EVIDENCE Cases Batch 5

FACTS ISSUES HELD

1. ESTRADA V DESIERTO WON the Angara 1. the Angara Diary is not an out of court statement.
Diary is The Angara Diary is part of the pleadings. For failure
inadmissible for to object, its deemed waived
being violative of 2. Exception to hearsay, admission against interest Sec
the following rules 26
on evidence: 3. Adoptive admission Estrada ratified the
Hearsay, best suggestions of Pimentel
4. Res Inter Alios Acta does not apply. Exception here
evidence,
agent si angara
authentication,
5. Hearsay not applied because independent relevant
admission and res
statements showing state of mind, etc..
inter alios acta.
2. PP V GODOY w/n offer of No. The imam did it on his own w/o knowledge or
marriage by the authority from accused.
Maestro accused of rape sa studyante. Defense is imam can be
uyab sila. 1 week ga honeymoon sa motel. Ang considered
Imam niad2 sa parents sa babae ni offer ug admission & used
marriage against accused
3. PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN Y SICO W/n plea for YES. He did not deny that he has anything to do with it,
forgiveness & so he is deemed to have ratified it, or at least, he has
Case of rape. Tricycle driver gi rape tong chicks. compromise is an knowledge of it and he acquiesced.
Then ni offer of compromise ang parents, wife and admission of guilt?
children w/c was not accepted.
4. SAN MIGUEL v. KALALO w/n offer of NO. The letter does not contain an express
compromise can be acknowledgment of liability. At most, what Kalalo
On 5 December 2000, and in the face of constant used as evidence acknowledged was the receipt of the statement of
threats made by the agents of SMC, Kalalos as an admission of account, not the existence of her liability to SMC.
counsel wrote a letter (the Offer of Compromise) Kalalos liability?
wherein Kalalo acknowledged the receipt of the Offer of Compromise was made prior to the filing of the
statement of account demanding the payment of a criminal complaint against Kalalo, so it was clearly not
certain sum and submitted a proposal by way of made in the context of a criminal proceeding and,
Compromise Agreement to settle the said therefore, cannot be considered as an implied admission
obligation. of guilt.

Plus gi recant pa jd niya sa trial ang contents sa

5. Pp v. Yparraguirre
Maid, gi rape sa bana, gipa inom ug 15 ka
sleeping pills. Niuli sa ila, sumbong sa mama. Ag
asawa sa rapist niad2 nakig compromise to
dissuade from filing a complaint. Offered 25K
6.
7. The Learning Child Inc., & Sps.
Alfonso vs Ayala Alabang Village
Association
Involves a piece of land sold by Ayala to Sps.
Alfonso, the land has restrictions to its use na if
used for a school, only Nursery & Kinder and only
2 classrooms. The right to enforce restrictions
have been transferred by Ayala to AAVA. Sps
used the land for a Grade School named The
Child Learning Center and nipalag ag AAVA.
TLC and the spouses Alfonso's main argument
against the enforcement of the Deed of
Restrictions on their property is that AAVA had
allegedly abrogated said restrictions by its own
acts acts made by Ayala (ALI). AAVA invoked
res inter alios acta rule that ALI is not a party to
the case
8. NARRA NICKEL VS. REDMONT
compromise.
w/n the offer of YES. An offer to compromise does not require that a
compromise can be criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be
evidence as received in evidence against the offeror What is required
admission of guilt is that after committing the crime, the accused or his
even if there was representative makes an offer to compromise and such
no case filed yet? offer is proved.
W/n res inter alios NO. The general Ayala Alabang Village "Deed
acta applies Restrictions," which was attached to the Deed of
Restrictions on the title of the subject property, expressly
state that: "2. Compliance with the said restrictions,
reservation, easements and conditions may be enjoined
and/or enforced by Court action by Ayala Corporation
and/or the Ayala Alabang Village Association, their
respective successors and assigns, or by any member of
the Ayala Alabang Village Association."
Since Ayala Corporation is jointly interested with AAVA in
an action to enforce the Deed of Restrictions, it is
therefore covered under the following exception to the
res inter alios acta rule:Sec. 29. Admission by co-
partner or agent. -- The act or declaration of a partner or
agent of the party within the scope of his authority and
during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be
given in evidence against such party after the partnership
or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the party
w/n The Court of No. Considering that the relationships found between
Appeals erred petitioners and MBMI are considered to be partnerships,
when it applied the then the CA is justified in applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of
exceptions to the Rules by stating that "by entering into a joint venture,
the res inter alios MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and
acta rule McArthur. (The SC here engaged into a lengthy

