Section 41 Common Reputation Jison v CA Facts: In an action for recognition as an illegitimate child, the plaintiff presented in evidence letters

s written by relatives of her supposed father attesting to her filiation. Issue: Are the letters admissible as part of family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree? Held: NO. Rule 130 sec, 40, may be divided into 2 parts, the portion containing the first clause which pertains to testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and the second containing the second phrase. What must then be ascertained is whether letters, as private documents, fall within the scope of the clause and the like as qualified by the preceding phrase "entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rights and family portraits The scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or those articles which represent, in effect, a familys joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the family, or those which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition. Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of a familys reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates.

Section 42 Res Gestae People vs Lungayan Facts: This is demonstrated in a review of the conviction of the accused Ceferino Lungayan by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Echague, Isabela for the crime of rape, who was thereby imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and ordered to indemnify the victim Agripina Juan Vda. de Garzota in the amount of P12,000.00 for moral damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs, in a decision dated April 8, 1982. Issue: Is it part of res gestae? Held: NO. The trial court considered the revelation of the complainant to her daughter Silveria of what happened to her when she returned home as part of the res gestae. It is important to stress that her statement must not only be spontaneous. It must also be made at a time when there was no opportunity for her to concoct or develop her own story. 1 As the Court

observed the complainant did not immediately go home after the sexual encounter. She took a walk. She spent sometime thinking of what to do. Her clothes were muddy. She had some bruises on her body and back because she was lying down on the ground during the sexual intercourse and their passionate interlude. She had enough time to make a decision on what will be the nature of her story. Her revelation cannot thus be categorized as part of the res gestae. Section 42 Res Gestae People v Putian Facts: Guillermo Putian appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, finding him guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Teodulo Panimdim in the sum of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal Case No. 6762). The peculiarity of this case is that no eyewitness was presented to testify on the assault which resulted in the victim's death (See People vs. Dahino, 88 Phil. 789 as to murder proven by circumstantial evidence). Issue: Is it considered as part of res gestae? Held: YES. We hold that the trial court did not err in characterizing Panimdim's statement as a part of the res gestae and as proving beyond reasonable doubt that Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound that caused his death five days later in the hospital. "Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by the declarant under the expectation of a sure and impending death, and, for the reason, is not admissible as a dying declaration, yet if such declaration was made at the time of, or immediately after, the commission of the crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still continued in the declarant's mind, it is admissible as a part of the res gestae (5 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed. pp. 373-4, citing People vs. Palamos, 49 Phil. 601; People vs. Portento, 48 Phil. 971; People vs. Reyes, 52 Phil. 538). Section 43 Entries in the Course of Business Jose vs Michaelmar Facts: Bernardo B. Jose, Jr. was employed by respondent Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. (MPI) as oiler of M/T Limar. In a random drug test on all officers and crew members of M/T Limar, Jose, Jr. was found by the ships physician, Dr. Heath, positive of marijuana. Consequently, he was repatriated to the Philippines. Josa, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claim for salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. The Court of Appeals giving credence to the drug test, held there was just cause for his dismissal. Issue: It considered the drug test result as part of entries in the course of business. Was the decision justified?

Ruling: Yes. In the present case, Jose, Jr. did not show that the Court of Appeals ruling is violative of any law or jurisprudence. Section 43, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business. Entries 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. In Canque v. Court of Appeals, the Court laid down the requisites for admission in evidence of entries in the course of business; (1) the person who made the entry is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer; (3) the person who made the entry was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; (4) the entries were made in a professional capacity or in the performance of a duty; and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Here, all the requisites are present: (1) Dr. Heath is outside the country; (2) the entries were made near the time the random drug test was conducted; (3) Dr. Heath was in a position to know the facts made in the entries; (4) Dr. Heath made the entries in his professional capacity and in the performance of his duty, and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business of duty (Bernardo B. Jose, Jr. vs. Michalemar Phils., Inc. and Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 169606, November 27, 2009).

