G.R. No. 133739 May 29, 2002 slats.

With this environmental milieu, the

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- fluorescent lamp would indeed provide
appellee, sufficient illumination to identify the
vs. accused-appellants underneath a 3 to 4
TOMAS COCA JR., RICARDO COCA and feet high bamboo flooring. What is
RAMIL COCA, accused-appellants. more, the 100 watt bulb of the adjacent
FACTS: house, six meters away, and directly
opposite the kitchen where the victim
on March 20, 1996, at 7:00 in the was shot, provided additional
evening, while the victim was having illumination below the victim's house.
supper with his wife Merolina and their Clearly, therefore, the circumstances
two children inside their kitchen, a surrounding the commission of the
sudden burst of gunfire emanated from crime certainly obliterate the slightest
underneath the house. Merolina peeped shred of doubt on the veracity of
through the slits on the floor and saw accused-appellant's identification.
three persons sitting on their heels. The
fluorescent lamp which illuminated their Sanson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
kitchen and the 100 watt bulb of the 127745, April 22, 2003
adjacent house directly opposite the Petitioner-appellant Felicito G. Sanson
kitchen enabled Merolina to identify (Sanson), in his capacity as creditor,
accused-appellant Tomas, Ricardo and filed before the Regional Trial Court
Ramil Coca, who were all underneath (RTC) of Iloilo City a petition, for the
the house and looking upwards. Tomas settlement of the estate of Juan Bon
Coca was positioned between Ricardo Fing Sy (the deceased) who died on
and Ramil and aiming a gun at January 10, 1990. Sanson claimed that
Edilberto. She turned and saw her the deceased was indebted to him in the
husband, slumped on the floor with amount of P603,000.00 and to his sister
blood oozing from his body. Celedonia Sanson-Saquin (Celedonia)
Meronila purposely withheld the identity in the amount of P360,000.00.
of the culprits. She feared that revealing Petitioners-appellants Eduardo
the names of the persons who shot her Montinola, Jr. and his mother Angeles
husband would endanger not only her Montinola (Angeles) later filed separate
life but also that of her children who claims against the estate, alleging that
were alone in their house all through out the deceased owed them P50,000.00
the time that she was in the hospital with and P150,000.00, respectively.
her injured husband. It was only after
almost five months, or on August 19, Sanson, in support of the claim of his
1996, that she finally divulged the sister Celedonia, testified that she had a
identities of the perpetrators. transaction with the deceased which is
evidenced by six checks issued by him
Issue before his death, Celedonia presented
Whether or not Meronila’s testimony is the checks to the bank for payment but
competent. were dishonored due to the closure of
his account.
Ruling
Celedonia, in support of the claim of her
Yes, In the case at bar, the brother Sanson, testified that she knew
kitchen/dining area where the victim was that the deceased issued five checks to
shot from underneath the house was Sanson in settlement of a debt.
illuminated by a fluorescent lamp. There
would therefore be light falling on the Jade, in support of the claims of her
faces of accused-appellants, especially husband Eduardo Montinola, Jr. and
so that they were all facing upwards. mother-in-law Angeles, testified that on
Ordinary human experience would tell separate occasions, the deceased
us that bamboo flooring with gaps borrowed money from her husband and
smaller than an inch allows every ray of mother-in-law, respectively, as shown by
light emanating from a fluorescent lamp three checks issued by the deceased.
to freely penetrate through the bamboo
Melecia Sy, as administratrix denied all husband's clinic and took 157
claims raising the deadmans statute on documents consisting of private
the testimonies of the witnesses. correspondence between Dr. Martin and
his alleged paramours, greetings cards,
Issue
cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's
Whether or not the dead man’s statute passport, and photographs. The
applies to relatives of the parties who documents and papers were seized for
were their witnesses use in evidence in a case for legal
separation and for disqualification from
Ruling the practice of medicine which petitioner
No, Since the law disqualifies parties to had filed against her husband.
a case or assignors to a case without Issue
distinguishing between testimony in his
own behalf and that in behalf of others, WON the documents / papers are
he should be disqualified from testifying admissible as evidence
for his co-parties. The law speaks of
Ruling
parties or assignors of parties to a case.
Apparently, the testimonies of Sanson No, the documents and papers in
and Saquin on each others behalf, as question are inadmissible in evidence.
co-parties to the same case, falls under The constitutional injunction declaring
the prohibition. “the privacy of communication and
correspondence [to be] inviolable” is no
But Sansons and Celedonias claims
less applicable simply because it is the
against the same estate arose from
wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by
separate transactions. Sanson is a third
her husband’s infidelity) who is the party
party with respect to Celedonias claim.
against whom the constitutional
And Celedonia is a third party with
provision is to be enforced. The only
respect to Sansons claim. One is not
exception to the prohibition in the
thus disqualified to testify on the others
Constitution is if there is a “lawful order
transaction.
