Evidence Digests 01 (2)

8/20/2019 Evidence Digests 01 (2)

1/33

People vs. Ramilla May 8, 1993

Facts: Murder with Aggravating Circumstance of Treachery and Evident Premeditation.

Issue: W/ the decision is fau!ted "y the defense for not a##!ying the e$ui#oise ru!e and for

giving credence to the !one witness.

%u!ing: The e$ui#oise ru!e is a##!ica"!e on!y where the evidence of the #rosecution and the

defense are so even!y "a!anced as to ca!! for the tit!ing of the sca!es in favor of the accused who

is #resumed innocent under the "i!! of rights. The evidence of the #rosecution is heavier than

that of the defense and has overcome the constitutiona! #resum#tion of innocence in favor of the

a##e!!ant. Therefore& the ru!e is not a##!ica"!e in this case "ecause there is no e$ui#oise.

A##ea! dismissed and cha!!enged decision is a'rmed& with costs against a##e!!ant.

People vs. Plazo January 29, 2001

Facts: Murder. (ne )eonor Fa"u!a witnessed the *i!!ing her son& %omeo Fa"u!a. +y herein

A##e!!ant Edison P!a,o with the use of -ata".

Issue: W/ 0uman +ehaviora! %es#onse of a witness considering "!ood re!ationshi# "e given

credence in convicting the accused for the crime charged.

%u!ing: 0aving had the o##ortunity to #ersona!!y o"serve the witness demeanor and manner of

testifying& the tria! 1udge is in "etter #osition to #ass 1udgment on their credi"i!ity. As o"served&

)eonor Fa"u!a testi2ed in straightforward& s#ontaneous and fran* manner& which is necessary for

sing!e witness to "e found worthy of credence to su##ort conviction.

Witnessing a crime is an unusua! e3#erience that e!icits di4erent reactions from the witnessesand for which no c!ear5cut standard form of human "ehavior res#onse can "e drawn when one is

confronted with a strange& start!ing& or frightfu! e3#erience.

+!ood re!ationshi# "etween a witness and a victim does not& "y itse!f& im#air the credi"i!ity of a

witness. (n the contrary& re!ationshi# strengthens credi"i!ity& for it is unnatura! for an aggrieved

re!ative to fa!se!y to accuse someone other than the actua! cu!#rit. The earnest desire to see*

1ustice for a dead *in is not served shou!d the witness a"andon his conscience and #rudence and

"ame one who is innocent of the crime.

Pascor v NLRC Rances

%e: Authentication

Facts: 6ue to a P(EA decision rendering %ances 7em#!oyee of Pascor8 as "eing !ia"!e for incitinganother o'cer to insu"ordination etc.& %ances sought to enforce an award a!!eged!y granted him"y a 6u"ai Court against Pascor9s foreign #rinci#a!. %ances #resented as evidence what #ur#ortsto "e an -origina! co#y of the decision of the 6u"ai court written in Ara"ic scri#t and !anguage&with a co#y of an Eng!ish trans!ation "y an unidenti2ed trans!ator and a co#y of a transmitta!!etter signed "y one Mohd +in a!eh -0onorary Consu! for Phi!i##ines.

Issue: W( the 6u"ai decision can "e enforced against Pascor.


2/33

0e!d: EATI;E.

%ances fai!ed to su"mit any attestation issued "y the #ro#er 6u"ai o'cia! having !ega! custodyof the origina! of the decision of the 6u"ai Court that the co#y #resented "y said res#ondent is afaithfu! co#y of the origina! decision& which attestation must furthermore "e authenticated "y aPhi!i##ine Consu!ar ('cer having 1urisdiction in 6u"ai. The transmitta! !etter signed "y Mohd +ina!eh& 0onorary Consu! for Phi!i##ines9 does not com#!y with the re$uirements of either theattestation under ection


3/33

Facts: uamos was found gui!ty of ra#ing Miche!e 7then years o!d8. (n a##ea! of the decision of the tria! court& uamos sought to discredit and e3c!ude the testimony of the ra#e victim u#on theground that she had not answered the $uestions #osed to her at cross5e3amination during tria!7which were com#!icated to "e answered for adu!ts more so for a B year o!d8.

Issue: W( the testimony of Miche!e shou!d "e discredited.

0e!d: EATI;E.

It is the right of every #arty to cross5e3amine a witness -with su'cient fu!!ness and freedom totest his or herG accuracy and truthfu!ness and freedom from interest or "ias& or the reverse& andto e!icit a!! im#ortant facts "earing u#on the issue. It is a!so the duty of the witness to answer$uestions #ut to him or her& su"1ect to certain e3ce#tions.In the instant case& defense counse! didnot as* the Court to enforce his right and to com#e! the witness 7Miche!!e8 to #erform her duty.As noted& the tria! 1udge had instructed defense counse! to sim#!ify his $uestions. 6efensecounse!& for his #art& neither com#!ained a"out this directive nor com#!ied with it.

Counse! for a##e!!ant see*s to ma*e much of the fact that Miche!!e 6o!orica! did not answersome of the $uestions of defense counse! on cross5e3amination. This fai!ure does not detractfrom the admissi"i!ity or credi"i!ity of Miche!!e9s testimony. First!y& this a##ears to the Court to "e

a case of fai!ure of Miche!!e to answer some $uestions rather than an o"stinate refusa! to do so.In formu!ating those $uestions on cross5e3amination& defense counse! o"vious!y did not ta*e intoaccount that he was cross5e3amining a chi!d of tender age 7Miche!!e was a##ro3imate!y nine BGyears of age at the time she gave her testimony in o#en court8 susce#ti"!e to confusion and#ro"a"!y easi!y intimidated.

