EVIDENCE

CASE DIGESTS

Kathryn P. Akmad
Student No. 2012-109470
LLB- 3A

1. TITLE: Salita v. Magtolis 233 SCRA 100

FACTS: Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married and eventually separated in fact. Subsequently,
Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s psychological incapacity which incapacity existed at
the time of the marriage although the same became manifest only thereafter. Dissatisfied with the
allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court granted.
Subsequently, in his Bill of Particulars, Edwin specified that at the time of their marriage, Joselita was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she
was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession that of a newly qualified Doctor
of Medicine, upon his time and efforts so that she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her
even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job. Petitioner was not contented with
the Bill of Particulars. She insists that the allegations in the Bill of Particulars constitute a legal
conclusion, not an averment of ultimate facts, and fail to point out the specific essential marital
obligations she allegedly was not able to perform, and thus render the Bill of Particulars insufficient if not
irrelevant to her husband’s cause of action. She rationalizes that her insistence on the specification of her
particular conduct or behavior with the corresponding circumstances of time, place and person does not
call for information on evidentiary matters because without these details she cannot adequately and
intelligently prepare her answer to the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill
of particulars filed in amplification of the petition is sufficient.

HELD: Ultimate facts refers to acts which the evidence on trial will prove, and not the evidence which
will be required to prove the existence of those facts. These are important and substantial facts which
either directly from the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts
or omission of the defendant. The Supreme Court ruled that on the basis of the allegations, it is evident
that petitioner can already prepare her responsive pleading or for trial. Private respondent has already
alleged that petitioner was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession. To
demand for more details would indeed be asking for information on evidentiary facts. These facts are
necessary to prove essential or ultimate facts. The additional facts called for by petitioner regarding her
particular acts or omissions would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters is not the function of
a motion for bill of particulars.
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error, the instant petition is DENIED and the questioned
Resolution of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
2. TITLE: W-Red Construction and Development Corporation v. CA GR 122648 Aug. 17, 2000

FACTS: On several occasions between May 28, 1980 and May 23, 1981, petitioner W-Red Construction
and Development Corporation purchased from respondent Asia Industries, Inc. various electrical
equipment, covered by eighteen sales invoices. Petitioner was able to pay the sum of P701,877.93,
leaving a balance of P298,183.05, inclusive of interest at the rate of 14% per annum computed as of
January 20, 1982. For petitioner’s failure to settle its remaining obligation despite demands, respondent
instituted on November 8, 1982 an action for sum of money and damages, filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Makati. Petitioner filed its answer, denying receipt of some of the items stated in the sales
invoices and alleging that certain electrical equipment delivered to it were defective or faulty, for which
proper demands for replacement were ignored by respondent. After respondent, as plaintiff therein, rested
its case, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence which, however, was denied by the trial court in an Order
dated August 28, 1991. Petitioner was given opportunity to adduce evidence but it failed to appear at the
several hearings scheduled therefor. The trial court, thus, declared petitioner as having waived its right to
present evidence. The trial court rendered judgment for respondent ordering petitioner to pay Asia
Industries. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner petitions for review
anchoring on the ground that the respondent Court of Appeals as well as the trial court committed a grave
abuse of discretion when they admitted and considered private documents as evidence when said
documents were not authenticated nor identified.
ISSUE: Whether or not the photocopies of the documents are admissible pieces of evidence.
HELD: Yes. Even if only photocopies of documents were submitted to the court, it is not accurate to say
that the original exhibits were not presented where the record shows that the originals of these documents
were presented during the trial.—Petitioner’s claim that the photocopies of the eighteen sales invoices,
marked as Exhibits “A” to “R,” are inadmissible, is untenable. While only photocopies of the documents
are submitted to the court, the record shows that the originals of these documents were presented during
the trial. Hence, it is not accurate to say that the original exhibits were not presented before the trial court.
Notes.—Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule under
Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. (Gobonseng, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472 [1995])
The period for filing an appeal commences from receipt of the duplicate original—not photocopy of the
judgment or order. (Villareal vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 511 [1998])
Photocopies may be admitted for failure of the other party to tender an appropriate objection to their
admission, though their probative value is nil nevertheless. (Security Bank & Trust Company vs. Triumph
Lumber and Construction Corporation, 301 SCRA 537 [1999])

