6th onwards evi digests

8/10/2019 6th Onwards Evi Digests

1/19

People vs. Placensia

Facts: Herminio Mansueto left for Barangay Patao, Bantayan, Cebu to purchase hogs from a certain

"Ruby." In Patao, Francisca Espina, also known in the locality as Pansing and whose house was just

across the street from the respective residences of the three accused noticed Mansueto leaning on the

pigsty with Ruby on his right side and Antonio Plasencia alias "Tonying" on his left; behind was Joelito.She suddenly saw Antonio stab Mansueto. The latter staggered towards Ruby who himself then

delivered another stab blow. Mansueto fell on his back. Joelito started hitting Mansueto on the

forehead while Rene held Mansueto's legs. Except for a coconut tree and some ipil-ipil trees around the

area, nothing obstructed Pansing's line of vision. Pansing rushed back home. The image of Antonio

waving the weapon and the thought that she might herself be killed kept her from revealing to anyone

what she saw.

Appellants attack the credibility of the prosecution's lone eyewitness, Pansing, because of her alleged

inconsistencies, faults the trial court for allowing the witness to glance at the notes written on her palm

while testifying.

Issue: Whether or not Francisca is a credible witness.

Held: The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section

16, Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. A witness may be allowed to refresh his

memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time

when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his

memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or

record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a

writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the

writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with

caution.

Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's appearing to be "jittery" on the witness stand.

Nervousness and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those who are

called to testify for the first time. The real concern, in fact, should be when they show no such emotions.


2/19

Heirs of Lacsa vs. CA

Facts: Civil Case No. G-1190 is an action for recovery of possession with damages and preliminary

injunction filed by herein petitioners, the heirs of Demetria Lacsa, against Aurelio Songco and John Doe

based on the principal allegations that petitioners are heirs of deceased Demetria Lacsa who, during her

lifetime, was the owner of a certain parcel of land consisting partly of a fishpond and partly ofuncultivated open space. The principal respondent and his predecessor-in-interest who are neither co-

owners of the land nor tenants thereof, thru stealth, fraud and other forms of machination, succeeded

in occupying or possessing the fishpond of said parcel of land, and refused to vacate the same despite

petitioner's demands on them to vacate. Civil Case No. G-1332 is an action also by herein petitioners

against private respondents before the same lower court for cancellation of title. Private respondents

denied the material allegations of both complaints and alleged as special and affirmative defenses,

petitioners' lack of cause of action, for the reason that Original Certificate of Title No. RO-1038 (11725)

was merely a reconstituted copy issued in April 1983 upon petitioners' expedient claim that the owner's

duplicate copy thereof had been missing when the truth of the matter was that OCT No. RO-1038 in the

name of Demetria Lacsa, had long been cancelled and superseded by TCT No. 794 in the name of AlbertaGuevarra and Juan Limpin by virtue of the document entitled "TRADUCCION AL CASTELLANO DE LA

ESCRITURA DE PARTICION EXTRA-JUDICIAL" entered into by the heirs of Demetria Lacsa; that the latter

TCT was in turn superseded by TCT No. 929 issued in the name of Inocencio Songco (father of private

respondents) by virtue of a document entitled "ESCRITURA DE VENTA ABSOLUTA" executed by spouses

Juan Limpin and Alberta Guevarra in favor of said Inocencio Songo. On the basis of this joint stipulation

of facts, the lower court held that the fishpond in question belongs to the private respondents, having

been inherited by them from their deceased father Inocencio Songco. The appellate court AFFIRMED

the decision with modification.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals wrongfully applied the "ancient document rule" on thequestioned document entitled "ESCRITURA DE PARTICION EXTRAJUDICIAL" AND "ESCRITURA DE VENTA

ABSOLUTA.