It is c!ear& that defense counse! e3ercised no su"stantia! e4ort to #resent inte!!igi"!e $uestions tocom#!aining witness Miche!!e 6o!orica! designed to e!icit straightforward answers. The Courtconsidered that she& in a!! #ro"a"i!ity& sim#!y fai!ed to gras# some of the $uestions #ut to her oncross5e3aminations. The defense had made it very di'cu!t if not #ractica!!y im#ossi"!e for her toanswer those $uestions inte!!igent!y and truthfu!!y.

People vs. Manalo$ %R L''1&&$ *e+. 2&, )8&

%e: Court may e3amine witness for c!ari2catory $uestions

Facts: Mana!o #!eaded gui!ty in *i!!ing his co5convict. (n a##ea! he raised that the interventionmade "y the tria! 1udge during cross5e3amination showed !ac* of im#artia!ity and o"1ectivity. Andthat "y such act of intervention& the 1udge had a!ready conc!uded that a##e!!ant was gui!ty ofmurder and had reso!ved to convict himH that the tria! court had functioned -"oth as 1udge and#rosecutor as*ing $uestions of witnesses -ca!cu!ated to esta"!ish treachery& #remeditation andmotiveH that the $uestions raised "y the tria! court were e3ce#tiona"!e ones& "eing -!eading&mis!eading& caged for o#inions or were o"1ectiona"!e on the ground of the witness9incom#etenceH and that therefore& a##e!!ant -never had a fair chance.

Issue: W( the act of intervention of the tria! 1udge during cross e3amination de#rived Mana!o ofhis constitutiona! rights.

0e!d: EATI;E.

A tria! 1udge is accorded reasona"!e !eeway in #utting such $uestions to witnesses as may "eessentia! to e!icit re!evant facts and to ma*e the record s#ea* the truth. In such an e4ort& a 1udgemay e3amine or cross5e3amine a witness. 0e may see* to draw out re!evant and materia!


4/33

testimony though that testimony may tend to su##ort or re"ut the #osition ta*en "y one or theother #arty.

In the #resent case& the tria! 1udge did not transgress the #ermissi"!e !imits of 1udicia! in$uiry. Ita##ears that the 1udge mere!y sought to c!arify to himse!f whether or not treachery and evident#remeditation had indeed attended the *i!!ing of A!fredo de!a Cru,& as a!!eged "y the #rosecutionA!! that the $uestions #ro#ounded "y the 1udge indicates that he was not #articu!ar!y s*i!!fu! incross5e3amination and that he found it di'cu!t to o#erationa!i,e words which themse!vesim#orted conc!usions. Fina!!y& the $uestions #osed "y the tria! 1udge did not u!timate!y im#oseany #re1udice u#on Mana!o. The $uestions raised "y the tria! 1udge sought to draw forth answerswhich did not re!ate to whether or not Mana!o had in fact *i!!ed de!a Cru,. Mana!o had not on!yentered an inte!!igent and va!id #!ea of gui!tyH that he had *i!!ed his fe!!ow convict de!a Cru, wasesta"!ished "y inde#endent and overwhe!ming evidence.

-illalon vs. "#C$ %R &3&'1$ !ep. /, )8(

Facts: A civi! case for annu!ment of a deed of sa!e& among others& was 2!ed "y eva! et a! againstAtty. ;i!!a!on. Previous!y& eva! et a! a!so 2!ed a dis"arment #roceeding against Atty. ;i!!a!on.6uring the tria! of the civi! case& Atty. ;i!!a!on introduced in evidence some of eva! et a!9stestimonies in the dis"arment #roceeding which were a!!eged!y inconsistent with their

testimonies in the civi! case for the #ur#ose of im#eaching their testimonies. The tria! courtgranted the Motion to tri*e 2!ed "y eva! et a! on the ground that its admission wou!d vio!atethe con2dentia!ity of dis"arment #roceedingsH and that the same cannot "e waived.

Issue: W( the attorney su"1ect of a dis"arment #roceeding may waive his right to itscon2dentia!ity and thus #resent the inconsistent testimonies therein in a civi! case.

0e!d: AFFI%MATI;E.

+y issuing its (rder to stri*e& the Tria! Court de#rived #etitioners of their right to im#each thecredi"i!ity of their adverse #arties9 witnesses 7granted under ecs. > = of %. ?


5/33

• Mendo,a owned < #arce!s of farm !ots. The !ots were tenanted "y de!a Cru,.

• When de!a Cru, died& his wife c!aimed that she su"rogated her hus"and to the tenancy

rights of her hus"and.• 0owever& she was #revented "y %eyes& Parayao and Mananghaya 7#etitioners8 from

entering the #remises. These #eo#!e were "arangay o'cia!s. They were accused of

interfering with the tenancy re!ationshi#.• The Agrarian Court ordered that the Eufrocina "e restored to the #ossession of the said

farm !ots and ordered %eyes& Parayao and Mananghaya to #ay damages to Eufrocian

so!idari!y.

"ssue5

The #etitioners contend that the evidence #resented "y Eufrocina is insu'cient to ho!d them

accounta"!e. According to them& the A'davit of Eufrocina is not admissi"!e "ecause the a'ant

was not #resented in court for cross5e3amination. Is their contention correctJ

6el5

o. The ru!es on evidence are entire!y not a##!ica"!e to agrarian cases even in su##!etory

character.

We ru!e that the tria! court did not err when it favora"!y considered the a'davits of Eufrocina

and Efren Tecson a!though the a'ants were not #resented and su"1ected to cross5e3amination.

ection = of P.6. o. B@= #rovides that the K%u!es of Court sha!! not "e a##!ica"!e in agrarian

cases even in a su##!etory character.K The same #rovision states that KIn the "earing&

investigation and determination of any $uestion or controversy& a'davits and counter5a'davits

may "e a!!owed and are admissi"!e in evidence.K

People v. 7urco

4ocrine5 Admissi"i!ity of evidence is di4erent from the #ro"ative or weight of evidence.

