*es that an in)ur+ i.e., pre)udicial publicit+# has been suffered and then shifts the burden to the panel of investigators to prove that the i*partialit+ of its *e*bers has been affected b+ said publicit+. ,uch a rule $ill overturn our case la$ that pervasive publicit+ is not =+. &+ pre)udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. <he cases are not $anting $here an accused has been acFuitted despite pervasive publicit+. L55M For this reason, $e continue to hold that it is 1o8 +1ou<5 for petitioner to :o1Cu.+ =o&&%-%l%8y o9 =.+Cu2%:+ but *ust =.o*+ $:8u$l =.+Cu2%:+ on the part of his investigators for the Court to sustain his plea. It is plain that petitioner has failed to do so. Petitioner agains suggests that the Court should order a 2-,o185 :ool%1< o99 period to allo$ passions to subside and hopefull+ the alleged pre)udicial publicit+ against hi* $ould die do$n. &e regret not to acFuiesce to the proposal. <here is no assurance that the so called /-*onth cooling off period $ill achieve its purpose. <he investigation of the petitioner is a natural *edia event. It is the first ti*e in our histor+ that a President $ill be investigated b+ the (ffice of the (*buds*an for alleged co**ission of heinous cri*es $hile a sitting President. "is investigation $ill even be *onitored b+ the foreign press all over the $orld in vie$ of its legal and historic significance. In other $ords, petitioner cannot avoid the ;leiglight of publicit+. "u8 75$8 %& %,=o.8$18 9o. 85+ =+8%8%o1+. %& 85$8 5%& :o1&8%8u8%o1$l .%<58& $.+ 1o8 *%ol$8+2 %1 85+ =.o:+&& o9 %1*+&8%<$8%o1. For this reason, $e have $arned the respondent (*buds*an in our >ecision to conduct petitionerNs preli*inar+ investigation in a circus-free at*osphere. Petitioner is represented b+ brilliant legal *inds $ho can protect his right as an accused.

#I

R+:u&$8%o1

Finall+, petitioner pra+s that Vthe *e*bers of this "onorable Court $ho $ent to E>,A put on record $ho the+ $ere and consider recusing or inhibiting the*selves, particularl+ those $ho had e2-parte contacts $ith those e2erting pressure on this "onorable Court, as *entioned in our =otion of =arch 8, /44., given the need for the cold neutralit+ of i*partial )udges.WL59M 6+ 5ol2 85$8 85+ =.$y+. l$:D& ,+.%8. <here is no ground to inhibit the t$elve ./# *e*bers of the Court $ho *erel+ accepted the invitation of the respondent Arro+o to attend her oath ta;ing. As ,+.+ &=+:8$8o.& of a historic event, said *e*bers of the Court 2%2 1o8 =.+Cu2<+ the legal basis of the clai* of respondent Arro+o to the presidenc+ at the ti*e she too; her oath. Indeed, the Court in its en banc resolution on !anuar+ //, /44., the first $or;ing da+ after respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President, held in Ad*inistrative =atter No. 4.-.-45 ,C, to $it% VA.=. No. 4.-.-45-,C R In re% 'eFuest for Eice President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o to <a;e "er (ath of (ffice as President of the 'epublic of the Philippines before the Chief !ustice R Acting on the urgent reFuest of Eice President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o to be s$orn in as President of the 'epublic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief !ustice and confir*ed b+ a letter to the Court, dated !anuar+ /4, /44., $hich reFuest $as treated as an ad*inistrative *atter, the court 'esolved unani*ousl+ to confir* the authorit+ given b+ the t$elve ./# *e*bers of the Court then present to the Chief !ustice on !anuar+ /4, /44. to ad*inister the oath of office to Eice President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o as President of the Philippines, at noon of !anuar+ /4, /44.. <his resolution is $ithout pre)udice to the disposition of an+ )usticiable case that *a+ be filed b+ a proper part+.W T5+ $-o*+ .+&olu8%o1 7$& u1$1%,ou&ly =$&&+2 -y 85+ 13 ,+,-+.& o9 85+ Cou.8. It should be clear fro* the resolution that the Court did not treat the letter of respondent Arro+o to be ad*inistered the oath b+ Chief !ustice >avide, !r., as a case but as an ad*inistrative *atter. I9 %8 7+.+ :o1&%2+.+2 $& $ :$&+, 85+1 =+8%8%o1+. 5$& .+$&o1 8o 9+$. 85$8 85+ Cou.8 5$& =.+2+8+.,%1+2 85+ l+<%8%,$:y o9 85+ :l$%, o9 .+&=o12+18 A..oyo 8o 85+ =.+&%2+1:y. To 2%&=+l 85+ +..o1+ou& 1o8%o1, 85+ Cou.8 =.+:%&+ly 8.+$8+2 85+ l+88+. $& $1 $2,%1%&8.$8%*+ ,$88+. $12 +,=5$&%J+2 85$8 %8 7$& M7%85ou8 =.+Cu2%:+ 8o 85+ 2%&=o&%8%o1 o9 $1y Cu&8%:%$-l+ :$&+ 85$8 ,$y -+ 9%l+2 -y $ =.o=+. =$.8y.L In further clarification, the Court on Februar+ /4, /44. issued $1o85+. .+&olu8%o1 to infor* the parties and the public that it V222 did not issue a resolution on !anuar+ /4, /44. declaring the office of the President vacant and that neither did the Chief !ustice issue a press state*ent )ustif+ing the alleged resolution.W T5u&, 85+.+ %& 1o .+$&o1 9o. =+8%8%o1+. 8o .+Eu+&8 9o. 85+ &$%2 87+l*+ H12I Cu&8%:+& 8o .+:u&+ 85+,&+l*+&. To -+ &u.+, $ ,o8%o1 8o %15%-%8 9%l+2 -y $ =$.8y $98+. lo&%1< 5%& :$&+ %& &u&=+:8 $12 %& .+<$.2+2 7%85 <+1+.$l 2%&9$*o.. =oreover, to disFualif+ an+ of the *e*bers of the Court, particularl+ a *a)orit+ of the*, is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its )urisdiction as established b+ the funda*ental la$. >isFualification of a )udge is a deprivation of his )udicial po$er. And if that )udge is the one designated b+ the Constitution to e2ercise the )urisdiction of his court, as is the case $ith the !ustices of this Court, the deprivation of his or their )udicial po$er is eFuivalent to the deprivation of the )udicial po$er of the court itself. It affects the ver+ heart of )udicial independence. L50M <he proposed *ass disFualification, if sanctioned and ordered, $ould leave the Court no alternative but to abandon a dut+ $hich it cannot la$full+ discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire *e*bership of !ustices. L53M IN #IE6 6 EREOF, petitionerNs =otion for 'econsideration in 6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5 and his (*nibus =otion in 6.'. No. .19073 are >ENIE> for lac; of *erit. SO ORDERED.

Page1

". COM!ROMISES

EN BANC 6.'. Nos. ..5843-48 >ece*ber 9, .885 PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. >ANNI 6(>(I, [ accused-appellant. 'E6A-A>(, !.% (ften glossed over in the e*otional argu*ents against capital punish*ent is the a*plitude of legal protection accorded to the offender. Ignored b+ the pole*icist are the safeguards designed to *ini*all+ reduce, if not altogether eli*inate, the grain of hu*an fault. Indeed, there is no critiFue on the plethora of rights en)o+ed b+ the accused regardless of ho$ ruthlessl+ he co**itted the cri*e. An+ *argin of )udicial error is further addressed b+ the grace of e2ecutive cle*enc+. But, even before that, all convictions i*posing the penalt+ of death are auto*aticall+ revie$ed b+ this Court. <he cases at bar, involving t$o death sentences, apostrophiBe for the conde*ned the role of this ulti*ate )udicial intervention. Accused-appellant >ann+ 6odo+ $as charged in t$o separate infor*ations filed before the 'egional <rial Court, for Pala$an and Puerto Princesa Cit+, Branch 10, $ith rape and ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention, respectivel+ punished under Articles 775 and /90 of the 'evised Penal Code, to $it% In Cri*inal Case No. ..914 for 'ape% <hat on or about the evening of the /.st da+ of !anuar+, .881, at Baranga+ Pulot Center, =unicipalit+ of Broo;e@s Point, Province of Pala$an, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the said accused b+ *eans of force, threat and inti*idation, b+ using a ;nife and b+ *eans of deceit, did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ have carnal ;no$ledge $ith one =ia <aha to her da*age and pre)udice.. In Cri*inal Case No. ..91. for Pidnapping $ith ,erious Illegal >etention% <hat on or about the //nd da+ of !anuar+, .881, at Baranga+ Ipilan, =unicipalit+ of Broo;e@s Point, Province of Pala$an, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the said accused, a private individual, and being a teacher of the victi*, =ia <aha, and b+ *eans of deceit did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ ;idnap or detained sic# said =ia <aha, a girl of .0 +ears old sic#, for a period of five 5# da+s thus thereb+ depriving said =ia <aha of her libert+ against her $ill and consent and $ithout legal )ustification, to the da*age and pre)udice of said =ia <aha. / >uring the arraign*ent on both indict*ents, appellant pleaded not guilt+ to said charges and, after the pre-trial $as ter*inated, a )oint trial of the t$o cases $as conducted b+ the trial court. 7 According to co*plainant =ia <aha, at around 0%44 P.=. of !anuar+ /., .881, she $ent to the boarding house of her cousin, =erl+l+n Casantosan, at Pulot Center, Broo;e@s Point $hich is near the Pala$an National ,chool PN,#, Pulot Branch, $here she $as stud+ing. &hen she sa$ that the house $as dar;, she decided to pass through the ;itchen door at the bac; because she ;ne$ that there $as nobod+ inside. As soon as she opened the door, so*ebod+ suddenl+ grabbed her, po;ed a ;nife on her nec;, dragged her b+ the hand and told her not to shout. ,he $as then forced to lie do$n on the floor. Although it $as dar;, co*plainant $as able to recogniBe her assailant, b+ the light co*ing fro* the *oon and through his voice, as accused-appellant >ann+ 6odo+ $ho $as her Ph+sics teacher at PN,. &hen she $as alread+ on the floor, appellant re*oved her pant+ $ith one hand $hile holding the ;nife $ith the other hand, opened the Bipper of his pants, and then inserted his private organ inside her private parts against her $ill. ,he felt pain because it $as her first e2perience and she cried. <hroughout her ordeal, she could not utter a $ord. ,he $as ver+ frightened because a ;nife $as continuall+ pointed at her. ,he also could not fight bac; nor plead $ith appellant not to rape her because he $as her teacher and she $as afraid of hi*. ,he $as threatened not to report the incident to an+one or else she and her fa*il+ $ould be ;illed. <hereafter, $hile she $as putting on her pant+, she noticed that her s;irt $as stained $ith blood. Appellant $al;ed $ith her to the gate of the house and she then proceeded alone to the boarding house $here she lived. ,he did not see $here appellant $ent after she left hi* at the gate. &hen she arrived at her boarding house, she sa$ her landlad+ but she did not *ention an+thing about the incident. <he follo$ing *orning, !anuar+ //, .881, co*plainant $ent ho*e to her parents@ house at Ipilan, Broo;e@s Point. ,he li;e$ise did not tell her parents about the incident for fear that appellant *ight *a;e good his threat. At around 7%44 P.=. of that sa*e da+, appellant arrived at the house of her parents and as;ed per*ission fro* the latter if co*plainant could acco*pan+ hi* to solicit funds because she $as a candidate for "=iss PN, Pulot." &hen her parents agreed, she $as constrained to go $ith appellant because she did not $ant her parents to get into trouble. Appellant and co*plainant then left the house and the+ $al;ed in silence, $ith =ia follo$ing behind appellant, to$ards the high$a+ $here appellant hailed a passenger )eep $hich $as e*pt+ e2cept for the driver and the conductor. ,he $as forced to ride the )eep because appellant threatened to ;ill her if she $ould not board the vehicle. <he )eep proceeded to the ,unset 6arden at the poblacion, Broo;e@s Point $here the+ alighted. At the ,unset 6arden, appellant chec;ed in and brought her to a roo* $here the+ sta+e d for three da+s. >uring the entire duration of their sta+ at the ,unset 6arden, co*plainant $as not allo$ed to leave the roo* $hich $as al$a+s ;ept loc;ed. ,he $as continuousl+ guarded and constantl+ raped b+ appellant. ,he $as, ho$ever, never drun; or unconscious. Nonetheless, she $as forced to have se2 $ith appellant because the latter $as al$a+s carr+ing a ;nife $ith hi*.

Page1

In the earl+ *orning of !anuar+ /5, .881, appellant brought her to the house of his friend at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision $here she $as raped b+ hi* three ti*es. ,he $as li;e$ise detained and loc;ed inside the roo* and tightl+ guarded b+ appellant. After t$o da+s, or on !anuar+ /0, .881, the+ left the place because appellant ca*e to ;no$ that co*plainant had

been reported and indicated as a *issing person in the police blotter. <he+ $ent to see a certain Nae* [[ fro* $ho* appellant sought help. (n that sa*e da+, she $as released but onl+ after her parents agreed to settle the case $ith appellant. I**ediatel+ thereafter, =ia@s parents brought her to the >istrict "ospital at Broo;e@s Point $here she $as e2a*ined b+ >r. 'ogelio >ivinagracia $ho *ade the follo$ing *edical findings% 6ENE'A-% &ell developed, nourished, cooperative, $al;ing, conscious, coherent Filipina. B'EA,<% ,lightl+ globular $ith bro$n colored areola and nipple. EU<E'NA- EUA=.% Nu*erous pubic hair, fairl+ developed labia *a)ora and *inora, h+*enal opening stellate in shape, presence of laceration superficial, longitudinal at the fossa navicularis, appro2i*atel+ .D/ c*. length. IN<E'NA- EUA=.% "+*enal opening, stellate in shape, laceration noted, h+*enal opening ad*its / fingers $ith slight resistance, pro*inent vaginal rugae, cervi2 closed. C(NC-:,I(N% "+*enal opening ad*its easil+ / fingers $ith slight resistance, presence of laceration, longitudinal at the fossa navicularis appro2i*atel+ .D/ c*. length. "+*enal opening can ad*it an average siBe penis in erection $ith laceration. 1 >r. >ivinagracia further testified that the h+*enal opening $as in stellate shape and that there $as a laceration, $hich sho$s that co*plainant had participated in se2ual intercourse. (n the basis of the inflicted laceration $hich $as do$n$ard at 9 o@cloc; position, he could not sa+ that there $as force applied because there $ere no scratches or bruises, but onl+ a $ee;-old laceration. "e also e2a*ined the patient bodil+ but found no sign of bruises or in)uries. <he patient told hi* that she $as raped. >uring the cross-e2a*ination, co*plainant denied that she $rote the letters *ar;ed as E2hibits "." and "/"C that she never loved appellant but, on the contrar+, she hated hi* because of $hat he did to herC and that she did not notice if there $ere people near the boarding house of her cousin. ,he narrated that $hen appellant started to re*ove her pant+, she $as alread+ l+ing do$n, and that even as appellant $as doing this she could not shout because she $as afraid. ,he could not re*e*ber $ith $hich hand appellant held the ;nife. ,he $as co*pletel+ silent fro* the ti*e she $as *ade to lie do$n, $hile her pant+ $as being re*oved, and even until appellant $as able to rape her. &hen appellant $ent to their house the follo$ing da+, she did not ;no$ if he $as ar*ed but there $as no threat *ade on her or her parents. (n the contrar+, appellant even courteousl+ as;ed per*ission fro* the* in her behalf and so the+ left the house $ith appellant $al;ing ahead of her. &hen she $as brought to the ,unset 6arden, she could not refuse because she $as afraid. "o$ever, she ad*itted that at that ti*e, appellant $as not pointing a ;nife at her. ,he onl+ sa$ the cashier of the ,unset 6arden but she did not notice if there $ere other people inside. ,he li;e$ise did not as; the appellant $h+ he brought her there. Co*plainant described the loc; in their roo* as an ordinar+ door;nob, si*ilar to that on the door of the courtroo* $hich, even if loc;ed, could still be opened fro* the inside, and she added that there $as a sliding loc; inside the roo*. According to her, the+ sta+ed at ,unset 6arden for three da+s and three nights but she never noticed if appellant ever slept because ever+ti*e she $o;e up, appellant $as al$a+s beside her. ,he never sa$ hi* close his e+es. "elen <aha, the *other of co*plainant, testified that $hen the latter arrived at their house in the *orning of !anuar+ //, .881, she noticed that =ia appeared $ea; and her e+es $ere s$ollen. &hen she as;ed her daughter if there $as an+thing $rong, the latter *erel+ ;ept silent. <hat afternoon, she allo$ed =ia to go $ith appellant because she ;ne$ he $as her teacher. "o$ever, $hen =ia and appellant failed to co*e ho*e at the e2pected ti*e, she and her husband, Ad)eril, $ent to loo; for the* at Ipilan. &hen the+ could not find the* there, she $ent to the house of appellant because she $as alread+ suspecting that so*ething $as $rong, but appellant@s $ife told her that he did not co*e ho*e. Earl+ the ne2t *orning, she and her husband $ent to the Philippine National Police PNP# station at Pulot, Broo;e@s Point and had the incident recorded in the police blotter. <he follo$ing da+, the+ $ent to the office of the National Bureau of Investigation NBI# at Puerto Princess Cit+, then to the police station near the NBI, and finall+ to the radio station airing the 'ad+o ng Ba+an progra* $here she *ade an appeal to appellant to return her daughter. &hen she returned ho*e, a certain Nae* $as $aiting there and he infor*ed her that =ia $as at Broo;e@s Point. "e further conve+ed appellant@s $illingness to beco*e a =usli* so he could *arr+ =ia and thus settle the case. "elen <aha readil+ acceded because she $anted to see her daughter. In the *orning of !anuar+ /0, .881, she $ent to the house of Nae* $ho sent so*ebod+ to fetch co*plainant. ,he testified that $hen =ia arrived, she $as cr+ing as she reported that she $as raped b+ appellant, and that the latter threatened to ;ill her if she did not return $ithin an hour. Because of this, she i**ediatel+ brought =ia to the hospital $here the latter $as e2a*ined and then the+ proceeded to the *unicipal hall to file a co*plaint for rape and ;idnapping. Both =ia and "elen <aha e2ecuted separate s$orn state*ents before the PNP at Broo;e@s Point. -ater, Fruit 6odo+, the $ife of appellant, $ent to their house and offered P54,444.44 for the settle*ent of the case. (n their part, her husband insisted that the+ )ust settle, hence all three of the*, Ad)eril, "elen and =ia <aha, $ent to the (ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor $here the+ *et $ith the *other of appellant $ho gave the* P74,444.44. Ad)eril and "elen <aha subseFuentl+ e2ecuted an affidavit of desistance in Cri*inal Case No. 0930 for ;idnapping pending in the prosecutor@s office, $hich $as s$orn to before Prosecutor II Chito ,. =eregillano. "elen <aha testified that she agreed to the settle*ent because that $as $hat her husband $anted. =ia <aha $as dropped fro* the school and $as not allo$ed to graduate. "er father died t$o *onths later, supposedl+ because of $hat happened. <he defense presented a different version of $hat actuall+ transpired. According to appellant, he first *et =ia <aha so*eti*e in August, .887 at the Pala$an National ,chool PN,#. Although he did not court her, he fell in love $ith her because she often told hi* ",ir, I love +ou." &hat started as a )o;e later developed into a serious relationship $hich $as ;ept a secret fro* ever+bod+ else. It $as on >ece*ber /4, .887 $hen the+ first had se2ual intercourse as lovers. Appellant $as then assigned at the Narra Pilot Ele*entar+ ,chool at the poblacion because he $as the coach of the Pala$an delegation for chess. At around 5%44 P.=. of that da+, co*plainant arrived at his Fuarters allegedl+ because she *issed hi*, and she then decided to spend the night there $ith hi*.

Page1

E2actl+ a *onth thereafter, specificall+ in the evening of !anuar+ /4, .881, Erna Baradero, a teacher at the PN,, $as loo;ing inside the school building for her husband, $ho $as a securit+ guard of PN,, $hen she heard voices apparentl+ co*ing fro* the (rchids 'oo*. ,he $ent closer to listen and she heard a girl@s voice sa+ing "=ahal na *ahal ;ita, ,ir, i$anan *o ang i+ong asa$a at tata;as ta+o." :pon hearing this, she i**ediatel+ opened the door and $as startled to see =ia <aha and >ann+ 6odo+ holding hands. ,he as;ed the* $hat the+ $ere doing there at such an unhol+ hour but the t$o, $ho $ere obviousl+ caught b+ surprise, could not ans$er. ,he then hurriedl+ closed the door and left. According to this $itness, co*plainant ad*itted to her that she $as having an affair $ith appellant. >esirous that such illicit relationship *ust be stopped, Erna Baradero infor*ed appellant@s $ife about it $hen the latter arrived fro* =anila around the first $ee; of Februar+, .881. :pon the reFuest of appellant@s $ife, Erna Baradero e2ecuted an affidavit in connection $ith the present case, but the sa*e $as not filed then because of the affidavit of desistance $hich $as e2ecuted and sub*itted b+ the parents of co*plainant. In her s$orn state*ent, later *ar;ed in evidence as E2hibit "0", Erna Baradero alleged that on !anuar+ /., .881, she confronted =ia <aha about the latter@s indiscretion and re*inded her that appellant is a *arried *an, but co*plainant retorted, "Ano ang pa;iala* *o," adding that she loves appellant ver+ *uch. Appellant testified that on !anuar+ /., .881, at around 0%44 P.=., =ia <aha $ent to his office as;ing for help $ith the *onologue that she $ould be presenting for the =iss PN, contest. "e agreed to *eet her at the house of her cousin, =erl+l+n Casantosan. "o$ever, $hen he reached the place, the house $as dar; and he sa$ =ia $aiting for hi* outside. Accordingl+, the+ )ust sat on a bench near the road $here there $as a lighted electric post and the+ tal;ed about the *atter she had earlier as;ed hi* about. <he+ sta+ed there for fifteen *inutes, after $hich co*plainant returned to her boarding house )ust across the street $hile appellant headed for ho*e so*e fifteen *eters a$a+. It appears that $hile co*plainant $as then $aiting for appellant, Filo*ena Pielago, a for*er teacher of =ia at PN, and $ho $as then on her $a+ to a nearb+ store, sa$ her sitting on a bench and as;ed $hat she $as doing there at such a late hour. Co*plainant *erel+ replied that she $as $aiting for so*ebod+. Filo*ena proceeded to the store and, along the $a+, she sa$ Inda+ Kapanta $atering the plants outside the porch of her house. &hen Filo*ena Pielago returned, she sa$ co*plainant tal;ing $ith appellant and she noticed that the+ $ere Fuite inti*ate because the+ $ere holding hands. <his *ade her suspect that the t$o could be having a relationship. ,he, therefore, told appellant that his $ife had finished her aerobics class and $as alread+ $aiting for hi*. ,he also advised =ia to go ho*e. Prior to this incident, Filo*ena Pielago alread+ used to see the* seated on the sa*e bench. Filo*ena further testified that she had tried to tal; appellant out of the relationship because his $ife had a heart ail*ent. ,he also $arned =ia <aha, but to no avail. ,he had li;e$ise told co*plainant@s grand*other about her activities. At the trial, she identified the hand$riting of co*plainant appearing on the letters *ar;ed as E2hibits "." and "/", clai*ing that she is fa*iliar $ith the sa*e because =ia $as her for*er student. (n cross-e2a*ination, Filo*ena clarified that $hen she sa$ the couple on the night of !anuar+ /., .881, the t$o $ere tal;ing naturall+, she did not see =ia cr+ing, nor did it appear as if appellant $as pleading $ith her. In the afternoon of the follo$ing da+, !anuar+ //, .881, appellant *et =ia@s *other on the road near their house and she invited hi* to co*e up and eat "bu;o," $hich invitation he accepted. <hirt+ *inutes thereafter, co*plainant told hi* to as; per*ission fro* her *other for the* to go and solicit funds at the poblacion, and he did so. Before the+ left, he noticed that =ia $as carr+ing a plastic bag and $hen he as;ed her about it, she said that it contained her things $hich she $as bringing to her cousin@s house. Appellant and =ia $ent to the poblacion $here the+ solicited funds until 9%74 P.=. and then had snac;s at the Eic <an ,tore. <hereafter, co*plainant told appellant that it $as alread+ late and there $as no *ore available transportation, so she suggested that the+ )ust sta+ at ,unset 6arden. Convinced that there $as nothing $rong in that because the+ alread+ had inti*ate relations, aside fro* the fact that =ia had repeatedl+ told hi* she $ould co**it suicide should he leave her, appellant $as prevailed upon to sta+ at the hotel. Parentheticall+, it $as co*plainant $ho arranged their registration and subseFuentl+ paid P144.44 for their bill fro* the funds the+ had solicited. <hat evening, ho$ever, appellant told co*plainant at around 8%44 P.=. that he $as going out to see a certain Bert >alo)o at the latter@s residence. In truth, he borro$ed a *otorc+cle fro* Fernando 'ubio and $ent ho*e to Pulot. "e did not bring co*plainant along because she had refused to go ho*e. <he follo$ing *orning, !anuar+ /7, .881, appellant $ent to the house of co*plainant@s parents and infor*ed the* that =ia spent the night at the ,unset 6arden. =ia@s parents said that the+ $ould )ust fetch her there, so he $ent bac; to ,unset 6arden and $aited for the* outside the hotel until 5%44 P.=. &hen the+ did not arrive, he decided to go $ith one Isagani Eire+, $ho* he sa$ $hile $aiting near the road, and the+ had a drin;ing session $ith Eire+@s friends. <hereafter, Eire+ acco*panied hi* bac; to ,unset 6arden $here the+ proceeded to =ia@s roo*. ,ince the roo* $as loc;ed fro* the inside, Eire+ had to ;noc; on the door until it $as opened b+ her. (nce inside, he tal;ed to co*plainant and as;ed her $hat the+ $ere doing, but she *erel+ ans$ered that $hat she $as doing $as of her o$n free $ill and that at that *o*ent her father $as not supposed to ;no$ about it for, other$ise, he $ould ;ill her. &hat co*plainant did not ;no$, ho$ever, $as that appellant had alread+ reported the *atter to her parents, although he opted not to tell her because he did not $ant to add to her apprehensions. Isagani Eire+ further testified that $hen he sa$ appellant and co*plainant on !anuar+ /7 and /1, .881, the couple loo;ed ver+ happ+. Appellant denied that the+ had se2ual intercourse during their entire sta+ at ,unset 6arden, that is, fro* !anuar+ // to /1, .881, because he did not have an+ idea as to $hat she reall+ $anted to prove to hi*. Appellant ;ne$ that $hat the+ $ere doing $as $rong but he allegedl+ could not avoid =ia because of her threat that she $ould co**it suicide if he left her. <hus, according to appellant, on !anuar+ /1, .881 he as;ed Isagani Eire+ to acco*pan+ hi* to the house of 'o*+ Eallan, a police*an, to report the *atter. Additionall+, Eire+ testified that appellant and =ia $ent to see hi* at his aunt@s house to as; for assistance in procuring transportation because, according to appellant, the relatives of =ia $ere alread+ loo;ing for the* and so the+ intend to go to Puerto Princesa Cit+. Eire+ acco*panied the* to the house of 'o*+ Eallan, $hose $ife $as a co-teacher of appellant@s $ife, but the latter refused to help because of the co*plicated situation appellant $as in.

Page1

Nevertheless, Eallan verified fro* the police station $hether a co*plaint had been filed against appellant and after finding out that there $as none, he told appellant to )ust consult a certain Nae* $ho is an "i*a*." Appellant $as able to tal; to Nae* at Eallan@s house that sa*e da+ and bared ever+thing about hi* and =ia. Nae* suggested that appellant *arr+ co*plainant in =usli* rites but appellant refused because he $as alread+ *arried. It $as eventuall+ agreed that Nae*

$ould )ust *ediate in behalf of appellant and *a;e arrange*ents for a settle*ent $ith =ia@s parents. -ater that da+, Nae* $ent to see the parents of co*plainant at the latter@s house. <he follo$ing da+, !anuar+ /5, .881, allegedl+ because co*plainant could no longer afford to pa+ their hotel bills, the couple $ere constrained to transfer to the house of appellant@s friend, Fernando 'ubio, at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision $here the+ sta+ed for t$o da+s. <he+ )ust $al;ed along the national high$a+ fro* ,unset 6arden to Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision $hich $as onl+ five hundred to seven hundred *eters a$a+. <he o$ner of the house, Fernando 'ubio, as $ell as his brother Benedicto 'ubio, testified that the couple $ere ver+ happ+, the+ $ere inti*ate and s$eet to each other, the+ al$a+s ate together, and it $as ver+ obvious that the+ $ere having a relationship. In fact, Fernando 'ubio recalled that co*plainant even called appellant "Papa." &hile the+ $ere there, she $ould bu+ food at the *ar;et, help in the coo;ing, $ash clothes, and so*eti*es $atch television. &hen Fernando 'ubio once as;ed her $h+ she chose to go $ith appellant despite the fact the he $as a *arried *an, =ia told hi* that she reall+ loved appellant. ,he never told hi*, and Fernando 'ubio never had the slightest suspicion, that she $as supposed to have been ;idnapped as it $as later clai*ed. "e also testified that several police officers lived $ithin their neighborhood and if co*plainant had reall+ been ;idnapped and detained, she could have easil+ reported that fact to the*. =ia $as free to co*e and go as she pleased, and the roo* $here the+ sta+ed $as never loc;ed because the loc; had been destro+ed. (n cross-e2a*ination, Fernando 'ubio declared that appellant $as *erel+ an acFuaintance of hisC that it $as Nae* $ho $ent to the lodging house to arrange for =ia to go ho*eC that co*plainant@s *other never $ent to his houseC and that it $as Chief of Police Eliseo Crespo $ho fetched appellant fro* the lodging house and brought hi* to the *unicipal hall. ,hortl+ before noon of !anuar+ /9, .881, Nae* again *et $ith appellant at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision and infor*ed hi* that co*plainant@s parents $ere $illing to tal; to hi* at Nae*@s house the ne2t da+. <he follo$ing *orning, or on !anuar+ /0, .881, appellant $as not able to tal; to co*plainant@s parents because the+ *erel+ sent a child to fetch =ia at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision and to tell her that her *other, $ho $as at Nae*@s house, $anted to see her. Appellant per*itted co*plainant to go but he told her that $ithin one hour he $as be going to the police station at the *unicipal hall so that the+ could settle ever+thing there. After an hour, $hile appellant $as alread+ on his $a+ out of Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, he $as *et b+ Chief of Police Eliseo Crespo $ho invited hi* to the police station. Appellant $aited at the police station the $hole afternoon but $hen co*plainant, her parents and relatives arrived at around 5%44 P.=., he $as not given the chance to tal; to an+ one of the*. <hat afternoon of !anuar+ /0, .881, appellant $as no longer allo$ed to leave and he $as detained at the police station after =ia and her parents lodged a co*plaint for rape and ;idnapping against hi*. >uring his detention, =ia@s cousin, -orna Casantosan, delivered to appellant on different occasions t$o letters fro* co*plainant dated Februar+ /0, .881 and =arch ., .881, respectivel+. As =ia@s teacher, appellant is fa*iliar $ith and $as, therefore, able to identif+ the hand$riting in said letters as that of =ia <aha. After a ti*e, he ca*e to ;no$, through his *other, that an affidavit of desistance $as reportedl+ e2ecuted b+ co*plainants. "o$ever, he clai*s that he never ;ne$ and it $as never *entioned to hi*, not until the da+ he testified in court, that his *other paid P74,444.44 to =ia@s father because, although he did not dissuade the*, neither did he reFuest his *other to tal; to co*plainants in order to settle the case. :nder cross-e2a*ination, appellant denied that he po;ed a ;nife at and raped =ia <aha on !anuar+ /., .881. "o$ever, he ad*itted that he had se2 $ith =ia at the ,unset 6arden but that $as alread+ on !anuar+ /1, .881. &hile the+ $ere at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, the+ never had se2ual relations. Appellant $as told, $hen co*plainant visited hi* in )ail, that her father $ould ;ill her if she refused to testif+ against hi*, although b+ the ti*e she testified in court, her father had alread+ died. Appellant further testified that co*plainant has had several illicit relations in the boarding house of her cousin, =erl+l+n Casantosan, $hich $as a $ell-;no$n fact in Pulot. "o$ever, he decided to have a relationship $ith her because he $anted to change her and that $as $hat the+ had agreed upon. Appellant denied that, during the ti*e $hen the+ $ere sta+ing together, =ia had allegedl+ as;ed per*ission to leave several ti*es but that he refused. (n the contrar+, he clai*ed that on !anuar+ /0, .881 $hen she told hi* that her parents $anted to see her, he readil+ gave her per*ission to go. "e also identified the clothes that =ia brought $ith her $hen the+ left her parents@ house on !anuar+ //, .881, but $hich she left behind at the 'ubios@ lodging house after she failed to return on !anuar+ /0, .881. <he bag of clothes $as brought to hi* at the provincial )ail b+ Benedicto 'ubio. Appellant li;e$ise declared that he had been detained at the provincial )ail since !anuar+ /0, .881 but the $arrant for his arrest $as issued onl+ on !anuar+ /3, .881C and that he did not sub*it a counter-affidavit because according to his for*er counsel, Att+. Paredes, it $as no longer necessar+ since the co*plainants had alread+ e2ecuted an affidavit of desistance. "e ad*its having signed a "&aiver of 'ight to Preli*inar+ Investigation" in connection $ith these cases. (n rebuttal, -orna Casantosan, the cousin of =ia <aha, denied that she delivered an+ letter to appellant $hen the latter $as still detained at the provincial )ail. ,he ad*itted, on cross-e2a*ination, that she $as reFuested b+ =ia <aha to testif+ for her, although she clarified that she does not have an+ Fuarrel or *isunderstanding $ith appellant. =ia <aha $as again presented on rebuttal and she denied the testi*on+ of Erna Baradero regarding the incident at the (rchids 'oo* because, according to her, the truth $as that she $as at the boarding house of <oto Kapanta on that date and ti*e. ,he li;e$ise negated the clai* that Erna Baradero confronted her on !anuar+ /., .881 about her alleged relationship $ith appellant contending that she did not see her for*er teacher on that da+. ,i*ilarl+, she disclai*ed having seen and tal;ed to File*ona Pielago on the night of !anuar+ /., .881. ,he vehe*entl+ disavo$ed that she and appellant $ere lovers, *uch less $ith inti*ate relations, since there never $as a ti*e that the+ beca*e s$eethearts. ,he sought to rebut, li;e$ise through bare denials, the follo$ing testi*onies of the defense $itnesses% that she told appellant "i$anan *o ang i+ong asa$a at tata;as ta+oC" that she ans$ered "$ala ;ang pa;iala*" $hen Erna Baradero confronted her about her relationship $ith appellantC that she $as the one $ho registered the* at ,unset 6arden and paid for their billC that appellant left her at ,unset 6arden to go to Ipil on !anuar+ //, .881C that Isagani Eire+ ca*e to their roo* and sta+ed there for five *inutes, because the onl+ other person $ho $ent there $as the roo* bo+ $ho served their foodC that the+ $ent to the house of Eire+@s aunt reFuesting help for transportationC and that she $as free to roa* around or to go out of the lodging house at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision.

Page1

=ia <aha also re)ected as false the testi*on+ of appellant that she $ent to see hi* at Narra, Pala$an to have se2 $ith hi* and clai*s that the last ti*e she $ent to Narra $as $hen she $as still in 6rade EIC that she ever told hi* "I love +ou, sabi; no sabi; a;o sa i+o" $hen she allegedl+ $ent to NarraC that she $rote to hi*, since the letters *ar;ed as E2hibits "." and "/" are not hersC that she threatened to co**it suicide if appellant $ould leave her since she never brought a blade $ith herC and that at ,unset 6arden and at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivison, she $as not being guarded b+ appellant. "o$ever, on cross-e2a*ination, co*plainant identified her signature on her test paper *ar;ed as E2hibit "1" and ad*itted that the signature thereon is e2actl+ the sa*e as that appearing on E2hibits "." and "/". <hen, contradicting her previous disclai*ers, she also ad*itted that the hand$riting on E2hibits "." and "/" all belong to her. (n sur-rebuttal, Ar*ando Pasion, a provincial guard of the Provincial !ail, Pala$an $ho volunteered to testif+ in these cases, identified -orna Casantosan as the person $ho visited appellant in )ail on Februar+ /0, .881 at around 1%44 P.=. ,ince he $as on dut+ at that ti*e, he as;ed her $hat she $anted and she said she $ould )ust visit appellant. Pasion then called appellant and told hi* he had a visitor. -orna Casantosan and appellant tal;ed at the visiting area $hich is around ten *eters a$a+ fro* his post, and then he sa$ her hand over to appellant a letter $hich the latter i**ediatel+ read. <his $itness declared that appellant never reFuested hi* to testif+. Another sur-rebuttal $itness, >es*ond ,elga, a )eepne+ driver, testified that in the afternoon of !anuar+ //, .881, he $as pl+ing his regular route in going to Broo;e@s Point and, $hen he passed b+ Ipilan, he pic;ed up appellant and =ia <aha. At that ti*e, there $ere alread+ several passengers inside his )eepne+. <he t$o got off at the poblacion *ar;et. "e denied that he brought the* to the ,unset 6arden. (n =a+ /4, .881, the court a Fuo rendered )udg*ent 5 finding appellant guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*es of rape and ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention, and sentencing hi* to the *a2i*u* penalt+ of death in both cases. 9 B+ reason of the nature of the penalt+ i*posed, these cases $ere elevated to this Court on auto*atic revie$. <he records sho$ that, on the basis of the co*plaints for rape 0 and ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention 3filed b+ =ia <aha and "elen <aha, respectivel+, the =unicipal <rial Court of Broo;e@s Point issued a resolution 8on Februar+ 1, .881 finding the e2istence of a pri*a facie case against appellant. (n Februar+ .4, .881, the spouses Ad)eril <aha and "elen <aha e2ecuted an affidavit of desistance $ithdra$ing the charge of ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention. .4 "o$ever, pursuant to a )oint resolution .. issued on =arch .., .881 b+ Prosecutor II 'e+naldo '. 6ua+co of the (ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor, t$o separate infor*ations for rape and for ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention $ere nevertheless filed against appellant >ann+ 6odo+ $ith no bail reco**ended in both charges. Appellant is no$ before us see;ing the reversal of the )udg*ent of the court belo$, on the follo$ing assign*ent of errors% I. <he trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of# the cri*e of rape despite the fact that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. II. <he trial court erred b+ failing to adhere to the doctrineDprinciple in revie$ing the evidence adduced in a prosecution for the cri*e of rape as cited in its decision reiterating the case of People vs. Cali2to .87 ,C'A 747#. III. <he trial court erred in concluding that the accused-appellant had consu**ated the cri*e of rape against private co*plainant. IE. <he trial court erred b+ its failure to give an+ credence to E2hibits "." and "/" as evidence of the defense. E. <he trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the cri*e of ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. EI. <he trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testi*onies of prosecution $itnesses and co*pletel+ ignoring the testi*onies of the defense $itnesses. EII. <he trial court erred in concluding that there $as i*plied ad*ission of guilt on the part of the accused-appellant in vie$ of the offer to co*pro*ise. EIII. <he trial court erred in ordering that the co*plainant be inde*nified in the su* of one hundred thousand pesos P.44,444.44# for each of the alleged cri*es co**itted. IU. <he trial court gravel+ erred b+ i*posing the death penalt+ for each of the cri*es charged on the accused-appellant despite the fact that the cri*es $ere allegedl+ co**itted prior to the effectivit+ of 'epublic Act No. 0958. ./ A. <he 'ape Case A rape charge is a serious *atter $ith pernicious conseFuences. It e2poses both the accused and the accuser to hu*iliation, fear and an2ieties, not to *ention the stig*a of sha*e that both have to bear for the rest of their lives. .7 B+ the ver+ nature of the cri*e of rape, conviction or acFuittal depends al*ost entirel+ on the credibilit+ of the co*plainant@s testi*on+ because of the fact that usuall+ onl+ the participants can testif+ as to its occurrence..1 <his not$ithstanding, the basic rule re*ains that in all cri*inal prosecutions $ithout regard to the nature of the defense $hich the accused *a+ raise, the burden of proof re*ains at all ti*es upon the prosecution to establish his guilt be+ond a reasonable doubt. If the accused raises a sufficient doubt as to an+ *aterial ele*ent, and the prosecution is then unable to overco*e this evidence, the prosecution has failed to carr+ its burden of proof of the guilt of the accused be+ond a reasonable doubt and the accused *ust be acFuitted. .5 <he rationale for the rule is that, confronted b+ the full panopl+ of ,tate authorit+, the accused is accorded the presu*ption of innocence to lighten and even reverse the heav+ odds against hi*. =ere accusation is not enough to convict hi*, and neither is the $ea;ness of his defense. <he evidence for the prosecution *ust be strong per se, strong enough to establish the guilt of the accused be+ond reasonable doubt. .9 In other $ords, the accused *a+ be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testi*on+ of the offended $o*an, provided such testi*on+ is clear, positive, convincing and other$ise consistent $ith hu*an nature and the nor*al course of things. <here are three $ell-;no$n principles that guide an appellate court in revie$ing the evidence presented in a prosecution for the cri*e of rape. <hese are% .# $hile rape is a *ost detestable cri*e, and ought to be severel+ and i*partiall+ punished, it *ust be borne in *ind that it is an accusation eas+ to be *ade, hard to be proved, but harder to be

Page1

defended b+ the part+ accused, though innocentC .0 /# that in vie$ of the intrinsic nature of the cri*e of rape $here onl+ t$o persons are usuall+ involved, the testi*on+ of the co*plainant *ust be scrutiniBed $ith e2tre*e cautionC .3 and 7# that the evidence for the prosecution *ust stand or fall on its o$n *erits and cannot be allo$ed to dra$ strength fro* the $ea;ness of the evidence for the defense. .8 In the case at bar, several circu*stances e2ist $hich a*pl+ de*onstrate and ineluctabl+ convince this Court that there $as no rape co**itted on the alleged date and place, and that the charge of rape $as the contrivance of an afterthought, rather than a truthful plaint for redress of an actual $rong. I. <$o principal facts indispensabl+ to be proven be+ond reasonable doubt for conviction of the cri*e of rape under paragraph .#, Article 775 of the 'evised Penal Code are, first, that the accused had carnal ;no$ledge of the co*plainantC and, second, that the sa*e $as acco*plished through force or inti*idation. .. <he prosecution has palpabl+ failed to prove be+ond peradventure of doubt that appellant had se2ual congress $ith co*plainant against her $ill. Co*plainant avers that on the night of !anuar+ /., .881, she $as se2uall+ assaulted b+ appellant in the boarding house of her cousin, =erlel+n Casantosan. Appellant, on the other hand, denied such a serious i*putation and contends that on said date and ti*e, he *erel+ tal;ed $ith co*plainant outside that house. &e find appellant@s version *ore credible and sustained b+ the evidence presented and of record. According to co*plainant, $hen she entered the ;itchen of the boarding house, appellant $as alread+ inside apparentl+ $aiting for her. If so, it is Fuite perple2ing ho$ appellant could have ;no$n that she $as going there on that particular da+ and at that ti*e, considering that she does not even live there, unless of course it $as appellant@s intention to satisf+ his lustful desires on an+bod+ $ho happened to co*e along. But then this $ould be stretching the i*agination too far, aside fro* the fact that such a generic intent $ith an indeter*inate victi* $as never established nor even inti*ated b+ the prosecution. =oreover, an+ accord of credit to the co*plainant@s stor+ is precluded b+ the i*plausibilit+ that plagues it as regards the setting of the supposed se2ual assault. /4 It $ill be noted that the place $here the alleged cri*e $as co**itted is not an ordinar+ residence but a boarding house $here several persons live and $here people are e2pected to co*e and go. <he prosecution did not even bother to elucidate on $hether it $as the se*estral brea; or that the boarding house had re*ained closed for so*e ti*e, in order that it could be safel+ assu*ed that nobod+ $as e2pected to arrive at an+ given ti*e. Appellant, on the other hand, testified that on that fateful da+, he $ent to the boarding house upon the invitation of co*plainant because the latter reFuested hi* to help her $ith her *onologue for the =iss PN, contest. "o$ever, the+ $ere not able to go inside the house because it $as loc;ed and there $as no light, so the+ )ust sat on a bench outside the house and tal;ed. <his testi*on+ of appellant $as substantiall+ corroborated b+ defense $itness Filo*ena Pielago. ,he affir*ed that in the evening of !anuar+ /., .881, she sa$ both appellant and co*plainant seated on a bench outside the boarding house, and that she even advised the* to go ho*e because it $as alread+ late and appellant@s $ife, $ho $as the head teacher of $itness Pielago, $as $aiting for hi* at the school building. (n rebuttal, co*plainant could onl+ den+ that she sa$ Pielago that night. >octrinall+, $here the inculpator+ facts and circu*stances are capable of t$o or *ore e2planations one of $hich is consistent $ith the innocence of the accused and the other consistent $ith his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of *oral certaint+ and is not sufficient to support a conviction. /. It $as further alleged b+ co*plainant that after her alleged ravish*ent, she put on her pant+ and then appellant openl+ acco*panied her all the $a+ to the gate of the house $here the+ eventuall+ parted $a+s. <his is inconceivable. It is not the natural tendenc+ of a *an to re*ain for long b+ the side of the $o*an he had raped, //and in public in a highl+ populated area at that. 6iven the stealth that acco*panies it and the an2iet+ to end further e2posure at the scene, the logical postincident i*pulse of the felon is to distance hi*self fro* his victi* as far and as soon as practicable, to avoid discover+ and apprehension. It is to be e2pected that one $ho is guilt+ of a cri*e $ould $ant to dissociate hi*self fro* the person of his victi*, the scene of the cri*e, and fro* all other things and circu*stances related to the offense $hich could possibl+ i*plicate hi* or give rise to even the slightest suspicion as to his guilt. Eeril+, the guilt+ flee $here no *an pursueth. It is of co**on ;no$ledge that facts $hich prove or tend to prove that the accused $as at the scene of the cri*e are ad*issible as relevant, on the theor+ that such presence can be appreciated as a circu*stance tending to identif+ the appellant. /7 ConseFuentl+, it is not in accord $ith hu*an e2perience for appellant to have let hi*self be seen $ith the co*plainant i**ediatel+ after he had allegedl+ raped her. /1 It thus behooves this Court to re)ect the notion that appellant $ould be so foolhard+ as to acco*pan+ co*plainant up to the gate of the house, considering its strategic location vis-a-vis co*plainant@s boarding house $hich is )ust across the street, /5 and the PN, schoolbuilding $hich is onl+ around thirt+ *eters a$a+. /9 Co*plainant *entioned in her narration that right after the incident she $ent directl+ to her boarding house $here she sa$ her landlad+. Iet, the landlad+ $as never presented as a $itness to corroborate the stor+ of co*plainant, despite the fact that the for*er $as the ver+ first person she ca*e in contact $ith fro* the ti*e appellant allegedl+ left her at the gate of the Casantosan boarding house after her alleged trau*atic ordeal. Even though the+ supposedl+ did not tal;, the landlad+ could at least have testified on co*plainant@s ph+sical appearance and to attest to the theoriBed fact that indeed she sa$ co*plainant on said date and hour, possibl+ $ith dishevelled hair, blood+ s;irt and all. &e are, therefore, )ustifiedl+ inclined to believe appellant@s version that it $as =ia <aha $ho invited hi* to the boarding house to help her $ith the *onologue she $as preparing for the school contest. <his is even consonant $ith her testi*on+ that appellant fetched her the follo$ing da+ in order to solicit funds for her candidac+ in that sa*e school affair. In contrast, co*plainant@s professed reason for going to the boarding house is vague and tenuous. At first, she asserted that she $as at the boarding house tal;ing $ith a friend and then, later, she said it $as her cousin. ,ubseFuentl+, she again $avered and said that she $as not able to tal; to her cousin. Further*ore, she initiall+ stated that on !anuar+ /., .881 at around 0%44 P.=., she $as at the boarding house conversing $ith her cousin. <hen in the course of her narration, she gave another version and said that $hen she reached the boarding house it $as dar; and there $as nobod+ inside. <he apparent ease $ith $hich she changed or ad)usted her ans$ers in order to cover up or realign the sa*e $ith her prior inconsistent state*ents is readil+ apparent fro* her testi*on+ even on this single episode, thus% G ,o*eti*e on !anuar+ /., .881, at about 0%44 o@cloc; in the evening, do +ou re*e*ber $here +ou $ereH A Ies, sir.

Page1

G &here $ere +ouH A I $as in the boarding house of =erl+l+n Casantosan, ,ir. 222 222 222 G &h+ $ere +ou thereH A I $as conversing $ith *+ friend there, ,ir. C(:'<% G Conversing $ith $ho*H A &ith *+ cousin, Iour "onor. G Iour cousin@s na*eH A =erl+l+n Casantosan, Iour "onor. 222 222 222 P'(,EC:<(' 6:AIC(% G Iou said that this >ane or >ann+ 6odo+ raped +ou, $ill +ou please relate to this "onorable Court ho$ that rape happenedH A (n Frida+ and it $as 0%44 o@cloc; in the evening. C(:'<% G (f $hat dateH A !anuar+ /., .881, Iour "onor. 222 222 222 P'(,EC:<(' 6:AIC(% G <hen $hat happenedH A I $ent to the boarding house of *+ cousin =erl+l+n Casantosan. I passed through# the ;itchen and then $hen I opened the door so*ebod+ grabbed *e suddenl+. 222 222 222 G >uring that ti*e $ere there other people present in that boarding house $here +ou said >ann+ 6odo+ raped +ouH A None, ,ir. C(:'<% G ,o, the house $as e*pt+H A Ies, Iour "onor. G I thought +our cousin $as there and +ou $ere conversingH A &hen I $ent there she $as not there, Iour "onor. /0 Corrections and e*phasis supplied.# /. Co*plainant testified that appellant raped her through the use of force and inti*idation, specificall+ b+ holding a ;nife to her nec;. "o$ever, the ele*ent of force $as not sufficientl+ established. <he ph+sical facts adverted to b+ the lo$er court as corroborative of the prosecution@s theor+ on the use of force are undoubtedl+ the *edico-legal findings of >r. 'ogelio >ivinagracia. :pon closer scrutin+, ho$ever, $e find that said findings neither support nor confir* the charge that rape $as so co**itted through forcible *eans b+ appellant against co*plainant on !anuar+ /., .881. <he reported h+*enal laceration $hich, according to >r. >ivinagracia, $as a $ee; old and alread+ healed, and the conclusion therefro* that co*plainant had se2ual intercourse $ith a *an on the date $hich she alleged, do not establish the supposed rape since the sa*e findings and conclusion are li;e$ise consistent $ith appellant@s ad*ission that coitus too; place $ith the consent of co*plainant at ,unset 6arden on !anuar+ /1, .881. /3Further, rather than substantiating the prosecution@s aforesaid theor+ and the supposed date of co**ission of rape, the finding that there $ere no evident signs of e2tra-genital in)uries tends, instead, to lend *ore credence to appellant@s clai* of voluntar+ coition on a later date and the absence of a struggle or the lac; of e*plo+*ent of ph+sical force. /8 In rape of the nature alleged in this case, $e repeat, the testi*on+ of the co*plainant *ust be corroborated b+ ph+sical evidence sho$ing use of force. 74 <hus, on the basis of the laceration inflicted, $hich is superficial at 9 o@cloc; position, the aforesaid *edico-legal e2pert opined that it could not be categoricall+ stated that there $as force involved. (n further Fuestioning, he gave a straightfor$ard ans$er that force $as not applied. 7. "e also added that $hen he e2a*ined the patient bodil+, he did not see an+ sign of bruises. 7/ <he absence of an+ sign of ph+sical violence on the co*plainant@s bod+ is an indication of co*plainant@s consent to the act. 77 &hile the absence in the *edical certificate of e2ternal signs of ph+sical in)uries on the victi* does not necessaril+ negate the co**ission of rape, 71 the instant case is clearl+ an e2ception to this rule since appellant has successfull+ cast doubt on the veracit+ of that charge against hi*. Even granting e2 gratia argu*enti that the *edical report and the laceration corroborated co*plainant@s assertion that there $as se2ual intercourse, of course the sa*e cannot be said as to the alleged use of force. It has been held that such corroborative evidence is not considered sufficient, since proof of facts constituting one principal ele*ent of the cri*e is not corroborative proof of facts necessar+ to constitute another eFuall+ i*portant ele*ent of the cri*e. 75

Page1

Co*plainant testified that she struggled a little but it $as not reall+ strong because she $as afraid of appellant. Again assu*ing that a se2ual assault did ta;e place as she clai*s, $e nevertheless strongl+ believe that her supposed fear is *ore i*aginar+ than real. It is evident that co*plainant did not use the *anifest resistance e2pected of a $o*an defending her honor and chastit+. 79 ,he failed to *a;e an+ outcr+ $hen appellant allegedl+ grabbed her and dragged her inside the house. <here is li;e$ise no evidence on record that she put up a struggle $hen appellant forced her to lie on the floor, re*oved her pant+, opened the Bipper of his trousers, and inserted his organ inside her genitals. Neither did she de*onstrate that appellant, in co**itting the heinous act, sub)ected her to an+ force of $hatever nature or for*. Co*plainant@s e2planation for her failure to shout or struggle is too convenientl+ general and ruefull+ unconvincing to *a;e this Court believe that she tenaciousl+ resisted the alleged se2ual attac; on her b+ appellant. And, if ever she did put up an+ struggle or ob)ected at all to the involuntar+ intercourse, such $as not enough to sho$ the ;ind of resistance e2pected of a $o*an defending her virtue and honor. 70 "er failure to do an+thing $hile allegedl+ being raped renders doubtful her charge of rape, 73 especiall+ $hen $e consider the actual *ise-en-scene in the conte2t of her asseverations. <here is a rule that the rape victi*@s pant+ and blood-stained dress are not essential, and need not be presented, as the+ are not indispensable evidence to prove rape. 78 &e incline to the vie$, ho$ever, that this general rule holds true onl+ if there e2ist other corroborative evidence sufficientl+ and convincingl+ proving the rape charge be+ond reasonable doubt. <he rule should go the other $a+ $here, as in the present case, the testi*on+ of co*plainant is inherentl+ $ea; and no other ph+sical evidence has been presented to bolster the charge of se2ual abuse e2cept for the *edical report $hich, as earlier discussed, even negated the e2istence of one of the essential ele*ents of the cri*e. &e cannot, therefore, escape the irresistible conclusion that the deliberate non-presentation of co*plainant@s blood-stained s;irt, if it did e2ist, should vigorousl+ *ilitate against the prosecution@s cause. II. <he conduct of the outraged $o*an i**ediatel+ follo$ing the alleged assault is of the ut*ost i*portance as tending to establish the truth or falsit+ of the charge. It *a+ $ell be doubted $hether a conviction for the offense of rape should even be sustained fro* the uncorroborated testi*on+ of the $o*an unless the court is satisfied be+ond doubt that her conduct at the ti*e $hen the alleged rape $as co**itted and i**ediatel+ thereafter $as such as *ight be reasonabl+ e2pected fro* her under all the circu*stances of the case. 14 Co*plainant said that on the da+ follo$ing the supposed rape, appellant $ent to her parents@ house and as;ed per*ission fro* the* to allo$ her to go $ith hi* to solicit funds for her candidac+. No$here throughout her entire testi*on+ did she aver or i*pl+ that appellant $as ar*ed and that b+ reason thereof she $as forced to leave $ith hi*. In brief, she $as neither threatened nor inti*idated b+ appellant. "er pretense that she $as afraid of the supposed threat previousl+ *ade b+ appellant does not inspire belief since appellant $as alone and unar*ed on that occasion and there $as no sho$ing of an+ opportunit+ for hi* to *a;e good his threat, even assu*ing that he had reall+ voiced an+. (n the contrar+, co*plainant even ad*itted that appellant respectfull+ as;ed per*ission fro* her parents for her to acco*pan+ hi*. Co*plainant@s enig*atic behavior after her alleged ravish*ent can onl+ be described as parado2ical% it $as so strangel+ nor*al as to be abnor*al. 1. It see*s odd, if not incredible, that upon seeing the person $ho had allegedl+ raped her onl+ the da+ before, she did not accuse, revile or denounce hi*, or sho$ rage, revulsion, and disgust. 1/ Instead, she *ee;l+ $ent $ith appellant despite the presence of her parents and the pro2i*it+ of neighbors $hich, if onl+ for such facts, $ould naturall+ have deterred appellant fro* pursuing an+ evil design. Fro* her deport*ent, it does not appear that the alleged threat *ade b+ appellant had instilled an+ fear in the *ind of co*plainant. ,uch a nonchalant, unconcerned attitude is totall+ at odds $ith the de*eanor that $ould naturall+ be e2pected of a person $ho had )ust suffered the ulti*ate invasion of her $o*anhood. 17 III. 'ape is a ver+ e*otional $ord, and the natural hu*an reactions to it are categorical% ad*iration and s+*path+ for the courageous fe*ale publicl+ see;ing retribution for her outrageous violation, and conde*nation of the rapist. "o$ever, being interpreters of the la$ and dispensers of )ustice, )udges *ust loo; at a rape charge $ithout those proclivities, and deal $ith it $ith e2tre*e caution and circu*spection. !udges *ust free the*selves of the natural tendenc+ to be overprotective of ever+ $o*an decr+ing her having been se2uall+ abused, and de*anding punish*ent for the abuser. &hile the+ ought to be cogniBant of the anguish and hu*iliation the rape victi* goes through as she de*ands )ustice, )udges should eFuall+ bear in *ind that their responsibilit+ is to render )ustice based on the la$. 11 <he rule, therefore, that this Court generall+ desists fro* disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the credibilit+ of $itnesses 15 $ill not appl+ $here the evidence of record fails to support or substantiate the lo$er court@s findings of fact and conclusionsC or $here the lo$er court overloo;ed certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, $ould affect the outco*e of the caseC or $here the disputed decision is based on a *isapprehension of facts. 19 <he trial court here unfortunatel+ relied solel+ on the lone testi*on+ of co*plainant regarding the !anuar+ /., .881 incident. Indeed, it is eas+ to allege that one $as raped b+ a *an. All that the victi* had to testif+ to $as that appellant po;ed a ;nife at her, threatened to ;ill her if she shouted and under these threats, undressed her and had se2ual intercourse $ith her. <he Fuestion then that confronts the trial court is $hether or not co*plainant@s testi*on+ is credible. 10 <he techniFue in deciphering testi*on+ is not to solel+ concentrate on isolated parts of that testi*on+. <he correct *eaning of the testi*on+ can often be ascertained onl+ upon a perusal of the entire testi*on+. Ever+thing stated b+ the $itness has to be considered in relation to $hat else has been stated. 13 In the case at bar, the challenged decision definitel+ leaves *uch to be desired. <he court belo$ *ade no serious effort to dispassionatel+ or i*partiall+ consider the totalit+ of the evidence for the prosecution in spite of the teaching in various rulings that in rape cases, the testi*on+ of the offended part+ *ust not be accepted $ith precipitate credulit+. 18 In finding that the cri*e of rape $as co**itted, the lo$er court too; into account onl+ that portion of the testi*on+ of co*plainant regarding the !anuar+ /., .881 incident and convenientl+ deleted the rest. <a;en singl+, there $ould be reason to believe that she $as indeed raped. But if $e are to consider the other portions of her testi*on+ concerning the events $hich transpired thereafter, $hich unfortunatel+ the court a Fuo$ittingl+ or un$ittingl+ failed or declined to appreciate, the actual truth could have been readil+ e2posed. <here are easil+ perceived or discernible defects in co*plainant@s testi*on+ $hich inveigh against its being accorded the full credit it $as given b+ the trial court. Considered independentl+ of an+ other, the defects *ight not suffice to overturn the trial court@s )udg*ent of convictionC but assessed and $eighed con)ointl+, as logic and fairness dictate, the+ e2ert a po$erful co*pulsion to$ards reversal of said )udg*ent. 54 <hus%

Page1

.. Co*plainant said that she $as continuousl+ raped b+ herein appellant at the ,unset 6arden and around three ti*es at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision. In her s$orn state*ent she *ade the sa*e allegations. If this $ere true, it is inconceivable ho$ the investigating prosecutor could have overloo;ed these facts $ith their obvious legal i*plications and, instead, filed an infor*ation charging appellant $ith onl+ one count of rape. <he incredibilit+ of co*plainant@s representations is further *agnified b+ the fact that even the trial court did not believe it, as *a+ be inferred fro* its failure to consider this aspect of her testi*on+, unless $e $ere to uncharitabl+ assu*e that it $as si*ilarl+ befuddled. /. ,he clai*s that appellant al$a+s carried a ;nife, but it $as never e2plained ho$ she $as threatened $ith the sa*e in such a *anner that she $as allegedl+ al$a+s co$ed into giving in to his innu*erable se2ual de*ands. &e are not una$are that in rape cases, this clai* that co*plainant no$ advances appears to be a co**on testi*onial e2pedient and face-saving subterfuge. 7. According to her, the+ sta+ed at ,unset 6arden for three da+s and three nights and that she never noticed if appellant slept because she never sa$ hi* close his e+es. Iet, $hen as;ed if she slept side b+ side $ith appellant, co*plainant ad*itted that ever+ti*e she $o;e up, appellant $as invariabl+ in bed beside her. 5. 1. ,he alleged that she could never go out of the roo* because it $as al$a+s loc;ed and it could not be opened fro* the inside. But, this $as refuted b+ co*plainant@s o$n testi*on+, as follo$s% G And +et the door could be opened b+ +ou fro* the insideH A No, ,ir, it $as loc;ed. G Can +ou describe the loc; of that roo*H A It@s li;e that of the door $here there is a door;nob. A<<I. EB(-% -et it be recorded that the loc; is a door;nob and *a+ I as; that the door be loc;ed and opened fro* the inside. C(:'<% Alright sic# +ou go do$n the $itness stand and find out for +ourself if +ou can open that door fro* the inside. C-E'P (F C(:'<% &itness holding the door;nob. C(:'<% <he ;e+ is *ade to open if +ou are outside, but as +ou@re $ere sic# inside +ou can open itH A Ies, sir. G Is there no other loc; aside fro* that door;nob that +ou heldH A <here $as, Iour "onor. G &hat is thatH A <he one that slides, Iour "onor. G And that is used $hen +ou are alread+ insideH A Ies, Iour "onor. 5/ E*phases ours.# 5. >uring their entire sta+ at the ,unset 6arden or even at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, be+ond supposedl+ offering to;en or futile resistance to the latter@s se2ual advances, she *ade no outcr+, no atte*pt to flee or attract attention to her plight. 57 In her o$n declaration, co*plainant *entioned that $hen the+ chec;ed in at ,unset 6arden, she sa$ the cashier at the infor*ation counter $here appellant registered. ,he did not do an+thing, despite the fact that appellant at that ti*e $as ad*ittedl+ not ar*ed. ,he li;e$ise stated that a roo* bo+ usuall+ $ent to their roo* and brought the* food. If indeed she $as bent on fleeing fro* appellant, she could have grabbed ever+ possible opportunit+ to escape. Ine2plicabl+, she did not. &hat li;e$ise appears puBBling is the prosecution@s failure to present these t$o people she *entioned and $hose testi*onies could have bolstered or corroborated co*plainant@s stor+. 9. &hen appellant fetched co*plainant in the afternoon of !anuar+ //, .881, the+ left the house together and $al;ed in going to the high$a+. In her o$n testi*on+, co*plainant stated that appellant $ent ahead of her. It is highl+ i*probable, if appellant reall+ had evil *otives, that he $ould be that careless. It is li;e$ise be+ond co*prehension that appellant $as capable of instilling such fear in co*plainant that she could not dare ta;e advantage of the situation, in spite of the la2it+ of appellant, and run as far a$a+ fro* hi* as possible despite all the chances therefor. 0. "elen <aha, the *other of =ia, testified that as a result of the filing of the rape case, co*plainant $as dropped fro* school and $as not allo$ed to graduate. <his is absurd. 'ather than support and co**iserate $ith the ill-fated victi* of rape, it $ould appear that the school authorities $ere heartless people $ho turned their bac;s on her and considered her an outcast. <hat $ould be adding insult to in)ur+. But $hat is *ore abstruse +et significant is that =ia and her parents $ere never heard to co*plain about this apparent in)ustice. ,uch co*placenc+ cannot but *a;e one thin; and conclude that there *ust necessaril+ have been a valid )ustification for the drastic action ta;en b+ the school and the docile sub*ission thereto b+ the <aha fa*il+. (n the other hand, in evaluating appellant@s testi*on+, the trial court@s decision $as replete $ith s$eeping state*ents and generaliBations. It chose to focus on certain portions of appellant@s testi*on+, declared the* to be preposterous and abnor*al, and then hastened to conclude that appellant is indeed guilt+. <he court in effect rendered a )udg*ent of conviction based, not on the strength of the prosecution@s evidence, but on the $ea;ness of that of the defense, $hich is totall+ repugnant to the ele*entar+ and ti*e-honored rule that conviction should be *ade on the basis of strong, clear and co*pelling evidence of the prosecution. 51

Page1

IE. <he *ain defense proffered b+ appellant is that he and co*plainant $ere s$eethearts. &hile the "s$eetheart theor+" does not often gain favor $ith this Court, such is not al$a+s the case if the hard fact is that the accused and the supposed victi* are, in truth, inti*atel+ related e2cept that, as is usual in *ost cases, either the relationship is illicit or the victi*@s parents are against it. It is not i*probable that in so*e instances, $hen the relationship is uncovered, the alleged victi* or her parents for that *atter $ould rather ta;e the ris; of instituting a cri*inal action in the hope that the court $ould ta;e the cudgels for the* than for the $o*an to ad*it to her o$n acts of indiscretion. And this, as the records reveal, is precisel+ $hat happened to appellant. Appellant@s clai* that he and co*plainant $ere lovers is fortified b+ the highl+ credible testi*onies of several $itnesses for the defense, viB.% .. Filo*ena Pielago testified that on the night of !anuar+ /., .881, she sa$ appellant and co*plainant sitting on a bench in front of the house $here the se2ual attac; allegedl+ too; place, and the couple $ere tal;ing inti*atel+. ,he had $arned =ia about the latter@s illicit affair $ith appellant. /. Fernando 'ubio, an acFuaintance of appellant and o$ner of the house at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, testified that he as;ed =ia $h+ she decided to have an affair $ith appellant $ho is a *arried *an. =ia ans$ered that she reall+ loves hi*. 55 "e heard her call appellant "Papa". 59 <he couple loo;ed happ+ and $ere s$eet to each other. 50 7. Benedicto 'ubio, the +ounger brother of Fernando, testified on redirect e2a*ination that he as;ed =ia if she ;ne$ $hat she getting into and she ans$ered, "IesC" then he as;ed her if she reall+ loved ,ir 6odo+, and she again ans$ered in the affir*ative. &hen he $as tr+ing to give counsel to appellant, co*plainant announced that if appellant left her, she $ould co**it suicide. 53 "e could see that the couple $ere happ+ together. 58 1. Isagani Eire+, $ho ;ne$ appellant because the =unicipal Engineering (ffice $here he $or;ed $as located $ithin the pre*ises of PN,, attested that he $as able to tal; to the couple and that $hen he $as advising appellant that $hat he $as doing is $rong because he is *arried and =ia is his student, co*plainant reacted b+ sa+ing that no *atter $hat happened she $ould not leave 6odo+, and that if she $ent ho*e her father $ould ;ill her. 94 "e also observed that the+ $ere happ+. 9. 5. Erna Baradero, a co-teacher of appellant, sa$ the couple the da+ before the alleged rape incident, inside one of the classroo*s and the+ $ere holding hands, and she heard =ia tell appellant, "=ahal na *ahal ;ita ,ir, i$anan *o ang i+ong asa$a at tata;as ta+o." 9/ ,he tried to dissuade co*plainant fro* continuing $ith her relationship $ith appellant. 97 <he positive allegations of appellant that he $as having an inti*ate relationship $ith co*plainant, $hich $ere substantiall+ corroborated b+ several $itnesses, $ere never successfull+ confuted. <he rebuttal testi*on+ of co*plainant *erel+ consisted of bare, une2plained denials of the positive, definite, consistent and detailed assertions of appellant. 91 =ere denials are self-serving negative evidence. <he+ cannot obtain evidentiar+ $eight greater than the declarations of credible disinterested $itnesses. 95 Besides, appellant recounted certain facts that onl+ he could have supplied. <he+ $ere replete $ith details $hich could have been ;no$n onl+ to hi*, thereb+ lending credence and reliabilit+ thereto. 99 "is assertions are *ore logical, probable and bear the ear*ar;s of truth. <his is not to sa+ that the testi*on+ of appellant should be accorded full credence. "is selfinterest *ust have colored his account, even on the assu*ption that he could be trusted to stic; to the literal truth. Nonetheless, there is *uch in his version that does not strain the li*its of credulit+. =ore to the point, there is enough to raise doubts that do appear to have so*e basis in realit+. 90 <hus, the trial court@s hast+ pontification that appellant@s testi*on+ is i*probable, ridiculous, nonsensical and incredible is highl+ uncalled for. <he rule of falsus in uno, falsus in o*nibus is not *andator+. It is not a positive rule of la$ and is not an infle2ible one. 93 It does not appl+ $here there is sufficient corroboration on *an+ grounds of the testi*on+ and the supposed inconsistencies arise *erel+ fro* a desire of the $itness to e2culpate hi*self although not co*pletel+. 98 Co*plainant@s denial that she and appellant $ere lovers is belied b+ the evidence presented b+ the defense, the *ost telling of $hich are her t$o hand$ritten letters, E2hibits "." and "/", $hich she sent to the latter $hile he $as detained at the provincial )ail. For anal+sis and e*phasis, said letters are herein Fuoted in full% /0 Feb. 81 >ane, Pu*usta ;anaH Pong a;o hito hindi na *a;atiis sa sa;it. ,ir, su*ulat a;o sa in+o dahil gusto ;ong *ala*an *o ang situation ;o. ,ir, ;ong *ahal *o a;o gaga$a ;ang paraan na *aila+o a;o dito sa baha+. nala*an ng nana+ at tata+ ;o na dela+ed ang *ens ;o ng one $ee;. pinapaino* nila a;o ng pa*palaglag pero a+a$ ;o. pagnala*an nila na hindi ;o inino* ang ga*ot sinasa;tan nila a;o. ,ir, ;ong *aari a+ hu$ag ng *aabutan ng =artes. dahil naabutan nila a;ong *agla+as sana a;o. ;a+a nga+on hindi a;o *a;alabas ng baha+ ;ong $ala a;ong ;asa*a, ;ong gaano sila ;ahigpit noon doble pa nga+on. ang *ga ga*it ;o nga+on a+ $ala sa lalag+an ;o. tinago nila hindi ;o *a;ita, ang narito lang a+ ang bihisan ;ong lu*a. ,ir ;ong *anghira* ;a ;a+a ng *otor na gaga*itin sa pag;uha sa a;in. ,a lunes ng gabi *anonood ;a*i Ng Eeta e;sa;to alas 8%44 a+ dapat dito ;a sa lugar na *a+ Eeta. tanungin *o lang ;a+ -orna ;ong saan ang Eeta nila Navoor -oBot. =ag busina ;a lang ng tatlo bilang sen+as na lalabas na a;o at hu$ag ;ang tatapat ng baha+ dahil nandoon ang ;u+a ;o. ;ong ano ang disis+on *o *aari bang *agsulat ;a at ipahatid ;a+ -orna. alang-alang sa bata. Ba;a *a;ainon a;o ng ga*ot dahil ba;a pag;ain ;o hahaluan nila. Please sir . . . ,gd.# =ia <aha 04 7D.D81

I@* sorr+ ;ong proble* ang ipinadala o sinulat sa i+o sa halip sa ;asi+ahan. oo nag usap na ta+o naga$a ;o lang na*an ang su*ulat sa i+o dahil naiinis na a;o sa pag*u*u;ha ng *ga *agulang ;ong su$apang. Ang pagla+as ;o sana

Page1

>ane,

a+ dahil sa narinig ;o. ,ir narinig ;o na *agre;la*o si nana+ ;a+ ArFuero +ong superentende sa Pala$an high tapos ang sabi a+ *agre;la*o itong si ArFuero sa >EC, para *atanggal ;a sa pagtuturo +an ang dahilan ;ong ba;it naisipan ;ong lu*a+as ng $ala sa oras at $ala a;ong tens+on na *asa*a laban so i+o. hindi ;o sinabi sa ;anila na dela+ed a;o a+ sinabi sa i+o ni Eden na sa harap ni+a *is*o binig+an a;o ng ga*ot sa*antalang noong ,abado ng gabi lang nala*an dahil gusto ;ong *asu;a. (o aa*inin ;o nag;asala a;o sa i+o, pinabilanggo ;ita dahil nagpanig a;o sa *ga *agulang ;o nadala nila a;o sa sulsul nila. hindi ;o naipaglaban ang dapat ;ong ipaglaban ngunit ;ong iniisip *ong *inahal lang ;ita dahil sa *a+ ;ailangan lang a;o sa i+o nag;a;a*ali ;a. ala* ng >i+os na hindi ganon ang hangarin ;o sa i+o. higit pa sa binilanggo ang ;alaga+an ;o ;ong ala* *o. ;inu;unsinsi+a, nagtitiis na sa;tan at pagsasa;ripis+o ng da*da*in ;o na gusto ;ang *a;ita at +a;apin ;a pero ano ang *agaga$a ;o ;ong ang paglabas ;o ng baha+ a+ hindi a;o *a;alabas ng *ag isa *a+ guardi+a pa. tanungin *o si -orna ;ong ano ginaga$a nilang pagbanta+ sa a;in para a;ong puganti. hindi ito a+on sa ;agustuhan ng *ga *agulang ;o sarili ;ong plano ito. =agtitiis pa ba a;ong hindi *a;a;ain *aghapon tubig lang ang la*an ng ti+an, ;ong *a+ *asa*a a;ong hangarin sa i+o. (o, *agtiis a;o para *aipa;ita ;ong *ahal rin ;ita. =arch / darating a;o sa baha+ na sinasabi *o. hindi ;o *ati+a; ;ong anong oras dahil ;u;uha pa a;o ng ti+e*po na $ala rito ang tata+ ;o. Ala* *o bang pati ang ;apatid ;ong si 'o$ena a+ inuutusan a;ong lu*a+as dahil naa$a no si+a sa situation ;o. si+a lang ang ;a;a*pi ;o rito sa baha+ *ala;i ang pagasa ;ong *a;alabas a;o ng baha+ sa tulong ni+a. -ove +ou ,gd.# =ia <aha 0. <here is absolutel+ nothing left to the i*agination. <he letters eloFuentl+ spea; for the*selves. It $as co*plainant@s hand$riting $hich spilled the beans, so to spea;. Aside fro* appellant, t$o other defense $itnesses identified the hand$riting on the letters as belonging to =ia <aha. <he+ are Filo*ena Pielago and Erna Baradero $ho $ere ad*ittedl+ the for*er teachers of co*plainant and highl+ fa*iliar $ith her hand$riting. <he greatest blunder co**itted b+ the trial court $as in ignoring the testi*onies of these Fualified $itnesses and refusing to give an+ probative value to these t$o vital pieces of evidence, on the dubious and la*e prete2t that no hand$riting e2pert $as presented to anal+Be and evaluate the sa*e. &ell-entrenched b+ no$ is the rule that resort to Fuestioned docu*ent e2a*iners, *ore fa*iliarl+ called hand$riting e2perts, is not *andator+. "and$riting e2perts, $hile probabl+ useful, are not indispensable in e2a*ining or co*paring hand$riting. 0/ <his is so since under ,ection //, 'ule .7/ of the 'ules of Court, the hand$riting of a person *a+ be proved b+ an+ $itness $ho believes it to be the hand$riting of such person, because he has seen the person $rite, or has seen $riting purporting to be his upon $hich the $itness has acted or been charged, and has thus acFuired ;no$ledge of the hand$riting of such person. <he said section further provides that evidence respecting the hand$riting *a+ also be given b+ a co*parison, *ade b+ the $itness or the court, $ith $ritings ad*itted or treated as genuine b+ the part+ against $ho* the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the )udge. 07 <he defense $itnesses $ere able to identif+ co*plainant@s hand$riting on the basis of the e2a*ination papers sub*itted to the* b+ her in their respective sub)ects. <his Court has li;e$ise carefull+ e2a*ined and co*pared the hand$riting on the letters $ith the standard $riting appearing on the test papers as speci*ens for co*parison and, contrar+ to the observations and conclusions of the lo$er court, $e are convinced be+ond doubt that the+ $ere $ritten b+ one and the sa*e person. =ore i*portantl+, co*plainant herself categoricall+ ad*itted that the hand$riting on the Fuestioned letters belongs to her. It is, therefore, e2tre*el+ disconcerting, to sa+ the least, $h+ the trial court again chose to turn a deaf ear to this conclusive portion of co*plainant@s testi*on+% A<<I. EB(-% G >id I get +ou right on rebuttal that =rs. Erna Baradero and Filo*ena Pielago $ere +our teachersH A Ies, sir. G And the+ have been +our teachers for several *onths before this incident of !anuar+ /., .881, a* I not correctH A <hat is true, sir. G And +ou have sic# during these past *onths that the+ have been +our teachers +ou too; e2a*inations in their classes in their particular sub)ect s#H A Ies, sir. G And so*e of those test papers are in the possession of +our teachers, a* I correctH A Ies, sir. G I $ill sho$ +ou E2hibit "1" previousl+ *ar;ed as E2hibit "1", it appears to be +our test paper and $ith +our signature and the alphabet appears in this e2hibit appears to be that of =ia <aha, please e2a*ine this and tell the "onorable Court if that is +our test paperH A Ies, sir. G <hat signature =ia <aha I understand is also +our signatureH A Ies, sir. G I $ill sho$ +ou E2hibit "1-A", $ill +ou please e2a*ine this E2hibit "1-A" and tell this "onorable Court if +ou are fa*iliar $ith that. A &hat sub)ect is thatH G I a* )ust as;ing +ou $hether +ou are fa*iliar $ith that. A I cannot re*e*ber if I have this ;ind of sub)ect, sir. G "o$ about this signature =ia <aha, are +ou not fa*iliar $ith that signatureH

Page1

A <hat is *in e#, sir. G I $ill sho$ +ou E2hibit "1-C" $hich appears to be that in =ath, are +ou fa*iliar $ith that signatureH A Ies, sir. G <hat is +our signatureH A Ies, sir. G In fact, these letters in alphabet here are in +our o$n hand$ritingH A Ies, sir. 222 222 222 G Iou $ill den+ this E2hibit "." +our signatureH 222 222 222 G Iou $ill den+ that this is +our hand$ritingH A <hat is *+ hand$riting, sir. G Also E2hibit "/"H A Ies, sir. 01 &hile rebuttal $itness -orna Casantosan insisted that she never delivered an+ letter of co*plainant to herein appellant, the $itness presented b+ the defense on sur-rebuttal, Ar*ando Pasion, $ho $as the guard on dut+ at the provincial )ail at that ti*e, testified of his o$n accord because he ;ne$ that $hat Casantosan said $as a blatant lie. Appellant never tal;ed to A*ando Pasion nor reFuested hi* to testif+ for the defense, as related b+ the $itness hi*self. "ence, there e2ists no reason $hatsoever to disbelieve the testi*on+ of $itness Pasion to the effect that -orna Casantosan actuall+ $ent to visit appellant in )ail and in truth handed to hi* $hat turned out to be the letters *ar;ed as E2hibits "." and "/" for the defense. E. <he prosecution insists that the offer of co*pro*ise *ade b+ appellant is dee*ed to be an ad*ission of guilt. <his inference does not arise in the instant case. In cri*inal cases, an offer of co*pro*ise is generall+ ad*issible as evidence against the part+ *a;ing it. It is a legal *a2i*, $hich assuredl+ constitutes one of the bases of the right to penaliBe, that in the *atter of public cri*es $hich directl+ affect the public interest, no co*pro*ise $hatever *a+ be entered into as regards the penal action. It has long been held, ho$ever, that in such cases the accused is per*itted to sho$ that the offer $as not *ade under a consciousness of guilt, but *erel+ to avoid the inconvenience of i*prison*ent or for so*e other reason $hich $ould )ustif+ a clai* b+ the accused that the offer to co*pro*ise $as not in truth an ad*ission of his guilt or an atte*pt to avoid the legal conseFuences $hich $ould ordinaril+ ensue therefro*. 05 A pri*ar+ consideration here is that the evidence for the defense over$hel*ingl+ proves appellant@s innocence of the offense charged. Further, the supposed offer of *arriage did not co*e fro* appellant but $as actuall+ suggested b+ a certain Nae*, $ho is an i*a* or =usli* leader and $ho li;e$ise infor*ed appellant that he could be converted into a =usli* so he could *arr+ co*plainant. As a *atter of fact, $hen said offer $as first *ade to appellant, he declined because of the fact that he $as alread+ *arried. (n top of these, appellant did not ;no$, not until the trial proper, that his *other actuall+ paid P74,444.44 for the settle*ent of these cases. Co*plainant@s o$n *other, "elen <aha, testified that present during the negotiations $ere herself, her husband, =ia, and appellant@s *other. Appellant hi*self $as never present in an+ of said *eetings. 09 It has been held that $here the accused $as not present at the ti*e the offer for *onetar+ consideration $as *ade, such offer of co*pro*ise $ould not save the da+ for the prosecution. 00 In another case, this Court ruled that no i*plied ad*ission can be dra$n fro* the efforts to arrive at a settle*ent outside the court, $here the accused did not ta;e part in an+ of the negotiations and the effort to settle the case $as in accordance $ith the established tribal custo*s, that is, =usli* practices and traditions, in an effort to prevent further deterioration of the relations bet$een the parties. 03 EI. 6enerall+, an affidavit of desistance b+ the co*plainant is not loo;ed upon $ith favor. It *a+, ho$ever, create serious doubts as to the liabilit+ of appellant, especiall+ if it corroborates appellant@s e2planation about the filing of cri*inal charges. 08 In the cases at bar, the letters $ritten b+ co*plainant to appellant are ver+ revealing. =ost probabl+ $ritten out of desperation and e2asperation $ith the $a+ she $as being treated b+ her parents, co*plainant thre$ all caution to the $inds $hen she $rote% "(o, aa*inin ;o nag;asala a;o sa i+o, pinabilanggo ;ita dahil nagpanig a;o sa *ga *agulang ;o nadala nila a;o sa sulsul nila, hindi ;o naipaglaban ang dapat ;ong ipaglaban," obviousl+ referring to her ineptitude and i*potence in helping appellant out of his predica*ent. It could, therefore, be safel+ presu*ed that the rape charge $as *erel+ an offshoot of the discover+ b+ her parents of the inti*ate relationship bet$een her and appellant. In order to avoid retribution fro* her parents, together $ith the *oral pressure e2erted upon her b+ her *other, she $as forced to concoct her account of the alleged rape. <he Court ta;es )udicial cogniBance of the fact that in rural areas in the Philippines, +oung ladies are strictl+ reFuired to act $ith circu*spection and prudence. 6reat caution is observed so that their reputations shall re*ain untainted. An+ breath of scandal $hich brings dishonor to their character hu*iliates their entire fa*ilies. 34 It could precisel+ be that co*plainant@s *other $anted to save face in the co**unit+ $here ever+bod+ ;no$s ever+bod+ else, and in an effort to conceal her daughter@s indiscretion and escape the $agging tongues of their s*all rural co**unit+, she had to $eave the scenario of this rape dra*a. Although the trial court did observe that a *other $ould not sacrifice her daughter to tell a stor+ of defloration, that is not al$a+s the case as this Court has noted a long ti*e ago. <he boo;s disclose too *an+ instances of false charges of rape. 3. &hile this Court has, in nu*erous cases, affir*ed the )udg*ents of conviction rendered b+ trial courts in rape charges, especiall+ $here the offended parties $ere ver+ +oung and presu*ptivel+ had no ill *otives to concoct a stor+ )ust to secure indict*ents for a cri*e as grave as rape, the Court has li;e$ise reversed )udg*ents of conviction and acFuitted the accused $hen there are strong indications pointing to the possibilit+ that the rape charges $ere *erel+ *otivated b+

Page1

so*e factors e2cept the truth as to their co**ission. 3/ <his is a case in point. <he Court, therefore, cannot abdicate its dut+ to declare that the prosecution has failed to *eet the e2acting test of *oral certaint+ and proof of guilt of appellant be+ond reasonable doubt. <his is not to sa+ that the Court approves of the conduct of appellant. Indisputabl+, he too; advantage of co*plainant@s feelings for hi* and breached his vo$ of fidelit+ to his $ife. As her teacher, he should have acted as adviser and counselor to co*plainant and helped her develop in *anners and virtue instead of corrupting her. 37"ence, even as he is freed fro* ph+sical detention in a prison as an instru*ent of hu*an )ustice, he re*ains in the spiritual confine*ent of his conscience as a *easure of divine retribution. Additionall+, these ru*inations do not rule out such other legal options against hi* as *a+ be available in the arsenal of statutor+ la$. EII. <he trial court, in holding for conviction, relied on the presu*ptio ho*inis that a +oung Filipina $ill not charge a person $ith rape if it is not true. In the process, ho$ever, it totall+ disregarded the *ore para*ount constitutional presu*ption that an accused is dee*ed innocent until proven other$ise. It freFuentl+ happens that in a particular case t$o or *ore presu*ptions are involved. ,o*eti*es the presu*ptions conflict, one tending to de*onstrate the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. In such case, it is necessar+ to e2a*ine the basis for each presu*ption and deter*ine $hat logical or social basis e2ists for each presu*ption, and then deter*ine $hich should be regarded as the *ore i*portant and entitled to prevail over the other. It *ust, ho$ever, be re*e*bered that the e2istence of a presu*ption indicating guilt does not in itself destro+ the presu*ption against innocence unless the inculpating presu*ption, together $ith all of the evidence, or the lac; of an+ evidence or e2planation, is sufficient to overco*e the presu*ption of innocence b+ proving the defendant@s guilt be+ond a reasonable doubt. :ntil the defendant@s guilt is sho$n in this *anner, the presu*ption of innocence continues. 31 <he rationale for the presu*ption of guilt in rape cases has been e2plained in this $ise% In rape cases especiall+, *uch credence is accorded the testi*on+ of the co*plaining $itness, on the theor+ that she $ill not choose to accuse her attac;er at all and sub)ect herself to the stig*a and indignities her accusation $ill entail unless she is telling the truth. <he rape victi* $ho decides to spea; up e2poses herself as a $o*an $hose virtue has been not onl+ violated but also irreparabl+ sullied. In the e+es of a narro$-*inded societ+, she beco*es a cheapened $o*an, never *ind that she did not sub*it to her hu*iliation and has in fact denounced her assailant. At the trial, she $ill be the ob)ect of lascivious curiosit+. People $ill $ant to be titillated b+ the inti*ate details of her violation. ,he $ill sFuir* through her testi*on+ as she describes ho$ her honor $as defiled, relating ever+ e*barrassing *ove*ent of the intrusion upon the *ost private parts of her bod+. =ost freFuentl+, the defense $ill argue that she $as not forced to sub*it but freel+ con)oined in the se2ual act. "er *otives $ill be i*pugned. "er chastit+ $ill be challenged and *aligned. &hatever the outco*e of the case, she $ill re*ain a tainted $o*an, a pariah because her purit+ has been lost, albeit through no fault of hers. <his is $h+ *an+ a rape victi* chooses instead to ;eep Fuiet, suppressing her helpless indignation rather than denouncing her attac;er. <his is also the reason $h+, if a $o*an decides instead to co*e out openl+ and point to her assailant, courts are prone to believe that she is telling the truth regardless of its conseFuences. . . . 35 <he presu*ption of innocence, on the other hand, is founded upon the first principles of )ustice, and is not a *ere for* but a substantial part of the la$. It is not overco*e b+ *ere suspicion or con)ectureC a probabilit+ that the defendant co**itted the cri*eC nor b+ the fact that he had the opportunit+ to do so. 39 Its purpose is to balance the scales in $hat $ould other$ise be an uneven contest bet$een the lone individual pitted against the People and all the resources at their co**and. Its ine2orable *andate is that, for all the authorit+ and influence of the prosecution, the accused *ust be acFuitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved be+ond the $hisper of a doubt. 30 <his is in consonance $ith the rule that conflicts in evidence *ust be resolved upon the theor+ of innocence rather than upon a theor+ of guilt $hen it is possible to do so. 33 (n the basis of the foregoing doctrinal tenets and principles, and in con)unction $ith the over$hel*ing evidence in favor of herein appellant, $e do not encounter an+ difficult+ in concluding that the constitutional presu*ption on the innocence of an accused *ust prevail in this particular indict*ent. B. <he PidnappingDIllegal >etention Case It is basic that for ;idnapping to e2ist, there *ust be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the *alefactor $as to deprive the offended part+ of her libert+. 38 In the present charge for that cri*e, such intent has not at all been established b+ the prosecution. Prescinding fro* the fact that the <aha spouses desisted fro* pursuing this charge $hich the+ the*selves instituted, several grave and irreconcilable inconsistencies bedevil the prosecution@s evidence thereon and cast serious doubts on the guilt of appellant, as hereunder e2plained% <o recall, co*plainant testified that appellant b+ hi*self $ent to fetch her at her parents@ house the da+ after the alleged rape incident. In her o$n $ords, appellant courteousl+ as;ed her parents to per*it her to help hi* solicit contributions for her candidac+. &hen the+ left the house, appellant $al;ed ahead of her, obviousl+ $ith her parents and their neighbors $itnessing their departure. It is difficult to co*prehend ho$ one could deduce fro* these nor*al and innocuous arrange*ent an+ felonious intent of appellant to deprive co*plainant of her libert+. (ne $ill loo; in vain for a case $here a ;idnapping $as co**itted under such inauspicious circu*stances as described b+ co*plainant. Appellant declared that $hen the+ left the house of the <aha fa*il+, co*plainant $as bringing $ith her a plastic bag $hich later turned out to contain her clothes. <his bag $as left behind b+ =ia at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, as hereinbefore noted, and $as later delivered to appellant b+ Benedicto 'ubio. Again, $e cannot conceive of a ridiculous situation $here the ;idnap victi* $as first allo$ed to prepare and pac; her clothes, as if she $as *erel+ leaving for a pleasant so)ourn $ith the cri*inal, all these $ith the ;no$ledge and consent of her parents $ho passivel+ loo;ed on $ithout co**ent. Co*plainant alleged that appellant al$a+s ;ept her loc;ed inside the roo* $hich the+ occupied, $hether at ,unset 6arden or at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, and that she could not unloc; the door fro* the inside. &e *ust, ho$ever, recall that $hen she $as as;ed on cross-e2a*ination about the ;ind of loc; that $as used, she pointed to the door;nob of the courtroo*. <he court then ordered that the door of the courtroo* be loc;ed and then as;ed co*plainant to open it fro* the inside. ,he $as easil+ able to do so and, in fact, she ad*itted that the t$o loc;s in the roo* at ,unset 6arden could also be opened fro* the inside in the sa*e *anner. <his de*onstrabl+ undeniable fact $as never assailed b+ the prosecution. It also failed to rebut the testi*on+ of Fernando 'ubio that the roo* $hich $as occupied b+ the couple at Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision could not even be loc;ed because the loc; thereof $as bro;en.

Page1

&hen the couple transferred to Ed$ard@s ,ubdivision, the+ $al;ed along the national high$a+ in broad da+light. Co*plainant, therefore, had *ore than a*ple opportunit+ to see; the help of other people and free herself fro* appellant if it $ere true that she $as forcibl+ ;idnapped and abused b+ the latter. 84 In fact, several opportunities to do so had presented the*selves fro* the ti*e the+ left co*plainant@s ho*e and during their e2tended sta+ in the hotel and in the lodging house. According to appellant, he $ent to see the parents of co*plainant the da+ after the+ $ent to ,unset 6arden to infor* the* that =ia spent the night in said place. <his $as neither denied nor i*pugned b+ "elen <aha, her husband, or an+ other person. (n the other hand, the allegation of "elen <aha that she *ade a report to the police about her *issing daughter $as not supported b+ an+ corroborative evidence, such as the police blotter, nor $as the police officer to $ho* she allegedl+ reported the incident ever identified or presented in court. &e agree $ith appellant@s contention that the prosecution failed to prove an+ *otive on his part for the co**ission of the cri*e charged. In one case, this Court re)ected the ;idnapping charge $here there $as not the slightest hint of a *otive for the cri*e. 8. It is true that, as a rule, the *otive of the accused in a cri*inal case is i**aterial and, not being an ele*ent of a cri*e, it does not have to be proved. 8/ &here, ho$ever, the evidence is $ea;, $ithout an+ *otive being disclosed b+ the evidence, the guilt of the accused beco*es open to a reasonable doubt and, hence, an acFuittal is in order. 87 No$here in the testi*on+ of either the co*plainant or her *other can an+ ill *otive of a cri*inal nature be reasonabl+ dra$n. &hat actuall+ transpired $as an elope*ent or a lovers@ tr+st, i**oral though it *a+ be. As a closing note, $e are be$ildered b+ the trial court@s refusal to ad*it in evidence the bag of clothes belonging to co*plainant $hich $as presented and dul+ identified b+ the defense, on its announced supposition that the clothes could have easil+ been bought fro* a depart*ent store. ,uch preposterous reasoning founded on a *ere sur*ise or speculation, aside fro* the fact that on rebuttal the prosecution did not even see; to elicit an e2planation or clarification fro* co*plainant about said clothes, strengthens and reinforces our i*pression of an apparentl+ $hi*sical e2ercise of discretion b+ the court belo$. =atters $hich could have been easil+ verified $ere thus cavalierl+ dis*issed and supplanted b+ a con)ecture, and on such inferential basis a conclusion $as then dra$n b+ said court. &e accordingl+ dee* it necessar+ to reiterate an earl+ and highl+ regarded disFuisition of this Court against the practice of e2cluding evidence in the erroneous *anner adopted b+ the trial court% It has been observed that )ustice is *ost effectivel+ and e2peditiousl+ ad*inistered $here trivial ob)ections to the ad*ission of proof are received $ith least favor. <he practice of e2cluding evidence on doubtful ob)ections to its *aterialit+ or technical ob)ections to the for* of the Fuestions should be avoided. In a case of an+ intricac+ it is i*possible for a )udge of first instance, in the earl+ stages of the develop*ent of the proof, to ;no$ $ith an+ certaint+ $hether the testi*on+ is relevant or notC and $here there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorne+ offering the evidence, the court *a+ as a rule safel+ accept the testi*on+ upon the state*ent of the attorne+ that the proof offered $ill be connected later. =oreover, it *ust be re*e*bered that in the heat of the battle over $hich he presides, a )udge of first instance *a+ possibl+ fall into error in )udging the relevanc+ of proof $here a fair and logical connection is in fact sho$n. &hen such a *ista;e is *ade and the proof is erroneousl+ ruled out, the ,upre*e Court, upon appeal, often finds itself e*barrassed and possibl+ unable to correct the effects of the error $ithout returning the case for a ne$ trial, a step $hich this court is al$a+s ver+ loath to ta;e. (n the other hand, the ad*ission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the Fuestion as to its for*, *aterialit+, or relevanc+ is doubtful, can never result in *uch har* to either litigant, because the trial )udge is supposed to ;no$ the la$ and it is its dut+, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant and *aterial fro* the irrelevant and i**aterial. If this course is follo$ed and the cause is prosecuted to the ,upre*e Court upon appeal, this court then has all the *aterials before it necessar+ to *a;e a correct )udg*ent. 81 At an+ rate, despite that procedural lapse, $e find in the records of these cases sufficient and substantial evidence $hich $arrant and de*and the acFuittal of appellant. Apropos thereto, $e ta;e this opportunit+ to repeat this age-old observation and e2perience of *an;ind on the penological and societal effect of capital punish*ent% If it is )ustified, it serves as a deterrentC if in)udiciousl+ i*posed, it generates resent*ent. Finall+, $e are constrained to reiterate here that 'epublic Act No. 0958 $hich rei*posed the death penalt+ on certain heinous cri*es too; effect on >ece*ber 7., .887, that is, fifteen da+s after its publication in the >ece*ber .9, .887 issues of the =anila Bulletin, Philippine ,tar, =ala+a and Philippine <i*es !ournal, 85 and not on !anuar+ ., .881 as is so*eti*es *isinterpreted. &"E'EF('E, the )udg*ent appealed fro* is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E, and accused-appellant >ann+ 6odo+ is hereb+ ACG:I<<E> of the cri*es of rape and ;idnapping $ith serious illegal detention charged in Cri*inal Cases Nos. ..914 and ..91. of the 'egional <rial Court for Pala$an and Puerto Princesa Cit+, Branch 18. It is hereb+ ('>E'E> that he be released forth$ith, unless he is other$ise detained for an+ other valid cause. ,( ('>E'E>.

6.'. No. ..0/.0 >ece*ber /, .889 PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 6ENE' >E 6:K=AN + ,IC(, accused-appellant. >AEI>E, !'., !.%p (n . April .88/, co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+ filed $ith the =unicipal <rial Court =<C# of Bacoor, Cavite, a co*plaint . charging accused 6ener de 6uB*an + ,ico $ith the cri*e of rape allegedl+ co**itted at 8%44 p.*. of 7. =arch .88/ in =eado$ &ood, E2ecutive Eillage, Baranga+ Panapaan, Bacoor, Cavite. (n even date, 6ener de 6uB*an $as arrested and detained at the =unicipal !ail of Bacoor, Cavite, but $as released on .1 April .88/ upon the filing and approval of his bail bond. / 6ener de 6uB*an did not sub*it an+ counter-affidavit as reFuired in the subpoena 7 issued b+ the =<C on .1 April .88/. Finding a pri*a facie case against hi* on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution, the =<C for$arded the record of the case to the (ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor for the filing of the necessar+ infor*ation $ith the appropriate court. 1

Page1

(n .1 !ul+ .88/, the (ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite filed $ith the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of Bacoor, Cavite, Branch .8, an infor*ation 5 charging accused 6ener de 6uB*an $ith the cri*e of rape, allegedl+ co**itted as follo$s% <hat on or about the 7.st da+ of =arch .88/ at around 8%44 o@cloc; in the evening at =eado$ &ood ,ubd., E2ecutive Eillage, Baranga+ Panapaan, =unicipalit+ of Bacoor, Province of Cavite, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, $ith le$d design, b+ *eans of force, violence and inti*idation, did, then and there, $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+, have carnal ;no$ledge of one 6ilda B. A*bra+ against her $ill and consent, to the da*age and pre)udice of said 6ilda B. A*bra+. Contrar+ to la$. <he case $as doc;eted as Cri*inal Case No. B-8/-/.9. :pon arraign*ent on .4 August .88/, accused 6ener de 6uB*an entered a plea of not guilt+. 9 <rial on the *erits thereafter ensued and the prosecution *oved for the cancellation of the bail bond. (n 8 >ece*ber .88/, after co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+, Police (fficer Efren Bautista, and >r. Ealentin Bernales of the National Bureau of Investigation NBI#, co*pleted their testi*on+ as $itnesses for the prosecution, the trial court cancelled the bail bond of 6ener de 6uB*an on the ground that the evidence of his guilt $as strong. 0 "e $as re-arrested, and on // !anuar+ .887, his *otion for reconsideration 3 of the order cancelling his bail bond $as denied b+ the trial court for lac; of *erit as he $as charged $ith a capital offense punishable b+ reclusion perpetua and the evidence of his guilt $as strong. 8 <$o other $itnesses $ere presented b+ the prosecution, na*el+% 'esurreccion <alub Guiocho, a ;u*adre of the accused, and AFuilino Flores A*bra+, the husband of the co*plainant. <he testi*onies of the $itnesses for the prosecution established the follo$ing facts% "o*e$ard bound on 7. =arch .88/ fro* Anson >epart*ent ,tore $here she $or;ed as a sales cler;, co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+, the 7/-+ear old $ife of AFuilino *ores A*bra+ and a *other of t$o children, $as at the gate of =eado$ &ood ,ubdivision, Panapaan, Bacoor, Cavite, at about 3%15 p.*. $aiting for a tric+cle ride to$ard her residence. ,he $aited for about ten *inutes. &hen she noticed the accused, then $earing ar*+ pants, sitting at the guardhouse, she approached hi* and as;ed hi* so*e Fuestions. "e ans$ered in a sta**ering *anner. <he co*plainant recogniBed the accused ver+ $ell because it $as su**erti*e and the gate of the subdivision $as $ell-lit. .4 After 6ilda started to $al;, the accused *ounted his tric+cle, follo$ed her and offered her a ride, to $hich she agreed. &hile on board the tric+cle, 6ilda noticed that the accused too; a different route. ,he got scared but *anaged not to sho$ it. <he accused $ould once in a $hile stop the tric+cle and tell her that it $as not in good condition. .. &hen the+ reached Phase II of the sa*e subdivision near an unfinished house, the accused stopped and told 6ilda to push the tric+cle. ,he alighted fro* the tric+cle and paid hi* P5.44, $hich he did not accept. 6ilda then $al;ed a$a+, but after she had ta;en about ten steps, the accused e*braced her fro* behind, covered her *outh and held her nec; tightl+. ,he tried to shout but the accused threatened her. <he accused then dragged her to a vacant lot ten *eters a$a+ fro* the unfinished house. ,he atte*pted to shout again, but he threatened to ;ill her if she *ade noise. ,he fought to free herself fro* his hold, but the accused pushed and slapped her. "e tried to raise her <-shirt $hile holding her nec; tightl+. "e shouted and co**anded her to raise her <-shirt, $hich she obligingl+ follo$ed because of fear. "e re*oved her bra and ;issed her breast. ,he shouted ",a;loloJ <ulungan nin+o a;oJ," but the accused covered her *outh and again held her nec; that she could hardl+ breathe. "e held her hand tightl+ and positioned hi*self on top of her. "e unBipped her pants and pulled it do$n her ;nees. ,he struggled to liberate herself, but to no avail. <he accused then tried to insert his penis into her, but failed to do so because she struggled and fought bac;, then slapped hi* $hile covering her vagina $ith her hand. &hen she tried to stand, he pushed her do$n and, in the process, $as able to co*pletel+ pull do$n her pants and under$ear. ,he pleaded to hi* to have *erc+ on her and told hi* that she had t$o children. "e $arned her% ""u$ag ;ang sisiga$, papata+in ;itaJ" <he accused again tried to insert his penis into her, but she prevented hi* fro* doing so. <he accused too; her hand and let her hold his penis to *a;e it stiff. As 6ilda beca*e too $ea; to struggle against the accused@s se2ual advances, the accused $as able to finall+ consu**ate his dastardl+ desire. "e then pulled out his penis and "fingered" her private organ for a short $hile. <he accused then $arned 6ilda not to tell an+bod+, other$ise, he $ould ;ill her and all *e*bers of her fa*il+. ./ "e told her that she $as his third victi* but the t$o did not co*plain. "e then dressed up. 6ilda pic;ed up her pants and under$ear and hurriedl+ ran to$ard her ho*e, $ithout loo;ing bac;. .7 &hen 6ilda arrived ho*e, she told her *other and her husband, AFuilino Flores A*bra+, that she $as raped b+ the accused. AFuilino got angr+ and $anted to retaliate but $as prevailed upon not to b+ 6ilda@s *other. .1 At al*ost *idnight of 7. =arch .88/, 6ilda and her *other reported the incident to one <on+ Antonio, the President of the "o*eo$ners@ Association and President of the National Press Club. Antonio radioed the Bacoor Police ,tation to send an investigator. P(7 Efren Bautista and ,gt. ,aguisa*e responded to the alar* i**ediatel+. :pon their arrival at the house of Antonio, P(7 Bautista sa$ 6ilda $ith her *other. 6ilda, $ho $as cr+ing, related to P(7 Bautista that she $as raped and described to hi* her assailant as a tric+cle driver, tall, strong, $ith curl+ hair and in ar*+ cut. .5 6ilda also gave P(7 Bautista a vivid description of the accused@s tric+cle, viB., blue in color $ith the na*e ">i*ple" at the bac;. .9 <he police*en left and $ent to the house of the accused. P(7 Bautista invited the accused to go $ith hi* because the =a+or $anted to tal; to hi*. <he accused, together $ith P(7 Bautista, $ent to the residence of Antonio. &hen the accused entered the house of Antonio, 6ilda A*bra+ cried h+stericall+ $hile pointing to the accused as her rapist. <he accused $as then brought to the *unicipal )ail. .0 6ilda A*bra+ $as *edicall+ e2a*ined at the -as PiQas "ospital and issued a *edical certificate. .3 ,he then proceeded to the NBI for a *edico-legal e2a*ination. >r. Ealentin Bernales, a *edico-legal officer of the NBI, conducted the e2a*ination on 6ilda. "is findings, contained in his *edico-legal report, .8 $ere as follo$s% I. Ph+sical In)uries% Abrasion, bro$nishC lips, upper, left side, *ucosal, /.4 2 ..5 c*.C elbo$, right, postero-lateral aspect, /.4 2 ..5 c*. and postero-*edial aspect, *ulti-linear, $ith bro$n scab for*ation, 7.4 2 ..4 c*.

Contused abrasion, reddish blac;, scapular area, left, *edial aspect, 7.4 2 /.4 c*.

Page1

Contusion, reddishC bac;, right, scapular area, 0.4 2 5.4 c*. and left, .5.4 2 3.4 c*.

II. 6enital E2a*ination% Pubic hair, full+ gro$n, *oderate. -abia *a)ora, gaping. -abia *inora, coaptated. Fourchette, la2. Eestibulae, pin;ish, s*ooth. "+*en, reduced to carunculae *+rtifor*is. Eaginal orifice, ad*its a tube, 7.4 c*. in dia*eter. Eaginal $all, la2. 'ugosities, obliterated. III. Conclusions% .. <he above ph+sical in)uries $ere noted on the bod+ of the sub)ect at the ti*e of the e2a*ination. /. =edical evidence indicative of recent se2ual intercourse $ith *an on or about the alleged date of e2a*ination. IE. 'e*ar;s% -aborator+ 'eport ,-8/-81 /4 sho$s positive result for the presence of hu*an sper*atoBoa. >r. Bernales opined that the ph+sical in)uries sustained b+ 6ilda A*bra+ resulted fro* force applied to her," /.$hile the presence of hu*an sper*atoBoa in 6ilda@s genitals indicated recent se2ual intercourse. // (n 7 April .88/, "Bebe+" and -inda de 6uB*an, the parents of the accused, as;ed the help of 'esurreccion <alub Guiocho, the accused@s ;u*adre, to beg for 6ilda@s forgiveness for the accused@s sa;e. <he follo$ing da+, 'esurreccion acco*panied the accused@s parents, $ife, children and sister-in-la$ to 6ilda@s house. /7 6ilda *et the*, but to their plea for forgiveness, she told the* "that should not be tolerated." /1 6ilda further testified that she suffered *oral da*ages, had to resign fro* her )ob due to sha*e, and had spent P/3,544.44 for attorne+@s fees. /5 6ener de 6uB*an interposed the defense of alibi and presented Alfredo FenandeB and <eoti*o Ca*agong as his $itnesses. According to 6ener de 6uB*an, on 7. =arch .88/ at around 8%44 p.*., he $as about to go ho*e and $as at the corner of =eado$ &ood ,ubdivision co*ing fro* !ustineville ,ubdivision. (n his $a+ ho*e on his tric+cle, he sa$ 6ilda A*bra+, $ho flagged hi* do$n and hoarded his tric+cle. After traveling about half a ;ilo*eter, his tric+cle *alfunctioned. "e told her that she better $al; ho*e because her house $as alread+ near. "e pushed his tric+cle ho*e, and on his $a+, one Alfredo FenandeB approached hi* and inFuired $hat $as $rong $ith his tric+cle. Alfredo helped hi* push the tric+cle to$ards his accused@s# ho*e, and upon arrival thereat, he told Alfredo not to leave at once. At around 8%.4 p.*., the+ started to drin; liFuor until ..%44 p.*., and after their drin;ing spree, he cleaned their *ess and slept. <hen at around ./%54 a.*. of . April .88/, P(7 Efren Bautista fetched and apprised hi* that he $as accused of rape b+ a certain 6ilda A*bra+. <hereafter, an investigation $as conducted and he $as brought to the Bacoor Police ,tation. Alfredo -. FernandeB, 70 +ears old, )obless, and a resident of !ustineville ,ubdivision, corroborated 6ener@s stor+ about the *alfunctioning tric+cle and the drin;ing session. /9 <eoti*o Ca*agong testified that he $as present $hen the accused $as investigated at the residence of <on+ Antonio and that the co*plainant did not pinpoint and identif+ the accused as her alleged *olester. /0 In its >ecision /3 dated 74 !une .881 and pro*ulgated on /5 !ul+ .881, the trial court found the accused guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of rape as charged, and rendered )udg*ent as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered herein accused 6ENE' ,IC( >E 6:K=AN is hereb+ found 6:I-<I be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of rape punishable b+ Art. 775 of the 'evised Penal Code. "e should suffer the prison ter* of reclusion perpetua and inde*nif+ herein private co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+ the follo$ing% actual da*ages representing her lost *onthl+ salar+ $hen she resigned fro* her office due to sha*e for being a rape victi*, in the su* of P74,444.44, *oral da*ages in the su* of P74,444.44, e2e*plar+ da*ages of P.4,444.44, litigation e2penses of P5,444.44, and attorne+@s feeLsM including appearance fees for the private prosecutor in the su* of P/3,544.44. It gave full gave $eight to the testi*on+ of 6ilda A*bra+ because "L$Mithout doubt, the co*plainant had endured the rigors of recalling her harro$ing ordeal and had vividl+, credibl+ and candidl+ portra+ed in detail ho$ she $as raped b+ the accused." /8 As to $hether se2ual intercourse $as consu**ated against the $ill or consent of the offended part+, the trial court said% No less than NBI =edico -egal (fficer >r. Ealentin Bernales had corroborated the stance of herein private co*plainant that she $as raped b+ the accused. <he victi* had sustained contusions and abrasions at her bod+ that indicated that she struggled against the se2ual advances of the accused. As a result of the doctor@s e2a*ination on the victi*, he confir*ed the occurrence of a recent se2ual intercourse and presence in her private part of hu*an sper*atoBoa as denoted in his =edico -egal 'eport E2h. F# and -aborator+ 'eport E2h. >#. 74 -i;e$ise it ruled that since the accused $as drun;, he $as *ore aggressive and se2uall+ capable. 7.Finall+, it considered as evidence of the accused@s guilt the plea of his parents, $ife and relatives for forgiveness and co*pro*ise. 7/ <he accused seasonabl+ appealed fro* the trial court@s )udg*ent of conviction, and in urging us to acFuit hi*, interposes the follo$ing assign*ent of errors in his Appellant@s Brief% .. <"E C(:'< E''E> IN FIN>IN6 <"A< ACC:,E> "A, IN>:BI<AB-I E=P-(IE> F('CE AN> IN<I=I>A<I(N IN <"E 'APE (F <"E EIC<I=. /. <"E C(:'< E''E> IN FIN>IN6 <"A< ACC:,E> &A, P(,I<IEE-I I>EN<IFIE> BI <"E EIC<I=. 7. <"E C(:'< E''E> IN ,<'E,,IN6 <"A< <"E ACC:,E> &A, >':NP A< <"E <I=E (F <"E C(==I,,I(N (F 'APE.

Page1

In the Brief for the Appellee, the (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral disagrees $ith the accused and pra+s that $e affir*in toto the appealed decision.

<he first and second assigned errors *a+ be ta;en up together. <he upshot of the accused@s stance in these alleged errors is that he $as not positivel+ identified and that neither force nor inti*idation $as proven. As to the latter he cites these facts% a# 6ilda@s assailant had three acts of se2ual intercourse $ith herC b# the ph+sical e2a*ination sho$ed that she suffered in)uries on the dorsal portion onl+, and none $as found on her nec;C c# her personal belongings A bra, pants, <shirt and under$ear A $ere co*pletel+ intactC and d# no signs of ph+sical violence $ere discernible on both the persons of the accused and 6ilda A*bra+. 'ape is essentiall+ an offense of secrec+, not generall+ atte*pted e2cept in dar; or deserted and secluded places a$a+ fro* pr+ing e+es, and the cri*e usuall+ co**ences solel+ upon the $ord of the offended $o*an herself and conviction invariabl+ turns upon her credibilit+, as the People@s single $itness of the actual occurrence. 77 In the revie$ of rape cases, therefore, this Court is guided b+ the follo$ing principles% .# an accusation for rape can be *ade $ith facilit+% it is difficult to prove but *ore difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove itC /# in vie$ of the intrinsic nature of the cri*e of rape $here t$o persons are usuall+ involved, the testi*on+ of the co*plainant *ust be scrutiniBed $ith e2tre*e cautionC and 7# the evidence for the prosecution *ust stand or fall on its on *erits, and cannot be allo$ed to dra$ strength fro* the $ea;ness of the evidence for the defense. 71 <he resolution then of the first t$o assigned errors and the deter*ination of the guilt of the accused depend pri*aril+ on the credibilit+ of the co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+, since onl+ she and the accused $itnessed the incident $hen it happened. "er testi*on+ alone, if credible, $ould render the accused@s conviction inevitable. A *eticulous assess*ent of 6ilda@s testi*on+ de*onstrates be+ond doubt the truthfulness of her stor+, $hich she narrated in a categorical, straightfor$ard and candid *anner. Further strengthening her credibilit+ in recounting her ordeal at the hands of the accused $as her conduct i**ediatel+ after the se2ual assault. ,he ran ho*e $ithout loo;ing bac;, and upon her arrival she reported the rape to her husband and her *other at once. I**ediatel+ thereafter, she reported it to <on+ Antonio, the President of the "o*eo$ners@ Association and President of the National Press Club, $ho then sought police assistance. &hen the police*en arrived at Antonio@s residence in response to the latter@s call, 6ilda narrated the rape to the police*en and gave the* the description of the assailant. &hen the police*en brought the accused to the residence of Antonio, 6ilda forth$ith pointed to the accused as the person $ho raped her. 6ilda voluntaril+ sub*itted herself to a *edical e2a*ination at the -as PiQas "ospital and then to an e2a*ination of her private parts b+ >r. Bernales of the NBI. <he follo$ing da+ she sub*itted herself to an investigations 75 b+ the PNP of Bacoor, Cavite, and filed on the sa*e da+ a co*plaint for rape against the accused $ith the =<C of Bacoor, Cavite.

All the foregoing acts of 6ilda $ere done $ithin t$ent+-four hours after the co**ission of the cri*e. <he Fuic;ness and spontaneit+ of these deeds *anifested the natural reactions of a virtuous $o*an $ho had )ust undergone se2ual *olestation against herself, 79 and evinced nothing *ore than her instant resolve to denounce the beast $ho cri*inall+ abused and ravished her, and to protect her honor. =oreover, she re)ected the plea for forgiveness sought b+ the accused@s parents, $ife, and children, then suffered the travails of a public trial $hich necessaril+ e2posed her to hu*iliation and e*barrass*ent b+ unraveling the details of the rape and enduring a cross-e2a*ination $hich sought to discredit her. &hat 6ilda endured could onl+ co*e fro* one $hose obsession $as to bring to )ustice the person $ho had abused her and vindicate her honor, even if such vindication $ould never erase fro* her *e*or+ that e2cruciatingl+ painful chapter in her life $hich left her ps+chologicall+ and e*otionall+ scarred forever. <his Court has repeatedl+ held that no co*plainant $ould ad*it that she has been raped, *a;e public the offense, allo$ the e2a*ination of her private parts, undergo the troubles and hu*iliation of public trial and endure the ordeal of testif+ing to all its gor+ details if she had not in fact been raped. 70 &e li;e$ise agree $ith the trial court that the accused used force and inti*idation upon 6ilda. Another established rule in rape cases is that the force need not be irresistibleC all that is necessar+ is that the force used b+ the accused is sufficient to consu**ate his evil purpose, or that it $as successfull+ used. It need not be so great or of such character that it could not be repelled. 73 Inti*idation, on the other hand, *ust be vie$ed in light of the victi*@s perception and )udg*ent at the ti*e of the co**ission of the cri*e and not b+ an+ hard and fast ruleC it is enough that it produces fear A fear that if the victi* does not +ield to the bestial de*ands of the accused, so*ething $ould happen to her at that *o*ent, or even thereafter as $hen she is threatened $ith death if she $ould report the incident. 78 In this case, the accused e*braced 6ilda fro* behind, held her nec; tightl+, and covered her *outh. As she struggled to free herself, she sustained her in)uries. >r. Bernales confir*ed the use of force, and according to hi*, the abrasions and contusions on 6ilda@s bod+ $ere due to force applied on her. =oreover, the accused also threatened 6ilda $ith death if she $ould not +ield to his bestial desires. <he threat certainl+ constituted inti*idation. <he accused@s contention that it $as highl+ incredible that there $as force or inti*idation since the assailant co**itted three acts of se2ual intercourse $ith 6ilda in three hours, deserves scant consideration. In the first place, 6ilda e2plained in her re-direct e2a*ination that the three hours *entioned in her cross-e2a*ination referred to the ti*e $hich elapsed fro* the *o*ent she $as at the gate of =eado$ &ood ,ubdivision and until she reported the incident to <on+ Antonio. 14 <he principal ob)ect of re-direct e2a*ination is to prevent in)ustice to the $itness and the part+ $ho has called hi* b+ affording an opportunit+ to the $itness to e2plain the testi*on+ given on cross-e2a*ination, and to e2plain an+ apparent contradiction or inconsistenc+ in his state*ents, an opportunit+ $hich is ordinaril+ afforded to hi* during cross-e2a*ination. <he re-direct e2a*ination serves the purpose of co*pleting the ans$er of a $itness, or of adding a ne$ *atter $hich has been o*itted, or of correcting a possible *isinterpretation of testi*on+. 1. In the second place, on direct e2a*ination, 6ilda categoricall+ declared that the accused tried to thrice insert his penis into her vagina. "e failed in the first and second atte*pts because she struggled, but succeeded on the third because she $as alread+ $ea;. &hile it *a+ be true that on cross-e2a*ination she testified that she $as raped once, +et on re-direct e2a*ination she said that she $as raped three ti*es, no inconsistenc+ at all *a+ be deduced therefro*. <here $as *erel+ confusion as to the legal Fualifications of the three separate acts, i.e., 6ilda@s ans$ers $ere conclusions of la$. A $itness is not per*itted to testif+ as to a conclusion of la$, a*ong $hich, legal responsibilit+ is one of the *ost conspicuous. A $itness, no *atter ho$ s;illful, is not to be as;ed or per*itted to testif+ as to $hether or not a part+ is responsible to the la$. -a$ in the sense here used e*braces $hatever conclusions belonging properl+ to the court. 1/ &hat is clear to us is that there $ere, at least, t$o acts of atte*pted rape and one consu**ated rape, co**itted in light of the testi*on+ of 6ilda. <he infor*ation, ho$ever, charged the accused $ith onl+ one act of rapeC hence, consistent $ith the constitutional right of the accused to be infor*ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi*, 17 he

Page1

cannot be held liable for *ore than $hat he $as charged. <here can onl+ be one conviction for rape if the infor*ation charges onl+ one offense, even if the evidence sho$s three separate acts of se2ual intercourse. 11 Neither are $e persuaded b+ the clai* that 6ilda $as not able to positivel+ identif+ the accused. "e $as fa*iliar to 6ilda one or t$o $ee;s before the incident because she sa$ hi* driving a tric+cle and had, in fact, been once a passenger of his. ,he sa$ hi* clearl+ at the guardhouse before the incident because the guardhouse $as $ell-litC she $as his passenger that evening until he stopped his tric+cle near the unfinished houseC and she had a*ple opportunit+ to see and recogniBe hi* during the assault. <hen, 6ilda did not hesitate to point to and identif+ the accused as her rapist $hen the latter $as brought b+ the police*en to the house of <on+ Antonio. <he accused@s defense of alibi, $hich is the $ea;est of all defenses for it is eas+ to concoct and fabricate, cannot prevail over his positive identification b+ 6ilda. 15 =oreover, an+ scintilla of doubt both as to the identification of the accused and as to his guilt $as dissolved b+ the overtures of his parents, $ife, children and sister-in-la$ on pleading for forgiveness fro* 6ilda. <he accused did not diso$n their acts, $hich $ere testified to b+ his ;u*adre, 'esurreccion <alub Guiocho, and 6ilda herself. "e chose not to den+ their testi*on+. Finall+, despite the uneFuivocal pronounce*ent b+ the trial court that his guilt $as "strongl+ established b+ the acts of his parents, $ife and relatives, $ho had gone to the house of the victi* to as; her forgiveness and to see; a co*pro*ise," the accused dared not assign that finding and conclusion as an error and his Appellant@s Brief is conspicuousl+ silent thereon. Indubitabl+ then, the accused $as a part+ to the decision to see; for forgiveness, or had prior ;no$ledge of the plan to see; for it and consented to pursue it, or confir*ed and ratified the act of his parents, $ife, children and sister-in-la$. A plea for forgiveness *a+ be considered as analogous to an atte*pt to co*pro*ise. In cri*inal cases, e2cept those involving Fuasi-offense cri*inal negligence# or those allo$ed b+ la$ to be co*pro*ised, an offer of co*pro*ise b+ the accused *a+ be received in evidence as an i*plied ad*ission of guilt. 19 No one $ould as; for forgiveness unless he had co**itted so*e $rong, for to forgive *eans to absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resent*ent against on account of $rong co**ittedC give up clai* to reFuital fro* or retribution upon an offender#. 10 In People vs. Cali*Fui*, 13 $e stated% <he fact that appellant@s *other sought forgiveness for her son fro* CoraBon@s father is an indication of guilt. ,ee People vs. (l*edillo, --1/994, August 74, .83/, ..9 ,C'A .87#. <he accused *a+ be correct in the third assigned error because no testi*on+ of a $itness established that the accused $as in a state of drun;enness $hen he se2uall+ assaulted 6ilda. <he trial court *a+ have for*ed its conclusion that the accused $as drun; fro* his testi*on+ that he and Alfredo FernandeB $ere drin;ing liFuor in his house fro* 8%44 to ..%44 p.*. of 7. =arch .88/. In an+ event, that erroneous conclusion is innocuous. &e do not then hesitate to conclude that the accused, having had carnal ;no$ledge of co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+ through the use of force and inti*idation, co**itted the cri*e of rape as defined and penaliBed in Article 775 of the 'evised Penal Code, the prescribed penalt+ being reclusion perpetua. <he da*ages a$arded b+ the trial court stand *odification. No da*age for loss of inco*e due to 6ilda@s resignation fro* her e*plo+*ent should have been a$arded, the resignation being unnecessar+. Confor*abl+ ho$ever $ith the current )urisprudence, she is entitled to inde*nit+ of P54,444.44. For her sha*e, as $ell as *ental anguish, fright, serious an2iet+, bes*irched reputation, *oral shoc; and social hu*iliation $hich rape necessaril+ brings to the offended part+, 18 she is entitled to recover *oral da*ages under Article //.8 in relation to Article //.0 of the Civil Code. "o$ever, since no aggravating circu*stance had been proved, e2e*plar+ da*ages *a+ not be a$arded. In Article //74 of the Civil Code, such da*ages *a+ be a$arded in cri*inal cases $hen the cri*e $as co**itted $ith one or *ore aggravating circu*stances. &"E'EF('E, the instant appeal is >I,=I,,E> and the challenged decision of 74 !une .881 of Branch .8 of the 'egional <rial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, in Cri*inal Case No. B-8/-/.9 is AFFI'=E>, sub)ect to the *odification on the civil liabilities, and as so *odified, the a$ards of P74,444.44 as actual da*ages for loss of *onthl+ salar+ and P.4,444.44 as e2e*plar+ da*ages are deleted, and accused-appellant 6ener de 6uB*an + ,ico is further ordered to pa+ the co*plainant 6ilda A*bra+ the su* of P54,444.44 as inde*nit+. <he a$ards for *oral da*ages, litigation e2penses and attorne+@s fees stand. Costs against the accused-appellant. ,( ('>E'E>.

L6.'. No. ..004/. Februar+ .4, .880M PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. C'I,PIN IPA''A6:I''E, accused-appellant. >ECI,I(N P:N(, !.% Accused-appellant Crispin Iparraguirre $as charged $ith the cri*e of rape in an Infor*ation that reads as follo$s% "<hat on or about !ul+ 9, .884, in the =unicipalit+ of Panabo, Province of >avao, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, ar*ed $ith a hunting ;nife, b+ *eans of force and inti*idation, did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ have carnal ;no$ledge of 'osita Bacaling, against her $ill."L.M <he prosecution established that 'osita Bacaling $as a house*aid of appellant and his $ifeC that on or about 0%44 in the evening of !ul+ 9, .884 at the spouses@ roo* in Panabo, >avao, 'osita $as coo;ing porridge for the spouses@ t$o children, one aged four +ears old and the other nine *onths old. Accused-appellant arrived fro* $or; and found the t$o children asleep. "e approached 'osita and gave her a s*all $hite envelope said to contain *edicine for her s;in disease. 'osita $as afflicted $ith rashes on her thighs and sto*ach $hich she allegedl+ contracted fro* one of the children. 'osita opened the envelope and counted fifteen .5# tablets inside. As instructed b+ appellant, 'osita too; all the tablets. A fe$

Page1

*inutes later, she felt $ea; and fell do$n. ,uddenl+, she realiBed that appellant $as dragging her to the spouses@ bed. ,he tried to get up but appellant pushed her do$n the bed and pointed a hunting ;nife at her nec;. "e ordered 'osita not to *ove or he $ould ;ill her. <hen he re*oved her clothes and $ent on top of her. "e ;issed her face, breasts, sto*ach and private parts and then entered her. 'osita cried out in pain but appellant continued entering her. After satisf+ing his lust, appellant pulled out and punched 'osita in the sto*ach. ,he lost consciousness.E2s* A fe$ *inutes later, 'osita $o;e up and sa$ blood in her private parts. ,he $iped the blood and changed her clothes. ,eeing her a$a;e, appellant threatened to ;ill her should she report the incident to her parents. Appellant then left the house.L/M 'osita did not sa+ a $ord about the incident. ,he continued serving the Iparraguirres for one *onth before leaving the* to return to her *other@s house in Barrio Cagangohan. "er *other found 'osita in a state of shoc;. ,he could not eat nor tal;, neither could she perfor* ordinar+ dail+ functions such as dressing herself. In short, 'osita beca*e helpless. ,he $as brought to the =unicipal "ealth (fficer b+ her *other for e2a*ination. (n August //, .884, the =unicipal "ealth (fficer, >r. I*elda <. Bendi)o, intervie$ed the girl and found her unresponsive and unable to tal;. ,he conducted a ph+sical e2a*ination and also found that% "2 2 2 Ph+sical e2a*ination e2ternall+ no abnor*al findingsC Pelvic e2a*ination -- nor*al vagina $ith old laceration found at /%44 LpositionMC h+*en not intactC Internal e2a*ination -- ad*its one fingerC Advised for pregnanc+ test and for consultation b+ LsicM ps+chiatrist. 2 2 2."L7M :pon the =unicipal "ealth (fficer@s advice, 'osita $as confined at the >avao Cit+ =ental "ospital for observation and treat*ent. After a $ee; of treat*ent, 'osita began to tal; and revealed that she $as raped b+ appellant.L1M Accused-appellant pled not guilt+ to the cri*e charged. "e clai*ed that on the night of the alleged rape he $as selling fish at the public *ar;et. Allegedl+, he $as at the *ar;et at 1%44 in the *orning, and $or;ed straight until 3%44 in the evening. "e never left the fish stall until after 3%44 in the evening because of his *an+ custo*ers.L5M <he trial court found accused-appellant guilt+ and sentenced hi* to reclusion perpetua. It also ordered hi* to inde*nif+ 'osita BacalingP54,444.44 as *oral da*ages and pa+ P5,444.44 as attorne+@s fees, thus% "&"E'EF('E, IN -I6"< (F <"E F('E6(IN6, the court finds accused Crispin Iparraguirre guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of rape punishable under Article 775 of the 'evised Penal Code. Correspondingl+, the court hereb+ sentences the said accused to suffer and undergo the penalt+ of 'EC-:,I(N PE'PE<:A $ith all the accessor+ penalties provided for b+ la$ and to pa+ the costs. Accused Crispin Iparraguirre is also ordered to inde*nif+ the victi* 'osita Bacaling the a*ount of P54,444.44 as *oral da*ages, plus pa+*ent of P5,444.44 as attorne+@s fees. ,( ('>E'E>."L9M In this appeal, accused-appellant contends that% I "<"E C(:'< E''E> IN "(->IN6 <"E ACC:,E>-APPE--AN< 6:I-<I (F <"E C'I=E (F 'APEC II <"E C(:'< E''E> IN "(->IN6 <"A< &I<NE,, =A'I ANN IPA''A6:I''E &EN< <( <"E =(<"E' (F <"E ACC:,E> (N N(EE=BE' /7, .884 <( NE6(<IA<E F(' <"E >'(PPIN6 (F <"E CA,E."L0M <he appeal has no *erit. After revie$ing the records, $e find that the prosecution evidence, $hich rests *ainl+ on the testi*on+ of 'osita Bacaling, is credible, reliable and trust$orth+. 'osita testified in a straightfor$ard, spontaneous and candid *anner and never $avered even on cross-e2a*ination and rebuttal. <he inconsistencies in her testi*on+ are *inor $hich tend to buttress, rather than $ea;en, the conclusion that her testi*on+ $as not contrived.L3M <he Fuestion of $hether 'osita contracted the s;in disease fro* the children of appellant is not i*portant. <he undisputed fact is that she $as afflicted $ith the disease and that appellant gave her tablets for treat*ent of the disease. Appellant@s allegation that 'osita should have fallen asleep for hours after ingesting the tablets is speculative. <here is no evidence that the tablets $ere sleeping tablets. <he+, ho$ever, $ea;ened 'osita and prevented her fro* *a;ing an+ resistance to appellant@s le$d acts.L8M <he dela+ in filing the co*plaint does not in an+ $a+ affect 'osita@s credibilit+.L.4M ,he $as afraid of appellant@s threat to her life. <he co*plaint $as filed three *onths after 'osita told her *other of the incident, and three *onths is not too long a period to file a co*plaint for rape. 'osita $as a seventeen-+ear old barrio lass and a high school dropout. ,he $as also the bread$inner of the fa*il+. L..M It is hard to believe that 'osita $ould fabricate a stor+ of defloration, open herself to public trial and place her fa*il+, $ho depended on her, in a ver+ hu*iliating and co*pro*ising situation for no reason at all.L./M 'osita suffered ps+chologicall+ fro* the incident. Before the rape, she had been $or;ing for the Iparraguirres for t$o *onthsL.7M and the spouses actuall+ found her to be a good $or;er.L.1M &hen 'osita returned to her fa*il+, ho$ever, she lost her speech and could not perfor* ordinar+ dail+ functions that she had to see; ps+chiatric treat*ent. Indeed, 'osita@s ps+chological condition could not have been the product of ill-*otive and fabrication. Anent the second assigned error, there is evidence that after 'osita revealed the rape to her *other, appellant@s $ife, =ar+ Ann Iparraguirre, offered the victi*@s *other, =erl+n Bacaling, fifteen thousand pesos P.5,444.44# to dissuade her fro* filing the co*plaint.L.5M&hen =erl+n refused, =ar+ Ann increased the offer to t$ent+-five thousand pesos P/5,444.44#. ,till =erl+n refused to accept it.L.9M As pointed out b+ appellant, no cri*inal co*plaint had been filed at the ti*e the co*pro*ise offer $as *ade. Nevertheless, the rape incident $as alread+ ;no$n to appellant@s $ife. =ar+ Ann herself testified that =erl+n told her about it on Nove*ber 7, .884, the da+ $hen =ar+ Ann first offered the *one+.L.0M An offer to co*pro*ise does not reFuire that a cri*inal co*plaint be first filed before the offer can be received in evidence

Page1

against the offeror.L.3M &hat is reFuired is that after co**itting the cri*e, the accused or his representative *a;es an offer to co*pro*ise and such offer is proved. <he positive identification of accused-appellant as the rapist prevails over his defense of alibi.L.8M It $as not ph+sicall+ i*possible for appellant to have been at the scene of the cri*e. <he public *ar;et $as *erel+ a ten-*inute $al; fro* their rented roo*L/4M and during $or; brea;s, appellant $ould so*eti*es go ho*e to bring food to his children.L/.M IN EIE& &"E'E(F, the decision dated =a+ .4, .881 of the 'egional <rial Court, Branch 1, Panabo, >avao is affir*ed. Costs against appellant. ,( ('>E'E>.

EN BANC 6.'. No. --387. =arch .1, .8.1

<"E :NI<E> ,<A<E,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. !:AN =AG:I, defendant-appellant. CA',(N, !.% <he appellant in this case $as convicted in the court belo$ of the theft of the caraballa and her calf, and sentenced to i*prison*ent for the period of five +ears, to suffer the accessor+ penalties prescribed b+ la$, and to pa+ his share of the costs of the proceedings. Counsel for the accused contends that the trial court erred in giving probative value to the testi*on+ of one >agsa, the principal $itness for the prosecutionC in accepting proof as to certain e2tra)udicial ad*issions alleged to have been *ade b+ the accused, including an offer to co*pro*ise the case b+ the pa+*ent of a su* of *one+C and in declining to accept as true the testi*on+ of the accused in his o$n behalf at the trial. &e find nothing in the record, ho$ever, $hich $ould )ustif+ us in disturbing the findings of the trial )udge as to the degree of the credit $hich should be accorded the various $itnesses called at the trial. Counsel rests his contention that the evidence as to the e2tra)udicial state*ents *ade b+ the accused should have been e2cluded on the ground that, as counsel insists, there is no for*al proof n the record that the+ $ere *ade voluntaril+, and that the+ $ere therefore inad*issible as proof in so far as the+ can be construed as ad*ission or confession of guilt. In ans$er to this contention it is sufficient to sa+ that there is no suggestion in the record in the court belo$ that these e2tra)udicial state*ents $ere not *ade voluntaril+, and $e are satisfied that if the evidence as to the circu*stances under $hich these incri*inating state*ents $ere *ade be accepted as true it clearl+ rebuts the possibilit+ that the+ $ere *ade involuntaril+, or e2torted b+ force, threats, or pro*ise of re$ard. <he record clearl+ discloses that these e2tra)udicial state*ents $ere *ade in the course of offers to co*pro*ise and that the+ $ere *ade b+ the accused voluntaril+, though doubtless these offers to co*pro*ise $ere *ade in the hope that it accepted he $ould escape prosecution. <he Fuestion as to the ad*issibilit+ of offers to co*pro*ise in cri*inal cases has freFuentl+ been discussed in the courts of the :nited ,tates, and the practice there does not appear to be $holl+ unifor*. &e thin;, ho$ever, that the $eight both of authorit+ and of reason sustains the rule $hich ad*its evidence of offers to co*pro*ise, but per*its the accused to sho$ that such offers $ere not *ade under a consciousness of guilt, but *erel+ to avoid the inconvenience of i*prison*ent or for so*e other reason $hich $ould )ustif+ a clai* b+ the accused that the offer to co*pro*ise $as not in truth an ad*ission of his guilt and an atte*pt to avoid the legal conseFuences $hich $ould ordinaril+ ensue therefro*. ,atisfaction to the o$ner of the goods stolen is ad*issible, as evidence against the accused, but if *ade *erel+ to avoid the inconvenience of i*prison*ent, and not under a consciousness of guilt, it is not evidence. :. ,. vs."unter, . Cranch, C. C., 7.0.# In a prosecution for seduction, evidence that the accused had sought an ad)ust*ent $ith the prosecutri2 is inad*issible, if such offer of ad)ust*ent did not contain an ad*ission of guilt. &ilson vs. ,tate, 07 Ala., 5/0.# (n a prosecution for assault $ith intent to co**it rape upon a *arried $o*an, evidence is ad*issible on behalf of the prosecution to sho$ that the defendant sent a third person to the father of the prosecutri2 to ascertain if the case could be co*pro*ised. Barr vs. People, ..7 Ill., 10..# In a larcen+ case, evidence is not ad*issible to sho$ that defendant stated that he $ould pa+ \54 if it could be settled, in repl+ to threats b+ the o$ner of the goods stolen that he $ould be prosecuted for da*ages, and a solicitation to settle. Frain vs. ,tate, 14 6a., 574.# In a prosecution for larcen+, evidence is not ad*issible that defendant paid a su* of *one+ in settle*ent of a civil action brought to recover the propert+ alleged to have been stolen. ,tate vs. E*erson, 13 Io$a, .0/.# An offer of co*pro*ise, voluntaril+ *ade b+ the accused, $ithout threat or pro*ise, and the repl+ thereto, are ad*issible in evidence upon his trial for a cri*e. ,tate vs. Bruce, 77 -a. Ann., .39.# An offer of co*pro*ise of a cri*e, unaccepted b+ the prosecutor, *a+ be proven b+ the state as an ad*ission of guilt, or as disclosing possession of the propert+ $hich is the sub)ect of the burglar+ and larcen+ charged in the indict*ent. ,tate vs. 'odrigueB, 15 -a. Ann., .414C .7 ,outhern, 34/.# It *a+ be sho$n that the prisoner sent a *assage to the prosecutor, proposing to ta;e a $hipping and to be let go. ,tate vs. >eBerr+, 8/ N. C., 344.# &e are satisfied be+ond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, but $e are opinion that in i*posing the penalt+ the trial court should have ta;en into consideration as a *itigating circu*stance the *anifest lac; of "instruction and education" of the offender. It does not clearl+ appear $hether he is or not an unciviliBed Igorot, although there are indications in the record $hich tend to sho$ that he is. But in an+ event, it is ver+ clear that if he is not a *e*ber of an unciviliBed tribe

Page1

of Igorots, he is a densel+ ignorant and untutored fello$, $ho lived in the Igorot countr+, and is not *uch, if an+, higher that are the+ in the scale of civiliBation. <he beneficent provisions of article .. of the Penal Code as a*ended b+ Act No. /.1/ of the Philippine -egislature are peculiarl+ applicable to offenders $ho are sho$n to be *e*bers of these unciviliBed tribes, and to other offenders $ho, as a result of the fact that their lives are cast $ith such people far a$a+ fro* the centers of civiliBation, appear to be so lac;ing in "instruction and education" that the+ should not be held to so high a degree of responsibilit+ as is de*anded of those citiBens $ho have had the advantage of living their lives in contact $ith the refining influences of civiliBation. It is true that this court has Fuite unifor*l+ held that convicts of the cri*es of theft and robber+ are not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of article .. of the Penal Code prior to its a*end*ent b+ Act No. /.1/, this on the theor+ that under the provisions of the article prior to its a*end*ent the ground upon $hich the courts $ere authoriBed in their direction to *itigate the penalties prescribed b+ the code $as "the circu*stance of the offender being a native, *estiBo, or Chinese." As to cri*es of this nature $e declined to hold that the *ere fact that one is a native of the Philippine Islands, a *estiBo or a Chinese $ould )ustif+ a clai* that upon conviction of cri*es such as theft or robber+ he should be treated *ore lenientl+ than the *e*bers of an+ other race or people, no sounds presu*ption arising fro* the *ere racial affiliation of the convict that he $as less or to resist the te*ptation to co**it the* than are the+. :nder the provisions of the article as a*ended b+ Act No. /.1/, the ground upon $hich the courts are authoriBed to *itigate the prescribed penalties is not racial affiliation of the convict, but "the degree of instruction and education of the offenderC" and $hile *ere ignorance or lac; of education $ill not al$a+s be sufficient to )ustif+ the *itigation of the prescribed penalties for cri*es such as theft and robber+, there can be no doubt that cases *a+ and $ill arise $herein under all the "circu*stances attending" the co**ission of these offenses the e2ercise of a sound discretion $ill )ustif+ a *ore lenient treat*ent of an ignorant and se*iciviliBed offender, than that $hich should be accorded one $ho has the advantage of such a degree of instruction and education as $ould )ustif+ the court in believing that he $as capable of full+ and properl+ understanding and appreciating the cri*inal character of the offense co**itted b+ hi*. &e conclude, therefore, that under the provisions of article ... as a*ended b+ Act No. /.1/, the courts *a+ and should, even in cases of theft and robber+, ta;e into consideration $here it appears that under all the circu*stances attending the co**ission of the offense, he should not be held to the strict degree of responsibilit+ prescribed in the code for the ordinar+ offender. <he larcen+ of large cattle and falls $ithin articles 5.0, 5.3, and 5/4 of the Penal Code, as a*ended b+ Act No. /474. According to those sections, as a*ended, the value of the ani*als stolen being 954 pesetas, a penalt+ one degree higher than arresto *a+or in its *ediu* degree to presidio correccional in its *ini*u* degree should have been i*posedC in other $ords, presidio correccional in its *ediu* degree to presidio *a+or in its *ini*u* degree. 6iving the convict the benefit of the provisions of article .. of the Penal Code, as a*ended, this penalt+ should be i*posed in its *ini*u* degree A that is to sa+, the penalt+ applicable in this case is that of presidio correccional in its *ediu* degree. =odified b+ i*posing the penalt+ prescribed for the offense of $hich the defendant and appellant $as convicted in the *ini*u* degree A that is to sa+, b+, i*posing upon the accused the penalt+ of t$o +ears four *onths and one da+ of presidio correccional, in lieu of that of five +ears@ i*prison*ent i*posed b+ the court belo$ A the )udg*ent convicting and sentencing hi* should be and is hereb+ affir*ed, $ith the costs of this instance against the appellant. Arellano, C.!., =oreland, <rent and Araullo, !!., concur.

C. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

Page1

EN BANC 6.'. No. --741/7 Nove*ber 0, .808 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 'A=I'( A-E6'E + CE'>(NCI--(, =A'I( C(=AIA, + C:>I--AN, =E-ECI( C:>I--AN + A'CI--A,, and !E,:, =E>A--A + C:>I--AN, defendants-appellants. AN<(NI(, !.% <his is an auto*atic revie$ of a decision of the court of First Instance of 'iBal, ,eventh !udicial >istrict, Branch EII, Pasa+ Cit+ finding all the accused, na*el+, 'a*iro Alegre + Cerdoncillo, =ario Co*a+as + Cudillan, =elecio Cudillan + Arcillas and !esus =edalla + Cudillan, guilt+ of the cri*e of 'obber+ $ith "o*icide and sentencing the* as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, this Court finds accused =elecio Cudillan, ,!esus =edalla, 'a*iro Alegre, and =ario Co*a+as guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of '(BBE'I &I<" "(=ICI>E, co**itted $ith four 1# aggravating circu*stances, not offset b+ an+ *itigating circu*stance, and hereb+ sentences all of the* to suffer the penalt+ of death, to be carried out pursuant to the applicable provisions of la$, to inde*nif+ )ointl+ and severall+ the heirs of Adlina ,a)o in the a*ount of P754,444.44, representing the value of the pieces of )e$elr+ unrecovered, to pa+ )ointl+ and severall+ also the heirs of Adelina ,a)o the a*ount of P./,444.44. and to pa+ the costs. &ith or $ithout appeal, let this case be elevated to the ,upre*e Court for revie$, pursuant to la$. >uring the pendenc+ of this appeal, =elecio Cudillan died on arrival at the Ne$ Bilibid Prison "ospital on August .9, .804, and the case as against the said accused, insofar as his cri*inal liabilit+ is concerned, $as dis*issed on August /8, .801. <his decision, therefore, is li*ited to appellants 'a*iro Alegre, =ario Co*a+as and !esus =edalla. <his case arose fro* the death of Adelina ,a)o + =aravilla, ,pinster, 50 +ears old, $hose bod+ $as found in her bathroo* inside her house at the =aravilla co*pound, Ignacio ,treet, Pasa+ Cit+, in the earl+ *orning of !ul+ /9, .899. According to the Necrops+ 'eport, she died of asph+2ia b+ *anual strangulation, and the ti*e of her death $as placed bet$een eighteen to t$ent+-t$o hours before ./%74 p.*. of !ul+ /9, .899. "er bedroo* $as in "sha*bles," evidentl+ indicating that it $as ransac;ed. <he dra$ers and several cabinets $ere open, and so*e personal gar*ents, hadbags and papers $ere scattered on the floor. No $itness sa$ the co**ission of the cri*e. Appellant 'a*iro Alegre, $ho $as then living $ith relatives in one of the rented roo*s on the ground floor of the victi*@s house, $as ta;en to the Pasa+ Cit+ police headFuarters for investigation in connection $ith the case, but $as later released that sa*e da+ for lac; of an+ evidence i*plicating hi* in the cri*e. >uring the latter part of !ul+, .899, =elecio Cudillan $as apprehended in <acloban Cit+, -e+te, in the act of pa$ning a bracelet, one of the pieces of )e$elr+ ta;en fro* the victi*. In e2plaining ho$ he ca*e into possession of the stolen pieces of )e$elr+, he ad*itted his participation in the ;illing and robber+ of Adlina ,a)o. <his appears in his e2tra)udicial confession before the police authorities of <acloban Cit+ on !ul+ /8, .899 E2hibits "F", "F-." and "F-/"#. In this state*ent, $hich $as $ritten in the English language, =elecio Cudillan i*plicated a certain "Eso;" of Eillalon, Calubian, -e+teC !esus =edalla, of Eillaher*osa, Calubian, -e+teC =ario Cudillan, also of Eillaher*osa, Calubian, -e+teC one ">ann+" FernandeB, of BalaFuid, Cabucga+an, Biliran ,ub-provinceC and one "'a**+, " another -e+teno. &hen brought to =etro =anila and $hile he $as inside the Pasa+ Cit+ police headFuarters, =elecio Cudillan again e2ecuted an e2tra)udicial confession E2hibits "A ", "A-. " to "A-9" on !ul+ 7., .899. <his $as s$orn to before the Assistant Cit+ Fiscal of Pasa+ Cit+ on August ., .899. In this second state*ent, he narrated in detail the participation in the co**ission of the cri*e of !esus =edalla, "Celso" FernandeB, "'a*i" and "=ario." According to said state*ent, the declarant $ent near the cell $ithin the (ffice of the Investigation ,ection, ,ecret ,ervice >ivision, and Identified 'a*iro Alegre, !esus =edalla and =ario Co*a+as as the persons he referred to as !esus =edalla, "'a*i" and "=ario" in his declaration. (n the basis of the afore*entioned e2tra)udicial confession of =elecio Cudillan, an Infor*ation for 'obber+ $ith "o*icide $as filed b+ the ,pecial Counsel of Pasa+ Cit+ against Celso FernandeB, alias "Eso;," !esus =edalla + Cudillan, 'a*iro Alegre + Cerdoncillo, =ario Co*a+as + Cudillan, =elecio Cudillan + Arcillas, and one !ohn >oe." &hen arraigned on August .4, .899, =ario Co*a+as, =elecio Cudillan, !esus =edalla and 'a*iro Alegre entered a plea of not guilt+. <he prosecution presented nine 8# $itnesses. None of the*, ho$ever, testified on the actual co**ission of the cri*e. <he recital of facts contained in the decision under revie$ $as based principall+ and *ainl+ on the e2tra)udicial confessions of =elecio Cudillan. <hus, the details of the planning and the e2ecution of the cri*e $ere ta;en fro* the "Pasa+ ,$orn ,tate*ent" E2hibits "A", "A-." to "A-9"#. <he onl+ evidence, therefore, presented b+ the prosecution to prove the guilt of appellants are the testi*onies of ,gt. =ariano Isla and "ernando Carillo. <he testi*on+ of ,gt. =ariano Isla of the Pasa+ Cit+ police is to the effect that $hen he $as investigating =elecio Cudillan, the latter pointed to 'a*iro Alegre, =ario Co*a+as and !esus =edalla as his co*panions in the co**ission of the cri*e. According to hi*, said appellants ")ust stared at hi* =elecio Cudilla# and said nothing." G. In $hat particular place in the Police >epart*ent did +ou have to confront the accused =elecio Cudillan $ith the other suspects@H A. In the office of the ,ecret ,ervice >ivision. G. &hen +ou said there $as a confrontation bet$een the accused =elecio Cudillan and other suspects $ho* do +ou refer to as other suspectsH A. !esus =edalla, Celso FernandeB, 'osario >e)ere and =ario. <here $as another person Eduardo Co*a+as. "e $as also one of those suspects but =elecio Cudillan failed to point to hi* as his co*panion.

A. <o !esus =edalla, 'a*iro Alegre and =ario Co*a+as.

Page1

G. &ho $ere those persons or suspects pointed to b+ =elecio Cudillan in the Police >epart*ent of Pasa+ Cit+ as his co*panionsH

G. &hen =elecio Cudilla pointed to these persons $hat did these three persons doH A. <he+ )ust stared at hi* and said nothing. t.s.n., pp. .5-.9, "earing of (ctober /3, .899#. According to the trial court, had the appellants "reall+ been innocent the+# should have protested vigorousl+ and not *erel+ ;ept their silence." "ernando Carillo, a detention prisoner in the Pasa+ Cit+ )ail, declared that the three 7# appellants ad*itted to hi* that the+ too; part in the robber+ and ho*icide co**itted in the residence of the deceased, viB.% A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. >o +ou ;no$ the other accused 'a*iro AlegreH A. Ies, sir. G. If he is inside the court roo*, $ill +ou please point hi* outH IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness points to the fello$ in the second ro$, fourth fro* the left $ho, upon being as;ed, gave his na*e as 'a*iro Alegre. A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. >id +ou have an+ occasion to tal; to 'a*iro AlegreH A. Ies, sir. G. &hereH A. In the cit+ )ail because our cells are also near each other. G. And $hat did +ou and 'a*iro Alegre tal; aboutH A. Concerning his case and he told *e that he has also anticipated in the co**ission of the ;illing of Adelina ,a)o. G. B+ the $a+, $hen did +ou tal; $ith 'a*iro Alegre, *ore or lessH A. About the *iddle of !une. G. And $hat else did 'a*iro Alegre tell +ou, if an+H A. <hat he $as also inside the roo* $hen the+ ;illed Adelina ,a)o. G. No$, regarding that conversation +ou had $ith the accused !esus =edalla, $hen did that ta;e place, *ore or lessH A. About that *onth also of !une, about the *iddle of !une. G. &hat +earH A. .890. G. >o +ou ;no$ the other accused =ario Co*a+asH A. Ies, sir. G. &h+ do +ou ;no$ hi*H A. "e is also one of the prisoners and our cells are near each other. G. If he is inside the courtroo*, $ill +ou please point hi* outH IN<E'P'E<E'% &itness indicating to the fello$ $ho gave his na*e as =ario Co*a+as. A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. >id +ou have an+ occasion to tal; $ith the accused =ario Co*a+asH A. Ies, sir. G. &hen $as that, *ore or lessH A. In the *onth of !une, about the *iddle part also of !une. G. And $hat did +ou tal; aboutH A. 'egarding this case of Adelina ,a)o and he ad*itted to *e that he $as one of those $ho planned and ;illed Adelina ,a)o. G. I seeJ And $hat, else did he tell +ou, if an+H A. <hat $hile the ;illing $as being perpetrated upstairs he $as told to b+ the door. G. "o$ about the other accused =elencio Cudillan, do +ou ;no$ hi*H A. Ies, sir. G. If he is in court, $ill +ou please point hi* outH IN<E'P'E<E'%

Page1

&itness pointing to the accused $ho gave his na*e as =elecio Cudillan. A<<I. >EPA,:CA<% G. &h+ do +ou ;no$ =elecio CudillanH A. Because he is $ith *e in one cell. G. &ere +ou able also to tal; $ith =elecio CudillanH A. =ost of the ti*e because $e used to tal; about our case. G. &hen have +ou tal;ed $ith =elecio Cudillan, *ore or lessH A. <hree da+s after *+ confine*ent and subseFuentl+ thereafter up to about the first $ee; of !une, .890. G. And $hat did the accused =elecio Cudillan tell +ou about this caseH A<<I. 'A=I'EK% (b)ection, Iour "onor, leading. C(:'<% &itness *a+ ans$er, there is alread+ a basis. A. <hat the+ $ere the ones $ho planned and ;illed Adelina ,a)o. t.s.n., pp. /39-/38, "earing of !ul+ /., .890#. "o$ever, during the trial, =elecio Cudillan repudiated both the <acloban Cit+ and Pasa+ Cit+ s$orn state*ents as the product of co*pulsion and duress. "e clai*ed that he $as not assisted b+ counsel $hen he $as investigated b+ the police. Appellants !esus =edalla and =ario Co*a+as denied an+ involve*ent in the cri*e. <he+ testified that at the ti*e of the incident in Fuestion. the+ $ere attending the intern*ent of the deceased child of Ciriaco Abobote. According to !esus =edalla, he and his co*panions left the =aravilla co*pound at .4%44 o@cloc; in the *orning of !ul+ /5, .899 to attend the intern*ent. @<he+ left the ce*eter+ at about 5%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon and proceeded directl+ to his house at -everiBa ,treet $here he sta+ed the $hole night. =ario Co*a+as confir*ed that he and !esus =edalla $ere at the house of Ciriaco Abobote in the *orning of !ul+ /5, .899, until after 5%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon $hen he returned to the ba;er+ $here he $as e*plo+ed to resu*e his $or;. Appellant 'a*iro Alegre did not testif+ but presented three 7# $itnesses to support his defense. <hus, :rbano Eillanueva testified that he $as a sub-contractor of !ose Inton for the $elding pro)ect of >avid =. Consun)i at the ,heraton "otel constructionC that 'a*iro Alegre began $or;ing at the construction as a $elder on !ul+ .7, .899, and that fro* 0%44 o@cloc; in the *orning to 1%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon, Alegre $or;ed in the pro)ect and that he ;ne$ this because he is the fore*an and ti*e;eeper in the pro)ect. "e Identified the <i*e 'ecord of 'a*iro Alegre E2hibit "."#. 'odolfo Eillanueva and 'o*eo (rigenes testified that fro* 0%44 o@cloc; in the *orning up to 1%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon of !ul+ /5, .899, appellant 'a*iro Alegre $as at the ,heraton "otel construction at 'o2as Boulevard. <heir testi*on+ is confir*ed b+ the <i*e 'ecord of 'a*iro Alegre E2hibit "."# $hich contained the nu*ber of hours he actuall+ $or;ed at the ,heraton "otel construction pro)ect. Appellants no$ contend that the lo$er court erred in utiliBing the e2tra)udicial confessions of =elecio Cudillan no$ deceased# as evidence against herein appellantsC in concluding fro* the alleged ",ilence" of appellants $hen allegedl+ pointed to b+ =elecio Cudillan as "his co*panions" in the co**ission of the cri*e, an ad*ission of guiltC and in giving undue $eight and credence to the testi*on+ of an in*ate of the Pasa+ Cit+ !ail that appellants ad*itted to hi* their participation in the cri*e. I <he e2tra)udicial confessions of =elecio Cudillan E2hibits "A", "A- I " to "A-9" and "F", "F-." and "F-/"#, on the basis of $hich the trial court $as able to reconstruct ho$ =elecio Cudillan co**itted the cri*e in Fuestion, cannot be used as evidence and are not co*petent proof against appellants 'a*iro Alegre and !esus =edalla, under the principle of "res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet" . there being no independent evidence of conspirac+. /As a general rule, the e2tra)udicial declaration of an accused, although deliberatel+ *ade, is not ad*issible and does not have probative value against his coaccused. It is *erel+ hearsa+ evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. 7 &hile there are recogniBed e2ceptions to this rule, the facts and circu*stances attendant in the case at bar do not bring it $ithin the purvie$ of such e2ceptions. <he onl+ evidence, therefore, lin;ing the appellants to the cri*e $ould be their purported tacit ad*issions andDor failure to den+ their i*plications of the cri*e *ade b+ =elecio Cudillan, andDor their purported verbal confessions to "ernando Carillo, an in*ate of the Pasa+ Cit+ )ail. II <he ne2t Fuestion to be resolved is $hether or not the silence of appellants $hile under police custod+, in the face of state*ents of =elecio Cudillan i*plicating the* as his co*panions in the co**ission of the cri*e, could be considered as tacit ad*ission on their part of their participation therein. <he settled rule is that the silence of an accused in cri*inal cases, *eaning his failure or refusal to testif+, *a+ not be ta;en as evidence against hi*, 1 and that he *a+ refuse to ans$er an incri*inating Fuestion. 5 It has also been held that $hile an accused is under custod+, his silence *a+ not be ta;en as evidence against hi* as he has a right to re*ain silentC his silence $hen in custod+ *a+ not be used as evidence against hi*, other$ise, his right of silence $ould be illusor+. 9 <he leading case of =iranda v. AriBona 0 held that the prosecution *a+ not use at trial the fact that an individual stood *ute, or clai*ed his privilege against self-incri*ination, in the face of an accusation *ade at a police custodial interrogation. Prior to =iranda, it $as the vie$ of *an+ authorities that a *an to $ho* a state*ent i*plicating hi* in a cri*e is directed *a+ fail to repl+ if he is in custod+ under a charge of the co**ission of that cri*e, not because he acFuiesces in the truth of the state*ent, but because he stands on his constitutional right to re*ain silent, as being the safest course for hi* to pursue and the best $a+ out of his predica*ent. 3 (ther courts have held that the circu*stance that one is under arrest b+ itself does not render the evidence inad*issible, and that an accusation of a cri*e calls for a repl+ even fro* a person under arrest or in the custod+ of an officer, $here the circu*stances surrounding hi* indicate that he is free to ans$er if he chooses. 8

Page1

&e hold that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under custod+, or his failure to den+ state*ents b+ another i*plicating hi* in a cri*e, especiall+ $hen such accused is neither as;ed to co**ent or repl+ to such i*plications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the co**ission of the cri*e. ,uch an inference of acFuiescence dra$n fro* his silence or failure to den+ the state*ent $ould appear inco*patible $ith the right of an accused against self-incri*ination. <he right or privilege of a person accused of a cri*e against self- incri*ination is a funda*ental right. It is a personal right of great i*portance and is given absolutel+ and uneFuivocabl+. <he privilege against self-incri*ination is an i*portant develop*ent in *an@s struggle for libert+. It reflects *an@s funda*ental values and his *ost noble of aspirations, the un$illingness of civiliBed *en to sub)ect those@ suspected of cri*e to the cruel trile**a of self-accusation, per)ur+ or conte*ptC the fear that self-incri*inating state*ents *a+ be obtained b+ inhu*ane treat*ent and abuses, and the respect for the inviolabilit+ of the hu*an personalit+ and of the right of each individual "to a private enclave $here he *a+ lead a private life." .4 In the $ords of ChaveB v. Court of Appeals% .. ... this right is @not *erel+ a for*al technical rule the enforce*ent of $hich is left to the discretion of the courtC@ it is *andator+C it secures to a defendant a valuable and substantive rightC it is funda*ental to our sche*e of )ustice ... <herefore, the court *a+ not e2tract fro* a defendant@s o$n lips and against his $ill an ad*ission of his guilt. Nor *a+ a court as *uch as resort to co*pulsor+ disclosure, directl+ or indirectl+, of facts usable against hi* as a confession of the cri*e or the tendenc+ of $hich is to prove the co**ission of a cri*e. Because, it is his right to forego testi*on+, to re*ain silent, unless he chooses to ta;e the $itness stand A $ith undiluted, unfettered e2ercise of his o$n free, genuine $ill. It *ust be stressed here that even under a regi*e of *artial la$, the operations of our la$s governing the rights of an accused person are not open to doubt. :nder the code for the ad*inistration of detainees, all officers, civilian and *ilitar+ personnel are s$orn to uphold the rights of detainees. A*ong such funda*ental rights are the right against co*pulsor+ testi*onial self-incri*ination, the right, $hen under investigation for the co**ission of an offense, to re*ain silent, to have counsel, and to be infor*ed of his rightsC the right not to be sub)ected to force, violence, threats, inti*idation and degrading punish*ent or torture in the course of one@s detention, and the safeguard that an+ confession obtained in violation of the foregoing rights shall be inad*issible in evidence. ./<he .807 Constitution gives e2plicit constitutional sanction to the right to silence. <hus, in ,ection /4 of Article IE of the Constitution, there is this categorical *andate% "An+ person under investigation for the co**ission of an offense shall have the right to re*ain silent and to counsel, and to be infor*ed of such right. No force, violence, threat, inti*idation, or an+ other *eans $hich vitiates the free $ill shall be used against hi*. An+ confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inad*issible in evidence." <his privilege against self-incri*ination guaranteed b+ the Constitution protects, therefore, the right of a person to re*ain silent unless he chooses to spea; in the unfettered e2ercise of his o$n $ill, and to suffer no penalt+ for such silence. .7 <his aspect of the right has been co*prehensivel+ e2plained b+ then Associate !ustice EnriFue =. Fernando, no$ Chief )ustice, in Pascual !r. v. Board of =edical E2a*iners, .1 thus% <he constitutional guarantee protects as $ell the right to silence. As far bac; as .845, $e had occasion to declare% @<he accused has a perfect right to re*ain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presu*ption of his guilt.@ (nl+ last +ear, in ChaveB v. Court of Appeals, spea;ing through !ustice ,ancheB, $e reaffir*ed the doctrine ane$ that it is the right of a defendant @to forego testi*on+, to re*ain silent, unless he chooses to ta;e the $itness stand A $ith undiluted, unfettered e2ercise of his o$n free, genuine $ill.@ Identif+ing the right of an accused to re*ain silent $ith right to privac+, this Court, in Pascual e2plained that the privilege against self-incri*ination "enables the citiBen to create a Bone of privac+ $hich govern*ent *a+ not force to surrender to its detri*ent." &e hold, therefore, that it $as error for the trial court to dra$ fro* appellants@ silence $hile under police custod+, in the face of the incri*inator+ state*ents of =elecio Cudillan, the conclusion that the aforesaid appellants had tacitl+ ad*itted their guilt. &e hold, further, that in vie$ of the inad*issibilit+ of the e2tra)udicial confession of =elecio Cudillan i*plicating herein appellants, the re*aining evidence against the*, consisting in the testi*onies of ,gt. =ariano Isla and "ernando Carillo, is insufficient to sustain the )udg*ent of conviction. Indeed, it is inherentl+ i*probable that herein appellants $ould have readil+ confessed their participation in the co**ission of a heinous cri*e to a casual acFuaintance in a prison detention cell, considering that on the sa*e occasion the+ strongl+ denied an+ involve*ent in such cri*e before the police authorities. &"E'EF('E, the )udge*ent appealed fro* is reversed, and appellants 'a*iro Alegre + Cerdoncillo, =ario Co*a+as + Cudillan and !esus =edalla + Cudillan are hereb+ ACG:I<<E> of the cri*e $ith $hich the+ are charged. <heir i**ediate release fro* detention is ordered, unless the+ or an+ one of the* is other$ise held for so*e other la$ful cause. ,( ('>E'E>.

6.'. No. ..8445 >ece*ber /, .889 PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ,ABA, 'AG:E-, EA-E'IAN( 'AG:E- and A=A>( P(NCE, accused. ,ABA, 'AG:E- and EA-E'IAN( 'AG:E-, accused-appellants.

<he court a Fuo found herein accused-appellants ,abas 'aFuel and Ealeriano 'aFuel, as $ell as accused A*ado Ponce, guilt+ of the cri*e of robber+ $ith ho*icide and sentenced the* to suffer the penalt+ ofreclusion perpetua, to pa+ the

Page1

'E6A-A>(, !.%p

heirs of Agapito 6a*balan, !r. the su* of P54,444.44 as inde*nit+ for his death, and the a*ount of P.,544.44 representing the value of the stolen revolver. . <he 'aFuel brothers no$ plead for their absolution in this appellate revie$. In an infor*ation dated August /0, .839, the afore*entioned accused $ere indicted for robber+ $ith ho*icide before the 'egional <rial Court of Pabacan, Cotabato, Branch .9, / allegedl+ co**itted on !ul+ 1, .839 in Baranga+ (sias of the =unicipalit+ of Pabacan. :pon arraign*ent thereafter, all the accused pleaded not guilt+. &hile trial $as in progress, ho$ever, and before he could give his testi*on+, accused A*ado Ponce escaped fro* )ail. 7 <he factual antecedents of the case for the People, as borne out b+ the evidence of record and $ith page references to the transcripts of the court hearings, are su**ariBed b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral in the appellee@s brief% At *idnight of !ul+ 1, .839, traged+ visited the peaceful lives of spouses !uliet and Agapito 6a*balan, !r. <hin;ing of a neighbor in need, Agapito attended to the person ;noc;ing at the bac;door of their ;itchen. =uch to his surprise, heavil+ ar*ed *en e*erged at the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at hi*. pp. 1-9, <,N, !anuar+ /5, .833# !uliet $ent out of their roo* after hearing gunshots and sa$ her husband@s lifeless sic# $hile a *an too; her husband@s gun and left hurriedl+. p. 0, ibid.# ,he shouted for help at their $indo$ and sa$ a *an fall beside their $ater pu*p $hile t$o /# other *en ran a$a+. p. 8, ibid.# 6eorge !ovillano responded to !uliet@s plea for help. "e reported the incident to the police. <he police ca*e and found one of the perpetrators of the cri*e $ounded and l+ing at about 3 *eters fro* the victi*@s house. "e $as identified as A*ado Ponce. pp. 5-0, <,N, (ctober /., .830C pp. 3-8, <,N, =arch /., .833# A*ado Ponce $as first treated at a clinic before he $as brought to the police station. p. /0, ibid.# A*ado Ponce revealed to PD,gt. Andal ,. Pangato that appellants ,abas and Ealeriano 'aFuel $ere the perpetrators of the cri*e and that the+ *a+ be found in their residence. "o$ever, the police failed to find the* there since appellants fled i**ediatel+ after the shooting incident. pp. ./-.1, ibid.# Appellants $ere later on apprehended on different occasions. pp. 5-9, <,N, April /, .88.# 1 :pon the other hand, appellants relied on alibi as their defense, on the bases of facts $hich are presented in their brief in this $ise% Accused Ealeriano 'aFuel testified that on !ul+ /, .839, $ith the per*ission of his parents he left Paatan, Pabacan, Cotabato and $ent to <unggol Pagalungan, =aguindanao. "e sta+ed in the house of his sister-in-la$, the $ife of his deceased brother. <ogether $ith Bo+ =adriaga and CoraBon CorpuB, he harvested pala+ on !ul+ 7 and 1. (n !ul+ 5, $hile he $as still asle ep#, police authorities acco*panied b+ his father arrested hi* and brought hi* to the *unicipal )ail of Pabacan, Cotabato. "e alread+ heard the na*e of accused A*ado Ponce, to be an o$ner of a parcel of land in Paatan. (n cross-e2a*ination, he ad*itted that their house and that of 6a*balan are located in the sa*e Baranga+. Before !ul+ 1, he entertained no grudge against victi* Agapito 6a*balan. <,N, April /, .88., pp. /-/4#. Antonio 'aFuel, 91 +ears old, testified that on !ul+ /, .839 he $as at ho*e $hen his son Ealeriano 'aFuel told hi* that he $as going to <ungol, Pagalungan, =aguindanao to harvest pala+. (n the# sa*e date, his other son, ,abas 'aFuel, also as;ed his per*ission to leave since the latter, a soldier, $as going to his place of assign*ent at Pagadian. (n !ul+ 5, .839, several police*en ca*e over to his house, loo;ing for his t$o /# sons. "e gave the* pictures of his sons and even acco*panied the* to <ungol $here the+ arrested his son Ealeriano. <,N, April 7, .88., pp. 7-/9#. <D,gt. Natalio Kafra, of the .4/ Brigade, Aurora, Ka*boanga, testified that on !ul+ 1, .839, he $as assigned in the /nd Infantr+ Battalion, First Infantr+ >ivision, =aria Cristina, Iligan Cit+. ,abas 'aFuel $as under his division then, and $as on dut+ on !ul+ 1, .839. <,N, Nov. 9, .88/, pp. /-/4#. 5 (n August .4, .887, the trial court, as stated at the outset, rendered )udg*ent finding all of the accused guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e charged and sentenced the* accordingl+. 9 Not satisfied there$ith, herein appellants filed a notice of appeal $herein the+ *anifested that the+ $ere appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals. 0 <he lo$er court ordered the trans*ittal of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. 3 In vie$ of the penalt+ i*posed, the Court of Appeals properl+ for$arded the sa*e to us. 8 Before us, the defense sub*its a lone assign*ent of error, i.e., that the trial court erred in convicting accused ,abas 'aFuel and Ealeriano 'aFuel of the cri*e charged, despite absence of evidence positivel+ i*plicating the* as the perpetrators of the cri*e. &e find such sub*ission to be *eritorious. A careful revie$ and ob)ective appraisal of the evidence convinces us that the prosecution failed to establish be+ond reasonable doubt the real identities of the perpetrators of, *uch less the participation of herein appellants in, the cri*e charged. <he lone e+e$itness, !uliet 6a*balan, $as not able to identif+ the assailants of her husband. In her testi*on+ on direct e2a*ination in court she declared as follo$s% G% Iou said +ou shouted right after the incident and pip sic# at the $indo$, did +ou see an+ $hen +ou pip sic# at the $indo$H AC Ies, sir. G% &hat did +ou see if +ou $ere able to see an+thingH A% I sa$ a person $ho fel l# do$n beside the $ater pu*p and I sa$ again t$o /# persons $ho $ere running a$a+, sir.

