Rule 128 Cases Print
Rule 128 Cases Print
SO ORDERED.
Its motion for reconsideration having likewise failed,
petitioner filed the instant petition.
Petitioner's present action is premised solely on the grave
abuse of discretion allegedly exercised by the NLRC in
reversing the labor arbiter's decision. Its arguments,
however, fail to persuade this Court, and a closer
examination of the questioned judgment would reveal that
the NLRC disposed of the case judiciously.
Labor Arbiter Velasquez opined that since Raquiza was not
able to specifically deny the charges against him, he should
be deemed to have admitted them. Technical rules of
evidence are not, however, strictly followed in labor cases.
The Labor Code itself affirms this liberality, viz.:
Art. 221. Technical Rules not binding and
prior resort to amicable settlement. In
any proceeding before the Commission or
any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law or
equity shall not be controlling and it is the
spirit and intention of this Code that the
Commission and its members and the
Labor Arbiters shall use every and all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
each case speedily and objectively and
without regard to technicalities of law or
procedure, all in the interest of due
process. . . . 1
This rule is reiterated in the Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC, to wit:
Rule V.
Sec. 7. Nature of Proceedings. The
proceedings before a Labor Arbiter shall
be non-litigious in nature. Subject to the
requirements of due process, the
technicalities of law and procedure and
the rules obtaining in the courts of law
shall not strictly apply thereto. The Labor
Arbiter may avail himself of all reasonable
means to ascertain the facts of the
controversy speedily, including ocular
inspection and examination of wellinformed persons.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule VII.
Sec. 10. Technical rules not binding.
The rules of procedure and evidence
Page 1
August 2, 2001
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
SO ORDERED."11
Incidentally, the POEA dismissed petitioner's claim against
Country Bankers on the ground that the surety bond which
was effective at the time of petitioner's deployment was
that of Travelers Insurance Corporation.
On appeal, respondent NLRC vacated the decision of the
POEA and dismissed petitioner's complaint mainly on the
ground that there was no employer-employee relationship
between the parties. The NLRC ratiocinated as follows:
"At the outset, we note that the record is bereft of any
showing that complainant applied with the respondent
agency as a job applicant and subsequently entered into an
overseas contract with the latter which was later
processed and approved by the POEA. X x x What appears
is that complainant used the agency as a stepping stone to
enter Singapore as a tourist and obtain employment
thereat on his own. This is evidenced by Annexes "A-1 " to
'"H" of Complainant's Reply (See pp. 65-72, record) which
purports to show that the batch of complainant was
obligated to pay back respondent Jose Cayanan the
expenses for their deployment. No less than the POEA
noted that the respondent agency "is a service contractor
and is not authorized to deploy fishermen." Based on this
fact, the respondent agency could not have deployed
complainant as an overseas contract worker. What is
apparent is that it obtained a tourist passport and plane
ticket for complainant as a travel agent on a clearly "fly
now pay later" plan.
We cannot rely on the employment agreements and checks
(See pp. 66-67, record) presented by complainant to show
proof of employment relations considering that his name
does not appear in any of the documents, hence they are
merely hearsay."12
In reversing the POEA's finding, respondent NLRC gave
considerable weight to the Joint Affidavit of Natura and
Balucas.
Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
but was denied.
Petitioner now comes to this Court via a petition for
certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to public
respondent NLRC. He asserts that private respondents
were the ones who deployed him to Singapore to work as
fisherman; and that, respondent NLRC's conclusion that
respondent JEAC was a mere "travel agency" and
petitioner, a mere tourist, has no basis in fact and in law.
For their part, private respondents maintain that
respondent NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
when it set aside the decision of the POEA, since petitioner
failed to show any POEA record or document to prove that
they deployed him to work in Singapore. Neither did he
present a Special Power of Attorney to prove that Step-Up
Agency authorized private respondents to recruit and
deploy contract workers in its behalf nor an Affidavit of
Responsibility to show that they (private respondents and
Step-Up Agency) assumed solidary liability to petitioner.13
Private respondents likewise insist that the photocopies of
the PNB checks and agreements are hearsay and
inadmissible in evidence.
The Solicitor General, in his comment,14 joins petitioner in
assailing the decision of respondent NLRC as "baseless and
(Sgd.)
F. CREW" 15
Mario
Hornales
Cayanan.
On the other side of the scale are the Joint Affidavit
secured by private respondents from petitioner's coworkers, Balucas and Natura, and a Certification issued
by Step-Up Agency. These evidence were intended to
prove the alleged admission of petitioner to Balucas and
Natura that he went as a tourist to Singapore and that he
applied directly with Step-Up Agency. The Certification of
Step-Up Agency re-echoes the allegations in the Joint
Affidavit.
The scale of evidence must tilt in favor of petitioner.
In a catena of labor cases, this Court has consistently held
that where the adverse party is deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are
generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon.16 Private respondents' Joint Affidavit has no
probative value. It suffers from two infirmities, first,
petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine
the two affiants regarding the contents thereof, and second,
the two affiants merely swore as to what petitioner told
them but not as to the truth of the statements uttered.17
In the same vein, the Certification must not be given
weight. Private respondents not only failed to present
Victor Lim before the POEA to be cross-examined by
petitioner, but the Certification was also not verified or
Page 6
Page 7
xxx
xxx
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
the
the
the
its
Page 16
SO ORDERED.
BUENA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 16,
1996, of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36,2
Page 17
Page 18
For the defense, on the other hand, all of the six (6)
accused, who were brought before the jurisdiction of the
trial court, testified together with Felix Lavapie, Juan
Bongais and Loreto Camasis.
"Lesions:
Page 19
Page 20
"Q:
Mr. Sierva, on March 29, 1990 [should be 1989] at
about 11 o'clock in the evening, where were you?
"PROSECUTOR:
"Q:
You said we, who were your companions during
that time[,] Mr. Sierva?
