People vs Palanas, G.R. No.

214453, June 17, 2015

Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Res Gestae
QUESTION
X was charged of the murder of Y. But before Y died, he told A and B that it was X who shot him. X
interposed the defense of denial and alibi. The RTC convicted X of the crime of murder and found that the
prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that X and his companions were the ones who
killed Y through the positive identification of the eyewitnesses to the incident. Moreover, Y's statements
that X shot him constituted an ante mortem statement and formed part of the res gestae, and, thus,
admissible as evidence against X. CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling as it found all the elements of the crime of
Murder to be present, giving probative weight to the dying declaration of Y that it was X who shot him.
Should X’s conviction of the crime of murder be upheld?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes.
The CA is correct in admitting Y’s statements on his way to the hospital as evidence, both as a dying
declaration and as part of the res gestae.
Sec. 42, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that statements made by a person while a
starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as
part of the res gestae.
Y’s statement is deemed to form part of the res gestae. In this case, Y’s statements refer to a startling
occurrence, i.e., him being shot by X and his companion. While on his way to the hospital, Y had no time
to contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance was made in spontaneity and only in
reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is relevant because it identified X as one
of the authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of Y, perpetrated by X, is adequately proven by the
prosecution.

Canque vs CA, 305 SCRA 579(1999)

Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Entries in the Course of Business
QUESTION
B is a contractor doing business under the name and style XYZ Construction. B entered into 2 contracts
with EFG Construction as sub-contractor for her projects with the government. EFG Construction sent B a
bill (Exh. C), containing a revised computation representing the balance of petitioners total account under
the 2 contracts. However, B refused to pay the amount, claiming that EFG Construction failed to submit
the delivery receipts showing the actual weight in metric tons of the items delivered and the acceptance
thereof by the government. Hence, EFG Construction brought a suit in the RTC to recover from B. During
the trial, EFG Construction presented D, its bookkeeper to testify on the entries of their Book of Collectible
Accounts. RTC rendered a decision in favor of EFG Construction. B however, argues that the entries in
EFG’s Book of Collectible Accounts cannot take the place of the delivery receipts and that such entries are
mere hearsay and, thus, inadmissible. Whether the entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts constitute
competent evidence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Rule 130, Sec. 43 of the Rules of Court states that entries made at, or near the time of transactions to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
In the case at bar, D, who made the entries, was presented by private respondent to testify on the account.
There was, therefore, neither justification nor necessity for the presentation of the entries as the person
who made them was available to testify in court.

Jose, Jr vs Michaelmar Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 169606, November 27, 2009
Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Entries in the Course of Business
QUESTION
B’s services was engaged by the LMNOP Inc. as an oiler of M/T Limar. While on board, Dr. H conducted a
random drug test of the crews of M/T Limar and found B to be positive of marijuana. However, the test
result does not contain the signature of Dr. H over his printed name therein.
When M/T Limar reached the next port, B was repatriated to the Philippines. Upon his arrival in Manila,
B procured drug tests from a certain hospital, medical clinic and maritime clinic. He was found negative
for marijuana. Will the drug test results be admissible being an entry made in the course of business?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes.
The SC justified the admissibility of the unsigned drug test, it being an exception under Rule 130, Section
43. The Court, further, cited Canque v. Court of Appeals which laid down the requisites for admission in
evidence of entries in the course of business: (1) the person who made the entry is dead, outside the
country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which
they refer; (3) the person who made the entry was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(4) the entries were made in a professional capacity or in the performance of a duty; and (5) the entries
were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Here, all the requisites are present: (1) Dr. Heath is outside the country; (2) the entries were made near
the time the random drug test was conducted; (3) Dr. Heath was in a position to know the facts made in
the entries; (4) Dr. Heath made the entries in his professional capacity and in the performance of his duty;
and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. The fact that the drug
test result is unsigned does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jose, Jr. was not found positive for
marijuana.

