ii. what need to be proved

7/25/2019 II. What Need to Be Proved

1/111

II. What need to be proved

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-260! "ebr#ar$ 2%& %'6(

CIT) O" M*NIL*&plaintiff-appellee,vs.GER*R+O G*RCI* , C*RMENCIT* ILL*NUE*& MO+EST* P*R*)NO , N*RCISO P*R*)NO&U*N *SPER*S& M*RI* T*/I* , SIMEON +ILIM*N& *UILINO /*RRIOS , LEONOR* RUI1&L*URE*NO +I1O& /ERN*/E *)U+* , LEOG*R+* +E LOS S*NTOS& IS*/ELO O/*O/ ,*N+RE* RIP*RIP& OSE /*RRIENTOS& UR/*NO R*MOS&%ELEN* R*MOS& ESTE"*NI*NEP*CIN*& MO+EST* S*NCE1& M*RCI*L L*1*RO& M*RCI*N* *L*NO& ONORIO /ERI3O ,SE+OR* OR*)LE& GLORI* EL*SCO& WIL*RICO RIC*M*T*& /ENE+ICTO +I*1& *N* +EUI1 ,4MRS.5 *LUN*N& LOREN1O C*R*N+*NG& U*N PEC*)O& "ELICI+*+ MIR*N+* , EMIG+IOEGIPTO&defendants-appellants.

Mauricio Z. Alunan for defendants-appellants.City Fiscal's Office for plaintiff-appellee.

S*NCE1& J.:

Plaintiff City of Manila is owner of parcels of land, forin! one copact area, borderin! "ansas, #erontand $in!alon! streets in Malate, Manila, and covered by %orrens %itles Nos. &'()*, *(+ and *(.$hortly after liberation fro /'& to /'&(, defendants entered upon these preises without plaintiff0s1nowled!e and consent. %hey built houses of second-class aterials, a!ain without plaintiff0s 1nowled!e

and consent, and without the necessary buildin! perits fro the city. %here they lived thru the years tothe present.

2n Noveber, /'&(, the presence of defendants havin! previously been discovered, defendants 3elicidadMiranda 4Ei!dio E!ipto5, Modesta C. Parayno, Benedicto 6ia7, 8aureano 6i7o, 9ose Barrientos, ElenaRaos, Estefania Nepacina, Modesta $anche7, :onorio Beri;o, fia7a 4predecessor of defendant Carandan!5 were !iven by Mayor #aleriano E. 3u!osowritten perits ? each labeled @lease contract@ ? to occupy specific areas in the property uponconditions therein set forth. 6efendants 2sabelo >baob and


2/111

. Modesta C. Parayno (.( /+.* *('.+

*. 9uan Asperas *'.++ &.) '.*)

&. Maria %abia *.+ .() (+.&

. A=uilino Barrios

48eonora Rui75

&.++ &.* ''.*)

). 8aureano 6i7o *.++ .+ .&+

(. Bernabe Ayuda *'.)+ *./( **.*&

. 2sabelo >baob (. '.+) +.*

'. 9ose Barrientos *'.* &.(& (&&./

/+. Cecilia Man7ano inlieu of rbano Raos 4deceased5 &).) .)+

Paid up to3eb. /').

//. Elena Raos *&.+ .( /).)

/. Estefania Nepacina &/.+ *.*& +&.*&

/*. Modesta $anche7 **.& .) &&&.

/&. Marcial 8a7aro .&+ /.(' ).*

/. Marciana Alano .+ .+) .&&

/). :onorio Beri;o &.++ /.' /./)

/(. n $epteber /&, /')/, plaintiff0s City En!ineer,pursuant to the Mayor0s directive to clear s=uatters0 houses on city property, !ave each of defendants

thirty 4*+5 days to vacate and reove his construction or iproveent on the preises. %his was followedby the City %reasurer0s deand on each defendant, ade in 3ebruary and March, /'), for the payentof the aount due by reason of the occupancy and to vacate in fifteen 4/5 days. 6efendants refused.:ence, this suit to recover possession.

%he Fud!ent below directed defendants to vacate the preises to pay the aounts heretofore indicatedopposite their respective naes and to pay their onthly rentals fro March, /'), until they vacate thesaid preises, and the costs. 6efendants appealed.


3/111

/. De are called upon to rule on the forefront =uestion of whether the trial court properly foundthat the city needs the preises for school purposes.

%he city0s evidence on this point is Ehibit E, the certification of the Chairan, Coittee onAppropriations of the Municipal Board. %hat docuent recites that the aount of P/++,+++.++had been set aside in >rdinance &)), the /')-/')* Manila City Bud!et, for the construction of

an additional buildin! of the Epifanio de los $antos Eleentary $chool. 2t is indeed correct to saythat the court below, at the hearin!, ruled out the adissibility of said docuent. But then, in thedecision under review, the trial Fud!e obviously revised his views. :e there declared that therewas need for defendants to vacate the preises for school epansion he cited the verydocuent, Ehibit E, aforesaid.

2t is beyond debate that a court of Fustice ay alter its rulin! while the case is within its power, toa1e it conforable to law and Fustice.*$uch was done here. 6efendants0 reedy was to brin! tothe attention of the court its contradictory stance. Not havin! done so, this Court will not reopenthe case solely for this purpose.&

Anyway, eliination of the certification, Ehibit E, as evidence, would not profit defendants. 3or, inreversin! his stand, the trial Fud!e could well have ta1en ? because the was duty bound to ta1e

? Fudicial notice

of >rdinance &)). %he reason bein! that the city charter of Manila re=uires allcourts sittin! therein to ta1e Fudicial notice of all ordinances passed by the unicipal board ofManila.)And, >rdinance &)) itself confirs the certification aforesaid that an appropriation ofP/++,+++.++ was set aside for the @construction of additional buildin!@ of the Epifanio de los$antos Eleentary $chool.

3urtherore, defendants0 position is vulnerable to assault fro a third direction. 6efendants haveabsolutely no ri!ht to reain in the preises. %he ecuse that they have perits fro the ayoris at best flisy. %he perits to occupy are recoverable on thirty days0 notice. %hey have beenas1ed to leave they refused to heed. 2t is in this factual bac1!round that we say that the city0sneed for the preises is uniportant. %he city0s ri!ht to throw defendants out of the area cannotbe !ainsaid. %he city0s doinical ri!ht to possession is paraount. 2f error there was in the findin!that the city needs the land, such error is harless and will not Fustify reversal of the Fud!ent

below.(

. But defendants insist that they have ac=uired the le!al status of tenants. %hey are wron!.

%hey entered the land, built houses of second-class aterials thereon without the 1nowled!e andconsent of the city. %heir hoes were erected without city perits.

%hese constructions are ille!al. 2n a lan!ua!e failiar to all, defendants are s=uatters

$ince the last !lobal war, s=uattin! on another0s property in this country has becoe awidespread vice. 2t was and is a bli!ht. $=uatters0 areas pose probles of health, sanitation. %heyare breedin! places for crie. %hey constitute proof that respect for the law and the ri!hts ofothers, even those of the !overnent, are bein! flouted. "nowin!ly, s=uatters have ebar1ed onthe pernicious act of occupyin! property whenever and wherever convenient to their interests ?without as uch as leave, and even a!ainst the will, of the owner. %hey are eboldenedseein!ly because of their belief that they could violate the law with ipunity. %hepu!naciousness of soe of the has tied up the hands of le!itiate owners. %he latter are thusprevented fro recoverin! possession by peaceful eans.


4/111

enforce the !overnent0s ri!hts. >bstinacy of these s=uatters is difficult to eplain unless it isspawned by official tolerance, if not outri!ht encoura!eent or protection. $aid s=uatters havebecoe insensible to the difference between ri!ht and wron!. %o the, violation of law eansnothin!. Dith the result that s=uattin! still eists, uch to the detrient of public interest. 2t is hi!htie that, in this aspect, sanity and the rule of law be restored. 2t is in this environent that weloo1 into the validity of the perits !ranted defendants herein.

%hese perits, erroneously labeled @lease@ contracts, were issued by the ayors in /'&( and/'& when the effects of the war had siered down and when these defendants could havevery well adFusted theselves. %wo decades have now elapsed since the unlawful entry.6efendants could have, if they wanted to, located peranent preises for their abode. And yet,usurpers that they are, they preferred to reain on city property.

6efendants0 entry as aforesaid was ille!al. %heir constructions are as ille!al, without perits.%hecity charter enFoins the ayor to @safe!uard all the lands@ of the City of Manila.'

$urely enou!h, the perits !ranted did not @safe*uard@ the city0s land in =uestion. 2t is ourconsidered view that the Mayor of the City of Manila cannot le!ali7e forcible entry into publicproperty by the siple epedient of !ivin! perits, or, for that atter, eecutin! leases.

$=uattin! is unlawful and no aount of ac=uiescence on the part of the city officials will elevate itinto a lawful act. 2n principle, a copound of ille!al entry and official perit to stay is obnoious toour concept of proper official nor of conduct. Because, such perit does not serve social

Fustice it fosters oral decadence. 2t does not proote public welfare it abets disrespect for thelaw. 2t has its roots in vice so it is an infected bar!ain. >fficial approval of s=uattin! should not,therefore, be peritted to obtain in this country where there is an orderly for of !overnent.

De, accordin!ly, rule that the Manila ayors did not have authority to !ive perits, written or oral,to defendants, and that the perits herein !ranted are null and void.