9. PP V. BOKINGO
Murder. Bokingo and Reynante COL are charged
with murder. Bokingo confessed during PI nga nag
conspire sila ni COL nga patyon si (Red) Pasion.
10. CITY OF MANILA v. Del Rosario
Involves an action to recover 2 parcels of land by
the City of Manila. 3rd witness testifies that he
learned from old residents there that the land
belonged to the City.
11. GEVERO vs. IAC
A parcel of land bought by DELCOR (Del Monte
Devt Corp) from Lancero in 1964, who in turn
bought it from Ricardo Gevero in 1952. The land
was part of extrajudicial settlement and partition of
the heirs of the mother Gevero, igsoon ni Ricardo
unya apil ag lot. So Delcor filed a quieting of title.
Petitioners contended that in 1968, Lancero
recognized the defect of the deed of sale in 1952
by signing the Settlement to Avoid Litigation, w/c
is an admission offer to compromise.
12. US vs. Pineda
2 horses of Santos after taking medication brought
from Pinedas pharmacy.
To prove, Santos sent 2 chemists to buy from the
pharmacy w/c was also found to have the same
poisonous substance. Barium chlorate.
13. PP v. IRANG
Roberry w/ homicide. 2 houses were robbed. The
victims of each saw a guy w/ pockmarks on his
face and a scar on his left eyelid.
discussion on partnerships and joint venture agreements,
and concluded thus: Accordingly, culled from the incidents
and records of this case, it can be assumed that the
relationships entered between and among petitioners and
MBMI are no simple "joint venture agreements.")- so SC
said, partnership ni.
WON appellant Col 1. Bokingos uncounselled confession is
is guilty beyond inadmissible
reasonable doubt 2. Bokingos confession of the conspiracy between
as co-conspirator him and COL is inadmissible against COL under
based on Bokingos Res Inter Alios Acta Rule.
admission that Col
is a co-conspirator. Gr: An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-
accused, and is considered as hearsay against them.
Exc: admission made by a conspirator, provided that:
a) conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself;
b) admission relates to the common object;
c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy.
In this case. Wa na prove nga nay conspiracy. So double
inadmissibility.
Moroeveor, Bokingcos judicial admission exculpated Col
because Bokingco admitted that he only attacked Pasion
after the latter hit him in the head.
w/n admissible as No.
common 1. Hearsay because he only heard it from the people
reputation as there, he had no personal knowledge of the
exception to reputation. They should have been made to testify
hearsay 2. Such testimony does not constitute common
reputation as referred to, because such should be
equivalent to universal reputation
w/n this is an No. the privy or predecessor in interest here when he
admission by privy admitted was not anymore holding title to the instrument.
W/N res inter alios Evidence is admissible in a criminal action which tends to
acta rule applies show motive, although it tends to prove the commission of
another offense by the defendant.
1. 1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE;
EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER CRIME. While evidence of
another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a
prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is
otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify
defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or
tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity
of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of
a circumstance connected with the crime (16 C. J., 610,
611, sec. 1196).
2. ID.; ID.; ADMISSION UNDER OATH. An admission
made under oath before a deputy clerk of court cannot be
considered involuntary merely because the person who
made it alleged having done so under threat, the persons
supposed to have threatened him having denied such
fact. Consequently, such admission is admissible against

