evidence digest compilation (1)

8/14/2019 Evidence Digest Compilation (1)

1/25

PEOPLE vs. NENITA MARIA OLIVIA GALLARDO (at large), and REMEDIOS MALAPIT

[G.R. Nos. !""#$%$. A&g&st ', '""' YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

*A+TS

Remedios Malapit and Nenita Maria Olivia Gallardo were charged with one (1) count of illegarecruitment committed in large-scale, three (3) counts of estafa, and one (1) count of simple illegarecruitment efore the Regional !rial "ourt of #aguio "it$%

Onl$ accused-appellant Remedios Malapit was rought to the &urisdiction of the trial court% 'er coaccused, Nenita Maria Olivia Gallardo, remained at large%

pon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilt$* to all charges% !he five (+) cases wereconsolidated and tried &ointl$%

On une , 1../, accused-appellant introduced Marie to co-accused Nenita Maria Olivia-Gallardo in!andang 0ora, ue2on "it$% On the same da$, Marie sumitted herself to a ph$sical eamination andpersonall$ handed to Gallardo a partial pa$ment of 415,666%66, for which the latter issued a receipt% Mariemade another pa$ment in the amount of 4+7,666%66, for which accused-appellant issued a provisionareceipt% !his amount included the placement fee of her sister, 8raceli 8eno&a, who ecame interested inthe opportunit$ to wor9 aroad% 8ccused-appellant issued to Marie the receipt for 8raceli in the amount o43+,666%66, signed $ Gallardo%

!hree months lapsed without an$ news on Marie:s deplo$ment to "anada%

8fter three months of waiting with no forthcoming emplo$ment aroad, Maril$n and the otheapplicants proceeded to the 4hilippine Overseas ;mplo$ment 8genc$, Regional 8dministrative nit, of the"ordillera 8dministrative Region in #aguio "it$, where the$ learned that accused-appellant and Gallardowere not authori2ed recruiters% Maril$n confronted accused-appellant aout this, whereupon the latteassured her that it was a direct hiring scheme% !hereafter, Maril$n reported accused-appellant andGallardo to the N#


2/25

(7) the inference must e ased on proven factsC and (3) the comination of all circumstances produces aconviction e$ond reasonale dout of the guilt of the accused%

!he circumstantial evidence in the case at ar, when scrutini2ed and ta9en together, leads to no otheconclusion than that accused-appellant and co-accused Gallardo conspired in recruiting and promising a

&o overseas to 8raceli 8eno&a% Moreover, Marie 4urificacion 8eno&a had personal 9nowledge of the factand circumstances surrounding the charges filed $ her sister, 8raceli, for simple illegal recruitment andestafa% Marie was priv$ to the recruitment of 8raceli as she was with her when oth accused-appellant andGallardo reDuired 8raceli to undergo ph$sical eamination to find out whether the latter was fit for the &o

aroad% 8ccused-appellant even admitted that she was the one who introduced Marie and 8raceli toGallardo when the$ went to the latter:s house% Marie was the one who shouldered the placement fee of hersister 8raceli%

7% NO%

!he prosecution has proven e$ond reasonale dout that accused-appellant was guilt$ of estafaunder the Revised 4enal "ode, 8rticle 31+ paragraph (7) (a), which provides that estafa is committedE

!he evidence is clear that in falsel$ pretending to possess the power to deplo$ persons for overseasplacement, accused-appellant deceived Marie, 8raceli and Maril$n into elieving that the recruitmentwould give them greener opportunities as caregivers in "anada% 8ccused-appellant:s assuranceconstrained the private complainants to part with their hard-earned mone$ in echange for a slot in theoverseas &o in "anada% !he elements of deceit and damage for this form of estafa are indisputal$present% 'ence, the conviction of accused-appellant for three (3) counts of estafa in "riminal "ases Nos1+373-R, 1+37/-R and 1++/1-R should e upheld%

PEOPLE vs. AGPANGA LINAO / 0ITTEN and ROSITA N-NGA / VALEN+IA, a11&sed.[G.R. No. 2#3#". 4an&ar/ '", '""2 P-NO, 4.