*. 8et us loo1 into the houses and constructions planted by defendants on the preises. %heyclearly hinder and ipair the use of that property for school purposes. %he courts ay well ta1e

Fudicial notice of the fact that housin! school children in the eleentary !rades has been and stillis a perennial proble in the city. %he selfish interests of defendants ust have to yield to the!eneral !ood. %he public purpose of constructin! the school buildin! anne is paraount./+

2n the situation thus obtainin!, the houses and constructions aforesaid constitute public nuisanceper se. And this, for the reason that they hinder and ipair the use of the property for a badlyneeded school buildin!, to the preFudice of the education of the youth of the land.//%hey shac1lethe hands of the !overnent and thus obstruct perforance of its constitutionally ordainedobli!ation to establish and aintain a coplete and ade=uate syste of public education, andore, to +pro,ide at least free pu&lic pri$ary instruction@./

Reason dictates that no further delay should be countenanced. %he public nuisance could wellhave been suarily abated by the city authorities theselves, e,en without the aid of thecourts./*

&. 6efendants challen!e the Furisdiction of the Court of 3irst 2nstance of Manila. %hey say that thecase should have been started in the unicipal court. %hey prop up their position by the averentthat notice for the to vacate was only served in $epteber, /')/, and suit was started in 9uly,/'). %heir le!al !round is $ection /, Rule (+ of the Rules of Court. De have reached theconclusion that their forcible entry dates bac1 to the period fro /'& to /'&(. %hat entry was notle!ali7ed by the perits. %heir possession continued to reain ille!al fro incipiency. $uit was


5/111

filed lon! after the one-year liitation set forth in $ection / of Rule (+. And the Manila Court of3irst 2nstance has Furisdiction./&

pon the preises, we vote to affir the Fud!ent under review. Costs a!ainst defendants-appellants. $oordered.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2%00 Nove7ber 2'& %'(%


6/111

G*/RIEL /*GUIO& plaintiff-Appellant,vs.TEO"IL* L. +*. +E *L*G*T& 8or her9e:8 and ;n repre9entat;on o8 her 7;nor riental, presided by the :on. BenFain ".


7/111

coplaint a!ainst the predecessor-in-interest of defendants, who as epressly aditted by appellant wasthe deceased husband of one of the and father of the rest. %here was no denial either of the propertyinvolved bein! the sae and of the finality of the decsion in the previous case which would show thatappellant0s clai was devoid of any support in law. 2t would be therefore futile for the court to continuewith the case as there had been such a prior Fud!ent certainly bindin! on appellant. Dhat then wasthere for the lower court to doI Das there any sense in its bein! en!a!ed in what was essentially afruitless, endeavor as the outcoe was predictibleI

Certainly, the law would lend itself to a well-deserved reproach if the Rules of Court would sanction sucha proceedin! distin!uished by nothin! but its futility. 2t ou!ht to be clear even to appellant that under thecircustances, the lower court certainly could ta1e Fudicial notice of the finality of a Fud!ent in a casethat was previously pendin! and thereafter decided by it. %hat was all that was done by the lower court indecreein! the disissal. Certainly such an order is not contrary to law. A citation fro the coents offorer Chief 9ustice Moran is relevant. %hus @Courts have also ta1en Fudicial notice of previous cases todeterine whether or not the case pendin! is a oot one, or whether or not a previous rulin! is applicablein the case under consideration.@!

. %here is another e=ually copellin! consideration. Appellant undoubtedly had recourse to a reedywhich under the law then in force could be availed of. 2t would have served the cause of Fustice better, not

to ention the avoidance of needless epense on his part and the veation to which appellees weresubFected if he did reflect a little ore on the atter. %hen the valuable tie of this %ribunal would nothave been frittered away on a useless find hopeless appeal. 2t has, ever been the !uidin! principlefroAlonso ,. illa$or,>a /'/+ decision, that a liti!ant should not be allowed to worship at the altar oftechnicality. %hat is not to dispense Fustice accordin! to law. Parties, and uch ore so their counsel,should ever 1eep such an iperative of our le!al syste in ind.

D:ERE3>RE, the order of disissal of $epteber ), /')) is hereby affired. Dith costs a!ainstplaintiff.

Concepcion2 C.3.2 Ma4alintal2 Zaldi,ar2 Castro2 arredo2 illa$or and Ma4asiar2 33.2 concur.

%eyes2 3../.2 3.2 concurs in the result.

Separate Op;n;on9

TEE*N?EE& J., concurrin!

2 concur in the ain opinion of Mr. 9ustice 3ernan affirin! the lower court0s order of disissal of the casebelow, on otion of defendants-appellees, on the !round of its bein! barred by a prior Fud!ent.

%he lower court properly too1 Fudicial notice of the case resolved by it wherein adittedly the sae lowercourt disissed an identical coplaint filed over the sae property by the sae plantiff a!ainst the saedefendants 4who are the le!al or forced heirs of the now deceased Melecio 9ala!at, defendant in the priorcase5.

$uch Fudicial notice ta1en by the lower court is sanctioned under Rule /', section /. 2t in effect supplantsthe evidence on otion that Rule /**, section ( authori7es a trial court to receive @when a otion isbased on not appearin! on record.@

%he appeal0s sole assi!nent of error, ,i5, that a bar by prior Fud!ent cannot be raised in a otion todisiss when such !round does not appear on the face of the coplaint, is clearly bereft of basis or erit.$uch liitation of the disissal otion to what appears on the face of the coplaint applies only when itis based on !round that the coplaint fails to state a valid cause of action. %Rule /), section * precisely


8/111

provides for a hearin! of the otion to disiss, wherein its !round 4other than lac1 of cause of action5ay be proved or disproved in accordance with the rules of evidence and specifically Rule /**, section (,which provides that @4D5hen a otion is based on facts not appearin! of record the court ay hear theatter on affidavts or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court ay direct that theatter be heard wholly or partly on oral testiony or depositions.@

Dhen the !round of the disissal otion is, a prior Fud!ent rendered by the sae court ? a fact 1nownto the court and to the parties as well, as in the case at bar ? the ta1in! of Fudicial notice of said priorFud!ent by the sae court constitutes the very evidence needed to dispose of the disissal otion.

Separate Op;n;on9

TEE*N?EE& J., concurrin!

2 concur in the ain opinion of Mr. 9ustice 3ernan affirin! the lower court0s order of disissal of the casebelow, on otion of defendants-appellees, on the !round of its bein! barred by a prior Fud!ent.

%he lower court properly too1 Fudicial notice of the case resolved by it wherein adittedly the sae lowercourt disissed an identical coplaint filed over the sae property by the sae plantiff a!ainst the sae

defendants 4who are the le!al or forced heirs of the now deceased Melecio 9ala!at, defendant in the priorcase5.

$uch Fudicial notice ta1en by the lower court is sanctioned under Rule /', section /. 2t in effect supplantsthe evidence on otion that Rule /**, section ( authori7es a trial court to receive @when a otion isbased on not appearin! on record.@

%he appeal0s sole assi!nent of error, ,i5, that a bar by prior Fud!ent cannot be raised in a otion todisiss when such !round does not appear on the face of the coplaint, is clearly bereft of basis or erit.$uch liitation of the disissal otion to what appears on the face of the coplaint applies only when itis based on !round that the coplaint fails to state a valid cause of action. %Rule /), section * preciselyprovides for a hearin! of the otion to disiss, wherein its !round 4other than lac1 of cause of action5ay be proved or disproved in accordance with the rules of evidence and specifically Rule /**, section (,which provides that @4D5hen a otion is based on facts not appearin! of record the court ay hear theatter on affidavts or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court ay direct that theatter be heard wholly or partly on oral testiony or depositions.@

Dhen the !round of the disissal otion is, a prior Fud!ent rendered by the sae court ? a fact 1nownto the court and to the parties as well, as in the case at bar ? the ta1in! of Fudicial notice of said prior

Fud!ent by the sae court constitutes the very evidence needed to dispose of the disissal otion.


9/111


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-%( #ne !0& %'6

G*/RIEL P. PRIETO&plaintiff-appellant,vs.

ME+EN *RRO)O& *C? *RRO)O& NONITO *RRO)O and 1E"ERINO *RRO)O& R.&defendants-appellees.

rila2 ardalis and e0o for plaintiff-appellant.6ui0ano and A5ores and 3. . Arroyo for defendants-appellees.

M*?*LINT*L& J.:

ri!inal Certificate of %itle No. *' was cancelled and in lieu thereof%ransfer Certificate of %itle No. ( was issued in the naes of his heirs, the defendants in this case,naely Meden 9ac1, 9o1er, Nonito and Jeferino, 9r., all surnaed Arroyo.


10/111

>n March ), /') said heirs filed in the Court of 3irst 2nstance of Caarines $ur a petition 48.R.C. No./&& . No. /+ $pecial Proceedin!s No. '++5 in which they claied that the technicaldescription set forth in their transfer certificate of title and in the ori!inal certificate of their predecessor didnot confor with that ebodied in the decision of the land re!istration court, and was less in area bysoe /( s=uare eters. %hey therefore prayed that said description be corrected pursuant to $ection// of the 8and Re!istration Act that their certificate of title be cancelled and another one issued to thecontainin! the correct technical description. %he petition was filed in the re!istration record but wasdoc1eted as $pecial Proceedin!s No. '++.

>n May *, /') the court issued an order directin! the Re!ister of 6eeds of Caarines $ur to @chan!e,upon payent of his fees, the description in %ransfer Certificate of %itle No. ( of 8ot in Plan Psu-/+)(*+ so as to a1e it confor to that ebodied in the decision of the Court on March , /'+, and tocorrect therein the spellin! of the nae of one of the petitioners fro 0Miden Arroyo0 to 0Meden Arroyo0.

>n Noveber ', /') Prieto filed a!ainst the defendants in the Court of 3irst 2nstance of Caarines $ur4in the ori!inal re!istration records of the two lots5 a petition to annul the order of May * in $pecialProceedin!s No. '++. At the hearin! of the petition on 9uly /, /'( neither he nor his counsel appeared.Conse=uently, the trial court on the sae day issued an order disissin! the petition for failure toprosecute. A otion for reconsideration of that order was denied on $epteber , /'(.

>n $epteber , /' Prieto filed a!ainst the sae defendants the present action for annulent of$pecial Proceedin!s No. '++ and the order therein entered on May *, /'). :e also prayed that the /(s=uare eters alle!edly ta1en fro his lot by virtue of said order be reconveyed to hi.

6efendants oved to disiss the coplaint on the !round of res 0udicata. Plaintiff opposed, and on9anuary /, /'' the court !ranted the otion. 2t is fro the order of disissal, plaintiff havin! failed tosecure its reconsideration, that the appeal has been ta1en.

Appellant aintains that the institution of $pecial Proceedin!s No. '++ was irre!ular and ille!al ainlybecause he was not notified thereof and the sae was instituted alost si years after the issuance ofthe decree and title sou!ht to be corrected, and hence the order of the court dated May *, /') for thecorrection of the technical description in appellees0 title is void a& initio.

