001 Domingo v.

Domingo (COSCOLLUELA) courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the
11 April 2005 | Quisumbing, J. | Opinion Rule opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory.
PETITIONER: Turadio C. Domingo
RESPONDENTS: Jose C. Domingo, Leonora Domingo-Castro And Her SC sustained the trial court and CA concering the testimonies of Clerma
Spouse Juanito Castro, Nuncia Domingo-Balabis, Abella Domingo Domingo, Leonora, and Jose to the effect that they saw Bruno affixing his
Valencerina and the Register of Deeds, Quezon City signature to the questioned deed. They were unrebutted. Genuineness of a
handwriting may be proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by anyone who
SUMMARY: Bruno Domingo (father) needed money for his medical actually saw the person write or affix his signature on a document. Turadio
expenses so he sold a house and lot in QC to his children except Turadio. has shown no reason why the ruling made by the trial court on the credibility
After Bruno died, Turadio received a notice from the QC Hall declaring him of the siblings' witnesses below should be disturbed. Findings by the trial
a squatter and asking him to demolish his shanty. He found out that it was court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded the greatest respect, and
at the instance of his brother Jose and sister Leonora (siblings who bought even finality by appellate courts, since the former is in a better position to
the property) that his shanty was being demolished. He also learned of the observe their demeanor as well as their deportment and manner of testifying
Deed of Absolute Sale later on when a case for ejectment was filed against during the trial.
him by his siblings. Upon advice of his counsel, he went to the Philippine
Constabulary Integrated National Police Crime Laboratory to compare the Moreover, The CA in affirming the trial court said that the two documents
signature of Bruno on the deed against specimen. Two Questioned (Letter to the Bureau of Treasury and Republic Bank Check) presented by
Document Report were issued to the effect that both signatures were written Turadio were more than 8 years old from the execution of the deed. This
by two different persons. He filed a criminal case for forgery and makes the circumstances of the PNP crime lib’s finding questionable. The
falsification agains the notary public and his siblings. The same was denied passage of time and a person's increase in age may have decisive influence
when the NBI conducted a comparison and found the signatures written by in his handwriting characteristics. Thus, in order to bring about an accurate
one person. Turadio then filed a civil case for the annulment of the deed, comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as
the TCT and the sale. The trial court dismissed the case. On a petition for possible in point of time to the suspected signature. A signature affixed in
review with the CA, he filed an MNT and supplemetal MNT alleging new 1958 or in 1962 may involve characteristics different from those borne by
discovered evidence. He attached the letter of his father asking for a signature affixed in 1970. Hence, neither the trial court nor the CA may
permission from PHHC to mortgage the land and a subsequent letter of be faulted for refusing to place any weight whatsoever on the Questioned
PHHC approving the same. The CA denied all the motions of Turadio. Document report.

(relevant issue) The issue is WoN the testimonies of the siblings as to the DOCTRINE: Genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the a
signature of Bruno, a.k.a. the father, should be sustained. YES. Under the witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion
RoC, genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the following: thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule.
a. A witness who actually saw the person writing the
instrument; FACTS:
b. A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give 1. Turadio Domingo is the oldest of the five children of the late Bruno
his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the Domingo (widower and retired military man), formerly the registered
opinion rule; owner of the properties subject of this dispute.
c. A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting 2. Leonora Doming-Castro, Nuncia Domingo-Balabas, Abella Domingo
and admitted genuined specimen thereof; and and Jose Domingo are the siblings. A family quarrel arose over the
d. Expert evidence. validity of the purported sale of the house and lot (Quezon City) by
The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the their faither to the siblings.
different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person. Also, 3. Bruno allegedly needed money for his medical expenses, so he sold
 properties. He signed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the house request could not have been discovered and produced prior to the trial
and lot to his children – except Turadio. The sale was witnessed by below by the exercise of reasonable diligence and is of such character
two persons and notarized. as would probably change the result. And that the supplemental
4. Jose then brought thded to the Register of Deeds, as a result the TCT motion was not accompanied by affidavits showing the facts
in the name of Bruno was cancelled and a new one was issued. constituting the grounds therefore and the newly discovered evidence.
5. Turadio, while residing on the property, received a notice from the QC 14. Turadio additionally alleged that the sale was committed within the
Hall declaring him a squatter and directing him to demolish his shanty. prohibited 5-year period. And that Bruno should not have asked for
He found out that the demolition was at the instance of his siblings permission from PHHC (1972) to mortgage the property if he already
Jose and Leonora. sold the same (1970).
6. He found out about the sale when an ejectment suit was filed against
him. He then went to the PNP Crim Lib in Camp Crame to compare ISSUE/s:
the signature of his father on the said deed against specimen 1. Whether or not the testimonies of the siblings as to the signature of
signatures. Bruno, a.k.a. the father, should be sustained. YES —Genuineness of a
7. The police issued a Questioned Document report which in effect said handwriting may be proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by anyone
that the signatures were written by two different persons. Another who actually saw the person write or affix his signature on a
Questioned Document report came up with the same conclusion. document.
8. Turadio filed a case for forgery, falsification by notary public, and
falsification by private individuals against his siblings and the notary RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of
public. The NBI however came up with the conclusion that the the Court of Appeals dated November 26, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 59331
questioned signature and the specimen were written by the same is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
person. The complaint was dismissed and on appeal the DOJ affirmed
the prosecution. A similar crim action filed in Manila was dismissed. SO ORDERED.
9. Turadio then instituted a civil action for the declaration of nullity of
the DoS, reconveyance of the disputed property, and cancellation of RATIO:
the TCT. He alleged forgery and that the sale was done in violation of 1. Under the RoC, genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the
the restriction annotated at the back of Bruno’s title, to the effect that following:
prior approval of the People’s Homesite and Housing Corp. (PHHC) a. A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
was needed. b. A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give
10. The siblings relied heaviliy on the findings of the NBI, and hence the his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the
DoS was not a forgery. opinion rule;
11. RTC: Dismissed the complaint. Trial court disregarded the conflicting c. A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and
reports of the police crime lib and the NBI “for failure of the offering admitted genuined specimen thereof; and
party/ies to show that the standard specimen signatures were indeed d. Expert evidence.
those of Bruno B. Domingo.” It also ruled that Turadio did not 2. The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and
substantiate his claim on prior approval. between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting
12. Turadio elevated the case to the CA and then filed an MNT on the of a person. Also, courts are not bound to give probative value or
ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of a letter of Bruno evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to
which requested from PHHC permission to mortgage the house and handwriting experts is not mandatory.
lot. Turadio also filed a supplemental MNT attaching the letter of 3. The CA in affirming the trial court said that the two documents (Letter
PHHC granting the request. He also requested that he be allowed to to the Bureau of Treasury and Republic Bank Check) presented by
put up a sari-sari store on the land to augment his meager pension. Turadio were more than 8 years old from the execution of the deed.
13. CA: denied all motions since there was no showing that the letter- This makes the circumstances of the PNP crime lib’s finding
 questionable.
4. The passage of time and a person's increase in age may have decisive
influence in his handwriting characteristics. Thus, in order to bring
about an accurate comparison and analysis, the standards of
comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the
suspected signature.
5. A signature affixed in 1958 or in 1962 may involve characteristics
different from those borne by a signature affixed in 1970. Hence,
neither the trial court nor the CA may be faulted for refusing to place
any weight whatsoever on the Questioned Document report.
6. SC likewise sustained the trial court and CA concering the
testimonies of Clerma Domingo, Leonora, and Jose to the effect
that they saw Bruno affixing his signature to the questioned deed.
They were unrebutted. Genuineness of a handwriting may be
proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by anyone who actually saw
the person write or affix his signature on a document. Turadio has
shown no reason why the ruling made by the trial court on the
credibility of the siblings' witnesses below should be disturbed.
Findings by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are
accorded the greatest respect, and even finality by appellate
courts, since the former is in a better position to observe their
demeanor as well as their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial. (This appeared out of nowhere in the case.)
7. Finally, the questioned DoS in the present case is a notarized
document. Being a public document, it is prima facie evidence of the
facts therein expressed. It has the presumption of regularity in its favor
and to contradict all these, evidence must be clear, convincing, and
more than merely preponderant. Turadio has failed to show that such
contradictory evidence exists in this case.
 002 TIJING v. CA (Cruz)
courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it
March 8, 2001 | Quisumbing, J. | Opinion Rule
was said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently
PETITIONER: Edgardo Tijing and Bienvenida Tijing obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals and Angelita Diamante progress. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future
it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and
SUMMARY: Edgardo Jr., son of Edgardo and Bienvenida, was left to the care identity issues
of Angelita while Bienvenida went to the market. However, when Bienvenida got
back, her son and Angelita were nowhere to be found. She went to the house of FACTS:C
Angelita but was advised by the maid to return because Angelita went out. She 1. Edgardo and Bienvenida Tijing are husband and wife. They have six children.
went back after 3 days, but Angelita already moved out. Efforts were made to The youngest is Edgardo Tijing, Jr., who was born on April 27, 1989, at the
locate Edgardo Jr but to no avail. 4 years after, Bienvenida read in a tabloid the
clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila.
death of the common-law husband of Angelita whose remains were lying in state
in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bienvenida went there and allegedly saw her child but 2. Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of Angelita Diamante (Angelita),
Angelita refused to return the child to her. Angelita is claiming that the child is then a resident of Tondo, Manila.
her son, John Thomas Lopez with his common-law husband. Bienvenida and 3. According to Bienvenida in August 1989, Angelita went to her house to fetch
Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus. The trial court ruled in favor of her for an urgent laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do some
Bienvenida and Edgardo. The CA reversed the decision. The issues in this case marketing, she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. She also left her
are. WoN habeas corpus is the proper remedy and WoN Edgardo, Jr., and four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita as she usually
John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person and is the let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry.
son of Bienvenida and Edgardo. The SC ruled in the affirmative to both. Habeas 4. When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were
Corpus is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a gone. Bienvenida forthwith proceeded to Angelita's house in Tondo, Manila,
minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free but did not find them there. Angelita's maid told Bienvenida that her
will. However, in habeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant employer went out for a stroll and told Bienvenida to come back later.
5. She returned to Angelita's house after three days, only to discover that
and material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to
Angelita had moved to another place. Bienvenida then complained to her
identity of the person. Thus, it must be resolved first whether the Edgardo Jr., barangay chairman and also to the police who seemed unmoved by her pleas
claimed by Bienvenida to be her son, is the same minor named John Thomas for assistance.
Lopez, whom Angelita insists to be her offspring. The Court resolved Parentage 6. Beinvenida was estranged from her husband but reconciled and together, they
in this case using conventional methods. The evidence presented by Bienvenida looked for their missing son in other places. Notwithstanding their serious
is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son,
efforts, they saw no traces of his whereabouts.
Edgardo Tijing, Jr.; 1) Angelita could no longer bear children because she 7. Four years later or in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the
underwent ligation before living with Tomaz Lopez, 2) Tomas Lopez is no longer
death of Tomas Lopez, allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita, and
capable of siring a son. Benjamin Lopez declared in court that his brother, whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy, Bulacan.
Tomas, was sterile because of the accident; 3) the birth certificate of John 8. Bienvenida lost no time in going to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly
Thomas Lopez was filed by Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife which is not in saw her son Edgardo, Jr., for the first time after four years. She claims that
line with the requirements of the law and there was also misrepresentation in its the boy, who was pointed out to her by Benjamin Lopez, a brother of the late
filing wherein Angelita and Tomas was stated to be married; 4) the Tomas Lopez, was already named John Thomas Lopez.
trial court observed several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both 9. She avers that Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her demand
in court, the two had strong similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head to do so.
shapes; and 5) Bienvenida was able to present as witness the person who assisted 10. Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the
her with the birth of her son together with other records. trial court in order to recover their son.
11. To substantiate their petition, they presented two witnesses
DOCTRINE: Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless a. Vasquez, testified that she assisted in the delivery of one
we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. the appropriate case comes, Edgardo Tijing, Jr. on April 27, 1989 at her clinic in Sta. Ana,
 Manila. She supported her testimony with her clinical records. RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
b. Benjamin Lopez, declared that his brother, the late Tomas Lopez, DECISION of the Court ofAppeals is REVERSED and decision of the Regional
could not have possibly fathered John Thomas Lopez as the latter Trial Court is REINSTATED. Costs against the private respondent.
was sterile. He recalled that Tomas met an accident and bumped his SO ORDERED.
private part against the edge of a banca causing him excruciating
pain and eventual loss of his child-bearing capacity. Benjamin RATIO:
further declared that Tomas admitted to him that John Thomas 2. The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or
Lopez was only an adopted son and that he and Angelita were not detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the
blessed with children.
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
12. Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the child. She asserts that
3. Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a
at age 42, she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez on April 27, 1989, at the
clinic of midwife Zosima Panganiban in Singalong, Manila. She added, minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own
though, that she has two other children with her real husband, Angel Sanchez. free will.
4. It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the
She said the birth of John Thomas was registered by her common-law
question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying
husband, Tomas Lopez.
13. The trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, it is prosecuted
could not have children, the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child.
impossibility. Also, the minor and Bienvenida showed strong facial 5. It must be stressed too that in habeas corpus proceedings, the
similarity. Accordingly, it ruled that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual
Lopez are one and the same person who is the natural child of Biemvenida presumptions including those as to identity of the person.
and Edgardo. 6. In this case, the minor's identity is crucial in determining the propriety of the
14. Angelita seasonably filed her notice of appeal. Nonetheless, the sheriff writ sought. Thus, it must be resolved first whether the Edgardo Tijing, Jr.,
implemented the order of the trial court by taking custody of the minor. In claimed by Bienvenida to be her son, is the same minor named John Thomas
his report, the sheriff stated that Angelita peacefully surrendered the minor Lopez, whom Angelita insists to be her offspring.
7. We must first determine who between Bienvenida and Angelita is the minor's
and he turned over the custody of said child to Edgardo.
biological mother. Evidence must necessarily be adduced to prove that two
15. The CA reversed and set aside the decision. The appellate court expressed persons, initially thought of to be distinct and separate from each other, are
its doubts on the propriety of the habeas corpus. In its view, the evidence indeed one and the same.
adduced by Bienvenida was not sufficient to establish that she was the 8. Bienvenida and Edgardo must convincingly establish that the minor in whose
mother of the minor. It ruled that the lower court erred in declaring that behalf the application for the writ is made is the person upon whom they have
Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person. rightful custody. If there is doubt on the identity of the minor in whose behalf
16. Bienvenida and Edgardo sought reconsideration of the decision which was the application for the writ is made, Bienvenida and Edgardo cannot invoke
denied. with certainty their right of custody over the said minor.
9. True, it is not the function of this Court to examine and evaluate the
ISSUE/s: probative value of all evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which
WoN habeas corpus is the proper remedy – Yes, it is the proper legal remedy to
formed the basis of its impugned decision, resolution or order. But since the
enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in
conclusions of the CA contradict those of the trial court, this Court may
the custody of a third person of his own free will
scrutinize the evidence on the record to determine which findings should be
1. WoN Edgardo, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person and preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts.
is the son of Bienvenida and Edgardo – Yes, A close scrutiny of the records 10. A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the evidence presented by
reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her
that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo, Jr.
missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.
a. there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children. From
 her very lips, she admitted that after the birth of her second child, presented clinical records consisting of a log book, discharge order
she underwent ligation before she lived with Tomas Lopez without and the signatures of Bienvenida and Edgardo.
the benefit of marriage. Assuming she had that ligation removed in 11. All these considered, the SC to ruled that subject minor is indeed the son of
1978, as she claimed, she offered no evidence she gave birth to a Bienvenida and Edgardo. The writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain
child between 1978 to 1988 or for a period of ten years. The custody of said child.
midwife who allegedly delivered the child was not presented 12. A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods
in court. No clinical records, log book or discharge order from the unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we
clinic were ever submitted. have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and
b. there is strong evidence which directly proves that Tomas Lopez is parentage testing.
no longer capable of siring a son. Benjamin Lopez declared a. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research
in court that his brother, Tomas, was sterile because of the accident Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the
and that Tomas admitted to him that John Thomas Lopez was only capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR)
an adopted son. Moreover, Tomas Lopez and his legal wife, Maria analysis.
Rapatan Lopez, had no children after almost fifteen years together. b. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has
Though Tomas Lopez had lived with private respondent for fourteen two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the
years, they also bore no offspring. father.
c. the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed by Tomas i. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are
Lopez instead of the midwife and on August 4, 1989, four months analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel
after the alleged birth of the child. scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still
i. Under the law, the attending physician or midwife in open to challenge.
attendance at birth should cause the registration of such c. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate
birth. Only in default of the physician or midwife, can the to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that
parent register the birth of his child. The certificate must courts should apply the results of science when competently
be filed with the local civil registrar within thirty days after obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is
the birth. to deny progress.
ii. Significantly, the birth certificate of the child stated Tomas d. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in
Lopez and Angelita were legally married which is false future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt
because even Angelita had admitted she is a "common-law resolution of parentage and identity issues.
wife". This false entry puts to doubt the other data in said
birth certificate.
d. the trial court observed several times that when the child and
Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong similarities in
their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes.
i. Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is
competent and material evidence to establish
parentage. Needless to stress, the trial court's conclusion
should be given high respect, it having had the opportunity
to observe the physical appearances of the minor and
Bienvenida.
e. Lourdes Vasquez testified that she assisted in Bienvenida's giving
birth to Edgardo Tijing, Jr., at her clinic. Unlike Angelita, she
 003 ISAA v. Greenpeace (Daguman)
December 8 2015 | Villarama, J. | Hot-Tub Hearing FACTS:
• This is a consolidated case which started in 1990, when President
PETITIONER: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order (EO) No. 430 creating the
Applications, et.al. National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) which
RESPONDENTS: Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) et.al. was tasked to identify and evaluate potential hazards involved in
initiating genetic engineering experiments and introducing new
SUMMARY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech species and genetically engineered organisms and recommend
Applications, Inc. (ISAAA)is an international non-profit organization measures to minimize risks.
founded in 1990 "to facilitate the acquisition and transfer of agricultural • In 1991, NCBP formulated the Philippine Biosafety Guidelines which
biotechnology applications from the industrial countries, for the governs the regulation of the importation or introduction, movement
benefit of resource poor farmers in the developing world" and and field release of potentially hazardous biological materials in the
ultimately "to alleviate hunger and poverty in the developing countries." Philippines. The same was followed by the Guidelines on Planned
Partly funded by the United States Agency for International Development Release of Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) and
(USAID), ISAAA promotes the use of agricultural biotechnology, such as Potentially Harmful Exotic Species (PHES).
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) • On 29 December 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Greenpeace is a non-governmental environmental organization which came into force. This is a multilateral treaty recognizing the great
operates in over 40 countries and with an international coordinating potential of modern biotechnology for human well-being if developed
body in Amsterdam, Netherlands. It is well known for independent and used with adequate safety measures for the environment and
direct actions in the global campaign to preserve the environment and human health.
promote peace. The latter filed a petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of • In January 2000, an agreement was reached on the Cartagena Protocol
continuing mandamus with prayer for the issuance of Temporary on Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol), a supplement to the CBD, which
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) alleging that the Bt talong field aims to ensure an adequate level of safe transfer, handling and use of
trials violate their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology. living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. The
WON the Precautionary Principle applies? YES. When the features of Philippines signed the same on May 24 of the same year.
uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and possibility of serious • In April 2002, the Department of Agriculture (DA) issued DA
harm coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. The Administrative Order No. 08 which provides rules and regulations for
Supreme Court found all three (3) conditions present. the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant
products derived from the use of modern biotechnology.
Read the Ratio with regard to the opinion rule. This was only in passing of • On 17 March 2006, EO No. 514 (EO 514) entitled, “Establishing the
the real issue but this is the only thing that is actually relevant in this National Biosafety Framework (NBF), Prescribing Guidelines for its
particular topic. Implementation, and Strengthening the NCBP” was issued. It
expressly provides that DAO 2002-08, NCBP Guidelines on the
DOCTRINE: Contained Use of GMOs, except for provisions on potentially harmful
exotic species which were repealed, and all issuances of the Bureau of
In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) on products of modern
same issue at the same time to explain each of their points in a discussion biotechnology, shall continue to be in force and effect unless amended
with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency by the issuing departments or agencies.
and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased
emphasis on professional dialogue, and swifter identification of the critical [Highlighted Facts]
areas of disagreement between the experts. • On 24 September 2010, a Memorandum of Undertaking was executed
between International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
 Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), University of the Philippines Los Baños - The case calls for the application of the precautionary
Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and UP Mindanao Foundation, Inc. principle, it being a classic environmental case where
(UPMFI), in pursuance of a collaborative research and scientific evidence as to the health, environmental and socio-
development project on eggplants that are resistant to the fruit economic safety is insufficient or uncertain and preliminary
and shoot borer. Other partner agencies involved were UPLB scientific evaluation indicates reasonable grounds for concern
through its Institute of Plant Breeding, Maharastra Hybrid Seed that there are potentially dangerous effects on human health
Company (MAHYCO) of India, Cornell University and the and the environment
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII) of USAID. • The following reliefs are prayed for by Greenpeace, et.al., to wit:
• The UPLB Field Trial Proposal states that the pest-resistant crop - Issuance of a TEPO enjoining BPI and Fertilizer and Pesticide
subject of the field trial was described as a “bio-engineered eggplant.” Authority (FPA) of the Department of Agriculture (DA) from
The crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis processing for field testing and registering as herbicidal
(Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant genome to produce the product Bt talong in the Philippines, stopping all pending field
protein CrylAc which is toxic to target insect pests. The latter is said testing, and ordering the uprooting of planted Bt talong; and
to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as fruit and shoot - Issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus commanding the
borer (FSB), the most destructive insect pest of eggplant. ISAAAI, et.al.: (1) to submit to an environmental impact
• NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment statement system under the Environmental Management
which was conducted from 2007 to 3 March 2009 stating that during Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural
the conduct of experiment, all the biosafety measures have been Resources (DENR-EMB); (2) to submit an independent,
complied with and no untoward incident has occurred. comprehensive, and rigid risk assessment, field tests report,
• On 16 March 2010 and 28 June 2010, the Bureau of Plant Industry and regulatory compliance reports; (3) to submit all issued
(BPI) issued biosafety permits to UPLB. certifications on public information, public consultation,
• Field testing commenced on various dates in the following approved public participation and consent from the LGUs affected by
trial sites: Kabacan, North Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, the field testing; (4) to submit an acceptable draft of an
Camarines Sur; Bago Oshiro, Davao City; and Bay, Laguna. amendment of the NBF and DAO 2002-08; and (5) for BPI of
• On 26 April 2012, Greenpeace, MASIPAG and individual DA to conduct balanced nationwide public information on the
respondents (Greenpeace, et.al.) filed a petition for writ of kalikasan nature of Bt talong and Bt talong field trial, and a survey of its
and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer for the issuance of social acceptability.
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) alleging that the • On 2 May 2012, the SC issued the writ of kalikasan against ISAAA,
Bt talong field trials violate their constitutional right to health and a EMB, BPI, FPA and UPLB, ordering them to file a verified
balanced ecology considering that: return.
- The required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) • The contentions of the respondents are as follows:
under PD 1151 was not secured prior to the project - All environmental laws were complied with, including public
implementation consultations in the affected communities
- There is no independent, peer-reviewed study on the safety of - The Bt talong project is not covered by the Philippine
Bt talong for human consumption and the environment Environmental Impact Statement Law
- There was a study conducted showing adverse effects on rats - There is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-
who were fed Bt corn, local scientists likewise attested to the reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption
harmful effects of GMOs to human and animal health - Allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong are irrelevant in
- Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target species the field trial stage as none of the eggplants will be consumed
- There is a failure to comply with the required public by humans or animals
consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local - There is a non-observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts
Government Code
 - Greenpeace, et.al. have no legal standing as they do not stand harm coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest.
to suffer any direct injury as a result of the Bt talong field tests The Supreme Court found all three (3) conditions present.
- The precautionary principle does not apply since the field
testing is only a part of a continuing study to ensure that the RULING: Judgment in question is denied.
field trials have no significant and negative impact on the
environment RATIO:
• SC, in a Resolution dated 10 July 2012, referred the case to the Court 1. Yes. The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of
of Appeals. Procedure for Environmental Cases which allows the filing of a citizen
• On 12 September 2012, the parties submitted the following procedural suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules
issues before the CA: (1) whether Greenpeace, et.al. has legal standing “collapses the tradional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
to file the petition for writ of kalikasan; (2) whether the petition has principle that humans are stewards of nature,” and aims to “further
been rendered moot and academic by the alleged termination of the Bt encourage the protection of the environment.”
talong field testing; and (3) whether the case presented a justiciable
controversy 2. No. The case falls under the “capable of repetition yet evading review”
• CA, in a Resolution dated 12 October 2012, resolved that: (1) the exception to the mootness principle, the human and environmental health
Greenpeace, et.al. possess legal standing; (2) the case is not yet moot hazards posed by the introduction of a genetically modified plant which is
since it is capable of repetition yet evading review; and (3) the alleged a very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos is an issue of paramount
non-compliance with environmental and local government laws public interest.
present justiciable controversies for resolution by the court.
• On 17 May 2013, CA rendered a decision in favor of the Greenpeace,
et.al. finding that the precautionary principle set forth in Section 1, 3. Yes. The precautionary principle originated in Germany in the 1960s,
Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (the Rules) expressing the normative idea that governments are obliged to “foresee
finds relevance in the case. and forestall” harm to the environment. The Rules incorporated the
• CA rejected the Motions for Reconsideration filed by ISAAA, principle in Part V, Rule 20, which states:
EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and UPLBFI rejecting the argument that CA
violated UPLB’s right to academic freedom. The writ stops the field SEC.1. Applicability. – When there is a lack of full
trials of Bt talong as a procedure, it does not stop Bt talong research. scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between
Thus, there is no assault on academic freedom. human activity and environmental effect, the court shall
• CA further justified its ruling by expounding on the theory that apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case
introducing a genetically modified plant into our ecosystem is an before it.
“ecologically imbalancing act.”
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
• Before the SC is a consolidated petition of ISAAAI, EMB/BPI/FPA,
healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
UPLB and UPLBFI to reverse the CA decision permanently enjoining
the conduct of field trials for Genetically Modified eggplants.
SEC 2. Standards for application. – In applying the
precautionary principle, the following factors, among
ISSUE/s:
others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or
1. WON Greenpeace, et.al. has a legal standing? YES. It applied the
health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or (3)
liberal rules in suing Environmental cases
prejudice to the environment without legal consideration
2. WON the case is moot and academic? No. This falls under the
of the environmental rights of those affected.
exception to the rule
3. WON the Precautionary Principle applies? YES. When the features of
uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and possibility of serious
 When the features of uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and discussion with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve
possibility of serious harm coincide, the case for the precautionary greater efficiency and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-
principle is strongest. The Supreme Court found all three (3) conditions examination and increased emphasis on professional dialogue, and swifter
present. identification of the critical areas of disagreement between the experts

While the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm incomes is At the preliminary conference held on September 12, 2012, the parties
laudable, independent scientific studies revealed uncertainties due to submitted the following procedural issues: (1) whether or not Greenpeace,
unfulfilled economic benefits from Bt crops and plants, adverse effects on et al. have legal standing to file the petition for writ of kalikasan; (2)
the environment associated with the use of GE technology in agriculture, whether or not said petition had been rendered moot and academic by the
and serious health hazards from consumption of GM foods. For a alleged termination of the Bt talong field testing; and (3) whether or not
biodiversity-rich country like the Philippines, the natural and unforeseen the case presented a justiciable controversy.
consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would be disastrous
and irreversible. Under Resolution dated October 12, 2012, the CA resolved that: (1)
Greenpeace, et al. possess the requisite legal standing to file the petition
Alongside the aforesaid uncertainties, the non-implementation of the for writ of kalikasan; (2) assuming arguendo that the field trials have
NBF in the crucial stages of risk assessment and public consultation, already been terminated, the case is not yet moot since it is capable of
including the determination of the applicability of the EIS requirements to repetition yet evading review; and (3) the alleged non-compliance with
the GMO field testing, are compelling reasons for the application of the environmental and local government laws present justiciable controversies
precautionary principle. for resolution by the court.