Land Bank of the Phils. vs Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 184971, April 19, 2010
Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Entries in the Course of Business
QUESTION
L Bank and M Corp. executed an Export Packing Line Agreement which Monet was given a credit line in
the amount of P250,000.00, secured by, among others, the proceeds of its export letters of credit. Such
credit line agreement was renewed and amended and eventually increased to P5M. Despite several
demands, M Corp failed to pay its indebtedness. Because of this, the bank filed a complaint for collection
of sum of money. In M Corp’s Answer with compulsory counterclaim, it alleged as a consequence that
they are not liable for the letter of credit as L Bank failed and refused to collect the receivables on their
export letter of credit against W Trading Company. RTC recognized M Corp’s indebtedness to L Bank but
it granted M’s counterclaim. L Bank moved to reconsider, filed a motion to reopen the hearing, to enable
it to adduce in evidence a Consolidated Billing Statement to show how much M Corp. still owed the bank.
But the motion was denied. Did the RTC acted correctly in denying the bank’s motion to reopen the
hearing to allow it to present the bank's updated Consolidated Billing Statement that reflects the
respondent’s remaining indebtedness to it?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, entries prepared in the regular course of business
are prima facie evidence of the truth of what they state. The billing statement reconciles the transaction
entries entered in the bank records in the regular course of business and shows the net result of such
transactions.
Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their regularity and continuity
are calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records
are routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in
reliance of such kind of records.
Security Bank & Trust Co. vs Gan, G.R. No. 150464, June 27, 2006
Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Entries in the Course of Business
QUESTION

Mr. X opened a current account to the ABC Bank which he can draw check from its fund. Under a special
agreement with the bank’s manager Mr. Q, X is allowed to transfer fund from his account to another
person’s account. His transaction of transferring fund from his account to another account is covered by
a debit memo. After some time, he was reportedly to have incurred a negative balance. ABC Bank filed a
complaint to recover the sum of money from X after his refusal to pay contending that the alleged
overdraft was made from transactions without his knowledge and consent. ABC Bank presented its
bookkeeper, P, who handles the X’s account and transactions in a ledger. Records show that a transfer of
fund from X’s account was made to another person’s account which was made with authority from Q
which resulted to the overdraft of his account. X denied to have authorized such transaction. Whether
the ledger cards and the testimony of the bookkeeper constituted the best evidence of the transactions
made by the respondent relative to his account?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Section 43, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states that entries made at, or near the time of
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know
the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty. Under this exception to the hearsay rule, the admission in evidence of entries in corporate books
required the satisfaction of the following conditions: (1) the person who made the entry must be dead, or
unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer;
(3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; (4) the entries were made in his
professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
(5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
The ledger entries did not meet the first and third requisites. It was due to P’s testimony that the ledgers
were presented thus there is no need to justify its necessity for presentation since the person who made
them was available to testify in court. P does not have personal knowledge as to the truthfulness of the
entries after stating that the agreement was made between Q and X. It is undeniable that the ledger does
contains the transaction records in the ordinary course of business but it cannot be used as a prima facie
evidence as to the facts that were recorded therein. P, the bookkeeper, knows the facts of the entry of
the check deposits and the withdrawals but he does not have knowledge as to the facts involving the debit
memos issued to support the transaction.
Africa vs Caltex, 16 SCRA 448 (1966)
Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Official Records
QUESTION
A fire broke at a Caltex service station in Manila. The fire spread to and burned several houses. The
Spouses-petitioner sued Caltex for causing damage of their house and personal property. In the report
prepared by the police and fire departments, a report by a certain captain in the AFP reproduced
information given by a Mr. X regarding the history of the gasoline station and what the chief of the fire
department had told him on the same subject.

Other statements were given by an employee at the gas station where the fire occurred; the driver of the
tank truck from which gasoline was being transferred at that time to the underground tank of the station;
and by the respondent (Caltex) who could not give any reason as to the origin of the fire. Further, some
sources of the information stated in the reports were not identified. Is the information contained in the
report admissible?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
In this case, the reports do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule as the facts stated therein were
not acquired by the reporting officers through official information, not having been given by the
informants pursuant to any duty to do so.
To qualify their statements as "official information" acquired by the officers who prepared the reports,
the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated but
must have the duty to give such statements for record.