*A+TS

8ppellant 8gpanga =inao and her co-accused Rosita Nunga were charged of violating 8rticle ';R;@OR;, finding oth accused guilt$ e$ond reasonale dout of the offense of violation of 8rticle ';!';R OR NO! !'; =O>;R "OR! GR8A;=B 8#0;? %

R-LING


3/25

NO%

!he "ourt ruled that the appeal e dismissed%

8ppellant then faults the trial court for appreciating and ta9ing into account the o&ect and documentar$evidence of the prosecution despite the latter:s failure to formall$ offer them% 8sent an$ formal offer, sheargues that the$ again must e deemed inadmissile%

!he contention is untenale% ;vidence not formall$ offered can e considered $ the court as long as the$have een properl$ identified $ testimon$ dul$ recorded and the$ have themselves een incorporated inthe records of the case% 8ll the documentar$ and o&ect evidence in this case were properl$ identifiedpresented and mar9ed as ehiits in court, including the ric9s of mari&uana% ;ven without their formaoffer, therefore, the prosecution can still estalish the case ecause witnesses properl$ identified thoseehiits, and their testimonies are recorded% @urthermore, appellant:s counsel had cross-eamined theprosecution witnesses who testified on the ehiits%

8ppellant also assails the crediilit$ of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses% 0he first cites theinconsistenc$ etween the testimon$ of 04O1 Marlon Gamotea, who said that it was 04O7 8ntonio whoopened the lac9 ag containing the mari&uanaC and that of 04O7 8ntonio, who declared that the ag wasalread$ open when he arrived at the Iaa$an "enter% 0he then focuses on the police officers: failure torememer the famil$ name of the driver of the tric$cle where she allegedl$ rode, claiming that this isimproale and contrar$ to human eperience%

8gain, appellant:s arguments lac9 merit% !he alleged inconsistencies she mentions refer onl$ to minordetails and not to material points regarding the asic elements of the crime% !he$ are inconseDuentiathat the$ do not affect the crediilit$ of the witnesses nor detract from the estalished fact that appellanand her co-accused were transporting mari&uana% !estimonies of witnesses need onl$ corroorate eachother on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence% !he identit$ of the personwho opened the ag is clearl$ immaterial to the guilt of the appellant% #esides, it is to e epected thatthe testimon$ of witnesses regarding the same incident ma$ e inconsistent in some aspects ecausedifferent persons ma$ have different recollections of the same incident%

=i9ewise, we find nothing improale in the failure of the police officers to note and rememer the name ofthe tric$cle driver for the reason that it was unnecessar$ for them to do so% hen police officers have no motive to testif$ falsel$ against the accused, courts are inclined touphold this presumption%


4/25

Mar$ 8nn !undag, alleged that her father, !omas !undag, raped her twice% @irst was on 0eptemer +, 1../and the other on Novemer 15, 1../% 7 separate criminal cases were filed against her father% Mar$ 8nn

!undag also alleged that she was 13 $ears old when she was raped $ her father% ('owever, theprosecution in the case at ar was not ale to show an$ documents pertaining to Mar$ 8nn:s age at thetime of the commission of the rape% !he prosecution then as9ed the "ourt to ta9e &udicial notice that Mar$8nn was under 15 $ears of age which was suseDuentl$ granted without conducting a hearing%) 0henarrated that her father used a 9nife to threaten her not to shout while he was raping her on othoccasions% >hile raping her, he was even as9ing her if it felt good% 'e was even laughing% (>hat aastardJ) 8fter the commission of the second rape, Mar$ 8nn went to her neighor ($ the name of #eie"aahug) and told her what happened to her% !he$ reported this to the police and was later eamined $ adoctor who concluded that she was not a virgin an$more% !he !rial "ourt convicted !omas !undag on othcounts of rape and was sentenced to the penalt$ of death% On appeal to the "8, !omas flatl$ denied thatthe incidents complained of ever too9 place% 'e contends that on 0eptemer +, 1../, he was wor9ing as awatch repairman near Gals #a9er$ in Mandaue "it$ Mar9et and went home tired and sleep$ at around11E66 ocloc9 that evening% On Novemer /, 1../, he claims he was at wor9% ON it was correct for the "ourt to ta9e&udicial notice of Mar$ 8nn:s age without a hearing%


5/25

0ection 33+ of the Revised 4enal "ode, as amended $ 0ection 11 of R%8% No% /+. penali2es rape of aminor daughter $ her father as Dualified rape and a heinous crime% !he elements are as followsE (1seual congressC (7) with womanC (3) $ force or without her consentC and in order to warrant theimposition of capital punishment, the additional elements thatE (F) the victim is under 15 $ears old at thetime of the rape and (+) the offender is a parent of the victim%


6/25

8fter the trial, and efore &udgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on reDuest of apart$, ma$ ta9e &udicial notice of an$ matter and allow the parties to e heard thereon if such matter isdecisive of a material issue in the case%