Section 43 Entries in the Course of Business Landbank v Monet Facts: On June 25, 1981 petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines and respondent Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corporation executed an Export Packing Credit Line Agreement under which the bank gave Monet a credit line, secured by the proceeds of its export letters of credit, promissory notes, a continuing guaranty executed by respondent spouses Vicente V. Tagle, Sr. and Ma.Consuelo G. Tagle and a third-party mortgage executed by one Pepita C. Mendigoria. Land Bank renewed and amended this credit line agreement several times until it reached a ceiling of P5 million. Monet's obligation under the Agreement had swelled to P11,464,246.19. Since Monet failed to pay despite demands, the bank filed a collection suit against Monet and the Tagles. In their answer, Monet and the Tagles claimed that Land Bank had refused to collect the receivables on Monet's export letter of credit against Wishbone Trading Company of Hong Kong while making an unauthorized payment on its import letter of credit. This damaged Monet's business interests since it ran short of funds to carry on with its usual business. In other words, Land Bank mismanaged its client's affairs under the Agreement. RTC decided in favor of the respondent. Land Bank filed a motion for reconsideration, actually a motion to reopen the hearing, to enable it to adduce in evidence a Consolidated Billing Statement as of October 31, 2006 to show how much Monet and the Tagles still owed the bank. But the trial court denied the motion. CA affirmed the decision. Issue: Whether or not Land Bank's motion to reopen the hearing to allow it to present the bank's updated Consolidated Billing Statement that reflects respondents Monet and the Tagles' remaining indebtedness to it should be allowed?

Held: Yes. RTC and CA believe that Land Bank needed to present in evidence all original documents evidencing every transaction between Land Bank and Monet to prove the current status of the latters loan accounts. But a bank statement, properly authenticated by a competent bank officer, can serve as evidence of the status of those accounts and what Monet and the Tagles still owe the bank. Under Section 43, Rule 13014 of the Rules of Court, entries prepared in the regular course of business are prima facie evidence of the truth of what they state. The billing statement reconciles the transaction entries entered in the bank records in the regular course of business and shows the net result of such transactions. Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in reliance of such kind of records.

Section 44 Official Records

Africa vs Caltex Facts: In the afternoon of March 18, 1948 a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo street and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, right at the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several neighboring houses, including the personal properties and effects inside them. Their owners, among them petitioners here, sued respondents Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and Mateo Boquiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the second as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the part of both of them was attributed as the cause of the fire. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners failed to prove negligence and that respondents had exercised due care in the premises and with respect to the supervision of their employees. Petitioners present as part of their evidence certain reports on the fire prepared by the Manila Police and Fire Departments and by a certain Captain Tinio of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Also, the report submitted by Captain Leoncio Mariano of the Manila Police Department. Issue: Whether or not the reports prepared by by the Manila Police and Fire Departments and by a certain Captain Tinio of the Armed Forces of the Philippines are admissible as evidence Ruling: No. Petitioners maintain that the reports in themselves, that is, without further testimonial evidence on their contents, fall within the scope of section 35, Rule 123, which provides that "entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." There are three requisites for admissibility under the rule just mentioned: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information. Of the three requisites just stated, only the last need be considered here. Obviously the material facts recited in the reports as to the cause and circumstances of the fire were not within the personal knowledge of the officers who conducted the investigation. Was knowledge of such facts, however, acquired by them through official information? As to some facts the sources thereof are not even

identified. Others are attributed to Leopoldo Medina, referred to as an employee at the gas station were the fire occurred; to Leandro Flores, driver of the tank truck from which gasoline was being transferred at the time to the underground tank of the station; and to respondent Mateo Boquiren, who could not, according to Exhibit V-Africa, give any reason as to the origin of the fire. To qualify their statements as "official information" acquired by the officers who prepared the reports, the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for record. The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule; the facts stated therein were not acquired by the reporting officers through official information, not having been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so.

