Compilation of SCRA INDEX January 2015 To December 2018 PDF

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE – RECOLETOS
SCHOOL OF LAW
Cebu City, Philippines
Compilation of Supreme Court Reports Annotated Index

in
Remedial Law
(Evidence)
January 2015- December 2017
In compliance to the course requirements prescribed in Evidence
By:
USJ-R Law Special Class (2019-2020)
of
Atty. Abraham Rey Acosta
EVIDENCE SPECIAL CLASS A.Y. 2019-2020 COMPILATION OF SCRA INDEX (Evidence) January 2015- December 2017
746 SCRA 65, JANUARY 14, 2015

DE GUZMAN VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Same; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; A party may make judicial

admissions in (a) the pleadings; (b) during the trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the judicial
proceeding.-
—“A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings; (b) during the
trial, either by verba
l or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the
judicial proceeding. It is an established principle that judicial admissions
cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds
the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was
made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.”
Since petitioners already judicially admitted that the right of way affects a
number of road lots, they cannot not now claim that it only comprises Road
Lot 15. Their admission is binding on them.
747 SCRA 542, JANUARY 21, 2015

RICALDE VS. PEOPLE
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Child-Witnesses; In a long line of cases, the

Supreme Court (SC) has given full weight and credit to the testimonies of
child victims.-
—In a long line of cases, this court has given full weight and credit to the
testimonies of child victims. Their “[y]outh and immaturity are generally
badges of truth and sincerity.” XXX, then only 10 years old, had no reason
to concoct lies against petitioner. This court has also held that “[l]eeway
should be given to witnesses who are minors, especially when they are
relating past incidents of abuse.” Petitioner contends that XXX did not
categorically say that a penis was inserted into his anal orifice, or that he
saw a penis or any object being inserted into his anal orifice. This
contradicts petitioner’s earlier statement in his appellant’s brief that
“[a]lthough it is true that the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, did not
rule out the possibility of rape in cases where the victim remained physically
intact at the time she or he was physically examined, still, it bears stressing
that in the instant case, the private complainant testified that the accused-
appellant’s penis fully penetrated his anus.”
1
745 SCRA 73, JANUARY 12, 2015

NFF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION VS. G & L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE
Remedial Law; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; By preponderance of

evidence is meant that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,
superior to that of the other side.-
—Sifting through the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence
submitted, the evidence of petitioner preponderantly established that there
was valid delivery of bulk bags, which gives rise to respondent company’s
corresponding obligation to pay therefor. By preponderance of evidence is
meant that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that
of the other side. Essentially, preponderance of evidence refers to the
comparative weight of the evidence presented by the opposing parties. As
such, it has been defined as “the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side,” and is usually considered to be synonymous with
the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible
evidence. It is proof that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief
than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Contrary to respondents’
view, We find that petitioner has successfully established its case.
Accordingly, We give greater weight, credit and value to its evidence.
745 SCRA 98, JANUARY 12, 2015

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. VS. BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP.,
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; Judicial admissions are

legally binding on the party making the admissions.-
—Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the
admissions. Pretrial admission in civil cases is one of the instances of
judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the pretrial order shall
control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting
the issues to be tried.
775 SCRA 326, JANUARY 26, 2015

PEOPLE VS. ZABALA
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Jurisprudence dictates that when the

credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings
are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.-
—Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in issue,
the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the
2
witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high respect, if not
conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the CA,
since it is settled that when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by
the appellate court, these findings are generally binding upon this Court.
We see no reason to depart from this rule.
748 SCRA 574 , JANUARY 28, 2015

PEOPLE VS. PASION
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Full faith and credence

are given to the narration of police officers who testify for the prosecution on
the entrapment or buy-bust operation, because as police officers, they are
presumed to have regularly performed their duties.-
—As the lower courts have, we likewise adhere to the well-entrenched rule
that full faith and credence are given to the narration of police officers who
testify for the prosecution on the entrapment or buy-bust operation,
because as police officers, they are presumed to have regularly performed
their duties. Indeed, the presumption of regularity must prevail over
appellants’ unsubstantiated allegations. This presumption is overturned
only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the officers were not
properly performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper
motive. In this case, there was none.
748 SCRA 429 , JANUARY 28, 2015

EYANA VS. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; It has been oft-repeated that “a

party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial
evidence,” and “any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot
stand as it will offend due process.”-
—It has been oft-repeated that “a party alleging a critical fact must support
his allegation with substantial evidence,” and “any decision based on
unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process.” In
the case at bar, while the petitioner based his claims for full disability
benefits upon the CBA, he presented no more than two unauthenticated
pages of the same. Hence, the CBA deserves no evidentiary weight and
cannot be made as the basis for the award of disability compensation.
Consequently, the first issue raised herein is rendered moot, leaving the
Court to resolve the petition in the light of the provisions of the POEA-SEC
and relevant labor laws.
3
G.R. No. 207257 February 3, 2015

HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR)
vs. HON. TEODORO A. CASIÑO
Remedial Law;Civil Procedure; Judicial Review; View that judicial review of

administrative findings or decisions is justified if the conclusions are not
supported by the required standard of evidence
750 SCRA 26 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. VERGEL DE DIOS
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Civil Service

Examinations; Civil Service Commission (CSC) examiners enjoy a
presumption of regularity in the administration of the civil service
examination (CSE).-
—We also agree with petitioner that the presentation of the room examiners
is not required to prove the observance of the procedure in preparing the
picture seat plan and in implementing the civil service examination. More so
in this case where the supposed mix up in the picture seat plan was proven
wrong by the records. We stress that CSC examiners enjoy a presumption of
regularity in the administration of the civil service examination. We held in
Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, 515 SCRA 48 (2007), that: x x x
Those government employees who prepared the [picture seat plan] and who
supervised the conduct of the Career Service Sub-Professional Examination
on August 5, 1990, enjoy the presumption that they regularly performed
their duties and this presumption cannot be disputed by mere conjectures
and speculations. In the present case, respondent failed to controvert
aforesaid presumption. Thus, the CSC examiners are conclusively deemed
to have regularly performed their duties in relation to the administration of
the civil service examination.
750 SCRA 79 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

PEOPLE VS. DASIGAN
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; The prosecution’s failure to submit in

evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as
required under Article 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, will not render the
accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.-
—This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody
should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always
4
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the

preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as
they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence,
the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.A. No.
9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from
him inadmissible. The chain of custody is not established solely by
compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. The Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of
seized dangerous drugs states: x x x Provided, further, that noncompliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items.
750 SCRA 165 , FEBRUARY 09, 2015

PEOPLE VS. COLENTAVA
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness; The Supreme Court

(SC) has been consistent in giving credence to testimonies of child victims
especially in sensitive cases of rape.-
—It is noteworthy that “AAA” was a minor at the time she was raped. The
Court has been consistent in giving credence to testimonies of child victims
especially in sensitive cases of rape. In People v. Garcia, 681 SCRA 465
(2012), it was held that: Testimonies of child victims are normally given full
weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that
she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age
and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what
transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the
shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is
not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.
A young girl’s revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her
voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo
public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an
assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction.
750 SCRA 188 , FEBRUARY 09, 2015

BBB VS. AAA
Remedial Law; Evidence; Text Messages; In the case of Justice Vidallon-

Magtolis v. Salud, 469 SCRA 439 (2005), it is stated that any question as to
the admissibility of text messages as evidence is rendered moot and
5
academic if the party raising such issue admits authorship of the subject
messages.-
—In the case of Justice Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, 469 SCRA 439 (2005), it
is stated that any question as to the admissibility of text messages as
evidence is rendered moot and academic if the party raising such issue
admits authorship of the subject messages. BBB argues that the RTC and
the CA erred in admitting as evidence the text messages which were sent by
him and FFF to AAA since they were unauthenticated. However, BBB
himself effectively admitted in the pleadings filed with this Court and the CA
that he indeed sent the text messages attributed to him by AAA.
750 SCRA 209 , FEBRUARY 09, 2015

PEOPLE VS. NEPOMUCENO
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; In the absence of proof

of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over
[appellant’s] self-serving and uncorroborated denial.-
—In cases involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, “credence should be
given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses,
especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious
crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over [appellant’s] self-serving and
uncorroborated denial.” Appellant therefore had the burden to overcome the
presumption that the police officers regularly and properly discharged their
duties which she failed to do. Against the evidence of the prosecution, her
defenses of alibi, denial and frame-up crumble. Aside from being weak and
uncorroborated, such defenses are viewed with disfavor since they can
easily be concocted and are common and standard ploy in prosecutions for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
750 SCRA 560 , FEBRUARY 16, 2015

PEOPLE VS. GABUYA
Remedial Law; Evidence; Objection to Evidence; Objection to evidence

cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court
to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection.-
—It is well to note that the records of the case are bereft of evidence that
appellant, during trial, interposed any objection to the non-marking of the
seized items in his presence and the lack of information on the whereabouts
6
of the shabu after it was examined by P/Insp. Calabocal. While he

questioned the chain of custody before the CA, the alleged defects appellant
is now alluding to were not among those he raised on appeal. The defects he
raised before the CA were limited to the alleged lack of physical inventory,
non-taking of photographs of the seized items, and the supposed failure of
the police officers to mark the sachets of shabu at the crime scene. But even
then, it was already too late in the day for appellant to have raised the same
at that point since he should have done so early on before the RTC. It bears
stressing that the Court has already brushed aside an accused’s belated
contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person is inadmissible
for failure of the arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
This is considering that “[w]hatever justifiable grounds may excuse the
police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown,
because [appellant] did not question during trial the safekeeping of the
items seized from him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered,
he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he
cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.”
750 SCRA 572 , FEBRUARY 16, 2015

PEOPLE VS. BIO
Remedial Law; Evidence; Miranda Rights; Exclusionary Rule; It has already

been held that “the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during
custodial investigation.”-
—Anent appellant’s claim of denial of due process allegedly because he was
not assisted by counsel during the investigation and inquest proceedings,
the Court cannot accord credence to the same. As correctly observed by the
CA, this issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal without offending
the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. Besides, the fact that he
was not assisted by counsel during the investigation and inquest
proceedings does not in any way affect his culpability. It has already been
held that “the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during
custodial investigation.” Here, appellant’s conviction was based not on his
alleged uncounseled confession or admission but on the testimony of the
prosecution witness.
7
750 SCRA 65 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

PEOPLE VS. DACUMA
Remedial Law; Evidence; Settled is the rule that the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the defense.-
—The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of
innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the
prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness
of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of
evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own
behalf. Settled is the rule that the evidence for the prosecution must stand
or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the defense.
750 SCRA 79 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

PEOPLE VS. DASIGAN
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; The prosecution’s failure to submit in

evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as
required under Article 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, will not render the
accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.-
—This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody
should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as
they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence,
the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.A. No.
9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from
him inadmissible. The chain of custody is not established solely by
compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. The Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of
seized dangerous drugs states: x x x Provided, further, that noncompliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items.
8
751 SCRA 178 , FEBRUARY 18, 2015

PEOPLE VS. DELA PEÑA
Remedial Law; Evidence; Objection to Evidence; Lapses in the safekeeping

of seized illegal drugs that affected their integrity and evidentiary value
should be raised at the trial court level. When a party desires the court to
reject the evidence offered, he must so state the same in the form of
objection. Without such objection, the accused cannot raise the question for
the first time on appeal.-
—Anent the failure of FC Sahagun to testify on the security measures taken
after she examined the specimen, the defense agreed to dispense with the
Forensic Chemist’s testimony, effectively waiving the opportunity to
question her on the matter. Unfortunately, Dela Peña and Delima are barred
from belatedly raising this objection for the first time before the CA. Lapses
in the safekeeping of seized illegal drugs that affected their integrity and
evidentiary value should be raised at the trial court level. When a party
desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state the same in
the form of objection. Without such objection, the accused cannot raise the
question for the first time on appeal.
751 SCRA 410 , FEBRUARY 24, 2015

ASTORGA AND REPOL LAW OFFICES VS. VILLANUEVA
Administrative Cases; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In administrative

cases, the quantum of evidence required is that of substantial evidence.-
—In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is that of
substantial evidence. In Menor v. Guillermo, 574 SCRA 395 (2008):
Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule.
Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to
be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the
respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial
evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial
evidence is justified when there is reasonable ground to believe that
respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such
evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.
Same; Same; Text Messages; In previous administrative cases involving

other court personnel, text messages were admitted as evidence and given
probative value by this court.-
—In previous administrative cases involving other court personnel, text
messages were admitted as evidence and given probative value by this
court. In those cases, the court considered the content of the text messages
and the identification of the person sending them as substantial evidence to
9
prove the commission of administrative offenses. Atty. Lugares was able to

present the text messages he received in his cellular phone. He attached
photographs of the screen of his cellular phone, showing the messages as
they were received. He submitted respondent’s calling card that contained
the same phone number seen in the text messages. Through this calling
card, he was able to prove that respondent was the source of the text
messages. Respondent denied meeting with Atty. Lugares, but he never
denied sending the text messages to him. The content of the text messages
from respondent and the circumstances within which they were made
constitute substantial evidence that justify the finding of administrative
liability. The presentation of text messages that Atty. Lugares sent to
respondent is not necessary. Respondent’s text messages sent to Atty.
Lugares show an actual evasion of duty to implement the Writ of Execution.
The contents of the text messages sufficiently prove his manifest refusal to
properly implement the Writ of Execution.
751 SCRA 469 , FEBRUARY 24, 2015

CUDIA VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY
ACADEMY (PMA)
Remedial Law; Evidence; Evidence of Prior Good Conduct; While his

Transcript of Records (TOR) may reflect not only his outstanding academic
performance but his excellent grade in subjects on Conduct during his four
(4)-year stay in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), it does not
necessarily follow that he is innocent of the offense charged.-
—Evidence of prior good conduct cannot clear Cadet 1CL Cudia. While his
Transcript of Records (TOR) may reflect not only his outstanding academic
performance but his excellent grade in subjects on Conduct during his four-
year stay in the PMA, it does not necessarily follow that he is innocent of the
offense charged. It is enough to say that “evidence that one did or did not do
a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not
do the same or similar thing at another time.” While the TOR may be
received to prove his identity or habit as an exceptional PMA student, it does
not show his specific intent, plan, or scheme as cadet accused of
committing a specific Honor Code violation.
751 SCRA 675 , FEBRUARY 25, 2015

PEOPLE VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Evidence; Words and Phrases; Burden

of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular
time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow
one when created against him.-
10
—Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each

and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible
for its commission. This is because in criminal cases, conviction must rest
on a moral certainty of guilt. Burden of evidence is that logical necessity
which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a
prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him.
A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has
produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him
of the issue in litigation. However, when the accused alleges consensual
sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos,
and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship
between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal
knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to
prove his defense by substantial evidence.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Different people react differently to a

given type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response
when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.-
—Neither does AAA’s mother’s act of hitting her after learning about the
rape prove anything. It is a truism that “the workings of the human mind
when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and the people react
differently.” Different people react differently to a given type of situation, and
there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted
with a strange, startling or frightful experience. At most, it merely indicates
the frustration and dismay of a mother upon learning that her daughter had
been defiled after partying late the night before. It is a settled rule that when
there is no showing that private complainant was impelled by improper
motive in making the accusation against the accused, her complaint is
entitled to full faith and credence.
752 SCRA 17 , FEBRUARY 25, 2015

PEOPLE VS. DIAZ
Remedial Law; Evidence; Objection to Evidence; As held by the Court in

People v. Domado, 621 SCRA 73 (2010), citing People v. Hernandez, 589
SCRA 625 (2009), objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal.-
—Appellant banks on the prosecution’s alleged failure to comply with the
requirements of law with respect to the proper marking, inventory, and
taking of photograph of the seized specimen. However, it does not escape
the Court’s attention that appellant failed to contest the admissibility in
evidence of the seized item during trial. In fact, at no instance did he
manifest or even hint that there were lapses on the part of the police officers
in handling the seized item which affected its integrity and evidentiary
value. As held by the Court in People v. Domado, 621 SCRA 73 (2010),
11
citing People v. Hernandez, 589 SCRA 625 (2009), objection to the

admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. When
a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in
the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question
for the first time on appeal. In this case, appellant raised the police
operatives’ alleged noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 for the first time on appeal before the CA. Thus, following established
jurisprudence, the alleged flaws do not adversely affect the prosecution’s
case.
752 SCRA 185 , MARCH 10, 2015

PEREZ VS. CATINDIG
Same; Suspension; Disbarment; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; The

evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is
preponderance of evidence.-
—The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment
proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the
allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or
disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. The presentation of
the anonymous letter that was received by Dr. Perez only proves that the
latter indeed received a letter informing her of the alleged relations between
the respondents; it does not prove the veracity of the allegations therein.
Similarly, the supposed love letter, if at all, only proves that Atty. Catindig
wrote Atty. Baydo a letter professing his love for her. It does not prove that
Atty. Baydo is indeed in a relationship with Atty. Catindig.
752 SCRA 514 , MARCH 11, 2015

CERCADO-SIGA VS. CERCADO, JR.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Private Documents; As

early as in the case of U.S. v. Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215 (1915), it has been
settled that church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
subsequent to the promulgation of General Order No. 68 and the passage of
Act No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly
authorized public officials.-
—In support of the existence of the alleged first marriage, petitioners
presented a copy of the Contrato Matrimonial. There is no dispute that said
marriage contract was issued by Iglesia Filipina Independiente church. The
Court of Appeals correctly ruled that it is a private document. As early as in
the case of U.S. v. Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215 (1915), it has been settled that
church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the
promulgation of General Order No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no
12
longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials.
They are private writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved as
are all other private writings in accordance with the rules of evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court,
before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated
either by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution
was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, or
who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person
to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution
thereof.-
—Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court, before a private document is
admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who
executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any
person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its execution, saw
it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed execution thereof. As observed by the
Court of Appeals, petitioners failed to present any one of such witnesses. In
fact, only Simplicia testified that her mother gave her the marriage contract.
Unfortunately however, she was not present during its execution nor could
she identify Benita’s handwriting because Simplicia admitted that she is
illiterate.
Same; Same; Same; Carbon Copies; An unsigned and uncertified document

purporting to be a carbon copy is not competent evidence.-
—We had previously ruled in Vallarta v. Court of Appeals, 163 SCRA 587
(1988), that “a signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at
the same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and maybe
introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the
original. But, an unsigned and uncertified document purporting to be a
carbon copy is not competent evidence. It is because there is no public
officer acknowledging the accuracy of the copy.”
Same; Same; Same; Ancient Documents; Words and Phrases; Section 21,
Rule 132 defines an ancient document as one that: 1) is more than thirty
(30) years old; 2) is produced from custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine; and 3) is unblemished by any alteration or by any
circumstance of suspicion.-
—While petitioners concede that the marriage contract is a private
document, they now argue that it is an ancient document which need not be
authenticated. Petitioners’ argument still has no merit. Section 21, Rule 132
defines an ancient document as one that: 1) is more than 30 years old; 2) is
produced from custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
3) is unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion.
The marriage contract was executed on 9 October 1929, hence it is clearly
more than 30 years old. On its face, there appears to be no evidence of
13
alteration. The marriage contract however does not meet the second
requirement. Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they
come from a place from which they might reasonably be expected to be
found. Custody is proper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin or if
the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an
origin probable. If a document is found where it would not properly and
naturally be, its absence from the proper place must be satisfactorily
accounted for.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court,

183 SCRA 102 (1990), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the requirement of
proper custody was met when the ancient document in question was
presented in court by the proper custodian thereof who is an heir of the
person who would naturally keep it.-
In Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 183 SCRA 102 (1990),
the Court ruled that the requirement of proper custody was met when
the ancient document in question was presented in court by the
proper custodian thereof who is an heir of the person who would
naturally keep it. In this case however, we find that Simplicia also
failed to prove her filiation to Vicente and Benita. She merely
presented a baptismal certificate which has long been held “as
evidence only to prove the administration of the sacrament on the
dates therein specified, but not the veracity of the declarations therein
stated with respect to her kinsfolk. “The same is conclusive only of the
baptism administered, according to the rites of the Catholic Church,
by the priest who baptized subject child, but it does not prove the
veracity of the declarations and statements contained in the certificate
concerning the relationship of the person baptized.” As such,
Simplicia cannot be considered as an heir, in whose custody the
marriage contract is expected to be found. It bears reiteration that
Simplicia testified that the marriage contract was given to her by
Benita but that Simplicia cannot make out the contents of said
document because she cannot read and write.
753 SCRA 167 , MARCH 11, 2015

PEOPLE VS. MERCADO
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Presumption of Regularity; In cases

involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they
are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.-
—By way of emphasis, in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution
14
witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious
intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime
that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such
as in the case of accused-appellant. As a matter of fact, aside from accused-
appellant’s mere denial and alleged extortion against him, no evidence was
ever presented to prove the truthfulness of the same. Incidentally, if these
were simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no
administrative charges were brought against the police officers. Moreover, in
weighing the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses vis-à-vis that of the
defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.
SCRA 414 , MARCH 18, 2015

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. TRADERS ROYAL
BANK 753
Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; It is a basic rule of evidence that each

party must prove its affirmative allegation.-
—The burden fell upon TRB to produce the Trust Indenture Agreements, not
only because the said Agreements were in its possession, but more
importantly, because its protest against the DST assessments was entirely
grounded on the allegation that said Agreements were trusts. TRB was the
petitioner before the CTA in C.T.A. Case No. 6392 and it was among its
affirmative allegations that the said Trust Indenture Agreements were
trusts, thus, TRB had the obligation of proving this fact. It is a basic rule of
evidence that each party must prove its affirmative allegation. As Rule 131,
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court states: Section 1. Burden of proof.—
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
753 SCRA 445 , MARCH 18, 2015

MACAYAN, JR. VS. PEOPLE
Same; Same; Same; For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed
from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as
the common experience and observation of mankind can approve under the
circumstances.-
—Jurisprudence has established the standard for appreciating the
credibility of a witness’ claim: [F]or evidence to be believed, however, it must
not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible
15
in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can

approve under the circumstances. The test to determine the value of the
testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and
consistent with the experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these
standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Requiring proof

beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of
the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be “presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.”-
Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies the
requisite quantum of evidence in criminal cases: Section 2. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt.—In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral
certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. This rule places upon the
prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on
the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of
the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt
finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but
similarly, in the right of an accused to be “presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved.” “Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the
prosecution.” Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it
follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; People of the Philippines v. Cleopas, 327 SCRA

552 (2000), which the Court of Appeals (CA) cited, states that the testimony
of a lone witness “may suffice for conviction if found trustworthy and
reliable.”-
—People of the Philippines v. Cleopas, 327 SCRA 552 (2000), which the
Court of Appeals cited, states that the testimony of a lone witness “may
suffice for conviction if found trustworthy and reliable.” Precisely, conviction
resting on a singular testimony is warranted if this is, in the words of
Cleopas, “trustworthy and reliable,” or, in the words of the Court of Appeals,
“credible.” This could not be said of Jao’s testimony. As previously
discussed, her very presence in the February 12, 2001 conference that she
claimed to have been immediately followed by Macayan’s threats, is in
serious doubt. Nothing casts greater doubt on the reliability of Jao’s claim
than her having not been at the time and place of the supposed
intimidation.
16
G.R. Nos. 173148 April 6, 2015

ELSA DEGAYO, Petitioner, vs.CECILIA MAGBANUA-DINGLASAN, JOHNNY
DINGLASAN, ASUNCION MAGBANUA-PORRAS, MARIANO P ASCUALITO
and AMADO JR., all surnamed MAGBANUA, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Notice; Generally, courts are not authorized to
“take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same
judge.” – The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and
convenience for it fulfills the purpose equivalent to proof. Generally, courts are
not authorized to “take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other
cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or
before the same judge.” While the principle invoked is considered to be the
general rule, this rule is not absolute. There are exceptions to this rule. In the
case of Tiburcio v. People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation, 106 Phil. 477
(1959), this Court, citing Justice Moran, stated: “In some instance, courts have
taken judicial notice of proceedings in other causes, because of their close
connection with the matter in the controversy. Thus, in a separate civil
action against the administrator of an estate arising from an appeal against the
report of the committee on claims appointed in the administration proceedings
of the said estate, to determine whether or not the appeal was taken on time,
the court took judicial notice of the record of the administration proceedings.
Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether
or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not previous ruling is
applicable in the case under consideration.
G.R. No. 171601 April 8, 2015

SPOUSES BONIFACIO AND LUCIA PARAS, Petitioners, vs. KIMWA
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Parol Evidence Rule; Rule 130, Section 9 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence provides for the Parol Evidence Rule, the rule on admissibility
of documentary evidence when the terms of an agreement have been reduced
into writing; Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities
observed, “forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms
were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.” –
Rule 130, Section 9 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides for the Parol
Evidence Rule, the rule on admissibility of documentary evidence when the
terms of an agreement have been reduced into writing: Section 9. Evidence of
written agreements. – When the terms of an agreement have been reduced into
17
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can
be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However, a party may
present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if
he puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement; (b) The failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; (c) The validity
of the written agreement; or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by
the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement. The term "agreement" includes wills. Per this rule, reduction to
written form, regardless of the formalities observed, “forbids any addition to, or
contradiction of, the terms of written agreement by testimony or other evidence
purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties,
varying the purport of the written contract.”
Same; Same; Same; Two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be
admintted; first, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put
in issue in a party’s pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party;
and second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the
basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party. – Provided that a party
puts in issue in its pleading any of the four (4) items enumerated in the second
paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, "a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the agreement[.]" Raising any of these items as
an issue in a pleading such that it falls under the exception is not limited to
the party initiating an action. In Philippine National Railways v. Court of First
Instance of Albay, 83 SCRA 569 (1978), this court noted that "if the defendant
set up the affirmative defense that the contract mentioned in the complaint
does not express the true agreement of the parties, then parol evidence is
admissible to prove the true agreement of the parties[.]" Moreover, as with all
possible objections to the admission of evidence, a party’s failure to timely
object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained. Apart
from pleading these exceptions, it is equally imperative that the parol evidence
sought to be introduced points to the conclusion proposed by the party
presenting it. That is, it must be relevant, tending to "induce belief in [the]
existence" of the flaw, true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms averred by
the party seeking to introduce parol evidence. In sum, two (2) things must be
established for parol evidence to be admitted: first, that the existence of any of
the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s pleading or has not
been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that the parol evidence
sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by
the presenting party.
Same; Same; Our evidentiary rules impel us to proceed from the position (unless
convincingly shown otherwise) that individuals act as rational human beings, i.e,
"[t]hat a person takes ordinary care of his concerns." - Our evidentiary rules
impel us to proceed from the position (unless convincingly shown otherwise)
that individuals act as rational human beings, i.e, "[t]hat a person takes
18
ordinary care of his concerns[.]"This basic evidentiary stance, taken with the.
supporting evidence petitioners Spouses Paras adduced, respondent Kimwa's
awareness of the conditions under which petitioner Lucia Paras was bound,
and the Agreement's own text specifying exclusive allotment for respondent
Kimwa, supports petitioners Spouses Paras' position that respondent Kimwa
was obliged to haul 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates on or before May 15,
1995. As it admittedly hauled only 10,000 cubic meters, respondent Kimwa is
liable for breach of contract in respect of the remaining 30,000 cubic meters.
G.R. No. 176114 April 8, 2015

GRACE SAN DIEGO y TRINIDAD, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstancial Evidence; It was held in People v.

Ragon, 282 SCRA 90 (1997) that resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable
when there are no eyewitnesses to a crime. – It was held in People v. Ragon, 282
SCRA 90 (1997) that resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable when there
are no eyewitnesses to a crime. Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is
not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt. The courts are allowed to rule on the bases of circumstantial
evidence if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one
circumstance, (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven,
and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The corollary rule is that the
circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the guilty person.
G.R. No. 159611 April 22, 2015

HEIRS OF ANTERO SOLIVA, Petitioner, vs. SEVERINO, JOEL, GRACE,
CENON, JR., RENATO, EDUARDO, HILARIO, all surnamed SOLIVA,
ROGELIO V. ROLEDA, and SANVIC ENTERPRISES, INC., represented by its
Manager, SANTOS PORAQUE, Respondents.
Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Notarized Documents; Words and

Phrases; A notarized document is a public document that carries with it not only
the presumption of regularity in its due execution. – The “"Escritura de Compra-
Venta Absoluta," which Mancol executed in favor of Cenon, was duly notarized.
A notarized document is a public document that carries with it not only the
19
presumption of regularity in its due execution. It also serves, in the absence of

sufficiently contradictory evidence, as clear and convincing proof of the
unequivocal facts stated therein.
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015

PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is a well-settled doctrine that findings of

trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect. – It is
a well-settled doctrine that findings of trial courts on the credibility of
witnesses deserve a high degree of respect. Having observed their deportment
in court, the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of
credibility. For this reason, the findings of trial judges will not be disturbed on
appeal in the absence of any clear showing that they have overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance that could have altered the conviction of appellants. In the case at
bar, the circumstances pointed out by accused-appellant are too trivial to affect
the assessment and the eventual findings of the trial court that he indeed
committed the crime.
Same; Same; Same; The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that
when the accused admit that they are the authors of the death of the victim, and
their defense is anchored on self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon them to
prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. – We are
convinced that accused-appellant is guilty of homicide. We note that he
admitted to having killed the victim albeit in self-defense.1âwphi1 The rule
consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused admit that
they are the authors of the death of the victim, and their defense is anchored
on self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon them to prove the justifying
circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. Self-defense is a time-worn
excuse resorted to by assailants in criminal cases.20 We have held in a host of
instances that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisprudence holds that when there is no evidence to show
any improper motive on the part of the witness to testify falsely against the
20
accused or to pervert the truth, the logical conclusion is that no such motive
exists, and that the former’s testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. – Indeed,
physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks
higher in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as
murder/homicide or rape, in which the accused stand to lose their liberty if
found guilty, this Court has, on many occasions, relied principally upon
physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical evidence on
record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical
evidence must be upheld. Ineluctably, the victim in this case cannot be
considered as the aggressor. For one, an eyewitness attested that accused-
appellant shot the victim without any provocation. Also, as correctly noted by
the trial court, there was failure to impute ill motive on the part of the
eyewitness who had implicated accused-appellant in the fatal shooting of the
victim. Jurisprudence holds that when there is no evidence to show any
improper motive on the part of the witness to testify falsely against the accused
or to pervert the truth, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists, and
that the former’s testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
G.R. No. 195424 June 15, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUDY
NUYOK, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Sexual Abuse; In almost all cases of sexual
abuse, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial because more often than
not, only the persons involved can testify as to its occurrence. – In almost all
cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial
because more often than not, only the persons involved can testify as to its
occurrence. Whenever the question arises as to which of the conflicting
versions of the Prosecution and the Defense is worthier of belief, therefore, the
assessment by the trial court is generally given respect, if not finality. The
assigning of values to the declarations of witnesses is best and most
competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Rape; Testimonial Evidence; The testimony of a rape
victim that is consistent with the medical findings constitutes sufficient basis to
conclude that carnal knowledge occurred. – The testimony of a rape victim that
is consistent with the medical findings constitutes sufficient basis to conclude
that carnal knowledge occurred. As a result, the accused can be convicted
solely on the testimony of the victim for as long as such testimony is credible,
21
convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things.
Same; Same; Circumstancial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence, also known as

indirect or presumptive evidence,25consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience. – Circumstantial evidence, also
known as indirect or presumptive evidence,25consists of proof of collateral
facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common experience. It is sufficient to sustain
a conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; ( b) the facts from
which the inferences were derived have been established; and ( c) the
combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.26 All the circumstances must be consistent with
each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every
other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.27 In other words, a judgment of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as
the perpetrator.
G.R. No. 191591 June 17, 2015

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, vs
FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC., Respondent.
Same; Evidence; Burden of Evidence; In the course of trial, once plaintiff makes
out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to
defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be
returned in favor of plaintiff. – He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has
the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff, the burden of proof never parts.
However, in the course of trial, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in
his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert
plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of
plaintiff.
22
G.R. No. 199522 June 22, 2015

RICKY DINAMLING, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
Remedial Law; Evidence; Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence; If, in criminal

cases of rape27 or homicide,28 the positive, categorical and credible testimony of
a lone witness is deemed enough to support a conviction, then, in the case at bar,
involving a case of violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, this Court shall treat
in the same manner the testimony of a single but credible witness for the
prosecution. – It matters not that no other eyewitness corroborated AAA's
testimony of the actual incidents. The testimony of the complainant as a lone
witness to the actual perpetration of the act, as long as it is credible, suffices to
establish the guilt of the accused because evidence is weighed and not
counted. If, in criminal cases of rape or homicide, the positive, categorical and
credible testimony of a lone witness is deemed enough to support a conviction,
then, in the case at bar, involving a case of violation of Section 5(i) of RA No.
9262, this Court shall treat in the same manner the testimony of a single but
credible witness for the prosecution. Especially if the testimony bears the
earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally
and in a straightforward manner, corroborative testimony is not needed to
support a conviction.
G.R. No. 201836 June 22, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALLAN BRITANICO
AND JOJO BRITANICO, Accused-Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is a settled principle that people react

differently when confronted with a startling and dangerous experience. – It is a
settled principle that people react differently when confronted with a startling
and dangerous experience. For example, a person who witnessed a hacking
incident may faint, act with nonchalance, or may hide out of fear for his life; on
the other hand, he may also act with bravery by coming to the aid and succor
of the victim, most especially if the latter is a relative; or, he may act cautiously
and seek the help of other people. The list is not all-encompassing because
people do not act similarly to a given situation. Hence, we do not find it
unnatural, as the appellants claim, for Rolando to hide in the grassy area upon
witnessing the hacking of his uncle, Segundo, by the appellants. Rolando also
admitted that he got scared which is also a reasonable and logical reaction to
such a startling event.
23
G.R. No. 207815 June 22, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE SALVADOR
a.k.a. "Felix", Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The credibility of witnesses is a question

best addressed by the trial court because of its opportunity to observe their
demeanor while testifying on the stand: an opportunity denied to the appellate
courts. – This Court has reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is a question
best addressed by the trial court because of its opportunity to observe their
demeanor while testifying on the stand: an opportunity denied to the appellate
courts. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court’s
assessment and conclusion, the reviewing court is generally bound by the
former’s findings, especially when no significant fact nor circumstance is
shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered could
affect the outcome of the case. The rule is strictly applied when the appellate
court affirms the finding of the lower court.
G.R. No. 213383 June 22, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ERNIE INCIONG y
ORENSE, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; In the absence of any clear showing that
the trial court overlooked
or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which would alter a conviction,
it generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses
especially if such findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). – On this
score, this Court has stated that, in the absence of any clear showing that the
trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which
would alter a conviction, it generally defers to the trial court's evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses especially if such findings are affirmed by the CA. This
must be so since the trial courts are in a better position to decide the question
of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed first-
hand their deportment and manner of testifying under grueling examination.
24
G.R. No. 187487 June 29, 2015

GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO., INC. AND GEORGE C. GO, Petitioners,
vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE
INVESTMENT ONE [SPV-AMC], INC., Respondent.
Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Case law enlightens that "[t]he

admission of the genuineness and due execution of a document means that the
party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document or
it was signed by another for him and with his authority; that at the time it was
signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party
relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formalities
required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it
lacks, are waived by him. – Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules further requires that
the defendant "sets forth what he claims to be the facts," which requirement,
likewise, remains absent from the Answer in this case. Thus, with said
pleading failing to comply with the "specific denial under oath" requirement
under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules, the proper conclusion, as arrived at by
the CA, is that petitioners had impliedly admitted the due execution and
genuineness of the documents evidencing their loan obligation to respondent.
To this, case law enlightens that "[t]he admission of the genuineness and due
execution of a document means that the party whose signature it bears admits
that he voluntarily signed the document or it was signed by another for him
and with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and
figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the
document was delivered; and that any formalities required by law, such as a
seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him.
Also, it effectively eliminated any defense relating to the authenticity and due
execution of the document, e.g., that the document was spurious, counterfeit,
or of different import on its face as the one executed by the parties; or that the
signatures appearing thereon were forgeries; or that the signatures were
unauthorized."
G.R. No. 209338 June 29, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO
MIRANDA y FELICIANO, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Presumption of Regularity; It is a settled

rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is
given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. – The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the
police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending
officers’ performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving
25
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution

witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule that in the absence
of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the
trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on
appeal. – Tt bears stressing that in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the
version of the prosecution. This Court finds no reason to disagree. Well-settled
is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. Prosecutions involving illegal drug s
depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the "buy-
bust" operation and appellate courts, upon established precedents and of
necessity, rely on the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial
courts which have the unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts,
to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude
under direct and cross-examination.
G.R. No. 211027 June 29, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BRONIOLA @
"ASOT", Accused-Appellant,
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstancial Evidence; Direct evidence is not a

condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.
For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing
circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. – In this case, nobody
witnessed the actual rape and killing of AAA. Appellant, however may still be
proven as the culprit despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct evidence is
not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond
reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may
resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. As we held
in People v. Pascual, 576 SCRA 242 (2009); It is settled that in the special
complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be
established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, we have held that the
crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very
often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult
when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim
could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to
circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.
26
Same; Same; Same; Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts

and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience. – Circumstantial evidence consists
of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth
the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
Same; Same; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; It is doctrinal that the requirement
of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of
proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. –
Considering all the circumstances mentioned and in light of previous rulings,
we are satisfied that the evidence adduced against appellant constitutes an
unbroken chain leading to the one fair and reasonable conclusion that
appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It is doctrinal that the requirement
of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree
of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty.
Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
G.R. No. 205681, July 01, 2015 - JANET CARBONELL, Petitioner, v.

JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES, REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO A. CARBONELL, Respondent.
Evidence; Handwritings; Under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
among the methods of proving the genuineness of the handwriting are through a
witness familiar with such handwriting or a comparison by the court of the
questioned handwriting and the admitted genuine specimens of the handwriting.
— Under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, among the methods of
proving the genuineness of the handwriting are through a witness familiar with
such handwriting or a comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting
and the admitted genuine specimens of the handwriting. In this case,
respondent, the purported writer or signatory to the Deed of Absolute Sale,
testified that her signature was forged. To prove the forgery, respondent
presented, among others, her Canadian and Philippine passports, driver’s
license, citizenship card, and health card, showing her genuine signature
27
which was clearly different from the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Comparing the genuine signature of respondent on these documents with her
purported signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale, the RTC found “significant
differences in terms of handwriting strokes, as well as the shapes and sizes of
letters, fairly suggesting that the plaintiff [Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes] was not
the author of the questioned signature.” Signatures on a questioned document
may be examined by the trial court judge and compared with the admitted
genuine signatures to determine the issue of authenticity of the contested
document.
G.R. No. 208686, July 01, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
v. ALELIE TOLENTINO A.K.A. "ALELIE TOLENTINO Y HERNANDEZ,"
Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule that the trial court,
having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the
trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. —
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe
the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Appellant’s mere denial
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the
complainants. The trial court’s findings are accorded great respect unless the
trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if
considered might affect the result of the case. Furthermore, factual findings of
the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and
conclusive.
G.R. No. 212194, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ROD FAMUDULAN1 Y FEDELIN, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; In the recent case of People of the

Philippines v. Jose Estalin Prodenciado, 744 SCRA 429 (2014), the Supreme
Court (SC) reiterated the guidelines in addressing the issue of credibility of
witnesses. — In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Jose Estalin
Prodenciado, 744 SCRA 429 (2014), we reiterated the guidelines in addressing
the issue of credibility of witnesses. First, this Court gives the highest respect
to the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witness, it having the distinct
opportunity of observing the witness’ demeanor on the stand. Second, absent
substantial reasons, i.e., significant facts and circumstances, affecting the
outcome of the case, that are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded,
which would warrant the reversal of the RTC’s evaluation, the appellate court is
generally bound by the lower court’s findings. Lastly, the rule is stringently
applied when the CA affirms the lower court’s ruling.
28
Same; Same; Same; Rape; Child Witnesses; No sane woman, least of all a child,
would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts
and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of
rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. — It has been held
that when a woman or a girl child says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Besides, no sane
woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if
she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the
wrong done to her. Given AAA’s immaturity and the injuries as found in the
medical report, consistent with sexual abuse, this Court finds no reason to
reverse the CA and the RTC decisions.
Appellee, v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLING, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The rule is that the determination by the
trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court,
as in this case, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not
conclusive effect. — The CA also found that AAA was telling the truth when she
declared that her father raped her on three separate occasions. The rule is that
the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when
affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, is accorded full weight and
credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect. And after our own
examination of AAA’s testimony, we find no reason to disagree with the RTC
and CA in finding AAA as a credible witness.
G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; The courts a quo erred in

giving weight to the presumption of regularity in performance that a police officer
enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would
induce him to falsify his testimony. — The courts a quo erred in giving weight to
the presumption of regularity in performance that a police officer enjoys in the
absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to
falsify his testimony. The regularity of the performance of the police officers’
duties leaves much to be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling
of the allegedly confiscated shabu. The totality of all the procedural lapses we
29
previously discussed effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and

identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up
and extortion. We have previously held that these lapses negate the
presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police
officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should
make the presumption unavailable.
Appellee, v. ESTANLY OCTA Y BAS, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Object Evidence; Assuming arguendo that the

accused-appellant’s out of court identification was defective, her subsequent
identification in court cured any flaw that may have initially attended it.—In
this case, both the RTC and the CA found Corpuz to be a credible witness who
had categorically testified that she saw the face of the ransom taker, and that
he was actually the accused-appellant. The fact that Corpuz failed to declare in
her Sinumpaang Salaysay that the ransom taker was sporting a dimple was
not fatal to her testimony because she was able to positively and categorically
identify accused-appellant during the police lineup and in open court. Even
accused-appellant’s insinuation that Corpuz could have been influenced by the
police during the lineup cannot be given weight in the face of his positive
identification as the ransom taker. On this point, we agree with the observation
of the CA that “assuming arguendo that the accused-appellant’s out of court
identification was defective, her subsequent identification in court cured any
flaw that may have initially attended it. We emphasize that the ‘inadmissibility
of a police lineup identification x x x should not necessarily foreclose the
admissibility of an independent in-court identification.’”
Appellee, v. ANTONIO EDAÑO AND NESTOR EDAÑO, ACCUSED, ANTONIO
EDAÑO, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; No standard form of behavioral response

can be expected from anyone when confronted with a startling or frightful
occurrence. — No standard form of behavioral response can be expected from
anyone when confronted with a startling or frightful occurrence. As observed
by the Court of Appeals: Thus, witness [Fernando] cannot be faulted for
reacting the way he did during the incident. Human experience dictates that
when a person is confronted with a threatening environment, the natural
reaction is to secure his safety. Indeed, this is what [Fernando] did in staying
home with his brother for the night. It is to be noted that upon the break of
first light the following day, Fernando reported what he witnessed to the
authorities as early as 5:00 a.m. He went on to break the news to the victim’s
30
family an hour after. These actions are conformable with his sworn statement
and are logical responses considering his recent traumatic experience.
G.R. No. 204089, July 29, 2015 - GRACE BORGOÑA INSIGNE, DIOSDADO
BORGOÑA, OSBOURNE BORGOÑA, IMELDA BORGOÑA RIVERA, AND
ARISTOTLE BORGOÑA, Petitioners, v. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES, INC.
AND FRANCIS BORGOÑA, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Preponderance of Evidence; In civil

cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence that is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. — In civil
cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence that is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Thus, the
party, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, who asserts the affirmative of an
issue bears the onus to prove his assertion in order to obtain a favorable
judgment. From the plaintiff the burden to prove his positive assertions never
parts. Yet, for the defendant, an affirmative defense is one that is not a denial
of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action, but rather one that,
if established, will be a good defense — i.e., an “avoidance” of the claim.
Appellee, v. NONIETO GERSAMIO, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Guidelines Adhered by the Supreme Court

(SC) When the Issue of Credibility of Witnesses is Concerned.—Noticeably, the
appellant’s arguments primarily hinge on the issue of AAA’s credibility. Settled
is the rule that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is concerned, this
Court adheres to these jurisprudentially established guidelines: (1) it gives the
highest respect to the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses
because of its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness
on the stand, and from its vantage point, is also in the best position to
determine the truthfulness of witnesses; (2) in the absence of any substantial
reason that would justify the reversal of the trial court’s assessments and
conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s
findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting
the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded;
and (3) the rule is even more stringently applied if the Court of Appeals
concurred with the trial court.
31
G.R. No. 200558, July 01, 2015 - CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN AND

ANNABELLA V. BORROMEO, Petitioners, v. CRISTINA DISONGLO-
ALMAZORA, RENILDA ALMAZORA-CASUBUAN, RODOLFO CASUBUAN,
SUSANA ALMAZORA-MENDIOLA, CARLOS MENDIOLA, CECILIO
ALMAZORA AND NEN1TA ALMAZORA, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Clear and Convincing Evidence; Fraud; The imputation
of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence.
Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud. — Fraud must
be proven by clear and convincing evidence and not merely by preponderance
thereof. Clear and convincing proof is more than mere preponderance, but not
to extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in
criminal cases. The imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation
of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the
existence of fraud. The burden of evidence rests on the part of the plaintiff or
the party alleging fraud.
G.R. No. 192024, July 01, 2015 - FORTUNE TOBACCO ORPORATION,

Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Same; Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Where documentary evidence was

rejected by the lower court and the offeror did not move that the same be
attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate court, as
documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate court cannot be
considered in disposing the case. — It has been repeatedly ruled that where
documentary evidence was rejected by the lower court and the offeror did not
move that the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered
by the appellate court, as documents forming no part of proofs before the
appellate court cannot be considered in disposing the case. For the appellate
court to consider as evidence, which was not offered by one party at all during
the proceedings below, would infringe the constitutional right of the adverse
party — in this case, the CIR, to due process of law. It also bears pointing out
that at no point during the proceedings before the CTA En Banc and before this
Court has petitioner offered any plausible explanation as to why it failed to
properly make an offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence. Instead,
petitioner harps on the fact that respondent CIR simply refused its claim for
refund on the ground that RR 17-99 was a valid issuance. Thus, for its failure
to seasonably avail of the proper remedy provided under Section 40, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court, petitioner is precluded from doing so at this late stage of
the case. Clearly, estoppel has already stepped in.
32
G.R. No. 195166, July 08, 2015 - SPOUSES SALVADOR ABELLA AND
ALMA ABELLA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ROMEO ABELLA AND ANNIE
ABELLA, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Parol Evidence Rule; The issue of admitting parol
evidence is a matter that is proper to the trial, not the appellate, stage of a case.
— The issue of admitting parol evidence is a matter that is proper to the trial,
not the appellate, stage of a case. Petitioners raised the issue of applying the
exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule only in the Reply they filed before this
court. This is the last pleading that either of the parties has filed in the entire
string of proceedings culminating in this Decision. It is, therefore, too late for
petitioners to harp on this rule. In any case, what is at issue is not admission
of evidence per se, but the appreciation given to the evidence adduced by the
parties. In the Petition they filed before this court, petitioners themselves
acknowledged that checks supposedly attesting to payment of monthly interest
at the rate of 2.5% were admitted by the trial court (and marked as Exhibits
“2,” “3,” “4,” “5,” “6,” “7,” and “8”). What petitioners have an issue with is not
the admission of these pieces of evidence but how these have not been
appreciated in a manner consistent with the conclusions they advance.
G.R. No. 213104, July 29, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner, v. PO1 CYRIL A. DE GRACIA, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; The determination of whether the evidence of guilt is

strong, in this regard, is a matter of judicial discretion. — The determination of
whether the evidence of guilt is strong, in this regard, is a matter of judicial
discretion. By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of
whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. “Proof evident” or
“Evident proof” in this connection has been held to make clear, strong evidence
which leads a well-guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the
offense has been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent, and
that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered.
“Presumption great” exists when the circumstances testified to are such that
the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and
convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of
any other conclusion. Guided by these judicial pronouncements, the
prosecution must establish before the trial court, after proper notice and
hearing, that the evidence against an accused for the crime charged is strong
so as to deny him of his provisional liberty.
33
G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015 - ROBERT CHUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Under the Rules of Court,
the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was
discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material, not merely
cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if
admitted, will probably change the judgment.—“Under the Rules of Court, the
requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered
after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at
the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will
probably change the judgment.”
G.R. No. 163362, July 08, 2015 - ALEJANDRA ARADO HEIRS: JESUSA
ARADO, VICTORIANO ALCORIZA, PEDRO ARADO, HEIRS: JUDITHO
ARADO, JENNIFER ARADO, BOBBIE ZITO ARADO, SHIRLY ABAD,
ANTONIETA ARADO, NELSON SOMOZA, JUVENIL ARADO, NICETAS
VENTULA, AND NILA ARADO, PEDRO ARADO, TOMASA V. ARADO,
Petitioners, v. ANACLETO ALCORAN AND ELENETTE SUNJACO,
Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; The burden of proof to establish the
averments of the complaint by preponderance of evidence pertained to the
petitioners as the plaintiffs. — The burden of proof to establish the averments of
the complaint by preponderance of evidence pertained to the petitioners as the
plaintiffs. In that regard, we have discoursed on preponderance of evidence in
Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr., 524 SCRA 641 (2007), thusly: “Preponderance of
evidence” is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight
of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of
evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth.
It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto. If plaintiff claims a right granted or
created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely
on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his
opponent.
34
Appellee, v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ROBERTO LARA AND ROGELIO "NOEL"
DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Newly Discovered Evidence; It should be stressed that

a new trial based on newly discovered evidence may only be granted by the
court on motion of the accused, or motu proprio with the consent of the accused
at any time before a judgment of con viction becomes final. — The pro hac vice
resolution of this Court on January 15, 2004 allows this Court an unusual,
though not unprecedented, task to revisit our own final and executory
Decision. It should be stressed that a new trial based on newly discovered
evidence may only be granted by the court on motion of the accused, or motu
proprio with the consent of the accused (a)t any time before a judgment of
conviction becomes final. Furthermore, the affidavits of Mabansag and Delos
Reyes cannot be considered newly discovered in that the affiants are the
movants’ co-accused who was already identified as such during the trial.
Nevertheless, the Court, alluding to its power to suspend its own rules or to
except a particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice
require it, and noting the support of the Office of the Solicitor General to
Licayan and Lara’s motion, voted 8-6 to order the suspension of the Rules of
Court itself and remand the case to the trial court for further reception of
evidence. On June 24, 2006, more than two years after the pro hac vice
Resolution of this Court, Republic Act No. 9346 was approved, irrevocably
sparing Licayan and Lara from the severest and most permanent of penalties.
In the meantime, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals were unmoved by the
new evidence presented for the accused-appellants. Thus, for the second time,
Licayan and Lara were convicted by the trial court and their appeals denied by
the Court of Appeals.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Discrepancies in testimonies concerning minor details

and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their
credibility. — We have, on numerous occasions, held that discrepancies in
testimonies concerning minor details and not actually touching upon the
central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. Instead of weakening
the testimonies, these inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility,
because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed.
G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015 - ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Exclusionary Rule; The law requires that there first be
a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed.
— The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription.
One of the recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence is a search
35
incident to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be
a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the
rules on lawful warrantless arrests, as follows: SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant;
when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under
paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015 - DANDY L. DUNGO AND GREGORIO A.
SIBAL, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Same; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Hazing; Bearing in mind the

concealment of hazing, it is only logical and proper for the prosecution to resort to
the presentation of circumstantial evidence to prove it. — While it is established
that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a
conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial
evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a
condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable
doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to
adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually
committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly
probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the
prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded
places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove. Needless to state, the crime of
hazing is shrouded in secrecy. Fraternities and sororities, especially the Greek
organizations, are secretive in nature and their members are reluctant to give
any information regarding initiation rites. The silence is only broken after
someone has been injured so severely that medical attention is required. It is
only at this point that the secret is revealed and the activities become public.
Bearing in mind the concealment of hazing, it is only logical and proper for the
prosecution to resort to the presentation of circumstantial evidence to prove it.
Same; Same; Same; Requisites of Circumstantial Evidence.—The rules on
evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an accused through
circumstantial evidence require the existence of the following requisites: (1)
there are more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on
36
proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. To justify a
conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances
must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal
liability of the accused. Jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be
established to form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the author
of the crime.
G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015 - OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Appellee, v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Presumption of Regularity; It is a settled

rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is
given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. — The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the
police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending
officers’ performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. On
the other hand, appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to
overturn the presumption that the apprehending officers regularly performed
their duties. Except for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up because he
failed to divulge the identities of the persons involved in selling illegal drugs in
the area of A. Lopez Street to the said police officers, nothing supports his
claim that the latter were impelled by improper motives to testify against him.
This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and
frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in
prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such
defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.
Same; Same; Same; It is established that in the absence of palpable error or

grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation
of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. — It is established
that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not
be disturbed on appeal. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on
the credibility of the police officers who conduct the buy-bust operation and
appellate courts, upon established precedents and of necessity, rely on the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial courts which have the
unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts, to observe the
37
witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and
cross-examination.
G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 - LUIS UY, SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY
VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY UY MACARAIG, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE
LACSAMANA AND ROSAURA* MENDOZA, SUBSTITUTED BY CORAZON
BUENA, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumptions; Marriages; There is a presumption

established in our Rules “that a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.” — The main
issue in determining the validity of the sale of the property by Rosca alone is
anchored on whether Uy and Rosca had a valid marriage. There is a
presumption established in our Rules “that a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage.” Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — Always presume marriage.
However, this presumption may be contradicted by a party and overcome by
other evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In Pugeda v. Trias, 4 SCRA 849 (1962), the Supreme
Court (SC) held that testimony by one (1) of the parties to the marriage, or by
one of the witnesses to the marriage, as well as the person who officiated at the
solemnization of the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact
of marriage.—Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence.
In Pugeda v. Trias, 4 SCRA 849 (1962), we held that testimony by one of the
parties to the marriage, or by one of the witnesses to the marriage, as well as
the person who officiated at the solemnization of the marriage, has been held to
be admissible to prove the fact of marriage.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Since Uy failed to discharge the burden that he was
legally married to Rosca, their property relations would be governed by Article
147 of the Family Code which applies when a couple living together were not
incapacitated from getting married.—Since Uy failed to discharge the burden
that he was le gally married to Rosca, their property relations would be
governed by Article 147 of the Family Code which applies when a couple living
together were not incapacitated from getting married.
G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 - MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; It is a basic rule that evidence,
whether oral or documentary, is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on
the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person
38
who is not on the witness stand. — The person who prepared the said report
was not presented in court to testify on the same. Thus, the said survey report
has no probative value for being hearsay. “It is a basic rule that evidence,
whether oral or documentary is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on
the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person
who is not on the witness stand.” Moreover, “an unverified and unidentified
private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because
the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity
to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other
party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere
hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents
suspect and of no probative value.”
G.R. No. 208320, August 19, 2015 - GRACE DAVID Y CESAR, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule that the trial court,
having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the
trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. —
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe
the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Petitioner’s mere denial
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive unless substantial facts
and circumstances have been overlooked or misconstrued, which if considered
might affect the result of the case, and absent any clear showing of abuse,
arbitrariness or capriciousness.
G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 - NG MENG TAM, Petitioner, v. CHINA
BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Affidavit Rule; Section 2(a) of the Judicial
Affidavit Rule (JAR) provides that judicial affidavits are mandatorily filed by
parties to a case except in small claims cases. These judicial affidavits take the
place of direct testimony in court. — The JAR primarily affects the manner by
which evidence is presented in court. Section 2(a) of the JAR provides that
judicial affidavits are mandatorily filed by parties to a case except in small
claims cases. These judicial affidavits take the place of direct testimony in
court. It provides: Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu
of direct testimonies.—(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the
adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days
39
before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect

to motions and incidents, the following: (1) The judicial affidavits of their
witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached
to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case
of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the
case of the respondent or the defendant.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Before a party may be qualified under Section 12, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court, the party presenting the adverse party witness must
comply with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. — Before a party may be
qualified under Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the party presenting
the adverse party witness must comply with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of
Court which provides: SEC. 6. Effect of failure to serve written
interrogatories.—Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown
and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written
interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in
open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal. In Afulugencia v.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., 715 SCRA 399 (2014), this Court stated that
“in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is
not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.”
There petitioners Spouses Afulugencia sought the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum and ad testificandum to compel the officers of the bank to testify
and bring documents pertaining to the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of a
certain parcel of land. Metrobank moved to quash the issuance of the
subpoenas on the ground of noncompliance with Section 6, Rule 25 of the
Rules of Court. In quashing the issuance of the subpoena, the Court reminded
litigants that the depositions are a mechanism by which fishing expeditions
and delays may be avoided. Further written interrogatories aid the court in
limiting harassment and to focus on what is essential to a case.
G.R. No. 203066, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO LLOBERA Y OFIZA, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The Supreme Court (SC) has consistently
abided by the rule that the trial court is in a better position to adjudge the
credibility of witnesses, especially if its decision is affirmed by the [Court of
Appeals (CA)], unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood
or misapplied some fact[s] or circumstance[s] of weight and substance that would
have affected the result of the case. — Notably, the trial court, which was in the
best position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, gave full
credence to Betty’s and Rosebert’s testimonies. On this point, the Court has
consistently abided by the rule that the trial court is in a better position to
adjudge the credibility of witnesses, especially if its decision is affirmed by the
40
[Court of Appeals], unless there is a showing that it had overlooked,

misunderstood or misapplied some fact[s] or circumstance[s] of weight and
substance that would have affected the result of the case. The Court finds no
reason to depart from the assessment of the RTC, as affirmed by the [Court of
Appeals], as this is supported by the records of the case.
G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015 - VICENTE H. MANULAT, JR.,

Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence, if

sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. — It is settled that the
lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of
the accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. The
crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes
referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence. Circumstantial evidence, if
sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. Where the court relies
solely on circumstantial evidence, the combined effect of the pieces of
circumstantial evidence must inexorably lead to the conclusion that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing
less than moral certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or circumstantial
evidence. The series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with
each other and must likewise be consistent with the accused’s guilt and
inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the
possibility that some other person has committed the offense.
Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Res Gestae; The res gestae exception to
the hearsay rule provides that the declarations must have been “voluntarily and
spontaneously made so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the
transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under such
circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or deliberation.” — In
order to discredit the evidence of the prosecution, petitioner claims that the
testimony of Carmen was purely hearsay and not reliable since the prosecution
never presented the children as witnesses to testify as what was told by them
to Carmen, their own grandmother. Hence, inadmissible in evidence being
hearsay and not statements as part of the res gestae. Said argument is
untenable. The res gestae exception to the hearsay rule provides that the
declarations must have been “voluntarily and spontaneously made so nearly
contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the transaction which they
illustrate and explain, and were made under such circumstances as
necessarily to exclude the idea of design or deliberation.” There are three
essential requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae, namely: (1) that
the principal act, the res gestae be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements
were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood;
41
and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediate attending circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) finds that the statements of
the petitioner and victim’s three (3)-year-old son and two (2)-year-old daughter
were spontaneously made. They had no opportunity or chance to invent a story
although they made the statements the morning after the occurrence while
being bathed by their grandmother Carmen.—In this case, this Court finds that
the statements of the petitioner and victim’s three-year-old son and two-year-
old daughter were spontaneously made. They had no opportunity or chance to
invent a story although they made the statements the morning after the
occurrence while being bathed by their grandmother Carmen. Their statements
were unreflected and instinctive since a three-year-old and a two-year-old
children, given their age, do not have the capability, sophistication or malice to
fabricate such an incredible story of a violent altercation between their parents
and to impute their own father to the killing of their mother. Thus, this Court
finds the above requites of res gestae present. First, the principal act, which by
any measure was undoubtedly a startling occurrence, was the violent
altercation between petitioner and the victim, as witnessed by their young
children, which led to the killing of his own wife of which he is being charged.
Second, the statements were made spontaneously to which we ruled that given
the tender age of the children, they could not have contrived or concocted such
a story. Lastly, the statements refer to the violent altercation that led to the
killing of the victim.
Same; Same; Witnesses; In the absence of evidence of an improper motive

actuating the witness, his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. —
Petitioner avers that the testimony of Dr. Dimaandal, Jr., an expert witness, is
not very certain nor persuasive and that the ligature mark on the victim’s neck
can be caused by manual strangulation. Finally, petitioner alleges that the
single ligature mark on the victim’s neck clearly infers that his wife had
committed suicide. This Court is not persuaded. There is nothing on record
that would compel this Court to believe that said prosecution witness, Dr.
Dimaandal, Jr., has improper motive to falsely testify against the petitioner nor
was his testimony not very certain. In the absence of evidence of an improper
motive actuating the witness, his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
Furthermore, his straight-forward and consistent testimonies bear the
earmarks of credibility.
42
G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 - NATION PETROLEUM GAS,

INCORPORATED, NENA ANG, MARIO ANG, ALISON A. SY, GUILLERMO G.
SY, NELSON ANG, LUISA ANG, RENATO C. ANG, PAULINE T. ANG, RICKY
C. ANG,1 AND MELINDA ANG, Petitioners, v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE ASSET GROWTH
ONE, INC., Respondent.
Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; To overcome the presumption of regularity

of official functions in favor of such sheriff’s return, the evidence against it must
be clear and convincing. — It is well to note that the certificate of service of the
process server is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out therein. This is
fortified by the presumption of the regularity of performance of official duty. To
overcome the presumption of regularity of official functions in favor of such
sheriff’s return, the evidence against it must be clear and convincing. Sans the
requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving
of faith and credit.
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD
DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
Same; Same; Same; Evidentiary Facts; Words and Phrases; Evidentiary facts are
the facts necessary to establish the ultimate facts; they are the premises that
lead to the ultimate facts as conclusion. — Evidentiary facts, on the other hand,
are the facts necessary to establish the ultimate facts; they are the premises
that lead to the ultimate facts as conclusion. They are facts supporting the
existence of some other alleged and unproven fact.
G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH, INC.

REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L.
CACCAM, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumptions; Case law dictates that the natural
presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself
of its contents and consequences. — That respondent was made to believe that
her contract will just be renewed every time it expires was not supported by
substantial evidence. It bears stressing that self-serving and unsubstantiated
declarations are not sufficient where the quantum of evidence required to
establish a fact is substantial evidence, described as more than a mere
scintilla. Moreover, Section 3(d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court carries a legal
presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case
law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document
43
without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. Also, Section
3(p) of the same Rule equally presumes that private transactions have been fair
and regular. It therefore behooves every contracting party to learn and know
the contents of a document before he signs the same. To add, since the
employment contracts were duly acknowledged before a notary public, it is
deemed prima facie evidence of the facts expressed therein and such notarial
documents have in their favor the presumption of regularity that may be
contradicted only by clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant
evidence, which respondent failed to show in this case.
G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Rape; The accused-appellant

likewise questions the inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony such as the kind of
weapon used during the March 2004 incident and the dates of the commission of
the crime. The Supreme Court (SC) concurs, however, with the ruling of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) that such matter is insignificant in character since
such is not a material element in the crime of rape. — The accused-appellant
likewise questions the inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony such as the kind of
weapon used during the March 2004 incident and the dates of the commission
of the crime. We concur, however, with the ruling of the RTC that such matter
is insignificant in character since such is not a material element in the crime of
rape. The discrepancy as to the kind of weapon used, as reflected in the
victim’s affidavit and her testimony in open court, does not outweigh the
credibility of the witness since the affidavit was not read to her by the Naga
police officer who assisted her in its preparation. Such inconsistency does not
likewise remove the fact of rape.
G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015 - DOMINADOR M. APIQUE, Petitioner,

v. EVANGELINE APIQUE FAHNENSTICH, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. — In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. Thus, the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue has the onus to prove his assertion in order to obtain a
favorable judgment. For the plaintiff, the burden to prove its positive assertions
never parts. For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one which is not a
44
denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action, but one

which, if established, will be a good defense, i.e., an avoidance of the claim.
Dominador miserably failed in this respect.
G.R. No. 213913, September 02, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULKIPLI ASAMUDDIN Y SALAPUDIN A.K.A."JUL"
AND "REY", Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The determination of the credibility of

witnesses is best left to the trial court judge because of his untrammeled
opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness on the stand and,
thus, to determine whether he or she is telling the truth. — When the credibility
of the witness is in issue, the settled rule is that the trial court’s assessment
thereof is accorded great weight by appellate courts absent any showing that
the trial court overlooked certain matters which, if taken into consideration,
would have materially affected the outcome of the case. And where the trial
court’s findings have been affirmed by the CA, these are generally binding and
conclusive upon this Court. The determination of the credibility of witnesses is
best left to the trial court judge because of his untrammeled opportunity to
observe directly the demeanor of a witness on the stand and, thus, to
determine whether he or she is telling the truth. After a circumspect scrutiny of
the records of the case, we find no reason to modify, alter or reverse the factual
finding of the lower court and affirmed by the CA that in the afternoon of July
11, 2007, appellant received money from Emelina; used his service motorcycle;
and disappeared with the money and the motorcycle.
Same; Same; Same; It is settled that the witness’ relationship to the victim does
not automatically affect the veracity of his or her testimony. — Appellant failed to
establish the alleged ill motive of Emelina in implicating him in the present
case. No evidence was presented to show that the business of Emelina incurred
losses that needed to be concealed from her business partners. Absent any
improper motive to falsely testify against the appellant, Emelina’s declarations
are worthy of full faith and credence. In like manner, Imee’s employment as the
domestic servant of Emelina is not a ground to disregard her testimony.
Relationship alone is not enough reason to discredit and label Imee’s testimony
as biased and unworthy of credence. It is settled that the witness’ relationship
to the victim does not automatically affect the veracity of his or her testimony.
G.R. No. 198309, September 07, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDY REGASPI, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s
assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless
45
the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance

of weight and influence. — When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s
assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless
the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance
of weight and influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the
deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial
court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate
testimonial evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent application where
the CA sustained said findings, as in this case.

Appellee, v. JOCELYN POSADA Y SONTILLANO AND FRANCISCO POSADA
Y URBANO, Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Extrajudicial Confession; As the Court of Appeals (CA)

correctly pointed out, when accused-appellant Jocelyn signed the Certificate of
Orderly Search, she did not confess her guilt to the crime charged. She merely
admitted to the fact that a lawful search was conducted while she was in the
same premises.—As the CA correctly pointed out, when accused-appellant
Jocelyn signed the Certificate of Orderly Search, she did not confess her guilt
to the crime charged. She merely admitted to the fact that a lawful search was
conducted while she was in the same premises.
G.R. No. 187727, September 02, 2015 - TOMASA J. SABELLINA,

Petitioner, v. DOLORES BURAY, LEDENIA VILLAMOR, ARLENE MAGSAYO,
LUDIMA ROMULO, RAMON CANADELLA, ROBERTO ACIDO, MARIO
ESPARGUERA, RODRIGO ACIDO, RONNIE UBANGAN AND CONCEPCION
REBUSTO, Respondents.
Same; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; Words and Phrases; Preponderance

of evidence simply means evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing
than what is offered against it. — Preponderance of evidence simply means
evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than what is offered
against it. In determining where the preponderance of evidence lies, the court
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, such as: the
witnesses’ demeanor, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which
they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and their personal credibility so far as it may legitimately
appear to the court.
46
G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015 - ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO, RAFAEL A.
PUENTESPINA, PROCULO T. SARMEN, AMELITO L. REVUELTA, WILLIAM
C. YBANEZ, SILVERIO J. SANCHEZ, GLORIA G. FUTALAN, HILARIO DE
GUZMAN, EUGENE M. PABUALAN, RODOLFO E. PEREZ, HIPOLITO R.
QUILLAN, MARIO ARENAS, TIRSO C. BUENAVENTURA, LYDIA B.
TUBELLA, REYNALDO C. GOLO& JONATHAN DEQUINA IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, AND AS LEGITIMATE MEMBERS AND
OFFICERS OF ADHIKAING TINATAGUYOD NG KOOPERATIBA (ATING
KOOP PARTY LIST), Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC AND THE SELF-STYLED SHAM ATING KOOP PARTYLIST
REPRESENTED BY AMPARO T. RIMAS, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Equiponderance of Evidence; When the evidence in an

issue of fact is in equipoise, that is, when the respective sets of evidence of both
parties are evenly balanced, the party having the burden of proof fails in that
issue. — Accordingly, as neither group can sufficiently lay claim to legitimacy,
the equipoise doctrine comes into play. This rule provides that when the
evidence in an issue of fact is in equipoise, that is, when the respective sets of
evidence of both parties are evenly balanced, the party having the burden of
proof fails in that issue. Since neither party succeeds in making out a case,
neither side prevails. The courts are left with no other option but to leave them
as they are. The consequence, therefore, is the dismissal of the
complaint/petition.
G.R. No. 188794, September 02, 2015 - HONESTO OGAYON Y DIAZ,

Constitutional Law; Evidence; Exclusionary Rule; Under the Constitution, any

evidence obtained in violation of a person’s right against unreasonable searches
and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.—In the
light of the nullity of Search Warrant No. AEK 29-2003, the search conducted
on it authority is likewise null and void. Under the Constitution, any evidence
obtained in violation of a person’s right against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. With the
inadmissibility of the drugs seized from Ogayon’s home, there is no more
evidence to support his conviction. Thus, we see no reason to further discuss
the other issues raised in this petition.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTINA SAMSON, Accused-Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Flight; Generally, flight, in the absence of a credible

explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be
established, for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available
47
opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence. — Generally, flight, in

the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an
inference of guilt might be established, for a truly innocent person would
normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his
innocence. It has been held, however, that non-flight may not be construed as
an indication of innocence either. There is no law or dictum holding that
staying put is proof of innocence, for the Court is not blind to the cunning ways
of a wolf which, after a kill, may feign innocence and choose not to flee. In
Cristina’s case, she explained that she took flight for fear of her safety because
of possible retaliation from her husband’s siblings. The Court finds such
reason for her choice to flee acceptable. She did not hide from the law but from
those who would possibly do her harm.
G.R. No. 205590, September 02, 2015 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,

Petitioner, v. GAYAM. PAS IMIO, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; Settled is the rule that a

defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it
to a private instrument, and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be
based on preponderance of evidence.—The absence of Pasimio’s community tax
certificate number in: said loan documents neither vitiates the transaction nor
invalidates the document. If at all, such absence renders the notarization of the
loan documents defective. Under the notarial rules at that time, i.e., Sec. 163(a)
of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of
1991, where an individual subject to the community tax acknowledges any
document before a notary public, it shall be the duty of the administering
officer to require such individual to exhibit the community tax certificate. The
defective notarization of the loan documents only means that these documents
would not be carrying the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to
its due execution; that they should be treated as a private document to be
examined in appropriate cases under the parameters of Sec. 20, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court which provides that “before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b)
by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker x x
x.” Settled is the rule that a defective notarization will strip the document of its
public character and reduce it to a private instrument, and the evidentiary
standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of evidence.
Same; Same; Res Inter Alios Acta; Acts and declarations of persons strangers to
a suit should, as a rule, be irrelevant as evidence.—It was wrong for the CA to
make the foregoing conclusions merely because another bank client, Virginia
Pollard (Pollard), testified to being a victim of irregular bank transactions of
PNB Sucat. Even if Pollard were telling the truth, her testimony should not
48
have been considered proof that what she underwent is what actually
transpired between Pasimio and PNB. Res inter alios acta. Acts and
declarations of persons strangers to a suit should, as a rule, be ir relevant as
evidence. Pollard’s transaction with PNB is entirely different and totally
unrelated to Pasimio’s dealings with the bank.
Same; Same; Parol Evidence; That when the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and,
therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no
evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing.— It
is well to consider this rule: that when the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and,
therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest,
no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the
writing. Under this rule, parol evidence or oral evidence cannot be given to
contradict, change or vary a written document, except if a party presents
evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of a written agreement and
puts in issue in his pleadings: (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or
imperfection in the written agreement; (b) the failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and agreement of the parties; (c) the validity of the
written agreement; and (d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement.
G.R. No. 198796, September 16, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICOLAS LARA III Y AGATEP AND
RANDY ALCAYDE Y MAGUNDAYAO, ACCUSED, ABDUL MAMMAD Y
MACDIROL, LADGER TAMPOY Y BAGAYAD AND HATA SARIOL Y MADDAS,
Accused-Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Exclusionary Rule; It is settled that failure to strictly

comply with Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 will not result
in an illegal arrest or the seized items being inadmissible in evidence.— Section
21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides: Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—The PDEA shall
take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
49
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is settled that failure to strictly comply
with the aforementioned provision will not result in an illegal arrest or the
seized items being inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, substantial
compliance is recognized.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUZETTE ARNAIZ A.K.A. "BABY ROSAL", Accused-
Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Settled is the rule that the findings and
conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses as they testify.—Appellant insists on the veracity of her own
testimony in claiming that the prosecution failed to prove that she is guilty of
illegal recruitment in large scale. Her testimony, however, was rejected by the
RTC which found the testimonies of the complainants credible and truthful.
Settled is the rule that the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts
have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. The
CA likewise believed the complainants’ testimonies and found them to be clear
and categorical. The determination by the trial court of the credibility of
witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, is accorded
full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEL "ANJOY" BUCA, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; The Court has held
time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature
deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender
age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was
not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.—We find the
testimony of AAA sufficient to establish the element of carnal knowledge. We
note that the RTC described the testimony of AAA as positive, credible, natural
and convincing. The Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape
victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no
young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by
50
being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to
obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one
not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so
serious as rape if what she claims is not true.
Same; Same; Same; It is doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court,
especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.—It is doctrinally settled that
factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim,
are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. The
Court observes restraint in interfering with the trial court’s assessment of the
witnesses’ credibility, absent any indication or showing that the trial court
overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, more so, when
the CA sustained such assessment, as in this case, where it affirmed the trial
court’s findings of fact, the veracity of the testimonies of the witnesses, the
determination of physical evidence and conclusions.
Same; Same; Same; In People v. Laog, 658 SCRA 654 (2011), the Supreme Court
(SC) clarified that minor inconsistencies are not enough to sustain the acquittal of
an accused.—As to the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of AAA and that
of her brother CCC, accused-appellant points out that AAA testified that her
brother pulled her away from accused-appellant while CCC narrated that she
was released by accused-appellant. In People v. Laog, 658 SCRA 654 (2011),
the Court clarified that minor inconsistencies are not enough to sustain the
acquittal of an accused, to wit: x x x Nonetheless, this matter raised by
appellant is a minor detail which had nothing to do with the elements of the
crime of rape. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral
matters — not to the central fact of the crime — do not affect the veracity or
detract from the essential credibility of witnesses’ declarations, as long as these
are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or
inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it
must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime
charged. It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not
diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.
(Emphasis supplied) The minor inconsistency in this case is how AAA was
released by accused-appellant which is not an element of rape. Such fact not
being an element of the crime will not put to doubt the prosecution witnesses’
testimony establishing the crime.
51

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADRIAN GUTING Y TOMAS, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; To justify a conviction upon

circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to
leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal liability of the accused.
— To justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of
circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to
the criminal liability of the accused. Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court
enumerates the conditions when circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction, thus: SEC. 4. Circumstantial Evidence, when sufficient.—
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than
one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (c) The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 182210, October 05, 2015 - PAZ T. BERNARDO, SUBSTITUTED

BY HEIRS, MAPALAD G. BERNARDO, EMILIE B. KO, MARILOU B.
VALDEZ, EDWIN T. BERNARDO AND GERVY B. SANTOS, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Burden of Proof; Payment; Once the existence of an indebtedness is

established by evidence, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the
obligation has been discharged by payment rests with the debtor.
Jurisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment carries the burden of
proving it. Indeed, once the existence of the indebtedness is established by
evidence, their burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation
has been discharged by payment rests with the debtor. After the debtor
introduces evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the
evidence again shifts to the creditor, who then labors under a duty to
produce evidence to show nonpayment.
G.R. No. 182395, October 05, 2015 - MARITO T. BERNALES, Petitioner,

v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, Respondent.
Previous Conduct; Previous Conduct may be received as evidence to prove

specific intent, habit, and tendencies. As the CA did, we do not believe the
petitioner’s accusations that Ohashi barged into shuttle bus, verbally
abused him, and forced him off the bus. It makes no sense for Ohashi to
suddenly yell, “Bullshit, Marito Bernales, you are not included in the
manifest. Get out! Get out!” out of nowhere without any prior exchanges.
Moreover, we find it hard to believe that neither the petitioner nor the other
52
delegates protested on the spot against the abusive treatment. As the CA

observed, this version of events is contrary to ordinary human experience.
Moreover, Ohashi has a good track record in customer service and was a
recipient of several commendation letters that were presented in Court. We
agree with the petitioner that under the Rules of Evidence, his previous acts
are not admissible to prove how Ohashi behaved during the incident. But as
the respondent pointed out, previous conduct may be received as evidence
to prove specific intent, habit, and tendencies. Ohashis’s track record
contradicts the petitioner’s portrayal of him as an unreasonably rude
person.
G.R. No. 181683, October 07, 2015 - LORENZO SHIPPING

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 184568 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondent.
Private documents; A private document offered as authentic evidence shall not

be admitted unless its due execution and authenticity are established in the
manner specified by Rule 132, Section 30 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. It
is basic that any material presented as evidence will not be considered
unless duly admitted by the court before which it is presented. Just as basic
is that a private document offered as authentic evidence shall not be
admitted unless its due execution and authenticity are established in the
manner specified by the rules.
Rule 128, Section 3 governs admissibility and provides that “evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is excluded by the law or
these rules.” Admissibility of evidence and weight accorded to evidence are
two distinct affairs. When evidence has “such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence,” it is said to be relevant.
When evidence is not excluded by law or by the Rules, it is said to be
incompetent.
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence; The weight accorded to evidence is
properly considered only after evidence has been admitted. To this end,
courts evaluate evidence in accordance with the rule stipulated by Rule 133,
consistent with basic precepts of rationality and guided by judicially
established standards. It is improper to even speak of evidentiary weight
when the piece of evidence in question has not even been admitted.
53
G.R. No. 211638, October 07, 2015 - MARK ANTHONY SASO,

Petitioner, v. 88 ACES MARITIME SERVICE, INC. AND/OR
CARMENCITA A. SARREAL AND LIN WEN YU, Respondents.
Labor Law; Seafarers; In case of doubt in the evidence presented by the

employer, the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the seafarer
pursuant to the principle that the employer’s case succeeds or fails on the
strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the
employee. Anent respondents’ written advice of June 21, 2010 wherein they
requested Saso to report to their office for medical checkup, the same
cannot also be given credence for the obvious reason that it was made way
beyond the 3-day mandatory reporting period. As averred by Saso, such
issuance by respondents of the written advice is a mere afterthought to
make it appear that they complied with the requirements of the POEA-SEC.
Had the respondents been truly keen in having him undergo a post-
employment examination, they should have furnished him such advice
when he earlier went to their office but did not do so.
G.R. No. 197058, October 14, 2015 - GREGORY BALUYO Y GAMORA,

FOR AND IN BEHALF OF EMMANUEL GAMORA BALUYO, Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES JOAQUIN AND REBECCA DE LA CRUZ, Respondents.
Documentary Evidence; Notarized Documents; The settled ruled is that a

notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as
to the truthfulness of its contents. We find that the respondent’s evidence and
arguments fail to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the
petitioner’s notarized deed of absolute sale.
G.R. Nos. 204481-82, October 14, 2015 - ALBERT G. AMBAGAN, JR.,

Witnesses; Time and again, the SC has held that the testimony of a sole
eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear,
straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court. The finding of guilt
based on the testimony of a lone witness is not uncommon in our
jurisprudence. Such rulings were premised on the fact that the credibility of
the sole witnesses was duly established and observed in court.
Same; The SC has consistently ruled that in the matter of credibility of

witnesses, the findings of the trial court, in ordinary criminal proceedings, are
given weight and respect by appellate courts and, generally, will not be
54
disturbed on appeal. Deviation from this rule will only be allowed if there is
any showing that the trial judge overlooked some material or substantial
facts which, if given consideration, will alter the assailed decision. So, too,
this Court is not bound by the findings of the Sandiganbayan should it
discover that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are marred with
inconsistencies that are neither collateral nor trivial, but are material and
substantial in matters determinative of petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Same; Minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the
testimony, even enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any
suspicion that the testimony was contrived or rehearsed. The death of 3 other
individuals in this case is not a minute detail, so much so that one who
claim not to have blinked during the entire incident, as Ronnel Bawalan
alleged, could not have possibly overlooked the same. This cannot simply be
glossed over and treated as a badge of truthfulness, but instead plausibly
raises suspicion as to his presence in the scene of the crime when it was
committed.
Same; Bias; A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or
to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color
to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is
false. Bias is that which excites “a disposition to see and report matters as
they are wished for rather than as they are.” To warrant rejection of the
testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that,
independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable
or defective, or that improper evil motives had moved the witness to
incriminate the accused falsely.
Same; The general rule may be that where there is no evidence to indicate
that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motive, the
presumption is that they were not so actuated and that their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credit. In this case, however, there are sufficient
circumstances and discrepancies in Ronnel Bawalan’s testimony that impel
this court to look at his version of the facts with reasonable skepticism.
For inconsistencies to not discredit a witness, they must be minor and should
not on material details. In determining the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, we entertain the probability or improbability of alternative
scenarios other than what is offered by the prosecution. For this purpose,
we were urged “to view Ronnel Bawalan’s testimony as a whole” to reconcile
the inconsistencies in his statements, but as extensively discussed, Ronnel
Bawalan’s narration of events is not airtight and even brings to fore more
55
reasons to disbelieve hi version. Indeed, there are far too many

inconsistencies in the testimonies of Ronnel Bawalan, enough to put us on
guard when it comes to accepting the veracity of his claims. For
inconsistencies to not discredit a witness, the must be minor and should
not on material details. But here, we find the statementsunable to foreclose
the probability that Ambagan did not initiate the firefight, and casts
reasonable doubt as to his guilt as principal by inducement.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt, more than mere likelihood, requires moreal
certainty – a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience
of those who are to act upon it. The scant evidence for the prosecution casts
serious doubts as to the guilt of petitioner as principal by inducement. It
was not convincingly established, beyond reasonable doubt, that petitioner
indeed ordered his men to open fire at Santos and Domingo Bawalan. The
evidence offered against him does not pass the test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence that petitioner is entitled
to under the Bill of Rights. And where there is reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of an accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be
questioned, for it is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability,
even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the
contrary.
G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON, Accused-Appellant.
Well-settled is the rule in criminal law that the conviction of an accused must
be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the
weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. The accused has no burden
to prove his innocence and the weakness of the defense he interposed is
inconsequential. He must be acquitted and set free as the prosecution failed
to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor.
G.R. No. 212096, October 14, 2015 - NIGHTOWL WATCHMAN &

SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. NESTOR LUMAHAN,
Respondent.
Labor law; Substantial Evidence; It should be remembered that in cases

before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, the degree of
evidence required to be met is substantial evidence, or such amount of
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion. In a situation where the word of another party is taken against
the other, as in this case, we must rely on substantial evidence because a
56
party alleging a critical fact must duly substantiate and support its
allegation.
G.R. No. 212861, October 14, 2015 - MELVIN P. MALLO, Petitioner, v.

