Evid Hearsay cases

8/11/2019 Evid Hearsay cases

1/45

G.R. No. 164457 April 11, 2012

ANNA LERIMA PATULA,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

FACTSThe crime of estafa was filed against Anna Lerima Patula, the saleswoman of

FootLuckers Chain of tores !nc. located in "umaguete Cit#. The informationcharged her that she have collected and received the total sum of P$%$,&'(,)* fromseveral customers +ut she failed to deliver the said collection to the compan# +utinstead wilfull#, unlawfull# and feloniousl# misappropriated, misapplied andconverted the proceeds of the sale to her own use and +enefit.n arraignment, she plead not guilt#. o trial on the merits ensued.The Prosecution presented & witnesses Lam+erto -o who was the +ranch manager ofFootLuckers and aren -uivencan the auditor who was tasked +# Lam+erto -o toinvesitigate on the matter. The prosecution presented /0hi+its 1 to 22 whichrepresents private documents 3ledgers and their derivatives4 that contains the+alances of the customers.The counsel for the defense interposed a continuing o+5ection that /0hi+its 1 to 22

and their derivatives are hearsa# +ecause the person who made the entries were notthemselves presented in court.RTC rendered its decision finding her guilt# of estafa. RTC denied petitioners 6R.

ISSUE7hether the testimon# of -uivencan is hearsa# and therefore, inadmissi+le8

RULING

The testimon# of -uivencan is inadmissi+le for +eing hearsa#.

-uivencan conceded having no personal knowledge of the amounts actuall# received

+# petitioner from the customers or remitted +# petitioner to Footluckers. Thismeans that persons other than -uivencan prepared /0hi+its 1 to 22 and theirderivatives, inclusive and that -uivencan +ased her testimon# on the entries found inthe receipts supposedl# issued +# petitioner and in the ledgers held +# Footluckerscorresponding to each customer, as well as on the unsworn statements of some of thecustomers. Accordingl#, her +eing the onl# witness who testified on the entrieseffectivel# deprived the RTC of the reasona+le opportunit# to validate and test theveracit# and relia+ilit# of the entries as evidence of petitioners misappropriation orconversion through cross9e0amination +# petitioner. The denial of that opportunit#rendered the entire proof of misappropriation or conversion hearsa#, and thusunrelia+le and untrustworth# for purposes of determining the guilt or innocence ofthe accused.

To elucidate wh# the Prosecutions hearsa# evidence was unrelia+le anduntrustworth#, and thus devoid of pro+ative value, reference is made to ection %( ofRule $%:, Rules of Court, a rule that states that a witness can testif# onl# to those factsthat she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from her ownperception, e0cept as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court. The personalknowledge of a witness is a su+stantive prere


2/45

From such report, petitioner denied the claim as such loss was an e0cepted risk underparagraph @o. ( of the polic# conditions 3mutin#, riot, militar# or popular uprising,insurrection, re+ellion, revolution, militar# or usurped power4.

ISSUE 7@ the CA failed to appreciate and give credence to the pot Report ofPfc. Arturo =uar+al and the worn statement of =ose Lomocso.

RULING@. A witness can testif# onl# to those facts which he knows of his

personal knowledge, which means those facts which are derived from his perception.Conse


3/45

statement, is hearsa# evidence, it is not considered as such if its purpose is merel# toesta+lish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. !n thecase at +ar, when -uman testified that the appellant admitted the killing to him,there was no violation of the hearsa# rule +ecause -uman was testif#ing to a factwhich he knows of his own personal knowledge; that the appellant told him that hesta++ed /sguerra and not to the truth of the appellantIs statement.

Also, the testimon# of -uman on appellantIs oral confession is considered as

competent evidence +ased onPeople v. Tawatwhich upheld the trial courtIs relianceon an e0tra5udicial confession given, not to a police officer during custodialinterrogation, +ut to an ordinar# farmer, as the +asis for conviction. !n the said case,the Court ruled? The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt ofthe offense charged, may be given in evidence against him.The Rule is that !anyperson, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to

testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. "n

oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in

its substance.! Proof of the contents of an oral e0tra5udicial confession ma# +e made+# the testimon# of a person who testifies that he was present, heard, understood, andremem+ers the su+stance of the conversation or s tatement made +# the accused.

Jowever, since it was not proven that the crime was committed with treacher# andevident premeditation, the crime committed is onl# J6!C!"/ and not murder.

A.M. No. MT#"4"7" Oo/r 25, 1""5

#U+GE EMERITO M. AGCAOILI, RTC)RANCH 10, APARRI,CAGA(AN, complainant,vs.#U+GE A+OLFO ). MOLINA, MCTC, GONAGASTA. TERESITA,CAGA(AN, respondent.

FACTS Complainant 5udge /merito Agcaoli charged respondent 5udge Adolfo6olina +# alleging that in conducting the preliminar# investigation of the criminalcase KPeople of the Philippines v. Rolando Anama,E for homicide, failed to e0erciseutmost care in the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused, RolandoAnama, as it was +ased merel# on the statements of two witnesses who had nopersonal knowledge of the commission of the offense charged. Je averred that suchaction was a clear violation of section &, Article !!! of the $)'* Constitution whichre


4/45

Although the foregoing provisions seemingl# grant 5udges wide latitude andun+ridled discretion in determining pro+a+le cause, an elementar# legal principlemust not +e compromised hearsa# evidence cannot +e the +asis of pro+a+le cause.The rules on evidence are e0plicit. A witness can testif# onl# to those facts which heknows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his ownperception. Jearsa# evidence, therefore, has no pro+ative value whatsoever.

!n the case at +ench, 7ilma Anama, who apparentl# witnessed the alleged crime or

has personal knowledge thereof, was not summoned +# respondent for investigation.he could have +een the ke# to determining whether or not Rolando Anama was thepro+a+le perpetrator of the grisl# killing.

Respondent cannot pass the +lame and +urden to the provincial prosecutor. Thedetermination of pro+a+le cause is a function of the 5udge and is not for theprovincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. nl# the 5udge and the 5udge alone makesthis determination.

7J/R/FR/, respondent 5udge is here+# R/PR!6A@"/" for his failure tocompl# with the pertinent rules on the issuance of a warrant of arrest, with a warningthat repetition of the same or similar acts will +e dealt with more severel#.

G.R. No. 1!04. April 10, 2002MALA(AN INSURANCE CO., INC.,petitioner,vs.

PHILIPPINE NAILS AN+ 8IRES CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTSP@7C insured its shipment of tons of steel +illets with 6ala#an. Theshipment delivered was short. Jence, P@7C claimed insuramce. 6ala#an refused topa#. P@7C filed a complaint for the said lost andMor delivered cargo

RTC N ruled in favor of P@7C

6ala#an appealed to CA contending that? the trial court erred in rendering 5udgment+# default notwithstanding that issues were 5oined +# petitioners filing of an answer;in awarding damages to respondent +ased on unauthenticated documentar# evidenceand hearsa#; and in admitting documentar# evidence which is irregular in nature andnot in accordance with the Rules of Court.

CA N Affirmed RTC N Ruled that? RTC did not a+use its discretion +ecause petitioneranswered wa# +e#ond the prescri+ed period; =eanne ing, the witness of P@7C,was a competent witness +ecause she personall# prepared the documentar# evidenceand had personal knowledge of the allegations in the complaint.

6R N "enied; Jence, this petition.

#alayan$s contention? =eanne ings testimon# was hearsa# +ecause she had nopersonal knowledge of the e0ecution of the documents supporting P@7Cs cause ofaction, such as the sales contract, invoice, packing list, +ill of lading, - Report, andthe 6arine Cargo Polic#; that even though ing was personall# assigned to handleand monitor the importation of P@7C this cannot +e e


5/45

presented in court to su+stantiate their affidavits. 1ased on the alleged statements of"iong and "olera, the police formed a team to apprehend the appellant whoallegedl# had an agreement to meet "olera 3/0h. L4. n August $:, $))$, appellantwas apprehended +# the police in front of =olli+ee Restaurant in Caloocan Cit#.Allegedl# recovered from the appellant were the amount of P&,>$G.:: and onehandgun which was in his cousinIs residence. Thereafter, appellant was +rought tothe police head>& covering a parcel of landidentified as Lot $, 6li9:(9::::&:9", with an area of .%')) hectares, more or lesslocated at "umolog, Ro0as Cit# 3/0h. EAE; /0h E)E4. !t appears that on "ecem+er &*,$)*', when the application was e0ecuted under oath, /fren L. Recio, Land !nspector,su+mitted a report of his investigation and verification of the land to the "istrict Landffice, 1ureau of Lands, Cit# of Ro0as. n 6arch $>, $)*), the "istrict Land fficerof Ro0as Cit# approved the application and the issuance of Free Patent to theapplicant. n 6arch $(, $)*), the patent was also ordered to +e issued and the patentwas forwarded to defendant Register of "eeds, Cit# of Ro0as, for registration andissuance of the corresponding Certificate of Title. Thereafter, riginal Certificate ofTitle @o. P9$G Free Patent @o. 3!9&4 %%G' was issued to Orespondent +# defendantRegister of "eeds. n April >, $)*), the heirs of !gnacio Arro+ang, through counselin a letter9complaint re


6/45

recommended to the "irector of Lands appropriate civil proceeding for thecancellation of Free Patent Title @o. 3!9&4 %%G' and the corresponding riginalCertificate of Title @o. P9$G in the name of Orespondent. !n the meantime,Orespondent o+tained a @AC!"A loan under the Cottage !ndustr# -uarantee andLoan Fund +# the defendant Philippine @ational 1ank 3hereinafter referred to asP@14 e0ecuted in Ce+u Cit# in the amount of P$::,:::.:: on August $', $)'$. Theloan was secured +# a real estate mortgage in favor of defendant [email protected] promissor# note of appellant was annotated at the +ack of the title. n April $',$)):, the government through the olicitor -eneral instituted an action forAnnulmentMCancellation of Patent and Title and Reversion against Orespondent, theP@1 of Ro0as Cit# and defendant Register of "eeds of Ro0as Cit# covering FreePatent Application 3!9&4 '>>& of the parcel of land with an area of .%')) hectaresmore or less located at "umolog, Ro0as Cit#. n @ovem+er $*, $)):, while the caseis pending hearing, Orespondent died. Je was su+stituted +# his wife Ro, around noontime. 6a. Theresa wasleft alone in the house with 1en5amin. Je summoned her and asked her to help hims


7/45

daughter8E The visitors then +o0ed 1en5amin. The neigh+ors then +rought 6a.Theresa to the +aranga# hall where she met her mother. The rape incidents werereported to the police authorities on August *, $))(. n the same da#, 6a. Theresagave her sworn statement to the police investigator.