7/25

R&l9ng

there is no Duestion that a stipulation of facts $ the parties in a criminal case is recogni2ed asdeclarations constituting &udicial admissions, hence, inding upon the parties"and $ virtue of which theprosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right tocontest or dispute the veracit$ of the statement contained in the ehiit%

8ccordingl$, the stipulation of facts stated in the pre-trial order amounts to an admission $ the petitioneresulting in the waiver of his right to present evidence on his ehalf% >hile it is true that the right to

present evidence is guaranteed under the "onstitution,'

this right ma$ e waived epressl$ or impliedl$2

0ince the suspension of the criminal case due to a pre&udicial Duestion is onl$ a procedural matter, thesame is su&ect to a waiver $ virtue of the prior acts of the accused% 8fter all, the doctrine of waiver ismade solel$ for the enefit and protection of the individual in his private capacit$, if it can e dispensedwith and relinDuished without infringing on an$ pulic right and without detriment to the communit$ atlarge%!

8ccordingl$, petitioners admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal amounts toa waiver of his defense of forger$ in the civil case% 'ence, we have no reason to nullif$ such waiver, iteing not contrar$ to law, pulic order, pulic polic$, morals or good customs, or pre&udicial to a thirdperson with a right recogni2ed $ law%@urthermore, it must e emphasi2ed that the pre-trial order was

signed $ the petitioner himself% 8s such, the rule that no proof need e offered as to an$ facts admitted ata pre-trial hearing applies%

OSTON AN0 O* T


8/25

lots sold to them ut no contract was forthcoming% !he spouses further alleged that upon their partiapa$ment of the downpa$ment, the$ were entitled to the eecution and deliver$ of a ?eed of 8solute 0alecovering the su&ect lots% ?uring the trial, the spouses adduced in evidence the separate "ontracts of"onditional 0ale eecuted etween ;< and 3 other u$ers to prove that ;< continued selling residentialots in the sudivision as agent of O#M after the latter had acDuired the said lots%

!he trial court ordered the petitioner to eecute a ?eed of 8solute 0ale in favor of the spousesupon the pa$ment of the spouses of the alance of the purchase price% hether or not the factual issues raised $ the petitioner are proper (Appeals Evidence)

7%) >hether or not there was a perfected contract to sell the propert$

3%) >hether or not the "8 correctl$ held that the terms of the deeds of conditional sale eecuted $ ;< in

favor of the other lot u$ers in the sudivision, which contained uniform terms of 176 eDual monthl$

installments, constitute evidence that ;< also agreed to give the Manalo spouses the same mode and

timeline of pa$ment% (Evidence, Disputable Presumptions, abits and Customs !ule "#$, %ection #&)

e have reviewed the records and we find that, indeed, the ruling of the appellate court dismissingpetitioner:s appeal is contrar$ to law and is not supported $ evidence% 8 careful eamination of thefactual ac9drop of the case, as well as the antecedental proceedings constrains us to hold that petitioneis not arred from asserting that ;< or O#M, on one hand, and the respondents, on the other, failed toforge a perfected contract to sell the su&ect lots%

7%) NO%


9/25

the u$er ma9es a downpa$ment or portion thereof, such pa$ment cannot e considered as sufficientproof of the perfection of an$ purchase and sale etween the parties%

8 contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing whichis the o&ect of the contract and the price% !he agreement as to the manner of pa$ment goes into theprice, such that a disagreement on the manner of pa$ment is tantamount to a failure to agree on theprice%

>e have meticulousl$ reviewed the records, including Ramos: @eruar$ 5, 1./7 and 8ugust 77,1./7 letters to respondents and find that said parties confined themselves to agreeing on the price of

the propert$ (43F5,66%66), the 76P downpa$ment of the purchase price (4.,17%66), and creditedrespondents for the 43F,55/%66 owing from Ramos as part of the 76P downpa$ment% #ased on thesetwo letters, the determination of the terms of pa$ment of the 47/5,FF5%66 had $et to e agreed uponon or efore ?ecemer 31, 1./7, or even afterwards, when the parties sign the contract of conditionasale%

0o long as an essential element entering into the proposed oligation of either of the partiesremains to e determined $ an agreement which the$ are to ma9e, the contract is incomplete andunenforceale%

3%) NO% !he are fact that other lot u$ers were allowed to pa$ the alance of the purchase price of lots

purchased $ them in 176 or 156 monthl$ installments does not constitute evidence that ;< alsoagreed to give the respondents the same mode and timeline of pa$ment%

nder 0ection 3F, Rule 136 of the Revised Rules of "ourt, evidence that one did a certain thing atone time is not admissile to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time, althoughsuch evidence ma$ e received to prove hait, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties%