People vs Leones, 117 SCRA 382 (1982)

Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Official Records
QUESTION
A was the son of the store owner while V, the victim, was a salesgirl employed therein. A was found guilty
of rape. He then appealed his case. On review, the Supreme Court had considered pieces of recorded
evidence such as the written entries in the clinical case record prepared and signed by the admitting
physician of the provincial hospital. It shows the date of the victim's admission in the hospital, her
complaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock
hymen". Are the entries in the medical record made by the physician in a government hospital admissible
as the exception to the hearsay rule?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes.
Under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, specifically Section 43, it was stated that entries made
at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who
was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person
made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty.
In the case at bar, the said entries having been made in official records by a public officer of the Philippines
in the performance of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is that of a physician in a government
hospital is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Manalo vs Robles Trans. Co., Inc., 99 Phil. 729 (1956)

Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Official Records
QUESTION
An 11-year old child was ran over by a taxi in an accident. The kid died and his parents filed an action
against the taxicab company to enforce its subsidiary liability. To prove their case, the parents of the
deceased child introduced a copy of the decision in the criminal case convicting the driver of homicide
through reckless imprudence, the writs of execution to enforce the civil liability, and the returns of the
sheriff showing that the two writs of execution were not satisfied because of the insolvency of the driver,
the sheriff being unable to locate any property in his name. Over the objections of the Company, the trial
court admitted this evidence. Defendant-appellant now contends that the evidence is inadmissible. Is the
sheriff's return of the writs of execution is covered by the official record rules as an exception to the
hearsay rule?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes.
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by
a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. (Sec. 43, Rule 130)
A sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by the law and forming part of official records, and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. The return in itself is sufficient. The sheriff making the return need not testify in court as to the
facts stated in his entry.

People vs Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675 (1993)

Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Official Records
QUESTION
A and B were found guilty of robbery with rape and homicide. They were convicted based on the medical
report and primarily on the sworn statement made by X, the victim’s cousin, which positively identified
the accused as among the perpetrators and which she later repeated in substantially identical terms
before the trial court.

On appeal, the accused points to the entry in the police blotter which stated that the assailants were “still
unidentified”. It was likewise argued that x had never identified A and B, who in fact had later identified
the assailants from a police line-up. Are the entries made in the police blotter conclusive proofs of the
truth of such entries?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Section 44, Rule 130 clearly provides that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty
by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of performance of official duty are NOT
conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. This Court held that entries in official records like a police
blotter are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein set out, since the entries in the police blotter
could be incomplete or inaccurate. Further, the testimony given in open court during the trial is commonly
much lengthier and detailed than the brief entries made in the police blotter.

Thus, the trial court must necessarily consider all other evidence gathered in the course of the police
investigation and presented in court, not merely relying on a police report.

People vs San Gabriel, 253 SCRA 84 (1996)

Digested by: Eyas, Ave Chaeza C.
Evidence; Official Records
QUESTION
A fistfight ensued between A on one hand and B together with C on the other. B was found guilty of
murder arising from the said stabbing incident. The prosecution witness positively identified the suspects,
thus the conviction of murder.

On appeal, the accused contends that entries in the Advance Information Sheet prepared by the police
officer did not mention him at all and named only C as the principal suspect. Such sheet however contains
information acquired by said police officer only after his interview of D, an alleged eyewitness. Does the
Advance Information Sheet constitute an official information, hence, is admissible?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Sec. 44, Rule 130 provides for the requisites in order that entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, be deemed prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. As such,
(a) The entry must be made by a police officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
(b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and,
(c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have
been acquired by him personally or through official information.

In the instant case, the public officer who prepared the document had no sufficient and personal
knowledge of the stabbing incident. Any information possessed by him was acquired from D, an alleged
eyewitness, who was not legally so obliged to give such statements.