Section 44 Official Records People vs Leones Facts: Irene Dulay was allegedly raped by JOSEPH LEONES with the help of her sister Elizabeth. Irene said that despite her refusal, she was forced to take three tablets dissolved in a spoon which according to them were aspirin. The two left but Joseph went back to her room and raped her. She cannot defend herself because she is weak and dizzy. She was rushed to the hospital by Natividad Leones, the stepmother of the appellant, found the complainant unconscious near her room without any panty on. In the hospital, record shows that, there was a Healing lacerations of the hymen at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock. Issue: Is the Medical Record Admissible? Held: Yes. The written entries in the clinical case record, showing the date of her admission in the hospital on April 22, 1973, her complaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen" are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the said entries having been made in official records by a public officer of the Philippines in the performance of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is that of a physician in a government hospital. (Rule 130, See. 38, Rules of Court). In the case at bar, Dr. Antonino Estioco was the admitting physician but unfortunately, he was not presented as a witness for the government. The entry written in the above clinical record when Irene Dulay was admitted under the item "Complaints" reads: Vaginal Bleeding, and below this entry appears the Diagnosis-Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen. Assuming that the victim was raped between 2 and 3 o'clock p.m., April 22, 1973 (the same day she was admitted in the hospital), then the lacerations of the hymen at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock would not have been described and indicated to be Healing in the clinical case record. It would be described as "laceration fresh" or by similar words like "bloody or new lacerations." There is no instant formula, technique or process known to medical science or by human experience to hasten the healing of a lacerated hymen within three (3) hours or so after defloration.

Section 45 - Commercial Lists PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeal Facts: The records disclose that in the early morning of September 21, 1977, the M/V Maria Efigenia XV , owned by private respondent Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation, was navigating the waters near Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas, Metro Manila when it collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). Issue: Whether or not the quotations presented can be admitted as a Commercial List exception to the hearsay rule Held: NO. The price quotations presented as exhibits partake of the nature of hearsay evidence considering that the persons who issued them were not presented as witnesses. The exhibits mentioned are mere price quotations issued personally to Del Rosario who requested for them from dealers of equipment similar to the ones lost at the collision of the two vessels. These are not published in any list, register, periodical or other compilation on the relevant subject matter. Neither are these "market reports or quotations" within the purview of "commercial lists" as these are not "standard handbooks or periodicals, containing data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the occupation."

Section 47 Prior Testimony Manliclic v. Calaunan Facts: Philippine Rabbit Bus owned by petitioner PRBLI and driven by petitioner Mauricio Manliclic collided with owner-type jeep owned by respondent Modesto Calaunan and driven by Marcelo Mendoza. By reason of such collision, a criminal case was filed charging petitioner Manliclic with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Physical Injuries. Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Manliclic and PRBLI. The criminal case was tried ahead of the civil case. When the civil case was heard, counsel for respondent prayed that the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) of the testimonies in the criminal case be received in evidence in the civil case in as much as these witnesses are not available to testify in the civil case. Issue: Whether the TSNs from the criminal case maybe admitted in evidence for the civil case Ruling: Yes. Petitioners argue that the TSNs containing the testimonies of respondent Calaunan, Marcelo Mendoza and Fernando Ramos should not be admitted in evidence for failure of respondent to comply with the requisites of Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. For Section 47, Rule 130 to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or

proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests; (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case; and (e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case. Admittedly, respondent failed to show the concurrence of all the requisites set forth by the Rules for a testimony given in a former case or proceeding to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Petitioner PRBLI, not being a party in Criminal Case No. 684-M-89, had no opportunity to cross-examine the three witnesses in said case. The criminal case was filed exclusively against petitioner Manliclic, petitioner PRBLIs employee. The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted against their employees. Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner PRBLI was not a party in said criminal case, the testimonies of the three witnesses are still admissible on the ground that petitioner PRBLI failed to object on their admissibility. It is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in evidence; otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive.