14. PEOPLE vs. BABIERA
15. US vs. MERCADO
Defendants were charged w/ coercion of Claro
Mercado. A witness was offered to testify on the
incident and the adverse party asked the witness
how many times has he been convicted of assault.
Objection!
16. GONZALES vs. PEOPLE
17. Republic v. Kenrick Development
Corp.
A piece of land by Kendrick was sought to be
taken by the State. The OSG filed for revocation,
annulment and cancellation of the TCTs where
Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr. (Garlitos) purportedly
signed, as counsel, Kenricks answer to the
complaint.
Meanwhile, a hearing was conducted by the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and in that
hearing, Atty. Garlitos admitted that he merely
drafted the answer and sent the unsigned
pleading to Kendricks president. Based on this,
the OSG moved to declare Kendrick in default and
strike the Answer from the records as it was a
mere scrap of paper. RTC sustained.
CA reversed saying that it found Atty. Garlitos'
statements in the legislative hearing to be
unreliable since they were not subjected to cross-
examination.
18.
19. PEOPLE vs. NOEL LEE
Murder. While a mother and son while watching
TV in their living room, the son was with murdered
via a gun from outside the window. LEE was the
killer, and in the case he tried to introduce
evidence of the victims bad reputation of thievery
and drug addiction.
20. Primo Miro v. Porferio Mendoza, et al
Mendoza, along with the other respondents, were
administratively charged with Grave Misconduct
before the Deputy Ombudsman by private
complainants. They were likewise charged with
criminal complaints for violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
The Evidence Against Mendoza, Erederos and
Alingasa
i. Private complainants affidavits
the person making it
||| (People v. Irang, G.R. No. 45179, [March 30, 1937], 64
PHIL 285-296)
1. A statement made under circumstances which would
not render it admissible as a dying declaration
becomes admissible as such, it is held, if approved or
repeated by the declarant after he had abandoned all
hope of recovery||| (People v. Babiera, G.R. No.
28871, [September 19, 1928], 52 PHIL 97-114)
2. While it is true that when the defense of the accused
is that he acted in self-defense, he may prove the
deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking
and irascible disposition, the proof must be of his
general reputation in the community and not of
isolated and specific acts ||| (People v. Babiera, G.R.
No. 28871, [September 19, 1928], 52 PHIL 97-114)
w/n the question is NO. Generally speaking, a witness cannot be
admissible impeached by the party against whom he has been
called, except by showing
a) that he has made contradictory statements or
b) that his general reputation for truth, honesty or
integrity is bad.
w/n the statement YES. Under Adoptive admission. In this case, Kenrick
of Atty. Garlitos never denied nor contradicted Garlitos statements. (1)
should be given The fact remains that the answer was signed xxx.
credence
Evidently, Kenrick adopted Garlitos statements and such
adoptive admission constituted judicial admission which
was conclusive on it.
RTC correctly ruled that Kenricks answer was invalid and
of no legal effect as it was unsigned. They were properly
declared in default and the Republic was rightly allowed to
present evidence ex parte.
In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the
victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or
improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not
alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing
was made in self-defense. There is no connection
between the deceased's drug addiction and thievery with
his violent death in the hands of accused-appellant.
w/n the evidence is YES.
hearsay
Conclusion: Based on these rulings, the Deputy
Ombudsman failed to establish the elements of grave
misconduct. To reiterate, no substantial evidence exists to
show that Erederos and Mendoza received collected
payments from Alingasa. Their involvement or complicity
in the allegedly anomalous scheme cannot be justified
under the affidavits of the complainants and the
NBI/Progress report, which are both hearsay.
With respect to Alingasa, in view of the lack of substantial
evidence showing that she personally demanded the
payment of P2,500.00 a crucial factor in the wrongdoing
 alleged we find that the elements of misconduct, simple
The affidavits show that the complainants lack or grave, to be wanting and unproven.
personal knowledge of the participation of
Mendoza and Erederos in the allegedly
anomalous act. These affidavits indicate that the
complainants have commonly noticed and
witnessed the anomalous sale transaction
concerning the confirmation certificates. Without
going into details, they uniformly allege that to
secure the confirmation certificates, an
amount of P2,500.00 would be paid to
Alingasa, an LTO personnel, "who will remit her
collections to a certain Marilyn Mendoza vda.
Erederos, a niece and the Secretary of the
Regional Director, Porferio Mendoza."25 While the
payment to Alingasa might be considered based
on personal knowledge, the alleged remittance to
Erederos and Mendoza -on its face - is hearsay.