Held: Under the "ancient document rule," for a private ancient document to be exempt from proof of

due execution and authenticity, it is not enough that it be more than thirty (30) years old; it is also

necessary that the following requirements are fulfilled; (1) that it is produced from a custody in which it

would naturally be found if genuine; and (2) that it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of

suspicion. The documents in question are "ancient documents" as envisioned in Sec. 22 of Rule 132 of

the Rules of Court. Further proof of their due execution and authenticity is no longer required. Having

held that the documents in question are private writings which are more than thirty (30) years old, come

from the proper repository thereof, and are unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of

suspicion, there is no further need for these documents to fulfill the requirements of the 1903 Notarial

Law. Hence, the other contentions of the petitioners that the documents do not fulfill the mandatory

requirements of the Notarial Law and that the proper person or public official was not presented to

testify on his certification of the documents in question,need not be resolved as they would no longer

serve any purpose.


3/19

Estacio vs. Jaranilla

Facts: A parcel of land owned by Josefina was sold to Luis A. Bersales, Jr. The deed of sale was executed

in the name of Josefina by one Lolita F. Estacio who claimed to have been so authorized by a Special

Power of Attorney. Josefina Jaranillas title was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT was issued in favor of

Bersales. Bersales sold the subject parcel of land in favor of Almonte, in whose name TCT was,consequently, issued by the Register of Deeds. Upon her return from US, Josefina discovered the

unauthorized conveyance of her parcel of land and sent a letter to the Registrar of Deeds informing the

same that she has not authorized anybody to negotiate or transact the above-stated parcel of land and

that the owners duplicate original of the said land is in her possession. Later on, Josefina died and was

represented by her son Ernesto. The latter filed a complaint for declaration of nullity and/or annulment

of transfer certificates of titles, deeds and conveyances, recovery of possession, and

damages. Contending that the Special Power of Attorney utilized by Lolita was a falsified document

Issue: Whether or not respondent failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the finding

of forgery.

Held: Petitioners argument is not tenable. As shown fromthe records, the finding of forgery was based

on a comparison of the deceaseds purported signatures on the assailed Special Powers of Attorney and

the latters signature appearing on a private document. It bears stressing that the trial court may validly

determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This

the trial court judge can do without necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question

involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison

of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.

Canque vs. CA

Facts: Petitioner Rosella D. Canque is a contractor doing business under the name and style RDC

Construction. She had contracts with the government for (a) the restoration of Cebu-Toledo wharf road;(b) the asphalting of Lutopan access road; and (c) the asphalting of Babag road in Lapulapu City. In

connection with these projects, petitioner entered into two contracts with private respondent Socor

Construction Corporation. On May 28, 1986, private respondent sent petitioner a bill containing a

revised computation, representing the balance of petitioner's total account for materials delivered and

services rendered by private respondent under the two contracts. However, petitioner refused to pay

the amount, claiming that private respondent failed to submit the delivery receipts showing the actual


4/19

weight in metric tons of the items delivered and the acceptance thereof by the government. Hence, on

September 22, 1986, private respondent brought suit in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu to recover from

petitioner the sum of P299,717.75, plus interest at the rate of 3% a month. During the trial, private

respondent, as plaintiff, presented its vice-president, Sofia O. Sanchez, and Dolores Aday, its

bookkeeper. Aday admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the facts constituting the entry. She

said she made the entries based on the bills given to her. But she has no knowledge of the truth or

falsity of the facts stated in the bills. Petitioner's evidence consisted of her lone testimony. The trial

court rendered its decision ordering petitioner to pay the private respondent It held that by analyzing

the plaintiff's Book of Collectible Accounts particularly page 17 thereof (Exh. "K"), it is convinced that

the entries (both payments and billings) recorded thereat are credible.On appeal, the Court of Appeals

affirmed.

Issue: Whether the entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts constitute competent evidence to show

such delivery.

Held: Considered as a memorandum, Exh. K does not itself constitute evidence. As explained

inBorromeo v. Court of Appeals:

Under the above provision of Rule 132 Sec 10, the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the

witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the

witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the

witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of

the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident

that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be

more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same

facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his

failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this requirement has been satisfied, the

express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because

it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when the

witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence.

As the entries in question (Exh. K) were not made based on personal knowledge, they could only

corroborate Dolores Aday's testimony that she made the entries as she received the bills.