"Q:
All right. You said Larry Lavapie suddenly hacked
Sonny Sierva[,] was Sonny Sierva hit?
"A:
My son Sonny Sierva and my brother-in-law, Felix
Buendia.
"Q:
While you together with your late son Sonny Sierva
and your brother-in-law Felix Buendia were on your way
home from centro Buraburan, Buhi, Camarines Sur, do you
recall of any incident that happened?
"A:
Yes, sir.
"Q:
"A:
He was hit on his neck. (Witness pointing to the left
side of his neck.)
"Q:
After Sonny Sierva was hacked by Larry Lavapie[,]
what happened to Sonny Sierva, Mr. Samonte?
"A:
"A:
"Q:
"A:
"Q:
What were you doing at the aforesaid place during
the aforesaid date and time?
"A:
"Q:
Sierva?
"A:
"xxx
xxx"
"Q:
"A:
We went home.
"Q:
"A:
"Q:
"A:
Felix Buendia.
"PROSECUTOR:
Page 21
"Q:
While you were on your way home together with
your brother-in-law and your son Sonny Sierva, do you
recall of any incident that happened, Mr. Sierva?
"A:
Page 22
Page 23
VI
Respondent Court of Appeals erred in concluding that
ACA's evidence on the withdrawals is correct since such
conclusion is not supported by the evidence on record and
adduced during the trial.
VII
Respondent Court of Appeals erred in making a glaring
misapprehension of fact in concluding that Joseph Singh
confirmed ACA's contention that the tobacco stocks were
intact at the time of the fire, as the evidence is clear that
what were brought out of the warehouse were the
contents of the tobacco hogsheads stored there.
VIII
Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the
whole contents of warehouse F were substituted with
rotten tobacco before the fire.
IX
Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not sustaining its
original decision of December 29, 1978 and the decision of
the trial court.
X
Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the
complaint of respondent-appelle Agricultural Credit
Administration. (pp. 1-4, Brief for Petitioner-Appellant
Government Service Insurance System; p.160, Rollo)
The decisive issue involved in the case at bar is the
quantity of tobacco stored in Warehouse "F" at the time
said warehouse was totally destroyed by fire on February
15, 1962. Petitioner GSIS maintains that a total of 17,623
hogsheads of tobacco were withdrawn from Warehouse
"F" before the fire occurred. On the other hand, respondent
ACA contends that only 12,922 hogsheads of tobacco were
withdrawn.
Before resolving said issue, we shall dispose of an
incidental issue which appears to preoccupy both parties
i.e. whether or not the testimony of ACA's witnesses,
Dorotea Toledo, Aurelio B. de Jesus, Demetrio P. Tabije,
and Patrocinio Torres, is " additional proof of evidence"
within the contemplation of the letter of offer of GSIS dated
December 7, 1964 and the letter of acceptance of ACA
dated December 16, 1964. The discussion by the parties of
said issue is a futile exercise in semantics.
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines vests
upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts
(par. 5 sec. 4, Art. VIII, Constitution). Even the provision in
both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions that are the
rules of court promulgated by the Supreme Court may be
"repealed, altered or supplemented" by the legislature
does not appear in the 1987 Constitution. Parties have,
therefore, no discretion or power to alter, modify or
circumscribe the rules on evidence to suit their particular
needs in a case brought before the courts.
We, therefore, rule that the admissibility of the testimony
of ACA's witnesses must be determined by the rules of
court. Since this testimony is relevant to the facts in issue
Page 24
Total 26
Crop Year 1956:
Exhs.
QQ,
"
QQ-79
"
QQ-117
"
QQ-244
"
QQ-325
"
"
"
QQ-467
"
QQ-503
"
"
QQ-655
"
"
QQ-704
"
QQ-756
"
Total 5,348
QQ-1
to
QQ-35
to
QQ-115
to
Q-157
to
QQ-323
to
QQ-449
QQ-451
QQ-464
to
QQ-499
to
QQ-651
QQ-653
to
QQ-674
QQ-678
to
QQ-751
to
QQ-764
QQ-1022
320
276
316
691
980
22
7
299
1,170
5
162
184
742
122
52
Total 1,155
to
QQ-116
to
to
QQ-324
QQ-450
QQ-78
QQ-201
QQ-243
414
15
404
309
6
7
QQ-657
QQ-679
QQ-752
QQ-765
QQ-1003
QQ-1023
QQ-654
to
to
to
to
QQ-999
to
to
QQ-678-B
QQ-703
QQ-755
QQ-767
QQ-1021
QQ-1027
2
60
295
1,150
800
5
185
336
Page 25
"
QQ-1029
"
QQ-1064
Total 4,317
to
to
QQ-1061
QQ-1214
246
1238
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Total 4,723
to
to
to
QQ-1425
QQ-177
QQ-2024
1,226
2,019
1,478
126
Hogsheads
5,348
"
1,155
"
4,317
"
4,723
"
(p. 41 Rollo)
Therefore, according to ACA's own documentary evidence,
15,669 hogshead of tobacco were withdrawn from the
warehouse from 1955 to 1959.
In addition thereto, Exhibits 134 to 368, delivery orders
dated August 13, to 16, 1959, indicate that were further
withdrawals of 1,944 hogsheads from the warehouse
during said period. 15,669 hogsheads plus 1,944
additional hogsheads, gives us a total of 17,613 hogsheads
of tobacco withdrawn from the warehouse. Deducting
17,613 hogsheads of tobacco from a total of 15,457
tobacco hogsheads inside the warehouse at the time of the
fire on February 15, 1962. The documentary evidence on
record, therefore, clearly supports the position of
petitioner GSIS.