There exists a preponderance of evidence that the release of the GMOs The CA then proceeded to hear the merits of the case, adopting the "hot-
into the environment threatens to damage our ecosystems and not just the tub" method wherein the expert witnesses of both parties testify at the
field trial sites, and eventually the health of our people once the Bt same time. Greenpeace, et al. presented the following as expert witnesses:
eggplants are consumed as food. Dr. Ben Malayang III (Dr. Malayang), Dr. Charito Medina (Dr. Medina),
and Dr. Tushar Chakraborty (Dr. Chakraborty). On the opposing side were
Adopting the precautionary approach, the Supreme Court ruled that the expert witnesses in the persons of Dr. Reynaldo Ebora (Dr. Ebora), Dr.
the principles of the NBF need to be operationalized first by the Saturnina Halos (Dr. Halos), Dr. Flerida Cariño (Dr. Cariño), and Dr. Peter
coordinated actions of the concerned departments and agencies before Davies (Dr. Davies). Other witnesses who testified were: Atty. Carmelo
allowing the release into the environment of genetically modified Segui (Atty. Segui), Ms. Merle Palacpac (Ms. Palacpac), Mr. Mario
eggplant. Navasero (Mr. Navasero) and Dr. Randy Hautea (Dr. Hautea).

Further, the precautionary approach entailed inputs from stakeholders, The case enumerated a long discussion of these expert witnesses
including marginalized famers, not just the scientific community. This through a series of questioning regarding the issue in Bt Talong testing As
proceeds from the realization that acceptance of uncertainty is not only a shown by the foregoing, the hot tub hearing has not yielded any consensus
scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves an ethical on the points of contention between the expert witnesses, i.e., the safety
dimension. of Bt talong to humans and the environment. Evidently, their opinions are
based on contrasting findings in hundreds of scientific studies conducted
ISSUE ON OPINION RULE: IMPORTANT. from the time Bt technology was deployed in crop farming. These
This was discussed in the CA Ruling only. divergent views of local scientists reflect the continuing international
debate on GMOs and the varying degrees of acceptance of GM technology
In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing by states especially the developed countries (USA, EU, Japan, China,
the same issue at the same time to explain each of their points in a Australia, etc.).
 004 Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission (DAYU) shades, etc., that may be found between the questioned signature and the genuine
June 10, 2002 | Panganiban, J. | Opinion Rule one are not decisive on the question of the former's authenticity. The result of
examinations of questioned handwriting, even with the benefit of aid of experts
PETITIONER: Nora T. Jimenez, Josefina T. Gavino, Librada T. Dino, and Susan and scientific instruments, is, at best, inconclusive. There are other factors that
T. Joven must be taken into consideration. The position of the writer, the condition of the
RESPONDENTS: Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the surface on which the paper where the questioned signature is written is placed, his
United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, United Church of state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of pen and/or paper used, play an
Christ in the Philippines, and Policarpio Carungin important role on the general appearance of the signature. Unless, therefore, there
is, in a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial
SUMMARY: Petitioners are sisters that assail before the RTC the validity of a competent evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much weight
Deed of Sale allegedly executed by their parents over their lot, issued in the name should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between that
of UCCP as owner. They claimed that the purported signatures of their parents questioned handwriting and an authentic one.
had been found to be forgeries by government handwriting experts of NBI and
PC. UCCP denied that there was forgery and insisted that the parents legally FACTS:
conveyed the lot under a valid Deed of Sale to the Board of Foreign Missions who, 15. Petitioners Nora Jimenez, Josefina Gavino, Librada Dino and Susan Joven
in turn, donated the said lot to them. RTC, placing unquestioning faith and reliance [sisters] are sisters and the children of Nicanor Teodoro and Francisca
on the findings of the NBI and the PC Crime Laboratory Service, declared the Ciriaco.
Deed of Sale and TCT null and void due to forgery. CA, contrary to the opinion 16. They filed a complaint (1982) alleging that their mother was the owner of the
of the experts, found that the questioned signatures were not forged. After subject property titled in her name under OCT No. 11757.
analyzing and comparing the signatures on the questioned document, CA found 17. The property is now covered by TCT No. 90689 in the name of United
no substantial indicia or reason to suspect their authenticity. Church of Christ in the Philippines [UCCP] because it was donated to it by
the Commission on Ecumenical Mission [CEM] in a Deed of Donation dated
Issue: W/N CA erred where it ruled that there is no forgery and disregarded the July 1, 1977.
findings of the RTC, which gave weight to the handwriting experts—NO, 18. The sisters claim that their parents never sold the lot to the Board of Foreign
As a rule, SC accords great weight and respect to findings of fact of trial courts, Missions (now the CEM) nor any one else, and that the purported signatures
However, where the factual findings of the courts a quo are contrary to each other, of their parents on the Deed of Sale were found to be forgeries by government
the Court may intervene. The reliance of the CA on the factual findings of the handwriting experts.
RTC is based on the postulate that the latter had firsthand opportunity to hear the 19. UCCP and CEM denied that there was forgery and insisted that the spouses
witnesses and to observe their conduct and demeanor during the proceedings. legally conveyed the property under a valid deed of sale. They also said that
However, when such findings are not anchored on their credibility and their the action is barred by prescription and/or laches because suit was filed after
testimonies, but on the assessment of documents that are available to appellate sleeping on their alleged rights for 45 years.
magistrates and subject to their scrutiny, reliance on trial court finds no 20. At the trial, sisters submitted various exhibits as documentary evidences and
application. Here, CA had the same opportunity as the RTC in examining and presented 5 witnesses, namely: [petitioners] Susan T. Joven and Nora T.
analyzing the questioned signatures. Jimenez, handwriting experts Arcadio Ramos of the National Bureau of
Investigation and Francisco Cruz, Jr., of PC Crime Laboratory, and
DOCTRINE: [respondent] pastor Policarpio Carungin.
If the assessment of documents that are available to appellate magistrates and 21. UCCP and CEM proffered as their evidences four 4 documents and the
subject to their scrutiny, reliance on trial court finds no application. testimonies of [Respondent] Pastor Policarpio Carungin and that of his wife
Felicula.
Opinions of handwriting experts, even those from the NBI and the PC, are not 22. According to sisters: they were only minors when their mother died (1943).
binding upon courts. They learned of the property for the first time in 1975 from Irene Cruz, their
aunt and caretaker of the property. They had no copy of the original title and
Factors involved in examining handwriting: Authenticity of a questioned the only documents they possessed proving their mother’s ownership were
signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities the Application for Registration of Title filed by their mother in 1929 and the
or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as regards court order in 1930 commanidng the registration of the property in their
spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, mother’s name. With these papers on hand, sisters filed a petition for
 reconstitution of original certificate of title in 1977. inevitable variations in genuine signatures made by one and the same person.
23. UCCP opposed and argued that it owned the property by virtue of a valid 35. The CA relied on the validity of the Deed of Sale, because it was notarized.
deed of sale signed by the spouses. A petition for reconstitution of transfer of Moreover, Francisca Ciriaco, during her lifetime, never protested the building
certificate of title was filed in 1975 by UCCP and in 1979 the petition was of the church in 1936. Her nonchalant attitude towards the "intrusion" on the
granted and it was issued in UCCP’s name. subject property was likewise displayed by her husband and her sister who
24. Sisters doubted truthfulness of the sale so they secured copy of it and showed was the administrator/caretaker of her properties.
it to their father, who denied having signed the deed. Consequently, they
asked for signature verification of the deed of sale by the NBI and PC (Phil. ISSUE/s:
Constabulary). 2. WoN the CA defied the rule that findings of the trial court are conclusive on
25. In its ‘Questioned Document Report No. 241-780,’ NBI found that the the appellate court when the CA overturned the trial court’s finding of forgery
sample and questioned signatures of Francisca were not written by the same despite the fact that the trial court was in a better position to resolve the issue
person, while no definite opinion was given as to Nicanor’s signatures of forgery and despite the fact that the evidence showing forgery is
because of the insufficiency in numbers of his sample signatures. unrebutted, overwhelming and preponderant—NO
26. The PC Crime Laboratory examination came to the conclusion that the 3. WoN the CA disregarded the rule of preponderance of evidence applicable in
signatures of both Francisca and Nicanor were written by persons other than civil cases—NO
the said spouses.
27. On the other hand, evidence of UCCP and CEM shows that the Board of RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is denied and the assailed decision affirmed.
Foreign Missions (now CEM) bought the property from the spouses in 1936.
A church building was constructed on it that same year by the Presbyterian RATIO:
Protestant Church, which was then under the ecclesiastical auspices of the 2. Issue 1 [IMPT]: Sisters claim that CA erred when it disregarded the factual
Board of Foreign Missions. From then on, the church has remained on the findings of the RTC which had given weight, credibility and reliability to the
property. Sometime in 1947, several protestant church bodies, including the handwriting experts from both the NBI and the PC. These experts had
Presbyterian Church, were merged into a one incorporated union—UCCP. In declared the signatures of Francisca Ciriaco and Nicanor Teodoro in the 1936
order that the title to the subject property would be transferred in the name of Deed of Sale as forgeries.
UCCP, a deed of donation was executed by the Board of Foreign Missions in 3. Note: As a rule, this Court accords great weight and respect, sometimes even
its favor in 1977. Way back in 1975, UCCP led a petition for reconstitution finality, to findings of fact of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the
of Transfer of Certificate of Title of the subject lot in the name of the Board CA. However, where the factual findings of the courts a quo are contrary to
of Foreign Missions, which was granted in 1979. In 1980, the UCCP each other, this Court may intervene to resolve the conflict.
registered the lot in its name. 4. The reliance of appellate tribunals on the factual findings of the trial court is
28. March 17, 1989—lower court dismissed complaint on ground of prescription based on the postulate that the latter had firsthand opportunity to hear the
and laches. It did not deem it fit to resolve other issues. witnesses and to observe their conduct and demeanor during the proceedings.
29. Oct. 31, 1991—Sisters appealed and CA held that they are not barred by 5. However, when such findings are not anchored on their credibility and their
laches, remanded the case back to RTC to dispose of undisposed issues. testimonies, but on the assessment of documents that are available to
30. Sept. 20, 1994—RTC rendered judgment in favor of sisters and declared null appellate magistrates and subject to their scrutiny, reliance on trial courts
the deed of sale and tct due to forgery but finding UCCP and CEM as builders finds no application.
in good faith. 6. In the present case, the CA had the same opportunity as the RTC in examining
31. CA reversed RTC, which had “placed unquestioning faith and reliance on the and analyzing the questioned signatures.
findings of the NBI and PC Crime Laboratory Service. 7. It is hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting experts, even those
32. CA doubted findings of NBI and PC handwriting experts because “the from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts. This principle holds
documents from which the sample signatures were taken were either mere true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
photocopies, or dated years away from the questioned Deed of Sale of 1936.” dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens
33. CA says police findings were not conclusive upon the courts, which could of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
totally disregard them and make their own separate finding for themselves. 8. Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged
34. CA found no substantial indicia or reason to suspect their authenticity. It documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them.
found resemblances but no stark and distinguishing difference. The slight But resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the
dissimilarities do not indicate forgery for these are natural, expected and examination or the comparison of handwriting.
9. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of 15. This was exactly what the CA did.
handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent 16. Issue 2 [Not Necessary]: The 1936 Deed of sale—a notarized document—
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon duly executed instruments
conclusion as to its authenticity. provided by law.
10. In Heirs of Gregorio v. CA: “finding of forgery does not depend entirely on 17. Sisters did not succeed in assailing the authenticity of the signatures on their
the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be parents on the notarized Deed.
useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of 18. The CA, which had the same opportunity as the RTC to decipher the
authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny. The judge cannot rely on the signatures, found no reason to doubt their authenticity.
mere testimony of the handwriting expert […] authenticity of signatures … 19. It is the quality, not the number, of witnesses that will tilt the scale of
is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning, evidence. Preponderance does not necessarily lie in the greatest number.
e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute 20. The fact that sisters waited until 1982 to file their Complaint detracts from
matters of a highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on their credibility. Sisters’ mother, father, or aunt (who was the
the genuineness of a questioned signature is certainly much less compelling administrator/caretaker of their mother’s properties) had not done anything
upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a highly technical to protest the building of the church on the subject property.
issue […] A judge must therefore conduct an independent examination of the
signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its
authenticity.”
11. Moreover, Sec. 22 of Rule 132 explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to
make a comparison of the disputed handwriting “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.”
12. In Lorenzo v. Diaz, the factors involved in examining handwritings were
identified and explained in these words: “Authenticity of a questioned
signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics,
similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as
regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs
of stops, shades, etc., that may be found between the questioned signature
and the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the former's
authenticity. The result of examinations of questioned handwriting, even with
the benefit of aid of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best,
inconclusive. There are other factors that must be taken into consideration.
The position of the writer, the condition of the surface on which the paper
where the questioned signature is written is placed, his state of mind, feelings
and nerves, and the kind of pen and/or paper used, play an important role on
the general appearance of the signature. Unless, therefore, there is, in a given
case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial
competent evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much
weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities,
between that questioned handwriting and an authentic one."
13. Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery.
14. After comparing the questioned signatures, the CA concluded that they were
not forged, and we affirm this. The best evidence of a forged signature in an
instrument is the instrument itself showing the alleged forgeries. The fact of
forgery can be established by comparing the allegedly false signature with
the authentic or genuine one.
 005 PEOPLE v. DURANAN (Dim) 1. An information was filed against Emiliano Duranan, accusing him of
January 16, 2001 | Mendoza, J. | Non-expert opinion two counts of rape by means of force and intimidation, taking
advantage of the feeblemindedness of one Maria Nympha Lozada,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines against her will and without her consent.
2. Nympha, who was 25 years old at the time of the incidents in question,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Emiliano Duranan, a.k.a. “Kalbo” is considered to be retarded and finished up to the 6th grade only. She
SUMMARY: Emiliano Duranan was charged with two counts of rape before was unemployed and did simple household chores for the family.
the RTC of QC, committed against Nympha Lozad who was 25 years old at the 3. Emiliano, on the other hand, lived with Nympha’s family in the same
time of the incidents in question, and is considered to be a mental retardate, apartment at Quezon City, where he rented a room that he shared with
finishing up to the sixth grade only. She testified on the two incidents of rape. several other people.
She narrated how Emiliano sexually assaulted her through threats of him 4. The first incident took place while Nympha was standing by the door
becoming angry at her. The prosecution also presented the victim’s mother of her grandfather's house when Emiliano suddenly placed his arm on
Virgina, to testify on the mental condition of her child. In turn, Emiliano points her neck and dragged her inside the common bathroom, kissed her and
to the mother's statement that Nympha is "quite intelligent.” , in an effort to then removed her shorts and underwear as he held her hands with his
rebut the proposition that the victim was a mental retardate. Emiliano also other hand. She did not cry for help because Emiliano threatened her
contends that he cannot be convicted of rape since the victim's mental age was that he would get angry if she did. She claimed that Emiliano was able
not proven. He argues that under Art. 335(2) of the RPC, an essential element to rape her while standing up despite her resistance.
for the prosecution for rape of a mental retardate is a psychiatric evaluation of 5. The second incident She said she was cleaning the premises of her
the complainant's mental age to determine if her mental age is under twelve. The family residence when Emiliano pulled her from her house and took
RTC convicted Emiliano on two counts. The issue before the SC is whether the her to his room. According to Nympha, Emiliano asked his brother,
trial erred in holding that Nympha was “deprived of reason”, despite the absence who was then cooking, to leave the room. As soon as his brother had
of the testimony of a competent medical expert – NO. Sec. 50 of Rule 130 of left, Emiliano laid her on the door and raped her. Nympha said she
the Rules of Court expressly provides that the opinion of an ordinary witness for was forced to submit to Emiliano’s lust because of his threats.
which proper basis is given may be received in evidence regarding the mental 6. After the incident, Emiliano sent her letters professing love for her and
sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The Court cited Sen. telling her how beautiful she was. Nympha said she tore up the letters
Vicente Franciso who wrote on his treatise that: “The mother of an offended after reading them. There was another incident where the mother of
party in a case of rape, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and Nympha, Virginia almost caught Emiliano, as she saw her daughter
mental condition of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and leaving the bathroom quickly. She confided in her mother and they
what her attainments are, is competent to testify on the matter.” went to Camp Crame to get a medical and to file the affidavits against
DOCTRINE: A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or Emiliano.
insanity of another, when based upon conversations or dealings which he has 7. The prosecution presented three witnesses, Nympha herself,
had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact bearing upon his Nympha’s mother Virginia, and the attending medico-legal officer at
mental condition, with the witness' own knowledge and observation, he having Camp Crame, Dr. Rosalina Cosidon. Virginia testified on the mental
first testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed condition of her daughter Nympha.
facts, as the basis for his opinion. Emiliano’s arguments

FACTS:
 8. Emiliano points to the mother's statement that Nympha is "quite (c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is
intelligent.”1, to rebut the proposition that the victim was a mental sufficiently acquainted.
retardate. He also questioned the medico-legal’s report calling the
victim “coherent”. 2. The Court cited Sen. Vicente Franciso who wrote on his treatise that:
9. Emiliano also contends that he cannot be convicted of rape since the a. “The mother of an offended party in a case of rape, though not
victim's mental age was not proven. He argues that under Art. a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental condition
335(2) of the RPC, an essential element for the prosecution for of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from,
rape of a mental retardate is a psychiatric evaluation of the and what her attainments are, is competent to testify on the
complainant's mental age to determine if her mental age is under matter.”
twelve. b. “It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his
10. He further claims that only in cases where the retardation is apparent opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a person,
due to the presence of physical deformities symptomatic of mental provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to
retardation can the mental evaluation be waived. observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the
person in question.”
ISSUE/S: c. Citing the Vermont Supreme Court: “A non-expert witness
1. Whether the trial erred in holding that Nympha was “deprived of may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another,
reason”, despite the absence of the testimony of a competent when based upon conversations or dealings which he has had
medical expert – NO. The opinion of an ordinary witness can be with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact
received in evidence with regard to the mental sanity of a person with bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness' own
whom she is sufficiently acquainted. knowledge and observation, he having first testified to such
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Emiliano was guilty conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts,
of rape through the use of “force and intimidation” – NO. The as the basis for his opinion.”
testimony of Nympha indicated that Emiliano threatened her. 3. In this case, Virginia Lopez was able to testify on the mental condition
of her daughter. The statement that Nympha is "quite intelligent"
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC of QC finding the must be read in the context of Virginia Lozada's previous
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape is statement that complainant "thinks like a child but from her
AFFIRMED. narration or statement we can see that her declaration are (sic)
true or believable." Thus, what Nympha's mother meant was that
RATIO: Nympha, although she thought like a child, nevertheless could tell
ORDINARY WITNESS CAN TESTIFY ON MENTAL SANITY others what happened to her.
1. Rule 130, §50 of the Rules on Evidence provides: 4. Emiliano cites the medico-legal report which describes complainant
Opinion of Ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which as "coherent" and contends that this is an evaluation of the mental state
proper basis is given may be received in evidence regarding — of complainant. This contention is totally without basis. The medico-
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has legal report categorically states that the purpose of the medical
adequate knowledge; examination is limited to determining whether the complainant had
(b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient been sexually abused. In other words, the purpose of the examination
familiarity; and was to determine her physical, not her mental, state.

1
The context of this statement was that Virginia was trying to prove that Nympha
could perceive the things happening to her and that she could relate or communicate
them to others.
 FORCE AND INTIMIDATION WAS PROVEN A: Yes, she can understand things around as along as she would be
provided
5. The presence or absence of injuries is not essential in proving rape. some basis and some reference in order to establish time, places and
What is essential is proof that sexual intercourse with a woman was incident.
accomplished without her consent. In this case, the absence of consent
is shown by the fact that complainant is a mental retardate vulnerable Q: At your house do you still assigned household chores?
to intimidation by accused appellant. A: Yes, ma'am.
6. The intimidation, in this case, is constituted by the threats that
Emiliano made to the complainant, not to mention the force employed Q: Could she relied upon madam witness?
by Emiliano in placing his arm on Nympha’'s neck and holding her A: Yes ma'am.
hands while undressing her.
7. In sum, the mental retardation of Nympha was proven by the
testimony of her mother, the trial court's observations during the
trial of her demeanor, behavior, and her intelligence, while the
fact of sexual intercourse is proven by the medico-legal certificate.
In addition, the prosecution proved the presence of force and
intimidation, and the court appreciated such.

ANNEX:

Testimony of Virginia (mother of Nympha)

Q: How would you described your daughter?

A: When she was still a child while walking she accidentally bumped her head
and then on she acted quite not normal from then on we noticed changes
because she acted like a child.

Q: How old is Nympha Lozada when this happened?

A: 3 to 4 years old.

Q: At the age of 25, how would you described?

A: She still thinks like a child but from her narration or statement we can see
that her declaration are true or believable.

Q: You mean to say that she could be intelligent.

A: Yes, ma'am. She finished her elementary and I can say she is quite
intelligent.

Q: So she can somewhat understand what is happening around us?

