Case Summary Evidence

CASE BASIC FACTS DOCTRINE Class notes
Dying Declaration
People vs Maramara An information was filed against Mara- REQUISITES -note different elements
Mara for murder in the RTC. The 1. that death is imminent and the
KEYWORDS: Benefit dance, prosecution alleged that Mara-Mara shot declarant is conscious of that fact;
tumultuous affray and killed the victim, Miguelito Donato. 2. that the declaration refers to the
Regarder Donato, the father of the victim, cause and surrounding
testified that he had asked who shot his circumstances of such death;
son and Miguelito replied that it was 3. that the declaration relates to
Mara-Mara. facts which the victim is competent
to testify to;
RTC: found Mara-Mara guilty of murder. 4. that the declarant thereafter
He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. dies; and
Hence, this appeal to the SC. 5. that the declaration is offered in
a criminal case wherein the
SC: admitted Miguelito's dying declarant's death is the subject of
declaration and found Mara-Mara guilty inquiry.
of homicide.
-degree of seriousness of wounds +
death shortly after > maybe
substantial evidence that declarant
had full realization that he was in a
dying condition
People vs Molo One night, while Venancio Gapisa was -nature and extent of the wounds nature and extent
sleeping in his house, her wife Simeona (8 in all), declarant must have -8 wounds
KEYWORDS: Boslo, Bolo, heard murmurs and gnashing of teeth. realized the seriousness of his -weak
hacking, buri hut, defacate, When she peeked outside, she saw condition and it can therefore be -blood already drained
banana plant, moon, Dominador Molo about to enter their hut. inferred that he made the -dangling left arm had to be tied
kerosene lamp, motive, When Molo found Venancio sleeping, he incriminations under the -defecating pants due to pain
voluntary surrender, took his left wrist and hacked him using a consciousness of impending death, -died 4 ½ hours after being hacked
bolo. When Venancio was awakened, he which, if fact, supervened barely 4
tried to reach for his own bolo but failed ½ hours after he was boloed
to do so since Molo hacked him again.
Simeona ran outside and sought help -motive need not be shown if there
from her son Alejandro and their is a positive identification
neighbour Roman. When the three went
AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA
back to the hut, they saw Venancio
bleeding. Alejandro approached his
father. Venancio told Alejandro that he
was boloed by Boslo (the name by which
Molo was known). Venancio said the
same thing to Roman. A criminal case was
filed against Molo.
RTC: found him guilty BRD of the crime of

murder, relying on the testimony of
Simeona, corroborated by that of
Alejandro and Roman regarding the
dying declarations of Venancio.
During appeal, Molo said that dying

declaration should not be given credence
because the victime could not have
recognized the assailant since (as
testified by Simeona) he was asleep when
he was attacked.
SC: affirmed his conviction. The court

said that the victim was only asleep
during the initial state of the attack but
was awakened by the first blow and
stood up to defend himself.
People vs Bautista Cipirano was killed by a gunshot. If the dying declaration was made -Jose Gagaza Jr (the one who
According to the victim‖s wife who found orally, it may be proved by the allegedly heard the ante mortem
KEYWORDS: industrial his body right after hearing the gunshot, testimony of the witness who statement) was never presented in
partner, frame up, affair, she saw Bautista standing 2 meters from heard the same or to whom it was court to testify on the matter
pink panty, 10 months the victim pointing a gun at her husband. made  its entry in the police
She also said that before dying, her blotter alone will not suffice to -false dying declaration
husband identified the killer as Bautista confer upon it the desired
who was thereafter charged with murder. evidentiary weight  entries in VAA: blotter referred to Feriamil
Several persons made entries in the police blotters are only prima facie while the sworn statement
police blotter and sworn statements. One evidence of the facts stated therein referred to Poldo
of them is Gagaza who accompanied the
wife as the victim was rushed to the -generally, motive of the accused in How was the dying declration
hospital. In Gagaza‖s police blotter, he a criminal case is immaterial and entered?
said that the victim pointed to the wife’s does not have to be proven  -there was a document by the Chief
paramour Feriamil as the killer. In his proof of the same becomes Police inspector quoting a police
sworn statement, he pointed to Bautista. relevant and essential when the officer who sa
There were also several inconsistencies identity of the assailant is in
in the testimonies of prosecution question VAA: dying declaration, to be
witnesses. There were also people, admissible, must be a single
instrumental to the case, that were not hearsay
presented. Upon Bautista‖s conviction, he -the witness must be the person
appealed to the SC questioning the who saw or hear the declaration
evidentiary weight accorded to Gagaza‖s
police blotter narrating the dying
declaration of the victim that Feriamil
was the murderer. He also pointed out
major inconsistencies in the testimony of
the prosecution witnesses.
SC: ruled that the dying declaration of

the victim made orally, as detailed in
Gagaza’s police blotter, must be proved
by the testimony of the person who heard
the dying declaration in order to be given
the desired evidentiary weight. In this
case, Gagaza was not presented as
witness so the alleged dying declaration
cannot be given due weight. However, the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
other witnesses weaken the
prosecution‖s case. Every doubt being
resolved in favor of the accused, Bautista
must be acquitted.
People vs Basay Basay and Ramirez were charged with Victim in dying declaration must -hacked through and through
Multiple Murder with Arson in for having be competent witness -1 ½ days after the commission of
allegedly killed Sps. Zosimo and Beatrice the crime
KEYWORDS: Arson, Toting and their six-year old daughter -doctor who attended her before
incompetent witness, Bombie, and for having burned the she died testified that when he last
extrajudicial confession, spouses‖ house to conceal the crime; as a saw Bombie alive, she could not
barrister consequence of such fire, the spouses‖ talk
other daughter Manolita was burned to
death. According to the police before
Bombie died, she was able to relate that
Ramirez and Basay killed her parents and VAA: she was not competent
burned their house. Trial court acquitted because of her physical condition
Basay but convicted Ramirez because of -doctor testified that before she
his alleged sworn statement or died she was not able to talk
extra0judicial confession. -half her intestines were out
TC: did not admit Bombie’s statement as

dying declaration but mere as part of res
gestae because prosecution failed to
prove that
-statement was given under
consciousness of impending death
-declarant (Bombie) is a competent
witness
SC: acquitted Ramirez. Bombie’s alleged

statement is doubtful. The Trial court
ruled that Bombie was not a competent
witness. Her condition at the time she
supposedly gave her statement made it
impossible for her to have communicated
effectively. Bombie did not even tell her
own brother that it was the accused who
committed the crime
People vs Cabrillas Accused Adriano and Benny were A dying declaration is an evidence VAA: only referenced by nicknames
charged with murder for the death of of the highest order; it is entitled to different from Geraldo vs People
Jesus Cabujat. According to the the utmost credence on the
prosecution witnesses, while Jesus was premise that no person who knows
KEYWORDS: salt, drinking walking home with his granddaughter, he of his impending death would -there were 2 other witnesses that
spree, urinate, turned towards the grassy area of the make a careless and false testified as to the identity of the
granddaughter, circling, fled, road to urinate. The accused then accusation. At the brink of death, assailants
suddenly emerged from their hiding all thoughts on concocting lies -there are circumstantial evidence
place, held Jesus’ shoulders and disappear. that the assailants could’ve been
alternately stabbed him. At that moment, seen by the declarant
Jesus shouted, “I am wounded, please -there was also evidence on the
help me because I was stabbed by intent to kill
Benny and Adriano.” The 2 accused fled
and only Benny was arrested only 2 years
later.
RTC and CA: convicted him of murder.

