1st batch of cases

7/23/2019 1st Batch of Cases

1/30

THIRD DIVISION

BSB GROUP,INC., represented by itsPresident, Mr. RICARDOBANGAYAN,Petitioner,

-versus-

SALLY GO .!.. SALLYGO"BANGAYAN, Respondent.

G.R. N#. $%&%''

Present(

Pr#)*+ted(

February 16, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------x

D - C I S I O N

P-RALTA,J.(

This is a Petition for Review under Rule ! ofthe Rules of "ourt assailin# the $e%ision of the "ourt of&ppeals in "&-'.R. (P )o. *+6001dated &pril 20, 200!,whi%h reversed and set aside the (epteber 1/,2002and )oveber !, 200/rders issued by theRe#ional Trial "ourt of anila, ran%h /6in "riinal"ase )o. 02-2021!* for 3uali4ed theft. The said orders,in turn, respe%tively denied the otion 4led byherein respondent (ally 'o for the suppression of thetestionial and do%uentary eviden%e relative to a(e%urity an5 a%%ount, and denied re%onsideration.

The basi% ante%edents are no lon#er disputed.

Petitioner, the ( 'roup, n%., is a duly or#ani7eddoesti% %orporation presided by its hereinrepresentative, Ri%ardo an#ayan8an#ayan9. Respondent (ally 'o, alternatively referredto as (ally (ia 'o and (ally 'o-an#ayan, is an#ayan:swife, who was eployed in the %opany as a %ashier,and was en#a#ed, aon# others, to re%eive and a%%ountfor the payents ade by the various %ustoers of the%opany.

n 2002, an#ayan 4led with the anilaProse%utor:s ;%e a %oplaint for estafa and


2/30

( R$BRB$.22

Gith the denial of its otion for re%onsideration,2/petitioner is now before the "ourt pleadin# the saeissues as those raised before the lower %ourts.

n this Petition2under Rule !, petitioneraverred in the ain that the "ourt of &ppeals hadseriously erred in reversin# the assailed orders of the trial%ourt, and in e=e%t stri5in# out arasi#an:s testionydealin# with respondent:s deposit a%%ount with (e%urity

an5.2!t asserted that apart fro the fa%t that the saideviden%e had a dire%t relation to the subDe%t atter of the%ase for 3uali4ed theft and, hen%e, brin#s the %ase underone of the ex%eptions to the %overa#e of %on4dentialityunder R.&. 10!.26 Petitioner believed that what%onstituted the subDe%t atter in liti#ation was to bedeterined by the alle#ations in the inforation and, inthis respe%t, it alluded to the assailed )oveber !, 200rder of the trial %ourt, whi%h de%lared to be erroneousthe liitation of the present in3uiry erely to what was%ontained in the inforation.2+

For her part, respondent %laied that the oney

represented by the (e%urity an5 a%%ount was neitherrelevant nor aterial to the %ase, be%ause nothin# in the%riinal inforation su##ested that the oney therein

deposited was the subDe%t atter of the %ase. (heinvited parti%ular attention to that portion of the %riinalnforation whi%h averred that she has stolen and %arriedaway %ash oney in the total aountof P1,!/,1/!.!0. (he advan%ed the notion that the terJ%ash oneyK stated in the nforation was notsynonyous with the %he%5s she was purported to havestolen fro petitioner and deposited in her personalban5in# a%%ount. Thus, the %he%5s whi%h the prose%utionhad arasi#an identify, as well as the testiony itself ofarasi#an, should be suppressed by the trial %ourt atleast for violatin# respondent:s ri#ht to due pro%ess.2* ore in point, respondent opined that adittin# thetestiony of arasi#an, as well as the eviden%epertainin# to the (e%urity an5 a%%ount, would violate these%re%y rule under R.&. )o. 10!. 2A

n its reply, petitioner asserted the su;%ien%y ofthe alle#ations in the %riinal nforation for 3uali4edtheft, as the sae has su;%iently alle#ed the eleents ofthe o=ense %har#ed. t posits that throu#h arasi#an:stestiony, the "ourt would be able to establish that the%he%5s involved, %opies of whi%h were atta%hed to the%oplaint-a;davit 4led with the prose%utor, had indeedbeen re%eived by respondent as %ashier, but were,thereafter, deposited by the latter to her personala%%ount with (e%urity an5. Petitioner held that the%he%5s represented the %ash oney stolen by respondentand, hen%e, the subDe%t atter in this %ase is not only the%ash aount represented by the %he%5s supposedlystolen by respondent, but also the %he%5s theselves./0

Ge derive fro the %onLi%tin# advo%a%ies of the

parties that the issue for resolution is whether thetestiony of arasi#an and the a%%opanyin#do%uents are irrelevant to the %ase, and whether theyare also violative of the absolutely %on4dential nature ofban5 deposits and, hen%e, ex%luded by operation of R.&.)o. 10!. The 3uestion of adissibility of the eviden%ethus %oes to the fore. &nd the "ourt, after deliberativeestiation, 4nds the subDe%t eviden%e to be indeedinadissible.

Prefatorily, fundaental is the pre%ept in all%riinal prose%utions, that the %onstitutive a%ts of theo=ense ust be established with unwaverin# exa%titudeand oral %ertainty be%ause this is the %riti%al and onlyre3uisite to a 4ndin# of #uilt./1 Theft is present when aperson, with intent to #ain but without violen%e a#ainst or

intiidation of persons or for%e upon thin#s, ta5es thepersonal property of another without the latter:s%onsent. t is 3uali4ed when, aon# others, and asalle#ed in the instant %ase, it is %oitted with abuse of%on4den%e./2 The prose%ution of this o=ense ne%essarilyfo%uses on the existen%e of the followin# eleents? 8a9there was ta5in# of personal property belon#in# toanother 8b9 the ta5in# was done with intent to #ain 8%9the ta5in# was done without the %onsent of the owner 8d9the ta5in# was done without violen%e a#ainst orintiidation of persons or for%e upon thin#s and 8e9 itwas done with abuse of %on4den%e. // n turn, whetherthese eleents %on%ur in a way that over%oes thepresuption of #uiltlessness, is a 3uestion that ust pass

the test of relevan%y and %opeten%y in a%%ordan%e with(e%tion //Rule 12* of the Rules of "ourt.

Thus, whether these pie%es of eviden%e sou#ht

to be suppressed in this %ase the testiony ofarasi#an, as well as the %he%5s purported to have beenstolen and deposited in respondent:s (e%urity an5a%%ountare relevant, is to be addressed by %onsiderin#whether they have su%h dire%t relation to the fa%t in issueas to indu%e belief in its existen%e or non-existen%e orwhether they relate %ollaterally to a fa%t fro whi%h, bypro%ess of lo#i%, an inferen%e ay be ade as to the

existen%e or non-existen%e of the fa%t in issue. /!

The fa%t in issue appears to be that respondenthas ta5en away %ash in the aount of P1,!/,1/!.!0fro the %o=ers of petitioner. n support of thisalle#ation, petitioner see5s to establish the existen%e ofthe eleental a%t of ta5in# by addu%in# eviden%e thatrespondent, at several ties between 1A** and 1A*A,deposited soe of its %he%5s to her personal a%%ount with(e%urity an5. Petitioner addresses the in%on#ruen%ebetween the alle#ation of theft of %ash in the nforation,on the one hand, and the eviden%e that respondent had4rst stolen the %he%5s and deposited the sae in herban5in# a%%ount, on the other hand, by ipressin# uponthe "ourt that there obtains no di=eren%e between %ashand %he%5 for purposes of prose%utin# respondent for

theft of %ash. Petitioner is ista5en.n theft, the a%t of unlawful ta5in# %onnotes

deprivation of personal property of one by another withintent to #ain, and it is iaterial that the o=ender isable or unable to freely dispose of the property stolenbe%ause the deprivation relative to the o=ended partyhas already ensued fro su%h a%t of exe%ution. /6 Thealle#ation of theft of oney, hen%e, ne%essitates thateviden%e presented ust have a tenden%y to prove thatthe o=ender has unlawfully ta5en oney belon#in# toanother. nterestin#ly, petitioner has ta5en pains inatteptin# to draw a %onne%tion between the eviden%esubDe%t of the instant review, and the alle#ation of theft inthe nforation by %laiin# that respondent hadfraudulently deposited the %he%5s in her own nae. utthis line of ar#uent wor5s ore preDudi%e than favor,be%ause it in e=e%t, see5s to establish the %oission,not of theft, but rather of soe other %rie probably estafa.

oreover, that there is no di=eren%e between

%ash and %he%5 is true in other instan%es. n estafa by%onversion, for instan%e, whether the thin# %onverted is%ash or %he%5, is iaterial in relation to the foralalle#ation in an inforation for that o=ense a %he%5,after all, while not re#arded as le#al tender, is norallya%%epted under %oer%ial usa#e as a substitute for%ash, and the %redit it represents in stated onetaryvalue is properly %apable of appropriation. &nd it is inthis respe%t that what the o=ender does with the %he%5subse3uent to the a%t of unlawfully ta5in# it be%oesaterial inasu%h as this o=ense is a %ontinuin# one.

/+ n other words, in pursuin# a %ase for this o=ense, theprose%ution ay establish its %ause by the presentationof the %he%5s involved. These %he%5s would then%onstitute the best eviden%e to establish their %ontentsand to prove the eleental a%t of %onversion in support ofthe proposition that the o=ender has indeed indorsed thesae in his own nae./*

Theft, however, is not of su%h %hara%ter. Thus,

for our purposes, as the nforation in this %ase a%%usesrespondent of havin# stolen %ash, proof tendin# toestablish that respondent has a%tuali7ed her %riinalintent by indorsin# the %he%5s and depositin# thepro%eeds thereof in her personal a%%ount, be%oes notonly irrelevant but also iaterial and, on that s%ore,inadissible in eviden%e.

