Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the On the other hand, Singson presented herself and Dr.
20 September 1999 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals Benjamin Lazo, a doctor in the country specializing in
declaring respondent Martha Z. Singson illegally dismissed internal medicine and pulmonary diseases. She denied
by petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., and thus should being afflicted with asthma at any point in her life, while
be reinstated with full back wages and awarded moral as Dr. Lazo confirmed the same declaring that at the time of
well as exemplary damages. his examination of Singson he found her to be of normal
condition.
This petition traces its origin to two (2) petitions for
certiorari under Rule 65 initially filed with Supreme Court: On the basis of the evidence presented before him, Labor
Martha Z. Singson v. National Labor Relations Commission Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu Jr. declared CATHAY liable for
(NLRC) and Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., SP Case No. 52104, illegal dismissal and ordered the airline to pay Singson
and Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. V. National labor Relations HK$531,150.80 representing full back wages and
Commission and Martha Z. Singson, SP Case No. 52105, privileges, HK$54,137.70 for undisputed benefits due her,
which were consolidated2 and referred3 to the Court of HK$100,000.00 as actual damages, HK$500.00 as moral
Appeals in consonance with the St. Martin Funeral Homes damages, HK500.00 as exemplary damages, and
doctrine. HK$168,528,85 as attorney's fees. Furthermore, CATHAY
was ordered to reinstate Singson to her former position as
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CATHAY), is an international airline stewardess without loss of seniority rights, benefits
airline company engaged in providing international flight and privileges.
services while Martha Z. Singson was a cabin attendant of
CATHAY hired in the Philippines on 24 September 1990 On 19 March 1993 CATHAY appealed the decision of the
with home base in Hongkong. Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission.
On 29 December 1994 the NLRC reversed the decision of
On 26 August 1991 Singson was scheduled on a five (5)- the Labor Arbiter and declared valid Singson's dismissal
day flight to London but was unable to take the flight as from service.4 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Fowler and
she was feeling fatigued and exhausted from her transfer the affidavit and medical records submitted by Dr. Fahy,
to a new apartment with her husband. On 29 August 1991 admitted as newly-discovered evidence, the NLRC found
she visited the company doctor, Dr. Emer Fahy, who Singson to be indeed afflicted with asthma that rendered
examined and diagnosed her to be suffering from a her unfit to fly and perform cabin crew functions.
moderately severe asthma attack. She was advised to take Consequently, the NLRC withdrew the back wages, moral
a Ventolin nebulizer and increase the medication she was and exemplary damages awarded to Singson for lack of
currently taking, an oral Prednisone (steroid). Dr. Fahy factual or legal basis. It however ordered CATHAY to retain
thereafter conveyed to Dr. John G. Fowler, Principal her services as ground stewardess, with salaries and
Medical Officer, her findings regarding Singson's medical benefits, noting that she had been reinstated therein since
condition as a result of which she was evaluated as unfit 12 March 1993. In turn, Singson was granted the option to
for flying due to her medical condition. continue her employment with CATHAY.
On 3 September 1991 Singson again visited Dr. Fahy Thereafter, both parties filed their respective motions for
during which time the latter declared her condition to reconsideration5 before the NLRC which on 31 August
have vastly improved. However, later that day, Cabin Crew 1995 were denied for lack of merit. Petitions for certiorari
Manager Robert J. Nipperess informed Singson that under Rule 65 were subsequently filed by both parties
CATHAY had decided to retire her on medical grounds before the Supreme Court which, after consolidation, were
effective immediately based on the recommendation of Dr. referred to the Court of Appeals for resolution.6
Fowler and Dr. Fahy.
Meanwhile, pursuant to the decision of the NLRC, Singson
Martha Z. Singson was surprised with the suddenness of was reinstated as cabin stewardess with ground duties on
the notification but nonetheless acknowledged it. Later, 12 March 1993 pending the resolution of the petitions.
she met with Nipperess and inquired of possible
employment that entailed only ground duties within the On 20 September 1999 the Court of Appeals reversed the
company. She was advised to meet with certain personnel ruling of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor
who knew of the employment requirements in other Arbiter declaring Singson to have been illegally
departments in the company, and to await a possible offer terminated. The appellate court anchored its judgment on
from the company. the following findings: First, Dr. Fowler's opinion about
Singson's medical condition was based on the personal
On 20 December 1991 Singson filed before the Labor examination of Dr. Fahy, and not is own. The appellate
Arbiter a complaint against CATHAY for illegal dismissal, court held that a personal and prolonged examination of a
with prayer for actual, moral and exemplary damages and patient was necessary and crucial before he or she could
attorney's fees. Efforts on initial settlement having failed, be properly diagnosed as afflicted with asthma,7 and thus
trial followed. Dr. Fowler's expert opinion was unreliable and mere
hearsay. Second, CATHAY disregarded Sec. 8, Rule I, Book
Robert J. Nipperess and Dr. John G. Fowler appeared as VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code8
witnesses for CATHAY. Nipperess confirmed that the which requires a certification by a competent public health
"At the outset, we note that the record is bereft of any On one arm of the scale are petitioner's evidence
showing that complainant applied with the respondent consisting of photocopies of the PNB checks and
agency as a job applicant and subsequently entered into an agreementswhich were intended to disprove private
overseas contract with the latter which was later respondents' claim that petitioner, Victor Lim and Step-Up
processed and approved by the POEA. X x x What appears Agency are "total strangers." The PNB checks represent
is that complainant used the agency as a stepping stone to the payments made by respondent Cayanan to the
enter Singapore as a tourist and obtain employment relatives of petitioner's co-workers (including Balucas and
thereat on his own. This is evidenced by Annexes "A-1 " to Natura). The checks show the name of LIM Chang Koo
'"H" of Complainant's Reply (See pp. 65-72, record) which &/or Jose Cayanan, as drawers. While the agreements,
purports to show that the batch of complainant was denominated "For Fisherman Deployed For Work To
obligated to pay back respondent Jose Cayanan the Singapore,"constitute authorization to Victor Lim to deduct
expenses for their deployment. No less than the POEA from the monthly salaries of the workers the amounts of
noted that the respondent agency "is a service contractor their obligations to private respondents. Petitioner's own
and is not authorized to deploy fishermen." Based on this undertaking to private respondents reads:
fact, the respondent agency could not have deployed
complainant as an overseas contract worker. What is "I hereby certify that my expenses abroad in going to
apparent is that it obtained a tourist passport and plane Singapore as fisherman amounting to SIXTEEN
ticket for complainant as a travel agent on a clearly "fly THOUSAND PESOS (P16,000.00) shall be temporarily
now pay later" plan. shouldered by JEAC INT'L MGT & CONT. SERVICES and as
soon as I arrive in Singapore, said amount will be charged
We cannot rely on the employment agreements and checks by MR. VICTOR LIM and will be remitted to Eng. Jose E.
(See pp. 66-67, record) presented by complainant to show
proof of employment relations considering that his name
does not appear in any of the documents, hence they are
(Sgd.) Mario Hornales
merely hearsay."12
F. CREW" 15
In reversing the POEA's finding, respondent NLRC gave
considerable weight to the Joint Affidavit of Natura and Cayanan.
Balucas.
On the other side of the scale are the Joint Affidavit
Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration secured by private respondents from petitioner's co-
but was denied. workers, Balucas and Natura, and a Certification issued
by Step-Up Agency. These evidence were intended to
Petitioner now comes to this Court via a petition for prove the alleged admission of petitioner to Balucas and
certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to public Natura that he went as a tourist to Singapore and that he
respondent NLRC. He asserts that private respondents applied directly with Step-Up Agency. The Certification of
were the ones who deployed him to Singapore to work as Step-Up Agency re-echoes the allegations in the Joint
fisherman; and that, respondent NLRC's conclusion that Affidavit.
respondent JEAC was a mere "travel agency" and
petitioner, a mere tourist, has no basis in fact and in law. The scale of evidence must tilt in favor of petitioner.
For their part, private respondents maintain that In a catena of labor cases, this Court has consistently held
respondent NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion that where the adverse party is deprived of the
when it set aside the decision of the POEA, since petitioner opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are
failed to show any POEA record or document to prove that generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant
they deployed him to work in Singapore. Neither did he themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
present a Special Power of Attorney to prove that Step-Up thereon.16 Private respondents' Joint Affidavit has no
Agency authorized private respondents to recruit and probative value. It suffers from two infirmities, first,
deploy contract workers in its behalf nor an Affidavit of petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine
Responsibility to show that they (private respondents and the two affiants regarding the contents thereof, and second,
Step-Up Agency) assumed solidary liability to petitioner.13 the two affiants merely swore as to what petitioner told
Private respondents likewise insist that the photocopies of them but not as to the truth of the statements uttered.17
the PNB checks and agreements are hearsay and
inadmissible in evidence. In the same vein, the Certification must not be given
weight. Private respondents not only failed to present
The Solicitor General, in his comment,14 joins petitioner in Victor Lim before the POEA to be cross-examined by
assailing the decision of respondent NLRC as "baseless and petitioner, but the Certification was also not verified or
G.R. No. 126625 September 18, 1997 On June 19, 1990, Engineer Estacio appeared but
requested for another week to settle the claims. Labor
KANLAON CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CO., INC., Arbiter Siao denied this request. On June 21, 1990, Arbiter
petitioner, Siao issued an order granting the complaint and directing
vs. petitioner to pay private respondents' claims. Arbiter Siao
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 5TH held:
DIVISION, and BENJAMIN RELUYA, JR., EDGARDO
GENAYAS, ERNESTO CANETE, PROTACIO ROSALES, xxx xxx xxx
NESTOR BENOYA, RODOLFO GONGOB, DARIO BINOYA,
BENJAMIN BASMAYOR, ABELARDO SACURA, Considering the length of time that has elapsed since these
FLORENCIO SACURA, ISABELO MIRA, NEMESIO LACAR, cases were filed, and what the complainants might think as
JOSEPH CABIGKIS, RODRIGO CILLON, VIRGILIO to how this branch operates and/or conducts its
QUIZON, GUARINO EVANGELISTA, ALEJANDRO GATA, proceedings as they are now restless, this Arbiter has no
BENEDICTO CALAGO, NILO GATA, DIONISIO PERMACIO, other alternative or recourse but to order the respondent
JUANITO SALUD, ADOR RIMPO, FELIPE ORAEZ, to pay the claims of the complainants, subject of course to
JULIETO TEJADA, TEOTIMO LACIO, ONOFRE QUIZON, the computation of the Fiscal Examiner II of this Branch
RUDY ALVAREZ, CRESENCIO FLORES, ALFREDO pursuant to the oral manifestation of respondent. The
PERMACIO, CRESENCIO ALVIAR, HERNANI SURILLA, Supreme Court ruled: "Contracts though orally made are
DIOSDADO SOLON, CENON ALBURO, ZACARIAS ORTIZ, binding on the parties." (Lao Sok v. Sabaysabay, 138 SCRA
EUSEBIO BUSTILLO, GREGORIO BAGO, JERRY VARGAS, 134).
EDUARDO BUENO, PASCUAL HUDAYA, ROGELIO
NIETES, and REYNALDO NIETES, respondents. Similarly, this Branch would present in passing that "a
court cannot decide a case without facts either admitted or
PUNO, J.: agreed upon by the parties or proved by evidence." (Yu
Chin Piao v. Lim Tuaco, 33 Phil. 92; Benedicto v. Yulo, 26
In this petition for certiorari, petitioner Kanlaon Phil. 160)
Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. seeks to annul the
decision of respondent National Labor Relations WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondent is
Commission, Fifth Division and remand the cases to the hereby ordered to pay the individual claims of the above-
Arbitration Branch for a retrial on the merits. named complainants representing their wage differentials
within ten (10) days from receipt of this order.
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the
construction business nationwide with principal office at The Fiscal Examiner II of this Branch is likewise hereby
No. 11 Yakan St., La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City. In ordered to compute the individual claims of the herein
1988, petitioner was contracted by the National Steel complainants.
Corporation to construct residential houses for its plant
employees in Steeltown, Sta. Elena, Iligan City. Private SO ORDERED. 3
respondents were hired by petitioner as laborers in the
project and worked under the supervision of Engineers On June 29, 1990, Arbiter Palangan issued a similar order,
Paulino Estacio and Mario Dulatre. In 1989, the project thus:
neared its completion and petitioner started terminating
the services of private respondents and its other When the above-entitled cases were called for hearing on
employees. June 19, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. respondent thru their
representative manifested that they were willing to pay
In 1990, private respondents filed separate complaints the claims of the complainants and promised to pay the
against petitioner before Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch same on June 28, 1990 at 10:30 a.m.
XII, Iligan City. Numbering forty-one (41) in all, they
claimed that petitioner paid them wages below the However, when these cases were called purposely to
minimum and sought payment of their salary differentials materialize the promise of the respondent, the latter failed
and thirteenth-month pay. Engineers Estacio and Dulatre to appear without any valid reason.
were named co-respondents.
Considering therefore that the respondent has already
Some of the cases were assigned to Labor Arbiter admitted the claims of the complainants, we believe that
Guardson A. Siao while the others were assigned to Labor the issues raised herein have become moot and academic.
Arbiter Nicodemus G. Palangan. Summonses and notices of
preliminary conference were issued and served on the two WHEREFORE premises considered, the above-entitled
engineers and petitioner through Engineer Estacio. The cases are hereby ordered Closed and Terminated,
preliminary conferences before the labor arbiters were however, the respondent is hereby ordered to pay the
attended by Engineers Estacio and Dulatre and private complainants their differential pay and 13th-month pay
respondents. At the conference of June 11, 1990 before within a period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof based
Arbiter Siao, Engineer Estacio admitted petitioner's on the employment record on file with the respondent.
liability to private respondents and agreed to pay their
wage differentials and thirteenth-month pay on June 19, SO ORDERED. 4
1990. As a result of this agreement, Engineer Estacio
hold petitioner liable for damages. 5 respondents, Engineer Estacio attended to the project in
Iligan City and supervised the work of the employees
In brief, petitioner alleges that the decisions of the labor thereat. As manager, he had sufficient responsibility and
arbiters and respondent Commission are void for the discretion to realize the importance of the legal papers
following reasons: (1) there was no valid service of served on him and to relay the same to the president or
summons; (2) Engineers Estacio and Dulatre and Atty. other responsible officer of petitioner. Summons for
Abundiente had no authority to appear and represent petitioner was therefore validly served on him.
petitioner at the hearings before the arbiters and on
appeal to respondent Commission; (3) the decisions of the Engineer Estacio's appearance before the labor arbiters
arbiters and respondent Commission are based on and his promise to settle the claims of private respondents
unsubstantiated and self-serving evidence and were is another matter.
rendered in violation of petitioner's right to due process.
The general rule is that only lawyers are allowed to appear
Service of summons in cases filed before the labor arbiters before the labor arbiter and respondent Commission in
is governed by Sections 4 and 5 of Rule IV of the New Rules cases before them. The Labor Code and the New Rules of
of Procedure of the NLRC. They provide: Procedure of the NLRC, nonetheless, lists three (3)
exceptions to the rule, viz:
Sec. 4. Service of Notices and Resolutions. (a) Notices or
summons and copies of orders, resolutions or decisions Sec. 6. Appearances. . . . .
shall be served on the parties to the case personally by the
bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) A non-lawyer may appear before the Commission or any
days from receipt thereof or by registered mail; Provided Labor Arbiter only if:
that where a party is represented by counsel or authorized
representative, service shall be made on such counsel or (a) he represents himself as party to the case;
authorized representative; provided further that in cases of
The degree of proof required to validate the concurrence We are well aware of the fact that only a handful of public
of the above-mentioned conditions under P.D. No. 626 is elementary school teachers are fortunate enough to be
merely substantial evidence, that is, such relevant assigned in urban areas where the working conditions are
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to comparatively much better than those in the rural areas. A
support a conclusion. What the law requires is a large majority of public elementary school teachers, as in
reasonable work-connection and not direct causal relation. the case of the petitioner, work in remote places such as
It is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's sitios and barrios under poor working conditions. Thus,
claim is based is probable.14 As correctly pointed out by the daily task of conducting classes (normally composed of
the CA, probability, not the ultimate degree of certainty, is 40 to 50 pupils in urban areas and up to 70 pupils in rural
the test of proof in compensation proceedings.15 For, in areas) in an atmosphere that is, by any standard, not
interpreting and carrying out the provisions of the Labor conducive to learning becomes even more physically
Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the taxing to the teachers. Tremendous amount of paper work
primordial and paramount consideration is the employee's during and after office hours (from correcting examination
welfare. To safeguard the worker's rights, any doubt as to papers, assignments, school projects and reports to
the proper interpretation and application must be resolved writing lesson plans and the computation and recording of
in their favor.16 grades) can be very physically draining especially to the
senior members of the teaching profession such as the
In the instant case, medical reports and drug prescriptions petitioner. Such and other related school activities of a
of respondent's attending physicians sufficiently support teacher, aggravated by substandard, if not adverse,
her claim for disability benefits. Neither the GSIS nor the working conditions, give rise to increased tension, if not
ECC convincingly deny their genuineness and due emotional and psychological disturbance on the part of the
execution. The reports are made part of the record and teachers. This is especially true in the case of public
there is no showing that they are false or erroneous, or elementary school teachers whose pupils, being of tender
resorted to as a means of deceiving the Court, hence, are age and immature, need to be disciplined and to be taught
entitled to due probative weight. The failure of respondent good manners and right conduct, as well as to be assisted
to submit to a full medical examination, as required by the in their formal school lessons
rules, to substantiate her essential hypertension, is of no
moment. The law is that laboratory reports such as X-ray [We] must not also neglect to mention the fact that public
and ECG are not indispensable prerequisites to elementary school teachers are the lowest paid
compensability,17 the reason being that the strict rules of government workers, considering the nature and
evidence need not be observed in claims for importance of the services they render. They are the most
compensation.18 Medical findings of the attending reliable and dedicated public servants being constantly
physician may be received in evidence and used as proof of called upon by officials of the local and national
the fact in dispute.19 The doctor's certification as to the government to assist in various extra-curricular and civic
nature of claimant's disability may be given credence as he activities which contribute to the welfare of the
or she normally would not make untruthful certification. community and the country. Their responsibility in
Indeed, no physician in his right mind and who is aware of molding the values and character of the young generations
the far reaching and serious effect that his or her of the country, cannot be overestimated.