222 222 222

Page1

G% &ere +ou able to identif+ this persons $ho fel l# do$n near the )et*atic pu*p and t$o /# persons running a$a+H

G% No$, +ou said so*ebod+ fel l# do$n near the )et*atic pu*p, $ho is this personH A% I do not ;no$ sir. I have ;no$n that he $as A*ado Ponce $hen the Police arrived. .4 e*phasis ours.# (n cross-e2a*ination she further testified% G% For the first ti*e $hen +ou shouted for help, $here $ere +ouH A% I $as at the Eeranda sir and I started shouting $hile going to our roo*. G% In fact +ou have no $a+ of# identif+ing that one person $ho $as *as; ed# and got the gun of +our husband because he $as *as; ed#, is that not rightH A% Ies, sir. G% In fact, +ou sa$ onl+ this one person got inside to +our house and got this gunH A% Ies, sir. G% And this A*ado Ponce cannot be the person $ho have got this gun insideH FI,CA- >IK(N% Alread+ ans$ered. ,he $as not able to identif+, +our "onor. G% Iou onl+ sa$ this A*ado Ponce $hen h#e $as presented to +ou b+ the police, is that rightH A% Ies, sir. .. 222 222 222 G% Iou testified in direct testi*on+ +ou pip sic# in )alousie after +ou shouted for help and +ou sa$ t$o /# person s# running, is that rightH A% Ies, sir. G% No$, +ou sa$ these persons running on the road, is that not rightH A% I sa$ the* running sir going around. G% <hese t$o /# persons $ere running going aroundH A% <he+ $ere running to$ards the road. A<<I. >IEIN(% 6oing to the road. G% And +ou cannot identif+ these t$o /# persons running to$ards the roadH A% No, sir. ./ E*phases supplied.# Even the corroborating $itness, 6eorge !ovillano, in his testi*on+ *ade no *ention of $ho shot Agapito 6a*balan. In fact, in his s$orn state*ent e2ecuted in the Investigation ,ection of the Pabacan Police ,tation on !ul+ 5, .839, he declared that% .8G% B+ the $a+, $hen +ou sa$ three persons passing about 5 *eters a$a+ fro* $here +ou $ere then drin;ing, $hat have +ou noticed about the*, if +ou ever noticed an+H A% I noticed that one of the *en ha d# long firear* $hich $as partl+ covered b+ a *aong )ac;et. <he other one $ore a hat locall+ ;no$n as ";ipis" *eaning a hat *ade of cloth $ith leaves protruding above the forehead and see*ed to be holding so*ething $hich I failed to recogniBe. <he other one $ore a shortpant $ith a so*e$hat $hite <-shirt $ith *ar;ings and there $as a $hite <-shirt covering his head and a part of his face as he $as head-do$n during that ti*e. /4G% >id +ou recogniBed an+ of these *enH A% No. Because the+ $al;ed fast. .7 E*phasis supplied.# A thorough revie$ of the records of this case readil+ revealed that the identification of herein appellants as the culprits $as based chiefl+ on the e2tra)udicial state*ent of accused A*ado Ponce pointing to the* as his co-perpetrators of the cri*e. As earlier stated, the said accused escaped fro* )ail before he could testif+ in court and he has been at large since then. <he e2tra)udicial state*ents of an accused i*plicating a co-accused *a+ not be utiliBed against the latter, unless these are repeated in open court. If the accused never had the opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine his co-accused on the latter@s e2tra)udicial state*ents, it is ele*entar+ that the sa*e are hearsa+ as against said accused. .1 <hat is e2actl+ the situation, and the disadvantaged plight of appellants, in the case at bar. E2tre*e caution should be e2ercised b+ the courts in dealing $ith the confession of an accused $hich i*plicates his co-accused. A distinction, obviousl+, should be *ade bet$een e2tra)udicial and )udicial confessions. <he for*er deprives the other accused of the opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine the confessant, $hile in the latter his confession is thro$n $ide open for cross-e2a*ination and rebuttal. .5 <he res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a part+ cannot be pre)udiced b+ an act, declaration, or o*ission of another. An e2tra)udicial confession is binding onl+ upon the confessant and is not ad*issible against his co-accused. <he reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and *utual convenience, a *an@s o$n acts are binding upon hi*self, and are evidence against hi*. ,o are his conduct and declarations. Iet it $ould not onl+ be rightl+ inconvenient, but also

Page1

*anifestl+ un)ust, that a *an should be bound b+ the acts of *ere unauthoriBed strangersC and if a part+ ought not to be bound b+ the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against hi*. .9 Although the above-stated rule ad*its of certain )urisprudential e2ceptions, .0 those e2ceptions do not ho$ever appl+ to the present case. Firstl+, e2cept for that e2tra)udicial state*ent of accused A*ado Ponce, there e2ists no evidence $hatsoever lin;ing appellants to the cri*e. In fact, the testi*on+ of police ,gt. Andal ,. Pangato that appellant ,abas 'aFuel $as $ounded and $ent to the clinic of >r. Anulao for treat*ent using the na*e >ante Cle*ente, .3 $as negated b+ >r. Anulao hi*self $ho testified that he treated no person b+ the na*e of >ann+ Cle*ente. .8 ,econdl+, this e2tra)udicial state*ent, ironicall+ relied upon as prosecution evidence, $as *ade in violation of the constitutional rights of accused A*ado Ponce. <his $as un$ittingl+ ad*itted in the testi*on+ of the sa*e ,gt. Andal ,. Pangato $ho $as the chief of the intelligence and investigation section of their police station% G% >uring the investigation did +ou infor* hi* of# his constitutional right $hile on the process of investigationH A% No sir, because *+ purpose $as onl+ to get the infor*ation fro* hi* . . . And after that I chec;ed the infor*ation that he gave. G% (f course, +ou ;no$ ver+ $ell that the accused should be assisted b+ counselH A% &hat I ;no$ is if $hen a person is under investigation +ou have in *ind to investigate as to against sic# hi*, and +ou have to infor* his constitutional right but if the purpose is to interrogate hi* to acFuire infor*ation $hich $ill lead to the identit+ of the other accused $e do not need to infor* hi*. G% >on@t +ou ;no$ that under the case of PP vs. 6alitC the accused should be re#presented b+ counsel that is the ruling of the ,upre*e CourtH A% I do not ;no$ if it is actuall+ the sa*e as this case. G% But it is a fact that +ou did not even infor* hi* of# his rightH A% No sir. G% At the ti*e $hen +ou as;ed hi* he has no counsel. A% No counsel, ,ir. /4 E2tra)udicial state*ents *ade during custodial investigation $ithout the assistance of counsel are inad*issible and cannot be considered in the ad)udication of the case. &hile the right to counsel *a+ be $aived, such $aiver *ust be *ade $ith the assistance of counsel. /. <hese rights, both constitutional and statutor+ in source and foundation, $ere never observed. A conviction in a cri*inal case *ust rest on nothing less than a *oral certaint+ of guilt. // &ithout the positive identification of appellants, the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to overco*e the presu*ption of innocence guaranteed b+ the Bill of 'ights to the*. /7 &hile ad*ittedl+ the alibi of appellants *a+ be assailable, the evidence of the prosecution is probativel+ lo$ in substance and evidentiaril+ barred in part. <he prosecution cannot use the $ea;ness of the defense to enhance its caseC it *ust rel+ on the strength of its o$n evidence. In fact, alibi need not be inFuired into $here the prosecution@s evidence is $ea;. /1 It $ould not even have been necessar+ to stress that ever+ reasonable doubt in cri*inal cases *ust be resolved in favor of the accused. <he reFuire*ent of proof be+ond reasonable doubt calls for *oral certaint+ of guilt. In the instant case, the test of *oral certaint+ $as neither *et nor $ere the standards therefor fulfilled. &"E'EF('E, on reasonable doubt, the appealed )udg*ent is 'EEE',E> and accused-appellants ,abas 'aFuel and Ealeriano 'aFuel are hereb+ ACG:I<<E> of the offense charged, $ith costs de oficio. ,( ('>E'E>. 6. '. No. .53.18 Februar+ 8, /449

B(,<(N BANP (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, for*erl+ BANP (F C(==E'CE#, Petitioner, vs. PE'-A P. =ANA-( and CA'-(, =ANA-(, !'., 'espondents. >ECI,I(N CA--E!(, ,'., !.% Before us is a Petition for 'evie$ on Certiorari of the >ecision. of the Court of Appeals CA# in CA-6.'. CE No. 10153 affir*ing, on appeal, the >ecision/ of the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of GueBon Cit+, Branch 83, in Civil Case No. G-387845. <he Antecedents <he Uavierville Estate, Inc. UEI# $as the o$ner of parcels of land in GueBon Cit+, ;no$n as the Uavierville Estate ,ubdivision, $ith an area of 1/ hectares. UEI caused the subdivision of the propert+ into residential lots, $hich $as then offered for sale to individual lot bu+ers.7 (n ,epte*ber 3, .890, UEI, through its 6eneral =anager, Antonio 'a*os, as vendor, and <he (verseas Ban; of =anila (B=#, as vendee, e2ecuted a ">eed of ,ale of 'eal Estate" over so*e residential lots in the subdivision, including -ot ., Bloc; /, $ith an area of 840.5 sFuare *eters, and -ot /, Bloc; /, $ith an area of 37/.34 sFuare *eters. <he transaction $as sub)ect to the approval of the Board of >irectors of (B=, and $as covered b+ real estate *ortgages in favor of the Philippine National Ban; as securit+ for its account a*ounting toP5,.30,444.44, and the Central Ban; of the

Page1

Philippines as securit+ for advances a*ounting to P//,.35,.87.01.1 Nevertheless, UEI continued selling the residential lots in the subdivision as agent of (B=.5 ,o*eti*e in .80/, then UEI president E*erito 'a*os, !r. contracted the services of Engr. Carlos =analo, !r. $ho $as in business of drilling deep $ater $ells and installing pu*ps under the business na*e "urricane Co**ercial, Inc. For P71,330.99, =analo, !r. installed a $ater pu*p at 'a*osN residence at the corner of Aurora Boulevard and Patipunan Avenue, GueBon Cit+. =analo, !r. then proposed to UEI, through 'a*os, to purchase a lot in the Uavierville subdivision, and offered as part of the do$npa+*ent the P71,330.99 'a*os o$ed hi*. UEI, through 'a*os, agreed. In a letter dated Februar+ 3, .80/, 'a*os reFuested =analo, !r. to choose $hich lots he $anted to bu+ so that the price of the lots and the ter*s of pa+*ent could be fi2ed and incorporated in the conditional sale.9 =analo, !r. *et $ith 'a*os and infor*ed hi* that he and his $ife Perla had chosen -ots . and / of Bloc; / $ith a total area of .,014.7 sFuare *eters. In a letter dated August //, .80/ to Perla =analo, 'a*os confir*ed the reservation of the lots. "e also pegged the price of the lots atP/44.44 per sFuare *eter, or a total of P713,494.44, $ith a /4] do$n pa+*ent of the purchase price a*ounting to P98,9./.44 less theP71,330.99 o$ing fro* 'a*os, pa+able on or before >ece*ber 7., .80/C the corresponding Contract of Conditional ,ale $ould then be signed on or before the sa*e date, but if the selling operations of UEI resu*ed after >ece*ber 7., .80/, the balance of the do$npa+*ent $ould fall due then, and the spouses $ould sign the aforesaid contract $ithin five 5# da+s fro* receipt of the notice of resu*ption of such selling operations. It $as also stated in the letter that, in the *eanti*e, the spouses *a+ introduce i*prove*ents thereon sub)ect to the rules and regulations i*posed b+ UEI in the subdivision. Perla =analo confor*ed to the letter agree*ent.0 <he spouses =analo too; possession of the propert+ on ,epte*ber /, .80/, constructed a house thereon, and installed a fence around the peri*eter of the lots. In the *eanti*e, *an+ of the lot bu+ers refused to pa+ their *onthl+ install*ents until the+ $ere assured that the+ $ould be issued <orrens titles over the lots the+ had purchased.3 <he spouses =analo $ere notified of the resu*ption of the selling operations of UEI.8 "o$ever, the+ did not pa+ the balance of the do$npa+*ent on the lots because 'a*os failed to prepare a contract of conditional sale and trans*it the sa*e to =analo for their signature. (n August .1, .807, Perla =analo $ent to the UEI office and reFuested that the pa+*ent of the a*ount representing the balance of the do$npa+*ent be deferred, $hich, ho$ever, UEI re)ected. (n August .4, .807, UEI furnished her $ith a state*ent of their account as of !ul+ 7., .807, sho$ing that the+ had a balance of P71,0/1.71 on the do$npa+*ent of the t$o lots after deducting the account of 'a*os, plus P7,3.8.93.4 interest thereon fro* ,epte*ber ., .80/ to !ul+ 7., .807, and that the interests on the unpaid balance of the purchase price of P/03,113.44 fro* ,epte*ber ., .80/ to !ul+ 7., .807 a*ounted to P74,9/8./3... <he spouses $ere infor*ed that the+ $ere being billed for said unpaid interests../ (n !anuar+ /5, .801, the spouses =analo received another state*ent of account fro* UEI, inclusive of interests on the purchase price of the lots..7 In a letter dated April 9, .801 to UEI, =analo, !r. stated the+ had not +et received the notice of resu*ption of -eiNs selling operations, and that there had been no arrange*ent on the pa+*ent of interestsC hence, the+ should not be charged $ith interest on the balance of the do$npa+*ent on the propert+..1 Further, the+ de*anded that a deed of conditional sale over the t$o lots be trans*itted to the* for their signatures. "o$ever, UEI ignored the de*ands. ConseFuentl+, the spouses refused to pa+ the balance of the do$npa+*ent of the purchase price..5 ,o*eti*e in !une .809, =analo, !r. constructed a business sign in the side$al; near his house. In a letter dated !une .0, .809, UEI infor*ed =analo, !r. that business signs $ere not allo$ed along the side$al;. It de*anded that he re*ove the sa*e, on the ground, a*ong others, that the side$al; $as not part of the land $hich he had purchased on install*ent basis fro* UEI..9 =analo, !r. did not respond. UEI reiterated its de*and on ,epte*ber .5, .800..0 ,ubseFuentl+, UEI turned over its selling operations to (B=, including the receivables for lots alread+ contracted and those +et to be sold..3(n >ece*ber 3, .800, (B= $arned =analo, !r., that "putting up of a business sign is specificall+ prohibited b+ their contract of conditional sale" and that his failure to co*pl+ $ith its de*and $ould i*pel it to avail of the re*edies as provided in their contract of conditional sale..8 =ean$hile, on >ece*ber 5, .808, the 'egister of >eeds issued <ransfer Certificate of <itle <C<# No. <-/953// over -ot ., Bloc; /, and <C< No. <-/953/7 over -ot /, Bloc; /, in favor of the (B=./4 <he lien in favor of the Central Ban; of the Philippines $as annotated at the dorsal portion of said title, $hich $as later cancelled on August 1, .834./. ,ubseFuentl+, the Co**ercial Ban; of =anila CB=# acFuired the Uavierville Estate fro* (B=. CB= $rote Edilberto Ng, the president of Uavierville "o*eo$ners Association that, as of !anuar+ 7., .837, =analo, !r. $as one of the lot bu+ers in the subdivision.// CB= reiterated in its letter to Ng that, as of !anuar+ /1, .831, =analo $as a ho*eo$ner in the subdivision./7 In a letter dated August 5, .839, the CB= reFuested Perla =analo to stop an+ on-going construction on the propert+ since it CB=# $as the o$ner of the lot and she had no per*ission for such construction./1 ,he agreed to have a conference *eeting $ith CB= officers $here she infor*ed the* that her husband had a contract $ith (B=, through UEI, to purchase the propert+. &hen as;ed to prove her clai*, she pro*ised to send the docu*ents to CB=. "o$ever, she failed to do so./5 (n ,epte*ber 5, .839, CB= reiterated its de*and that it be furnished $ith the docu*ents pro*ised,/9 but Perla =analo did not respond. (n !ul+ /0, .830, CB= filed a co*plaint/0 for unla$ful detainer against the spouses $ith the =etropolitan <rial Court of GueBon Cit+. <he case $as doc;eted as Civil Case No. 5.9.3. CB= clai*ed that the spouses had been unla$full+ occup+ing the propert+ $ithout its consent and that despite its de*ands, the+ refused to vacate the propert+. <he latter alleged that the+, as vendors, and UEI, as vendee, had a contract of sale over the lots $hich had not +et been rescinded./3 &hile the case $as pending, the spouses =analo $rote CB= to offer an a*icable settle*ent, pro*ising to abide b+ the purchase price of the propert+ P7.7,.0/.71#, per agree*ent $ith UEI, through 'a*os. "o$ever, on !ul+ /3, .833, CB= $rote the spouses, through counsel, proposing that the price of P.,544.44 per sFuare *eter of the propert+ $as a reasonable starting point for negotiation of the settle*ent./8<he spouses re)ected the counter proposal,74 e*phasiBing that the+ $ould abide b+ their original agree*ent $ith UEI. CB= *oved to $ithdra$ its co*plaint7. because of the issues raised.7/

Page1

In the *eanti*e, the CB= $as rena*ed the Boston Ban; of the Philippines. After CB= filed its co*plaint against the spouses =analo, the latter filed a co*plaint for specific perfor*ance and da*ages against the ban; before the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of GueBon Cit+ on (ctober 7., .838.

<he plaintiffs alleged therein that the+ had al$a+s been read+, able and $illing to pa+ the install*ents on the lots sold to the* b+ the defendantNs re*ote predecessor-in-interest, as *ight be or stipulated in the contract of sale, but no contract $as forthco*ingC the+ constructed their house $orth P/,444,444.44 on the propert+ in good faithC =analo, !r., infor*ed the defendant, through its counsel, on (ctober .5, .833 that he $ould abide b+ the ter*s and conditions of his original agree*ent $ith the defendantNs predecessor-in-interestC during the hearing of the e)ect*ent case on (ctober .9, .833, the+ offered to pa+ P7.7,.0/.71 representing the balance on the purchase price of said lotsC such tender of pa+*ent $as re)ected, so that the sub)ect lots could be sold at considerabl+ higher prices to third parties. Plaintiffs further alleged that upon pa+*ent of the P7.7,.0/.71, the+ $ere entitled to the e2ecution and deliver+ of a >eed of Absolute ,ale covering the sub)ect lots, sufficient in for* and substance to transfer title thereto free and clear of an+ and all liens and encu*brances of $hatever ;ind and nature.77 <he plaintiffs pra+ed that, after due hearing, )udg*ent be rendered in their favor, to $it% &"E'EF('E, it is respectfull+ pra+ed that after due hearing% a# <he defendant should be ordered to e2ecute and deliver a >eed of Absolute ,ale over sub)ect lots in favor of the plaintiffs after pa+*ent of the su* of P7.7,.0/.71, sufficient in for* and substance to transfer to the* titles thereto free and clear of an+ and all liens and encu*brances of $hatever ;ind or natureC b# <he defendant should be held liable for *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages in the a*ounts of P744,444.44 and P74,444.44, respectivel+, for not pro*ptl+ e2ecuting and delivering to plaintiff the necessar+ Contract of ,ale, not$ithstanding repeated de*ands therefor and for having been constrained to engage the services of undersigned counsel for $hich the+ agreed to pa+ attorne+Ns fees in the su* of P54,444.44 to enforce their rights in the pre*ises and appearance fee of P544.44C c# And for such other and further relief as *a+ be )ust and eFuitable in the pre*ises.71 In its Ans$er to the co*plaint, the defendant interposed the follo$ing affir*ative defenses% a# plaintiffs had no cause of action against it because the August //, .80/ letter agree*ent bet$een UEI and the plaintiffs $as not binding on itC and b# "it had no record of an+ contract to sell e2ecuted b+ it or its predecessor, or of an+ state*ent of accounts fro* its predecessors, or records of pa+*ents of the plaintiffs or of an+ docu*ents $hich entitled the* to the possession of the lots."75 <he defendant, li;e$ise, interposed counterclai*s for da*ages and attorne+Ns fees and pra+ed for the eviction of the plaintiffs fro* the propert+.79 =ean$hile, in a letter dated !anuar+ /5, .887, plaintiffs, through counsel, proposed an a*icable settle*ent of the case b+ pa+ingP81/,913.04, representing the balance of the purchase price of the t$o lots based on the current *ar;et value.70 "o$ever, the defendant re)ected the sa*e and insisted that for the s*aller lot, the+ pa+ P1,544,444.44, the current *ar;et value of the propert+.73 <he defendant insisted that it o$ned the propert+ since there $as no contract or agree*ent bet$een it and the plaintiffsN relative thereto. >uring the trial, the plaintiffs adduced in evidence the separate Contracts of Conditional ,ale e2ecuted bet$een UEI and Alberto ,ollerC78Alfredo Aguila,14 and >ra. Elena ,antos-'oFue1. to prove that UEI continued selling residential lots in the subdivision as agent of (B= after the latter had acFuired the said lots. For its part, defendant presented in evidence the letter dated August //, .80/, $here UEI proposed to sell the t$o lots sub)ect to t$o suspensive conditions% the pa+*ent of the balance of the do$npa+*ent of the propert+, and the e2ecution of the corresponding contract of conditional sale. ,ince plaintiffs failed to pa+, (B= conseFuentl+ refused to e2ecute the corresponding contract of conditional sale and forfeited the P71,300.99 do$npa+*ent for the t$o lots, but did not notif+ the* of said forfeiture.1/ It alleged that (B= considered the lots unsold because the titles thereto bore no annotation that the+ had been sold under a contract of conditional sale, and the plaintiffs $ere not notified of UEINs resu*ption of its selling operations. (n =a+ /, .881, the '<C rendered )udg*ent in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. <he fallo of the decision reads% &"E'EF('E, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant R a# (rdering the latter to e2ecute and deliver a >eed of Absolute ,ale over -ot . and /, Bloc; / of the Uavierville Estate ,ubdivision after pa+*ent of the su* of P81/,803.04 sufficient in for* and substance to transfer to the* titles thereto free fro* an+ and all liens and encu*brances of $hatever ;ind and nature. b# (rdering the defendant to pa+ *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages in the a*ount of P.54,444.44C and c# <o pa+ attorne+Ns fees in the su* of P54,444.44 and to pa+ the costs. ,( ('>E'E>.17 <he trial court ruled that under the August //, .80/ letter agree*ent of UEI and the plaintiffs, the parties had a "co*plete contract to sell" over the lots, and that the+ had alread+ partiall+ consu**ated the sa*e. It declared that the failure of the defendant to notif+ the plaintiffs of the resu*ption of its selling operations and to e2ecute a deed of conditional sale did not prevent the defendantNs obligation to conve+ titles to the lots fro* acFuiring binding effect. ConseFuentl+, the plaintiffs had a cause of action to co*pel the defendant to e2ecute a deed of sale over the lots in their favor. Boston Ban; appealed the decision to the CA, alleging that the lo$er court erred in a# not concluding that the letter of UEI to the spouses =analo, $as at *ost a *ere contract to sell sub)ect to suspensive conditions, i.e., the pa+*ent of the balance of the do$npa+*ent on the propert+ and the e2ecution of a deed of conditional sale $hich $ere not co*plied $ith#C and b# in a$arding *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages to the spouses =analo despite the absence of testi*on+ providing facts to )ustif+ such a$ards.11

(n ,epte*ber 74, /44/, the CA rendered a decision affir*ing that of the '<C $ith *odification. <he fallo reads% &"E'EF('E, the appealed decision is AFFI'=E> $ith =(>IFICA<I(N, that a# the figure "P81/,803.04" appearing LinM par. a# of the dispositive portion thereof is changed to "P7.7,.0/.71 plus interest thereon at the rate of ./]

Page1

per annu* fro* ,epte*ber ., .80/ until full+ paid" and b# the a$ard of *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages and attorne+Ns fees in favor of plaintiffs-appellees is >E-E<E>. ,( ('>E'E>.15 <he appellate court sustained the ruling of the '<C that the appellant and the appellees had e2ecuted a Contract to ,ell over the t$o lots but declared that the balance of the purchase price of the propert+ a*ounting to P/03,113.44 $as pa+able in fi2ed a*ounts, inclusive of pre-co*puted interests, fro* deliver+ of the possession of the propert+ to the appellees on a *onthl+ basis for ./4 *onths, based on the deeds of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI in favor of other lot bu+ers.19 <he CA also declared that, $hile UEI *ust have resu*ed its selling operations before the end of .80/ and the do$npa+*ent on the propert+ re*ained unpaid as of >ece*ber 7., .80/, absent a $ritten notice of cancellation of the contract to sell fro* the ban; or notarial de*and therefor as reFuired b+ 'epublic Act No. 955/, the spouses had, at the ver+ least, a 94-da+ grace period fro* !anuar+ ., .807 $ithin $hich to pa+ the sa*e. Boston Ban; filed a *otion for the reconsideration of the decision alleging that there $as no perfected contract to sell the t$o lots, as there $as no agree*ent bet$een UEI and the respondents on the *anner of pa+*ent as $ell as the other ter*s and conditions of the sale. It further averred that its clai* for recover+ of possession of the aforesaid lots in its =e*orandu* dated Februar+ /3, .881 filed before the trial court constituted a )udicial de*and for rescission that satisfied the reFuire*ents of the Ne$ Civil Code. "o$ever, the appellate court denied the *otion. Boston Ban;, no$ petitioner, filed the instant petition for revie$ on certiorari assailing the CA rulings. It *aintains that, as held b+ the CA, the records do not reflect an+ schedule of pa+*ent of the 34] balance of the purchase price, or P/03,113.44. Petitioner insists that unless the parties had agreed on the *anner of pa+*ent of the principal a*ount, including the other ter*s and conditions of the contract, there $ould be no e2isting contract of sale or contract to sell.10 Petitioner avers that the letter agree*ent to respondent spouses dated August //, .80/ *erel+ confir*ed their reservation for the purchase of -ot Nos. . and /, consisting of .,014.7 sFuare *eters, *ore or less, at the price ofP/44.44 per sFuare *eter or P713,494.44#, the a*ount of the do$npa+*ent thereon and the application of the P71,330.44 due fro* 'a*os as part of such do$npa+*ent. Petitioner asserts that there is no factual basis for the CA ruling that the ter*s and conditions relating to the pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the propert+ as agreed upon b+ UEI and other lot bu+ers in the sa*e subdivision# $ere also applicable to the contract entered into bet$een the petitioner and the respondents. It insists that such a ruling is contrar+ to la$, as it is tanta*ount to co*pelling the parties to agree to so*ething that $as not even discussed, thus, violating their freedo* to contract. Besides, the situation of the respondents cannot be eFuated $ith those of the other lot bu+ers, as, for one thing, the respondents *ade a partial pa+*ent on the do$npa+*ent for the t$o lots even before the e2ecution of an+ contract of conditional sale. Petitioner posits that, even on the assu*ption that there $as a perfected contract to sell bet$een the parties, nevertheless, it cannot be co*pelled to conve+ the propert+ to the respondents because the latter failed to pa+ the balance of the do$npa+*ent of the propert+, as $ell as the balance of 34] of the purchase price, thus resulting in the e2tinction of its obligation to conve+ title to the lots to the respondents. Another egregious error of the CA, petitioner avers, is the application of 'epublic Act No. 955/. It insists that such la$ applies onl+ to a perfected agree*ent or perfected contract to sell, not in this case $here the do$npa+*ent on the purchase price of the propert+ $as not co*pletel+ paid, and no install*ent pa+*ents $ere *ade b+ the bu+ers. Petitioner also faults the CA for declaring that petitioner failed to serve a notice on the respondents of cancellation or rescission of the contract to sell, or notarial de*and therefor. Petitioner insists that its August 5, .839 letter reFuiring respondents to vacate the propert+ and its co*plaint for e)ect*ent in Civil Case No. 5.9.3 filed in the =etropolitan <rial Court a*ounted to the reFuisite de*and for a rescission of the contract to sell. =oreover, the action of the respondents belo$ $as barred b+ laches because despite de*ands, the+ failed to pa+ the balance of the purchase price of the lots let alone the do$npa+*ent# for a considerable nu*ber of +ears. For their part, respondents assert that as long as there is a *eeting of the *inds of the parties to a contract of sale as to the price, the contract is valid despite the partiesN failure to agree on the *anner of pa+*ent. In such a situation, the balance of the purchase price $ould be pa+able on de*and, confor*abl+ to Article ..98 of the Ne$ Civil Code. <he+ insist that the la$ does not reFuire a part+ to agree on the *anner of pa+*ent of the purchase price as a prereFuisite to a valid contract to sell. <he respondents cite the ruling of this Court in Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals13 to support their sub*ission. <he+ argue that even if the *anner and ti*eline for the pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the propert+ is an essential reFuisite of a contract to sell, nevertheless, as sho$n b+ their letter agree*ent of August //, .80/ $ith the (B=, through UEI and the other letters to the*, an agree*ent $as reached as to the *anner of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price. <he+ point out that such letters referred to the ter*s of the ter*s of the deeds of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI in favor of the other lot bu+ers in the subdivision, $hich contained unifor* ter*s of ./4 eFual *onthl+ install*ents e2cluding the do$npa+*ent, but inclusive of pre-co*puted interests#. <he respondents assert that UEI $as a real estate bro;er and ;ne$ that the contracts involving residential lots in the subdivision contained unifor* ter*s as to the *anner and ti*eline of the pa+*ent of the purchase price of said lots. 'espondents further posit that the ter*s and conditions to be incorporated in the "corresponding contract of conditional sale" to be e2ecuted b+ the parties $ould be the sa*e as those contained in the contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ lot bu+ers in the subdivision. After all, the+ *aintain, the contents of the corresponding contract of conditional sale referred to in the August //, .80/ letter agree*ent envisaged those contained in the contracts of conditional sale that UEI and other lot bu+ers e2ecuted. 'espondents cite the ruling of this Court in =itsui Bussan Paisha v. =anila E.'.'. Y -. Co.18 <he respondents aver that the issues raised b+ the petitioner are factual, inappropriate in a petition for revie$ on certiorari under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court. <he+ assert that petitioner adopted a theor+ in litigating the case in the trial court, but changed the sa*e on appeal before the CA, and again in this Court. <he+ argue that the petitioner is estopped fro* adopting a ne$ theor+ contrar+ to those it had adopted in the trial and appellate courts. =oreover, the e2istence of a contract of conditional sale $as ad*itted in the letters of UEI and (B=. <he+ aver that the+ beca*e o$ners of the lots upon deliver+ to the* b+ UEI.

Page1

<he issues for resolution are the follo$ing% .# $hether the factual issues raised b+ the petitioner are properC /# $hether petitioner or its predecessors-in-interest, the UEI or the (B=, as seller, and the respondents, as bu+ers, forged a perfect contract to sell over the propert+C 7# $hether petitioner is estopped fro* contending that no such contract $as forged b+ the partiesC and 1# $hether respondents has a cause of action against the petitioner for specific perfor*ance. <he rule is that before this Court, onl+ legal issues *a+ be raised in a petition for revie$ on certiorari. <he reason is that this Court is not a trier of facts, and is not to revie$ and calibrate the evidence on record. =oreover, the findings of facts of the trial court, as affir*ed on appeal b+ the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the case falls under an+ of the follo$ing e2ceptions% .# $hen the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel+ on speculations, sur*ises and con)ecturesC /# $hen the inference *ade is *anifestl+ *ista;en, absurd or i*possibleC 7# $here there is a grave abuse of discretionC 1# $hen the )udg*ent is based on a *isapprehension of factsC 5# $hen the findings of fact are conflictingC 9# $hen the Court of Appeals, in *a;ing its findings $ent be+ond the issues of the case and the sa*e is contrar+ to the ad*issions of both appellant and appelleeC 0# $hen the findings are contrar+ to those of the trial courtC 3# $hen the findings of fact are conclusions $ithout citation of specific evidence on $hich the+ are basedC 8# $hen the facts set forth in the petition as $ell as in the petitionersN *ain and repl+ briefs are not disputed b+ the respondentsC and .4# $hen the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are pre*ised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted b+ the evidence on record.54 &e have revie$ed the records and $e find that, indeed, the ruling of the appellate court dis*issing petitionerNs appeal is contrar+ to la$ and is not supported b+ evidence. A careful e2a*ination of the factual bac;drop of the case, as $ell as the antecedental proceedings constrains us to hold that petitioner is not barred fro* asserting that UEI or (B=, on one hand, and the respondents, on the other, failed to forge a perfected contract to sell the sub)ect lots. It *ust be stressed that the Court *a+ consider an issue not raised during the trial $hen there is plain error.5. Although a factual issue $as not raised in the trial court, such issue *a+ still be considered and resolved b+ the Court in the interest of substantial )ustice, if it finds that to do so is necessar+ to arrive at a )ust decision,5/ or $hen an issue is closel+ related to an issue raised in the trial court and the Court of Appeals and is necessar+ for a )ust and co*plete resolution of the case.57 &hen the trial court decides a case in favor of a part+ on certain grounds, the Court *a+ base its decision upon so*e other points, $hich the trial court or appellate court ignored or erroneousl+ decided in favor of a part+.51 In this case, the issue of $hether UEI had agreed to allo$ the respondents to pa+ the purchase price of the propert+ $as raised b+ the parties. <he trial court ruled that the parties had perfected a contract to sell, as against petitionerNs clai* that no such contract e2isted. "o$ever, in resolving the issue of $hether the petitioner $as obliged to sell the propert+ to the respondents, $hile the CA declared that UEI or (B= and the respondents failed to agree on the schedule of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the propert+, it ruled that UEI and the respondents had forged a contract to sellC hence, petitioner is entitled to ventilate the issue before this Court. &e agree $ith petitionerNs contention that, for a perfected contract of sale or contract to sell to e2ist in la$, there *ust be an agree*ent of the parties, not onl+ on the price of the propert+ sold, but also on the *anner the price is to be paid b+ the vendee. :nder Article .153 of the Ne$ Civil Code, in a contract of sale, $hether absolute or conditional, one of the contracting parties obliges hi*self to transfer the o$nership of and deliver a deter*inate thing, and the other to pa+ therefor a price certain in *one+ or its eFuivalent. A contract of sale is perfected at the *o*ent there is a *eeting of the *inds upon the thing $hich is the ob)ect of the contract and the price. Fro* the aver*ent of perfection, the parties are bound, not onl+ to the fulfill*ent of $hat has been e2pressl+ stipulated, but also to all the conseFuences $hich, according to their nature, *a+ be in ;eeping $ith good faith, usage and la$.55 (n the other hand, $hen the contract of sale or to sell is not perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding )uridical relation bet$een the parties.59 A definite agree*ent as to the price is an essential ele*ent of a binding agree*ent to sell personal or real propert+ because it seriousl+ affects the rights and obligations of the parties. Price is an essential ele*ent in the for*ation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. <he fi2ing of the price can never be left to the decision of one of the contracting parties. But a price fi2ed b+ one of the contracting parties, if accepted b+ the other, gives rise to a perfected sale.50 It is not enough for the parties to agree on the price of the propert+. <he parties *ust also agree on the *anner of pa+*ent of the price of the propert+ to give rise to a binding and enforceable contract of sale or contract to sell. <his is so because the agree*ent as to the *anner of pa+*ent goes into the price, such that a disagree*ent on the *anner of pa+*ent is tanta*ount to a failure to agree on the price.53 In a contract to sell propert+ b+ install*ents, it is not enough that the parties agree on the price as $ell as the a*ount of do$npa+*ent. <he parties *ust, li;e$ise, agree on the *anner of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price and on the other ter*s and conditions relative to the sale. Even if the bu+er *a;es a do$npa+*ent or portion thereof, such pa+*ent cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the perfection of an+ purchase and sale bet$een the parties. Indeed, this Court ruled in Eelasco v. Court of Appeals58 that% It is not difficult to glean fro* the aforeFuoted aver*ents that the petitioners the*selves ad*it that the+ and the respondent still had to *eet and agree on ho$ and $hen the do$n-pa+*ent and the install*ent pa+*ents $ere to be paid. ,uch being the situation, it cannot, therefore, be said that a definite and fir* sales agree*ent bet$een the parties had been perfected over the lot in Fuestion. Indeed, this Court has alread+ ruled before that a definite agree*ent on the *anner of pa+*ent of the purchase price is an essential ele*ent in the for*ation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. <he fact, therefore, that the petitioners delivered to the respondent the su* of P.4,444.44 as part of the do$npa+*ent that the+ had to pa+ cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the perfection of an+ purchase and sale agree*ent bet$een the parties herein under article .13/ of the Ne$ Civil Code, as the petitioners the*selves ad*it that so*e essential *atter R the ter*s of pa+*ent R still had to be *utuall+ covenanted.94 &e agree $ith the contention of the petitioner that, as held b+ the CA, there is no sho$ing, in the records, of the schedule of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price on the propert+ a*ounting to P/03,113.44. &e have *eticulousl+ revie$ed the records, including 'a*osN Februar+ 3, .80/ and August //, .80/ letters to respondents,9. and find that said parties confined the*selves to agreeing on the price of the propert+ P713,494.44#, the /4] do$npa+*ent of the purchase price P98,9./.44#, and credited respondents for the P71,330.44 o$ing fro* 'a*os as part of the /4] do$npa+*ent. <he ti*eline for the pa+*ent of the balance of the do$npa+*ent P71,0/1.71# $as also agreed upon, that is, on or before UEI resu*ed its selling operations, on or before >ece*ber 7., .80/, or $ithin five 5# da+s fro* $ritten notice of such resu*ption of selling operations. <he parties had also agreed to incorporate all the ter*s and conditions relating to the sale,

Page1

inclusive of the ter*s of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price and the other substantial ter*s and conditions in the "corresponding contract of conditional sale," to be later signed b+ the parties, si*ultaneousl+ $ith respondentsN settle*ent of the balance of the do$npa+*ent. <he Februar+ 3, .80/ letter of UEI reads% =r. Carlos <. =analo, !r. "urricane 'otar+ &ell >rilling 'iBal Avenue E2t.,Caloocan Cit+ >ear =r. =analo% &e agree $ith +our verbal offer to e2change the proceeds of +our contract $ith us to for* as a do$n pa+*ent for a lot in our Uavierville Estate ,ubdivision. Please let us ;no$ +our choice lot so that $e can fi2 the price and ter*s of pa+*ent in our conditional sale. ,incerel+ +ours, UAEIE'EI--E E,<A<E, INC. ,igned# E=E'I<( B. 'A=(,, !'. President C(NF('=E% ,igned# CA'-(, <. =ANA-(, !'. "urricane 'otar+ &ell >rilling9/ <he August //, .80/ letter agree*ent of UEI and the respondents reads% =rs. Perla P. =analo .513 'iBal Avenue E2tensionbr^Caloocan Cit+ >ear =rs. =analo% <his is to confir* +our reservation of -ot Nos. . and /C Bloc; / of our consolidation-subdivision plan as a*ended, consisting of .,014.7 sFuare *eters *ore or less, at the price of P/44.44 per sFuare *eter or a total price of P713,494.44. It is agreed that as soon as $e resu*e selling operations, +ou *ust pa+ a do$n pa+*ent of /4] of the purchase price of the said lots and sign the corresponding Contract of Conditional ,ale, on or before >ece*ber 7., .80/, provided, ho$ever, that if $e resu*e selling after >ece*ber 7., .80/, then +ou *ust pa+ the afore*entioned do$n pa+*ent and sign the aforesaid contract $ithin five 5# da+s fro* +our receipt of our notice of resu*ption of selling operations. In the *ean$hile, +ou *a+ introduce such i*prove*ents on the said lots as +ou *a+ desire, sub)ect to the rules and regulations of the subdivision. If the above ter*s and conditions are acceptable to +ou, please signif+ +our confor*it+ b+ signing on the space herein belo$ provided. <han; +ou. Eer+ trul+ +ours, UAEIE'EI--E E,<A<E, INC. C(NF('=E% B+% ,igned# E=E'I<( B. 'A=(,, !'. PE'-A P. =ANA-( President Bu+er97 Based on these t$o letters, the deter*ination of the ter*s of pa+*ent of the P/03,113.44 had +et to be agreed upon on or before >ece*ber 7., .80/, or even after$ards, $hen the parties sign the corresponding contract of conditional sale. !urisprudence is that if a *aterial ele*ent of a conte*plated contract is left for future negotiations, the sa*e is too indefinite to be enforceable.91 And $hen an essential ele*ent of a contract is reserved for future agree*ent of the parties, no legal obligation arises until such future agree*ent is concluded.95 ,o long as an essential ele*ent entering into the proposed obligation of either of the parties re*ains to be deter*ined b+ an agree*ent $hich the+ are to *a;e, the contract is inco*plete and unenforceable.99 <he reason is that such a contract is lac;ing in the necessar+ Fualities of definiteness, certaint+ and *utualit+.90 <here is no evidence on record to prove that UEI or (B= and the respondents had agreed, after >ece*ber 7., .80/, on the ter*s of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the propert+ and the other substantial ter*s and conditions relative to the sale. Indeed, the parties are in agree*ent that there had been no contract of conditional sale ever e2ecuted b+ UEI, (B= or petitioner, as vendor, and the respondents, as vendees.93 ,igned#

Page1

<he ruling of this Court in Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals has no bearing in this case because the issue of the *anner of pa+*ent of the purchase price of the propert+ $as not raised therein. &e re)ect the sub*ission of respondents that the+ and 'a*os had intended to incorporate the ter*s of pa+*ent contained in the three contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and other lot bu+ers in the "corresponding contract of conditional sale," $hich $ould later be signed b+ the*.98 &e have *eticulousl+ revie$ed the respondentsN co*plaint and find no such allegation therein.04 Indeed, respondents *erel+ alleged in their co*plaint that the+ $ere bound to pa+ the balance of the purchase price of the propert+ "in install*ents." &hen respondent =analo, !r. testified, he $as never as;ed, on direct e2a*ination or even on cross-e2a*ination, $hether the ter*s of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the lots under the contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and other lot bu+ers $ould for* part of the "corresponding contract of conditional sale" to be signed b+ the* si*ultaneousl+ $ith the pa+*ent of the balance of the do$npa+*ent on the purchase price. &e note that, in its letter to the respondents dated !une .0, .809, or al*ost three +ears fro* the e2ecution b+ the parties of their August //, .80/ letter agree*ent, UEI stated, in part, that respondents had purchased the propert+ "on install*ent basis."0. "o$ever, in the said letter, UEI failed to state a specific a*ount for each install*ent, and $hether such pa+*ents $ere to be *ade *onthl+, se*i-annuall+, or annuall+. Also, respondents, as plaintiffs belo$, failed to adduce a shred of evidence to prove that the+ $ere obliged to pa+ the P/03,113.44 *onthl+, se*i-annuall+ or annuall+. <he allegation that the pa+*ent of the P/03,113.44 $as to be paid in install*ents is, thus, vague and indefinite. Case la$ is that, for a contract to be enforceable, its ter*s *ust be certain and e2plicit, not vague or indefinite.0/ <here is no factual and legal basis for the CA ruling that, based on the ter*s of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the lots under the contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and the other lot bu+ers, respondents $ere obliged to pa+ the P/03,113.44 $ith pre-co*puted interest of ./] per annu* in ./4-*onth install*ents. As gleaned fro* the ruling of the appellate court, it failed to )ustif+ its use of the ter*s of pa+*ent under the three "contracts of conditional sale" as basis for such ruling, to $it% (n the other hand, the records do not disclose the schedule of pa+*ent of the purchase price, net of the do$npa+*ent. Considering, ho$ever, the Contracts of Conditional ,ale E2hs. "N," "(" and "P"# entered into b+ UEI $ith other lot bu+ers, it $ould appear that the subdivision lots sold b+ UEI, under contracts to sell, $ere pa+able in ./4 eFual *onthl+ install*ents e2clusive of the do$npa+*ent but including pre-co*puted interests# co**encing on deliver+ of the lot to the bu+er.07 B+ its ruling, the CA unilaterall+ supplied an essential ele*ent to the letter agree*ent of UEI and the respondents. Courts should not underta;e to *a;e a contract for the parties, nor can it enforce one, the ter*s of $hich are in doubt.01 Indeed, the Court e*phasiBed in Chua v. Court of Appeals05 that it is not the province of a court to alter a contract b+ construction or to *a;e a ne$ contract for the partiesC its dut+ is confined to the interpretation of the one $hich the+ have *ade for the*selves, $ithout regard to its $isdo* or foll+, as the court cannot suppl+ *aterial stipulations or read into contract $ords $hich it does not contain. 'espondents, as plaintiffs belo$, failed to allege in their co*plaint that the ter*s of pa+*ent of the P/03,113.44 to be incorporated in the "corresponding contract of conditional sale" $ere those contained in the contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and ,oller, Aguila and 'oFue.09 <he+ li;e$ise failed to prove such allegation in this Court. <he bare fact that other lot bu+ers $ere allo$ed to pa+ the balance of the purchase price of lots purchased b+ the* in ./4 or .34 *onthl+ install*ents does not constitute evidence that UEI also agreed to give the respondents the sa*e *ode and ti*eline of pa+*ent of theP/03,113.44. :nder ,ection 71, 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules of Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at one ti*e is not ad*issible to prove that he did the sa*e or si*ilar thing at another ti*e, although such evidence *a+ be received to prove habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties. ,i*ilar acts as evidence. R Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one ti*e is not ad*issible to prove that he did or did not do the sa*e or a si*ilar thing at another ti*eC but it *a+ be received to prove a specific intent or ;no$ledge, identit+, plan, s+ste*, sche*e, habit, custo* or usage, and the li;e. "o$ever, respondents failed to allege and prove, in the trial court, that, as a *atter of business usage, habit or pattern of conduct, UEI granted all lot bu+ers the right to pa+ the balance of the purchase price in install*ents of ./4 *onths of fi2ed a*ounts $ith pre-co*puted interests, and that UEI and the respondents had intended to adopt such ter*s of pa+*ent relative to the sale of the t$o lots in Fuestion. Indeed, respondents adduced in evidence the three contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and other lot bu+ers *erel+ to prove that UEI continued to sell lots in the subdivision as sales agent of (B= after it acFuired said lots, not to prove usage, habit or pattern of conduct on the part of UEI to reFuire all lot bu+ers in the subdivision to pa+ the balance of the purchase price of said lots in ./4 *onths. It further failed to prive that the trial court ad*itted the said deeds00 as part of the testi*on+ of respondent =analo, !r.03 "abit, custo*, usage or pattern of conduct *ust be proved li;e an+ other facts. Courts *ust contend $ith the caveat that, before the+ ad*it evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of conduct, the offering part+ *ust establish the degree of specificit+ and freFuenc+ of unifor* response that ensures *ore than a *ere tendenc+ to act in a given *anner but rather, conduct that is se*i-auto*atic in nature. <he offering part+ *ust allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that *ight constitute evidence of habit. <he e2a*ples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence *ust be nu*erous enough to base on inference of s+ste*atic conduct. =ere si*ilarit+ of contracts does not present the ;ind of sufficientl+ si*ilar circu*stances to out$eigh the danger of pre)udice and confusion. In deter*ining $hether the e2a*ples are nu*erous enough, and sufficientl+ regular, the ;e+ criteria are adeFuac+ of sa*pling and unifor*it+ of response. After all, habit *eans a course of behavior of a person regularl+ represented in li;e circu*stances.08 It is onl+ $hen e2a*ples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are nu*erous enough to lose an inference of s+ste*atic conduct that e2a*ples are ad*issible. <he ;e+ criteria are adeFuac+ of sa*pling and unifor*it+ of response or ratio of reaction to situations.34 <here are cases $here the course of dealings to be follo$ed is defined b+ the usage of a particular trade or *ar;et or profession. As e2postulated b+ !ustice Ben)a*in CardoBo of the :nited ,tates ,upre*e Court% "-ife casts the *oulds of conduct, $hich $ill so*eda+ beco*e fi2ed as la$. -a$ preserves the *oulds $hich have ta;en for* and shape fro* life."3. :sage furnishes a standard for the *easure*ent of *an+ of the rights and acts of *en.3/ It is also $ell-settled that parties

Page1

$ho contract on a sub)ect *atter concerning $hich ;no$n usage prevail, incorporate such usage b+ i*plication into their agree*ent, if nothing is said to be contrar+.37 "o$ever, the respondents ine2plicabl+ failed to adduce sufficient co*petent evidence to prove usage, habit or pattern of conduct of UEI to )ustif+ the use of the ter*s of pa+*ent in the contracts of the other lot bu+ers, and thus grant respondents the right to pa+ the P/03,113.44 in ./4 *onths, presu*abl+ because of respondentsN belief that the *anner of pa+*ent of the said a*ount is not an essential ele*ent of a contract to sell. <here is no evidence that UEI or (B= and all the lot bu+ers in the subdivision, including lot bu+ers $ho pa+ part of the do$npa+*ent of the propert+ purchased b+ the* in the for* of service, had e2ecuted contracts of conditional sale containing unifor* ter*s and conditions. =oreover, under the ter*s of the contracts of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and three lot bu+ers in the subdivision, UEI agreed to grant ./4 *onths $ithin $hich to pa+ the balance of the purchase price to t$o of the*, but granted one .34 *onths to do so.31<here is no evidence on record that UEI granted the sa*e right to bu+ers of t$o or *ore lots. Irrefragabl+, under Article .198 of the Ne$ Civil Code, the price of the propert+ sold *a+ be considered certain if it be so $ith reference to another thing certain. It is sufficient if it can be deter*ined b+ the stipulations of the contract *ade b+ the parties thereto35 or b+ reference to an agree*ent incorporated in the contract of sale or contract to sell or if it is capable of being ascertained $ith certaint+ in said contractC39or if the contract contains e2press or i*plied provisions b+ $hich it *a+ be rendered certainC30 or if it provides so*e *ethod or criterion b+ $hich it can be definitel+ ascertained.33 As this Court held in EillaraBa v. Court of Appeals,38 the price is considered certain if, b+ its ter*s, the contract furnishes a basis or *easure for ascertaining the a*ount agreed upon. &e have carefull+ revie$ed the August //, .80/ letter agree*ent of the parties and find no direct or i*plied reference to the *anner and schedule of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the lots covered b+ the deeds of conditional sale e2ecuted b+ UEI and that of the other lot bu+ers84 as basis for or *ode of deter*ination of the schedule of the pa+*ent b+ the respondents of the P/03,113.44. <he ruling of this Court in =itsui Bussan Paisha v. =anila Electric 'ailroad and -ight Co*pan+8. is not applicable in this case because the basic price fi2ed in the contract $as P8.15 per long ton, but it $as stipulated that the price $as sub)ect to *odification "in proportion to variations in calories and ash content, and not other$ise." In this case, the parties did not fi2 in their letters-agree*ent, an+ *ethod or *ode of deter*ining the ter*s of pa+*ent of the balance of the purchase price of the propert+ a*ounting to P/03,113.44. It bears stressing that the respondents failed and refused to pa+ the balance of the do$npa+*ent and of the purchase price of the propert+ a*ounting to P/03,113.44 despite notice to the* of the resu*ption b+ UEI of its selling operations. <he respondents en)o+ed possession of the propert+ $ithout pa+ing a centavo. (n the other hand, UEI and (B= failed and refused to trans*it a contract of conditional sale to the respondents. <he respondents could have at least consigned the balance of the do$npa+*ent after notice of the resu*ption of the selling operations of UEI and filed an action to co*pel UEI or (B= to trans*it to the* the said contractC ho$ever, the+ failed to do so. As a conseFuence, respondents and UEI or (B= for that *atter# failed to forge a perfected contract to sell the t$o lotsC hence, respondents have no cause of action for specific perfor*ance against petitioner. 'epublic Act No. 955/ applies onl+ to a perfected contract to sell and not to a contract $ith no binding and enforceable effect. IN -I6"< (F A-- <"E F('E6(IN6, the petition is 6'AN<E>. <he >ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 10153 is 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E. <he 'egional <rial Court of GueBon Cit+, Branch 83 is ordered to dis*iss the co*plaint. Costs against the respondents. ,( ('>E'E>.

6.'. No. --70783 !une /3, .801 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. '(,A'I( CAB'E'A and C(N'A>( EI--AN:EEA, defendants, C(N'A>( EI--AN:EEA, defendant-appellant. (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral Estelito P. =endoBa, Assistant ,olicitor 6eneral Conrado <. -i*caoco and ,olicitor Pio C. 6uerrero for plaintiff-appellee. !esus E. =endoBa Y 'aul =. Aviso for defendant-appellant.

BA''E>(, !.%p Appeal fro* the )udg*ent of conviction of 'obber+-"old-up $ith "o*icide of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch III, in its Cri*inal Case No. (1/7-E, the dispositive portion of $hich reads thus% &"E'EF('E, the Court finds the accused 'osario Cabrera + =artin alias Charing and Conrado Eillanueva + ,antos alias Cadoc guilt+, be+ond reasonable doubt, of the cri*e as charged in the infor*ation and hereb+ sentence each of the* to life i*prison*entC to inde*nif+ )ointl+ and severall+ the heirs of the offended part+ the a*ount of P./,444.44C and also )ointl+ and severall+ to pa+ the a*ount of P3,444.44, the cost of the )eep stolenC and the further a*ount of P74,444.44 representing actual, *oral and e2e*plar+ da*agesC to suffer all the accessor+ penalties prescribed b+ la$ and to pa+ the costs. Accused shall be entitled to full credit for the preventive i*prison*ent the+ have alread+ undergone in accordance $ith 'ep. Act 9./0. ,( ('>E'E>.

Accused 'osario Cabrera and appellant Conrado Eillanueva $ere charged in an infor*ation reading%

Page1

Accused 'osario Cabrera did not appeal. (nl+ defendant Conrado Eillanueva@s appeal is before :s.

<he undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses 'osario Cabrera + =artin alias Charing and Conrado Eillanueva + ,antos alias Cadoc of the cri*e of robber+ holdup $ith ho*icide, penaliBed under the provisions of Art. /81, paragraph . of the 'evised Penal Code, co**itted as follo$s% <hat on or about the .0th da+ of !anuar+, .80/, in the *unicipalit+ of EalenBuela, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the said accused 'osario Cabrera + =artin alias Charing and Conrado Eillanueva + ,antos alias Cadoc, $ith !ohn >oe alias Ben and Peter >oe alias Aba+, $ho are still at large, ar*ed $ith ;nives or ice pic;s, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+, $ith intent of gain and b+ *eans of force, violence and inti*idation, holdup, ta;e, rob and carr+ a$a+ $ith the* a )eep $ith plate nu*ber 31-/9 ,@0., Bulacan, being driven b+ -uis dela CruB + de !esus and o$ned b+ one 'e+naldo ,antos, !r., $ith a value of P3,444.44, to the da*age and pre)udice of the said o$ner in the said a*ount of P3,444.44C that during the co**ission of this cri*e, and on the occasion thereof, the said accused in furtherance of their conspirac+, did then and there $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ tie and stab several ti*es $ith the said ;nives or ice pic;s the said -uis dela CruB + de !esus and thereafter $as abandoned, thereb+ inflicting upon the said -uis dela CruB + de !esus stabbed $ounds $hich caused his death after a fe$ da+s of confine*ent in the hospital. Contrar+ to la$. <he facts pertinent to this appeal are briefl+ stated in the brief of ,olicitor 6eneral Estelito P. =endoBa assisted b+ Assistant ,olicitor 6eneral Conrado <. -i*caoco and ,olicitor Pio C. 6uerrero as follo$s% At about ..%44 in the evening of !anuar+ .0, .80/ Police ,gt. =ario <anfeli2 of EalenBuela, Bulacan, $hile on a patrol dut+ received an instruction fro* his superior -t. Carlos Palo*ares to proceed i**ediatel+ to !ose 'e+es =e*orial "ospital at =anila to investigate an abandoned person $ho $as found at the North >iversion 'oad suffering fro* stab $ounds pp. ./-.7, tsn., =a+ .., .80/#. <his abandoned and $ounded person $as identified as -uis de la CruB pp. 9-0, tsn., =a+ .., .80/#. "e gave an ante *orte* state*ent E2hibit AC p. .., tsn., =a+ .., .80/#. In the ante-*orte* state*ent the deceased na*ed defendant 'osario Cabrera as the person $ho hired his )eep E2hibit A# but did not ;no$ the na*es of the three *en $ho stabbed hi* and too; his *one+ and )eep pp. ..-0/, tsn., =a+ .., .80/C E2hibit A#. In the *orning of !anuar+ .3, .80/, defendant 'osario Cabrera $as arrested b+ the police p. .3, tsn., =a+ .3, .80/#. (n !anuar+ /4, .80/ she e2ecuted an e2tra-)udicial confession E2hibit B, to B-7, inclusive#. In the said e2tra-)udicial confession she pointed to appellant Conrado Eillanueva as the *aster*ind of the robber+. ,he *erel+ hired the )eep upon instruction of appellant but the robber+ and the ;illing of the deceased $ere done b+ appellant and his t$o unidentified co*panions Ibid#. -t. Carlos Palo*ares of the EalenBuela Police >epart*ent $ho too; the e2tra-)udicial confession of defendant 'osario Cabrera testified to identif+ and to read the contents of the said e2tra-)udicial confession pp. 7-70, tsn., =a+ .3, .80/#. >r. Ernesto 6, Brion of the National Bureau of Investigation NBI# testified regarding the post-*orte* e2a*ination conducted on the bod+ of the deceased pp. 7.4, tsn., ,epte*ber 0, .80/#. 'e+naldo ,antos !r. testified on the o$nership and value of the )eep stolen pp. 1-.1, tsn., !une 8, .80/#. Ale)andro de la CruB testified on the e2penses and da*ages suffered b+ the fa*il+ of the deceased pp. .5-/0, tsn., !une 8, .80/# on account of the deceased@s unti*el+ death. >ante =arcelo testified that in the earl+ evening before the robber+ too; place he sa$ defendant 'osario Cabrera riding on the )eep of the deceased pp. /8-1., tsn., !une 8, .80/# but did not notice $hether there $ere other passengers p. 77, tsn., !une 8, .80/#. >efendant 'osario Cabrera and appellant Conrado Eillanueva did not ta;e the $itness stand. Neither did the+ present an+ evidence. (n the basis of the evidence adduced b+ the prosecution together $ith their respective cross-e2a*ination and ob)ections to so*e of the e2hibits, particularl+ appellants ob)ection to the ad*ission of E2hibits B to B-7 defendant Cabrera@s e2tra-)udicial confession# insofar as he $as concerned, the case $as considered sub*itted for decision." Pp. /-1, Brief for the Appellee# 222 222 222 <he onl+ evidence that $ould support the )udg*ent of conviction of appellant Eillanueva $as the e2tra-)udicial confession of his co-accused 'osario Cabrera $hich $as read into the record over the continuing ob)ection of appellant@s counsel p. .4, tsn., =a+ .3, .80/#. Appellant reiterated his ob)ection $hen the said e2tra-)udicial confession $as being offered in evidence p. ./, tsn., ,epte*ber 0, .80/#." Id.# In their pra+er, counsel for the People, )oining appellant@s counsel, as; for the reversal of appellant@s conviction and his acFuittal. After carefull+ going over the record and *inutel+ revie$ing the evidence, &e are full+ convinced that the pra+er for acFuittal is in order. <he e2tra)udicial state*ent of accused Cabrera does point to appellant as the *aster*ind and perpetrator, together $ith t$o persons $hose identities are still un;no$n, of the ;illing of the deceased -uis dela CruB and the ta;ing of the )eep he $as driving. But said state*ent is obviousl+ inad*issible against appellant, $ho *ade ti*el+ ob)ection thereto. <here is no Fuestion that Cabrera@s inculpator+ state*ents $ere *ade b+ her during the investigation conducted b+ the EalenBuela police on !anuar+ /4, .80/, t$o da+s after the date of the incident in Fuestion. For this reason alone, that is, that said state*ent $as not *ade during the e2istence of the alleged conspirac+ bet$een her and appellant, but after said supposed conspirac+ had alread+ ceased and $hen she $as alread+ in the hands of the authorities, ,ection /0 of 'ule .74 cannot be availed of. ,aid provision reads% Ad*ission b+ conspirator.A <he act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspirac+ and during its e2istence, *a+ be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspirac+ is sho$n b+ evidence other than such act or declaration. <here being no other evidence against appellant, &e have no alternative but to reverse the )udg*ent appealed fro* and to acFuit hi*, as pra+ed for b+ his counsel as $ell as counsel for the People. P'E=I,E, C(N,I>E'E>, the )udg*ent of the lo$er court is reversed, appellant Conrado Eillanueva is acFuitted, and his i**ediate release fro* confine*ent is ordered, unless he is la$full+ held for another case, $ith costs de oficio.

Page1

Kaldivar Chair*an#, Fernando, Antonio, FernandeB and AFuino, !!., concur. 6.'. No. --8.3. Nove*ber /3, .855

<"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, petitioner, vs. <"E "(N. NICA,I( IA<C(, !udge of the Court of First Instance of 'iBal, GueBon Cit+ Branch, and !:AN C(N,:N!I and A-F(N,( PAN6ANIBAN, respondents. 'EIE,, !.B.-., !.% In an a*ended infor*ation filed b+ the Cit+ Attorne+ of GueBon Cit+ on =arch //, .855, !uan Consun)i, Alfonso Panganiban, and another $hose identit+ is still un;no$n, $ere charged $ith having conspired together in the *urder of one !ose 'a*os Cri*inal Case No. G-.970 of the Court of First Instance of GueBon Cit+#. <rial of the case started on =a+ 7, .855, and in several hearings the prosecution had been presenting its evidence. >uring the progress of the trial on =a+ .3, .855, $hile the prosecution $as Fuestioning one of its $itnesses, Att+. Arturo Uavier of the National Bureau of Investigation, in connection $ith the *a;ing of a certain e2tra-)udicial confession allegedl+ *ade before hi*# b+ defendant !uan Consun)i to the $itness, counsel for the other defendant Alfonso Panganiban interposed a general ob)ection to an+ evidence on such confession on the ground that it $as hearsa+ and therefore inco*petent as against the other accused Panganiban. <he Court belo$ ordered the e2clusion of the evidence ob)ected to, but on an altogether different ground% that the prosecution could not be per*itted to introduce the confessions of defendants !uan Consun)i and Alfonso Panganiban to prove conspirac+ bet$een the*, $ithout prior proof of such conspirac+ b+ a nu*ber of definite acts, conditions, and circu*stances. <hereafter, according to the transcript, the follo$ing re*ar;s $ere *ade% FI,CA- -:,<'E% =a+ $e ;no$ fro* counsel if he is also ob)ecting to the ad*issibilit+ of the confession of Consun)i as against the accused Consun)i hi*selfH C(:'<% <hat $ould be pre*ature because there is alread+ a ruling of the Court that +ou cannot prove a confession unless +ou prove first conspirac+ thru a nu*ber of indefinite acts, conditions and circu*stances as reFuired b+ la$. Anne2 "B" of the petition, p. 8 <he prosecution then *oved in $riting for a reconsideration of the order of e2clusion, but again the *otion $as denied. &herefore, this petition for certiorari $as brought before this Court b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral, for the revie$ and annul*ent of the lo$er Court@s order co*pletel+ e2cluding an+ evidence on the e2tra)udicial confessions of the accused !uan Consun)i and Alfonso Panganiban $ithout prior proof of conspirac+. &e believe that the lo$er Court co**itted a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the co*plete e2clusion of the prosecution@s evidence on the alleged confessions of the accused !uan Consun)i at the stage of the trial $hen the ruling $as *ade. ,ection .1, 'ule ./7, 'ules of Court, is specific as to the ad*issibilit+ of the e2tra)udicial confession of an accused, freel+ and voluntaril+ *ade, as evidence against hi*. ,EC. .1. Confession. A <he declaration of an accused e2pressl+ ac;no$ledging the truth of his guilt as to the offense charged, *a+ be given in evidence against hi*. :nder the rule of *ultiple ad*issibilit+ of evidence, even if Consun)i@s confession *a+ not be co*petent as against his co-accused Panganiban, being hearsa+ as to the latter, or to prove conspirac+ bet$een the* $ithout the conspirac+ being established b+ other evidence, the confession of Consun)i $as, nevertheless, ad*issible as evidence of the declarant@s o$n guilt :. ,. vs. Eega, 17 Phil. 1.C People vs. Bande, 54 Phil. 70C People vs. Buan, 91 Phil. /89#, and should have been ad*itted as such. <he rule cited b+ the Court belo$ in support of its e2clusion of the proffered evidence is ,ec. ./ of 'ule ./7, providing that% <he act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspirac+ and during its e2istence *a+ be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspirac+ is sho$n b+ evidence other than such act or declaration. =anifestl+, the rule refers to state*ents *ade b+ one conspirator during the pendenc+ of the unla$ful enterprises "during its e2istence"# and in furtherance of its ob)ect, and not to a confession *ade, as in this case, long after the conspirac+ had been brought to an end :. ,. vs. E*peinado, 8 Phil., 9.7C :. ,. vs. 'a+*undo, .1 Phil., 1.9C People vs. Badilla, 13 Phil., 0.3C People vs. Na;pil, 5/ Phil., 835#. Besides, the prosecution had not +et offered the confessions to prove conspirac+ bet$een the t$o accused, nor as evidence against both of the*. In fact, the alleged confessions both in $riting and in tape recordings# had not +et even been identified the presentation of Att+. Uavier $as precisel+ for the purpose of identif+ing the confessions#, *uch less for*all+ offered in evidence. For all $e ;no$, the prosecution *ight still be able to adduce other proof of conspirac+ bet$een Consun)i and Panganiban before their confessions are for*all+ offered in evidence. Assu*ing, therefore, that section ./ of 'ule ./7 also applies to the confessions in Fuestion, it $as pre*ature for the respondent Court to e2clude the* co*pletel+ on the ground that there $as no prior proof of conspirac+. It is particularl+ note$orth+ that the e2clusion of the proferred confessions $as not *ade on the basis of the ob)ection interposed b+ Panganiban@s counsel, but upon an altogether different ground, $hich the Court issued*otu proprio. Panganiban@s counsel ob)ected to Consun)i@s confession as evidence of the guilt of the other accused Panganiban, on the ground that it $as hearsa+ as to the latter. But the Court, instead of ruling on this ob)ection, put up its o$n ob)ection to the confessions A that it could not be ad*itted to prove conspirac+ bet$een Consun)i and Panganiban $ithout prior evidence of such conspirac+ b+ a nu*ber of indefinite acts, conditions, circu*stances, etc. and co*pletel+ e2cluded the confessions on that ground. B+ so doing, the Court overloo;ed that the right to ob)ect is a *ere privilege $hich the parties *a+ $aiveC and if the ground for ob)ection is ;no$n and not reasonabl+ *ade, the ob)ection is dee*ed $aived and the Court has no po$er, on its o$n *otion, to disregard the evidence =arcella vs. 'e+es, ./ Phil., .#.

Page1

&e see no need for the present to discuss the Fuestion of the ad*issibilit+ of the individual e2tra)udicial confessions of t$o or *ore accused for the purpose of establishing conspirac+ bet$een the* through the identit+ of the confessions in essential details. After all, the confessions are not before us and have not even been for*all+ offered in evidence for an+ purpose. ,uffice it to sa+ that the lo$er Court should have allo$ed such confessions to be given in evidence at least as against the parties $ho *ade the*, and ad*it the sa*e conditionall+ to establish conspirac+, in order to give the prosecution a chance to get into the record all the relevant evidence at its disposal to prove the charges. At an+ rate, in the final deter*ination and consideration of the case, the trial Court should be able to distinguish the ad*issible fro* the inad*issible, and re)ect $hat, under the rules of evidence, should be e2cluded. (nce *ore, attention should be called to the ruling of this Court in the case of Prats Y Co. vs. Phoeni2 Insurance Co., 5/ Phil., 340, 3.9-3.0% In the course of long e2perience $e have observed that )ustice is *ost effectivel+ and e2peditiousl+ ad*inistered in the courts $here trial ob)ections to the ad*ission of proof are received $ith least favor. <he practice of e2cluding evidence on doubtful ob)ections to its *aterialit+ or technical ob)ections to the for* of the Fuestions should be avoided. In a case of an+ intricac+ it is i*possible for a )udge of first instance, in the earl+ stages of the develop*ent of the proof, to ;no$ $ith an+ certaint+ $hether testi*on+ is relevant or notC and $here there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the Attorne+ offering the evidence, the court *a+ as a rule safel+ accept the testi*on+ upon the state*ent of the attorne+ that the proof offered $ill be connected later. =oreover, it *ust be re*e*bered that in the heat of the battle over $hich the presides, a )udge of first instance *a+ possibl+ fall into error in )udging of the relevanc+ of proof $here a fair and logical connection is in fact sho$n. &hen such a *ista;e is *ade and the proof is erroneousl+ ruled out, the ,upre*e Court, upon appeal, often finds itself e*barrassed and possibl+ unable to correct the effects of the error $ithout returning the case for a ne$ trial, A a step $hich this Court is al$a+s ver+ loath to ta;e. (n the other hand, the ad*ission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the Fuestion as to its for*, *aterialit+, or relevanc+ is doubtful, can never result in *uch har* to either litigant, because the trial )udge is supposed to ;no$ the la$C and it is dut+, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant and *aterial fro* the irrelevant and i**aterial. If this course is follo$ed and the cause is prosecuted to the ,upre*e Court upon appeal, this Court then has all the *aterial before it necessar+ to *a;e a correct )udg*ent. <here is greater reason to adhere to such polic+ in cri*inal cases $here Fuestions arise as to ad*issibilit+ of evidence for the prosecution, for the un)ustified e2clusion of evidence *a+ lead to the erroneous acFuittal of the accused or the dis*issal of the charges, fro* $hich the People can no longer appeal. &herefore, the order e2cluding the confessions of the accused !uan Consun)i and Alfonso Panganiban is annulled and set aside and the Court belo$ is directed to proceed $ith the trial in accordance $ith la$ and this opinion. Costs against respondents !uan Consun)i and Alfonso Panganiban. ,o ordered. Paras, C.!., BengBon, Padilla, =onte*a+or, 'e+es, A., !ugo, Bautista Angelo, -abrador, and Concepcion, !!.,concur.

EN BANC 6.'. No. --.8584 April /5, .893

<"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. C"A& IA& ,":N T 6E('6E C":A, EIC<('I( A-EA'EK, >I(NI,I( CA'A,I6, and !("N >(E,, accused, C"A& IA& ,":N T 6E('6E C":A and EIC<(' A-EA'EK, appellants. !ose -. :+ and Associates and Paredes, Poblador, CruB and NaBareno for appellants. (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral for plaintiff-appellee. AN6E-E,, !.% At about 5%44 o@cloc; in the *orning of !ul+ .5, .858, the lifeless bod+ of "ector Crisosto*o, then an officer of the Presidential Fact Finding Co**ittee charged $ith the apprehension of dollar s*ugglers, $as found in his Borg$ard sedan car at -ias 'oad, =arilao, Bulacan. :pon the advice of the NBI *edico-legal officer, the cadaver $as brought to Funeraria Guiogue, =anila, for autops+. E2a*ination of the corpse revealed that the deceased suffered three gunshot $ounds on the head% (ne, at the right te*ple, at a point above the e2ternal auditor+ *eatus right, the entrance $ound directed fro* right to leftC another, at the preauricular region left, above the e2ternal auditor+ *eatus left, directed fro* left to rightC and the last, at the te*poral region, scalp, left, at a point on the above left e2ternal auditor+ *eatus, directed fro* left to right. <he cause of death $as shoc;, severe, secondar+ to *ultiple gunshot $ounds on the head. In the course of the investigation to apprehend the perpetrators of the cri*e, Capt. >ionisio Carasig, also a *e*ber of the Presidential Fact Finding Co**ittee $or;ing $ith the deceased, inti*ated to the PC authorities that the recent car deal of Crisosto*o $ith Eictorio AlvareB *a+ possibl+ have so*e connection $ith the ;illing. &ith that clue, an intensive investigation $as pursued b+ the police agencies, the Bulacan PC, the =arilao police, and the NBI agents )oining hands together. Fingerprint e2perts and photographers of the NBI e2a*ined the car $here the bod+ of the victi* $as found, but no clear fingerprints could be detected. :pon an inspection of the car, so*e speci*en evidence $ere found, such as, one .# cartridge case caliber ./5C one .# unfired bullet, caliber ./5C one .# slug, caliber ./5C t$o /# *etal )ac;eted bullets retrieved fro* the head of the victi*, caliber ./5C and a bag. :pon an e2a*ination of the bag, the investigators found a Philippine <rust Co.@s chec; in the a*ount of P.,444.44, dra$n b+ Eictoria AlvareB in favor of Crisosto*o, together $ith a receipt signed b+ the deceased ac;no$ledging pa+*ent b+ AlvareB in the a*ount stated in the chec;, $ith a further state*ent of an unpaid balance of P/1,544.44. ,uspecting that AlvareB *a+ have so*ething to do $ith the ;illing, the authorities pic;ed hi* up for Fuestioning. AlvareB $as ta;en to the Cri*inal Investigation ,ection of the PC for fingerprinting and paraffin test for gun po$der residue. <he result of the test, as contained in the report of Crispin 6arcia, chief che*istr+ section of the PC, sho$ed the presence of gun po$der residue on both hands of AlvareB.

Page1

(n August 1, .858, a co*plaint for *urder $as filed b+ Capt. 'afael Iapdiangco of the PC before the !ustice of the Peace Court of =alolos, Bulacan, against Eictorio AlvareB and t$o !ohn >oes. <he victi* na*ed in the co*plaint $as "ector Crisosto*o. Eictoria AlvareB $as arrested on August .8, .858. I**ediatel+ after his arrest, AlvareB $as investigated. "e *ade a tape-recorded state*ent before -t. Bautista and =a)or ,antiago of the CI, at Ca*p Cra*e, ad*itting that he alone shot and ;illed Crisosto*o near =anga Avenue, =anila. Eide Fuestion 93, E2hibit -, state*ent of AlvareB, August /., .858.# (n August /4, .858, AlvareB e2ecuted a hand$ritten state*ent in narrative for* before the CI, in the office of the PC Alabang headFuarters E2hibit 6#. In this state*ent, he affir*ed that a certain !ohnn+ $as the one $ho shot and ;illed Crisosto*o in =arilao, Bulacan. (n the sa*e da+, AlvareB *ade another state*ent in the for* of Fuestions and ans$ers repeating substantiall+ the facts contained in his hand$ritten state*ent. E2hibit F.# ,till on the ne2t da+, August /., .858, AlvareB e2ecuted another state*ent before Capt. 'afael Iapdiangco of the PC E2hibit -#, $herein AlvareB again ad*itted that he $as the onl+ one $ho shot and ;illed Crisosto*o at barrio -ias, =arilao, Bulacan. In this state*ent, AlvareB gave a detailed narration of the participation of 6eorge Chua in the co**ission of the cri*e, as follo$s% "At around 3%44 o@cloc; P.=. !ul+ .1#, the Borg$ard sedan car driven b+ Capt. Crisosto*o $as approaching our car $ithin a distance enough to call his attention. !ohnn+ e2tended his ar* and called Capt. Crisosto*o. Capt. Crisosto*o@s attention $as attracted and he cut in and par;ed his car in front of the (lds *obile $here $e $ere riding. &hen his car $as properl+ par;ed, Capt. Carasig and 6eorge Chua approached Capt. Crisosto*o, and finall+ the+ got inC Capt. Carasig first then follo$ed b+ 6eorge Chua. After a fe$ *inutes conversation, the car driven b+ Capt. Crisosto*o $ith Capt. Carasig and 6eorge in it, left and $e follo$ed. <he+ passed <aft Avenue to$ards Isaac Peral to (tis, turned left to$ards Nagtahan bridge, turned right to ,anta =esa Boulevard, turned left to ,antol, turned left to Pararle ,t., turned left to Benito ,t." . . . and then $e proceeded "to$ards Bulacan." G. A &ere +ou constantl+ follo$ing the car of Capt. Crisosto*oH A. A Ies, sir,. . . . G. A &here in Bulacan did +ou goH A. A Appro2i*atel+ one hundred *eters before the road )unction leading to =arilao poblacion $here $e stopped. G. A &hat happened thenH A. A :pon arrival there at appro2i*atel+ .4%44 p.*., the (lds*obile stopped at the bac; of the $hite sedan. <hen $e all alighted fro* the (lds*obile and transferred to the $hite sedan. (ur position inside the $hite sedan is that beside Capt. Crisosto*o $ho $as on the $heel $as 6eorge Chua. Behind 6eorge Chua, Capt. Carasig, behind the seat at the bac; e2tre*e right, ne2t to the left at center is *e and to *+ left is !ohnn+. G. A &hat did +ou tal;ed aboutH A. A 6eorge Chua started the tal;ing b+ telling Capt. Crisosto*o to please turn over the docu*ents to the* docu*ents consisting of na*es of persons connected $ith the dollar s+ndicate, the *odus operandi and activities# and then follo$ed discussion, Chua telling Crisosto*o to turn over to us the papers and forget ever+thing, then Capt. Crisosto*o replied, I told +ou that I do not have ti*e to discuss that *atter, and then Capt. Carasig said, Capt. $e are business partners, and I a* engaged in this business too, for *+ sa;e, turn over the paper to the* or to *e, that $ill save the govern*ent fro* e2posing the $hole activities, then Capt. Crisosto*o replied it is too late alread+, I have no ti*e to discuss the *atterC then 6eorge Chua dre$ his revolver. &hen $e sa$ 6eorge Chua dre$ his revolver, $e did the sa*e thing. . . . G. A &hat happened ne2tH A. A &hen Capt. Crisosto*o sa$ us dre$ our guns, he sho$ed a sign of fighting bac;. 6eorge Chua gave a signal and I fired a shot at Capt. Crisosto*o on his right te*ple, then Capt. Crisosto*o sho$ed a sign of fighting bac; so !ohnn+ held the left shoulder of Capt. Crisosto*o $hile Capt. Carasig held his right shoulder, then I fired again, hitting hi* at the bac; of the head, 6eorge Chua after the first shot, opened the door and $ent out and then I fired the third shot on his left te*ple and Capt. Crisosto*o snapped dead. . . . AlvareB further declared that he $as trusted b+ 6eorge Chua and $as chosen to be the trigger-*anC that Chua pro*ised to pa+ hi* P75,444.44 plus P144.44 a *onth for ;illing Crisosto*oC that Chua $as engaged in the business of dollar s*uggling. (n ,epte*ber ., .858, the co*plaint $as a*ended b+ including Cha$ Ia$ ,hun T 6eorge Chua and -i* Bun Ping T !ohnn+ Iao, together $ith Eictorio AlvareB and t$o !ohn >oes. (n the basis of AlvareB@ confessions, and $ith hi* as guide, the CI, agents proceeded to Chua@s residence at .371 =.". del Pilar, =alate, =anila. :pon arrival at the house, the+ $ere received b+ Chua@s $ife. InFuiring for Chua, the CI, agents $ere told b+ the $ife that her husband $as not at ho*e. In the evening of August /1, .858, 6eorge Chua, acco*panied b+ his la$+er, !ose :+, surrendered to 6eneral Isagani Ca*po of the PC at the > Y E restaurant in GueBon Cit+, in the presence of ne$spaper reporters and photographers. I**ediatel+ thereafter, 6eorge Chua $as ta;en to Ca*p Cra*e and $as investigated b+ Capt. Iapdiangco and other CI, agents for three hours, after $hich he $as allo$ed to sleep. <he ne2t da+, August /5, .858, Chua $as again investigated b+ the CI, agents. <he investigation $as reduced to $riting. Believing that Chua $as not telling the truth, because he $ould not ad*it participation in the cri*e, the investigator destro+ed the state*ents. <o Fuote fro* Capt. Iapdiangco@s testi*on+% G. A &ill +ou please tell the court fro* $hat ti*e 6eorge Chua $as interrogated on August /1, .858H A. A &ell, as far as I re*e*ber, fro* that ti*e $hen 6eneral Ca*po turned over to us =r. Chua, he $as intervie$ed b+ us for about three hours. After that, $e allo$ed hi* to sleep. &e also slept. But the follo$ing *orning the /5th, naturall+, $e had to intervie$ hi* again. G. A >uring those intervie$s that +ou have *ade as $ell as +our co*panions on August /1 and /5, did +ou atte*pt to *a;e it in $ritingH

Page1

A. A &ell, there $as an atte*pt to put it in $riting, but it $as destro+ed. G. A &ill +ou tell us the reason $h+ +ou have to discontinue the $ritten interrogationH A. A Because $hat he $as telling us $e believe it $as not true. tsn pp. 71-75, Eol. //#. In spite of ;no$ledge on the part of Capt. Iapdiangco that a co*plaint against 6eorge Chua had alread+ been filed in court, nevertheless, in vie$ of the insistent denial b+ Chua of an+ participation in the cri*e, at about *idnight on August /9, .858, Capt. Iapdiangco brought hi* to the PC headFuarters in Alabang, 'iBal, $here he $as investigated in the presence of several CI, agents. Chua *ade a $ritten state*ent E2hibit '#. In his confession, Chua stated the follo$ing% <hat he ordered the ;illing of Capt. Crisosto*oC that the plot to ;ill Crisosto*o $as hatched up in his house at .371 =. ". del Pilar, =alate, =anila, on !ul+ .7, .858, in the presence of -i* Bon Pin T !ohnn+ Iao and Eictorio AlvareBC that he Chua# and !ohnn+ hired AlvareB to ;ill Crisosto*o for P75,444.44 because his partners in "ong;ong, Iao Chiong and <a+ ,eng got angr+ at hi*, because the \.7/,444.44 entrusted to a lad+ $ho $as leaving for "ong;ong, $as confiscated b+ the local authorities at the airport bet$een !une .5 and /5, .858C that his partner, Iao Chung $ho $as in "ong;ong called hi* through overseas telephone on !une /8, .858, at eleven o@cloc; in the *orning, and told hi* to do so*ething for hi* and to finish Capt. Crisosto*oC that Capt. Crisosto*o $as ;illed on !ul+ .1, .858, at about ten o@cloc; at =arilao, Bulacan, and that Eictorio AlvareB ;illed hi* $ith a ./5 caliber pistol b+ shooting hi* on the head t$o ti*esC that $hen Capt. Crisosto*o $as driving his car, AlvareB $as seated at the rear, and a Filipino $hose na*e he does not ;no$, $as seated on the front seat beside Crisosto*o $hen AlvareB shot Crisosto*oC that after Capt. Crisosto*o $as shot b+ AlvareB, the latter drove the s*all car to barrio -ias, =arilao, Bulacan, turning right, $hile he Chua# in another car, drove the Filipino further a$a+ and dropped hi* at a bridge, and he Chua# returned to pic; up AlvareB, and both of the* returned to =anila in the (lds*obile carC that upon reaching =anila, AlvareB $as dropped at the GueBon Bridge $here AlvareB thre$ his pistol, caliber ./5, and he Chua# returned to his houseC that he Chua# actuall+ gave the a*ount of P75,444.44 to !ohnn+ in his house, but does not ;no$ $hether !ohnn+ gave the *one+ to AlvareB. (n August /3, .858, $hile 6eorge Chua $as detained in the provincial )ail of Bulacan, he as;ed the $arden to su**on the provincial fiscal of Bulacan, because he $anted to give a state*ent. <he assistant provincial fiscal, Pascual P. Piliath;o, intervie$ed 6eorge Chua in the provincial )ail on August /8, .858. <he intervie$ $as reduced to $riting in the for* of Fuestions and ans$ers E2hibit EEE# the pertinent portions of $hich are the follo$ing% G. A I understand fro* +ou that +ou sent for *eH A. A Ies, sir. G. A Are +ou read+ to give the state*ent voluntaril+ and $illingl+H A. A Ies, sir. G. A No$, =r. 6eorge Chua, $ill +ou please state +our na*e and other personal circu*stancesH A. A &itness does so, and said# because I a* accused of *urder. G. A &hat is this *urder charge that +ou have )ust statedH A. A I $as i*plicated b+ AlvareB to be one of those responsible for the ;illing of Crisosto*o. G. A No$ =r. Chua, $hat is it that +ou $ould li;e to state, +ou stated that +ou sent for *e to give a state*ent, $hat is that state*ent +ou $ould li;e to giveH A. A Because I $ant to report to +ou that I $as *altreated b+ the CI, agents and forced to sign a state*ent. G. A Iou stated that +ou $ere *altreated before, ho$ $ere +ou *altreatedH A. A First I $as ta;en to the 5th PC Co. at ./%44 o@cloc; *idnight at Alabang, 'iBal, on August /5, .858, and there I $as handcuffed, but before I $as handcuffed, I $as ordered to ta;e off *+ clothes and then I $as handcuffed again and blindfolded *e b+ $rapping a to$el all around *+ face and *+ head and so*e of the agents turned *+ head seven or eight ti*es. G. A No$, is there so*ething *ore that +ou still li;e to disclose before I as; +ou to sign this state*entH A. A Ies, sir, I $ant to infor* +ou that the+ also applied electric shoc; to *+ bod+ and $hile doing so, the+ forced *e to ans$er the $a+ the+ designed, t$o hours later the+ forced *e to lie do$n on the ground, then a stout agent sat on *+ sto*ach and another agent sat on *+ legs, and then I al*ost lost consciousness. (n =arch /1, .894, the assistant provincial fiscal filed an infor*ation for *urder against Eictorio AlvareB, >ionisio Carasig, Cha$ Ia$ ,hun T 6eorge Chua and t$o !ohn >oes, alleging that said accused, acting in conspirac+, $ith the attendant Fualif+ing and generic aggravating circu*stances of treacher+, evident pre*editation, abuse of superior strength, use of *otor vehicle, nocturnit+ and b+ a band, ;illed "ector Crisosto*o. :pon arraign*ent, Eictorio AlvareB, Cha$ Ia$ ,hun T 6eorge Chua and >ionisio Carasig entered a plea of not guilt+. After a trial, >ionisio Carasig $as acFuit+ on reasonable doubtC Eictorio AlvareB and Cha$ Ia$ ,hun T 6eorge Chua $ere found guilt+ of the offense as charged and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to inde*nif+ the heirs of "ector Crisosto*o in the su* of P9,444.44, and to pa+ the proportionate costs. Both appealed fro* the decision. (n ,epte*ber 9, .89/, AlvareB filed a *otion to $ithdra$ his appeal $hich he reiterated in another *otion on (ctober ., .89/. (n (ctober /1, .89/, AlvareB@ *otion $as granted. <he case before :s concerns the appeal of 6eorge Chua. <he evidence relied upon b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral in sustaining the conviction of the appellant, as cited in the brief are% <he several confessions of AlvareB, $hich are self-contradicting and the confession of the appellantC testi*onial evidence that Capt. Iapdiangco and other CI, agents $ent to the house of Chua, and not finding hi* there, the+ told the $ife of Chua that the+ $ere loo;ing for her husbandC that on the ne2t da+, Capt. Iapdiangco secured a $arrant to search the

Page1

house of Chua, and the+ found "a calling card of Eictorio AlvareB and a sort of a telephone director+ inde2 *ar;ed e2hibits " and "-."C that AlvareB *ade a re-enact*ent of the cri*eC that 6eorge Chua, acco*panied b+ his la$+er, surrendered to 6eneral Isagani Ca*poC that during the investigation of Chua, "Capt. Calderon as;ed Chua $h+ he $as i*plicated b+ Eictorio AlvareB. At first he denied an+ participation in the ;illing of Capt. Crisosto*o. But $hen AlvareB $as brought before hi*, the for*er told hi*, @6eorge I have alread+ confessed the truth. >o not tell a lie. Please tell the truth, 6eorge.@ At this instance, Chua countered% @I did not ;ill hi*. Iou ;illed hi*.@ AlvareB told hi* again% @No$, tell the truth.@ Chua, ho$ever, ;ept silent." <he foregoing incident testified to b+ CI, agents, does not appear in an+ signed state*ent of Chua, although it is clai*ed that the confrontation had ta;en place during Chua@s interrogation b+ the CI, agents, and neither does it appear in an+ of the several state*ents of AlvareB#C that "earl+ in the *orning on August /9, .858, Capt. 'afael Iapdiangco brought 6eorge Chua to Alabang PC headFuarters for the purpose of ta;ing do$n his state*ent. <he reason of Capt. Iapdiangco in investigating Chua in Alabang instead of at Ca*p Cra*e $as e2plained b+ hi* thus% . . . Iour "onor, the reason $h+ the investigation of 6eorge Chua $hose true na*e is Cha$ Ia$ ,hun $as *ade at Alabang is that there $ere so *an+ ne$spaper*en in the CI, building and it see*s to confuse us in our *anner of investigation, even no$ and then, the+ interfere, thus obstructing our investigation, so $e *ade it a point to bring =r. Chua to Alabang so that *ore or less, $e $ill be in a position to investigate hi* thoroughl+.C that "After their arrival at Alabang, Capt. Iapdiangco in the presence of Agent 'icardo ChaveB and so*e other agents, personall+ investigated 6eorge Chua. According to Capt. Iapdiangco, Chua voluntaril+ sub*itted hi*self to the investigation and agreed that his confession be *ade in $riting." <hen follo$s the Fuoted confession of Chua.# <here is no evidence, oral or docu*entar+, adduced b+ the prosecution, other than the several confessions of AlvareB, the confession of Chua, and the testi*on+ of Arturo Ca+etano, that $ould tend to prove an+ overt act of Chua indicating so*e connection bet$een hi* and the other accused establishing a co**on cri*inal design to co**it the cri*e. &ith regard to Arturo Ca+etano, this $itness declared that bet$een 0%44 and 3%44 o@cloc; in the evening of !ul+ .1, .858, he sa$ an (lds*obile car par;ed at the corner of Isaac Peral and Florida streets, =anila, $hile he $as at the opposite side of the street under a $aiting shedC that after a $hile, he $as attracted b+ one of the occupants of the (lds*obile car $ho $as $aving his hand in the act of stopping another car co*ing fro* behindC that the latter car stopped and par;ed in front of the for*er carC that later on, he sa$ t$o persons, $ho* he identified in court as >ionisio Carasig and 6eorge Chua, approach the car that had )ust stopped, board it, and then the car left and *oved a$a+ to$ards <aft Avenue, =anila. <he $ea;ness of the testi*on+ is apparent fro* the failure of the $itness to identif+ the driver or occupant of the car into $hich Carasig and Chua entered. In the brief of the appellee, no reference $hatsoever is *ade to the testi*on+ of Ca+etano, for the obvious reason that it is irrelevant and i**aterial, as it $ould not in an+ $a+ connect the appellant $ith the co**ission of the cri*e co**itted in =arilao, Bulacan, about $hich fact there is not a scintilla of evidence sho$ing that the appellant $as ever seen thereat on the night of !ul+ .1, .858. At the trial, 6eorge Chua repudiated his confession and denied an+ participation in the co**ission of the cri*e. &ith reference to his confession, he declared thus% "&hen he $as investigated b+ the CI, agents at Alabang PC headFuarters on August /9, .858, his e+es $ere @tied@ blindfolded# $ith a $et to$el for about si2 9# hours and the bandage $as re*oved onl+ at around 9%74 to 0%44 o@cloc; in the *orning of said date, but he cannot re*e*ber $ho tied his e+esC that so*e agents used electric shoc; on his bod+ for t$o /# hours si*ultaneousl+ on his left upper bac;, left ear and ;neesC that the $ire connected to his bod+ is cran;edC that he $as forced to lie do$n after $hich an agent sat on his sto*ach and another sat on his legC that he $as ordered to undress, and re*ove his shoes and soc;s, then the+ applied the electric shoc;C that he signed his confession under threat, the agents telling hi* that if he did not sign the state*ent, he $ill be ;illed and his bod+ $ill be thro$n a$a+C that nobod+ read to hi* the $ritten state*entC that he $as not allo$ed to read his confession, and to save his life, he )ust signed it. Corroborating appellant@s clai* of *altreat*ent, >r. !ose EustaFuio, a private ph+sician, declared that $hen he e2a*ined Chua on August /9, .858, at the instance of the latter@s la$+er, he noticed so*e contusion on his left upper bac;, at the nape of the nec;, and in the *iddle ter* called linear abrasions also in the left upper bac;. "is finding, ho$ever, $as not put in $riting. >r. EustaFuio e2a*ined Chua for the second ti*e on August /0, .858, and this ti*e he put his findings in $riting E2h. .8-Chua, Eol. .#. Being as;ed about the *eaning of "*ultiple scratches li;eline" *entioned in his *edical certificate, he said, it *eans linear abrasions, the cause of $hich he could not deter*ine. &hen he $as pressed to e2plain the contents of his certificate, he said these scratches could have been cause b+ $ires, rough stones, pointed ob)ects or si*ilar instru*ents applied b+ other personsC that the "reddish discoloration of the nape of the nec;" $hich is a "contusion" *a+ have been caused b+ so called trau*a or in co**on parlance, a blo$ that *a+ cause in)ur+ either b+ fist or ob)ectsC that the "reddish discoloration at the left upper bac; $hich is *edial of shoulder blade" is the sa*e as the in)ur+ on the nec; $hich *a+ have been caused b+ an+ ;ind of ob)ect, such as fist or hand blo$C that the "pinhead spot on the left leg and *ultiple scratches li;eline", could have been caused b+ a pointed ob)ect applied to the s;in, but he does not ;no$ $hether electrical shoc;ing apparatus introduced in the bod+ could have produced the sa*e. tsn, pp. .18-.85, Eol. .# In this appeal, the appellant assails the ad*ission of his confession, contending that it is not ad*issible, because it $as obtained thru force, threat and inti*idation. In passing upon the $eight and ad*issibilit+ of a confession, the court *a+ ta;e into consideration the circu*stances and conditions under $hich it $as obtained People vs. -auas, 53 Phil. 01/#, and *a+ consider clai*s that a state*ent $as ta;en in circu*stances $hich violate the standard of voluntariness A a standard grounded in the policies of privileged selfincri*ination. >avis vs. ,tate of North Carolina, .9 -. ed. 39.# As narrated hereinabove, i**ediatel+ upon Chua@s surrender on August /1, .858, Capt. Iapdiangco and several CI, agents interrogated hi* for three hours. <he ne2t *orning, August /5, .858, Chua $as again interrogated. <he interrogation $ere reduced to $riting. But, because Chua $ould not ad*it his guilt, the investigators considered hi* a liar, and so the+ destro+ed his $ritten state*ent. Persisting in their atte*pt to obtain a confession, at *idnight on August /9, .858, Chua $as brought to Alabang, 'iBal, $ithin the )urisdiction of the 7rd PC Bone, for investigation, instead of ta;ing hi* to the .st PC Bone in Bulacan $here the cri*e $as co**itted. According to Capt. Iapdiangco, 6eorge Chua voluntaril+ sub*itted hi*self to an investigation and agreed that his confession be *ade in $riting. <o Fuote fro* appellee@s brief, p. .0%

Page1

After their arrival at Alabang, Capt. Iapdiangco, in the presence of agents 'icardo ChaveB and other agents, . . . Chua voluntaril+ sub*itted hi*self to the investigation and agreed that his confession be *ade in $riting.

In the light of the foregoing testi*on+ of Capt. Iapdiangco, it is food for thought to as;% &hat *ade Chua beco*e a "dove", $hen during all the ti*e he $as being investigated at Ca*p Cra*e, he had de*onstrated an attitude of belligerenc+ b+ refusing to ad*it participation in the cri*eH &as the sudden transfor*ation the result of so*e spiritual persuasion that *oved the conscience of the suspect to ad*it his guilt, or $as it due to an overbearing pressure $hich finall+ subdued his $ill po$erH <he observation *ade b+ his "onor, the late =anuel =. =e)ia, the first trial )udge in the case, $ould see* to have an ans$ered the riddle. <hus% . . . Not$ithstanding the fact that he surrendered or $as surrendered to 6eneral Ca*po at the > Y E 'estaurant in the evening of /5 August .858, and $as supposed to be confined at the CI, building Ca*p Cra*e, GueBon Cit+, and not$ithstanding the prosecution@s clai* that defendant Chua e2ecuted his alleged confession, E2hibit =, voluntaril+, the CI, agents had to ta;e hi* to Alabang, 'iBal, appro2i*atel+ /4 ;ilo*eters a$a+ fro* GueBon Cit+. No$, it *a+ be as;ed, if defendant Chua $ere reall+ $illing to e2ecute a confession, $h+ should the CI, agents have to ta;e hi* to AlabangH Could not such a confession be ta;en right in the CI, building in GueBon Cit+, $here the+ have all the facilitiesH And if the confession, E2hibit N, had reall+ been voluntaril+ given b+ defendant Chua, as clai*ed b+ the prosecution, $h+ $ould it ta;e the CI, several hours in an isolated place in Alabang, 'iBal, to e2tract fro* hi* a 7-page confessionH. . . .._$ph`..Qat (f course, Captain Iapdiangco e2plained that the reason $h+ appellant $as investigated in Alabang, 'iBal, $as because of the presence of ne$spaper*en in the CI, building at Ca*p Cra*e, GueBon Cit+, $ho interfered in their *anner of investigation. "is "onor, !udge =anuel =. =e)ia, did not accord credence to the e2planation. Indeed, it is clear that it $as onl+ a prete2t, considering that, as ad*itted b+ the $itness, the ne$spaper*en are not al$a+s present in their office at Ca*p Cra*e. tsn, p. 9/, Eol. .# <he appellant clai*ed that he $as *altreated and inti*idated b+ the investigators at Alabang, hitting his head, bo2ing hi*, appl+ing electric shoc; to his bod+, sitting on his sto*ach and legs, and reFuired hi* to sign the confession under threat of death. <he clai* *erits serious consideration. It appears that after Chua@s investigation on August /9, .858, he $as e2a*ined b+ >r. EustaFuio Bautista, a private *edical practitioner, and b+ doctors Arsenio Anastacio and =iguel Karraga of the PC. >r. EustaFuio in his e2a*ination of Chua on August /0, .858, as stated in his report, found "*ultiple scratch li;eline on the left upper bac;C reddish discoloration at nape of nec;C reddish discoloration at left upper bac; )ust *edial of the shoulder bladeC *ultiple pinhead reddish spots on left leg and *ultiple scratches li;e lineC 7 scratches li;eline on right leg" $hich according to the doctor could not have been self-inflicted because of the location of the in)uries. (n the other hand, upon an e2a*ination of Chua on August /0, .858, b+ >r. Anastacio, he found "0 linear reddish *ar;s var+ing in length A .D1 2 7D1 inch, 0 in nu*ber pinhead in siBe s;in eruptions reddish $ith so*e healed are noted on the outer half of the left shoulder, upper part of the left ar* and upper part of the left bac;. ,i*ilar eruptions appear on the upper part of the right bac;, both legs and thighs. -inear reddish *ar; about . inch is noted on the antero-lateral aspect of the left thighs. <hree s*all reddish *ar;s are noted on the )unction of the upper and *iddle thirds lateral aspect of the right leg. <he above-*entioned linear reddish *ar;s represent scratch *ar;s." E2h. 7-Chua p. .75, Eol. ..# :pon e2a*ination conducted b+ >r. =iguel Karraga, at about .4%44 a.*. on August /0, .858, he found that "over the left shoulder area, upper bac;, and upper ar* are seen a nu*ber of superficial abrasions of various siBes fro* 4.9 to ..5 c*. long in various stage of healing, so*e reddish, so*e covered $ith bro$nish scabC there are observed si*ilar superficial *ar;s over the right upper bac;, and both legs and thighs. An abrasion *easuring /./ c*. is seen on the antero-lateral portion of the left thigh. (n the right leg at about the )unction of the upper and *iddle thirds are three s*all abrasions lateral to another one $hich sub)ect clai*s had alread+ been there for so*eti*e no$, the e2act nu*ber of da+s he does not re*e*ber." E2h. 1-Chua, Eol. ..# <hese findings of the three doctors, +ielded one significant indication, the e2istence of "reddish *ar;s and scratch abrasions on appellant@s bod+. <rue, that >r. Arsenio Anastacio *ade a re*ar; in his *edical certificate E2h. 7-Chua# that there is "no sign of ph+sical in)ur+ e2ternall+ $hich can be appreciated at the ti*e of his e2a*ination," and =a)or =iguel Karraga declared that "the abdo*en revealed no e2ternal *anifestation of an+ in)ur+, nor is there an+ area of tenderness in the $hole bod+" of the appellant, these re*ar;s, ho$ever, do not detract fro* the fact, ph+sicall+ and scientificall+ recogniBed, that so*e for*s of torture do not usuall+ *anifest e2ternal in)ur+ on the bod+ of the person *altreated. For instance, sitting on the sto*ach and the use of electric shoc;, $hich incidentall+ are a*ong appellant@s co*plaints, do not necessaril+ produce e2ternal ph+sical in)ur+. >r. Anastacio said%._$ph`..Qat G. A Iou have long e2perience in *edical practice, as a general rule, if blo$s are given in the abdo*en, do the+ leave e2ternal signH A. A Not all tsn, p. 145 E2h. PPP, pp. 784-1.5, Eol. .#. (n the sa*e point, >r. Karraga said% G. A In +our e2perience, did +ou >octor have co*e across a person given blo$s in the abdo*en $ithout leaving an+ e2ternal *ar;H A. A I have *an+ cases, so*e of the* leave signs and so*e of the* do not leave an+ e2ternal in)ur+. 222 222 222

G. A "ave Iou co*e across a person $ho died in traffic accident $here the $heel passed over the abdo*en $ithout leaving an+ *ar; of e2ternal in)ur+H A. A I re*e*ber ver+ $ell a *an in Ca*p =urph+ $hereb+ a +oung child $as ran over b+ $heel and she sustained serious internal in)uries $ithout an+ e2ternal in)uries. tsn, pp. 1/1-1/5, E2h. ---, Eol. ., !P =arilao.# And as regards the use of electric shoc;, >r. Karraga@s findings that "there are no e2ternal *anifestation to indicate the application of electric current of such duration to al*ost cause death as alleged," does not negate the application of this for* of torture for according to hi*, the use of electricit+ $ith $ire on the bod+ of a person does not al$a+s leave an+ *ar; thereon. (n cross-e2a*ination, he said%

Page1

G. A Iou also ad*it >octor that electricit+ fro* 9 volts batter+ applied $ith $ire $ill not leave an+ *ar;H A. A I ad*it that. tsn, p. 5/5, E2h. ---, Eol. I, !P =arilao.# <estif+ing further on this point, and confronted $ith a Fuotation fro* a *edical boo;, >r. Karraga said% G. A I $ill )ust read to +ou a certain portion of this boo; on page /4., and I Fuote% the autops+ of a person . . . dead and l+ing near an electric *achine or $ire *a+ reveal a severe cardiac, $hich could account for said death even $ithout contact $ith the current. It *a+ be ver+ difficult to define in such a case if the death $as due to the disease or electric current if no electric current *ar;s are present. Iou agree $ith that, >octorH A. A I agree $ith the condition that those $ho died of cardiac as a result of s*all shoc; *a+ reall+ die $ithout indication e2ternall+. tsn. pp. 1/9-1/0, Eol. I, !P =arilao.# . G. A And the abrasion +ou *entioned in E2h. ' could that have been produced b+ *inor or sharp ob)ectH A. A Ies, sir, in fact I *entioned that in *+ state*ent. Fro* the foregoing facts and circu*stances set forth, it is clear that the *ere absence of e2ternal in)ur+ in appellant@s bod+ does not destro+ or rule out appellant@s clai* of *altreat*ent b+ the use of other scientific *odes or for*s of torture. Appellant@s in)uries, certified b+ a private ph+sician and constabular+ doctors, $ere telltales corroboration of the charge of torture and *altreat*ent. It is no$ settled that a confession $hich is induced or e2torted b+ torturing the accused or b+ personal violence or abuse directed against the accused for the purpose of obtaining a confession, is an involuntar+ one and is not ad*issible in evidence against hi*, unless found to be true. People vs. <ipa+, 04 Phil. 9.5.# Appellee argues, ho$ever, conceding that the confession $as involuntar+, that it is nevertheless ad*issible because the facts stated in the confession have been corroborated b+ other evidence. A revie$ of the evidence, ho$ever, sho$ed that other than the confession, there is no other evidence $hich proves the truth of the facts stated in the confession. (n the contrar+, anal+Bing the confession of Chua, it $ill be noticed that it is replete $ith i*probabilities and falsities in its *aterial and substantial parts. .. A &hile in Chua@s confession there appears a state*ent that the order to ;ill $as given to hi* b+ his partners in "ong;ong, Iao Chung and <a+ ,eng, thru the overseas telephone on !une /8, .858, at ..%44 a.*., the records of the Bureau of <eleco**unications $hich in !ul+, .858 $as the onl+ agenc+ operating an overseas telephone s+ste* bet$een "ong;ong and =anila, failed to disclose an+ such telephone conversation bet$een Iao Chung and appellant Chua. E2hibit .0-Chua, and testi*on+ of radio technician, pp. 10.-13., bail hearing before !udge =e)ia.#. /. A In Chua@s confession, it is said that the plot to ;ill Crisosto*o $as hatched up in Chua@s residence at .371 =. ". del Pilar, =alate, =anila, on the night of !ul+ .7, .858, $ith AlvareB and -i* Bon Ping T !ohnn+ Iao, but the records of the Bureau of I**igration sho$ that said -i* Bong Ping had re-entered =anila in Nove*ber, .853 and had left b+ Philippine Air -ines plane for "ong;ong on >ece*ber 0, .853 E2hs. .7, .1 and .5#. And there is no sho$ing that he had re-entered the Philippines after his departure for abroad on >ece*ber 0, .853. <hat -i* Bong Ping $as not in =anila in !ul+, .858, is further sho$n b+ the s$orn declarations of *e*bers of the staff Philippine Consulate 6eneral in ,an Francisco, California, of the Philippine Consulate 6eneral in ,an Francisco, California on 74 April .853, and returned thereto on /1 >ece*ber .853, $here he had been living constantl+ ever since. E2hs. 5, 5-a and 9, 9-a.# And this fact $as corroborated b+ the s$orn state*ents of =rs. Pilar '. 6uerrero, Philippine Consulate e*plo+ee in ,an Francisco, and EnriFue "erbosa, a Filipino student in California. E2hs. 0 and 0-a.# 7. A In Chua@s confession, it is said that AlvareB ;illed Crisosto*o in consideration of P75,444.44. <his is illogical and unbelievable. As his "onor, the late !udge =anuel =. =e)ia, the first trial )udge in the case, said in his order granting bail to appellant, "If AlvareB had reall+ ;illed Crisosto*o in consideration of a re$ard pro*ised to hi* b+ Chua, it $ould see* to be unnatural and illogical for Chua, to have gone along $ith AlvareB in the actual ;illing of Crisosto*o on the night of !ul+ .1, .858. (n the other hand, it is said b+ AlvareB in his tape-recorded state*ent that his *otive in ;illing the deceased Crisosto*o $as to retrieve a rubber chec; $hich he had issued to Crisosto*o in connection $ith his purchase fro* the latter of a Ford Fairlane car for P/4,544.44 E2h. --, pp. .7, /3, tsn, (ct. 7., .858#." Indeed, the foregoing facts $ould sho$ that it $as AlvareB $ho had a *otive to ;ill Crisosto*o. In fact, he $ithdre$ his appeal. 1. A It is also said in the confession that Crisosto*o $as shot on the head $hile driving the car. <his is incredible, because in that situation, the car $ould have gone out of control or $ould have been involved in an accident $hich did not happen. 5. A And as a result of the incident discussed in the preceding nu*ber, if it $ere true, evidentl+ the authorities $ould have found bloodstains in the car $hich is not present. 9. A <he state*ent in the confession that Chua $as $ith the group that ;illed Crisosto*o at -ias road, =arilao, is i*peached b+ the testi*on+ of Paulino Antonio, a $itness for the prosecution, $ho declared that it $as onl+ AlvareB $ho* he sa$ at the vicinit+ of the cri*e on the night of !ul+ .1, .858. <he finding of the court that there $as conspirac+ a*ong the accused, not$ithstanding the fact that on the sa*e evidence, the court found one defendant not guilt+, but sufficient to convict the t$o others, on the court@s finding and conclusion "As regards the testi*on+ of Arturo Ca+etano, the court is inclined to give a *argin of error in his identif+ing Carasig on the night in Fuestion . . .," is indeed, so*e$hat illogical A ,ince in the instant case, the $ido$ appears also to be a star $itness of the prosecution $hose testi*on+ $as given *uch $eight in pinning liabilit+ on appellants, $e $onder $hether this could be consistent and $ould be true to logic and fairness if it $ould hold that on the strength of the sa*e testi*on+ $hich $as discredited b+ the court, insofar as one of the appellants@ co-accused in the sa*e case is concerned, $ould reach a verdict of conviction against said appellants. People vs. AFuino, et al., --.7038, !une 74, .894, 90 (ff. 6aB. No. 5., 8.34.#

Page1

Aside fro* the foregoing consideration, conspirac+ *ust be proved b+ independent evidence other than the confession. <he ad*issibilit+ of a confession b+ one accused against the other in the sa*e case, *ust relate to state*ents *ade b+ one conspirator during the pendenc+ of the unla$ful enterprise or during its e2istence# and in furtherance of its ob)ects, and not to a confession *ade, as in this case, long after the conspirac+ had been brought to an end. People vs. Na;pil, 5/ Phil. 835C People vs. Iatco, et al., 5. (ff. 6aB. No. ./, 9.30#. Conspirac+ *ust be real and not presu*ptive. :.,. vs. Figueras, / Phil. 18.#. It *ust be proved as the cri*e itself, independent fro* the confession. But in the case at bar, the trial court ad*itted the conflicting confession of AlvareB $hich are not binding on the appellant for being hearsa+, aside fro* having been repudiated b+ AlvareB hi*self during the trial. <here is, therefore, no inter-loc;ing confession so to sa+, for there being no independent evidence establishing an overt act of appellant Chua connected to the cri*e, conspirac+ *ust necessaril+ be discarded. <he appellant *aintains that the trial court erred in not appreciating his defense of alibi. <he evidence sho$s that the appellant, even fro* the ver+ beginning of his interrogation b+ the CI, agents upon his surrender on August /1, .858, has consistentl+ clai*ed that on the night of !ul+ .1, .858, $hen Crisosto*o $as ;illed at =arilao, Bulacan, he $as at No. /, ,alud ,t., Pasa+ Cit+, pla+ing *ah)ong. Capt. Iapdiangco corroborated this fact. <hus A G. A &hat $ere the things $hich +ou fear he $as not ans$ering +our interrogation $hich +ou consider is not trueH A. A I re*e*ber he $as declaring to us that on that da+, on the evening of .1th of !ul+ .858, he $as in the *ah)ong ga*e. &hile Chua $as being interrogated at the CI,, Ca*p Cra*e, GueBon Cit+, on August /1, .858, other agents of the CI, particularl+ Agent =ariano Belen and -t. Bautista, on the sa*e date, $ere bus+ chec;ing up on Chua@s *ove*ents or $hereabouts on !ul+ .1, .858, and the+ $ere infor*ed that on the night of !ul+ .1, .858, Chua $as indeed pla+ing *ah)ong at No. /, ,alud ,t., Pasa+ Cit+. <o this effect is the testi*on+ of agent Belen% G. A >o +ou re*e*ber having gone $ith -t. Bautista to a certain club house in Pasa+ on August /1, .858H A. A I re*e*ber, sir. G. A >o +ou re*e*ber $here that club house isH A. A No. /, ,alud ,t., Pasa+ Cit+. G. A &hat $as the purpose in going $ith -t. Bautista to that club house at ,alud ,t., Pasa+ Cit+H A. A <o verif+ the allegation of =r. Peter -i* that at said club house, 6eorge Chua $as pla+ing *ah)ong on the night of !ul+ .1, .858. G. A Because of that infor*ation i*parted to +ou b+ Peter -i*, +ou $ent direct to ,alud ,t.H A. A Ies, sir, in the afternoon of the sa*e date. G. A &ho* did +ou interrogate upon +our arrival in the clubhouseH A. A &e interrogated (ng Pong Pa+. 222 222 222

G. A &hat $as the ans$er of (ng Pong Pa+H A. A <hat =r. 6eorge Chua $as there and practicall+ pla+ing *ah)ong one $ee; fro* !ul+ 3 to .1, .858. <he foregoing facts $ere also corroborated b+ the testi*onies of Ng Iu tsn, p. .4/1#C (ng Pong Pa+ tsn, p. ./15# and Peter -i* tsn, p. ./85#. As further proof of the fact that Chua $as pla+ing *ah)ong at ,alud ,t., on the night of !ul+ .1, .858, the record sho$s that agent Belen of the CI, $as given a noteboo; b+ (ng Pong Pa+ in-charge of the clubhouse, on August /1, .858, $herein accused 6eorge Chua $as listed as one of the pla+ers thereat on the date in Fuestion. "o$ever, it appears that the prosecution had lost the noteboo;. &hether it $as reall+ lost b+ the CI, or deliberatel+ suppressed, the presu*ption of its truth has basis in la$.._$ph`..Qat All the foregoing indubitabl+ sho$ that the defense of alibi of the appellant could not have been *erel+ a concoction, as the testi*onies of the $itnesses clearl+ sho$ed that Chua $as reall+ pla+ing *ah)ong at ,alud ,t., Pasa+ Cit+, on the date in Fuestion. :P(N <"E F('E6(IN6 C(N,I>E'A<I(N,, the Court finds that the guilt of the appellant Cha$ Ia$ ,hun T 6eorge Chua has not been established be+ond reasonable doubt, and he is hereb+ acFuitted of the offense charged $ith costs de oficio. <he bail bond posted b+ the accused for his provisional libert+ is hereb+ cancelled. 6.'. No. 01950 Februar+ /0, .838 PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. -E(NA'>( ,E''AN(, accused-appellant. <"I'> >IEI,I(N <he ,olicitor 6eneral for plaintiff-appellee. =arino -. Cueto for accused-appellant.

6:<IE''EK, !'., !.%

Page1

<his is an appeal fro* the decision of the 'egional <rial Court of -ucena Cit+, Branch 57 finding the accused -eonardo ,errano guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of *urder and sentencing hi* to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua, to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased the a*ount of <$ent+ <housand Pesos P /4,444.44# and to pa+ actual da*ages in the a*ount of P 9,990.14, and *oral da*ages in the a*ount of P .4,444.44 $ithout subsidiar+ i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc+. <he infor*ation filed against the accused alleged% <hat on or about the /7rd da+ of !anuar+ .837, at Baranga+ =asin ,ur, =unicipalit+ of Candelaria, Province of GueBon, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the abovena*ed accused, $ho $as then riding in a tric+cle, ar*ed $ith a sharp and pointed $eapon, $ith intent to ;ill and $ith treacher+ and $ith evident pre*editation, did then and there $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ attac;, assault and stab $ith the said deadl+ $eapon one !orge Eillapando, a fello$ passenger in said tric+cle, thereb+ inflicting upon the latter the follo$ing in)uries, to $it% .. ,tab $nd. . .D/ c*. long, / c*. to the left of the *idline /nd I.C.,. non-penetrating. /. ,tab $nd. . .D/ c*. long at 1th I.C.,. left 7 c*. fro* the *idline penetrating the chest cavit+. In)uring the heart. 7. ,tab $nd. . .D/ c*. long, .D/ c*. belo$ and. No. / non-penetrating. 1. ,tab $nd. . .D/ c*. long left 5th I.C.,., / c*. fro* the *idline penetrating the chest cavit+ hitting the heart. 5. ,tab and. . .D/ c*. long at 7rd I.C.,., 0 c*. fro* the *idline non-penetrating. $hich directl+ caused his death. (riginal 'ecord, pp. 73-78#. <he lo$er court su**ariBed its findings of facts as follo$s% (n the night of !anuar+ /7, .837 -eonardo ,errano and !orge Eillapando $ere visitors of one Charito Ealencia in the house of latter@s uncle -a*berts Espeleta in Baranga+ =asi*, Candelaria, GueBon. !orge Eillapando is alread+ the s$eetheart of Charito Ealencia $hile -eonardo ,errano is a suitor and faithful ad*irer of Charito. A conversation too; place bet$een the three of the* and it $as in this conversation that -eonardo ,errano discovered that !orge Eillapando has $on the heart and the *ind of Charito Ealencia. !orge Eillapando decided to leave the house earl+ and so he inti*ated to leave but the accused -eonardo ,errano also decided to leave together $ith !orge Eillapando. Apparentl+ -eonardo ,errano in a fit of )ealous+ decided to get even $ith !orge Eillapando. As the place bet$een the house of Espeleta and that of the national high$a+ $ould be a convenient place for hi* to acco*plish his evil design, but this $as frustrated $hen Charito@s uncle -eonardo sic# Espeleta feeling apprehensive that their t$o visitors *ight be *olested on their $a+ decided to acco*pan+ the* to the railroad trac; $here the+ could get a tric+cle in going ho*e. ,errano and Eillapando $ere able to ride on board the tric+cle of Ar*ando AlvareB on the national high$a+ near the railroad trac; at Baranga+ =asi*, Candelaria, GueBon and $hile on board this tric+cle in going to the poblacion of Candelaria, GueBon as !orge Eillapando $as seated on his left side and ta;ing advantage of the unsuspecting !orge Eillapando the accused stabbed Eillapando five ti*es on the chest and as the t$o $ere struggling inside the tric+cle the driver Ar*ando AlvareB noticed that his tric+cle s$a+ed and $hen he peeped inside he sa$ ,errano still stabbing Eillapando and $hen he slo$ed do$n it $as at that ti*e that accused -eonardo ,errano )u*ped out of the tric+cle and ran to$ards the place $here the+ ca*e fro*. I**ediatel+ thereafter Eillapando $as brought to the Candelaria "ospital $here he $as pronounced dead on arrival. <he identit+ of the accused $as established not onl+ b+ the testi*on+ of -a*berto Espeleta but also b+ the testi*on+ of Ar*ando AlvareB the tric+cle driver. Fro* the testi*on+ of >r. !uan Cedeno $ho conducted the post*orte* e2a*ination on the $ounds of the victi*, it sho$s that all the $ounds $ere inflicted on the left chest caused b+ onl+ one pointed instru*ent and the thrust of the $eapon ca*e fro* the front of the victi*, (riginal 'ecord, pp. .84-.8.#. In this appeal, the accused ,errano raised the follo$ing assign*ents of errors% I. <"E "(N('AB-E <'IA- !:>6E =I,E'AB-I FAI-E> <( APP'ECIA<E <"E FAC<:A- AN> -E6A,I6NIFICANCE (F <"E <"'EE-"(:' PE'I(> =('E (' -E,,# <"A< -AP,E> F'(= <"E <I=E <"E EIC<I= -EF< <"E "(:,E (F -A=BE'<( E,PE-E<A &"E'E C"A'I<( EA-ENCIA I, -IEIN6 :P <( <"E <I=E <"E EIC<I= &A, F(:N> BI <"E <'ICIC-E >'IEE' A'=AN>( A-EA'EK A< <"E C'(,,IN6 (F BA'AN6AI =A,IN, CAN>E-A'IA, G:EK(NC C(N,EG:EN<-I, <"E "(N. <'IA- !:>6E E''(NE(:,-I A''IEE> A< <"E C(NC-:,I(N <"A< EIC<I= &A, ,<ABBE> IN,I>E <"E <'ICIC-E IN,<EA> (F =APIN6 <"E -(6ICA- FIN>IN6 <"A< <"E EIC<I= &A, A-'EA>I &(:N>E> BEF('E B(A'>IN6 <"E AF('E,AI> <'ICIC-E AN> "ENCE, N( ,<ABBIN6 INCI>EN< <((P P-ACE IN,I>E <"E ,A=E. II. <"E "(N('AB-E <'IA- !:>6E E''E> IN FIN>IN6 <"A< <"E =(<IEE (F <"E ACC:,E> &A, <"E 'EEEN6E (F A !I-<E> ,:I<(' AN> !EA-(:,I &"EN N( I(<A (F EEI>ENCE &A, P'E,EN<E> <( ,:PP('< <"E ,A=E. III. <"E "(N('AB-E <'IA- !:>6E E''E> IN "(->IN6 <"A< <"E ACC:,E> &A, P(,I<IEE-I IdEN<IFIE> BI <"E P'(,EC:<I(N &I<NE,,E, AN> IN ,( "(->IN6 ,I=P-I I6N('E> <"E ,P(N<ANE(:, ,<A<E=EN< BI <"E P'INCIPA- &I<NE,, A-EA'EK >:'IN6 <"A< ,A=E NI6"< (F <"E INCI>EN<, <"A< "E >I> N(< 'EC(6NIKE <"E PE',(N &"( ,<ABBE> <"E EIC<I=. IE. <"E "(N('AB-E <'IA- !:>6E 6'AEE-I E''E> IN 6IEIN6 C'E>I< <( <"E &I<NE,,E, (F <"E P'(,EC:<I(N &"EN <"EI' <E,<I=(NIE, &E'E 'EP-E<E &I<" INC(N,I,<ENCIE, AN> I=P'(BABI-I<IE,, AN> <"E P'(>:C< (F AN AF<E' <"(:6"<. E. <"E "(N('AB-E <'IA- !:>6E E''E> IN N(< "(->IN6 <"A< <"E 6:I-< (F <"E ACC:,E> F(' <"E C'I=E (F =:'>E' &A, N(< P'(EE> BEI(N> A 'EA,(NAB-E >(:B<. 'ollo, pp. 70-73#. <he accused Fuestions the trial court@s findings of facts and its appreciation of the prosecution@s evidence. &e have carefull+ e2a*ined the records of the case and $e find no cogent reason to depart fro* the $ell-established rule that findings of trial courts are accorded great respect in the absence of an+ sho$ing that the+ ignored, overloo;ed or failed to properl+ appreciate *atters of substance $hich $ould affect the results. Centino v. Court of Appeals, 6.'. No. -00/83, !anuar+ .7, .838#.

Page1

,errano asserts that the victi* $as alread+ "$ounded and dead" sic# $hen the tric+cle driver, Ar*ando AlvareB found hi*, contrar+ to the finding that the victi* $as stabbed $hile inside the tric+cle driven b+ AlvareB. "e inferred this fro* an alleged ti*e discrepanc+. ,ince the Espeleta@s house to the "poblacion" could be traversed in ten *inutes, the victi* and ,errano $ould have reached the "poblacion" about an hour earlier than the reported ti*e of the stabbing incident. As such, the stabbing could not have ta;en place inside the tric+cle. <he assertion is $ithout *erit. <he ti*e of the stabbing incident need not be precise to the last second. <he ti*e given b+ the $itnesses is based on *ere esti*ates and not the result of a deliberate effort to loo; at a $atch or cloc;, verif+ the ti*e as co*pared to other cloc;s, and record the sa*e in $riting. <he alleged ti*e discrepanc+ cannot prevail over the positive Identification of the accused. Neither can the defense of alibi prevail over the positive Identification of the accused, *ore so as no ill *otive has been attributed to the prosecution $itnesses to Identif+ ,errano as the assailant. People v. <rinidad, 6.'. No. --08./7- /5, !anuar+ 8, .838C People v. Abigan, .11 ,C'A .74 .839#C People v. 'ene)ane, .53 ,C'A /53 .833#C People v. de la CruB, .13 ,C'A 53/ .830#M. <he appellant contends that AlvareB failed to positivel+ Identif+ hi* as the assailant. &e agree $ith the ,olicitor 6eneral $ho states% Appellant assails the finding that he $as positivel+ Identified b+ the prosecution $itnesses because e+e$itness Ar*ando AlvareB allegedl+ *ade a spontaneous and unrehearsed state*ent that he did not recogniBe the person $ho stabbed the victi* pp. .1-.8, Appellant@s Brief#. In open court, prosecution e+e$itness Ar*ando AlvareB, the tric+cle driver, declared that he has no doubt that appellant $as the person $ho stabbed the deceased p. 55, tsn, >ece*ber 0, .837#. "e $as sure appellant $as the assailant because he bad seen appellant several ti*es before the incident pp. 70-70, tsn. Id.#. It *a+ be true that in his affidavit AlvareB initiall+ stated that he could not sa+ "indi ;o po *asasabi, p. 1, tsn, Id.# $hether be $ould be able to recogniBe the assailant of the deceased. AlvareB, ho$ever, e2plained that at the ti*e he $as still tr+ing to recall $here he had seen appellant before pp. 13-18, 51-55, tsn, Id.#. But later on he recalled he had seen appellant even before the incident p. 73, tsn, Id.# and he had no doubt about his Identit+ p. 55, tsn, Id.#. =oreover, the Identification *ade b+ AlvareB $as corroborated b+ Espeleta $ho testified that appellant boarded the tric+cle of AlvareB $ith the victi* *o*ents before the victi* $as stabbed in said tric+cle. Both Espeleta and AlvareB had no *otive to fra*e-up appellant. <he appellant then contends that the *otive $as not clearl+ sho$n. Charito Ealencia, the $o*an $ho $as allegedl+ being courted b+ both the accused and the victi* $as not presented as a $itness, thus "no concrete and clear *otive $as sho$n". <his court has held that proof of *otive is unnecessar+ $here the assailant has been positivel+ identified b+ the e+e$itnesses. LPeople v. >elavin, .13 ,C'A /50 .830#, People v. 'a*ilo, .10 ,C'A .4/ .830#M. But in an+ event, evidence $as adduced through the unrefuted testi*on+ of Ealencia@s uncle Espeleta $ho testified that both the accused and the victi* $ere courting his niece, Charito Ealencia. <he accused points out so*e alleged inconsistensies in the testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses. &e adopt the ,olicitor 6eneral@s observations% <here is no contradiction bet$een the earlier testi*on+ of Pat. Corne)o that the deceased had no co*panion p. 9, tsn, Februar+ 3, .831# and his subseFuent state*ent that the co*panion of the deceased )u*ped fro* the tric+cle p. 0, tsn, Id.#. <he first state*ent refers to the occasion $hen the deceased $as brought to the hospital $hile the second state*ent refers to the occasion $hen the deceased boarded the tric+cle after leaving Espeleta@s house. -i;e$ise, there is no contradiction bet$een the testi*on+ of AlvareB to the effect that# he $as not told b+ the police to give a $ritten state*ent pp. 75-79, tsn, >ece*ber 0, .837# and Pat. Corne)o@s testi*on+ to the effect that he instructed AlvareB to go to the police to give a $ritten state*ent pp. 3 and .7-.1, tsn, Februar+ 3, .831#. <he see*ingl+ contradictor+ testi*onies can be reconciled. AlvareB@s testi*on+ refers to the occasion $hen he brought the deceased to the hospital and $as here sic# verball+ intervie$ed b+ the police. pp. 71-75, tsn, >ece*ber 0, .835#. Pat. Corne)o@s testi*on+ refers to the occasion $hen he found it necessar+ to re-intervie$ AlvareB to co*plete AlvareB@s narration pp. .7-.1, tsn, Februar+ 3, .831#. Pat. Corne)o also e2plained $h+ it $as not recorded in the police blotter that the deceased had a co*panion $hen he boarded the tric+cle $ho subseFuentl+ )u*ped fro* the tric+cle. "e said he $as $aiting for the tric+cle driver to co*e to the police headFuarters to co*plete his report and sign the lo$er portion of the entr+ pp. .1-.5, tsn, Februar+ 3, .831#. <his action of Pat. Corne)o *erel+ sho$s that he $as not a seasoned police officer but a t+pical si*ple and unsophisticated police*an of the rural areas, and does not b+ an+ *eans indicate a deliberate atte*pt to falsif+ the truth People vs. Eerso, /. ,C'A .147#. =oreover, these discrepancies and inconsistencies are onl+ on *inor details that do not detract fro* the veracit+ of their testi*onies. In fact, these strengthen their veracit+ as the+ sho$ that the testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses are unrehearsed. ,ee People v. >elavin, supra#. <he accused also argues that it is incredible that the accused $ould stab the victi* at a ti*e $hen so*ebod+ $itnessed the incident. As held in the case of People E. >elavin, supra% (ne of the argu*ents invo;ed b+ the defense $as that the accused-appellant, ;no$ing that he could easil+ be Identified, $ould not have co**itted the offenses openl+ but $ould have chosen a *ore subdued place and hour to prevent the discover+. In repl+, the ,olicitor 6eneral sa+s% "<i*e has changed a great deal. <he braBenness $ith $hich cri*es are co**itted in broad da+light are too nu*erous to be recounted." &e agree, $ith not a little sense of sadness. Eanished, indeed, are those gentler +esterda+s $hen one@s neighbor $as, as certain as the brea; of da$n, a friend.

Page1

-astl+, it cannot be denied that the accused $ent into hiding after the date of the co**ission of the cri*e. "e never reported for $or; again at the Peter Paul Corp. until the ti*e be $as dis*issed. &"E'EF('E, the )udg*ent appealed fro* sentencing the accused ,errano to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua and to pa+ the heirs of !orge Eillapando civil inde*nit+ and da*ages in the a*ount of P 79,990.14, is hereb+ AFFI'=E>. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. 004/8 August 74, .884 BIENEENI>(, E,<E-I<A, 6EEE'(,petitioners, vs. IN<E'=E>IA<E APPE--A<E C(:'< and >E- =(N<E >EEE-(P=EN< C('P('A<I(N, respondents. Carlito B. ,o*ido for petitioners. Ben)a*in N. <abios for private respondent. =ACA'I(, -:I,, A>E-AI>E, EN'IG:I<A and C-A:>I(, all surna*ed,

PA'A,, !.% <his is a petition for revie$ on certiorari of the =arch /4, .833 decision . of the then Inter*ediate Appellate Court no$ Court of Appeals# in AC-6' CE No. 98/91, entitled >el =onte >evelop*ent Corporation vs. EnriFue Ababa, et al., etc. affir*ing the decision / of the then Court of First Instance no$ 'egional <rial Court# of =isa*is (riental declaring the plaintiff corporation as the true and absolute o$ner of that portion of -ot 109 of the Caga+an Cadastre, particularl+ -ot No. /109-> of the subdivision plan -'C# Psd-34154, containing an area of ,even <housand Eight "undred ,event+ Eight 0,303# sFuare *eters *ore or less. As found b+ the Appellate Court, the facts are as follo$s% <he parcel of land under litigation is -ot No. /109 of the ,ubdivision Plan Psd-70795 containing an area of /4,..8 sFuare *eters and situated at 6usa, Caga+an de (ro Cit+. ,aid lot $as acFuired b+ purchase fro* the late -uis -ancero on ,epte*ber .5, .891 as per >eed of Absolute ,ale e2ecuted in favor of plaintiff and b+ virtue of $hich <ransfer Certificate of <itle No. 17/4 $as issued to plaintiff >E-C(' for brevit+#. -uis -ancero, in turn acFuired the sa*e parcel fro* 'icardo 6evero on Februar+ 5, .85/ per deed of sale e2ecuted b+ 'icardo 6evero $hich $as dul+ annotated as entr+ No. ../3 at the bac; of (riginal Certificate of <itle No. 09.4 covering the *other lot identified as -ot No. /109 in the na*es of <eodorica Babangha A .D/ share and her children% =ariaC 'estituto, Elena, 'icardo, EustaFuio and :rsula, all surna*ed surna*ed 6evero, .D/ undivided share of the $hole area containing 13,.// sFuare *eters. <eodorica Babangha died long before &orld &ar II and $as survived b+ her si2 children afore*entioned. <he heirs of <eodorica Babangha on (ctober .0,.899 e2ecuted an E2tra-!udicial ,ettle*ent and Partition of the estate of <eodorica Babangha, consisting of t$o lots, a*ong the* $as lot /109. B+ virtue of the e2tra-)udicial settle*ent and partition e2ecuted b+ the said heirs of <eodorica Babangha, -ot /109-A to -ot /109-I, inclusive, under subdivision plan -'C# Psd-34154 dul+ approved b+ the -and 'egistration Co**ission, -ot /109->, a*ong others, $as ad)udicated to 'icardo 6evero $ho $as then alive at the ti*e of e2tra-)udicial settle*ent and partition in .899. Plaintiff private respondent herein# filed an action $ith the CFI no$ '<C# of =isa*is (riental to Fuiet title andDor annul the partition *ade b+ the heirs of <eodorica Babangha insofar as the sa*e pre)udices the land $hich it acFuired a portion of lot /109. Plaintiff no$ see;s to Fuiet title andDor annul the partition *ade b+ the heirs of <eodorica Babangha insofar as the sa*e pre)udices the land $hich it acFuired, a portion of -ot /109. Plaintiff proved that before purchasing -ot /109-A it first investigated and chec;ed the title of -uis -ancero and found the sa*e to be intact in the office of the 'egister of >eeds of Caga+an de (ro Cit+. <he sa*e $ith the subdivision plan E2h. "B"#, the corresponding technical description E2h. "P"# and the >eed of ,ale e2ecuted b+ 'icardo 6evero A all of $hich $ere found to be unFuestionable. B+ reason of all these, plaintiff clai*s to have bought the land in good faith and for value, occup+ing the land since the sale and ta;ing over fro* -ancero@s possession until =a+ .898, $hen the defendants Abadas forcibl+ entered the propert+. 'ollo, p. /7# After trial the court a Fuo on !ul+ .3, .800 rendered )udg*ent, the dispositive portion of $hich reads as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered declaring the plaintiff corporation as the true and absolute o$ner of that portion of -ot No. /109 of the Caga+an Cadastre, particularl+ -ot No. /109-> of the subdivision plan -'C# Psd-34154, containing an area of ,EEEN <"(:,AN> EI6"< ":N>'E> ,EEEN<I EI6"< 0,303# sFuare *eters, *ore or less. <he other portions of -ot No. /109 are hereb+ ad)udicated as follo$s% -ot No. /109 R B R to the heirs of Elena 6everoC -ot No. /109 R C R to the heirs of 'estituto 6everoC -ot No. /109 R E R to the defendant spouses EnriFue C. <orres and Francisca AFuinoC -ot No. /109 R F R to the defendant spouses Eduard 'u*ohr and E*ilia =erida 'u*ohf C -ot Nos. /109-", /109-I and /109 A 6 A to defendant spouses EnriFue Abada and -ilia AlvareB Abada. No ad)udication can be *ade $ith respect to -ot No. /109-A considering that the said lot is the sub)ect of a civil case bet$een the "eirs of =aria 6evero on one hand and the spouses >aniel Bor;ing;ito and :rsula 6evero on the other hand, $hich case is no$ pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. No pronounce*ent as to costs, ,( ('>E'E>. >ecision, 'ecord on Appeal, p. /47C 'ollo, pp. /.-//#

Page1

Fro* said decision, defendant heirs of 'icardo 6evero petitioners herein# appealed to the IAC no$ Court of Appeals# $hich subseFuentl+, on =arch /4, .839, affir*ed the decision appealed fro*.

Petitioners, on =arch 7., .839, filed a *otion for reconsideration 'ollo, p. /3# but $as denied on April /., .839. "ence, the present petition. <his petition is devoid of *erit. Basicall+, the issues to be resolved in the instant case are% .# $hether or not the deed of sale e2ecuted b+ 'icardo 6evero to -uis -ancero is validC /# in the affir*ative, $hether or not the .D/ share of interest of <eodorica Babangha in one of the litigated lots, lot no. /109 under (C< No. 09.4 is included in the deed of saleC and 7# $hether or not the private respondents@ action is barred b+ laches. Petitioners *aintain that the deed of sale is entirel+ invalid citing alleged fla$s thereto, such as that% .# the signature of 'icardo $as forged $ithout his ;no$ledge of such factC /# -ancero had recogniBed the fatal defect of the .85/ deed of sale $hen he signed the docu*ent in .893 entitled ",ettle*ent to Avoid the -itigation"C 7# 'icardo@s children re*ained in the propert+ not$ithstanding the sale to -anceroC 1# the designated -ot No. is /104 instead of the correct nu*ber being -ot No. /109C 5# the deed of sale included the share of EustaFuio 6evero $ithout his authorit+C 9# <.C.<. No. ..37 of -ancero segregated the area of /4,..8 sFuare *eters fro* the bigger area (C< No. 09.9# $ithout the consent of the other coo$nersC 0# -ancero caused the .85/ ,ubdivision surve+ $ithout the consent of the 6everos@ to bring about the segregation of the /4,..8 sFuare *eters lot fro* the *other lot /109 $hich brought about the issuance of his title <-..37 and to >E-C('@s title <17/4, both of $hich $ere illegall+ issuedC and 3# the area sold as per docu*ent is /4,918 sFuare *eters $hereas the segregated area covered b+ <C< No. <-..37 of -ancero turned out to be /4,..8 sFuare *eters Petitioners =e*orandu*, pp. 9/-03#. As to petitioners@ clai* that the signature of 'icardo in the .85/ deed of sale in favor of -ancero $as forged $ithout 'icardo@s ;no$ledge of such fact 'ollo, p. 0.# it $ill be observed that the deed of sale in Fuestion $as e2ecuted $ith all the legal for*alities of a public docu*ent. <he .85/ deed $as dul+ ac;no$ledged b+ both parties before the notar+ public, +et petitioners did not bother to rebut the legal presu*ption of the regularit+ of the notariBed docu*ent >+ v. ,aca+, .95 ,C'A 107 L.833M#C Nuguid v. C.A., 6.'. No. 001/7, =arch .7, .838#. In fact it has long been settled that a public docu*ent e2ecuted and attested through the intervention of the notar+ public is evidence of the facts in clear, uneFuivocal *anner therein e2pressed. It has the presu*ption of regularit+ and to contradict all these, evidence *ust be clear, convincing and *ore than *erel+ preponderant 'ebuleda v. I.A.C., .55 ,C'A 5/4-5/. L.830M#. Forger+ cannot be presu*ed, it *ust be proven ,iasat v. IAC, No. 90338, (ctober .4, .835#. -i;e$ise, petitioners allegation of absence of consideration of the deed $as not substantiated. :nder Art. .751 of the Civil Code, consideration is presu*ed unless the contrar+ is proven. As to petitioners@ contention that -ancero had recogniBed the fatal defect of the .85/ deed $hen he signed the docu*ent in .893 entitled ",ettle*ent to Avoid -itigation" 'ollo, p. 0.#, it is a basic rule of evidence that the right of a part+ cannot be pre)udiced b+ an act, declaration, or o*ission of another ,ec. /3. 'ule .74, 'ules of Court#. <his particular rule is e*bodied in the *a2i* "res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet." :nder ,ection 7., 'ule .74, 'ules of Court "$here one derives title to propert+ fro* another, the act, declaration, or o*ission of the latter, $hile holding the title, in relation to the propert+ is evidence against the for*er." It is ho$ever stressed that the ad*ission of the for*er o$ner of a propert+ *ust have been *ade $hile he $as the o$ner thereof in order that such ad*ission *a+ be binding upon the present o$ner Cit+ of =anila v. del 'osario, 5 Phil. //0 L.845MC =edel v. Avecilla, .5 Phil. 195 L.8.4M#. "ence, -anceros@ declaration or acts of e2ecuting the .893 docu*ent have no binding effect on >E-C(', the o$nership of the land having passed to >E-C(' in .891. Petitioners@ clai* that the+ re*ained in the propert+, not$ithstanding the alleged sale b+ 'icardo to -ancero 'ollo, p. 0.# involves a Fuestion of fact alread+ raised and passed upon b+ both the trial and appellate courts. ,aid the Court of Appeals% Contrar+ to the allegations of the appellants, the trial court found that -uis -ancero had ta;en possession of the land upon proper investigation b+ plaintiff the latter learned that it $as indeed -uis -ancero $ho $as the o$ner and possessor of -ot /109 >. . . . >ecision, C.A., p. 9#. As a finding of fact, it is binding upon this Court >e 6ola-,ison v. =analo, 3 ,C'A 585 L.897MC 6aduco vs. C.A., .1 ,C'A /3/ L.895MC 'a*os v. Pepsi-Cola, .8 ,C'A /38 L.890MC <an v. C.A., /4 ,C'A 51 L.890MC 'a*ireB <el. Co. v. Ban; of A*erica, 77 ,C'A 070 L.804MC -ucero v. -oot, /5 ,C'A 930 L.893MC 6uerrero v. C.A., .1/ ,C'A .74 L.839M#. ,uffice it to sa+ that the other fla$s clai*ed b+ the petitioners $hich allegedl+ invalidated the .85/ deed of sale have not been raised before the trial court nor before the appellate court. It is settled )urisprudence that an issue $hich $as neither averred in the co*plaint nor raised during the trial in the court belo$ cannot be raised for the first ti*e on appeal as it $ould be offensive to the basic rules of fair pla+, )ustice and due process. =atienBo v. ,ervidad, .40 ,C'A /09 L.83.MC >ela ,anta v. C.A., .14 ,C'A 11 L.835MC >ihiansan v. C.A., .50 ,C'A 171 L.830MC Anchuelo v. IAC, .10 ,C'A 171 L.830MC >ulos 'ealt+ and >evelop*ent Corporation v. C.A., .50 ,C'A L.833MC Pa*os v. IAC, 6.'. No. 03/3/, !ul+ 5, .838#. Petitioners aver that the .D/ share of interest of <eodorica *other of 'icardo# in -ot /109 under (C< No. 09.4 $as not included in the deed of sale as it $as intended to li*it solel+ to 'icardos@ proportionate share out of the undivided .D/ of the area pertaining to the si2 9# brothers and sisters listed in the <itle and that the >eed did not include the share of 'icardo, as inheritance fro* <eodorica, because the >eed did not recite that she $as deceased at the ti*e it $as e2ecuted 'ollo, pp. 90-93#. <he hereditar+ share in a decedents@ estate is trans*itted or vested i**ediatel+ fro* the *o*ent of the death of the "causante" or predecessor in interest Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 000#, and there is no legal bar to a successor $ith reFuisite contracting capacit+# disposing of his hereditar+ share i**ediatel+ after such death, even if the actual e2tent of such share is not deter*ined until the subseFuent liFuidation of the estate >e Bor)a v. Eda. de Bor)a, 19 ,C'A 500 L.80/M#. <eodorica Babangha died long before &orld &ar II, hence, the rights to the succession $ere trans*itted fro* the *o*ent of her death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it $as onl+ in .899, the date of e2tra)udicial partition, $hen 'icardo received his share in the lot as inheritance fro* his *other <eodorica. <hus, $hen 'icardo sold his share over lot /109 that share $hich he inherited fro* <eodorica $as also included unless e2pressl+ e2cluded in the deed of sale.

Page1

Petitioners contend that 'icardo@s share fro* <eodorica $as e2cluded in the sale considering that a paragraph of the afore*entioned deed refers *erel+ to the shares of 'icardo and EustaFuio 'ollo, p. 90-93#.

It is $ell settled that la$s and contracts shall be so construed as to har*oniBe and give effect to the different provisions thereof 'eparations Co**ission v. Northern -ines, Inc., 71 ,C'A /47 L.804M#, to ascertain the *eaning of the provisions of a contract, its entiret+ *ust be ta;en into account 'uiB v. ,heriff of =anila, 71 ,C'A 37 L.804M#. <he interpretation insisted upon b+ the petitioners, b+ citing onl+ one paragraph of the deed of sale, $ould not onl+ create contradictions but also, render *eaningless and set at naught the entire provisions thereof. Petitioners clai* that >E-C('@s action is barred b+ laches considering that the petitioners have re*ained in the actual, open, uninterrupted and adverse possession thereof until at present 'ollo, p. .0#. An instru*ent notariBed b+ a notar+ public as in the case at bar is a public instru*ent Eacnio v. Baens, 5 Phil. 01/#. <he e2ecution of a public instru*ent is eFuivalent to the deliver+ of the thing Art. .183, .st Par., Civil Code# and is dee*ed legal deliver+. "ence, its e2ecution $as considered a sufficient deliver+ of the propert+ Buenca*ino v. Eiceo, .7 Phil. 80C L.849MC Puato v. =endoBa, 91 Phil. 150 L.870MC Eda. de ,ar*iento v. -esaca, .43 Phil. 844 L.894MC Phil. ,uburban >evelop*ent Corp. v. Auditor 6en., 97 ,C'A 780 .805M#. Besides, the propert+ sold is a registered land. It is the act of registration that transfers the o$nership of the land sold. 6,I, v. C.A., 6.'. No. 1//03, !anuar+ /4, .838#. If the propert+ is a registered land, the purchaser in good, faith has a right to rel+ on the certificate of title and is under no dut+ to go behind it to loo; for fla$s =allorca v. >e (ca*po, No. -/935/, =arch /5, .804C :nchuan v. C.A., .9. ,C'A 0.4 L.833MC Nuguid v. CA-6.'. No. 001/0, =arch .7, .838#. :nder the established principles of land registration la$, the person dealing $ith registered land *a+ generall+ rel+ on the correctness of its certificate of title and the la$ $ill in no $a+ oblige hi* to go behind the certificate to deter*ine the condition of the propert+ <iongco v. de la =erced, --/119, !ul+ /5, .801C -opeB vs. CA., 6.'. No. 18078, !anuar+ /4, .838C >avao 6rains Inc. vs. IAC, .0. ,C'A 9./ L.838M#. <his not$ithstanding, >E-C(' did *ore than that. It did not onl+ rel+ on the certificate of title. <he Court of Appeals found that it had first investigated and chec;ed the title <.C.<. No. <-..37# in the na*e of -uis -ancero. It li;e$ise inFuired into the ,ubdivision Plan, the corresponding technical description and the deed of sale e2ecuted b+ 'icardo 6evero in favor of -uis -ancero and found ever+thing in order. It even $ent to the pre*ises and found -uis -ancero to be in possession of the land to the e2clusion of an+ other person. >E-C(' had therefore acted in good faith in purchasing the land in Fuestion. ConseFuentl+, >E-C('@s action is not barred b+ laches. <he *ain issues having been disposed of, discussion of the other issues appear unnecessar+. P'E=I,E, C(N,I>E'E>, the instant petition is hereb+ >I,=I,,E> and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereb+ AFFI'=E>. ,( ('>E'E>.

D. COND0CT AND C ARACTER AS E#IDENCE

EN BANC

<"E :NI<E> ,<A<E,, plaintiff-appellee,

Page1

6.'. No. --./353

!anuar+ //, .8.3

vs. ,AN<IA6( PINE>A, defendant-appellant. Francisco and -ualhati for appellant. Acting Attorne+-6eneral Paredes for appellee. =A-C(-=, !.% <his appeal reFuires a construction and an application, for the first ti*e, of the penal provisions of the Phar*ac+ -a$. ,antiago Pineda, the defendant, is a registered phar*acist of long standing and the o$ner of a drug store located at Nos. 11/, 111, Calle ,anto Cristo, cit+ of =anila. (ne Feliciano ,antos, having so*e sic; horses, presented a cop+ of a prescription obtained fro* >r. 'ichardson, and $hich on other occasions ,antos had given to his horses $ith good results, at Pineda@s drug store for filling. <he prescription read A "clorato de potasa A ./4 gra*os A en seis papelitos de /4 gra*os, para caballo." :nder the supervision of Pineda, the prescription $as prepared and returned to ,antos in the for* of si2 papers *ar;ed, "Botica Pineda A Clorato potasa A ./4.44 A en seis papeles A para caballo A ,to. Cristo 11/, 111, Binondo, =anila." ,antos, under the belief that he had purchased the potassiu* chlorate $hich he had as;ed for, put t$o of the pac;ages in $ater the doses to t$o of his sic; horses. Another pac;age $as *i2ed $ith $ater for another horse, but $as not used. <he t$o horses, to $hich had been given the preparation, died shortl+ after$ards. ,antos, thereupon, too; the three re*aining pac;ages to the Bureau of ,cience for e2a*ination. >rs. PeQa and >ar)uan, of the Bureau of ,cience, on anal+sis found that the pac;ages contained not potassiu* chlorate but bariu* chlorate. At the instance of ,antos, the t$o che*ists also $ent to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassiu* chlorate, $hich $hen anal+Bed $as found to be bariu* chlorate. Bariu* chlorate, it should be noted, is a poisonC potassiu* chlorate is not.# >r. Buenca*ino, a veterinarian, perfor*ed an autops+ on the horses, and found that death $as the result of poisoning. Four assign*ents of error are *ade. <he first is that the lo$er court erred in ad*itting the testi*on+ of the che*ist Pena and >ar)uan as to their purchase of potassiu* chlorate at the drug store of the accused, $hich substance proved on anal+sis to be bariu* chlorate. &hat the appellant is here rel+ing on is the *a2i* res inter alios acta. As a general rule, the evidence of other offenses co**itted b+ a defendant is inad*issible. But appellant has confused this *a2i* and this rule $ith certain e2ceptions thereto. <he effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. Nor is there an atte*pt to dra$ the *ind a$a+ fro* the point at issue and thus to pre)udice defendant@s case. <he purpose is to ascertain defendant@s ;no$ledge and intent, and to fi2 his negligence. If the defendant has on *ore than one occasion perfor*ed si*ilar acts, accident in good faith is possibl+ e2cluded, negligence is intensified, and fraudulent intent *a+ even be established. It has been said that there is no better evidence of negligence than the freFuenc+ of accidents. ,ee .4 '. C. -., pp. 873, 814.# <he :nited ,tates ,upre*e Court has held that% (n the trial of a cri*inal case the Fuestion relates to the tendenc+ of certain testi*on+ to thro$ light upon a particular fact, or to e2plain the conduct of a particular person, there is a certain discretion on the part of the trial )udge $hich a court of errors $ill not interfere $ith, unless it *anifestl+ appear that the testi*on+ has no legiti*ate bearing upon the Fuestion at issue, and is calculated to pre)udice the accused. &henever the necessit+ arises for a resort to circu*stantial evidence, either fro* the nature of the inFuir+ or the failure of direct proof, ob)ections to the testi*on+ on the ground of irrelevanc+ are not favored. Evidence is ad*issible in a cri*inal action $hich tends to sho$ *otive, although it tends to prove the co**ission of another offense b+ the defendant. =oore vs. :. ,. L.387M, .54 :. ,., 50.# <he second assign*ent of error is that the lo$er court erred in finding that the substance sold b+ the accused to Feliciano ,antos on the //d of !une, .8.9, $as bariu* chlorate and not potassiu* chlorate. <he proof de*onstrates the contrar+. <he third and fourth assign*ents of error that the lo$er court erred in finding that the accused has been proved guilt+ be+ond a reasonable doubt of an infraction of Act No. 580, section .0, as a*ended. <he third assign*ent contains the points $e should consider, including, $e *a+ re*ar;, a so*e$hat difficult Fuestion concerning $hich the briefs have given little assistance. <he Phar*ac+ -a$ $as first enacted as Act No. 580, $as later a*ended b+ Act Nos. .8/., //79, and /73/, and is no$ found as Chapter 74 of the Ad*inistrative Code. <he la$ provides for a board of phar*aceutical e2a*iners, and the e2a*ination and registration of phar*acists, and finall+ contains sundr+ provisions relative to the practice of phar*ac+. "igh Fualification for applicants for the phar*aceuticalC e2a*ination are established. <he progra* of sub)ects for the e2a*ination is $ide. 'esponsibilit+ for the Fualit+ of drugs is fi2ed b+ section .0 of the Phar*ac+ -a$, as a*ended no$ Ad*inistrative Code L.8.0M, section 05.#, in the follo$ing ter*% Ever+ phar*acist shall be responsible for the Fualit+ of all drugs, che*icals, *edicines, and poisons he *a+ sell or ;eep for saleC and it shall be unla$ful for an+ person $ho*soever to *anufacture, prepare, sell, or ad*inister an+ prescription, drug, che*ical, *edicine, or poison under an+ fraudulent na*e, direction, or pretense, or to adulterate an+ drug, che*ical, *edicine, or poison so used, sold or offered for sale. An+ drug, che*ical, *edicine, or poison shall be held to be adulterated or deteriorated $ithin the *eaning of this section if it differs fro* the standard of Fualit+ or purit+ given in the :nited ,tates Phar*acopoeia. <he sa*e section of the Phar*ac+ -a$ also contains the follo$ing penal provision% "An+ person violating the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished b+ a fine of not *ore than five hundred dollar." <he Ad*inistrative Code, section /909, changes the penalt+ so*e$hat b+ providing that% An+ person engaging in the practice of phar*ac+ in the Philippine Islands contrar+ to an+ provision of the Phar*ac+ -a$ or violating an+ provisions of said la$ for $hich no specific penalt+ s provided shall, for each offense, be punished b+ a fine not to e2ceed t$o hundred pesos, or b+ i*prison*ent for not *ore than ninet+ da+s, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Page1

<hese are the provisions of la$, pursuant to $hich prosecution has been initiated and $hich it is no$ incu*bent upon us to construe.

<urning to the la$, certain points therein as bearing on our present facts *ust be ad*itted. <hus, defendant is a phar*acist. As a phar*acist, he is *ade responsible for the Fualit+ of all drugs and poisons $hich he sells. And finall+ it is provided that it shall be unla$ful for hi* to sell an+ drug or poison under an+ "fraudulent na*e." It is the one $ord "fraudulent" $hich has given the court trouble. &hat did the -egislature intend to conve+ b+ this restrictive ad)ectiveH &ere $e to adhere to the technical definition of fraud, $hich the appellant vigorousl+ insists upon, it $ould be difficult, if not i*possible, to convict an+ druggist of a violation of the la$. <he prosecution $ould have to prove to a reasonable degree of certaint+ that the druggist *ade a *aterial representationC that it $as falseC that $hen he *ade it he ;ne$ that it $as false or *ade it rec;lessl+ $ithout an+ ;no$ledge of its truth and as positive assertionC that he *ade it $ith the intention that it should be acted upon b+ the purchaserC that the purchaser acted in reliance upon it, and that the purchased thereb+ suffered in)ur+. ,uch a construction $ith a literal follo$ing of $ell-;no$n principles on the sub)ect of fraud $ould strip the la$ of at least *uch of its force. It $ould leave the innocent purchaser of drugs, $ho *ust blindl+ trust in the good faith and vigilance of the phar*acist, at the *erc+ of an+ unscrupulous vendor. &e should not, therefore, $ithout good reason so devitaliBe the la$. <he profession of phar*ac+, it has been said again and again, is one de*anding care and s;ill. <he responsibilit+ of the druggist to use care has been variousl+ Fualified as "ordinar+ care," "care of a special high degree," "the highest degree of care ;no$n to practical *en." Even under the first conservative e2pression, "ordinar+ care" $ith reference to the business of a druggist, the ,upre*e Court of Connecticut has said *ust be held to signif+ "the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and *ost e2act and reliable safeguards consistent $ith the reasonable conduct of the business, in order that hu*an life *a+ not be constantl+ be e2posed to the danger flo$ing fro* the substitution of deadl+ poisons for har*less *edicine." <o*bari vs. Connors L.8./M, 35 Conn., /75. ,ee also &illson vs. Fa2on, &illia*s and Fa2on L.8.7M, /43 N. I., .43C Pnoefel vs. At;ins L.840M, 3. N. E., 944.# <he "s;ill" reFuired of a druggist is deno*inated as "high" or "a*ple." Peters vs. !ac;son L.84/M, 54 &. Ea., 911C 50 -. '. A., 1/3.# In other $ords, the care reFuired *ust be co**ensurate $ith the danger involved, and the s;ill e*plo+ed *ust correspond $ith the superior ;no$ledge of the business $hich the la$ de*ands. :nder one conception, and it should not be forgotten that the case $e consider are civil in nature, the Fuestion of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. <he druggist is responsible as an absolute guarantor of $hat he sells. In a decision $hich stands alone, the ,upre*e Court of Pentuc;+ said% As applicable to the o$ners of drug stores, or persons engaged in vending drugs and *edicines b+ retail, the legal *a2i* should be reversed. Instead of caveat e*ptor, it should be caveat venditor. <hat is to sa+, let hi* be certain that he does not sell to a purchaser or send to a patient one drug for another, as arsenic for calo*el, cantharides for or *i2ed $ith sna;eroot and Peruvian bar;, or even one innocent drug, calculated to produce a certain effect, in place of another sent for and designed to produce a different effect. If he does these things, he cannot escape civil responsibilit+, upon the alleged prete2t that it $as an accidental or an innocent *ista;eC that he had been ver+ careful and particular, and had used e2traordinar+ care and diligence in preparing or co*pounding the *edicines as reFuired, etc. ,uch e2cuses $ill not avail hi*. Fleet vs. "ollen;e*p L.35/M, 59 A*. >ec., 597.# :nder the other conception, in $hich the proof of negligence is considered as *aterial, $here a custo*er calls upon a druggist for a har*less re*ed+, deliver+ of a poisonous drug b+ *ista;e b+ the druggist is pri*a facienegligence, placing the burden on hi* to sho$ that the *ista;e $as under the circu*stances consistent $ith the e2ercise of due care. ,ee Pnoefel vs. At;ins, supra,# <he druggist cannot, for e2a*ple in filling a prescription calling for potassiu* chlorate give instead to the custo*er bariu* chlorate, a poison, place this poison in a pac;age labeled "potassiu* chlorate," and e2pect to escape responsibilit+ on plea of *ista;e. "is *ista;e, under the *ost favorable aspect for hi*self, $as negligence. ,o in a case $here a druggist filled an order for calo*el tablets $ith *orphine and placed the *orphine in a bo2 labeled calo*el, it $as said% It is not suggested, nor can $e apprehend that it is in an+ $ise probable, that the act of furnishing the $rong drug in this case $as $illful. If it $as furnished b+ the cler;, it $as undoubtedl+ a *ista;e and unintentional. "o$ever, it $as a *ista;e of the gravest ;ind, and of the *ost disastrous effect. &e cannot sa+ that one holding hi*self out as co*petent to handle such drugs, and $ho does so, having rightful access to the*, and relied upon b+ those dealing $ith hi* to e2ercise that high degree of caution and care called for b+ the peculiarl+ dangerous nature of this business, can be heard to sa+ that his *ista;es b+ $hich he furnishes a custo*er the *ost deadl+ of drugs for those co*parativel+ har*less is not, in and of itself, gross negligence, and that of an aggravated for*. ,*ith@s Ad*r2. vs. =iddleton L.84/M, 59 -. '. A., 131.# <he rule of caveat e*ptor cannot appl+ to the purchase and sale of drugs. <he vendor and the vendee do not stand at ar*s length as in ordinar+ transactions. An i*perative dut+ is on the druggist to ta;e precautions to prevent death or serious in)ur+ to an+one $ho relies on his absolute honest+ and peculiar leaning. <he nature of drugs is such that e2a*ination $ould not avail the purchaser an+thing. It $ould be idle *oc;er+ for the custo*er to *a;e an e2a*ination of a co*pound of $hich he can ;no$ nothing. ConseFuentl+, it *ust be that the druggist $arrants that he $ill deliver the drug called for. In civil cases, the druggist is *ade liable for an+ in)ur+ appro2i*atel+ resulting fro* his negligence. If B negligentl+ sells poison under the guise of a beneficial drug to A, he is liable for the in)ur+ done to A. In a case, $hich has repeatedl+ been ter*ed the leading case on the sub)ect and $hich has been follo$ed b+ the :nited ,tates ,upre*e Court, it $as said, "Phar*acists or apothecaries $ho co*pound or sell *edicines, if the+ carelessl+ label a poison as a har*less *edicine, and sent it so labeled into the *ar;et, are liable to all persons $ho, $ithout fault on their part, are in)ured b+ using it as such *edicine, in conseFuence of the false labelC the rule being that the liabilit+ in such a case arises not out of an+ contract or direct privit+ bet$een the $rong-doer and the person in)ured, but out of the dut+ $hich the la$ i*poses on hi* to avoid acts in their nature dangerous to the lives of others." Nat. ,avings Ban; vs. &ard L.308M, .44 :. ,., .85, follo$ing <ho*as vs. &inchester L.35/M, / ,eld. LN. I.M, 730.# In realit+, for the druggist, *ista;e is negligence and care is no defense. <hroughout the cri*inal la$, run the sa*e rigorous rules. For e2a*ple, apothecaries or apothecar+ cler;s, $ho are guilt+ of negligence in the sale of *edicine $hen death ensues in conseFuence, have been held guilt+ of *anslaughter. ,ee <ess+*ond@s Case L.3/3M, . -e$in, C. C., .98.# Bearing these general principles in *ind, and re*e*bering particularl+ the care and s;ill $hich are e2pected of druggist, that in so*e )urisdictions the+ are liable even for their *ista;e and in others have the burden placed upon the* to establish that the+ $ere not negligent, it cannot be that the Philippine -egislature intended to use the $ord "fraudulent" in all its strictness. A plea of accident and *ista;e cannot e2cuse for the+ cannot ta;e place unless there be $anton and cri*inal carelessness and neglect. "o$ the *isfortune occurs is uni*portant, if under all the circu*stances the fact of occurrence is attributed to the druggist as a legal fault. 'ather considering the responsibilit+ for the Fualit+ of drugs $hich the la$ i*poses on druggists and the position of the $ord "fraudulent" in )u2taposition to "na*e," $hat is *ade unla$ful is the giving of a

Page1

false na*e to the drug as;ed for. <his vie$ is borne out b+ ,panish translation, $hich $e are per*itted to consult to e2plain the English te2t. In the ,panish "supuesto" is used, and this $ord is certainl+ not s+non+*ous $ith "fraudulent." <he usual badges of fraud, falsif+, deception, and in)ur+ *ust be present-but not scienter. In vie$ of the tre*endous an i**inent danger to the public fro* the careless sale of poisons and *edicines, $e do not dee* it too rigid a rule to hold that the la$ penaliBes an+ druggist $ho shall sell one drug for another $hether it be through negligence or *ista;e. <he )udg*ent of the lo$er court, sentencing the defendant to pa+ a fine of P.44, $ith subsidiar+ i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc+, and to pa+ the costs, is affir*ed $ith the cost of this instance against the appellant, $ithout pre)udice to an+ civil action $hich *a+ be instituted. ,o ordered. EN BANC 6.'. No. --15.08 =arch 74, .870

<"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BEN!A=IN I'AN6, E< A-., defendants. BEN!A=IN I'AN6, appellant. Conrado E. ,ancheB for appellant. :ndersecretar+ of !ustice =elencio for appellee. EI--A-'EA-, !.% <he accused Ben)a*in Irang appeals to this court fro* the )udg*ent of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Eci)a finding hi* guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the co*ple2 cri*e robber+ $ith ho*icide, the robber+ having been co**itted in the house of Perfecto =elocotones and =a2i*iniana =elocotones, and sentencing hi* to the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua and to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased in the su* of P544, $ith the proportionate part of the costs of the trial. In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the follo$ing alleged errors as having been co**itted b+ the court a Fuo in its decision in Fuestion, to $it% .. <he lo$er court erred in holding that the defendant Ben)a*in Irang had been sufficientl+ identified be+ond reasonable doubt, and in not giving due $eight to the testi*on+ of the $itnesses for the defense. /. <he lo$er court erred in not acFuitting the defendant Ben)a*in Irang on the ground of reasonable doubt. <he follo$ing undisputed facts have been established during the trial, to $it% Bet$een 0 and 3 o@cloc; of the night of Nove*ber 8, .875, seven individuals $ith $hite stripes upon their faces, t$o of $ho* $ere ar*ed $ith guns and t$o $ith bolos, $ent to the house of the spouses Perfecto =elocotones and =a2i*iniana Eicente, $here three lights $ere burning, one at the balcon+, another in the roo* and another on a table. ,o*e of said individuals $ent up and others re*ained on guard do$nstairs. <hose $ho $ent up approached Perfecto =elocotones i**ediatel+ and ordered hi* to bring his *one+. =elocotones ans$ered in the affir*ative but before he could do $hat $as ordered hi* he $as attac;ed $ith bolos until he fell to the floor. -ater another ar*ed $ith a gun $ent up and approaching =a2i*iana Eicente, $ife of Perfecto =elocotones, struc; herein the face $ith the butt of his gun, *a;ing her lose consciousness *o*entaril+. &hen she regained consciousness he sa$ her husband alread+ dead. (ne of the assailants then said to her% "Bring out the *one+ and )e$elr+." =a2i*iniana Eicente turned over to the *an $ho had struc; her $ith the butt of his gun P04 in cash and )e$elr+ valued at P/44, $hich she has ;ept in a trun;. >uring the short space of ti*e that she $as turning over the *one+ and )e$elr+, she loo;ed at the *an@s face and sa$ that he had poc;*ar;s and a scar on his left e+elid. <hat sa*e night the house of !uana de la CruB $as assaulted b+ *alefactors $ho had been firing shots before arriving at and going up the house. All of the* had $hite stripe upon their faces. !uana de la CruB noticed that one of the* had poc;*ar;s and a scar on the left e+elid and $as dressed in a *aong-colored suit. It $as he $ho opened her trun;. After the *alefactors had left Perfecto =elocotones house, the latter@s son <oribio =elocotones, $ho had seen the assailants arrive but $ithout recogniBing the*, i**ediatel+ reported the *atter to the *unicipal authorities and to the constabular+, $ho $ent to the scene of the cri*e $ithout loss of ti*e. =a2i*iniana Eicente infor*ed -ieutenant 'o*an Ale)andre of the Constabular+ that the person $ho had struc; her $ith the butt of his gun and ta;en her *one+ and )e$elr+ $as a *an of regular statute, $ith a lean bod+ and poc;*ar;ed face. &ith this description, said lieutenant $ent in search of said individual. "aving arrested a group of persons, he brought the* to =a2i*iniana Eicente@s house so that the latter *ight identif+ a*ong the* the one $ho struc; her $ith the butt of his gun, but she did not find such *an. -ater another group $as presented to her and in it she identified the herein accused-appellant Ben)a*in Irang as the one $ho had struc; her $ith the butt of his gun and de*anded deliver+ of her *one+ and )e$elr+. "e $as li;e$ise the sa*e *an arrested b+ -ieutenant Ale)andre at *idnight on Nove*ber 8, .875, in the barrio of <a*pac $hich is five or seven ;ilo*eters fro* =aturanoc to $hich he $as ta;en and brought to the house of the deceased. !uana de la CruB also recogniBed Ben)a*in Irang, through his poc;*ar;s and scar on his left e+elid, as one of the *en $ho had gone up to her house that sa*e night. (nce under arrest, the accused-appellant Ben)a*in Irang *ade an affidavit in <agalog E2hibit B#, stating that $hile he $as in the barrio of <a*pac, *unicipalit+ of 6ui*ba. Province of Nueva Eci)a, on Nove*ber 8, .875 at about 0 o@cloc; in the evening, Fidel Estrella and Ignacio ,ebastian arrivedC that Fidel Estrella invited hi* to go to the house of Ignacio ,ebastian@s brother-in-la$ na*ed Angel <alens because Estrella had so*ething to tell hi*C that upon arriving at Angel <alens@ house, Fidel Estrella invited hi* to go to =aturanoc to loo; for businessC that the appellant as;ed Fidel Estrella $h+ he $anted to bring hi* in the latter told hi* to stop as;ing Fuestions other$ise he $ould slash hi* $ith his boloC that Fidel Estrella carried a bolo and Ignacio ,ebastian an unlicensed firear*sC that the+ $ent to the house of Perfecto =elocotones in the barrio of =aturanoc, 6ui*ba, Nueva Eci)a, and upon arriving there Fidel Estrella, $ho acted as the ringleader, assigned to each and ever+ one of the* his corresponding place, designating those $ho should assault that of :rsula CabigonC that Ben)a*in Irang $as in the group for*ed b+ Fidel Estrella and Ignacio ,ebastian, $hich assaulted the house of Perfecto =elocotones, having been assigned to stand guard on the stairs of said houseC that Fidel Estrella, once inside the house, slashed Perfecto =elocotones thrice $ith his boloC that Fidel Estrella later told hi* that the+ had succeeded in ta;ing *one+ and the shotgunC and that after the assault the+ dispersed, each returning to his o$n ho*e. <his affidavit E2hibit B# $as s$orn to b+

Page1

Ben)a*in Irang before the deput+ cler; of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Eci)a , in the presence of 6raciano PiQgol, the constabular+ soldier $ho acco*panied hi*. Before Irang affi2ed his thu*b*ar; and too; his oath, the deput+ cler; of court as;ed hi* if he understood <agalog and $hen he ans$ered in the affir*ative said deput+ cler; read the contends of the docu*ent to hi*. As;ed $hether he had an+ thing else to add thereto, the appellant ans$ered that he had nothing *ore to sa+. <he defense of the accused-appellant is an alibi to the effect that in the afternoon of the da+ of the co**ission of the cri*e, he $as in his rice field $ashing a fishing bas;et. <here he *et 'oberto Alcantara. -ater he $ent to the house of Buenaventura !avier to return the fishing bas;et in Fuestion and to e2ercise on the rings )ugar a las arogallas# $ith the latter@s son Pedro, and t$o un*arried sons of the appellant@s uncle, in the presence of several persons, returning ho*e at 3 o@cloc; that night. &hen he $as arrested the constabular+ soldiers opened his bo2 but found nothing in it. <he+ later too; hi* in a )itne+ to the victi*s house in the barrio of =aturanoc and upon being brought face to face $ith the $ido$ =a2i*iniana Eicente, -ieutenant Ale)andre told the $ido$% "this is the one $ho slashed +our husband and punctured +our face." <he $ido$ ans$ered sa+ing% "Is it that *an, sir." As Ben)a*in Irang ans$ered that he had not left his house, the lieutenant gave hi* a blo$ $hich *ade hi* lose consciousness. <hen the lieutenant said to the $ido$% ""e is the sa*e *an. It $as he to $ho* +ou delivered the *one+ and )e$elr+. -oo; at hi* $ell. Identif+ hi* $ell." In the constabular+ barrac;s in Cabanatuan the soldiers and a sergeant *anhandled hi* fro* the night of Nove*ber 8, .875, until 1 o@cloc; in the *orning of the ..th of said *onth and +ear, for having denied all ;no$ledge of the cri*e, *a;ing hi* lose his breath and punching hi* in the sto*ach. &hen he could no longer bear the *altreat*ent, he agreed to tell $hat the+ $anted hi* to tell. :pon being ta;en for investigation, the constabular+ soldiers told hi* to agree to all that the cler; of court *ight read to hi*, other$ise the+ $ould again *anhandle hi* at the barrac;s. "e $as not present $hen the affidavit E2hibit B $as prepared. Neither are the contents thereof true. "e *erel+ affi2ed his thu*b*ar; upon said docu*ent for fear of the soldiers. -ieutenant Ale)andre as $ell as ,ergeant -ubrico denied that the accused had been *altreated in the least. <he onl+ Fuestion to be decided in the present appeal is $hether or not the accused-appellant Ben)a*in Irang $as identified as one of those $ho assaulted the house of Perfecto =elocotones, ;illed hi* and robbed his $ife =a2i*iniana Eicente of *one+ and )e$elr+. =a2i*iniana Eicente, $ho* the accused-appellant Ben)a*in Irang struc; in the face $ith the butt of his gun and of $ho* he de*anded deliver+ of her *one+ and )e$elr+ scrutiniBed the latter@s face and notice that he had poc;*ar;s and a scar on his left e+elid. &hen on that sa*e night of the assault -ieutenant Ale)andre, guided b+ the description given hi* b+ =a2i*iniana Eicente, $ent in search of the person $ho *ight have *altreated the latter and robbed her of her *one+ and )e$elr+ and presented a group of persons to said =a2i*iniana Eicente, she said that the *an $ho had *altreated her $as not a*ong those $ho co*posed that first group. ,aid lieutenant later presented another group to her but neither did the $ido$ find in it the *an $ho had struc; her $ith the butt of his gun. In the third group presented to her, she i**ediatel+ pointed at one $ho turned out to be the herein accused-appellant. <he *an pointed at protested but $hen she told hi* that it $as he $ho had struc; her in the face $ith the butt of his gun, the appellant beca*e silent. <he testi*on+ of !uana de la CruB to the effect that her house, situated onl+ about one hundred *eters fro* that of Perfecto =elocotones, $as assaulted that sa*e night b+ so*e *alefactors $ith $hite stripes upon their faces, and that one of the*, $ith poc;*ar;s on his face and a scar on his left e+elid and dressed in a *aong-colored suit, $ho later turned out to be the herein accused-appellant, opened her bo2, indirectl+ corroborates =a2i*iniana Eicente@s testi*on+ that the *an of the sa*e description $as the open $ho $ent to her house and de*anded deliver+ of her *one+ and )e$elr+, having recogniBed hi* later to be the herein accused-appellant. &hile evidence of another cri*e is, as a rule, not ad*issible in a prosecution for robber+, it is ad*issible $hen it is other$ise relevant, as $here it tends to identif+ defendant as the perpetrator of the robber+ charged, or tends to sho$ his presence at the scene or in the vicinit+ of the cri*e at the ti*e charged, or $hen it is evidence of a circu*stance connected $ith the cri*e .9, C. !., 9.4, 9.., sec. ..89#. =a2i*iniana Eicente@s identification of the herein accused-appellant is li;e$ise corroborated b+ the latter@s o$n ad*ission invited to assault the house of Perfecto =elocotones $hich the+ in fact the lo$er court of the appellant@s ad*ission under oath upon the assu*ption that it $as not *ade voluntaril+, is erroneous, inas*uch as the onl+ evidence that it $as not voluntaril+ is the accused-appellant@s o$n testi*on+ that he had been *anhandled b+ the constabular+ soldiers and threatened $ith further *altreat*ent if he did not testif+ as the+ $ished. <his i*putation of fortune $as categoricall+ denied b+ -ieutenant Ale)andre and ,ergeant -ubrico of the Constabular+, before $ho* the accused-appellant *ade the ad*ission and $ho caused it to be put in $riting. <he i*putation is li;e$ise contradicted b+ the deput+ cler; of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Eci)a before $ho* the accused-appellant s$ore to his ad*ission and $ho testified that before he ad*inistered oath to said accused-appellant, he as;ed hi* $hether he understood <agalog and, having been ans$ered in the affir*ative, he read said docu*ent to hi* and as;ed hi* $hether he had an+thing to add, the appellant affi2ing his thu*b*ar; upon it after ans$ering that he had nothing *ore to sa+ :. ,. vs. Kara, 1/ Phil., 743#. <here is no doubt that an ad*ission *ade under oath under such circu*stances cannot be considered involuntar+ and therefore is ad*issible against the person *a;ing it. <his court is of the opinion, therefore, that the accused-appellant identit+ as one of those $ho assaulted the house of Perfecto =elocotones and robbed =a2i*iniana Eicente of her *one+ and )e$elr+, is established conclusivel+ be+ond reasonable doubt. <he defense of the accused is an alibi and has for its purpose to sho$ that he could both have been at the scene of the cri*e bet$een 0 and 3 o@cloc; at night because he $as in another place about seven ;ilo*eters a$a+ at that ti*e. <his defense of alibi is contradicted b+ the above-stated testi*on+ of !uana de la CruB and b+ the accused-appellant@s o$n ad*ission under oath E2hibit B. <he facts established at the trial as co**itted b+ the accused-appellant be+ond reasonable doubt constitute the co*ple2 cri*e of robber+ $ith ho*icide defined in article /87, in connection $ith article /81, paragraph ., of the 'evised Penal Code, and punished b+ reclusion perpetua to death. <a;ing into consideration all the circu*stances of the case, the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua i*posed b+ the trial )udge is in accordance $ith the evidence and $ith la$. It is not so, ho$ever, $ith the pecuniar+ liabilit+ because, ta;ing into account the gravit+ of the offense, the inde*nit+ to the heirs of the deceased should be P.,444 and that for the stolen goods not restored P784.