The /vidence of the Appellant?

1en5amin denied having raped 6a. Theresa. Je avers that it was his son from firstmarriage, 1en5amin, =r. , who had consensual se0ual relations with 6a. Theresa.That irginia was the 5ealous t#pe. he suspected that he and 6a. Theresa had anamorous relationship. That he saw 1en5amin =r. and 6a. Theresa having se0ualintercourse. Later, when he talked to 1en5amin =r., he said that he liked 6a. Theresa.Therefore kept the matter to himself. !n the evening of August (, $))(, he andirginia had a violent


8/45

him, and the latter had told /staQo that his assailant had +een alafranca; that at thetime of the utterance 1olanon had seemed to +e having a hard time +reathing,causing /staQo to advise him not to talk an#more; and that a+out ten minutes afterhis admission at the emergenc# ward of the hospital, 1olanon had e0pired and had+een pronounced dead. uch circumstances


9/45

PP 3 S$/io%ying %eclaration

Popl 3 S$/ioF$n cto+er G, $)(G, at a+out G?:: oIclock in the morning, in 1arrio Looc, Argao,Ce+u, Catalino /spina, ':9#ears old, single, owner of a small sari9sari store locatedin his house was found on the second floor of his dwelling wounded on the forehead,from which in5ur# he died three da#s later.7hen Camilo reached home, he saw E!noE 3the victim4 l#ing wounded upstairs. Jewas moaning and was a+le to speak onl# when +is head was raised.7hen Camilocalled the victimIs name, the latter responded and told Camilo to fetch a policeman.Patrolman Fuentes 3a policeman assigned4 asked the victim who had hacked him andthe latter answered that it was EPapuE a+io, son of 6enes According to saidPatrolman, the person referred to was the accused, who, as well as his parents, have+een known to the witness for the past three #ears.Patrolman Fuentes asked thevictim wh# EPapuE hacked him and the latter answered that EPapuE had demandedmone# from him. Patrolman Fuentes also asked the victim how much mone# he hadlost +ut the latter was not a+le to answer that


10/45

municipal president, in which he declared that onl# he and Filomeno 6orales fought.A+out one month later, isenando Jolgado died from the wounds received in thefight.

!t was alleged that Toledo intervened in the duel that dealt a mortal +low to 6orales.

ISSUE7hether or not the statement e0ecuted +# Jolgado 3a statement of factagainst penal interest4 +e admitted as evidence.

RULINGAn# man outside of a court and unhampered +# the pressure of technicalprocedure, unreasoned rules of evidence, and cumulative authorit#, would sa# that ifa man deli+eratel# acknowledged himself to +e the perpetrator of a crime ande0onerated the person charged with the crime, and there was other evidenceindicative of the truthfulness of the statement, the accused man should not +epermitted to go to prison or to the electric chair to e0piate a crime he nevercommitted.

The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. The reason for the hearsa# rule isthat the e0tra5udicial and unsworn statement of another is not the +est method ofserving this purpose. !n other words, the great possi+ilit# of the fa+rication of

falsehoods, and the ina+ilit# to prove their untruth, re =une $)') while he was in a store in the+aranga#. At the trial, Fuentes presents his uncle Felicisimo Fuentes to support hisdefense that Soilo alias =onie was the killer of 6alaspina. According to Felicisimo,Soilo confessed to him that he was the one who sta++ed 6alaspina.

The RTC found petitioner guilt#. The CA affirmed the decision of the trialcourt. Petitioner filed petition for review contending that the appellate court erredwhen it held that petitioner was positivel# and categoricall# identified as the killer of6alaspina, in affirming the 5udgment of conviction and in holding petitioner lia+le fordamages to the heirs of the victim.

Petitioner points that an alleged inconsistenc# +etween the testimonies ofprosecution witnesses Al+erto Toling and Jonorio sok to the effect that the# sawpetitioner sta+ 6alaspina on the right lum+ar region, and the testimon# of theattending ph#sician that the victim was sta++ed on the left lum+ar region.

ISSUE7hether or not the declarations made +# petitioners uncle Felicisimo ma#

+e admitted as evidence.RULING

@o. ne of the recognied e0ceptions to the hearsa# rule is that pertaining todeclarations made against interest. ec. %' of Rule $%: of the Rules of Court provides

that K3t4he declaration made +# a person deceased, or una+le to testif#, against theinterest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it wasmade so far contrar# to declarants own interest, that a reasona+le man in his positionwould not have made the declaration unless he +elieved it to +e true, ma# +e receivedin evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.The admissi+ilit# in evidence of such declaration is grounded on necessit# andtrustworthiness.

There are three 3%4 essential re


11/45

!n the instant case, we find that the declaration particularl# against penalinterest attri+uted to Soilo Fuentes =r. is not admissi+le in evidence as an e0ceptionto the hearsa# rule. 7e are not unaware of People Toledo, a $)&' case, where =ustice6alcolm writing for the Court endeavored to ree0amine the declaration of thirdparties made contrar# to their penal interest. !n that case, the protagonists Jolgadoand 6orales engaged in a +o+ duel. 6orales was killed almost instantl#. Jolgadowho was seriousl# wounded gave a sworn statement 3/0h. $4 +efore the municipalpresident declaring that when he and 6orales fought there was no+od# else present.ne 3$4 month later Jolgado died from his wounds. 7hile the Court was agreed thatToledo, who reportedl# intervened in the fight and dealt the mortal +low, should +ee0onerated on reasona+le dou+t, the mem+ers did not reach an accord on theadmissi+ilit# of /0h. $. ne group would totall# disregard /0h. $ since there wasample testimonial evidence to support an ac


12/45

RULING

6otive is generall# irrelevant, unless it is utilied in esta+lishing the identit# of theperpetrator. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence or facts from which itma# +e reasona+l# inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive ma# +esufficient to support a conviction. penda, =r.s revelation to /nri, $)*% e0ecuted +# Florentino andsworn to +efore the Assistant Cit# Assessor of 1aguio Cit#, -.F. Lagasca.

The affidavit categoricall# declares that while Florentino is the occupant of theresidential +uilding, he is not the owner of the same as it is owned +# respondent whois residing in Hueon Cit#. !t is safe to presume that he would not have made suchdeclaration unless he +elieved it to +e true, as it is pre5udicial to himself, as well as tohis childrenIs interest as his heirs. A declaration against interest is the +est evidencewhich affords the greatest certaint# of the facts in dispute. 6oreover, duringFlorentinoIs lifetime, there is no showing that he had revoked such affidavit, evenwhen a criminal complaint for trespass to dwelling had +een filed.

ection %' of Rule $%: of the Rules of Court provides?/CT!@ %'. "eclaration against interest. 9 The declaration made +# a persondeceased, or una+le to testif#, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact assertedin the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrar# to declarantIs owninterest, that a reasona+le man in his position would not have made the declarationunless he +elieved it to +e true, ma# +e received in evidence against himself or hissuccessors in interest and against third persons. 3%&a4

The theor# under which declarations against interest are received in evidencenotwithstanding the# are hearsa# is that the necessit# of the occasion renders thereception of such evidence advisa+le and, further that the relia+ilit# of suchdeclaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniar# or moral interest

G.R. No. 6!02 Sp;/r 24, 1""1

CASIMIRO MEN+OA,petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS $% TEOPISTA TORINGTUACAO, respondents.

EVIDENCE HEARSAY RULE LLB4302

12


13/45

FACTSThe private respondent claimed she was the illegitimate daughter ofCasimiro 6endoa, +ut the latter denied her claim. Je denied it to his d#ing da#. Thetrial court +elieved him and dismissed her complaint for compulsor# recognition.The appellate court did not and reversed the 5udgment of the court +elow. @ow theissue is +efore us on certiorari.

The complaint was filed +# Teopista Toring Tufiacao, the herein private respondent,alleged that she was +orn on August &:, $)%:, to 1rigida Toring, who was then

single, and defendant Casimiro 6endoa, married at that time to /miliana1arrientos. he averred that 6endoa recognied her as an illegitimate child +#treating her as such and according her the rights and privileges of a recogniedillegitimate child.

Casimiro 6endoa, then alread# )$ #ears old, specificall# denied the plaintiffsallegations and set up a counterclaim for damages and attorne#Is fees.