 006 VIRGINIA RY & POWER CO. vs. BURR (Eleazar) building where it discharges and receives passengers.
June 17, 1926 | Mytheville, J. | Opinion Rule 2. This station is 21 feet 8 inches wide inside and the car track is 4 feet 8 inches
in width. The car by which Burr was killed as it emerged from this station
PETITIONERS: Virginia Railway and Power was 8 feet 9 inches wide, which caused it to extend outside of the rails
RESPONDENTS: Mary Powell Burr, Administratrix of Charles Gilbert Burr, approximately a distance of two feet. The southernmost rail of the track is
Deceased five feet from the southern wall of the station, thus leaving a narrow space
between the southern wall and the side of the car a little less than three feet
SUMMARY: The deceased (Burr) was killed by an inter-urban car, operated by wide. Into this narrow space the overhanging of a car swings as it rounds a
the defendant (Virginia Railway), which crushed him against the wall of the curve when it leaves the station and enters Sycamore street.
passenger station. Burr went into a narrow space, open at the end, between the 3. At the rear end of this station adjoining its southern wall, there is a freight
departing car and the station wall and was caught by the overhang of the car platform, elevated above the floor of the building, which platform, when a
swinging into this space as the car entered a sharp curve just outside the station. car is in the terminal, is so close to the southern side of the car that the rear
Andrews (eye-witness passenger) testified: “As I said, I just stepped on the car, door on that side cannot be entered by passengers. On the north side there is
and the car had started to move off, probably moved twenty or twenty-five feet, a space between the northern wall of the building and the northern side of the
when I heard a rush at the door like some one would rush at the door and slap their car when standing there for the receipt of passengers of approximately ten
hand in the center of it. Naturally I stepped over to look to see what the trouble feet, and it is the northern side of the car and this space which is generally
was, and I saw this man fall back, and it seems as though then he would have had used by passengers in boarding and alighting from cars in this terminal
time to run out” The issue in this case is WoN Andrew’s testimony is admissible? building.
The Court said yes, Andrews was an Eye-Witness – Standing on the rear platform 4. It is likewise true that when a car is standing in the station passengers are also
of the car, he saw deceased, observed his movements, knew the speed of the car, in the habit of boarding and alighting at the front end of the car on the
and was in a position to aid the jury by given them his impression from these facts southern side, but it is impossible, as has been stated, for a passenger to board
so personally observed by him, and while not binding, his impression from these a car at its rear platform on the southern side while the car is standing in the
collected facts were well worthy of careful consideration. Must include all terminal building. The station is well lighted.
evidence to aid jury - If either the deceased or the agents of the company had 5. There are two openings or windows in the southern wall which does not
foreseen the peril, certainly we may assume that the tragedy would have been extend to the west end of the station, but there is a space of 8 feet 9 inches
avoided. In order to determine this question justly then, no evidence which is from that end of the wall to an iron pillar which supports the building at its
admissible and likely to aid the jury which can possibly be adduced should be west or Sycamore street end.
excluded. 6. Burr, the decedent, had purchased a ticket to Richmond at the station in
DOCTRINE: Collective Facts Rule – Impressions which are based upon a great Petersburg, intending to take a car scheduled to leave the terminal at 8:35
variety of circumstances and a combination of appearances, which because either p.m. He went there with his friend, Mr. P. S. Farrow, but instead of boarding
of the witness' infirmity or the infirmity of our language cannot be adequately or the car immediately upon the purchase of his ticket, he stood conversing
better expressed, may be testified to by those who have personally observed the with Farrow in front of the car on the north side of it—that is, the side
facts. which most of the passengers usually entered when boarding the cars.
7. Realizing that it was about time for him to get on the car, and that it was about
The exception to the general rule that witnesses cannot give opinions, is not to start, he crossed in front of it from the north to the south side of it, and
confined to the evidence of experts testifying on subjects requiring special turned, apparently intending to enter the front door on the south side. Farrow
knowledge, skill or learning, but includes the evidence of common observers, testifies that just after they parted he took five or six steps when he heard the
testifying to the results of their observation made at the time in regard to common car start.
appearances of facts, and a condition of things which cannot be reproduced and 8. The motorman says that when the time for the car to leave arrived, he entered
made palpable to a jury. the front platform on the south side, closed the door and prepared to start,
then tapped his bell as a signal, received a responsive signal from the
conductor, and started slowly out of the station in the usual way.
FACTS:
9. It seems evident, then, that Burr found the south door of the front end of the
1. Charles Gilbert Barr was killed under these circumstances: The company
car already closed when he thus sought to board it. The catastrophe occurred
(Virginia Ry) operates an inter-urban street car line between the cities of
shortly after the car started to move and it is impossible to know precisely the
Petersburg and Richmond. The Petersburg terminal of the railway fronts on
sequence of his subsequent movements.
Sycamore street in Petersburg, and its interurban cars there run into a small
 10. The contention for Burr is that while he was at an appropriate place for employees had given him no assurance of safety in his attempt to board the
boarding the car at the front end, the swinging of the car mashed him against said car, and that in so attempting to board the same he was injured and killed,
the south wall of the station; that the place was itself dangerous; and that the then the court tells the jury that the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff and
agents of the company should, in the exercise of the high degree of care they must find for the defendant.”
required of them, have warned him or stopped the car so as to save his life. 18. In view of the testimony as to the presence of Burr so far down in the narrow
11. The contention of Virginia Railway is that Burr, finding that he could not and. dangerous place, it seems perfectly clear that Virginia Ry was entitled to
enter the front door, went down into the narrow space between the car and have the jury instructed upon this point. This instruction was, however,
the southern wall and attempted to board the moving car at the rear door on erroneous in this case.
the southern side. 19. The jury should not, under the circumstances supposed, have been
12. It seems to be reasonably clear that the car had moved slowly about twenty- unequivocally directed to find for the defendant. As it contained this
five feet before the tragedy occurred. direction, it should not have omitted reference to all of the other features of
13. Burr was seen in the narrow space from one of the windows on the south the case, upon which plaintiff replied.
side of the car by one of the passengers, and by another passenger who 20. Another error assigned is that the court refused to grant instruction No. 2
was standing on the rear platform was seen knocking at the rear door a which was requested for Virginia Ry. This reads: “It was the duty of the
few seconds before he was struck and fell. plaintiff’s intestate in attempting to board the defendant’s car to exercise
14. The motorman testifies that when he boarded the car there was no one in the reasonable care for his own safety and the defendant’s employees had the
narrow space on the south side; that after he closed the door and took his seat right to assume that he would exercise his senses. While passengers are en-
on the right hand side of the front platform he could not see into this space; titled to expect and demand from carriers the highest degree of care for their
and that his duties while moving the car out of the station into the street protection and safety, this rule does not go to the extent of requiring carriers
required all of his attention. to exercise guardianship over passengers who are adults and mentally
15. The conductor testified that the car was crowded, and that his attention was competent, or to undertake to coerce them into the exercise of ordinary care
entirely occupied with seeing that passengers boarding the car on the north for their own safety. Neither are carriers insurers of passengers.”
side at the rear entrance were safe. 21. While this court has discouraged the multiplication of instructions, it is
16. Because of the curve in the track and the necessary swing of a car as it entered certainly true, in view of the sanctity of the verdicts, that juries should be
the street, the narrow space between a moving car and the wall became carefully informed by the court as to the legal principles properly applicable.
obviously dangerous to on then standing there. It is difficult to account for this tragic accident. It must be remembered that
no sufficient reason has been suggested as to Burr’s being so far down in the
ISSUE/s alleyway as to be unable to save himself.
• W/N the testimony of Andrews is admissible? – YES, The exception to the 22. The south wall against which he was crushed did not extend to the front of
general rule that witnesses cannot give opinions, is not confined to the the building, and if the south front door of the car was at the point of the
evidence of experts testifying on subjects requiring special knowledge, skill greatest danger, that is, just east of the front end of the wall, then it was only
or learning, but includes the evidence of common observers, testifying to the necessary to take a few steps towards Sycamore street and into the open space
results of their observation made at the time in regard to common appearances to reach a position of safety. It must in this connection also be remembered
of facts, and a condition of things which cannot be reproduced and made that the car was moving very slowly, and that it traveled twenty-five feet
palpable to a jury. before the catastrophe. It seems to us, then, under the conceded facts of this
case, especially in view of the instruction given for the plaintiff as to the very
RULING: Reversed and remanded. high degree of care due to a passenger, that this instruction (2) or its
equivalent should have been given.
RATIO:
17. A number of errors are assigned. Among them that instruction No. 1, offered [IMPORTANT]
by Virginia Ry, was refused by the court. It refers to the contention that Burr 23. We shall not refer to all of the errors assigned, because the general principles
attempted to board the car while it was in motion, and reads thus: “If the jury governing cases like this are sufficiently settled by previous cases to dispense
believe from the evidence that the plaintiff’s intestate had full time to get on with unnecessary repetition in every subsequent case which is presented.
the defendant’s car, but delayed, boarding the same; that the car proceeded to There is, however, another exception which should be adverted to. It refers
leave the station at its schedule time; that when the plaintiff’s intestate to the exclusion of part of the testimony of the witness Andrews. It can be
attempted to get on the car it was in motion and that the defendant’s best understood by quoting the evidence referred to.
 - “Mr. Mann (Virginia Ry’s counsel): Can you tell us what occurred acquainted with the existing conditions might give his opinion as to how far
in regard to what you know about this injury? under those conditions on that occasion the signal given by a red lantern could
- “Andrews (witness). As I said, I just stepped on the car, and the car have been observed, that this was not a matter requiring expert knowledge,
had started to move off, probably moved twenty or twenty-five feet, but of common experience, and that its weight could be determined by the
when I heard a rush at the door like some one would rush at the door jury who had the witness before them and could judge the value of his
and slap their hand in the center of it. Naturally I stepped over to opinion.
look to see what the trouble was, and I saw this man fall back, and 28. In C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Arrington, the question raised was whether the evidence
it seems as though then he would have had time to run out— of' the plaintiff, to the effect that it was necessary for him to go in between
- “Mr. Bramhall (plaintiff’s counsel): I object to a conclusion. the engine and the car in order to-couple it, was admissible. It was there
- “Witness: I said it was an impression to me— claimed that this was an opinion expressed by the witness upon a pivotal
- “Mr. Bramhall: I don’t think he can give his impression. He can tell question which was to be decided by the jury and was, therefore, illegal and
what occurred and the jury can form an opinion and impression. It incompetent. This court, however, held the evidence was admissible, cited a
is objected to as incompetent and immaterial. number-of cases in the discussion and gave the reasons for the rule.
- “The Court: Do you insist upon that, Mr. Mann? 29. In Mohler v. Commonwealth, the question was whether a witness could
- “Mr. Mann: Yes, sir; I insist upon it. testify that an object lying in a cabin covered by an overcoat,, or fertilizer
- “The Court: I think that is proper. bags, or something else, looked to him very much like a man. The object of
- “Mr. Syme: We except. this testimony was to show that the body of a murdered man had been left in
- “Mr. Mann: Let him finish his answer. If they want to move to the cabin. The witness was asked whether it might not have been just a pile
exclude it they can. of rags or something, to which he answered: “I cannot think it. I think it was
- “(Answer of witness read.) a man’s body instead of a pile of rags.”
- “Mr. Bramhall: I move that that last part be stricken out. 30. In holding that the testimony was not the mere opinion of a witness to be
- “The Court: That is not proper. excluded under the opinion evidence rule, this court said: “It is there held that
- “Mr. Mann: Does your honor sustain the motion to strike out? answers of this character, which relate to a matter not requiring expert
- “The Court: That impression. knowledge, are admissible. Such statements are not mere opinions, but
- “Mr. Mann: We except.” impressions drawn from observed facts, sometimes called the ‘collective
24. The exception then recites “that part of the foregoing answer to the said facts rule.’ ”
question which related to the impression of the witness was stricken out and 31. This rule is nowhere better stated than in Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, thus:
disallowed by the court, as hereinbefore set out.” “The exception to the general rule that witnesses cannot give opinions, is
25. Questions like this have been frequently considered by the courts and not confined to the evidence of experts testifying on subjects requiring
sometimes efforts have been made to reconcile the decisions. Of course, special knowledge, skill or learning, but includes the evidence of common
much must be left to the discretion of the trial court, and we do not wish to observers, testifying to the results of their observation made at the time
impinge upon that rule, but we are of opinion that this evidence was in regard to common appearances of facts, and a condition of things
improperly excluded, that it should have been admitted under what is called which cannot be reproduced and made palpable to a jury.
the collective facts rule and not excluded under the opinion rule. There are 32. Such evidence has been said to be competent from necessity on the same
several Virginia cases. ground as the testimony of experts, as the only method of proving certain
26. In Combs v. Commonwealth, the question was as to the identity of corn found facts essential to the proper administration of justice.
at the house where the accused lived—as to whether it was corn which had 33. Nor is it a mere opinion which is thus given by a witness, but a conclusion of
been recently stolen. The witness undertook to identify the corn, and in fact to which his judgment, observation, and common knowledge has led him
answer to a question said: “That in my opinion to the best of my knowledge in regard to a subject matter which requires no special learning or experiment,
and belief.” He was then asked: “On what facts do you found your belief and but which is within the knowledge of men in general.”
knowledge?” and he answered: “Because we found wheat and shavings-in 34. Impressions which are based upon a great variety of circumstances and a
the corn that identified themselves—it was Fultz wheat and poplar shavings combination of appearances, which because either of the witness’ infirmity
in the corn at the mill.” And his opinion was held admissible. or the infirmity of our language cannot be adequately or better expressed,
27. In New York, & R. Co. v. Wilson’s Admr, one of the questions raised was may be testified to by those who have personally observed the facts.
how far a signal given by a red lantern could be seen while a dense fog 35. If their inferences drawn from their observation of the facts are such as to
prevailed, and it was held that a non-expert witness who was present and justify confidence, and the facts and proper inferences therefrom are so
 blended as to make separation difficult, they may generally state their
conclusions. Mr. Wigmore (1 Wigmore on Evidence, 2nd ed., sec. 658) uses
this language: “The second corollary of the general principle of knowledge is
that the result of the witness’ observation need not be positive or absolute
knowledge. Such a degree of certainty cannot be demanded, even in theory;
it suffices if he had an opportunity of personal observation, and did get some
impressions from this observation.”
36. He notes that if there was actual personal observation of the pertinent facts,
he may testify as to the impression which he then gained from his personal
observation. Having shown the admissibility of such testimony, generally, in
the course of an elaborate philosophical and lengthy discussion of this
difficult question in all of its aspects, he thus states the fundamental limit of
the rule: “What the courts repudiate then is a mere guess, an exercise of the
imagination, a suspicion, a conjecture, offered in the place of the result of
actual personal observation; it is from this point of view only that a belief or
opinion or impression is not to be received.”
37. So, then, a mere opinion (surmise) based upon insufficient knowledge,
experience or observation is inadmissible, while such a conclusion
intelligently drawn from facts observed by the witness is generally
admissible.
38. Its admissibility and its value, however, depend upon the pertinence and
significance of those observed facts which should be related by the witness.
In 4 Wigmore on Evidence (2d ed.), sec. 1929, he recasts and restates his
view of the future of the opinion rule, which is quoted by this court in C. &
O. Ry. Co. v. Arrington, supra, and suggests the form of a statute which
would clarify the matter; and we repeat what we there said, that the enactment
of sueb a statute is well worthy of the attention of the General Assembly.
39. Tested by these precedents, we are clear in our view that the court erred in
excluding this testimony. The witness was subject to cross-examination, and
the reasons for his impression, if they had not already been fully disclosed by
him, and could have been elicited by cross-examination.
40. He was an eye-witness, standing on the rear platform of the ear, saw the
deceased, observed his movements, knew the speed of the car, and was in a
position to aid the jury by giving them his impressions from these facts so
personally observed by him, and while not binding upon the jury, his im-
pressions from these collected facts were well worthy of their careful
consideration.
41. It must be borne in mind that no just conclusion upon the facts of this case
can be reached without a fair and careful consideration of the suddenness of
this unexpected catastrophe. If either the deceased or the agents of the
company had foreseen the peril, certainly we may assume that the tragedy
would have been avoided. In order to determine this question justly then, no
evidence which is admissible and likely to aid the jury which can possibly be
adduced should be excluded. While the briefs take a wide range, we think it
unnecessary to pursue the subject further.
42. The judgment will be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
 007 Hernandez v. Juan-Santos (SIAPNO) to complications during childbirth. After Maria's death, Felix left Lulu in the
August 7, 2009 | Corona, J. | Opinion Rule care of her maternal uncle, Sotero C. San Juan.
2. Felix married Natividad Cruz. The union produced three children, petitioners
PETITIONERS: Cecilio C. Hernandez, Ma. Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun and Cecilio C. Hernandez, Ma. Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun and Teresa C.
Narividad C. Cruz-Hernandez Hernandez-Villa Abrille (Cecilio et al.).
RESPONDENTS: Jovita San Juan-Santos 3. As the only child of Maria and the sole testate heir of Sotero, Lulu inherited
valuable real properties from the San Juan family (₱50 million in 1997).
SUMMARY: Sps. Felix Hernandez and Maria San Juan Hernandez are the 4. Lulu went to live with her father and his new family. She was then 10 y/o and
parents of Lulu Hernandez. Lulu's mother died while giving birth and Felix left studying at La Consolacion College. However, due to her "violent
Lulu in the care of her maternal uncle who died which left Lulu as the sole heir to personality," Lulu stopped schooling when she reached Grade 5.
his uncle’s estate (roughly 50 million pesos). She inherited valuable properties 11. Upon reaching the age of majority, Lulu was given full control of her
from the San Juan Family. Lulu’s father, Felix, remarried and had 3 children, estate. Nevertheless, because Lulu did not even finish her elementary
Cecilio et al. Felix administered her properties, but later died and Cecilio et al. education, Felix continued to exercise actual administration of Lulu’s
continued to administer her properties. Lulu subsequently was made to sign properties. Upon Felix's death, Cecilio et al. took over the task of
several SPAs by her father and stepbrother and stepsisters, who turned out to have administering Lulu's properties.
dissipated and misused her fortune. Seeking help from her maternal first cousi, 12. During the period of their informal administration, Felix and Cecilio et al.
Jovita, they filed for an accounting against Ceecilio et al. During the hearing, Lulu undertook various "projects" involving Lulu’s real properties:
was presented and asked to testify on her genealogy and experiences with the San a. Felix allegedly purchased one of Lulu’s properties for an
Juan and Hernandez families. Medical specialists testified to explain the results of undisclosed amount to develop the Marilou Subdivision.
Lulu’s examinations which revealed the alarming state of her health. Not only was b. Ma. Victoria informed Lulu that her 11-hectare Montalban, Rizal
Lulu severely afflicted with diabetes mellitus and suffering from its complications, property was under litigation. Thus, Lulu signed a special power of
she also had an existing artheroselorotic cardiovascular disease (which was attorney believing that she was authorizing Ma. Victoria to appear
aggravated by her obesity). Furthermore, they unanimously opined that in view of in court on her behalf when she was in fact unknowingly
Lulu’s intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile mental state, she authorizing her half-sister to sell the said property to the Manila
would not be able to care for herself and self-administer her medications. Cecilio Electric Company.
et al. claim that the opinions of Lulu's attending physicians regarding her mental c. Cecilio asked Lulu to authorize him to lease her 45-hectare property
state were inadmissible in evidence as they were not experts in psychiatry. WON in Montalban, Rizal to Oxford Concrete Aggregates for ₱58,500 per
Lulu is an incompetent who requires the appointment of a judicial guardian over month so that she could have a car and driver at her disposal.
her person and property – Yes, Section 50, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, an 2. Lulu sought the assistance of her maternal first cousin, respondent Jovita San
ordinary witness may give his opinion on the mental sanity of a person with whom Juan-Santos, after learning that petitioners had been dissipating her estate.
he is sufficiently acquainted. Lulu's attending physicians spoke and interacted with She confided to Jovita that she was made to live in the basement of Cecilio
her. Such occasions allowed them to thoroughly observe her behavior and et al.’s home, receiving a daily allowance of ₱400 for food and medication.
conclude that her intelligence level was below average and her mental stage 3. Jovita was appalled as Lulu was severely overweight, unkempt and smelled
below normal. Their opinions were admissible in evidence. Also, Trial judge was of urine. She later found out that Lulu was occupying a cramped room lit by
given ample opportunity to observe Lulu personally when she testified before the a single fluorescent lamp without running water. Since she had not been given
RTC. The CA also found that she was incapable of taking care of herself and her a proper toilet, Lulu urinated and defecated in the garden. Due to Lulu's poor
properties due to her ailments. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in hygiene, Jovita brought her to several physicians for medical examination.
fact incompetent requires reexamination of evidence. Lulu was found to be afflicted with tuberculosis, rheumatism and diabetes
from which she was suffering several complications.
DOCTRINE: Where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is NOT 4. Thereafter, the San Juan family demanded an inventory and accounting of
necessary. The observations of the trial judge, coupled with evidence establishing Lulu’s estate from petitioners. However, the demand was ignored.
the person's state of mental sanity will suffice 5. Jovita filed a petition for guardianship in the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal.
She alleged that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and managing
her estate because she was of weak mind. Subsequently, Cecilio et al. moved
FACTS:
to intervene in the proceedings to oppose the same (not impt):
1. Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez (or Lulu) was born to the Sps. Felix
Hernandez and Maria San Juan Hernandez. Unfortunately, the latter died due
 a. Natividad denied that Marilou Subdivision belonged to Lulu. Since she and respondent’s appointment as the legal guardian, the CA found that, since Lulu
her late husband were the registered owners of the said property, it was did not trust Cecilio et al., none of them was qualified to be her legal guardian.
allegedly part of their conjugal partnership. Because guardianship was a trust relationship, the RTC was bound to appoint
b. Cecilio, Teresa and Ma. Victoria, for their part, claimed that the issue of someone Lulu clearly trusted.
Lulu’s competency was settled in 1968 (upon emancipation) when the court
12. Cecilio et al. now assail the CA decision in this Court in a petition for review
ordered her legal guardian and maternal uncle, Ciriaco San Juan, to deliver
the properties for her to manage. on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 166470.
c. They likewise asserted that Lulu was literate and, for that reason, aware of 13. Meanwhile, Lulu moved into 8 R. Santos St., Marikina City (Marikina
the consequences of executing an SPA. apartment) and was provided with two housemaids tasked to care for her.
d. Furthermore, whether or not Cecilio and Ma. Victoria acted within the scope Lulu was abducted from her Marikina apartment. Jovita immediately
of their respective authorities could not be determined in a guardianship sought the assistance of the Police Anti-Crime Emergency Response
proceeding, such matter being the proper subject of an ordinary civil action. (PACER) division of the PNP.
e. Cecilio et al. also admitted that the property developed into the Marilou 14. The PACER subsequently discovered that Cecilio et al. were keeping Lulu
Subdivision was among those parcels of land Lulu inherited from the San somewhere in Rodriguez, Rizal. Despite their initial hostility to the
Juan family. However, because the "sale" between Felix and Lulu had taken
investigation, Ma. Victoria and Cecilio subsequently contacted the PACER
place in 1974, questions regarding its legality were already barred by the
statute of limitations. Thus, its validity could no longer be impugned, or so to inform them that Lulu voluntarily left with Natividad because her guardian
they claimed. had allegedly been maltreating her.
6. During the hearing, Lulu was presented and asked to testify on her genealogy 15. Jovita filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA alleging that petitioners
and experiences with the San Juan and Hernandez families. Lulu identified abducted Lulu and were holding her captive in an undisclosed location
and described her parents, stepmother, half-siblings and maternal relatives. in Rodriguez, Rizal.
She claimed inheriting tracts of land from the San Juan family. However, 16. CA granted the petition for habeas corpus, ruling that Jovita, as her legal
these properties were dissipated by the Hernandez family as they lived a guardian, was entitled to her custody.
"luxurious" lifestyle. When asked to explain this allegation, Lulu said that her 17. Cecilio et al. moved for the reconsideration of the said decision but it was
stepmother and half-siblings rode in cars while she was made to ride a denied. Aggrieved, they filed this petition for review on certiorari docketed
tricycle. as G.R. No. 169217. This was consolidated with G.R. No. 166470.
7. Medical specialists testified to explain the results of Lulu’s examinations
which revealed the alarming state of her health. Not only was Lulu severely ISSUE/s: WON Lulu is an incompetent who requires the appointment of a judicial
afflicted with diabetes mellitus and suffering from its complications, she also guardian over her person and property – Yes, Section 50, Rule 103 of the Rules of
had an existing artheroselorotic cardiovascular disease (which was Court, an ordinary witness may give his opinion on the mental sanity of a person with
aggravated by her obesity). Furthermore, they unanimously opined that in whom he is sufficiently acquainted. Lulu's attending physicians spoke and interacted
view of Lulu’s intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile with her. Their opinions were admissible in evidence.
mental state, she would not be able to care for herself and self-administer her
medications. RULING: WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DENIED.
8. RTC concluded that, due to her weak physical and mental condition, there Petitioners are furthermore ordered to render to respondent, Lulu’s legal guardian, an
was a need to appoint a legal guardian over the person and property of accurate and faithful accounting of all the properties and funds they unlawfully
Lulu. Thus, it declared Lulu an incompetent and appointed respondent as appropriated for themselves from the estate of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez,
guardian over the person and property of Lulu on a ₱1 million bond. within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision. If warranted, the proper
9. Cecilio et al.moved for reconsideration asserting that the ₱1 million bond was complaints should also be filed against them for any criminal liability in connection
grossly insufficient to secure Lulu’s ₱50-million estate against fraudulent with the dissipation of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez’s estate and her unlawful
loss or dissipation. The motion was denied. abduction from the custody of her legal guardian.
10. On July 2, 2002, petitioners appealed the September 25, 2001 decision of the
RTC to the CA. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 75760. RATIO:
11. CA issued a decision affirming the September 25, 2001 decision of the RTC 1. Cecilio et al. claim that the opinions of Lulu's attending
(in the petition for guardianship) in toto. It held that respondent presented physicians regarding her mental state were inadmissible in evidence as
sufficient evidence to prove that Lulu, because of her illnesses and low they were not experts in psychiatry. Jovita therefore failed to prove that Lulu's
educational attainment, needed assistance in taking care of herself and illnesses rendered her an incompetent. She should have been presumed to
managing her affairs considering the extent of her estate. With regard to the be of sound mind and/or in full possession of her mental capacity. For
 this reason, Lulu should be allowed to live with them since under Articles
194 to 196 of the Family Code, legitimate brothers and sisters, whether half-
blood or full-blood are required to support each other fully.
2. Jovita, on the other hand, reiterated her arguments before the courts a
quo. She disclosed that Lulu had been confined in Recovery.com, a
psychosocial rehabilitation center and convalescent home care facility in
Quezon City, since 2004 due to violent and destructive behavior. She also
had delusions of being physically and sexually abused by "Boy Negro"
and imaginary pets she called "Michael" and "Madonna." The November
21, 2005 medical report stated Lulu had unspecified mental retardation
with psychosis but claimed significant improvements in her behavior.
3. We find the petition for review on certiorari to be without merit. Under
Section 50, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary witness may give
his opinion on the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted. Lulu's attending physicians spoke and interacted with her.
Such occasions allowed them to thoroughly observe her behavior and
conclude that her intelligence level was below average and her mental
stage below normal. Their opinions were admissible in evidence.
4. Furthermore, where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not
necessary. The observations of the trial judge coupled with evidence
establishing the person's state of mental sanity will suffice. Here, the trial
judge was given ample opportunity to observe Lulu personally when she
testified before the RTC.
5. Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons who, though of sound
mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes are
incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid,
are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under
guardianship. The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was incapable
of taking care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to her
ailments and weak mind. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in
fact an incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented
in the courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of fact.
6. The Court only takes cognizance of questions of fact in exceptional
circumstances, none of which is present in this case. Thus, factual findings of
the RTC as affirmed by the CA were adopted.
7. No compelling reason to reverse the trial and appellate courts’ finding as to
the propriety of Jovita’s appointment as the judicial guardian of Lulu.
8. Inasmuch as respondent’s appointment as the judicial guardian of Lulu was
proper, the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in her favor was also in order.
9. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention or by which the rightful custody of person is withheld from the one
entitled thereto. Jovita, as the judicial guardian of Lulu, was duty-bound to
care for and protect her ward. For her to perform her obligation, respondent
must have custody of Lulu. Thus, she was entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus after she was unduly deprived of the custody of her ward.
 008 PEOPLE V. ADOVISO (FARCON) DOCTRINE: A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that
June 23, 1999 | Kapunan, J. | Admissibility of Polygraph Results simultaneously measures and records certain physiological changes in the human
body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee's conscious
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines attempt to deceive the questioner. The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Pablo Adoviso test is that a person who lies deliberately will have rising blood pressure and a
SUMMARY: Pablo Adoviso, allegedly a member of the Citizens Armed Forces subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the graph. However,
Geographical Unit (CAFGU), along with four unidentified persons who remained American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraphs tests when
at large, were charged with 2 counts of murder for the death of Rufino Agunos offered in evidence for the purposes of establishing the guilt or innocence of one
and Emeterio Vazquez. Emeterio Vazquez was preparing coffee as his wife accused of a crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction,
Anastacia was about to retire for the night. Their grandson Rufino had already for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a
gone to sleep in the papag. Anastacia had just finished spreading the sleeping mat reliable and ascertaining truth or deception. The rule is no different in this
when she heard three or four gunshots. Emeterio then uttered that he had been jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much faith and credit should
shot. A lamp near the stairs illuminated the camalig but Anastacia failed to not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive.
recognize the persons who fired their guns at her husband. The spouses' son
Bonifacio was in the adjacent house when he heard the gunshots. Earlier that
FACTS:
evening, Bonifacio was talking to Rufino regarding the engine of the irrigation
1. Pablo Adoviso, allegedly a member of the Citizens Armed Forces
pump. Bonifacio was still talking when he noticed that Rufino had fallen asleep,
Geographical Unit (CAFGU), was originally charged with four unidentified
the latter's back against the bamboo wall. Bonifacio left Rufino snoring in the
persons who have remained at large. The information charged Adoviso with
papag and went to the other house. Only a minute had passed after he had gone
the Murder of Rufino Agunos. Another criminal case with respect to the
up when Bonifacio heard the gunshots. He and his 16-year-old son Elmer
killing of Emeterio Vasquez contains the same allegations. Adoviso pleaded
immediately went down the front yard to investigate. Bonifacio hid himself in the
not guilty to both charges.
dark portion of the yard, behind a coconut tree. From a distance of eight meters,
2. Prosecution’s version of the events:
Bonifacio saw Rufino, who was inside the camalig, being shot by several persons
a. The spouses Emeterio and Anastacia Vasquez had two adjacent houses
from the outside. Looking through the bamboo slats of the camalig wall,
in Sitio Tan-agan, Barangay Casugad, Bula, Camarines Sur. One of the
Bonifacio recognized one of the assailants, with a large built and long hair, as
houses was actually a camalig2 where they stored harvested rice. The
appellant Pablo Adoviso because of the gas lamp that was lighted inside the
spouses preferred to live there because it was cooler. The living area of
camalig. Of Rufino's assailants, only Adoviso was not wearing a mask. Elmer,
the camalig had walls of bamboo called salsag. This area was elevated
who rushed towards the camalig with his father Bonifacio, saw five persons
from the ground. Three steps led down to an awning (suyab) walled with
aiming their firearms at the camalig. Except for Adoviso, each of these persons
bamboo slats. These slats were placed horizontally approximately four
had a cover over their faces. Elmer saw these five persons shoot his cousin Rufino
to six inches apart. A portion of the awning was used as a kitchen but
who was lying down on the papag. Adoviso and the other unidentified men
another portion had a papag where the Vasquez' grandson, Rufino
escaped to the banana plantation. Both Emeterio and Rufino died early the next
Agunos, son of their daughter Virginia, would sleep whenever he tended
morning. Adoviso interposed alibi and denial as his defense. The defense also
the irrigation pump. The spouses’ son Bonifacio occupied the other
offered in evidence the testimony of Ernesto A. Lucena, Polygraph Examiner II
house eight meters from the camalig with his own son Elmer.
of the NBI, who conducted a polygraph test on Adoviso. In the Polygraph Report,
b. At around 8:00 in the evening of February 18, 1990, Emeterio Vazquez
Lucena opined that Adoviso’s 'polygrams revealed that there were no specific
was preparing coffee as his wife was about to retire for the night. Their
reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant to the
grandson Rufino had already gone to sleep in the papag. Anastacia had
investigation of the crimes. The trial court rendered a Joint Judgment finding
just finished spreading the sleeping mat when she heard three or four
Adoviso guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of murder.
gunshots. Emeterio then uttered that he had been shot. Seeing Emeterio,
ISSUE: WoN the negative result of the polygraph test should be given weight to
Anastacia exclaimed, "Why should you not be hit when infact there are
tilt the scales of justice in Adoviso’s favor. – NO. Much faith and credit should
guns in front of you." Anastacia saw the "protruding edge of the gun"
not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Adoviso has not
on the wall near the stairs where Emeterio went down. A lamp near the
advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to him. (SEE DOCTRINE)
stairs where Emeterio drank coffee illuminated the camalig but