• %odege!io Turco& Lr. 7Turco8 was charged for a!!eged!y ra#ing his second cousin& < year5o!d

Esce!ea Ta"ada 7Ta"ada8.

• 0e !ured Ta"ada from her house& then covered her face with a towe! and #!aced his right

hand on her nec*& and too* her to a grassy area& where he forced himse!f on her.

Afterwards& he threated to *i!! her if she to!d anyone.

• The tria! court ru!ed against Turco and sentenced him to su4er the #ena!ty of rec!usion

#er#etua and to #ay damages to Ta"ada.

• Turco argued that his conviction is not su##orted "y #roof "eyond reasona"!e dou"t

considering that other than the written statement of Ta"ada "efore the Po!ice tation and

"efore the C!er* of Court of the tria! court& and her testimony during direct e3amination&no other evidence was #resented to conc!usive!y #rove that there was ever ra#ed at a!!H

that nothing in Ta"ada9s testimony c!ear!y and convincing!y shows that she was a"!e to

identify Turco as her ra#ist& since her face had "een covered with a towe!H and that no

actua! #rrof was #resented that the ra#e actua!!y ha##ened since the medico5!ega! o'cer

who #re#ared the medica! certi2cate was not #resented in court to e3#!ain the same.

"ssue5


6/33

Turco argued that since the medico5!ega! o'cer was not #resented& the medica! certi2cate issued

"y the !atter cannot "e admitted as evidence. Is his contention correctJ

6el5

o.

In Peo#!e vs. +erna!de, 7su#ra8& the court a $uo erred in giving weight to the medica! certi2cate

issued "y the e3amining #hysician des#ite the fai!ure of the !atter to testify. Whi!e the certi2cate

cou!d "e admitted as an e3ce#tion to the hearsay ru!e since entries in o'cia! records 7under

ection @@& %u!e ?& %u!es of Court8 constitute e3ce#tions to the hearsay evidence ru!e& since it

invo!ved an o#inion of one who must 2rst "e esta"!ished as an e3#ert witness& it cou!d not "e

given weight or credit un!ess the doctor who issued& it cou!d not "e given weight or credit un!ess

the doctor who issued it is #resented in court to show his $ua!i2cations. We #!ace em#hasis on

the distinction "etween admissi"i!ity "y evidence and the #ro"ative va!ue thereof. Evidence is

admissi"!e when it is re!evant to the issue and is not e3c!uded "y the !aw or the !aw or the ru!es

7ection ?& %u!e >8.

Witha!& a!though the medica! certi2cate is an e3ce#tion to the hearsay ru!e& hence admissi"!e as

evidence& it has very !itt!e #ro"ative va!ue due to the a"sence of the e3amining #hysician.

everthe!ess& it cannot "e said that the #rosecution re!ied so!e!y on the medica! certi2cate

7stating that there was -hGymen ru#ture& secondary to #eni!e insertion as we!! as -fou!5sme!!ing

discharges. The diagnosis was -rGu#tured hymen secondary to ra#e #. =& %ecordG8. In fact&

re!iance was made on the testimony of the victim herse!f which& standing a!one even without

medica! e3amination& is su'cient to convict 7#eo#!e vs. To#aguen& ?=B C%A = BBG8. It is

we!!5sett!ed that a medica! e3amination is not indis#ensa"!e in the #rosecution of ra#e 7Peo#!e

vs. )aca"a& .%. o. ?>B& ovem"er & BBBH Peo#!e vs. a!a,ar& C%A >> BB=GH

Peo#!e vs. ;enera"!e& su#ra8. It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the court that

conviction is #ro#er 7Peo#!e vs. Au3tero& su#ra8. In the instant case& the victim9s testimony a!one

is credi"!e and su'cient to convict.


7/33

#usin v. Cour o #ppeals

4ocrine5 (rdering a #erson to undergo 6A testing is not against that #erson9s right against

se!f5incrimination.

*acs5

• %es#ondents Fe Ange!a and her son Martin Pro!!amante sued Martin9s a!!eged "io!ogica!

father& #etitioner Arne! ). Agustin& for su##ort and su##ort #endente !ite "efore the%egiona! Tria! Court 7%TC8 of Nue,on City& +ranch =.>G

• In their com#!aint& res#ondents a!!eged that Arne! courted Fe in BB


8/33

%anaan v. "nermeiae #ppellae Cour

4ocrine5 E3tension of te!e#hones cannot "e considered devices used for wireta#s. Therefore&

any evidence o"tained through such medium is admissi"!e under %A @7c8

and 7d8 shou!d "e then restricted on!y to those !isted in the Inventory and shou!d not "e

construed as to com#rehend a!! other o"!igations of the decedent. The ru!e that R#articu!ari,ation

fo!!owed "y a genera! e3#ression wi!! ordinari!y "e restricted to the formerK is "ased on the fact in

human e3#erience that usua!!y the minds of #arties are addressed s#ecia!!y to the

#articu!ari,ation& and that the genera!ities& though "road enough to com#rehend other 2e!ds if

they stood a!one& are used in contem#!ation of that u#on which the minds of the #arties are

centered. 70o4man v. Eastern Wisconsin %.& etc.& Co.& ?@ Wis. =?& =H > W ??& cited in

Francisco& %evised %u!es of Court 7Evidence8& B? ed.& ##. 5.Q


9/33

0ence& the #hrase Qdevice or arrangementQ in ection of %A o. @& interce#tion& has not

occurred.Q

In the same case& the Court further ru!ed that the conduct of the #arty wou!d di4er in no way if

instead of re#eating the message he he!d out his hand5set so that another cou!d hear out of it

and that there is no distinction "etween that sort of action and #ermitting an outsider to use an

e3tension te!e#hone for the same #ur#ose.

