Download - 1st Batch of Cases
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
1/30
THIRD DIVISION
BSB GROUP,INC., represented by itsPresident, Mr. RICARDOBANGAYAN,Petitioner,
-versus-
SALLY GO .!.. SALLYGO"BANGAYAN, Respondent.
G.R. N#. $%&%''
Present(
Pr#)*+ted(
February 16, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------x
D - C I S I O N
P-RALTA,J.(
This is a Petition for Review under Rule ! ofthe Rules of "ourt assailin# the $e%ision of the "ourt of&ppeals in "&-'.R. (P )o. *+6001dated &pril 20, 200!,whi%h reversed and set aside the (epteber 1/,2002and )oveber !, 200/rders issued by theRe#ional Trial "ourt of anila, ran%h /6in "riinal"ase )o. 02-2021!* for 3uali4ed theft. The said orders,in turn, respe%tively denied the otion 4led byherein respondent (ally 'o for the suppression of thetestionial and do%uentary eviden%e relative to a(e%urity an5 a%%ount, and denied re%onsideration.
The basi% ante%edents are no lon#er disputed.
Petitioner, the ( 'roup, n%., is a duly or#ani7eddoesti% %orporation presided by its hereinrepresentative, Ri%ardo an#ayan8an#ayan9. Respondent (ally 'o, alternatively referredto as (ally (ia 'o and (ally 'o-an#ayan, is an#ayan:swife, who was eployed in the %opany as a %ashier,and was en#a#ed, aon# others, to re%eive and a%%ountfor the payents ade by the various %ustoers of the%opany.
n 2002, an#ayan 4led with the anilaProse%utor:s ;%e a %oplaint for estafa and
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
2/30
( R$BRB$.22
Gith the denial of its otion for re%onsideration,2/petitioner is now before the "ourt pleadin# the saeissues as those raised before the lower %ourts.
n this Petition2under Rule !, petitioneraverred in the ain that the "ourt of &ppeals hadseriously erred in reversin# the assailed orders of the trial%ourt, and in e=e%t stri5in# out arasi#an:s testionydealin# with respondent:s deposit a%%ount with (e%urity
an5.2!t asserted that apart fro the fa%t that the saideviden%e had a dire%t relation to the subDe%t atter of the%ase for 3uali4ed theft and, hen%e, brin#s the %ase underone of the ex%eptions to the %overa#e of %on4dentialityunder R.&. 10!.26 Petitioner believed that what%onstituted the subDe%t atter in liti#ation was to bedeterined by the alle#ations in the inforation and, inthis respe%t, it alluded to the assailed )oveber !, 200rder of the trial %ourt, whi%h de%lared to be erroneousthe liitation of the present in3uiry erely to what was%ontained in the inforation.2+
For her part, respondent %laied that the oney
represented by the (e%urity an5 a%%ount was neitherrelevant nor aterial to the %ase, be%ause nothin# in the%riinal inforation su##ested that the oney therein
deposited was the subDe%t atter of the %ase. (heinvited parti%ular attention to that portion of the %riinalnforation whi%h averred that she has stolen and %arriedaway %ash oney in the total aountof P1,!/,1/!.!0. (he advan%ed the notion that the terJ%ash oneyK stated in the nforation was notsynonyous with the %he%5s she was purported to havestolen fro petitioner and deposited in her personalban5in# a%%ount. Thus, the %he%5s whi%h the prose%utionhad arasi#an identify, as well as the testiony itself ofarasi#an, should be suppressed by the trial %ourt atleast for violatin# respondent:s ri#ht to due pro%ess.2* ore in point, respondent opined that adittin# thetestiony of arasi#an, as well as the eviden%epertainin# to the (e%urity an5 a%%ount, would violate these%re%y rule under R.&. )o. 10!. 2A
n its reply, petitioner asserted the su;%ien%y ofthe alle#ations in the %riinal nforation for 3uali4edtheft, as the sae has su;%iently alle#ed the eleents ofthe o=ense %har#ed. t posits that throu#h arasi#an:stestiony, the "ourt would be able to establish that the%he%5s involved, %opies of whi%h were atta%hed to the%oplaint-a;davit 4led with the prose%utor, had indeedbeen re%eived by respondent as %ashier, but were,thereafter, deposited by the latter to her personala%%ount with (e%urity an5. Petitioner held that the%he%5s represented the %ash oney stolen by respondentand, hen%e, the subDe%t atter in this %ase is not only the%ash aount represented by the %he%5s supposedlystolen by respondent, but also the %he%5s theselves./0
Ge derive fro the %onLi%tin# advo%a%ies of the
parties that the issue for resolution is whether thetestiony of arasi#an and the a%%opanyin#do%uents are irrelevant to the %ase, and whether theyare also violative of the absolutely %on4dential nature ofban5 deposits and, hen%e, ex%luded by operation of R.&.)o. 10!. The 3uestion of adissibility of the eviden%ethus %oes to the fore. &nd the "ourt, after deliberativeestiation, 4nds the subDe%t eviden%e to be indeedinadissible.
Prefatorily, fundaental is the pre%ept in all%riinal prose%utions, that the %onstitutive a%ts of theo=ense ust be established with unwaverin# exa%titudeand oral %ertainty be%ause this is the %riti%al and onlyre3uisite to a 4ndin# of #uilt./1 Theft is present when aperson, with intent to #ain but without violen%e a#ainst or
intiidation of persons or for%e upon thin#s, ta5es thepersonal property of another without the latter:s%onsent. t is 3uali4ed when, aon# others, and asalle#ed in the instant %ase, it is %oitted with abuse of%on4den%e./2 The prose%ution of this o=ense ne%essarilyfo%uses on the existen%e of the followin# eleents? 8a9there was ta5in# of personal property belon#in# toanother 8b9 the ta5in# was done with intent to #ain 8%9the ta5in# was done without the %onsent of the owner 8d9the ta5in# was done without violen%e a#ainst orintiidation of persons or for%e upon thin#s and 8e9 itwas done with abuse of %on4den%e. // n turn, whetherthese eleents %on%ur in a way that over%oes thepresuption of #uiltlessness, is a 3uestion that ust pass
the test of relevan%y and %opeten%y in a%%ordan%e with(e%tion //Rule 12* of the Rules of "ourt.
Thus, whether these pie%es of eviden%e sou#ht
to be suppressed in this %ase the testiony ofarasi#an, as well as the %he%5s purported to have beenstolen and deposited in respondent:s (e%urity an5a%%ountare relevant, is to be addressed by %onsiderin#whether they have su%h dire%t relation to the fa%t in issueas to indu%e belief in its existen%e or non-existen%e orwhether they relate %ollaterally to a fa%t fro whi%h, bypro%ess of lo#i%, an inferen%e ay be ade as to the
existen%e or non-existen%e of the fa%t in issue. /!
The fa%t in issue appears to be that respondenthas ta5en away %ash in the aount of P1,!/,1/!.!0fro the %o=ers of petitioner. n support of thisalle#ation, petitioner see5s to establish the existen%e ofthe eleental a%t of ta5in# by addu%in# eviden%e thatrespondent, at several ties between 1A** and 1A*A,deposited soe of its %he%5s to her personal a%%ount with(e%urity an5. Petitioner addresses the in%on#ruen%ebetween the alle#ation of theft of %ash in the nforation,on the one hand, and the eviden%e that respondent had4rst stolen the %he%5s and deposited the sae in herban5in# a%%ount, on the other hand, by ipressin# uponthe "ourt that there obtains no di=eren%e between %ashand %he%5 for purposes of prose%utin# respondent for
theft of %ash. Petitioner is ista5en.n theft, the a%t of unlawful ta5in# %onnotes
deprivation of personal property of one by another withintent to #ain, and it is iaterial that the o=ender isable or unable to freely dispose of the property stolenbe%ause the deprivation relative to the o=ended partyhas already ensued fro su%h a%t of exe%ution. /6 Thealle#ation of theft of oney, hen%e, ne%essitates thateviden%e presented ust have a tenden%y to prove thatthe o=ender has unlawfully ta5en oney belon#in# toanother. nterestin#ly, petitioner has ta5en pains inatteptin# to draw a %onne%tion between the eviden%esubDe%t of the instant review, and the alle#ation of theft inthe nforation by %laiin# that respondent hadfraudulently deposited the %he%5s in her own nae. utthis line of ar#uent wor5s ore preDudi%e than favor,be%ause it in e=e%t, see5s to establish the %oission,not of theft, but rather of soe other %rie probably estafa.
oreover, that there is no di=eren%e between
%ash and %he%5 is true in other instan%es. n estafa by%onversion, for instan%e, whether the thin# %onverted is%ash or %he%5, is iaterial in relation to the foralalle#ation in an inforation for that o=ense a %he%5,after all, while not re#arded as le#al tender, is norallya%%epted under %oer%ial usa#e as a substitute for%ash, and the %redit it represents in stated onetaryvalue is properly %apable of appropriation. &nd it is inthis respe%t that what the o=ender does with the %he%5subse3uent to the a%t of unlawfully ta5in# it be%oesaterial inasu%h as this o=ense is a %ontinuin# one.
/+ n other words, in pursuin# a %ase for this o=ense, theprose%ution ay establish its %ause by the presentationof the %he%5s involved. These %he%5s would then%onstitute the best eviden%e to establish their %ontentsand to prove the eleental a%t of %onversion in support ofthe proposition that the o=ender has indeed indorsed thesae in his own nae./*
Theft, however, is not of su%h %hara%ter. Thus,
for our purposes, as the nforation in this %ase a%%usesrespondent of havin# stolen %ash, proof tendin# toestablish that respondent has a%tuali7ed her %riinalintent by indorsin# the %he%5s and depositin# thepro%eeds thereof in her personal a%%ount, be%oes notonly irrelevant but also iaterial and, on that s%ore,inadissible in eviden%e.