2
Camalig – a warehouse for storing goods; also a small house or cabin
 Anastacia failed to recognize the persons who fired their guns at her 3. Adoviso interposed alibi and denial as his defense. He claimed that he was a
husband. member of the CAFGU whose headquarters was located in Barangay
c. The Vasquez' son Bonifacio was in the bigger house when he heard the Palsong, Bula, Camarines Sur. At around 7:00 in the evening of February 18,
gunshots. Earlier that evening, Bonifacio was talking to Rufino 1990, he was in Sitio Durabod, Palsong, about a kilometer away from the
regarding the engine of the irrigation pump. Bonifacio was still talking CAFGU headquarters. He, together with Francisco Bislombre, Benjamin
when he noticed that Rufino had fallen asleep, the latter's back against Alina, Jr. and PFC Antero Esteron, had some drinks in the store of Honoria
the bamboo wall. Bonifacio left Rufino snoring in the papag and went Tragante until around 11:00 p.m. Honoria Tragante and Francisco Bislombre
to the other house. Only a minute had passed after he had gone up when corroborated Adoviso’s alibi. Antero Esteron likewise testified that from 7:00
Bonifacio heard the gunshots. He and his 16-year-old son Elmer until past 11:00 that night of February 18, 1990, he and Adoviso had a
immediately went down the front yard to investigate. drinking spree at the Tragante store. He distinctly remembered that date
d. Bonifacio hid himself in the dark portion of the yard, behind a coconut because it was the fiesta of Balatan. To support his denial appellant presented
tree. From a distance of eight meters, Bonifacio saw Rufino, who was Lt. Antonio Lopez, the deputy chief of police and SPO2 Claro Ballebar of the
inside the camalig, being shot by several persons from the outside. PNP Bula Police Station. Lopez identified a police certification prepared by
Looking through the bamboo slats of the camalig wall, Bonifacio Pfc. Ramon N. Canabe to the effect that the shooting incident was perpetrated
recognized one of the assailants, with a large built and long hair, as "by unidentified armed men." Lopez said that he (Lopez) was one of those
appellant Pablo Adoviso because of the gas lamp that was lighted inside who brought the victims to the hospital who were then still conscious. The
the camalig. Of Rufino's assailants, only Adoviso was not wearing a victims told him that they did not know who shot them or why they were shot.
mask. Adoviso was holding a long firearm wrapped inside a sack with 4. SPO2 Claro Ballebar, however testified that in the follow-up investigation he
its muzzle protruding and directed where Rufino was sleeping. Adoviso conducted several days after the incident, Bonifacio Vasquez revealed to him
then fired hitting Rufino. At that moment, Bonifacio heard his father that he (Bonifacio) "vividly saw the incident and recognized" Adoviso as one
Emeterio shout "Pino," (referring to his grandson Rufino) and saw his of the perpetrators of the crime and that the killings had some something to
father go down the stairs carrying a gas lamp. Adoviso fired again, do with land dispute between Bonifacio's parents and the Galicia family.
hitting Emeterio at the stomach. 5. The defense also offered in evidence the testimony of Ernesto A. Lucena,
e. Elmer, who rushed towards the camalig with his father Bonifacio, saw Polygraph Examiner II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
five persons aiming their firearms at the camalig. Except for Adoviso, Manila, who conducted a polygraph test on Adoviso. In the Polygraph
each of these persons had a cover over their faces. Three of them were Report, Lucena opined that Adoviso’s ''polygrams revealed that there
positioned in a ditch near the camalig while two others were near its were no specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions
door. Elmer saw these five persons shoot his cousin Rufino who was relevant" to the investigation of the crimes.
lying down on the papag. Although his back was hit, Rufino was able to 6. In rebuttal, Bonifacio Vasquez revealed that when he reported the incident to
crawl under the papag. Elmer's grandfather was also hit on the stomach the police, he did not identify Adoviso as one of the culprits because he was
but he managed to up the camalig. When Adoviso and his companion afraid of appellant who was a member of the CAFGU. Nevertheless,
by the camalig door saw Elmer, they fired at him then, with the three Bonifacio did mention to the police that he recognized Adoviso as one of the
others at the ditch, escaped to the banana plantation Elmer, on the other perpetrators of the crime although he told them that he did not recognize
hand, fled towards the coconut plantation. Adoviso’s four companions. He did not mention to Lopez and Canabe
f. Upon returning to the camalig, Elmer saw his father carrying his Adoviso’s identity because he was "confused" about what had happened in
grandfather Emeterio. He also found Rufino at the foot of a coconut tree their house.
near the river, lying on his side with his body curled. Rufino told Elmer 7. The trial court rendered a Joint Judgment finding Adoviso guilty beyond
that he had been hit and, when Elmer failed to locate his wound, Rufino reasonable doubt for two counts of murder.
took Elmer's hand and put it on his back. Elmer then moved Rufino
"sidewise." Upon returning to the camalig, Elmer carried his grandfather ISSUE/s:
and bandaged his stomach with diapers. 1. WoN the negative result of the polygraph test should be given weight to
g. Bonifacio went to the municipal building of Bula to fetch the police. tilt the scales of justice in Adoviso’s favor – NO. Much faith and credit
The police brought Emeterio and Rufino to the municipal hall of Bula should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive.
and then to the Bicol Regional Hospital. Both Emeterio and Rufino died Adoviso has not advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to
early the next morning. him.
 2. WoN Adoviso was properly identified by the two eyewitnesses (Bonifacio gunfire. Appellant's contention therefore that one particular gas lamp could
and Elmer) as one of the killers of the victims – YES. In this case, not one not have lighted the place because it was placed inside a can is puerile.
but two gas lamps illuminated the place, thus there is no merit to Adoviso’s 4. The bamboo slats of the camalig could not have effectively obstructed the
contention that one particular gas lamp could not have lighted the place eyewitnesses' view of appellant, considering that the slats were built four
because it was placed inside a can. The bamboo slats of the camalig also could meters apart. Besides, it is the natural reaction of relatives of victims to strive
not have effectively obstructed the eyewitnesses' view of Adoviso. to observe the faces and appearance of the assailants, if not ascertain their
identities, and the manner in which the crime is committed. A relative will
RULING: The Joint Judgment of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. naturally be interested in identifying the malefactor to secure his conviction
to obtain justice for the death of his relative(s). It must remembered that
RATIO: Adoviso was not a complete stranger to the eyewitnesses. Bonifacio had
Admissibility of polygraph results known him for ten years while Elmer had been acquainted with him for four
1. A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously years. Familiarity with appellant's face and appearance minimized if not
measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body that erased the possibility that they could have been mistaken as to his identity.
are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee's conscious attempt 5. Appellant's allegation that it was "improbable" for him to have committed the
to deceive the questioner. The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test crimes without a mask, unlike the other participants, deserves scant
is that a person who lies deliberately will have rising blood pressure and a consideration. It is not contrary to human experience for a person to commit
subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the graph. a crime before the very eyes of people who are familiar to them. Indeed, some
However, American courts almost uniformly reject the results of may even take pride in their identification as the perpetrator of a criminal act.
polygraphs tests when offered in evidence for the purposes of 6. There is no merit in appellant's contention that Bonifacio had a motive in
establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the implicating him. According to appellant, Bonifacio suspected that he was
accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that hired by the Galicia family to kill Bonifacio's father who had earlier won in
polygraph has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and a land dispute with the Galicias. It is irrelevant here to talk of motive on the
ascertaining truth or deception. The rule is no different in this part of Bonifacio inasmuch as to credible witnesses had positively identified
jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much faith and credit appellant as one of the participants in the killing of Emeterio Vasquez and
should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Rufino Agunos. Appellant's alibi thus crumbles in the face of his positive
Adoviso, in this case, has not advanced any reason why this rule should identification as one of the perpetrators of the crimes. For an alibi to prosper,
not apply to him. moreover, there must be proof that the defendant was not only somewhere
Adoviso was properly identified by the two eyewitnesses else when the crime was committed but that he could not be physically
2. According to appellant Adoviso, Bonifacio, who was in the dark portion of present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
the yard hiding behind a coconut tree, could not have identified appellant by commission. Appellant did not prove the physical impossibility of his being
the light emanating from gas lamp inside the camalig where Emeterio in Sitio Tan-agan which is not exactly remote from Sitio Palsong where he
Vasquez and Rufino Agunos were staying at the time of the incident. Neither claimed to be when the incident happened.
could Elmer Vasquez, who declared that he saw his grandfather shot by
appellant, could have identified appellant because of the poor lighting coming
from the gas lamp being carried by his grandfather.
3. Visibility is indeed a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an
eyewitness could have identified the perpetrator of a crime. However, it is
settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witnesses do
not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor
should normally be accepted. Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a
flashlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons. Wicklamps,
flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations be
considered sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of
witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious. In this case, not one but two
gas lamps illuminated the place — the one placed inside the camalig and that
held by Emeterio as he descended from the stairs after the first volley of
 009 STATE OF OREGON V. GARVER (Fordan) Mrs. Mitchell was able to relate to the jury the history of her son from infancy to the
Dec. 19, 1950 | Lusk, C.J. | Short-hand description day of the alleged crime including his illnesses, both mental and physical; his
hospitalizations; his moral delinquencies; and his crimes whatever might throw light
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: State of Oregon on his mental condition.
DEFENDANT-APPELLLANT: Robert Edgar Gaver
DOCTRINE: The general rule, of course, is that a lay witness may testify only to
SUMMARY: Garver, together with Andrus and Marshall, was charged for shooting facts and not to opinions or conclusions. But lay witnesses are frequently permitted
and killing Abbott in the course of an attempt to commit the crime of assault and to use so-called "short hand" descriptions, in reality opinions, in presenting to the
robbery being armed with dangerous weapon. Garver was convicted while other 2 court their impression of the general physical condition of a person.
became state witness. The incident happened on Jan. 3, 1949 when Garver met his
accomplices in a tavern in downtown Portland and proposed to them that they rob This court has held it proper in a personal injury case to permit laymen, who were
Abbott, janitor in the Fred Meyer Store. Garver claimed to have information that intimately acquainted with the plaintiff prior to her injury and observed her condition
Abbott would be leaving the store late in the evening carrying about $5,000 in a thereafter, to testify that her health and general physical condition had materially
shopping bag. Acting upon Garver's suggestions, the other 2 stole an automobile, changed for the worse.
secured 2 guns, and rejoined Garver at about 9 in the evening in the vicinity of the
store. Garver armed himself with one of the guns, a .32 automatic pistol. They waited Too strict an adherence to the "opinion" rule is undesirable. When a witness of less
until Abbott appeared carrying the shopping bag and followed him several blocks in than ordinary education and powers of expression is on the stand, technical rulings
the stolen automobile. Andrus, the driver, remained in the car while the other 2 got not infrequently result in bickerings between counsel and vain attempts of the court
out and held up Abbott with guns in hand. Garver shot Abbott 3 times and the 3 to make the witness comply with its rulings; while in the end the opinion of the
desperadoes fled in the automobile, taking with them the victim's shopping bag, witness usually comes out anyway, and nothing whatever is gained.
which, as it turned out, contained no money but only some clothes. As they sped
away from the scene of the crime, Garver said, according to Marshall's testimony, FACTS:
"he had to shoot the fellow, he started to fumble for a gun." In fact, Abbott was not 1. The defendant, Robert Edgar Garver (Garver), has appealed from a conviction
armed. He died of the gunshot wounds. Garver claimed the defense of insanity when of first degree murder wherein death penalty was imposed.
he committed the crime and presented witnesses to corroborate the said claim. 2. The indictment charged Garver and 2 others, Norman Carroll Andrus (Andrus)
and Leland Delbert Marshall (Marshall), with shooting and killing Ancell
The issue is whether or not the testimonies of Marshall, Rena Garver and Gertrude Abbott (Abbott) in the course of an attempt to commit the crime of assault and
Mitchell are admissible as evidence as to the insanity of Garver. Only as to Getrude robbery being armed with a dangerous weapon.
Mitchell. The witness, Marshall, an accomplice of Garver, was not shown to be his 3. The following were the events that transpired:
"intimate acquaintance" and hence was not competent to give an opinion as to his a. On the early evening of Jan. 3, 1949, Garver, 24 yrs. old, met his
"mental sanity". No error was committed in sustaining the objection to the question. accomplices in a tavern in downtown Portland and proposed to them that
The witness, Rena, is a sister-in-law of Garver. It was within the discretion of the they rob Abbott, who was a janitor in the Fred Meyer Store located at 4th
trial judge to determine whether she had that degree of intimacy with the defendant Avenue and Morrison Street. Garver claimed to have information that
which would make her a competent witness upon the question of his sanity. From an Abbott would be leaving the store late in the evening carrying about $5,000
examination of the testimony in that regard the court cannot say that this discretion in a shopping bag.
was abused. As to the testimony of Mrs. Mitchell, if there was error in striking her b. Acting upon Garver's suggestions, the other 2 stole an automobile, secured
statement that Garver was mentally ill, it was cured when later she was permitted to 2 guns, and rejoined Garver at about 9 in the evening in the vicinity of the
give her opinion that he was insane. Apparently, the court struck the phrases used by store. Garver armed himself with one of the guns, a .32 automatic pistol.
Mrs. Mitchell, "such a terrible shape" and "physically ill", on the theory that they c. They waited until Abbott appeared carrying the shopping bag and followed
were the opinions or conclusions of the witness. *doctrine* Mrs. Mitchell was a fairly him several blocks in the stolen automobile to 10th Avenue and Alder Street,
intelligent witness, but she became so confused by the objections and rulings that at where they parked the car in a parking lot. Andrus, the driver, remained in
one time she said to counsel for Garver: "Mr. Johns, I don't know what you mean by the car while the other 2 got out and held up Abbott with guns in hand.
when you ask me a question and I answer it to the best of my ability; I don't know d. Garver shot Abbott 3 times and the 3 desperadoes fled in the automobile,
what you mean for me to answer. I just try to tell what you ask me." A little later, taking with them the victim's shopping bag, which, as it turned out,
after another of her answers was stricken, she said: "* * * *I don't know how to contained no money but only some clothes.
express it; when I say what was in my heart then it is stricken from the records." But
 e. As they sped away from the scene of the crime, Garver said, according to he was "in such a terrible shape" and that he was "mentally and physically
Marshall's testimony, "he had to shoot the fellow, he started to fumble for a ill".
gun." In fact, Abbott was not armed. He died of the gunshot wounds. 2. The witness, Marshall, an accomplice of Garver, was not shown to be his
4. The crime occurred on a brightly lighted street at about the hour of 10 at night "intimate acquaintance" and hence was not competent to give an opinion as to
and was witnessed by several persons who testified to what they saw. his "mental sanity". No error was committed in sustaining the objection to the
5. Marshall and Andrus pleaded guilty and were witnesses for the state. question.
6. Garver claimed in his brief that the testimony of these accomplices was not 3. The witness, Rena, is a sister-in-law of Garver. It was within the discretion of
sufficiently corroborated but there was no motion for a directed verdict and no the trial judge to determine whether she had that degree of intimacy with the
assignment of error based upon such a claim. Nevertheless, even without the defendant which would make her a competent witness upon the question of his
evidence of the accomplices, the crime and Garver's part in it were established sanity. From an examination of the testimony in that regard the court cannot
by uncontradicted evidence which fully warranted submission of the case to the say that this discretion was abused.
jury. 4. As to the testimony of Mrs. Mitchell, if there was error in striking her statement
7. Garver claimed the defense of insanity when he committed the crime where he that Garver was mentally ill, it was cured when later she was permitted to give
contented that “the law presumes that insanity having once been shown to exist her opinion that he was insane.
continues until the contrary is made to appear. In other words, a person who 5. Apparently, the court struck the phrases used by Mrs. Mitchell, "such a terrible
has been adjudicated insane is to be deemed to continue in such a mental state shape" and "physically ill", on the theory that they were the opinions or
until such a time as evidence of his sanity is introduced." conclusions of the witness.
a. Dr. Gerard B. Haugen, a psychiatrist, was presented as his witness to 6. The general rule, of course, is that a lay witness may testify only to facts
establish his insanity. and not to opinions or conclusions. But lay witnesses are frequently
b. Lay testimony of his mother and others to show his chronic condition of permitted to use so-called "short hand" descriptions, in reality opinions,
mental abnormality. in presenting to the court their impression of the general physical
8. On the other hand, the State of Oregon (State) also presented expert testimony condition of a person.
in order to prove that Garver was not legally insane at the time of the 7. This court has held it proper in a personal injury case to permit laymen,
commission of the crime. who were intimately acquainted with the plaintiff prior to her injury and
observed her condition thereafter, to testify that her health and general
ISSUE: (Only related to Opinion Rule) Whether or not the testimonies of Marshall, physical condition had materially changed for the worse. (Crosby v.
Rena Garver and Gertrude Mitchell are admissible as evidence as to the insanity Portland Ry. Co., 53 Or. 496, 504, 100 P. 300, 101 P. 204.)
of Garver. – Only the testimony of Gertrude Mitchell since being his mother, 8. This seems to us to be a common sense view of the matter. It leaves the witness
presumably, she knew as much about his condition of health as any lay person could. free to speak his ordinary language, unbewildered by admonitions from the
judge to testify to facts, when all the while the witness is sure in his own mind
RULING: For the error in refusing to give the instruction on the presumption of that he is testifying to facts. The jury understands what the witness means, and
continuing insanity, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further the right of cross-examination removes the likelihood of harm to the other side.
proceedings in conformity to this opinion. 9. Too strict an adherence to the "opinion" rule is undesirable. When a
witness of less than ordinary education and powers of expression is on the
RATIO: stand, technical rulings not infrequently result in bickerings between
1. In a single assignment of error Garver has presented objections to several counsel and vain attempts of the court to make the witness comply with its
evidentiary rulings. rulings; while in the end the opinion of the witness usually comes out
a. The court sustained the state's objection to the following question put to the anyway, and nothing whatever is gained.
state's witness, Marshall, on cross-examination by Garver's counsel: "Isn't 10. Mrs. Mitchell was a fairly intelligent witness, but she became so confused by
it a fact, Lee, that you thought he [the defendant] was crazy?" the objections and rulings that at one time she said to counsel for Garver: "Mr.
b. The court also, on motion of the state, struck from the record and instructed Johns, I don't know what you mean by when you ask me a question and I answer
the jury to disregard the answer of the witness, Rena Garver (Rena), as it to the best of my ability; I don't know what you mean for me to answer. I just
follows: "A. Well, I think he [Garver] has been going crazy and I don't try to tell what you ask me." A little later, after another of her answers was
know, you just never know what he was going to do." stricken, she said: "* * * *I don't know how to express it; when I say what was
c. Lastly, the court struck from the record and instructed the jury to disregard in my heart then it is stricken from the records."
the testimony of Gertrude Mitchell (Mrs. Mitchell), mother of Garver, that
11. Mrs. Mitchell related to the jury the history of her son from infancy to the day
of the alleged crime including his illnesses, both mental and physical; his
hospitalizations; his moral delinquencies; and his crimes whatever might throw
light on his mental condition.
• She used the expression "in such a terrible shape" when trying to explain
why she had not taken Garver back to the State Hospital as she had intended
to do, and immediately afterwards said: "He asked me if he could get build
up a little bit before he went back up there."
• She testified that "he was mentally and physically ill" in answer to a
question as to why Garver did nothing when he was at home with her in
December 1948. Presumably, she knew as much about his condition of
health as any lay person could.
• Before giving the testimony which was stricken, she had described his
former physical appearance to the jury, told of his robust health, and how
he had lost 60 pounds during a certain period.
12. The ruling complained of may not have been reversible error; but the same
reasons which led the court in the cases cited to approve the admission of
testimony of lay witnesses that a person injured in an accident was in a worse
condition of health after the accident, than before, impel us to hold that the
court should have let the stricken testimony stand.
 010 US v. STIFEL (GALINDEZ) Whether a witness is shown to be qualified or not as an expert is a preliminary
October 29, 1970 | Edwards, J. | Opinion Rule question to be determined in the first place by the court; and the rule is, that if the
court admits the testimony, then it is for the jury to decide whether any, and if
PETITIONER: USA any what, weight is to be given to the testimony. Cases arise where it is very much
RESPONDENTS: Orville E. Stifel a matter of discretion with the court whether to receive or exclude the evidence;
but the appellate court will not reverse in such a case, unless the ruling is
SUMMARY: Stifel was indicted by the District Court for the murder of Ronec. manifestly erroneous.
Stifel sent a bomb to Ronec through US mails, which exploded when Ronec
opened the package. Stifel was convicted after jury trial and raises two points on
his appeal: first, that the proofs presented were inadequate to support a jury
NOTE: added all the details of evidence presented at the end of the digest that’s why
verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the court erred when it admitted the
it seems long; Atty. Villareal might ask about these so I included everything, but
expert testimony of Scott. (Basically these are the issues).
what’s related to our topic is only the expert testimony on Neutron Activation Analysis
by James Scott. Please read through the whole digest since it’s super fact-heavy.
On proofs:
Evidence such as letters sent by Stifel to his ex Cheryl (who was the fiancé of
FACTS:
Ronec), testimony by Stifel’s friend who he instructed to hand deliver a letter to
1. Appellant Orville Stifel was indicted for violating the law by murdering Dan
Ronec from him, testimony as to a phone call conversation between Cheryl and
Ronec. Stifel sent Ronec a bomb through the US mails. The bomb exploded
Stifel, testimonies of expert witnesses and the outcome of the search of Stifel’s
when Ronec opened the package containing it.
home were presented.
2. Stifel was actually previously known in the community in which he lived as
something approaching a model young man.
Much of the evidence referred to is circumstantial in nature, but this fact alone
3. Stifel was convicted after jury trial. He appeals his conviction on two issues:
does not require reversal. The fact that the evidence is largely circumstantial is
a. Proofs were inadequate to support a jury verdict of guilt beyond a
inconsequential. Circumstantial evidence, if strong enough to convince a jury of
reasonable doubt and that the District Judge erred by denying his
a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to take a case to the
motion for acquittal
jury and sustain a verdict.
b. Reversible error was committed by the trial judge in the admission
over objection of the expert testimony of a government witness
On expert testimony:
concerning the results of attempts to identify the source of certain
Scott (government witness expert witness concerning neutron activation analysis)
bomb package fragments by a process known as neutron activation
testified concerning his examinations of four exhibits of bomb debris: 1) portions
analysis.
of a Dennison mailing label, 2) portions of the cardboard mailing tube, 3) portions
of the metal cap and rim from the mailing tube, and 4) a piece of red plastic tape
ISSUE/s:
found adhering to the top of the Switch Craft switch recovered at the scene.
1. WoN the proofs were adequate – YES. Circumstantial evidence, if strong
Employing neutron activation analysis, Scott testified that in his opinion the
enough to convince a jury of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
mailing label and the cardboard tube fragments were of the same "elemental
is sufficient to take a case to the jury and sustain a verdict.
composition" as their P&G counterparts and that "within reasonable scientific
2. WoN the trial judge erred in admitting the expert testimony –
certainty" they were "of the same type and same manufacture."
3. WoN the pictures of Ronec’s corpse should not have been admitted in
evidence – NO. The pictures were relevant (did not discuss this anymore but
The Court ruled that While two of Stifel’s witnesses (as we noted above)
in case sir asks)
specifically stated their objections to use of neutron activation analysis in court
because of their opinion that its results were not sufficiently "conclusive," as we
RULING: The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
have previously shown, "conclusiveness" is not the requirement for admissibility
of scientific evidence.
RATIO:
DOCTRINE: On questions of science, skill, or trade, or others of like kind, says
ON PROOFS
Greenleaf, persons of skill, sometimes called experts, may not only testify to
4. Ronec was killed at his parents home by an explosion which tore open his
facts, but are permitted to give their opinions in evidence.
 abdomen and tore off his arms. A postman delivered a package addressed to bomb package
him consisting of a mailing tube with a screw-on top. The evidence supports 17. Expert testimony: microscopic examination of pieces of material recovered
the inference that the bomb went off when Ronec unscrewed the top of the from the bomb site and comparison of them through microscopic examination
package. with materials available at P&G. This expert testimony indicated that the
5. Prosecution evidence bore primarily on Stifel’s possible motive for sending bomb package cylinder, its metal top, its mailing sticker and its tape were
the bomb, capability of fashioning it, and availability of materials which microscopically similar to cylinders, tops, mailing stickers and tape which
government evidence sought to establish that the bomb and bomb package were in the P&G stock room to which Stifel had access.
were made. 18. Expert witness: James Scott from the Identification Laboratory of the Postal
6. Motive: There was evidence presented regarding Stifel’s relationship with Inspection Service in Washington. He testified pertaining to his study of
Cheryl Jones to whom Ronec was engaged. Stifel and Cheryl had somewhat various fragments of the bomb package by the method of neutron activation
tempestuous romance (‘95-‘96) which she had sought to terminate in the fall analysis. By this means Scott sought to establish whether the pieces of
of 1966. cardboard, vinyl tape, metal top, and paper gummed label were or could have
7. Stifel sent letters to Cheryl (See end of digest) been from the same manufacturer and same batches as similar items found in
8. Cheryl also testified as to a telephone conversation after Stifel found out that the P&G inventory.
she was going with Ronec (See end of digest). But this was denied by Stifel. 19. Another expert witness described his examinations of bomb fragments which
9. Stifel’s counsel reminds the court that all these occurred 18 months before he determined to be portions of the switch which Ronec closed when he
the bombing and suggests they could not be reasonably related. However, unscrewed the mailing cylinder's metal top. He also identified it as a
there were intervening events. particular switch (Switch Craft #10002) which was advertised in a catalogue
10. Cheryl became engaged to Ronec in 1967, wedding was to take place in 1968. of a mail order electrical supply house which was found in Stifel’s apartment
Stifel learned about these from Cheryl but there is no indication that he ever when it was searched under warrant.
learned that actually the wedding date was thereafter postponed to the 20. During that same search, in the bottom of Stifel’s closet seven out of town
subsequent January. newspapers were found, each of which contained material dealing with the
11. Meehan, Stifel’s friend at Ohio University at Athens testified that in June Ronec bombing. No other out-of-town newspapers were found.
1968 Stifel asked him to accompany him to Columbus. Stifel said he wanted 21. Same search: a jar of copper pennies was discovered. One of the
to use the library at said university. Meehan agreed and shortly after arriving government's experts in microscopic examination of bomb debris had
there, Stifel wrote a note, sealed it and asked Meehan to hand deliver it to identified mutilated copper pennies as having been "in very close proximity
Ronec. When Meehan found the apartment unoccupied, he subsequently met of the blast."
Stifel at a designated restaurant. Meehan gave Stifel the envelope and Stifel 22. Much of the evidence referred to is circumstantial in nature, but this fact alone
put it on the dash-board of his car — never thereafter mailing it. does not require reversal. The fact that the evidence is largely circumstantial
12. Other testimony: Ronec was listed in the university directory at 2 addresses: is inconsequential. Circumstantial evidence, if strong enough to convince a
Highland (where Meehan attempted to deliver the letter) and Lorain where jury of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to take a
Ronec was killed. case to the jury and sustain a verdict.
13. Stifel was cross-examined about this (See end of digest) 23. The court concludes that the evidence set forth above, if believed by the jury,
14. Government’s testimony pertained to evidence establishing Stifel’s (as obviously was true in this case) was sufficient to convince reasonable
experience in handling firearms, fireworks and small rockets. While none of minds beyond a reasonable doubt of appellant's guilt. Under these
this activity directly involved detonating explosives, the government argued circumstances, the Court finds no error in the District Judge's denial of
that this background, plus the availability of Stifel's father's tools and Stifel’s motion for acquittal.
machinery, was evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Stifel
had the capability required to manufacture the bomb. DISCUSSION ON OPINION RULE (RELATED TO TOPIC)
15. The government was also able to produce witnesses to establish that materials 1. The government’s expert witness concerning neutron activation analysis was
from which the bomb package could have been fabricated were available to James Scott, chemist and microanalyst attached to the Identification Bureau
Stifel at his place of employment in a lab of Proctor & Gamble. of the Post Office Department Inspection Service in Washington, D. C.
16. P&G employees testified that screw top mailing cylinders similar in size to 2. He testified as to his training in neutron activation analysis and as to his
that described by the postman who delivered the bomb were available in a writings in the field. His expert witness credentials were accepted by the
stock room to which appellant had access, along with mailing stickers and District Judge and no issue concerning them is presented on appeal.
tape which were similar likewise to the sticker and the tape employed on the 3. Scott testified concerning his examinations of four exhibits of bomb debris:
 1) portions of a Dennison mailing label, 2) portions of the cardboard mailing must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance
tube, 3) portions of the metal cap and rim from the mailing tube, and 4) a in the particular field in which it belongs
piece of red plastic tape found adhering to the top of the Switch Craft switch 12. The Court in this case does not believe that the lower court’s admission of
recovered at the scene. Scott’s evidence is a reversible error. The decision as to whether the state of
4. He compared these items to those available in the P&G storeroom and these the technology in this field was such as to render testimony based on neutron
had been found by another government expert witness to be microscopically activation analysis admissible was, of course, a decision for the Judge.
"identical" or "indistinguishable" from their counterpart exhibits found at 13. Stifel presented three experts who attacked Scott’s test procedures as
P&G. inadequate. However, such went to the weight of Scott's testimony — not to
5. Employing neutron activation analysis, Scott testified that in his opinion the its admissibility.
mailing label and the cardboard tube fragments were of the same "elemental 14. Neither newness nor lack of absolute certainty in a test suffices to render it
composition" as their P&G counterparts and that "within reasonable scientific inadmissible in court. Every useful new development must have its first day
certainty" they were "of the same type and same manufacture." in court. And court records are full of the conflicting opinions of doctors,
6. As to the metal cap and vinyl tape fragments, Scott's opinion was that these engineers and accountants, to name just a few of the legions of expert
were "of the same manufacture" and from "the same batch" as the P&G witnesses.
exhibits. 15. Jurisprudence:
7. No attack is made on the trial judge's admission of the results of microscopic a. The probative significance of the results of the analysis was a matter
examination or the atomic absorption tests. But Stifel contends vigorously for expert opinion. The State's witness Hoffman had conducted
that the neutron activation analysis test results and Scott's opinion testimony extensive tests upon `unknown' paint samples, and participated in
derived therefrom were inadmissible because the test is too new and other testing programs. He was of the opinion, as to four different
unreliable and has not yet been generally accepted by scientists in its sets of matching substances each of which was found to have
particular field. common elements in comparable relative abundance, that each set
8. Both Scott and Stifel’s three expert witnesses testified extensively about the came from a common source, or origin, although found in different
neutron activation analysis process. (See end of digest for explanation of places. The defendant's expert entertained a contrary view of the
neutron activation analysis) significance of the findings. The issue so presented was one which
9. There is discretion on the part of the trial judge in admitting or refusing to was properly submitted to the jury for decision…. We cannot hold
admit proffered expert testimony. that the testimony of either Hoffman or Harrison was irrelevant or
10. SC previously held: incompetent as a matter of law.
a. On questions of science, skill, or trade, or others of like kind, says 16. In this case there are testimonies of four expert witnesses who testified
Greenleaf, persons of skill, sometimes called experts, may not only concerning neutron activation analysis. Each was by his own testimony
testify to facts, but are permitted to give their opinions in evidence. devoting much of his life to development of this method of testing and
b. Whether a witness is shown to be qualified or not as an expert is a comparing materials. There was testimony concerning neutron activation
preliminary question to be determined in the first place by the court; analysis' value in many varied applications in civil and commercial affairs.
and the rule is, that if the court admits the testimony, then it is for While two of Stifel’s witnesses (as we noted above) specifically stated their
the jury to decide whether any, and if any what, weight is to be given objections to use of neutron activation analysis in court because of their
to the testimony. Cases arise where it is very much a matter of opinion that its results were not sufficiently "conclusive," as we have
discretion with the court whether to receive or exclude the evidence; previously shown, "conclusiveness" is not the requirement for admissibility
but the appellate court will not reverse in such a case, unless the of scientific evidence. The record in this case affords support for the
ruling is manifestly erroneous. proposition that neutron activation analysis has gained "general acceptance
11. Frye v. US: in the particular field in which it belongs.
a. Numerous cases are cited in support of this rule. Just when a 17. The Court discovers no basis for holding that test results based on neutron
scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the activation analysis are inadmissible as a matter of law or that the District
experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Judge abused his discretion in admitting the expert witness testimony of Mr.
Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle Scott.
must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting 18. While the Court believes that the neutron activation analysis evidence meets
expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific the test of admissibility in this case, we also note that like any other scientific
principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made evidence, this method can be subjected to abuse. In particular, if the
 government sees fit to use this time consuming, expensive means of fact- he would take care of the car and watch the dog for me while I was in the library, to give him something to
do, that he would watch my car. I had to keep the thing unlocked because I wanted the window rolled down
finding, it must both allow time for a defendant to make similar tests, and in
so my dog could breathe. When I went to the library, he could be in the automobile with the dog, or walk
the instance of an indigent defendant, a means to provide for payment for the dog around the car, so that the car wouldn't be towed away. There are signs in this parking lot that say,
same. We do not enumerate these problems because we think they are the `Patrons. Any cars not belonging to patrons, or automobiles, will be towed,' so on and so forth.
only ones which may develop, but simply because they are the examples "Q That letter was addressed to Daniel Ronec, wasn't it?
"A Yes, sir.
which come first to mind.
"Q You had a stamp on that letter, did you not?
"A That is correct, sir.
LETTERS FROM STIFEL TO CHERYL "Q Did you ever drop that letter in the mailbox afterwards?
FIRST LETTER: "A No, sir.
"Dear Sher: "Q So far as you are concerned, the last you know where the letter was was on the dashboard of your car?
I called tonight. You sounded very cheer and gayful. Moreover you handled me very (quite) efficiently — "A That is the last I could say where it was for certain."
like a boy you met for the first time this afternoon in the malt shop — not like someone who just gave you NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS
the most valuable thing he had. It was like some novice to whom you had to make known in no uncertain "One of the newest and most promising techniques of forensic science is neutron activation analysis. The
terms that no punk calls SHERRY JONES and gets a date like that. I mean who do you think you are high ability of this nuclear method to detect traces of elements in minute samples enables it to solve many
school Harry? I date grad studs. problems of identification that have heretofore been considered hopeless. As shown in Figure 1, the process
I had lots to communicate but it can wait forever. I tore up the letter I wrote to you last night. is essentially one whereby the material to be analyzed is first made radioactive — i.e., it is `charged' so that
So now let me make something known to you in NO uncertain terms; and I say this not in rage or anger, but it will give off or emit radiation in the form of gamma rays. This radioactive sample is then exposed to a
in the cold, clear precise manner which you know characterizes my firmest decisions: scintillation crystal; and every time a gamma ray from the radioactive material interacts with the crystal, it
I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE YOU LITLE BITCH. LET'S SEE WHO WINS! emits a flash of light, which is converted into an electrical pulse whose voltage is proportional to the energy
love always, Orville P.S. Keep your letter" of the gamma rays. An electronic device called a multichannel differential analyzer then sorts the electrical
impulses into different energy groups and adds up the pulses in each group. The result is a graph shown on
SECOND LETTER: [DELIVERED BY HAND TO CHERYL] an oscilloscope screen. The graph contains information related to the kind and amount of elements in the
"What a mover with the `in' crowd you can be? Well I'll show you how little, insignificant, and unsecure radioactive sample and can be transcribed immediately or stored on magnetic tape or punches paper tapes
you are compared to what you could have been had we worked together. This is a petty thing indeed for me for future reference.
to do. I should wipe you off the slate completely, but I would never know whether or not I wiped it off "Virtually no sample of material is too small to be analyzed by activation analysis. A single hair, a shred of
because it was petty or because I was a coward to undertake the petty. marijuana, or a fleck of automobile paint no longer than the period at the end of this sentence can be analyzed
If hate were written on every grain of sand in the saraha [sic] it would not express the feeling you will have and correctly identified. Furthermore, activation analysis's high sensitivity allows quantitative measurement
for me when I'm through with you. of elements in the parts per million and parts per billion range. For instance, if one thimbleful of arsenic
Now that you have promoted yourself to the ranks of `mover' let's see who can move the better — you or poison were diluted in ten tankcars of water, the exact amount of arsenic present could be determined by
me? ? ? activation analysis. In most cases the analysis is also nondestructive, so that material evidence may be
?" preserved for presentation in court or saved for analysis by another method." Watkins and Watkins,
Identification of Substances by Neutron Activation Analysis
TESTIMONY ON TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
"A * * * That evening I received a phone call from him. He said he was sick and he was on — he had been
on his way to Columbus with a gun to shoot me and whoever I was with. However, en route the authorities
had picked him up. The reason they picked him up is somehow he had left a note behind and one of his
roommates found the note. It may have indicated what he was doing, I don't know.
"Q You are telling us what he told you now?
"A Yes, exactly what he told me."