%he issue here, however, is not the validity of said $pecial Proceedin!s No. '++ but the propriety of thedisissal of appellant0s coplaint on the !round of res ad0udicata. %he validity of the said proceedin!swas the issue in the first case he filed. But because of his failure and that of his counsel to attend thehearin! the court disissed the case for failure to prosecute. $ince no appeal was ta1en fro the order ofdisissal it had the effect of an adFudication upon the erits, the court not havin! provided otherwise4Rule *+, $ection *5.

Appellant contends that said order could not have the effect of a Fud!ent because the Court did notac=uire Furisdiction over the persons of the respondents therein, defendants-appellees here, as they didnot file any opposition or responsive pleadin! in that case. Appellees, on the other hand, alle!e that theyhad voluntarily subitted to the court0s Furisdiction after they were served copies of the petition. %hisalle!ation finds support in the record, particularly in the followin! stateent of appellant in his brief

%his petition was ori!inally set for hearin! on 6eceber , /'), but was postponed to 9anuary/&, /'(, due to lac1 of notice to the respondents. pon otion for postponeents ofrespondents, now defendants-appellees, the hearin! of 9anuary /&, /'( was postponed to May/), /'(. %he hearin! set for May /), /'( was a!ain postponed upon otion of therespondents to 9uly /, /'(.

Appellant net points out that the lower court should not have disissed his first petition for annulentbecause no @parole@ evidence need be ta1en to support it, the atters therein alle!ed bein! parts of the


11/111

records of 8.R.C. No. /&&, . No. /+, and 8.R.C. /(*, . No. /&(&, which were well withinthe Fudicial notice and co!ni7ance of the said court.

2n the first place, as a !eneral rule, courts are not authori7ed to ta1e Fudicial notice in the adFudication ofcases pendin! before the, of the contents of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or arependin! in the sae court, and notwithstandin! the fact that both cases ay have been tried or are

actually pendin! before the sae Fud!e 4Municipal Council of $an Pedro, 8a!una, et al. v. Cole!io de $an9ose, et al., ) Phil. */5. $econdly, if appellant had really wanted the court to ta1e Fudicial notice of suchrecords, he should have presented the proper re=uest or anifestation to that effect instead of sendin!,by counsel, a tele!raphic otion for postponeent of hearin!, which the court correctly denied. 3inally,the point raised by counsel is now acadeic, as no appeal was ta1en fro the order disissin! his firstpetition, and said order had lon! becoe final when the coplaint in the present action was f iled.

%he contention that the causes of action in the two suits are different is untenable.

Both are based on the alle!ed nullity of $pecial Proceedin!s No. '++ in both appellant see1s that theorder of correction of the title of appellees be set aside. >f no aterial si!nificance is the fact that in thecoplaint in the instant case there is an epress prayer for reconveyance of soe /( s=uare eters ofland, ta1en fro appellant as a result of such correction of title. 3or that area would necessarily have

reverted to appellant had his first petition prospered, the relief as1ed for by hi bein! that @the Re!ister of6eeds of Caarines $ur be ordered to aend Certificate of %itle No. ** by incorporatin! therein onlyand solely the description of 8ot No. , plan Psu-/+)(*+ as appearin! in the 6ecree No. /) andaintainin! conse=uently the description liits and area of the adFoinin! land of the herein petitioner, 8otNo. *, plan Psu-//(, in accordance with 6ecree No. *+/ of 8and Re!istration No. /(*.@ %he clai fordaa!es as well as for other additional and alternative reliefs in the present case are not ateriallydifferent fro his prayer for @such other reedies, Fust and e=uitable in the preises@ contained in theforer one.

%here bein! identity of parties, subFect atter and cause of action between the two cases, the order ofdisissal issued in the first constitutes a bar to the institution of the second.

%he appealed order is affired, with costs a!ainst appellant.


Manila

%:2R6 62#2$2>N

G.R. No. L-'60 Nove7ber 2>& %'

)*O ?EE& S1E SOO? W*& S1E L*I CO& and S) CUN )EN& petitioners,vs.*I+* S)-GON1*LES& M*NUEL S)& TERESIT* S)-/ERN*/E& RO+OL"O S)& and ONOR*/LECOURT O" *PPE*LS& respondents.

Montesa2 Al&on2 7 Associates for petitioners.


12/111

8e /apa2 9alon*a2 Ful*encio 7 8e /unas for respondents.

CORTES& J.:

$y "iat, a Chinese national. died on 9anuary /(, /'(( in Caloocan City where he was then residin!,leavin! behind real and personal properties here in the Philippines worth P*++,+++.++ ore or less.

%hereafter, Aida $y-


13/111

4*5 6eclarin! the deed of sale eecuted by $y "iat on 6eceber (, /'() in favor of%oas $y 4Ehibit @


14/111

parents of the bride-to-be, and then one onth after that, a date would be set for theweddin!, which in her case, the weddin! date to $y "iat was set on 9anuary /', /'*/that durin! the weddin! the bride!roo brin!s with hi a couch 4sic5 where the bridewould ride and on that sae day, the parents of the bride would !ive the dowry for herdau!hter and then the docuent would be si!ned by the parties but there is nosoleni7in! officer as is 1nown in the Philippines that durin! the weddin! day, thedocuent is si!ned only by the parents of the bride!roo as well as by the parents of thebride that the parties theselves do not si!n the docuent that the bride would then beplaced in a carria!e where she would be brou!ht to the town of the bride!roo andbefore departure the bride would be covered with a sort of a veil that upon reachin! thetown of the bride!roo, the bride!roo ta1es away the veil that durin! her weddin! to$y "iat 4accordin! to said Chinese custo5, there were any persons present that after$y "iat opened the door of the carria!e, two old ladies helped her !o down the carria!eand brou!ht her inside the house of $y Mat that durin! her weddin!, $y Chic1, the eldestbrother of $y "iat, si!ned the docuent with her other that as to the whereabouts ofthat docuent, she and $y Mat were arried for &) years already and the docu$ent wasleft in China and she dou&t if that docu$ent can still &e found now: that it was left in the

possession of 9y ;iat's fa$ily: that ri*ht now2 she does not 4now the wherea&outs of thatdocu$ent &ecause of the lapse of $any years and &ecause they left it in a certain placeand it was already eaten &y the ter$ites: that after her weddin* with 9y ;iat2 they li,ed

i$$ediately to*ether as hus&and and wife, and fro then on, they lived to!ether that $y"iat went to the Philippines soetie in March or April in the sae year they werearried that she went to the Philippines in /'(+, and then cae bac1 to China thata!ain she went bac1 to the Philippines and lived with $y Mat as husband and wife thatshe be!ot her children with $y "iat durin! the several trips by $y "iat ade bac1 toChina. GC32 decision, pp. /*-/ Rollo, pp. +-.H

9econd, the testiony of


15/111

Custo is defined as @a rule of conduct fored by repetition of acts, uniforly observed 4practiced5 as asocial rule, le!ally bindin! and obli!atory@ G=n the Matter of the etition for Authority to Continue >se ofthe Fir$ !a$e +O5aeta2 %o$ulo2 de /eon2 Ma&anta and %eyes@2 3uly ?@2 12 9C%A ?2 1) citin* 3/%eyes 7 %C uno2 Outline of hil. Ci,il /aw2 Fourth "d.2 ol. 12 p. .H %he law re=uires that @a custoust be proved as a fact, accordin! to the rules of evidence@ GArticle /, Civil Code.H >n this score theCourt had occasion to state that @a local custo as a source of ri!ht can not be considered by a court of

Fustice unless such custo is properly established by copetent evidence li1e any other fact@ GPatriarca v.>rate, ( Phil. *'+, *' 4/'+(5.H %he sae evidence, if not one of a hi!her de!ree, should be re=uired of aforei!n custo.

%he law on forei!n arria!es is provided by Article (/ of the Civil Code which states that

Art. 1. All $arria*es perfor$ed outside the hilippines in accordance with the laws inforce in the country where they were perfor$ed and ,alid there as such2 shall also &e,alid in this country2 eBcept &i*a$ous2 oly*a$ous2 or incestuous $arria*es2 asdeter$ined &y hilippine law. "$phasis supplied.D ***

Construin! this provision of law the Court has held that to establish a valid forei!n arria!e two thin!sust be proven, naely 4/5 the eistence of the forei!n law as a =uestion of fact and 45 the alle!ed

forei!n arria!e by convincin! evidence GAdon! v. Cheon! $en! nwritten law.?%he oral testiony of witnesses, s1illed therein, is adissibleas evidence of the unwritten law of a forei!n country, as are also printed and publishedboo1s of reports of decisions of the courts of the forei!n country, if proved to becoonly aditted in such courts.

Proof of a written forei!n law, on the other hand, is provided for under Rule /* section , thus

$EC. . Proof ofpu&lic or official record.?An official record or an entry therein, whenadissible for any purpose, ay be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by acopy attested by the officer havin! the le!al custody of the record, or by his deputy, andaccopanied, if the record is not 1ept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officerhas the custody. 2f the office in which the record is 1ept is in a forei!n country, thecertificate ay be ade by a secretary of ebassy or le!ation, consul !eneral, consul,vice consul, or consular a!ent or by any officer in the forei!n service of the Philippinesstationed in the forei!n country in which the record is 1ept and authenticated by the sealof his office.

