evidence commericial lists to opinion rule

8/12/2019 EVIDENCE Commericial Lists to Opinion Rule

1/18


2/18

that caused it to sink with its cargo of 1,050 baerasvalued

at P170,000.00;

3. Exhibit C a quotation for the construction of a 95-footer trawlerissued by Isidoro A. Magalong of I. A. Magalong Engineering and

Construction on January 26, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that

construction of such trawler would cost P2,250,000.00;

4.

Exhibit D pro formainvoice No. PSPI-05/87-NAV issued by E.D.Daclan of Power Systems, Incorporated on January 20, 1987 to Del

Rosario showing that two (2) units of CUMMINS Marine Engine

model N855-M, 195 bhp. at 1800 rpm. would cost P1,160,000.00;

5. Exhibit E quotation of prices issued by Scan Marine Inc. onJanuary 20, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that a unit of Furuno

Compact Daylight Radar, Model FR-604D, would cost P100,000.00

while a unit of Furuno Color Video Sounder, Model FCV-501 would

cost P45,000.00 so that the two units would cost P145,000.00;

6. Exhibit F quotation of prices issued by Seafgear Sales, Inc. onJanuary 21, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that two (2) rolls of nylon

rope (5 cir. X 300fl.) would costP140,000.00; two (2) rolls of

nylon rope (3 cir. X 240fl.),P42,750.00; one (1) binocular (7 x

50), P1,400.00, one (1) compass (6),P4,000.00 and 50 pcs. offloats, P9,000.00 or a total of P197, 150.00;

7. Exhibit G retainer agreement between Del Rosario and F.Sumulong Associates Law Offices stipulating an acceptance fee

of P5,000.00, per appearance fee of P400.00, monthly retainer

ofP500.00, contingent fee of 20% of the total amount recovered and

that attorneys fee to be awarded by the court should be given to

Del Rosario; and

8. Exhibit H price quotation issued by Seafgear Sales, Inc. datedApril 10, 1987 to Del Rosario showing the cost of poly nettings as:

50 rolls of 400/18 3kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P70,000.00; 50 rolls of

400/18 5kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P81,500.00; 50 rolls of 400/18

8kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P116,000.00, and 50 rolls of 400/18 10kts.

100md x 100mtrs., P146,500 and banera(tub) at P65.00 per pieceor a total of P414,065.00

o Ruled that the prevailing replacement value of P6,438,048.00 of the fishingboat and all its equipment would regularly increase at 30% every year from

the date the quotations were given

o On the other hand, PNOC only presented Lorenzo Lazaro, senior estimatorat PNOC Dockyard & Engineering Corporation, as sole witness and without

any documentary evidence to support its position

1. Lazaro testified that the price quotations submitted by privaterespondent were excessive and that as an expert witness, he used

the quotations of his suppliers in making his estimates. However,

he failed to present such quotations of prices from his suppliers,

saying that he could not produce a breakdown of the costs of his

estimates as it was a sort of secret scheme CA affirmed in toto

o Considering the documentary evidence presented as in the nature of marketreports or quotations, trade journals, trade circulars and price lists ruled

that until such time as the Supreme Court categorically rules on the

admissibility or inadmissibility of this class of evidence, the reception of

these documentary exhibits (price quotations) as evidence rests on the

sound discretion of the trial court. In fact, where the lower court is

confronted with evidence which appears to be of doubtful admissibility, the

judge should declare in favor of admissibility rather than of non-


3/18

admissibility

ISSUE WON the documentary evidence of MEFC were properly considered as commercial lists

RULING NO!

To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to

prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon

competent proof and on the best evidence availableo The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence

would be presented on either side

o In this case, actual damages were proven through the sole testimony ofMEFCs general manager and certain pieces of documentary evidence

Except for Exhibit B where the value of the 1,050baerasof fishwere pegged at their September 1977 value when the collision

happened, the pieces of documentary evidence offered with respect

to items and equipment lost show similar items and equipment

with corresponding prices in early 1987 or approximately ten (10)

years after the collision

Noticeably, PNOC did not object to the exhibits in terms of the timeindex for valuation of the lost goods and equipment BUT only

objected to the fact that these were not duly authenticated and thatthe witness (Del Rosario) did not have personal knowledge on the

contents of the writings and neither was he an expert on the

subjects thereof

Clearly ignoring petitioners objections to the exhibits, the lowercourt admitted these pieces of evidence and gave them due weight

to arrive at the award of P6,438,048.00 as actual damages

The exhibits were presented in the course of Del Rosariostestimony BUT MEFC did not present any other witnesses

especially those whose signatures appear in the price quotations

that became the bases of the award

SC: the price quotations are ordinary private writings which under the RevisedRules of Court should have been proffered along with the testimony of the authors

thereofo Del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the contents of the

writings even though he was the seasoned owner of a fishing fleet because

he was not the one who issued the price quotations because of HEARSAY

RULE

Thus, Del Rosarios claim that MEFC incurred lossesof P6,438,048.00 should be admitted with extreme caution