3. TITLE: People v. Valdez 341 SCRA 25

FACTS: Petitioner Arsenio Valdez was found guilty by the lower courts for the violation of RA 9165 by
unlawfully and feloniously planting, cultivating and culturing fully grown marijuana plants known as
Indian Hemp weighing 2.194 kilos, from which dangerous drugs maybe manufactured or derived, to the
damage and prejudice of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Such evidence was found
inside his lot by policemen who conducted a search without warrant due from an unnamed informant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the seized plants admissible in evidence against the accused?
HELD: No, the Supreme Court therefore hold that the confiscated plants were evidently obtained during
an illegal search and seizure. As to the second issue, which involves the admissibility of the marijuana
plants as evidence for the prosecution, we find that said plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search
and seizure, be used as evidence against appellant. They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It was,
therefore, a reversible error on the part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied upon the seized
marijuana plants as evidence to convict appellant.

4. TITLE: People v. Yatar GR 150224

FACTS: On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother’s (Isabel Dawang’s) house, despite
her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other former’s housemate-relatives left in the morning.
At 10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar was seen at the back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed
during said date. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin saw Yatar, who was then wearing a white
shirt with collar and black pants, descended from the second floor and was pacing back and forth at the
back of Isabel Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t find this unusual since Yatar and his wife used to live
therein. At 1:30 PM, Yatar called upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he would not be getting the lumber
he had been gathering. This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black shirt (without collar)
and blue pants; and noticed that the latter’s eyes were “reddish and sharp”. Accused-appellant asked about
the whereabouts of Judilyn’s husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar
immediately left when Judilyn’s husband arrived. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she
found the lights of her house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened, and the containers, which
she asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon ascending the second floor to check whether the
teenage girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the door therein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeeded
opening the tied door with a knife, and as she groped in the darkness of the second level of her house, she
felt Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines protruding out from it. Soon after, police
came to the scene of the crime to provide assistance. Therein, they found Kathylyn’s clothes and
undergarments beside her body. Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with blood was also
found 50-meters away from Isabel’s house. Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon examination of
Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing, results showed that the DNA comprising the
sperm specimen is identical to Yatar’s genotype. Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape
with Homicide and was convicted for the same by the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga.
Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in order to assail the court a quo’s
decision. On appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in giving much weight to the evidence DNA
testing or analysis done on him, in lieu of the seminal fluid found inside the victim’s (cadaver) vaginal
canal; (2) the blood sample taken from is violative of his constitutional right against self-incrimination;
and the conduct of DNA testing is also in violation on prohibition against ex-post facto laws.
ISSUE: Whether or not DNA is considered relevant?
HELD: Yes. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as
long as it was relevant and reliable. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which was three (3) years before the Rules on DNA
evidence took effect.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow as a precedent. In
the said US jurisprudence, it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles
could be used, so long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. Hence, it was called then as the
DAUBERT TEST.

5. TITLE: People v. Galleno GR 123546

FACTS: Evelyn Garganera is the 5-year old daughter of Rosita Garganera who had to leave the province
to find work in Manila after separating from her husband. Evelyn, together with her younger brother,
Eleazar, was left under the care and custody of their uncle, Emetario Obligar, and aunt, Penicola Obligar.
Less than kilometer away from their place of residence lived accused-appellant, 19-year old Joeral
Galleno, known well to Evelyn's family because his frequent visits at the Obligars' home as he was paying
court to Emetario's eldest child, Gina. On August 16, 1994, Emetario and Penicola left their residence to
work at sugarcane plantation owned by Magdalena Dasibar. Their three children had all earlier left for
school. The only persons left in the house were niece Evelyn and nephew Eleazar. At around 4 o'clock in
the afternoon, accused-appellant was on his way to his Lola Esing to have his pants tailored. Since it was
drizzling, he passed by the Obligars' residence and found the two children left to themselves. The
prosecution and the defense presented conflicting versions on what occurred at said residence. However,
the result is undisputed. Evelyn sustained a laceration in her vagina which result in profuse, and to our
mind, life-threatening bleeding due to her tender age. The prosecution's version of what took place at the
Obligars' residence is based on the testimony of Evelyn herself, her uncle Emetario, and the doctors who
examined and treated her.
ISSUE: Whether or not the expert testimony be given weight on rape cases.
HELD: Yes. As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions.—
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is the court’s
duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved (Francisco,
Pleadings and Trial Practice, Vol. I, 1989 ed., pp. 889-890). However, conclusions and opinions of
witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that
either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the
subject matter under observation, or for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a
judgment.