Amplif#ing on her complaint, Teopista testified that it was her mother who told herthat her father was Casimiro. he called him Papa 6iro#. he lived with her mother+ecause Casimiro was married +ut she used to visit him at his house. 7hen shemarried alentin Tufiacao, Casimiro +ought a passenger truck and engaged him to

drive it so he could have a livelihood. Casimiro later sold the truck +ut gave theproceeds of the sale to her and her hus+and. !n $)**, Casimiro allowed her son,Lolito Tufiacao, to +uild a house on his lot and later he gave her mone# to +u# herown lot from her +rother, icente Toring. n Fe+ruar# $>, $)**, Casimiro opened a5oint savings account with her as a co9depositor at the 6andaue Cit# +ranch of thePhilippine Commercial and !ndustrial 1ank. Two #ears later, 6argarita 1ate,CasimiroIs adopted daughter, took the pass+ook from her, +ut Casimiro ordered itreturned to her after admonishing 6argarita. 1

D!saac testified that his uncle Casimiro was the father of Teopista +ecause his fatherJipolito, CasimiroIs +rother, and his grandmother, 1rigida 6endoa, so informedhim. Je worked on CasimiroIs +oat and whenever Casimiro paid him his salar#, he

would also give him various amounts from P&.:: to P$:.:: to +e delivered toTeopista. !saac also declared that Casimiro intended to give certain properties toTeopista. 4

Casimiro himself did not testif# +ecause of his advanced age, +ut icente Toringtook the stand to resist TeopistaIs claim.

ISSUE whether or not Teopista was in continuous possession of her claimed statusof an illegitimate child of Casimiro 6endoa.

RULING2/, The trial court conceded that Ethe defendantIs parents, as well as the

plaintiff himself, told -audencio 6endoa and !saac 6endoa, that Teopista was the

daughter of the defendant.E !t should have pro+ed this matter further in light of Rule$%:, ection %), of the Rules of Court, providing as follows?

ec. %). "ct or declarations about pedigree. The act ordeclaration of a person deceased, or una+le to testif#, in respect tothe pedigree of another person related to him +# +irth or marriage,ma# +e received in evidence where it occurred +efore thecontrovers#, and the relationship +etween the two persons is shown

+# evidence other than such act or declaration. The word EpedigreeEincludes relationship, famil# genealog#, +irth, marriage, death, thedates when and the places where these facts occurred, and thenames of the relatives. !t em+races also facts of famil# histor#intimatel# connected with pedigree.

The statement of the trial court regarding TeopistaIs parentage is not entirel# accurate.To set the record straight, we will stress that it was onl# !saac 6endoa who testifiedon this


14/45

controvers# arose +etween her and Casimiro. Finall#, the relationship +etween thedeclarants and Casimiro has +een esta+lished +# evidence other than suchdeclaration, consisting of the e0tra5udicial partition of the estate of Florencio6endoa, in which Casimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs. 1

The said declarations have not +een refuted. Casimiro could have done this +#deposition if he was too old and weak to testif# at the trial of the case.

!f we consider the other circumstances narrated under oath +# the private respondentand her witnesses, such as the financial doles made +# Casimiro to 1rigida Toring,the hiring of TeopistaIs hus+and to drive the passenger truck of Casimiro, who latersold the vehicle and gave the proceeds of the sale to Teopista and her hus+and, thepermission he gave Lolito Tufiacao to +uild a house on his land after he found thatthe latter was living on a rented lot, and, no less remarka+l#, the 5oint savingsaccount Casimiro opened with Teopista, we can reasona+l# conclude that Teopistawas the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro 6endoa.

7e hold that +# virtue of the a+ove9discussed declarations, and in view of the othercircumstances of this case, Ireopista Toring Tufiacao has proved that she is theillegitimate daughter of Casimiro 6endoa and is entitled to +e recognied as such.

7J/R/FR/, the petition is "/@!/". =udgment is here+# rendered "/CLAR!@-Teopista Toring TuQacao to +e the illegitimate child of the late Casimiro 6endoaand entitled to all the rights appurtenant to such status. Costs against the petitioner.

R"/R/".

G.R. No. 121027 #&l' !1, 1""7

CORAON +EOLLER TISON $% RENE R. +EOLLER,petitioners,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS $% TEO+ORA +OMINGO, respondents.

FACTS Bpon the death of Teodora "eoller -uerrero, her surviving spouse,6artin, e0ecuted on eptem+er $G, $)'( an Affidavit of /0tra5udicial ettlementad5udicating unto himself, allegedl# as sole heir, the land in dispute. n =anuar# &,$)'', 6artin -uerrero sold the lot to herein private respondent Teodora "omingo.6artin -uerrero died on cto+er &G, $)''. u+se


15/45

7here there is an entire lack of competent evidence to the contrar#, andunless or until it is re+utted, it has +een held that a presumption ma# stand in lieu ofevidence and support a finding or decision. Perforce, a presumption must +efollowed if it is uncontroverted. This is +ased on the theor# that a presumption isprima facieproof of the fact presumed, and unless the fact thus esta+lishedprimafacie+# the legal presumption of its truth is disproved, it must stand as proved.

!ndu+ita+l#, when private respondent opted not to present countervailing

evidence to overcome the presumption, +# merel# filing a demurrer to evidenceinstead, she in effect impliedl# admitted the truth of such fact. !ndeed, sheoverlooked or disregarded the evidential rule that presumptions like 5udicial noticeand admissions, relieve the proponent from presenting evidence on the facts healleged and such facts are there+# considered as dul# proved.

As regards the weight and sufficienc# of the evidence regarding petitionerIsrelationship with Teodora "eoller -uerrero, whose estate is the su+5ect of thepresent controvers#, it re


16/45

illarosa who was at that time onl# eleven 3$$4 #ears old. The defendant claimed thatthe age of the victim was hearsa# as there was not sufficient proof that was introducethat Cristina illarosa was indeed +elow $& #ears old.The prosecution presented Cristina illarosas grandfather 3maternal4 to attest andtestif# as the age of the victim. RTC convicted the accused for 3&4 counts of rape. nappeal, appellant contends that Cristina was not +elow $& #ears old.

ISSUE

7hether the testimon# of the grandfather as to the fact that the victim was +orn ofept G, $)*( was or is considered hearsa#8

RULING

@o. the testimon# of the grandfather that Cristina was +orn on ept G, $)*( do notconstitute as hearsa# evidence. !t falls under the e0ceptions to the hearsa# rule underec %) and >:.ec >: N Famil# reputation or tradition regarding pedigree NThe reputation or tradition e0isting in a famil# previous to the controvers#, in respectto the pedigree of an# of its mem+ers, ma# +e received in evidence if the witnesstestif#ing thereon +e also a mem+er of the famil#, either +# consanguinit# or affinit#.

Pedigree includes relationship, famil#, genealog#, +irth, marriage, death and dateswhen the places where these facts occurred and the names of the relatives.

!n the case ofLa-atin v. 0ampos,?"eclarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsa#, are admitted on the principlethat the# are natural e0pressions of persons who must know the truth. Pedigreetestimon# is admitted +ecause it is the +est that the nature of the case admits and+ecause greater evil might arise from the re5ection of such proof than from itsadmission.

!n the present case, the applica+ilit# of Rule $%:, ection %) of the Revised Rules on

/vidence to prove the victimIs age is +e#ond


17/45

ISSUE 7@ the trial court erred in placing full reliance on the post9war records toesta+lish the date of +irth of the petitioner.

RULING@. The court gave three cogent reasons?$. As 6oran states, although a person can have no personal knowledge of the

date of his +irth, he ma# testif# as to his age as he learned it from his

parents and relatives and his testimon# in such case is an assertion of a

famil# tradition.

&. The import of the declaration of the petitioners +rother, contained in averified pleading in a cadastral case wa# +ack in $)&>, to the effect that the

petitioner was then &% #ears old, can not +e ignored. 6ade ante litem

motam +# a deceased relative, this statement is at once a declaration

regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of ection %% of

Rule $%: of the Rules of Court.%. The parties are agreed that the petitioner has a +rother, Constantino, who

was +orn on =une $:, $')' and who retired on =une $:, $)(% with full

retirement pa#. The petitioner then could not have +een +orn earlier than

Constantino, sa# in $')* as pre9war records indicate, +ecause Constantino

is admittedl# older than he.

G.R. No. 1!6247 No. 1!!!0. No3;/r 22, 2000

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.

MANUEL LI)AN, accused-appellant.

FACTSLeonarda, @erissa, the $&9 #ear old private complainant, and Jilda, allsurnamed Li+an, were at their #oung age left +# their mother in Caricaran, orsogonunder the custod# of their father, herein accused9appellant, who would the strike,

pinch and +ite them as the# were disciplined. Je still managed to rape @erissa ondifferent occasions. n @ovem+er (, $))G, as Leonarda spent the night at their auntshouse, appellant arrived home drunk and asked for food from @erissa +ut he threwthe food awa# and slapped her making her fall on her +ack. Appellant then mountedher and proceeded with having carnal knowledge against the will of his daughterwho was cr#ing in vain as appellant also threatened her +# pressing a knife on her.The following night, he raped her again. !t was stated that appellant allegedl# rapedher for * occasions in one #ear +ut the specific dates could not +e remem+ered +#@erissa. The last rape incident happened on cto+er $G, $))( when @erissa foundherself tied and naked as she awoke. Jer father mounted her again and had carnalknowledge against her will. 7hen the appellant had left, Leonarda found @erissa anduntied her and told her that the same was done to her +# their father. The# decided to

sta# in the house of their maternal aunts and took the ' #ear9old Jilda awa# too forfear that the same ma# +e done to her. Leonarda later left for 6anila and @erissa told

the incident to her friend who advised to her see a doctor. The medical findingsrevealed that @erissas vagina was in a non9virgin state +ut with several lacerationsdue to se0ual intercourse. @erissa later filed a complaint of rape against her fatherdocketed as Criminal Case )*9>%(% and )*9>%(&. @erissas testimon# wasstraightforward and she was a+le to convincingl# narrate the ordeal she had +eenthrough. he understood the impact of her filing of charges against her father as shestated that it would +e good for him +ecause Khe is eating his own children. Theappellant denied the commission of such crime and contended the impossi+ilit# forhim to +e ph#sicall# present at the place where the rape was committed. !n CriminalCase @o. )*9>%(&, appellant was ac%(%, the trial court found appellant guilt# +e#ond reasona+ledou+t and imposed the penalt# of death.