5/19

Wildvalley Shipping vs. CA

Facts: the Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc., private respondent

herein, arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore. Upon the completion of the loading and

when the vessel was ready to leave port, Mr. Vasquez, an official pilot of Venezuela, was designated by

the harbour authorities to navigate the vessel through the Orinoco River. the Philippine Roxas ranaground in the Orinoco River,obstructing the ingress and egress of vessels. As a result of the blockage,

the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by herein petitioner Wildvalley Shipping, was unable to sail out of

Puerto Ordaz on that day. Subsequently, Wildvalley filed a suit with the RTC of Manila, against Philippine

President Lines, Inc. and Pioneer Insurance Company (the underwriter/insurer of Philippine Roxas) for

damages in the form of unearned profits, and interest thereon. Wildvalley alleged that RESPONDENT

COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING VENEZUELAN LAW DESPITE THE FACT THAT

THE SAME HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY PROVED IN THE TRIAL COURT WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION FROM

PRIVATE RESPONDENT, AND WHOSE OBJECTION WAS INTERPOSED BELATEDLY ON APPEAL

Issue: whether or not Venezuelan law is applicable to the case at bar.

Ruling: It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are

not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. we

take note that these written laws were not proven in the manner provided by Section 24 of Rule 132 of

the Rules of Court.It is required by Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court that a certificate that

Captain Monzon, who attested the documents, is the officer who had legal custody of those records

made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent or

by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in Venezuela, and authenticated by the

seal of his office accompanying the copy of the public document. No such certificate could be found in

the records of the case


6/19

Manufacturers Hanover vs. Guerrero

Facts: Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Manufacturers Hanover and/or

Chemical Bank with the RTC. He sought payment of damages allegedly for (1) illegally withheld taxes

charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank; (2) a returned check worth

US$18,000.00 due to signature verification problems; and (3) unauthorized conversion of his account.the Bank filed its Answer alleging, inter alia,that by stipulation Guerreros account is governed by New

York law and this law does not permit any of Guerreros claims except actual damages. The Bank

contended that the trial should be limited to the issue of actual damages. Guerrero opposed the motion.

The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Banks Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment. Waldens affidavit stated the same contention as that of the banks.The Philippine Consular

Office in New York authenticated the Walden affidavit.

Issue: Whether the Walden affidavit has sufficiently proved the foreign law relied upon by the

petitioners.

Ruling: The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the affiants personal interpretation and opinion of

the facts of the case vis a visthe alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any law in particular. The

citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of the official

records or decisions of the U.S. courts. While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court

decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, these copies do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof

of official records or decisions of foreign courts.Thus, the Bank has only alleged, but has not proved,

what New York law and jurisprudence are on the matters at issue.


7/19

Insurance Services vs. CA

Facts: Paz Salvaleon and her sister Vivencia Salvaleon, both married, were the owners of a parcel of

land.The Salvaleonsborrowed two thousand (P2,000.00) pesos from spouses Amador and Mila de

Castrowith the conditions that they mortgage their parcel of land in favor of the spouses de Castro,

surrender the title to the spouses, And sign an authorization to obtain a loan from a bank.A specialpower of attorney authorizing Mila to mortgage the property was signed by the Salvaleons. Amador

surrendered the said document "already notarized" to Busque. Afterwards, Busque negotiated a real

estate mortgage with Insurance Services (Instrade), using a forged special power of attorney purportedly

signed by the Salvaleons, authorizing Busque to use the property as security for Cantrade's indebtedness

to Instrade. When Cantrade failed to fulfill its obligation, Instrade initiated foreclosure proceedings on

the property. The court annulled the foreclosure proceeding. Instrade appealed contending that A

PUBLIC DOCUMENT IS ENTITLED TO FULL CREDIT BY A THIRD PARTY.

Issue: special power of attorney allegedly executed by the Salvaleons is a public document duly

executed by the parties, in accordance with notarial law.