Benny’s defense consisted of an alibi and
the argument that the witnesses were not
credible.
SC: upheld his conviction ruling that the

argument of relationship, inconsistency
and delay in the testimonies were
without merit and his alibi was weak.
Also, the statement of the accused
pointing to Benny and Adriano as his
assailants was admissible against Benny
as a dying declaration.
Zarate vs Gingoog Zarate stabbed Guiritan. After Guiritan The declarant’s statement is Part of Res Gestae
almost died of the wounds but lived admissible as part of the res gestae
KEYWORDS: cigarette, because of timely medical assistance. The where the same was taken when VAA: Not dying declaration
accidental sexual affair, morning after the stabbing and after he regained consciousness a few because the declarant did not die
station of the cross, surgery, SPO1 Alecha took the ante- hours after operation
operation mortem statement of Guiritan. The latter
said that it was Zarate that stabbed him
and that he felt he would die.
The TC, CA, and SC held such statement as

part of the res gestae.
Geraldo vs People Arthur Ronquillo was allegedly shot by Even if the victim’s dying Competence of the victim
Jesus Geraldo and Amado Ariate causing declaration were admissible in
the former’s instantaneous death. His evidence, it must identify the VAA:burden of the prosecution to
KEYWORDS: Badjing, wife, daughter Mirasol and son Arnel assailant with certainty, otherwise prove competence
Barangay tanod, tricycle, were informed of the incident. They it loses its significance -in this case, there was not proof
Paraffin test, Lumbar and found him lying on his side wounded. the declarant was able to see he’s
Iliac, Victim was able to utter to Mirasol, assialant
within hearing distance of Arnel, that TC: even assuming that the -compared with People vs Cabrillas
he was shot by Badjing and Amado. declaration is not admissible as a -in this case there was no evidence
Paraffin tests were conducted but they dying declaration, it is still of motive
came out as negative. The children admissible as part of res gestae -Ariate was not present in the
executed an affidavit naming the since it was made shortly after the scene of the crime and only
petitioners as the assailants. Ariate, a startling occurrence and under the responded
barangay tanod, said that Omboy Roz influence thereof, hence under the
(barangay kagawad) woke him up at 3am circumstances, the victim evidently VAA: flight  may be used as
and informed him that the victim was had not opportunity to contrive evidence of guilt
shot. He and Roz borrowed a tricycle and -The wicked flee when no one is
brought the victim to the hospital. pursuing, But the righteous are
Geraldo said he was sleeping in his house. bold as a lion. (proverbs 28:1)
He only found out about the shooting the -if Ariate was really guilty he
next day. Police went to his house and would’ve fled but in this case he
advised him to get paraffin test. even help bring the victim to the
hospital
TC: convicted the petitioners. It found the
demeanor of 8 yr old daughter:
straightforward, coherent, and clear, very VAA: in this case, the only evidence
intelligent and child mannerisms. was the dying declration. In People
vs Cabrillas, there were a lot of
SC: acquitted the petitioners circumstantial evidence
No indication whether he was shot from -The burden of proof is with the
the front or back not proven that he prosecution to prove that the
had the opportunity to see the assailant. accused were the ones referred to
Prosecution had the burden of proving by the declarant in his declaration
that the petitioners were the only ones in -that the petitioners were, at the
the barangay who had those nicknames. material time, the only ones in the
If there is doubt motive is essential.
Since no motive was presented, defense barangay who bore such
of denial and alibi assumes importance. nicknames or aliases
Wife admitted that Ariate helped them in
bringing the victim to the hospital. While “Badjing”’s alibi was credible
non-flight does not indicate innocence  because he was only an usisero
circumstances in this case (spontaneous when he found out the next
gesture of immediately extending morning that someone died and
assistance to the victim after he was there were a lot of people in the
advised by Barangay Kagawad  raises vicinity
reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
-added the 5th requisite that the
declarant must be competent when
he made the declaration
Declaration against interest
Lichauco vs Atlantic, Gulf & Fitzsimmons was the president and true test in reference to the VAA: declaration in favor of
Pacific Co. stockholder of Atlantic when the Pacific reliability of the declaration is not Lichauco, against plaintiff
war broke out. He held shares but some whether it was made ante litem
KEYWRODS: shares, were not fully paid for, but for which he motam , as is the case with
promissory notes, Exhibit 1, had executed promissory notes. When he reference to some classes of
inventory, died, Atlantic filed a claim against his hearsay evidence, whether the
estate which is under the administration declaration was uttered under
of Lichauco. The claim consist of 63, 000 circumstances justifying the
from overdraft which was supported by 2 conclusion that there was no
testimonies and P867.67 for charges probable motive to falsify."
from San Francisco agent of the company.
Atlantic presented testimonies of the
accountant and assistant accountant and
also tried to present the testimonies of
the current president and vice-president-
treasurer of the company but upon
objection of the administrator the trial
court refused to admit their testimony on
that point on the ground that said
witnesses were incompetent under
section 26(c) of Rule 123. For the
administrator, he presented his
testimony and exhibit 1 which is a carbon
copy of the inventory of assets and
liabilities of the conjugal partnership of
Fitzsimmons which is submitted to court
in the divorce proceedings of
Fitzsimmons marriage. Lichauco also
filed a counterclaim for salaries allegedly
due to the deceased during the time of
war and the company is closed.
SC: ruled that TC erred in not admitting

the testimonies of officers and
stockholders. Exhibit 1 is a declaration
against an interest and thus
admissible. See Doctrine
Insofar, at least, as the Fitzsimmons was
concerned, there was no probable motive
on the part of Fitzsimmons to falsify his
inventory Exhibit 1 by not including
therein Atlantic’s present claim of
P63,000 among his obligations or
liabilities to be deducted from the assets
of the conjugal partnership between him
and his divorced wife. It would even be
unfavorable to him because such
liabilities will be borne by him alone.
Hence, Exhibit 1, insofar as the
ommission therefrom of the claim in
question was concerned, far from being
self-serving to, was a declaration against
the interest of, the declarant
Fitzsimmons. He having since died and
therefore no longer available as a
witness, said document was correctly
admitted by the trial court in evidence.