considering that, because it was a bare assertion, it should be

supported by independent evidence

Moreover, because he was the owner, whatever testimony hewould give with regard to the value of the lost vessel, its equipment

and cargoes should be viewed in the light of his self-interest therein

SC: CA correct in ruling that his testimony as to theequipment installed and the cargoes loaded on the vesselshould be given credence considering his familiarity

thereto BUT his valuationof such equipment, cargo and

the vessel itself should not be accepted as gospel truth

o The price quotations presented as exhibits partake of the nature of hearsayevidence considering that the persons who issued them were not presented

as witnesses AND do not fall under any of the exceptions

One of the exceptions to the hearsay rule pertains to commerciallists and the like under Section 45, Rule 130

CA considered MEFCs exhibits as commercial listsbut ruled that


4/18

these exhibits should be admitted in evidence until such time as

the Supreme Court categorically rules on the admissibility or

inadmissibility of this class of evidence because the reception of

these documentary exhibits (price quotations) as evidence rests on

the sound discretion of the trial court SC: arbitrary statement if

reference is made to Section 45, Rule 130

Under Section 45, Rule 130, a document is a commerciallist if:1. it is a statement of matters of interest to persons

engaged in an occupation;

2. such statement is contained in a list, register,periodical or other published compilation;

3. said compilation is published for the use of personsengaged in that occupation, and

4. it is generally used and relied upon by persons in thesame occupation

Based on the above requisites, it is our considered view thatExhibits B, C, D, E, F and H are not commercial lists for these do

not belong to the category of other published compilations under

Section 45 The exhibits mentioned are mere price quotations issued

personally to Del Rosario who requested for them from

dealers of equipment similar to the ones lost at the

collision of the two vessels BUT

Not published in any list, register, periodical or othercompilation on the relevant subject matter

Nor are these market reports or quotations withinthe purview of commercial lists as these are not

standard handbooks or periodicals, containing data of

everyday professional need and relied upon in the

work of the occupation

These are simply letters responding to the queries of DelRosario (Digesters note: refer to full case for samplecontent of the letters)

While the letters and telegrams are admissible in evidencethese are, however, subject to the general principles of

evidence and to various rules relating to documentary

evidence

o But even on the theory that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled onthe admissibilityof those letters or communications when it held that

unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, evidence should

better be admitted rather than rejected on doubtful or technical

grounds,the same pieces of evidence, however, should not have been

givenprobative weight

Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or notthe circumstance (or evidence) is to considered at all.

VS.probative value of evidence refers to the question ofwhether or not it proves an issue

Thus, the author of the letter should be presented aswitness to provide the other party to the litigation the

opportunity to question him on the contents of the

letter. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the

author of the letter renders its contents suspect. As earlier

stated, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has


5/18

no probative value

THUS, damages may not be awarded on the basis ofhearsay evidence

However, the non-admissibility of said exhibits does not mean that it totallydeprives private respondent of any redress for the loss of its vessel based

on Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals,In the absence of competent

proof on the actual damage suffered, private respondent is `entitled to nominaldamages

o SC: allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis fordetermination of a fair amount of nominal damages inasmuch as a

complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of

action MEFC should be bound by its allegations on the amount of its

claims

DISPOSITIVE: the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 14, 1992 in CA-

G. R. CV No. 26680 affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, is

hereby MODIFIED insofar as it awarded actual damages to private respondent Maria Efigenia

Fishing Corporation in the amount of P6,438,048.00 for lack of evidentiary bases

therefor. Considering the fact, however, that: (1) technically petitioner sustained injury but

which, unfortunately, was not adequately and properly proved, and (2) this case has dragged

on for almost two decades, we believe that an award of Two Million (P2,000,000.00) in favor

of private respondent as and for nominal damages is in order.

LEARNED TREATISE (See previous compilation for Seguritan v People)

OPINION RULE

CHINA BANKING CORP. VS. CA

DOCTRINE Rule of evidence requiring opinion of expert witnesses applies only to such matters clearly

within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within the common

knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.

Here, to prove whether one is blind, it is not necessary to submit a medical certificate

attesting to the blindness or to require an expert (ophthalmologist) to testify to such fact,since the fact of blindness can be determined through common knowledge and by anyone

with sufficient familiarity of such fact.

FACTS Avelina Pinero was the owner of 2 parcels of land in Mandaluyong covered by TCTs 64018

and 59833. In Aug. 1991, Alfonso Kipte obtained P1.2M loan from CBC, secured by a P/N and

REM (annotated on the TCTs) signed by Avelina over her properties; as well as a surety

agreement (Kipte - principal, Avelina - surety). Kipte failed to pay Properties were

foreclosed and auction sale was scheduled in Aug. 1992.

