(5) Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan

G.R. No. 163271 January 15, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioner Myrna Bernales and Respondents herein are siblings;

Sometime on 1975, Julian Sambaan, their father, died;

In 1991, Respondents received an information that Myrna had successfully transferred in her name the title over the property of their deceased father, Julian Sambaan, on the basis of the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Julian and Guillerma (their mother) on December 7, 1970;

Thereafter, Respondents caused the examination of said Deed of Absolute Sale with the NBI. The latter found the signatures therein were forged; Respondents filed an action to nullify said Deed of Absolute Sale and for the cancellation of the title issued in favor of Myrna Bernales; Both RTC and CA rendered decision, respectively, in favor of Respondents.

ISSUE:

WON the Deed of Absolute Sale was authentic.

HELD:

No. The issues raised by the petitioners are essentially factual matters, the determination of which are best left to the courts below. Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Moreover, the findings of the NBI document examiner were corroborated by the trial courts own observation, as affirmed by the CA, that "even a cursory examination of Guillermas questioned signature from her specimen signatures in the enlarged photographs (Exhibits F and F-1) would show that it needs no expert witness to notice the wide difference in stroke, as well as the writing style in capital G."Conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.The fact that the CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this court.

(6) MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSION FOUNDATION, INCORPORATEDvs.COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 162175 June 28, 2010FACTS:

Petitioner MJOPFI is a non-stock non-profit corporation established for the purposes of holding and administering the Employees Trust Fund (ETF) for the benefit of Victoria Milling Corporation (VMC);

MJOPFI, using the funds of the ETF, decided to invest the same in buying a lot;

On March 25, 1992, MJOPFI, VMC and VFC jointly purchased a lot in the Madrigal Business Park (MBP lot). They agreed that the title thereto be put under the name of VMC; MJOPFI decided to sell its share in the MBP lot;

On March 26, 1997, MJOPFIs share in the MBP lot was sold to Metrobank through VMC; The proceeds of the sale to Metrobank were taxed by the BIR;

MJOPFI claimed tax refund maintaining that under Sec. 53(b) (now Sec. 60(b)) of the NIRC, the sale is tax exempt; The BIR asked MJOPFI to present evidence of its co-ownership of the MBP lot and its exemption from tax;

MJOPFI submitted the following documentary evidence as proof of its co-ownership:1. Notarized Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging MJOPFIs ownership in the MBP lot;2. Secretarys Certificate of the Board Resolution Nos. 92-34 and 96-46;3. Cititrust Portfolio Mix Analysis proving the investment of ETF in the MBP lot The CA and CIR did not sustain MJOPFIs evidence for being self-serving and could be contrived easily.

ISSUES:1. WON MJOPFI proved its co-ownership in the MBP lot.

2. WON MJOPFI is tax exempt.

HELD:

Yes. Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents and public documents are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.

The BIR failed to present any clear and convincing evidence to prove that the notarized Memorandum of Agreement is fictitious or has no legal effect. Likewise, VMC, the registered owner, did not repudiate petitioners share in the MBP lot. Further, Citytrust, a reputable banking institution, has prepared a Portfolio Mix Analysis for the years 1994 to 1997 showing that petitioner investedP5,504,748.25 in the MBP lot. Absent any proof that the Citytrust bank records have been tampered or falsified, and the BIR has presented none, the Portfolio Mix Analysis should be given probative value.(7) Azarcon vs. PeopleG.R. No. 185906 June 29, 2010FACTS:

Azarcon had been borrowing money from Marcosa who was engaged in the business of informal money lending;

Azarcon issued several checks for the payment of her indebtedness to Marcosa;

Said checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for being Closed Account;

Marcosa, through a letter, demanded Azarcon to pay/settle P790,000 corresponding to the amount of checks issued;

Azarcon, in her letter-reply, sought a reconciliation to settle her obligations with Marcosa;

On February 15, 1994, Manuel Azarcon paid P200,000 as initial payment for his wifes obligation and promised to settle the remaining balance within 1 year through monthly installment;

Azarcon failed to pay/settle the same;

Marcosa filed an action against Azarcon for violation of BP 22;

Both RTC and CA convicted Azarcon; Azarcon contended that she had no knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit at time she issued the checks. She further maintained that the obligation to pay had been novated since her husband Manuel already assumed her accountability to Marcosa.ISSUE:

WON Azarcons conviction was proper.