The records show that not one of the

complainants actually witnessed the transfer of
money from Alingasa to Erederos and Mendoza.

The affidavits also show that the complainants did

not allege any specific act of the respondents. All
that the affidavits allege is a description of the
allegedly anomalous scheme and the
arrangement whereby payments were to be made
to Alingasa. There is no averment relating to any
"personal demand" for the amount of P2,500.00.

21. ARIATE vs. PEOPLE
Homicide.
The victim dying declaration to his daughter
Mirasol said that Badjing and Amado shot him
22. PEOPLE v. DE JOYA
Homicide. The lola was killed. But before, naabtan
sa apo, and while gasping for her breath, she
said, Si Paqui then expired.
23. FUENTES vs. CA
At a Benefit Dance at the Dump Site, Agusan del
Sur. Petitioner called Malaspina and placed his
right arm on the shoulder of the latter saying,
Before, I saw you with a long hair but now you
have a short hair. Suddenly petitioner stabbed
Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife.
Malaspina fell to the ground and his companions
rushed to his side. Petitioner fled. Before the
victim died, he muttered that Alejandro Fuentes,
Jr., stabbed him.
1. It has not been established, however, that the
victim would have been competent to testify had
he survived the attack. He was stabbed at the
lumbar area. So wa cya kita.
2. It was not established by the prosecution that the
aliases Badjing and Amado were referring to the
accused.
W/N THE DYING No. Dying declaration must be complete in itself. The
DECLARATION statement should be a full expression of all that he
MADE BY THE intended to say showing his meaning in respect to such.
VICTIM TO HER Must not merely be a part of a whole.
GRANDCHILD IS Because the statement he was prevented to say might
ADMISSIBLE qualify the ones uttered if it was said.
w/n the declaration NO. There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead,
against interest by mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent which
Zoilo is admissible Sec. 38 obviously contemplates. His mere absence from
the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable
under this rule. It was also not shown that the prosecution
exerted reasonable efforts to find him.

Petitioner on the other hand said that his nephew

Zoilo admitted to him that he is the one who killed
Malaspina, and now the nephew is gone.
24. PAREL vs. PRUDENCIO w/n admissible YES.