Furthermore& it is a genera! ru!e that #ena! statutes must "e construed strict!y in favor of the

accused. Thus& in case of dou"t as in the case at "ar& on whether or not an e3tension te!e#hone

is inc!uded in the #hrase Qdevice or arrangementQ& the #ena! statute must "e construed as not

inc!uding an e3tension te!e#hone.

!alceora:ez v. Cour o #ppeals

4ocrine5 Dnder %.A. @


10/33

Teresita 2!ed an o"1ection/comment to %afae!9s ora! o4er of evidence& assai!ing the admissi"i!ity

in evidence of the cassette ta#es. Can her o"1ection "e sustainedJ

6el5

es. The evidence #resented are inadmissi"!e "y virtue of %A @


11/33

First !egis!ative intent is determined #rinci#a!!y from the !anguage of a statute. Where the

!anguage of a statute is c!ear and unam"iguous& the !aw is a##!ied according to its e3#ress

terms& and inter#retation wou!d "e resorted to on!y where a !itera! inter#retation wou!d "e either

im#ossi"!e or a"sur" or wou!d !ead to an in1ustice. <

ection I of %.A& @


12/33

At has "een said that innocent #eo#!e have nothing to fear from their conversations "eing

overheard. +ut this statement ignores the usua! nature of conversations as we!! as the

undenia"!e fact that most& if not a!!. civi!i,ed #eo#!e have some as#ects of their !ives they do not

wish to e3#ose. Free conversations are often characteri,ed "y e3aggerations& o"scenity&

agreea"!e fa!sehoods& and the e3#ression of anti5socia! desires of views not intended to "e ta*en

serious!y. The right to the #rivacy of Communication& among others& has e3#ress!y "een assured

"y our Constitution& eed!ess to state here& the framers of our Constitution must have

recogni,ed the nature of conversations "etween individua!s and the signi2cance of manKs

s#iritua! nature. of his fee!ings and of his inte!!ect. They must have *nown that #art of the

#!easures and satisfactions of !ife are to "e found in the unaudited& and free e3change of

communication "etween individua!s55555 free from every 1usti2a"!e intrusion "y whatever means.Q

Rule 129 ;


13/33

The cityKs evidence on this #oint is E3hi"it E& the certi2cation of the Chairman& Committee on

A##ro#riations of the Munici#a! +oard. That document recites that the amount of P&.&

had "een set aside in (rdinance @>==& the B===. The reason "eing that the city charter of Mani!a re$uires a!!

courts sitting therein to ta*e 1udicia! notice of a!! ordinances #assed "y the munici#a! "oard of

Mani!a. And& (rdinance @>== itse!f con2rms the certi2cation aforesaid that an a##ro#riation of

P&. was set aside for the Qconstruction of additiona! "ui!dingQ of the E#ifanio de !os

antos E!ementary choo!.

Furthermore& defendantsK #osition is vu!nera"!e to assau!t from a third direction. 6efendants

have a"so!ute!y no right to remain in the #remises. The e3cuse that they have #ermits from the

mayor is at "est imsy. The #ermits to occu#y are revoca"!e on thirty dayKs notice. They have

"een as*ed to !eaveH they refused to heed. It is in this factua! "ac*ground that we say that the

cityKs need for the #remises is unim#ortant. The cityKs right to throw defendants out of the area

cannot "e gainsaid. The cityKs dominica! right to #ossession is #aramount. If error there was in

the 2nding that the city needs the !and& such error is harm!ess and wi!! not 1ustify reversa! of the

1udgment "e!ow.

=auio v. -a. 4e Jalaa

4ocrine5 A court may ta*e 1udicia! cogni,ance of the 2na!ity of 1udgment rendered "y the same

court in a di4erent case.

*acs5

• The case started with a com#!aint for the $uieting of tit!e to rea! #ro#erty 2!ed "y a"rie!

+aguio.

• Teo2!a La!agat& et a!. 2!ed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is

"arred "y #rior 1udgment& "eing identica! to a civi! case 2!ed "y +aguio against Me!ecioMa!agat& now deceased and whose !ega! heirs and successors in interest are the very

defendants in the instant com#!aint.

• +aguio a!!eged that for #rior 1udgment or res judicata to su'ce as a "asis for dismissa! it

must "e a##arent on the fact of the com#!aint. There was nothing in the com#!aint from

which such a conc!usion may "e inferred.

"ssues5


14/33

In ru!ing that there is res 1udicata in this case& the court too* 1udicia! cogni,ance of the fact that

its 1udgment in another case invo!ving the same #arties& issues& and causes of action has

"ecome 2na! and e3ecutory. Is the court correct in ta*ing 1udicia! cogni,anceJ

6el5

es. A court may ta*e 1udicia! cogni,ance of the 2na!ity of 1udgment rendered "y the same court

in a di4erent case.