Avelina and Emmanuel Pinero filed action in RTC (Annulment of REM, foreclosure of

mortgage, notice of auction sale and damages w/ prayer for TRO and/or preliminary

injunction against CBC, Kipte, the Ernesto Bonifacio (notary public) and Register of Deeds of

Rizal.

In Sept. 1992, Avelina was surprised to receive foreclosure notice from notarypublic.

After inquiry from CBC, she learned that she allegedly executed REM and a suretyagreement to secure Kiptes loan, whom she does not know.

Foreclosure is void since she never voluntarily executed such documents, neverappeared before the notary public, never received any proceeds from the loan, and

was never Kiptes business associate.

In 1990, Ludivina Rinnoces (Emmanuels common-law wife) asked Avelina to signsome documents (alleged loan from Cerila de Leon). Avelina signed without reading


6/18

the same, as she is blind, and without knowing the contents thereof. The same

happened in 1991.

Alleged mortgage was annotated on TCT 64018 but not on TCT 59833; TCT 64018also contained cancellation of mortgage in favor of Jose Macaraig and Cerila, whom

she does not know.

CBC: Upon execution, Avelina was furnished with copies thereof. Avelina freely and voluntarily signed the documents. At the time of execution, though physically weak, she was mentally sound and in

complete possession of her faculties, and she understood the nature of the

transactions.

Avelina personally appeared before the notary public.TC: CBC. Action dismissed.

CA: Reversed.

Avelina was old widow (80) and blind even before she allegedly signed the REM andsurety agreement in Aug. 1991.

Rebecca Pinero-Galang (Avelinas daughter) In 1985, Avelina became totallyblind, was not physically fit, and suffered glaucoma.

Avelina She was persuaded to sign the questioned documents as witness,Ludivina guided her when she signed the foregoing, she did not receive from Kipte

any amount as consideration of the mortgage.

Her deportment in court and the fact that she had to be guided to take the witnessstand constitutes the strongest proof of blindness.

Restituto Fano (notary public ) He remembered that Avelina had to be assistedand accompanied to the table to sign the questioned agreements, that she could

hardly see, and that it was unusual for a woman of her age to be willing to act as

surety to a P/N of a complete stranger for P1.2M.

ISSUE/HELD W/N Avelina signed the REM and surety agreement knowingly and voluntarily, with full

knowledge of its contents. NO.

CBC: Respondents admitted that Avelina indeed signed the agreements.

As notarial documents, they are clothed with prima facie presumption of regularityand due execution.

Avelina, being of sound and disposing mind despite old age, was duly informed ofthe nature and purpose of these agreements by their branch manager and the

notary public before she affixed her signature.

Respondents could have easily submitted a medical certificate attesting to thesupposed blindness of Avelina or made an ophthalmologist take the witness stand.

RATIO Re: The notarization Notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents

of a document.

GR: Notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it wrt its dueexecution and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.

BUT, such presumption is not absolute; it may be rebutted by clear and convincingevidence to the contrary.

Re: BlindnessSee DOCTRINE.

HERE: Avelina, then alive during trial, categorically testified and attested to her ownblindness. (TSN - I do not know who guided me because I could not see; I did not ask

Ludivina to read or explain to me the contents because she only told me that I would

merely act as a witness)

Avelina was already blind when she was manipulated by her daughter-in-lawLudivina to sign the documents without explaining to her the contents and the true

nature of the documents; she was made to understand that she was signing only as a


7/18

witness.

Kipte was a total stranger to her Implausible therefore that Avelina agreed to behis surety.

Her blindness was confirmed by the testimony of her children (Emmanuel andRebecca); even the notary public testified to the fact that she was indeed blind and

that she was not made to understand the documents.

Petition DENIED.

MARQUEZ V SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS - COA, in its Report on the Audit of Selected Transaction and Walis Ting-ting forParanaque City for 96-98, found several anomalies involving Joey Marquez (Mayor

and Chairman of Bids and Awards Committee) and Ofelia Caunan (Head of General

Services office).

- Without public bidding, Marquez and Caunan procured thousands of rounds ofbullets from VMY Trading (even though it was not registered as an arms and

ammunitions dealer w/ PNP and DTI).

- A COA special audit team issued Notices of Disallowances for the ammunitions. Theyappealed this to COA but they were denied.

- Meanwhile, at the office of the Ombudsman (OMB), in response to charges filedagainst them [during preliminary investigation], they filed their joint counteraffidavit insisting on the propriety of the transaction and raised the pendency of

their appeal to COA.

- The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) found probable cause for violation ofRA3019 Sec 3(e) against Marquez and Caunan and filed three informations against

the Marque and Caunan.

- Nov 24, 2003, before arraignment, Marquez sought referral of several documents tothe NBI Questioned Documents Section. Marquez asserted that his signatures on the

disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests

[hereinafter referred as documents in question] were forged. He also requested

for reinvestigation.