The claim of 63, 000 was not duly proven
but the claim of P867.67 was sufficiently
prove. The deceased is not entitled to the
salaries claimed.
People vs Toledo Sisendo Holgado and Filomeno Morales Sworn statement should have been First view: The view of CJ
engaged in a bolo duel in the morning of admitted in evidence as part of res Avancena and Justice Villamor.
KEYWORDS: hemp, June 15, 1927. The two had had disputes gestae because it was made by 1. The admissibility of Exhibit 1
uprooted, land dispute, bolo about the occupation of a certain land in Holgado on the same morning that should not be discussed.
duel, sworn statement Pinamalayan, Mindoro. Filomeno Morales the fight occurred and without the 2. Look at other pieces of evidence,
died as a result of the duel. Sisendo interval of sufficient time for they all point to acquittal. The
Holgado was seriously wounded but was reflection contradictions in the testimony for
able to proceed to a neighboring house. the prosecution pointed out by the
But before reaching said house, Sisendo The declaration fulfilled the test of trial judge do not impress the
met one of his workers named Eugenio the facts talking through the party members of the SC.
Toledo, who accompanied him to the and not the party talking about the 3. There being one witness for the
neighboring house owned by Dalmacio facts prosecution who, on account of her
Manlisic. From the neighboring house, relations with MORALES, and land
Holgado was taken to the municipal J. Malcom quoting editor of LRA troubles, might be expected to
building where he made a sworn 1. So long therefore as a declarant exaggerate.
statement before the municipal is available as a witness, his
president, in which he declared that extrajudicial statement should Second view: The view of Justice
only he and Morales fought. About one not be heard. Romualdez and Justice Villareal
month later, Sisendo Holgado died from 2. Where, however, the declarant is 1. Exhibit 1 should have been
the wounds received in fight. dead or has disappeared, his admitted as part of the res
previous statements, out of court, if gestae.
CFI Mindoro found Eugenio Toledo guilty not inadmissible on other grounds,
of the crime of homicide. are the best evidence. But they are Third view : The view of Messrs.
not rendered inadmissible by Justices Street, Malcolm, and
SC: Toledo's counsel raised the issue of the mere fact that the declarant Ostrand.
the admissibility of Holgado's sworn is unavailable, — something else The CFI erred in not admitting
statement/ affidavit before the municipal is necessary. One fact which will Exhibit 1 as a statement of a fact
president. The SC acquitted Holgado and satisfy this necessity is that the against penal interest.
stated that the affidavit should be declaration is or was against the
declarant's interest, and this is
admitted as a statement of a fact against because no sane person will be
penal interest. presumed to tell a falsehood to
his own detriment.
First anomaly: Admissions are receivable 3. Again, if, seems indisputable, the
against either a pecuniary or a desire to close the door to
proprietary interest, but not against a falsehood which cannot be
penal interest. detected dictates the exclusion of
such testimony, the question as to
J. Malcolm: why it can be believed that a the effect to be given to such a
man will be presumed to tell the truth in confession is solely one of
the one instance but will not be weight and credibility
presumed to tell the truth in the other
instance. Again the exhibit would have
been admitted against its maker at his
trial, if he had not died. But the document
is held inadmissible to exonerate another.
Yet the truth of the exhibit is not different
in the first case that in the second.
Second Anomaly: Confession of the 3rd

person was not given under oath
J. Malcolm: It was under oath because it

was in a sworn statement.
Exhibit 1 should have been received not
as conclusive evidence of innocence, but
as evidence to be taken into
consideration in connection with the
other proven facts.
Fuentes Jr. vs CA Fuentes Jr was convicted in the lower REQUISITES Declaration of Zoilo in favor of
courts of the murder of Julieto Malaspina. 1. declarant must not be able to accused, against prosecution
KEYWORDS: benefit dance, In his defense, Fuentes presents, among testify
hunting knife, cousin, others, the alleged confession of his 2. declaration must concern a fact VAA: There was supposedly a
“Jonie”, San Isidro, boxing cousin, Zoilo Fuentes Jr., that the latter cognizable by the declarant declaration against interest made
match, untrustworthy, not killed Malaspina, which should be by Zoilo to the common uncle in
unable to testify admitted as a declaration against penal the presence of the accused.
interest hence an exception to the 3. the circumstances must render it DAI has the criteria on the rule
hearsay rule. improbable that a motive to falsify itself. Trustworthiness and
existed necessity are part of the rationale
RTC: convicted him of murder qualified why it should be admitted.
by treachery. Unable to testify BUT features of the particular
-mere absence from jurisdiction exception does not mention the
CA: affirmed RTC does not make him ipso facto same.
unavailable under Sec. 38. There is Unavailability is one of the criteria
SC disagreed. The alleged confession must be evidence showing that he which was not satisfied. To be
cannot be admitted into evidence. SC is either dead, mentally considered unavailable, must be:
sustained conviction. incapacitated or physically -dead
Inconsistencies in testimonies were incompetent. -mentally incapacitated
inconsequential. -physically incompetent (VAA:
Petitioner’s own witness claimed that Depends. If for example, can be
he saw the killing and testified that deposed, this would not fall under
petitioner and “Jonie” was the same the exceptions)
person Zoilo’s statement was in favor of
Toledo case not applicable in this case accused,
because there is patent
untrustworthiness in the statement. Alleged declaration against
Declarant is related to the accused and interest:
had motive to prevaricate. -he confessed that he killed
Assuming that the stament is admitted Malaspina in retaliation
and the accused is acquitted. Then Zolio -showed the knife used
is later on captured  he repudiates the -asked help in finding a lawyer
admission of guilt  nothing can bind -asked help in securing bail
Zolio legally to the statement. -possible settlement with the
Declarant was NOT unable to testify. relatives of the victim
There is no showing that he is either
dead, mentally incapacitated or
physically incompetent. His mere absence
from jurisdiction does not make him ipso
facto unavailable under Sec. 38. It is
incumbent upon the defense to produce
each and every piece of evidence that can

break the prosecution and assure the
acquittal of the accused
People vs Bernal While Openda and Racasa were having a Motive is generally irrelevant, Declaration in favor of prosecution,
drinking spree they invited Bernal to join unless it is utilized in establishing against Bernal
KEYWORDS: Kidnapping, them. After a few minutes, Bernal left. the identity of the perpetrator.
Drinking spree, Billiard hall, Thereafter, 2 persons representing Coupled with enough VAA: Two R130.38
handcuffs, affair, childhood themselves as policemen asked Openda if circumstantial evidence or facts Declaration not being presented to
friend, policemen, marijuana he is “Payat”. When he answered in the from which it ma be reasonably pin down declarant.
pushers, affirmative, a handgun was pointed at inferred that the accused was the DAIs are introduced in court
him. He was handcuffed and taken away. malefactor, motive may be because it is in favor of one and
Defense asserted that victim was a drug sufficient to support a conviction. adverse against one, not with
pusher that’s why he was taken by the respect to the declarant.
police. With the deletion of the phrase
He was not yet found until the resolution “pecuniary or moral interest” from Criteria:
of this case. The prosecution, based on the present Sec. 38, it is safe to (1) that the declarant is dead or
the testimony of Enriquez that Openda assume that “declaration against unable to testify;
confided to him that Openda has an interest” has been expanded to (2) that it relates to a fact against
affair with the wife of Bernal, alleged include all kinds of interest, that is, the interest of the declarant;
that the infidelity of Bernal’s wife was pecuniary, proprietary, moral, or (3) that at the time he made said
sufficient motive for him to commit even penal. declaration the declarant was
the crime. aware that the same was contrary
to his aforesaid interest; and
The LC ruled that Bernal was guilty (4) that the declarant had no
beyond reasonable doubt based on the motive to falsify and believed such
testimonies of the 4 witnesses presented declaration to be true.
by the prosecution.
SC affirmed the LC ruling and ruled that

Openda, Jr.'s revelation to Enriquez
(tailor and friend of Openda) regarding
his illicit relationship with Bernal's wife
is admissible in evidence, pursuant to
Section 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence.