Page1

&herefore, $ith the sole *odification that the accused-appellant Ben)a*in Irang is sentenced further to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased in the su* of P.,444 and to restore to =a2i*iniana Eicente the su* of P04 and the stolen )e$elr+ and

gun, or to rei*burse the value thereof in the a*ount of P784, the )udg*ent appealed fro* is affir*ed in all other respects, $ith the costs of this instance to the appellant. ,o ordered. AvanceQa, C.!., Abad ,antos, I*perial and >iaB, !!., concur. EN BANC 6.'. No. --80/7 !une /3, .850

<"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 6E'(NI=( ,(-I=AN I P(-(NI(,defendants-appellants. B:ENAEEN<:'A alias E=(N6 and ,(F'(NI( PA-IN I PAK alias

(ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral A*brosio Padilla and ,olicitor Federico E. ,ian for appellee. Cipriano ABada and Buenaventura Evangelista for appellants. BA:<I,<A AN6E-(, !.% Appellants $ere charged $ith *urder before the Court of First Instance of =anila and $ere sentenced each to suffer the e2tre*e penalt+ of death, to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased in the su* of P9,444, and to pa+ the costs. B+ operation of la$, the case $as brought before this Court for revie$. In the *orning of April /8, .855, at about / o@cloc;, $hile Ernesto Basa $as sleeping in a pushcart placed along the side$al; of ,to. Cristo ,treet near the southeast corner of that street and ABcarraga, =anila, and Ernesto Bala;ta$ $as also sleeping on a bo2 situated near the pushcart, $ith their heads opposite each other, Bala;ta$ $as a$a;ened $hen so*eone ;ic;ed his hand. :pon a$a;ening, Bala;ta$ sa$ ,ofronio Palin proceed to$ard the head of Ernesto Basa and hold the latter b+ the shoulder at $hich *o*ent his co*panion 6eroni*o, ,oli*an approached Ernesto Basa and stabbed hi* *an+ ti*es $ith a balisong. <hereafter, the assailants ran a$a+. Bala;ta$ too; Basa to a calesa and proceeded to a police outpost at the corner of ABcarraga and Elcano ,treets and reported the incident to Patrol*an <olentino. <he patrol*an boarded the calesa and directed the driver to proceed to =ar+ !ohnston "ospital. Fro* there, the three transferred to an a*bulance and proceeded to the North 6eneral "ospital $here Basa $as treated, but he e2pired in the *orning of the sa*e da+. At 1 o@cloc; in the afternoon, >r. =ariano -ara, Chief =edical E2a*iner of the =anila Police >epart*ent, *ade an autops+ of the deceased and found that the cause of death is as follo$s% "Profuse e2sanguinating he*orrhage onl+ 354 cc. recovered# and shoc; due to *ultiple 0# stab $ounds, t$o /# being fatal, piercing the p+loric portion of the sto*ach, duodenu*, )e)unu*, hepatic fle2ure of colon and right ;idne+." Appellant ,oli*an testified that prior to the present incident, or on April /., .855, the deceased tried to borro$ his pushcart and, as he $as not able to lend it to hi*, the deceased bo2ed hi* and as a conseFuence, he suffered ph+sical in)uriesC that incident $as settled a*icabl+ on the sa*e da+ b+ the co*panions of the deceasedC that on another occasion the beat up ,oli*an $ith an iron pipe and the latter had to undergo *edical treat*entC that in the night of April /8, .855, after he had eaten in Folgueras ,t., he proceeded to a truc; b+ the :nited Bus -ine of $hich he $as a $atch*anC that $hile he $as passing ,to. Cristo ,treet, the deceased called hi* and as;ed for a drin;C that he told the deceased he had no *one+, but the deceased forced hi* to give hi* *one+ and even bo2ed hi*C that because the deceased had three co*panions, he pulled out his ;nife and upon seeing this, the three co*panions ran a$a+C that he and the deceased fought in the course of $hich he stabbed hi*C that $hile the+ $ere fighting, one ,ofronio Palin ca*e and separated the*C and that $hen the+ $ere separated Palin advised hi* to surrender to the police, so he $ent ho*e and as;ed his brothers to acco*pan+ hi* to the =eisic ,tation. Appellant Palin *erel+ corroborated the testi*on+ of his co-accused b+ declaring that $hile he $as eating at a restaurant at the corner of ,to. Cristo and ABcarraga ,treets in the *orning in Fuestion, he sa$ ,oli*an and the deceased grappling $ith each otherC that he tried to separate the* and succeeded in doing soC that after the t$o $ere separated, he as;ed ,oli*an to surrender and the latter heeded his advice. <he t$o appellants are charged $ith a ver+ serious cri*e as in fact the+ $ere sentenced to the e2tre*e penalt+ of death. It is therefore i*portant that $e scrutiniBe carefull+ the evidence on $hich the conviction is *ade to depend. In this case, $e notice that the conviction is *ainl+ predicated on the testi*on+ of one e+e$itness supported b+ so*e circu*stantial evidence. <his $itness is Ernesto Bala;ta$. &hether this $itness has told the truth or not in narrating the aggression $hich led to the death of the victi*, *uch depends upon the degree of his credibilit+. As usual, this is the function of the trial court. Because of its opportunit+ to observe the conduct, de*eanor and *anner of testif+ing of the $itness, the trial court is in a better position to pass upon and gauge their credibilit+. In this respect, $e notice that the trial court has been *ost careful in ta;ing notice not onl+ of the conduct of the $itness during the trial, but of other e2traneous *atters that *a+ help in reaching a correct conclusion. <he Court found the testi*on+ of Bala;ta$ $orth+ of credence not onl+ because it is in part corroborated b+ the testi*on+ of appellant ,oli*an hi*self $ho ad*itted having inflicted the $ounds that caused the death of the victi*, although b+ $a+ of self-defense# but also because it is supported b+ the nature of the $ounds as found b+ >r. -ara in his autops+. <hus, in brushing aside the defense of appellant ,oli*an because the sa*e runs counter to the nature and character of the $ounds inflicted on the deceased, the court said% <he contention of the defense that the $ounds $ere inflicted $hile the deceased Ernesto Basa $as struggling or grappling $ith 6eroni*o is believed b+ the testi*on+ of the *edical e2a*iner and b+ the nature and character of the $ounds on the bod+ of the deceased, as *a+ be seen in E2hibits >, >-., >-/ and >-7. An e2a*ination of the pictures of the deceased as appears in E2hibits >-. and >-/, especiall+ the $ound that appears a little above the duodenu*, sho$s clearl+ that the $ounds $ere inflicted $hen the deceased $as in a l+ing position as testified to b+ $itness for the prosecution, Ernesto Bala;ta$. <he $ounds that *a+ be seen under the left ar*pit of the deceased could not have been possibl+ inflicted if the deceased $as in l+ing position $ith his hand e2tended up$ards in self-defense.

Page1

(n the other hand, the trial court *ade also careful observation of the conduct and de*eanor of the t$o accused during the trial and in this respect *ade the follo$ing observation%

>uring the course of the hearing, in order to give ever+ iota of evidence its proper probator+ value, the Court had paid special attention to the *anner in $hich the accused and the $itnesses testified, as $ell as their general appearance. <he accused ,oli*an is a $ell-built *an, robust and apparentl+ strong. <he accused Palin is a little bigger than the other accused and of stronger ph+siFue. <he deceased, as it appears fro* the pictures, $hile he *a+ be slightl+ higher in stature than the accused ,oli*an, has a thinner constitution and *uch s*aller than the accused Palin. !udging these t$o accused fro* the *anner the+ testified in court, their apparent indifference to all the court proceedings in spite of the seriousness of the cri*e charged against the*, and the *anner of testif+ing in short, curt and confused *anner, convinced this Court that the+ gave little i*portance to the case against the* and to the proceeding in court. <he defense, ho$ever, clai*s that the testi*on+ of Ernesto Bala;ta$ should not be given credit because it is selfcontradictor+ and inconsistent $ith the testi*on+ of Pat. <olentino and >et. ,enen. But, aside fro* the fact that the alleged contradictions refer to uni*portant details or circu*stances, the+ can be e2plained and reconciled. <his $as done b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral in his brief. After going over the e2planation and reconciliation *ade b+ this official, $e are satisfied that the alleged contradictions or inconsistencies cannot destro+ the credibilit+ of the $itness. An i*portant fla$ pointed out b+ the defense refers to the *anner the $itness identified the t$o defendants. It is clai*ed that $hen this $itness $as *ade to identif+ accused ,oli*an he pointed to accused Palin and $hen he $as as;ed to identif+ the latter, he pointed to the for*er. And he also co**itted a *ista;e in designating the nic;na*es of the t$o accused. &hile it is true that at the start of his testi*on+ this $itness $as confused in identif+ing the accused b+ their na*es, ho$ever, $hen he $as as;ed b+ the court i**ediatel+ thereafter to put his hands on each of the*, he $as able to identif+ the* correctl+. <he court then *ade the follo$ing observation% &itness identified both accused. At the ti*e $hen he pointed to the accused he apparentl+ *ade a *ista;e *a+ be due to the fact that the accused $ere both seated together and $hen he pointed to the accused he *ight have been out of big sense of direction. pp. /-7, t.s.n., -loren.# <he defense also clai*s that the trial court erred in not granting its *otion for ne$ trial based on ne$l+ discovered evidence $hich consists of the cri*inal record of prosecution $itness Ernesto Bala;ta$. <his clai* is untenable. In the first place, the cri*inal record of Bala;ta$ cannot be considered as ne$l+ discovered evidence because the sa*e $as available to the defense *uch prior to the trial of this Case. It appears that said record can be obtained fro* the Cri*inal Identification ,ection of the =anila Police >epart*ent for, $ith the e2ception of one conviction rendered on ,epte*ber ., .855, all the other convictions and charges date as far bac; as !anuar+ .8, .855, *onths prior to the trial of the instant case. In the second place, the fact that a person has been previousl+ convicted of a cri*e does not necessaril+ disFualif+ hi* as a $itness for he *a+ still prove to be a truthful one.. <he clai* that the trial court also erred in not allo$ing the defense to prove that the deceased had a violent, Fuarrelso*e or provocative character cannot also deserved consideration. &hile good or bad character *a+ be availed of as an aid to deter*ine the probabilit+ or i*probabilit+ of the co**ission of an offense ,ection .5, 'ule ./7#, such is not necessar+ in cri*e of *urder $here the ;illing is co**itted through treacher+ pre*editation. <he proof of such character *a+ onl+ be allo$ed in ho*icide cases to sho$ "that it has produced a reasonable belief of i**inent danger in the *ind of the accused and a )ustifiable conviction that a pro*pt defensive action $as necessar+." =oran Co**ents on the 'ules of Court, .85/ ed, Eol. 7, ./9.# <his rule does not appl+ to cases of *urder. &hile the Court is the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to convict both appellants of the cri*e charged, so*e *e*bers ho$ever e2pressed doubt as to propriet+ of i*posing the e2tre*e penalt+ and so, for lac; of the necessar+ nu*ber of votes, the Court has resolved to i*pose upon the* the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua. &"E'EF('E, the decision appealed fro* is *odified in the sense of i*posing upon appellants *erel+ the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua, affir*ing the decisions in all other respects, $ith costs. EN BANC 6.'. No. /330. ,epte*ber .8, .8/3

<"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE I,-AN>,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. C-E=EN<E BABIE'A, !:,<( BABIE'A and >(=IN6A B('E,, defendants-appellants. Kulueta and Cordova and !esus <rinidad for appellants. (ffice of the ,olicitor-6eneral 'e+es for appellee. EI--A-'EA-, !.% <his is an appeal ta;en b+ Cle*ente Babiera, !usto Babiera and >o*inga Bores fro* the )udg*ent of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding the* guilt+ of the cri*e of *urder, the first as principal, and the last t$o as acco*plices, sentencing the for*er to life i*prison*ent $ith the accessories of article 51 of the Penal Code, and each of the latter to fourteen +ears, eight *onths and one da+ cadena te*poral, $ith the accessories of article 51 and 58 of the Penal Code, respectivel+, and all three to inde*nif+ the fa*il+ of the deceased ,everino "aro in the su* of P.,444 )ointl+ and severall+, and each of the* to pa+ one-third of the costs of the action in the )ustice of the peace court and the Court of First Instance. <he si2 alleged errors assigned b+ the accused as co**itted b+ the trial court in its )udg*ent *a+ be shifted do$n to the follo$ing propositions% .. <hat the evidence adduced at the trial b+ the prosecution has not established the guilt of the defendants-appellants be+ond a reasonable doubt. /. <he E2hibit I of the prosecution is not an ante-*orte* declaration and is therefore inad*issible as evidence. 7. <hat the offended part+@s Fuarrelso*e disposition can be proved in the trial to deter*ine $ho began the attac;.

Page1

Before discussing the evidence adduced b+ both parties and deter*ining its $eight and probator+ value, it is $ell to decide the Fuestions raised b+ the appellants on the ad*issibilit+ of evidence. <he first Fuestion of this nature refers to the character of the docu*ent E2hibit I, $hich is a state*ent *ade b+ ,everino "aro in ,aint Paul@s "ospital of Iloilo on the *orning after the cri*e $as co**itted. Although said state*ent in itself is inad*issible as an ante-*orte* declaration, inas*uch as there is nothing to sho$ that at the ti*e he *ade it ,everino "aro ;ne$ or fir*l+ believed that he $as at the point of death, nevertheless, having ratified its contents a $ee; later $hen he $as near death as a result of his $ounds, said declaration is ad*issible as a part of that $hich he *ade ante-*orte* "A state*ent *ade under circu*stances $hich $ould not render it ad*issible as a d+ing declaration beco*es ad*issible as such, it is held, if approved or repeated b+ the declarant after he had abandoned all hope of recover+." 74 Corpus !uris, /50.# Passing no$ to a consideration of the evidence, the prosecution tried to proved the follo$ing facts% !usto Babiera $as the o$ner of t$o parcels of land situated in the *unicipalit+ of (ton, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands. (n (ctober .8, .8// !usto Babiera e2ecuted a contract of sale $ith the right of repurchase in favor of Basilio Copreros $hereb+ he sold the t$o parcels of land to the latter for the su* of P./1 $ith the condition that if the vendor did not repurchase the* on or before August ., .8/7, the sale $ould beco*e absolute and irrevocable E2hibit F#. <he period for repurchase having e2pired, Basilio Copreros too; possession of said t$o parcels of land, and on =arch /1, .8/0, *ade application to the registrar of deeds for the Province of Iloilo for the registration of the consolidation of his title to said parcels. (n the /9th of the said *onth, Basilio Copreros leased said parcels to ,everino "aro, *unicipal president of (ton E2hibit 6 and 6-.#. In vie$ of this, on =arch 7., .8/0, !usto Babiera filed a co*plaint against Basilio Copreros in the )ustice of the peace court of (ton for the recover+ of the possession of said t$o parcels of land. <he co*plaint having been dis*issed on April .8, .8/0 on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, !usto Babiera appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo E2hibit =#. -ater on, said !usto Babiera as;ed for the dis*issal of the co*plaint for unla$ful detainer and filed another one for the recover+ of propert+ E2hibit F#. Inas*uch as ,everino "aro $as alread+ in possession of the aforesaid t$o parcels of land as lessee, he bore all the e2penses in the case of unla$ful detainer as $ell as in that for recover+ of the propert+. Fer*in Bruces $as ,everino "aro@s copartner on shares in said lands. About the *onth of =a+, .8/0, !usto Babiera acco*panied b+ his copartner on shares, 'osendo Pa+col, $ent to $here Fer*in Bruces $as plo$ing and as;ed the latter% "&ho told +ou to plo$ hereH" Fer*in Bruces replied% ",everino "aro." <hen !usto Babiera as;ed hi*% "If this ,everino tells +ou to ;ill +ourself, $ill +ou do itH" "(f course not," ans$ered Fer*in Bruces. After this interchange of $ords !usto Babiera told Fer*in Bruces to stop plo$ing and to tell his *aster, ,everino "aro, to co*e and plo$ hi*self. Fer*in Bruces infor*ed ,everino "aro of the incident, and in ans$er the latter onl+ told hi* not to *ind it, but to go on plo$ing. (n another occasion $hile Fer*in Bruces $as transplanting rice on the sa*e lands, Cle*ente Babiera and 'osendo Pa+col arrived and told hi* that if he continued $or;ing the+ $ould pull out so*eone@s intestines. Fer*in Bruces also infor*ed ,everino "aro of these threats, $ho as before, told hi* not to *ind the*, but to go on so$ing. (n !ul+ /7, .8/0, !ose "aro, brother of ,everino "aro, visited his land in the barrio of Bita, $hich $as under the care of Eictoriano 'andoFuile. "e $as told b+ the latter that he lac;ed pala+ seeds. At that ti*e, 'osendo Pa+col $as in his field, !ose "aro and Eictoriano 'andoFuile approached hi* and as;ed hi* to give the* so*e seeds. 'osendo Pa+col ans$ered that he could not do so because he needed $hat he had for his o$n far*s. "aro and 'andoFuile then as;ed hi*% "&hich fields do +ou *eanH" "<he fields over $hich Copreros and Babiera are in litigation," ans$ered 'osendo Pa+col. ,urprised at this ans$er, !ose "aro told 'osendo Pa+col that $hat he said could not be because the lot in dispute $as leased to his brother ,everino "aro. 'osendo Pa+col replied that attorne+ Buenaventura Cordova had told Cle*ente Babiera and !usto Babiera that ,everino "aro $ould never be able to reap or en)o+ the fruits of the land, because if the+ did not $in the suit b+ fair *eans the+ $ould $in it b+ foul. Ever since he had leased said land ,everino "aro visited it rather often, especiall+ during the *onths of !une and !ul+, $hich is the so$ing season, tr+ing al$a+s to return to to$n earl+. <o go to the land, $hich $as in the barrio called Bita, there $as but a beaten path that passed b+ the house of 'osendo Pa+col, copartner on shares of !usto Babiera, $here the latter and his fa*il+ lived. (n August /., .8/0, ,everino "aro, as usual, $ent to visit his land in the barrio of Bita, acco*panied b+ 6regorio <orri)a, Benito Carreon and Pedro <auro. (n arriving there Fer*in Bruces, his copartner on shares, told hi* that the da+ before he had found Cle*ente Babiera@s co$ graBing on that land. It happened at that *o*ent Cle*ente Babiera and >o*inga Bores $ere passing b+. ,everino "aro then infor*ed Cle*ente Babiera of $hat his co$ had done on the for*er@s land and told hi* to ta;e better care of his co$ in future and not to let it run loose. "e then ordered Fer*in Bruces to ta;e the ani*al to $here the Babiera fa*il+ lived. ,everino "aro $as not able to return to to$n until al*ost 0 o@cloc; in the evening. As it $as alread+ dar;, he and his co*panions had to *a;e use of a torch *ade out of split ba*boo to light the* on their $a+. ,everino "aro $ent ahead, follo$ed b+ Pedro <auro, $ho carried the torch, so*e 3 braBas behind, $ith 6regorio <orri)a and Benito Carreon follo$ing. (n Co*ing to a place in the road near 'osendo Pa+col@s house, Cle*ente Babiera suddenl+ sprang fro* the cogon grass, $ent after ,everino "aro and struc; hi* $ith his bolo in the bac;. (n turning his head to see $ho had attac;ed hi* ,everino "aro received another bolo blo$ in the forehead near the right e+ebro$. In tr+ing to defend hi*self $ith his hand he $as $ounded bet$een the inde2 finger and the thu*b. "e then tried to grasp his assailant but did not succeed and he fell to the ground. <hen !usto Babiera appeared and placing hi*self upon ,everino "aro@s sto*ach, held the latter@s hands. -ater, >o*inga Bores appeared on the scene and held both ;nees of the $ounded *an. &hen !usto Babiera arrived, a voice $as heard sa+ing% ""old hi*, papa," and at the sa*e ti*e, ,everino "aro@s voice $as heard sa+ing% ""elpJ helpJ" Pedro <auro $ished to co*e near in order to help ,everino "aro, but Cle*ente Babiera raised his bolo in the air and ;ept on brandishing it to $arn ever+bod+ off. Pedro <auro, in fear, stepped bac;, dropping the torch he carried. Not far fro* there $ere also Buenaventura 6abalfin and 6regorio Pa+col, $ho threatened to ;ill ,everino "aro@s co*panions if the+ helped hi*. After the torch had been e2tinguished the+ heard a voice $hich the+ recogniBed as ,everino "aro@s sa+ing% ":ncle !usto, have patience $ith *e, for I have done no $rong." <hen the+ heard another voice, that of >o*inga Bores, $hich said% ""ere is the revolverC let us return." Before the assailants left t$o or three revolver shots $ere heard. &hen ,everino "aro@s co*panions sa$ that their assailants had alread+ departed, the+ dre$ near to $here ,everino la+ stretched out to see $hat had happened to hi*. ,everino "aro told the* not to fear for he did not feel as if he $ere going to die, and calling his copartner on shares, Fer*in Bruces, directed hi* to bring a cot and ta;e hi* to to$n. Pedro <auro and 6regorio <orri)a did as ,everino "aro $ished, and on arriving at the barrio of ,anta =onica, the+ b+ chance ca*e upon a truc; in $hich $ere so*e police*en. <he+ place the $ounded *an in the sa*e truc; and too;

Page1

hi* to ,aint Paul@s "ospital in the Cit+ of Iloilo. &hen ,everino "aro $as ta;en to the to$n he did not have his revolver and the cartridge belt, $ithout the holster, $as found b+ 6regorio <orri)a near $here the incident too; place. &hen ,everino "aro $as alread+ in ,aint Paul@s "ospital he $as e2a*ined b+ >r. =ariano Arro+, $ho issued a certificate stating that he found the follo$ing $ounds% <hree on the right frontal regionsC one on the right forehead ta;ing in the soft parts up to the auditor+ archC on the right pal*ar archC another on the left ar*C a deep one reaching do$n to the spinal colu*n on the four slight $ounds on the right thighC the ones on the forehead and the dorsal region being *ortal of necessit+. All the $ounds $ere caused, in the doctor@s opinion, b+ a sharp-edged and pointed $eapon, and $hile the co*batants $ere on the sa*e plane, e2cept the $ounds on the *iddle of the calf $hich *ust have been caused $hile the assaulted part+ $as on a lo$er plane than his assailant, and the $ounds on the right thigh, $hich *ust have been inflicted $hile the assailant $as on a horiBontal plane. (n the sa*e *orning, August //, .8/0, and in the sa*e hospital, ,everino "aro *ade a s$orn state*ent before the deput+ fiscal, Ed*undo ,. Piccio E2hibit I#, relating the occurrence and *entioning the persons $ho $ere present. <his s$orn state*ent $as ratified b+ hi* before the sa*e deput+ fiscal on the /0th of the said *onth and +ear $hen he had given up all hope of recover+. In this state*ent, E2hibit I, ,everino "aro, a*ong other things, said the follo$ing% "&ithout $arning, I received a slash on the left shoulder. (n turning bac; *+ face, I sa$ Cle*ente Babiera, and he then gave *e another slash on the forehead )ust above the right e+ebro$. At that *o*ent I also received a cut on the right hand, because on receiving the blo$ on the forehead I defended *+self $ith that hand. I then grasped hi* because I could no longer support *+self due to *+ t$o $ounds. <hen I fell. &hen I fell, Cle*ente Babiera@s father placed hi*self upon *+ sto*ach, $hile his Cle*ente@s# $ife sat on *+ feet, $hile !usto Babiera, Cle*ente@s father, grasped *+ t$o hands and said to *e, "<here, no$ dra$ +our revolver" addressing *e. I shouted to *+ co*panion for help, for I felt I $ould die and $hile the+ approached, Cle*ente Babiera turned upon the*, and said% ">o not approach for +ou have nothing to do $ith this. &hoever co*es near gets a slash fro* this bolo." I sha**ed death and $hen the+ left *e, and upon seeing that neither Cle*ente, nor his father, nor his $ife re*ained, *+ three co*panions ca*e up to *e fro* their hiding places. (ne Aunario, copartner on shares of !ose Abada, $ho lived near there, also ca*e up to *e, and later, Fer*in." In his ante-*orte* declaration *ade on the /0th of August, .8/0 before the sa*e deput+ fiscal, ,everino "aro, a*ong other things, said the follo$ing% "<he+ repeatedl+ passed their fingers over *+ upper lip and at the sa*e ti*e see if I still breathedC the+ felt and opened *+ e+elids and then inserted a finger in *+ pupil, because the+ believed that if I $as insensible, I $as alread+ dead. <he+ ;nelt on *+ sto*ach and one ;nelt on *+ lo$er li*bs, and *ade a pass $ith so*ething, $hich see*s to *e $as ba*boo or a bolo, over the anterior surface of *+ calf, and >o*inga then too; the revolver fro* *e. I got up because I $as afraid >o*inga $ould shoot *e and $hen I atte*pted to escape Cle*ente Babiera pursued *e and gave *e another cut on the left side of the $aist, and I thin; the blo$ struc; the a**unition belt, and if it had not been for the belt it $ould have severed *+ $aist." <he defense tried to prove the follo$ing facts% (n the afternoon of August /., .8/0 Cle*ente Babiera $ent to a place called Caboloan, passing b+ the house of one (per, located in the barrio of Bita, (ton, Iloilo. &hile he $as in (per@s house, his father !usto Babiera arrived, and so*e *o*ents later ,everino "aro also arrived, and at once said to hi*% "Cle*ente, $h+ do +ou leave +our co$ looseH" Cle*ente denied the i*putation and said that his co$ $as tied. ,everino "aro insisted, and added that said ani*al had da*aged his sugar-cane plantation, and therefore, Fer*in Bruces, his copartner on shares caught and tied it, b+ his order, to a *ango tree. Cle*ente Babiera ans$ered that he left the case in his hands and that he could charge hi* $hat he $ould, for the da*ages occasioned b+ his co$. As ,everino "aro charged hi* P/ for the da*age, Cle*ente told hi* that at the *o*ent he had no *one+, but that on the follo$ing da+ he $ould get *one+ fro* the to$n *ar;et and pa+ hi*. ,everino "aro accepted the pro*ise and left. Cle*ente Babiera in turn retired to his house, together $ith >o*inga Bores and his father, and upon reaching a coconut pal* the+ *et Fer*in Bruces, copartner on shares $ith ,everino "aro, $ho told the* that he had alread+ tied up the co$ as per his *aster@s order. At about 0 o@cloc; in the evening $hile Cle*ente Babiera $as in his house conversing $ith his father about the land $hich the+ had in Caboloan, $hich $as attached b+ the 6overn*ent, he suddenl+ heard a co**otionC he $ent to the porch of the house to see $hat had happened and sa$ a nu*ber of persons co*ing one carr+ing a light and another leading his co$ b+ rope. Cle*ente Babiera told his father $hat he sa$ and $ent out to *eet said persons, and sa$ Buenaventura Cabalfin leading his co$ b+ the rope and ,everino "aro follo$ed b+ his co*panions Pedro <auro, 6regorio <orri)a, Benito Carreon, =argarito =ediavilla and Fer*in Bruces. Cle*ente Babiera then as;ed ,everino "aro% "&h+ are +ou ta;ing *+ co$ a$a+H "aven@t I pro*ised to pa+ +ou to*orro$ the loss caused b+ the ani*alH If +ou have no confidence in *e, then prepare a receipt sho$ing that to*orro$ $ithout fail, I $ill pa+ +ou." In repl+, ,everino "aro onl+ said to Buenaventura Cabalfin% "6et on, proceed." Cle*ente Babiera too; hold of the rope b+ $hich the co$ $as led, and said% "Buenaventura, stopJ" ,everino "aro then grasped Cle*ente Babiera b+ the hand and pulled hi* to one side. Cle*ente Babiera disengaged hi*self fro* ,everino "aro@s grasp, but =argarito =ediavilla struc; hi* $ith a bolo at the base of his little finger. Feeling hi*self $ounded, Cle*ente Babiera tried to unsheathe his bolo intending to return the blo$ to =argarito =ediavilla but failed to do so, because he heard so*eone sa+% ",hoot hi*J" I**ediatel+ thereafter he sa$ ,everino "aro $ith revolver unholstered, and $ithout an+ loss of ti*e he $ent up to the latter and at that *o*ent shots $ere heard. Cle*ente Babiera then began to slash blindl+ right and left $ithout considering $hat he $as at, catching ,everino "aro in the bac;, as a result of $hich the latter fell to the ground on his bac;. Cle*ente Babiera thre$ hi*self upon hi*, held hi* do$n so he could not get up, and as;ed hi*% "&here is +our revolverH" ,everino "aro ans$ered that he did not have it. <hen Cle*ente Babiera raised ,everino "aro@s hands and felt his bac;, but did not find the revolver. !usto Babiera, Cle*ente@s father, then appeared, and $as told b+ his son% "Papa, hold hi*, $hile I search for his revolver." &hen Cle*ente Babiera sa$ Fer*in Bruces he thought that the latter *eant to attac; hi* because he had one hand behind, $here he carried his bolo, so ,everino turned on hi*, but his $ife, >o*inga Bores, restrained hi* telling hi* not to approach. (ne Nario also $anted to approach in order to defend ,everino "aro but dared not do so in vie$ of Cle*ente Babiera@s threats. After having *ade fruitless search for ,everino "aro@s revolver, Cle*ente Babiera, his father, and his $ife $ent bac; to their house. After charging 'osendo Pa+col $ith the care of the children, the three $ent to to$n and passed the night in Florencio =a+ordo*o@s house. (n the follo$ing *orning >o*inga Bores $ent to attorne+ Buenaventura Cordova@s house and infor*ed hi* of $hat had happened. Buenaventura Cordova then $ent to Florencio =a+ordo*o@s house and told >o*inga Bores to return to the place of the incident in order to loo; for the revolver and deliver it to the Constabular+ if she found it. <hen he acco*panied Cle*ente Babiera to the office of Captain 6atuslao of the Constabular+ at Fort ,an Pedro, to $ho*

Page1

the+ delivered the holster of the revolver and the three shells the+ had pic;ed up on the night of the incident. >o*inga Bores having found the revolver in a furro$ near the place of the cri*e too; it to Iloilo and delivered it to Captain 6atuslao of the Constabular+ bet$een 8 and .4 o@cloc; in the *orning. >r. !ose 6onBales 'o2as, Constabular+ ph+sician, treated Cle*ente Babiera@s $ound and certified that the sa*e $as / centi*eters long and half a centi*eter deep and $as situated at the base of the little finger of the right hand, ta;ing in the cellular tissue of the s;in and the e2terior liga*ent of the $rist. In rebuttal, the prosecution tried to prove that at about half past five in the *orning of August //, .8/0, >o*inga Bores $as seen in the ground floor of the provincial govern*ent building of Iloilo, carr+ing a pac;age under her ar* and fro* there she $ent to the public *ar;et of Iloilo. <here is no Fuestion that ,everino "aro had leased fro* Basilio Copreros t$o parcels of land the o$nership of $hich had passed to hi* due to !usto Babiera@s failure to repurchase the* $ithin the stipulated period. Nor is there an+ Fuestion that the latter tried to recover the*, first, b+ an accion publiciana action for unla$ful detainer#, and then b+ an action for the recover+ of possession. <here is li;e$ise no Fuestion that ,everino "aro paid the e2penses of the defendant Basilio Copreros for the reason that he $as alread+ in possession of said lands as lessee. <here is also no Fuestion that Cle*ente Babiera@s co$ da*aged the plantings of Fer*in Bruce, for $hich reason the letter caught said co$, tied it, and notified his *aster of the *atter $hen the latter $ent to visit the lands leased b+ hi*. Neither is there an+ Fuestion that there $as an agree*ent bet$een Cle*ente Babiera and ,everino "aro $hereb+ the latter ordered his copartner on shares Fer*in Bruces, to ta;e the co$ near Cle*ente Babiera@s house and tie it up there. In li;e *anner there is no Fuestion that at about 0 o@cloc; in the evening of August /., .8/0, $hen ,everino "aro and his co*panions $ere returning to the to$n of (ton, and upon their co*ing near 'osendo Pa+col@s house, in $hich $ere Cle*ente Babiera, his father !usto Babiera, and his *istress >o*inga Bores, said ,everino "aro had an encounter $ith Cle*ente Babiera in $hich ,everino "aro received several $ounds in conseFuence of $hich he died a $ee; later in ,aint Paul@s "ospital of Iloilo. <he onl+ Fuestion to deter*ine in the present appeal is $hether, as the prosecution contends, ,everino "aro $as suddenl+ and treacherousl+ attac;ed b+ Cle*ente Babiera, aided b+ his father and his *istress >o*inga BoresC or, as the defense contends, ,everino "aro not$ithstanding the agree*ent bet$een hi*self and Cle*ente Babiera b+ $hich the latter $as to inde*nif+ hi* for the da*ages caused b+ his co$, $anted to ta;e the ani*al to to$nC that in tr+ing to prevent it, Cle*ente Babiera $as grasped b+ the hand b+ ,everino "aro and pulled to one sideC that in disengaging hi*self Cle*ente Babiera received a bolo cut fro* =argarito =ediavilla that $ounded the little finger of his right handC and that ,everino "aro then unsheathed his revolver and fired several shots, in vie$ of $hich Cle*ente Babiera struc; right and left $ith his bolo, thus causing the for*er@s $ounds. In order to decide the Fuestion thus raised, it is necessar+ to ta;e into account all the circu*stances, previous, coetaneous and subseFuentl+ to the incident in Fuestion, and to deter*ine $ho had, or could have had, *otives to assault the other. &e have seen that !usto Babiera sold t$o parcels of land to Basilio Copreros $ith the right of repurchase, and that, having failed to repurchase the* $ithin the period stipulated, the title thereto $as consolidated, in the purchaser, $ho leased the* to ,everino "aro, the latter ta;ing possession of the*. !usto Babiera restored to ever+ la$ful *eans to regain possession of said parcels of land, first b+ an accion publiciana, $hich failed, and then b+ an action for the recover+ of possession. ,everino "aro paid the e2penses of Basilio Copreros in order to carr+ on the suits. ,uch interested intervention on ,everino "aro@s part $ithout doubt *ust have ve2ed !usto Babiera, for in the *onth of =a+ .8/0, he $ent $ith his copartner on shares, 'osendo Pa+col, to $here Fer*in Bruces, ,everino "aro@s copartner, $as plo$ing, and as;ed hi* $ho had ordered hi* there, and $hen Fer*in Bruces ans$ered that it $as ,everino "aro, !usto as;ed hi* $hether he $ould co**it suicide if told to do so b+ said ,everino "aro, and then told hi* to tell his *aster to go and plo$ hi*self. -ater on, Cle*ente Babiera, !usto Babiera@s son, acco*panied b+ his copartner 'osendo Pa+col, seeing that Fer*in Bruces $ent on $or;ing the land, told hi* that if he continued plo$ing, Cle*ente $ould pull out so*eone@s intestines. If all these threats are true, as $e believe the+ are, then !usto Babiera and Cle*ente Babiera *ust have borne ,everino "aro deep resent*ent, doubtless believing that it $as due to hi* that the+ could not recover their t$o parcels of land, and this $as sufficient and adeFuate to *ove the*, upon the failure of la$ful *eans, to resort to violence. It has been contended b+ the defense that the defendant-appellant, Cle*ente Babiera, onl+ acted in defense of his life and propert+, having been obliged to resort to ar*s on seeing his life endangered, contending that the provocation consisted in that after ,everino "aro had agreed to an inde*nit+ of P/ for the da*age caused, the latter $anted to ta;e Cle*ente Babiera@s co$ to the to$n, and that the attac; consisted in that =argarito =ediavilla gave hi* a bolo blo$ on the little finger of the right hand, and that ,everino "aro threatened hi* $ith his revolver and fired several shots at hi*. E2a*ined in the light of the ordinar+ conduct of *en, ,everino "aro@s alleged attitude, in having tried to ta;e Cle*ente Babiera@s co$ after having agreed to accept P/ for the da*ages, and having ordered that the ani*al be returned to its o$ner, is highl+ illogical, and not a scintilla of evidence has been presented to e2plain this change of deter*ination, as une2pected as it is unreasonable. &ith respect to the allegation that =argarito =ediavilla and ,everino "aro began the attac;, inas*uch as it has not been proved that the+ $ere the instigators, it cannot be conceived that the+ co**itted said unla$ful aggression, for he $ho has no reason to provo;e, has no reason to attac; unla$full+. <he defense also atte*pted to prove that ,everino "aro $as of a Fuarrelso*e disposition, provo;ing, irascible, and fond of starting Fuarrels in the *unicipalit+ of (ton, but the trial )udge $ould not per*it it. &hile it is true that $hen the defense of the accused is that he acted in self-defense, he *a+ prove the deceased to have been of a Fuarrelso*e, provo;ing and irascible disposition, the proof *ust be of his general reputation in the co**unit+ and not of isolated and specific acts :nderhill Cri*inal Evidence, par. 7/5, p.504#, such as the accused Cle*ente Babiera tried to prove, and hence the lo$er court did not err in not ad*itting such proof. But even if it had been proved b+ co*petent evidence that the deceased $as of such a disposition, nevertheless, it $ould not have been sufficient to overthro$ the conclusive proof that it $as the said accused $ho treacherousl+ attac;ed the deceased. Another circu*stance $hich sho$s the falsit+ of the theor+ of the defense is that of having *ade Buenaventura Cabalfin ta;e part as the person $ho* ,everino "aro e*plo+ed to lead Cle*ente Babiera@s co$. If ,everino "aro@s copartner, Fer*in Bruces, $ho* he had told to return said co$ to Cle*ente Babiera $as $ith his *aster on that night, together $ith other co*panions, $hat need $as there of said ,everino "aro@s e*plo+ing the services of another person and one not belonging to his groupH <he plan of the defense necessitated a provocation and to that end the+ conceived the idea

Page1

of the breach of the supposed agree*ent on the return of the ani*al through the pa+*ent of an inde*nit+ of P/, *a;ing use as an instru*ent of one on $ho* the defense could depend to serve as $itness, and there $as no one better suited for such a purpose than Buenaventura Cabalfin $ho according to the $itnesses for the prosecution, $as at the place of the cri*e $ith 6regorio Pa+col threatening the deceased@s friends if the+ offered to help hi*. <o rebut the evidence of the prosecution that >o*inga Bores $as the one $ho b+ order of Cle*ente Babiera too; ,everino "aro@s revolver fro* hi* on the night in Fuestion, the defense tried to prove that on the follo$ing *orning attorne+ Buenaventura Cordova, a relative of the Babieras, told >o*inga Bores to return to the place of the incident and loo; for said $eapon, and that she found it in a furro$ near the place and too; it to the office of the Constabular+ in Iloilo bet$een 8 and .4 o@cloc; in the *orning. But the rebuttal evidence of the prosecution disproved this contention and sho$ed that >o*inga Bores did not have to loo; for the revolver in the field, since at half past five in the *orning she $as alread+ in the provincial building of Iloilo carr+ing a pac;age under her ar*. &ith regard to the s*all $ound at the base of the little finger of the right hand $hich Cle*ente Babiera sho$ed to the Constabular+ ph+sician as having been caused b+ =argarito =ediavilla, $e are convinced that the latter $as not in the co*pan+ of ,everino "aro on the night in Fuestion and could not have inflicted such a $ound. Bearing in *ind the plan of the defense, it *a+ safel+ be said that in order to cast an appearance of realit+ on the concocted plea of an unla$ful attac; and self-defense, Cle*ente Babiera inflicted on hi*self the slight $oundC since, if in order to escape *ilitar+ service there $ere *en $ho *utilated the*selves, $ho $ould not $ound hi*self slightl+ in order to escape a life penalt+H <he facts related above have been proven be+ond a reasonable doubt and constitute the cri*e of *urder defined in article 147 of the Penal Code, there being present at the co**ission of the cri*e, the Fualif+ing circu*stance of treacher+, consisting in the accused Cle*ente Babiera having attac;ed ,everino "aro suddenl+ $hile the latter had his bac; turned, inflicting various $ounds on his bod+ as a result of $hich he died a $ee; later, said Cle*ente Babiera being cri*inall+ liable as principal b+ direct participation. !usto Babiera and >o*inga Bores are also liable but as acco*plices, because, $hile the+ did not ta;e a direct part in the infliction of the $ounds that caused ,everino "aro@s death, or cooperated b+ acts $ithout $hich the+ could not have been inflicted, or induced Cle*ente Babiera to inflict the*, +et the+ too; part in the co**ission of the cri*e b+ si*ultaneous acts consisting in the for*er having *ounted ,everino "aro@s bod+ and held do$n his hands, $hile the latter sat on his ;nees $hile he la+ stretched out on the ground in order to allo$ Cle*ente Babiera to search the bod+ for his revolver, !usto Babiera and >o*inga Bores cannot be held as acco*plices of the cri*e of *urder, inas*uch as it does not appear to have been proven that the+ ;ne$ the *anner in $hich Cle*ente Babiera $as going to assault ,everino "aro, in accordance $ith the provision of article 08 of the Penal Code, to the effect that the circu*stances $hich consist in the *aterial e2ecution of the act, or in the *eans e*plo+ed to acco*plish it, shall serve to aggravate or *itigate the liabilit+ of those persons onl+ $ho had ;no$ledge of the* at the ti*e of the act or their cooperation therein. Although in the instant case the treacher+ is not considered a generic aggravating, but a Fualif+ing circu*stance, nevertheless, it does not fail to produce a special aggravation. <o graduate the penalt+, $e are not to consider an+ *odif+ing circu*stance of the cri*inal liabilit+, for $hile it is true that Cle*ente Babiera too; advantage of the dar;ness of nightti*e, this circu*stance is included in treacher+, inas*uch as, considering the fact that ,everino "aro $as follo$ed b+ several co*panions, the accused $ould not have been able to conceal hi*self in the cogon grass nor attac; the deceased fro* behind $ithout being seen in ti*e and prevented fro* e2ecuting his cri*inal purpose had not been for the dar;ness of the night. <he penalt+ provided b+ la$ for the cri*e of *urder na*el+, that of cadena te*poral in its *a2i*u* degree to death *ust therefore be i*posed upon Cle*ente Babiera in its *ediu* degree, that is, life i*prison*ent. <he penalt+ provided for in article 141 of the Penal Code for the cri*e of ho*icide is reclusion te*poral in its full e2tent, and the one ne2t lo$er is prision *a+or in its full e2tent, $hich is the penalt+ that *ust be i*posed on !usto Babiera and >o*inga Bores as acco*plices in the cri*e of ho*icide art. 90, Penal Code#. In graduating the penalt+, the aggravating circu*stances of nocturnit+ *ust be ta;en into consideration, $ithout an+ e2tenuating circu*stances to offset it, and therefore said penalt+ of prision *a+or *ust be i*posed in its *a2i*u* degree, that is, ten +ears and . da+. As there are three persons civill+ liable, one as principal in the cri*e of *urder and t$o as acco*plices in that of ho*icide, $e *ust fi2 the share, for $hich each *ust ans$er, of the P.,444 fi2ed b+ the trial court, in accordance $ith the provision of article ./1 of the Penal Code, that is, P944 for Cle*ente Babiera and P144 for !usto Babiera and >o*inga Bores, each of the latter being liable solidaril+ bet$een the*selves for their share, and subsidiaril+ liable for the share of the for*er and the for*er for the share of the latter, according to the provision of article ./5 of the sa*e Code. B+ virtue $hereof, the appealed )udg*ent is hereb+ *odified, and it is held that !usto Babiera and >o*inga Bores are guilt+ of the cri*e of ho*icide as acco*plices and each sentenced to ten +ears and . da+ prision *a+or, and to pa+ the su* of P144 )ointl+ and severall+, and Cle*ente Babiera to pa+ the su* of P944, the for*er to be subsidiaril+ liable for the latter@s share, and the latter for the for*er@s share, pa+*ent to be *ade to the heirs of the deceased ,everino "aro, the appealed )udg*ent being affir*ed in all other respects $ith the proportional costs against each. ,o ordered. EN BANC 6.'. No. --377/ Nove*ber .7, .8.7

<"E :NI<E> ,<A<E,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PI( =E'CA>(, <(=A, =E'CA>(, and CA<A-IN( =E'CA>(, defendants-appellants. Eugenio Paguia, for appellants (fficee of the ,olicitor-6eneral "arve+, for appellee.

!("N,(N, !.%

Page1

<hese defendants $ere charged $ith the cri*e of coaccion in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Bulacan. (n the .7th of =arch, .8./, one Claro =ercado presented a co*plaint against the defendants in the court of the )ustice of the peace of Baliuag. <he )ustice of the peace conducted a preli*inar+ e2a*ination and found that there $as probable cause for believing that the defendants $ere guilt+ of the cri*e charged and held the* for trial in the Court of First Instance. (n the /.st of =arch, .8./, the prosecuting attorne+ of said province presented the co*plaint, $hich alleged% <hat the said accused on >ece*ber //, .8.., in the *unicipalit+ of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, P. I., did $illfull+ and cri*inall+, $ithout legiti*ate authorit+ therefore, and b+ *eans of violence or force e*plo+ed upon the person of Claro =ercado, prevent the latter fro* rendering aid to =aria '. =ateo in order that ,antiago =ercado *ight at his pleasure *altreat the said =aria '. =ateo, in a violation of la$. After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the "onorable Alberto Barretto, )udge, found the defendants guilt+ of the cri*e in the co*plaint, $ithout an+ aggravating or e2tenuating circu*stances, and sentenced each of the* to be i*prisoned for a period of t$o *onths and one da+ of arresto *a+or, $ith the accessor+ penalties of the la$, to pa+ a fine of 7/5 pesetas and in case of insolvenc+ to suffer subsidiar+ i*prison*ent, allo$ing to the defendants one-half of the ti*e the+ had alread+ suffered in prison, and each to pa+ one-third part of the costs. Fro* that sentence each of the defendants appealed to this court and *ade the follo$ing assign*ents of error% I. <he trial court erred in overruling the ob)ection of the accused to the private prosecutor@s Fuestion referring to the character of the $itness. II. <he trial court erred in reaching the conclusion that the cri*e prosecuted $as co**itted and that the accused are responsible therefor. III. <he trial court erred in sentencing the accused. IE. <he trial court erred in not having the accused testif+ in their o$n behalf, as the+ offered to do, allo$ing the* to testif+ in the sa*e $a+ as he did the sole $itness for the defense. &ith reference to the first assign*ent of error, $e find b+ referring to page 05 of the record, that =r. 'icardo 6onBaleB -loret, attorne+ for the private prosecutor, as;ed the $itness for the defense, the said ,antiago =ercado, $ho is *entioned in the co*plaint presented in said cause, the follo$ing Fuestion% "o$ *an+ ti*es have +ou been convicted of assault upon other personsH <o this Fuestion, the defendant <o*as =ercado ob)ected on the ground that the Fuestion $as i*pertinent. =r. -loret e2plained the purpose of his Fuestion b+ sa+ing% I $ish to de*onstrate that he has a pugnacious disposition. I have had occasion to defend hi* in various causes for assault. :pon the Fuestion and the ob)ection !udge Barretto ruled that "the character of the $itness has an inti*ate relation or *a+ have a strong relation $ith the facts being investigated in the present cause. <he ob)ection is overruled." <o that ruling of the court the defendant dul+ accepted. ,aid e2ception is assigned here as the first assign*ent of error. <he onl+ argu*ent $hich the appellant presents in support of his assign*ent of error is that the Fuestion had no relation to the Fuestion $hich $as being discussed b+ the court and id not tend to sho$ that the defendants $ere either guilt+ or not guilt+ of the cri*e chargedC that Fuestions tending to disclose the character of a $itness are i**aterial. In repl+ to the argu*ent of the appellant, the Attorne+-6eneral contends that the Fuestion $as a proper Fuestion, because it tended to i*pugn the credibilit+ of the $itness and that such Fuestions $ere for that purpose *aterial and pertinent. It $ill be re*e*bered that the co*plaint charged that on the occasion $hen the alleged cri*e $as co**itted ,antiago =ercado $as atte*pting to and did assault and illtreat one =aria '. =ateo. In ans$er to said Fuestion, the $itness ad*itted that co*plaint had been presented against hi* for the offense of assault and batter+. <he prosecution, in order to sho$ the circu*stances under $hich the cri*e charged here $as actuall+ co**itted, sho$ed that this $itness, ,antiago =ercado, had assaulted and illtreated =aria '. =ateo, under the circu*stances described in the co*plaint. <hat $as an i*portant fact. If the said assault did not actuall+ ta;e place, then the theor+ of the prosecution *ust fail. If there $as no assault or atte*pted assault, there $as no occasion for the alleged interference on the part of the said Claro =ercado to prevent it, and the probabilit+ of the guilt of the defendants is greatl+ lessened. If the $itness $ho had co**itted the alleged assault, had assaulted other persons and had been prosecuted therefor, *a+ that fact be considered b+ the court in $eighing the proof and in testing the credibilit+ of the $itnessH It $as an i*portant fact to prove that ,antiago =ercado, at the ti*e and place *entioned in the co*plaint, had assaulted or atte*pted to assault or illtreat =aria '. =ateo, in order to sho$ that there $as occasion for the inference of Claro =ercado.la$phJ..net 6enerall+ spea;ing, a $itness cannot be i*peached b+ the part+ against $ho* he has been called, e2cept b+ sho$ing a# that he has *ade contradictor+ state*ents% or b# b+ sho$ing that his general reputation for the truth, honest+, or integrit+ is bad. ,ec. 71/, Act No. .84.# <he Fuestion to $hich the defendant ob)ected neither atte*pted to sho$ that the $itness had *ade contradictor+ state*ents nor that his general reputation for truth, honest+, or integrit+ $as bad. &hile +ou cannot i*peach the credibilit+ of a $itness, e2cept b+ sho$ing that he has *ade contradictor+ state*ents or that his general reputation for truth, honest+, or integrit+ is bad, +et, nevertheless, +ou *a+ sho$ b+ an e2a*ination of the $itness hi*self or fro* the record of the )udg*ent, that he has been convicted of a high cri*e. ,ec. 71/, Act No. .84.# In the present case, the other offense to $hich the Fuestion above related $as not a high cri*e, as that ter* is generall+ used, and $e assu*e that the phrase "high cri*e," as used in section 71/, is used in its ordinar+ signification. "igh cri*es are generall+ defined as such i**oral and unla$ful acts as are nearl+ allied and eFual in guilt to felonies. &e believe that the ob)ection to the above Fuestion $as properl+ interposed and should have been sustained. <he Fuestion no$ arises, did the ad*ission of the Fuestion pre)udice the rights of the defendantsH If there $as proof enough adduced during the trial of the cause, e2cluding the particular proof brought out b+ this Fuestion to sho$ that the defendants are guilt+ of the cri*e. then the Fuestion and ans$er and the ruling of the court upon the sa*e did not affect pre)udiciall+ the interests of the defendants. Errors co**itted b+ the trial court, $hich are not pre)udicial to the rights of the parties, should be disregarded b+ the court. In our opinion the evidence clearl+ sho$s that the $itness co**itted the assault to $hich reference is *ade in the co*plaint in the present cause. &hether he had co**itted other assaults or not $as a *atter of no i*portance in the present action. <he ad*ission or re)ection, therefore, of the proof to $hich such Fuestion related could in no $a+ pre)udice the rights of the defendants.

Page1

<he second and third assign*ents of error relate to the sufficienc+ of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause to sho$ that the defendants $ere guilt+ of the cri*e charged. A Fuestion of fact onl+ is raised b+ these assign*ents of error. After a careful e2a*ination of the proof, $e are convinced that the sa*e sho$s, be+ond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants are each guilt+ in the *anner and for* charged in the co*plaint. &e find no reason for *odif+ing the conclusions of fact reached b+ the lo$er court. &ith reference to the fourth assign*ent of error, an e2a*ination of the record sho$s that but one $itness $as e2a*ined for the defense% that $as the said ,antiago =ercado. At the close of the e2a*ination of said $itness, $e find the follo$ing state*ent b+ the accused% <he accused state that should the+ testif+ the+ $ould testif+ in the sa*e $a+ as the $itness ,antiago '. =ercado, $ith $hose testi*on+ the+ close their evidence. Both parties close their evidence. Even ad*itting that the accused, had the+ testified, $ould have *ade the sa*e declarations as those b+ the onl+ $itness, ,antiago =ercado, $e are of the opinion that such declarations $ould not have been sufficient, inas*uch as the+ $ould have added nothing to the record, e2cept an accu*ulation of proof, to have sho$n that the defendants $ere not guilt+ of the cri*e charged. &e find no reason in the fourth assign*ents of error for *odif+ing the conclusions of the lo$er court. After a careful e2a*ination of the record, $e are persuaded that the sa*e sho$s, be+ond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants $ere guilt+ of the cri*e charged and that the sentence of the lo$er court should be affir*ed, $ith costs. ,o ordered.

6.'. No. .58854

Februar+ ./, /440

!(E- P. 6(NKA-E,, !'., Petitioner, vs. <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, 'espondent. >ECI,I(N G:I,:=BIN6, !.% For revie$ on certiorari is the >ecision. dated =arch .., /447 of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. C' No. //.50, affir*ing the guilt+ verdict against petitioner for arson b+ the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of GueBon Cit+, Branch 80. Petitioner !oel P. 6onBales, !r./ $as charged in an Infor*ation7 dated !ul+ /1, .880, $hich read as follo$s% <hat on or about the /9th da+ of !une, .880, in GueBon Cit+, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+, feloniousl+ and deliberatel+ set fire to an inhabited place, to $it% a t$o-store+ residential building $hich L$asM partitioned into d$ellings rented out to tenants, o$ned and occupied li;e$ise b+ CA'-(, C. CAN-A,, located at No. ./4 corner "alcon and ,i*on ,treets, Brg+. ,an Isidro -abrador, -a -o*a, GueBon Cit+, thereb+ setting said residential building into fla*es and raBing it including other propertiesC and that the properties that $ere burned $ith their corresponding o$ners and value $ere as follo$s% .. <he residential building and other propert+ o$ned b+ Carlos C. Canlas valued at . . . .P7,444,444.44 /. Propert+ of Nicasio =. de !esus valued at . . . 344,444.44 7. Propert+ of Andres E. Eillaflor valued at . . . 754,444.44 1. Propert+ of 6loria E. -acasandile valued at. . . 754,444.44 5. Propert+ of Car*en B. Principio valued at . . . 744,444.44 9. Propert+ of >ante -. Buri valued at . . . . . . .35,444.44 0. Propert+ of Francis F. ,i*pao valued at . . . . .04,444.44 3. Propert+ of -uisito C. Abonita valued at . . . . .54,444.44 8. Propert+ of =iraflor ,aldi =anuel valued at . . .44,444.44 .4. Propert+ of Estrella C. Eillaflor valued at . . 94,444.44 $ith the total of FIEE =I--I(N, F(:' ":N>'E> ,IU<I FIEE <"(:,AN> P5,195,444.44#, all belonging to the aforesaid persons, to the da*age and pre)udice of said o$ners in the aforesaid a*ount of P5,195,444.44, Philippine Currenc+. C(N<'A'I <( -A&. (n arraign*ent, the petitioner pleaded not guilt+. At the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented e+e$itness Carlos C. Canlas, o$ner of the t$o-store+ building in the corner of "alcon ,treet and ,i*on ,treet, Brg+. ,an Isidro -abrador, -a -o*a, GueBon Cit+. "e testified that at about 8%74 p.*. on !une /9, .880, he $as $atching television in his roo* $hen his daughter called his attention to chec; the co**otion in an ad)acent roo*. (n his $a+ to the roo* rented b+ 6onBales, he s*elled gas. "e sa$ 6onBales ignite a fla*e and thro$ it on a pile of clothes in the *iddle of the living roo* $here 6onBales had also placed an =-6as liFuefied petroleu* gas -P6# tan;. Fire Fuic;l+ spread to the other parts of the building. <he prosecution also presented t$o tenants, Andres E. Eillaflor and Francis F. ,i*pao, as $itnesses. Eillaflor testified that he heard 6onBales and his aunt Fuarreling before the fire. "e said he heard 6onBales +ell ",usunugin ;o itong baha+

Page1

na itoJ" Alar*ed, he $ent to the Baranga+ "all to report the incident but i**ediatel+ $ent bac; to his place $hen so*eone infor*ed hi* his house $as on fire. ,i*pao testified that he sa$ the fire co*ing fro* 6onBalesNs roo*. "e added that 6onBales $as laughing $hile the building $as burning. After the fire $as e2tinguished, the aunt of 6onBales told ,i*pao that her nephe$ $as to bla*e. <he testi*onies $ere corroborated b+ Police (fficer Ale)andro =endoBa, $ho testified that $hen he and his fello$ officer arrived at the cri*e scene, 6onBales ad*itted responsibilit+ for the fire. 6onBales presented a different stor+. "e averred that the fire $as caused b+ fault+ electrical $iring. "e testified that he $as napping inside his roo* $hen he $as a$a;ened b+ heat beside his bed. <he roo* $as on fire. "e shouted for help and Canlas tried to help hi* but the+ failed to e2tinguish it. 6onBales denied he and his aunt $ere Fuarreling that evening before the fire started. As his aunt $as partl+ deaf, he said he had to spea; in a loud voice. "e averred that he *erel+ as;ed his aunt to bu+ food because the+ ran out of =-6as -P6. 6onBales said that $hen he *et P(. =endoBa, he e2plained that he noticed the fire had started in his roo*. "e sought police protection fro* his neighbors $ho accused hi* of starting it. <he defense presented as e2hibit the Ph+sical ,cience 'eport1 prepared b+ Police Inspector 6race =. EustaFuio sho$ing that the ashes obtained fro* the burnt pre*ises $ere negative of an+ fla**able substance. (n =a+ /3, .883, the '<C of GueBon Cit+, Branch 80 rendered a decision convicting !oel P. 6onBales, !r. of arson, as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered finding the accused guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e charged and is hereb+ sentenced to suffer the penalt+ of i*prison*ent for t$elve ./# +ears of Prision =a+or, as *ini*u*, to seventeen .0# +ears and four 1# *onths of 'eclusion <e*poral as *a2i*u*, $ith full credit for the entire period of preventive i*prison*ent provided he is Fualified therefore sic# according to Art. /8 of the 'evised Penal Code. Civil liabilit+ not having been proved, the Court cannot grant the sa*e and can onl+ a$ard no*inal da*ages in the a*ount of <en <housand Pesos P.4,444.44# each to the private co*plainants $ho testified, na*el+, Carlos Canlas, Andres Eillaflor and Francis ,i*pao. ,( ('>E'E>.5 6onBales appealed, but the Court of Appeals affir*ed the trial courtNs decision. In its >ecision dated =arch .., /447, the Court of Appeals held that the denial of 6onBales cannot prevail over the positive identification of a $itness. <he Court of Appeals also held that the prosecution established circu*stantial evidence sufficient to support the conviction of the accused be+ond reasonable doubt. <he Court of Appeals noted that although there $ere discrepancies in the testi*on+ of Canlas and his affidavits, the discrepancies did not necessaril+ discredit hi* because affidavits ta;en e2 parte are generall+ considered to be inferior to the testi*on+ given in open court. =oreover, the Court of Appeals held that the alleged discrepancies pertain to *inor *atters $hich negated an+ suspicion that the testi*on+ $as per)ured and rehearsed. 6onBales *oved for reconsideration but it $as denied. "ence, petitioner no$ raises the follo$ing issues for this CourtNs consideration% I &"E<"E' <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, AC<E> C(''EC<-I IN C(NC-:>IN6 <"A< <"E <'IAC(:'< C(==I<<E> N( ,E'I(:, 'EEE',IB-E E''(' (' 6'AEE AB:,E (F >I,C'E<I(N IN I<, APP-ICA<I(N (F <"E PE'<INEN< ':-E AN> !:'I,P':>ENCE &"E'E <"E'E A'E =A<E'IA- >I,C'EPANCIE, (F <"E P'(,EC:<I(N &I<NE,,E,N ,<A<E=EN<, =A>E IN <"EI' AFFI>AEI<, AN> <"(,E <E,<I=(NIE, 6IEEN (N <"E &I<NE,, ,<AN>C II &"E<"E' :P(N <"E AF('E,<A<E> 6IEEN ,E< (F FAC<,, <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, AC<E> C(''EC<-I IN AFFI'=IN6 <"E <'IA- C(:'<N, !:>6=EN< (F C(NEIC<I(N FIN>IN6 PE<I<I(NE' 6:I-<I (F <"E C"A'6E (F A',(N.9 ,tated si*pl+, in our vie$, the *ain issue is $hether the discrepancies in the affidavit and the court testi*onies of a $itness are sufficient to e2culpate 6onBales of the cri*e of arson. Petitioner argues that the trial court and the appellate court erred in giving credence to the testi*on+ of prosecution $itness Canlas. "e clai*s that the s$orn state*ents of Canlas before the investigating officer of the fire depart*ent on !une /0, .880 and before the cit+ prosecutor of GueBon Cit+ on !ul+ .0, .880, $ere inconsistent. Further, petitioner adds that Canlas had testified that he sa$ petitioner start the fire, but CanlasNs testi*on+ on this point $as *ade onl+ for the first ti*e in court. Petitioner points out that in the t$o prior s$orn state*ents of Canlas, he *ade no *ention of seeing petitioner start the fire. <his discrepanc+ is a *aterial point that ought to cast doubt on the credibilit+ of Canlas. "e cites People v. ,ali; =agona$al,0 $here the *aterial discrepancies bet$een the court testi*on+ and prior state*ents of a $itness at a preli*inar+ investigation *ade the testi*on+ incredible. Petitioner see;s to discredit the testi*onies of the other prosecution $itnesses for being self-serving and ill-*otivated. "e avers that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to consider the Ph+sical ,cience 'eport $hich stated that no fla**able substance $as found in the speci*en ashes. Finall+, petitioner clai*s that although he had in the past threatened to burn the house, he never reall+ *eant it. In its co**ent, the (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral (,6# *aintains that the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals should stand because their findings are $ell supported b+ the records. <he (,6 contends that the discrepancies in the testi*onies of the $itnesses and their s$orn state*ents $ere not substantial to $arrant a revie$ of the findings of fact of the trial court. <he (,6 asserts that the testi*on+ of Canlas in court clarified, corroborated and co*ple*ented his affidavit. -i;e$ise, the testi*on+ of the other prosecution $itnesses corroborated CanlasNs testi*on+. <he (,6 rebuts petitionerNs dependence on the case of People v. Acosta,3 $here the court held that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one ti*e is not ad*issible to prove that he did or did not do the sa*e or si*ilar thing

Page1

at another ti*e, but, it *a+ be received to prove a specific intent or ;no$ledge, identit+, plan, s+ste*, habit, custo* or usage. After thoroughl+ considering the sub*issions including testi*onies and e2hibits presented b+ the parties, $e hold that the instant petition lac;s *erit. <he arson co**itted in the instant case involving an inhabited house or d$elling is covered b+ ,ection 7 /# of Presidential >ecree No. .9.7.8 In the prosecution for arson, proof of the cri*e charged is co*plete $here the evidence establishes% .# the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of cri*inal agenc+C and /# the identit+ of the defendant as the one responsible for the cri*e. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied b+ proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionall+ caused. Even the uncorroborated testi*on+ of a single e+e$itness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to $arrant conviction..4 &hen these are present, the onl+ issue is the credibilit+ of the $itness. &henever there is inconsistenc+ bet$een the affidavit and the testi*on+ of a $itness in court, the testi*on+ co**ands greater $eight considering that affidavits ta;en e2 parteare inferior to testi*on+ in court, the for*er being al*ost invariabl+ inco*plete and oftenti*es inaccurate,..so*eti*es fro* partial suggestions and so*eti*es fro* $ant of suggestions and inFuiries, $ithout the aid of $hich the $itness *a+ be unable to recall the connected circu*stances necessar+ for his accurate recollection of the sub)ect../ In this case, the e+e$itness positivel+ identified 6onBales as the culprit $ho caused the fire. Both the trial and appellate courts found the testi*on+ of e+e$itness Canlas credible. As a general rule, $hen the findings of both courts are in agree*ent, this Court $ill not reverse their findings of fact. Further*ore, in our vie$, the findings of the Ph+sical ,cience 'eport is a negative evidence and ta;en together $ith the bare denial of petitioner, supported onl+ $ith testi*onies of relatives, constitute inferior evidence as against the circu*stantial evidence coupled $ith the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the offense b+ a credible $itness. (n the da*ages, $e have consistentl+ held that proof is reFuired to deter*ine the reasonable a*ount of da*ages that *a+ be a$arded to the victi*s of conflagration. As a rule, therefore, actual or co*pensator+ da*ages *ust be proved and not *erel+ alleged..7 <he records do not sho$ concrete proof of the a*ount of actual da*ages suffered b+ each co*plaining $itness. <hus, $e cannot grant actual da*ages. "o$ever, $e *a+ a$ard no*inal and te*perate da*ages. <he assess*ent of no*inal da*ages is left to the discretion of the trial court according to the circu*stances of the case. 6enerall+, no*inal da*ages b+ their nature are s*all su*s fi2ed b+ the court $ithout regard to the e2tent of the har* done to the in)ured part+. "o$ever, it is generall+ held that a no*inal da*age is a substantial clai*, if based upon the violation of a legal rightC in such a case, the la$ presu*es da*age although actual or co*pensator+ da*ages are not proven. In truth, no*inal da*ages are da*ages in na*e onl+ and not in fact, and are allo$ed, not as an eFuivalent of $rong inflicted, but si*pl+ in recognition of the e2istence of a technical in)ur+..1 No$, te*perate da*ages *a+ be recovered $hen the court finds that so*e pecuniar+ loss has been suffered but its a*ount cannot fro* the nature of the case be proved $ith certaint+..5 :nder the circu*stances, $e find it reasonable to a$ard Canlas $ith P544,444 te*perate da*ages, and to the other co*plaining $itnesses, ,i*pao and Eillaflor, the a*ount of P.44,444 as te*perate da*ages each. In addition, e2e*plar+ or corrective da*ages should be a$arded as a $a+ to e*phasiBe that an+ future conduct of this nature is conde*ned so as to correct the anti-social behavior that is deleterious in its conseFuences..9 <hus, Canlas and the other co*plaining $itnesses, ,i*pao and Eillaflor, should be a$arded P54,444 each as e2e*plar+ da*ages. Concerning the penalt+ to be i*posed, ,ection 7 /# of P.>. No. .9.7 prescribes the penalt+ of reclusion te*poralto reclusion perpetua. But there being no *itigating or aggravating circu*stances, the penalt+ should be i*posed in its *ediu* period. Appl+ing the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$, the *ini*u* prison ter* should be $ithin the range of si2 9# +ears and one .# da+ to t$elve ./# +ears of prision *a+or and the *a2i*u*, t$ent+ /4# +ears ofreclusion te*poral. "ence, the penalt+ i*posed b+ the trial court on the accused ought to be *odified correspondingl+..a$phi..net &"E'EF('E, the >ecision dated =arch .., /447 of the Court of Appeals sustaining the conviction b+ the '<C finding the accused-petitioner guilt+ of the cri*e of arson of an inhabited d$elling is AFFI'=E> $ith=(>IFICA<I(N,. "e is hereb+ sentenced to the indeter*inate penalt+ of i*prison*ent of nine 8# +ears and one .# da+ of prision *a+or as *ini*u*, to t$ent+ /4# +ears of reclusion te*poral as *a2i*u*, $ith full credit for the entire period of preventive i*prison*ent provided he is Fualified therefor according to Article /8 of the 'evised Penal Code. As to his civil liabilit+, he is ordered to pa+ te*perate da*ages in the a*ount of P544,444 to Carlos C. Canlas, the o$ner of the burnt pre*ises, and P.44,444 each to Francis F. ,i*pao and Andres E. Eillaflor, together $ith e2e*plar+ da*ages of P54,444 to each of the*. No pronounce*ent as to costs. ,( ('>E'E>.

Page1

E. EARSA/ E#IDENCE R0LE 6.'. No. 01495 Februar+ /0, .838 PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NE'I( 6A>>I + CA<:BAI, defendant-appellant. <he ,olicitor 6eneral for plaintiff-appellee. CitiBen -egal Assistance (ffice for defendant-appellant.

C('<E,, !.% Nerio 6addi + Catuba+ $as charged $ith *urder for the death of one Augusto Esguerra + Navarro in an infor*ation $hich reads as follo$s% 222 222 222 <hat on or about the ..th da+ of >ece*ber, .83., in GueBon Cit+, =etro =anila, Philippines, the above-na*ed accused, $ith intent to ;ill, $ithout an+ )ustifiable cause, Fualified $ith treacher+ and $ith evident pre-*editation sic#, did then and there, $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ attac;, assault and e*plo+ personal violence upon the person of one A:6:,<( E,6:E''A + NAEA''(, b+ then and there stabbing hi* several ti*es $ith a ;nife, hitting hi* on the different parts of his bod+, thereb+ inflicting upon hi* serious and *ortal $ounds $hich $ere the direct and i**ediate cause of his death, to the da*age and pre)udice of the heirs of the offended part+ in such a*ount as *a+be a$arded under the provision of the Civil Code. C(N<'A'I <( -A&. L'ollo, p. .5.M After arraign*ent, $herein 6addi pleaded not guilt+, and trial !udge =a2i*iano C. Asuncion of Branch .41 of the 'egional <rial Court of GueBon Cit+ handed do$n a verdict of guilt for the cri*e charged, the decretal portion of $hich reads% 222 222 222 &"E'EF('E, the Court finds the accused NE'I( 6A>>I + CA<:BAI guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of *urder, as charged in the infor*ation, and hereb+ sentences hi* to suffer the penalt+ of 'EC-:,I(N PE'PE<:A or -IFE I=P'I,(N=EN< and to pa+ his heirs of Augusta Esguerra the su* of P54,444.44 $ithout subsidiar+ i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc+, $ith all the accessor+ penalties provided for b+ la$, and to pa+ the costs. ,( ('>E'E>. L'ollo, p. 7..M (n appeal to this Court, 6addi assigns as errors of the trial court the follo$ing% I <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN 6IEIN6 &EI6"< AN> C'E>ENCE <( <"E <E,<I=(NI (F E'NE,<( 6:K=AN AN> IN <(<A--I >I,'E6A'>IN6 <"E EEI>ENCE A>>:CE> BI <"E >EFEN,E. II <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN C(NEIC<IN6 <"E ACC:,E>-APPE--AN< BA,E> (N "I, &'I<<EN ,<A<E=EN< EU". "F"# &"IC" I, INA>=I,,IB-E IN EEI>ENCE. III <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN APP'ECIA<IN6 <"E G:A-IFIIN6 CI'C:=,<ANCE, (F <'EAC"E'I AN> EEI>EN< P'E-=E>I<A<I(N L'ollo, p. 73.M <he prosecution presented five 5# $itnesses before the court a Fuo, na*el+% Ernesto 6uB*an, Pat, Arturo Angeles, Cpl. 'ogello Castillo, Pat. !esus Patriarca and >r. 6regorio C. Blanco. (n the other hand, the accused 6addi $as the sole $itness presented for the defense. <he prosecution@s version of the facts are as follo$s% 222 222 222 At about 5%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon of >ece*ber .., .83., at ,an Bartolo*e, Novaliches, GueBon Cit+, Ernesto 6uB*an sa$ appellant Nerio 6addi and the victi* Augusto Esguerra drin;ing gin. In the *orning of the follo$ing da+, >ece*ber ./, .83., appellant told Ernesto 6uB*an that he ;illed his drin;ing partner Augusto Esguerra and du*ped his bod+ in a toilet pit. 6uB*an advised appellant to surrender to the police. After $or;, 6uB*an $ent to the police and reported $hat appellant told hi* pp. /-7. tsn, ,epte*ber /, .83/C pp. /-3. tsn, August 8, .837#. At around /%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon of the sa*e da+, >ece*ber ./, .83., Corporal 'ogelio Castillo and >etective 'odrigo ,ala*at arrested appellant at =anre+ ,ubdivision, Novaliches, GueBon Cit+. Appellant told Corporal Castillo that he ;illed the victi* and $here he buried the bod+. -ater, Pat. !esus Patriarca arrived. Appellant hi*self led the police*an and Baranga+ residents to $here the bod+ $as in a toilet pit in the bac;+ard of Ernesto 6uB*an. <he police*an, $ith the help of the Baranga+ residents, dug out the bod+. <he bod+ of the victi* $as Identified b+ Ernesto 6uB*an, his $ife, and !ose Esguerra, victi*@s brother. Pat. Patriarca too; pictures of the bod+ E2hibits C to C-5#, noted the state*ents of Ernesto 6uB*an and !ose Esguerra, E2hibit >#, and too; do$n the confession of appellant E2hibit F#. -ater, the cadaver $as sub)ected to autops+ pp. 7-.7, tsn, August /1, .837C pp. 7-//, tsn, !anuar+ 7, .831#. A *an@s <-shirt $ith collar, colored +ello$, red and blue, and red shorts, $ere recovered fro* the pit $here the bod+ of the victi* $as dug out. <he <-shirt and shorts $ere Identified b+ Ernesto 6uB*an as those $orn b+ appellant $hile he $as

Page1

drin;ing $ith the victi* on >ece*ber .., .83. pp. /-7, tsn, ,epte*ber /, .83/#. A s*all table, rubber slipper, bottle of $ine and glass $ere li;e$ise recovered fro* the sa*e pit. p. 9, tsn, !ul+ .1, .837#. LBrief for the Appellee, pp. 75C 'ollo, p. 5/.. (n the other hand, the defense@s version of the facts are as follo$s% Accused Nerio 6addi a resident of Novaliches, GueBon Cit+, testified that on >ece*ber .., .83., at around /%44 to 5%44 p.*., he $as drin;ing $ith Augusta Esguerra Bong Puleleng# near the house of Ernesto 6uB*an. At about 5%44 p.*., be $as reFuested b+ Ernesto 6uB*an to bu+ gin. "e left Ernesto 6uB*an and Augusta Esguerra $ho $ere allegedl+ drin;ing# in order to bu+ a bottle of gin in a nearb+ store, about /44 *eters a$a+. At the store, he *et an acFuaintance and the+ tal;ed for a $hile before returning. :pon his arrival at the place $here the+ had a drin;ing spree# he noticed stain of blood in the place $here the+ had been drin;ing and Augusta Esguerra, alias Bong Puleleng $as not there an+*ore. "e inFuired fro* Ernesto 6uB*an the $hereabouts of Augusta Esguerra and $as told that the latter "$ent ho*e alread+". "e then as;ed 6uB*an about the blood and $as told that it $as the blood stain of a "butchered chic;en." At about ./%44 o@cloc; *idnight, Ernesto 6uB*an infor*ed hi* about the ;illing of Augusta Esguerra. 6uB*an narrated to hi* that Bong Puleleng Augusta Esguerra# held his rooster b+ the nec; and that his tattoo *ar; BC! Batang Cit+ !ail# $ill be erased b+ hi*. "e did not report the ;illing to the authorities. 6uB*an li;e$ise reFuested ban to ad*it the ;illing but he refused. &hile in the house, 6uB*an filed the case ahead. "e $as later arrested and investigated $hile loo;ing for the corpse. &hen brought to the police station, he $as forced to ad*it the ;illing of Augusto Esguerra <,N, pp. 7-.1 August /4, .831#. LAppellant@s Brief, p. 1-5C 'ollo, p. 73.M <he Court finds the instant appeal un*eritorious. &here the conviction of an accused is based *erel+ on circu*stantial evidence, as in this case, it is essential for the validit+ of such conviction that% .# there be *ore than one circu*stanceC /# the facts fro* $hich the inferences are derived are provenC and 7# the co*bination of all the circu*stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt L,ection 5, 'ule .77 of the 'evised 'ules of Court, People v. =odesto, 6.'. No. --/5131, ,epte*ber /., .893, /5 ,C'A 79C People v. Pa)anustan, 6.'. No. --73.9/, =a+ .0, .834, 80 ,C'A 988.M Although no general rule has been for*ulated as to the Fuantit+ of circu*stantial evidence $hich $ill suffice for an+ case, +et all that is reFuired is that the circu*stances proved *ust be consistent $ith each other, consistent $ith the h+pothesis that the accused is guilt+ and at the sa*e ti*e inconsistent $ith an+ other h+pothesis e2cept that of guilt+ LPeople v. Constante, 6.'. No. --.1978, >ece*ber /3, .891, ./ ,C'A 957C People v. Caneda, 6.'. No. --.8.7/, ,epte*ber /9, .891, ./ ,C'A 8.M In the case at bar, the circu*stantial evidence adduced b+ the prosecution sufficientl+ satisfies the Fuantu* of proof necessar+ to uphold a )udg*ent of conviction. <he follo$ing circu*stances proven b+ the prosecution indubitabl+ point to the accused as the perpetrator of the cri*e co**itted against Augusto Esguerra. .. <he fact that said victi* $as last seen on the da+ he $as ;illed in the co*pan+ of the accused, drin;ing gin at the bac; of the house of Ernesto 6uB*an L<,N, August 8,.837, p. ..M /. <he fact that on the da+ after the drin;ing spree, >ece*ber ./, .83., the accused hi*self ad*itted to Ernesto 6uB*an that he stabbed his drin;ing co*panion and that the latter $as @nadisgras+a ni+a" so he du*ped the bod+ of the victi* in a hole being dug out for a toilet, located at the +ard of Ernesto 6uB*an L<,N, August 8,.837, p. 0.M 7. <he fact that $hen he $as turned over to Pat. Arturo Angeles and Pat. 'ogelio Castillo of the Northern Police >istrict b+ the baranga+ people $ho apprehended hi*, be ad*itted the truth of the charge of the baranga+ residents that he ;illed so*eone and that he du*ped the bod+ of the victi* in a place being dug out as an i*provised toilet L<,N, !ul+ .1, .837, p. 5C <,N, August /1, .837, p. 3.M At the ti*e the baranga+ people started digging for the bod+ of the victi*, the appellant $as even instructing the* as to the e2act location $here the bod+ $as buried L<,N, August /1, .837, p. 9.M 1. <he fact that the place $here be led the police officers and the baranga+ residents, i.e. the toilet pit in the bac;+ard of Ernesto 6uB*an, $as indeed the site $here he buried the victi* as the bod+ of the victi* $as found there after the digging L<,N, !anuar+ 7, .831, p. 5.M 5. <he fact that the <-shirt and shorts $hich the accused $as $earing during the drin;ing spree $ere later recovered fro* the place $here the victi* $as buried L<,N, ,epte*ber /, .83/, p. 7.M Appellant ho$ever disputes the trial court@s reliance on the testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses as a basis for his conviction. As a rule, the trial court@s assess*ent of the credibilit+ of the prosecution $itnesses is entitled to great $eight and respect LPeople v. Ealentino, 6.'. Nos. --18358- 94, Februar+ /4, .839, .1. ,C'A 780C People v. >agangon, 6.'. Nos. -9/951-53, Nove*ber .7, .839, .15 ,C'A 191M since it has the advantage of observing the de*eanor of a $itness $hile on the $itness stand and therefore can discern if such $itness is telling the truth or not LPeople v. (rnoBa, 6.'. No. 59/37, !une 74, .830, .5. ,C'A 185.M =oreover, appellant@s clai* that Ernesto 6uB*an@s testi*on+ on 6addi@s confession of the cri*e to hi* cannot be given credence for being hearsa+ is unavailing. <his <ribunal bad previousl+ declared that a confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported b+ the strong presu*ption that no person of nor*al *ind $ould deliberatel+ and ;no$ingl+ confess to a cri*e unless pro*pted b+ truth and his conscience LPeople v. ,alvador, 6.'. No. --00891, !ul+ /9, .833 citing People v. CastanedaC 6.'. No. --7/9/5, August 7., .808, 87 ,C'A 58.M Proof that a person confessed to the co**ission of a cri*e can be presented in evidence $ithout violating the hearsa+ rule L,ection 74, 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules of CourtM $hich onl+ prohibits a $itness fro* testif+ing as to those facts $hich he *erel+ learned fro* other persons but not as to those facts $hich he ";no$s of his o$n ;no$ledge% that is, $hich are derived fro* his o$n perception." "ence, $hile the testi*on+ of a $itness regarding the state*ent *ade b+ another person, if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the state*ent, is clearl+ hearsa+ evidence, it is other$ise if the purpose of placing the state*ent in the record is *erel+ to establish the fact that the state*ent $as *ade or the tenor of such state*ent LPeople v. Cusi !r., 6.'. No. --/4839, August .1, .895, .1 ,C'A 811.M"ere, $hen 6uB*an testified that the appellant, $ho probabl+ $as bothered b+ his conscience, ad*itted the ;illing to hi*, there $as no violation of the hearsa+ rule as 6uB*an $as testif+ing to a fact $hich he ;no$s of his o$n personal ;no$ledgeC that is, be $as testif+ing to the fact that the appellant told hi* that he stabbed Augusta Esguerra and not to the truth of the appellant@s state*ent. <hat the testi*on+ of 6uB*an on appellant@s oral confession is co*petent evidence finds support in People v. <a$at L6.'. No. --9/30., =a+ /5, .831, ./8 ,C'A 17.. $hich upheld the trial court@s reliance on an e2tra)udicial confession given, not to a police officer during custodial interrogation, but to an ordinar+ far*er as the basis for conviction. <he Court@s pronounce*ents in the aforesaid case find relevance in the instant case%

Page1

<he declaration of an accused e2pressl+ ac;no$ledging his guilt of the offense charged, *a+ be given in evidence against hi*@ ,ec. /8 'ule .74, 'ules of Court#. &hat Felicito told (galesco *a+ in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae. <he 'ule is that "an+ person, other$ise co*petent as a $itness, $ho heard the confession, is co*petent to testif+ as to the substance of $hat he heard if he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbati*, but in such case it *ust be given in its substance." /7 C.!.,. .89.# Proof of the contents of an oral e2tra)udicial confession *a+ be *ade b+ the testi*on+ of a person $ho testifies that he $as present, heard, understood, and re*e*bers the substance of the conversation or state*ent *ade b+ the accused Lciting :nderhill@s Cri*inal Evidence, 1th Ed., Niblac;, ,ec. /03, p. 55..# Lat pp. 179-170C E*phasis supplied.M <he trial court found no reason to doubt 6uB*an@s credibilit+ as a $itness considering his stature in the co**unit+ as a *e*ber of a religious *ove*ent participating in such activities as "*aQanita" and procession of the Fati*a and Blac; 'osar+ L'ollo, p. 74.M In fact, on the da+ the ;illing too; place, he left his house $here appellant and his co*panion, Esguerra $ere still drin;ing and $ent to the house of !unior Isla to attend a "*aQanita" and participate in the $ee;l+ activit+ of bringing do$n the crucifi2 and the i*age of the Fati*a L<,N, ,epte*ber /, .83/. p. /M Besides, there $as no sho$ing at all that he $as actuated b+ i*proper *otives in testif+ing against appellant so as to $arrant disregard of his testi*on+ LPeople v. =agdueno, 6.'. No. --93988, ,epte*ber //, .839, .11 ,C'A /.4.M (n the contrar+, the evidence sho$s that even though the appellant is not related at all to 6uB*an, the latter, as an act of generosit+, allo$ed the for*er to sleep in the porch of his house as the for*er had no i**ediate relatives in GueBon Cit+ L<,N, August 8, .837, p. .1.M As to the testi*on+ of Pat. Angeles and Pat. Castillo, the police officers $ho apprehended the appellant, credence should be given to their narration of ho$ the appellant $as apprehended and ho$ he led the police and the baranga+ residents to the place $here he du*ped the bod+ of his victi* since those police officers are presu*ed to have perfor*ed their duties in a regular *anner in the absence of evidence to the contrar+ LPeople v. Boholst, 6.'. No. --07443, !ul+ /7, .830, .5/ ,C'A /97 citing People v. 6a*a+on, 6.'. No. --/5139, April /3, .837, ./. ,C'A 91/C People v. Ca*pana, 6.'. No. --707/5, August 74, .837, ./1 ,C'A /0.C People v. 'osas, 6.'. No. --0/03/, April 74 .830, .18 ,C'A 191.M Appellant@s defense to the prosecution@s charge rests on an uncorroborated and purel+ oral evidence of alibi. It has been ruled ti*e and again that courts loo; upon the evidence of alibi $ith suspicion LPeople v. Bondoc, 35 Phil. 515 .854#M and al$a+s receive it $ith caution LPeople v. Cinco, 90 Phil. .89 .878#C People v. de 6uB*an, 04 Phil. /7 .814#M not onl+ because it is inherentl+ $ea; and unreliable but also because of its eas+ fabrication LPeople v. 'afallo, 39 Phil. // .854#.M <o overco*e the evidence of the prosecution, an alibi *ust satisf+ the test of "full, clear and satisfactor+ evidence" L:.,. v. Pascua, . Phil. 97. .847#C :.,. v. (2iles, /8 Phil, 530 .8.5#C :.,. v. (lais, 79 Phil 3/3 .8.0#.M <his test reFuires not onl+ proof that the accused $as so*e$here else other than the scene of the cri*e but clear and convincing proof of ph+sical i*possibilit+ for the accused to have been at the place of the co**ission of the cri*e LPeople v. Pacis, 6.'. Nos. --7/85053, !ul+ /5, .831. .74 ,C'A 514C People v. Coronado, 6.'. No. 9387/, (ctober /3, .839, .15 ,C'A /54C People v. Ferrera, 6.'. No. 99895, !une .3, .830, .5. ,C'A ..7.M <he testi*on+ of the accused hi*self believes an+ clai* of ph+sical i*possibilit+ for hi* to be at the scene of the cri*e since according to hi*, the store $here he allegedl+ bought another bottle of gin $as onl+ /44 *eters a$a+. "e $as able to return to 6uB*an@s house onl+ after half an hour since he still had a chat $ith an acFuaintance at the store. Even granting the truth of appellant@s stor+ that he $as ordered b+ 6uB*an to bu+ a bottle of gin at about 5%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon and that he $as bac; after thirt+ *inutes, it $as not i*possible for hi* to have co**itted the cri*e since 6uB*an and his $ife left appellant alone $ith the victi* at around 9%44 o@cloc; in the evening to attend the *ananita at the house of !unior Isla. <hus, his state*ents on the $itness stand, far fro* de*onstrating ph+sical i*possibilit+ of being at the scene of the cri*e, cast serious doubt on the veracit+ of his alibi. As the culpabilit+ of the accused has been established be+ond reasonable doubt b+ the evidence of the prosecution, there is no need to d$ell on the ad*issibilit+ of appellant@s e2tra-)udicial confession LE2h. F to F-8C 'ollo, p. /4, et seF.M "is conviction can be sustained independentl+ of said confession. "o$ever, in the absence of proof as to ho$ the victi* $as ;illed, the aggravating circu*stances of treacher+ and evident pre*editation cannot be properl+ appreciated. <he ;illing *ust be considered as ho*icide onl+ and not *urder since the circu*stance Fualif+ing the ;illing *ust be proven as indubitabl+ as the ;illing itself LPeople v. Eicente, 6.'. No. -7.0/5, Februar+ .3, .839, .1. ,C'A 710.M <his <ribunal clearl+ pointed out in a previous case that As heretofore stated, not a single e+e$itness to the stabbing incident had been presented b+ the prosecution. <hus, the record is totall+ bereft of an+ evidence as to the *eans or *ethod resorted to b+ appellant in attac;ing the victi*. It is needless to add that treacher+ cannot be deduced fro* *ere presu*ption, *uch less fro* sheer speculation. <he sa*e degree of proof to dispel reasonable doubt is reFuired before an+ conclusion *a+ be reached respecting the attendance of alevosiaLPeople v. >uero, 6.' No. 95555, =a+ //, .835, .79 ,C'A 5.5, 5.8-5/4C E*phasis supplied. M Neither can the aggravating circu*stance of evident pre*editation be considered, absent a clear sho$ing of .. the ti*e $hen the of tender deter*ined to co**it the cri*eC /. an act *anifestl+ indicating that the culprit clung to his dead ter*inationC and 7. a sufficient laspe of ti*e bet$een the deter*ination and the e2ecution to allo$ hi* to reflect upon the conseFuences of his act LPeople v. >iva, 6.'. No. --//819, (ctober .., .893, /5 ,C'A 193C People v. Pacada, !r., 6.'. Nos. --11111-15, !ul+ 0, .839, .1/ ,C'A 1/0.M As the evidence on record does not disclose the e2istence of treacher+ and evident pre*editation in the stabbing of the victi*, the cri*e co**itted is onl+ "(=ICI>E and not *urder, ,ince there are neither *itigating nor aggravating circu*stances, the penalt+ for ho*icide $hich is reclusion te*poral should be i*posed in its *ediu* period. Appl+ing the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$, the range of the i*posable penalt+ is fro* eight 3# +ears and one .# da+ of prision *a+or, as *ini*u*, to seventeen .0# +ears and four 1# *onths of reclusion te*poral, as *a2i*u*.

&"E'EF('E, the appealed decision is =(>IFIE> and the accused-appellant is hereb+ found guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of "(=ICI>E, sentenced to suffer the indeter*inate penalt+ of eight 3# +ears and one .#

Page1

Absent an+ proof of actual da*ages, the heirs of Augusta Esguerra are entitled onl+ to the inde*nit+ of P 74,444.44. "ence, the a*ount of P54,444.44 a$arded b+ the trial court should be reduced accordingl+.

da+ of prision *a+or as *ini*u*, to seventeen .0# +ears and four 1# *onths of reclusion te*poral as *a2i*u*, and to inde*nif+ the heirs of Augusto Esguerra in the a*ount of P 74,444.44. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC L6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5. April 7, /44.M !(,EP" E. E,<'A>A, petitioner, vs. ANIAN( >E,IE'<(, in his capacit+ as (*buds*an, 'A=(N 6(NKA-E,, E(-:N<EE', A6AIN,< C'I=E AN> C('':P<I(N, 6'AF< F'EE P"I-IPPINE, F(:N>A<I(N, INC., -E(NA'> >E EE'A, >ENNI, F:NA, '(=E( CAP:-(N6 and E'NE,<( B. F'ANCI,C(, !'.,respondents. L6.'. No. .19073. April 7, /44.M !(,EP" E. E,<'A>A, petitioner, vs. 6-('IA =ACAPA6A--A''(I(, respondent. 'E,(-:<I(N P:N(, !.% For resolution are petitionerNs =otion for 'econsideration in 6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5 and (*nibus =otion in 6.'. No. .19073 of the CourtNs >ecision of =arch /, /44.. In 6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5, petitioner raises the follo$ing grounds% VI. I< >I,'E6A'>E> <"E C-EA' AN> EUP-ICI< P'(EI,I(N, (F A'<. UI, ,EC<I(N 7 C(N,<I<:<I(N AN> <"E ,E<<-E> !:'I,P':>ENCE <"E'E(N. 0# (F <"E

II. I< "E-> <"A< PE<I<I(NE' CAN BE P'(,EC:<E> N(&, F(' <"I, ':-IN6 &(:-> EI(-A<E <"E >(:B-E !E(PA'>I C-A:,E (F <"E C(N,<I<:<I(N, C(N,I>E'IN6 <"A< PE<I<I(NE' &A, ACG:I<<E> IN <"E I=PEAC"=EN< P'(CEE>IN6,. III. I< "E-> <"A< PE<I<I(NE' I, N( -(N6E' EN<I<-E> <( AB,(-:<E I==:NI<I F'(= ,:I<. IE. I< "E-> <"A< PE<I<I(NE'N, >:E P'(CE,, 'I6"<, <( A FAI' <'IA- "AEE N(< BEEN P'E!:>ICE> BI P'E-<'IA- P:B-ICI<I. E. I< "E-> <"A< <"E'E I, N(< EN(:6" EEI>ENCE <( &A''AN< <"E C(:'< <( EN!(IN <"E P'E-I=INA'I INEE,<I6A<I(N (F <"E INC:=BEN< (=B:>,=AN, PE<I<I(NE' "AEIN6 FAI-E> <( P'(EE <"E I=PAI'E> CAPACI<I (F <"E (=B:>,=AN <( 'EN>E' A BIA,E> F'EE >ECI,I(N.W In 6.'. No. .19073, petitioner raises and argues the follo$ing issues% .. &"E<"E' PE<I<I(NE' 'E,I6NE> (' ,"(:-> BE C(N,I>E'E> 'E,I6NE> A, (F !AN:A'I /4, /44.C /. &"E<"E' <"E AN6A'A >IA'I I, INA>=I,,IB-E F(' BEIN6 EI(-A<IEE (F <"E F(--(&IN6 ':-E, (N EEI>ENCE% "EA',AI, BE,< EEI>ENCE, A:<"EN<ICA<I(N, A>=I,,I(N, AN> 'E, IN<E' A-I(, AC<AC 7. &"E<"E' 'E-IANCE (N NE&,PAPE' AC(:N<, I, EI(-A<IEE (F <"E "EA',AI ':-EC 1. &"E<"E' C(N6'E,, P(,< FAC<( CAN >ECI>E PE<I<I(NE'N, INABI-I<I <( 6(EE'N C(N,I>E'IN6 ,EC<I(N .., A'<IC-E EII (F <"E C(N,<I<:<I(NC and 5. &"E<"E' P'E!:>ICIA- P:B-ICI<I "A, AFFEC<E> PE<I<I(NE'N, 'I6"< <( FAI' <'IA-. &e find the contentions of petitioner bereft of *erit. I Pre)udicial Publicit+ on the Court Petitioner insists he is the victi* of pre)udicial publicit+. A*ong others, he assails the >ecision for adverting to ne$spaper accounts of the events and occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. In our >ecision, $e used the totalit+ test to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner has resigned. &e referred to and anal+Bed events that $ere prior, conte*poraneous and posterior to the oath-ta;ing of respondent Arro+o as president. All these events are facts $hich are $ell-established and cannot be refuted. <hus, $e adverted to prior events that built up the irresistible pressure for the petitioner to resign. <hese are% .# the e2pose of 6overnor -uis VChavitW ,ingson on (ctober 1, /444C /# the VI accuseW speech of then ,enator <eofisto 6uingona in the ,enateC 7# the )oint investigation of the speech of ,enator 6uingona b+ the Blue 'ibbon Co**ittee and the Co**ittee on !usticeC 1# the investigation of the ,ingson e2pose b+ the "ouse Co**ittee on Public (rder and ,ecurit+C 5# the *ove to i*peach the petitioner in the "ouse of 'epresentativesC 9# the Pastoral -etter of Archbishop !ai*e Cardinal ,in de*anding petitionerNs resignationC 0# a si*ilar de*and b+ the Catholic Bishops conferenceC 3# the si*ilar de*ands for petitionerNs resignation b+ for*er Presidents CoraBon C. AFuino and Fidel E. 'a*osC 8# the resignation of respondent Arro+o as ,ecretar+ of the >,&> and her call for petitioner to resignC .4# the resignation of the *e*bers of petitionerNs Council of ,enior Econo*ic Advisers and of ,ecretar+ =ar 'o2as III fro* the >epart*ent of <rade and Industr+C ..# the defection of then ,enate President Fran;lin >rilon and then ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives =anuel Eillar and fort+ seven 10# representatives fro* petitionerNs -apiang =asang PilipinoC ./# the trans*ission of the Articles of I*peach*ent b+ ,pea;er Eillar to the ,enateC .7# the unseating of ,enator >rilon as ,enate President and of 'epresentative Eillar as ,pea;er of the "ouseC .1# the i*peach*ent trial of the petitionerC .5# the testi*onies of Clarissa (ca*po and for*er Finance ,ecretar+ Edgardo Espiritu in the i*peach*ent trialC .9# the ..-.4 vote of the senator-)udges den+ing the prosecutorNs *otion to open the /nd envelope $hich allegedl+ contained evidence sho$ing that petitioner held a P7.7 billion deposit in a secret ban; account under the na*e of V!ose EelardeWC .0# the prosecutorsN $al;out and resignationC .3# the indefinite postpone*ent of the i*peach*ent proceedings to give a chance to the "ouse of 'epresentatives to resolve the issue of resignation of their prosecutorsC .8# the rall+ in the E>,A ,hrine and its intensification in various parts of the countr+C /4# the $ithdra$al of support of then ,ecretar+ of National >efense (rlando =ercado and the then Chief of ,taff, 6eneral Angelo 'e+es, together $ith the chiefs of all the ar*ed servicesC /.# the sa*e $ithdra$al of support *ade b+ the then >irector 6eneral of the PNP, 6eneral Panfilo -acson, and the *a)or

Page1

service co**andersC //# the strea* of resignations b+ Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefsC /7# petitionerNs agree*ent to hold a snap election and opening of the controversial second envelope. All these prior events are facts $hich are $ithin )udicial notice b+ this Court. <here $as no need to cite their ne$s accounts. <he reference b+ the Court to certain ne$spapers reporting the* as the+ happened does not *a;e the* inad*issible evidence for being hearsa+. <he ne$s account onl+ buttressed these facts as facts. For all his loud protestations, petitioner has not singled out an+ of these facts as false. &e no$ co*e to so*e events of !anuar+ /4, /44. conte*poraneous to the oath ta;ing of respondent Arro+o. &e used the Angara >iar+ to decipher the intent to resign on the part of the petitioner. -et it be e*phasiBed that it is not unusual for courts to distill a personNs sub)ective intent fro* the evidence before the*. Ever+da+, courts ascertain intent in cri*inal cases, in civil la$ cases involving last $ills and testa*ents, in co**ercial cases involving contracts and in other si*ilar cases. As $ill be discussed belo$, the use of the Angara >iar+ is not prohibited b+ the hearsa+ rule. Petitioner *a+ disagree $ith so*e of the inferences arrived at b+ the Court fro* the facts narrated in the >iar+ but that does not *a;e the >iar+ inad*issible as evidence. &e did not stop $ith the conte*poraneous events but proceeded to e2a*ine so*e events posterior to the oath-ta;ing of respondent Arro+o. ,pecificall+, $e anal+Bed the all i*portant press release of the petitioner containing his final state*ent $hich $as issued after the oath-ta;ing of respondent Arro+o as president. After anal+Bing its content, $e ruled that petitionerNs issuance of the press release and his abandone*nt of =alacaQang Palace confir*ed his resignation.L.M <hese areovert acts $hich leave no doubt to the Court that the petitioner has resigned. In light of this finding that petitioner has resigned before ./ oNcloc; noon of !anaur+ /4, /44., the clai* that the office of the President $as not vacant $hen respondent Arro+o too; her oath of office at half past noon of the sa*e da+ has no leg to stand on. &e also re)ect the contention that petitionerNs resignation $as due to duress and an involuntar+ resignation is no resignation at all. V2 2 2 LIMt has been said that, in deter*ining $hether a given resignation is voluntaril+ tendered, the ele*ent of voluntariness is vitiated onl+ $hen the resignation is sub*itted under duress brought on b+ govern*ent action. <he threepart test for such duress has been stated as involving the follo$ing ele*ents% .# $hether one side involuntaril+ accepted the otherNs ter*sC /# $hether circu*stances per*itted no other alternativeC and 7# $hether such circu*stances $ere the result of coercive acts of the opposite side. <he vie$ has also been e2pressed that a resignation *a+ be found involuntar+ if on the totalit+ of the circu*stances it appears that the e*plo+erNs conduct in reFuesting resignation effectivel+ deprived the e*plo+er of free choice in the *atter. Factors to be considered, under this test, are% .# $hether the e*plo+ee $as given so*e alternative to resignationC /# $hether the e*plo+ee understood the nature of the choice he or she $as givenC 7# $hether the e*plo+e$e $as given a reasonable ti*e in $hich to chooseC and 1# $hether he or she $as per*itted to select the effective date of resignation. In appl+ing this totalit+ of the circu*stances test, the assess*ent $hether real alternatives $ere offered *ust be gauged b+ an ob)ective standard rather than b+ the e*plo+eeNs purel+ sub)ective evaluationC that the e*plo+ee *a+ perceive his or her onl+ option to be resignation R for e2a*ple, because of concerns about his or her reputation R is irrelevant. ,i*ilarl+, the *ere fact that the choice is bet$een co*parabl+ unpleasant alternatives R for e2a*ple, resignation or facing disciplinar+ charges R does not of itself establish that a resignation $as induced b+ duress or coercion, and $as therefore involuntar+. <his is so even $here the onl+ alternative to resignation is facing possible ter*ination for cause, unless the e*plo+er actuall+ lac;ed good cause to believe that grounds for ter*ination e2isted. In this regard it has also been said that a resignation resulting fro* a choice bet$een resigning or facing proceedings for dis*issal is not tanta*ount to discharge b+ coercion $ithout procedural vie$ if the e*plo+ee is given sufficient ti*e and opportunit+ for deliberation of the choice posed. Futher*ore, a resignation b+ an officer charged $ith *isconduct is not given under duress, though the appropriate authorit+ has alread+ deter*ined that the officerNs alternative is ter*ination, $here such authorit+ has the legal authorit+ to ter*inate the officerNs e*plo+*ent under the particular circu*stances, since it is not duress to threaten to do $hat one has the legal right to do, or to threaten to ta;e an+ *easure authoriBed b+ la$ and the circu*stances of the case.WL/M In the cases at bar, petitioner had several options available to hi* other than resignation. "e proposed to the holding of snap elections. "e trans*itted to the Congress a $ritten declaration of te*porar+ inabilit+. "e could not clai* he $as forced to resign because i**ediatel+ before he left =alacaQang, he as;ed ,ecretar+ Angara% VEd, aalis na ba a;oHW $hich i*plies that he still had a choice of $hether or not to leave. <o be sure, pressure $as e2erted for the petitioner to resign. But it is difficult to believe that the pressure co*pletel+ vitiated the voluntariness of the petitionerNs resignation. <he =alacaQang ground $as then full+ protected b+ the Presidential ,ecurit+ 6uard ar*ed $ith tan;s and high-po$ered $eapons. <he then Chief of ,taff, 6eneral Angelo 'e+es, and other *ilitar+ officers $ere in =alacaQang to assure that no har* $ould befall the petitioner as he left the Palace. Indeed, no har*, not even a scratch, $as suffered b+ the petitioner, the *e*bers of his fa*il+ and his Cabinet $ho stuc; it out $ith hi* in his last hours. PetitionerNs entourage $as even able to detour safel+ to the =unicipal "all of ,an !uan and bade goodb+e to his follo$ers before finall+ going to his residence in Pol; ,treet, 6reenhills. <he onl+ incident before the petitioner left the Palace $as the stone thro$ing bet$een a s*all group of pro and anti Erap rall+ists $hich resulted in *inor in)uries to a fe$ of the*. Certainl+, there $ere no tan;s that ru*bled through the Palace, no attac; planes that fle$ over the presidential residence, no shooting, no large scale violence, e2cept verbal violence, to )ustif+ the conclusion that petitioner $as coerced to resign. II Evidentiar+ Issues Petitioner devotes a large part of his argu*ents on the alleged i*proper use b+ this Court of the Angara >iar+. It is urged that the use of the Angara >iar+ to deter*ine the state of *ind of the petitioner on the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the ad*ission of hearsa+ evidence. &e are unpersuaded. <o begin $ith, the Angara diar+ is not an out of court state*ent. <he Angara >iar+ is part of the pleadings in the cases at bar. Petitioner cannot co*plain he $as not furnished a cop+ of the Angara >iar+. Nor can he feign surprise on its use. <o be sure, the said >iar+ $as freFuentl+ referred to b+ the parties in their pleadings.L7M <he three parts of the >iar+ published in the P>I fro* Februar+ 1-9, /44. $ere attached as Anne2es A-C, respectivel+, of the =e*orandu* of private respondents 'o*eo <. Capulong, et al., dated Februar+ /4, /44.. <he second and third parts of the >iar+ $ere earlier also attached as Anne2es ./ and .7 of the Co**ent of private respondents Capulong, et al., dated

Page1

Februar+ ./, /44.. In fact, petitioner even cited in his ,econd ,upple*ental 'epl+ =e*orandu* both the second part of the diar+, published on Februar+ 5, /44.,L1M and the third part, published on Februar+ 9, /44..L5M It $as also e2tensivel+ used b+ ,ecretar+ of !ustice "ernando PereB in his oral argu*ents. <hus, petitioner had all the opportunit+ to contest the use of the >iar+ but unfortunatel+ failed to do so. Even assu*ing arguendo that the Angara >iar+ $as an out of court state*ent, still its use is not covered b+the hearsa+ rule.L9M Evidence is called hearsa+ $hen its probative force depends, in $hole or in part, on the co*petenc+ and credibilit+ of so*e persons other than the $itness b+ $ho* it is sought to produce it.L0M<here are three reasons for e2cluding hearsa+ evidence% .# absence of cross e2a*inationC /# absence of de*eanor evidence, and 7# absence of the oath.L3M Not at all hearsa+ evidence, ho$ever, is inad*issible as evidence. (ver the +ears, a huge bod+ of hearsa+ evidence has been ad*itted b+ courts due to their relevance, trust$orthiness and necessit+.L8M <he e*ergence of these e2ceptions and their $ide spread acceptance is $ell-e2plained b+ &einstein, =ansfield, Abra*s and Berger as follo$s% V2 2 2 (n the other hand, $e all *a;e decisions in our ever+da+ lives on the basis of other personsN accounts of $hat happened, and verdicts are usuall+ sustained and affir*ed even if the+ are based on hearsa+ erroneousl+ ad*itted, or ad*itted because no ob)ection $as *ade. ,ee ,hepp v. :ehlinger, 005 F /d 15/, 151-155 .st Cir. .835# hearsa+ evidence alone can support a verdict#. Although volu*es have been $ritten suggesting $a+s to revise the hearsa+ rule, no one advocates a rule that $ould bar all hearsa+ evidence. Indeed, the decided historical trend has been to e2clude categories of highl+ probative state*ents fro* the definition of hearsa+ sections / and 7, infra#, and to develop *ore class e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule sections 1-.., infra#. Further*ore, *an+ states have added to their rules the residual, or catch-all, e2ceptions first pioneered b+ the Federal 'ules $hich authoriBe the ad*ission of hearsa+ that does not satisf+ a class e2ception, provided it is adeFuatel+ trust$orth+ and probative section ./, infra#. =oreover, so*e co**entators believe that the hearsa+ rule should be abolished altogether instead of being loosened. ,ee, e.g., Note, <he <heoretical Foundation of the "earsa+ 'ules, 87 "arv.-.'ev. .039, .341-.345, .3.5 .834# footnotes o*itted#% <he Federal 'ules of Evidence provide that OLaMlthough relevant, evidence *a+ be e2cluded if its probative value is substantiall+ out$eighed b+ the danger of unfair pre)udice.N :nder this structure, e2clusion is )ustified b+ fears of ho$ the )ur+ $ill be influenced b+ the evidence. "o$ever, it is not traditional to thin; of hearsa+ as *erel+ a subdivision of this structure, and the Federal 'ules do not conceive of hearsa+ in that *anner. Pre)udice refers to the )ur+Ns use of evidence for inferences other than those for $hich the evidence is legall+ relevantC b+ contrast, the rule against hearsa+ Fuestions the )ur+Ns abilit+ to evaluate the strength of a legiti*ate inference to be dra$n fro* the evidence. For e2a*ple, $ere a )udge to e2clude testi*on+ because a $itness $as particularl+ s*ooth or convincing, there $ould be no doubt as to the usurpation of the )ur+Ns function. <hus, unli;e pre)udices recogniBed b+ the evidence rules, such as those ste**ing fro* racial or religious biases or fro* the introduction of photographs of a victi*Ns final state, the e2clusion of hearsa+ on the basis of *isperception stri;es at the root of the )ur+Ns function b+ usurping its po$er to process Fuite ordinar+ evidence, the t+pe of infor*ation routinel+ encountered b+ )urors in their ever+da+ lives. X ,ince virtuall+ all criteria see;ing to distinguish bet$een good and bad hearsa+ are either incoherent, inconsistent, or indeter*inate, the onl+ altenative to a general rule of ad*ission $ould be an absolute rule of e2clusion, $hich is surel+ inferior. =ore i*portant, the assu*ptions necessar+ to )ustif+ a rule against hearsa+ X see* insupportable and, in an+ event, are inconsistent $ith accepted notions of the function of the )ur+. <herefore, the hearsa+ rules should be abolished. ,o*e support for this vie$ can be found in the li*ited e*pirical research no$ available R $hich is, ho$ever, derived fro* si*ulations R that suggests that ad*itting hearsa+ has little effect on trial outco*es because )urors discount the value of hearsa+ evidence. ,ee 'a;os Y -ands*an, 'esearching the "earsa+ 'ule% E*erging Findings, 6eneral Issues, and Future >irections, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 955 .88/#C =iene, Par;, Y Borgidas, !ur+ >ecision =a;ing and the Evaluation of "earsa+ Evidence, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 937 .88/#C Povera, Par;, Y Penrod, !urorsN Perceptions of E+e$itness and "earsa+ Evidence, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 047 .88/#C -ands*an Y 'a;os, 'esearch Essa+% A Preli*inar+ E*pirical EnFuir+ Concerning the prohibition of "earsa+ Evidence in A*erican Courts, .5 -a$ Y Ps+chol. 'ev. 95 .88.#. (thers, even if the+ concede that restrictions on hearsa+ have so*e utilit+, Fuestion $hether the benefits out$eigh the cost% <he cost of *aintaining the rule is not )ust a function of its contribution to )ustice. It also includes the ti*e spent on litigating the rule. And of course this is not )ust a cost voluntaril+ borne b+ the parties, for in our s+ste* virtuall+ all the cost of the court R salaries, ad*inistrative costs, and capital costs R are borne b+ the public. As e2pensive as litigation is for the parties, it is supported b+ an enor*ous public subsid+. Each ti*e a hearsa+ Fuestion is litigated, the public pa+s. <he rule i*poses other costs as $ell. Enor*ous ti*e is spent teaching and $riting about the hearsa+ rule, $hich are both costl+ enterprises. In so*e la$ schools, students spend over half their ti*e in evidence classes learning the intricacies of the hearsa+ rule, and X enor*ous acade*ic resources are e2pended on the rule. Allen, Co**entar+ on Professor Friend*anNs Article% <he Evolution of the "earsa+ 'ule to a 'ule of Ad*ission, 09 =inn.-.'ev. 080, 344 L.88/M but $ould abolish rule onl+ in civil cases#. ,ee also Fried*an, <o$ard a Partial Econo*ic, 6a*e-<heoretic Anal+sis of "earsa+, 09 =inn. -. 'ev. 0/7 .88/#.WL.4M A co*plete anal+sis of an+ hearsa+ proble* reFuires that $e further deter*ine $hether the hearsa+ evidence is one e2e*pted fro* the rules of e2clusion. A *ore circu*spect e2a*ination of our rules of e2clusion $ill sho$ that the+ do not cover ad*issions of a part+ and the Angara >iar+ belongs to this class. ,ection /9 of 'ule .74 provides that Vthe act, declaration or o*ission of a part+ as to a relevant fact *a+ be given in evidence against hi*.WL..M It has long been settled that these ad*issions are ad*issible even if the+ are hearsa+. 'etired !ustice (scar "errera of the Court of Appeals cites the various authorities $ho e2plain $h+ ad*issions are not covered b+ the hearsa+ rule%L./M V&ig*ore, after pointing out that the part+Ns declaration has generall+ the probative value of an+ other personNs asssertion, argued that it had a special value $hen offered against the part+. In that circu*stance, the ad*ission discredits the part+Ns state*ent $ith the present clai* asserted in pleadings and testi*on+, *uch li;e a $itness i*peached b+ contradictor+ state*ents. =oreover, he continued, ad*issions pass the gauntlet of the hearsa+ rule, $hich reFuires that e2tra)udicial assertions be e2cluded if there $as no opportunit+ for the opponent to cross-e2a*ine because it is the opponentNs o$n declaration, and Ohe does not need to cross e2a*ine hi*self.N &ig*ore then added that the "earsa+ 'ule

Page1

is satisfied since the part+ no$ as opponent has the full opportunit+ to put hi*self on the stand and e2plain his for*er assertion. &ig*ore on evidence, ,ec. .413 Chadbourn 'ev. .80/#, cited in ,ec. .51, =cCor*ic;# According to =organ% O<he ad*issibilit+ of an ad*ission *ade b+ the part+ hi*self rests not upon an+ notion that the circu*stances in $hich it $as *ade furnish the trier *eans of evaluating it fairl+, but upon the adversar+ theor+ of litigation. A part+ can hardl+ ob)ect that he had no opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine hi*self or that he is un$orth+ of credence save $hen spea;ing under sanction of an oath.N A *anNs acts, conduct, and declaration, $herever *ade, if voluntar+, are ad*issible against hi*, for the reason that it is fair to presu*e that the+ correspond $ith the truth, and it is his fault if the+ do not. :.,. vs. Ching Po, /7 Phil. 503, 537#.W <he Angara >iar+ contains direct state*ents of petitioner $hich can be categoriBed as ad*issions of a part+% his proposal for a snap presidential election $here he $ould not be a candidateC his state*ent that he onl+ $anted the five-da+ period pro*ised b+ Chief of ,taff Angelo 'e+esC his state*ents that he $ould leave b+ =onda+ if the second envelope $ould be opened b+ =onda+ and VPagod na pagod na a;o. A+o;o na, *as+ado nang *asa;it. Pagod na a;o sa red tape, bureaucrac+, intriga. I a* ver+ tired. I donNt $ant an+ *ore of this R itNs too painful. IN* tired of the red tape, the bureaucrac+, the intrigue#. I )ust $ant to clear *+ na*e, then I $ill go.W &e noted that da+s before, petitioner had repeatedl+ declared that he $ould not resign despite the gro$ing cla*or for his resignation. <he reason for the *eltdo$n is obvious - - - his $ill not to resign has $ilted. It is, ho$ever, argued that the Angara >iar+ is not the diar+ of the petitioner, hence, non-binding on hi*. <he argu*ent overloo;s the doctrine ofadoptive ad*ission. An adoptive ad*ission is a part+Ns reaction to a state*ent or action b+ another person $hen it is reasonable to treat the part+Ns reaction as an ad*ission of so*ething stated or i*plied b+ the other person.L.7M !ones e2plains that the Vbasis for ad*issibilit+ of ad*issions *ade vicariousl+ is that arising fro* the ratification or adoption b+ the part+ of the state*ents $hich the other person had *ade.WL.1M <o use the blunt language of =ueller and Pir;patric;, Vthis process of attribution is not *u*bo )u*bo but co**on sense.WL.5M In the Angara >iar+, the options of the petitioner started to d$indle $hen the ar*ed forces $ithdre$ its support fro* hi* as President and co**ander-in-chief. <hus, E2ecutive ,ecretar+ Angara had to as; ,enate President Pi*entel to advise petitioner to consider the option of Vdignified e2it or resignation.W Petitioner did not ob)ect to the suggested option but si*pl+ said he could never leave the countr+. PetitionerNs silence on this and other related suggestions can be ta;en as an ad*ission b+ hi*.L.9M Petitioner further contends that the use of the Angara diar+ against hi* violated the rule on res inter alios acta. <he rule is e2pressed in section /3 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court, viB% V<he rights of a part+ cannot be pre)udiced b+ an act, declaration, or o*ission of another, e2cept as hereinafter provided.W Again, petitioner errs in his contention. <he res inter alios acta rule has several e2ceptions. (ne of the* is provided in section /8 of 'ule .74 $ith respect to ad*issions b+ a co-partner or agent. E2ecutive ,ecretar+ Angara as such $as an alter ego of the petitioner. "e $as the -ittle President. Indeed, he $as authoriBed b+ the petitioner to act for hi* in the critical hours and da+s before he abandoned =alacaQang Palace. <hus, according to the Angara >iar+, the petitioner told ,ecretar+ Angara% V=ula u*pisa pa lang ng ;a*pan+a, Ed, i;a$ na lang pina;i;inggan ;o. At hanggang sa huli, i;a$ pa rin.W ,ince the start of the ca*paign, Ed, +ou have been the onl+ one INve listened to. And no$ at the end, +ou still are.#WL.0M <his state*ent of full trust $as *ade b+ the petitioner after ,ecretar+ Angara briefed hi* about the progress of the first negotiation. <rue to this trust, the petitioner had to as; ,ecretar+ Angara if he $ould alread+ leave =alacaQang after ta;ing their final lunch on !anuar+ /4, /44. at about .%44 p.*. <he Angara >iar+ Fuotes the petitioner as sa+ing to ,ecretar+ Angara% Ved, ;ailangan ;o na bang u*alisH >o I have to leave no$H#WL.3M,ecretar+ Angara told hi* to go and he did. Petitioner cannot den+ that ,ecretar+ Angara headed his tea* of negotiators that *et $ith the tea* of the respondent Arro+o to discuss the peaceful and orderl+ transfer of po$er after his relinFuish*ent of the po$ers of the presidenc+. <he >iar+ sho$s that petitioner $as al$a+s briefed b+ ,ecretar+ Angara on the progress of their negotiations. ,ecretar+ Angara acted for and in behalf of the petitioner in the crucial da+s before respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President. ConseFuentl+, petitioner is bound b+ the acts and declarations of ,ecretar+ Angara. :nder our rules of evidence, ad*issions of an agent ,ecretar+ Angara# are binding on the principal petitioner#.L.8M !ones ver+ $ell e2plains thereasons for the rule, viB% V&hat is done, b+ agent, is done b+ the principal through hi*, as through a *ere instru*ent. ,o, $hatever is said b+ an agent, either in *a;ing a contract for his principal, or at the ti*e and acco*pan+ing the perfor*ance of an+ act $ithin the scope of his authorit+, having relation to, and connected $ith, and in the course of the particular contract or transaction in $hich he is then engaged, or in the language of the old $riters, du* fervet opus is, in legal effect, said b+ his principal and ad*issible in evidence against such principal.WL/4M =oreover, the ban on hearsa+ evidence does not cover independentl+ relevant state*ents. <hese are state*ents $hich are relevant independentl+ of $hether the+ are true or not. <he+ belong to t$o /# classes% .# those state*ents $hich are the ver+ facts in issue, and /# those state*ents $hich arecircu*stantial evidence of the facts in issue. <he second class includes the follo$ing%L/.M a. ,tate*ent of a person sho$ing his state of *ind, that is, his *ental condition, ;no$ledge, belief, intention, ill $ill and other e*otionsC b. ,tate*ents of a person $hich sho$ his ph+sical condition, as illness and the li;eC c. ,tate*ents of a person fro* $hich an inference *a+ be *ade as to the state of *ind of another, that is, the ;no$ledge, belief, *otive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latterC d. ,tate*ents $hich *a+ identif+ the date, place and person in FuestionC and e. ,tate*ents sho$ing the lac; of credibilit+ of a $itness. Again, !ones tells us $h+ these independentl+ relevant state*ents are not covered b+ the prohibition against hearsa+ evidence%L//M VZ .433. =ental ,tate or Condition R Proof of Pno$ledge.- <here are a nu*ber of co*on issues, for*ing a general class, in proof of $hich hearsa+ is so obviousl+ necessar+ that it is not custo*ar+ to refer to its ad*issibilit+ as b+ virtue of an+ e2ception to the general e2clusionar+ rule. Ad*issibilit+, in such cases, is as of course. For e2a*ple, $here an+ *ental state or condition is in issue, such as *otive, *alice, ;no$ledge, intent, assent or dissent, unless direct testi*on+ of

Page1

the particular person is to be ta;en as conclusive of his state of *ind, the onl+ *ethod of proof available is testi*on+ of others to the acts or state*ents of such person. &here his acts or state*ents are against his interest, the+ are plainl+ ad*issible $ithin the rules hereinabove announced as to ad*issions against interest. And even $here not against interest, if the+ are so closel+ connected $ith the event or transaction in issue as to constitute one of the ver+ facts in controvers+, the+ beco*e ad*issible of necessit+.W As aforediscussed, <he Angara >iar+ contains state*ents of the petitioner $hich reflect his state of *ind and are circu*stantial evidence of his intent to resign. It also contains state*ents of ,ecretar+ Angara fro* $hich $e can reasonabl+ deduce petitionerNs intent to resign. <he+ are ad*issible and the+ are not covered b+ the rule on hearsa+. <his has long been a Fuiet area of our la$ on evidence and petitionerNs atte*pt to fo*ent a belated te*pest cannot receive our i*pri*atur. Petitioner also contends that the rules on authentication of private $ritings and best evidence $ere violated in our >ecision, viB% V<he use of the Angara diar+ palpabl+ breached several hornboo; rules of evidence, such as the rule on authentication of private $ritingsX 222 A. 'ule on Proof of Private &ritings Eiolated <he rule governing private docu*ents as evidence $as violated. <he la$ provides that before an+ private $riting offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due e2ecution and authenticit+ *ust be proved either% a# b+ an+one $ho sa$ the docu*ent e2ecuted or $ritten, or b# b+ evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand$riting of the *a;er. 222 B. Best Evidence 'ule Infringed Clearl+, the ne$spaper reproduction is not the best evidence of the Angara diar+. It is secondar+ evidence, of dubious authenticit+. It $as ho$ever used b+ this "onorable Court $ithout proof of the unavailabilit+ of the original or duplicate original of the diar+. <he VBest Evidence 'uleW should have been applied since the contents of the diar+ are the sub)ect of inFuir+. <he rule is that, e2cept in four 1# specific instances, VL$Mhen the sub)ect of inFuir+ is the contents of a docu*ent, no evidence shall be ad*issible other than the original docu*ent itself.WL/7M PetitionerNs contention is $ithout *erit. In regard to the Best Evidence rule, the 'ules of Court provides in sections / to 1 of 'ule .74, as follo$s% V,ec. /. >ocu*entar+ evidence. R >ocu*ents as evidence consist of $ritings or an+ *aterial containing letters, $ords, nu*bers, figures or other *odes of $ritten e2pressions offered as proof of their contents. ,ec. 7. (riginal docu*ent *ust be producedC e2ceptions. R &hen the sub)ect of inFuir+ is the contents of a docu*ent, no evidence shall be ad*issible other than the original docu*ent itself, e2cept in the follo$ing cases% a# &hen the original has been lost or destro+ed, or cannot be produced in court, $ithout bad faith on the part of the offerorC b# &hen the original is in the custod+ or under the control of the part+ against $ho* the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable noticeC c# &hen the original consists of nu*erous accounts or other docu*ents $hich cannot be e2a*ined in court $ithout great loss of ti*e and the fact sought to be established fro* the* is onl+ the general result of the $holeC and d# &hen the original is a public record in the custod+ of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. ,ec. 1. (riginal of docu*ent. R a# <he original of a docu*ent is one the contents of $hich are the sub)ect of inFuir+. b# &hen a docu*ent is in t$o or *ore copies e2ecuted at or about the sa*e ti*e, $ith identical contents, all such copies are eFuall+ regarded as originals. c# &hen an entr+ is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied fro* another at or near the ti*e of the transaction, all the entries are li;e$ise eFuall+ regarded as originals.W It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but onl+ cop+ of the Angara >iar+ as published in the Philippine >ail+ InFuirer on Februar+ 1-9, /44.. In doing so, the Court, did not, ho$ever, violate the best evidence rule. &ig*ore, in his boo; on evidence, states that% VProduction of the original *a+ be dispensed $ith, in the trial courtNs discretion, $henever in the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the docu*ent and no other useful purpose $ill be served b+ reFuiring production.L/1M V2 2 2 VIn several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailabilit+ has been abandoned, for certain docu*ents in $hich ordinaril+ no real dispute arised. <his *easure is a sensible and progressive one and deserves universal adoption post, sec. ./77#. Its essential feature is that a cop+ *a+ be used unconditionall+, if the opponent has been given an opportunit+ to inspect it.W e*pahsis supplied# FranciscoNs opinion is of the sa*e tenor, viB%

Page1

V6enerall+ spea;ing, an ob)ection b+ the part+ against $ho* secondar+ evidence is sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence rule into applicationC and freFuentl+, $here secondar+ evidence has been ad*itted, the rule of e2clusion *ight have successfull+ been invo;ed if proper and ti*el+ ob)ection had been ta;en. No general rule as to the for* or *ode of ob)ecting to the ad*ission of secondar+ evidence is set forth. ,uffice it to sa+ here that the ob)ection

should be *ade in proper season R that is, $henever it appears that there is better evidence than that $hich is offered and before the secondar+ evidence has been ad*itted. <he ob)ection itself should be sufficientl+ definite to present a tangible Fuestion for the courtNs consideration.WL/5M "e adds% V,econdar+ evidence of the content of the $riting $ill be received in evidence if no ob)ection is *ade to its reception.WL/9M In regard to the authentication of private $ritings, the 'ules of Court provides in section /4 of 'ule .7/, viB% V,ec. /4. Proof of private docu*ent. R Before an+ private docu*ent offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due e2ecution and authenticit+ *ust be proved either% a# B+ an+one $ho sa$ the docu*ent e2ecuted or $rittenC or b# B+ evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand$riting of the *a;er. An+ other private docu*ent need onl+ be identified as that $hich it is clai*ed to be.W (n the rule of authentication of private $ritings, Francisco states that% VA proper foundation *ust be laid for the ad*ission of docu*entar+ evidenceC that is, the identit+ and authenticit+ of the docu*ent *ust be reasonabl+ established as a pre-reFuisite to its ad*ission. 'ou$ v. Arts, .01 Ar;. 08, /81 ,.&. 887, 5/ A.-.'. ./97, and others# "o$ever, a part+ $ho does not den+ the genuineness of a proffered instru*ent *a+ not ob)ect that it $as not properl+ identified before it $as ad*itted in evidence. ,trand v. "alverson, //4 Io$a ./09, /91 N.&. /99, .47 A.-.'. 375#.WL/0M Petitioner cites the case of ,tate prosecutors v. =uro,L/3M $hich fro$ned on reliance b+ courts on ne$spaper accounts. In that case, !udge =uro $as dis*issed fro* the service for rel+ing on a ne$spaper account in dis*issing eleven ..# cases against =rs. I*elda 'o*ualdeB =arcos. <here is a significant difference, ho$ever, bet$een the =uro case and the cases at bar. In the =uro case, !udge =uro dis*issed the cases against =rs. =arcos on the basis of a ne$spaper account $ithout affording the prosecutionW the basic opportunit+ to be heard on the *atter b+ $a+ of a $ritten co**ent or on oral argu*ent. . . this is# not onl+ a blatant denial of ele*entar+ due process to the 6overn*ent but is palpabl+ indicative of bad faith and partialit+.W In the instant cases, ho$ever, the petitioner had an opportunit+ to ob)ect to the ad*issibilit+ of the Angara >iar+ $hen he filed his =e*orandu* dated Februar+ /4, /44., 'epl+ =e*orandu* dated Februar+ //, /44., ,upple*ental =e*orandu* dated Februar+ /7, /44., and ,econd ,upple*ental *e*orandu* dated Februar+ /1, /44.. "e $as therefore not denied due process. In the $ords of &ig*ore, supra, petitioner had Vbeen given an opportunit+ to inspectW the Angara >iar+ but did not ob)ect to its ad*issibilit+. It is alread+ too late in the da+ to raise his ob)ections in an (*nibus =otion, after the Angara >iar+ has been used as evidence and a decision rendered partl+ on the basis thereof. III <e*porar+ Inabilit+ Petitioner argues that the Court *isinterpreted the *eaning of section .., Article EII, of the Constitution in that congress can onl+ decide the issue of inabilit+ $hen there is a variance of opinion bet$een a *a)orit+ of the Cabinet and the President. <he situation presents itself $hen *a)orit+ of the Cabinet deter*ines that the President is unable to governC later, the President infor*s Congress that his inabilit+ has ceased but is contradicted b+ a *a)orit+ of the *e*bers of the Cabinet. It is also urged that the presidentNs )udg*ent that he is unable to govern te*poraril+ $hich is thereafter co**unicated to the ,pea;er of the "ouse and the President of the ,enate is the political Fuestion $hich this Court cannot revie$. &e cannot sustain the petitioner. -est petitioner forgets, he hi*self *ade the sub*ission in 6.'. No. .19073 that VCongress has the ulti*ate authorit+ under the Constitution to deter*ine $hether the President is incapable of perfor*ing his functions in the *anner provided for in section .. of Article EII.WL/8M &e sustained this sub*ission and held that b+ its *an+ acts, Congress has alread+ deter*ined and dis*issed the clai* of alleged te*porar+ inabilit+ to govern proffered b+ petitioner. If petitioner no$ feels aggrieved b+ the *anner Congress e2ercised its po$er, it is incu*bent upon hi* to see; redress fro* Congress itself. <he po$er is conceded b+ the petitioner to be $ith Congress and its alleged erroneous e2ercise cannot be corrected b+ this Court. <he recognition of respondent Arro+o as our de )ure president *ade b+ Congress is unFuestionabl+ a political )udg*ent. It is significant that "ouse 'esolution No. .09 cited as the bases of its )udg*ent such factors as the VpeopleNs loss of confidence on the abilit+ of for*er President !oseph E)ercito Estrada to effectivel+ governW and the V*e*bers of the international co**unit+ had e2tended their recognition of "er E2cellenc+, 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o as President of the 'epublic of the PhilippinesW and it has a constitutional dut+ Vof fealt+ to the supre*e $ill of the people 2 2 2.W <his political )udg*ent *a+ be right or $rong but Congress is ans$erable onl+ to the people for its )udg*ent. Its $isdo* is fit to be debated before the tribunal of the people and not before a court of )ustice. Needles to state, the doctrine of separation of po$er constitutes an inseparable bar against this courtNs interposition of its po$er of )udicial revie$ to revie$ the )udg*ent of Congress re)ecting petitionerNs clai* that he is still the President, albeit on leave and that respondent Arro+o is *erel+ an acting President. Petitioner atte*pts to e2tricate hi*self fro* his sub*ission that Congress has the ulti*ate authorit+ to deter*ine his inabilit+ to govern, and $hose deter*ination is a political Fuestion b+ no$ arguing that $hether one is a de )ure or de facto President is a )udicial Fuestion. PetitionerNs change of theor+, ill disguised as it is, does not at all i*press. <he cases at bar do not present the general issue of $hether the respondent Arro+o is the de )ure or a de facto President. ,pecific issues $ere raised to the Court for resolution and $e ruled on an issue b+ issue basis. (n the issue of resignation under section 3, Article EII of the Constitution, $e held that the issue is legal and ruled that petitioner has resigned fro* office before respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President. (n the issue of inabilit+ to govern under section .., Article EII of the Constitution, $e held that the Congress has the ulti*ate authorit+ to deter*ine the Fuestion as opined b+ the petitioner hi*self and that the deter*ination of Congress is a political )udg*ent $hich this Court cannot revie$. Petitioner cannot blur these specific rulings b+ the generaliBation that $hether one is a de )ure or de facto President is a )udicial Fuestion. Petitioner no$ appears to fault Congress for its various acts e2pressed thru resolutions $hich brushed off his te*porar+ inabilit+ to govern and President-on-leave argu*ent. "e asserts that these acts of Congress should not be accorded an+ legal significance because% .# the+ are post facto and /# a declaration of presidential incapacit+ cannot be i*plied.

Page1

&e disagree. <here is nothing in section .. of Article EII of the Constitution $hich states that the declaration b+ Congress of the PresidentNs inabilit+ *ust al$a+s be a priori or before the Eice-President assu*es the presidenc+. In the cases at bar, special consideration should be given to the fact that the events $hich led to the resignation of the petitioner happened at e2press speed and cul*inated on a ,aturda+. Congress $as then not in session and had no reasonable opportunit+ to act a priori on petitionerNs letter clai*ing inabilit+ to govern. <o be sure, ho$ever, the petitioner cannot strictl+ *aintain that the President of the ,enate, the "onorable AFuilino Pi*entel, !r. and the then ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives, the "onorable Arnulfo P. Fuentebella, recogniBed respondent Arro+o as the Vconstitutional successor to the presidenc+W post facto. Petitioner hi*self states that his letter alleging his inabilit+ to govern $as Vreceived b+ the (ffice of the ,pea;er on !anuar+ /4, /44. at 3%74 A.=. and the (ffice of the ,enate at 8 P.=. of the sa*e da+.WL74M 'espondent too; her oath of office a fe$ *inutes past ./ oNcloc; in the afternoon of !anuar+ /4. Before the oath-ta;ing, ,enate President Pi*entel, !r. and ,pea;er Fuentebella had prepared a !oint ,tate*ent $hich states%L7.M V!oint ,tate*ent of ,upport and 'ecognition fro* the ,enate President and the ,pea;er (f the "ouse of 'epresentatives &e, the elected leaders of the ,enate and the "ouse of 'epresentatives, are called upon to address the constitutional crisis affecting the authorit+ of the President to effectivel+ govern our distressed nation. &e understand that the ,upre*e Court at that ti*e is issuing an en banc resolution recogniBing this political realit+. &hile $e *a+ differ on the *eans to effect a change of leadership, $e ho$ever, cannot be indifferent and *ust act resolutel+. <hus, in line $ith our s$orn dut+ to represent our people and in pursuit of our goals for peace and prosperit+ to all, $e, the ,enate President and the ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives, hereb+ declare our support and recognition to the constitutional successor to the Presidenc+. &e si*ilarl+ call on all sectors to close ran;s despite our political differences. =a+ 6od bless our nation in this period of ne$ beginnings. =abuha+ and Pilipinas at ang *a*a*a+ang Pilipino. ,gd.# AG:I-IN( PI=EN<E-, !'. ,enate President ,gd.# A'N:-F( P. F:EN<EBE--A ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentativesW <his a priori recognition b+ the President of the ,enate and the ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives of respondent Arro+o as the Vconstitutional successor to the presidenc+W $as follo$ed post facto b+ various resolutions of the ,enate and the "ouse, in effect, confir*ing this recognition. <hus, 'esolution No. .09 e2pressed V2 2 2 the support of the "ouse of 'epresentatives to the assu*ption into office b+ Eice-President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o as President of the 'epublic of the Philippines, e2tending its congratulations and e2pressing its support for her ad*inistration as a partner in the attain*ent of the nationNs goal under the Constitution.L7/M 'esolution No. 3/ of the ,enate and 'esolution No. .03 of the "ouse of 'epresentatives both confir*ed the no*ination of then ,enator <eofisto 6uingona, !r., as Eice-President.L77M It also passed 'esolution No. 37 declaring the i*peach*ent court functus officio.L71M Both "ouses sent bills to respondent Arro+o to be signed b+ her into la$ as President of the Philippines.L75M <hese acts of Congress, a priori and post facto, cannot be dis*issed as *erel+ i*plied recognitions of respondent Arro+o, as the President of the 'epublic. PetitionerNs insistence that respondent Arro+o is )ust a de facto President because said acts of Congress V 2 2 2 are *ere circu*stances of acFuiescence calculated to induce people to sub*it to respondentNs e2ercise of the po$ers of the presidenc+WL79M is a guess$or; far divorced fro* realit+ to deserve further discussion. ,i*ilarl+ $a+ off the *ar; is petitionerNs point that V$hile the Constitution has *ade Congress the national board of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections, this "onorable Court nonetheless re*ains the sole )udge in presidential and vice presidential contests.L70M "e thus postulates that Vsuch constitutional provisionL73M is indicative of the desire of the sovereign people to ;eep out of the hands of Congress Fuestions as to the legalit+ of a personNs clai* to the presidential office.WL78M ,uffice to state that the inference is illogical. Indeed, there is no roo* to resort to inference. <he Constitution clearl+ sets out the structure on ho$ vacancies and election contest in the office of the President shall be decided. <hus, section 0 of Article EII covers the instance $hen a# the President-elect fails to Fualif+, b# if a President shall not have been chosen and c# if at the beginning of the ter* of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have beco*e per*anentl+ disabled. ,ection 3 of Article EII covers the situation of the death, per*anent disabilit+, re*oval fro* office or resignation of the President. ,ection .. of Article EII covers the case $here the President trans*its to the President of the ,enate and the ,pea;er of the "ouse of 'epresentatives his $ritten declaration that he is unable to discharge the po$ers and duties of his office. In each case, the Constitution specifies the bod+ that $ill resolve the issues that *a+ arise fro* the contingenc+. In case of election contest, section 1, Article EII provides that the contests shall be resolved b+ this Court sitting en banc. In case of resignation of the President, it is not disputed that this Court has )urisdiction to decide the issue. In case of inabilit+ to govern, section .. of Article EII gives the Congress the po$er to ad)udge the issue and petitioner hi*self sub*itted this thesis $hich $as shared b+ this Court. In light of these clear provisions of the Constitution, it is inappropriate, to sa+ the least, for petitioner to *a;e inferences that si*pl+ distort their *eanings. IE I*peach*ent and Absolute I**unit+ Petitioner contends that this Court disregarded section 7 0# of Article UI of the Constitution $hich provides% V 0# !udg*ent in cases of i*peach*ent shall not e2tend further than re*oval fro* office and disFualification to hold an+ office under the 'epublic of the Philippines, but the part+ convicted should nevertheless be liable and sub)ect to prosecution, trial and punish*ent according to la$.W Petitioner reiterates the argu*ent that he *ust be first convicted in the i*peach*ent proceedings before he could be cri*inall+ prosecuted. A plain reading of the provision $ill not +ield this conclusion. <he provision conve+s t$o unco*plicated ideas% first, it tells us that )udg*ent in i*peach*ent cases has a li*ited reach. . .i.e., it cannot e2tend further

Page1

than re*oval fro* office and disFualification to hold an+ office under the 'epublic of the Philippines, and second, it tells us theconseFuence of the li*ited reach of a )udg*ent in i*peach*ent proceedings considering its nature, i.e., that the part+ convicted shall still be liable and sub)ect to prosecution, trial and punish*ent according to la$. No a*ount of *anipulation $ill )ustif+ petitionerNs non seFuitur sub*ission that the provision reFuires that his conviction in the i*peach*ent proceedings is a condition sine Fua non to his prosecution, trial and punish*ent for the offenses he is no$ facing before the respondent (*buds*an. Petitioner contends that the private and public prosecutorsN $al; out fro* the i*peach*ent proceedings Vshould be considered failure to prosecute on the part of the public and private prosecutors, and the ter*ination of the case b+ the ,enate is eFuivalent to acFuittal.WL14M "e e2plains Vfailure to prosecuteW as the Vfailure of the prosecution to prove the case, hence dis*issal on such grounds is a dis*issal on the *erits.WL1.M "e then concludes that Vdis*issal of a case for failure to prosecute a*ounts to an acFuittal for purposes of appl+ing the rule against double )eopard+.WL1/M &ithout ruling on the nature of i*peach*ent proceedings, $e re)ect petitionerNs sub*ission. <he records $ill sho$ that the prosecutors $al;ed out in the !anuar+ .9, /44. hearing of the i*peach*ent cases $hen b+ a vote of ..-.4, the ,enator-)udges refused to open the second envelope allegedl+ containing the P7.7 billion deposit of the petitioner in a secret ban; account under the na*e V !ose EelardeW. <he ne2t da+, !anuar+ .0, the public prosecutors sub*itted a letter to the ,pea;er of the "ouse tendering their resignation. <he+ also filed their =anifestation of &ithdra$al of Appearance $ith the i*peach*ent tribunal. ,enator 'aul 'oco i**ediatel+ *oved for the indefinite suspension of the i*peach*ent proceedings until the "ouse of 'epresentatives shall have resolved the resignation of the public prosecutors. <he 'oco *otion $as then granted b+ Chief !ustice >avide, !r. Before the "ouse could resolve the issue of resignation of its prosecutors or on !anuar+ /4, /44., petitioner relinFuished the presidenc+ and respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President of the 'epublic. <hus, on Februar+ 0, /44., the ,enate passed 'esolution No. 37 declaring that the i*peach*ent court is functus officio. Prescinding fro* these facts, petitioner cannot invo;e double )eopard+. >ouble )eopard+ attaches onl+% .# upon a valid co*plaintC /# before a co*petent courtC 7# after arraign*entC 1# $hen a valid plea has been enteredC and 5# $hen the defendant $as acFuitted or convicted or the case $as dis*issed or other$ise ter*inated $ithout the e2press consent of the accused.L17M Assu*ing arguendo that the first four reFuisites of double )eopard+ $ere co*plied $ith, petitioner failed to satisf+ the fifth reFuisite for he $as not acFuitted nor $as the i*peach*ent proceeding dis*issed $ithout his e2press consent. PetitionerNs clai* of double )eopard+ cannot be predicated on prior conviction for he $as not convicted b+ the i*peach*ent court. At best, his clai* of previous acFuittal *a+ be scrutiniBed in light of a violation of his right to speed+ trial, $hich a*ounts to a failure to prosecute. As Bernas points out, a failure to prosecute, $hich is $hat happens $hen the accused is not given a speed+ trial, *eans failure of the prosecution to prove the case. "ence, dis*issal on such grounds is a dis*issal on the *erits.L11M <his Court held in Es*eQa v. Pogo+L15M, viB% VIf the defendant $ants to e2ercise his constitutional right to a speed+ trial, he should as;, not for the dis*issal, but for the trial of the case. After the prosecutionNs *otion for postpone*ent of the trial is denied and upon order of the court the fiscal does not or cannot produce his evidence and, conseFuentl+ fails to prove the defendantNs guilt, the court upon defendantNs *otion shall dis*iss the case, such dis*issall a*ounting to an acFuittal of the defendant.W In a *ore recent case, this Court held% VIt is true that in an unbro;en line of cases, $e have held that the dis*issal of cases on the ground of failure to prosecute is eFuivalent to an acFuittal that $ould bar further prosecution of the accused for the sa*e offense. It *ust be stressed, ho$ever, that these dis*issals $ere predicated on the clear right of the accused to speed+ trial. <hese cases are not applicable to the petition at bench considering that the right of the private respondents to speed+ trial has not been violated b+ the ,tate. For this reason, private respondents cannot invo;e their right against double )eopard+.WL19M Petitioner did not *ove for the dis*issal of the i*peach*ent case against hi*. Even assu*ing arguendo that there $as a *ove for its dis*issal, not ever+ invocation of an accusedNs right to speed+ trial is *eritorious. &hile the Court accords due i*portance to an accusedNs right to a speed+ trial and adheres to a polic+ of speed+ ad*inistration of )ustice, this right cannot be invo;ed loosel+. :n)ustified postpone*ents $hich prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of ti*e are $hat offend the right of the accused to speed+ trial.L10M <he follo$ing provisions of the 'evised 'ules of Cri*inal Procedure are apropos% V'ule ..5, ,ection . h#. 'ights of accused at the trial. -- In all cri*inal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the follo$ing rights% h# <o have speed+, i*partial and public trial.W V'ule ..8, ,ection /. Continuous trial until ter*inatedC postpone*ents.-- <rial once co**enced shall continue fro* da+ to da+ as far as practicable until ter*inated. It *a+ be postponed for a reasonable length of ti*e for good cause. <he court shall, after consultation $ith the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a $ee;l+ or other short-ter* trial calendar at the earliest possible ti*e so as to ensure speed+ trial. In no case shall the entire trial period e2ceed one hundred eight+ .34# da+s fro* the first da+ of trial, e2cept as other$ise authoriBed b+ the ,upre*e Court.W Petitioner therefore failed to sho$ that the postpone*ent of the i*peach*ent proceedings $as un)ustified, *uch less that it $as for an unreasonable length of ti*e. 'ecalling the facts, on !anuar+ .0, /44., the i*peach*ent proceeding $as suspended until the "ouse of 'epresentatives shall have resolved the issue on the resignation of the public prosecutors. <his $as )ustified and understandable for an i*peach*ent proceeding $ithout a panel of prosecutors is a *oc;er+ of the i*peach*ent process. "o$ever, three 7# da+s fro* the suspension or !anuar+ /4, /44., petitionerNs resignation supervened. &ith the sudden turn of events, the i*peach*ent court beca*e functus officio and the proceedings $ere therefore ter*inated. B+ no stretch of the i*agination can the four-da+ period fro* the ti*e the i*peach*ent proceeding $as suspended to the da+ petitioner resigned, constitute an unreasonable period of dela+ violative of the right of the accused to speed+ trial. Nor can the clai* of double )eopard+ be grounded on the dis*issal or ter*ination of the case $ithout the e2press consent of the accused. &e reiterate that the i*peach*ent proceeding $as closed onl+ after the petitioner had resigned

Page1

fro* the presidenc+, thereb+ rendering the i*peach*ent court functus officio. B+ resigning fro* the presidenc+, petitioner *ore than consented to the ter*ination of the i*peach**ent case against hi*, for he brought about the ter*ination of the i*peach*ent proceedings. &e have consistentl+ ruled that $hen the dis*issal or ter*ination of the case is *ade at the instance of the accused, there is no double )eopard+.L13M Petitioner stubbornl+ clings to the contention that he is entitled to absolute i**unit+ fro* suit. "is argu*ents are *erel+ rec+cled and $e need not prolong the longevit+ of the debate on the sub)ect. In our >ecision, $e e2haustivel+ traced the origin of e2ecutive i**unit+ in our )urisdiction and its bends and turns up to the present ti*e. &e held that given the intent of the .830 Constitution to breathe life to the polic+ that a public office is a public trust, the petitioner, as a non-sitting President, cannot clai* e2ecutive i**unit+ for his alleged cri*inal acts co**itted $hile a sitting President. PetitionerNs rehashed argu*ents including their thinl+ disguised ne$ spins are based on the re)ected contention that he is still President, albeit, a President on leave. "is stance that his i**unit+ covers his entire ter* of office or until !une 74, /441 disregards the realit+ that he has relinFuished the presidenc+ and there is no$ a ne$ de )ure President. Petitioner goes a step further and avers that even a non-sitting President en)o+s i**unit+ fro* suit during his ter* of office. "e buttresses his position $ith the deliberations of the Constitutional Co**ission, viB% V=r. ,uareB. <han; +ou. <he last Fuestion is $ith reference to the Co**itteeNs o*itting in the draft proposal the i**unit+ provision for the President. I agree $ith Co**issioner Nolledo that the Co**ittee did ver+ $ell in stri;ing out this second sentence, at the ver+ least, of the original provision on i**unit+ fro* suit under the .807 Constitution. But $ould the Co**ittee *e*bers not agree to a restoration of at least the first sentence that the President shall be i**une fro* suit during his tenure, considering that if $e do not provide hi* that ;ind of an i**unit+, he *ight be spending all his ti*e facing litigations, as the President-in-e2ile in "a$aii is no$ facing litigations al*ost dail+H Fr. Bernas% <he reason for the o*ission is that $e consider it understood in present )urisprudence that during his tenure he is i**une fro* suit. =r. ,uareB% ,o there is no need to e2press it here. Fr. Bernas% <here is no need. It $as that $a+ before. <he onl+ innovation *ade b+ the .807 Constitution $as to *a;e that e2plicit and to add other things. =r. ,uareBC (n the understanding, I $ill not press for an+ *ore Fuer+, *ada* President. I than; the Co**issioner for the clarification.WL18M Petitioner, ho$ever, fails to distinguish bet$een ter* and tenure. <he ter* *eans the ti*e during $hich the officer *a+ clai* to hold the office as of right, and fi2es the interval after $hich the several incu*bents shall succeed one another. <he tenure represents the ter* during $hich the incu*bent actuall+ holds office. <he tenure *a+ be shorter than the ter* for reasons $ithin or be+ond the po$er of the incu*bent.L54M Fro* the deliberations, the intent of the fra*ers is clear that the i**unit+ of the president fro* suit is concurrent onl+ $ith his tenure and not his ter*. Indeed, petitionerNs stubborn stance cannot but bolster the belief that the cases at bar $ere filed not reall+ for petitioner to reclai* the presidenc+ but )ust to ta;e advantage of the i**unit+ attached to the presidenc+ and thus, derail the investigation of the cri*inal cases pending against hi* in the (ffice of the (*buds*an. E Pre)udicial Publicit+ on the (*buds*an Petitioner hangs tough on his sub*ission that his due process rights to a fair trial have been pre)udiced b+ pre-trial publicit+. In our >ecision, $e held that there is not enough evidence to sustain petitionerNs clai* of pre)udicial publicit+. :nconvinced, petitioner alleges that the vivid narration of events in our >ecision itself proves the pervasiveness of the pre)udicial publicit+. "e then posits the thesis that Vdoubtless, the national fi2ation $ith the probable guilt of petitioner fueled b+ the hate ca*paign launched b+ so*e high circulation ne$spaper and b+ the bull+ pulpit of priests and bishops left indelible i*pression on all sectors of the citiBenr+ andall regions, so harsh and so pervasive that the prosecution and the )udiciar+ can no longer assure petitioner a sporting chance.WL5.M <o be sure, petitioner engages ine2ageration $hen he alleges that Vall sectors of the citiBenr+ and all regionsW have been irrevocabl+ influenced b+ this barrage of pre)udicial publicit+. <his e2aggeration collides $ith petitionerNs clai* that he still en)o+s the support of the *a)orit+ of our people, especiall+ the *asses. Petitioner pleads that $e appl+ the doctrine of res ipsa loFuitur the thing or the transaction spea;s for itself# to support his argu*ent. :nder the res ipsa loFuitur rule in its broad sense, the fact of the occurrence of an in)ur+, ta;en $ith the surrounding circu*stances, *a+ per*it an inference or raise a presu*ption of negligence, or *a;e out a plaintiffNs pri*a facie case, and present a Fuestion of fact for defendant to *eet $ith an e2planation.L5/M It is not a rule of substantive la$ but *ore a procedural rule. Its *ere invocation does not e2e*pt the plaintiff $ith the reFuire*ent of proof to prove negligence. It *erel+ allo$s the plaintiff to present along $ith the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circu*stances to invo;e the doctrine, creating an inference or presu*ption of negligence and to thereb+ place on the defendant the burden of going for$ard $ith the proof.L57M &e hold that it is inappropriate to appl+ the rule on res ipsa loFuitur, a rule usuall+ applied onl+ in tort cases, to the cases at bar. Indeed, there is no court in the $hole $orld that has applied the res ipsa loFuitur rule to resolve the issue of pre)udicial publicit+. &e again stress that the issue before us is $hether the alleged pervasive publicit+ of the cases against the petitioner has pre)udiced the *inds of the *e*bers of the panel of investigators. &e reiterate the test $e laid do$n in People v. <eehan;ee,L51M to resolve this issue, viB% V&e cannot sustain appellantNs clai* that he $as denied the right to i*partial trial due to pre)udicial publicit+. It is true that the print and broadcast *edia gave the case at bar pervasive publicit+, )ust li;e all high profile and high sta;e cri*inal trials. <hen and no$, $e rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not inco*patible to a free press. <o be sure, responsible reporting enhances an accusedNs right to a fair trial for, as $ell pointed out , a responsible press has al$a+s been regarded as the hand*aiden of effective )udicial ad*inistration, especiall+ in the cri*inal field 2 2 2. <he press does not si*pl+ publish infor*ation about trials but guards against the *iscarriage of )ustice b+ sub)ecting the police, prosecutors, and )udicial processes to e2tensive public scrutin+ and criticis*.

Page1

Pervasive publicit+ is not per se pre)udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. <he *ere fact that the trial of appellant $as given a da+-to-da+, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not b+ itself prove that the publicit+ so per*eated the *ind of the trial )udge and i*paired his i*partialit+. For one, it is i*possible to seal the *inds of *e*bers of the bench fro* pretrial and other off-court publicit+ of sensational cri*inal cases. <he state of the art of our co**unication s+ste* brings ne$s as he+ happen straight to our brea;fast tables and right to our bedroo*s. <hese ne$s for* part of our ever+da+ *enu of the facts and fictions of life. For another, our idea of a fair and i*partial )udge is not that of a her*it $ho is out of touch $ith the $orld. &e have not installed the )ur+ s+ste* $hose *e*bers are overl+ protected fro* publicit+ lest the+ lost their i*partialit+. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2. (ur )udges are learned in the la$ and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-ca*era perfor*ances of parties to a litigation. <heir *ere e2posure to publications and publicit+ stunts does not per se fatall+ infect their i*partialit+. At best, appellant can onl+ con)ure possibilit+ of pre)udice on the part of the trial )udge due to the barrage of publicit+ that characteriBed the investigation and trial of the case. In =artelino, et al. v. Ale)andro, et al., $e re)ected this standard of possibilit+ of pre)udice and adopted the test of actual pre)udice as $e ruled that to $arrant a finding of pre)udicial publicit+, there *ust be allegation and proof that the )udges have been undul+ influenced, not si*pl+ that the+ *ight be, b+ the barrage of publicit+. In the case at bar, the records do not sho$ that the trial )udge developed actual bias against appellant as a conseFuence of the e2tensive *edia coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. <he totalit+ of circu*stances of the case does not prove that the trial )udge acFuired a fi2ed opinion as a result of pre)udicial publicit+ $hich is incapable of change even b+ evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.W Petitioner ;eeps on pounding on the adverse publicit+ against hi* but fails to prove ho$ the i*partialit+ of the panel of investigators fro* the (ffice of the (*buds*an has been infected b+ it. As $e held before and $e hold it again, petitioner has co*pletel+ failed to adduce an+ proof of actual pre)udice developed b+ the *e*bers of the Panel of Investigators. <his fact *ust be established b+ clear and convincing evidence and cannot be left to loose sur*ises and con)ectures. In fact, petitioner did not even identif+ the *e*bers of the Panel of Investigators. &e cannot replace this test of actual pre)udice $ith the rule of res ipsa loFuitur as suggested b+ the petitioner. <he latter rule assu*es that an in)ur+ i.e., pre)udicial publicit+# has been suffered and then shifts the burden to the panel of investigators to prove that the i*partialit+ of its *e*bers has been affected b+ said publicit+. ,uch a rule $ill overturn our case la$ that pervasive publicit+ is not per se pre)udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. <he cases are not $anting $here an accused has been acFuitted despite pervasive publicit+.L55M For this reason, $e continue to hold that it is not enough for petitioner to con)ure possibilit+ of pre)udice but *ust prove actual pre)udice on the part of his investigators for the Court to sustain his plea. It is plain that petitioner has failed to do so. Petitioner agains suggests that the Court should order a /-*onth cooling off period to allo$ passions to subside and hopefull+ the alleged pre)udicial publicit+ against hi* $ould die do$n. &e regret not to acFuiesce to the proposal. <here is no assurance that the so called /-*onth cooling off period $ill achieve its purpose. <he investigation of the petitioner is a natural *edia event. It is the first ti*e in our histor+ that a President $ill be investigated b+ the (ffice of the (*buds*an for alleged co**ission of heinous cri*es $hile a sitting President. "is investigation $ill even be *onitored b+ the foreign press all over the $orld in vie$ of its legal and historic significance. In other $ords, petitioner cannot avoid the ;leiglight of publicit+. But $hat is i*portant for the petitioner is that his constitutional rights are not violated in the process of investigation. For this reason, $e have $arned the respondent (*buds*an in our >ecision to conduct petitionerNs preli*inar+ investigation in a circus-free at*osphere. Petitioner is represented b+ brilliant legal *inds $ho can protect his right as an accused. EI 'ecusation Finall+, petitioner pra+s that Vthe *e*bers of this "onorable Court $ho $ent to E>,A put on record $ho the+ $ere and consider recusing or inhibiting the*selves, particularl+ those $ho had e2-parte contacts $ith those e2erting pressure on this "onorable Court, as *entioned in our =otion of =arch 8, /44., given the need for the cold neutralit+ of i*partial )udges.WL59M &e hold that the pra+er lac;s *erit. <here is no ground to inhibit the t$elve ./# *e*bers of the Court $ho *erel+ accepted the invitation of the respondent Arro+o to attend her oath ta;ing. As *ere spectators of a historic event, said *e*bers of the Court did not pre)udge the legal basis of the clai* of respondent Arro+o to the presidenc+ at the ti*e she too; her oath. Indeed, the Court in its en banc resolution on !anuar+ //, /44., the first $or;ing da+ after respondent Arro+o too; her oath as President, held in Ad*inistrative =atter No. 4.-.-45 ,C, to $it% VA.=. No. 4.-.-45-,C R In re% 'eFuest for Eice President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o to <a;e "er (ath of (ffice as President of the 'epublic of the Philippines before the Chief !ustice R Acting on the urgent reFuest of Eice President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o to be s$orn in as President of the 'epublic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief !ustice and confir*ed b+ a letter to the Court, dated !anuar+ /4, /44., $hich reFuest $as treated as an ad*inistrative *atter, the court 'esolved unani*ousl+ to confir* the authorit+ given b+ the t$elve ./# *e*bers of the Court then present to the Chief !ustice on !anuar+ /4, /44. to ad*inister the oath of office to Eice President 6loria =acapagal-Arro+o as President of the Philippines, at noon of !anuar+ /4, /44.. <his resolution is $ithout pre)udice to the disposition of an+ )usticiable case that *a+ be filed b+ a proper part+.W <he above resolution $as unani*ousl+ passed b+ the .5 *e*bers of the Court. It should be clear fro* the resolution that the Court did not treat the letter of respondent Arro+o to be ad*inistered the oath b+ Chief !ustice >avide, !r., as a case but as an ad*inistrative *atter. If it $ere considered as a case, then petitioner has reason to fear that the Court has predeter*ined the legiti*ac+ of the clai* of respondent Arro+o to the presidenc+. <o dispel the erroneous notion, the Court precisel+ treated the letter as an ad*inistrative *atter and e*phasiBed that it $as V$ithout pre)udice to the disposition of an+ )usticiable case that *a+ be filed b+ a proper part+.W In further clarification, the Court on Februar+ /4, /44. issued another resolution to infor* the parties and the public that it V222 did not issue a resolution on !anuar+ /4, /44. declaring the office of the President vacant and that neither did the Chief !ustice issue a press state*ent )ustif+ing the alleged resolution.W <hus, there is no reason for petitioner to reFuest for the said t$elve ./# )ustices to recuse the*selves. <o be sure, a *otion to inhibit filed b+ a part+ after losing his case is suspect and is regarded $ith general disfavor. =oreover, to disFualif+ an+ of the *e*bers of the Court, particularl+ a *a)orit+ of the*, is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its )urisdiction as established b+ the funda*ental la$. >isFualification of a )udge is a deprivation

Page1

of his )udicial po$er. And if that )udge is the one designated b+ the Constitution to e2ercise the )urisdiction of his court, as is the case $ith the !ustices of this Court, the deprivation of his or their )udicial po$er is eFuivalent to the deprivation of the )udicial po$er of the court itself. It affects the ver+ heart of )udicial independence.L50M <he proposed *ass disFualification, if sanctioned and ordered, $ould leave the Court no alternative but to abandon a dut+ $hich it cannot la$full+ discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire *e*bership of !ustices.L53M IN EIE& &"E'E(F, petitionerNs =otion for 'econsideration in 6.'. Nos. .190.4-.5 and his (*nibus =otion in 6.'. No. .19073 are >ENIE> for lac; of *erit. ,( ('>E'E>.

<"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE, v. !(E=A'IE CE'I--A 6.'. No. .00.10 >ECI,I(N <inga, !.% For auto*atic revie$ is the >ecision. of the Court of Appeals/ dated /9 (ctober /449 in CA-6.'. C'-"C No. 4447/ $hich affir*ed $ith *odification the >ecision7 of the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of Iloilo Cit+, Branch /7 dated .5 August /444 in Cri*inal Case No. 18954/ finding appellant !oe*arie Cerilla guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of *urder and sentencing hi* to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua. (n 9 !ul+ .883, an Infor*ation $as filed against appellant charging hi* of the cri*e of *urder co**itted as follo$s% <hat on or about April /1, .883, in the =unicipalit+ of -eganes, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, ar*ed $ith a firear* $ith deliberate intent and decided purpose to ;ill and b+ *eans of treacher+, did then and there $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ shoot Ale2ander ParreQo $ith the firear* $hich the accused $as then provided, hitting and inflicting pellet $ound at the right bac; portion of his bod+ $hich caused his death. C(N<'A'I <( -A&.1 <he prosecutionNs evidence sho$s that at around 9%44 p* on /1 April .883, the victi*, Ale2ander ParreQo Ale2ander#, his .1-+ear old daughter, =ichelle, and neighbor, Phoebe ,endin ,endin#, $ent to the house of appellant. <he+ $ere cordiall+ $elco*ed and entertained b+ appellant and his $ife.5 An hour later, a blac;out occurred. At this ti*e, Ale2ander sought per*ission fro* the couple to leave, $hich the latter ac;no$ledged.9 (n their $a+ ho*e, =ichelle $as $al;ing ahead of Ale2ander $ith the latter closel+ follo$ing his daughter. ,uddenl+, after $al;ing for about .44 *eters fro* appellantNs house, =ichelle heard an e2plosion. =ichelle i**ediatel+ turned her bac; and sa$ appellant pointing a gun at Ale2ander $ho, at that *o*ent, $as staggering to$ards her.0 ,endin, $ho $as also $ith Ale2ander and =ichelle, did not loo; bac; but instead ran a$a+ and proceeded to the house of =rs. ParreQo.3 =ean$hile, =ichelle $as cuddling Ale2ander beside the road $hen the latter repeatedl+ told her that it $as appellant $ho shot hi*.8 <$ent+ *inutes later, Ale2anderNs other daughter, Novie =ae, arrivedC she $as also told b+ Ale2ander at that *o*ent that it $as appellant $ho shot hi*..4 ,P(7 Frederic; >eFuito ,P(7 >eFuito# and other police officers rushed to the cri*e scene and helped carr+ Ale2ander to an a*bulance. ,P(7 >eFuito $as able to as; Ale2ander $ho shot hi* to $hich he ans$ered "Pato." "Pato" is an alias b+ $hich appellant is ;no$n... Ale2anderNs $ife, ,usan, $ho rushed to the hospital $as also told b+ Ale2ander that it $as appellant $ho shot hi*../ Ale2ander died the follo$ing da+..7 >r. <ito >. >oro*al, Philippine National Police *edico-legal officer, perfor*ed an autops+ on the bod+ of Ale2ander. <he autops+ report stated the cause of death to be he*orrhage secondar+ to pellet $ounds..1 <estif+ing on his report, >r. >oro*al e2plained that Ale2ander died fro* a gunshot $ound $hich penetrated the ribs and lacerated the right lobe of the liver, colon, sto*ach, duodenu*, and right ;idne+. <he entrance $ound $as located at the *iddle-bac; portion of the bod+. ,even 0# pellets $ere recovered on the *uscle of the upper and *iddle abdo*inal $all..5 <he defenseNs evidence consists of the testi*onies of appellant hi*self and of his $ife, =adoline, his stepdaughter, Franlin, P(. =anolito !avelora, P(7 Alberto ,ar*iento, and P(7 &ilson Allona. Appellant interposed alibi as his *ain defense. "e clai*ed that Ale2ander, together $ith his daughter and ,endin, had gone to his house on /1 April .883 at around 9%44 p.*. $here the+ $ere $elco*ed and offered snac;s..9<he+ $ere having a conversation $hen a blac;out occurred. Ale2ander then as;ed per*ission to leave. After the visitors had left, appellant ordered his stepdaughter Franlin to bu+ candle at the store across their house. Appellant and =adoline posted the*selves at their door$a+ holding a flashlight to light FranlinNs path. :pon FranlinNs return to the house, appellant heard an e2plosion and he i**ediatel+ closed the door. -ater, the police*en $ent to his house and told hi* that he $as a suspect in the shooting of Ale2ander and $as then brought to the police station..0 <he follo$ing da+, he $as sub)ected to paraffin test the result of $hich turned out to be negative..3 AppellantNs testi*on+ $as corroborated b+ =adoline and Franlin. P(. !avelora declared that $hen he as;ed Ale2ander $ho shot hi*, the latter did not ans$er..8 -i;e$ise, P(7 ,ar*iento and Allona stated that $hen the+ $ent to the hospital to interrogate Ale2ander, the latter could not give a definite ans$er as to $ho shot hi*./4 (n .5 August /444, the '<C found appellant guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of *urder and sentenced hi* to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua. <he dispositive portion of the decision read% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, and in the light of the facts obtaining and the )urisprudence aforecited, )udge*ent is hereb+ rendered finding the accused 6:I-<I be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of =:'>E', hereb+ sentencing the said accused to the penalt+ of 'EC-:,I(N PE'PE<:A pursuant to ,ec. 9 of 'epublic Act No. 0958L,M a*ending Article /13 of the 'evised Penal Code. <he said accused is further conde*ned to inde*nif+ the surviving heirs of the deceased, Ale2ander ParreQo, the su* of P/50,001.05 b+ $a+ of actual da*agesC the a*ount of P74,444.44 b+ $a+ of Nove*ber /3, /440

Page1

*oral da*ages and the su* of P54,444.44 b+ $a+ of death co*pensation. <he accused $ho is detained is entitled to be credited in full $ith the entire period of his preventive detention. <he !ail &arden, Iloilo 'ehabilitation Center is ordered to re*it the said accused to the National Penitentiar+ at the earliest opportunit+. ,( ('>E'E>./. <he trial court regarded the victi*Ns d+ing declaration as the *ost telling evidence pointing to appellant as the assailant.// It appreciated the presence of treacher+ in Fualif+ing the cri*e to *urder because the victi* $as unar*ed and $al;ing on his $a+

ho*e $hen he $as suddenl+ and une2pectedl+ shot fro* behind b+ appellant./7 <he trial court ruled that appellantNs alibi and denial could not prevail over the positive testi*onies of credible $itnesses./1 =oreover, it observed that appellant $as not able to prove the i*possibilit+ of his presence at the cri*e scene $hich could have proven his alibi./5 In vie$ of the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua i*posed on appellant, the case $as initiall+ elevated to this Court for revie$. "o$ever, pursuant to our ruling in People v. =ateo,/9 the case $as referred to the Court of Appeals. <he appellate court affir*ed the trial courtNs ruling but *odified the a$ard of *oral da*ages fro* <hirt+ <housand Pesos to Fift+ <housand Pesos./0 "ence, the instant appeal. In a 'esolution dated .9 !ul+ /440, the Court reFuired the parties to si*ultaneousl+ sub*it their respective supple*ental briefs if the+ so desired./3 Both parties *anifested that the+ $ould adopt their briefs filed before the appellate court./8 <hereafter, the case $as dee*ed sub*itted for decision. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testi*on+ of the prosecution@s e+e$itness, =ichelle, as $ell as the d+ing declaration of Ale2ander considering that the circu*stances under $hich the cri*e $as co**itted rendered the identification of the gun*an i*possible. <his argu*ent essentiall+ challenges the credibilit+ of the $itnesses, including the e+e$itness, $hose testi*onies $ere relied upon b+ the trial court in convicting appellant. Basic is the principle that the findings of fact of a trial court, its calibration of the testi*onies of the $itnesses and its assess*ent of the probative $eight thereof, as $ell as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. <his is because the trial court has the uniFue opportunit+ to observe the de*eanor of a $itness and is in the best position to discern $hether the+ are telling the truth. <his rule holds true especiall+ $hen the trial court@s findings have been affir*ed b+ the appellate court.74 AppellantNs authorship of the cri*e $as proven b+ the positive identification of an e+e$itness and the victi*Ns d+ing declaration. <he prosecution presented =ichelle, $ho categoricall+ identified appellant as the one $ho shot Ale2ander, viB% G% &hile +ou and +our father $ere $al;ing to$ards ho*e, did +ou re*e*ber an+thing unusual that happenedH A% Ies, =aNa*. G% &hat $as thatH A% I heard an e2plosion. G% &here $ere +ou in relation to +our father $hen +ou heard that shotH A% I $as in front of *+ >add+ and he $as at *+ bac;. G% Iou said +ou heard a shot, $hat did +ou do $hen +ou heard a shotH A% &hen I heard the shot, I turned bac; and I sa$ !oe*arie pointing to *+ >ad. C(:'<% G% &hat did he point to$ards +our >adH A% Firear*. P'(,EC:<(' PA>I--A% G% Iou said !oe*arie $as pointing a firear* to +our father. &as it LaM long or short firear*H A% About .. inches. G% After +ou sa$ !oe*arie pointing a firear* to +our father, $hat happened ne2tH A% I sa$ *+ father staggering to$ards *e and I sa$ !oe*arie Cerilla ran. G% &here $as he goingH A% =a+be to$ards his house.7. 2222 G% If this !oe*arie Cerilla is inside the Courtroo*, can +ou identif+ hi*H A% Ies, =aNa*.