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STIFEL
"Q * * * Now, you found out that he lived on Highland Avenue, is that correct?
"A I don't recall what the address was now any more, but subsequent testimony would leave me to believe,
yes, it was on Highland Avenue — that is, testimony brought before this Court.
"Q And you and Mr. Meehan looked for that particular address on that particular street?
"A I drove him — we drove to a gas station which was diagonally across the intersection from the Burger
Boy Fooderama, and asked where Highland Avenue was. The guy told me that it ran — someone there, I
don't know whether the guy worked or not — told me that it ran parallel to High Street for so many blocks.
"I found Highland Avenue, and I dropped Larry off. I said, `Here, see if you can find out where this is and
if the person still lives there, ask a neighbor, something like that. If he does, drop it in the mailbox. If he
doesn't, you know, bring it on back straight. Please get back to the car as soon as you can, because I'm going
to leave Tarsha — that is my dog, my German shepherd — will be in the car. He's hot. I don't want to roll
the window up all the way, you know, she will suffocate in the car. Please get back there as quickly as
possible.'
"Q Why didn't you take the letter and deliver it in person?
"A Because — the purpose of my going through all of this routine was to give him an errand to do, so that
 011 PEOPLE v. CARPO (Gonzales) 2. The challenged testimony of witness Ruben Meriales
April 4, 2001 | Per Curiam | Opinion Rule follows: At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening while he was
watching television with his family, his dogs barked. His
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: Jaime Carpo, Oscar Ibao, Warlito Ibao and Roche Ibao
mother, who was apprehensive that their cow might be stolen,
prodded him to check the disturbance. He stood up, took his
SUMMARY: The accused impute error to the trial court for relying on the testimony flashlight and trudged the unpaved path towards his cow that
of a single witness in convicting them of multiple murder complexed with attempted was tied to a mango tree. Then the noise grew louder. After
murder and the wounding of the victims. Witness testified that at about 8 o clock in transferring his cow nearer to his house, he went inside the
the evening, he went outside after hearing his dogs barked. He went to the kitchen and
peeped outside. He saw Jaime together with Warlito near the victim’s hut. He knew
kitchen, stood atop the concrete washbasin, hid himself behind
Jaime and Warlito very well because the former is his uncle while the latter lived in the bamboo slats and peeped outside. The darkness helped
his neighborhood. Warlito’s sons, Roche and Oscar, were also there. Seconds later, a conceal him from outside view while the light from the two (2)
loud explosion occurred. Witness ran towards the hut and saw the victims soaked in bulbs positioned at about three (3) meters from where he stood
blood. Three of them died while only one survived. The trial court convicted them. In filtered through the slats and illumined the surroundings. There
this appeal, the accused urges the court that the favorable results of their lie detector
tests with the NBI be admitted into the records. They also challenge the veracity of the
was also moon in the sky.
testimony of Ruben Meriales primarily on two (2) grounds: first, Ruben's testimony in 3. A few minutes later, he saw barangay captain
court is different from and is contradictory to his affidavit; and second, Ruben is not a Jaime Carpo together with Warlito Ibao suspiciously stooping
disinterested witness because he has a grudge against the Ibaos. The issues are (1) near his barn. He knew Jaime and Warlito very well. Jaime was
WoN the results of the lie detector test are admissible – NO. Said result has his uncle and Warlito lived in his neighborhood. Warlito's son
not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining
truth or deception. (2) WoN the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on
Roche was also there; he was standing by the mango tree. They
the testimony of Ruben – NO. A scrutiny of the records reveals that his testimony is were all looking in the direction of Florentino Dulay's house
not inconsistent with his affidavit inasmuch as the former merely supplied the details which was about a meter to the south from where he was. He
of the event which the latter failed to disclose. But assuming that there was any also saw Oscar Ibao, another son of Warlito, striding towards
inconsistency, it is settled that whenever an affidavit contradicts a testimony given in Dulay's hut. As soon as he reached the hut Oscar lifted
court the latter commands greater respect. Further the mere fact that Ruben admitted
harboring resentment against the Ibaos for the murder of his brother Delfin does not
the sawali mat near the wall and hurled something inside. Oscar
confirm that he fabricated his story. His frankness in admitting his resentment against then scurried off towards the nearby creek with Roche following
the Ibaos should even be considered in his favor. him. Seconds later, a loud explosion shook the entire
neighborhood and Teresita Dulay's screams broke into the night.
DOCTRINE: The trial court is best equipped to make an assessment of witnesses, 4. Ruben Meriales rushed outside. He ran towards Florentino's hut
and its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal unless it has overlooked,
misunderstood or disregarded important facts, which is not true in the present case.
but was deterred by darkness. He returned home to take his
flashlight and raced back to lend aid to Teresita. Inside the hut
(Note: There is no discussion about the opinion rule. I think it goes into the fact that he was stunned by the terrifying gore — a bloodied Florentino
the witness knew the accused personally since one is his uncle and the others live in cradled in the arms of his weeping widow, Norwela and Nissan
his neighborhood, even though the crime happened at night) lying side by side on a cot both doused in blood, and a motionless
FACTS: Norma whose head was oozing with blood.
1. The accused might as well have borrowed the famous line of Shakespeare —
"How this world is given to lying!" — when they impute error to the trial
5. He left the crime scene to borrow the jeepney
court for relying on the testimony of a single witness in convicting them of of Brgy. Kagawad Edgardo Marquez for the hapless victims.
multiple murder complexed with attempted murder for the death of The neighbors milling around at once gave up hope on
Florentino Dulay, Norwela Dulay and Nissan Dulay, and the wounding of Florentino so that only Norwela, Nissan and Noemi were loaded
Noemi Dulay. in the jeepney and rushed to the Eastern Pangasinan District
 Hospital. On their way, Norwela who had injuries on her chest suspects and who promised to give his statement to the police
and lower appendage died. Nissan who was five (5) years old after the funeral.
and the youngest of the victims died later due to "shock from 12. After speaking with Teresita and Ruben, he summoned his
pains" caused by the shrapnel wounds in her left shoulder, colleagues to go with him to Warlito’s house which was just
abdomen and lower extremities. Noemi luckily survived. Her across the road. Warlito's house was dark and its front door was
attending physician, Dr. Emiliano Subido, testified that Noemi locked. He called out but there was no answer. They then
was semi-conscious and vomiting although ambulatory at the proceeded to Oscar's house which was also padlocked and
time he examined her. But due to the seriousness of her wounds unoccupied. He went to Roche's house and peeped inside before
and the hospital's lack of facilities she was taken to another they left.
hospital in Dagupan City. 13. Against their positive identification by Ruben, the four (4)
6. In the course of their investigation, the policemen questioned accused interposed alibi claiming that they were somewhere else
the people who might have witnessed the carnage. Fearful when the Dulay hut was blasted. They likewise assailed Ruben's
however that the culprits would return, Ruben Meriales refused testimony for being a fabrication and insisted that he lied to get
to give any statement but intimated to Police Officer Guillermo back at them because Roche was a suspect in the killing of his
Osio that he would go to the police station after the burial. brother Delfin.
7. A week later, Ruben went to the police station where he gave his 14. Jaime and his wife Veronica were one in testifying that in the
statement. He named Jaime, Warlito, Oscar and Roche (accused) evening of the incident, Jaime was at home in Brgy. Libsong, a
as the perpetrators of the crime. He further said that Florentino hundred and fifty (150) meters away from the house of the
was killed because he was about to testify against Roche Ibao Dulays in Brgy. Baligayan. When he heard the loud explosion,
for the murder of his brother Delfin Meriales. he summoned his tanods to check whether the blast happened
8. Solely on the basis of Ruben's testimony, a criminal complaint within their barangay. When he learned that the explosion
for the murder of Florentino, Norwela and Nissan as well as the occurred in the adjoining Brgy. Baligayan, he went home to
frustrated murder of Noemi was filed against the accused. sleep. Brgy. Baligayan is separated from his barangay by a creek
Warrants for their immediate arrest were issued. and could be reached in ten (10) minutes. However, on the night
9. Jaime was taken into custody by the police, while Roche was of the incident, the creek was neck deep such that one had to
apprehended in La Union. Oscar and Warlito surrendered to the make a detour through a mountainous route for about thirty (30)
NBI in La Union. minutes to reach Brgy. Baligayan.
10. At the trial, the prosecution presented Ruben, Noemi, Dr. 15. Jaime testified that Ruben implicated him because the latter was
Rosalina O. Victorio, Dr. Emiliano Subido and Police Officers angry at him. Jaime sided with the Ibaos in the murder case
Virgilio dela Cruz, Jovencio Tapac and Guillermo Osio as instituted by the Merialeses against Roche for the death of
witnesses. Delfin. Also, while Jaime was incarcerated, Ruben supposedly
11. Police Officer Osio testified that on the night after receiving a visited him asking his forgiveness for having named him as one
report of an explosion in Brgy. Baligayan, he together with of the perpetrators of the crime. Ruben subsequently pleaded
Police Officers Julius Aurora, Ricardo Lugares and Jovencio with him to reveal the names of those responsible but when he
Tapac immediately responded. They were able to gather several claimed ignorance, Ruben left in a huff.
grenade shrapnels and a grenade shifting lever from the crime 16. Warlito, Oscar and Roche testified that on the night of the
scene. He spoke with the weeping Teresita who told him that she explosion their family was having a farewell party for the
suspected the accused of having perpetrated the assault. He family's only girl Maribel who was leaving for Hongkong. They
likewise conferred with Ruben who named the same set of heard the blast but they did not bother to check. They denied
 having heard the police officers call for them an hour after the is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that they are ordered to pay
explosion. Roche further asserted that he did not have a house the heirs of the deceased Florentino, Norwela and Nissan P50,000.00 as
in Brgy. Baligayan because he lived with his parents-in-law death indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each death or an
in Brgy. Libsong. However, on the night of the blast, he slept at aggregate amount of P300,000.00. In addition, accused are ordered to
his parents' house as all of his siblings and their families were pay Noemi P30,000.00 as indemnity for her attempted murder. Costs
there. He only learned of the bloodbath the following morning against accused. Upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this
when they went home to his in-laws. His wife Jovelyn case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible
corroborated his testimony in the same manner that Remedios exercise of executive clemency or pardoning power.
supported the story of her husband Warlito.
17. In convicting the accused of the multiple murder of Florentino, RATIO:
Norwela and Nissan and the attempted murder of Noemi the trial Lie detector
court gave full credit to the testimony of Ruben. It accepted his 1. A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will
straightforward testimony and ruled that "at no instance undergo physiological changes, capable of being monitored by
throughout the twin testimonies of Meriales did the Court notice sensors attached to his body, when he is not telling the truth.
a twitch of falsehood on his lips." 2. The Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie
18. Forthwith, the case was elevated to this Court for automatic detector test inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the
review. After the filing of briefs, the accused filed an Addendum scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth
to Appellant's Brief urging that the favorable results of their lie or deception.
detector tests with the NBI be admitted into the records.
19. In this appeal, accused challenge the veracity of the testimony of Testimony of Ruben
Ruben Meriales primarily on two (2) grounds: first, Ruben's 3. The trial court is best equipped to make an assessment of
testimony in court is different from and is contradictory to his witnesses, and its factual findings are generally not disturbed on
affidavit; and second, Ruben is not a disinterested witness appeal unless it has overlooked, misunderstood or disregarded
because he has a grudge against the Ibaos. important facts, which is not true in the present case.
4. The twin arguments therefore raised by accused against the
ISSUES: testimony of Ruben are devoid of merit. A scrutiny of the
1. WoN the results of the lie detector test are admissible – NO. Said records reveals that his testimony is not inconsistent with his
result has not been accepted by the scientific community as an affidavit inasmuch as the former merely supplied the details of
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. the event which the latter failed to disclose. But assuming that
2. WoN the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the there was any inconsistency, it is settled that whenever an
testimony of Ruben – NO. The trial court is best equipped to affidavit contradicts a testimony given in court the latter
make an assessment of witnesses, and its factual findings are commands greater respect.
generally not disturbed on appeal unless it has overlooked, 5. The mere fact that Ruben admitted harboring resentment against
misunderstood or disregarded important facts, which is not true the Ibaos for the murder of his brother Delfin does not confirm
in the present case. that he fabricated his story. His frankness in admitting his
resentment against the Ibaos should even be considered in his
RULING: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the trial court favor.
finding accused GUILTY of the complex crime of multiple murder with 6. There is likewise nothing unnatural in Ruben's attitude of
attempted murder and sentencing them to the supreme penalty of death concealing himself behind the kitchen wall instead of warning
 the Dulays of the looming danger to their lives. It is a well- Ruben, Jaime and Warlito positioned themselves near the hay
known fact that persons react differently to different situations. barn while Roche casually stood by the mango tree. The
In this case, Ruben was ruled by his fear rather than by his presence of Jaime, Warlito and Roche inescapably gave
reason, but for this alone, his credibility should not be doubted. encouragement and a sense of security to Oscar, the group's
7. Apropos Jaime's imputation that Ruben had admitted to him preceptor.
while in jail that he lied in his testimony, we find this accusation
farcical as nothing was ever offered in support thereof. The lone (not impt)
corroborative testimony, which was that of Roche, does not 12. Under People v. Tayo, the crime committed may otherwise be
inspire belief since Roche himself admitted overhearing the more appropriately denominated as murder qualified by
conversation while Jaime together with other prisoners was explosion rather than by treachery. However, since it was
constructing a hut outside of his cell at about three (3) meters treachery that is alleged in the Information, the explosion of the
away. As correctly hinted by the prosecution, the noise grenade which resulted in the death and the wounding of the
generated by the construction made it unlikely for Roche to hear victims can only be multiple murder complexed with attempted
conversations three (3) meters away. murder.
8. The defense proffered by the accused is alibi. But this is futile. 13. The crime committed against Noemi Dulay was correctly
By his own admission, Jaime was only a hundred and fifty (150) denominated by the trial court as attempted murder considering
meters away from the scene of the crime. In fact, it would only that none of her injuries was fatal.
take him thirty (30) minutes, at the most, to be at the place of the 14. Since the three (3) murders and attempted murder were produced
Dulays. by a single act, the case comes under Art. 48 of The Revised
9. More so for the Ibaos who acknowledged that they where having Penal Code on complex crimes. Article 48 provides that the
a party just a stone's throw away from the crime scene at the time penalty for the more serious crime, which in the present case
of the explosion. Curiously though, if they were indeed reveling is reclusion perpetua to death, should be applied in its maximum
inside their house on that fateful night, then we cannot period. As the crime was complexed, the death penalty was
comprehend why they did not go out to investigate after hearing properly imposed by the trial court.
the blast. Besides, it was rather strange for the Ibaos not to have 15. At this point, we take exception to the court a quo's award of
joined their neighbors who had instantaneously milled outside to damages in the "negotiated amount of P600,000.00." It appears
view the mayhem. Their conduct indeed betrayed them. that under the auspices of the trial court counsel for the defense
10. Further, the immediate flight and tarriance of the Ibaos to La entered into an oral compromise with the public prosecutor,
Union until Roche's arrest cannot but demonstrate their guilt and which was subsequently ratified by the private complainant,
desire to evade prosecution. limiting the amount of civil liability to P600,000.00.3
11. The trial court also correctly ruled that accused conspired in
perpetrating the offense charged. From the detailed account of