Ge now address the issue of whether theadission of arasi#an:s testiony on the parti%ulars ofrespondent:s a%%ount with (e%urity an5, as well as ofthe %orrespondin# eviden%e of the %he%5s alle#edlydeposited in said a%%ount, %onstitutes an unallowablein3uiry under R.&. 10!. t is %on%eded that while the fundaental law hasnot bothered with the triviality of spe%i4%ally addressin#priva%y ri#hts relative to ban5in# a%%ounts, there,nevertheless, exists in our Durisdi%tion a le#itiateexpe%tation of priva%y #overnin# su%h a%%ounts. Thesour%e of this ri#ht of expe%tation is statutory, and it isfound in R.&. )o. 10!,/Aotherwise 5nown as the an5(e%re%y &%t of 1A!!.0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn40


3/30

R.&. )o. 10! has two allied purposes. t hopes

to dis%oura#e private hoardin# and at the sae tieen%oura#e the people to deposit their oney in ban5in#institutions, so that it ay be utili7ed by way ofauthori7ed loans and thereby assist in e%onoi%developent.1win# to this pie%e of le#islation, the%on4dentiality of ban5 deposits reains to be a basi%state poli%y in the Philippines.2 (e%tion 2 of the lawinstitutionali7ed this poli%y by %hara%teri7in# asabsolutely %on4dential in #eneral all deposits of whatevernature with ban5s and other 4nan%ial institutions in the

%ountry. t de%lares?

Seti#n /.&ll deposits ofwhatever nature with ban5s or ban5in#institutions in the Philippines in%ludin#investents in bonds issued by the'overnent of the Philippines, itspoliti%al subdivisions and itsinstruentalities, are hereby%onsidered as of an absolutely%on4dential nature and ay not beexained, in3uired or loo5ed into byany person, #overnent o;%ial, bureauor o;%e, exceptupon writtenperission of the depositor, or in %asesof ipea%hent, or upon order of a

%opetent %ourt in %ases of bribery ordereli%tion of duty of publi% o;%ials, orin %ases where the oney deposited orinvested is the subDe%t atter of theliti#ation.

(ubse3uent statutory ena%tents/have

expanded the list of ex%eptions to this poli%y yet these%re%y of ban5 deposits still lies as the #eneral rule,fallin# as it does within the le#ally re%o#ni7ed 7ones ofpriva%y. There is, in fa%t, u%h disfavor to %onstruin#these priary and suppleental ex%eptions in a annerthat would authori7e unbridled dis%retion, whether#overnental or otherwise, in utili7in# these ex%eptionsas authority for unwarranted in3uiry into ban5

a%%ounts. t is then per%eivable that the present le#alorder is obli#ed to %onserve the absolutely %on4dentialnature of ban5 deposits.!

The easure of prote%tion a=orded by the law

has been explained in China Banking Corporation v.Ortega.[46] That %ase prin%ipally addressed the issue ofwhether the prohibition a#ainst an exaination of ban5deposits pre%ludes #arnishent in satisfa%tion of a

Dud#ent. Rulin# on that issue in the ne#ative, the "ourtfound #uidan%e in the relevant portions of the le#islativedeliberations on (enate ill )o. /!1 and House ill )o./A++, whi%h later be%ae the an5 (e%re%y &%t, and itheld that the absolute %on4dentiality rule in R.&. )o. 10!a%tually ais at prote%tion fro unwarranted in3uiry orinvesti#ation if the purpose of su%h in3uiry orinvesti#ation is erely to deterine the existen%e andnature, as well as the aount of the deposit in any #ivenban5 a%%ount. Thus,

x x x The lower %ourt did not order an exaination ofor in3uiry into the deposit of E Forest$evelopent "orporation, as %onteplated in thelaw. t erely re3uired Tan Mi Nion# to infor the%ourt whether or not the defendant E Forest$evelopent "orporation had a deposit in the "hinaan5in# "orporation only for purposes of the#arnishent issued by it, so that the ban5 would holdthe sae inta%t and not allow any withdrawal untilfurther order. t will be noted fro the dis%ussion ofthe %onferen%e %oittee report on (enate ill )o./!1 and House ill )o. /A++whi%h later be%aeRepubli% &%t )o. 10!, that it was not the intention of

the lawa5ers to pla%e ban5s deposits beyond therea%h of exe%ution to satisfy a 4nal Dud#ent. Thus?

x x x r. ar%os? )ow, for purposes ofthe re%ord, should li5e the "hairan ofthe "oittee on Gays and eans to%larify this further. (uppose an individualhas a tax %ase. He is bein# held liable bythe ureau of nternal Revenue 8R9 or,say, P1,000.00 worth of tax liability, andbe%ause of this the deposit of thisindividual has been atta%hed by theR.

r. Raos? The atta%hentwill only apply after the %ourt haspronoun%ed senten%e de%larin# theliability of su%h person. B*t 01ere t1epri)ry i) is t# deter)ine 01et1er1e 1s bn! dep#sit in #rder t#brin b#*t pr#per ssess)ent byt1e 2BIR3, s*1 in4*iry is n#t ++#0edby t1is pr#p#sed +0.

r. ar%os? ut under our rules

of pro%edure and under the "ivil "ode, the

atta%hent or #arnishent of oneydeposited is allowed. Net us assue forinstan%e that there is a preliinaryatta%hent whi%h is for #arnishent orfor holdin# liable all oneys depositedbelon#in# to a %ertain individual, but su%hatta%hent or #arnishent will brin# outinto the open the value of su%hdeposit. s that prohibited by... the lawO

r. Raos? t is only prohibited

to the extent that the in3uiry... is adeonly for the purpose of satisfyin# a taxliability already de%lared for theprote%tion of the ri#ht in favor of the#overnent b*t 01en t1e #b5et is

)ere+y t# in4*ire 01et1er 1e 1s dep#sit #r n#t 6#r p*rp#ses #6t7ti#n, t1en t1is is 6*++y #8ered byt1e +0. x x x

r. ar%os? T1e +0 pr#1ibits

)ere in8estiti#n int# t1ee7istene nd t1e )#*nt #6 t1edep#sit.

r. Raos? Int# t1e 8ery

nt*re #6 s*1 dep#sit. x x x+

n ta5in# ex%lusion fro the %overa#e of the%on4dentiality rule, petitioner in the instant %ase positsthat the a%%ount aintained by respondent with (e%urityan5 %ontains the pro%eeds of the %he%5s that she hasfraudulently appropriated to herself and, thus, falls underone of the ex%eptions in (e%tion 2 of R.&. )o. 10! thatthe oney 5ept in said a%%ount is the subDe%t atter inliti#ation. To hi#hli#ht this thesis, petitioner avers,%itin# Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co.,[48]thatthe subDe%t atter of the a%tion refers to the physi%alfa%ts the thin#s real or personal the oney, lands,%hattels and the li5e, in relation to whi%h the suit isprose%uted, whi%h in the instant %ase should refer to theoney deposited in the (e%urity an5 a%%ount.A n thesurfa%e, however, it sees that petitioner:s theory isvalid to a point, yet a deeper treatent tends to showthat it has ar#ued 3uite o=-tan#entially. This, be%ause,while Mathay did explain what the subDe%t atter of ana%tion is, it nevertheless did so only to deterine whether

the %lass suit in that %ase was properly brou#ht to the%ourt.

Ghat indeed %onstitutes the subDe%t atter inliti#ation in relation to (e%tion 2 of R.&. )o. 10! hasbeen pointedly and aply addressed in nion Bank of the!hilippines v. Court of "ppeals,[50]in whi%h the "ourtnoted that the in3uiry into ban5 deposits allowable underR.&. )o. 10! ust be preised on the fa%t that theoney deposited in the a%%ount is itse+6the subDe%t ofthe a%tion.!1 'iven this perspe%tive, we dedu%e that thesubDe%t atter of the a%tion in the %ase at bar is to bedeterined fro the indi%tent that %har#es respondentwith the o=ense, and not fro the eviden%e sou#ht bythe prose%ution to be aditted into the re%ords. n the%riinal nforation 4led with the trial %ourt, respondent,

un3uali4edly and in plain lan#ua#e, is %har#ed with3uali4ed theft by abusin# petitioner:s trust and%on4den%e and stealin# %ash in the aountof P1,!/,1/!.!0. The said nforation a5es no fa%tualalle#ation that in soe aterial way involves the %he%5ssubDe%t of the testionial and do%uentary eviden%esou#ht to be suppressed. )either do the alle#ations insaid nforation a5e ention of the supposed ban5a%%ount in whi%h the funds represented by the %he%5shave alle#edly been 5ept.

n other words, it %an hardly be inferred fro theindi%tent itself that the (e%urity an5 a%%ount is theostensible subDe%t of the prose%ution:s in3uiry. Githoutneedlessly expandin# the s%ope of what is plainly alle#ed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/168644.htm#_ftn51


4/30

in the nforation, the subDe%t atter of the a%tion in this%ase is the oney aountin# to P1,!/,1/!.!0 alle#ed tohave been stolen by respondent, and not the oneye3uivalent of the %he%5s whi%h are sou#ht to be adittedin eviden%e. Thus, it is that, whi%h the prose%ution isbound to prove with its eviden%e, and no other.

t %oes %lear that the adission of testionial

and do%uentary eviden%e relative to respondent:s(e%urity an5 a%%ount serves no other purpose than toestablish the existen%e of su%h a%%ount, its nature andthe aount 5ept in it. t %onstitutes an attept by the

prose%ution at an iperissible in3uiry into a ban5deposit a%%ount the priva%y and %on4dentiality of whi%h isprote%ted by law. n this s%ore alone, the obDe%tionposed by respondent in her otion to suppress shouldhave indeed put an end to the %ontroversy at the very4rst instan%e it was raised before the trial %ourt.

n su, we hold that the testiony of arasi#anon the parti%ulars of respondent:s supposed ban5 a%%ountwith (e%urity an5 and the do%uentary eviden%erepresented by the %he%5s addu%ed in support thereof,are not only in%opetent for bein# ex%luded by operationof R.&. )o. 10!. They are li5ewise irrelevant to the %ase,inasu%h as they do not appear to have any lo#i%al andreasonable %onne%tion to the prose%ution of respondentfor 3uali4ed theft. Ge 4nd full erit in and a;r

respondent:s obDe%tion to the eviden%e of theprose%ution. The "ourt of &ppeals was, therefore, %orre%tin reversin# the assailed orders of the trial %ourt.