- This request was denied by the OSP- Before the Sandiganbayan(SB) 4thdivision, the prosecution presented 5 witnesses:

o Fatima Bermudez COA State Auditoro Elenita Pracale Chief of Business Permit and License office of Paranaqueo Benjamin Cruzo Police Inspector Rolando Columna PNP Firearms Division Legal Officero Emerito Lejano Guns Empire President

- The prosecution also presented the documents that were earlier questioned byMarquez.

- All of the evidence offered (on Jan 2006) by the prosecution was admitted by SB onMarch 2006.

- After the prosecution rested, Caunan testified and partly presented her evidence.- April 1, 2008, Marquez moved for:

o The inhibition of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandezo The referral of the documents in question to the NBI.

- The two Justices did inhibit themselves and the case was re-raffled to the 5thdivision. But the request for the referral of the documents was not acted upon.- July 4, 2008, Marquez filed another motion for the referral of the documents in

question to the NBI alleging that his signatures on the same were forged.

- Prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition arguing that:o All of its documentary exhibits were offered in 2006 and had been duly

admitted by SB.

o When confronted with the transactions during the COA audit investigation,Marquez never raised the defense of forgery and instead insisted on the

propriety of the transactions.


8/18

o Neither did he claim forgery when he filed his Counter Affidavit in the OSP.o Rule 129.4; Since Marquez alleged on his pleadings that he relied on the

competence of his subordinates and thus there could be no palpable

mistake, he is thus estopped from alleging that his signatures on the

documents in question were forged.

o The motion was filed merely to delay the proceedings.- Marquez filed a reply saying that he never admitted that his signatures on thedocuments in question were his and that the motion was not filed for mere delay.- SB issued a resolution denying the motion of Marquez, citing Rule 132.22. They said

that while, the opinion of handwriting experts could be helpful in the examination of

the alleged forged documents, it was neither mandatory nor indispensible, since the

court can determine forgery from its own independent examination.

- After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Marquez filed a Rule 65 certiorariwith the SC, saying that the denial of his motion for referral of the documents was in

violation of his right to present evidence and due process .

ISSUE WoN denial of the motion to refer the documents in question to the NBI was done in

GADALEJ?

HELD YES

- The right of the accused to an opportunity to be heard necessarily implies with it thereasonable freedom to present its evidence.

- Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincingevidence by the party alleging it.

- In order to discharge this burden, the party alleging it must be afforded reasonableopportunity to present evidence to support his allegation.

- This opportunity is the actual examination of the signatures of the documents inquestion by no less than the countrys premier investigative force, the NBI. If he is

denied such opportunity, his only evidence on this matter is negative testimonial

evidence w/c is generally considered as weak.

- The findings of NBI will still be subject to scrutiny and evaluation in line w/Rule 132.22. Nevertheless, Marquez shouldnt be deprived of his right topresent evidence. While this defense may seem feeble to SB, Marquez should

be allowed to adduce evidence of his own choice.

- SBs reason for denial of the motion is that it may validly determine forgeryfrom its own independent examination of the documentary evidence. But

while it is true that appreciation of WoN the signatures are genuine is subject

to the discretion of SB, this discretion may rightly be exercised only after the

evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing.The prosecution had already

offered its evidence on the matter. The court should not deny the same right to the

defense.

- Contrary to what the prosecution asserts, Marquezs motion was not a mereafterthought. As early as Nov 24, 2003, even before arraignment, Marquez already

sought referral of the documents in question to the NBI and reinvestigation of the

case against him.

- The fact that Marquez did not raise this issue with COA is irrelevant and immaterial.His failure to do so may affect the weight of his defense, but it should not bar him

from insisting on it during his turn to adduce evidence.- The fact that the documentary exhibit were already offered and admitted by SB

cannot preclude an examination of the signatures thereon by the defense. With

proper handling by court personnel, this can be accomplished by the NBI expert

examiners.

CAMACHO-REYES V REYES

DOCTRINE The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person

diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the

doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay.


9/18


10/18

in character. A court may place whatever weight it chooses upon such testimonies. It may

even reject them, if it finds that they are inconsistent with the facts of the case or are

otherwise unreasonable. In the instant case, neither clinical psychologist Magno nor

psychiatrist Dr. Villegas conducted a psychological examination on the [respondent].

Undoubtedly, the assessment and conclusion made by Magno and Dr. Villegas are hearsay.

They are unscientific and unreliable as they have no personal knowledge of thepsychological condition of the [respondent] as they never personally examined the

[respondent] himself. Also, [I]t can be gleaned from the recommendation of Dayan that the

purported psychological incapacity of [respondent] is not incurable as the [petitioner] would

like this Court to think because Dayan recommended therapy and counseling sessions.

[Respondents] defects were not present at the inception of marriage. They were even able

to live in harmony in the first few years of their marriage, which bore them two children xxx.