Ruling: A public document executed and attested through the intervention of the notary public enjoys

the presumption of regularity. This presumption is rebuttable, only by strong, complete and conclusive

proof. The questioned special power of attorney is void ab initiofor lack of consent on the part of the

Salvaleons who are supposed to be the "principals" of Cantrade. Conclusions and findings of fact by the

trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and

cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to

observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.7The fact that the Court of Appeals

adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this Court We find no reason

to alter the conclusion of both courts.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_109305_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_109305_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_109305_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_109305_2000.html#fnt7


8/19

Gatdula vs. People

Facts: Eduardo Gatdula bought a motor vehicle which he knows to have been derived from the proceeds

of carnapping. He was charged with the violation of Anti-Fencing Law. After presenting their case in

chiefthe prosecution rested its case and filed its offer of exhibits. petitioner filed his omment/opposition

specifically objecting to the offer of exhibits on the ground that they were taken from him without thepresence and assistance of counsel and that they were obtained during his unlawful arrest and for being

hearsay. the trial court ordered the admission of all the exhibits of the prosecution and granted

petitioner permission to file a demurrer to evidence. petitioner filed with the trial court a demurrer to

evidence. the trial court issued orders admitting all the evidence of the prosecution and holding the

resolution on the demurrer in abeyance until petitioner has presented evidence.

Issue: Whether the court erred in holding the resolution on the demurrer in abeyance until petitioner

has presented evidence.

Ruling: The petition is without merit. the trial court must rule either to grant or deny the demurrer to

evidence filed by petitioner. The trial court has a specific duty under the Rules to act on petitioner's

demurrer to evidence, either by granting or denying the same. 17The denial of the demurrer may be the

proper subject of a petition for certiorari if there was grave abuse of discretion. Perhaps, the trial court

really wanted to deny the demurrer to evidence that is why it deferred resolution thereon until

petitioner has adduced evidence. In such case, the court must expressly deny the demurrer.

Nevertheless, the error is not jurisdictional, and certiorari is not available to correct errors in judgment

or conclusions of law and fact not amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.


9/19

People vs. Mate

Facts: accused Mate and Bohol, for the purpose of kidnapping Susan and Lyn Butler to extort ransom,

entered the premises of the Butler residence. Martina Caldoza, a maid of the Butlers, surprised the

accused in the guesthouse. the latter hit her on the head with the shotgun and stabbed her on the back

several times with a screw driver, thereby inflicting mortal injuries which directly caused her death.upon seeing Mrs. Caroline Butler approaching the guesthouse where they were positioned, shot her

with the same firearm hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of her body gunshot wounds. Due to the

timely and able medical attendance rendered to Caroline, she survived. Accused held and threaned to

kill her for a ransom. Accused fled carrying with him victim Suzie Butler. When investigated, Mate

voluntarily made his extra-judicial statements. The defense contends that the trial court committed a

serious error in rendereing judgment of conviction immediately after Mate had pleaded guilty to the

crime charged on the basis of his plea of guilty and before receiving any evidence.

Issue: Whether the conviction should be set aside in view of the courts error.

Ruling: The trial court committed an irregularity in pronouncing judgment on the two accused in open

court immediately after they had pleaded guilty and then later on requiring the prosecution to present

evidence. However, the irregularity does not justify the setting aside of the judgment of conviction

which is supported by the judicial and extra-judicial confessions of the accused and other evidence. Even

without the exhibits which have been incorporated into the records of the case, the prosecution can still

establish the case because the witnesses properly identified those exhibits and their testimonies are

recorded.


10/19

People vs. Canonigo

Facts: while Carla and her five (5) year old sister, Cay Jorelle, were keeping watch over their five (5)

month old baby sister, accused-appellant Crispin Canonigo arrived and inquired from Carla if her Kuya

Bert was around. Upon learning that Carlas older brother was not around, accused-appellant closed the

door, and raped Carla. Cay was able to witness the entire incident since accused-appellant reportedlyasked the five year old to hold his organ while he was licking Carlas private part.After this, Canonigo

left and Carla and Cay then hurried out, leaving their five (5) month old baby sister behind to report the

incident to their mother, Salome. The latter reported the incident to the barangay captain and later on

to the police. She executed a sworn statement together with the complaint against the accused.

Canonigo was later on apprehended.

Issue: Whether the Cay is a credible witness.