ISSUE7@ the trial court gravel# erred in imposing the death penalt# uponaccused9appellant despite failure of the prosecution to prove the real age of the victim

RULING2/. Article %%G of the Revised Penal Code, as so amended +# ection $$of R.A. @o. *(G), categoried as a EheinousE offense punisha+le +# death the rape ofa minor +# her own father. !n order that this penalt# would +e imposed, it is re


18/45

An information for rape was filed against the accused 6anuel Pruna # Ramire or/rman Pruna # Ramire 3hereafter PRB@A4 for having succeeded to have se0ualintercourse with the offended part#, Liette Ara+elle -onales, a %9#ear9old minorgirl.

The prosecution presented five witnesses, whose testimonies can +e summed up asfollows?

#$&li% Go%$l, the mother of L!S/TT/, testified that she was fetching water

from the artesian well located ten meters awa# from her house, while L!S/TT/ wasdefecating at the +ack of the house of their neigh+or -loria Tolentino. =ac


19/45

The . !n the a+sence of a certificate of live +irth, authentic document, or the testimon# ofthe victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainantstestimon# will suffice provided that it is e0pressl# and clearl# admitted +# theaccused. O*'

G. !t is the prosecution that has the +urden of proving the age of the offendedpart#. The failure of the accused to o+5ect to the testimonial evidence regarding ageshall not +e taken against him.

!n the present case, no +irth certificate or an# similar authentic document, such as a+aptismal certificate of L!S/TT/, was presented to prove her age.


19
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/138471.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/138471.htm#_ftn78


20/45

For PRB@A to +e convicted of rape in its


21/45

August $G, $))). 1en9hur countered that Araceli had not proven that he was thefather of Arh+encel; and that he was onl# forced to e0ecute the handwritten note onaccount of threats coming from the @ational Peoples Arm#.

The trial court held that, Arh+encels Certificate of 1irth was not prima facieevidence of her filiation to 1en9hur as it did not +ear 1en9hurs signature; that 1en9hurs handwritten undertaking to provide support did not contain a categoricalacknowledgment that Arh+encel is his child; and that there was no showing that 1en9hur performed an# overt act of acknowledgment of Arh+encel as his illegitimate

child after the e0ecution of the note.

n appeal +# Arh+encel, the CA reversed the trial courts decision, declaredArh+encel to +e 1en9hurs illegitimate daughter. The appellate court found that from1en9hurs pa#ment of Aracelis hospital +ills when she gave +irth to Arh+encel andhis su+se:. Famil# reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. The reputation ortradition e0isting in a famil# previous to the controvers#, in respect to the pedigree ofan# one of its mem+ers, ma# +e received in evidence if the witness testif#ing thereon+e also a mem+er of the famil#, either +# consanguinit# or affinit#. /ntries in famil#+i+les or other famil# +ooks or charts, engraving on rings, famil# portraits and thelike, ma# +e received as evidence of pedigree.

!n Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, we stated that the issue of paternit#still has to +e resolved +# such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating

ver+al and written acts +# the putative father.

Bnder Article &*' of the @ew Civil Code, voluntar# recognition +# a parent shall +emade in the record of +irth, a will, a statement +efore a court of record, or in an#authentic writing. To +e effective, the claim of filiation must +e made +# the putativefather himself and the writing must +e the writing of the putative father. A notarialagreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted +# the putative father wasconsidered accepta+le evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to +e a good father tothe child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions,together with the certificate of live +irth, proved filiation. Jowever, a student

permanent record, a written consent to a fatherIs operation, or a marriage contractwhere the putative father gave consent, cannot +e taken as authentic writing. tandingalone, neither a certificate of +aptism nor famil# pictures are sufficient to esta+lishfiliation. 3emphasis and underscoring supplied4

!n the present case, Arh+encel relies, in the main, on the handwritten note e0ecuted +#petitioner. The note does not contain an# statement whatsoever a+out Arh+encelsfiliation to petitioner. !t is, therefore, not within the am+it of Article $*&3&4 vis9V9visArticle $*G of the Famil# Code which admits as competent evidence of illegitimatefiliation an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument signed +# theparent concerned.

The note cannot also +e accorded the same weight as the notarial agreement tosupport the child referred to in Jerrera. For it is not even notaried. And Jerrerainstructs that the notarial agreement must +e accompanied +# the putative fathersadmission of filiation to +e an accepta+le evidence of filiation. Jere, however, notonl# has petitioner not admitted filiation through contemporaneous actions. Je hasconsistentl# denied it.

The onl# other documentar# evidence su+mitted +# Arh+encel, a cop# of herCertificate of 1irth, has no pro+ative value to esta+lish filiation to petitioner, the latternot having signed the same.

At +ottom, all that Arh+encel reall# has is petitioners handwritten undertaking to

provide financial support to her which, without more, fails to esta+lish her claim offiliation. The Court is mindful that the +est interests of the child in cases involvingpaternit# and filiation should +e advanced. !t is, however, 5ust as mindful of thedistur+ance that unfounded paternit# suits cause to the privac# and peace of theputative fathers legitimate famil#.

G.R. No. 1245!, F/r&$r' 24, 1""FRANCISCO L. #ISON,3.

COURT OF APPEALS $% MONINA #ISON,


21


22/45

FACTS

Private Respondent 6onina =ison 36onina4 filed a Complaint against PetitionerFrancisco =ison 3Francisco4 for the recognition of an illegitimate child. he allegedthat Francisco was married to Lilia Lope =ison +ut he impregnated /speranaAmolar, who worked as a nann# of Petitioners daughter. As a result, the 6onina was+orn. he also alleged that Petitioner supported her education until she +ecame acertified pu+lic accountant and even thereafter until she finished a 6asters "egree.

Francisco, however, refused to e0pressl# recognie her.

Among the evidence that she presented were three letters of introduction written +#relatives of the Petitioner. The letters were drafted +ecause she was preparing totravel a+road, and the# were intended to +e su+mitted to the ice Consul of theBnited tates to the Philippines. ne of the letters e0pressl# introduced her as a sonof the Petitioner.

The Trial Court dismissed 6oninas Petition and concluded that the evidenceintroduced +# 6onina were inadmissi+le for +eing hearsa#, increadulous, or self9serving. The Trial Court did not decide on the admissi+ilit# of the letters.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the "ecision of the Trial Court andconcluded that 6onina was an illegitimate daughter of the Petitioner. This time theletters were considered and +ased thereon, the Court of Appeals concluded that theown relatives of the Petitioner recognied 6onina as the daughter of the Petitioner.To the mind of the Court of Appealls, the letters strengthened 6oninas claim thatshe was the illegitimate daughter of the Petitioner.

ISSUE

7hether or not the letters were admissi+le as evidence to prove 6oninas filiation

RULING

The letters were not admissi+le to prove pedigree, +ut it ma# +e admitted to proveher allegation that Franciscos relatives recognied her as the latters daughter.

7hile it is true that the authenticit# of the letters were not contested, these were notadmissi+le to prove pedigree +ecause 3$4 the relatives of the Petitioner were notshown to +e dead or una+le to testif# and 3&4 the relationship +etween 6onina andthe authors of these letters were not shown +# an# document other than the letters.Bnder ection >:, Rule $%: of the Rules of Court, the relatives who were purportedto +e the authors of the said letters must take the witness stand for the evidence to +eadmitted. 1ut even if the# were presented as witnesses, the letters cannot +eadmitted. ection >:, Rule $%: of the Rules of Court states that K/ntries in famil#

+i+les or other famil# +ooks or charts, engravings on rings, famil# portraits and thelike ma# +e received as evidence of pedigree. The letters were not within the scope

The Court affirmed the "ecision of the Court of Appeals and concluded,+ased on theother evidence, that 6onina is an illegitimate daughter of Francisco.

A.M. No. 5!!, Sp;/r 12, 1"74IN RE FLORENCIO MALLARE,

FACTS

Respondent Florencio 6allare 3Florencio4 was admitted to the Philippine 1ar on

6arch G, $)(&. Jowever, Acting !mmigration Commissioner 6artiniano ivo filed aComplaint pra#ing that his name +e stricken off the Roll of Attorne#s for +eing aChinese Citien.

After an investigation conducted +# the Legal fficer !nvestigator, the Court decidedthat Florencio was Chinese +ecause +oth of his parents were Chinese nationals. neof the facts cited as a +asis +# the Court was the a+sence of proof that Ana 6allare3Ana4, Florencios grandmother, was an inha+itant of the Philippines continuing toreside in the Philippines and was a panish su+5ect on April $$ $')). The Courtdeclared him e0cluded from the practice of law.

After his 6otion for Reconsideration was denied, Florencio petitioned for the re9

opening of the case and for new trial on the ground of newl#9discovered evidence.The evidence included 3$4 an entr# in the registr# of +aptism of the !mmaculateConcepcion Church at 6acalelon, Hueon where it showed that his father, /ste+an6allare 3/ste+an4, is the son of Ana 6allare, who was a Filipino Citien; and 3&4testimonies of certain persons who had known his father /ste+an and his grandmotherAna, to prove that the latter was also a Filipino.