=ichelleNs account of ho$ her father $as shot b+ appellant $as corroborated b+ the post-*orte* e2a*ination $hich reveals that the entrance $ound is located at the bac; of the victi*.77 In the sa*e vein, the *edico-legal e2pert concluded

Page1

G% Please point to hi*. &itness pointing to the accused !oe*arie Cerilla#.7/

that the gunshot $as fired at a close range, as evidenced b+ the presence of a po$er burn *easuring four 1# centi*eters in dia*eter surrounding the peripher+ of the $ound 71 and penetrating his internal organs.75 ,ignificantl+, the e+e$itnessNs positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the cri*e is full+ supported the victi*Ns d+ing declaration. A d+ing declaration is a state*ent *ade b+ the victi* of ho*icide, referring to the *aterial facts $hich concern the cause and circu*stances of the ;illing and $hich is uttered under a fi2ed belief that death is i*pending and is certain to follo$ i**ediatel+, or in a ver+ short ti*e, $ithout an opportunit+ of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of recover+. In other $ords, it is a state*ent *ade b+ a person after a *ortal $ound has been inflicted, under a belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause and circu*stances surrounding hisDher death.79 As an e2ception to the rule against hearsa+ evidence, a d+ing declaration or ante *orte* state*ent is evidence of the highest order and is entitled to ut*ost credence since no person a$are of his i*pending death $ould *a;e a careless and false accusation.70 It is thus ad*issible to provide the identit+ of the accused and the deceased, to sho$ the cause of death of the deceased, and the circu*stances under $hich the assault $as *ade upon hi*. <he reasons for its ad*issibilit+ is necessit+ and trust$orthiness. Necessit+, because the declarantNs death renders it i*possible his ta;ing the $itness stand, and it often happens that there is no other eFuall+ satisfactor+ proof of the cri*eC allo$ing it, therefore, prevents a failure of )ustice. And trust$orthiness, because the declaration is *ade in e2tre*it+, $hen the part+ is at the point of death and $hen ever+ *otive to falsehood is silenced and the *ind is induced b+ the *ost po$erful considerations to spea; the truth. <he la$ considers the point of death as a situation so sole*n and a$ful as creating an obligation eFual to that $hich is i*posed b+ an oath ad*inistered in court.73 (f the doctrines that authoriBe the ad*ission of special classes of hearsa+, the doctrine relating to d+ing declarations is the *ost *+stical in its theor+ and, traditionall+, a*ong the *ost arbitrar+ in its li*itations. In the :nited ,tates, the notion of the special li;elihood of truthfulness of deathbed state*ents $as $idespread long before the recognition of a general rule against hearsa+ in the earl+ .044s. Not surprisingl+, nearl+ as soon as $e find a hearsa+ rule, $e also find an e2ception for d+ing declarations.78 Four reFuisites *ust concur in order that a d+ing declaration *a+ be ad*issible, thus% first, the declaration *ust concern the cause and surrounding circu*stances of the declarant@s death. <his refers not onl+ to the facts of the assault itself, but also to *atters both before and after the assault having a direct causal connection $ith it. ,tate*ents involving the nature of the declarantNs in)ur+ or the cause of deathC those i*parting deliberation and $illfulness in the attac;, indicating the reason or *otive for the ;illingC )ustif+ing or accusing the accusedC or indicating the absence of cause for the act are ad*issible.14 ,econd, at the ti*e the declaration $as *ade, the declarant *ust be under the consciousness of an i*pending death. <he rule is that, in order to *a;e a d+ing declaration ad*issible, a fi2ed belief in inevitable and i**inent death *ust be entered b+ the declarant. It is the belief in i*pending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the d+ing declaration ad*issible. It is not necessar+ that the approaching death be presaged b+ the personal feelings of the deceased. <he test is $hether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and loo;ed on death as certainl+ i*pending.1. <hird, the declarant is co*petent as a $itness. <he rule is that $here the declarant $ould not have been a co*petent $itness had he survived, the proffered declarations $ill not be ad*issible. Accordingl+, declarations *ade b+ a child too +oung to be a co*petent $itness or b+ a person $ho $as insane or incapable of understanding his o$n state*ents b+ reason of partial unconsciousness are not ad*issible in evidence.1/ <hus, in the absence of evidence sho$ing that the declarant could not have been co*petent to be a $itness had he survived, the presu*ption *ust be sustained that he $ould have been co*petent.17 Fourth, the declaration *ust be offered in a cri*inal case for ho*icide, *urder, or parricide, in $hich the declarant is the victi*.11 Anent this reFuisite, the sa*e deserves no further elaboration as, in fact, the prosecution had caused its $itnesses to ta;e the stand and testif+ in open court on the substance of Ale2anderNs ante *orte* state*ent in the present cri*inal case for *urder. <he victi* co**unicated his ante-*orte* state*ent to three persons $ho testified $ith unani*it+ that the+ had been told b+ the victi* hi*self that it $as appellant $ho shot hi*. =ichelle recounted% G% Iou said +our father *oved to$ards +ou, $hat happened ne2tH A% I approached *+ father and cuddled hi*. G% &hat happened ne2tH A% &hile I $as cuddling *+ father he said, ">a+, it $as !oe*arie $ho shot *e." G% "o$ *an+ ti*e he said he $as shotH A% Not once but about .4 ti*es.15 ,hortl+ thereafter, Novie =ae arrived and $as told b+ Ale2ander that it $as appellant $ho opened fire at hi*% G% &hen +ou reached Confessor ,treet, $hat happenedH A% I sa$ that *+ elder sister $as assisting *+ father. C(:'<% G% &hatNs the na*e of +our sisterH A% =ichelle. C(:'<% Proceed. FI,CA-% G% &hen +ou sa$ +our sister =ichelle assisting +our father, $hat LsicM happened ne2tH

Page1

A% And I i**ediatel+ $ent near *+ father and as;ed hi* $ho shot hi* and he ans$ered it $as !oe*arie Cerilla $ho shot hi*. G% Before +ou reached +our father, did +ou observe his ph+sical appearance of $hat happened to hi*H A% Ies, =aNa*, he $as supporting $ith his ar* and $hen I as;ed hi* he still *ade a response. G% Iou said LthatM before +ou approached +our fatherL,M +ou sa$ hi* supporting his bod+, $hat $as his position at that ti*eH A% "e $as in a position of l+ing $ith his hand on the road and *+ sister $as assisting hi*. 222 G% &ere +ou able to observe $h+ +our father $as sitting on the ground and supporting hi*self not to fall. A% Ies, =aNa*. G% &h+, LsicM $hat did +ou observeH A% =+ father $as supporting hi*self in order that blood $ill not LooBeM fro* his bod+ and his bod+ $ill not fall do$n.19 ,P(7 >eFuito, $ho responded i**ediatel+ to the cri*e scene, corroborated the testi*onies of the Ale2anderNs children, to $it% G% ,o, $hat did +ou do $hen +ou arrived at the cri*e sceneH A% &e advised the group to carr+ =r. ParreQo to the a*bulance because the a*bulance $as on the $a+ and after our *obile arrived, the a*bulance arrived also LsicM so $e carried =r. ParreQo to be brought to the hospital. C(:'<% G% =eaning +ou loaded the victi* into the a*bulanceH A% Ies, Iour "onor. G% And after he $as loaded, $hat did +ou doH A% Before the a*bulance left the area, I Fuestioned the victi* $ho shot hi* and he ans$ered Alias "Pato." I a* referring to !oe*arie Cerilla, the accused. G% <he accused Cerilla, Alias "Pato"H A% Ies, Iour "onor. P'(,EC:<('% G% Can +ou re*e*ber the e2act $ords uttered b+ the victi* $hen +ou as;ed hi* $ho shot hi*H A% "e ans$ered *e that% I Fuestioned hi*, "&ho shot +ouH" and he ans$ered that it $as Cerilla and I further as;ed hi* "<he husband of =adoline" and he ans$ered "Ies, Alias "Pato", the husband of =adoline.10 -i;e$ise, Ale2anderNs $ife, ,onia, testified% G% Iou said fro* +our house $hen +ou $ere told b+ the girls that +our husband $as shot, $hat did +ou doH A% I loo;ed for a ta2i and proceeded to the hospital. 222 G% &hen +ou arrived at the hospital, $here did +ou go firstH A% <o *+ husband. 222 G% &hen +ou reached that hospital and +our o$n *other led +ou to $here Ale2ander $as, in $hat part of the hospital did +ou first see hi*. A% (utside the operating roo*. G% &hat $as the situation of +our husband $hen +ou first sa$ hi*H A% "e $as leaning on his side and *an+ nurses attending to hi* and sa+ing "aragu+." 222 G% Bet$een +ou and +our husband $ho spo;e firstH A% =+ husband. G% &hat $ere the e2act $ords stated b+ +our husbandH A% "e told *e that it $as !oe*arie $ho shot hi*.13 <hese state*ents co*pl+ $ith all the reFuisites of a d+ing declaration. First, Ale2anderNs declaration pertains to the identit+ of the person $ho shot hi*. ,econd, the fatal Fualit+ and e2tent of the in)uries18 he suffered underscore the i**inence of his death as his condition $as so serious that his de*ise occurred the follo$ing *orning after a thirteen .7#hour operation. <hird, he $ould have been co*petent to testif+ had he survived. Fourth, his d+ing declaration is offered in a cri*inal prosecution for *urder $here he $as the victi*.

Page1

(ther police officers $ere presented b+ the defense to refute the d+ing declaration. P(. !avelora alleged that he happened to pass b+ the cri*e scene and sa$ a +oung girl cr+ing. <he girl led hi* to her father $ho $as sitting on the roadside. "e as;ed the victi* $ho shot hi* but he did not get an+ repl+.54 P(7 Allona and ,ar*iento arrived at the hospital and Fuestioned Ale2ander as to $ho shot hi* but the latter told the*, "I a* not sure because it $as dar;."5. <hese state*ents cannot be construed as a categorical state*ent of the victi* den+ing ;no$ledge as to the identit+ of his assailant. It can be recalled that at the ti*e Ale2ander $as being Fuestioned, he $as alread+ being readied for surger+. At that point, he $as understandabl+ no longer fit to respond to Fuestions. Bet$een these t$o see*ingl+ conflicting testi*onies, it is the positive identification *ade b+ Ale2ander in his d+ing declaration $hich *ust be sustained. Appellant insists that there $as an inherent i*possibilit+ in identif+ing the assailant $ith clarit+ since there $as a po$er blac;out at the ti*e of the co**ission of the cri*e and $as then a *oonless night. <he fact that the cri*e $as co**itted during a blac;out does not cast doubt on Ale2anderNs and =ichelleNs positive identification of appellant. &hile the place of occurrence $as dar;, this did not prevent the Ale2ander or =ichelle fro* identif+ing the assailant, especiall+ since the shot $as delivered at close range. In dis*issing appellantNs contention, the trial court rationaliBed% 2 2 2 <his argu*ent deserves scant consideration. In the case of People v. "illado, 6.'. No. .//373L,M pro*ulgated on =a+ /1, .888L,M citing the case of People v. (liano, "visibilit+ at nightti*e is possible not onl+ at the e2act *inute and date $hen the *oon is full as indicated in the calendar. <hus, a personNs nocturnal e+esight, is not necessaril+ di*inished )ust because there is no illu*ination fro* the *oon, because it is a fact that our e+es can actuall+ ad)ust to the dar;ness so that $e can still see ob)ects clearl+ even $ithout sufficient lighting. In the case at bar, it $ould not be so hard for =ichelle to identif+ a personNs fact especiall+ if the latter R as in the present case R $as barel+ t$o /# ar*s length a$a+ fro* the* $hich is confir*ed b+ the presence of gunpo$der nitrates on the bod+ of the victi*. &e stress, that the nor*al reaction of the person is to direct his sight to$ards the source of a startling LshotM or occurrence. As held in People v. >olar, the *ost natural reaction of the victi*s in cri*inal violence is to strive to see the loo;s and faces of their assailants and to observe the *anner in $hich the cri*e is co**itted. Added to this is the fact that the accused !oe*arie Cerilla and the victi* Ale2ander ParreQo have ;no$n each other Fuite $ell before the incident so that the+ beca*e fa*iliar $ith each otherNs face and ph+sical features. 2 2 2 5/ =oreover, the prosecution $itnesses $ere not sho$n to be i*pelled b+ ill *otive to testif+ falsel+ against appellant. Besides, ,usan, =ichelle and Novie =ae, being i**ediate relatives of the deceased, $ould naturall+ be interested in having the real culprit punished.57 <he positive identification of appellant *ust necessaril+ prevail over his alibi.51 It $as not ph+sicall+ i*possible for appellant to have been present at the scene of the cri*e at the ti*e of its co**ission. <he distance of his house, $here he supposedl+ $as, fro* the locus cri*inis is onl+ ./4-.54 *eters, *ore or less.55 Appellant counters that there $as absence of an+ *otive on his part to ;ill the victi*C that it $as not clearl+ proven that he fired a gun, based on the paraffin testC and that he appeared cal* and co*posed and sho$ed no indication of guilt $hen he $as invited b+ the police officers shortl+ after the co**ission of the cri*e. <i*e and again, $e have ruled that a negative finding on paraffin test is not a conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun because it is possible for a person to fire a gun and +et bear no traces of nitrates or gunpo$der, as $hen the culprit $ashes his hands or $ears gloves.59<he trial court correctl+ re)ected the result of the paraffin test in light of the positive identification of appellant. <he trial court held that the ;illing $as Fualified b+ treacher+ because Ale2ander, $ho $as unar*ed, $as suddenl+ and une2pectedl+ shot fro* behind b+ appellant $ithout an+ ris; to the latter fro* an+ defense $hich the for*er *ight *a;e. <here $as no opportunit+ given to Ale2ander to repel the assault or offer an+ defense of his person. <here $as not the slightest provocation on his part.50 &e agree $ith the findings of the trial court. <he presence of treacher+ $as evident in the e2ecution of the cri*e. Appellant suddenl+, and $ithout $arning, shot Ale2ander fro* his bac;. :nder Article /13 of the 'evised Penal Code, as a*ended b+ 'epublic Act No. 0958, *urder is punishable $ith reclusion perpetua to death. Because the ;illing of Ale2ander, although Fualified b+ treacher+, $as not attended b+ an+ other aggravating circu*stance, the proper i*posable penalt+ is reclusion perpetua. &e dee* it proper to further i*pose e2e*plar+ da*ages in the a*ount of P/5,444.44 $hich is recoverable in the presence of an aggravating circu*stance, $hether Fualif+ing or ordinar+, in the co**ission of the cri*e.53 &"E'EF('E, the >ecision of the Court of Appeals dated /9 (ctober /449, affir*ing $ith *odification the 'egional <rial Court !udg*ent dated .5 August /444 finding appellant, !oe*ari Cerilla, guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of *urder, is AFFI'=E> $ith the =(>IFICA<I(N that appellant is further ordered to pa+ the heirs of Ale2ander ParreQo P/5,444.44 as e2e*plar+ da*ages. ,( ('>E'E>.

6.'. No. .07943

Nove*ber /4, /443

!E,:, 6E'A->( and A=A>( A'IA<E, petitioners vs. PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, respondent. >ECI,I(N CA'PI( =('A-E,, !.%

Page1

Petitioners !esus 6eraldo and A*ado Ariate $ere, b+ Infor*ation dated >ece*ber /7, /44/ filed on >ece*ber /0, /44/ before the 'egional <rial Court of ,urigao del ,ur, charged $ith "o*icide allegedl+ co**itted as follo$s%

2 2 2 L(Mn the .st da+ of !ul+, /44/ at about 7%44 o@cloc; earl+ *orning, *ore or less, at ,itio <inago, Baranga+ Bunga, *unicipalit+ of -anuBa, province of ,urigao del ,ur, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, conspiring and *utuall+ helping one another, ar*ed $ith 222 handguns and $ith intent to ;ill, did, then and there, $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ shoLoMt one A'<":' :.. '(NG:I--(, thereb+ hitting and inflicting upon the latter $ounds described hereunder% P(IN< (F EN<'I% .. 'ight lu*bar area /. 'ight iliac area P(IN< (F EUI< .. -eft lateral area of abdo*en /. 'ight h+pogastric area $hich $ounds have caused the instantaneous death of said A'<":' :. '(NG:I--(, to the da*age and pre)udice of his heirs in the follo$ing a*ount% P54,444.44 .4,444.44 .4,444.44 14,444.44 as life inde*nit+ of the victi*C as *oral da*agesC as e2e*plar+ da*agesC and as actual da*ages.

C(N<'A'I <( -A&./ At 7%44 a.*. of !ul+ ., /44/, his $ife, daughter =irasol, and son Arnel, a*ong other persons, on being infor*ed of the shooting of Arthur 'onFuillo the victi*#, repaired to $here he $as, not far fro* his residence, and found hi* l+ing on his side and $ounded. Although gasping for breath, he $as able to utter to =irasol, $ithin the hearing distance of Arnel, that he $as shot b+ Bad)ing7 and A*ado. Petitioners $ho $ere suspected to be the "Bad)ing" and "A*ado" responsible for the shooting of the victi* $ere sub)ected to paraffin tests at the Philippine National Police PNP# Cri*e -aborator+ in Butuan Cit+. In the PNP Che*istr+ 'eport No. C-44/-/44/-,>,,1 the follo$ing data are reflected% 2222 <I=E AN> >A<E 'ECEIEE> 'EG:E,<IN6 PA'<ID:NI< -anuBa Police ,tation -anuBa, ,urigao del ,ur ,PECI=EN ,:B=I<<E> % % % ..45" 47 !ul+ /44/ Chief of Police

Paraffin casts ta;en fro* the left and the right hands of the follo$ing na*ed living persons% A B b b !esus 6eraldo !r. alias Ba)ing A*ado Ariate

D2D2D2D D2D2D2D P:'P(,E (F -AB('A<('I EUA=INA<I(N <o deter*ine the presence of gunpo$der residue, Nitrates. D2D2D2D FIN>IN6,% Gualitative e2a*ination conducted on speci*ens A and B gave NE6A<IEE results for po$der residue, Nitrates. D2D2D2D C(NC-:,I(N% ,peci*ens A and B do not reveal the presence of gunpo$der residue, Nitrates. D2D2D2D 'E=A'P,% <he original cop+ of this report is retained in this laborator+ for future reference. <I=E AN> >A<E C(=P-E<E>% .044" 47 !ul+ /44/ 2 2 2 2 :nderscoring supplied# In a docu*ent dated !ul+ ., /44/ and deno*inated as "Affidavit"5 $hich $as subscribed and s$orn to before Cler; of Court II =anuel A. Balasa, ,r. on !ul+ /9, /44/, the victi*@s son Arnel gave a state*ent in a Fuestion and ans$er st+le that herein petitioners !esus 6eraldo and A*ado Ariate $ere the ones $ho shot his father.

Page1

In another docu*ent dated !ul+ 1, /44/ also deno*inated as "Affidavit"9 $hich $as subscribed and s$orn to also before the sa*e Cler; of Court II Balasa on !ul+ /9, /44/, =irasol also gave a state*ent in a Fuestion and ans$er st+le that her father uttered that herein petitioners shot hi*.

At the $itness stand, =irasol echoed her father@s declaration that "Bad)ing" and "A*ado" shot hi*. Arnel substantiall+ corroborated =irasol@s state*ent.0 :pon the other hand, petitioners gave their side of the case as follo$s% Petitioner Ariate, a baranga+ tanod of Bunga, declared that Baranga+ Paga$ad (*bo+ 'oB 'oB# $o;e hi* up at 7%44 a.*. of !ul+ ., /44/ and infor*ed hi* that the victi* $as shot. "e and 'oB thus borro$ed a tric+cle, proceeded to the cri*e scene and, along $ith others, brought the victi* to the hospital $here he $as pronounced dead on arrival. Ariate sub*itted hi*self to a paraffin test and tested negative for gunpo$der residueDnitrates.3 Petitioner 6eraldo declared that he slept in his house located also in Baranga+ Bunga, -anuBa at 8%74 p.*. of !une 74, /44/ and $o;e up at 1%44 a.*. the follo$ing da+. At 9%74 a.*., on seeing *an+ people in the vicinit+ of the 15-*eter a$a+ house of one !osita Bongabong $here the victi*@s bod+ $as found, he inFuired and learned that the victi* $as shot. Police*en subseFuentl+ $ent to his house and advised hi* to ta;e a paraffin test. "e obliged and $as tested at the PNP Cri*e -aborator+ and $as found negative for gunpo$der residueDnitrates.8 In the course of the testi*on+ of Ariate, his counsel presented the PNP Che*istr+ 'eport reflecting the negative results of the paraffin test on hi* and 6eraldo. <he trial court restrained the presentation of the docu*ent, ho$ever, as reflected in the follo$ing transcript of stenographic notes ta;en on =arch /., /447% 2222 G I a* sho$ing to +ou LAriateM a cop+ of the result of the paraffin test attached to the record of this case. C(:'< Is it covered in the Pre-trial (rderH Iou cannot do that. <hat is $h+ I told +ouC la+ +our cards on the table. A<<I. A:KA =a+ I as; for the court@s reconsideration. C(:'< >enied. I a* $arning +ou, all of +ou. A<<I. A:KA &ith the denial of our *otion for reconsideration, I *ove to tender e2clusive evidence. "e $ould have identified this result. <he paraffin test, $hich Lfor*sM part of the affidavit of this $itness attached to the record of this case on page /8. =a+ I as; that this $ill be *ar;ed as E2hibit "7" for the defense. C(:'< =ar; it. =ar;ed#..4 :nderscoring supplied# As sho$n fro* the above-Fuoted transcript of the proceedings, the trial court restrained the presentation of the result of the paraffin tests because the sa*e $as not covered in the Pre-trial (rder. In the Pre-trial (rder,.. the trial court noted the parties@ agree*ent "that $itnesses not listed in this Pre-trial (rder shall not be allo$ed to testif+ as additional $itnesses." ,ignificantl+, there $as no agree*ent to disallo$ the presentation of docu*ents $hich $ere not reflected in the Pre-trial (rders. At all events, oddl+, the trial court allo$ed the *ar;ing of the PNP Che*istr+ 'eport as E2hibit "7."./ &hen petitioner 6eraldo@s turn to present the sa*e PNP Che*istr+ 'eport ca*e, the trial court ruled% C(:'< <hat is the proble* in the Pre-<rial Brief if the e2hibits are not stated. I $ill set aside that (rder and in the interest of )ustice I $ill allo$ the accused to sub*it, ne2t ti*e I $ill not an+ *ore consider e2hibits not listed in the Pre-trial (rder..7 :nderscoring supplied# <he version of the defense $as in part corroborated b+ $itnesses. <he trial court, passing on the de*eanor of prosecution $itness-the victi*@s eight-+ear old daughter =irasol, observed% . . . ,he tal;s straightfor$ard, coherent and clear, ver+ intelligent, $ith child *anneris*LsM. &hile testif+ing she $as criss-crossing her hands, touching an+thing $ithin her reach, innocent and si*ple, pressing ofLfM and on her sto*ach but she tal;s $ith correct gra**ar. No doubt, this Court $as convinced of her testi*on+ $hich $as corroborated b+ her brother Arnel 'onFuillo..1 (n the nature and $eight of the d+ing declaration of the victi*, the trial court observed% A d+ing declaration *a+ be 222 oral or in $riting. As a general rule, a d+ing declaration to be ad*issible *ust be *ade b+ the declarant $hile he is conscious of his i*pending death. "o$ever, even if a declarant did not *a;e a state*ent that he $as on the brin; of death, the degree and seriousness of the $ound and the fact that death supervened shortl+ after$ards *a+ be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration $as *ade b+ the victi* $ith full realiBation that he $as in a d+ing conditionC People vs. Ebrada, /89 ,C'A 757. Even assu*ing that the declaration is not ad*issible as a d+ing declaration, it is still ad*issible as part of the res gestae since it $as *ade shortl+ after the startling occurrence and under the influence thereof, hence, under the circu*stances, the victi* evidentl+ had no opportunit+ to contrive..5 :nderscoring supplied# Finding for the prosecution, the trial court convicted petitioners, disposing as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, finding the accused !E,:, 6E'A->( + C:BE'( and A=A>( A'IA<E + >I(NA->( guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of "o*icide penaliBed under Article /18 of the 'evised Penal Code and $ith the presence of one .# aggravating circu*stance of night ti*e and appl+ing the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$, the *a2i*u* ter* of $hich could be properl+ i*posed under the rules of said code and the *ini*u* $hich shall be $ithin the range of the penalt+ ne2t lo$er to that prescribeLdM b+ the code for the offense, hereb+ sentences each to suffer the penalt+ of <EN .4# IEA', and

Page1

(NE .# >AI of Prision =a+or *ini*u* to ,EEEN<EEN .0# IEA',, F(:' 1# =(N<", and (NE .# >AI of 'eclusion <e*poral *a2i*u* as *a2i*u*, $ith all the accessor+ penalties provided for b+ la$. <o pa+ the heirs of the victi* the a*ount of P54,444.44 as life inde*nit+, P.44,444.44 as *oral da*ages and P/4,444.44 as e2e*plar+ da*ages. <he clai* for actual da*ages is denied, there being no evidence to support the sa*e. <he bail bond put up b+ the accused !esus 6eraldo and A*ado Ariate are ordered cancelled and to pa+ the cost. ,( ('>E'E>..9 :nderscoring supplied# <he Court of Appeals, b+ >ecision of !une 74, /449,.0 affir*ed $ith *odification the trial court@s decision. It found that the trial court erred in appreciating nocturnit+ as an aggravating circu*stance. And it reduced the a$ard of *oral da*ages.3 to P54,444, and deleted the a$ard of e2e*plar+ da*ages. <hus the Court of Appeals disposed% &"E'EF('E, in vie$ of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereb+ AFFI'=E> save for the *odification of the penalt+ i*posed. Accordingl+, accused-appellants are each hereb+ sentenced to suffer an indeter*inate penalt+ of Eight 3# +ears, Five 5# =onths and (ne .# >a+ of prision *a+or *ediu* as *ini*u*, to ,eventeen .0# Iears and Four 1# =onths of reclusion te*poral*ediu* as *a2i*u*, $ith all accessor+ penalties provided b+ la$, and to )ointl+ and solidaril+ pa+ the heirs of the victi* the a*ount of P54,444.44 as inde*nit+ and P54,444.44 as *oral da*ages. ,( ('>E'E>..8 Italics in the original# "ence, the present Petition/4 raising the follo$ing issues% I &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E I>EN<I<LIE,M (F <"E ACC:,E>-APPE--AN<, A, <"E A--E6E> A,,AI-AN< "A, BEEN A>EG:A<E-I E,<AB-I,"E> A, PE' EEI>ENCE (N 'EC('>H II &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E I>EN<I<LIE,M (F <"E ACC:,E>-APPE--AN<, "A> BEEN E,<AB-I,"E> BI P'((F BEI(N> 'EA,(NAB-E >(:B<H/. E*phasis and underscoring supplied# Petitioners argue% &ith due respect, herein petitioners disagree $ith the holding of the "onorable Court of Appeals that "It is not necessar+ that the victi* further identif+ that "Bad)ing" $as in fact !esus 6eraldo or that "A*ado" $as A*ado Ariate" because, Lso petitioners contendM, it is the obligation of the prosecution to establish $ith *oral certaint+ that indeed the persons the+ identified as the as the assailant of Arthur (. 'onFuillo $ere reall+ the ones $ho perpetrated the cri*e. Ad*ittedl+, prosecution $itnesses $ere able to identif+ positivel+ herein petitioners as the alleged assailantLsM of Arthur (. 'onFuillo. But said identification is based on the assu*ption that the+ $ere the ver+ sa*e "BA>!IN6 A=A>(" andDor "BA>!IN6 AN> A=A>(" referred to b+ their deceased father in his d+ing declaration. &hat the "onorable Court of Appeals failed to consider is that, )ust because the victi* declared that it $as "BA>!IN6 A=A>(" andDor "BA>!IN6 AN> A=A>(" $ho shot hi* does not necessaril+ follo$ that herein petitioners $ere reall+ the perpetrators in the absence of proof that the "BA>!IN6" referred to b+ hi* is !esus 6eraldo and that the "A=A>(" is A*ado Ariate. It $ould have been a different stor+ had the prosecution $itnesses LbeenM e+e$itnesses because proof that the "BA>!IN6 A=A>(" andDor "BA>!IN6 AN> A=A>(" referred to b+ the victi* and the persons identified b+ the prosecution $itnesses are the sa*e is unnecessar+. "erein petitioners believe, that even assu*ing that there are no other "BA>!IN6" or "A=A>(" in the baranga+, still it does not follo$ that the personLsM referred to b+ the d+ing declarant as his assailant $ere !esus 6eraldo alias "BA>!IN6" and A*ado Ariate alias "A=A>(". Although, it is inconceivable ho$ the "onorable Court of Appeals arrived at the said conclusion that there are no other "BA>!IN6 A=A>(" andDor "BA>!IN6 AN> A=A>(" in the baranga+ absent an+ proof to that effect fro* the prosecution.// :nderscoring in the original# <he petition is i*pressed $ith *erit. <he trial court relied on the d+ing declaration of the victi* as recounted b+ his daughter =irasol and corroborated b+ his son Arnel. A d+ing declaration is ad*issible as evidence if the follo$ing circu*stances are present% a# it concerns the cause and the surrounding circu*stances of the declarant@s deathC b# it is *ade $hen death appears to be i**inent and the declarant is under a consciousness of i*pending deathC c# the declarant $ould have been co*petent to testif+ had he or she survivedC and d# the d+ing declaration is offered in a case in $hich the sub)ect of inFuir+ involves the declarant@s death./7 <here is no dispute that the victi*@s utterance to his children related to the identities of his assailants. As for the victi*@s consciousness of i*pending death, it is not necessar+ to prove that he stated that he $as at the brin; of deathC it suffices that, )udging fro* the nature and e2tent of his in)uries, the seriousness of his condition $as so apparent to hi* that it *a+ safel+ be inferred that such ante *orte* declaration $as *ade under consciousness of an i*pending death./1 <he location of the victi*@s t$o gunshot $ounds, his gasping for breath, and his eventual death before arriving at the hospital *eet this reFuire*ent./5 It has not been established, ho$ever, that the victi* $ould have been co*petent to testif+ had he survived the attac;. <here is no sho$ing that he had the opportunit+ to see his assailant. A*ong other things, there is no indication $hether he $as shot in front, the post-*orte* e2a*ination report having *erel+ stated that the points of entr+ of the $ounds $ere at the "right lu*bar area" and the "right iliac area."/9 "-u*bar" *a+ refer to "the loins" or "the group of vertebrae l+ing bet$een the thoracic vertebrae and the sacru*,"/0 or to "the region of the abdo*en l+ing on either side of the u*bilical region and above the corresponding iguinal."/3 "Iliac" relates to the "iliu*," $hich is "one of the three bones co*posing either lateral half of the pelvis being in *an broad and e2panded above and narro$er belo$ $here it )oins $ith the ischiu* and pubis to for* part of the actabulu*."/8 At all events, even if the victi*@s d+ing declaration $ere ad*issible in evidence, it *ust identif+ the assailant $ith certaint+C other$ise it loses its significance.74

Page1

In convicting petitioners, the trial court, as stated earlier, relied on the testi*on+ of the victi*@s daughter =irasol, $hich $as corroborated b+ her brother Arnel, that the "Bad)ing" and "A*ado" *entioned b+ the victi* as his assailants are herein petitioners $ho* the+ clai*ed to ;no$ because the+ live in the sa*e baranga+.7. <he Court of Appeals believed too the siblings@ testi*onies, holding that It is not necessar+ that the victi* further identif+ that "Bad)ing" $as in fact !esus 6eraldo or that "A*ado" $as A*ado Ariate. <here $as never an issue as to the identit+ of the accused. <here $as no other person ;no$n as "Bad)ing" or "A*ado" in their neighborhood or in their baranga+.Accused-appellants never presented an+ proof that a person in their localit+ had the sa*e aliases or na*es as the+. It is not unco**on that even an eight-+ear-old child can identif+ that !esus 6eraldo $as ;no$n as "Bad)ing" and that A*ado Ariate $as "A*ado."7/ :nderscoring supplied# Contrar+, ho$ever, to the i**ediatel+-Fuoted ruling of the appellate court, it is the prosecution, not petitioners, $hich had the burden of proving that petitioners $ere, at the *aterial ti*e, the onl+ ones in the baranga+ $ho bore such nic;na*es or aliases. <his, the prosecution failed to discharge. &hen there is doubt on the identit+ of the *alefactors, *otive is essential for their conviction.77 <he Court notes that in their affidavits supporting the cri*inal co*plaint, the victi*@s $ife and children =irasol and Arnel proffered not ;no$ing an+ possible *otive for petitioners to shoot the victi*.71 At the trial, no evidence of an+ *otive $as presented b+ the prosecution. Petitioners@ defense of denial and alibi thus assu*es i*portance. ,pecificall+ $ith respect to petitioner Ariate, the victi*@s $ife ad*itted that Ariate acco*panied her fa*il+ in bringing the victi* to the hospital.75 &hile non-flight does not necessaril+ indicate innocence, under the circu*stances obtaining in the present case, Ariate@s spontaneous gesture of i**ediatel+ e2tending assistance to the victi* after he $as advised b+ the Baranga+ Paga$ad of the victi*@s fate raises reasonable doubt as to his guilt of the cri*e charged.79 &"E'EF('E, the petition is 6'AN<E>. <he >ecision of the Court of Appeals dated !une 74, /449 affir*ing $ith *odification the >ecision of Branch 1. of the ,urigao del ,ur 'egional <rial Court is'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E. Petitioners !esus 6eraldo and A*ado Ariate are ACG:I<<E> of the charge of "o*icide for failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. -et a cop+ of this >ecision be furnished the >irector of the Bureau of Corrections, =untinlupa Cit+ $ho is directed to cause the i**ediate release of petitioners unless the+ are being la$full+ held for another cause, and to infor* this Court of action ta;en $ithin ten .4# da+s fro* notice hereof. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. ..5984 Februar+ /4, .889

PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 'EI ,A-I,(N, !'.,[ <I',( AN>IEN<E, ':FIN( >I6NA'AN and -E(NI-( FE>I-E,, accused. 'EI ,A-I,(N, !'., accused-appellant. >ECI,I(N 'E6A-A>(, !.% Accused-appellant 'e+ ,alison, !r., alias "-olo+," appeals fro* a )udg*ent in Cri*inal Case No. /.345-8. of the 'egional <rial Court of >avao Cit+, Branch .9, $hich i*posed upon hi* the penalt+ of relusion perpetua for the *urder of one 'olando Eal*oria. <he infor*ation filed against appellant and the co-accused <irso Andiente, alias ",ano"C 'ufino >ignaran, alias "!ong)ong"C and -eonilo Fediles, alias "(ndo+," alleges% <hat on Nove*ber 74, .884 in the Cit+ of >avao, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-*entioned accused, confederating and *utuall+ helping one another, $ith abuse of superior strength and $ith intent to ;ill, $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ *auled and pu**eled $ith hard $ood one 'olando Eal*oria. ,erious and fatal in)uries $ere inflicted $hich subseFuentl+ caused the death of 'olando Eal*oria on >ece*ber 1, .884.. :pon arraign*ent, appellant 'e+ ,alison, !r., assisted b+ counsel de officio, entered a plea of "not guilt+."/ <rial then proceeded onl+ against hi*, because his three other co-accused $ere and, still are, at large. (n Nove*ber /9, .887, the trial court rendered a decision $ith the follo$ing decretal portion% &"E'EF('E, finding the accused 'e+ ,alison guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of =:'>E' punishable under Article /13 of the 'evised Penal Code, $ith no *odif+ing circu*stance present, the Court has no other alternative but to i*pose the proper penalt+ of "reclusion perpetua", the sa*e being the *ediu* period $ithin the range of the penalt+ i*posable and to pa+ the cost s#C to inde*nif+ the offended part+ in# the a*ount of P54,444.44 as co*pensator+ da*ages and P0,/04.04 as actual da*ages. 7 Corrections in parentheses ours.# In the present appeal, herein appellant contends that the trial court erred .# in finding that there $as proof be+ond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired $ith his co-accused in ;illing the victi*, /# in not holding that accused is onl+ responsible for the in)uries that he actuall+ inflicted on the victi*, and 7# in ad*itting in evidence the alleged "d+ing declaration" of the victi*, as $ell as the "agree*ent" bet$een the parents of the accused and the victi*.1 >uring the trial, the prosecution presented seven $itnesses, a picture of the pieces of $ood5 used b+ the accused in ;illing the victi*, receipts of e2penses incurred in the hospital for the treat*ent of said victi*,9 a $ritten declaration of the victi* after the incident,0 and a $ritten agree*ent bet$een the parents of appellant and the victi*.3 <he evidence of record reveals that at around 3%44 o@cloc; in the evening of Nove*ber 74, .884, $itness =aria =agdalena A+ola sa$ appellant ,alison approach the victi*, 'olando Eal*oria, $ho $as then $atching television in a store at Cor+ Eillage, Agdao, >avao Cit+. ,alison placed his ar* around Eal*oria@s shoulder and brought hi* behind a neighbor@s house $here there $as a *ango tree. <here, appellant ,alison bo2ed Eal*oria in the abdo*en.8

Page1

>uring the fistfight bet$een ,alison and Eal*oria, the three other accused Andiente, >ignaran and Fediles suddenl+ appeared and )oined the fight and si*ultaneousl+ attac;ed Eal*oria. It $as then $hen $itness E*ilia FernandeB approached the* that the three co-accused disappeared, leaving ,alison and Eal*oria behind. FernandeB $as able to separate ,alison fro* Eal*oria. "o$ever, the three co-accused returned and started to *aul Eal*oria again, $ith ,alison re)oining the three in assaulting the victi*. .4 &hen Eal*oria fought bac;, accused ,alison, Fediles and Andiente pic;ed up pieces of $ood and started to hit Eal*oria at the bac; on his nape, and on the rear part of his head, Eal*oria fell to the ground and, upon finding a chance to do so, he stood up and ran to$ards his house $hich $as a fe$ *eters a$a+. <he assailants follo$ed Eal*oria but failed to further hit the victi* because Eal*oria $as able to hide inside his house. All of the accused shouted for Eal*oria to co*e out but the latter refused, causing his four assailants to hit the $alls and $indo$s of the Eal*oria residence. >uring this ti*e, the victi* re*ained seated inside the house. ,hortl+ thereafter, Eal*oria started to co*plain of diBBiness and pain in his head $hich $as bleeding at that ti*e. .. ConseFuentl+, at the reFuest of Eal*oria, his parents acco*panied hi* to the house of $itness Patricia Alcoseba, the puro; leader. <he victi* as;ed Alcoseba to $rite do$n his declaration regarding the incident e2plaining that if he should die and no $itness $ould testif+, his $ritten declaration could be utiliBed as evidence. At the trial of the case, Alcoseba presented the $ritten and signed declaration of Eal*oria and she affir*ed $hat $as $ritten in the declaration, testif+ing as follo$s% P'(,EC:<(' >AIAN6"I'AN6 III% G A G A 222 G A G A G =rs. Alcose b#a, on Nove*ber 74, .884, $here $ere +ouH I $as in our house. &hereH At 6or+ Eillage. 222 222

After +ou heard that there $as trouble in Cor+ Eillage, $hat happened ne2t, if an+H I noticed that the *other and father of 'olando Eal*oria helped 'olando Eal*oria in $al;ing to$ards *+ house. &hen the+ arrived at# +our house, $hat happened ne2tH &hen the+ arrived at# the house, the father reFuested that his son be allo$ed to sit on our chair. And $hat happened ne2t after thatH

A At that ti*e 'olando Eal*oria $as sitting on the chair and he $as so $ea; and his nec; and head slu*ped on the chair and the Eal*orias reFuested *e that he has so*ething to sa+ and reFuested it to be $ritten and he stuttered in tal;ing. G A G A G A G A G A G A 222 G victi*H A 222 &hat did +ou do after the victi* reFuested +ouH I obe+ed. I obe+ed the reFuest and I got a ballpen and paper. <hen $hat happened ne2tH "e related to *e as to $ho started the trouble as to $ho struc; hi* first, the second and the third. No$ =rs. Alcose b#a, $hile the victi* $as narrating to +ou, $hat did +ou observe about his conditionH I observed that he $as so $ea; and he $as in pain and I believed at that ti*e he $as d+ing. >id the victi* utter the $ords to that effect that he $as d+ingH Ies, sir. "e told *e b+ sa+ing "I believe that I $ill die". &hat elseH Because he said that he felt a terrible pain on his head. >id he tell +ou the reason $h+ he reFuested +ou to *a;e a declaration in $ritingH "e told *e that if an+bod+ $ill testif+ regarding *+ death this declaration of *ine could be utiliBed as evidence. 222 222

,ho$ing to +ou this state*ent, $hat a relation is this one sic# to the one +ou said $hich is the state*ent of the Ies, this is the one. 222 222

G <here is a printed na*e . . . a signature over the printed na*e 'olando Eal*oria, "ang guibunalanDpas+ente@@, $hose signature is thisH A <hat is the signature of 'olando Eal*oria.

C(:'<% G A &hen the victi* signed that docu*ent, $as he sittingH Ies, sir.

Page1

G A 222 G A G A G A G A 222

After the victi* signed that docu*ent $hat happened ne2tH <he+ left and the+ $ent to the detach*ent. 222 222

&hat happened to this piece of paper after the victi* signed thisH I gave it to the *other. ,o +ou did not ;eep that piece of paperH No, sir. I gave it to the* so the+ $ill be able to use it. Before the+ left +our house +ou gave that piece of paper to the *otherH At that ti*e I did not give that declaration first to the *other because the+ $ere attending to their son. &hen did +ou give that docu*ent to the *otherH &hen 'olando Eal*oria died. 222 222

G At the ti*e +ou $ere ta;ing this state*ent, fro* the victi* did he tell +ou the persons $ho $ere responsible for his in)uriesH A G Ies, sir. &hoH

A 'ufino >ignaran, !r. alias !ong)ong and the second is -olo+ ,alison and the third one is na*e d# <irso and the fourth, I cannot re*e*ber the na*e of the fourth person $ho hit the victi* . . . +es, no$ I re*e*ber, it@s -eonilo Fideles. G A Iou $rote that state*ent o#n a piece of paperH Ies, sir. ./ Corrections and e*phasis supplied.#

After *a;ing that declaration in the house of $itness Alcoseba, Eal*oria and his parents proceeded to the hospital $here he $as U-ra+ed and treated for his head in)uries. ,ubseFuentl+, the victi* $as allo$ed to go ho*e. "o$ever, at 1%44 o@cloc; the follo$ing *orning, he started to convulse and $as rushed to the hospital. After three da+s there, Eal*oria died. .7 <he prosecution li;e$ise presented >r. Ed*undo Eisitacion, !r. $ho had conducted the necrops+ $hich established the cause of death of Eal*oria indicated in the post *orte* certificate. "e e2plained that the head in)ur+ sustained b+ the victi* caused b+ a blunt e2ternal trau*a probabl+ *ade b+ a solid ob)ect and this trau*a caused the subdular he*orrhage. .1 (n >ece*ber ./, .884, the parents of the victi* and those of the accused ,alison and >ignaran entered into a $ritten agree*ent for the refund of hospital e2penses of Eal*oria. "o$ever, no reinburse*ent $as actuall+ *ade. (n the other hand, the lone defense $itness $as appellant ,alison hi*self $ho *erel+ denied having ;illed the victi*. "e testified that on that da+, together $ith his friends Andiente, >ignaran, Fideles and a certain And+, he $as visiting his girlfriend, a certain Neneng Edpalina, $hen he heard Eal*oria and Andiente shouting at each other. "e tried to pacif+ the t$o but the victi* told hi* not to interfere because he had nothing to do $ith the*. <hen he sa$ Eal*oria, Andiente, >ignaran, Fideles and a certain And+ engaged in a fistfight. "e $as tr+ing to stop the group fro* fighting $hen $itness FernandeB ca*e and told hi* not to interfere. "e then left and $hile he $as on his $a+ ho*e, he heard so*ebod+ shout "aga+," so he $ent bac; and sa$ Andiente holding a piece of $ood $hile Eal*oria $as running to$ards his house. "e had )ust grabbed the piece of $ood fro* Andiente $hen t$o CAF6:@s arrived and arrested hi*, Andiente, >ignaran and Fideles. All of the* $ere subseFuentl+ released after the investigation. .5 <he errors i*puted to the trial court *a+ be consolidated and narro$ed do$n to the Fuestion of credibilit+ of the prosecution $itnesses, the e2istence of conspirac+ in the co**ission of the cri*e, and the evidentiar+ $eight of the d+ing declaration, as $ell as of the $ritten agree*ent of the parents of the victi* and the accused. In the instant case, the lo$er court held that% <he testi*on+ of the prosecution@s $itnesses $ere clear, strong and convincing to deserve full faith and credence. As against the pure denial of the accused of his direct participation as a conspirator, the positive, clear and straightfor$ard declaration of the prosecution@s $itnesses, *ust prevail. No *otive or reason has been sho$n, $h+ the+ $ould falsel+ i*pute to the accused the co**ission of such a grave cri*e. <he accused 'e+ ,alison has no Fuarrel or bic;ering $ith the prosecution@s $itnesses. In fact, t$o of the prosecution@s $itnesses are friends of the *other of 'e+ ,alison. <hese prosecution@s $itnesses declared that the+ sa$ that# the accused 'e+ ,alison together $ith the other accused participated in bo2ing and *auling 'olando Eal*oria $ith pieces of $ood. .9 &e agree $ith the findings of the trial court giving full faith and credit to the $itnesses for the People. <he uncorroborated testi*on+ of appellant can not prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution@s $itnesses. In fact, there $ere three e+e$itnesses, $ith no ill *otives $hatsoever, $ho testified against appellant and confir*ed ,alison@s direct participation in the co**ission of the cri*e. <he defense did not present an+ evidence to support the denials of appellant. <he putative girlfriend of ,alison, $ho $as allegedl+ $ith hi* on that da+, $as not presented to confir* that fact and thereb+ prove that he did not participate in the fight bet$een his co-accused Andiente and the victi*. "is testi*on+ pinpointing Andiente as the ;iller $as onl+ a convenient $a+ to avoid liabilit+ since Andiente re*ained at large and could not refute ,alison@s testi*on+ i*puting the cri*e to hi*.

Page1

=oreover, denial is a self-serving negative evidence that can not be given greater $eight than the declaration of credible $itnesses $ho testified on affir*ative *atters. .0 >efinitel+, therefore, the case of the 6overn*ent has out$eighed and over$hel*ed the evidential ra*parts of the defense. Appellant@s assertion that conspirac+ has not been established is belied b+ the e+e$itness accounts sub*itted b+ the prosecution. <he *anner b+ $hich the ;illing $as e2ecuted clearl+ indicated a confederac+ of purpose and concerted action on the part of the accused. Prosecution $itness =agdalena A+ola, $ho sa$ the entire incident, testified on this point, thus% G >uring that ti*e $ere the+ aloneH <he t$o of the*H

C(:'<% A &hen ,alison brought Eal*oria under the *ango tree, the+ $ere onl+ / but later, alias ,ano, Fideles and alias (ndo+ and alias !ong-)ong bo2ed Eal*oria. 222 222 222

P'(,EC:<(' =AN>A-:PE% G In other $ords aside fro* accused ,alison alias -olo+ $ho first bo2ed 'olando Eal*oria, other three persons )oined ,alison and also bo2ed 'olando Eal*oriaH A 222 Ies, sir. 222 222

C(:'<% G A G A G A 222 >id +ou see the 7 co*e fro* the bushesH Ies, sir. &here $ere +ou during the ti*e $hen these three appeared fro* the bushesH I $as nearb+ because $e $ere $atching the*. &ere +ou alone $atching the* or +ou had a co*panionH I had so*e neighbors $ith *e. 222 222

P'(,EC:<(' =AN>A-:PE% G After alias ,ano, alias !ong-)ong and alias (ndo+ )oined ,alison in bo2ing 'olando Eal*oria, $hat else did he do against the person of 'olando Eal*oriaH A Eal*oria fought bac; and there $as e2change of fist icuffs# and -olo+ ,alison, alias (ndo+ and alias ,ano pic;ed up so*e $ooden pieces of $ood sic#. G A 222 After these three persons +ou *entioned pic;ed up $ood, $hat did the+ do after pic;ing up the $oodH <he+ struc; Eal*oria $ith the piece of $ood. 222 222

G Iou said that +ou sa$ these 1 persons struc; 'olando Eal*oria *an+ ti*es $hile still under the *ango tree. Can +ou tell the "onorable Court $hat part of the bod+ of 'olando Eal*oria $as hit b+ the stri;ing of $ood b+ the 1 accused, if +ou can recallH A 222 "e $as hit at his bac; and at the bac; of his head. .3 222 222

Fro* the aforesaid testi*on+, these si*ultaneous attac;s on the victi* proved the co**on intent of the accused to inflict fatal blo$s upon the victi*. >irect proof is not essential to prove conspirac+. .8 A conspirac+ *a+ be inferred $ithout need of sho$ing that the parties actuall+ ca*e together and agreed in e2press ter*s to enter into and pursue a co**on design. /4 For collective responsibilit+ a*ong the accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the ti*e of the aggression all of the* acted in concert each doing his part to fulfill their co**on purpose to ;ill the victi*. /. Even if there is no direct evidence sho$ing that all of the accused had a prior agree*ent on ho$ to ;ill Eal*oria, the doctrine is $ell settled that conspirac+ need not be proved b+ direct evidence of prior agree*ent to co**it the cri*e, Eer+ seldo* $ould such prior agree*ent be de*onstrable since, in the nature of things, cri*inal underta;ings are onl+ rarel+ docu*ented b+ agree*ents in $riting.// It is eFuall+ a $ell-accepted corollar+ rule that $here a conspirac+ has been established, evidence as to $ho a*ong the accused rendered the fatal blo$ is not necessar+. All the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the intent and the character of their participation, because the act of one is the act of all. /7 &hat further strengthens the case of the prosecution $as the declaration of Eal*oria, *ade and signed b+ hi* right after the incident, as to $ho $ere responsible for the in)uries he sustained. Appellant, ho$ever, *aintains that said $ritten state*ent, $hich $as reduced into $riting b+ $itness Patricia Alcoseba and purporting to be a d+ing declaration, is inad*issible as evidence since it $as in the Cebuano regional language and $as not acco*panied $ith a translation in English or Pilipino. "o$ever, as correctl+ observed b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral%

Page1

<he records do not disclose that the defense offered an+ ob)ection to the ad*ission of the declaration. <hus, the defense $aived $hatever infir*it+ the docu*ent had at the ti*e of its sub*ission as evidence. <he declaration can be translated into English or Pilipino as it is alread+ ad*itted in evidence and for*s part of the record. /1 Also, $hile such state*ent $as given, as in the nature of things the+ are generall+ in oral for*, the+ are not thereb+ rendered inad*issible as the+ *a+ even be co**unicated b+ *eans of signs. If the declarations have thereafter been reduced to $riting and signed b+ the declarant, the $riting is generall+ held to be the best evidence, and it *ust be produced. /5 =ore than once, this Court has ta;en into consideration docu*ents $ritten in a Philippine dialect, unacco*panied b+ the reFuired translation but $hich had been ad*itted in evidence $ithout ob)ection b+ the accused./9 In those instances, the Court *erel+ ordered official translations to be *ade. It is true that ,ection 77, 'ule .7/ of the revised 'ules of Court no$ prohibits the ad*ission of such docu*ent in an unofficial language but $e believe that in the interest of )ustice, such in)unction should not be ta;en literall+ here, especiall+ since no ob)ection thereto $as interposed b+ appellant, aside fro* the fact that appellant, the concerned parties and the )udicial authorities or personnel concerned appeared to be fa*iliar $ith or ;no$ledgeable of Cebuano in $hich the docu*ent $as $ritten. <here $as, therefore, no pre)udice caused to appellant and no reversible error $as co**itted b+ that lapse of the trial court. Also, the $ritten declaration $as dul+ presented during the trial and the person $ho reduced the victi*@s declaration into $riting $as thoroughl+ Fuestioned b+ the court and the prosecutor, and cross-e2a*ined b+ the defense counsel. <he $itness $as able to e2plain and discuss $hat $as $ritten in the declaration and ho$ she ca*e to prepare the sa*e. ,ignificantl+, ever+thing $ritten in that declaration of the victi* $as confir*ed b+ the 6overn*ent@s e+e$itnesses. Appellant@s argu*ent regarding the inad*issibilit+ of the declaration on a *ere technicalit+ $ould *ean the loss of a vital piece of evidence that could +ield the true facts and give retributive )ustice in the *urder of Eal*oria. Appellant li;e$ise argues that the declaration *ade b+ the victi* before the puro; leader can not be considered as a d+ing declaration because it $as not *ade b+ the deceased "under the consciousness of an i*pending death." As earlier narrated, at the ti*e the deceased *ade the declaration he $as in great pain. "e e2pressed a belief on his i**inent death and the hope that his declaration could be used as evidence regarding the circu*stances thereof. A person $ould not sa+ so if he believes he $ould recover and be able to testif+ against his assailants. At all events, assu*ing that declaration is not ad*issible as a d+ing declaration, it is still ad*issible as part of the res gestae, /0 since it $as *ade shortl+ after the startling incident and, under the circu*stances, the victi* had no opportunit+ to contrive. &e are in confor*it+ $ith the verdict of the lo$er court finding appellant guilt+ of *urder since the ;illing $as Fualified b+ the circu*stance of the accused having ta;en advantage of their superior strength. <he victi* $as unar*ed and defenseless at the ti*e $hen all of the accused *ercilessl+ bludgeoned his bac; and head $ith big pieces of $ood. <he nu*ber of assailants and the nature of the $eapons used against the hapless victi* sho$ a notorious ineFualit+ of force bet$een the latter and the aggressors, assuring a superiorit+ of strength advantageous to ,alison and his co-accused in the co**ission of the cri*e. <he accused purposel+ used e2cessive force out of proportion to the *eans of defense available to the person attac;ed. /3 ,ince no aggravating or *itigating circu*stance $as present in the case at bar, the trial court correctl+ i*posed the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua, the sa*e being the *ediu* period in the range of the i*posable penalt+. P'E=I,E, C(N,I>E'E>, the assailed )udg*ent of the court a Fuo is hereb+ AFFI'=E> in toto, $ith costs against accused-appellant 'e+ ,alison, !r. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. ..0935 !une /., .888 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. A-F(N,( '. BA:<I,<A T "P(->(", accused-appellant.

PAP:NAN, !.% Before us is an appeal fro* the >ecision of =a+ /9, .881 of the 'egional <rial Court of >agupan Cit+, Branch 11 in Cri*inal Case No. >-.//03 convicting appellant Alfonso '. Bautista of the cri*e of *urder as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, the Court finds Alfonso Bautista alias Poldo Bautista guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt as principal of the cri*e of =urder under Article /13 of the 'evised Penal Code and, pursuant to la$, hereb+ sentences hi* to suffer the penalt+ of 'eclusion Perpetua. Accused is ordered to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased in the a*ount of P54,444.44. Accused is ordered to pa+ -etecia sic# Bandarlipe the a*ount of P75,444.44 representing the *one+ spent during the $a;e of Cipriano Bandarlipe. ,( ('>E'E>. . Appellant $as originall+ charged $ith *urder along $ith ,a*uel Eentura and Ale)andro >efuntoru* / before the =unicipal Circuit <rial Court of ,an Fabian, Pangasinan. 7 :pon reinvestigation b+ the provincial prosecutor, ho$ever, the charge against Eentura and >efuntoru* $as dis*issed for lac; of sufficient evidence. 1 In due course, on Nove*ber .5, .887, the follo$ing infor*ation $as filed against appellant% <hat on or about Nove*ber 74, .88/ in the evening at baranga+ Anonang, *unicipalit+ of ,an Fabian, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, ar*ed $ith a long firear* $ith intent to ;ill, treacher+ and evident pre*editation, did, then and there $ilfull+ and unla$full+ and feloniousl+ shoot CIP'IAN( BAN>A'-IPE + ,I(N inflicting upon hi* a gunshot $ound o*ental evisceration right upper abdo*en# $hich caused his death, to the da*age and pre)udice of his heirs. C(N<'A'I to Art. /13, 'evised Penal Code. 5

Page1

:pon arraign*ent, appellant entered a plea of not guilt+. At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced the follo$ing evidence% At around 0 o@cloc; in the evening of Nove*ber 74, .88/, -eticia Bandarlipe 9 $as seated on a sled near a ;a*iastree b+ her house in Anonang, ,an Fabian, Pangasinan to a$ait the arrival of her husband, Cipriano Bandarlipe. An hour and a half later, she heard a gun report and the ensuing shout of her husband that he $as shot. -eticia ran to her husband@s succor and found hi* prostrate on the road about fifteen .5# *eters a$a+ fro* $here she $as seated. As she e*braced her husband and cried for help, she sa$ appellant standing at a distance of t$o /# *eters fro* Cipriano, pointing a long firear* at the latter. -eticia recogniBed appellant $ho* she identified in court as "-eopoldo Bautista," as she had seen hi* several ti*es before. =oreover, it $as a *oonlit night and the place $as illu*inated b+ the lights originating fro* the house of her in-la$s and a passing pa+loader. -eticia as;ed her husband $ho shot hi* and Cipriano replied that appellant did. &hen -eticia loo;ed up, appellant $as no longer there. <hereupon, together $ith her sister-in-la$, Baranga+ Captain Felipe =. ,olis, !ose C. 6agaBa, !r., Baranga+ <anod >e -eon and others, -eticia rushed Cipriano to the provincial hospital in Binloc, >agupan Cit+. <here, Cipriano e2pired. 0 -eticia@s neighbor, 'ogelio Peralta, $as $al;ing on his $a+ ho*e $hen, b+ the light of a passing pa+loader, he sa$ appellant carr+ing a long firear* i**ediatel+ after he had heard gunfire. 'ogelio $ent to the side of the road and, after appellant had vanished, continued on his $a+ ho*e. "e later learned that Cipriano $as shot and rushed to the hospital. 3 >r. Alberto 6onBales, the resident ph+sician $ho attended to the victi*, issued a *edico-legal certificate stating that the 70-+ear-old Cipriano Bandarlipe had alcoholic breath and o*ental evisceration at the right upper abdo*en. Cipriano died of cardio-respirator+ arrest secondar+ to h+povole*ic shoc; due to gunshot $ound on the abdo*en. 8 According to -eonardo <abilen, Chief of the Intelligence :nit of the .5/nd PC Co*pan+, he had ;no$n appellant as a "dreaded ;iller in ,an Fabian and ,an !acinto, Pangasinan" $ho $as suspected of having ;illed Federico >ispo, Efren 'e+es and the Baranga+ Captain of PoBorrubio, aside fro* Cipriano Bandarlipe. Based on infor*ation gathered fro* baranga+ people, <abilen conducted a surveillance operation upon appellant. At the invitation of Baranga+ Captain ,olis, $ho $as his partner in ;eeping peace and order in the co**unit+, <abilen $ent to the house of Prudencio Feria*il on (ctober 5, .88/ sic#. <here, he invited appellant and his brother-in-la$, 'ufino 'e+es, to the headFuarters to shed light on the ;illing of Cipriano Bandarlipe. Appellant $illingl+ $ent $ith hi* and the investigation conducted at the headFuarters resulted at a finding that appellant $as the ;iller of Cipriano. <he $itnesses $ho $ere investigated and $ho pointed to appellant as the culprit $ere 'ogelio Peralta, Cipriano@s $ife, Prudencio Feria*il, the Chief Baranga+ <anod and the Baranga+ Captain. .4 In his defense, appellant clai*ed that he $as fra*ed up and that it $as actuall+ Feria*il $ho ;illed Cipriano. A handicraft $or;er fro* -ipit, =anaoag, Pangasinan, appellant, $ho $as also ;no$n as "Poldo," $as introduced to Prudencio Feria*il b+ his brother-in-la$ at a gathering in =aca+og, ,an !acinto, Pangasinan. Feria*il convinced appellant to $or; as his industrial partner in the tobacco plantation the for*er operated in Anonang, ,an Fabian, Pangasinan. -eaving his fa*il+ behind, appellant accepted the offer and began $or; in !anuar+ .88/. "e sta+ed $ith Feria*il in a hut about a hundred *eters a$a+ fro* the tobacco plantation. "e *et -eticia Bandarlipe for the first ti*e $hen the latter arrived $ith Feria*il $ho introduced her as his ;u*adre. -eticia had, since then, beco*e a freFuent visitor of Feria*il in the hut. .. Appellant recalled that he last sa$ -eticia in an unco*pro*ising situation $ith Feria*il so*eti*e in April .88/. <he t$o $ere l+ing na;ed on a ba*boo bed inside the hut $ith -eticia on top of Feria*il. Perple2ed b+ $hat he sa$, appellant hurriedl+ $ent out of the hut. <he illicit lovers e*erged a little later and begged appellant not to disclose to an+bod+ $hat he had $itnessed. Appellant told the* not to $orr+. <he t$o did not go ho*e i**ediatel+ for fear that the+ $ould get sic; pas*a# but apparentl+ in her haste to leave, -eticia left in a corner of the hut a pin; pant+ $ith the na*e "-ett+ Bandarlipe" e*broidered on it. Appellant ;ept the pant+ in a plastic bag intending to return the sa*e to its o$ner. "o$ever, since -eticia never visited the house again, appellant could not return the pant+ to her. Appellant produced the pant+ in court as E2hibit 1 and 1-A. ./ After the harvest season in =a+ .88/, appellant $ent ho*e to visit his fa*il+ in =anaoag. >uring his absence, Feria*il and -eticia sold tobacco for <hirt+-Five <housand Pesos P75,444.44# but the+ refused to give appellant his share in the proceeds. Appellant *ade several atte*pts to collect his share but Feria*il *erel+ advised hi* to ;eep his patience $hile he searched for *one+ as -eticia had ta;en the proceeds of the sale. .7 &hile appellant $as in his ho*eto$n, Cipriano Bandarlipe $as ;illed. <he person $ho rushed hi* to the hospital, na*el+, Baranga+ Captain Felipe ,olis, !ose 6agaBa, !r. and Baranga+ ,ecurit+ Force Chief Kald+ AFuino, proceed to the PNP "eadFuarters in ,an Fabian, Pangasinan to report the incident. .1 ,olis believed that Feria*il Peria*il# could have authored the cri*e per infor*ation given hi* b+ 6agaBa because Feria*il $as often in the co*pan+ of "-eopoldo Bautista." .5 <he report of ,olis $as $ritten on the police blotter as Entr+ No. .30. .9 In fact, ,olis brought Feria*il to the police station on >ece*ber ., .88/ and even the NBI .0 in >agupan Cit+ but Feria*il@s investigation +ielded a negative result so that Feria*il $as able to go ho*e $ith ,olis. .3

(n the other hand, 6agaBa@s report to the police $as entered blotter as follo$s% <his has ref to entr+ Nr. .30, in this Police Blotter dtd 74 Nov. 8/, !ose 6agaBa + Castro, /5 +ears old, single, a resident of brg+. Anonang this *plt+ appeared to this station and infor*ed that $hen he acco*panied the victi* Cipriano Bandarlipe# at the hospital. "e the victi*# stated that he $as shot b+ one >o*+ Ferrea*il also of sa*e place, and in the presence of Brg+. Capt. Felipe ,olis and chief Brg+. Force ,ald+ AFuino of brg+. Anonang this to$n, $hen he stated sa*e $ords against the suspect. !ose C. 6agaBa, !r. .8 E2hibit "7-a," a docu*ent dated ,epte*ber .., .883 that $as issued b+ Chief Inspector Fausto =. Ca+ab+ab, !r., sho$s that ,P(/ 'icardo >. Abrio, police des; officer, confir*ed that 6agaBa, !r. had affi2ed his signature on the sa*e police blotter. /4 ,o*eti*e in August .887, appellant returned to Anonang to collect his share of the proceeds of the sale of tobacco fro* Feria*il. <he latter reFuested hi* to co*e bac; after one *onth. In his frustration, appellant threatened to reveal the a*orous relationship bet$een -eticia and Feria*il. /. In the evening of ,epte*ber 7, .887, Kald+ AFuino invited ,olis and Feria*il to his residence. ,olis and AFuino as;ed Feria*il if he had an+thing to do $ith the ;illing of Cipriano Bandarlipe or if

Page1

he ;ne$ an+thing about it. Feria*il replied that "Poldo Bautista" ;illed Cipriano and that "Poldo Bautista" $as supposed to go to his residence on ,epte*ber 5, .887. // Appellant, his sister and brother-in-la$ indeed returned to Feria*il@s house on that date. Feria*il as;ed the* to $ait $hile he prepared so*e snac;s. &hile appellant@s group $as drin;ing coffee, several people including ,olis, ,gts. <abilen and >e 6uB*an, 'ogelio Peralta and !ose 6agaBa, !r. entered the house. <he+, pointed a gun at appellant and his co*panions, telling the* not to *ove. <he+ told appellant@s group that if the+ valued their lives, the+ should go do$n the house. As the+ $ere descending fro* the house, so*eone as;ed Feria*il, "&ho a*ong theseH" Feria*il pointed to appellant and i**ediatel+ so*eone struc; hi* $ith the butt of a gun. &ith his hands tied at the bac;, appellant $as brought to the .5/nd PC Co**and in -inga+en, Pangasinan $here he $as *auled to force hi* to ad*it the ;illing of Cipriano $ith $ho* he $as not even acFuainted. /7 Based on the state*ents e2ecuted on ,epte*ber 5, .887 b+ !ose 6agaBa, !r., /1 Prudencio Feria*il, /5 -eticia Bandarlipe, /9 'ogelio Peralta /0 and Felipe ,olis, /3 an infor*ation for *urder $as filed against appellant. In his s$orn state*ents, !ose 6agaBa, !r., a Baranga+ <anod declared, a*ong others, that at the ti*e of the incident he heard a gun e2plosionC that i**ediatel+ after he heard Cipriano as;ing for help as he $as shotC that $hen he ca*e near the victi*, the latter $hile being cradled b+ his $ife -eticia, declared that it $as "Poldo Bautista" $ho shot hi*C and that $hile on the $a+ to the hospital $here he $as brought b+ a group, including 6agaBa !r., the victi* repeatedl+ identified "Poldo Bautista" as the one $ho shot hi*. Feria*il, for his part, stated that $hen appellant ca*e ho*e disturbed and $ith a gun that fateful night of Nove*ber 74, he confessed to having ;illed Cipriano. "e and appellant then slept. In the *orning of Nove*ber 7., .88/ sic#, Baranga+ Captain ,olis and so*e police*en arrived and brought hi* Feria*il# to the police station $here he $as as;ed about the ;illing of Cipriano. Feria*il told the police that he did not ;no$ an+thing about the *atter but he did not relate to the* $hat appellant had confessed to hi* the night before because he $as afraid. <he s$orn state*ents of -eticia Bandarlipe, 'ogelio Peralta and Felipe ,olis $ere all reiterated in their respective testi*onies. As stated at the outset, the trial court convicted appellant of the cri*e of *urder and conde*ned hi* to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua. It gave $eight and credence to the circu*stantial evidence that appellant $as seen holding a gun near the fallen victi* soon after $itnesses -eticia Bandarlipe and 'ogelio Peralta had heard the gun report. <hus, the trial court ratiocinated% <he reason given b+ Alfonso Bautista that he $as fra*ed up in this case in order that he could not reveal $hat he had observed bet$een Prudencio Feria*il and -eticia Bandarlipe is devoid of *erit. <he prosecution, thru the testi*on+ of 'ogelio Peralta, clearl+ established that 'ogelio Peralta had seen Alfonso Bautista holding a gun on Nove*ber 74, .88/ at around 3%74 in the evening $hile on the road $al;ing near the house of Cipriano Bandarlipe at Anonang, ,an Fabian, Pangasinan, at $hich place he heard a burst of a gun. "e *et accused Alfonso Bautista and the latter $as carr+ing a firear*. <his $itness could not have co**itted a *ista;e because there $as a light of the pa+loader $hich $as focused to the accused. <he testi*on+ of 'ogelio Peralta $as supported b+ the testi*on+ of -eticia Bandarlipe $ho declared that she had seen Alfonso Bautista holding a gun and the gun $as still pointed to the deceased $hile he $as spra$led on the ground. In fact, this prosecution $itness clearl+ stated that the accused i**ediatel+ ran a$a+ $hen she had seen hi*. <here is no Fuestion that the $itness had seen the accused. In fact she -eticia Bandarlipe# testified that she sa$ Alfonso Bautista standing near her husband about t$o *eters a$a+. <he place $here the incident too; place $as lighted b+ a pa+loader, aside fro* the light co*ing fro* the house of her in-la$s. 222 222 222 Further*ore, $hen he $as invited to the headFuarters at -inga+en, Pangasinan, the accused $ent $ith -eonardo <abilin, Chief of the Intelligence of the PNP Co**and $illingl+. >uring the investigation, it $as found out that Alfonso Bautista $as the one $ho ;illed Cipriano Bandarlipe. /8 Aggrieved b+ the above decision, appellant interposed the instant appeal assigning the follo$ing as errors of the court a Fuo% I <"A< <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN FAI-IN6 <( C(N,I>E' AN> <APE IN<( ACC(:N< <"E >IIN6 >EC-A'A<I(N =A>E BI <"E >ECEA,E> EIC<I=. II <"A< <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN FAI-IN6 <( C(N,I>E' AN> <APE IN<( ACC(:N< <"A< FAI-:'E (F &I<NE,,E, <( P(IN< <"E ACC:,E> I==E>IA<E-I AF<E' <"E ,"((<IN6 INCI>EN< &EAPEN, <"EI' C'E>IBI-I<I. III <"A< <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN FAI-IN6 <( C(N,I>E' AN> <APE IN<( ACC(:N< <"E ,:PP'E,,I(N (F EEI>ENCE, sic# BI <"E P'(,EC:<I(N AN> <"E >EFEN,E (F <"E ACC:,E>. IE <"A< <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN N(< ACG:I<<IN6 <"E ACC:,E>. 74 Appellant asserts that 6agaBa@s state*ent in the police blotter that the victi* identified ">o*+ Feria*il" as his assailant constituted a d+ing declaration that should have been given due evidentiar+ $eight. A d+ing declaration, also ;no$n as an ante *orte* state*ent or a state*ent in articulo *ortis, is ad*issible under the follo$ing reFuisites% .# that death is i**inent and the declarant is conscious of that factC /# that the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circu*stances of such deathC 7# that the declaration relates to facts $hich the victi* is co*petent to testif+ toC and 1# that the declaration is offered in a case $herein the declarant@s death is the sub)ect of the inFuir+.

Page1

In the case at bar, the trial court correctl+ re)ected the ante *orte* state*ent of the victi*. 'ecords sho$ that !ose 6agaBa, !r., the person $ho allegedl+ heard the victi*@s ante *orte* state*ent, $as never presented in court to testif+ on the *atter. It has been held that if the d+ing declaration $as *ade orall+, it *a+ be proved b+ the testi*on+ of the $itness $ho heard the sa*e or to $ho* it $as *ade. 7. <he entr+ of the sa*e state*ent in the police blotter alone $ill not suffice to confer upon it the desired evidentiar+ $eight. Entries in police blotters are onl+ pri*a facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 7/ <he above e2position not$ithstanding appellant@s bid for e2oneration deserves a second loo;. &hile as a general rule, the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibilit+ of $itnesses are entitled to great $eight and respect on appeal, this rule cannot be strictl+ applied $here significant facts and circu*stances that could affect the result of the case if properl+ considered, had been overloo;ed and disregarded b+ the trial court. In the instant case, $e find that the prosecution@s evidence are so tee*ing $ith loopholes and inconsistencies as to render the* un$orth+ of belief. It is doctrinal that the reFuire*ent of proof be+ond reasonable doubt in cri*inal cases does not entail absolute certaint+ of the fact that the accused co**itted the cri*e. Neither does it e2clude the possibilit+ of error. &hat is reFuired is *oral certaint+ or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unpre)udiced *ind. 77 <hus, inconsistencies in testi*onies that refer onl+ to *inor and insignificant details of an incident are considered to reinforce rather than $ea;en a $itness@ credibilit+ because *inor inaccuracies suggest that the $itness is telling the truth. 71 "o$ever, the rule that factual findings and assess*ent of credibilit+ of $itnesses generall+ bind this Court cannot be strictl+ applied $here significant facts and circu*stances that could affect the result of the case if properl+ considered, $ere overloo;ed and disregarded b+ the trial court. 75 In this case, the Court finds that inconsistencies in the testi*on+ of the principal prosecution $itness as regards the identit+ of the assailant are so glaring that giving such testi*on+ the $eight and credence sta*ped upon it b+ the trial court $ould result in grave in)ustice. In her direct testi*on+, principal prosecution $itness -eticia Bandarlipe categoricall+ stated that the victi* identified appellant as his assailant. <hus% G% Aside fro* seeing the accused t$o /# *eters standing fro* +our husband sic#, $hat else did +ou do thereH A% &hen I $ent to e*brace hi* and I sa$ -eopoldo Bautista sic# standing and as;ed *+ husband $ho shot hi* and he said it $as Poldo Bautista. 79 "o$ever, on cross-e2a*ination, -eticia ad*itted that she $as not able to tal; to her husband an+*ore thereb+ reversing herself on the identification of appellant b+ the victi*. ,he testified as follo$s% G% <he records sho$ that inspite of the fact that +ou sa$ Poldo Bautista pointing a gun to$ards the bod+ of +our husband, +ou still as; ed# hi* $ho shot hi*, a* I rightH A% Ies, sir. G% =ada* &itness, I have here a cop+ of the transcript of stenographic notes during the reinvestigation of this case and +ou ans$ered to the Fuestion on page .8 of said transcript that +ou $ere not able to tal; to hi* an+*ore, the prosecutor referring to +our husband, fro* Anonang to the hospital and +our ans$er is, no *ore, do +ou re*e*ber this ans$er, "no *ore, sir"H A% Ies, sir. E*phasis supplied.# 70 <his testi*on+ has left the Court baffled as to $hether or not the victi* indeed identified appellant as his assailant. -i;e$ise, the Court cannot see its $a+ clear $h+ -eticia should still as; her husband $ho shot hi* $hen she allegedl+ sa$ appellant still pointing the gun at hi*. 73 ,he $ould have as;ed her husband $ho shot hi* onl+ if she did not see or identif+ appellant as the culprit. "o$ever, she categoricall+ testified that as soon as she heard gunfire, she rushed to her husband $ho $as spra$led on the ground and sa$, t$o /# *eters a$a+, appellant $ith a gun in his hand. 78 In fact, in her s$orn state*ent, she ad*itted having seen appellant shoot her husband. <hus% 49. < A Papaano nin+o nala*an na si Poldo Bautista ang pu*ata+ sa in+ong asa$aH , A Na;ita sic# ;o po nang barilin ni Poldo Bautista ang a;ing asa$a, sir. 14 &hile her state*ent that she sa$ Poldo Bautista shoot her husband *a+ be interpreted loosel+ as that she $as present $hen her husband $as shot but not necessaril+ that she sa$ the actual shooting incident nevertheless, the see*ing inconsistenc+ cannot but engender doubt in our *inds as to $hat actuall+ transpired during that fateful evening. At the ver+ least, -eticia Bandarlipe@s testi*on+ does not inspire belief that she $as telling the truth as to the identit+ of appellant as the felon. It is also $orth+ to note that $hereas -eticia initiall+ denied having tal;ed to the local officials $ho acco*panied her to the hospital she subseFuentl+ ad*itted that Baranga+ Captain ,olis, et al. $ent to her house the da+ after the incident and tal;ed to her about filing a case in connection $ith her husband@s *urder, $hich she refused to do. If it is true that -eticia Bandarlipe actuall+ sa$ her husband being shot b+ appellant, or that her d+ing husband told her that it $as appellant $ho shot hi*, $h+ did she not report $hat she sa$ and heard to the t$o baranga+ tanods, 6agaBa and de -eon, $ho responded to her shouts for helpC and, $h+ $as she reluctant to file a co*plaint against the gun*an $ho* she allegedl+ sa$ shoot her husband. "er acts are contrar+ to the natural tendenc+ of a $itness closel+ related to the victi*, to report a cri*e and describe the *alefactor at the earliest possible opportunit+. 1. In fact, it $as not until about ten .4# *onths later that -eticia e2ecuted a s$orn state*ent pointing to appellant as the assailant of her husband Cipriano. (n the other hand, prosecution $itness 'ogelio Peralta testified that on the evening of Nove*ber 74, .88/, $hile he $as passing near the victi*@s house on his $a+ ho*e, he heard a gunshot. As he $al;ed on, he *et appellant $ho* he recogniBed b+ the light of a pa+loader $hich $as passing b+. "e allegedl+ sa$ appellant carr+ing a long firear*. "e $ent to the side of the road and $hen appellant $as no longer in vie$, he continued $al;ing ho*e. About an hour thereafter, he learned that the victi* $as shot. 1/ And +et, Peralta gave his state*ent on the above incident onl+ on ,epte*ber 5, .887 or

Page1

about ten .4# *onths after the shooting allegedl+ out of fear of the appellant. &hile the initial reluctance and conseFuent dela+ of a $itness in getting hi*self involved in a cri*inal case *a+ not i*pair his credibilit+ nor destro+ the probative value of his testi*on+, this holds true onl+ $hen said dela+ is adeFuatel+ e2plained. 17 But $here the $itness@ reason for dela+ in reporting to authorities is baseless, his testi*on+ $ill not inspire belief. 11 "ere, Peralta $as then a *e*ber of the Baranga+ <anod or "securit+ force" of the localit+. 15 "e ;ne$ police*an <abilen $ho is also a resident of Anonang, 19 and fro* $ho* he certaint+ could have as;ed for help and protection if he $anted to. Note that this is the sa*e ,gt. <abilin $ho led the group, $hich included Peralta, in arresting appellant. 10 =ore i*portantl+, based on his o$n ad*ission, Peralta *erel+ learned of the shooting of Bandarlipe fro* the people $ho rushed to the scene of the cri*e. "e did not in fact $itness the shooting, but *erel+ presu*ed it $as appellant $ho shot the victi* because he sa$ appellant carr+ing a gun near the vicinit+ of the cri*e scene. Appellant contends that the prosecution suppressed evidence in not presenting !ose 6agaBa, !r., Prudencio Feria*il and Baranga+ Captain Felipe ,olis. 13 <he records sho$, ho$ever, that Felipe ,olis did testif+ for the accused at the trial in this $ise% G. In this affidavit =r. &itness, the sic# Fuestion No. .., $hich I Fuote% G A pag;atapos na na*ata+ sa Pangasinan Provincial "ospital si Cipriano Bandarlipe, ano ang su*unod na action nin+o bilang Baranga+ Papitan ng Anonang, ,an Fabian, PangasinanH A A A;o at si Baranga+ Chief <anod Kald+ AFuino a+ pu*unta ;a*i sa hi*pilan ng pulis+a ng ,an Fabian dahil pinagsususpetsahan na*in si Prudencio Peria*il sic#," do +ou still affir* this Fuestion and ans$er of +oursH A. Ies, sir. G. Could +ou infor* the Court $hat is +our basis in suspecting Prudencio Peria*il sic#H A. &e suspected hi* because $e believed that he $as the one. 222 222 222 G. &ill +ou please tell us, $ho *entioned the na*e Peria*il sic#H A. !ose 6agasa, sir. 18 6iven the alleged ;no$ledge of 6agaBa of certain vital facts surrounding the cri*e, it is highl+ surprising $h+ the prosecution did not call hi* to testif+ if onl+ to clarif+ $h+ on the da+ the cri*e $as co**itted, he caused the entr+ in the police blotter na*ing Feria*il as the *ain suspect in the *urderC $hereas, in his s$orn state*ent dated ,epte*ber 5, .887, he *ade a contradictor+ declaration, b+ sa+ing that $hile the+ $ere on their $a+ to the hospital the victi* repeatedl+ told hi* that he $as shot b+ appellant. It is true that the *atter of deciding $ho* to present as $itness for the prosecution is not for the accused or for the trial court to decide, as it is the prerogative of the prosecutor. 54 "o$ever, it is eFuall+ true that $hen a part+ has in his possession or po$er to produce the best evidence of $hich the case in its nature is susceptible and $ithholds it, the fair presu*ption is that the evidence is $ithheld for so*e sinister *otive and that its production $ould th$art his evil or fraudulent purpose. 5.

In the case at bar, there are pieces of evidence on record $hich, if properl+ considered, $ould certainl+ raise Fuestions consistent $ith the proposition that the prosecution *ight have accused the $rong person, fore*ost of $hich is Baranga+ Captain ,olis@ testi*on+ that Feria*il $as the original suspect in the *urder, and -eticia Bandarlipe@s ad*ission that ,olis and 6agaBa $ent to her house the da+ after her husband@s *urder to solicit her cooperation in the prosecution of Feria*il. If Prudencio Feria*il $as the original suspect, $h+ $as he not dul+ investigated for the *urder of Cipriano BandarlipeH And $h+ did -eticia Bandarlipe refuse to cooperate $ith the authorities in the investigation and prosecution of Feria*ilH Finall+, $h+ did the prosecution not present Feria*il as a $itness $hen the records sho$ that he $as instru*ental in na*ing appellant as the alleged assailant, and in leading the authorities to the latter@s arrestH Note$orth+ is the testi*on+ of prosecution $itness -eonardo <abilin, $ho upon cross-e2a*ination ans$ered thus% G. And as a *atter of fact, it $as Prudencio Feria*il $ho related that this Alfonso Bautista $as the one responsible of the ;illing sic# of several persons, and these are Federico >ispo, Efren 'e+es, and alleged Baranga+ Captain of PoBorrubioH A. &hile $e are gathering, it is not onl+ fro* persons $ho* $e directl+ gather, $e $ill also proceed in order that $e could arrive at intelligence $or; sic#. G. But on ,epte*ber 7, $hen Prudencio Feria*il infor*ed +ou that Alfonso Bautista $as the one responsible of ;illing sic# including Cipriano BardarlipeH A. Ies, sir. 5/ -i;e$ise on record is Feria*il@s o$n incredible version of ho$ he ca*e to ;no$ of appellant@s involve*ent in the cri*e% G. =aalaala *o pa ba ;ung nasaan ;a noong Nob+e*bre 74, .88/ bandang alas 3%74 ng gabiH A (po sir. Nasa labas po a;o ng a;ing baha+ sa Baranga+ Anonang, ,an Fabian, Pangasinan. G Noong oras na i+on, *a+roon bang nang+ari na hindi pang;arani$anH

G Ano na*an ana i+ong gina$a pag;arinig sa puto; ng baril na sinasabi *oH

Page1

A (po, sir. Na;arinig po a;o ng isang puto; ng baril na sa pag;aala* ;o po a+ *alapit lang sa a*in.

A Pu*aso; a;o ;aagad sa loob ng a;ing baha+ at hu*iga na a;o. G Ano na*an ang su*unod na nang+ariH A Noong bandang alas 8%44 ng gabing i+on, Nob+e*bre 74, .88/, isang nagngangalang Poldo Bautista a+ du*ating sa a;ing baha+ na *a+ dalang *ahabang baril at nahiga sa loob ng a;ing baha+ pero sa pa;i$ari ;o a+ parang balisangbalisa. Pa+a tinanong ;o si+a ;ung ba;it parang hindi si+a *a;atulog at balisang-balisa at sinabi ni+a sa a;in na pinata+ ni+a si Cipriano Bandarlipe. G Ano na*an ang gina$a *o noong nala*an *o na si Poldo Bautista a+ pinata+ ni+a si Cipriano BandarlipeH A A;o at si Poldo Bautista a+ na;atulog na hanggang sa ;inabu;asan. G Ano ang ang i+ong gina$a noong pag;agising *o ;inabu;asanH A Noong bandang alas sais ng u*aga noong Nob+e*bre 7., sic# .88/, Baranga+ Captain Felipe ,olis at *a+ ;asa*ang *ga pulis a+ du*ating sa a;ing baha+ at dinala a;o sa hi*pilan ng pulis+a ng ,an Fabian. G Ano na*an ang gina$a sa i+o noong dinala ;a sa hi*pilan ng pulis+a ng ,an Fabian, Pangasinan sa ara$ na i+onH A <inanong po a;o tung;ol sa pag;a*ata+ ni Cipriano Bandarlipe pero sinabi ;o sa ;anila na hindi ;o po ala* ang baga+ na i+on. G "indi *o ba sinabi sa *ga pulis+a ng ,an Fabian ang ipinagtapat sa i+o ni Pol Bautista noong du*ating sa i+ong baha+ noong gabing i+onH A "indi po sir, dahil nata;ot po a;o. 57 As in the case of $itnesses 'ogelio Peralta and -eticia Bandarlipe, Feria*il@s alleged reaction to the ;illing of Cipriano Bandarlipe is be+ond credulit+. "o$ could Feria*il have slept so easil+ and so soundl+ $ith the confessed assailant of his ";u*padreH" Even *ore a*aBing is the fact that $hen he Feria*il# $as brought for Fuestioning to the police station the da+ after the shooting he si*pl+ ;ept silent about $hat he ;ne$ despite the fact that he $as the *ain suspect in the *urder, and onl+ revealed appellant@s alleged confession about ten .4# *onths after the incident. Finall+, as correctl+ noted b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral appellant has no *otive at all for ;illing the victi*. &hile generall+, the *otive of the accused in a cri*inal case is i**aterial and does not have to be proven, 51 proof of the sa*e beco*es relevant and essential $hen, as in this case, the identit+ of the assailant is in Fuestion. 55 Considering the apparent unreliabilit+ of the evidence proffered b+ the prosecution, this Court is constrained to rule for an acFuittal. In all cri*inal cases, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused on the principle that it is better to liberate a guilt+ *an than to un)ustl+ ;eep in prison one $hose guilt has not been proven b+ the reFuired Fuantu* of evidence. 59 Conviction, it is said, *ust rest on nothing less than a *oral certaint+ of guilt that $e find here to be $anting. 50 &"E'EF('E, the decision of the trial court is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E and appellant Alfonso Bautista is hereb+ ACG:I<<E> for lac; of proof be+ond reasonable doubt that he co**itted the cri*e of *urder against Cipriano Bandarlipe. <he >irector of Prisons is hereb+ directed to forth$ith cause the release of accused-appellant unless the latter is being la$full+ held for another cause and to infor* the Court accordingl+ $ithin ten .4# da+s fro* notice..c$phi..ndt ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. 054/3 Nove*ber 3, .88. PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PI(G:IN<( >E !(IA + C':K, defendant-appellant. <he ,olicitor 6eneral for plaintiff-appellee. 'odolfo P. -i$anag for accused-appellant.

FE-ICIAN(, !.%p In an Infor*ation dated 5 =a+ .803, appellant PioFuinto de !o+a + CruB $as charged before the 'egional <rial Court, 7rd !udicial 'egion, Branch .1, =alolos, Bulacan $ith the cri*e of robber+ $ith ho*icide co**itted as follo$s% <hat on or about the 7.st da+ of !anuar+, .803, in the *unicipalit+ of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the said accused PioFuinto de !o+a + CruB, did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+, $ith intent of sic# gain and $ithout the ;no$ledge and consent of the o$ner and, b+ *eans of violence and inti*idation, ta;e, carr+ and cart a$a+ t$o /# rings, one .# nec;lace, one .# piece of earring, belonging to Arnedo Ealencia + Angeles and Eulalia >ia*se Eda. de ,alac, to their da*age and pre)udice in the su* of FIEE ":N>'E> FIF<I PE,(, P554.44#C and that on the occasion of the said robber+ and for the purpose of enabling hi* to ta;e the said properties, the accused did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ $ith treacher+, evident pre*editation and great advantage of superior strength, $ith intent to ;ill, attac;, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Eulalia >ia*se Eda. de ,alac b+ stabbing and hitting the latter on her nec; and other parts of her bod+ $ith pointed instru*ent causing in)uries $hich directl+ caused the death of the said Eulalia >ia*se Eda. de ,alac. <hat in the co**ission of the offense, the follo$ing aggravating circu*stances $ere present .# abuse of superior strengthC /# co**itted in the d$elling of the offended part+C 7# disregard of age and se2C 1# abuse of confidence.

At arraign*ent, appellant >e !o+a pleaded not guilt+. After trial, the court a Fuo rendered a decision dated .9 =a+ .839 convicting >e !o+a of the cri*e charged. <he dispositive portion of the decision reads%

Page1

Contrar+ to la$. .

&"E'EF('E, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered, finding the accused guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of 'obber+ $ith "o*icide, co**itted $ith the aggravating circu*stances of% abuse of superior strength, old age, disregard of se2 the victi* a $o*an 33 +ears old, the cri*e $as co**itted in the d$elling of the victi*. <he accused being 0/ +ears old death penalt+ cannot be i*posed against hi* as provided in Article 10 of the 'evised Penal Code. <he Court therefore, sentences the accused to -IFE I=P'I,(N=EN<C to inde*nif+ the heirs of the victi* in the a*ount of P/4,444.44 and to pa+ da*ages in the a*ount of P554.44. <he bond of the accused is ordered cancelled and the accused to be confined i**ediatel+ in the National Penitentiar+ pending revie$ of his case b+ the ,upre*e Court. <he Cler; of Court is ordered to i**ediatel+ for$ard the record of this case to the ,upre*e Court for revie$. ,( ('>E'E>. / In this appeal, appellant raises a nu*ber of issues all of $hich, ho$ever, a*ount to one basic assertion% that the lo$er court erred in concluding that appellant $as guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e charged. <he facts have been su**ariBed in the brief of the ,olicitor 6eneral in the follo$ing *anner% <he spouses Arnedo Ealencia and "er*inia ,alac-Ealencia, together $ith their ten .4# +ear old son Alvin Ealencia and "er*inia Ealencia@s 33-+ear old *other, Eulalia >ia*se, are residents of Balagtas ,t., Baliuag, Bulacan. <,N, !une .., .83., p. /#. Both spouses are teachers b+ profession. Arnedo Ealencia teaches at the <iaong Ele*entar+ ,chool at Barrio <iaong, Baliuag, Bulacan $hereas "er*inia Ealencia teaches in an inter*ediate school at Baliuag, Bulacan. <,N, =arch .., .834, p. 0#. In the afternoon of !anuar+ 7., .803, "er*inia ,alac-Ealencia left for school to teach. "er *other Eulalia >ia*se $as then LsittingM at their sofa $atching the television set. <,N, (ctober ./, .803, p. 7#. "er ,on Alvin li;e$ise left for school at .%44 o@cloc;. And at 7%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon, his classes $ere dis*issed and he proceeded ho*e. <,N, =arch .., .834, p. 3#. At around 7%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon of that sa*e da+, the spouses Ealencia@s neighbor b+ the na*e of 6loria Capulong, together $ith a friend, $ent out of the for*er@s house to visit a friend. &hile at her +ard, 6loria Capulong loo;ed bac; to the direction of the Ealencia@s house. ,he noticed appellant PioFuinto de !o+a standing and holding a bic+cle at the +ard of the Ealencia@s. <,N, !une .., .83., pp. /-1#. &hen Alvin reached ho*e, he sa$ his grand*other Eulalia >ia*se l+ing do$n prostrate and drenched $ith her o$n blood. "e i**ediatel+ thre$ his bag and ran to$ards her. "e then held her hands and as;ed her% "Apo, Apo, $hat happenedH". <,N, =arch .., .834, p. .4#. . . . LEulalia >ia*se held his hand and after $hich said% ",i PaFui". After sa+ing these $ords, she let go of Alvin@s hand and passed a$a+. <,N, Ibid., pp. .1 and .0#. Alvin then called for his Nana Edeng and told her to see his lola because she $as drenched $ith her o$n blood. "is Nana Edeng told hi* to i**ediatel+ see his *other "er*inia ,alac-Ealencia to infor* her of $hat happened. <,N, Id#. :pon seeing her *other, Alvin told her% "=o**+, =o**+, apo is drenched in her o$n blood." <,N, =arch .., .834, p. /4#. "er*inia i**ediatel+ ran outside the school, flagged do$n a tric+cle and $ent ho*e. Alvin follo$ed, riding his bic+cle <,N, Id., p. /.#. &hen she reached their house, she found her *other l+ing prostrate in her o$n blood at their sala in front of the television. "er *other@s hands $ere stretched open and her feet $ere $ide apart. Blood $as ooBing out of her *other@s ears. ,he then e*braced her *other and placed her on the sofa. ,he as;ed Alvin and the tric+cle driver to call >r. >elfin <olentino. <,N, (ctober ./,.803, pp. /5-/9#. >r. <olentino arrived at around 1%44 o@cloc; that sa*e afternoon and e2a*ined the bod+ of Eulalia >ia*se. ,aid doctor declared that said Eulalia >ia*se had a heart attac; $hich caused her death. &hen as;ed b+ "er*inia Ealencia $h+ her *other@s ears $ere punctured, no repl+ $as given b+ said doctor. "er*inia reFuested for a death certificate, but >r. <olentino did not issue one and instead i**ediatel+ left. <,N, Ibid., pp. /0-/8#. "er*inia found out that the t$o /# gold rings $orn b+ her *other $ere *issing. <he right earring of her *other $as li;e$ise *issing. All of these $ere valued LatM P744.44 <,N, Id., p. .5#. <hat sa*e afternoon, "er*inia sa$ the roo* of the groundfloor ransac;ed. <he contents of the $ardrobe closet aparador# $ere ta;en out. Its secret co*part*entDbo2 $as *issing. And the loc; of the aparador $as destro+ed. <,N, (ctober ./, .803, pp. .5-.0#.

&hen she $ent upstairs after putting her *other on a bed at the ground floor, she found the t$o /# roo*s thereat in disarra+. ,he then caused the roo*s and things photographed b+ a certain 'icardo Ileto E2hibits "A" to "A-.."C <,N, (ctober ./, .803, p. .0#. -ater, "er*inia $ent to >r. Adela CruB and pleaded L$ithM said doctor to issue a death certificate so that her *other could be e*bal*ed. <,N, Id., pp. 77-71#. (n the sa*e night, "er*inia found a beach $al; step-in E2hibit "B"# b+ the side of the cabinet near the door of their roo* do$nstairs, *ore or less one *eter fro* $here the victi* $as l+ing prostrate. <,N, (ctober ./,.803, pp. /1-/5#. "er*inia $as able to recogniBe the said step-in because of its color and siBe, as the other half of the pair she bought for her husband Arnedo but $hich she gave to ,ocorro de !o+a, the $ife of herein appellant, before Christ*as of .800 $hen she sa$ the old and $ornout pair of slippers of the latter. <,N, Ibid.#. Appellant PioFuinto de !o+a visited the $a;e onl+ once. >uring the second da+ of the four-da+ $a;e, "er*inia sa$ herein appellant PioFuinto de !o+a enter the ;itchen and peep under the cabinet of the Ealencia@s# house. <,N, Id.#.

Page1

(n Februar+ 7, .803, a post-*orte* e2a*ination $as conducted b+ >r. 'o*ulo =adrid, a *edico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. Per e2a*ination, the cause of the death arrived b+ >r. =adrid $as "shoc;, secondar+ to punctured $ound nec;" E2hibit ">-."# situated at the right side of the nec;, )ust belo$ the right ear $herein it $ent out thru and thru, opposite, al*ost in the sa*e location, fro* one side of the nec; to the opposite side. E2hibit ">-/"#. In its decision, the trial court beca*e Fuite clear as to the factors $hich led to the )udg*ent of conviction against appellant. <hese factors, as set out in the decision of the trial court, $ere the follo$ing% In the case at bar, the prosecution relied heavil+ on the circu*stances surrounding the death of the victi* as testified to b+ the $itnesses and proven during the trial, also the d+ing state*ent of the deceased, $hich are% "er*inia testified that t$o $ee;s before the incident the accused and the deceased Fuarreled over a bic+cle $hich the for*er too; fro* their house $ithout the consent of the latterC that E2hibit "B" step-in beach $al; t+pe# $hich $as found near the cabinet one *eter a$a+ fro* the bod+ of the victi* $as identified b+ "er*inia as the step-in that she gave to the $ife of the accused and $hich she sa$ accused $earing on !anuar+ /8, .803 $hen she visited the* in their houseC the testi*on+ of 6loria Capulong that she sa$ the accused in the afternoon of !anuar+ 7., .803 at around 7%44 p.*. in the +ard of "er*inia standing and holding a bic+cleC the accused ad*itted, although his $ife is the sister of the husband of "er*inia he never visited the deceased during the four da+s that it $as l+ing in state $ithout an+ )ustifiable reason and contrar+ to the ordinar+ e2perience of *anC last but *ost convincing is the d+ing state*ent of the deceased $hen her grandson Alvin as;ed her "Apo, Apo, $hat happenedH" and she ans$ered, ",i Pa;i", then she e2pired. &hen Alvin $as as;ed during his testi*on+ $ho is this Pa;i, he identified the accused. <he accused during his testi*on+ never denied that he is called Pa;i. <he foregoing circu*stances established during the trial plus the d+ing state*ent of the deceased leads onl+ to one fair and reasonable conclusion, that the accused is the author of the cri*e. Anal+Bing the above portion of the decision, the ele*ents ta;en into account b+ the court in convicting appellant >e !o+a of robber+ $ith ho*icide *a+ be listed as follo$s% .. <he d+ing state*ent *ade b+ the deceased victi* to her grandson Alvin Ealencia a .4-+ear old bo+% ",i PaFui"C /. <he Fuarrel, $hich, according to "er*inia Ealencia, daughter of the deceased victi*, too; place t$o $ee;s before the robber+ and ho*icide, bet$een the appellant and the deceased over the use of a bic+cle $hich appellant allegedl+ too; fro* the Ealencia@s house $ithout the consent of the victi*C 7. <he rubber slipper, one of a pair, "step-in beach $al; t+pe"# $hich according to "er*inia, she found near a cabinet in their house one .# *eter a$a+ fro* the bod+ of the victi*, and $hich "er*inia identified as one of the pair that she had given to the $ife of the accused the previous Christ*as ,easonC 1. Accused $as seen b+ one 6loria Capulong around 7%44 p.*. in the afternoon of 7. !anuar+ .803 in the +ard of the Ealencias, standing and holding a bic+cle and doing nothingC 5. <he state*ent of appellant that he did not visit the deceased during the four-da+ $a;e. &e turn first to the d+ing state*ent *ade b+ the victi* $hen the .4-+ear old Alvin Ealencia as;ed his grand*other $ho $as spra$led on the floor of their house drenched $ith blood% "Apo, Apo, $hat happenedH" <he deceased victi* said% ",i PaFui". After uttering those t$o $ords, she e2pired. It is not disputed that "PaFui" is the nic;na*e of appellant PioFuinto de !o+a. It *ust be noted at once, ho$ever, that the $ords ",i PaFui" do not constitute b+ the*selves a sensible sentence. <hose t$o $ords could have been intended to designate either a# the sub)ect of a sentence or b# the ob)ect of a verb. If the+ had been intended to designate the sub)ect, $e *ust note that no predicate $as uttered b+ the deceased. If the+ $ere designed to designate the ob)ect of a verb, $e *ust note once *ore that no verb $as used b+ the deceased. <he phrase ",i PaFui" *ust, *oreover, be related to the Fuestion as;ed b+ Alvin% "Apo, Apo, $hat happenedH" Alvin@s Fuestion $as not% "Apo, Apo, $ho did this to +ouH" It has been held that a d+ing declaration to be ad*issible *ust be co*plete in itself. <o be co*plete in itself does not *ean that the declarant *ust recite ever+thing that constituted the res gestae of the sub)ect of his state*ent, but that his state*ent of an+ given fact should be a full e2pression of all that he intended to sa+ as conve+ing his *eaning in respect of such fact. 7 <he doctrine of co*pleteness has also been e2pressed in the follo$ing ter*s in Prof. &ig*ore@s classic $or;% <he application of the doctrine of co*pleteness is here peculiar. <he state*ent as offered *ust not be *erel+ apart of the $hole as it $as e2pressed b+ the declarantC it *ust be co*plete as far it goes. But it is i**aterial ho$ *uch of the $hole affair of the death is related, provided the state*ent includes all that the declarant $ished or intended to include in it. <hus, if an interruption b+ death or b+ an intruder# cuts short a state*ent $hich thus re*ains clearl+ less than that $hich the d+ing person $ished to *a;e, the frag*entar+ state*ent is not receivable, because the intended $hole is not there, and the $hole *ight be of a ver+ different effect fro* that of the frag*entC +et if the d+ing person finishes the state*ent he $ishes to *a;e, it is no ob)ection that he has told onl+ a portion of $hat he *ight have been able to tell. 1 E*phasis supplied# <he reason upon $hich inco*plete declarations are generall+ e2cluded, or if ad*itted, accorded little or no $eight, is that since the declarant $as prevented b+ death or other circu*stance# fro* sa+ing all that he $ished to sa+, $hat he did sa+ *ight have been Fualified b+ the state*ents $hich he $as prevented fro* *a;ing. <hat inco*plete declaration is not therefore entitled to the presu*ption of truthfulness $hich constitutes the basis upon $hich d+ing declarations are received. 5 It is clear to the Court that the d+ing declaration of the deceased victi* here $as inco*plete. In other $ords, the deceased $as cut off b+ death before she could conve+ a co*plete or sensible co**unication to Alvin. <he trial court si*pl+ assu*ed that b+ uttering the $ords ",i PaFui", the deceased had intended to na*e the person $ho had thrust so*e sharp instru*ent through and through her nec; )ust belo$ her ears. But Eulalia herself did not sa+ so and $e cannot speculate $hat the rest of her co**unication *ight have been had death not interrupted her. &e are unable to regard the d+ing state*ent as a d+ing declaration na*ing the appellant as the doer of the blood+ deed. <he other ele*ents ta;en into account b+ the trial court are purel+ circu*stantial in nature. &hen these circu*stances are e2a*ined one b+ one, none of the* can be said to lead clearl+ and necessaril+ to the conclusion that appellant had robbed and ;illed the deceased Eulalia >ia*se. <he Fuarrel over the use of the bic+cle $hich $as supposed to have ta;en place t$o $ee;s before Eulalia@s death does not, in our vie$, constitute adeFuate proof of a *otive capable of *oving a

Page1

person to sla+ another in such a violent and gor+ *anner. Failure to prove a credible *otive $here no identification $as sho$n at all, certainl+ $ea;ens the case of the prosecution. <he testi*on+ of "er*inia Ealencia about the single slipper that she found near or under the cabinet in the living roo* $here Eulalia >ia*se $as slain, can scarcel+ be regarded as conclusive evidence that such slipper $as indeed one of the ver+ sa*e pair of slippers that she had given to appellant@s $ife, $ho $as also the sister of "er*inia@s husband. 'ubber or beach, $al; slippers are *ade in such Fuantities b+ *ultiple *anufacturers that there *ust have been doBens if not hundreds of slippers of the sa*e color, shape and siBe as the pair that "er*inia gave to appellant@s $ife. And even if conclusive identification of the slippers had been offered, and it is assu*ed that appellant rather than his $ife# had $orn those ver+ slippers on that fatal afternoon, still the presence of that singular slipper did not clearl+ and directl+ connect the appellant to the robber+ or the sla+ing. At *ost, under that assu*ption, the presence of that slipper in the house of the Ealencias sho$ed that the accused had gone to the house of the Ealencias and there *islaid that slipper. &e note in this connection, that appellant hi*self had testified that he did enter the house of the Ealencias that afternoon, but after the ;illing of Eulalia >ia*se had been perpetrated, and there had found *an+ persons in the house vie$ing the bod+. <he testi*on+ of 6loria Capulong that she sa$ the accused in the afternoon of 7. !anuar+ .803 around 7%44 p.*. in the +ard of the Ealencias, standing and holding a bic+cle and doing nothing is, b+ itself, not proof of an+ act or circu*stance that $ould sho$ that appellant had perpetrated the sla+ing or the robber+. <he behaviour of the appellant, as testified to b+ 6loria Capulong, offers no basis for supposing that appellant, hi*self 0/ +ears of age, had )ust slain an 33-+ear old $o*an b+ s;e$ering her through the nec; and had ransac;ed both floors of the Ealencia house. Appellant@s failure to present hi*self to pa+ his respects to the deceased or her i**ediate fa*il+ during the four-da+ $a;e, does not give rise to an+ inference that appellant $as the sla+er of Eulalia >ia*se. Appellant had e2plained that he had been busil+ at $or;, se$ing and carr+ing on his trade as a tailor. Appellant, as alread+ noted, had dropped in the Ealencias@ house in the afternoon Eulalia >ia*se $as ;illed and had vie$ed the bod+ before it $as l+ing in state# along $ith several other persons. "is reluctance or inabilit+ to participate in the for*al $a;e is not necessaril+ a sign of guilt. &e are unable to agree $ith the trial )udge that such behaviour $as "contrar+ to the ordinar+ e2perience of *an" although respect for the dead is a co**on cultural trait of the Filipinos. In the ,olicitor-6eneral@s brief, it is casuall+ contended that the circu*stantial evidence against appellant included% "the atte*pt on the part of appellant PioFuinto de !o+a through his counsel to settle the case a*icabl+." 9 &e have e2a*ined the testi*on+ that the ,olicitor 6eneral pointed to in referring to a supposed atte*pt to settle the cri*inal charge a*icabl+. <hat testi*on+, given b+ Arnedo Ealencia, son-in-la$ of the deceased Eulalia >ia*se and brother-in-la$ of appellant PioFuinto de !o+a, $as as follo$s% G Iou also testified that before the release of the accused fro* the *unicipal )ail, +ou had a conversation $ith hi*, is that rightH A Ies, air. G &hat $as this conversation aboutH A "e called for *e and too; *e to his counsel Att+. Aguilar and according to hi* if onl+ Att+. Aguilar can tal; $ith *e, ever+thing $ill be settled. G "ave +ou seen and tal;ed to this Att+. AguilarH A Ies, I $ent $ith hi* to =anila, sir. G &hen $as thisH A <he ti*e he $as fetched out of )ail. G Iou are referring to the *unicipal )ailH A Ies, sir. G &hat did +ou and Att+. Aguilar discuss $hen +ou finall+ $as able to see Att+. AguilarH A &hen I $ent there, I $as introduced to Att+. Aguilar and Att+. Aguilar as;ed *e as to $hat I li;ed to happen. G &hat did +ou sa+H A I said if it $ill be settled, $ell and good. G An+thing else that transpiredH A "e even told *e if I *ight be able to convince both *+ $ife and her sisters. G >id he tell +ou he can settle thisH A "e $as ver+ certain that he can settle this, the ver+ reason $h+ he told *e because I $as ver+ certain as to $hat happened. G &as the accused PioFuinto de !o+a present $hen +ou $ere discussing this $ith his la$+erH A Ies, sir G "e heard $hat his, la$+er $as telling +ouH A It is possible because he is onl+ one or t$o *eters distance a$a+. G >id the accused sa+ an+thingH

Page1

A None, sir. E*phasis supplied#

&e find the above testi*on+ Fuite i*palpable and inconclusive so far as a supposed atte*pt of appellant, through his counsel, to offer a co*pro*ise on the cri*inal charge is concerned. &e are a$are of the provision of ,ection /1 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court $hich provides that ,ec. /1. (ffer to co*pro*ise not ad*ission. An offer of co*pro*ise is not an ad*ission that an+thing is due, and is not ad*issible in evidence against the person *a;ing the offer. "o$ever, in cri*inal cases $hich are not allo$ed b+ la$ to be co*pro*ised, an offer of co*pro*ise b+ the accused *a+ be received in evidence as an i*plied ad*ission of guilt. E*phasis supplied# &e do not, ho$ever, feel )ustified in concluding fro* the above testi*on+ fro* a *e*ber of the e2tended# fa*il+ of the deceased victi* that "an offer of co*pro*ise" had been *ade "b+ the accused" nor that "an i*plied ad*ission of guilt" on the part of the appellant *a+ be reasonabl+ inferred in the instant case. <he trial court itself *ade no *ention of an+ atte*pt on the part of appellant to settle the cri*inal case a*icabl+ through the defense counselC $e *ust assu*e that the trial court either did not believe that appellant had tried to co*pro*ise the cri*inal case or considered that appellant could not fairl+ be dee*ed to have i*pliedl+ ad*itted that he had indeed robbed and ;illed Eulalia >ia*se. A *uch higher level of e2plicitness and specific detail is necessar+ to )ustif+ a conclusion that an accused had i*pliedl+ ad*itted his guilt of a cri*e as serious as robber+ $ith ho*icide. <he totalit+ of the case *ade out against appellant >e !o+a thus consists of an inco*plete, aborted, d+ing declaration and a nu*ber of circu*stances $hich, singl+ or collectivel+, do not necessaril+ give rise to a co*pelling inference that appellant had indeed robbed and slain Eulalia >ia*se. &e consider, after prolonged scrutin+, that the su* total of the evidence in the instant case is insufficient to induce that *oral certaint+ of guilt $hich characteriBes proof be+ond reasonable doubt. <he conscience of the Court re*ains uneas+ and unsettled after considering the nature and speculative character of the evidence supporting the )udg*ent of conviction. <he Court *ust, accordingl+, hold as it hereb+ holds that appellant@s guilt of the cri*e of robber+ and ho*icide $as not sho$n be+ond reasonable doubt. ACC('>IN6-I, the decision of the trial court dated .9 =a+ .839 is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and appellant PioFuinto de !o+a is hereb+ ACG:I<<E> on grounds of reasonable doubt. It is so ordered. EN BANC 6.'. No. --73377 =arch ./, .834 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee vs. AI'(- A-IN6 I =A!:'I, accused $hose death sentence is under revie$. =a*intal <a*ano for the accused. (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral for appellee.

AG:IN(, !.% <his is a parricide case. Nori)a <. =oha*ad, 74, $as stabbed in the chest and diaphrag* on !anuar+ /3, .80/ at Calarian, Ka*boanga Cit+. ,he died at the Brent "ospital t$o da+s later. 6irlie Aling a relative of Airol Aling stated in her affidavit of Februar+ /., .80/ that she and >arla Aling Nori)a@s daughter# brought the victi* to the hospital. <he+ learned fro* the police that Nori)a $as stabbed b+ her husband p. 1, 'ecord#. (n =arch /1, .80/ Airol Aling 75, $as investigated b+ the police. "e declared in the Chavacano dialect his declaration $as translated into English# that he ;illed his $ife $ho* he *arried according to =usli* rites because e he $as infor*ed in prison b+ his relatives that his $ife $as living $ith another *an and fooling around $ith other *en. "e recounted the ;illing in this *anner% At or about one o@cloc; in the afternoon of !anuar+ /3, .80/, I $as at the seashore of Calarian rela2ing since I have )ust arrived fro* !olo, ,ulu that particular da+. At that ti*e, I $as alread+ running a$a+ fro* the authorities because I a* an escapee fro* ,an 'a*on Prison and Penal Far*. -ater on, I proceeded to *+ father@s house $hich is )ust near the seashore, :pon reaching the house, I sa$ Nori =oha*ad but I had no ti*e to tal; to her because i**ediatel+ after seeing *e, Nori ran a$a+, going to the direction of the street. Ar*ed $ith the bolo $hich I had been carr+ing $ith *e, I chased after Nori and I catch up $ith her at the street $here I started stabbing her $ith the bolo, hitting her on the different parts of the bod+. &hen I sa$ Nori fell do$n on the street badl+ $ounded, I hurriedl+ left the place and ran to$ards the far end of Calarian. E2h. /#. <$o police*en in their affidavit of =arch /1, .80/, affir*ed that Airol ad*itted to ,ergeant Antonio =acrohon in their presence that he stabbed his $ife because she had been going $ith *an+ *en E2h. .#. (n April .8, .80/, Airol Aling $as charged $ith parricide in the Court of First Instance of Ka*boanga Cit+. It $as alleged in the infor*ation that Airol $as a convict serving sentence at the penal colon+ for robber+ $ith frustrated ho*icide.

Page1

<he case $as first called for arraign*ent on =arch .5, .801. <he accused signified his $illingness to plead guilt+ although he had no la$+er. A counsel de oficio $as appointed for hi*. <he trial court granted counsel@s *otion to transfer the arraign*ent to =arch .3. (n that date, b+ agree*ent of the parties, the arraign*ent $as transferred to =arch /8, then to April 5, and later to April 74, .801. (n that last date, the infor*ation $as translated into the <ausug dialect $hich is spo;en b+ the accused. &ith the assistance of his counsel, he pleaded guilt+. <hen, the accused $as placed on the $itness stand and e2a*ined b+ his counsel. "e ad*itted that he ;illed his $ife. "e declared that after he $as infor*ed b+ his counsel that the penalt+ for parricide is death or life i*prison*ent, he, nevertheless, ad*itted the ;illing of his $ife because that $as the truth. In ans$er to the Fuestion of the fiscal, the accused said that he understood that b+ pleading guilt+ he could be sentenced to death or reclusion perpetua because he $as an escaped convict. "e described the confrontation $ith his $ife. &hen he arrived at his ho*e, his $ife ran and he pursued her. "e overtoo; her, stabbed her but she $as able to parr+ the blo$, and $hen -she fell on the ground, he repeatedl+ stabbed her in the abdo*en. "e said that he $as not coerced nor ca)oled into entering a plea of guilt+. "e ad*itted that he $as a prisoner in the penal colon+. "e $as a =usli* belonging to the ,a*al tribe of ,iasi ,ulu. "e ;illed his $ife because $hile he $as in prison, she did not visit hi* and she neglected their four children. "e agreed that his father-in-la$ could have the custod+ of his children. "e $as able to leave the penal colon+ because he $as a "living-out-prisoner". &hen he $ent to his house on !anuar+ /3, .80/, his purpose $as to be reconciled $ith his $ife but $hen she sa$ hi*, instead of $aiting for hi*, she ran a$a+. "e had infor*ation that his $ife $as guilt+ of infidelit+ or had a ";abit". <hat $as a grievous offense under =usli* custo*s. "e Identified his signature in his confession $hich $as s$orn to before the cler; of court E2h. B or /#. <he trial court sentenced Airol Aling to death and to pa+ an inde*nit+ of t$elve thousand pesos to the heirs of Nori)a =oha*ad. It noted that he pleaded guilt+ $ith full ;no$ledge of the *eaning and conseFuences of his plea. <he case $as elevated to this Court for auto*atic revie$ of the death penalt+. Counsel de oficio assigned to present the side of the accused in this revie$, contends that the *arriage of Airol to Nori)a $as not indubitabl+ proven. <hat contention cannot be sustained. <he testi*on+ of the accused that he $as *arried to the deceased $as an ad*ission against his penal interest. It $as a confir*ation of the *a2i* se*per praesu*itur *atri*onio and the presu*ption "that a *an and $o*an deporting the*selves as husband and $ife have entered into a la$ful contract of *arriage" ,ec. 5Lbbl, 'ule .7., 'ules of Court#. "e and the deceased had five children. "e alluded in his testi*on+ to his father-in-la$. <hat i*plies that the deceased $as his la$ful $ife. <he fact that he bitterl+ resented her infidelit+. "er failure to visit hi* n prison and her neglect of their children are other circu*stances confir*ator+ of their *arital status. <he contention that the accused did not understand full+ he nature and effect of =s plea of guilt+ is belied b+ the record. <he trial )udge, a =usli*, too; pans to follo$ the rule that in case a plea of guilt+ is entered in a capital case, evidence should be received in order to leave no roo* for reasonable doubt that the accused is guilt+ of the offense charged and that he had full ;no$ledge of the *eaning and conseFuences of his plea of guilt+ People vs. >uaban, --7.8./, August /1, .808#. In this case, the arraign*ent $as postponed three ti*es in order to enable his counsel to confer $ith hi* and e2plain to hi* the conseFuences of his plea of guilt+. <he accused testified. "is confession and the affidavit of the police*en $ho investigated hi* $ere presented in evidence. <he contention that the cri*e $as *itigated b+ the plea of guilt+ lac; of intention to co**it so grave a $rong and the circu*stance that the accused is a non-Christian is not $ell ta;en because he is a Fuasi-recidivist. <he special aggravating circu*stance of Fuasi-recidivis* cannot be offset b+ generic investigating circu*stances. <he fact that he escaped fro* confine*ent in order to ;ill his $ife sho$s a high degree of perversit+ and incorrigibilit+ "is being a non-Christian cannot serve to e2tenuate the heinousness of his offense. "e understood the gravit+ of his cri*e because he had attained so*e education. "e reached first +ear high school and he used to be a chec;er in a stevedoring fir*. "o$ever, onl+ since !ustices Barredo, =a;asiar, Antonio, AFuino, Concepcion !r., 6uerrero, Abad ,antos, >e Castro and =elencio-"errera# voted for the i*position of the death penalt+. &"E'EF('E, the trial court@s )udg*ent is affir*ed $ith the *odification that, for lac; of one vote, the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua Costs de oficio. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. ...98/ Februar+ 8, .889

A-E!AN>'( F:EN<E,, !'., petitioner, vs. C(:'< (F APPEA-, and PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, respondents. >ECI,I(N BE--(,I--(, !.%

Page1

,till professing innocence and insisting that he is a victi* of *ista;en identit+, petitioner Ale)andro Fuentes, !r., see;s reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals affir*ing his conviction for *urder..

At four o@cloc; in the *orning of /1 !une .838 !ulieto =alaspina together $ith 6odofredo -la*es, "onorio (so; and Alberto <oling, $as at a benefit dance at >u*p ,ite, <udela, <rento, Agusan del ,ur. Petitioner called =alaspina and placed his right ar* on the shoulder of the latter sa+ing, "Before, I sa$ +ou $ith a long hair but no$ +ou have a short hair."/ ,uddenl+ petitioner stabbed =alaspina in the abdo*en $ith a hunting ;nife. =alaspina fell to the ground and his co*panions rushed to his side. Petitioner fled. Before the victi* succu*bed to the gaping $ound on his abdo*en he *uttered that Ale)andro Fuentes, !r., stabbed hi*.7 >r. Porfirio -. ,alubre, the 'ural "ealth Ph+sician $ho autopsied the cadaver of !ulieto =alaspina on /1 !ul+ .838, reported that death $as due to "stab $ound at left lu*bar region .-.D/ in. in length $ith e2tracavitation of the s*all and large intestines."1 Petitioner clai*s on the other hand that it $as his cousin Koilo Fuentes, !r., alias "!onie" $ho ;nifed =alaspinaC that $hen the victi* $as ;illed he $as conversing $ith hi*C that he $as co*pelled to run a$a+ $hen he heard that so*ebod+ $ith a bolo and spear $ould ";ill all those fro* ,an Isidro" because "!onie," the ;iller, $as fro* that placeC that since he $as also fro* ,an Isidro he sought refuge in his brother@s house $here he *et "!onieC" that "!onie" ad*itted spontaneousl+ that he stabbed =alaspina because after a bo2ing *atch before the latter untied his gloves and punched hi*C that as there $ere *an+ persons *illing around the house "!onie" )u*ped out and escaped through the $indo$C that he $as arrested at eight o@cloc; in the *orning of /1 !une .838 $hile he $as in a store in the baranga+.5 <he 'egional <rial Court of Prosperidad, Agusan del ,ur, found petitioner guilt+ of *urder Fualified b+ treacher+ and i*posed on hi* an indeter*inate prison ter* of ten .4# +ears and one .# da+ of prison *a+or as *ini*u* to seventeen .0# +ears and four 1# *onths of reclusion te*poral as *a2i*u*, to inde*nif+ the heirs of the victi* !ulieto =alaspina the a*ount of P54,444.44 and to pa+ P3,744.44 as actual da*ages plus costs.9 <he Court of Appeals affir*ed the )udg*ent of the trial courtC hence, this petition for revie$. Petitioner contends that the appellate court erred $hen it held that petitioner $as positivel+ and categoricall+ identified as the ;iller of =alaspina, in affir*ing the )udg*ent of conviction and in holding petitioner liable for da*ages to the heirs of the victi*. Petitioner points to an alleged inconsistenc+ bet$een the testi*onies of prosecution $itnesses Alberto <oling and "onorio (so; to the effect that the+ sa$ petitioner stab =alaspina on the right lu*bar region, and the testi*on+ of the attending ph+sician that the victi* $as stabbed on the left lu*bar region. <his discrepanc+ is inconseFuential. &hat is *aterial is that =alaspina $as stabbed to death and that three 7# prosecution $itnesses positivel+ identified petitioner as the ;nife $ielder. It *ust be stressed that these $itnesses had ;no$n petitioner for Fuite so*e ti*e and never had an+ personal *isunderstanding nor altercation $ith the latter as to create an+ suspicion that the+ $ere i*pelled b+ ill *otives to falsel+ i*plicate hi*. <hat it $as another person $ho co**itted the offense is too incredible. No less than petitioner@s o$n $itness, Nerio Biscocho $ho clai*ed he also sa$ the ;illing, testified that Ale)andro Fuentes, !r., the petitioner, and "!onie" Fuentes are one and the sa*e person. <hus C(:'<% G &ho is this !oni Fuentes and Ale)andro FuentesH

A <hat !oni Fuentes is the sa*e of that or the accused Ale)andro Fuentes. I do not ;no$ his real na*e but he is called as !oni, sir, . . .0 (n cross-e2a*ination $itness Biscocho further ad*itted that he hi*self $ould call petitioner Ale)andro Fuentes, !r., as "!oni" or "!onie" Fuentes, as so*e of his friends did, but victi* =alaspina occasionall+ called petitioner "!unior".3 Petitioner $ould *a;e *uch of the alleged confession of Koilo Fuentes, !r., since it is a declaration against penal interest and therefore an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule. <he so-called confession of Koilo $as allegedl+ given to Felicisi*o Fuentes, the uncle of petitioner and Koilo, $ho in turn rela+ed the *atter to PD,gt. Ben)a*in Conde, !r. Felicisi*o testified that on /1 !une .838 $hile he $as at Baranga+ ,an Isidro, Koilo Fuentes, !r., confessed that he ;illed =alaspina in "retaliationC" that he even sho$ed hi* the ;nife he used and as;ed his help in finding a la$+er, in securing bail and, if possible, in $or;ing out a settle*ent $ith the relatives of the deceased. <he follo$ing da+ ho$ever he learned that the selfconfessed ;iller $as gone and that petitioner had been arrested for a cri*e he did not co**it.8 For his part, ,tation Co**ander PD,gt. Conde, !r., testified that after the cri*inal infor*ation for *urder $as filed on /9 !ul+ .838, petitioner *et Felicisi*o $ho infor*ed hi* of the disclosure b+ Koilo. Conde then advised Felicisi*o that if it $as true that it $as Koilo $ho fatall+ stabbed =alaspina Felicisi*o *ust persuade Koilo to surrender. Conde then personall+ $ent to Baranga+ ,an Isidro to investigate. <here he $as told b+ the to$nsfol; that Koilo had alread+ fled..4 (ne of the recogniBed e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule is that pertaining to declarations *ade against interest. ,ec. 73 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court provides that " t#he declaration *ade b+ a person deceased, or unable to testif+, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration $as at the ti*e it $as *ade so far contrar+ to declarant@s o$n interest, that a reasonable *an in his position $ould not have *ade the declaration unless he believed it to be true, *a+ be received in evidence against hi*self or his successors in interest and against third persons." <he ad*issibilit+ in evidence of such declaration is grounded on necessit+ and trust$orthiness... <here are three 7# essential reFuisites for the ad*issibilit+ of a declaration against interest% a# the declarant *ust not be available to testif+C b# the declaration *ust concern a fact cogniBable b+ the declarantC and c# the circu*stances *ust render it i*probable that a *otive to falsif+ e2isted. In the instant case, $e find that the declaration particularl+ against penal interest attributed to Koilo Fuentes !r. is not ad*issible in evidence as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule. &e are not una$are of People v. <oledo, ./ a .8/3 case, $here !ustice =alcol* $riting for the Court endeavored to ree2a*ine the declaration of third parties *ade contrar+ to their penal interest. In that case, the protagonists "olgado and =orales engaged in a bolo duel. =orales $as ;illed al*ost instantl+. "olgado $ho $as seriousl+ $ounded gave a s$orn state*ent E2h. .# before the *unicipal president declaring that $hen he and =orales fought there $as nobod+ else present. (ne .# *onth later "olgado died fro* his $ounds. &hile the Court $as agreed that <oledo, $ho reportedl+ intervened in the fight and dealt the *ortal blo$, should be e2onerated on reasonable doubt, the *e*bers did not reach an accord on the ad*issibilit+ of E2h. .. (ne group $ould totall+ disregard

Page1

E2h. . since there $as a*ple testi*onial evidence to support an acFuittal. <he second group considered E2h. . as part of the res gestae as it $as *ade on the sa*e *orning $hen the fight occurred. A third group, to $hich !ustice =alcol* belonged, opined that the court belo$ erred in not ad*itting E2h. . as the state*ent of a fact against penal interest. For all its atte*pt to de*onstrate the arbitrariness behind the re)ection in certain cases of declarations against penal interest, the <oledo case cannot be applied in the instant case $hich is re*ar;abl+ different. Consider this factual scenario% the alleged declarant Koilo Fuentes !r., a cousin of accused-appellant, verball+ ad*itted to the latter, and later to their co**on uncle Felicisi*o Fuentes, that he Koilo# ;illed the victi* because of a grudge, after $hich he disappeared. (ne stri;ing feature that *ilitates against the acceptance of such a state*ent is its patent untrust$orthiness. Koilo $ho is related to accused-appellant had ever+ *otive to prevaricate. <he sa*e can be said of accused-appellant and his uncle Felicisi*o. ,econdl+, $e need not resort to legal rhetorics to find that the ad*ission of such a state*ent *a+ li;e$ise be, according to &ig*ore, "shoc;ing to the sense of )ustice.".7 -et us assu*e that the trial court did ad*it the state*ent of Koilo and on that basis acFuitted accused-appellant. -et us assu*e further that Koilo $as subseFuentl+ captured and upon being confronted $ith his ad*ission of guilt readil+ repudiated the sa*e. <here is nothing, absolutel+ nothing, that can bind Koilo legall+ to that state*ent. But *ore i*portantl+, the far $eightier reason $h+ the ad*ission against penal interest cannot be accepted in the instant case is that the declarant is not "unable to testif+." <here is no sho$ing that Koilo is either dead, *entall+ incapacitated or ph+sicall+ inco*petent $hich ,ec. 73 obviousl+ conte*plates. "is *ere absence fro* the )urisdiction does not *a;e hi* ipso facto unavailable under this rule. .1 For it is incu*bent upon the defense to produce each and ever+ piece of evidence that can brea; the prosecution and assure the acFuittal of the accused. (ther than the gratuitous state*ents of accused-appellant and his uncle to the effect that Koilo ad*itted having ;illed =alaspina, the records sho$ that the defense did not e2ert an+ serious effort to produce Koilo as a $itness. -est $e be *isunderstood, the Court is al$a+s for the ad*ission of evidence that $ould let an innocent declaration of guilt b+ the real culprit. But this can be open to abuse, as $hen the e2tra)udicial state*ent is not even authenticated thus increasing the probabilit+ of its fabricationC it is *ade to persons $ho have ever+ reason to lie and falsif+C and it is not altogether clear that the declarant hi*self is unable to testif+. <hus, for this case at least, e2clusion is the prudent recourse as e2plained in <oledo <he purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. <he reason for the hearsa+ rule is that the e2tra)udicial and uns$orn state*ent of another is not the best *ethod of serving this purpose. In other $ords, the great possibilit+ of the fabrication of falsehoods, and the inabilit+ to prove their untruth, reFuires that the doors be closed to such evidence..5 <he Court of Appeals as $ell as the trial court correctl+ deter*ined the cri*e to be *urder Fualified b+ treacher+. <he suddenness of the attac;, $ithout an+ provocation fro* the unsuspecting victi*, *ade the stabbing of =alaspina treacherous..9 "o$ever, the court a Fuo erred in i*posing an indeter*inate prison ter* of ten .4# +ears and one .# da+ of prison *a+or as *ini*u* to seventeen .0# +ears and four 1# *onths of reclusion te*poral as *a2i*u*. =urder under Art. /13 of <he 'evised Penal Code is punishable b+ reclusion te*poral in its *a2i*u* period to death. ,ince aside fro* treacher+ Fualif+ing the cri*e to *urder there is no other *odif+ing circu*stance proved, the *ediu* period of the penalt+, i.e. reclusion perpetua, should have been i*posed on petitioner..0 Petitioner *aintains that assu*ing that he co**itted the cri*e it is error to hold hi* ans$erable for P3,744.44 as actual da*ages on the basis of the *ere testi*on+ of the victi*@s sister, Angelina ,errano, $ithout an+ tangible docu*ent to support such clai*. <his is a valid point. in cri*es and Fuasi-delicts, the defendant is liable for all da*ages $hich are the natural and probable conseFuences of the act or o*ission co*plained of..3 <o see; recover+ for actual da*ages it is essential that the in)ured part+ proves the actual a*ount of loss $ith reasonable degree of certaint+ pre*ised upon co*petent proof and on the best evidence available. .8 Courts cannot si*pl+, rel+ on speculation, con)ecture or guess$or; in deter*ining the fact and a*ount of da*ages./4 <he a$ard b+ the court a Fuo of P3,744.44 as actual da*ages is not supported b+ the evidence on record. &e have onl+ the testi*on+ of the victi*@s elder sister stating that she incurred e2penses of P3,744.44 in connection $ith the death of =alaspina. /. "o$ever, no proof of the actual da*ages $as ever presented in court. (f the e2penses alleged to have been incurred, the Court can onl+ give credence to those supported b+ receipts and $hich appear to have been genuinel+ e2pended in connection $ith the death of the victi*. ,ince the actual a*ount $as not substantiated, the sa*e cannot be granted.// &"E'EF('E, the )udg*ent appealed fro* finding petitioner A-E!AN>'( F:EN<E, !'. guilt+ of =:'>E' and directing hi* to inde*nif+ the heirs of !ulieto =alaspina in the a*ount of P54,444.44 plus costs is AFFI'=E> $ith the *odification that the penalt+ i*posed should be as it is corrected to reclusion perpetua, and the a$ard of actual da*ages is deleted. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. ..7935 !une .8, .880 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. <"E(>('E BE'NA-, !("N >(E and PE<E' >(E, accused-appellants.

'(=E'(, !.% Accused-appellant <heodore Bernal, together $ith t$o other persons $hose identities and $hereabouts are still un;no$n, $ere charged $ith the cri*e of ;idnapping in Cri*inal Case No. /9953-8/ of the 'egional <rial Court of >avao Cit+, Branch .4, under an infor*ation . dated !ul+ .7, .88/, $hich reads as follo$s% <hat on or about August 5, .88., in the Cit+ of >avao, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-*entioned accused, ar*ed $ith hand guns, conspiring, confederating and cooperating together and helping one another, and b+ *eans of force, violence, inti*idation and threat, $ilfull+, unla$full+, and feloniousl+ grabbed and ;idnapped one Bienvenido (penda, !r., $hile the latter $as drin;ing liFuor $ith his friends as Bolton Isla, this Cit+ and $as brought, handcuffed and carried a$a+ using the P: then fled together $ith Bienvenido (penda, !r., thereb+ depriving the said Bienvenido (penda, !r. of his libert+ against his $ill.

Page1

C(N<'A'I <( -A&. A plea of not guilt+ having been entered b+ Bernal during his arraign*ent, trial ensued. <he prosecution presented four $itnesses. / (n the other hand, <heodore Bernal testified for his defense. <he *aterials facts and events as found b+ the court a Fuo are% It appears that on August 5, .88., around ..%74 in the *orning, $hile 'oberto 'acasa and (penda, !r. $ere engaged in a drin;ing spree, the+ invited Bernal, $ho $as passing b+, to )oin the*. After a fe$ *inutes, Bernal decided to leave both *en, apparentl+ because he $as going to fetch his child. <hereafter, t$o *en arrived, approached (penda, !r., and as;ed the latter if he $as "Pa+at." 7 &hen he said +es, one of the* suddenl+ pulled out a handgun $hile the other handcuffed hi* and told hi* "not to run because the+ $ere police*en" and because he had an "atraso" or a score to settle $ith the*. <he+ then hastil+ too; hi* a$a+. 'acasa i**ediatel+ $ent to the house of (penda, !r. and infor*ed the latter@s *other of the abduction. <he theor+ of the prosecution, as culled fro* the testi*on+ of a certain ,alito EnriFueB, tends to establish that (penda, !r. had an illicit affair $ith Bernal@s $ife Nat+ and this $as the *otive behind the for*er@s ;idnapping. :ntil no$, (penda, !r. is still *issing. (n the other hand, the defense asserts that (penda !r. $as a drug-pusher arrested b+ the police on August 5, .88., and hence, $as never ;idnapped. 1 (n >ece*ber .4, .887, the court a Fuo rendered )udg*ent 5 finding Bernal "guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of ;idnapping for the abduction and disappearance of Bienvenido (penda !r. under Article /90 of the 'evised Penal Code and hereb+ sentences hi* to reclusion perpetua and to inde*nif+ his *other <eresita (penda in the a*ount of P54,444.44 for her *ental anguish and *oral suffering." 9 Bernal assails the lo$er court for giving $eight and credence to the prosecution $itnesses@ allegedl+ illusor+ testi*onies and for convicting hi* $hen his guilt $as not proved be+ond reasonable doubt. &e find no co*pelling reason to overturn the decision of the lo$er court. <he Court notes that up to this da+, neither the victi* nor his bod+ has been found. <his, ho$ever, does not preclude the Court fro* ruling on the *erits of the case. In Pidnapping, $hat is i*portant is to deter*ine and prove the fact of seiBure, and the subseFuent disappearance of the victi* $ill not e2onerate an accused fro* prosecution therefor. (ther$ise, ;idnappers can easil+ avoid punish*ent b+ the si*ple e2pedient of disposing of their victi*@s bodies. Article /90 of the 'evised Penal Code provides thus% Art. /90. A Pidnapping and serious illegal detention. A An+ private individual $ho shall ;idnap or detain another, or in an+ other *anner deprive hi* of his libert+, shall suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua to death% .. If the ;idnapping or detention shall have lasted *ore than five da+s. /. If it shall have been co**itted si*ulating public authorit+. 7. If an+ serious ph+sical in)uries shall have been inflicted upon the person ;idnapped or detained, or if threats to ;ill hi* shall have been *ade. 1. If the person ;idnapped or detained shall be a *inor, fe*ale or a public officer. <he penalt+ shall be death $here the ;idnapping or detention $as co**itted for the purpose of e2torting ranso* fro* the victi* or an+ other person, even if none of the circu*stances above-*entioned $ere present in the co**ission of the offense. For the charge of ;idnapping to prosper, the deprivation of the victi*@s libert+, $hich is the essential ele*ent of the offense, *ust be dul+ proved. In the case at bar, Bernal indisputabl+ acted in conspirac+ $ith the t$o other un;no$n individuals "as sho$n b+ their concerted acts evidentiar+ of a unit+ of thought and co**unit+ of purpose." 0 Proof of conspirac+ is perhaps *ost freFuentl+ *ade b+ evidence of a chain of circu*stances onl+. 3<he circu*stances present in this case sufficientl+ indicate the participation of Bernal in the disappearance of (penda, !r. <he prosecution has profferred sufficient evidence to sho$ that, indeed, Bernal, together $ith his t$o co*panions, abducted (penda, !r. on August 5, .88.. A certain Adonis ,agarino, a childhood friend and neighbor of the victi*, testified that he sa$ Bernal at the billiard hall at about ..%44 a.*. $ith his t$o co*panions and overheard hi* dispatching one of the* to "<arsing@s ,tore" to chec; if a certain person $as still there. <his person later turned out to be (penda, !r. "e added that after the latter@s presence $as confir*ed, the three *en left the billiard hall. =inutes later, (penda, !r., alread+ handcuffed, passed b+ the billiard hall $ith Bernal@s co*panions. EFuall+ i*portant is the testi*on+ of 'oberto 'acasa, a resident of Bucana, >avao Cit+ $ho ;ne$ both Bernal and the victi*, the for*er being his neighbor and co*padre. "e narrated that he and the victi* $ere drin;ing at "<arsing@s ,tore" on that fateful da+ $hen Bernal passed b+ and had a drin; $ith the*. After a fe$ *inutes, Bernal decided to leave, after $hich, t$o *en ca*e to the store and as;ed for "Pa+at." &hen (penda, !r. confir*ed that he $as indeed "Pa+at," he$ $as handcuffed and ta;en a$a+ b+ the unidentified *en. -i;e$ise, a certain ,alito EnriFueB, a tailor and a friend of (penda, !r., testified that so*eti*e in !anuar+ .88., (penda, !r. confided to hi* that he and Bernal@s $ife Nat+ $ere having an affair. (ne ti*e, Nat+ even gave (penda, !r. *one+ $hich the+ used to pa+ for a *otel roo*. "e advised Nat+ "not to do it again because she $as# a *arried $o*an. 8 :ndoubtedl+, his $ife@s infidelit+ $as a*ple reason for Bernal to conte*plate revenge. =otive is generall+ irrelevant, unless it is utiliBed in establishing the identit+ of the perpetrator. Coupled $ith enough circu*stantial evidence of facts fro* $hich it *a+ be reasonabl+ inferred that the accused $as the *alefactor, *otive *a+ be sufficient to support a conviction. .4 (penda, !r.@s revelation to EnriFueB regarding his illicit relationship $ith Bernal@s $ife is ad*issible in evidence, pursuant to ,ection 73, 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules on Evidence, viB.%

Page1

,ec. 73. >eclaration against interest. A <he declaration *ade b+ a person deceased, or unable to testif+, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration $as at the ti*e it $as *ade so far contrar+ to declarant@s o$n interest, that a reasonable *an in his position $ould not have *ade the declaration unless he believed it to be true, *a+ be received in evidence against hi*self or his successors-in-interest and against third persons. &ith the deletion of the phrase "pecuniar+ or *oral interest" fro* the present provision, it is safe to assu*e that "declaration against interest" has been e2panded to include all ;inds of interest, that is, pecuniar+, proprietar+, *oral or even penal. ..

A state*ent *a+ be ad*issible $hen it co*plies $ith the follo$ing reFuisites, to $it% " .# that the declarant is dead or unable to testif+C /# that it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarantC 7# that at the ti*e he *ade said declaration the declarant $as a$are that the sa*e $as contrar+ to his aforesaid interestC and 1# that the declarant had no *otive to falsif+ and believed such declaration to be true." ./ (penda, !r., having been *issing since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testif+. "is confession to EnriFueB, definitel+ a declaration against his o$n interest, since his affair $ith Nat+ Bernal $as a cri*e, is ad*issible in evidence .7 because no sane person $ill be presu*ed to tell a falsehood to his o$n detri*ent. .1 In his brief, Bernal highlights supposed inconsistencies in ,agarino@s testi*on+. "e alleges that the latter could not have seen the actual handcuffing because "<arsing@s ,tore" could not be seen fro* the billiard hall. ,agarino@s testi*on+ sho$s that after Bernal and t$o others left the billiard hall, the latter ca*e bac; $ith (penda, !r., alread+ handcuffed. G <he three of the* togetherH A Ies, sir. G And $hat about +ou, $here did +ou sta+H A I )ust sta+ed in the billiard hall. G &hile +ou sta+ sic# in the billiard hall, after a $hile, $hat did +ou see ne2tH A <he t$o ca*e bac;. G &ho $ere these t$o $ho* +ou said $ho sic# ca*e bac;H A <he co*panions of Bernal. G And $hat did these t$o *en doH A <he+ apprehended !un-)un (penda. .5 Fro* this proceeding, Bernal $rongl+ inferred that ,agarino actuall+ sa$ (penda, !r. arrested. <he lo$er court correctl+ re)ected this argu*ent b+ holding that% But ,agarino has not said that he sa$ the actual handcuffing of (penda, !r. at the <arsing or <arcing store. (n the contrar+, he sa+s that he had not ;no$n $ho the person $as that Bernal referred to $hen he reFuested one of this t$o co*panions to go see if that person $as still there at the store, and that he ca*e to ;no$ that he $as (penda, !r. onl+ after he sa$ (penda, !r. pass b+ the billiard hall alread+ handcuffed, $ith the t$o unidentified co*panions of Bernal $ith hi*, on their $a+ out to the *ain road. .9 If one had a direct vie$ of "<arsing@s ,tore" fro* the billiard hall, Bernal $ould not have reFuested his co*panion to chec; if (penda, !r. $ere still there drin;ing $ith 'acasa. Another discrepanc+ pointed out b+ Bernal arose fro* the testi*onies of 'acasa and ,agarino. 'acasa, on cross-e2a*ination, stated% G After <heodore Bernal left +ou have seen hi* also returned sic# $ith his child, is that correctH A Ies, sir, because I $as still in the store. .0 (n the other hand, ,agarino averred that% G &hen <heodore Bernal left the place, ho$ long sic# $ere +ou able to see hi* againH A Guite a ti*e, sir, because $hen the+ left, his t$o co*panions ca*e bac; and proceeded to <arcing ,tore and arrested !un-)un (penda. &hen these t$o *en brought out !un-)un (penda, fifteen *inutes later, Bernal ca*e. G >o +ou ;no$ $here this Bernal fro*H sic# A "e $as co*ing fro* outside. G "e has $ith hi* his sonH A "e $as $ith nobod+, sir. G Are +ou sure of thatH A Ies, sir. G "e $as aloneH A Ies, sir. .3 <he testi*onies of 'acasa and ,agarino are not absolutel+ inconsistent $ith each other as to be irreconcilable. Considering the pro2i*it+ of the store fro* the billiard hall, there is a possibilit+ that $hen 'acasa sa$ Bernal $ith his son at the store, the latter could have alread+ brought ho*e his son before proceeding alone to the billiard hall $here he $as see* b+ ,egarino. .8

Page1

Bernal $ould li;e the Court to dis*iss ,agarino@s testi*on+ b+ i*puting revenge as his *otive for testif+ing. "e alleges that on !ul+ /8, .88., or si2 da+s before the alleged ;idnapping, five police*en arrived at Pasila;, Bucana on board a patrol car as;ing for (penda, !r., ,agarino, !oseph =endoBa, >anso+ =adelo and >ago+ Balagan. "e replied that the+ $ere residents of the place and sta+ing at the billiard hall and *ah)ong house. <he police*en departed and $ent to the places he *entioned. G =inutes later do +ou ;no$ $hat happenedH A <he+ ca*e bac;. G &hat did +ou do after the+ ca*e bac;H A I as;ed these police officers if the+ found these sic# persons the+ $ere loo;ing for# H G &hat $as their ans$erH A <he+ ans$ered in the negative. G ,ince the ans$er is in the negative, $hat did +ou do H A I as;ed the police officers $h+ the+ $ere loo;ing for these persons. H# G &hat $as the ans$er of the police*enH A <he police officer said that those people $ere $anted b+ the* because accordingl+ sic# the+ $ere *ari)uana pushers. /4 Bernal@s position is that no abduction or ;idnapping ever too; place but that an arrest $as *ade b+ pursuing police*en. <his contention is Fuite i*probable, if not highl+ preposterous. <he trial court correctl+ appreciated the testi*on+ of ,agarino, it being free fro* an+ ill-*otive against Bernal. If the latter@s allegations $ere true, then ,agarino should have been arrested b+ the police at the ti*e he gave his testi*on+ in court. No such arrest $as, ho$ever, *ade. <he court a Fuo co**itted no error in finding the testi*onies of EnriFueB, 'acasa and ,agarino sufficient to convict Bernal. <he court said that ,agarino@s forthright ans$ers to the Fuestions of the prosecutor and defense counsel clearl+ establish the participation of Bernal in the abduction or ;idnapping or (penda, !r. Evidence, to be believed, *ust not onl+ proceed fro* the *outh of a credible $itness, but *ust be credible in itself. /. <his Court once again finds occasion to reiterate the established rule that the findings of fact of a trial court carr+ great $eight and are entitled to respect on appeal, absent an+ strong and cogent reason to the contrar+, since it is in a better position to decided the Fuestion of credibilit+ of $itnesses. // &e note that after a lapse of a considerable length of ti*e, the victi* has +et to resurface. Considering the circu*stances, it is safe to assu*e that (penda, !r. is alread+ dead. Finall+, the ,olicitor 6eneral, pursuant to the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$, reco**ended to this Court the penalt+ of seventeen .0# +ears of reclusion te*poral, as *ini*u*, to reclusion perpetua, as *a2i*u*. <he *a2i*u* penalt+ *ust be deter*ined in accordance $ith rules and provision of the 'evised Penal Code. &ith respect to the *ini*u* penalt+, ho$ever, "it is left entirel+ $ithin the discretion of the court to fi2 it an+$here $ithin the range of the penalt+ ne2t lo$er $ithout reference to the periods into $hich it *a+ be subdivided." /7 Consistent $ith this ruling, this Court i*poses reclusion te*poral, in its *a2i*u* period, as the *ini*u* penalt+, to reclusion perpetua, as *a2i*u*. &"E'EF('E, in vie$ of the foregoing, the instant appeal is >I,=I,,E> and the appealed decision dated Nove*ber .3, .887, is AFFI'=E> in toto. Costs against accused-appellant <heodore Bernal. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. N(. .19559 April .8, /449

>ANI-( -. PA'E-, Petitioner, vs. ,I=E(N B. P':>ENCI(, 'espondent. >ECI,I(N A:,<'IA-=A'<INEK, !.% Before us is a petition for revie$ on certiorari filed b+ >anilo Parel petitioner# $hich see;s to set aside the >ecision. dated =arch 7., /444 of the Court of Appeals CA# $hich reversed the >ecision of the 'egional <rial Court '<C#, Branch 94, Baguio, in Civil Case No. /187-', a case for recover+ of possession and da*ages. Also assailed is CA 'esolution/ dated Nove*ber /3, /444. (n Februar+ /0, .88/, ,i*eon Prudencio respondent# filed a co*plaint for recover+ of possession and da*ages against petitioner $ith the '<C Baguio alleging that% he is the o$ner of a t$o-store+ residential house located at No. 9. Forbes Par; National 'eservation near >epart*ent of Public ,ervice >P,# co*pound, Baguio Cit+C such propert+ $as constructed solel+ fro* his o$n funds and declared in his na*e under <a2 >eclaration No. 10413C he co**enced the construction of said house in .80/ until its co*pletion three +ears laterC $hen the second floor of said house beca*e habitable in .807, he allo$ed petitionerNs parents, Florentino no$ deceased# and ,usan Parel, to *ove therein and occup+ the second floor $hile the construction of the ground floor $as on-going to supervise the construction and to safeguard the *aterialsC $hen the construction of the second floor $as finished in .805, respondent allo$ed petitionerNs parents and children to transfer and te*poraril+ reside thereatC it $as done out of sheer *agnani*it+ as petitionerNs parents have no house of their o$n and since respondentNs $ife is the older sister of Florentino, petitionerNs fatherC in Nove*ber .835, respondent $rote Florentino a notice for the* to vacate the said house as the for*er $as due for retire*ent and he needed

Page1

the place to $hich petitionerNs parents heeded $hen the+ *igrated to :.,. in .839C ho$ever, $ithout respondentNs ;no$ledge, petitioner and his fa*il+ unla$full+ entered and too; possession of the ground floor of respondentNs houseC petitionerNs refusal to vacate the house despite repeated de*ands pro*pted respondent to file the instant action for recover+ of possession. 'espondent also as;ed petitioner for a *onthl+ rental of P7,444.44 fro* April .833 and ever+ *onth thereafter until the latter vacates the said pre*ises and surrender possession thereofC and for *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages, attorne+Ns fees and cost of suit. Petitioner filed his Ans$er $ith Counterclai* alleging that% his parents are the co-o$ners of the said residential house, i.e., the upper stor+ belongs to respondent $hile the ground floor pertains to petitionerNs parentsC he is occup+ing the ground floor upon the instruction of his father, Florentino, $ith respondentNs full ;no$ledgeC his parents spent their o$n resources in i*proving and constructing the said t$o-store+ house as co-o$ners thereofC the late Florentino $as an a$ardee of the land on $hich the house stands and as a co-o$ner of the house, he occupied the ground floor thereofC the de*and to vacate $as respondentNs atte*pt to deprive petitionerNs parents of their rights as co-o$ner of the said houseC that respondent had filed e)ect*ent case as $ell as cri*inal cases against the* involving the sub)ect house $hich $ere all dis*issed. Petitioner as;ed for the dis*issal of the co*plaint and pra+ed for da*ages and attorne+Ns fees. After trial on the *erits, the '<C rendered a >ecision7 dated >ece*ber .5, .887, the dispositive portion of $hich reads% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the Court hereb+ declares that the house erected at No. 9. >P, Co*pound, Baguio Cit+ is o$ned in co**on b+ the late Florentino Parel and herein plaintiff ,i*eon Prudencio and as such the plaintiff cannot evict the defendant as heirs of the deceased Florentino Parel fro* said propert+, nor to recover said pre*ises fro* herein defendant. -i;e$ise, the plaintiff is ordered to% a# pa+ the defendant in the total su* of P/4,444.44 for *oral and actual da*agesC b# pa+ the defendant P/4,444.44 in Attorne+Ns fees and P7,744.44 in appearance feesC c# pa+ the costs of this suit.1 <he '<C found the follo$ing *atters as conclusive% that petitionerNs father $as an allocatee of the land on $hich the sub)ect house $as erected, as one of the lo$l+-paid govern*ent e*plo+ees at that ti*e $hen then =a+or -uis -ardiBabal gave the* the chance to construct their o$n house on said reservationC that respondent failed to sho$ proof of an+ contract, $ritten or oral, e2press or i*plied, that the late Florentino and his fa*il+ sta+ed on the house not as co-o$ners but as *ere lessees, nor an+ other proof that $ould clearl+ establish his sole o$nership of the houseC and, that the late Florentino $as the one $ho gathered the laborers for the construction of the house and paid their salaries. <hus, the '<C ruled that coo$nership e2isted bet$een respondent and petitionerNs father, Florentino. <he '<C concluded that respondent and petitionerNs father agreed to contribute their *one+ to co*plete the houseC that since the land on $hich said house $as erected has been allocated to petitionerNs father, the parties had the understanding that once the house is co*pleted, petitionerNs father could ;eep the ground floor $hile respondent the second floorC the trial court Fuestioned the fact that it $as onl+ after .5 +ears that respondent asserted his clai* of sole o$nership of the sub)ect houseC respondent failed to disprove that petitionerNs father contributed his o$n funds to finance the construction of the houseC that respondent did not Fuestion .# the fact that it $as the deceased Florentino $ho ad*inistered the construction of the house as $ell as the one $ho supplied the *aterialsC and /# the fact that the land $as in FlorentinoNs possession created the i*pression that the house indeed is )ointl+ o$ned b+ respondent and Florentino. <he '<C did not give credence to the ta2 declaration as $ell as the several docu*ents sho$ing the Cit+ AssessorNs assess*ent of the propert+ all in respondentNs na*e since ta2 declarations are not conclusive proof of o$nership. It re)ected the affidavit e2ecuted b+ Florentino declaring the house as o$ned b+ respondent sa+ing that the affidavit should be read in its entiret+ to deter*ine the purpose of its e2ecutionC that it $as e2ecuted because of an advise*ent addressed to the late Florentino b+ the Cit+ <reasurer concerning the propert+Ns ta2 assess*ent and Florentino, thought then that it should be the respondent $ho should pa+ the ta2esC and that the affidavit cannot be accepted for being hearsa+. Aggrieved b+ such decision, respondent appealed to the CA. In a >ecision dated =arch 7., /444, the CA reversed the trial court and declared respondent as the sole o$ner of the sub)ect house and ordered petitioner to surrender possession of the ground floor thereof to respondent i**ediatel+. It also ordered petitioner to pa+ respondent a *onthl+ rental of P/,444.44 for use or occupanc+ thereof fro* April .833 until the for*er actuall+ vacates the sa*e and the su* of P54,444.44 as attorne+Ns fees and cost of suit. <he CA found as *eritorious respondentNs contention that since petitioner failed to for*all+ offer in evidence an+ docu*entar+ evidence, there is nothing to refute the evidence offered b+ respondent. It ruled that the trial courtNs state*ent that "defendantsN occupanc+ of the house is due to a special po$er of attorne+ e2ecuted b+ his parents *ost speciall+ the deceased Florentino Parel $ho is in fact a co-o$ner of said building" is $anting of an+ concrete evidence on recordC that said po$er of attorne+ $as never offered, hence, could not be referred to as petitionerNs evidence to support his clai*C that e2cept for the bare testi*onies of Candelario 'egua, the carpenter-fore*an, that it $as Florentino $ho constructed the house and CoraBon 6arcia, the for*er baranga+ captain, $ho testified that the lot $as allocated to petitionerNs father, there $as no supporting docu*ent $hich $ould sufficientl+ establish factual bases for the trial courtNs conclusionC and that the rule on offer of evidence is *andator+. <he CA found the affidavit dated ,epte*ber /1, .807 of Florentino, petitionerNs father, stating that he is not the o$ner of the sub)ect house but respondent, as conclusive proof of respondentNs sole o$nership of the sub)ect house as it is a declaration *ade b+ Florentino against his interest. It also found the ta2 declarations and official receipts representing pa+*ents of real estate ta2es of the Fuestioned propert+ covering the period .801 to .88/ sufficient to establish respondentNs case $hich constitute at least proof that the holder has a clai* of title over the propert+. PetitionerNs *otion for reconsideration $as denied in a 'esolution dated Nove*ber /3, /444..avvphil.net "ence, the instant petition for revie$ on certiorari $ith the follo$ing Assign*ent of Errors% .. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, 6'AEE-I E''E> IN FIN>IN6 'E,P(N>EN< A, <"E (&NE' (F <"E B:I->IN6 A< 9. F('BE, PA'P NA<I(NA- 'E,E'EA<I(N, NEA' >P, C(=P(:N>, BA6:I( CI<I,

Page1

N(<&I<",<AN>IN6 <"E FIN>IN6 (F <"E 'E6I(NA- <'IA- C(:'< (F C(-(&NE',"IP BE<&EEN <"E -A<E F-('EN<IN( PA'E- AN> 'E,P(N>EN<C /. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, 6'AEE-I E''E> IN ('>E'IN6 PE<I<I(NE' <( ,:''EN>E' P(,,E,,I(N (F <"E 6'(:N> F-((' (F <"E ,:B!EC< B:I->IN6 <( 'E,P(N>EN<C 7. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, 6'AEE-I E''E> IN ('>E'IN6 PE<I<I(NE' <( PAI 'E,P(N>EN<P/,444.44D=(N<" F(' :,E (' (CC:PANCI (F <"E ,:B!EC< P'E=I,E, F'(= AP'I- .833 :N<IPE<I<I(NE' AC<:A--I EACA<E, <"E ,A=EC 1. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, 6'AEE-I E''E> IN ('>E'IN6 PE<I<I(NE' <( PAI <( 'E,P(N>EN<P54,444.44 A<<('NEIN, FEE, AN> C(,<, (F ,:I<C 5. <"E "(N('AB-E 'EC(N,I>E'A<I(N. 5 C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> IN >ENIIN6 PE<I<I(NE'N, =(<I(N F('

Petitioner concedes that $hile his for*er counsel failed to *a;e a for*al offer of his docu*entar+ evidence before the trial court and that the court shall consider no evidence $hich has not been for*all+ offered, he *aintains that the said rule is not absolute, citing the case of Bravo, !r. v. Bor)aC 9 that his docu*entar+ evidence $hich $ere not for*all+ offered in evidence $ere *ar;ed during the presentation of the testi*on+ of petitionerNs $itnesses and $ere part of their testi*oniesC that these evidence $ere part of the *e*orandu* filed b+ hi* before the trial court on !ul+ ./, .887. Petitioner insists that even in the absence of the docu*entar+ evidence, his testi*on+ as $ell as that of his $itnesses substantiated his clai* of co-o$nership of the sub)ect house bet$een his late father and respondent as found b+ the trial court. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in finding the affidavit of petitionerNs father declaring respondent as o$ner of the sub)ect house as conclusive proof that respondent is the true and onl+ o$ner of the house since the affidavit should be read in its entiret+ to deter*ine the purpose for $hich it $as e2ecuted. Petitioner further contends that since he had established his fatherNs co-o$nership of the sub)ect house, respondent has no legal right to e)ect hi* fro* the propert+C that he could not be co*pelled to pa+ rentals for residing in the ground floor of the sub)ect houseC that respondent should bear his o$n e2penses and be ad)udged liable for da*ages $hich petitioner sustained for being constrained to litigate. <he principal issue for resolution is $hether petitioner $as able to prove b+ preponderance of evidence that his father $as a co-o$ner of the sub)ect t$o-store+ residential house. <he issue raised b+ petitioner is *ainl+ factual in nature. In general, onl+ Fuestions of la$ are appealable to this Court under 'ule 15. "o$ever, considering that the findings of the '<C and CA are contradictor+, the revie$ of the case is in order.0 &e agree $ith the CA that respondent had sho$n sufficient evidence to support his co*plaint for recover+ of possession of the ground floor of the sub)ect house as the e2clusive o$ner thereof. 'espondent presented the affidavit dated ,epte*ber /1, .807 e2ecuted b+ Florentino and s$orn to before the Assistant Cit+ Assessor of Baguio Cit+, 6.F. -agasca, $hich reads% I, F-('EN<IN( PA'E-, 1/ +ears of age, e*plo+ee, and residing at Forbes Par;, 'eservation No. ., after having been s$orn to according to la$ depose and sa+% <hat he is the occupant of a residential building located at Forbes Par;, 'eservation No. ., Baguio Cit+ $hich is the sub)ect of an advice*ent addressed to hi* e*anating fro* the (ffice of the Cit+ Assessor, Baguio Cit+, for assess*ent and declaration for ta2ation purposesC <hat I a* not the o$ner of the building in FuestionC <hat the building in Fuestion is o$ned b+ =r. ,i*eon B. Prudencio $ho is presentl+ residing at 55 "+acinth, 'o2as >istrict, GueBon Cit+. Further, affiant sa+ not.3 :nderscoring supplied# ,ection 73 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court provides% ,EC. 73. >eclaration against interest. R <he declaration *ade b+ a person deceased, or unable to testif+, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration $as at the ti*e it $as *ade so far contrar+ to the declarant@s o$n interest, that a reasonable *an in his position $ould not have *ade the declaration unless he believed it to be true, *a+ be received in evidence against hi*self or his successors-in-interest and against third persons. <he theor+ under $hich declarations against interest are received in evidence not$ithstanding the+ are hearsa+ is that the necessit+ of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliabilit+ of such declaration asserts facts $hich are against his o$n pecuniar+ or *oral interest.8 <he affiant, Florentino, $ho died in .838 $as petitionerNs father and had adeFuate ;no$ledge $ith respect to the sub)ect covered b+ his state*ent. In said affidavit, Florentino categoricall+ declared that $hile he is the occupant of the residential building, he is not the o$ner of the sa*e as it is o$ned b+ respondent $ho is residing in GueBon Cit+. It is safe to presu*e that he $ould not have *ade such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is pre)udicial to hi*self as $ell as to his childrenNs interests as his heirs..4 A declaration against interest is the best evidence $hich affords the greatest certaint+ of the facts in dispute... Notabl+, during FlorentinoNs lifeti*e, fro* .807, the +ear he e2ecuted said affidavit until .838, the +ear of his death, there is no sho$ing that he had revo;ed such affidavit even $hen a cri*inal co*plaint for trespass to d$elling had been filed b+ respondent against hi* Florentino# and petitioner in .833 regarding the sub)ect house $hich the trial court dis*issed due to the absence of evidence sho$ing that petitioner entered the house against the latterNs $ill and held that the re*ed+ of respondent $as to file an action for e)ect*entC./ and even $hen a co*plaint for unla$ful detainer $as filed against petitioner and his $ife also in .833 $hich $as subseFuentl+ dis*issed on the ground that respondentNs action should be an accion publiciana $hich is be+ond the )urisdiction of the =unicipal <rial Court..7

Page1

=oreover, the building plan of the residential house dated !anuar+ .9, .807 $as in the na*e of respondent and his $ife. It $as established during petitionerNs cross-e2a*ination that the e2isting structure of the t$o-store+ house $as in accordance $ith said building plan..1 Notabl+, respondent has been religiousl+ pa+ing the real estate propert+ ta2es on the house declared under his na*e since .801..5 In fact, petitioner during his cross-e2a*ination ad*itted that there $as no occasion that the+ paid the real estate ta2es nor declared an+ portion of the house in their na*e..9 &e agree $ith the CA that $hile ta2 receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of o$nership, the+ constitute at least proof that the holder has a clai* of title over the propert+..0 <he house $hich petitioner clai*s to be coo$ned b+ his late father had been consistentl+ declared for ta2ation purposes in the na*e of respondent, and this fact, ta;en $ith the other circu*stances above-*entioned, ine2orabl+ lead to the conclusion that respondent is the sole o$ner of the house sub)ect *atter of the litigation. 'espondent having established his clai* of e2clusive o$nership of the sub)ect propert+, it $as incu*bent upon petitioner to contravene respondentNs clai*. <he burden of evidence shifted to petitioner to prove that his father $as a coo$ner of the sub)ect house. &e held in !ison v. Court of Appeals, to $it%.3 222 ,i*pl+ put, he $ho alleges the affir*ative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. "o$ever, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff *a;es out a pri*a facie case in his favor, the dut+ or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff@s pri*a facie case, other$ise, a verdict *ust be returned in favor of plaintiff. =oreover, in civil cases, the part+ having the burden of proof *ust produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, $ith plaintiff having to rel+ on the strength of his o$n evidence and not upon the $ea;ness of the defendantNs. <he concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence $hich is of greater $eight, or *ore convincing, that $hich is offered in opposition to itC at botto*, it *eans probabilit+ of truth..8 In this case, the records sho$ that although petitionerNs counsel as;ed that he be allo$ed to offer his docu*entar+ evidence in $riting, he, ho$ever, did not file the sa*e./4 <hus, the CA did not consider the docu*entar+ evidence presented b+ petitioner. ,ection 71 of 'ule .7/ of the 'ules of Court provides% ,ection 71. (ffer of evidence. R <he court shall consider no evidence $hich has not been for*all+ offered. <he purpose for $hich the evidence is offered *ust be specified. A for*al offer is necessar+ because it is the dut+ of a )udge to rest his findings of facts and his )udg*ent onl+ and strictl+ upon the evidence offered b+ the parties to the suit./. It is a settled rule that the *ere fact that a particular docu*ent is identified and *ar;ed as an e2hibit does not *ean that it has thereb+ alread+ been offered as part of the evidence of a part+.// Petitioner insists that although his docu*entar+ evidence $ere not for*all+ offered, the sa*e $ere *ar;ed during the presentation of the testi*onial evidence, thus it can properl+ be ta;en cogniBance of rel+ing in Bravo, !r. v. Bor)a./7 ,uch reliance is *isplaced. In Bravo !r., $e allo$ed evidence on *inorit+ b+ ad*itting the certified true cop+ of the birth certificate attached to a *otion for bail even if it $as not for*all+ offered in evidence. <his $as due to the fact that the birth certificate $as properl+ filed in support of a *otion for bail to prove petitionerNs *inorit+ $hich $as never challenged b+ the prosecution and it alread+ for*ed part of the records of the case. <he rule referred to in the Bravo case $as ,ection 0 of 'ule .77 of the 'ules of Court $hich provides% ,ection 0. Evidence on *otion.- &hen a *otion is based on facts not appearing of record, the court *a+ hear the *atter on affidavits or depositions presented b+ the respective parties, but the court *a+ direct that the *atter be heard $holl+ or partl+ on oral testi*on+ or depositions. and not ,ection 71 of 'ule .7/ of the 'ules of Court $hich is the one applicable to the present case. Even assu*ing arguendo that the docu*entar+ evidence of petitioner should be considered in his favor, the evidence sho$ing that respondent had filed civil and cri*inal cases against petitioner $hich $ere dis*issed as $ell as the alleged ,pecial Po$er of Attorne+ of petitionerNs parents $hereb+ the+ authoriBed petitioner to sta+ in the ground floor of the house, did not establish co-o$nership of Florentino and respondent of the sub)ect house. <he testi*onies of petitioner and his $itnesses failed to sho$ that the sub)ect house is co-o$ned b+ petitionerNs father and respondent. Candelario 'egua *erel+ testified that he $as hired b+ petitionerNs father, Florentino, to construct the residential building in .80/C/1 that he listed the *aterials to be used for the construction $hich $as purchased b+ FlorentinoC/5 that he and his *en received their salaries ever+ ,aturda+ and &ednesda+ fro* Florentino or his $ife, respectivel+C/9 that he had not *et nor seen respondent during the $hole ti*e the construction $as on-going./0 (n cross-e2a*ination, ho$ever, he ad*itted that he cannot tell $here the *one+ to bu+ the *aterials used in the construction ca*e fro*./3 CoraBon 6arcia *erel+ testified that Florentino started building the house $hen he $as allocated a lot at >P, co*pound, that she ;ne$ Florentino constructed the sub)ect house/8 and never ;ne$ respondent. 74 <he bare allegation that Florentino $as allocated a lot is not sufficient to overco*e FlorentinoNs o$n affidavit na*ing respondent as the o$ner of the sub)ect house. Petitioner hi*self testified that it $as his father $ho sa$ the progress of the construction and purchased the *aterials to be usedC 7. and as a +oung bo+ he $ould follo$-up so*e deliveries upon order of his father 7/ and never sa$ respondent in the construction site. <he fact that not one of the $itnesses sa$ respondent during the construction of the said house does not establish that petitionerNs father and respondent co-o$ned the house. &e also find that the CA did not err in ordering petitioner to pa+ respondent being the sole o$ner of the sub)ect house a *onthl+ rental of P/,444.44 fro* April .833, the date of the e2tra-)udicial de*and, until petitioner actuall+ vacates the sub)ect house. Although the CA *ade no ratiocination as to ho$ it arrived at the a*ount of P/,444.44 for the *onthl+ rental, $e find the sa*e to be a reasonable co*pensation for the use of the ground floor of the sub)ect house $hich consists of a living roo*, a dining roo*, a ;itchen and three bedroo*s. <he rental value refers to the value as ascertained b+ proof of $hat the propert+ $ould rent or b+ evidence of other facts fro* $hich the fair rental value *a+ be deter*ined. 77

Page1

&e li;e$ise affir* the CANs a$ard of attorne+Ns fees in favor of respondent. Article //43 of the Civil Code allo$s the recover+ of attorne+Ns fees in cases $hen the defendantNs act or o*ission has co*pelled the plaintiff to litigate $ith third persons or to incur e2penses to protect his interest 71 and in an+ other case $here the court dee*s it )ust and eFuitable that attorne+Ns fees and e2penses of litigation should be recovered 75 $hich are both sho$n in the instant case. &"E'EF('E, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated =arch 7., /444 and its 'esolution dated Nove*ber /3, /444 are AFFI'=E>. Costs against petitioner. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC 6.'. No. --/1838 !ul+ /., .890

PE>'( 6'AEA>(', petitioner-appellee, vs. E:<IG:I( =A=I6(, <"E >I,<'IC< ,:PE'EI,(' (F BAIA&AN-,<A. CA<A-INA ,C"((- >I,<'IC<, <"E >IEI,I(N ,:PE'IN<EN>EN< (F ,C"((-, (F NE6'(, ('IEN<A-, <"E >I'EC<(' (F P:B-IC ,C"((-, and <"E ,EC'E<A'I (F E>:CA<I(N, all sued in their official and personal capacities#,respondentsappellants. (ffice of the ,olicitor 6enero Arturo A. AlafriB, Assistant ,olicitor 6eneral I. C. Borro*eo and ,olicitor F. !. Bautista for respondents-appellants. Ne$ton E. ,erion for petitioner-appellee. CA,<'(, !.% <he petitioner Pedro 6ravador $as the principal of the ,ta. Catalina Ele*entar+ ,chool in ,ta. Catalina, Negros (riental on August .5, .891 $hen he $as advised b+ the then, ,uperintendent of ,chools Angel ,alaBar, !r., through the respondent ,upervisor <eodulfo E. >a+ao, of his separation fro* the service on the ground that he had reached the co*pulsor+ retire*ent age of 95. <he advice reads% According to +our pre-$ar records as a teacher in the public schools, including +our E*plo+ee@s 'ecord Card, $hich has )ust been found in connection $ith the verification of the services of all school officials including ele*entar+ school principals in this division, +ou $ere born on Nove*ber /9, .380. As of this date, therefore, +ou are no$ 99 +ears, 3 *onths, and // da+s old. In vie$ of the above, +ou are hereb+ advised of +our separation fro* the service effective i**ediatel+ unless +ou can sho$ valid proof in the for* of a baptis*al or birth certificate that +ou are belo$ si2t+-five +ears of age toda+. A fe$ da+s later the respondent EutiFuio =a*igo $as designated teacher-in-charge of the said ele*entar+ school. (n August 7., .891 the petitioner $rote the >irector of Public ,chools, protesting his forced retire*ent on the ground that the date of his birth is not Nove*ber /9, .380 but >ece*ber .., .84.. Attached to his letter $as the affidavit, e2ecuted on !ul+ /9, .89/, of -aBaro BandoFuillo and Pedro A. ,ienes both of A*lan Negros (riental, in $hich these t$o affiants declared that the+ ;ne$ that the petitioner "$as born on >ece*ber .., .84., in the =unicipalit+ of A*lan for*erl+ ;no$n as Ne$ A+uFuitan Province of Negros (riental, Philippines" because, "$e $ere the neighbors of the late spouses, NEP(=:CEN( 6'AEA>(' and A6:E>A 'E6('(,A Lpetitioner@s parentsM, and $e $ere present $hen said PE>'( 6'AEA>(' $as bornC further*ore,$e $ere also invited during the baptis*al part+ a fe$ $ee;s after the birth of said PE>'( 6'AEA>('." (n (ctober .8, .891 the petitioner $rote to the >ivision ,uperintendents of ,chools, reiterating his clai* that he had not reached the age of 95 and enclosing so*e papers in support thereof. (n April .7, .895 he filed this suit for Fuo $arranto, *anda*us and da*ages in the Court of First Instance of Negros (riental. "e as;ed the court to ad)udge hi* entitled to the office of principal of the ,ta. Catalina Ele*entar+ ,chool and to order pa+*ent to hi* of not onl+ his bac; salaries but also da*ages in the total a*ount of P5/,144. Na*ed as respondents $ere EutiFuio =a*igo, the >istrict ,upervisor, the ,uperintendent of ,chools, the >irector of Public ,chools and the ,ecretar+ of Education. <he respondents filed their ans$er, entered into a stipulation of facts $ith the petitioner, and thereafter the case $as sub*itted for decision. <he trial court concluded that the petitioner $as born on >ece*ber .., .84. accordingl+ granted his petition. I**ediate e2ecution $as ordered, as a result of $hich the petitioner $as reinstated. <he respondents appealed directl+ to this Court. (n !ul+ 9, .890 the petitioner as;ed for the dis*issal of the appeal on the ground that the issues posed thereb+ had beco*e *oot $ith his retire*ent fro* the service on >ece*ber .., .899 and the pa+*ent to hi* of the corresponding retire*ent benefits. &e dee* it necessar+, ho$ever, to revie$ the trial court@s decision on the *erits, considering that the co*putation of retire*ent annuities is based a*ong other things, on the nu*ber of +ears of service of a retiree,. and that pa+*ent of benefits alread+ *ade to the petitioner on the basis of >ece*ber .., .84. as the date of his birth $ould not e2e*pt hi* fro* the obligation to *a;e a refund should this Court ulti*atel+ rule that he $as actuall+ born Nove*ber /9, .380, as the respondents clai*. <he controvers+ on the petitioner@s date of birth arose as a result of the conflicting records of the >ivision of ,chools of Negros (riental. (n the one hand the pre-$ar records sho$ his date of birth to be Nove*ber /9, .380. <hese records consist of t$o Insular <eachers Cards/ and one E*plo+ee@s 'ecord Card.7 It is on the basis of these records that the ,uperintendent of ,chools deter*ined the petitioner@s age to be 99 +ears, 3 *onths and // da+s on August .5, .891.

Page1

(n the other hand, the post-$ar records, consisting of an Ele*entar+ <eacher@s 'eport Card,1 an E*plo+ee@s 'ecord Card,5 and an E*plo+ee@s 'ecord of Gualifications,9 state that the petitioner $as born on >ec. .., .84.. <hese are the records on $hich the petitioner bases his clai*. <he proble* is aggravated b+ t$o uncontroverted facts, na*el+, that the records of the church $here the petitioner $as baptiBed $ere destro+ed b+ fire, and that the *unicipal civil register contains no record. of the petitioner@s birth. According to the trial court, the post-$ar records $ere intended to replace the pre-$ar records and therefore the correct date of birth of the petitioner is >ece*ber .., .84.. <he court also too; into account the verified ans$er in a cadastral proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Negros (riental, dated =arch .5, .8/1, filed b+ the petitioner@s brother, 'o*ulo 6ravador, no$ deceased. It is therein stated that the petitioner, said to be one of the co-o$ners of a piece of land, $as at the ti*e /7 +ears old. <he respondents no$ contend that the trial court erred in placing full reliance on the post-$ar records to establish the date of birth >ece*ber .., .84.# of the petitioner. <he+ argue that these records $ere *ade onl+ because it $as thought that the pre-$ar records had been lost or destro+ed, but as so*e pre-$ar records had since been located, the date contained in the pre-$ar records should be regarded as controlling and that the finding of the ,uperintendent of ,chools that the petitioner $as born on Nove*ber /9, .380 is an ad*inistrative finding that should not be disturbed b+ the court. <hat the findings of fact of ad*inistrative officials are binding on the courts if supported b+ substantial evidence, is a settled rule of ad*inistrative la$, But $hether there is substantial evidence supporting the finding of the ,uperintendent of ,chools is precisel+ the issue in this case. <he school official based his deter*ination of the petitioner@s age on the pre-$ar records in the preparation of $hich the petitioner does not appear to have ta;en a part.0 (n the other hand, the petitioner post-$ar records $hich he personall+ acco*plished to prove the date of his birth.3 It is our considered vie$ that the lo$er court correctl+ relied upon the post-$ar records, for three cogent reasons. In the first place, as =oran states, although a person can have no personal ;no$ledge of the date of his birth, he *a+ testif+ as to his age as he had learned it fro* his parents and relatives and his testi*on+ in such case is an assertion of a fa*il+ tradition.8 Indeed, even in is application for bac; pa+ $hich he filed $ith the >epart*ent of Finance, through the (ffice of the ,uperintendent of ,chools, on (ctober 0, .813, the petitioner stated that the date of his birth is >ece*ber .., .84.. "e repeated the sa*e assertion in .859 and again in .894 $hen he as;ed the 6overn*ent ,ervice Insurance ,+ste* and the Civil ,ervice Co**ission to correct the date of his birth to >ece*ber .., .84.. In the second place, the i*port of the declaration of the petitioner@s brother, contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral case $a+ bac; in .8/1, to the effect that the petitioner $as then /7 +ears old, can not be ignored. =adeante lite* *ota* b+ a deceased relative, this state*ent is at once a declaration regarding pedigree $ithin the intend*ent and *eaning of section 77 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court. <hus, >ece*ber .., .84. is established as the date of birth of the petitioner not onl+ b+ evidence of fa*il+ tradition but also b+ the declaration ante lite* *ota* of a deceased relative.._$ph`..Qat Finall+, the patties are agreed that the petitioner has a brother, Constantino, $ho $as born on !une .4, .383 and $ho retired on !une .4, .897 $ith full retire*ent pa+. <he petitioner then could not have been born earlier than Constantino, sa+ in .380 as pre-$ar records indicate, because Constantino is ad*ittedl+ older than he..4 ,till it is argued that the petitioner@s action $as pre*aturel+ brought because he had not availed of all ad*inistrative re*edies. <his argu*ent is $ithout *erit. ,uit for Fuo $arranto to recover a public office *ust be brought $ithin one +ear... Before filing this case the petitioner $aited for eight *onths for the school officials to act on his protest. <o reFuire hi* to tarr+ a little *ore $ould obviousl+ be unfair to hi* since on April .7, .895, $hen this case $as filed, he had onl+ four *onths left $ithin $hich to bring the case to court. <here $as neither *anner nor for* of assurance that the decision of the >irector of Public ,chools $ould be forthco*ing. <he rule on e2haustion of ad*inistrative re*edies does not appl+ $here insistence on its observance $ould result in the nullification of the clai* being asserted../ Accordingl+, the )udg*ent a Fuo is affir*ed. No pronounce*ent as to costs. 6.'. No. 87474-7. August /., .88. PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. A-F'E>( A-E6A>( I >E-I=A, accused-appellant.