& 4nal note. n any #iven Durisdi%tion where the

ri#ht of priva%y extends its s%ope to in%lude anindividual:s 4nan%ial priva%y ri#hts and personal 4nan%ialatters, there is an interediate or hei#htened s%rutiny#iven by %ourts and le#islators to laws infrin#in# su%hri#hts.!2(hould there be doubts in upholdin# theabsolutely %on4dential nature of ban5 deposits a#ainsta;rin# the authority to in3uire into su%h a%%ounts, thensu%h doubts ust be resolved in favor of the forer. Thisattitude persists unless %on#ress lifts its 4n#er to reversethe #eneral state poli%y respe%tin# the absolutely%on4dential nature of ban5 deposits.!/

9H-R-:OR-, the petition is D-NI-D. The

$e%ision of the "ourt of &ppeals in "&-'.R. (P )o. *+600dated &pril 20, 200!, reversin# the (epteber 1/, 200and )oveber !, 200 rders of the Re#ional Trial "ourtof anila, ran%h /6 in "riinal "ase )o. 02-2021!*,is A::IRM-D.

SO ORD-R-D.

(B")$ $I()

G.R. N#. $;$


5/30

4led before the "&. n his &ppellant:s rief, (oria#a

presented the followin#?

ASSIGNM-NT O: -RRORS

I

TH- TRIAL COURT GRAV-LY -RR-D IN

R-ND-RING A V-RDICT O: CONVICTION

D-SPIT- TH- PROS-CUTION?S :AILUR- TO

PROV- TH- GUILT O: TH- ACCUS-D"

APP-LLANT B-YOND R-ASONABL- DOUBT.

II

TH- TRIAL COURT -RR-D IN R-ND-RING A

@UDGM-NT O: CONVICTION D-SPIT- TH-

PROS-CUTION?S :AILUR- TO -STABLISH

TH- CHAIN O: CUSTODY O: TH- ALL-G-D

SHABU.+

The "ourt 4nds no erit in the appeal.

Q& buy-bust operation is a for of entrapent whereby

ways and eans are resorted to for the purpose of

trappin# and %apturin# the lawbrea5ers in the exe%ution

of their %riinal plan. n this Durisdi%tion, the operation is

le#al and has been proved to be an e=e%tive ethod of

apprehendin# dru# peddlers, provided due re#ard to

%onstitutional and le#al safe#uards is underta5en.Q*

(oria#a ar#ues that the buy-bust tea failed to %oply

with the re3uisites of (e%tion 21, &rti%le of R.&. )o.

A16! and its ipleentin# rules re3uirin# the iediate

inventory and photo#raph of the ites sei7ed in the buy-

bust operation. Further, (oria#a pro%eeds to 3uestion the

%hain of %ustody of the sei7ed shabu.

First of all, what is aterial to the prose%ution for ille#al

sale of prohibited or dan#erous dru#s is the proof that the

transa%tion or sale a%tually too5 pla%e, plus the

presentation of the %orpus deli%ti as eviden%e. Thus, the

eleents essential to the %rie of ille#al sale of

prohibited or dan#erous dru#s are? 8i9 the a%%used sold

and delivered a prohibited dru# to another and 8ii9 he

5new that what he had sold and delivered was a

prohibited dru#.A

The RT" and the "& both found the above eleents to

have been satisfa%torily proved by the prose%ution in the

present %ase. (oria#a sold and delivered the shabufor P100 to Fa%undo, the poseur buyer. Fa%undo herself

testi4ed that there was an a%tual ex%han#e of the

ar5ed-oney and the prohibited dru#. "ertainly,

(oria#a was aware that what he was sellin# was ille#al

and prohibited. Thereafter, the corpus delictior the

subDe%t dru# was sei7ed, ar5ed and subse3uently

identi4ed as a prohibited dru#. &t the trial, the sae dru#

with the identifyin# ar5s inta%t was presented in

eviden%e. "oupled with the unwaverin# testiony of

Fa%undo who had no reason at all to falsely a%%use

(oria#a and who was only doin# her Dob, the prose%ution

%onvin%ed the RT" to render a Dud#ent of %onvi%tion.

n the absen%e of any showin# that substantial or relevantfa%ts bearin# on the eleents of the %rie have been

isapplied or overloo5ed, the "ourt %an only a%%ord full

%reden%e to su%h fa%tual assessent of the trial %ourt

whi%h had the distin%t advanta#e of observin# the

deeanor and %ondu%t of the witnesses at the trial.10

&bsent any proof of otive to falsely %har#e an a%%used

of su%h a #rave o=ense, the presuption of re#ularity in

the perforan%e of o;%ial duty and the 4ndin#s of the

trial %ourt with respe%t to the %redibility of witnesses shall

prevail over his bare alle#ation.11

n the issue of non-%oplian%e with the pres%ribed

pro%edures in the inventory of sei7ed dru#s, the rule is

that it does not render an a%%usedSs arrest ille#al or the

ites sei7ed


6/30

GHBRBFRB, the appeal is $B)B$.

( R$BRB$.

FR(T $I()

2G.R. N#. $'&//=. @*ne $, /==3

ROS-NDO H-RR-RA,petitioner, vs. ROS-NDO

ALBA, )in#r, represented by 1is )#t1erARMI A. ALBA, nd HON. NIM:A CU-STA"

VILCH-S, Presidin @*de, Brn1 '&,

Rei#n+Trial "ourt, Mni+, respondents.

D - C I S I O N

CARPIO,J.(

T1e Cse

This is a petition for review1to set aside the

$e%ision2dated 2A )oveber 2000 of the "ourt of

&ppeals 8Jappellate %ourtK9 in "&-'.R. (P )o. !A+66. Theappellate %ourt a;red two rders/issued by ran%h *

of the Re#ional Trial "ourt of anila 8Jtrial %ourtK9 in (P

)o. A*-**+!A. The rder dated / February 2000 dire%ted

Rosendo Herrera 8JpetitionerK9 to subit

to deoxyribonu%lei% a%id 8J$)&K9 paternity testin#, while

the rder dated * @une 2000 denied petitioner:s otion

for re%onsideration.

T1e :ts

n 1 ay 1AA*, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo

&lba 8JrespondentK9, represented by his other &ri

&lba, 4led before the trial %ourt a petition for %opulsoryre%o#nition, support and daa#es a#ainst petitioner. n

+ &u#ust 1AA*, petitioner 4led his answer with

%ounter%lai where he denied that he is the biolo#i%al

father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physi%al

%onta%t with respondent:s other.

Respondent 4led a otion to dire%t the ta5in#

of $)& paternity testin# to abbreviate the pro%eedin#s.

To support the otion, respondent presented the

testiony of (aturnina ". Halos, Ph.$. Ghen she

testi4ed, $r. Halos was an &sso%iate Professor at $e Na

(alle >niversity where she tau#ht "ell iolo#y. (he was

also head of the >niversity of the Philippines )atural

(%ien%es Resear%h nstitute 8J>P-)(RK9, a $)& analysislaboratory. (he was a forer professor at the >niversity

of the Philippines in $ilian, Uue7on "ity, where she

developed the ole%ular iolo#y Pro#ra and tau#ht

ole%ular iolo#y. n her testiony, $r. Halos des%ribed

the pro%ess for $)& paternity testin# and asserted that

the test had an a%%ura%y rate of AA.AAAAV in establishin#

paternity.

Petitioner opposed $)& paternity testin# and

%ontended that it has not #ained a%%eptability. Petitioner

further ar#ued that $)& paternity testin# violates his

ri#ht a#ainst self-in%riination.

T1e R*+in #6 t1e Tri+ C#*rt

n an rder dated / February 2000, the trial %ourt

#ranted respondent:s otion to %ondu%t $)& paternity

testin# on petitioner, respondent and &ri &lba. Thus?

In 8ie0 #6 t1e 6#re#in, t1e )#ti#n #6 t1e

petiti#ner is GRANT-D nd t1e re+e8nt indi8id*+s,

n)e+y( t1e petiti#ner, t1e )in#r 1i+d, nd

resp#ndent re direted t# *nder# DNA pternity

testin in +b#rt#ry #6 t1eir #))#n 1#ie

0it1in peri#d #6 t1irty


7/30

#rdered dis)issed, nd t1e 1++ened #rders #6

t1e Tri+ C#*rt A::IRM-D, 0it1 #sts t# Petiti#ner.

SO ORD-R-D.2&3

Petitioner oved for re%onsideration, whi%h the

appellate %ourt denied in its Resolution dated 2/ ay

2001.A

Iss*es

Petitioner raises the issue of whether a $)& test is a

valid probative tool in this Durisdi%tion to deterine

4liation. Petitioner as5s for the %onditions under whi%h

$)& te%hnolo#y ay be inte#rated into our Dudi%ial

syste and the prere3uisites for the adissibility of $)&

test results in a paternity suit.10

Petitioner further subits that the appellate %ourt

#ravely abused its dis%retion when it authori7ed the trial

%ourt Jto ebar5 in si% a new pro%edure xxx to

deterine 4liation despite the absen%e of le#islation to

ensure its reliability and inte#rity, want of o;%ial

re%o#nition as ade %lear in im vs. Court of "ppealsandthe presen%e of te%hni%al and le#al %onstraints in respe%t

of si% its ipleentation.K11Petitioner aintains that

the proposed $)& paternity testin# violates his ri#ht

a#ainst self-in%riination.12

T1e R*+in #6 t1e C#*rt

The petition has no erit.

efore dis%ussin# the issues on $)& paternity

testin#, we dee it appropriate to #ive an overview of a

paternity suit and apply it to the fa%ts of this %ase. Ge

shall %onsider the re3uireents of the Faily "ode and of

the Rules of Bviden%e to establish paternity and 4liation.