Parel vs Prudencio Prudencio filed a complaint for recovery Reason for admissibility of VAA: Probative value is because it
of possession against Parel. Prudencio declaration against interest  happens to be that the successors-
KEYWORDS: forbes claims that he is the owner of a two- necessity of the occasion renders in-interest is a party.
reservation in Baguio, house, storey residential house in Baguio. When the reception of such evidence Both .38 and .31, no conflict
2nd floor, co-owner, tax it was being constructed, Prudencio advisable and further that he
declaration, affidavit, offer of allowed Florentino Parel and his family to reliability of such declaration 1973- affidavit
evidence live in it in order to supervise the asserts facts which are against his 1988- Florentino’s death
construction. Prudencio allowed Parel to own pecuniary or moral interest
reside in this house even after the
construction was already finished out of Declaration against interest is the
sheer magnanimity to the Parels. best evidence which affords the
Florentino died so now only his children greatest certainty of the facts in
live in the house. After sometime, dispute.
Prudencio already needed the house so
he asked that Parels to vacate. Parels Formal offer of evidence is
refused claiming that their father was a necessary because it is the duty of
co-owner of the house hence they had a a judge to rest his finding of fats
right to the house. Florentino Parel and judgment only and strictly
however during his lifetime executed an upon the evidence offered by the
affidavit saying that Prudencio was the parties to the suit
owner of the house.
RTC: ruled that there was co-ownership.

-house was in Florentino’s land
-Florentino administered the
construction of the house and supplied
the materials
-Respondent only questioned ownership
after 15 years
-affidavit of Florentino declaring that
the house was owned by respondent
was rejected  affidavit must be read in
its entirety to determine the purpose of
its execution  executed because of an
advisement addressed to the late
Florentino by the City Treasurer
concerning the property’s tax assessment
 Florentino thought that it should be
respondent who should pay the taxes
-Affidavit is also hearsay
CA: reversed decision and declared

respondent as owner. Affidavit of the
Father was conclusive proof of
repondent’s sole ownership of the house
since it was declaration against
Florentino’s interest
SC: ruled in favor of Prudencio based on

preponderance of evidence, among which
is the affidavit. The affidavit of Florentino
Parel was a declaration against his
interest hence an exemption to the
hearsay rule.
-didn’t revoke statement even after filing
of cases (trespass to dwelling & unlawful
detainer)
-building plan was in the name of the
respondent and his wife
-respondent was religiously paying real
estate property taxes
-petitioner during cross-exam said they
never paid real estate taxes nor declared
any portion of the house in their name
-
Philippine Free Press vs CA PFPI bought parcel of land and VAA: We proceed on the premise
constructed a building on it. Placed that ownership had already been
machineries, equipment and furniture. transferred to PCGG
KEYWORDS: Parcel of land, During the 1965 elections (Marcos vs Res Inter Alios Acta present -
office, machineries, election, Macapagal) PFPI published articles Declaration of Baesa is an
Marcos, articles, padlock, critical of Marcos before Martial Law. Its
Martial Law, financial ruin, building was later on padlocked. Locsin “admission” of somebody else –
vitiated consent and gross Jr., son of Locsin SR. (pres. of PFPI) was declaration dragging Marcos.
inadequacy of purchase told by soldiers that Martial Law has been During Martial Law, would he have
price declared. needed evidence aliunde to show
Locsin Sr. was arrested but was that he was acting on behalf of
provisionally released because no Marcos? NO
charges were filed against him.
The building remained padlocked and Agency is agency.
under heavy military guard.  lead to
financial ruin of PFPI. The employees Menzi:
demanded for separation pay and “MARCOS CANNOT BE DENIED”
minority stockholders demanded Locsin “NO CHOICE BUT TO SELL”
Sr. to buy out their shares.
-Approached by Att. Baizas  offer from October 23, 1973: Deeds of sale
Marcos to buy property  denied execution
-Sec. De Vera reiterated offer Prescription: 1977 (4 years)
-Aide-de-camp Brig. Gen. Hans Menzi  February 25, 1986: EDSA
contacted Locsin Sr. about the sale. revolution
Locsin asked for a meting inside the February 26, 1987: institution of
building. While inside, Menzi reiterated complaint for annulment of sale
offer to buy name and building “MARCOS
CANNOT BE DENIED” and that “NO
CHOICE BUT TO SELL”
Locsin made a counteroffer  allow to
sell the properties but not the name
Menzi: promised to clear the matter 
informed him that Marcos was amenable
and offer P5,750,000 on a take it or leave
it. Menzi paid P1M downpayment  used
proceeds to pay employees and
stockholders
After EDSA Revolution, PFPI filed
annulment of sale against Liwayway and
PCGG for vitiated consent and gross
inadequacy of purchase price

RTC: dismissed complaint
CA: affirmed with modification

SC said that the contracts should not be
voided, rejecting the testimonies of the
Locsins to the effect that Menzi made a
declaration against interest that he was
working for the government at that time.
SC said that these testimonies are
hearsay.
Dantis vs Maghinang Rogelio Dantis inherited a parcel of land VAA: Declarant was the
from his father. It was registered under grandfather but he was not talking
KEYWORDS: grandfather, his name and he had been paying taxes about his own interest. He was
affidavit, house and lot, thereon. Julio Maghinang Jr. had been talking about the interest of his
quieting of title, occupying a potion of the property and he son. Not an exception to the
had his house thereon. Dantis filed a case hearsay rule
for quieting of title against Maghinang.
Maghinang presented an affidavit that Exhibit 3: Affidavit by Ignacio
was executed by Ignacio Dantis Dantis. [NOT SIGNED]
(grandfather of Rogelio) saying that Ignacio Dantis (grandfather of
Emilio Dantis (father of Rogelio) agreed Rogelio) executed an affidavit
to sell the lot to Julio Maghinang (father saying that Emilio Dantis (father
of respondent) on installment. He said of Rogelio) agreed to sell the lot
that he owned the house but he admitted to Julio Maghinang (father of
that there was a problem because the respondent) on installment. Julio
affidavit was not signed by Emilio Dantis Maghinang Jr. said he was 11 years
and the receipt he could present was old at that time.
merely a photocopy. The pieces of
evidence he presented were an affidavit Exhibit 3 cannot be a declaration
by Ignacio Dantis and a photocopy of against interest because the
undated handwritten receipt of initial declarant was not the seller
downpayment of P100 issued by Emilio (Emilio) but his father (Ignacio).
to Julio Sr.
RTC: ruled that Rogelio is true owner