Simeon filed a complaint against petitioner for
recovery of possession and damages. Property
was in Forbes Park, Baguio.
Simeon said nga gipapuyo nya ang parents and
petitioner anang balaya, and the time came na
gamiton na nya, di na muhawa ag petitioner. The
father died already at this time.
Petitioners defense is co-owner daw sila ani.
SEC. 38. Declaration against interest. The declaration
made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against
the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
the declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his
position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors-in-interest and against third
persons.
Pero ang problema, petitoners father made an
affidavit to the City Treasurer when assessed for
taxes that he is not the owner and that the owner
is respondent.
25. PEOPLE vs. ALEGADO y DELIMA
Involves the rape of a minor. Accused, a
watchman in the market, raped the girl twice and
on the 2nd occasion, nasakpan sa patrolwoman.
In trying to prove that the victim was a minor, the
prosecution introduced as evidence the testimony
of the victim herself and her maternal
grandmother that at the time she was left with the
custody of the child, she was 7 years old .
Objected to under hearsay.
26. Tison v CA
Nephew and Niece seek reconveyance of the
property of their aunt and uncle claiming that they
are entitled to inherit by right of representation.
The issue here is proof of filiation. The main
evidence was the testimony of the niece, (Tison)
who claimed that during her lifetime, Teodora
Dezoller Guerrero categorically declared that the
former is Teodora's niece.
27. MENDOZA vs. CA
Involves an action for recognition of filiation.
Teopista claimed she was the illegitimate daughter
of Casimiro. She alleged that she was born on
August 20, 1930, to Brigida Toring, who was then
single, and defendant Casimiro Mendoza, married
at that time to Emiliana Barrientos. Teopista
testified that it was her mother who told her that
her father was Casimiro. Two other witnesses
testified for Teopista. Gaudencio Mendoza, cousin
of Casimiro, and Isaac Mendoza nephew of
Casimiro.
Isaac Mendoza testified on the question of
pedigree, and he did not cite Casimiro's father. His
testimony was that he was informed by his father
Hipolito, who was Casimiro's brother, and Brigida
Mendoza, Casimiro's own mother, that Teopista
was Casimiro's illegitimate daughter.
29. JISON vs. CA
30. Ferrer vs. De Ynchausti
31. In Re: Florencio Mallare
Mallare is a lawyer sought to be disbarred on the
ground that he is not a Filipino but a pure
w/n the testimonies No. They fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule as
of the victim as to provided under sections 39 and 40 of Rule 130 of the
her age and the Revised Rules on Evidence. Under Section 40 of the said
grandmas is Rule, it is provided, in part, that:
hearsay SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regading
pedigree. Xxx
All these preconditions are obtaining in the case at bar
considering that the date of birth of the rape victim is
being put in issue; that the declaration of the victim's
grandfather relating to tradition (sending a child to school
upon reaching the age of seven) existed long before the
rape case was filed; and that the witness testifying to the
said tradition is the maternal grandfather of the rape
victim.
w/n an independent NO. The general rule is that where the party claiming
proof of seeks recovery against a relative common to both
relationship claimant and declarant, but not from the declarant himself
between the or the declarant's estate, the relationship of the
claimant and the declarant's estate, the relationship of the proved by the
person sought to declaration itself. There must be some independent proof
be established of this fact.
pedigree is needed
in this case. As an exception, the requirement that there be other
proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the
relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach
the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to
establish a right through his declarations to the property of
some other member of the family.
w/n admissible as YES. The following requisites that have to be complied
declaration re with before the act or declaration regarding pedigree may
pedigree. be admitted in evidence:
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
2. The pedigree must be in issue.
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose
pedigree is in issue.
4. The declaration must be made before the controversy
arose.
5. The relationship between the declarant and the person
whose pedigree is in question must be shown by
evidence other than such declaration.
All the above requisites are present in the case. The
persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of
Teopista, namely, the mother of Casimiro, Brigida
Mendoza, and his brother, Hipolito, were both dead at the
time of Isaac's testimony. The declarations referred to the
filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro, which
were the very issues involved in the complaint for
compulsory recognition. The declarations were made
before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the
controversy arose between her and Casimiro. Finally, the
relationship between the declarants and Casimiro has
been established by evidence other than such
declaration, consisting of the extrajudicial partition of the