In fact, [petitioner] admitted in her Amended Petition that initially they lived comfortably

and [respondent] would give his salary in keeping with the tradition in most Filipino

households, but the situation changed when [respondent] resigned from the family-owned

Aristocrat Restaurant and thereafter, [respondent] failed in his business ventures. It appears,

however, that [respondent] has been gainfully employed with Marigold Corporation, Inc.

since 1998, which fact was stipulated upon by the [petitioner].ISSUE WON there is sufficient evidence to show that respondent is psychologically incapacitated

RULING Yes

Santos v. Court of Appeals - the factors characterizing psychological incapacity to perform

the essential marital obligations are: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3)

incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable

of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of

the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after

the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be

beyond the means of the party involved.

Republic v Molina: Molina Doctrine:

1.

The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the Plaintiff. Doubtswill be resolved in favor of marriage & against nullity.

2. The root cause of the PI must bei. Medically or clinically identifiedii. Alleged in the complaintiii. Sufficiently proven by expertsiv. Clearly explained in the decision

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of themarriage.

4. The incapacity must be medically/clinically permanent or incurable. Theincurability may be absolute or relative. The incapacity must be relevant to the

assumption of marital obligations.

5. The illiness must be grave enough to bring about a disability to assume the essentialobligations of marriage.6. The essential marital obligations referred to are those in Art 68 to 71, FC and underArt 220, 221 & 225 of the FC. The non-compliance must be stated in the petition,

proven by evidence, and included in the decision.

7. Interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the CatholicChurch should be given great respect, although not controlling.

8. The trial court must order the fiscal or solgen to appear as counsel for the State. Hisopposition/agreement must be state in the decision.

Diagnosis of 3 Experts: (Digesters note: I only excerpted the important parts)


11/18

Dra. Villegas:

Referring to petitioner - Because of her high intellectual endowment, she has easy facilities for

any undertakings (sic). She is organized, planned (sic), reliable, dependable, systematic,

prudent, loyal, competent and has a strong sense of duty (sic). But emotionally, she is not as

sensitive. She acts on the dictates of her mind and reason, and less of how she feels (sic). The

above qualities are perfect for a leader, but less effective in a heterosexual relationship,

especially to her husband, who has deep seated sense of inadequacy, insecurity, low selfesteem and self-worth despite his intellectual assets.

Referring to Ramon - [Respondent], on the other hand, has manifested strong clinical

evidences (sic), that he is suffering from a Personality Disorder, of the antisocial type,

associated with strong sense of Inadequacy along masculine strivings and narcissistic

features that renders him psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and

responsibilities of marriage. This is characterized by his inability to conform to the social

norms that ordinarily govern many aspects of adolescent and adult behavior. His being a

free spirit associated with no remorse, no guilt feelings and no anxiety, is distinctive of this

clinical condition. His prolonged drug intake [marijuana] and maybe stronger drugs lately,

are external factors to boost his ego.

The root cause of the above clinical conditions is due to his underlying defense mechanisms,or the unconscious mental processes, that the ego uses to resolve conflicts. His prolonged

and closed attachments to his mother encouraged cross identification and developed a

severe sense of inadequacy specifically along masculine strivings. It existed before marriage,

but became manifest only after the celebration, due to marital demands and stresses.

Dr. Dayan:

When [respondent] was asked about his drug problem, he mentioned that he stopped taking

it in 1993. His brothers think that he is not telling the truth. It is so hard for [respondent] to

stop taking drugs when he had been hooked to it for the past 22 years. When [respondent]

was also asked what his problems are at the moment, he mentioned that he feels lonely and

distressed. He does not have anyone to talk to. He feels that he and his wife [have] drifted

apart. He has a small need of companionship and is most comfortable alone. He, too[,] feels

uncomfortable in expressing his more tender feelings for fear of being hurt. Likewise, hemaybe very angry within but he may choose to repress this feeling.

Dra. Tiongson-Magno

From the evidence available from [petitioners] case history and from her psychological

assessment, and despite the non-cooperation of the respondent, it is possible to infer with

certainty the nullity of this marriage. Based on the information available about the

respondent, he suffers from [an] antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic and

dependent features that renders him too immature and irresponsible to assume the normal

obligations of a marriage.

Referring to Socorro (and the best quote in this very long case): But she is emotionally

immature and her comprehension of human situations is very shallow for a woman of her

academic and professional competence. And this explains why she married RRR even whenshe knew he was a pothead, then despite the abuse, took so long to do something about her

situation.

Findings for Socorro: Obsessive Compulsive Personality Style with Self-Defeating features

Findings for Ramon: Antisocial Personality Disorder with marked narcissistic, aggressive

sadistic and dependent features

Discussion re root cause of Ramons psychological incapacity (Digesters note: apparently he

has mommy issues): One has to go back to [respondents] early childhood in order to


12/18

understand the root cause of his antisocial personality disorder. [Respondent] grew up the

ninth child in a brood of 11. Unfortunately, [respondents] mother grew up believing that she

was not her mothers favorite child, so she felt api, treated like poor relations.