It ought to "e c!ear even to a##e!!ant that under the circumstances& the !ower court certain!y

cou!d ta*e 1udicia! notice of the 2na!ity of a 1udgment in a case that was #revious!y #ending and

thereafter decided "y it. That was a!! that was done "y the !ower court in decreeing the

dismissa!. Certain!y such an order is not contrary to !aw. A citation from the comments of former

Chief Lustice Moran is re!evant. Thus: QCourts have a!so ta*en 1udicia! notice of #revious cases to

determine whether or not the case #ending is a moot one or whether or not a #revious ru!ing is

a##!ica"!e in the case under consideration.Q

There is another e$ua!!y com#e!!ing consideration. A##e!!ant undou"ted!y had recourse to a

remedy which under the !aw then in force cou!d "e avai!ed of. It wou!d have served the cause of

1ustice "etter& not to mention the avoidance of need!ess e3#ense on his #art and the ve3ation towhich a##e!!ees were su"1ected if he did reect a !itt!e more on the matter. Then the va!ua"!e

time of this Tri"una! wou!d not have "een frittered away on a use!ess and ho#e!ess a##ea!. It has

ever "een the guiding #rinci#!e from A!onso v. ;i!!amor& a B decision& that a !itigant shou!d

not "e a!!owed to worshi# at the a!tar of technica!ity.

Prieo v. #rroyo

4ocrine5 As a genera! ru!e& courts are not authori,ed to ta*e 1udicia! notice of the cases

#ending "efore them& or the contents of other cases& even when such cases have "een tried or

are #ending in the same court& and notwithstanding the fact that "oth cases may have "een

tried or are actua!!y #ending "efore the same 1udge.

*acs5

Arroyo r. Fi!ed a #etition for registration of severa! #arce!s of !and in B@. As a resu!t&

(CT no. ?B was issued in his name. That same year& Prieto 2!ed a #etition for registration

of an ad1oining #arce! of !and.

When Arroyos r. died& (CT ?B was cance!!ed and a TCT was issued in the name of his

heirs.

Thereafter& the heirs 2!ed a case to correct the technica! descri#tions of the !and covered

"y the TCT.

The court granted the said #etition.

Prieto then sought to annu! the aforesaid decision& however this was dismissed "y the

court on the ground of res 1udicata.

"ssue5


15/33

Prieto contends that the court shou!d not have dismissed his 2rst case for annu!ment "ecause no

-#aro!e evidence need "e ta*en to su##ort it& the matters therein a!!eged "eing #art of the

records of the cases& which are we!! within the 1udicia! notice and cogni,ance of the court. 0e

a!so contends that there is no res 1udicata in this case. Is his contention correctJ

6el5

o.

In the 2rst #!ace& as a genera! ru!e courts are not authori,ed to ta*e 1udicia! notice& in the

ad1udication of cases #ending "efore them& of the contents of other cases& even when such cases

have "een tried or are #ending in the same court& and notwithstanding the fact that "oth cases

may have "een tried or are actua!!y #ending "efore the same 1udge 7Munici#a! Counci! of an

Pedro& )aguna& et a!.& vs. Co!egio de an Lose& et a!.& => Phi!.& ?8. econd!y& if a##e!!ant had

rea!!y wanted the court to ta*e 1udicia! notice of such records he shou!d have #resented the

#ro#er re$uest or manifestation to that e4ect instead of sending& "y counse!& a te!egra#hic

motion for #ost#onement of hearing& which the court correct!y denied. Fina!!y& the #oint raised "y

counse! is now academic& as no a##ea! was ta*en from the order dismissing his 2rst #etition& and

said order had !ong "ecome 2na! when the com#!aint in the #resent action was 2!ed. The contention that the causes of action in the two suits are di4erent is untena"!e.

+oth are "ased on the a!!eged nu!!ity of #ecia! Proceedings o. BH in "oth a##e!!ant see*s that

the order of correction of the tit!e of a##e!!ees "e set aside. (f no materia! signi2cance is the fact

that in the com#!aint in the instant case there is an e3#ress #rayer for reconveyance of some

> s$uare meters of !and& ta*en from a##e!!ant as a resu!t of such correction of tit!e. For that

area wou!d necessari!y have reverted to a##e!!ant had his 2rst #etition #ros#ered& the re!ief

as*ed for "y him "eing that Qthe %egister of 6eeds of Camarines ur "e ordered to amend

Certi2cate of Tit!e o. ??< "y incor#orating therein on!y and so!e!y the descri#tion of )ot o. => and maintaining conse$uent!y the

descri#tion !imits and area of the ad1oining !and of the herein #etitioner& )ot o. ?& P!an Psu5

>


16/33

"ssue5

Whether or not the court shou!d ac*now!edge the marriage of y Oiat and ao Oee.

6el 5

o& the court shou!d not recogni,e the said marriage. It was to!d that y Oiat and ao Oee married

in China. According to Artic!e < of the Civi! Code& customs must "e #roven in order for it to "e

admissi"!e as evidence. 0owever& ao Oee9s #arty fai!ed to esta"!ish such customs "inding

"etween the re!ationshi# of y Oiat and ao Oee. Therefore& the marriage of y Oiat and ao Oee

cannot "e recogni,ed for there is no #roof of its e3istence.

In the a"sence of such #roof& the foreign !aw is #resumed to "e the same as Phi!i##ine !aw.

Therefore& a##!ying Phi!i##ine !aw& ao Oee9s marriage is void "ecause of non5com#!iance the

essentia! and forma! re$uisites of marriage.

7a+uena v. Cour o #ppeals

4ocrine5 There are e3ce#tions to the ru!e that the court cannot ta*e 1udicia! notice of contents

of other cases #ending "efore it.

*acs5

• In B?& an action for recovery of ownershi# of a #arce! of residentia! !and in Ma*ato&

A*!an& was 2!ed in the %TC of A*!an "y the estate of A!fredo Ta"erni!!a against Lose

Ta"uena. The tria! court found that the !ot was so!d "y Luan Pera!ta& Lr. to Ta"erni!!a whi!e

they were in the Dnited tates.

• Pera!ta9s mother conveyed the !and to Ta"erni!!a u#on the !atter9s return. At the same

time& she as*ed to "e a!!owed to stay thereon as she had "een !iving there a!! her !ife.