based on TCT.
CA: reversed and said that Maghinang is
the owner. The SC reinstated the RTC
decision and ruled that the pieces of
evidence presented by Julio Maghinang
cannot prevail over the documentary and
testimonial evidence adduced by Rogelio.
Exhibit 3 is hearsay because the affiant or
maker did not take the witness stand. It
cannot be a declaration against interest
because the declarant was not the seller
(Emilio) but his father (Ignacio). Exhibit 4
is secondary evidence for being a mere
photocopy. Julio‖s testimony was riddled
with improbabilities and contradictions
which then to erode his credibility and
raise doubt on the veracity of his
evidence. Moreover, there is no perfected
contract of sale in this case. Based on
exhibit 4, the subject, price and mode of
payment were lacking
Pedigree
Mendoza vs CA Teopista filed a case for compulsory Francisco  requisites for an act VAA: two out of court declarations
recognition against Casimiro, alleging or declaration regarding pedigree Casimiro Mendoza Mendoza
KEYWORDS: Compulsory that she is an illegitimate child of the may be admitted
recognition, illegitimate latter. Teopista grounded her claim on 1. the declarant is dead or unable Illegitimacy
child, Papa Miroy, art. 283 of CC, particularly, that she is in a to testify Isaac’s testimony on declaration of
substitution, continuous possession of status of a child. 2. the pedigree must be in issue his father and grandmother
She then cited several pieces of evidence 3. The declarant must be a relative
to prove her claim, and presented of the person whose pedigree is in Review provisions on legitimate
witnesses. One of the witnesses was Isaac issue and illegitimate children:
Mendoza, nephew of Casimiro, who 4. the declaration must be made
claimed that his father and grandmother before the controversy arose Art 283 of the Civil Code
told him that Teopista was Casimiro’s 5. The relationship between the Art 172 of the Family Code
child. Casimiro, 91 yrs old at the time of declarant and the person whose Art 175 of the Family Code
the case, denied the claim. pedigree is in question must be
shown by evidence other than such
RTC: ruled that continuous possession declaration Other means that establish filiation
was not proved. Because -baptismal certificate
-continuously lived with her mother -judicial admission
-neither the Teopista nor her husband -family bible in which his name has
had come to live with Casmiro  at most, been entered
only their son Lolito -common reputation respecting his
-Casmioro never spent for support and pedigree
education of the plaintiff -other kinds of proof admissible
-did not allow plaintiff to carry his under Rules of Court
surname
-instances wherein Casmiro gave money
were off-and-on or rather isolatedly
periodic
-money was not given to her directly but
through 3rd persons
While it is conceded that

-Casmiro’s parents told Gaudencio and
Isaac Mendoza that she is the daughter of
Casmiro
-She would call Casmiro as Papa Miroy
-Teopista would kiss his hand when she
met him
-Casmito gave to her and her husband
income of the passenger truck as well as
proceeds of the sale thereof
all these acts taken together were not
sufficient to show that plaintiff possessed
continuously the status of a recognized
illegitimate child
CA: ruled that it was proven. Witnesses

for Teopista were credible and unbiased
 disinterested parties. While Vicente
was an interested party who was
claiming to be the sole recognized natural
child of Casmiro and stood to lose much
inheritance if Teopista;s claim were
recognized
An MR was filed and only from the

opposition of Teopista did the
respondent of Casmiro learn that his
client had died 2 years before the
promulgation of the CA decision.
Counsel asked that Vicente Toring
substitutes Vicente in the present
petition
SC: ruled that it was not proven by the

pieces of evidence presented by Teopista.
Not open and continuous possession of
the status of an illegitimate child
-lived her mother
-reside in the same city as Casmiro
- not unusual for the father and the
legitimate child to take the illegitimate
child especially if childless
-Vicente (illegitimate child) lived with
Casmiro and his wife
-did not use the surname of Casmiro
-giving of money was on-and-off
-it was Teopista’s mother who
supported her and paid for her
education
However, it can be proven through

another method, which in this case was
the testimony of Isaac. The SC used sec.
39 of rule 130 and the 5 safeguards
mentioned in Francisco’s commentary, to
rule that Teopista was Casimiro’s
illegitimate child.
Jison vs CA This is a case filed by one Monina Jison The scope of the enumeration VAA: Opportunity is the collateral
for contained in the second portion of matter proven
recognition as an illegitimate child of [Sec. 40, Rule 130], in light of the R130.31
KEYWORDS: affidavit, Francisco Jison who is married to Lilia rule of ejusdem generis, is limited Not RIAA. Hearsay
Lopez Jison. Monina alleged that she is to objects which are commonly Family tree involving Jison,
the daughter of Francisco who known as “family possessions,” or hearsay?
impregnated her mother Esperanza F. those articles which represent, in Hearsay but admissible under
Amolar, who was then employed as the effect, a family’s joint statement of 130.40.
nanny of Francisco’s daughter. She claims its belief as to the pedigree of a Clarify if family tree is ante litem
that she has openly and continuously person. These have been described motam or if made for the purpose o
possessed the status of an illegitimate as objects “openly exhibited and litigation
child of Francisco and that Francisco had well known to the family,” or those Reputation – repeated patterns of
also openly and continuously recognized “which, if preserved in a family, acts; conglomeration of different
her as such. may be regarded as giving a family kinds of acts to show that there is
tradition.” Other examples of these an attitude or climate, more than
RTC: categorized Monina’s many pieces objects which are regarded as mere habit
of evidence as hearsay evidence, reflective of a family’s reputation -ongoing generational thing
incredulous evidence, or self-serving or tradition regarding pedigree are Cannot be admitted under .39
evidence and ruled against Monina while inscriptions on tombstones, because there is no showing that
the Court of Appeals decided in favour of monuments or coffin plates. Cuaycong is dead or cannot testify
Monina and declared her to be the
illegitimate daughter of Francisco. Family charts, books and tables
form part of the second part of .40.
CA: ruled that the testimonies of Monina’s - Passed from generation to
witnesses were sufficient to establish generation, can be admitted as
Monina’s filiation. evidence of pedigree (Jison v CA)
----
SCOPE OF ENUMERATION IN 2ND

PORTION
Relevant evidence
1.The letters of introduction
(Exhs. S and T) Monina procured
from a cousin, Mike Alano (son
of Francisco’s elder sister Luisa);
and an uncle, Emilio Jison
(Francisco’s elder brother),
addressed to another cousin,
Beth Jison (Emilio Jison’s
daughter), for Beth to assist
Monina. Exhibit S contained a
statement (Exh. S-1) expressly
recognizing that Monina was
Francisco’s daughter. [These
letters were procured in
connection with Monina’s trip
abroad, which she eventually
cancelled.]
2.A letter of introduction from
former Vice President Fernando
Lopez addressed to then United
States Consul Vernon McAnnich
(Exh. V). [This was procured for
another trip abroad after she
finished her graduate studies.]
3. A recommendation letter (Exh.
U) from Mrs. Mariquit Lopez for
possible employment with Mrs.
Rosario Lopez Cooper, another
second cousin of Francisco.
-certifications of the Local Civil