An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation !it

Filiation pro%eedin#s are usually 4led not Dust to

adDudi%ate paternity but also to se%ure a le#al ri#ht

asso%iated with paternity, su%h as %iti7enship,1/support

8as in the present %ase9, or inheritan%e. The burden of

provin# paternity is on the person who alle#es that the

putative father is the biolo#i%al father of the %hild. There

are four si#ni4%ant pro%edural aspe%ts of a traditional

paternity a%tion whi%h parties have to fa%e? aprima facie

case, a;rative defenses, presuption of le#itia%y,

and physi%al reseblan%e between the putative fatherand %hild.1

&prima facie %ase exists if a woan de%lares that

she had sexual relations with the putative father. n our

Durisdi%tion, %orroborative proof is re3uired to %arry the

burden forward and shift it to the putative father.1!

There are two a;rative defenses available to the

putative father. The putative father ay show

in%apability of sexual relations with the other, be%ause

of either physi%al absen%e or ipoten%y. 16The putative

father ay also show that the other had sexual

relations with other en at the tie of %on%eption.

& %hild born to a husband and wife durin# a valid

arria#e is presued le#itiate.1+The %hild:s le#itia%y

ay be ipu#ned only under the stri%t standards

provided by law.1*

Finally, physi%al reseblan%e between the putative

father and %hild ay be o=ered as part of eviden%e of

paternity. Reseblan%e is a trial te%hni3ue uni3ue to a

paternity pro%eedin#. However, althou#h li5eness is a

fun%tion of heredity, there is no atheati%al forula

that %ould 3uantify how u%h a %hild ust or ust not

loo5 li5e his biolo#i%al father.1AThis 5ind of eviden%e

appeals to the eotions of the trier of fa%t.

n the present %ase, the trial %ourt en%ountered

three of the four aspe%ts. &ri &lba, respondent:s

other, put forward aprima facie%ase when she

asserted that petitioner is respondent:s biolo#i%al father.

&ware that her assertion is not enou#h to %onvin%e the

trial %ourt, she o=ered %orroborative proof in the for of

letters and pi%tures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied

&ri &lba:s assertion. He denied ever havin# sexualrelations with &ri &lba and stated that respondent is

&ri &lba:s %hild with another an. &ri &lba %ountered

petitioner:s denial by subittin# pi%tures of respondent

and petitioner side by side, to show how u%h they

reseble ea%h other.

Paternity and 4liation disputes %an easily be%oe

%redibility %ontests. Ge now loo5 to the law, rules, and

#overnin# Durispruden%e to help us deterine what

eviden%e of in%riinatin# a%ts on paternity and 4liation

are allowed in this Durisdi%tion.

"aws# $!les# and J!rispr!den%e

&sta'lishin( Filiation

The relevant provisions of the Faily "ode provide

as follows?

ART. $. I++eiti)te 1i+dren )y estb+is1 t1eir

i++eiti)te +iti#n in t1e s)e 0y nd #n t1e

s)e e8idene s +eiti)te 1i+dren.

777

ART. $/. T1e +iti#n #6 +eiti)te 1i+dren is

estb+is1ed by ny #6 t1e 6#++#0in(

$ T1e re#rd #6 birt1 pperin in

t1e i8i+ reister #r n+

5*d)ent #r

/ An d)issi#n #6 +eiti)te +iti#n

in p*b+i d#*)ent #r pri8te

1nd0ritten instr*)ent nd sined

by t1e prent #nerned.

In t1e bsene #6 t1e 6#re#in e8idene, t1e

+eiti)te +iti#n s1++ be pr#8ed by(

$ T1e #pen nd #ntin*#*s

p#ssessi#n #6 t1e stt*s #6

+eiti)te 1i+d #r

/ Any #t1er )ens ++#0ed by t1e

R*+es #6 C#*rt nd spei+ +0s.

The Rules on Bviden%e in%lude provisions on

pedi#ree. The relevant se%tions of Rule 1/0 provide?

S-C.


8/30

S-C. '=. Fa*ily rep!tation or tradition re(ardin(

pedi(ree.)T1e rep*tti#n #r trditi#n e7istin in

6)i+y pre8i#*s t# t1e #ntr#8ersy, in respet t#

t1e pediree #6 ny #ne #6 its )e)bers, )y be

reei8ed in e8idene i6 t1e 0itness testi6yin

t1ere#n be +s# )e)ber #6 t1e 6)i+y, eit1er by

#nsn*inity #r Jnity. -ntries in 6)i+y bib+es

#r #t1er 6)i+y b##!s #r 1rts, enr8in #n

rins, 6)i+y p#rtrits nd t1e +i!e, )y be

reei8ed s e8idene #6 pediree.

This "ourt:s rulin#s further spe%ify what

in%riinatin# a%ts are a%%eptable as eviden%e to establish

4liation. n Pe "i* v. +A,20a %ase petitioner often %ites,

we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be

resolved by su%h %onventional eviden%e as the

relevant inri)intinverbal and written a%ts by the

putative father. >nder &rti%le 2+* of the )ew "ivil "ode,

voluntary re%o#nition by a parent shall be ade in the

re%ord of birth, a will, a stateent before a %ourt of

re%ord, or in any authenti% writin#. To be e=e%tive, the

%lai of 4liation ust be ade by the putative father

hiself and the writin# ust be the writin# of the

putative father.21& notarial a#reeent to support a %hild

whose 4liation is aditted by the putative father was%onsidered a%%eptable eviden%e.22Netters to the other

vowin# to be a #ood father to the %hild and pi%tures of

the putative father %uddlin# the %hild on various

o%%asions, to#ether with the %erti4%ate of live birth,

proved 4liation.2/However, a student peranent re%ord,

a written %onsent to a father:s operation, or a arria#e

%ontra%t where the putative father #ave %onsent, %annot

be ta5en as authenti% writin#.2(tandin# alone, neither a

%erti4%ate of baptis2!nor faily pi%tures26are

su;%ient to establish 4liation.

(o far, the laws, rules, and Durispruden%e seein#ly

liit eviden%e of paternity and 4liation to in%riinatin#

a%ts alone. However, advan%es in s%ien%e show thatsour%es of eviden%e of paternity and 4liation need not be

liited to in%riinatin# a%ts. There is now alost

universal s%ienti4% a#reeent that blood #roupin# tests

are %on%lusive on non-paternity, althou#h in%on%lusive on

paternity.2+

n +o ,ao v. +o!rt of Appeals,2*the result of the

blood #roupin# test showed that the putative father was a

Jpossible fatherK of the %hild. Paternity was iputed to

the putative father after the possibility of paternity was

proven on presentation durin# trial of fa%ts and

%ir%ustan%es other than the results of the blood

#roupin# test.

nJao v. +o!rt of Appeals,2Athe %hild, the

other, and the putative father a#reed to subit

theselves to a blood #roupin# test. The )ational

ureau of nvesti#ation 8J)K9 %ondu%ted the test, whi%h

indi%ated that the %hild %ould not have been the possible

o=sprin# of the other and the putative father. Ge held

that the result of the blood #roupin# test was %on%lusive

on the non-paternity of the putative father.

The present %ase as5s us to #o one step further. Ge

are now as5ed whether $)& analysis ay be aditted as

eviden%e to prove paternity.

-A Analysis as &viden%e

$)& is the fundaental buildin# blo%5 of a person:s

entire #eneti% a5e-up. $)& is found in all huan %ells

and is the sae in every %ell of the sae person. 'eneti%

identity is uni3ue. Hen%e, a person:s $)& pro4le %an

deterine his identity./0

$)& analysis is a pro%edure in whi%h $)& extra%ted

fro a biolo#i%al saple obtained fro an individual is

exained. The $)& is pro%essed to #enerate a pattern,

or a $)& pro4le, for the individual fro who the saple

is ta5en. This $)& pro4le is uni3ue for ea%h person,

ex%ept for identi%al twins./1Ge 3uote relevant portions

of the trial %ourt:s / February 2000 rder with approval?

-8ery#ne is b#rn 0it1 distint eneti b+*eprint

++ed DNA de#7yrib#n*+ei id. It is e7+*si8e

t# n indi8id*+ e7ept in t1e rre #*rrene #6

identi+ t0ins t1t s1re sin+e, 6erti+iKed e,

nd DNA is *n1nin t1r#*1#*t +i6e. Bein

#)p#nent #6 e8ery e++ in t1e 1*)n b#dy, t1e

DNA #6 n indi8id*+?s b+##d is t1e 8ery DNA in 1is#r 1er s!in e++s, 1ir 6#++i+es, )*s+es, se)en,

s)p+es 6r#) b*+ s0bs, s+i8, #r #t1er b#dy

prts.

T1e 1e)i+ str*t*re #6 DNA 1s 6#*r bses.

T1ey re !n#0n

s A denine, G *nine, C yst#sine

nd T t1y)ine. T1e #rder in 01i1 t1e 6#*r bses

pper in n indi8id*+?s DNA deter)ines 1is #r

1er p1ysi+ )!e*p. And sine DNA is d#*b+e"

strnded )#+e*+e, it is #)p#sed #6 t0# spei

pired bses, A"T #r T"A nd G"C #r C"G. T1ese re

++ed /(enes.