The presentation of the testimony of ACA's witnesses,
Doroteo Toledo, Aurelio B. de Jesus, Demetrio P. Tabije,
and Patronicio Torres is nothing but a convoluted attempt
of ACA to minimize and neutralize the impact of Exhibits
QQ to QQ-2022 and Exhibits 134 to 368. Their testimony
consisted mainly in trying to explain away, vary, and
modify the meaning and significance of Exhibits QQ to QQ2022 and Exhibits 134 to 368. Testimonial evidence is easy
of fabrication and there is very little room for choice
between testimonial evidence and documentary evidence
(Marvel Building Corporation vs. David, 94 Phil. 376
[1954]). Generally, documentary evidence prevails overtestimonial evidence.
WHEREFORE, the resolution dated May 7, 1979, as well as
that of November 23, 1979, of respondent Court of Appeals
are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the complaint
filed in Civil Case No. 62683 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 149075
August 7, 2003
Page 26
xxx
Page 27
Q:
Was it true that before this incident happened on
March 18, 2000 your mother Lorna and your stepfather
has a serious quarrel?
A:
No, sir.
Q:
Your father Charlie Balandra is not the friend of
your stepfather, am I correct?
A:
Q:
They have quarreled before this incident, am I
correct?
A:
None.25
xxx
x x x.
Page 28
.45 pistol with Serial No. 909904, and one (1) magazine
with five (5) live ammunition thereof.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Criminal Case No. 1237
That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San
Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control two (2) ONE THOUSAND
PESOS bill with Serial Numbers BG 021165 and BG
995998, knowing the same to be forged or otherwise
falsified with the manifest intention of using such falsified
or forged instruments.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Criminal Case No. 1238
That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San
Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control one (1) self-sealing transparent plastic
bag of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu" weighing
226.67 grams (3 medium sized transparent plastic bags
and 1 big heat-sealed transparent plastic bag).
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
The three cases were consolidated and raffled to Branch
31 of said court. Upon his arraignment, ABDUL entered in
each case a plea of not guilty.
At the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses SPO1
Generoso Pandez, PO3 Ernani Mendez, Police Inspector
Anacleta Cultura and Police Inspector Lorna Tria. ABDUL
was the sole witness for the defense.
SPO1 Pandez, a PNP member of the Laguna Criminal
Investigation Detection Group (CIDG), testified that on 12
April 1999, at 5:15 p.m., Major R Win Pagkalinawan
ordered the search of ABDUL, alias "Boy Muslim," based on
a verified information that the latter was driving a
carnapped Mitsubishi olive green car with Plate No. UPV
511 and was a drug-pusher in San Pedro, Laguna. Two
teams were formed for the search. The first was headed by
Major Pagkalinawan, with SPO4 Aberion and five others as
members; and the second was led by Capt. Percival
Rumbaoa, with SPO1 Pandez and PO3 Mendez as
members.6
Between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the two groups
proceeded to Barangay Nueva, San Pedro, Laguna, on
board a car and a van. They went to ABDULs apartment
where he was reportedly selling shabu, but they learned
that ABDUL had already left. While looking for ABDUL,
they saw the suspected carnapped car somewhere at
Pacita Complex I, San Pedro, Laguna, going towards the
Poblacion. When it stopped due to the red traffic light, the
CIDG officers alighted from their vehicles. Capt. Rumbaoa
positioned himself at the passenger side of the suspected
carnapped car, while Major Pagkalinawan stood in front of
the car. SPO1 Pandez, with PO3 Mendez beside him, went
straight to the driver and knocked at the drivers window.
ABDUL, who was driving the car, lowered the glass
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Page 32
Yes, sir.
Q
If he is present inside this courtroom will you please
point to us Edgar Ayupan?
A
Yes, sir.
Where is he?
A
(Witness pointing to a person inside the courtroom
who upon being asked his name, x x x answered Edgar
Ayupan)
Q
On the evening of June 26, 1984, do you remember
where were you?
A
COURT:
THE WITNESS:
Main
Credibility of Lone Witness
Issue:
(to
Where is that dance hall?
xxx
xxx
Q
In going [to] the dance hall from your house, [did]
you have any companions?
A
xxx
xxx
Q
At about 12:00 oclock midnight[,] June 26, 1984,
could you tell us if there was anything unusual that
happened in that dance hall?
A
Q
Where were you when you noticed that there was a
commotion?
A
xxx
witness)
Page 33
Q
And because you notice that there was a commotion,
what did you do if any?
A
I ran [to] the center of the dance hall to see x x x
what happened.
Q
Why did you r[u]n towards the middle of the dance
hall to see what happened?
A
Because I ha[d] to see x x x who were fighting
because my cousin was no longer with me.
Q
And what did you observe when you proceeded to
the middle portion of the dance hall?
Q
In what part of the body of . . Were you able to see if
Francisco Mendoza was hit when he was stabbed for
several times by Edgar Ayupan?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
And could you tell the Court in what part of the body
of Francisco Mendoza was hit when he was stabbed for
several times by Edgar Ayupan?
A
On the chest.
Q
Now after you shouted considering that you saw
Edgar Ayupan [stab] Francisco Mendoza for several times
what next happened?
A
I saw Francisco Mendoza lying [down while] being
stabbed by Edgar.
Mendoza.
Q
After Edgar Ayupan stabbed Francisco Mendoza for
several times[,] what [happened next]?
Ayupan.
He ran away.
Q
This Edgar Ayupan whom you said was stabbing
Francisco Mendoza, was he the same Edgar Ayupan whom
you identified a while ago as the accused in this case?
Q
Aside from do you know if Edgar Ayupan had other
companions?
Yes, sir.
Q
And do you know what kind of weapon was being
used by Edgar Ayupan when you saw him [stabbing]
Francisco Mendoza?
A
Q
What was the position of Francisco Mendoza when
he was stabbed by Edgar Ayupan?
A
Q
And how about this Edgar Ayupan[,] where was he
situated in relation to Francisco Mendoza when he stabbed
Francisco Mendoza while the latter was lying on the
ground?