%he Court has interpreted section to include copetent evidence li1e the testiony of a witness toprove the eistence of a written forei!n law GCollector of 2nternal Revenue v. 3isher //+ Phil. )), (++-(+/4/')/5 citin! Dillaette 2ron and $teel Dor1s v. Mu77al, )/ Phil. &(/ 4/'*5.H

2n the case at bar petitioners did not present any copetent evidence relative to the law and custo ofChina on arria!e. %he testionies of Lao and


16/111

Petitioners contend that contrary to the Court of Appeals0 rulin! they are not duty bound to prove theChinese law on arria!e as Fudicial notice thereof had been ta1en by this Court in the case of 9y 3oc/ien* ,. 9y 6uia G/) Phil. /*( 4/'/+5.H

%his contention is erroneous. Dell-established in this Furisdiction is the principle that Philippine courtscannot ta1e Fudicial notice of forei!n laws. %hey ust be alle!ed and proved as any other fact GLa "a

8i v. Collector of Custos, *+ Phil. &), & 4/'/5 3lueer v. :i, & Phil. )/+ 4/'*+5.H

Moreover a readin! of said case would show that the party alle!in! the forei!n arria!e presented awitness, one 8i n! Bien!, to prove that atrionial letters utually echan!ed by the contractin! partiesconstitute the essential re=uisite for a arria!e to be considered duly soleni7ed in China. Based on histestiony, which as found by the Court is uniforly corroborated by authors on the subFect of Chinesearria!e, what was left to be decided was the issue of whether or not the fact of $arria*e in accordancewith Chinese law was duly proven G$y 9oc 8ien! v. $y uia, supra., at p. /)+.H

3urther, even assuin! for the sa1e of ar!uent that the Court has indeed ta1en Fudicial notice of the lawof China on arria!e in the aforecited case, petitioners however have not shown any proof that theChinese law or custo obtainin! at the tie the 9y 3oc /ien* arria!e was celebrated in /&( was stillthe law when the alle!ed arria!e of $y "iat to Lao "ee too1 place in /'*/ or ei!hty-four 4&5 years later.

Petitioners oreover cite the case of >.9. ,. Me$oracion G*& Phil. )** 4/'/)5H as bein! applicable to theinstant case. %hey aver that the Fudicial pronounceent in the Meoracion case, that the testiony ofone of the contractin! parties is copetent evidence to show the fact of arria!e, holds true in this case.

%he Me$oracion case however is not applicable to the case at bar as said case did not concern a forei!narria!e and the issue posed was whether or not the oral testiony of a spouse is copetent evidenceto prove the fact of $arria*e in a coplaint for adultery.

Accordin!ly, in the absence of proof of the Chinese law on arria!e, it should be presued that it is thesae as ours @@@GDon! Doo Liu v. #ivo,


17/111

:owever, as petitioners failed to establish the arria!e of Lao "ee with $y Mat accordin! to the laws ofChina, they cannot be accorded the status of le!itiate children but only that of ac1nowled!ed naturalchildren. Petitioners are natural children, it appearin! that at the tie of their conception Lao "ee and $y"iat were not dis=ualified by any ipedient to arry one another G$ee Art. )', Civil Code.H And theyare ac1nowled!ed children of the deceased because of $y "iat0s reco!nition of $7e $oo1 Dah GEhibit@*@H and its etension to $7e 8ai Cho and $y Chun Len who are her sisters of the full blood G$ee Art. (/,Civil Code.H

Private respondents on the other hand are also the deceased0s ac1nowled!ed natural children withAsuncion


18/111

Petitioners further ar!ue that the =uestions on the validity of $y Mat0s arria!e to Lao "ee and thepaternity and filiation of the parties should have been ventilated in the 9uvenile and 6oestic RelationsCourt.

$pecifically, petitioners rely on the followin! provision of Republic Act No. +, entitled @An Act Revisin!Rep. Act No. *(, otherwise 1nown as the Charter of the City of Caloocan0, with re!ard to the 9uvenile

and 6oestic Relations Court

$EC. '/-A. Creation and 3urisdiction of the Court.?

%he provisions of the 9udiciary Act to the contrary notwithstandin!, the court shall haveeclusive ori!inal Furisdiction to hear and decide the followin! cases

45 Cases involvin! custody, !uardianship, adoption, revocation of adoption, paternity andac1nowled!ent

4*5 Annulent of arria!es, relief fro arital obli!ations, le!al separation of spouses,and actions for support

4&5 Proceedin!s brou!ht under the provisions of title si and title seven, chapters one tothree of the civil code

and the rulin! in the case of Bartoloe v. Bartoloe G


19/111

=t is true that under the afore#uoted section 1 of %epu&lic Act !o. HG?H@@@@acasein,ol,in* paternity and ac4nowled*$ent $ay &e ,entilated as an incident in the intestateor testate proceedin* 9ee aluyot ,s. =nes /uciano2 /-H))12 3uly 1?2 1(D. But thatle!al provision presupposes that such an adinistration proceedin! is pendin! or eistin!and has not been terinated. Gat pp. */*-*/&.H 4Ephasis supplied.5

%he reason for ths rule is not only @to obviate the rendition of conflictin! rulin!s on the sae issue by theCourt of 3irst 2nstance and the 9uvenile and 6oestic Relations Court@ G#da. de Baluyut v. 8uciano,


20/111


Manila

32R$% 62#2$2>N

G.R. No. >2! Ma$ 6& %''%

OSE T*/UEN*&petitioner,vs.COURT O" *PPE*LS and EMILI*NO T*/ERNILL*& R.& respondents.

%a$on 8i$en for petitioner.8ionisio A. Jernande5 for pri,ate respondent.

CRU1& J.:

%he petitioner faults the decision of the trial court, as affired by the respondent court, for lac1 of basis. 2tis ar!ued that the lower courts should not have ta1en into account evidence not subitted by the privaterespondent in accordance with the Rules of Court.

%he subFect of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consistin! of about &&+ s=uare eters andsituated in Poblacion, Ma1ato, A1lan. 2n /'(*, an action for recovery of ownership thereof was filed in theRe!ional %rial Court of A1lan by the estate of Alfredo %abernilla a!ainst 9ose %abuena, the hereinpetitioner. After trial, Fud!ent was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant was re=uired tovacate the disputed lot. /

As the trial court found, the lot was sold by 9uan Peralta, 9r. soetie in /') to Alfredo %abernilla whilethe two were in the nited $tates. %abernilla returned to the Philippines in /'*&, and 6aasa %itian,actin! upon her son 9uan0s instruction, conveyed the subFect land to %abernilla. At the sae tie, she

re=uested that she be allowed to stay thereon as she had been livin! there all her life. %abernilla a!reedprovided she paid the realty taes on the property, which she proised to do, and did. $he reained onthe said land until her death, followin! which the petitioner, her son and half-brother of 9uan Peralta, 9r.,too1 possession thereof. %he coplaint was filed when deand was ade upon %abuena to surrenderthe property and he refused, claiin! it as his own.

%he trial court reFected his defense that he was the absolute owner of the lot, which he inherited fro hisparents, who ac=uired it even before Dorld Dar 22 and had been livin! thereon since then and until they


21/111

died. Also disbelieved was his contention that the subFect of the sale between Peralta and %abernilla wasa different piece of land planted to coconut trees and bounded on three sides by the Ma1ato River.

%abuena appealed to the respondent court, coplainin! that, in arrivin! at its factual findin!s, the trialcourt $otu propriotoo1 co!ni7ance of Ehibits @A@, @B@ and @C@, which had been ar1ed by the plaintiffbut never forally subitted in evidence. %he trial court also erred when, to resolve the ownership of the

subFect lot, it considered the proceedin!s in another case involvin! the sae parties but a different parcelof land.

%he said ehibits are referred to in the pre-trial order as follows

Plaintiff proceeded to ar1 the followin! ehibits Eh. @A@, letter dated >ctober &, /'/addressed in Ma1ato, Capi7, Philippines Eh. @A-/@, para!raph of the letter indicatin! that theaount of P)++.++?the first P*++.++ and then another P*++.++ as interest since >ctober &,/'/ Eh. @A-@, is para!raph * of the letter Eh. @B@, a $panish docuent Eh. @C@, deed ofconveyance filed by %oasa %itian and Alfredo %abernilla in /'* and Eh. @C-/@, para!raph& of Eh. @C@.

2n sustainin! the trial court, the respondent court held that, contrary to the alle!ations of the appellant, the

said ehibits were in fact forally subitted in evidence as disclosed by the transcript of steno!raphicnotes, which it =uoted at len!th. %he challen!ed decision also upheld the use by the trial court oftestiony !iven in an earlier case, to bolster its findin!s in the second case.

De have eained the record and find that the ehibits subitted were not the above-describeddocuents but Ehibits @K@ and @%@ and their sub-ar1in!s, which were the last will and testaent of

Alfredo %abernilla and the order of probate. 2t is not at all denied that the list of ehibits does not includeEhibits @A@, @B@ and @C@. 2n fact, the trial court cate!orically declared that @Ehibits @A-/, @A-@, @B@, @C@and @C-l,@ were not aon! those docuents or ehibits forally offered for adission by plaintiff-adinistratri.@ %his is a clear contradiction of the findin! of the appellate court, which sees to haveconfused Ehibits @A,@ @B@ and @C@ with Ehibits @K@ and @L@, the evidence entioned in the =uotedtranscript.

Rule /* of the Rules of Court provides in $ection * thereof as follows

$ec. *. Offer of e,idence.?%he court shall consider no evidence which has not been forallyoffered. %he purpose for which the evidence is offered ust be specified.

%he ere fact that a particular docuent is ar1ed as an ehibit does not ean it has thereby alreadybeen offered as part of the evidence of a party. 2t is true that Ehibits @A,@ @B@ and @C@ were ar1ed at thepre-trial of the case below, but this was only for the purpose of identifyin! the at that tie. %hey werenot by such ar1in! forally offered as ehibits. As we said in =nterpacific


22/111

re=uireents have been satisfied in the case before us. %he trial court said the said ehibits could bevalidly considered because, even if they had not been forally offered, one of the plaintiffs witnesses,Cune!unda :ernande7, testified on the at the trial and was even cross-eained by the defendant0scounsel. De do not a!ree. Althou!h she did testify, all she did was identify the docuents. Nowhere inher testiony can we find a recital of the contents of the ehibits.

%hus, her interro!ation on Ehibit @A@ ran

8En the contrary, the petitioner was copletely unaware that his testiony in Civil Case No. /*(was bein! considered by the trial court in the case then pendin! before it. As the petitioner puts it, theatter was never ta1en up at the trial and was @unfairly sprun!@ upon hi, leavin! hi no opportunity tocounteract.

%he respondent court said that even assuin! that the trial court iproperly too1 Fudicial notice of theother case, stri1in! off all reference thereto would not be fatal to the plaintiff0s cause because @the said

testiony was erely corroborative of other evidences subitted by the plaintiff.@ Dhat @otherevidences@I %he trouble with this Fustification is that the ehibits it intends to corroborate, to wit, Ehibits@A@, @B@ and @C@, have theselves not been forally subitted.