-8ery (ene1s ertin n*)ber #6 t1e b#8e bse

pirs distrib*ted in prti*+r se4*ene. T1is

i8es pers#n 1is #r 1er eneti #de. S#)e01ere

in t1e DNA 6r)e0#r!, n#net1e+ess, re seti#ns

t1t diEer. T1ey re !n#0n s /poly*orphi%

lo%i#01i1 re t1e res n+yKed in DNA typin

pr#+in, tests, nerprintin, #r n+ysisDNA

nerprintineneti tests #r nerprintin. In

#t1er 0#rds, DNA typin si)p+y )ens

deter)inin t1e /poly*orphi% lo%i.

H#0 is DNA typin per6#r)ed :r#) DNA s)p+e

#btined #r e7trted, )#+e*+r bi#+#ist )y

pr#eed t# n+yKe it in se8er+ 0ys. T1ere re

8e te1ni4*es t# #nd*t DNA typin. T1ey

re( t1e $F"P 1restri%tion fra(*ent len(th

poly*orphis*23 /reverse dot 'lot#r HLA D P)

+#i 01i1 0s *sed in /& ses t1t 0ere

d)itted s e8idene by


9/30

deter)ine 01i1 1+6 #6 t1e 1i+d?s DNA 0s

in1erited 6r#) t1e )#t1er. T1e #t1er 1+6 )*st

18e been in1erited 6r#) t1e bi#+#i+ 6t1er. T1e

++eed 6t1er?s pr#+e is t1en e7)ined t#

sertin 01et1er 1e 1s t1e DNA types in 1is

pr#+e, 01i1 )t1 t1e ptern+ types in t1e

1i+d. I6 t1e )n?s DNA types d# n#t )t1 t1t #6

t1e 1i+d, t1e )n is e7+*ded s t1e 6t1er. I6 t1e

DNA types )t1, t1en 1e is n#t e7+*ded s t1e

6t1er.2


10/30

deter)inti#n #6 t1e ti#n )#re pr#bb+e #r +ess

pr#bb+e t1n it 0#*+d be 0it1#*t t1e e8idene.

R*+e '=/. A++ re+e8nt e8idene is d)issib+e,

e7ept s #t1er0ise pr#8ided by t1e C#nstit*ti#n

#6 t1e United Sttes, by At #6 C#nress, by t1ese

r*+es, #r by #t1er r*+es presribed by t1e S*pre)e

C#*rt p*rs*nt t# stt*t#ry *t1#rity. -8idene

01i1 is n#t re+e8nt is n#t d)issib+e.

Rule +02 of the Federal Rules of Bviden%e #overnin#expert testiony provides?

I6 sienti, te1ni+, #r #t1er spei+iKed

!n#0+ede 0i++ ssist t1e trier #6 6t t#

*nderstnd t1e e8idene #r t# deter)ine 6t in

iss*e, 0itness 4*+ied s n e7pert by

!n#0+ede, s!i++, e7periene, trinin, #r

ed*ti#n, )y testi6y t1eret# in t1e 6#r) #6 n

#pini#n #r #t1er0ise.

-a!'ert%autions that departure fro

the Fryestandard of #eneral a%%eptan%e does not ean

that the Federal Rules do not pla%e liits on the

adissibility of s%ienti4% eviden%e. Rather, the Dud#e

ust ensure that the testiony:s reasonin# or ethod is

s%ienti4%ally valid and is relevant to the issue.

&dissibility would depend on fa%tors su%h as 819

whether the theory or te%hni3ue %an be or has been

tested 829 whether the theory or te%hni3ue has been

subDe%ted to peer review and publi%ation 8/9 the 5nown

or potential rate of error 89 the existen%e and

aintenan%e of standards %ontrollin# the te%hni3ue:s

operation and 8!9 whether the theory or te%hni3ue is

#enerally a%%epted in the s%ienti4% %ounity.

&nother produ%t liability %ase, @!*ho ,ires +o. v.

+ar*i%hael,

6

further odi4ed the -a!'ertstandard.This led to the aendent of Rule +02 in 2000 and whi%h

now reads as follows?

I6 sienti, te1ni+ #r #t1er spei+iKed

!n#0+ede 0i++ ssist t1e trier #6 6t t#

*nderstnd t1e e8idene #r t# deter)ine 6t in

iss*e, 0itness 4*+ied s n e7pert by

!n#0+ede, s!i++, e7periene, trinin, #r

ed*ti#n, )y testi6y t1eret# in t1e 6#r) #6 n

#pini#n #r #t1er0ise, i6 $ t1e testi)#ny is bsed

*p#n s*Jient 6ts #r dt, / t1e testi)#ny is

t1e pr#d*t #6 re+ib+e prinip+es nd )et1#ds, nd

standard nor the -a!'ert?

@!*hostandard is %ontrollin# in the Philippines.+&t

best, &eri%an Durispruden%e erely has a persuasive

e=e%t on our de%isions. Here, eviden%e is adissible

when it is relevant to the fa%t in issue and is not

otherwise ex%luded by statute or the Rules of "ourt.*Bviden%e is relevant when it has su%h a relation to the

fa%t in issue as to indu%e belief in its existen%e or non-

existen%e.A(e%tion A of Rule 1/0, whi%h #overns the

adissibility of expert testiony, provides as follows?

T1e #pini#n #6 0itness #n )tter re4*irin

spei+ !n#0+ede, s!i++, e7periene #r trinin

01i1 1e is s1#0n t# p#ssess )y be reei8ed in

e8idene.

This Rule does not pose any le#al obsta%le to the

adissibility of $)& analysis as eviden%e. ndeed, even

eviden%e on %ollateral atters is allowed Jwhen it tends

in any reasonable de#ree to establish the probability or

iprobability of the fa%t in issue.K!0

ndeed, it would have been %onvenient to erely

refer petitioner to our de%isions in ,iin(#

alleoand 7atarto illustrate that $)& analysis is

adissible as eviden%e. n our Durisdi%tion, the restri%tive

tests for adissibility established by Frye?

%hwart>and -a!'ert?@!*ho#o into the wei#ht of the

eviden%e.

Pro'ative al!e of

-A Analysis as &viden%e

$espite our relatively liberal rules on adissibility,

trial %ourts should be %autious in #ivin# %reden%e to $)&

analysis as eviden%e. Ge reiterate our stateent

in alleo?

In ssessin t1e pr#bti8e 8+*e #6 DNA e8idene,

t1ere6#re, #*rts s1#*+d #nsider, )#n #t1er

t1ins, t1e 6#++#0in dt( 1#0 t1e s)p+es 0ere

#++eted, 1#0 t1ey 0ere 1nd+ed, t1e p#ssibi+ity

#6 #nt)inti#n #6 t1e s)p+es, t1e pr#ed*re

6#++#0ed in n+yKin t1e s)p+es, 01et1er t1e

pr#per stndrds nd pr#ed*res 0ere 6#++#0ed in

#nd*tin t1e tests, nd t1e 4*+iti#n #6 t1e

n+yst 01# #nd*ted t1e tests.2$3

Ge also repeat the trial %ourt:s explanation of $)&

analysis used in paternity %ases?

In 23 pternity test, t1e 6#rensi sientist +##!s t

n*)ber #6 t1ese 8rib+e rei#ns in n indi8id*+

t# pr#d*e DNA pr#+e. C#)prin ne7t t1e DNA

pr#+es #6 t1e )#t1er nd 1i+d, it is p#ssib+e t#

deter)ine 01i1 1+6 #6 t1e 1i+d?s DNA 0s

in1erited 6r#) t1e )#t1er. T1e #t1er 1+6 )*st

18e been in1erited 6r#) t1e bi#+#i+ 6t1er. T1e

++eed 6t1er?s pr#+e is t1en e7)ined t#sertin 01et1er 1e 1s t1e DNA types in 1is

pr#+e, 01i1 )t1 t1e ptern+ types in t1e

1i+d. I6 t1e )n?s DNA types d# n#t )t1 t1t #6

t1e 1i+d, t1e )n is e7+*ded s t1e 6t1er. I6 t1e

DNA types )t1, t1en 1e is n#t e7+*ded s t1e

6t1er.2/3

t is not enou#h to state that the %hild:s $)& pro4le

at%hes that of the putative father. & %oplete at%h

between the $)& pro4le of the %hild and the $)& pro4le

of the putative father does not ne%essarily establish

paternity. For this reason, followin# the hi#hest standard

adopted in an &eri%an Durisdi%tion, !/trial %ourts should

re3uire at least AA.AV as a iniu value of theProbability of Paternity 8JGK9 prior to a paternity

in%lusion. G is a nueri%al estiate for the li5elihood of

paternity of a putative father %opared to the probability

of a rando at%h of two unrelated individuals. &n

appropriate referen%e population database, su%h as the

Philippine population database, is re3uired to %opute for

G. $ue to the probabilisti% nature of paternity in%lusions,

G will never e3ual to 100V. However, the a%%ura%y of G

estiates is hi#her when the putative father, other and

%hild are subDe%ted to $)& analysis %opared to those

%ondu%ted between the putative father and %hild alone.!

$)& analysis that ex%ludes the putative father fro

paternity should be %on%lusive proof of non-paternity. fthe value of G is less than AA.AV, the results of the $)&

analysis should be %onsidered as %orroborative eviden%e.

f the value of G is AA.AV or hi#her, then there

is re6*tb+epresuption of paternity.!!This refutable

presuption of paternity should be subDe%ted to

the alleostandards.

$i(ht A(ainst

elf?n%ri*ination
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn55


11/30

(e%tion 1+, &rti%le / of the 1A*+ "onstitution

provides that Jno person shall be %opelled to be a

witness a#ainst hiself.K Petitioner asserts that obtainin#

saples fro hi for $)& testin# violates his ri#ht

a#ainst self-in%riination. Petitioner i#nores our earlier

pronoun%eents that the privile#e is appli%able only to

testionial eviden%e. ain, we 3uote relevant portions

of the trial %ourt:s / February 2000 rder with approval?