A
xxx
xxx
Q
How many times did Edgar Ayupan stab Francisco
Mendoza?
A
Q
And where [were] his companions at that time that
he was stabbing Francisco Mendoza?
A
A knife.
Many times.
Q
Now what did you do when you saw Edgar Ayupan
kneeling somewhere on the knee portion of the body of
Francisco Mendoza, at the same time stabbing Francisco
Mendoza?
A
I shouted why he stabbed Francisco Mendoza
because he ha[d] no fault.
Yes, sir.
Q
Now you said what happened to the companions of
Edgar Ayupan after Edgar Ayupan ran away?
ATTY. LAUREA:
Incompetent, your honor, he would be incompetent as to
what happened to the companions of Edgar Ayupan after
he ran away.
COURT:
What happened to the companions after he ran away?
ATTY. TEODOSIO:
What happened to the companions of Edgar after Edgar
Ayupan ran away?
A
Q
Now after Edgar Ayupan and his companions ha[d]
left, what did you do?
A
A
When I was there[,] the barangay captain also went
there and [saw] who was there and he was left there and I
was brought by the barangay captain, because I was
crying[;] since I [could] not walk, they just brought me
home.
Page 34
A
Yes, sir, I was brought by my younger sister and my
cousin.
Q
Could you tell the Court how were you able to
recognize Edgar Ayupan as the person whom you saw
[stab] for several times Francisco Mendoza, considering
that it was night?
A
Because I already knew him and he is also from
Batad."17
Moreover, Batislaong had a clear view of the stabbing
incident as shown by the following:
"ATTY. TEODOSIO:
How far were you from Edgar Ayupan and Francisco
Mendoza when you saw Edgar Ayupan [stab] Francisco
Mendoza?
A
Q
And where were you situated in relation to
Francisco Mendoza who was lying on the ground when he
was stabbed by Edgar Ayupan?
A
xxx
xxx
Q
What was a condition of the light at that time in that
dance hall when you saw Edgar Ayupan [stab] Francisco
Mendoza?
A
THE WITNESS:
Because the light [was] near x x x them because they
[were] in the center of the dance hall.
ATTY. TEODOSIO:
That would be all for the witness.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Delay in Reporting
Positive Identification
Page 35
Appellants Flight
Page 36
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 138933
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
A: A big lamp.
Q: Have you seen a very big lamp along Fortich Street, is
that a big lamp also at Kalasungay?
A: Yes.59
The Crime Committed by the Appellant
The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder,
qualified by treachery under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code. There is treachery in the commission of the
crime when (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not
in a position to defend himself; (b) the offender
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
method and form of attack employed by him. Even a
frontal attack may be considered treacherous when
sudden and unexpected, and employed on an unarmed
victim who would not be in a position to repel the attack or
to avoid it.60
In this case, the victim was merely sitting on the pavement
at the edge of the road, chatting with a friend as they
watched an on-going disco party. The appellant joined
them, without giving the victim any inkling as to the
tragedy that was about to befall the latter. Suddenly, and
without warning, the appellant pulled out the knife hidden
in his waist, and stabbed the victim twice, on vital parts of
the body, ensuring the latters immediate death. Thus, the
appellant killed the victim in a treacherous manner.
Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty.61 As such, the
circumstance of voluntary surrender will not affect the
penalty to be meted on the appellant, since under Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua must be applied regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the crime.
Civil Liabilities of the Appellant
The trial court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim
civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, which needs no
other proof than the death of the victim.62 The trial court
was, likewise, correct in not awarding actual damages to
the said heirs, considering that there were no receipts to
support them.63 The heirs are, nevertheless, entitled to
temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.64
Finally, the trial court was correct in not awarding
damages for lost earnings. The prosecution merely relied
on Wilma Sulogans self-serving statement, that her
husband was earning more or less P40,000 a year as a corn
farmer. Compensation for lost income is in the nature of
damages, and requires adequate proof thereof. For loss of
income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the
deceaseds average income as well as proof of average
expenses. The award for lost income refers to the net
income of the deceased; that is, the total income less
average expenses. No proof of the victims average
expenses were adduced in evidence; as such, there can be
no reliable estimate of lost earnings.65
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, in Criminal
Case No. 8437-97 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant Jerryvie Gumayao y Dahao is found GUILTY of
murder, qualified by treachery, penalized under Republic
Act No. 7659, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The
September 8, 2006
Page 40
A...
A Yes, sir.
Questioning
Q You said you know this Rene Santos, why do you know
him?
A Because he raped me, sir.
Q Can you remember when was that?
Q When?
WITNESS
Answering
I do not know when, sir.
FISCAL PINEDA
Page 41
A In Sulipan, sir.
Answering
Q In Apalit, Pampanga?
Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Point to him?
INTERPRETER
Witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom who
when asked gave his name as Rene Santos.28(Emphasis and
italics supplied)
Counsel for the defense attempted, albeit futilely, to
impeach the credibility of the victim.29 We have held time
and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young
and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence
considering that no young woman, especially one of tender
age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert
herself by being subject to a public trial if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the
wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable for
an innocent girl of tender years like the victim, who is very
naive to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so
humiliating not only to herself but also to her family.