Sections 48-50 Opinion Rule People vs Adoviso Facts: Pablo Adoviso was charged with murder of Rufino Agunos and Emeterio Vasquez. It was dark when the incident happen and it was only illuminated by 2 lamps, one placed inside the camalig and the other one was held by Emeterio as he descended from the stairs after the first volley of gunfire which shot Rufino. Then the Second volley of gun fire shot Emeterio. Bonifacio and Elmer was able to identify the Accused Adoviso because among the culprits he was the only who was not wearing mask. Bonifacio, who was in the dark portion of the yard hiding behind a coconut tree when the incident happened. Elmer, who rushed towards the camalig with his father Bonifacio, saw five (5) persons aiming their firearms at the camalig. Issue: WON Elmer and Bonifacio could possibly identify the accused considering that the place of incident was dark? Held: Yes. The bamboo slats of the camalig could not have effectively obstructed the eyewitnesses' view of appellant, considering that the slats were built four (4) meters apart. Besides, it is the natural reaction of relatives of victims to strive to observe the faces and appearance of the assailants, if not ascertain their identities, and the manner in which the crime is committed. A relative will naturally be interested in identifying the malefactor to secure his conviction to obtain justice for the death of his relative(s). It must be remembered that appellant was not a complete stranger to the eyewitnesses. Bonifacio had known him for ten (10) years while Elmer had been acquainted with him for four (4) years. Elmer recalled that appellant used to join the rabuz at the barracks. Familiarity with appellants face and appearance minimized if not erased the possibility that they could have been mistaken as to his identity.

Sections 48-50 Opinion Rule People vs Abroil Facts: Appellants PO2 Albert Abriol of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Macario Astellero, Januario Dosdos, and PNP P/Chief Inspector Gaudioso Navales were charged with and convicted, of murder for having shot one Alejandro Flores, and of Illegal Possession of Firearms for the handguns that they were armed with. On appeal, the accused questioned the credibility who conducted autopsy report on the victim and ballistic examination on them. Issue: Who can qualify as an expert witness? Are the testimonies admissible? Held: An expert witness is one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of an inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion. There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present. 1. training and education 2. particular, first- hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and 3. presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. The question of whether a witness is properly qualified to give an expert opinion rests with the discretion of the trial court.

Sections 48-50 Opinion Rule

People vs Baid Facts: The RTC found Eric Baid guilty of the crime of rape against Nieva Garcia, a mental patient. During the trial, Dr. Herminigilda Salangad, the complainants attending psychiatrist, was called to testify. Baid assails the RTCd finding of the lack of consent on the part of the complainant to the sexual act. As the facts show, complainant herself admitted that she agreed to have sex with him after he gave her a stick of cigarette. Dr. Salangad in her testimony stated that Nieva was in no position to give consent. Dr. Salangad stated that: In the psychological state of mentally ill patients, the basic instinct of a person is very prominent. They respond, they eat and they can have sex, that is normal and they are just responding on the level of their basic instinct. When you are a mature person or a normal person and you have attained maturity and clearness of mind, you now, of course, try to put things into their proper perspective, socially and morally, that is where upbringing and education come in. I would say that the patients case, she is more responding in an instinctual level without the use of intellect. Issue: Is the opinion of the psychiatrist admissible in evidence? Ruling:

Yes. Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.

Sections 48-50 Opinion Rule

Tabao vs People Facts: Tabao his Toyota Corolla car along Governor Forbes corner G. Tuazon Street towards Nagtahan when it suddenly ramped on an island divider, bumping Rochelle Lanete who was crossing the street. As a result of the impact, Rochelle was thrown into the middle of the road on her back.] Thereafter, Leonardo Mendez speeding blue Toyota Corona car ran over Rochelles body. The three of them (Tabao, Cielo, the newsapaperman and Mendez) brought Rochelle to the UST Hospital where she died. One of the witnesses of the petitioner Police Senior Inspector Danilo Cornelio who testified that the petitioners car could not have bumped the victim because the latters body was not thrown in line with the car, but on its side. The petitioner argues that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio is highly qualified in the field of traffic accident investigation, and as such, his statements are backed-up by [the] principles of applied physics, engineering, and mathematics. Issue: Is the testimony of Police Senior Inspector Danilo Cornelio be given weight as an expert testimony? Held: No. Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word may signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable law. It has been held of expert testimonies: Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the

credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio was not an eyewitness to the incident; his testimony was merely based on the Traffic Accident Report prepared by SPO4 Edgar Reyes who himself did not witness the incident. At any rate, nowhere in P/Sr. Insp. Cornelios testimony did he conclusively state that the petitioner could not have been involved in the incident.