Registrar (Exhs. E and F) and
-Baptismal Certificates (Exhs. C
and D)
Solinap vs Locsin Juan Locsin, Jr., claiming to be an -A certificate of life birth duly VAA: Question is not credibility
acknowledged natural child of the late recorded in the Local Civil Registry, with admissibility. Photos are
Juan Locsin, Sr,, filed a petition for letters a copy of which is transmitted to admissible but giving them
of administration. The other heirs of Juan, the Civil Registry General pursuant probative value would be different.
KEYWORD: Certificate of live Sr. opposed, contending that Juan, Jr. was to the Civil Registry Law, is prima ’57, not ’56 because even though
birth, revised form, forgery, never acknowledged by Juan, Sr. facie evidence of the facts therein born in ’56, it was registered ’57.
bound, pasted, signature To support his contention, Juan, Jr stated. However, if there are
presented a carbon copy of his Certificate material discrepancies between Register – book
of Live Birth wherein Juan, Sr. signed as them, the one entered in the Civil Registrar – person
his father. He also presented a picture of Registry General prevails Registry – office
himself with his mother, standing in front -Roces vs Local Civil Registrar: Sec ----
of the coffin of Juan, Sr. The oppositors 5 of Act 3753 and Art 280 of Civil Evidence of forgery
also presented a certified true copy of a code explicitly prohibit, not only -used a December 1 1958 form for
Certificate of Live Birth of Juan, Jr. the naming of the father of the a birth registered in 1957
which did not contain Juan, Sr’s child born out of wedlock, when -the back cover bound volume was
signature. the birth certificate, or the torn
recognition, is not filed or made -the certificate of live birth is
SC: ruled in favor of the oppositors. It by him, but also, the statement of merely pasted and not sewn like
gave more credence to the Certificate of any information or the other entries
Live Birth offered by oppositors. Since he circumstances by which he could -documents bound in the book
is not related to Juan Locsin, he is not an be identified. Accordingly, the were all originals while the
interested party, therefore he cannot Local Civil Registrar had no certificate of live birth was a
petition for the issuance of letters of authority to make or record the photocopy
administration paternity of an illegitimate child -the other records were
upon the information of a third typewritten while the certificate of
person and the certificate of birth live birth was handwritten
of an illegitimate child, when -space which calls for an entry of
signed only by the mother of the the legitimacy of the child is blank
latter, is incompetent evidence of -on the back of the certificate, the
fathership of said child signature of the alleged father but
-Fernandez vs CA: a birth the blanks calling for the date and
certificate not signed by the other details of his Residence
alleged father is not competent Certificate were not filled up
evidence of paternity -when asked to explain about the
torn back cover, the local registrar
only said he is not aware of this
because he is not a bookbinder
-for the pasting  sometimes
leaves get detached so they paste it
 but there was no explanation
why that particular certificate was
the one that was pasted
Tecson vs Comelec Petitioners sought to disqualify and to VAA: Evidentiary principle (judicial
deny due course or to cancel the notice) which applies to the fact
KEYWORDS: FPJ certificate of candidacy of respondent surrounding the death of the
Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) in the grandfather.
presidential elections upon the thesis Death Certificate showed that
that he made a material representation of residence in Pangasinan in 1954.
facts in his certificate of candidacy by Residence of the death is presumed
claiming that he is a natural-born Filipino to be the residence at the time
citizen. According to petitioners, FPJ’s when he is alive.
mother was an American, and his father,
Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being As to the admissibility of the
the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. contents,
The Court ruled that upon the ratification Not strictly judicial proceeding –
of the treaty, and pending legislation by administrative. Rules of evidence
the United States on the subject, the might not be strictly applied.
native inhabitants of the Philippines
ceased to be Spanish subjects. Although Which court has original
they did not become American citizens, jurisdiction – COMELEC or SC, was
they, however, also ceased to be “aliens” it settled? SC did not solve the
under American laws and were thus jurisdictional issue
issued passports describing them to be
citizens of the Philippines entitled to the Factum probandum is the
protection of the United States. Tracing relationship of Allan to FPJ but that
respondent’s paternal lineage, his relationship is a sine qua non in a
grandfather Lorenzo, as evidenced by the pedigree .39 situation.
latter’s death certificate, was identified as If Ruby is the out of court
a Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also declarant, still wouldn’t apply
drawn from the presumption that having because she is not dead/unable to
died in 1954 at the age of 84, Lorenzo testify
would have been born in 1890. In the Bessy’s relationship can be
absence of any other evidence, Lorenzo’s established by evidence aliunde.
place of residence upon his death in 1954 If Bessy is the out of court
was presumed to be the place of declarant regarding the pedigree of
residence prior his death, such that Allan, then Allan’s pedigree
Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from relationship with FPJ can be
the "en masse Filipinization" that the established. Bessy cannot testify as
Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. This she was abroad. .39 defect is cured.
being so, Lorenzo’s citizenship would
have extended to his son, Allan,
respondent’s father. An accepted
principle of international law dictated
that a change in sovereignty, while
resulting in an abrogation of all political
laws then in force, would have no effect
on civil laws, which would remain
virtually intact.
Gravador vs Mamigo Gravador was the principal of the Sta. A persons’s statement as to his VAA:
Catalina Elementary School. On August date of birth and age, as he learned .40 – Family tradition because he
15, 1964, the Superintendent of Schools of these from his parents or learned of his birthday from his
KEYWORDS: retirement, notified him that he was required to relatives, is an ante litem motam family and relatives
principal, birthday retire since he had reached the declaration of family tradition
compulsory age of 65. The .39 – Declaration of the brother in
Superintendent asserted, based on pre- the verified pleading in the
war records, that his birthday was cadastral case.
November 26, 1897 and so Gravador
was 66 years old 8 months and 22 days. ----
Mamigo was designated to replace Affidavits
Gravador. Gravador submitted post-war Lazaro Bandoquillo & Pedro Sienes
documents to show that his birthday was -knew he was born on Dec 11,
December 11, 1901 and that he was not 1901 because they were neighbors
65 yet. He later filed a case for quo of petitioner’s parents
warranto, back pay, and damages against -they were present when Gravador
the Superintendent and Mamigo, among was born
others. -they were also invited during the
baptismal party a few weeks after
CFI: ruled in favor of Gravador stating the birth of Gravador
that he was born on Dec 11 1901 and
immediate execution was ordered which Conflict:
resulted in the reinstatement of Gravador
-pre-war records show his date of
Respondents appealed but petitioner birth as Nov 26, 1987.  2 Insular
asked for dismissal because the issues Teacher’s cards and 1 employee’s
were already moot  he retired already record card
and was paid corresponding retirement -post-war records show that he
benefits was born on Dec 11 1901 
Elementary Teacher’s Report Card,
SC affirmed CFI. Court deemed it Employee’s Record Card, and an
necessary to decide on the case for the employee’s record of qualifications
computation of retirement annuities
which is based, among other things, on Aggravating uncontroverted facts
the number of years of service of the -records of the church where the
retiree. Payment of benefits would not petitioner was baptized were
exempt him from making a refund if he destroyed by fire
was born on November 26, 1987. -the municipal civil register
contains no record of the
CFI correctly relied on the post-war petitioner’s birth
records
1) Moran: although a person can have no verified answer in a cadastral
personal knowledge of the date of his proceeding in CFI filed (March
birth, he may testify as to his age as he 15, 1924) by petitioner’s brother
had learned it from his parents and (Romulo Gravador), now
relatives and his testimony in such case is deceased  stated that
an assertion of a family tradition petitioner, said to be as one of
2) the import of the declaration of the the co-owners of the land, was at
petitioner’s brother, contained in the the time 23 years old
ceriifed pleading in a cadastral case, was
made ante litem motam by a deceased
relative, this statement is at once a
declaration regarding the pedigree within
the intendment and meaning of Sec 33 of
Rule 130 of ROC
3) parties agreed that the petitioner has
a brother (Constantino) who was born in
June 10, 1898 who retired on June 10
1963. Petitioner could not have been
born earlier than Constantino because
Constantino s admittedly older than
Petitioner
People vs Villanueva FIRST OCCASION: BBB with her parents -When a rape victim testifies in a Also mentioned People vs Pruna
and 3 brothers spent the night at her straightforward and candid
aunt’s house. Her mother left to attend manner, unshaken by rigid cross- Also includes best evidence rule
KEYWORDS: rape, water, the wake. While inside her room with her examination and unflawed by
brothers (who were sleeping), BBB asked inconsistencies, or contradictions
for a glass of water from appellant on material points, the testimony
Filomino Villanueva. After drinking, she should be given full faith and credit
felt dizzy. She woke up the following day - in view of intrinsic nature of rape,
and her breast and vagina were aching the only evidence that can be
but she did not do anything because she offered to prove the guilt of the
thought she had been bitten by ants. offender is the testimony of the
SECOND OCCASION: around 12mn while offended party
BBB and her brothers were inside their
room sleeping, Vilanueva went inside,
raised BBB’s blouse up to her neck and
sucked her breast. He pulled her shorts
and panty up to her thighs, kissed her
lips, went on top of her, and inserted his
penis into her vagina. He then told her he
would kill her and her family if she
reported the matter to anyone.
She told her mother when she got
pregnant. Her mother cried and got mad.
She later on gave birth and had the child
adopted by her cousin
Defense
-watched TV with children in sister-in-
law’s house while she and his wife went
to a wake
-Wife slept between him and BBB
-denied that BBB asked for water because
all the children were asleep
-no serious problems with wife  only
who would cook in mornings
-no misunderstandings with BBB
-did not file counteraffidavit because he
was surprised and “they” hurt him  but
did not report matter to anyone
RTC: acquitted Villanueva in the first case

