Bulacan State University

College of Law

EVIDENCE
CASE DIGESTS

Submitted by:

Zaide Llorico

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 Contents:

I. Salita vs. Magtolis

233 SCRA 100, June 13, 1994

II. W-Red Construction and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

338 SCRA 341, August 17, 2000

III. People vs. Valdez

341 SCRA 25, September 25, 2000

IV. Bongalon vs. Court of Appeals

441 SCRA 553, November 10, 2004

V. People vs. Yatar

428 SCRA 504, May 19, 2004

VI. People vs. Galleno

G.R. No. 123546. July 2, 1998

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 Salita vs. Magtolis
233 SCRA 100, June 13, 1994
J. Bellosillo

A motion for bill of particulars may not call for matters which should form part of the proof of the
complaint upon trial.

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case came before the competent court where he file a petition for
annulment. He alleged that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of their marriage. The respondent was dissatisfied with the allegation,
hence she moved for a bill of particulars. The competent trial court granted the motion.

The petitioner then specifically stated that “she was unable to understand and accept the
demands made by his profession” and she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her
even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job. The respondent was not
contended and argued the “assertion in the Bill of Particulars is a statement of legal conclusion
made by petitioner’s counsel and not an averment of ultimate facts as required by the Rules of
Court. Respondent was still unsatisfied, she then filed a petition for certiorari before Court of
Appeals, but was denied. Hence, an instant petition for review on certiorari, questioning the
resolution of the Court of Appeals denying due course to her petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sufficiency of the allegations the subsequent bill of particulars filed in
amplification of the petition.

HELD:

The court reiterated the definition of “Ultimate facts” which are the substantial facts which
either directly from the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful
acts or omission of the defendant. It refers to acts which the evidence on trial will prove, and not
the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts.

The Supreme Court ruled that on the basis of the allegations, it is evident that petitioner can
already prepare her responsive pleading or for trial. Private respondent has already alleged that
petitioner was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession. To demand
for more details would indeed be asking for information on evidentiary facts necessary to prove
essential or ultimate facts. The additional facts called for by petitioner regarding her particular acts
or omissions would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters is not the function of a motion
for bill of particulars.

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 The supreme court then sustain the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill of
Particulars filed by private respondent is sufficient to state a cause of action, and to require more
details from private respondent would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters.

The court finds no reversible error, the instant petition is denied and the questioned resolution
of respondent Court of Appeals was affirmed.

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 W-Red Construction and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
338 SCRA 341, August 17, 2000
J. Ynares-santiago

Even if only photocopies of documents were submitted to the court, it is not accurate to say that the
original exhibits were not presented where the record shows that the originals of these documents
were presented during the trial.

FACTS:

An action for sum of money and damages, was filed by the respondent before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati due to petitioner’s failure to settle its remaining obligation despite demands.
Petitioner filed its answer, denying receipt of some of the items stated in the sales invoices and
alleging that certain electrical equipment delivered to it were defective or faulty, for which proper
demands for replacement were ignored by respondent.

Petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence however was denied. He was given opportunity to
adduce evidence but it failed to appear at the several hearings scheduled therefor. The trial court,
thus, declared petitioner as having waived its right to present evidence. Petitioner’s claim that the
photocopies of the eighteen sales invoices, marked as Exhibits “A” to “R,” are inadmissible, is
untenable.

The court upon trial, rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay the respondent the sum of
P298,163.05 plus 14% interest from the date of filing of the complaint; P10,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and costs. He then filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, but was denied. Hence,
motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, petition for review

ISSUE:

Whether or not the photocopies of eighteen sales invoice exhibited are inadmissible.

HELD:

While only photocopies of the documents are submitted to the court, the record shows that the
originals of these documents were presented during the trial. Hence, it is not accurate to say that
the original exhibits were not presented before the trial court.

Hence, this court find no cogent ground to disturb the conclusions of the Court of Appeals and
the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the appealed decision.

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 People vs. Valdez
341 SCRA 25, September 25, 2000
J. Quisumbing

Fruits of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine, Evidence procured on the occasion of an

unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous
tree and should be excluded.

FACTS:

The accused was caught in flagrante delicto and without authority of law, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously plant cultivate and culture seven (7) fully grown marijuana
plants weighing 2.194 kilos, from which dangerous drugs maybe manufactured or derived, to the
damage and prejudice of the government of the Republic of the Philippines.

In this appeal, petitioner prays for his acquittal and asserts that his guilt of the crime charged
had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He argues, albeit for the first time on appeal, that
the warrantless arrest effected against him by the barangay tanod was unlawful and that the
warrantless search of his bag that followed was likewise contrary to law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the seized plants is admissible in evidence against the accused.

HELD:

In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination
of the existence of probable cause given the fact that police had ample time to obtain said warrant.
The protection against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and only under
specific instances are searches allowed without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the
Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law
enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions.

The court ruled that the admissibility of the marijuana plants as evidence for the prosecution,
the said plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence against
appellant. They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error on the
part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied upon the seized marijuana plants as evidence to
convict appellant.

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 Bongalon vs. Court of Appeals
441 SCRA 553, November 10, 2004
J. Carpio

The fact that a party did not mention certain exhibits in his complaint is not a reason to rule
them inadmissible.

FACTS:

Pedro Bongalon sued respondents in the RTC for “Quieting of Title, Recovery of Portion of
Property and Damages.” Pedro Bongalon. In their Answer with Counterclaim, respondents denied
Pedro Bongalon’s allegations. Respondents claimed that Pedro Bongalon fraudulently
obtained TCT No. T-67780 by executing the Extrajudicial Settlement. Amparo claimed that on the
contrary, she is the owner of Lot No. 525-A based on the 22 February 1971 Deed of Sale. As
counterclaim, respondents sought the nullification of the Extrajudicial Settlement. Respondents
also prayed for the award of damages and attorney’s fee.