• Ta"erni!!a agreed #rovided she #aid the rea!ty ta3es on the #ro#erty& which she did. D#on

her death& Ta"uena& the ha!f5"rother of Pera!ta& too* #ossession of the #ro#erty. 0e refused

demands made Ta"erni!!a to surrender the #ro#erty& c!aiming it as his won.

• The tria! court ru!ed for the estate and ordered Ta"uena to vacate the #ro#erty.

• Ta"uena #rotested that the tria! court erred in ta*ing cogni,ance of documents which had

never "een forma!!y su"mitted in evidence and in considering the #roceedings in another

case invo!ving the same #arties "ut a di4erent #arce! of !and in reso!ving the ownershi# of

the su"1ect !ot.

"ssues5

Whether or not the tria! court erred in ta*ing 1udicia! notice of Ta"uena9s testimony in Civi! Case

o. ?


17/33

notwithstanding the fact that "oth cases may have "een heard or are actua!!y #ending "efore the

same 1udge.Q everthe!ess& it a##!ied the e3ce#tion that:

. . . in the a"sence of o"1ection& and as a matter of convenience to a!! #arties& a court may

#ro#er!y treat a!! or any #art of the origina! record of a case 2!ed in its archives as read into the

record of a case #ending "efore it& when& with the *now!edge of the o##osing #arty& reference is

made to it for that #ur#ose& "y name and num"er or in some other manner "y which it is

su'cient!y designatedH or when the origina! record of the former case or any #art of it& is actua!!y

withdrawn from the archives "y the courtKs direction& at the re$uest or with the consent of the#arties& and admitted as a #art of the record of the case then #ending.

It is c!ear& though& that this e3ce#tion is a##!ica"!e on!y when& Qin the a"sence of o"1ection&Q

Qwith the *now!edge of the o##osing #arty&Q or Qat the re$uest or with the consent of the

#arties&Q the case is c!ear!y referred to or Qthe origina! or #art of the records of the case are

actua!!y withdrawn from the archivesQ and Qadmitted as #art of the record of the case then

#ending.Q These conditions have not "een esta"!ished here. (n the contrary& the #etitioner was

com#!ete!y unaware that his testimony in Civi! Case o. ?


18/33

wanted to save face in the community where every"ody *nows every"ody e!se& and in an e4ort

to concea! her daughterKs indiscretion and esca#e the wagging tongues of their sma!! rura!

community& she had to weave the scenario of this ra#e drama.


19/33

=an@ o


20/33

Calam+a !eel v. C"R

4ocrine5

*acs5

• Petitioner 2!ed an Amended Cor#orate Annua! Income Ta3 %eturn on Lune @& BB=

dec!aring a net ta3a"!e income of PB&@=&>B.& ta3 credits of P=&@&>B..

• Petitioner a!so re#orted $uarter!y #ayments for the second and third $uarters of BB> in

the amounts of PB&=. re#resenting e3cess or unused credita"!e withho!ding ta3es for the year

BB>. The instant #etition was su"se$uent!y 2!ed on A#ri! & BB.

"ssue5

The so!e issue su"mitted for oGur determination is whether or not #Getitioner is entit!ed to the

refund of P?&>B&=. re#resenting e3cess or over#aid income ta3 for the ta3a"!e year BB>.

6el5

Fifth& the CA and CTA cou!d have ta*en 1udicia! notice of the BB= nal adjustment return which

had "een attached in CTA Case o. >BB. -Ludicia! notice ta*es the #!ace of #roof and is of e$ua!

force.

As a genera! ru!e& courts are not authori,ed to ta*e 1udicia! notice of the contents of records in

other cases tried or #ending in the same court& even when those cases were heard or are

actua!!y #ending "efore the same 1udge. 0owever& this ru!e admits of e3ce#tions& as when

reference to such records is su'cient!y made without o"1ection from the o##osing #arties:

U-. . . IGn the a"sence of o"1ection& and as a matter of convenience to a!! #arties& a court may

#ro#er!y treat a!! or any #art of the origina! record of a case 2!ed in its archives as read into the

record of a case #ending "efore it& when& with the *now!edge of the o##osing #arty& reference is

made to it for that #ur#ose& "y name and num"er or in some other manner "y which it is

su'cient!y designatedH or when the origina! record of the former case or any #art of it& is actua!!y

withdrawn from the archives "y the courtKs direction& at the re$uest or with the consent of the

#arties& and admitted as a #art of the record of the case then #ending.9

Prior to rendering its 6ecision on Lanuary


21/33

CTA cou!d have easi!y ta*en 1udicia! notice of the contested document attached in that other

case.

Furthermore& there was no o"1ection raised to the inc!usion of the said BB= nal adjustment

return in #etitioner9s %e#!y to Comment "efore the CA. 6es#ite c!ear reference to that return& a

reference made with the *now!edge of res#ondent& the !atter sti!! fai!ed to controvert #etitioner9s

c!aim. The a##e!!ate court shou!d have cast aside strict technica!ities and decided the case on

the "asis of such uncontested return. ;eri!y& it had the authority to -ta*e 1udicia! notice of its

records and of the facts thatG the record esta"!ishes.

ection < of %u!e


22/33


23/33

Lucio v. Calupian

4ocrine5 The who!e modern tendency is to treat #!eadings as statements of the rea! issues in

the cause and hence as admissions of the #arties& having weight according to the circumstances

in each case.

*acs5

• ome chatte!s and rea! estate "e!onging to )eonardo )ucido were regu!ar!y so!d at an

e3ecution sa!e on Fe"ruary & B?& to one %osa!es& who the ne3t day transferred a V

interest in the #ro#erty to o!aivar.