27. PEOPLE V SANTOS Facts: In a prosecution for murder and frustrated murder, one of the documentary exhibits offered was an affidavit of a witness in another criminal case against the same accused. The other case was also for murder that occurred in the same spot where the murder case currently on trial happened. Over the objection of accused, considering that the person who executed the affidavit did not testify, the exhibit was admitted by the trail court. Issue: Did the court commit an error in admitting the affidavit? Held: No. The trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting the affidavit for the limited purpose of proving knowledge or plan, or scheme, and more specifically that accused knew that the particular corner of two streets in Malabon was a good place to ambush a vehicle and its passengers. Sec 34. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage and the like. 28. People vs. Nardo Facts: Alfredo Nardo was convicted by the RTC and sentenced to death for the rape of his daughter, Lorielyn. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of Lorielyn herself. During the trial, the defense endeavored to portray Lorielyn as an incorrigible liar. Occasions were cited wherein Lorielyn supposedly lied in order to obtain money or her parents permission to leave the house. Issue: Was the RTC correct in convicting Alfredo based on the sole testimony of Lorielyn and not taking into account testimonies which showed her lying tendencies? Ruling: Yes. The sole testimony of Lorielyn was sufficient to establish the guilt of her father, Alfredo. It is settled that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim if the trial court finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of thins. Indeed, a daughter, especially one in her minority, would not accuse her own father of such an unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved. While lying may constitute a habit, we believe that the falsehoods committed by Lorielyn, assuming them for the moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as charging ones father of the sordid crime of rape, with all of its serious repercussions.

29. PEOPLE V LEE Facts: Accused was charged with murder. During trial, he presented evidence of a bad moral character of the victim, particularly that the latter was a theft and a drug addict. Issue: Is the evidence admissible? If so, what weight should be given to it?

Held: Rule 130 sec 51, of the Revised Rules on Evidence allows proof of the good or bad moral character of the offended party if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. It is commonly used as defense in an assault or homicide case to establish the likelihood that the victim commenced the aggression, or a claim of consent in a rape case to rebut evidence that the sexual act was made possible through force, threat or intimidation. In this case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused ha not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self- defense. There is no connection between the deceaseds drug addiction and the thievery with his violent death in the hands of the accused. In the light of positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victims bad character, he could have been killed by anyone of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.

30. PEOPLE V EDUALINO Facts: As his defense, in a prosecution for rape, accused raised the issue of the character of complainant. He argued that a responsible and decent married woman, who was then three months pregnant, would not be out at two o clock in the morning getting drunk, much less would a decent Filipina ask a man to accompany her to drink beer. It is contended that complainant merely concocted the charge of rape to save her marriage since her husband had found out that she was using drugs and drinking alcohol and even made a spectacle of herself when she tried t seduce the accused on My 11, 1994 while she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Issue: what is the value of the character evidence? Held: The moral character of a rape victim is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of the accused. The court has ruled that prostitutes can be the victims of rape. In the present case, even if accusedappellants allegations that the victim was drunk and under the influence of drugs and that she cannot be considered a decent and responsible married woman, were true, said circumstances will not per se, preclude a finding that she was raped.

31. People vs Deopita Facts: Accused was on trial for the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Among the evidence presented for his defense was that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime charged since he is a person of good moral character, holding as he does the position of Ministerial Servant in the congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses, and that he is a godly man, a righteous person, a responsible family man and a good Christian who preaches the word of God. Issue: What value should be assigned to the good moral character of the accused? Ruling: The fact that accused is endowed with such sterling qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of the crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the position of Ministerial Servant in his faith is no guarantee against sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed, religiosity is not always a good emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence of the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of good moral character of accused is unavailing.