Obtinin DNA s)p+es 6r#) n *sed in

ri)in+ se #r 6r#) t1e resp#ndent in pternityse, #ntrry t# t1e be+ie6 #6 resp#ndent in t1is

ti#n, 0i++ n#t 8i#+te t1e ri1t inst se+6"

inri)inti#n. T1is pri8i+ee pp+ies #n+y t#

e8idene t1t is /%o**!ni%ativein essene t!en

*nder d*ress Pe#p+e 8s. O+8is, $' SCRA $A, respondent.

R - S O L U T I O N

AUSTRIA"&RT)BX,J.(

efore us is a %oplaint 4led by Pedro '. Tolentino,

Roeo . Nay#o, (oloon . Nualan#, (r., eliton $.

Bvan#elista, (r., and )elson . el#ar a#ainst &tty.

)orberto . endo7a for 'rossly oral "ondu%t and

'ross is%ondu%t.

"oplainants alle#e in their &;davit-"oplaint that

respondent, a forer uni%ipal Trial "ourt @ud#e,

abandoned his le#al wife, Feli%itas I. Ialderia in favor of

his paraour, arilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn,

arried to one Raon '. ar%os respondent and arilyn

dela Fuente have been %ohabitin# openly and publi%ly

as husband and wife in r#y. Bstrella, )auDan, riental

indoro respondent had fathered two %hildren by his

paraour arilyn dela Fuente respondent and arilyn

dela Fuente de%lared in the birth %erti4%ates of their two

dau#hters that they were arried on ay 12, 1A*6,a5in# it appear that their two %hildren are le#itiate,

while in respondent:s "erti4%ate of "andida%y 4led with

the "BNB" durin# the 1AA! ele%tions, respondent

de%lared that his wife is Feli%itas I. Ialderia in

respondent:s %erti4%ate of %andida%y for the 1AA*

ele%tions, he de%lared his %ivil status as separated su%h

de%larations in the birth %erti4%ates of his %hildren and in

his %erti4%ate of %andida%y are a%ts %onstitutin#

falsi4%ation of publi% do%uents and respondent:s a%ts

betray his la%5 of #ood oral %hara%ter and %onstitute

#rounds for his reoval as a eber of the bar.

Respondent 4led his "oent wherein he states

that %oplainants, who are his politi%al opponents in)auDan, riental indoro, are erely 4lin# this %ase to

exa%t reven#e on hi for his 4lin# of %riinal

%har#es a#ainst the %oplainants ille#ally pro%ured

%opies of the birth %erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina

dela Fuente endo7a and yrra Mhrisna )orina dela

Fuente endo7a, in violation of Rule 2, &dinistrative

rder )o. 1, series of 1AA/, thus, su%h do%uents are

inadissible in eviden%e respondent did not parti%ipate

in the preparation and subission with the lo%al %ivil

re#istry of subDe%t birth %erti4%ates respondent never

de%lared that he had two wives, as he has always

de%lared that he is separated in fa%t fro his wife,

Feli%itas I. Ialderia and %oplainants have used this

issue a#ainst hi durin# ele%tions and yet, the people of)auDan, riental indoro still ele%ted hi as ayor,

hen%e, respondent has not o=ended the publi%:s sense of

orality.

The adinistrative %ase was referred to the

nte#rated ar of the Philippines 8hereinafter P9 for

investi#ation, report and re%oendation. Thereafter,

the "oission on ar $is%ipline of the P %ondu%ted

hearin#s.

Gitnesses for %oplainants, )elson . el#ar and

Roeo . Nay#o, subitted their a;davits as their dire%t

testiony and were subDe%ted to %ross-exaination by

respondent:s %ounsel.

Gitness )elson . el#ar de%lares in his a;davit as

follows? He 5nows respondent for they both reside in

)auDan, riental indoro. Respondent is 5nown as a

pra%ti%in# lawyer and a forer uni%ipal Trial "ourt

@ud#e. Respondent has been %ohabitin# openly and

publi%ly with arilyn dela Fuente, representin#

theselves to be husband and wife, and fro their

%ohabitation, they produ%ed two %hildren, naely, ara

Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and yrra

Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a. (oetie in

1AA!, he 8witness el#ar9 re%eived a letter fro a

%on%erned %iti7en, inforin# hi that respondent was

arried to Feli%itas Ialderia of (an Rafael, ula%an, on

@anuary 16, 1A*0, but respondent abandoned his wife to

%ohabit with arilyn dela Fuente. &tta%hed to the letter

was a photo%opy of a "erti4%ation issued by the "ivil

Re#ister attestin# to the arria#e between respondent

and Feli%itas Ialderia. He also re%eived inforation fro

%on%erned %iti7ens that arilyn dela Fuente is also le#ally

arried to one Raon '. ar%os, as eviden%ed by a

"erti4%ation fro the ;%e of the "ivil Re#ister.

Respondent stated in his "erti4%ate of "andida%y 4led

with the "BNB" in 1AA! that he is still le#ally arried

to Feli%itas Ialderia. n respondent:s "erti4%ate of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57


12/30

"andida%y 4led with the "BNB" in 1AA*, he de%lared

his %ivil status as separated. Respondent has

represented to all that he is arried to arilyn dela

Fuente. n the 1au2ane3s, a lo%al newspaper where

respondent holds the position of "hairan of the oard of

the Bditorial (ta=, respondent was reported by said

newspaper as husband to arilyn dela Fuente and the

father of ara Mhrisna "harina and yrra Mhrisna

)orina.

n %ross-exaination, witness el#ar testi4ed asfollows? He was the forer ayor of )auDan and he and

respondent belon# to warrin# politi%al parties. t was not

respondent who told hi about the alle#ed ioral

%ondu%t subDe%t of the present %ase. &lthou#h he

re%eived the letter of a %on%erned %iti7en re#ardin# the

ioral %ondu%t of respondent as far ba%5 as 1AA!, he

did not iediately 4le a %ase for disbarent a#ainst

respondent. t was only after respondent 4led a %riinal

%ase for falsi4%ation a#ainst hi that he de%ided to 4le an

adinistrative %ase a#ainst respondent.1

n re-dire%t exaination, witness el#ar testi4ed

that there were people who were a#ainst the open

relationship between respondent and arilyn dela Fuenteas respondent had been publi%ly introdu%in# the latter as

his wife despite the fa%t that they are both still le#ally

arried to other persons, and so soeone un5nown to

hi Dust handed to their aid %opies of the birth

%erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina and yrra Mhrisna

)orina.2

The a;davit of r. Roeo . Nay#o, whi%h was

adopted as his dire%t testiony, is pra%ti%ally identi%al to

that of witness el#ar. n %ross-exaination, witness

Nay#o testi4ed that he was not the one who pro%ured the

%erti4ed true %opies of the birth %erti4%ates of ara

Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and yrra

Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a, as soebody Dust#ave said do%uents to )elson el#ar. He was a

uni%ipal %oun%ilor in 1AA! when the letter of a

%on%erned %iti7en re#ardin# respondent:s iorality was

sent to el#ar, but he did not ta5e any a%tion a#ainst

respondent at that tie./

"oplainants then forally o=ered do%uentary

eviden%e %onsistin# of photo%opies whi%h were aditted

by respondent:s %ounsel to be faithful reprodu%tions of

the ori#inals or %erti4ed true %opies thereof, to wit? a

letter of one Nuis erude7 inforin# )elson el#ar of

respondent:s ioral a%ts,the "erti4%ation of the No%al

"ivil Re#istrar of (an Rafael, ula%an, attestin# to the

%elebration of the arria#e between respondent and one

Feli%itas Ialderia,!the irth "erti4%ate of ara Mhrisna

"harina dela Fuente endo7a,6the irth "erti4%ate of

yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a,+the

"erti4%ate of "andida%y of respondent dated ar%h A,

1AA!,*the "erti4%ate of "andida%y of respondent dated

ar%h 2!, 1AA*,A"erti4%ation issued by the "ivil

Re#istrar of )auDan, riental indoro dated %tober 2+,

1AA*, attestin# to the arria#e %elebrated between

arilyn dela Fuente and Raon ar%os,10and the

editorial pa#e of the 1au2ane3s8February-ar%h 1AAA

issue9,11wherein it was stated that respondent has two

dau#hters with his wife, arilyn dela Fuente.

Respondent, on the other hand, opted not to present

any eviden%e and erely subitted a eorandu

expoundin# on his ar#uents that the testionies of

%oplainants: witnesses are ere hearsay, thus, said

testionies and their do%uentary eviden%e have no

probative wei#ht.

n February 2+, 200, the oard of 'overnors of the

P passed Resolution )o. YI-200-12/, readin# as

follows?

RB(NIB$ to &$PT and &PPRIB, as it is hereby

&$PTB$ and &PPRIB$, the Report and

Re%oendation of the nvesti#atin# "oissioner of

the above-entitled %ase, herein ade part of this

Resolution as &nnex J&K and, 4ndin# the

re%oendation fully supported by the eviden%e on

re%ord and the appli%able laws and rules, and %onsiderin#

respondent:s violation of Rule 1.01 of the "ode of

Professional Responsibility, &tty. )orberto . endo7a is

hereby SUSP-ND-D IND-:INIT-LYfro the pra%ti%e of

law until he subits satisfa%tory proof that he is no

lon#er %ohabitin# with a woan who is not his wife and

has abandoned su%h ioral %ourse of %ondu%t.

Portions of the report and re%oendation of the

P "oission on ar $is%ipline, upon whi%h the above-

3uoted Resolution was based, read as follows?

F)$)'(?

The eviden%e of %oplainants to support their %har#e of

iorality %onsists in a9 the testionies of )elson el#ar

and Roeo Nay#o #iven by way of a;davits exe%uted

under oath and a;red before the "oission and b9

their do%uentary eviden%e %onsistin# of their BxhibitsJ&K to JHK.

Respondent 4led his %oent throu#h %ounsel and did

not forally present or o=er any eviden%e. Respondent

opted not to present his eviden%e anyore be%ause

a%%ordin# to hi Jthere is none to rebut vis-Z-vis the

eviden%e presented by the private %oplainants.K

Respondent instead subitted a eorandu throu#h

%ounsel to ar#ue his position. &s %an be seen fro the

%oent and eorandu subitted, respondent:s

%ounsel ar#ues that the %oplaint is politi%ally otivated

sin%e %oplainants are politi%al rivals of respondent and

that the birth %erti4%ates Bxhibits J$K and J$-1K whi%h

were o=ered to show that respondent sired the %hildren

naely ara Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and

yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a out of his

%ohabitation with arilyn dela Fuente are inadissible

be%ause they were alle#edly se%ured in violation of

&dinistrative rder )o. 1, (eries of 1AA/. The rest of

the exhibits are either hearsay or self-servin# a%%ordin#

to respondent.

The witnesses who are also two of the %oplainants

herein, on the other hand, %ate#ori%ally state in their

a;davits Bxhibits J&K and JK parti%ularly in para#raph

2 that JRespondent has been %ohabitin# openly and

publi%ly with arilyn de la Fuente, representin#

theselves to be husband and wife.K n para#raph 10 of

said a;davits the witnesses also %ate#ori%ally state that

Jrespondent has even represented to all and sundry that

arilyn de la Fuente is his wife.K These %ate#ori%al

stateents ade under oath by %oplainants are not

hearsay and reain un-rebutted. Respondent %hose not

to rebut the.

Bxhibit JB,K the "erti4%ate of "andida%y exe%uted by

respondent shows that respondent is arried to one,

Feli%itas I. Ialderia. &s shown by Bxhibit JHK, a arria#e

%erti4%ate, arilyn de la Fuente is arried to one, Raon

'. ar%os. $uly %erti4ed true %opies of said exhibits have

been presented by %oplainants.

Gith respe%t to Bxhibits J$K and J$-1K, we believe that

they are %opetent and relevant eviden%e and

adissible in this pro%eedin#s. The ex%lusionary rule

whi%h bars adission of ille#ally obtained eviden%e

applies ore appropriately to eviden%e obtained as a

result of ille#al sear%hes and sei7ures. The instant %ase

%annot be analo#ous to an ille#al sear%h or sei7ure. &

person who violates Rule 2 of &dinistrative rder )o. 1

(eries of 1AA/ as %ited by respondent ris5s the penalty of

iprisonent or payent of a 4ne but it does not a5e

the do%uent so issued inadissible as eviden%e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn11


13/30

spe%ially in pro%eedin#s li5e the present %ase. Bxhibits

J$K and J$-1K whi%h are duly %erti4ed birth %erti4%ates

are therefore %opetent eviden%e to show paternity of

said %hildren by respondent in the absen%e of any

eviden%e to the %ontrary.

y and lar#e the eviden%e of %oplainants %onsistin# of

the testionies of witnesses )elson el#ar and Roeo

Nay#o, and %orroborated by the do%uentary exhibits will

show that indeed respondent has been %ohabitin#

publi%ly with a %ertain arilyn de la Fuente who is not hiswife and that out of said %ohabitation respondent sired

two %hildren. These fa%ts we repeat have not been

denied by respondent under oath sin%e he %hose to Dust

ar#ue on the basis of the iproper otivations and the

inadissibility, hearsay and self-servin# nature of the

do%uents presented. "oplainants have presented

eviden%e su;%ient enou#h to %onvin%e us that indeed

respondent has been %ohabitin# publi%ly with a person

who is not his wife. The eviden%e ta5en to#ether will

support the fa%t that respondent is not of #ood oral

%hara%ter. That respondent %hose not to deny under oath

the #rave and serious alle#ations ade a#ainst hi is to

our ind his undoin# and his silen%e has not helped his

position before the "oission. &s between thedo%uents and positive stateents of %oplainants,

ade under oath and the ar#uents and %oents of

respondent subitted throu#h his lawyers, whi%h were

not veri4ed under oath by respondent hiself, we are

in%lined and so #ive wei#ht to the eviden%e of

%oplainants. The dire%t and forthri#ht testionies and

stateents of )elson el#ar and Roeo Nay#o that

respondent was openly %ohabitin# with arilyn de la

Fuente is not hearsay. The witnesses ay have aditted

that respondent endo7a did not tell the that a %ertain

arilyn de la Fuente was his paraour 8for why would

respondent adit that to %oplainants9 but the witnesses

did state %learly in their a;davits under oath that

respondent was %ohabitin# with arilyn de la Fuente who

is not respondent:s wife. ain their %ate#ori%al

stateents ta5en to#ether with the other do%uents, are

enou#h to %onvin%e us and %on%lude that respondent is

not of #ood oral %hara%ter.

ebers of the ar have been repeatedly reinded that

possession of #ood oral %hara%ter is a %ontinuin#

%ondition for ebership in the ar in #ood standin#.

The %ontinued possession of #ood oral %hara%ter is a

re3uisite %ondition for reainin# in the pra%ti%e of law

Mortel vs. "spiras100 Phil. !*6 81A!69 Cordova vs.

Cordova1+A ("R& 6*0 81A*A9 !eople vs. Tuanda1*1

("R& 6*2 81AA09. The oral delin3uen%y that a=e%ts

the 4tness of a eber of the bar to %ontinue as su%h

in%ludes %ondu%t that outra#es the #enerally a%%epted

oral standards of the %ounity, %ondu%t for instan%e,

whi%h a5es Jo%5ery of the inviolable so%ial institution

of arria#eK iDares vs. Iillalu7 2+ ("R& 1 81AA+9.

n the instant %ase respondent has disre#arded and ade

a o%5ery of the fundaental institution of arria#e.

Respondent in fa%t even so stated in Bxhibit JFK that he is

separated fro his wife. This fa%t and stateent without

any further explanation fro respondent only %ontributes

to the blot in his oral %hara%ter whi%h #ood oral

%hara%ter we repeat is a %ontinuin# %ondition for a

eber to reain in #ood standin#. >nder Rule 1.01 of

the "ode of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall noten#a#e in unlawful, dishonest, ioral or de%eitful

%ondu%t. Respondent has violated this rule a#ainst

en#a#in# in ioral %ondu%t.

Ge a#ree, as %ited by the respondent, with the

pronoun%eent ade in (antos vs. $is%hoso, * ("R&

622 81A+*9 that %ourts should not be used by private

persons parti%ularly dis#runtled opponents to vent their

ran%or on ebers of the ar throu#h unDust and

unfounded a%%usations. However, in the instant %ase the

%har#es %an hardly be %onsidered as unfounded or unDust

based on the eviden%e presented. The eviden%e

presented shows that respondent no lon#er possess 8si%9

that #ood oral %hara%ter ne%essary as a %ondition for

hi to reain a eber of the ar in #ood standin#. He

is therefore not entitled to %ontinue to en#a#e in the

pra%ti%e of law.

Ge 4nd su%h report and re%oendation of the P

to be fully supported by the pleadin#s and eviden%e on

re%ord, and, hen%e, approve and adopt the sae.

The eviden%e presented by %oplainants rea%h that3uantu of eviden%e re3uired in adinistrative

pro%eedin#s whi%h is only substantial eviden%e, or that

aount of relevant eviden%e that a reasonable ind

i#ht a%%ept as ade3uate to support a %onvi%tion.12

Gitness el#ar:s testiony that respondent had

been publi%ly introdu%in# arilyn dela Fuente as his wife

is %orroborated by the %ontents of an arti%le in

the 1au2ane3s, introdu%in# respondent as one of

)auDan:s publi% servants, and statin# therein that

respondent has been blessed with two beautiful %hildren

with his wife, arilyn dela Fuente.1/t should be noted

that said publi%ation is under the %ontrol of respondent,

he bein# the "hairan of the oard thereof. Thus, it%ould be reasonably %on%luded that if he %ontested the

truth of the %ontents of subDe%t arti%le in the 1au2ane3s,

or if he did not wish to publi%ly present arilyn dela

Fuente as his wife, he %ould have easily ordered that the

danin# portions of said arti%le to be edited out.

Gith re#ard to respondent:s ar#uent that the

%redibility of witnesses for the %oplainants is tainted by

the fa%t that they are otivated by reven#e for

respondent:s 4lin# of %riinal %ases a#ainst the, we

opine that even if witnesses el#ar and Nay#o are so

otivated, the %redibility of their testionies %annot be

dis%ounted as they are fully supported and %orroborated

by do%uentary eviden%e whi%h spea5 for theselves.

The birth %erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina dela

Fuente endo7a and yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente

endo7a born on @une 16, 1A** and ay 22, 1AA0,

respe%tively, to )orberto . endo7a and arilyn $ela

Fuente and the "erti4%ation fro the ;%e of the No%al

"ivil Re#istrar of ula%an attestin# to the existen%e in its

re%ords of an entry of a arria#e between respondent

and one Feli%itas Ialderia %elebrated on @anuary 16, 1A*0,

arepubli% do%uents and areprima facieeviden%e of the

fa%ts %ontained therein, as provided for under &rti%le

101of the "ivil "ode of the Philippines.

Respondent ista5enly ar#ues that the birth

%erti4%ates of ara Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente

endo7a and yrra Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente

endo7a born on @une 16, 1A** and ay 22, 1AA0,

respe%tively, to )orberto . endo7a and arilyn $ela

Fuente, are inadissible in eviden%e for havin# been

obtained in violation of Rule 2, &dinistrative rder )o.