SOUTHEAST ASIAN COLLEGE, INC. AND EDITA ENATSU, Respondents.
Substantial evidence; It bears stressing that a party alleging a critical fact

must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based
on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. In
this case, records are bereft of any indication that Mallo’s absence from
work was deliberate, unjustified, and with a clear intent to sever his
employment relationship with SACI. While respondents claim to have
assigned Mallo as Clinical Instructor at UDMC after failing the qualifying
tests at NCMH, which assignment the latter initially accepted, but
eventually declined, there is no proof that Mallo was informed of such
assignment.
G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VERGEL ANCAJAS AND ALLAIN ANCAJAS,
Accused-Appellants.
Circumstantial evidence; Judgments; A judgment of conviction based on

circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved
from an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one
circumstance; the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and the combination of all the circumstance is such as to produce a
conviction based on a reasonable doubt.
Crying of the victim; Rape; The crying of the victim during her testimony is
evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion
indicates the pain the victim feels when she recounts the detail of her
traumatic experience. We find no error committed by the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA, in giving credence to AAA’s testimony. In fact, it was put down in
record that AAA was crying while she was testifying before the trial court.
57
G.R. No. 174115, November 09, 2015 - PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO

(P&A), BENJAMIN R. PUNONGBAYAN., JOSE G. ARAULLO, GREGORIO
S. NAVARRO, ALFREDO V. DAMIAN AND JESSIE C. CARPIO,
Petitioners, v. ROBERTO PONCE LEPON, Respondent.
Substantial evidence; Affidavits; Affidavits may be sufficient to establish

substantial evidence. Affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence means “that the amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”
In Capitol Medical Center vs. NLRC, this Court gave credence to the affidavits
of the 17 employees of Capitol Medical Center, its security guards, and the
union members, to the effect that no strike vote took place. In that case,
while the Labor Arbiter upheld the affidavits of the employees, guards and
union members of Capitol Medical Center, the NLRC and the CA ruled that
the affidavits had no probative value because they were executed out of fear.
The CA also noted that the affidavits were uniform pro forma.
G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015 - EDILBERTO P. ETOM, JR.,

Petitioner, v. AROMA LODGING HOUSE THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM,
PROPRIETOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, Respondent.
Notarized documents; The fact that a document is notarized is not a

guarantee of the validity of its contents. While a notarized document is
presumed to be regular such presumption is not absolute and may be
overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Here, petitioner
is an unlettered employee who may not have understood the full import of
his statements in the affidavit. Notably, petitioner, along with a coworker
did not state the specific amount of what they referred to as salary above
the minimum required by law.
A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015 - ELENA BIETE LEONES VDA. DE
MILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, Respondent.
Notarized documents; The notarial seal converts a document from a private to

a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without
need of proof of its genuineness and due execution. A notary public is
empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are
the acknowledgment and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the
performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the
significance of the notarial seal affixed on the documents. Thus, notarization
should not be treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. A notary
58
public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries

must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they
should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVENIDO REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING,
Accused-Appellant.
Witnesses; It is doctrinally established that discrepancies between the

statements of the affiant in her affidavit and those made by her on the
witness stand do not necessarily discredit her, since ex parte affidavits tend
to be incomplete and inaccurate. As regards to the alleged discrepancies in
AAA’s testimony, the statements in her complaint-affidavit, and her medical
certificate, the same are not sufficient grounds for acquittal. Hence,
affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to declarations made in
open court. Moreover, the medical examination of the victim and the
medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not
indispensable elements in rape. What is more important is that the
testimony of the private complainant about the incident is clear,
unequivocal and credible.
G.R. No. 175378, November 11, 2015 - MULTI-INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS DATA SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v. RUEL MARTINEZ,
Respondent.
Handwriting; Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes
the court to compare the handwriting in issue with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Section 22, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court to compare the
handwriting in issue with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the
party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. In Jimenez vs. Commission on
Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian Church in the
USA, we held: It is also hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting
experts, even those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts.
This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual
comparison of specimens of the questioned signature with those of the
currently existing ones. Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the
examination or the comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery does not
depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the
judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned
signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
59

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN,
Accused-Appellants.
Witnesses; Police officers; The testimonies of the police officers who caught
accused-appellants in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal drugs during
the conduct of a valid search are usually credited with more weight and
credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired by an
improper or ill motive. Here, there is no proof of any ill motive or odious
intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime to
accused-appellants.
Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witness referring to

minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime,
do not impair their credibility. Testimony of witnesses need only corroborate
each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal
occurrence. Accused-appellants hammer on the supposed inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the witnesses such as whether barangay officials were
present at the time of the conduct of the search. The latter was sufficiently
explained by the prosecution while the other inconsistencies pertain to
minor details and are so inconsequential that they do not affect the
credibility of the witnesses referring to minor details, and do not in actuality
touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility.
Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and
relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. In fact, such minor
inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses’ credibility as
they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.
Same; even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial
search, the search was witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence,
the search was valid since the rule that “two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality” must be present applies only in the
absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any of his family. As
correctly ruled by the CA, the search was valid.
A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015 - NELSON P. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v.

ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON, JR., Respondent.
Negative pregnant; A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression

which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind
favorable to the adverse party. The respondent’s denial is a negative
pregnant, a denial coupled with the admission of substantial facts in the
60
pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. Where a fact is alleged
with qualifying or modifying or language and the words of the allegation as
so qualified or modified are literally denied while the fact itself is admitted.
It is clear from Atty. Dabon’s comment that his denial only pertained as to
the existence of a forced illicit relationship. Without a categorical denial
thereof, he is deemed to have admitted his consensual affair with Sonia.
G.R. No. 189509, November 23, 2015 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, Petitioner, v. G & P BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, SPOUSES
ELPIDIO AND ROSE VIOLET PARAS, SPOUSES JESUS AND MA.
CONSUELO PARAS AND VICTORIA PARAS, Respondents.
Parole evidence rule; When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the
parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices
that, to all purposes, would alter the terms of the written agreement.
Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and
abandoned.
G.R. No. 189229, November 23, 2015 - REYNALDO NOBLADO, JIMMY

ARAGON, ARTURO MALAYO, MARCIANO VICTORIA, ELINO DALANON,
JOSE ESTRIL, DOMINGO MALUPENG, ALFREDIE RAYTA, ROMULO
RECOMES, ADRIAN VERCELES, RUEL MAD RON A, RUBEN
MIRAFUENTES, ARNULFO MALAYO, JAIME REMIAS, JELMER
BEROLLA, EDIL CASTILLO, FELICIDAD ROSIMA, MITCHEL VICTORIA,
DANIEL MALUPENG, ZOSIMO RANAS, ROSIETA RAYTA, RAFAEL
TUMIMBANG, FLORENCIO VICTORIA, ERNESTO VICTORIA, CERIA
ORTIZ, RAUL ADRA, AND VICENTE CUACHIN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
LEGAL HEIRS, NAMELY: LILIA LORENO CUACHIN, NILO L. CUACHIN,
LEONARDO L. CUACHIN, JUDITH L. CUACHIN, VILMA CUACHIN
LLANZANA, ELVIE CUACHIN MANTES, CRISTINA CUACHIN SARCIA,
LILIBETH CUACHIN BELORIA, AIDA CUACHIN MIRANDILLA, JULIET
CUACHIN AWA, Petitioners, v. PRTNCESITA K. ALFONSO, Respondent.
Witnesses; Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in

issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as
its conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the
CA, since it is settled that when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed
by the appellate court, these findings are generally binding upon this Court.
We see no reason to depart from this rule.
61
G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015 - PHIL-AIR CONDITIONING

CENTER, Petitioner, v. RCJ LINES AND ROLANDO ABADILLA, JR.,
Respondent.
Witnesses; The issue of credibility of witness is a question best addressed to

the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed
that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on
the stand while testifying. The time-honored rule is that “the issue of
credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the
trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while
testifying, and absent any substantial reason which would justify the
reversal of the trial court’s assessment and conclusions, the reviewing court
is generally bound by the former’s findings, particularly when no significant
facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded,
which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.” This
rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are
sustained by the CA.
Child witness; The testimony of child victim is normally given full weight and
credit considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to
which she would be exposed of the matter to which she testified was not true.
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Hence,
there is neither cause nor reason to withhold credence from AAA’s
testimony.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE SALIBAD Y DILO, Accused-Appellant.
Witnesses; Testimonial evidence; The SC has affirmed convictions based on

the testimony of witnesses who identified assailants from a distance of 31
feet and even from a distance of 50 meters away, while witnesses were
gathering coconuts, with tall and short shrubs between the witnesses and the
place where the felony occurred. We are not persuaded by the accused-
appellant’s claim. The eyewitnesses’ statements were correctly given
credence by the lower courts. Indeed, the test of credibility is not based
solely on proximity. It is settled that the Court gives the highest respect to
the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its
unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the
stand. the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the
RTC. We find no reason to rule otherwise in this case.
62

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCO DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON, A.K.A.
DARMO YAZON Y CORTEZ, A.K.A. FRANCO DE GUZMAN Y CORTEZ,
Accused-Appellant.
Witness; For having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment on
the stand, the trial judge is in a better position to resolve such question.
Appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s assessment of the trial
court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses in the absence pf proof
that some fact or circumstance of substance has been overlooked, or its
significance misinterpreted which, if properly appreciated, would affect the
disposition of the case.
G.R. No. 208113, December 02, 2015 - DOLORES DIAZ, Petitioner, v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LETICIA S. ARCILLA, Respondents.
Presumptions; Under section 3(d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the legal
presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Case law
dictates that the natural presumption is that on does not sign a document
without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. Further,
under Section 3(p) of the same rule, it is equally presumed that private
transactions have been fair and regular. This behooves every contracting
party to learn and know the contents of a document before he signs and
delivers it. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create
the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created,
thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail. In this case,
petitioner failed to present any evidence to controvert these presumptions.
Also, respondent’s possession of the document pertaining to the obligation
strongly buttress her claim that the same has not been extinguished.
Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence be greater or more
convincing than the opposite evidence. All things considered, the evidence in
this case clearly preponderates in respondent’s favor.
G.R. No. 190583, December 07, 2015 MARIA PAZ FRONTRERAS Y

ILAGAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
Confessions; A confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, if voluntary and

freely made, constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported by the
strong presumption that no sane person or one of normal mind will
deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime,
63
unless prompted by truth and conscience. The admissibility and validity of a

confession, thus hinges on its voluntariness, a condition vividly present in
this case.
G.R. No. 203115, December 07, 2015 - ISLAND OVERSEAS TRANSPORT

CORPORATION/PINE CREST SHIPPING CORPORATION/CAPT.
EMMANUEL L. REGIO, Petitioners, v. ARMANDO M. BEJA, Respondent.
Substantial evidence; It is an inflexible rule that a party alleging a critical fact

must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based
on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process.
We, however, note that Beja has not presented any proof of his allegation
that he met an accident on board the vessel. There was no single evidence to
show that Beja was injured due to an accident while onboard. Beja’s claim
was simply based on pure allegations. Yet, evidence was submitted by
petitioners deputing Beja’s allegation. The certifications by the Master of the
vessel and Chief Engineer affirmed that Beja never met an accident onboard
nor was he injured while in the performance of his duties under their
command. Beja did not dispute these certifications nor presented any
contrary evidence. “It is an inflexible rule that a party alleging a critical fact
mus support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based
on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process.”
G.R. No. 210445, December 07, 2015 - NILO B. ROSIT, Petitioner, v.

DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL AND DR. ROLANDO G. GESTUVO,
Respondent.
Affidavits; Hearsay Evidence;An affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where

its affiant/maker did not take the witness stand. Here, Dr. Pangan never
took the witness stand to affirm the contents of his affidavit. Thus, the
affidavit is inadmissible and cannot be given any weight. The CA, therefore,
erred when it considered the affidavit of Dr. Pangan, more so for considering
the same as expert testimony.
Expert witnesses; Even if such affidavit is considered as admissible and the

testimony of an expert witness, the Court is not bound by such testimony.
Indeed, courts are not bound by such testimonies. They may place whatever
weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of
the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly
within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and
character of the witness, his action upon the witness stand, the weight and
process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his
possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, and any other
64
matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of an expert

should be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances
of the case. The problem of the evaluation of expert testimony is left to the
discretion of the trial court whose decision thereupon is not reviewable in
the absence of an abuse of that discretion. Thus, the belief of Dr. Pangan
whether Dr. Gestuvo is gulty of negligence or not will not bind the Court.
The Court must weigh and examine such testimony and decide for itself the
thereof.
G.R. No. 213832, December 07, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT MERCADO A.K.A. "BONG", Accused-
Appellant.
Testimonial evidence; Where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the

prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so
actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. It bears
stressing that the defense failed to present any possible reason for Analiza,
Rosario, and the other prosecution witnesses to wrongly implicate Mercado
in the crimes. The prosecution’s case against Mercado was not even
weakened by the mere fact that he was the lone accused sitting on the
prisoner’s bench at the time he was identified by sitting on the prisoners’
bench at the time he was identified by prosecution witnesses inside the
courtroom during hearings. The prosecution witnesses sufficiently explained
in court how they came to know of Mercado, and their degree of familiarity
with him, especially Analiza who was his girlfriend.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNLIE LAGANGGA Y DUMPA, Accused-
Appellant.
Witnesses; Rape; If the testimony of the victim is credible, convincing and

consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused
may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. “Since the crime of rape is
essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually
only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the force coitus. In
its prosecution therefore, the credibility of the victim is almost always the
single and most important issue to deal with.”
When the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court’s assessment is
accorded great weight unless it is shown that it overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated a certain fact or circumstance of weight which, if properly
considered, would alter the result of the case. Essentially, the argument of
appellant as premised, boils down to the issue of credibility.
65
Documentary evidence; Medical certificate; Rape; The absence of a medical

certificate is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Case law has it that in
view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to
prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. “Even
absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the
basis of conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover, the absence of
external injuries does not negate rape. In fact, even the presence of
spermatozoa is not an essential element of rape.”

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO PATEÑO DAYAPDAPAN, Accused-
Appellant.
Witnesses; Rape; Findings of the lower courts with respect to credibility of the
rape victim are conclusive. AAA’s credibility was upheld by the trial court,
which is in a position to observe the candor, behavior and demeanor of the
witness. Findings of the lower courts with respect to credibility of the rape
victim are conclusive. We also cannot give credence to accused-appellant’s
claim that AAA was taking revenge when she filed the rape charges against
accused-appellant for allegedly castigating her. No woman in her right mind,
especially a young girl, would fabricate charges of this nature and severity.
Documentary evidence; A birth certificate, baptismal certificate, school records

or documents of similar nature can be presented to prove the age of a victim.
The RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the twin qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship. Accused-appellant admitted during the pretrial
conference that AAA was his daughter. Anent an element of minority, the
prosecution presented a certification from the UCCP Office in Ayungon,
Negros Occidental stating that AAA was baptized according to the rites and
ceremonies of the UCCCP. The certification that AAA was born on 10
September 1987 to accused-appellant and a certain Nely Fabel. A page of
the UCCP Membership Book was submitted bearing the same information.
In this case, the Membership Book, which is considered an entry in official
records under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is admissible as
prima facie of their contents and corroborative of AAA’s testimony as to her
age. Moreover, entries in public or official books or records themselves or by
a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof.
66

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO, Accused-
Appellant.
Witnesses; Guidelines in addressing the issue of credibility of witnesses.

First, this Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the
testimony of witnesses, it having the distinct opportunity of observing the
witness’s demeanor on the stand. Second, absent substantial reasons, i.e.,
significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, that
are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, which would warrant the
reversal of the RTC’s evaluation, the appellate court is generally bound by
the lower court’s findings. Lastly, the rules is stringently applied when the
CA affirms the lower court’s ruling.
G.R. NO. 167333

PEDRO LADINES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
EDWIN DE RAMON, RESPONDENTS.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Newly-Discovered Evidence; The concept of newly

discovered evidence is applicable only when a litigant seeks a new trial or the
reopening of the case in the trial court. - the res gestae statement of Licup did
not constitute newly-discovered evidence that created a reasonable doubt as to
the petitioner's guilt. We point out that the concept of newly-discovered
evidence is applicable only when a litigant seeks a new trial or the re-opening
of the case in the trial court. Seldom is the concept appropriate on appeal,
particularly one before the Court. The absence of a specific rule on the
introduction of newly-discovered evidence at this late stage of the proceedings
is not without reason. The Court would be compelled, despite its not being a
trier of facts, to receive and consider the evidence for purposes of its appellate
adjudication.
G.R. NO. 174673

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. FE ROA GIMENEZ AND
IGNACIO B. GIMENEZ, RESPONDENTS.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; the quantum of evidence

required for forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 is the same
with other civil cases — preponderance of evidence. - To stress, the quantum of
evidence required for forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 is the
same with other civil cases — preponderance of evidence.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Demurrer to Evidence; When a criminal
case based on demurrer to evidence is dismissed, the dismissal is equivalent to
67
an acquittal. - When a criminal case based on demurrer to evidence is

dismissed, the dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal. As a rule, once the court
grants the demurrer, the grant amounts to an acquittal; any further
prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on
double jeopardy. Hence, the Republic may only assail an acquittal through a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, a review
of a dismissal order of the Sandiganbayan granting an accused’s demurrer to
evidence may be done via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65,
based on the narrow ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Same; Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; Our Rules of Court lays down the
procedure for the formal offer of evidence. Testimonial evidence is offered "at
the time [a] witness is called to testify." Documentary and object evidence, on
the other hand, are offered "after the presentation of a party’s testimonial
evidence." Offer of documentary or object evidence is generally done orally
unless permission is given by the trial court for a written offer of evidence.
More importantly, the Rules specifically provides that evidence must be
formally offered to be considered by the court. Evidence not offered is excluded
in the determination of the case. "Failure to make a formal offer within a
considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it."
Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; The evidence
presented by petitioner before the Sandiganbayan deserves better treatment.
For instance, the nature and classification of the documents should have been
ruled upon. Save for certain cases, the original document must be presented
during trial when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document.132 This is the Best Evidence Rule provided under Rule 130, Section
3 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions.— When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the
original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (c)
When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to
be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When
the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office.
68
G.R. NO. 192914

NAPOLEON D. SENIT, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; the trial court’s assessment of the

credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and is even conclusive and
binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of significance and influence. - "Well-entrenched is the rule that
the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great
weight and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or
oversight of some fact or circumstance of significance and influence. This rule
is based on the fact that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor and the conduct of the witnesses." The Court finds in the instant
case that there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the rule.
G.R. NO. 213215

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. RUBEN BARON,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Requirement of

Circumstantial Evidence to Sustain Conviction - The requirements for
circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are settled. Rule 133, Section 4
of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: Section 4. Circumstantial evidence,
when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for cofnviction if: (a)
There is more than one circumstances; (b) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. NO. 174471

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY PEPINO
Y RUERAS AND PRECIOSA GOMEZ Y CAMPOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Out-of-Court Identification; Totality of

Circumstances Test; In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-
court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the
witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the
identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. - In
People v. Teehankee, Jr., the Court explained the procedure for out-of-court
identification and the test to determine the admissibility of such identifications
69
in this manner: Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various

ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face
with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where
photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done
thru lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons
lined up for the purpose x x x In resolving the admissibility of and relying on
out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the
identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, we find Edward's out-of-court
identification to be reliable and thus admissible. To recall, when the three
individuals entered Edward's office, they initially pretended to be customers,
and even asked about the products that were for sale. The three had told
Edward that they were going to pay, but Pepino "pulled out a gun" instead.
After Pepino' s companion had taken the money from the cashier's box, the
malefactors handcuffed Edward and forced him to go down to the parked car.
From this sequence of events, there was thus ample opportunity for Edward -
before and after the gun had been pointed at him - to view the faces of the
three persons who entered his office. In addition, Edward stated that Pepino
had talked to him "[a]t least once a day" during the four days that he was
detained.
G.R. NO. 178110 JUNE 15, 2011

AYALA LAND, INC. AND CAPITOL CITIFARMS, INC., PETITIONERS, VS.
SIMEONA CASTILLO, LORENZO PERLAS, JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS
MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN, AND BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG, AS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SIMEONA CASTILLO,
RESPONDENTS.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Admissions; Admissions Against Interest; The concept

of admissions against interest if governed by Section 26 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court - The concept of admissions against interest is governed by
Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides Sec. 26.
Admissions of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The above rule considers
admissions against interest as admissible evidence, but does not dispense with
the requirement that the admission be offered in evidence. In this case,
precisely because respondents did not raise the issue at all, petitioners did not
have any opportunity to inspect or question the authenticity and due execution
of the documents. It would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice,
70
and due process to suddenly reverse the decisions of three DAR Secretaries
and the Office of the President based on an alleged document - especially if
that document has not been presented, authenticated, or offered in evidence —
without giving the other party any opportunity to contradict the purported
admission.
G.R. NO. 168078

FABIO CAHAYAG AND CONRADO RIVERA, PETITIONERS,
VS.
BY HER HUSBAND ALFONSO MA. QUA; AND THE REGISTER
COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, LEONARDO B. ALEJANDRO; TERESITA T. QUA, ASSISTED OF
DEEDS OF LAS PINAS, METRO MANILA, DISTRICT IV, RESPONDENTS.
X-----------------------X
G.R. NO. 168357
DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, JUANITO C. DULOS; AND MILAGROS E. ESCALONA, AND
ILUMINADA D. BALDOZA, PETITIONERS,
VS.
COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, LEONARDO B. ALEJANDRO; TERESITA T. QUA, ASSISTED OF
DEEDS OF LAS PINAS, METRO MANILA, DISTRICT IV, RESPONDENTS.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; Evidence not formally

offered may be admitted and considered by the trial court so long as the
following requirements obtain: (1) the evidence is duly identified by testimony
duly recorded; and (2) the evidence is incorporated into the records of the case.
- Evidence not formally offered may be admitted and considered by the trial
court so long as the following requirements obtain: (1) the evidence is duly
identified by testimony duly recorded; and (2) the evidence is incorporated into
the records of the case. The exception does not apply to the case of Baldoza.
While she duly identified the Contract to Sell during her direct examination,
which was duly recorded, Exhibit "L" was not incorporated into the records.
G.R. NO. 206291

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN AND
THREE (3) OTHER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANIONS, APPELLANTS.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; t is well settled that the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect because it is
more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which
71
they gave their testimonies. - It is well settled that the trial court’s evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect because it is more
competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’
demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave
their testimonies. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if such
witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting
testimonies. Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its
assessment of the witnesses’ credibility are entitled to great weight and respect
by the Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the said findings,
and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked
certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome
of the case. After a careful review of the records, the Court finds that no
compelling reason exists to warrant a deviation from the foregoing principles,
and that the RTC and the CA committed no error in giving credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
G.R. NO. 191185

GUILBEMER FRANCO, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; it is essential that the

circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which
leads one to a fair nnd reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of others, as the guilty person. - To sustain a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides
that the following requisites must concur: (l) there must be more than one
circumstance to convict; (2) the facts on which the inference of guilt is based
must be proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. With respect to the third
requisite, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must
constitute an unbroken chain, which leads one to a fair nnd reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty
person.
G.R. NO. 190846

TOMAS P. TAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. JOSE G. HOSANA, RESPONDENT.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; Words and Phrases;

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the
term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible
evidence." - In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations
has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the
parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness
72
of the defense offered by their opponent. Preponderance of evidence is the

weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or
"greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase
that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is
more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto.
G.R. NO. 207535

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ,VS .RICARDO
LAGBO A.K.A RICARDO LABONG Y MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Testimonial Evidence; since human

memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a
testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility
of a witness. - This Court has ruled that since human memory is fickle and
prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never
been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness. Moreover, the
Court considers AAA's alleged inconsistency in testifying, with respect to the
place where the first and third rapes were committed, as a minor inconsistency
which should generally be given liberal appreciation considering that the place
of the commission of the crime in rape cases is after all not an essential
element thereof. What is decisive is that accused-appellant's commission of the
crime charged has been sufficiently proved.
G.R. NO. 203322

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REMAN SARIEGO,
APPELLANT.
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; unless there appears certain facts or

circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the
case, the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases
are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality. - In
resolving rape cases, the Court has always given primordial consideration to
the credibility of the victim's testimony. In fact, since rape is a crime that is
almost always committed in isolation, usually leaving only the victims to testify
on the commission of the crime, for as long as the victim's testimony is logical,
credible, consistent and convincing, the accused may be convicted solely on the
basis thereof. In this case, the courts below expressly found that AAA testified
in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, evincing her
credibility. As reproduced in the CA Decision, AAA's testimony during her
direct examination clearly recounted, in detail, the series of events that
transpired during the alleged incidents. Indeed, unless there appears certain
73
facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the
case, the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases
are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality.
Same; Same; Evidence; the best evidence to prove the age of a person is the
original birth certificate or certified true copy thereof, and in their absence,
similar authentic documents may be presented such as baptismal certificates
and school records. - the best evidence to prove the age of a person is the
original birth certificate or certified true copy thereof, and in their absence,
similar authentic documents may be presented such as baptismal certificates
and school records. If the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate is
not available, credible testimonies of the victim's mother or a member of the
family may be sufficient under certain circumstances. In the event that both
the birth certificate or other authentic documents and the testimonies of the
Victim's mother or other qualified relative are unavailable, the testimony of the
victim may be admitted in evidence provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused.
G.R. NO. 208071, MARCH 09, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS EDGARDO
PEREZ Y ALAVADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; for as long as the victim's
testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing, the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof. - Time and again, the Court has always
given primordial consideration to the credibility of a rape victim's testimony.
This is because rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation,
usually leaving only the victims to testify on the commission of the crime.
Thus, for as long as the victim's testimony is logical, credible, consistent and
convincing, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Here, the
trial court found AAA's testimony to be categorical, straightforward,
spontaneous and frank. In spite of her stringent cross-examination, AAA
remained steadfast, committing no material inconsistency which may adversely
affect her credibility, clearly and convincingly describing the events that
transpired during the rape incidents.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; a rape victim cannot be expected to

mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and
horrifying experience she had undergone. - In this case, the appellate court
expressly found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court in
view of the absence of any clear showing that some fact had been overlooked.
Neither does the Court's own perusal of the records of the case present any
reason to depart therefrom. Indeed, a rape victim cannot be expected to
74
horrifying experience she had undergone. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in

her testimony are generally expected. Thus, such fact, alone, cannot
automatically result in an accused's acquittal.
G.R. NO. 211642, MARCH 09, 2016

NELSON TEÑIDO Y SILVESTRE, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Questions pertaining to the credibility of a

witness are factual in nature and are, generally, outside the ambit of the
Court's appellate jurisdiction. - Questions pertaining to the credibility of a
witness are factual in nature and are, generally, outside the ambit of the
Court's appellate jurisdiction. It is a settled rule that a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law.
"A question that invites a review of the factual findings of the lower tribunals or
bodies is beyond the scope of this Court's power of review and generally
justifies the dismissal of the petition." Moreover, it is axiomatic that absent any
showing that the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances
that would affect the final disposition of the case, appellate courts are bound to
give due deference and respect to its evaluation of the credibility of an
eyewitness and his testimony as well as its probative value as it was certainly
in a better position to rate the credibility of the witnesses after hearing them
and observing their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
Same; Same; Same; Where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution
witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not
so actuated and that her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. - The fact
of delay attributed to a prosecution witness cannot be taken against her. What
is important is that her testimony regarding the incident bears the earmarks of
truth and dependability. Time and again, the Court has stressed: Delay in
revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair
the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given. No
standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a
strange or frightful experience. Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are
naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are
unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons.
Some fear for their lives and that of their family; while others shy away when
those involved in the crime are their relatives or townmates. And where there is
delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be
sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay. Guinto sufficiently
explained that she got nervous and frightened. Further, there is no showing
that Guinto was impelled by any ill motive to fabricate facts and attribute a
serious offense against Teñido. Where there is no evidence to indicate that the
prosecution witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that
75
she was not so actuated and that her testimony is entitled to full faith and
credit.
788 SCRA 189; APRIL 4, 2016

DRA. MERCEDES OLIVER, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK
AND LILIA CASTRO, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 214567
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Words and Phrases; Section 1, Rule
131 of the Rules of Court defines “burden of proof" as "the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law."-- The party who alleges a
fact has the burden of proving it. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
defines "burden of proof" as "the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law." In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
Once the plaintiff establishes his case, the burden of evidence shifts to the
defendant, who, in turn, bears the burden to establish his defense.
788 SCRA 331; APRIL 5, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IRENEO
JUGUETA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 202124
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Minor Inconsistencies; As ruled

in People v. Cabtalan, 666 SCRA 174 (2012) "[m]inor inconsistencies and
discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of
witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime."-- The supposed inconsistencies in Norberto's
testimony, i.e., that he failed to state from the very beginning that all three
assailants were carrying firearms, and that it was the shots from appellant’s
firearm that killed the children, are too trivial and inconsequential to put a
dent on said witness's credibility. An examination of Norberto's testimony
would show that there are no real inconsistencies to speak of. As ruled in
People v. Cabtalan, 666 SCRA 174 (2012), "[m]inor inconsistencies and
discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of
witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime."27 Both the trial court and the CA found Norberto's
candid and straightforward testimony to be worthy of belief and this Court sees
no reason why it should not conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr.
v. People, 713 SCRA 311 (2014)
76
788 SCRA 494; APRIL 06, 2016

HEIRS OF CORAZON AFABLE SALUD, REPRESENTED BY DEOGRACIAS A.
SALUD, NAPOLA Y. SALUD, JOSEPH Y. SALUD, AND JOE VINCENT Y.
SALUD, PETITIONERS, V. RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC. RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 202756,
Remedial Law; Evidence; Handwriting; Pursuant to Section 22, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, "[t]he handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness
who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the
person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person.--Pursuant to Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, "[t]he handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the
person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge."
Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Notarized Documents; When there is a

defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary
standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with,
and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of
evidence.--- Apart from being candid and credible, it may be said as well that
Atty. Trias has no reason to fabricate his testimony in order to favor RBSI or
Corazon. The little benefit he may obtain from doing so is not enough for him to
gamble his vocation as a lawyer. His testimony forms part of a credible chain
that extends to Teodoro's convincing account of Corazon's whereabouts and
actions on August 20, 1996. Thus, while Atty. Trias was remiss in his duties as
a notary, this does not affect the Court's conclusion; the preponderance of
evidence still points toward the direction of RBSI. Atty. Trias should be
reminded, however, not to repeat the same mistake, or else the corresponding
sanctions shall be meted upon him. Indeed, care should be taken by notaries
in the notarization process because at the extreme, "[a] defective notarization
will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private
instrument. Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a
document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to
a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the
validity of such document is preponderance of evidence."
77
788 SCRA 617, APRIL 06, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JONEL VARGAS
Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ARMANDO CADANO @
MANDO, JOJO ENORME @JOJO, RUTHER GARCIA @ BENJIE/LOLOY, AND
ALIAS TABOY, ACCUSED, JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD
VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. NO. 208446
Remedial Law; Evidence; Affidavits; Testimonial Evidence; Generally, whenever

there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in
court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken
ex parte are inferior to testimony in court, the former being almost invariably
incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and
sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the
witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his
accurate recollection of the subject.--- Generally, whenever there is
inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the
testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte
are inferior to testimony in court, the former being almost invariably
incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and
sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the
witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his
accurate recollection of the subject.
Same; Same; A slight doubt created in the identity of the perpetrators of the
crime should be resolved in favor of the accused. --- The deficiency in the proof
submitted by the prosecution cannot be ignored. A slight doubt created in the
identity of the perpetrators of the crime should be resolved in favor of the
accused. As succinctly put by the Court in People v. Fernandez, 385 SCRA 224
(2002): It is better to liberate a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one
whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of evidence. Hence,
despite the Court's support of ardent crusaders waging all-out war against
felons on the loose, when the People's evidence fails to prove indubitably the
accused's authorship of the crime of which they stand accused, it is the Court's
duty - and the accused's right - to proclaim their innocence. Acquittal,
therefore, is in order.
78
789 SCRA 209; APRIL 12, 2016

CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY
QUINO, PETITIONER, V. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y.
MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY
GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 202618
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Case law states that [t]he
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. --- Bereft of any clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary, such certificate should be accorded the
presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of
respondent Local Housing Board of Taguig City. Case law states that "[t]he
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however,
prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes conclusive.
Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and
in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction
should be in favor of its lawfulness," as in this case.
789 SCRA 228; APRIL 12, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOHN GLEN
WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT LARIOSA AND JAYPEE
PINEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. NO. 208066
Remedial Law; Appeals; Evidence; Witnesses; The well-entrenched rule is that

the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of
witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record, affirmed on
appeal by the appellate court, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive
effect, by the Supreme Court (SC), in the absence of any justifiable reason to
deviate from the said findings. --- The well-entrenched rule is that the findings
of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and
the probative weight of the evidence on record, affirmed on appeal by the
appellate court, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the
Supreme Court (SC), in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from
the said findings. The Court further elaborated in People v. Regaspi, 769 SCRA
287 (2015), that: When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment
deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight
and influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the
deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial
court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate
79
testimonial evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent application where
the CA sustained said findings, as in this case.
789 SCRA 386; APRIL 13, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, V. FABIAN
URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY BAUTISTA, ACCUSED.
G.R. NO. 207662
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; it is not only by direct

evidence that an accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence to
sustain a conviction, following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is as such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. --- Certainly, it is not only by direct
evidence that an accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence to
sustain a conviction, following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is as such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Decided cases expound that the
circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the
circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with
the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rationale except that of
guilt.
Same; Same; Disputable Presumptions; The application of disputable

presumption found in Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that a
person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and doer of the whole act, in this case the alleged carnapping
and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases where such
possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered
implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.--- The
application of disputable presumption found in Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court, that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act, in this case the
alleged carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases
where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation
is rendered implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.
In the instant case, accused-appellant set-up a defense of denial of the charges
and adhered to his unrebutted version of the story that the vehicle had been
sold to him by the brothers Alex and Ricky Bautista. Though the explanation is
not seamless, once the explanation is made for the possession, the
presumption arising from the unexplained possession may not anymore be
80
invoked and the burden shifts once more to the prosecution to produce
evidence that would render the defense of the accused improbable. And this
burden, the prosecution was unable to discharge.
Same; Same; Equipoise Rule; The equipoise rule states that where the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.--- The equipoise rule
states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfil the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly
balanced, the constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor
of the accused. The basis of the acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply
means that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the
guilt of accused-appellant beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt, however, is a burden particular to the prosecution and does
not apply to exculpatory facts as may be raised by the defense; the accused is
not required to establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a reasonable
doubt, nor is he required to establish the truth of such matters by a
preponderance of the evidence, or even to a reasonable probability.
789 SCRA 421; APRIL 13, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLAN
MENALING Y CANEDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 208676
Remedial Law; Evidence; Recantation; A retraction is looked upon with

considerable disfavor by the courts. It is exceedingly unreliable for there is
always the probability that such recantation may later on be repudiated. --- We
uphold the appellate court’s declaration that victim’s recantation is unreliable.
In her testimony, AAA intimated that she was not raped by her father, but was
actually raped by her grandfather who had already passed away. A retraction is
looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. It is exceedingly
unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on
be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or
monetary consideration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of
credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the
demeanor of the witness on the stand.
Same; Same; Same; Before allowing the recantation, the court must not be too
willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient
opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the
recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the
81
motivations for it. --- Before allowing the recantation, the court must not be too
willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient
opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the
recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the
motivations for it. The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the
test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor
of the recanting witness on the stand. In that respect, the finding of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless
cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that the trial
court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment,
conduct and attitude of the witnesses
790 SCRA 205, APRIL 19, 2016

LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, COMPLAINANT, V. RENATO V. BODOY,
UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN,
RESPONDENT. A.M. NO. P-16-3447
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; It is hornbook doctrine that a

judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any
showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it. --- It is without doubt that Bodoy is guilty of
dishonesty. He made a categorical admission that he withdrew the amount of
Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account because he was hard
pressed for money. His admission was confirmed by COC Gubatanga that there
was an unauthorized withdrawal from the trial court's funds, as well as, by the
documents from the bank proving that such withdrawal was indeed effected. It
is hornbook doctrine that a judicial admission binds the person who makes the
same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no
amount of rationalization can offset it. Bodoy's act of surreptitiously
withdrawing Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account without any
stamp of authority constitutes dishonesty, which is defined as follows: [T]he
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.
82
790 SCRA 217; APRIL 19, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, ET AL, PETITIONERS, VS. HON.
JESUS M. MUPAS, ET AL RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 181892
Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; A hearsay evidence has no

probative value and should be disregarded whether objected to or not. ---
PIATCO cannot rely on the affidavit of Atty. Tolentino who allegedly identified
the photocopied documents supporting attendant costs. The Court observed
that the alleged affidavit of Atty. Tolentino does not have any signature above
his name as the affiant. Hence, his affidavit cannot be said to have at least
substantially complied with the requirements laid down in Sections 3(a), (b),
and/or (d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court for the admissibility of photocopies
as secondary evidence. We therefore maintain our ruling that PIATCO’s
documents allegedly supporting the attendant costs are hearsay evidence. With
respect to the effect of the alleged non-objection of the parties to the
presentation of these photocopy documents, we have ruled in PNOC Shipping
and Transport Corporation v. CA, et al, 297 SCRA 402 (1998), that a hearsay
evidence has no probative value and should be disregarded whether objected to
or not.
791 SCRA 1; APRIL 20, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELPEDIO
CASTANAS Y ESPINOSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 192428
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness; Testimonies of child victims

are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she
has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
indeed committed. --- In rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim's
testimony because the accused may be convicted solely on said testimony
provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature
and the normal course of things. Testimonies of child victims are given full
weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed. Youth and maturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.
Same; Same; Consummated Offenses; The Supreme Court (SC) has said often
enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of
the vagina] orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the
hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis
capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal
knowledge. --- The Court rebuffs this defense of denial. Aside from being weak,
it is self-serving evidence which pales in comparison to AAA's and BBB 's clear
narration of facts and positive identification of appellant. Moreover, the Court
83
disbelieves that appellant could only have had a spontaneous ejaculation

without having done other acts to bring about the same. The medical findings
of AAA's hyperemia at both her labial folds, the tenderness at her hymenal area
and the presence of spermatozoa evidence that sexual contact did occur. Mere
spanking of AAA's female anatomy could not have caused these conditions. The
Court also has said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge
took place, full penetration of the vagina] orifice is not an essential ingredient,
nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external
genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge. To be precise, the touching of the labia majora or
the labia minora of the pudendum by the penis constitutes consummated rape.
791 SCRA 16; APRIL 20, 2016

ROSARIO VICTORIA AND ELMA PIDLAOAN, PETITIONERS, V. NORMITA
JACOB PIDLAOAN, HERMINIGILDA PIDLAOAN AND EUFEMIA PIDLAOAN,
RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 196470
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; Judicial admissions made by a

party in the course of the proceedings are conclusive and do not require proof.
--- Judicial admissions made by a party in the course of the proceedings are
conclusive and do not require proof. Notably, the respondents explicitly
recognized in their answer that the deed of donation was simulated upon the
notary public's advice and that both parties intended a sale.
791 SCRA 111; APRIL 20, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. FUNDADOR
CAMPOSANO Y TIOLANTO, @ "PUNDAY/MASTA" AND HERMAN' DE LOS
REYES @ "YOB," ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 207659
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is settled that the assessment of the

witnesses' credibility is best left to the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses first hand and observe their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.--- It is settled that the
assessment of the witnesses' credibility is best left to the trial court because of
its unique opportunity to scrutinize the witnesses first hand and observe their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. Here, the alleged
inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies, if they be such at all, referred
merely to minor and inconsequential details, which did not at all affect the
substance of their testimonies, much less impair their credibility. In the
ultimate analysis, what really matters in this case is that the prosecution
witnesses did in fact see that it was the appellants who assaulted and killed
Ilao that tragic morning of January 11, 2001. Whether the lethal weapon used
to dispatch the victim was a balisong knife or an ice pick, (plus a "2x2" piece of
lumber as prosecution witness Kempis mentioned in reference to what the
84
appellant De los Reyes used in hitting the late Ilao's head) is nowhere nearly so
important or essential as the incontrovertible fact that the prosecution
witnesses did in fact see that it was the two appellants who actually assaulted
and actually killed Ilao.
Same; Same; Same; Minor Inconsistencies; Even assuming for argument's sake
that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly in regard to the weapon-of-death used, whether it was a balisong
knife or an ice pick, these inconsistencies are minor and inconsequential which
even tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witnesses, for
they show that such testimonies were not contrived or rehearsed. --- Even
assuming for argument's sake that there were inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly in regard to the weapon-
of-death used, whether it was a balisong knife or an ice pick, these
inconsistencies are minor and inconsequential which even tend to bolster,
rather than weaken, the credibility of the witnesses, for they show that such
testimonies were not contrived or rehearsed. What is more, appellants failed to
impute any ill motive against the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the
presumption is that the prosecution witnesses were not impelled by ill will
when they testified against the appellants; thus, their testimonies are entitled
to full faith and credence.
791 SCRA 195, APRIL 20, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. LEO MENDOZA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. NO. 214349
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Basic is the rule that the Court will not
interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of
the witnesses or the veracity of their respective testimonies unless a material
fact or circumstance has been overlooked which, if properly considered, would
affect the outcome of the case. --- It bears stressing that the RTC had similar
appreciation of AAA's testimony. Basic is the rule that the Court will not
interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of
the witnesses or the veracity of their respective testimonies unless a material
fact or circumstance has been overlooked which, if properly considered, would
affect the outcome of the case. The trial court is in a better position to
determine the credibility of witnesses having heard and observed firsthand
their behavior and manner of testifying during trial. The application of the
aforesaid rule becomes more stringent in cases where findings of the trial court
are sustained by the CA. In the instant case, the Court finds no compelling
reason to contradict the factual findings of the lower courts as they do not
appear to be unfounded or arbitrary.
Same; Same; Same; Rape; Qualified Rape; The description made by AAA that
appellant's penis was soft would not suffice to discredit her testimony that she
85
cried out in pain when the penis was forcibly inserted into her vagina. --- At
first glance, it might appear that the statements made by AAA during her
cross-examination were conflicting. However, a careful review of the
aforequoted testimony discloses that AAA was merely being responsive to
questions propounded to her in such fashion which were not necessarily
reflective of the sequence of events that led to the rape incident. The
description made by AAA that appellant's penis was soft would not suffice to
discredit her testimony that she cried out in pain when the penis was forcibly
inserted into her vagina. As ruled by this Court in People v. Ablog, softness is
relative and that softness may not be to such a degree that penetration is
impossible. In the same case, the Court declared that it may even be the
touching by the victim of the sexual organ of the accused-appellant which
transformed its initially soft condition to hardness.
791 SCRA 220, APRIL 20, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JIMMY ULANDAY
@ "SAROY", ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. NO. 216010
Remedial Law; Evidence; Object Evidence; Even, assuming arguendo that there
were no signs of other bodily injuries, the occurrence of rape is still not
negated, since their absence is not an essential element of the crime. --- With
respect to the argument that XYZ did not suffer any injury resulting from the
use of a deadly weapon, the Court in People of the Philippines v. Esperas25
had this to say: "the presence of injuries is not vital to establishing the guilt of
the appellant. The alleged absence of external injuries on the victim does not
detract from the fact that rape was committed. Even, assuming arguendo that
there were no signs of other bodily injuries, the occurrence of rape is still not
negated, since their absence is not an essential element of the crime."
Same; same; Victims respond differently to trauma and there is no standard

form of behavioral response when persons suffer from one. --- The defense also
questioned XYZ's conduct after the alleged rape incident. In particular, the
defense highlighted that XYZ merely went home, slept and failed to immediately
report her ordeal to family and the authorities, and contended that such
behavior seemed very unnatural for someone who just went through a
harrowing experience. Victims respond differently to trauma and there is no
standard form of behavioral response when persons suffer from one.26 The
Court in People of the Philippines v. Saludo27 made this ratiocination, viz:
"[n]ot every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity
with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed
under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may
shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility. And
although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual
assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of
the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or
86
norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to
act conformaby with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no
standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or
startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the
various circumstances prevailing in each case." It also bears stressing that XYZ
received a death threat from the appellant which instilled fear in her mind and
logically explained why she did not immediately disclose her misfortune to her
family and the authorities.
Same; Same; Testimonial Evidence; In rape cases, the accused may be

convicted on the basis of the sole uncorroborated testimony of the victim as
long as said testimony is clear, positive and convincing. --- In any case, expert
testimony like an examining physician is merely corroborative in character and
not essential to conviction. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted on the
basis of the sole uncorroborated testimony of the victim as long as said
testimony is clear, positive and convincing. Here, XYZ's testimony passed the
test of credibility and by itself, was sufficient to sustain the appellant's
conviction.
791 SCRA 352, MAY 30, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR) - REGION IV, MANILA, PETITIONER, V. AMOR
HACHERO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PALAWAN, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 200973
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; The presumption of

regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity
or failure to perform a duty. --- There being a controversion, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties applies favorably to the
Republic. This means that the DENR's inspection report and the verification
stating that the subject land is still inalienable has become conclusive. The
doctrine in Bustillo vs. People, xxx In sum, the petitioners have in their favor
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which the
records failed to rebut. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be
rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The
presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted,
it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of
the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or
unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.
87
791 SCRA 407, MAY 30, 2016

PEDRO DE LEON, PETITIONER, V. NENITA DE LEON-REYES, JESUS
REYES, MYETH REYES AND JENNETH REYES, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO.
205711
Remedial Law; Evidence; Offer of Evidence; As the rules clearly state, courts
will not consider evidence unless it has been formally offered. Other than his
self-serving testimony, Pedro failed to substantiate his allegation of forgery with
clear and convincing evidence. Pedro has nobody to blame but himself for his
failure to formally offer any documentary evidence that could have supported
his claim. As the rules clearly state, courts will not consider evidence unless it
has been formally offered. A litigant's failure to make a formal offer of evidence
within a considerable period of time is considered a waiver of its submission;
evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected.
791 SCRA 478, MAY 30, 2016

FELIX L. ARRIOLA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT. G.R. NO. 217680
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; The settled rule is that a

judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence can be upheld
only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. --- True, conviction is not always based on direct evidence
for it may also rest purely on circumstantial evidence. The settled rule is that a
judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence can be upheld
only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person. The circumstances proven must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with any other
rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
Same; Same; Same; The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series
of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but
collectively. --- The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of
events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but
collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just
one (1) particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which when put
together reveals a convincing picture pointing to the conclusion that the
88
accused is the author of the crime. Here, the story pieced together by the RTC
from the evidence of the prosecution provides no moral certainty of the
petitioner's guilt. There is a paucity of evidence to show that Arriola had a
direct hand in the falsification.
791 SCRA 509, MAY 31, 2016

FLORA C. MARIANO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ANSELMO ECHANEZ,
RESPONDENT. A.C. NO. 10373
Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; A notarial document is by law

entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. --- Time and again, this Court has stressed that
notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with
substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may
act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a
notary public converts a private document into a public document making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and
for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. In the instant case, it is
undisputable that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts on several documents
without a valid notarial commission. The fact of his lack of notarial commission
at the time of the unauthorized notarizations was likewise sufficiently
established by the certifications issued by the Executive Judges in the territory
where Atty. Echanez performed the unauthorized notarial acts. Atty. Echanez,
for misrepresenting in the said documents that he was a notary public for and
in Cordon, Isabela, when it is apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he
was not, he further committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly
anathema to the lawyer's oath. This transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a]
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
791 SCRA 567, June 1, 2016

TAN SIOK1 KUAN AND PUTE CHING, PETITIONERS, V. FELICISIMO "BOY"
HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA, VICENTE M. SALAS, AND LOLITA MALONZO,
Remedial Law; Evidence; Res Inter Alios Acta Rule; There is merit in
respondents' invocation of the principle of res inter alios acta or that principle
which states that "the right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided, among
which are: (1) admission by third party, (2) admission by co-partner or agent,
(3) admission by conspirator, and (4) admission by privies. --- There is merit in
89
respondents' invocation of the principle of res inter alios acta or that principle
which states that "the right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided, among
which are: (1) admission by third party, (2) admission by co-partner or agent,
(3) admission by conspirator, and (4) admission by privies." In the case of
Tamargo v. Awingan, the Court expounded on the rationale behind the
principle of res inter alios acta. Citing People v. vda. De Ramos, the Court held
that: (O)n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts
are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct
and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also
manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.
In the present case, petitioners failed to establish that the defendants’ alleged
implied admission of a lessor-lessee relationship falls under the exceptions to
the principle of res inter alios acta as to make such admission binding upon
respondents. Although defendants and respondents were all defendants in the
complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners, it is very clear that
defendants and respondents espoused different defenses. Contrary to
defendants' position, respondents, as early as the filing of their response to
petitioners' demand letter, firmly and consistently denied the existence of any
lease contract between them and petitioners over the subject land.
791 SCRA 581, JUNE 1, 2016

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, V.
RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, RESPONDENT. G.R. NO. 182537
Remedial Law; Evidence; Disputable Presumptions; Section 3, Rule 131 of the

Rules of Court identifies the following as disputable presumptions: (1) private
transactions have been fair and regular; (2) the ordinary course of business has
been followed; and (3) there was sufficient consideration for a contract. ---
Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court identifies the following as disputable
presumptions: (1) private transactions have been fair and regular; (2) the
ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3) there was sufficient
consideration for a contract. A presumption may operate against a challenger
who has not presented any proof to rebut it. "The effect of a legal presumption
upon a burden of proof is to create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet
the legal presumption or the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no
proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The burden of proof
remains where it is, but by the presumption, the one who has that burden is
relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of the
averment, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless
rebutted." Atanacio, by affixing his signature on the deed of absolute sale, a
disputable presumption arose that consideration was paid. A mere allegation
that no payment was received is not sufficient to dispel such legal
90
presumption. Furthermore, the record shows an official communication, dated

October 8, 1958, from the District Land Office of Cebu to the Provincial
Treasurer of Cebu stating that Provincial Voucher No. 05358 was disbursed in
favor of Atanacio.
791 SCRA 620, JUNE 01, 2016

VIRGINIA D. CALIMAG, PETITIONER, V. HEIRS OF SILVESTRA N.
MACAPAZ, REPRESENTED BY ANASTACIO P. MACAPAZ, JR.,
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; Rule

130, Section 3 of the Rules on Evidence provides that: "When the subject of the
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself, x x x." Nevertheless, a reproduction of the
original document can still be admitted as secondary evidence subject to
certain requirements specified by law. --- At first blush, the documents
presented as proof of marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela, viz: (1) fax or
photo copy of the marriage contract, and (2) the canonical certificate of
marriage, cannot be used as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage
without running afoul with the Rules on Evidence of the Revised Rules of
Court. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules on Evidence provides that: "When the
subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself, x x x." Nevertheless, a
reproduction of the original document can still be admitted as secondary
evidence subject to certain requirements specified by law.
Same; Same; Same; Canonical Certificate of Marriage; A canonical certificate of

marriage is not a public document. --- A canonical certificate of marriage is not
a public document. As early as in the case of United States v. Evangelista, it
has been settled that church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of
Act No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized
public officials. They are private writings and their authenticity must therefore
be proved as are all other private writings in accordance with the rules of
evidence. Accordingly, since there is no showing that the authenticity and due
execution of the canonical certificate of marriage of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela
was duly proven, it cannot be admitted in evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be
proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. --- It is well
settled that other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of a solemnized
marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by
relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. Hence, even a person's
birth certificate may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage
between his parents. Thus, in order to prove their legitimate filiation, the
91
respondents presented their respective Certificates of Live Birth issued by the

National Statistics Office where Fidela signed as the Informant in item no. 17 of
both documents.
Same; Same; Same; Certificate of Live Birth; A certificate of live birth is a

public document that consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public
records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
(Civil Registrar). --- "A certificate of live birth is a public document that consists
of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public records (Civil Registry) made in
the performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil Registrar)”. Thus, being
public documents, the respondents' certificates of live birth are presumed
valid, and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them.
"Prima facie evidence is defined as evidence good and sufficient on its face.
Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given
fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense and
which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient."
Same; Same; Disputable Presumptions; A presumption established by our

Code of Civil Procedure is 'that a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.' --- In a
catena of cases, it has been held that, "[p]ersons dwelling together in apparent
matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption or
evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is
the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold
themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of
decency and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure
is 'that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage.' Semper praesumitur pro
matrimonio — Always presume marriage." Furthermore, as the established
period of cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela transpired way before the
effectivity of the Family Code, the strong presumption accorded by then Article
220 of the Civil Code in favor of the validity of marriage cannot be disregarded.
Thus: Art. 220. In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the
family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of
marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children,
the community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over their
children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of
unlawful aggression.
92
791 SCRA 672, JUNE 01, 2016

GIL MACALINO, JR., TERESITA MACALINO, ELPIDIO MACALINO, PILAR
MACALINO, GILBERTO MACALINO, HERMILINA MACALINO, EMMANUEL
MACALINO, EDELINA MACALINO, EDUARDO MACALINO, LEONARDO
MACALINO, EDLLANE** MACALINO, APOLLO MACALINO, MA. FE
MACALINO, AND GILDA MACALINO, PETITIONERS, V. ARTEMIO PIS-AN,
RESPONDENT. G.R. NO. 204056
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; It has been held that "[w]hen
the parties admit the contents of written documents but put in issue whether
these documents adequately and correctly express the true intention of the
parties, the deciding body is authorized to look beyond these instruments and
into the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in order to
determine such intent." --- Plainly, the parties' respective arguments hinge on
two relevant documents which they adopted as common exhibits - (1) the
Absolute Sale subject of which, among others, is the conveyance made by
Artemio and his co-heirs to the spouses Sillero; and (2) the Deed of Sale
between the spouses Sillero and Gil. It is worthy to note that there is no
dispute regarding the contents of these documents, that is, neither of the
parties contests that the Absolute Sale did not state that the 207-square meter
portion sold to the spouses Sillero was Lot 3154-A nor that the Deed of Sale
between Gil and the spouses Sillero expressly mentioned that the subject of the
sale between them was Lot 3154-A. What is really in issue therefore is whether
the admitted contents of the said documents adequately and correctly express
the true intention of the parties to the same. It has been held that "[w]hen the
parties admit the contents of written documents but put in issue whether these
documents adequately and correctly express the true intention of the parties,
the deciding body is authorized to look beyond these instruments and into the
contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in order to determine
such intent." In view of this and since the Parol Evidence Rule is inapplicable
in this case, an examination of the parties' respective parol evidence is in order.
Indeed, examination of evidence is necessarily factual and not within the
province of a petition for review on certiorari which only allows questions of law
to be raised. However, this case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to
such rule, i.e., when the CA's findings are contrary to that of the trial court.
791 SCRA 695, JUNE 01, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RUBEN DELA
ROSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 206419
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It bears underscoring that the competence

and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld
by this Court where it was shown that they could communicate their ordeal
capably and consistently. --- It bears underscoring that the competence and
93
credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by

this Court where it was shown that they could communicate their ordeal
capably and consistently. It lends greater credence to AAA's testimony that
someone feeble-minded and guileless as her could speak so tenaciously and
explicitly on the details of the rape if she not in fact suffered such crime at the
hands of the appellant.21 Having the mental age of nine (9) bolsters AAA's
credibility as a witness, considering that a victim at such a tender age would
not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused unless that was the
truth. There is no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the trial court
with respect to the assessment of AAA's testimony, the same being clear,
unequivocal and credible.
792 SCRA 123; JUNE 1, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOHN HAPPY
DOMINGO Y CARAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 211672
Remedial Law; Evidence; The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have

been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
evidence has been tampered with. --- The integrity of the evidence is presumed
to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof
that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bear the burden
of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to
overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their
duties. Here, accused-appellant failed to convince the Court that there was ill
motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimony of PO1 Eclipse
deserves full faith and credit. Accused-appellant did not even question the
credibility of the apprehending officers. He simply insisted that the civilian
informant had an ax to grind against his brother for the latter's failure to repair
the cell phone. It is unbelievable that the apprehending officers would go to the
extent of fabricating a story just to have a reason to arrest accused-appellant
and get back at the latter's brother.
792 SCRA 315; JUNE 6, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. QUIRINO BALMES Y
CLEOFE, APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 203458
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Rape; The settled rule is that the trial
court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases
are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, and
that its findings are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless there
is a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records
that certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or value were
overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court and which, if
94
properly considered, would alter the result of the case. --- The settled rule is
that the trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses
in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times
even finality, and that its findings are binding and conclusive on the appellate
court, unless there is a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or it
appears from the records that certain facts or circumstances of weight,
substance or value were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the
lower court and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the
case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better
position to decide the question of credibility. Indeed, trial judges are in the best
position to assess whether the witness is telling a truth or lie as they have the
direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and
tone of voice of the witness while testifying.
792 SCRA 469; JUNE 8, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JAY GREGORIO
Y AMAR @ "JAY," ROLANDO ESTRELLA Y RAYMUNDO @ "BONG," DANILO
BERGONIA Y ALELENG @ "DANNY," EFREN GASCON Y DELOS SANTOS @
"EFREN," RICARDO SALAZAR Y GO @ "ERIC," AND JOHN DOE, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS. G.R. NO. 194235
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The familiar and well-entrenched doctrine

is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the area and
competence of the trier of facts, in this case, the trial court and, to a certain
extent, the Court of Appeals. --- Accused-appellants question the credibility of
the prosecution witnesses. However, the familiar and well-entrenched doctrine
is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the area and
competence of the trier of facts, in this case, the trial court and, to a certain
extent, the Court of Appeals. This doctrine is based on the time-honored rule
that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best
and most commonly performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses
who appeared before his/her sala as he/she had personally heard them and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
792 Scra 518; June 8, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. EDGARDO T.
CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 200081
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Rule 133, Section 4 of the

Revised Rules of Court provides for the requirements in order for
95
circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction: (a) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. --- Circumstantial evidence is defined as
that which "goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue,
which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue." Rule 133,
Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the requirements in order
for circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction: (a) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defense's allegation that
the pieces of circumstantial evidence presented were insufficient, a perusal of
the records reveal otherwise. Based on the evidence, there is more than one
circumstance which can prove Cruz's guilt.
Same; Same; Same; The Rules of Court does not distinguish between direct
and circumstantial evidence insofar as their probative value is concerned.---
Contrary to the defense's allegation that due to lack of direct evidence the
Court cannot uphold Cruz's conviction, circumstantial evidence is not a
"weaker" form of evidence. The Rules of Court does not distinguish between
direct and circumstantial evidence insofar as their probative value is
concerned. In the case at bar, the combination of the circumstantial evidence
draws no other logical conclusion, but that Cruz stole the money with grave
abuse of confidence.
792 SCRA 518; JUNE 8, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. MANUEL
REBANUEL Y NADERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 208475
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Factual findings of the trial court

regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect
especially if affirmed by the Court of Appeals. --- We find no reason to reverse
the findings of the lower court on the material facts, bolstered by the Court of
Appeals' affirmation of such findings. We have held that factual findings of the
trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and
respect especially if affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The lower court was in
the best position to weigh the evidence presented during trial and ascertain the
credibility of the witnesses who testified. Trial courts have firsthand account of
the witnesses' demeanor and deportment in court during trial and this Court
shall not supplant its own interpretation of the testimonies for that of the trial
judge since he/she is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility of
witnesses, being the one who had face-to-face interaction with the same. There
is no showing that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
facts or circumstances of weight which would have affected the outcome of the
case. In the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion of
96
the court a quo, and especially when the findings of the judge have been
adopted and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the factual findings of the trial
court shall not be disturbed.
793 SCRA 31; JUNE 8, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RENATO B.
SUEDAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT; G.R. NO. 211026
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Rape; In rape cases, primordial is the

credibility of the victim's testimony because the accused may be convicted
solely on said testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.--- In rape
cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim's testimony because the
accused may be convicted solely on said testimony provided it is credible,
natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course
of things. It is also well-settled that the trial court's findings on the credibility
of witnesses and of their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any clear showing that the court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of the
case. This is because the trial court, having seen and heard the witnesses
themselves, and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better
position to decide the question of credibility
Same; Same; Same; Same; Child Witness Rule; Testimonies of child victims are
given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
indeed committed. --- The Court finds no reason to disbelieve AAA's testimony
which both the trial and appellate courts found credible and straightforward.
Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman
or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and maturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.
793 SCRA 55; JUNE 08, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. DARYL POLONIO
Y TUANGCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 211604
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient and competent,

may warrant the conviction of the accused of rape.--- To emphasize,
circumstantial evidence, if sufficient and competent, may warrant the
conviction of the accused of rape.
97
793 SCRA 165; JUNE 13, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. RAUL S. GONZALEZ, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON.
ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF
THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HON. ARTHEL B. CAROÑONGAN, HON.
TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, HON. JOSE D. CABOCHAN, AND HON.
FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,
PETITIONERS, V. DAVONN MAURICE C. HARP, RESPONDENT. G.R. NO.
188829
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Without more, the Court

finds no reason to set aside the rule that public documents, particularly those
related to the civil register, are "prima facie evidence of the facts therein
contained." --- The evidence relied upon by the DOJ and the BI is simply not
enough to negate the probative value of the documentary evidence submitted
by respondent to prove his Philippine citizenship. Without more, the Court
finds no reason to set aside the rule that public documents, particularly those
related to the civil register, are "prima facie evidence of the facts therein
contained." Hence, we rely on these documents to declare that respondent is a
citizen of the Philippines.
Same; Same; Same; Deportation; In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, 197

SCRA 853 (1991), the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that citizens may
resort to courts for protection if their right to live in peace, without molestation
from any official or authority, is disturbed in a deportation proceeding. It is
settled that summary deportation proceedings cannot be instituted by the BI
against citizens of the Philippines. In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa,
197 SCRA 853 (1991), the Court reiterated the doctrine that citizens may resort
to courts for protection if their right to live in peace, without molestation from
any official or authority, is disturbed in a deportation proceeding.
793 SCRA 266; JUNE 14, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. EDISON C.
MAGBITANG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT; G.R. NO. 175592
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; Under the Rules of
Court, a child may be a competent witness, unless the trial court determines
upon proper showing that the child's mental maturity is such as to render him
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which he is to be examined and of
relating the facts truthfully.--- Under the Rules of Court, a child may be a
competent witness, unless the trial court determines upon proper showing that
98
the child's mental maturity is such as to render him incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the facts truthfully.
The testimony of the child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and
make known the perception can be believed in the absence of any showing of
an improper motive to testify. Once it is established that the child fully
understands the character and nature of an oath, the testimony is given full
credence. In the case of CCC, the Defense did not persuasively discredit his
worthiness and competence as a witness. As such, the Court considers the
reliance by the trial court on his recollection fully justified.
Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence is not

necessarily weaker in persuasive quality than direct evidence. --- In this
connection, it is worth reminding that circumstantial evidence is not
necessarily weaker in persuasive quality than direct evidence. As the Court
said in People v. Villaflores: We have often conceded the difficulty of proving the
commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the circumstances
of its commission. The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is
rape with homicide, because there may usually be no living witnesses if the
rape victim is herself killed. Yet, the situation is not always hopeless for the
State, for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish
the commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit. Direct
evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences
being drawn on the part of the fact finder; in contrast, circumstantial evidence
indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact finder must draw an
inference or reason from circumstantial evidence. To be clear, then,
circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony
would ultimately lead to setting a felon free. The Rules of Court makes no
distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances
from which the existence of a fact may be inferred; hence, no greater degree of
certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct.
In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused. Nor has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to
convict an accused been fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to
be followed in every instance. Thus, the Court said in People v. Modesto; the
standard postulated by this Court in the appreciation of circumstantial
evidence is well set out in the following passage from People vs. Ludday: "No
general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence
which in any case will suffice. All the circumstances proved must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and
at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with
every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt."
99
793 SCRA 309; JUNE 15, 2016

MARITA CABAS, PETITIONER, V. ATTY. RIA NINA L. SUSUSCO AND CHIEF
CITY PROSECUTOR EMELIE FE DELOS SANTOS, RESPONDENTS; A.C. NO.
8677
Remedial Law; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; The complainant has the

burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The
basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
--- In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding
of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further,
the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation likewise cannot be given credence.
793 SCRA 439; JUNE 15, 2016

GREGORIO "TONGEE" BALAIS, JR., PETITIONER, V. SE'LON BY AIMEE,
AMELITA REVILLA AND ALMA BELARMINO, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO.
196557
Remedial Law; Evidence; Negative Pregnant; Under the rules of evidence, if an

allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the
allegation is deemed admitted.-- Under the rules of evidence, if an allegation is
not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is
deemed admitted In fine, the fact that respondents are even raising their own
justification for the alleged verbal dismissal means that the said verbal
dismissal actually transpired. If in the first place, said incident of verbal
dismissal truly never happened, there is nothing to assume anymore or to
justify. The fact that Belarmino was offering justification for her action, it
follows that indeed said incident of verbally dismissing Balais on-the-spot
actually happened.
793 SCRA 459; JUNE 15, 2016

INGRID SALA SANTAMARIA AND ASTRID SALA BOZA, PETITIONERS, VS.
THOMAS CLEARY, RESPONDENT. G.R. NO. 197122
Remedial Law; Evidence; Admissibility considers factors such as competence

and relevance of submitted evidence. On the other hand, weight is concerned
with the persuasive tendency of admitted evidence. --- In any case, Rule 23 of
the Rules of Court still allows for objections to admissibility during trial. The
difference between admissibility of evidence and weight of evidence has long
100
been laid down in jurisprudence. These two are not to be equated. Admissibility
considers factors such as competence and relevance of submitted evidence. On
the other hand, weight is concerned with the persuasive tendency of admitted
evidence.
793 SCRA 505; JUNE 15, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. APOLONIO
"TOTONG" AVILA Y ALECANTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 201584
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; As consistently ruled

by the Court, the testimony of children of sound mind is likely to be more
correct and truthful than that of older persons, so that once established that
they have understood the character and nature of an oath, their testimony
should be given full credence. --- As consistently ruled by the Court, the
testimony of children of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful
than that of older persons, so that once established that they have understood
the character and nature of an oath, their testimony should be given full
credence. The trivial inconsistencies in Ryan's eye witness narration of details
are understandable, considering the suddenness of the attack, the dreadful
scene unfolding before his eyes, and the imperfection of the human memory. It
is for this reason that jurisprudence uniformly pronounces that minor
inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not reflect on his credibility.
What remains important is the positive identification of the accused as the
assailant. Ample margin of error and understanding must be accorded to
young witnesses who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension
due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before the court.
793 SCRA 568; JUNE 15, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. LORETO SONIDO
Y CORONEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. NO. 208646
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Child Witness Rule; Rape;

generally badges of truth and sincerity. --- In rape cases, primordial is the
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. AAA vividly
described the rape committed against her as an eight-year old on 29 December
2004. Her recollections during trial revealed a credible and consistent
narration of her ordeal with appellant's hands. AAA disclosed details that no
child of her young age could have invented or concocted; she never wavered in
her allegations of rape against appellant that the Court is convinced that the
101
RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in according full credence to her.
Same; Same; Witnesses; The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court judge
because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor
on the witness stand, a vantage point denied appellate courts. --- Appellant's
argument that AAA's testimony is rife with inconsistencies, reason to acquit
him of the crime charged, fails to convince us. The recognized rule in this
jurisdiction is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best left to
the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their
deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point denied
appellate courts. And when the trial court judge's findings have been affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this
Court.20 While there are exceptions to the rule, the Court finds no substantial
reason to overturn the similar conclusions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals
on the matter of AAA's credibility. Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies
are expected in a rape victim's testimony. Rape is a painful experience which is
oftentimes not remembered in detail. It causes deep psychological wounds that
scar the victim for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would
opt to forget.21 Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to
minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms
of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge
by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances
provided in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
8353.
Same; Same; Medical Examination; A medical examination is merely

corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in
rape. --- While indeed AAA's medical examination did not show traces of
injuries or lacerations, the rule is settled that hymenal lacerations are not an
element of rape. In fact, it has also been ruled that a medical examination is
merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for
conviction in rape. Of primary importance is the clear, unequivocal and
credible testimony of private complainant which we so find in the instant case.
102
793 SCRA 668; JUNE 15, 2016

SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND GAUVAIN J.
BENZONAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, SECRETARY
OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ROLANDO FABRIGAR, MERLYN VELARDE,
VINCE LAMBOC, FELIPE GALINDO, LEONARDO MIGUEL, JULIUS RUBIN,
EDEL RODEROS, MERLYN COLIAO, AND EDGAR JOPSON, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 217575
Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In labor cases, as in other administrative and

quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial
evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The findings of fact should,
however, be supported by substantial evidence from which the said tribunals
can make their own independent evaluation of the facts. In labor cases, as in
other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Although no
particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must
nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.
794 SCRA 348; JUNE 22, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONE
BARBERAN AND DIONE DELOS DANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS; G.R.
NO. 208759
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is settled rule that rape may be proven
even by the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, as long as
her testimony is clear, positive, and probable. --- The issue on conviction based
on the testimony of the victim is not a novel one. It is settled rule that rape may
be proven even by the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, as
long as her testimony is clear, positive, and probable. In this case, the victim
was able to sufficiently narrate with clarity the circumstances attending the
crime from the time she was awaken when Barberan and Delos Santos entered
her room and physically restrained her to successfully consummate carnal
knowledge. She even admitted that she was willing to bury her sad plight from
the hands of the accused-appellants since she feared that they would kill her.
However, in further aggravation of her fate, Barberan and Delos Santos even
boasted about their carnal knowledge of her in their neighborhood and mocked
her loss of virginity in their hands. Thus, the rumor prompted AAA's parents to
confront the victim and it was then revealed that she was raped by the
accused-appellants.
103
Same; Same; Same; Same; No young girl would usually concoct a tale of
defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow
the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and
inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had
she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her
honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts
committed against her. --- Time and again, this Court has held that when the
offended party is young and an immature girl, as in this case, who has lived
her whole life in a faraway island wherein almost all residents know everybody,
courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired,
considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and
embarrassment to which they would be exposed, if the matter about which
they testified were not true. No young girl would usually concoct a tale of
defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow
the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and
inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had
she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her
honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts
committed against her. Indeed in a rural setting the shame of rape is on the
victim, not on the accused. And it will haunt the family of the victim for a long
time.
Same; Same; Medical examinations; Rape; Medical examination and testimony

are not indispensable elements in a prosecution for rape. --- Even granting that
there was an inconsistency, the positive testimony of AAA will still prevail over
the testimony of the forensic expert. This is because medical examination and
testimony are not indispensable elements in a prosecution for rape. An accused
can be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim. Expert
testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.
794 SCRA 363; JUNE 22, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMETERIO
MEDINA Y. DAMO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT; G.R. NO. 214473
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; Testimonies of child

victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says
that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape was indeed committed. --- Of primary importance in rape cases is the
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Testimonies of
child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child
says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show
104
that rape was indeed committed. Youth and maturity are generally badges of
truth and sincerity.
Same; Same; Medical Examinations; Rape; Medical examinations are merely

corroborative in character and not an indispensable element for conviction in
rape. --- The medical reports and the testimonies of the physicians confirm the
truthfulness of the charge. It is of no moment that the primary physician Dr.
Agatep was not able to take the witness stand to explain her findings. It is well
to recall that medical examinations are merely corroborative in character and
not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. Primordial is the clear,
unequivocal and credible testimony of private complainant which we so find in
the instant case.
Same; Same; Flight; The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible

explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be
established for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available
opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence. --- Mention-worthy is
appellant's immediate flight from his home shortly after the incident and his
evasion of arrest for more than six (6) years. Jurisprudence has repeatedly
declared that flight is an indication of guilt. The flight of an accused, in the
absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an
inference of guilt may be established for a truly innocent person would
normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his
innocence. In the case at bar, appellant's flight incontestably evidenced guilt.
794 SCRA 375 JUNE 22, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICO
ENRIQUEZ Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT; G.R. NO. 214503
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Prosecutions involving illegal drugs

depend largely on the credibility of the police officers or drug operatives who
conducted the buy-bust operation. --- Prosecutions involving illegal drugs
depend largely on the credibility of the police officers or drug operatives who
conducted the buy-bust operation. There is general deference to the
assessment on this point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly
observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness
stand. This Court's independent examination of the records shows no
compelling reason to depart from this rule.
Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; When police officers have no
motive to testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. --- The Court
finds that belief and acceptance were properly accorded to the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, who are law enforcers. When police officers have no
motive to testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. In this case, no
105
evidence has been presented to suggest any improper motive on the part of the
police enforcers in arresting appellant. We accord great respect to the findings
of the trial court on the matter of credibility of the witnesses in the absence of
any palpable error or arbitrariness in its findings.
794 SCRA 562 JUNE 27, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME BRIOSO
ALIAS TALAP-TALAP, ACCUSED-APPELLANT; G.R. NO. 209344
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; When the offended
party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her
account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but
also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she
testified is not true. --- Settled is the rule that testimonies of child-victims are
normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a
minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has, in fact, been committed. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of
what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the
shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not
true. Youth and immaturity are genera1ly badges of truth and sincerity.
Considering that AAA was only four (4) years old when she was raped and was
only eleven (11) years old when she took the witness stand, she could not have
invented a horrible story.
Same; Same; Evidence; Witnesses; A rape victim cannot be expected to
horrifying experience she had undergone. ---Rape is a painful experience which
is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to
a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving;
rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a
stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious
and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be
expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the
traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Rape; The Supreme Court (SC) has recognized the
fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has
been raped. This Court has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can
be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. AAA's conduct, i.e.,
nonchalance or indifference in the presence of the accused-appellant
immediately after the latter supposedly raped her, is also not enough to
discredit her. As earlier stated, victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be
expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It is
unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational
experience, especially from a young victim. One cannot be expected to act as
usual in an unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of a
106
human mind placed under emotional stress. Moreover, it is wrong to say that
there is a standard reaction or behavior among victims of the crime of rape
since each of them had to cope with different circumstances.
G.R. No. 213582 June 28, 2016

NYMPHA S. ODIAMAR, petitioner vs. LINDA ODIAMAR VALENCIA
respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Admissions; Judicial Admissions: It is settled that

judicial admissions made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the
trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive and do not require
further evidence to prove them.—Having admitted that she obtained loans from
respondent without showing that the same had already been paid or otherwise
extinguished, petitioner cannot now aver otherwise. I t is settled that judicial
admissions made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or
other proceedings in the same case are conclusive and do not require further
evidence to prove them. They are legally binding on the party making, except
when it is shown that they have been made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was actually made, neither of which was shown to exist in
this case. Accordingly, petitioner is bound by her admission of liability and the
only material questions remaining is the extent of such liability.
G.R. NO. 206294 June 29,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CERILO “ILOY” ILOGON,
accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; Rape; Testimonies of

child victim are given full weight and credit, for a woman or a girl says that she
has been raped was indeed committed .— Of primary importance in the rap
cases is the credibility of the victim’s testimony because the accused may be
convicted solely on said testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing,
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,
testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a
woman of a child says that she has been raped, she says in effect a;; that is
Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 20 of the 2000 Rule on Examinations of a
Child Witness also provides that the court may allow leading questions in all
stage of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice. –
Some leading questions were warranted given the circumstances. A child of
tender years may be asked leading questions under Section 10( c), Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court. Section 20 of the 2000 Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness also provides that the court may allow leading questions in all stages
107
of the examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice.
This rule was formulated to allow children to give reliable and complete
evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage them to testify in legal
proceedings and facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
Same; Same; Medical Examinations; Rape; While indeed the physician was not
present in court, it bears underscoring however that medical examinations are
merely corroborative in character and not in an indispensable element for the
conviction in rape.—The medical report of the physician confirms the
truthfulness if the charge. While indeed the physician was not present in the
court, it bears underscoring however that medical examinations are merely
corroborative in character and no indispensable element for conviction in rape.
Primordial is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony of private
complainant which the Court, together with both the trial and appellate courts,
so finds.
G.R. No. 207231 June 29, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROGER GALAGATI Y
GARDOCE, appellant,
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; trial judges are in the best position to
assess whether the witness is telling a truth or lie as they have the direct and
singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of
the witness while testifying.-- the settled rule is that the trial court’s evaluation
and conclusion on credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded
great weight and respect, and at times even finality, and that its findings are
binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless there is a clear showing
that it was reached arbitrarily or it appears form the records that certain facts
of circumstances of weight, substance or value were overlooked,
misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court and which, if properly
considered, would alter the result of the case. Having seen and heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their behaviour and manner of testifying,
the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of
credibility. Indeed, trial judges are in the best position to assess whether the
witness is telling the truth or lie as they have the direct and singular
opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of the voice of
the witness while testifying.
G.R. No. 212186 June 29,2016