Considerin! the resultant paucity of the evidence for the private respondent, we feel that the coplaintshould have been disissed by the trial court for failure of the plaintiff to substantiate its alle!ations. 2t hasfailed to prove that the subFect lot was the sae parcel of land sold by 9uan Peralta, 9r. to Alfredo%abernilla and not another property, as the petitioner contends. Even assuin! it was the sae lot, thereis no eplanation for the sale thereof by 9uan Peralta, 9r., who was only the son of 6aasa %itian.


23/111

Accordin! to the trial court, @there is no =uestion that before /'*& the land in =uestion belon!ed to6aasa %itian.@ 9uan Peralta, 9r. could not have validly conveyed title to property that did not belon!to hi unless he had appropriate authori7ation fro the owner. No such authori7ation has beenpresented.

2t is true that ta declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, as we have held in any

cases.1Kwphi1:owever, that rule is also not absolute and yields to the accepted and well-1nowneception. 2n the case at bar, it is not even disputed that the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interesthave possessed the disputed property since even before Dorld Dar 22. 2n li!ht of this uncontroverted fact,the ta declarations in their nae becoe wei!hty and copellin! evidence of the petitioner0s ownership.

As this Court has held

Dhile it is true that by theselves ta receipts and declarations of ownership for taationpurposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership they becoe stron! evidence ofownership ac=uired by prescription when accopanied by proof of actual possession of theproperty. '

2t is only where payent of taes is accopanied by actual possession of the land covered by theta declaration that such circustance ay be aterial in supportin! a clai of ownership. /+

%he ta receipts accopanied by actual and continuous possession of the subFect parcels of landby the respondents and their parents before the for ore than *+ years =ualify the to re!istertitle to the said subFect parcels of land. //

%he Court can only wonder why, if Alfredo %abernilla did purchase the property and a!naniouslyallowed 6aasa %itian to reain there, he did not at least re=uire her to pay the realty taesin hisnae, not hers. %he eplanation !iven by the trial court is that he was not uch concerned with theproperty, bein! a bachelor and fond only of the three do!s he had bou!ht fro Aerica. %hat is speciousreasonin!. At best, it is pure conFecture. 2f he were really that unconcerned, it is curious that he shouldhave ac=uired the property in the first place, even as dacion en pa*o. :e would have deanded anotherfor of payent if he did not have the intention at all of livin! on the land. >n the other hand, if he werereally interested in the property, we do not see why he did not have it declared in his nae when the

realty taes thereon were paid by 6aasa %itian or why he did not obFect when the payents wereade in her own nae.

2n coparison, all the acts of 6aasa %itian and 9ose %abuena indicate that they were the owners ofthe disputed property. 6aasa %itian and her forebears had been in possession thereof for ore thanfifty years and, indeed, she herself stayed there until she died. /$he paid the realty taes thereon in herown nae. /*9ose %abuena built a house of stron! aterials on the lot. /&:e even ort!a!ed the land tothe 6evelopent Ban1 of the Philippines and to two private persons who ac1nowled!ed hi as theowner. /%hese acts denote ownership and are not consistent with the private respondent0s clai that thepetitioner was only an overseer with ere possessory ri!hts tolerated by %abernilla.

2t is the policy of this Court to accord proper deference to the factual findin!s of the courts below and evento re!ard the as conclusive where there is no showin! that they have been reached arbitrarily. %he

eception is where such findin!s do not confor to the evidence on record and appear indeed to have novalid basis to sustain their correctness. As in this case.

%he conclusions of the trial court were based ainly on Ehibits @A@, @B@ and @C@, which had not beenforally offered as evidence and therefore should have been totally disre!arded, conforably to theRules of Court. %he trial court also erred when it relied on the evidence subitted in Civil Case No. /*(and too1 Fudicial notice thereof without the consent or 1nowled!e of the petitioner, in violation of eistin!doctrine. %hus vitiated, the factual findin!s here challen!ed are as an edifice built upon shiftin! sands andshould not have been sustained by the respondent court.


24/111

>ur own findin! is that the private respondent, as plaintiff in the lower court, failed to prove his clai ofownership over the disputed property with evidence properly co!ni7able under our adFudicative laws. Bycontrast, there is substantial evidence supportin! the petitioner0s contrary contentions that should havepersuaded the trial Fud!e to rule in s favor and disiss the coplaint.

D:ERE3>RE, the petition is


25/111


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No9. %%'0-0' +e


26/111

Accordin! to coplainant Mia %aha, at around (++ P.M. of 9anuary /, /''&, she went to the boardin!house of her cousin, Merlylyn Casantosan, at Pulot Center, Broo1e0s Point which is near the PalawanNational $chool 4PN$5, Pulot Branch, where she was studyin!. Dhen she saw that the house was dar1,she decided to pass throu!h the 1itchen door at the bac1 because she 1new that there was nobodyinside. As soon as she opened the door, soebody suddenly !rabbed her, po1ed a 1nife on her nec1,dra!!ed her by the hand and told her not to shout. $he was then forced to lie down on the floor. Althou!hit was dar1, coplainant was able to reco!ni7e her assailant, by the li!ht coin! fro the oon andthrou!h his voice, as accused-appellant 6anny


27/111

BREA$% $li!htly !lobular with brown colored areola and nipple.

EK%ERNA8 EKAM. Nuerous pubic hair, fairly developed labia aFora and inora,hyenal openin! stellate in shape, presence of laceration superficial, lon!itudinal at thefossa navicularis, approiately / c. len!th.

2N%ERNA8 EKAM. :yenal openin!, stellate in shape, laceration noted, hyenalopenin! adits fin!ers with sli!ht resistance, proinent va!inal ru!ae, cervi closed.

C>NC8$2>N :yenal openin! adits easily fin!ers with sli!ht resistance, presenceof laceration, lon!itudinal at the fossa navicularis approiately / c. len!th. :yenalopenin! can adit an avera!e si7e penis in erection with laceration.>

6r. 6ivina!racia further testified that the hyenal openin! was in stellate shape and that there was alaceration, which shows that coplainant had participated in seual intercourse. >n the basis of theinflicted laceration which was downward at ) o0cloc1 position, he could not say that there was forceapplied because there were no scratches or bruises, but only a wee1-old laceration. :e also eainedthe patient bodily but found no si!n of bruises or inFuries. %he patient told hi that she was raped.

6urin! the cross-eaination, coplainant denied that she wrote the letters ar1ed as Ehibits @/@ and@@ that she never loved appellant but, on the contrary, she hated hi because of what he did to her andthat she did not notice if there were people near the boardin! house of her cousin. $he narrated thatwhen appellant started to reove her panty, she was already lyin! down, and that even as appellant wasdoin! this she could not shout because she was afraid. $he could not reeber with which handappellant held the 1nife. $he was copletely silent fro the tie she was ade to lie down, while herpanty was bein! reoved, and even until appellant was able to rape her.

Dhen appellant went to their house the followin! day, she did not 1now if he was ared but there was nothreat ade on her or her parents. >n the contrary, appellant even courteously as1ed perission frothe in her behalf and so they left the house with appellant wal1in! ahead of her. Dhen she was brou!htto the $unset


28/111

and he infored her that Mia was at Broo1e0s Point. :e further conveyed appellant0s willin!ness tobecoe a Musli so he could arry Mia and thus settle the case. :elen %aha readily acceded becauseshe wanted to see her dau!hter.

2n the ornin! of 9anuary (, /''&, she went to the house of Nae who sent soebody to fetchcoplainant. $he testified that when Mia arrived, she was cryin! as she reported that she was raped by

appellant, and that the latter threatened to 1ill her if she did not return within an hour. Because of this, sheiediately brou!ht Mia to the hospital where the latter was eained and then they proceeded to theunicipal hall to file a coplaint for rape and 1idnappin!. Both Mia and :elen %aha eecuted separatesworn stateents before the PNP at Broo1e0s Point.

8ater, 3ruit n their part, her husband insisted that they Fust settle, hence all three of the, AdFeril, :elenand Mia %aha, went to the >ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor where they et with the other of appellantwho !ave the P*+,+++.++. AdFeril and :elen %aha subse=uently eecuted an affidavit of desistance inCriinal Case No. ()( for 1idnappin! pendin! in the prosecutor0s office, which was sworn to beforeProsecutor 22 Chito $. Mere!illano. :elen %aha testified that she a!reed to the settleent because thatwas what her husband wanted. Mia %aha was dropped fro the school and was not allowed to !raduate.:er father died two onths later, supposedly because of what happened.

%he defense presented a different version of what actually transpired.

Accordin! to appellant, he first et Mia %aha soetie in Au!ust, /''* at the Palawan National $chool4PN$5. Althou!h he did not court her, he fell in love with her because she often told hi @$ir, 2 love you.@Dhat started as a Fo1e later developed into a serious relationship which was 1ept a secret fro everybodyelse. 2t was on 6eceber +, /''* when they first had seual intercourse as lovers. Appellant was thenassi!ned at the Narra Pilot Eleentary $chool at the poblacion because he was the coach of the Palawandele!ation for chess. At around ++ P.M. of that day, coplainant arrived at his =uarters alle!edlybecause she issed hi, and she then decided to spend the ni!ht there with hi.

Eactly a onth thereafter, specifically in the evenin! of 9anuary +, /''&, Erna Baradero, a teacher atthe PN$, was loo1in! inside the school buildin! for her husband, who was a security !uard of PN$, when

she heard voices apparently coin! fro the >rchids Roo. $he went closer to listen and she heard a!irl0s voice sayin! @Mahal na ahal 1ita, $ir, iwanan o an! iyon! asawa at tata1as tayo.@ pon hearin!this, she iediately opened the door and was startled to see Mia %aha and 6anny


29/111

stayed there for fifteen inutes, after which coplainant returned to her boardin! house Fust across thestreet while appellant headed for hoe soe fifteen eters away.

2t appears that while coplainant was then waitin! for appellant, 3iloena Piela!o, a forer teacher ofMia at PN$ and who was then on her way to a nearby store, saw her sittin! on a bench and as1ed whatshe was doin! there at such a late hour. Coplainant erely replied that she was waitin! for soebody.