Stated succinctly, it is beyond the mind-set of a six-year old
child, like the offended party herein, to fabricate a
malicious accusation against appellant if the crime did not
truly transpire.30 Verily, when a guileless girl of six
credibly declares that she has been raped, she has said all
that is necessary to prove the ravishment of her honor.31
Appellant's reliance on the corroboration by his wife of his
alibi cannot overturn the clear and categorical declarations
of the victim identifying him as the perpetrator of the
crime. The corroboration should, furthermore, be received
with caution coming as it does from appellant's spouse
whose emotional ties and interest in his acquittal cannot
be gainsaid. Indeed, it has even been held that some wives
are overwhelmed by emotional attachment to their
husbands such that they knowingly or otherwise suppress
the truth and act as a medium for injustice to
preponderate.32
In addition to his defense of alibi, appellant further faults
the trial court with "acting as the prosecutor and the judge
at the same time"33 for allegedly initiating and
propounding "the questions, short of supplying the desired
answer from the witness."34
The argument is tenuous. As has been pointed out in
People v. Guambor:35
The trial judge is accorded a reasonable leeway in putting
such questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit
relevant facts to make the record speak the truth. Trial
judges in this jurisdiction are judges of both law and the
facts, and they would be negligent in the performance of
their duties if they permitted a miscarriage of justice as a
result of a failure to propound a proper question to a
witness which might develop some material bearing upon
the outcome. In the exercise of sound discretion, he may
put such question to the witness as will enable him to
formulate a sound opinion as to the ability and willingness
of the witness to tell the truth. A judge may examine or
cross-examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory
questions to test the credibility of the witness and to
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Breast:
normal, no abrasions, no lacerations, no
hematoma
Abdomen: normal
Extremities: normal
Pelvic Examination: scanty pubic hair noted
External Genitalia: grossly normal
Internal & Speculum Examination Findings:
non-parous, admits 2 fingers with slight
Introitus:
difficulty
however, left the two. The next day, Rolly and Kakingcio
went back to the mountains and gathered coconuts.
tenderness"2
III
IV
ON THE ASSUMPTION HOWEVER THAT THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT IS GUILTY OF RAPE, THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE PENALTY OF
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP WAS
NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, HENCE, THE
APPROPRIATE PENALTY SHOULD ONLY BE RECLUSION
PERPETUA.4
On the first three assignments of errors, the appellant
avers that the prosecution had a difficulty proving that the
appellant raped the private complainant in light of her
testimony that when the appellant mounted her, he still
had his short pants on. When the prosecution tried to elicit
from the offended party how appellants penis could have
been inserted into her vagina with his pants still on and
the appellants counsel objected to the question, the
presiding judge himself took the cudgels for the
prosecution and propounded questions on the private
complainant. Worse, the presiding judge posed leading
questions to the private complainant. The presiding judge
was biased and partial to the prosecution. To buttress his
contention, the appellants counsel cited a portion of the
transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the trial
on September 17, 1997:
Page 45
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
So, after he laid himself over you with his trouser what
else happened?
A
Q
Where did he let his penis exit considering that he is
then wearing a short pants?
ATTY. DILOY:
Objection your Honor! It is leading.
COURT:
Q
How did he manage to have his penis inserted to
your vagina?
A
No, sir, because when he placed himself on top of me
he pulled down his shorts and thereafter he inserted his
penis into my vagina.
Q
At that time what was your apparel going up from
your vagina?
Q
After taking off your panty or underware (sic) what
else transpired?
Q
Please describe to us your uncle at that moment
when he placed himself over your body!
Q
After placing his penis on your vagina, what else
transpired?
A
Q
What was he wearing at that time when he was
carressing (sic) your face down to your arm?
A
Q
At that time he keeps on kissing you, where was his
penis in relation to your vagina?
None sir.
Q
At the time he put himself over you on a prone
position, what about his short pants, was it still there?
ATTY. DILOY:
We request Your Honor that the question not be made in a
leading manner!
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!
Page 46
PROS. PERIDA:
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:
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?
Q
After placing his penis on your vagina, what else
transpired?
A
Q
At that time he keeps on kissing you, where was his
penis in relation to your vagina?
A
Q
While his penis was inside your vagina and the
accused keeps on kissing you what else transpired?
A
(witness weeping in tears as been directly examined
by the Public Prosecutor).
COURT:
Place it of record that the child witness is crying in the
witness stand!
PROS. PERIDA:
What clothes?
COURT:
Proceed Fiscal!
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
So, after he laid himself over you with his trouser,
what else happened?
A
Q
Where did he let his penis exit considering that he is
then wearing a short pants?
ATTY. DILOY:
Objection Your Honor! It is leading!
COURT:
Q
How did he manage to have his penis inserted to
your vagina?
A
No sir, because when he placed himself on top of me
he pulled down his shorts and thereafter he inserted his
penis into my vagina.
Q
At that time what was your apparel going up from
your vagina?
Page 47
A
Because we were the only one staying in the house,
and besides I can detect his smell.
WITNESS:
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
WITNESS:
A
Belen Pepito.
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
ATTY. DILOY:
WITNESS:
PROS. PERIDA:
No, Your Honor. We are already talking about lights Your
Honor.
COURT:
Well, at least for purposes or in the interest of the trial, let
the witness answer!
WITNESS:
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
When you told your Yaya Alejandra, how did she
react to your information?
WITNESS:
A
Upon learning about the rape incident she was very
angry and she reacted angrily and carried with her the
camote tops and went down proceeding towards their
house bringing with her a long bolo, in our dialect it is used
for farming and cutting grass and a long pointed bolo, a
sharp instrument, and upon reaching their house they
have a quarrel with my uncle.
Page 48
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
How about you, did you follow your Yaya in going
home?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, sir.
PROS. PERIDA:
Q
WITNESS:
A
My auntie, Yaya Alejandra told my uncle Yayo
Kaking to leave the house because he ate his own blood,
and Yayo Kaking answered in the affirmative, saying Yes, I
will leave the house so long I will bring with me all my
belongings.13
The credibility of the private complainant was not
degraded by her and Alejandra Caetes reporting the
sexual assault to the police authorities only on February 5,
1996. The evidence shows that the private complainant
was only twelve years old when she was raped by the
appellant. She and her father, who was completely blind
and a paralytic, were living in the house of the appellant.
The latter threatened to kill her if she revealed what he did
to her. It was thus easy for the appellant to fulfill the threat
if she divulged the violation of her honor.14 The private
complainant could do nothing but cry. When the appellant
tried in the evening of February 3, 1996 to violate her
again, she ran to a neighbor, Ka Caring, divulged to her that
the appellant tried to rape her anew and sought her help.