[from a] court or when public safety or
In any event, what the Dead Mans order requires otherwise, as prescribed
Statute proscribes is the admission of by law.” Any violation of this provision
testimonial evidence upon a claim which renders the evidence obtained
arose before the death of the deceased. inadmissible “for any purpose in any
The incompetency is confined to the proceeding.”
giving of testimony.Since the separate
G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997
claims of Sanson and Celedonia are
supported by checks-documentary PEOPLE OF THE
evidence, their claims can be PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
prosecuted on the bases of said checks. vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. No. 107383 February 20,
MANSUETO V. HONRADA, CEFERINO
1996
S. PAREDES, JR. and GENEROSO S.
CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, SANSAET, respondents.
vs.
Facts:
COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO
MARTIN, respondents. The case involves respondent Paredes
who applied for a free patent over a
Facts
piece of land in 1976.
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of
It was later discovered that Paredes
private respondent Alfredo Martin. On
obtained the patent through fraudulent
March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the
misrepresentations.
clinic of her husband, a doctor of
medicine, and in the presence of her Sansaet served as Paredes' counsel in
mother, a driver and private the case.
respondent's secretary, forcibly opened
the drawers and cabinet in her
Paredes and his co-respondents were between lawyers and clients to ensure
charged with falsification of public effective legal representation.
documents.
However, this privilege does not protect
Sansaet claimed that he filed falsified communications made in furtherance of
documents upon the inducement of a future crime.
Paredes.
The privilege only applies to crimes that
The prosecution filed a motion for the have already been committed.
discharge of Sansaet as a state witness,
In this case, the communications
but it was rejected by the Ombudsman,
between Paredes and Sansaet were
citing attorney-client privilege.
made in relation to a crime that had not
Issue: yet been committed at the time.
Whether the testimony of Sansaet is Therefore, attorney-client privilege does
barred by attorney-client privilege. not bar the testimony of Sansaet.
Whether Sansaet is eligible for Additionally, Sansaet was a conspirator
discharge as a particeps criminis. in the commission of the crime and the
communication between him and
Ruling:
Paredes was for an unlawful purpose.
Attorney-client privilege does not apply
The privilege does not attach to
to future crimes.
communications made for an illegal
The privileged communication between purpose.
a lawyer and client only applies to
Furthermore, the other requisites for the
crimes already committed, not to crimes
discharge of Sansaet as a state witness
intended to be committed in the future.
are present.
The communications between Paredes
Sansaet is the only cooperative
and Sansaet were made in relation to a
eyewitness to the crime.
crime that had not yet been committed
at the time, so they are not covered by There is no other direct evidence
attorney-client privilege. available for the prosecution.
Sansaet was a conspirator in the Therefore, there is an absolute
commission of the crime and the necessity for his testimony.
communication between him and
Considering all these factors, the Court
Paredes was for an unlawful purpose.
concluded that Sansaet should be
The privilege does not attach to discharged as a state witness and
communications made for an illegal allowed to testify against his co-
purpose. accused.
The other requisites for the discharge of The Sandiganbayan should have
Sansaet as a state witness are present. considered all the facts and issues in
the case, not just the applicability of
Sansaet is the only cooperative
attorney-client privilege, in making its
eyewitness to the crime.
decision.
There is no other direct evidence
G.R. No. 117740 October 30, 1998
available for the prosecution.
CAROLINA ABAD
There is an absolute necessity for his
GONZALES, petitioner,
testimony.
vs.
Ratio: COURT OF APPEALS, HONORIA
EMPAYNADO, CECILIA H. ABAD,
Attorney-client privilege does not extend MARIAN H. ABAD and ROSEMARIE
to future crimes. S. ABAD, respondents.