3
PROS. CORPUZ: . . . . (W)e would like to enter into stipulation the civil aspect of the case. COURT: All right so P600,000.00 is the agreed liquidated amount in case of conviction
xxx without necessarily having to interpret this stipulation as admission of guilt on the part of any
COURT: All right. So you can easily stipulate. First of all, how much do you want Fiscal? of the accused. xxx
PROS. CORPUZ: P1,282,740.00, your Honor . . . . COURT: . . . . Are you the private complainant in this case?
COURT: . . . . Agree gentlemen of the defense? TERESITA DULAY: Yes, sir.
ATTY. SANGLAY: P600,000.00, your Honor. COURT: If the accused get convicted and I will hold them severally liable for you of damages
COURT: Do you agree Fiscal? in the liquidated sum of P600,000.00 as agreed upon by the counsel, will you be satisfied? . . . .
PROS. CORPUZ: Yes, your Honor. TERESITA: Yes, sir.
 16. Article 1878 of the Civil Code4 and Sec. 23 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court5 set forth the attorney's power to compromise.
17. The requirements under both provisions are met when there is a
clear mandate expressly given by the principal to his lawyer. It
has not escaped our attention that counsel for both parties had
no special power of attorney. However, insofar as Teresita was
concerned, she was apprised of the agreement and in fact had
signed her name, thereby tacitly ratifying the same.
18. Since Atty. Sanglay and Atty. Rafael had no specific power to
compromise the civil liability of all accused, its approval by the
trial court which did not take the precautionary measures to
ensure the protection of the right of accused not to be deprived
of their property without due process of law, could not legalize
it. The settlement should not be given force and effect.

4 5
a special power of attorney is necessary "to compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce "(a)ttorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in
the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a writing, and in taking appeal, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure, but they cannot, without
prescription already acquired." special authority, compromise their clients' litigation or receive anything in discharge of their clients' claims
but the full amount in cash."
 012 People v Lee (Gustilo) addressed to Mayor Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City, and sent through PO3
May 29, 2002 | Puno, J. | Character Evidence Willy Tuazon and his wife, Baby Ruth. In the letter, Herminia was surrendering
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation because he was hooked on shabu, a
RESPONDENTS: Noel Lee prohibited drug, and was a thief. Herminia was scared that eventually Joseph
SUMMARY: The Court charged the accused Lee, with intent to kill, with might not just steal but kill her and everyone in their household because of his
treachery and evident premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and drug habit. The trial court found Lee guilty and sentenced him to the penalty of
feloniously attack and shoot one JOSEPH MARQUEZ y LAGANDI (Lagandi), death.
with the use of a handgun, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical The issues are (a) Herminia Marquez, the lone prosecution witness was credible?-
injuries, which ultimately caused the victim’s death. The facts are as follows: At YES & (b) WoN the reputation or character of the victim was relevant?- NO
9:00 in the evening of September 29, 1996, Herminia Marquez, 46 years of age The Court held that Herminia’s testimony is positive, clear and straightforward.
and her son, Joseph, 26 years of age, were in the living room of their house located She did not waver in her narration of the shooting incident, neither did she waffle
at No. 173 General Evangelista St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The living in recounting her son’s death. Between Herminia’s testimony in open court and
room was brightly lit by a circular fluorescent lamp in the ceiling. In their living her sworn statement, any inconsistency therein does not necessarily discredit the
room, mother and son were watching a basketball game on television. Herminia witness. Affidavits are generally considered inferior to open court declarations
was seated on an armchair and the television set was to her left. Across her, Joseph because affidavits are taken ex-parte and are almost always incomplete and
sat on a sofa against the wall and window of their house and the television was to inaccurate. Oftentimes, they are executed when the affiant’s mental faculties are
his right. Herminia looked away from the game and casually glanced at her son. not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the
To her complete surprise, she saw a hand holding a gun coming out of the open incident that transpired. They are usually not prepared by the affiant himself but
window behind Joseph. She looked up and saw Noel Lee peering through the by another who suggests words to the affiant, or worse, uses his own language in
window and holding the gun aimed at Joseph. Before she could warn him, Joseph taking the affiant’s statements.
turned his body towards the window, and simultaneously, Lee fired his gun hitting As to the character of Joseph, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is
Joseph’s head. Joseph slumped on the sofa. Herminia stood up but could not move irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Lee has not
as Lee fired a second shot at Joseph and three (3) shots more— two hit the sofa alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-
and one hit the cement floor. When no more shots were fired, Herminia ran to the defense. There is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and
window and saw Lee, in a blue sando, flee towards the direction of his house. thievery with his violent death in the hands of Lee. In light of the positive
Herminia turned to her son, dragged his body to the door and shouted for help. eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim’s bad character he
With the aid of her neighbor and kumpare, Herminia brought Joseph to the MCU could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and
Hospital where he later died. simple speculation.
Lee is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has several criminal cases DOCTRINE: The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is
pending against him in Caloocan City. He was charged with frustrated homicide regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence
in 1984 and attempted murder in 1989. For his defense, Lee presented two relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were
witnesses: (a) Orlando Bermudez, a neighbor; and (b) himself. He denies the allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the
killing of Joseph Marquez. He claims that from 8:00 to 10:00 in the evening of parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest
September 29, 1996, he was in his house located at 317 M. de Castro St., Bagong rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the
Barrio, Caloocan City. He was having some drinks with his neighbor, Orlando business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man
Bermudez, and his driver, Nelson Columba. They were enjoying themselves, may have a righteous cause.
drinking and singing with the videoke. Also in the house were his wife, children FACTS:
and household help. At 10:00 P.M., Orlando and Nelson went home and Lee went 1. That on or about the 29th day of September 1996, in Kalookan City, Metro
to sleep. He woke up at 5:30 in the morning of the following day and learned that Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
Joseph Marquez, a neighbor, was shot to death. To Lee’s surprise, he was tagged accused (Lee), with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation
as Joseph’s killer. did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shoot one
Lee had known the victim since childhood and their houses are only two blocks JOSEPH MARQUEZ y LAGANDI (Lagandi), with the use of a handgun,
apart. Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug addict. thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, which ultimately
Six days before his death, on September 23, 1996, Lee caught Joseph inside his caused the victim’s death.
car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph scampered away. As proof of the victim’s 2. Lee pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, the prosecution presented
bad reputation, Lee presented a letter handwritten by his mother, Herminia, the following witnesses: (a) Herminia Marquez, the mother of the victim; (b)
 Dr. Darwin Corpuz, a resident doctor at the Manila Caloocan University brain. A deformed slug was recovered at the left auricular region;
(MCU) Hospital; (c) PO2 Rodelio Ortiz, a police officer who examined the (c)Contusion, right eyebrow, measuring 3 x 2 cm, 3 cm from the anterior
crime scene; and (d) Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of the midline. There are subdural and subarachnoidal hemorrhages. Stomach is ¼
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. full of partially digested food particles and positive for alcoholic odor. Cause
3. The prosecution established the following facts: At 9:00 in the evening of of death is intracranial hemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds (Head)
September 29, 1996, Herminia Marquez, 46 years of age and her son, Joseph, 7. At the time of his death, Joseph was employed as driver by the Santos
26 years of age, were in the living room of their house located at No. 173 Enterprises Freight Services earning P250.00 a day. He left behind two
General Evangelista St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The living room was children by his live-in partner who are now under his mother’s care and
brightly lit by a circular fluorescent lamp in the ceiling. Outside their house support. Herminia spent approximately P90,000.00 for the funeral and
was an alley leading to General Evangelista Street. The alley was bright and burial expenses of her deceased son. The expenses were supported by
bustling with people and activity. There were women sewing garments on receipts and admitted by the defense.
one side and on the other was a store catering to customers. 8. Herminia filed a complaint for murder against Lee. The complaint, was
4. In their living room, mother and son were watching a basketball game on however dismissed for insufficiency of evidence in a Resolution dated
television. Herminia was seated on an armchair and the television set was to December 4, 1996 by Prosecutor Dionisio C. Sison with the approval of
her left. Across her, Joseph sat on a sofa against the wall and window of their Caloocan City Prosecutor Rosauro J. Silverio. Herminia appealed the order
house and the television was to his right. Herminia looked away from the of dismissal to the Secretary of Justice. In a letter dated March 16, 1998,
game and casually glanced at her son. To her complete surprise, she saw a Secretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III reversed and set aside the appealed
hand holding a gun coming out of the open window behind Joseph. She Resolution and ordered the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City to file an
looked up and saw Noel Lee peering through the window and holding the gun information for murder against Lee. Accordingly, the Information was filed
aimed at Joseph. and a warrant of arrest issued against Lee on June 8, 1998. On October 16,
5. Before she could warn him, Joseph turned his body towards the window, and 1998, Lee was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation
simultaneously, Lee fired his gun hitting Joseph’s head. Joseph slumped on (NBI).
the sofa. Herminia stood up but could not move as Lee fired a second shot at 9. Lee is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has several criminal
Joseph and three (3) shots more— two hit the sofa and one hit the cement cases pending against him in Caloocan City. He was charged with frustrated
floor. When no more shots were fired, Herminia ran to the window and saw homicide in 1984 and attempted murder in 1989. For his defense, Lee
Lee, in a blue sando, flee towards the direction of his house. Herminia turned presented two witnesses: (a) Orlando Bermudez, a neighbor; and (b) himself.
to her son, dragged his body to the door and shouted for help. With the aid of He denies the killing of Joseph Marquez. He claims that from 8:00 to 10:00
her neighbor and kumpare, Herminia brought Joseph to the MCU Hospital in the evening of September 29, 1996, he was in his house located at 317 M.
where he later died. Police investigators arrived at the hospital and inquired de Castro St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. He was having some drinks
about the shooting incident. Herminia told them that her son was shot by Noel with his neighbor, Orlando Bermudez, and his driver, Nelson Columba. They
Lee. From the hospital, Herminia went to the St. Martin Funeral Homes were enjoying themselves, drinking and singing with the videoke. Also in the
where Joseph’s body was brought. Thereafter, she proceeded to the Caloocan house were his wife, children and household help. At 10:00 P.M., Orlando
City Police Headquarters where she gave her sworn statement about the and Nelson went home and Lee went to sleep. He woke up at 5:30 in the
shooting. morning of the following day and learned that Joseph Marquez, a neighbor,
6. Upon request of the Caloocan City police, a post-mortem examination was was shot to death. To Lee’s surprise, he was tagged as Joseph’s killer.
made on Joseph’s body. Dr. Rosaline O. Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of 10. Lee had known the victim since childhood and their houses are only two
the PNP Crime Laboratory Service made the following findings: HEAD (a) blocks apart. Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a
Gunshot wound, frontal region, measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm, just right of the thief and drug addict. Six days before his death, on September 23, 1996,
anterior midline, 161 cm from heel, with an upbraded collar, measuring 0.2 Lee caught Joseph inside his car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph
cm superiorly and laterally, 0.1 cm medially and inferiorly directed scampered away. As proof of the victim’s bad reputation, Lee presented
posteriorwards, downwards and to the left fracturing the frontal bone, a letter handwritten by his mother, Herminia, addressed to Mayor
lacerating the brain. A deformed slug was recovered embedded at the left Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City, and sent through PO3 Willy
cerebral hemisphere of the brain; (b) Gunshot wound, occipital region, Tuazon and his wife, Baby Ruth. In the letter, Herminia was
measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 2 cm left of the posterior midline, 162 cm from heel, surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation because he was
with a uniform 0.2 cm upbraded collar, directed slightly anteriorwards, hooked on shabu, a prohibited drug, and was a thief. Herminia was
downwards and lateralwards, fracturing the occipital bone and lacerating the scared that eventually Joseph might not just steal but kill her and
 everyone in their household because of his drug habit. of a hole in the window, i.e., “butas ng bintana.” On cross-examination,
11. Lee likewise explained the two criminal cases filed against him in 1984 and Herminia stated that she saw a hand holding a gun in the open window, i.e.,
1989. The information for attempted murder was dismissed as a result of the “bukas na bintana.” According to Lee, this inconsistency is a serious flaw
victim’s desistance while in the frustrated homicide case, the real assailant which cannot be repaired by her statement on the witness stand.
appeared and admitted his crime. 4. Herminia corrected her affidavit by saying in open court that she saw the hand
12. The trial court found Lee guilty and sentenced him to the penalty of death. and the gun coming out of the open window, not from a hole in the window.
The court also ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the victim civil indemnity In her direct testimony, Herminia presented a photograph of her living room
of P50,000.00, actual damages of P90,000.00, moral damages of P60,000.00 just the way it looked from her side on the night of the shooting. The sofa on
and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and the costs of the suit. which Joseph was seated is against the wall, with the window a few inches
above the wall. The window is made of transparent glass with six (6) vertical
ISSUE/s: glass panes pushing outwards. The entire window is enclosed by iron grills
1. WoN Herminia Marquez, the lone prosecution witness was credible?- with big spaces in between the grills. The living room is well-lit and the area
YES because Herminia’s testimony is positive, clear and straightforward. She outside the house is also lit by a fluorescent lamp.
did not waver in her narration of the shooting incident, neither did she waffle 5. Between Herminia’s testimony in open court and her sworn statement,
in recounting her son’s death. any inconsistency therein does not necessarily discredit the
2. WoN the reputation or character of the victim was relevant?- NO because witness. Affidavits are generally considered inferior to open court
it is irrelevant to the case declarations because affidavits are taken ex-parte and are almost always
incomplete and inaccurate. Oftentimes, they are executed when the
RULING: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair
Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 127 is affirmed insofar as accused-appellant Noel opportunity of narrating in full the incident that transpired. They are
Lee is found guilty of murder for the death of Joseph Marquez. The death sentence usually not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who suggests
imposed by the trial court is however reduced to reclusion perpetua, there having been words to the affiant, or worse, uses his own language in taking the
no aggravating circumstance in the commission of said crime. Except for the award of affiant’s statements.
exemplary damages, the award of civil indemnity, other damages and costs are 6. It is thus clear that when Herminia approached her son, she saw that the
likewise affirmed. person firing the gun was Lee. Lee continued firing and then ran away
RATIO: towards the direction of his house. This account is not inconsistent with the
1. Herminia’s testimony is positive, clear and straightforward. She did not witness’ testimony in open court.
waver in her narration of the shooting incident, neither did she waffle in 7. Herminia’s declarations are based on her actual account of the commission
recounting her son’s death. She was subjected by defense counsel to of the crime. She had no ill motive to accuse appellant of killing her son, or
rigorous cross and re-cross examinations and yet she stuck to her testimony at least, testify falsely against appellant. Accused-appellant himself admitted
given in the direct examination. She readily gave specific details of the crime that he and Herminia have been neighbors for years and have known each
scene, e.g., the physical arrangement of the sofa and the television set, the other for a long time. Appellant is engaged in the business of buying and
height of the sofa, the wall and the window, because the crime happened right selling scrap plastic and Herminia used to work for him as an agent. She
in her own living room. She explained that she was unable to warn Joseph would not have pointed to appellant if not for the fact that it was him whom
because she was shocked by the sight of Lee aiming a gun at her son. The she saw shoot her son.
tragic events unfolded so fast and by the time she took hold of herself, her 8. Indeed, the Solicitor General points out that it was appellant himself who had
son had been shot dead. strong motive to harm or kill Joseph. Lee revealed that six days before the
2. A son’s death in his mother’s house and in her presence is a painful and shooting, he caught Joseph inside his car attempting to steal the stereo.
agonizing experience that is not easy for a mother to forget, even with the 9. Lee makes capital of Joseph’s bad reputation in their community. He alleges
passing of time. Herminia’s testimony shows that she was living with a that the victim’s drug habit led him to commit other crimes and he may have
conscience that haunted and blamed her own self for failing to protect her son been shot by any of the persons from whom he had stolen. As proof of
or, at least, save him from death. Joseph’s bad character, Lee presented Herminia’s letter to Mayor Malonzo
3. Nonetheless, Lee points out inconsistencies in the eyewitness’ testimony. In seeking his assistance for Joseph’s rehabilitation from drugs. On rebuttal,
her affidavit of September 30, 1996 given before PO2 Rodelio Ortiz, Herminia admitted that she wrote such letter to Mayor Malonzo but denied
Herminia declared that while she and Joseph were watching television, she anything about her son’s thievery.
saw a hand holding a gun pointed at her son. The hand and the gun came out
Character of Victim establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged and, at the
10. Character evidence is governed by Section 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules same time, qualifies the killing of Joseph Marquez to murder.
on Evidence. Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain 15. As to the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, this cannot be
qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion appreciated to increase the penalty in the absence of direct evidence showing
generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the that accused-appellant deliberately planned and prepared the killing of the
people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. “Good moral character” victim.
includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these
are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse;
a character that measures up as good among people of the community in
which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen;
that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
11. The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as
legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating
thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were
allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of
the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity
contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all,
the business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very
bad man may have a righteous cause.
12. In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is
irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing.
Lee has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing
was made in self-defense. There is no connection between the deceased’s
drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of Lee.
In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the
victim’s bad character he could have been killed by any one of those from
whom he had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.
13. Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases
of murder committed with treachery and premeditation. In People v. Soliman:
While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to
determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an
offense (Section 15, Rule 123), such is not necessary in the crime of
murder where the killing is committed through treachery or
premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in
homicide cases to show “that it has produced a reasonable belief of
imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction
that a prompt defensive action was necessary.
14. In the case at bar, accused-appellant is charged with murder committed
through treachery and evident premeditation. The evidence shows that
there was treachery. Joseph was sitting in his living room watching
television when accused-appellant peeped through the window and,
without any warning, shot him twice in the head. There was no
opportunity at all for the victim to defend himself or retaliate against his
attacker. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack ensured his
death without risk to the assailant. The presence of this aggravating
circumstance negates the necessity of proving the victim’s bad character to
 013 CSC v. Belagan (CARLOS) of the offense charge. In other words, character evidence must be limited
19 October 2004 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | Topic Tags to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.

PETITIONER: Civil Service Commission FACTS:

RESPONDENTS: Allyson Belagan 18. This is an administrative case against Dr. Allyson Belagan,
Superintendent of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
SUMMARY: in Baguio City. This stems from the 2 separate complaints filed
Facts: Magdalena Gapuz filed an administrative case against Allyson respectively by Magdalena Gapuz, founder/directress of the ‘Mother
Belagan for sexual harassment. The incidents happened when Magdalena and Child Learning Center’ and Ligaya Annawi, a public school
applied for a permit to operate a pre-school with the DECS office in Baguio teacher. Magdalena charged respondent with sexual indignities and
City. The first incident is when Belagan was conducting the required school harassment, while Ligaya accused him of sexual harassment and
visit with Magdalena. He hugged her from behind and kissed her cheek. The various malfeasances. [I will only focus on the complaint of
second incident is when Magdalena asked the status of her application. He Magdalena since she is the focus of the case and the CSC dismissed
replied that they should have a date first. The DECS conducted an the complaint of Ligaya]
investigation and found Belagan Guilty. The CSC affirmed the decision. On 19. In March 1994, Magdalena filed an application with the DECS Office
the MR with the CSC, Belagan presented multiple criminal cases and in Baguio City for a permit to operate a pre-school. One of the
barangay complaints filed against Magdalena. All of these complaints were requisites was the inspection of the school premises by the DECS
filed almost ten years prior. The charges involved grave oral defamation, Division. It was Belagan who conducted the inspection in June 1994.
grave threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, and malicious mischief. 20. The first incident happened during the school visit. While both were
The CSC held that these cases did not affect the credibility of Magdalena. descending the stairs of the second floor, Belagan suddenly placed his
However, the CA held that the cases disproved her credibility as a witness. arms around her shoulders and kissed her cheek. Magdalena muttered,
“Sir, is this part of the inspection? Pati ba naman kayo sa DECS wala
Issue: WN Magdalena is credible as a witness. YES ng values?” There were no other people in the are. She kept quiet in
fear of her application being jeopardized and that her husband might
Held: harm Belagan.
[See Doctrine 2] In general, character evidence must be limited to the traits 21. The second incident happened when Magdalena went to the DECS
and characteristics involved in the type of offense charge. In this case, the Division Office and asked Belagan about her permit application. His
cases filed does not relate to her character as a sexual harassment victim. reply was “Mag-date muna tayo.” She declined and left. She reported
[See Doctrine 1] The cases filed were filed almost a decade a go. This does the matter to DECS Assistant Superintendent Peter Ngabit.
not prove Magdalena’s current character because people can change. Also, 22. Magdalena only disclosed the incident to her husband when the latter
a witness may not be impeached or discredited by evidence of particular asked about the permit. The spouses confronted Belagan, but the latter
acts of misconduct. In this case, Belagan did not even prove that she was merely denied the incident. Thereafter, respondent forwarded to the
guilty of the particular acts. DECS Regional Director his recommendation to approve
Magdalena’s application.
DOCTRINE: When the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached 23. In September 1994, Magdalena was encouraged to to come forward
by proof of his reputation, it is necessary that the reputation shown when she read that certain female employees were charging Belagan
should be that which existed before the occurence of the circumstances with sexual harassment. She then wrote a letter-complaint for sexual
out of which the litigation arose, or at the time of the trial and prior indignities and harassment to former DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria.
thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit. 24. The DECS counducted an investigation and found Belagan guilty of
sexual indignities or harassments. Upon appeal, the Civil Service
Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved Commission affirmed the decision. On motion for reconsideration,
because only those which would establish the probability or improbability Belagan presented 22 Criminal Cases and 23 Barangay
 Complaints against Magdalena. All of these complaints were from 23. On a charge of sexual harassment, the evidence must relate to the
1980-1986. The charges involved grave oral defamation, grave chastity of the complainant which would prove the accusation
threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, and malicious mischief. doubtful. In this case, the charges for grave oral defamation, grave
The CSC denied the MR, holding that her wrongful behavior in the threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, and malicious mischief do
communit does not discount the possibility that she was telling the not establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
truth about the sexual harassment. Therefore, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible as character
25. However, the Appelate Court reversed the decision. It held that evidence.
Magdalena is an unreliable witness. The CA said that given her 24. Credibility of the witness means the disposition and intention to tell
aggressiveness and propensity for trouble, “she is not one whom the truth in the testimony given. It refers to a person’s integrity, and to
any male would attempt to steal a kiss.” the the fact that he is worthy of belief. A witness may be discredited
ISSUE/s: by evidence attacking his general reputation for truth, honesty or
4. WN Magdalena Gapuz is credible as a witness. YES – The complaints integrity. However, this does not include evidence of particular
are not reliable proofs of Magdalena’s character or reputation because: wrongful acts or the conviction of an offense.7
1) the cases were filed almost a decade prior to the case; 2) no proof 25. Settled is the principle that evidence of one’s character or
that Magdalena was convicted of the criminal cases; 3) the cases do reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time
not establish the improbability of the offense charged. in question. In other words, what is to be determined is the
5. [Not related] What is the proper penalty? 1 year suspension without character or reputation of the person at the time of the trial and
pay – Considering his unblemished record in the past and numerous prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement
awards, and his 37 year period of service. of the suit.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the 26. In this case, the criminal cases were filed in the 80’s, while the instant
Court of Appeals dated January 8, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 44180 is administrative case is in 1994. It is unfair to presume that these cases
REVERSED. The CSC Resolution Nos. 966213 and 972423 are existing for almost a decade ago is unreasonable. Certainly, every
AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that respondent ALLYSON person is capable to change or reform.
BELAGAN is SUSPENDED from office without pay for ONE (1) YEAR, 27. The general rule is that it is not permissible to show that a witness
with full credit of his preventive suspension. SO ORDERED. has been arrested or that he has been charged with or prosecuted
RATIO: for a criminal offense or confined in jail for the purpose of
Credibility as a witness impairing his credibility. This view is based upon that: a) mere
21. Although an offended party, Magdalena, by testifying in her own unproven charge does not logically affect one’s credibility; b)
behalf, becomes a witness who is in the same position as any other innocent persons are often arrested or accused of a crime; c) the
witness, and may be impeached by an attack on his character or presumption of innocence until proven guilty; and d) a witness may
reputation. not be impeached or discredited by evidence of particular acts of
22. As a general rule, the character of a party is regarded as legally misconduct.8
relevant in determining a controversy. An exemption is when the good 28. In this case, Belagan failed to prove that Magdalena was convicted in
or bad moral character of the offended party tends to establish in any any of the criminal cases. It would be a confusion of issues and waste
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense of time for the witness to prove the falsity of such wrongful acts.
charged.6 This means that the character evidence must be limited
to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense Penalty
charge. However, the provision in the Rules of Court only pertains to 29. The court held that Belagan is gulty of grave misconduct for
criminal cases, not administrative offenses. unlawfully using his station or character to procure some benefit for

6 8
Section 52(a)3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Id.
7
Section 11, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
 himself or for another person contrary to duty and the rights of others,
i.e. using his position to steal a kiss and demand a date for the issuance
of a permit to operate a pre-school. Such act is punishable by
dismissal.
30. However, the Court imposed a lower penalty of suspension,
considering the following: 1) Belagan is near retirement; 2) He has
served the government for 37 years; and 3) First time he is being
administratively charged.
 014 People v. Diopita (HORTALEZA) of the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of
December, 4, 2000 | Belossilo, J. |Rule 130 character evidence good moral character of accused- appellant is unavailing.