Ruling: Settled is the rule that an appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial

court on matters of credibility, considering that the latter was in a better position to appreciate the

same, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of

testifying during the trial, unless the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and

value, which if considered, may affect the result of the case. We find no reason to overturn the findings

of the trial court. As noted by the court a quo, Carla testified in a straightforward manner which

demeanor, taken with her "apparent immaturity, youthfulness and lack of malice" impelled it to rule in

her favor.


11/19

Ong vs. CA

Facts: petitioners boarded a bus owned and operated by Inland Trailway which was driven by Calvin

Coronel. when the Inland bus slowed down to avoid a stalled cargo truck, it was bumped from the rear

by another bus, owned and operated by Philtranco and driven by Apolinar Miralles. Francia sustained

wounds and fractures in both of her legs and her right arm, while Renato suffered injuries on his leftchest, right knee, right arm and left eye. petitioners filed an action for damages against Philtranco and

Inland. Inland answered that, according to the Police Report, it was Apolinar Miralles, the driver of the

Philtranco bus, who was at fault, as shown by his flight from the situs of the accident

Issue: whether the Police Report, which was not formally offered in evidence, could be used to establish

a claim against Philtranco based on culpa aquiliana;

Ruling: Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, provides that "[t]he court shall consider no evidence

which has not been formally offered." A formal offer is necessary, since judges are required to base their

findings of fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the

trial. To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the court to consider it

as evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing

parties will be deprived of their chance to examine the document and to object to its admissibility. On

the other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized

the court below.


12/19

People vs. Yap

Facts: a report of rampant pushing of prohibited drugs by notorious pushers Edgardo Yap and Simplicio

Osmea, respectively, was submitted by a civilian informer to the 10th Narcotics Regional Unit of the

Philippine Constabulary (PC). Acting on said report, two buy-bust operations were conducted. Upon

seeing appellants Yap and Osmea, the asset Raterta approached them and offered to buy marijuana,whereupon six sticks thereof were delivered to him by Osmea after he handed the marked ten-peso

bill to Yap, who put the money in the right pocket of his pants. Raterta went back to their headquarters

and turned over the six marijuana cigarettes to their team leader. Immediately after the consummation

of said sale the agents followed both appellants. When they learned of the failure of the other operation

in the same vicinity, they arrested the appellants. a body search was conducted and they retrieved the

marked ten-peso bill from Yap/s pants. The marijuana sticks were brought to the forensic chemist of the

NBI for laboratory examination and testing which yielded positive results for marijuana.

Issue: Whether the testimonies of the witnesses were validly offered in evidence

Ruling: "offer of evidence," as used in Section 34 of Rule 132 must be understood to include the

presentation or introduction of evidence. What is essential in order that an offer of testimony may be

valid, therefore, is that the witness be called and asked appropriate questions. All the prosecution

witnesses were presented and examined before the court a quo, the questions and answers being taken

down in writing, and such testimonies were offered thereafter to the trial court. Had appellants wanted

the trial court to reject the evidence being introduced, they should have raised an objection thereto.

They cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. 12The right to object is a privilege which the

party may waive.


13/19

Interpacific vs. Aviles

Facts: Rufo and Josephine Aviles, the private respondents herein, as sub-agents of Interpacific Transit,

Inc., collected from its various clients payments for airway bills. Instead of remitting it to their principal,

they unlawfully converted to their own personal use and benefit. At the trial, the prosecution

introduced photocopies of the airway bills supposedly received by the accused for which they had notrendered proper accounting. This was done in, the course of the direct examination of one of the

prosecution witnesses. The defense objected to their presentation, invoking the best evidence rule. The

prosecution said it would submit the original airway bills in due time. Upon such undertaking, the trial

court allowed the marking of the said documents as Exhibits "B" to "OO." The prosecution did not

submit the original airway bills nor did it prove their loss to justify their substitution with secondary

evidence. Nevertheless, when the certified photocopies of the said bills formally were offered in

evidence, the defense interposed no objection.

Issue: whether the photocopies of said bills are admissible in evidence despite being secondary

evidence.