The purpose of attorney-client privilege Facts
is to encourage open communication
On April 18, 1972, petitioners Carolina peeped through a small opening in the
Abad Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa Abad destroyed portion of the sawali wall of
and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco sought the Artemio’s house. He saw Cynthia lying
settlement of the intestate estate of their on her back and crying, while her father
brother, Ricardo de Mesa Abad, before was on top of her, doing a pumping
the then Court of First Instance of motion. Eddie observed them for about
Manila. In their petition, docketed as fifteen seconds, and then he left and
Special Proceedings No. 86792, proceeded to the field to catch fish.5 He
petitioners claimed that they were the reported what he had witnessed to
only heirs of Ricardo de Mesa Abad, as Artemio’s stepfather, Celestino, later that
the latter allegedly died a bachelor, morning.
leaving no descendants or ascendants,
Lastly, petitioners presented the
whether legitimate or illegitimate. On
affidavit of Dr. Pedro
May 9, 1972, petitioners amended their
Arenas,8 Ricardo Abad's physician,
petition by alleging that the real
declaring that in 1935, he had
properties covered by TCT Nos. 13530,
examined Ricardo Abad and found
53671, and 64021, listed therein as
him to be infected with gonorrhea,
belonging to the decedent, were actually
and that the latter had become sterile
only administered by the latter, the true
as a consequence thereof.
owner being their late mother, Lucila de
Mesa. On June 16, 1972, the trial court Issue
appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as
administrator of the intestate estate of WON Dr. Pedro Arenas’ affidavit is
Ricardo de Mesa Abad. admissible

On July 7, 1972, private respondents Ruling

Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia Abad No, Petitioners conveniently forget
Empaynado, and Marian Abad that Ricardo Abad's "sterility" arose
Empaynado filed a motion to set aside when the latter contracted gonorrhea,
proceedings and for leave to file a fact which most assuredly blackens
opposition in Special Proceedings No. his reputation. In fact, given that
86792. In their motion, they alleged that society holds virility at a premium,
Honoria Empaynado had been the sterility alone, without the attendant
common-law wife of Ricardo Abad for embarrassment of contracting a
twenty-seven years before his death, or sexually-transmitted disease, would
from 1943 to 1971, and that during this be sufficient to blacken the
period, their union had produced two reputation of any patient. We thus
children, Cecilia Abad Empaynado and hold the affidavit inadmissible in
Marian Abad Empaynado. Private evidence.
respondents also disclosed the
existence of Rosemarie Abad, a child G.R. No. 131636 March 5, 2003
allegedly fathered by Ricardo Abad with PEOPLE OF THE
another woman, Dolores Saracho. As PHILIPPINES, appellee,
the law awards the entire estate to the vs.
surviving children to the exclusion of ARTEMIO INVENCION Y
collateral relatives, private respondents SORIANO, appellant.
charged petitioners with deliberately
concealing the existence of said three Facts
children in other to deprive the latter of Elven Invencion, an 8-year-old grade
their rights to the estate of Ricardo two pupil of Sapang Tagalog Elementary
Abad. Eddie Sicat, a 40-year-old farmer School in Tarlac, Tarlac, testified that he
and neighbor of Artemio in Barangay is a half-brother of Cynthia and son of
Sapang Tagalog, Tarlac, Tarlac, testified Artemio with his second common-law
that on the second week of March 1996, wife. Sometime before the end of the
between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m., while he school year in 1996, while he was
was passing by the house of Artemio on sleeping in one room with his father
his way to the field to catch fish, he Artemio, Cynthia, and two other younger
heard somebody crying. He then brothers, he was awakened by Cynthia’s
loud cries. Looking towards her, he saw Issue
his father on top of Cynthia, doing a
WON the testimony of Elven Invencion
pumping motion. After about two
should be inadmissible due to filial
minutes, his father put on his short
privelage (+Leading questions during
pants.
testimony)
Gloria Pagala, the mother of Cynthia
Ruling
and former common-law wife of Artemio,
testified that she and Artemio started No, As to the competency of Elven to
living together in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, testify, we rule that such is not affected by
in February 1969. Out of their common- Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of
law relationship, they had six children, Court,19 otherwise known as the rule on
one of whom was Cynthia. In March "filial privilege." This rule is not strictly a rule
1982, she and Artemio parted ways on disqualification because a descendant is
not incompetent or disqualified to testify
permanently. Later, Gloria and her
against an ascendant.20 The rule refers to a
children lived in Pura, Tarlac. When
privilege not to testify, which can be invoked
Artemio’s mother died sometime in or waived like other privileges. As correctly
1996, Cynthia lived with Artemio in a observed by the lower court, Elven was not
small one-room dwelling owned by compelled to testify against his father; he
Celestino and located chose to waive that filial privilege when he
in Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Tarlac, voluntarily testified against Artemio. Elven
Tarlac.7 On 30 August 1996, her son declared that he was testifying as a witness
Novelito told her that Cynthia was against his father of his own accord and
pregnant. Gloria then went to the house only "to tell the truth."21
of Artemio and asked Cynthia about her Neither can Artemio challenge the
condition. The latter confessed that she prosecution’s act of propounding leading
had been sexually abused by her father. questions on Elven. Section 10(c) of
Gloria then went to the office of the Rule 132 of the Rules of
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Court22 expressly allows leading
Tarlac and reported what Artemio had questions when the witness is a child of
done to their daughter Cynthia. tender years like Elven.