In fact, the private complainant slept in the house of Ka
Caring that evening and went back home only the next
morning on February 4, 1996. On February 5, 1996, the
private complainant revealed to her Yaya Alejandra, the
wife of the appellant, that the latter had raped her. In
People v. Bea,15 this Court held that it is not uncommon for
a young girl at the tender age of sixteen years to be
intimidated into silence and conceal the sexual assault on
her by the appellant.16
When cross-examined by the public prosecutor, the
appellant unabashedly admitted that he did not know any
improper or ill-motive on the part of the private
complainant for charging him with rape, and on the part of
his wife Alejandra Caete for reporting the sexual assault
on the private complainant by the appellant to the police
authorities:
Q
The complainant here testified in Court that she was
raped by you at 9:00 oclock in the evening of February 1,
1996. Are you aware of that?
A
No, sir.
Q
In fact the victim here testified that it was your very
own wife who accompanied her to report this matter to
the barangay (sic) Chairman of Barangay Gayad, and
likewise reported this matter to the PNP of Capoocan. Are
you aware of that?
A
No, sir.
Q
Do you know of any reason or reasons why your
own wife would report this rape incident against your
person?
A
Q
And you dont know likewise of any reason or
reasons why your own niece, a twelve (12) year old child
would accuse you of rape, right?
A
Page 49
"CONTRARY TO LAW."1
On his arraignment accused-appellant pleaded not guilty
to the crime charged.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite
rendered a decision dated January 20, 1999, convicting
accused-appellant of rape, to wit
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the felony of rape, the accusedValentin Baring Jr. is sentenced to die by lethal injection
and to pay the victim an indemnity of P50,000.00 plus
moral damages of another P50,000.00 plus the cost of this
suit.
"SO ORDERED."2
In a sworn complaint,3 Jennifer Donayre accused Valentin
Baring, Jr., her grandmothers commonlaw husband, of
raping her on several occasions. It appears that Jennifer
was living with her grandmother in Dasmarias, Cavite.
She does not know her real father since her mother and
father were separated.4 Since 1990, when she was about 8
months old5 until 1997, she was left under her
grandmothers care and custody. She calls Valentin Baring,
Jr. as "Papa."6
According to Jennifer, the repeated sexual abuse happened
when she was about 6 years old whenever she was left
alone in the house. Accused-appellant would touch her
private parts, and on such occasions, accused-appellant
would remove her panty, mount on her and violate her.
She informed her grandmother that accused-appellant
sexually abused her.7
On July 29, 1997, Jenelyn Donayre-Mendoza visited her
daughter Jennifer, herein victim, in Dasmarias, Cavite. She
learned from her daughter that the latter was sexually
abused by accused-appellant. Acting on her daughters
accounts of sexual abuse, she took Jennifer to the National
Bureau of Investigation and filed a complaint. Thereafter,
Jennifer underwent a medical examination at the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Service
in Camp Crame, Quezon City. Dr. Dennis G. Bellen, the
medico-legal officer at Camp Crame found that Jennifer
was in "non-virgin state physically." The examination
disclosed a "congested, fleshy-type hymen with shallow
healing laceration at 9 oclock position and the external
vaginal orifice admits tip of the examiners smallest
finger."8
For his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations
against him.9 According to accused-appellant, he has been
living with Jennifers grandmother for ten (10)10 or
eighteen (18) years.11 Accused-appellant claimed that
Jennifer was not living with them during the time the
alleged rape occurred.12 Later on, he testified that prior to
July, 1997, Jennifer was living with them since 1990.13
However, Jennifer was taken from them sometime in July
1997, but he does not know why.14
The trial court meted out its judgment of conviction on the
basis of the victims clear, trustworthy and positive
testimony that she was raped several times by accusedappellant. Because of the penalty imposed, this case is now
before us on automatic review.
Page 50
"PROS. ORQUIEZA:
"II. In denying the accused his right to plead for a DNA Test
to determine that the blood found in the panty of the
victim is not his but of another man, Venancio Mendoza,
live-in husband of Jennelyn, mother of Jennifer Donayre,
the victim.
"III. In not finding the accused as a fall guy framed up to
take the place of Venancio Mendoza, live-in husband of
Jennelyn, mother of Jennifer, whose behavior in the
courtroom as a witness has been beyond normal."16
The Philippine Constitution no less, mandates that no
decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.17 This vital requirement is not only
demanded from the courts. Quasi-judicial bodies are
similarly required to give basis for all their decisions,
rulings or judgments pursuant to the Administrative
Code18 whose roots may also be traced to the
Constitutional mandate.
A decision need not be a complete recital of the evidence
presented. So long as the factual and legal basis are clearly
and distinctly set forth supporting the conclusions drawn
therefrom, the decision arrived at is valid. Nonetheless, in
order to effectively buttress the judgment arrived at, it is
imperative that a decision should not be simply limited to
the dispositive portion but must state the nature of the
case, summarize the facts with references to the record,
and contain a statement of the applicable laws and
jurisprudence and the tribunals assessments and
conclusions on the case. This practice would better enable
a court to make an appropriate consideration of whether
the dispositive portion of the judgment sought to be
enforced is consistent with the findings of facts and
conclusions of law made by the tribunal that rendered the
decision.19 Compliance with this requirement will
sufficiently apprise the parties of the various issues
involved but more importantly will guide the court in
assessing whether the conclusion arrived at is consistent
with the facts and the law.
In the case at bar, the trial courts decision may cast doubt
as to the guilt of accused-appellant. Such doubt may be
"PROS. ORQUIEZA:
I just prefer that a subpoena be sent. We have to ask for
the postponement.
"ATTY. ABUBAKAR:
We can dispense with the testimony.
"COURT:
Provided this is admitted.