[Respondents] mothers reaction to her perceived rejection was to act outwith poor

impulse control and poor mood regulation (spent money like water, had terrible temper

tantrums, etc.). Unwittingly, his mother became [respondents] role model. (Digesters note:

The logic, I think, is Freudian psych, but I am not really sure.) END OF DIAGNOSIS EXCERPTS

START OF RELEVANT PART

The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person

diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the

doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay. For one, marriage, by its

very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one

spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by

the other. In this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present

state of the parties marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner.

For another, the clinical psychologists and psychiatrists assessment were not based solely

on the narration or personal interview of the petitioner. Other informants such as

respondents own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testifiedon their own observations of respondents behavior and interactions with them, spanning

the period of time they knew him.

Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, citing The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth

Edition (DSM IV), instructs us on the general diagnostic criteria for Anti-social personality

disorders:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of othersoccurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated

by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for

personal profit or pleasure(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or

assaults

(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others

(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent

work behavior or honor financial obligations

(7) lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt,

mistreated, or stolen from another

B. The individual is at least 18 years.

C. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of

schizophrenia or a manic episode

Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make

up of a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources. A person afflicted

with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this

case, considering that a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-

diagnosis by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the doctors separate

diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of

experts.


13/18

Digesters note: So, to sum up the doctrine, findings of the experts in this case, even in the

absence of personal examination of Ramon, did not amount to hearsay because they based

their knowledge of the facts surrounding the case from narrations of the wife, who is

naturally competent to describe Ramons behavior during their marriage, and close relatives

of Ramon who had knowledge of what is happening between Socorro and Ramon

especially Ramon. These facts are then applied by the doctors to some tested scientific

factors (like a checklist see DSM IV above) to determine whether the behavioral factsamount to a personality disorder. They then come up with the proper diagnosis.

On another note, Dr. Dayans recommendation of therapy and counseling does not

automatically mean that Ramons psychological incapacity is not incurable. In Kaplan and

Saddocks textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, treatment, ranging from psychotherapy

to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended.

Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is

psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.

Republic v CA and Molina: [T]he professional opinion of a psychological expert became

increasingly important in such cases. Data about the persons enti re life, both before and

after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give

professional opinions about a partys mental capacity at the time of the wedding. Theseopinions were rarely challenged and tended to be accepted as decisive evidence of lack of

valid consent. [Because] of advances made in psychology during the past decades. There

was now the expertise to provide the all-important connecting link between a marriage

breakdown and premarital causes.

Caveat: It is true that a clinical psychologists or psychiatrists diagnoses that a person has

personality disorder is not automatically believed by the courts in cases of declaration of

nullity of marriages.

In Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, we ruled that, even without delving into the non-exclusive list found

in Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina, the stringent requisites provided in Santos v. Court

of Appeals must be independently met by the party alleging the nullity of the marriage

grounded on Article 36. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in amere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to

the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon

which the logic of his conclusion is founded.

In the case at bar, however, even without the experts conclusions, the factual antecedents

(narrative of events) alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the

inevitable conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the

essential marital obligations.

In the instant case, respondents pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a

psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1)

sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business

attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected withthe family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa. END OF RELEVANT PART

As regards the issue of Socorros psychological incapacity: there was no allegation of facts

with respect to Socorros psychological incapacity because what was alleged in the petition

only was to declare psychological incapacity of Ramon. Moreover, the findings of the expert

do not amount to a showing that Socorro is psychologically incapacitated to enter the

marriage.

Indeed Dra. Villegas diagnosed her to have Inadequate Personality [Disorder] along the


14/18

affectional area. But Dra. Villegas likewise noted that [petitioner] was able to remain in their

marriage for more than 20 years trying to reach out and lending a hand for better

understanding and relationship. With the foregoing evaluation made by no less than

[petitioners] own expert witnesses, we find it hard to believe that she is psychologically

incapacitated

ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

FACTS Roxas is an American citizen of Filipino descent. She was a member of Bagong AlyansangMakabayan-United States of America (BAYAN-USA). She enrolled in an exposure program of said organization to the Philippines. In April 2009, she volunteered to join members of BAYAN-Tarlac in conducting an initial

health survey in La Paz, Tarlac for a future medical mission.

May 19, 2009- petitioner and her companions, Juanito Carabeo (Carabeo) and John EdwardJandoc (Jandoc), decided to rest in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo (Mr. Paolo)

in SitioBagongSikat, BarangayKapanikian, La Paz, Tarlac.

1:30PM- 15 heavily armed men forcibly opened the door, barged inside and orderedpetitioner and her companions to lie on the ground face down. The armed men were all

in civilian clothes and, with the exception of their leader, were also wearing bonnets to

conceal their faces.

Roxas, Carabeo, and Jandoc were blindfolded, mouths were taped, dragged to a nearbyvan.

After an hour, the van stopped. They were ordered to alight. Roxas was informed that she is being detained for being a member of the Communist

Party of the Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA)

Roxas was separated from her companions and was escorted to a room that shebelieved was a jail cell from the sound of its metal doors. From there, she could hear

the sounds of gunfire, the noise of planes taking off and landing and some construction

bustle. She inferred that she was taken to the military camp of Fort Magsaysay in

Laur, Nueva Ecija.