Ge now address the issue of whether theadission of arasi#an:s testiony on the parti%ulars ofrespondent:s a%%ount with (e%urity an5, as well as ofthe %orrespondin# eviden%e of the %he%5s alle#edlydeposited in said a%%ount, %onstitutes an unallowablein3uiry under R.&. 10!. t is %on%eded that while the fundaental law hasnot bothered with the triviality of spe%i4%ally addressin#priva%y ri#hts relative to ban5in# a%%ounts, there,nevertheless, exists in our Durisdi%tion a le#itiateexpe%tation of priva%y #overnin# su%h a%%ounts. Thesour%e of this ri#ht of expe%tation is statutory, and it isfound in R.&. )o. 10!,/Aotherwise 5nown as the an5(e%re%y &%t of 1A!!.0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn40 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
3/30
R.&. )o. 10! has two allied purposes. t hopes
to dis%oura#e private hoardin# and at the sae tieen%oura#e the people to deposit their oney in ban5in#institutions, so that it ay be utili7ed by way ofauthori7ed loans and thereby assist in e%onoi%developent.1win# to this pie%e of le#islation, the%on4dentiality of ban5 deposits reains to be a basi%state poli%y in the Philippines.2 (e%tion 2 of the lawinstitutionali7ed this poli%y by %hara%teri7in# asabsolutely %on4dential in #eneral all deposits of whatevernature with ban5s and other 4nan%ial institutions in the
%ountry. t de%lares?
Seti#n /.&ll deposits ofwhatever nature with ban5s or ban5in#institutions in the Philippines in%ludin#investents in bonds issued by the'overnent of the Philippines, itspoliti%al subdivisions and itsinstruentalities, are hereby%onsidered as of an absolutely%on4dential nature and ay not beexained, in3uired or loo5ed into byany person, #overnent o;%ial, bureauor o;%e, exceptupon writtenperission of the depositor, or in %asesof ipea%hent, or upon order of a
%opetent %ourt in %ases of bribery ordereli%tion of duty of publi% o;%ials, orin %ases where the oney deposited orinvested is the subDe%t atter of theliti#ation.
(ubse3uent statutory ena%tents/have
expanded the list of ex%eptions to this poli%y yet these%re%y of ban5 deposits still lies as the #eneral rule,fallin# as it does within the le#ally re%o#ni7ed 7ones ofpriva%y. There is, in fa%t, u%h disfavor to %onstruin#these priary and suppleental ex%eptions in a annerthat would authori7e unbridled dis%retion, whether#overnental or otherwise, in utili7in# these ex%eptionsas authority for unwarranted in3uiry into ban5
a%%ounts. t is then per%eivable that the present le#alorder is obli#ed to %onserve the absolutely %on4dentialnature of ban5 deposits.!
The easure of prote%tion a=orded by the law
has been explained in China Banking Corporation v.Ortega.[46] That %ase prin%ipally addressed the issue ofwhether the prohibition a#ainst an exaination of ban5deposits pre%ludes #arnishent in satisfa%tion of a
Dud#ent. Rulin# on that issue in the ne#ative, the "ourtfound #uidan%e in the relevant portions of the le#islativedeliberations on (enate ill )o. /!1 and House ill )o./A++, whi%h later be%ae the an5 (e%re%y &%t, and itheld that the absolute %on4dentiality rule in R.&. )o. 10!a%tually ais at prote%tion fro unwarranted in3uiry orinvesti#ation if the purpose of su%h in3uiry orinvesti#ation is erely to deterine the existen%e andnature, as well as the aount of the deposit in any #ivenban5 a%%ount. Thus,
x x x The lower %ourt did not order an exaination ofor in3uiry into the deposit of E Forest$evelopent "orporation, as %onteplated in thelaw. t erely re3uired Tan Mi Nion# to infor the%ourt whether or not the defendant E Forest$evelopent "orporation had a deposit in the "hinaan5in# "orporation only for purposes of the#arnishent issued by it, so that the ban5 would holdthe sae inta%t and not allow any withdrawal untilfurther order. t will be noted fro the dis%ussion ofthe %onferen%e %oittee report on (enate ill )o./!1 and House ill )o. /A++whi%h later be%aeRepubli% &%t )o. 10!, that it was not the intention of
the lawa5ers to pla%e ban5s deposits beyond therea%h of exe%ution to satisfy a 4nal Dud#ent. Thus?
x x x r. ar%os? )ow, for purposes ofthe re%ord, should li5e the "hairan ofthe "oittee on Gays and eans to%larify this further. (uppose an individualhas a tax %ase. He is bein# held liable bythe ureau of nternal Revenue 8R9 or,say, P1,000.00 worth of tax liability, andbe%ause of this the deposit of thisindividual has been atta%hed by theR.
r. Raos? The atta%hentwill only apply after the %ourt haspronoun%ed senten%e de%larin# theliability of su%h person. B*t 01ere t1epri)ry i) is t# deter)ine 01et1er1e 1s bn! dep#sit in #rder t#brin b#*t pr#per ssess)ent byt1e 2BIR3, s*1 in4*iry is n#t ++#0edby t1is pr#p#sed +0.
r. ar%os? ut under our rules
of pro%edure and under the "ivil "ode, the
atta%hent or #arnishent of oneydeposited is allowed. Net us assue forinstan%e that there is a preliinaryatta%hent whi%h is for #arnishent orfor holdin# liable all oneys depositedbelon#in# to a %ertain individual, but su%hatta%hent or #arnishent will brin# outinto the open the value of su%hdeposit. s that prohibited by... the lawO
r. Raos? t is only prohibited
to the extent that the in3uiry... is adeonly for the purpose of satisfyin# a taxliability already de%lared for theprote%tion of the ri#ht in favor of the#overnent b*t 01en t1e #b5et is
)ere+y t# in4*ire 01et1er 1e 1s dep#sit #r n#t 6#r p*rp#ses #6t7ti#n, t1en t1is is 6*++y #8ered byt1e +0. x x x
r. ar%os? T1e +0 pr#1ibits
)ere in8estiti#n int# t1ee7istene nd t1e )#*nt #6 t1edep#sit.
r. Raos? Int# t1e 8ery
nt*re #6 s*1 dep#sit. x x x+
n ta5in# ex%lusion fro the %overa#e of the%on4dentiality rule, petitioner in the instant %ase positsthat the a%%ount aintained by respondent with (e%urityan5 %ontains the pro%eeds of the %he%5s that she hasfraudulently appropriated to herself and, thus, falls underone of the ex%eptions in (e%tion 2 of R.&. )o. 10! thatthe oney 5ept in said a%%ount is the subDe%t atter inliti#ation. To hi#hli#ht this thesis, petitioner avers,%itin# Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co.,[48]thatthe subDe%t atter of the a%tion refers to the physi%alfa%ts the thin#s real or personal the oney, lands,%hattels and the li5e, in relation to whi%h the suit isprose%uted, whi%h in the instant %ase should refer to theoney deposited in the (e%urity an5 a%%ount.A n thesurfa%e, however, it sees that petitioner:s theory isvalid to a point, yet a deeper treatent tends to showthat it has ar#ued 3uite o=-tan#entially. This, be%ause,while Mathay did explain what the subDe%t atter of ana%tion is, it nevertheless did so only to deterine whether
the %lass suit in that %ase was properly brou#ht to the%ourt.
Ghat indeed %onstitutes the subDe%t atter inliti#ation in relation to (e%tion 2 of R.&. )o. 10! hasbeen pointedly and aply addressed in nion Bank of the!hilippines v. Court of "ppeals,[50]in whi%h the "ourtnoted that the in3uiry into ban5 deposits allowable underR.&. )o. 10! ust be preised on the fa%t that theoney deposited in the a%%ount is itse+6the subDe%t ofthe a%tion.!1 'iven this perspe%tive, we dedu%e that thesubDe%t atter of the a%tion in the %ase at bar is to bedeterined fro the indi%tent that %har#es respondentwith the o=ense, and not fro the eviden%e sou#ht bythe prose%ution to be aditted into the re%ords. n the%riinal nforation 4led with the trial %ourt, respondent,
un3uali4edly and in plain lan#ua#e, is %har#ed with3uali4ed theft by abusin# petitioner:s trust and%on4den%e and stealin# %ash in the aountof P1,!/,1/!.!0. The said nforation a5es no fa%tualalle#ation that in soe aterial way involves the %he%5ssubDe%t of the testionial and do%uentary eviden%esou#ht to be suppressed. )either do the alle#ations insaid nforation a5e ention of the supposed ban5a%%ount in whi%h the funds represented by the %he%5shave alle#edly been 5ept.
n other words, it %an hardly be inferred fro theindi%tent itself that the (e%urity an5 a%%ount is theostensible subDe%t of the prose%ution:s in3uiry. Githoutneedlessly expandin# the s%ope of what is plainly alle#ed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn51 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
4/30
in the nforation, the subDe%t atter of the a%tion in this%ase is the oney aountin# to P1,!/,1/!.!0 alle#ed tohave been stolen by respondent, and not the oneye3uivalent of the %he%5s whi%h are sou#ht to be adittedin eviden%e. Thus, it is that, whi%h the prose%ution isbound to prove with its eviden%e, and no other.
t %oes %lear that the adission of testionial
and do%uentary eviden%e relative to respondent:s(e%urity an5 a%%ount serves no other purpose than toestablish the existen%e of su%h a%%ount, its nature andthe aount 5ept in it. t %onstitutes an attept by the
prose%ution at an iperissible in3uiry into a ban5deposit a%%ount the priva%y and %on4dentiality of whi%h isprote%ted by law. n this s%ore alone, the obDe%tionposed by respondent in her otion to suppress shouldhave indeed put an end to the %ontroversy at the very4rst instan%e it was raised before the trial %ourt.
n su, we hold that the testiony of arasi#anon the parti%ulars of respondent:s supposed ban5 a%%ountwith (e%urity an5 and the do%uentary eviden%erepresented by the %he%5s addu%ed in support thereof,are not only in%opetent for bein# ex%luded by operationof R.&. )o. 10!. They are li5ewise irrelevant to the %ase,inasu%h as they do not appear to have any lo#i%al andreasonable %onne%tion to the prose%ution of respondentfor 3uali4ed theft. Ge 4nd full erit in and a;r
respondent:s obDe%tion to the eviden%e of theprose%ution. The "ourt of &ppeals was, therefore, %orre%tin reversin# the assailed orders of the trial %ourt.
& 4nal note. n any #iven Durisdi%tion where the
ri#ht of priva%y extends its s%ope to in%lude anindividual:s 4nan%ial priva%y ri#hts and personal 4nan%ialatters, there is an interediate or hei#htened s%rutiny#iven by %ourts and le#islators to laws infrin#in# su%hri#hts.!2(hould there be doubts in upholdin# theabsolutely %on4dential nature of ban5 deposits a#ainsta;rin# the authority to in3uire into su%h a%%ounts, thensu%h doubts ust be resolved in favor of the forer. Thisattitude persists unless %on#ress lifts its 4n#er to reversethe #eneral state poli%y respe%tin# the absolutely%on4dential nature of ban5 deposits.!/
9H-R-:OR-, the petition is D-NI-D. The
$e%ision of the "ourt of &ppeals in "&-'.R. (P )o. *+600dated &pril 20, 200!, reversin# the (epteber 1/, 200and )oveber !, 200 rders of the Re#ional Trial "ourtof anila, ran%h /6 in "riinal "ase )o. 02-2021!*,is A::IRM-D.
SO ORD-R-D.
(B")$ $I()
G.R. N#. $;$
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
5/30
4led before the "&. n his &ppellant:s rief, (oria#a
presented the followin#?
ASSIGNM-NT O: -RRORS
I
TH- TRIAL COURT GRAV-LY -RR-D IN
R-ND-RING A V-RDICT O: CONVICTION
D-SPIT- TH- PROS-CUTION?S :AILUR- TO
PROV- TH- GUILT O: TH- ACCUS-D"
APP-LLANT B-YOND R-ASONABL- DOUBT.
II
TH- TRIAL COURT -RR-D IN R-ND-RING A
@UDGM-NT O: CONVICTION D-SPIT- TH-
PROS-CUTION?S :AILUR- TO -STABLISH
TH- CHAIN O: CUSTODY O: TH- ALL-G-D
SHABU.+
The "ourt 4nds no erit in the appeal.
Q& buy-bust operation is a for of entrapent whereby
ways and eans are resorted to for the purpose of
trappin# and %apturin# the lawbrea5ers in the exe%ution
of their %riinal plan. n this Durisdi%tion, the operation is
le#al and has been proved to be an e=e%tive ethod of
apprehendin# dru# peddlers, provided due re#ard to
%onstitutional and le#al safe#uards is underta5en.Q*
(oria#a ar#ues that the buy-bust tea failed to %oply
with the re3uisites of (e%tion 21, &rti%le of R.&. )o.
A16! and its ipleentin# rules re3uirin# the iediate
inventory and photo#raph of the ites sei7ed in the buy-
bust operation. Further, (oria#a pro%eeds to 3uestion the
%hain of %ustody of the sei7ed shabu.
First of all, what is aterial to the prose%ution for ille#al
sale of prohibited or dan#erous dru#s is the proof that the
transa%tion or sale a%tually too5 pla%e, plus the
presentation of the %orpus deli%ti as eviden%e. Thus, the
eleents essential to the %rie of ille#al sale of
prohibited or dan#erous dru#s are? 8i9 the a%%used sold
and delivered a prohibited dru# to another and 8ii9 he
5new that what he had sold and delivered was a
prohibited dru#.A
The RT" and the "& both found the above eleents to
have been satisfa%torily proved by the prose%ution in the
present %ase. (oria#a sold and delivered the shabufor P100 to Fa%undo, the poseur buyer. Fa%undo herself
testi4ed that there was an a%tual ex%han#e of the
ar5ed-oney and the prohibited dru#. "ertainly,
(oria#a was aware that what he was sellin# was ille#al
and prohibited. Thereafter, the corpus delictior the
subDe%t dru# was sei7ed, ar5ed and subse3uently
identi4ed as a prohibited dru#. &t the trial, the sae dru#
with the identifyin# ar5s inta%t was presented in
eviden%e. "oupled with the unwaverin# testiony of
Fa%undo who had no reason at all to falsely a%%use
(oria#a and who was only doin# her Dob, the prose%ution
%onvin%ed the RT" to render a Dud#ent of %onvi%tion.
n the absen%e of any showin# that substantial or relevantfa%ts bearin# on the eleents of the %rie have been
isapplied or overloo5ed, the "ourt %an only a%%ord full
%reden%e to su%h fa%tual assessent of the trial %ourt
whi%h had the distin%t advanta#e of observin# the
deeanor and %ondu%t of the witnesses at the trial.10
&bsent any proof of otive to falsely %har#e an a%%used
of su%h a #rave o=ense, the presuption of re#ularity in
the perforan%e of o;%ial duty and the 4ndin#s of the
trial %ourt with respe%t to the %redibility of witnesses shall
prevail over his bare alle#ation.11
n the issue of non-%oplian%e with the pres%ribed
pro%edures in the inventory of sei7ed dru#s, the rule is
that it does not render an a%%usedSs arrest ille#al or the
ites sei7ed
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
6/30
GHBRBFRB, the appeal is $B)B$.
( R$BRB$.
FR(T $I()
2G.R. N#. $'&//=. @*ne $, /==3
ROS-NDO H-RR-RA,petitioner, vs. ROS-NDO
ALBA, )in#r, represented by 1is )#t1erARMI A. ALBA, nd HON. NIM:A CU-STA"
VILCH-S, Presidin @*de, Brn1 '&,
Rei#n+Trial "ourt, Mni+, respondents.
D - C I S I O N
CARPIO,J.(
T1e Cse
This is a petition for review1to set aside the
$e%ision2dated 2A )oveber 2000 of the "ourt of
&ppeals 8Jappellate %ourtK9 in "&-'.R. (P )o. !A+66. Theappellate %ourt a;red two rders/issued by ran%h *
of the Re#ional Trial "ourt of anila 8Jtrial %ourtK9 in (P
)o. A*-**+!A. The rder dated / February 2000 dire%ted
Rosendo Herrera 8JpetitionerK9 to subit
to deoxyribonu%lei% a%id 8J$)&K9 paternity testin#, while
the rder dated * @une 2000 denied petitioner:s otion
for re%onsideration.
T1e :ts
n 1 ay 1AA*, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo
&lba 8JrespondentK9, represented by his other &ri
&lba, 4led before the trial %ourt a petition for %opulsoryre%o#nition, support and daa#es a#ainst petitioner. n
+ &u#ust 1AA*, petitioner 4led his answer with
%ounter%lai where he denied that he is the biolo#i%al
father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physi%al
%onta%t with respondent:s other.
Respondent 4led a otion to dire%t the ta5in#
of $)& paternity testin# to abbreviate the pro%eedin#s.
To support the otion, respondent presented the
testiony of (aturnina ". Halos, Ph.$. Ghen she
testi4ed, $r. Halos was an &sso%iate Professor at $e Na
(alle >niversity where she tau#ht "ell iolo#y. (he was
also head of the >niversity of the Philippines )atural
(%ien%es Resear%h nstitute 8J>P-)(RK9, a $)& analysislaboratory. (he was a forer professor at the >niversity
of the Philippines in $ilian, Uue7on "ity, where she
developed the ole%ular iolo#y Pro#ra and tau#ht
ole%ular iolo#y. n her testiony, $r. Halos des%ribed
the pro%ess for $)& paternity testin# and asserted that
the test had an a%%ura%y rate of AA.AAAAV in establishin#
paternity.
Petitioner opposed $)& paternity testin# and
%ontended that it has not #ained a%%eptability. Petitioner
further ar#ued that $)& paternity testin# violates his
ri#ht a#ainst self-in%riination.
T1e R*+in #6 t1e Tri+ C#*rt
n an rder dated / February 2000, the trial %ourt
#ranted respondent:s otion to %ondu%t $)& paternity
testin# on petitioner, respondent and &ri &lba. Thus?
In 8ie0 #6 t1e 6#re#in, t1e )#ti#n #6 t1e
petiti#ner is GRANT-D nd t1e re+e8nt indi8id*+s,
n)e+y( t1e petiti#ner, t1e )in#r 1i+d, nd
resp#ndent re direted t# *nder# DNA pternity
testin in +b#rt#ry #6 t1eir #))#n 1#ie
0it1in peri#d #6 t1irty
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
7/30
#rdered dis)issed, nd t1e 1++ened #rders #6
t1e Tri+ C#*rt A::IRM-D, 0it1 #sts t# Petiti#ner.
SO ORD-R-D.2&3
Petitioner oved for re%onsideration, whi%h the
appellate %ourt denied in its Resolution dated 2/ ay
2001.A
Iss*es
Petitioner raises the issue of whether a $)& test is a
valid probative tool in this Durisdi%tion to deterine
4liation. Petitioner as5s for the %onditions under whi%h
$)& te%hnolo#y ay be inte#rated into our Dudi%ial
syste and the prere3uisites for the adissibility of $)&
test results in a paternity suit.10
Petitioner further subits that the appellate %ourt
#ravely abused its dis%retion when it authori7ed the trial
%ourt Jto ebar5 in si% a new pro%edure xxx to
deterine 4liation despite the absen%e of le#islation to
ensure its reliability and inte#rity, want of o;%ial
re%o#nition as ade %lear in im vs. Court of "ppealsandthe presen%e of te%hni%al and le#al %onstraints in respe%t
of si% its ipleentation.K11Petitioner aintains that
the proposed $)& paternity testin# violates his ri#ht
a#ainst self-in%riination.12
T1e R*+in #6 t1e C#*rt
The petition has no erit.
efore dis%ussin# the issues on $)& paternity
testin#, we dee it appropriate to #ive an overview of a
paternity suit and apply it to the fa%ts of this %ase. Ge
shall %onsider the re3uireents of the Faily "ode and of
the Rules of Bviden%e to establish paternity and 4liation.
An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation !it
Filiation pro%eedin#s are usually 4led not Dust to
adDudi%ate paternity but also to se%ure a le#al ri#ht
asso%iated with paternity, su%h as %iti7enship,1/support
8as in the present %ase9, or inheritan%e. The burden of
provin# paternity is on the person who alle#es that the
putative father is the biolo#i%al father of the %hild. There
are four si#ni4%ant pro%edural aspe%ts of a traditional
paternity a%tion whi%h parties have to fa%e? aprima facie
case, a;rative defenses, presuption of le#itia%y,
and physi%al reseblan%e between the putative fatherand %hild.1
&prima facie %ase exists if a woan de%lares that
she had sexual relations with the putative father. n our
Durisdi%tion, %orroborative proof is re3uired to %arry the
burden forward and shift it to the putative father.1!
There are two a;rative defenses available to the
putative father. The putative father ay show
in%apability of sexual relations with the other, be%ause
of either physi%al absen%e or ipoten%y. 16The putative
father ay also show that the other had sexual
relations with other en at the tie of %on%eption.
& %hild born to a husband and wife durin# a valid
arria#e is presued le#itiate.1+The %hild:s le#itia%y
ay be ipu#ned only under the stri%t standards
provided by law.1*
Finally, physi%al reseblan%e between the putative
father and %hild ay be o=ered as part of eviden%e of
paternity. Reseblan%e is a trial te%hni3ue uni3ue to a
paternity pro%eedin#. However, althou#h li5eness is a
fun%tion of heredity, there is no atheati%al forula
that %ould 3uantify how u%h a %hild ust or ust not
loo5 li5e his biolo#i%al father.1AThis 5ind of eviden%e
appeals to the eotions of the trier of fa%t.
n the present %ase, the trial %ourt en%ountered
three of the four aspe%ts. &ri &lba, respondent:s
other, put forward aprima facie%ase when she
asserted that petitioner is respondent:s biolo#i%al father.
&ware that her assertion is not enou#h to %onvin%e the
trial %ourt, she o=ered %orroborative proof in the for of
letters and pi%tures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied
&ri &lba:s assertion. He denied ever havin# sexualrelations with &ri &lba and stated that respondent is
&ri &lba:s %hild with another an. &ri &lba %ountered
petitioner:s denial by subittin# pi%tures of respondent
and petitioner side by side, to show how u%h they
reseble ea%h other.
Paternity and 4liation disputes %an easily be%oe
%redibility %ontests. Ge now loo5 to the law, rules, and
#overnin# Durispruden%e to help us deterine what
eviden%e of in%riinatin# a%ts on paternity and 4liation
are allowed in this Durisdi%tion.
"aws# $!les# and J!rispr!den%e
&sta'lishin( Filiation
The relevant provisions of the Faily "ode provide
as follows?
ART. $. I++eiti)te 1i+dren )y estb+is1 t1eir
i++eiti)te +iti#n in t1e s)e 0y nd #n t1e
s)e e8idene s +eiti)te 1i+dren.
777
ART. $/. T1e +iti#n #6 +eiti)te 1i+dren is
estb+is1ed by ny #6 t1e 6#++#0in(
$ T1e re#rd #6 birt1 pperin in
t1e i8i+ reister #r n+
5*d)ent #r
/ An d)issi#n #6 +eiti)te +iti#n
in p*b+i d#*)ent #r pri8te
1nd0ritten instr*)ent nd sined
by t1e prent #nerned.
In t1e bsene #6 t1e 6#re#in e8idene, t1e
+eiti)te +iti#n s1++ be pr#8ed by(
$ T1e #pen nd #ntin*#*s
p#ssessi#n #6 t1e stt*s #6
+eiti)te 1i+d #r
/ Any #t1er )ens ++#0ed by t1e
R*+es #6 C#*rt nd spei+ +0s.
The Rules on Bviden%e in%lude provisions on
pedi#ree. The relevant se%tions of Rule 1/0 provide?
S-C.
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
8/30
S-C. '=. Fa*ily rep!tation or tradition re(ardin(
pedi(ree.)T1e rep*tti#n #r trditi#n e7istin in
6)i+y pre8i#*s t# t1e #ntr#8ersy, in respet t#
t1e pediree #6 ny #ne #6 its )e)bers, )y be
reei8ed in e8idene i6 t1e 0itness testi6yin
t1ere#n be +s# )e)ber #6 t1e 6)i+y, eit1er by
#nsn*inity #r Jnity. -ntries in 6)i+y bib+es
#r #t1er 6)i+y b##!s #r 1rts, enr8in #n
rins, 6)i+y p#rtrits nd t1e +i!e, )y be
reei8ed s e8idene #6 pediree.
This "ourt:s rulin#s further spe%ify what
in%riinatin# a%ts are a%%eptable as eviden%e to establish
4liation. n Pe "i* v. +A,20a %ase petitioner often %ites,
we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be
resolved by su%h %onventional eviden%e as the
relevant inri)intinverbal and written a%ts by the
putative father. >nder &rti%le 2+* of the )ew "ivil "ode,
voluntary re%o#nition by a parent shall be ade in the
re%ord of birth, a will, a stateent before a %ourt of
re%ord, or in any authenti% writin#. To be e=e%tive, the
%lai of 4liation ust be ade by the putative father
hiself and the writin# ust be the writin# of the
putative father.21& notarial a#reeent to support a %hild
whose 4liation is aditted by the putative father was%onsidered a%%eptable eviden%e.22Netters to the other
vowin# to be a #ood father to the %hild and pi%tures of
the putative father %uddlin# the %hild on various
o%%asions, to#ether with the %erti4%ate of live birth,
proved 4liation.2/However, a student peranent re%ord,
a written %onsent to a father:s operation, or a arria#e
%ontra%t where the putative father #ave %onsent, %annot
be ta5en as authenti% writin#.2(tandin# alone, neither a
%erti4%ate of baptis2!nor faily pi%tures26are
su;%ient to establish 4liation.
(o far, the laws, rules, and Durispruden%e seein#ly
liit eviden%e of paternity and 4liation to in%riinatin#
a%ts alone. However, advan%es in s%ien%e show thatsour%es of eviden%e of paternity and 4liation need not be
liited to in%riinatin# a%ts. There is now alost
universal s%ienti4% a#reeent that blood #roupin# tests
are %on%lusive on non-paternity, althou#h in%on%lusive on
paternity.2+
n +o ,ao v. +o!rt of Appeals,2*the result of the
blood #roupin# test showed that the putative father was a
Jpossible fatherK of the %hild. Paternity was iputed to
the putative father after the possibility of paternity was
proven on presentation durin# trial of fa%ts and
%ir%ustan%es other than the results of the blood
#roupin# test.
nJao v. +o!rt of Appeals,2Athe %hild, the
other, and the putative father a#reed to subit
theselves to a blood #roupin# test. The )ational
ureau of nvesti#ation 8J)K9 %ondu%ted the test, whi%h
indi%ated that the %hild %ould not have been the possible
o=sprin# of the other and the putative father. Ge held
that the result of the blood #roupin# test was %on%lusive
on the non-paternity of the putative father.
The present %ase as5s us to #o one step further. Ge
are now as5ed whether $)& analysis ay be aditted as
eviden%e to prove paternity.
-A Analysis as &viden%e
$)& is the fundaental buildin# blo%5 of a person:s
entire #eneti% a5e-up. $)& is found in all huan %ells
and is the sae in every %ell of the sae person. 'eneti%
identity is uni3ue. Hen%e, a person:s $)& pro4le %an
deterine his identity./0
$)& analysis is a pro%edure in whi%h $)& extra%ted
fro a biolo#i%al saple obtained fro an individual is
exained. The $)& is pro%essed to #enerate a pattern,
or a $)& pro4le, for the individual fro who the saple
is ta5en. This $)& pro4le is uni3ue for ea%h person,
ex%ept for identi%al twins./1Ge 3uote relevant portions
of the trial %ourt:s / February 2000 rder with approval?
-8ery#ne is b#rn 0it1 distint eneti b+*eprint
++ed DNA de#7yrib#n*+ei id. It is e7+*si8e
t# n indi8id*+ e7ept in t1e rre #*rrene #6
identi+ t0ins t1t s1re sin+e, 6erti+iKed e,
nd DNA is *n1nin t1r#*1#*t +i6e. Bein
#)p#nent #6 e8ery e++ in t1e 1*)n b#dy, t1e
DNA #6 n indi8id*+?s b+##d is t1e 8ery DNA in 1is#r 1er s!in e++s, 1ir 6#++i+es, )*s+es, se)en,
s)p+es 6r#) b*+ s0bs, s+i8, #r #t1er b#dy
prts.
T1e 1e)i+ str*t*re #6 DNA 1s 6#*r bses.
T1ey re !n#0n
s A denine, G *nine, C yst#sine
nd T t1y)ine. T1e #rder in 01i1 t1e 6#*r bses
pper in n indi8id*+?s DNA deter)ines 1is #r
1er p1ysi+ )!e*p. And sine DNA is d#*b+e"
strnded )#+e*+e, it is #)p#sed #6 t0# spei
pired bses, A"T #r T"A nd G"C #r C"G. T1ese re
++ed /(enes.
-8ery (ene1s ertin n*)ber #6 t1e b#8e bse
pirs distrib*ted in prti*+r se4*ene. T1is
i8es pers#n 1is #r 1er eneti #de. S#)e01ere
in t1e DNA 6r)e0#r!, n#net1e+ess, re seti#ns
t1t diEer. T1ey re !n#0n s /poly*orphi%
lo%i#01i1 re t1e res n+yKed in DNA typin
pr#+in, tests, nerprintin, #r n+ysisDNA
nerprintineneti tests #r nerprintin. In
#t1er 0#rds, DNA typin si)p+y )ens
deter)inin t1e /poly*orphi% lo%i.
H#0 is DNA typin per6#r)ed :r#) DNA s)p+e
#btined #r e7trted, )#+e*+r bi#+#ist )y
pr#eed t# n+yKe it in se8er+ 0ys. T1ere re
8e te1ni4*es t# #nd*t DNA typin. T1ey
re( t1e $F"P 1restri%tion fra(*ent len(th
poly*orphis*23 /reverse dot 'lot#r HLA D P)
+#i 01i1 0s *sed in /& ses t1t 0ere
d)itted s e8idene by
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
9/30
deter)ine 01i1 1+6 #6 t1e 1i+d?s DNA 0s
in1erited 6r#) t1e )#t1er. T1e #t1er 1+6 )*st
18e been in1erited 6r#) t1e bi#+#i+ 6t1er. T1e
++eed 6t1er?s pr#+e is t1en e7)ined t#
sertin 01et1er 1e 1s t1e DNA types in 1is
pr#+e, 01i1 )t1 t1e ptern+ types in t1e
1i+d. I6 t1e )n?s DNA types d# n#t )t1 t1t #6
t1e 1i+d, t1e )n is e7+*ded s t1e 6t1er. I6 t1e
DNA types )t1, t1en 1e is n#t e7+*ded s t1e
6t1er.2
-
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
10/30
deter)inti#n #6 t1e ti#n )#re pr#bb+e #r +ess
pr#bb+e t1n it 0#*+d be 0it1#*t t1e e8idene.
R*+e '=/. A++ re+e8nt e8idene is d)issib+e,
e7ept s #t1er0ise pr#8ided by t1e C#nstit*ti#n
#6 t1e United Sttes, by At #6 C#nress, by t1ese
r*+es, #r by #t1er r*+es presribed by t1e S*pre)e
C#*rt p*rs*nt t# stt*t#ry *t1#rity. -8idene
01i1 is n#t re+e8nt is n#t d)issib+e.
Rule +02 of the Federal Rules of Bviden%e #overnin#expert testiony provides?
I6 sienti, te1ni+, #r #t1er spei+iKed
!n#0+ede 0i++ ssist t1e trier #6 6t t#
*nderstnd t1e e8idene #r t# deter)ine 6t in
iss*e, 0itness 4*+ied s n e7pert by
!n#0+ede, s!i++, e7periene, trinin, #r
ed*ti#n, )y testi6y t1eret# in t1e 6#r) #6 n
#pini#n #r #t1er0ise.
-a!'ert%autions that departure fro
the Fryestandard of #eneral a%%eptan%e does not ean
that the Federal Rules do not pla%e liits on the
adissibility of s%ienti4% eviden%e. Rather, the Dud#e
ust ensure that the testiony:s reasonin# or ethod is
s%ienti4%ally valid and is relevant to the issue.
&dissibility would depend on fa%tors su%h as 819
whether the theory or te%hni3ue %an be or has been
tested 829 whether the theory or te%hni3ue has been
subDe%ted to peer review and publi%ation 8/9 the 5nown
or potential rate of error 89 the existen%e and
aintenan%e of standards %ontrollin# the te%hni3ue:s
operation and 8!9 whether the theory or te%hni3ue is
#enerally a%%epted in the s%ienti4% %ounity.
¬her produ%t liability %ase, @!*ho ,ires +o. v.
+ar*i%hael,
6
further odi4ed the -a!'ertstandard.This led to the aendent of Rule +02 in 2000 and whi%h
now reads as follows?
I6 sienti, te1ni+ #r #t1er spei+iKed
!n#0+ede 0i++ ssist t1e trier #6 6t t#
*nderstnd t1e e8idene #r t# deter)ine 6t in
iss*e, 0itness 4*+ied s n e7pert by
!n#0+ede, s!i++, e7periene, trinin, #r
ed*ti#n, )y testi6y t1eret# in t1e 6#r) #6 n
#pini#n #r #t1er0ise, i6 $ t1e testi)#ny is bsed
*p#n s*Jient 6ts #r dt, / t1e testi)#ny is
t1e pr#d*t #6 re+ib+e prinip+es nd )et1#ds, nd
standard nor the -a!'ert?
@!*hostandard is %ontrollin# in the Philippines.+&t
best, &eri%an Durispruden%e erely has a persuasive
e=e%t on our de%isions. Here, eviden%e is adissible
when it is relevant to the fa%t in issue and is not
otherwise ex%luded by statute or the Rules of "ourt.*Bviden%e is relevant when it has su%h a relation to the
fa%t in issue as to indu%e belief in its existen%e or non-
existen%e.A(e%tion A of Rule 1/0, whi%h #overns the
adissibility of expert testiony, provides as follows?
T1e #pini#n #6 0itness #n )tter re4*irin
spei+ !n#0+ede, s!i++, e7periene #r trinin
01i1 1e is s1#0n t# p#ssess )y be reei8ed in
e8idene.
This Rule does not pose any le#al obsta%le to the
adissibility of $)& analysis as eviden%e. ndeed, even
eviden%e on %ollateral atters is allowed Jwhen it tends
in any reasonable de#ree to establish the probability or
iprobability of the fa%t in issue.K!0
ndeed, it would have been %onvenient to erely
refer petitioner to our de%isions in ,iin(#
alleoand 7atarto illustrate that $)& analysis is
adissible as eviden%e. n our Durisdi%tion, the restri%tive
tests for adissibility established by Frye?
%hwart>and -a!'ert?@!*ho#o into the wei#ht of the
eviden%e.
Pro'ative al!e of
-A Analysis as &viden%e
$espite our relatively liberal rules on adissibility,
trial %ourts should be %autious in #ivin# %reden%e to $)&
analysis as eviden%e. Ge reiterate our stateent
in alleo?
In ssessin t1e pr#bti8e 8+*e #6 DNA e8idene,
t1ere6#re, #*rts s1#*+d #nsider, )#n #t1er
t1ins, t1e 6#++#0in dt( 1#0 t1e s)p+es 0ere
#++eted, 1#0 t1ey 0ere 1nd+ed, t1e p#ssibi+ity
#6 #nt)inti#n #6 t1e s)p+es, t1e pr#ed*re
6#++#0ed in n+yKin t1e s)p+es, 01et1er t1e
pr#per stndrds nd pr#ed*res 0ere 6#++#0ed in
#nd*tin t1e tests, nd t1e 4*+iti#n #6 t1e
n+yst 01# #nd*ted t1e tests.2$3
Ge also repeat the trial %ourt:s explanation of $)&
analysis used in paternity %ases?
In 23 pternity test, t1e 6#rensi sientist +##!s t
n*)ber #6 t1ese 8rib+e rei#ns in n indi8id*+
t# pr#d*e DNA pr#+e. C#)prin ne7t t1e DNA
pr#+es #6 t1e )#t1er nd 1i+d, it is p#ssib+e t#
deter)ine 01i1 1+6 #6 t1e 1i+d?s DNA 0s
in1erited 6r#) t1e )#t1er. T1e #t1er 1+6 )*st
18e been in1erited 6r#) t1e bi#+#i+ 6t1er. T1e
++eed 6t1er?s pr#+e is t1en e7)ined t#sertin 01et1er 1e 1s t1e DNA types in 1is
pr#+e, 01i1 )t1 t1e ptern+ types in t1e
1i+d. I6 t1e )n?s DNA types d# n#t )t1 t1t #6
t1e 1i+d, t1e )n is e7+*ded s t1e 6t1er. I6 t1e
DNA types )t1, t1en 1e is n#t e7+*ded s t1e
6t1er.2/3
t is not enou#h to state that the %hild:s $)& pro4le
at%hes that of the putative father. & %oplete at%h
between the $)& pro4le of the %hild and the $)& pro4le
of the putative father does not ne%essarily establish
paternity. For this reason, followin# the hi#hest standard
adopted in an &eri%an Durisdi%tion, !/trial %ourts should
re3uire at least AA.AV as a iniu value of theProbability of Paternity 8JGK9 prior to a paternity
in%lusion. G is a nueri%al estiate for the li5elihood of
paternity of a putative father %opared to the probability
of a rando at%h of two unrelated individuals. &n
appropriate referen%e population database, su%h as the
Philippine population database, is re3uired to %opute for
G. $ue to the probabilisti% nature of paternity in%lusions,
G will never e3ual to 100V. However, the a%%ura%y of G
estiates is hi#her when the putative father, other and
%hild are subDe%ted to $)& analysis %opared to those
%ondu%ted between the putative father and %hild alone.!
$)& analysis that ex%ludes the putative father fro
paternity should be %on%lusive proof of non-paternity. fthe value of G is less than AA.AV, the results of the $)&
analysis should be %onsidered as %orroborative eviden%e.
f the value of G is AA.AV or hi#her, then there
is re6*tb+epresuption of paternity.!!This refutable
presuption of paternity should be subDe%ted to
the alleostandards.
$i(ht A(ainst
elf?n%ri*ination
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn55 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
11/30
(e%tion 1+, &rti%le / of the 1A*+ "onstitution
provides that Jno person shall be %opelled to be a
witness a#ainst hiself.K Petitioner asserts that obtainin#
saples fro hi for $)& testin# violates his ri#ht
a#ainst self-in%riination. Petitioner i#nores our earlier
pronoun%eents that the privile#e is appli%able only to
testionial eviden%e. ain, we 3uote relevant portions
of the trial %ourt:s / February 2000 rder with approval?
Obtinin DNA s)p+es 6r#) n *sed in
ri)in+ se #r 6r#) t1e resp#ndent in pternityse, #ntrry t# t1e be+ie6 #6 resp#ndent in t1is
ti#n, 0i++ n#t 8i#+te t1e ri1t inst se+6"
inri)inti#n. T1is pri8i+ee pp+ies #n+y t#
e8idene t1t is /%o**!ni%ativein essene t!en
*nder d*ress Pe#p+e 8s. O+8is, $' SCRA $A, respondent.
R - S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA"&RT)BX,J.(
efore us is a %oplaint 4led by Pedro '. Tolentino,
Roeo . Nay#o, (oloon . Nualan#, (r., eliton $.
Bvan#elista, (r., and )elson . el#ar a#ainst &tty.
)orberto . endo7a for 'rossly oral "ondu%t and
'ross is%ondu%t.
"oplainants alle#e in their &;davit-"oplaint that
respondent, a forer uni%ipal Trial "ourt @ud#e,
abandoned his le#al wife, Feli%itas I. Ialderia in favor of
his paraour, arilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn,
arried to one Raon '. ar%os respondent and arilyn
dela Fuente have been %ohabitin# openly and publi%ly
as husband and wife in r#y. Bstrella, )auDan, riental
indoro respondent had fathered two %hildren by his
paraour arilyn dela Fuente respondent and arilyn
dela Fuente de%lared in the birth %erti4%ates of their two
dau#hters that they were arried on ay 12, 1A*6,a5in# it appear that their two %hildren are le#itiate,
while in respondent:s "erti4%ate of "andida%y 4led with
the "BNB" durin# the 1AA! ele%tions, respondent
de%lared that his wife is Feli%itas I. Ialderia in
respondent:s %erti4%ate of %andida%y for the 1AA*
ele%tions, he de%lared his %ivil status as separated su%h
de%larations in the birth %erti4%ates of his %hildren and in
his %erti4%ate of %andida%y are a%ts %onstitutin#
falsi4%ation of publi% do%uents and respondent:s a%ts
betray his la%5 of #ood oral %hara%ter and %onstitute
#rounds for his reoval as a eber of the bar.
Respondent 4led his "oent wherein he states
that %oplainants, who are his politi%al opponents in)auDan, riental indoro, are erely 4lin# this %ase to
exa%t reven#e on hi for his 4lin# of %riinal
%har#es a#ainst the %oplainants ille#ally pro%ured
%opies of the birth %erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina
dela Fuente endo7a and yrra Mhrisna )orina dela
Fuente endo7a, in violation of Rule 2, &dinistrative
rder )o. 1, series of 1AA/, thus, su%h do%uents are
inadissible in eviden%e respondent did not parti%ipate
in the preparation and subission with the lo%al %ivil
re#istry of subDe%t birth %erti4%ates respondent never
de%lared that he had two wives, as he has always
de%lared that he is separated in fa%t fro his wife,
Feli%itas I. Ialderia and %oplainants have used this
issue a#ainst hi durin# ele%tions and yet, the people of)auDan, riental indoro still ele%ted hi as ayor,
hen%e, respondent has not o=ended the publi%:s sense of
orality.
The adinistrative %ase was referred to the
nte#rated ar of the Philippines 8hereinafter P9 for
investi#ation, report and re%oendation. Thereafter,
the "oission on ar $is%ipline of the P %ondu%ted
hearin#s.
Gitnesses for %oplainants, )elson . el#ar and
Roeo . Nay#o, subitted their a;davits as their dire%t
testiony and were subDe%ted to %ross-exaination by
respondent:s %ounsel.
Gitness )elson . el#ar de%lares in his a;davit as
follows? He 5nows respondent for they both reside in
)auDan, riental indoro. Respondent is 5nown as a
pra%ti%in# lawyer and a forer uni%ipal Trial "ourt
@ud#e. Respondent has been %ohabitin# openly and
publi%ly with arilyn dela Fuente, representin#
theselves to be husband and wife, and fro their
%ohabitation, they produ%ed two %hildren, naely, ara
Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and yrra
Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a. (oetie in
1AA!, he 8witness el#ar9 re%eived a letter fro a
%on%erned %iti7en, inforin# hi that respondent was
arried to Feli%itas Ialderia of (an Rafael, ula%an, on
@anuary 16, 1A*0, but respondent abandoned his wife to
%ohabit with arilyn dela Fuente. &tta%hed to the letter
was a photo%opy of a "erti4%ation issued by the "ivil
Re#ister attestin# to the arria#e between respondent
and Feli%itas Ialderia. He also re%eived inforation fro
%on%erned %iti7ens that arilyn dela Fuente is also le#ally
arried to one Raon '. ar%os, as eviden%ed by a
"erti4%ation fro the ;%e of the "ivil Re#ister.
Respondent stated in his "erti4%ate of "andida%y 4led
with the "BNB" in 1AA! that he is still le#ally arried
to Feli%itas Ialderia. n respondent:s "erti4%ate of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
12/30
"andida%y 4led with the "BNB" in 1AA*, he de%lared
his %ivil status as separated. Respondent has
represented to all that he is arried to arilyn dela
Fuente. n the 1au2ane3s, a lo%al newspaper where
respondent holds the position of "hairan of the oard of
the Bditorial (ta=, respondent was reported by said
newspaper as husband to arilyn dela Fuente and the
father of ara Mhrisna "harina and yrra Mhrisna
)orina.
n %ross-exaination, witness el#ar testi4ed asfollows? He was the forer ayor of )auDan and he and
respondent belon# to warrin# politi%al parties. t was not
respondent who told hi about the alle#ed ioral
%ondu%t subDe%t of the present %ase. <hou#h he
re%eived the letter of a %on%erned %iti7en re#ardin# the
ioral %ondu%t of respondent as far ba%5 as 1AA!, he
did not iediately 4le a %ase for disbarent a#ainst
respondent. t was only after respondent 4led a %riinal
%ase for falsi4%ation a#ainst hi that he de%ided to 4le an
adinistrative %ase a#ainst respondent.1
n re-dire%t exaination, witness el#ar testi4ed
that there were people who were a#ainst the open
relationship between respondent and arilyn dela Fuenteas respondent had been publi%ly introdu%in# the latter as
his wife despite the fa%t that they are both still le#ally
arried to other persons, and so soeone un5nown to
hi Dust handed to their aid %opies of the birth
%erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina and yrra Mhrisna
)orina.2
The a;davit of r. Roeo . Nay#o, whi%h was
adopted as his dire%t testiony, is pra%ti%ally identi%al to
that of witness el#ar. n %ross-exaination, witness
Nay#o testi4ed that he was not the one who pro%ured the
%erti4ed true %opies of the birth %erti4%ates of ara
Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and yrra
Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a, as soebody Dust#ave said do%uents to )elson el#ar. He was a
uni%ipal %oun%ilor in 1AA! when the letter of a
%on%erned %iti7en re#ardin# respondent:s iorality was
sent to el#ar, but he did not ta5e any a%tion a#ainst
respondent at that tie./
"oplainants then forally o=ered do%uentary
eviden%e %onsistin# of photo%opies whi%h were aditted
by respondent:s %ounsel to be faithful reprodu%tions of
the ori#inals or %erti4ed true %opies thereof, to wit? a
letter of one Nuis erude7 inforin# )elson el#ar of
respondent:s ioral a%ts,the "erti4%ation of the No%al
"ivil Re#istrar of (an Rafael, ula%an, attestin# to the
%elebration of the arria#e between respondent and one
Feli%itas Ialderia,!the irth "erti4%ate of ara Mhrisna
"harina dela Fuente endo7a,6the irth "erti4%ate of
yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a,+the
"erti4%ate of "andida%y of respondent dated ar%h A,
1AA!,*the "erti4%ate of "andida%y of respondent dated
ar%h 2!, 1AA*,A"erti4%ation issued by the "ivil
Re#istrar of )auDan, riental indoro dated %tober 2+,
1AA*, attestin# to the arria#e %elebrated between
arilyn dela Fuente and Raon ar%os,10and the
editorial pa#e of the 1au2ane3s8February-ar%h 1AAA
issue9,11wherein it was stated that respondent has two
dau#hters with his wife, arilyn dela Fuente.
Respondent, on the other hand, opted not to present
any eviden%e and erely subitted a eorandu
expoundin# on his ar#uents that the testionies of
%oplainants: witnesses are ere hearsay, thus, said
testionies and their do%uentary eviden%e have no
probative wei#ht.
n February 2+, 200, the oard of 'overnors of the
P passed Resolution )o. YI-200-12/, readin# as
follows?
RB(NIB$ to &$PT and &PPRIB, as it is hereby
&$PTB$ and &PPRIB$, the Report and
Re%oendation of the nvesti#atin# "oissioner of
the above-entitled %ase, herein ade part of this
Resolution as &nnex J&K and, 4ndin# the
re%oendation fully supported by the eviden%e on
re%ord and the appli%able laws and rules, and %onsiderin#
respondent:s violation of Rule 1.01 of the "ode of
Professional Responsibility, &tty. )orberto . endo7a is
hereby SUSP-ND-D IND-:INIT-LYfro the pra%ti%e of
law until he subits satisfa%tory proof that he is no
lon#er %ohabitin# with a woan who is not his wife and
has abandoned su%h ioral %ourse of %ondu%t.
Portions of the report and re%oendation of the
P "oission on ar $is%ipline, upon whi%h the above-
3uoted Resolution was based, read as follows?
F)$)'(?
The eviden%e of %oplainants to support their %har#e of
iorality %onsists in a9 the testionies of )elson el#ar
and Roeo Nay#o #iven by way of a;davits exe%uted
under oath and a;red before the "oission and b9
their do%uentary eviden%e %onsistin# of their BxhibitsJ&K to JHK.
Respondent 4led his %oent throu#h %ounsel and did
not forally present or o=er any eviden%e. Respondent
opted not to present his eviden%e anyore be%ause
a%%ordin# to hi Jthere is none to rebut vis-Z-vis the
eviden%e presented by the private %oplainants.K
Respondent instead subitted a eorandu throu#h
%ounsel to ar#ue his position. &s %an be seen fro the
%oent and eorandu subitted, respondent:s
%ounsel ar#ues that the %oplaint is politi%ally otivated
sin%e %oplainants are politi%al rivals of respondent and
that the birth %erti4%ates Bxhibits J$K and J$-1K whi%h
were o=ered to show that respondent sired the %hildren
naely ara Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and
yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a out of his
%ohabitation with arilyn dela Fuente are inadissible
be%ause they were alle#edly se%ured in violation of
&dinistrative rder )o. 1, (eries of 1AA/. The rest of
the exhibits are either hearsay or self-servin# a%%ordin#
to respondent.
The witnesses who are also two of the %oplainants
herein, on the other hand, %ate#ori%ally state in their
a;davits Bxhibits J&K and JK parti%ularly in para#raph
2 that JRespondent has been %ohabitin# openly and
publi%ly with arilyn de la Fuente, representin#
theselves to be husband and wife.K n para#raph 10 of
said a;davits the witnesses also %ate#ori%ally state that
Jrespondent has even represented to all and sundry that
arilyn de la Fuente is his wife.K These %ate#ori%al
stateents ade under oath by %oplainants are not
hearsay and reain un-rebutted. Respondent %hose not
to rebut the.
Bxhibit JB,K the "erti4%ate of "andida%y exe%uted by
respondent shows that respondent is arried to one,
Feli%itas I. Ialderia. &s shown by Bxhibit JHK, a arria#e
%erti4%ate, arilyn de la Fuente is arried to one, Raon
'. ar%os. $uly %erti4ed true %opies of said exhibits have
been presented by %oplainants.
Gith respe%t to Bxhibits J$K and J$-1K, we believe that
they are %opetent and relevant eviden%e and
adissible in this pro%eedin#s. The ex%lusionary rule
whi%h bars adission of ille#ally obtained eviden%e
applies ore appropriately to eviden%e obtained as a
result of ille#al sear%hes and sei7ures. The instant %ase
%annot be analo#ous to an ille#al sear%h or sei7ure. &
person who violates Rule 2 of &dinistrative rder )o. 1
(eries of 1AA/ as %ited by respondent ris5s the penalty of
iprisonent or payent of a 4ne but it does not a5e
the do%uent so issued inadissible as eviden%e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn11 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
13/30
spe%ially in pro%eedin#s li5e the present %ase. Bxhibits
J$K and J$-1K whi%h are duly %erti4ed birth %erti4%ates
are therefore %opetent eviden%e to show paternity of
said %hildren by respondent in the absen%e of any
eviden%e to the %ontrary.
y and lar#e the eviden%e of %oplainants %onsistin# of
the testionies of witnesses )elson el#ar and Roeo
Nay#o, and %orroborated by the do%uentary exhibits will
show that indeed respondent has been %ohabitin#
publi%ly with a %ertain arilyn de la Fuente who is not hiswife and that out of said %ohabitation respondent sired
two %hildren. These fa%ts we repeat have not been
denied by respondent under oath sin%e he %hose to Dust
ar#ue on the basis of the iproper otivations and the
inadissibility, hearsay and self-servin# nature of the
do%uents presented. "oplainants have presented
eviden%e su;%ient enou#h to %onvin%e us that indeed
respondent has been %ohabitin# publi%ly with a person
who is not his wife. The eviden%e ta5en to#ether will
support the fa%t that respondent is not of #ood oral
%hara%ter. That respondent %hose not to deny under oath
the #rave and serious alle#ations ade a#ainst hi is to
our ind his undoin# and his silen%e has not helped his
position before the "oission. &s between thedo%uents and positive stateents of %oplainants,
ade under oath and the ar#uents and %oents of
respondent subitted throu#h his lawyers, whi%h were
not veri4ed under oath by respondent hiself, we are
in%lined and so #ive wei#ht to the eviden%e of
%oplainants. The dire%t and forthri#ht testionies and
stateents of )elson el#ar and Roeo Nay#o that
respondent was openly %ohabitin# with arilyn de la
Fuente is not hearsay. The witnesses ay have aditted
that respondent endo7a did not tell the that a %ertain
arilyn de la Fuente was his paraour 8for why would
respondent adit that to %oplainants9 but the witnesses
did state %learly in their a;davits under oath that
respondent was %ohabitin# with arilyn de la Fuente who
is not respondent:s wife. ain their %ate#ori%al
stateents ta5en to#ether with the other do%uents, are
enou#h to %onvin%e us and %on%lude that respondent is
not of #ood oral %hara%ter.
ebers of the ar have been repeatedly reinded that
possession of #ood oral %hara%ter is a %ontinuin#
%ondition for ebership in the ar in #ood standin#.
The %ontinued possession of #ood oral %hara%ter is a
re3uisite %ondition for reainin# in the pra%ti%e of law
Mortel vs. "spiras100 Phil. !*6 81A!69 Cordova vs.
Cordova1+A ("R& 6*0 81A*A9 !eople vs. Tuanda1*1
("R& 6*2 81AA09. The oral delin3uen%y that a=e%ts
the 4tness of a eber of the bar to %ontinue as su%h
in%ludes %ondu%t that outra#es the #enerally a%%epted
oral standards of the %ounity, %ondu%t for instan%e,
whi%h a5es Jo%5ery of the inviolable so%ial institution
of arria#eK iDares vs. Iillalu7 2+ ("R& 1 81AA+9.
n the instant %ase respondent has disre#arded and ade
a o%5ery of the fundaental institution of arria#e.
Respondent in fa%t even so stated in Bxhibit JFK that he is
separated fro his wife. This fa%t and stateent without
any further explanation fro respondent only %ontributes
to the blot in his oral %hara%ter whi%h #ood oral
%hara%ter we repeat is a %ontinuin# %ondition for a
eber to reain in #ood standin#. >nder Rule 1.01 of
the "ode of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall noten#a#e in unlawful, dishonest, ioral or de%eitful
%ondu%t. Respondent has violated this rule a#ainst
en#a#in# in ioral %ondu%t.
Ge a#ree, as %ited by the respondent, with the
pronoun%eent ade in (antos vs. $is%hoso, * ("R&
622 81A+*9 that %ourts should not be used by private
persons parti%ularly dis#runtled opponents to vent their
ran%or on ebers of the ar throu#h unDust and
unfounded a%%usations. However, in the instant %ase the
%har#es %an hardly be %onsidered as unfounded or unDust
based on the eviden%e presented. The eviden%e
presented shows that respondent no lon#er possess 8si%9
that #ood oral %hara%ter ne%essary as a %ondition for
hi to reain a eber of the ar in #ood standin#. He
is therefore not entitled to %ontinue to en#a#e in the
pra%ti%e of law.
Ge 4nd su%h report and re%oendation of the P
to be fully supported by the pleadin#s and eviden%e on
re%ord, and, hen%e, approve and adopt the sae.
The eviden%e presented by %oplainants rea%h that3uantu of eviden%e re3uired in adinistrative
pro%eedin#s whi%h is only substantial eviden%e, or that
aount of relevant eviden%e that a reasonable ind
i#ht a%%ept as ade3uate to support a %onvi%tion.12
Gitness el#ar:s testiony that respondent had
been publi%ly introdu%in# arilyn dela Fuente as his wife
is %orroborated by the %ontents of an arti%le in
the 1au2ane3s, introdu%in# respondent as one of
)auDan:s publi% servants, and statin# therein that
respondent has been blessed with two beautiful %hildren
with his wife, arilyn dela Fuente.1/t should be noted
that said publi%ation is under the %ontrol of respondent,
he bein# the "hairan of the oard thereof. Thus, it%ould be reasonably %on%luded that if he %ontested the
truth of the %ontents of subDe%t arti%le in the 1au2ane3s,
or if he did not wish to publi%ly present arilyn dela
Fuente as his wife, he %ould have easily ordered that the
danin# portions of said arti%le to be edited out.
Gith re#ard to respondent:s ar#uent that the
%redibility of witnesses for the %oplainants is tainted by
the fa%t that they are otivated by reven#e for
respondent:s 4lin# of %riinal %ases a#ainst the, we
opine that even if witnesses el#ar and Nay#o are so
otivated, the %redibility of their testionies %annot be
dis%ounted as they are fully supported and %orroborated
by do%uentary eviden%e whi%h spea5 for theselves.
The birth %erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina dela
Fuente endo7a and yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente
endo7a born on @une 16, 1A** and ay 22, 1AA0,
respe%tively, to )orberto . endo7a and arilyn $ela
Fuente and the "erti4%ation fro the ;%e of the No%al
"ivil Re#istrar of ula%an attestin# to the existen%e in its
re%ords of an entry of a arria#e between respondent
and one Feli%itas Ialderia %elebrated on @anuary 16, 1A*0,
arepubli% do%uents and areprima facieeviden%e of the
fa%ts %ontained therein, as provided for under &rti%le
101of the "ivil "ode of the Philippines.
Respondent ista5enly ar#ues that the birth
%erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente
endo7a and yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente
endo7a born on @une 16, 1A** and ay 22, 1AA0,
respe%tively, to )orberto . endo7a and arilyn $ela
Fuente, are inadissible in eviden%e for havin# been
obtained in violation of Rule 2, &dinistrative rder )o.
1, series of 1AA/, whi%h provides as follows?
Rule 2. )on-$is%losure of irth Re%ords.
819 The re%ords of a person:s birth shall be
5ept stri%tly %on4dential and no inforation
relatin# thereto shall be issued ex%ept on
the re3uest of any of the followin#?
a. the %on%erned person hiself, or any person
authori7ed by hi
b. the %ourt or proper publi% o;%ial whenever
absolutely ne%essary in adinistrative,
Dudi%ial or other o;%ial pro%eedin#s to
deterine the identity of the %hild:s
parents or other %ir%ustan%es surroundin#
his birth and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn14 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
14/30
%. in %ase of the person:s death, the nearest of
5in.
829 &ny person violatin# the prohibition shall
su=er the penalty of iprisonent of at
least two onths or a 4ne in an aount not
ex%eedin# 4ve hundred pesos, or both in
the dis%retion of the %ourt. 8&rti%le +, P.$.
60/9
(e%tion /, Rule 12* of the Revised Rules onBviden%e provides that Jeviden%e is adissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not ex%luded by the law or
these rules.K There %ould be no dispute that the subDe%t
birth %erti4%ates are relevant to the issue. The only
3uestion, therefore, is whether the law or the rules
provide for the inadissibility of said birth %erti4%ates
alle#edly for havin# been obtained in violation of Rule 2,
&dinistrative rder )o. 1, series of 1AA/.
)ote that Rule 2, &dinistrative rder )o. 1, series
of 1AA/ only provides for san%tions a#ainst persons
violatin# the rule on %on4dentiality of birth re%ords, but
nowhere does it state that pro%ureent of birth re%ords in
violation of said rule would render said re%ordsinadissible in eviden%e. n the other hand, the Revised
Rules of Bviden%e only provides for the ex%lusion of
eviden%e if it is obtained as a result of ille#al sear%hes
and sei7ures. t should be ephasi7ed, however, that
said rule a#ainst unreasonable sear%hes and sei7ures is
eant only to prote%t a person fro interferen%e by the
#overnent or the state.1!n!eople vs. +ipol,16we
explained that?
The "onstitutional pros%ription enshrined in the ill of
Ri#hts does not %on%ern itself with the relation between a
private individual and another individual. t #overns the
relationship between the individual and the (tate and its
a#ents. The ill of Ri#hts only tepers #overnental
power and prote%ts the individual a#ainst any a##ression
and unwarranted interferen%e by any departent of
#overnent and its a#en%ies. &%%ordin#ly, it %annot be
extended to the a%ts %oplained of in this %ase. The
alle#ed Jwarrantless sear%hK ade by Ro3ue, a %o-
eployee of appellant at the treasurer:s o;%e, %an hardly
fall within the abit of the %onstitutional pros%ription on
unwarranted sear%hes and sei7ures.
"onse3uently, in this %ase where %oplainants, as
private individuals, obtained the subDe%t birth re%ords as
eviden%e a#ainst respondent, the prote%tion a#ainst
unreasonable sear%hes and sei7ures does not apply.
(in%e both Rule 2, &dinistrative rder )o. 1,
series of 1AA/ and the Revised Rules on Bviden%e do not
provide for the ex%lusion fro eviden%e of the birth
%erti4%ates in 3uestion, said publi% do%uents are,
therefore, adissible and should be properly ta5en into
%onsideration in the resolution of this adinistrative %ase
a#ainst respondent.
Ierily, the fa%ts stated in the birth %erti4%ates of
ara Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and yrra
Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a and respondent:s
"erti4%ate of "andida%y dated ar%h A, 1AA! wherein
respondent hiself de%lared he was arried to Feli%itasIalderia, were never denied nor rebutted by respondent.
Hen%e, said publi% do%uents su;%iently prove that he
fathered two %hildren by arilyn dela Fuente despite the
fa%t that he was still le#ally arried to Feli%itas Ialderia
at that tie.
n ar atter )o. 11!,1+#ood oral %hara%ter was
de4ned thus?
. . . #ood oral %hara%ter is what a person really is, as
distin#uished fro #ood reputation or fro the opinion
#enerally entertained of hi, the estiate in whi%h he is
held by the publi% in the pla%e where he is 5nown. oral
%hara%ter is not a subDe%tive ter but one whi%h
%orresponds to obDe%tive reality. The standard of personal
and professional inte#rity is not satis4ed by su%h %ondu%t
as it erely enables a person to es%ape the penalty of
%riinal law.
n4aguirre vs. Castillo,1*we reiterated the
de4nition of ioral %ondu%t, to wit?
. . . that %ondu%t whi%h is so willful, La#rant, or
shaeless as to show indi=eren%e to the opinion of #ood
and respe%table ebers of the %ounity.
Furtherore, su%h %ondu%t ust not only be ioral, but
#rossly ioral. That is, it ust be so %orrupt as to
%onstitute a %riinal a%t or so unprin%ipled as to be
reprehensible to a hi#h de#ree or %oitted under su%h
s%andalous or revoltin# %ir%ustan%es as to sho%5 the
%oon sense of de%en%y.
n the above-3uoted %ase, we pointed out that a
eber of the ar and o;%er of the %ourt is not only
re3uired to refrain fro adulterous relationships or the
5eepin# of istresses but ust also behave hiself as toavoid s%andali7in# the publi% by %reatin# the belief that
he is Loutin# those oral standards and, thus, ruled that
sirin# a %hild with a woan other than his wife is a
%ondu%t way below the standards of orality re3uired of
every lawyer.1A
Ge ust rule in the sae wise in this %ase before
us. The fa%t that respondent %ontinues to publi%ly and
openly %ohabit with a woan who is not his le#al wife,
thus, sirin# %hildren by her, shows his la%5 of #ood oral
%hara%ter. Respondent should 5eep in ind that the
re3uireent of #ood oral %hara%ter is not only a
%ondition pre%edent to adission to the Philippine ar but
is also a %ontinuin# re3uireent to aintain one:s #ood
standin# in the le#al profession.20n"ldovino vs. !u2alte,
5r.,21we ephasi7ed that?
This "ourt has been exa%tin# in its deand for inte#rity
and #ood oral %hara%ter of ebers of the ar. They
are expe%ted at all ties to uphold the inte#rity and
di#nity of the le#al profession and refrain fro any a%t or
oission whi%h i#ht lessen the trust and %on4den%e
reposed by the publi% in the 4delity, honesty, and
inte#rity of the le#al profession. ebership in the le#al
profession is a privile#e. &nd whenever it is ade to
appear that an attorney is no lon#er worthy of the trust
and %on4den%e of the publi%, it be%oes not only the
ri#ht but also the duty of this "ourt, whi%h ade hi one
of its o;%ers and #ave hi the privile#e of inisterin#
within its ar, to withdraw the privile#e.
9H-R-:OR-, respondent &tty. )orberto .
endo7a is hereby found '>NTC of iorality, in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the "ode of Professional
Responsibility. He is (>(PB)$B$ )$BF)TBNC fro the
pra%ti%e of law until he subits satisfa%tory proof that he
has abandoned his ioral %ourse of %ondu%t.
Net a %opy of this resolution be served personally on
respondent at his last 5nown address and entered in his
re%ord as attorney. Net the P, the ar "on4dant, andthe "ourt &dinistrator be furnished also a %opy of this
resolution for their inforation and #uidan%e as well as
for %ir%ulari7ation to all %ourts in the %ountry.
SO ORD-R-D.
SP-CIAL THIRD DIVISION
-RN-STO M. :ULL-RO,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21 -
7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases
15/30
Petitioner,
-versus 6
P-OPL- O:TH-PHILIPPIN-S,
Respondent.
Present?
Proul#ated?(epteber 12,200+
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D - C I S I O N
"H"-)&X&R,5.?
n this Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule ! of the Revised Rules of "ourt,1petitioner Brnesto. Fullero see5s to set aside the $e%ision2dated 1A%tober 200! of the "ourt of &ppealsin "&-'.R. "R. )o.2*0+2, a;rin# in totothe $e%ision/dated A %tober200/ of the Ne#a7pi "ity Re#ional Trial "ourt 8RT"9,
ran%h 6, in "riinal "ase )o. ++12, 4ndin# petitioner#uilty of falsi4%ation of publi% do%uent as de4ned andpenali7ed in para#raph , &rti%le 1+1 of the Revised Penal"ode.
n an &ended nforationdated 1 %tober
1AA+, petitioner was %har#ed with falsi4%ation of publi%do%uent under para#raph , &rti%le 1+1 of the RevisedPenal "ode, alle#edly %oitted as follows?
That soetie in 1A**, in the
"ity of Ne#a7pi, Philippines, and withinthe Durisdi%tion of this Honorable "ourt,the above-naed a%%used, with intentto preDudi%e and defraud, bein# thenthe &%tin# "hief perator of ri#a "ity
Tele%ouni%ation:s ;%e, whilea%tin# in said %apa%ity and ta5in#advanta#e of his o;%ial fun%tion, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully andfeloniously falsify and$'B)T F THBRB')&N TR&N ">RT $B(PTB THBF&"T TH&T (&$ NGBR ">RT")I"TB$ THB &"">(B$ ) THB&(B)"B F (>FF"B)T BI$B)"B .B.,PRF T (HG TH&T THB &"">(B$&"T>&NNC PBRFRB$ THB &"T FF&N(F"&T) HB ( &"">(B$ F
.GHBTHBR R )T THB
H)R&NB ">RT F &PPB&N( BRRB$) (>(T&))' THB @>$'B)T F THBRB')&N TR&N ">RT $B(PTB THB
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ju