"COURT:
Do you admit the due execution and authenticity of the
report of the doctor?
"ATTY. ABUBAKAR:
We admit everything written here because (sic) doctor
says.
"COURT:
Yes, whatever is written there, do you admit that?
ATTY. ABUBAKAR
Yes, your Honor.
"COURT:
No need to present the doctor
"PROS. ORQUIEZA:
We will no longer present Dr. Dennis G. Bellen of the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Service at
Camp Crame, Quezon City. We have here the xerox copy of
the medico legal report no. M-2831-97.
"COURT:
Page 51
"A:
"ATTY. ABUBAKAR:
"Q:
You were pointing to your stepfather, do you know
what things or particular things, if any, he did to you?
"A:
"COURT:
No sir. He is my stepfather.
Yes, sir.
Admitted.
"Q:
What were those particular things your stepfather
had done to you?
"A:
"Q:
When your stepfather raped you, what actually did
your stepfather do to you?
"A:
"Q:
"A:
Yes, sir.
"A:
He raped me.
He removed my panty.
"Q:
What did your stepfather do after removing your
panty?
"Q:
When he was on top of you, did he place his penis
inside your private parts?
"A:
Yes, sir.
"Q:
What did you feel when his penis was inside your
private parts, if any?
"A:
I felt pain.
"Q:
Was your private part bleeding as a result of the
insertion of the penis of your stepfather into your private
parts?
"A:
Yes, sir.
"Q:
"A:
Yes, sir.
"Q:
"A:
My cheek.
"Q:
"A:
Dasmarias, Cavite.
xxx
"Q:
"A:
"Q:
"Q:
Are you the same Jennifer Donayre the private
complainant against the accused Valentin Baring, Jr.?
"A:
"x x x
"Q:
Yes, sir.
xxx
"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:
"A:
At that time nobody was in the house because they
were working.
"xxx
xxx
xxx
"Q:
Can you recall if the rape you mentioned to us
happened while you were 7 years old, 6 years old? What
was your age then if you can recall?
Page 52
"A:
6 years old.
"A:
10 times.
"Q:
"A:
Yes, sir.
"GENITAL
"Q:
How many is this? (prosecutor is depicting two
fingers)
"A:
Two, sir.
Five, sir.
"Q:
"A:
Ten, sir.28
by
determining
the
diameter/hymenal opening in rape cases was a common
practice in the past. With the passage of R.A. 7610, this
Court has nonetheless allowed the utilization of the same
kind of evidence in the prosecution of Child Abuse cases. In
light however of radical medical developments and
findings, specifically as to the determination of the
existence of child sexual abuse, this Court deems it
necessary to firmly adopt a more "child sensitive"
approach in dealing with this specie or genre of crime.
In the international scientific community, recent medical
studies have shown that measurement of hymenal opening
is unreliable in determining and/or proving child sexual
abuse
"The diameter of the hymenal opening previously has been
used as a diagnostic criterion for abuse. More recent
studies have shown this to be undependable (Paradise,
1989).Factors affecting hymenal and anal diameter include
the examination position (McCann, Voris, Simon, & Wells,
1990) and the degree of relaxation of the child. The anal
diameter is also affected by the presence of stool in the
ampulla. Hymenal diameter may increase with age and
with the onset of pubertal development."40
In fact, there is no evidence, nor published research
studies which show that enlarged hymenal opening
diameter is any more common in abused than in nonabused children."41 Thus "In the latest revision of the classification system,
enlarged hymenal opening is also removed as a criterion
that should be considered suspicious for abuse. With labial
traction, the hymenal opening may appear quite large,
especially to the less experienced clinician, and internal
structures such as vaginal ridges, rugae, and vaginal
columns may be visualized. This is purely a matter of how
much traction is applied, and the degree of patient
relaxation, and has no proven correlation with past sexual
Page 53
ascendant,
step-parent,
guardian,
relative
by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or
the commonlaw spouse of the parent of the victim,48 will
not apply for while the victim is under eighteen (18) years
old, the accused-appellant is not the common-law husband
of the victims mother. The trial court therefore erred in
meting out the death penalty upon accused-appellant for
qualified rape. Thus, accused-appellant may only be
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In line with our prevailing jurisprudence,49 we sustain the
trial courts award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity and
P50,000.00 moral damages.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 21, Imus, Cavite, in Criminal Case No. 6334-98,
finding accused-appellant Valentin Baring, Jr., guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the sentence is reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 170338
VIRGILIO
O.
GARCILLANO,
petitioner,
vs.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON
PUBLIC INFORMATION, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY,
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, and SUFFRAGE
AND ELECTORAL REFORMS, respondents.
x----------------------x
G.R. No. 179275
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
every three years for a term of six years each. Thus, the
term of twelve Senators expires every three years, leaving
less than a majority of Senators to continue into the
next Congress. The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935
Constitution, requires a majority of Senators to "constitute
a quorum to do business." Applying the same reasoning in
Arnault v. Nazareno, the Senate under the 1987
Constitution is not a continuing body because less than
majority of the Senators continue into the next Congress.
The consequence is that the Rules of Proceduremust be
republished by the Senate after every expiry of the term of
twelve Senators.47
XLIV
Page 57
Page 58
PEREZ, J.:
Before Us for final review is the trial courts conviction of
the appellant for the rape of his thirteen-year old daughter.
Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v.
Cabalquinto,1 the real name and the personal
circumstances of the victim, and any other information
tending to establish or compromise her identity, including
those of her immediate family or household members, are
not disclosed in this decision.