HELD:Yes. This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at the time of the issuance of the check. . .involves a state of mind of the person making, drawing or issuing the check which is difficult to prove. [Thus] Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates aprima faciepresumption of such knowledge.Said section reads:

SEC. 2.Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall beprima facieevidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days afterreceiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

x x xIn other words, the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. The presumption orprima facieevidence as provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.

A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.

As to Azarcons claim of novation, it is likewise unavailing.

There is no showing of Marcosa explicitly agreeing to such a substitution, nor of any act of her from which an inference may be drawn that she had agreed to absolve petitioner from her financial obligations and to instead hold Manuel fully accountable.

(8) Lejano vs. PeopleG.R. No. 176389 January 18, 2011

FACTS:

On June 30, 1991, Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally murdered in their home in Paraaque. In an intense investigation, a group of suspects were initially arrested by the police, but were eventually discharged due to suspicions of frame up. Later in 1995, The National Bureau of Investigation announced the resolution of the crime as they presented a star witness Jessica M. Alfaro who pointed at the accused (herein appellants) Webb et.al. as the main culprits. She also included police officer Gerardo Biong as an accessory to the crime. Relying on Alfaros testimony, information for rape with homicide was filed by the public prosecutors against appellants.

Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City Branch 274 presided over by Judge Tolentino took over the case. With Alfaros detailed narration of the events of the crime, the court found her testimony credible, noting that her delivery are spontaneous and straightforward. On January 4, 2000, trial court rendered judgment finding accused (herein appellants) guilty as charged, imposing them the penalty of reclusion perpetua while Biong, as an accessory to the crime, was given an indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months and one day to twelve years. Damages were also awarded to Lauro Vizconde.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, with a modification on Biongs penalty to six years minimum and twelve years maximum, plus increased awards of damages to Lauro Vizconde. A motion for reconsideration on the same court was also denied, hence the present appeal on the Supreme Court.

On April 20, 2010, the Court granted the request of Webb to submit the semen specimen taken from Carmelas cadaver on DNA analysis, believing it is under the safekeeping of the NBI. The NBI, however, denied that the specimen is under their custody and that it was turned over to the trial court. The trial court on the other hand, denied the claim that the specimen was under their care. This prompted Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit denying Webb of his right to due process.

ISSUE:WON Webb et al. be acquitted of the crime charged.

HELD:

Yes. Alfaros testimony, was found doubtful. Testified by Atty. Sacaguing, he claimed that Alfaro was an asset of the NBI since 1994. When the officers one day teased her about being dormant, she became piqued and suddenly claimed that she know someone who knows about the massacre. But when the said someone was not presented, she told Sacaguing that she might as well assume the role of her informant. Alfraro never refuted such testimony. It is possible for Alfaro to lie even with such intricate details, given that she practically lived in the NBI office. Moreover, the media is all over the case that everything is thoroughly reported. Generally, her story lacks sense or suffers from inherent inconsistencies.

Among the accused, it was Webb who presented the strongest alibi. His travel preparations were confirmed by Rajah Tours and the Philippine immigration, confirming that he indeed left for San Francisco, California with his Aunt Gloria on March 9, 1991 on board United Airlines Flight 808. His passport was stamped and his name was listed on the United Airlines Flights Passenger Manifest. Upon reaching US, the US Immigration recorded his entry to the country. Moreover, details of his stay there, including his logs and paychecks when he worked, documents when he purchased a car and his license are presented as additional evidence, and he left for Philippines on October 26, 1992. Supreme Court accused the trial and court of appeals as having a mind that is made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangmans noose in the faces of a witness sweaking I saw him do it. A judge, according to the SC, must keep an open mind, and must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. For positive identification to be credible, two criteria must be met; 1.) the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness 2.) the witness story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived. For alibi to be credible and established on the other hand, it must be positive, clear, and documented. It must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Webb was able to establish his alibis credibility with his documents. It is impossible for Webb, despite his so called power and connections to fix a foreign airlines passenger manifest. Webbs departure and arrival were authenticated by the Office of the US Attorney General and the State Department.

Page 5 of 7