Ruling: The objection of the defense to the photocopies of the airway bins while they were being

Identified and marked as exhibits did not constitute the objection it should have made when the exhibits

were formally offered in evidence by the prosecution. No valid and timely objection was made at that

time. And it is no argument to say that the earlier objection should be considered a continuing objection

under Sec. 37 of Rule 132, for that provision obviously refers to a single objection to a class of evidence

(testimonial or documentary) which when first offered is considered to encompass the rest of the

evidence. The presumption is, of course, that there was an offer and a seasonable objection thereto.

But, to repeat, no objection was really made in the case before us because it was not made at the

proper time.


14/19

Rodson vs. CA

Facts: petitioners Rodson Philippines, Inc., Eurasia Heavy Industries, Inc., Autographics, Inc. and Peter Y.

Rodriguez, filed a Complaint2for damages against respondent Eastar Resources (Asia) Corporation with

the RTC of Cebu, then presided by Judge Juaban. The petitioners rested their case after their

documentary evidence was admitted by the court. respondent prayed for time to make their formaloffer of evidence which the court granted. The court held in abeyance the resolution of the

respondents formal offer of evidence until such time that the petitioners motion to recall Maquilan for

further cross-examination was resolved. the primary judge retired and was replaced by Judge Ocampo.

Petitioners had not yet filed their comment on the respondents formal offer of evidence because of the

pending incident. Judge Dicdican was the last to hear the case and under which the court found that

petitioners time to file their comment on the formal offer of evidence of the respondents had already

lapsed. They filed for reconsideration which was denied.

Issue: Whether the court erred in resolving the formal offer of evidence and admitting such

documentary evidence by the respondents before petitioners could file their comment on it.

Ruling: Irrefragably, the petitioners had until June 12, 1994 within which to file their comment on the

respondents formal offer of evidence. The ten-day period within which to file such comment was not

suspended by the filing and, thereafter, the pendency of the petitioners motion to recall Maquilan as a

witness for additional cross-examination. What was merely suspended by such motion was the trial

courts resolution of the respondents formal offer of evidence. The petitioners failed to file their

comment within the period therefor. The respondent had already presented its lone witness, Maquilan,

who already testified on direct and cross-examination. Hence, the respondent was obliged to formally

offer its documentary evidence as provided by Section 35, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.


15/19

People vs Godoy

Facts: Danny Godoy was charged with rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention. Mia Taha, the

victim, was the student of Godoy. First time he raped her was when she went to visit her cousin. He

threatened her not to tell anyone or she will be killed. The next day, he went to her house and asked

permission from her parents if she could come with him to solicit for funds since she was a candidate ina school affair which her parents obliged. She reluctantly went with him for fear that her parents would

get into trouble. She was then brought to an inn and and later on to a house of a friend of Godoy where

she was locked and repeatedly raped. In trial, Mia denied having written any love letters to Godoy which

was presented in evidence. Trial court refused to give probative value to the two vital letters which

stated that Mia in fact had relationship with the accused and was not raped by him because they are not

examined by an expert witness.

Issue: whether the court erred in not giving probative value to the letters.

Ruling: Well-entrenched by now is the rule that resort to questioned document examiners, more

familiarly called handwriting experts, is not mandatory. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are

not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting.72This is so embodied under Section 22, Rule

132 of the Rules of Court. The defense witnesses were able to identify complainant's handwriting on the

basis of the examination papers submitted to them by her in their respective subjects. This Court has

likewise carefully examined and compared the handwriting on the letters with the standard writing

appearing on the test papers as specimens for comparison and, contrary to the observations and

conclusions of the lower court, we are convinced beyond doubt that they were written by one and the

same person.


16/19

Biak-Na-Bato Mining vs. Tanco

Facts: one hundred seventy mining were found in Mountain Province by several persons. The land

covered by said mining claims is adjacent and surrounds the mining properties of Batong Buhay Gold

Mines, Inc. These claims were grouped into 4 namely Nagasat, Lucky Strike, Mugao and Bumabag. Some

locators sold their claims in their respective groups. 20 claims under NAgasat were sold to privaterespondent Balatoc-Lubuagan Mines Association which engaged engineers to explore and develop the

mining area; for its pre-war exploration and development. After the war, it reconstituted their corporate

records before the SEC. Biak-na-bato was created and several lodes of claims were sold to them. When

they applied for lease from the Bureau of Mines, the latter denied the application upon the ground that

the claims were already in conflict with the four (4) groups of mining claims purportedly owned by

private respondents. They claiming that the (2) deeds of sale over numerous lode of claims of mines

private respondents were fake, fictitious or manufactured.