Roxas was tortured and interrogated for 5 days. Roxas was blindfolded but was still able to learn the names of three of her

interrogators who introduced themselves to her as Dex, James and RC.

RC told Roxas that those who tortured her came from the Special Operations Group,and that she was abducted because her name is included in the Order of Battle.

May 25- Roxas was released. She was given (1) a cellular phone with a SIM card, (2) a slipof paper containing an e-mail address with password, (3) a plastic bag containing biscuits

and books, (4) the handcuffs used on her, (5) a blouse and (6) a pair of shoes. She was also

sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatanor something untoward

will happen to her and her family.

Roxas continued to receive calls from RC. Later on, she threw the cellphone away, fearingthat she was being monitored.

Roxas filed Petition for Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, impleading public officials onthe belief that it was government agents who were behind her abduction and

torture. Roxas likewise included in her suit Rose, Dex and RC praying that-

(1) respondents be enjoined from harming or even approaching petitioner and her family;

(2) an order be issued allowing the inspection of detention areas in the 7 thInfantry

Division, Fort Magsaysay, Laur, Nueva Ecija;(3) respondents be ordered to produce documents relating to any report on the case of

petitioner including, but not limited to, intelligence report and operation reports of the

7thInfantry Division, the Special Operations Group of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

(AFP) and its subsidiaries or branch/es prior to, during and subsequent to 19 May 2009;

(4) respondents be ordered to expunge from the records of the respondents any document

pertinent or connected to Melissa C. Roxas, Melissa Roxas or any name which sounds the

same; and

(5) respondents be ordered to return to petitioner her journal, digital camera with memory


15/18

card, laptop computer, external hard disk, IPOD, wristwatch, sphygmomanometer,

stethoscope, medicines and her P15,000.00 cash.

SC issued the writs.DEFENSE 1) Roxas torture is stage managed, relying on the statement of Mr. Paolo, as contained in

theSpecial Reportof the La Paz Police Station.

Statement: prior to the purported abduction, petitioner and her companions instructed

him and his two sons to avoid leaving the house.Public respondents drew the distinct possibility that, except for those already inside Mr.

Paolos house, nobody else has any way of knowing where petitioner and her companions

were at the time they were supposedly abducted. This can only mean that if ever there

was any abduction it must necessarily have been planned by, or done with the consent

of, the petitioner and her companions themselves.

Medical Certificateonly shows abrasions in her wrists and knee caps.

2)Assuming abduction to be true, petition must be dismissed (a) as against respondentPresident Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because of her immunity from suit, and (b) as against

all of the public respondents, in view of the absence of any specific allegation in the

petition that they had participated in, or at least authorized, the commission of such

atrocities.

3)They had not been remiss in their duty to ascertain the truth behind the allegations of thepetitioner.a) Police Action-

-Upon report of the presence of heavily armed men, La Paz Municipal Police Station

launched an investigation;

-sent flash message to different police stations;

-Special Report was transmitted to Tarlac Police Provincial Office and then to the

Regional Police Office of Region 3;

-follow up investigations were conducted

-Special Investigation Task Group-CAROJAN was created

-Task Group Carojan conducted background examinations on the victims of the

abduction to reveal motive behind abduction and later on identify abductors

-Task Group coordinated withKarapatanand the Alliance for Advancement of

Peoples Rights

-However, Task Group CAROJAN is still unable to make a definitive finding as to thetrue identity and affiliation of the abductorsa fact that task group CAROJAN

attributes to the refusal of the petitioner, or any of her fellow victims, to cooperate in

their investigative efforts.

b) Military action- Gilbert Teodoro (Secretary of National Defense) issued a Memorandum Directive

ddressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP, ordering the latter, among others, to conduct

an inquiry to determine the validity of the accusation of military involvement in the

abduction.

-Investigation Report: regarded petitioners allegations as opinionated and thereby

cleared the military from any involvement in her alleged abduction and torture

COURT OF

APPEALS gave due weight and consideration to the petitioners version that she was indeed

abducted and then subjected to torture for five (5) straight days

disregarded the argument that the abduction of the petitioner was stage managed, as itis merely based on an unfounded speculation that only the latter and her companionsknew where they were staying at the time they were forcibly taken.

recognized the existence of an ongoing threat against the security of the petitioner, asmanifested in the attempts of RC to contact and monitor her, even after she was released

threat is all the more compounded by the failure of the police authorities to identify thematerial perpetrators who are still at large

Thus, the appellate court extended to the petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparobydirecting the public respondents to afford protection to the former, as well as continuing,


16/18

under the norm of extraordinary diligence, their existing investigations involving the

abduction.