1, series of 1AA/, whi%h provides as follows?

Rule 2. )on-$is%losure of irth Re%ords.

819 The re%ords of a person:s birth shall be

5ept stri%tly %on4dential and no inforation

relatin# thereto shall be issued ex%ept on

the re3uest of any of the followin#?

a. the %on%erned person hiself, or any person

authori7ed by hi

b. the %ourt or proper publi% o;%ial whenever

absolutely ne%essary in adinistrative,

Dudi%ial or other o;%ial pro%eedin#s to

deterine the identity of the %hild:s

parents or other %ir%ustan%es surroundin#

his birth and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn14


14/30

%. in %ase of the person:s death, the nearest of

5in.

829 &ny person violatin# the prohibition shall

su=er the penalty of iprisonent of at

least two onths or a 4ne in an aount not

ex%eedin# 4ve hundred pesos, or both in

the dis%retion of the %ourt. 8&rti%le +, P.$.

60/9

(e%tion /, Rule 12* of the Revised Rules onBviden%e provides that Jeviden%e is adissible when it is

relevant to the issue and is not ex%luded by the law or

these rules.K There %ould be no dispute that the subDe%t

birth %erti4%ates are relevant to the issue. The only

3uestion, therefore, is whether the law or the rules

provide for the inadissibility of said birth %erti4%ates

alle#edly for havin# been obtained in violation of Rule 2,

&dinistrative rder )o. 1, series of 1AA/.

)ote that Rule 2, &dinistrative rder )o. 1, series

of 1AA/ only provides for san%tions a#ainst persons

violatin# the rule on %on4dentiality of birth re%ords, but

nowhere does it state that pro%ureent of birth re%ords in

violation of said rule would render said re%ordsinadissible in eviden%e. n the other hand, the Revised

Rules of Bviden%e only provides for the ex%lusion of

eviden%e if it is obtained as a result of ille#al sear%hes

and sei7ures. t should be ephasi7ed, however, that

said rule a#ainst unreasonable sear%hes and sei7ures is

eant only to prote%t a person fro interferen%e by the

#overnent or the state.1!n!eople vs. +ipol,16we

explained that?

The "onstitutional pros%ription enshrined in the ill of

Ri#hts does not %on%ern itself with the relation between a

private individual and another individual. t #overns the

relationship between the individual and the (tate and its

a#ents. The ill of Ri#hts only tepers #overnental

power and prote%ts the individual a#ainst any a##ression

and unwarranted interferen%e by any departent of

#overnent and its a#en%ies. &%%ordin#ly, it %annot be

extended to the a%ts %oplained of in this %ase. The

alle#ed Jwarrantless sear%hK ade by Ro3ue, a %o-

eployee of appellant at the treasurer:s o;%e, %an hardly

fall within the abit of the %onstitutional pros%ription on

unwarranted sear%hes and sei7ures.

"onse3uently, in this %ase where %oplainants, as

private individuals, obtained the subDe%t birth re%ords as

eviden%e a#ainst respondent, the prote%tion a#ainst

unreasonable sear%hes and sei7ures does not apply.

(in%e both Rule 2, &dinistrative rder )o. 1,

series of 1AA/ and the Revised Rules on Bviden%e do not

provide for the ex%lusion fro eviden%e of the birth

%erti4%ates in 3uestion, said publi% do%uents are,

therefore, adissible and should be properly ta5en into

%onsideration in the resolution of this adinistrative %ase

a#ainst respondent.

Ierily, the fa%ts stated in the birth %erti4%ates of

ara Mhrisna "harina dela Fuente endo7a and yrra

Mhrisna )orina dela Fuente endo7a and respondent:s

"erti4%ate of "andida%y dated ar%h A, 1AA! wherein

respondent hiself de%lared he was arried to Feli%itasIalderia, were never denied nor rebutted by respondent.

Hen%e, said publi% do%uents su;%iently prove that he

fathered two %hildren by arilyn dela Fuente despite the

fa%t that he was still le#ally arried to Feli%itas Ialderia

at that tie.

n ar atter )o. 11!,1+#ood oral %hara%ter was

de4ned thus?

. . . #ood oral %hara%ter is what a person really is, as

distin#uished fro #ood reputation or fro the opinion

#enerally entertained of hi, the estiate in whi%h he is

held by the publi% in the pla%e where he is 5nown. oral

%hara%ter is not a subDe%tive ter but one whi%h

%orresponds to obDe%tive reality. The standard of personal

and professional inte#rity is not satis4ed by su%h %ondu%t

as it erely enables a person to es%ape the penalty of

%riinal law.

n4aguirre vs. Castillo,1*we reiterated the

de4nition of ioral %ondu%t, to wit?

. . . that %ondu%t whi%h is so willful, La#rant, or

shaeless as to show indi=eren%e to the opinion of #ood

and respe%table ebers of the %ounity.

Furtherore, su%h %ondu%t ust not only be ioral, but

#rossly ioral. That is, it ust be so %orrupt as to

%onstitute a %riinal a%t or so unprin%ipled as to be

reprehensible to a hi#h de#ree or %oitted under su%h

s%andalous or revoltin# %ir%ustan%es as to sho%5 the

%oon sense of de%en%y.

n the above-3uoted %ase, we pointed out that a

eber of the ar and o;%er of the %ourt is not only

re3uired to refrain fro adulterous relationships or the

5eepin# of istresses but ust also behave hiself as toavoid s%andali7in# the publi% by %reatin# the belief that

he is Loutin# those oral standards and, thus, ruled that

sirin# a %hild with a woan other than his wife is a

%ondu%t way below the standards of orality re3uired of

every lawyer.1A

Ge ust rule in the sae wise in this %ase before

us. The fa%t that respondent %ontinues to publi%ly and

openly %ohabit with a woan who is not his le#al wife,

thus, sirin# %hildren by her, shows his la%5 of #ood oral

%hara%ter. Respondent should 5eep in ind that the

re3uireent of #ood oral %hara%ter is not only a

%ondition pre%edent to adission to the Philippine ar but

is also a %ontinuin# re3uireent to aintain one:s #ood

standin# in the le#al profession.20n"ldovino vs. !u2alte,

5r.,21we ephasi7ed that?

This "ourt has been exa%tin# in its deand for inte#rity

and #ood oral %hara%ter of ebers of the ar. They

are expe%ted at all ties to uphold the inte#rity and

di#nity of the le#al profession and refrain fro any a%t or

oission whi%h i#ht lessen the trust and %on4den%e

reposed by the publi% in the 4delity, honesty, and

inte#rity of the le#al profession. ebership in the le#al

profession is a privile#e. &nd whenever it is ade to

appear that an attorney is no lon#er worthy of the trust

and %on4den%e of the publi%, it be%oes not only the

ri#ht but also the duty of this "ourt, whi%h ade hi one

of its o;%ers and #ave hi the privile#e of inisterin#

within its ar, to withdraw the privile#e.

9H-R-:OR-, respondent &tty. )orberto .

endo7a is hereby found '>NTC of iorality, in

violation of Rule 1.01 of the "ode of Professional

Responsibility. He is (>(PB)$B$ )$BF)TBNC fro the

pra%ti%e of law until he subits satisfa%tory proof that he

has abandoned his ioral %ourse of %ondu%t.

Net a %opy of this resolution be served personally on

respondent at his last 5nown address and entered in his

re%ord as attorney. Net the P, the ar "on4dant, andthe "ourt &dinistrator be furnished also a %opy of this

resolution for their inforation and #uidan%e as well as

for %ir%ulari7ation to all %ourts in the %ountry.

SO ORD-R-D.

SP-CIAL THIRD DIVISION

-RN-STO M. :ULL-RO,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21


15/30

Petitioner,

-versus 6

P-OPL- O:TH-PHILIPPIN-S,

Respondent.

Present?

Proul#ated?(epteber 12,200+

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D - C I S I O N

"H"-)&X&R,5.?

n this Petition for Review on Certiorari under

Rule ! of the Revised Rules of "ourt,1petitioner Brnesto. Fullero see5s to set aside the $e%ision2dated 1A%tober 200! of the "ourt of &ppealsin "&-'.R. "R. )o.2*0+2, a;rin# in totothe $e%ision/dated A %tober200/ of the Ne#a7pi "ity Re#ional Trial "ourt 8RT"9,

ran%h 6, in "riinal "ase )o. ++12, 4ndin# petitioner#uilty of falsi4%ation of publi% do%uent as de4ned andpenali7ed in para#raph , &rti%le 1+1 of the Revised Penal"ode.

n an &ended nforationdated 1 %tober

1AA+, petitioner was %har#ed with falsi4%ation of publi%do%uent under para#raph , &rti%le 1+1 of the RevisedPenal "ode, alle#edly %oitted as follows?

That soetie in 1A**, in the

"ity of Ne#a7pi, Philippines, and withinthe Durisdi%tion of this Honorable "ourt,the above-naed a%%used, with intentto preDudi%e and defraud, bein# thenthe &%tin# "hief perator of ri#a "ity

Tele%ouni%ation:s ;%e, whilea%tin# in said %apa%ity and ta5in#advanta#e of his o;%ial fun%tion, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully andfeloniously falsify and$'B)T F THBRB')&N TR&N ">RT $B(PTB THBF&"T TH&T (&$ NGBR ">RT")I"TB$ THB &"">(B$ ) THB&(B)"B F (>FF"B)T BI$B)"B .B.,PRF T (HG TH&T THB &"">(B$&"T>&NNC PBRFRB$ THB &"T FF&N(F"&T) HB ( &"">(B$ F

.GHBTHBR R )T THB

H)R&NB ">RT F &PPB&N( BRRB$) (>(T&))' THB @>$'B)T F THBRB')&N TR&N ">RT $B(PTB THB
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170583.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ju

1st batch of cases

Documents