but convicted him of rape in the 2nd case.
Prosecution failed to establish first
element of rape (sexual intercourse) in
the first case.
In the 2nd case  testimony of BBB was
clear, frank and concvincing. BBB had no
ill motive to file a false case against
Villanueva.
Villanueva did not question conviction

but questioned penalty because inority
was not proven  mere photox of birth
cert. and not a certified true copy.
CA: affirmed RTC. Minority was

specifically alleged in the information and
was duly proven during trial
SC: RA 9346 already abolished death

penalty. No reason to overturn ruling
because victim narrated in spontaneous
and straightforward manner how
Villanueva defiled her. Appellant also no
longer questioned his conviction and
merely prayed for a lesser penalty
#4 in Pruna

When victim was asked when she was
born, BBB answered Jan 23 1983 and the
appellant did not offer any objection to
her testimony
During cross-examination of BBB,
appellant’s counsel referred to her age as
15 years old at the time of the incident
The fact of minority was further

established by the victim’s certificate of
live birth, albeit a mere photocopy of the
original
-SC cited cases wherein they gave weight
to a photocopied birth cert.
-also in this case, appellant did not
dispute the contents of the photocopy.
People vs Flores Flores was charged before the RTC of -For minority to be considered as a AGE
Raping a minor, 13 years of age. He is the qualifying circumstance in the
stepfather of the victim, being the crime of rape, it must not only be
KEYWORDS: qualified rape, common-law spouse of her mother, and alleged in the Information, but it
bladed weapon, Sweetheart the rape was committed in full view of must also be established with
defense, minority, the victim’s mother. moral certainty
-People vs Pruna
RTC: found him guilty and imposed the -original certificate or certified
penalty of death. He appealed to the CA true copy of certificate of live birth
stating that the victim was already 19 -similar authentic document
years old at the time and presented the (baptismal certificate/school
Certification of the Municipal Civil records)
Registrar of Quezon. -clear and credible testimony of
the mother or other member of the
CA: agreed with Flores that the victim family either by affinity or
was not a minor at the time but affirmed consanguinity who is qualified to
the judgment due to it being committed testify on the matters respecting
in full view of the mother. It imposed pedigree such as exact age or date
however the penalty of reclusion of birth of the offended party (sec
perpetua pursuant to RA 9346. 40 Rule 130)
-if victim is alleged to be below
SC: affirmed the CA decision. 3 yrs old  what sought to be
proved is that she is less than 7
years old
-if victim is alleged to be below 7
yrs old  what sought to be
proved is that she is less than 12
years old
-if victim is alleged to be below
12 yrs old  what sought to be
proved is that she is less tan 18
years old
-complainant’s testimony
provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused
-it is the prosecution that has the
burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the
accused to object to the testimonial
evidence regarding age shall not be
taken against him
People vs Cayabyab
KEYWORDS: Rape
Common Reputation
In Re Mallare Then acting Immigration Commissioner -declaration that a person was Illegitimacy of Esteban
Martiniano Vito filed a complaint against reputedly born out of wedlock is Non-existence of wedding between
Florencio Mallare, who was admitted to admissible as evidence of Ana and an alien
KEYWORDS: Citizenship, the Phil. Bar, to determine whether his illegitimacy
Philippine Bar, Tagalog, names should be stricken from the roll of -
campaigning, voting, hilot, persons authorized to practice law in the
birth certificate, Phils. The Court ordered an investigation
of his citizenship, and after investigation
of the Court’s Legal Officer Investigator, it
decided that Mallare’s father (Esteban)
was Chinese up to his death and his
mother is also Chinese so Mallare is
Chinese.
Florencio was excluded from the practice
of law, his admission to the bar was
revoked and he was ordered to return his
lawyer’s diploma
Mallare filed MR but was denied. He filed
petition for new trial because of newly
found evidence
1) entry in the registry of baptism if
Immaculate Concepcion Church  to
show that Esteban was the natural son of
Anna Mallare (a Filipina)
2) testimonies of certain person who had
known Esteban and his mother during
their lifetime
the Court granted petition for new trial
Florencio’s arguments
1) Esteban, being the natural son of Ana,
a Filipina, was a Filipino citizen
2) Esteban, the son of a Filipino mother,
by his overt acts, had chosen Phil.
Citizenship
3) Florencio, a legitimate son of Esteban,
is a Filipino citizen
Res Gestae
Air France vs Carrascoso Carrascoso was ousted against his will
from his first class seat to the tourist class
by a manager of Air France during a flight
from Bangkok to Beirut. He sued for
breach of contract. In his testimony, he
testified that the purser of the plane took
note of the incident. The counsel for Air
France objected to the testimony as
incompetent to prove the fact that the
purser entered the incident in his note,
and that the best evidence is the note
itself. The SC ruled that, since the object
of the testimony is the ouster, not the
entry, the best evidence rule does not
apply. In any case, it is admissible as part
of res gestae.
People vs Reyes Gatchalian, Austria, Pedro, Eusebio,
Marcelo, Gervasio and Peping shot 3
members of the military police. Two died
and the other suffered serious physical
injuries. Reyes became a witness for the
prosecution and testified that he heard
Gervasio and Gatchalian declare that they
were sure that the MP they shot was
dead. CFI convicted them. SC affirmed
People vs Dela Cruz Dela Cruz was charged with homicide for
killing Fr. Vicente Garabato. Aside from
the witness testimonies who testified that
they were with Fr. Garabato at the time
he was killed, the TC appreciated the
police investigation report of SPO3
Patriarca. According to his police report,
he asked the spectators as to who shot
the victim and the spontaneous response
he got was "Yun hong pulis na nakatira sa
tapat. TC appreciated this as res gestae
People vs Cariquez Ava, Ethel’s mother, and Leezel, Ava’s
live-in partner, allegedly caused several
injuries to Ethel, a 2 ½ year old girl.
Ethel’s severe head injuries eventually
caused her death. A long time before her
death, Lilia and several neighbors of Ava
asked the child who caused the injuries.