3iloena proceeded to the store and, alon! the way, she saw 2nday Japanta waterin! the plants outsidethe porch of her house. Dhen 3iloena Piela!o returned, she saw coplainant tal1in! with appellant andshe noticed that they were =uite intiate because they were holdin! hands. %his ade her suspect thatthe two could be havin! a relationship. $he, therefore, told appellant that his wife had finished heraerobics class and was already waitin! for hi. $he also advised Mia to !o hoe.

Prior to this incident, 3iloena Piela!o already used to see the seated on the sae bench. 3iloenafurther testified that she had tried to tal1 appellant out of the relationship because his wife had a heartailent. $he also warned Mia %aha, but to no avail. $he had li1ewise told coplainant0s !randotherabout her activities. At the trial, she identified the handwritin! of coplainant appearin! on the lettersar1ed as Ehibits @/@ and @@, claiin! that she is failiar with the sae because Mia was her forerstudent. >n cross-eaination, 3iloena clarified that when she saw the couple on the ni!ht of 9anuary/, /''&, the two were tal1in! naturally, she did not see Mia cryin!, nor did it appear as if appellant was

pleadin! with her.

2n the afternoon of the followin! day, 9anuary , /''&, appellant et Mia0s other on the road near theirhouse and she invited hi to coe up and eat @&u4o,@ which invitation he accepted. %hirty inutesthereafter, coplainant told hi to as1 perission fro her other for the to !o and solicit funds at thepoblacion, and he did so. Before they left, he noticed that Mia was carryin! a plastic ba! and when heas1ed her about it, she said that it contained her thin!s which she was brin!in! to her cousin0s house.

Appellant and Mia went to the poblacion where they solicited funds until )*+ P.M. and then had snac1s atthe #ic %an $tore.

%hereafter, coplainant told appellant that it was already late and there was no ore availabletransportation, so she su!!ested that they Fust stay at $unset


30/111

Appellant denied that they had seual intercourse durin! their entire stay at $unset


31/111

allowed to leave and he was detained at the police station after Mia and her parents lod!ed a coplaintfor rape and 1idnappin! a!ainst hi.

6urin! his detention, Mia0s cousin, 8orna Casantosan, delivered to appellant on different occasions twoletters fro coplainant dated 3ebruary (, /''& and March /, /''&, respectively. As Mia0s teacher,appellant is failiar with and was, therefore, able to identify the handwritin! in said letters as that of Mia

%aha. After a tie, he cae to 1now, throu!h his other, that an affidavit of desistance was reportedlyeecuted by coplainants. :owever, he clais that he never 1new and it was never entioned to hi,not until the day he testified in court, that his other paid P*+,+++.++ to Mia0s father because, althou!hhe did not dissuade the, neither did he re=uest his other to tal1 to coplainants in order to settle thecase.

nder cross-eaination, appellant denied that he po1ed a 1nife at and raped Mia %aha on 9anuary /,/''&. :owever, he aditted that he had se with Mia at the $unset n the contrary, he claied that on 9anuary (,/''& when she told hi that her parents wanted to see her, he readily !ave her perission to !o.

:e also identified the clothes that Mia brou!ht with her when they left her parents0 house on 9anuary ,/''&, but which she left behind at the Rubios0 lod!in! house after she failed to return on 9anuary (,/''&. %he ba! of clothes was brou!ht to hi at the provincial Fail by Benedicto Rubio.

Appellant li1ewise declared that he had been detained at the provincial Fail since 9anuary (, /''& but thewarrant for his arrest was issued only on 9anuary , /''& and that he did not subit a counter-affidavitbecause accordin! to his forer counsel, Atty. Paredes, it was no lon!er necessary since the

coplainants had already eecuted an affidavit of desistance. :e adits havin! si!ned a @Daiver of Ri!htto Preliinary 2nvesti!ation@ in connection with these cases.

>n rebuttal, 8orna Casantosan, the cousin of Mia %aha, denied that she delivered any letter to appellantwhen the latter was still detained at the provincial Fail. $he aditted, on cross-eaination, that she wasre=uested by Mia %aha to testify for her, althou!h she clarified that she does not have any =uarrel orisunderstandin! with appellant.

Mia %aha was a!ain presented on rebuttal and she denied the testiony of Erna Baradero re!ardin! theincident at the >rchids Roo because, accordin! to her, the truth was that she was at the boardin! houseof %oto Japanta on that date and tie. $he li1ewise ne!ated the clai that Erna Baradero confronted heron 9anuary /, /''& about her alle!ed relationship with appellant contendin! that she did not see herforer teacher on that day. $iilarly, she disclaied havin! seen and tal1ed to 3ileona Piela!o on the

ni!ht of 9anuary /, /''&. $he veheently disavowed that she and appellant were lovers, uch less withintiate relations, since there never was a tie that they becae sweethearts.

$he sou!ht to rebut, li1ewise throu!h bare denials, the followin! testionies of the defense witnessesthat she told appellant @iwanan o an! iyon! asawa at tata1as tayo@ that she answered @wala 1an!pa1iala@ when Erna Baradero confronted her about her relationship with appellant that she was the onewho re!istered the at $unset


32/111

the house of #irey0s aunt re=uestin! help for transportation and that she was free to roa around or to !oout of the lod!in! house at Edward0s $ubdivision.

Mia %aha also reFected as false the testiony of appellant that she went to see hi at Narra, Palawan tohave se with hi and clais that the last tie she went to Narra was when she was still in


33/111

2#. %he trial court erred by its failure to !ive any credence to Ehibits @/@ and @@ asevidence of the defense.

#. %he trial court erred in convictin! the accused-appellant of the crie of 1idnappin! withserious ille!al detention as the prosecution failed to prove his !uilt beyond reasonabledoubt.

#2. %he trial court erred in !ivin! full faith and credence to the testionies of prosecutionwitnesses and copletely i!norin! the testionies of the defense witnesses.

#22. %he trial court erred in concludin! that there was iplied adission of !uilt on thepart of the accused-appellant in view of the offer to coproise.

#222. %he trial court erred in orderin! that the coplainant be indenified in the su ofone hundred thousand pesos 4P/++,+++.++5 for each of the alle!ed cries coitted.

2K. %he trial court !ravely erred by iposin! the death penalty for each of the crieschar!ed on the accused-appellant despite the fact that the cries were alle!edlycoitted prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. ()'.%2

A.%his notwithstandin!, the basic rule reains that in all criinal prosecutionswithout re!ard to the nature of the defense which the accused ay raise, the burden of proof reains atall ties upon the prosecution to establish his !uilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2f the accused raises asufficient doubt as to any aterial eleent, and the prosecution is then unable to overcoe this evidence,the prosecution has failed to carry its burden of proof of the !uilt of the accused beyond a reasonabledoubt and the accused ust be ac=uitted.%

%he rationale for the rule is that, confronted by the full panoply of $tate authority, the accused is accordedthe presuption of innocence to li!hten and even reverse the heavy odds a!ainst hi. Mere accusation isnot enou!h to convict hi, and neither is the wea1ness of his defense. %he evidence for the prosecutionust be stron!per se, stron! enou!h to establish the !uilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. %62nother words, the accused ay be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testiony of theoffended woan, provided such testiony is clear, positive, convincin! and otherwise consistent withhuan nature and the noral course of thin!s.

%here are three well-1nown principles that !uide an appellate court in reviewin! the evidence presented ina prosecution for the crie of rape. %hese are 4/5 while rape is a ost detestable crie, and ou!ht to be

severely and ipartially punished, it ust be borne in ind that it is an accusation easy to be ade, hardto be proved, but harder to be defended by the party accused, thou!h innocent%(45 that in view of theintrinsic nature of the crie of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testiony of thecoplainant ust be scrutini7ed with etree caution%and 4*5 that the evidence for the prosecutionust stand or fall on its own erits and cannot be allowed to draw stren!th fro the wea1ness of theevidence for the defense.%'

2n the case at bar, several circustances eist which aply deonstrate and ineluctably convince thisCourt that there was no rape coitted on the alle!ed date and place, and that the char!e of rape wasthe contrivance of an afterthou!ht, rather than a truthful plaint for redress of an actual wron!.


34/111

2. %wo principal facts indispensably to be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction of the crie ofrape under para!raph 4/5, Article ** of the Revised Penal Code are, first, that the accused had carnal1nowled!e of the coplainant and, second, that the sae was accoplished throu!h force orintiidation.

/. %he prosecution has palpably failed to prove beyond peradventure of doubt that appellant had seual

con!ress with coplainant a!ainst her will. Coplainant avers that on the ni!ht of 9anuary /, /''&, shewas seually assaulted by appellant in the boardin! house of her cousin, Merlelyn Casantosan. Appellant,on the other hand, denied such a serious iputation and contends that on said date and tie, he erelytal1ed with coplainant outside that house. De find appellant0s version ore credible and sustained bythe evidence presented and of record.

Accordin! to coplainant, when she entered the 1itchen of the boardin! house, appellant was alreadyinside apparently waitin! for her. 2f so, it is =uite perplein! how appellant could have 1nown that she was!oin! there on that particular day and at that tie, considerin! that she does not even live there, unless ofcourse it was appellant0s intention to satisfy his lustful desires on anybody who happened to coe alon!.But then this would be stretchin! the ia!ination too far, aside fro the fact that such a !eneric intentwith an indeterinate victi was never established nor even intiated by the prosecution.

Moreover, any accord of credit to the coplainant0s story is precluded by the iplausibility that pla!ues itas re!ards the settin! of the supposed seual assault.202t will be noted that the place where the alle!edcrie was coitted is not an ordinary residence but a boardin! house where several persons live andwhere people are epected to coe and !o. %he prosecution did not even bother to elucidate on whetherit was the seestral brea1 or that the boardin! house had reained closed for soe tie, in order that itcould be safely assued that nobody was epected to arrive at any !iven tie.