ISSUE

7hether or not /ste+an 6allare is a Filipino Citien

RULING

/ste+an 6allare is a Filipino Citien.

The witnesses presented +# Florencio, all of whom had personal knowledge of theperson, +irth and residenc# of +oth Ana 6allare and /ste+an, were all consistent intestif#ing that Ana 6allare was a Tagalog who had continuousl# resided in the place,and that /ste+an, her son, was reputedl# +orn out of wedlock. To the Court, thesedeclarations were admissi+le as evidence of the +irth and illegitimac# of /ste+an6allare. Common reputation was admissi+le as evidence of age, +irth, race, or race9ancestr#, and on the


23/45

/ste+an 6allare, having +een a natural child of Ana 6allare, a Filipino Citien, wastherefore himself a Filipino. The Court set aside its earlier decision and dismissed theComplaint of the Acting !mmigration Commissioner.

G.R. No. 146161, #&l' 17, 2006PEPITO CAPILA3.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS An !nformation for ro++er# was filed against Petitioner Pepito Capila3Capila4, "imas "ela Cru 3"ela Cru4 and four others, including two unidentifiedpersons. The !nformation alleged that the Capila and his co9accused conspired, +#means of force, violence and intimidation, to steal mone# in the amount of P$.%6illion and three 3%4 paltik amounting to P$',:::.:: from Pilipinas 1ank at a6eralco Collection ffice in 6akati. The accused pleaded not guilt#.

Among witnesses that the# +rought to the Trial Court was P> Romualdo 6a0imo.Je testified that he arrived a+out ten minutes after the incident. Je


24/45

RULING@. Res gestae means the Ethings done.E !t Erefers to those e0clamationsand statements made +# either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crimeimmediatel# +efore, during, or immediatel# after the commission of the crime, whenthe circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reactionor utterance inspired +# the e0citement of the occasion and there was no opportunit#for the declarant to deli+erate and to fa+ricate a false statement.E

The cases are not uniform as to the interval of time that should separate theoccurrence of the startling event and the making of the declaration. 7hat is

important is that the declarations were voluntaril# and spontaneousl# made so nearl#and were made under such circumstances as necessaril# to e0clude the idea of designor deli+eration.

The Court find the 9hour dela# in reporting the incident to his wife andother mem+ers of his famil#. Je could easil# negotiate that distance in less than Gminutes.The shock and e0citement it naturall# produced was more than enough to propel his

feet to +ring him to his famil# as soon as possi+le. !t +ehooved /lpidio to rela# thetragic event to those dear to him without an# dela#; thus, his conduct cannot +ereconciled with human e0perience, ordinar# ha+its of men and common sense.Another +adge of untrustworthiness attri+uta+le to the alleged statement given +#/lpidio to his wife is his deli+erate suppression of the names of the EsuspectsE whenhe reported the incident to the police authorities of Calasiao, Pangasinan in themorning of &% @ovem+er $)'&.

G.R. No. 1720!1. #&l' 14, 200.#UANITO TALI+ANO, piio%r, 3. FALCON MARITIME ALLIE+SER-ICES, INC., SPECIAL EIGHTH +I-ISION OF THE COURT OFAPPEALS, AN+ LA)OR AR)ITER ERMITA C. CU(UGA, rpo%%.

FACTSTalidano was emplo#ed as a second marine officer +# Falcon 6aritime andAllied ervices, !nc. and was assigned to 6M Phoeni0 even. Jis $9#ear contract ofemplo#ment commenced on $G cto+er $))(. Je claimed that his chief officer, aorean, alwa#s discriminated and maltreated the Filipino crew. This prompted himto send a letter9complaint to the officer9in9charge of the !nternational TransportFederation 3!TF4 in London, a measure that allegedl# was resented +# the chiefofficer, which led to his dismissal on &$ =anuar# $))*. 1ut he filed a complaint forillegal dismissal on &* cto+er $))).

Falcon 6aritime countered that Talidano had voluntaril# disem+arked the vesselafter having +een warned several times of dismissal from service for his

incompetence, insu+ordination, disrespect and insulting attitude toward his superiors.

!t cited an incident involving TalidanoIs incompetence, as proof, it presented a cop# ofa fa0 message, sent to it on the date of incident, as well as a cop# of the report of crewdischarge issued +# the master of 6M Phoeni0 even two da#s after the incident.

The La+or Ar+iter rendered 5udgment favoring Falcon 6aritime, +ut on appeal, the@LRC reversed the ruling of the La+or Ar+iter. The CA also dismissed the appeal+ased on technicalit#.

ISSUE 7@ thefa0 messages constitute as res gestae.

RULING@.

The first fa0 message dated $' =anuar# $))* is reproduced +elow?

=BT R/C/!/" PJ@/ CALL FR6 6AT/R @ CMFF!C/R TJATTJ/2 "/C!"/" T "!CJAR-/ &MFF!C/R AT AA PRT."B/ T 6!91/JA!BR @ R//T O!C T FF!C!AL R"/R.CAPT. JA" R/C/!/" /6/R-/@C2 7AR@!@- CALL FR6 =APA@1!A@ /T @A!A! RA"! ABTJR!T2 TJAT J!P ! !@A"!@-TJ/R RBT/., J/ 7A BRPR!/" @ CA6/ T 1R!"-/ @ FB@" &M @T

CARR2 BT J! 7ATCJ "BT2.6AT/R CL" J!6 A1BT TJ! @ CRR/CT J! /RRR 1BT J/R/!T O!C TJAT J/ ! R!-JT A@" TJ/@ A!" TJAT J/ 7!LLC6/ 1AC J6/.FBRTJ/R 6R/ J/ A/" 6AT/R T PA2 J!6 !.T.F. 7A-/CAL/.6AT/R @MC! TR@-L2 A/" B J! R/PATR!AT!@ 7!TJ!./.B.PL. C@F!R6 2BR P!@!@ @ TJ! JAPP/@!@-.

The second fa0 message dated &: =anuar# $))* pertained to a report of crewdischarge essentiall# containing the same information as the first fa0 message.

ection >& of Rule $%: >: of the Rules of Court mentions two acts which form part ofthe res gestae, namel#? spontaneous statements and ver+al acts. !n spontaneouse0clamations, the res gestae is the startling occurrence, whereas in ver+al acts, the resgestae are the statements accompan#ing the e


25/45

Assuming that TalidanoIs negligence which allegedl# caused the ship to deviatefrom its course is the startling occurrence, there is no showing that the statementscontained in the fa0 messages were made immediatel# after the alleged incident. !naddition, no dates have +een mentioned to determine if these utterances were madespontaneousl# or with careful deli+eration. A+sent the critical element of spontaneit#,the fa0 messages cannot +e admitted as part of the res gestae of the first kind.

@either will the ver+al acts appl#, the re


26/45

Aida 1ulong and Linda /stavillo with the knowledge of, and immediatel# after, thesinking of the deceased. !n this instance, the startling event had not #et ceased when/rnesto entered the scene considering that the victim remained su+merged.Bnder such a circumstance, it is undenia+le that a state of mind characteried +#nervous e0citement had +een triggered in /rnestos +eing as an#+od# under the samecontingenc# could have e0perienced. As such, the Court cannot e0clude his shoutsthat the water was grounded from the res gestae 5ust +ecause he did not actuall# seethe sinking of the deceased nor hear her scream EA#.E/rnestos shouts were not mere opinion his shout were a translation of an actualit# as

perceived +# him through his sense of touch.The fact that he was not presented to testif# does not make the testimon# of Linda/stavillo and Aida 1ulong hearsa# since the said declaration is part of the res gestae.

)es 1estae

Popl 3 P$l;o%F$Accused9appellants Anthon# 6elchor Palmones and Anthon# 1altaar Palmoneswere convicted +# trial court of the crime murder.The prosecution first presented onn# 1o# Redovan, a &' #ear9old farmer who wasthe nephew of the victim. Je testified that when the# rushed to the idapawan"octors Jospital and proceeded to the emergenc# room. Bpon seeing his uncle, the

witness went near him and asked him what had happened to him. Jis uncle answeredthat he had +een wa#laid. The witness then asked the victim who the perpetratorswere and the victim answered that it was E=uan# and Ton# PalmonesE which were thenicknames of the two accused9appellants. The prosecution ne0t presented "r. Jael6ark Agua#o who testified that he was the surgeon9on9dut# on the da# that P:&6amansal was shot. Je stated that +efore he operated on the victim, he interviewed6amansal and one of the


27/45

taken together, indu+ita+l# show that the statements allegedl# uttered +# 6amansallack the re


28/45

Appellant then 5oined in the search for AAA. 1efore long, A+elardo found thelifeless +od# of AAA l#ing on the ground near+#. AAA was half9naked and sheappeared to have +een ravished when the# found her. !mmediatel#, A+elardo calledthe +aranga# officials and the police.