6:<IE''EK, !'., !.%p <he accused-appellant stands charged and convicted of t$o counts of rape b+ the 'egional <rial Court of ,an Carlos Cit+, Branch 53 in its decision pro*ulgated on (ctober /9, .838 $ith the follo$ing dispositive portion% &"E'EF('E, finding the accused guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of rape punished under Article 775 paragraphs . Y 7 of the 'evised Penal Code, said accused is hereb+ sentenced to'EC-:,I(N PE'PE<:A on both counts, the sentences to be served successivel+, to pa+ the offended part+ the su* of <$ent+ <housand Pesos P/4,444.44#, and to pa+ costs of suit. '<C >ecision, p. 3C 'ollo, P. 7/# <his appeal pra+s for a reversal of the trial court@s )udg*ent of conviction and sub*its before us the follo$ing assign*ent of errors to $it.% I <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN C(NEIC<IN6 ACC:,E>-APPE--AN< (F ,<A<:<('I 'APE A, >EFINE> AN> PENA-IKE> :N>E' A'<. 775, PA'A6'AP" 7 (F <"E 'EEI,E> PENA- C(>E >E,PI<E <"E P'(,EC:<I(N FAI-:'E <( P'(EE &I<" CE'<AIN<I <"E AC<:A- A6E (F <"E (FFEN>E> PA'<I. II

Page1

<"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN N(< ACG:I'IN6 ACC:,E>-APPE--AN< (F <"E C'I=E, C"A'6E> >E,PI<E <"E FAC< <"A< "I, 6:I-< &A, N(< P'(EEN BEI(N> 'EA,(NAB-E >(:B< Appellant@s Brief, p. ., 'ollo p. 55# <he accused-appellant, in t$o cri*inal co*plaints filed b+ the offended part+ herself and doc;eted as Cri*inal Cases Nos. '<C-170 and '<C 173, $as charged $ith rape on t$o counts co**itted as follo$s% <hat on or about 0%44 p.*., April /4, .833 at the Public =ar;et, ,an Carlos Cit+, Negros (ccidental, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court the above-na*ed accused, did, then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ have carnal ;no$ledge of the herein offended part+, C'I,<INA >EAN6 + EI--A'(,A, a girl belo$ t$elve ./# +ears of age, against her $ill and $ithout her consent. Cri*inal Case No. '<C-170% 'ollo, p. .1# <hat on or about 9%44 p.*., April .1, .833 at the Public =ar;et, ,an Carlos Cit+, Negros (ccidental, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, did, then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ have carnal ;no$ledge of the herein offended part+, C'I,<INA >EAN6 + EI--A'(,A, a girl belo$ t$elve ./# +ears of age, against her $ill and $ithout her consent. Cri*inal Case No. '<C-173C 'ollo, p. .9# At the pre-trial, both the prosecution and the defense agreed on a )oint trial and stipulated on onl+ one fact, i.e., that the accused, as $atch*an of the ,an Carlos Cit+ public *ar;et $as inside the said pre*ises during the t$o occasions $hen the alleged rapes transpired. Both parties presented t$o co**on issues for the trial court@s consideration, na*el+% .# $hether the offended part+ $as actuall+ belo$ ./ +ears old at the ti*e of the incidentsC and /# $hether the accused had carnal ;no$ledge of the offended part+ b+ *eans of force and inti*idation Pre-trial (rder dated !une /, .833C 'ecords, p. .9# <he antecedent facts as stated b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral in the People@s brief are as follo$s% (n April .1, .833, at about 9%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon, co*plainant $as pla+ing at the Freedo* ,Fuare inside the public *ar;et of ,an Carlos Cit+ $hen appellant, a .04-pound, 57 +ear old *ar;et $atch*an at the ti*e, held her b+ the hand and too; her upstairs to the second floor of the public *ar;et building $hich houses so*e govern*ent offices and $hich at the ti*e $as e2pectedl+ deserted tan, =a+ .0, .838, pp. .7, /.-//#. &hen the+ reached the upper floor of the building, appellant ordered co*plainant to hold his penis and *asturbate it ibid, p. //#. <hereafter, appellant ordered co*plainant to lie do$n, and $hen she refused he pushed her do$n on the floor ibid#. &hen co*plainant $as l+ing prostrate on her bac;, appellant placed hi*self on top of her $hile she $as still $earing her pedal pusher shorts and pant+ ibid, p. /7#. ,o, appellant forced her to ta;e off her pedal pushers and pant+ ibid, pp. /9-/0# and thereupon he la+ on top of her ibid#. Appellant then tried to insert his penis into her vagina but it did not penetrate full+ before he e)aculated ibid, pp. /7, /0-/3#. Co*plainant bled a little ibid, p. 5/# <hereafter, appellant gave co*plainant P /.44 and left ibid, p. /3#. Co*plainant stood up and $ent do$n the building but never told an+bod+ about it because she $as afraid appellant $ould ;ill her ibid p. /3# (n April /4, .833, at about 0%44 o@cloc; in the evening co*plainant $as sitting at the Freedo* ,Fuare $hen appellant approached her and told her to go $ith hi* upstairs to the second floor of the public *ar;et tsn, =a+ .0, .838, pp. ..-./#. Co*plainant refused but appellant shoved her to$ards the stairs, held her b+ the left ar*, and brought her to the upper floor near the civic center ibid, pp. ./-.7#. <here, appellant ordered co*plainant to ta;e off her shorts and pant+, but she refused ibid, p. .1#. Appellant then tried to ta;e off her shorts and pant+ b+ hi*self but she resisted and told the for*er she $ould not sub*it to his evil desires ibid#. <hereupon, appellant threatened to ;ill co*plainant if she $ould not ta;e off her shorts and pant+ ibid#. <hen appellant again tried to re*ove co*plainant@s shorts and pant+ and the latter out of fear allo$ed hi* to do it ibid#. &hen appellant succeeded in re*oving co*plainant@s shorts and pant+, he forced her to lie do$n and then placed hi*self on top of her ibid, p. .5#. Appellant $as then alread+ $ithout his pants on ibid#. Appellant inserted his penis into co*plainant@s vagina but it too; so*eti*e before his organ could penetrate the girl ibid#. &hen it did, co*plainant felt e2cruciating pain and begged appellant to stop ibid, p. .9#. Appellant )ust ignored her and continued on $ithout sa+ing an+thing ibid#. Co*plainant felt so*e liFuid ooBing out fro* appellant@s organ and into her being ibid, p. .0# And after appellant had $ithdra$n his se2 organ, co*plainant discovered that her vagina $as bleeding ibid#. Appellant then stood up and told her not to tell an+bod+ about it ibid, pp. .0-.3#. <hen appellant gave her P /.44 and left ibid, p. .3#. As appellant $as going do$nstairs, he $as seen b+ Patrol$o*an Evangeline Alfaro, a *e*ber of the ,an Carlos Cit+ INP assigned at Precinct No. ., a police outpost near the *ain entrance of the public *ar;et tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, pp. 1-5#. Pat. Alfaro ;ne$ appellant $ell because he $as the public *ar;et $atch*an at the ti*e ibid, p. 5#. A *inute later, Pat. Alfaro sa$ co*plainant co*ing do$n the sa*e stairs tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, p. 9C =a+ .0, .838, pp. .3-.8#. Pat. Alfaro noticed that co*plainant $as pale, $ith blood flo$ing to her thighs and legs, and $as reeling as if feeling diBB+ tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, p. 9# Pat. Alfaro approached co*plainant and as;ed $hat happened to her tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, p. 9C =a+ .0, .838, pp. .8-/4#. Co*plainant ans$ered that she $as ta;en upstairs and raped b+ appellant ibid#. I**ediatel+, Pat. Alfaro brought co*plainant to the cit+ hospital $here she $as e2a*ined b+ >r. (scar !agdon in the presence of t$o *edical technologists tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, pp. 0-3C =a+ .0, .838, p. /4#. >r. !agdon confir*ed the report that indeed co*plainant $as raped ibid#. <hereafter, Pat. Alfaro reported the incident to the ,tation 6uard b+ phone then too; co*plainant to the police station after the *edical e2a*ination tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, p. 3C =a+ 0, .838, p. /4#. &hen the+ reached the station, appellant $ho had alread+ been ta;en into custod+ $as readil+ identified b+ co*plainant as the rapist tsn, ,epte*ber /3, .833, pp. 3-.4C =a+ .0, .838, pp. /4/.#. Co*plainant $as then investigated and she rendered her state*ent to the police. >r. (scar !agdon, $ho e2a*ined co*plainant at about 3%14 o@cloc; in the evening of April /4, .833, found so*e secretion inside co*plaint@s vagina along the cervical $all $hich, upon laborator+ e2a*ination, turned out to be sper* cells and that co*plainant@s vagina $as lacerated, one .# centi*eter long, at 8%44 o@cloc; position although there $as onl+ partial penetration of the *ale organ into co*plainant@s vagina tsn, August .4, .833, pp. 1-8C E2hibit @E@#. 'ollo, pp. 31-38# (n the other hand, the accused-appellant@s version as su**ariBed in his brief reads% Evidence for the >efense% Alfredo Alegado testified that on April .1, .833 at about 9%44 p.*., he $as on dut+, he being a $atch*an of the public *ar;et. "is tour of dut+ is fro* 9%44 p.*. to 9%44 a.*. the follo$ing da+. Before 0%44 p.*. of that da+, he and his co$atch*an roa*ed around the area chec;ing the padloc;s of the stores if the+ are in order. At about 3%74 p.*., the+ closed all the doors of the vegetables section, *eat section and the dried fish section. "e ;no$s Cristina >eang $ho used to sell cala*ansi in the area. (n April .1, .833, he did not *eet Cristina >eang as he and his co*panions $ere then bus+ roving

Page1

around the area. (n April /4, .833, at about 5%44 p.*., he $as having snac;s at Ealdevia ,treet, $ith Cpl. Allarce and -ito AlvereB. <he+ sta+ed there until about 0%74 p.*. $hen to his surprise, he $as arrested and brought to the station b+ Pat. Apuhin and co*panions including Pfc. Evangeline Alfaro. Fro* 5%44 p.*., to 0%74 p.*. on April /4, .833, he never *et andDor sa$ Cristina >eang. Pfc. Evangeline Alfaro has been harboring ill-feelings on hi* $hen on a certain occasion, he turned do$n her reFuest to as; the four 1# ar*ed *en $ho* the+ sa$ in the *ar;et $hat the+ $anted# t.s.n., pp. /-7, ,epte*ber .1, .838#. ,gt. 'olando Allarce testified that he ;ne$ accused because he is assigned at the police precinct in the public *ar;et. At about 5%44 p.*. on April /4, .833, he $as invited b+ Alfredo Alegado to have a snac; at Na*ie@s -unch. <he+ finished having snac; at about 9%44 p.*. <hereafter, Alfredo Alegado and -ito AlvereB invited hi* to go to Ealdevia ,treet for a drin;ing spree. "e accepted their invitation and $ent $ith the*. "e $ent out at about 0%44 p.*., leaving behind Alfredo Alegado in the store. t.s.n. pp. /5-/0, Ibid# 'ollo, pp. 58-94# &hether or not an+ cogent reason e2ists to constrain us to reverse the trial court@s verdict of conviction under paragraphs . and 7 of Article 775 of the 'evised Penal Code is the issue in this appeal. Firstl+, the accused-appellant contends that the offended part+@s actual age at the ti*e of the alleged incidents of rape $as not establisher $ith certaint+, hence, it $as error on the part of the trial court to convict the accused-appellant of statutor+ rape as defined and penaliBed under paragraph 7, Article 775 of the 'evised Penal Code. &e are not persuaded. <he testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses, the offended part+ herself and her *aternal grandfather, Cornelio Eillarosa, as to the fact that the victi* $as born on ,epte*ber 5, .809 do not constitute hearsa+ evidence as clai*ed b+ the accused-appellant but rather fall under the e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule as provided under sections 78 and 14 of 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules on Evidence. :nder ,ection 14 of the said 'ule, it is provided, in part, that% ,EC. 14. A Fa*il+ reputation or tradition regading pedigree. A <he reputation or tradition e2isting in a fa*il+ previous to the controvers+, in respect to the pedigree of an+ of its *e*bers, *a+ be received in evidence if the $itness testif+ing thereon be also a *e*ber of the fa*il+, either b+ consanguinit+ or affinit+. ... <he $ord pedigree under ,ection 78 of the sa*e 'ule includes relationship, fa*il+ genealog+, birth, *arriage, death, the dates $hen and the places $here these facts occurred and the na*es of the relatives. In the case of -aBatin v. Ca*pos, 8/ ,C'A /54, /9. L.808M, $e stated that% ... L>Meclarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsa+, are ad*itted on the principle that the+ are natural e2pressions of persons $ho *ust ;no$ the truth ,ee ,ec. 77, 'ule .74 'evised 'ules of Court no$ ,ec. 78, 'ule .74 under the ne$ 'ules#. Pedigree testi*on+ is ad*itted because it is the best that the nature of the case ad*its and because greater evil *ight arise fro* the re)ection of such proof than fro* its ad*ission. &ig*ore on Evidence, ,ec. .1/4# In the present case, the applicabilit+ of 'ule .74, ,ection 78 of the 'evised 'ules on Evidence to prove the victi*@s age is be+ond Fuestion. <he said provision contains three reFuisites for its ad*issibilit+, na*el+% .# that there is controvers+ in respect to the pedigree of an+ of the *e*bers of a fa*il+C /# that the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned e2isted previous to the controvers+C and 7# that the $itness testif+ing to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person *ust be a *e*ber of the fa*il+ of said person. All these preconditions are obtaining in the case at bar considering that the date of birth of the rape victi* is being put in issueC that the declaration of the victi*@s grandfather relating to tradition sending a child to school upon reaching the age of seven# e2isted long before the rape case $as filedC and that the $itness testif+ing to the said tradition is the *aternal grandfather of the rape victi*. <hus, $e Fuote the pertinent portions of Cornelio Eillarosa@s testi*on+% P'(,EC:<(' FAB'(K% to $itness# G =r. Eillarosa, ho$ *an+ children do +ou haveH A I have 5 children. G "o$ old is the eldestH A <hirt+ Nine 78# +ears old. G "o$ about the +oungestH A =a+ be /1 +ears old because I forgot the birth date. G <he co*plainant in this case is a certain Cristina >eang. >o +ou ;no$ herH A Ies, sir. G &h+ do +ou ;no$ herH A ,he is *+ granddaughter. G If she is in court, $ould +ou able to point herH A Ies, sir. At this )uncture the $itness is pointing to a person sitting inside the courtroo* $ho $hen as;ed ans$ered b+ the na*e of Cristina >eang.# G &ho is the *other of Cristina >eangH A Angelita. G Angelita EillarosaH

G Is she +our daughterH

Page1

A Ies, sir.

A Ies, sir. G Is she hereH A No, she is not here. G &here is she no$H A I don@t ;no$ $here she $or; no$, because she did not send a letter to *e. G <he last ti*e, $here is her $hereaboutsH A ,he $as in =anila, *+ last ;no$ledge about her $hereabouts. G Iou said, Cristina >eang $as the daughter of +our daughter, Angelita. >o +ou ;no$ ho$ *an+ children does Angelita haveH A ,he has five 5# children. G &ith $ho* is this Cristina >eang living no$H A In our residence. G "o$ did it happen that Cristina >eang has been living $ith +ou. A <he *other left her to *e. G &hen $as it that the *other left her to +ou. A In .837. G "o$ old $as Cristina >eang at the ti*e her *other left her to +ouH A <he *other of Cristina >eang told *e that she $as born in .809 and please let her go to school. A<<I. B'I(NE,% I $ould li;e to *a;e it of record that the infor*ation gathered b+ the *other, Angelita, is a hearsa+ +our "onor. P'(,EC:<(' FAB'(K% I $ould li;e to prove the fact about the birth of the child. C(:'<% -et it sta+ in record. P'(,EC:<(' FAB'(K% G B+ the $a+, do +ou have a tal; or conversation $ith +our daughter, Angelita, the *other of the co*plainant Cristina >eang, $hen $as Cristina >eang bornH A &e did not tal; about the birth of Cristina, but she told *e to let her daughter Cristina go to school because she is alread+ 0 +ears old. G >id +ou as; her about the birth of Cristina >eangH A<<I. B'I(NE,% I thin; that is *isleading +our "onor. C(:'<% &itness *a+ ans$er. &I<NE,,% A <hat is $hat she told *e, she $as born on ,epte*ber 5, .809. P'(,EC:<(' FAB'(K% G ,o based fro* the infor*ation +ou get fro* +our *other Angelita, did +ou in fact send +our granddaughter Cristina >eang to schoolH A Ies, sir. G &hereH A ,=AC Ele*entar+ ,chool. G &hat grade did +ou send herH A 6rade .. G &as she able to finish 6rade IH A No, sir.

=oreover, the offended part+ herself categoricall+ stated in open court that she $as born on ,epte*ber 5, .809 <,N, =a+ .0, .838, p. 3#. As correctl+ sub*itted b+ the ,olicitor 6eneral%

Page1

<,N, !anuar+ 7., .838, pp. 1-0#

It is long-settled, as earl+ as in the cases of :.,. v. Bergantino 7 Phil. ..3 L.847M and :.,. v. Angeles sic# and ,abacahan 79 Phil. /19, /54 L.8.0M citing :.,. v. Estavillo and PereB .4 (.6. .831#, that the testi*on+ of a person as to his age is ad*issible although hearsa+ and though a person can have no personal ;no$ledge of the date of his birth as all the ;no$ledge a person has of his age is acFuired fro* $hat he is told b+ his parents :.,. vs. Evangelista, 7/ Phil. 7/., 7/9 L.85.M R he *a+ testif+ as to his age as he had learned it fro* his parents and relatives and his testi*on+ in such case is an assertion of fa*il+ tradition 6ravador v. =a*igo, /4 ,C'A 01/# ... 'ollo, p. 87-81# Inas*uch as the accused-appellant failed to present contrar+ evidence to dispute the prosecution@s clai* that the victi* in this case $as belo$ t$elve ./# +ears old at the ti*e of the rape incidents under consideration, $e affir* the trial court@s finding that the victi* in these rape cases $as under t$elve +ears of age. <i*e and again $e have held that the grava*en of the offense of statutor+ rape as provided under Article 775, paragraph 7 of the 'evised Penal Code is the carnal ;no$ledge of a $o*an belo$ t$elve +ears old. People v. Edgardo Puedan + -alongisip, 6.'. No. 8/539, April /9, .88. citing People v. Eillegas, !r., ./0 ,C'A .85, /44 L.831MC People v. =angalino, .3/ ,C'A 7/8 L.884M citing People v. ,an Buenaventura, .91 ,C'A .54 L.833M and People v. Eillegas, !r., supra#. "ence, the onl+ ele*ents of statutor+ rape are% .# that the offender had carnal ;no$ledge of a $o*anC and /# that such $o*an is under t$elve ./# +ears of age. People v. ,antos, .37 ,C'A /5 L.884M#. It is not necessar+ to prove that the victi* $as inti*idated or that force $as used against her because in statutor+ rape the la$ presu*es that the victi* on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a $ill of her o$n. People v. Bacani, .3. ,C'A 787 L.884MC People v. -ualhati, .0. ,C'A /00 L.838MC People v. >erpo, .93 ,C'A 110 L.833M# Considering that in the instant case there is clear and co*petent evidence that the victi* $as under t$elve ./# +ears old at the ti*e of the rape incidents co*plained of, the second argu*ent purported b+ the accused-appellant that the alleged rapes $ere not attended b+ an+ force or inti*idation *ust also fail. Proof of carnal ;no$ledge of the victi* in this case $ho $as onl+ eleven ..# +ears old on the t$o separate occasions reported April .1 and /4, .833# is over$hel*ing $hile unnecessar+ force and inti*idation also appear in the records. <he offended part+@s testi*on+ regarding the abo*inable and $ic;ed acts of the accused-appellant against her chastit+ on the t$o occasions indicated in the separate infor*ations filed b+ the victi* herself $as given in a straightfor$ard *anner $ithout an+ indication that the sa*e $as *otivated b+ an+ ill- feeling to$ard the pinpointed perpetrator. <he fact of rape on the said occasions related b+ the offended part+ $as corroborated b+ the e2a*ining ph+sician $hose *edical finding revealed the presence of sper* cells inside the victi*@s se2ual organ due to partial penetration of the *ale organ into it. It is a2io*atic in rape cases that the slightest penetration of the fe*ale@s private organ is sufficient to consu**ate the ca*e. People v. !un AFuino L!ohn AFuinoM, 6.'. No. 37/.1, =a+ /3, .88. citing People v. CruB, .34 ,C'A 095 L.838MC People v. Patonog .55 ,C'A 905 L.830MC People v. AlvereB, .97 ,C'A 015 L.833MC People v. Bacani,supra#. A careful revie$ of the evidence on record readil+ sho$s that the trial court did not co**it an+ reversible error in disregarding the defenses of denial and alibi given b+ the accused-appellant and in finding that the accused-appellant $as guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of t$o counts of statutor+ rape. &e affir* the trial court@s verdict of conviction in consonance $ith our oftrepeated pronounce*ent that $e accord great respect to the trial court@s findings of fact in the absence of a sho$ing that certain facts of substance and value $ere erroneousl+ overloo;ed that, if considered, *ight affect the result of the case see People v. Eleuterio 'aptus + !era+, 6.'. Nos. 8/.98-04, !une .8,.88. citing People v. Aboga, et. al., .10 ,C'A 141 L.830MC People v. EstenBo, et al., 0/ ,C'A 1/3 L.809MC see also People v. Fran;ie Arenas, et al., 6.'. No. 8/493, !une 5, .88., citing People v. ,o*era, .07 ,C'A 931 L.838MC People v. Ba+sa, .0/ ,C'A 049 L.838MC Aguirre v. People, .55 ,C'A 770 L.830M# -astl+, $e co**end the trial court@s additional finding that the co**ission of the rapes in Fuestion $as attended b+ force and inti*idation although for conviction under Article 775 paragraph 7 of the 'evised Penal Code such finding is no longer necessar+. It bears e*phasis, therefore, that the accused-appellant not onl+ too; advantage of the offended part+@s tender age in giving vent to his aberrant se2ual behavior but also perpetrated the carnal acts co*plained of through force and inti*idation. <here is no *eat in the accused-appellant@s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that there $as force and inti*idation since the infor*ation did not contain an+ allegation to that effect si*pl+ because the phrase "against her $ill and $ithout her consent" contained in both infor*ations charging the accusedappellant of rape connotes the attendance of force and inti*idation. <he absence of e2ternal signs of ph+sical in)uries and the failure of the victi* to shout for help at the first opportunit+ do not negate the co**ission of rape contrar+ to the accused-appellant@s propositions. <he force used in rape cases need not be absolutel+ overpo$ering or irresistible. &hat is essential is si*pl+ that the force e*plo+ed $as sufficient to allo$ the offender to consu**ate his le$d purpose see People v. Cpl. =ario 'a*os, 6.'. Nos. 8/9/9-/8, =a+ /0, .88. citing People v. =endoBa, .97 ,C'A 593 L.833MC People v. <abliBo, .3/ ,C'A 078 L.884M citing People v. Pasco, et al., .3. ,C'A /77 L.884MC People v. Eillaflores .01 ,C'A 04 L.838M citing People v. Abonada, .98 ,C'A 574 L.838M#. &e further note $ith approval the trial court@s observation that the accused-appellant@s act of giving the offended part+ the su* of P/.44 after each of the aforestated "forcible copulation" apparentl+ as "full atone*ent for his dastardl+ act" s*ac;s of "insult a hundred ti*es co*pounded." <he accused-appellant, despite the trial court@s strong $ords, even had the gall to reiterate before us his clai* that the acceptance of the said *easl+ a*ount of P/.44 $as tanta*ount to a tacit consent on the part of his victi*. &e deplore such a highl+ offensive and depraved argu*ent for $e cannot allo$ the innocent and helpless victi*s of unsolicited and forcible defloration to be brutall+ insulted $hile +et nursing their irreparabl+ $ounded se2ual purit+. Considering the age of the victi*, the depravit+ of the cri*es, and the ps+chological trau*a involved, $e increase the inde*nit+ to P54,444.44 in accordance $ith the recent rulings in the cases of People v. Cpl. =ario 'a*os, supraC People v. Edgardo Puedan + -alongisip, supraC and People v. 'odante Felipe, 6.'. No. 84784, (ctober 7., .884. &"E'EF('E, in vie$ of the foregoing, the appealed decision is AFFI'=E> $ith =(>IFICA<I(N that the a*ount of civil inde*nit+ $hich the accused shall pa+ to the offended part+ in each of the t$o rape cases is hereb+ increased to P54,444.44. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. ./.4/0 !ul+ 7., .880

vs.

Page1

C('AK(N >EK(--E' <I,(N and 'ENE '. >EK(--E', petitioners,

C(:'< (F APPEA-, and <E(>('A >(=IN6(, respondents.

'E6A-A>(, !.% <he present appeal b+ certiorari see;s the reversal of the )udg*ent rendered b+ respondent Court of Appeals on !une 74, .885 . $hich affir*ed the (rder of >ece*ber 7, .88/ issued b+ the 'egional <rial Court of GueBon Cit+, Branch 83, granting herein private respondent@s >e*urrer to Plaintiff@s Evidence filed in Civil Case No. G-33-.451 pending therein. <he present appellate revie$ involves an action for reconve+ance filed b+ herein petitioners against herein private respondent before the 'egional <rial Court of GueBon Cit+, Branch 83, doc;eted as the aforesaid Civil Case No. G-33-.451, over a parcel of land $ith a house and apart*ent thereon located at ,an Francisco del =onte, GueBon Cit+ and $hich $as originall+ o$ned b+ the spouses =artin 6uerrero and <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero. It appears that petitioners CoraBon <ison and 'ene >eBoller are the niece and nephe$, respectivel+, of the deceased <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero $ho is the sister of petitioner@s father, "er*ogenes >eBoller. <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero died on =arch 5, .837 $ithout an+ ascendant or descendant, and $as survived onl+ b+ her husband, =artin 6uerrero, and herein petitioners. Petitioners@ father, "er*ogenes, died on (ctober 7, .807, hence the+ see; to inherit fro* <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero b+ right of representation. <he records reveal that upon the death of <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero, her surviving spouse, =artin, e2ecuted on ,epte*ber .5, .839 an Affidavit of E2tra)udicial ,ettle*ent / ad)udicating unto hi*self, allegedl+ as sole heir, the land in dispute $hich is covered b+ <ransfer Certificate of <itle No. 99339, as a conseFuence of $hich <ransfer Certificate of <itle No. 753401 $as issued in the na*e of =artin 6uerrero. (n !anuar+ /, .833, =artin 6uerrero sold the lot to herein private respondent <eodora >o*ingo and thereafter, <ransfer Certificate of <itle No. 7014./ $as issued in the latter@s na*e. =artin 6uerrero died on (ctober /5, .833. ,ubseFuentl+, herein petitioners filed an action for reconve+ance on Nove*ber /, .833, clai*ing that the+ are entitled to inherit one-half of the propert+ in Fuestion b+ right of representation. At the pre-trial conference, the follo$ing issues $ere presented b+ both parties for resolution% .# $hether or not the plaintiffs herein petitioners# are the nephe$ and niece of the late <eodora >eBollerC /# $hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit b+ right of representation fro* the estate of the late <eodora >eBollerC 7# $hether or not defendant herein private respondent# *ust reconve+ the reserved participation of the plaintiffs to the estate of the late <eodora >eBoller under ,ection 1, 'ule 01 of the 'ules of Court $hich $as dul+ annotated on the title of the defendantC 1# $hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to da*ages, *oral and e2e*plar+, plus attorne+@s fees for the $illful and *alicious refusal of defendant to reconve+ the participation of plaintiffs in the estate of <eodora >eBoller, despite de*ands and ;no$ing full+ $ell that plaintiffs are the niece and nephe$ of said deceasedC and 5# $hether or not the sub)ect propert+ no$ in litigation can be considered as con)ugal propert+ of the spouses =artin 6uerrero and <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero. 7 >uring the hearing, petitioner CoraBon >eBoller <ison $as presented as the lone $itness, $ith the follo$ing docu*entar+ evidence offered to prove petitioners@ filiation to their father and their aunt, to $it% a fa*il+ pictureC baptis*al certificates of <eodora and "er*ogenes >eBollerC certificates of destro+ed records of birth of <eodora >eBoller and "er*ogenes >eBollerC death certificates of "er*ogenes >eBoller and <eodora >eBoller 6uerreroC certification of destro+ed records of live birth of CoraBon and 'ene >eBollerC )oint affidavits of Pablo EerBosa and =eliton ,it)ar attesting to the parents, date and place of birth of CoraBon and 'ene >eBollerC )oint affidavit of !uliana Cariaga and =anuela Cariaga attesting to the fact of *arriage bet$een =artin 6uerrero and <eodora >eBollerC and the *arriage certificate of =artin and <eodora 6uerrero. 1 Petitioners thereafter rested their case and sub*itted a $ritten offer of these e2hibits to $hich a Co**ent 5 $as filed b+ herein private respondent. ,ubseFuentl+, private respondent filed a >e*urrer to Plaintiff@s Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their legiti*ate filiation $ith the deceased <eodora 6uerrero in accordance $ith Article .0/ of the Fa*il+ Code. It is further averred that the testi*on+ of petitioner CoraBon >eBoller <ison regarding her relationship $ith her alleged father and aunt is self-serving, uncorroborated and inco*petent, and that it falls short of the Fuantu* of proof reFuired under Article .0/ of the Fa*il+ Code to establish filiation. Also, the certification issued b+ the (ffice of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of "i*a*a+lan, Negros (ccidental is *erel+ proof of the alleged destruction of the records referred to therein, and the )oint affidavit e2ecuted b+ Pablo EerBosa and =eliton ,it)ar certif+ing to the date, place of birth and parentage of herein petitioners is inad*issible for being hearsa+ since the affiants $ere never presented for cross-e2a*ination. 9 (n >ece*ber 7, .88/, the trial court issued an order granting the de*urrer to evidence and dis*issing the co*plaint for reconve+ance. 0 In upholding the dis*issal, respondent Court of Appeals declared that the docu*entar+ evidence presented b+ herein petitioners, such as the baptis*al certificates, fa*il+ picture, and )oint affidavits are all inad*issible and insufficient to prove and establish filiation. "ence, this appeal. &e find for petitioners. <he bone of contention in private respondent@s de*urrer to evidence is $hether or not herein petitioners failed to *eet the Fuantu* of proof reFuired b+ Article .0/ of the Fa*il+ Code to establish legiti*ac+ and filiation. <here are t$o points for consideration before us% first is the issue on petitioner@s legiti*ac+, and second is the Fuestion regarding their filiation $ith <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero. I. It is not debatable that the docu*entar+ evidence adduced b+ petitioners, ta;en separatel+ and independentl+ of each other, are not per se sufficient proof of legiti*ac+ nor even of pedigree. It is i*portant to note, ho$ever, that the rulings of both lo$er courts in the case are basicall+ pre*ised on the erroneous assu*ption that, in the first place, the issue of legiti*ac+ *a+ be validl+ controverted in an action for reconve+ance, and, in the second place, that herein petitioners have the onus probandi to prove their legiti*ac+ and, corollaril+, their filiation. &e disagree on both counts.

Page1

It see*s that both the court a Fuo and respondent appellate court have regrettabl+ overloo;ed the universall+ recogniBed presu*ption on legiti*ac+. <here is no presu*ption of the la$ *ore fir*l+ established and founded on sounder *oralit+ and *ore convincing reason than the presu*ption that children born in $edloc; are legiti*ate. 3And $ell settled is the rule that the issue of legiti*ac+ cannot be attac;ed collaterall+. <he rationale for these rules has been e2plained in this $ise% <he presu*ption of legiti*ac+ in the Fa*il+ Code . . . actuall+ fi2es a civil status for the child born in $edloc;, and that civil status cannot be attac;ed collaterall+. <he legiti*ac+ of the child can be i*pugned onl+ in a direct action brought for that purpose, b+ the proper parties, and $ithin the period li*ited b+ la$. <he legiti*ac+ of the child cannot be contested b+ $a+ of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. <he necessit+ of an independent action directl+ i*pugning the legiti*ac+ is *ore clearl+ e2pressed in the =e2ican Code Article 775# $hich provides% "<he contest of the legiti*ac+ of a child b+ the husband or his heirs *ust be *ade b+ proper co*plaint before the co*petent courtC an+ contest *ade in an+ other $a+ is void." <his principle applies under our Fa*il+ Code. Articles .04 and .0. of the code confir* this vie$, because the+ refer to "the action to i*pugn the legiti*ac+." <his action can be brought onl+ b+ the husband or his heirs and $ithin the periods fi2ed in the present articles. :pon the e2piration of the periods provided in Article .04, the action to i*pugn the legiti*ac+ of a child can no longer be brought. <he status conferred b+ the presu*ption, therefore, beco*es fi2ed, and can no longer be Fuestioned. <he obvious intention of the la$ is to prevent the status of a child born in $edloc; fro* being in a state of uncertaint+ for a long ti*e. It also ai*s to force earl+ action to settle an+ doubt as to the paternit+ of such child, so that the evidence *aterial to the *atter, $hich *ust necessaril+ be facts occurring during the period of the conception of the child, *a+ still be easil+ available. 222 222 222 (nl+ the husband can contest the legiti*ac+ of a child born to his $ife. "e is the one directl+ confronted $ith the scandal and ridicule $hich the infidelit+ of his $ife producesC and he should decide $hether to conceal that infidelit+ or e2pose it, in vie$ of the *oral and econo*ic interest involved. It is onl+ in e2ceptional cases that his heir are allo$ed to contest such legiti*ac+. (utside of these cases, none A even his heirs A can i*pugn legiti*ac+C that $ould a*ount to an insult to his *e*or+. 8 <he issue, therefore, as to $hether petitioners are the legiti*ate children of "er*ogenes >eBoller cannot be properl+ controverted in the present action for reconve+ance. <his is aside, of course, fro* the further consideration that private respondent is not the proper part+ to i*pugn the legiti*ac+ of herein petitioners. <he presu*ption conseFuentl+ continues to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is rebutted. Even assu*ing that the issue is allo$ed to be resolved in this case, the burden of proof rests not on herein petitioners $ho have the benefit of the presu*ption in their favor, but on private respondent $ho is disputing the sa*e. <his fact alone should have been sufficient cause for the trial court to e2ercise appropriate caution before acting, as it did, on the de*urrer to evidence. It $ould have deli*ited the issues for resolution, as $ell as the ti*e and effort necessitated thereb+. (rdinaril+, $hen a fact is presu*ed, it i*plies that the part+ in $hose favor the presu*ption e2ists does not have to introduce evidence to establish that fact, and in an+ litigation $here that fact is put in issue, the part+ den+ing it *ust bear the burden of proof to overthro$ the presu*ption. .4 <he presu*ption of legiti*ac+ is so strong that it is clear that its effect is to shift the burden of persuasion to the part+ clai*ing illegiti*ac+. .. And in order to destro+ the presu*ption, the part+ against $ho* it operates *ust adduce substantial and credible evidence to the contrar+. ./ &here there is an entire lac; of co*petent evidence to the contrar+, .7 and unless or until it is rebutted, it has been held that a presu*ption *a+ stand in lieu of evidence and support a finding or decision. .1 Perforce, a presu*ption *ust be follo$ed if it is uncontroverted. <his is based on the theor+ that a presu*ption is pri*a facieproof of the fact presu*ed, and unless the fact thus established pri*a facie b+ the legal presu*ption of its truth is disproved, it *ust stand as proved. .5 Indubitabl+, $hen private respondent opted not to present countervailing evidence to overco*e the presu*ption, b+ *erel+ filing a de*urrer to evidence instead, she in effect i*pliedl+ ad*itted the truth of such fact. Indeed, she overloo;ed or disregarded the evidential rule that presu*ptions li;e )udicial notice and ad*issions, relieve the proponent fro* presenting evidence on the facts he alleged and such facts are thereb+ considered as dul+ proved. II. <he $eight and sufficienc+ of the evidence regarding petitioner@s relationship $ith <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero, $hose estate is the sub)ect of the present controvers+, reFuires a *ore intensive and e2tensive e2a*ination. Petitioners@ evidence, as earlier e2plained, consists *ainl+ of the testi*on+ of CoraBon >eBoller <ison, the baptis*al, death and *arriage certificates, the various certifications fro* the civil registrar, a fa*il+ picture, and several )oint affidavits e2ecuted b+ third persons all of $hich she identified and e2plained in the course and as part of her testi*on+. <he pri*ar+ proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship bet$een the parties concerned is the testi*on+ of CoraBon >eBoller <ison to the effect that <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero in her lifeti*e, or so*eti*e in .819, categoricall+ declared that the for*er is <eodora@s niece. .9 ,uch a state*ent is considered a declaration about pedigree $hich is ad*issible, as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule, under ,ection 78, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court, sub)ect to the follo$ing conditions% .# that the declarant is dead or unable to testif+C /# that the declarant be related to the person $hose pedigree is the sub)ect of inFuir+C 7# that such relationship be sho$n b+ evidence other than the declarationC and 1# that the declaration $as *ade ante lite* *ota*, that is, not onl+ before the co**ence*ent of the suit involving the sub)ect *atter of the declaration, but before an+ controvers+ has arisen thereon. <here is no dispute $ith respect to the first, second and fourth ele*ents. &hat re*ains for anal+sis is the third ele*ent, that is, $hether or not the other docu*ents offered in evidence sufficientl+ corroborated the declaration *ade b+ <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero in her lifeti*e regarding the pedigree of petitioner CoraBon >eBoller <ison or, if at all, it is necessar+ to present evidence other than such declaration. A*erican )urisdiction has it that a distinction *ust be *ade as to $hen the relationship of the declarant *a+ be proved b+ the ver+ declaration itself, or b+ other declarations of said declarant, and $hen it *ust be supported b+ evidence aliunde. <he rule is stated thus%

Page1

(ne situation to be noted is that $here one see;s to set up a clai* through, but not fro*, the declarant and to establish the ad*issibilit+ of a declaration regarding clai*ant@s pedigree, he *a+ not do b+ declarant@s o$n state*ents as to declarant@s relationship to the particular fa*il+. <he reason is that declarant@s declaration of his o$n relationship is of a selfserving nature. Accordingl+ there *ust be precedent proof fro* other sources that declarant is $hat he clai*ed to be, na*el+, a *e*ber of the particular fa*il+C other$ise the reFuire*ent to ad*issibilit+ that declarant@s relationship to the co**on fa*il+ *ust appear is not *et. But $hen the part+ clai*ing see;s to establish relationship in order to clai* directl+ fro* the declarant or the declarant@s estate, the situation and the polic+ of the la$ applicable are Fuite different. In such case the declaration of the decedent, $hose estate is in controvers+, that he $as related to the one $ho clai*s his estate, is ad*issible $ithout other proof of the fact of relationship. &hile the nature of the declaration is then disserving, that is not the real ground for its ad*ission. ,uch declarations do not derive their evidential value fro* that consideration, although it is a useful, if not an artificial, aid in deter*ining the class to $hich the declarations belong. <he distinction $e have note is sufficientl+ apparentC in the one case the declarations are self-serving, in the otherthe+ are co*petent fro* reasons of necessit+. .0 E*phasis ours.# <he general rule, therefore, is that $here the part+ clai*ing see;s recover+ against a relative co**on to both clai*ant and declarant, but not fro* the declarant hi*self or the declarant@s estate, the relationship of the declarant to the co**on relative *a+ not be proved b+ the declaration itself. <here *ust be so*e independent proof of this fact. .3 As an e2ception, the reFuire*ent that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not appl+ $here it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant hi*self and not *erel+ to establish a right through his declarations to the propert+ of so*e other *e*ber of the fa*il+. .8 &e are sufficientl+ convinced, and so hold, that the present case is one instance $here the general reFuire*ent on evidence aliunde *a+ be rela2ed. Petitioners are clai*ing a right to part of the estate of the declarant herself. Confor*abl+, the declaration *ade b+ <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero that petitioner CoraBon is her niece, is ad*issible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, not$ithstanding the fact that there $as no other preli*inar+ evidence thereof, the reason being such declaration is rendered co*petent b+ virtue of the necessit+ of receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of )ustice. /4 =ore i*portantl+, there is in the present case an absolute failure b+ all and sundr+ to refute that declaration *ade b+ the decedent. Fro* the foregoing disFuisitions, it *a+ thus be safel+ concluded, on the sole basis of the decedent@s declaration and $ithout need for further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephe$ of <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero. As held in one case, /. $here the sub)ect of the declaration is the declarant@s o$n relationship to another person, it see*s absurb to reFuire, as a foundation for the ad*ission of the declaration, proof of the ver+ fact $hich the declaration is offered to establish. <he preli*inar+ proof $ould render the *ain evidence unnecessar+. Appl+ing the general rule in the present case $ould nonetheless produce the sa*e result. For $hile the docu*entar+ evidence sub*itted b+ petitioners do not strictl+ confor* to the rules on their ad*issibilit+, $e are ho$ever of the considered opinion that the sa*e *a+ be ad*itted b+ reason of private respondent@s failure to interpose an+ ti*el+ ob)ection thereto at the ti*e the+ $ere being offered in evidence. // It is ele*entar+ that an ob)ection shall be *ade at the ti*e $hen an alleged inad*issible docu*ent is offered in evidence, /7 other$ise, the ob)ection shall be treated as $aived, /1 since the right to ob)ect is *erel+ a privilege $hich the part+ *a+ $aive. /5 As e2plained in Abrenica vs. 6onda, et al., /9 it has been repeatedl+ laid do$n as a rule of evidence that a protest or ob)ection against the ad*ission of an+ evidence *ust be *ade at the proper ti*e, other$ise it $ill be dee*ed to have been $aived. <he proper ti*e is $hen fro* the Fuestion addressed to the $itness, or fro* the ans$er thereto, or fro* the presentation of the proof, the inad*issibilit+ of the evidence is, or *a+ be inferred. <hus, a failure to e2cept to the evidence because it does not confor* $ith the statute is a $aiver if the provisions of the la$. <hat ob)ection to a Fuestion put to a $itness *ust be *ade at the ti*e the Fuestion is as;ed. An ob)ection to the ad*ission of evidence on the ground of inco*petenc+, ta;en after the testi*on+ has been given, is too late. /0 <hus, for instance, failure to ob)ect to parol evidence given on the stand, $here the part+ is in a position to ob)ect, is a $aiver of an+ ob)ections thereto. /3 <he situation is aggravated b+ the fact that counsel for private respondent unreservedl+ cross-e2a*ined petitioners, as the lone $itness, on the docu*entar+ evidence that $ere offered. At no ti*e $as the issue of the supposed inad*issibilit+ thereof, or the possible basis for ob)ection thereto, ever raised. Instead, private respondent@s counsel elicited ans$ers fro* the $itness on the circu*stances and regularit+ of her obtention of said docu*ents% <he observations later *ade b+ private respondent in her co**ent to petitioners@ offer of e2hibits, although the grounds therefor $ere alread+ apparent at the ti*e these docu*ents $ere being adduced in evidence during the testi*on+ of CoraBon >eBoller <ison but $hich ob)ections $ere not ti*el+ raised therein, *a+ no longer serve to rectif+ the legal conseFuences $hich resulted therefro*. "ence, even assu*ing e2 gratia argu*enti that these docu*ents are inad*issible for being hearsa+, but on account of herein private respondent@s failure to ob)ect thereto, the sa*e *a+ be ad*itted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted. /8 Accordingl+, the Certificate of =arriage E2hibit ,# $herein it is indicated that the parents of <eodora >eBoller are Isabelo >eBoller and Cecilia Calpo, as $ell as the Certificates of Baptis* of <eodora >eBoller 74 E2hibit "# and "er*ogenes >eBoller E2hibit !# $hich both reflect the na*es of their parents as Isabelo >eBoller and Cecilia Calpo, to sho$ that "er*ogenes >eBoller is the brother of <eodora >eBoller 6uerreroC and the >eath Certificate of "er*ogenes >eBoller E2hibit P# the entries $herein $ere *ade b+ petitioner CoraBon >eBoller <ison as his daughter, together $ith the !oint Affidavits of Pablo EerBosa and =eliton ,it)ar E2hibits N and P#, to prove that herein petitioners are the children of "er*ogenes >eBoller A these can be dee*ed to have sufficientl+ established the relationship bet$een the declarant and herein petitioners. <his is in consonance $ith the rule that a pri*a facie sho$ing is sufficient and that onl+ slight proof of the relationship is reFuired. 7. Finall+, it *a+ not be a*iss to consider as in the nature of circu*stantial evidence the fact that both the declarant and the clai*ants, $ho are the sub)ect of the declaration, bear the surna*e >eBoller. 7/ III. <he follo$ing provisions of the Civil Code provide for the *anner b+ $hich the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this case, to $it%

Page1

Art. 805. &hen children of one or *ore brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, the+ shall inherit fro* the latter b+ representation, if the+ survive $ith their uncles or aunts. But if the+ alone survive, the+ shall inherit in eFual portions.

Art. 885. In the absence of legiti*ate descendants and ascendants, and illegiti*ate children and their descendants, $hether legiti*ate or illegiti*ate, the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate, $ithout pre)udice to the rights of brothers and sisters, nephe$s and nieces, should there be an+, under Article .44.. Art. .44.. ,hould brothers and sisters or their children survive $ith the $ido$ or $ido$er, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or theirs children to the other half. :pon the death of <eodora >eBoller 6uerrero, one-half of the sub)ect propert+ $as auto*aticall+ reserved to the surviving spouse, =artin 6uerrero, as his share in the con)ugal partnership. Appl+ing the aforeFuoted statutor+ provisions, the re*aining half shall be eFuall+ divided bet$een the $ido$er and herein petitioners $ho are entitled to )ointl+ inherit in their o$n right. "ence, =artin 6uerrero could onl+ validl+ alienate his total undivided three-fourths 7D1# share in the entire propert+ to herein private respondent. 'esultantl+, petitioners and private respondent are dee*ed co-o$ners of the propert+ covered b+ <ransfer Certificate of <itle No. 7014./ in the proportion of an undivided one-fourth .D1# and three-fourths 7D1# share thereof, respectivel+. All told, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, the de*urrer to plaintiff@s evidence should have been, as it is hereb+, denied. Nonetheless, private respondent *a+ no longer be allo$ed to present evidence b+ reason of the *andate under ,ection . of revised 'ule 7 of the 'ules of Court $hich provides that "if the *otion is granted but on appeal the order of dis*issal is reversed he shall be dee*ed to have $aived the right to present evidence." 77 &"E'EF('E, the Fuestioned )udg*ent of respondent Court of Appeals is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E, and herein petitioners and private respondent are declared co-o$ners of the sub)ect propert+ $ith an undivided one-fourth .D1# and three-fourths 7D1# share therein, respectivel+. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. 3974/ ,epte*ber /1, .88. CA,I=I'( =EN>(KA, petitioner, vs. "(N. C(:'< (F APPEA-, and <E(PI,<A <('IN6 <:SACA(, respondents. Bienvenido '. ,aniel, !r. for petitioner. >o*ingo Antigua Y Associates for private respondent.

C':K, !.%p <he private respondent clai*ed she $as the illegiti*ate daughter of Casi*iro =endoBa, but the latter denied her clai*. "e denied it to his d+ing da+. <he trial court believed hi* and dis*issed her co*plaint for co*pulsor+ recognition. <he appellate court did not and reversed the )udg*ent of the court belo$. No$ the issue is before us on certiorari. <he co*plaint $as filed on August /., .83., in the 'egional <rial Court in Cebu Cit+. <eopista <oring <ufiacao, the herein private respondent, alleged that she $as born on August /4, .874, to Brigida <oring, $ho $as then single, and defendant Casi*iro =endoBa, *arried at that ti*e to E*iliana Barrientos. ,he averred that =endoBa recogniBed her as an illegiti*ate child b+ treating her as such and according her the rights and privileges of a recogniBed illegiti*ate child. Casi*iro =endoBa, then alread+ 8. +ears old, specificall+ denied the plaintiffs allegations and set up a counterclai* for da*ages and attorne+@s fees. A*plif+ing on her co*plaint, <eopista testified that it $as her *other $ho told her that her father $as Casi*iro. ,he called hi* Papa =iro+. ,he lived $ith her *other because Casi*iro $as *arried but she used to visit hi* at his house. &hen she *arried Ealentin <ufiacao, Casi*iro bought a passenger truc; and engaged hi* to drive it so he could have a livelihood. Casi*iro later sold the truc; but gave the proceeds of the sale to her and her husband. In .800, Casi*iro allo$ed her son, -olito <ufiacao, to build a house on his lot and later he gave her *one+ to bu+ her o$n lot fro* her brother, Eicente <oring. (n Februar+ .1, .800, Casi*iro opened a )oint savings account $ith her as a co-depositor at the =andaue Cit+ branch of the Philippine Co**ercial and Industrial Ban;. <$o +ears later, =argarita Bate, Casi*iro@s adopted daughter, too; the passboo; fro* her, but Casi*iro ordered it returned to her after ad*onishing =argarita. . -olito <ufiacao corroborated his *other and said he considered Casi*iro his grandfather because <eopista said so. "e $ould ;iss his hand $henever the+ sa$ each other and Casi*iro $ould give hi* *one+. Casi*iro used to invite hi* to his house and give hi* )ac;fruits. $hen his grandfather learned that he $as living on a rented lot, the old *an allo$ed hi* to build a house on the for*er@s land. / <$o other $itnesses testified for <eopista, na*el+, 6audencio =endoBa and Isaac =endoBa, both relatives of Casi*iro. 6audencio said he $as a cousin of Casi*iro and ;ne$ Brigida <oring because she used to $or; $ith hi* in a saltbed in (pao. Casi*iro hi*self told hi* she $as his s$eetheart. -ater, 6audencio acted as a go-bet$een for their liaison, $hich eventuall+ resulted in Brigida beco*ing pregnant in .874 and giving birth to <eopista. Casi*iro handed hi* P/4.44 to be given to Brigida at <eopista@s baptis*. Casi*iro also gave hi* P5.44 ever+ so often to be delivered to Brigida. 7 Isaac testified that his uncle Casi*iro $as the father of <eopista because his father "ipolito, Casi*iro@s brother, and his grand*other, Brigida =endoBa, so infor*ed hi*. "e $or;ed on Casi*iro@s boat and $henever Casi*iro paid hi* his salar+, he $ould also give hi* various a*ounts fro* P/.44 to P.4.44 to be delivered to <eopista. Isaac also declared that Casi*iro intended to give certain properties to <eopista. 1 Casi*iro hi*self did not testif+ because of his advanced age, but Eicente <oring too; the stand to resist <eopista@s clai*. Eicente, $ho professed to be Casi*iro@s onl+ illegiti*ate child b+ Brigida <oring, declared that <eopista@s father $as not Casi*iro but a carpenter na*ed (ndo+, $ho later abandoned her. Eicente said that it $as he $ho sold a lot to <eopista,

Page1

and for a lo$ price because she $as his half sister. It $as also he $ho per*itted -olito to build a house on Casi*iro@s lot. <his $itness stressed that $hen Casi*iro $as hospitaliBed, <eopista never once visited her alleged father. 5 <he last state*ent $as shared b+ the other defense $itness, !ulieta (uano, Casi*iro@s niece, $ho also affir*ed that Eicente <oring used to $or; as a coo; in Casi*iro@s boat. ,he flatl+ declared she had never *et <eopista but she ;ne$ her husband, $ho $as a *echanic. 9 <he rules on co*pulsor+ recognition are e*bodied in Article /37 of the Civil Code, $hich has been held to be applicable not onl+ to natural children but also to spurious children. 0 <he said article provides% Art. /37. In an+ of the follo$ing cases, the father is obliged to recogniBe the child as his natural child% .# In cases of rape, abduction or seduction, $hen the period of the offense coincides *ore or less $ith that of the conceptionC /# &hen the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father b+ the direct acts of the latter or of his fa*il+C 7# $hen the child $as conceived during the ti*e $hen the *other cohabited $ith the supposed father. 1# &hen the child has in his favor an+ evidence or proof that the defendant is his father. <his article has been substantiall+ reproduced in the Fa*il+ Code as follo$s% Art. .0/. <he filiation of legiti*ate children is established b+ an+ of the follo$ing% .# <he record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final )udg*entC or /# An ad*ission of legiti*ate filiation in a public docu*ent or a private hand$ritten instru*ent and signed b+ the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legiti*ate filiation shall be proved b+% .# <he open and continuous possession of the status of a legiti*ate childC or /# An+ other *eans allo$ed b+ the 'ules of Court and special la$s. Art. .05. Illegiti*ate children *a+ establish their illegiti*ate filiation in the sa*e $a+ and on the sa*e evidence as legiti*ate children. In his re*ar;abl+ $ell-$ritten decision, !udge -eoncio P. AbarFueB re)ected the plaintiff@ s clai* that she $as in continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father b+ the direct acts of the latter or of his fa*il+. "is "onor declared% In this particular case the established evidence is that plaintiff continuousl+ lived $ith her *other, together $ith her sister Paulina. Neither the plaintiff nor her husband had co*e to live $ith the defendant. At *ost, onl+ their son, -olito <ufiacao $as allo$ed to construct a s*all house in the land of the defendant, either b+ the defendant hi*self, as clai*ed b+ the plaintiff, or b+ Eicente <oring, as clai*ed b+ the $itnesses of the defendant. <he defendant never spent for the support and education of the plaintiff. "e did not allo$ the plaintiff to carr+ his surna*e. <he instances $hen the defendant gave *one+ to the plaintiff $ere, *ore or less, off-and-on or rather isolatedl+ periodic. <he+ $ere *ade at considerable intervals and $ere not given directl+ to the plaintiff but through a third person. <hus, $hile it *a+ be conceded that% a# the defendant@s parents, as $ell as the plaintiff hi*self told 6audencio =endoBa and Isaac =endoBa that <eopista is the daughter of the defendantC b# that <eopista calls the defendant as "Papa =iro+"C c# that <eopista $ould ;iss defendant@s hand $hen she *et hi*C d# that the defendant gave to her and her husband the inco*e of the passenger truc; as $ell as the proceeds of the sale thereof, all these acts, ta;en altogether, are not sufficient to sho$ that the plaintiff had possessed continuousl+ the status of a recogniBed illegiti*ate child. (n appeal, ho$ever, the respondent courts 3 disagreed and arrived at its o$n conclusion as follo$s% Contrar+ to the conclusion of the court a Fuo, &e find that appellant has sufficientl+ proven her continuous possession of such status. Although the court a Fuo did not pass on the credibilit+ of the various $itnesses presented, &e consider the $itnesses for the plaintiff as credible and unbiased. No proof $as sho$n to render the* other$ise. <here is no sho$ing that Isaac and 6audencio testified falsel+. <he+ $ere disinterested parties $ith no a2e to grind against the appellee or the people activel+ acting in his behalf. In fact even the court a Fuo conceded to the truthfulness of so*e of their testi*onies. B+ contrast, it continued, Eicente <oring $as an interested part+ $ho $as clai*ing to be the sole recogniBed natural child of Casi*iro and stood to lose *uch inheritance if <eopista@s clai* $ere recogniBed. "e had earlier filed theft charges against his o$n sister and libel charges against her husband. As for !ulieta (uano, the respondent court found it difficult to believe that she had never *et <eopista although both of the* have been living in the sa*e baranga+ since birth. <he decision of the Court of Appeals $as pro*ulgated on August .., .833. A *otion for reconsideration $as filed, and it $as onl+ fro* the opposition thereto of the private respondent that Casi*iro@s counsel learned that his client had died on =a+ .839. "e i**ediatel+ infor*ed the respondent court build the *otion for reconsideration $as denied $ithout an+ substitution of parties having been effected. <he said counsel, no$ acting for Eicente <oring, then as;ed this Court to substitute the latter for the deceased Casi*iro =endoBa in the present petition. <he applicable provisions of the 'ules of Court are ,ections .9 and .0 of 'ule 7, reading as follo$s% ,ec. .9. >ut+ of attorne+ upon death, incapacit+ or inco*petenc+ of part+. A &henever a part+ to a pending case dies, beco*es incapacitated or inco*petent, it shall be the dut+ of his attorne+ to infor* the court pro*ptl+ of such death, incapacit+ or inco*petenc+, and to give the na*e and residence of his e2ecutor, guardian or other legal representative. ,ec. .0. >eath of part+. A After a part+ dies and the clai* is not thereb+ e2tinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, $ithin a period of thirt+ 74# da+s, or $ithin such ti*e as *a+ be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear $ithin said ti*e the court *a+ order the opposing part+ to procure the appoint*ent of a legal representative of the deceased $ithin a ti*e to be specified b+ the court, and the representative shall i**ediatel+ appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased.

Page1

<he court charges involved in procuring such appoint*ent, if defra+ed b+ the opposing part+, *a+ be recovered as costs. <he heirs of the deceased *a+ be allo$ed to be substituted for the deceased, $ithout reFuiring the appoint*ent of an e2ecutor or ad*inistrator and the court *a+ appoint guardian ad lite* for the *inor heirs. In the earl+ case of =aseca*po vs. =aseca*po, 8 it $as settled that% <he subseFuent death of the father is not a bar to the action co**enced during =s lifeti*e b+ one $ho pretended to be his natural son. It *a+ survive against the e2ecutor, ad*inistrator, or an+ other legal representative of the testate or intestate succession. Pursuant to the above rules and )urisprudence, $e hereb+ allo$ the substitution of Casi*iro =endoBa pro haec vice and nunc pro tunc b+ Eicente <oring, $ho appears to be the for*er@s illegiti*ate son. <his disposes of the private respondent@s contention that the la$+er-client relationship ter*inated $ith Casi*iro@s death and that Eicente has no personalit+ no$ to substitute hi*. No$ to the *erits. &e note that both the trial court and the respondent court, in arriving at their respective conclusions, focused on the Fuestion of $hether or not <eopista $as in continuous possession of her clai*ed status of an illegiti*ate child of Casi*iro =endoBa. <his $as understandable because <eopista herself had apparentl+ based her clai* on this particular ground as proof of filiation allo$ed under Article /37 of the Civil Code. <o establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegiti*ate child," it is necessar+ to co*pl+ $ith certain )urisprudential reFuire*ents. "Continuous" does not *ean that the concession of status shall continue forever but onl+ that it shall not be of an inter*ittent character $hile it continues. .4 <he possession of such status *eans that the father has treated the child as his o$n, directl+ and not through others, spontaneousl+ and $ithout conceal*ent though $ithout publicit+ since the relation is illegiti*ate#. .. <here *ust be a sho$ing of the per*anent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his o$n, b+ continuous and clear *anifestation of paternal affection and care. ./ &ith these guidelines in *ind, $e agree $ith the trial court that <eopista has not been in continuous possession of the status of a recogniBed illegiti*ate child of Casi*iro =endoBa, under both Article /37 of the Civil Code and Article .0/ of the Fa*il+ Code. <he plaintiff lived $ith her *other and not $ith the defendant although the+ $ere both residents of (*apad, =andaue Cit+. It is true, as the respondent court observed, that this could have been because defendant had a legiti*ate $ife. "o$ever, it is not unusual for a father to ta;e his illegiti*ate child into his house to live $ith hi* and his legiti*ate $ife, especiall+ if the couple is childless, as in this case. In fact, Eicente <oring, $ho also clai*ed to be an illegiti*ate child of Casi*iro, lived $ith the latter and his $ife, apparentl+ $ithout ob)ection fro* the latter. &e also note that <eopista did not use the surna*e of Casi*iro although this is, of course, not decisive of one@s status. No less significantl+, the regularit+ of defendant@s act of giving *one+ to the plaintiff through 6audencio =endoBa and Isaac =endoBa has not been sufficientl+ established. <he trial court correctl+ concluded that such instances $ere "off-and-on," not continuous and inter*ittent. Indeed, the plaintiff s testi*on+ on this point is tenuous as in one breath she said that her *other solel+ spent for her education and in another that Casi*iro helped in supporting her. .7 But although <eopista has failed to sho$ that she $as in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegiti*ate child of Casi*iro, $e find that she has nevertheless established that status b+ another *ethod. &hat both the trial court and the respondent court did not ta;e into account is that an illegiti*ate child is allo$ed to establish his clai*ed filiation b+ "an+ other *eans allo$ed b+ the 'ules of Court and special la$s," according to the Civil Code, or "b+ evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father," according to the Fa*il+ Code. ,uch evidence *a+ consist of his baptis*al certificate, a )udicial ad*ission, a fa*il+ Bible in $hich his na*e has been entered, co**on reputation respecting his pedigree, ad*ission b+ silence, the testi*onies of $itnesses, and other ;inds of proof ad*issible under 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court. .1 <he trial court conceded that "the defendant@s parents, as $ell as the plaintiff hi*self, told 6audencio =endoBa and Isaac =endoBa, that <eopista $as the daughter of the defendant." It should have probed this *atter further in light of 'ule .74, ,ection 78, of the 'ules of Court, providing as follo$s% ,ec. 78. A Act or declarations about pedigree. A <he act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testif+, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to hi* b+ birth or *arriage, *a+ be received in evidence $here it occurred before the controvers+, and the relationship bet$een the t$o persons is sho$n b+ evidence other than such act or declaration. <he $ord "pedigree" includes relationship, fa*il+ genealog+, birth, *arriage, death, the dates $hen and the places $here these facts occurred, and the na*es of the relatives. It e*braces also facts of fa*il+ histor+ inti*atel+ connected $ith pedigree. <he state*ent of the trial court regarding <eopista@s parentage is not entirel+ accurate. <o set the record straight, $e $ill stress that it $as onl+ Isaac =endoBa $ho testified on this Fuestion of pedigree, and he did not cite Casi*iro@s father. "is testi*on+ $as that he $as infor*ed b+ his father "ipolito, $ho $as Casi*iro@s brother, and Brigida =endoBa, Casi*iro@s o$n *other, that <eopista $as Casi*iro@s illegiti*ate daughter. .5 ,uch acts or declarations *a+ be received in evidence as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule because "it is the best the nature of the case ad*its and because greater evils are apprehended fro* the re)ection of such proof than fro* its ad*ission. .9 Nevertheless, precisel+ because of its nature as hearsa+ evidence, there are certain safeguards against its abuse. Co**enting on this provision, Francisco enu*erates the follo$ing reFuisites that have to be co*plied $ith before the act or declaration regarding pedigree *a+ be ad*itted in evidence% .. <he declarant is dead or unable to testif+. /. <he pedigree *ust be in issue. 7. <he declarant *ust be a relative of the person $hose pedigree is in issue.

Page1

1. <he declaration *ust be *ade before the controvers+ arose.

5. <he relationship bet$een the declarant and the person $hose pedigree is in Fuestion *ust be sho$n b+ evidence other than such declaration. .0 All the above reFuisites are present in the case at bar. <he persons $ho *ade the declarations about the pedigree of <eopista, na*el+, the *other of Casi*iro, Brigida =endoBa, and his brother, "ipolito, $ere both dead at the ti*e of Isaac@s testi*on+. <he declarations referred to the filiation of <eopista and the paternit+ of Casi*iro, $hich $ere the ver+ issues involved in the co*plaint for co*pulsor+ recognition. <he declarations $ere *ade before the co*plaint $as filed b+ <eopista or before the controvers+ arose bet$een her and Casi*iro. Finall+, the relationship bet$een the declarants and Casi*iro has been established b+ evidence other than such declaration, consisting of the e2tra)udicial partition of the estate of Florencio =endoBa, in $hich Casi*iro $as *entioned as one of his heirs. .3 <he said declarations have not been refuted. Casi*iro could have done this b+ deposition if he $as too old and $ea; to testif+ at the trial of the case. If $e consider the other circu*stances narrated under oath b+ the private respondent and her $itnesses, such as the financial doles *ade b+ Casi*iro to Brigida <oring, the hiring of <eopista@s husband to drive the passenger truc; of Casi*iro, $ho later sold the vehicle and gave the proceeds of the sale to <eopista and her husband, the per*ission he gave -olito <ufiacao to build a house on his land after he found that the latter $as living on a rented lot, and, no less re*ar;abl+, the )oint savings account Casi*iro opened $ith <eopista, $e can reasonabl+ conclude that <eopista $as the illegiti*ate daughter of Casi*iro =endoBa. &e hold that b+ virtue of the above-discussed declarations, and in vie$ of the other circu*stances of this case, @reopista <oring <ufiacao has proved that she is the illegiti*ate daughter of Casi*iro =endoBa and is entitled to be recogniBed as such. In so holding, $e give effect to the polic+ of the Civil Code and the Fa*il+ Code to liberaliBe the rule on the investigation of "the paternit+ of illegiti*ate children, $ithout pre)udice to the right of the alleged parent to resist the clai*ed status $ith his o$n defenses, including evidence no$ obtainable through the facilities of *odern *edicine and technolog+ &"E'EF('E, the petition is >ENIE>. !udg*ent is hereb+ rendered >EC-A'IN6 <eopista <oring <uQacao to be the illegiti*ate child of the late Casi*iro =endoBa and entitled to all the rights appurtenant to such status. Costs against the petitioner. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .19070 >ece*ber .4, /44.

IN <"E =A<<E' (F <"E IN<E,<A<E E,<A<E (F <"E -A<E !:AN "!"(NNI" -(C,IN, ,'., -:CI A. ,(-INAP >aughter of the late =aria -ocsin Araneta#, the successors of the late -(:'>E, C. -(C,IN, =AN:E- C. -(C,IN, E,<E' -(C,IN !A'AN<I--A and the intestate estate of the late !(,E C. -(C,IN, !'.,petitioners, vs. !:AN C. -(C,IN, !'., respondent. ,AN>(EA--6:<IE''EK, !.% A Certificate of -ive Birth dul+ recorded in the -ocal Civil 'egistr+, a cop+ of $hich is trans*itted to the Civil 'egistr+ 6eneral pursuant to the Civil 'egistr+ -a$, is pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated. "o$ever, if there are *aterial discrepancies bet$een the*, the one entered in the Civil 'egistr+ 6eneral prevails. <his is a petition for revie$ on certiorari under 'ule 15 of the .880 'ules of Civil Procedure, as a*ended, see;ing the reversal of the ,epte*ber .7, /444 >ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 50043 $hich affir*edin toto the ,epte*ber .7, .889 order of the 'egional <rial Court, Branch 74, of Iloilo Cit+ in ,pecial Proceeding No. 101/. <he ,epte*ber .7 order of the trial court appointed !uan E. -ocsin, !r., respondent, as the sole ad*inistrator of the Intestate Estate of the late !uan "!honn+" -ocsin, ,r. 'ecords sho$ that on Nove*ber .., .88., or eleven ..# *onths after !uan "!honn+" -ocsin, ,r.. died intestate on >ece*ber .., .884, respondent !uan E. -ocsin, !r. filed $ith the 'egional <rial Court of Iloilo Cit+, Branch 74, a "Petition for -etters of Ad*inistration" doc;eted as ,pecial Proceeding No. 101/# pra+ing that he be appointed Ad*inistrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased. "e alleged, a*ong others, a# that he is an ac;no$ledged natural child of the late !uan C. -ocsinC b# that during his lifeti*e, the deceased o$ned personal properties $hich include undeter*ined savings, current and ti*e deposits $ith various ban;s, and .D9 portion of the undivided *ass of real properties o$ned b+ hi* and his siblings, na*el+% !ose -ocsin, !r., =anuel -ocsin, =aria -ocsin Iulo, -ourdes -ocsin and Ester -ocsinC and c# that he is the onl+ surviving legal heir of the decedent. (n Nove*ber .7, .88., the trial court issued an order setting the petition for hearing on !anuar+ .7, .88/, $hich order $as dul+ published,/ thereb+ giving notice to all persons $ho *a+ have opposition to the said petition. Before the scheduled hearing, or on !anuar+ .4, .88/, the heirs of !ose -ocsin, !r., the heirs of =aria -ocsin, =anuel -ocsin and Ester !arantilla, clai*ing to be the la$ful heirs of the deceased, filed an opposition to respondent@s petition for letters of ad*inistration. <he+ averred that respondent is not a child or an ac;no$ledged natural child of the late !uan C. -ocsin, $ho during his lifeti*e, never affi2ed ",r." in his na*e. (n !anuar+ 5, .887, another opposition to the petition $as filed b+ -uc+ ,alinop sole heir of the late =aria -ocsin Eda. >e Araneta, sister of the deceased#, =anuel -ocsin and the successors of the late -ourdes C. -ocsin alleging that respondent@s clai* as a natural child is barred b+ prescription or the statute of li*itations. <he Intestate Estate of the late !ose -ocsin, !r. brother of the deceased# also entered its appearance in the estate proceedings, )oining the earlier oppositors. <his $as follo$ed b+ an appearance and opposition dated !anuar+ /9, .887 of Ester -ocsin !arantilla another sister of !uan C. -ocsin#, li;e$ise stating that there is no filial relationship bet$een herein respondent and the deceased.

<o support his clai* that he is an ac;no$ledged natural child of the deceased and, therefore, entitled to be appointed ad*inistrator of the intestate estate, respondent sub*itted a *achine cop+ *ar;ed as E2hibit ">"#7 of his Certificate of -ive

Page1

<hereupon, the trial court conducted hearings.

Birth No. 100 found in the bound volu*e of birth records in the (ffice of the -ocal Cler; 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+. E2hibit ">" contains the infor*ation that respondent@s father is !uan C. -ocsin, ,r. and that he $as the infor*ant of the facts stated therein, as evidenced b+ his signatures E2hibit ">-/" and ">-7"#. <o prove the e2istence and authenticit+ of Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 fro* $hich E2hibit ">" $as *achine copied, respondent presented 'osita !. Eencer, the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+. ,he produced and identified in court the bound volu*e of .850 records of birth $here the alleged original of Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 is included. 'espondent also offered in evidence a photograph E2hibit "C"#1 sho$ing hi* and his *other, A*paro Esca*illa, in front of a coffin bearing !uan C. -ocsin@s dead bod+. <he photograph, respondent clai*s, sho$s that he and his *other have been recogniBed as fa*il+ *e*bers of the deceased. In their oppositions, petitioners clai*ed that Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# is spurious. <he+ sub*itted a certified true cop+ of Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 found in the Civil 'egistrar 6eneral, =etro =anila, *ar;ed as E2hibit "3",5 indicating that the birth of respondent $as reported b+ his *other, A*paro Esca*illa, and that the sa*e does not contain the signature of the late !uan C. -ocsin. <he+ observed as ano*alous the fact that $hile respondent $as born on (ctober //, .859 and his birth $as recorded on !anuar+ 74, .850, ho$ever, his Certificate of -ive Birth No. 110 E2hibit ">"# $as recorded on a >ece*ber ., .853 revised for*. :pon the other hand, E2hibit "3" appears on a !ul+, .859 for*, alread+ used before respondent@s birth. <his scenario dearl+ suggests that E2hibit ">" $as falsified. Petitioners presented as $itness, Col. Pedro -. Elvas, a hand$riting e2pert. "e testified that the signatures of !uan C. -ocsin and E*ilio 6. <o*esa then Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+# appearing in Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# are forgeries. "e thus concluded that the said Certificate is a spurious docu*ent surreptitiousl+ inserted into the bound volu*e of birth records of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+. After hearing, the trial court, finding that Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# and the photograph E2hibit "C"# are sufficient proofs of respondent@s illegiti*ate filiation $ith the deceased, issued on ,epte*ber .7, .889 an order, the dispositive portion of $hich reads% "&"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, this PE<I<I(N is hereb+ 6'AN<E> and the petitioner !uan E. -ocsin, !r. is hereb+ appointed Ad*inistrator of the Intestate Estate of the late !uan "!ohnn+" -ocsin, ,r. "-et -etters of Ad*inistration be issued in his favor, upon his filing of a bond in the su* of FIF<I <"(:,AN> PE,(, P54,444.44# to be approved b+ this Court. ",( ('>E'E>."9 (n appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered the challenged >ecision affir*ing in toto the order of the trial court dated ,epte*ber .7, .889. Petitioners *oved for a reconsideration, $hile respondent filed a *otion for e2ecution pending appeal. Both *otions $ere, ho$ever, denied b+ the Appellate Court in its 'esolution dated !anuar+ .4, /44.. "ence, the instant petition for revie$ on certiorari b+ petitioners. <he focal issue for our resolution is $hich of the t$o docu*ents A Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# and Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit "3"# is genuine. <he rule that factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confir*ed b+ the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and *a+ not be revie$ed on appeal0 does not appl+ $hen there appears in the record of the case so*e facts or circu*stances of $eight and influence $hich have been overloo;ed, or the significance of $hich have been *isinterpreted, that if considered, $ould affect the result of the case.3 "ere, the trial court failed to appreciate facts and circu*stances that $ould have altered its conclusion. ,ection 9, 'ule 03 of the 'evised 'ules of Court la+s do$n the persons preferred $ho are entitled to the issuance of letters of ad*inistration, thus% ",ection 9. &hen and to $ho* letters of ad*inistration granted. A If no e2ecutor is na*ed in the $ill, or the e2ecutor or e2ecutors are inco*petent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, ad*inistration shall be granted% a# <o the surviving husband or $ife, as the case *a+ be, or ne2t of ;in, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or $ife, or ne2t of ;in, reFuests to have appointed, if co*petent and $illing to serveC b# If such surviving husband or $ife, as the case *a+ be, or ne2t of ;in, or the person selected b+ the*, be inco*petent or un$illing, or if the husband or $ido$, or ne2t of ;in, neglects for thirt+ 74# da+s after the death of a person to appl+ for ad*inistration or to reFuest that ad*inistration be granted to so*e other person, it *a+ be granted to one or *ore of the principal creditors, if co*petent and $illing to serveC c# If there is no such creditor co*petent and $illing to serve, it *a+ be granted to such other person as the court *a+ select." E*phasis ours# :pon the other hand, ,ection / of 'ule 08 provides that a petition for letters of ad*inistration *ust be filed b+ an interested person, thus% ",ec. / Contents of petition for letters of ad*inistration. A A petition for letters of ad*inistration *ust be filed b+ an interested person and *ust sho$, so far as ;no$n to the petitioner% a# <he )urisdictional factsC 2 2 2" E*phasis ours# An "interested part+", in estate proceedings, is one $ho $ould be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one $ho has a clai* against the estate, such as a creditor.8 Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase "ne2t of ;in" refers to those $hose relationship $ith the decedent is such that the+ are entitled to share in the estate as distributees..4 In 6abriel v. Court of Appeals,.. this Court held that in the appoint*ent of the ad*inistrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration rec;oned $ith is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed ad*inistrator. "ere, undisputed is the fact that the deceased, !uan C. -ocsin, $as not survived b+ a spouse. In his petition for issuance of letters of ad*inistration, respondent alleged that he is an ac;no$ledged natural son of the deceased, i*pl+ing that he is an interested person in the estate and is considered as ne2t of ;in. But has respondent established that he is an ac;no$ledged natural son of the deceasedH (n this point, this Court, through =r. !ustice !ose C. Eitug, held%

Page1

"<he filiation of illegiti*ate children, li;e legiti*ate children, is established b+ .# the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final )udg*entC or /# an ad*ission of legiti*ate filiation in a public docu*ent or a private hand$ritten instru*ent and signed b+ the parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved b+ .# the open and continuous possession of the status of a legiti*ate childC or /# an+ other *eans allo$ed b+ the 'ules of Court and special la$s. <he due recognition of an illegiti*ate child in a record of birth, a $ill, a state*ent before a court of record, or in an+ authentic $riting is, in itself, a consu**ated act of ac;no$ledg*ent of the child, and no further court action is reFuired. In fact, an+ authentic $riting is treated not )ust a ground for co*pulsor+ recognitionC it is in itself a voluntar+ recognition that does not reFuire a separate action for )udicial approval. &here, instead, a clai* for recognition is predicated on other evidence *erel+ tending to prove paternit+, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a $ill, a state*ent before a court of record or an authentic $riting, )udicial action $ithin the applicable statute of li*itations is essential in order to establish the child@s ac;no$ledg*ent."./ E*phasis ours# "ere, respondent, in order to establish his filiation $ith the deceased, presented to the trial court his Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# and a photograph E2hibit "C"# ta;en during the burial of the deceased. 'egarding the genuineness and probative value of E2hibit ">", the trial court *ade the follo$ing findings, affir*ed b+ the Appellate Court% "It $as dul+ established in Court that the Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 in the na*e of !uan E. -ocsin, !r., the original having been testified to b+ 'osita Eencer, e2ists in the files of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo. Petitioner since birth en)o+ed the open and continuous status of an ac;no$ledged natural child of !uan C. -ocsin, ,r., he together $ith his *other $as su**oned to attend to the burial as evidenced b+ a picture of relatives facing the coffin of the deceased $ith petitioner and his *other in the picture. 2 2 2. It $as dul+ proven at the trial that the standard signatures presented b+ oppositors $ere not in public docu*ent and *a+ also be called Fuestioned docu*ent $hereas in the certificate of live birth No. 100, the signature of !uan C. -ocsin, ,r. $as the original or pri*ar+ evidence. <he ano*alous and suspicious characteristic of the bound volu*e $here the certificate of live birth as alleged b+ oppositors $as found $as testified to and e2plained b+ 'osita Eencer of the office of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar that the+ run out of for*s in .850 and reFuisitioned for*s. "o$ever, the for*s sent to the* $as the .853 revised for* and that she said their office usuall+ paste the pages of the bound volu*e if destro+ed. All the doubts regarding the authenticit+ and genuineness of the signatures of !uan C. -ocsin, ,r. and E*ilio <o*esa, and the suspicious circu*stances of the bound volu*e $ere erased due to the e2planation of 'osita Eencer." <his Court cannot subscribe to the above findings. Pursuant to ,ection ./ of Act 7057 An Act to Establish a Civil 'egister#, the records of births fro* all cities and *unicipalities in the Philippines are officiall+ and regularl+ for$arded to the Civil 'egistrar 6eneral in =etro =anila b+ the -ocal Civil 'egistrars. ,ince the records of births cover several decades and co*e fro* all parts of the countr+, to *erel+ access the* in the Civil 'egistr+ 6eneral reFuires e2pertise. <o locate one single birth record fro* the *ass, a regular e*plo+ee, if not *ore, has to be engaged. It is highl+ unli;el+ that an+ of these e*plo+ees in =etro =anila $ould have reason to falsif+ a particular .850 birth record originating fro* the -ocal Civil 'egistr+ of Iloilo Cit+. &ith respect to -ocal Civil 'egistries, access thereto b+ interested parties is obviousl+ easier. <hus, in proving the authenticit+ of E2hibit ">," *ore convincing evidence than those considered b+ the trial court should have been presented b+ respondent.

<he trial court held that the doubts respecting the genuine nature of E2hibit ">" are dispelled b+ the testi*on+ of 'osita Eencer, -ocal Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+. <he event about $hich she testified on =arch 0, .881 $as the record of respondent@s birth $hich too; place on (ctober //, .859, on 70 or 73 +ears ago. <he -ocal Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+ at that ti*e $as E*ilio 6. <o*esa. Necessaril+, Eencer@s ;no$ledge of respondent@s birth record allegedl+ *ade and entered in the -ocal Civil 'egistr+ in !anuar+, .850 $as based *erel+ on her general i*pressions of the e2isting records in that (ffice. &hen entries in the Certificate of -ive Birth recorded in the -ocal Civil 'egistr+ var+ fro* those appearing in the cop+ trans*itted to the Civil 'egistr+ 6eneral, pursuant to the Civil 'egistr+ -a$, the variance has to be clarified in *ore persuasive and rational *anner. In this regard, $e find Eencer@s e2planation not convincing. 'espondent@s Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# $as recorded in a >ece*ber ., .853 revised for*. As;ed ho$ a .853 for* could be used in .850 $hen respondent@s birth $as recorded, Eencer ans$ered that "2 2 2 during that ti*e, *a+be the for*s in .859 $ere alread+ e2hausted so the for*er Civil 'egistrar had reFuested for a ne$ for* and the+ sent us the .853 'evised For*.".7 <he ans$er is a "*a+be", a *ere supposition of an event. It does not satisfactoril+ e2plain ho$ a 'evised For* dated >ece*ber ., .853 could have been used on !anuar+ 74, .850 or al*ost /# +ears earlier. :pon the other hand, E2hibit "3" of the petitioners found in the Civil 'egistrar 6eneral in =etro =anila is on =unicipal For* No .4/, revised in !ul+, .859. &e find no irregularit+ here. Indeed, it is logical to assu*e that the .859 for*s $ould continue to be used several +ears thereafter. But for a .853 for* to be used in .850 is unli;el+. <here are other indications of irregularit+ relative to E2hibit ">." <he bac; cover of the .850 bound volu*e in the -ocal Civil 'egistr+ of Iloilo is torn. E2hibit ">" is *erel+ pasted $ith the bound volu*e, not se$n li;e the other entries. <he docu*ents bound into one volu*e are original copies. E2hibit ">" is a carbon cop+ of the alleged original and stic;s out li;e a sore thu*b because the entries therein are t+pe$ritten, $hile the records of all other certificates are hand$ritten. :nli;e the contents of those other certificates, E2hibit ">" does not indicate i*portant particulars, such as the alleged father@s religion, race, occupation, address and business. <he space $hich calls for an entr+ of the legiti*ac+ of the child is blan;. (n the bac; page of E2hibit ">", there is a purported signature of the alleged father, but the blan;s calling for the date and other details of his 'esidence Certificate $ere not filled up. &hen as;ed to e2plain the torn bac; cover of the bound volu*e, Eencer had no ans$er e2cept to state, "I a* not a$are of this because I a* not a boo;binder." As to $h+ E2hibit ">" $as not se$n or bound into the volu*e, she e2plained as follo$s% "C(:'<%

Page1

I $ill butt in. Are these instances $here +our e*plo+ees $ould onl+ paste a docu*ent li;e this Certificate of -ive BirthH &I<NE,,% Ies, Iour "onor, $e are pasting so*e of the leaves )ust to replace the record. ,o*eti*es $e )ust have it pasted in the record $hen the leaves $ere ta;en. A<<I. <I'(-% Iou *ean to sa+ +ou allo$ the leaves of the bound volu*e to be ta;en outH A% No sir. It is because so*eti*es the leaves are detached so $e have to paste the*.".1 E*phasis ours# <here is no e2planation $h+ out of so *an+ certificates, this vital docu*ent, E2hibit ">", $as *erel+ pasted $ith the volu*e. Eencer@s testi*on+ suffers fro* infir*ities. Far fro* e2plaining the ano*alous circu*stances surrounding E2hibit ">", she actuall+ highlighted the suspicious circu*stances surrounding its e2istence. <he records of the instant case adeFuatel+ support a finding that E2hibit "3" for the petitioners, not respondent@s E2hibit ">", should have been given *ore faith and credence b+ the courts belo$. <he Civil 'egistr+ -a$ reFuires, inter alia, the -ocal Civil 'egistrar to send copies of registrable certificates and docu*ents presented to the* for entr+ to the Civil 'egistrar 6eneral, thus% ">uties of -ocal Civil 'egistrar. A -ocal civil registrars shall a# file registrable certificates and docu*ents presented to the* for entr+C b# co*pile the sa*e *onthl+ and prepare and send an+ infor*ation reFuired of the* b+ the Civil-'egistrarC c# issue certified transcripts or copies of an+ docu*ent registered upon pa+*ent of proper feesC d# order the binding, properl+ classified, of all certificates or docu*ents registered during the +earC e# send to the Civil 'egistrar-6eneral, during the first ten da+s of each *onth, a cop+ of the entries *ade during the preceding *onth, for filingC f# inde2 the sa*e to facilitate search and identification in case an+ infor*ation is reFuiredC and g# ad*inister oaths, free of charge, for civil register purposes".5 E*phasis ours# In light of the above provisions, a cop+ of the docu*ent sent b+ the -ocal Civil 'egistrar to the Civil 'egistrar 6eneral should be identical in for* and in substance $ith the cop+ being ;ept b+ the latter. In the instant case, E2hibit "3", as trans*itted to the Civil 'egistrar 6eneral is not identical $ith E2hibit ">" as appearing in the records of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of Iloilo Cit+. ,uch circu*stance should have aroused the suspicion of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals and should have i*pelled the* to declare E2hibit ">" a spurious docu*ent. E2hibit "3" sho$s that respondent@s record of birth $as *ade b+ his *other. In the sa*e E2hibit "3", the signature and na*e of !uan C. -ocsin listed as respondent@s father and the entr+ that he and A*paro Esca*illa $ere *arried in (ton, Iloilo on Nove*ber /3, .851 do not appear. In this connection, $e echo this Court@s pronounce*ent in 'oces vs. -ocal Civil 'egistrar.9 that% ",ection 5 of Act No. 7057 and Article /34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines . . . e2plicitl+ prohibit, not onl+ the na*ing of the father of the child born out of $edloc;, $hen the birth certificate, or the recognition, is not filed or *ade b+ hi*, but also, the state*ent of an+ infor*ation or circu*stances b+ $hich he could be identified. Accordingl+, the -ocal Civil 'egistrar had no authorit+ to *a;e or record the paternit+ of an illegiti*ate child upon the infor*ation of a third person and the certificate of birth of an illegiti*ate child, $hen signed onl+ b+ the *other of the latter, is inco*petent evidence of fathership of said child." E*phasis ours# <he 'oces ruling regarding illegiti*ate filiation is further elucidated in FernandeB vs. Court of Appeals.0 $here this Court said that "a birth certificate not signed b+ the alleged father $ho had no hand in its preparation# is not co*petent evidence of paternit+." A birth certificate is a for*idable piece of evidence prescribed b+ both the Civil Code and Article .0/ of the Fa*il+ Code for purposes of recognition and filiation. "o$ever, birth certificate offers onl+ pri*a facie evidence of filiation and *a+ be refuted b+ contrar+ evidence..3 Its evidentiar+ $orth cannot be sustained $here there e2ists strong, co*plete and conclusive proof of its falsit+ or nullit+. In this case, respondent@s Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 entered in the records of the -ocal Civil 'egistr+ fro* $hich E2hibit ">" $as *achine copied# has all the badges of nullit+. &ithout doubt, the authentic cop+ on file in that office $as re*oved and substituted $ith a falsified Certificate of -ive Birth. At this point, it bears stressing the provision of ,ection /7, 'ule .7/ of the 'evised 'ules of Court that " d#ocu*ents consisting of entries in public records *ade in the perfor*ance of a dut+ b+ a public officer are pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated." In this case, the glaring discrepancies bet$een the t$o Certificates of -ive Birth E2hibits ">" and "3"# have overturned the genuineness of E2hibit ">" entered in the -ocal Civil 'egistr+. &hat is authentic is E2hibit "3" recorded in the Civil 'egistr+ 6eneral. Incidentall+, respondent@s photograph $ith his *other near the coffin of the late !uan C. -ocsin cannot and $ill not constitute proof of filiation,.8 lest $e rec;lessl+ set a ver+ dangerous precedent that $ould encourage and sanction fraudulent clai*s. An+bod+ can have a picture ta;en $hile standing before a coffin $ith others and thereafter utiliBe it in clai*ing the estate of the deceased. 'espondent !uan E. -ocsin, !r. failed to prove his filiation $ith the late !uan C. -ocsin, ,r.. "is Certificate of -ive Birth No. 100 E2hibit ">"# is spurious. Indeed, respondent is not an interested person $ithin the *eaning of ,ection /, 'ule 08 of the 'evised 'ules of Court entitled to the issuance of letters of ad*inistration. &"E'EF('E, the petition is hereb+ 6'AN<E>. <he challenged >ecision and 'esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. No. 50043 are 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E. 'espondent@s petition for issuance of letters of ad*inistration is ('>E'E> >I,=I,,E>. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. ./1357 Februar+ /1, .883

Page1

F'ANCI,C( -. !I,(N, petitioner, vs. C(:'< (F APPEA-, and =(NINA !I,(N, respondents.

>AEI>E, !'., !.% <his is a petition for revie$ under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court of the /0 April .885 decision of the Court of Appeals CA# in CA-6.'. CE No. 7/394 . $hich reversed the decision of Branch /1 of the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of Iloilo Cit+ in Civil Case No. .9707. / <he latter dis*issed the co*plaint of private respondent =onina !ison hereafter =(NINA# for recognition as an illegiti*ate child of petitioner Francisco !ison hereafter F'ANCI,C(#. In issue is $hether or not public respondent Court of Appeals co**itted reversible error, $hich, in this instance, necessitates an inFuir+ into the facts. &hile as a general rule, factual issues are not $ithin the province of this Court, nevertheless, in light of the conflicting findings of facts of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, this case falls under an e2ception to this ruleH 7 In her co*plaint 1 filed $ith the '<C on .7 =arch .835, =(NINA alleged that F'ANCI,C( had been *arried to a certain -ilia -opeB !ison since .814. At the end of .815 or the start of .819, ho$ever, F'ANCI,C( i*pregnated EsperanBa F. A*olar $ho $as then e*plo+ed as the nann+ of F'ANCI,C(@s daughter, -ourdes#. As a result, =(NINA $as born on 9 August .819, in >ingle, Iloilo, and since childhood, had en)o+ed the continuous, i*plied recognition as an illegiti*ate child of F'ANCI,C( b+ his acts and that of his fa*il+. =(NINA further alleged that F'ANCI,C( gave her support and spent for her education, such that she obtained a =aster@s degree, beca*e a certified public accountant CPA# and eventuall+, a Central Ban; e2a*iner. In vie$ of F'ANCI,C(@s refusal to e2pressl+ recogniBe her, =(NINA pra+ed for a )udicial declaration of her illegiti*ate status and that F'ANCI,C( support and treat her as such. In his ans$er, 5 F'ANCI,C( alleged that he could not have had se2ual relations $ith EsperanBa A*olar during the period specified in the co*plaint as she had ceased to be in his e*plo+ as earl+ as .811, and did not ;no$ of her $hereabouts since thenC further, he never recogniBed =(NINA, e2pressl+ or i*pliedl+, as his illegiti*ate child. As affir*ative and special defenses, F'ANCI,C( contended that =(NINA had no right or cause of action against hi* and that her action $as barred b+ estoppel, laches andDor prescription. "e thus pra+ed for dis*issal of the co*plaint and an a$ard of da*ages due to the *alicious filing of the co*plaint. After =(NINA filed her repl+, 9 pre-trial $as conducted $here the parties stipulated on the follo$ing issues% .. >id Francisco !ison have an+ se2ual relationLsM $ith EsperanBa A*LoMlar about the end of .815 or the start of .819H /. Is =onina !ison the recogniBed illegiti*ate daughter of Francisco !ison b+ the latter@s o$n acts and those of his fa*il+H 7. Is =onina !ison barred fro* instituting or prosecuting the present action b+ estoppel, laches andDor prescriptionH 1. >a*ages. 0 At trial on the *erits, =(NINA presented a total of eleven ..# $itnesses, na*el+% herself, 'uben Castellanes, ,r., Adela Casabuena, Arsenio >uatin, Kafiro -edes*a, >anthea -opeB, 'o*eo Bilbao, 'ud+ <iangson, Alfredo Ba+losis, >o*inador KavariB and -ope A*olar. 'uben Castellanes, ,r., a 97-+ear old resident of Iloilo Cit+, testified that he had $or;ed for F'ANCI,C( for a total of si2 9# +ears at Nell+ 6arden, F'ANCI,C(@s Iloilo residence. <o$ards the end of the !apanese occupation, F'ANCI,C(@s $ife suffered a *iscarriage or abortion, thereb+ depriving F'ANCI,C( of consortiu*C thereafter, F'ANCI,C(@s $ife *anaged a nightclub on the ground floor of Nell+ 6arden $hich operated dail+ fro* 9%44 p.*. till 7%44 a.*. of the follo$ing da+, thereb+ allo$ing F'ANCI,C( free access to =(NINA@s *other, EsperanBa A*olar, $ho $as nic;na*ed Pansa+. Adela Casabuena, a 9.-+ear old far*er, testified that she served as the +a+a "nann+"# of -ourdes fro* !ul+ .819 up to Februar+ .810. Although Pansa+ had left Nell+ 6arden t$o /# $ee;s before Adela started $or;ing for the !isons, Pansa+ returned so*eti*e in ,epte*ber .819, or about one *onth after she gave birth to =(NINA, to as; F'ANCI,C( for support. As a result, Pansa+ and -ilia !ison, F'ANCI,C(@s $ife, Fuarreled in the living roo*, and in the course thereof, Pansa+ clai*ed that F'ANCI,C( $as the father of her bab+. <o $hich, -ilia replied% "I did not tell +ou to *a;e that bab+ so it is +our fault." >uring the Fuarrel $hich lasted fro* .4%74 till ..%44 a.*., F'ANCI,C( $as supposedl+ inside the house listening. Arsenio >uatin, a 00-+ear old retired laborer, testified that fro* .810 until .800, he $or;ed as F'ANCI,C(@s housebo+ at the latter@s house on ./th ,treet, Capitol ,ubdivision, Bacolod Cit+. Arsenio *et =(NINA in .890, $hen Felipe -agarto, the boo;;eeper at Nell+ 6arden, infor*ed Arsenio that =(NINA, F'ANCI,C(@s daughter, $ould arrive at Bacolod Cit+ $ith a letter of introduction fro* -agarto. Initiall+, Arsenio identified seven 0# blac;-and-$hite photographs E2hs. U-5 to U-..# of =(NINA, 3 and as he paid for the telephone bills, he li;e$ise identified si2 9# telephone cards E2hs. 6 to -#. Arsenio then declared that $hen =(NINA arrived in Bacolod Cit+, she introduced herself to hi* as F'ANCI,C(@s daughter. ,he sta+ed at F'ANCI,C(@s house, but $hen the latter and his $ife $ould co*e over, Arsenio $ould "conceal the presence of =(NINA because =rs. !ison did not li;e to see her face." (nce, Arsenio hid =(NINA in the house of F'ANCI,C(@s sister, =rs. -uisa !ison Alano, in ,ila+ Cit+C another ti*e, at the residence of F'ANCI,C(@s cousin, =rs. Concha -opeB Cua+cong. Finall+, Arsenio declared that the last ti*e he sa$ =(NINA $as $hen she left for =anila, after having finished her schooling at -a ,alle College in Bacolod Cit+. (n re-direct and upon Fuestions b+ the court, Arsenio disclosed that it $as F'ANCI,C( $ho instructed that =(NINA be hidden $henever F'ANCI,C( and his $ife $ere aroundC that although F'ANCI,C( and =(NINA sa$ each other at the Bacolod house onl+ once, the+ called each other "through long distanceC" and that =(NINA addressed F'ANCI,C( as ">add+" during their lone *eeting at the Bacolod house and $ere "affectionate" to each other. Arsenio li;e$ise declared that =(NINA sta+ed at F'ANCI,C(@s Bacolod house t$ice% first for a *onth, then for about a $ee; the second ti*e. (n both

Page1

occasions, ho$ever, F'ANCI,C( and his $ife $ere abroad. Finall+, Arsenio recalled that F'ANCI,C( li;e$ise bade Arsenio to treat =(NINA li;e his F'ANCI,C(@s# other daughters. <he testi*on+ of Kafiro -edes*a, a 01-+ear old ban;er and for*er *a+or of Iloilo Cit+, initiall+ touched on ho$ he and his $ife $ere related to F'ANCI,C(, F'ANCI,C(@s $ife and =(NINA. Kafiro first identified E2hibit ', a diagra* of the fa*il+ trees of the !ison and -opeB fa*ilies, $hich sho$ed that for*er Eice-President Fernando -opeB $as the first cousin of F'ANCI,C(@s $ife, then told the court that the fa*il+ of Eice-President -opeB treated =(NINA "ver+ $ell because she is considered a relative . . . b+ reputation, b+ actual perception." Kafiro li;e$ise identified E2hibits U-.7 to U-.3, photographs ta;en at the .1 April .835 birthda+ celebration of =rs. Fernando -opeB, $hich sho$ed =(NINA $ith the for*er EicePresident and other *e*bers of the -opeB fa*il+. Kafiro further testified that $hile =(NINA lived $ith =rs. Cua+cong, the latter paid for so*e of =(NINA@s school needs and even as;ed =(NINA to $or; in a hospital o$ned b+ =rs. Cua+congC and that another first cousin of F'ANCI,C(@s $ife, a certain 'e*edios -opeB Franco, li;e$ise helped =(NINA $ith her studies and proble*s, and even attended =(NINA@s graduation in .803 $hen she obtained a *asteral degree in Business Ad*inistration, as evidenced b+ another photograph E2h. U-./#. =oreover, upon 'e*edios@ reco**endation, =(NINA $as e*plo+ed as a secretar+ at =erchant Financing Co*pan+, $hich $as *anaged b+ a certain >anthea -opeB, the $ife of another first cousin of F'ANCI,C(@s $ife, and a*ong $hose directors $ere Kafiro hi*self, his $ife and >anthea@s husband. In closing, Kafiro identified =(NINA@s ,ocial ,ecurit+ 'ecord E2h. &#, $hich $as signed b+ >anthea as e*plo+er and $here =(NINA designated 'e*edios as the beneficiar+. >anthea -opeB, a 53-+ear old house;eeper, declared that F'ANCI,C( $as the first cousin of her husband, Eusebio >. -opeBC and that she ca*e to ;no$ =(NINA in the latter part of .895 $hen 'e*edios Franco reco**ended =(NINA for e*plo+*ent at =erchant Financing Co., $hich >anthea *anaged at that ti*e. 'e*edios introduced =(NINA to >anthea "as being reputedl+ the daughter of =r. Fran; !isonC" and on several occasions thereafter, 'e*edios *ade >anthea and the latter@s husband understand that =(NINA $as "reputedl+ the daughter of LF'ANCI,C(M" &hile =(NINA $or;ed at =erchant Financing, >anthea ;ne$ that =(NINA lived $ith 'e*ediosC ho$ever, in the latter part of .899, as 'e*edios left for =anila and =(NINA $as still stud+ing at ,an Agustin :niversit+, >anthea and her husband invited =(NINA to live $ith the*. >uring =(NINA@s 9-*onth sta+ $ith the*, she $as not charged for board and lodging and $as treated as a relative, not a *ere e*plo+ee, all o$ing to $hat 'e*edios had said regarding =(NINA@s filiation. As >anthea understood, =(NINA resigned fro* =erchant Financing as she $as called b+ =rs. Cua+cong, a first cousin of >anthea@s husband $ho lived in Bacolod Cit+. 'o*eo Bilbao, a 17-+ear old sea*an, testified that he had $or;ed for F'ANCI,C( fro* .898 up to .834 at Nell+ 6arden in various capacities% as a procure*ent officer, hacienda overseer and, later, as hacienda ad*inistrator. ,o*eti*e in =a+, .80., 'o*eo sa$ and heard =(NINA as; "her >add+" *eaning F'ANCI,C(# for the *one+ he pro*ised to give her, but F'ANCI,C( ans$ered that he did not have the *one+ to give, then told =(NINA to go see =r. !ose CruB in Bacolod Cit+. <hen in the *iddle of ,epte*ber that +ear, F'ANCI,C( told 'o*eo to pic; up =r. CruB at the Iloilo pier and bring hi* to the office of Att+. Ben)a*in <irol. At said office, Att+. <irol, =r. CruB and =(NINA entered a roo* $hile 'o*eo $aited outside. &hen the+ ca*e out, Att+. <irol had papers for =(NINA to sign, but she refused. Att+. <irol said that a chec; $ould be released to =(NINA if she signed the papers, so =(NINA acceded, although Att+. <irol intended not to give =(NINA a cop+ of the docu*ent she signed. <hereafter, =r. CruB gave =(NINA a chec; E2h. G#, then =(NINA grabbed a cop+ of the docu*ent she signed and ran outside. 'o*eo then brought =r. CruB to Nell+ 6arden. As to his *otive for testif+ing, 'o*eo stated that he $anted to help =(NINA be recogniBed as F'ANCI,C(@, daughter. 'ud+ <ingson, a 15-+ear old antiFue dealer, testified that in .897-.891, he $as e*plo+ed b+ F'ANCI,C(@s $ife at the Baguio =ilitar+ Institute in Baguio Cit+C then in .895, 'ud+ $or;ed at F'ANCI,C(@s office at Nell+ 6arden recording hacienda e2penses, t+ping vouchers and office papers, and, at ti*es, acting as pa+*aster for the haciendas. Fro* the nature of his $or;, 'ud+ ;ne$ the persons receiving *one+ fro* F'ANCI,C(@s office, and clearl+ re*e*bered that in .895, as part of his )ob, 'ud+ gave =(NINA her allo$ance fro* F'ANCI,C( four 1# ti*es, upon instructions of a certain =r. -agarto to give =(NINA P.5.44 a *onth. 'ud+ li;e$ise recalled that he first *et =(NINA in .895, and that she $ould go to Nell+ 6arden $henever F'ANCI,C(@s $ife $as not around. (n so*e of these occasions, =(NINA $ould spea; $ith and address F'ANCI,C( as ">add+," $ithout ob)ection fro* F'ANCI,C(. In fact, in .895, 'ud+ sa$ F'ANCI,C( give =(NINA *one+ thrice. 'ud+ further declared that in April .895, F'ANCI,C(@s office paid P/54.44 to Funeraria Bernal for the funeral e2penses of =(NINA@s *other. Finall+, as to 'ud+@s *otives for testif+ing, he told the court that he si*pl+ $anted to held bring out the truth "and nothing but the truth," and that =(NINA@s filiation $as co**on ;no$ledge a*ong the people in the office at Nell+ 6arden. (n re-direct, 'ud+ declared that the *one+s given b+ F'ANCI,C(@s office to =(NINA $ere not reflected in the boo;s of the office, but $ere ;ept in a separate boo;, as =r. -agarto e2plained that F'ANCI,C(@s $ife and children "should not ;no$ LofM this." 'ud+ further revealed that as to the garden "*eetings" bet$een F'ANCI,C( and =(NINA, 'ud+ sa$ =(NINA ;iss F'ANCI,C( on the chee; both upon arriving and before leaving, and F'ANCI,C(@s reaction upon seeing her $as to s*ile and sa+ in the Eisa+an dialect% "Pa*usta ;a ihaH" ""o$ are +ou, daughterH"#C and that =(NINA $as free to go inside the house as the household staff ;ne$ of her filiation, and that, so*eti*es, =(NINA $ould )oin the* for lunch. Alfredo Ba+losis, a 9/-+ear old retired accountant, testified that he $or;ed for F'ANCI,C( at Central ,antos--opeB in Iloilo fro* .85. up to .89., then at Nell+ 6arden fro* .89. until .80/. Alfredo first served F'ANCI,C( as a boo;;eeper, then $hen =r. -agarto died in .890 or .898, Alfredo replaced =r. -agarto as office *anager. Alfredo ;ne$ =(NINA since .89. as she used to go to Nell+ 6arden to clai* her P.5.44 *onthl+ allo$ance given upon F'ANCI,C(@s standing order. Alfredo further declared that =(NINA@s filiation $as prett+ $ell-;no$n in the office, that he had seen =(NINA and F'ANCI,C( go fro* the *ain building to the office, $ith F'ANCI,C(@s ar* on =(NINA@s shoulderC and that the office paid for the burial e2penses of Pansa+, but this $as not recorded in the boo;s in order to hide it fro* F'ANCI,C(@s $ife. Alfredo also disclosed that the disburse*ents for =(NINA@s allo$ance started in .89. and $ere recorded in a separate cash boo;. In .890, the allo$ances ceased $hen =(NINA stopped schooling and $as e*plo+ed in Bacolod Cit+ $ith =iller, CruB Y Co., $hich served as F'ANCI,C(@s accountant-auditor. (nce, $hen Alfredo $ent to the offices of =iller, CruB Y Co. to see the *anager, =r. AtienBa, and arrange for the preparation of F'ANCI,C(@s inco*e ta2 return, Alfredo chanced upon =(NINA. &hen Alfredo as;ed her ho$ she ca*e to $or; there, she ans$ered that "her >add+," F'ANCI,C(, reco**ended her, a fact confir*ed b+ =r. AtienBa Alfredo then clai*ed that =r. !ose CruB, a partner at =iller, CruB Y Co., $as the *ost trusted *an of F'ANCI,C(. >o*inador ,avariB, a 55-+ear old careta;er, testified that he $or;ed as F'ANCI,C(@s housebo+ at Nell+ 6arden fro* Nove*ber .857 up to .895. (ne *orning in April .851, =(NINA and her *other Pansa+ $ent to Nell+ 6arden and spo;e

Page1

$ith F'ANCI,C( for about an hour, during $hich ti*e, >o*inador $as vacuu*ing the carpet about si2 9# to seven 0# *eters a$a+. >ue to the noise of the vacuu* cleaner, F'ANCI,C( and =(NINA spo;e in loud voices, thus >o*inador overheard their conversation. As F'ANCI,C( as;ed Pansa+ $h+ the+ ca*e, Pansa+ ans$ered that the+ ca*e to as; for the "sustenance" of his child =(NINA. F'ANCI,C( then touched =(NINA@s head and as;ed% ""o$ are +ou "i)aH," to $hich =(NINA ans$ered% "6ood *orning, >add+." After F'ANCI,C( told Pansa+ and =(NINA to $ait, he pulled so*ething fro* his $allet and said to Pansa+. "I a* giving this for a child." In =a+ .851, >o*inador sa$ =(NINA at =r. -agarto@s office $here >o*inador $as to get "the da+@s e2penses," $hile =(NINA $as clai*ing her allo$ance fro* =r. >iasnes. <he ne2t *onth, >o*inador sa$ =(NINA at Nell+ 6arden and heard in the office that =(NINA $as there to get her allo$ance "fro* her >add+." In >ece*ber .894, >o*inador sa$ =(NINA at Nell+ 6arden, in the roo* of >on Eicente father of F'ANCI,C(@s $ife#, $here she as;ed for a Christ*as gift "and she $as calling >on Eicente, -olo grandfather#." At that ti*e, F'ANCI,C( and his $ife $ere not around. <hen so*eti*e in .89., $hen >o*inador $ent to =r. -egarto@s office to get the *ar;eting e2penses, >o*inador sa$ =(NINA once *ore clai*ing her allo$ance. >o*inador further testified that in Februar+ .899, after he had stopped $or;ing for F'ANCI,C(, >o*inador $as at =rs. Franco@s residence as she reco**ended hi* for e*plo+*ent $ith her sister, =rs. Concha Cua+cong. <here, he sa$ =(NINA, $ho $as then about .5 +ears old, together $ith =rs. Franco@s daughter and son. =rs. Franco pointed at =(NINA and as;ed >o*inador if he ;ne$ $ho =(NINA $as. >o*inador ans$ered that =(NINA $as F'ANCI,C(@s daughter $ith Pansa+, and then =rs. Franco re*ar;ed that =(NINA $as sta+ing $ith her =rs. Franco# and that she $as sending =(NINA to school at the :niversit+ of ,an Agustin. -ope A*olar, a 54-+ear old resident of >ingle, Iloilo, and the +ounger brother of EsperanBa A*olar Pansa+#, testified that he $or;ed for F'ANCI,C( as a housebo+ fro* =arch to Nove*ber .815 at Nell+ 6arden. <hereafter, F'ANCI,C( sent -ope to $or; at Elena Apart*ents in =anila. B+ Nove*ber .815, Pansa+ $as also $or;ing at Elena Apart*ents, $here she revealed to -ope that F'ANCI,C( i*pregnated her. -ope then confronted F'ANCI,C(, $ho told -ope "don@t get hurt and don@t cause an+ trouble, because I a* $illing to support +our Inda+ Pansa+ and *+ child." <hree 7# da+s after this confrontation, -ope as;ed for and received per*ission fro* F'ANCI,C( to resign because he -ope# $as hurt. (n /. (ctober .839, =(NINA herself too; the $itness stand. At that ti*e, she $as 14 +ears old and a Central Ban; E2a*iner. ,he affir*ed that as evidenced b+ certifications fro* the (ffice of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar E2hs. E and F# and baptis*al certificates E2hs. C and >#, she $as born on 9 August .819 in Baranga+ <abugon, >ingle, Iloilo, to EsperanBa A*olar $ho passed a$a+ on /4 April .895# and F'ANCI,C(. 8 =(NINA first studied at ,agrado $here she sta+ed as a boarder. &hile at ,agrado fro* .85/ until .855 up to 6rade 1#, her father, F'ANCI,C(, paid for her tuition fees and other school e2penses. ,he either received the *one+ fro* F'ANCI,C( or fro* =r. -agarto, or sa$ F'ANCI,C( give *one+ to her *other, or =r. -agarto $ould pa+ ,agrado directl+. After ,agrado, =(NINA studied in different schools, .4 but F'ANCI,C( continuousl+ ans$ered for her schooling. For her college education, =(NINA enrolled at the :niversit+ of Iloilo, but she later dropped due to an accident $hich reFuired a $ee;@s hospitaliBation. Although F'ANCI,C( paid for part of the hospitaliBation e2penses, her *other shouldered *ost of the*. In .897, she enrolled at the :niversit+ of ,an Agustin, $here she sta+ed $ith =rs. Franco $ho paid for =(NINA@s tuition fees. "o$ever, e2penses for boo;s, school supplies, unifor*s and the li;e $ere shouldered b+ F'ANCI,C(. At the start of each se*ester, =(NINA $ould sho$ F'ANCI,C( that she $as enrolled, then he $ould as; her to canvass prices, then give her the *one+ she needed. After finishing t$o /# se*esters at :niversit+ of ,an Agustin, as evidenced b+ her transcript of records E2h. K sho$ing the F'ANCI,C( $as listed as ParentD6uardian LE2h. K-.M, she transferred to ">e Paul College," )ust in front of =rs. Franco@s house, and studied there for a +ear. <hereafter, =(NINA enrolled at &estern Institute of <echnolog+ &I<#, $here she obtained a bachelor@s degree in Co**erce in April .890. >uring her senior +ear, she sta+ed $ith Eusebio and >anthea -opeB at "otel Pahirup, o$ned b+ said couple. ,he passed the CPA board e2a*s in .801, and too; up an =.B.A. at >e -a ,alle :niversit+ as evidenced b+ her transcript E2h. AA#, $herein F'ANCI,C( $as li;e$ise listed as "6uardian" E2hs. AA-. and AA-/#. =(NINA enu*erated the different *e*bers of the household staff at Nell+ 6arden, to $it% -uB, the household coo;C the housebo+s ,ilvestre and >o*ingC the house*aid NatangC the +a+a of the adopted triplets, >elingC the +a+a of -olo Eicente, AdelinaC and others. =(NINA li;e$ise enu*erated the *e*bers of the office staff =essrs. Ba+losis, -agarto, <ingson, >iasnes, !alandoni, ,upertisioso, >oro+, and other#, and identified the* fro* a photograph *ar;ed as E2hibit U-/. ,he then corroborated the prior testi*on+ regarding her e*plo+*ent at =erchant Financing Co., and her having lived at "otel Pahirup and at =rs. Cua+cong@s residence in Bacolod Cit+, $hile $or;ing at the hospital o$ned b+ =rs. Cua+cong. =(NINA further testified that in =arch .893, she $ent to =anila and *et F'ANCI,C( at Elena Apart*ents at the corner of 'o*ero and ,alas ,treets, Er*ita. ,he told F'ANCI,C( that she $as going for a vacation in Baguio Cit+ $ith =rs. Franco@s *other, $ith $ho* she sta+ed up to !une .893. :pon her return fro* Baguio Cit+, =(NINA told F'ANCI,C( that she $anted to $or;, so the latter arranged for her e*plo+*ent at =iller Y CruB in Bacolod Cit+. =(NINA $ent to Bacolod Cit+, $as intervie$ed b+ =r. !ose CruB, a partner at =iller Y CruB, $ho told her she $ould start $or;ing first $ee; of ,epte*ber, sans e2a*ination. ,he resigned fro* =iller Y CruB in .80. and lived $ith =rs. Cua+cong at her Forbes Par; residence in =a;ati. =(NINA $ent to see F'ANCI,C(, told hi* that she resigned and as;ed hi* for *one+ to go to ,pain, but F'ANCI,C( refused as she could not spea; ,panish and $ould not be able find a )ob. <he t$o Fuarreled and F'ANCI,C( ordered a helper to send =(NINA out of the house. In the process, =(NINA bro;e *an+ glasses at the pantr+ and cut her hand, after $hich, F'ANCI,C( hugged her, gave her *edicine, cal*ed her do$n, as;ed her to return to Bacolod Cit+ and pro*ised that he $ould giver her the *one+. =(NINA returned to Bacolod Cit+ b+ plane, using a Filipinas (rient Air$a+s plane tic;et E2h. =# $hich F'ANCI,C( gave. ,he called =r. CruB, then Att+. <irol, as instructed b+ =r. CruB. <hese calls $ere evidenced b+ P->< long distance toll card E2hs. 6 to -#, $ith annotations at the bac; readingC "charged and paid under the na*e of Fran; -. !ison" and $ere signed b+ Arsenio >uatin E2hs. 6-. to --.#. P->< issued a certification as to the veracit+ of the contents of the toll cards E2h. BB#. -i;e$ise introduced in evidence $as a letter of introduction prepared b+ =r. CruB addressed to Att+. <irol, on =(NINA@s behalf E2h. N#. =(NINA also declared that Att+. <irol then told her that she $ould have to go to Iloilo and sign a certain affidavit, before =r. CruB $ould turn over the *one+ pro*ised b+ F'ANCI,C(. ,he $ent to Att+. <irol@s office in Iloilo, but after going over the draft of the affidavit, refused to sign it as it stated that she $as not F'ANCI,C(@s daughter. ,he e2plained that all she had agreed $ith F'ANCI,C( $as that he $ould pa+ for her fare to go abroad, and that since she $as a little girl, she ;ne$ about her illegiti*ac+. ,he started cr+ing, begged Att+. <irol to change the affidavit, to $hich Att+. <irol responded that he $as also a father and did not $ant this to happen to his children as the+ could not be bla*ed for being brought into the

Page1

$orld. ,he then $rote a letter E2h. (# to F'ANCI,C( and sent it to the latter@s Forbes Par; residence Bauhinia Place# b+ !', courier service E2hs. (-5 to (-0#. =(NINA subseFuentl+ *et F'ANCI,C( in Bacolod Cit+ $here the+ discussed the affidavit $hich she refused to sign. F'ANCI,C( told her that the affidavit $as for his $ife, that in case she heard about =(NINA going abroad, the affidavit $ould ";eep her peace." =(NINA then narrated that the first ti*e she $ent to Att+. <irol@s office, she $as acco*panied b+ one Att+. Fernando >ivinagracia, $ho advised her that the affidavit E2h. P# .. $ould "boo*erang" against F'ANCI,C( "as it is contrar+ to la$." =(NINA returned to Bacolod Cit+, then *et $ith Att+. <irol once *ore to reiterate her plea, but Att+. <irol did not relent. <hus, on the *orning of /4 or /. ,epte*ber .80., she signed the affidavit as she $as )obless and needed the *one+ to support herself and finish her studies. In e2change for signing the docu*ent, =(NINA received a Ban; of Asia chec; for P.5,444.44 E2h. G#, $hich $as less than the P/5,444.44 $hich F'ANCI,C( allegedl+ pro*ised to give. As Att+. <irol see*ed hesitant to give her a cop+ of the affidavit after notariBing it, =(NINA *erel+ grabbed a cop+ and i**ediatel+ left. =(NINA then prepared to travel abroad, for $hich purpose, she procured letters of introduction E2hs. , and <# fro* a cousin, =i;e Alano son of F'ANCI,C(@s elder sister -uisa#C and an uncle, E*ilio !ison F'ANCI,C(@s elder brother#, addressed to another cousin, Beth !ison E*ilio@s daughter#, for Beth to assist =(NINA. E2hibit , contained a state*ent E2h. ,-.# e2pressl+ recogniBing that =(NINA $as F'ANCI,C(@s daughter. :lti*atel+ though, =(NINA decided not to go abroad, opting instead to spend the proceeds of the P.5,444.44 chec; for her CPA revie$, board e2a* and graduate studies. After finishing her graduate studies, she again planned to travel abroad, for $hich reason, she obtained a letter of introduction fro* for*er Eice President Fernando -opeB addressed to then :nited ,tates Consul Eernon =cAnnich E2h. E#. As to other acts tending to sho$ her filiation, =(NINA related that on one occasion, as F'ANCI,C(@s $ife $as going to arrive at the latter@s Bacolod Cit+ residence, F'ANCI,C( called Arsenio >uatin and instructed Arsenio to hide =(NINA. <hus, =(NINA sta+ed $ith =rs. -uisa !ison for the duration of the sta+ of F'ANCI,C(@s $ife. =(NINA also clai*ed that she ;ne$ Eice President Fernando -opeB and his $ife, =ariFuit, even before starting to go to school. <hus, =(NINA as;ed for a reco**endation letter E2h. :# fro* =rs. =ariFuit -opeB for possible e*plo+*ent $ith =rs. 'osario -opeB Cooper, another second cousin of F'ANCI,C(. In E2hibit :, =rs. -opeB e2pressl+ recogniBed =(NINA as F'ANCI,C(@s daughter. As additional proof of her close relationship $ith the fa*il+ of Eice President -opeB, =(NINA identified photographs ta;en at a birthda+ celebration on .1 April .835. =(NINA finall+ clai*ed that she ;ne$ the three 7# children of F'ANCI,C( b+ $ife, na*el+, -ourdes, Francisco, !r., !unior# and Elena, but =(NINA had *et onl+ -ourdes and !unior. =(NINA@s testi*on+ dealt lengthil+ on her dealings $ith !unior and the t$o /# occasions $hen she *et $ith -ourdes. <he last ti*e =(NINA sa$ F'ANCI,C( $as in =arch .808, $hen she sought his blessings to get *arried. In his defense, F'ANCI,C( offered his deposition ta;en before then !udge 'o*eo Calle)o of the 'egional <rial Court of =anila, Branch 13. As additional $itnesses, F'ANCI,C( presented Nonito !alandoni, <eodoro Kulla, IQigo ,upertisioso, -ourdes -edes*a, !ose CruB and >olores Argenal. F'ANCI,C( declared that Pansa+@s e*plo+*ent ceased as of (ctober, . .811, and that $hile e*plo+ed b+ hi*, Pansa+ $ould sleep $ith the other fe*ale helpers on the first floor of his residence, $hile he, his $ife and daughter slept in a roo* on the second floor. At that ti*e, his household staff $as co*posed of three 7# fe*ale $or;ers and t$o /# *ale $or;ers. After Pansa+ left in (ctober .811, she never co**unicated $ith hi* again, neither did he ;no$ of her $hereabouts. F'ANCI,C( staunchl+ denied having had se2ual relations $ith Pansa+ and disavo$ed an+ ;no$ledge about =(NINA@s birth. In the sa*e vein, he denied having paid for =(NINA@s tuition fees, in person or other$ise, and asserted that he never ;ne$ that =r. -agarto paid for these fees. =oreover, F'ANCI,C( could not believe that -agarto $ould pa+ for these fees despite absence of instructions or approval fro* F'ANCI,C(. "e li;e$ise categoricall+ denied that he told an+one, be it >anthea -opeB, Kafiro -edes*a, Concha Cua+cong or 'e*edios Franco, that =(NINA $as his daughter. F'ANCI,C( also disclosed that upon his return fro* the :nited ,tates in .80., he fired Alfredo Ba+losis upon discovering that Alfredo had ta;en advantage of his position during the for*er@s absence. F'ANCI,C( li;e$ise fired 'ud+ <ingson and 'o*eo Bilbao, but did not give the reasons therefor. Finall+, F'ANCI,C( denied ;no$ledge of =(NINA@s long distance calls fro* his Bacolod residenceC nevertheless, $hen he subseFuentl+ discovered this, he fired certain people in his office for their failure to report this ano*al+. As regards the careta;er of his Bacolod residence, F'ANCI,C( e2plained that since =(NINA lived at =rs. Cua+cong@s residence, the careta;er thought that he could allo$ people $ho lived at the Cua+cong residence to use the facilities at his F'ANCI,C(@s# house. Nonito !alandoni, boo;;eeper and pa+*aster at Nell+@s 6arden fro* .897 up to .801, then fro* .834 up to .839, the assistant overseer of "acienda -opeB, testified that he did not ;no$ =(NINAC that he learned of her onl+ in !une .833, $hen he $as infor*ed b+ F'ANCI,C( that =(NINA had sued hi*C and that he never sa$ =(NINA at Nell+@s 6arden, neither did he ;no$ of an+ instructions for an+one at Nell+@s 6arden to give *one+ to =(NINA. <eodoro Kulla, F'ANCI,C(@s boo;;eeper and pa+*aster fro* .85. up to .839, testified that F'ANCI,C( dis*issed Alfredo Ba+losis due to certain unspecified discrepanciesC and that he never sa$ =(NINA receive funds fro* either =r. -agarto or =r. Ba+losis. :pon Fuestions fro* the trial court, ho$ever, <eodoro ad*itted that he prepared vouchers for onl+ one of F'ANCI,C(@s haciendas, and not vouchers pertaining to the latter@s personal e2penses. IQigo ,upertisioso testified that he $or;ed for F'ANCI,C( at Nell+@s 6arden fro* .891 up to .831 as a field inspector, pa+*aster, cashier and, eventuall+, officer-in-charge (IC#. "e confir*ed Alfredo Ba+losis@ dis*issal due to these unspecified irregularities, then denied that F'ANCI,C( ever ordered that =(NINA be given her allo$ance. -i;e$ise, IQigo never heard F'ANCI,C( *ention that =(NINA $as his F'ANCI,C(@s# daughter. -ourdes -edes*a, F'ANCI,C(@s daughter, testified that she sa$ but did not ;no$# =(NINA at the (ur -ad+ of =erc+ "ospital, on the occasion of the birth of -ourdes@ first son, =ar;. (ver lunch one da+, -ourdes@ aunt casuall+ introduced -ourdes and =(NINA to each other, but the+ $ere referred to onl+ b+ their first na*es. <hen so*eti*e in .837 or .831, =(NINA allegedl+ $ent to -ourdes@ house in ,ta. Clara ,ubdivision reFuesting for a letter of introduction or referral as =(NINA $as then )ob-hunting. "o$ever, -ourdes did not co*pl+ $ith the reFuest. !ose CruB, a partner at =iller, CruB Y Co., testified that =(NINA $or;ed at =iller Y CruB fro* .893 up to .80., ho$ever, he did not personall+ intervie$ her before she $as accepted for e*plo+*ent. =oreover, =(NINA under$ent the

Page1

usual screening procedure before being hired. !ose recalled that one of the accountants, a certain =r. AtienBa, reported that =(NINA clai*ed to be F'ANCI,C(@s daughter. !ose then told =r. AtienBa to spea; $ith =(NINA and see if he =r. AtienBa# could stop her fro* spreading this ru*or. =r. AtienBa reported that he spo;e $ith =(NINA, $ho told hi* that she planned to leave for the :nited ,tates and needed P/4,444.44 for that purpose, and in e2change, she $ould sign a docu*ent disclai*ing filiation $ith F'ANCI,C(. <hus, !ose instructed =r. AtienBa to reFuest that =(NINA *eet $ith !ose, and at that *eeting, =(NINA confir*ed =r. AtienBa@s report. !ose then infor*ed Att+. <irol, F'ANCI,C(@s personal la$+er, about the *atter. Att+. <irol told !ose to send =(NINA and her la$+er to his Att+. <irol@s# office in Iloilo. !ose then $rote out a letter of introduction for =(NINA addressed to Att+. <irol !ose rela+ed Att+. <irol@s *essage to =(NINA through =r. AtienBa, then later, Att+. <irol told !ose to go to Iloilo $ith a cler; for P.5,444.44 !ose co*plied, and at Att+. <irol@s office, !ose sa$ =(NINA, Att+. <irol and his secretar+ reading so*e docu*ents. =(NINA then e2pressed her $illingness to sign the docu*ent, sans revisions. !ose alleged that he dre$ the P.5,444.44 fro* his personal funds, sub)ect to rei*burse*ent fro* and due to an understanding $ith F'ANCI,C(. >olores Argenal, a househelper at Nell+ 6arden fro* =a+ .811 up to =a+ .819, testified that she ;ne$ that Pansa+ $as -ourdes@ nann+C that -ourdes slept in her parents@ roo*C that she had not seen F'ANCI,C( give special treat*ent to Pansa+C that there $as no "unusual relationship" bet$een F'ANCI,C( and Pansa+, and if there $as an+, >olores $ould have easil+ detected it since she slept in the sa*e roo* as Pansa+. >olores further declared that $henever F'ANCI,C(@s $ife $as out of to$n, Pansa+ $ould bring -ourdes do$nstairs at nightti*e, and that Pansa+ $ould not sleep in the roo* $here F'ANCI,C( slept. Finall+, >olores declared that Pansa+ stopped $or;ing for F'ANCI,C( and his $ife in (ctober, .811. <he reception of evidence having been concluded, the parties filed their respective *e*oranda. It need be recalled that !udge Catalino CastaQeda, !r. presided over trial up to /. (ctober .839, thereb+ hearing onl+ the testi*onies of =(NINA@s $itnesses and about half of =(NINA@s testi*on+ on direct e2a*ination. !udge Norberto E. >evera, !r. heard the rest of =(NINA@s testi*on+ and those of F'ANCI,C(@s $itnesses. In its decision of ./ Nove*ber .884 ./ the trial court, through !udge >evera, dis*issed the co*plaint $ith costs against =(NINA. In the opening paragraph thereof, it observed% <his is a co*plaint for recognition of an illegiti*ate child instituted b+ plaintiff =onina !ison against defendant Francisco !ison. <his co*plaint $as filed on =arch .7, .835 at the ti*e $hen plaintiff, rec;oned fro* her death of birth, $as alread+ thirt+-nine +ears old. Note$orth+ also is the fact that it $as instituted t$ent+ +ears after the death of plaintiff@s *other, EsperanBa A*olar. For the +ears bet$een plaintiff@s birth and EsperanBa@s death, no action of an+ ;ind $as instituted against defendant either b+ plaintiff, her *other EsperanBa or the latter@s parents. Neither had plaintiff brought such an action against defendant i**ediatel+ upon her *other@s death on April /4, .895, considering that she $as then alread+ nineteen +ears old or, $ithin a reasonable ti*e thereafter. <$ent+ +ears *ore had to supervene before this co*plaint $as eventuall+ instituted. <he trial court then proceeded to discuss the four issues stipulated at pre-trial, $ithout, ho$ever, su**ariBing the testi*onies of the $itnesses nor referring to the testi*onies of the $itnesses other than those *entioned in the discussion of the issues.

<he trial court resolved the first issue in the negative, holding that it $as i*probable for $itness -ope A*olar to have noticed that Pansa+ $as pregnant upon seeing her at the Elena Apart*ents in Nove*ber .815, since Pansa+ $as then onl+ in her first *onth of pregnanc+C that there $as no positive assertion that "copulation did indeed ta;e place bet$een Francisco and EsperanBaC" and that =(NINA@s atte*pt to sho$ opportunit+ on the part of F'ANCI,C( failed to consider "that there $as also the opportunit+ for copulation bet$een EsperanBa and one of the several do*estic helpers ad*ittedl+ also residing at Nell+@s 6arden at that ti*e." <he '<C also ruled that the probative value of the birth and baptis*al certificates of =(NINA paled in light of )urisprudence, especiall+ $hen the *isspellings therein $ere considered. <he trial court li;e$ise resolved the second issue in the negative, finding that =(NINA@s evidence thereon "*a+ either be one of three categories, na*el+% hearsa+ evidence, incredulous evidence, or self-serving evidence." <o the first categor+ belonged the testi*onies of Adela Casabuena and Alfredo Ba+losis, $hose ;no$ledge of =(NINA@s filiation $as based, as to the for*er, on "utterances of defendant@s $ife -ilia and EsperanBa allegedl+ during the heat of their Fuarrel," $hile as to the latter, Alfredo@s conclusion $as based "fro* the ru*ors going LaroundM that plaintiff is defendant@s daughter, front his personal observation of plaintiff@s facial appearance $hich he co*pared $ith that of defendant@s and fro* the $a+ the t$o plaintiff and defendant# acted and treated each other on one occasion that he had then opportunit+ to closel+ observe the* together." <o the second categor+ belonged that of >o*inador ,avariB, as% At each precise ti*e that EsperanBa allegedl+ visited Nell+@s 6arden and allegedl+ on those occasions $hen defendant@s $ife, -ilia $as in =anila, this $itness $as there and allegedl+ heard pieces of conversation bet$een defendant and EsperanBa related to the paternit+ of the latter@s child. . . <he '<C then placed =(NINA@s testi*on+ regarding the acts of recognition accorded her b+ F'ANCI,C(@s relatives under the third categor+, since the latter $ere never presented as $itnesses, for $hich reason the trial court e2cluded the letters fro* F'ANCI,C(@s relatives E2hs. , to E#. As to the third issue, the trial court held that =(NINA $as not barred b+ prescription for it $as of "the perception . . . that the benefits of Article /93 accorded to legiti*ate children *a+ be availed of or e2tended to illegiti*ate children in the sa*e *anner as the Fa*il+ Code has so providedC" or b+ laches, "$hich is LaM creation of eFuit+ applied onl+ to bring eFuitable results, and . . . addressed to the sound discretion of the court LandM the circu*stances LhereM $ould sho$ that $hether plaintiff filed this case i**ediatel+ upon the death of her *other EsperanBa in .895 or t$ent+ +ears thereafter in .835, . . . there see*s to be no ineFuitable result to defendant as related to the situation of plaintiff." <he '<C ruled, ho$ever, that =(NINA $as barred b+ estoppel b+ deed because of the affidavit E2h. PDE2h. /# $hich she signed "$hen she $as alread+ t$ent+-five +ears, a professional and . . . under the able guidance of counsel." Finall+, the '<C denied F'ANCI,C(@s clai* for da*ages, finding that =(NINA did not file the co*plaint $ith *alice, she having been "propelled b+ an honest belief, founded on probable cause."

Page1

=(NINA seasonabl+ appealed to the Court of Appeals CA-6.'. CE No. 7/394# and sought reversal of the trial court@s decision on the grounds that% I <"E <'IA- C(:'< &A, E''(NE(:,-I P'E>I,P(,E> <( A>!:>6E <"I, CA,E A6AIN,< APPE--AN< >:E <( I<, =I,PE'CEP<I(N <"A< APPE--AN<@, >E-AI IN FI-IN6 "E' C(=P-AIN< &A, FA<A- <( "E' CA,E. II <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN I<, 'E!EC<I(N (F <"E <E,<I=(NIE, (F APPE--AN<@, &I<NE,,E, A, <AI-('-=A>E, INA>EG:A<E AN> INC'E>IB-E. III <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN I<, 'E!EC<I(N (F <"E A>=I,,IBI-I<I (F <"E CE'<IFIE> C(PIE, (F P:B-IC >(C:=EN<, P'E,EN<E> BI APPE--AN< A, PA'< (F "E' EEI>ENCE. IE <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN I<, 'EG:I'E=EN< <"A< A &I<NE,, <( <"E AC<:A- AC< ( C(P:-A<I(N BE<&EEN <"E APPE--EE AN> APPE--AN<@, =(<"E' ,"(:-> "AEE P(,I<IEE-I <E,<IFIE> <( ,AI> EFFEC<. E <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN 'E!EC<IN6 <"E A>=I,,IBI-I<I (F <"E >:-I I>EN<IFIE> N(<E, AN> -E<<E' (F <"E 'E-A<IEE, (F <"E APPE--EE A, "EA',AI. EI <"E <'IA- C(:'< E''E> IN C(NC-:>IN6 <"A< APPE--AN<@, AFFI>AEI< EU". P# ,E'EE> A, A BA' A6AIN,< "E' C-AI= F(' 'EC(6NI<I(N IN,<EA> (F 'EINF('CIN6 ,AI> C-AI=. .7 E2pectedl+, F'ANCI,C( refuted these alleged errors in his Appellee@s Brief. .1 In its decision of /0 April .885, .5 the Court of Appeals initiall+ declared that as no vested or acFuired rights $ere affected, the instant case $as governed b+ Article .05, in relation to Articles .0/ and .07, of the Fa*il+ Code. .9&hile the Court of Appeals re)ected the certifications issued b+ the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of >ingle, Iloilo E2hs. E and F# as F'ANCI,C( did not sign the*, said court focused its discussion on the other *eans b+ $hich illegiti*ate filiation could be proved, i.e., the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegiti*ate child or, b+ an+ other *eans allo$ed b+ the 'ules of Court and special la$s, such as "the baptis*al certificate of the child, a )udicial ad*ission, a fa*il+ bible $herein the na*e of the child is entered, co**on reputation respecting pedigree, ad*ission b+ silence, testi*onies of $itnesses . . ." .0 <o the Court of Appeals, the "botto* line issue" $as $hether or not =(NINA established her filiation as F'ANCI,C(@s illegiti*ate daughter b+ preponderance of evidence, as to $hich issue said court found% LNMot )ust preponderant but over$hel*ing evidence on record to prove that L=(NINAM is the illegiti*ate daughter of LF'ANCI,C(M and that she had continuousl+ en)o+ed such status b+ direct acts of LF'ANCI,C(M andDor his relatives. In so ruling, the Court of Appeals observed that the testi*onies of -ope A*olar, Adela Casabuena and >o*inador ,avariB $ere alread+ sufficient to establish =(NINA@s filiation% As adverted to earlier, the trial court discredited -ope A*olar@s testi*on+ b+ sa+ing that -ope could not have detected EsperanBa@s pregnant state in Nove*ber, .815 since at that point in ti*e LsicM she $as still in the initial stage of pregnanc+. Apparentl+, the trial court paid *ore e*phasis on the date *entioned b+ -ope A*olar than on the tenor and i*port his testi*on+. As . . . -ope . . . $as as;ed about an incident that transpired *ore than 1. +ears bac;, LuMnder the circu*stances, it is unreasonable to e2pect that -ope could still be dead right on the specific *onth in .815 that LheM *et and confronted his sister. At an+ rate, $hat is i*portant is not the *onth that the+ *et but the essence of his testi*on+ that his sister pointed to their e*plo+er LF'ANCI,C(M as the one responsible for her pregnanc+, and that upon being confronted, LF'ANCI,C(M assured hi* of support for EsperanBa and their child. It $ould appear then that in an atte*pt to find fault $ith -ope@s testi*on+, the trial court has fallen oblivious to the fact that even LF'ANCI,C(M, in his deposition, did not den+ that he $as confronted b+ -ope about $hat he had done to EsperanBa during $hich he uneFuivocall+ ac;no$ledged paternit+ b+ assuring -ope of support for both EsperanBa and their child. <he Court of Appeals further noted that Casabuena and ,avariB "testified on so*ething that the+ personall+ observed or $itnessed," $hich *atters F'ANCI,C( "did not den+ or refute." Finall+, said court aptl+ held% <a;ing into account all the foregoing uncontroverted testi*onies . . . let alone such circu*stantial evidence as L=(NINA@sM Birth Certificates . . . and Baptis*al Certificates $hich invariabl+ bear the na*e of LF'ANCI,C(M as her father, &e cannot go along $ith the trial court@s theor+ that L=(NINA@sM illegiti*ate filiation has not been satisfactoril+ established. 222 222 222 ,ignificantl+, L=(NINA@sM testi*on+ finds a*ple corroboration fro* LF'ANCI,C(@sM for*er e*plo+ees, Arsenio >uatin, 'ud+ <ingson and Alfredo Ba+losis. . . . 222 222 222 Carefull+ evaluating appellant@s evidence on her en)o+*ent of the status of an illegiti*ate daughter of LF'ANCI,C(M vis-a-vis LF'ANCI,C(@sM controversion thereof, &e find *ore $eight in the for*er. <he positive testi*onies of L=(NINAM and LherM $itnesses . . . all bearing on LF'ANCI,C(@sM acts andDor conduct indubitabl+ sho$ing that he had continuousl+ ac;no$ledged L=(NINAM as his illegiti*ate daughter have not been succeessfull+ LsicM refuted. In fact, LF'ANCI,C(M hi*self, in his deposition, onl+ casuall+ dis*issed L=(NINA@sM e2haustive and detailed testi*on+ as untrue, and $ith respect to those given b+ L=(NINA@sM $itnesses, he *erel+ e2plained that he had fired Lthe*M fro* their e*plo+*ent. Needless to state, LF'ANCI,C(@sM vague denial is grossl+ inadeFuate to overco*e the probative $eight of L=(NINA@sM testi*onial evidence.

Page1

Even the affidavit E2h /# $hich LF'ANCI,C(M had foisted on the trial court . . . does not hold s$a+ in the face of L=(NINA@sM logical e2planation that she at first did agree to sign the affidavit $hich contained untruthful state*ents. In fact, she pro*ptl+ co*plained to LF'ANCI,C(M $ho, ho$ever e2plained to her that the affidavit $as onl+ for the consu*ption of his spouse . . . Further, the testi*on+ of !ose CruB concerning the events that led to the e2ecution of the affidavit . . . could not have been true, for as pointed out b+ L=(NINAM she signed the affidavit . . . al*ost five *onths after she had resigned fro* the =iller, CruB Y Co. . . . At an+ rate, if L=(NINAM $ere not his illegiti*ate daughter, it $ould have been uncalled for, if not absurd, for LF'ANCI,C(M or his la$+er to have secured L=(NINA@sM s$orn state*ent . . . (n the contrar+, in as;ing L=(NINAM to sign the said affidavit at the cost of P.5,444. LF'ANCI,C(M clearl+ betra+ed his intention to conceal or suppress his paternit+ of L=(NINAM . . . In fine, &e hold that L=(NINA@sM filiation as LF'ANCI,C(@sM illegiti*ate daughter has been conclusivel+, established b+ the uncontroverted testi*onies of -ope A*olar, Adela Casabuena and >o*inador ,avariB to the effect that appellee hi*self had ad*itted his paternit+ of the appellee, and also b+ the testi*onies of appellantC Arsenio >uatin, 'o*eo Bilbao, 'ud+ <ingson and Alfredo Ba+losis unerringl+ de*onstrating that b+ his o$n conduct or overt acts li;e sending appellant to school, pa+ing for her tuition fees, school unifor*s, boo;s, board and lodging at the Colegio del ,agrado CoraBon de !esus, defra+ing appellant@s hospitaliBation e2penses, providing her $ith LaM *onthl+ allo$ance, pa+ing for the funeral e2penses of appellant@s *other, ac;no$ledging appellant@s paternal greetings and calling appellant his ""i)a" or child, instructing his office personnel to give appellant@s *onthl+ allo$ance, reco**ending appellant for e*plo+*ent at the =iller, CruB Y Co., allo$ing appellant to use his house in Bacolod and pa+ing for her long distance telephone calls, having appellant spend her vacation in his apart*ent in =anila and also at his Forbes residence, allo$ing appellant to use his surna*e in her scholastic and other records E2hs. K, AA, AA-., to AA-5, & Y &-5#, appellee had continuousl+ recogniBed appellant as his illegiti*ate daughter. Added to these are the acts of LF'ANCI,C(@sM relatives ac;no$ledging or treating L=(NINAM as LF'ANCI,C(@sM daughter E2h. :# or as their relative E2hs. < Y E#. (n this point, $itness Kafiro -edes*a, for*er =a+or of Iloilo Cit+, $hose spouse belongs to the -opeB clan )ust li;e LF'ANCI,C(M, testified that L=(NINA# has been considered b+ the -opeBes as a relative. "e identified pictures of the appellee in the co*pan+ of the -opeBes E2hs U-.9 Y U-.0#. Another $itness, >anthea ". -opeB, $hose husband Eusebio -opeB is appellee@s first cousin, testified that appellant $as introduced to her b+ appellee@s cousin, 'e*edios -opeB Franco, as the daughter of appellee Francisco !ison, for $hich reason, she too; her in as LaM secretar+ in the =erchant@s Financing Corporation of $hich she $as the *anager, and further allo$ed her to sta+ $ith her fa*il+ free of board and lodging. ,till on this aspect, >o*inador ,avariB declared that so*eti*e in Februar+, .899 appellee@s relative, =s. 'e*edios -opeB Franco pointed to appellant as the daughter of appellee Francisco !ison. Finall+, the Certifications of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar of >ingle E2hs E and F# as $ell as L=(NINA@sM Baptis*al Certificates E2hs C Y ># $hich the trial court ad*itted in evidence as part of L=(NINA@sM testi*on+, *a+ serve as circu*stantial evidence to further reinforce L=(NINA@sM clai* that she is LF'ANCI,C(@sM illegiti*ate daughter b+ EsperanBa A*olar. <rue it is that a trial )udge@s assess*ent of the credibilit+ of $itnesses is accorded great respect on appeal. But the rule ad*its of certain e2ceptions. (ne such e2ception is $here the )udge $ho rendered the )udg*ent $as not the one $ho heard the $itnesses testif+. Lcitations o*ittedM <he other is $here the trial court had overloo;ed, *isunderstood or *isappreciated so*e facts or circu*stances of $eight and substance $hich, if properl+ considered, *ight affect the result of the case. Lcitations o*ittedM In the present case, both e2ceptions obtain. All of L=(NINA@sM $itnesses . . . $hose testi*onies $ere not given credence did not testif+ before the )udge $ho rendered the disputed )udg*ent . . . <he Court of Appeals then decreed% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the )udg*ent of the trial court is ,E< A,I>E and another one is hereb+ entered for appellant =onina !ison, declaring her as the illegiti*ate daughter of appellee Francisco !ison, and entitled to all rights and privileges granted b+ la$. Costs against appellee. ,( ('>E'E>. "is *otion for reconsideration having been denied b+ the Court of Appeals in its resolution of /8 =arch .889, .3F'ANCI,C( filed the instant petition. "e urges us to reverse the )udg*ent of the Court of Appeals, alleging that said court co**itted errors of la$% I. . . . IN 'EEE',IN6 <"E >ECI,I(N (F <"E <'IA- C(:'< AN> >EC-A'IN6 P'IEA<E 'E,P(N>EN< A, <"E I--E6I<I=A<E C"I-> (F PE<I<I(NE', C(N,I>E'IN6 L<"EM I=P(,,IBI-I<I (F ,EU:A- C(N<AC< BE<&EEN <"E PE<I<I(NE' AN> <"E P'IEA<E 'E,P(N>EN<, =(<"E' A< <"E <I=E C(NCEP<I(N &A, ,:PP(,E> <( "AEE (CC:''E>. II. . . . IN 'EEE',IN6 <"E <'IA- C(:'<@, FIN>IN6 C(N,I>E'IN6 <"A< P'IEA<E 'E,P(N>EN<, <E,<I=(NIA- EEI>ENCE (F PA<E'NI<I AN> FI-IA<I(N I, N(< C-EA' AN> C(NEINCIN6. III. . . . IN 6IEIN6 C'E>ENCE <( >(C:=EN<A'I EEI>ENCE P'E,EN<E> BI <"E P'IEA<E 'E,P(N>EN< A, EEI>ENCE (F FI-IA<I(N C(N,I>E'IN6 <"A< <"E ,A=E A'E "EA',AI, ,E-F-,E'EIN6 AN> CANN(< BIN> <"E PE<I<I(NE' :N>E' <"E BA,IC ':-E, (F EEI>ENCE. IE. . . . IN IN<E'P'E<IN6 <"E P'IEA<E 'E,P(N>EN<, ,&('N ,<A<E=EN< EU". "P" DEU". "/"# IN A =ANNE' N(< IN C(N,(NANCE &I<" <"E ':-IN6, (F <"E "(N('AB-E ,:P'E=E C(:'<.

Page1

E.

. . . IN N(< C(N,I>E'IN6 <"E -(N6 AN> :NEUP-AINE> >E-AI IN <"E FI-IN6 (F <"E P'E,EN< PA<E'NI<I ,:I< A, EG:IEA-EN< <( -AC"E,. As regards the first error, F'ANCI,C( insists that ta;ing into account the second paragraph of =(NINA@s co*plaint $herein she clai*ed that he and Pansa+ had se2ual relations "b+ about the end of .815 or the start of .819," it $as ph+sicall+ i*possable for hi* and Pansa+ to have had se2ual contact $hich resulted in =(NINA@s birth, considering that% <he nor*al period of hu*an pregnanc+ is nine 8# *onths. If as clai*ed b+ private respondent in her co*plaint that her *other $as i*pregnated b+ F'ANCI,C( "at the end of .815 or the start of .819", she $ould have been born so*eti*e in late ,epte*ber or earl+ (ctober and not August 9, .819 . . . <he instant case finds factual and legal parallels in Constantino vs. =endeB, .8 thus% . . . F'ANCI,C( further clai*s that his testi*on+ that Pansa+ $as no longer e*plo+ed b+ hi* at the ti*e in Fuestion $as unrebutted, *oreover, other *en had access to Pansa+ during the ti*e of or even after her e*plo+*ent b+ hi*. As to the second error, F'ANCI,C( sub*its that =(NINA@s testi*onial evidence is "sha;+, contradictor+ and unreliable," and proceeds to attac; the credibilit+ of her $itnesses b+ clai*ing, in the *ain, that% a# -ope A*olar could not have detected Pansa+ pregnanc+ in Nove*ber .815 $hen the+ *et since she $ould have been onl+ one .# *onth pregnant thenC b# >o*inador ,avariB did not in fact $itness the *eeting bet$een F'ANCI,C(, Pansa+ and =(NINAC c# Kafiro -edes*a had an ulterior *otive in testif+ing for =(NINA as he o$ned a ban; in Iloilo $hich $as then under Central Ban; supervision and =(NINA $as the Ban; E2a*iner assigned to IloiloC and d# >anthea -opeB $as not related to hi* b+ blood and $hatever favorable treat*ent =(NINA received fro* >anthea $as due to the for*er@s e*plo+*ent at =erchants@ Financing Co*pan+ and additional services rendered at Pahirup "otelC besides >anthea ad*itted that she had no personal ;no$ledge as to the issue of paternit+ and filiation of the contending parties, hence ,ections 78 and 14 /4 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court did not co*e into pla+. F'ANCI,C( li;e$ise re-echoes the vie$ of the trial court as regards the testi*onies of Adela Casabuena and Alfredo Ba+losis. F'ANCI,C( further asserts that =(NINA@s testi*on+ that he ans$ered for her schooling $as self-serving and uncorroborated b+ an+ receipt or other docu*entar+ evidenceC and assu*ing he did, such should be interpreted as a *anifestation of ;indness sho$n to$ards the fa*il+ of a for*er household helper. Anent the treat*ent given b+ his relatives to =(NINA as his daughter, F'ANCI,C( points to the fact that Pansa+ $as the for*er laundr+$o*an of =rs. FrancoC =(NINA resided $ith the fa*ilies of Eusebio -opeB and Concha Cua+cong because she $as in their e*plo+ at Pahirup "otel and (ur -ad+ of =erc+ "ospital, respectivel+C =(NINA failed to present =rs. Franco, Eusebio -opeB and =rs. Cua+congC and =(NINA@s e*plo+*ent at the accounting fir* of =iller, CruB Y Co. $as attributable to her educational attain*ent, there being absolutel+ no evidence to prove that F'ANCI,C( ever facilitated her e*plo+*ent thereat. "ence, in light of Balu+ot v. Balu+ot,/. the Fuantu* of evidence to prove paternit+ b+ clear and convincing evidence, not *erel+ a preponderance thereof, $as not *et. &ith respect to the third assigned error, F'ANCI,C( argues that the Court of Appeals@ reliance on the certifications of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar E2hs. E and F# and Baptis*al Certificates E2hs. C and ># as circu*stantial evidence is *isplaced. First, their genuineness could not be ascertained as the persons $ho issued the* did not testif+. ,econd, in light of 'e+es v. Court of Appeals, // the contents of the baptis*al certificates $ere hearsa+, as the data $as based onl+ on $hat $as told to the priest $ho sole*niBed the baptis*, $ho li;e$ise $as not presented as a $itness. Additionall+, the na*e of the father appearing therein $as "FranFue !ison," $hich $as not F'ANCI,C(@s na*e. <hird, in both E2hibits E and F, the na*es of the child@s parents $ere listed as "Fran; "eson" and "EsperanBa A*ador" not A*olar#. F'ANCI,C( further points out that in E2hibit F, the status of the child is listen as "legiti*ate," $hile the father@s occupation as "laborer." =ost i*portantl+, there $as no sho$ing that F'ANCI,C( signed E2hibits E and F or that he $as the one $ho reported the child@s birth to the (ffice of the -ocal Civil 'egistrar. As to =(NINA@s educational records, F'ANCI,C( invo;es BaQas v. BaQas /7$hich recogniBed that school records are prepared b+ school authorities, not b+ putative parents, thus inco*petent to prove paternit+. And, as to the photographs presented b+ =(NINA, F'ANCI,C( cites Colorado v.Court of Appeals, /1 and further asserts that =(NINA did not present an+ of the persons $ith $ho* she is seen in the pictures to testif+ thereonC besides these persons $ere, at best, *ere second cousins of F'ANCI,C(. "e li;e$ise assails the various notes and letters $ritten b+ his relatives E2hs. , to E# as the+ $ere not identified b+ the authors. Finall+, he stresses that =(NINA did not testif+ as to the telephone cards E2hs. 6 to -# nor did these reveal the circu*stances surrounding the calls she *ade fro* his residence. Anent the fourth assigned error, F'ANCI,C( contends that the Court of Appeals@ interpretation of =(NINA@s affidavit of /. ,epte*ber .80. ran counter to >eFuito v. -la*as, /5 and overloo;ed that at the ti*e of e2ecution, =(NINA $as *ore than /5 +ears old and assisted b+ counsel. As to the last assigned error, F'ANCI,C( be$ails the Court of Appeals@ failure to consider the long and une2plained dela+ in the filing of the case. In her co**ent, =(NINA forcefull+ refuted F'ANCI,C(@s argu*ents, leading F'ANCI,C( to file his repl+ thereto. (n /4 Nove*ber .889, $e gave due course to this petition and reFuired the parties to sub*it their respective *e*oranda, $hich the+ subseFuentl+ did. A painsta;ing revie$ of the evidence and argu*ents fails to support petitioner. Before addressing the *erits of the controvers+, $e first dispose of preli*inar+ *atters relating to the applicable la$ and the guiding principles in paternit+ suits. As to the for*er, plainl+, the Fa*il+ Code of the Philippines E2ecutive (rder No. /48# governs the present controvers+. As correctl+ cited b+ the Court of Appeals, :+guangco /9 served as a )udicial confir*ation of Article /59 of the Fa*il+ Code /0 regarding its retroactive effect unless there be i*pair*ent of vested rights, $hich does not hold true here, it appearing that neither the putative parent nor the child has passed a$a+ and the for*er having actuall+ resisted the latter@s clai* belo$. :nder Article .05 of the Fa*il+ Code, illegiti*ate filiation, such as =(NINA@s, *a+ be established in the sa*e $a+ and on the sa*e evidence as that of legiti*ate children. Article .0/ thereof provides the various for*s of evidence b+ $hich legiti*ate filiation is established, thus% Art. .0/. <he filiation of legiti*ate children is established b+ an+ of the follo$ing% .# <he record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final )udg*entC or

Page1

/# An ad*ission of legiti*ate filiation in a public docu*ent or a private hand$ritten instru*ent signed b+ the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legiti*ate filiation shall be proved b+% .# <he open and continuous possession of the status of a legiti*ate childC or /# An+ other *eans allo$ed b+ the 'ules of Court and special la$s. <his Article reproduces, $ith a*end*ents, Articles /95, /99 and /90 of the Civil Code. For the success of an action to establish illegiti*ate filiation under the second paragraph. $hich =(NINA relies upon given that she has none of the evidence *entioned in the first paragraph, a "high standard of proof" /3 is reFuired. ,pecificall+, to prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegiti*ate child, there *ust be evidence of the *anifestation of the per*anent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, b+ continuous and clear *anifestations of parental affection and care, $hich cannot be attributed to pure charit+. ,uch acts *ust be of such a nature that the+ reveal not onl+ the conviction of paternit+, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in societ+ and in life, not accidentall+, but continuousl+. /8 B+ "continuous" is *eant uninterrupted and consistent, but does not reFuire an+ particular length of ti*e. 74 <he foregoing standard of proof reFuired to establish one@s filiation is founded on the principle that an order for recognition and support *a+ create an un$holeso*e at*osphere or *a+ be an irritant in the fa*il+ or lives of the parties, so that it *ust be issued onl+ if paternit+ or filiation is established b+ clear and convincing evidence. 7. <he foregoing discussion, ho$ever, *ust be situated $ithin the general rules on evidence, in light of the burden of proof in civil cases, i.e., preponderance of evidence, and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases. ,i*pl+ put, he $ho alleges the affir*ative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. "o$ever, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff *a;es out apri*a facie case in his favor, the dut+ or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff@s pri*a facie case, other$ise, a verdict *ust be returned in favor of plaintiff. =oreover, in civil cases, the part+ having the burden of proof *ust produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, $ith plaintiff having to rel+ on the strength of his o$n evidence and not upon the $ea;ness of the defendant@s. <he concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence $hich is of greater $eight, or *ore convincing, that $hich is offered in opposition to itC at botto*, it *eans probabilit+ of truth. 7/ &ith these in *ind, $e no$ proceed to resolve the *erits of the instant controvers+. F'ANCI,C(@s argu*ents in support of his first assigned error deserve scant consideration. &hile it has been observed that unla$ful intercourse $ill not be presu*ed *erel+ fro* proof of an opportunit+ for such indulgence,77 this does not favor F'ANCI,C(. A;in to the cri*e of rape $here, in *ost instances, the onl+ $itnesses to the felon+ are the participants in the se2ual act the*selves, in deciding paternit+ suits, the issue of $hether se2ual intercourse actuall+ occurred inevitabl+ redounds to the victi*@s or *other@s $ord, as against the accused@s or putative father@s protestations. In the instant case, =(NINA@s *other could no longer testif+ as to the fact of intercourse, as she had, unfortunatel+, passed a$a+ long before the institution of the co*plaint for recognition. But this did not *ean that =(NINA could no longer prove her filiation. <he fact of her birth and her parentage *a+ be established b+ evidence other than the testi*on+ of her *other. <he para*ount Fuestion then is $hether =(NINA@s evidence is coherent, logical and natural. 71 <he co*plaint stated that F'ANCI,C( had carnal ;no$ledge of Pansa+ "b+ about the end of .815." &e agree $ith =(NINA that this $as broad enough to cover the fourth Fuarter of said +ear, hence her birth on 9 August .819 could still be attributed to se2ual relations bet$een F'ANCI,C( and =(NINA@s *other. In an+ event, since it $as established that her *other $as still in the e*plo+ of F'ANCI,C( at the ti*e =(NINA $as conceived as deter*ined b+ the date of her birth, se2ual contact bet$een F'ANCI,C( and =(NINA@s *other $as not at all i*possible, especiall+ in light of the over$hel*ing evidence, as hereafter sho$n, that F'ANCI,C( fathered =(NINA, has recogniBed her as his daughter and that =(NINA has been en)o+ing the open and continuous possession of the status as F'ANCI,C(@s illegiti*ate daughter. &e readil+ conclude that the testi*onial evidence offered b+ =(NINA, $oven b+ her narration of circu*stances and events that occurred through the +ears, concerning her relationship $ith F'ANCI,C(, coupled $ith the testi*onies of her $itnesses, over$hel*ingl+ established the follo$ing facts% .# F'ANCI,C( is =(NINA@s father and she $as conceived at the ti*e $hen her *other $as in the e*plo+ of the for*erC /# F'ANCI,C( recogniBed =(NINA as his child through his overt acts and conduct $hich the Court of Appeals too; pains to enu*erate, thus% L-Mi;e sending appellant to school, pa+ing for her tuition fees, school unifor*s, boo;s, board and lodging at the Colegio del ,agrado de !esus, defra+ing appellant@s hospitaliBation e2penses, providing her $ith LaM *onthl+ allo$ance, pa+ing for the funeral e2penses of appellant@s *other, ac;no$ledging appellant@s paternal greetings and calling appellant his ""i)a" or child, instructing his office personnel to give appellant@s *onthl+ allo$ance, reco**ending appellant to use his house in Bacolod and pa+ing for her long distance telephone calls, having appellant spend her long distance telephone calls, having appellant spend her vacation in his apart*ent in =anila and also at his Forbes residence, allo$ing appellant to use his surna*e in her scholastic and other records E2hs K, AA, AA-. to AA-5, & Y &-5# . . . 7# ,uch recognition has been consistentl+ sho$n and *anifested throughout the +ears publicl+, 75 spontaneousl+, continuousl+ and in an uninterrupted *anner. 79 Accordingl+, in light of the totalit+ of the evidence on record, the second assigned error *ust fail. <here is so*e *erit, ho$ever, in the third assigned error against the probative value of so*e of =(NINA@s docu*entar+ evidence. =(NINA@s reliance on the certification issued b+ the -ocal Civil 'egistrar concerning her birth E2hs. E and F# is clearl+ *isplaced. It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedl+ identif+ing the putative father is not co*petent evidence as to the issue of paternit+, $hen there is no sho$ing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the -ocal Civil 'egistrar is devoid of authorit+ to record the paternit+ of an illegiti*ate child upon the

Page1

infor*ation of a third person. 70 ,i*pl+ put, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, e.g., suppl+ing the infor*ation hi*self, the inscription of his na*e b+ the *other or doctor or registrar is null and voidC the *ere certificate b+ the registrar $ithout the signature of the father is not proof of voluntar+ ac;no$ledg*ent on the latter@s part. 73 In li;e *anner, F'ANCI,C(@s lac; of participation in the preparation of the baptis*al certificates E2hs. C and ># and school records E2hs. K and AA# renders these docu*ents inco*petent to prove paternit+, the for*er being co*petent *erel+ to prove the ad*inistration of the sacra*ent of baptis* on the date so specified. 78 "o$ever, despite the inad*issibilit+ of the school records per seto prove the paternit+, the+ *a+ be ad*itted as part of =(NINA@s testi*on+ to corroborate her clai* that F'ANCI,C( spent for her education. &e li;e$ise disagree $ith the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the certificates issued b+ the -ocal Civil 'egistrar and the baptis*al certificates *a+ be ta;en as circu*stantial evidence to prove =(NINA@s filiation. ,ince the+ areper se inad*issible in evidence as proof of such filiation, the+ cannot be ad*itted indirectl+ as circu*stantial evidence to prove the sa*e. As to E2hibits ",," "<," ":" and "E," the various notes and letters $ritten b+ F'ANCI,C(@s relatives, na*el+ =i;e Alano, E*ilio !ison, =ariFuit -opeB and Fernando -opeB, respectivel+, allegedl+ attesting to =(NINA@s filiation, $hile their due e2ecution and authenticit+ are not in issue, 14 as =(NINA $itnessed the authors signing the docu*ents, nevertheless, under 'ule .74, ,ection 78, the contents of these docu*ents *a+ not be ad*itted, there being no sho$ing that the declarants-authors $ere dead or unable to testif+, neither $as the relationship bet$een the declarants and =(NINA sho$n b+ evidence other than the docu*ents in Fuestion. 1. As to the ad*issibilit+ of these docu*ents under 'ule .74, ,ection 14, ho$ever, this reFuires further elaboration. 'ule .74, ,ection 14, provides% ,ec. 14. Fa*il+ reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. A <he reputation or tradition e2isting in a fa*il+ previous to the controvers+, in respect to the pedigree of an+ one of its *e*bers, *a+ be received in evidence if the $itness testif+ing thereon be also a *e*ber of the fa*il+, either b+ consanguinit+ or affinit+.Entries in fa*il+ bibles or other fa*il+ boo;s or charts, engravings on rings, fa*il+ portraits and the li;e *a+ be received as evidence of pedigree. e*phasis supplied# It is evident that this provision *a+ be divided into t$o /# parts% the portion containing the first underscored clause $hich pertains to testi*onial evidence, under $hich the docu*ents in Fuestion *a+ not be ad*itted as the authors thereof did not ta;e the $itness standC and the section containing the second underscored phrase. &hat *ust then be ascertained is $hether E2hibits , to E, as private docu*ents, fall $ithin the scope of the clause "and the li;e" as Fualified b+ the preceding phrase "LeMntries in fa*il+ bibles or other fa*il+ boo;s or charts, engravings on rights LandM fa*il+ portraits," &e hold that the scope of the enu*eration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule ofe)usde* generis, is li*ited to ob)ects $hich are co**onl+ ;no$n as "fa*il+ possessions," or those articles $hich represent, in effect, a fa*il+@s )oint state*ent of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. 1/ <hese have been described as ob)ects "openl+ e2hibited and $ell ;no$n to the fa*il+," 17 or those "$hich, if preserved in a fa*il+, *a+ be regarded as giving a fa*il+ tradition." 11 (ther e2a*ples of these ob)ects $hich are regarded as reflective of a fa*il+@s reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on to*bstones, 15 *onu*ents or coffin plates. 19 Plainl+ then, E2hibits , to E, as private docu*ents not constituting "fa*il+ possessions" as discussed above, *a+ not be ad*itted on the basis of 'ule .74, ,ection 14. Neither *a+ these e2hibits be ad*itted on the basis of 'ule .74, ,ection 1. regarding co**on reputation, 10 it having been observed that% L<Mhe $eight of authorit+ appears to be in favor of the theor+ that it is the general repute, the co**on reputation in the fa*il+, and not the co**on reputation in co**unit+, that is a *aterial ele*ent of evidence going to establish pedigree. . . . L<husM *atters of pedigree *a+ be proved b+ reputation in the fa*il+, and not b+ reputation in the neighborhood or vicinit+, e2cept $here the pedigree in Fuestion is *arriage $hich *a+ be proved b+ co**on reputation in the co**unit+. 13 <heir inad*issibilit+ not$ithstanding, E2hibits "," to "E," inclusive, *a+, in li;e *anner as =(NINA@s school records, properl+ be ad*itted as part of her testi*on+ to strengthen her clai* that, indeed, relatives of F'ANCI,C( recogniBed her as his daughter. &e no$ direct our attention to =(NINA@s /. ,epte*ber .80. affidavit E2h. PDE2h. /#, sub)ect of the fourth assigned error, $here she attests that F'ANCI,C( is not her father. =(NINA contends that she signed it under duress, i.e., she $as )obless, had no savings and needed the *one+ to support herself and finish her studies. =oreover, she signed E2hibit P upon the advice of Att+. >ivinagracia that filiation could not be $aived and that F'ANCI,C(@s plo+ $ould "boo*erang" upon hi*. (n the other hand, F'ANCI,C( asserts that full credence should be afforded E2hibit P as =(NINA $as alread+ /5 +ears old at the ti*e of its e2ecution and $as advised b+ counselC further, being a notariBed docu*ent, its genuineness and due e2ecution could not be Fuestioned. "e relies on the testi*on+ of !ose CruB, a partner at the accounting fir* of =iller Y CruB, $ho declared that he intervened in the *atter as =(NINA $as spreading ru*ors about her filiation $ithin the fir*, $hich *ight have had deleterious effects upon the relationship bet$een the fir* and F'ANCI,C(. (n this issue, $e find for =(NINA and agree $ith the follo$ing observations of the Court of Appeals% Even the affidavit E2h /# $hich LF'ANCI,C(M had foisted on the trial court . . . does not hold s$a+ in the face of L=(NINA@sM logical e2planation that she at first did agree to sign the affidavit $hich contained untruthful state*ents. In fact, she pro*ptl+ co*plained to LF'ANCI,C(M $ho, ho$ever e2plained to her that the affidavit $as onl+ for the consu*ption of his spouse . . . At an+ rate, if L=(NINAM $ere not his illegiti*ate daughter, it $ould have been uncalled for, if not absurd, for LF'ANCI,C(M of his la$+er to have secured L=(NINA@sM s$orn state*ent . . . (n the contrar+, in as;ing L=(NINAM to sign the said affidavit at the cost of P.5,444. LF'ANCI,C(M clearl+ betra+ed his intention to conceal or suppress his paternit+ of L=(NINAM . . . Indeed, if =(NINA $ere trul+ not F'ANCI,C(@s illegiti*ate daughter, it $ould have been unnecessar+ for hi* to have gone to such great lengths in order that =(NINA denounce her filiation. For as clearl+ established before the trial court and properl+ appreciated b+ the Court of Appeals, =(NINA had resigned fro* =iller Y CruB five 5# *onths prior to the e2ecution of the s$orn state*ent in Fuestion, hence negating F'ANCI,C(@s theor+ of the need to Fuash ru*ors circulating $ithin =iller Y CruB regarding the identit+ of =(NINA@s father. "ence, coupled $ith the assess*ent of the credibilit+ of the testi*onial evidence of the parties discussed above, it is evident that the standard to contradict a notarial docu*ent, i.e. clear and convincing evidence and *ore than *erel+ preponderant, 18 has been *et b+ =(NINA

Page1

Plainl+ then, the burden of evidence full+ shifted to F'ANCI,C(. <$o /# glaring points in F'ANCI,C(@s defense beg to be addressed% First, that his testi*on+ $as co*prised of *ere denials, rife $ith bare, unsubstantiated responses such as "<hat is not true," "I do not believe that," or "None that I ;no$." In declining then to lend credence to F'ANCI,C(@s testi*on+, $e resort to a guiding principle in ad)udging the credibilit+ of a $itness and the truthfulness of his state*ents, laid do$n as earl+ as .8/.% <he e2perience of courts and the general observation of hu*anit+ teach us that the natural li*itations of our inventive faculties are such that if a $itness underta;es to fabricate and deliver in court a false narrative containing nu*erous details, he is al*ost certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to *a;e state*ents $hich can be readil+ refuted, or to e2pose in his de*eanor the falsit+ of his *essage. For this reason it $ill be found that per)urers usuall+ confine the*selves to the incidents i**ediatel+ related to the principal fact about $hich the+ testif+, and $hen as;ed about collateral facts b+ $hich their truthfulness could be tested, their ans$ers not infreFuentl+ ta;e the stereot+ped for* of such e2pressions as "I don@t ;no$" or "I don@t re*e*ber." . . . 54 ,econd, the reasons for the dis*issals of <ingson, Ba+losis and ,avariB $ere unspecified or li;e$ise unsubstantiated, hence F'ANCI,C(@s atte*pt to prove ill-*otive on their part to falsel+ testif+ in =(NINA@s favor *a+ not succeed. As *a+ be gleaned, the onl+ detail $hich F'ANCI,C( could furnish as to the circu*stances surrounding the dis*issals of his for*er e*plo+ees $as that Ba+losis allegedl+ "too; advantage of his position" $hile F'ANCI,C( $as in the :nited ,tates. But aside fro* this bare clai*, F'ANCI,C(@s account is barren, hence unable to provide the basis for a finding of bias against F'ANCI,C( on the part of his for*er e*plo+ees. As to F'ANCI,C(@s other $itnesses, nothing substantial could be obtained either. Nonito !alandoni avo$ed that he onl+ ca*e to ;no$ of =(NINA in !une .833C 5. that during his e*plo+*ent at Nell+ 6arden fro* .897 up to .801, he did not recall ever having seen =(NINA there, neither did he ;no$ of an+ instructions fro* F'ANCI,C( nor =r. -agarto F'ANCI,C(@s office *anager before passing a$a+# regarding the disburse*ent of =(NINA@s allo$ance. 5/ <eodoro Kulla corroborated !alandoni@s testi*on+ regarding not having seen =(NINA at Nell+ 6arden and =(NINA@s allo$anceC declared that Alfredo Ba+losis $as dis*issed due to discrepancies discovered after an audit, $ithout an+ further elaboration, ho$everC but ad*itted that he never prepared the vouchers pertaining to F'ANCI,C(@s personal e2penses, *erel+ those intended for one of F'ANCI,C(@s haciendas. 57<hen, IQigo ,uperticioso confir*ed that according to the report of a certain =r. AtienBa, Ba+losis "$as dis*issed b+ =r. !ison for irregularities," $hile ,uperticioso $as infor*ed b+ F'ANCI,C( that <ingson $as dis*issed for loss of confidence. ,uperticioso li;e$ise denied that =(NINA received *one+ fro* F'ANCI,C(@s office, neither $as there a standing order fro* F'ANCI,C( to release funds to her. 51 It is at once obvious that the testi*onies of these $itnesses for F'ANCI,C( are li;e$ise insufficient to overco*e =(NINA@s evidence. <he for*er *erel+ consist of denials as regards the latter@s having gone to Nell+ 6arden or having received her allo$ance fro* F'ANCI,C(@s office, $hich, being in the for* of negative testi*on+, necessaril+ stand infir* as against positive testi*on+C 55 bare assertions as regards the dis*issal of Ba+losisC ignorance of F'ANCI,C(@s personal e2penses incapable of evincing that F'ANCI,C( did not provide =(NINA $ith an allo$anceC or hearsa+ evidence as regards the cause for the dis*issals of Ba+losis and <ingson. But $hat then serves as the coup de grace is that despite ,uperticioso@s clai* that he did not ;no$ =(NINA, 59 $hen confronted $ith E2hibit ", a telephone toll tic;et indicating that on .3 =a+ .80., =(NINA called a certain "EQing" at F'ANCI,C(@s office, ,uperticioso ad*itted that his nic;na*e $as "IQing" and that there $as no other person na*ed "IQing" in F'ANCI,C(@s office. 50 All told, =(NINA@s evidence hurdled "the high standard of proof" reFuired for the success of an action to establish one@s illegiti*ate filiation $hen rel+ing upon the provisions regarding "open and continuous possession@@ or "an+ other *eans allo$ed b+ the 'ules of Court and special la$sC" *oreover, =(NINA proved her filiation b+ *ore than *ere preponderance of evidence. <he last assigned error concerning laches li;e$ise fails to convince. <he essential ele*ents of laches are% .# conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under $ho* he clai*s, giving rise to the situation of $hich the co*plaint see;s a re*ed+C /# dela+ in asserting the co*plainant@s rights, the co*plainant having had ;no$ledge or notice of the defendant@s conduct as having been afforded an opportunit+ to institute a suitC 7# lac; of ;no$ledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the co*plaint $ould assert the right in $hich he bases his suitC and 1# in)ur+ or pre)udice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the co*plaint, or the suit is not held barred. 53 <he last ele*ent is the origin of the doctrine that sale de*ands appl+ onl+ $here b+ reason of the lapse of ti*e it $ould be ineFuitable to allo$ a part+ to enforce his legal rights. 58 As F'ANCI,C( set up, laches as an affir*ative defense, it $as incu*bent upon hi* to prove the e2istence of its ele*ents. "o$ever, he onl+ succeeded in sho$ing =(NINA@s dela+ in asserting her clai*, but *iserabl+ failed to prove the last ele*ent. In an+ event, it *ust be stressed that laches is based upon grounds of public polic+ $hich reFuires, for the peace of societ+, the discourage*ent of state clai*s, and is principall+ a Fuestion of the ineFuit+ or unfairness of per*itting a right or clai* to be enforced or asserted. <here is no absolute rule as to $hat constitutes lachesC each case is to be deter*ined according to its particular circu*stances. <he Fuestion of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since it is an eFuitable doctrine, its application is controlled b+ eFuitable considerations. It cannot be $or;ed to defeat )ustice or to perpetuate fraud and in)ustice. 94 ,ince the instant case involves paternit+ and filiation, even if illegiti*ate, =(NINA filed her action $ell $ithin the period granted her b+ a positive provision of la$. A denial then of her action on ground of laches $ould clearl+ be ineFuitable and un)ust. &"E'EF('E, IN EIE& (F <"E F('E6(IN6, the petition is hereb+ >ENIE> and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals of /0 April .885 in CA-6.'. CE No. 7/394 is AFFI'=E>. Costs against petitioner. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC 6.'. No. --./887 (ctober /3, .8.3

vs.