• (n March ?& B?& a!! the #arties and e!asio Ca!u#itan e3ecuted and signed a #u"!ic

document wherein %osa!es and o!aiver& with )ucido9s consent& so!d a!! their rights and

o"!igations over the #ro#erty to Ca!u#tan for the amount of the #urchase #rice with X

interest #er month u# to the time of redem#tion.

• (n the same day& )ucido and Ca!u#itan e3ecuted a document where"y Ca!u#itan certi2ed

that he had ceded to )ucido a!! the irrigated !ands unti! such time as he may re#urchase

said !ands from Ca!u#itan& as we!! as some of the chatte!s.

• Their agreement is to #ermit three who!e years to e!a#se from the date of the instrument

"efore )ucido may re#urchase the !and.

• The tria! court he!d that the document consituted a sa!e with the right to conventiona!

redem#tion& and that the redem#tion #eriod had not e3#ired.

• It further found that )ucido had #rior to the institution of the action o4ered the redem#tion

#rice to Ca!u#itan& who refused it& and that this o4er was a su'cient com#!iance with

Artic!e >? of the Civi! Code.

• Ca!u#itan c!aims that the transaction invo!ved a sa!e to him of the rights of the e3ecution

#urchasers to the #ro#erty. Therefore& the redem#tion #eriod shou!d on!y "e within one

year from the date of the sa!e. 6oBever, in & Code Civ. Proc.8 Were this the nature of

the transaction "etween the #arties& however& the intervention of )ucido in the transfer wou!d "e

who!!y unnecessary. 0ence& the fact that he intervened as an interested #arty is at !east some

indication that the #arties intended something more or di4erent "y the document in $uestion

than a sim#!e assignment of the rights and o"!igations of the e3ecution #urchasers to a third

#erson.


24/33

Any dou"t& however& as to the character of this transaction is removed "y the agreement entered

into "etween )ucido and Ca!u#itan on the same day. In this document it is distinct!y sti#u!ated

that the right to redeem the #ro#erty is #reserved to )ucido& to "e e3ercised after the e3#iration

of three years. The right to re#urchase must necessari!y im#!y a former ownershi# of the

#ro#erty.

Further indication that Ca!u#itan himse!f considered this transaction as a sa!e with the right to

conventiona! redem#tion is to "e found in his origina! answer to the com#!aint. This origina!

answer was introduced in evidence "y the #!ainti4 over the o"1ection of the defendant. Itsadmission was #ro#er& es#ecia!!y in view of the fact that it was signed "y Ca!u#itan himse!f& who

was at the time acting as his own attorney.

Lones on Evidence 7secs. et se$. of the Civi! Code.

It further a##ears from the uncontradicted testimony of the #!ainti4 that he furnished Y


25/33

7orres v. Cour o #ppeals

4ocrine5 The amended com#!aint ta*es #!ace of the origina!. Therefore& the admissions made

in the origina! #!eading& su#erseded "y the amended com#!aint wi!! "e considered e3tra1udicia!

admission that must "e a!!eged and #roven in court.

*acs5

• Margarita Torres was married to C!aro anti!!an& and they had two chi!dren: ;icente and

Antonina. Antonina married and had si3 chi!dren.

• After the death of her hus"and& Margarita coha"ited with )eon Arvisu Ar"o!e without the

"ene2t of marriage& and they had a chi!d& Macaria Torres. u"se$uent!y& Ar"o!e and

Margarita were married& and Macaria !ived with and was reared "y her #arents.

• )ot >> had "een !eased tem#orari!y "y the overnment to Margarita who was the actua!

occu#ant of the !ot. (n 6ecem"er ?& B& the 6irector of )ands issued to Margarita a

a!e Certi2cate over said !ot& #aya"!e in ?& a"out


26/33

incorrect conc!usion in ad1udicating the entire share of Margarita Torres in the con1uga! #ro#erty

so!e!y to ;icente anti!!an and the heirs of Antonina anti!!an.Q 7Ita!ics ours8

As we understand it #etitioner has conceded& with which we concur& that& without ta*ing account

of the sworn statement of March >& B?& she cannot "e considered a !egitimated chi!d of her

#arents. Continuous #ossession of the status of a. natura! chi!d& fact of de!ivery "y the mother&

etc. wi!! not amount to automatic recognition& "ut an action for com#u!sory recognition is sti!!

necessary& which action may "e commenced on!y during the !ifetime of the #utative #arents&

su"1ect to certain e3ce#tions.

The admission adverted to a##ears in #aragra#h ? of #rivate res#ondentsK origina! com#!aint in

the E1ectment Case reading:

Qthe #!ainti4s and the defendant Macaria A. +autista are the !ega! heirs and nearest of *ins of

Margarita Torres& who died in Tan,a& Cavite on 6ecem"er & .. It& however& a!! remained unheeded.


27/33

Thus& #etitioner 2!ed a Com#!aint for sum of money maintaining that res#ondents acted in "ad

faith in withho!ding the amount of the de#osit without any 1usti2a"!e reason. In their Answer&

res#ondents countered that #etitioner caused #hysica! damage to the !eased #remises and the

cost of re#air and re#!acement of materia!s amounted to more than P>&..

The %TC issued a Pre5tria! (rder in which res#ondent admitted that there is no inventory of

damages. The res#ondents !ater o4ered an inventory which was admitted "y the said tria! court.

The %TC ru!ed favora"!y for the #etitioner. The CA reversed said decision.

IDE:

Whether a 1udicia! admission is conc!usive and "inding u#on a #arty ma*ing the admission.

0E)6:

es.