ARIEL LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
Remedial Law; Evidence; “Hearsay Evidence”, Defined—Hearsay evidences is

defined as: It is a basic rue in evidence that a witness can testify only on the
facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived
108
from his own perception. A witness may not testify on what he merely learned,
read, or heard from others because such testimony is considered hearsay and
may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned or heard.
Hearsay evidence is evidence, not of what the witness knows himself but, of
what he has heard from others; it is not only limited to oral testimony or
statements but likewise applies to written statements, such as affidavits.
Same; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; By preponderance of evidence is

meant that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of
the other side.-- A review of the records of the case would reveal that the
evidence presented by Techno preponderantly established its counterclaim. By
preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence adduced by one side is,
as a whole, superior to that of the other side. Essentially, preponderance of
evidence refers to the comparative weight of the evidence presented by the
opposing parties, As such, it has been defines as “the weight, credit, and value
of the aggregate evidence on either side,’ and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of
the credible witness. It is proof that Is more convincing to the court as worthy
of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
G.R. No. 208353 July 4,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. STEVE SIATON Y
BATE, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; When challenged by the

evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot
prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused. – The court is of
considered view that the chain of custody of the seized substance was
compromised. It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the
police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
should prevail. However, such presumption obtains only where there is no
deviation firm the regular performance of duty. A presumption of regularity in
the performance of the official duty applies nothing in the record suggests that
the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required
by law. Conversely, where the official act is irregular in its face, the
presumption cannot arise. Hence, given the obvious evidentiary gaps in the
chain of custody, the presumption of regularity on the performance of duties
cannot be applied in this case. When challenged by the evidence of a flawed
chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the
presumption of innocence of the accused.
109
G.R. No. 210192 July 4 ,2016

ROSALNDA S. KHITRI and FERNANO S. KHITRI, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
Remedial Law; Evidence; Equipoise Rule; Where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are susceptible of two (2) or more interpretations, one (1) of which
is consistent with the innocence of the accused while the other may be
compatible with the finding of guilt, the Court must acquit the accused because
the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty required for conviction.—
Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are susceptible of two or more
interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused
while the other may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the Court must
acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty required for conviction.
G.R. No. 212206 July 4,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GABBY
CONCEPCION Y NIMENDA and TOTO MORALES, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule that the findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, as the trial
judges in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and has the
unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor
conduct and attitude under gruelling examination.— Appelalants essentially
assail the credibility of the lone eyewitness. Well-settled is the rule that the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight,
as the trial judges in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses
and has the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his
demeanor conduct and attitude under gruelling examination. The Court of
Appeals affirmed in the trial court’s finding that the lone eyewitness, Reggie is
credible.
G.R. No. 212337 July 4,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BELTRAN FUENTES
JR., accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The evaluation of the credibility of the

witnesses and their testimonies is a matter of best undertaken by the trial court
because of it s unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note
their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under gruelling examination. – It is a well-
settled principle that the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed
110
unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have
been overlooked, might affect the result of the case. The evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by
the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness
firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling
examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness if witnesses
and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies.
For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids
in ascertaining the witnesses’ credibility, and the trial court has the
opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be
incorporated in the record so that all the appellate court can see are the cold
words of the witness contained transcript of testimonies with the risk that
some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of
transcribing.
Same; Same; Testimonial Evidence; Minor Inconsistencies; Minor Inconsistencies
in the testimony of the rape victim do not detract from the actual fact of rape.—
Appellant points out to several supposed inconsistencies in AAA’s statements
such as how appellant manhandled her before actually raping her. We have
ruled and again that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the rape victim
do not detract from the actual rape. These inconsistencies do not affect the
credibility of AAA because that have nothing to do with the essential elements if
the crime of rape.
G. R. No. 209264 July 5,2016

DAMASO T. AMBRAY and CEFERINO T. AMBRAY, JR., petitioners, vs.
SYLVIA A. TSOUROUS, CARMENCITA AMBRAY-LAUREL, HEDY AMBRAY-
AZORES, VIVIEN AMBRAY-YATCO, NANCY AMBRAY-ESCUDERO,
MARISTELA AMBRAY-ILAGAN, ELIZABETH AMBRAY-SORIANO, MA.
LUISA FE AMBRAY-ARCILLA, and CRISTINA AMBRAY- LABIT,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Handwritings; Manner of proving Genuineness of

Handwritings. – Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the
genuineness of handwriting may be proved in the following manner: (1) by any
witness who believes it to be handwriting of such person because he has seen
the person write; or he has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged; (2) by a comparison, made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party, against
whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge. Corollary thereto, jurisprudence states that the presumption of validity
and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud. As against direct
evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically present at
the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the
testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence
at best.
111
Same; Same; Testimony at a Former Proceeding; Hearsay Evidence Rule; The

reasons for the admissibility if testimony taken at a former trial or proceeding are
the necessity for the testimony and its trustworthiness. – Notably, the
admissibility of Estela’s former testimony on the present case finds basis in
Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence or the “rule on former testimony’
which provides: Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. –
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify given in
a former case or proceeding, judicial, or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party
who had the opportunity to cross examine him. Case law hold that for the said
rule to apply the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead
or unable to testify; (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case
or proceeding, judicial, or administrative, between the same parties or those
representing the same interests; (c) the former case involved the same subject
as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (d) the
issue testifies to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in
the present case; and the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness in the former case. The reasons for the admissibility of testimony
taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the testimony and its
trustworthiness. However, before the former testimony can be introduced in
evidence, the proponent must first lay the proper predicate therefore, i.e., the
party must establish the basis for the admission of testimony in the realm of
admissible evidence.
G.R. No. 208009 July 11,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDILBERTO PUSING
Y TAMOR, accused-appellant
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Hymenal Lacerations; Lacerations; whether fresh

or healed, are the best physical evidence of rape. –The lacerations sustained by
AAA in her vagina, which, as Dr. Joseph Palermo testifies, could have been
caused by a penetration, shoe that carnal knowledge happened. Lacerations,
whether fresh or healed, are the best physical evidence of rape.
G.R. No. 200537 July 13,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODORIGO
QUITOLA Y BALMONTE, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Extrajudicial Confessions; Extrajudicial confessions

given by the accused-appellant during the interview conducted by the field
reporter is admissible in evidence.—We agree with the Sol Gen. that extra-
judicial confession given by accused-appellant during the interview conducted
by the field reporter is admissible in evidence. Accused-appellant asserts that
112
the confession was involuntarily given and was made under extreme fear
because he was interviewed while he was inside the detention cell and while
surrounded by police officers. We are not persuaded. That the confession was
given without the assistance of counsel and was therefore involuntary is
immaterial. We have consistently held that the Bill of Rights does not concern
itself with relations between private individuals. The prohibitions therein are
primarily addressed to the State and its agents; thus, accused-appellant's
confession to field reporter Tacason is not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of
Article III of the Constitution. Furthermore, accused-appellant would have this
Court believe that the confession was given under a tense and fearful
atmosphere, similar to that of a custodial investigation. In a previous case with
similar circumstances, We observed that the presence of the police officers did
not exert any undue pressure or influence on the accused, coercing him into
giving his confession. The interview was not in the nature of a custodial
investigation as the response of the accused-appellant was made in answer to
questions asked by the reporter and not by the police. There is no showing that
the field reporter colluded with the police authorities to elicit inculpatory
evidence against accused-appellant. Neither is there anything on record which
suggests that the reporter was instructed by the police to extract information
from him. Moreover, accused-appellant could have refused to be interviewed,
but instead, he agreed. A review of the taped interview would show that he
answered the questions freely and spontaneously.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has held that “the voluntariness of
a confession may be inferred from its language such that it; upon its face, the
confession exhibits no sign of suspicious circumstances tending to case doubt
upon its integrity, it being replete with details which could be supplied only by
the accused reflecting spontaneity and coherence which, psychologically, cannot
be associated with a mind which violence and torture have benn applies, if
maybe considered voluntary.” – As can be gleaned from both the taped
interview and the testimony of the reporter, accused-appellant's confession was
replete with details describing the manner by which the crime was committed.
This Court has held that "the voluntariness of a confession may be inferred
from its language such that if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no sign of
suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being
replete with details which could be supplied only by the accused reflecting
spontaneity and coherence which, psychologically, cannot be associated with a
mind to which violence and torture have been applied, it may be considered
voluntary."
Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; At times, resort to circumstantial evidence
is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in
setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community. – Rule 133,
Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that an extra-judicial confession shall
not be a sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti. In the case at bar, the confession made by accused-appellant
was corroborated by other evidence. While there was no prosecution witness
who positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant, his culpability was
113
nonetheless proven through circumstantial evidence. Time and again, this

Court has held that direct evidence is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial
court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow
a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of
guilt. At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on
direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny
proper protection to the community. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
sustain a conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstances; (b) the facts
from which the inferences are derived [and] proven; and (c) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
Same; Same; Factual Findings; Well- established is the rule that factual findings
made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the
witnesses and to determine the probative value of the testimonies, are entitled to
great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess
the same. – Well- established is the rule that factual findings made by the trial
court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to
determine the probative value of the testimonies, are entitled to great weight
and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same.
We agree with the lower courts that the circumstances proven by the
prosecution lead to the inescapable conclusion that accused-appellant is the
author of the crime. It is significant to note that accused-appellant's own
brother testified that accused-appellant had custody of deceased's car. Indeed,
it would be against the presumption of good faith that a prosecution witness
would falsely testify against an accused, particularly in this case when the
witness is the accused's own brother. Moreover, no evidence of ill-motive or
strained relation has been offered to indicate motive for any of the prosecution
witnesses to give false testimony against accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 213529 July 13,2016

JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. HON. SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA,
PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO ARELLANO, AND SENIOR DEPUTY
STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE M. VILLANUEVA, IN THEIR
CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON.
ELMO M. ALAMEDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 150, NATIONAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), ARTURO F. LUY, GERTRUDES K. LUY,
ANNABELLE LUY-REARIO, AND BENHUR K. LUY, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence Motive; Although motive is not
an element of a crime, it is a “prospectant circumstantial evidence’ that may help
establish intent. – Although motive is not an element of a crime, it is a
"prospectant circumstantial evidence" that may help establish intent. In this
case, the Review Resolution sufficiently explained why it was "contrary to
human nature" for Benhur Luy to go on a three (3)-month spiritual retreat with
priests that have close ties with Napoles; and, instead, Benhur Luy had been
114
detained at Bahay ni San Jose, transferred from place to place until he was
rescued in Pacific Plaza because he knew first-hand of Napoles' involvement in
the pork barrel scam.
G.R. No. 210715 July 18,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUSTICO YGOT Y
REPUELA, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Motive; Settled is the rule that the absence of evidence
as to an improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that none
existed and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. – We agree with
the lower courts that the culpability of accused- appellant was established
beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of IO1 Palapar was not only
unwavering but consistent even under cross- examination. Moreover, the
defense failed to impeach IO1 Palapar or present controverting evidence to
show why he would incriminate or testify against accused-appellant. Settled is
the rule that the absence of evidence as to an improper motive strongly tends
to sustain the conclusion that none existed and that the testimony is worthy of
full faith and credit. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation
have no motive to testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the
presumption that they performed their duties regularly. In fact, for as long as
the identity of the accused and his participation in the commission of the crime
has been duly established, motive is immaterial for conviction.
G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; View that by its very nature as a
“trial” court, the adjudicatory body has the opportunity to personally observe the
demeanor of witnesses delivering testimonial evidence, as well as to peruse the
otherwise sinuous mass of object and documentary evidence. – By its very
nature as a "trial" court, the adjudicatory body has the opportunity to
personally observe the demeanor of witnesses delivering testimonial evidence,
as well as to peruse the otherwise sinuous mass of object and documentary
evidence. It is the tribunal with the capacity to admit and observe and, in
conjunction with this case, the principal capacity to test and counterpoise.
Thus, it entertains and rules on objections to evidence. Therefore, it follows
that if a demurrer to evidence is denied, the correctness of this denial may only
be ascertained when the consideration of evidence has been consummated.
There is no better way of disproving the soundness of the trial court's having
opted to continue with the proceedings than the entire body of evidence.
115
G.R. No. 208527 July 20,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARDO BACERO Y
CASABON, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Evidence; Extrajudicial Confessions;

Custodial Investigation; Republic Act ( RA) No. 7438, defines the rights of persons
under custodial investigation. – In previous cases, the Court has disregarded
allegations of torture when the accused did not file any complaint against his
alleged malefactors for maltreatment. Notwithstanding the fact that torture was
not sufficiently proven, the extra-judicial confession made at the police station
remains inadmissible in evidence. R.A. No. 7438, the law defining the rights of
persons under custodial investigation, provides: "Section 2. (d) - Any
extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the
presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in
the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding." The admission
made by accused-appellant was neither put into writing nor made in the
presence of persons mentioned in the law. Thus, there can be no conclusion
other than that the extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.
Nevertheless, the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator
of the crime warrants his conviction.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Time and again, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that
when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the trial court’s calibration of the
testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof,
are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect, especially when uch findings
are affirmed by the appellate court. – The defense maintains that Juliet's
testimony anent the identity of accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators is
highly doubtful. Accused-appellant harps on the inconsistencies in Juliet's
statements regarding the suspects' identities. We cannot sustain such
argument casting doubt on Juliet's positive identification' of accused-
appellant's participation in the commission of the crime. Time and again, this
Court has held that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the trial
court's calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect,
most especially when such findings are affirmed by the appellate court. Unless
there is a clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance, this rule should not be disturbed.
Same; Same; Same; Out-of-court Identifications; Totality of Circumstances; In a
long line of cases, the Court has reiterated the totality of circumstances test
adopted from American Jurisprudence and set forth in People v. Teehankee, Jr.,
116
which has been the guide in resolving the admissibility of out-of-court

identification – Jurisprudence is replete with various ways of conducting out-of-
court identifications. It may be done thru show-ups, where the suspect alone is
brought face to face with the witness or thru mug shots, where only
photographs are shown to the witness. Identification can also be done thru
line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons. To
maintain the integrity of in-court identification during trial, courts have
fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and compliance with the
requirements of constitutional due process. In a long line of cases, the Court
has reiterated the totality of circumstances test adopted from American
Jurisprudence and set forth in People v. Teehankee, Jr., which has been the
guide in resolving the admissibility of out-of-court identification. Under the
totality of circumstances test, the following factors are considered: (1) the
identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is
"to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner
in which the offense is perpetrated." – Juliet identified accused-appellant out-of-
court on two separate occasions, viz: (1) when she saw accused-appellant in
front of the latter's house after roaming the vicinity and (2) at a police line-up
conducted by SPO1 Tecson. We rule that the out-of-court identifications made
by Juliet satisfied the totality of circumstances test. Juliet was at the scene of
the crime when the incident happened and she was able to see the faces of the
assailants through the loosely tied blindfold. Moreover, the most natural
reaction of a witness to a crime is "to strive to look at the appearance of the
perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated."
Most often, the face and body movements of the assailant create a lasting
impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory. We agree with
the appellate court that eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of
reliability the identity of criminals at any given time precisely because of the
unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes. Though this Court
is aware that such pronouncement should be applied with great caution, there
is no compelling circumstance in this case that would warrant its non-
application.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It has long been settled that an out-of court
identification does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent
in-court identification and that "even assuming that an out-of-court identification
was tainted with irregularity, the subsequent identification in court cured any
flaw that may have attended it." – Accused-appellant contends that Juliet's
description of the appellant as a man having long hair lacks the highest degree
of certainty. We find this contention unmeritorious. The lack of a detailed
description of the assailants should not lead to a conclusion that the
identification was erroneous. Victims of violent crimes have varying reactions to
117
shocking events. Juliet cannot be expected to immediately remember the

detailed features of the assailants' faces as she was still in a state of shock.
Though she was unable to describe in detail the appearances of the assailants,
she was able to immediately identify Bacero when she saw him two days after
the incident. Nevertheless, assuming for the sake of argument that Juliet's out-
of-court identification was improper, it will have no bearing on the conviction of
accused-appellant. It has long been settled that out-of court identification does
not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of independent in-court identification
and that "even assuming that an out-of-court identification was tainted with
irregularity, the subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may
have attended it."Furthermore, the records show that there is no improper
motive for Juliet to impute a serious crime to the accused-appellant
G.R. No. 208837 July 20,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DONNA RIVERA Y
DUMO, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses ; The evaluation of the credibility of

witnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of
its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct
and attitude under grilling examination.— Appellant contends that the PDEA
officers had sufficient time to secure a warrant of arrest but failed to do so.
Appellant asserts that a buy-bust operation should not be used to dispense
with the requirement of a warrant. Appellant insists that she was merely sitting
on a bench and waiting for her grandmother when the PDEA officers came and
apprehended her. Moreover, appellant argues that the items allegedly seized
from her are not admissible in evidence because they were a product of an
invalid warrantless arrest. With these antecedents, we once more pronounce
that factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters of
credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors
bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.
The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best
undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling
examination.
118
G.R. No. 217381 July 20,2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE R.
SALVADOR, accused-appellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Factual Findings ; It is well-settled that, in a criminal

case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and
respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial
evidence on record.— It is well-settled that, in a criminal case, factual findings
of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal,
especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record.
It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked
material and relevant matters that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the
factual findings of the court below.25cralawred The Court sees no reason to
depart from the foregoing rule.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Child Witnesses; Courts give full weight and credence
to testimonies of child-victims of rape. Youth and immaturity are generally
badges of truth. — In any case, it is highly unlikely that AAA would concoct her
accusations against Salvador and publicly expose her dishonor and shame if it
were not really true that she was raped. Courts give full weight and credence to
testimonies of child-victims of rape. Youth and immaturity are generally badges
of truth. It is highly improbable that a 13-year-old girl like AAA would impute a
crime as serious as rape to the common-law spouse of her mother, undergo the
humiliation of a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and
dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice
and to have the offender apprehended and punished. The weight of such
testimony may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary or indubitable
proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence
of such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value.
G.R. No. 202514, July 25, 2016

ANNA MARIE L. GUMABON, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals, Petition for Review on Certitorari; As a

general rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only
questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable and cannot be passed
upon by the Court in the exercise of its power to review under Rule 45;
Exceptions.— As a general rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable and
cannot be passed upon by the Court in the exercise of its power to review
under Rule 45.There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. Questions of
fact may be raised before this Court in any of these instances: (1) when the
119
findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2)

when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3)
when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on
misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when
in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Payment; The burden of proving that the debt
had been discharged by payment rests upon the debtor once the debt's existence
has been fully established by the evidence on record. — It is a settled rule in
evidence that the one who alleges payment has the burden of proving it.30The
burden of proving that the debt had been discharged by payment rests upon
the debtor once the debt's existence has been fully established by the evidence
on record. When the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden
of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from the burden of proof - shifts
to the creditor. Consequently, the creditor has a duty to produce evidence to
show non-payment.
Same; Same; Admissibility of Evidence; Evidence, to be admissible, must comply
with two qualifications: (a) relevance and (b) competence.— Evidence, to be
admissible, must comply with two qualifications: (a) relevance and (b)
competence. Evidence is relevant if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence. On the other hand, evidence is
competent if it is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; Section 3, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court provides that the original copy of the document must be
presented whenever the content of the document is under inquiry. However,
there are instances when the Court may allow the presentation of secondary
evidence in the absence of the original document. — One of the grounds under
the Rules of Court that determines the competence of evidence is the best
evidence rule. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the
original copy of the document must be presented whenever the content of the
document is under inquiry. However, there are instances when the Court may
allow the presentation of secondary evidence in the absence of the original
document. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court enumerates these
exceptions: (a) when the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) when the
original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;(c)
when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to
be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) when
120
the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in

a public office.
Same; Same; Formal offer means that the offeror shall inform the court of the
purpose of introducing its exhibits into evidence. Without a formal offer of
evidence, courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if this has been
previously marked and identified.— The affidavit of the PNB New York's bank
officer is also inadmissible in the light of the following self-explanatory
provision of the Rules of Court:"Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. - The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered, x x x." Formal offer
means that the offeror shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing its
exhibits into evidence. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take
notice of this evidence even if this has been previously marked and identified.
Same; Same; Affidavits; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Jurisprudence dictates that an
affidavit is merely hearsay evidence when its affiant or maker did not take the
witness stand. – It is unmistakable that the PNB did not include the affidavit of
the PNB New York's bank officer in its formal offer of evidence to corroborate
Anna Rose's SOA. Although the affidavit was included in the records and
identified by Fernandez, it remains inadmissible for being hearsay.
Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence when its
affiant or maker did not take the witness stand.
G.R. No. 181335, July 27, 2016

MARIO SALUTA, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals, Petition for Review on Certitorari;

Supreme Court; Apetition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court shall raise only questions of law. The Court is not a trier of facts, and it is
not the function of the Court to re-examine the evidence submitted by the
parties.— To begin with, it must be stressed that "a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law."
The Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not the function of the Court to re-
examine the evidence submitted by the parties. Since the CA and the trial court
unanimously found that Saluta is guilty as charged, it consequently falls down
on Saluta to come forward with a good reason or cause to have the Court
depart from the age-old rule of according conclusiveness to the findings of the
trial courts, which the CA affirmed. But that convincing demonstration was not
done by Saluta, thus, his guilt was sufficiently proven by the prosecution.
Same; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Conviction based on circumstantial
evidence may result if sufficient circumstances, proven and taken together,
create an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that the accused,
to the exclusion of all others, was the author of the crime.— Under Section 4,
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to
convict the offender if: (i) there is more than one circumstance; (ii) the facts
121
from which the inference is derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, "Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient
circumstances, proven and taken together, create an unbroken chain leading
to the reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others,
was the author of the crime."
G.R. No. 208086 , July 27, 2016

FLORENCIO MORALES, JR., petitioner, v. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES, ATTY. AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ATTY. MIGUEL
NOEL T. OCAMPO, ATTY. JOYCE MARTINEZ-BARUT, ATTY. ALLAN S.
HILBERO, AND ATTY. EDIZER J. RESURRECION, respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; On the petitioner lies the burden of
demonstrating, plainly and distinctly, all facts essential to establish his right to a
writ of certiorari. – The Court reiterates that "on the petitioner lies the burden of
demonstrating, plainly and distinctly, all facts essential to establish his right to
a writ of certiorari" "The burden of proof to show grave abuse of discretion is on
petitioner." As petitioner for the writ of certiorari, he must "discharge the
burden of proving grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the
Ombudsman, in accordance with the definition and standards set by law and
jurisprudence."
G.R. No. 208264 , July 27, 2016

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, v. RICO C. MANALASTAS,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; As a public officer,
Manalastas enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official
duties and functions.— As a public officer, Manalastas enjoys the presumption
of regularity in the performance of his official duties and functions. Manalastas
accepted the requirements presented by BPI Family for annotation and
registration of the real estate mortgage in the ordinary course of transaction.
His examination of the owner's duplicate copy of title and his recommendation
to his superiors for the approval of the annotation and registration of the real
estate mortgage were made in good faith and not tainted with gross negligence.
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care
or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by
want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
Same; Same; Substantial Evidence; In administrative cases, the quantum of
proof needed to adjudge a respondent guilty is substantial evidence.— In
administrative cases, the quantum of proof needed to adjudge a respondent
122
guilty is substantial evidence. In Miro v. Mendoza, we held that substantial

evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere
scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when
there is reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that
the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be
overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or
evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal case, but the
evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; In sum, in the absence of
any substantial evidence that Manalastas did not properly perform his duty as
Examiner or that he intentionally performed an illegal act, then the presumption
of regularity in the performance of duty should prevail.— As Justice Tuason
opined, in his concurring and dissenting opinions in the case of him v. Register
of Deeds of Rizal, Registers of Deeds are not guardians entrusted with watching
over the private interests of contracting parties who are fully capable of looking
after their own affairs. Thus, BPI Family has to bear the burden of loss. In
sum, in the absence of any substantial evidence that Manalastas did not
properly perform his duty as Examiner or that he intentionally performed an
illegal act, then the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
should prevail. We do not find Manalastas administratively liable for gross
negligence in carrying out his official functions which he had executed within
reasonable bounds of diligence and care diligence and care.
G.R. No. 210710 July 27, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. LUISITO GABORNE Y
CINCO, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Paraffin Test; Scientific experts concur in the view that
the paraffin test was extremely unreliable for use.— Paraffin tests, in general,
have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the
view that the paraffin test was extremely unreliable for use. It can only
establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; however,
the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites
was the discharge of a firearm; The presence of nitrates should be taken only
as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility
that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in
substances other than gunpowder. In this case, prosecution witness, Pasana
and the victim himself, De Luna, testified in the trial court that it was indeed
the appellant who was holding the gun during the incident. It should also be
considered that appellant was arrested the day after the incident. Thus, it is
possible for appellant to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of nitrate or
gunpowder as when the hands are bathed in perspiration or washed
afterwards.
123
G.R. No. 215192 July 27, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI,
appellant.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Conviction must stand on the strength of the
prosecution's evidence, and not on the weakness of the defense - the prosecution
must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the
crime charged.— It is well-settled in criminal law that the conviction of an
accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not
on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. Bartolini has the
constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor which outweighs the
presumption of regularity of duties of the policemen involved. Conviction must
stand on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, and not on the weakness
of the defense - the prosecution must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused is guilty of the crime charged. In this case however, we find
that the prosecution fell short in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused is indeed guilty of the crime charged.
G.R. No. 196735 August 3, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. DANILO FELICIANO,
JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L.
ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN PROMULGATED: ALVIR,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS., respondent.
Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; The testimony of a single witness is enough to

prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.— The testimony of a
single witness, as long as it is credible and positive, is enough to prove the guilt
of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 201106 August 3, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. GERALD
BALLACILLO, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Testimonies of rape victims
who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young
woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration. – In
almost all cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the victim's testimony is
crucial because more often than not, only the persons involved can testify as to
its occurrence. Unless there appears certain facts or circumstances of weight
and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if
properly considered, would alter the result of the case, the trial court's
conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded
124
great weight and respect, and at times even finality. Time and again, this Court
held that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full
credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against
her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. What is merely
required in establishing rape through testimonial evidence is that the victim be
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank in her statements about
the incident of rape.
G.R. No. 212930 August 3, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ANGELO BUENAFE Y
BRIONES @ "ANGEL," accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Witnessing a crime is an

unusual experience that elicits different reactions from the witnesses, and for
which no clear cut standard form of behavior can be drawn.— Witnessing a
crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from the
witnesses, and for which no clear cut standard form of behavior can be drawn.
In People v. Clariño this court held that death threats, fear of reprisal, and even
a natural reluctance to be involved in a criminal case have been accepted as
adequate explanations for the delay in reporting crimes.
Evidence; Paraffin Test; Paraffin test alone cannot determine whether the source
of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm.— In People v.
Cajumocan, this Court ruled that paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered
inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the
paraffin test was extremely unreliable for use. It can only establish the
presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; however, the test alone
cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the
discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an
indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a
person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances
other than gunpowder.
Same; Fingerprint Analysis; Negative findings in the fingerprint analysis do not
at all times lead to a valid conclusion.— Negative findings in the fingerprint
analysis do not at all times lead to a valid conclusion for there may be logical
explanations for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than the
appellant not being present at the scene of the crime. The absence of latent
fingerprints does not immediately eliminate the possibility that the appellant
could have been at the scene of the crime.
125
G.R. No. 220023 August 8, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v. DARIO TUBORO Y RAFAEL,
appellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; The settled rule is that the
trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape
cases are generally accorded great weight and respect. – The settled rule is that
the trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in
rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even
finality, and that its findings are binding and conclusive on the appellate court,
unless there is a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or it appears
from the records that certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or
value were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court
and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Trial judges are in the best position to assess
whether the witness is telling a truth or lie. — Having seen and heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the
trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.
Indeed, trial judges are in the best position to assess whether the witness is
telling a truth or lie as they have the direct and singular opportunity to observe
the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the witness while testifying.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In resolving rape cases, the primordial or single most
important consideration is almost always given to the credibility of the victim's
testimony.— In resolving rape cases, the primordial or single most important
consideration is almost always given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.
When the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the
accused person's conviction since, owing to the nature of the offense, in many
cases, the only evidence that can be given regarding the matter is the testimony
of the offended party.
A.C. No. 9090 August 31, 2016

TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES,
ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, respondents.
Evidence; The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof.— Neither can respondent be held guilty of falsification in
connection with the forged signature of Marita. "The basic rule is that mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on
mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence.
126
A.C. No. 8560, September 06, 2016

CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, Complainant, v. ATTY.
RAMON F. NIEVA, Respondent.
Administrative Proceedings; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In administrative

proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.—Based on a survey of cases, the
recent ruling on the matter is Cabas v. Sususco, 793 SCRA 309 (2016), which
was promulgated just this June 15, 2016. In this case, it was pronounced that:
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a
finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation
is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. (Emphasis
supplied) Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control and
therefore, quell any further confusion on the proper evidentiary threshold to be
applied in administrative cases against lawyers.
G.R. No. 212171, September 07, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCURY DELA CRUZ
ALIAS "DEDAY," Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; In the absence of any intent

or ill-motive in the part of the police officers to falsely impute commission of a
crime against the accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty is entitled to great respect and deserves to prevail
over the bare, uncorroborated denial and self-serving claim of the accused of
frame-up.—We agree with the lower courts that in the absence of any intent or
ill-motive in the part of the police officers to falsely impute commission of a
crime against the accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty is entitled to great respect and deserves to prevail
over the bare, uncorroborated denial and self-serving claim of the accused of
frame-up. Also, we reject the appellant’s contention that the police officers
failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165
which provides for the procedure in the custody of disposition of seized drugs.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Accused-appellant bears the

burden of showing that the evidence was tampered of meddled with in order to
overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers properly discharged their duties.—The integrity of the evidence is
127
presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will,
or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears
the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered of meddled with in
order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by
public officers properly discharged their duties. Accused-appellant in this case
failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the
arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve
full faith and credit. In fact, accused-appellant did not even question the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. She simply anchored her defense on
denial and alibi.
G.R. No. 191537, September 14, 2016

PAULINO M. ALECHA, FELIX B. UNABIA, RICARDO A. TOLINO AND MARIO
A. CATANES, Petitioners, v. JOSE L. ATIENZA JR., THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), MICHAEL L.
ROMERO AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 168 FERRUM PACIFIC MINING
CORPORATION, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Notice; In quasi-judicial proceedings, an

agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable
technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge.—In quasi-judicial
proceedings, an agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of
generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its specialized
knowledge. The parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity to contest
that facts so noticed. (Section 12[4], Chapter 3 Book VII, The Administrative
Code of 1987). In the present case, the DENR Secretary took judicial notice of
the documents submitted for the approval of the subject mining agreement
which were already in his possession by reason of his office and were either
posted in a conspicuous place, published in a newspaper of general circulation,
or its contents announced through the radio. The DENR Secretary merely
confirmed the 168 FPMC’s allegation in its Answer that it had complied with
the legal process laid down by law and obtained the consent of the IPs
concerned for the approval of the mining agreement.
Same; Evidence; It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly
applied in the proceedings before administrative bodies.—It is well-settled that
the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in the proceedings before
administrative bodies. Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed
to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation
of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of
such agency. Administrative agencies are given wide latitude in the evaluation
of evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude which
includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special
competence.
128
G.R. No. 199397, September 14, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARWIN GITO Y
CORLIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is axiomatic that where the issue is one of
credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the finding of
the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of
substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result
of the case.—It is axiomatic that where the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the finding of the trial
court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of
substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the
result of the case.
G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REYNALDO ABAYON Y
APONTE, Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; It is settled that in the

absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to sustain a
conviction.— It is settled that in the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial
evidence may be sufficient to sustain a conviction provided that: “(a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances
results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is
the one who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction on
circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven
in a way that leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REYNALDO ABAYON Y
APONTE, Appellant.
Same; Same; Same; Abayon had the motive (i.e., he was characterized as a
‘good-for-nothing husband’ by his wife during a violent quarrel); he had make a
previous attempt to start a fire (by turning on and off the gas tank’s regulator,
while holding an unlighted cigarette and match); and he bought a match at past
midnight, stating to the vender that he will use it to burn something.—The
records also revealed that Abayon bought a match from Edmund Felipe at
around 12:15 a.m. When Edmund asked what the match was for, Abayon
uttered, “Wala, may susunugin lang ako.” To our mind, Edmund’s statement
129
clinches the case against Abayon insofar as establishing his clear link to the
fire that broke out at pas 12 a.m.; it also makes all the more significant the
pieces of circumstantial evidence enumerated by both the RTC and the CA
especially in proving the motive for the crime, i.e., what led Abayon to burn his
and his neighbors’ houses. The combination of all these circumstance, vis-à-vis
the statement of Edmund, leads to no other conclusion than that Abayon
deliberately started the fire that resulted in the death of three (3) innocent
victims. There could be not doubt on this conclusion: Abayon had the motive
(i.e., he was characterized as a ‘good-for-nothing husband’ by his wife
during a violent quarrel); he had make a previous attempt to start a fire
(by turning on and off the gas tank’s regulator, while holding an unlighted
cigarette and match); and he bought a match at past midnight, stating to
the vender that he will use it to burn something.
Same; Same; Witnesses; On the credibility of witnesses, we note the well-settled

rule that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of
witnesses.— credibility of witnesses, we note the well-settled rule that the trial
court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses. In the
absence of any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which
would appear to have been overlooked and, if considered, could affect the
outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of a
witness made by the trial court remain binding on an appellate tribunal.
G.R. No. 208067, September 14, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RONNIE R. LIBRIAS, Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Rape; The conviction or acquittal

of the accused in crimes against chastity, as well as the crime of rape depends
almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony as seldom is
there an eyewitness, other than those involved, to the commission of the
offense.—By their very nature, crimes against chastity , as well as the crime of
rape, usually involve only two persons: the victim-complainant and the alleged
offender. As a consequence, the conviction or acquittal of the accused in crimes
against chastity, as well as the crime of rape depends almost entirely on the
credibility of the complainant’s testimony as seldom is there an eyewitness,
other than those involved, to the commission of the offense. It is for the reason
that we should examine with greatest care the complainant’s story and subject
it to a thorough scrutiny to determine its veracity in the light of human nature
and experience
Same; Same; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; The quantum of proof required in
criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused.-
—We are reminded that the quantum of proof required in criminal cases is
proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused. Because of the
130
constitutional presumption of innocence, the burden, therefore, lies with the

prosecution to meet this quantum of proof. In the case at bar, the prosecution
failed to discharge this burden since AAA’s testimony was not credible enough
to establish with moral certainty that Librias abducted AAA and raped her.
Same; Evidence; Equipoise Rule; Where the evidence in a criminal case evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scale in favour of
the accused.—Faced with two conflicting versions, we are guided by the
equipoise rule: where the evidence in a criminal case evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scale in favour of the accused.
Thus, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence of the accused
and the other consistent with his guilt, them the evidence does not fulfil the
test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. Applying
this rule in the present case would properly lead us to conclude that AAA did
not try to escape or call for help because she wanted to go to wherever Librias
was planning to bring her.
G.R. No. 210798, September 14, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEVERLY VILLANUEVA
Y MANALILI @ BEBANG, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; That the defense are closely related to
accused-appellant – one being the brother and manager of the videoke bar and
the other being an employee – is not a suffiecient reason to disregard their
testimonies.—That the defense are closely related to accused-appellant – one
being the brother and manager of the videoke bar and the other being an
employee – is not a sufficient reason to disregard their testimonies. The
declaration of interested witnesses is not necessarily biased and incredible.
More importantly, there was no evidence suggesting that the testimonies of the
witnesses where untruthful to being with.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence is

deemed sufficient for conviction only if: (1) there is more than one (1)
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.—While it is recognized that the lack of
direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of guilt, we still hold that
acquittal is in order for the reason that the circumstantial evidence presented
does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that accused-appellant committed
the crime. Circumstantial evidence is deemed sufficient for conviction only if:
(1) there is more than one (1) circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven; and (3) the combination of all the
131
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It

is essential that he circumstantial evidence presented constitutes an unbroken
chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of others, as guilty person.
G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016

RIZALITO Y. DAVID, Petitioner, v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Although the Revised Rules

on Evidence’s sole mention of circumstantial evidence is in reference to criminal
proceedings, the Supreme Court (SC) has nevertheless sustained the use of
circumstantial evidence in other proceedings.—Although the Revised Rules on
Evidence’s sole mention of circumstantial evidence is in reference to criminal
proceedings, the Supreme Court has nevertheless sustained the use of
circumstantial evidence in other proceedings. There is no rational basis for
making the use of circumstantial evidence exclusive to criminal proceedings
and for not considering circumstantial facts as valid means for proof on civil
and/or administrative proceedings. In criminal proceedings, circumstantial
evidence suffices to sustain a conviction (which may result in deprivation of
life, liberty, and property) anchored on the highest standard or proof that our
legal system would require, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt. If
circumstantial evidence suffices for such high standard, so too may it suffice to
satisfy the less stringent standard of proof in administrative and quasi-judicial
proceedings such as those before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, i.e.,
substantial evidence.
Same; Same; Burden of Proof; Words and Phrases; Burden of proof is the duty of
a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.—“Burden of proof is the
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.” Burden of
proof lies on the party making the allegations; that is, the party who “alleges
the affirmative of the issue” Burden of proof never shifts from one party to
another. What shifts is the burden of evidence. This shift happens when a
party makes a prima facie case in his or her favour. The other party then bears
the “burden of going forward” with the evidence considering that which has
ostensibly been established against him or her.
132
A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016

DATU REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS
LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM;
ATTYS. MA. JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ, ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA,
MA. JUANA S. VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND FERNANDO F. COT-
OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Equipoise Rule; When the pieces of evidence of the
parties are evenly balanced or when doubt exists on the preponderance of
evidence, the equipoise rule dictates that the decision be against the party
carrying the burden of proof.—We must reiterate that in disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof is on the complainant; the Court exercises its
disciplinary power only if the complainant establisher her case by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Preponderance of evidence means that
the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater
weight than that of the other party. When the pieces of evidence of the parties
are evenly balanced or when doubt exists on the preponderance of evidence,
the equipoise rule dictates that the decision be against the party carrying the
burden of proof.
G.R. No. 183947, September 21, 2016

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TEODORO G.
BERNARDINO, Respondent.
Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of
proof lies upon who asserts it, not upon him who denies, since, by the nature if
things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.—It is a basic rule in
evidence that the burden of proof lies upon who asserts it, not upon him who
denies, since, by the nature if things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any
proof of it. Thus, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the
affirmative of an issue has the onus to prove this assertion in order to obtain a
favourable judgement. For the plaintiff, the burden to prove its positive
assertions never parts.
G.R. No. 183947, September 21, 2016