Noted the existence of records of investigation that concerns Roxas as a member of theCPP-NPA: a photograph and video file presented in a press conference by party-list

representatives Jovito Palparan (Palparan) and Pastor Alcover (Alcover), which allegedly

show the petitioner participating in rebel exercises.

the proliferation of the photograph and video, as well as any form of media, insinuatingthat petitioner is part of the CPP-NPA does not only constitute a violation of the right toprivacy of the petitioner but also puts further strain on her already volatile security.

Hence, CA granted the privilege of the writ of habeas datamandating the publicrespondents to refrain from distributing to the public any records, in whatever form,

relative to petitioners alleged ties with the CPP-NPA or pertinently related to her

abduction and torture.

HOWEVER, CA was not convinced that the military or any other person acting under theacquiescence of the government, were responsible for the abduction and torture of the

petitioner.

-judging by her own statements, the petitioner merely believed that the military wasbehind her abduction.

-absolved the public respondents from any complicity in the abduction and torture of

petitioner.-petition likewise dismissed as against public respondent President Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo, in view of her immunity from suit

-prayers for the return of her personal belongings were denied

-prayers for an inspection order and production order likewise denied

ISSUE W/N public respondents are responsible for petitioners abduction. NO

RULING A. AmparoResponsibility of Public Respondents

Petitioner attempted to show government complicity through the ff. circumstances:

1) Forcible taking in broad daylight2) Use of vehicles with no license plates3) Utilization of blindfolds4) Conducting interrogations to elicit communist inclinations5) Infliction of physical abusePetitioner also claims that she was held inside the military camp Fort Magsaysaya

conclusion which she was able to infer from (a) the travel time required to reach the place

where she was actually detained, and (b) the sounds of construction, gun-fire, and airplanes

she heard while thereat.

COURT: Totality of the evidence does not support the conclusion that her abductors

were military or police personnel and that she was detained at Fort Magsaysay.

1) The similarity between the circumstances attending a particular case of abduction withthose surrounding previous instances of enforced disappearances does not, necessarily,carry sufficient weight to prove that the government orchestrated such abduction. The

perceived similarity cannot stand as substantial evidence of the involvement of the

government.

2) The claim of the petitioner that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay was notadequately established by her mere estimate of the time it took to reach the place

where she was detained and by the sounds that she heard while thereat.

-the estimate and observations of the petitioner cannot be accepted as accurate on its

face


17/18

-they were made mostly while she was in blindfolds,

-she was a mere sojourner in the Philippines, whose familiarity with Fort Magsaysay and

the travel time required to reach it is in itself doubtful

Prayer for the Return of Personal Belongings

1)

An order to return belongings is equivalent to a conclusive pronouncement of liability.Matters of liability are not determinable in a mere summary amparo proceding.

2) More importantly: A persons right to be restituted of his property is already subsumedunder the general rubric of property rightswhich are no longer protected by the writ

of amparo.

Inspection of the Detention Areas of Fort Magsaysay

A basic requirement before an amparocourt may grant an inspection order is that the place

to be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the

order. It is required as a minimum for the issuance of an inspection order that the

supporting allegations of a party be sufficient in itself, so as to make a prima faciecase.

Since the very estimates and observations of the petitioner are not strong enough to makeout aprima faciecase that she was detained in Fort Magsaysay, an inspection of the military

camp cannot be ordered. An inspection order cannot issue on the basis of allegations that

are, in themselves, unreliable and doubtful.

B. Habeas Data An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the

showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to

privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.

There is no evidence on record that shows that any of the public respondents had violatedor threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner.

The act ascribed by to the public respondents that would have violated or threatened theright to privacy of the petitioner were only inferred from the video and photographreleased by Representatives Palparan and Alcover in their press conference. No evidence

on record even shows that any of the public respondents had access to such video or

photograph.

Until such time that any of the public respondents were found to be actually responsiblefor the abduction and torture of the petitioner, any inference regarding the existence of

reports being kept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes farfetched, and

premature.

DISPOSITION OF THE CASE

awkward situation- the very persons alleged to be involved in an enforced disappearance

or extralegal killing are the very ones tasked by law to investigate the matter

-the main source of the evidentiary difficulties faced by any petitioner in any amparo case

However, theAmparoRule placed a potent safeguardrequiring the respondent who is a

public official or employee to prove that no less than extraordinary diligence as required

by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. Thus,

unless and until any of the public respondents is able to show to the satisfaction of

the amparocourt that extraordinary diligence has been observed in their investigations, they

cannot shed the allegations of responsibility despite the prevailing scarcity of evidence to

that effect


18/18

Extraordinary diligence, as required by theAmparoRule, was not fully observed in the

conduct of the police and military investigations in the case at bar.

-Task Group CAROJAN focused on conducting background checks on the victims rather than

identifying perpertrators.

-It relied solely on the cooperation or non-cooperation of the petitioner

- Task Group CAROJANs reports still failed to explain why it never considered seeking the

assistance of Mr. Jesus Paolo

Further investigation under the norm of extraordinary diligence should beundertaken.