During the trial, Pedro Bongalon introduced in evidence other documents to prove his
ownership of Lot No. 525-A, such as (1) Exhibit “B” and (2) Conchita’s Affidavit dated 22 May
1978 (“Exhibit C”) confirming the sale under Exhibit “B”. The RTC admitted these documents in
evidence over the objection of respondents. For their part, respondents also presented in evidence
Exhibit “2” to prove that Cirila owned the entire Lot No. 525-A which she later sold to Amparo in
the 22 February 1971 Deed of Sale. Before the RTC could render judgment, Amparo died and her
surviving spouse and six children substituted for her. The RTC rendered judgment summing up the
evidence, oral and documentary, presented by both parties, Judgment is rendered for the plaintiff
and against the defendants.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision, in the trial of the case, what was introduced
in evidence were the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit “B”) and the Affidavit of Confirmation
(Exhibit “C”), though these were never alleged in the complaint. What was alleged in the
complaint was the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate inheritance. That is why, the
defendants-appellants’ counsel vigorously objected of the admission of Exhibit “B” and Exhibit
“C” on the ground that no evidence can be introduced in support of allegation not found in the
pleadings x x x. Consequently, the trial court should not have admitted Exhibits “B” and “C” as
part of the evidence. Hence, petition for review.

ISSUE:

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 Whether the court of appeals gravely erred in reversing the decision of the trial court.

HELD:

It was error for the Court of Appeals to rule that the RTC should not have admitted in
evidence Exhibits “B” and “C” because Pedro Bongalon failed to allege these documents in his
complaint. What was at issue before the RTC, as raised in the pleadings filed by the parties, was
the ownership of Lot No. 525-A. Pedro Bongalon offered the pieces of evidence in question to
support his claim of ownership over Lot No. 525-A. The fact that Pedro Bongalon did not mention
Exhibits “B” and “C” in his complaint is not a reason to rule them inadmissible. While TCT No.
T-67780 was Pedro Bongalon’s principal proof of ownership, it did not preclude him from
presenting other pieces of evidence to prove his claim. This is especially relevant because of his
testimony that he executed the Extrajudicial Settlement only because the Register of Deeds of
Albay required it for the issuance of TCT No. T-67780.
People vs. Yatar
428 SCRA 504, May 19, 2004
Per Curiam

Circumstantial evidence: An accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, so long

as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented to prove beyond doubt that the accused
committed the crime. ; Use of DNA Evidence in a conviction for Rape With Homicide;

FACTS:

A woman was found dead and naked in the house of certain Isabel Dawang. The occurrence
was then reported to the police. The police discovered the victim’s panties, brassiere, denim
pants, bag and sandals beside her naked cadaver at the scene of the crime, and they found a dirty
white shirt splattered with blood within 50 meters from the house of Isabel. The appellant was
charged of the crime of rape with homicide. when he was arraigned on July 21, 1998, appellant
pleaded “not guilty.”

After trial, appellant was convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide, defined and penalized
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the
Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and was accordingly, sentenced to Death. Hence, automatic review.

ISSUE:

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
1. Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen may be used as
evidence for Yatar ’s conviction

2. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in giving much weight to the evidence presented
by the prosecution notwithstanding their doubtfulness.

HELD:

1. Yes. The supreme court in this case ruled based on the U.S. case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow,
it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long
as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were allowed greater discretion over
which testimony they would allow at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific
techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure. Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant
when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence obtained through PCR testing
and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable
since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular
biology.

2. No. Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, the trial judge’s
assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court’s highest respect.15 Where there is nothing
to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.

The weight of the prosecution’s evidence must be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule
which provides that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as
sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the
accused committed the crime

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
 People vs. Galleno
G.R. No. 123546. July 2, 1998
Per Curiam

As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions.

FACTS:

Emeterio brought Evelyn to the Roxas Memorial General Hospital were she was examined by
resident physician Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada. Dr. Lañada, testified that she found that "there was a
3 cm. lacerated wound at the left anterior one-third of the vagina and the pressence of about
10-15cc of blood" at the vaginal vault. Dr. Lañada recommended that evelyn be admitted for
confinement in the hospital because the wound in her vagina, which was bleeding, had to be
repaired. The following day, Evelyn was examined at Roxas Memorial General Hospital again
where she was attended to by Dr. Machael Toledo, the resident physician on duty, who found
blood clots and minimal bleeding in the genital area. Dr. Toledo packed the area to prevent
further bleeding and he admitted the patient for possible repair of the laceration and blood
transfusion because she has anaemia secondary to bleeding. The trial deemed the following
circumstances significant in finding accused-appellant culpable for the crime of Statutory Rape.
Hence, the instant appeal and review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Trial Court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of
the medical doctors.

HELD:

As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is
the court's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved.
However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined
to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or expert
knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation, of for
other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.

In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert
testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim's laceration, but
also the testimony the victim herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely solely on the
testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence
exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various possible
causes of the victim's laceration does not mean the trial court's interference is wrong.

As regards the inconsistencies in Evelyn's declaration, particularly as to what really caused the
laceration, we are convinced that the child, due to her tender age, was just confused.

As regards accused-appellant's argument that the victim's testimony is just a concocted story of
what really happened, we apply the rule that the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was
abused deserves full credence (People vs. Cagto, 253 SCRA 455 [1996]). We likewise consider the
fact that her uncle and aunt, virtually her foster parents, themselves support her story of rape. It is
unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a
daughter to embarrassment and even stigma (People vs. Dones,supra.) The court finding the
conviction of accused-appellant justified by the evidence on record, the assailed decision is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.

Zaide R. Llorico
JD-3/ Evidence