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TEODORO G.
BERNARDINO, Respondent.
Same; Same; Preponderance of Evidence; Preponderance of evidence is the

considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of evidence” or
133
“greater weight of the credible evidence.”—Preponderance of evidence is the

considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of evidence” or
“greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase
which, in the last analysis, means probability to truth. It is the evidence which
is more convincing to the court as worthier than that which is offered
opposition.
Same; Same; Witnesses; The failure of a witness to recall each and every detail
of an occurrence may even serve to strengthen rather than weaken his credibility
because it erase any suspicion of a coached or rephrased testimony.—Although
Rojas could not recall some details of the meetings, we find these details
innocuous and merely incidental. Rojas cannot be expected to remember every
single detail of the meeting with perfect recall. Far from adversely affecting his
credibility, his failure to recall every minute detail of what transpired even
fortifies it. We have held that failure of a witness to recall each and every detail
of an occurrence may even serve to strengthen rather than weaken his
credibility because it erase any suspicion of a coached or rephrased testimony.
What is clear from the testimony of Rojas is that the surety agreement was
discussed and he was of the opinion, from the bank’s perspective, that such
security was not enough. Nowhere did he state that the parties agreed to, much
less discussed, a subrogation agreement as a condition precedent to the surety
agreement.
Same; Same; Parole Evidence Rule; When the parties have reduced their
agreement into writing, they are deemed to have intended the written agreement
to be the sole repository and memorial of everything that they have agreed upon;
Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and
abandoned.—When the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, they
are deemed to have intended the written agreement to be the sole repository
and memorial of everything that they have agreed upon. All their prior and
contemporaneous agreements are deemed to be merged in the written
document so that, as between them and their successors-in-interest, such
writing becomes exclusive evidence of its terms and any verbal agreement
which tend to vary, alter or modify it is not admissible. Whatever is not found
in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned. This must be
so because an oral testimony on an alleged prior or contemporaneous
agreement, such as the subrogation subject of Bernardino’s testimony in this
case, comes from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case and
depends exclusively on human memory. Thus, it is not as reliable as written
documentary evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously undesirable unlike
a written contract which speaks of a uniform language.
Same; Same; Same; It is only where a party pulls in issue in his pleadings the
failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties that the
party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
134
agreement.—Be that as it may, the rule prohibiting the presentation of parol

evidence is not absolute. A party may present evidence to modify, explain or
add to the terms of the written agreement if puts in issue in his pleading any of
the following: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement; (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties thereto; (c) The validity of the written agreement;
or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-
in-interest after the execution of the written agreement. In his Complaint,
however, Bernardino did not plead any exception to the application of the parol
evidence rule. All that he pleaded was the alleged collateral agreement with
which RCBC mus first comply. We have uniformly held that it is only where a
party pulls in issue in his pleadings the failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent of the parties that the party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement. The failure of
Bernardino, therefore, should have rendered the parol evidence inadmissible.
However, no timely objection or protest was made against its admission and
RCBC, against whom it was presented, cross-examined the witnesses who
testified. Failure to object to the parol evidence constitutes a waiver to its
admissibility.
Same; Same; Same; The exception to the parol evidence rule on the ground that
the agreement fails to express the true intent of the parties obtains only where
the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual
intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the
instrument.—The exception to the parol evidence rule on the ground that the
agreement fails to express the true intent of the parties obtains only where the
written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual
intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the
instrument. As we have earlier pointed out, the surety agreements are clear
and unambiguous. The contractual intention of the parties to bind Bernardino
solidarity with MMC is readily understood from a reading of the surety
agreements.
G.R. No. 193837, September 21, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO M.
PANGAN, Accused-Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumptions; Mere suspicions and speculations can

never be bases of conviction in a criminal case.—The trial court’s conclusion is
speculative. Appellant was the last person seen with the victim, thus, the
suspicion that he was author of the crime. Although this circumstance
admittedly breeds speculation, it is insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt.
And even if indeed it was true that appellant had in his possession the victim’s
135
mobile phone, the evidence is not definitive, among many possibilities, whether
said phone had been lent to him before the homicide, whether appellant had
just taken in and thereafter the victim was skilled by another or whether
appellant merely foun the same in the victim’s body or some other place after
the homicide perpetrated by another person. In point of fact, mere suspicions
and speculations can never be bases of conviction in a criminal case. Notably,
there is no conclusive proof that the mobile phone belonged to the victim. Even
assuming the mobile phone was the victim’s own, the fact that it remained in
the personal custody of the investigating officer from the time he had received it
from Napicog and only surrendered it at the time of its presentation necessarily
compromised its integrity.
Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; It is not only by direct evidence that an

accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence to sustain a
conviction, the following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one (1)
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.—Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence
that an accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence to sustain a
conviction, the following are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one (1)
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Decided cases expound that the
circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the
circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with
hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rationale except that of
guilt.
Same; Same; Presumptions; It is well to stress that in criminal cases,

presumptions should be taken with caution especially in light of serious concerns
that they might water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.—
The appellate court affirmed the conviction by the trial court of the appellant
relying on, among others, the presumption laid down by Section 3(j), Rule 131
of the Revised Rules of Evidence that pa person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole
act. It is well to stress that in criminal cases, presumptions should be taken
with caution especially in light of serious concerns that they might water down
the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As special considerations
must be given to the right of the accused to be presumed innocent, there
should be limits on the use of presumptions against an accused.
Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; While a presumption imposes on a party

against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut
136
such presumption, the burden of producing evidence of guilt does not extend to
the burden of proving the accused’s innocence of the crime as the burden of
persuasion does not shift and remains throughout the trial upon the
prosecution.—While a presumption imposes on a party against whom it is
directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut such presumption,
the burden of producing evidence of guilt does not extend to the burden of
proving the accused’s innocence of the crime as the burden of persuasion does
not shift and remains throughout the trial upon the prosecution. In the case at
bar, appellant disputes the prosecution’s assertion of his possession of the
victim’s mobile phone. Prosecution thus must rely on the stength of its
evidence to establish said possession. Even if such possession of the mobile
phone was true, the subject phone bore no proof of ownership. Besides, the
mobile phone presented in evidence had remained in the personal safekeeping
of SPO1 Ramos until its marking in court, raising doubts on its identity and
integrity. Further assuming that appellant had in his possession the victim’s
mobile phone, this circumstance alone is not conclusive of his authorship of
the special complex crime. Presumption is never a substitute of proof.
G.R. No. 224804, September 21, 2016

EFREN R. LEYNES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; A judicial admission, verbal or

written, is made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case
which does not require proof.—In any case, as correctly held by the lower court,
Efren is estopped frim claiming that he did not convert he mangrove forest
area, in his Letter of Appeal, Efren admitted that “he caused the cutting of
number of tress inside the old fishpond,” which is deemed as a judicial
admission. A judicial admission, verbal or written, is made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case which does not require proof. To
contradict one’s own admission, the person who made the same must show
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made. Judicial admissions are legally bidnign on the party making the
admissions, in the case at bar, no denial was made on the part of Efren that he
cut a number of tress in the mangrove forest.
A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016

LILY FLORES-SALADO, MINDA FLORES LURA, AND FE V.
FLORES, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA, JR. Respondent.
Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Notarized Documents; Public Documents; It is

settled that notarization converts a private document into a public document,
whereby the document becomes entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.—
The complainants have hereby challenged the due execution and authenticity
of the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal, a notarized document. In view of this, the
137
complainants’ mere denial of having signed the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal

did not suffice to overcome the positive value of it as a notarized document. It
is settled that notarization converts a private document into a public
document, whereby the document becomes entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. The notarized document then has in its favour the presumption
or regularity, and to overcome the presumed regularity of its execution,
whoever alleges the contrary should present evidence that is clear, convincing
and more than merely preponderant.
Same; Same; Birth Certificate; A birth certificate consists of entries related to the
fact of birth on public records, and is made in the performance of duty by the
local civil registrar as a public officer.—A birth certificate consists of entries
related to the fact of birth on public records, and is made in the performance of
duty by the local civil registrar as a public officer. It is thus treated as the
prima facie evidence of the fact of one’s birth, and can be rebutted only by clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary. As such, the birth certificate
submitted by the respondent was decisive on the date of his birth in the
absence of clearer and more convincing contrary evidence.
Same; Same; Same; The State expressly allows the late registration of births not
only at the instance of the father, mother, or guardian in case the person whose
birth is to be registered is under eighteen (18) years of age, but also at the
instance of the person himself when already age.—The veracity of the
respondent’s birth certificate cannot be successfully assailed on the basis alone
of its being belatedly entered in the local civil registry. This is because the State
expressly allows the late registration of births not only at the instance of the
father, mother, or guardian in case the person whose birth is to be registered is
under eighteen 18 years of age, but also at the instance of the person himself
when already age. To accord with such policy of the State, the fact of late
registration of the respondent’s birth should not adversely affect the validity of
the entries in his birth certificate.
G.R. No. 212157. September 28, 2016.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO RUSCO,
accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Since only two (2) people are usually
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with great caution.—The crime of rape is generally unwitnessed and
oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in resolving rape cases,
the victim’s credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim’s
testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature
and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof. Since only two (2) people are usually
138
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be

scrutinized with great caution. We defer to the rule that the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is deserving of
the highest respect because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
first hand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling
examination.
Same; Same; Same; Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s

testimony are generally expected.—AAA is not expected to deliver a complete
and perfect recollection of the incident. Besides, inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected, thus: xxx
[T]he credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her
testimony. On the contrary, it is a recognized axiom in rape cases that
inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do not detract from the vital fact that,
in truth, she had been abused. Testimonial discrepancies could have been
caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, which variances ten to
strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of
rehearsed testimony. Contrary to appellant’s assertion that AAA initially
testified that she did not know who boxed her, it was also clear that AAA saw
appellant standing nearby and when she passed by hum, he boxed her on the
chest causing her to fall out of consciousness.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Direct evidence was not the
only means of probing rape beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence
would also be the reliable means to do so.—Although AAA became unconscious
during the commission of the crime, through her testimony, the prosecution
was able to competently establish the commission of rape. Direct evidence was
not the only means of probing rape beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial
evidence would also be the reliable means to do so, provided that: (a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. What was essential
that the unbroken chain of the established circumstance led to no other logical
conclusion except the appellant’s guilt.
Same; Same; Medical Reports; Rape; A medical report is not even material for
purposes of proving rape as it is merely corroborative in character and, thus, can
be dispensed with accordingly.—Appellant belittles the medical report claiming
that it did not establish the fact of sexual intercourse during the time of the
alleged rape. True, there is in fact now way for the medico-legal expert to
establish the date of sexual intercourse because the lacerations have already
healed. However, it must be stressed that a medical report is not even material
for purposes of proving rape as it is merely corroborative in character and,
thus, can be dispensed with accordingly.
139
G.R. No. 213699, September 28, 2016

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. ROGER JAMES
BRILLANTES, PO3 PETER PAUL PABLICO, AND PO11 NOEL
FABIA, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; It is settled that mere allegations is not evidence and is
not equivalent to proof.—The court agrees with the findings of both the two
Division of the CA that Almoite failed to specifically and categorically identify
respondents as the persons who supposedly maltreated him. This is evident in
the report of the CHR. It was only in his Sinumpaang Reklamo, which he
subsequently filed, that Almoite implicated respondents and made a sweeping
statement that they were the ones who torture him. Nonetheless, the records at
hand show no competent evidence to prove his allegation. ; It is settled that
mere allegations is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Hence, for
Almoite’s failure to substantiate his accusations, the administrative complaint
against respondents was correctly dismissed.
G.R. No. 187544, October 03, 2016

MARILOU BALASBAS, FELIPE OLEGARIO, JOSE NARYAEZ, RODOLFO
BUMANLAG,* TEODORO MISIA, MARCELINO VILA, HILARIO ALCALA,
MACARIO CORDOVA, SALVADOR ABAIGAR, ATILANO BACUD & LEONIDES
BOLVIDO, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO L. UY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT
Same; Evidence; Admissions; Judicial Admissions; A party may make judicial

admissions in (1) the pleadings; (2) during the trial, by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or (3) in other stages of the judicial proceeding.—A
party may make judicial admissions in (1) the pleadings; (2) during the trial, by
verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (3) in other stages of the
judicial proceeding. The veracity of judicial admissions requires no further
proof and may be controverted only upon a clear showing that the admissions
were made through palpable mistake or that no admissions were made. Here,
the stipulation of facts constitutes judicial admissions. Thus, in order to
contradict them, Balasbas, et al., must show that they were made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. No such showing was
made in this case.
140
G.R. Nos. 177857-58, October 05, 2016

PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED),
MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO, DOMINGO P. ESPINA, SALVADOR P.
BALLARES, JOSELITO A. MORALEDA, PAZ M. YASON, VICENTE A. CADIZ,
CESARIA DE LUNA TITULAR, AND RAYMUNDO C. DE
VILLA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, OSCAR F. SANTOS, SURIGAO DEL SUR

FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES (SUFAC) AND MORO
FARMERS ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR (MOFAZS),
REPRESENTED BY ROMEO C. ROYANDOYAN, Intervenors.
G.R. No. 178193
DANILO B. URSUA, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE

Remedial Law; Evidence; Admissions; Judicial Admissions; View that a party

who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admission
are a waiver of proof; production evidence is dispensed with.—To my mind, SMC
made a judicial admission, which has been elucidated by this Court in this
wise: A a party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as
judicial admission are a waiver of proof; production evidence is dispensed with.
A judicial admission also removes and admitted fact from the field of
controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleading cannot be
controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to
such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be
ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations,
statement or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive against the
pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or
inconsistent with what was pleaded.
G.R. No. 203610, October 10, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL
(HUDCC), Petitioners, v. GONZALO ROQUE, JR., MANUELA ALMEDA ROQUE,
EDUVIGIS A. PAREDES, MICHAEL A. PAREDES, PURIFICACION ALMEDA,
JOSE A. ALMEDA, MICHELLE A. ALMEDA, MICHAEL A. ALMEDA,
ALBERTO DELURA, AND THERESA ALMEDA, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Parol Evidence Rule; Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court provides that a written contract is deemed to contain all the terms agreed
141
upon by the parties and no evidence of these terms is admissible other than the
contents of the contract.—Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides
that a written contract is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon by the
parties and no evidence of these terms is admissible other than the contents of
the contract. The parol evidence rile forbids any addition to the terms of a
written agreement by testimony showing that the parties orally agreed on other
terms before the signing of the document. However, a party may present
evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if puts
in issue in his pleadings etiher: (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement; (b) the failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent and agreement; (c) the validity of the
written agreement; or (d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement. The
issue must be squarely presented.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) notes the basic rule that he who alleges
must prove his case.—We note the basic rule that he who alleges must prove
his case. In this case, the respondents have the burden to prove that the sale
was subject to two conditions: (a) their remaining properties will benefit from
the increase in land value after the construction of the NGC Project and (b) the
government will return the sold properties to them should the NGC Project not
materialize. However, they failed to discharge this burden. Notably, they failed
to present copies of the deeds of sale to show that the sale was attended by the
alleged conditions. Pursuant to the parol evidence rule, no evidence of
contractual terms is admissible other than the contract itself. On this level
alone, the respondents failed to discharge their burden.
Same; Same; Parol Evidence Rule; Although parol evidence is admissible to

explain the contract’s meaning, it cannot serve to incorporate into the contract
additional conditions which are not mentioned at all in the contract unless there
be fraud or mistake.—The second exception to the parol evidence rule applies
only when written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the
parties’ contractual intention cannot be understood from a mere reading
of the agreement. Hence, the court may receive extrinsic evidence to enable
the court to address the ambiguity. Although parol evidence is admissible to
explain the contract’s meaning, it cannot serve to incorporate into the contract
additional conditions which are not mentioned at all in the contract unless
there be fraud or mistake. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the
operation of a valid contract. Hence, parol evidence is inadmissible to modify
the terms of the agreement if the complaint fails to allege any mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement.
142
G.R. No. 200087, October 12, 2016

YOLANDA LUY Y GANUELAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Remedial Law; Evidence; Admissions; Admission of a Party; Res Inter Alios Acta
Rule; Her immediate admission of the possession of the shabu following her
arrest in flagrante delicto bound her for, under the rules on evidence, the act,
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact was admissible against
her.—The petitioner insists that the State did not prove the chain of custody of
the shabu. In our view, however, her immediate admission of the possession of
the shabu following her arrest in flagrante delicto bound her for, under the
rules on evidence, the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
fact was admissible against her. Her admission render her insistence irrelevant
and inconsequential.
G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016

MARIANO LIM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which
they have personal knowledge; otherwise their testimonies would be
inadmissible for being hearsay.—Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have
personal knowledge; otherwise their testimonies would be inadmissible for
being hearsay. Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it
is sought to be produced. The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on
three reasons: (1) absence of cross-examination; (2) absence of demeanor
evidence; and (3) absence of oath. Consequently, hearsay evidence, whether
objected to or not, has no probative value unless it is shown that the evidence
falls within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule as provided in the Rules of
Court. However, none of the exceptions applies to the present case.
Same; Same; Notarized Documents; Public Documents; presumption of

Regularity; As elaborated in Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 591 SCRA
562 (2009): It is well-settled that a document acknowledged before a notary
public is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity.—Both the
RTC and CA failed to consider that the Affidavit of Ownership given by
Petronilo Bansing to petitioner was a duly notarized document which, by virtue
of its notarization, enjoys a presumption of regularity, as elaborated in Ocampo
v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 591 SCRA 562 (2009): It is well-settled that a
document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that
143
enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of

the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due
execution. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence
that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be
upheld. In addition, one who denies the due execution of a deed where one’s
signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the
jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed
to be voluntary act. We have also held that a notarized instrument is
admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and is
conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favour the
presumption of regularity.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; In all criminal prosecutions, the

burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime
charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime.—We
find that the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s findings and in convicting
herein petitioner. It is necessary to remember that in all criminal prosecutions,
the burden of proof is in the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every element of
the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the
said crime. Furthermore, the information must correctly reflect the charges
against the accused before any conviction may be made. In the case at bar, the
prosecution failed to prove the first and third essential element of the crime
charged in the information. Thus, petitioner should be acquitted due to
insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 212562, October 12, 2016

AVELINO ANGELES Y OLANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Remedial Law; Evidence; Equipoise Rule; Under the equipoise rule, “where the
evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.”—The first
element-that accused-appellant committed an act characterized by lewdness –
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant conceded that he
entered the purported victim’s room and laid down beside her, but he
vehemently denies mounting her and sucking her breasts. On the other hand,
Jacqueline alleged that accused-appellant mounted her and sucked her breasts
whiles she was asleep. In essence, the testimony of the purported victim is
pitted against the testimony of the accused-appellant. The court is faced with
the challenge of deciding which of the two opposing testimonies should hold
more weight. The Equipoise Rule thus comes into play. Under the said rule,
“where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on
144
which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof
loses.” Considering that nothing is more settled in criminal law than the rule
that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. We hold that in case at bar, the scales of
justice should tip in favour of accused-appellant.
Same; Same; Rape; The Supreme Court (SC) is not unaware of the settle rule that
“the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, so long as the
testimony is clear, positive, and probable, may prove the crime as charged.”—
This Court is not unaware of the settle rule that “the lone uncorroborated
testimony of the offended victim, so long as the testimony is clear, positive, and
probable, may prove the crime as charged. It should be noted however, that the
establishment of such jurisprudential rule is attributed to the fact that there
are usually only two witnesses in rape cases; thus, of courts do not give weight
and credence to uncorroborated lone testimonies, convictions for rape cases
would be next to impossible. However, we rile that such holding may not
automatically be applied in the case at bar as there another person –Sheryl
Alvarez –who could have shed some light on the incident.
Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Given that the second affidavit was
belatedly executed, this, not marled during pre-trial and not formally offered, the
Court may not assign any evidentiary weight and value to the same.—Given that
the second affidavit was belatedly executed, this, not marled during pre-trial
and not formally offered, the Court may not assign any evidentiary weight and
value to the same. It bears stressing that the affidavit is not in any way
considered by this Court as proof of accused-appellant’s no-guilt. The Court’s
appreciation of the second affidavit is highly limited. At most, the affidavit
serves as further proof that another person was present when the incident
happened. To the mind of this Court, such circumstance, when considered
alongside the fact that the prosecution initially to present Alvarez as a hostile
witness but failed to do so, casts doubt on the conviction which was solely
based on the purported victim’s testimony. It is also worth noting that although
the prosecution had an opportunity to attack the veracity of the second
affidavit when they filed their Comment on the Petition for Review, they
nevertheless failed to do so.
G.R. No. 211539, October 17, 2016

THAMERLANE M. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. DOMINADOR PRISCILLA
RASACEÑA, NAVARRO AND ADELFA LIM, Respondent.
Same; Evidence; Notarize Documents; Documentary Evidence; There is no rule

which requires a party, who relies on a notarized deed of sale for establishing
his ownership, to present further evidence of such deed’s genuineness lest the
presumption of its due execution be for naught.—There is no rule which requires
145
a party, who relies on a notarized deed of sale for establishing his ownership, to
present further evidence of such deed’s genuineness lest the presumption of its
due execution be for naught. Regarded as evidence of the facts therein
expressed in a clear, unequivocal manner, public documents enjoy a
presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear,
strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity. The burden of
proof to overcome said presumptions lies with the party contesting the notarial
document.
G.R. No. 218902, October 17, 2016

HELEN EDITH LEE TAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; Public Documents; Notarization

of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.—The notarization of
a document carries considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private
document converts such document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. With that
notarial act, the MOA became a public document. As such, it is a perfect
evidence of the fact which gives rise to its execution and of its date so long as
the act which the officer witnessed and certified to or the date written by him is
not shown to be false. To overcome the presumption, the rules require not just
a preponderance of evidence, but evidence that is “clear and convincing” as to
exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. In the
absence of such proof, the document must be upheld.
Same; Same; Admissions; Judicial Admissions; It is well-settled that judicial

admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and
binds the person who make the same, and absent any showing that this was
made thru palpable mistake, as in this case, no amount of rationalization can
offset it.— A party may make judicial admissions in (1) the pleadings, (2) during
the trial, by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (3) in other
stages of the judicial proceeding. It is well-settled that judicial admissions
cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the
person who make the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru
palpable mistake, as in this case, no amount of rationalization can offset it.
Also, in Republic or the Philippines v. De Guzman, 652 SCRA 101 (2011), citing
Alfelor v. Halasan, 486 SCRA 451 (2006), this Court held that “a party who
judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admission
are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial
admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.”
146
G.R. No. 207898, October 19, 2016

ERROL RAMIREZ, JULITO APAS, RICKY ROSELO AND ESTEBAN MISSION,
JR., Petitioners, v. POLYSON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WILSON S.
YU, Respondent.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; As between affirmative assertions of unbiased

witnessed and a general denial and negative assertions on the part of
petitioners, weight must be accorded to the affirmative assertions.—Petitioners
question the credibility of Tuting and Visca’s claims contending that these are
self-serving and that they were merely used by the management to
manufacture evidence against them. However, there is nothing on record to
indicate any ulterior motive on the part of Visca and Tuting to fabricate their
claim that petitioners were the ones who threatened or induced them not to
work overtime, absent convincing evidence showing any cogent reason why a
witness should testify falsely, his testimony may be accorded full faith and
credit. Moreover, petitioners’ defense consists of mere denials and negative
assertions. As between affirmative assertions of unbiased witnessed and a
general denial and negative assertions on the part of petitioners, weight must
be accorded to the affirmative assertions.
G.R. No. 223561, October 19, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY PITALLA, JR. Y
DIOSA A.K.A. "BEBE," Accused-Appellant.
Same; Same; Same; Rape; AAA’s inconsistency in her narration on whether she
took her dress and her panty off, or only her panty, prior to the rape, does not in
any way weaken her credibility.—Suffice to state that Pitalla’s allegation of
incredulity of AAA’s testimony rests on thin ground and is so trivial in nature
which does not affect the merits of the case. AAA’s inconsistency in her
narration on whether she took her dress and her panty off, or only her panty,
prior to the rape, does not in any way weaken her credibility. Such
inconsistency is so inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that Pitalla’s
guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt, as shown by the totality
of the prosecution’s evidence.
147
G.R. No. 224889, October 19, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MC HENRY SUAREZ Y
ZURITA, JOHN JOSEPH RAVENA Y ACOSTA AND JOHN PAUL VICENCIO Y
BARRANCO, Accused-Appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The trial judge’s evaluation of the credibility
of a witness and of his testimony is accorded the highest respect because of his
unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses that
enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.—The
Court reiterates that the trial judge’s evaluation of the credibility of a witness
and of his testimony is accorded the highest respect because of his unique
opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses that enables him
to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not. Such evaluation,
when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless the appellant reveals
facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or
misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the
case.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Testimonial Evidence; An affirmative

testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes
from the mouth of a credible witness.—In their defense, the accused simply
invoked denial. Such defense is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the
positive identification made by prosecution witness Nancy and the dying
declaration of Roger himself. Moreover, an affirmative testimony is far stronger
than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a
credible witness.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO DACANAY Y TUMALABCAB, Accused-
Appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Confessions; A confession made before news

reporters, absent any showing of undue influence from the police authorities, is
sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime confessed to by the accused.-
Our pronouncements in Pp v Andan, 269 SCRA 95 1997, are instructive. In
said case, we held that a confession made before news reporters, absent any
showing of undue influence from the police authorities, is sufficient to sustain
a conviction for the crime confessed to by the accused.
Extrajudicial Confession; The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made
Antonio while inside a detention cell does not by itself render such confession
inadmissible, contrary to what Antonio would like this court to believe. In Pp v
Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 1999, where the accused was also interviewed while
inside a jail cell, this Court held that such circumstances alone does not taint
148
the extrajudicial confession of the accused, especially since the same was given
freely and spontaneously.
It is well-settled that where the accused fails to present evidence of

compulsions; where he did not institute any criminal or administrative action
against his supposed intimidators for maltreatment; and where no physical
evidence of violence was presented, all these will be considered as factors
indicating voluntariness. – It is well-settled that where the accused fails to
present evidence of compulsion; where he did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against his supposed intimidators for maltreatment; and
where no physical evidence of violence was presented, all these will be
considered as factors indicating voluntariness.
G.R. No. 217956, November 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTED BY MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
(MCIAA), Petitioner, v. LIMBONHAI AND SONS, Respondent.
Evidence; Burden of Proof; In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. – In civil cases, the
party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, snd value of the
aggregate evidence on either side, and is usually considered to be synonymous
with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible
evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that means, in the last
analysis, probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the
court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
NANITO Z. EVANGELISTA* (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED

BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, LEOVIGILDA C.
EVANGELISTA), Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NEREO V. ANDOLONG III AND
ERLINDA T. ANDOLONG** AND RINO AMUSEMENT INNOVATORS,
INC., Respondents.
Evidence; Burden of Proof; In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Also, parties must rely
on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense of
their opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendants was
not given the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, snd value of the aggregate
evidence on either side, and is usually considered to be synonymous with the
term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means
149
probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as

worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Respondents’ failure to present the documents in their possession – whether

such failure was intentional or not – raises the presumption that evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. – Respondents opted not to
shed light on the issues at hand as they, unwittingly or otherwise, waived their
right to present evidence in this case. In this light, the Court is thus left with
no option but to rule that the respondents’ failure to present the documents in
their possession – raises the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced.
G.R. No. 197191, November 21, 2016 - OASIS PARK HOTEL, Petitioner, v.
LESLEE G. NAVALUNA, AMIE M. TUBELLEJA, JOAN REODIQUE, JOCELYN
ORENCIADA, ELLAINE B. VILLAGOMEZ, OLIVIA E. AMASOLA AND JONA
MAE COSTELO, Respondents.
Heirs of Amada A. Zaulda v. Isaac Zaulda, 719 SCRA 308 2014, that dismissal
by the Court of Appeals CA of the petition for lack of competent evidence on the
affiant’s identity on the attached verification and certification against forum
shopping was without clear basis – The Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Service attached to the Petition were
accompanied by a duly accomplished jurat indicating the respective affiant’s
competent evidence of identity, particularly, their Social Security System Card
and Voter’s ID, respectively. The Court already pointed out in Heirs of Amada
A. Zaulda v. Isaac Zaulda, 719 SCRA 308 2014, that dismissal by the Court of
Appeals of the petition for lack of competent evidence on the affiant’s identity
on the attached verification and certification against forum shopping was
without clear basis.
150
EN BANC
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-42-METC), November 22,
2016
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA
B. YU, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH47, PASAY
CITY, Respondent.
A.M. No. 12-1-09-METC
RE: LETTER DATED 21 JULY 2011 OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G.

COLASITO AND THREE (3) OTHER JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, FOR THE SUSPENSION OR DETAIL TO
ANOTHER STATION OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, BRANCH 47, SAME COURT.
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836 (FORMERLY A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC)
RE: LETTER DATED MAY 2, 2011 OF HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING

JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY.
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815 (FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 11-2401-MTJ)
LEILANI A. TEJERO-LOPEZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU,

BRANCH 47, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, Respondent.
OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ
JOSEFINA G. LABID, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B.

YU,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY
CITY, Respondent.
AMOR V. ABAD, FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS, ROMER H. AVILES,

EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL, NORMAN D.S. GARCIA, MAXIMA SAYO AND
DENNIS ECHEGOYEN, Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING
JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY
CITY, Respondent.
151
EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGE

BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR. JUDGE
CATHERINE P. MANODON, MIGUEL C. INFANTE (CLERK OF COURT IV,
OCC-METC), RACQUEL C. DIANO (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH
45), EMMA ANNIE D. ARAFILES (ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT, OCC-
METC), PEDRO C. DOCTOLERO, JR. (CLERK OF COURT III, METC,
BRANCH 44), LYDIA T. CASAS (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 46),
ELEANOR N. BAYOG (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 45),
LEILANIE A. TEJERO ( LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA
MARIA V. FRANCISCO (CASHIER I, OCC METC), SOLEDAD J. BASSIG
(CLERK III, OCC-METC), MARISSA MASHHOOR RASTGOOY (RECORDS
OFFICER, OCC-METC), MARIE LUZ M. OBIDA (ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, OCC-METC), VIRGINIA D. GALANG (RECORDS OFFICER I, OCC-
METC), AUXENCIO JOSEPH CLEMENTE (CLERK OF COURT III, METC,
BRANCH 48), EVELYN P. DEPALOBOS (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC,
BRANCH 44), MA. CECILIA GERTRUDES R. SALVADOR (LEGAL
RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 48), JOSEPH B. PAMATMAT (CLERK III,
OCC-METC), ZENAIDA N. GERONIMO (COURT STENOGRAPHER, OCC-
METC), BENJIE V. ORE (PROCESS SERVER, OCC-METC), FORTUNATO E.
DIEZMO (PROCESS SERVER, OCC-METC), NOMER B. VILLANUEVA
(UTILITY WORKER, OCC-METC), ELSA D. GARNET (CLERK III, OCC
METC), FATIMA V. ROJAS (CLERK III, OCC-METC), EDUARDO E. EBREO
(SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 45), RONALYN T. ALMARVEZ (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), MA. VICTORIA C. OCAMPO
(COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), ELIZABETH LIPURA
(CLERK III METC, BRANCH 45), MARY ANN J. CAYANAN (CLERK III,
METC, BRANCH 45), MANOLO MANUEL E. GARCIA (PROCESS SERVER,
METC, BRANCH 45), EDWINA A. JUROK (UTILITY WORKER, OCC-METC),
ARMINA B. ALMONTE (CLERK III, OCC-METC), ELIZABETH G.
VILLANUEVA (RECORDS OFFICER, METC, BRANCH 44), ERWIN RUSS B.
RAGASA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 44), BIEN T. CAMBA (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), MARLON M. SULIGAN (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), CHANDA B. TOLENTINO (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), FERDINAND R. MOLINA (COURT
INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 44), PETRONILO C. PRIMACIO, JR.
(PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 45), EDWARD ERIC SANTOS (UTILITY
WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45), EMILIO P. DOMINE (UTILITY WORKER,
METC, BRANCH 45), ARNOLD P. OBIAL (UTILITY WORKER, METC,
BRANCH 44), RICARDO E. LAMPITOC (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 46),
JEROME H. AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA
LEA M. ESTACIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), LANIE
F. AGUINALDO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), JASMINE L. LINDAIN
152
(CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), RONALDO S. QUIJANO (PROCESS

SERVER, METC, BRANCH 44), DOMINGO H. HOCOSOL (UTILITY WORKER,
METC, BRANCH 48), EDWIN P. UBANA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 48),
MARVIN O. BALICUATRO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH
48), MA. LUZ D. DIONISIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH
48), MARIBEL A. MOLINA (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH
48), CRISTINA E. LAMPITOC (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH
46), MELANIE DC BEGASA (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46), EVANGELINE
M. CHING (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46), LAWRENCE D. PEREZ
(PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 46), EDMUNDO VERGARA (UTILITY
WORKER, METC, BRANCH 46), AMOR V. ABAD (COURT INTERPRETER,
METC, BRANCH 47), ROMER H. AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II,
METC, BRANCH 47), FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47), MAXIMA C. SAYO (PROCESS
SERVER, BRANCH 47), SEVILLA B. DEL CASTILLO (COURT
INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 48), AIDA JOSEFINA IGNACIO (CLERK III,
METC, BRANCH 48), BENIGNO A. MARZAN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH
48), KARLA MAE R. PACUNAYEN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48),
IGNACIO M. GONZALES (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 48),
EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL (RECORDS OFFICER, OCC, DETAILED AT
BRANCH 47), DENNIS M. ECHEGOYEN (SHERIFF III, OCC-METC), NORMAN
GARCIA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 47), NOEL G. LABID (UTILITY
WORKER I, BRANCH 47), Complainant, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING
JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY
CITY, Respondent.
JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, JUDGE BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE

RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR. AND CLERK OF COURT MIGUEL C.
INFANTE, Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821
JUDGE EMILY L. SAN GASPAR-GITO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,

BRANCH 20, MANILA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.
Evidence; In administrative cases, the complaint bears the burden of proving by

substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. - Nonetheless, we dismiss
153
the other allegations of oppression towards the staff members of Branch 47 for
failure of the complainants to substantiate the same. In administrative cases,
the complaint bears the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint.
G.R. No. 215341, November 28, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON MANSON Y RESULTAY,
Accused-Appellant.
Witnesses; When the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s

finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of
the essential requisite of carnal knowledge, and that laceration, whether healed
or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. – The medical report
likewise clearly shows that AAA suffered a fourth degree laceration in her
anogenital area which could have been caused by a blunt object, usually the
male sexual organ. It has been held that when þe victim’s testimony is
corroborated by the physician’s finding of penetration, there is sufficient
foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal
knowledge, and that laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical
evidence of forcible defloration.
Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua

non to prove þe guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence
of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial
evidence to discharge its burden. – It is settled that the crime of rape is difficult
to prove because it is generally left unseen and very often, only the victim is left
to testify for herself. However, the accused may still be proven as the culprit
despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua
non to prove þe guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the
absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing
circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.
Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the
requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction. –
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances
from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason
and common experience. Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence,
as amended, sets forth the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is
sufficient for conviction.
The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean
such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce the
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. – The evidence adduced against
Manson constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the one fair and reasonable
154
conclusion that he was indeed the perpetrator of the crime. - The requirement
of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree
of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce the absolute
certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. This was satisfactorily
established in the case at bar.
Witnesses; When it comes to credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial

court on such matter will not be disturbed unless the lower court had clearly
misinterpreted certain facts. – There is therefore no cogent reason to reverse the
trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility, as affirmed by the CA. When it
comes to credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court on such matter
will not be disturbed unless the lower court had clearly misinterpreted certain
facts. The credibility of the witnesses is best addressed by the trial court, it
being in a better position to decide such question, having heard them and
observed their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.
Verily, absent any evidence that it was tainted with arbitrariness or oversight
or a fact, the lower court’s assessment is entitled to great weight, if not
conclusive or binding on the Court.
G.R. No. 215640, November 28, 2016 - NESTOR CABRERA, Petitioner, v.