Ethel told them on different dates that it
was Leezel and Ava. The 2 accused argues
that such statement of Ethel to the
witnesses is Hearsay.
People vs Tampus Tampus and Avila were convicted of
killing Saminado, while the latter was in
the toilet at the national penitentiary. The
killing was related to a gang dispute in
the prison. When they came out of the
toilet, they surrendered to a prison guard,
saying “Surrender po kami, sir. Gumanti
lang po kami.” They were investigated
during the day of the incident. Another
investigation was conducted 2 days after,
where they executed extrajudicial
confessions. They pleaded guilty and
confirmed their confessions as witnesses
during the trial. In the automatic review
of Tumpas’ death sentence, his
investigation during the investigation
held right after the incident was assailed
as contrary to his constitutional rights.
The SC disregarded this, ruling that even
before said investigation, they already
admitted to the crime when they came
out of the toilet. The SC considered their
statement to the prison guard as res
gestae
People vs Sace The accused was charged with the crime
of rape with homicide. The RTC and CA
found him guilty of the said crime. On
September 9, 1999, at around 7pm, the
victim was inside their house with her
10-year old brother BBB and a nephew,
who was till a toddler, when the accused
suddenly showed up. The accused came
from a drinking spree. The victim told the
accused to leave but the accused did not
heed her. The accused made sexual
advances on the victim. Subsequently, the
accused pulled a bladed weapon from his
pocket. The victim ran upstairs to the
second level of their house. The brother
of the victim heard the accused ordering
the victim to remove her clothes,
otherwise, the accused will stab her.
When the victim’s mother and her
companions arrived, they found the
accused bloodied. When the brgy. officials
arrived at the victim’s house, the accused
admitted that he raped and killed the
victim. The same confession was
obtained by the Brgy. Tanod. The
confession of the accused was admissible
for being part of the res gestae. The SC
found the accused guilty of the crime of
rape with homicide.
People vs Lauga Antonio Lauga was charged with
Qualified Rape for allegedly raping his 13
year old daughter. Before the filing of the
case, he was brought to the police station
where he allegedly confessed to a “bantay
bayan” that he did rape his daughter
because he “could not control himself”.
During pre-trial conference, both parties
also stipulated and admitted to the
minority of the victim and her
relationship to the appllant. The RTC and
CA later convicted him. When the case
was brought to the SC, one of the errors
he imputed to the trial court was the
admission into evidence of his alleged
extrajudicial confession. SC held that his
extrajudicial confession, being made
without the assistance of counsel, was
inadmissible. However, given the other
evidence presented by the prosecution,
Lauga was still adjudged guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of qualified rape. As to
the presence of qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship, such
stipulation and admission are binding
because they are judicial admissions
within the contemplation of Sec. 4, Rule
129.
People vs Tulagan Marlon was stabbed and killed after
being chased by at least 2 men, Eding and
Satsoy. He fled, was supposedly followed
by Satsoy, et al., and by a witness,
Bonifacio. However, nobody saw him
actually being stabbed. His lifeless body
was just found in front of somebody
else’s yard. An information was filed
against Eding, Satsoy, Ramon, and Romie,
on the strength of the statements given
by Bonifacio, the Barangay Captain, and
Natalia, the Barangay Captain’s Daughter.
The trial proceeded against Romie, who
was the only one among the accused who
was actually arrested. During the trial,
Natalia testified that after the killing had
apparently been carried out, Satsoy and 2
other companions went to her store –
allegedly, Satsoy told her that “we killed
him.” The Trial Court convicted Romie of
murder, holding that the statement given
by Satsoy was admissible as part of the
res gestae. The Supreme Court reversed
the trial court and acquitted Romie – the
Court held that the statement was not
admissible as part of the res gestae: there
was no showing that it was made
immediately after the killing, and there
was no showing that Satsoy’s state was
such that his statement was given
spontaneously and involuntarily.
DBP Pool vs Radio Mindanao Radio Mindanao was insured by DBP
Pool.
Radio’s building was razed by fire so it
filed a claim with DBP. DBP denied the
claim, saying that it was an excepted risk
under their contract since the fire was
caused by the CPP-NPA.
The TC and CA ruled in favor of Radio

Mindanao.
The SC said that the evidence presented

did not prove that the persons who
caused the fire were indeed CPP-NPA
rebels.
Borromeo vs CA CA reversed its original decision in this Notes taken regarding a
case by admitting evidence which it transaction by a person who is not
earlier declared inadmissible. The appeal a party thereto and who has not
centers on the issue of the admissibility been requested to take down such
of such evidence. notes are not part of res gestae
SC ruled that the evidence is

inadmissible, and that the CA did not
even consider the evidence in a correct
manner. The evidence were not hearsay,
not part of res gestae. The court said they
constitute memoranda (at most) under

rule 132, sec 10 but then nowhere in the
record is there any indication that
Alcantara needed during her testimony
the aid of any memorandum in respect to
the matters contained in the notes in
dispute.
People vs Espinoza Three accused were convicted of murder People vs. Jacolo, the court held Court said the statement of the
of Renato Silvar. The conviction was that: Where conditions of visibility victim was part of res gestae and
KEYWORDS: Murder, based on the testimonies of lone are favorable, and the witness does not dying declaration
hacking, long bolo eyewitness attesting to hearing Renato’s not appear to be biased, his
cries for help and seeing the accused hack assertion as to the identity of the
the victim to death, together with the malefactor should normally be
dying declaration of the victim identifying accepted
the three accused as his assailants. On
appeal to the SC, they invoked several
defenses including the failure of the
prosecution to present the “bolos” used
in the crime which allegedly weakened
the evidence against them.
SC: affirmed their conviction.

-lone witness positively identified the
victims and his house is only 6 feet away
from the scene of the crime. Moon lit the
scene
-Their participation in the merciless
killing is further buttressed by the fact
that before the victim died, he
disclosed to the witnesses the name of
his assailants. Utterances made
immediately after a startling occurrence
and before the declarant had an
opportunity to fabricate a false statement
can be considered as part of the res
gestaepursuant to Sec 42 of the
Revised Rules of Evidence
People vs Gatarin Vicitm Januario was found lying on the
street. SPO3 Mendoza and Coronel
brought him to the hospital. On the way
there, Mendoza asked who hurt him, he
answered that it was Jay-R and his uncle
who stabbed him.


Case Summary Evidence

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case Summary Evidence

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CASE BASIC FACTS DOCTRINE Class notes

RTC: found him guilty BRD of the crime of

During appeal, Molo said that dying

SC: affirmed his conviction. The court

SC: ruled that the dying declaration of

TC: did not admit Bombie’s statement as

SC: acquitted Ramirez. Bombie’s alleged

RTC and CA: convicted him of murder.

SC: upheld his conviction ruling that the

The TC, CA, and SC held such statement as

SC: ruled that TC erred in not admitting

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

Second Anomaly: Confession of the 3rd

J. Malcolm: It was under oath because it

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

SC affirmed the LC ruling and ruled that

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

RTC: ruled that there was co-ownership.

CA: reversed decision and declared

SC: ruled in favor of Prudencio based on

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

CA: affirmed with modification

RTC: ruled that Rogelio is true owner

While it is conceded that

CA: ruled that it was proven. Witnesses

An MR was filed and only from the

SC: ruled that it was not proven by the

However, it can be proven through

SCOPE OF ENUMERATION IN 2ND

-certifications of the Local Civil

RTC: acquitted Villanueva in the first case

Villanueva did not question conviction

CA: affirmed RTC. Minority was

SC: RA 9346 already abolished death

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

The fact of minority was further

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

The TC and CA ruled in favor of Radio

The SC said that the evidence presented

SC ruled that the evidence is

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

SC: affirmed their conviction.

AQUILIZAN D2019 CASE SUMMARY EVIDENCE | PROF. AVENA

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi