emidterm-cases2

7/25/2019 EMidterm-Cases2

1/24

Rogelio C. Lascoa Jr.Llb-3 Evidence 1stcases (Midterms)

1. G.R. No. L-3! "#ril $% 1$3&EL"' R. "L'EC"% #etitioner%

vs.*ERN"N' J+G% J,dge o *irst nstance o Lag,na%

and EG+N' M"R/NE0% rovincial *iscal o Lag,na%res#ondents.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari. There is no questionas to the essential facts. It appears that in civil case No. 5825 ofthe Court of First Instance of Laguna, between ntonio !stiva an"ngela #e$es, plainti%s, an" &on'alo Cawil, Feli( . &es)un"o,!stanislao linea, #o)ual"o *anatlao, le+an"ro . -anis, an"!la"io #. l"ecoa, "efen"ants, for the annul)ent of certain "ee"sof conve$ance an" the recover$ of "a)ages, the trial +u"ge in his"ecision, which was ar)e" b$ this court,/ or"ere" the recor" bereferre" to the 0scal for investigation with a view of prosecutingthe "efen"ants that appeare" to hi) to be cri)inall$ liable.ntonio !stiva, one of the plainti%s, testi0e" in that case. 1n1ctober , /34, the 0scal 0le" a co)plaint in the Court of FirstInstance of Laguna against le+an"ro . -anis, !la"io #. l"ecoa,Feli( . &es)un"o, an" #o)ual"o *anatlao, charging the) withthe cri)e of falsi0cation of public "ocu)ents. This co)plaint wasreferre" to the +ustice of the peace of the provincial capital for thecorrespon"ing preli)inar$ investigation, but as he was"isquali0e", the +ustice of the peace of -agsan+an was "esignate"to )ae the preli)inar$ investigation.

*ecause ntonio !stiva ha" "ie" in the )eanti)e, the 0scalatte)pte" to intro"uce into evi"ence to prove the charge atranscript of the testi)on$ of !stiva in the civil case. The accuse"ob+ecte" to the a")ission of this transcript as evi"ence on thegroun" that it "eprive" the accuse" of their constitutional right tobe confronte" at the trial b$ an" to cross6e(a)ine the witnessesagainst the). The +ustice of the peace of -agsan+an sustaine" theob+ection, whereupon the provincial 0scal 0le" a petition 7civilcase No. 59 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against the+ustice of the peace an" the "efen"ants in the cri)inal case,setting forth the facts an" pra$ing that in "ue course the +ustice ofthe peace of -agsan+an be or"ere" to a")it as evi"ence thetranscript of the testi)on$ of the "ecease" ntonio !stiva.

In a co)bine" "e)urrer an" answer the attorne$s for the +usticeof the peace an" his co6"efen"ants oppose" the petition on thegroun" that the Court of First Instance ha" no +uris"iction to or"erthe +ustice of the peace to a")it the transcript of the testi)on$ inquestion, because te a")ission of sai" evi"ence was within the"iscretion of the +ustice of the peace )aing the preli)inar$investigation, an" that )an"a)us woul" not lie to co)pel the+ustice of the peace to "eci"e the question in an$ particular wa$:that the 0scal ha" another a"equate re)e"$ b$ appeal to theCourt of First Instance fro) the "ecision of the +ustice of the peacein accor"ance with section /4 of &eneral 1r"ers, No. 58: an" thatin an$ event sai" transcript of the testi)on$ of ntonio !stivataen in the civil case was not a")issible as evi"ence in thecri)inal case over the ob+ection of the accuse".

fter hearing the parties, the respon"ent +u"ge foun" that sai"transcript of the testi)on$ was a")issible in accor"ance withparagraph 5 of section /5 of &eneral 1r"ers, No. 58: that the rightof appeal fro) the or"er of the +ustice of the peace "is)issing theco)plaint was not an a"equate re)e"$, an" that further)ore inaccor"ance with section 228 of the #evise" ")inistrative Co"e itis the "ut$ of the Court of First Instance to give a"vice an"instructions to +ustices of the peace, an" on ;anuar$ 3


2/24

appeal, or otherwise. In the present case the petitioner ha" aplain, spee"$, an" a"equate re)e"$ b$ appeal fro) the or"er ofthe respon"ent +u"ge, but instea" of availing hi)self of thatre)e"$ he 0le" these certiorari procee"ings in this court. >ecannot approve" of this practice, an" the petition )ust be "enie".>e are not un)in"ful of the fact that in certain cases certiorariwill lie notwithstan"ing the e(istence of the right of appeal,because the or"inar$ )etho" of appeal is not a"equate, but the

present case falls clearl$ within the establishe" rule of this courtthat a writ of certiorari will be issue" onl$ when it clearl$ appearsthat the court to which it is to be "irecte" acte" without or ine(cess of its +uris"iction, an" there is no plain, spee"$, an"a"equate re)e"$ b$ bill of e(ceptions or appeal orotherwise./[email protected]

In or"er, however, that our "enial of the petition for a writ ofcertiorari in this case )a$ not be construe" as approving theaction taen b$ the respon"ents, we "ee) it proper to a"" that inour opinion the +ustice of the peace of -agsan+an acte" a"vise"l$in refusing to a")it over the ob+ection of the accuse" thetranscript of the testi)on$ in question, which was o%ere" for thepurpose of proving the allegations of the cri)inal co)plaint,because the a")ission of it un"er the circu)stance woul" have"eprive" the accuse" of their right to be confronte" b$ an" tocross6e(a)ine the witness against the), in contravention ofsection /5 of &eneral 1r"ers, No. 58 an" section 3 of the-hilippine utono)$ ct 7ct of Congress of ugust 2, //9.

The respon"ent +u"ge relie" on the latter part of paragraph 5 ofsection /5 of &eneral 1r"ers, No. 58, which provi"es that wherethe testi)on$ of a witness for the prosecution has previousl$ beentaen "own b$ question an" answer in the presence of theaccuse" or his counsel, the "efense having ha" an opportunit$ tocross6e(a)ine the witness, the "eposition of the latter )a$ berea", upon satisfactor$ proof to the court that he is "ea", uponsatisfactor$ proof of the court that he is "ea" or insane, or cannotwith "ue "iligence be foun" in the Islan"s. this provision "oes notrefer to testi)on$ taen in a civil case, where the accuse" wasone of the parties, but to the preli)inar$ investigation or priortrial of the cri)inal case in which such "eposition is o%ere".

The =olicitor6&eneral was unable to 0n" a single "ecision thatsustains the contention of the respon"ents. The cases cite" in theanswer are not in point.

The fact that the present cri)inal action involves the sa)e factsas the civil action )aes no "i%erence. The actions are essentiall$"i%erent, an" so is the cross6e(a)ination of the witnesses in thetwo cases.

Further)ore, it was not necessar$ for the provincial 0scal to appl$to the Court of First Instance for an or"er to require the +ustice ofthe peace to a")it the transcript of the testi)on$ in question, or

for the +u"ge of the Court of First Instance to issue such an or"er,because if the +ustice of the peace ha" "is)isse" the co)plaint,the 0scal coul" have 0le" a new co)plaint in the Court of FirstInstance. In Bnite" =tates vs. arfori 735 -hil., 9, it was hel"that if a provincial 0scal is not satis0e" with an or"er of "ischargeentere" b$ a +ustice of the peace as a result of a preli)inar$investigation, such or"er is not a bar to the institution of newprocee"ings looing to the hol"ing of another preli)inar$investigation b$ the +ustice of the peace who hel" the 0rstinvestigation, or before the +u"ge of a Court of First Instance in thee(ercise of his functions as a co))itting )agistrate.

>e 0n" no )erit in the suggestion that the respon"ent +u"ge ha"a right to issue the or"er co)plaine" of because the +ustice of thepeace of -agsan+an was )aing the preli)inar$ investigation atthe instance of the respon"ent +u"ge, an" that it is the "ut$ of the+u"ge of the 0rst instance to give a"vice an" instructions to+ustices of the peace in his "istrict. The co)plaint in question wasreferre" to the +ustice of the peace of -agsan+an for preli)inar$investigation. It is i))aterial where it was originall$ 0le". Thea")inistrative supervision of a +u"ge of 0rst instance over the+ustices of the peace in his "istrict "i" not authori'e therespon"ent +u"ge to require the +ustice of the peace of -agsan+anto a")it the evi"ence in question. It was for the +ustice of thepeace to a")it or re+ect the evi"ence in question in the e(erciseof his own "iscretion an" in"epen"ent +u"g)ent.

The petition is "enie", with the costs against the petitioner, an"the preli)inar$ in+unction issue" herein is "issolve".

!. /2E +E "*RC" et al vs. C"L/E et aG.R. No. L-1!$45 Marc6 31% 1$55

*"C/7 0re broe out at the Calte( service station at the cornerof ntipolo street an" #i'al venue, anila. It starte" whilegasoline was being hose" fro) a tan truc into the un"ergroun"storage, right at the opening of the receiving tan where the


3/24

no''le of the hose was inserte" 7a lighte" )atchstic was thrownb$ a stranger near the opening, causing the 0re9. The 0re sprea"to an" burne" several neighboring houses. Their owners, a)ongthe) petitioners here, sue" respon"ents Calte( 7-hil.9, Inc. an"*oquiren, the 0rst as allege" owner of the station an" the secon"as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the part of bothof the) was attribute" as the cause of the 0re.

The trial court an" the C foun" that petitioners faile" to provenegligence an" that respon"ents ha" e(ercise" "ue care in thepre)ises an" with respect to the supervision of their e)plo$ees.ence this petition.

+E7

1. 8N%without proof as to the cause an" origin of the 0re, the"octrine of res ipsa loquitur shoul" appl$ so as to presu)enegligence on the part of appellees

2EL'D the "ecision appeale" fro) is reverse" an" respon"ents6appellees are hel" liable soli"aril$ to appellants,

*oth the trial court an" the appellate court refuse" to appl$ the"octrine in the instant case on the groun"s that Eas to 7its9applicabilit$ in the -hilippines, there see)s to he nothing"e0nite,G an" that while the rules "o not prohibit its a"option inappropriate cases, Ein the case at bar, however, we 0n" nopractical use for such "octrine.G

The question "eserves )ore than such su))ar$ "is)issal. The"octrine has actuall$ been applie" in this +uris"iction, in the caseof !spiritu vs. -hilippine -ower an" Hevelop)ent Co

The principle enunciate" in the aforequote" case applies withequal force here. The gasoline station, with all its appliances,equip)ent an" e)plo$ees, was un"er the control of appellees. 0re occurre" therein an" sprea" to an" burne" the neighboringhouses. The persons who new or coul" have nown how the 0restarte" were appellees an" their e)plo$ees, but the$ gave noe(planation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair an" reasonableinference that the inci"ent happene" because of want of care.

!ven then the 0re possibl$ woul" not have sprea" to theneighboring houses were it not for another negligent o)ission onthe part of "efen"ants, na)el$, their failure to provi"e a concretewall high enough to prevent the a)es fro) leaping over it..Hefen"antsJ negligence, therefore, was not onl$ with respect tothe cause of the 0re but also with respect to the sprea" thereof tothe neighboring houses.

There is an a")ission on the part of *oquiren in his a)en"e"answer to the secon" a)en"e" co)plaint that Ethe 0re wascause" through the acts of a stranger who, without authorit$, orper)ission of answering "efen"ant, passe" through the gasolinestation an" negligentl$ threw a lighte" )atch in the pre)ises.G Noevi"ence on this point was a""uce", but assu)ing the allegationto be true K certainl$ an$ unfavorable inference fro) thea")ission )a$ be taen against *oquiren K it "oes not e(tenuatehis negligence. "ecision of the =upre)e Court of Te(as, uponfacts analogous to those of the present case, states the rule whichwe 0n" acceptable here. EIt is the rule that those who "istribute a"angerous article or agent, owe a "egree of protection to thepublic proportionate to an" co))ensurate with a "anger involve" we thin it is the generall$ accepte" rule as applie" to tortsthat if the e%ects of the actorJs negligent con"uct activel$ an"continuousl$ operate to bring about har) to another, the fact thatthe active an" substantiall$ si)ultaneous operation of the e%ectsof a thir" personJs innocent, tortious or cri)inal act is also asubstantial factor in bringing about the har), "oes not protect theactor fro) liabilit$.J =tate" in another wa$, EThe intention of anunforeseen an" une(pecte" cause, is not sucient to relieve awrong"oer fro) consequences of negligence, if such negligence"irectl$ an" pro(i)atel$ cooperates with the in"epen"ent causein the resulting in+ur$.G

N1T!=D a""itional issues

1. 8Ncertain reports on the 0re prepare" b$ the anila -oliceHepart)ents are a")issible

The foregoing reports were rule" out as E"ouble hearsa$G b$ theC an" hence ina")issible.

There are three requisites for a")issibilit$ un"er section 35, #ule/23, which provi"es that Eentries in ocial recor"s )a"e in theperfor)ance of his "ut$ b$ a public ocer of the -hilippines, or b$


4/24

a person in the perfor)ance of a "ut$ speciall$ en+oine" b$ law,are pri)a facie evi"ence of the facts therein state".GD

7a9 that the entr$ was )a"e b$ a public ocer, or b$ anotherperson speciall$ en+oine" b$ law to "o so:

7b9 that it was )a"e b$ the public ocer in the perfor)ance of his"uties, or b$ such other person in the perfor)ance of a "ut$

speciall$ en+oine" b$ law: an"

7c9 that the public ocer or other person ha" sucient nowle"geof the facts b$ hi) state", which )ust have been acquire" b$ hi)personall$ or through ocial infor)ation

1f the three requisites +ust state", onl$ the last nee" beconsi"ere" here. 1bviousl$ the )aterial facts recite" in thereports as to the cause an" circu)stances of the 0re were notwithin the personal nowle"ge of the ocers who con"ucte" theinvestigation. >as nowle"ge of such facts, however, acquire" b$the) through ocial infor)ationM s to so)e facts the sourcesthereof are not even i"enti0e". To qualif$ their state)ents asEocial infor)ationG acquire" b$ the ocers who prepare" thereports, the persons who )a"e the state)ents not onl$ )usthave personal nowle"ge of the facts state" but )ust have the"ut$ to give such state)ents for recor"./

owever, the foregoing report, having been sub)itte" b$Captain ariano of the anila -olice Hepart)entO b$ a policeocer in the perfor)ance of his "uties on the basis of his ownpersonal observation of the facts reporte", )a$ properl$ beconsi"ere" as an e(ception to the hearsa$ rule. These facts,"escriptive of the location an" ob+ective circu)stancessurroun"ing the operation of the gasoline station in question,strengthen the presu)ption of negligence un"er the "octrine ofres ipsa loquitur, since on their face the$ calle" for )ore stringent)easures of caution than those which woul" satisf$ the stan"ar"of "ue "iligence un"er or"inar$ circu)stances. There is no )oreeloquent "e)onstration of this than the state)ent of Lean"roFlores before the police investigator. Flores was the "river of thegasoline tan wagon who, alone an" without assistance, wastransferring the contents thereof into the un"ergroun" storagewhen the 0re broe out.

3.at,la v. #eo#le G.R. No. 15&9: "#ril 11% !;1!

*acts7In a !stafa case, witness au"itor base" her testi)on$ on theentries foun" in the receipts suppose"l$ issue" b$ petitioner an"in the le"gers correspon"ing to each custo)er, as well as on theunsworn state)ents of so)e of the custo)ers.ss,e7 Is the testi)on$ hearsa$MR,ling7Pes"nal


5/24

"9 the entries were )a"e b$ entrant in his professional capacit$ orin the perfor)ance of a "ut$, whether legal, contractual, )oral orreligious:e9 the entries were )a"e in the or"inar$ or regular course ofbusiness or "ut$.

Gro,nd or admissibilit

because their regularit$ an" continuit$ are calculate" to "isciplinerecor" eepers in the habit of precision. If the entries are 0nancial,the recor"s are routinel$ balance" an" au"ite". In actuale(perience, the whole of the business worl" function in reliance ofsuch in" of recor"s. 7Lan"ban vs onetQs !(port, &.#. No./84R/, pril /, 2


6/24

The Necrops$ #eport issue" b$ the e"ical 1ce of the Cebu Cit$-olice Hepart)ent establishe" the cause of "eath as gunshotwoun"s in the hea", face an" right si"e. The post )orte) 0n"ingswere as followsD t.hqw

*loo" co)ing out fro) the )outh.

&unshot woun", hea", face, )an"ible, right, /3.hen the )en left she hear" an e(plosion in thereceiving roo) an" when she veri0e" it she saw herhusban" l$ing on the oor with bloo" over his face.=he place" the hea" of her husban" over her lapan" tol" L$"ia to go out of the oce an" ase" forhelp. =o)ebo"$ ca)e an" helpe" her husban" outof the oce an" to the hospital for treat)ent buther husban" succu)be" to the gunshot woun" hesustaine" that "a$. =he further "eclare" that thetotal a)ount of cash an" +ewelries that the$ lost inthat robber$ was -/4,52.hile insi"ethe ta(i, he ver$ well recogni'e" herein accuse"=he) ;aosale) because this accuse" was seate"at the )i""le position of the bacseat of the ta(i hewas "riving an" his car was equippe" with a rearview )irror to which the i)age of the accuse" wasclearl$ reecte". *esi"es =he) ;aosale), he alsoclearl$ saw an" coul" I"entif$ another one who wasseate" on his right si"e at the front seat. Bponreaching corner H. ;aosale) an" Colon =treets, hewas or"ere" to stop an" four )en alighte" fro) his

ta(i cab after giving hi) the a)ount of 0ve pesosalthough the ta(i )eter registere" onl$ two pesosan" fort$60ve centavos. >hen the four )enalighte" he saw accuse" =he) ;aosale) carr$ingwith hi) a plastic bag with so)ething insi"e it.

1n ;une /, /R2 he was brought b$ the police atthe police hea"quarters an" there he was )a"e toI"entif$ the accuse" =he) ;aosale) in a line6up of0ve persons. e ase" the police to place ane$eglass on sai" accuse" because accor"ing to hi)he was wearing an e$eglass when he saw hi)

insi"e his ta(i that afternoon of ;une , /R2. The)o)ent an e$eglass was place" on the accuse", herea"il$ I"enti0e" the latter as the person insi"e hista(i on ;une , /R2 together with three other )en.

;ose0no -ilapil, police sargeant, Cebu -oliceHepart)ent "eclare" that while the$ were on patrolaboar" a patrol car at the vicinit$ of corner Colonan" ;unquera =treet, Cebu Cit$, the$ receive" ara"io call fro) *ase Control infor)ing the) toprocee" to Labuca$ buil"ing at agallanes =treet tofollow up a robber$ alar). The$ i))e"iatel$procee"e" to the place an" upon arrival there the$went up the secon" oor of the buil"ing an"


8/24

searche" for evi"ence in connection with the heist+ust co))itte". The$ foun" in the sa)e of therobber$ two pieces of plaster, )are" e(hibits VVan" V*V, seven pieces of rope an" two holster. The$also trie" to follow up the ta(i that was use" b$ therobbers an" fro) infor)ation the$ gathere" thatthe ta(i use" in the robber$ was a Xui+a"a Ta(i No.2. fter following up the ta(i on that "a$ ;une ,

/R2 the$ learne" that the "river was irgiliobabon. e con"ucte" an investigation on hi) an"the "river tol" the) that if he 7irgilio babon9coul" see those persons who were his passenger,he will be able to I"entif$ the). Three "a$s afterthe inci"ent the$ brought several pictures to thehouse of rs. Ira for I"enti0cation. rs. Ira rea"il$I"enti0e" the picture of the accuse" =he);aosale) as one of the persons who robbe" the)on ;une , /R2. The$ pice" up the sai" accuse"=he) ;aosale) on ;une /, /R2 an" brought hi)to the police hea"quarters. The following )orning

he was brought to the house of rs. Ira an" therethe accuse" was I"enti0e" b$ rs. Ira as the personwho went up the secon" oor of the Labuca$buil"ing an" robbe" the) of their +ewelries.

erce"es erca"o, 44 $ears ol", )arrie", )erchantan" a resi"ent of /35R #6=to. Nino -ar"o, Cebu Cit$.=he state" that at about D


9/24

buil"ing an" inquire" fro) hi) who his co)panionswere. The police)en left at about ten oQcloc thatevening with a wor" that the$ will not bring hi) tothe scene of the inci"ent but so)ehow pro)ise" toco)e the ne(t "a$. The following "a$ the policeca)e bac an" brought hi) to the house of rs. Iraat -. "el #osario street. Bpon their arrival in thehouse of rs. Ira the police)en calle" rs. Ira an"

the latter upon looing at hi) tol" the police thathe was not one of the robbers that robbe" the) on;une , /R2. Fro) the house of rs. Ira the sa)egroup police brought hi) to *ulaao in or"er to beconfronte" b$ a China)an who was also a victi) ofrobber$ but this China)an also tol" the police thathe was not the one who robbe" hi). Fro) *alaaohe was brought bac to the house of hisgran")other in Tupas an" fro) there the police)enleft. Fro) the house of his gran")other he wentho)e to his house in *ulaao an" the following "a$he went bac to visit his $ounger sister in Tupas.

1n ;une /8, /R2 at about ten oQcloc in theevening while he was bu$ing brea" at a baer$ nearthe Nation Theatre at Colon street he wasapprehen"e" b$ another tea) of police)anco)posing of *o$ guilar, #o)eo "elos #e$es an"two other co)panions who) he "oes not now an"was brought to the Theft an" #obber$ =ection ofthe Cebu -olice Hepart)ent. e was investigate"b$ guilar there an" was ase" the sa)e questionabout the robber$ at the Labuca$ buil"ing an" fro)the police hea"quarters he was brought aroun" the

Cit$ of Cebu until he foun" hi)self behin" bars atthe Taboan -olice -recinct. The following )orning;une /, /R2 the sa)e group of police)en fetche"hi) fro) the Taboan police precinct an" broughthi) again at the police hea"quarters an" fro)there the tea) of Captain *asa brought hi) toLabuca$ buil"ing an" fro) the Labuca$ buil"ing tothe *= ter)inal then to the police hea"quarters atF. #a)os an" fro) there to the cit$6+ail.

>e shall now procee" to "iscuss the contentions of the appellant.

/. The issue of crei!i"it#.t the outset we have to restate the

a(io) that the question of which testi)on$ shoul" be given

cre"ence is best left to the trial +u"ge who ha" the a"vantage ofhearing the parties testif$ an" observing their "e)eanor in thewitness stan". oreover, VThe "octrine is well6settle" that absentan$ fact or circu)stances of weight an" inuence which has been)isinterprete" as to i)peach its 0n"ings or call for a "i%erent0n"ing, the appellate courts will not interfere with or set asi"e thetrial courtQs +u"g)ent an" 0n"ings on the cre"ibilit$ of witnesses.V7-eople vs. bboc, et al., L62832R, =epte)ber 4, /R3: 53 =C#

54.9

ppellant sees to i)pugn the cre"ibilit$ of the witnesses for theprosecution b$ characteri'ing their testi)on$ as replete withgross inconsistencies an" "ubious probabilities.V owever,appellant has )erel$ repro"uce" e(cerpts fro) the transcript oftheir testi)on$ without in"icating or e(plaining full$ wh$ the$ areinconsistent or incre"ible thus )aing it "icult for us toascertain his points. Nonetheless, we shall e(a)ine the) inseri$ti%.

Ite% &. >h$ were uroraQs han"s tie" with a rope but not L$"iaQsM1bviousl$ onl$ the robbers coul" give a satisfactor$ e(planation.

*ut an e(planation base" on probabilities is not unwarrante"Dna)el$, perhaps the$ were in such a hurr$ to acco)plish therobber$ that the$ forgot to tie L$"iaQs han"s: an" perhaps L$"iawas part of the conspirac$ which possibl$ also e(plains wh$ shefaile" to I"entif$ the perpetrators of the robber$ an" to testif$ incourt.

Ite% '. >h$ "i" urora testif$ that Vthe$ pushe" )e into theoceV but later sai" that she was pushe" b$ the )an who poe"the gun at herM This coul" be e(plaine" b$ the fact that her 0rststate)ent "escribe" the general con"uct of the group whereas inher secon" state)ent she referre" to the appellant onl$ who was

then hol"ing a gun. oreover, assu)ing that there was aninconsistenc$, it is so )inor that it "eserves scant consi"erationan" "oes not i)pair her cre"ibilit$.

Ite% (.>h$ "i" urora at 0rst testif$ that onl$ ;aosale) ha" agun but later sai", V>hen I opene" the "oor I ase" the) whatthe$ wante" an" the$ ase" whether we were selling +ewelriesan" si)ultaneousl$ pulle" out a gun an" announce" this is ahol"up.V >e are ase" to believe that b$ her secon" state)entshe )eant to sa$ that each of the three robbers ha" guns. *ut the)eaning i)pute" to her secon" state)ent is without basis forwhile she sai", Vthe$ wante" an" the$ ase",V the wor" Vthe$V"oes not appear before the phrase Vsi)ultaneousl$ pulle" out agun It is to be note" that the quote" phrase lacs a sub+ect 7a


10/24

noun or a pronoun9. The )ost logical sub+ect woul" be thepronoun VheV which is congruent with her 0rst state)ent.oreover, she )entione" Va gunV in her secon" state)ent sothere was in"ee" onl$ one gun.

Ite% ).>h$ "i" urora fail to I"entif$ the appellant when he wasbrought to her house b$ Lt. -onciano &achoM The e(planation forthis is given in the testi)on$ of =gt. -ilapil who sai" that before

;aosale) was brought to uroraQs house she ha" I"enti0e";aosale) thru his picture as one of the robbers but that when theconfrontation too place she was afrai" to I"entif$ hi) becauseshe ha" no con0"ence in the group le" b$ Lt. &acho an" so shelater )a"e the I"enti0cation to Capt. *asa, who) she truste".This e(planation is not i)plausible consi"ering the notoriet$ ofthe police then as now.

Ite% *.>h$ "i" urora fail to give the police a co)plete an""etaile" "escription of the +ewelr$ taenM The rea"$ answer is thatthe +ewelr$ taen fro) her store was of assorte" si'es, t$pes an"for)s so that the listing an" valuation coul" not be "onei))e"iatel$. In fact, when she testi0e" in court on ;ul$ 2h$ was irgilio babon unable to sa$ if his originalpassenger was one of the four who boar"e" his ta(i an" $et hewas able to I"entif$ ;aosale) as one of those insi"e the cabM ee(plaine" this b$ sa$ing that Vthe$ "i" not want )e to loo bacwhile the ta(i was )oving.V Bpon the other han", the appellantwas seate" in the )i""le of the bac seat an" was in "irect line ofirgilioQs rear view )irror. Further)ore, it is not inconceivable thatirgilio ha" alrea"$ seen the appellant before he was tol" not toloo bac.

Ite% -.>h$ "i" irgilio sa$ three persons su""enl$ opene" hista(i an" $et he sai" four passengers alighte" fro) itM This ise(plaine" b$ the fact that irgilio was waiting for his originalpassenger when the latterQs three co)panion hurrie"l$ barge"into the waiting cab an" irgilio, not nowing of the robber$,

refuse" to tae the three new passengers but change" his )in"

when tol" that his original passenger was their co)panion an"presu)abl$ ha" reboar"e" the cab. In su), irgilio ha" three newpassengers but four alighte" fro) his cab inclu"ing the for)erpassenger.

#elevant to the issue of cre"ibilit$ is the "efense of alibiinterpose" b$ the appellant. *oth erce"es erca"o an" -e"roonte)a$or corroborate" the appellantQs clai) that he was at the

Taboan )aret at the ti)e of the robber$6illing.erce"es erca"o was not an i)partial witness for she a")itte"that she is relate" to the appellantQs gran")other. Liewise;aosale) "escribe" her as his gran"aunt. n" as to -e"roonte)a$or, his testi)on$ shows that he was not alwa$s in sightof the appellant for he left his store at the Taboan )aret at /D45p.). on ;une , , /R2, Vin or"er to sell fae ticets of the ;ai6lai.V 7!)phasis supplie"9. gainst these facts the "efense of alibicannot prevail over the positive I"enti0cation of the appellant b$urora Ira an" irgilio babon. oreover, as state" b$ the trialcourt which shoul" be presu)e" to now the ph$sical geograph$of Cebu Cit$, V... even granting that the alibi presente" b$ the

"efense is to be a")itte", the fact re)ains that Tabaon )aretan" the Labuca$ buil"ing where the robber$ too place coul"easil$ be negotiate". QNo +urispru"ence in cri)inal cases is )oresettle" than the rule that alibi is the weaest of an "efenses an"that the sa)e shoul" be re+ecte" when the I"entit$ of the accuse"has been sucientl$ an" positivel$ establishe" b$ e$ewitnessesto the cri)e. libi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that"efen"ant was so)ewhere else when the cri)e was co))itte".e )ust "e)onstrate that it was ph$sicall$ i)possible for hi) tohave been at the scene of the cri)e at the ti)e. 7-eople vs.!stra"a, 22 =C# ///9.V

In the light of the foregoing, our )in"s rest eas$ in the belief thatthe appellant participate" in the robber$6illing.

The appellant clai)s that evi"ence not available at the trial waslater "iscovere" to the e%ect that it was not irgilio babon who"rove the get6wa$ ta(i but one =ergio Cara)potan. Copies ofclippings fro) the Vorning Ti)esV of Cebu Cit$ "ate" Nove)ber8 an" 4, /R2, )are" as nne(es VV an" V*V were sub)itte" asthe Vnewl$ "iscovere" evi"ence.V =uce it to sa$, the clippingsare hearsa$ an" have no evi"entiar$ value. oreover, the Vnewl$"iscovere" evi"enceV of Nove)ber 8 an" 4, /R2, shoul" havebeen i))e"iatel$ utili'e" as a possible basis for a new trial sincethe +u"g)ent un"er appeal ha" not $et beco)e 0nal instea" of


11/24

sub)itting it as a groupe" for acquittal in a brief "ate" a$ 2!#!F1#!, 0n"ing no reversible error in the +u"g)ent appeale"fro), the sa)e is hereb$ ar)e" i toto. Costs e o0cio.

&. BG.R. No. L-!&4&. ",g,st !&% 1$9;.

/2E ELE * /2E 2LNE% Plaintif-Appellee% v.

>R+N "N/N% E/ "L.% Deendants% >R+N "N/N

and "L*N '""LL"% Deendants-Appellants.

ppeal taen b$ "efen"ants *runo ntonio an" lfonso Hasallafro) a "ecision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva !ci+aconvicting the) of the cri)e of )ur"er, with which the$ are

charge", an" sentencing the) to life i)prison)ent, an" to +ointO$an" severall$ in"e)nif$ the heirs of *en+a)in =e)ana in the su)of -,


12/24

Cu$apo: that, noticing, later, that the$ were going in the opposite"irection, he rolle" out of the sle"ge an" then )ove" awa$, soonthereafter, as he notice" his for)er captors waling about,nearb$, with ashlights switche" on, evi"entl$ looing for hi):an" that he recogni'e" onl$ two 729 of the si( or seven personswho ha" beaten hi) up, an" the$ were *runo ntonio an"-on$ong 7or lfonso9 Hasalla, both fro) the barrio of *alo$.

>hile ngellano was causing this state)ent of =e)ana to bewritten on a sheet of paper, the$ notice" a group of sevenpersons approaching the place. Le" b$ appellant *runo ntonio,the barrio captain of *alo$, )unicipalit$ of Cu$apo, Nueva !ci+a,the$ were "rining wine. is co)panions were lberto gpalo,To)as "e la Cru', arcos nsel)o, &regorio #onquillo an" I"ongor -e"ro Hasalla, a brother of appellant lfonso Hasalla. Bponseeing ngellano, *runo ase" hi), in a co))an"ing voice, whathe 7ngellano9 was "oing there. ngellano answere" that heinten"e" to bring =e)ana to Talugtog for treat)ent, whereupon*runo sai" that he an" his )en woul" tae =e)ana, inas)uch ashe 7*runo9 ha" +uris"iction over the place where =e)ana was.

ngellano replie" that the sa)e for)e" part of the barrio ofTibag, )unicipalit$ of Talugtog, but *runo angril$ insiste" that theplace was sub+ect to his authorit$. fter a brief e(change of wor"s,with a tone of ani)osit$, *runo forcibl$ too =e)ana, ha" hi)place" on a sle"ge, an" then "eparte" with hi) an" the other)e)bers of his group. It was then about //D


13/24

an" that he ha" no participation whatsoever in the iniction of=e)anaJs in+uries or in his "eath.

The lower court, presi"e" over b$ onorable ;u"ge -laci"o #a)os,accepte", however, the version of the prosecution, as well asgave no cre"ence to the evi"ence for the "efense, an",accor"ingl$, ren"ere" +u"g)ent, not onl$ convicting an"sentencing appellants herein, as pointe" out at the beginning of

this "ecision, but, liewise, "irecting the -rovincial Fiscal of Nueva!ci+a to con"uct an investigation of the participation of lbertogpalo, To)as "e la Cru'. Cornelio =u)angil, arcos nsel)o an"-e"ro Hasalla, an" to 0le the correspon"ing infor)ation againstthe), for the "eath of *en+a)in =e)ana, shoul" the evi"ence sowarrant.

The 0rst question raise" b$ appellants herein refers to thea")issibilit$ in evi"ence of the state)ent )a"e b$ =e)ana to!ugenio ngellano concerning the circu)stances un"er which thefor)er ha" been in+ure". ppellants )aintain that the trial courthas erre" in consi"ering sai" state)ent as a "$ing "eclaration,

for, upon being ase" how he felt, =e)ana answere" that hewoul" not "ie if treate", an" was then still Vstrong,V accor"ing toso)e witness. =ai" answer of =e)ana in"icate", however, anawareness of the "anger of "eath on his part, shoul" he not beseasonabl$ given the necessar$ )e"ical treat)ent. oreover, therecor"s show that he was so wea that several people ha" to helphi), in or"er that he coul" ri"e the sle"ge that brought hi) to*alo$. gain, testif$ing for the "efense Cornelio =u)angile(plaine" that =e)ana was strong, because he was VstillbreathingV an" coul" answer so)e questions, apart fro) asingfor, an" "rining, so)e water. Neither singl$ nor collectivel$ "othese circu)stances show that =e)ana was VstrongV at the ti)e.

=ai" factors )a$ in"icate that he was then neither "ea" norunconscious. Bpon the other han", *runoJs failure to as =e)anaabout the cause of his in+uries suggests that the for)er "i" notfeel he 7=e)ana9 was strong enough to un"ergo an interrogation.In"ee", *runo state" that =e)anaJs in+uries were Vserious.V Infact, he ha" been blee"ing profusel$, fro) at least )i"night ofHece)ber 4, or for over 8 hours. 1ne can i)agine, therefore, theconsi"erable a)ount of bloo" lost an" the weaness resultingtherefro). This e(plains, also, wh$ =e)ana was unable to taethe foo" given to hi) an" ha" been groaning K perhaps in a stateof co)a, couple" b$ stertorous breathing, which )a$ have been)istaen for groans K since the group of appellant *runo ntonioha" taen hi). The fact that he e(pire" one hour later strongl$

in"icates the seriousness of his con"ition when ngellano too hisstate)ent.

The "efense cites the testi)on$ of Hr. lberto to the e%ect thatnone of the woun"s of =e)ana was fatal. No )atter how true this)a$ have been when the in+uries were inicte", it is notnecessaril$ so over 8 hours later. "uring his interrogation b$ngellano. In fact, Hr. lberto quali0e" his afore)entione"

testi)on$ of a""ing that sai" in+uries coul" cause blee"ing an"pro"uce a shoc. ence, the circu)stances pointe" out b$ the"efense "o not sucientl$ show that the lower court ha" noreasonable groun" to conclu"e that =e)anaJs state)ent was)a"e un"er the belief that he was in i))inent "anger of "eath inconsequence of sai" in+uries K as he "ie" soon thereafter6unlessthe sa)e were treate" soon enough.

In an$ event, that state)ent was )a"e in the course of theunfortunate o"$sse$ of =e)ana that starte" on Hece)ber 4, /2at about RD


14/24


15/24

he to give evi"ence for the prosecution: an" that )an$ people Kinclu"ing Ignacio 7ntonio9 an" =i)plicio 7Tolentino9 K ha"infor)e" hi) about sai" threats. It is, liewise, interesting to notethat sai" reference to the allege" woun" above the left ear was)a"e, on cross e(a)ination b$ counsel for the "efense, upon thelatterJs request that the in+uries of =e)ana be "escribe", arequest )a"e without an$thing to suggest its relevance to thequestions prece"ing the sa)e. In other wor"s, the surroun"ing

circu)stances suggest that the one )aing the request newbeforehan" what ngellano woul" "o or sa$ in connectiontherewith. t an$ rate, =e)ana "i" not have the in+ur$ "escribe"b$ ngellano, two inches above the ear. This goes to show that henever saw either such in+ur$ or the one foun" b$ Hr. lberto at thefronto6parietal region: that =e)ana ha" neither, when ngellanoconferre" with hi): an" ,that, having hear" later about sai"a""itional in+ur$ foun" b$ Hr. lberto in the bo"$ of the "ecease",ngellano )erel$ i)agine" the one K the 0rst K he "escribe" onthe witness stan", apparentl$ to help the "efense. In"ee", in thea"avit 7!(hibit VCV9 )a"e before the +ustice of the peace of&ui)ba on Hece)ber R, /2, he clai)e" to have seen no such

in+ur$.

In an evi"ent e%ort to o%set the i)plications of the foregoingcircu)stances, appellants inti)ate" that there ha" been,between ngellano an" *runo, a previous )isun"erstan"ingconcerning a parcel of lan" K as if to i)pl$ that the testi)on$ ofthe for)er, insofar as unfavorable to the latter, ha" beenpro)pte" b$ ill6feeling or ba" bloo" between the). 1f all thetesti)onial evi"ence for the prosecution, that of ngellano was,however, the least a"verse to *runo. In fact, )ost of theincri)inating testi)on$ of ngellano was given after theprosecution ha" e(pose" his change of heart an" the fear un"er

which he was laboring. In fact, ngellanoJs behavior on thewitness stan" was characteri'e" b$ his reluctance to reveal"etails or answer questions pregnant with i)plications againsthi) or the accuse", an" b$ his frequent lapses of )e)or$ asregar"s the facts pertinent thereto.

Lastl$, ngellanoJs testi)on$ about the infor)ation given to hi)b$ several persons, inclu"ing Ignacio ntonio an" =i)plicioTolentino, concerning the threat to the life of those who )a$testif$ against appellants herein, was, in a wa$, corroborate" b$the circu)stance that !ugenio ngellano, Ignacio ntonio,-onciano ntonio an" =i)plicio Tolentino refuse" to sign the

subpoena requiring the) to appear before the lower court, to

testif$ in the case at bar, in Nove)ber, /4, an" that the$ ha" tobe arreste" to insure their presence at the trial.

Hespite the absence of proof of )otive K although =e)anaJspanic upon the su""en entr$ of two 729 )en in the house of Feli(Halit, where he was with a wo)an, followe" b$ his i))e"iate, butunsuccessful, atte)pt to escape an", later 7when he was foun" b$ngellano9, his fear of falling into the han"s of the people fro)

*alo$, suggest that he an" the wo)an were probabl$ "oing, insai" house, so)ething wrong, which was o%ensive to so)eone in*alo$, an" that the beating he got thereafter was "ue thereto K>e are satis0e" that the guilt of appellant *runo ntonio hasbeen establishe" be$on" reasonable "oubt, an" that the cri)eco))itte" b$ hi) is that of )ur"er, quali0e" b$ treacher$,=e)ana having been )altreate" while his han"s were tie". 2 Thepenalt$ of life i)prison)ent )ete" out to *runo ntonio is,therefore, in accor"ance with law, but the a)ount of thein"e)nit$ "ue to the heirs of the "ecease" shoul" be increase"fro) -,


16/24

*ERMN" LEN"R' D LEG"% E//NER "N'"ELLEE% @. "M>R "N/"G E/ "L.%

REN'EN/ "N' "ELL"N/.

The appellee, Fer)ina Leonar"o $ Legaspi, co))ence", in theCourt of Lan" #egistration, 0ve separate procee"ings for thepurpose of securing the inscription of a large nu)ber of tracts oflan" of which she clai)e" to be the sole owner. These

procee"ings were nu)bere" in that court /


17/24

that he ha" bought so)e lan" +ointl$ with the petitioner. *$stipulation between the parties it was agree" that the other tworespon"ents woul" testif$ in the sa)e wa$ if the$ ha" beencalle".

Bpon this evi"ence the court below foun" that the plainti% wasthe sole owner of the lan" in controvers$. >e consi"er that theonl$ question involve" in this case is one of fact. The legal

presu)ption is that the propert$ here in question was propert$ ofthe con+ugal partnership, but that presu)ption can be overco)eb$ proof. =uch proof was presente", which the court )ust havefoun" sucient for that purpose. The question here is, notwhether this 0n"ing is sustaine" b$ the prepon"erance of theevi"ence, but, is it so plainl$ an" )anifestl$ against the weight ofthe evi"ence that it shoul" be reverse"M 7He la #a)a vs. He la#a)a, 2hether or not court )a$ co)pel Tiu to testif$ in the

correction of entr$ case that respon"ent Lee6Ueh chil"ren 0le" forthe correction of the certi0cate of birth of petitioner !))a Lee toshow that she is not UehJs "aughter

2EL'7Bn"er =ection 25, #ule /3< of the #ules of !vi"ence ENoperson )a$ be co)pelle" to testif$ against his parents, other"irect ascen"ants, chil"ren or other "irect "escen"ants.GTheafore6quote" rule is an a"aptation fro) a si)ilar provision inrticle 3/5 of the Civil Co"e that applies onl$ in cri)inal cases.

*ut those who revise" the #ules of Civil -roce"ure chose to

e(ten" the prohibition to all in"s of actions, whether civil,

cri)inal, or a")inistrative, 0le" against parents an" other "irect

ascen"ants or "escen"ants.

In !))a Lee vs. Court of ppeals, the person 7TIB9 who invoes

the 0lial privilege, clai)s that she is the step)other of petitioner

!))a Lee.

The =C "eclare" that the privilege cannot appl$ to the) because

the rule applies onl$ to V"irectV ascen"ants an" "escen"ants, a

fa)il$ tie connecte" b$ a co))on ancestr$. step"aughter has

no co))on ancestr$ b$ her step)other . #elative thereto, rticle


18/24

5 of the New Civil Co"e provi"esD EThe "irect line is either

"escen"ing or ascen"ing. The for)er unites the hea" of the

fa)il$ with those who "escen" fro) hi). The latter bin"s a

person with those fro) who) he "escen"s.G

Consequentl$, Tiu can be co)pelle" to testif$ against petitioner

!))a Lee

EVIDENCE: PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE (JUSTICER!ERT A!AD"

Bn"er =ection 25, #ule /3< of the #ules of !vi"ence ENo/erso %$# !e co%/e""e to testif# $1$ist his /$rets2 otherirect $sce$ts2 chi"re or other irect esce$ts.3

The afore6quote" rule is an a"aptation fro) a si)ilarprovision in rticle 3/5 of the Civil Co"e that applies onl$ incri)inal cases. *ut those who revise" the #ules of Civil -roce"urechose to e(ten" the prohibition to all in"s of actions, whether

civil, cri)inal, or a")inistrative, 0le" against parents an" other"irect ascen"ants or "escen"ants.

In E##a Lee $s% C&'t & Appeals)the person 7TIB9who invoes the *lial pi$ile+e, clai)s that she is thestep)other of petitioner !))a Lee. The =upre)e Court "eclare"that the privilege cannot appl$ to the) because the rule appliesonl$ to E"irectG ascen"ants an" "escen"ants, a fa)il$ tieconnecte" b$ a co))on ancestr$. step"aughter has noco))on ancestr$ b$ her step)other.

#elative thereto, rticle 5 of the New Civil Co"e

provi"esD EThe irect "ie is either escei1 or $scei1.The for%er uites the he$ of the f$%i"# with those who escefro% hi%. The "$tter !is $ /erso with those fro% who% heesces.3Consequentl$, Tiu can be co)pelle" to testif$ againstpetitioner !))a Lee.(E,,A % LEE $s% CURT F APPEALS)G%R% N&% .//01.) J'l2 .3) 45.5) A!AD) J%"%

4. G.R. No. 199&;& November !9% !;;4

2ER * GRGN ME'N"% namelEL /. ME'N"% L+'@N" M.R"R% CNCECN 'E L" CR+0% LENR M. >"AAER%

"M+EL /. ME'N"% @C/R /. ME'N"% /ERE/" M.

">"'% JE*N" M. C"N" and @ERNC" M. 'EG+0M"N% petitioners,vs.>N*"C N"/@'"'% re#resented b< 2L M.N"/@'"'%respon"ents.

*efore Bs is a -etition for #eview on Certior$riun"er #ule 45 ofthe /R #ules of Civil -roce"ure which sees to set asi"e the

Hecision

/

of the Court of ppeals "ate" 2< Nove)ber 2


19/24

C1-#1I=! !!!NT

C1! N1> the parties, assiste" b$ their respective counsel7s9,an" unto this onorable Court respectfull$ sub)it thisCo)pro)ise gree)ent in full an" 0nal settle)ent of their"i%erences, to witD

/. The parties herein are the e(clusive co6owners of that certainparcel of lan" locate" at the -oblacion, &ui)ba, Nueva !ci+a,

nown as Lot //, &ui)ba Ca"astre an" )ore particularl$"escribe" as followsD

parcel of lan" 7Lot //, of the Ca"astral =urve$ of &ui)ba Ca"./2, plan p6234/8, L.#. Case No. &65/, L.#.C. #ecor" No. N64aiver an" #enunciationV appearing as Hoc. No. 3R: -age No.R5: *oo No. /


20/24

in the "esignation of the particular places a"+u"icate" to theparties, e(cept the change in areas allotte" after the actualsurve$ )a"e.

>!#!F1#!, 0n"ing the )otion to be in or"er, the Court resolvesto grant the sa)e an" hereb$ or"ers, thatD

Lot //6 with an area of 3R/ sq. )s. is Lot 4, "ecision,a"+u"icate" to Tirso e"ina:

Lot //6* with an area of 3R/ sq. )s. is Lot 5, "ecision,a"+u"icate" to -aci0co #ui':

Lot //6C with an area of 3R/ sq. )s. is Lot , "ecision,a"+u"icate" to &orgonio e"ina:

Lot //6H with an area of 482 sq. )s. is Lot /, "ecision,a"+u"icate" to *onifacio Nativi"a":

Lot //6! with an area of 3R2 sq. )s. is Lot 2, "ecision,a"+u"icate" to eirs of aria e"ina:

Lot //6F with an area of 3R2 sq. )s. is Lot 3, "ecision,

a"+u"icate" to ivencio . #ui'.This 1r"er supple)ents the Hecision "ate" Nove)ber 2


21/24

=epte)ber 2ashington, B=. In the absence of an$ evi"enceto show that sai" special power of attorne$ was falsi0e", it wassucient authorit$ for r. Nativi"a" to represent his father.