statements would cause on a money claim against a
government agency would vouch indiscriminately without Significantly, even Republic Act No. 4670, otherwise
regarding his own interests and protection.20 known as the Magna Charta for Public School Teachers,
mandates in one of its provisions that 'teachers shall be
Indeed, an employee's disability may not manifest fully at On August 28, 1978, Jimmy Sajonas filed his opposition
one precise moment in time but rather over a period of alleging that his dismissal was without justifiable grounds
time. It is possible that an injury which at first was to support it and that it would contravene his
considered to be temporary may later on become constitutional right to security of tenure.
permanent or one who suffers a partial disability becomes
totally and permanently disabled from the same cause.30 After a notice of investigation was issued, the case was
The right to compensation extends to disability due to referred to a conciliator who recommended the preventive
disease supervening upon and proximately and naturally suspension of the respondent.
resulting froma compensable injury. Where the primary
injury is shown to have arisen in the course of The Regional Director suspended Sajonas and indorsed the
employment, every natural consequence that flows from case for compulsory arbitration to Labor Arbiter Benigno
the injury likewise arises out of the employment, unless it Ayson.
is the result of an independent intervening cause
attributable to claimant's own negligence or misconduct. On December 11, 1978, the labor arbiter came out with a
Simply stated, all medical consequences that flow from the decision denying the application for clearance to dismiss
primary injury are compensable.31 Jimmy Sajonas for insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner
was ordered to reinstate Sajonas with backwages from the
P.D. No. 626, as amended, is said to have abandoned the time of suspension up to reinstatement and without loss of
presumption of compensability and the theory of seniority rights.
aggravation prevalent under the Workmen's
Compensation Act. Nonetheless, we ruled in Employees' The case was appealed to the National Labor Relations
Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals,32 that: Commission. On January 17, 1980, the Commission
rendered a decision dismissing the appeal and affirming
Despite the abandonment of the presumption of the decision of the labor arbiter.
compensability established by the old law, the present law
has not ceased to be an employees' compensation law or a The petitioner charges the public respondents with grave
social legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in favor of abuse of discretion for, having rendered an "unlawful,
the working man and woman still prevails, and the official unconstitutional, and unprecedented decision."
agency charged by law to implement the constitutional
guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in The main issue in this petition is the contention of the
favor of the employee in deciding claims for petitioner that it was denied due process because its
compensability, especially in light of the compassionate evidence was not considered by both the labor arbiter and
policy towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies the NLRC. The petitioner states that as a result of this
and enhances. Elsewise stated, a humanitarian impulse, ignoring of its evidence, the decisions of the public
dictated by no less than the Constitution itself under the respondents are contrary to the facts and the applicable
social justice policy, calls for a liberal and sympathetic law.
approach to legitimate appeals of disabled public servants;
or that all doubts to the right to compensation must be A careful consideration of the records of this petition
resolved in favor of the employee or laborer. Verily, the convinces us that there is merit in this petition. The
policy is to extend the applicability of the law on summary procedures used by the public respondents were
employees' compensation to as many employees who can too summary to satisfy the requirements of justice and fair
avail of the benefits thereunder.33 play.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is The decision of the respondent Commission which
DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of affirmed the order to reinstate Mr. Sajonas with full
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76461 is AFFIRMED. No costs. backwages was based on two grounds - First, the evidence
available to the labor arbiter when he decided this case
SO ORDERED. was such that the respondent had not sufficiently shown a
just cause for the complainant's dismissal. Second, the
G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 evidence to support the application for clearance to
BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, petitioner, dismiss the complainant was submitted too late because it
vs. was submitted only on appeal.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST
As a result of the conciliator's recommendation, the case The position paper was before the arbiter but minus
was indorsed for arbitration to the labor arbiter. Noting sworn statements comprising the investigations which
that Mr. Sajonas did not appear at the arbitration formed part of the records of the same labor office.
proceedings and did not present any position paper but
left it to some union members to speak for him and Inexplicably, the arbiter came out with the conclusion that
allegedly because Mr. Sajonas had promised to quietly "there is thus no document nor statement of evidence
resign, the petitioner merely adopted the position paper value or of evidencing character which we can consider as
filed during the conciliation proceedings. evidence to support, the enumerated violations for which
Sajonas is supposed to be dismissed . " Instead of calling
The irregular procedures used by the labor arbiter started for the records submitted to the concilliator in the same
at this point. small Baguio office, the arbiter denied the application for
the clearance on the ground that all that was before it was
The labor arbiter allowed a last minute position paper of a position paper with mere quotations about an
respondent Sajonas to be filed and without requiring a investigation conducted by Major Pagala.
copy to be served upon the Baguio Country Club and
without affording the latter an opportunity to refute or The error could have been corrected by the respondent
rebut the contents of the paper, forthwith decided the case. Commission when the petitioner urged that the sworn
statements thus ignored by the labor arbiter should be
The public respondents now argue in their comment that considered on appeal.
"it is of no moment that petitioner was not furnished with
a copy of Sajonas' position paper" because as early as the In the appeal to the commission, the petitioner argued that
conciliation stage it was already apprised of the position of " submitted with this application to terminate are the
the employee, having been furnished Sajonas' opposition investigation of Erdulfo Pagala on Bernadette Saliquio,
and that it cannot feign ignorance. This stand of the public Alma Jean Quidasol, Cristina Rico, and Clarissa Adalla.
respondents is erroneous. Since the case was decided on
the basis of position papers, the petitioner had a right to be The respondent Commission may not have committed
served a copy of the respondent's position paper admitted grave abuse of discretion when it rejected the affidavits of
and considered by the arbiter and an opportunity to these witnesses, the information for estafa against Jimmy
introduce evidence to refute it. As explained by the Sajonas filed by the assistant city fiscal, did the resolution
petitioner, it had been lulled into thinking that because the of the fiscal's office on the complaint for grave threats, on
private respondent had offered to resign and the employer the ground that "evidence cannot be submitted for the first
had agreed to forego the prosecution of criminal charges, time on appeal." However, it was a denial of elementary
there would no longer be any complete or full-scale principles of fair play for the Commission not to have
arbitration proceedings Mr. Sajonas denies that he ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case with
promised to resign and contends that criminal proceedings the affidavits earlier submitted as part of the position
were an afterthought to harass the poor laborer. The fact paper but completely ignored by the labor arbiter. Or at
that there were two divergent and clashing allegations the very least, the case should have been remanded to the
before them, not only on this point but also on the labor arbiter consonant with the requirements of
'Principal issues of dishonesty and intimidation of co- administrative due process.
employees, the public respondents should have adopted
fairer and more accurate methods of ascertaining truth. The ever increasing scope of administrative jurisdiction
and the statutory grant of expansive powers in the
As pointed out by the petitioner, "while an administrative exercise of discretion by administrative agencies illustrate
tribunal possesed of quasi-judicial powers is free from the our nation's faith in the administrative process as an
rigidity of certain procedural requirements, it does not efficient and effective mode of public control over sensitive
mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it areas of private activity. Because of the specific
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential constitutional mandates on social justice and protection to
requirements of due process." (Serrano v. PSC, 24 SCRA labor, and the fact that major labor management
867; and Singco v. COMELEC, 101 SCRA 420). controversies are highly intricate and complex, the
legislature and executive have reposed uncommon
The Court is prone to agree with the stand and position of At any rate, petitioner also failed without justifiable cause
the defendants that plaintiff's claim should not be granted to observe due regard for the hierarchy of courts. Even on
because plaintiff has not shown any clear and legal right this reason alone, we are constrained to deny the petition.
which would entitle him to back salaries, allowances and The policy of this Court respecting the hierarchy of courts
other benefits and besides, plaintiff has failed to exhaust and, consequently, prohibiting the filing of a petition in
administrative remedies no[t] discounting the fact that his this Court in view of the concurrent jurisdiction with the
claim against defendants is actually a suit against the state. lower courts has been consistently observed in the
absence of any compelling reason for departing from such
xxx policy.10 Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court,11 petitioner should have taken his appeal to the
This complaint is actually a suit against the government Court of Appeals.
because the ultimate liability for payment of back salaries,
etc. will fall on the government. This being so, this case Having ruled for the denial of the petition, we need not
should be dismissed because the government cannot be tarry on the other issues that may have been raised in the
sued without its consent. petition.
Accordingly, therefore, the Court has to dismiss this case WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The order of
without costs against the plaintiff. the Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City, in Civil
Case No. Q-98-36370 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as
IT IS SO ORDERED.5 to costs.
Accordingly, petitioner filed the instant appeal via petition THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
for review on certiorari, raising only one issue: vs.
LARRY LAVAPIE, SIMEON LACHANO, ARNOLD BUATES,
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to his claim for SANTOS SAN PASCUAL, SR., SANTOS SAN PASCUAL, JR.,
back salaries and allowances under the terms of the REY SAN PASCUAL, BENIGNO CATINA, JR. and SEVERAL
decision of the NAPOLCOM Appellate Board.6 DOES, accused.
LARRY LAVAPIE and SANTOS SAN PASCUAL, SR.,
Mainly involved in this controversy is petitioner's accused-appellants.
entitlement to back salaries and other allowances upon the
reduction of his penalty of dismissal to mere suspension BUENA, J.:
for three months. But secondarily, it should be asked
whether petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 16,
1996, of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36,2
Dr. Alicia M. Mercurio, Municipal Health Officer of Buhi II, For the defense, on the other hand, all of the six (6)
Camarines Sur, conducted the autopsy on the body of accused, who were brought before the jurisdiction of the
Sonny Sierva and prepared an autopsy report28 dated April trial court, testified together with Felix Lavapie, Juan
25, 1989, with the following findings: Bongais and Loreto Camasis.
a) P7,000.00 as actual damages, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE
RETRACTION OF PROSECUTION WITNESS[ES] JENNY
b) P50,000.00 as death indemnity, CORDIAL AND DOMINGO SAMONTE [AS] NEWLY-
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH SHALL JUSTIFY THE
c) P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs; HOLDING OF A NEW TRIAL.
"2. [T]he [other] accused, Santos San Pascual, Jr., Rey San We find merit in this appeal.
Pascual, Benigno Catina, Jr., and Simeon Lachano, not
guilty of the crime charged in the information and [the The conviction of accused-appellants by the trial court was
Court] hereby acquits them thereof for insufficiency of predicated primarily on the testimony of prosecution
evidence. The bonds posted for their provisional liberty witness Domingo Samonte who "positively identified
are hereby ordered cancelled and released. [accused-appellant] Larry Lavapie as the one who hacked
Sonny Sierva with a bolo at his neck while accused[-
"With respect to the accused, Arnold Buates, who was appellant] Santos San Pascual, Sr., was at the rear of Sonny
never brought to the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt, let the Sierva, holding his hands;"60 and on the testimonies of the
records of this case be sent to the archives to be revived as two (2) witnesses who arrived at the scene of the crime
soon as this [C]ourt acquires jurisdiction over [the] said shortly after the hacking incident occurred Jenny
accused. Cordial, who "saw accused[-appellant] Larry Lavapie
standing about five [5] meters away from the dead body of
"SO ORDERED."50 Sonny Sierva"61 and Enrico Sierva, who "saw and
recognized the same accused[-appellant] Larry Lavapie
In convicting accused-appellants, Larry Lavapie and Santos and accused[-appellant] Santos San Pascual, Sr., standing
San Pascual, Sr., the trial court relied primarily on the [five] 5 meters away from the dead body of Sonny
testimony of prosecution witness Domingo Samonte that Sierva."62 According to the trial court, Jenny Cordial's
accused-appellant Larry Lavapie was the one who hacked description of the condition of Sonny Sierva's body when
Sonny Sierva on the neck with the use of a bolo while they came upon it, ". . . is supported by the medical
accused-appellant Santos San Pascual, Sr. was at the back findings" as stated in the autopsy report.63 Furthermore,
of Sonny Sierva, holding the latter's hands.51 The trial court the trial court observed that accused-appellants failed to
also relied heavily on the testimony of prosecution witness show "any improper motive on the part of the said
Jenny Cordial that she saw accused-appellant Larry witnesses to falsely testify against them."64
Lavapie, standing about five (5) meters away from the
dead body of Sonny Sierva; and on the testimony of While it is settled to the point of being elementary that on
prosecution witness Enrico Sierva that he saw accused- the issue of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
appellants, Larry Lavapie and Santos San Pascual, Sr., not disturb the findings arrived at by the trial court, which
standing five (5) meters away from the dead body of Sonny was certainly in a better position to rate the credibility of
Sierva.52 The trial court further maintained that Jenny the witnesses after hearing them and observing their
Cordial's description of Sonny Sierva's body when they deportment and manner of testifying during the trial; this
came upon it, lying prostrate on the road, was supported rule stands absent any showing that certain facts and
by the medical findings stated in the autopsy report of Dr. circumstances of weight and value have been overlooked,
Alicia M. Mercurio.53 The trial court rejected the defenses misinterpreted or misapplied by the trial court which, if
of denial and alibi raised by accused-appellants, and ruled considered, would affect the result or outcome of the
that denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive case.65 After a careful review of the records of this case,
identification, and that accused-appellants' alibi was not particularly, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the
corroborated by any credible and disinterested witness.54 Court finds that significant facts and circumstances were
In ruling that the killing was qualified by treachery, the overlooked and disregarded by the trial court, which, if
trial court explained that accused-appellants awaited, in properly considered, would have affected the result of this
ambush, for their victim;"55 and that the suddenness of the case. The records show that there are strong and cogent
attack on Sonny Sierva and the fact that his hands were
"Q: All right. You said Larry Lavapie suddenly hacked "A: My son Sonny Sierva and my brother-in-law, Felix
Sonny Sierva[,] was Sonny Sierva hit? Buendia.
[WITNESS DOMINGO SAMONTE]: "Q: While you together with your late son Sonny Sierva
and your brother-in-law Felix Buendia were on your way
"A: Yes, sir. home from centro Buraburan, Buhi, Camarines Sur, do you
recall of any incident that happened?
"Q: Where was he hit?
"A: Yes, sir."75 (Emphasis supplied.)
"A: He was hit on his neck. (Witness pointing to the left
side of his neck.) "ROGELIO SIERVA'S SECOND TESTIMONY WHICH WAS
TAKEN ON AUGUST 5, 1993:
"Q: After Sonny Sierva was hacked by Larry Lavapie[,]
what happened to Sonny Sierva, Mr. Samonte? "PROSECUTOR:
"A: He fell down, sir."66 (Emphasis supplied.) "Q: Mr. Sierva, where were you on March 29, 1989 at
about 11 o'clock in the evening?
The foregoing testimony of Samonte is belied by the
physical evidence that the deceased, Sonny Sierva [WITNESS ROGELIO SIERVA]:
sustained an "incised wound at the neck, right side cutting
the whole neck structure with a portion of the skin only on "A: I was then at San Vicente, Buraburan, Buhi,
the left side holding it in place about 3 in. long."67 Camarines Sur.
(Emphasis supplied.) While Samonte categorically testified
that Sonny Sierva was hacked on the neck, at the same "Q: Why did you happen to be there, Mr. Sierva during
time, Samonte demonstrated by pointing to the left side of the aforesaid date and time?
his neck; the autopsy report clearly revealed that Sonny
Sierva was hacked on the right side of his neck and not on "A: I accompanied my son to the dancing hall.
the left side. This material inconsistency, consequently,
casts a serious doubt on the testimony of Samonte. As we "Q: Where was this dancing hall?
have ruled in People vs. Vasquez,68 since the physical
evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial "A: At Centro San Vicente, Bura-buran.
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conclusions as to
physical evidence should prevail. It bears reiteration that "Q: What were you doing at the aforesaid place during
physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestations the aforesaid date and time?
of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy
evidence.69 In the light of the physical evidence obtaining "A: I was watching the dance.
in this case, contrary to oral assertions cannot normally
prevail. Greater credence is given to physical evidence as "Q: Who were with you, if any, during that time, Mr.
evidence of the highest order because it speaks more Sierva?
eloquently than a hundred witnesses.70
"A: My son and my brother-in-law.
Moreover, Samonte's claim that on March 29, 1989, at
around 11 p.m., he came from the dance hall in San Vicente "xxx xxx xxx"
with Rogelio Sierva and the victim Sonny Sierva, 71 and that
while on their way, Rogelio and Sonny talked with some "Q: After watching the dance, what did you do, if any?
ladies, then, Rogelio went ahead, leaving Domingo and
Sonny behind,72 was even contradicted by Rogelio's (one of "A: We went home.
Samonte's alleged companions on that fateful night)
testimony on two (2) different instances,73that on March "Q: You said "we went home". Who were with you?
29, 1989, at about 11 p.m., he was with his son, Sonny
Sierva and his brother-in-law, Felix Buendia,74 without any "A: My brother-in-law and my son.
reference to the alleged presence of Samonte, thus:
"Q: What is the name of your brother-in-law?
"ROGELIO SIERVA'S FIRST TESTIMONY WHICH WAS
TAKEN ON AUGUST 16, 1990: "A: Felix Buendia.