Dr. Rosario Fider of Tarlac Provincial G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989
Hospital testified that she examined
Cynthia on 16 September 1996. She THE PEOPLE OF THE
found Cynthia to be five to six months PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
pregnant and to have incomplete, vs.
healed hymenal lacerations at 3, 5, 8 HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON,
o’clock positions, which could have Presiding over Branch 6, Regional
been caused by sexual intercourse or Trial Court, First Judicial Region,
any foreign body inserted in her private Baguio City, and FELIPE
part. RAMOS, respondents.

Atty. Florencio Canlas, an NBI agent, Nelson Lidua for private respondent.
testified that on 18 September 1996, Facts
Cynthia, accompanied by her mother,
complained before him and NBI What has given rise to the controversy
Supervising Agent Rolando Vergara that at bar is the equation by the respondent
she was raped by her father Artemio. Judge of the right of an individual not
She then executed a written to "be compelled to be a witness against
statement,10 which she subscribed and himself" accorded by Section 20, Article
sworn to before Atty. Canlas. III of the Constitution, with the right of
any person "under investigation for the
The defense did not present Artemio as commission of an offense . . . to remain
a witness. Instead, his counsel de parte, silent and to counsel, and to be
Atty. Isabelo Salamida, took the witness informed of such right," granted by the
stand and testified for the defense. same provision. The relevant facts are
not disputed.
At the close of the people's case, the him on the first day of the administrative
private prosecutors made a written offer investigation, February 9, 1986 and
of evidence dated June 21, 1988,6 which agreed that the proceedings should be
included "the (above mentioned) recorded, the record having thereafter
statement of accused Felipe J. Ramos been marked during the trial of the
taken on February 9, 1986 at PAL criminal action subsequently filed
Baguio City Ticket Office," which had against him as Exhibit A, just as it is
been marked as Exhibit A, as well as his obvious that the note (later marked as
"handwritten admission x x given on Exhibit K) that he sent to his superiors
February 8, 1986," also above referred on February 8,1986, the day before the
to, which had been marked as Exhibit K. investigation, offering to compromise his
liability in the alleged irregularities, was
The defendant's attorneys filed
a free and even spontaneous act on his
"Objections/Comments to Plaintiff s
part. They may not be excluded on the
Evidence."7 Particularly as regards the
ground that the so-called "Miranda
peoples' Exhibit A, the objection was
rights" had not been accorded to
that "said document, which appears to
Ramos.
be a confession, was taken without the
accused being represented by a lawyer." [ G.R. No. 127073, January 29, 1998 ]
Exhibit K was objected to "for the same
JOSE P. DANS, JR., PETITIONER, VS.
reasons interposed under Exhibits 'A'
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
and 'J.'
RESPONDENT.
Issue
In short, Marcos and Dans were
WON exhibits A and K should be separately charged under Criminal Case
admitted into evidence Nos. 17451 and 17452 for accepting
employment in and/or acting as
Ruling
Chairman and Director, respectively, of
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is the PGHFI while the latter had pending
granted annulling and setting aside the business (the lease agreements) with
Orders of the respondent Judge in the LRTA, which they both also headed.
Criminal Case No. 3488-R, dated With regard to the other cases, Criminal
August 9, 1988 and September 14, Case Nos. 17449, 17450 and 17453,
1988, and he is hereby ordered to admit the accusations against both of them
in evidence Exhibits "A" and "K" of the stemmed from the contracts they signed
prosecution in said Criminal Case No. in representation of the LRTA and of the
3488-R, and thereafter proceed with the PGHFI which were allegedly entered
trial and adjudgment thereof. The into “under terms and conditions
temporary restraining order of October manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
26, 1988 having become functus officio, to the government.”
is now declared of no further force and
effect.
It is clear from the undisputed facts of
this case that Felipe Ramos was not in
any sense under custodial interrogation,
as the term should be properly
understood, prior to and during the
administrative inquiry into the
discovered irregularities in ticket sales in
which he appeared to have had a hand.
The constitutional rights of a person
under custodial interrogation under
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution did not therefore come into
play, were of no relevance to the inquiry.
It is also clear, too, that Ramos had
voluntarily answered questions posed to