1aranga#2agawadCarmelita 6awac 3Carmelita4 and other +aranga#officials and tanods, including Rafael 6otol and 1onifacio itto, arrived. Bponarrival, the# noticed the +loodstains on appellants clothing. Carmelita askedappellant what he did, +ut appellant denied an# knowledge of what happened.Carmelita then went to the half9naked +od# of AAA and again asked appellant wh#

he did such a thing to his cousin. A :$ poi%, $ppll$% $;i o :/$r$%@$' oii$l $% tanods:$ : 9$ : o% 1 9:o o;;i : ri;.H $;i :$ : r$p $% ill AAA.6B)$r$%@$' TanodR$$l Mool $loo/$i% : $; o%io% ro; $ppll$% 9:% : i%r3i9 :i; i%ro% oo:r popl, %$;l', A/l$ro, C$r;li$, $% )o%i$io -io, $ 9ll $Ar%$lo M$9$, Co%:i$ $% I/o' Sr$, $% S$l3$or $% #&li$Mool. Appellant was then photographed +# the police and 6ari+eth, who at thattime had a camera on hand.

ISSUE7@ the admission of appellant areadmissi+le as evidence8

HEL+ (ES, : $ i% :i $ l$rl' :o9 :$ $ppll$% $;i

: o;;iio% o : ri; o : pro&io%J 9i%. Aori%@ o :iri;o%i, $ppll$% $;i :$3i%@ r$p $% ill AAA. T:ir i;o%i9r %o r/& /' : %. Appll$%J $;% i%ro% o :pro&io% 9i% $r $;ii/l or /i%@ p$r o : resgestae. U%r: R3i R&l o% E3i%,21B$ l$r$io% i ; p$r o : resgestae$% $;ii/l i% 3i% $ $% Kpio% o : :$r$' r&l 9:% :ollo9i%@ r&ii o%&r 1 : pri%ip$l $, : res gestae, i $ $rli%@o&rr%= 2 : $;% 9r ;$ /or : l$r$% :$ i; oo%ri3 or 3i= $% ! : $;% ;& o%r% : o&rr% i%&io% $% i i;;i$l' $%i%@ ir&;$%.22B All : r&ii $rpr% i% :i $. Appll$% :$ & /% :ro&@: $ $rli%@ $% @r&o;o&rr%, AAAJ $:. Hi $;iio% 9$ ;$ 9:il : 9$ ill &%r :

i%l&% o $i $rli%@ o&rr% $% /or : :$ $% oppor&%i' oo%o or o%ri3 $ or'. I% $iio%, : 9$ ill &%r : i%l&% o$lo:ol $ :$ i;, :$3i%@ %@$@ i% $ ri%i%@ pr ro; 100 p.;. o 700p.;. :$ $'. Hi o%io% o%r% : r$p $% illi%@ o AAA.Appll$%J po%$%o& $;% ;$ o pri3$ pro%, %o $@% o :S$ or l$9 %orr, $r %o o3r /' : o%i&io%$l $@&$r o%&oi$l i%3i@$io% $%, $ res gestae, $;ii/l i% 3i% $@$i% :i;.

8HEREFORE, the appeal of Tirso ace # 6onto#a is +ISMISSE+andthe @ovem+er &:, &::( "ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA9-.R. CR9 J.C. @o.:&%&> is AFFIRME+ 9i: MO+IFICATIONS.

7ith costs against the accused9appellant.

SO OR+ERE+.

G.R. No. L4"14" Oo/r 2!, 1"1THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff9appellee, vs.GREGORIO TA(LARAN $li$ Gori%@ defendant9appellant.

FACTS

-regorio Ta#laran was charged with crime of murder. Je was convicted andsentenced to life imprisonment and was ordered to indemnif# the heirs of the deceasedfremia Atup in the sum of P $&,::: and to pa# costs. Appealing to this Court,appellant insists on his defense of accidental, not deli+erate killing.

The case presents different version of evidence one is for the prosecution andthe other for defense. The evidence for the prosecution presented the testimonies ofalvador Atup, policeman, "emetrio 1asilad and =uanita 1usalla. According to them,Ta#laran went to deceased fremia house to su+mit himself for treatment of hissnake9+ite. 7hile inside Ta#laran suddenl# drew his small +olo and sta++ed thedeceased several times.After killing the deceased, accused proceeded to the house ofthe son of the deceased for the purpose of killing him and his wife +ut accused did not

accomplish his purpose +ecause the deceasedIs son refused to left him enter his house.After that accused surrendered himself with his +olo to "emetrio, when asked wh# hekilled the deceased who was also his grandmother9in9law, accused answered X+ecauseshe promised to kill me with a +arang, hence ! killed her first.

n the other hand, the defense presented the testimonies of accused himselfand /lpidio 6ende. According to Ta#laran, when he was +itten +# a snake whiletending his cara+ao, he immediatel# proceeded to the house of his grandmother9in9lawfremia for treatment. The deceased then instructed him to open his snake9+ite withhis +olo so that the venom can +e drained out. 7hile he was opening his snake9+itewith a +olo, he accidentall# put out the light of a kerosene lamp. This prompted thedeceased to re9light said lamp. he +anded her +od# down with her two hands

e0tended towards the floor to light said lamp. At the ver# time that deceased was+ending her +od# downward, accused lifted his right hand which was holding the +oloupward, so that the point of the +olo accidentall# hit deceasedIs right chest penetratingthe nipple and resulting in her death. Bpon realiing that the deceased was fatall#wounded, accused asked for her forgiveness and after that he ran awa#.

ISSUE

7hether or not the statements of the prosecution witness 1asilad isadmissi+le as part of res gestae.

RULING


28
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/178063.htm#_ftn22


29/45

!t is e0tremel# difficult to accept the accident version of appellant which hepurve#ed without corro+oration. 6ore than one wound was found sustained +# thedeceased, on different parts of the +od#. ne single stroke could not have inflicted allof them. The first wound could possi+l# have +een accidentall# inflicted, +ut theother, wounds could not have +een similarl# inflicted if, as 5ust pointed out, the# didnot result from the first +low. Their locations preclude that a single +low produced allthe wounds. This fact ro+s the accident theor# of appellant of an# plausi+ilit#.

The e0planation of appellant as to how the wounds other than that locatedon the right chest was inflicted simpl# cannot inspire +elief. !n tr#ing to succor theold woman when she fell upon +eing hit accidentall# with the point of the +olo, asappellant alleged, he could not have kept on holding the +olo. Je would havedropped it instantl#, as instinct would have made him do so. The infliction of morewounds after the first was therefore deli+erate and not +# mere accident. !t is,likewise, hard to +elieve that a mere accidental hitting with the point of the small+olo, and therefore not with so much force, would inflict a wound that is so fatal asthat sustained on the chest.

That the wounding was with intent to kill is reflected +# appellantIsstatement that he killed the old woman +ecause she had allegedl# promised to killhim +# E+arangE or +# witchcraft, which he gave upon surrendering to Pat. "emetrio1asilad at the 6unicipal 1uilding. !t was 5ust natural for appellant to e0plain to thepolice wh# he was surrendering. For Pat. 1asilad to testif# on what appellant said onthis score is thus perfectl# proper, and full credence must +e accorded to him, +eingo+viousl# an impartial witness. !t is not a matter of whether the statement is a part oftheres gestaeto +e admissi+le.

Appellant of course denies having made the admission, +ut in the light ofthe other evidence of the prosecution, his denial is not convincing. As demonstratedearlier, his accident theor# of the killing merits not much credi+ilit# from the merefact that more than one wound was inflicted which could not have resulted from 5ustone +low. Repeated +lows easil# negates an# claim of wounding +# mere accident.

The fact that he was not allowed to enter the house of =uanita 1usalla,daughter of the deceased, when he went there directl# from the old womanIs house,would show that he appeared, +# his +ehavior or words, that he was dangerousl# inan angr# mood, which is indicative of +eing a deli+erate killer rather than asorrowful and harmless penitent for a killing he has committed onl# +# accident. As=uanita also testified, when appellant was alread# in 5ail, he told her that he killed hermother +ecause of witchcraft, corro+orating Pat. 1asiladIs testimon#. !t would,therefore, +e of no avail for appellant to contend that the court a /uo erred inadmitting appellantIs statement he made upon surrendering that he killed thedeceased +ecause the latter intended to kill him +# witchcraft as part of the resgestae. The testimon# of +oth Pat. 1asilad and =uanita 1usalla on the inculpator#

statement of appellant is legall# admissi+le not +ecause the statement is part of the

res gestae, +ut for said witnesses having heard appellant made the statement on theirown perception.

)A(


30/45

@onetheless, granting her fears, 7e cannot understand wh# she still failedto go to the police authorities upon arrival from -erman# of her father and hermother, +rothers and sister, from the tates. The ph#sical presence of these personswould haveprovidedher the necessar# moral support and would have shielded herfrom feared reprisals.

Take the case of the father, Teofilo /stepa, r., who allegedl# arrived =ul#&', $)'>, and was informed +# his daughter a+out this so called Ed#ing declarationEon =ul# %:, $)'>. A fatherIs first impulse when his +eloved son dies +# the hand of

others is to see to it that 5ustice is done and the culprits are apprehended. 2et, hemaintained a stoic silence and did not alert the police. This +ecomes more incredi+lewhen the alleged assailants are 5ust their close neigh+ors, one of whom resided in thesame +aranga# while the other in the ad5oining +aranga#. 6oreover, the accused7ilfredo 1oco, the +est friend of the late 1ong /stepa, had +een visiting the remainsof his deceased companion and pa#ing his respects during the vigil. 7hat preventedthe famil# from making an anguished outcr# and complain to the police that theEkillersE of their son were roaming at large while their son was a+out to +e +uried.This is the natural reaction of a normal human +eing with normal emotions andfeelings. Bnless the /stepa famil# claim to +e a+normal, the# cannot help +ut reactas ordinar# human +eings should and would given the same circumstances.

As +etween the spontaneous statements of 1ernadette /stepa, therefore, andthose which she gave +efore the @1! two weeks after her +rotherIs death, it is clearthat the former statements should +e given weight and credence.