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines Doctrine: The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with such "sterling"
RESPONDENTS: Rafael Diopita y Guzman qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of the crime charged.
SUMMARY: The case revolves around the robbery and rape of Dominga Pikit-Pikit Similarly, his having attained the position of "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is
(Dominga) by the accused Rafael Diopita y Guzman (Diopita). no guarantee against any sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part.
Indeed, religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the
Dominga a 24 year old girl on her way home from work in Davao city, was suddenly unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is
assailed by the Diopita looping his arm around her and telling her that if she should not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character
shout she would die. Dominga then was forced towards the banana plantation which and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be
plants were a meter high and far apart, and as she shouted for help was punched in the resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of
stomach and threatened to be knocked out unconscious. After the robbery, Diopita proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence of the
then proceeded to rape Dominga who had no choice but to accept the situation fearing crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of good
for her life. moral character of accused- appellant is unavailing.

Dominga had a good look at the man, because the full moon was shining on his face.
After the incident, Dominga eventually ended up in precint no. 4 of Sasa, Davao city,
her police blotter taken and a Dr. Vergara tested her and found her positive of FACTS:
“spermatocytes”. 1. Culled principally from the testimonies of Dominga Pikit-pikit and PO3
Steve dela Cruz, the inculpatory facts follow: At about 9:00 o'clock in the
PO3 Steve Dela Cruz who went north of the incident upon the statements of Dominga, evening of 16 April 1995 complaining witness Dominga Pikit-pikit, 24
with a size 10 slipper on hand which he recovered from the incident he found 4 houses years old, was walking towards Emiville Subdivision, Diversion Road,
and 4 men who fitted the description. Sasa, Davao City, on her way home from work. Suddenly, a man appeared
from behind, looped his arm around her neck and warned her not to shout or
In a police lineup Dominga identified Diopita as her assailant, and upon her else she would die.
identification, the slipper that was recovered was fitted to him and it fitted perfectly. 2. The man then dragged her through the banana plantation towards the
Diopita who denies the allegation presented his alibi that he was in a bible study with cornfields where the plants were a meter high and far apart. When
his wife and son, and follow Jehovah’s witnesses in the house of a member named Dominga shouted for help, the man pushed her to the ground and punched
Nisnisan. The court denied the application of the Alibi. her on the stomach saying, "Leche ka, why are you shouting? What do you
want me to do, make you unconscious?
Now, Diopita claims that he a person could not have committed the crime because he 3. minga Pikit-pikit got a good look at the man, who turned out to be accused-
was a person of Good Moral Character and even held the position of Ministerial appellant Rafael Diopita y Guzman, as he sat on her thighs and proceeded
Servant" in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that he is a godly man, a to divest her of her belongings — ladies watch, bracelet, ring with Russian
righteous person, a responsible family man and a good Christian who preaches the diamonds, wedding ring and P1,000.00 cash. With the full moon shining on
word of God. WoN such presentations of Good Moral Character should favor the his face, the victim clearly saw Diopita place the items on the right pocket
accused Diopita? NO, The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with such of his shorts
"sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of the crime 4. After being robbed, Diopita now wanted to have carnal knowledge with
charged. Similarly, his having attained the position of "Ministerial Servant" in Dominga, who he kissed lasciviously. Fearing for her life and the punches
his faith is no guarantee against any sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity of Diopita she succumbed, and even assisted Diopita in removing her
on his part. Indeed, religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is clothes.
not the unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An 5. accused-appellant forcibly pulled them down further and got irritated in fact
accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral when he was told that she was wearing a girdle and panty. In frustration, he
character and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction punched her repeatedly and kept on muttering, "Why is this very tight?
must be resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution had discharged its What kind of panty is this?" Finally, he succeeded in pulling the girdle and
duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence panty down.
6. Accused-appellant Diopita then took off his shorts. He kissed the victim, straightforward and convincing manner and no ill- motive on her
lasciviously caressed her breasts, bit her nipples, and fornicated with her. part had been shown to have prompted her to testify falsely. The
As he was sexually assaulting her, Dominga made desperate struggles and failure of the defense to attribute any ill-motive on the part of
frantic calls for help but her efforts proved futile Pikit-Pikit to pin responsibility on Diopita adds more credence to
7. He finally satiated his lust. Warned Dominga he will shoot her if she told complainant's testimony.
anyone, and then walked the opposite direction of the Subdivision. ○ In a long line of cases, it has been held that the defense of alibi
8. Being unable to enter her house, she asked helped from her neighbors who cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the
called the police, Dominga ended up in Precint no. 4 of Sasa, Davao City, victim. Pikit-Pikit testified that she was able to see the face of her
there her blotter was taken, and was tested by a Dr. Vergara who found her attacker because the moon was shining brightly that evening. This
positive of “Spermatocytes” Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the month of April
9. PO3 Steve dela Cruz, who was on duty at the Intelligence and Investigation 1995 the full moon came out on April 15, 1995, a day before the
Section, made a follow-up on the case. He went to the victim's house and date of the crime.
interviewed her between the hours of 1:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock in the 15. Now, Diopita claims that he a person could not have committed the crime
morning of the following day, 17 April 1995, Dominga gave a description because he was a person of Good Moral Character and even held the
of the suspect and his possible whereabouts. position of Ministerial Servant" in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,
10. Acting on that information, PO3 dela Cruz went to the scene of the crime to and that he is a godly man, a righteous person, a responsible family man
investigate and there he recovered a colored white/yellow, size ten (10) and a good Christian who preaches the word of God.
slipper. Since the victim earlier disclosed that the suspect headed north after ISSUE:
committing the crime, he proceeded to that direction where he came upon 1. WoN such presentations of Good Moral Character should favor the accused
four (4) houses about fifteen (15) to fffty (50) meters away from the scene Diopita? NO, The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with such
of the crime. A back-up team was called and they rounded up all the "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of
residents therein. the crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the position of
11. Afterwards, four (4) men who fitted the description of the suspect were "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any sexual
invited to the police station for questioning. They were Placido Laput, perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed, religiosity is
William Silvano, Vicente Silvano and accused- appellant Rafael Diopita y not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone
Guzman who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled
12. Then In a Police Line Up, Dominga was invited to identify her assailant to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and
among 4 individuals who fitted the description. Dominga then positively exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be
identified Diopita as the person who robbed and raped her. After the resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution had discharged its
identification, the police made Diopita fit the slipper and found it to fit well. duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the
13. Diopita denied the allegations by presenting the alibi that he was in a bible evidence of the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict,
study, with his wife and son and other members of the Jehovah’s witness in the evidence of good moral character of accused- appellant is unavailing.
the house of a member named Nisnisan.
14. The trial court ultimately rejected his alibi and convicted Diopita of the RULING: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao
crime because of the evidences presented. City, convicting accused-appellant RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN of ROBBERY
○ Alibi is a weak defense because it can easily be fabricated that it is WITH RAPE, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay
so easy for witnesses to get confused as to dates and time. The DOMINGA PIKIT-PIKIT the sums of P8,500.00 for actual damages and P50,000.00
precision with which the witnesses for the defense, who are his co- for moral damages, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that, in addition, civil
members in the Jehovah's Witnesses, quoted the respective hours indemnity of another P50,000.00 is further awarded to her. Costs against accused-
when the participants in the Bible sharing session supposedly appellant.
arrived is, at best, self-serving and deserves scant consideration
because of the facility with which it may be concocted and RATIO:
fabricated. 1. We now deal with the more substantial arguments raised by accused-
○ On the other hand, private complainant Dominga Pikit-Pikit appellant in his brief. He tenaciously maintains that it was impossible for
positively identified Rafael Diopita as the person who robbed and him to have committed the crime charged since he is a person of good
raped her on April 16, 1995. She testified in a clear, moral character, holding as he does the position of "Ministerial Servant"
 in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that he is a godly man, a
righteous person, a responsible family man and a good Christian who
preaches the word of God.
2. We are not impressed. The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with
such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is
innocent of the crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the position
of "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any sexual
perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed, religiosity is not
always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone
who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled
to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and
exemplary conduct.
3. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic
issue of whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his
guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence of the crime
in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of good
moral character of accused- appellant is unavailing.
4. Accused-appellant likewise bewails and assigns as reversible error the failure
of the trial court to give credence to the testimonies of the defense witnesses.
He argues that these are Jehovah's Witnesses, and as such, they are God-
fearing people who would never lie as to his whereabouts at the time in
question. This argument is puerile
a. it is so easy for witnesses to get confused as to dates and time. The
precision with which the witnesses for the defense, who are his co-
members in the Jehovah's Witnesses, quoted the respective hours
when the participants in the Bible sharing session supposedly
arrived is, at best, self-serving and deserves scant consideration
because of the facility with which it may be concocted and
fabricated.
5. The matter of assigning values to the declarations of witnesses is best and
most competently performed by the trial court who had the unmatched
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying, and to
assess their credibility using various indicia available but not reflected in the
records. Hence, the court a quo's appraisal on the matter is entitled to the
highest respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear
showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case.
There is no compelling reason in the present case to depart from this rule.
 015 PEOPLE v. CAÑETE (VICENCIO edited by SARMIENTO)
March 28, 2003 | Callejo Sr., J. | Rule on Examinaiton of Child Witness FACTS:
4. The spouses Paquito Cañete and Sedaria Cañete had three children, one of
whom was Alma. In 1986, the spouses decided to live separately.
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
5. Sedaria resided in Biliran, with some of her children by Paquito. The latter
RESPONDENTS: Kakingcio Cañete
(Paquito) decided to live in Basey, Samar, and brought Alma with him.
6. Thereafter, Paquito decided to live with his older brother, Kakingcio Cañete,
SUMMARY: Accused Kakingcio was the uncle of the private complainant Alma
and the latter’s common-law wife, Alejandra Cañete, whom Alma called
(12 years old). Alma and her father Paquito (a blind had been living with the
Yaya Alejandra, and their two children, five and four years old, respectively,
Kakingcio and his family off and on for years. On the night of Feb. 1, 1996, in her
in Leyte.
uncle's residence, Alma was awakened by her half-naked uncle Kakingcio who
7. After some years, Paquito and Alma decided to return to and live in Basey,
poked a knife on her neck and subsequently raped her. In the evening of February 3,
Samar. In the meantime, Paquito became blind and a paralytic. In January
when Kakingcio tried to violate her again, she ran to a neighbor, Ka Caring, divulged
1996, Kakingcio (his brother) had Paquito and Alma fetched from Basey,
to her that the Kakingcio tried to rape her anew and sought her help. Kakingcio was
Samar, and brought to Leyte, to live with him and his family.
then charged with rape. The RTC found Kakingcio guilty. Kakingcio appealed
8. By then, Alma was already twelve years old. She noticed that her uncle
claiming inconsistencies in Alma's testimony regarding how Kakingcio raped her
Kakingcio was nice and amiable to her.
with his shorts on. When the prosecution tried to elicit from the Alma how
9. On February 1, 1996, Alejandra visited her daughter in Montebello, Kananga,
Kakingcio's penis could have been inserted into her vagina with his pants still on and
Leyte, leaving behind Kakingcio and their two young children and Paquito
his counsel objected to the question, the presiding judge himself took the cudgels for
and Alma.
the prosecution and propounded questions on Alma. Kakingcio claimed that the
10. At about 8:00 p.m., Alma was already asleep. Paquito was sleeping near her
judge was biased towards the prosecution. The judge also asked leading questions.
feet. The house was dark. Momentarily, Alma was awakened when she felt
someone caressing her.
Issue: WoN the examination conducted by the judge was valid, and hence
11. When she opened her eyes, she saw her uncle Kakingcio who was wearing a
Kakingcio's conviction should be upheld - YES. The Court finds nothing improper
pair of short pants but naked from waist up. He was beside her with his left
in the questions posed by the trial court. Neither are the questions prejudicial to the
palm touching her forehead, down to her face, hand and feet. She could smell
appellant or suggestive of any partiality of the trial court. Although crudely and
liquor from his breath.
ungrammatically phrased, the question of the public prosecutor "where did he let his
12. He poked an 8-inch long knife on her neck and whispered to her: "Ma, don’t
penis exit considering that he is then wearing a short pants" was not leading.
tell your yaya because I will do something to you." Kakingcio then removed
his short pants, lifted her skirt and pulled down her panties. He threatened to
The trial court should have overruled the objection and allowed the private
kill her if she made a sound. Alma was terrified.
complainant to answer the question. However, the trial court was not precluded from
13. Kakingcio then inserted his private organ into Alma’s vagina and made a
asking questions to avoid further wrangling between the public prosecutor and the
push and pull movement of his body. Alma felt pain in her private part and
Kakingcio’s counsel which may frightened or unnerved the private complainant
could do nothing but cry as Kakingcio ravished her. In the process, Alma lost
Alma, a minor and who was unused to judicial proceedings. After all, the trial court
consciousness.
was mandated to discover the truth. (Read doctrine)
14. When she regained consciousness, it was already 6:00 in the morning of
February 2, 1996. She was weak and could hardly stand up. She noticed blood
DOCTRINE: Wnder Sections 19 to 21 of the Rule on Examination of a Child
in her vagina. By then, Kakingcio had already left the house. Alma could do
Witness which took effect on December 15, 2000, child witnesses may testify in a
nothing but cry.
narrative form and leading questions may be allowed by the trial court in all stages
15. Kakingcio arrived back home after lunch time. Alma hid from her uncle.
of the examination if the same will further the interest of justice. Objections to
16. On February 3, 1996, at 8:00 in the evening, Alma was asleep in the sala of
questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead, confuse, frighten and
their house. She was awakened when she felt her pants being pulled down.
intimidate the child:
She was aghast when she saw Kakingcio beside her pulling down her pants.
Sec. 19. Mode of questioning. — The court shall exercise control over the
She resisted and ran out of the house to escape from Kakingcio.
questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure
17. She rushed to the house of a neighbor Ka Caring to whom Alma revealed that
that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child,
her uncle raped her and that he was about to rape her again. Caring adviced
(3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste
Alma not to return to their house. Alma slept in the house of Caring. Alma
of time.
 returned to their house the next day, February 4, 1996. By then, Kakingcio 27. Kakingcio further stresses that when Alma was raped it was nighttime and
was no longer in the house. the place where she was molested was dark. She could not have recognized
18. On February 5, 1996, Alejandra went up the hill to gather camote tops. She and identified the appellant as her rapist. Furthermore, Alma failed to report
was then armed with a bolo. Alma followed Alejandra to the hills and the rape immediately to the police authorities.
revealed to her that Kakingcio raped her on February 1, 1996. Alejandra was
livid with rage. She rushed back to the house and confronted Kakingcio with ISSUE/s:
the charge of Alma. Alejandra and Kakingcio quarreled. She berated him for 1. WoN the examination conducted by the judge was valid and hence the
having taken advantage of his own flesh and blood. She told him to leave the conviction should be upheld – YES, the trial court was not precluded from
house. asking questions to avoid further wrangling between the public prosecutor
19. Kakingcio agreed on the condition that he would bring his personal and the Kakingcio’s counsel which may frightened or unnerved the private
belongings with him. After Kakingcio left, Alejandra accompanied Alma to complainant Alma, a minor and who was unused to judicial proceedings.
the barangay captain and complained against Kakingcio. The Barangay
Captain wrote a letter to the local police authorities requesting assistance to RULING: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
Alejandra and Alma. of Leyte, Branch 36, in Criminal Case No. 2523, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
20. On February 9, 1996, Dra. Bibiana A. Cardente, the Municipal Health Officer MODIFICATION. The appellant KAKINGCIO CAETE is found guilty beyond reasonable
of Capoocan, Leyte, examined Alma. doubt, as principal, of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
21. On April 26, 1996, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of and is meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay to private complainant Alma
Caete the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as
Leyte, Branch 36, charging Kakingcio with rape. exemplary damages
22. DEFENSE: Kakingcio, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged. RATIO:
(1) When he testified, Kakingcio denied having sexually assaulted Alma. He
1. The Court does not agree with the Kakingcio’s submission. In People v.
interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed that he was a farmer. He planted
root crops such as banana. On February 1, 1996, he went to the house of Ancheta: this Court emphasized that a presiding judge enjoys a great deal of
Romulo Lukaba about three kilometers from his house, for the purpose of latitude in examining witnesses within the course of evidentiary rules. The
accompanying and helping Rolly Lukaba, the son of Romulo, gather presiding judge should see to it that a testimony should not be incomplete or
coconuts in the coconut plantation of Romulo in the mountains. obscure. After all, the judge is the arbiter and he must be in a position to
(2) It took Kakingcio thirty minutes to reach the place. At about 9:00 in the satisfy himself as to the respective claims of the parties in the criminal
evening, Kakingcio, Rolly and Romulo drank tuba. By 10:00 in the evening, proceedings.
Rolly and Kakingcio went to sleep. Romulo, however, left the two. The next 2. In People v. Zheng Bai Hui, this Court reiterated that:
day, Rolly and Kakingcio went back to the mountains and gathered 1. In any case, a severe examination by a trial judge of some of the witness for
coconuts. the defense in an effort to develop the truth and to get at the real facts affords
23. The RTC found Kakingcio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and no justification for a charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an
imposed upon him the penalty of death in view of the presence of the special evident desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the
qualifying circumstance of the minority of private complainant Alma and her witnesses for the defense.
relationship to Kakingcio and the special aggravating circumstance of use of 2. The trial judge must be accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such
a deadly weapon and without any mitigating circumstance in the commission questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to make
of the crime. the record speak the truth.
3. Trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges of both the law and the facts, and
24. Kakingcio avers that the prosecution had a difficulty proving that the
they would be negligent in the performance of their duties if they permitted
appellant raped the private complainant in light of her testimony that when a miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper question
the appellant Kakingcio mounted her, he still had his short pants on. to a witness which might develop some material bearing upon the outcome.
25. When the prosecution tried to elicit from the offended party how Kakingcio’s 4. In the exercise of sound discretion, he may put such question to the witness
penis could have been inserted into her vagina with his pants still on and the as will enable him to formulate a sound opinion as to the ability or the
Kakingcio’s counsel objected to the question, the presiding judge himself willingness of the witness to tell the truth.
took the cudgels for the prosecution and propounded questions on the private 5. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound
complainant. clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the
26. Worse, the presiding judge posed leading questions to the private truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony though that
testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other
complainant. The presiding judge was biased and partial to the prosecution.
party.
 6. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds January 1996 to Capoocan, Leyte, to live anew with the appellant and his
happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party. family.
3. Note: See end of the digest (Annex 1) for the direct-examination. 16. The private complainant was thus familiar not only with the physical build of
4. The Court finds nothing improper in the questions posed by the trial the appellant (Kakincio) but also with his voice and peculiar smell. A person
court. Neither are the questions prejudicial to the appellant or suggestive may be identified by these factors. Once a person has gained familiarity with
of any partiality of the trial court. another, identification is quite an easy task.
5. It bears stressing that from the testimony of the private complainant, 17. In this case, the appellant Kakincio poked a knife on her neck and whispered
Kakingcio was wearing his short pants before he mounted her and even to the private complainant before she raped her: "Ma, ayaw pagsumat kan
when he was already on top of her and managed to penetrate her sexual imo yaya kay may-ada ako ha imo bubuhaton" (Ma, don’t tell to your yaya
organ with his penis. because I will do something to you." "Ma" was the nickname of Alma, the
6. The public prosecutor wanted the private complainant to explain to the private complainant. "Yaya" was Alejandra Cañete, the common-law wife of
court how the appellant could have inserted his penis into her vagina Kakingcio.
considering that he was still wearing his short pants. 18. Moreover, as testified to by the private complainant, the only persons left in
7. Although crudely and ungrammatically phrased, the question of the the house in the evening of February 1, 1997 were Kakincio and his two
public prosecutor "where did he let his penis exit considering that he is younc children, Pacquito, who was blind and an invalid, and Alma.
then wearing a short pants" was not leading. 19. When Alejandra Cañete confronted the appellant Kakingcio on February 5,
8. The trial court should have overruled the objection and allowed the 1997, with the claim of the private complainant that he raped the latter and
private complainant to answer the question. demanded that the appellant leave the house, the appellant did not deny the
9. However, the trial court was not precluded from asking questions to charge and even agreed to leave the house on condition that he be allowed to
avoid further wrangling between the public prosecutor and the take his personal belongings with him.
appellant’s counsel which may frightened or unnerved the private 20. The credibility of the private complainant Alma was not degraded by her and
complainant, a minor and who was unused to judicial proceedings. After Alejandra Cañete’s reporting the sexual assault to the police authorities only
all, the trial court was mandated to discover the truth. on February 5, 1996.
10. As it turned out, the private complainant cried profusely as she testified 21. The evidence shows that the private complainant was only twelve years old
impelling the trial court to order a continuance. Even the counsel of when she was raped by the appellant. She and her father, who was completely
Kakingcio agreed to a continuance. blind and a paralytic, were living in the house of Kakincio.
11. Parenthetically, under Sections 19 to 21 of the Rule on Examination of a 22. The latter threatened to kill her if she revealed what he did to her. It was thus
Child Witness which took effect on December 15, 2000, child witnesses easy for the appellant to fulfill the threat if she divulged the violation of her
may testify in a narrative form and leading questions may be allowed by honor.
the trial court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the 23. In People v. Bea, this Court held that it is not uncommon for a young girl at
interest of justice. the tender age of sixteen years to be intimidated into silence and conceal the
12. Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to sexual assault on her by the appellant
mislead, confuse, frighten and intimidate the child: 24. When cross-examined by the public prosecutor, the appellant Kakingcio
Sec. 19. Mode of questioning. — The court shall exercise control unabashedly admitted that he did not know any improper or ill-motive on the
over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the part of the private complainant for charging him with rape, and on the part of
ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are stated his wife Alejandra Cañete for reporting the sexual assault on the private
in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3) complainant by the appellant to the police authorities.
protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, 25. Accused failed to attribute any ill motive on the part of the victim to testify
and (4) avoid waste of time. falsely and impute against him the commission of a grave offense such as
13. The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form. rape. To the contrary, the trial court observed that the victim lived in place
14. While it may be true that it was dark when Kakincio ravished the private "more rural than most rural villages" in the country, and was still "unaffected
complainant (Alma) in his house, it cannot, however, be gainsaid that the by the worldly ways of urban life."
private complainant could have sufficiently identified Kakingcio as the 26. It is highly inconceivable for a young barrio lass, inexperienced with the ways
culprit. of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical
15. The appellant Kakingcio was the uncle of the private complainant. She and examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish
her father Paquito had been living with the appellant and his family off and
on for years before she and her father were brought back with appellant in
 her family’s honor and reputation unless she was motivated by a potent desire Q What were your uncle, when your uncle placed himself on top of your body as you said, in
a prone position, was he wearing clothes or none?
to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.
A He was still wearing Your Honor.
27. In contrast to the positive and straightforward testimony of the private Q What clothes?
complainant, the appellant Kakingcio’s denial of the charge, which is merely A Short pants Your Honor.
a negative self-serving evidence, cannot prevail. Proceed Fiscal!
PROS. PERIDA:
28. Equally undeserving of merit is his defense of alibi. Appellant Kakingcio
Q So, after he laid himself over you with his trouser, what else happened?
failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically A His penis was inserted into my vagina sir.
impossible for him to have been in his house at the time when the private Q Where did he let his penis exit considering that he is then wearing a short pants?
complainant was raped. ATTY. DILOY:
29. The only evidence adduced by the appellant to prove alibi was his own Objection Your Honor! It is leading!
COURT:
testimony. By his own admission, the appellant’s house was barely a thirty- Q How did he manage to have his penis inserted to your vagina?
minute walk to the house of Romulo Lukaba. It was thus not physically A No sir, because when he placed himself on top of me he pulled down his shorts and
impossible for the appellant to have been in his house at 8:00 in the evening thereafter he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q At that time what was your apparel going up from your vagina?
of February 1, 1996, when the private complainant was raped.
A I was wearing then a T-shirt and skirt sir.
Q About your skirt?
Annex 1:
A He pulled up my skirt sir.
In this case, the relevant direct-examination questions posed by the public prosecutor of the private
Q What about your t-shirt?
complainant and her corresponding answers, the objections thereto by the appellants counsel and the
A He did not do anything about my t-shirt.
questions propounded by the trial court were as follows:
Q After placing his penis on your vagina, what else transpired?
Q After taking off your panty or underware (sic) what else transpired?
A He keeps on kissing me sir.
A He placed himself on top of me sir.
Q At that time he keeps on kissing you, where was his penis in relation to your vagina?
Q Please describe to us your uncle at that moment when he placed himself over your body!
A It was inside my vagina sir.
A He placed himself on top of me in a prone position.
Q While his penis was inside your vagina and the accused keeps on kissing you what else
Q What was he wearing at that time when he was carressing (sic) your face down to your
transpired?
arm?
A (witness weeping in tears as been directly examined by the Public Prosecutor).
A He was just wearing a short pants sir.
COURT:
Q What about the upper portion of his body?
Place it of record that the child witness is crying in the witness stand!
A None sir.
PROS. PERIDA:
Q At the time he put himself over you on a prone position, what about his short pants,
May we ask for suspension Your Honor! I move for suspension considering the condition of
was it still there?
the victim witness Your Honor! Hes already crying!
ATTY. DILOY:
COURT:
We request Your Honor that the question not be made in a leading manner!
We can come back tomorrow.
COURT:
Place of record the comment!
PROS. PERIDA:
I withdraw that Your Honor!
Q Where was the short pants which your uncle originally wearing that time?
ATTY. DILOY:
He was wearing it Your Honor as described by the witness!
PROS. PERIDA:
At this moment now, when he was already on top of the victim!
ATTY. DILOY:
It was answered by the witness! According to the witness, accused was wearing short pants
but the upper part of his body the accused had nothing worn!
PROS. PERIDA:
That is agreed Your Honor. Now my question is, at the time Kakingcio Caete was already on
top of Alma where was this short pants!
ATTY. DILOY:
It was being worn by the accused!
PROS. PERIDA:
Let the witness answer that Your Honor!
ATTY. DILOY:
We submit Your Honor!
COURT:
 016 OBEDENCIO v. JUDGE MURILLO (SEE) already in effect when Judge Murillo dismissed the rape case on May 22,
5 February 2004 | Quisumbing, J. | Rule on Examination of Child Witness 2001.

