Prelim Exam Assessment Project

G.R. No. 107383

February 20, 1996

CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents.

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

To begin my discussion and in order to answer the questions presented
I would like to start by giving some facts on the case.
This is about a petition for review for a decision made by the Court of
Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch
X). The case is about recovery of some documents that were supposed to be
used by the petitioner as evidence. The documents in question supposedly
contained information on alleged extra-marital activities the herein
petitioners husband was said to have been guilty of. The documents in
question were ordered to be returned, hence the petition.
The case is basically a very short argument and then enforcement of
our Constitutional right to private correspondence as enshrined in
Constitution. I quote;

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable

except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.
-Article 3(Bill of Rights), Section 3, Par. 1 of the 1987
Constitution

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

1. Focal Point
The focal point of the entire case is actually the issue concerning the
admissibility of the evidence. According to the facts of the case the
documents in question were obtained by forcibly opening the drawers and
cabinets where in it was contained.
petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and
in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary,
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157
documents (Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals).
She broke in, no, she ransacked her husbands file cabinets and
drawers in the pursuit of incriminating evidence against him in which she
found and brought to court. The quote the end justifies the means tells us
what is certainly at play here. That the wife so broken by the husbands
infidelity that it should be her right to find out the truth by any means
necessary. Unfortunately for her this premise does not really apply in the
courts of law as it gives too much risk in the overall pursuit of justice that
inevitably it will only end up upholding injustice instead. It is in this specific
portion of the facts presented where the court finds a violation in the process
of acquiring evidence as it clearly and blatantly violates the husbands
Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court in this case has clearly pointed this
out by stating, and I quote;
Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable
simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's
infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
enforced.
There isnt really anything to it except maybe if the wife could have
done things differently in the acquisition of the evidence or maybe even in
the usage of the information within the acquired documents as opposed to
its use as evidence, then maybe things could have turned out better for her.
2. Procedural Errors
It is clear that there are errors indeed made by the petitioners counsel
in this case. The fact that he let the petitioner fight for something that is
based solely and clearly in evidence which is in violation of someone else
constitutional rights is clearly an example. This whole fiasco could have been
avoided if counsel made sure that the actual evidence itself is admissible in
the first place.
That being said, it is worthy to discuss the root of their prayers. Their
argument seems to stem out from another case, Alfredo Martin vs. Alfonso
Felix, Jr.. This case is actually connected to the Zulueta case and is a prequel
to the events of the latter. In that case the evidence was said to have been
admissible and thereby using the documents in question.
3

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

The contention of the petitioner is that because the case of Alfredo
Martin vs. Alfonso Felix, Jr. makes the said documents to be admissible as
evidence. Hence, it should also apply in the Zulueta case as well. The
Supreme Court however did not uphold this argument, I quote;
Petitioner's contention has no merit. The case against Atty. Felix, Jr.
was for disbarment. Among other things, private respondent, Dr. Alfredo
Martin, as complainant in that case, charged that in using the documents in
evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed malpractice or gross misconduct because
of the injunctive order of the trial court.
The error here is the counsels interpretation on the previous ruling in
Martin vs. Felix and applying it. He erred in pointing out the admissibility of
the documents by comparing it to a ruling that is clearly for an utterly
different purpose. The documents were admissible only insofar as the its use
in finding out the validity of the admission from the petitioner in that case.
The Supreme Court clearly pointed this out in the Zulueta case, I quote;
Thus, the acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr. in the administrative case
amounts to no more than a declaration that his use of the documents and
papers for the purpose of securing Dr. Martin's admission as to their
genuiness and authenticity did not constitute a violation of the injunctive
order of the trial court. By no means does the decision in that case establish
the admissibility of the documents and papers in question.

3. Opinions on the Supreme Court Rulings

I truly admire how the Supreme Court handled this case and I
personally agree on the supreme courts use of logic in this current situation.
My admiration stems out from the perspective of the regular onlookers and
the general peoples understanding of the social aspects of the case in
contrast with the honorable courts decision in light of the issues.
The typical reaction of the general public would usually side mostly on
the aggrieved wife and therefore justify any and all acts in pursuit of the
majority definition of fairness and equality. That being said, the Supreme
Courts actions and decisions remain to be neutral and unbiased and in my
opinion, totally conform to logic. Even though it would seem to help the
evil, in this case the husbands infidelity, the Supreme Court remains to
follow the principles and laws the constitution provides.
The Judiciary should remain vigilant in protecting the rights of every
person and should fervently uphold the principles laid down by the laws and
statutes and most importantly with respect to the Constitution no matter
how detrimental it is to the aggrieved. I believe our laws are iron its just that
application usually turns it plastic. If it were purely law and proper
application then it would be just.
Dura Lex, Sed Lex. The law is harsh but such is the law. The greater
good will always prevail and any compromise will inevitably lead to ruin.