ARNEL CLARIN AND WIFE; MILAGROS BARRIOS AND HUSBAND; AURORA
SERAFIN AND HUSBAND; AND BONIFACIO MORENO AND WIFE,
Respondents.
Evidence; Former Offer of Evidence; The Rules of Court provides that the court
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. A formal offer is
necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. –
Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for
which the proponent is presenting the evidence. Conversely, this follows
opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility.
Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to
review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAPOLEON BENSURTO, JR. Y BOLOHABO, Accused-
Appellant.
Hymenal Lacerations; Proof of hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape,

so long as there is enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the
pudendum of the female organ. – The appellant claims that the medical
evidence, with respect to the lacerations on the hymen of AAA, failed to
convincingly corroborate the crime of rape as the cause of the same was not
155
determined with possibility. This is a flawed argument. The medical report

revealed that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations at 10 o’clock position and it
must be emphasized that the said examination was made in November 2000,
or months after the incidents of rape occurred in February of 1999 and June of
2000,. Thus, the CA was correct when it ruled that the presence of such healed
lacerations is consistent with a corroborated of AAA’s testimony that she had
indeed been raped by appellant months before the date of the medical
examination. The healed lacerations on the victim’s hymen do not disprove that
accused appellant raped the victim and cannot serve to acquit him. Proof of
hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape, so long as there is enough
proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of pudendum of the female
organ.
Evidence; Witnesses; Testimonial Evidence; The Supreme Court has ruled that
discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect
the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of a witness’ declarations, as
long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. – Appellant
also contends that the testimony of AAA is full of inconsistencies and, hence
should not be given credence, however, this Court has ruled that discrepancies
referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity
or detract from the essential credibility of a witness’ declarations, as long as
these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. Furthermore, it is
an accepted doctrine in rape cases that in the absence of evidence of improper
motive on the part of the victim to falsely testify against the accused, her
testimony deserves credence.
Recantatíon; To disregard testimony solemnly given in court simply because the

witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary
considerations may have caused the recantation. – As to the retraction of AAA,
this Court has ruled that when rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and
marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith
and confidence and cannot be discarded. If such testimony is clear, consistent
and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may
be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a
prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. As a
rule, recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly because the recantation of her
testimony by a vital witness of the State like AAA is exceedingly unreliable, and
secondly, because there is always the possibility that such recantation may
later be repudiated. Indeed, to disregard testimony solemnly given in court
simply because the witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation
or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. Court
proceedings, in which testimony upon oath or affirmation is required to be
truthful under all circumstances, are trivialized by the recantation. The trial in
which the recanted testimony was given is made a mockery, and the
investigation is placed at the mercy of an unscrupulous witness. Before
allowing the recantation, therefore, the court must not be too willing to accept,
156
but must test it value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the
party adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the
substance of the recantation and the motivations for it. The recantation, like
any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant
circumstances, including the demeanor of the meaning of the recanting witness
on the stand. In respect, the finding of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons
necessitate its reexamination, the reason being that the trial court is in a better
position to hear firsthand and observe the deportment, conduct and attitude of
the witnesses.
Resistance; Rape; In Pp v Enrique Quintos, 740 SCRA 179 2014, the SC ruled
that resistance or the absence thereof does not carry any weight in proving the
crime of rape. – Another point raised in this appeal is AAA’s lack of resistance if
indeed it was true that she was subjected to sexual abuse because according to
appellant, such absence of resistance tarnished AAA’s testimony. Such
argument, however, deserves scant consideration. In Pp v Enrique Quintos,
740 SCRA 179 2014, the SC ruled that resistance or the absence thereof does
not carry any weight in proving the crime of rape.
G.R. No. 187448

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA,
Respondent.
Evidence; Burden of proof; Words and Phrases; Case law has defined “burden
of proof” as the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by
such quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case at which the issues
arises.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by
preponderance of evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved. “Preponderance of evidence” means evidence which is of greater
weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
A.M. No. P-11-2989 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3249-P)

WYNA MARIE P. GARINGAN-FERRERAS, Complainant,
vs. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan, Respondent.
Evidence; Handwriting Experts; Section 22, Rule 132, Rules of Court instructs
that genuineness of handwriting may be proved “by a comparison, made by the
witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by a party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the Judge.”
157
Indeed, having affirmatively raised the defense of forgery, the burden rests
upon respondent to prove the same. Plainly, he cannot discharge this burden
by simply claiming that no such Civil Case No. 33-398c-2006 was on file with
the RTC, Balteros, Cagayan. As correctly noted by the Investigating Judge, that
was precisely the issue raised by the complainant. How could there be a
Certificate of Finality which bore the signature of respondent when there was
no pending Civil Case in the first place? Aside from his bare denial, respondent
did not even make any attempt to show that the signature appearing in the
Certificate of Finality was not his signature or that it was dissimilar to his real
signature. We therefore lend credence to the conclusions reached by both the
Investigating Judge, (after comparing the subject signature with respondent’s
signature in his comment), and the OCA, (after making a comparison of the
subject signature with respondents signatures in his 201 file), that the
signature in the Certificate of Finality was affixed by respondent himself.
G.R. No. 213224

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ROQUE DAYADAY y DAGOOC1, Accused-Appellant.
Evidence; Witnesses; In People vs. Montemayor, 401 scra 228 (2003), the
Supreme Court ruled that relationship by itself does not give rise to any
presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it impair the credibility of
witnesses or tarnish their testimonies.
The imputation of bias to Alex because of his relationship with the victim must
necessarily fail. The relationship of a witness to the victim would even make his
testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is
interested in vindicating the crime to charge and prosecute another person
other than the real culprit. Relatives of victims of crimes have a natural knack
for remembering the faces of the attacker and they, more than anybody else,
woud be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by having the felon
brought to justice and meted the proper penalty. When there is no showing of
an improper motive on the part of the prosecution’s witnesses for testifying
against the appellant, their relationship to the victim does not render their
testimony less credible. In this case, since there is no showing of any ill or
improper motive on the part of Alex to testify against the accused, his
relationship with the victim even made his testimony more credible and
truthful.
158
G.R. No. 193156, January 18, 2017 - IVQ LANDHOLDINGS, INC.,

Petitioner, v. REUBEN BARBOSA, Respondent.
Evidence; Notarized Documents; Presumption of Regularity; Should the Deeds

of Absolute Sale in favor of Therese Vargas and Barbosa, respectively, be found
to be indeed improperly notarized, the trial court would have erred in admitting
the same in evidence without proof of their authenticity and in relying on the
presumption regarding the regularity of their execution.
Barbosa would then have the additional burden of proving the authenticity and
due execution of both deeds before he can invoke their validity in establishing
his claim of ownership. Therefore, IVQ should be allowed to formally offer in
evidence the documents it belatedly submitted to this Court and that Barbosa
should equally be given all the opportunity to refute the same or to submit
controverting evidence. Given that the Court is not a trier of facts and there
still are factual matters that need to be evaluated, the proper recourse is to
remand the case to CA for the conduct of further proceedings.
G.R. No. 206627

VAN CLIFFORD TORRES y SALERA, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE
Evidence; Witnesses; The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a

function properly within the office of the trial courts. It is a question of facts
not reviewable by this Court. The trial court’s findings on the matter are
entitled to great weight and given great respect and “may only be disregarded if
there are facts and circumstances which where overlooked by the trial court
and which would substantially alter the results of the case.” This Court finds
no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. The trial court
neither disregarded nor overlooked any material fact or circumstance that
would substantially alter the case. The presence or absence of one person
during the incident is not substantial enough to overturn the finding that
petitioner whipped AAA three times with a wet t-shirt.
G.R. No. 196347

SUSAN A. YAP, Petitioner vs. ELIZABETH LAGTAPON, Respondent
Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; It is axiomatic that a public official enjoys

the presumption of regularity in the discharge of one’s official duties and
functions. In the absence of clear indicia of partiality or malice, the service of
summons on petitioner Yap is perforce deemed regular and valid.
Correspondingly, the Return of Service of Precioso as process server of the RTC
constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts set out therein. the Return of
159
Service states: Respectfully returned to the Officer-in-Charge of this court

served with the following information, to wit: That on November 4, 1997 at
about 4:35pm, the undersigned served a copy of the complaint, its annexes as
well as the Summons to the defendant Susan A. Yap, personally, but she
refused to sign said Summons despite the undersigned’s explanation to her but
nevertheless, the undersigned tendered and leave (sic) a copy for her. For the
information of this Honorable Court. Bacolod City, November 4, 1997. Hence,
as far as the circumstances attendant to the service of Summons concerned,
the Court has the right to rely on the factual representation of Precioso that
service had indeed been made on petitioner Yap in person. A contrary rule
would reduce the Court to a mere fact-finding tribunal at the expense of
efficiency in the administration of justice, which, as mentioned earlier, is
beyond the ambit of the Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition. To
successfully overcome such presumption of regularity, case law demands that
the evidence against it must be clear and convincing; absent the requisites
quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of faith
and credit. In this case, the burden of proof to discharge such presumption lay
with petitioner Yap.
G.R. No. 215009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN SANTORIO
GALENO, Respondent.
Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or

not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence
falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule.
The contents of the certifications are hearsay because respondents sole witness
and attorney-in-fact, was incompetent to testify on the veracity of their
contents, as she did not prepare any of the certifications nor was she a public
officer of the concerned government agencies. Notably, while it is true that the
public prosecutor who represented petitioner interposed no objection to the
admission of the foregoing evidence in the proceedings in the court below, it
should be borne in mind that hearsay evidence, whether objected or not, has
no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls
within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule, which do not, however,
obtain in this case. Verily, while respondents documentary evidence may have
been admitted due to the opposing party’s lack of objection, it does not,
however, meant that they should be accorded any probative weight.
160
G.R. No. 211120

MEDELARNALDO B. BELEN, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent
Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness Rule; The SC has been consistent in giving
credence to testimonies of child victims especially in sensitive cases of rape, as
no young girl would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her
private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to
mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was, in fact,
raped.
What is crucial is that AAA’s testimony meets the test of credibility, which
serves as the basis for appellant’s conviction. Notably, PSI Cabrera, in his cross
examination, had clarified that it is possible that a person being raped or a
hymen, or a vagina being penetrated by a penis would create a laceration at the
same spot just like a lightning hitting on the same spot. Therefore, AAA’s
straightforward testimony that appellant had raped her twice is not at all
negated by a finding of only one laceration in her hymen. We have been
consistent in giving credence to testimonies of child victims especially in
sensitive cases of rape, as no young girl would concoct a tale of defloration,
allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble
and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial,
unless she was, in fact, raped.
A.M. No. P-16-3564

JUDGE ANDREW U. BARCENA, Complainant,
vs.
CLERK OF COURT II THELMA S. ABADILLA, CASHIER I ROSELLER O.
ISRAEL, CLERK IV ULYSSES D. DUPAYA, CLERK III ROY C. ROSALES and
JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER JAMES D. LORILLA, all of the Office of the
Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Lal-lo, Cagayan, Respondents.
Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In administrative cases, the quantum of proof

required is substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden
of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.
161
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Cabato 815 scra 403
Evidence; WitnessesA.M. No. RTJ-14-2401 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3841-

RTJ)
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs.
Executive Judge ILLUMINADA P. CABATO, Regional Trial Court [RTC],
Baguio City; Clerk of Court IV ARMANDO G. YDIA, Process Server I SONNY
S. CARAGAY, Clerk of Court III OFELIA T. MONDIGUING, Sheriff III JOSE
E. ORPILLA, and Clerk III VILMA C. WAYANG, all of the Office of the Clerk
of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities [MTCC], Baguio City; Judge
ROBERTO R. MABALOT, Clerk of Court III LOURDES G. CAOLILI, and
Utility Worker I ANTINO M. WAKIT, all of Branch I, MTCC, Baguio City;
Judge JENNIFER P. HUMINDING, Court Stenographer II PERLA B. DELA
CRUZ, Court Stenographer II MARY ROSE VIRGINIA O. MATIC, and Clerk
IV LOURDES D. WANGWANG, all of Branch 2, MTCC, Baguio City; Clerk of
Court REMEDIOS BALDERAS-REYES, Sheriff IV RUBEN L. ATIJERA, Cash
Clerk II MERLIN ANITA N. CALICA, Process Server EDWIN V. FANGONIL,
Sheriff IV ROMEO R. FLORENDO, Librarian II NAMNAMA L. LOPEZ, Clerk
III JEFFREY G. MENDOZA, Clerk II ROLANDO G. MONTES, Court
Stenographer III VENUS D. SAGUID, and Utility Worker I FRANCISCO D.
SIAPNO, all of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Baguio City; Clerk of
Court GAIL M. BACBAC-DEL ISEN, Court Stenographer III RESTITUTO A.
CORPUZ, Court Stenographer MARLENE A. DOMAOANG, and Legal
Researcher II FLORENCE F. SALANGO, all of Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City;
Judge MIA JOY C. OALLARES-CAWED, Legal Researcher II ELIZABETH G.
AUCENA, Clerk of Court V RUTH B. BAWAYAN, Court Stenographer III JOY
P. CHILEM-AGUILBA, Court Stenographer III LEONILA P. FERNANDEZ,
Process Server MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO ESPERANZA N. JACOB,
Court Clerk III REYNALDO R. RAMOS, Court Interpreter III MELITA C.
SALINAS, and Court Clerk III WILMA M. TAMANG, all of Branch 4, RTC,
Baguio City; Judge ANTONIO M. ESTEVES, Utility Worker JONATHAN R.
GERONIMO, Court Stenographer III PRECY T. GOZE, Clerk of Court V
ALEJANDRO EPIFANIO D. GUERRERO, and Court Stenographer III
VIRGINIA M. RAMIREZ, all of Branch 5, RTC, Baguio City; Clerk of Court
MYLENE MAY ADUBE-CABUAG, Process Server ROBERTO G. COROÑA,
JR., Court Stenographer III VICTORIA J. DERASMO, Clerk of Court III
BOBBY D. GALANO, Utility Worker MANOLO V. MARIANO III, and Clerk III
ROWENA C. PASAG, all of Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City; Judge MONA LISA
TIONGSON-TABORA, Process Server ROMEO E. BARBACHANO, Court
Stenographer EDNA P. CASTILLO, Court Stenographer III DOLORES M.
ESERIO, Court Interpreter III GEORGE HENRY A. MANIPON, Court
Stenographer III ANITA MENDOZA, Clerk III DOMINADOR B. REMIENDO,
and Clerk III DOLORES G. ROMERO, all of Branch 7, RTC, Baguio City;
162
Utility Worker GILBERT L. EVANGELISTA, Process Server EDUARDO B.

RODRIGO, Court Stenographer III ELIZABETH M. LOCKEY, Court
Stenographer III ANALIZA G. MADRONIO, Clerk III EV ANGELINE N.
GONZALES, Court Stenographer III MARILOU M. TADAO, Court
Stenographer III AGNES P. MACA-EY, Sheriff IV MARANI S. BACOLOD,
Clerk III EDGARDO R. ORA TE, and Legal Researcher JESSICA D.
GUANSING, all of Branch 59, RTC, Baguio City; Clerk of Court ROGER
NAFIANOG, Court Stenographer III RUTH C. LAGAN, Court Stenographer
III ELEANOR V. NINALGA, Clerk III ANGELINA M. SANTIAGO, Utility
Worker LEO P. VALDEZ, and Clerk III SAMUEL P. VIDAD, all of Branch 60,
RTC, Baguio City; Judge ANTONIO C. REYES, Court Interpreter III
ELEANOR I. BUCAYCAY, Legal Researcher II JOAN G. CASTILLO, Clerk of
Court V JERICO G. GAY-YA, Clerk III CONCEPCION SOLIVEN Vda.
PULMANO, and Sheriff IV ALBERT G. TOLENTINO, all of Branch 61, RTC,
Baguio City, Respondents.
Thus, they argued that they had already left when the investigators arrived.
This is in direct contradiction to the report and findings of the OCA team who
conducted their investigation and roll call before 5:00 pm. As such, the
allegations of the court personnel on this matter are unmeritorious. These
court personnel effectively claim that the OCA team falsified their report.
Having made such contention, they have the burden of proving the same;
however, the OCA team had no motive for doing so. The rule, as stated in
Florres-Tumbaga vs. Tumbaga, 684 scra 285 (2012), is that: The presumption
is that witnesses are not actuated by any improper motive absent any proof to
the contrary and that their testimonies must accordingly be met with
considerable, if not conclusive, favor under the rules of evidence because it is
not expected that said witnesses would prevaricate and cause the damnation of
one who brought them no harm or injury. Thus, respondent’s bare denial
visa-a-vis the positive testimonies of the witnesses, the latter should
prevail.
G.R. No. 168288 January 25, 2017

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HAROLD TIO GO,
Respondent.
Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; The rule is that the court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered.
Indeed, The rule is that the court shall consider no evidence, which has not
been formally offered. The court, however, in the interest of justice, allowed in
certain cases the belated submission on appeal of a Department of
163
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or CENRO Certification as proof

that a land is already alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
Thus, in Victoria vs. Republic of the Philippines, 651 scra 523 (2011), the
Court admitted the DENR Certification, which was submitted by therein
petitioner only on appeal to the CA. The Court reversed the CA decision and
reinstated the judgment of the MTC of Taguig, which granted therein
petitioner’s application for registration of title to a 1,729 sq. m. lot in Bambang
Taguig City.
G.R. No. 206390

JACK C. VALENCIA, Petitioner, vs. CLASSIQUE VINYL PRODUCTS
CORPORATION, JOHNNY CHANG (Owner) and/or CANTINGAS MANPOWER
SERVICES, Respondents.
Evidence; Substantial Evidence; It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases,

as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceeding, “the quantum of proof
necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.” The burden
of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. Since it is
Valencia here who is claiming to be an employee of Classique Vinyl, it is thus
incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of employer-
employee relationship between them. He needs to show by substantial evidence
that he was indeed an employee of the company against which he claims illegal
dismissal. Corollary, the burden to prove the element of an employer-employee
relationship, viz. : (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control, lies
upon Valencia.
G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017

SPOUSES MARCELIAN TAPAYAN AND ALICE TAPAYAN, Petitioners, v.
PONCEDA M. MARTINEZ, Respondent.
Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; The best evidence rule
requires that the original document be produced whenever its contents are the
subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid down in Section 3 of Rule
130.
However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is necessary.
The Court’s ruling in Lorenzana vs. Lelina, 800 scra 570 (2016), is instructive:
The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document
itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible
pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is
164
deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving

at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere
photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was
formally offered. In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of
evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified.
Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In case
of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the
evidence is being offered. It is only at this time and not at any other, that
objection to the documentary evidence may be made. And when a party
failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time there were
offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. This is
true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely
been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time. Moreover, grounds
for objection must be specified in any case. Grounds for objections not raised
at the proper time shall be considered waived, even if the evidence was
objected to on some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate
court may not consider any other ground of objection, except those that
were raised at the proper time.
G.R. No. 224583

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MICHAEL PALANAY y
MINISTER, Accused-Appellant
Evidence; Medical Examination; Rape; While a medical examination of the

victim is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, and no law
requires a medical examination for the successful prosecution of the case, the
medical examination conducted and the medical certificate issued are veritable
corroborative pieces of evidence, which strongly bolster the victim’s testimony.
AAA categorically asserted that Palanay, her uncle, had carnal knowledge of
her. She was steadfast in her testimony that, in the early morning of August
31, 2010, Palanay undressed her and touched her breast against her will. He
then forced himself on her and inserted his penis into her vagina. At the time of
the incident, AAA was just sixteen (16) years old. The findings in the medical
examination of AAA taken after the rape support this allegation. While a
medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in the prosecution of a
rape case, and no law requires a medical examination for the successful
prosecution of the case, the medical examination conducted and the medical
certificate issued are veritable corroborative pieces of evidence, which strongly
bolster the victim’s testimony. In addition, as found by the trial court, AAA’s
recollection of what happened after her harrowing experience was sufficiently
corroborated by BBB.
165
G.R. No. 214064

MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and
FELIPE IMPAS, Respondents
Evidence; Witnesses; Expert Witnesses; The probative force of the testimony of

an expert does not lie in a mere statement of her theory or opinion, but rather
in the assistance that she can render to the courts in showing the facts that
serve as a basis for her criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of her
conclusion is founded.
The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage

based on psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth
assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive
diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.
The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere
statement of her theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that she can
render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for her criterion
and the reasons upon which the logic of her conclusion is founded. Although
the evaluation report of montefalcon expounds on the juridical antecedence,
gravity and incurability of Felipe’s personality disorder, it was, however,
admitted that she evaluated respondent’s psychological condition indirectly
from the information gathered from Mirasol and her witness. Felipe’s
dysfunctional family portrait which brought about his personality disorder as
painted in the evaluation was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge
of petitioner. There was no independent witness knowledgeable of respondent’s
upbringing interviewed by the psychologist or presented before the trial court.
Angelica Mabayad, the couple’s common friend, agreed with petitioner’s claims
in the interview with the psychologist, confirmed the information given by
petitioner, and alleged that she knew Felipe as “chick boy” or “playboy.” She
did not testify before the court a quo.
G.R. No. 214406, February 06, 2017

BP OIL AND CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
v. TOTAL DISTRIBUTION & LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent.
Evidence; Burden of Proof; It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the
burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence. In civil cases,
the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is
given on either side. The RTC’s denial of TDLSI’s Demurrer to Evidence shows
and proves that petitioner had indeed laid a prima facie case in support of its
claim. Having been ruled that petitioners claim is meritorious, the burden of
proof, therefore, was shifted to TDLSI to controvert petitioner’s prima facie
case.
166
G.R. No. 215910, February 06, 2017

MANUEL C. UBAS, SR., Petitioner, vs. WILSON CHAN, Respondent.
Evidence; Burden of Proof; Where the plaintiff-creditor possesses and submits

in evidence an instrument showing the indebtedness, a presumption that the
credit has not been satisfied arises in (his) favor. Jurisprudence holds that “in
a suit for a recovery of sum of money, as here, the plaintiff-creditor (petitioner
in this case) has the burden of proof to show that defendant (respondent in this
case) had not paid him the amount of the contracted loan. However, it has also
been long established that where the the plaintiff-creditor possesses and
submits in evidence an instrument showing the indebtedness, a presumption
that the credit has not been satisfied arises in (his) favor. Thus, the defendant
is, in appropriate instances, required to overcome the said presumption and
present evidence to prove the fact of payment so that no judgment will be
entered against him. “this presumption stems for section 24 of the NIL, which
provides that: section 24. Presumption of Consideration. –Every negotiable
instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable
consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have
become a party thereto for value.
G.R. No. 211120

MEDELARNALDO B. BELEN, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent
Evidence; Opinions; As a rule, the opinion of a witness is inadmissible because

a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal
knowledge and it is for the court to draw conclusions from the facts testified to.
Opinion evidence or testimony refers to evidence of what the witness thinks,
believes or infers in regard to facts themselves. In this case, however,
prosecution witnesses Michael, Flores and Enseo barely made a conclusion on
the defamatory nature of the statements in petitioner’s Omnibus Motion, but
merely testified on their own understanding of what they had read.
G.R. No. 226145, February 13, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO D.
CALINAWAN a.k.a "MEO", Accused-Appellant.
Evidence; witnesses; It suffices that the witness recognized the accused

through identifying marks which would make the latter unmistakably stand
out from other individuals. In the case at bench, Marigors family and
Calinawan had been neighbors for a long time. Hence, she was very familiar
with the latter’s unique physical characteristics, particularly his amputated
167
fingers. Through this distinct physical feature of Calinawan. Marigor was able
to identify him in open court as the one whoe stabbed her mother. Thus, her
identification of him was credible, even if she was not able to clearly see his
face, but saw the notable feature of his hand, which set him apart from others.
G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017

LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, AND
RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners, v. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, IN HER
CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PALAYAN CITY, BRANCH 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, ANTONIO LL. LAPUS,
JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, AND EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ,IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING
PROSECUTORS, AND RAUL M. GONZALEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, Respondents.
Evidence; Preliminary Investigation; The admissibility of evidence cannot be

ruled upon in a preliminary investigation. In a preliminary investigation, the
public prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they merely determine whether there
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held
for trial. To emphasize, “ a preliminary investigation is merely preparatory to a
trial; it is not a trial on the merits.” Since ‘it cannot be expected that upon the
filing of the information in court the prosecutor would have already presented
all the evidence necessary to secure a conviction of the accused,” the
admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a
preliminary investigation.
G.R. No. 196444

DASMARIÑAS T. ARCAINA and MAGNANI T. BANTA, Petitioners vs. NOEMI
L. INGRAM, represented by MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE, Respondent
Evidence; Admissions; Judicial Admissions; Judicial admissions made by the

parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the
same case, are conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them.
These admissions cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have
been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
Petitioners do not deny their previous admission, much less allege that they
had made a palpable mistake. Thus, they are bound by it.
168
G.R. No. 196444, February 15, 2017

DASMARIÑAS T. ARCAINA AND MAGNANI T. BANTA, PETITIONERS, VS.
NOEMI L. INGRAM, REPRESENTED BY MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE,
RESPONDENT.
Evidence; Burden of Proof; As basic as the previously discussed principles on

appeal as a statutory privilege, finality of judgments and service of papers, is
the principle that “a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.” A
mere allegation will never suffice: “a mere allegation is not evidence, and he
who alleges has the burden of proving the allegation with the requisite
quantum of evidence.” Logically, a party who fails to discharge his or her
burden of proof will not be entitled to the relief prayed for.
G.R. No. 198954

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RODRIGO MACASPAC
y ISIP, Accused-Appellant
Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of Witnesses; It is settled that the assessment

of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by
the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination. These factors are the most significant in evaluating the sincerity
of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting
testimonies. Through its personal observations during the entire proceedings,
the trial court can be expected to determine whose testimonies to accept and
which witnesses to believe. Accordingly, the findings of the trial court on such
matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of
weight were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpretation as to materially
affect the disposition of the case.
G.R. No. 217979, February 22, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADALTON ARCE Y
CAMARGO, Accused-Appellants.
Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Minor Inconsistencies; When inconsistencies

refer only to minor details and collateral matters, they do not affect the
substance or the veracity of the declarations, or the weight of the testimonies.
We reiterate what we have held regarding inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses. When inconsistencies refer only to minor details and collateral
matters, they do not affect the substance or the veracity of the declarations, or
the weight of the testimonies. Nor do they impair the credibility of the
witnesses, especially where there is consistency in the latter’s narration of the
principal occurrence and positive identification of the culprit.
169
G.R. No. 199907, February 27, 2017

ANITA CAPULONG, Petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Mortgages; Chattel Mortgage; Evidence; In a chattel mortgage of a vehicle, the

Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration (OR-CR) should be considered
as evidence of indebtedness because they are part and parcel of the entire
mortgage documents, without which the mortgagee’s right to foreclose cannot
be effectively enforced.
In this case, Anita contends that there is no competent proof that she actually
removed, concealed, or destroyed any of the papers contemplated in Article
315, para 3(c) of the RPC. Allegedly, pursuant to Tan Jenjua, Kilayko and
Dizon, the document removed, concealed or destroyed must contain evidence of
indebtedness so as to cause prejudice, and the OR-CR are not of this nature.
Contrary to Anita’s supposition, neither Article 315, para 3(c) of the RPC nor
Article 535, para 9 of the old penal code requires that the documents or papers
are evidence of indebtedness. Notably, while the old provision broadly covered “
any process, record, document, or any other paper of any character
whatsoever,” the new provisions refers to “documents or any other papers.”
Indeed, there is no limitation that the penal provision applies only to
documents or papers that are evidence of indebtedness. Assuming, for the sake
of argument, that Article 315, para 3(c) of the RPC merely penalizes the
removal, concealment, or destruction of documents or papers that are evidence
of indebtedness, still Anita cannot be acquitted. In our mind, the promissory
note, the chattel mortgage, and the checks that she executed are not the only
proof of her debt to De Guzman. In a chattel mortgage of a vehicle, the Official
Receipt and Certificate of Registration (OR-CR) should be considered as
evidence of indebtedness because they are part and parcel of the entire
mortgage documents, without which the mortgagee’s right to foreclose cannot
be effectively enforced.
G.R. No. 179749

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs
EDDIE BARTE y MENDOZA, Accused-Apellant
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Anything short of

observance and compliance by the arresting lawmen with what the law
required meant that the former did not regularly perform their duties.-
—We regard and declare as unwarranted the RTC’s position that the absence of
proof showing the compliance by the arresting lawmen with the procedure
outlined under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not fatal to the entrapment.
Such noncompliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 was
170
fatal because it cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented in court
and directly affected the validity of the buy-bust operation. It put into serious
question whether the sachet of shabu had really come from the accused-
appellant, and whether the sachet of shabu presented in court was the same
sachet of shabu obtained from the accused-appellant at the time of the arrest.
Testimonies provided by the police officers and the presumption of regularity in
the performance of their duties did not override the noncompliance with the
procedural safeguards instituted by our laws. Indeed, anything short of
observance and compliance by the arresting lawmen with what the law
required meant that the former did not regularly perform their duties. The
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties then became
inapplicable. As such, the evidence of the State did not overturn the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused-appellant. Furthermore,
although noncompliance with the prescribed procedural requirements would
not automatically render the seizure and custody of the contraband invalid,
that is true only when there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance,
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. Any departure from the prescribed procedure must then still be
reasonably justified, and must further be shown not to have affected the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Otherwise, the
noncompliance constitutes an irregularity, a red flag, so to speak, that cast
reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.
Same; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; The presumption of regularity can

be overturned if evidence is presented to prove either of two (2) things, namely:
(1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were
inspired by any improper motive.-
—Courts are cognizant of the presumption of regularity in the performance of
duties of public officers. This presumption can be overturned if evidence is
presented to prove either of two things, namely: (1) that they were not properly
performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.
This case sprang from the buy-bust operation conducted by several police
officers against the accused-appellant based on the tip from a caller whose
identification was only through the alias of Ogis. Surveillance was made
following such tip, but the same was unrecorded and no other proof was
presented to corroborate the policemen’s conclusion that the man known as
Ogis was the same man they were looking for during the surveillance.
G.R. No. 205745

CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, and BREGIDO MALA CAT,
JR., Petitioners vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
1. Same; Evidence; Object Evidence; Physical evidence is evidence of the

highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.-
171
—“Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently

than a hundred witnesses.” They have been characterized as “that mute but
eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence.” Thus, in People v. Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160 (1997), this
Court refused to undiscerningly lend credence to the incriminating assertions
of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged mauling, and stated that “[t]his Court
cannot be persuaded by the prosecution’s claim of perpetration of physical
violence in the absence of any marked physical injuries on the various parts of
the victim’s face and body.” As the defense correctly points out, if the
prosecution’s assertion of a relentless assault were true, the greater probability
was that Bahian must have been “black and blue all over.” Quite contrary to
the sort of physical evidence that a purported relentless and prolonged assault
should have reasonably yielded, however, there was but one injury that Bahian
was noted to have sustained. Third, Bahian himself was noted to have admitted
that his head injury was “caused by [him] hitting the edge of the concrete
pavement.”
G.R. No. 213390

PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES, Plaintijf-Appellee vs JESSIE GABRIELy
GAJARDO, Accused-Appellant
1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of Witnesses; The trial

court’s assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-à-vis their
testimonies ought to be upheld as a matter of course because of its direct,
immediate and firsthand opportunity to observe the deportment of witnesses as
they delivered their testimonies in open court.-
—The trial court’s assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-
à-vis their testimonies ought to be upheld as a matter of course because of its
direct, immediate and firsthand opportunity to observe the deportment of
witnesses as they delivered their testimonies in open court. Thus, the trial
court’s findings bearing on the credibility of witnesses on these matters are
invariably binding and conclusive upon the appellate court unless of course,
there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misapprehended or
misconstrued some fact or circumstance of weight or substance, or had failed
to accord or assign such fact or circumstance its due import or significance.
G.R. No. 209057

RENATO S. MARTINEZ, Petitioner vs JOSE MARIA V. ONGSIAKO,
Respondent
1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Perpetuation of Testimony; In proceedings for the

perpetuation of testimony, the right to cross-examine a deponent is an even
more vital part of the procedure.-
172
—In proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony, the right to cross-examine a

deponent is an even more vital part of the procedure. In fact, the Revised Rules
on Evidence provide that depositions previously taken are only admissible in
evidence against an adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine
the witness. Because depositions are an exception to the general rule on the
inadmissibility of hearsay testimony, the process of cross-examination is an
important safeguard against false statements. As the Court explained in
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 648 SCRA 47 (2011): The function of cross-
examination is to test the truthfulness of the statements of a witness made on
direct examination. The opportunity of cross-examination has been regarded as
an essential safeguard of the accuracy and completeness of a testimony. In civil
cases, the right of cross-examination is absolute, and is not a mere privilege of
the party against whom a witness may be called. This right is available, of
course, at the taking of depositions, as well as on the examination of witnesses
at the trial. The principal justification for the general exclusion of hearsay
statements and for the admission, as an exception to the hearsay rule, of
reported testimony taken at a former hearing where the present adversary was
afforded the opportunity to cross-examine, is based on the premise that the
opportunity of cross-examination is an essential safeguard against falsehoods
and frauds.
G.R. No. 199810

BEVERLY ANNE C. YAP, Petitioner vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent
1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Time and again, the Supreme
Court (SC) has ruled that the burden of proof to establish the status of a
purchaser and registrant in good faith lies upon the one who asserts it.-
—Time and again, the Court has ruled that the burden of proof to establish the
status of a purchaser and registrant in good faith lies upon the one who
asserts it. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the
legal presumption of good faith. It must be emphasized that aside from the fact
that a notice of lis pendens was already annotated on OCT No. P-11182 even
before Yap and Villamor purchased the subject property, it was also
established that when they did so, the said property was still registered in the
name of Pagarigan since the Bank did not consolidate its title thereto. Stated
simply, Yap and Villamor purchased the subject property not from the
registered owner.
173
G.R. No. 195021

NICOLAS VELASQUEZ and VICTOR VELASQUEZ, Petitioners vs PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Witnesses cannot be expected to

recollect with exactitude every minute detail of an event.-
—Jurisprudence is replete with clarifications that a witness’ recollection of
crime need not be foolproof: “Witnesses cannot be expected to recollect with
exactitude every minute detail of an event. This is especially true when the
witnesses testify as to facts which transpired in rapid succession, attended by
flurry and excitement.” This is especially true of a victim’s recollection of his or
her own harrowing ordeal. One who has undergone a horrifying and traumatic
experience “cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate
account” of every minutiae.
G.R. No. 216120

PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY (also known as PHILTRUST
BANK), Petitioner vs REDENTOR R. GABINETE, SHANGRILA REALTY
CORPORATION and ELISA T. TAN, Respondents
1. Same; Evidence; Forgery; Handwriting Experts; In Mendoza v. Fermin, 729

SCRA 219 (2014), the Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that a finding of forgery
does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts and that the
judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of the
signatures under scrutiny.-
—In Mendoza v. Fermin, 729 SCRA 219 (2014), this Court emphasized that a
finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting
experts and that the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of
authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny.
2. Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; One who alleges forgery has the burden
to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of
greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to
it.-
—As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive
and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more
convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. In this case, the
respondent was not able to prove the fact that his signature was forged.
174
G.R. No. 206103

LYDIA LAVAREZ, MARGARITA LAVAREZ, WILFREDO LAV AREZ,
GREGORIO LAV AREZ, LOURDES LAV AREZSAL V ACION, NORLIE
LAVAREz,* G.J. LAVAREZ, GIL LAV AREZ, and GAY NATALIE LA VAREZ,
GODOFREDO LAV AREZ, LETICIA LAV AREZ, LUIS LAV AREZ, REMEDIOS
V. ZABALLERO, JOSEPHINE V. ZABALLERO FERNANDO V. ZABALLERO,
VALENTA V. ZABALLERO, MILAGROS Z. VERGARA, VALETA Z. REYES,
AMADO R. ZABALLERO, EMMANUEL R. ZABALLERO, and FLORENTINO R.
ZABALLERO, Petitioners vs ANGELES S. GUEVARRA, AUGUSTO SEVILLA,
JR., ASTERIA S. YRA, ANTONIO SEVILLA, ALBERTO SEVILLA, ADELINA S.
ALVAREZ, ARISTEO SEVILLA and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LUCENA
CITY, Respondents
1. Same; Same; Same; Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of
witnesses, the Supreme Court (SC) gives great respect to the evaluation of the
trial court for it had the unique, opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity that is
unavailable to the appellate courts, which simply rely on the cold records of the
case.-
—Findings of facts made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of
respect by an appellate tribunal and, without a clear disregard of the evidence
before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should
not be ignored. Absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or
capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts are binding
and conclusive upon the Court. Settled is the rule that in assessing the
credibility of witnesses, the Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the
trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity that is
unavailable to the appellate courts, which simply rely on the cold records of the
case. The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding if not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight
and influence. Here, the CA failed to show any presence of abuse,
arbitrariness, or any clear disregard of evidence on the part of the trial court
when it gave full credence to Dr. Conde’s expert opinion.
2. Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Basic is the rule of actori incumbit
onus probandi, or the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.-
—Basic is the rule of actori incumbit onus probandi, or the burden of proof lies
with the plaintiff. In other words, upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden
of proof never parts. Therefore, petitioners must establish their case by a
preponderance of evidence, that is, evidence that has greater weight, or is more
convincing than that which respondents offered in opposition to it. In civil
cases, the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere
allegation is not evidence.
3. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Expert Witness; The opinion of the
expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view
175
of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge
utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect.-
—As to Dr. Conde’s expert opinion, it is settled that the testimony of expert
witnesses must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in
favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the
issue before it. Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies,
they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies in
accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of
expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide,
considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the
witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has
supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he
testifies, the fact that he might be a paid witness, the relative opportunities for
study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other
matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert
may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all
the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly
fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the
credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the
discretion of the trial court whose ruling on such is not reviewable in the
absence of abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 199894

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARLITO CLARO y
MAHINAY, Accused-Appellant
1. Same; Same; Same; Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt

necessarily means that mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter
how strong, should not sway judgment against him.-
—Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt necessarily means that
mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter how strong, should not
sway judgment against him. It further means that the courts should duly
consider every evidence favoring him, and that in the process the courts should
persistently insist that accusation is not synonymous with guilt; hence, every
circumstance favoring his innocence should be fully taken into account. That is
what we must be do herein, for he is entitled to nothing less.
3. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is a time-honored tenet that the
appreciation and assessment by the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses
are accorded respect primarily because the trial judge personally observed the
conduct and demeanor of the witnesses as to enable him or her to determine
whether they were telling the truth or merely fabricating it.-
—It is a time-honored tenet that the appreciation and assessment by the trial
judge of the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect primarily because the
trial judge personally observed the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses as
to enable him or her to determine whether they were telling the truth or merely
176
fabricating it. Another tenet of long standing is that the factual findings of the
CA affirming those of the trial judge are generally binding upon the Court,
which is not a trier of facts. Based on these tenets, it would be easy to simply
affirm the conviction of the accused herein especially considering that both the
RTC and the CA regarded AAA as a credible witness whose testimony was
worthy of belief.
5. Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; In every criminal
case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt.-
—In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
G.R. No. 186603

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR, REGION VI, ILOILO CITY, Petitioners, vs.
VALENTINA REGISTER OF PROVINCE OCCIDENTAL, CALISTON,
DIOSCORO ESCARDA, ESPINOSA, DEEDS OF THE OF NEG ROS LEONILA
and & SPOUSES ESTRELLA, Respondents
1. Same; Same; Same; As part of fair play and due process, the State is as
bound by the rules on formal offer of evidence as much as every private party
is.-
—These principles laid down in SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, 503
SCRA 522 (2006), undoubtedly apply here. As part of fair play and due process,
the State is as bound by the rules on formal offer of evidence as much as every
private party is. More, the State’s subsequent reclassification of the area where
the property is situated cannot be used to defeat the rights of a private citizen
who acquired the land in a valid and regular proceeding conducted 24 years
earlier.
2. Remedial Law; Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; The rules require that
documentary evidence must be formally offered in evidence after the
presentation of testimonial evidence, and it may be done orally, or if allowed by
the court, in writing.-
—The rules require that documentary evidence must be formally offered in
evidence after the presentation of testimonial evidence, and it may be done
orally, or if allowed by the court, in writing. Due process requires a formal offer
of evidence for the benefit of the adverse party, the trial court, and the
appellate courts. This gives the adverse party the opportunity to examine and
oppose the admissibility of the evidence. When evidence has not been formally
offered, it should not be considered by the court in arriving at its decision. Not
having been offered formally, it was error for the trial court to have considered
177
the survey map. Consequently, it also erred in ordering the reversion of the
property to the mass of the public domain on the basis of the same.
G.R. No. 207776, April 26, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GEORGE GACUSAN,
Respondent.
1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Different people react differently to a

given type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral
response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful
experience.-
—[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no
standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange, startling or frightful experience.” One person may react aggressively,
while another may show cold indifference. Also, it is improper to judge the
actions of children who are victims of traumatic experiences “by the norms of
behavior expected under the circumstances from mature people.” From AAA’s
view, it appeared that the danger of losing a family was more excruciating than
physical pain.
G.R. No. 217459

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALBERTO FORTUNA
ALBERCA, Accused-Appellant
The testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a
woman or a girl child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.
G.R. No. 219615

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RAFAEL AGUDO y DEL
VALLE, Accused-Appellant
Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that testimonies of rape victims
who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young
woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject
to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice
for the wrong committed against her.
178
G.R. No. 218572

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BILLIE GHER
TUBALLAS y FAUSTINO, Accused-Appellant
When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to
give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative
vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to
which she testified is not true.
G.R. No. 215195

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOSE DESCARTIN, JR.
y MERCADER, Accused-Appellant
Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child victim narrates the details of
harrowing experience like rape.
G.R. No. 219848

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. GODOFREDO
MACARAIG y GONZALES, Accused-Appellant
While the witness in general can only testify to facts derived from their own
perception, a report in open court of a dying person’s declaration is recognized
as an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is made under the
consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case.
G.R. No. 217459, June 07, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALBERTO FORTUNA
ALBERCA, Accused-Appellant.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that questions on the credibility
of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique
position to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of witnesses’
deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the appellate
courts.
179
G.R. No. 219590, June 07, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCIAL M.
PARDILLO, Accused-Appellant.
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended,

credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution
witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have
perfomed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary.
G.R. No. 220143

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JONATHAN BAAY y
FALCO, Accused-Appellant
As a general rule, on the question of whether to believe the version of the

prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court’s choice is generally viewed as
correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to
conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor
and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies.
G.R. No. 220168, June 07, 2017

MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES, INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION CO.,
LTD. AND/OR MS. EILEEN MORALES, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF RICARDO
S. GANAL, GEMMA B. BORAGAY, FOR HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF
HER MINOR CHILDREN NAMED: RIGEM GANAL & IVAN CHARLES GANAL;
AND CHARLES F. GANAL, REPRESENTED BY SPOUSES PROCOPIO &
VICTORIA GANAL, Respondents.
Even if it could be shown that a person drank intoxicating liquor, it is

incumbent upon the person invoking drunkenness as a defense to show that
said person was extremely drunk, as a person may take as much as several
bottles of beer or several glasses of hard liquor and still remain sober and
unaffected by the alcoholic drink,” Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. vs Heirs
of Ricardo Ganal
180
G.R. No. 220758, June 07, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. STEPHAN
CABILES Y SUAREZ A.K.A. "KANO", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
The direct account of law enforcement officers enjoys the presumption of

regularity in the performance of their duties. It should be noted that “unless
there is clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by
any improper motive or did not properly perform their duty, their testimonies
on the operation deserve full faith and credit.”
G.R. No. 225623

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LORENZO RAYTOS Y
ESPINO, Accused-Appellant
Testimonial evidence, to be believable, must not only proceed from the mouth
of a credible witness but must also be credible following common experience
and leading to the inference of its probability under the circumstance.“
G.R. No. 225743

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. SANDY DOMINGO y
LABIS, Accused-Appellant
The rape victim’s testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of the
successful prosecution of the culprit provided such testimony meets the test of
credibility.
G.R. No. 177000, June 19, 2017

NESTOR GUELOS, RODRIGO GUELOS, GIL CARANDANG AND SPO2
ALFREDO CARANDANG Y PRESCILLA, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
The rule is that a witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory

statement not that a previous statement is presumed to be false merely
because a witness now says that the same is not true.
181
G.R. No. 192391, June 19, 2017

ESTATE OF HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., REPRESENTED BY RAFAEL A.
POBLADOR, Petitioner, v. ROSARIO L. MANZANO, Respondent.
A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which

requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or
otherwise established in the action.
G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMBROSIO OHAYAS,
ROBERTO OWAS, FLORENCIO RAPANA, CERELO BALURO, EDDIE
YAGUNO, RUPO YAGUNO AND JERRY YAGUNO, ACCUSED. AMBROSIO
OHAYAS, Accused-Appellant.
Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not

impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the
principal occurrence and positive identification of the accused.
G.R. No. 208001

P/C SUPT. EDWIN A. PFLEIDER, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE
View that Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that a witness
can testify to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge.
Hence, the hearsau rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites
what someone else has told him.
G.R. No. 209518, June 19, 2017 - MA. HAZELINA A. TUJAN-MILITANTE,

Petitioner, v. ANA KARI CARMENCITA NUSTAD, AS REPRESENTED BY
ATTY. MARGUERITE THERESE L. LUCILA, Respondent.
A notarized document has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to

overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more
the merely preponderant, otherwise, the document should be upheld.
G.R. No. 218572PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appelle vs. BILLIE

GHER TUBALLAS y FAUSTINO, Accused-Appellant
Inaccuracies and inconsistencies are expected in a rape victim’s testimony.