"PROSECUTOR:
On November 17, 1961 another Fire Policy No. N-30871 We sincerely believe that the amount of P13,500,000.00 is
(Exhs. 534 and H) was issued by the Property Insurance just and fair indemnity for the loss. Inasmuch as that office
Fund of the GSIS to cover the insurance of various grades refused to execute the required Sworn Statement in Proof
of Virginia leaf Tobacco belonging to the plaintiff-appellant of Loss, we wish to ask your written agreement to the
and stored in the said Warehouse F, with the declared following conditions (which were embodied in our letter of
value of P2,048,518.50 and for the period from September July 17, 1964 to the Central Bank of the Philippines) before
30, 1961 to September 30, 1962. we remit the above-mentioned partial payment and
subsequent payments of the balance:
The said insurance policies provide among other things
that in the event of loss, whether total or partial the 1 In the event that ACA claims for additional indemnity (in
amount thereof shall be subject to appraisal and that the excess of the amount of P13,500,000.00) the burden of
liability of the GSIS, if established shall be limited to the proving such additional claim shall be its own
actual loss, subject to the applicable terms, conditions, responsibility.
warranties and clauses of the policies, and in no case to
exceed the amount of the policies. This is the open policy 2 That should ACA be able to present additional proof and
clause of the said insurance policies. (Exhs. 533-A-1 and evidence for additional indemnity, the same shall be
534-A-1). referred for adjudication to a competent court.
On February 15, 1962 at about 7:20 in the evening thereof, (Ex. EE; Exh. 530; pp. 13-14, tsn, May 19, 1972)
a fire occurred which burned the said Warehouse F and
practically all the tobacco stored therein. As already stated, Plaintiff-appellant accepted the offer and its acceptance is
the said warehouse was owned by the Philippine Tobacco embodied in the letter of Mr. Amado A. Lansang, Officer-in-
Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation, then controlled by Charge, dated December 16, 1964. Thus, the body of said
the well known Harry Stonehill. The said warehouse is one letter, Exh. FF (also Exh. 631) reads as follows:
of the warehouses in the Baesa compound of the PTFC &
RC. In attention to your letter of December 7th which was
transmitted to us by the Central Bank under its 1st
Subsequently, plaintiff-appellant filed with the GSIS its fire Indorsement dated December 14, 1964, please be advised
claim, Exhs. N-1 to N-4. that we agree to the following condition set by you in your
aforesaid letters, viz:
Pursuant to the open policy clause of the insurance
policies, the GSIS, as is the practice in the insurance 1 That in the event ACA claim further indemnity in excess
business, employed three insurance adjusters to ascertain of the amount of P13,500,000.00, the burden of proving
the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff-appellant. Said such additional amount shall be of ACA's responsibility.
adjusters are the Manila Adjustment Company, H. H. Bayne
Adjustment Company and the Allied Adjustment Company. 2 That ACA shall present additional proof and evidence for
The said adjusters examined the records of the plaintiff- further indemnity to a competent court for adjucation.
appellant and of the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and
Redrying Corporation and they employed two tobacco (pp. 14-16, tsn, May 19, 1972)
experts to assist them in evaluating the loss of the plaintiff-
appellant. Said tobacco experts were Mr. George Flagg and Pursuant to the said agreement of the parties, the GSIS
Edrington S. Penn. After the adjusters, with the assistance paid to the plaintiff-appellant the amount of
of Mr. Flagg and Penn, had verified the records of the P13,500,000.00. (p. 17, tsn, May 19, 1972).
plaintiff-appellant and of the PTFC & RC and had employed
the hogshead metal strap recovery method, the said Since it claims that its loss from the fire is P23,610,571.61,
adjusters rendered a report on September 25, 1962 (Exh. the plaintiff-appellant filed the present action in Court,
538) and a final report on September 25, 1963 (Exhs. 29 to praying among other things, that the defendant-appellee
529-F; also marked as Exhs. Q to Q-6 and Exhs, 537 to 537- be ordered to pay the difference of P10,110,571.61 (p.11
H). In said final report, the adjusters recommend as the Record on Appeal) (pp. 2-7, Brief for Defendant-Appellee
basis for the adjustment of the appellant's claims the Government Service Insurance System; p. 83, Rollo)
amount of P12,557,968.68. Their verification showed that
only 15,467 hogshead of tobacco of various grades were ACA's complaint was filed with the then Court of First
inside the Warehouse F at the time of the fire. Instance of Manila on September 21, 1965 and docketed as
Civil Case No. 62683. On September 9,1975, the trial court
This Court retains the power to review and rectify findings Exhs. QQ, QQ-1 to QQ-35 320
of fact of the Court of Appeals where said court manifestly " QQ-79 to QQ-115 276
overlooked, ignored, or misinterpreted certain facts or " QQ-117 to Q-157 316
circumstances of weight and significance (Carolina " QQ-244 to QQ-323 691
Industries, Inc., vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, 97 SCRA 734 " QQ-325 to QQ-449 980
[1980]; People vs. Arciaga, 98 SCRA 1 [1980]). Considering " QQ-451 22
that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals conflict " QQ-464 7
with those of the trial court, the exercise of our power of " QQ-467 to QQ-499 299
review over the decision of the Court of Appeals is not " QQ-503 to QQ-651 1,170
unjustified. " QQ-653 5
" QQ-655 to QQ-674 162
As aforementioned, the quantity, the quantity of tobacco " QQ-678 184
delivered to Warehouse "F" is not dispute. The issue in " QQ-704 to QQ-751 742
dispute is the quantity of tobacco withdrawn from said " QQ-756 to QQ-764 122
warehouse before the fire of February 15, 1962. " QQ-1022 52
Withdrawals of tobacco from Warehouse "F" are recorded
in the Delivery Order and Tally-Out Sheets, Exhibits QQ to Total 5,348
Q-2022 and Exhibits 134 to 368.
Crop Year 1957:
The Court of Appeals, in its resolution of May 7, 1979,
mainly based its findings, that 120,270 hogsheads of Exhs. QQ-36 to QQ-78 414
tobacco were stored in Warehouse "F" immediately before " QQ-116 15
the fire, on Exhibit GG, a summary of the withdrawals " QQ-158 to QQ-201 404
based on Exhibit QQ to Q-2022. The Court of Appeals " QQ-202 to QQ-243 309
should not have merely relied on the summary but should " QQ-324 6
have gone to the original sources and the bases thereof " QQ-450 7
and should have scrutinized Exhibits QQ to QQ-2022 and
Exhibits 134 to 368, the tally-out sheets for these are the Total 1,155
primary documents recording each and every withdrawal
of tobacco from the warehouse at the time of delivery. Crop Year 1958:
These exhibits constitute the best evidence to prove the
withdrawal of tobacco from the warehouse. Exhs. QQ-654 2
" QQ-657 to QQ-678-B 60
Nor may the tally sheet summary be of any significance. " QQ-679 to QQ-703 295
The contents of the tally sheet summary were supposed to " QQ-752 to QQ-755 1,150
have been merely copied from the weighers' tally sheets " QQ-765 to QQ-767 800
prepared right at the ramps. The inability of SVTPA to " QQ-999 5
produce the original of the weighers' tally sheets or even " QQ-1003 to QQ-1021 185
explain its non-production creates the impression that no " QQ-1023 to QQ-1027 336
Therefore, according to ACA's own documentary evidence, The facts of the case as established by the prosecution:
15,669 hogshead of tobacco were withdrawn from the
warehouse from 1955 to 1959. At 12:15 p.m. of March 18, 2000, thirteen year-old
Jacquelyn Balandra was with her step-sisters, Titin and
In addition thereto, Exhibits 134 to 368, delivery orders Crismarie, inside the room of their home located at Old Air
dated August 13, to 16, 1959, indicate that were further Academy, ATO, Don Carlos Village, Pasay City. Appellant
withdrawals of 1,944 hogsheads from the warehouse Rodrigo Balleno, the live-in partner of Jacquelyns mother,
during said period. 15,669 hogsheads plus 1,944 Lorna, entered the room and ordered Titin and Crismarie
additional hogsheads, gives us a total of 17,613 hogsheads to go out.3 When they were alone, appellant sat at the side
of tobacco withdrawn from the warehouse. Deducting of the bed where Jacquelyn was lying down. Then he
17,613 hogsheads of tobacco from a total of 15,457 touched her thighs, placed her hands on her back and
tobacco hogsheads inside the warehouse at the time of the covered her mouth. He then removed Jacquelyns shorts
fire on February 15, 1962. The documentary evidence on and panties, lay on top of her and kissed her lips. He took
record, therefore, clearly supports the position of off his shorts and inserted his penis into Jacquelyns vagina
petitioner GSIS. who tried to push him away.4
The presentation of the testimony of ACA's witnesses, Jacquelyn went to her friends, Toochie, Nanette and
Doroteo Toledo, Aurelio B. de Jesus, Demetrio P. Tabije, Mylene and related to them what happened. They
and Patronicio Torres is nothing but a convoluted attempt accompanied her to the local barangay where she reported
of ACA to minimize and neutralize the impact of Exhibits the incident. On the same day, barangay officials Luis
QQ to QQ-2022 and Exhibits 134 to 368. Their testimony Alintana, Efren Bais and Rogelio Basagre arrested
consisted mainly in trying to explain away, vary, and appellant Rodrigo Balleno.5 Jacquelyn executed her
modify the meaning and significance of Exhibits QQ to QQ- "Sinumpaang Salaysay"6 and submitted herself to a
2022 and Exhibits 134 to 368. Testimonial evidence is easy medical examination.7
of fabrication and there is very little room for choice
between testimonial evidence and documentary evidence Dr. Estela Guerrero Manalo, a physician assigned at the
(Marvel Building Corporation vs. David, 94 Phil. 376 Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital,
[1954]). Generally, documentary evidence prevails over- Manila, conducted a physical and genital examination on
testimonial evidence. Jacquelyn on March 20, 2000. Her examination showed
that the victims external genitalia and hymen were
WHEREFORE, the resolution dated May 7, 1979, as well as normal.8 There was no evidence of spermatozoa. She,
that of November 23, 1979, of respondent Court of Appeals however, claimed that it was possible that the victim was
are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the complaint sexually abused even if the result of the examination
filed in Civil Case No. 62683 is hereby DISMISSED. showed a normal genital.9
Q: They have quarreled before this incident, am I a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
correct?
xxx xxx x x x.
A: None.25
ART. 266-B. Penalties.- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
Time and again, we have consistently held that when a preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape Lastly, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, the award
was committed. For no woman, least of all a child, would of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the crime of rape
weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself should be reduced to P50,000.00.35 Civil indemnity is
to examination of her private parts and later be subjected separate and distinct from the award of moral damages
to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of which is automatically granted in rape cases. 36 Moral
rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are additionally
her.26 Hence, we find no basis to depart from the well- awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis
settled rule that trial courts assessment of the credibility thereof. This is because it is recognized that the victims
of complainants testimony is entitled to great weight, injury is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from
absent any showing that some facts were overlooked the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of
which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the moral damages.37
case.27
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
The Information alleged that appellant was the stepfather Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Criminal
of the victim. This was inaccurate. The word "step", when Case No. 00-0408, finding appellant Rodrigo Balleno y
used as prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship, is Pernetes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
repugnant to blood relationship and is indicative of a rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
relationship by affinity.28 Since appellant and the victims perpetua, and ordering him to pay the offended party
mother were not married, no such relationship by affinity P50,000.00 as moral damages, is AFFIRMED with the
existed between appellant and the victim. The records MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity in the amount of
indicate that the victims mother, Lorna, and the appellant P75,000.00 is reduced to P50,000.00.
were "live-in partners," the former, in fact, lawfully
married to Charlie Balandra, the victims father. A Costs de oficio.
stepfather-stepdaughter relationship presupposes a
legitimate relationship, i.e., the appellant should have been SO ORDERED.
legally married to Lorna, the victims mother. A stepfather
is the husband of ones mother by virtue of a marriage G.R. Nos. 146284-86 January 20, 2003
subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the
offspring.29 A stepdaughter is a daughter of ones spouse PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
by previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses vs.
by a former marriage.30 ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON, appellant.
In People v. Fraga,31 we held that "although the rape of a DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
person under eighteen (18) years of age by the common-
law spouse of the victims mother is punishable by death, Appellant Abdul Macalaba y Digayon (hereafter ABDUL)
this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant x x x was charged before the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro,
because his relationship was not what was alleged in the Laguna, with violations of the Presidential Decree No.
information. What was alleged was that he is the 18661; Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code2; and Section
stepfather of the complainant." The filiation or kinship 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
with the accused must be alleged in the information as part (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended, in Criminal Cases
of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of Nos. 1236, 1237 and 1238, respectively. The accusatory
the nature and cause of the accusation against him.32 portions of the informations in these cases read as follows:
Therefore, the failure to accurately allege the relationship
between appellant and his victim in the information bars Criminal Case No. 1236
his conviction of rape in its qualified form. 33 The appellant,
having been referred to as the stepfather of the victim in That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San
the information, is thus auspiciously spared from the Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
supreme punishment of death by this technical flaw.34 jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused without
the required permit/license from the proper authorities,
Thus, the trial court correctly convicted appellant of did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
simple rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of have in his possession, custody and control one (1) caliber
Criminal Case No. 1238 PO3 Mendez substantially corroborated the testimony of
SPO1 Pandez.11
That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San
Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the The two P1,000 bills were found to be counterfeit after an
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused examination conducted by Police Inspector Anacleta
without being authorized by law, did then and there Cultura,12 a document examiner at Camp Vicente Lim,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, Calamba, Laguna. The white crystalline substance
custody and control one (1) self-sealing transparent plastic contained in the four small plastic bags was subjected to
bag of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu" weighing physical and laboratory examination conducted by Police
226.67 grams (3 medium sized transparent plastic bags Inspector Lorna Tria, a Forensic Chemist at the PNP Crime
and 1 big heat-sealed transparent plastic bag). Laboratory, Region IV, Camp Vicente Lim. Her findings13
were as follows: (a) the three small plastic sachets
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 weighed 29.46 grams, while the big plastic sachet weighed
197.21 grams, or a total weight of 226.67 grams; (b)
The three cases were consolidated and raffled to Branch representative samples taken from the specimens thereof
31 of said court. Upon his arraignment, ABDUL entered in were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or
each case a plea of not guilty. shabu, a regulated drug; and (c) the improvised tooter and
the rolled aluminum foil with residue found in the self-
At the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses SPO1 sealing plastic bag were also positive of the presence for
Generoso Pandez, PO3 Ernani Mendez, Police Inspector shabu residue.
Anacleta Cultura and Police Inspector Lorna Tria. ABDUL
was the sole witness for the defense. As expected, ABDUL had a different story to tell. He
testified that on 12 April 1999, between 6:50 and 7:00
SPO1 Pandez, a PNP member of the Laguna Criminal p.m., he was driving a borrowed Mitsubishi Galant Car with
Investigation Detection Group (CIDG), testified that on 12 Plate No. UPV 501 somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna. With
April 1999, at 5:15 p.m., Major R Win Pagkalinawan him was Rose, his live-in partner, whom he fetched from
ordered the search of ABDUL, alias "Boy Muslim," based on Angeles City, Pampanga. He had borrowed the car from his
a verified information that the latter was driving a friend Ferdinand Navares, who instructed him to return it
carnapped Mitsubishi olive green car with Plate No. UPV in front of the latters store at San Pedro Public Market.14
511 and was a drug-pusher in San Pedro, Laguna. Two
teams were formed for the search. The first was headed by ABDUL was about to park the car when a man knocked
Major Pagkalinawan, with SPO4 Aberion and five others as hard on the glass window on the drivers side of the car
members; and the second was led by Capt. Percival and pointed at the former a .45 caliber pistol. Another one
Rumbaoa, with SPO1 Pandez and PO3 Mendez as who was armed with an armalite rifle positioned himself in
members.6 front of the car, while the third one positioned himself
near the window on the passenger side and pointed a gun
Between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the two groups at his live-in partner Rose. ABDUL then lowered the cars
proceeded to Barangay Nueva, San Pedro, Laguna, on window. The man near him opened the door, held him, and
board a car and a van. They went to ABDULs apartment told him to alight. When the man asked him whether he
where he was reportedly selling shabu, but they learned was "Boy Muslim," he answered in the negative. The same
that ABDUL had already left. While looking for ABDUL, man opened the back door of the car and boarded at the
they saw the suspected carnapped car somewhere at back seat. Rose remained seated at the front passenger
Pacita Complex I, San Pedro, Laguna, going towards the seat. 15
Poblacion. When it stopped due to the red traffic light, the
CIDG officers alighted from their vehicles. Capt. Rumbaoa The other men likewise boarded the car, which was
positioned himself at the passenger side of the suspected thereafter driven by one of them. While inside the car, they
carnapped car, while Major Pagkalinawan stood in front of saw a .45 caliber pistol at the edge of the drivers seat.
the car. SPO1 Pandez, with PO3 Mendez beside him, went They asked him whether he had a license. He showed his
straight to the driver and knocked at the drivers window. gun license and permit to carry. After taking his gun,
ABDUL, who was driving the car, lowered the glass
The warrantless arrest of, or warrantless search and SEC.16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. -- The penalty
seizure conducted on, ABDUL constitute a valid exemption of reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five
from the warrant requirement. The evidence clearly shows hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
that on the basis of an intelligence information that a imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any
carnapped vehicle was driven by ABDUL, who was also a regulated drug without the corresponding license or
suspect of drug pushing, the members of the CIDG of prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
Laguna went around looking for the carnapped car.25 They
spotted the suspected carnapped car, which was indeed
driven by ABDUL. While ABDUL was fumbling about in his
clutch bag for the registration papers of the car the CIDG SEC. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
agents saw four transparent sachets of shabu.26 These Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. --
sachets of shabu were therefore in "plain view" of the law The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of
enforcers. Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of
this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is
Under the "plain view" doctrine, unlawful objects within in any of the following quantities:
the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may
be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of
evidence in plain view must comply with the following 3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the hydrochloride.