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

G.R. No. 110662 August 4, 1994

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROMEO F. ZAMORA, Presiding Judge, Br. 94, Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City and RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ, respondents.

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

I would like to begin this discussion on the case of Ortanez vs. Court of
Appeals with a brief stating of facts and other pertinent matters that will
help in understanding the issues and concerns and also with the answers to
the questions required.
The case is about a complaint filed by Mr. Rafael Ortanez for
annulment of marriage and seeking some damages against the petitioner.
The issue is about on of the exhibits that private respondent Rafael Ortanez
presented, which is 3 audio cassette tapes. These tapes along with other
issues where questioned by the petitioner for its validity. Unfortunately the
lower court and the Court of Appeals allowed the use of these tapes as
evidence, hence the current petition.
The case is basically about errors committed by the lower courts in the
use of evidence in their proceedings.

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

1. Focal Point
In one point of the discussion of the facts of the case, the validity
of Tape Recordings as evidence was assailed by the petitioner. She
alleges that the recordings were not admissible in the case. The
argument stems out from the case filed by the petitioner in which she
seeks for the decision to be reversed. The case is about a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to reverse the
decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 28545
entitled "Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez versus Hon. Romeo F. Zamora,
Presiding Judge, Br. 94, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and Rafael
S. Ortanez".
The only issue regarding the admissibility of evidence is about
the three(3) alleged cassette tapes that were submitted into evidence
by private respondent. However, the Supreme Court in its ruling cited
Republic Act 4200 as basis for its decision on the matter of
admissibility. The law penalizes unconsented recording and in this case
the lower courts did not cite this law in application to its rulings. The
law specifically states, and I quote;
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all
the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any
wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise
described. . . .
Republic Act 4200 "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire
Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of
Communication, and for other purposes.
The Supreme Court ruled that the tapes were in fact inadmissible
and even cited a penalty with it. That being said the Supreme Court
has affirmed its stand in upholding the Bill of Rights as evidenced by
their application of the law. On another note the Constitution, in Article
3, section 3 clearly states:
(1)The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety
or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

(2)Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding Section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In the acquisition of evidence, acts like these cannot be tolerated
for they undermine the very fabric of the concept of justice. These illicit acts
no matter how it may seem to uphold justice cannot be allowed. In the
bigger picture, more would suffer from these techniques rather that benefit
and that is why it is not allowed by our law and in no way will the end justify
the means.
2. Procedural Errors
The lower courts decision in admitting all evidence including the
tape recordings are a clear example of error. Fortunately, the Supreme Court
was able to correct these errors and grabbed the reins and steered the
argument back into its proper course.
According to the facts of the court mistakenly admitted all
evidences including the alleged three(3) cassette tapes containing audio
recordings. The petitioner the filed a case in the Court of Appeals in which
they stated that her petition will have to fail. On the subject of the audio
recordings, the Court of Appeals stated as follows:
Tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. They and any other variant
thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain purposes, depending on how
they are presented and offered and on how the trial judge utilizes them in
the interest of truth and fairness and the even handed administration of
justice.
Here we clearly see that the Court of appeals erred in its
decision. Not only did they not cite the law that applies but they went ahead
and allowed this kind of evidence to be admitted as well. The law is put in
place for a reason, the judiciary cannot simply turn a blind eye to a present
law where they clearly ought to know about. Perhaps the counsels may have
failed to point out but either way they should not play legislators and make
their own rules.
3. Opinions on the Supreme Court Rulings
The Supreme Court in the present case followed through with the
application of the laws and in upholding the Constitutional rights of the
people. They saw the errors and took into consideration the facts on how the
evidence was acquired. The Supreme Court also cited the law which applies
for the current issues.
Also on a logical stand point, the moment they corrected the issue on
the admissibility of evidence they deemed it illogical to push through with
the other issues branching out from the main issue.
We need not address the other arguments raised by the parties,
involving the applicability of American jurisprudence, having arrived at the
conclusion that the subject cassette tapes are inadmissible in evidence
under Philippine law.
As quoted above, the Supreme Court also cited that Philippine Law
reins supreme compared to foreign law. There being no need for further

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

arguments on the issue of juris prudence because of the fact that Philippine
law ended the issue.
On another note, not only did the Supreme Court point out the errors
they also took the liberty of citing the proper penalty. That being said, this
clearly shows that the Supreme Court does not tolerate injustice even if the
lower courts seem to have allowed it in the so called pursuit of justice.