PETITIONER: Capistrano Obedencio DOCTRINE: In the absence or incapacity of the parents to be the guardian,
RESPONDENTS: Judge Joaquin Murillo, Presiding Judge of RTC Section 5 (a) of said rule provides that the court may appoint a guardian ad
Branch 26, Medina, Misamis Oriental litem to promote the best interests of the child.

SUMMARY: Obedencio charged Judge Murillo of unjustly dimissing a Sec. 5. Guardian ad litem.—
criminal case for rape. Obendencio claims that on May 3, 2000, he and his (a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a victim of,
wife assisted their 14 year old daughter, Licel, in filing with the Provincial accused of, or a witness to a crime to promote the best interests of the
Prosecutor, a criminal complaint for rape allegedly committed upon her child. In making the appointment, the court shall consider the background
when she was 11 years old by her maternal uncle, Dexter Acenas. Following of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the judicial process, social
Licel’s abduction in 2001, Obedencio went to the court to secure a copy of service programs, and child development, giving preference to the parents
the warrant of arrest but he was informed that the case had already been of the child, if qualified. The guardian ad litem may be a member of the
dismissed 3 days ago because Licel, together with her maternal Philippine Bar. A person who is a witness in any proceeding involving the
grandparents and the assistant provincial prosecutor, affirmed in court that child cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem.
she executed an affidavit of desistance and that she only filed the case
because her mom forced her to because of family inheritance problems. FACTS:
Judge Murillo, in his comment, stated that he heard the criminal case upon 1. Capistrano Obedencio Jr charged Judge Murillo of unjustly dimissing
request of the prosecutor and prosecutor, in the hearing, presented the a criminal case for rape. Obendencio claims that on May 3, 2000, he
affidavit of desistance. Then, Licel took the witness stand and was asked on and his wife assisted their 14 year old daughter, Licel, in filing with
matters contained in her affidavit. She recanted the allegations in her the Provincial Prosecutor, a criminal complaint for rape allegedly
affidavit-complaint and denied having been molested by her uncle, Dexter. committed upon her when she was 11 years old by her maternal uncle,
OCA found Judge liable for ignorance of the law for unjustly dismissing the Dexter Acenas. After the preliminary investigation, Dexter did not
case. attend and a case was filed in Judge Murillo’s sala.
2. On May 25, 2001, following Licel’s abduction from her house,
WoN Judge Murillo unjustly dismissed the case—YES, Licel was only 14 Obedencio sought to secure a copy of the warrant of arrest issued by
when she was presented to affirm her affidavit of desistance, that being the Judge Murillo against Dexter but when he went to court, Judge Murillo
case, the affidavit should have been executed with the concurrence of her informed him that the case was dismissed 3 days ago. Apparently,
parents. Judge Murillo should’ve exercised more prudence and caution Licel, assisted by her maternal grandparents and asst. provincial
instead of perfunctorily dismissing the case, considering the nature and prosecutor Hallazgo, presented herself to affirm her affidavit of
gravity of the offense charged. Judge Murillo ought to remember that the desistance.
accused, Dexter Acenas, is the maternal uncle of the victim. That Licel came 3. Obedencio claims that the dismissal was marred by serious
to court with her maternal grandparents, and not her parents, on the day she irregularities. He claims that there was no subpoena or notice of
was examined to affirm her affidavit of desistance, should have alerted him hearing from the court to him, his wife, or their counsel. Obedencio
to be more circumspect. At the very least, he should’ve appointed a guardian laments that Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Hallazgo, Licel’s maternal
ad litem for Licel, to protect her welfare and interest, instead of hastily grandparents and Dexter are relatives.
dimssing the rape case. 4. Judge Murillo, in his comment, stated that he heard the criminal case
upon request of the prosecutor and prosecutor, in the hearing,
The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on presented the affidavit of desistance. Then, Licel took the witness
December 15, 2000, governs the examination of child witnesses who are stand and was asked on matters contained in her affidavit. She
victims of, accused of, or witnesses to a crime. [DOCTRINE] This rule was recanted the allegations in her affidavit-complaint and denied having
 been molested by her uncle, Dexter. She explained that her mother 3. Judge Murillo ought to remember that the accused, Dexter Acenas, is
forced her to file the rape charge because of family inheritance the maternal uncle of the victim. That Licel came to court with her
problems. Judge Murillo asserts that, with the filing of the affidavit of maternal grandparents, and not her parents, on the day she was
desistance, the court had no other recourse but to dismiss the case. examined to affirm her affidavit of desistance, should have alerted him
5. OCA found Judge liable for ignorance of the law for unjustly to be more circumspect.
dismissing the case. OCA recommended that Judge be reprimanded 4. Being still a minor, Licel cannot fully comprehend for herself the
with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be impact and legal consequence of the affidavit of desistance. Given her
dealt with more severely. tender age, the probability is that Licel succumbed to illicit influence
and undue pressure on her to desist from pursuing her complaint.
ISSUE/s: 5. Licel was only 14 when she was presented to affirm her affidavit
1. WoN Judge Murillo unjustly dismissed the case—YES, Licel was of desistance, that being the case, the affidavit should have been
only 14 when she was presened to affirm her affidavit of desistance, executed with the concurrence of her parents. Licel, being a minor,
that being the case, the affidavit should have been executed with the could not validly give consent to an affidavit of desistance.
concurrence of her parents. Judge Murillo should’ve exercised more 6. Judge Murillo should’ve exercised more prudence and caution instead
prudence and caution instead of perfunctorily dismissing the case, of perfunctorily dismissing the case, considering the nature and
considering the nature and gravity of the offense charged. gravity of the offense charged.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the respondent Judge Joaquin M. Murillo, 7. At the very least, he should’ve appointed a guardian ad litem for
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Medina, Misamis Oriental, Licel, to protect her welfare and interest, instead of hastily
Branch 26, is found LIABLE for gross ignorance of the law in connection with dimssing the rape case.
the unjust dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1401-M (2000). He is ORDERED 8. The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on
to pay the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) and ADMONISHED to be December 15, 2000, governs the examination of child witnesses
more circumspect in the performance of his judicial duties and functions. He who are victims of, accused of, or witnesses to a crime. In the
is further warned sternly that a repetition of the same or similar offense would absence or incapacity of the parents to be the guardian, Section 5
be dealt with more severely. (a)10 of said rule provides that the court may appoint a guardian
RATIO: ad litem to promote the best interests of the child. This rule was
1. Article 220(6)9 of the Family Code gives to Obedencia and his wife already in effect when Judge Murillo dismissed the rape case on
the right and duty to represent Licel in all matters affecting her May 22, 2001.
interest. Thus, they were entitled to be notified and to attend every 9. Judge Murillo is reminded that a judge is the visible representation of
hearing on the case. the law and, more important, of justice. A judge owes it to the public
2. As a judge, Judge Murillo is duty-bound to acquaint himself with the to be knowledgeable, for ignorance of the law is the mainspring of
cases pending before him. He should have known that Licel filed the injustice.
criminal complaint with the assistance of her parents, who are her
natural guardians. It was incumbent upon the judge to inquire into the
reason behind their nonappearance before the court instead of simply
relying on the bare explanation of the defense counsel that he and his
client could not find Licel's parents.

9
Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to court shall consider the background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the judicial
their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties: process, social service programs, and child development, giving preference to the parents of the
(6) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests. child, if qualified. The guardian ad litem may be a member of the Philippine Bar. A person
10
Sec. 5. Guardian ad litem.— who is a witness in any proceeding involving the child cannot be appointed as a guardian ad
(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a litem.
witness to a crime to promote the best interests of the child. In making the appointment, the
 017 PEOPLE v. BARING (SIAPNO) the examination less stressful lest they be more traumatic to the victim than the
January 28, 2002| Buena, J. | Special Considerations: Child Witness very assault itself. The value of collecting evidence should always be weighed
against the emotional cost of the procedure and examination of the child.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines DOCTRINE: The victim’s credible testimony, standing alone, is sufficient basis
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Valentin Baring, Jr. for the conviction of accused-appellant

SUMMARY: Valentin Baring, Jr. was indicted for statutory rape committed
against a his 7-year-old stepdaughter, Jennifer Donayre. Baring is her FACTS:
grandmother's common law husband. Jennifer was living with her grandmother 1. Valentin Baring, Jr. was indicted for statutory rape committed against a
in Dasmariñas, Cavite.She calls Baring as Papa. The repeated sexual abuse seven-year-old girl.
happened when she was about 6 years old whenever she was left alone in the 2. Prior to August 2, 1997 and on several occasions thereto, in Dasmariñas,
house. Jennifer informed her grandmother that Baring sexually abused her. Cavite, Baring with lewd designs, by means of force, violence and
Jenelyn Donayre-Mendoza, her mother, visited Jennifer and learned from her intimidation taking advantage of his superior strength over the person of the
daughter that Baring was sexually abused her. Jennifer was in a non-virgin state victim who is only 7 years old wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had
physically. According to Baring, Jennifer was not living with them during the carnal knowledge of one Jennifer Donayre, against her will and consent, to
time the alleged rape occurred. Barin was convicted on the basis of the Jennifer’s her damage and prejudice
clear, trustworthy and positive testimony that she was raped several times by 3. Baring pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After trial, RTC rendered a
Baring. Baring claimed that he was the 'fall guy' framed up to take the place of decision dated January 20, 1999, convicting Baring of rape
Venancio Mendoza, live-in husband of Jennelyn, the mother of Jennifer. Baring 4. In a sworn complaint, Jennifer Donayre accused Baring, her grandmother’s
claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime of rape despite common–law husband, of raping her on several occasions. It appears that
prosecution's failure to present the examining physician to appear in court Jennifer was living with her grandmother in Dasmariñas, Cavite. She does
depriving him of his constitutional right to confront a witness against him. not know her real father since her mother and father were separated.4 Since
Issue: WON Baring is guilty of rape? Yes, the victim’s credible testimony, 1990, when she was about 8 months old until 1997, she was left under her
standing alone, is sufficient basis for the conviction of accused-appellant. A grandmother’s care and custody. She calls Baring as "Papa."
medical certificate is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape, 5. According to Jennifer, the repeated sexual abuse happened when she was
inasmuch as the testimony of the victims alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict about 6 years old whenever she was left alone in the house. Baring would
the accused of the crime. Victims of tender age are CREDIBLE to be witnesses touch her private parts, and on such occasions, remove her panty, mount on
and children are given full-weight and credit. The Court noted that the Conduct her and violate her. She informed her grandmother that Baring sexually
of Examination was Disturbing. The physical examination of the genital abused her.
stated that the external vaginal orifice admits tip of the examiner’s smallest 6. Jenelyn Donayre-Mendoza (mother) visited her daughter Jennifer, in
finger. Recent medical studies have shown that measurement of hymenal opening Dasmariñas. She learned of the sexual abuse. Acting on her daughter’s
is unreliable in determining and/or proving child sexual abuse. In fact, there is no accounts of sexual abuse, she took Jennifer to the NBI and filed a complaint.
evidence, nor published research studies which show that enlarged hymenal 7. Jennifer underwent a medical examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory
opening diameter is any more common in abused than in non-abused children. Service in Camp Crame. Dr. Bellen, the medico-legal officer at Camp Crame
Hence, insertion of a finger or any foreign matter inside the hymenal opening found that Jennifer was in "non-virgin state physically." The examination
under the pretext of determining abuse is unnecessary and inappropriate. disclosed a "congested, fleshy-type hymen with shallow healing laceration at
Despite the physical or laboratory findings, however, a child’s clear and 9 o’clock position and the external vaginal orifice admits tip of the
convincing description of the abuse has a high rate of probability. examiner’s smallest finger.
Section 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness categorically states: 8. Baring denied the allegations against him. According him, he has been living
Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, with Jennifer’s grandmother for 10 or 18 years. Baring claimed that Jennifer
if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, was not living with them during the time the alleged rape occurred. Later on,
or judgment subject to the standard proof required in criminal and non-criminal he testified that prior to July, 1997, Jennifer was living with them since 1990.
cases. Forensic examination inclusive of physical examination and forensic However, Jennifer was taken from them sometime in July 1997, but he does
interview of sexually assaulted children [adolescents included] must be not know why.
conducted with maximum sensitivity to the young victims feelings of
vulnerability and embarrassment. Great care must be observed in order to make
 9. The trial court meted out its judgment of conviction on the basis of the inasmuch as the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to
victim’s clear, trustworthy and positive testimony that she was raped convict the accused of the crime.
several times by accused-appellant. 5. Besides, testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible,
10. Baring filed a petition before this Court to dismiss the case that is subject of and the testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit.
our automatic review because (i) the three-page double-spaced decision of 6. Baring likewise impugns the credibility of the Jennifer by pointing out that
the trial court is bereft of material facts supporting the conviction; (ii) the the rape was filed one year after its commission, which allegedly leaves doubt
medico-legal certificate is merely a scrap of paper since the physician as to the real identity of the culprit.
who conducted the examination was not presented as a witness that 7. Delay in reporting an incident of rape does not create any doubt over the
deprived Baring of his right to cross-examination; (iii) the case of credibility of the complainant nor can it be taken against her. The
attempted homicide filed by the victim’s grandmother against accused- following realities justified the delay in the filing of the case against accused-
appellant was provisionally dismissed; and (iv) accused-appellant was merely appellant: (1) the victim was merely six years old when she was sexually
a "fall guy" and that another person is responsible for the commission of the abused; (2) the victim lived separately from her mother and was left under
crime charged against him. her grandmother’s care; and, (3) the victim’s sexual abuser happens to be her
step-grandfather.
ISSUE/s:
WON Barin is guilty of rape? YES, the victim’s credible testimony, standing alone, is The categorical testimony of the victim that she was raped cannot be overturned by
sufficient basis for the conviction of accused-appellant. the bare denial and defense of being ‘framed-up’
8. According to Baring, he was simply ‘framed-up’ and that another person also
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, raped the victim. He avers that his allegation is supported by the testimony
Imus, Cavite, in Criminal Case No. 6334-98, finding accused-appellant Valentin of the victim’s mother Jenelyn that the victim was likewise abused by the
Baring, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with latter’s husband, Venancio.
the MODIFICATION that the sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua 9. The categorical testimony of the victim that she was raped by Baring cannot
be overturned by the bare denial and defense of being ‘framed-up’ interposed
RATIO: by accused-appellant. The victim made a positive, clear and categorical
1. The Philippine Constitution no less, mandates that no decision shall be declaration pointing Baring as the person who sexually ravaged her
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the [Annex B].
facts and the law on which it is based. This vital requirement is demanded 10. Baring even contends that the failure of the prosecution to establish the dates
from the courts and quasi-judicial bodies for all their decisions, rulings or when the other alleged rapes were committed justifies the outright dismissal
judgments pursuant to the Administrative Code whose roots may also be of the case.
traced to the Constitutional mandate. 11. Failure to specify the exact date or time when the rapes occurred does
2. In the case at bar, the trial court’s decision may cast doubt as to the guilt of not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. When all the
Baring. Such doubt may be engendered not by the lack of direct evidence essential elements of the crime of rape are stated in the information, an
against Baring but by the trial court’s failure to fully explain the correlation accused is sufficiently apprised of the charged against him. Moreover, the
of the facts, the weight or admissibility of the evidence presented for or precise time of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element
against the accused, the assessments made from the evidence presented, and of rape.
the conclusions drawn therefrom after applying the pertinent law as basis of
the decision. Baring voluntarily withdrew his proposition for DNA testing
12. The records reveal that Baring’s counsel initially asked the court to subject
Failure to present examining physician to appear in court was waived the alleged blood found in the victim’s panty to a DNA test for comparison
3. A review of the transcript of stenographic notes reveal that Baring’s counsel with accused-appellant’s blood.
waived presentation of the medico-legal officer and thus, was not deprived 13. However, he voluntarily withdrew his proposition. Obviously, Baring’s
of his constitutional right to confront said witness [Annex A] counsel is misleading the Court. It was Baring’s counsel who recalled the
submission for DNA testing. The alleged denial of accused’s right to avail
4. A medical certificate after all is not indispensable to prove the of the DNA tests is a futile attempt to confuse the issues. He lost sight of
commission of rape. It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical the categorical testimony of the victim pinning him down as the perpetrator.
examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape It would have been more prudent for him to attack this damaging evidence
 directly. It must be noted that in the prosecution of rape cases, the suspicious for abuse. With labial traction, the hymenal opening may appear
presentation of the bloodstained panty is not even essential. The victim’s quite large, especially to the less experienced clinician, and internal structures
credible testimony, standing alone, is sufficient basis for the conviction such as vaginal ridges, rugae, and vaginal columns may be visualized. This
of accused-appellant. is purely a matter of how much traction is applied, and the degree of
14. Cases subject of our review, especially those in the nature of child sexual patient relaxation, and has no proven correlation with past sexual abuse.
abuse, often involve victims of tender years. On account of the increased 22. Likewise, it is not possible to obtain accurate measurements of the dilated
number of children coming into the realm of the judicial system, we adopted hymenal opening, unless photographs are taken at the point of maximal
the "Rule on Examination of a Child Witness" to govern the examination dilation and measurements are taken from the photographs using a
of child witnesses who may either be victims, accused or witnesses to a crime. calibrated measuring device. Rings of different sizes that are etched into
This rule ensures an environment that allows children to give reliable and eyepieces of certain types of colposcopes can be used to estimate diameter
complete evidence, minimize trauma, encourage children to testify in legal size but not to obtain exact measurements.
proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth. 23. Hence, insertion of a finger or any foreign matter inside the hymenal
15. In line with our foregoing thrust to protect children, we observed the peculiar opening under the pretext of determining abuse is unnecessary and
physical examination performed by the doctor on the seven-year-old victim inappropriate. The Philippine Judicial Academy training program for family
in this wise- court judges, through the auspices of the U.P.-P.G.H. Child Protection
“GENITAL: There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora full, convex and Unit, sanctioned that in prepubertal girls without active bleeding, all that
slightly gaping with the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. is needed is an external examination with a good light source and
On separating, the same disclosed a congested, fleshy-type hymen with magnification. Be that as it may, the physical findings alone will not be
shallow healing laceration at 9 o'clock position. External vaginal orifice conclusive of child sexual abuse, for a child who gives a clear, consistent,
admits tip of the examiner’s smallest finger." detailed, spontaneous description of being sexually molested may still
16. This Court is disturbed by the method of physical examination done on the have normal genital examination. Despite the physical or laboratory
seven-year-old victim. We noticed that in the examiner’s effort to show the findings, however, a child’s clear and convincing description of the abuse
existence of abuse, the examining physician inserted his smallest finger, has a high rate of probability.
as shown in the medico-legal report that the ‘external vaginal orifice admits 24. Section 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness categorically
tip of the examiner's finger.’ states: Section 22. Corroboration.- Corroboration shall not be required of
17. It bears to stress that this particular manner of establishing evidence – by a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be
determining the diameter/hymenal opening in rape cases – was a common sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to
practice in the past. With the passage of R.A. 7610, this Court has nonetheless the standard proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.
allowed the utilization of the same kind of evidence in the prosecution of 25. What is important at this point, and we do not hesitate to reiterate, is that
Child Abuse cases. In light however of radical medical developments and forensic examination – inclusive of physical examination and forensic
findings, specifically as to the determination of the existence of child sexual interview – of sexually assaulted children [adolescents included] must be
abuse, this Court deems it necessary to firmly adopt a more "child conducted with maximum sensitivity to the young victim’s feelings of
sensitive" approach in dealing with this specie or genre of crime. vulnerability and embarrassment. Great care must be observed in order to
18. In the international scientific community, recent medical studies have shown make the examination less stressful lest they be more traumatic to the victim
that measurement of hymenal opening’s diameter is unreliable in than the very assault itself. The value of collecting evidence should always
determining and/or proving child sexual abuse be weighed against the emotional cost of the procedure and examination of
19. More recent studies have shown this to be undependable. Factors the child.
affecting hymenal and anal diameter include the examination position and the
degree of relaxation of the child. The anal diameter is also affected by the Death penalty changed to reclusion perpetua
presence of stool in the ampulla. Hymenal diameter may increase with age 26. Even then, accused-appellant cannot be held answerable for the other
and with the onset of pubertal development incidents of rape committed. Each and every charge of rape is a separate and
20. In fact, there is no evidence, nor published research studies which show distinct crime so that each of the other rapes charged should be proven beyond
that enlarged hymenal opening diameter is any more common in abused reasonable doubt.47
than in non-abused children 27. Article 266-B, paragraph No.5 of the RPC, imposes death penalty when the
21. "In the latest revision of the classification system, ‘enlarged hymenal victim is a child below 7 years old. The allegation in the information
opening’ is also removed as a criterion that should be considered specifically stated that "xxx the victim xxx is only seven years old" which
 clearly rules out the application of this specific provision that can justify the Q: When he was on top of you, did he place his penis inside your private parts?
imposition of the capital punishment. A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you feel when his penis was inside your private parts, if any?
28. Paragraph No. 1 of the same article which warrants the imposition of the A: I felt pain.
death penalty if the crime of rape is committed where the victim is under Q: Was your private part bleeding as a result of the insertion of the penis of your stepfather into your
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, private parts?
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, A: Yes, sir.
or the common–law spouse of the parent of the victim, will not apply for Q: Did he kiss you while he was on top of you?
while the victim is under 18 years old, Baring is not the common-law A: Yes, sir.
Q: What parts of your body or face was kissed?
husband of the victim’s mother. The trial court therefore erred in meting A: My cheek.
out the death penalty upon accused-appellant for qualified rape. Thus, Q: Where did this happen?
accused-appellant may only be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion A: Dasmariñas, Cavite.
perpetua. Q: In whose house or place?
A: In the house of my grandmother.
Annex A Q: Who are the residents of that house at that time?
PROS. ORQUIEZA: Your Honor, I was informed by the mother of the private complainant that the A: At that time nobody was in the house because they were working.
doctor is no longer connected with the Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Crame but was reassigned Q: Can you recall if the rape you mentioned to us happened while you were 7 years old, 6 years old?
to the Eastern Police District at Mandaluyong City. What was your age then if you can recall?
PROS. ORQUIEZA: I just prefer that a subpoena be sent. We have to ask for the postponement. A: 6 years old.
ATTY. ABUBAKAR: We can dispense with the testimony. Q: How many times did your stepfather do to you these things you mentioned to us that is by placing
COURT: Do you admit the due execution and authenticity of the report of the doctor? (sic) on top of you and inserting his penis into your private parts and kissing you?
ATTY. ABUBAKAR: We admit everything written here because (sic) doctor says. A: 10 times.
COURT: Yes, whatever is written there, do you admit that? Q: Do you know how to count?
ATTY. ABUBAKAR: Yes, your Honor. A: Yes, sir.
COURT: No need to present the doctor Q: How many is this? (prosecutor is depicting two fingers)
PROS. ORQUIEZA: We will no longer present Dr. Dennis G. Bellen of the PNP Crime Laboratory A: Two, sir.
Service at Camp Crame, Quezon City. We have here the xerox copy of the medico legal report no. Q: How about this, how many? (Prosecutor is depicting five fingers).
M-2831-97. A: Five, sir.
COURT: Will you show that to Atty. Abubakar. Q: How about this?(Prosecutor is depicting 10 fingers)
ATTY. ABUBAKAR: Yes, your Honor. A: Ten, sir.
COURT: Admitted. You dispense the testimony of the doctor.
Annex B
Q: Are you the same Jennifer Donayre the private complainant against the accused Valentin Baring,
Jr.?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who is your father?
A: I do not know the name of my father because my father and mother are separated.
Q: If your father is in the courtroom can you point to him?
A: Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to a man inside this courtroom when asked given [sic] his name as
Valentin Baring.)
Q: Is he your true father?
A: No sir. He is my stepfather.
Q: You were pointing to your stepfather, do you know what things or particular things, if any, he did
to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What were those particular things your stepfather had done to you?
A: He raped me.
Q: When your stepfather raped you, what actually did your stepfather do to you?
A: He removed my panty.
Q: What did your stepfather do after removing your panty?
A: He placed himself on top of me.
Q: Was he naked when he placed himself on top of you?
A: Yes, sir.