Page1

'AFAE- !. FE''E', E< A-., plaintiff-appellants,

!(AG:IN !. >E INC"A:,<I, E< A-., defendants-appellees. Eicente ,otto for appellants. Araneta Y KaragoBa and Cohn Y Fisher

<(''E,, !.% <his appeal $as ta;en through bill of e2ceptions b+ counsel for the plaintiffs fro* the )udg*ent of Februar+ ./, .8.0, $hereb+ the )udge of the Court of First Instance held that 'osa Eiade*onte, *other of the plaintiffs, could not have been legiti*ate daughter of the deceased Isabel 6onBaleB, $ho, on her death, left so*e legiti*ate children. <he court did not dee* it necessar+ to discuss $hether the said 'osa Eiade*onte could be a daughter of the said Isabel 6onBaleB for reason, given in his decision, and held that the plaintiffs should not be entitled to $hat the+ have de*anded, and that the+ should pa+ the costs. :nder date of =a+ ./, .8.9, the attorne+ of 'afael !. Ferrer + Eiade*onte and =aria Angelina Ferrer + Eiade*onte $ith her husband 'icardo "ernandeB + Aracil filed a co*plaint in the Court of First Instance of the cit+ of =anila, pra+ing for the rendition of a final )udg*ent declaring that 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB had the right to succeed to the inheritance left b+ Isabel 6onBaleB in the sa*e proportion and capacit+ as the other four children of the latter, na*el+, 'a*on Eiade*onte, 'afael C. de Inchausti, !oaFuin C. de Inchausti, and Clotilde de Inchausti de EidalC that the plaintiffs 'afael and =aria Angelina Ferrer are the onl+ and legiti*ate heirs of the deceased 'osa Eiade*onte and the onl+ ones entitled to receive her share of the inheritance left b+ Isabel 6onBaleB, that is, the on-fifth part of the latter@s estateC that the defendants render to the plaintiffs an account of the fruits and ad*inistration of all the propert+ fro* the *o*ent the said co**unit+ of propert+ fro* the *o*ent the said co**unit+ of propert+ $as constituted a*ong the*, and to deliver to the plaintiffs that part $hich corresponds to the* in their capacit+ as sole heirs of 'osa Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB, that is, the one-fifth part of the inheritance $ith all its accession, fruits, and interestsC and , finall+, that the defendants pa+ the costs. In fact, it is alleged that the plaintiffs are the legiti*ate children of 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte , $ho in turn died on Nove*ber /4, .383, leaving the t$o plaintiffs as surviving legiti*ate children that the said Isabel 6onBaleB $as *arried, first to 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, and fro* his *arriage t$o children, na*ed 'o*an and 'osa =atilde, and surna*ed Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB survivedC that after the death of her husband 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, ,r., the $ido$, Isabel 6onBaleB, contracted a second *arriage $ith >on !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti $ith $ho* she had three children na*ed Clotilde, 'afael and !oaFuin, all surna*ed Inchausti + 6onBaleB, that 'a*on Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB !r., died on !anuar+ ., .845, $ithout leaving an+ forced heir, and b+ a $ill dated =a+ /.9, .844, he left his propert+ to the son or sons $hich 'afael C. de Inchausti *ight have, and in default or such child or children, to the sa*e 'afael C. de Inchausti, b+ a $ill, left as his heirs and successors in interest his legiti*ate son !ose '. de Inchausti, his recogniBed natural daughter =aria Consolacion de Inchausti de (rtigas, and his $ido$ =aria Consolacion 'ico + =edinaC that on her death, Isabel 6onBaleB left a certain propert+ in her *arriage $ith !ose de !oaFuin de Inchausti, $hich $ould a*ount appro2i*atel+ to P.,444,444 $ith its accessions, according to present valuation, as sho$n b+ the inventor+ of said propert+ $hich *a;es up E2hibit A, that on !anuar+ .1, .33, !ose !oaFuin Inchausti + 6onBaleB and Clotilde de Inchausti + 6onBaleB de Eidal, each of $ho* received on-fourth of the estate left b+ the deceased Isabel 6onBaleB, e2cluding therefro* 'osa Eiade*onte, the *other of the plaintiffs., not$ithstanding the fact that she had an eFual rights to inherit fro* Isabel 6onBaleBC that since !anuar+ .33 till his death, 'a*on Eiade*onte, !r. had been the possessor and ad*inistrator of the fourth part of the inheritance $hich he received fro* his deceased *other Isabel 6onBaleB $hich portion of the propert+ later ca*e to the possession and control of 'afael C. de Inchausti, and on the death of the latter, this fourth part of the inheritance ca*e to the possession of =aria Consolacion 'ico de Inchausti, $ido$ of said 'afael C. de Inchausti, in her capacit+ as guardian of her son !ose 'afael de Inchausti, and part of it, to the possession of =aric Consolacion de Inchausti de (rtigasC and that a great part of the propert+ $hich the defendants actual possess, ca*e fro* the +oung children, $ho received fro* Isabel 6onBaleB $ith the earnings and accessions thereofC these children have been possessing it pro indiviso or in coo$nership, in their lifeti*e, $ith 'osa Eiade*onte $hile living, and upon the death of the latter, $ith her heirs, but that, in spite of the de*ands *ade b+ the plaintiffs for the deliver+ to the* b+ the defendants of their corresponding share in the inheritance the latter have al$a+s refused to do so. In his ans$ers, for Clotilde Inchausti de Eial ad*itted that the plaintiffs are the children of 'osa viade*onte and Benigno FerrerC that Isabel 6onBaleB $as *arried first o 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, and after$ards to !ose !oaFuin de InchaustiC that on the death of her *other Isabel 6onBaleB, on >ece*ber .7, .339, her share in the con)ugal partnership a*ounted to P.8., /13.3., and on !anuar+ .1, .333, !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti, as e2ecutor of his $ife, after pa+ing the legacies *entioned in the testa*ent, paid to this defendant in cash the su* of P19,/85.04 as her hereditar+ portion in the liFuidated propert+ of her *other, and li;e$ise delivered to the other three sons of said Isabel 6onBaleB si*ilar a*ountsC that, after receiving her share of the inheritance fro* her *other, she spent it all, and she no longer has an+ part of it, nor has she left an+ portion of it during the last thirt+ +ears, and that neither the plaintiffs nor their deceased *other had ever possessed or en)o+ed the said su*C and denies generall+ all the allegations of the co*plaint $hich are not ad*itted, and denies speciall+ the allegation that the *other of the plaintiffs had ever *arried $ith their father Benigno Ferre, that the+ and their *other ever had the surna*e of Eiade*onte or Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB and that the *other of the plaintiffs $as a daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB. As a special defense, she alleged that her possession of the *one+ derived fro* the inheritance of her *other had been public, adverse, pacific, continuous and under a clai* of o$nership, in good faith and $ith )ust title, since !anuar+ .1, .333C that never during the lifeti*e of the plaintiff@s *other did she *a;e an+ clai* or assert an+ right in the a*ount received b+ this defendant for* the inheritance of her deceased *otherC that *ore than thirt+ +ears had elapsed since she received b+ this defendant inheritance of her deceased *otherC and that the action for the plaintiffs has alread+ prescribed in accordance $ith the provisions of article .855 of the Civil Code and section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure the+ the plaintiffs# and their *other ever had the surna*e of "Eiade*onte" or Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB," and that the *other of the plaintiffs $as a daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB. As a special defense, she alleged that her possession of the *one+ derived fro* the inheritance of her *other had been public, adverse, pacific, continuous, and under a clai* of o$nership, in good faith and $ith )ust title, since !anuar+ .1, .333C that never during the lifeti*e of the plaintiffs@ *other did she plaintiff@s *other# *a;e an+ clai* or assert an+ right in the a*ount received b+ this defendant fro* the inheritance of her deceased *otherC that *ore than thirt+ +ears had elapsed since she received said a*ount to the date of the presentation of the co*plaintC and that the action of the plaintiff has alread+ prescribed in accordance $ith the provisions of article .855 of the Civil Code and section 73 of the Code of Civil procedure.

Page1

Counsel for =aria de la Consolacion de Inchausti, in turn, set up a special defense si*ilar to that of Clotilde, and alleged that 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, son of Isabel 6onBaleB, died in the cit+ of =anila on !anuar+ ., .845, $ithout leaving an+ heirs, and beFueathed b+ $ill to his brother 'afael C. de Inchausti, father of this defendant, all of his propert+, $ith the e2ception of so*e propert+ of little i*portance $hich he had beFueathed to othersC but denied that an+ part of his 'a*on =aritneB Eiade*onte@s# propert+ thas ever been beFueathed to the children of said 'afael C. de InchaustiC that, on the death of said 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, his $ill $as allo$ed to probate in the Court of First Instance of =anila, and all his re*aining propert+ delivered to 'afael C. de Inchausti $ith =artineB Eiade*onte@s propert+ received b+ her father 'afael C. de Inchausti $as a s*all piece of land situated in ,anta Ana and ;no$n b+ the na*e of "acienda de -a*a+anC that the title of 'afael C. >e Inchausti to said land $as registered b+ virtue of a decree of the Court of -and 'egistration, in accordance $ith the provisions of the -and 'egistration AcC that said land $as in turn inherited b+ this defendant fro* her father upon the death of the latter, and that she appears in the registr+ of propert+ as o$ner of the sa*eC that, upon the allo$ance of said $ill in the Court of First Instance of this cit+, the plaintiffs did not present an+ clai* to the co**issioners appointed to appraise the propert+, and that the period allo$ed for the presentation of such clai*s e2pired on (ctober /4, .8.1, and that, therefor, the action no$ filed b+ the plaintiffs has prescribed, in accordance $ith the provisions of section 985 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In si*ilar ter*s, counsel for !oaFuin C. de Inchausti $orded his defense in a $ritten ans$er as a*ended under date of ,epte*ber .8, .8.9..a$phJl.net Counsel for =aria de la Consolacion 'ico + =edina in her personal capacit+ an das a $ido$ of 'afael Inchausti and also as guardian of her son !ose 'afael de Inchausti + 'ico, in his ans$er to the foregoing co*plaint, ad*its that 'a*on =artineB and Isabel 6onBaleB Ferrer, both no$ deceased, $ere in their lifeti*e husband and $ife, and $ere survived b+ a child na*ed 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB, but denied that the said 'osa =atilde $as a daughter of that *arriage or of an+ of the said spousesC he also ad*its that the deceased 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, !r., died in this cit+ on !anuar+ ., .845, $ithout leaving an+ forced heir, and b+ a $ill dated =a+ .9, .844, he left to his *aternal brother 'afael C. de Inchausti husband of this defendant, all his propert+ $ith the e2ception of so*e s*all legacies, den+ing at the sa*e ti*e that an+ portion of the inheritance of said 'a*on Eiade*onte, !r., had been left to the children of the defendant@s husbandC that Isabel 6onBaleB Ferrer, the *other of her husband, $ho died on >ece*ber .7, .339, e2ecuted a $ill on April /8 of the said +ear, $herein she declared that she had a son $ith her first husband 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, and the na*e of said on son $as also 'a*on, and that $ith her second husband !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti. ,he Counsel for =aria de la Consolacion 'ico + =edina in her personal capacit+ and a $ido$ of 'afael Inchausti and also as guardian of her son !ose 'afael de Inchausti + 'ico, in his ans$er to the foregoing co*plaint, ad*its that 'a*on =artineB and Isabel 6onBaleB Ferre, both no$ deceased $ere in their lifeti*e husband and $ife, and $ere survived b+ a child na*ed 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB but denied that the said 'osa =atilde $as a daughter of that *arriage or of an+ of the said spousesC he also ad*its that the deceased 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, !r., died in this cit+ on !anuar+ .845, $ithout leaving an+ forced heir, and b+ a $ill dated =a+ .95, .844, he left to his *aternal brother 'afael C. de Inchausti, husband of this defendant, all his propert+ $ith the e2ception of so*e s*all legacies, den+ing at the sa*e ti*e that an+ portion of the inheritance of said 'a*on Eiade*onte, !r., had been left to the children of the defendant@s husband, $ho died on >ece*ber .7, .339, e2ecuted a $ill on April /8 of the said +ear, $herein she declared that she had so*e $ith her first husband 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte and the na*e of said son $as also 'a*on, and that $ith her second husband !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti, she had three children, and he instituted the said four children as the sole and universal heirs to the re*ainder of her propert+ in eFual parts, her propert+ being the one half of the con)ugal propert+ had during her *arriage $ith her second husband Inchausti $ho had survived herC that no portion of the inheritance fro* the deceased Isabel 6onBaleB + Ferrer $as ad)udicated to the *other of the plaintiffsC that the deceased 'afael C. de Inchausti inherited fro* the said 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, !r., a parcel of land ;no$n b+ the na*e of "acienda de -a*a+an, registered in the na*e of the deceased 'afael de Inchausti, $hich propert+ $as, in turn, inherited b+ the defendant =aria Consolacion de Inchausti de (rtigas. As a special defense, she alleged that in the said $ill $herein the testatri2 Isabel 6onBaleB na*e d her sole and universal heirs, 'osa =atilde, the *other of the plaintiffs, $as not designated a heiress or legatee, but on the contrar+, $as o*itted therefro*, that fro* the death of the testratri2 of this co*pliant neither 'osa =atilde nor the plaintiffs presented an+ clai* $hatsoever against the o*ission of 'osa =atilde fro* the $ill of said Isabel 6onBaleB for the plaintiffs could have availed the*selves of an+ right $hich 'osa =atilde could have had in the propert+ inherited b+ the defendant and her son !ose 'afael de Inchausti, derived b+ la$ for contesting the $ill of Isabel 6onBaleB on the ground of pre)udicial o*ission therefro* of 'osa =atilde e2pired long before the date on $hich this co*pliant $as filedC and conseFuentl+, said action has prescribedC that, after the death of 'a*on Eiade*onte, !r., in Februar+ .845, probate proceedings $ere had in the Court of First Instance of =anila, an ad*inistrator of the decedent@s estate $as appointed, on !ul+ /. of said +ear the co**issioners to appraise the estate of the deceased $ere appointed, and after the lapse of the period fi2ed for allo$ing clai*s against the state, the propert+ of the deceased $as ad)udicated to his heir 'afael C. de Inchausti and to the legatees, the plaintiffs not having presented to the co**issioners, an+ clai* against the estate of said deceased has thus prescribed b+ the lapse of the period for its presentation, that after the death of 'afael C. de Inchausti, on (ctober 5, .8.7, probate proceedings $ere had regarding his $ill in the Court of First Instance of the cit+, an e2ecutor $as appointed, as $ell as the co**issioners to appraise the estate, and the period $ithin $hich clai*s against he estate *ight be received has e2pired, and the plaitniffs have not presented an+ clai* $hatsoever against he estate of said 'afael C. de Inchausti, and finall+, she alleged that he period fi2ed b+ la$ for presenting clai*s against he estate of said 'afael C. de Inchausti e2pired long before the date of the filing of this co*plaint, and conseFuentl+, the action to assert the clai* has alread+ prescribed, and that therefore the defendant should be absolved fro* the co*plaint $ith the costs against the plaintiffs. Counsel for the plaintiffs, in his $ritten repl+ a*ending his replies of ,epte*ber /4 and /., .8.9, denied generall+ and specificall+ each and all of the ne$ facts alleged in the ans$ers of the defendants, and added that the $ill of Isabel 6onBaleB, dated (ctober ./, .339, is null and void, inas*uch as 'osa Eiade*onte 6onBaleB and having eFual rights as her other childrenC that he defendants are estopped for* den+ing that the surna*e of 'osa =atilde $as a daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB $ith 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onteC that the plaintiffs are legiti*ate children of said 'osa =atilde $ith Benigno Ferre inas*uch as both their predecessors in interest as $ell as the present defendants have previousl+ *ade declarations and for*al affir*ations, $ritten and oral, recogniBing that the surna*e of 'osa =atilde $as Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB, that the sa*e $as legiti*ate daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB and 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte and that the plaintiffs are legiti*ate children of 'osa Eiade*onte + 6onBaleB $ith Benigno Ferrer. <he trial having been held and the evidence of both parties adduced, the trial )udge, on Februar+ ./, .8.0, rendered a )udg*ent declaring that the plaintiffs receive nothing in this action and pa+ the costs. <o this decision the plaintiffs e2cepted and *oved for a ne$ trial, $hich *otion $as denied b+ order of the court on the /0th da+ of the sa*e *onth and +ear. An e2ception $as ta;en to the order den+ing the *otion for a ne$ trial, and the corresponding bill of e2ception $as presented, approved, certified, and for$arded to the office of the cler; of this court.

Page1

<he parties are agreed as regard the allegations that the plaintiffs 'afael !. Ferrer and =aria Angelina Ferrer are children of the deceased 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte, although the defendants den+ that the+ plaintiffs# $ere legiti*ate children of their *other contrar+ to the affir*ation of the plaintiffs to this effect. <he evidence of record concerning this point is of such a character that it is difficult to deduce therefro* a certain and definite conclusion, because, $hile it appears that 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte has, on various occasions, stated that she $as un*arried and never contracted a *arriage, she has *ade entirel+ different state*ents on other occassions. In the proceedings E2hibit 3# instituted b+ the said 'osa =atilde against 'afael C. de Inchausti, it $as disclosed that she had never been *arried and that if her children $ith Benigno Ferrer $ere baptiBed as legiti*ate children, it $as so done in order to conceal her dishonor, such state*ent being found in a docu*ent dra$n in .38/ and signed b+ her E2hibit 3, pp. 7-1#. (n page .58 of the records of the said proceedings E2hibit 3# it appears that said 'osa =atilde stated under oath before a )udge, on !anuar+ /.. .387, that she had never *arried, and the sa*e declaration $as *ade b+ her on April .5th of the sa*e +ear in another case. E2hibit 0, pp. .0-/9.# In a docu*ent found on page .99 of said E2hibit 3, e2ecuted in .384, 'osa =atilde stated that she $as a $ido$C but, in a docu*ent e2ecuted in .387, found on page /50 of E2hibit 3, and in a docu*ent E2hibit ., page .79 of the first docu*ent e2ecuted in .381# she *ade the state*ent that she $as un*arried. 'osa =atilde *ight have *ade these contradictions due perhaps to her e2tre*e povert+, $hich had pro*pted her to tell a lie before the courts of )ustice, $ith the sole purpose of recovering the a*ount clai*ed b+ her as her legac+, $hile, on the hand, it is undeniable that she could not dul+ )ustif+ the *arriage contracted b+ her $ith Benigno Ferrer. Even if the plaintiffs be considered as legiti*ate children of 'osa =atilde, Eiade*onte in her *arriage $ith Benigno Ferrer, still this action filed b+ the* $ill not prosper, inas*uch as the evidence adduced at the trial to prove the origin of the cause of action referred to sho$s, in a *anner $hich leaves no roo* for doubt that 'osa =atilde $as not a legiti*ate daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB, and it follo$s that her children as $ell as her privies have no right to a part of the hereditar+ propert+ of said Isabel 6onBaleB. Counsel for plaintiffs pretend to establish that 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte had been treated and considered as a daughter b+ Isabel 6onBaleB, and as a sister the children of the latterC that, on one occasion, said 6onBaleB re*ar;ed that the father of 'osa =atilde $as 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onteC that !oaFuin =atilde in the follo$ing *anner% "<o *+ dear and unforgettable sister 'osa." that $hen 'osa =atilde entered the College de la Co*pania de !esus, her na*e as recorded in the registr+ of that college $as 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte, and her e2penses $ere defra+ed b+ 'afael de Inchausti and in the sa*e registr+ said 'afael de Inchausti appears as brother of 'osaC that $hen 'osa entered the Colegio de ,anta Isabel, she used the sa*e na*e and surna*eC that 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, !r., presented 'osa =atilde also sister, sa+ing that the father of the sa*e $as also his father na*ed 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, $hile 'osa =atilde has al$a+s been ;no$n b+ the sa*e na*e and surna*e during the ti*e she $as stud+ing in the Colegio de -uisa (da de BirgiC that Clotilde de Inchausti called 'osa =atilde her sister in her letters to 'afael 'ipol, and that !oaFuin de Inchausti hi*self in the codicil of his testa*ent designates 'osa =atilde $ith the surna*e of Eiade*onte. Fro* all the evidence adduced, the slightest indication cannot be inferred that 'osa =atilde $as born during the *arriage of 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, ,r., $ith Isabel 6onBaleB or $ithin the 744 da+s after the dissolution of their *arriage b+ the death of the husband, nor has the said 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, ,r., in his lifeti*e recogniBed said 'osa =atilde as his daughter. If 'osa =atilde is a legiti*ate daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB, it follo$s that she $as also a daughter of Isabel@s husband, 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, under the assu*ption that she $as born in the *arriage of both or at a ti*e prior or subseFuent to that of the celebration of the *arriage, as fi2ed b+ la$. Arts. ..8, ./4, ./., and .// of the Civil Code.# -egiti*ate filiation presupposes the e2istence of *arriage contracted b+ the presu*ed parents in accordance $ith la$, and therefore a person can not be declared to be a legiti*ate daughter of her *other, $ithout presu*ing at the sa*e ti*e that she $as born in the *arriage of this *other $ith the presu*ed father, $ho, in his lifeti*e, and $ithout his consent, could not have been considered as father of a child that $as not conceived b+ his o$n $ife, because the *ere fact of having used his surna*e after his death, $ithout his assent or consent, does not constitute a proof of filiation of parternit+. In this decision it is to be deter*ined $hether 'osa =atilde $as born in the lifeti*e of 'a*on =artineB de viade*onte to decide on the truth of the assertion *ade b+ the plaintiffs that their predecessor in interest $as a legiti*ate daughter of the said spouses Eiade*onte and 6onBaleB. At the trial, the death certificate of 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, first husband of Isabel 6onBaleB, $as not presented in evidenceC but it is uncontroverted that he died on ,epte*ber 74, .379C as corroborated b+ the accountant of the naval division of Puerto 6al;era in charge of the -eiutenant of the ,panish Nav+, !ose AtienBa, sa+ing that the -ieutenant, $ho had the ran; of captain in the nav+, 'a*on Eiade*onte, died on ,epte*ber 74, .379, as appears in the list of officers found in the pa+roll under his custod+, having paid till the date of the death of said Eiade*onte all his salaries corresponding to hi* as such officer, and further sa+ing that, b+ reFuest of the $ido$ of the deceased, he issued the proper certificate on >ece*ber 7., .379. ,o certain is the death of said 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte that his $ido$ Isabel 6onBaleB on !anuar+ 7., .370, applied to the 6overn*ent for a pension sufficient to cover her $ido$hood e2penses, alleging that she $as a $ido$ $ith children of the deceased. <he application $as *ade in a paper sta*ped as of the +ears .379 and .370, a fact $hich proves the authenticit+ of the docu*ent $ritten in a sta*ped paper, and the presentation of said application b+ the $ido$ de*onstrates the fact that her husband reall+ died, $herefore she as;ed for a pension, because she $ould have been held responsible if, in truth and in fact, her husband had been living and not dead as she clai*ed. <he said docu*ents, as constituting a supple*entar+ proof of the death of the deceased 'a*on =artineB, de Eiade*onte, appear to be corroborated b+ an entr+ in a noteboo; belonging to 'a*on Eiade*onte, !r. $herein it is stated that his *other $as *arried in .377 to 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte $ho died on ,epte*ber 74, .379, at the age of 77 +ears, being then a *a)or in the naval division assigned at Puerto 6alera, =indoro. Not$ithstanding the fact that the death certificate of said 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, first husband of Isabel 6onBaleB $as not presented in evidence, still the docu*entar+ and circu*stantial evidence of record, especiall+ the fact of the *arriage of his $ido$ Isabel 6onBaleB $ith !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti, so*e +ears after the death of Eiade*onte died before that *arriage or on ,epte*ber 74. .379. If this be true, let us see on $hat da+ 'osa =atilde $as born,, and in this $a+ it $ill be sho$n that she did not have the status of a legiti*ate child of those spouses, even after the dissolution of their *arriage b+ the death of the husband.

Page1

It appears in the certificate that on ,epte*ber ., .35/, a child three da+s old, born of un;no$n parents, $as baptiBed in the Cathedral Church of this cit+, and given the na*e of 'osa =atilde 'obles. In vie$ of the fact that the plaintiffs have not sho$n that such baptis*al certificate $as not that of their *other 'osa =atilde, it re*ains proven therefore that said certificate $as presented as e2hibit b+ 'afael C. de Inchausti in a case concerning the deliver+ of a legac+ instituted against 'osa =atilde, $ho, instead of den+ing that such a baptis*al certificate referred to her, ad*itted that such certificate *ight have been hers. (n Page 8 of the da+-boo; $hich 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, !r., ;ept during his lifeti*e, appears a *e*orandu* $hich sa+s% (n ,epte*ber ., .39/, seven o@cloc; in the evening a children three da+s old na*ed 'osa =atilde 'obles, according to the baptis*al certificate issued b+ the acting rector >on 'a*on FernandeB of the Cathedral Church of =anila, $as delivered to *+ *otherC this child $as baptiBed b+ the priest >on 'e*egio 'odrigueB $ith the authorit+ of said rector, and according to the baptis*al certificate, it $as a child of un;no$n parents." <his *e*orandu* agrees $ith the above-*entioned baptis*al certificate of 'osa =atilde 'obles. Not$ithstanding the argu*ent of counsel for the appellants !oaFuin de Inchausti stated that one da+ he $as assured b+ his half-brother 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte that 'osa =atilde $as not his sister, but that she $as onl+ a *ere protegee and that her true na*e $as 'osa =atilde 'obles, and that on that occasion the said brother sho$ed hi* the certificate of birth of $hich E2hibit 9 is a cop+, $hich he too; fro* the parochial church. In vie$ of the fact that 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte is no$ dead, the testi*on+ of !oaFuin !ose de Inchausti referring to the said deceased is ad*issible, for the+ are *e*bers of the sa*e fa*il+, in accordance $ith the provisions of section /3. of Act No. .84, and conseFuentl+, the conclusion is that 'osa =atilde is the sa*e 'osa =atilde 'obels $hich is *entioned in E2hibit 9 and because she $as born in .35/, in no *anner could her be legiti*ate daughter of 'a*on Eiade*onte and Isabel 6onBaleB $hose *arriage $as dissolved in .3795 b+ the death of the husband. =oreover, the $itness Pilar Abarca presented b+ the plaintiffs testified that she had ;no$n 'osa =atilde in the Colegio de ,anta Isabel in .397, she being then /4 +ears old and 'osa, 8 +ears. If the $itness Abarca $as 07 +ears old on the date of giving this testi*on+ in .8.9, it follo$s that 'osa =atilde $as born in .351, and that therefore she could not be a daughter of 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte $ho died in .379. Not$ithstanding the atte*pt of the plaintiffs to i*pugn the testi*on+ of said $itness, said testi*on+ is ad*issible according to section /97 of the Code of civil Procedure $hich provides the $hen part of an act, declaration conservation, or $riting is given in evidence b+ one part+, the $hole of the sa*e sub)ect *a+ be inFuired into b+ the other. It is true that the said $itness $as not presented to prove that the date of 'osa =atildes birth but the fact is that the age of the child is 8 +ears old as $ell as that of a +outh .8 or // +ears of age can be ;no$n fro* the appearance of the child, and even if, in fi2ing the age of 'osa =atilde, as *ista;e has been *ade, said *ista;e could not be such as to reduce her true age b+ .4 +earsC but even then and even supposing still that 'osa =atilde $as /4 +ears old in .397, the fact re*ains that she *ust have been born in .317, and so she could not have been a daughter of 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, ,r. that the age of a child 8 +ears old as $ell as that of a +outh .8 or // +ears of age can be ;no$n fro* the appearance of the child, and even if, in fi2ing the age of 'osa =atilde, a *ista;e has been *ade, said *ista;e could not be such as to reduce her true age b+ .4 +earsC but even then and even supposing still that 'osa =atilde $as /4 +ears old in .397, the fact re*ains that she *ust have been born in .317, and so could not have been a daugther of 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, ,r. !uan Ferrer, another $itness for the plaintiffs, testified that Benigno Ferrer and 'osa =atilde *arried in .30/, that 'osa =atilde *ust have been then bet$een // and 74 +ears of age. It is inferred fro* this testi*on+ that, if 'osa =atilde could no be over 74 +ears old in .30/, she could not have been born before .31/, and *uch less in .379 or .370. <he docu*ent No. 997, page /50 of E2hibit 3, appears to have been e2ecuted b+ 'osa =atilde in .387, $herein she declared to the notar+ public before $ho* the docu*ent $as e2ecuted that she $as then 78 +ears of age. If she $as 78 +ears old in .387, she could not have been born in .351 and *uch less in .379 and .370. In E2hibit ., page .75, $hich is a certified cop+ of a discharge in full e2ecuted b+ 'osa =atilde in .381 in favor of !oaFuin !ose de Inchausti, it is said that the *a;er of the deed $as 14 +ears old, thus corroborating ina convincing *anner $hat has been stated regarding this point in the preceding docu*ent. In vie$ of the ob)ection and argu*ents *ade b+ counsel for the plaintiffs against the ad*ission of the afore*entioned docu*ents, it beco*es necessar+ to sa+ in this connection that it is undeniable that 'osa =atilde, in e2ecuting said t$o docu*ents, gave as her age those appearing therein, and that there $as no reason for the belief that she told a lie and tried to conceal her true ageC but, even ad*itting that $e had *ade a *ista;e b+ telling that she $as older or +ounger than she reall+ $as, such a *ista;e could not have given a difference of .4 +ears fro* her true age, inas*uch as she $as an educated person, and it is not possible to believe that, through ignorance, she gave an age difference fro* her true angerC and, even if .4 +ears be added to the age given b+ 'osa =atilde in the docu*ents referred to, still the fact re*ains that in .381 she *ust have been onl+ 54 +ears old and that she *ust have been born in .311. It is undisputed that 'oa =atilde $as born .9 +ears after the death of 'a*on Eiade*onte, and therefor could not be a daughter of the latter. Counsel for plaintiffs ob)ected to the ad*ission in evidence of the da+-boo; ;ept b+ 'a*on =artineB Eiade*onte, !r., during his lifeti*e, alleging that it has not been proven that the entries in said boo; $ere *ade at the sa*e ti*e that those events occurredC that the $itness $ho identified it did not see 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, !r., in the act of *a;ing the said entries, and that, even if it $ere so, still the $riting contained in the boo;, being a *ere *e*orandu* of an interested part+, can not be ad*itted at the trial. <he above ob)ection can be *et and disposed of b+ the provisions of section /83, No. .7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, $hich provides that evidence *a+ be given upon trial of *onu*ents and inscriptions in public places as evidence of co**on reputationC and entries in fa*il+ Bibles or other fa*il+ boo;s or chartsC engravings on rings, fa*il+ portraits and the li;e, as evidence of pedigree. <he la$ does not reFuire that the entries in the said boo;let be *ade at the sa*e ti*e as the occurrence of those eventsC hence, the $ritten *e*orandu* in the sa*e is not sub)ect to the defect attributed to it, <he $itness !oaFuin !ose de Inchausti declared affir*ativel+ that the *e*orandu* under consideration has been $ritten in the hand$riting of his brother 'a*on =artineB de Eiade*onte, $hose hand$riting he $as fa*iliar $ith, and the testi*on+ of this $itness contains so*e reference to a *e*ber of the fa*il+, no$ dead, and concerning the fa*il+ genealog+ of the sa*e. It re*ains no$ to be decided $hether 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte $as a natural daughter of the deceased Isabel 6onBaleB or $as a *ere protegee cared for and *aintained in the house of said Isabel 6onBaleB, and, if in the first case, the

Page1

plaintiffs have the right to succeed ab intestato to a part of the inheritance of Isabel 6onBaleB in representation of their *other 'osa =atilde Eiadde*ante or 'obles. <he record does not furnish satisfactor+ proof that 'osa =atilde $as a daugther or at least a natural daughter of Isabel 6onBaleBC on the other hand, it is sho$n in the records of the case that she $as a protegee in the house of said Isabel, for, in a conciliation proceeding had on April .5, .387, bet$een 'osa =atilde and !oaFuin F. de Inchausti, it appears in the record thereof that, although in so*e of the docu*ents presented to )ustif+ the accounts, 'osa =atilde called 'afael de Inchausti her brother, this *anner of calling hi* $as due to the inti*ac+ in $hich both have been brought up fro* childhood in the sa*e house, she being a *ere protegee of the latter@s parents, and of because the+ $ere reall+ brother and sister. <his state*ent *ade b+ Inchausti in the presence of 'osa =atilde Eiade*onte did not bring about a protest or ob)ection on the part of 'osa =atilde herself or her attorne+. In addition to this fact, 'afael C. >e Inchausti stated under oath that it is not true that 'osa =atildeEiade*onte $as his *aternal sister. 'osa Eiade*onte herself, in a docu*ent dated !une .5, .381 E2hibit ., page .75#, *ade the state*ent that !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti, $ho, together $ith his $ife, cared for her since her earl+ childhood, beFueathed to her, b+ virtue of a codicil e2ecuted before a notar+ public on !anuar+ ./, .338, a legac+ a*ounting to P1,444. <he contents of this docu*ent constitute a *ost convincing proof that 'osa =atilde $as not a daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB, but onl+ a protegee of hers and of her husband !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti. 'a*on Eiade*onte, !r., $hile +et living, told his brother !oaFuin !. de Inchausti record, p. 35#, that 'osa =atilde $as not their sister but onl+ a protegee of their parents, $hose na*e $as 'osa =atilde 'obles. It is thus full+ proven in the records of the case that 'osa =atilde, the *other of the plaintiffs, $as not a daughter of Isabel 6onBaleB. Even supposing that 'osa =atilde $as in fact a natural child of the deceased Isabel 6onBaleB, because the records sho$ that it $as i*possible that he $as a legiti*ate daughter of the latter, still it cannot be disputed that the said 'osa =atilde could not inherit fro* her supposed natural *other, Isabel 6onBaleB. It is a positive fact ad*itted b+ the plaintiffs that Isabel 6onBaleB died in .339 record, p. 7/5# or so*e +ears before the Civil Code beca*e operative in these Islands, and therefore, the hereditar+ rights of the successors of the said deceased should be deter*ined in accordance $ith the prior la$s or the -a$ of <oro, $hich provides, a*ong other things, that natural children have no right to succeed to their natural *other $hen, on her death, the latter leaves legiti*ate children, as in the present case, and for this reason it is useless to inFuire as to $hether 'osa Eiade*onte or 'obles $as a natural or even an ac;no$ledged natural child of Isabel 6onBaleB. 'ule . of the transitor+ provisions of the Civil Code invo;ed b+ the appellants provides as follo$sC "'ights arising under the legislation prior to this code, out of *atters carried out under its rules, shall be governed b+ said prior legislation, even if the code should regulate the* in another *anner, or does not recogniBe the sa*e. But if said right is declared for the first ti*e in this code, it shall be effective at once, even $hen the act $hich gave rise thereto *a+ have ta;en place under the prior legislation, provided it does not pre)udice other acFuired rights having the sa*e origin." &hen Isabel 6onBaleB died on >ece*ber ./, .339, or so*e ti*e before the Civil Code beca*e effective in these Islands, she $as survived b+ four children, the eldest being 'a*on Eiade*onte had $ith her first husband, and the other three, had $ith her second husband !ose !oaFuin de Inchausti, are Clotilde, 'afael, and !oaFuin. (n her death, the right to succeed her $as trans*itted b+ operation of la$ to her legiti*ate and legiti*ated children, and for this reason, even supposing that 'osa =atilde $as a natural child of Isabel 6onBaleB, she could not clai* an+ right to the inheritance of her supposed natural *other, inas*uch as against her right there e2ist the rights acFuired b+ the four legiti*ate and legiti*ated children of said Isabel 6onBaleB, $hich rights can not be in)ured or pre)udiced in accordance $ith the conclusive provision of the afore*entioned 'ule . of the transitor+ provision of the Civil Code. Besides, the records sho$ that the action brought b+ the plaintiffs has alread+ prescribed, because section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the rights of action $hich have alread+ accrued, $ith the e2ception of the t$o cases *entioned in the sa*e section, a*ong $hich the present case is not included, *ust be vindicated b+ the co**ence*ent of an action or proceeding to enforce the sa*e $ithin ten +ears after Act No. .84 ca*e into effect, and, as this Act beca*e operative in .84., it is evident that the action instituted against the estate of Isabel 6onBaleB has alread+ prescribed. <he plaintiffs, b+ their co*plaint, do not onl+ see; the partition of the estate of the deceased Isabel 6onBaleB, but also and principall+ to recover the part of the inheritance corresponding to their *other 'osa =atilde in her succession to the said deceased, so that the discussion during the proceedings referred *ainl+ to the Fuestion as to $hether the plaintiffs $ere descendants of an heiress to the said deceased, and if so, $hether the+ had a right derived fro* their *other to a part of the estate of Isabel 6onBaleB. <his action *ust be brought $ithin ten +ears. "e $ho brings an action for the partition or division of hereditar+ estates or propert+ in co**on is supposed to b+ a coheir and to have an undisputed right to the propert+ clai*ed or to be coo$ner of the sa*e propert+ possessed in co**on. "e $ho clai*s a right to a part of an inheritance of a deceased person, and $ho alleges that he is a relative of the latter and has a right of testate or intestate succession thereto, has for his principal ob)ect the recognition of his right to the inheritance clai*ed b+ hi* and the deliver+ to hi* of his share as fi2ed b+ la$. Before concluding this decision, it *ust be stated that, on page /. of the brief signed b+ Eicente ,otto as the plaintiffs attorne+, and after the first five lines thereof, the follo$ing state*ent appears% "It is also established that 'osa Eiade*onte $as born of Isabel 6onBaleB in the +ear .35/, that is, during the $ido$hood of the latter." Counsel for the defendants $ith reason, Fualif+ as false, this affir*ation *ade b+ the counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that the )udge has established the fact that 'osa Eiade*onte $as born of Isabel 6onBaleB, $hen such affir*ation does not appear in an+ part of the decision rendered b+ the said )udge. <his court can not loo; $ith indifference on an+ atte*pt to alter or falsif+, for certain purposes, the facts or their i*portant details in the e2tracts or references that have to be *ade in proceedings or records brought before it. All the records in a proceeding should contain and reflect the truth in such a $a+ that all $ho intervene in it *a+ have absolute confidence that the course and procedure of a trial are under the vigilance and inspection of the court. It is unprofessional and $orth+ of the highest for* of rebu;e for a la$+er to attribute to a )udge a state*ent $hich he had not *ade in his decision, and in vie$ of the fact that Eicente ,otto has alread+ been disbarred fro* the

Page1

e2ercise of his profession b+ resolution of this court, it is dee*ed unnecessar+ to deter*ine $hat punish*ent shall be adopted for said act, $hich in his case, should be i*posed upon hi* as a la$+er For the foregoing reasons, $hereb+ the errors assigned to the )udg*ent appealed fro* are dee*ed to have been refuted, the said )udg*ent should be, as it hereb+ is, affir*ed and the defendants absolved fro* the co*plaint, $ith the costs against the appellants. ,o ordered. 6.'. No. --91559 !une .4, .833 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff, vs. CEFE'IN( -:N6AIAN, accused.

6ANCAIC(, !.% 'ape is a serious offense against chastit+. Its essential ele*ent is involuntariness. =ore often than not, the credibilit+ of the offended part+ is vital. Failing in this, the prosecution cannot *a;e out a case. <his is de*onstrated in a revie$ of the conviction of the accused Ceferino -unga+an b+ the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of Echague, Isabela for the cri*e of rape, $ho $as thereb+ i*posed the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua $ith all the accessor+ penalties provided for b+ la$, and ordered to inde*nif+ the victi* Agripina !uan Eda. de 6arBota in the a*ount of P./,444.44 for *oral da*ages $ithout subsidiar+ i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc+, and to pa+ the costs, in a decision dated April 3, .83/. <he evidence for the prosecution sho$ that the co*plainant Agripina !uan Eda. de 6arBota, then 5/ +ears old and a $ido$, $as asleep inside the roo* at their *ar;et stall located in the public *ar;et of baranga+ (scariB, *unicipalit+ of 'a*on, Isabela, on the evening of !anuar+ /4, .834. &ith her $ere her t$o *arried daughters ,ilveria and -eticia, the latter@s husband Berting 6arcia and the children of said daughters. At about .4%44 o@cloc; of that evening, ,ilveria heard so*eone ;noc; at their door and $hen she opened it she sa$ the accused $ho $as then the baranga+ captain of Baranga+ (scariB. "e as;ed ,ilveria if her *other $as in. ,he ans$ered in the affir*ative and added that her *other $as asleep. Nevertheless, the accused entered the roo* $here co*plainant $as sleeping and $o;e up the co*plainant. "e invited her to )oin hi* to observe the persons drin;ing $ine in the *ar;et stall identified as -inda@s canteen in violation of the baranga+ ordinance prohibiting the sa*e after .4%44 o@cloc; in the evening. Co*plainant $ent $ith the accused to the said canteen $hich $as onl+ one *ar;et stall a$a+. <he+ stood about t$o *eters a$a+ fro* the open door of the canteen, the electric lights of $hich $ere open inside. <he+ sta+ed at the place for ten *inutes standing side b+ side $ithout tal;ing to each other. <he+ $ere observing the people drin;ing in the canteen. ,uddenl+ the accused grabbed both hands of co*plainant so co*plainant reacted b+ shouting ver+ loud onl+ once. "er cries could not be heard b+ the people drin;ing inside the canteen because of the loud stereo pla+er. <he accused slapped her and brought out his gun $hich he pointed at her breast threatening to ;ill her if she creates an+ noise. <he accused then pulled her and she fell on the ground hitting her head on the pave*ent so she lost consciousness, sustaining in)uries on the pal*s of her hands. &hen she regained consciousness after a short $hile, she $as dragged b+ the accused to$ards the banana grove near the *ar;et. ,he *anaged to stand and $al; $hile being dragged. <he accused then carried her bod+ across the canal and dropped her on the ground causing her to fall flat on her bell+ and her fingers $ere again in)ured b+ the bro;en glasses on the ground. ,he could not free herself nor shout for help because of the threat to her life. After she fell flat on the ground, the accused held her and pressed her do$n and he proceeded to re*ove her s;irt and shorts and thereafter her blouse leaving her e2posed na;ed $ith her bac; to the ground. ,he $as not $earing an+ pant+ or brassiere then. Besides pressing her do$n the accused stepped on her thigh $ith his left foot as he $ent on top of her na;ed bod+. <hen he stood up $arning her not to *a;e an+ noise and he re*oved his pants and tee-shirt after $hich he again $ent on top of her na;ed bod+ holding her hands. Pointing the gun at her breast ane$, the accused repeated his threat to ;ill her if she resisted. <hen the accused started *ashing her breast and succeeded in having se2ual congress $ith the co*plainant. ,he felt his penis penetrating her vagina follo$ed b+ a push and pull *ove*ent for less than an hour, until she felt se*en e*itting fro* his penis and entering her bod+. After a $hile, he stood up, put on his pants and $arned her not to tell her children about $hat he had )ust done to her or as; for help for he $ill ;ill her. "e left her in tears. After the accused had gone, co*plainant put on her shorts and shirt $hich $ere *udd+ as it previousl+ rained that da+ and $ent ho*e still cr+ing. &hen she reached ho*e about ./%44 *idnight, ,ilveria as;ed her $hat happened and she revealed that the accused abused her. &hen ,ilveria pressed for details, the co*plainant replied that she $ill tell her the follo$ing *orning. As she pro*ised, the ne2t *orning co*plainant told ,ilveria ever+thing that happened to her and thereafter she proceeded to ,antiago to$n and reported the incident to =r. ,egundo =a+le*, post co**ander and E2ecutive Eice Chapter Co**ander, EFP ,outhern Isabela, fro* $ho* she sought assistance. ,he $as advised to sub*it herself to an investigation and *edical e2a*ination, (n the sa*e da+, the co*plainant $as e2a*ined b+ >r. Nor*ita Eillarico, chief of the Caga+an Ealle+ ,anitariu* "ospital. After due investigation b+ the PC, a co*plaint for rape $as filed signed and s$orn to b+ co*plainant in the =unicipal Circuit Court of 'a*on, Isabela against the accused. In appealing his conviction, the accused, through counsel assailed the credibilit+ of co*plainant and interposed the defense of denial and alibi. "o$ever, b+ $a+ of rebuttal of the People@s brief filed b+ another collaborating counsel for appellant, the failure of the prosecution to establish involuntariness on the part of the victi* $as e*phasiBed. <he appeal is i*pressed $ith *erit. <here is no Fuestion that there $as se2ual congress bet$een the co*plainant and the appellant on that fateful evening. <he *edical findings and the anal+sis of the court a Fuo to this effect is $ell- founded. "o$ever, the environ*ental circu*stances of the case *ilitates against the clai* of the co*plainant that the appellant e*plo+ed force or inti*idation in the perpetration of the said se2ual act.

Page1

Co*plainant $as a $ido$, 5/ +ears of age. ,he had been *arried three ti*es. ,he $as not that innocent about the $orld. &hen appellant invited her at .4%44 P.=. to step out of her house, she should have declined. 6oing out alone $ith a *an late in the evening is not in good taste nor safe even if the one $ho invited her $as the barrio captain. Instead, she should have suggested that the appellant invite so*e other person for the purpose. But obviousl+, the appellant $as Fuite inti*ate $ith the co*plainant. &hen he ;noc;ed at her door and $as allo$ed entr+, he proceeded into the bedroo* of co*plainant and $o;e her up hi*self. Co*plainant $ent $ith the appellant in her shorts. ,he too; no precaution as an+ discreet $o*an $ould do b+ at least putting on her pant+ and a brassiere instead of stepping out $ith the appellant in her shorts. For about ten *inutes, the+ $ere together side b+ side $atching fro* a distance the people $ho $ere drin;ing at -inda@s canteen. <hen suddenl+, the appellant allegedl+ held her t$o hands. ,he allegedl+ shouted for help but onl+ once. If she could not be heard as her voice $as dro$ned b+ the blaring stereo pla+er, she should have shouted louder again and again. Better still, she should have ran to$ards the canteen $hich $as )ust t$o *eters a$a+ or to her residence $hich $as one *ar;et stall a$a+. After allegedl+ shouting once, she ;ept her peace. ,he $as allegedl+ dragged although she ad*its she $illingl+ $al;ed along. ,he $as allegedl+ carried across the canal b+ the appellant although she $as taller and definitel+ bigger than appellant. &hen she fell on the ground, the appellant re*oved her shorts and s;irt $ithout difficult+. ,he offered no resistance. Even as he stood up to re*ove his pants she did not atte*pt to stand up to escape nor to shout for help. <here $as no sign of struggle or resistance. <hen the appellant put his penis into her vagina penetrating her. <he+ had se2ual intercourse for al*ost one hour. ,he even felt the se*en of appellant as it entered her bod+. Not a $hi*per, not a sound fro* the co*plainant $as heard. ,he clai*s she $as afraid due to the gun of appellant and his threats. ,he did not even describe the t+pe of gun the appellant threatened her $ith several ti*es. Nor had the prosecution sho$n appellant ever had a gun. All indications sho$ that she sub*itted to his advances. <he incident happened at about .4%44 o@cloc; in the evening. ,he $ent ho*e onl+ at about ./%44 o@cloc; that evening. Apparentl+, she still *oved around or spent so*eti*e alone for about one hour. ,he *ust have conte*plated $hat to do $ith her clothes all *udd+. &hen she reached ho*e she $as confronted b+ her daughter as to $hat happened. ,he had no choice but to tell her that she $as abused b+ appellant but she $as not prepared to reveal ever+thing. ,he pro*ised to tell all the details to her daughter the follo$ing da+. ,he thought about her predica*ent the $hole night. ,he had no choice. ,he *ust have to tell ever+thing the follo$ing da+. As the Court sees it, $hat actuall+ happened in this case, is that $hen the co*plainant $ent out $ith the appellant that evening, she $as a$are of the ris; of going out alone $ith a *an for a reason that is far fro* unavoidable. <he+ $ere close and side b+ side for so*eti*e, allegedl+ $atching the drin;ing session at -inda@s canteen. <he+ *ust have succu*bed to the te*ptation of the flesh. (ne thing led to the other until the+ had se2ual intercourse. Perhaps the co*plainant did not initiate or *otivate the se2ual interlude. In the least, she *ust have abetted it if not $illingl+ sub*itted to the advances of the appellant. Indeed, the+ $ere in ecstas+ for al*ost one hour. ,uch *utual and passionate love*a;ing can certainl+ not be characteriBed as involuntar+. It $as free and $ithout an+ co*pulsion. <he appellant $as 13 +ears old $hen the incident happened. <o thin; that a +ounger *an $ould rape an elderl+ $o*an of 5/ +ears, $ido$, three ti*es *arried, $ould be Fuite unusual. It is *ore probable that it $as consensual. <he trial court considered the revelation of the co*plainant to her daughter ,ilveria of $hat happened to her $hen she returned ho*e as part of the res gestae. It is i*portant to stress that her state*ent *ust not onl+ be spontaneous. It *ust also be *ade at a ti*e $hen there $as no opportunit+ for her to concoct or develop her o$n stor+. . As the Court observed, the co*plainant did not i**ediatel+ go ho*e after the se2ual encounter. ,he too; a $al;. ,he spent so*eti*e thin;ing of $hat to do. "er clothes $ere *udd+. ,he had so*e bruises on her bod+ and bac; because she $as l+ing do$n on the ground during the se2ual intercourse and their passionate interlude. ,he had enough ti*e to *a;e a decision on $hat $ill be the nature of her stor+. "er revelation cannot thus be categoriBed as part of the res gestae. Considering all the facts and circu*stances of the case, the Court finds that if there $as an+ se2ual congress bet$een appellant and co*plainant, it $as upon their *utual consent. <here $as no co*pulsion or force. <he version of the co*plainant is far fro* credible. A verdict of acFuittal is in order. &"E'EF('E, the )udg*ent appealed fro* is 'EEE',E> AN> ,E< A,I>E and another )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered ACG:I<<IN6 the appellant of the offense charged, $ith costs de oficio. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .9054/ (ctober 7., /449

PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAB-( C:>A-, accused-appellant.

>ECI,I(N

CA'PI( =('A-E,, !.% :nder final revie$ is the Court of Appeals >ecision. of Februar+ .., /445 affir*ing that of Branch 78 of the 'egional <rial Court of -inga+en, Pangasinan/ convicting Pablo Cudal appellant# of parricide and *eting out to hi* the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua.

Page1

About /%44 oNcloc; in the *orning of !anuar+ ., .883,7 as appellant arrived ho*e in Baranga+ Bonlalacao, =angatare*, Pangasinan fro* a drin;ing spree $ith his cousins and nephe$s, he roused his 08-+ear old father Crispin Cudal the victi*# fro* his sleep. Appellant then as;ed *one+ fro* the victi* so he could go bac; to the drin;ing session

and pa+ for the liFuor that he consu*ed. <he victi* replied that he had no *one+, and told appellant that he $as alread+ drun;.1 <his dre$ the t$o to a fight.5 ,o*e 54 *eters a$a+ fro* the place of the incident, Ca*ilo Cudal Ca*ilo#, appellantNs first cousin $ho $as then in the house of his *other-in-la$, heard the co**otion.9 Ca*ilo i**ediatel+ rushed to the place and there sa$ the victi* sitting on his bed and $iping blood ooBing fro* his forehead. &hen as;ed about $hat happened, the victi* Fuic;l+ replied that he Fuarreled $ith appellant and that he $as hit b+ hi* $ith a stone.0 &hen Ca*ilo confronted appellant, the latter reasoned out that he $as as;ing *one+ fro* his father but the latter refused.3 Ca*ilo brought the $ounded victi* to the house of his victi*Ns# brother ,egundino Cudal8 $here first aid $as applied on his $ounds. Ca*ilo then fetched fro* :rbiBtondo, Pangasinan the victi*Ns daughter -eoncia.4 $ho brought the victi* to a nearb+ hospital $here he e2pired the follo$ing da+, !anuar+ /, .883, at about 1 oNcloc; p.*... <he post*orte* report prepared b+ >r. Cleofe (rence, 'ural "ealth Ph+sician of =angatare*, Pangasinan $ho e2a*ined the bod+ of the victi* revealed the follo$ing findings% E2ternal Ph+sical In)uries% .# -acerated $ound, old, about 1 c*. *idfrontal area. /# "e*ato*a, dorsal aspect right hand. 7# Contusion /27 c*., right upper Fuadrant area, abdo*en. Probable Cause of >eath% IN<E'NA- "E=(''"A6E secondar+ to Craniocerebral In)ur+ secondar+ to <rau*a <DC 'uptured Eiscus, abdo*en../ Appellant $as arrested b+ police authorities on !anuar+ 7, .883.7 and brought for treat*ent at the =angatare* >istrict "ospital on the sa*e da+. <he *edical findings on hi* sho$ed% - -# Negative alcoholic breath - ,tab $ound / c*., left side face - ,tab $ound ..5 c*. B+go*atic area left - Periorbital he*ato*a left superi*posed $ith punctured $ound .5 c*. left lo$er e+elid - Punctured $ound left e+ebro$ - Contusion he*ato*a .2. c*. occipital area.1 An Infor*ation $as soon filed against appellant reading% 2222 <hat on or about !anuar+ ., .883, at about /%44 oNcloc; da$n, in baranga+ Bonlalacao, *unicipalit+ of =angatare*, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-na*ed accused, $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloneousl+ sic#, and $ith evident pre*iditation sic#, that is, having conceived and deliberated to ;ill his o$n father $ith $ho* he $as living $ith, and $ith treacher+, attac;, assault and hit $ith the use of stone his father, Crispin Cudal, on the head and other parts of his bod+, inflicting upon the latter *ortal $ounds $hich directl+ caused his death, to the da*age and pre)udice of the heirs of the said victi* Crispin Cudal. C(N<'A'I to Article /19 of the 'evised Penal Code..5 2222 >en+ing having struc; the victi*, appellant clai*ed that it $as he $ho $as assaulted $ith a bolo,.9 and that $hile going after hi*, the victi* accidentall+ fell do$n and hit the bedpost in the process, $ounding hi*self on the forehead..0 As;ed ho$ the victi* sustained in)ur+ on his abdo*en, appellant e2plained that the victi* subseFuentl+ fell on the floor, hitting his abdo*en $ith the handle of the bolo he $as holding..3 After trial, Branch 78 of the 'egional <rial Court of -inga+en, Pangasinan, b+ >ecision of (ctober /3, .883, convicted appellant of parricide, but considered his into2ication at the ti*e of the co**ission of the offense as a *itigating circu*stance under paragraph 7, Article .5 of the 'evised Penal Code. <he dispositive portion of the decision reads% &"E'EF('E, in vie$ of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Pablo Cudal 6uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of Parricide for the ;illing of his father Crispin Cudal, on the earl+ *orning of Ne$ Iear, !anuar+ ., .883 $ith the presence of one .# *itigating circu*stance, and accordingl+ the Court sentences the said accused to reclusion perpetua. "e is also ordered to pa+ the heirs of the accused the su* of P74,444.44 representing funeral e2penses, plus inde*nit+ of P54,444.44 $ithout subsidiar+ i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc+C and to pa+ the costs. Being a detention prisoner, the said accused is credited $ith his detention to its full e2tent. ,( ('>E'E>..8 Appellant appealed his conviction before this Court, assailing the trial court for "acceptLingM the prosecutionNs account as gospel truth despite the fact that its $itnesses $ere not actuall+ direct $itnesses to the cri*e charged."/4 <he appeal $as doc;eted as 6.'. No. .14970.

<he appellate court affir*ed, $ith *odification, appellantNs conviction. <he decretal te2t of the decision reads%

Page1

B+ 'esolution/. of August 74, /441, this Court ordered the transfer of the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition confor*abl+ $ith People v. =ateo.//

&"E'EF('E, the assailed >ecision of Branch 78 of the 'egional <rial Court of -inga+en, Pangasinan, dated (ctober /3, .883, in Cri*inal Case No. --5003, convicting the appellant, Pablo Cudal, of the cri*e of parricide and sentencing hi* to suffer the penalt+ ofreclusion perpetua is hereb+ AFFI'=E>. <he last sentence of the first paragraph of its dispositive portion is ho$ever hereb+ *odified to read, as follo$s% "Accused-appellant Pablo Cudal is also ordered to pa+ the heirs of the victi*, Crispin Cudal, the su* ofP74,444.44 representing funeral e2penses, plus inde*nit+ of P54,444.44 $ithout subsidiar+ i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc+C and to pa+ the costs." No pronounce*ent as to costs./7 E*phasis in the original# "ence, the elevation of the case to this Court for final revie$. In a =anifestation dated ,epte*ber 0, /445,/1 appellant infor*ed that he $as opting not to file a ,upple*ental Brief. <he appeal fails. Article /19 of the 'evised Penal Code provides% A'<. /19. Parricide. R An+ person $ho shall ;ill his father, *other, or child, $hether legiti*ate or illegiti*ate, or an+ of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilt+ of parricide and shall be punished b+ the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua to death. Prosecution $itness Ca*ilo Cudal narrated $hat he ;ne$ of the circu*stances surrounding the incident as follo$s% G >o +ou still recall $here +ou $ere on the late evening of >ece*ber 7., .880 before *idnightH A I could re*e*ber, sir. G &here $ere +ouH A I $as in the house of *+ inL-Mla$s, sir. G &ill +ou please tell the na*e of +our in-la$sH A =arissa >ancel, sir. G &here is the place of =arissa >ancel locatedH A Bulala;ao, =angatare*, sir. G &h+ $ere +ou there at the house of +our *other-in-la$, =arissa >ancelH A Because $e $ere celebrating the Ne$ IearLNsM Eve, sir. G No$ b+ the $a+, ho$ far is +our house fro* the house of +our *other-in-la$ $here +ou $ere celebrating Ne$ IearLNMs EveH A Around 54 *eters a$a+, sir. G No$, at about /%44 oNcloc; in the earl+ *ornignof sic# !anuar+ ., .883, can +ou tell us $here +ou $ereH A Ies, sir, I $as in the house of *+ in-la$s. G As +ou $ere sta+ sic# there, can +ou still recall if there $as unusual thing that +ou observeLdM $hen +ou $ere at the house of +our *other-in-la$H A Ies, sir, there $as. G &hat $as that that +ou observeLdMH A I heard so*ething li;e Fuarreling on the house of Crispin Cudal, sir. G No$, can +ou tell us $h+ do +ou sa+ that there is a sounds sic# li;e $arning in the house of Crispin CudalH A Because the+ $ere uttering $ords, sir. G Can +ou tell us if +ou could recogniBe that voices as +ou said the+ are FuarrelingH A Ies, sir. G Please tell the "onorable Court $hose voice is thatH A Pablo Cudal and Crispin Cudal, sir. G No$, $hat did +ou LdoM if an+ $hen +ou heard this Fuarreling voices of accused Pablo CudalH A Because I $ent near, sir. G "o$ did +ou go nearH A I $al;ed to$ards the house of Crispin, sic# Cudal and I $as listening to the*, sir. G &here did +ou go $hen +ou $ent nearH A I LeMntered there sic# house, sir. G &hose houseH

G "o$ did +ou LeMnter the house of Crispin CudalH

Page1

A "ouse of Crispin Cudal, sirH

A <he door $as opened, sir. G As +ou LeMntered the door of the house of Crispin Cudal, $hat did +ou see, if an+H A I sa$ blood ooBing fro* the forehead of Crispin Cudal, sir. G &here did +ou see Crispin Cudal inside the house blooded as +ou have pointed in the foreheadH A In the place $here he sleep sic#, sir. G &hat $as his position $hen +ou sa$ hi* blooded on the foreheadH A "e $as seating do$n and he $as $iping the blood of his forehead, sir. G &hen +ou sa$ $iping his blood on the forehead, $hat ne2t happenedH A I as;ed hi*, ":ncle $hat happened,L"M and he ans$ered, "$e Fuarreled $ith Pablo Cudal,L"M he said. G >o +ou re*e*ber having as;ed, $hat caused the in)ur+ of the foreheadH A Ies, sir, I as;ed hi*. G &hat did the victi* ans$er if an+ $hen +ou as;ed hi* $hat caused his in)ur+ on the forehead if he ans$er sic# +ouH A I $as hit $ith the stone b+ Pablo Cudal./5 E*phasis supplied# Another prosecution $itness, ,egundino Cudal, declared that $hen his brother e the victi* $as brought to his house b+ Ca*ilo, the victi* $ho $as "strong," albeit his face $as bloodied, told hi* that he $as struc; $ith a stone b+ appellant. FI,CA- C"I(N6% G >o +ou ;no$ $here +ou $ere on the earl+ *orning of !anuar+ ., .883H A I $as at ho*e, sir. G >o +ou recall if there is unusual incident that ca*e to +our ;no$ledge involving +our brother Crispin CudalH A None +et $hen I a* at ho*e. G >o +ou ;no$, if an+ one ca*e to +our house that *orning of !anuar+ ., .883H A Ies, Crispin Cudal, sir. G "o$ $as +our older brother Crispin Cudal brought to +ourhouse sic# b+ Ca*ilo CudalH A "e $as loaded in a tric+cle, sir. G No$, $hen +ou sa$ +our brother $hen he $as brought to +our house, can +ou tell us his ph+sical appearance or conditionH A "e $as strong but his face $as blood+, sir. Even his clothes $ere stained or tainted $ith blood, sir. G No$, $hen +ou sa$ +our brotherNs face blood+ as $ell as his clothes, $hat did +ou do, if an+ as he $as alread+ in +our houseH A I as;ed hi* $hat happened to hi* and he told *e "I $as struc; $ith stone b+ *+ sonL.M" G >id +ou as; hi* $ho is this son of hi* $ho struc; hi* $ith stoneH A Ies, sir his na*e is Pablo Cudal./9 E*phasis and underscoring supplied# At the $itness stand, defense $itness >r. (rence, declared% G Is it also possible >octorLaM that this contusion $as due to the force of a stone struc; on the victi*H ,tone is a hard ob)ectH A It could be, sir. G -i;e$ise, this he*ato*a on the dorsal right hand of the victi* $as possibl+ caused b+ the i*pact of the stone being thro$n at the victi* $hen the victi* tried to parr+ it, is that not also possible, >octoraH A Ies sir, it is possible./0 :nderscoring supplied# <hat the co*plained act of appellant $as the pro2i*ate cause of the death of the victi* is evident fro* the aboveFuoted post*orte* report on the bod+ of the deceased sho$ing the probable cause of his death as "IN<E'NA"E=(''"A6E secondar+ to Craniocerebral In)ur+ secondar+ to <rau*a" and "<DC 'uptured Eiscus, abdo*en." It is a2io*atic in cri*inal )urisprudence that $hen the issue is one of credibilit+ of $itnesses, an appellate court $ill nor*all+ not disturb the factual findings of the trial court unless the latter has reached conclusions that are clearl+ unsupported b+ evidence, or unless so*e facts or circu*stances of $eight or influence $ere overloo;ed $hich, if considered, $ould affect the result of the case. <he rationale for this is that trial courts have superior advantages in ascertaining the truth and in detecting falsehood as the+ have the opportunit+ to observe at close range the *anner and de*eanor of $itnesses $hile testif+ing./3 In the absence of an+ sho$ing that the trial court, $hose findings $ere affir*ed b+ the appellate court, acted arbitraril+ in the appreciation of evidence, this Court respects the sa*e.

Page1

<hat Ca*ilo and ,egundino $ere not e+e$itnesses to the incident does not render their testi*onies inad*issible, for the+ *a+ be considered part of the res gestae,/8 an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule. For the sa*e to be considered part of the res gestae, the follo$ing reFuisites *ust concur%

.# the principal act or res gestae *ust be a startling occurrenceC /# the state*ent is spontaneous or $as *ade before the declarant had ti*e to contrive or devise a false state*ent, and the state*ent $as *ade during the occurrence or i**ediatel+ prior or subseFuent theretoC and 7# the state*ent *ade *ust concern the occurrence in Fuestion and its i**ediatel+ attending circu*stances.74 <he spontaneit+ of the utterance and its logical connection $ith the principal event, coupled $ith the fact that the utterance $as *ade $hile the declarant $as still "strong" and sub)ect to the sti*ulus of the nervous e2cite*ent of the principal event, are dee*ed to preclude contrivance, deliberation, design or fabrication, and to give to the utterance an inherent guarant+ of trust$orthiness.7. <he ad*issibilit+ of such e2cla*ation is based on e2perience that, under certain e2ternal circu*stances of ph+sical or *ental shoc;, a stress of nervous e2cite*ent *a+ be produced in a spectator $hich stills the reflective faculties and re*oves their control, so that the utterance $hich then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions alread+ produced b+ the e2ternal shoc;. ,ince this utterance is *ade under the i**ediate and uncontrolled do*ination of the senses, rather than reason and reflection, and during the brief period $hen consideration of self-interest could not have been full+ brought to bear, the utterance *a+ be ta;en as e2pressing the real belief of the spea;er as to the facts )ust observed b+ hi*.7/ <he victi*Ns infor*ation to Ca*ilo and ,egundino as to the *aterial facts $as *ade i**ediatel+ after the startling incident occurred. It is as categorical as it is spontaneous and instinctive. It cannot be concluded that in a ver+ short span of ti*e, ta;ing into consideration the ripe age of the victi*, his relationship to appellant, and the cruelt+ and suffering $hich i**ediatel+ preceded the confession, the victi* had the opportunit+ to concoct the facts surrounding the incident and its authorship. Besides, there appears to be no reason or *otive on the part of the victi* to point his son as the culprit if such $ere not indeed the truth. AppellantNs into2ication at the ti*e of the co**ission of the cri*e, being an alternative circu*stance under Article .5 of the 'evised Penal Code, *a+ be appreciated as aggravating if the sa*e is habitual or intentional, other$ise it shall be considered as a *itigating circu*stance. <he trial court observed% &e no$ co*e to another *atter, $hich is the fact that during the incident, the accused $as drun;. <his $as testified to b+ Ca*ilo Cudal and ad*itted b+ the $ife of the accused. <he accused hi*self ad*itted that he had been drin;ing $ith his cousins and nephe$s, but he clai*s that he did not drin; *uch. >run;enness is an alternative circu*stance. It is aggravating if the accused is a habitual drun;ard. It is *itigating if it is other$ise. <he date of the incident is t$o /# hours after *idnight $hich ushered in the ne$ +ear. Before that, the accused and his relatives $ere celebrating and the+ dran; ,an =iguel gin. No evidence $as presented to establish that he is a habitual drun;ard. It is a legal *a2i* that $hen there is doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. <his courtL,M therefore, believes that this should be ta;en as a *itigating circu*stance, $hich is favorable to the accused.77 :nderscoring supplied# Absent an+ sho$ing then that appellantNs into2ication $as habitual or intentional, it *a+ onl+ be considered as *itigating to correctl+ call for the i*position of the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua, in accordance $ith Article 97, paragraph / 7# of the 'evised Penal Code.71 &"E'EF('E, the Court of Appeals >ecision of Februar+ .., /445 $hich affir*ed the (ctober /3, .883 >ecision of Branch 78 of the 'egional <rial Court of -inga+en, Pangasinan, convicting appellant Pablo Cudal of parricide and *eting out the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua is AFFI'=E>. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. --91439 =arch .5, .884 PE<E' PA:- ABA--E I =EN>(KA, petitioner, vs. <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE, AN> <"E "(N('AB-E !:>6E BE'NA'>( E. ,A-:>A'E,, respondents. Faustino C. Fanlo counsel de oficio for petitioner.

FE'NAN, C.!.% <his is a direct appeal fro* the decision of the then Court of First Instance of >avao Cit+, Branch II, finding petitioner Peter Paul Aballe + =endoBa guilt+ of ho*icide and sentencing hi* to an indeter*inate penalt+ of eight 3# +ears and one .# da+ of prision *a+or to si2teen .9# +ears of reclusion te*poral $ith all the accessor+ penalties and ordering hi* to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased !ennie Banguis + AFuino in the a*ount of P./,444.44 and to pa+ the a*ount of P5,444.44 as actual and co*pensator+ da*ages. . At around seven o@cloc; in the evening of Nove*ber 0, .834 in ,a+pon, <oril, >avao Cit+, Guirino Banguis, a 1/-+ear old driver, attended a birthda+ part+ at the residence of his neighbor Aguilles =ora. "e brought along his $ife and other children, leaving his ./-+ear-old daughter !ennie alone in their house. / :pon their return at around 3%74 that sa*e night, Guirino found !ennie in the sala, l+ing prostrate, bathed in her o$n blood $ith *ultiple $ounds on different parts of her bod+. <here $ere no e+e$itnesses to the biBarre ;illing. <he post*orte* report disclosed that !ennie sustained a total of thirt+-t$o 7/# stab $ounds. Cause of death $as attributed to he*orrhage secondar+ to *ultiple stab $ounds. 7 At da+brea; of the follo$ing da+, Nove*ber 3, .834, acting on infor*ation furnished b+ the victi*@s father, a police tea* headed b+ ,ergeant "er*inigildo =arante sought the accused Peter Paul Aballe for Fuestioning. <he+ found hi* )ust as he $as co*ing out of the co**unal bathroo* in ,a+pon and $earing $hat appeared to be a bloodstained <-shirt. :pon seeing ,gt. =arante, the accused $ithout an+one as;ing hi*, orall+ ad*itted that he ;illed !ennie Banguis. ,gt. =arante subseFuentl+ brought hi* to the <oril police station for interrogation.

Page1

&hile under custodial investigation, Aballe, .0 +ears old, a school dropout he finished second +ear high school# and ne2t door neighbor of the victi*, brought the police to his house and pointed to the* the pot at the "bangera" $here he had concealed the death $eapon $hich $as a four-inch ;itchen ;nife. 1 Also ta;en fro* Aballe $as the bloodstained red and $hite striped <-shirt $hich he clai*ed he $ore during the co**ission of the cri*e. 5 Aballe also *ade an e2tra)udicial confession ad*itting his guilt in ;illing !ennie $hile under the influence of liFuor and *ari)uana. 9 <he s$orn affidavit in the *ain reads as follo$s% Preli*inar+ Guestion% =r. Aballe, +ou are under investigation in connection $ith an offense. An+ state*ent +ou *a+ give *a+ be use sic# for or against +ou in court in the future. :nder our Ne$ Constitution, +ou have the right to re*ain silent and the right to the presence and assistance of a counsel of +our o$n choice, do +ou understandH >o +ou $aive all these rightsH Ans$er% Ies sir. G After apprising +ou of +our rights under our ne$ Constitution, do +ou still $ish to proceed $ith this investigationH A Ies sir. G Are +ou $illing to $aive all these rightsH A Ies sir. . . . G If so $ill +ou please state +our na*e and other personal circu*stances. A Peter Paul Aballe + =endoBa, .0 +ears old, single, a high school drop out, )obless and presentl+ residing at ,a+pon, Crossing Ba+abas, <oril, >avao Cit+. G Are +ou a$are on $h+ +ou are in this (fficeH A I a* here sir in connection $ith the death of a *inor !ENNI BAN6:I, I AG:IN(, our neighbor in the night of Nove*ber 0, .834. G &hat do +ou ;no$ about the death of the said !ENNI BAN6:I,H A I $as the one $ho ;illed her sir $hile she $as sleeping alone at their residence b+ stabbing her $ith the use of a ;itchen ;nife for several ti*es $hile I $as under the influence of liFuor and *ari)uana at about 9%74 P.=. Nove*ber 0, .834. G &here did +ou get the said *ari)uana +ou $ere referring toH A Fro* one alias >odong Flores $ho sold it to *e for Fifteen pesos P.5.44# per *atch bo2. G ,ho$ing +ou this ;itchen ;nife and this blooded sic# <-shirt, Investigator sho$ing the sub)ect a ;itchen ;nife *easuring about 1# inches in length $ith a $ooden handle and a striped <-shirt $ith blood stains# can +ou identif+ this sic#H A <hat is the ver+ sa*e ;nife sir I used in stabbing !ENNI BAN6:l, and that $as the <-shirt I $ore during the incident. G >o +ou have an+ standing grudge $ith the said !ENNIH A No sir, for I onl+ stabbed her $hen she slapped *e after I $o;e her up at their residence $here she $as sleeping alone. G Iou *ean to sa+ that +ou )ust stabbed her because she slapped +ou $hen +ou $o;e her upH A Ies sir, and I $as not at *+ right sense for I $as under influence of liFuor and the *ari)uana I too;. G After +ou have stabbed her, $here did +ou goH A I $ent to $atch television at the residence of one Alias =a at ,a+pon, Crossing Ba+abas, <oril, >avao Cit+ and I onl+ ;ne$ that the said !ENNI BAN6:I, $as dead the *orning after and I $as apprehended b+ the Police and $as brought to this office. G I have no *ore to as;, do +ou have so*ething *ore to sa+ in investigationH A No *ore sir. G Are +ou $illing to affi2 +our signature in this state*ent signif+ing veracit+ to the best of +our ;no$ledge and belief H A Ies sir, . . . . 0 &hereupon, an infor*ation $as filed against Aballe, charging hi* $ith ho*icide penaliBed under Article /18 of the 'evised Penal Code. 3 At his arraign*ent on April .7, .83., he pleaded not guilt+. 8 "e also disavo$ed his e2tra)udicial confession on the ground that it $as obtained through coercion and in the absence of counsel. Aballe@s repudiation of his earlier confession not$ithstanding, the trial court convicted the accused of the cri*e of ho*icide. .4 In this petition for revie$ on certiorari, Aballe contends that the trial court erred in giving full $eight to his e2tra)udicial confession ta;en during custodial investigation and in i*posing a penalt+ $hich $as not in accordance $ith la$. <he argu*ent that Aballe@s e2tra)udicial ad*ission should have been disregarded b+ the lo$er court for having been obtained in violation of Aballe@s constitutional rights is $ell ta;en. <hroughout the custodial interrogation, the accused@s parents and relatives $ere al*ost al$a+s around but at no stage of the entire proceedings $as it sho$n that the +outhful offender $as ever represented b+ counsel. ,ince the e2ecution of the e2tra)udicial state*ent ..$as ad*ittedl+ *ade in the absence of counsel, $hether de oficio or de parte, and the $aiver of counsel $as not *ade $ith the assistance of counsel as *andated b+ the provisions of ,ection /4, Article IE of the .807 Constitution, said confession should have been discarded b+ the lo$er court. ./

Page1

Indeed, eFuall+ inad*issible is the ;itchen ;nife .7 recovered fro* Aballe after his capture and after the police had started to Fuestion hi*. <ogether $ith the e2tra)udicial confession, the fatal $eapon is but a fruit of a constitutionall+ infir*ed interrogation and *ust conseFuentl+ be disallo$ed. <he bloodstained <-shirt, .1 ho$ever, is ad*issible, being in the nature of an evidence in plain vie$ .5 $hich an arresting officer *a+ ta;e and introduce in evidence. <he prevailing rule in this )urisdiction is that "an officer *a;ing an arrest *a+ ta;e fro* the person arrested an+ *one+ or propert+ found upon his person $hich $as used in the co**ission of the cri*e or $as the fruit of the cri*e or $hich *ight furnish the prisoner $ith the *eans of co**itting violence or escaping, or $hich *a+ be used in evidence in the trial of the cause . . ." .9 But even $ith the e2clusion of the e2tra)udicial confession and the fatal $eapon $e agree $ith the trial court that the guilt of the accused has been established be+ond reasonable doubt. It is $ell to note that even before the ta;ing of the e2tra)udicial confession, the accused, upon being pic;ed up in the *orning of Nove*ber 3, .834 as he $as co*ing out of the co**unal bathroo* and $earing a <-shirt covered $ith bloodstains $hich he tried to cover $ith his hands, suddenl+ bro;e do$n and ;nelt before ,gt. =arante and confessed that he ;illed !ennie Banguis. <he testi*on+ of ,gt. =arante on Aballe@s oral confession is co*petent evidence to positivel+ lin; the accused to the aforesaid ;illing. "is testi*on+ reads in part% G% In the *orning of Nove*ber 3, .834, $here $ere +ou at that ti*eH A% At the police station. G% And could +ou tell us of an+ unusual incidentH A% <he father of the deceased ca*e to the office and he told us that he suspected so*ebod+ $ho* he observed to be suspicious so $e responded i**ediatel+ to the call of assistance of the father and $ent bac; to the scene of the incident and as;ed for the $hereabouts of the person $ho* he confided to us the na*e. G% And $hat did +ou find outH A% ,o*ebod+ told us that the sub)ect $as still in a co**on bathroo* so I posted *+self outside the bathroo*. G% <his sub)ect +ou are referring to ,gt. =arante, $ho is heH A% Peter Paul Aballe. 222 222 222 G% And after finding out that . . . ah, b+ the $a+, $here $as the bathroo*H A% It $as a co**on bathroo* located )ust a fe$ *eters a$a+ fro* infront of his house. 222 222 222 G% And $hen +ou found out that the sub)ect $as still in the bathroo* $hat did +ou doH A% I $aited until he ca*e out. G% And did that person co*e outsideH A% Ies, sir. G% Is he the accusedH A% Ies, sir. G% &hat happened ne2tH A% I sa$ bloodstains in his <-shirt and I pointed to the bloodstain and he tried to cover it and I notice again that he had a s$ollen ;nuc;le A and I as;ed hi* $hat is this and then he bro;e do$n, held *+ hand, ;nelt do$n and confessed that he $as the one $ho ;illed the victi* and I said +ou stop that because $hatever +ou $ill sa+ no$ *ight led sic# +ou to )ail and he continued and so I as;ed hi* $here is sic# his parents and the *other $as no$here to be found and I as;ed for his relatives and the+ acco*panied hi* to the police station. At the police station the *other later arrived and I told her that +our son confessed to the co**ission of the cri*e. G% And in the station $hat did +ou do per +our procedureH A% As I $as appraising sic# hi* or as;ing hi* in front of her sic# *other I still repeated the sa*e thing. I appraised sic# hi* if he needs a la$+er and he said he does not need a la$+er because he )ust $anted to tell the truth. And in the course, I called the des; officer to record $hat he *entioned as to the co**ission of the cri*e. G% Aside fro* the ad*ission of the accused in this case $hat other ph+sical ob)ects of the cri*e $ere +ou able to recoverH A% I $as able to recover the fatal $eapon, the ;nife. G% &hereH A% Fro* the house of the accused. G% &ho gave it to +ouH A% <he accused hi*self. G% &hat elseH A% <he <-shirt $ith bloodstain. G% &here is the ;nife no$H A% In the possession of the des; officer in <oril.

Page1

G% And also the <-shirtH A% Ies sir. G% ,o after intervie$ing the accused, $hat other procedure follo$edH A% <he accused $as indorsed to the office investigator to ta;e do$n the state*ent of said accused. 222 222 222 G% &hen did +ou apprehend the accused, $hile he $as inside or alread+ outside the bathroo*H A% "e $as co*ing out. 222 222 222 G% &hat $as he $earingH A% <-shirt $ith bloodstain on the breast that is $h+ I as;ed hi* i**ediatel+ $hat is this and I pointed to the bloodstain. G% =r. =arante +ou i**ediatel+ as;ed or rather +ou infor*ed the accused i**ediatel+ of the death of !ennie Banguis after getting out of the bathroo*H A% "e confessed to *e. G% Iou )ust ans$er the Fuestion, did +ou infor* hi*H A% No, I did not. G% ,o $ithout infor*ing hi* about it as +ou said he i**ediatel+ confessed. A% Ies, sir. G% At that ti*e $ere +ou in +our police unifor*H A% No, I $as in civilian. G% &ithout even introducing +ourself at that ti*e is $as onl+ after bringing the accused to the police station did he ;no$ that +ou $ere a >eput+ >istrict Co**ander of the police in <orilH A% Probabl+ +es. .0 "<he declaration of an accused e2pressl+ ac;no$ledging his guilt of the offenses charged *a+ be given in evidence against hi*." .3 <he rule is that an+ person, other$ise co*petent as a $itness, $ho heard the confession, is co*petent to testif+ as to the substance of $hat he heard if he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbati*, but in such case it *ust be given in its substance. /7 C.!.,. .89# .8 Co*pliance $ith the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicable to a spontaneous state*ent, not elicited through Fuestioning, but given in an ordinar+ *anner, $hereb+ the accused orall+ ad*itted having slain the victi*. /4 <he penalt+ decreed b+ the lo$er court *ust ho$ever be *odified. <he ;illing of !ennie is *itigated b+ *inorit+ the accused $as born on !une /8, .897#, but it is aggravated b+ d$elling since !ennie $as fatall+ stabbed $hile in her parents@ house, a fact overloo;ed b+ the trial court. Not having been alleged in the infor*ation, d$elling is considered generic and cannot therefore offset *inorit+ $hich is a privileged *itigating circu*stance. <he i*posable penalt+ for ho*icide under Article /18 of the 'evised Penal Code is reclusion te*poral. For being onl+ .0 +ears, 1 *onths and 3 da+s of age at the ti*e of the co**ission of the offense, the penalt+ ne2t lo$er than that prescribed b+ la$ shall be i*posed on the accused but al$a+s in the proper period. &ith the aggravating circu*stance of d$elling, the penalt+ is i*posable in its *a2i*u* period or fro* ten .4# +ears and one .# da+ to t$elve ./# +ears or prision *a+or *a2i*u*. /. Appl+ing the Indeter*inate ,entence -a$, the range of the penalt+ ne2t lo$er is fro* si2 9# *onths and one .# da+ to si2 9# +ears of prision correccional. &"E'EF('E, the appealed )udg*ent of conviction is hereb+ AFFI'=E> $ith the penalt+ *odified to an indeter*inate sentence of si2 9# +ears of prision correccional as *ini*u* to t$elve ./# +ears of prision *a+or as *a2i*u*. <he civil inde*nit+ is increased to P74,444.44 in accordance $ith recent )urisprudence. Costs against the accused Peter Paul Aballe. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. N(. .10478 !anuar+ /0, /449

>BP P((- (F ACC'E>I<E> IN,:'ANCE C(=PANIE,, Petitioner, vs. 'A>I( =IN>ANA( NE<&('P, INC., 'espondent. >ECI,I(N A:,<'IA-=A'<INEK, !.% <his refers to the petition for certiorari under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court see;ing the revie$ of the >ecision. dated Nove*ber .9, /444 of the Court of Appeals CA# in CA-6.'. CE No. 5975., the dispositive portion of $hich reads% &herefore, pre*ises considered, the appealed >ecision of the 'egional <rial Court of =a;ati Cit+, Branch .73 in Civil Case No. 84-94/ is hereb+ AFFI'=E> $ith =(>IFICA<I(N in that the interest rate is hereb+ reduced to 9] per annu*.

Page1

Costs against the defendants-appellants. ,( ('>E'E>./ <he assailed decision originated fro* Civil Case No. 84-94/ filed b+ 'adio =indanao Net$or;, Inc. respondent# against >BP Pool of Accredited Insurance Co*panies petitioner# and Provident Insurance Corporation Provident# for recover+ of insurance benefits. 'espondent o$ns several broadcasting stations all over the countr+. Provident covered respondentNs trans*itter eFuip*ent and generating set for the a*ount of P.7,554,444.44 under Fire Insurance Polic+ No. 74751, $hile petitioner covered respondentNs trans*itter, furniture, fi2ture and other trans*itter facilities for the a*ount of P5,337,954.44 under Fire Insurance Polic+ No. F-99394. In the evening of !ul+ /0, .833, respondentNs radio station located in ,,, Building, Bacolod Cit+, $as raBed b+ fire causing da*age in the a*ount of P.,411,414.44. 'espondent sought recover+ under the t$o insurance policies but the clai*s $ere denied on the ground that the cause of loss $as an e2cepted ris; e2cluded under condition no. 9 c# and d#, to $it% 9. <his insurance does not cover an+ loss or da*age occasioned b+ or through or in conseFuence, directl+ or indirectl+, of an+ of the follo$ing conseFuences, na*el+% c# &ar, invasion, act of foreign ene*+, hostilities, or $arli;e operations $hether $ar be declared or not#, civil $ar. d# =utin+, riot, *ilitar+ or popular rising, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, *ilitar+ or usurped po$er.7 <he insurance co*panies *aintained that the evidence sho$ed that the fire $as caused b+ *e*bers of the Co**unist Part+ of the PhilippinesDNe$ PeopleNs Ar*+ CPPDNPA#C and conseFuentl+, denied the clai*s. "ence, respondent $as constrained to file Civil Case No. 84-94/ against petitioner and Provident. After trial on the *erits, the 'egional <rial Court of =a;ati, Branch .73, rendered a decision in favor of respondent. <he dispositive portion of the decision reads% IN EIE& <"E'E(F, )udg*ent is rendered in favor of plaintiff. >efendant Provident Insurance Corporation is directed to pa+ plaintiff the a*ount of P154,444.44 representing the value of the destro+ed propert+ insured under its Fire Insurance Polic+ plus ./] legal interest fro* =arch /, .884 the date of the filing of the Co*plaint. >efendant >BP Pool Accredited Insurance Co*panies is li;e$ise ordered to pa+ plaintiff the su* of P94/,944.44 representing the value of the destro+ed propert+ under its Fire Insurance Polic+ plus ./] legal interest fro* =arch /, .884. ,( ('>E'E>.1 Both insurance co*panies appealed fro* the trial courtNs decision but the CA affir*ed the decision, $ith the *odification that the applicable interest rate $as reduced to 9] per annu*. A *otion for reconsideration $as filed b+ petitioner >BP $hich $as denied b+ the CA per its 'esolution dated !anuar+ 74, /44..5 "ence, herein petition b+ >BP Pool of Accredited Insurance Co*panies,9 $ith the follo$ing assign*ent of errors% Assign*ent of Errors <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> &"EN I< "E-> <"A< <"E'E &E'E N( ,:FFICIEN< EEI>ENCE ,"(&IN6 <"A< <"E APP'(UI=A<E-I <EN<I LsicM /4# A'=E> =EN &"( C:,E> LsicM <"E FI'E A< 'E,P(N>EN<N, '=N P'(PE'<I A< BAC(-(> CI<I &E'E =E=BE', (F <"E CPP-NPA. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> &"EN I< A>!:>6E> <"A< 'E,P(N>EN< '=N CANN(< BE"E-> LsicM F(' >A=A6E, AN> A<<('NEIN, FEE, F(' IN,<I<:<IN6 <"E P'E,EN< AC<I(N A6AIN,< <"E PE<I<I(NE' :N>E' A'<IC-E, /., //43, ///8 AN> //7/ (F <"E CIEI- C(>E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,.0 Petitioner assails the factual finding of both the trial court and the CA that its evidence failed to support its allegation that the loss $as caused b+ an e2cepted ris;, i.e., *e*bers of the CPPDNPA caused the fire. In upholding respondentNs clai* for inde*nit+, the trial court found that% <he onl+ evidence $hich the Court can consider to deter*ine if the fire $as due to the intentional act co**itted b+ the *e*bers of the Ne$ PeopleNs Ar*+ NPA#, are the testi*on+ LsicM of $itnesses -t. Col. Nicolas <orres and ,P(7 -eonardo 'ochar $ho $ere ad*ittedl+ not present $hen the fire occurred. <heir testi*on+ LsicM $as LsicM li*ited to the fact that an investigation $as conducted and in the course of the investigation the+ $ere infor*ed b+ b+standers that "heavil+ ar*ed *en entered the trans*itter house, poured gasoline in sic# it and then lighted it. After that, the+ $ent out shouting "=abuha+ ang NPA" <,N, p. ./., August /, .885#. <he persons $ho* the+ investigated and actuall+ sa$ the burning of the station $ere not presented as $itnesses. <he docu*entar+ evidence particularl+ E2hibits "5" and "5-C" do not satisfactoril+ prove that the author of the burning $ere *e*bers of the NPA. E2hibit "5-B" $hich is a letter released b+ the NPA *erel+ *entions so*e dissatisfaction $ith the activities of so*e people in the *edia in Bacolod. <here $as no *ention there of an+ threat on *edia facilities.3 <he CA $ent over the evidence on record and sustained the findings of the trial court, to $it% <o recapitulate, defendants-appellants presented the follo$ing to support its clai*, to $it% police blotter of the burning of >I"B, certification of the Negros (ccidental Integrated National Police, Bacolod Cit+ regarding the incident, letter of alleged NPA *e*bers Celso =agsilang clai*ing responsibilit+ for the burning of >I"B, fire investigation report dated !ul+ /8, .833, and the testi*onies of -t. Col. Nicolas <orres and ,F( III -eonardo 'ochas. &e e2a*ined carefull+ the report on the police blotter of the burning of >I"B, the certification issued b+ the Integrated National Police of Bacolod Cit+ and the fire investigation report prepared b+ ,F( III 'ochas and there &e found that none of the* categoricall+ stated that the t$ent+ /4# ar*ed *en $hich burned >I"B $ere *e*bers of the CPPDNPA. <he said docu*ents si*pl+ stated that the said ar*ed *en $ere ObelievedN to be or OsuspectedN of being *e*bers of the said group. Even ,F( III 'ochas ad*itted that he $as not sure that the said ar*ed *en $ere *e*bers of the CPP-NPA, thus% X In fact the onl+ person $ho see*s to be so sure that that the CPP-NPA had a hand in the burning of >I"B $as -t. Col. Nicolas <orres. "o$ever, though &e found hi* to be persuasive in his testi*on+ regarding ho$ he ca*e to arrive at his opinion, &e cannot nevertheless ad*it his testi*on+ as conclusive proof that the CPP-NPA $as reall+ involved in the

Page1

incident considering that he ad*itted that he did not personall+ see the ar*ed *en even as he tried to pursue the*. Note that $hen -t. Col. <orres $as presented as $itness, he $as presented as an ordinar+ $itness onl+ and not an e2pert $itness. "ence, his opinion on the identit+ or *e*bership of the ar*ed *en $ith the CPP-NPA is not ad*issible in evidence. Anent the letter of a certain Celso =agsilang, $ho clai*s to be a *e*ber of NPA-NI'(C, being an ad*ission of person $hich is not a part+ to the present action, is li;e$ise inad*issible in evidence under ,ection //, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court. <he reason being that an ad*ission is co*petent onl+ $hen the declarant, or so*eone identified in legal interest $ith hi*, is a part+ to the action.8 <he Court $ill not disturb these factual findings absent co*pelling or e2ceptional reasons. It should be stressed that a revie$ b+ certiorari under 'ule 15 is a *atter of discretion. :nder this *ode of revie$, the )urisdiction of the Court is li*ited to revie$ing onl+ errors of la$, not of fact..4 =oreover, $hen supported b+ substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affir*ed b+ the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties,.. $hich this Court $ill not revie$ unless there are e2ceptional circu*stances. <here are no e2ceptional circu*stances in this case that $ould have i*pelled the Court to depart fro* the factual findings of both the trial court and the CA. Both the trial court and the CA $ere correct in ruling that petitioner failed to prove that the loss $as caused b+ an e2cepted ris;. Petitioner argues that private respondent is responsible for proving that the cause of the da*ageDloss is covered b+ the insurance polic+, as stipulated in the insurance polic+, to $it% X An+ loss or da*age happening during the e2istence of abnor*al conditions $hether ph+sical or other$ise# $hich are occasioned b+ or through in conseFuence directl+ or indirectl+, of an+ of the said occurrences shall be dee*ed to be loss or da*age $hich is not covered b+ the insurance, e2cept to the e2tent that the Insured shall prove that such loss or da*age happened independentl+ of the e2istence of such abnor*al conditions. In an+ action, suit or other proceeding $here the Co*panies allege that b+ reason of the provisions of this condition an+ loss or da*age is not covered b+ this insurance, the burden of proving that such loss or da*age is covered shall be upon the Insured../ An insurance contract, being a contract of adhesion, should be so interpreted as to carr+ out the purpose for $hich the parties entered into the contract $hich is to insure against ris;s of loss or da*age to the goods. -i*itations of liabilit+ should be regarded $ith e2tre*e )ealous+ and *ust be construed in such a $a+ as to preclude the insurer fro* nonco*pliance $ith its obligations..7 <he "burden of proof" conte*plated b+ the aforesaid provision actuall+ refers to the "burden of evidence" burden of going for$ard#..1 As applied in this case, it refers to the dut+ of the insured to sho$ that the loss or da*age is covered b+ the polic+. <he foregoing clause not$ithstanding, the burden of proof still rests upon petitioner to prove that the da*age or loss $as caused b+ an e2cepted ris; in order to escape an+ liabilit+ under the contract. Burden of proof is the dut+ of an+ part+ to present evidence to establish his clai* or defense b+ the a*ount of evidence reFuired b+ la$, $hich is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. <he part+, $hether plaintiff or defendant, $ho asserts the affir*ative of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable )udg*ent. For the plaintiff, the burden of proof never parts..5 For the defendant, an affir*ative defense is one $hich is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiffNs cause of action, but one $hich, if established, $ill be a good defense R i.e. an "avoidance" of the clai*..9 Particularl+, in insurance cases, $here a ris; is e2cepted b+ the ter*s of a polic+ $hich insures against other perils or haBards, loss fro* such a ris; constitutes a defense $hich the insurer *a+ urge, since it has not assu*ed that ris;, and fro* this it follo$s that an insurer see;ing to defeat a clai* because of an e2ception or li*itation in the polic+ has the burden of proving that the loss co*es $ithin the purvie$ of the e2ception or li*itation set up. If a proof is *ade of a loss apparentl+ $ithin a contract of insurance, the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose fro* a cause of loss $hich is e2cepted or for $hich it is not liable, or fro* a cause $hich li*its its liabilit+..0 ConseFuentl+, it is sufficient for private respondent to prove the fact of da*age or loss. (nce respondent *a;es out a pri*a facie case in its favor, the dut+ or the burden of evidence shifts to petitioner to controvert respondentNs pri*a facie case..3 In this case, since petitioner alleged an e2cepted ris;, then the burden of evidence shifted to petitioner to prove such e2ception. It is onl+ $hen petitioner has sufficientl+ proven that the da*age or loss $as caused b+ an e2cepted ris; does the burden of evidence shift bac; to respondent $ho is then under a dut+ of producing evidence to sho$ $h+ such e2cepted ris; does not release petitioner fro* an+ liabilit+. :nfortunatel+ for petitioner, it failed to discharge its pri*ordial burden of proving that the da*age or loss $as caused b+ an e2cepted ris;. Petitioner ho$ever, insists that the evidence on record established the identit+ of the author of the da*age. It argues that the trial court and the CA erred in not appreciating the reports of $itnesses -t. Col <orres and ,F( II 'ochar that the b+standers the+ intervie$ed clai*ed that the perpetrators $ere *e*bers of the CPPDNPA as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule as part of res gestae. A $itness can testif+ onl+ to those facts $hich he ;no$s of his personal ;no$ledge, $hich *eans those facts $hich are derived fro* his perception..8 A $itness *a+ not testif+ as to $hat he *erel+ learned fro* others either because he $as told or read or heard the sa*e. ,uch testi*on+ is considered hearsa+ and *a+ not be received as proof of the truth of $hat he has learned. <he hearsa+ rule is based upon serious concerns about the trust$orthiness and reliabilit+ of hearsa+ evidence inas*uch as such evidence are not given under oath or sole*n affir*ation and, *ore i*portantl+, have not been sub)ected to cross-e2a*ination b+ opposing counsel to test the perception, *e*or+, veracit+ and articulateness of the outof-court declarant or actor upon $hose reliabilit+ on $hich the $orth of the out-of-court state*ent depends./4 'es gestae, as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule, refers to those e2cla*ations and state*ents *ade b+ either the participants, victi*s, or spectators to a cri*e i**ediatel+ before, during, or after the co**ission of the cri*e, $hen the circu*stances are such that the state*ents $ere *ade as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired b+ the e2cite*ent of the occasion and there $as no opportunit+ for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false state*ent. <he rule in res gestae applies $hen the declarant hi*self did not testif+ and provided that the testi*on+ of the $itness $ho heard the

Page1

declarant co*plies $ith the follo$ing reFuisites% .# that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrenceC /# the state*ents $ere *ade before the declarant had the ti*e to contrive or devise a falsehoodC and 7# that the state*ents *ust concern the occurrence in Fuestion and its i**ediate attending circu*stances./. <he Court is not convinced to accept the declarations as part of res gestae. &hile it *a+ concede that these state*ents $ere *ade b+ the b+standers during a startling occurrence, it cannot be said ho$ever, that these utterances $ere *ade spontaneousl+ b+ the b+standers and before the+ had the ti*e to contrive or devise a falsehood. Both ,F( III 'ochar and -t. Col. <orres received the b+standersN state*ents $hile the+ $ere *a;ing their investigations during and after the fire. It is reasonable to assu*e that $hen these state*ents $ere noted do$n, the b+standers alread+ had enough ti*e and opportunit+ to *ill around, tal; to one another and e2change infor*ation, not to *ention theories and speculations, as is the usual e2perience in disFuieting situations $here h+steria is li;el+ to ta;e place. It cannot therefore be ascertained $hether these utterances $ere the products of truth. <hat the utterances *a+ be *ere idle tal; is not re*ote. At best, the testi*onies of ,F( III 'ochar and -t. Col. <orres that these state*ents $ere *ade *a+ be considered as independentl+ relevant state*ents gathered in the course of their investigation, and are ad*issible not as to the veracit+ thereof but to the fact that the+ had been thus uttered.// Further*ore, ad*issibilit+ of evidence should not be eFuated $ith its $eight and sufficienc+./7 Ad*issibilit+ of evidence depends on its relevance and co*petence, $hile the $eight of evidence pertains to evidence alread+ ad*itted and its tendenc+ to convince and persuade./1 Even assu*ing that the declaration of the b+standers that it $as the *e*bers of the CPPDNPA $ho caused the fire *a+ be ad*itted as evidence, it does not follo$ that such declarations are sufficient proof. <hese declarations should be calibrated vis-f-vis the other evidence on record. And the trial court aptl+ noted that there is a need for additional convincing proof, viB.% <he Court finds the foregoing to be insufficient to establish that the cause of the fire $as the intentional burning of the radio facilities b+ the rebels or an act of insurrection, rebellion or usurped po$er. Evidence that persons $ho burned the radio facilities shouted "=abuha+ ang NPA" does not furnish logical conclusion that the+ are *e*ber LsicM of the NPA or that their act $as an act of rebellion or insurrection. Additional convincing proof need be sub*itted. >efendants failed to discharge their responsibilit+ to present adeFuate proof that the loss $as due to a ris; e2cluded./5 &hile the docu*entar+ evidence presented b+ petitioner, i.e., .# the police blotterC /# the certification fro* the Bacolod Police ,tationC and 7# the Fire Investigation 'eport *a+ be considered e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule, being entries in official records, nevertheless, as noted b+ the CA, none of these docu*ents categoricall+ stated that the perpetrators $ere *e*bers of the CPPDNPA./9 'ather, it $as stated in the police blotter that% "a group of persons acco*panied b+ one .# $o*an all believed to be CPPDNPA X *ore or less /4 persons suspected to be CPPDNPA,"/0 $hile the certification fro* the Bacolod Police station stated that "X so*e /4 or *ore ar*ed *en believed to be *e*bers of the Ne$ PeopleNs Ar*+ NPA,"/3 and the fire investigation report concluded that " I#t is therefore believed b+ this Investigating <ea* that the cause of the fire is intentional, and the ar*ed *en suspected to be *e*bers of the CPPDNPA $here sic# the ones responsible X"/8 All these docu*ents sho$ that indeed, the "suspected" e2ecutor of the fire $ere believed to be *e*bers of the CPPDNPA. But suspicion alone is not sufficient, preponderance of evidence being the Fuantu* of proof. All told, the Court finds no reason to grant the present petition. &"E'EF('E, the petition is >I,=I,,E>. <he Court of Appeals >ecision dated Nove*ber .9, /444 and 'esolution dated !anuar+ 74, /44. rendered in CA-6.'. CE No. 5975. are AFFI'=E> in toto. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC 6.'. No. --939/4 !ul+ //, .839 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. F'E>>IE <:-A6AN alias "Eding", EA-EN<IN >E 6:K=AN alias ",atso+", alias "Eicente", 'A=(N =EN>(KA, and '(=E( "'o*ie" =EN>(KA, accused, '(=E( "'o*ie" =EN>(KA, accused-appellant.

NA'EA,A, !.% (n the night of =a+ .8, .808, at about .. o@cloc;, =arlon Catungal .8, died a violent death, succu*bing to ",hoc;, due to severe he*orrhage, secondar+ to stab $ound, anterior chest." E2h. F-/#. <he fatal stab $ound is described in the autops+ report ., as follo$s% ... stab $ound, elliptical in shape, . .D/ inches in length, located . inch fro* left para-sternal region at level of 5th intercostal space, directed up$ard, penetrating the upper portion of anterior lobe of left lung and the ascending portion of the aorta. No one sa$ precisel+ ho$, $here and $hen that single stab $ound $as inflicted, or b+ $ho*, but there see*s to be no Fuestion A both prosecution and defense agreeing on this point A that the deceased $as ;illed $hile atte*pting to flee fro* at least t$o *en, Identified as Freddie or Eding# <ulagan and Ealentin ",atso+" de 6uB*an. <he chase began at or near the public hall of Baranga+ >on Pedro, =alasiFui, Pangasinan, $here a dance $as being held on the occasion of the barrio fiesta, and ended, tragicall+ for Catungal, at the porch aBotea# of the house of a certain Cesar Evangelista, so*e 744 *eters a$a+. <he deceased appeared to have been carried, after he had been fatall+ stabbed, fro* the house of Evangelista to the shoulder of the provincial road about .4 *eters a$a+, $here his corpse $as later found b+ police investigators and baranga+ officials. <he onl+ person $ith an+ clai* to so*e sort of direct observation of the pursuit and its sanguinar+ ending is Bonifacio :landa+, $ho gave a s$orn state*ent before the provincial Fiscal at >agupan Cit+ on !une 9, .808 / and later testified before the <rial Court 7 "is version of the seFuence of events leading to the death of =arlon Catungal is as follo$s%

Page1

.. <he chase began at the dance hall, at about .4 o@cloc; p.*., after =arion Catungal $as accosted b+ Ealentin de 6uB*an alias ",atso+" and 7 other persons. /. =arlon Catungal ran a$a+ $hen he sa$ ",atso+" receive a "balisong" about a foot long fro* one of his co*panions. 7. In :landa+@s $ords% ",atso+ chased =arlon Catungal." "&hen ,atso+ chased =arlon, his three other co*panions also chased =arlon." "I follo$ed the* to the direction $here the+ proceeded." 1 1. :landa+ follo$ed in such a $a+ as to avoid being noticed b+ the pursuers, sta+ing about .5 *eters behind the* 5. 5. :landa+ "onl+ lost sight of the four persons running after =arlon Catungal $hen said =arlon Catungal entered a certain +ard" 9C he "never sa$ he @did not $itness@# ho$ the four allegedl+ overtoo; =arlon Catungal." 0 he "did not see an+ person $ho stabbed or ;illed =arlon Catungal." 3 9. :landa+ "onl+ sa$ four persons $ho lifted hi* and placed hi* in front of that big house", at $hich ti*e =arlon $as "*otionless" and blood $as ooBing fro* the bod+ of =arlon Catungal 8 $hat :landa+ said in his state*ent before the Provincial Fiscal .4 is% &hile I $as running to$ards the North follo$ing the pursuers# I sa$ ,atso+ and his co*panions carr+ing the cadaver of =arlon Catungal fro* the aBotea of a house located around ten *eters a$a+ fro* the road to Ba+a*bang." "<he+ placed the cadaver of =arion Catungal on the left side of the road fro* =alasiFui ... (n the basis of the above-*entioned s$orn state*ent of Bonifacio :landa+ ./ and those of Baranga+ Captain !ose B. =acaraeg and his daughter, Natalia =acaraeg, an infor*ation $as filed $ith the Circuit Cri*inal Court at >agupan Cit+, doc;eted as Cri*inal Case No. CCC-III-417/, charging Freddie <ulagan alias "Eding," Ealentin de 6uB*an alias ",atso+," 'o*ie =endoBa and 'a*on =endoBa $ith the cri*e of *urder, allegedl+ co**itted as follo$s% <hat in the evening of =a+ .8, .808 in the baranga+ of >on Pedro, *unicipalit+ of =alasiFui, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the abovena*ed accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, $ith intent to ;ill, evident pre*editation and ta;ing advantage of their superior strength, did then and there $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ stab =arlon Catunggal $hen said =arlon Catunggal $as held helpless and defenseless b+ accused Freddie <ulagan alias Eding, 'a*on =endoBa and 'o*ie =endoBa and Ealentin de 6uB*an alias ,atso+ alias Eicente, ar*ed $ith a sharp pointed instru*ent delivered the fatal $ound $hich resulted in the instantaneous death of =arlon Catunggal .7 As *a+ at once be perceived, there is no direct evidence to establish $hat is alleged in the underscored portion of the infor*ation% that ",atso+" Ealentin de 6uB*an# stabbed =arlon Catungal $hile the latter $as being held "helpless and defenseless" b+ the three 7# other accused. <his Court has e2a*ined the record carefull+, and neither before the Investigating Fiscals nor before the <rial Court $as an+ proof adduced directl+ and positivel+ de*onstrating precisel+ ho$ and b+ $ho* the single fatal $ound $as inflicted. (f the four thus charged, onl+ 'o*ie =endoBa $as arrested. Arraigned, he pleaded not guilt+. After trial, he $as found guilt+ of the offense charged b+ )udg*ent pro*ulgated on August 8, .831, the dispositive portion of $hich reads% &"E'EF('E, the Court finds the accused 'o*eo "'o*ie" =endoBa guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt, as principal of the cri*e of =:'>E' defined and penaliBed under Article /13 of the 'evised Penal Code, and the co**ission of the offense having been attended b+ one generic aggravating circu*stance $ithout an+ *itigating circu*stance, hereb+ sentence hi* to suffer the ,:P'E=E PENA-<I (F >EA<", to inde*nif+ the heirs of the victi* =arlon Catungal in the a*ount P 74,444.44C P.5,444.44 as *oral da*agesC another P.5,444.44 as e2e*plar+ da*agesC and rei*burse the* to a*ount of P.,544.44 for the $a;e plus P/,544.44 for the coffin and P l,/44.44 for the to*b, and to pa+ the costs. -et this case be archived as against accused Freddie <ulagan, Ealentin de 6uB*an alias Eicente alias ,atso+ and 'a*on =endoBa, $ithout pre)udice to its reinstate*ent as against said accused, upon their arrest and upon *otion of the prosecution. <he case is no$ before this Court on auto*atic revie$ .1. <he decision under revie$ la+s stress on a state*ent attributed to one of the suspects, Eicente ",atso+" de 6uB*an b+ prosecution $itness Natalia =acaraeg, $hich the <rial Court dee*ed to be part of the res gestae or an "oral confession." ,aid the Court in this connection% =oreover, the testi*on+ of the prosecution $itness Natalia =acaraeg is clear that $hen she as;ed Eicente de 6uB*an, Freddie <ulagan and 'o*eo =endoBa $hat the+ did to her neighbor $ho is $or;ing $ith the PN', accused Eicente de 6uB*an, $hile standing side b+ side $ith Freddie <ulagan and 'o*eo =endoBa told her that the+ ;illed =arlon Catungal, her neighbor, an e*plo+ee of the Philippine National 'ail$a+s. ... Actuall+ A and this is apparent fro* a reading of Natalia =acaraeg@s testi*on+ A it $as Eicente de 6uB*an $ho supposedl+ volunteered infor*ation, $ithout initiall+ having to be as;ed b+ Natalia. G &hat happened $hen these three persons +ou *entioned arrived in +our store for the second ti*e na;ed $aist upH A Eicente de 6uB*an, alias ,atso+, told *e that the+ ran after *+ neighbor Atchi <aling. G &hat else if an+H A <hen I as;ed the*, $hat did +ou do to hi*H <hen the+ told *e A the+ ran after *+ neighbor $ho is $or;ing $ith the PN'. G &hat did the+ ans$er +ouH A Eicente de 6uB*an told *e that A $e ;illed hi*. .5

...<he state*ent *ade b+ accused Ealentin de 6uB*an alias ,atso+ ... is ad*issible against accused 'o*eo =endoBa as part of the res gestae. ,ection 79, 'ule .74 provides that state*ents *ade b+ a person $hile a startling

Page1

<he <rial Court opined that%

occurrence is ta;ing place or i**ediatel+ prior or subseFuent thereto $ith respect to the circu*stances thereof, *a+ be given in evidence as part of the res gestae 'evised 'ules of Court#. Besides, the state*ent of Ealentin de 6uB*an alias Eicente de 6uB*an ... parta;es of an oral confession or part of the res gestae. <he testi*on+ of Natalia =acaraeg on his point is co*petent evidence. ... .9 <his is error. <hat state*ent is not ad*issible as part of the res gestaeC and considered as an oral confession, it is ad*issible onl+ against Ealentin de 6uB*an, not against an+ other person. <here is no evidence $hatsoever that the state*ent attributed to Ealentin de 6uB*an $as *ade b+ hi* "i**ediatel+ subseFuent" to the startling occurrence $hich the <rial Court obviousl+ had in *ind% the sla+ing of =arion Catungal. (n the contrar+, if account be ta;en of the clai* of another prosecution $itness, Bonifacio :landa+, that he had follo$ed the four persons pursuing the deceased for "al*ost one hour" .0 , it $ould *ost certainl+ have ta;en Ealentin de 6uB*an and his co*panions that length of ti*e to return fro* the cri*e scene to $here the chase had started, or to Natalia@s store. Natalia herself testified that the three 7# accused returned to her store at "about .4%74 P=," or after "*ore or less . .D/ hours." .3 =ore i*portantl+, not ever+ state*ent *ade on the occasion of a startling occurrence is ad*issible as part of the res gestaeC onl+ such are ad*issible as appear to have been involuntaril+ and spontaneousl+ $rung fro* an observer b+ the shoc; or i*pact of the occurrence such that, as has aptl+ been said, it is the event spea;ing through the $itness, not the $itness spea;ing of the event. .8 <he startling occurrence *ust produce so po$erful an effect or influence on the observer as to e2tract fro* his lips so*e description of the event practicall+ $ithout being conscious of his utterance. <here is no indication in the record that Ealentin de 6uB*an $as so affected $hen he *ade the state*ent in Fuestion under the circu*stances related b+ Natalia =acaraeg. Indeed, it *a+ reasonabl+ be inferred fro* Natalia@s testi*on+ that he $as in no$ise agitated, stunned or shoc;ed but $as, on the contrar+, cal*, i*posed, in full possession of his faculties and full+ a$are of $hat he $as doing and sa+ing. "is state*ent regarding the ;illing of =arlon Catungal is not ad*issible as part of the res gestae, contrar+ to the vie$ of the court a Fuo. Considered as an "oral confession," Ealentin de 6uB*an@s state*ent is, of course, ad*issible against hi*, but its use against others for an+ purpose is proscribed b+ the $ell ;no$n rule res inter alios acta /4. <he <rial Court@s use of Natalia =acaraeg@s testi*on+ A regarding ",atso+@s" utterances, as part of the res gestae, therefore, be declared an error. =oreover, there are circu*stances $hich preclude giving full credit to the testi*on+ Natalia =acaraeg, as $ill presentl+ be discussed. <he <rial Court also considered as another incri*inating circu*stance the alleged failure of 'o*ie =endoBa to den+ "certain circu*stances and pieces of evidence." According to the court% Aside fro* the evidence that accused 'o*eo =endoBa, Freddie <ulagan and Ealentin de 6uB*an chased =arlon Catungal at =a+ .8, .808 at around 8%44 o@cloc; in the evening, it $as sho$n that upon the return of the three accused to the store at about .4%74 P=, Natalia =acaraeg noticed blood stains on their hands and bodies. <hese circu*stances and pieces of evidence have not been denied b+ accused 'o*ie =endoBa. <hese constitute conclusive and decisive evidence of the guilt of accused 'o*eo =endoBa as one of the authors of the death of =arion Catungal /.. <he above-Fuoted conclusion is co*pletel+ contrar+ to the record. It is belied b+ the ver+ decision itself, $hich in a later part states% Accused 'o*eo @'o*ie@ =endoBa >ENIE> the testi*on+ of Bonifacio :landa+ that he $as one of the persons $ho chased =arlon Catungal on the night of =a+ .8, .808. "e clai*ed that Freddie <ulagan and Ealentin de 6uB*an chased the person $ho passed b+ $hile he $as at the store of Nenet Guribe. ... e*phasis supplied# And the inaccurac+ of the <rial Court@s declaration that 'o*eo =endoBa has also failed to den+ Natalia =acaraeg@s clai* of his having appeared at her store, acco*panied b+ Eding <ulagan and ,atso+ de 6uB*an, is disclosed b+ the follo$ing testi*on+ of said accused =endoBa#% G &itness for the prosecution Natalia =acaraeg testified that +ou $ent to her store $ith Freddie <ulagan and Ealentin de 6uB*an, $hat do +ou sa+ to thatH A <hat is not true, sir. G (n that night of =a+ .8, .808, did +ou ever go to the store of Natalia =acaraegH A No, sir. // Again% G &ill +ou please tell this "onorable Court $h+ Natalia =acaraeg testified in the *anner that she testified b+ alleging that +ou $ent to her store on the night of =a+ .8, .808 $ith +our hands stained $ith bloodH A &e never $ent to the store of Natalia =acaraeg on the night of =a+ .8,.808. /7 At an+ rate, the record also sho$s that 'o*ie =endoBa did den+ ta;ing part in the pursuit of the deceased /1, and his counsel did present t$o /# $itnesses $ho substantiated his denial, na*el+% Eictoriano >eldio /5 and Andres Nevado /9 <he <rial Court $ould refuse credence to 'o*ie =endoBa@s denial of having ta;en part in the chase of =arlon Catungal and considers "$orth-stressing," as "an indication of guilt"% ... the fact that despite the issuance of the $arrant of arrest on ,epte*ber .1, .808 E2hibit @"@#, accused 'o*eo =endoBa $as arrested onl+ on Nove*ber 5, .83. E2hibit @-@#. <he relevance and logic of the argu*ent escape this Court. <he *ere lapse of t$o /# +ears or so bet$een the issuance of an order of arrest and the actual apprehension of its sub)ect standing alone - signifies nothing insofar as the guilt of person arrested and his denial of co*plicit+ in the cri*e charged are concerned. ,uch circu*stance can )ust as plausibl+ suggest that the officers charged $ith serving the $arrant e2hibited less than a desirable diligence and concern in the perfor*ance of that dut+ as that the accused person sought to hide hi*self and evade arrest. <o be sure, the record does sho$ a $ritten state*ent of the PC officer concerned, dated Nove*ber 9, .808, that the initial arrest order $as "unserved" because "sub)ects accused can not be located in their given address" /0 and another report of the sa*e officer, dated Februar+ .9, .834, that "Ealentin de 6uB*an alias ,atso+ is no$ residing at Baranga+ Ana*pereB, Eillasis, Pangasinan and his 7# co-accused $as reportedl+ left in undisclosed place in =etro =anila sic#" /3C but these docu*ents cannot, under

Page1

the circu*stances, be considered as adeFuate proof that 'o*ie =endoBa did hide hi*self and other$ise deliberatel+ eluded arrest. Indeed, the fact that he $as ulti*atel+ arrested in =alasiFui, the *unicipalit+ of his residence as indicated b+ E2hibit -#, is inconsistent $ith his having "reportedl+" gone to live in an" undisclosed place in =etro =anila" and *ilitates against the notion of his having gone into hiding. EFuall+ unacceptable to this Court is the <rial Court@s conclusion, Fuoted hereunder, that the cri*e $as attended $ith the Fualif+ing circu*stance of abuse of superior strength% ... <he Fualif+ing circu*stance of ta;ing advantage of superior strength Fualified the ;illing and raised it to *urder. =arlon Catungal $as chased b+ accused Freddie <ulagan, Ealentin de 6uB*an and 'o*eo =endoBa and one of the accused $ho $as ar*ed $ith a sharp pointed instru*ent, stabbed hi*, resulting in his =arion Catungal# death. 6iven the fact, alread+ stressed, that the victi*@s last *o*ents are veiled in obscurit+ insofar as $hat evidence has been offered is concerned, there being no direct evidence of ho$ the ;illing $as done, no evidence of $hether or not authorities the pursuers too; part in the final assault or of $hat role each pla+ed therein, and no evidence of $hich of the* inflicted the single fatal stab $ound, and $hat the others $ere doing $hile the deceased $as being stabbed, said conclusion, lac;ing an+ ;ind of support in the record, is nothing but pure and si*ple speculation. Further*ore, as alread+ inti*ated, certain relevant and significant considerations prevent this Court fro* giving fun faith and credit to the evidence given b+ Natalia =acaraegC and the sa*e is true $ith respect to Bonifacio :landa+. Concerning Natalia =acaraeg, there is, for one thing, her singular o*ission to *ention Ealentin ",atso+" de 6uB*an@s alleged ad*ission that "$e ;illed" =arlon Catungal in t$o /# s$orn state*ents that she gave to the investigating authorities% the first on =a+ /., .808, t$o da+s after the sla+ing /8 and the second, on !une 9, .808 74. (nl+ $hen she too; the stand three 7# +ears later on =a+ /8, .83/ did she *a;e that revelation. "er e2cuse, $hen confronted $ith said o*ission, that" If possible I do not li;e trouble" 7. is unconvincing. For if she feared retaliation, $h+ give an+ state*ent at all, let alone t$o /#, both of $hich, even $ithout *ention of de 6uB*an@s "confession," clearl+ i*plicated all the accused and put her in danger of reprisal at their handsH <his ine2plicable discrepanc+ raises grave doubts of Natalia@s veracit+. Natalia@s conduct on the night of the ;illing e2hibits a curious *i2 of interest and apath+. &hen ",atso+" de 6uB*an "confessed" the ;illing to her, she beca*e disturbed enough to send people to verif+ if in fact there had been such a ;illing and the victi* $as =arion Catungal. But $hen her $orst fears $ere confir*ed, she did nothing, appeared to lose all interest in the affair. ,he did not even report the cri*e or $hat transpired at her store to her father, Baranga+ Captain !ose B. =acaraeg of the neighboring Baranga+ Pulong ,ur, $ho received the ne$s fro* other persons 7/, although the victi* $as a neighbor and ;no$n to her. Also b+ Natalia@s account, Eicente ",atso+" de 6uB*an, and his co*panions first appeared at her store onl+ to announce their intention of going after the *an or *en $ho had chase de 6uB*an@s father, and later returned, also onl+ to proclai* A perhaps "boast" $ould be the better $ord A that their purpose had been acco*plished. &h+ de 6uB*an and his co*panions should thus needlessl+ call attention to the*selves and their cri*e i*presses this Court as highl+ unnatural conduct, hardl+ to be e2pected of *en $hose nor*al instincts $ould be to conceal, rather than publicl+ declare, the plotting and e2ecution of a ;illing. In this conte2t, said account *a;es little sense and does not *erit uncritical acceptance. <he evidence given b+ Bonifacio :landa+ is not noticeabl+ better, and e2hibits si*ilar defects. <he rather sparse account of the tragic event given in his s$orn state*ent 77 acFuires so*e e*bellish*ents in his recorded testi*on+ $hich di*inish, rather than enhance, his credibilit+. For e2a*ple, in his s$orn state*ent, those $ho accosted =arlon Catungal at the dance hall onl+ "$ent near" hi*, but on the stand he declared that the+ suddenl+ seiBed Catungal and held hi* b+ both shoulders 71. &hen Catungal *anaged to brea; a$a+ and run, onl+ :landa+, a stranger to the place, *ade bold to follo$ his pursuers, $hile the other on-loo;ers, as co**otion ensued, *erel+ stepped bac;$ards" 75, obviousl+ loath to involve the*selves. :landa+ also testified that he $as in =alasiFui on the night in Fuestion at the invitation of Baranga+ Captain !ose B. =acaraeg and even partoo; of supper at the latter@s house before leaving for the >on Pedro auditoriu* $ith =arlon Catungal 79 . But =acaraeg re*e*bers none of this. "e never confir*ed the alleged invitation and testified onl+ that he sa$ :landa+ in front of the house of Benigno Catungal, =arlon@s father, on the afternoon of =a+ .8, .808. G (n =a+ .8, .808 in the afternoon, do +ou re*e*ber having seen this Bonifacio :landa+H A Ies, sir. G &here did +ou see hi*H A I sa$ hi* in =alasiFui, sir, Baranga+ Pulong ,ur. G &here in =alasiFuiH A Baranga+ Pulong, sur. G &here in Baranga+ Pulong did +ou seeH A In front of the house of Benigno Catungal. G >o +ou ;no$ $h+ =r. :landa+ $as at Baranga+ Pulong at the house of Benigno, in front of Benigno CatungalH A I don@t ;no$, sir. 70 :landa+ also clai*s long acFuaintance, if not friendship, $ith the victi* and his father, possibl+ to e2plain $h+ he dared to follo$ =arlon Catungal@s pursuers $hen no one else did so. But, strangel+, after seeing Catungal l+ing b+ the roadside, apparentl+ dead, at the end of the chase, he si*pl+ returned to the house of !ose B. =acaraeg, $here he slept until 9.44 o@cloc; in the *orning, at $hich hour he stole out of the house $ithout even $a;ing or ta;ing leave of =acaraeg, his alleged host, and left for his ho*e in ,an Fabian, Pangasinan 73. "e sa$ no cause to infor* Catungal@s fa*il+ about the death of their son or to report that *atter to =acaraeg. &orse still he ;ept silent about $hat he ;ne$ until he chanced to *eet Catungal@s father in >agupan Cit+ on !une 7, .808, t$o /# $ee;s after the event 78. <he Court, therefore, cannot bring itself to accept the testi*onial declarations of these t$o $itnesses, $hich for* the pillars of the prosecution@s case, and this, particularl+ in vie$ of the fir* denials of the accused and the e2culpator+ testi*on+ of Eictoriano >eldio 14 and Andres Nevado 1., as to $ho* no clear *otive or reason to subvert the truth to favor said accused has been sho$n.

Page1

No less than a *an@s life is at ris; in this case. <his Court cannot sanction its sacrifice e2cept upon clear, strong and co*pelling evidence. <he evidence against the accused does not stri;e the Court as being up to that standard. It is uni*pressive and, as alread+ sho$n, inadeFuate to co**and belief and support a conviction. Considered even in the best light, it *ight raise doubts as to the co*plete innocence of the accusedC it does not e2ercise reasonable doubts of his guilt. &"E'EF('E, the guilt of the accused 'o*eo "'o*ie"# =endoBa not having been proved be+ond reasonable doubt, the decision under revie$ is reversed and said accused is acFuitted, $ith costs de oficio. ,( ('>E'E>. !:ANI<( <A-I>AN( v. FA-C(N =A'I<I=E Y A--IE> ,E'EICE,, INC. 6.'. No. .0/47. >ECI,I(N <inga, !.% <his Petition for Certiorari. under 'ule 95 of the 'ules of Court see;s to annul the >ecision/ and 'esolution7 of the Court of Appeals, dated .9 Nove*ber /445 and / Februar+ /449, respectivel+, $hich upheld the validit+ of the dis*issal of !uanito <alidano petitioner#. <he challenged decision reversed and set aside the >ecision1 of the National -abor 'elations Co**ission N-'C# and reinstated that of the -abor Arbiter.5 Petitioner $as e*plo+ed as a second *arine officer b+ Falcon =ariti*e and Allied ,ervices, Inc. private respondent# and $as assigned to =DE Phoeni2 ,even, a vessel o$ned and operated b+ "ansu Corporation "ansu# $hich is based in Porea. "is one .#-+ear contract of e*plo+*ent co**enced on .5 (ctober .889 and stipulated the *onthl+ $age at \844.44 $ith a fi2ed overti*e pa+ of \/04.44 and leave pa+ of \05.44.9 Petitioner clai*ed that his chief officer, a Porean, al$a+s discri*inated against and *altreated the vesselNs Filipino cre$. <his pro*pted hi* to send a letter-co*plaint to the officer-in-charge of the International <ransport Federation I<F# in -ondon, a *easure that allegedl+ $as resented b+ the chief officer. ConseFuentl+, petitioner $as dis*issed on /. !anuar+ .880. "e filed a co*plaint for illegal dis*issal on /0 (ctober .888.0 Private respondent countered that petitioner had voluntaril+ dise*bar;ed the vessel after having been $arned several ti*es of dis*issal fro* service for his inco*petence, insubordination, disrespect and insulting attitude to$ard his superiors. It cited an incident involving petitionerNs inco*petence $herein the vessel invaded a different route at the (sa;a Port in !apan due to the absence of petitioner $ho $as then supposed to be on $atch dut+. As proof, it presented a cop+ of a fa2 *essage, sent to it on the date of incident, reporting the vesselNs deviation fro* its course due to petitionerNs neglect of dut+ at the bridge,3 as $ell as a cop+ of the report of cre$ discharge issued b+ the *aster of =DE Phoeni2 ,even t$o da+s after the incident.8 Private respondent stated that since petitioner lodged the co*plaint before the -abor Arbiter t$o /# +ears and nine 8# *onths after his repatriation, prescription had alread+ set in b+ virtue of 'evised P(EA =e*orandu* Circular No. 55, series of .889 $hich provides for a one-+ear prescriptive period for the institution of seafarersN clai*s arising fro* e*plo+*ent contract..4 (n 5 Nove*ber /44., the -abor Arbiter rendered )udg*ent dis*issing petitionerNs co*plaint, holding that he $as validl+ dis*issed for gross neglect of duties. <he -abor Arbiter relied on the fa2 *essages presented b+ private respondent to prove petitionerNs neglect of his duties, thus% 2 2 2 <he fa2 *essage said that the =aster of =DE Phoeni2 ,even received an e*ergenc+ $arning call fro* !apan ,isan ,ebo Nai;a 'adio Authorit+ calling attention to the =aster of the vessel =DE Phoeni2 ,even that his vessel is invading other route LsicM. &hen the =aster chec;ed the Bridge, he found out that the ,econd (fficer co*plainant# did not carr+ out his dut+ $athch. <here $as a confrontation bet$een the =aster and the Co*plainant but the latter insisted that he $as right. <he argu*ent of the Co*plainant asserting that he $as right cannot be sustained b+ this Arbitration Branch. <he fact that there $as an e*ergenc+ call fro* the !apanese port authorit+ that =DE Phoeni2 ,even $as invading other route si*pl+ *eans that Co*plainant neglected his dut+. <he fa2 *essage stating that Co*plainant $as not at the bridge at the ti*e of the e*ergenc+ call $as li;e$ise not denied nor refuted b+ the Co*plainant. :nder our )urisprudence, an+ *aterial allegation andDor docu*ent $hich is not denied specificall+ is dee*ed ad*itted. If not of the ti*el+ call LsicM fro* the port authorit+ that =DE Phoeni2 ,even invaded other route, the safet+ of the vessel, her cre$ and cargo *a+ be endangered. ,he could have collided $ith other vessels because of co*plainantNs failure to render $atch dut+... (n appeal, the N-'C reversed the ruling of the -abor Arbiter and declared the dis*issal as illegal. <he dispositive portion of the N-'CNs decision reads% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the decision appealed fro* is hereb+ reversed and set aside and a ne$ one entered declaring the dis*issal of the co*plainant as illegal. 'espondents Falcon =ariti*e Y Allied ,ervices, Inc. and "ansu Corporation are hereb+ ordered to )ointl+ and severall+ pa+ co*plainant the a*ount eFuivalent to his three 7# *onths salar+ as a result thereof../ <he N-'C held that the fa2 *essages in support of the alleged *isbehavior and neglect of dut+ b+ petitioner have no probative value and are self-serving. It added that the shipNs logboo; should have been sub*itted in evidence as it is the repositor+ of all the activities on board the vessel, especiall+ those affecting the perfor*ance or attitude of the officers and cre$ *e*bers, and, *ore i*portantl+, the procedures preparator+ to the discharge of a cre$ *e*ber. <he N-'C also noted that private respondent failed to co*pl+ $ith due process in ter*inating petitionerNs e*plo+*ent..7 Private respondent *oved for reconsideration,.1 clai*ing that the co*plaint $as filed be+ond the one-+ear prescriptive period. <he N-'C, ho$ever, denied reconsideration in a 'esolution dated 74 August /44/..5 'e)ecting the argu*ent that the co*plaint had alread+ prescribed, it ruled% 'ecords sho$ that respondent in this case had filed a *otion to dis*iss on the ground of prescription before the -abor Arbiter a Fuo $ho denied the sa*e in an (rder dated August ., /444. ,uch an (rder being unappealable, the said issue of prescription cannot be raised ane$ speciall+ in a *otion for reconsideration. Citations o*itted#.9 !ul+ .1, /443

Page1

It appears that respondent received a cop+ of the N-'C 'esolution.0 on /1 ,epte*ber /44/ and that said resolution beca*e final and e2ecutor+ on 0 (ctober /44/..3 Private respondent brought the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari.8 on 3 (ctober /44/. <he petition, doc;eted as CA-6.'. ,p. No. 075/., $as dis*issed on technicalit+ in a 'esolution dated /8 (ctober /44/. <he pertinent portion of the resolution reads% .# L<Mhe EE'IFICA<I(N AN> CE'<IFICA<I(N (F N(N-F(':= ,"(PPIN6 $as signed b+ one Florida K. !ose, President of petitioner Falcon =ariti*e and Allied ,ervices, Inc., $ithout proof that she is the dul+ authoriBed representative of petitioner-corporationC /# L<Mhere is no affidavit of service of the petition to the National -abor 'elations Co**ission and to the adverse part+C 7# L<Mhere is no e2planation to )ustif+ service b+ *ail in lieu of the reFuired personal service. Citations o*itted#/4 An entr+ of )udg*ent $as issued b+ the cler; of court on /7 Nove*ber /44/ stating that the /8 (ctober /44/ 'esolution had alread+ beco*e final and e2ecutor+./. =ean$hile, on ./ Nove*ber /44/, private respondent filed another petition before the Court of Appeals,// doc;eted as CA 6.'. ,P No. 07084. <his is the sub)ect of the present petition. Petitioner dispensed $ith the filing of a co**ent./7 In his =e*orandu*,/1 ho$ever, he argued that an entr+ of )udg*ent having been issued in CA-6.'. ,P No. 075/., the filing of the second petition hinging on the sa*e cause of action after the first petition had been dis*issed violates not onl+ the rule on foru* shopping but also the principle of res )udicata. "e highlighted the fact that the decision sub)ect of the second petition before the Court of Appeals had t$ice beco*e final and e2ecutor+, $ith entries of )udg*ent *ade first b+ the N-'C and then b+ the Court of Appeals. <he appellate court ulti*atel+ settled the issue of prescription, categoricall+ declaring that the one-+ear prescriptive period applies onl+ to e*plo+*ent contracts entered into as of . !anuar+ .880 and not those entered prior thereto, thus% 2 2 2 <he Fuestion of prescription is untenable. Ad*ittedl+, P(EA =e*orandu* Circular LNo.M 55 prescribing the standard ter*s of an e*plo+*ent contract of a seafarer $as in effect $hen the respondent $as repatriated on !anuar+ /., .880. <his ad*inistrative issuance $as released in accordance $ith >epart*ent (rder LNo.M 77 of the ,ecretar+ of -abor directing the revision of the e2isting ,tandard E*plo+*ent Contract to be effective b+ !anuar+ ., .880. ,ection /3 of this revised contract states% all clai*s arising therefro* shall be *ade $ithin one +ear fro* the date of the seafarerNs return to the point of hire. It is cr+stal clear that the one-+ear period of prescription of clai*s in the revised standard contract applies onl+ to e*plo+*ent contracts entered into as of !anuar+ ., .880. If there is still an+ doubt about this, it should be re*oved b+ the provision of Circular LNo.M 55 $hich sa+s that the ne$ schedule of benefits to be e*bodied in the standard contract $ill appl+ to an+ Filipino seafarer that $ill be deplo+ed on or after the effectivit+ of the circular. <he respondent $as deplo+ed before !anuar+ ., .880. As ac;no$ledged b+ the petitioners, the rule prior to Circular LNo.M 55 provided for a prescriptive period of three +ears. &e cannot avoid the ineluctable conclusion that the clai* of the respondent $as filed $ithin the prescriptive period./5 >espite ruling that prescription had not set in, the appellate court nonetheless declared petitionerNs dis*issal fro* e*plo+*ent as valid and reinstated the -abor ArbiterNs decision. <he appellate court relied on the fa2 *essages issued b+ the ship *aster shortl+ after petitioner had co**itted a serious neglect of his duties. It noted that the said fa2 *essages constitute the res gestae. In defending the nonpresentation of the logboo;, it stated that three +ears had alread+ passed since the incident and "ansu $as no longer the principal of private respondent. PetitionerNs *otion for reconsideration $as denied. "ence he filed this instant petition. Citing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, petitioner reiterates his argu*ent that the appellate court should not have accepted the second petition in vie$ of the fact that a corresponding entr+ of )udg*ent alread+ has been issued. B+ filing the second petition, petitioner believes that private respondent has engaged in foru* shopping./9 Private respondent, for its part, defends the appellate court in ta;ing cogniBance of the second petition b+ stressing that there is no la$, rule or decision that prohibits the filing of a ne$ petition for certiorari $ithin the regle*entar+ period after the dis*issal of the first petition due to technicalit+./0 It rebuts petitionerNs charge of foru* shopping b+ pointing out that the dis*issal of the first petition due to technicalit+ has not ripened into res )udicata, $hich is an essential ele*ent of foru* shopping./3 In deter*ining $hether a part+ has violated the rule against foru* shopping, the test to be applied is $hether the ele*ents of litis pendentia are present or $hether a final )udg*ent in one case $ill a*ount to res )udicata in the other./8 <his issue has been thoroughl+ and e2tensivel+ discussed and correctl+ resolved b+ the Court of Appeals in this $ise% <he respondentNs t$o argu*ents essa+ on certain develop*ents in the case after the N-'C rendered its decision. "e points out $ith alacrit+ that an entr+ of )udg*ent $as issued t$ice R first b+ the N-'C $ith respect to its decision and then b+ the Ninth >ivision of the Court of Appeals after it dis*issed on technical grounds the first petition for certiorari filed b+ the petitioner. Neither event, for sure, *ilitates against the institution of a second petition for certiorari. A decision of the N-'C is never final for as long as it is the sub)ect of a petition for certiorari that is pending $ith a superior court. A contrar+ vie$ onl+ de*eans our certiorari )urisdiction and $ill never gain currenc+ under our s+ste* of appellate court revie$. It is *ore to the point to as; if a second petition can stand after the first is dis*issed, but under the particular circu*stances in $hich the second $as brought, $e hold that it can. <he theor+ of res )udicata invo;ed b+ the respondent to bar the filing of the second petition does not appl+. <he )udg*ent or final resolution in the first petition *ust be on the *erits for res )udicata to inhere, and it $ill not be on the *erits if it is founded on a consideration of onl+ technical or collateral points. Iet this $as e2actl+ ho$ the first petition $as disposed of. ,P 075/. $as dis*issed as a result of the failure of the petitioner to co*pl+ $ith the procedural reFuire*ents of a petition for certiorari. <he case never touched base. <here $as no occasion for the deter*ination of the substantive rights of the parties and, in this sense, the *erits of the case $ere not involved. <he petitioner had actuall+ the option of either refilling LsicM the case or see;ing reconsideration in the original action. It chose to file ,P 07084 after realiBing that it still had enough ti*e left of the original period of 94 da+s under 'ule 95 to do so.

Page1

,ince the dis*issal of the first petition did not ripen into res )udicata, it *a+ not be said that there $as foru* shopping $ith the filing of the second. <he accepted test for deter*ining $hether a part+ violated the rule against foru* shopping insofar as it is applicable to this setting is $hether the )udg*ent or final resolution in the first case a*ounts to res )udicata in the second. 'es )udicata is central to the idea of foru* shopping. &ithout it, foru* shopping is non-e2istent. <he dis*issal of the first petition, *oreover, if it does not a*ount to res )udicata, need not be *entioned in the certification of non-foru* shopping acco*pan+ing the second action. <he o*ission $ill not be fatal to the viabilit+ of the second case. Citations o*itted#74 Private respondent, in turn, Fuestions the propriet+ of the instant certiorari petition and avers that the issues raised b+ petitioner can onl+ be dealt $ith under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court.7. Against this thesis, petitioner sub*its that the acceptance of the petition is addressed to the sound discretion of this Court.7/ <he proper re*ed+ to assail decisions of the Court of Appeals involving final disposition of a case is through a petition for revie$ under 'ule 15. In this case, petitioner filed instead a certiorari petition under 'ule 95. Not$ithstanding this procedural lapse, this Court resolves to rule on the *erits of the petition in the interest of substantial )ustice,77 the underl+ing consideration in this petition being the arbitrar+ dis*issal of petitioner fro* e*plo+*ent. Petitioner sub*its that the Court of Appeals erred in rel+ing *erel+ on fa2 *essages to support the validit+ of his dis*issal fro* e*plo+*ent. "e *aintains that the first fa2 *essage containing the infor*ation that the vessel encroached on a different route $as a *ere personal observation of the ship *aster and should have thus been corroborated b+ evidence, and that these fa2 *essages cannot be considered as res gestae because the state*ent of the ship *aster e*bodied therein is )ust a report. "e also contends that he has not caused an+ i**ediate danger to the vessel and that if he did co**it an+ $rongdoing, the incident $ould have been recorded in the logboo;. <hus, he posits that the failure to produce the logboo; reinforces the theor+ that the fa2 *essages have been concocted to )ustif+ his uncere*onious dis*issal fro* e*plo+*ent. "ence, he believes that his dis*issal fro* e*plo+*ent ste**ed fro* his filing of the co*plaint $ith the I<F $hich his superiors resented.71 Private respondent insists that the appellate court is correct in considering the fa2 *essages as res gestae state*ents. It li;e$ise e*phasiBes that non-present*ent of the logboo; is )ustified as the sa*e could no longer be retrieved because "ansu has alread+ ceased to be its principal. Further*ore, it refutes the allegation of petitioner that he $as dis*issed because he filed a co*plaint $ith the I<F in behalf of his fello$ cre$ *e*bers. It clai*s that petitionerNs allegation is a hoa2 because there is no sho$ing that the alleged co*plaint has been received b+ the I<F and that no action thereon $as ever ta;en b+ the I<F.75 Private respondent also asserts that petitioner $as not dis*issed but that he voluntaril+ as;ed for his repatriation. <his assertion, ho$ever, deserves scant consideration. It is highl+ illogical for an e*plo+ee to voluntaril+ reFuest for repatriation and then file a suit for illegal dis*issal. As voluntar+ repatriation is s+non+*ous to resignation, it is proper to conclude that repatriation is inconsistent $ith the filing of a co*plaint for illegal dis*issal.79 <he para*ount issue therefore boils do$n to the validit+ of petitionerNs dis*issal, the deter*ination of $hich generall+ involves a Fuestion of fact. It is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our )urisdiction being generall+ li*ited to revie$ing errors of la$ that *ight have been co**itted b+ the trial court or ad*inistrative agenc+. Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the -abor Arbiter are at variance $ith those of the N-'C, $e resolve to evaluate the records and the evidence presented b+ the parties.70 <he validit+ of an e*plo+ee@s dis*issal hinges on the satisfaction of t$o substantive reFuire*ents, to $it% .# the dis*issal *ust be for an+ of the causes provided for in Article /3/ of the -abor CodeC and /# the e*plo+ee $as accorded due process, basic of $hich is the opportunit+ to be heard and to defend hi*self.73 <he -abor Arbiter held that petitionerNs absence during his $atch dut+ $hen an e*ergenc+ call $as received fro* the !apanese port authorit+ that =DE Phoeni2 ,even $as "invading other route" constituted neglect of dut+, a )ust cause for ter*inating an e*plo+ee. 'ecords reveal that this infor*ation $as related to private respondent via t$o fa2 *essages sent b+ the captain of =DE Phoeni2 ,even. <he first fa2 *essage dated .3 !anuar+ .880 is reproduced belo$% !:,< 'ECEIEE> P"(NE CA-- F'(= =A,<E' N CD(FFICE' <"A< <"EI >ECI>E> <( >I,C"A'6E /D(FFICE' A< (,APA P('<. >:E <( =I,-BE"AEI(:' N 'E,E,< L,ICM <( (FFICIA- ('>E'. CAP<. "A> 'ECEIEE> E=E'6ENCI &A'NIN6 CA-- F'(= !APAN BI,AN ,E<( NAIPAI 'A>I( A:<"('I<I <"A< ,"IP I, INEA>IN6 (<"E' '(:<E. ,(, "E &A, ,:'P'I,E> N CA=E <( B'I>6E N F(:N> /D( N(< CA''I (:< "I, &A<C" >:<I. =A,<E' ,C(-> "I= AB(:< <"I, N C(''EC< "I, E''(' B:< "E 'E,I,< L,ICM <"A< "E I, 'I6"< AN> <"EN ,AI> <"A< "E &I-- C(=E BACP "(=E. F:'<"E' =('E "E A,PE> =A,<E' <( PAI "I= I.<.F. &A6E ,CA-E. =A,<E' NDCI( ,<'(N6-I A,PE> :, "I, 'EPA<'IA<I(N &I<" I.E.:. P-,. C(NFI'= I(:' (PINI(N (N <"I, "APPENIN6.78 <he second fa2 *essage dated /4 !anuar+ .880 pertained to a report of cre$ discharge essentiall+ containing the sa*e infor*ation as the first fa2 *essage. <he Court of Appeals treated these fa2 *essages as part of the res gestae proving neglect of dut+ on the part of petitioner. ,ection 1/ of 'ule .7414 of the 'ules of Court *entions t$o acts $hich for* part of the res gestae, na*el+% spontaneous state*ents and verbal acts. In spontaneous e2cla*ations, the res gestae is the startling occurrence, $hereas in verbal acts, the res gestae are the state*ents acco*pan+ing the eFuivocal act.1. &e find that the fa2 *essages cannot be dee*ed part of the res gestae.

Page1

<o be ad*issible under the first class of res gestae, it is reFuired that% .# the principal act be a startling occurrenceC /# the state*ents $ere *ade before the declarant had the ti*e to contrive or devise a falsehoodC and 7# that the state*ents *ust concern the occurrence in Fuestion and its i**ediate attending circu*stances.1/

Assu*ing that petitionerNs negligenceA$hich allegedl+ caused the ship to deviate fro* its courseAis the startling occurrence, there is no sho$ing that the state*ents contained in the fa2 *essages $ere *ade i**ediatel+ after the alleged incident. In addition, no dates have been *entioned to deter*ine if these utterances $ere *ade spontaneousl+ or $ith careful deliberation. Absent the critical ele*ent of spontaneit+, the fa2 *essages cannot be ad*itted as part of the res gestae of the first ;ind. Neither $ill the second ;ind of res gestae appl+. <he reFuisites for its ad*issibilit+ are% .# the principal act to be characteriBed *ust be eFuivocalC /# the eFuivocal act *ust be *aterial to the issueC 7# the state*ent *ust acco*pan+ the eFuivocal actC and 1# the state*ents give a legal significance to the eFuivocal act.17 PetitionerNs alleged absence fro* $atch dut+ is si*pl+ an innocuous act or at least proved to be one. Assu*ing arguendo that such absence $as the eFuivocal act, it is nevertheless not acco*panied b+ an+ state*ent *ore so b+ the fa2 state*ents adverted to as parts of the res gestae. No date or ti*e has been *entioned to deter*ine $hether the fa2 *essages $ere *ade si*ultaneousl+ $ith the purported eFuivocal act. Further*ore, the *aterial contents of the fa2 *essages are unclear. <he *atter of route encroach*ent or invasion is Fuestionable. <he ship *aster, $ho is the author of the fa2 *essages, did not $itness the incident. "e obtained such infor*ation onl+ fro* the !apanese port authorities. Eeril+, the *essages can be characteriBed as double hearsa+. In an+ event, under Article /3/ of the -abor Code,11 an e*plo+er *a+ ter*inate an e*plo+ee for gross and habitual neglect of duties. Neglect of dut+, to be a ground for dis*issal, *ust be both gross and habitual. 6ross negligence connotes $ant of care in the perfor*ance of oneNs duties. "abitual neglect i*plies repeated failure to perfor* oneNs duties for a period of ti*e, depending upon the circu*stances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a )ust cause for the dis*issal of the e*plo+ee.15 PetitionerNs supposed absence fro* $atch dut+ in a single isolated instance is neither gross nor habitual negligence. &ithout Fuestion, the alleged lapse did not result in an+ unto$ard incident. If there $as an+ serious after*ath, the incident should have been recorded in the shipNs logboo; and presented b+ private respondent to substantiate its clai*. Instead, private respondent belittled the probative value of the logboo; and dis*issed it as self-serving. Guite the contrar+, the shipNs logboo; is the repositor+ of all activities and transactions on board a vessel. "ad the route invasion been so serious as to *erit petitionerNs dis*issal, then it $ould have been recorded in the logboo;. Private respondent $ould have then had all the *ore reason to preserve it considering that vital pieces of infor*ation are contained therein. In "averton ,hipping -td. v. N-'C,19 the Court held that the vesselNs logboo; is an official record of entries *ade b+ a person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ reFuired b+ la$.10 In Abacast ,hipping and =anage*ent Agenc+, Inc. v. N-'C,13 a case cited b+ petitioner, the logboo; is a respectable record that can be relied upon to authenticate the charges filed and the procedure ta;en against the e*plo+ees prior to their dis*issal.18 In &alle* =ariti*e ,ervices, Inc. v. N-'C,54 the logboo; is a vital evidence as Article 9./ of the Code of Co**erce reFuires the ship captain to ;eep a record of the decisions he had adopted as the vessel@s head.5. <herefore, the non-presentation of the logboo; raises serious doubts as to $hether the incident did happen at all. In ter*ination cases, the burden of proving )ust or valid cause for dis*issing an e*plo+ee rests on the e*plo+er.5/ Private respondent *iserabl+ failed to discharge this burden. ConseFuentl+, the petitionerNs dis*issal is illegal. &e also note that private respondent failed to co*pl+ $ith the procedural due process reFuire*ent for ter*inating an e*plo+ee. ,uch reFuire*ent is not a *ere for*alit+ that *a+ be dispensed $ith at $ill. Its disregard is a *atter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in response to *an@s innate sense of )ustice. <he -abor Code does not, of course, reFuire a for*al or trial t+pe proceeding before an erring e*plo+ee *a+ be dis*issed. <his is especiall+ true in the case of a vessel on the ocean or in a foreign port. <he *ini*u* reFuire*ent of due process in ter*ination proceedings, $hich *ust be co*plied $ith even $ith respect to sea*en on board a vessel, consists of notice to the e*plo+ees intended to be dis*issed and the grant to the* of an opportunit+ to present their o$n side of the alleged offense or *isconduct, $hich led to the *anage*ent@s decision to ter*inate. <o *eet the reFuire*ents of due process, the e*plo+er *ust furnish the $or;er sought to be dis*issed $ith t$o $ritten notices before ter*ination of e*plo+*ent can be legall+ effected, i.e., .# a notice $hich apprises the e*plo+ee of the particular acts or o*issions for $hich his dis*issal is soughtC and /# the subseFuent notice after due hearing $hich infor*s the e*plo+ee of the e*plo+erNs decision to dis*iss hi*.57 Private respondentNs sole reliance on the fa2 *essages in dis*issing petitioner is clearl+ insufficient as these *essages $ere addressed onl+ to itself. No notice $as ever given to petitioner apprising hi* in $riting of the particular acts sho$ing neglect of dut+. Neither $as he infor*ed of his dis*issal fro* e*plo+*ent. Petitioner $as never given an opportunit+ to present his side. <he failure to co*pl+ $ith the t$o-notice rule onl+ aggravated respondentNs liabilit+ on top of dis*issing petitioner $ithout a valid cause. Pursuant to ,ection .4 of 'epublic Act No. 341/51 or the =igrant &or;erNs Act, e*plo+ees $ho are un)ustl+ dis*issed fro* $or; are entitled to an a*ount representing their three 7# *onthsN salar+ considering that their e*plo+*ent contract has a ter* of e2actl+ one .# +ear plus a full refund of his place*ent fee, $ith interest at ./] per annu*.55 IN -I6"< (F <"E F('E6(IN6, the petition is 6'AN<E>. <he >ecision of the Court of Appeals is 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E. <he >ecision of the N-'C is 'EIN,<A<E> $ith the =(>IFICA<I(N that in addition to the pa+*ent of the su* eFuivalent to petitionerNs three 7# *onthsN salar+, the full a*ount of place*ent fee $ith ./] legal interest *ust be refunded. ,( ('>E'E>. L6.'. No. .144/7. August .1, /447M ':>I -A(, petitioner, vs. ,<AN>A'> IN,:'ANCE C(., INC., respondent. >ECI,I(N G:I,:=BIN6, !.%

Page1

<he instant petition see;s the reversal of the Court of AppealsN >ecisionL.M dated Februar+ 1, .888, as $ell as its 'esolution,L/M dated ,epte*ber 0, .888, in CA-6.'. CE No. 10//0. <he assailed decision dis*issed petitionerNs appeal and the resolution denied petitionerNs *otion for reconsideration.

<he original action $as lodged before the 'egional <rial Court of Iloilo Cit+, Branch /5, as Civil Case No. .0415 for breach of contract and da*ages, as a result of the insurance co*pan+Ns refusal of petitionerNs clai* on the insurance polic+ of his truc; $hich figured in an accident during the effectivit+ of the polic+. <he follo$ing are the antecedent facts% Petitioner 'ud+ -ao is the o$ner of a Fuso truc; $ith Plate No. FC6-573. <he truc; $as insured $ith respondent ,tandard Insurance Co., Inc. under Polic+ No. CE-/.401L7M for the *a2i*u* a*ount of P/44,444 and an additional su* of P54,444 to cover an+ da*ages that *ight be caused to his goods. &hile the polic+ $as in effect, an accident occurred. At around 3%44 p.*. of April /1, .835, in Baranga+ Buhang, !aro, Iloilo Cit+, the insured truc; bu*ped another truc;, $ith Plate No. FB,-8.0, also o$ned b+ petitioner -ao. <he latter truc; $as running ahead of the insured truc; and $as bu*ped fro* the rear. <he insured truc; sustained da*ages esti*ated to be around P..4,98/, $hile the da*age to the other truc; and to properties in the vicinit+ of the accident, $ere placed at P75,444 *ore or less. Petitioner filed a clai* $ith the insurance co*pan+ for the proceeds fro* his polic+. "o$ever, the clai* $as denied b+ the insurance co*pan+ on the ground that $hen its ad)uster $ent to investigate the *atter, it $as found that the driver of the insured truc;, -eonardo Anit, did not possess a proper driverNs license at the ti*e of the accident. <he restrictionL1M in -eonardo AnitNs driverNs license provided that he can onl+ drive four-$heeled vehicles $eighing not *ore than 1,544 ;gs. ,ince the insured truc; he $as driving $eighed *ore than 1,544 ;gs., he therefore violated the VauthoriBed driverW clauseL5M of the insurance polic+. In addition, respondent cited the follo$ing e2cerpts fro* the police blotter of the Iloilo INP, to $it% C-:N-35 >A=A6E <( P'(PE'<I &D P"I IN!:'IE, R 'D I=P':>ENCE

..%74 P= R ,gt. A. Bernas infor*ed this office that a collision too; place at Brg+. Buhang, !aro, IC. Investigation conducted b+ Pat. Eillaher*osa, assisted b+ -t. P. Baclaron (>#, disclosed that at about 3%44 P= this date at the afore*entioned place, a collision too; place bet$een a truc; "ino# $ith Plate Nr FBL,M 8.0 o$ned b+ 'ud+ -ao and driven b+ B(I 6I>>IE I C(IE-, 73 +rs, a res. of Balasan, Iloilo, $ith -icense Nr >-' ..43.1/ and another truc; $ith Plate Nr. FC6-573 o$ned b+ 'ud+ -ao and driver sic# b+ -E(NA'>( ANI< I PANE,, 77 +rs, a res. of Brg+ -a+a, Balasan, Iloilo $ith -icense Nr .37913/.X E*phasis supplied.#L9M Petitioner clai*s that at the ti*e of the accident, it $as in fact another driver na*ed 6iddie Bo+ I Co+el $ho $as driving the insured truc;. 6iddie Bo+ possessed a driverNs license authoriBing hi* to drive vehicles such as the truc; $hich $eighed *ore than 1,544 ;gs. As evidence, petitioner presented the =otor Eehicle Accident 'eportL0M $herein the Investigating (fficer, Pat. Felipe >. Eillaher*osa, stated that it $as 6iddie Bo+ driving the insured truc; and not -eonardo Anit. <he said report $as *ade three da+s after the accident or on April /0, .835. "o$ever, respondent insurance co*pan+ $as fir* in its denial of the clai*. "ence, petitioner filed the civil case before the '<C. After trial, the court disposed of the case as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the Court finds that plaintiff lac;s sufficient cause of action against the defendant and hence ordered his case dis*issed and further orderes sic# hi* to pa+ the defendant the follo$ing% .# /# P/4,444.44 as attorne+Ns fees plus P544.44 for appearance feeC and P54,444.44 as e2e*plar+ da*ages.

,( ('>E'E>.L3M (n appeal $ith the Court of Appeals, the '<C decision $as affir*ed. <he petition $as dis*issed and the *otion for reconsideration $as denied. <he CA stated% IN EIE& (F <"E F('E6(IN6, the decision appealed fro* is hereb+ AFFI'=E>. ConseFuentl+, the co*plaint is >I,=I,,E> for lac; of *erit. ,( ('>E'E>.L8M In his petition for revie$ no$ before us, petitioner cites the follo$ing as grounds therefor% A. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, AN> <"E -(&E' C(:'< 'E-IE> =AIN-I (N ,EC<I(N 11, ':-E .74 (F <"E ':-E, (F C(:'< IN :P"(->IN6 <"E EN<'I IN <"E P(-ICE B-(<<E' &"IC" ,<A<E> <"A< <"E >'IEE' (F <"E IN,:'E> EE"IC-E &A, -E(NA'>( ANI< I PANE,, &"( &A, N(< AN A:<"('IKE> >'IEE'. :N>E' <"E ,AI> ,EC<I(N 11, ':-E .74 I<,E-F "(&EEE', <"E P(-ICE B-(<<E' I, =E'E-I A P'I=A FACIE EEI>ENCE (F <"E FAC<, ,<A<E> <"E'EIN &"IC" =AI BE N:--IFIE> BI (<"E' EEI>ENCECL.4M B. PE'CEP<I(N (F <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-,N (N <"E V>I=INI,"E>W C'E>IBI-I<I (F PA<. FE-IPE EI--A"E'=(,A, <"E <'AFFIC P(-ICE INEE,<I6A<(', I, =I,P-ACE> AN> :NF(:N>E>CL..M C. <"E >'IEE' (F <"E IN,:'E> <':CP &I<" P-A<E N'. FC6-573 &A, 6I>>IE B(I I C(IE-, AN A:<"('IKE> >'IEE' (F <"E ,AI> <':CP. <"E >'IEE' (F <"E (<"E' <':CP INE(-EE> IN <"E ACCI>EN< &I<" P-A<E N'. FB,-8.0 &A, -E(NA'>( ANI< I PANE,CL./M >. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, =I,APP-IE> A'<IC-E, //7/ AN> //43 (F <"E NE& CIEI- C(>E IN 6'AN<IN6 EUE=P-A'I >A=A6E, AN> A<<('NEIN, FEE, <( 'E,P(N>EN<. :N>E' A'<IC-E, ///8 AN> //71 (F <"E NE& CIEI- C(>E, EUE=P-A'I >A=A6E, CANN(< BE A&A'>E> IN <"E AB,ENCE (F AN A&A'> F(' =('A-, <E=PE'A<E, -IG:I>A<E> (' C(=PEN,A<('I >A=A6E,CL.7M E. <E,<I=(NIE, (F <"E &I<NE,,E, (F 'E,P(N>EN< NA=E-I, ,6<. BE'NA,, <"E >E,P (FFICE' AN> '(=E( 6:IE'6EN, IN,:'ANCE A>!:,<E', &E'E INC(N,I,<EN< AN> :N'E-IAB-ECL.1M and F. <"E "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, :P"E-> <"E >ECI,I(N (F <"E -(&E' C(:'< >E,PI<E 6-A'IN6 =I,APP-ICA<I(N (F <"E -A& AN> !:'I,P':>ENCE E,<AB-I,"E> BI <"I, "(N('AB-E ,:P'E=E C(:'< A, &E-- A, C-EA' =I,APP'E"EN,I(N (F <"E FAC<, IN <"I, CA,E.L.5M

Page1

<hree issues *ust be resolved% .# <he ad*issibilit+ and probative value of the police blotter as evidenceC /# <he assess*ent of the credibilit+ of $itnessesC and 7# <he propriet+ and basis of the a$ards for e2e*plar+ da*ages and attorne+Ns fees. Also pertinent here is the factual issue of $hether or not -eonardo Anit, an unauthoriBed driver, $as driving the insured truc; at the ti*e of the accident. Petitioner assails the ad*issibilit+ and evidentiar+ $eight given to the police blotter, as a basis for the factual finding of the '<C and the CA. "e contends that the sa*e entr+ $as belied b+ the =otor Eehicle Accident 'eport and testi*on+ of the investigating police*an hi*self, attesting that it $as 6iddie Bo+ Co+el, not -eonardo Anit, $ho $as driving the insured vehicle.L.9M 'espondent avers that the sa*e police report and testi*on+ $ere of dubious nature. Both trial and appellate courts noted that the report $as *ade three da+s after the accident and did not for* part of the official police records.L.0M <he police blotter $as ad*itted under 'ule .74, ,ection 11 of the 'ules of Court.L.3M :nder the said rule, the follo$ing are the reFuisites for its ad*issibilit+% a# that the entr+ $as *ade b+ a public officer, or b+ another person, speciall+ en)oined b+ la$ to do soC

b# that it $as *ade b+ the public officer in the perfor*ance of his duties, or b+ such other person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$C c# that the public officer or other person had sufficient ;no$ledge of the facts b+ hi* stated, $hich *ust have been acFuired b+ hi* personall+ or through official infor*ation.L.8M &e agree $ith the trial and appellate courts in finding that the police blotter $as properl+ ad*itted as the+ for* part of official records.L/4MEntries in police records *ade b+ a police officer in the perfor*ance of the dut+ especiall+ en)oined b+ la$ are pri*a facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative value *a+ be either substantiated or nullified b+ other co*petent evidence.L/.M Although police blotters are of little probative value, the+ are nevertheless ad*itted and considered in the absence of co*petent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. In this case, the entries in the police blotter reflected the infor*ation sub)ect of the controvers+. ,tated therein $as the fact that -eonardo Anit $as driving the insured truc; $ith plate nu*ber FC6-573. <his is unli;e People v. =e)ia,L//M $here $e said that Ventries in the police blotters should not be given undue significance or probative value,W since the Court there found that Vthe entries in Fuestion are sadl+ $anting in *aterial particularsW. Further*ore, in this case the police blotter $as identified and for*all+ offered as evidence. <he person $ho *ade the entries $as li;e$ise presented in courtC he identified and certified as correct the entries he *ade on the blotter. <he infor*ation $as supplied to the entrant b+ the investigating officer $ho did not protest about an+ inaccurac+ $hen the blotter $as presented to hi*. No e2planation $as li;e$ise given b+ the investigating officer for the alleged interchange of na*es. Petitioner also assails the credence given b+ the trial court to the version of the respondents vis-f-vis the testi*onies of the $itnesses. <i*e and again $e have reiterated the settled doctrine that great $eight, and even finalit+, is given to the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals $hich affir* those of the trial courts.L/7M &e find on this score no reason to overturn such conclusions. (n the issue of da*ages, $e agree $ith petitioner that the a$ard of e2e*plar+ da*ages $as i*proper. In <iongco v. Att+. >egu*aL/1M $e held that the entitle*ent to the recover+ of e2e*plar+ da*ages *ust be sho$n. In the case at bar, respondent have not sho$n sufficient evidence that petitioner indeed sche*ed to procure the dubious docu*ents and lied through his teeth to establish his version of the facts. &hat $as found $as that the docu*ent he presented $as inad*issible, and its contents $ere dubious. "o$ever, no proof $as adduced to sufficientl+ establish that it ca*e to his hands through his e*plo+*ent of underhanded *eans. In <iongco, $e further stated% Although e2e*plar+ da*ages cannot be recovered as a *atter of right, the+ also need not be proved. But a co*plainant *ust still sho$ that he is entitled to *oral, te*perate or co*pensator+ da*ages before the court *a+ consider the Fuestion of $hether or not e2e*plar+ da*ages should be a$arded.L/5M <hus, it $as error for the courts belo$ to a$ard e2e*plar+ da*ages in the absence of an+ a$ard for *oral, te*perate or co*pensator+ da*ages. <he a$ard of attorne+Ns fees *ust also be deleted. ,uch a$ard $as given in its e2traordinar+ concept as inde*nit+ for da*ages to be paid b+ the losing part+ to the prevailing part+.L/9M But it $as not sufficientl+ sho$n that petitioner acted *aliciousl+ in instituting the clai* for da*ages. Perforce, the a$ard of attorne+Ns fees $as i*proper. &"E'EF('E, the assailed >ecision and 'esolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFI'=E>, $ith the =(>IFICA<I(N that the a$ard of e2e*plar+ da*ages and attorne+Ns fees is hereb+ >E-E<E>. No pronounce*ent as to costs. ,( ('>E'E>. L6.'. No. 89/4/. April .7, .888M '(,E--A >. CANG:E, petitioner, vs. <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, and ,(C(' C(N,<':C<I(N C('P('A<I(N, respondents. >ECI,I(N =EN>(KA, !.% <his petition for revie$ on certiorari see;s a reversal of the decisionL.M of the Court of Appeals affir*ing the )udg*entL/M of the 'egional <rial Court of Cebu Cit+ ordering petitioner . . . to pa+ Lprivate respondentM the principal su* of <$o "undred Ninet+ Nine <housand ,even "undred ,eventeen Pesos and ,event+ Five Centavos P/88,0.0.05# plus interest thereon at ./] per annu* fro* ,epte*ber //, .839, the date of the filing of the co*plaint until full+ paidC to pa+ Lprivate respondentM the further su* of <en <housand Pesos P.4,444.44# for reasonable attorne+Ns feesC to pa+ the su* of Five "undred Fift+ <$o Pesos and Eight+ ,i2 Centavos P55/.39# for filing fees and to pa+ the costs of suit. ,ince Lprivate respondentM $ithdre$ its pra+er for an alias $rit of

Page1

preli*inar+ attach*ent vis-a-vis the LpetitionerNsM counterbound, the incident on the alias $rit of preli*inar+ attach*ent has beco*e *oot and acade*ic. <he facts are as follo$s% Petitioner 'osella >. CanFue is a contractor doing business under the na*e and st+le '>C Construction. At the ti*e *aterial to this case, she had contracts $ith the govern*ent for a# the restoration of Cebu-<oledo $harf roadC b# the asphalting of -utopan access roadC and c# the asphalting of Babag road in -apulapu Cit+.L7M In connection $ith these pro)ects, petitioner entered into t$o contracts $ith private respondent ,ocor Construction Corporation. <he first contract E2h. A#,L1M dated April /9, .835, provided% <he ,ub-Contractor ,(C(' Corporation# and the Contractor '>C Construction# for the consideration hereinafter na*ed, hereb+ agree as follo$s% .. ,C(PE (F &('P% a. <he ,ub-Contractor agrees to perfor* and e2ecute the ,uppl+, -a+ and Co*pact Ite* 7.4 and Ite* 74/C b. <hat Contractor shall provide the labor and *aterials needed to co*plete the pro)ectC c. <hat the Contractor agrees to pa+ the ,ub-Contractor the price of (ne <housand Pesos onl+ P.,444.44# per =etric <on of Ite* 7.4 and Eight <housand (nl+ P3,444.44# per =etric <on of Ite* 74/. d. <hat the Contractor shall pa+ the ,ub-Contractor the volu*e of the supplied Ite* based on the actual $eight in =etric <ons delivered, laid and co*pacted and accepted b+ the =P&"C e. <he construction $ill co**ence upon the acceptance of the offer. <he second contract E2h. B#,L5M dated !ul+ /7, .835, stated% <he ,upplier ,(C(' Construction# and the Contractor '>C Construction# for the consideration hereinafter na*ed, hereb+ agree as follo$s% .. ,C(PE (F &('P% a. <he ,upplier agrees to perfor* and e2ecute the deliver+ of Ite* 7.4 and Ite* 74/ to the )obsite for the Asphalting of >A, Access 'oad and the Front 6ate of AC=>C, <oledo Cit+C b. <hat the Contractor should infor* or give notice to the ,upplier t$o /# da+s before the deliver+ of such ite*sC c. <hat the Contractor shall pa+ the ,upplier the volu*e of the supplied ite*s on the actual $eight in *etric tons delivered and accepted b+ the =P&" fifteen .5# da+s after the sub*ission of the billC d. <he deliver+ $ill co**ence upon the acceptance of the offer. (n =a+ /3, .839, private respondent sent petitioner a bill E2h. C#, containing a revised co*putation,L9M for P/88,0.0.05, plus interest at the rate of 7] a *onth, representing the balance of petitionerNs total account of P/,483,144./5 for *aterials delivered and services rendered b+ private respondent under the t$o contracts. "o$ever, petitioner refused to pa+ the a*ount, clai*ing that private respondent failed to sub*it the deliver+ receipts sho$ing the actual $eight in *etric tons of the ite*s delivered and the acceptance thereof b+ the govern*ent.L0M "ence, on ,epte*ber //, .839, private respondent brought suit in the 'egional <rial Court of Cebu to recover fro* petitioner the su* ofP/88,0.0.05, plus interest at the rate of 7] a *onth. In her ans$er, petitioner ad*itted the e2istence of the contracts $ith private respondent as $ell as receipt of the billing E2h. C#, dated =a+ /3, .839. "o$ever, she disputed the correctness of the bill g . . . considering that the deliveries of Lprivate respondentM $ere not signed and ac;no$ledged b+ the chec;ers of LpetitionerM, the bitu*inous tac; coat it delivered to LpetitionerM consisted of 94] $ater, and LpetitionerM has alread+ paid Lprivate respondentM about P.,144,444.44 but Lprivate respondentM has not issued an+ receipt to LpetitionerM for said pa+*ents and there is no agree*ent that Lprivate respondentM $ill charge 7] per *onth interest.L3M Petitioner subseFuentl+ a*ended her ans$er den+ing she had entered into sub-contracts $ith private respondent.L8M >uring the trial, private respondent, as plaintiff, presented its vice-president, ,ofia (. ,ancheB, and >olores Ada+, its boo;;eeper. PetitionerNs evidence consisted of her lone testi*on+.L.4M (n !une //, .833, the trial court rendered its decision ordering petitioner to pa+ private respondent the su* of P/88,0.0.05 plus interest at ./] per annu*, and costs. It held% . . . . LBM+ anal+Bing the plaintiffNs Boo; of Collectible Accounts particularl+ page .0 thereof E2h. VPW# this Court is convinced that the entries both pa+*ents and billings# recorded thereat are credible. :ndeniabl+, the boo; contains a detailed account of ,(C('Ns co**ercial transactions $ith '>C $hich $ere entered therein in the course of business. &e cannot therefore disregard the entries recorded under E2hibit VPW because the fact of their having been *ade in the course of business carries $ith it so*e degree of trust$orthiness. Besides, no proof $as ever offered to de*onstrate the irregularit+ of the said entries thus, there is then no cogent reason for us to doubt their authenticit+.L..M <he trial court further ruled that in spite of the fact that the contracts did not have an+ stipulation on interest, interest *a+ be a$arded in the for* of da*ages under Article //48 of the Civil Code.L./M (n appeal, the Court of Appeals affir*ed. It upheld the trial courtNs reliance on private respondentNs Boo; of Collectible Accounts E2h. P# on the basis of 'ule .74, Z70L.7M of the 'ules of Court. "ence, this appeal. Petitioner contends that g

Page1

I. <"E 'E,P(N>EN< C(:'< E''E> IN A>=I<<IN6 IN EEI>ENCE A, EN<'IE, IN <"E C(:',E (F B:,INE,, <"E EN<'IE, IN P'IEA<E 'E,P(N>EN<N, B((P (F C(--EC<IB-E ACC(:N<, C(N,I>E'IN6 <"A< <"E PE',(N &"( =A>E ,AI> EN<'IE, AC<:A--I <E,<IFIE> IN <"I, CA,E B:< :NF('<:NA<E-I "A> N( PE',(NA- PN(&-E>6E (F ,AI> EN<'IE,. II. <"E >ECI,I(N (F <"E 'E,P(N>EN< C(:'< ,"(:-> BE 'EEE',E> A, I< "A, (N-I INA>=I,,IB-E EEI>ENCE <( ,:PP('< I<. First. Petitioner contends that the presentation of the deliver+ receipts dul+ accepted b+ the then =inistr+ of Public &or;s and "igh$a+s =P&"# is reFuired under the contracts E2hs. A and B# and is a condition precedent for her pa+*ent of the a*ount clai*ed b+ private respondent. Petitioner argues that the entries in private respondentNs Boo; of Collectible Accounts E2h. P# cannot ta;e the place of the deliver+ receipts and that such entries are *ere hearsa+ and, thus, inad*issible in evidence.L.1M &e agree $ith the appellate court that the stipulation in the t$o contracts reFuiring the sub*ission of deliver+ receipts does not preclude proof of deliver+ of *aterials b+ private respondent in so*e other $a+. <he Fuestion is $hether the entries in the Boo; of Collectible Accounts E2h. P# constitute co*petent evidence to sho$ such deliver+. Private respondent cites 'ule .74, Z70 of the 'ules of Court and argues that the entries in Fuestion constitute Ventries in the course of businessW sufficient to prove deliveries *ade for the govern*ent pro)ects. <his provision reads% Entries in the course of business. g Entries *ade at, or near the ti*e of the transactions to $hich the+ refer, b+ a person deceased, outside of the Philippines or unable to testif+, $ho $as in a position to ;no$ the facts therein stated, *a+ be received as pri*a facie evidence, if such person *ade the entries in his professional capacit+ or in the perfor*ance of dut+ and in the ordinar+ or regular course of business or dut+.L.5M <he ad*ission in evidence of entries in corporate boo;s reFuires the satisfaction of the follo$ing conditions% .. <he person $ho *ade the entr+ *ust be dead, outside the countr+ or unable to testif+C /. <he entries $ere *ade at or near the ti*e of the transactions to $hich the+ referC 7. <he entrant $as in a position to ;no$ the facts stated in the entriesC 1. <he entries $ere *ade in his professional capacit+ or in the perfor*ance of a dut+, $hether legal, contractual, *oral or religiousC and 5. <he entries $ere *ade in the ordinar+ or regular course of business or dut+.L.9M As petitioner points out, the business entries in Fuestion E2h. P# do not *eet the first and third reFuisites. >olores Ada+, $ho *ade the entries, $as presented b+ private respondent to testif+ on the account of '>C Construction. It $as in the course of her testi*on+ that the entries $ere presented and *ar;ed in evidence. <here $as, therefore, neither )ustification nor necessit+ for the presentation of the entries as the person $ho *ade the* $as available to testif+ in court. Necessit+ is given as a ground for ad*itting entries, in that the+ are the best available evidence. ,aid a learned )udge% V&hat a *an has actuall+ done and co**itted to $riting $hen under obligation to do the act, it being in the course of the business he has underta;en, and he being dead, there see*s to be no danger in sub*itting to the consideration of the court.W <he person $ho *a+ be called to court to testif+ on these entries being dead, there arises the necessit+ of their ad*ission $ithout the one $ho *ade the* being called to court be s$orn and sub)ected to cross-e2a*ination. And this is per*issible in order to prevent a failure of )ustice.L.0M =oreover, Ada+ ad*itted that she had no personal ;no$ledge of the facts constituting the entr+. ,he said she *ade the entries based on the bills given to her. But she has no ;no$ledge of the truth or falsit+ of the facts stated in the bills. <he deliveries of the *aterials stated in the bills $ere supervised b+ Van engineer for such# functions.WL.3M <he person, therefore, $ho has personal ;no$ledge of the facts stated in the entries, i.e., that such deliveries $ere *ade in the a*ounts and on the dates stated, $as the co*pan+Ns pro)ect engineer. <he entries *ade b+ Ada+ sho$ onl+ that the billings had been sub*itted to her b+ the engineer and that she faithfull+ recorded the a*ounts stated therein in the boo;s of account. &hether or not the bills given to Ada+ correctl+ reflected the deliveries *ade in the a*ounts and on the dates indicated $as a fact that could be established b+ the pro)ect engineer alone $ho, ho$ever, $as not presented during trial. <he rule is stated b+ for*er Chief !ustice =oran, thus% L&Mhen the $itness had no personal ;no$ledge of the facts entered b+ hi*, and the person $ho gave hi* the infor*ation is individuall+ ;no$n and *a+ testif+ as to the facts stated in the entr+ $hich is not part of a s+ste* of entries $here scores of e*plo+ees have intervened, such entr+ is not ad*issible $ithout the testi*on+ of the infor*er.L.8M ,econd. It is nonetheless argued b+ private respondent that although the entries cannot be considered an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule, the+ *a+ be ad*itted under 'ule .7/, Z.4L/4M of the 'ules of Court $hich provides% ,EC. .4. &hen $itness *a+ refer to *e*orandu*. g A $itness *a+ be allo$ed to refresh his *e*or+ respecting a fact, b+ an+thing $ritten b+ hi*self or under his direction at the ti*e $hen the fact occurred, or i**ediatel+ thereafter, or at an+ other ti*e $hen the fact $as fresh in his *e*or+ and he ;ne$ that the sa*e $as correctl+ stated in the $ritingC but in such case the $riting *ust be produced and *a+ be inspected b+ the adverse part+, $ho *a+, if he chooses, crosse2a*ine the $itness upon it, and *a+ read it in evidence. ,o, also, a $itness *a+ testif+ fro* such a $riting, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to s$ear that the $riting correctl+ stated the transaction $hen *adeC but such evidence *ust be received $ith caution. (n the other hand, petitioner contends that evidence $hich is inad*issible for the purpose for $hich it $as offered cannot be ad*itted for another purpose. ,he cites the follo$ing fro* Chief !ustice =oranNs co**entaries% <he purpose for $hich the evidence is offered *ust be specified. &here the offer is general, and the evidence is ad*issible for one purpose and inad*issible for another, the evidence should be re)ected. -i;e$ise, $here the offer is *ade for t$o or *ore purposes and the evidence is inco*petent for one of the*, the evidence should be e2cluded. <he reason for the rule is that Vit is the dut+ of a part+ to select the co*petent fro* the inco*petent in offering testi*on+, and he cannot i*pose this dut+ upon the trial court.W &here the evidence is inad*issible for the purpose stated in the offer, it *ust be re)ected, though the sa*e *a+ be ad*issible for another purpose. <he rule is stated thus% VIf a part+ 2 2 2 opens the particular vie$ $ith $hich he offers an+ part of his evidence, or states the ob)ect to be attained b+ it, he precludes hi*self

Page1

fro* insisting on its operation in an+ other direction, or for an+ other ob)ectC and the reason is, that the opposite part+ is prevented fro* ob)ecting to its co*petenc+ in an+ vie$ different fro* the one proposed.L/.M It should be noted, ho$ever, that E2h. P is not reall+ being presented for another purpose. Private respondentNs counsel offered it for the purpose of sho$ing the a*ount of petitionerNs indebtedness. "e said% E2hibit VP,W +our "onor - faithful reproduction of page .0# of the boo; on Collectible Accounts of the plaintiff, reflecting the principal indebtedness of defendant in the a*ount of <$o hundred ninet+-nine thousand seven hundred seventeen pesos and sevent+-five centavos P/88,0.0.05# and reflecting as $ell the accu*ulated interest of three percent 7]# *onthl+ co*pounded such that as of >ece*ber .., .830, the a*ount collectible fro* the defendant b+ the plaintiff is ,i2 hundred si2teen thousand four hundred thirt+-five pesos and sevent+-t$o centavos P9.9,175.0/#CL//M <his is also the purpose for $hich its ad*ission is sought as a *e*orandu* to refresh the *e*or+ of >olores Ada+ as a $itness. In other $ords, it is the nature of the evidence that is changed, not the purpose for $hich it is offered. Be that as it *a+, considered as a *e*orandu*, E2h. P does not itself constitute evidence. Borro*eo v. Court of Appeals%L/7M As e2plained in

:nder the above provision 'ule .7/, Z.4#, the *e*orandu* used to refresh the *e*or+ of the $itness does not constitute evidence, and *a+ not be ad*itted as such, for the si*ple reason that the $itness has )ust the sa*e to testif+ on the basis of refreshed *e*or+. In other $ords, $here the $itness has testified independentl+ of or after his testi*on+ has been refreshed b+ a *e*orandu* of the events in dispute, such *e*orandu* is not ad*issible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a $itness *a+ not be corroborated b+ an+ $ritten state*ent prepared $holl+ b+ hi*. "e cannot be *ore credible )ust because he supports his open-court declaration $ith $ritten state*ents of the sa*e facts even if he did prepare the* during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing *e*or+ is priorl+ laid do$n. &hat is *ore, even $here this reFuire*ent has been satisfied, the e2press in)unction of the rule itself is that such evidence *ust be received $ith caution, if onl+ because it is not ver+ difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. <his is doubl+ true $hen the $itness stands to gain *ateriall+ or other$ise fro* the ad*ission of such evidence . . . .L/1M As the entries in Fuestion E2h. P# $ere not *ade based on personal ;no$ledge, the+ could onl+ corroborate >olores Ada+Ns testi*on+ that she *ade the entries as she received the bills. <hird. >oes this, therefore, *ean there is no co*petent evidence of private respondentNs clai* as petitioner arguesH L/5M <he ans$er is in the negative. Aside fro* E2h. P, private respondent presented the follo$ing docu*ents% .# E2hibit A - Contract Agree*ent dated /9 April .835 $hich contract covers both the <oledo $harf pro)ect and the Babag 'oad pro)ect in -apulapu Cit+. /# E2hibit B - Contract Agree*ent dated /7 !ul+ .835 $hich covers the >A, Asphalting Pro)ect. 7# E2hibit C - 'evised Co*putation of Billings sub*itted on =a+ /3, .839. 1# E2hibit > - an affidavit e2ecuted b+ LpetitionerM to the effect that she has no *ore pending or unsettled obligations as far as <oledo &harf 'oad is concerned. 5# E2hibit >-. - ,tate*ent of &or; Acco*plished on the 'oad 'estoration of Cebu-<oledo $harf pro)ect. 9# E2hibit E - another affidavit e2ecuted b+ LpetitionerM attesting that she has co*pletel+ paid her laborers at the pro)ect located at Babag, -apulapu Cit+ 0# E2hibits F, 6, 6-., 6-/, 6-7 - Pre*iu*s paid b+ Lprivate respondentM together $ith the receipts for filing fees. 3# E2hibits ", I, ! - certifications issued b+ (IC, =P&", 'egional (fficeC -apulapu Cit+, Cit+ EngineerC <oledo Cit+ <reasurerNs (ffice respectivel+, proving that '>C construction has no *ore collectibles $ith all the said govern*ent offices in connection $ith its pro)ects. .4# E2hibit - - Bill No. 450 under the account of '>C Construction in the a*ount of P.57,73/.05 dated August /1, .835. ..# E2hibit = - Bill No. 498 '>CNs account#, in the a*ount of P.,04.,085.44 dated Nove*ber /4, .835. ./# E2hibit N - Bill No. 40. '>CNs account# in the a*ount of P10,/54.44 dated Nove*ber //, .835. .7# E2hibit ( - Bill No. 408 '>CNs account# in the a*ount of P0,/84.44 dated >ece*ber 9, .835. As the trial court found% <he entries recorded under E2hibit VPW $ere supported b+ E2hibits V-W, V=W, VNW, V(W $hich are all ,ocor Billings under the account of '>C Construction. <hese billings $ere presented and dul+ received b+ the authoriBed representatives of defendant. <he circu*stances obtaining in the case at bar clearl+ sho$ that for a long period of ti*e after receipt thereof, '>C never *anifested its dissatisfaction or ob)ection to the aforestated billings sub*itted b+ plaintiff. Neither did defendant i**ediatel+ protest to plaintiffNs alleged inco*plete or irregular perfor*ance. In vie$ of these facts, $e believe Art. ./75 of the Ne$ Civil Code is applicable. Art. ./75. &hen the obligee accepts the perfor*ance, ;no$ing its inco*pleteness and irregularit+ and $ithout e2pressing an+ protest or ob)ection, the obligation is dee*ed co*plied $ith. FINA--I, after a conscientious scrutin+ of the records, $e find E2hibit V>-.W p. 35 record# to be a *aterial proof of plaintiffNs co*plete fulfill*ent of its obligation. <here is no Fuestion that plaintiff supplied '>C Construction $ith Ite* 74/ Bituni*ous Pri*e Coat#, Ite* 747 Bitu*inous <ac; Coat# and Ite* 7.4 Bituni*ous Concrete ,urface Course# in all the three pro)ects of the latter. <he -utopan Access 'oad pro)ect, the <oledo $harf pro)ect and the Babag--apulapu 'oad pro)ect. (n the other hand, no proof $as ever offered b+ defendant to sho$ the presence of other contractors in those pro)ects. &e can therefore conclude that it $as ,ocor Construction Corp. A-(NE $ho supplied '>C $ith Bitu*inous Pri*e Coat, Bitu*inous <ac; Coat and Bitu*inous Concrete ,urface Course for all the aforena*ed three pro)ects.L/9M

Page1

Indeed, $hile petitioner had previousl+ paid private respondent about P.,144,444.44 for deliveries *ade in the past, she did not sho$ that she *ade such pa+*ents onl+ after the deliver+ receipts had been presented b+ private respondent. (n the other hand, it appears that petitioner $as able to collect the full a*ount of pro)ect costs fro* the govern*ent, so that petitioner $ould be un)ustl+ enriched at the e2pense of private respondent if she is not *ade to pa+ $hat is her )ust obligation under the contracts. &"E'EF('E, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFI'=E>. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .43177 (ctober .5, .889 &A--E= =A'I<I=E ,E'EICE,, INC. and &A--E= ,"IP=ANA6E=EN< -<>., petitioners, vs. NA<I(NA- -AB(' 'E-A<I(N, C(==I,,I(N and !(,E-I<( E. =ACA<:N(, respondents.

