KANLAON vs.

NLRC

FACTS: Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. was contracted by the National Steel Corporation to construct residential houses for its plant employees. Private respondents were hired by the petitioner as laborers in the project and worked under the supervision of Engineers Paulino Estacio and Mario Dulatre. As the project is near to its completion, the petitioner started terminating the services of private respondents. The private respondents, numbering forty one in all, then filed separate complaints against the petitioner. They all claimed that the petitioner paid them wages below the minimum and sought payment of their salary differentials and 13 th month pay. Engineers Estacio and Dulatre were also named as co-respondents. Cases were assigned to Labor Arbiters Siao and Palangan. Summonses and notices of preliminary conference were issued and served through Engineer Estacio. At the preliminary conference, Estacio admitted petitioners liability to private respondents and agreed to pay their wage differentials and 13 th month pay. As a result of this agreement, Estacio allegedly waived petitioners right to file its position paper. In the same way, private respondents declared that they, too, were dispensing with their position papers and were adopting their complaints as their position paper. Labor Arbiter Siao, after denial of Estacios extension to settle the claims, issued an order granting the complaint and directing petitioner to pay private respondents claims. Petitioner appealed to NLRC and alleged that it was denied due process and that Estacio and Dulatre had no authority to represent and bind petitioner. The appeal was filed by Atty. Abundiente.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Rules of Evidence bind both the NLRC and Labor Arbiters. 2. Whether or not the compromise agreement is admissible as evidence against the petitioner.

RULING: 1. While it is true that under Section 2, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,

except as otherwise provided by law or these rules, the rule that the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters are not bound by the technical rules of evidence and procedure should not be interpreted so as to dispense with the fundamental and essential right of due process. This right is satisfied at the very least, when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers. Labor Arbiters Siao and Palangan erred in dispensing within this requirement.

2. No, the compromise agreement is not admissible as evidence against the petitioner. It is provided under Section 3, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court that an evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law and these rules. An offer to compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. If this rule were otherwise, no attempt to settle litigation could safely be made.

PEOPLE vs. LAVAPIE

FACTS: Lavapie, San Pascual Sr., together with the other 5 individuals were charged with murder in the Information for killing Sonny Sierva. According to the Domingo Samonte, at around 11:00 P.M., he came from the dance hall in San Vicente, together with Rogelio Sierva and the victim Sonny Sierva. Rogelio went home ahead leaving him and Sonny behind. As they were heading home, they noticed a group of persons coming towards them. He stepped backwards towards Sonny. Suddenly, San Pascual Sr. held the hands of Sonny behind his back while Lavapie hacked Sonnie. Samonte testified that Sonny was hit on the left side of the neck. When Sonny fell on the ground, Samonte ran towards some pili trees and hid there until dawn. In the same way, Rogelio was also attacked only that he was hacked on his right ear by one Buates and obtained another injury on his right arm by San Pascual Jr. He was then immediately brought to the hospital. Another two witnesses, namely Jenny Cordial and Rico Sierva, testified that as they were on their way home from a dance, they came upon the dead body of Sonny lying in the middle of the road, almost beheaded. At a distance, Cordial saw Lavapie and other group of men standing at a distance of about 5 to 6 meters from the body of Sonny. The two witnesses saw Lavapie holding a bolo and described it as shiny and sharp and clear and clean.

The accused, on the other hand, interposed a denial and alibi being that during the event of the crime, they were still at the dance hall. All the other accused said similar alibis. An autopsy was conducted on the body of the victim. It was reported that the victim obtained an incised wound at the neck, right side. The whole neck structure was cut with only 3 inch long skin holding the neck in place.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the testimony of Domingo Samonte be admissible as evidence considering that the details he testified runs counter to the physical evidence as presented in the autopsy report.

2. Whether or not the mere presence of the accused at the locus criminis be interpreted to mean that they committed the killing.

RULING: 1. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conclusions as to physical evidence should prevail and must be given with greater credence. Physical evidence is considered as an evidence of the highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. The material inconsistency between the testimony of Samonte and the autopsy report casts serious doubt.

2. No, it cannot be interpreted as such. In the absence of other corroborative evidence, the testimony of the witnesses, namely Cordial and Enrico does not satisfy the requirements specified under the Rules of Court (Section 4, Rule 133) nor point with moral certainty to the guilt of the accused. The mere presence of the accused at the crime scene, without more, is inadequate to support the conclusion that they committed the crime.

PEOPLE vs. AYUPAN

FACTS:

At around 12:00 in the midnight, witness Helen Batislaong, heard a commotion inside the dance hall. Concerned that her cousin might be involved, she ran to the center of the dance floor. She did not saw her cousin but instead saw Francisco Mendoza lying down on the floor. The witness was just 4 meters away from the victim that is why she was able to see clearly how Edgar Ayupan repeatedly stabbed Mendoza in his chest. Nervous and afraid, Batislaong was not able to report the incident immediately. It was only after a week when she was able to relate the circumstances surrounding the killing. Dr. Noel C. Posadas, a retired rural health physician conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of the victim. He testified that the victim received three stab wounds on the chest, the third of which was fatal. The immediate cause of death was shock and hemorrhage. However, accused Ayupan denied the said charges. According to him, what actually transpired during that time was that the victim slapped his hand when he tried to invite a lady to dance. Mendoza boxed him, and with that he lost his consciousness.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the testimony of a lone witness is sufficient to support a conviction.

2. Whether or not the delay in a witness reporting of a crime impairs the testimonys credibility.

RULING: 1. It is well-settled that the testimony of a lone witness, if found by the trial court to be positive, categorical and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. This is so, especially, if the testimony bore the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness bent the truth or that his observation was inaccurate. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. It is to be weighed, not counted. Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness

2. Delay in a witness reporting of a crime to police authorities, when adequately explained, does not impair that witness credibility. Different people react differently to a given type of situation. There is no standard form of behavioural response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.

PEOPLE vs. MACATINGAG

FACTS: Members of PNP in Camp Vicente Lim in Canlubang, Calamba City formed a buy-bust team because of a report from a confidential informant about the drug pushing activities of a certain Sai. The team was composed of P/Sr. Insp. Julius Cesar Ablan as leader, PO3 Marino Garcia as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Danilo Leona as the arresting officer and other two police officers. Everything went about as planned. Sai pulled out from his pocket one plastic sachet and handed it to PO3 Garcia. Immediately upon giving Sai the money, PO3 Leona hurriedly seized the marked money from Sai while PO3 Garcia recovered the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Sai was then brought to the police station. The seized suspected sachet of shabu was shown positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 25.23 grams per Chemistry Report issued by the Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime Laboratory. Hence, Sai Macatingag was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the conduct of a Buy-Bust Operations is allowed and an accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs.

RULING:

1. The conduct of a Buy-Bust Operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity. It catches the violator in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.