Appellant, on the other hand, testified that on that fateful day, he went to the boardin! house upon theinvitation of coplainant because the latter re=uested hi to help her with her onolo!ue for the MissPN$ contest. :owever, they were not able to !o inside the house because it was loc1ed and there was noli!ht, so they Fust sat on a bench outside the house and tal1ed. %his testiony of appellant wassubstantially corroborated by defense witness 3iloena Piela!o. $he affired that in the evenin! of9anuary /, /''&, she saw both appellant and coplainant seated on a bench outside the boardin!

house, and that she even advised the to !o hoe because it was already late and appellant0s wife, whowas the head teacher of witness Piela!o, was waitin! for hi at the school buildin!. >n rebuttal,coplainant could only deny that she saw Piela!o that ni!ht. 6octrinally, where the inculpatory facts andcircustances are capable of two or ore eplanations one of which is consistent with the innocence ofthe accused and the other consistent with his !uilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of oralcertainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.2%

2t was further alle!ed by coplainant that after her alle!ed ravishent, she put on her panty and thenappellant openly accopanied her all the way to the !ate of the house where they eventually partedways. %his is inconceivable. 2t is not the natural tendency of a an to reain for lon! by the side of thewoan he had raped,22and in public in a hi!hly populated area at that. 2t thus behooves this Court to reFect the notion that appellant would be so foolhardy as to


35/111

accopany coplainant up to the !ate of the house, considerin! its strate!ic location,is-a-,iscoplainant0s boardin! house which is Fust across the street,2and the PN$ schoolbuildin! which isonly around thirty eters away.26

Coplainant entioned in her narration that ri!ht after the incident she went directly to her boardin!house where she saw her landlady. Let, the landlady was never presented as a witness to corroborate the

story of coplainant, despite the fact that the forer was the very first person she cae in contact withfro the tie appellant alle!edly left her at the !ate of the Casantosan boardin! house after her alle!edtrauatic ordeal. Even thou!h they supposedly did not tal1, the landlady could at least have testified oncoplainant0s physical appearance and to attest to the theori7ed fact that indeed she saw coplainant onsaid date and hour, possibly with dishevelled hair, bloody s1irt and all.

De are, therefore, Fustifiedly inclined to believe appellant0s version that it was Mia %aha who invited hi tothe boardin! house to help her with the onolo!ue she was preparin! for the school contest. %his is evenconsonant with her testiony that appellant fetched her the followin! day in order to solicit funds for hercandidacy in that sae school affair.

2n contrast, coplainant0s professed reason for !oin! to the boardin! house is va!ue and tenuous. Atfirst, she asserted that she was at the boardin! house tal1in! with a friend and then, later, she said it was

her cousin. $ubse=uently, she a!ain wavered and said that she was not able to tal1 to her cousin.3urtherore, she initially stated that on 9anuary /, /''& at around (++ P.M., she was at the boardin!house conversin! with her cousin. %hen in the course of her narration, she !ave another version and saidthat when she reached the boardin! house it was dar1 and there was nobody inside.

%he apparent ease with which she chan!ed or adFusted her answers in order to cover up or reali!n thesae with her prior inconsistent stateents is readily apparent fro her testiony even on this sin!leepisode, thus

$oetie on 9anuary /, /''&, at about (++ o0cloc1 in the evenin!,do you reeber where you wereI

A Les, sir.

Dhere were youI

A 2 was in the boardin! house of Merlylyn Casantosan, $ir.

Dhy were you thereI

A 2 was conversin! with y friend there, $ir.

C>R%

Conversin! with whoI

A Dith y cousin, Lour :onor.

Lour cousin0s naeI

A Merlylyn Casantosan, Lour :onor.


36/111

PR>$EC%>R

Lou said that this 6ane or 6anny n 3riday and it was (++ o0cloc1 in the evenin!.

C>R%

>f what dateI

A 9anuary /, /''&, Lour :onor.

PR>$EC%>R

%hen what happenedI

A 2 went to the boardin! house of y cousin Merlylyn Casantosan. 2passed 4throu!h5 the 1itchen and then when 2 opened the doorsoebody !rabbed e suddenly.

6urin! that tie were there other people present in that boardin!house where you said 6anny R%

$o, the house was eptyI

A Les, Lour :onor.

2 thou!ht your cousin was there and you were conversin!I

A Dhen 2 went there she was not there, Lour :onor.2(4Corrections andephasis supplied.5

. Coplainant testified that appellant raped her throu!h the use of force and intiidation, specifically byholdin! a 1nife to her nec1. :owever, the eleent of force was not sufficiently established. %he physicalfacts adverted to by the lower court as corroborative of the prosecution0s theory on the use of force areundoubtedly the edico-le!al findin!s of 6r. Ro!elio 6ivina!racia. pon closer scrutiny, however, we findthat said findin!s neither support nor confir the char!e that rape was so coitted throu!h forcibleeans by appellant a!ainst coplainant on 9anuary /, /''&.

%he reported hyenal laceration which, accordin! to 6r. 6ivina!racia, was a wee1 old and alreadyhealed, and the conclusion therefro that coplainant had seual intercourse with a an on the date


37/111

which she alle!ed, do not establish the supposed rape since the sae findin!s and conclusion areli1ewise consistent with appellant0s adission that coitus too1 place with the consent of coplainant at$unset


38/111

coitted and iediately thereafter was such as i!ht be reasonably epected fro her under all thecircustances of thecase. >0

Coplainant said that on the day followin! the supposed rape, appellant went to her parents0 house andas1ed perission fro the to allow her to !o with hi to solicit funds for her candidacy. Nowhere

throu!hout her entire testiony did she aver or iply that appellant was ared and that by reason thereofshe was forced to leave with hi. 2n brief, she was neither threatened nor intiidated by appellant. :erpretense that she was afraid of the supposed threat previously ade by appellant does not inspire beliefsince appellant was alone and unared on that occasion and there was no showin! of any opportunity forhi to a1e !ood his threat, even assuin! that he had really voiced any. >n the contrary, coplainanteven aditted that appellant respectfully as1ed perission fro her parents for her to accopany hi.

Coplainant0s eni!atic behavior after her alle!ed ravishent can only be described as paradoical itwas so stran!ely noral as to be abnoral.>%2t sees odd, if not incredible, that upon seein! the personwho had alle!edly raped her only the day before, she did not accuse, revile or denounce hi, or showra!e, revulsion, and dis!ust.>22nstead, she ee1ly went with appellant despite the presence of herparents and the proiity of nei!hbors which, if only for such facts, would naturally have deterredappellant fro pursuin! any evil desi!n. 3ro her deportent, it does not appear that the alle!ed threat

ade by appellant had instilled any fear in the ind of coplainant. $uch a nonchalant, unconcernedattitude is totally at odds with the deeanor that would naturally be epected of a person who had Fustsuffered the ultiate invasion of her woanhood.>!

222. Rape is a very eotional word, and the natural huan reactions to it are cate!orical adiration andsypathy for the coura!eous feale publicly see1in! retribution for her outra!eous violation, andcondenation of the rapist. :owever, bein! interpreters of the law and dispensers of Fustice, Fud!es ustloo1 at a rape char!e without those proclivities, and deal with it with etree caution and circuspection.9ud!es ust free theselves of the natural tendency to be overprotective of every woan decryin! herhavin! been seually abused, and deandin! punishent for the abuser. Dhile they ou!ht to beco!ni7ant of the an!uish and huiliation the rape victi !oes throu!h as she deands Fustice, Fud!esshould e=ually bear in ind that their responsibility is to render Fustice based on the law.>>

%he rule, therefore, that this Court !enerally desists fro disturbin! the conclusions of the trial court onthe credibility of witnesses>will not apply where the evidence of record fails to support or substantiatethe lower court0s findin!s of fact and conclusions or where the lower court overloo1ed certain facts ofsubstance and value that, if considered, would affect the outcoe of the case or where the disputeddecision is based on a isapprehension of facts.>6

%he trial court here unfortunately relied solely on the lone testiony of coplainant re!ardin! the 9anuary/, /''& incident. 2ndeed, it is easy to alle!e that one was raped by a an. All that the victi had totestify to was that appellant po1ed a 1nife at her, threatened to 1ill her if she shouted and under thesethreats, undressed her and had seual intercourse with her. %he =uestion then that confronts the trialcourt is whether or not coplainant0s testiony is credible.>(%he techni=ue in decipherin! testiony isnot to solely concentrate on isolated parts of that testiony. %he correct eanin! of the testiony canoften be ascertained only upon a perusal of the entire testiony. Everythin! stated by the witness has to

be considered in relation to what else has been stated.>

2n the case at bar, the challen!ed decision definitely leaves uch to be desired. %he court below ade noserious effort to dispassionately or ipartially consider the totality of the evidence for the prosecution inspite of the teachin! in various rulin!s that in rape cases, the testiony of the offended party ust not beaccepted with precipitate credulity.>'2n findin! that the crie of rape was coitted, the lower court too1into account only that portion of the testiony of coplainant re!ardin! the 9anuary /, /''& incident andconveniently deleted the rest. %a1en sin!ly, there would be reason to believe that she was indeed raped.But if we are to consider the other portions of her testiony concernin! the events which transpired


39/111

thereafter, which unfortunately the court a #uowittin!ly or unwittin!ly failed or declined to appreciate, theactual truth could have been readily eposed.

%here are easily perceived or discernible defects in coplainant0s testiony which invei!h a!ainst itsbein! accorded the full credit it was !iven by the trial court. Considered independently of any other, thedefects i!ht not suffice to overturn the trial court0s Fud!ent of conviction but assessed and wei!hed

conFointly, as lo!ic and fairness dictate, they eert a powerful copulsion towards reversal of saidFud!ent.0%hus

/. Coplainant said that she was continuously raped by herein appellant at the $unset R%

Alri!ht 4sic5 you !o down the witness stand and find out for yourself if youcan open that door fro the inside.

C8ER" >3 C>R%

Ditness holdin! the door1nob.


40/111

C>R%

%he 1ey is ade to open if you are outside, but as you0re were 4sic5inside you can open itI

A Les, sir.

2s there no other loc1 aside fro that door1nob that you heldI

A %here was, Lour :onor.

Dhat is thatI

A %he one that slides, Lour :onor.

And that is used when you are already insideI

A Les, Lour :onor.24Ephases ours.5

. 6urin! their entire stay at the $unset


41/111

2#. %he ain defense proffered by appellant is that he and coplainant were sweethearts. Dhile the@sweetheart theory@ does not often !ain favor with this Court, such is not always the case if the hard factis that the accused and the supposed victi are, in truth, intiately related ecept that, as is usual in ostcases, either the relationship is illicit or the victi0s parents are a!ainst it. 2t is not iprobable that in soeinstances, when the relationship is uncovered, the alle!ed victi or her parents for that atter wouldrather ta1e the ris1 of institutin! a criinal action in the hope that the court would ta1e the cud!els forthe than for the woan to adit to her own acts of indiscretion. And this, as the records reveal, isprecisely what happened to appellant.

Appellant0s clai that he and coplainant were lovers is fortified by the hi!hly credible testionies ofseveral witnesses for the defense, ,i5.

/. 3iloena Piela!o testified that on the ni!ht of 9anuary /, /''&, she saw appellant and coplainantsittin! on a bench in front of the house where the seual attac1 alle!edly too1 place, and the couple weretal1in! intiately. $he had warned Mia about the latter0s illicit affair with appellant.

. 3ernando Rubio, an ac=uaintance of appellant and owner of the house at Edward0s $ubdivision,testified that he as1ed Mia why she decided to have an affair with appellant who is a arried an. Miaanswered that she really loves hi. :e heard her call appellant @[email protected]%he couple loo1ed happy and

were sweet to each other.(

*. Benedicto Rubio, the youn!er brother of 3ernando, testified on redirect eaination that he as1ed Miaif she 1new what she !ettin! into and she answered, @Les@ then he as1ed her if she really loved $ir


42/111

a positive rule of law and is not an infleible one. 62t does not apply where there is sufficient corroborationon any !rounds of the testiony and the supposed inconsistencies arise erely fro a desire of thewitness to eculpate hiself althou!h not copletely.6'

Coplainant0s denial that she and appellant were lovers is belied by the evidence presented by thedefense, the ost tellin! of which are her two handwritten letters, Ehibits @/@ and @@, which she sent to

the latter while he was detained at the provincial Fail. 3or analysis and ephasis, said letters are herein=uoted in full

( 3eb. '&

6ane,

"uusta 1anaI "on! a1o hito hindi na a1atiis sa sa1it.

$ir, suulat a1o sa inyo dahil !usto 1on! alaan o an! situation 1o. $ir, 1on! ahalo a1o !a!awa 1an! paraan na ailayo a1o dito sa bahay. nalaan n! nanay at tatay1o na delayed an! ens 1o n! one wee1. pinapaino nila a1o n! papala!la! peroayaw 1o. pa!nalaan nila na hindi 1o inino an! !aot sinasa1tan nila a1o.

$ir, 1on! aari ay huwa! n! aabutan n! Martes. dahil naabutan nila a1on! a!layassana a1o. 1aya n!ayon hindi a1o a1alabas n! bahay 1on! wala a1on! 1asaa, 1on!!aano sila 1ahi!pit noon doble pa n!ayon. an! !a !ait 1o n!ayon ay wala sa lala!yan1o. tina!o nila hindi 1o a1ita, an! narito lan! ay an! bihisan 1on! lua. $ir 1on!an!hira 1a 1aya n! otor na !a!aitin sa pa!1uha sa a1in. $a lunes n! !abianonood 1ai N! #eta e1sa1to alas '++ ay dapat dito 1a sa lu!ar na ay #eta.tanun!in o lan! 1ay 8orna 1on! saan an! #eta nila Navoor 8o7ot. Ma! busina 1a lan!n! tatlo bilan! senyas na lalabas na a1o at huwa! 1an! tatapat n! bahay dahil nandoonan! 1uya 1o. 1on! ano an! disisyon o aari ban! a!sulat 1a at ipahatid 1ay 8orna.

alan!-alan! sa bata. Ba1a a1ainon a1o n! !aot dahil ba1a pa!1ain 1o hahaluan nila.

Please sir . . .

4$!d.5Mia

%aha(0

*/'&

6ane,

20 sorry 1on! proble an! ipinadala o sinulat sa iyo sa halip sa 1asiyahan. oo na! usapna tayo na!awa 1o lan! naan an! suulat sa iyo dahil naiinis na a1o sa pa!uu1ha

n! !a a!ulan! 1on! suwapan!. An! pa!layas 1o sana ay dahil sa narini! 1o. $irnarini! 1o na a!re1lao si nanay 1ay Ar=uero yon! superentende sa Palawan hi!htapos an! sabi ay a!re1lao iton! si Ar=uero sa 6EC$ para atan!!al 1a sapa!tuturo yan an! dahilan 1on! ba1it naisipan 1on! luayas n! wala sa oras at walaa1on! tensyon na asaa laban so iyo. hindi 1o sinabi sa 1anila na delayed a1o aysinabi sa iyo ni Eden na sa harap niya iso bini!yan a1o n! !aot saantalan! noon!$abado n! !abi lan! nalaan dahil !usto 1on! asu1a. >o aainin 1o na!1asala a1osa iyo, pinabilan!!o 1ita dahil na!pani! a1o sa !a a!ulan! 1o nadala nila a1o sasulsul nila. hindi 1o naipa!laban an! dapat 1on! ipa!laban n!unit 1on! iniisip on!


43/111

inahal lan! 1ita dahil sa ay 1ailan!an lan! a1o sa iyo na!1a1aali 1a. ala n! 6iyosna hindi !anon an! han!arin 1o sa iyo. hi!it pa sa binilan!!o an! 1ala!ayan 1o 1on!ala o. 1inu1unsinsiya, na!titiis na sa1tan at pa!sasa1ripisyo n! dadain 1o na!usto 1an! a1ita at ya1apin 1a pero ano an! a!a!awa 1o 1on! an! pa!labas 1o n!bahay ay hindi a1o a1alabas n! a! isa ay !uardiya pa. tanun!in o si 8orna 1on!ano !ina!awa nilan! pa!bantay sa a1in para a1on! pu!anti. hindi ito ayon sa1a!ustuhan n! !a a!ulan! 1o sarili 1on! plano ito. Ma!titiis pa ba a1on! hindia1a1ain a!hapon tubi! lan! an! laan n! tiyan, 1on! ay asaa a1on! han!arinsa iyo.

>o, a!tiis a1o para aipa1ita 1on! ahal rin 1ita. March daratin! a1o sa bahay nasinasabi o. hindi 1o atiya1 1on! anon! oras dahil 1u1uha pa a1o n! tiyepo na walarito an! tatay 1o. Ala o ban! pati an! 1apatid 1on! si Rowena ay inuutusan a1on!luayas dahil naawa no siya sa situation 1o. siya lan! an! 1a1api 1o rito sa bahayala1i an! pa!-asa 1on! a1alabas a1o n! bahay sa tulon! niya.

8oveyou

4$!d.5Mia%aha(%

%here is absolutely nothin! left to the ia!ination. %he letters elo=uently spea1 for theselves. 2t wascoplainant0s handwritin! which spilled the beans, so to spea1. Aside fro appellant, two other defensewitnesses identified the handwritin! on the letters as belon!in! to Mia %aha. %hey are 3iloena Piela!oand Erna Baradero who were adittedly the forer teachers of coplainant and hi!hly failiar with herhandwritin!. %he !reatest blunder coitted by the trial court was in i!norin! the testionies of these=ualified witnesses and refusin! to !ive any probative value to these two vital pieces of evidence, on thedubious and lae pretet that no handwritin! epert was presented to analy7e and evaluate the sae.

Dell-entrenched by now is the rule that resort to =uestioned docuent eainers, ore failiarly called

handwritin! eperts, is not andatory. :andwritin! eperts, while probably useful, are not indispensablein eainin! or coparin! handwritin!.(2%his is so since under $ection , Rule /* of the Rules ofCourt, the handwritin! of a person ay be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwritin! ofsuch person, because he has seen the person write, or has seen writin! purportin! to be his upon whichthe witness has acted or been char!ed, and has thus ac=uired 1nowled!e of the handwritin! of suchperson. %he said section further provides that evidence respectin! the handwritin! ay also be !iven by acoparison, ade by the witness or the court, with writin!s aditted or treated as !enuine by the partya!ainst who the evidence is offered or proved to be !enuine to the satisfaction of the Fud!e. (!

%he defense witnesses were able to identify coplainant0s handwritin! on the basis of the eainationpapers subitted to the by her in their respective subFects. %his Court has li1ewise carefully eainedand copared the handwritin! on the letters with the standard writin! appearin! on the test papers asspeciens for coparison and, contrary to the observations and conclusions of the lower court, we are

convinced beyond doubt that they were written by one and the sae person. More iportantly,coplainant herself cate!orically aditted that the handwritin! on the =uestioned letters belon!s to her.

2t is, therefore, etreely disconcertin!, to say the least, why the trial court a!ain chose to turn a deaf earto this conclusive portion of coplainant0s testiony

A%%L. EB>8


44/111

6id 2 !et you ri!ht on rebuttal that Mrs. Erna Baradero and 3iloenaPiela!o were your teachersI

A Les, sir.

And they have been your teachers for several onths before this

incident of 9anuary /, /''&, a 2 not correctI

A %hat is true, sir.

And you have 4sic5 durin! these past onths that they have been yourteachers you too1 eainations in their classes in their particularsubFect4s5I

A Les, sir.

And soe of those test papers are in the possession of your teachers,a 2 correctI

A Les, sir.

2 will show you Ehibit @&@ previously ar1ed as Ehibit @&@, it appearsto be your test paper and with your si!nature and the alphabet appearsin this ehibit appears to be that of Mia %aha, please eaine this andtell the :onorable Court if that is your test paperI

A Les, sir.

%hat si!nature Mia %aha 2 understand is also your si!natureI

A Les, sir.

2 will show you Ehibit @&-A@, will you please eaine this Ehibit @&-A@and tell this :onorable Court if you are failiar with that.

A Dhat subFect is thatI

2 a Fust as1in! you whether you are failiar with that.

A 2 cannot reeber if 2 have this 1ind of subFect, sir.

:ow about this si!nature Mia %aha, are you not failiar with thatsi!natureI

A %hat is in4e5, sir.

2 will show you Ehibit @&-C@ which appears to be that in Math, are youfailiar with that si!natureI

A Les, sir.

%hat is your si!natureI


45/111

A Les, sir.

2n fact, these letters in alphabet here are in your own handwritin!I

A Les, sir.

Lou

ii. what need to be proved

Documents