'(=E'(, !.%p <his petition for certiorari see;s to annul and set aside the 'esolution . of the National -abor 'elations Co**ission N-'C# affir*ing the >ecision / of the Philippine (verseas E*plo+*ent Ad*inistration P(EA# $hich disposed of P(EA Case No. =# 38-48-395 as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, in vie$ of the foregoing, respondents &alle* =ariti*e ,ervices, Inc. and &alle* ,hip*anage*ent -td. are hereb+ ordered )ointl+ and severall+, to pa+ co*plainant the follo$ing in Philippine currenc+ at the prevailing rate of e2change at the ti*e of pa+*ent% a# <"'EE ":N>'E> <"'EE :, >(--A', :,\747.44# A representing salar+ for the *onth of !une .838C b# <"'EE <"(:,AN> FIF<I F(:' :, >(--A', :,\7,451.44# A representing salaries for the une2pired portion of the contract !ul+->ece*ber .838#C and c# (NE ":N>'E> ,IU Y 54D.44 :, >(--A', :,\.49.54# A or five percent 5]# of the total a$ard as and b+ $a+ of attorne+@s fees. <he clai* against Prudential 6uarantee and Assurance Inc. is dis*issed for lac; of *erit. ,( ('>E'E>. Private respondent !oselito E. =acatuno $as hired b+ &alle* ,hip*anage*ent -i*ited thru its local *anning agent, &alle* =ariti*e ,ervices, Inc., as an able-bodied sea*an on board the =D< Fortuna, a vessel of -iberian registr+. Pursuant to the contract of e*plo+*ent, private respondent $as e*plo+ed for ten .4# *onths covering the period Februar+ /9, .838 until >ece*ber /9, .838 $ith a *onthl+ salar+ of t$o hundred sevent+-si2 :, dollars :, \/09#C hourl+ overti*e rate of one dollar and sevent+-t$o cents :, \..0/#, and a *onthl+ tan;er allo$ance of one hundred t$ent+-seven dollars and si2t+ cents :, \./0.94#, $ith si2 9# da+s leave $ith pa+ for each *onth. (n !une /1, .838, $hile the vessel $as berthed at the port of Pa$asa;i, !apan, an altercation too; place bet$een private respondent and fello$ Filipino cre$ *e*ber, !ulius E. 6uri*bao, on the one hand, and a cadetDapprentice officer of the sa*e nationalit+ as the captain of the vessel on the other hand. <he *aster entered the incident in the tan;er@s logboo;. As a conseFuence, private respondent and 6uri*bao $ere repatriated to the Philippines $here the+ lost no ti*e in lodging separate co*plaints for illegal dis*issal $ith the P(EA. 7 According to the affidavit private respondent e2ecuted before a P(EA ad*inistering officer, the follo$ing facts led to the filing of the co*plaint. At about 5%54 a.*. of !une /1, .838, private respondent $as on dut+ along $ith 6uri*bao, chec;ing the *anifold of the vessel and loo;ing for oil lea;ages, $hen a cadetDapprentice $ho $as of the sa*e nationalit+ as the vessel@s captain ,ingh#, approached the*. "e ordered 6uri*bao to use a shovel in draining the $ater $hich, *i2ed $ith oil and dirt, had accu*ulated at the rear portion of the upper dec; of the vessel. 6uri*bao e2plained to the cadetDapprentice that thro$ing dirt+ and oil+ $ater overboard $as prohibited b+ the la$s of !apanC in fact, port authorities $ere roa*ing and chec;ing the sanitar+ conditions of the port. <he cadetDapprentice got *ad and, shouting, ordered 6uri*bao to get a hose and siphon off the $ater. <o avoid trouble, 6uri*bao used a shovel in thro$ing the dirt+ $ater into the sea. "aving finished his )ob, 6uri*bao co*plained to private respondent about the "i*proper and unauthoriBed act" of the cadetDapprentice. <he t$o then $ent to the cadetDapprentice $ho $as idl+ standing in a corner. <he+ re*inded hi* that as a *ere apprentice and not an officer of the vessel, he had no right $hatsoever to order around an+ *e*ber of the cre$. "o$ever, the cadetDapprentice reacted violentl+ A shouting invectives and gesturing "as if challenging" the t$o to a fight. <o prevent hi* fro* "inti*idating" the*, private respondent pushed t$ice the cadetDapprentice@s chest $hile 6uri*bao "*ildl+ hit" his ar*. Frantic and shouting, the cadetDapprentice ran to the captain "$ho happened to $itness the incident" fro* the cabin@s $indo$. <he captain su**oned private respondent and 6uri*bao. &ith their bosun head of the dec; cre$#, the+ $ent to the captain@s cabin. <he captain told the* to pac; up their things as their services $ere being ter*inated. <he+ $ould dise*bar; at the ne2t port, the Port of :be, fro* $here the+ $ould be flo$n ho*e to the Philippines, the repatriation e2penses to be shouldered b+ the*. <he t$o atte*pted to e2plain their side of the incident but the captain ignored the* and fir*l+ told the* to go ho*e.

Page1

Before dise*bar;ing, the+ $ere entrusted b+ the bosun $ith a letter of their fello$ cre$ *e*bers, addressed to Capt. >iQo, attesting to their innocence. At the Port of :be, an agent of the co*pan+ handed the* their plane tic;ets and acco*panied the* the follo$ing da+ to the Fu;o;a Airport $here the+ boarded a Catha+ Pacific airplane bound for =anila. A fe$ da+s after their arrival in =anila or on !ul+ ., .838, the t$o gave the letter to Capt. >iQo and conferred $ith hi* and =r. !a*es Nichols. <he latter told private respondent that the+ could not secure a rei*burse*ent of their repatriation e2penses nor could the+ get their salaries for the *onth of !une. Private respondent, in a letter addressed to Capt. >iQo, as;ed for a reconsideration of their dis*issal but the latter did not respond. Frustrated, private respondent sought the assistance of a la$+er $ho $rote &alle* a de*and letter dated August /3, .838 but the sa*e $as ignored. 1 Petitioners, defending their position, alleged that the incident $as not the first infraction co**itted b+ the t$o. As sho$n b+ the logboo;, on !une .8, .838, $hile the vessel $as doc;ed in Batangas, the+ left it during $or;ing hours $ithout as;ing per*ission. For this offense, the+ $ere given a $arning. (n !une /0, .838 sic#, $hile the vessel $as anchored at the Port of Pa$asa;i, !apan, the+ assaulted the officer on $atch for the da+, =r. E.,. ,ason. <he three $ere "*ustered" and it $as found that ,ason "$as attac;ed $ith a spanner $ithout provacition sic#." <he t$o $ere "severel+ $arned that the+ $ill be dealt according to the rules and regulation of their contact of e*plo+*ent sic#." &hen the vessel $as about to sail that da+, the t$o $ent ashore inspite of the $arning given the*. <he+ $ere arrested b+ !apanese authorities but the vessel@s departure $as dela+ed for five 5# hours. <he agenc+ in =anila $as infor*ed that their $ages should be settled "after deducting recoveries" or fines and air fare. <heir dis*issal fro* the service $as also reco**ended. 5 In his afore*entioned decision of ,epte*ber .1, .884 finding private respondent@s dis*issal to be illegal, P(EA >eput+ Ad*inistrator =anuel 6. I*son held% &e find co*plainant@s dis*issal to be $ithout )ust and valid cause. &e cannot give *uch $eight and credence to the "certified true cop+ of the official logboo;" Anne2 ".", ans$er# because the alleged entries therein $ere onl+ handpic;ed and copied fro* the official logboo; of the vessel =DE "Fortuna". <here is no $a+ of verif+ing the truth of these entries and $hether the+ actuall+ appear in the log entries for the specific dates *entioned. <he pages in the official logboo; $here these entries appear should have been the ones reproduced to give the sa*e a taint of credence. =oreover, no docu*entar+ evidence $as sub*itted to support the alleged official logboo;, li;e the =aster@s report and the police report or an+ report b+ the !apanese authorities b+ reason of their arrest. Finall+, the cop+ of the alleged official logboo; $as not properl+ authenticated. <he authentication is necessar+ speciall+ so since this docu*ent is the onl+ piece of evidence sub*itted b+ respondents. 6ranting that the entries in the logboo; are true, a perusal thereof $ill readil+ sho$ that co*plainant $as not afforded due process. <he $arnings allegedl+ given to co*plainant $ere not sub*itted in evidence. -i;e$ise, no investigation report $as presented to prove that co*plainant $as given the opportunit+ to air his side of the incident. It is also note$orth+ to *ention that co*plainant $as able to describe $ith particularit+ the circu*stances $hich led to his *isunderstanding $ith the cadetDapprentice and $hich $e believe is not sufficient to $arrant his dis*issal. 9 As stated above, the N-'C affir*ed the decision of the P(EA, adopting as its o$n the latter@s findings and conclusions. "ence, the instant petition contending that both the P(EA and the N-'C gravel+ abused their discretion in finding that private respondent $as illegall+ ter*inated fro* his e*plo+*ent. As $ith 6.'. No. .40395, $here herein petitioners li;e$ise Fuestioned the N-'C decision affir*ing that of P(EA Case No. =# 33-..-.403 finding the dis*issal fro* e*plo+*ent of 6uri*bao to be illegal, 0 the Court sees no *erit in the instant petition. An e*plo+er *a+ dis*iss or la+ off an e*plo+ee onl+ for the )ust and authoriBed causes enu*erated in Articles /3/ and /37 of the -abor Code. "o$ever, this basic and nor*al prerogative of an e*plo+er is sub)ect to regulation b+ the ,tate in the e2ercise of its para*ount police po$er inas*uch as the preservation of lives of citiBens, as $ell as their *eans of livelihood, is a basic dut+ of the ,tate *ore vital than the preservation of corporate profits. 3 (ne@ s e*plo+*ent, profession, trade or calling is a propert+ right $ithin the protection of the constitutional guarant+ of due process of la$. 8 &e agree $ith petitioners that the ship captain@s logboo; is a vital evidence as Article 9./ of the Code of Co**erce reFuires hi* to ;eep a record of the decisions he had adopted as the vessel@s head. <hus, in"averton ,hipping -td. v. N-'C, .4 the Court held that a cop+ of an official entr+ in the logboo; is legall+ binding and serves as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule. "o$ever, the "averton ,hipping ruling does not find unFualified application in the case at bar. In said case, an investigation of the incident $hich led to the sea*an@s dis*issal $as conducted before he $as dis*issed... ConseFuentl+, the facts appearing in the logboo; $ere supported b+ the facts gathered at the investigation. In this case, because no investigation $as conducted b+ the ship captain before repatriating private respondent, the contents of the logboo; have to be dul+ identified and authenticated lest an in)ustice result fro* a blind adoption of such contents $hich *erel+ serve as pri*a facie evidence of the incident in Fuestion. ./ =oreover, $hat $as presented in the "averton ,hipping case $as a cop+ of the official entr+ fro* the logboo; itself. In this case, petitioners did not sub*it as evidence to the P(EA the logboo; itself, or even authenticated copies of pertinent pages thereof, $hich could have been easil+ 2ero2ed or photocopied considering the present technolog+ on reproduction of docu*ents. .7 &hat $as offered in evidence $as *erel+ a t+pe$ritten collation of e2cerpts fro* $hat couldbe the logboo; .1 because b+ their for*at, the+ could have been lifted fro* other records ;ept in the vessel in accordance $ith Article 9./ of the Code of Co**erce. .5 Further*ore, the alleged entr+ in the "logboo;" states, as regards the !une /0, .838 sic# incident, as follo$s% PA&A,API PA&A,API <his is to place on record /0.9.38 that at the ti*e, date and place *entioned =r. !. E.

=r. !.E. 6:'I=BA( ,r No.

Page1

=ACA<:N( ,r No. .10# and

.59# attac;ed and assaulted apprentice officer =r E.,. ,A,(N $hile on dut+. All three $ere *ustered and it $as found that =r. ,A,(N $as attac;ed $ith a spanner $ithout provacition sic#. Both the sea*an sic# have been severel+ $arned that the+ $ill be dealt according to the rules and regulation of their contact of e*plo+*ent. .9 :nder the <able of (ffenses and Corresponding Ad*inistrative Penalties appended to the contract of e*plo+*ent entered into b+ petitioners and private respondent, the offense described b+ the logboo; entr+ *a+ $ell fall under insubordination and *a+ constitute assaulting a superior officer "$ith the use of deadl+ $eapon" punishable $ith dis*issal .0 if the victi* is indeed a "superior officer." "o$ever, an "apprentice officer" cannot be considered a "superior officer." An apprentice is a person bound in the for* of la$ to a *aster, to learn fro* hi* his art, trade, or business, and to serve hi* during the ti*e of his apprenticeship..3 In other $ords, =r. E. ,. ,ason $as *erel+ a learner or a trainee and not a regular officer on board =D< Fortuna. In this regard, it should be clarified that this Court does not tolerate nor sanction assault in an+ for*. Ph+sical violence against an+one at an+ ti*e and an+ place is reprehensible. "o$ever, in cases such as this, $here a person@s livelihood is at sta;e, strict interpretation of the contract of e*plo+*ent in favor of the $or;er *ust be observed to affir* the constitutional provision on protection to labor. =oreover, the aforeFuoted entr+ in the logboo; is so s;etch+ that, unsupported b+ other evidence, it leaves so *an+ Fuestions unans$ered. Although private respondent candidl+ ad*itted in his affidavit having hit ,ason on the chest t$ice, he did not ad*it using a spanner. <he conflicting versions of the incident rendered it i*possible to deter*ine $hether it $as private respondent or 6uri*bao $ho $ielded said tool. In the absence of a *ore detailed narration in the logboo; entr+ of the circu*stances surrounding the alleged assault, the sa*e cannot constitute a valid )ustification to ter*inate private respondent@s e*plo+*ent. .8 " ence, as the t+pe$ritten e2cerpts fro* the "logboo;" $ere the onl+ pieces of evidence presented b+ petitioners to support the dis*issal of private respondent, have no probative value at all, petitioners@ cause *ust fail. <heir failure to discharge the onus probandi properl+ *a+ have no other result than a finding that the dis*issal of private respondent is un)ustified. /4 Petitioners@ failure to substantiate the grounds for a valid dis*issal $as aggravated b+ the *anner b+ $hich the e*plo+*ent of private respondent $as ter*inated. It *ust be borne in *ind that the right of an e*plo+er to dis*iss an e*plo+ee is to be distinguished fro* and should not be confused $ith the *anner in $hich such right is e2ercised. >is*issal fro* e*plo+*ent *ust not be effected abusivel+ and oppressivel+ as it affects one@s person and propert+. <hus, Batas Pa*bansa Blg. .74, a*ending paragraph b# of Article /03 of the -abor Code, i*posed as a condition sine Fua non that an+ ter*ination of e*plo+*ent under the grounds provided in Article /37 *ust be done onl+ after notice and for*al investigation have been accorded the supposed errant $or;er. /. <hat the $or;ers involved in the incident $ere "*ustered" or convened thereafter b+ the captain is inconseFuential. It is insufficient co*pliance $ith the la$ $hich reFuires, as a vital co*ponent of due process, observance of the t$in reFuire*ents of notice and hearing before dis*issing an e*plo+ee. As regards the notice reFuire*ent, the Court has stated% (n the issue of due process . . . , the la$ reFuires the e*plo+er to furnish the $or;er $hose e*plo+*ent is sought to be ter*inated a $ritten notice containing a state*ent of the cause or causes for ter*ination and shall afford hi* a*ple opportunit+ to be heard and to defend hi*self $ith the assistance of a representative. ,pecificall+, the e*plo+er *ust furnish the $or;er $ith t$o /# $ritten notices before ter*ination of e*plo+*ent can be legall+ effected% a# notice $hich apprises the e*plo+ee of the particular acts or o*issions for $hich his dis*issal is soughtC and b# the subseFuent notice $hich infor*s the e*plo+ee of the e*plo+er@s decision to dis*iss hi*. E*phasis supplied.# // Neither is the ship captain@s having $itnessed the altercation an e2cuse for dispensing $ith the notice and hearing reFuire*ents. ,erving notice to private respondent under the circu*stances cannot be regarded as an "absurdit+ and superfluit+." /7 (N A-- <"E F('E6(IN6 C(N,I>E'A<I(N,, the petition at bar is >I,=I,,E> and the 'esolution of respondent National -abor 'elations Co**ission is hereb+ AFFI'=E> in toto. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC 6.'. No. --3.0. August .9, .859

E=I-I( =ANA-( and CA'-A ,A-EA>(', plaintiffs-appellees, vs.

Page1

'(B-E, <'AN,P('<A<I(N C(=PANI, INC., defendant-appellant. Cornelio ,. 'uperto and -aBaro Por*are)o for appellant. ,an !uan, Africa, IQigueB and Benedicto for appellees. =(N<E=AI(', !.% 'obles <ransportation Co*pan+, Inc., later referred to as the Co*pan+, is appealing fro* the decision of the Court of First Instance of 'iBal, civil case No. /4.7, ordering it to pa+ plaintiffs E*ilio =analo and his $ife, Clara ,alvador, the su* of P7,444 $ith interest at ./ per cent per annu* fro* Nove*ber .1, .85/ plus the a*ount of P944 for attorne+@s fee and e2penses of litigation, $ith cost. <he facts involved in this case are si*ple and $ithout dispute. (n August 8, .810, a ta2icab o$ned and operated b+ defendant appellant Co*pan+ and driven b+ Edgardo "ernandeB its driver, collided $ith a passenger truc; at ParaQaFue, 'iBal. In the course of and a result of the accident, the ta2icab ran over Ar*ando =analo, an eleven +ear old, causing hi* ph+sical in)uries $hich resulted in his death several da+s later. Edgardo "ernandeB $as prosecuted for ho*icide through rec;less i*prudence and after trial $as found guilt+ of the charge and sentenced to one +ear prision correccional, to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased in the a*ount of P7,444, in the case of insolvenc+ to suffer subsidiar+ i*prison*ent, and to pa+ costs. Edgardo "ernandeB served out his sentence but failed to pa+ the inde*nit+. <$o $rits of e2ecution $ere issued against hi* to satisf+ the a*ount of the inde*nit+, but both $rits $ere returned unsatisfied b+ the sheriff $ho certified that propert+, real or personal in "ernandeB" na*e could be found. (n Februar+ .0, .857, plaintiffs E*ilio =analo and his $ife Clara ,alvador, father and *other respectivel+ of Ar*ando filed the present action against the Co*pan+ to enforce its subsidiar+ liabilit+, pursuant to Articles .4/ and .47 of the 'evised Penal Code. <he Co*pan+ filed its appearance and ans$er and later an a*ended ans$er $ith special defenses and counterclai*. It also filed a *otion to dis*iss the co*plaint unless and until the convicted driver "ernandeB $as included as a part+ defendant, the Co*pan+ considering hi* an indispensable part+. <he trial court denied the *otion to dis*iss, holding that "ernandeB $as not an indispensable part+ defendant. >issatisfied $ith this ruling, the Co*pan+ filed certiorari proceedings $ith the Court of Appeals, but said appellate court held that "ernandeB $as not an indispensable part+ defendant, and conseFuentl+, the trial court in den+ing the *otion to dis*iss acted $ithin the proper li*its of its discretion. Eventuall+, the trial court rendered )udg*ent sentencing the defendant Co*pan+ to pa+ to plaintiffs da*ages in the a*ount P7,444 $ith interest at ./ per cent per annu* fro* Nove*ber .1, .85/, plus P944 for attorne+@s fee and e2penses for litigation, $ith cost. As aforesaid, the Co*pan+ is appealing fro* this decision. <o prove their case against the defendant Co*pan+, the plaintiffs introduced a cop+ of the decision in the cri*inal case convicting "ernandeB of ho*icide through rec;less i*prudence, the $rits of e2ecution to enforce the civil liabilit+, and the returns of the sheriff sho$ing that the t$o $rits of e2ecution $ere not satisfied because of the insolvenc+ of "ernandeB, the sheriff being unable to locate an+ propert+ in his na*e. (ver the ob)ections of the Co*pan+, the trial court ad*itted this evidence and based its decision in the present case on the sa*e. >efendant-appellant no$ contends that this ;ind of evidence is inad*issible and cities in support of its contention the cases of Cit+ of =anila vs. =anila Electric Co*pan+ 5/ Phil., 539#, and Ara*bulo vs. =anila Electric decided b+ this tribunal in the case of =artineB vs. Barredo 3. Phil., .#. After considering the sa*e t$o cases no$ cited b+ appellant, this court held that the )udg*ent of conviction, in the absence of an+ collusion bet$een the defendant and offended part+, is binding upon the part+ subsidiaril+ liable. <he appelant also clai*s that in ad*itting as evidence the sheriff@s return of the $rits of e2ecution to prove the insolvenc+ of "ernandeB, $ithout reFuiring said opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine said sheriff. A sheriff@s return is an official state*ent *ade b+ a public official in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ the la$ and for*ing part of official records, and is pri*a facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 'ule 78, section .. and 'ule ./7, section 75, 'ules of Court.# <he sheriff@s *a;ing the return need not testif+ in court as to the facts stated in his entr+. In the case of Antillon vs. Barcelon, 70 Phil., .5. citing &ig*ore on Evidence, this court said% <o the foregoing rules $ith reference to the *ethod of proving private docu*ents an e2ception is *ade $ith reference to the *ethod of proving public docu*ents e2ecuted before and certified to, under the land of seal of certain public officials. <he courts and the legislature have recogniBed the valid reason for such an e2ception. <he litigation is unli*ited in $hich testi*on+ b+ officials is dail+ needed, the occasion in $hich the officials $ould be su**oned fro* his ordinar+ duties to declare as a $itness are nu*berless. <he public officers are fe$ in $hose dail+ $or; so*ething is not done in $hich testi*on+ is not needed fro* official state*ents, host of official $ould be found devoting the greater part of their ti*e to attending as $itness in court or delivering their depositions before an officer. <he $or; of Ad*inistration of govern*ent and the interest of the public having business $ith officials $ould ali;e suffer in conseFuence. And this Court added% <he la$ reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presu*es the+ $ill discharge their several trust $ith accurac+ and fidelit+C and therefore, $hatever acts the+ do in discharge of their public dut+ *a+ be given in evidence and shall be ta;en of their public dut+ *a+ be given in evidence and shall be ta;en to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circu*stances of each a case *a+ appear to reFuire. <he appellant also contends that Article .4/ and .47 of the 'evised Penal Code $ere repealed b+ the Ne$ Civil Code, pro*ulgated in .854, particularl+, b+ the repealing clause under $hich co*es Article //04 of the said code. &e find the contention untenable. Article /.00 of the Ne$ Civil Code e2pressl+ recogniBes civil liabilities arising fro* negligence under the Penal Code, onl+ that it provides that plaintiff cannot recover da*ages t$ice for the sa*e act of o*ission of the defendant. A'<. /.00. 'esponsibilit+ for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirel+ separate and distinct fro* the civil liabilit+ arising fro* negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover da*ages t$ice for the sa*e act of o*ission of the defendant.

Page1

Invo;ing prescription, appellant clai*s that the present action is barred b+ the ,tatute of -i*itations for the reason that it is an action either upon a Fuasi delict, and that according to Article ..19 of the Ne$ Civil Code, such action *ust be instituted $ithin four +ears. &e agree $ith the appellee that the present action is based upon a )udge*ent, na*el+, that in

the cri*inal case, finding "ernandeB guilt+ of ho*icide through rec;less i*prudence and sentencing hi* to inde*nif+ the heirs of the deceased in the su* of P7,444, and, conseFuentl+ *a+ be instituted $ithin ten +ears. As regards the other errors assigned b+ appellant, $e find it unnecessar+ to discuss and rule upon the*. Finding the decision appealed fro* to be in accordance $ith la$, the sa*e is hereb+ affir*ed, $ith costs. 6.'. No. .55554 !anuar+ 7., /443

N('<"&E,< AI'-INE,, INC., petitioner, vs. ,<EEEN P. C"I(N6, respondent. >ECI,I(N NAC":'A, !.% Before us is a petition for revie$ on certiorari under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court see;ing the reversal of the Court of Appeals CA# >ecision. in CA-6.'. CE No. 54743/ $hich affir*ed in toto the 'egional <rial Court '<C# >ecision7 holding petitioner North$est Airlines, Inc. North$est# liable for breach of contract of carriage. (n =arch .1, .838, Phili*are ,hipping and ,eagull =ariti*e Corporation Phili*are#, as the authoriBed Philippine agent of <rans(cean -ines <rans(cean#, hired respondent ,teven Chiong as <hird Engineer of <rans(ceanNs vessel =DE Elbia at the ,an >iego, California Port. :nder the service cre$ agree*ent, Chiong $as guaranteed co*pensation at a *onthl+ salar+ of :,\114.44 and a *onthl+ overti*e pa+ of :,\//4.44, or a total of :,\0,8/4.44 for one +ear. ,ubseFuentl+, on =arch /0, .838, Phili*are dispatched a -etter of 6uarantee to C- "utchins Y Co., Inc., <rans(ceanNs agent at the ,an >iego Port, confir*ing ChiongNs arrival thereat in ti*e to board the =DE Elbia$hich $as set to sail on April ., .838 California, :nited ,tates ti*e#. For this purpose, Phili*are purchased for Chiong a North$est plane tic;et for ,an >iego, California $ith a departure date of April ., .838 fro* =anila. <en .4# da+s before his scheduled departure, Chiong fetched his entire fa*il+ fro* ,a*ar and brought the* to =anila to see hi* off at the airport. (n April ., .838, Chiong arrived at the =anila International Airport1 =IA#, at about 9%74 a.*., three 7# hours before the scheduled ti*e of departure. =aril+n Calvo, Phili*areNs -iaison (fficer, *et Chiong at the departure gate, and the t$o proceeded to the Philippine Coast 6uard PC6# Counter to present ChiongNs sea*an service record boo; for clearance. <hereafter, ChiongNs passport $as dul+ sta*ped, after co*pl+ing $ith govern*ent reFuire*ents for departing seafarers. Calvo re*ained at the PC6 Counter $hile Chiong proceeded to Fueue at the North$est chec;-in counter. &hen it $as ChiongNs turn, the North$est personnel5 infor*ed hi* that his na*e did not appear in the co*puterNs list of confir*ed departing passengers. Chiong $as then directed to spea; to a "*an in barong" standing outside North$estNs counters fro* $ho* Chiong could allegedl+ obtain a boarding pass. Posthaste, Chiong approached the "*an in barong" $ho de*anded :,\.44.44 in e2change therefor. &ithout the said a*ount, and an2ious to board the plane, Chiong Fueued a nu*ber of ti*es at North$estNs Chec;-in Counter and presented his tic;et. "o$ever, the North$est personnel at the counter told hi* to si*pl+ $ait and that he $as being a pest. Frustrated, Chiong $ent to Calvo at the PC6 counter and inFuired if she had *one+ so he could obtain a boarding pass fro* the "*an in barong." Calvo, $ho alread+ sa$ that so*ething $as a*iss, insisted that ChiongNs plane tic;et $as confir*ed and as such, he could chec;-in s*oothl+ and board the plane $ithout shelling out :,\.44.44 for a boarding pass. :lti*atel+, Chiong $as not allo$ed to board North$est Flight No. /1 bound for ,an >iego that da+ and, conseFuentl+, $as unable to $or; at the =DE Elbia b+ April ., .838 California, :.,.A. ti*e#. It appears that ChiongNs na*e $as crossed out and substituted $ith "&. Costine" in North$estNs Air Passenger =anifest.9 In a letter dated April 7, .838, ChiongNs counsel de*anded as reco*pense% .# the a*ount eFuivalent to ChiongNs salar+ under the latterNs Cre$ Agree*ent0 $ith <rans(ceanC /# P.5,444.44 for ChiongNs e2penses in fetching and bringing his fa*il+ fro* ,a*ar to =anilaC 7# P544,444.44 as *oral da*agesC and 1# P544,444.44 as legal fees.3 North$est de*urred. <hus, on =a+ /1, .838, Chiong filed a Co*plaint for breach of contract of carriage before the '<C. North$est filed a =otion to >is*iss8 the co*plaint citing the trial courtNs lac; of )urisdiction over the sub)ect *atter of the case, but the trial court denied the sa*e..4 In its Ans$er,.. North$est contradicted the clai* that it breached its contract of carriage $ith Chiong, reiterating that Chiong had no cause of action against it because per its records, Chiong $as a "no-sho$" passenger for North$est Flight No. /1 on April ., .838. In the '<CNs Pre-trial (rder./ based on the partiesN respective Pre-trial Briefs,.7 the triable issues $ere li*ited to the follo$ing% a# &hether LChiongM $as bu*ped-off b+ LNorth$estM fro* Flight N& /1 or $hether LChiongM "no-sho$ed" for said flight. b# If defendant is found guilt+ of having breached its contract of carriage $ith plaintiff, $hat da*ages are a$ardable to plaintiff and ho$ *uch. In the course of proceedings, North$est, on ,epte*ber .1, .884, filed a separate cri*inal co*plaint for False <esti*on+.1 against Chiong based on the latterNs testi*on+ that he did not leave the Philippines after April ., .838 contrar+ to the notations in his sea*an service record boo; that he had left the countr+ on April .0, .838, and returned on (ctober 5 of the sa*e +ear. Chiong did not participate in the preli*inar+ investigationC thus, on >ece*ber .1, .884, the Cit+ Prosecutor of =anila filed an Infor*ation against Chiong $ith the '<C =anila, Branch 51, doc;eted as Cri*inal Case No. 84-380//. In the *eanti*e, after a flurr+ of *otions filed b+ North$est in the civil case $ere denied b+ the '<C, North$est filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA i*puting grave abuse of discretion to the '<C..5 Correlativel+, North$est *oved for a

Page1

suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. "o$ever, both the Petition forCertiorari and =otion for ,uspension of the proceedings $ere denied b+ the CA and '<C, respectivel+..9 After trial, the '<C rendered a >ecision finding preponderance of evidence in favor of Chiong, and holding North$est liable for breach of contract of carriage. <he '<C ruled that the evidence adduced b+ the parties supported the conclusion that Chiong $as deliberatel+ prevented fro* chec;ing-in and his boarding pass un)ustifiabl+ $ithheld to acco**odate an A*erican passenger b+ the na*e of &. Costine. <he dispositive portion of the '<C decision reads% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, in consideration of all the foregoing, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered, ordering the defendant liable to plaintiff in da*ages b+ reason of the latterNs inabilit+ to ta;e defendantNs N& Flight No. /1 on April ., .838, for the follo$ing a*ounts% .# :.,.\3,110.44.0 or its peso eFuivalent at the ti*e of finalit+ of this )udg*ent $ith legal interests until full+ paid, representing co*pensator+ da*ages due to plaintiffNs loss of inco*e for one .# +ear as a direct result of defendantNs breach of contract of carriageC /# P.5,444.44, Philippine Currenc+, representing plaintiffNs actual incurred da*ages as a conseFuence of his failure to avail of defendantNs Flight No. /1 on April ., .838C 7# P/44,444.44, Philippine Currenc+, representing *oral da*ages suffered and sustained b+ the plaintiff as a result of defendantNs breach of contract of carriageC 1# P/44,444.44, Philippine Currenc+, representing e2e*plar+ or punitive da*ages due to plaintiff fro* defendant, o$ing to the latterNs breach of contract of carriage $ith *alice and fraudC and 5# P/44,444.44, Philippine Currenc+, for and as attorne+Ns fees, plus costs of suit. ,( ('>E'E>. (n appeal, the CA affir*ed in toto the ruling of the '<C. Identical to the '<CNs findings, those of the CA $ere as follo$s% on April ., .838, Chiong $as at the =IA three hours before the .4%.5 a.*. departure ti*e for North$est Flight No. /1. Contrar+ to North$estNs clai* that Chiong $as a "no-sho$" passenger, the CA li;e$ise concluded, as the '<C did, that Chiong $as not allo$ed to chec;-in and $as not issued a boarding pass at the North$est chec;-in counter to acco**odate a certain &. Costine. As for North$estNs defense that Chiong had left the countr+ after April ., .838 and $or;ed for =DE Elbia, the CA ruled that North$estNs failure to raise this defense in its Ans$er or =otion to >is*iss is eFuivalent to a $aiver thereof. <he CA declared that, in an+ event, North$est failed to present an+ evidence to prove that Chiong had $or;ed under the original cre$ agree*ent. "ence, this recourse. North$est ascribes grievous errors to the CA $hen the appellate court ruled that% .# North$est breached the contract of carriage $ith Chiong $ho $as present at the =IA on April ., .838 to board North$estNs Flight No. /1C /# As a result of the breach, North$est is liable to Chiong for co*pensator+, actual, *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages, attorne+Ns fees, and costs of suitC and 7# North$estNs E2hibits "/" and "7," the Flight =anifest and the Passenger Na*e 'ecord, respectivel+, $ere hearsa+ evidence and ought to be e2cluded fro* the records. <he petition *ust fail. &e are in co*plete accord $ith the co**on ruling of the lo$er courts that North$est breached the contract of carriage $ith Chiong, and as such, he is entitled to co*pensator+, actual, *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages, attorne+Ns fees and costs of suit. North$est contends that Chiong, as a "no-sho$" passenger on April ., .838, alread+ defaulted in his obligation to abide b+ the ter*s and conditions of the contract of carriageC.3 and thus, North$est could not have been in breach of its reciprocal obligation to transport Chiong. In su*, North$est insists that ChiongNs testi*on+ is a co*plete fabrication, supposedl+ de*onstrated b+ the follo$ing% .# ChiongNs sea*an service record boo; reflects that he left the Philippines after April ., .838, specificall+ on April .0, .838, to board the =DE Elbia, and $as discharged therefro* upon his personal reFuestC /# the Infor*ation filed against Chiong for False <esti*on+C and 7# the Flight =anifest and the Passenger Na*e 'ecord both indicate that he $as a "no-sho$" passenger. &e are not convinced. <he records reveal that Chiong, as plaintiff in the trial court, satisfied the burden of proof reFuired in civil cases, i.e., preponderance of evidence. ,ection . of 'ule .77 provides% ,EC<I(N .. Preponderance of evidence, ho$ deter*ined. R In civil cases, the part+ having the burden of proof *ust establish his case b+ a preponderance of evidence. In deter*ining $here the preponderance or superior $eight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court *a+ consider all the facts and circu*stance of the case, the $itnessesN *anner of testif+ing, their intelligence, their *eans and opportunit+ of ;no$ing the facts to $hich the+ are testif+ing, the nature of the facts to $hich the+ testif+, the probabilit+ or i*probabilit+ of their testi*on+, their interest or $ant of interest, and also their personal credibilit+ so far as the sa*e *a+ legiti*atel+ appear upon the trial. <he court *a+ also consider the nu*ber of $itnesses, though preponderance is not necessaril+ $ith the greater nu*ber. In this regard, the Court notes that, in addition to his testi*on+, ChiongNs evidence consisted of a North$est tic;et for the April ., .838 Flight No. /1, ChiongNs passport and sea*an service record boo; dul+ sta*ped at the PC6 counter, and the testi*onies of Calvo, Florencio 6o*eB,.8 and Philippine (verseas E*plo+*ent and Ad*inistration P(EA# personnel $ho all identified the signature and sta*p of the PC6 on ChiongNs passport. &e have scoured the records, and found no reason to depart fro* the $ell-settled rule that factual findings of the lo$er courts deserve the ut*ost respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal./4 Indeed, ChiongNs North$est tic;et for Flight No. /1 on April ., .838, coupled $ith the PC6 sta*ps on his passport sho$ing the sa*e date, is direct evidence that he $as present at =IA on said date as he intended to fl+ to the :nited ,tates on board that flight. As testified to b+ P(EA personnel and officers, the PC6 sta*p indicates that a departing sea*an has passed through the PC6 counter at the airport, surrendered the e2it pass, and co*plied $ith govern*ent reFuire*ents for departing seafarers. Calvo, Phili*areNs liaison

Page1

officer tas;ed to assist Chiong at the airport, corroborated ChiongNs testi*on+ on the latterNs presence at the =IA and his chec;-in at the PC6 counter $ithout a hitch. Calvo further testified that she purposel+ sta+ed at the PC6 counter to confir* that Chiong $as able to board the plane, as it $as part of her duties as Phili*areNs liaison officer, to confir* $ith their principal, <rans(cean in this case, that the seafarer had left the countr+ and co**enced travel to the designated port $here the vessel is doc;ed./. <hus, she had observed that Chiong $as unable to chec;-in and board North$est Flight No. /1, and $as actuall+ being given the run-around b+ North$est personnel. It is of no *o*ent that ChiongNs $itnesses R $ho all corroborated his testi*on+ on his presence at the airport on, and flight details for, April ., .838, and that he $as subseFuentl+ bu*ped-off R are, li;e$ise, e*plo+ees of Phili*are $hich *a+ have an interest in the outco*e of this case. &e intoned in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,// thus% <#his Court has repeatedl+ held that a $itnessN relationship to the victi* does not auto*aticall+ affect the veracit+ of his or her testi*on+. &hile this principle is often applied in cri*inal cases, $e dee* that the sa*e principle *a+ appl+ in this case, albeit civil in nature. If a $itnessN relationship $ith a part+ does not ipso facto render hi* a biased $itness in cri*inal cases $here the Fuantu* of evidence reFuired is proof be+ond reasonable doubt, there is no reason $h+ the sa*e principle should not appl+ in civil cases $here the Fuantu* of evidence is onl+ preponderance of evidence. <he foregoing docu*entar+ and testi*onial evidence, ta;en together, a*pl+ establish the fact that Chiong $as present at =IA on April ., .838, passed through the PC6 counter $ithout dela+, proceeded to the North$est chec;-in counter, but $hen he presented his confir*ed tic;et thereat, he $as not issued a boarding pass, and ulti*atel+ barred fro* boarding North$est Flight No. /1 on that da+. In star; contrast is North$estNs bare-faced clai* that Chiong $as a "no-sho$" passenger, and $as scheduled to leave the countr+ onl+ on April .0, .838. As previousl+ discussed, the records belie this assertion. It is also note$orth+ that North$est did not present an+ evidence to support its belated defense that Chiong departed fro* the Philippines on April .0, .838 to $or; as <hird Engineer on board =DE Elbia under the original cre$ agree*ent. It is true that ChiongNs passport and sea*an service record boo; indicate that he had left the countr+ on April .0, .838 and co*e bac; on (ctober 5 of the sa*e +ear. "o$ever, this evidence fails to debun; the facts established to have transpired on April ., .838, *ore particularl+, ChiongNs presence at the airport and his subseFuent bu*ping-off b+ North$est despite a confir*ed tic;et. Although initiall+, the burden of proof $as $ith Chiong to prove that there $as a breach of contract of carriage, the burden of evidence shifted to North$est $hen Chiong adduced sufficient evidence to prove the facts he had alleged. At that point, North$est had the burden of going for$ard/7 to controvert ChiongNs pri*a facie case. As the part+ asserting that Chiong $as a "no-sho$" passenger, North$est then had the burden of evidence to establish its clai*. 'egrettabl+, North$est failed to do so. Further*ore, it has not escaped our attention that North$est, despite the declaration in its Pre-<rial Brief, did not present as a $itness their chec;-in agent on that contentious date./1 <his o*ission $as detri*ental to North$estNs case considering its clai* that Chiong did not chec;-in at their counters on said date. It si*pl+ insisted that Chiong $as a "nosho$" passenger and totall+ relied on the Flight =anifest, $hich, curiousl+, sho$ed a horiBontal line dra$n across ChiongNs na*e, and the na*e &. Costine $ritten above it. <he reason for the insertion, or for ChiongNs allegedl+ being a "no-sho$" passenger, is not even recorded on the re*ar;s colu*n of the Flight =anifest beside the Passenger Na*e colu*n. Clearl+, the categorical declaration of Chiong and his other $itnesses, coupled $ith the PC6 sta*p on his passport and sea*an service record boo;, prevails over North$estNs evidence, particularl+ the Flight =anifest. <hus, $e are perple2ed $h+, despite the evidence presented b+ Chiong, and the '<CNs specific order to North$estNs counsel to present the person s# $ho prepared the Flight =anifest and Passenger Na*e 'ecord for a proper identification of, and to testif+ on, those docu*ents, North$est still insisted on presenting 6onofredo =endoBa and A*elia =eris $ho $ere, ad*ittedl+, not co*petent to testif+ thereon./5 In its desperate atte*pt to evade liabilit+ for the breach, North$est clai*s that Chiong $or;ed at =DE Elbia $hen he left the Philippines on April .0, .838. <he argu*ent $as not onl+ belatedl+ raised, as $e have repeatedl+ stated, but is offtangent. (n this point, $e uphold the '<CNs and CANs ruling that the failure of North$est to raise the foregoing defense in its =otion to >is*iss or Ans$er constituted a $aiver thereof. ,ection ., 'ule 8 of the 'ules of Court provides% ,EC<I(N .. >efenses and ob)ections not pleaded.A >efenses and ob)ections not pleaded either in a *otion to dis*iss or in the ans$er are dee*ed $aived. "o$ever, $hen it appears fro* the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no )urisdiction over the sub)ect *atter, that there is another action pending bet$een the sa*e parties for the sa*e cause, or that the action is barred b+ a prior )udg*ent or b+ statute of li*itations, the court shall dis*iss the clai*. E*phasis supplied# ,i*ilarl+, ,ection 3, 'ule .5 of the 'ules of Court reads% ,EC<I(N 3. (*nibus =otion.A ,ub)ect to the provisions of section . of 'ule 8, a *otion attac;ing a pleading, order, )udg*ent, or proceeding shall include all ob)ections then available, and all ob)ections not so included shall be dee*ed $aived. =oreover, North$est paints a scenario that ostensibl+ transpired on a different date. Even if Chiong left the Philippines on April .0, .838, it $ould not necessaril+ prove that Chiong $as a "no-sho$" on April ., .838. Neither does it negate the alread+ established fact that Chiong had a confir*ed tic;et for April ., .838, and first passed through the PC6 counter $ithout dela+, then reached and $as at the North$est chec;-in counters on ti*e for the scheduled flight. Essentiall+, North$est argues that Chiong $as a "no-sho$" passenger on t$o /# separate occasions, =arch /3 and April ., .838 because he $as actuall+ scheduled to depart for the :, on April .0, .838 as ostensibl+ evidenced b+ his passport and sea*an record boo;. "ad this ne$ *atter alleged been proven b+ North$est, it $ould prevent or bar recover+ b+ Chiong. :nfortunatel+, North$est $as unsuccessful in proving not onl+ the "no-sho$" clai*, but that Chiong, li;e$ise, $or;ed under the original cre$ agree*ent. North$est li;e$ise insists R no$ that there is a pending cri*inal case for False <esti*on+ against Chiong R that a falsified part of ChiongNs testi*on+ $ould indicate the falsit+ of his entire testi*on+, consistent $ith the "falsus in uno, falsus in o*nibus"/9 doctrine. Follo$ing North$estNs fla$ed logic, this $ould invariabl+ lead to the conclusion that the corroborating testi*onies of ChiongNs $itnesses are also false.

Page1

<he legal *a2i* falsus in uno, falsus in o*nibus, cited b+ North$est, is not a positive rule of la$ and is not strictl+ applied in this )urisdiction. Before this *a2i* can be applied, the $itness *ust be sho$n to have $illfull+ falsified the truth on one or *ore *aterial points. <he principle presupposes the e2istence of a positive testi*on+ on a *aterial point contrar+ to subseFuent declarations in the testi*on+. "o$ever, the records sho$ that ChiongNs testi*on+ did not contain inconsistencies on $hat occurred on April ., .838. Iet, North$est never even atte*pted to e2plain or i*pugn the evidence that Chiong passed through the PC6 counter on April ., .838, and that his passport $as accordingl+ sta*ped, obviousl+ for purposes of his departure on that da+. As to the cri*inal case, it is $ell to note that there is no final deter*ination, as +et, of ChiongNs guilt b+ the courts. But even if Chiong is ad)udged guilt+, it $ill have little effect on the outco*e of this case. As $e held in -e+son v. -a$a%/0 <he testi*on+ of a $itness *ust be considered in its entiret+ instead of in truncated parts. <he techniFue in deciphering a testi*on+ is not to consider onl+ its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established b+ a $itness, ever+thing stated b+ hi* on direct, cross and redirect e2a*inations *ust be calibrated and considered. It *ust be stressed that facts i*perfectl+ or erroneousl+ stated in ans$er to one Fuestion *a+ be supplied or e2plained as Fualified b+ his ans$er to other Fuestion. <he principle falsus in uno, falsus in o*nibus is not strictl+ applied in this )urisdiction. <he doctrine deals onl+ $ith the $eight of evidence and is not a positive rule of la$, and the sa*e is not an infle2ible one of universal application. <he testi*on+ of a $itness can be believed as to so*e facts and disbelieved as to others% 2222 Professor &ig*ore gives the follo$ing enlightening co**entar+% It *a+ be said, once for all, that the *a2i* is in itself $orthlessA first, in point of validit+, because in one for* it *erel+ contains in loose fashion a ;ernel of truth $hich no one needs to be told, and in the others, it is absolutel+ false as a *a2i* of lifeC and secondl+, in point of utilit+, because it *erel+ tells the )ur+ $hat the+ *a+ do in an+ event, not $hat the+ *ust do or *ust not do, and therefore it is a superfluous for* of $ords. It is also in practice pernicious, first, because there is freFuentl+ a *isunderstanding of its proper force, and secondl+, because it has beco*e in the hands of *an+ counsel a *ere instru*ent for obtaining ne$ trials upon points $holl+ uni*portant in the*selves. Fro* the foregoing disFuisition, the ineluctable conclusion is that North$est breached its contract of carriage $ith Chiong. <i*e and again, $e have declared that a contract of carriage, in this case, air transport, is pri*aril+ intended to serve the traveling public and thus, i*bued $ith public interest. <he la$ governing co**on carriers conseFuentl+ i*poses an e2acting standard of conduct. As the aggrieved part+, Chiong onl+ had to prove the e2istence of the contract and the fact of its non-perfor*ance b+ North$est, as carrier, in order to be a$arded co*pensator+ and actual da*ages. &e reiterate that North$est failed to prove its clai* that Chiong $or;ed on =DE Elbia fro* April .0 to (ctober 5, .838 under the original cre$ agree*ent. Accordingl+, $e affir* the lo$er courtNs finding on ChiongNs entitle*ent to actual and co*pensator+ da*ages. &e, li;e$ise, uphold the findings of both courts on North$estNs liabilit+ for *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages, and attorne+Ns fees. :nder Article ///4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an a$ard of *oral da*ages, in breaches of contract, is in order upon a sho$ing that the defendant acted fraudulentl+ or in bad faith. Bad faith does not si*pl+ connote bad )udg*ent or negligence./3 It i*ports a dishonest purpose or so*e *oral obliFuit+ and conscious doing of a $rong./8 It *eans breach of a ;no$n dut+ through so*e *otive, interest or ill $ill that parta;es of the nature of fraud.74 Bad faith is in essence a Fuestion of intention.7. In the case at bench, the courts carefull+ e2a*ined the evidence as to the conduct and out$ard acts of North$est indicative of its in$ard *otive. It is borne out b+ the records that Chiong $as given the run-around at the North$est chec;-in counter, instructed to deal $ith a "*an in barong" to obtain a boarding pass, and eventuall+ barred fro* boarding North$est Flight No. /1 to acco**odate an A*erican, &. Costine, $hose na*e $as *erel+ inserted in the Flight =anifest, and did not even personall+ chec;-in at the counter.7/ :nder the foregoing circu*stances, the a$ard of e2e*plar+ da*ages is also correct given the evidence that North$est acted in an oppressive *anner to$ards Chiong.77 As for the a$ard of attorne+Ns fees, $hile $e recogniBe that it is sound polic+ not to set a pre*iu* on the right to litigate,71 $e sustain the lo$er courtsN a$ard thereof. Attorne+Ns fees *a+ be a$arded $hen a part+ is co*pelled to litigate or incur e2penses to protect his interest,75 or $here the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisf+ the plaintiffNs plainl+ valid, )ust and de*andable clai*.79 In the case at bench, North$est deliberatel+ breached its contract of carriage $ith Chiong and then repeatedl+ refused to satisf+ ChiongNs valid, )ust and de*andable clai*. <his un)ustified refusal constrained Chiong to not onl+ lose inco*e under the cre$ agree*ent, but to further incur e2penses and e2ert effort for al*ost t$o /# decades in order to protect his interests and vindicate his right. <herefore, this Court dee*s it )ust and eFuitable to grant Chiong P/44,444.44 as attorne+Ns fees. <he a$ard is reasonable in vie$ of the ti*e it has ta;en for this case to be resolved.70 Finall+, the issue of the e2clusion of North$estNs E2hibits "/" and "7" need not detain us long. ,uffice it to state that the '<C and CA correctl+ e2cluded these docu*ents as hearsa+ evidence. &e Fuote $ith favor the CANs holding thereon, thus% As a rule, "entries *ade at, or near the ti*e of the transactions to $hich the+ refer, b+ a person deceased, or unable to testif+, $ho $as in a position to ;no$ the facts therein stated, *a+ be received as pri*a facie evidence, if such person *ade the entries in his professional capacit+ or in the perfor*ance of a dut+ and in the ordinar+ or regular course of business or dut+". L'ule .74, ,ection 17, 'evised 'ules of CourtM (ther$ise stated, in order to be ad*issible as entries in the course of business, it is necessar+ that% a# the person $ho *ade the entr+ *ust be dead or unable to testif+C b# the entries $ere *ade at or near the ti*e of the transactions to $hich the+ referC c# the entrant $as in a position to ;no$ the facts stated in the entriesC d# the entries $ere *ade in his

Page1

professional capacit+ or in the perfor*ance of a dut+C and e# the entries $ere *ade in the ordinar+ or regular course of business or dut+. <ested b+ these reFuire*ents, $e find the *anifest and passenger na*e record to be *ere hearsa+ evidence. &hile there is no necessit+ to bring into court all the e*plo+ees $ho individuall+ *ade the entries, it is sufficient that the person $ho supervised the* $hile the+ $ere *a;ing the entries testif+ that the account $as prepared under his supervision and that the entries $ere regularl+ entered in the ordinar+ course of business. In the case at bench, $hile =EN>(KA $as the supervisor on-dut+ on April ., .838, he has no personal ;no$ledge of the entries in the *anifest since he did not supervise the preparation thereof. =ore i*portantl+, no evidence $as presented to prove that the e*plo+ee $ho *ade the entries $as dead nor did the defendant-appellant set forth the circu*stances that $ould sho$ the e*plo+eeNs inabilit+ to testif+.73 &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the petition is hereb+ >ENIE>. <he ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 54743 is hereb+ AFFI'=E>. Costs against the petitioner. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC 6.'. No. .09738 >ece*ber .1, /4.4

AN<(NI( -E!AN(, Petitioner, vs. PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, 'espondent. 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 6.'. No. .09391 PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, Appellee, vs. ":BE'< !EFF'EI P. &EBB, AN<(NI( -E!AN(, =IC"AE- A. 6A<C"A-IAN, "(,PICI( FE'NAN>EK, =I6:E'(>'I6:EK, PE<E' E,<'A>A and 6E'A'>( BI(N6, Appellants. >ECI,I(N ABA>, !.% Brief Bac;ground (n !une 74, .88. Estrellita EiBconde and her daughters Car*ela, nineteen +ears old, and !ennifer, seven, $ere brutall+ slain at their ho*e in ParaQaFue Cit+. Follo$ing an intense investigation, the police arrested a group of suspects, so*e of $ho* gave detailed confessions. But the trial court s*elled a fra*e-up and eventuall+ ordered the* discharged. <hus, the identities of the real perpetrators re*ained a *+ster+ especiall+ to the public $hose interests $ere aroused b+ the gripping details of $hat ever+bod+ referred to as the EiBconde *assacre. Four +ears later in .885, the National Bureau of Investigation or NBI announced that it had solved the cri*e. It presented star-$itness !essica =. Alfaro, one of its infor*ers, $ho clai*ed that she $itnessed the cri*e. ,he pointed to accused "ubert !effre+ P. &ebb, Antonio "<on+ Bo+" -e)ano, Arte*io ">ong" Eentura, =ichael A. 6atchalian, "ospicio "P+;e" FernandeB, Peter Estrada, =iguel "6ing" 'odrigueB, and !oe+ Filart as the culprits. ,he also tagged accused police officer, 6erardo Biong, as an accessor+ after the fact. 'el+ing pri*aril+ on Alfaro@s testi*on+, on August .4, .885 the public prosecutors filed an infor*ation for rape $ith ho*icide against &ebb, et al.. <he 'egional <rial Court of ParaQaFue Cit+, Branch /01, presided over b+ !udge A*elita 6. <olentino, tried onl+ seven of the accused since Arte*io Eentura and !oe+ Filart re*ained at large./ <he prosecution presented Alfaro as its *ain $itness $ith the others corroborating her testi*on+. <hese included the *edico-legal officer $ho autopsied the bodies of the victi*s, the securit+ guards of Pitong >aan ,ubdivision, the for*er laundr+$o*an of the &ebbNs household, police officer BiongNs for*er girlfriend, and -auro 6. EiBconde, EstrellitaNs husband. For their part, so*e of the accused testified, den+ing an+ part in the cri*e and sa+ing the+ $ere else$here $hen it too; place. &ebbNs alibi appeared the strongest since he clai*ed that he $as then across the ocean in the :nited ,tates of A*erica. "e presented the testi*onies of $itnesses as $ell as docu*entar+ and ob)ect evidence to prove this. In addition, the defense presented $itnesses to sho$ Alfaro@s bad reputation for truth and the incredible nature of her testi*on+. But i*pressed b+ AlfaroNs detailed narration of the cri*e and the events surrounding it, the trial court found a credible $itness in her. It noted her categorical, straightfor$ard, spontaneous, and fran; testi*on+, unda*aged b+ grueling crosse2a*inations. <he trial court re*ained unfaBed b+ significant discrepancies bet$een AlfaroNs April /3 and =a+ //, .885 affidavits, accepting her e2planation that she at first $anted to protect her for*er bo+friend, accused Estrada, and a relative, accused 6atchalianC that no la$+er assisted herC that she did not trust the investigators $ho helped her prepare her first affidavitC and that she felt unsure if she $ould get the support and securit+ she needed once she disclosed all about the EiBconde ;illings. In contrast, the trial court thought little of the denials and alibis that &ebb, -e)ano, 'odrigueB, and 6atchalian set up for their defense. <he+ paled, according to the court, co*pared to AlfaroNs testi*on+ that other $itnesses and the ph+sical evidence corroborated. <hus, on !anuar+ 1, /444, after four +ears of arduous hearings, the trial court rendered )udg*ent, finding all the accused guilt+ as charged and i*posing on &ebb, -e)ano, 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, and 'odrigueB the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua and on Biong, an indeter*inate prison ter* of eleven +ears, four *onths, and one da+ to t$elve +ears. <he trial court also a$arded da*ages to -auro EiBconde.7 (n appeal, the Court of Appeals affir*ed the trial courtNs decision, *odif+ing the penalt+ i*posed on Biong to si2 +ears *ini*u* and t$elve +ears *a2i*u* and increasing the a$ard of da*ages to -auro EiBconde.1 <he appellate court did not agree that the accused $ere tried b+ publicit+ or that the trial )udge $as biased. It found sufficient evidence of conspirac+

Page1

that rendered 'odrigueB, 6atchalian, FernandeB, and Estrada eFuall+ guilt+ $ith those $ho had a part in raping and ;illing Car*ela and in e2ecuting her *other and sister. (n *otion for reconsideration b+ the accused, the Court of Appeals@ ,pecial >ivision of five *e*bers voted three against t$o to den+ the *otion,5 hence, the present appeal. (n April /4, /4.4, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a 'esolution granting the reFuest of &ebb to sub*it for >NA anal+sis the se*en speci*en ta;en fro* Car*elaNs cadaver, $hich speci*en $as then believed still under the safe;eeping of the NBI. <he Court granted the reFuest pursuant to section 1 of the 'ule on >NA Evidence9 to give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that the+ *ight $ant to avail the*selves of, leading to a correct decision in the case. :nfortunatel+, on April /0, /4.4 the NBI infor*ed the Court that it no longer has custod+ of the speci*en, the sa*e having been turned over to the trial court. <he trial record sho$s, ho$ever, that the speci*en $as not a*ong the ob)ect evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the case. <his outco*e pro*pted accused &ebb to file an urgent *otion to acFuit on the ground that the govern*entNs failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due process. Issues Presented Accused &ebbNs *otion to acFuit presents a threshold issue% $hether or not the Court should acFuit hi* outright, given the govern*entNs failure to produce the se*en speci*en that the NBI found on Car*elaNs cadaver, thus depriving hi* of evidence that $ould prove his innocence. In the *ain, all the accused raise the central issue of $hether or not &ebb, acting in conspirac+ $ith -e)ano, 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, 'odrigueB, Eentura, and Filart, raped and ;illed Car*ela and put to death her *other and sister. But, ulti*atel+, the controlling issues are% .. &hether or not AlfaroNs testi*on+ as e+e$itness, describing the cri*e and identif+ing &ebb, -e)ano, 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, 'odrigueB, and t$o others as the persons $ho co**itted it, is entitled to beliefC and /. &hether or not &ebb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut AlfaroNs testi*on+ that he led the others in co**itting the cri*e. <he issue respecting accused Biong is $hether or not he acted to cover up the cri*e after its co**ission. <he 'ight to AcFuittal >ue to -oss of >NA Evidence &ebb clai*s, citing Brad+ v. =ar+land,0 that he is entitled to outright acFuittal on the ground of violation of his right to due process given the ,tateNs failure to produce on order of the Court either b+ negligence or $illful suppression the se*en speci*en ta;en fro* Car*ela. <he *edical evidence clearl+ established that Car*ela $as raped and, consistent $ith this, se*en speci*en $as found in her. It is true that Alfaro identified &ebb in her testi*on+ as Car*elaNs rapist and ;iller but serious Fuestions had been raised about her credibilit+. At the ver+ least, there e2ists a possibilit+ that Alfaro had lied. (n the other hand, the se*en speci*en ta;en fro* Car*ela cannot possibl+ lie. It cannot be coached or allured b+ a pro*ise of re$ard or financial support. No t$o persons have the sa*e >NA fingerprint, $ith the e2ception of identical t$ins.3 If, on e2a*ination, the >NA of the sub)ect speci*en does not belong to &ebb, then he did not rape Car*ela. It is that si*ple. <hus, the Court $ould have been able to deter*ine that Alfaro co**itted per)ur+ in sa+ing that he did. ,till, &ebb is not entitled to acFuittal for the failure of the ,tate to produce the se*en speci*en at this late stage. For one thing, the ruling in Brad+ v. =ar+land8 that he cites has long be overta;en b+ the decision in AriBona v. Ioungblood,.4 $here the :.,. ,upre*e Court held that due process does not reFuire the ,tate to preserve the se*en speci*en although it *ight be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to sho$ bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. "ere, the ,tate presented a *edical e2pert $ho testified on the e2istence of the speci*en and &ebb in fact sought to have the sa*e sub)ected to >NA test. For, another, $hen &ebb raised the >NA issue, the rule governing >NA evidence did not +et e2ist, the countr+ did not +et have the technolog+ for conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent had as +et recogniBed its ad*issibilit+ as evidence. ConseFuentl+, the idea of ;eeping the speci*en secure even after the trial court re)ected the *otion for >NA testing did not co*e up. Indeed, neither &ebb nor his co-accused brought up the *atter of preserving the speci*en in the *eanti*e. Parentheticall+, after the trial court denied &ebbNs application for >NA testing, he allo$ed the proceeding to *ove on $hen he had on at least t$o occasions gone up to the Court of Appeals or the ,upre*e Court to challenge alleged arbitrar+ actions ta;en against hi* and the other accused... <he+ raised the >NA issue before the Court of Appeals but *erel+ as an error co**itted b+ the trial court in rendering its decision in the case. None of the accused filed a *otion $ith the appeals court to have the >NA test done pending ad)udication of their appeal. <his, even $hen the ,upre*e Court had in the *eanti*e passed the rules allo$ing such test. Considering the accusedNs lac; of interest in having such test done, the ,tate cannot be dee*ed put on reasonable notice that it $ould be reFuired to produce the se*en speci*en at so*e future ti*e. No$, to the *erit of the case. AlfaroNs ,tor+ Based on the prosecutionNs version, culled fro* the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, on !une /8, .88. at around 3%74 in the evening, !essica Alfaro drove her =itsubishi -ancer, $ith bo+friend Peter Estrada as passenger, to the A+ala Alabang Co**ercial Center par;ing lot to bu+ shabu fro* Arte*io ">ong" Eentura. <here, Eentura introduced her to his friends% "ubert !effre+ P. &ebb, Antonio "<on+ Bo+" -e)ano, =iguel "6ing" 'odrigueB, "ospicio "P+;e" FernandeB, =ichael 6atchalian, and !oe+ Filart. Alfaro recalled freFuentl+ seeing the* at a shabu house in ParaQaFue in !anuar+ .88., e2cept Eentura $ho* she had ;no$n earlier in >ece*ber .884.

Page1

As Alfaro s*o;ed her shabu, &ebb approached and reFuested her to rela+ a *essage for hi* to a girl, $ho* she later identified as Car*ela EiBconde. Alfaro agreed. After using up their shabu, the group drove to Car*elaNs house at 34 EinBons ,treet, Pitong >aan ,ubdivision, BF "o*es, ParaQaFue Cit+. 'iding in her car, Alfaro and Estrada trailed Filart and 'odrigueB $ho rode a =aBda pic;-up and &ebb, -e)ano, Eentura, FernandeB, and 6atchalian $ho $ere on a Nissan Patrol car. (n reaching their destination, Alfaro par;ed her car on EinBons ,treet, alighted, and approached Car*elaNs house. Alfaro pressed the buBBer and a $o*an ca*e out. Alfaro Fueried her about Car*ela. Alfaro had *et Car*ela t$ice before in !anuar+ .88.. &hen Car*ela ca*e out, Alfaro gave her &ebbNs *essage that he $as )ust around. Car*ela replied, ho$ever, that she could not go out +et since she had )ust arrived ho*e. ,he told Alfaro to return after t$ent+ *inutes. Alfaro rela+ed this to &ebb $ho then told the group to drive bac; to the A+ala Alabang Co**ercial Center. <he group had another shabu session at the par;ing lot. After so*eti*e, the+ drove bac; but onl+ Alfaro proceeded to EinBons ,treet $here Car*ela lived. <he Nissan Patrol and the =aBda pic;-up, $ith their passengers, par;ed so*e$here along Aguirre Avenue. Car*ela $as at their garden. ,he approached Alfaro on seeing her and told the latter that she Car*ela# had to leave the house for a $hile. Car*ela reFuested Alfaro to return before *idnight and she $ould leave the pedestrian gate, the iron grills that led to the ;itchen, and the ;itchen door unloc;ed. Car*ela also told Alfaro to blin; her carNs headlights t$ice $hen she approached the pedestrian gate so Car*ela $ould ;no$ that she had arrived. Alfaro returned to her car but $aited for Car*ela to drive out of the house in her o$n car. Alfaro trailed Car*ela up to Aguirre Avenue $here she dropped off a *an $ho* Alfaro believed $as Car*elaNs bo+friend. Alfaro loo;ed for her group, found the*, and rela+ed Car*elaNs instructions to &ebb. <he+ then all $ent bac; to the A+ala Alabang Co**ercial Center. At the par;ing lot, Alfaro told the group about her tal; $ith Car*ela. &hen she told &ebb of Car*elaNs *ale co*panion, &ebbNs *ood changed for the rest of the evening "bad trip"#. &ebb gave out free cocaine. <he+ all used it and so*e shabu, too. After about 14 to 15 *inutes, &ebb decided that it $as ti*e for the* to leave. "e said, "Pipilahan natin si+a LCar*elaM at a;o ang *auuna." -e)ano said, "A;o ang susunod" and the others responded "(;a+, o;a+." <he+ all left the par;ing lot in a convo+ of three vehicles and drove into Pitong >aan ,ubdivision for the third ti*e. <he+ arrived at Car*elaNs house shortl+ before *idnight. Alfaro par;ed her car bet$een EiBcondeNs house and the ne2t. &hile $aiting for the others to alight fro* their cars, FernandeB approached Alfaro $ith a suggestion that the+ blo$ up the transfor*er near the EiBcondeNs residence to cause a bro$nout "Pasabugin ;a+a natin ang transfor*er na ito"#. But Alfaro shrugged off the idea, telling FernandeB, "=ala;as lang ang ta*a *o." &hen &ebb, -e)ano, and Eentura $ere alread+ before the house, &ebb told the others again that the+ $ould line up for Car*ela but he $ould be the first. <he others replied, "( sige, dito lang ;a*i, *agbabanta+ lang ;a*i." Alfaro $as the first to pass through the pedestrian gate that had been left open. &ebb, -e)ano, and Eentura follo$ed her. (n entering the garage, Eentura using a chair *ounted the hood of the EiBcondesN Nissan ,entra and loosened the electric bulb over it "para da$ $alang ila$"#. <he s*all group $ent through the open iron grill gate and passed the dirt+ ;itchen. Car*ela opened the alu*inu* screen door of the ;itchen for the*. ,he and &ebb loo;ed each other in the e+es for a *o*ent and, together, headed for the dining area. As she lost sight of Car*ela and &ebb, Alfaro decided to go out. -e)ano as;ed her $here she $as going and she replied that she $as going out to s*o;e. As she eased her $a+ out through the ;itchen door, she sa$ Eentura pulling out a ;itchen dra$er. Alfaro s*o;ed a cigarette at the garden. After about t$ent+ *inutes, she $as surprised to hear a $o*anNs voice as;, ",ino +anH" Alfaro i**ediatel+ $al;ed out of the garden to her car. ,he found her other co*panions *illing around it. Estrada $ho sat in the car as;ed her, "(;a+ baH" After sitting in the car for about ten *inutes, Alfaro returned to the EiBconde house, using the sa*e route. <he interior of the house $as dar; but so*e light filtered in fro* outside. In the ;itchen, Alfaro sa$ Eentura searching a lad+Ns bag that la+ on the dining table. &hen she as;ed hi* $hat he $as loo;ing for, he said% "I;a$ na nga dito, *aghanap ;a ng susi." ,he as;ed hi* $hat ;e+ he $anted and he replied% "Basta *aghanap ;a ng susi ng *ain door pati na rin ng susi ng ;otse." &hen she found a bunch of ;e+s in the bag, she tried the* on the *ain door but none fitted the loc;. ,he also did not find the car ;e+. :nable to open the *ain door, Alfaro returned to the ;itchen. &hile she $as at a spot leading to the dining area, she heard a static noise li;e a television that re*ained on after the station had signed off#. (ut of curiosit+, she approached the *asterNs bedroo* fro* $here the noise ca*e, opened the door a little, and pee;ed inside. <he unusual sound gre$ even louder. As she $al;ed in, she sa$ &ebb on top of Car*ela $hile she la+ $ith her bac; on the floor. <$o bloodied bodies la+ on the bed. -e)ano $as at the foot of the bed about to $ear his )ac;et. Car*ela $as gagged, *oaning, and in tears $hile &ebb raped her, his bare buttoc;s e2posed. &ebb gave Alfaro a *eaningful loo; and she i**ediatel+ left the roo*. ,he *et Eentura at the dining area. "e told her, "Prepare an escape. Aalis na ta+o." ,hoc;ed $ith $hat she sa$, Alfaro rushed out of the house to the others $ho $ere either sitting in her car or *illing on the side$al;. ,he entered her car and turned on the engine but she did not ;no$ $here to go. &ebb, -e)ano, and Eentura ca*e out of the house )ust then. &ebb suddenl+ pic;ed up a stone and thre$ it at the *ain door, brea;ing its glass fra*e. As the three *en approached the pedestrian gate, &ebb told Eentura that he forgot his )ac;et in the house. But Eentura told hi* that the+ could not get in an+*ore as the iron grills had alread+ loc;ed. <he+ all rode in their cars and drove a$a+ until the+ reached Aguirre Avenue. As the+ got near an old hotel at the <ropical Palace area, Alfaro noticed the Nissan Patrol slo$ do$n. ,o*eone thre$ so*ething out of the car into the cogonal area. <he convo+ of cars $ent to a large house $ith high $alls, concrete fence, steel gate, and a long drive$a+ at BF E2ecutive Eillage. <he+ entered the co*pound and gathered at the la$n $here the "bla*ing session" too; place. It $as here that Alfaro and those $ho re*ained outside the EiBconde house learned of $hat happened. <he first to be ;illed $as Car*elaNs *other, then !ennifer, and finall+, Car*ella. Eentura bla*ed &ebb, telling hi*, "Ba;it na*an pati +ung bataH" &ebb replied that the girl $o;e up and on seeing hi* *olesting Car*ela, she )u*ped on hi*, bit his shoulders, and pulled his hair. &ebb got *ad, grabbed the girl, pushed her to the $all, and repeatedl+ stabbed her. -e)ano e2cused hi*self at this point to use the telephone in the house. =ean$hile, &ebb called up so*eone on his cellular phone. At around /%44 in the *orning, accused 6erardo Biong arrived. &ebb ordered hi* to go and clean up the EiBconde house and said to hi*, "Pera lang ang ;atapat n+an." Biong ans$ered, "(;a+ lang." &ebb spo;e to his co*panions and told

Page1

the*, "&e donNt ;no$ each other. &e havenNt seen each otherXba;a *aulit +an." Alfaro and Estrada left and the+ drove to her fatherNs house../ .. <he Fualit+ of the $itness &as Alfaro an ordinar+ subdivision girl $ho sho$ed up at the NBI after four +ears, bothered b+ her conscience or egged on b+ relatives or friends to co*e for$ard and do $hat $as rightH No. ,he $as, at the ti*e she revealed her stor+, $or;ing for the NBI as an "asset," a stool pigeon, one $ho earned her living b+ fraterniBing $ith cri*inals so she could sFueal on the* to her NBI handlers. ,he had to live a life of lies to get re$ards that $ould pa+ for her subsistence and vices. According to Att+. Arte*io ,acaguing, for*er head of the NBI Anti-Pidnapping, "i)ac;ing, and Ar*ed 'obber+ <as; Force AP"A'# ,ection, Alfaro had been hanging around at the NBI since Nove*ber or >ece*ber .881 as an "asset." ,he supplied her handlers $ith infor*ation against drug pushers and other cri*inal ele*ents. ,o*e of this infor*ation led to the capture of notorious drug pushers li;e Christopher CruB ,antos and (rlando BacFuir. AlfaroNs tip led to the arrest of the leader of the "=artil+o gang" that ;illed a police officer. Because of her talent, the tas; force gave her "ver+ special treat*ent" and she beca*e its "darling," allo$ed the privilege of spending nights in one of the roo*s at the NBI offices. &hen Alfaro see*ed unproductive for so*eti*e, ho$ever, the+ teased her about it and she $as piFued. (ne da+, she une2pectedl+ told ,acaguing that she ;ne$ so*eone $ho had the real stor+ behind the EiBconde *assacre. ,acaguing sho$ed interest. Alfaro pro*ised to bring that so*eone to the NBI to tell his stor+. &hen this did not happen and ,acaguing continued to press her, she told hi* that she *ight as $ell assu*e the role of her infor*ant. ,acaguing testified thus% A<<I. (N6PIP(% G. Att+. ,acaguing, ho$ did !essica Alfaro beco*e a $itness in the EiBconde *urder caseH &ill +ou tell the "onorable CourtH 2222 A. ,he told *e. Iour "onor, that she ;ne$ so*ebod+ $ho related to her the circu*stances, I *ean, the details of the *assacre of the EiBconde fa*il+. <hatNs $hat she told *e, Iour "onor. A<<I. (N6PIP(% G. And $hat did +ou sa+H 2222 A. I $as Fuite interested and I tried to persuade her to introduce to *e that *an and she pro*ised that in due ti*e, she $ill bring to *e the *an, and together $ith her, $e $ill tr+ to convince hi* to act as a state $itness and help us in the solution of the case. 2222 G. Att+. ,acaguing, $ere +ou able to intervie$ this alleged $itnessH &I<NE,, ,ACA6:IN6% A. No, sir. A<<I. (N6PIP(% G. &h+ notH &I<NE,, ,ACA6:IN6% A. Because !essica Alfaro $as never able to co*pl+ $ith her pro*ise to bring the *an to *e. ,he told *e later that she could not and the *an does not li;e to testif+. A<<I. (N6PIP(% G. All right, and $hat happened after thatH &I<NE,, ,ACA6:IN6% A. ,he told *e, "eas+ lang ;a+o, ,ir," if I *a+ Fuote, "eas+ lang ,ir, hu$ag ;a+ongX" C(:'<% "o$ $as thatH &I<NE,, ,ACA6:IN6% A. "Eas+ lang, ,ir. ,ir, rela2 lang, ,ir, papapelan ;o, papapelan ;o na lang O+an." 2222 A<<I. (N6PIP(% G. All right, and $hat $as +our reaction $hen =s. Alfaro stated that "papapelan ;o na lang +anH" &I<NE,, ,ACA6:IN6% A. I said, "hindi pu$ede +an, ;asi hindi ;a na*an e+e $itness." A<<I. (N6PIP(% G. And $hat $as the repl+ of =s. AlfaroH &I<NE,, ,ACA6:IN6%

Page1

A. "indi si+a na;a;ibo, until she $ent a$a+. <,N, =a+ /3, .889, pp. 18-54, 53, 00-08# Guite significantl+, Alfaro never refuted ,acaguingNs above testi*on+. /. <he suspicious details But $as it possible for Alfaro to lie $ith such abundant details so*e of $hich even tallied $ith the ph+sical evidence at the scene of the cri*eH No doubt, +es. Firstl+, the EiBconde *assacre had been reported in the *edia $ith diBB+ing details. Ever+bod+ $as tal;ing about $hat the police found at the cri*e scene and there $ere lots of speculations about the*. ,econdl+, the police had arrested so*e "a;+at-baha+" group in ParaQaFue and charged the* $ith the cri*e. <he police prepared the confessions of the *en the+ apprehended and filled these up $ith details that the evidence of the cri*e scene provided. AlfaroNs NBI handlers $ho $ere doing their o$n investigation ;ne$ of these details as $ell. ,ince Alfaro hanged out at the NBI offices and practicall+ lived there, it $as not too difficult for her to hear of these evidentiar+ details and gain access to the docu*ents. Not surprisingl+, the confessions of so*e *e*bers of the Barroso "a;+at baha+" gang, conde*ned b+ the =a;ati '<C as fabricated b+ the police to pin the cri*e on the*, sho$s ho$ cri*e investigators could *a;e a confession ring true b+ *atching so*e of its details $ith the ph+sical evidence at the cri*e scene. Consider the follo$ing% a. <he Barroso gang *e*bers said that the+ got into Car*elaNs house b+ brea;ing the glass panel of the front door using a stone $rapped in cloth to deaden the noise. Alfaro could not use this line since the core of her stor+ $as that &ebb $as Car*elaNs bo+friend. &ebb had no reason to s*ash her front door to get to see her. ConseFuentl+, to e2plain the s*ashed door, Alfaro had to settle for clai*ing that, on the $a+ out of the house, &ebb pic;ed up so*e stone and, out of the blue, hurled it at the glass-paneled front door of the EiBconde residence. "is action reall+ *ade no sense. Fro* AlfaroNs narration, &ebb appeared rational in his decisions. It $as past *idnight, the house $as dar;, and the+ $anted to get a$a+ Fuic;l+ to avoid detection. "urling a stone at that glass door and causing a tre*endous noise $as biBarre, li;e inviting the neighbors to co*e. b. <he cri*e scene sho$ed that the house had been ransac;ed. <he re)ected confessions of the Barroso "a;+atbaha+" gang *e*bers said that the+ tried to rob the house. <o e2plain this ph+sical evidence, Alfaro clai*ed that at one point Eentura $as pulling a ;itchen dra$er, and at another point, going through a handbag on the dining table. "e said he $as loo;ing for the front-door ;e+ and the car ;e+. Again, this portion of AlfaroNs stor+ appears tortured to acco**odate the ph+sical evidence of the ransac;ed house. ,he never *entioned Eentura having ta;en so*e valuables $ith hi* $hen the+ left Car*elaNs house. And $h+ $ould Eentura ru**age a bag on the table for the front-door ;e+, spilling the contents, $hen the+ had alread+ gotten into the house. It is a stor+ *ade to fit in $ith the cri*e scene although robber+ $as supposedl+ not the reason &ebb and his co*panions entered that house. c. It is the sa*e thing $ith the garage light. <he police investigators found that the bulb had been loosened to turn off the light. <he confessions of the Barroso gang clai*ed that one of the* cli*bed the par;ed carNs hood to reach up and dar;en that light. <his *ade sense since the+ $ere going to rob the place and the+ needed ti*e to $or; in the dar; tr+ing to open the front door. ,o*e passersb+ *ight loo; in and see $hat the+ $ere doing. Alfaro had to ad)ust her testi*on+ to ta;e into account that dar;ened garage light. ,o she clai*ed that Eentura cli*bed the carNs hood, using a chair, to turn the light off. But, unli;e the Barroso "a;+at-baha+" gang, &ebb and his friends did not have an+thing to do in a dar;ened garage. <he+ supposedl+ ;ne$ in advance that Car*ela left the doors to the ;itchen open for the*. It did not *a;e sense for Eentura to ris; standing on the carNs hood and be seen in such an a$;$ard position instead of going straight into the house. And, thirdl+, Alfaro $as the NBINs star $itness, their badge of e2cellent investigative $or;.lavvphil After clai*ing that the+ had solved the cri*e of the decade, the NBI people had a sta;e in *a;ing her sound credible and, obviousl+, the+ gave her all the preparations she needed for the )ob of beco*ing a fairl+ good substitute $itness. ,he $as their "darling" of an asset. And this is not pure speculation. As pointed out above, ,acaguing of the NBI, a la$+er and a ran;ing official, confir*ed this to be a cold fact. &h+ the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to see this is *+stif+ing. At an+ rate, did Alfaro at least have a fine *e*or+ for faces that had a strong effect on her, given the circu*stancesH Not li;el+. ,he na*ed =iguel "6ing" 'odrigueB as one of the culprits in the EiBconde ;illings. But $hen the NBI found a certain =ichael 'odrigueB, a drug dependent fro* the Bicutan 'ehabilitation Center, initiall+ suspected to be AlfaroNs =iguel 'odrigueB and sho$ed hi* to Alfaro at the NBI office, she ran berser;, slapping and ;ic;ing =ichael, e2clai*ing% ""o$ can I forget +our face. &e )ust sa$ each other in a disco one *onth ago and +ou told *e then that +ou $ill ;ill *e." As it turned out, he $as not =iguel 'odrigueB, the accused in this case..7 <$o possibilities e2ist% =ichael $as reall+ the one Alfaro $anted to i*plicate to settle so*e score $ith hi* but it $as too late to change the na*e she alread+ gave or she had *+opic vision, tagging the $rong people for $hat the+ did not do. 7. <he Fualit+ of the testi*on+ <here is another thing about a l+ing $itness% her stor+ lac;s sense or suffers fro* inherent inconsistencies. An understanding of the nature of things and the co**on behavior of people $ill help e2pose a lie. And it has an abundant presence in this case. (ne. In her desire to i*plicate 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, 'odrigueB, and Filart, $ho $ere supposed to be &ebbNs co-principals in the cri*e, Alfaro *ade it a point to testif+ that &ebb proposed t$ice to his friends the gang-rape of Car*ela $ho had hurt hi*. And t$ice, the+ including, if one believes Alfaro, her o$n bo+friend Estrada# agreed in a chorus to his proposal. But $hen the+ got to Car*elaNs house, onl+ &ebb, -e)ano, Eentura, and Alfaro entered the house. 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, and 'odrigueB supposedl+ sta+ed around AlfaroNs car, $hich $as par;ed on the street bet$een Car*elaNs house and the ne2t. ,o*e of these *en sat on top of the carNs lid $hile others *illed on the side$al;, visible under the street light to an+one $ho cared to $atch the*, particularl+ to the people $ho $ere having a

Page1

drin;ing part+ in a nearb+ house. (bviousl+, the behavior of &ebbNs co*panions out on the street did not figure in a planned gang-rape of Car*ela. <$o. Eentura, AlfaroNs dope supplier, introduced her for the first ti*e in her life to &ebb and his friends in a par;ing lot b+ a *all. ,o $h+ $ould she agree to act as &ebbNs *essenger, using her gas, to bring his *essage to Car*ela at her ho*e. =ore ine2plicabl+, $hat *otivated Alfaro to stic; it out the $hole night $ith &ebb and his friendsH <he+ $ere practicall+ strangers to her and her bo+friend Estrada. &hen it ca*e to a point that &ebb decided $ith his friends to gang-rape Car*ela, clearl+, there $as nothing in it for Alfaro. Iet, she stuc; it out $ith the*, as a police asset $ould, hanging in there until she had a cri*e to report, onl+ she $as not +et an "asset" then. If, on the other hand, Alfaro had been too soa;ed in drugs to thin; clearl+ and )ust follo$ed along $here the group too; her, ho$ could she re*e*ber so *uch details that onl+ a drug-free *ind canH <hree. &hen Alfaro $ent to see Car*ela at her house for the second ti*e, Car*ella told her that she still had to go out and that &ebb and his friends should co*e bac; around *idnight. Alfaro returned to her car and $aited for Car*ela to drive out in her o$n car. And she trailed her up to Aguirre Avenue $here she supposedl+ dropped off a *an $ho* she thought $as Car*elaNs bo+friend. AlfaroNs trailing Car*ela to sp+ on her unfaithfulness to &ebb did not *a;e sense since she $as on li*ited errand. But, as a critical $itness, Alfaro had to provide a reason for &ebb to frea; out and decide to co*e $ith his friends and har* Car*ela. Four. According to Alfaro, $hen the+ returned to Car*elaNs house the third ti*e around *idnight, she led &ebb, -e)ano, and Eentura through the pedestrian gate that Car*ela had left open. No$, this is $eird. &ebb $as the gang leader $ho decided $hat the+ $ere going to do. "e decided and his friends agreed $ith hi* to go to Car*elaNs house and gangrape her. &h+ $ould Alfaro, a $o*an, a stranger to &ebb before that night, and obviousl+ $ith no role to pla+ in the gangrape of Car*ela, lead hi* and the others into her houseH It *ade no sense. It $ould onl+ *a;e sense if Alfaro $anted to feign being a $itness to so*ething she did not see. Five. Alfaro $ent out of the house to s*o;e at the garden. After about t$ent+ *inutes, a $o*an e2clai*ed, ",ino +anH" (n hearing this, Alfaro i**ediatel+ $al;ed out of the garden and $ent to her car. Apparentl+, she did this because she ;ne$ the+ ca*e on a sl+. ,o*eone other than Car*ela beca*e conscious of the presence of &ebb and others in the house. Alfaro $al;ed a$a+ because, obviousl+, she did not $ant to get involved in a potential confrontation. <his $as supposedl+ her fra*e of *ind% fear of getting involved in $hat $as not her business. But if that $ere the case, ho$ could she testif+ based on personal ;no$ledge of $hat $ent on in the houseH Alfaro had to change that fra*e of *ind to one of boldness and rec;less curiosit+. ,o that is $hat she ne2t clai*ed. ,he $ent bac; into the house to $atch as &ebb raped Car*ela on the floor of the *asterNs bedroo*. "e had apparentl+ stabbed to death Car*elaNs *o* and her +oung sister $hose bloodied bodies $ere spra$led on the bed. No$, Alfaro testified that she got scared another shift to fear# for she hurriedl+ got out of the house after &ebb supposedl+ gave her a *eaningful loo;. Alfaro Fuic;l+ $ent to her car, not *inding 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, 'odrigueB, and Filart $ho sat on the car or *illed on the side$al;. ,he did not spea; to the*, even to Estrada, her bo+friend. ,he entered her car and turned on the engine but she testified that she did not ;no$ $here to go. <his $o*an $ho a fe$ *inutes bac; led &ebb, -e)ano, and Eentura into the house, ;no$ing that the+ $ere decided to rape and har* Car*ela, $as suddenl+ too shoc;ed to ;no$ $here to goJ <his e*otional pendulu* s$ing indicates a $itness $ho $as confused $ith her o$n lies. 1. <he supposed corroborations Intending to provide corroboration to AlfaroNs testi*on+, the prosecution presented si2 additional $itnesses% >r. Prospero A. Cabana+an, the NBI =edico--egal (fficer $ho autopsied the bodies of the victi*s, testified on the stab $ounds the+ sustained.1 and the presence of se*en in Car*elaNs genitalia,.5 indicating that she had been raped. Nor*al E. &hite, !r., $as the securit+ guard on dut+ at Pitong >aan ,ubdivision fro* 0 p.*. of !une /8 to 0 a.*. of !une 74, .88.. "e got a report on the *orning of !une 74 that so*ething unto$ard happened at the EiBconde residence. "e $ent there and sa$ the dead bodies in the *asterNs bedroo*, the bag on the dining table, as $ell as the loud noise e*anating fro* a television set..9 &hite clai*ed that he noticed 6atchalian and his co*panions, none of $ho* he could identif+, go in and out of Pitong >aan ,ubdivision. "e also sa$ the* along EinBons ,treet. -ater, the+ entered Pitong >aan ,ubdivision in a three-car convo+. &hite could not, ho$ever, describe the ;ind of vehicles the+ used or recall the ti*e $hen he sa$ the group in those t$o instances. And he did not notice an+thing suspicious about their co*ing and going. But &hiteNs testi*on+ cannot be relied on. "is initial clai* turned out to be inaccurate. "e actuall+ sa$ 6atchalian and his group enter the Pitong >aan ,ubdivision onl+ once. <he+ $ere not going in and out. Further*ore, Alfaro testified that $hen the convo+ of cars $ent bac; the second ti*e in the direction of Car*elaNs house, she alone entered the subdivision and passed the guardhouse $ithout stopping. Iet, &hite $ho supposedl+ *anned that guardhouse did not notice her. ,urprisingl+, &hite failed to note Biong, a police officer, entering or e2iting the subdivision on the earl+ *orning of !une 74 $hen he supposedl+ "cleaned up" EiBconde residence on &ebbNs orders. &hat is *ore, &hite did not notice Car*ela arrive $ith her *o* before AlfaroNs first visit that night. Car*ela supposedl+ left $ith a *ale co*panion in her car at around .4%74 p.*. but &hite did not notice it. "e also did not notice Car*ela reenter the subdivision. &hite actuall+ discredited AlfaroNs testi*on+ about the *ove*ents of the persons involved. Further, $hile Alfaro testified that it $as the =aBda pic;-up driven b+ Filart that led the three-vehicle convo+,.0&hite clai*ed it $as the Nissan Patrol $ith 6atchalian on it that led the convo+ since he $ould not have let the convo+ in $ithout ascertaining that 6atchalian, a resident, $as in it. ,ecurit+ guard &hite did not, therefore, provide corroboration to AlfaroNs testi*on+..avvphi. !usto Cabanacan, the securit+ supervisor at Pitong >aan ,ubdivision testified that he sa$ &ebb around the last $ee; of =a+ or the first $ee; of !une .88. to prove his presence in the Philippines $hen he clai*ed to be in the :nited ,tates. "e $as *anning the guard house at the entrance of the subdivision of Pitong >aan $hen he flagged do$n a car driven b+ &ebb. &ebb said that he $ould see -ilet ,+. Cabanacan as;ed hi* for an I> but he pointed to his :nited BF "o*es stic;er and said that he resided there. Cabanacan replied, ho$ever, that Pitong >aan had a local stic;er.

Page1

Cabanacan testified that, at this point, &ebb introduced hi*self as the son of Congress*an &ebb. ,till, the supervisor insisted on seeing his I>. &ebb grudgingl+ gave it and after seeing the picture and the na*e on it, Cabanacan returned the sa*e and allo$ed &ebb to pass $ithout being logged in as their ,tandard (perating Procedure reFuired..3 But Cabanacan@s testi*on+ could not be relied on. Although it $as not co**on for a securit+ guard to challenge a Congress*anNs son $ith such vehe*ence, Cabanacan did not log the incident on the guardhouse boo;. Nor did he, contrar+ to prescribed procedure, record the visitorNs entr+ into the subdivision. It did not *a;e sense that Cabanacan $as strict in the *atter of seeing &ebbNs I> but not in recording the visit. =ila 6aviola used to $or; as laundr+ $o*an for the &ebbs at their house at BF "o*es E2ecutive Eillage. ,he testified that she sa$ &ebb at his parentsN house on the *orning of !une 74, .88. $hen she got the dirt+ clothes fro* the roo* that he and t$o brothers occupied at about 1.a.*. ,he sa$ hi* again pacing the floor at 8 a.*. At about . p.*., &ebb left the house in t-shirt and shorts, passing through a secret door near the *aidNs Fuarters on the $a+ out. Finall+, she sa$ &ebb at 1 p.*. of the sa*e da+..8 (n cross-e2a*ination, ho$ever, 6aviola could not sa+ $hat distinguished !une 74, .88. fro* the other da+s she $as on service at the &ebb household as to enable her to distinctl+ re*e*ber, four +ears later, $hat one of the &ebb bo+s did and at $hat ti*e. ,he could not re*e*ber an+ of the details that happened in the household on the other da+s. ,he proved to have a selective photographic *e*or+ and this onl+ da*aged her testi*on+. 6aviola tried to corroborate AlfaroN@s testi*on+ b+ clai*ing that on !une 74, .88. she noticed bloodstains on &ebb@s tshirt./4 ,he did not call the attention of an+bod+ in the household about it $hen it $ould have been a point of concern that &ebb *a+ have been hurt, hence the blood. Besides, Eictoria Eentoso, the &ebbs@ house*aid fro* =arch .838 to =a+ .88/, and ,gt. =iguel =uQoB, the &ebbs@ securit+ aide in .88., testified that 6aviola $or;ed for the &ebbs onl+ fro* !anuar+ .88. to April .88.. Eentoso further testified that it $as not 6aviola@s dut+ to collect the clothes fro* the /nd floor bedroo*s, this being the $or; of the house*aid charged $ith cleaning the roo*s. &hat is *ore, it $as *ost unli;el+ for a laundr+$o*an $ho had been there for onl+ four *onths to collect, as she clai*ed, the laundr+ fro* the roo*s of her e*plo+ers and their gro$n up children at four in the *orning $hile the+ $ere asleep. And it did not *a;e sense, if AlfaroNs testi*on+ $ere to be believed that &ebb, $ho $as so careful and clever that he called Biong to go to the EiBconde residence at / a.*. to clean up the evidence against hi* and his group, $ould bring his bloodied shirt ho*e and put it in the ha*per for laundr+$o*an 6aviola to collect and $ash at 1 a.*. as $as her supposed habit. -olita >e Birrer $as accused BiongNs girlfriend around the ti*e the EiBconde *assacre too; place. Birrer testified that she $as $ith Biong pla+ing *ah)ong fro* the evening of !une /8, .88. to the earl+ *orning of !une 74, $hen Biong got a call at around / a.*. <his pro*pted hi*, according to >e Birrer, to leave and go to BF. ,o*eone sitting at the bac;seat of a ta2i pic;ed hi* up. &hen Biong returned at 0 a.*. he $ashed off $hat loo;ed li;e dried blood fro* his fingernails. And he thre$ a$a+ a foul-s*elling hand;erchief. ,he also sa$ Biong ta;e out a ;nife $ith alu*inu* cover fro* his dra$er and hid it in his steel cabinet./. <he securit+ guard at Pitong >aan did not notice an+ police investigator flashing a badge to get into the village although Biong supposedl+ ca*e in at the unhol+ hour of t$o in the *orning. "is departure before 0 a.*. also re*ained unnoticed b+ the subdivision guards. Besides, if he had cleaned up the cri*e scene shortl+ after *idnight, $hat $as the point of his returning there on the follo$ing *orning to dispose of so*e of the evidence in the presence of other police investigators and on-loo;ersH In fact, $h+ $ould he steal valuable ite*s fro* the EiBconde residence on his return there hours later if he had the opportunit+ to do it earlierH At *ost, BirrerNs testi*on+ onl+ established BiongNs theft of certain ite*s fro* the EiBconde residence and gross neglect for failing to *aintain the sanctit+ of the cri*e scene b+ *oving around and altering the effects of the cri*e. BirrerNs testi*on+ failed to connect Biong@s acts to &ebb and the other accused. -auro EiBconde testified about ho$ deepl+ he $as affected b+ the loss of her $ife and t$o daughters. Car*ella spo;e to hi* of a re)ected suitor she called "Bag+o," because he $as a ParaQaFue politicianNs son. :nfortunatel+, -auro did not appear curious enough to insist on finding out $ho the re)ected fello$ $as. Besides, his testi*on+ contradicts that of Alfaro $ho testified that Car*ela and &ebb had an on-going relation. Indeed, if Alfaro $ere to be believed, Car*ela $anted &ebb to co*e to her house around *idnight. ,he even left the ;itchen door open so he could enter the house. 5. <he *issing corroboration <here is so*ething trul+ re*ar;able about this case% the prosecutionNs core theor+ that Car*ela and &ebb had been s$eethearts, that she had been unfaithful to hi*, and that it $as for this reason that &ebb brought his friends to her house to gang-rape her is totall+ uncorroboratedJ For instance, nor*all+, if &ebb, a Congress*anNs son, courted the +oung Car*ela, that $ould be ne$s a*ong her circle of friends if not around to$n. But, here, none of her friends or even those $ho ;ne$ either of the* ca*e for$ard to affir* this. And if &ebb hanged around $ith her, tr+ing to $in her favors, he $ould surel+ be seen $ith her. And this $ould all the *ore be so if the+ had beco*e s$eethearts, a relation that Alfaro tried to pro)ect $ith her testi*on+. But, e2cept for Alfaro, the NBI asset, no one a*ong Car*elaNs friends or her friendsN friends $ould testif+ ever hearing of such relationship or ever seeing the* together in so*e popular hangouts in ParaQaFue or =a;ati. AlfaroNs clai* of a fivehour dra*a is li;e an alien page, rudel+ and unconnectedl+ inserted into &ebb and Car*elaNs life stories or li;e a piece of )igsa$ puBBle tri**ed to fit into the shape on the board but does not belong because it clashes $ith the surrounding pieces. It has neither antecedent nor conco*itant support in the verifiable facts of their personal histories. It is Fuite unreal. &hat is *ore, Alfaro testified that she sa$ Car*ela drive out of her house $ith a *ale passenger, =r. U, $ho* Alfaro thought the $a+ it loo;ed $as also Car*elaNs lover. <his $as the all-i*portant reason &ebb supposedl+ had for $anting to har* her. Again, none of Car*elaNs relatives, friends, or people $ho ;ne$ her ever testified about the e2istence of =r.U in her life. Nobod+ has co*e for$ard to testif+ having ever seen hi* $ith Car*ela. And despite the grueso*e ne$s about her death and ho$ =r. U had pla+ed a role in it, he never presented hi*self li;e an+one $ho had lost a special friend nor*all+

Page1

$ould. (bviousl+, =r. U did not e2ist, a *ere ghost of the i*agination of Alfaro, the $o*an $ho *ade a living infor*ing on cri*inals. &ebbNs :.,. Alibi A*ong the accused, &ebb presented the strongest alibi. a. <he travel preparations &ebb clai*s that in .88. his parents, ,enator Freddie &ebb and his $ife, EliBabeth, sent their son to the :nited ,tates :.,.# to learn the value of independence, hard $or;, and *one+.// 6loria &ebb, his aunt, acco*panied hi*. 'a)ah <ours boo;ed their flight to ,an Francisco via :nited Airlines. !osefina Nolasco of 'a)ah <ours confir*ed that &ebb and his aunt used their plane tic;ets. &ebb told his friends, including his neighbor, !ennifer Claire Cabrera, and his bas;etball budd+, !oselito (rendain Escobar, of his travel plans. "e even invited the* to his despedida part+ on =arch 3, .88. at Faces >isco along =a;ati Ave./7 (n =arch 3,.88., the eve of his departure, he too; girlfriend =ilagros Castillo to a dinner at Bunchu*s at the =a;ati Cine*a ,Fuare. "is bas;etball budd+ 'afael !ose $ith <ina Cal*a, a blind date arranged b+ &ebb, )oined the*. <he+ after$ards $ent to Faces >isco for &ebb@s despedida part+. A*ong those present $ere his friends Paulo ,antos and !a+ (rtega./1 b. <he t$o i**igration chec;s <he follo$ing da+, =arch 8, .88., &ebb left for ,an Francisco, California, $ith his Aunt 6loria on board :nited Airlines Flight 343./5 Before boarding his plane, &ebb passed through the Philippine I**igration booth at the airport to have his passport cleared and sta*ped. I**igration (fficer, Ferdinand ,a*pol chec;ed &ebbNs visa, sta*ped, and initialed his passport, and let hi* pass through./9 "e $as listed on the :nited Airlines FlightNs Passenger =anifest./0 (n arrival at ,an Francisco, &ebb $ent through the :.,. I**igration $here his entr+ into that countr+ $as recorded. <hus, the :.,. I**igration NaturaliBation ,ervice, chec;ing $ith its Non-i**igrant Infor*ation ,+ste*, confir*ed &ebb@s entr+ into the :.,. on =arch 8, .88.. &ebb presented at the trial the IN, Certification issued b+ the :.,. I**igration and NaturaliBation ,ervice,/3 the co*puter-generated print-out of the :,-IN, indicating &ebb@s entr+ on =arch 8, .88.,/8 and the :,-IN, Certification dated August 7., .885, authenticated b+ the Philippine >epart*ent of Foreign Affairs, correcting an earlier August .4, .885 Certification.74 c. >etails of :.,. so)ourn In ,an Francisco, &ebb and his aunt 6loria $ere *et b+ the latterNs daughter, =aria <eresa Pea*e, $ho brought the* to 6loriaNs house in >al+ Cit+, California. >uring his sta+ $ith his aunt, &ebb *et Christopher Paul -egaspi Esguerra, 6loriaNs grandson. In April .88., &ebb, Christopher, and a certain >aphne >o*ingo $atched the concert of >eelite Band in ,an Francisco.7. In the sa*e *onth, >oroth+ &heeloc; and her fa*il+ invited &ebb to -a;e <ahoe to return the &ebbsN hospitalit+ $hen she $as in the Philippines.7/ In =a+ .88., on invitation of another aunt, ,usan Brott*an, &ebb *oved to Anahei* "ills, California.77 >uring his sta+ there, he occupied hi*self $ith pla+ing bas;etball once or t$ice a $ee; $ith ,teven Peeler71 and $or;ing at his cousin-in-la$Ns pest control co*pan+.75 &ebb presented the co*pan+Ns logboo; sho$ing the tas;s he perfor*ed,79 his pa+chec;,70 his I>, and other e*plo+*ent papers. (n !une .1, .88. he applied for a driver@s license73 and $rote three letters to his friend !ennifer Cabrera.78 (n !une /3, .88., &ebbNs parents visited hi* at Anahei* and sta+ed $ith the Brott*ans. (n the sa*e da+, his father introduced "onesto Aragon to his son $hen he ca*e to visit.14 (n the follo$ing da+, !une /8, &ebb, in the co*pan+ of his father and Aragon $ent to 'iverside, California, to loo; for a car. <he+ bought an ='/ <o+ota car.1. -ater that da+, a visitor at the Brott*anNs, -ouis &hittac;er, sa$ &ebb loo;ing at the plates of his ne$ car.1/ <o prove the purchase, &ebb presented the Public 'ecords of California >epart*ent of =otor Eehicle17 and a car plate "-E& &EBB."11 In using the car in the :.,., &ebb even received traffic citations.15 (n !une 74, .88. &ebb, again acco*panied b+ his father and Aragon,19 bought a bic+cle at (range C+cle Center.10 <he Center issued &ebb a receipt dated !une 74, .88..13 (n !ul+ 1, .88., Independence >a+, the &ebbs, the Brott*ans, and the Eaca fa*il+ had a la;eside picnic.18 &ebb sta+ed $ith the Brott*ans until *id !ul+ and rented a place for less than a *onth. (n August 1, .88. he left for -ong$ood, Florida, to sta+ $ith the spouses !ac; and ,on)a 'odrigueB.54 <here, he *et Ar*ando 'odrigueB $ith $ho* he spent ti*e, pla+ing bas;etball on $ee;ends, $atching *ovies, and pla+ing billiards.5. In Nove*ber .88., &ebb *et perfor*ing artist 6ar+ Ealenciano, a friend of !ac; 'odrigueB, $ho $as invited for a dinner at the 'odrigueBNs house.5/ "e left the 'odrigueBNs ho*e in August .88/, returned to Anahei* and sta+ed $ith his aunt I*elda Pagaspas. "e sta+ed there until he left for the Philippines on (ctober /9, .88/. d. <he second i**igration chec;s As $ith his trip going to the :.,., &ebb also $ent through both the :.,. and Philippine i**igrations on his return trip. <hus, his departure fro* the :.,. $as confir*ed b+ the sa*e certifications that confir*ed his entr+.57 Further*ore, a >iplo*atic Note of the :.,. >epart*ent of ,tate $ith enclosed letter fro* Acting >irector >ebora A. Far*er of the 'ecords (perations, (ffice of 'ecords of the :,-IN, stated that the Certification dated August 7., .885 is a true and accurate state*ent. And $hen he boarded his plane, the Passenger =anifest of Philippine Airlines Flight No. .47,51 certified b+ Agnes <abuena55 confir*ed his return trip. &hen he arrived in =anila, &ebb again $ent through the Philippine I**igration. In fact, the arrival sta*p and initial on his passport indicated his return to =anila on (ctober /0, .88/. <his $as authenticated b+ Car*elita Alipio, the i**igration officer $ho processed &ebbNs reentr+.59 :pon his return, in (ctober .88/, Paolo ,antos, !oselito Erondain Escobar, and 'afael !ose once again sa$ &ebb pla+ing bas;etball at the BF@s Phase III bas;etball court. e. Alibi versus positive identification

Page1

<he trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in re)ecting as $ea; &ebbNs alibi. <heir reason is unifor*% &ebbNs alibi cannot stand against AlfaroNs positive identification of hi* as the rapist and ;iller of Car*ela and, apparentl+, the ;iller as $ell of her *other and +ounger sister. Because of this, to the lo$er courts, &ebbNs denial and alibi $ere fabricated. But not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is trul+ innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. ,o ho$ can such accused penetrate a *ind that has been *ade c+nical b+ the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hang*anNs noose in the face of a $itness positivel+ s$earing, "I sa$ hi* do it."H =ost )udges believe that such assertion auto*aticall+ doo*s an alibi $hich is so eas+ to fabricate. <his Fuic; stereot+pe thin;ing, ho$ever, is distressing. For ho$ else can the truth that the accused is reall+ innocent have an+ chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenetH <here is onl+ one $a+. A )udge *ust ;eep an open *ind. "e *ust guard against slipping into hast+ conclusion, often arising fro* a desire to Fuic;l+ finish the )ob of deciding a case. A positive declaration fro* a $itness that he sa$ the accused co**it the cri*e should not auto*aticall+ cancel out the accusedNs clai* that he did not do it. A l+ing $itness can *a;e as positive an identification as a truthful $itness can. <he l+ing $itness can also sa+ as forthrightl+ and uneFuivocall+, ""e did itJ" $ithout blin;ing an e+e. 'ather, to be acceptable, the positive identification *ust *eet at least t$o criteria% First, the positive identification of the offender *ust co*e fro* a credible $itness. ,he is credible $ho can be trusted to tell the truth, usuall+ based on past e2periences $ith her. "er $ord has, to one $ho ;no$s her, its $eight in gold. And second, the $itnessN stor+ of $hat she personall+ sa$ *ust be believable, not inherentl+ contrived. A $itness $ho testifies about so*ething she never sa$ runs into inconsistencies and *a;es be$ildering clai*s. "ere, as alread+ full+ discussed above, Alfaro and her testi*on+ fail to *eet the above criteria. ,he did not sho$ up at the NBI as a spontaneous $itness bothered b+ her conscience. ,he had been hanging around that agenc+ for so*eti*e as a stool pigeon, one paid for *i2ing up $ith cri*inals and sFuealing on the*. Police assets are often cri*inals the*selves. ,he $as the prosecutionNs $orst possible choice for a $itness. Indeed, her superior testified that she volunteered to pla+ the role of a $itness in the EiBconde ;illings $hen she could not produce a *an she pro*ised to the NBI. And, although her testi*on+ included details, Alfaro had prior access to the details that the investigators ;ne$ of the case. ,he too; advantage of her fa*iliarit+ $ith these details to include in her testi*on+ the clearl+ inco*patible act of &ebb hurling a stone at the front door glass fra*es even $hen the+ $ere tr+ing to slip a$a+ Fuietl+A)ust so she can acco**odate this cri*e scene feature. ,he also had Eentura ru**aging a bag on the dining table for a front door ;e+ that nobod+ needed )ust to e2plain the ph+sical evidence of that bag and its scattered contents. And she had Eentura cli*bing the carNs hood, ris;ing being seen in such an a$;$ard position, $hen the+ did not need to dar;en the garage to force open the front doorA)ust so to e2plain the dar;ened light and foot prints on the car hood. Further, her testi*on+ $as inherentl+ incredible. "er stor+ that 6atchalian, FernandeB, Estrada, 'odrigueB, and Filart agreed to ta;e their turns raping Car*ela is incongruent $ith their indifference, e2e*plified b+ re*aining outside the house, *illing under a street light, visible to neighbors and passersb+, and sho$ing no interest in the develop*ents inside the house, li;e if it $as their turn to rape Car*ela. AlfaroNs stor+ that she agreed to serve as &ebbNs *essenger to Car*ela, using up her gas, and sta+ing $ith hi* till the biBarre end $hen the+ $ere practicall+ strangers, also ta2es incredulit+. <o provide basis for &ebbNs outrage, Alfaro said that she follo$ed Car*ela to the *ain road to $atch her let off a lover on Aguirre Avenue. And, ine2plicabl+, although Alfaro had onl+ pla+ed the role of *essenger, she clai*ed leading &ebb, -e)ano, and Eentura into the house to gang-rape Car*ella, as if Alfaro $as establishing a reason for later on testif+ing on personal ;no$ledge. "er s$ing fro* an e*otion of fear $hen a $o*an $o;e up to their presence in the house and of absolute courage $hen she nonetheless returned to beco*e the lone $itness to a gri* scene is also Fuite ine2plicable. :lti*atel+, AlfaroNs Fualit+ as a $itness and her inconsistent, if not inherentl+ unbelievable, testi*on+ cannot be the positive identification that )urisprudence ac;no$ledges as sufficient to )ettison a denial and an alibi. f. A docu*ented alibi <o establish alibi, the accused *ust prove b+ positive, clear, and satisfactor+ evidence50 that a# he $as present at another place at the ti*e of the perpetration of the cri*e, and b# that it $as ph+sicall+ i*possible for hi* to be at the scene of the cri*e.53 <he courts belo$ held that, despite his evidence, &ebb $as actuall+ in ParaQaFue $hen the EiBconde ;illings too; placeC he $as not in the :.,. fro* =arch 8, .88. to (ctober /0, .88/C and if he did leave on =arch 8, .88., he actuall+ returned before !une /8, .88., co**itted the cri*e, erased the fact of his return to the Philippines fro* the records of the :.,. and Philippine I**igrations, s*uggled hi*self out of the Philippines and into the :.,., and returned the nor*al $a+ on (ctober /0, .88/. But this ruling practicall+ *a;es the death of &ebb and his passage into the ne2t life the onl+ acceptable alibi in the Philippines. Courts *ust abandon this un)ust and inhu*an paradig*. If one is c+nical about the Philippine s+ste*, he could probabl+ clai* that &ebb, $ith his fatherNs connections, can arrange for the local i**igration to put a =arch 8, .88. departure sta*p on his passport and an (ctober /0, .88/ arrival sta*p on the sa*e. But this is pure speculation since there had been no indication that such arrange*ent $as *ade. Besides, ho$ could &ebb fi2 a foreign airlinesN passenger *anifest, officiall+ filed in the Philippines and at the airport in the :.,. that had his na*e on the*H "o$ could &ebb fi2 $ith the :.,. I**igrationNs record s+ste* those t$o dates in its record of his travels as $ell as the dates $hen he supposedl+ departed in secret fro* the :.,. to co**it the cri*e in the Philippines and then return thereH No one has co*e up $ith a logical and plausible ans$er to these Fuestions. <he Court of Appeals re)ected the evidence of &ebbNs passport since he did not leave the original to be attached to the record. But, $hile the best evidence of a docu*ent is the original, this *eans that the sa*e is e2hibited in court for the adverse part+ to e2a*ine and for the )udge to see. As Court of Appeals !ustice <agle said in his dissent,58 the practice $hen a part+ does not $ant to leave an i*portant docu*ent $ith the trial court is to have a photocop+ of it *ar;ed as e2hibit and stipulated a*ong the parties as a faithful reproduction of the original. ,tipulations in the course of trial are binding on the parties and on the court.

Page1

<he :.,. I**igration certification and the co*puter print-out of &ebbNs arrival in and departure fro* that countr+ $ere authenticated b+ no less than the (ffice of the :.,. Attorne+ 6eneral and the ,tate >epart*ent. ,till the Court of Appeals refused to accept these docu*ents for the reason that &ebb failed to present in court the i**igration official $ho prepared the sa*e. But this $as unnecessar+. &ebbNs passport is a docu*ent issued b+ the Philippine govern*ent, $hich under international practice, is the official record of travels of the citiBen to $ho* it is issued. <he entries in that passport are presu*ed true.94 <he :.,. I**igration certification and co*puter print-out, the official certifications of $hich have been authenticated b+ the Philippine >epart*ent of Foreign Affairs, *erel+ validated the arrival and departure sta*ps of the :.,. I**igration office on &ebbNs passport. <he+ have the sa*e evidentiar+ value. <he officers $ho issued these certifications need not be presented in court to testif+ on the*. <heir trust$orthiness arises fro* the sense of official dut+ and the penalt+ attached to a breached dut+, in the routine and disinterested origin of such state*ent and in the publicit+ of the record.9. <he Court of Appeals of course *a;es capital of the fact that an earlier certification fro* the :.,. I**igration office said that it had no record of &ebb entering the :.,. But that erroneous first certification $as a*pl+ e2plained b+ the :.,. 6overn*ent and Court of Appeals !ustice <agle stated it in his dissenting opinion, thus% &hile it is true that an earlier Certification $as issued b+ the :.,. IN, on August .9, .885 finding "no evidence of la$ful ad*ission of &ebb," this $as alread+ clarified and dee*ed erroneous b+ no less than the :, IN, (fficials. As e2plained b+ $itness -eo "errera--i*, Consul and ,econd ,ecretar+ of the Philippine E*bass+ in &ashington >.C., said Certification did not pass through proper diplo*atic channels and $as obtained in violation of the rules on protocol and standard procedure governing such reFuest. <he initial reFuest $as *erel+ initiated b+ BI> Co**issioner Eerceles $ho directl+ co**unicated $ith the Philippine Consulate in ,an Francisco, :,A, b+passing the ,ecretar+ of Foreign Affairs $hich is the proper protocol procedure. =r. ,teven Bucher, the acting Chief of the 'ecords ,ervices Board of :,-IN, &ashington >.C. in his letter addressed to Philip Ant$eiler, Philippine >es; (fficer, ,tate >epart*ent, declared the earlier Certification as incorrect and erroneous as it $as "not e2haustive and did not reflect all available infor*ation." Also, 'ichard -. "uff, Co->irector of the (ffice of Infor*ation and privac+, :, >epart*ent of !ustice, in response to the appeal raised b+ Consul 6eneral <eresita E. =arBan, e2plained that "the IN, nor*all+ does not *aintain records on individuals $ho are entering the countr+ as visitors rather than as i**igrants% and that a notation concerning the entr+ of a visitor *a+ be *ade at the Noni**igrant Infor*ation s+ste*. ,ince appellant &ebb entered the :.,. on a *ere tourist visa, obviousl+, the initial search could not have produced the desired result inas*uch as the data base that $as loo;ed into contained entries of the na*es of I==I6'AN<, and not that of N(N-I==I6'AN< visitors of the :.,..9/ <he trial court and the Court of Appeals e2pressed *ar;ed c+nicis* over the accurac+ of travel docu*ents li;e the passport as $ell as the do*estic and foreign records of departures and arrivals fro* airports. <he+ clai* that it $ould not have been i*possible for &ebb to secretl+ return to the Philippines after he supposedl+ left it on =arch 8, .88., co**it the cri*e, go bac; to the :.,., and openl+ return to the Philippines again on (ctober /9, .88/. <ravel bet$een the :.,. and the Philippines, said the lo$er courts too; onl+ about t$elve to fourteen hours. If the Court $ere to subscribe to this e2tre*el+ s;eptical vie$, it *ight as $ell tear the rules of evidence out of the la$ boo;s and regard suspicions, sur*ises, or speculations as reasons for i*peaching evidence. It is not that official records, $hich carr+ the presu*ption of truth of $hat the+ state, are i**une to attac;. <he+ are not. <hat presu*ption can be overco*e b+ evidence. "ere, ho$ever, the prosecution did not bother to present evidence to i*peach the entries in &ebbNs passport and the certifications of the Philippine and :.,.N i**igration services regarding his travel to the :.,. and bac;. <he prosecutionNs rebuttal evidence is the fear of the un;no$n that it planted in the lo$er courtNs *inds. 0. Effect of &ebbNs alibi to others &ebbNs docu*ented alibi altogether i*peaches Alfaro@s testi*on+, not onl+ $ith respect to hi*, but also $ith respect to -e)ano, Estrada, FernandeB, 6atchalian, 'odrigueB, and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that &ebb $as in the :.,. $hen the cri*e too; place, AlfaroNs testi*on+ $ill not hold together. &ebbNs participation is the anchor of AlfaroNs stor+. &ithout it, the evidence against the others *ust necessaril+ fall. C(NC-:,I(N In our cri*inal )ustice s+ste*, $hat is i*portant is, not $hether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open *ind is $illing to e2plore all possibilities, but $hether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it $ould be a serious *ista;e to send an innocent *an to )ail $here such ;ind of doubt hangs on to oneNs inner being, li;e a piece of *eat lodged i**ovable bet$een teeth. &ill the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testi*on+ of an NBI asset $ho proposed to her handlers that she ta;e the role of the $itness to the EiBconde *assacre that she could not produceH &"E'EF('E, the Court 'EEE',E, and ,E<, A,I>E the >ecision dated >ece*ber .5, /445 and 'esolution dated !anuar+ /9, /440 of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. C'-".C. 44779 and ACG:I<, accused-appellants "ubert !effre+ P. &ebb, Antonio -e)ano, =ichael A. 6atchalian, "ospicio FernandeB, =iguel 'odrigueB, Peter Estrada and 6erardo Biong of the cri*es of $hich the+ $ere charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. <he+ are ordered i**ediatel+ 'E-EA,E> fro* detention unless the+ are confined for another la$ful cause. -et a cop+ of this >ecision be furnished the >irector, Bureau of Corrections, =untinlupa Cit+ for i**ediate i*ple*entation. <he >irector of the Bureau of Corrections is >I'EC<E> to report the action he has ta;en to this Court $ithin five da+s fro* receipt of this >ecision. ,( ('>E'E>. EN BANC 6.'. No. --./839 =arch 7., .899

vs.

Page1

<"E ,P(:,E, BE'NABE AF'ICA and ,(-E>A> C. AF'ICA, and the "EI', (F >(=IN6A (N6, petitionersappellants,

CA-<EU P"I-.#, INC., =A<E( B(G:I'EN and <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-,, respondents-appellees. 'oss, ,elph, Carrascoso and !anda for the respondents. Bernabe Africa, etc. for the petitioners. =APA-IN<A-., !.% <his case is before us on a petition for revie$ of the decision of the Court of Appeals, $hich affir*ed that of the Court of First Instance of =anila dis*issing petitioners@ second a*ended co*plaint against respondents. <he action is for da*ages under Articles .84/ and .847 of the old Civil Code. It appears that in the afternoon of =arch .3, .813 a fire bro;e out at the Calte2 service station at the corner of Antipolo street and 'iBal Avenue, =anila. It started $hile gasoline $as being hosed fro* a tan; truc; into the underground storage, right at the opening of the receiving tan; $here the noBBle of the hose $as inserted. <he fire spread to and burned several neighboring houses, including the personal properties and effects inside the*. <heir o$ners, a*ong the* petitioners here, sued respondents Calte2 Phil.#, Inc. and =ateo BoFuiren, the first as alleged o$ner of the station and the second as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the part of both of the* $as attributed as the cause of the fire. <he trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners failed to prove negligence and that respondents had e2ercised due care in the pre*ises and $ith respect to the supervision of their e*plo+ees. <he first Fuestion before :s refers to the ad*issibilit+ of certain reports on the fire prepared b+ the =anila Police and Fire >epart*ents and b+ a certain Captain <inio of the Ar*ed Forces of the Philippines. Portions of the first t$o reports are as follo$s% .. Police >epart*ent report% A Investigation disclosed that at about 1%44 P.=. =arch .3, .813, $hile -eandro Flores $as transferring gasoline fro* a tan; truc;, plate No. <-5/8/ into the underground tan; of the Calte2 6asoline ,tation located at the corner of 'iBal Avenue and Antipolo ,treet, this Cit+, an un;no$n Filipino lighted a cigarette and thre$ the burning *atch stic; near the *ain valve of the said underground tan;. >ue to the gasoline fu*es, fire suddenl+ blaBed. Guic; action of -eandro Flores in pulling off the gasoline hose connecting the truc; $ith the underground tan; prevented a terrific e2plosion. "o$ever, the fla*es scattered due to the hose fro* $hich the gasoline $as spouting. It burned the truc; and the follo$ing accessorias and residences. /. <he Fire >epart*ent report% A In connection $ith their allegation that the pre*ises $as sic# subleased for the installation of a coca-cola and cigarette stand, the co*plainants furnished this (ffice a cop+ of a photograph ta;en during the fire and $hich is sub*itted here$ith. it appears in this picture that there are in the pre*ises a coca-cola cooler and a rac; $hich according to infor*ation gathered in the neighborhood contained cigarettes and *atches, installed bet$een the gasoline pu*ps and the underground tan;s. <he report of Captain <inio reproduced infor*ation given b+ a certain Benito =orales regarding the histor+ of the gasoline station and $hat the chief of the fire depart*ent had told hi* on the sa*e sub)ect. <he foregoing reports $ere ruled out as "double hearsa+" b+ the Court of Appeals and hence inad*issible. <his ruling is no$ assigned as error. It is contended% first, that said reports $ere ad*itted b+ the trial court $ithout ob)ection on the part of respondentsC secondl+, that $ith respect to the police report E2hibit E-Africa# $hich appears signed b+ a >etective Kapanta allegedl+ "for ,alvador Capacillo," the latter $as presented as $itness but respondents $aived their right to crosse2a*ine hi* although the+ had the opportunit+ to do soC and thirdl+, that in an+ event the said reports are ad*issible as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule under section 75 of 'ule ./7, no$ 'ule .74. <he first contention is not borne out b+ the record. <he transcript of the hearing of ,epte*ber .0, .857 pp. .90-.04# sho$s that the reports in Fuestion, $hen offered as evidence, $ere ob)ected to b+ counsel for each of respondents on the ground that the+ $ere hearsa+ and that the+ $ere "irrelevant, i**aterial and i*pertinent." Indeed, in the court@s resolution onl+ E2hibits !, P, P-5 and U-9 $ere ad*itted $ithout ob)ectionC the ad*ission of the others, including the disputed ones, carried no such e2planation. (n the second point, although >etective Capacillo did ta;e the $itness stand, he $as not e2a*ined and he did not testif+ as to the facts *entioned in his alleged report signed b+ >etective Kapanta#. All he said $as that he $as one of those $ho investigated "the location of the fire and, if possible, gather $itnesses as to the occurrence, and that he brought the report $ith hi*. <here $as nothing, therefore, on $hich he need be cross-e2a*inedC and the contents of the report, as to $hich he did not testif+, did not thereb+ beco*e co*petent evidence. And even if he had testified, his testi*on+ $ould still have been ob)ectionable as far as infor*ation gathered b+ hi* fro* third persons $as concerned. Petitioners *aintain, ho$ever, that the reports in the*selves, that is, $ithout further testi*onial evidence on their contents, fall $ithin the scope of section 75, 'ule ./7, $hich provides that "entries in official records *ade in the perfor*ance of his dut+ b+ a public officer of the Philippines, or b+ a person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$, are pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated." <here are three reFuisites for ad*issibilit+ under the rule )ust *entioned% a# that the entr+ $as *ade b+ a public officer, or b+ another person speciall+ en)oined b+ la$ to do soC b# that it $as *ade b+ the public officer in the perfor*ance of his duties, or b+ such other person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$C and c# that the public officer or other person had sufficient ;no$ledge of the facts b+ hi* stated, $hich *ust have been acFuired b+ hi* personall+ or through official infor*ation =oran, Co**ents on the 'ules of Court, Eol. 7 L.850M p. 783#. (f the three reFuisites )ust stated, onl+ the last need be considered here. (bviousl+ the *aterial facts recited in the reports as to the cause and circu*stances of the fire $ere not $ithin the personal ;no$ledge of the officers $ho conducted the investigation. &as ;no$ledge of such facts, ho$ever, acFuired b+ the* through official infor*ationH As to so*e facts the sources thereof are not even identified. (thers are attributed to -eopoldo =edina, referred to as an e*plo+ee at the gas station $ere the fire occurredC to -eandro Flores, driver of the tan; truc; fro* $hich gasoline $as being transferred at the ti*e to the underground tan; of the stationC and to respondent =ateo BoFuiren, $ho could not, according to E2hibit E-Africa, give an+ reason as to the origin of the fire. <o Fualif+ their state*ents as "official infor*ation" acFuired b+ the officers $ho

Page1

prepared the reports, the persons $ho *ade the state*ents not onl+ *ust have personal ;no$ledge of the facts stated but *ust have the dut+ to give such state*ents for record.. <he reports in Fuestion do not constitute an e2ception to the hearsa+ ruleC the facts stated therein $ere not acFuired b+ the reporting officers through official infor*ation, not having been given b+ the infor*ants pursuant to an+ dut+ to do so. <he ne2t Fuestion is $hether or not, $ithout proof as to the cause and origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loFuitur should appl+ so as to presu*e negligence on the part of appellees. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused to appl+ the doctrine in the instant case on the grounds that "as to its# applicabilit+ ... in the Philippines, there see*s to he nothing definite," and that $hile the rules do not prohibit its adoption in appropriate cases, "in the case at bar, ho$ever, $e find no practical use for such doctrine." <he Fuestion deserves *ore than such su**ar+ dis*issal. <he doctrine has actuall+ been applied in this )urisdiction, in the case of Espiritu vs. Philippine Po$er and >evelop*ent Co. CA-6.'. No. 7/14-', ,epte*ber /4, .818#, $herein the decision of the Court of Appeals $as penned b+ =r. !ustice !.B.-. 'e+es no$ a *e*ber of the ,upre*e Court. <he facts of that case are stated in the decision as follo$s% In the afternoon of =a+ 5, .819, $hile the plaintiff-appellee and other co*panions $ere loading grass bet$een the *unicipalities of Ba+ and Calauan, in the province of -aguna, $ith clear $eather and $ithout an+ $ind blo$ing, an electric trans*ission $ire, installed and *aintained b+ the defendant Philippine Po$er and >evelop*ent Co., Inc. alongside the road, suddenl+ parted, and one of the bro;en ends hit the head of the plaintiff as he $as about to board the truc;. As a result, plaintiff received the full shoc; of 1,144 volts carried b+ the $ire and $as ;noc;ed unconscious to the ground. <he electric charge coursed through his bod+ and caused e2tensive and serious *ultiple burns fro* s;ull to legs, leaving the bone e2posed in so*e parts and causing intense pain and $ounds that $ere not co*pletel+ healed $hen the case $as tried on !une .3, .810, over one +ear after the *ishap. <he defendant therein disclai*ed liabilit+ on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to sho$ an+ specific act of negligence, but the appellate court overruled the defense under the doctrine of res ipsa loFuitur. <he court said% <he first point is directed against the sufficienc+ of plaintiff@s evidence to place appellant on its defense. &hile it is the rule, as contended b+ the appellant, that in case of noncontractual negligence, or culpa aFuiliana, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the pro2i*ate cause of his in)ur+ $as the negligence of the defendant, it is also a recogniBed principal that "$here the thing $hich caused in)ur+, $ithout fault of the in)ured person, is under the e2clusive control of the defendant and the in)ur+ is such as in the ordinar+ course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of the e2planation, that the in)ur+ arose fro* defendant@s $ant of care." And the burden of evidence is shifted to hi* to establish that he has observed due care and diligence. ,an !uan -ight Y <ransit Co. v. 'eFuena, /11, :.,. 38, 59 -. ed. 934.# <his rule is ;no$n b+ the na*e of res ipsa loFuitur the transaction spea;s for itself#, and is peculiarl+ applicable to the case at bar, $here it is unFuestioned that the plaintiff had ever+ right to be on the high$a+, and the electric $ire $as under the sole control of defendant co*pan+. In the ordinar+ course of events, electric $ires do not part suddenl+ in fair $eather and in)ure people, unless the+ are sub)ected to unusual strain and stress or there are defects in their installation, *aintenance and supervisionC )ust as barrels do not ordinaril+ roll out of the $arehouse $indo$s to in)ure passersb+, unless so*e one $as negligent. B+rne v. Boadle, / " Y Co. 0//C .58 Eng. 'eprint /88, the leading case that established that rule#. ConseFuentl+, in the absence of contributor+ negligence $hich is ad*ittedl+ not present#, the fact that the $ire snapped suffices to raise a reasonable presu*ption of negligence in its installation, care and *aintenance. <hereafter, as observed b+ Chief Baron Polloc;, "if there are an+ facts inconsistent $ith negligence, it is for the defendant to prove." It is true of course that decisions of the Court of Appeals do not la+ do$n doctrines binding on the ,upre*e Court, but $e do not consider this a reason for not appl+ing the particular doctrine of res ipsa loFuitur in the case at bar. 6asoline is a highl+ co*bustible *aterial, in the storage and sale of $hich e2tre*e care *ust be ta;en. (n the other hand, fire is not considered a fortuitous event, as it arises al*ost invariabl+ fro* so*e act of *an. A case stri;ingl+ si*ilar to the one before :s is !ones vs. ,hell Petroleu* Corporation, et al., .0. ,o. 110% Arthur (. !ones is the o$ner of a building in the cit+ of "a**on $hich in the +ear .871 $as leased to the ,hell Petroleu* Corporation for a gasoline filling station. (n (ctober 3, .871, during the ter* of the lease, $hile gasoline $as being transferred fro* the tan; $agon, also operated b+ the ,hell Petroleu* Corporation, to the underground tan; of the station, a fire started $ith resulting da*ages to the building o$ned b+ !ones. Alleging that the da*ages to his building a*ounted to \5.9.85, !ones sued the ,hell Petroleu* Corporation for the recover+ of that a*ount. <he )udge of the district court, after hearing the testi*on+, concluded that plaintiff $as entitled to a recover+ and rendered )udg*ent in his favor for \1/0.3/. <he Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed this )udg*ent, on the ground the testi*on+ failed to sho$ $ith reasonable certaint+ an+ negligence on the part of the ,hell Petroleu* Corporation or an+ of its agents or e*plo+ees. Plaintiff applied to this Court for a &rit of 'evie$ $hich $as granted, and the case is no$ before us for decision.._$ph`..Qat In resolving the issue of negligence, the ,upre*e Court of -ouisiana held% Plaintiff@s petition contains t$o distinct charges of negligence A one relating to the cause of the fire and the other relating to the spreading of the gasoline about the filling station. (ther than an e2pert to assess the da*ages caused plaintiff@s building b+ the fire, no $itnesses $ere placed on the stand b+ the defendant. <a;ing up plaintiff@s charge of negligence relating to the cause of the fire, $e find it established b+ the record that the filling station and the tan; truc; $ere under the control of the defendant and operated b+ its agents or e*plo+ees. &e further find fro* the uncontradicted testi*on+ of plaintiff@s $itnesses that fire started in the underground tan; attached to the filling station $hile it $as being filled fro* the tan; truc; and $hile both the tan; and the truc; $ere in charge of and being operated b+ the agents or e*plo+ees of the defendant, e2tended to the hose and tan; truc;, and $as co**unicated fro* the burning hose, tan; truc;, and escaping gasoline to the building o$ned b+ the plaintiff. Predicated on these circu*stances and the further circu*stance of defendant@s failure to e2plain the cause of the fire or to sho$ its lac; of ;no$ledge of the cause, plaintiff has evo;ed the doctrine of res ipsa loFuitur. <here are *an+ cases in $hich the doctrine *a+ be successfull+ invo;ed and this, $e thin;, is one of the*.

Page1

&here the thing $hich caused the in)ur+ co*plained of is sho$n to be under the *anage*ent of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinar+ course of things does not happen if those $ho have its *anage*ent or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in absence of e2planation b+ defendant, that the accident arose fro* $ant of care. 15 C.!. h093, p. ..87#. <his state*ent of the rule of res ipsa loFuitur has been $idel+ approved and adopted b+ the courts of last resort. ,o*e of the cases in this )urisdiction in $hich the doctrine has been applied are the follo$ing, viB.% =aus v. Broderic;, 5. -a. Ann. ..57, /5 ,o. 800C "ebert v. -a;e Charles Ice, etc., Co., ... -a. 5//, 75 ,o. 07., 91 -.'.A. .4., .44 A*. ,t. 'ep. 545C &illis v. Eic;sburg, etc., '. Co., ..5 -a. 97, 73 ,o. 38/C Bents v. Page, ..5 -a. 594, 78 ,o. 588. <he principle enunciated in the aforeFuoted case applies $ith eFual force here. <he gasoline station, $ith all its appliances, eFuip*ent and e*plo+ees, $as under the control of appellees. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. <he persons $ho ;ne$ or could have ;no$n ho$ the fire started $ere appellees and their e*plo+ees, but the+ gave no e2planation thereof $hatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of $ant of care. In the report sub*itted b+ Captain -eoncio =ariano of the =anila Police >epart*ent E2h. U-. Africa# the follo$ing appears% Investigation of the basic co*plaint disclosed that the Calte2 6asoline ,tation co*plained of occupies a lot appro2i*atel+ .4 * 2 .4 * at the south$est corner of 'iBal Avenue and Antipolo. <he location is $ithin a ver+ bus+ business district near the (brero =ar;et, a railroad crossing and ver+ thic;l+ populated neighborhood $here a great nu*ber of people *ill around t until gasoline tever be the&act)vities of these peopleor lighting a cigarette cannot be e2cluded and this constitute a secondar+ haBard to its operation $hich in turn endangers the entire neighborhood to conflagration. Further*ore, aside fro* precautions alread+ ta;en b+ its operator the concrete $alls south and $est ad)oining the neighborhood are onl+ /-.D/ *eters high at *ost and cannot avoid the fla*es fro* leaping over it in case of fire. 'ecords sho$ that there have been t$o cases of fire $hich caused not onl+ *aterial da*ages but desperation and also panic in the neighborhood. Although the soft drin;s stand had been eli*inated, this gasoline service station is also used b+ its operator as a garage and repair shop for his fleet of ta2icabs nu*bering ten or *ore, adding another ris; to the possible outbrea; of fire at this alread+ s*all but cro$ded gasoline station. <he foregoing report, having been sub*itted b+ a police officer in the perfor*ance of his duties on the basis of his o$n personal observation of the facts reported, *a+ properl+ be considered as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule. <hese facts, descriptive of the location and ob)ective circu*stances surrounding the operation of the gasoline station in Fuestion, strengthen the presu*ption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loFuitur, since on their face the+ called for *ore stringent *easures of caution than those $hich $ould satisf+ the standard of due diligence under ordinar+ circu*stances. <here is no *ore eloFuent de*onstration of this than the state*ent of -eandro Flores before the police investigator. Flores $as the driver of the gasoline tan; $agon $ho, alone and $ithout assistance, $as transferring the contents thereof into the underground storage $hen the fire bro;e out. "e said% "Before loading the underground tan; there $ere no people, but $hile the loading $as going on, there $ere people $ho $ent to drin; coca-cola at the coca-cola stand# $hich is about a *eter fro* the hole leading to the underground tan;." "e added that $hen the tan; $as al*ost filled he $ent to the tan; truc; to close the valve, and $hile he had his bac; turned to the "*anhole" he, heard so*eone shout "fire." Even then the fire possibl+ $ould not have spread to the neighboring houses $ere it not for another negligent o*ission on the part of defendants, na*el+, their failure to provide a concrete $all high enough to prevent the fla*es fro* leaping over it. As it $as the concrete $all $as onl+ /-.D/ *eters high, and be+ond that height it consisted *erel+ of galvaniBed iron sheets, $hich $ould predictabl+ cru*ple and *elt $hen sub)ected to intense heat. >efendants@ negligence, therefore, $as not onl+ $ith respect to the cause of the fire but also $ith respect to the spread thereof to the neighboring houses. <here is an ad*ission on the part of BoFuiren in his a*ended ans$er to the second a*ended co*plaint that "the fire $as caused through the acts of a stranger $ho, $ithout authorit+, or per*ission of ans$ering defendant, passed through the gasoline station and negligentl+ thre$ a lighted *atch in the pre*ises." No evidence on this point $as adduced, but assu*ing the allegation to be true A certainl+ an+ unfavorable inference fro* the ad*ission *a+ be ta;en against BoFuiren A it does not e2tenuate his negligence. A decision of the ,upre*e Court of <e2as, upon facts analogous to those of the present case, states the rule $hich $e find acceptable here. "It is the rule that those $ho distribute a dangerous article or agent, o$e a degree of protection to the public proportionate to and co**ensurate $ith a danger involved ... $e thin; it is the generall+ accepted rule as applied to torts that @if the effects of the actor@s negligent conduct activel+ and continuousl+ operate to bring about har* to another, the fact that the active and substantiall+ si*ultaneous operation of the effects of a third person@s innocent, tortious or cri*inal act is also a substantial factor in bringing about the har*, does not protect the actor fro* liabilit+.@ 'estate*ent of the -a$ of <orts, vol. /, p. ..31, h178#. ,tated in another $a+, "<he intention of an unforeseen and une2pected cause, is not sufficient to relieve a $rongdoer fro* conseFuences of negligence, if such negligence directl+ and pro2i*atel+ cooperates $ith the independent cause in the resulting in)ur+." =acAfee, et al. vs. <raver@s 6as Corporation, .57 ,.&. /nd 11/.# <he ne2t issue is $hether Calte2 should be held liable for the da*ages caused to appellants. <his issue depends on $hether BoFuiren $as an independent contractor, as held b+ the Court of Appeals, or an agent of Calte2. <his Fuestion, in the light of the facts not controverted, is one of la$ and hence *a+ be passed upon b+ this Court. <hese facts are% .# BoFuiren *ade an ad*ission that he $as an agent of Calte2C /# at the ti*e of the fire Calte2 o$ned the gasoline station and all the eFuip*ent thereinC 7# Calte2 e2ercised control over BoFuiren in the *anage*ent of the stateC 1# the deliver+ truc; used in delivering gasoline to the station had the na*e of CA-<EU painted on itC and 5# the license to store gasoline at the station $as in the na*e of Calte2, $hich paid the license fees. E2hibit <-AfricaC E2hibit :-AfricaC E2hibit U-5 AfricaC E2hibit U-9 AfricaC E2hibit I-Africa#.

Page1

In BoFuiren@s a*ended ans$er to the second a*ended co*plaint, he denied that he directed one of his drivers to re*ove gasoline fro* the truc; into the tan; and alleged that the "alleged driver, if one there $as, $as not in his e*plo+, the driver being an e*plo+ee of the Calte2 Phil.# Inc. andDor the o$ners of the gasoline station." It is true that BoFuiren later on a*ended his ans$er, and that a*ong the changes $as one to the effect that he $as not acting as agent of Calte2. But then again, in his *otion to dis*iss appellants@ second a*ended co*plaint the ground alleged $as that it stated no cause of action since under the allegations thereof he $as *erel+ acting as agent of Calte2, such that he could not have incurred personal liabilit+. A *otion to dis*iss on this ground is dee*ed to be an ad*ission of the facts alleged in the co*plaint. Calte2 ad*its that it o$ned the gasoline station as $ell as the eFuip*ent therein, but clai*s that the business conducted at the service station in Fuestion $as o$ned and operated b+ BoFuiren. But Calte2 did not present an+ contract $ith BoFuiren that $ould reveal the nature of their relationship at the ti*e of the fire. <here *ust have been one in e2istence at that ti*e. Instead, $hat $as presented $as a license agree*ent *anifestl+ tailored for purposes of this case, since it $as entered into shortl+ before the e2piration of the one-+ear period it $as intended to operate. <his so-called license agree*ent E2hibit 5-Calte2# $as e2ecuted on Nove*ber /8, .813, but *ade effective as of !anuar+ ., .813 so as to cover the date of the fire, na*el+, =arch .3, .813. <his retroactivit+ provision is Fuite significant, and gives rise to the conclusion that it $as designed precisel+ to free Calte2 fro* an+ responsibilit+ $ith respect to the fire, as sho$n b+ the clause that Calte2 "shall not be liable for an+ in)ur+ to person or propert+ $hile in the propert+ herein licensed, it being understood and agreed that -ICEN,EE BoFuiren# is not an e*plo+ee, representative or agent of -ICEN,(' Calte2#." But even if the license agree*ent $ere to govern, BoFuiren can hardl+ be considered an independent contractor. :nder that agree*ent BoFuiren $ould pa+ Calte2 the purel+ no*inal su* of P..44 for the use of the pre*ises and all the eFuip*ent therein. "e could sell onl+ Calte2 Products. =aintenance of the station and its eFuip*ent $as sub)ect to the approval, in other $ords control, of Calte2. BoFuiren could not assign or transfer his rights as licensee $ithout the consent of Calte2. <he license agree*ent $as supposed to be fro* !anuar+ ., .813 to >ece*ber 7., .813, and thereafter until ter*inated b+ Calte2 upon t$o da+s prior $ritten notice. Calte2 could at an+ ti*e cancel and ter*inate the agree*ent in case BoFuiren ceased to sell Calte2 products, or did not conduct the business $ith due diligence, in the )udg*ent of Calte2. <er*ination of the contract $as therefore a right granted onl+ to Calte2 but not to BoFuiren. <hese provisions of the contract sho$ the e2tent of the control of Calte2 over BoFuiren. <he control $as such that the latter $as virtuall+ an e*plo+ee of the for*er. <a;ing into consideration the fact that the operator o$ed his position to the co*pan+ and the latter could re*ove hi* or ter*inate his services at $illC that the service station belonged to the co*pan+ and bore its tradena*e and the operator sold onl+ the products of the co*pan+C that the eFuip*ent used b+ the operator belonged to the co*pan+ and $ere )ust loaned to the operator and the co*pan+ too; charge of their repair and *aintenanceC that an e*plo+ee of the co*pan+ supervised the operator and conducted periodic inspection of the co*pan+@s gasoline and service stationC that the price of the products sold b+ the operator $as fi2ed b+ the co*pan+ and not b+ the operatorC and that the receipts signed b+ the operator indicated that he $as a *ere agent, the finding of the Court of Appeals that the operator $as an agent of the co*pan+ and not an independent contractor should not be disturbed. <o deter*ine the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not bound to rel+ upon the na*e or title given it b+ the contracting parties, should thereb+ a controvers+ as to $hat the+ reall+ had intended to enter into, but the $a+ the contracting parties do or perfor* their respective obligations stipulated or agreed upon *a+ be sho$n and inFuired into, and should such perfor*ance conflict $ith the na*e or title given the contract b+ the parties, the for*er *ust prevail over the latter. ,hell Co*pan+ of the Philippines, -td. vs. Fire*ens@ Insurance Co*pan+ of Ne$ar;, Ne$ !erse+, .44 Phil. 050#. <he $ritten contract $as apparentl+ dra$n for the purpose of creating the apparent relationship of e*plo+er and independent contractor, and of avoiding liabilit+ for the negligence of the e*plo+ees about the stationC but the co*pan+ $as not satisfied to allo$ such relationship to e2ist. <he evidence sho$s that it i**ediatel+ assu*ed control, and proceeded to direct the *ethod b+ $hich the $or; contracted for should be perfor*ed. B+ reserving the right to ter*inate the contract at $ill, it retained the *eans of co*pelling sub*ission to its orders. "aving elected to assu*e control and to direct the *eans and *ethods b+ $hich the $or; has to be perfor*ed, it *ust be held liable for the negligence of those perfor*ing service under its direction. &e thin; the evidence $as sufficient to sustain the verdict of the )ur+. 6ulf 'efining Co*pan+ v. 'ogers, 50 ,.&. /d, .37#. Calte2 further argues that the gasoline stored in the station belonged to BoFuiren. But no cash invoices $ere presented to sho$ that BoFuiren had bought said gasoline fro* Calte2. Neither $as there a sales contract to prove the sa*e. As found b+ the trial court the Africas sustained a loss of P8,445.34, after deducting the a*ount of P/,444.44 collected b+ the* on the insurance of the house. <he deduction is no$ challenged as erroneous on the ground that Article //40 of the Ne$ Civil Code, $hich provides for the subrogation of the insurer to the rights of the insured, $as not +et in effect $hen the loss too; place. "o$ever, regardless of the silence of the la$ on this point at that ti*e, the a*ount that should be recovered be *easured b+ the da*ages actuall+ suffered, other$ise the principle prohibiting un)ust enrich*ent $ould be violated. &ith respect to the clai* of the heirs of (ng P0,544.44 $as ad)udged b+ the lo$er court on the basis of the assessed value of the propert+ destro+ed, na*el+, P.,544.44, disregarding the testi*on+ of one of the (ng children that said propert+ $as $orth P1,444.44. &e agree that the court erred, since it is of co**on ;no$ledge that the assess*ent for ta2ation purposes is not an accurate gauge of fair *ar;et value, and in this case should not prevail over positive evidence of such value. <he heirs of (ng are therefore entitled to P.4,444.44. &herefore, the decision appealed fro* is reversed and respondents-appellees are held liable solidaril+ to appellants, and ordered to pa+ the* the aforesaid su* of P8,445.34 and P.4,444.44, respectivel+, $ith interest fro* the filing of the co*plaint, and costs. 6.'. No. --130/0 ,epte*ber 74, .83/ PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. !(,EP" -E(NE, + >:C:,IN alias !E,,IE, defendant-appellant.

6:E''E'(, !.%

Page1

<his is an appeal fro* the decision of the Court of First Instance of -a :nion, Branch I, convicting the accusedappellant, !oseph -eones + >ucusin, of the cri*e of rape charged in the follo$ing infor*ation, to $it% <he undersigned offended part+ after having been dul+ s$orn to an oath in accordance $ith la$ hereb+ accuses !(,EP" -E(NE, + >:C:,IN alias !essie of the cri*e of 'APE, co**itted as follo$s% <hat on or about the //nd da+ of April, .807, in the =unicipalit+ of ,an Fernando, Province of -a :nion, Philippines, and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, said accused !oseph -eones + >ucusin alias !essie, b+ *eans of violence and use of force co*pelled the offended part+ to s$allo$ tablets and conseFuentl+ thereafter $hile she fell into se*i-consciousness the said accused $ilfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ have carnal ;no$ledge of the co*plainant Irene >ula+ against her $ill in the house of the accused. C(N<'A'I <( -A&, $ith the aggravating circu*stance of abuse of confidence. ,an Fernando, -a :nion, =a+ 3,.807. ,6>.# I'ENE >:-AI (ffended Part+ &I<" =I C(NF('=I<I% ,6>.# 6A:>ENCI( >:-AI Father of the (ffended Part+# and sentencing hi* to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua and to pa+ the cost. <he facts are narrated in the People@s brief as follo$s% Co*plainant Irene >ula+ $as a salesgirl e*plo+ed in the store of =r. Y =rs. Pepito -eones at ,an Fernando, -a :nion $here she resided. (n April //, .807, the co*plainant $ho had headache sta+ed in her roo*. Earlier that da+, the *e*bers of the -eones fa*il+, including the accused-appellant !oseph -eones and his sister EliBabeth, had gone to nearb+ beach resort for a picnic. At about past noon the appellant and EliBabeth returned to their house. &hile there, the appellant and EliBabeth entered the roo* $here co*plainant $as l+ing do$n and forced her to ta;e three tablets dissolved in a spoon $hich according to the* $ere aspirin. <he co*plainant refused to ta;e the tablets but $as forced to do so $hen the appellant held her *outh $hile his sister pushed the *edicine. <hen the appellant and EliBabeth left the roo* and after a $hile the co*plainant felt diBB+. -ater, the appellant returned to the co*plainant@s roo* and too; of her pant+. <hen the appellant $ent on top of her. <he co*plainant tried to push hi* but as she $as $ea; and diBB+, the appellant succeeded in abusing her pp. /-3,.5-.9, tsn, !une /0, .805#. At about 1%74 P.=. of the sa*e date, Natividad -eones, the step*other of the appellant, found the co*plainant unconscious near her roo* $ithout an+ pant+ on. ,he $as then ta;en to the -a :nion Provincial "ospital b+ the driver of the -eones fa*il+ pp. 7-5, tsn, !une .4, .809#. &hen ad*itted to the hospital at about 9%44 P.=. of the sa*e date April //, .807#, the co*plainant $as se*iconscious, incoherent and h+sterical. ,he refused to tal; and to be e2a*ined b+ the doctors. ,he $as irritated $hen approached b+ a *ale figure E2hibit "B", 'ecords, pp. /34-/3.#. <he co*plainant $as first attended to b+ >r. Antonino Estioco $ho found out that she had vaginal bleeding E2hibit "/", 'ecords, p. 039#. <he co*plainant $as then referred to >r. Fe Ca+ao $ho $as infor*ed b+ >r. Estioco that she *ight have been a victi* of rape p. /3, tsn, =a+ .5, .801#. In the presence of the co*plainant@s father, >r. Ca+ao e2a*ined her on April /9, .807 after $hich she issued a *edical certificate $ith the follo$ing findings% .. Presence of er+the*a of the vestibular portion of e2ternal genitaliaC /. "ealing lacerations of the h+*en at / o@cloc; and .4 o@cloc;C 7. Easil+ ad*it one finger $ith painC 1. :nclotted blood at the vaginal cavit+C 5. ,*ear e2a* for sper* cell-negativeC 9. >@plococci-negative 0. Florence test-reagent not available. E2hibit "A", 'ecords, p. 7#. Because of the lac; of facilities in the hospital, >r. Ca+ao $as not able to *a;e an+ e2a*ination to deter*ine $hether drug $as given to the co*plainant. pp. /7- /1, tsn, =a+ .5, .801. . <he accused-appellant denied the charge i*puted to hi*, clai*ing that at the ti*e of the alleged rape bet$een /%44 o@cloc; and 7%44 o@cloc; p.*. on April //, .807, he $as at the beach resort $ith the other *e*bers of the fa*il+, na*el+ his sister EliBabeth, his step*other Natividad -eones, his +ounger brothers and sisters na*ed =arivic, <heresa, Carol, Pin;+ and Bongbong together $ith other co*panions, for a picnic and had lunch thereat, s$i**ing and picture-ta;ing. As indicated earlier, the trial court, holding that "vie$ed fro* all legal aspects of this case, in the light of the recorded evidence, ... is full+ convinced that the cri*e of rape charged in the cri*inal co*plaint $as co**itted b+ the accused. <he evidence presented b+ the prosecution is not onl+ clear and convincing but has established the guilt of the accused be+ond reasonable doubt." Fro* this sentence, the accused appeals to :s, strongl+ sub*itting that the trial court erred in finding hi* guilt+ of the cri*e charged since the evidence presented against hi* did not prove his guilt be+ond reasonable doubt.

Page1

At the outset, &e note a nu*ber of significant facts fro* the recorded evidence of the prosecution $hich *ateriall+ and substantiall+ debun;s and derails the theor+ of the 6overn*ent and correspondingl+ i*presses considerable *erit to the defense. .. <he clinical case record of Irene >ula+@s ad*ission and confine*ent at the Provincial "ospital of -a :nion, *ar;ed E2hibit "/", contain entries $hich totall+ and co*pletel+ belle the clai* of the co*plainant that she $as raped b+ the accused in the afternoon of April //, .807. <he sa*e is reproduced hereunder% -A :NI(N P'(EINCIA- "(,PI<A,an Fernando, -a :nion C-INICA- CA,E 'EC('> Fiscal Ir.% .807 Ad*. No.% /05 File No. or 'ec. No. Ped.% ,urg.% >ept. Ph+sician% Ph+sician% >r. Estioco

Ad*itted b+% Approved b+% Cit+ Free% <ransient free% 6ovt. freeC

(bs.% Classif. =ed.% EEN<% C.:. >ental%

Prvt. free% "osp. pa+% (ff. "osp. pa+% (ff. Prvt. pa+%

Na*e of Patient% Irene >ula+ =aiden na*e% iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 'esidence% ,an Fernando, -a :nion In case of accident or death notif+ Natividad -eones, e*plo+er# Charge "osp. Acct. to% iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Age% .9 +rs. ,ingle% =arriedC &ido$ed% Nationalit+ Fil. Ad*itted% 9%44 P.=. 1-//-.807 Assgd P'% I Bed b+ >r. Estioco <ransf% P.=.iiii.8iiii to >ept% P' &ard h% iiiiii Bed h iiiiii Co*plaints% Eaginal bleeding >iagnosis in full% "ealing lacerated $ide at / o@cloc; and .4 o@cloc; h+*en. 'esults% I*prv% :ni*prov% >ied% 'ec.% >isposition%, >isd% Abcond% 7%15 P.=. <ransf "osp. 5-./-07 >isch%

(peration% iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Anesthesia% iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii "istor+ $ritten b+% APP'(EE>% ,6>.# E,<I(C( unintelligible# 'esident Ph+sician# >ept. "ead <he entr+ $ritten in the above clinical record $hen Irene >ula+ $as ad*itted under the ite* "Co*plaints" reads% Eaginal Bleeding, and belo$ this entr+ appears the >iagnosis-"ealing lacerated $ide at / o@cloc; and .4 o@cloc; h+*en. Assu*ing that the victi* $as raped bet$een / and 7 o@cloc; p.*., April //, .807 the sa*e da+ she $as ad*itted in the hospital#, then the lacerations of the h+*en at / o@cloc; and .4 o@cloc; $ould not have been described and indicated to be "ealing in the clinical case record. It $ould be described as "laceration fresh" or b+ si*ilar $ords li;e "blood+ or ne$ lacerations." <here is no instant for*ula, techniFue or process ;no$n to *edical science or b+ hu*an e2perience to hasten the healing of a lacerated h+*en $ithin three 7# hours or so after defloration. Citing fro* the boo;, -egal =edicine b+ Pedro P. ,olis, =.>., -l B =edico -egal (fficer, National Bureau of Investigation, >epart*ent no$ =inistr+# of !ustice, &e have the follo$ing co**ent on% "ealing ti*e of laceration of the h+*en%

=ore e2tensive tear *a+ reFuire longer ti*e, usuall+ seven to ten da+s.

Page1

,uperficial laceration of the h+*en *a+ heal in t$o or three da+s.

Co*plicated t+pes and those $ith intervening infection *a+ cause dela+ in the healing depending upon the e2tent of the involve*ent of the surrounding tissue and the degree of infection. Co*plicated laceration *a+ even reFuire surgical intervention." p. 74/, E*phasis supplied.# ,ince there $as found laceration, $ide, at / o@cloc; and .4 o@cloc; of the h+*en $hich $as then alread+ healing on April //, .807, it follo$s reasonabl+ that the defloration occurred several da+s before, $hich *a+ have happened $hen Irene >ula+ too; a $ee;-long vacation to her ho*eto$n in Pugo, -a :nion tsn, p. .4, !une /0, .805# and there is evidence that she had a suitor na*ed Ferdinand ,ar*iento $ho is fro* nearb+ Agoo, -a :nion. And $hen she returned to the house of her e*plo+er in ,an Fernando, -a :nion, she had alread+ chest and sto*ach pains and a headache. <he $ritten entries in the clinical case record, E2h. "/", sho$ing the date of her ad*ission in the hospital on April //, .807, her co*plaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of ""ealing lacerated $ide at / o@cloc; and .4 o@cloc; h+*en" are pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the said entries having been *ade in official records b+ a public officer of the Philippines in the perfor*ance of his dut+ especiall+ en)oined b+ la$, $hich is that of a ph+sician in a govern*ent hospital. 'ule .74, ,ee. 73, 'ules of Court#. In the case at bar, >r. Antonino Estioco $as the ad*itting ph+sician but unfortunatel+, he $as not presented as a $itness for the govern*ent. In connection $ith E2hibit "/", there is one piece of da*aging evidence $hich not onl+ derogates the theor+ of the prosecution but also cannot be e2plained b+ the govern*ent, and that is the fran; testi*on+ of >r. Fe Ca+ao herself, thus% G A <he Fuestion is% did +ou not discover through reading the clinical histor+ of the patient that the $o*an $as not co*plaining of alleged rapeH A A It $as not indicated here that she $as co*plaining of an alleged rape. G A <here $as not a single $ord in the clinical record of the victi* that she $as the victi* of an alleged rape, is that correctH A A Ies. tsn, pp. /0-/3, =a+ .5,.801# /. Fro* the sa*e clinical case record, E2hibit "/", it appears clearl+ that the alleged victi*, Irene >ula+, $as having her *enstrual period $hen she $as supposedl+ raped for the Co*plaint indicated that she had vaginal bleeding. ,he herself ad*itted in her testi*on+ that on April //, .807, she $as having her *enstruation. tsn, p. 8, !une /0, .805#. It is Fuite abnor*al and unnatural, al*ost unheard of in hu*an e2perience and behavior that a *an $ould have se2ual intercourse $ith a $o*an then having her *enstrual period, as $as the ad*itted condition of the co*plainant $hen she $as allegedl+ abused b+ the accused. And because of this universal abhorrence, taboo and distaste to have se2ual contact $ith a *enstruating fe*ale and this is so ho$ever passionate and lustful the *an $a+ be unless he is depraved or de*ented. &e cannot believe that the accused-appellant, a +oung fourth +ear college student of civil engineering stud+ing in Baguio Cit+, $ould brea; or violate such a taboo b+ drugging the co*plainant girl $ith the help of her sister and after$ards have se2 relations $ith her in her *enstrual condition. 7. &hen the co*plainant $as investigated b+ the police, she declared in her affidavit, E2hibit "5", the follo$ing ans$ers to these Fuestions% 5. G A &h+ are +ou in this officeH A A I ca*e here $ith the purpose of giving *+ voluntar+ state*ent in connection $ith the incident that happened to *e in the house of *+ e*plo+er and I $ant to file a for*al co*plaint against the persons $ho offended *e, sir. 9. G A &ho are those persons $ho offended +ou, if +ou ;no$H A A <he+ are !oseph alias !essie and EliBabeth both surna*ed -eones, the son and daughter of =r. Pepito -eones, *+ e*plo+er. 0. G A &hen did that incident happenedH A A At about bet$een the hours of /%44 Y 7%44 in the afternoon of April //, .807, sir. 3. G A &hat did these !oseph and EliBabeth do against +ouH A A Because I $as suffering headache at that ti*e because it $as the first da+ of *+ *enstrual period, the+ $ere inviting *e to go $ith the* to &allace and I told the* that I have a headache then later the+ forced *e to ta;e in aspirin tablets, three 7# tablets then after a fe$ seconds, I begun to feel diBB+ and halfconscious. 8. G A >o +ou ;no$ if $hat +ou have forcel+ ta;en and given b+ the t$o, !oseph and EliBabeth $ere reall+ aspirin tabletsH A A I do not ;no$, but the+ $ere $hite in color si*ilar to aspirin tablets but after I have ta;en the* I felt diBB+ then unconscious. .4. G A In $hat *anner did !oseph -eones and EliBabeth -eones force +ou to ta;e in the tabletsH A A At about that ti*e and date I *entioned above, I $as then l+ing on *+ bed in *+ roo* at their residence, then !essie and EliBabeth ca*e in. !oseph alias !essie too; hold of *+ throat $ith one hand and pressed it hard that I $as al*ost cho;ed up, his other hand held *+ both chee;s his thu*b and forefinger pressed hard to forcel+. open *+ *outh $hile EliBabeth held a spoon containing the three 7# tablets then I $as told b+ the* to s$allo$ the pills. I could not resist so I s$allo$ed the pills then later I felt diBB+ as if the $orld $as turning around. <hus, it $ould appear fro* the above recorded evidence that the accused !oseph -eones and his sister EliBabeth, helped and conspired $ith each other in the co**ission of the cri*e of rape against the offended part+, an assu*ption that is hardl+ believable for it $ould lead to the absurb conclusions that EliBabeth $as a principal b+ cooperation and that both !oseph and EliBabeth had planned the rape for the+ convenientl+ provided the*selves beforehand $ith the necessar+ drug. It further appears in the record that the Philippine Constabular+ in -a :nion did not believe the e2istence of rape $hen Felicidad Boado reported the incident tsn, p. /5, !une .3, .801#, $hich disbelief *a+ reasonabl+ be attributed to the

Page1

unnatural and unusual version of the co*plainant that another of her o$n se2 had conspired and confabulated in the co**ission of the alleged defile*ent. 1. <he co*plainant, Irene >ula+, had declared in her affidavit, E2hibit " 5 ", in ans$er to Fuestion No. 8 that after she had ta;en the tablets that $ere $hite in color si*ilar to aspirin tablets, she felt diBB+, then unconscious. In her testi*on+ at the trial, ho$ever, she testified that after she had ta;en the tablets, she felt diBB+ and felt the re*oval of her pant+ and that $hen he $ent on top of her, he inserted his private parts into her private parts tsn, pp. 9-0, !une /0, .805#, but on crosse2*ination, she said that she beca*e unconscious $hen !oseph -eones $as alread+ on top of her tsn, p. //, !une /0, .805#. If she beca*e unconscious $hen -eones $as on top of her and +et she felt pain $hen he placed his private parts into hers, then this is incredible for ho$ could she have ;no$n $hat $as done to her and ho$ she felt $hen she $as alread+ unconscious as ad*itted b+ her. 5. <he record is replete $ith testi*onies of the ver+ $itnesses of the prosecution itself revealing the irrational, if not i**oral behavior and conduct of the co*plainant $hich cuts deep into the *oralit+, character and credibilit+ of the co*plaining $itness. <o cite a fe$ of her i**oral acts, $hen the police ca*e to visit her, Irene >ula+ too; hold of the penis, of the police*an <esti*on+ of Felicidad Boado, tsn, p. /4, !une .3, .801#. &henever she sees a *an, she goes after hi* and ta;es hold of his hand and places it in her private part <esti*on+ of -eonida >ula+, p. 5, tsn, ,ept. /4, .801#. ,o*eti*es she is seated, so*eti*es she is standing and there are *o*ents that she goes around and $henever she sees a *an, she calls for hi* and sa+s "darling !essie" Cross-e2a*ination of -eonida >ula+, tsn, p. .1, ,ept. /4, .801#. ,he even said "have se2ual intercourse $ith *e," *a;ing particular *ention of the person $ho $anted to do that to her as !oseph -eones Cross-e2a*ination of -eonida >ula+, tsn, pp. /0-/3, ,ept. /4, .801#. <here are ti*es $hen she gets a pillo$ and i*itates the se2ual act tsn, p. /8, ,ept. /4, .801#. <here are *o*ents $hen she ta;es hold of a pillo$, e*braces it, and *a;es *ove*ents i*itating the se2ual act tsn, <esti*on+ of -eonida >ula+, p. 5, ,ept. /4, .801#. 9. <he circu*stances of persons, ti*e and place attendant in the co**ission of the cri*e do not build up the case for the People. (n the contrar+, &e find facts and circu*stances $hich contradict and contravene the theor+ of the prosecution, rendering it highl+ i*probable and Fuestionable. <hus, the roo* of the co*plainant $here the alleged rape $as co**itted $as at the ground floor of the house $here her e*plo+er lives $ith his fa*il+ and *aintains a canteen at the pre*ises, the roo* being ver+ near the $ashing place and had a door $ith onl+ $ooden )alousies. <here $ere several persons present in the house at the ti*e of the alleged rape and the+ $ere Evel+n Estigo+, the secretar+ of Natividad -eones, the coo; Inocencia 6angad and her daughter, =antes. &ith the presence of these persons at the pre*ises and the co*plainant@s roo* $as not secluded nor co*pletel+ closed, the opportunit+ to co**it the rape is hardl+ present. =ore than that the alleged ti*e being bet$een /%44 o@cloc; and 7%44 o@cloc; in the afternoon and $ith the supposed attendance of the perpetrator@s elder sister, EliBabeth the ele*ent of secrec+ had been totall+ ignored or disregarded $hich is Fuite unbelievable and incredible in such a cri*e as rape. Indeed, rape is a *ost detestable cri*e. It should be severel+ and i*partiall+ punished. But a rape charge is eas+ to *a;e, hard to prove and harder to defend b+ the part+ accused, though innocent. E2perience has sho$n that unfounded charges of rape have freFuentl+ been preferred b+ $o*en actuated of rape have freFuentl+ been preferred b+ $o*en actuated b+ so*e sinister, ulterior or undisclosed *otive. Convictions for such cri*e should not be sustained $ithout clear and convincing proof of guilt. (n *ore than one occasion, it has been pointed out that in cri*es against chastit+, the testi*on+ of the in)ured $o*an should not be received $ith precipitate credulit+. &hen the conviction depends on an+ vital point upon her uncorroborated testi*on+, it should not be accepted unless her sincerit+ and candor are free fro* suspicion. A little insight into hu*an nature is of ut*ost value in )udging *atters of this ;ind. Cornelio Flores, /9 Phil. /9/, /93C Ignacio -andicho, 3 AC' 534C 'afael -acson, CA 57 (.6. .3/7C Francisco ,alvador, CA 5/ (.6. 0/84C -ago, CA 15 (.6. .759C Barbo, 59 ,C'A 158C Ba+, /0 Phil. 185C Pantaleon 'a*os, 75 Phil. 90.C Brocal, CA 79 (.6. 350C <opacio, CA 79 (.6. .753C Fernando Fausto, 5. Phil. 35/C cited in AFuino, <he 'evised Penal Code, .800 Ed., Eol. III, pp. .908-.934#. After carefull+ anal+Bing and $eighing the evidence presented b+ the prosecution in the light of the legal principles above outlined and no$ $ell-established in (ur )urisprudence and guided b+ a little insight into hu*an nature, &e are persuaded and convinced that the guilt of the accused has not been proven be+ond reasonable doubt. <hat *oral certaint+ or degree of proof $hich produces conviction in an unpre)udiced *ind 'ule .77, ,ection /, 'ules of Court# has not been established b+ the prosecution. <he constitutional *andate that the accused is presu*ed innocent *ust prevail and, therefore, the accused-appellant, !oseph -eones, is entitled to an acFuittal. &"E'EF('E, IN EIE& (F A-- <"E F('E6(IN6, the )udg*ent of conviction is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and the accused !oseph -eones + >ucusin is ACG:I<<E> of the cri*e charged. Costs de oficio. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .47/8/ !anuar+ /0, .887 <"E PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. =(>E,<( CAB:AN6 + F-('E,, NA'>( =A<ABAN6 + ,A-EA>(', !("N >(E and 'IC"A'> >(E,defendantsappellants. <he ,olicitor 6eneral for plaintiff-appellee. Carlito =. ,oriano for accused-appellant.