The trial court liewise rule" that the "ee" of absolute salee(ecute" b$ &orgonio e"ina in favor of *onifacio Nativi"a" )a$be given e%ect notwithstan"ing the fact that the portion of Lot// speci0e" as its ob+ect was "i%erent fro) the portiona"+u"icate" to &orgonio e"ina. It "eclare" that the /Y3 portion ofthe lan" covere" b$ TCT No. NT623


22/24

1n /3 ;anuar$ 2!T!# 1# N1T T! #!&I=T#TI1N 1F L1T N1. //6C IN T!N! 1F &1#&1NI1 !HIN >= IN F#BH 1F *1NIFCI1NTIIHH.

>!T!# 1# N1T C1N=T#BCTI! T#B=T >= C#!T!H

*!T>!!N &1#&1NI1 !HIN NH *1NIFCI1 NTIIHH.

>!T!# 1# N1T *1NIFCI1 NTIIHHJ= CB=! 1F CTI1N= L#!HP -#!=C#I*!H.

>!T!# 1# N1T T! C1-LINT =TT!= CB=! 1F CTI1N.

)ong the issues raise" b$ petitioners the last is what we shall0rst tacle. -etitioners conten" that the Court of ppealsco))itte" a ver$ grave error in not 0n"ing that the respon"entwas without an$ cause of action. -etitioners argueD

The Co)plaint in this case was institute" b$ -hilip . Nativi"a" inthe na)e of *onifacio Nativi"a" upon the strength of a =pecial-ower of ttorne$ e(ecute" b$ the latter in >ashington, B.=..>hile the "ocu)ent appears to have been acnowle"ge" before-h$llis -err$, a Notar$ -ublic for the +uris"iction of the =tate of>ashington, B.=.., it was not presente" before a -hilippineConsular 1cer for the requisite authentication.

The #evise" #ules on !vi"ence require that a "ocu)entacnowle"ge" before a notar$ public being a public "ocu)ent,such recor" if ept in a foreign countr$, shoul" be acco)panie"with a certi0cate that such ocer has the custo"$ thereof )a"e

b$ a secretar$ of the e)bass$ or legation, consul general, consul,vice consul, or consular agent or b$ an ocer in the foreignservice of the -hilippines statione" in the foreign countr$ in whichthe recor" is ept, authenticate" b$ the seal of his oce. In theabsence of the requisite certi0cation an" authentication of thepublic "ocu)ent, the sa)e cannot be prove" an", therefore,ina")issible as evi"ence.

*onifacio Nativi"a"Js =pecial -ower of ttorne$ not having been"ul$ certi0e" an" authenticate", it cannot be "ul$ prove". It is,therefore, "ee)e" as not having been e(ecute" for purposes ofinstituting an action on his behalf. >ithout an$ vali" authorit$ to

institute the action on behalf of his father, -hilip Nativi"a" is"ee)e" to have institute" it on his own. -hilip Nativi"a" not beinga part$ to the Hee" of bsolute =ale between &orgonio e"inaan" *onifacio Nativi"a", he is un"oubte"l$ not the real part$ ininterest because he "oes not have an$ )aterial interest in thecontract which is the source of *onifacio Nativi"a"Js cause ofaction. e "oes not stan" to be bene0te" or in+ure" b$ a+u"g)ent in the suit an" neither is he entitle" to the avails of thesuit.

Not being the real part$ in interest, an" being "ee)e" to havebrought the action on his own, -hilip . Nativi"a" has no cause ofaction.32
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_177505_2008.html#fnt32


23/24

The trial court was convince" that -hilip Nativi"a" was authori'e"b$ his father 7*onifacio9 in this case b$ virtue of the special powerof attorne$ that the latter issue". The special power of attorne$, itclai)s, is a public "ocu)ent, the sa)e having been notari'e" b$a notar$ public of the =tate of >ashington, B=. It sai" that therebeing no evi"ence showing that sai" "ocu)ent ha" been falsi0e",the sa)e was sucient authorit$ for -hilip to represent his father.The Court of ppeals consi"ere" the fact that the special power of

attorne$ was not properl$ authenticate" before a consular oceto be a )ere technicalit$ an" coul" not be the basis for the"is)issal of the co)plaint for lac of cause of action.

1n his part, respon"ent sai" the notari'e" special power ofattorne$ which he appen"e" to the co)plaint is a public"ocu)ent. It carries with it the presu)ption of regularit$ an" an$suspicion on the authenticit$ an" "ue e(ecution thereof cannotstan" against sai" presu)ption absent evi"ence which is clearan" convincing.

The question to be answere" isD Is the =pecial -ower of ttorne$suppose"l$ authori'ing -hilip Nativi"a" to 0le the instant case in

behalf of his father a")issible in evi"enceM

In Lo/e5 6. Court of A//e$"s,33we have rule" that a special powerof attorne$ e(ecute" in a foreign countr$ is, generall$, nota")issible in evi"ence as a public "ocu)ent in our courts. In sai"case, we sai"D

Is the special power of attorne$ relie" upon b$ rs. T$ a public"ocu)entM >e 0n" that it is. It has been notari'e" b$ a notar$public or b$ a co)petent public ocial with all the sole)nitiesrequire" b$ law of a public "ocu)ent. >hen e(ecute" an"acnowle"ge" in the -hilippines, such a public "ocu)ent or acerti0e" true cop$ thereof is a")issible in evi"ence. Its "ue

e(ecution an" authentication nee" not be proven unlie a privatewriting.

=ection 25,34#ule /32 of the #ules of Court provi"es [

=ec. 25. -roof of public or ocial recor". [ n ocial recor" or anentr$ therein, when a")issible for an$ purpose, )a$ beevi"ence" b$ an ocial publication thereof or b$ a cop$ atteste"b$ the ocer having the legal custo"$ of the recor", or b$ his"eput$, an" acco)panie", if the recor" is not ept in the-hilippines, with a certi0cate that such ocer has the custo"$. Ifthe oce in which the recor" is ept is in a foreign countr$, thecerti0cate )a$ be )a"e b$ a secretar$ of e)bass$ or legation,

consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or b$ an$

ocer in the foreign service of the -hilippines statione" in theforeign countr$ in which the recor" is ept, an" authenticate" b$the seal of his oce.

Fro) the foregoing provision, 6en t6e s#ecial #oer oattorne< is eFec,ted and acnoledged beore a notar

emidterm-cases2

Documents