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.
182
G.R. No. 220022, June 19, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILTON ALACDIS Y
ANATIL A.K.A. "WELTON", DOMINGO LINGBANAN (AT-LARGE), AND PEPITO
ANATIL ALACDIS (AT-LARGE), Accused.; WILTON ALACDIS Y ANATIL A.K.A.
"WELTON", Accused-Appellant.
In weighing the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses vis-à-vis that of the

defense, it is a well-settled rule than the absence of palpable error or grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.
G.R. No. 220977, June 19, 2017

PO1 CELSO TABOBO III Y EBID, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Admission of act is starkly different from, and is not tantamount to, a

confession of guilt.
G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO
ESPERANZA JESALVA ALIAS "ROBERT SANTOS," Accused-Appellants.
Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy for it may be deduced from the
acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime
charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a common purpose to
commit the crime.
View that the Supreme Court held in Pp vs Vda. De Ramos, 403 SXCRA 167
(2003), that the application of the rule that an extrajudicial confession may be
accepted as corroborative evidence necessarily implies that there must be other
direct or circumstantial evidence.
G.R. No. 198795

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.
MERCEDITAS MATHEUS DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellant
The matter of assigning values to declaration on the witness stand is best and
most completely performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched
opportunity observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various
indicia available but not reflected on the record.
183
G.R. No. 200370, June 07, 2017

MARIO VERIDIANO Y SAPI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Failure to time object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused
from questioning the admissibility of the evidence seized.
G.R. No. 202091, June 07, 2017

SUMIFRU (PHILIPPINES) CORP. (SURVIVING ENTITY OF A MERGER WITH
FRESH BANANA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION AND OTHER
CORPORATIONS), Petitioner, v. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA SUYAPA
FARM1 (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU), Respondent.
S defined, substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if
other minds equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
G.R. No. 207001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RICHARD F. TRIPOLI
and ROMULO B. IMPAS, Accused-Appellants
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a
party desired the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the
form of objection.
G.R. No. 210266, June 07, 2017

ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
The rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified
and pre-marked during the trial.
The determination of the credibility of witnesses is a question of fact that
should not be reviewed by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The flight of the accused discloses a guilty
conscience.
184
G.R. No. 212934

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BLAS GAA y
RODRIGUEZ, Accused-Appellant
If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is
credible, natural , convincing and consistent with the human nature and the
normal course of the things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis.
G.R. No. 215195

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOSE DESCARTIN, JR.
y MERCADER, Accused-Appellant
Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness’ deportment and
manner of testifying, her furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation,
flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant of full realization of an
oath”- all of which, are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness’
honest and sincerity.
G.R. No. 207776, April 26, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GEORGE GACUSAN,
Respondent.
Different people react differently to a given type of situation and there is no

standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange , startling or frightful experience.
A healed or fresh laceration “is the best physical evidence of forcible
defloration.
G.R. No. 218666, April 26, 2017

HEIRS OF LEONILO P. NUÑEZ, SR., NAMELY, VALENTINA A. NUÑEZ,
FELIX A. NUÑEZ, FELIXITA A. NUÑEZ, LEONILO A. NUÑEZ, JR., MA. ELIZA
A. NUÑEZ, EMMANUEL A. NUÑEZ, ROSE ANNA A. NUÑEZ-DE VERA, AND
MA. DIVINA A. NUÑEZ-SERNADILLA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR CO-HEIR
AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROSE ANNA A. NUÑEZ-DE VERA, Petitioners, v.
HEIRS OF GABINO T. VILLANOZA, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIO A.
VILLANOZA, Respondents.
A copy purporting to be an ancient document may be admitted in evidence if it

bears a certification from the proper government office where the document is
naturally found genuine that the document is the exact copy of the original on
file.
185
G.R. No. 209132, June 05, 2017

HEIRS OF TERESITA VILLANUEVA, SUBSTITUTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS,
NAMELY: ELSA ANA VILLANUEVA, LEONILA VILLANUEVA, TERESITA
VILLANUEVA-SIPIN, FERDINAND VILLANUEVA, AND MARISSA
VILLANUEVA-MADRIAGA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF PETRONILA SYQUIA
MENDOZA, REPRESENTED BY MILAGROS PACIS, AND THE CO-HEIRS OF
PETRONILA SYQUIA-MENDOZA, NAMELY, TOMAS S. QUIRINO,
REPRESENTED BY SOCORRO QUIRINO, VICTORIA Q. DEGADO, CESAR
SYQUIA, JUAN J. SYQUIA, REPRESENTED BY CARLOTA (NENITA) C.
SYQUIA, AND HECTOR SYQUIA, JR., ACTING THROUGH THEIR
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CARLOS C. SYQUIA, Respondents.
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is
the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in
issue by the amount of evidence required by the law.
As the rule indicates, preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of
greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it.
Well-settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership or right to possess a land when not supported by any
other evidence.
G.R. No. 216063

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs MARLON SORIANO y
NARAG, Accused-Appellant
Factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of the
witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusiveness
drawn from these factual findings are accorded the highest respect by the bare
and cold records of the case.
G.R. No. 216987, June 05, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILFREDO PACAYRA
Y MABUTOL, Accused-Appellant.
When it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution

witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and,
generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the
trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstance of weight and substance, which will alter the assailed decision or
affect the result of the case.
186
G.R. No. 215195, June 07, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE DESCARTIN,
JR. Y MERCADER, Accused-Appellant.
Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of
the complainant.
G.R. No. 213922

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ROMMEL DIPUTADO,
Accused-Appellant
Remedial law; Evidence. The presumption of regularity will never be stronger

than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. It is well- settled
that an accused- appellant shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 218205

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARCIAL D. PULGO,
Accused-Appellant
It is jurisprudentially settled that when the credibility of the eyewitness is at

issue, due deference and respect shall be given to the findings of the trial court,
its calibration of the testimonies, its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, and its conclusions anchored on said findings, absent any showing
that it had overlooked circumstances that would have affected the final
outcome of the case.
Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the witnesses

where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive
identification of the assailant. It is also jurisprudentially settled that positive
identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and
inherently unreliable. The defense if alibi may not prosper if it is established
mainly by accused- appellant himself and his relatives, and not by credible
persons. Also in denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
denial is negative and self- serving, deserving no greater value than the
testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
187
G.R. No. 204617, July 10, 2017

ESPERANZA BERBOSO, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA CABRAL, Respondent.
For documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the
production of the document itself to the exclusion of secondary or
substitutionary evidence. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must
prove his allegation.
Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court, a private document, before the
same can be admitted as evidence, must first be authenticated.
G.R. No. 208441, July 17, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZENAIDA FABRO OR
ZENAIDA MANALASTAS Y VIÑEGAS, Accused-Appellant.
Discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those
made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex
parte affidavits generally incomplete. The matter of assigning values to
declarations on the witness stand is best and most completely performed by
the trial judge, who had unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and
to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on
the record.
On motive. It is well settled that where there is no evidence to show any

dubious or improper motive why a prosecution witness should bear false
witness against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime the
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
On denial. Denial is a self- serving negative evidence, which cannot be given

greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on
affirmative matters.
G.R. No. 218581

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LARRY
LUMAHANG Y TALISAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
A witness’ testimony contains inconsistencies or discrepancies does not, by suc

fact alone, diminish the credibility of such testimony. Variance in minor details
has the net effect of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness’ credibility
because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases does not mean such degree of
proof, excluding possibility of error, that produces absolute certainty; only
188
moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction

in an unprejudiced mind.
G.R. No. 223610, July 24, 2017

CONCHITA S. UY, CHRISTINE UY DY, SYLVIA UY SY, JANE UY TAN,
JAMES LYNDON S. UY, IRENE S. UY,* ERICSON S. UY, JOHANNA S. UY,
AND JEDNATHAN S. UY, Petitioners, v. CRISPULO DEL CASTILLO,
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS PAULITA MANATAD-DEL CASTILLO, CESAR
DEL CASTILLO, AVITO DEL CASTILLO, NILA C. DUEÑAS, NIDA C. LATOSA,
LORNA C. BERNARDO, GIL DEL CASTILLO, LIZA C. GUNGOB, ALMA DEL
CASTILLO, AND GEMMA DEL CASTILLO, Respondents.
On Judicial Admissions. Judicial admissions made by the parties in

thevpleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings and do not
require further evidence to prove them.
G.R. No. 181474

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ROMALDO LUMAYAG
Y DELA CRUZ, DIONY OPINIANO Y VERANO, AND JERRY1 DELA
CRUZYDIAZ, Accused
DIONY OPINIANO y VERANO, Accused-Appellants
When several accused are tried together, the confession made by one (1) of
them during the trial implicating the others is evidence against the latter. An
accused is always a competent witness for or against his co- accused, and the
fact thst he had been discharged from the information does not affect the
quality of is testimony, for the admissibility, the relevancy, as well as the
weight that should be accorded his declarations are to be determined by the
Rules of Evidence. And in this connection, it has been held that the
uncorroborated testimony of an accused, when satisfactory and convincing,
may be the basis for a judgment of conviction of his co- accused.
G.R. No. 221493, August 02, 2017

STERLING PAPER PRODUCTS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. KMM-
KATIPUNAN AND RAYMOND Z. ESPONGA, Respondents.
The rule is settled that in cases where the previous testimony is retracted and a
subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness,
the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with
the application of the general rules or evidence. Testimony solemnly given in
court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, and before this can be
189
done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully
compared and juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was made,
carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons and motives for the change
discriminately analysed.
GR No. 225973, Aug 08, 2017

SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ
On Hearsay Evidence. Newspaper articles amount to hearsay evidence, twice

removed and are therefore not only inadmissible but without any probative
value at all whether objected to or not, unless offered for a purpose other than
proving the truth of the matter asserted. The same rules apply to news article
published via the broadcast media or the internet communication.
G.R. No. 185129, June 17, 2013

ABELARDO JANDUSAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are
much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, which
are usually incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons. An affidavit,
being taken ex parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as
inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court.
G.R. No. 211845

PEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and LAS BRISAS RESORT
CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. MARTINEZ LEYBA, INC.,, Respondent
As a public document, it is admissible in evidence even without further proof of

its due execution and genuineness, and had its favor presumption of
regularity. To contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant, otherwise the document
should be upheld.
190
G.R. No. 206826, October 02, 2017

CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. AND COLUMBIAN
SHIPMANAGEMENT, LTD., Petitioners, v. EDUARDO* J.
GODINEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206828
EDUARDO J. GODINEZ, Petitioner, v. CAREER PHILIPPINES

SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. AND COLUMBIAN SHIPMANAGEMENT,
LTD., Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Computer Printouts; In

Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission, 362 SCRA 56 (2001), the
Supreme Court (SC) disregarded unsigned and computer printouts presented in
evidence by the employer to prove its employee’s absenteeism and tardiness.—It
is claimed that Godinez concealed that his past medical history when he failed
to disclose during the PEME that when he was 15, he suffered from insomnia
and paranoia for which he sought psychiatric evaluation and management.
This is based on an unsigned document, an Initial Medical Report, containing a
supposed admission by Godinez that he was treated in the past for insomnia
and paranoia. However, this unsigned report cannot have any evidentiary
value, as it is self-serving and of dubious character. In Asuncion v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 362 SCRA 56 (2001), the Court disregarded
unsigned and computer printouts presented in evidence by the employer to
prove its employee’s absenteeism and tardiness. We note that the employer
company submitted mere handwritten listing and computer printouts. The
handwritten listing was not signed by the one who made the same. As regards
the printouts, while the listing was computer generated, the entries of time and
annotations were again handwritten and unsigned. We find that the
handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts were unauthenticated
and, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence of which the listing and
printouts are of that nature should be rejected as evidence without any
rational probative value even in administrative proceedings. x x x
(Emphasis supplied) Thus, there could be no fraudulent concealment on
Godinez’s part.
191
G.R. No. 196074

FLORENCIA ARJONILLO, Petitioner vs. DEMETRIA PAGULAYAN, as
substituted by her heirs namely: HERMANA VDA. DE CAMBRI, PORFIRIO
T. PAGULAYAN, and VICENTE, MAGNO, PEDRO, FLORENCIO, MELECIO,
LERMA, all surnamed MATALANG, and AUREA MATALANG-DELOS
SANTOS, Respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; A witness can only testify on
facts within his personal knowledge; Unless the testimony falls under any of the
recognized exceptions, hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be
given credence for it has no probative value.—Despite claiming knowledge of the
terms and conditions of the sale, perusal of the deed of absolute sale revealed
that Dr. Valdepanas was neither a party nor a witness to the transaction. It is
noticeable that Dr. Valdepanas merely repeated statements he heard from Cue
and Chua Bun Gui. When asked if he was present whenever Cue paid Chua
Bun Gui, he did not give a categorical answer but simply claimed that he knew
about it personally. More importantly, proponent offered the testimony to prove
“that the lot in question was purchased by the late Avelardo Cue and not by
the defendant, Demetria Pagulayan, although the Deed of Sale was in the name
of the said defendant Demetria Pagulayan.” It was offered in evidence of the
truth of the fact being asserted. Clearly, the above quoted testimony is hearsay
and thus inadmissible in evidence. A witness can only testify on facts within
his personal knowledge; Unless the testimony falls under any of the recognized
exceptions, hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given
credence for it has no probative value. This is a substantive prerequisite for
accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact.
Unless the testimony falls under any of the recognized exceptions, hearsay
evidence whether objected or not cannot be given credence for it has no
probative value.
G.R. No. 196074

FLORENCIA ARJONILLO, Petitioner vs. DEMETRIA PAGULAYAN, as
substituted by her heirs namely: HERMANA VDA. DE CAMBRI, PORFIRIO
T. PAGULAYAN, and VICENTE, MAGNO, PEDRO, FLORENCIO, MELECIO,
LERMA, all surnamed MATALANG, and AUREA MATALANG-DELOS
SANTOS, Respondent.
Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Land Titles and Deeds; Certificates of Title;
It is fundamental that certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favour of the person whose name appears
therein.—We agree with the finding of the CA that “[t]he documentary and
testimonial evidence on record clearly support [Pagulayan’s] ownership of the of
the disputed property as reflected in TCT No. T-35506, which was issued in her
name pursuant to the aforesaid Deed of Sale.” It is fundamental that certificate
192
of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the

property in favour of the person whose name appears therein. The titleholder is
entitled to all the attributes of ownership, including possession of the property.
G.R. No. 200026. October 4, 2017.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO
DELECTOR, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Unlike the appellate courts, including the
Supreme Court (SC), the trial judge had the unique first hand opportunity to
observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses when they testified at the
trial, which were factors in the proper appreciation of evidence of past events.—
The factual findings of the RTC are accorded the highest degree of respect,
especially if, as now, the CA adopted and confirmed them. Unlike the appellate
courts, including ours, the trial judge judge had the unique first hand
opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses when they
testified at the trial, which were factors in the proper appreciation of evidence
of past events. Such factual findings should be final and conclusive on appeal
unless there is a demonstrable error in appreciation, or a misapprehension of
the facts.
G.R. No. 203986. October 4, 2017.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERSON
DASMARINAS y GONZALES, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The Supreme Court (SC) agrees that the out-
of-court identification of Dasmarinas by Perias as one (1) of the two (2) assailants
did not result from any impermissible suggestion by the police or other external
source; and that it could not have been influenced unfairly against
Dasmarinas.—We agree that the out-of-court identification of Dasmarinas by
Perias as one (1) of the two (2) assailants did not result from any impermissible
suggestion by the police or other external source; and that it could not have
been influenced unfairly against Dasmarinas. It is notable that Perias repeated
his identification in court during the trial. The reliability of the identification
was based on Perias having witnessed the shooting from the short distance of
only two meters away. Also, although the shooting occurred at around 2:00
o’clock in the morning of June 16, 2007, there was adequate illumination
because the scene of the crime was in front of the Sabnarra Beerhouse along
Naga Road in Las Pinas City. The proximity of his point of observation and the
adequacy of the illumination provided to him the means to make the reliable
identification of Dasmarinas.
193
G.R. No. 2029342 October 4, 2017.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISENTE PEPANO
NUNEZ, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The dangers of the misplaced primacy of

eyewitness identification are two (2)-pronged: on one level, eyewitness
identifications are inherently prone to error; on another level, the appreciation by
observers, such as jurors, judges, and law enforcement officers of how an
eyewitness identifies supposed culprits is just as prone to error.—The dangers of
the misplaced primacy of eyewitness identification are two (2)-pronged: on one
level, eyewitness identifications are inherently prone to error; on another level,
the appreciation by observers, such as jurors, judges, and law enforcement
officers of how an eyewitness identifies supposed culprits is just as prone to
error: The problem of eyewitness reliability could not be more clearly
documented. The painstaking work of the Innocence Project, Brandon Garrett,
and others who have documented wrongful convictions, participated in the
exonerations of the victims, and documented the role of flawed evidence of all
sorts has clearly and repeatedly revealed the two-pronged problem of
unreliability for eyewitnesses evidence: (1) eyewitness identifications are
subject to substantial error, and (2) observer judgements of witness accuracy
are likewise subject to substantial error. The bifurcated difficulty of misplace
reliance on eyewitness identification is borne not only by the intrinsic
limitations of human memory as the basic apparatus on which the entire
exercise if identification operates. It is as much the result of and is exacerbated
by extrinsic factors such as environmental factors, flawed procedures, or the
mere passage of time.
Same; Same; Same; A witness’ credibility is ascertained by considering the first

two (2) factors, i.e., the witness’ opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of
the crime and the witness’ degree of attention at that time, based on conditions
of visibility and the extent of time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the
witness to be exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain
their identity.—Domestic jurisprudence recognizes that eyewitness
identification is affected by “normal human fallibilities and suggestive
influences.” People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54 (1995), introduced in this
jurisdiction the totality of circumstances test, which relies of factors already
identified by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U,S. 188
(1972): (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal act the time of the
crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at the time; (3) the accuracy of any
prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by
the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and
the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. A
witness’ credibility is ascertained by considering the first two (2) factors, i.e.,
the witness’ opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime and the
witness’ degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility and
194
the extent of time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to be
exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain their identity.
Same; Same; Same; It is by now a well-established fact that people are less
accurate and compete in their eyewitness accounts after a ling retention interval
than after a short one.—The totality of circumstances test also requires a
consideration of the length of time between the crime and the identification
made by the witness. “It is by now a well-established fact that people are less
accurate and compete in their eyewitness accounts after a ling retention
interval than after a short one.” Ideally then, a prosecution witness must
identify the suspect immediately after the incident. This Court has considered
acceptable an identification made two (2) days after the commission of a crime,
not so one that had an interval of five and a half (5 ½) months. The passage of
time is not the only factor that diminishes memory. Equally jeopardizing is a
witness’ interactions with other individuals involved in the event. As noted by
cognitive psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus, “[p]ost[-] event information can not
only enhance existing memories but also change a witness’ memory and even
cause non-existent details to become incorporated into a previously acquired
memory.”
Same; Same; Same; Minor Inconsistencies; It is well-settled that inconsistencies

on minor details do not affect credibility as they only refer to collateral matters
which do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself.—Jurisprudence
holds that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not
necessarily jeopardize the prosecution’s case. This, however, is only true minor
inconsistencies that are ultimately inconsequential or merely incidental to the
overarching narrative if what crime was committed; how, when, and where it
was committed; and who committed it. “It is well-settled that inconsistencies
on minor details do not affect credibility as they only refer to collateral matters
which do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself.”
G.R. No. 218575. October 4, 2017.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCIS URSUA y
BERNAL, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Trial courts are in a better position to decide
the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during trial, and the rule finds an even
more stringent application where the trail court’s findings are sustained by the
Court of Appeals.—We accord high respect and conclusiveness on the trial
court’s calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and the conclusions
derived therefrom when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and
speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered such
findings. Indeed, trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of
195
credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their

deportment and manner of testifying during trial, and the rule finds an even
more stringent application where the trail court’s findings are sustained by the
CA.
G.R. No. 227705. October 11, 2017.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERIMIN ROMOBIO y
PAULER, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility

is a matter best left to the sound discretion of the trial court because of its unique
and direct opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand, to note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude, and, in the process, to ascertain if they were
telling the truth or not.—In most criminal cases, the issue boils down to the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. With respect, We adhere to the
principle that the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility is a matter best left to
the sound discretion of the trial court because of its unique and direct
opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand, to note their demeanor,
conduct and attitude, and, in the process, to ascertain if they were telling the
truth or not. These elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’
deportment on the stand while testifying is an opportunity that is denied to
appellate courts. Thus, findings of the trial court on such matters deserve
much weight and respect and are even treated as binding an conclusive on the
appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance
have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted which, if considered,
would material affect the result of the case.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The natural reaction of victims of a crime is

to strive to know the identity of their assailants by looking at their appearance,
features, and movements and observing the manner the crime was perpetrated
to create a lasting impression that could not be erased easily in their memory.—
We cannot give credence to Hermin’s claim that he was not positively identified
by AAA and that it is possible that he merely resembled the appearance of the
real culprit. The natural reaction of victims of a crime is to strive to know the
identity of their assailants by looking at their appearance, features, and
movements and observing the manner the crime was perpetrated to create a
lasting impression that could not be erased easily in their memory. Where the
conditions of visibility are favourable and the victim had no axe to grind
against the accused prior to the incidence, the assertion of the complaining
witness as to the identity of the wrongdoer commands the greater weight over
the denial of the suspected offender.
196
G.R. No. 201378, October 18, 2017

G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioner, v. TIARA COMMERCIAL
Same; Evidence; Admissibility of Evidence; Under the Rule of Court, a party

presenting a document as evidence must first establish its due execution and
authenticity as a preliminary requirement for its admissibility.—TCC alleges that
GV Florida’s third-party complaint (which it argues is essentially an action for
implied warranty) has already prescribed. The Civil Code states that this claims
must be made within six months from the time of the delivery of the ting sold.
Without pre-empting the RTC’s findings on the validity of the argument that
this is a warranty claim, a finding that the action has prescribed requires the
ascertainment of the delivery date of the tires in question. This, in turn,
requires the presentation of the delivery receipts as well as their identification
and authentication. Under the Rule of Court, a party presenting a document as
evidence must first establish its due execution and authenticity as a
preliminary requirement for its admissibility.
G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017

ROGELIA R. GATAN AND THE HEIRS OF BERNARDINO GATAN, NAMELY:
RIZALINO GATAN AND FERDINAND GATAN,, Petitioners, v. JESUSA
VINARAO, AND SPOUSES MILDRED CABAUATAN AND NOMAR
CABAUATAN, Respondents.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The Supreme Court (SC) has always
accorded great weight and respect to the findings of fact of trial courts, especially
in their assessment of the credibility of witnesses.—The Court always accorded
great weight and respect to the findings of fact of trial courts, especially in their
assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In this case, the RTC gave much
credence to Carlos’s testimony, and there is no cogent reason for the Court to
disturb the same. As the Court pronounced in People v. Regaspi, 769 SCRA
287 (2015): When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment deserves
great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted
with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment
and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial court is in a
better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial
evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the CA
sustained said findings, as in this case.
197
G.R. No. 204289, November 22, 2017

FERNANDO MANCOL, JR., petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Parol Evidence Rule; The parol evidence rule forbids
any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed
upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.—“The parol
evidence rule forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different
terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written
contract.” This, however, is merely a general rule. Provided, that a party puts in
issue in its pleading any of the exceptions in the second paragraph of Rule 130,
Section 9 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the agreement. Moreover, as with all
possible objections to the admission of evidence, a party’s failure to timely
object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained.
Same; Same; Admissibility of Evidence; Admissibility refers to the question of
whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative
value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.—
We stress that the admissibility of the testimonial evidence as an exception to
the parol evidence rule does not necessarily mean that it has weight.
Admissibility of evidence should not be confounded with its probative value.
“The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while
the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency
to convince and persuade.” The admissibility of a particular item of evidence
has to do with whether it meets various tests by which its reliability is to be
determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in
arriving at a decision as to the truth. The weight of evidence is not determined
mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a
given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of
the judge trying the case. “Admissibility refers to the question of whether
certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value
refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.”
“Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the
rules of evidence.”
Same; Same; Witnesses; Hearsay Evidence Rule; A witness may not testify on
what he merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is
considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has
learned, read or heard.—It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify
only on the facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., those
which are derived from his own perception. A witness may not testify on what
he merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is
198
considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he
has learned, read or heard. Hearsay evidence is evidence, not of what the
witness knows himself but, of what he has heard from others; it is not only
limited to oral testimony or statements but likewise applies to written
statements.
Same; Same; Same; The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive
prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a
disputed fact.—The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive
prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a
disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact
cannot be called upon for that purpose because his testimony derives its value
not from the credit accorded to him as a witness presently testifying but from
the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of his information.
G.R. No. 218570, November 22, 2017

BEN MANANGAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; “Direct Evidence” and “Circumstantial Evidence,”

Distinguished.—Direct evidence is different from circumstantial evidence. Direct
evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue
without inference or presumption. It is evidence from a witness who actually
saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. On the other hand,
circumstantial evidence is evidence that “indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established.”
G.R. No. 202872. November 22, 2017

LOURDES M. PADAYHAG (or HEIRS OF LOURDES M. PADAYHAG),
petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF LANDS and SOUTHERN MINDANAO
COLLEGES, represented by its President, respondents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial Notice; Given that the Official Gazette
is the official publication of the government, the Supreme Court (SC) can take
judicial notice thereof pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 129, Rules of Court.—Given
that the Official Gazette is the official publication of the government, the Court
can take judicial notice thereof pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 129, Rules of
Court, which provides: SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.—A court
may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the
publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing for Cadastral Case No. N-17, LRC
Cadastral Record No. N-468 in the issues of the Official Gazette on October 24
199
and 31, 1966, Volume 62, Number 43, pages 8044 to 8047, and Number 44,
pages 8312 to 8315.
G.R. No. 227069, November 22, 2017

HILARIO LAMSEN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Secondary Evidence;

Photocopies; Photocopies are considered secondary evidence which can be
rendered inadmissible absent any proof that the original was lost, destroyed, or
in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered.—Notably, the genuineness and due execution of a photocopy could not
be competently established without a copy of the original. Photocopies are
considered secondary evidence which can be rendered inadmissible absent any
proof that the original was lost, destroyed, or in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. Here, not only did the
prosecution fail to present the original copy of the subject deed in court, it
likewise did not provide ample proof that the same was lost, destroyed, or in
the custody or under the control of Lamsen. Since mere photocopies of the
subject deed were used to examine the questioned and standard signatures of
spouses Tandas, no valid comparison can be had between them, thereby
rendering Batiles’ declaration inconclusive to support a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt against Lamsen.
Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence consists of proof

of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be
inferred based on reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.—Circumstantial evidence
consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact
in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience. It is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all
the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstantial evidence presented must therefore constitute an unbroken
chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated differently,
the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is
sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven
must be consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance
must be consistent with the accused’s guilt and inconsistent with his
innocence.
200
G.R. No. 226158. November 8, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIBERATO
PENTECOSTES y CRONICO, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Our rules on evidence and

jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence
alone.—Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to
criminal prosecutions; a contrary rule would render convictions virtually
impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature, are purposely
committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses. Thus, our rules on
evidence and jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through
circumstantial evidence alone, provided that the following requisites concur: (i)
there is more than one circumstance; (ii) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Same; Same; Witnesses; It is a settled rule that the trial court is in the most
advantageous position to assess the credibility of witnesses as well as their
testimonies given its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ behavior when
placed on the stand, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.—It is a
settled rule that the trial court is in the most advantageous position to assess
the credibility of witnesses as well as their testimonies given its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses’ behavior when placed on the stand,
which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Hence, the trial court’s
assessment is necessarily accorded great weight and respect by the Court,
especially when affirmed by the CA. Verily, considering the uniform findings of
the RTC and CA, the Court finds that no cogent reason exists in the records
warranting a disturbance of such findings.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Our prevailing jurisprudence

has recognized that in its effect upon the courts, circumstantial evidence may
even surpass direct evidence in weight and probative force.—After thorough
examination of the records of this case, the Court is fully convinced that the
evidence presented by the prosecution constitutes proof of Liberato’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. While it is true that no direct evidence was adduced
by the prosecution, circumstantial evidence is by no means a “weaker” form of
evidence vis-à-vis direct evidence. Our prevailing jurisprudence has recognized
that in its effect upon the courts, circumstantial evidence may even surpass
direct evidence in weight and probative force. Accordingly, to the mind of the
Court, the confluence of the established circumstances leads to the fair and
reasonable conclusion that Liberato was indeed responsible for the death of
Vivian.
201
G.R. No. 224162, November 7, 2017

JANET LIM NAPOLES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION),
respondent.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Testimonial Evidence; The mere fact that the
whistleblowers were conspirators themselves does not automatically render their
testimonies incredible and unreliable.—Napoles nonetheless challenged the
credibility of the whistleblowers, arguing that their testimonies should have
been received with “grave suspicion,” coming as they were from “polluted
source[s].” However, as this Court earlier discussed, the testimonies of these
prosecution witnesses were consistent, clear, and corroborative of each other.
Other testimonial and documentary evidence also substantiated the veracity of
the whistleblowers’ statements during the bail hearing. In any case, a careful
perusal of the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions reveals that it considered
the prosecution’s other testimonial and documentary evidence, and discussed
it in relation to one another. Among the documents that
the Sandiganbayan considered were the letters requesting for the release of
former Senator Enrile’s PDAF, the incorporation documents of the NGOs, the
liquidation documents for the PDAF-funded projects, the SAROs itself, and the
DVs issued by the implementing agencies to the NGOs under the control of
Napoles. In other words, the Sandiganbayan did not rely solely on the
testimonies of the whistleblowers. Seeing as there were other available evidence
lending credence to their testimonies, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse
its discretion when it considered the testimonies of the whistleblowers in
denying Napoles’ bail application, despite their participation in the conspiracy
itself. The mere fact that the whistleblowers were conspirators themselves does
not automatically render their testimonies incredible and unreliable.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Bail; It is elementary that the factual

findings of the trial court, especially on the assessment or appreciation of the
testimonies of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. In this case, it
is the Sandiganbayan that had the opportunity to observe the deportment and
behavior of the witnesses during the bail hearing.—At this point it should be
emphasized that this Court is not the proper forum to weigh the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses. It is elementary that the factual findings of the trial
court, especially on the assessment or appreciation of the testimonies of
witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. In this case, it is
the Sandiganbayan that had the opportunity to observe the deportment and
behavior of the witnesses during the bail hearing. It was in a better position to
pass judgment on the credibility of these witnesses and the weight of their
respective testimonies. At any rate, Napoles was unable to establish any motive
on the part of her former employees, which would compel them to falsely testify
against her and her co-accused.
202
G.R. No. 181796, November 7, 2017

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Director/Head of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), Philippine National
Police (PNP), petitioner, vs. REGINA N. CAYANAN and SPO1 ROLANDO V.
PASCUA, respondents.
Same; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; Writ of Amparo; Substantial evidence is

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. This standard was applied in Secretary of National
Defense v. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1 (2008), the first ruling by the Supreme Court (SC)
relating to the remedy of the writ of amparo.—Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo requires substantial evidence to establish the allegations of the
petition for the writ of amparo and to warrant granting the privilege of the writ
of amparo, to wit: Section 18. Judgment.—x x x If the allegations in the petition
are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ
and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege
shall be denied. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard was
applied in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1 (2008), the first
ruling by the Court relating to the remedy of the writ of amparo.
G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GOLEM SOTA and
AMIDAL GADJADLI, accused-appellants.
Same; Evidence; Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of
a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience
and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.—
It was the position of the accused-appellants that Jocelyn failed to elucidate
who were the actual perpetrators and how the alleged crimes were carried out.
The petitioners claimed that the tales of the events were all speculations and
self-serving perceptions. Credible witness and credible testimony are the two
essential elements for determining the weight of a particular testimony.
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
Although Jocelyn was only twelve years old when the incident happened and
when called to the witness stand, the Court takes note of the truth that she
possessed all the qualification and none of the disqualification to testify in
these cases.
203
Same; Same; Witnesses; As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware
of a relevant event or incident, and can communicate such awareness,
experience, or observation to others can be a witness.—Jocelyn’s young age had
no bearing on her qualification to testify on what happened that night on 19
November 1999. As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a
relevant event or incident, and can communicate such awareness, experience,
or observation to others can be a witness. Significantly, even under the crucible
of an intense cross-examination, Jocelyn never wavered in her narration as to
the incidents that led to the killing of Artemio and the burning of their house,
and in the affirmative identification of Sota and Gadjadli as two of the five
persons who were responsible for these crimes.
Same; Same; Same; It has been observed that the natural interest of witnesses,
who are relatives of the victims, in securing the conviction of the guilty would
deter them from implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the
culprits would gain immunity.—Sota and Gadjadli failed to attribute any ill
motive on the part of Jocelyn in testifying against them. Notably, nothing from
the records can sustain a finding that Jocelyn, who was a child when called to
the witness stand, was moved by ill will against Sota and Gadjadli sufficient to
encourage her to fabricate a tale before the trial court. Both Sota and Gadjadli,
according to her, were even the friends of Artemio. At her tender age, Jocelyn
could not have been able to concoct particulars on how the group killed
Artemio and burned their house. Settled is the rule that the absence of
evidence as to an improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion
that none existed and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
Moreover, it has been observed that the natural interest of witnesses, who are
relatives of the victims, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter
them from implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the
culprits would gain immunity.
Same; Same; Testimonial Evidence; The testimony of a witness must be

considered in its entirety and not merely on its truncated parts. In deciphering a
testimony, the technique is not to consider only its isolated parts nor anchor a
conclusion on the basis of said parts.—Noteworthy, the testimony of a witness
must be considered in its entirety and not merely on its truncated parts. In
deciphering a testimony, the technique is not to consider only its isolated parts
nor anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. The defense of Gadjadli
easily amounted to nothing when assayed as to the other portions of his
testimony. He had stated that, on 19 November 1999 at around 6:00 p.m., he
was on his way to inform Artemio about Eusebio’s plan when he came upon
Eusebio, Solaydi, and a masked man shooting at Artemio. Gadjadli failed to
consider the fact that the incident happened at 9:00 p.m. on 19 November
1999; thus, it was impossible for him to have witnessed the shooting of Artemio
at 6:00 p.m. When compared to the alibi offered by Gadjadli to justify his
presence at the scene of the crime, the Court finds more credible Jocelyn’s
204
testimony identifying him as the one carrying the pistol and firing the first shot
at Artemio.
G.R. No. 215194, December 14, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONALDO
DELOSO y BAGARES, accused-appellant.
Same; Same; A denial, just like alibi, constitutes self-serving negative evidence
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.—In his defense, Deloso
could only muster a denial in that he allegedly did not have sexual intercourse
with AAA, but he merely inserted his finger into her female organ. The Court
finds that the lower courts did not err in disregarding Deloso’s denial. Totally
unsupported by any other evidence, the allegation cannot overcome AAA’s and
CCC’s positive declarations on the identity of Deloso and his perpetration of the
crime charged. We held in People v. Malones, 425 SCRA 318 (2004), that
“denial is inherently a weak defense. It cannot prevail over positive
identifications, unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.” Stated
alternatively, a denial, just like alibi, constitutes self-serving negative evidence
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
205

Compilation of SCRA INDEX January 2015 To December 2018 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Compilation of SCRA INDEX January 2015 To December 2018 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE – RECOLETOS

Compilation of Supreme Court Reports Annotated Index

In compliance to the course requirements prescribed in Evidence

746 SCRA 65, JANUARY 14, 2015

Same; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; A party may make judicial

747 SCRA 542, JANUARY 21, 2015

Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Child-Witnesses; In a long line of cases, the

745 SCRA 73, JANUARY 12, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; By preponderance of

745 SCRA 98, JANUARY 12, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Admissions; Judicial admissions are

775 SCRA 326, JANUARY 26, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Jurisprudence dictates that when the

748 SCRA 574 , JANUARY 28, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Full faith and credence

748 SCRA 429 , JANUARY 28, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; It has been oft-repeated that “a

G.R. No. 207257 February 3, 2015

Remedial Law;Civil Procedure; Judicial Review; View that judicial review of

750 SCRA 26 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Civil Service

750 SCRA 79 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

Same; Same; Same; Evidence; The prosecution’s failure to submit in

impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the

750 SCRA 165 , FEBRUARY 09, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witness; The Supreme Court

750 SCRA 188 , FEBRUARY 09, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Text Messages; In the case of Justice Vidallon-

750 SCRA 209 , FEBRUARY 09, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; In the absence of proof

750 SCRA 560 , FEBRUARY 16, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Objection to Evidence; Objection to evidence

of the shabu after it was examined by P/Insp. Calabocal. While he

750 SCRA 572 , FEBRUARY 16, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Miranda Rights; Exclusionary Rule; It has already

750 SCRA 65 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

750 SCRA 79 , FEBRUARY 04, 2015

Same; Same; Same; Evidence; The prosecution’s failure to submit in

751 SCRA 178 , FEBRUARY 18, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Objection to Evidence; Lapses in the safekeeping

751 SCRA 410 , FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Administrative Cases; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In administrative

Same; Same; Text Messages; In previous administrative cases involving

prove the commission of administrative offenses. Atty. Lugares was able to

751 SCRA 469 , FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Evidence of Prior Good Conduct; While his

751 SCRA 675 , FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Evidence; Words and Phrases; Burden

—Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each

Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Different people react differently to a

752 SCRA 17 , FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Objection to Evidence; As held by the Court in

citing People v. Hernandez, 589 SCRA 625 (2009), objection to the

752 SCRA 185 , MARCH 10, 2015

Same; Suspension; Disbarment; Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; The

752 SCRA 514 , MARCH 11, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Private Documents; As

Same; Same; Same; Carbon Copies; An unsigned and uncertified document

Same; Same; Same; Same; In Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court,

753 SCRA 167 , MARCH 11, 2015

Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Presumption of Regularity; In cases

SCRA 414 , MARCH 18, 2015

Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; It is a basic rule of evidence that each