G.R. No. 80505

December 4, 1990

192 SCRA 28
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MARIO TANDOY y LIM, Defendant-Appellant.

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

A brief overview of the case:

This case is an appeal for the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 133 dated October 13, 1987, convicting Mario Tandoy of the crime of violation of Art.
II, Sec. 4 of Rep. Act No. 6425 known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972

A successful buy-bustoperation exercised by the police force

consisting of Lt. Salido, Jr. of the Makati Police Station dispatched Pfc. Herino de la Cruz,
and Detectives Pablo R. Singayan, Nicanor Candolesas, Luisito de la Cruz, Estanislao
Dalumpines, Antonio Manalastas and Virgilio Padua

accused Mario Tandoy.

10

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

and apprehending the herein

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

1. Focal Point
In the present case there was also an instance wherein the
admissibility of evidence was indeed questioned. The evidence being a mere
photocopied or xerox copied P10.00 bill. The accused questions its validity of
the photocopied money and alleges that it is exluded in the best evidence
rule. That is basically the only instance in the case where the admmisibility
of evidence is then questioned.
In response to this issue, the Solicitor General was able to rebut the
defendants argument by citing the following:
The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the
document are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or
not such document was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. (Cf. Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-77;
4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78.)
The Solicitor General alleges that the photocopy in question is merely a
tool in establishing its exsitence and not its contents. The prosection only
needs to present subsidiary evidence, namely the photocopy of the money to
satisfy its intent of it as evidence.
The Supreme Court in this case affirmed the Solicitor Generals
argument by stating that the need for the prosecition to present the buybust money is not necessary as long as marijuana which was acquired by
the buy-bust was also submitted. The marijuana should therefore hold more
weight as compared to the marked money in question, the marijuana being
the property of the accused.

11

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

the trial of the "buy-bust money" was not indispensable to the
conviction of the accused-appellant because the sale of the marijuana had
been adequately proved by the testimony of the police officers. So long as
the marijuana actually sold by the accused-appellant had been submitted as
an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money itself would not
constitute a fatal omission.
2. Procedural Errors
In the present cases it is the accused and his counsel that presented
the error in considering the evidence the alleged to be inadmissible as errors
in the judgement of the lower courts. The prosecution submitted what was
clearly necessary to prove the accused guilt in the selling of marijuana. The
defense in this specific aspect of the case may have erred in pointing it out
but i personally think that the overall aim of such allegation is to remove all
shadows of doubt or to at least satisfy the accused that there is indeed no
way out of his current predicament.
The case was simply about a buy-bust operation that was succcessfull
and alleging small technicalities such as the photocopied buy-bust money
is a futile attempt to maybe waiver the prosecutions defense, which as we all
know was for naught. As to the other points of the case and its issues it is
very unfortunate for the accused to be selling to the wrong person. The
prosecution has all the evidences and all the facts that will prove that Mr.
Mario Tandoy is in fact guilty of selling illegal drugs.
The Supreme Court ruled against the accused in light of these issues
and stated the following:
We are convinced from the evidence on record that the prosecution has
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused-appellant with proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. He must
therefore suffer the penalty prescribed by law for those who would visit the
scourge of drug addiction upon our people.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged decision
AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the accused-appellant.: nad
SO ORDERED
3. Opinions on the Supreme Court Rulings
I agree with the logical and technical approach the Supreme Court took
in this case and have no disagreements whatsoever regarding there take on
the matter.
The Supreme Court in this instance focused more on the issue and the
general facts of the case and not so much on the tiny details in its pursuit of
justice. On the other hand I have mixed feelings toward the issue as I find
buy-bust operations and their evidence a bit loose and open to tampering
and such. Nevertheless, in the light of the case presented the Supreme Court
in this instance and in my opinion logically and justifiably made the right
decisions in the judgement and the overall handling of the case in general,
from its evidences and testimonies and up to its take on the minor issues
presented.
That being said, the Supreme Court did exhaust all means and its
resources taking into consideration the tiny details and by addressing the
issues the defense presented. Even though the evidence alleged to have

12

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law

Prelim Exam Assessment Project

been inadmissible would not even matter seeing that the heavier evidence is
the marijuana itself. That being said, they took the logical approach, and for
minor technicallities justice must not be undermined. On another note, it
would have been easier on the prosecution to just present the evidence
alleged rather that end up bickering over miniscule matters that only
lengthen the issue.
The curse that illegal drugs has wrought upon our country is very
rampant and actions such as these help in culling them from society. The
faster they are behind bars, the better.

13

Arturo M. Navarro III

Holy Name University - College of Law