'ait, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must e proved li9e an$ other facts% !he offering part$must estalish the degree of specificit$ and freDuenc$ of uniform response that ensures more than amere tendenc$ to act in a given manner ut rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature% !heoffering part$ must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence ofhait% !he eamples offered in evidence to prove hait, or pattern of evidence must e numerousenough to ase on inference of s$stematic conduct% Mere similarit$ of contracts does not present the9ind of sufficientl$ similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of pre&udice and confusion%


10/25

Marcosa #ernae sold the propert$ to the respondents as evidenced $ a deed of asolute sale% !herespondents registered the deed of sale and received an original certificate of title%

!he petitioners wrote to the respondents claiming that as children of Marcosa #ernae, the$ wereco-owners of the propert$ and demanded partition thereof% !he petitioners also claimed that therespondents had resold the propert$ to Marcosa #ernae on 8pril 75, 1.+.%

!he respondents wrote in repl$ to the petitioners that the$ were the sole owners of the disputedparcel of land and denied that the land was resold to Marcosa #ernae%

4etitioners then filed a suit for reconve$ance of the lot% !he trial court ruled in favor of petitionersand admitted, over the o&ection of the respondents, ;hiit 8 purporting to e a eroed cop$ of analleged deed of sale eecuted on 8pril 75, 1.+. $ the respondents selling, transferring and conve$ingunto Marcosa #ernae the disputed parcel of land for and in consideration of 41,+66%66% On appeal, the"ourt of 8ppeals reversed R!":s decision%


11/25


12/25

months suspension for falsif$ing his 4?0 which is also the su&ect matter of the instant caseC(5) a certification sumitted $ the petitioner to the "0", Regional Office No% +, =ega2pi "it$, showing thathe is a licensed civil engineerC(.) the dail$ time records of Magistrado signed $ petitioner as the former:s superiorCand(16) other documents earing the signature of petitioner in lue allpen%

Pet9t9onerBs De:ense

!he defense presented petitioner as its sole witness% No documentar$ evidence was proffered%

4etitioner denied eecuting and sumitting the su&ect 4?0 containing the statement that he passed the36-31 Ma$ 1.5+ oard eamination for civil engineering% 'e li9ewise disowned the signature and thummar9 appearing therein% 'e claimed that the stro9e of the signature appearing in the 4?0 differs from thestro9e of his genuine signature% 'e added that the letters contained in the 4?0 he accomplished andsumitted were t$pewritten in capital letters since his t$pewriter does not have small letters% 8s such, thesu&ect 4?0 could not e his ecause it had oth small and capital t$pewritten letters%

4etitioner claimed that Magistrado had an ill motive in filing the instant case against him ecause heissued a memorandum against her for misehavior in the #!O,


13/25

I, =, M, N, O, 4, and R and their su- mar9ings, are inadmissile in evidence ased on the followingreasonsE

(1) ;hiit 8, which is the "ertification of the 4R" dated 1/ anuar$ 1..5, confirming that petitioner:sname does not appear in the registr$ oo9s of licensed civil engineers, was not properl$ identified duringthe trial% !he proper person to identif$ the certification should have een the signator$ therein which was4R" ?irector


14/25

original falsified document, it is the est evidence of its contents and is therefore not ecluded $ the lawor rules%

0ection 7, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules on ;vidence, eplicitl$ provides that a transcript of the record ofthe proceedings made $ the official stenographer, stenot$pist or recorder and certified as correct $ himshall e deemedprima )acie a correct statement of such proceedings% 4etitioner failed to introduce proofthat ;hiit @, or the !ranscript of 0tenographic Notes is not what it purports to e% !hus, it is prima )aciecorrect%

One of the eceptions to the hearsa$ rule is the entries in official records made in the performance of dut$$ a pulic officer% ;hiit @, eing an official entr$ in the court:s records, is admissile in evidence andthere is no necessit$ to produce the concerned stenographer as a witness%

0ection /, Rule 136 of the Revised Rules on ;vidence, provides that when the original of a document is inthe custod$ of a pulic officer or is recorded in a pulic office, its contents ma$ e proved $ a certifiedcop$ issued $ the pulic officer in custod$ thereof% ;hiit G, which is the alleged letter of petitioner tothe Regional ?irector of the "0", Region +, =ega2pi "it$, appl$ing for the position of either a unior

!elecommunications ;ngineer or !elecommunications !raffic 0upervisorC and ;hiit


15/25

to secure a replacement visa% however, =#" failed to comment on the evidence presented $ 8do and thecourt issued an Order declaring that =#" had waived its right to adduce evidence and that the case wasconsidered sumitted for decision% !he court rendered &udgment in favor of 8do, ordering =#" to pa$ 8do4F56,666%66 in actual damages plus legal interestC 366,666%66 in moral damagesC 36,666%66 in attorne$:sfees, and the cost% On appeal "8 affirmed the decision% 'ence this petition%

ISS-E>hether or not actual damages was dul$ proven%

Peo5le vs. Alto. G.R. Nos. L%3##" and L%3##. Nove67er ', #3 F

+astro, 4.