("vious!y& it was on CoronadoKs testimony& as we!! as on the documentary evidence of an a!!eged

#ro#erty inventory conducted on Lune @& BB& that the CA "ased its conc!usion that the amount

of damage sustained "y the !eased #remises whi!e in the #ossession of #etitioner e3ceeded the

amount of #etitionerKs de#osit. This contradicts the 1udicia! admission made "y res#ondentsK

counse! which shou!d have "een "inding on the res#ondents.

ection @& %u!e


28/33

#lvarez vs. Ramirez

%RN 1/3/39

!anoval %uierrez, J.$

*#C7!5

Petition for review on certiorari assai!ing the decision of the CA for a!!owing the testimonyof #etitioner9s wife in a crimina! #roceeding where #etitioner was accused for ransom. Private#rosecutor in the said crimina! case ca!!ed the #etitioner9s wife without o"1ection from#etitioner9s counse!. Wife testi2ed that it was her estranged hus"and who #oured and set thehouse of her sister on 2re. A motion to dis$ua!ify the testimony of his wife was 2!ed #ursuant toru!es on martia! dis$ua!i2cation.

IDE:

Whether or not the wife can testify against her hus"and in a crimina! case.

%D)I:

The reason for the ru!e on martia! dis$ua!i2cation are:

. There is identity of interests "etween hus"and and wifeH


29/33

AP) sued 6asmariSas arments for sum of money at the hearing. Instead of #resenting itswitness& AP) 2!ed a motion #raying that it intended to ta*e the de#ositions of some Taiwannationa!s. The !ower court granted the de#osition which was in com#!iance with the ru!es onta*ing of testimony "y de#osition u#on written interrogatories under %(C. CA a'rmed.

IDE:

Whether or not a #arty cou!d #resent its evidence "y ta*ing the de#osition of its witness in

a foreign 1urisdiction "efore a #rivate entity.

%D)I:

6e#ositions are chiey a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to com#e!disc!osure of facts resting in the *now!edge of a #arty or other #erson which are re!evant in somesuit or #roceeding in court. 6e#ositions are #rinci#a!!y made "y !aw to the #arties as a means ofinforming themse!ves of a!! the re!evant factsH they are not therefore genera!!y meant to "e asu"stitute for the actua! testimony in o#en court of a #arty witness. )eave of court is notnecessary where the de#osition is to "e ta*en "efore a secretary or em"assy or !egation& consu!gen. etc.& and the defendants answer has a!ready "een served.

6e#ositions may "e ta*en at any time after the institution of any action& whenevernecessary or convenient. There is no ru!e that !imits de#osition. Ta*ing on!y to the #eriod of #re5tria! or "efore itH no #rohi"ition against the ta*ing of de#osition after #re5tria!Z the !awauthori,es the ta*ing of de#ositions "efore or after an a##ea! is ta*en from the 1udgment of %TC-to #er#etuate their testimony for use in event of further #roceedings in courtZ or during the#rocess of e3ecution of a 2na! and e3ecutor 1udgment.

Jona


30/33

evidence& that& with reasona"!e di!igence&. The aggrieved #arty cou!d not have discovered and#roduced at the tria!H ?8 and that if #resented& wou!d #ro"a"!y a!ter the resu!t.8

A de#osition may "e ta*en with !eave of court after 1urisdiction has "een o"tained overany defendant or over #ro#erty that is the su"1ect of the actionH or without such !eave after ananswer has "een served. In *ee#ing with the #rinci#!e of #romoting the 1ust& s#eedy andine3#ensive dis#osition of every action and #roceeding& de#ositions are a!!owed as a de#arturefrom the acce#ted and usua! 1udicia! #roceedings of e3amining witness in o#en court wheredemeanor cou!d "e o"served "y the tria! 1udge.

As a ru!e& de#ositions shou!d "e a!!owed a"sent any showing that ta*ing them wou!d#re1udice any #arty.

Lec. Private res#ondentcontended that the same !and in $uestion was "ought "y their father from the father of #etitionerin B@. P!ainti49s vendor testi2ed for the defendant stating that she so!d the south #art of the!and which is !ot >>@>= which #!ainti4 c!aims.

IIDE:

Whether or not the court of a##ea!s erred in considering& #aro! evidence over the o"1ectionof #etitioner.

%D)I:

The a##e!!ate court acted correct!y in u#ho!ding the tria! court9s action in admitting thetestimony of )eoncia. Petitioner a!!eges that !ot >>>. R4R"%E%.R. No. 1(/32(, co+er 1&, 2008


31/33

*#C7!5Petitioner eaoi! Petro!eum Cor#oration #urchased one unit of %(+E[


32/33

insu'cient #ayment& c!aiming that he was su##osed to receive P&


33/33

#!eadings& "y ora! or written sti#u!ation& ZG which un!ess a!!owed to "e withdrawn are

conc!usive.Q 7Ita!ics su##!ied.8 In fact& Q1udicia! admissions are fre$uent!y those of counse! or of

the attorney of record& who is& for the #ur#ose of the tria!& the agent of his c!ient. When such

admissions are made ZG for the #ur#ose of dis#ensing with #roof of some fact& ZG they "ind

the c!ient& whether made during& or even after& the tria!.

Worth stressing& in this connection& 1udicia! admissions do not re$uire #roof and may not "e

contradicted in the a"sence of a #rior showing that the admissions had "een made through

#a!#a"!e mista*e.

Furthermore& in the case of Toh v. Court of A##ea!s& this Court em#hasi,ed the conse$uence of

admitting and dis#ensing with the testimony of the #ro#osed witness& thus: The Court sees no

cogent reason why the said witness shou!d "e e3amined any further since his testimony as

summari,ed in the o4er made "y counse! was e3#ress!y admitted "y o##osing counse!. With the

said admission& the testimony of said witness is uncontroverted and even admitted as fact "y

o##osing counse!.

Documents

Evidence Digests 01 (2)