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by There is no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of
the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the shabu in Criminal Case No. 1238 was proved beyond
evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain reasonable doubt since ABDUL knowingly carried with
view justified mere seizure of evidence without further him at the time he was caught 226.67 grams of
search.27 shabuwithout legal authority. There being no modifying
circumstance proven, the proper penalty pursuant to
We are convinced beyond any shadow of doubt under the Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
circumstances above discussed that all the elements of perpetua. The penalty imposed by the trial court, including
seizure in plain view exist in the case at bar. Thus, the the fine, is, therefore, in order.
warrantless search and seizure conducted on ABDUL, as
well as his warrantless arrest, did not transgress his WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
constitutional rights. Court of San Pedro, Laguna, in Criminal Case No. 1238
convicting appellant ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON of the
ABDULs sole defense of denial is unsubstantiated. We violation of Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs
have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, and sentencing
over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a
just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which fine of P500,000 and the costs of the suit, is hereby
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the affirmed in toto.
declaration of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony Costs de oficio.
that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the
other, the former is generally held to prevail.28 SO ORDERED.
On the issue of credibility between ABDULs testimony and G.R. No. 140550 February 13, 2002
the declarations of the CIDG officers, we hold for the latter.
As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses vs.
especially when they are police officers who are presumed
PANGANIBAN, J.: "On June 26, 1984, prosecution witness Helen Batislaong
accompanied by her younger sister, Juvy, and her cousin,
When the evidence does not establish how the aggression Joseph, arrived at the dance hall of Crossing Hamod, Batad,
commenced, treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify a Iloilo Province at around 9:00 p.m. At around 12:00 oclock
killing to murder. In the present case, the lone prosecution midnight, Batislaong heard a commotion inside the dance
witness did not see how the attack on the victim was hall. Concerned that her cousin might be involved in the
initiated. Hence, the crime is only homicide, not murder. fight, since he was no longer near her, Batislaong ran to the
center of the dance floor. She did not see her cousin but
The Case instead, it was the sight o a bloodied Francisco Mendoza
lying down on the floor which confronted her. Francisco
Edgar Ayupan appeals the August 12, 1999 Decision1 of the Mendoza, who is also her relative since her mother and his
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City (Branch 33) in father are cousins was being stabbed repeatedly in the
Criminal Case No. 32949, finding him guilty of murder and chest by appellant Edgar Ayupan who was kneeling over
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. the victim. Batislaong knows appellant since they both
reside in Batad. Batislaong saw everything clearly since
The Information, dated April 17, 1989 and signed by she was only four (4) meters away from the attacker and
Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Irene S. the victim. Furthermore, there was a light bulb brightly
Panigbatan, charged appellant as follows: illuminating the scene.
"That on or about the 27th day of June, 1984 in the "Horrified, Batislaong shouted at appellant, demanding
Municipality of Batad, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and why he was stabbing Francisco Mendoza when as far as
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above- she knew her relative had done no wrong. She shouted for
named accused, conspiring, confederating and people to help Mendoza. But since most of the people ran
cooperating, with an unidentified companion, with away, nobody assisted them. Appellant and his
treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of companions ran away after stabbing the victim. Finally, the
their superior strength, and a decided purpose to kill, did barangay captain came and investigated the incident.
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, Weak after witnessing the stabbing incident, Batislaong
assault and stab several times the victim FRANCISCO was brought home by the barangay captain.
MENDOZA using the bladed weapon the accused were
provided at that time, thereby hitting him and inflicting "Batislaong was not able to report the incident
upon FRANCISCO MENDOZA several stab wounds on immediately because at that time she was nervous and
different parts of his body which caused his death."2 afraid. A week after the incident, she was able to relate the
circumstances surrounding the killing to Atty. Teodosio.
With the assistance of counsel,3 appellant pleaded not Atty. Teodosio told her that they ha[d] two other witnesses
guilty when arraigned on November 28, 1995.4 After trial, to the killing which he felt were quite sufficient in
the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of prosecuting appellant. But he told her that he would call
which reads: her if the need arises.
"Based on the foregoing, this Court hereby decrees that: "Dr. Noel C. Posadas, a retired rural health physician and a
resident of Batad, conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of
"1. Accused Edgar Ayupan is guilty of the crime of Murder the victim. He testified that the victim received three (3)
as defined and penalized by paragraph 1, Article 248 in its stab wounds on the chest, the third of which was fatal. The
further relation to paragraph 16, article 14 of the Revised immediate cause of death was shock and hemorrhage."
Penal Code, as proven beyond reasonable doubt; (Citations omitted)
"2. Accused Edgar Ayupan is meted the penalty of Version of the Defense
reclusion perpetua by reason of the absence of any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance; Appellant, on the other hand, presented the following
version of the facts:7
"3. Accused Edgar Ayupan is directed to indemnify the
heirs of deceased-victim Francisco Mendoza [in] the "Accused Edgar Ayupan testified that he did kn[o]w the
amount of P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in victim but he did not stab him. On June 26, 1984, he and
case of insolvency; his companions Gerry Hablona, Roquito Penuela and Efren
Hablona were at the dance party. Before entering the
"4. The Director of [the] Bureau of Correction, Muntinlupa dance hall, the barangay tanod at the gate, frisked him and
City is directed to credit in favor of the accused Edgar his companions. Once inside the hall, he invited a lady to
Ayupan the duration of his preventive detention reckoned dance with him. At said instance, the victim slapped his
from 24 January 1995 until the promulgation of this hand. When he turned his head, he saw the victim and the
Decision. latter immediately boxed him. Hit at the bridge of his nose,
he lost his consciousness. Gerry Hablona and Roquito
"SO ORDERED."5 Penuela brought him out of the dance hall when he
regained his consciousness. He did not know Helen
The Facts Batislaong; he did not leave his barangay. He only learned
of the charge against him when he was arrested on June
Version of the Prosecution 21, 1995.
Giving full faith and credence to the testimony of Helen Q Do you know the accused in this case Edgar Ayupan?
Batislaong, the trial court held that the witness, having
been at the locus criminis had the opportunity to see and A Yes, sir.
observe the specific details of the crime.
Q If he is present inside this courtroom will you please
The RTC disbelieved appellants defense of denial and point to us Edgar Ayupan?
rejected the evidence of good moral character offered by
the defense witnesses. It held that this defense was based A Yes, sir.
purely on conjecture and might have even been fabricated,
since it was unsubstantiated by concrete details. 8 Further, Q Where is he?
it ruled that the flight of appellant after the commission of
the crime was an indication of his guilt. A (Witness pointing to a person inside the courtroom
who upon being asked his name, x x x answered Edgar
Hence, this appeal.9 Ayupan)
It is well-settled that the testimony of a lone witness if Q What was your purpose in going to the dance hall?
found by the trial court to be positive, categorical and
credible is sufficient to support a conviction. This is so, A To watch the dance.
especially if the testimony bore the earmarks of truth and
sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and Q At about 12:00 oclock midnight[,] June 26, 1984,
in a straightforward manner.12 Corroborative evidence is could you tell us if there was anything unusual that
necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the happened in that dance hall?
witness bent the truth, or that his or her observation was
inaccurate.13 Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not A There was a commotion.
quantity. It is to be weighed, not counted.14Therefore, it is
not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis Q Where were you when you noticed that there was a
of the testimony of a lone witness.15 commotion?
Q Why did you r[u]n towards the middle of the dance Q And could you tell the Court in what part of the body
hall to see what happened? of Francisco Mendoza was hit when he was stabbed for
several times by Edgar Ayupan?
A Because I ha[d] to see x x x who were fighting
because my cousin was no longer with me. A On the chest.
Q And what did you observe when you proceeded to Q Now after you shouted considering that you saw
the middle portion of the dance hall? Edgar Ayupan [stab] Francisco Mendoza for several times
what next happened?
A I saw Francisco Mendoza lying [down while] being
stabbed by Edgar. A I shouted for help [for] Francisco Mendoza.
Q What is the family name of this Francisco? Q Then what happened next?
Q And what is the family name of this Edgar? Q After Edgar Ayupan stabbed Francisco Mendoza for
several times[,] what [happened next]?
A Ayupan.
A He ran away.
Q This Edgar Ayupan whom you said was stabbing
Francisco Mendoza, was he the same Edgar Ayupan whom Q Aside from do you know if Edgar Ayupan had other
you identified a while ago as the accused in this case? companions?
Q And do you know what kind of weapon was being Q And where [were] his companions at that time that
used by Edgar Ayupan when you saw him [stabbing] he was stabbing Francisco Mendoza?
Francisco Mendoza?
A Just near him.
A A knife.
Q Now you said what happened to the companions of
Q What was the position of Francisco Mendoza when Edgar Ayupan after Edgar Ayupan ran away?
he was stabbed by Edgar Ayupan?
ATTY. LAUREA:
A He was lying [down].
Incompetent, your honor, he would be incompetent as to
Q Where was he lying [down]? what happened to the companions of Edgar Ayupan after
he ran away.
A At the center of the dance hall.
COURT:
Q And how about this Edgar Ayupan[,] where was he
situated in relation to Francisco Mendoza when he stabbed What happened to the companions after he ran away?
Francisco Mendoza while the latter was lying on the
ground? ATTY. TEODOSIO:
A Near the knee and he was kneeling. What happened to the companions of Edgar after Edgar
Ayupan ran away?
xxx xxx xxx
A They ran away together.
Q How many times did Edgar Ayupan stab Francisco
Mendoza? Q Now after Edgar Ayupan and his companions ha[d]
left, what did you do?
A Many times.
A I shouted and cried for help for Francisco Mendoza.
Q Now what did you do when you saw Edgar Ayupan
kneeling somewhere on the knee portion of the body of Q Then what next happened when you were there?
Francisco Mendoza, at the same time stabbing Francisco
Mendoza? A When I was there[,] the barangay captain also went
there and [saw] who was there and he was left there and I
A I shouted why he stabbed Francisco Mendoza was brought by the barangay captain, because I was
because he ha[d] no fault. crying[;] since I [could] not walk, they just brought me
home.
Based, on the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the In a futile attempt to discredit Batislaong, appellant argues
factual findings of the RTC. Time and time again, we have that since she did not immediately report the incident to
held that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the police, her testimony deserves scant consideration. We
the determination of the trial court because of its unique are not convinced.
advantage of observing them firsthand; and of noting their
demeanor, conduct and attitude.19 It is aided by various We have held that different people react differently to a
indicia that could not be readily seen on the records. The given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no
"candid answer, the hesitant pause, the nervous voice, the standard form of behavioral response when one is
undertone, the befuddled look, the honest gaze, the modest confronted with a strange, startling or frightful
blush, or the guilty blanch"20 these reveal if the witness is experience.31Delay in a witness reporting of a crime to
reciting the whole truth or merely weaving a web of lies police authorities, when adequately explained, does not
and deceptions. impair that witness credibility.32
Positive Identification In the present case, Batislaong explained that, initially, she
was nervous and afraid to report the incident. 33 In fact, she
had to be brought home, as she was weak from crying after
Appellants Flight True, the essence of treachery is the swiftness and the
unexpectedness of an attack upon an unsuspecting and
The crime happened in June 1984, and the indictments unarmed victim who has not given the slightest
against appellant commenced only in 1995. In addition, he provocation.49 However, the suddenness of the attack does
claims that the prosecution has no record to show that the not by itself suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if
facts of the case have been preserved. We disagree. the purpose is to kill, so long as the decision is sudden and
the victims helpless position is accidental.50 In order to
First, as correctly pointed out by the solicitor general, 37 the appreciate treachery as a modifying circumstance in a
relevant documents had been preserved before the case continuous aggression, as in the present case, it must be
was archived. Second, appellant is to blame for the delay in shown to have been present at the inception of the
the prosecution of this case. A review of the records attack.51
reveals that an Order for his arrest was issued on July 24,
1984.38 For failure to serve the warrant of arrest, another We hold that the second requisite was not sufficiently
Order was issued on November 22, 1984, implementing an established by the prosecution. It was not able to show
alias warrant of arrest against him.39Because he remained that appellant had deliberately adopted the attack,
at large, another alias warrant of arrest was issued on considering that it was executed during a commotion and
August 20, 1987.40 as a result of it.52 The lower court failed to consider that
the lone eyewitness could not have had any knowledge of
Thereafter, the case was archived on November 29, 1989, it. She arrived at the scene sometime after the stabbing
in view of several failed attempts to apprehend him. It was started; thus, she could not testify on whether there was
only in 1995 ten years after the commission of the crime provocation on the part of the victim.53
that he was arrested by the police, although in
connection with another crime attributed to him. It must be pointed out that appellant and the victim had an
altercation prior to the stabbing incident. Indeed, the
In criminal law, flight means the act of evading the course attack could have been done on impulse as a reaction to
of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid the latters actual or imagined provocation. Such
arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of provocation negated the presence of treachery, even if the
criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the attack may have been sudden and unexpected.54
accused may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence
tending to establish guilt.41 Further, the mere fact that, according to the testimony of
the medicolegal officer, several stab wounds were inflicted
In the present case, it is interesting to note that as soon as on the victim who was either sitting or lying down did
the Information was filed and the corresponding warrant not show treachery unless there was evidence that such
of arrest issued, appellant could not be found in Batad, form of attack had purposely been adopted by the
resulting in the archiving of the case. It is thus plain that he accused.55 Also, the fact that a bladed weapon was used did
left the place to avoid arrest and prosecution.42 If it were not per se make the attack treacherous.56
true that he never left Batad, as he claims, he should have
been apprehended by the police a long time ago. Indeed, Absent any particulars as to the manner in which the
his flight to Masbate is an indication of his guilt. aggression commenced, treachery cannot be
appreciated.57One cannot substitute mere suppositions for
Treachery a hiatus in the prosecutions evidence, as the trial court
apparently did.58 Since the lone prosecution witness failed
In his Reply,43 appellant argues that if he was responsible to see how the attack had been initiated on the victim, the
for the death of the victim, he would be guilty only of qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be applied. 59
homicide, because the qualifying circumstance of Thus, appellant can be convicted only of homicide, 60for
treachery was not proven. which the imposable penalty under the Revised Penal Code
is reclusion temporal.
We are convinced. Well-settled is the rule that treachery
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering
conclusively as the killing itself.44 Any doubt as to the the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the the proper penalty is prision mayor in its medium period,
accused.45 There is treachery when the offender commits as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
any of the crimes against the person, employing means, maximum.61
methods, or forms in the execution thereof, tending
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED.
to himself arising from the defense which the offended Appellant is CONVICTED of homicide and sentenced to an
party might make.46 To appreciate treachery, two indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of
conditions must be present: (1) the employment of means prision mayor medium, as minimum to 14 years eight (8)
of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium, as
for self-defense or for retaliation and (2) the deliberate or maximum. The civil indemnity awarded by the RTC is
conscious adoption of the means of execution.47 AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated March 31, 1999 When Edmund and Kenneth left, Jerryvie suddenly took
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Malaybalay City, out a seven-and-a-half-inch-long knife16 with his right
Bukidnon, convicting appellant Jerryvie Gumayao of the hand and stabbed Concordio on the left side of the chest,
crime of murder, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of and again on the abdomen, also on the left
reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of his victim side.17Concordio fell, mortally wounded, on his back, the
Concordio Sulogan in the sum of P50,000. knife still embedded in his body. Jerryvie hurriedly left the
scene, going towards the direction of their house in Zone
The appellant was charged in an Information, docketed as 4.18 Diocrly walked away, and sought help to aid the fallen
Criminal Case No. 8437-97 which reads: Concordio, in the direction of the nearby store.19
That on or about the 28th day of December, 1996, in the Edmund and Kenneth did not enjoy the disco because
evening at Purok 2, barangay Kalasungay, municipality of there were no ladies there for them.20 They stayed for only
Malaybalay, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within about fifteen minutes and headed back in the direction of
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named the highway.21 They saw Concordio lying on his back,
accused, with intent to kill by means of treachery, with the bloodied all over.22 Edmund ran towards the direction of
use of a sharp bladed instrument, did then and there his aunties house and informed the victims brother,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and stab Christopher, that Concordio was stabbed.23 Edmund went
CONCORDIO SULOGAN, inflicting upon the latter mortal back to the scene of the crime, and found that Concordio
wounds which caused the instantaneous death of had already been brought to the hospital. He later learned
CONCORDIO SULOGAN; to the damage and prejudice of the that Concordio had succumbed to his injuries and had died
legal heirs of CONCORDIO SULOGAN in such amount as in the hospital.
may be allowed by law.
SPO1 Paano was fast asleep inside his house. He was
Contrary to and in violation of Republic Act No. 7659.2 suddenly awakened by one of his daughters and his wife,
who informed him that a stabbing incident had occurred
Upon his arraignment, the accused, assisted by counsel, right in front of his residence.24 He immediately proceeded
pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial thereafter ensued. to the area, and saw the victim lying prostrate on the
ground, beside the road.25 A crowd had by then already
The Case for the Prosecution3 gathered around the crime scene. SPO1 Paanos brother
Edmund revealed that the persons who were with the
Concordio Sulogan and his wife Wilma resided at Zone 2, victim before the incident were Diocrly and Jerryvie.26
Kalasungay, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Concordio was a Because he was more interested in apprehending the
corn farmer by profession and tilled his own land, which suspect and getting on with the investigation, SPO1 Paano
was about 5.8 hectares. The couple had three children.4 instructed the persons present to bring the victim to the
hospital.27
At around 10:00 to 10:45 p.m. on December 28, 1996,
Diocrly5 Binayao was standing by the Syre Highway at SPO1 Paano immediately went to Diocrlys house and
Kalasungay, City of Malaybalay. He and Concordio Sulogan, inquired about the incident. Diocrly told him that the
were watching a disco party being held at the plaza of person responsible for the stabbing of Concordio was
Kalasungay, which was about thirty meters6 from where Jerryvie.28 SPO1 Paano then proceeded to look for Jerryvie
they were. The plaza was adorned with brightly colored in Purok 4, Kalasungay, City of Malaybalay, where the
blinking lights. There was a gate surrounding the area of latters father lived. Jerryvie was not there, but his father
the party place, and an area where the partygoers had to accompanied SPO1 Paano to his residence, which was
pay their entrance fees.7 about fifty meters away.29 Jerryvie was nowhere to be
found.
Concordio and Diocrly sat down beside each other, cross-
legged, by the side of the asphalt pavement and talked as At around 6:00 a.m. the next day, December 29, 1996,
they watched the ongoing party.8 An electric light post, SPO1 Paano went to the Malaybalay Police Station to verify
which was about ten meters away, illuminated the street. if the incident had already been recorded in the police
Also about ten meters from where Concordio and Diocrly blotter. At around 7:10 that same morning, SPO1 Boy
were sitting was a nearby store, across the street and Solito brought Jerryvie to the Malaybalay Police Station.30
opposite to the plaza, which was likewise lighted.9 The
store was owned by SPO1 Ersie Paano.10 Wilma Sulogan, the victims widow, testified that her
husband sustained two stab wounds on the chest, above
Jerryvie Gumayao approached the two and joined them. In his left nipple.31 Her husband was buried on December 31,
a squatting position, he sat beside Concordio, to the latters 1996. They spent P1,500 for the embalmment, and
right.1vvphi1.nt P30,000 for the wake. The coffin was a donation from the
Second. Although the appellant surrendered to the police Q: Now, considering that, that was 10:45 in the evening
authorities early the next day, he failed to inform them that already of December 28, 1996, how were you able to really
he acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. recognize Jerryvie to be the one who stabbed Concordio?
Moreover, the records show that the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Malaybalay issued a subpoena on January A: I saw him.
10, 1997, requiring the appellant to submit his counter-
affidavit, but the latter failed to do so. It was only during Q: That is why, why were you very sure that, that was he
the trial that the appellant, for the first time, invoked self- who stabbed?
defense.
A: The moon was bright.
Third. The appellant stabbed the victim twice on the chest,
and both wounds proved fatal. As correctly contended by Q: Other than the moon was bright what light [sic], if there
the prosecution, the nature and the number of the wounds was any?
of the victim negate the appellants claim that he acted in
self-defense. On the contrary, they prove that the appellant A: The electric lights coming from the electric bulb of the
was determined to kill the victim.52 store and the disco dance area.
Fourth. As found by the trial court, the appellant made Q: Now you mentioned of [the] street lights a little while
inconsistent and conflicting statements. During the direct ago, what kind of light installed in that street light [sic]?
Q You said that this Rene Santos raped you, what A There he is, sir.
particular actuations did he do?
INTERPRETER
A He inserted his penis, sir.
Witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom who
Q Where? when asked gave his name as Rene Santos.28(Emphasis and
italics supplied)
A Here, sir, in my vagina.
Counsel for the defense attempted, albeit futilely, to
INTERPRETER impeach the credibility of the victim.29 We have held time
and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young
Witness pointing to her private organ. and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence
considering that no young woman, especially one of tender
Q Where did that happen? age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert
A In their house, sir. herself by being subject to a public trial if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the
Q In what portion of his house? wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable for
an innocent girl of tender years like the victim, who is very
A Inside their house, sir. naive to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so
humiliating not only to herself but also to her family.
Q You said that Rene Santos inserted his penis into your Stated succinctly, it is beyond the mind-set of a six-year old
vagina, what did you feel? child, like the offended party herein, to fabricate a
malicious accusation against appellant if the crime did not
A I felt pain, sir. truly transpire.30 Verily, when a guileless girl of six
credibly declares that she has been raped, she has said all
Q When he inserted his penis into your vagina did he have that is necessary to prove the ravishment of her honor.31
any clothings (sic)?
Appellant's reliance on the corroboration by his wife of his
A... alibi cannot overturn the clear and categorical declarations
of the victim identifying him as the perpetrator of the
ATTY. VIOLA crime. The corroboration should, furthermore, be received
with caution coming as it does from appellant's spouse
Leading, Your Honor. whose emotional ties and interest in his acquittal cannot
be gainsaid. Indeed, it has even been held that some wives
COURT are overwhelmed by emotional attachment to their
husbands such that they knowingly or otherwise suppress
Reform the question. the truth and act as a medium for injustice to
preponderate.32
FISCAL PINEDA
In addition to his defense of alibi, appellant further faults
Questioning the trial court with "acting as the prosecutor and the judge
at the same time"33 for allegedly initiating and
When he inserted his penis into your vagina, what was his propounding "the questions, short of supplying the desired
appearance? answer from the witness."34
CALLEJO, SR., J.: On February 5, 1996, Alejandra went up the hill to gather
camote tops. She was then armed with a bolo. Alma
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision1 of followed Alejandra to the hills and revealed to her that
the Regional Trial Court of Leyte, Branch 36, in Criminal Kakingcio raped her on February 1, 1996. Alejandra was
Case No. 2523, convicting appellant of rape, imposing on livid with rage. She rushed back to the house and
him the death penalty and ordering him to pay damages to confronted Kakingcio with the charge of Alma. Alejandra
the victim in the amount of P50,000. and Kakingcio quarreled. She berated him for having taken
advantage of his own flesh and blood. She told him to leave
Evidence of the Prosecution the house. Kakingcio agreed on the condition that he
would bring his personal belongings with him. After
The spouses Paquito Caete and Sedaria Caete had three Kakingcio left, Alejandra accompanied Alma to the
children, one of whom was Alma, who was born on March barangay captain and complained against Kakingcio. The
24, 1983. In 1986, the spouses decided to live separately. Barangay Captain wrote a letter to the local police
Sedaria resided in Pook West, Cubala, Biliran, with some of authorities requesting assistance to Alejandra and Alma.
Breast: normal, no abrasions, no lacerations, no On February 4, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision
hematoma finding Kakingcio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape
and imposing on him the penalty of death in view of the
Abdomen: normal presence of the special qualifying circumstance of the
minority of private complainant Alma and her relationship
Extremities: normal to Kakingcio and the special aggravating circumstance of
use of a deadly weapon and without any mitigating
Pelvic Examination: scanty pubic hair noted circumstance in the commission of the crime.
External Genitalia: grossly normal In his appellants brief, appellant Kakingcio assails the
decision of the trial court contending that:
Internal & Speculum Examination Findings:
I
Introitus: non-parous, admits 2 fingers with slight
difficulty THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PARTICIPATING DIRECTLY
AND ACTIVELY IN THE PRESENTATION AND RECEPTION
Cervix: pinkish, soft hymenal healed old lacerations at 6 OF THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE THEREBY FAILING TO
oclock and 9 oclock UPHOLD THE "COLD NEUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL
JUDGE."
Discharges: scanty brownish discharges
II
Uterus: small
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
Adnexa: negative for masses and tenderness"2 APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE WANT OF CLEAR,
POSITIVE AND CONVINCTING IDENTIFICATION.
Alma was entrusted to the Lingap Center in Pawing Palo,
Leyte. III
On April 26, 1996, an Information was filed with the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT
Regional Trial Court of Leyte, Branch 36, charging AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF
Kakingcio with rape, thus: THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND IN DISREGARDING
THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE.
"That on or about the 1st day of February, 1996, in the
municipality of Capoocan, Province of Leyte, Philippines, IV
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent and with ON THE ASSUMPTION HOWEVER THAT THE ACCUSED-
lewd designs and by use of force and intimidation then APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF RAPE, THE TRIAL COURT
armed with the short bladed weapon, did then and there ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE PENALTY OF
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
with ALMA CAETE, a minor (12 years old) against her QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP WAS
will to her damage and prejudice. NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, HENCE, THE
APPROPRIATE PENALTY SHOULD ONLY BE RECLUSION
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 PERPETUA.4
When arraigned on September 18, 1996, Kakingcio, On the first three assignments of errors, the appellant
assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime avers that the prosecution had a difficulty proving that the
charged. appellant raped the private complainant in light of her
testimony that when the appellant mounted her, he still
When he testified, Kakingcio denied having sexually had his short pants on. When the prosecution tried to elicit
assaulted Alma. He interposed the defense of alibi. He from the offended party how appellants penis could have
claimed that he was a farmer. He planted root crops such been inserted into her vagina with his pants still on and
as banana. On February 1, 1996, he went to the house of the appellants counsel objected to the question, the
Romulo Lukaba located at Barangay Gayad, Capoocan, presiding judge himself took the cudgels for the
Leyte, about three kilometers from his house, for the prosecution and propounded questions on the private
purpose of accompanying and helping Rolly Lukaba, the complainant. Worse, the presiding judge posed leading
son of Romulo, gather coconuts in the coconut plantation questions to the private complainant. The presiding judge
of Romulo in the mountains. It took Kakingcio thirty was biased and partial to the prosecution. To buttress his
minutes to reach the place. At about 9:00 in the evening, contention, the appellants counsel cited a portion of the
Kakingcio, Rolly and Romulo drank tuba. By 10:00 in the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the trial
evening, Rolly and Kakingcio went to sleep. Romulo, on September 17, 1997:
Q What about your t-shirt? Q Please describe to us your uncle at that moment
when he placed himself over your body!
A He did not do anything about my t-shirt.
A He placed himself on top of me in a prone position.
Q After placing his penis on your vagina, what else
transpired? Q What was he wearing at that time when he was
carressing (sic) your face down to your arm?
A He keeps on kissing me sir.
A He was just wearing a short pants sir.
Q At that time he keeps on kissing you, where was his
penis in relation to your vagina? Q What about the upper portion of his body?
The appellant further stresses that when Alma was raped Q At the time he put himself over you on a prone
it was nighttime and the place where she was molested position, what about his short pants, was it still there?
was dark. She could not have recognized and identified the
appellant as her rapist. Furthermore, Alma failed to report ATTY. DILOY:
the rape immediately to the police authorities.
We request Your Honor that the question not be made in a
The Court does not agree with the appellants submission. leading manner!
In People v. Ancheta,6 this Court emphasized that a
presiding judge enjoys a great deal of latitude in examining COURT:
witnesses within the course of evidentiary rules. The
presiding judge should see to it that a testimony should Place of record the comment!
not be incomplete or obscure. After all, the judge is the
arbiter and he must be in a position to satisfy himself as to PROS. PERIDA:
the respective claims of the parties in the criminal
proceedings. In People v. Zheng Bai Hui,7 this Court I withdraw that Your Honor!
reiterated that:
Q Where was the short pants which your uncle
In any case, a severe examination by a trial judge of some originally wearing that time?
of the witness for the defense in an effort to develop the
truth and to get at the real facts affords no justification for ATTY. DILOY:
a charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an
evident desire to secure a conviction, or that he had He was wearing it Your Honor as described by the witness!
intimidated the witnesses for the defense. The trial judge
At this moment now, when he was already on top of the Q About your skirt?
victim!
A He pulled up my skirt sir.
ATTY. DILOY:
Q What about your t-shirt?
It was answered by the witness! According to the witness,
accused was wearing short pants but the upper part of his A He did not do anything about my t-shirt.
body the accused had nothing worn!
Q After placing his penis on your vagina, what else
PROS. PERIDA: transpired?
That is agreed Your Honor. Now my question is, at the time A He keeps on kissing me sir.
Kakingcio Caete was already on top of Alma where was
this short pants! Q At that time he keeps on kissing you, where was his
penis in relation to your vagina?
ATTY. DILOY:
A It was inside my vagina sir.
It was being worn by the accused!
Q While his penis was inside your vagina and the
PROS. PERIDA: accused keeps on kissing you what else transpired?
Let the witness answer that Your Honor! A (witness weeping in tears as been directly examined
by the Public Prosecutor).
ATTY. DILOY:
COURT:
We submit Your Honor!
Place it of record that the child witness is crying in the
COURT: witness stand!
Q What were your uncle, when your uncle placed PROS. PERIDA:
himself on top of your body as you said, in a prone
position, was he wearing clothes or none? May we ask for suspension Your Honor! I move for
suspension considering the condition of the victim witness
A He was still wearing Your Honor. Your Honor! Hes already crying!
Proceed Fiscal! The Court finds nothing improper in the questions posed
by the trial court. Neither are the questions prejudicial to
PROS. PERIDA: the appellant or suggestive of any partiality of the trial
court. It bears stressing that from the testimony of the
Q So, after he laid himself over you with his trouser, private complainant, the appellant was wearing his short
what else happened? pants before he mounted her and even when he was
already on top of her and managed to penetrate her sexual
A His penis was inserted into my vagina sir. organ with his penis. The public prosecutor wanted the
private complainant to explain to the court how the
Q Where did he let his penis exit considering that he is appellant could have inserted his penis into her vagina
then wearing a short pants? considering that he was still wearing his short pants.
Although crudely and ungrammatically phrased, the
ATTY. DILOY: question of the public prosecutor "where did he let his penis
exit considering that he is then wearing a short pants" was
Objection Your Honor! It is leading! not leading. The trial court should have overruled the
objection and allowed the private complainant to answer
COURT: the question. However, the trial court was not precluded
from asking questions to avoid further wrangling between
Q How did he manage to have his penis inserted to the public prosecutor and the appellants counsel which
your vagina? may frightened or unnerved the private complainant, a
minor and who was unused to judicial proceedings. After
A No sir, because when he placed himself on top of me all, the trial court was mandated to discover the truth. As it
he pulled down his shorts and thereafter he inserted his turned out, the private complainant cried profusely as she
penis into my vagina. testified impelling the trial court to order a continuance.
Even the counsel of the appellant agreed to a continuance.
Q At that time what was your apparel going up from
your vagina? Parenthetically, under Sections 19 to 21 of the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness which took effect on
The credibility of the private complainant was not Accused failed to attribute any ill motive on the part of the
degraded by her and Alejandra Caetes reporting the victim to testify falsely and impute against him the
sexual assault to the police authorities only on February 5, commission of a grave offense such as rape. To the
1996. The evidence shows that the private complainant contrary, the trial court observed that the victim lived in
was only twelve years old when she was raped by the place "more rural than most rural villages" in the country,
appellant. She and her father, who was completely blind and was still "unaffected by the wordly ways of urban life."
and a paralytic, were living in the house of the appellant. "It is highly inconceivable for a young barrio lass,
The latter threatened to kill her if she revealed what he did inexperienced with the ways of the world, to fabricate a
to her. It was thus easy for the appellant to fulfill the threat charge of defloration, undergo a medical examination of
if she divulged the violation of her honor.14 The private her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish
complainant could do nothing but cry. When the appellant her familys honor and reputation unless she was
tried in the evening of February 3, 1996 to violate her motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong
again, she ran to a neighbor, Ka Caring, divulged to her that committed against her."18
the appellant tried to rape her anew and sought her help.
In fact, the private complainant slept in the house of Ka In contrast to the positive and straightforward testimony
Caring that evening and went back home only the next of the private complainant, the appellants denial of the
morning on February 4, 1996. On February 5, 1996, the charge, which is merely a negative self-serving evidence,
private complainant revealed to her Yaya Alejandra, the cannot prevail. Equally undeserving of merit is his defense
wife of the appellant, that the latter had raped her. In of alibi. Appellant failed to prove with clear and convincing
People v. Bea,15 this Court held that it is not uncommon for evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have
a young girl at the tender age of sixteen years to be been in his house at the time when the private
intimidated into silence and conceal the sexual assault on complainant was raped.19 The only evidence adduced by
her by the appellant.16 the appellant to prove alibi was his own testimony. By his
own admission, the appellants house was barely a thirty-
When cross-examined by the public prosecutor, the minute walk to the house of Romulo Lukaba. It was thus
appellant unabashedly admitted that he did not know any not physically impossible for the appellant to have been in
improper or ill-motive on the part of the private his house at 8:00 in the evening of February 1, 1996, when
complainant for charging him with rape, and on the part of the private complainant was raped.
his wife Alejandra Caete for reporting the sexual assault
on the private complainant by the appellant to the police Proper Penalty on Appellant
authorities:
The trial court imposed the death penalty on the appellant
Q The complainant here testified in Court that she was on its finding that the appellant used a knife when
raped by you at 9:00 oclock in the evening of February 1, committing the crime and that the private complainant
1996. Are you aware of that? was under eighteen years of age and the niece of the
appellant and, hence, a relative of the private complainant
A No, sir. within the third civil degree.
Q In fact the victim here testified that it was your very This Court agrees with the trial court that the appellant
own wife who accompanied her to report this matter to used a knife in committing the crime charged and that he is
the barangay (sic) Chairman of Barangay Gayad, and the uncle of the private complainant and, hence, her
likewise reported this matter to the PNP of Capoocan. Are relative within the third civil degree. However, as to the
you aware of that? latter, there is no allegation in the Information that the
appellant is the uncle of the private complainant as
A No, sir. required by Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.20 In People v. Bernaldez,21 this Court
held that the minority of the private complainant and her
relationship to the appellant must be alleged in the
"I. In promulgating a brief and short decision with material Your Honor, I was informed by the mother of the private
facts that have been omitted with no allusions to the complainant that the doctor is no longer connected with
transcripts of records erroneous of tenses and grammar the Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Crame, Quezon City
jotted by the Court Stenographer. but was reassigned to the Eastern Police District at
Mandaluyong City.
"II. In denying the accused his right to plead for a DNA Test
to determine that the blood found in the panty of the "PROS. ORQUIEZA:
victim is not his but of another man, Venancio Mendoza,
live-in husband of Jennelyn, mother of Jennifer Donayre, I just prefer that a subpoena be sent. We have to ask for
the victim. the postponement.
"III. In not finding the accused as a fall guy framed up to "ATTY. ABUBAKAR:
take the place of Venancio Mendoza, live-in husband of
Jennelyn, mother of Jennifer, whose behavior in the We can dispense with the testimony.
courtroom as a witness has been beyond normal."16
"COURT:
The Philippine Constitution no less, mandates that no
decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing Provided this is admitted.
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.17 This vital requirement is not only "COURT:
demanded from the courts. Quasi-judicial bodies are
similarly required to give basis for all their decisions, Do you admit the due execution and authenticity of the
rulings or judgments pursuant to the Administrative report of the doctor?
Code18 whose roots may also be traced to the
Constitutional mandate. "ATTY. ABUBAKAR:
A decision need not be a complete recital of the evidence We admit everything written here because (sic) doctor
presented. So long as the factual and legal basis are clearly says.
and distinctly set forth supporting the conclusions drawn
therefrom, the decision arrived at is valid. Nonetheless, in "COURT:
order to effectively buttress the judgment arrived at, it is
imperative that a decision should not be simply limited to Yes, whatever is written there, do you admit that?
the dispositive portion but must state the nature of the
case, summarize the facts with references to the record, ATTY. ABUBAKAR
and contain a statement of the applicable laws and
jurisprudence and the tribunals assessments and Yes, your Honor.
conclusions on the case. This practice would better enable
a court to make an appropriate consideration of whether "COURT:
the dispositive portion of the judgment sought to be
enforced is consistent with the findings of facts and No need to present the doctor
conclusions of law made by the tribunal that rendered the
decision.19 Compliance with this requirement will "PROS. ORQUIEZA:
sufficiently apprise the parties of the various issues
involved but more importantly will guide the court in We will no longer present Dr. Dennis G. Bellen of the
assessing whether the conclusion arrived at is consistent Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Service at
with the facts and the law. Camp Crame, Quezon City. We have here the xerox copy of
the medico legal report no. M-2831-97.
In the case at bar, the trial courts decision may cast doubt
as to the guilt of accused-appellant. Such doubt may be "COURT:
"ATTY. ABUBAKAR: "Q: You were pointing to your stepfather, do you know
what things or particular things, if any, he did to you?
Yes, your Honor.
"A: Yes, sir.
"COURT:
"Q: What were those particular things your stepfather
Admitted. had done to you?
A medical certificate after all is not indispensable to prove "Q: When your stepfather raped you, what actually did
the commission of rape.22 It is well entrenched in our your stepfather do to you?
jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is
not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as "A: He removed my panty.
the victims testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to
convict the accused of the crime.23 Besides, testimonies of "Q: What did your stepfather do after removing your
rape victims who are of tender age are credible,24 and the panty?
testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and
credit.25 "A: He placed himself on top of me.
Accused-appellant likewise impugns the credibility of the "Q: Was he naked when he placed himself on top of you?
victim by pointing out that the rape was filed one year
after its commission, which allegedly leaves doubt as to the "A: Yes, sir.
real identity of the culprit.
"Q: When he was on top of you, did he place his penis
Delay in reporting an incident of rape does not create any inside your private parts?
doubt over the credibility of the complainant nor can it be
taken against her.26 The following realities justified the "A: Yes, sir.
delay in the filing of the case against accused-appellant: (1)
the victim was merely six years old when she was sexually "Q: What did you feel when his penis was inside your
abused; (2) the victim lived separately from her mother private parts, if any?
and was left under her grandmothers care; and, (3) the
victims sexual abuser happens to be her step-grandfather. "A: I felt pain.
According to accused-appellant, he was simply framed-up "Q: Was your private part bleeding as a result of the
and that another person also raped the victim.27 He avers insertion of the penis of your stepfather into your private
that his allegation is supported by the testimony of the parts?
victims mother Jenelyn that the victim was likewise
abused by the latters husband. "A: Yes, sir.
The categorical testimony of the victim that she was raped "Q: Did he kiss you while he was on top of you?
by accused-appellant cannot be overturned by the bare
denial and defense of being framed-up interposed by "A: Yes, sir.
accused-appellant. The victim made a positive, clear and
categorical declaration pointing to accused-appellant as "Q: What parts of your body or face was kissed?
the person who sexually ravaged her-
"A: My cheek.
"Q: Are you the same Jennifer Donayre the private
complainant against the accused Valentin Baring, Jr.? "Q: Where did this happen?
"A: I do not know the name of my father because my "Q: Who are the residents of that house at that time?
father and mother are separated.
"A: At that time nobody was in the house because they
"Q: If your father is in the courtroom can you point to were working.
him?
"xxx xxx xxx
"A: Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to a man inside this
courtroom when asked given [sic] his name as Valentin "Q: Can you recall if the rape you mentioned to us
Baring.) happened while you were 7 years old, 6 years old? What
was your age then if you can recall?
"Q: Is he your true father?
"Q: How many is this? (prosecutor is depicting two There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora full, convex
fingers) and slightly gaping with the pinkish brown labia minora
presenting in between. On separating, the same disclosed a
"A: Two, sir. congested, fleshy-type hymen with shallow healing
laceration at 9 o'clock position. External vaginal orifice
"Q: How about this, how many? (Prosecutor is depicting admits tip of the examiners smallest finger."39
five fingers). (emphasis ours)
We are not at all uninformed in this regard for we, in a VIRGILIO O. GARCILLANO, petitioner,
plethora of cases, have consistently upheld the full weight vs.
of a young victims unwavering testimony.45 Also, there is THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON
Section 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, PUBLIC INFORMATION, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY,
which categorically states: NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, and SUFFRAGE
Section 22. Corroboration.- Corroboration shall not be AND ELECTORAL REFORMS, respondents.
required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible
by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, x----------------------x
conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard proof
required in criminal and non-criminal cases. G.R. No. 179275 December 23, 2008
What is important at this point, and we do not hesitate to SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA and OSWALDO D.
reiterate, is that forensic examination inclusive of AGCAOILI, petitioners,
physical examination and forensic interview of sexually vs.
assaulted children [adolescents included] must be THE SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
conducted with maximum sensitivity to the young victims REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT THE
feelings of vulnerability and embarrassment. Great care HONORABLE MANUEL VILLAR, respondents.
must be observed in order to make the examination less
stressful lest they be more traumatic to the victim than the x----------------------x
very assault itself. The value of collecting evidence should
always be weighed against the emotional cost of the MAJ. LINDSAY REX SAGGE, petitioner-in-intervention
procedure and examination of the child.
x----------------------x
We now come to the matter of the death penalty imposed
by the trial court. The single information filed against AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., BENIGNO NOYNOY C.
accused-appellant, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6334-98, AQUINO, RODOLFO G. BIAZON, PANFILO M. LACSON,
charged him with the crime of "Multiple Statutory Rape."46 LOREN B. LEGARDA, M.A. JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, and
Even then, accused-appellant cannot be held answerable ANTONIO F. TRILLANES, respondents-intervenors
for the other incidents of rape committed. Each and every
charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each DECISION
of the other rapes charged should be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.47 NACHURA, J.:
Article 266-B, paragraph No.5 of the Revised Penal Code, More than three years ago, tapes ostensibly containing a
imposes death penalty when the victim is a child below wiretapped conversation purportedly between the
seven (7) years old. The allegation in the information President of the Philippines and a high-ranking official of
specifically stated that "xxx the victim xxx is only seven the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. They
years old" which clearly rules out the application of this captured unprecedented public attention and thrust the
specific provision that can justify the imposition of the country into a controversy that placed the legitimacy of the
capital punishment. Paragraph No. 1 of the same article present administration on the line, and resulted in the
which warrants the imposition of the death penalty if the near-collapse of the Arroyo government. The tapes,
crime of rape is committed where the victim is under notoriously referred to as the "Hello Garci" tapes, allegedly
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, contained the Presidents instructions to COMELEC
On August 3, 2005, the respondent House Committees Intervening as respondents,15 Senators Aquilino Q.
decided to suspend the hearings indefinitely. Nevertheless, Pimentel, Jr., Benigno Noynoy C. Aquino, Rodolfo G. Biazon,
they decided to prepare committee reports based on the Panfilo M. Lacson, Loren B. Legarda, M.A. Jamby A.S.
said recordings and the testimonies of the resource Madrigal and Antonio F. Trillanes filed their Comment16 on
persons.3 the petition on September 25, 2007.
Alarmed by these developments, petitioner Virgilio O. The Court subsequently heard the case on oral argument. 17
Garcillano (Garcillano) filed with this Court a Petition for
Prohibition and Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary On October 26, 2007, Maj. Lindsay Rex Sagge, a member of
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary the ISAFP and one of the resource persons summoned by
Injunction4docketed as G.R. No. 170338. He prayed that the Senate to appear and testify at its hearings, moved to
the respondent House Committees be restrained from intervene as petitioner in G.R. No. 179275.18
using these tape recordings of the "illegally obtained"
wiretapped conversations in their committee reports and On November 20, 2007, the Court resolved to consolidate
for any other purpose. He further implored that the said G.R. Nos. 170338 and 179275.19
recordings and any reference thereto be ordered stricken
off the records of the inquiry, and the respondent House It may be noted that while both petitions involve the "Hello
Committees directed to desist from further using the Garci" recordings, they have different objectivesthe first
recordings in any of the House proceedings.5 is poised at preventing the playing of the tapes in the
House and their subsequent inclusion in the committee
Without reaching its denouement, the House discussion reports, and the second seeks to prohibit and stop the
and debates on the "Garci tapes" abruptly stopped. conduct of the Senate inquiry on the wiretapped
conversation.
After more than two years of quiescence, Senator Panfilo
Lacson roused the slumbering issue with a privilege The Court dismisses the first petition, G.R. No. 170338, and
speech, "The Lighthouse That Brought Darkness." In his grants the second, G.R. No. 179275.
discourse, Senator Lacson promised to provide the public
"the whole unvarnished truth the whats, whens, -I-
wheres, whos and whys" of the alleged wiretap, and
sought an inquiry into the perceived willingness of Before delving into the merits of the case, the Court shall
telecommunications providers to participate in nefarious first resolve the issue on the parties standing, argued at
wiretapping activities. length in their pleadings.
On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator Lacsons In Tolentino v. COMELEC,20 we explained that "[l]egal
speech was referred to the Senate Committee on National standing or locus standi refers to a personal and
Defense and Security, chaired by Senator Rodolfo Biazon, substantial interest in a case such that the party has
who had previously filed two bills6 seeking to regulate the sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the
sale, purchase and use of wiretapping equipment and to challenged governmental act x x x," thus,
prohibit the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from
performing electoral duties.7 generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1)
he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or
In the Senates plenary session the following day, a lengthy threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct
debate ensued when Senator Richard Gordon aired his of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
concern on the possible transgression of Republic Act
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party has Following the Courts ruling in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of
"alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the Representatives,31 we find sufficient petitioners Ranadas
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which and Agcaoilis and intervenor Sagges allegation that the
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court continuous conduct by the Senate of the questioned
so largely depends for illumination of difficult legislative inquiry will necessarily involve the expenditure
constitutional questions."22 of public funds.32 It should be noted that in Francisco,
rights personal to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
However, considering that locus standi is a mere had been injured by the alleged unconstitutional acts of
procedural technicality, the Court, in recent cases, has the House of Representatives, yet the Court granted
relaxed the stringent direct injury test. David v. Macapagal- standing to the petitioners therein for, as in this case, they
Arroyo23 articulates that a "liberal policy has been invariably invoked the vindication of their own rightsas
observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of taxpayers, members of Congress, citizens, individually or
Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions in a class suit, and members of the bar and of the legal
involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, professionwhich were also supposedly violated by the
regulations and rulings."24 The fairly recent Chavez v. therein assailed unconstitutional acts.33
Gonzales25 even permitted a non-member of the broadcast
media, who failed to allege a personal stake in the outcome Likewise, a reading of the petition in G.R. No. 179275
of the controversy, to challenge the acts of the Secretary of shows that the petitioners and intervenor Sagge advance
Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission. constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this
The majority, in the said case, echoed the current policy Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as
that "this Court has repeatedly and consistently refused to precedents. The issues are of transcendental and
wield procedural barriers as impediments to its paramount importance not only to the public but also to
addressing and resolving serious legal questions that the Bench and the Bar, and should be resolved for the
greatly impact on public interest, in keeping with the guidance of all.34
Courts duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine
whether or not other branches of government have kept Thus, in the exercise of its sound discretion and given the
themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the liberal attitude it has shown in prior cases climaxing in the
laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to more recent case of Chavez, the Court recognizes the legal
them."26 standing of petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili and intervenor
Sagge.
In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano justifies his
standing to initiate the petition by alleging that he is the - II -
person alluded to in the "Hello Garci" tapes. Further, his
was publicly identified by the members of the respondent The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being
committees as one of the voices in the recordings. 27 moot and academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior
Obviously, therefore, petitioner Garcillano stands to be decisions is the principle that the exercise by this Court of
directly injured by the House committees actions and judicial power is limited to the determination and
charges of electoral fraud. The Court recognizes his resolution of actual cases and controversies.35 By actual
standing to institute the petition for prohibition. cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for
judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for
In G.R. No. 179275, petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili justify otherwise the decision of the Court will amount to an
their standing by alleging that they are concerned citizens, advisory opinion. The power of judicial inquiry does not
taxpayers, and members of the IBP. They are of the firm extend to hypothetical questions because any attempt at
conviction that any attempt to use the "Hello Garci" tapes abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal
will further divide the country. They wish to see the legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to
and proper use of public funds that will necessarily be actualities.36 Neither will the Court determine a moot
defrayed in the ensuing public hearings. They are worried question in a case in which no practical relief can be
by the continuous violation of the laws and individual granted. A case becomes moot when its purpose has
rights, and the blatant attempt to abuse constitutional become stale.37 It is unnecessary to indulge in academic
processes through the conduct of legislative inquiries discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a
purportedly in aid of legislation.28 judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or,
in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.38
Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to due
process considering that he is summoned to attend the In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano implores from the
Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his Court, as aforementioned, the issuance of an injunctive
rights therein through the publication of the Senate Rules writ to prohibit the respondent House Committees from
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, but playing the tape recordings and from including the same in
also of the intended legislation which underpins the their committee report. He likewise prays that the said
investigation. He further intervenes as a taxpayer tapes be stricken off the records of the House proceedings.
bewailing the useless and wasteful expenditure of public But the Court notes that the recordings were already
funds involved in the conduct of the questioned hearings.29 played in the House and heard by its members.39 There is
also the widely publicized fact that the committee reports
Given that petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili allege an on the "Hello Garci" inquiry were completed and
interest in the execution of the laws and that intervenor submitted to the House in plenary by the respondent
Sagge asserts his constitutional right to due process,30 they committees.40 Having been overtaken by these events, the
Garcillano petition has to be dismissed for being moot and
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly The subject was explained with greater lucidity in our
provides that "[t]he Senate or the House of Resolution48 (On the Motion for Reconsideration) in the
Representatives, or any of its respective committees may same case, viz.:
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its
duly published rules of procedure." The requisite of On the nature of the Senate as a "continuing body," this
publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic Court sees fit to issue a clarification. Certainly, there is no
requirements of due process.42 Publication is indeed debate that the Senate as an institution is "continuing," as
imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish or it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election
otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or change in the composition of its members. However, in
or rule of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a the conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate of each
constructive one.43 What constitutes publication is set Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate
forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which provides that of the Congress before it. The Rules of the Senate itself
"[l]aws shall take effect after 15 days following the confirms this when it states:
completion of their publication either in the Official
Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the RULE XLIV
Philippines."44 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit in their SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the end of the session
pleadings and even on oral argument that the Senate Rules shall be taken up at the next session in the same status.
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had
been published in newspapers of general circulation only All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate
in 1995 and in 2006.45 With respect to the present Senate upon the expiration of one (1) Congress, but may be
of the 14th Congress, however, of which the term of half of taken by the succeeding Congress as if present for the first
its members commenced on June 30, 2007, no effort was time.
undertaken for the publication of these rules when they
first opened their session. Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and
proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills and even legislative
Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress are
question. In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of considered terminated upon the expiration of that
Public Officers and Investigations,46 we said: Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the
succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters,
Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that not in the same status, but as if presented for the first
respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is readily
Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be apparent considering that the Senate of the succeeding
in accordance with the "duly published rules of Congress (which will typically have a different
procedure." We quote the OSGs explanation: composition as that of the previous Congress) should not
be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of
The phrase "duly published rules of procedure" requires which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing body
the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of even with respect to the conduct of its business, then
procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because pending matters will not be deemed terminated with the
every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of course,
Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years continue into the next Congress with the same status.
for one-half of the Senates membership, the composition
of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an
Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may institution and of the opposite nature of the conduct of its
deem fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, business is reflected in its Rules. The Rules of the Senate
the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by (i.e. the Senates main rules of procedure) states:
the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.