*a1tsNueva ;ci&a was a 'u9-infested province in the $ears 1.F. to 1.+1% ;duardo oson, the then

incument ma$or of the municipalit$ of ue2on, in particular, led a campaign against the 'u9s%

?uring the local elections of 1.F/ and 1.+1, oson and 8lto were the ma&or candidates for thema$oralt$ of ue2on, Nueva ;ci&a%


16/25

Iss&e

>hether or not the sole testimon$ of 0alvador is sufficient to convict 8lto%

hen 8lvin was as9ed during his testimon$ who is this 4a9i, he identified the accused% !heaccused during his testimon$ never denied that he is called 4a9i%*

ISS-ES


17/25

1%>hether or not the d$ing declarations of ;ulalia is admissile

7% >hether or not the accused is guilt$ of the crime ased on the evidence presented%


18/25

'e then rought the samples etracted from the pac9age to the N#hen the N#< was informed that therest of the pac9ages was still in his office, three agents went ac9 with him%


19/25

unreasonale searches and sei2ures cannot e etended to acts committed $ private individuals so as toring it within the amit of alleged unlawful intrusion $ the government%

7% No% Rather than give the appearance of veracit$, we find appellants disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and contrar$ to human eperience%


20/25

identified onl$ Maning and ?uras as his assailants, omitting the accused, @ernando, and Romero Oando!he accused claims the statement of 'o$oho$ to his rother should not e admissile as a d$ingdeclaration since it was not in writing and it was not immediatel$ reported to the authorities%


21/25

as stated previousl$, said ;hiit == had earlier een admitted in evidence $ the trial court in its Ordedated 8ugust 7/, 1..% >hat was o&ectionale was the prosecution:s sole reliance on the documentwithout proof of other facts to estalish its case against petitioner ecause of its mista9en assumption thathe same was a confession%-0ignificantl$, the prosecution was neither arred nor prevented $ the trial court from estalishing thegenuineness and due eecution of the document through other means% Rule 137, 0ection 76 of the Rulesof "ourt provides the means of authenticating the document- 4rosecution could have called to the witness stand 4LMa&% 8ntonio ?ia2, the addressee (receiver) o;hiit ==, to identif$ the said document since it was supposedl$ delivered to him personall$% 0amples ofthe signatures appearing on the document which can e readil$ otained or witnesses who are familiawith them could have also een presented%-!he foregoing lapses detailed aove, the prosecution:s insistence to have ;hiit == admitted in themanner it wanted shows onl$ too clearl$ a sutle ut shrewd scheme to cover up for the foregoingprocedural missteps and to cut evidentiar$ corners to uild its case at the epense of the defense%-Moreover, we agree with the trial court that the letter mar9ed as ;hiit == is hearsa$ inasmuch as itsproative force depends in whole or in part on the competenc$ and crediilit$ of some person other thanthe witness $ whom it is sought to produce it%


22/25

PEOPLE O* T


23/25

*a1ts!he petitioner was charged with


24/25


25/25

the ruse of the simulated loans% !hus, respondent Duestioned the documents as to their eistence oeecution, or when the former is admitted, as to the purpose for which the documents were eecuted,matters which are, undoutedl$, eternal to the documents, and which had nothing to do with thecontents thereof%

8lternativel$, even if it is granted that the est evidence rule should appl$ to the evidence presented $petitioners regarding the eistence of respondents loans, it should e orne in mind that the rule admitsof the following eceptions under Rule 136, 0ection + of the revised Rules of "ourt% !he eecution oreistence of the original copies of the documents was estalished through the testimonies of witnesses

such as Mr% !an, efore whom most of the documents were personall$ eecuted $ respondent% !heoriginal 4Ns also went through the whole loan oo9ing s$stem of petitioner "itian9 K from the accounofficer in its Mar9eting ?epartment, to the pre-processor, to the signature verifier, ac9 to the pre-processor, then to the processor for oo9ing%

evidence digest compilation (1)

Documents