Issue: whether the deeds in question are inadmissible as they are fake documents.

Ruling: Even the fact that the questioned documents did not appear in the notarial register, did not

make said documents spurious, fake and non-existent because the notarial register is not always the

memorial of all the daily transactions of a notary public. The notary being only human, lapses by way of

omission may happen.


17/19

Revilla vs. CA

Facts: Don Cayetano Revilla executed a last will and testament bequeathing all his properties to his nine

(9) nephews and nieces, the parties herein, who are full blood brothers and sisters, including the

petitioner, Heracio Revilla. To each of them, he bequeathed an undivided one-tenth (1/10) of his estate

reserving the last tenth for masses to be said after his death. During his lifetime, Don Cayetano hadhimself sought the probate of his will, CFI allowed and admitted said will to probate. the City Hall of

Manila was destroyed by fire along with the records of the probate. a petition for the reconstitution of

the records was filed, and after a proper hearing he petition for reconstitution was granted. Don

Cayetano died. Heracio filed a petition for probate of another will, allegedly executed by Don Cayetano

wherein he was instituted as sole heirof his uncle's estate and executor of the will. the same was

opposed by the brothers and sisters of Heracio, herein private respondents. Court disallowed the second

will.

Issue: whether the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing the alleged second will of Don Cayetano Revilla.

Ruling: After a careful examination of the records, we share the appellate court's doubts regarding the

authenticity and due execution of the second will. Indeed, when Don Cayetano testified in the

reconstitution proceedings, he was unaware of the second will which he supposedly made only two

months previous. He identified his first will and declared that it was his true and only will. He denied

having subsequently made another will. He could not have executed a second will because he was sick in

the hospital at that time for two (2) months. and he did not, and could not, sign any papers while he

was confined in the hospital.


18/19

People vs. Jara

Facts: one night, Accused Jara, Vergara and Bernadas entered the house where the victims Amparo and

Luisa were sleeping. Luisa was the wife of Jara. The three conspired and killed the two women. When

they fled the scene, they took with them a piggy bank and Buddha bank owned by the victims. Vergara

and Bernadas were later on apprehended and they subscribed and swore to their extra-judicialstatements wherein they narrated their role and that of Felicisimo Jara in the killing. Felicisimo Jara

denied the charge. The court below ruled that the extra-judicial confessions of the accused Bernadas

and Vergara together with the proof of corpus delicti of the special crime of robbery with homicide

established the guilt of the accused beyond moral certainty.

Issue: whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction.

Ruling: Circumstantial evidence, as a basis for conviction of crime, should be acted on and weighed with

great caution, particularly where the crime is heinous and the penalty is death, as in the instant cases. In

determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, each case is to be

determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all of the facts and circumstances are to be

considered together as a whole, and, when so considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction,

although one or more of the facts taken separately would not be sufficient for this purpose.


19/19

Malayan insurance vs. phil. Nails and wires

Facts:Respondent Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation insured against all risks its shipment of metric

tons of steel billets with petitioner Malayan Insurance Company Inc. The shipment delivered was short.

For this shortage, respondent claimed insurance plus customs duties, taxes and other charges paid by

respondent. Petitioner refused to pay. respondent filed a complaint against petitioner. petitioner aversthat King failed to properly authenticate respondent's documentary evidence.

Issue: whether respondent Should authenticate the documentary evidence it submitted at the trial?

Ruling: Under the rules on evidence, documents are either public or private. Private documents are

those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of

Court.8Section 209of the same law, in turn, provides that before any private document is received in

evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document

executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Here, respondent's documentary exhibits are private documents. They are not among those

enumerated in Section 19, thus, their due execution and authenticity need to be proved before they can

be admitted in evidence.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_138084_2002.html#fnt8

6th onwards evi digests

Documents