RULE LI
Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in his Dissenting and Concurring AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISIONS OF, THE RULES
Opinion, reinforces this ruling with the following
rationalization: SEC. 136. At the start of each session in which the Senators
elected in the preceding elections shall begin their term of
The present Senate under the 1987 Constitution is no office, the President may endorse the Rules to the
longer a continuing legislative body. The present Senate appropriate committee for amendment or revision.
has twenty-four members, twelve of whom are elected
Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. hyperemic vulvae with 4 oclock & 6 oclock freshly
Cabalquinto,1 the real name and the personal lacerated hymen; (+) minimal to moderate bloody
circumstances of the victim, and any other information discharges 2 to an alleged raping incident28
tending to establish or compromise her identity, including
those of her immediate family or household members, are On the other hand, only appellant testified for the defense.
not disclosed in this decision. He believed that the charge against him was ill-motivated
because he sometimes physically abuses his wife in front
The Facts of their children after engaging in a heated argument,29
and beats the children as a disciplinary measure. 30 He
In an Information dated 21 September 2000,2 the appellant went further to narrate how his day was on the date of the
was accused of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE allegedly alleged rape.
committed as follows:
He alleged that on 15 March 2000, there was no food
That on or about the 15th day of March 2000, in the prepared for him at lunchtime.31 Shortly after, AAA
evening, at Barangay xxx, municipality of xxx, province of arrived.32 She answered back when confronted.33 This
Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this infuriated him that he kicked her hard on her buttocks.34
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the
father of AAA with lewd design, with the use of force and Appellant went back to work and went home again around
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and 3 oclock in the afternoon.35 Finding nobody at home,36 he
criminally have carnal knowledge with his own daughter prepared his dinner and went to sleep.37
AAA, a 13 year[s]old minor against her will.3
Later in the evening, he was awakened by the members of
On 12 October 2000, appellant entered a plea of not the "Bantay Bayan" headed by Moises Boy Banting.38They
guilty.4 During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution asked him to go with them to discuss some matters. 39 He
and the defense stipulated and admitted: (a) the later learned that he was under detention because AAA
correctness of the findings indicated in the medical charged him of rape.40
certificate of the physician who examined AAA; (b) that
AAA was only thirteen (13) years old when the alleged On 8 July 2006, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9,
offense was committed; and (c) that AAA is the daughter of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, rendered its decision41 in
the appellant.5 On trial, three (3) witnesses testified for the Criminal Case No. 10372-0, finding appellant guilty of rape
prosecution, namely: victim AAA;6 her brother BBB;7 and qualified by relationship and minority, and sentenced him
one Moises Boy Banting,8 a "bantay bayan" in the to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 42 It also
barangay. Their testimonies revealed the following: ordered him to indemnify AAA P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity with
In the afternoon of 15 March 2000, AAA was left alone at exemplary damages of P25,000.00.43
home.9 AAAs father, the appellant, was having a drinking
spree at the neighbors place.10 Her mother decided to On 30 September 2008, the decision of the trial court was
leave because when appellant gets drunk, he has the habit AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS44 by the Court of
of mauling AAAs mother.11 Her only brother BBB also Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00456-MIN.45 The appellate
went out in the company of some neighbors.12 court found that appellant is not eligible for parole and it
increased both the civil indemnity and moral damages
At around 10:00 oclock in the evening, appellant woke from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.46
AAA up;13 removed his pants, slid inside the blanket
covering AAA and removed her pants and underwear;14 On 24 November 2008, the Court of Appeals gave due
warned her not to shout for help while threatening her course to the appellants notice of appeal. 47 This Court
with his fist;15 and told her that he had a knife placed required the parties to simultaneously file their respective
above her head.16 He proceeded to mash her breast, kiss supplemental briefs,48 but both manifested that they will
her repeatedly, and "inserted his penis inside her no longer file supplemental pleadings.49
vagina."17
The lone assignment of error in the appellants brief is
Soon after, BBB arrived and found AAA crying. 18 Appellant that, the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty as
claimed he scolded her for staying out late.19 BBB decided charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish
to take AAA with him.20 While on their way to their his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,50 because: (1) there
maternal grandmothers house, AAA recounted her were inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her
harrowing experience with their father.21 Upon reaching brother BBB;51 (2) his extrajudicial confession before
their grandmothers house, they told their grandmother Moises Boy Banting was without the assistance of a
and uncle of the incident,22 after which, they sought the counsel, in violation of his constitutional right;52 and (3)
assistance of Moises Boy Banting.23 AAAs accusation was ill-motivated.53
Moises Boy Banting found appellant in his house wearing Our Ruling
only his underwear.24 He invited appellant to the police
station,25 to which appellant obliged. At the police outpost, Appellant contests the admissibility in evidence of his
he admitted to him that he raped AAA because he was alleged confession with a "bantay bayan" and the
unable to control himself.26 credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution.
Appellant argues that even if he, indeed, confessed to This Court is, therefore, convinced that barangay-based
Moises Boy Banting, a "bantay bayan," the confession was volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as
inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the
lawyer and there was no valid waiver of such local government unit to perform functions relating to the
requirement.54 preservation of peace and order at the barangay level.
Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by
The case of People v. Malngan55 is the authority on the Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and
scope of the Miranda doctrine provided for under Article responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan," particularly
III, Section 12(1)56 and (3)57 of the Constitution. In on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any
Malngan, appellant questioned the admissibility of her inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function
extrajudicial confessions given to the barangay chairman and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his
and a neighbor of the private complainant. This Court constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section
distinguished. Thus: 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda
Rights, is concerned.
Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay
Chairman, in this particular instance, may be deemed as We, therefore, find the extrajudicial confession of
law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article appellant, which was taken without a counsel,
III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When inadmissible in evidence.
accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the
morning of 2 January 2001, she was already a suspect, Be that as it may, We agree with the Court of Appeals that
actually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several the conviction of the appellant was not deduced solely
houses x x x. She was, therefore, already under custodial from the assailed extrajudicial confession but "from the
investigation and the rights guaranteed by x x x [the] confluence of evidence showing his guilt beyond
Constitution should have already been observed or applied reasonable doubt."63
to her. Accused-appellants confession to Barangay
Chairman x x x was made in response to the interrogation Credibility of the Witnesses for the Prosecution
made by the latter admittedly conducted without first
informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Appellant assails the inconsistencies in the testimonies of
Constitution or done in the presence of counsel. For this AAA and her brother BBB. AAA testified that BBB
reason, the confession of accused-appellant, given to accompanied her to the house of their grandmother.
Barangay Chairman x x x, as well as the lighter found x x x Thereafter, they, together with her relatives, proceeded to
in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her x x look for a "bantay bayan." On the other hand, BBB testified
x.1avvphi1 that he brought her sister to the house of their "bantay
bayan" after he learned of the incident.
[But such does] not automatically lead to her acquittal. x x
x [T]he constitutional safeguards during custodial Citing Bartocillo v. Court of Appeals,64 appellant argues
investigations do not apply to those not elicited through that "where the testimonies of two key witnesses cannot
questioning by the police or their agents but given in an stand together, the inevitable conclusion is that one or
ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits x x both must be telling a lie, and their story a mere
x as x x x in the case at bar when accused-appellant concoction."65
admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors x x x
[of the private complainant].58 (Emphasis supplied) The principle, however, is not applicable in the case at bar.
In Bartocillo, the two testimonies could not simply stand
Following the rationale behind the ruling in Malngan, this together because:
Court needs to ascertain whether or not a "bantay bayan"
may be deemed a law enforcement officer within the On one hand, if we are to believe Susan, Orlando could not
contemplation of Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution. have possibly seen the hacking incident since he had
accompanied Vicente home. On the other hand, if we are to
In People of the Philippines v. Buendia,59 this Court had the accept the testimony of Orlando, then Susan could not have
occasion to mention the nature of a "bantay bayan," that is, possibly witnessed the hacking incident since she was with
"a group of male residents living in [the] area organized Vicente at that time.
for the purpose of keeping peace in their
community[,which is] an accredited auxiliary of the x x x Here, the testimony of AAA does not run contrary to that of
PNP."60 BBB. Both testified that they sought the help of a "bantay
bayan." Their respective testimonies differ only as to when
Also, it may be worthy to consider that pursuant to Section the help was sought for, which this Court could well
1(g) of Executive Order No. 309 issued on 11 November attribute to the nature of the testimony of BBB, a shortcut
1987, as amended, a Peace and Order Committee in each version of AAAs testimony that dispensed with a detailed
barangay shall be organized "to serve as implementing account of the incident.
arm of the City/Municipal Peace and Order Council at the
Barangay level."61 The composition of the Committee At any rate, the Court of Appeals is correct in holding that
includes, among others: (1) the Punong Barangay as the assailed inconsistency is too trivial to affect the
Chairman; (2) the Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan; veracity of the testimonies.66 In fact, inconsistencies which
(3) a Member of the Lupon Tagapamayapa; (4) a Barangay refer to minor, trivial or inconsequential circumstances
Tanod; and (5) at least three (3) Members of existing even strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as they
Barangay-Based Anti-Crime or neighborhood Watch
It may be added that the self-serving defense of appellant G.R. No. 72244 May 8, 1992
cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward
testimony of AAA. Settled is the rule that, "alibi is an
Q Who stabbed your wife? Edwin identified the bolo-knife as belonging to his mother,
who he said usually carried it on her person for cutting
A I myself. leaves to cover herself whenever it rained. On two
occasions, however, she used it for a different purpose.
Q Why did you stab your wife? The first incident was when Adelfa stabbed Jose on the
right side of his body, and the second was when she
A Because of problems in the family. hacked Jose's upper right arm. Both incidents were
reported to the barangay captain. 6
Q What do you think, will you die from your wounds?
Edwin admitted loving his father more than his mother. He
A No. recalled that when he was in Grade I, his mother hanged
him by the neck from a coconut tree with a piece of katsa
Q Was it really your intention to kill your wife? cloth. 7
A Yes, I want to die with her. The violent nature of Adelfa was affirmed by another
witness, Manuel Cardel, who testified that he was in the
The statement was not signed by Jose. On Bermas's store of one Macedonio in the afternoon of April 29, 1980,
request, it was witnessed by the barangay captain, when he heard Adelfa say she would stab Jose if he came
Salustiano Botin, who was present during the recorded home without any money. (As it turned out, Jose did come
conversation. home without his salary, saying he would collect it the
following day. This could have been the reason why Edwin
Jose survived to face prosecution for parricide two months observed his mother to be in a sullen mood that night.)
later. He was convicted on July 18, 1985. 2 Cardel also recalled one time when Adelfa ran after her
husband with a bolo in her hand. 8
The principal evidence presented against him at the trial
was the above-quoted statement, which was offered as a The trial court correctly rejected the above-quoted
dying declaration or as part of the res gestae. Also interrogation as a dying declaration because it did not
submitted as an exhibit was the 8-inch bolo-knife used in comply with all the requirements of this particular
the killing, which was turned over by Botin to the police at exception to the hearsay rule. The statement does not
seven o' clock that same morning. He had received it from show that it was made by the declarant under the
a neighbor of the couple who had picked it up at the scene consciousness of impending death (although it is true that
of the killing. 3 The police had evidently neglected to look Jose was near death at that time). Nevertheless, it was
for it when they went to investigate. correctly admitted as part of the res gestae, having been
made soon after the startling occurrence of the multiple
In his defense, Jose gave a different version of the killing of stabbing of Jose and Adelfa.
his wife. He said that he had gone to sleep early that night
but was awakened when he felt a stab wound in his But the mere fact that evidence is admissible does not
stomach. He could not see his assailant because it was necessarily mean that it is also credible. The testimony of a
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING These elements have been proven to be present in the
CONSIDERATIONS, accused SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y instant case. PO3 Garcia who acted as the poseur-buyer,
NAMRI alias "SAI" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable categorically testified about the buy-bust operation from
doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of the time he was introduced by the informant to appellant
Republic Act 9165 also known as the "Comprehensive as the buyer of the shabu; to the time when appellant
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", and there being no agreed to the sale; to the actual exchange of the marked
mitigating circumstance, accused is hereby sentenced to money and the heat-sealed sachet containing a white
suffer a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE crystalline substance; and until the apprehension of
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), and to pay appellant, to wit:
the costs.
A I myself together with confidential informant just
The effects of the crime are ordered confiscated in favor of walked, as well as the area and waited the poseur at the
the government. The custodian of the shabu subject of the agreed place situated at the vicinity of entrance of Villa
case is hereby ordered to submit the same to the Antonio, San Pablo City.
Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition within 48
hours from receipt of a copy of this judgment and the latter Q You were waiting for the suspects at the entrance of Villa
is given 48 hours from receipt of the same to submit an San Antonio and then what else transpired next?
Q Who are the supposed to be the buyer, you were Q After you removed your cap, what happened?
introduced as a buyer?
A I saw PO3 Leona arrived and assisted me, after the
A Yes, maam. arresting.
FISCAL LAGMAN Q While you were arresting this Saidamen, this accused,
what did you do as a matter of procedure, what did you tell
Q And this suspect who was the seller, is he present in him?
Court today?
A We informed him the constitutional rights, maam. PO2
A Yes, maam. Leona was able to recovered this custody control of bodol
money.
Q Would you kindly point to him?
xxxx
A The 6th man from the Steel Cabinet.
Q So, after that, where did you bring Saidamen?
INTERPRETER
A We immediately brought him at our office at Camp
Makikitayo, anong pangalan mo? Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna together with confiscated
pieces of evidence for proper disposition.
ACCUSED
Q You said that you were able to buy 1 plastic sachet of
Saidamen Macatingag po. shabu that was supposed to be worth of P52,500, would
you be able to identify the plastic sachet if you will be
xxxx shown to you?
Q So, after the introductions were made what happened? Q What markings did you place if any?
A The seller identified the money, maam, which is A I put my exhibit A, my initials, the date and time of arrest
amounting to P52,500.00. included the month and year, maam.
Q And then what happened? Q After you placed yourself 10 meters a way from the
house, from the site and likewise Marino Garcia and the
A I immediately pulled out 1 plastic sachet from his pocket informant and the fence near the site, what happened
and handed it over to me maam. thereafter?
Q One (1) plastic sachet was handed to you? A I saw a person came out from that way near the hollow
blocks fence wearing black pants and green t-shirt and I
A Yes, maam. saw they were talking with our confidential informant.
A No, maam we handed first to me the sachet and he Q Could you see the person who just arrived and talked
demanded the payment of sachet, maam. with your confidential informant on said occasion, is he in
Court?
xxxx
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL LAGMAN
Q Could you please point to him if he is present?
A I recovered from the accused the money and it was SPO3 A Yes, sir.
Marino Garcia who recovered the 25 grams of shabu
conducted.15 COURT
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the Q Did you put your initial in the specimen?
credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-
bust operation.16 It is a fundamental rule that findings of A I was only accompanied Marino Garcia in bringing to the
the trial courts which are factual in nature and which crime lab.
involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring
errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, FISCAL COMILANG
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered
from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial Q Since you have seen Mr. Witness the actual shabu was
court is in a better position to decide the credibility of taken from the accused, do you know if Mr. Garcia placed
witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed any reference on the said article, if any?
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
The rule finds an even more stringent application where A Yes, sir, the initial of Marino Garcia.
said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.17
Q What is that initial?
The testimonies of police officers Garcia and Leona, and
the sachet of shabu sold by appellant sufficiently proved A MAG.
the crime charged. Moreover, the prosecution was able to
establish that the substance recovered from appellant was Q Mr. Witness, why do you know that police officer Marino
indeed shabu.18 Garcia actually placed his initial on the said specimen or
item?
In view of these testimonies and evidence of the
prosecution, appellants denial must fail. The Court has A Everytime that we conducted the buy bust, it is our SOP
consistently stressed that denial, like alibi, is a weak to place the marking.
defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive
Q Would you specify what are those documents prepared We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in
by the investigator as pre-requisite of filing of this case? any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance
A We prepared the letter request for the crime lab request with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue
for the accused we first report to the effectdid not suffer therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is
physical injury. not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or
probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to
xxxx be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the
circumstances obtaining in each case.28
Q Do you know if this document was actually received by
the addressee? All told, We see no reason to disturb the findings of the
trial court that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
A Yes, sir, because I was with them. of illegal sale of a dangerous drug, as defined and
penalized in Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Under
Q What proof that this document was actually received by said provision, the illegal sale of any dangerous drug,
the addressee? regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life
imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to
A There was a stamp marked of receipt, sir.23 P10,000,000.00.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the seized sachet of For illegally selling 25.23 grams of shabu, and there being
shabu was immediately marked for proper identification no modifying circumstance alleged in the Information, the
and, thereafter, forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for trial court, as sustained by the Court of Appeals, correctly
examination. The Chemistry Report of the Regional Crime imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance
Laboratory Office stated that the specimen submitted by with Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code29 and a fine
the apprehending officers indeed bore the marking "Exh A of P500,000.00.
MAG 171200-01-14" and that the same gave positive
result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision
Hydrochloride. Forensic Chemical Officer Tria confirmed of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01487 dated
on the witness stand that she examined the specimen July 31, 2007, sustaining the conviction of appellant
submitted by the PDEA and that she was the one who Saidamen Macatingag y Namri for violation of Section 5,
prepared the Chemistry Report No. D-54-04.24 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon him
the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00
It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has is hereby AFFIRMED.
been properly preserved and established by the
prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is SO ORDERED.
presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered G.R. No. 110662 August 4, 1994
with. The appellant in this case has the burden to show
that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ, petitioner,
overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of vs.
exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROMEO F. ZAMORA,
On 2 May 1990, private respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed 10.1 In affirming the questioned order of respondent
with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint judge, the Court of Appeals has decided a question of
for annulment of marriage with damages against substance not theretofore determined by the Supreme
petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of Court as the question of admissibility in evidence of tape
marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the recordings has not, thus far, been addressed and decided
petitioner. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q- squarely by the Supreme Court.
90-5360 and raffled to Branch 94, RTC of Quezon City
presided over by respondent Judge Romeo F. Zamora. 11. In affirming the questioned order of respondent judge,
the Court of Appeals has likewise rendered a decision in a
Private respondent, after presenting his evidence, orally way not in accord with law and with applicable decisions
formally offered in evidence Exhibits "A" to "M". of the Supreme Court.