FE-ICIAN(, !.% Accused =odesto Cabuang and Nardo =atabang appeal fro* the )udg*ent of the 'egional <rial Court, Branch 50 of ,an Carlos Cit+, Pangasinan finding the* guilt+ of robber+ $ith rape and ho*icide, and i*posing upon each of the* a prison ter* of reclusion perpetua. <he+ $ere also ordered to pa+, )ointl+ and severall+, to the *other of the victi* an inde*nit+ of P54,444.44C the su* of P144.44 as the a*ount of *one+ ta;en b+ the accused fro* the victi*C the a*ount of P.4,444.44 as *oral da*agesC the su* of P19,185.44 as funeral e2pensesC and the costs of the suit.

Page1

<he facts as found b+ the trial court *a+ be su**ariBed as follo$s. (n .1 (ctober .833, at around .. o@cloc; at night, Evel+n >e Eera and her cousin =aria Eictoria Parana, both .8 +ears of age, having co*e fro* a house of a co**on friend, one =ia Colisao, $ere $al;ing ho*e along an uninhabited place in Baranga+ Buenlag I of Ba+a*bang, Pangasinan. ,uddenl+, fro* out of the rice paddies along the road, =odesto Cabuang e*erged $ith a flashlight and as;ed the* $here the+ $ere going. Evel+n beca*e ver+ an2ious and started $al;ing faster. :pon the other hand, =aria Eictoria started tal;ing to =odesto. &hen Evel+n $as about ten .4# feet ahead of the t$o, she loo;ed bac; and sa$ =odesto turn and shift his flashlight to the rear, illu*inating the figure of Nardo =atabang, $ho had also suddenl+ appeared behind the* fro* the rice fields alongside the road. =odesto then put off and poc;eted his flashlight, grabbed =aria Eictoria and covered her *outh. Nardo =atabang in turn pursued Evel+n, $ho had started to run a$a+. ,he ran and ran until she entered the +ard of a house along the road and hid in the shado$s of the plants and shrubs inside the +ard $here she could not seen b+ Nardo, but fro* $here she could see hi*. After so*e ti*e, having lost sight of Evel+n, Nardo $ent bac; and re)oined =odesto. ,o*eti*e later, Evel+n fro* her hiding place sa$ a tric+cle pass b+ $ith her cousin =aria Eictoria, and =odesto Cabuang, Nardo =atabang, the tric+cle driver and another person $ho $as seated at the bac; of the tric+cle. Evel+n heard her cousin cr+ing and pleading for help. After the tric+cle had passed b+, Evel+n e*erged fro* her hiding place and proceeded to the house of her sister. <here she $as scolded b+ her sister for co*ing ho*e late. Evel+n, confused b+ the scolding and frightened b+ $hat she had )ust seen and e2perienced, $as not able to tell her sister $hat had )ust occurred. ,he sta+ed in the sala and there tried to go to sleep, $ithout success. <he follo$ing *orning, =aria Eictoria $as found dead along the road, na;ed, $ith stab $ounds in different parts of her bod+ including the pubic area. In the course of their investigation, the police interrogated Evel+n de Eera. Evel+n e2ecuted a s$orn state*ent $here she identified t$o /# of the suspects as =odesto Cabuang and Nardo =atabang. ,he stated that she could readil+ identif+ the* because the latter $ere her baranga+ *ates and hence ;ne$ the* $ell. =oreover, $hen =odesto Cabuang suddenl+ e*erged fro* the rice paddies, he $as onl+ about t$o /# *eters a$a+ fro* her. Nardo =atabang $as clearl+ seen b+ Evel+n fro* behind the plants in the +ard $here she crouched in conceal*ent, there being lights illu*inating the road in front of the +ard. . -ater, Evel+n $as again able positivel+ to identif+ and point out Cabuang and =atabang fro* a police line-up. "o$ever, the t$o /# other suspects, i.e., the tric+cle driver and the person $ho rode at the rear of the tric+cle re*ained un;no$n and at large. (n .0 (ctober .833, the third da+ after the tragic night, the police found a boo; "-aborator+ =anual in (rganic Che*istr+"# and so*e articles of fe*inine under$ear and other personal belongings of a $o*an scattered so*e 54 to .44 *eters a$a+ fro* $here the+ had first found =aria Eictoria@s bod+. Evel+n vie$ed these belongings and identified the* as o$ned b+ her cousin =aria Eictoria $ho $as a student at the Philippine &o*en@s :niversit+ P&:#. E2a*ination of the personal belongings so found also sho$ed that cash in the a*ount of P144.44, in =aria Eictoria@s possession the night before, $as *issing. >r. Nario Ferrer, a ph+sician resident in Ba+a*bang, Pangasinan, conducted an autops+ on the bod+ of the victi*. "e rendered an autops+ report $hich sho$ the follo$ing findings% Incised $ound, 1.4 c* superficial, antero-lateral aspect nec; '#C Contusion he*ato*a, . 2 . c*. *id clavicular area -#C ,tab $ound, ..5 c*. 5th IC,, parasternal line -#, penetrating, perforating the heart at the ventricular level, lacerating the lingular part of the -# lungC "e*ato*a, *ediastinu*C "e*opericardiu*, 744 ccC "e*othora2 -# A / litersC ,tab $ound, ..5 c*. 0th IC,, para-vertebral line '#, penetrating and lacerating the posterior basal part of '# lungC "e*othora2 '# . literC Incised $ound, 7.4 c*. / points, parallel to each other, *ons pubisC Incised $ound, 7.4 c*. posterior fourchet of the vagina, transecting the perineu* do$n to the anal canalC Eagina $ith blood clots $ith fecaloid *aterialC "+*en A carunculated. <he report also noted the stab $ounds in the pubic region including the area bet$een the vagina and the anal canal, as $ell as the presence of lacerations and sper*atoBoa in the victi*@s vagina, indicating that =aria Eictoria had been raped and *utilated. >r. Ferrer identified four 1# of the $ounds as *ortal in character, $hich $ounds $ere produced b+ a sharp edge and a pointed ob)ect. <he cause of the death $as listed as "h+povole*ic shoc;" resulting fro* severe decrease in the volu*e of blood suppl+, producing death about si2 9# hours before the autops+. / (n the basis of the foregoing evidence, and pri*aril+ on Evel+n de Eera@s s$orn state*ent $hich she later repeated in substantiall+ identical ter*s before the trial court, =odesto Cabuang and Nardo =atabang $ere convicted of the cri*e of robber+ $ith rape and ho*icide. In the present appeal, appellants principall+ urge that the trial court had erred in finding that prosecution $itness Evel+n de Eera had positivel+ identified =odesto Cabuang and Nardo =atabang as the assailants of =aria Eictoria. Appellants point to the entr+ in the Ba+a*bang police blotter found on page 137, Entr+ No. 1179, Eolu*e IE, ,eries of 39 E2hibit "I"# $hich stated that the assailants $ere "still unidentified" although the entr+ $as *ade after prosecution $itness Evel+n de Eera $as Fuestioned b+ the police. Accused accordingl+ argue that Evel+n de Eera had never identified the appellants as the assailants of =aria Eictoria, $ho in fact had later to identif+ the* fro* a police line-up. &e consider this contention bereft of *erit. :pon receiving the report that a dead bod+ $as found in Baranga+ Buenlag I, *e*bers of the Ba+a*bang Police ,tation i**ediatel+ proceeded to the reported cri*e scene on the *orning of .5 (ctober .833. <he police investigator, Pfc. Elegio -opeB, $ho initiall+ Fuestioned $itness >e Eera that *orning, noticed

Page1

that she $as in a state of shoc;. 7 "e accordingl+ chose to defer further Fuestioning until the afternoon of the sa*e da+ $hen Evel+n had cal*ed do$n sufficientl+ to be able to give a s$orn state*ent to the police. <hus, there $as the initial report prepared and recorded in the police blotter 1 at around .. o@cloc; in the *orning, stating that the assailants $ere still unidentifiedC there $as, upon the other hand, Evel+n de Eera@s s$orn state*ent 5 *ade and co*pleted in the afternoon of the sa*e da+, $here she revealed the identifies of the *en she had seen the night before and $ho she believed $ere responsible for the rape and death of her cousin =aria Eictoria. <he failure of Evel+n to specif+ the accused-appellants as the doers of the horrific rape, ;illing and robber+ of =aria Eictoria the first ti*e she $as Fuestioned b+ the police, does not adversel+ affect her credibilit+. It is fir*l+ settled case la$ that the dela+ of a $itness in revealing to the police authorit+ $hat he or she *a+ ;no$ about a cri*e does not, b+ itself, render the $itness@ testi*on+ un$orth+ of belief. 9 In People v. ,avellano, 0 appellant ,avellano argued that since the co*plaining $itness had reported to the police authorities the *atter of her husband@s death and identified the ,avellanos@ as her husband@s ;illers onl+ after the lapse of t$o /# da+s, rather than i**ediatel+ $hen she had the ver+ first opportunit+ to do so $hile the police $as conducting an "on the spot" investigation, the credibilit+ of her testi*on+ $as greatl+ $ea;ened. <his Court re)ected this argu*ent stating that% It is Fuite understandable $hen the $itnesses do not i**ediatel+ report the identit+ of the offender after a startling occurrence *ore especiall+ $hen the+ are related to the victi* as the+ )ust had a trau*atic e2perience. . . . LAM dela+ of about a fe$ hours before the identification of the offender b+ the prosecution $itnesses does not thereb+ affect their credibilit+. 3 In People v. de 6uB*an, 8 the accused-appellant sought to capitaliBe upon the fact that the prosecution $itness did not volunteer the infor*ation covered b+ her testi*on+ to the police*an $ho had investigated the cri*e i**ediatel+ after the *urder $as co**itted. >isposing of this contention, this Court ruled that% <he initial reluctance of $itnesses to volunteer infor*ation about a cri*inal case and un$illingness to be involved in cri*inal investigations due to fear of reprisal LareM co**on occurrence s# and LhaveM been )udiciall+ declared as not affecting their credibilit+, . . . . 222 222 222 <he testi*on+ of 6loria should be given full $eight and credit. "er failure to give a s$orn state*ent to the police should not be ta;en against her. <here is no la$ $hich reFuires that the testi*on+ of a prospective $itness should first be reduced into $riting in order that her declaration in Court at a later date *a+ be believed b+ the !udge. .4 <he above rulings appl+ sFuarel+ to the case at bar. Evel+n de Eera $as clearl+ trau*atiBed, in a state of shoc;, upon finding out that her cousin $ho had been $ith her )ust the night before, $as brutall+ raped and ;illed. ,he could not then and there clearl+ and cal*l+ recount the events she had e2perienced and $itnessed that dreadful night in a logical seFuence. <he fe$ hours dela+ $hich lapsed fro* the ti*e the entr+ in the police blotter $as *ade, up to the ti*e Evel+n gave her s$orn state*ent on the afternoon of the sa*e da+, did not have the effect of eroding the intrinsic credibilit+ and strength of that state*ent. It *a+ be noted that significantl+ longer dela+s in infor*ing investigating officers of $hat $itnesses had seen, have been held understandable b+ this Court and as not, in the*selves, destructive of the other$ise credible character of such testi*on+, especiall+ $here the $itnesses@ fear of possible retaliation fro* the accused could not be dis*issed as *erel+ fanciful. .. It re*ains onl+ to note that entries in a police blotter, though regularl+ done in the course of perfor*ance of official dut+ are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. In People v. ,antito, !r., ./ this Court held that entries in official records li;e a police blotter are onl+ pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein set out, since the entries in the police blotter could $ell be inco*plete or inaccurate. <esti*on+ given in open court during the trial is co**onl+ *uch *ore length+ and detailed than the brief entries *ade in the police blotter and the trial court cannot base its findings on a police report *erel+, but *ust necessaril+ consider all other evidence gathered in the course of the police investigation and presented in court. .7 In the case at bar, $e conclude that prosecution $itness Evel+n de Eera did positivel+ and clearl+ identif+ =odesto Cabuang and Nardo =atabang as a*ong those $ho had raped and ;illed and robbed the hapless =aria Eictoria Parana. Appellants also set up the defenses of denial and alibi. Cabuang denied having had an+thing to do $ith the rape and ;illing of =ari Eictoria. "e said that he $as at the $a;e of the daughter of one Ben !uinio of Baranga+ Buenlag I, the $hole night of .1 (ctober .833 and until 9%74 in the *orning of the follo$ing da+. Cabuang $as, ho$ever, unable to offer an+ details in elaboration or corroboration of his clai* of alibi. =atabang, for his part, testified that on .1 (ctober .833, he $as in his house in Paranglaan, >agupan Cit+, $ith his $ife, his sister-in-la$, and his child and had never left his house. "e testified further that he left his ho*e for Ba+a*bang onl+ on the ne2t da+ .5 (ctober .833. "is testi*on+ $as, ho$ever, found b+ the trial court to be fla$ed b+ discrepancies and inconsistencies and b+ lac; of sufficient corroboration. <he fir*l+ settled doctrine is that the defense of alibi cannot prosper, unless the accused is able to prove that he $as at so*e other place during the co**ission of the cri*e and that it $as i*possible for hi* to have been at the scene of the cri*e at the ti*e of its co**ission. .1 Clearl+, neither of the appellants $as able to do so in the case at bar. =odesto Cabuang $as supposedl+ attending the $a;e held in the sa*e baranga+ $here =aria Eictoria $as ravished and ;illed and robbed. Nardo =atabang, upon the other hand, $as allegedl+ at ho*e in a to$n no *ore than an hour or so b+ bus fro* Ba+a*bang. It is eFuall+ settled doctrine that positive identification *ust prevail over si*ple denials and unacceptable alibis. Appellants have not even tried to suggest that Evel+n de Eera *ight have had so*e ill *otive to testif+ falsel+ against the*. <o the contrar+, she had all the reasons to spea; the truth $ith respect to her cousin@s ravishers and ;illers. &hen there is no evidence to indicate that the principal $itness for the prosecution $as *oved b+ i*proper *otives, the presu*ption is that such $itness $as not so *oved, and that her testi*on+ is entitled to full faith and credit. .5 It is, of course, true that Evel+n de Eera did not $itness the actual se2ual assault and sla+ing of =aria Eictoria nor the tal;ing of the P144.44 *issing fro* =aria Eictoria@s belongings. <he evidence presented b+ the prosecution $itness $as circu*stantial in nature. But circu*stantial evidence can be and often is entirel+ sufficient to support a conviction, $here the *ultiple circu*stances are proven and are consistent $ith the h+pothesis that the accused is guilt+ and at the sa*e ti*e inconsistent $ith the h+pothesis that the accused is innocent, as $ell as inco*patible $ith ever+ rational h+pothesis e2cept that of guilt on the part of the accused. .9 In brief, the circu*stances *ust produce conviction of guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. .0

Page1

In the case at bar, the circu*stances for*ing an unbro;en chain and leading to the conviction be+ond reasonable doubt that Cabuang and =atabang, a*ong others, $ere guilt+ of robber+ $ith rape and ho*icide, $ere the follo$ing% .. &hile Evel+n de Eera and =aria Eictoria Parana $ere $al;ing ho*e through an uninhabited place at about .. o@cloc; at night on .1 (ctober .833, accused Cabuang and =atabang suddenl+ appeared fro* the surrounding rice fields. Cabuang grabbed =aria Eictoria and covered her *outh. Evel+n ran a$a+ because she beca*e terribl+ frightened and =atabang follo$ed in pursuit. =atabang lost sight of Evel+n along the road. /. Fro* her hiding place in the front +ard of a house along the road, Evel+n sa$ =aria Eictoria pass b+ in a tric+cle $ith the accused Cabuang, =atabang and t$o /# other *en and heard =aria Eictoria cr+ing and pleading for help. Evel+n clearl+ recogniBed Cabuang and =atabang, but not the other t$o /#. 7. Earl+ the ne2t *orning, on .5 (ctober .833, the bod+ of =ario Eictoria $as found in the baranga+ traversed b+ the road on $hich =aria Eictoria $ere $al;ing the night before. 1. <he clai*s of alibi b+ Cabuang and =atabang $ere not successfull+ established. Cabuang ac;no$ledged that he $as in the sa*e baranga+ $here =aria Eictoria had been assaulted and ;illed, $hile =atabang asserted that he $as in his house in >agupan Cit+ $hich $as no *ore than an hour or so b+ bus fro* the scene of the cri*e. Neither Cabuang nor =atabang offered and presented independent and reliable corroboration of their presence far a$a+ fro* the scene of the cri*e at the ti*e of occurrence of the cri*e. <he trial court found the circu*stances, considered together, as adeFuate to prove appellants@ guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. <his Court agrees, having been unable to find an+ reason for overturning this conclusion of the trial court. &"E'EF('E, the decision of the trial court finding the accused-appellants =odesto Cabuang and Nardo =atabang guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of robber+ $ith rape and ho*icide and sentencing the accused toreclusion perpetua is hereb+ AFFI'=E> in toto e2cept that the inde*nit+ is hereb+ INC'EA,E> fro* P54,444.44 to P.44,444.44 considering that =aria Eictoria Parana $as not onl+ raped but also brutall+ *utilated and ;illed b+ the accused. Costs against appellants. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .40075 Februar+ ., .889

PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 'ICA'>( ,AN 6AB'IE- I ('<IK, defendant-appellant. >ECI,I(N BE--(,I--(, !.% 'ICA'>( (. ,AN 6AB'IE- $as charged $ith *urder in an Infor*ation alleging that on /9 Nove*ber .838, ar*ed $ith a bladed $eapon, in conspirac+ $ith "'a*on >oe," $ith treacher+, evident pre*editation and intent to ;ill, he assaulted and stabbed to death !ai*e A. <onog.. <he trial court convicted the accused as charged and sentenced hi* "to life i*prison*ent and to pa+ the heirs of !ai*e <onog the su* of P74,444, plus costs."/ <he accused is no$ before us on appeal. <he evidence sho$s that at around seven o@cloc; in the evening of /9 Nove*ber .838, $ithin the vicinit+ of Pier .1 at North "arbor along =arcos 'oad, =anila, a fistfight ensued bet$een !ai*e <onog on one hand and the accused 'icardo ,an 6abriel together $ith "'a*on >oe" on the other. <he fight $as eventuall+ bro;en up $hen onloo;ers pacified the protagonists. 'icardo and 'a*on then hastened to$ards =arcos 'oad but in no ti*e $ere bac; $ith bladed $eapons. <he+ approached <onog surreptitiousl+, surrounded hi* and si*ultaneousl+ stabbed hi* in the sto*ach and at the bac;, after $hich the assailants ran to$ards the high$a+ leaving <onog behind on the ground. "e $as then brought to =ar+ !ohnston "ospital $here he $as pronounced dead on arrival. >r. =arcial 6. Cenido, =edico--egal (fficer of the &estern Police >istrict, autopsied the cadaver of the victi* and reported that it sustained t$o /# penetrating stab $ounds each caused b+ a single-bladed instru*ent. "e opined that both $ounds $ere fatal.7 <he accused has a different version. "e testified that he sa$ <onog drun;C <onog even atte*pted to bo2 hi* but he parried his blo$C <onog continued $al;ing but $hen he chanced upon 'a*on he suddenl+ and $ithout provocation bo2ed and ;ic;ed 'a*onC 'a*on fought bac; but $as subdued b+ his bigger assailant so the for*er ran to$ards the high$a+C $hen <onog *et a certain "=ando" he bo2ed the latter $ho ho$ever fought bac; despite his accused# $arning not toC at this *o*ent he sa$ 'a*on return $ith a bolo on handC he $arned 'a*on not to fight but his advice $ent unheededC instead, $ith bolo on hand 'a*on struc; <onog on the bell+C $hen "=ando" sa$ $hat happened he "=ando"# pulled out his ;nife and also stabbed <onog at the bac;C 'a*on and "=ando" then fled to$ards the high$a+. <he accused further clai*ed that he even sta+ed $ith the victi* and called out the latter@s co*panions to bring hi* to the hospitalC that prosecution $itness Brenda 6onBales onl+ arrived at the cri*e scene after <onog $as alread+ ta;en to the hospitalC that Brenda even inFuired fro* hi* $hat happened and then prodded hi* to testif+C that his refusal coupled $ith the fact that he o$ed 6onBales so*e *one+ earned hi* the ire of the latter and that $as $h+ he $as charged for the death of <onog. Accused-appellant clai*s in this appeal that the trial court erred% a# in giving credence to the testi*onies of prosecution $itnesses Brenda 6onBales and Pio (chobillo, and for discrediting hisC b# in finding that the ;illing $as attended $ith evident pre*editationC c# in ruling that he co**itted treacher+ and, d# in convicting hi* of *urder.1

Page1

&e sustain the conviction of the accused for *urder. It is settled that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded greatest respect b+ the appellate court absent an+ abuse of discretion,5 and none is perceivable in the case at benchC hence $e affir* the factual findings of the trial court.

<he accused contends that the testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses are incredible and conflicting. &e ho$ever find other$ise. 6onBales and (chobillo, as observed b+ the trial court, testified in a direct and candid *anner. No evil *otive is attributed to the* as to testif+ falsel+ against the accused. <hat 6onBales harbored a grudge against the accused because he o$ed her so*e *one+, and even enticed her custo*ers into patroniBing another carinderia, can hardl+ be believed. &e are not convinced that Brenda 6onBales $ould testif+ against accused-appellant for a cri*e so grave si*pl+ because he o$ed her a *easl+ su* of P744.44. <hat he enticed the custo*ers of 6onBales into patroniBing another carinderia is belied b+ the fact that on the night of the incident he $as, as he clai*ed, eating at the carinderia of 6onBales. If there be an+ testi*on+ that should be considered incredible and illogical it *ust be that of the accused. "is assertion that "=ando" stabbed the victi* should not receive an+ evidentiar+ value $hen $eighed against the positive assertion of the prosecution $itnesses that the accused $as the assailant of !ai*e <onog. Guite interestingl+, the accused did not offer an+ infor*ation regarding the person and circu*stances of "=ando." :p to this date "=ando" re*ains a *+th. Not a single $itness $as presented b+ the defense to prove $ho "=ando" $as, nor even a hint of his personal circu*stances. >uring the entire proceedings in the court belo$ "=ando" $as never *entioned b+ the prosecution $itnesses. Nobod+ ever i*plicated hi* e2cept the accused. In fact, there should have been no difficult+ procuring $itnesses to testif+ on the part of the accused as the incident $as vie$ed openl+ b+ a *ultitude of b+standers. "is failure to present an+ $itness pointing to "=ando" as the perpetrator of the cri*e convinces us that "=ando" in fact e2isted onl+ as a fig*ent of the *ind. <he accused also asserts that 6onBales arrived at the cri*e scene onl+ after the victi* $as brought to the hospital and that she even inFuired fro* hi* about $hat happened. Again $e are not persuaded. <he state*ent contradicts the earlier version of the accused that 6onBales $as pre)udiced against hi* as he o$ed her so*e *one+. For, granting that 6onBales had a grudge against hi* it $as not li;el+ that she $ould inFuire fro* hi* about the incident as there $ere other persons then present $ho could shed light on the startling occurrence. EFuall+ dubious is the avo$al of the accused that 6onBales arrived at the cri*e scene onl+ after the victi* $as rushed to the hospital considering that the incident too; place )ust in front of her store. Besides, this clai* $as easil+ de*olished b+ 6onBales@ detailed account of the fight. <he fact that the $itnesses did not i**ediatel+ report the incident to the police does not necessaril+ discredit the*. After all, reports $ere *ade albeit b+ different persons. <he accused ban;s on the apparent inconsistenc+ as to $h+ 6onBales failed to give i**ediatel+ her account of the ;illing to the authorities. But the discrepanc+ is so *inor that it cannot under*ine her credibilit+ nor detract fro* the truth that she personall+ $itnessed the incident and positivel+ identified the accused. <he accused leans heavil+ on the Advance Infor*ation ,heet9 prepared b+ Pat. ,teve Casi*iro $hich did not *ention hi* at all and na*ed onl+ "'a*on >oe" as the principal suspect. :nfortunatel+ this cannot defeat the positive and candid testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses. Entries in official records, as in the case of a police blotter, are onl+ pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated. <he+ are not conclusive. <he entr+ in the police blotter is not necessaril+ entitled to full credit for it could be inco*plete and inaccurate, so*eti*es fro* either partial suggestions or for $ant of suggestions or inFuiries, $ithout the aid of $hich the $itness *a+ be unable to recall the connected collateral circu*stances necessar+ for the correction of the first suggestion of his *e*or+ and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain to the sub)ect. It is understandable that the testi*on+ during the trial $ould be *ore length+ and detailed than the *atters stated in the police blotter0 ,ignificantl+, the Advance Infor*ation ,heet $as never for*all+ offered b+ the defense during the proceedings in the court belo$. "ence an+ reliance b+ the accused on the docu*ent *ust fail since the court cannot consider an+ evidence $hich has not been for*all+ offered.3 Parentheticall+, the Advance Infor*ation ,heet $as prepared b+ the police officer onl+ after intervie$ing Ca*ba, an alleged e+e$itness. <he accused then could have co*pelled the attendance of Ca*ba as a $itness. <he failure to e2ert the slightest effort to present Ca*ba on the part of the accused should *ilitate against his cause. Entries in official records *ade in the perfor*ance of his dut+ b+ a public officer or b+ a person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$ are pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated.8 But to be ad*issible in evidence three 7# reFuisites *ust concur% a# <he entr+ $as *ade b+ a police officer or b+ another person speciall+ en)oined b+ la$ to do soC b# It $as *ade b+ the public officer in the perfor*ance of his duties or b+ such other person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$C and, c# <he public officer or other person had sufficient ;no$ledge of the facts b+ hi* stated, $hich *ust have been acFuired b+ hi* personall+ or through official infor*ation. .4 <he Advance Infor*ation ,heet does not constitute an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule, hence, inad*issible. <he public officer $ho prepared the docu*ent had no sufficient and personal ;no$ledge of the stabbing incident. An+ infor*ation possessed b+ hi* $as acFuired fro* Ca*ba $hich therefore could not be categoriBed as official infor*ation because in order to be classified as such the persons $ho *ade the state*ents not onl+ *ust have personal ;no$ledge of the facts stated but *ust have the dut+ to give such state*ents for the record. .. In the case of Ca*ba, he $as not legall+ so obliged to give such state*ents. <he accused enu*erates discrepancies in the testi*onies of the prosecution $itnesses. <hus, according to hi*, it $as testified that the victi* $as stabbed b+ the accused at the bac; but failed to point out its precise location. <he stabbing ad*ittedl+ occurred at around seven o@cloc; in the evening but the Advance Infor*ation ,heet reported "9%74 p.*." (ne $itness testified that the fistfight $as onl+ bet$een the victi* and "'a*on >oe," $hile another reported that it involved the victi*, "'a*on >oe" and the accused. Further, it $as not accuratel+ deter*ined $hether 'a*on and the accused returned to the scene of the cri*e $ithin five 5# *inutes or after the lapse thereof. As previousl+ stated, the discrepancies do not *ilitate against the fact fir*l+ established b+ the prosecution that <onog $as stabbed at the bac; b+ the accused and b+ "'a*on >oe" in the abdo*en. An+ discordance noted is so *inor and insignificant that no further consideration is essential. <he *ost honest $itnesses *a;e *ista;es so*eti*es, but such innocent lapses do not necessaril+ i*pair their credibilit+. <he testi*on+ of a $itness *ust be considered and calibrated in its entiret+ and not b+ truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein. ./

Page1

<he presence of the accused in the vicinit+ even after the co**ission of the cri*e does not in an+ $a+ e2tricate hi* fro* his dile**a. Certainl+, it is no proof of his innocence.

<he court a Fuo properl+ considered the aggravating circu*stance of treacher+ in convicting the accused of *urder. <reacher+ is present $hen the offender co**its an+ of the cri*es against person, e*plo+ing *eans, *ethods or for*s in the e2ecution thereof $hich tend directl+ and speciall+ to insure its e2ecution, $ithout ris; to hi*self arising fro* the defense $hich the offended part+ *ight *a;e. .7 Alevosia or treacher+ presu*es an attac; that is deliberate and une2pected. <here is no treacher+ $hen the victi* is placed on guard, as $hen a heated argu*ent preceded the attac;, especiall+ $hen the victi* $as standing face to face $ith his assailants, and the initial assault could not have been foreseen. .1 It is true that in the case at bench the attac; $as preceded b+ a fistfight. It $as ho$ever established that the+ $ere alread+ pacified b+ onloo;ers $hen the accused and 'a*on returned. -ulled into co*placenc+ the victi* si*pl+ sta+ed $here he $as before the fistfight $hen after a brief *o*ent the accused together $ith 'a*on returned $ith bladed $eapons. Both approached the victi* and circled hi* surreptitiousl+. <he attac; $as sudden and si*ultaneous that the victi* $as never given a chance to defend hi*self. As $e have held in People v. Balisteros,.5 $here a victi* $as totall+ unprepared for the une2pected attac; fro* behind and had no $eapon to resist it, the stabbing could not but be considered as treacherous. <he evidence proved that the victi* $as caught una$are b+ the sudden assault. No $eapon $as found, nor even inti*ated to be, in his possession. Conversel+ the court a Fuo should have disregarded evident pre*editation. Evident pre*editation reFuires a sho$ing that the e2ecution of the cri*inal act $as preceded b+ cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carr+ out the cri*inal intent during a space of ti*e sufficient to arrive at a cal* )udg*ent. .9 Evidence for the prosecution sho$ed that after the fight $as bro;en up the accused and "'a*on >oe" proceeded to$ards the high$a+. <he+ returned onl+ after a lapse of appro2i*atel+ five 5# *inutes. Fro* the foregoing $e cannot conclude that the accused had sufficient ti*e $ithin $hich to *editate on the conseFuences of his acts. =editation necessitates that it be evident and proven. Be that as it *a+, treacher+ as a Fualif+ing circu*stance having attended the ;illing, the conviction of the accused for *urder still holds. &"E'EF('E, the decision of the court a Fuo in Cri*. Case No. 84-3.011 dated /5 !ul+ .88. convicting accusedappellant 'ICA'>( ,AN 6AB'IE- I ('<IK of *urder is AFFI'=E>. <he penalt+ of life i*prison*ent ho$ever is =(>IFIE> to reclusion perpetua, .0 $hile the a$ard of P74,444.44 as inde*nit+ is INC'EA,E> to P54,444.44 confor*abl+ $ith e2isting )urisprudence. Costs against accused-appellant. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .98/41 =arch /7, /440

A>E-AI>A E,C(BA' and -(-I<A E,C(BA', Petitioners, vs. -I6AIA (-I6A'I( -:NA, C-A'I<A -:NA, E==A -:NA, <E'E,I<A A=B'(,I( -:NA, (=E' -:NA, EF'EN -:NA, PA<'IA -:NA, PINPI -:NA, and PACG:IN6 and P('<IA -:NA as heirs of deceased Clodualdo -una, 'espondents. >ECI,I(N G:I,:=BIN6, !.% <his is an appeal fro* the >ecision. dated =a+ .8, /445 of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 99513 and its 'esolution/ dated August 1, /445 den+ing reconsideration. <he appellate court reversed the !une /5, .888 >ecision7 of the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of <aga+ta+ Cit+, Branch .3 that dis*issed the co*plaint to nullif+ <ransfer Certificates of <itle <C<# Nos. <-/./81# <-.779. and <-/./85# <-.779/. <he facts as found b+ the trial court and adopted b+ the Court of Appeals are as follo$s. Petitioners Adelaida Escobar and -olita Escobar separatel+ bought t$o parcels of land located in Barrio <olentino, <aga+ta+ Cit+ on Februar+ /3, .808 and $ere issued <C< Nos. <-/./81# <-.779. and <-/./85# <-.779/, respectivel+, on the sa*e date. Eleven +ears later, on ,epte*ber .., .884, Clodualdo -una filed a co*plaint before the '<C of <aga+ta+ Cit+, Branch .3, see;ing to nullif+ <C< Nos. <-/./81# <-.779. and <-/./85# <-.779/ of the Escobars. -una clai*ed that he had been in actual, public, adverse, continuous, and notorious ph+sical possession of an unregistered parcel of land located in Barrio <olentino, <aga+ta+ Cit+ since =arch /., .81., as sho$n in <a2 >eclaration No. 6'-4.8-4.07, $hich $as issued to hi* in .835.1 ,o*eti*e in .884, $hen he engaged the services of a geodetic engineer to surve+ the sa*e parcel of land to have his title confir*ed under the provisions of Act No. 189,5 as a*ended b+ Presidential >ecree No. .5/8,9 he alleged that he discovered that the land had been illegall+ and fraudulentl+ titled in the na*es of the Escobars b+ the use of fictitious and si*ulated docu*ents and court records. <he Escobars allegedl+ *ade it appear that the t$o titles originated fro* (riginal Certificate of <itle (C<# No. 5137, $hich ho$ever, did not e2ist in the records of the 'egistr+ of >eeds of the Province of Batangas per certification0 of Att+. Eva CainBa-Ealenton, Acting 'egister of >eeds, issued on !une .., .884. Additionall+, >ecree No. 7195,3 on $hich (C< No. 5137 appeared to have been issued, pertained to a parcel of land located in ,an !uan, Batangas, not to the sub)ect properties located in <aga+ta+ Cit+. ,i*ilarl+, ,urve+ Plan Psu-/1478, $hich supposedl+ technicall+ described the land *entioned in (C< No. 5137, did not pertain to the sub)ect properties but to a different parcel of land located in :rdaneta, Pangasinan, per letter of Privadi !6. >alire, Chief of the 6eodetic ,urve+s >ivision of the -ands =anage*ent Bureau, >EN'.8 -una further alleged that the Escobars acted $ith ;no$ledge of the infir*it+ and defect of (C< No. 5137 as none2istent and ;ne$ that he $as in actual possession of the sub)ect land in the concept of an o$ner for 54 +ears. (n (ctober 8, .884, the Escobars filed a *otion to dis*iss. <he+ alleged that the co*plaint $as barred b+ prior )udg*ent or b+ statute of li*itationsC that the co*plaint stated no cause of actionC and that the clai* set forth in the co*plaint had been paid, $aived, abandoned, or other$ise e2tinguished. (n Februar+ ., .88., -una filed an a*ended co*plaint $hich the trial court ad*itted on Februar+ 5, .88.. "o$ever, on Februar+ //, .88., the trial court, upon reiteration b+ the Escobars of their *otion, dis*issed the a*ended co*plaint on the ground that it $as insufficient in for* and substance and that certain indispensable parties $ere not i*pleaded.

Page1

-una filed a *otion for reconsideration and a second a*ended co*plaint i*pleading as part+ defendants the Ad*inistrator of the -and 'egistration Authorit+, the >irector of the Bureau of -ands, the National <reasurer, the 'egistr+ of >eeds and Cit+ Assessor of <aga+ta+ Cit+..4 ,aid a*ended co*plaint $as ad*itted on =a+ /3, .88.. But, on !une /3, .88., the trial court granted a subseFuent *otion to dis*iss b+ the Escobars and dis*issed the second a*ended co*plaint $ithout hearing. <he trial court held that the titles issued to the Escobars had acFuired incontrovertibilit+ and indefeasibilit+ b+ *andate of Act No. 189... Aggrieved, -una filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, $hich rendered a decision on =a+ .3, .885 reversing the dis*issal. <he appellate court held that the trial court should have conducted a hearing on the *otion to dis*iss considering that -unaNs co*plaint alleged that (C< No. 5137, fro* $hich the <C<s of the Escobars $ere derived, $as none2istent. <he appellate court ruled% &"E'EF('E, based on the foregoing, the (rder dated !une /3, .88., is hereb+ ,E< A,I>E. Civil Case No. <6..55 is ordered 'EIN,<A<E> and 'E=AN>E> to the court of origin for further proceedings. ,( ('>E'E>../ <he Escobars elevated the appellate courtNs decision to the ,upre*e Court, but the petition $as denied in a =inute 'esolution dated Februar+ ./, .889. <he case $as then re*anded to the trial court on (ctober 3, .889. >uring trial, -una died and $as substituted b+ his heirs, herein respondents..7 <he+ sub*itted the case on the basis of the docu*entar+ evidence, arguing that, allegedl+, the Court of Appeals had alread+ ruled on the first appeal that the EscobarsN titles $ere void. (n !une /5, .888, the '<C of <aga+ta+ Cit+, Branch .3, rendered its decision. It re)ected respondentsN argu*ent that the appellate courtNs ruling in the first appeal constituted the la$ of the case, and proceeded to find the Escobars as purchasers in good faith and for value $ho $ere accordingl+ entitled to the benefits of the principle of indefeasibilit+ of title. <he trial court further ruled that respondents failed to prove their case for cancellation of <C< Nos. <-/./81# <-.779. and <-/./85# <-.779/ since the docu*entar+ evidence the+ sub*itted, not being supported b+ testi*onial evidence, $ere hearsa+. <he dispositive portion of the trial courtNs decision reads% &"E'EF('E, in the light of the foregoing pre*ises and considerations, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered dis*issing the co*plaint filed in the instant case for utter lac; of *erit, $ith costs against the plaintiffs..1 <he trial court also denied respondentsN subseFuent *otion for reconsideration..5 (n appeal, the Court of Appeals held% &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the trial courtNs !une /5, .888 >ecision is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E and <ransfer Certificate of <itle Nos. <-/./81# <-.779. and <-/./85# <-.779/ are hereb+ >EC-A'E> E(I> AB INI<I(. <he 'egister of >eeds of <aga+ta+ Cit+ is hereb+ >I'EC<E> to cancel said <ransfer Certificate of <itle Nos. <-/./81# <.779. and <-/./85# <-.779/ and all titles derived therefro*. ,( ('>E'E>..9 <he appellate court ruled that the trial court should have resolved the issue fra*ed in the decision in the first appeal, that is, $hether (C< No. 5137 $as valid. It $as error for the court a Fuo to resolve the Fuestion of $hether the Escobars $ere purchasers in good faith, $hich $ould be irrelevant if said (C< $as found invalid. <he appellate court added that respondentsN docu*entar+ evidence, having been issued b+ govern*ent offices and dul+ certified b+ the appropriate personnel, $ere co*petent evidence and sufficientl+ proved that (C< No. 5137 $as fictitious..0 "ence, this petition. In the petitionersN =e*orandu*, the follo$ing issues $ere presented for our disposition% I. &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E ':-IN6 (F <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, IN <"E FI',< APPEA- <"A< <"E <'IAC(:'< =:,< A,CE'<AIN <"E <EC"NICA- A:<"EN<ICI<I (F (C< LN(.M 5137 A=(:N<E> <( <"E "-A& (F <"E CA,E" &"IC" BA', <"E <'IA- C(:'< F'(= C(N,I>E'IN6 <"E >EFEN,E (F <"E E,C(BA', <"A< <"EI &E'E P:'C"A,E', (F <"E P'(PE'<IE, IN 6((> FAI<" AN> F(' EA-:EC II. &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, &A, 'I6"< IN A>=I<<IN6 IN EEI>ENCE <"E CE'<IFICA<I(N, -:NA ,:B=I<<E> A< <"E <'IA- AN> IN >'A&IN6 A C(NC-:,I(N F'(= <"E= <"A< (C< LN(.M 5137 &A, N(NEUI,<EN< AN> FIC<I<I(:,C III. &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E E,C(BA', A'E EN<I<-E> <( P'(<EC<I(N F'(= ,:I<, <( ANN:- <"EI' <I<-E,, <"EI BEIN6 P:'C"A,E', IN 6((> FAI<" AN> F(' EA-:EC AN> IE. &"E<"E' (' N(< -:NA "A, <"E 'I6"< <( FI-E <"E ,:I< <( ANN:- A 'E6I,<E'E> <I<-E (N <"E 6'(:N> (F F'A:> IN I<, I,,:ANCE..3 ,i*pl+, the issues before us are% First, $hat is the la$ of the case hereH ,econd, are respondentsN evidence ad*issible to prove the nullit+ of the <C<s in FuestionH And third, are petitioners, being purchasers in good faith, entitled to protection fro* suits to annul their titlesH (n the first issue, petitioners state that the la$ of the case is that -una had a cause of action based on his allegation that (C< No. 5137, the source of the titles of the Escobars, did not e2ist..8 'espondents counter that the la$ of the case is the deter*ination of the intrinsic validit+ of the titles./4 In Paban;alan Catholic College v. Paban;alan Catholic College :nion-PACI&:-<:CP,/. $e said that under the principle of the la$ of the case, $hatever is irrevocabl+ established as the controlling legal rule or decision bet$een the

Page1

sa*e parties in the sa*e case continues to be the la$ of the case, so long as the facts on $hich the decision $as predicated continues. (ther$ise stated, the principle holds that once an appellate court has declared the la$ in a case, that declaration continues to hold even in a subseFuent appeal. 'easons of public polic+, )udicial orderliness and econo*+ reFuire such stabilit+ in the final )udg*ents of courts or tribunals of co*petent )urisdiction.// In BaQes v. -utheran Church in the Philippines,/7 $e reiterated that the la$ of the case is the opinion delivered on a for*er appeal. It applies to an established rule that $hen an appellate court passes on a Fuestion and re*ands the case to the lo$er court for further proceedings, the Fuestion there settled beco*es the la$ of the case upon subseFuent appeal. As a rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the sa*e case is held to be the la$ of the case$hether that Fuestion is right or $rong, the re*ed+ of the part+ dee*ing hi*self aggrieved being to see; a rehearing./1 In this instance, the records sho$ that the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 70.78, the first appeal, resolved onl+ the issue of $hether the (rder dated !une /3, .88. dis*issing the second a*ended co*plaint $as valid or not. <he appellate court did not resolve an+ issue bearing on the *erits of the cancellation case. As regards the *erits of the case, therefore, there is no la$ of the case to spea; of. <he appellate court in CA-6.'. CE No. 70.78 *erel+ ordered the trial court to deter*ine the intrinsic validit+ of the titles b+ probing into the technical data of (C< No. 5137, >ecree No. 7195, and ,urve+ Plan Psu-/1478 a*ong others. <he appellate court said% "ence, an e2tensive investigation on this *atter should have been pursued b+ the trial court. If it turns out that (C< No. 5137 is reall+ non-e2istent, then the sub)ect land could not be considered as having been covered b+ a <orrens Certificate of <itle.

,uch being the case, it follo$s that the protection of the -and 'egistration -a$ given to purchasers in good faith of parcels of land covered b+ a <orrens Certificate of <itle does not appl+ to the sub)ect land. <he rule is $ell settled that the <orrens ,+ste* of land registration should not be used as a *eans to perpetrate fraud against the rightful o$ner of the real propert+. <he defense of indefeasibilit+ of a certificate of title $ill be disregarded $hen the transferee $ho too; it had notice of the fla$s in the transferorNs title. No right passed to a transferee fro* a vendor $ho did not have an+ in the first place. -i;e$ise, it can be said that the action filed b+ plaintiff-appellant is not barred b+ prescription and laches, if it $ill be proven that (C< No. 5137 is void ab initio, for actions see;ing for the annul*ent or cancellation of said fraudulent title do not prescribe./5 &ith regard to the second issue, petitioners state that respondentsN evidence are inad*issible for being hearsa+./9 'espondents counter that the+ constitute e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule./0 &e rule for respondents. 'espondentsN evidence are co*petent evidence, having been issued b+ govern*ent offices, certified to b+ authoriBed personnel $ho $ere clothed $ith authorit+ and dut+ to issue such certifications. In the case of People v. -aBaro,/3 $e held that the certification, $ithout testi*on+ of the person giving the certification, is sufficient and co*petent evidence $hich is an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule as provided in ,ection 11,/8 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules of Court. ,ection 11 should be read in con)unction $ith ,ection /3,74 'ule .7/ of the sa*e 'ules $hich allo$s the ad*ission of the said docu*ent.7. <hus, appl+ing People v. -aBaro to this case, the certification dated !une .., .884 issued b+ Att+. CainBa-Ealenton, $ho $as dul+ authoriBed to issue the certification, stating that (C< No. 5137 $as not e2isting in the files of the 'egistr+ of >eeds of the Province of Batangas and $hich confir*ed that (C< No. 5137 $as fictitious, *a;ing the titles derived fro* it spurious, is sufficient evidence for the stated purpose. <he 'egister of >eeds of the Province of Batangas is the repositor+ of all records regarding (C<s issued in that province, and the certification is therefore co*petent and ad*issible evidence to prove that the titles of the Escobars derived fro* it are fro* a fictitious source. <he sa*e holds true for .# the certification7/ of =r. Felino =. CorteB, Chief of the (rdinar+ and Cadastral >ecree >ivision, -and 'egistration Authorit+, stating that per C-' 'ecord No. 7885, >ecree No. 7195 $as issued on Februar+ /7, .848C and a cop+ of >ecree No. 7195 $hich states that it $as issued b+ the Court of First Instance of Batangas in Case No. /8, 6.-.'.(. 'ecord No. /708 and that the sub)ect *atter of that Case No. /8 $as the land situated in ,an !uan, Batangas R not the land situated in Barrio <olentino, <alisa+, BatangasC /# the repl+-letter of =r. Privadi !6. >alire addressed to Engr. 'uperto <. del Car*en, stating that plan Psu-/1478 $as a surve+ of propert+ located at Pin*aludpod, :rdaneta, Pangasinan, $hich is a long $a+ fro* the Barrio <olentino, <alisa+, Batangas propert+C 7# the certification77 dated August 9, .887 issued b+ =r. !ose C. =ariano, Chief of the 'ecords =anage*ent >ivision, -ands =anage*ent Bureau, >EN', certif+ing to the fact that his office has no available record of the alleged plan Psu-/1478, $hich sho$s that Psu-/1478 does not e2ist and it cannot serve as basis for the t$o titlesC and 1# the certification71 dated !ul+ /8, .887 issued b+ =r. Felino =. CorteB, certif+ing to the true and correct reproduction of page .14 of ,urve+ 'ecord Boo; No. 7, that there appears to be no entr+ corresponding to plan Psu-/1478 indicating that said plan does not appear to have been the sub)ect of an application for original registration under Act No. 189 as a*ended b+ P.>. No. .5/8, $hich sho$s that the titles are spurious, having had spurious sources. =ost significantl+, these docu*ents, $hich constitute certifications fro* govern*ent officials $ho are responsible for safeguarding the <C<s and (C<s in their possession because of their official capacit+, have not been controverted as to their e2istence and due e2ecution. <heir e2istence $as also never denied under oath.75 (n the third issue, petitioners state that the la$ insulates registered titles obtained under the <orrens s+ste* fro* the dangers of frivolous suits.79 'espondents did not even bother to discuss the issue, and for good reason. Even if petitioners $ere innocent purchasers for value and in good faith, no right passed to a transferee fro* a vendor $ho did not have an+ right in the first place. Eoid ab initio land titles issued cannot ripen into private o$nership.70A spring cannot rise higher than its source.73 &"E'EF('E, the instant petition is >ENIE> for lac; of *erit. <he >ecision dated =a+ .8, /445 and 'esolution dated August 1, /445 of the Court of Appeals are AFFI'=E>. Costs against petitioners.

6. '. No. .50491 August 0, /449

Page1

,( ('>E'E>.

BA'CE-(N, '(UA, ,EC:'I<IE,, INC. no$ ;no$n as :BP ,ecurities, Inc.# Petitioner, vs. C(==I,,I(NE' (F IN<E'NA- 'EEEN:E, 'espondent. >ECI,I(N C"IC(-NAKA'I(, !.% <his is a Petition for 'evie$ on Certiorari, under 'ule 15 of the 'ules of Court, see;ing to set aside the >ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. ,P No. 94/48 dated .. !ul+ /44/, . ordering the petitioner to pa+ the 6overn*ent the a*ount of P3/9,983.7. as deficienc+ inco*e ta2 for the +ear .830 plus /5] surcharge and /4] interest per annu*. <he Court of Appeals, in its assailed >ecision, reversed the >ecision of the Court of <a2 Appeals C<A# dated .0 =a+ /444 / in C.<.A. Case No. 599/. Petitioner Barcelon, 'o2as ,ecurities Inc. no$ ;no$n as :BP ,ecurities, Inc.# is a corporation engaged in the trading of securities. (n .1 April .833, petitioner filed its Annual Inco*e <a2 'eturn for ta2able +ear .830. After an audit investigation conducted b+ the Bureau of Internal 'evenue BI'#, respondent Co**issioner of Internal 'evenue CI'# issued an assess*ent for deficienc+ inco*e ta2 in the a*ount of P3/9,983.7. arising fro* the disallo$ance of the ite* on salaries, bonuses and allo$ances in the a*ount of P.,/.8,487,87 as part of the deductible business e2pense since petitioner failed to sub)ect the salaries, bonuses and allo$ances to $ithholding ta2es. <his assess*ent $as covered b+ For*al Assess*ent Notice No. FAN-.-30-8.-444918 dated . Februar+ .88., $hich, respondent alleges, $as sent to petitioner through registered *ail on 9 Februar+ .88.. "o$ever, petitioner denies receiving the for*al assess*ent notice. 7 (n .0 =arch .88/, petitioner $as served $ith a &arrant of >istraint andDor -ev+ to enforce collection of the deficienc+ inco*e ta2 for the +ear .830. Petitioner filed a for*al protest, dated /5 =arch .88/, against the &arrant of >istraint andDor -ev+, reFuesting for its cancellation. (n 7 !ul+ .883, petitioner received a letter dated 74 April .883 fro* the respondent den+ing the protest $ith finalit+. 1 (n 7. !ul+ .883, petitioner filed a petition for revie$ $ith the C<A. After due notice and hearing, the C<A rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on .0 =a+ /444. <he C<A ruled on the pri*ar+ issue of prescription and found it unnecessar+ to decide the issues on the validit+ and propriet+ of the assess*ent. It *aintained that $hile a *ailed letter is dee*ed received b+ the addressee in the course of *ail, this is *erel+ a disputable presu*ption. It reasoned that the direct denial of the petitioner shifts the burden of proof to the respondent that the *ailed letter $as actuall+ received b+ the petitioner. <he C<A found the BI' records sub*itted b+ the respondent i**aterial, self-serving, and therefore insufficient to prove that the assess*ent notice $as *ailed and dul+ received b+ the petitioner. 5 <he dispositive portion of this decision reads% &"E'EF('E, in vie$ of the foregoing, the .833 deficienc+ ta2 assess*ent against petitioner is hereb+ CANCE--E>. 'espondent is hereb+ ('>E'E> <( >E,I,< fro* collecting said deficienc+ ta2. No pronounce*ent as to costs. 9 (n 9 !une /444, respondent *oved for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but $as denied b+ the C<A in a 'esolution dated /5 !ul+ /444. <hereafter, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals on 7. August /44.. In reversing the C<A decision, the Court of Appeals found the evidence presented b+ the respondent to be sufficient proof that the ta2 assess*ent notice $as *ailed to the petitioner, therefore the legal presu*ption that it $as received should appl+. 0 <hus, the Court of Appeals ruled that% &"E'EF('E, the petition is hereb+ 6'AN<E>. <he decision dated =a+ .0, /444 as $ell as the 'esolution dated !ul+ /5, /444 are hereb+ 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E, and a ne$ on entered ordering the respondent to pa+ the a*ount of P3/9,983.7. as deficienc+ inco*e ta2 for the +ear .830 plus /5] surcharge and /4] interest per annu* fro* Februar+ 9, .88. until full+ paid pursuant to ,ections /13 and /18 of the <a2 Code. 3 Petitioner *oved for reconsideration of the said decision but the sa*e $as denied b+ the Court of Appeals in its assailed 'esolution dated 74 !anuar+ /447. 8 "ence, this Petition for 'evie$ on Certiorari raising the follo$ing issues% I &"E<"E' (' N(< -E6A- BA,E, EUI,< F(' <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-,N FIN>IN6 <"A< <"E C(:'< (F <AU APPEA-, C(==I<<E> "6'(,, E''(' IN <"E APP'ECIA<I(N (F FAC<,." II &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, &A, C(''EC< IN 'EEE',IN6 <"E ,:B!EC< >ECI,I(N (F <"E C(:'< (F <AU APPEA-,. III &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E 'I6"< (F <"E B:'EA: (F IN<E'NA- 'EEEN:E <( A,,E,, PE<I<I(NE' F(' A--E6E> >EFICIENCI INC(=E <AU F(' .830 "A, P'E,C'IBE>. IE &"E<"E' (' N(< <"E 'I6"< (F <"E B:'EA: (F IN<E'NA- 'EEEN:E <( C(--EC< <"E ,:B!EC< A--E6E> >EFICIENCI INC(=E <AU F(' .830 "A, P'E,C'IBE>. E &"E<"E' (' N(< PE<I<I(NE' I, -IAB-E F(' <"E A--E6E> >EFICIENCI INC(=E <AU A,,E,,=EN< F(' .830. EI

Page1

&"E<"E' (' N(< <"E ,:B!EC< A,,E,,=EN< I, EI(-A<IEE (F <"E 'I6"< (F PE<I<I(NE' <( >:E P'(CE,,. .4

<his Court finds the instant Petition *eritorious. <he core issue in this case is $hether or not respondentNs right to assess petitionerNs alleged deficienc+ inco*e ta2 is barred b+ prescription, the resolution of $hich depends on revie$ing the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the C<A. &hile the general rule is that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court, there are, ho$ever, recogniBed e2ceptions ..thereto, such as $hen the findings are contrar+ to those of the trial court or, in this case, the C<A. ./ In its >ecision, the C<A resolved the issues raised b+ the parties thus% !urisprudence is replete $ith cases holding that if the ta2pa+er denies ever having received an assess*ent fro* the BI', it is incu*bent upon the latter to prove b+ co*petent evidence that such notice $as indeed received b+ the addressee. <he onus probandi $as shifted to respondent to prove b+ contrar+ evidence that the Petitioner received the assess*ent in the due course of *ail. <he ,upre*e Court has consistentl+ held that $hile a *ailed letter is dee*ed received b+ the addressee in the course of *ail, this is *erel+ a disputable presu*ption sub)ect to controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts the burden to the part+ favored b+ the presu*ption to prove that the *ailed letter $as indeed received b+ the addressee 'epublic vs. Court of Appeals, .18 ,C'A 75.#. <hus as held b+ the ,upre*e Court in 6onBalo P. Nava vs. Co**issioner of Internal 'evenue, .7 ,C'A .41, !anuar+ 74, .895% "<he facts to be proved to raise this presu*ption are a# that the letter $as properl+ addressed $ith postage prepaid, and b# that it $as *ailed. (nce these facts are proved, the presu*ption is that the letter $as received b+ the addressee as soon as it could have been trans*itted to hi* in the ordinar+ course of the *ail. But if one of the said facts fails to appear, the presu*ption does not lie. EI, =oran, Co**ents on the 'ules of Court, .897 ed, 59-50 citing EnriFueB vs. ,unlife Assurance of Canada, 1. Phil /98#." In the instant case, 'espondent utterl+ failed to discharge this dut+. No substantial evidence $as ever presented to prove that the assess*ent notice No. FAN-.-30-8.-444918 or other supposed notices subseFuent thereto $ere in fact issued or sent to the ta2pa+er. As a *atter of fact, it onl+ sub*itted the BI' record boo; $hich allegedl+ contains the list of ta2pa+erNs na*es, the reference nu*ber, the +ear, the nature of ta2, the cit+D*unicipalit+ and the a*ount see E2h. 5-a for the 'espondent#. Purportedl+, 'espondent intended to sho$ to this Court that all assess*ents *ade are entered into a record boo; in chronological order outlining the details of the assess*ent and the ta2pa+er liable thereon. "o$ever, as can be gleaned fro* the face of the e2hibit, all entries thereon appears to be i**aterial and i*pertinent in proving that the assess*ent notice $as *ailed and dul+ received b+ Petitioner. Nothing indicates therein all essential facts that could sustain the burden of proof being shifted to the 'espondent. &hat is essential to prove the fact of *ailing is the registr+ receipt issued b+ the Bureau of Posts or the 'egistr+ return card $hich $ould have been signed b+ the Petitioner or its authoriBed representative. And if said docu*ents cannot be located, 'espondent at the ver+ least, should have sub*itted to the Court a certification issued b+ the Bureau of Posts and an+ other pertinent docu*ent $hich is e2ecuted $ith the intervention of the Bureau of Posts. <his Court does not put *uch credence to the self serving docu*entations *ade b+ the BI' personnel especiall+ if the+ are unsupported b+ substantial evidence establishing the fact of *ailing. <hus% "&hile $e have held that an assess*ent is *ade $hen sent $ithin the prescribed period, even if received b+ the ta2pa+er after its e2piration Coll. of Int. 'ev. vs. Bautista, --.//54 and --.//58, =a+ /0, .858#, this ruling *a;es it the *ore i*perative that the release, *ailing or sending of the notice be clearl+ and satisfactoril+ proved. =ere notations *ade $ithout the ta2pa+erNs intervention, notice or control, $ithout adeFuate supporting evidence cannot sufficeC other$ise, the ta2pa+er $ould be at the *erc+ of the revenue offices, $ithout adeFuate protection or defense." Nava vs. CI', .7 ,C'A .41, !anuar+ 74, .895#. 2222 <he failure of the respondent to prove receipt of the assess*ent b+ the Petitioner leads to the conclusion that no assess*ent $as issued. ConseFuentl+, the govern*entNs right to issue an assess*ent for the said period has alread+ prescribed. Industrial <e2tile =anufacturing Co. of the Phils., Inc. vs. CI' C<A Case 1335, August //, .889#. .7 !urisprudence has consistentl+ sho$n that this Court accords the findings of fact b+ the C<A $ith the highest respect. In ,ea--and ,ervice Inc. v. Court of Appeals .1 this Court recogniBes that the Court of <a2 Appeals, $hich b+ the ver+ nature of its function is dedicated e2clusivel+ to the consideration of ta2 proble*s, has necessaril+ developed an e2pertise on the sub)ect, and its conclusions $ill not be overturned unless there has been an abuse or i*provident e2ercise of authorit+. ,uch findings can onl+ be disturbed on appeal if the+ are not supported b+ substantial evidence or there is a sho$ing of gross error or abuse on the part of the <a2 Court. .5 In the absence of an+ clear and convincing proof to the contrar+, this Court *ust presu*e that the C<A rendered a decision $hich is valid in ever+ respect. :nder ,ection /47 .9 of the National Internal 'evenue Code NI'C#, respondent had three 7# +ears fro* the last da+ for the filing of the return to send an assess*ent notice to petitioner. In the case of Collector of Internal 'evenue v. Bautista, .0 this Court held that an assess*ent is *ade $ithin the prescriptive period if notice to this effect is released, *ailed or sent b+ the CI' to the ta2pa+er $ithin said period. 'eceipt thereof b+ the ta2pa+er $ithin the prescriptive period is not necessar+. At this point, it should be clarified that the rule does not dispense $ith the reFuire*ent that the ta2pa+er should actuall+ receive, even be+ond the prescriptive period, the assess*ent notice $hich $as ti*el+ released, *ailed and sent. In the present case, records sho$ that petitioner filed its Annual Inco*e <a2 'eturn for ta2able +ear .830 on .1 April .833. .3 <he last da+ for filing b+ petitioner of its return $as on .5 April .833, .8 thus, giving respondent until .5 April .88. $ithin $hich to send an assess*ent notice. &hile respondent avers that it sent the assess*ent notice dated . Februar+ .88. on 9 Februar+ .88., $ithin the three 7#-+ear period prescribed b+ la$, petitioner denies having received an assess*ent notice fro* respondent. Petitioner alleges that it ca*e to ;no$ of the deficienc+ ta2 assess*ent onl+ on .0 =arch .88/ $hen it $as served $ith the &arrant of >istraint and -ev+. /4 In ProtectorNs ,ervices, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, /. this Court ruled that $hen a *ail *atter is sent b+ registered *ail, there e2ists a presu*ption, set forth under ,ection 7 v#, 'ule .7. of the 'ules of Court, // that it $as received in the regular course of *ail. <he facts to be proved in order to raise this presu*ption are% a# that the letter $as properl+ addressed $ith postage prepaidC and b# that it $as *ailed. &hile a *ailed letter is dee*ed received b+ the addressee in the ordinar+ course of *ail, this is still *erel+ a disputable presu*ption sub)ect to controversion, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the burden upon the part+ favored b+ the presu*ption to prove that the *ailed letter $as indeed received b+ the addressee. /7

Page1

In the present case, petitioner denies receiving the assess*ent notice, and the respondent $as unable to present substantial evidence that such notice $as, indeed, *ailed or sent b+ the respondent before the BI'Ns right to assess had prescribed and that said notice $as received b+ the petitioner. <he respondent presented the BI' record boo; $here the na*e of the ta2pa+er, the ;ind of ta2 assessed, the registr+ receipt nu*ber and the date of *ailing $ere noted. <he BI' records custodian, Ingrid Eersola, also testified that she *ade the entries therein. 'espondent offered the entr+ in the BI' record boo; and the testi*on+ of its record custodian as entries in official records in accordance $ith ,ection 11, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court, /1 $hich states that%

,ection 11. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records *ade in the perfor*ance of his dut+ b+ a public officer of the Philippines, or b+ a person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$, are pri*a facie evidence of the facts therein stated. <he foregoing rule on evidence, ho$ever, *ust be read in accordance $ith this CourtNs pronounce*ent in Africa v. Calte2 Phil.#, Inc., /5$here it has been held that an entrant *ust have personal ;no$ledge of the facts stated b+ hi* or such facts $ere acFuired b+ hi* fro* reports *ade b+ persons under a legal dut+ to sub*it the sa*e. <here are three reFuisites for ad*issibilit+ under the rule )ust *entioned% a# that the entr+ $as *ade b+ a public officer, or b+ another person speciall+ en)oined b+ la$ to do soC b# that it $as *ade b+ the public officer in the perfor*ance of his duties, or b+ such other person in the perfor*ance of a dut+ speciall+ en)oined b+ la$C and c# that the public officer or other person had sufficient ;no$ledge of the facts b+ hi* stated, $hich *ust have been acFuired b+ hi* personall+ or through official infor*ation 2 2 2. In this case, the entries *ade b+ Ingrid Eersola $ere not based on her personal ;no$ledge as she did not attest to the fact that she personall+ prepared and *ailed the assess*ent notice. Nor $as it stated in the transcript of stenographic notes /9 ho$ and fro* $ho* she obtained the pertinent infor*ation. =oreover, she did not attest to the fact that she acFuired the reports fro* persons under a legal dut+ to sub*it the sa*e. "ence, 'ule .74, ,ection 11 finds no application in the present case. <hus, the evidence offered b+ respondent does not Fualif+ as an e2ception to the rule against hearsa+ evidence. Further*ore, independent evidence, such as the registr+ receipt of the assess*ent notice, or a certification fro* the Bureau of Posts, could have easil+ been obtained. Iet respondent failed to present such evidence. In the case of Nava v. Co**issioner of Internal 'evenue, /0 this Court stressed on the i*portance of proving the release, *ailing or sending of the notice. &hile $e have held that an assess*ent is *ade $hen sent $ithin the prescribed period, even if received b+ the ta2pa+er after its e2piration Coll. of Int. 'ev. vs. Bautista, --.//54 and --.//58, =a+ /0, .858#, this ruling *a;es it the *ore i*perative that the release, *ailing, or sending of the notice be clearl+ and satisfactoril+ proved. =ere notations *ade $ithout the ta2pa+erNs intervention, notice, or control, $ithout adeFuate supporting evidence, cannot sufficeC other$ise, the ta2pa+er $ould be at the *erc+ of the revenue offices, $ithout adeFuate protection or defense. In the present case, the evidence offered b+ the respondent fails to convince this Court that For*al Assess*ent Notice No. FAN-.-30-8.-444918 $as released, *ailed, or sent before .5 April .88., or before the lapse of the period of li*itation upon assess*ent and collection prescribed b+ ,ection /47 of the NI'C. ,uch evidence, therefore, is insufficient to give rise to the presu*ption that the assess*ent notice $as received in the regular course of *ail. ConseFuentl+, the right of the govern*ent to assess and collect the alleged deficienc+ ta2 is barred b+ prescription. IN EIE& (F <"E F('E6(IN6, the instant Petition is 6'AN<E>. <he assailed >ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. ,P No. 94/48 dated .. !ul+ /44/, is hereb+ 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E, and the >ecision of the Court of <a2 Appeals in C.<.A. Case No. 599/, dated .0 =a+ /444, cancelling the .833 >eficienc+ <a2 Assess*ent against Barcelon, 'o2as ,ecuritites, Inc. no$ ;no$n as :PB ,ecurities, Inc.# for being barred b+ prescription, is hereb+ 'EIN,<A<E>. No costs. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .405.3 (ctober 3, .883 PN(C ,"IPPIN6 AN> <'AN,P('< C('P('A<I(N, petitioner, vs. "(N('AB-E C(:'< (F APPEA-, and =A'IA EFI6ENIA FI,"IN6 C('P('A<I(N, respondents.

'(=E'(, !.% A part+ is entitled to adeFuate co*pensation onl+ for such pecuniar+ loss actuall+ suffered and dul+ proved. .Indeed, basic is the rule that to recover actual da*ages, the a*ount of loss *ust not onl+ be capable of proof but *ust actuall+ be proven $ith a reasonable degree of certaint+, pre*ised upon co*petent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual a*ount thereof. / <he clai*ant is dut+-bound to point out specific facts that afford a basis for *easuring $hatever co*pensator+ da*ages are borne. 7 A court cannot *erel+ rel+ on speculations, con)ectures, or guess$or; as to the fact and a*ount of da*ages 1 as $ell as hearsa+ 5 or uncorroborated testi*on+ $hose truth is suspect. 9 ,uch are the )urisprudential precepts that the Court no$ applies in resolving the instant petition. <he records disclose that in the earl+ *orning of ,epte*ber /., .800, the =DE =aria Efigenia UE, o$ned b+ private respondent =aria Efigenia Fishing Corporation, $as navigating the $aters near Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its $a+ to Navotas, =etro =anila $hen it collided $ith the vessel Petroparcel $hich at the ti*e $as o$ned b+ the -uBon ,tevedoring Corporation -,C#. After investigation $as conducted b+ the Board of =arine InFuir+, Philippine Coast 6uard Co**andant ,i*eon N. Ale)andro rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault. Based on this finding b+ the Board and after unsuccessful de*ands on petitioner, 0 private respondent sued the -,C and the Petroparcel captain, Edgardo >oruelo, before the then Court of First Instance of Caloocan Cit+, pa+ing thereto the doc;et fee of one thousand t$o hundred fift+-t$o pesos P.,/5/.44# and the legal research fee of t$o pesos P/.44#. 3 In particular, private respondent pra+ed for an a$ard of

Page1

P98/,934.44, allegedl+ representing the value of the fishing nets, boat eFuip*ent and cargoes of =DE =aria Efigenia UE, $ith interest at the legal rate plus /5] thereof as attorne+@s fees. =ean$hile, during the pendenc+ of the case, petitioner PN(C ,hipping and <ransport Corporation sought to be substituted in place of -,C as it had alread+ acFuired o$nership of the Petroparcel. 8 For its part, private respondent later sought the a*end*ent of its co*plaint on the ground that the original co*plaint failed to plead for the recover+ of the lost value of the hull of =DE =aria Efigenia UE. .4 Accordingl+, in the a*ended co*plaint, private respondent averred that =DE =aria Efigenia UE had an actual value of P344,444.44 and that, after deducting the insurance pa+*ent of P/44,444.44, the a*ount of P944,444.44 should li;e$ise be clai*ed. <he a*ended co*plaint also alleged that inflation resulting fro* the devaluation of the Philippine peso had affected the replace*ent value of the hull of the vessel, its eFuip*ent and its lost cargoes, such that there should be a reasonable deter*ination thereof. Further*ore, on account of the sin;ing of the vessel, private respondent supposedl+ incurred unrealiBed profits and lost business opportunities that $ould thereafter be proven. .. ,ubseFuentl+, the co*plaint $as further a*ended to include petitioner as a defendant ./ $hich the lo$er court granted in its order of ,epte*ber .9, .835. .7 After petitioner had filed its ans$er to the second a*ended co*plaint, on Februar+ 5, .830, the lo$er court issued a pre-trial order .1 containing, a*ong other things, a stipulations of facts, to $it% .. (n /. ,epte*ber .800, $hile the fishing boat "=DE =A'IA EFI6ENIA" o$ned b+ plaintiff $as navigating in the vicinit+ of Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas, on its $a+ to Navotas, =etro =anila, said fishing boat $as hit b+ the -,C( tan;er "Petroparcel" causing the for*er to sin;. /. <he Board of =arine InFuir+ conducted an investigation of this *arine accident and on /. Nove*ber .803, the Co**andant of the Philippine Coast 6uard, the "onorable ,i*eon N. Ale)andro, rendered a decision finding the cause of the accident to be the rec;less and i*prudent *anner in $hich Edgardo >oruelo navigated the -,C( "Petroparcel" and declared the latter vessel at fault. 7. (n / April .803, defendant -uBon ,tevedoring Corporation -:,<EEEC(#, e2ecuted in favor of PN(C ,hipping and <ransport Corporation a >eed of <ransfer involving several tan;ers, tugboats, barges and pu*ping stations, a*ong $hich $as the -,C( Petroparcel. 1. (n the sa*e date on / April .808 sic#, defendant PN(C ,<C again entered into an Agree*ent of <ransfer $ith codefendant -usteveco $hereb+ all the business properties and other assets appertaining to the tan;er and bul; oil depart*ents including the *otor tan;er -,C( Petroparcel of defendant -usteveco $ere sold to PN(C ,<C. 5. <he aforesaid agree*ent stipulates, a*ong others, that PN(C-,<C assu*es, $ithout Fualifications, all obligations arising fro* and b+ virtue of all rights it obtained over the -,C( "Petroparcel". 9. (n 9 !ul+ .808, another agree*ent bet$een defendant -:,<EEEC( and PN(C-,<C $as e2ecuted $herein Board of =arine InFuir+ Case No. 77/ involving the sea accident of /. ,epte*ber .800# $as specificall+ identified and assu*ed b+ the latter. 0. (n /7 !une .808, the decision of Board of =arine InFuir+ $as affir*ed b+ the =inistr+ of National >efense, in its decision dis*issing the appeal of Capt. Edgardo >oruelo and Chief *ate Anthon+ EstenBo of -,C( "Petroparcel". 3. -,C( "Petroparcel" is presentl+ o$ned and operated b+ PN(C-,<C and li;e$ise Capt. Edgardo >oruelo is still in their e*plo+. 8. As a result of the sin;ing of =DE =aria Efigenia caused b+ the rec;less and i*prudent *anner in $hich -,C( Petroparcel $as navigated b+ defendant >oruelo, plaintiff suffered actual da*ages b+ the loss of its fishing nets, boat eFuip*ents sic# and cargoes, $hich $ent do$n $ith the ship $hen it san; the replace*ent value of $hich should be left to the sound discretion of this "onorable Court. After trial, the lo$er court .5 rendered on Nove*ber .3, .838 its decision disposing of Civil Case No. C-8150 as follo$s% &"E'EF('E, and in vie$ of the foregoing, )udg*ent is hereb+ rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant PN(C ,hipping Y <ransport Corporation, to pa+ the plaintiff% a. <he su* of P9,173,413.44 representing the value of the fishing boat $ith interest fro* the date of the filing of the co*plaint at the rate of 9] per annu*C b. <he su* of P54,444.44 as and for attorne+@s feesC and c. <he costs of suit. <he counterclai* is hereb+ >I,=I,,E> for lac; of *erit. -i;e$ise, the case against defendant Edgardo >oruelo is hereb+ >I,=I,,E>, for lac; of )urisdiction. ,( ('>E'E>. In arriving at the above disposition, the lo$er court cited the evidence presented b+ private respondent consisting of the testi*on+ of its general *anager and sole $itness, Edilberto del 'osario. Private respondent@s $itness testified that =DE =aria Efigenia UE $as o$ned b+ private respondent per E2hibit A, a certificate of o$nership issued b+ the Philippine Coast 6uard sho$ing that =DE =aria Efigenia UE $as a $ooden *otor boat constructed in .895 $ith ./3./7 gross tonnage. According to hi*, at the ti*e the vessel san;, it $as then carr+ing .,494 tubs baQeras# of assorted fish the value of $hich $as never recovered. Also lost $ith the vessel $ere t$o cu**ins engines /54 horsepo$er#, radar, patho*eter and co*pass. "e further added that $ith the loss of his flagship vessel in his fishing fleet of fourteen .1# vessels, he $as constrained to hire the services of counsel $ho* he paid P.4,444 to handle the case at the Board of =arine InFuir+ and P54,444.44 for co**encing suit for da*ages in the lo$er court. As to the a$ard of P9,173,413.44 in actual da*ages, the lo$er court too; into account the follo$ing pieces of docu*entar+ evidence that private respondent proffered during trial%

Page1

a# E2hibit A A certified 2ero2 cop+ of the certificate of o$nership of =DE =aria Efigenia UEC b# E2hibit B A a docu*ent titled "=arine Protest" e2ecuted b+ >elfin Eillarosa, !r. on ,epte*ber //, .800 stating that as a result of the collision, the =DE =aria Efigenia UEsustained a hole at its left side that caused it to sin; $ith its cargo of .,454 baQerasvalued at P.04,444.44C c# E2hibit C A a Fuotation for the construction of a 85-footer tra$ler issued b+ Isidoro A. =agalong of I. A. =agalong Engineering and Construction on !anuar+ /9, .830 to >el 'osario sho$ing that construction of such tra$ler $ould cost P/,/54,444.44C d# E2hibit > A pro for*a invoice No. P,PI-45D30-NAE issued b+ E.>. >aclan of Po$er ,+ste*s, Incorporated on !anuar+ /4, .830 to >el 'osario sho$ing that t$o /# units of C:==IN, =arine Engine *odel N355-=, .85 bhp. at .344 rp*. $ould cost P.,.94,444.44C e# E2hibit E A Fuotation of prices issued b+ ,can =arine Inc. on !anuar+ /4, .830 to >el 'osario sho$ing that a unit of Furuno Co*pact >a+light 'adar, =odel F'-941>, $ould cost P.44,444.44 $hile a unit of Furuno Color Eideo ,ounder, =odel FCE-54. $ould cost P15,444.44 so that the t$o units $ould cost P.15,444.44C f# E2hibit F A Fuotation of prices issued b+ ,eafgear ,ales, Inc. on !anuar+ /., .830 to >el 'osario sho$ing that t$o /# rolls of n+lon rope 5" cir. U 744fl.# $ould cost P.14,444.44C t$o /# rolls of n+lon rope 7" cir. U /14fl.#, P1/,054.44C one .# binocular 0 2 54#, P.,144.44, one .# co*pass 9"#, P1,444.44 and 54 pcs. of floats, P8,444.44 or a total of P.80,.54.44C g# E2hibit 6 A retainer agree*ent bet$een >el 'osario and F. ,u*ulong Associates -a$ (ffices stipulating an acceptance fee of P5,444.44, per appearance fee of P144.44, *onthl+ retainer of P544.44, contingent fee of /4] of the total a*ount recovered and that attorne+@s fee to be a$arded b+ the court should be given to >el 'osarioC and h# E2hibit " A price Fuotation issued b+ ,eafgear ,ales, Inc. dated April .4, .830 to >el 'osario sho$ing the cost of pol+ nettings as% 54 rolls of 144D.3 7;ts. .44*d 2 .44*trs., P04,444.44C 54 rolls of 144D.3 5;ts. .44*d 2 .44*trs., P3.,544.44C 54 rolls of 144D.3 3;ts. .44*d 2 .44*trs., P..9,444.44, and 54 rolls of 144D.3 .4;ts. .44*d 2 .44*trs., P.19,544 and baQera tub# at P95.44 per piece or a total of P1.1,495.44. <he lo$er court held that the prevailing replace*ent value of P9,173,413.44 of the fishing boat and all its eFuip*ent $ould regularl+ increase at 74] ever+ +ear fro* the date the Fuotations $ere given. (n the other hand, the lo$er court noted that petitioner onl+ presented -orenBo -aBaro, senior esti*ator at PN(C >oc;+ard Y Engineering Corporation, as sole $itness and it did not bother at all to offer an+ docu*entar+ evidence to support its position. -aBaro testified that the price Fuotations sub*itted b+ private respondent $ere "e2cessive" and that as an e2pert $itness, he used the Fuotations of his suppliers in *a;ing his esti*ates. "o$ever, he failed to present such Fuotations of prices fro* his suppliers, sa+ing that he could not produce a brea;do$n of the costs of his esti*ates as it $as "a sort of secret sche*e." For this reason, the lo$er court concluded% Evidentl+, the Fuotation of prices sub*itted b+ the plaintiff relative to the replace*ent value of the fishing boat and its eFuip*ents in the tune of P9,173,413.44 $hich $ere lost due to the rec;lessness and i*prudence of the herein defendants $ere not rebutted b+ the latter $ith sufficient evidence. <he defendants through their sole $itness -orenBo -aBaro relied heavil+ on said $itness@ bare clai* that the a*ount afore-said is e2cessive or bloated, but the+ did not bother at all to present an+ docu*entar+ evidence to substantiate such clai*. Evidence to be believed *ust not onl+ proceed fro* the *outh of the credible $itness, but it *ust be credible in itself. Eda. de Bonifacio vs. B. -. <. Bus Co., Inc. --/93.4, August 7., .804#. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a *otion for the reconsideration of the lo$er court@s decision contending that% .# the lo$er court erred in holding it liable for da*agesC that the lo$er court did not acFuire )urisdiction over the case b+ pa+ing onl+ P.,/5/.44 as doc;et feeC /# assu*ing that plaintiff $as entitled to da*ages, the lo$er court erred in a$arding an a*ount greater than that pra+ed for in the second a*ended co*plaintC and 7# the lo$er court erred $hen it failed to resolve the issues it had raised in its *e*orandu*. .9 Petitioner li;e$ise filed a supple*ental *otion for reconsideration e2pounding on $hether the lo$er court acFuired )urisdiction over the sub)ect *atter of the case despite therein plaintiff@s failure to pa+ the prescribed doc;et fee. .0 (n !anuar+ /5, .884, the lo$er court declined reconsideration for lac; of *erit. .3 Apparentl+ not having received the order den+ing its *otion for reconsideration, petitioner still filed a *otion for leave to file a repl+ to private respondent@s opposition to said *otion. .8 "ence, on Februar+ ./, .884, the lo$er court denied said *otion for leave to file a repl+ on the ground that b+ the issuance of the order of !anuar+ /5, .884, said *otion had beco*e *oot and acade*ic. /4 :nsatisfied $ith the lo$er court@s decision, petitioner elevated the *atter to the Court of Appeals $hich, ho$ever, affir*ed the sa*e in toto on (ctober .1, .88/. /. (n petitioner@s assertion that the a$ard of P9,173,413.44 $as not convincingl+ proved b+ co*petent and ad*issible evidence, the Court of Appeals ruled that it $as not necessar+ to Fualif+ >el 'osario as an e2pert $itness because as the o$ner of the lost vessel, "it $as $ell $ithin his ;no$ledge and co*petenc+ to identif+ and deter*ine the eFuip*ent installed and the cargoes loaded" on the vessel. Considering the docu*entar+ evidence presented as in the nature of *ar;et reports or Fuotations, trade )ournals, trade circulars and price lists, the Court of Appeals held, thus% ConseFuentl+, until such ti*e as the ,upre*e Court categoricall+ rules on the ad*issibilit+ or inad*issibilit+ of this class of evidence, the reception of these docu*entar+ e2hibits price Fuotations# as evidence rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. In fact, $here the lo$er court is confronted $ith evidence $hich appears to be of doubtful ad*issibilit+, the )udge should declare in favor of ad*issibilit+ rather than of non-ad*issibilit+ <he Collector of Pala;adhari, ./1 L.388M, p. .7, cited in Francisco, 'evised 'ules of Court, Evidence, Eolu*e EII, Part I, .884 Edition, p. .3#. <rial courts are en)oined to observe the strict enforce*ent of the rules of evidence $hich cr+stalliBed through constant use and practice and are ver+ useful and effective aids in the search for truth and for the effective ad*inistration of )ustice. But in connection $ith evidence $hich *a+ appear to be of doubtful relevanc+ or inco*petenc+ or ad*issibilit+, it is the safest polic+ to be liberal, not re)ecting the* on doubtful or technical grounds, but ad*itting the* unless plainl+ irrelevant, i**aterial or inco*petent, for the reason that their re)ection places the* be+ond the consideration of the court. If the+ are thereafter found relevant or co*petent, can easil+ be re*edied b+ co*pletel+ discarding or ignoring the*. Banaria vs. Banaria, et al., C.A. No. 1.1/, =a+ 7., .854C cited in Francisco, ,upra#. LE*phasis suppliedM.

Page1

,tressing that the alleged inad*issible docu*entar+ e2hibits $ere never satisfactoril+ rebutted b+ appellant@s o$n sole $itness in the person of -orenBo -aBaro, the appellate court found that petitioner ironicall+ situated itself in an "inconsistent posture b+ the fact that its o$n $itness, ad*ittedl+ an e2pert one, heavil+ relies on the ver+ sa*e pieces of evidence price Fuotations# appellant has so vigorousl+ ob)ected to as inad*issible evidence." "ence, it concluded% . . . <he a*ount of P9,173,413.44 $as dul+ established at the trial on the basis of appellee@s docu*entar+ e2hibits price Fuotations# $hich stood uncontroverted, and $hich alread+ included the a*ount b+ $a+ of ad)ust*ent as pra+ed for in the a*ended co*plaint. <here $as therefore no need for appellee to a*end the second a*ended co*plaint in so far as to the clai* for da*ages is concerned to confor* $ith the evidence presented at the trial. <he a*ount of P9,173,413.44 a$arded is clearl+ $ithin the relief pra+ed for in appellee@s second a*ended co*plaint. (n the issue of lac; of )urisdiction, the respondent court held that follo$ing the ruling in ,un Insurance -td. v. Asuncion, // the additional doc;et fee that *a+ later on be declared as still o$ing the court *a+ be enforced as a lien on the )udg*ent. "ence, the instant recourse. In assailing the Court of Appeals@ decision, petitioner posits the vie$ that the a$ard of P9,173,413 as actual da*ages should have been in light of these considerations, na*el+% .# the trial court did not base such a$ard on the actual value of the vessel and its eFuip*ent at the ti*e of loss in .800C /# there $as no evidence on e2traordinar+ inflation that $ould $arrant an ad)ust*ent of the replace*ent cost of the lost vessel, eFuip*ent and cargoC 7# the value of the lost cargo and the prices Fuoted in respondent@s docu*entar+ evidence onl+ a*ount to P1,779,/.5.44C 1# private respondent@s failure to adduce evidence to support its clai* for unrealiBed profit and business opportunitiesC and 5# private respondent@s failure to prove the e2tent and actual value of da*ages sustained as a result of the .800 collision of the vessels. /7 :nder Article /.88 of the Civil Code, actual or co*pensator+ da*ages are those a$arded in satisfaction of, or in reco*pense for, loss or in)ur+ sustained. <he+ proceed fro* a sense of natural )ustice and are designed to repair the $rong that has been done, to co*pensate for the in)ur+ inflicted and not to i*pose a penalt+. /1 In actions based on torts or Fuasidelicts, actual da*ages include all the natural and probable conseFuences of the act or o*ission co*plained of. /5 <here are t$o ;inds of actual or co*pensator+ da*ages% one is the loss of $hat a person alread+ possesses daQo e*ergente#, and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that $hich $ould have pertained to hi* lucro cesante#. /9 <hus% &here goods are destro+ed b+ the $rongful act of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the ti*e of destruction, that is, nor*all+, the su* of *one+ $hich he $ould have to pa+ in the *ar;et for identical or essentiall+ si*ilar goods, plus in a proper case da*ages for the loss of use during the period before replace*ent. In other $ords, in the case of profit-earning chattels, $hat has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its o$ner as a going concern at the ti*e and place of the loss, and this *eans, at least in the case of ships, that regard *ust be had to e2isting and pending engage*ents, . . . . . . . If the *ar;et value of the ship reflects the fact that it is in an+ case virtuall+ certain of profitable e*plo+*ent, then nothing can be added to that value in respect of charters actuall+ lost, for to do so $ould bepro tanto to co*pensate the plaintiff t$ice over. (n the other hand, if the ship is valued $ithout reference to its actual future engage*ents and onl+ in the light of its profit-earning potentialit+, then it *a+ be necessar+ to add to the value thus assessed the anticipated profit on a charter or other engage*ent $hich it $as unable to fulfill. &hat the court has to ascertain in each case is the "capitalised value of the vessel as a profit-earning *achine not in the abstract but in vie$ of the actual circu*stances," $ithout, of course, ta;ing into account considerations $hich $ere too re*ote at the ti*e of the loss. /0 LE*phasis suppliedM. As stated at the outset, to enable an in)ured part+ to recover actual or co*pensator+ da*ages, he is reFuired to prove the actual a*ount of loss $ith reasonable degree of certaint+ pre*ised upon co*petent proof and on the best evidence available. /3 <he burden of proof is on the part+ $ho $ould be defeated if no evidence $ould be presented on either side. "e *ust establish his case b+ a preponderance of evidence $hich *eans that the evidence, as a $hole, adduced b+ one side is superior to that of the other. /8 In other $ords, da*ages cannot be presu*ed and courts, in *a;ing an a$ard *ust point out specific facts that could afford a basis for *easuring $hatever co*pensator+ or actual da*ages are borne. 74 In this case, actual da*ages $ere proven through the sole testi*on+ of private respondent@s general *anager and certain pieces of docu*entar+ evidence. E2cept for E2hibit B $here the value of the .,454 baQeras of fish $ere pegged at their ,epte*ber .800 value $hen the collision happened, the pieces of docu*entar+ evidence proffered b+ private respondent $ith respect to ite*s and eFuip*ent lost sho$ si*ilar ite*s and eFuip*ent $ith corresponding prices in earl+ .830 or appro2i*atel+ ten .4# +ears after the collision. Noticeabl+, petitioner did not ob)ect to the e2hibits in ter*s of the ti*e inde2 for valuation of the lost goods and eFuip*ent. In ob)ecting to the sa*e pieces of evidence, petitioner co**ented that these $ere not dul+ authenticated and that the $itness >el 'osario# did not have personal ;no$ledge on the contents of the $ritings and neither $as he an e2pert on the sub)ects thereof. 7. Clearl+ ignoring petitioner@s ob)ections to the e2hibits, the lo$er court ad*itted these pieces of evidence and gave the* due $eight to arrive at the a$ard of P9,173,413.44 as actual da*ages. <he e2hibits $ere presented ostensibl+ in the course of >el 'osario@s testi*on+. Private respondent did not present an+ other $itnesses especiall+ those $hose signatures appear in the price Fuotations that beca*e the bases of the a$ard. &e hold, ho$ever, that the price Fuotations are ordinar+ private $ritings $hich under the 'evised 'ules of Court should have been proffered along $ith the testi*on+ of the authors thereof. >el 'osario could not have testified on the veracit+ of the contents of the $ritings even though he $as the seasoned o$ner of a fishing fleet because he $as not the one $ho issued the price Fuotations. ,ection 79, 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules of Court provides that a $itness can testif+ onl+ to those facts that he ;no$s of his personal ;no$ledge. For this reason, >el 'osario@s clai* that private respondent incurred losses in the total a*ount of P9,173,413.44 should be ad*itted $ith e2tre*e caution considering that, because it $as a bare assertion, it should be supported b+ independent evidence. =oreover, because he $as the o$ner of private respondent corporation 7/ $hatever testi*on+ he $ould give $ith regard to the value of the lost vessel, its eFuip*ent and cargoes should be vie$ed in the light of his selfinterest therein. &e agree $ith the Court of Appeals that his testi*on+ as to the eFuip*ent installed and the cargoes loaded on the vessel should be given credence 77 considering his fa*iliarit+ thereto. "o$ever, $e do not subscribe to the conclusion that his valuation of such eFuip*ent, cargo and the vessel itself should be accepted as gospel truth. 71 &e *ust, therefore, e2a*ine the docu*entar+ evidence presented to support >el 'osario@s clai* as regards the a*ount of losses. <he price Fuotations presented as e2hibits parta;e of the nature of hearsa+ evidence considering that the persons $ho issued the* $ere not presented as $itnesses. 75 An+ evidence, $hether oral or docu*entar+, is hearsa+ if its probative

Page1

value is not based on the personal ;no$ledge of the $itness but on the ;no$ledge of another person $ho is not on the $itness stand. "earsa+ evidence, $hether ob)ected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can sho$ that the evidence falls $ithin the e2ceptions to the hearsa+ evidence rule. 79(n this point, $e believe that the e2hibits do not fall under an+ of the e2ceptions provided under ,ections 70 to 10 of 'ule .74. 70 It is true that one of the e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule pertains to "co**ercial lists and the li;e" under ,ection 15, 'ule .74 of the 'evised 'ules on Evidence. In this respect, the Court of Appeals considered private respondent@s e2hibits as "co**ercial lists." It added, ho$ever, that these e2hibits should be ad*itted in evidence "until such ti*e as the ,upre*e Court categoricall+ rules on the ad*issibilit+ or inad*issibilit+ of this class of evidence" because "the reception of these docu*entar+ e2hibits price Fuotations# as evidence rests on the sound discretion of the trial court." 73 'eference to ,ection 15, 'ule .74, ho$ever, $ould sho$ that the conclusion of the Court of Appeals on the *atter $as arbitraril+ arrived at. <his rule states% Co**ercial lists and the li;e. A Evidence of state*ents of *atters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published co*pilation is ad*issible as tending to prove the truth of an+ relevant *atter so stated if that co*pilation is published for use b+ persons engaged in that occupation and is generall+ used and relied upon b+ the* there. :nder ,ection 15 of the aforesaid 'ule, a docu*ent is a co**ercial list if% .# it is a state*ent of *atters of interest to persons engaged in an occupationC /# such state*ent is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published co*pilationC 7# said co*pilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation, and 1# it is generall+ used and relied upon b+ persons in the sa*e occupation. Based on the above reFuisites, it is our considered vie$ that E2hibits B, C, >, E, F and " 78 are not "co**ercial lists" for these do not belong to the categor+ of "other published co*pilations" under ,ection 15 aforeFuoted. :nder the principle of e)usde* generis, " $#here general $ords follo$ an enu*eration of persons or things, b+ $ords of a particular and specific *eaning, such general $ords are not to be construed in their $idest e2tent, but are to be held as appl+ing onl+ to persons or things of the sa*e ;ind or class as those specificall+ *entioned." 14<he e2hibits *entioned are *ere price Fuotations issued personall+ to >el 'osario $ho reFuested for the* fro* dealers of eFuip*ent si*ilar to the ones lost at the collision of the t$o vessels. <hese are not published in an+ list, register, periodical or other co*pilation on the relevant sub)ect *atter. Neither are these "*ar;et reports or Fuotations" $ithin the purvie$ of "co**ercial lists" as these are not "standard handboo;s or periodicals, containing data of ever+da+ professional need and relied upon in the $or; of the occupation." 1. <hese are si*pl+ letters responding to the Fueries of >el 'osario. <hus, ta;e for e2a*ple E2hibit > $hich reads% !anuar+ /4, .830 P'(F('=A INE(ICE N(. P,PI-45D30-NAE =A'IA EFI6INIA FI,"IN6 C('P('A<I(N Navotas, =etro =anila Attention% ='. E>>IE >E- '(,A'I( 6entle*en% In accordance to +our reFuest, $e are pleated to Fuote our Cu**ins =arine Engine, to $it. <$o /# units C:==IN, =arine Engine *odel N355-=, .85 bhp. at .344 rp*., 9-c+linder in-line, 1-stro;e c+cle, natural aspirated, 5 .D/ in. 2 9 in. bore and stro;e, 355 cu. In. displace*ent, ;eel-cooled, electric starting coupled $ith <$in>isc =arine gearbo2 *odel =6-548, 1.5%. reduction ratio, includes oil cooler, co*panion flange, *anual and standard accessories as per attached sheet. Price F(B =anila P534,444.44Dunit <otal F(B =anila P.,.94,444.44 <E'=, % CA," >E-IEE'I % 94-84 da+s fro* date of order. EA-I>I<I % ,ub)ect to our final confir*ation. &A''AN<I % (ne .# full +ear against factor+ defect. Eer+ trul+ +ours, P(&E' ,I,<E=,, INC. ,gd.# E. >. >aclan <o be sure, letters and telegra*s are ad*issible in evidence but these are, ho$ever, sub)ect to the general principles of evidence and to various rules relating to docu*entar+ evidence. 1/ "ence, in one case, it $as held that a letter fro* an auto*obile dealer offering an allo$ance for an auto*obile upon purchase of a ne$ auto*obile after repairs had been co*pleted, $as not a "price current" or "co**ercial list" $ithin the statute $hich *ade such ite*s presu*ptive evidence of the value of the article specified therein. <he letter $as not ad*issible in evidence as a "co**ercial list" even though the cler; of the dealer testified that he had $ritten the letter in due course of business upon instructions of the dealer. 17 But even on the theor+ that the Court of Appeals correctl+ ruled on the ad*issibilit+ of those letters or co**unications $hen it held that unless "plainl+ irrelevant, i**aterial or inco*petent," evidence should better be ad*itted rather than re)ected on "doubtful or technical grounds," 11 the sa*e pieces of evidence, ho$ever, should not have been given probative $eight. <his is a distinction $e $ish to point out. Ad*issibilit+ of evidence refers to the Fuestion of $hether or not the circu*stance or evidence# is to considered at all. 15 (n the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the Fuestion of $hether or not it proves an issue. 19 <hus, a letter *a+ be offered in evidence and ad*itted as such but its evidentiar+ $eight depends upon the observance of the rules on evidence. Accordingl+, the author of the letter should be

Page1

presented as $itness to provide the other part+ to the litigation the opportunit+ to Fuestion hi* on the contents of the letter. Being *ere hearsa+ evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect. As earlier stated, hearsa+ evidence, $hether ob)ected to or not, has no probative value. <hus% <he courts differ as to the $eight to be given to hearsa+ evidence ad*itted $ithout ob)ection. ,o*e hold that $hen hearsa+ has been ad*itted $ithout ob)ection, the sa*e *a+ be considered as an+ other properl+ ad*itted testi*on+. (thers *aintain that it is entitled to no *ore consideration than if it had been e2cluded. <he rule prevailing in this )urisdiction is the latter one. (ur ,upre*e Court held that although the Fuestion of ad*issibilit+ of evidence can not be raised for the first ti*e on appeal, +et if the evidence is hearsa+ it has no probative value and should be disregarded $hether ob)ected to or not. "If no ob)ection is *ade" A Fuoting !ones on Evidence A "it hearsa+# beco*es evidence b+ reason of the $ant of such ob)ection even though its ad*ission does not confer upon it an+ ne$ attribute in point of $eight. Its nature and Fualit+ re*ain the sa*e, so far as its intrinsic $ea;ness and inco*petenc+ to satisf+ the *ind are concerned, and as opposed to direct pri*ar+ evidence, the latter al$a+s prevails. <he failure of the defense counsel to ob)ect to the presentation of inco*petent evidence, li;e hearsa+ evidence or evidence that violates the rules of res inter alios acta, or his failure to as; for the stri;ing out of the sa*e does not give such evidence an+ probative value. But ad*issibilit+ of evidence should not be eFuated $ith $eight of evidence. "earsa+ evidence $hether ob)ected to or not has no probative value. 10 Accordingl+, as stated at the outset, da*ages *a+ not be a$arded on the basis of hearsa+ evidence. 13 Nonetheless, the non-ad*issibilit+ of said e2hibits does not *ean that it totall+ deprives private respondent of an+ redress for the loss of its vessel. <his is because in -ufthansa 6er*an Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 18 the Court said% In the absence of co*petent proof on the actual da*age suffered, private respondent is "entitled to no*inal da*ages $hich, as the la$ sa+s, is ad)udicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, $hich has been violated or invaded b+ defendant, *a+ be vindicated and recogniBed, and not for the purpose of inde*nif+ing the plaintiff for an+ loss suffered." LE*phasis suppliedM. No*inal da*ages are a$arded in ever+ obligation arising fro* la$, contracts, Fuasi-contracts, acts or o*issions punished b+ la$, and Fuasi-delicts, or in ever+ case $here propert+ right has been invaded. 54 :nder Article ///7 of the Civil Code, " t#he ad)udication of no*inal da*ages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessor+ Fuestions, as bet$een the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns." Actuall+, no*inal da*ages are da*ages in na*e onl+ and not in fact. &here these are allo$ed, the+ are not treated as an eFuivalent of a $rong inflicted but si*pl+ in recognition of the e2istence of a technical in)ur+. 5."o$ever, the a*ount to be a$arded as no*inal da*ages shall be eFual or at least co**ensurate to the in)ur+ sustained b+ private respondent considering the concept and purpose of such da*ages. 5/ <he a*ount of no*inal da*ages to be a$arded *a+ also depend on certain special reasons e2tant in the case. 57 Appl+ing no$ such principles to the instant case, $e have on record the fact that petitioner@s vessel Petroparcel$as at fault as $ell as private respondent@s co*plaint clai*ing the a*ount of P98/,934.44 representing the fishing nets, boat eFuip*ent and cargoes that sun; $ith the =DE =aria Efigenia UE. In its a*ended co*plaint, private respondent alleged that the vessel had an actual value of P344,444.44 but it had been paid insurance in the a*ount of P/44,444.44 and, therefore, it clai*ed onl+ the a*ount of P944,444.44. (rdinaril+, the receipt of insurance pa+*ents should di*inish the total value of the vessel Fuoted b+ private respondent in his co*plaint considering that such pa+*ent is causall+ related to the loss for $hich it clai*ed co*pensation. <his Court believes that such allegations in the original and a*ended co*plaints can be the basis for deter*ination of a fair a*ount of no*inal da*ages inas*uch as a co*plaint alleges the ulti*ate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. 51 Private respondent should be bound b+ its allegations on the a*ount of its clai*s. &ith respect to petitioner@s contention that the lo$er court did not acFuire )urisdiction over the a*ended co*plaint increasing the a*ount of da*ages clai*ed to P944,444.44, $e agree $ith the Court of Appeals that the lo$er court acFuired )urisdiction over the case $hen private respondent paid the doc;et fee corresponding to its clai* in its original co*plaint. Its failure to pa+ the doc;et fee corresponding to its increased clai* for da*ages under the a*ended co*plaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lo$er court@s )urisdiction. Pursuant to the ruling in ,un Insurance (ffice, -td. ,I(-# v. Asuncion, 55 the unpaid doc;et fee should be considered as a lien on the )udg*ent even though private respondent specified the a*ount of P944,444.44 as its clai* for da*ages in its a*ended co*plaint. =oreover, $e note that petitioner did not Fuestion at all the )urisdiction of the lo$er court on the ground of insufficient doc;et fees in its ans$ers to both the a*ended co*plaint and the second a*ended co*plaint. It did so onl+ in its *otion for reconsideration of the decision of the lo$er court after it had received an adverse decision. As this Court held in Pantranco North E2press, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 59 participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invo;ing its authorit+ in as;ing for affir*ative relief, effectivel+ barred petitioner b+ estoppel fro* challenging the court@s )urisdiction. Notabl+, fro* the ti*e it filed its ans$er to the second a*ended co*plaint on April .9, .835, 50 petitioner did not Fuestion the lo$er court@s )urisdiction. It $as onl+ on >ece*ber /8, .838 53 $hen it filed its *otion for reconsideration of the lo$er court@s decision that petitioner raised the Fuestion of the lo$er court@s lac; of )urisdiction. Petitioner thus foreclosed its right to raise the issue of )urisdiction b+ its o$n inaction. &"E'EF('E, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals dated (ctober .1, .88/ in CA-6.'. CE No. /9934 affir*ing that of the 'egional <rial Court of Caloocan Cit+, Branch ./., is hereb+ =(>IFIE> insofar as it a$arded actual da*ages to private respondent =aria Efigenia Fishing Corporation in the a*ount of P9,173,413.44 for lac; of evidentiar+ bases therefor. Considering the fact, ho$ever, that% .# technicall+ petitioner sustained in)ur+ but $hich, unfortunatel+, $as not adeFuatel+ and properl+ proved, and /# this case has dragged on for al*ost t$o decades, $e believe that an a$ard of <$o =illion P/,444,444.44# 58 in favor of private respondent as and for no*inal da*ages is in order. No pronounce*ent as to costs. ,( ('>E'E>. .'. No. .54.50 !anuar+ /5, /440

=A:'ICI( =AN-IC-IC and P"I-IPPINE 'ABBI< B:, -INE,, INC., Petitioners,

Page1

vs. =(>E,<( CA-A:NAN, 'espondent. >ECI,I(N C"IC(-NAKA'I(, !.% Assailed before :s is the decision. of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 55848 $hich affir*ed in toto the decision/ of the 'egional <rial Court '<C# of >agupan Cit+, Branch 1/, in Civil Case No. >-.4439, finding petitioners =auricio =anliclic and Philippine 'abbit Bus -ines, Inc. P'B-I# solidaril+ liable to pa+ da*ages and attorne+Ns fees to respondent =odesto Calaunan. <he factual antecedents are as follo$s% <he vehicles involved in this case are% .# Philippine 'abbit Bus No. 757 $ith plate nu*ber CE>-103, o$ned b+ petitioner P'B-I and driven b+ petitioner =auricio =anliclicC and /# o$ner-t+pe )eep $ith plate nu*ber PE'-/84, o$ned b+ respondent =odesto Calaunan and driven b+ =arcelo =endoBa. At around 9%44 to 0%44 oNcloc; in the *orning of ./ !ul+ .833, respondent Calaunan, together $ith =arcelo =endoBa, $as on his $a+ to =anila fro* Pangasinan on board his o$ner-t+pe )eep. <he Philippine 'abbit Bus $as li;e$ise bound for =anila fro* Concepcion, <arlac. At appro2i*atel+ Pilo*eter 14 of the North -uBon E2press$a+ in Baranga+ -alangan, Plaridel, Bulacan, the t$o vehicles collided. <he front right side of the Philippine 'abbit Bus hit the rear left side of the )eep causing the latter to *ove to the shoulder on the right and then fall on a ditch $ith $ater resulting to further e2tensive da*age. <he bus veered to the left and stopped 0 to 3 *eters fro* point of collision. 'espondent suffered *inor in)uries $hile his driver $as unhurt. "e $as first brought for treat*ent to the =anila Central :niversit+ "ospital in Paloo;an Cit+ b+ (scar Buan, the conductor of the Philippine 'abbit Bus, and $as later transferred to the Eeterans =e*orial =edical Center. B+ reason of such collision, a cri*inal case $as filed before the '<C of =alolos, Bulacan, charging petitioner =anliclic $ith 'ec;less I*prudence 'esulting in >a*age to Propert+ $ith Ph+sical In)uries, doc;eted as Cri*. Case No. 931-=-38. ,ubseFuentl+ on / >ece*ber .88., respondent filed a co*plaint for da*ages against petitioners =anliclic and P'B-I before the '<C of >agupan Cit+, doc;eted as Civil Case No. >-.4439. <he cri*inal case $as tried ahead of the civil case. A*ong those $ho testified in the cri*inal case $ere respondent Calaunan, =arcelo =endoBa and Fernando 'a*os. In the civil case no$ before this Court#, the parties ad*itted the follo$ing% .. <he parties agreed on the capacit+ of the parties to sue and be sued as $ell as the venue and the identities of the vehicles involvedC /. <he identit+ of the drivers and the fact that the+ are dul+ licensedC 7. <he date and place of the vehicular collisionC 1. <he e2tent of the in)uries suffered b+ plaintiff =odesto Calaunan and the e2istence of the *edical certificateC 5. <hat both vehicles $ere going to$ards the southC the private )eep being ahead of the busC 9. <hat the $eather $as fair and the road $as $ell paved and straight, although there $as a ditch on the right side $here the )eep fell into.7 &hen the civil case $as heard, counsel for respondent pra+ed that the transcripts of stenographic notes <,Ns#1of the testi*onies of respondent Calaunan, =arcelo =endoBa and Fernando 'a*os in the cri*inal case be received in evidence in the civil case in as *uch as these $itnesses are not available to testif+ in the civil case. Francisco <uliao testified that his brother-in-la$, respondent Calaunan, left for abroad so*eti*e in Nove*ber, .838 and has not returned since then. 'ogelio 'a*os too; the stand and said that his brother, Fernando 'a*os, left for A**an, !ordan, to $or;. 'osalia =endoBa testified that her husband, =arcelo =endoBa, left their residence to loo; for a )ob. ,he narrated that she thought her husband $ent to his ho*eto$n in PaniFue, <arlac, $hen he did not return after one *onth. ,he $ent to her husbandNs ho*eto$n to loo; for hi* but she $as infor*ed that he did not go there..a$phil.net <he trial court subpoenaed the Cler; of Court of Branch 3, '<C, =alolos, Bulacan, the court $here Cri*inal Case No. 931-=-38 $as tried, to bring the <,Ns of the testi*onies of respondent Calaunan,5 =arcelo =endoBa9 and Fernando 'a*os0 in said case, together $ith other docu*entar+ evidence *ar;ed therein. Instead of the Branch Cler; of Court, it $as EnriFue ,antos 6uevara, Court Interpreter, $ho appeared before the court and identified the <,Ns of the three afore-na*ed $itnesses and other pertinent docu*ents he had brought.3 Counsel for respondent $anted to *ar; other <,Ns and docu*ents fro* the said cri*inal case to be adopted in the instant case, but since the sa*e $ere not brought to the trial court, counsel for petitioners co*pro*ised that said <,Ns and docu*ents could be offered b+ counsel for respondent as rebuttal evidence. For the defendants, petitioner =anliclic and bus conductor (scar Buan testified. <he <,N8 of the testi*on+ of >onato 6aniban, investigator of the P'B-I, in Cri*inal Case No. 931-=-38 $as *ar;ed and allo$ed to be adopted in the civil case on the ground that he $as alread+ dead. 'espondent further *ar;ed, a*ong other docu*ents, as rebuttal evidence, the <,Ns.4 of the testi*onies of >onato 6aniban, (scar Buan and petitioner =anliclic in Cri*inal Case No. 931-=-38. <he disagree*ent arises fro* the Fuestion% &ho is to be held liable for the collisionH 'espondent insists it $as petitioner =anliclic $ho should be liable $hile the latter is resolute in sa+ing it $as the for*er $ho caused the s*ash up.

<he parties differed onl+ on the *anner the collision bet$een the t$o /# vehicles too; place. According to the plaintiff and his driver, the )eep $as cruising at the speed of 94 to 04 ;ilo*eters per hour on the slo$ lane of the e2press$a+ $hen

Page1

<he versions of the parties are su**ariBed b+ the trial court as follo$s%

the Philippine 'abbit Bus overtoo; the )eep and in the process of overta;ing the )eep, the Philippine 'abbit Bus hit the rear of the )eep on the left side. At the ti*e the Philippine 'abbit Bus hit the )eep, it $as about to overta;e the )eep. In other $ords, the Philippine 'abbit Bus $as still at the bac; of the )eep $hen the )eep $as hit. Fernando 'a*os corroborated the testi*on+ of the plaintiff and =arcelo =endoBa. "e said that he $as on another )eep follo$ing the Philippine 'abbit Bus and the )eep of plaintiff $hen the incident too; place. "e said, the )eep of the plaintiff overtoo; the* and the said )eep of the plaintiff $as follo$ed b+ the Philippine 'abbit Bus $hich $as running ver+ fast. <he bus also overtoo; the )eep in $hich he $as riding. After that, he heard a loud sound. "e sa$ the )eep of the plaintiff s$erved to the right on a grass+ portion of the road. <he Philippine 'abbit Bus stopped and the+ overtoo; the Philippine 'abbit Bus so that it could not *oved sic#, *eaning the+ stopped in front of the Philippine 'abbit Bus. "e testified that the )eep of plaintiff s$erved to the right because it $as bu*ped b+ the Philippine 'abbit bus fro* behind. Both =auricio =anliclic and his driver, (scar Buan ad*itted that the Philippine 'abbit Bus bu*ped the )eep in Fuestion. "o$ever, the+ e2plained that $hen the Philippine 'abbit bus $as about to go to the left lane to overta;e the )eep, the latter )eep s$erved to the left because it $as to overta;e another )eep in front of it. ,uch $as their testi*on+ before the '<C in =alolos in the cri*inal case and before this Court in the instant case. L<hus, $hich of the t$o versions of the *anner ho$ the collision too; place $as correct, $ould be deter*inative of $ho bet$een the t$o drivers $as negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles.M.. Petitioner P'B-I *aintained that it observed and e2ercised the diligence of a good father of a fa*il+ in the selection and supervision of its e*plo+ee, specificall+ petitioner =anliclic. (n // !ul+ .889, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of respondent Calaunan and against petitioners =anliclic and P'B-I. <he dispositive portion of its decision reads% &"E'EF('E, )udg*ent is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the said defendants to pa+ plaintiff )ointl+ and solidaril+ the a*ount of P14,373.44 as actual da*ages for the to$ing as $ell as the repair and the *aterials used for the repair of the )eep in FuestionC P.44,444.44 as *oral da*ages and another P.44,444.44 as e2e*plar+ da*ages and P.5,444.44 as attorne+Ns fees, including appearance fees of the la$+er. In addition, the defendants are also to pa+ costs../ Petitioners appealed the decision via Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals..7 In a decision dated /3 ,epte*ber /44., the Court of Appeals, finding no reversible error in the decision of the trial court, affir*ed it in all respects..1 Petitioners are no$ before us b+ $a+ of petition for revie$ assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. <he+ assign as errors the follo$ing% I <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> (N A G:E,<I(N (F -A& IN AFFI'=IN6 <"E <'IA- C(:'<N, G:E,<I(NAB-E A>=I,,I(N IN EEI>ENCE (F <"E <,NNs AN> (<"E' >(C:=EN<, P'E,EN<E> IN <"E C'I=INA- CA,E. II <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> (N A G:E,<I(N (F -A& IN AFFI'=IN6 <"E <'IA- C(:'<N, 'E-IANCE (N <"E EE',I(N (F <"E 'E,P(N>EN< (N "(& <"E ACCI>EN< ,:PP(,E>-I (CC:''E>. III <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> (N A G:E,<I(N (F -A& IN AFFI'=IN6 <"E <'IA- C(:'<N, :NFAI' >I,'E6A'> (F "E'EIN PE<I<I(NE' P'B-Ns >EFEN,E (F EUE'CI,E (F >:E >I-I6ENCE IN <"E ,E-EC<I(N AN> ,:PE'EI,I(N (F I<, E=P-(IEE,. IE <"E C(:'< (F APPEA-, E''E> (N A G:E,<I(N (F -A& IN AFFI'=IN6 <"E <'IA- C(:'<N, G:E,<I(NAB-E A&A'> (F >A=A6E, AN> A<<('NEIN, FEE. &ith the passing a$a+ of respondent Calaunan during the pendenc+ of this appeal $ith this Court, $e granted the =otion for the ,ubstitution of 'espondent filed b+ his $ife, =rs. Precila Karate Eda. >e Calaunan, and children, Eirgilio Calaunan, Car*elita "one+co*b, Evel+n Calaunan, =ar;o Calaunan and -i$a+$a+ Calaunan..5 In their 'epl+ to respondentNs Co**ent, petitioners infor*ed this Court of a >ecision.9 of the Court of Appeals acFuitting petitioner =anliclic of the charge.0 of 'ec;less I*prudence 'esulting in >a*age to Propert+ $ith Ph+sical In)uries attaching thereto a photocop+ thereof. (n the first assigned error, petitioners argue that the <,Ns containing the testi*onies of respondent Calaunan,.3=arcelo =endoBa.8 and Fernando 'a*os/4 should not be ad*itted in evidence for failure of respondent to co*pl+ $ith the reFuisites of ,ection 10, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court. For ,ection 10, 'ule .74/. to appl+, the follo$ing reFuisites *ust be satisfied% a# the $itness is dead or unable to testif+C b# his testi*on+ or deposition $as given in a for*er case or proceeding, )udicial or ad*inistrative, bet$een the sa*e parties or those representing the sa*e interestsC c# the for*er case involved the sa*e sub)ect as that in the present case, although on different causes of actionC d# the issue testified to b+ the $itness in the for*er trial is the sa*e issue involved in the present caseC and e# the adverse part+ had an opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine the $itness in the for*er case.// Ad*ittedl+, respondent failed to sho$ the concurrence of all the reFuisites set forth b+ the 'ules for a testi*on+ given in a for*er case or proceeding to be ad*issible as an e2ception to the hearsa+ rule. Petitioner P'B-I, not being a part+ in Cri*inal Case No. 931-=-38, had no opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine the three $itnesses in said case. <he cri*inal case $as filed e2clusivel+ against petitioner =anliclic, petitioner P'B-INs e*plo+ee. <he cases dealing $ith the subsidiar+ liabilit+ of e*plo+ers unifor*l+ declare that, strictl+ spea;ing, the+ are not parties to the cri*inal cases instituted against their e*plo+ees./7

Page1

Not$ithstanding the fact that petitioner P'B-I $as not a part+ in said cri*inal case, the testi*onies of the three $itnesses are still ad*issible on the ground that petitioner P'B-I failed to ob)ect on their ad*issibilit+. It is ele*entar+ that an ob)ection shall be *ade at the ti*e $hen an alleged inad*issible docu*ent is offered in evidenceC other$ise, the ob)ection shall be treated as $aived, since the right to ob)ect is *erel+ a privilege $hich the part+ *a+ $aive. <hus, a failure to e2cept to the evidence because it does not confor* to the statute is a $aiver of the provisions of the la$. Even assu*ing e2 gratia argu*enti that these docu*ents are inad*issible for being hearsa+, but on account of failure to ob)ect thereto, the sa*e *a+ be ad*itted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted./1 "earsa+ evidence alone *a+ be insufficient to establish a fact in a suit but, $hen no ob)ection is *ade thereto, it is, li;e an+ other evidence, to be considered and given the i*portance it deserves./5 In the case at bar, petitioner P'B-I did not ob)ect to the <,Ns containing the testi*onies of respondent Calaunan, =arcelo =endoBa and Fernando 'a*os in the cri*inal case $hen the sa*e $ere offered in evidence in the trial court. In fact, the <,Ns of the testi*onies of Calaunan and =endoBa $ere ad*itted b+ both petitioners./9=oreover, petitioner P'B-I even offered in evidence the <,N containing the testi*on+ of >onato 6aniban in the cri*inal case. If petitioner P'B-I argues that the <,Ns of the testi*onies of plaintiffNs $itnesses in the cri*inal case should not be ad*itted in the instant case, $h+ then did it offer the <,N of the testi*on+ of 6aniban $hich $as given in the cri*inal caseH It appears that petitioner P'B-I $ants to have its ca;e and eat it too. It cannot argue that the <,Ns of the testi*onies of the $itnesses of the adverse part+ in the cri*inal case should not be ad*itted and at the sa*e ti*e insist that the <,N of the testi*on+ of the $itness for the accused be ad*itted in its favor. <o disallo$ ad*ission in evidence of the <,Ns of the testi*onies of Calaunan, =arcelo =endoBa and Fernando 'a*os in the cri*inal case and to ad*it the <,N of the testi*on+ of 6aniban $ould be unfair. &e do not subscribe to petitioner P'B-INs argu*ent that it $ill be denied due process $hen the <,Ns of the testi*onies of Calaunan, =arcelo =endoBa and Fernando 'a*os in the cri*inal case are to be ad*itted in the civil case. It is too late for petitioner P'B-I to raise denial of due process in relation to ,ection 10, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court, as a ground for ob)ecting to the ad*issibilit+ of the <,Ns. For failure to ob)ect at the proper ti*e, it $aived its right to ob)ect that the <,Ns did not co*pl+ $ith ,ection 10. In =angio v. Court of Appeals,/0 this Court, through Associate !ustice 'e+nato ,. Puno,/3 ad*itted in evidence a <,N of the testi*on+ of a $itness in another case despite therein petitionerNs assertion that he $ould be denied due process. In ad*itting the <,N, the Court ruled that the raising of denial of due process in relation to ,ection 10, 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court, as a ground for ob)ecting to the ad*issibilit+ of the <,N $as belatedl+ done. In so doing, therein petitioner $aived his right to ob)ect based on said ground. Petitioners contend that the docu*ents in the cri*inal case should not have been ad*itted in the instant civil case because ,ection 10 of 'ule .74 refers onl+ to "testi*on+ or deposition." &e find such contention to be untenable. <hough said section spea;s onl+ of testi*on+ and deposition, it does not *ean that docu*ents fro* a for*er case or proceeding cannot be ad*itted. ,aid docu*ents can be ad*itted the+ being part of the testi*onies of $itnesses that have been ad*itted. Accordingl+, the+ shall be given the sa*e $eight as that to $hich the testi*on+ *a+ be entitled./8 (n the second assigned error, petitioners contend that the version of petitioner =anliclic as to ho$ the accident occurred is *ore credible than respondentNs version. <he+ anchor their contention on the fact that petitioner =anliclic $as acFuitted b+ the Court of Appeals of the charge of 'ec;less I*prudence 'esulting in >a*age to Propert+ $ith Ph+sical In)uries. <o be resolved b+ the Court is the effect of petitioner =anliclicNs acFuittal in the civil case. Fro* the co*plaint, it can be gathered that the civil case for da*ages $as one arising fro*, or based on, Fuasidelict.74 Petitioner =anliclic $as sued for his negligence or rec;less i*prudence in causing the collision, $hile petitioner P'B-I $as sued for its failure to e2ercise the diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision of its e*plo+ees, particularl+ petitioner =anliclic. <he allegations read% "1. <hat so*eti*e on !ul+ ./, .833 at around 9%/4 A.=. plaintiff $as on board the above-described *otor vehicle travelling at a *oderate speed along the North -uBon E2press$a+ heading ,outh to$ards =anila together $ith =A'CE-( =EN>(KA, $ho $as then driving the sa*eC "5. <hat appro2i*atel+ at ;ilo*eter 14 of the North -uBon E2press &a+, the above-described *otor vehicle $as suddenl+ bu*ped fro* behind b+ a Philippine 'abbit Bus $ith Bod+ No. 757 and $ith plate No. CE> 103 then being driven b+ one =auricio =anliclic of ,an !ose, Concepcion, <arlac, $ho $as then travelling rec;lessl+ at a ver+ fast speed and had apparentl+ lost control of his vehicleC "9. <hat as a result of the i*pact of the collision the above-described *otor vehicle $as forced off the North -uBon E2press &a+ to$ards the rightside $here it fell on its driverNs side on a ditch, and that as a conseFuence, the abovedescribed *otor vehicle $hich *a+be valued at EI6"<I <"(:,AN> PE,(, P34,444# $as rendered a total $rec; as sho$n b+ pictures to be presented during the pre-trial and trial of this caseC "0. <hat also as a result of said incident, plaintiff sustained bodil+ in)uries $hich co*pounded plaintiffNs frail ph+sical condition and reFuired his hospitaliBation fro* !ul+ ./, .833 up to and until !ul+ //, .833, cop+ of the *edical certificate is hereto attached as Anne2 "A" and *ade an integral part hereofC "3. <hat the vehicular collision resulting in the total $rec;age of the above-described *otor vehicle as $ell as bodil+ sic# sustained b+ plaintiff, $as solel+ due to the rec;less i*prudence of the defendant driver =auricio =anliclic $ho drove his Philippine 'abbit Bus No. 757 at a fast speed $ithout due regard or observance of e2isting traffic rules and regulationsC "8. <hat defendant Philippine 'abbit Bus -ine Corporation failed to e2ercise the diligence of a good father of sic# fa*il+ in the selection and supervision of its driversC 2 2 2"7. Can =anliclic still be held liable for the collision and be found negligent not$ithstanding the declaration of the Court of Appeals that there $as an absence of negligence on his partH

Page1

In e2onerating petitioner =anliclic in the cri*inal case, the Court of Appeals said%

<o the follo$ing findings of the court a Fuo, to $it% that accused-appellant $as negligent "$hen the bus he $as driving bu*ped the )eep fro* behind"C that "the pro2i*ate cause of the accident $as his having driven the bus at a great speed $hile closel+ follo$ing the )eep"C 2 2 2 &e do not agree. <he s$erving of CalaunanNs )eep $hen it tried to overta;e the vehicle in front of it $as be+ond the control of accusedappellant. 2222 Absent evidence of negligence, therefore, accused-appellant cannot be held liable for 'ec;less I*prudence 'esulting in >a*age to Propert+ $ith Ph+sical In)uries as defined in Article 795 of the 'evised Penal Code.7/ Fro* the foregoing declaration of the Court of Appeals, it appears that petitioner =anliclic $as acFuitted not on reasonable doubt, but on the ground that he is not the author of the act co*plained of $hich is based on ,ection / b# of 'ule ... of the 'ules of Cri*inal Procedure $hich reads% b# E2tinction of the penal action does not carr+ $ith it e2tinction of the civil, unless the e2tinction proceeds fro* a declaration in a final )udg*ent that the fact fro* $hich the civil *ight arise did not e2ist. In spite of said ruling, petitioner =anliclic can still be held liable for the *ishap. <he afore-Fuoted section applies onl+ to a civil action arising fro* cri*e or e2 delicto and not to a civil action arising fro* Fuasi-delict or culpa aFuiliana. <he e2tinction of civil liabilit+ referred to in Par. e# of ,ection 7, 'ule ... Lno$ ,ection / b# of 'ule ...M, refers e2clusivel+ to civil liabilit+ founded on Article .44 of the 'evised Penal Code, $hereas the civil liabilit+ for the sa*e act considered as a Fuasi-delict onl+ and not as a cri*e is not e2tinguished even b+ a declaration in the cri*inal case that the cri*inal act charged has not happened or has not been co**itted b+ the accused.77 A Fuasi-delict or culpa aFuiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code $ith a substantivit+ all its o$n, and individualit+ that is entirel+ apart and independent fro* a delict or cri*e R a distinction e2ists bet$een the civil liabilit+ arising fro* a cri*e and the responsibilit+ for Fuasi-delicts or culpa e2tra-contractual. <he sa*e negligence causing da*ages *a+ produce civil liabilit+ arising fro* a cri*e under the Penal Code, or create an action for Fuasi-delicts or culpa e2tracontractual under the Civil Code.71 It is no$ settled that acFuittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilt+, does not carr+ $ith it the e2tinction of the civil liabilit+ based on Fuasi delict.75 In other $ords, if an accused is acFuitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil liabilit+ arising fro* the cri*e *a+ be proved b+ preponderance of evidence onl+. "o$ever, if an accused is acFuitted on the basis that he $as not the author of the act or o*ission co*plained of or that there is declaration in a final )udg*ent that the fact fro* $hich the civil *ight arise did not e2ist#, said acFuittal closes the door to civil liabilit+ based on the cri*e or e2 delicto. In this second instance, there being no cri*e or delict to spea; of, civil liabilit+ based thereon or e2 delicto is not possible. In this case, a civil action, if an+, *a+ be instituted on grounds other than the delict co*plained of. As regards civil liabilit+ arising fro* Fuasi-delict or culpa aFuiliana, sa*e $ill not be e2tinguished b+ an acFuittal, $hether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused $as not the author of the act or o*ission co*plained of or that there is declaration in a final )udg*ent that the fact fro* $hich the civil liabilit+ *ight arise did not e2ist#. <he responsibilit+ arising fro* fault or negligence in a Fuasi-delict is entirel+ separate and distinct fro* the civil liabilit+ arising fro* negligence under the Penal Code.79 An acFuittal or conviction in the cri*inal case is entirel+ irrelevant in the civil case70 based on Fuasi-delict or culpa aFuiliana. Petitioners as; us to give credence to their version of ho$ the collision occurred and to disregard that of respondentNs. Petitioners insist that $hile the P'B-I bus $as in the process of overta;ing respondentNs )eep, the latter, $ithout $arning, suddenl+ s$erved to the left fast# lane in order to overta;e another )eep ahead of it, thus causing the collision. As a general rule, Fuestions of fact *a+ not be raised in a petition for revie$. <he factual findings of the trial court, especiall+ $hen affir*ed b+ the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on the ,upre*e Court.73 Not being a trier of facts, this Court $ill not allo$ a revie$ thereof unless% .# the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel+ on speculation, sur*ise and con)ectureC /# the inference *ade is *anifestl+ *ista;enC 7# there is grave abuse of discretionC 1# the )udg*ent is based on a *isapprehension of factsC 5# the findings of fact are conflictingC 9# the Court of Appeals $ent be+ond the issues of the case and its findings are contrar+ to the ad*issions of both appellant and appelleesC 0# the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrar+ to those of the trial courtC 3# said findings of fact are conclusions $ithout citation of specific evidence on $hich the+ are basedC 8# the facts set forth in the petition as $ell as in the petitioner@s *ain and repl+ briefs are not disputed b+ the respondentsC and .4# the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are pre*ised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted b+ the evidence on record.78 After going over the evidence on record, $e do not find an+ of the e2ceptions that $ould $arrant our departure fro* the general rule. &e full+ agree in the finding of the trial court, as affir*ed b+ the Court of Appeals, that it $as petitioner =anliclic $ho $as negligent in driving the P'B-I bus $hich $as the cause of the collision. In giving credence to the version of the respondent, the trial court has this sa+% 2 2 2 <hus, $hich of the t$o versions of the *anner ho$ the collision too; place $as correct, $ould be deter*inative of $ho bet$een the t$o drivers $as negligent in the operation of their respective vehicle. In this regard, it should be noted that in the state*ent of =auricio =anliclic E2h. .5# given to the Philippine 'abbit Investigator CE Cabading no *ention $as *ade b+ hi* about the fact that the driver of the )eep $as overta;ing another )eep $hen the collision too; place. <he allegation that another )eep $as being overta;en b+ the )eep of Calaunan $as testified to b+ hi* onl+ in Cri*. Case No. 931-=-38 before the 'egional <rial Court in =alolos, Bulacan and before this Court. Evidentl+, it $as a product of an afterthought on the part of =auricio =anliclic so that he could e2plain $h+ he should not be held responsible for the incident. "is atte*pt to veer a$a+ fro* the truth $as also apparent $hen it $ould be considered that in his state*ent given to the Philippine 'abbit Investigator CE Cabading E2h. .5#, he alleged that the Philippine 'abbit Bus bu*ped the )eep of Calaunan $hile the Philippine 'abbit Bus $as behind the said )eep. In his testi*on+ before the 'egional <rial Court in =alolos, Bulacan as $ell as in this Court, he alleged that the Philippine 'abbit Bus $as alread+ on the left side of the )eep $hen the collision too; place. For this inconsistenc+ bet$een his state*ent and testi*on+, his e2planation regarding the *anner of ho$ the collision bet$een the )eep and the bus too; place should be

Page1

ta;en $ith caution. It *ight be true that in the state*ent of (scar Buan given to the Philippine 'abbit Investigator CE Cabading, it $as *entioned b+ the for*er that the )eep of plaintiff $as in the act of overta;ing another )eep $hen the collision bet$een the latter )eep and the Philippine 'abbit Bus too; place. But the fact, ho$ever, that his state*ent $as given on !ul+ .5, .833, one da+ after =auricio =anliclic gave his state*ent should not escape attention. <he one-da+ difference bet$een the giving of the t$o state*ents $ould be significant enough to entertain the possibilit+ of (scar Buan having received legal advise before giving his state*ent. Apart fro* that, as bet$een his state*ent and the state*ent of =anliclic hi*self, the state*ent of the latter should prevail. Besides, in his Affidavit of =arch .4, .838, E2h. .1#, the unreliabilit+ of the state*ent of (scar Buan E2h. .7# given to CE Cabading rear its "ugl+ head" $hen he did not *ention in said affidavit that the )eep of Calaunan $as tr+ing to overta;e another )eep $hen the collision bet$een the )eep in Fuestion and the Philippine 'abbit bus too; place. 2222 If one $ould believe the testi*on+ of the defendant, =auricio =anliclic, and his conductor, (scar Buan, that the Philippine 'abbit Bus $as alread+ so*e$hat parallel to the )eep $hen the collision too; place, the point of collision on the )eep should have been so*e$hat on the left side thereof rather than on its rear. Further*ore, the )eep should have fallen on the road itself rather than having been forced off the road. :seless, li;e$ise to e*phasiBe that the Philippine 'abbit $as running ver+ fast as testified to b+ 'a*os $hich $as not controverted b+ the defendants.14 "aving ruled that it $as petitioner =anliclicNs negligence that caused the s*ash up, there arises the )uris tantu* presu*ption that the e*plo+er is negligent, rebuttable onl+ b+ proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a fa*il+.1. :nder Article /.341/ of the Ne$ Civil Code, $hen an in)ur+ is caused b+ the negligence of the e*plo+ee, there instantl+ arises a presu*ption of la$ that there $as negligence on the part of the *aster or e*plo+er either in the selection of the servant or e*plo+ee, or in supervision over hi* after selection or both. <he liabilit+ of the e*plo+er under Article /.34 is direct and i**ediateC it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent e*plo+ee and a prior sho$ing of the insolvenc+ of such e*plo+ee. <herefore, it is incu*bent upon the private respondents to prove that the+ e2ercised the diligence of a good father of a fa*il+ in the selection and supervision of their e*plo+ee.17 In the case at bar, petitioner P'B-I *aintains that it had sho$n that it e2ercised the reFuired diligence in the selection and supervision of its e*plo+ees, particularl+ petitioner =anliclic. In the *atter of selection, it sho$ed the screening process that petitioner =anliclic under$ent before he beca*e a regular driver. As to the e2ercise of due diligence in the supervision of its e*plo+ees, it argues that presence of read+ investigators 6aniban and Cabading# is sufficient proof that it e2ercised the reFuired due diligence in the supervision of its e*plo+ees. In the selection of prospective e*plo+ees, e*plo+ers are reFuired to e2a*ine the* as to their Fualifications, e2perience and service records. In the supervision of e*plo+ees, the e*plo+er *ust for*ulate standard operating procedures, *onitor their i*ple*entation and i*pose disciplinar+ *easures for the breach thereof. <o fend off vicarious liabilit+, e*plo+ers *ust sub*it concrete proof, including docu*entar+ evidence, that the+ co*plied $ith ever+thing that $as incu*bent on the*.11 In =etro =anila <ransit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,15 it $as e2plained that% >ue diligence in the supervision of e*plo+ees on the other hand, includes the for*ulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of e*plo+ees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons $ith $ho* the e*plo+er has relations through his or its e*plo+ees and the i*position of necessar+ disciplinar+ *easures upon e*plo+ees in case of breach or as *a+ be $arranted to ensure the perfor*ance of acts indispensable to the business of and beneficial to their e*plo+er. <o this, $e add that actual i*ple*entation and *onitoring of consistent co*pliance $ith said rules should be the constant concern of the e*plo+er, acting through dependable supervisors $ho should regularl+ report on their supervisor+ functions. In order that the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of e*plo+ees *a+ be dee*ed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough to e*ptil+ invo;e the e2istence of said co*pan+ guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision. As the negligence of the e*plo+ee gives rise to the presu*ption of negligence on the part of the e*plo+er, the latter has the burden of proving that it has been diligent not onl+ in the selection of e*plo+ees but also in the actual supervision of their $or;. <he *ere allegation of the e2istence of hiring procedures and supervisor+ policies, $ithout an+thing *ore, is decidedl+ not sufficient to overco*e such presu*ption. &e e*phaticall+ reiterate our holding, as a $arning to all e*plo+ers, that "the for*ulation of various co*pan+ policies on safet+ $ithout sho$ing that the+ $ere being co*plied $ith is not sufficient to e2e*pt petitioner fro* liabilit+ arising fro* negligence of its e*plo+ees. It is incu*bent upon petitioner to sho$ that in recruiting and e*plo+ing the erring driver the recruit*ent procedures and co*pan+ policies on efficienc+ and safet+ $ere follo$ed." 2 2 2. <he trial court found that petitioner P'B-I e2ercised the diligence of a good father of a fa*il+ in the selection but not in the supervision of its e*plo+ees. It e2pounded as follo$s% Fro* the evidence of the defendants, it see*s that the Philippine 'abbit Bus -ines has a ver+ good procedure of recruiting its driver as $ell as in the *aintenance of its vehicles. <here is no evidence though that it is as good in the supervision of its personnel. <here has been no iota of evidence introduced b+ it that there are rules pro*ulgated b+ the bus co*pan+ regarding the safe operation of its vehicle and in the $a+ its driver should *anage and operate the vehicles assigned to the*. <here is no sho$ing that so*ebod+ in the bus co*pan+ has been e*plo+ed to oversee ho$ its driver should behave $hile operating their vehicles $ithout courting incidents si*ilar to the herein case. In regard to supervision, it is not difficult to observe that the Philippine 'abbit Bus -ines, Inc. has been negligent as an e*plo+er and it should be *ade responsible for the acts of its e*plo+ees, particularl+ the driver involved in this case. &e agree. <he presence of read+ investigators after the occurrence of the accident is not enough to e2e*pt petitioner P'B-I fro* liabilit+ arising fro* the negligence of petitioner =anliclic. ,a*e does not co*pl+ $ith the guidelines set forth in the cases above-*entioned. <he presence of the investigators after the accident is not enough supervision. 'egular supervision of e*plo+ees, that is, prior to an+ accident, should have been sho$n and established. <his, petitioner failed to do. <he lac; of supervision can further be seen b+ the fact that there is onl+ one set of *anual containing the rules and regulations for all the drivers of P'B-I. 19 "o$ then can all the drivers of petitioner P'B-I ;no$ and be continuall+ infor*ed of the rules and regulations $hen onl+ one *anual is being lent to all the driversH For failure to adduce proof that it e2ercised the diligence of a good father of a fa*il+ in the selection and supervision of its e*plo+ees, petitioner P'B-I is held solidaril+ responsible for the da*ages caused b+ petitioner =anliclicNs negligence.

Page1

&e no$ go to the a$ard of da*ages. <he trial court correctl+ a$arded the a*ount of P14,373.44 as actual da*ages representing the a*ount paid b+ respondent for the to$ing and repair of his )eep.10 As regards the a$ards for *oral and e2e*plar+ da*ages, sa*e, under the circu*stances, *ust be *odified. <he P.44,444.44 a$arded b+ the trial court as *oral da*ages *ust be reduced to P54,444.44.13 E2e*plar+ da*ages are i*posed b+ $a+ of e2a*ple or correction for the public good.18 <he a*ount a$arded b+ the trial court *ust, li;e$ise, be lo$ered to P54,444.44.54 <he a$ard of P.5,444.44 for attorne+Ns fees and e2penses of litigation is in order and authoriBed b+ la$.5. &"E'EF('E, pre*ises considered, the instant petition for revie$ is >ENIE>. <he decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-6.'. CE No. 55848 is AFFI'=E> $ith the =(>IFICA<I(N that .# the a$ard of *oral da*ages shall be reduced to P54,444.44C and /# the a$ard of e2e*plar+ da*ages shall be lo$ered to P54,444.44. Costs against petitioners. ,( ('>E'E>. 6.'. No. .578.. >ece*ber .4, /441

=E-ANI( =A--A'I + -IBE'A<(, petitioner, vs. PE(P-E (F <"E P"I-IPPINE,, respondent.

>ECI,I(N

PAN6ANIBAN, !.% <o $arrant conviction based on circu*stantial evidence, the totalit+ of the circu*stances *ust eli*inate be+ond reasonable doubt the possibilit+ of innocenceC other$ise, the accused *ust be acFuitted. <he Case Before us is a Petition for 'evie$. on Certiorari under 'ule 15 in relation to 'ule ./5 of the 'ules of Court, see;ing "to reverse, set aside, nullif+ andDor *odif+" the >ece*ber .3, /44. >ecision/ of the Court of Appeals CA# in CA-6' C' No. .345.. <he dispositive portion of that >ecision states% "&"E'EF('E, foregoing pre*ises considered, the decision appealed fro* is =(>IFIE>. Accused-appellants =elanio =allari and Kald+ Bontia, as $ell as -eonardo Bontia are found guilt+ of Atte*pted =urder punishable under Article /13 in relation to Article 9 of the 'evised Penal Code for $hich the+ are ,EN<ENCE> to four 1# +ears and t$o /# *onths of prision correccional, as *ini*u*, to ten .4# +ears of prision *a+or, as *a2i*u*. <he a$ard $ith respect to da*ages and costs stand."7 In its =a+ .1, /44/ 'esolution,1 the CA denied petitionerNs =otion for 'econsideration of the assailed >ecision. <he Facts Eersion of the Prosecution <he factual bac;ground of the case, as related b+ the Court of Appeals5 based on prosecution evidence, is as follo$s% "<he records sho$ that private co*plainant Erlinda Bo+ose $as a teacher at the Busta*ante "igh ,chool, >avao Cit+ fro* .800 up to .838. At the start, she had a good $or;ing relationship $ith the school principal, appellant =elanio =allari. "o$ever, their relationship turned sour $hen she began to Fuestion appellant =allari on alleged unaccounted school funds. "(n !une /8, .838 at about 8%44 oNcloc; in the *orning, $hile Bo+ose $as at the 6uidance (ffice, a *an approached her and as;ed if he can still enroll his nephe$. As enroll*ent $as alread+ closed, she advised the *an to see =allari, $ho is the school principal. "<hereafter, Bo+ose $ent to her classroo*. About t$ent+ *inutes later, the *an approached her again. =eeting hi* b+ the door, she as;ed the *an if he $as able to tal; to =allari. <he *an ans$ered that the principal $as not in his office. ,o, she advised the *an to )ust return the follo$ing da+. "In the afternoon, Bo+ose rode on a )eepne+ bound for ,asa, >avao. ,he observed that the *an $ho tal;ed to her in the *orning $as also in the sa*e )eepne+. ,he then inFuired fro* hi* if he $as able to tal; to the principal regarding the enroll*ent of his nephe$ but the *an )ust ignored her. "&hile the+ $ere near P*. .7, Panacan, >avao Cit+, the said *an dre$ and pointed a gun at Bo+oseNs te*ple. Bo+ose heard t$o successive clic;ing sounds of the gun but it did not fire. ,he heard the *an utter in the Cebuano dialect, O:nsa *an ni, dili *an ni *obotoN, *eaning O&hatNs this, this $ill not fire.N ,he then grabbed the gun and grappled for its possession. But she failed. Eventuall+, she $as able to get out of the )eepne+ and ran a$a+ but the *an follo$ed her and shot her repeatedl+. "Bo+ose $as hit in the lo$er *outh and at her bac;. ,he shouted for help. A *an helped her and brought her to the ,an Pedro "ospital $here she $as treated and confined. "Police*an 'e*o Pagal of the ,asa Police ,tation $as one of those $ho $ent to the cri*e scene on !une /8, .838 to investigate. But nothing ca*e out of it. "e $as onl+ able to get the description of the gun*an the follo$ing da+ $hen he intervie$ed the victi* at the hospital. "<he police investigators $ere able to get the lead $hen a certain And+ =agdadaro $ent to the ,asa Police ,tation and told Police*an Pagal that he ;ne$ so*ething about the shooting of Erlinda Bo+ose. "e told the said police investigator that he $as as;ed b+ one Ed$in A*parado to ;ill Bo+ose but the plan $as not carried out. "e pointed to accused-appellant Kald+ Bontia as the *an $ho hired A*parado to loo; for a trigger*an.

Page1

"<hus, Ed$in A*parado $as pic;ed up b+ the police. &hile in the police station $here he $as brought, he told the police investigators that in one occasion, he $ent to the house of appellant =allari and the latter as;ed hi* to ;ill Bo+ose $ho used to be his neighbor at >oQa Pilar Eillage but the sa*e did not push thru. "e later offered this )ob to And+ =agdadaro $ho $as his neighbor in Agdao. <he+ tal;ed about the plan to ;ill Bo+ose and =agdadaro $as onl+ $aiting for his go-signal. At the police station, he e2ecuted an affidavit regarding the offer of =allari to ;ill Bo+ose. "(n August ., .838, at around 7%44 p.*., Pagal together $ith other police*en fro* the ,asa Police ,tation arrested appellant Kald+ Bontia near the house of accused-appellant =allari. Kald+ allegedl+ ad*itted participation in the incident and i*plicated his brother -eonardo Bontia as the gun*an. <he police lost no ti*e in going to Asuncion, >avao del Norte to arrest -eonardo Bontia. "-eonardo Bontia $as brought to the ,asa Police ,tation at about /%44 p.*. of August /, .838. -ater that da+, a police line-up $as conducted and Bo+ose identified accused -eonardo Bontia as the gun*an. ,he li;e$ise identified accusedappellant Kald+ Bontia to be the constant co*panion and protjgj of accused-appellant =allari. "&hen the custodial investigation $as about to start, the Bontia brothers $ere apprised b+ police investigators Anastacio Naive of their rights under the Constitution. &hen as;ed b+ Naive if the+ had a la$+er to assist the*, the+ told hi* that the+ had none. Naive then stopped the investigation and called the PA( office for assistance. At around 5%44 p.*. on that da+, Att+. !onathan !ocu*,[[ a PA( la$+er arrived. Pfc. Naive then as;ed the Bontia brothers if the+ $anted to be represented b+ Att+. !ocu* and the+ said the+ are agreeable. ">uring the custodial investigation, -eonardo Bontia ad*itted to be the gun*an. "e pointed to appellant =allari as the one $ho hired hi* to ;ill Bo+ose. (n the LotherM hand, Kald+ Bontia ad*itted to have been hired b+ =allari to loo; for a gun*an to ;ill Erlinda Bo+ose and that he $as the one $ho reco**ended to =allari his brother -eonardo Bontia to do the )ob for a fee. "=elanio =allari, -eonardo Bontia and Kald+ Bontia, $ere accordingl+ charged b+ Asst. Cit+ Prosecutor !ose E**anuel =. Castillo of the cri*e of Frustrated =urder, in an Infor*ation alleging R O<hat on or about !une /8, .838, in the Cit+ of >avao, Philippines and $ithin the )urisdiction of this "onorable Court, the above-*entioned accused =elanio =allari, directl+ interested in the death of Erlinda P. Bo+ose, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, accused =elanio =allari induced his co-accused -eonardo Bontia and Kald+ Bontia, the latter convincing his brother -eonardo Bontia of the plan to ;ill said Erlinda P. Bo+ose b+ giving price andDor offering a re$ard to ;ill said Erlinda P. Bo+ose and $hich price andDor offer $as accepted b+ said -eonardo Bontia and Kald+ BontiaC that in pursuance of said conspirac+ said accused -eonardo Bontia, $ith treacher+ and evident pre*editation, $illfull+, unla$full+ and feloniousl+ assaulted, and shot $ith a caliber // =agnu* ho*e*ade revolver and hit said Erlinda Bo+ose, thereb+ inflicting upon her the follo$ing, to $it% OAE:-,I(N. -(&E' -IP AN> NAPE ,EC(N>A'I <( 6:N,"(< &(:N> &I<" >I,P-ACE=EN< (F <EE<" (N =AN>IB-EC F('EI6N B(>I, 6-1-5 -EEE- $hich in)uries $ould ordinaril+ cause the death of the said Erlinda Bo+ose, thus perfor*ing all the acts of e2ecution $hich should have produced the cri*e of *urder as a conseFuence, but nevertheless did not produce it b+ reason of causes independent of their $ill, that is the ti*el+ shout and cr+ for help of Erlinda Bo+ose that as a result of $hich i**ediate assistance $as had fro* a *e*ber of a coast guard and b+ the ti*el+ and able *edical assistance rendered to the said Erlinda Bo+ose $hich prevented her death.N"9 >uring their arraign*ent,0 all the accused pleaded not guilt+. <hereafter, herein Petitioner =allari *oved for a separate trial, $hich $as granted b+ the trial court in its (rder dated ,epte*ber .3, .884. In his separate trial, =allari did not present evidence to establish his innocence or to refute the prosecutionNs evidence against hi*. Instead, he *oved for dis*issal b+ $a+ of de*urrer to evidence $hich, ho$ever, the trial court denied in its (rder dated !ul+ /, .88/. <hereafter, although given a*ple ti*e and granted nu*erous postpone*ents over about a +ear, petitioner failed to present an+ $itness in his favor. Even in its =e*orandu*, the defense did not present its version of facts. 'uling of the <rial Court After evaluating the evidence on record, the '<C concluded that there $as conspirac+ a*ong the three accused, although -eonardo Bontia $as alone $hen he shot Erlinda Bo+ose. It held herein Petitioner =allari liable as principal b+ induce*ent, -eonardo Bontia as principal b+ direct participation, and Kald+ Bontia as principal b+ indispensable cooperation, based on the follo$ing circu*stances supposedl+ establishing their co*plicit+% ".. Accused =allari has an a2e to grind against victi* Bo+ose therefore, has an interest of silencing her because of her persistent inFuiries regarding the use or *isuse of school funds under the custod+ of =allari as principal of Busta*ante Baranga+ "igh ,chool. <his is the *otive for the shooting of Erlinda Bo+ose. "/. <he contact *an Kald+ Bontia is beholden to =elanio =allari being a protjgj and a *an Frida+ of the latter $ho e2ercised *oral ascendanc+ considering that he pro*ised Kald+ a stead+ govern*ent )ob and have been e2tending cash advances in the for* of allo$ances to tide hi* over till such ti*e that he can receive a regular salar+ fro* the govern*ent. "7. -eonardo Bontia is the older brother of Kald+ $ho at that ti*e the )ob $as offered to hi* b+ =allari to ;ill Bo+ose $as in dire need of *one+ having eight 3# children and $ife to support. "1. -eonardo Bontia $hen confronted b+ the victi* at the police station readil+ ad*itted he shot Erlinda Bo+ose because of the *one+ he hopes to receive fro* =allari after$ards. "5. Kald+ Bontia gave P844.44 to -eonardo Bontia $hich ca*e fro* =allari so -eonardo can hide. "9. <hat Kald+ Bontia li;e$ise confessed of his participation of the cri*e after being confronted b+ the victi* at the police station. "0. Both -eonardo and Kald+ Bontia voluntaril+ e2ecuted an e2tra-)udicial state*ent regarding their co*plicit+ to the cri*e.

Page1

"3. A letter *ar;ed e2h. OIN addressed to the victi* Erlinda Bo+ose $hich clearl+ ca*e fro* -eonardo Bontia because it contained narration of events anent the cri*e and full of e2plicit details $hich onl+ the author of the shooting has personal ;no$ledge of and as;ing for forgiveness."3 <hus, the '<C disposed as follo$s% "&"E'EF('E, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused =elanio =allari as principal b+ induce*ent, -eonardo Bontia as principal b+ direct participation and Kald+ Bontia as principal b+ indispensable cooperation be+ond reasonable doubt, the court finds the aforesaid three accused guilt+ of the cri*e of frustrated *urder as charged in the infor*ation. <he+ are hereb+ sentenced to suffer the indeter*inate penalt+ of 1 +ears / *onths and /4 da+s of prision correccional as the *ini*u* to .. +ears 9 *onths and /. da+s of prision *a+or as the *a2i*u* and to solidaril+ inde*nif+ the victi* Erlinda Bo+ose in the a*ount of P.5,444.44 representing loss of inco*e, P3,444.44 representing hospital and *edical e2penses, P/4,444.44 as attorne+Ns fees and P54,444.44 as *oral da*ages and to pa+ the cost."8 'uling of the Court of Appeals (n appeal, the CA essentiall+ upheld the findings and conclusions of the trial court, e2cept as to the stage of the cri*e co**itted. <he appellate court $as convinced that petitioner $as the one $ho had induced the Bontia brothers to ;ill Bo+ose, despite the absence of direct evidence sho$ing his participation in the cri*e charged. It ratiocinated that the accused could be convicted on the basis of circu*stantial evidence. <here $as *ore than one circu*stance, the facts fro* $hich the inferences $ere derived had been proven, and the co*bination of all the circu*stances $as such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt. It further held that, in the separatel+ held trial of petitioner, there $as "no need for the prosecution to offer the evidence adduced during the trial of the Bontia brotherLs,M" considering that onl+ one cri*inal Co*plaint had been filed against all the accused. =oreover, the issue could not be raised for the first ti*e on appeal. "ence, as stated earlier, the CA *odified the trial courtNs disposition and convicted the accused-appellants of atte*pted *urder. <his Petition.4 $as filed onl+ b+ the alleged *aster*ind, =elanio =allari. Issues In his =e*orandu*, petitioner sub*its the follo$ing issues for the CourtNs consideration% "I. &hether the Fuestioned CA >ecision and the refusal b+ the Court of Appeals to reconsider it in its CA 'esolution Lare inM R accord $ith the Ocircu*stantial evidence ruleN and the controlling )urisprudence thereonC "II. &hether the Fuestioned CA >ecision and the refusal b+ the Court of Appeals to reconsider it in its CA 'esolution, upholding the trial courtNs ad*ission of an irrelevant, i**aterial and i*proper evidence co*ing fro* Ed$in A*parado# $hich $as a*ong the basis for conviction R $as in accordance $ith la$ and )urisprudenceC "III. &hether the Fuestioned CA >ecision and the refusal b+ the Court of Appeals to reconsider it in its CA 'esolution, correctl+ sustained the trial courtNs consideration of an evidence given in a separatel+ conducted trial not as against the petitioner# $hich $as a*ong the basis for convictionC and "IE. &hether the Fuestioned CA >ecision and the refusal b+ the Court of Appeals to reconsider it in its CA 'esolution, $hich failed to tac;le all the issues raised on appeal $as consistent $ith Odue processN.".. In brief, the issues raised before this Court $ill be discussed seriati* as follo$s% .# $hether the trial and the appellate courts erred in ta;ing cogniBance of evidence given in the separate trial of petitionerNs co-accusedC /# $hether there $as sufficient circu*stantial evidence to establish petitionerNs guilt be+ond reasonable doubtC and 7# $hether the Court of Appeals failed to accord due process to petitioner. <his CourtNs 'uling <he Petition is *eritorious. <he prosecution failed to adduce the Fuantu* of evidence needed for a cri*inal conviction. First Issue% Evidence Proffered in ,eparate <rial Petitioner alleges that the trial and the appellate courts convicted hi* on the basis *ainl+ of evidence adduced at the separatel+ held trial of his co-accused. "e sub*its that absent such evidence, there $ould have been no sufficient proof to establish his guilt be+ond reasonable doubt. In its =e*orandu*, the (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral (,6# si*plisticall+ contends that in the trial against petitioner, there $as no need to offer ane$ the evidence separatel+ proffered against the Bontias, because "the case Lfiled against the*M involved onl+ one case nu*ber."./'espondent fails to cite )urisprudence in support of such logic or to give even a se*blance of a sound rationale therefor. As a rule, a court should not ta;e )udicial notice of evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been brought before it or have been heard b+ and are actuall+ pending before it. <his rule is especiall+ true in cri*inal cases, in $hich the accused have the constitutional right to confront and cross-e2a*ine the $itnesses presented against the*..7 =oreover, $hen a separate trial is granted, the testi*on+ of the accused i*puting the cri*e to the co-accused is not ad*issible against the latter, $ho has had no opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine the $itnesses..1

Page1

Parentheticall+, the ob)ect of conducting a separate trial $ould be rendered naught if evidence proffered at the trial of one of the accused $ould be considered li;e$ise adduced in the distinct trial of the other accused. &hat then $ould be the rationale for reFuesting and being granted separate trialH &hile the grant of separate trials for persons )ointl+ accused of an offense is discretionar+ upon the court, the *otions therefor are usuall+ found *eritorious $hen antagonis* is apparent in the respective defenses of the accused..5 In the case before us, petitionerNs co-accused -- Kald+ and -eonardo Bontia -- e2ecuted, prior to trial, their respective e2tra)udicial confessions ad*itting their co*plicit+ in the cri*e charged and i*plicating petitioner as the *aster*ind. (n the other hand, in den+ing their accusations, petitioner stood his ground and refused to e2ecute a state*ent. Precisel+, their antagonistic defenses *ust have i*pelled hi* to see;, and the trial court to grant hi*, a separate trial. 'ecords sho$, ho$ever, that *ost of the prosecution $itnesses presented during the trial of the Bontias $ere li;e$ise presented during the separate trial of petitioner. <estif+ing against hi* on >ece*ber /4, .884, $as Pfc. >anilo Carva)al. <he latter said that, as police investigator of the ,asa Patrol ,tation, he had conducted an investigation of the shooting incident involving Erlinda Bo+ose, leading to the arrest of Kald+ and -eonardo Bontia and =elanio =allari. "e had allegedl+ ta;en the supposed e2tra)udicial confession of -eonardo Bontia $ho, after being apprised of his constitutional rights, voluntaril+ e2ecuted his ,$orn ,tate*ent in the presence of an inFuest la$+er of the Public Attorne+s (ffice PA(#..9 (n the sa*e da+, Att+. !onathan !oco* testified that he $as the PA( la$+er $ho had assisted the Bontias $hile each of the* $as under custodial investigation on August /, .838C that prior to their investigation, he had apprised the* of their constitutional rights to counsel and not to be co*pelled to *a;e an+ state*ent against their interestsC and that despite his repeated $arnings about the negative conseFuences of their state*ents, the+ nevertheless voluntaril+ e2ecuted and signed their state*ents confessing to the cri*e..0 (n April .8, .88., Pfc. Anastacio Naive testified that he had also investigated the shooting incidentC intervie$ed the victi* Erlinda Bo+ose# and the $itness Ed$in A*parado# $ho $as an alleged friend of petitionerC and that he had reduced the state*ent of Kald+ Bontia into $riting after infor*ing the latter of his constitutional rights in the presence of Att+. !oco*. Kald+ na*ed =elanio =allari as the *aster*ind $ho had as;ed hi* to loo; for a trigger*an $ho $ould "eli*inate" Bo+ose..3 <he testi*onies of Police*en Antonio Isulat and Eictoriano Padilla $ere ad*itted b+ herein petitioner, according to the stipulation of his counsel..8 Isulat $as the ,asa Patrol ,tationNs e2hibit custodian, to $ho* the gun that had allegedl+ been used in the shooting incident $as turned over. Padilla $as the des; officer $ho had recorded the Co*plaint regarding the incident on !une /8, .838, the appearance of Erlinda Bo+ose, her identification of Kald+ and -eonardo Bontia fro* a police lineup, and the appearance of Petitioner =allari at the patrol station on August /, .838. Erlinda stated/4 that she $as a classroo* teacher and guidance counselor of Busta*ante "igh ,chool, $here petitioner $as the principal fro* .837 to .838C and that initiall+, the+ had a good $or;ing relationship, $hich turned sour $hen she began inFuiring about school funds that had re*ained unaccounted for. (n =arch //, .838, she personall+ handed over to hi* a letter/. she had $ritten, re*inding hi* of, a*ong other things, so*e basic needs of the school that had re*ained un*et, such as blac;boards, chairs and co*fort roo*s for the studentsC and his failure, as the school ad*inistrator in the past five +ears, to account for fees collected fro* students. ,he then ad*onished hi* in that letter for his *oral indiscretions in officeC// reco**ended that he conduct dialoguesDdiscussions $ith teachers, students and their parents, to disclose financial reports so as to avoid suspicions of fund *isuseC and, finall+, apologiBed for having to bring up all these *atters, but e2pressed hope that it $ould all be for the i*prove*ent of the school ad*inistration. Bo+ose further testified that after reading the letter, =allari told her sarcasticall+ that he had been to so *an+ schools, but that it $as onl+ she $ho had $ritten to hi* in such a *annerC he $arned her that she "*ade a *ista;e in $riting this LletterM." Bo+ose also attested to the incidents of that fateful da+, !une /8, .838, $hich cul*inated in the atte*pt on her life b+ -eonardo Bontia. "e had as;ed her earlier that da+ in school about ho$ to enroll his nephe$ at the Busta*ante "igh ,chool. Because of the gunshot in)uries that she sustained, she had to undergo hospitaliBation for $hich she incurred e2penses. &hile the instant case $as pending trial, -eonardo Bontia supposedl+ $rote her a letter/7 as;ing for "forgiveness for the cri*e LheM had done against Lher,M" sa+ing that he $as in dire need of *one+ at the ti*e. Allegedl+, he had to go to =allari, hoping to be able to as; for so*e, but the latter instead "dared Lhi*M to discipline =rs. Bo+ose," "gave Lhi*M food and drin;s until LheM got drun;," and also pro*ised to give hi* *one+ and a )ob. Because the accused $as drun; and, thus, "out of his *ind," he supposedl+ gave in to the prodding of =allari. (nl+ t$o other $itnesses against the Bontias $ere not presented against Petitioner =allari. <he+ $ere .# Pfc. 'e*o Pagal, $ho had also participated in the investigation and allegedl+ received an infor*erNs tip that led to their arrestC and /# >r. 'oberto Alabado, $ho had treated the in)uries of the victi*./1 <he re*aining $itnesses at the separate trial of the Bontias $ere petitionerNs co-accused, Kald+ and -eonardo Bontia. It is $orth noting that despite their earlier confessions -- as attested to b+ &itnesses Carva)al, !oco* and Naive -- the Bontia brothers, assisted b+ counsel, entered a plea of not guilt+. =oreover, during their trial, the brothers denied co**itting the cri*eC ad*itted to having signed their respective state*entsC but alleged that these had been procured $ithout the assistance of counsel and $ith the police officersN use of force, inti*idation and violence./5 After reading the testi*onies of Pagal, Alabado and the t$o Bontias and revie$ing the rulings, $e find that the trial and the appellate courts could not have ta;en those testi*onies into substantial consideration, if at all, in convicting the petitioner. In fact, the testi*onies of Pagal and Alabado $ere *erel+ corroborative of those of the other $itnesses $ho $ere presented during petitionerNs trial. (n the other hand, the declarations of Kald+ and -eonardo Bontia in open court $ere, on their face, favorable to hi*. And the lo$er courtsN cogniBance of those declarations $ould not have pre)udiced hi*, as petitioner asserts. "o$ever, despite the denials b+ the Bontias, the lo$er courts still found the*, including petitioner, guilt+. &e therefore find no basis at all for the allegation of petitioner that the trial and the appellate courts convicted hi* on the ground of evidence adduced at his co-accusedNs separate trial, but supposedl+ not during his o$n trial.

,ufficienc+ of Circu*stantial Evidence

Page1

,econd Issue%

A close perusal of the testi*onies of the $itnesses presented against petitioner reveals the absence of direct evidence establishing his cri*inal participation. Nonetheless, in the absence of direct proof, a conviction *a+ still be based on circu*stantial evidence. But to $arrant such conviction, the follo$ing reFuisites *ust concur% .# there is *ore than one circu*stance, /# the facts fro* $hich the inferences are derived are proven, and 7# the co*bination of all the circu*stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt./9 Corollar+ to the constitutional precept that the accused is presu*ed innocent until the contrar+ is proved, a conviction based on circu*stantial evidence *ust e2clude each and ever+ h+pothesis consistent $ith innocence./0 "ence, if the totalit+ of the circu*stances eli*inates be+ond reasonable doubt the possibilit+ of innocence, conviction is properC other$ise, the accused *ust be acFuitted./3 &ith the above )urisprudential pre*ises in *ind, $e e2a*ined the circu*stances on the basis of $hich petitioner had been found guilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt and, conseFuentl+, convicted. According to the CA, the follo$ing circu*stances $ere sufficient to establish the cri*inal culpabilit+ of the three accused Kald+ and -eonardo Bontia, as $ell as Petitioner =allari#% "2 2 2. First, appellant =allari had an a2e to grind against the victi* because of her persistent inFuiries regarding the use or *isuse of school funds under the custod+ of =allari as principal of Busta*ante Baranga+ "igh ,chool. <his fact sho$s the *otive of =allari in silencing her. ,econd, Kald+ Bontia, the person $ho loo;ed for a ;iller, is beholden to =elanio =allari, considering that the latter had pro*ised hi* a stead+ govern*ent )ob and had been giving cash advances in the for* of allo$ance to tide hi* over till such ti*e that he could receive a regular salar+ fro* the govern*ent. <hird, -eonardo Bontia is the older brother of Kald+. &hen the )ob to ;ill Bo+ose $as offered b+ =allari to -eonardo Bontia, the latter i**ediatel+ acceded considering that he $as in dire need of *one+ having eight 3# children and a $ife to support. <hus, $hen confronted b+ the victi* at the police station, he readil+ ad*itted that he shot Erlinda Bo+ose because of the consideration he hoped to receive fro* =allari after$ards. Fourth, the *one+ in the a*ount ofP844.44 $hich Kald+ Bontia gave to his brother -eonardo so that he can hide ca*e fro* =allari. Fifth, the confession *ade b+ Kald+ Bontia concerning his participation to the cri*e after he $as confronted b+ the victi* at the police station. ,i2th, both -eonardo and Kald+ Bontia voluntaril+ e2ecuted e2tra-)udicial state*ents regarding their involve*ent in the cri*e. In their respective e2tra)udicial confession, the+ pointed to =allari as the person $ho induced the* to ;ill Bo+ose. Finall+, the letter of -eonardo Bontia *ar;ed as E2hibit OIN, addressed to the victi* as;ing for forgiveness, contained narration of events $ith full of e2plicit details regarding the co**ission of the cri*e."/8 In its =e*orandu*,74 the (,6 substantiall+ repeats the above circu*stances in support of the conviction of petitioner. <he first circu*stance -- that "=allari had an a2e to grind against the victi* because of her persistent inFuiries regarding the use or *isuse of school funds" -- appears to be a conclusion based *erel+ on the i*pression of the victi* herself. (ther than the one letter7. she $rote to petitioner, onl+ her self-serving state*ent supported her allegation that she had Fuestioned persistentl+ several ti*es# his supposed ad*inistrative *alpractices as school principal. Be that as it *a+, a reading of that letter, $hich $as indeed replete $ith denigrating state*ents against hi*, probabl+ served as a *otive for a reprisal fro* hi*, if its contents $ere not treated as constructive criticis*. <o the e2tent that it tends to establish *otive, this circu*stance *a+ be ta;en into consideration in the overall assess*ent of the evidence against hi*. <he second to the fourth circu*stances7/ are not directl+ established b+ the evidence against petitioner. None of the prosecution $itnesses testified thereon. A scrutin+ of the records of the case reveals that those circu*stances $ere derived fro* the "&ritten ,tate*ents"77 that had been *ade b+ petitionerNs co-accused and presented $hen Prosecution &itnesses Carva)al and Naive testified. <hese $itnesses $ere the police investigators $ho had reduced into $riting the state*ents of -eonardo and Kald+ Bontia at the ti*e of the arrest of the latter t$o. ,ection 79 of 'ule .74 of the 'ules of Court provides that $itnesses can testif+ onl+ $ith regard to facts of $hich the+ have personal ;no$ledgeC other$ise, their testi*onies $ould be inad*issible for being hearsa+.71 In the present case, neither of the said $itnesses had personal ;no$ledge of the second to the fourth circu*stances considered b+ the appellate court, or of the rest of the state*ents *ade b+ the declarants in their respective &ritten ,tate*ents. <he $itnesses *erel+ attested to the voluntariness and due e2ecution of the BontiasN respective e2tra)udicial confessions. <hus, insofar as the substance of those confessions is concerned, the testi*onies of the police $itnesses are *ere hearsa+.75 <he fifth and the si2th circu*stances refer to the afore*entioned &ritten ,tate*ents of petitionerNs co-accused $ho did not, ho$ever, testif+ against hi*. &ell-settled is the rule that e2tra)udicial declarations are inad*issible in evidence against the declarantNs co-accused.79 <he ad*ission b+ the court of such declarations violates the incri*inated personNs right to due process. <his principle holds if, as in the case before us, the declarants fail to ta;e the $itness stand and thereb+ den+ the accused-petitioner the funda*ental right to confront and cross-e2a*ine the* face-to-face, in order to test their truthfulness and credibilit+. <rue, there are e2ceptions to this rule, such as $hen the confession is used as circu*stantial evidence to sho$ the probabilit+ of the participation of the co-accused in the cri*e, or $hen the confession is corroborated b+ other pieces of evidence.70 In such instances, the significance of the confession co*es to the fore, but onl+ in relation to the other circu*stantial evidence establishing the guilt of the person incri*inated. In the instant case, the *erits of the fifth and the si2th circu*stances *entioned b+ the appellate court depend, therefore, on the strength of the other circu*stantial evidence against petitioner. But, as discussed so far, )ust the first circu*stance, establishing petitionerNs *otive, *a+ be given due $eight. (nl+ one *ore re*ains to be considered, as the three other circu*stances have been discounted as hearsa+. <his last circu*stance cited b+ the appellate court pertains to a supposed letter of -eonardo Bontia addressed to the victi*, containing e2plicit details regarding the co**ission of the cri*e and as;ing for forgiveness. <he latter $as presented as part of the testi*on+ of the victi*, Erlinda Bo+ose. "o$ever, -eonardo $as not presented in court to identif+ it. No other $itness testified as to its genuineness or as to the fact that it had personall+ and voluntaril+ been $ritten b+ hi*. Incidentall+, Bo+ose received it through the *ail, and no one ever attested that it had in fact been $ritten and sent b+ the sa*e -eonardo Bontia, petitionerNs co-accused.73

Page1

As $e have said earlier, $itnesses can testif+ onl+ $ith regard to facts of $hich the+ have personal ;no$ledge. <esti*onial or docu*entar+ evidence is hearsa+ if it is based, not on the personal ;no$ledge of the $itness, but on the ;no$ledge of so*e other person not on the $itness stand. ConseFuentl+, hearsa+ evidence -- $hether ob)ected to or not -has no probative value unless the proponent can sho$ that the evidence falls $ithin an+ of the e2ceptions to the hearsa+ rule, as provided in the 'ules of Court.78 Clearl+, none of the e2ceptions appl+ to the present case. <hus, an unverified and unidentified private docu*ent cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because the part+ against $ho* it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunit+ to cross-e2a*ine the person to $ho* the state*ents or $ritings are attributed. Its e2ecutor or author should be presented as a $itness to provide the other part+ to the litigation the opportunit+ to Fuestion its contents. Being *ere hearsa+ evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value.14 <here is another circu*stance, not *entioned b+ the appellate court but advanced b+ the (ffice of the ,olicitor 6eneral% that Prosecution &itness Ed$in A*parado declared that he had been contacted b+ petitioner to ;ill Bo+ose. -et us first recall the testi*on+ of that $itness, as related b+ the trial court% "(n >ece*ber .., .884, Ed$in A*parado testified that he personall+ ;no$s accused =allari because he studied at F. Bango+ Baranga+ "igh ,chool $here =elanio =allari $as the principal fro* .837 to .831, that he also ;no$s Kald+ Bontia, that the last ti*e he sa$ Kald+ Bontia $as in Februar+ .838 in the house of =elanio =allari located at !uan -una, corner ChaveB ,treets, that he $ent to the house of =elanio =allari to pledge his electric fan, that =elanio =allari as;ed hi* to ;ill =rs. Bo+ose $ho used to be his neighbor at >oQa Pilar Eillage but nothing ca*e out of it, that later he heard over the radio that =rs. Bo+ose $as shot, that he ;no$s And+ =agdadaro $ho $as his neighbor in Agdao, that the+ tal;ed about the plan to ;ill =rs. Bo+ose, that And+ =agdadaro $as onl+ $aiting for his go-signal, that he e2ecuted an affidavit regarding the offer of =elanio =allari to ;ill =rs. Bo+ose. "e said on cross-e2a*ination that he did not feel disgusted $hen =allari as;ed hi* to ;ill =rs. Bo+ose, that he thought of ;illing =rs. Bo+ose and rela+ed the offer to And+ =agdadaro the sa*e )ob, that he is close to =r. =allari, that the )ob of ;illing =rs. Bo+ose $as the onl+ illegal )ob offered to hi* b+ =elanio =allari, that during that ti*e he needed *one+ because his $ife $as pregnant, that he rela+ed the offer to And+ =agdadaro because he is a rebel returnee."1. It appears that the prosecution presented A*parado *erel+ to sho$ that petitioner had cri*inal intent against the victi*. <he testi*on+ of the $itness, ho$ever, concerned petitionerNs alleged proposal to hi* not to the Bontias# to ;ill Bo+ose -- an act that, b+ his o$n ad*ission, did not *aterialiBe. Even if indeed petitioner *ade such a proposal, it did not necessaril+ *ean that it $as also *ade to the Bontias, absent an+ strong supporting evidence. <he $itness does not in fact appear priv+ to an+ conspirac+ bet$een petitioner and the Bontias. <hus, insofar as the actual atte*pt on the life of Bo+ose is concerned, A*paradoNs testi*on+ is clearl+ irrelevant or of no probative $eight. It does not tend to establish, to an+ reasonable degree, the probabilit+ of a fact in issue1/ -- $hether petitioner had induced or conspired $ith the Bontias to ;ill Bo+ose. "ence, the testi*on+ is $orthless in establishing the guilt of petitioner of the cri*e charged against hi*. In the final anal+sis, other than the victi*Ns letter to petitioner tending to establish his ill *otive, there is hardl+ an+ evidence to corroborate his co-accusedNs e2tra)udicial confessions later recanted# or to establish the probabilit+ of his actual participation b+ induce*ent# in the co**ission of the cri*e. Considering that the strength of the prosecution evidence against hi* falls short of the reFuired Fuantu* of proof be+ond reasonable doubt, his constitutional right to be presu*ed innocent *ust prevail. <he Court has repeatedl+ held that $hen the circu*stances sho$n to e2ist +ield at least t$o inferences -- one of $hich is consistent $ith the presu*ption of innocence and the other $ith the finding of guilt -- the Court *ust acFuit the accused, because the evidence does not then fulfill the test of *oral certaint+ or suffice to support a )udg*ent of conviction.17 Consistent $ith the above principles, and in vie$ of the dearth of evidence to prove his guilt be+ond reasonable doubt, petitioner *ust be acFuitted. <hird Issue% >ue Process Petitioner also clai*s that he $as denied due process b+ the Court of Appeals, because it allegedl+ failed to tac;le all the issues raised in his appeal brief. &hile it is no longer necessar+ to resolve this issue in vie$ of our disposition of the second one, it is enough to sa+ that petitioner has neglected to substantiate this allegation in his Petition. "e did not, in fact, even care to point out -- *uch less discuss -- $hat issues the appellate court had failed to resolve. In an+ event, a $rong disposition b+ the court is not tanta*ount to denial of due process. &"E'EF('E, the assailed >ecision insofar as it pertains to Petitioner is 'EEE',E> and ,E< A,I>E. (n reasonable doubt, Petitioner =elanio =allari + -iberato is ACG:I<<E>. <he director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the i**ediate release of petitioner, unless the latter is being la$full+ held for another causeC and to infor* the Court of the date of his release, or the reasons for his continued confine*ent, $ithin ten da+s fro* notice. No costs. ,( ('>E'E>.

Page1