Contrar#, therefore to 1ong /stepaIs d#ing declaration that he was Eshot andsta++edE, 1ong /stepa died of a single gunshot wound. Je was not sta++ed.

!n giving credence to the d#ing declaration, the prosecution cites thedamage done to petitionerIs motorc#cle +# +oth 1ong /stepa and 7ilfredo 1oco3petitionerIs co9accused4 as petitionerIs motive for illing /stepa. Although living inad5oining +aranga#s, however, petitioner and /stepa never got to know each other. !twas onl# +ecause of the incident on =ul# &%, $)'> when petitioner found his

motorc#cle l#ing damaged on the street that petitioner got ac


31/45


32/45

apprising him of the particular act or omission for which his dismissal was soughtand a su+se%, Rule $%:, of the Rules of Courtstates?

/C. >%. /ntries in the course of +usiness. /ntries made at, or near the time of thetransactions to which the# refer, +# a person deceased, or una+le to testif#, who wasin a position to know the facts therein stated, ma# +e received as prima facieevidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacit# or in the

performance of dut# and in the ordinar# or regular course of +usiness or dut#.

!n Can4 "r. Jeath made the

entries in his professional capacit# and in the performance of his dut#; and 3G4 theentries were made in the ordinar# or regular course of +usiness or dut#.

The fact that the drug test result is unsigned does not necessaril# lead to theconclusion that =ose, =r. was not found positive for mari5uana.

!n the present case, the following facts are esta+lished 3$4 random drug tests areregularl# conducted on all officers and crew mem+ers of 6MT Limar; 3&4 a random

drug test was conducted at the port of Curacao on ' cto+er &::&; 3%4 "r. Jeath wasthe authoried ph#sician of 6MT Limar; 3>4 the drug test result of =ose, =r. showed thathe was positive for mari5uana; 3G4 the drug test result was issued under "r. Jeathsname and contained his handwritten comments. The Court of Appeals found that?

The tests administered to the crew were routine measures of the vessel conducted toenforce its stated polic#, and it was a matter of course for medical reports to +e issuedand released +# the medical officer. The ships ph#sician at Curacao under whom thetests were conducted was admittedl# "r. Jeath. !t was under his name and with hishandwritten comments that the report on the respondent came out, and there is no+asis to suspect that these results were issued other than in the ordinar# course of hisdut#. As the la+or ar+iter points out, the drug test report is evidence in itself and does

not re


33/45

R"/R/".

G.R. No. 1526!6 A&@& , 2007

CRISL(N+ON T. SA+AGNOT,Petitioner,vs.REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. $% NEPTUNESHIPMANAGEMENT SER-ICES, PTE., LT+. o SINGAPORE,Respondents.

FACTS

Reinier Pacific !nternational hipping !nc. and @eptune hipment 6anagement PT/LT" ingapore hired Crisl#ndon adagnot as % rdofficer of the vessel 6 1aotrans.The contract was for $: months with a salar# of Y(G:. adagnot was ordered toperform hatch stripping and deck work. adagnot refused as it was not related to hisduties as %rdofficer. adagnot alleged that +ecause of his refusal, he was givenseveral negative reports and he was repatriated to the Philippines. Petitioner allegedthat he was prematurel# repatriated and was not given opportunit# to avail of thecompan#s grievance procedure. Reinier and @eptune alleged that he was repatriatedfor wilful disregarded of and failure to o+e# the 6asters lawful order which

constitutes insu+ordination.

@LRC found Reiner and @eptune 5ointl# and solidaril# lia+le to pa# complaint.Respondents 3Reinier and @eptune4 filed and appealed with @LRC. @LRC set asideLa+or Ar+iters ruling. 6R was denied +# @LRC.

CA affirmed the ruling of @LRC and noted that repatriation was +ased on a report inthe log+ook dul# signed +# the 6aster and Chief fficer N his acts constituted wilfuldiso+edience.

ISSUE

CA erred in adopting the log+ook entr# as evidence of his misconduct8

RULING

@o. CA did not err. The ships log+ook is the official record of a ships vo#age whichits captain is o+ligated +# law to keep. !t is where the captain records the decisionshe has adopted, a summar# of the performance of the vessel, and other dail#events. The entries made in the ships log+ook +# a person performing a dut#re


34/45

Bnder this e0ceptions to the hearsa# rule, the admission in evidence of entries incorporate +ooks re. The entries were made in his professional capacit# or in the performance of

a dut#, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; andG. The entries were made in the ordinar# or regular course of +usiness or dut#.

The ledger entries did not meet the first and third re%, which must +escrupulousl# o+served to prevent them from +eing used as a source of undueadvantage for the part# preparing them.

G.R. No. 11464. +;/r 21, 1""

HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI $% ROSARIO CUARIO,petitioners,vs.COURT OF APPEALS $% L(+IA S. RE(ES $ Aor%'i%F$o #OSEFINA S. RE(ES, )ERNAR+ITA S. PALILIO, HERMINIA S.PALILIO, REME+IOS A. SAMPA(O, ILUMINA+A A. SAMPA(O, ENRICOA. SAMPA(O, CARLOS A. SAMPA(O, GENEROSO C. SAMPA(O, M(RNAC. SAMPA(O, ROSALINO C. SAMPA(O, MANUEL C. SAMPA(O, +ELIAA. SAMPA(O, CORAON C. SAMPA(O, NILO C. SAMPA(O, $% LOLITAA. SAMPA(O i% :r o9% /:$l $% $ Aor%'i%F$ o NORMAA. SAMPA(O, respondents.

FACTSLourdes ampa#o and !gnacio Conti, married to Rosario Cuario, were theco9owners of a G%)9s


35/45

the Philippines, or of a foreign countr#. Thus, the +aptismal certificates presented +#private respondents are pu+lic documents as the same are issued +# parish priestswho continue to +e the legal custodians of the parish records.

The admissi+ilit# of +aptismal certificates offered +# L#dia even withoutthe testimon# of the officiating priest or the official recorder, was +ased onPeople v.)itter, citing 5.*. v. de 6era3&' Phil. $:G O$)$>4, wherein it was stated that? x x xthe entries made in the )egistry 7ook may be considered as entries made in the

course of the business under *ection 89 of )ule :9;, which is an exception to the

hearsay rule. The baptisms administered by the church are one of its transactions in

the exercise of ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the book of the church during thecourse of its business.

Although the +aptismal certificates are evidence onl# of the administration ofthe sacrament, it must +e taken into consideration that there were four 3>4 +aptismalcertificates in this case, which when taken together, show that Lourdes, =osefina,Remedios, and Luis had the same parents. The same was corro+orated Adelaidaampa#o when she testified that as Lourdes and her +rothers 6anuel, Luis and sisterRemedios died, =osefina was onl# living si+ling left. Thus, the said +aptismalcertificates have ac


36/45

+ut were ignored +# Ara


37/45

%, Rule $%: of the Rules of Court

3ntries in the course of business. = 3ntries made at, or near the time of the

transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify,

who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received

as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional

capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular

course of business or duty.

ISSUE7@ the testimon# of the witness for the petitioner Cristina Ra#os was ane0ception to the hearsa# rule

RULING@o. The provision does not appl# to this case +ecause it does not involveentries made in the course of +usiness. Ra#os testified on a statement of account sheprepared on the +asis of invoices and deliver# orders which she, however, knewnothing a+out. he had no personal knowledge of the facts on which the accountswere +ased since, admittedl#, she was not involved in the deliver# of goods and wasmerel# in charge of the records and documents of all accounts receiva+le as part of

her duties as credit and collection manager. he thus knew nothing of the truth orfalsit# of the facts stated in the invoices and deliver# orders, i.e., whether suchdeliveries were in fact made in the amounts and on the dates stated, or whether the#were actuall# received +# respondent. he was not even the credit and collectionmanager during the period the agreement was in effect. This can onl# mean that shemerel# o+tained these documents from another without an# personal knowledge oftheir contents.

The foregoing shows that Ra#os was incompetent to testif# on whether or not theinvoices and deliver# orders turned over to her correctl# reflected the details of thedeliveries made. Thus, the CA correctl# disregarded her testimon#. Furthermore, theinvoices and deliver# orders presented +# petitioner were self9serving. Javing

generated these documents, petitioner could have easil# fa+ricated them. Petitionersfailure to present an# competent witness to identif# the signatures and otherinformation in those invoices and deliver# orders cast dou+t on their veracit#.

Petitioner ne0t argues that respondent did not den# during the trial that it received thegoods covered +# the invoices and was therefore deemed to have admitted thesame. This argument cannot +e taken seriousl#. From the ver# +eginning,respondents position was that petitioner concocted falsified charges of non9pa#mentto 5ustif# the termination of their agreement. !n no wa# could respondent +e deemedto have admitted those deliveries.

Petition is "/@!/".