Among the exhibits offered by private respondent were 11.1 Although the questioned order is interlocutory in
three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations nature, the same can still be [the] subject of a petition for
between petitioner and unidentified persons. certiorari. 2
Petitioner submitted her Objection/Comment to private The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the
respondent's oral offer of evidence on 9 June 1992; on the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
same day, the trial court admitted all of private was properly availed of by the petitioner in the Court of
respondent's offered evidence. Appeals.
A motion for reconsideration from petitioner was denied The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not
on 23 June 1992. available to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial
court. The proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary
A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in said
Court of Appeals assailing the admission in evidence of the appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.
aforementioned cassette tapes.
However, where the assailed interlocutory order is
On 10 June 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not
which is the subject of the present petition, which in part afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may
reads: allow certiorari as a mode of redress. 3
It is much too obvious that the petition will have to fail, for In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order
two basic reasons: admitting all of the evidence offered by private
respondent, including tape recordings of telephone
(1) Tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. They and conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons.
any other variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for These tape recordings were made and obtained when
certain purposes, depending on how they are presented private respondent allowed his friends from the military to
and offered and on how the trial judge utilizes them in the wire tap his home telephone. 4
interest of truth and fairness and the even handed
administration of justice. Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize
Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy
(2) A petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to of Communication, and for other purposes" expressly
rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence adduced makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. The
during trial. The ruling on admissibility is interlocutory; relevant provisions of Rep. Act No. 4200 are as follows:
neither does it impinge on jurisdiction. If it is erroneous,
the ruling should be questioned in the appeal from the Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
judgment on the merits and not through the special civil authorized by all the parties to any private communication
action of certiorari. The error, assuming gratuitously that it or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
exists, cannot be anymore than an error of law, properly other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
correctible by appeal and not by certiorari.Otherwise, we intercept, or record such communication or spoken word
will have the sorry spectacle of a case being subject of a by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or
counterproductive "ping-pong" to and from the appellate dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-
court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an recorder, or however otherwise described. . . .
Lingan: I'm here to mediate. Do not include me in the The defense's evidence which consists of outright denial
problem. I'm out of the problem. could not under the circumstance overturn the strength of
the prosecution's evidence.
xxx xxx xxx
This court finds that the prosecution witnesses, more
Navarro: Wala sa akin yan. Ang kaso lang . . . particularly Stanley Jalbuena, lacked any motive to make
false accusation, distort the truth, testify falsehood or
Lingan: Kalaban mo ang media, pare, Ako at si Stanley, cause accusation of one who had neither brought him
dalawa kami. Okay. Do not fight with me. I just came here harm or injury.
to ayusin things. Do not say bad things against me. I'm the
number one loko sa media. I'm the best media man. . . . Going over the evidence on record, the postmortem report
issued by Dra. Eva Yamamoto confirms the detailed
Navarro: Huwag tayong mag-lokohan sa ganyan! Huwag na account given by Stanley Jalbuena on how Lingan
tayong mag-takotan! Huwag mong sabihing loko ka! sustained head injuries.
Lingan: I'm brave also. Said post-mortem report together with the testimony of
Jalbuena sufficiently belie the claim of the defense that the
Navarro: Ay lalo na ako. Tahimik lang naman ako. Wala ka head injuries of deceased Lingan were caused by the
namang masasabi sa akin dahil nag-tatrabaho lang ako ng latter's falling down on the concrete pavement head first.
ayon sa serbisyo ko.
The Court of Appeals affirmed:
Lingan: You are challenging me and him. . . .
We are far from being convinced by appellant's aforesaid
Navarro: Ay walastik ka naman Ike! Pag may problema ka disquisition. We have carefully evaluated the conflicting
dito sinasabihan kita na may balita tayong maganda. versions of the incident as presented by both parties, and
Pambihira ka Ike. Huwag mong sabihin na . . . Parang we find the trial court's factual conclusions to have better
minomonopoly mo eh. and stronger evidentiary support.
Lingan: Pati ako kalaban ninyo. In the first place, the mere fact that Jalbuena was himself a
victim of appellant's aggression does not impair the
Navarro: Talagang kalaban namin ang press. Lahat, hindi probative worth of his positive and logical account of the
lang ikaw! incident in question. In fact, far from proving his
innocence, appellant's unwarranted assault upon Jalbuena,
Lingan: You are wrong. Bakit kalaban nyo ang press? which the defense has virtually admitted, clearly betrays
his violent character or disposition and his capacity to
Navarro: Pulis ito! Aba! harm others. Apparently, the same motivation that led him
into assailing Jalbuena must have provoked him into also
Lingan: Alisin mo ang baril mo! Alisin mo ang baril mo! attacking Lingan who had interceded for Jalbuena and
Suntukan tayo, sige. humiliated him and further challenged to a fist
fight.1wphi1.nt
Navarro: Mayabang ka ah!
xxx xxx xxx
(Sounds of a scuffle)
On the other hand, appellant's explanation as how Lingan
Navarro: Hinamon ako nyan! Pare hinamon ako nyan! Pare was injured is too tenuous and illogical to be accepted. It is
hinamon ako nyan, testigo kayo. Alisin ko daw ang baril ko. in fact contradicted by the number, nature and location of
Hinamon ako nyan. Pare, ilagay mo diyan, hinamon ako sa Lingan's injuries as shown in thepost-mortem report (Exh.
harap ni Stanley. Testigo kayo, hinamon ako. Pulis tayo eh. D). According to the defense, Lingan fell two times when
Puta, buti nga, suntok lang ang inabot nyan. Sa harap ni he was outbalanced in the course of boxing the appellant.
Alex, ni Joe, ni Stanley, hinamon ako. Pare, hinamon ako, And yet, Lingan suffered lacerated wounds in his left
kinig nyo ha. Hinamon ako nyan. Sige, dalhin nyo sa forehead, left eyebrow, between his left and right
hospital yan. eyebrows, and contusion in the right temporal region of
the head (Exh. E.). Certainly, these injuries could not have
Petitioner Felipe Navarro claims that it was the deceased been resulted from Lingan's accidental fall.
who tried to hit him twice, but he (petitioner) was able to
duck both times, and that Lingan was so drunk he fell on Hence, this appeal. Petitioner Navarro contends:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being = No blood oozed from the ears, nose & mouth
authorized by all the parties to any private communication
or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any = Swelling, 3 cm x 2 cm, temporal region, head, right
other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word = Lacerated wound, 2 cm in length, 1-2 in depth, lateral
by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or eyebrow, Left
dictagraph of dectectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-
recorder, or however otherwise described: = Lacerated wound, 0.5 cm in length, superficial, between
the left & right eyebrow
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant
or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding = Lacerated wound, 2 cm in length, 1 cm in depth,
sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire forehead, Left
record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies
thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured = Cyanosis of the tips of fingers & toes
either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for CAUSE OF DEATH:
any other person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish = CEREBRAL CONCUSSION & SHOCK
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any
other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any = BLOW ON THE HEAD
copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 Dr. Yamamato testified:
hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Q Give your opinion as to what was the possible cause of
xxx xxx xxx this findings number one, which is oozing of blood from
the forehead?
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning A It may be due to a blow on the forehead or it bumped to
of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein a hard object, sir.
contained obtained or secured by any person in violation
of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible Q Could a metal like a butt of a gun have caused this
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or wound No. 1.?
administrative hearing or investigation.
A It is possible, sir.
Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or
recording of private communications.29 Since the exchange Q And in the alternative, could have it been caused by
bumping on a concrete floor?
Q And findings No. 5 what could have caused it? A Possible, sir.35
A Same cause, sir. The above testimony clearly supports the claim of Jalbuena
that petitioner Navarro hit Lingan with the handle of his
Q This findings No. 6 what could have caused this wound? pistol above the left eyebrow and struck him on the
forehead with his fist.
A Same thing sir.
Third. It is argued that the mitigating circumstances of
Q How about the last finding, cyanosis of tips of fingers sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
and toes, what could have caused it doctor? party immediately preceding the act should have been
appreciated in favor of petitioner Navarro. Provocation is
WITNESS: defined to be any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
It indicates there was cardiac failure, sir. anyone.36 The provocation must be sufficient and should
immediately precede the act.37 To be sufficient, it must be
FISCAL: adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which
must accordingly be proportionate in gravity.38 And it
In this same post mortem report and under the heading must immediately precede the act so much so that there is
cause of death it states: Cause of Death: Cerebral no interval between the provocation by the offended party
concussion and Shock, will you explain it? and the commission of the crime by the accused.39
A Cerebral concussion means in Tagalog "naalog ang In the present case, the remarks of Lingan, which
utak" or jarring of the brain, sir. immediately preceded the act of petitioner, constituted
sufficient provocation. In People v. Macaso,40 we
Q What could have been the cause of jarring of the brain? appreciated this mitigating circumstance in favor of the
accused, a policeman, who shot a motorist after the latter
A It could have been caused by a blow of a hard object, sir. had repeatedly taunted him with defiant words. Hence,
this mitigating circumstance should be considered in favor
Q What about the shock, what could have caused it? of petitioner Navarro.
A It was due to peripheral circulatory failure, sir. Furthermore, the mitigating circumstance that the
offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
Q Could any one of both caused the death of the victim? that committed should also be appreciated in favor of
petitioner. The frantic exclamations of petitioner Navarro
A Yes, sir. after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him
shows that he had no intent to kill the latter. Thus, this
Q Could cerebral concussion alone have caused the death mitigating circumstance should be taken into account in
of the deceased? determining the penalty that should be imposed on
petitioner Navarro. The allowance of this mitigating
A May be, sir. circumstance is consistent with the rule that criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
FISCAL: felony although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.41 In People v. Castro,42 the
Which of these two more likely, to cause death? mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed was appreciated in favor
WITNESS: of the accused while finding him guilty of homicide.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is PO1 Mariano then held appellants arm, identified himself
AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner Felipe as a police officer, and apprised her of her constitutional
Navarro is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a prison terms of rights as he retrieved from her the buy-bust money. He
18 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years and 8 thereafter marked "EXH-A arm/05/13/03" on the
months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. substance-filled sachet "sold" to him by appellant.
Hence, the filing of the Information against appellant. Appellant specifically claims that no physical inventory
and photographing of the specimen took place. Respecting
Denying the charge against her, appellant gave the the required conduct of an inventory, since only one sachet
following version: was seized, failure to comply therewith may
understandably have been rendered unnecessary.
On May 11, 2003, while fetching water from a nearby well,
she was, in the presence of family and neighbors, accosted As for the required photograph of the seized item, a
by police officers who brought her to the police station. At reading of the testimony of PO1 Mariano confirms the
the station, she was questioned whether she knew one prosecutions failure to follow such requirement:
"Baylene Ramba," to which she replied in the negative. She
was later surprised to learn that an Information for Atty. Ronatay:
violation of R.A. 9165 had been filed against her.
Q: Are you aware that it is required under the dangerous
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, by Decision of drugs law that in case of the buy-bust operation, the
May 31, 2005, convicted appellant, disposing as follows: subject specimen their (sic) must be a picture taken on the
subject specimen?
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused NITA EUGENIO y
Pejer @ Aruba GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the A: What I said is that impossible, we have a buy-bust to
crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise verify.
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 and imposes upon her the penalty of LIFE Atty. Ronatay:
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00
Your Honor, I think the answer is not responsive to the
SO ORDERED.7 (underscoring supplied) question. We moved (sic) to strike that out and the witness
to answer the question.
By Decision of September 16, 2008,8 the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial courts decision. Court: Answer the question.
Sec. 21 of R.A. No 9165 provides: Q: Are you also aware Mr. witness that under the
dangerous drugs law, it is standard operating procedure
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, that in cases of operation specifically in a buy-bust
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of operation, there has also be (sic) a presence of the media?
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory A: I do not know, maam.
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
The Courts pronouncement in Pringas is based on the G.R. No. 181831 March 29, 2010
provision of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations12 of R.A. No. 9165 reading: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these RODNIE ALMORFE y SEDENTE and RYAN ALMORFE y
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the VALLESTER, Appellants.
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, DECISION
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items; (emphasis and underscoring CARPIO MORALES, J.:
supplied)
Appellants Rodnie Almorfe y Sedente (Rodnie) and Ryan
Clearly, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that Almorfe y Vallester (Ryan) were convicted of violation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu was Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The
preserved. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) by the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 70. Appellant Rodnie was
As reflected in the above-quoted Memorandum of P/Sr. further convicted of violation of Section 11 of the same
Insp. Chief Villaruel, the time of operation was "on or law.
about 8:30 P.M., 13 May 2003." If the allegedly seized
substance-filled sachet was confiscated at 8:30 p.m., it is The Information against appellants for violation of Section
highly improbable that it was received at the Crime 5 (Crim. Case No. 13116-D) reads:1
Laboratory at 8:33 P.M or a mere three minutes after the
seizure, given that appellant was after his arrest first xxxx
brought to a hospital for physical check-up.
On or about November 27, 2003 in Pasig City, and within
Doubt is thus engendered on whether the object evidence the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
subjected to laboratory examination and presented in conspiring and confederating together, and both of them
court is the same as that allegedly "sold" by appellant. In mutually helping and aiding one another, not being
fine, the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
evidentiary value of the 0.03 gram specimen. unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to
PO1 Janet Sabo y Ampuhan, a police poseur-buyer, one (1)
Parenthetically, unlike in Pringas, the defense in the heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3)
present case questioned early on, during the cross centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance,
examination of PO1 Mariano, the failure of the which was found positive to the test for
apprehending officers to comply with the inventory and methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
photographing requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. violation of said law.
9165. And the defense raised it again during the offer of
evidence by the prosecution, thus: xxxx
Atty. Ronatay:
Janet, who was designated as poseur-buyer, gave the pre- On appeal, the appellate court, by Decision of August 30,
marked P200 (in five P20 and two P50 bills) to Rodnie 2007,12 affirmed that of the trial courts. It discredited
who placed them inside his pocket. Rodnie thereupon took appellants claim of frame-up in the absence of proof of ill-
out a "black plastic container"5 from his pants back pocket motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse
from which container he drew two plastic sachets which them, aside from the fact that the officers are presumed to
he, however, returned to the container. have regularly performed their official duty.
Rodnie thereafter parted with some of the money bills to The appellate court discredited too the testimony of Aida
his companion who turned out to be his co-appellant Ryan, which it found to be laced with several inconsistencies vis-
whom he asked "Akina yung binigay ko sa yo kanina." Ryan -vis those of appellants.
at once gave Rodnie a sachet of shabu which Rodnie in turn
gave to Janet. At that instant, Janet executed the pre- Hence, the present appeal, appellants assigning as sole
arranged signal to the other members of the team who error of the appellate court their conviction despite the
swooped down on appellants and arrested them. Janet failure of the prosecution "to prove that the shabu
then and there seized the money and the two plastic submitted for laboratory examination is the same one
sachets inside the black plastic container in Rodnies allegedly taken from them.
x x x x (italics and underscoring supplied) While a perfect chain of custody is almost always
impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes
Oddly, from the above-quoted testimony of alleged poseur indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug
buyer Janet, she clarified that they filed a case against cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering,
appellants only for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. contamination and even substitution and exchange. 22
Appellant Rodnie was, however, additionally indicted for Hence, every link must be accounted for.
violation of Section 11.
In fine, the prosecution failed to account for every link of
Respecting the teams non-compliance with the inventory, the chain starting from its turn over by Janet to the
not to mention the photograph, requirement of R.A. No. investigator, and from the latter to the chemist.
Parenthetically, the following testimony of Janet raises a Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the PNP
nagging doubt regarding the buy-bust version of the Director and the Director General of the Philippine Drug
prosecution: Enforcement Agency for information and guidance. No
costs.
Q: So, you were fifty (50) meters away from your
companions, where did you meet the accused? SO ORDERED.
A: We entered Callejon 64, and they were standing by in G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010
front of their house where there was a lighted post, sir.
BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr.
Q: Madam witness, you stated that you entered Callejon 64, RICARDO BANGAYAN, Petitioner,
which is an alley, and you left your vehicle fifty (50) meters vs.
away from Callejon 64. Was your vehicle parked SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Respondent.
perpendicularly to Callejon 64 or, was it parked parallel to
Callejon 64? DECISION
relevant, is to be addressed by considering whether they We now address the issue of whether the admission of
have such direct relation to the fact in issue as to induce Marasigans testimony on the particulars of respondents
belief in its existence or non-existence; or whether they account with Security Bank, as well as of the
relate collaterally to a fact from which, by process of logic, corresponding evidence of the checks allegedly deposited
an inference may be made as to the existence or non- in said account, constitutes an unallowable inquiry under
existence of the fact in issue.35 R.A. 1405.
The fact in issue appears to be that respondent has taken It is conceded that while the fundamental law has not
away cash in the amount of P1,534,135.50 from the coffers bothered with the triviality of specifically addressing
of petitioner. In support of this allegation, petitioner seeks privacy rights relative to banking accounts, there,
to establish the existence of the elemental act of taking by nevertheless, exists in our jurisdiction a legitimate
adducing evidence that respondent, at several times expectation of privacy governing such accounts. The
between 1988 and 1989, deposited some of its checks to source of this right of expectation is statutory, and it is
her personal account with Security Bank. Petitioner found in R.A. No. 1405,39otherwise known as the Bank
addresses the incongruence between the allegation of theft Secrecy Act of 1955. 40
of cash in the Information, on the one hand, and the
evidence that respondent had first stolen the checks and R.A. No. 1405 has two allied purposes. It hopes to
deposited the same in her banking account, on the other discourage private hoarding and at the same time
SO ORDERED.