estate of Florencio Mendoza, in which Casimiro was
mentioned as one of his heirs.
w/n admissible as YES. Unlike that of matters of pedigree, general
an exception to reputation of marriage may proceed from persons who
hearsay are not members of the family the reason for the
distinction is the public interest that is taken in the
Chinese. Because his father was pure Chinese
until death. Mallare herein sought to prove that he
was born out of wedlock and that his mother was
a Filipino, so he introduced evidence of
testimonies of neighbors saying that Ana Mallare
is a Tagalog who had continuously resided in the
place, and that Esteban, her son, was reputedly
born out of wedlock.
32. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Co. v.
Radio Mindanao Network, Inc
A claim for insurance regarding the building of
RMN which was burned by persons. Insurance
company denied alleging excepted risk nang loss
due to actions of rebels, in this case NPA.
The evidence by the insurance company
(1) Police blotter and fire investigation report of
the burning of DYHB, certification of the Negros
Occidental Integrated National Police, Bacolod
City regarding the incident, (2) letter of alleged
NPA members Celso Magsilang claiming
responsibility for the burning of DYHB, (3)
testimony of Lt. Col. Nicolas Torres, among others
(4) the armed men shouted NPA mi
34. Canque vs CA
Canque is a contractor, nay govt project. Subcon
nya si Socor. Agreement is Socor could sent
progress billings depeding on the materials
delivered and work done. Pero way delivery
receipt sa materials allegedly delivered, so wa
mubayads Canque. Gi kiha.
During the trial, to prove that deliveries of
materials were actually made, Socor presented
their so called book of collectible accounts
containing the alleged materials delivered by
Socor to Canque for purposes of the project. The
book of collectible accounts was testified to by its
bookkeeper who was at the same time the
entrant. He was the one who made the entries in
the corporations book of collectible accounts. This
was objected to but Socor argued that this is
admissible under Entries in the Course of
business.
35. Wallem Maritime v. NLRC
2 ka seaman nag sinumbagay sa barko. Gi putbol.
Ni file ug illegal dismissal sa POEA, daog. NLRC
daog.
question of the existence of marital relations.
W/N there was NO. (1) No categorical statement was written nga NPA
sufficient evidence tong 20 armed men who did this.
to show that the (2) The letter is iadmissible in evidence under Section 22,
approximately 20 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The reason being that an
armed men who admission is competent only when the declarant, or
caused the razing someone identified in legal interest with him, is a party to
of the respondent's the action.
RMN property at (3) Although his testimony is so persuasive, Note that
Bacolod City were when Lt. Col. Torres was presented as witness, he was
members of the presented as an ordinary witness only and not an expert
CPP-NPA. witness. Hence, his opinion on the identity or membership
of the armed men with the CPP-NPA is not admissible in
evidence.
(4) Admissibility of evidence should not be equated
with its weight and sufficiency. Admissibility of
evidence depends on its relevance and competence,
while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence
already admitted and its tendency to convince and
persuade. Even assuming that the declaration of the
bystanders that it was the members of the CPP/NPA who
caused the fire may be admitted as evidence, it does not
follow that such declarations are sufficient proof. These
declarations should be calibrated vis-vis the other
evidence on record.
w/n admissible as NO. SC disagreed and said for the entries in the course of
Entry in the course business to apply, it is necessary that first, the entrant
of business must either be dead or unable to testify. BUT in this case,
the entrant was the bookkeeper and he was the one who
actually took the stand and testified. So he was not dead.
Neither was he unable to testify as he in fact testified.
One more thing, SC said that for entries in the course of
business to apply, it is necessary that the entrant must
have personal knowledge of the facts therein stated. But
in this case, the bookkeeper who testified who admitted in
court that he was the entrant BUT he admitted that the
entries that he made in the book of collectible accounts
were simply based on the report provided by the project
engineer.
Whether or not the SC said the captains logbook is an official entry and
dismissal of the legally binding as exception to hearsay. However in this
private case, petitioners did not submit as evidence to the POEA
respondents were the logbook itself, or even authenticated copies of
illegal. Whether or pertinent pages thereof, which could have been easily
not the logbook xeroxed or photocopied considering the present
entry may be technology on reproduction of documents. What was
considered as offered in evidence was merely a typewritten collation of
evidence. excerpts.
In the absence of a more detailed narration in the logbook
entry of the circumstances surrounding the alleged
assault, the same cannot constitute a valid justification to
terminate private respondent's employment.
Hence, as the typewritten excerpts from the "logbook"
were the only pieces of evidence presented by petitioners
to support the dismissal of private respondent, have no

36. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong
Mr. Chiong, an overseas contract worker had a job
opportunity abroad scheduled, but when he was
about to board his flight, wa cya pasudla. So wa
kalarga, sy ag trabaho. So he filed case for breach
of contract. Airlines defense was wa cya gapakita.
During the trial, the airlines in order to prove that
Mr. Chiong did not show, presented a passenger
manifest and a passenger name record of the
airlines and this was testified to by the supervisor
on duty. Of course the entrant, those officers and
employees responsible in the recording of the
entries in the passenger manifest and passenger
name record were not presented in court.
Someone else testified other than the entrant and
therefore its hearsay. When objected on this
ground, the airline company argued that it is an
exception to hearsay under Entries in the Course
of Business.
37. Patula vs People
Patula is charged w/ estafa. Kay wa gi remit ang
collections to the company. Karen, the witness
store auditor based her testimony on the entries
found in the receipts supposedly issued by
petitioner and in the ledgers corresponding to
each customer, as well as on the unsworn
statements of some of the customers.
38. Caltex vs Africa
A fire broke out in a Caltex station and spread to
nearby houses. Allegedly someone threw a
cigarette inside the open gas tank while a truck
was refuelling.
39. People vs Gabriel
Ricardo San Gabriel was charged with murder, in
conspiracy with "Ramon Doe," with treachery,
evident premeditation and intent to kill, he
assaulted and stabbed to death Jaime A. Tonog.
The accused leans heavily on the Advance
Information Sheet prepared by Pat. Steve
Casimiro which did not mention him at all and
named only "Ramon Doe" as the principal
suspect.
40. Barcelon vs CIR
This involved an action initiated by the BIR against
Barcelon Roxas Securities for collection of
deficiency income tax. By way of defense,
Barcelon Roxas Securities argued that the BIRs
action for deficiency income tax has already
prescribed. In an effort to prove that the action has
not yet prescribed, BIR claimed that the notice of
the assessment was served on Barcelon Roxas
on certain date through registered mail. To prove
this allegation, BIR presented their record
custodian who testified to the BIRs record book
which contains the list of the names of the
taxpayers, the nature and the amount of their
liabilities, the date, the notices of the assessments
were made and so on and so forth. This was
identified by the record custodian. Now objected
to under hearsay evidence rule, BIR argued that it
was admissible hearsay under official record.
41. Talidano v. Falcon Maritime
probative value at all, petitioners' cause must fail. Their
failure to discharge the onus probandi properly may have
no other result than a finding that the dismissal of private
respondent is unjustified.
w/n admissible SC ruled against the airline. SC said for this exception to
apply, the proponent must show that the entrant is either
dead or unable to testify which the airline failed to prove in
this case. There was no showing that the employees and
officers responsible to the recording of the entries in the
passenger manifest and passenger name record were
dead or unable to testify.
Whether or not YES. Karen conceded having no personal knowledge of
Magdalena the the amounts actually received by petitioner from the
testimony is customers or remitted by petitioner to Footlucker's. This
hearsay. means that persons other than her prepared Exhibits B to
YY and their derivatives, inclusive, and that she based her
testimony on the entries found in the receipts supposedly
issued by petitioner and in the ledgers
WON the reports NO. the facts stated therein were not acquired by the
are admissible as reporting officers through official information, not having
exception to been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do
hearsay being so.
Official Entries
Entries in a police blotter do not qualify as exception to
hearsay. The public officer who prepared the document
had no sufficient and personal knowledge of the stabbing
incident. Any information possessed by him was acquired
from Camba which therefore could not be categorized as
official information because in order to be classified as
such 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 the record. In
the case of Camba, he was not legally so obliged to give
such statements.
In this case, the entries made by Ingrid Versola were not
based on her personal knowledge as she did not attest to
the fact that she personally prepared and mailed the
assessment notice. Nor was it stated in the transcript of
stenographic notes how and from whom she obtained the
pertinent information.
Moreover, she did not attest to the fact that she acquired
the reports from persons under a legal duty to submit the
same. Hence, Rule 130, Section 44 finds no application in
the present case. Thus, the evidence offered by
respondent does not qualify as an exception to the rule
against hearsay evidence
42. Malayan Insurance v. Reyes

43. PNOC Shipping v. CA

44. Tan v. CA

45. Manliclic v. Calaunan

46. Francisco v. People

47. Razon v. Tagitis

48. Pp. v Resabal

49. Pp v. Cortezano

50. Bartolome v. IAC

51. Aznar v. Citibank

52. Heirs of Arcilla v. Teodoro

53. Kummer v. People

54, Heirs of Lacsa v. CA

55. Victorias Milling Co. V. Ong Su

56. Yu v. CA

57. Abarquez v. People

58. Heirs of Reyes v. CA