G.R. No. L12"6. M$r: !1, 1"66.THE SPOUSES )ERNA)E AFRICA $% SOLE+A+ C. AFRICA $% :HEIRS OF +OMINGA ONG, piio%r$ppll$%, 3. CALTE> PHIL. INC.,MATEO )O


38/45

The reports in


39/45

RULING(. The Certification issued +# Captain Jonorade even without +eing sworn to+efore a notar# pu+lic would not onl# +e admissi+le in evidence, +ut would also +eentitled to due consideration.Rule $%:, ection >> of the Rules of Court provides?/C. >>. /ntries in official records./ntries in official records made in theperformance of his dut# +# a pu+lic officer of the Philippines, or +# a person in theperformance of a dut# speciall# en5oined +# law, are prima facie evidence of the

facts therein stated. There are three 3%4 re'.:: representing the value of the fishing +oat with interest of ( perannum; PG:,::: attorne#s fees and the cost of suit.The +asis of said amount was the testimon# of the general manager of 6aria /figeniaFishin Corporation,/dil+erto del Rosario and several documentar# evidence thatincluded? ownership certificate, price G Rule $%: of the Revised Ruleson /vidence in so far as the# fall under the Kor other pu+lished compilation phrase ofthe rule.ection >G. Commercial lists and the like. /vidence of statements of matters ofinterest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, orother pu+lished compilation is admissi+le as tending to prove the truth of an# relevantmatter so stated if that compilation is pu+lished for use +# persons engaged in thatoccupation and is generall# used and relied upon +# them therein.

I&7@ the documents fall under the e0ception to the hearsa# evidence rule under sec.

>G rule $%: of the Revised Rules on /vidence and would therefore +e competentenough to esta+lish the amount of actual and compensator# damages.R&li%@ 7ith respect to the documentar# evidence, the C ruled in favor of thepetitioner P@C9TC. For actual and compensator# damages, the in5ured part# isre


40/45

ne of the e0emptions to the hearsa# evidence rule under ec.%*9>* of Rule $%: ofthe Revised Rules on /vidence is Kcommercial lists.Jowever, the


41/45

CARMELITA TAN $% RO+OLFO TAN,petitioners, vs. COURT OFAPPEALS $% FRANCISCO TAN $li$ T$% U: )$ $% T$% S%@ *$, respondents.

FACTS

The present is a suit aimed at esta+lishing a children9to9father, illegitimaterelationship +etween petitioners and the principal respondent Francisco Tan, and tocompel the latter to support petitioners.

Petitioners, thru their mother Celestina "aldo as guardian ad litem, suedrespondent Tan in the Court of First !nstance of 6anila for acknowledgment andsupport.

Petitioners after presenting oral and documentar# evidence and were a+outto rest their case. "aldo moved to dismiss the foregoing civil case upon the groundthat the parties had come to an amica+le settlement, and pra#ed that the same +edismissed with pre5udice and without recourse of appeal. he made an affidavitcategoricall# stating that respondent Francisco Tan, defendant in Civil Case &():),Eis not the father of m# said minor children named Carmelita and Rodolfo 3herein

petitioners4 +ut another person whose name ! cannot divulgeE; and that she preparedsaid affidavit precisel# Eto record what is true and to correct what misinterpretationma# arise in the futureE. RTC then moved to dismiss on +ased on thea+ovementioned grounds.

After one #ear and eight months from the dismissal of the case. Petitioners,this time thru their maternal grandfather ervillano "aldo as guardian ad litem,commenced the present action +efore the =uvenile [ "omestic Relations Court3Civil Case ::'GG4 for acknowledgment and support, involving the same parties,cause of action and su+5ect matter. Jowever, the court dismissed the case declaringthat it is res 5udicata. Bpon motion for reconsideration, the court declared thatpetitioners were the illegitimate children of Francisco Tan hence, Tan should support

the minors. Tan appealed to the CA assailing the admissi+ilit# of petitionerstestimon# at a former trial. The CA favors Tan leading to the dismissal of the case.

ISSUE

7hether or not testimonies of petitioners witnesses at a former trial isadmissi+le as evidence in the su+se: Rules of Court,now ection >$, Rule $%:, vi-?

/C. >$. Testimony at a former trial. The testimon# of a witness deceasedor out of the Philippines, or una+le to testif#, given in a former case +etweenthe same parties, relating to the same matter, the adverse part# having had anopportunit# to cross9e0amine him, ma# +e given in evidence.

Concededl#, the witnesses at the former trial were su+poenaed +# the=uvenile [ "omestic Relations Court a num+er of times. These witnesses did notappear to testif#.

1ut are their testimonies in the former trial within the coverage of the rule ofadmissi+ilit# set forth in ection >$, Rule $%:8 These witnesses are not dead. The#are not outside of the Philippines. Can the# +e categoried as witnesses of the classunable to testify8 The Court of Appeals, construing this term, held that Esu+se .7. &%:, &%$; section %* of Rule $&%,Rules of Court4.E

Jere, the witnesses in $,Rule $%: of the Rules of Court.

O:io 3. Ro/r44 U.S. 56 1"0


41


42/45

1rief Fact ummar#. "efendant, Jerschel Ro+erts, was charged with forger# forwriting checks in the name of 1ernard !saacs. "efendant was a+le to


43/45

attesting to the fact that deponent has left the countr# +ut silent as to whether or notat the time his deposition was offered in evidence is in the Philippines8

RULING2es. @one of the conditions in ec. >, Rule &% e0ists to 5ustif# the admission inevidence of a+inos /0hi+its K"" and K//. Also, the certification merel# provesthe fact of Corral having left the countr# on the date mentioned. !t does not esta+lishthat he has not returned since then and is unavaila+le to +e present in court topersonall# testif#.

7hile depositions ma# +e used as evidence in court proceedings, the# are generall#not meant to +e a su+stitute for the actual testimon# in open court of a part# orwitness. tated a +it differentl#, a deposition is not to +e used when the deponent is athand. !ndeed, an# deposition offered during a trial to prove the facts therein set out,in lieu of the actual oral testimon# of the deponent in open court, ma# +e opposedand e0cluded on the ground of hearsa#. Jowever, depositions ma# +e used withoutthe deponent +eing called to the witness stand +# the proponent, provided thee0istence of certain conditions is first satisfactoril# esta+lished. G e0ceptions for theadmissi+ilit# of a deposition are listed in ection >, Rule &%. Among these is whenthe witness is out of the Philippines.

G.R. No. 14671015. M$r: 2, 2001B#OSEPH E. ESTRA+A,petitioner, vs.ANIANO +ESIERTO, i% :i $p$i' $

O;/&;$%, RAMON GONALES, -OLUNTEERS AGAINSTCRIME AN+ CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINESFOUN+ATION, INC., LEONAR+ +E -ERA, +ENNIS FUNA,ROMEO CAPULONG $% ERNESTO ). FRANCISCO,#R., respondent.

G.R. No. 1467!. M$r: 2, 2001B

#OSEPH E. ESTRA+A,petitioner, vs.GLORIA MACAPAGALARRO(O, respondent.

FACTS !t +egan in cto+er &::: when allegations of wrong doings involving+ri+e9taking, illegal gam+ling, and other forms of corruption were made against/strada +efore the enate 1lue Ri++on Committee. n @ovem+er $%, &:::, /stradawas impeached +# the Jor and, on "ecem+er *, impeachment proceedings were+egun in the enate during which more serious allegations of graft and corruptionagainst /strada were made and were onl# stopped on =anuar# $(, &::$ when $$senators, s#mpathetic to the President, succeeded in suppressing damaging evidenceagainst /strada. As a result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as theentire prosecution panel walked out and enate President Pimentel resigned aftercasting his vote against /strada.

n =anuar# $), P@P and the AFP also withdrew their support for /strada and 5oined

the crowd at /"A hrine. /strada called for a snap presidential election to +e held

concurrentl# with congressional and local elections on 6a# $>, &::$. Je added thathe will not run in this election. n =anuar# &:, C declared that the seat of presidenc#was vacant, sa#ing that /strada Kconstructivel# resigned his post. At noon, Arro#otook her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at /"A as the $>th President./strada and his famil# later left 6alacaQang Palace. /rap, after his fall, filed petitionfor prohi+ition with pra#er for 7P!. !t sought to en5oin the respondent m+udsmanfrom Kconducting an# further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his termas president ends. Je also pra#ed for 5udgment Kconfirming /strada to +e the lawfuland incum+ent President of the Repu+lic of the Philippines temporaril# una+le to

discharge the duties of his office.

ISSUE 7hether the use of the Angara diar# to determine the state of mind of thepetitioner on the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the admission ofhearsa# evidence.

RULING The Angara diar# contains statements of the petitioner, which reflect hisstate of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. !t also containsstatements of ec. Angara from which we can reasona+l# deduce petitioners intent toresign. The# are admissi+le and the# are not covered +# the rule on hearsa#. Let it +eemphasied that it is not unusual for courts to distill a persons su+5ective intent fromthe evidence +efore them. This has long +een a


44/45

FACTS As Chair of the Provincial 1oard of Canvassers 3P1C4 for the provinceof 6aguindanao, the respondent Opetitioner discharged his official functions andwas a+le to ensure the P1Cs performance of its ministerial dut# to canvass theCertificates of Canvass coming from the twent# two 3&&4 cit# and municipalities inthe province.

At that time, respondent Opetitioner also was charged with the +urdensome andgargantuan dut# of +eing the concurrent Provincial /lections upervisor for theProvince of hariff a+unsuan a neigh+oring province of 6aguindanao.

Respondent Opetitioner 1edol failed to attend the scheduled canvassing of theProvincial Certificates of Canvass 3PCC4 of 6aguindanao of which he is theProvincial /lection upervisor which was slated on 6a# &&, &::*.

n 6a# &G, &::*, respondent appeared +efore the Commission, en +anc sitting asthe @ational 1oard of Canvassers 3@1C4 for the election of senators to su+mit theprovincial certificate of canvass for 6aguindanao, pursuant to his functions asProvincial /lections upervisor and chair of the P1C for 6aguindanao. "ue tocertain Xo+servations on the provincial certificates of canvass +# certain parties,canvassing of the certificate was held in a+e#ance and respondent was


45/45

Petitioner

Documents

Evid Hearsay cases