The Facts
In an Information dated 21 September 2000,2 the appellant
was accused of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE allegedly
committed as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of March 2000, in the
evening, at Barangay xxx, municipality of xxx, province of
Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the
father of AAA with lewd design, with the use of force and
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
criminally have carnal knowledge with his own daughter
AAA, a 13 year[s]old minor against her will.3
On 12 October 2000, appellant entered a plea of not
guilty.4 During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution
and the defense stipulated and admitted: (a) the
correctness of the findings indicated in the medical
certificate of the physician who examined AAA; (b) that
AAA was only thirteen (13) years old when the alleged
offense was committed; and (c) that AAA is the daughter of
the appellant.5 On trial, three (3) witnesses testified for the
prosecution, namely: victim AAA;6 her brother BBB;7 and
one Moises Boy Banting,8 a "bantay bayan" in the
barangay. Their testimonies revealed the following:
In the afternoon of 15 March 2000, AAA was left alone at
home.9 AAAs father, the appellant, was having a drinking
spree at the neighbors place.10 Her mother decided to
leave because when appellant gets drunk, he has the habit
of mauling AAAs mother.11 Her only brother BBB also
went out in the company of some neighbors.12
At around 10:00 oclock in the evening, appellant woke
AAA up;13 removed his pants, slid inside the blanket
covering AAA and removed her pants and underwear;14
warned her not to shout for help while threatening her
with his fist;15 and told her that he had a knife placed
above her head.16 He proceeded to mash her breast, kiss
her repeatedly, and "inserted his penis inside her
vagina."17
Soon after, BBB arrived and found AAA crying. 18 Appellant
claimed he scolded her for staying out late.19 BBB decided
to take AAA with him.20 While on their way to their
maternal grandmothers house, AAA recounted her
harrowing experience with their father.21 Upon reaching
their grandmothers house, they told their grandmother
and uncle of the incident,22 after which, they sought the
assistance of Moises Boy Banting.23
Moises Boy Banting found appellant in his house wearing
only his underwear.24 He invited appellant to the police
station,25 to which appellant obliged. At the police outpost,
he admitted to him that he raped AAA because he was
unable to control himself.26
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
dark. He covered the wound with his right hand but there
was a second thrust that wounded him again almost in the
same place. Instinctively, he curled himself into a fetal
position with his hands at the back of his neck and asked,
"Why did you stab me?" He received no answer but soon
enough a third thrust sliced through his left arm and
pierced the right part of his chest. It was then that he
grabbed the fist of his attacker and the two of them
wrestled in the dark for possession of the weapon. He
could not recall what happened afterwards as he must
have fainted. He said he also had no recollection of the
statement he supposedly made before he was brought to
the hospital. He recovered consciousness there only on
May 4, 1980, and was then told that his wife had tried to
kill him. 4
His statements were corroborated by his 18-year old son,
Edwin, who testified that there was no quarrel between his
parents when his father went to sleep early that night of
April 29, 1980. His mother was in her usual angry mood,
however. After studying his lessons, he himself went to
sleep while his mother continued folding clothes. He was
awakened later by the sound of a scuffle, and when he
turned on his flashlight he saw his mother stabbing his
father. He amplified his testimony with gestures, swinging
his right arm downward in simulation of stabbing. Afraid
to succor his father, he woke up his two brothers and
rushed with them to their grandfather's house to seek his
help. On their way out, they heard his father say, "Why did
you stab me?" 5
Edwin identified the bolo-knife as belonging to his mother,
who he said usually carried it on her person for cutting
leaves to cover herself whenever it rained. On two
occasions, however, she used it for a different purpose.
The first incident was when Adelfa stabbed Jose on the
right side of his body, and the second was when she
hacked Jose's upper right arm. Both incidents were
reported to the barangay captain. 6
Edwin admitted loving his father more than his mother. He
recalled that when he was in Grade I, his mother hanged
him by the neck from a coconut tree with a piece of katsa
cloth. 7
The violent nature of Adelfa was affirmed by another
witness, Manuel Cardel, who testified that he was in the
store of one Macedonio in the afternoon of April 29, 1980,
when he heard Adelfa say she would stab Jose if he came
home without any money. (As it turned out, Jose did come
home without his salary, saying he would collect it the
following day. This could have been the reason why Edwin
observed his mother to be in a sullen mood that night.)
Cardel also recalled one time when Adelfa ran after her
husband with a bolo in her hand. 8
The trial court correctly rejected the above-quoted
interrogation as a dying declaration because it did not
comply with all the requirements of this particular
exception to the hearsay rule. The statement does not
show that it was made by the declarant under the
consciousness of impending death (although it is true that
Jose was near death at that time). Nevertheless, it was
correctly admitted as part of the res gestae, having been
made soon after the startling occurrence of the multiple
stabbing of Jose and Adelfa.
But the mere fact that evidence is admissible does not
necessarily mean that it is also credible. The testimony of a
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
A Yes, maam.
FISCAL LAGMAN
Q And this suspect who was the seller, is he present in
Court today?
A Yes, maam.
Q Would you kindly point to him?
A The 6th man from the Steel Cabinet.
INTERPRETER
Makikitayo, anong pangalan mo?
ACCUSED
xxxx
FISCAL LAGMAN
A Yes, maam.
FISCAL LAGMAN
A Yes, maam.14
PO3 Leona, the back-up arresting officer during the buybust operation corroborated PO3 Garcias testimony, thus:
A Yes, maam.
A I saw a person came out from that way near the hollow
blocks fence wearing black pants and green t-shirt and I
saw they were talking with our confidential informant.
FISCAL COMILANG
Q Could you see the person who just arrived and talked
with your confidential informant on said occasion, is he in
Court?
xxxx
FISCAL LAGMAN
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you please point to him if he is present?
Page 65
INTERPRETER
Witness pointed to a person who gave us his name as
Saidamen Macatingag.
FISCAL COMILANG
Q Now, Mr. Witness after the confidential informant and
the accused had a conversation what did if any transpired
after this conversation?
A After 30 minutes I saw the pre-arranged signal that this
PO3 Marino Garcia will remove his cap.
Q You mean to say or to impress this court that Mr.
Witness that the informant and Mr. Garcia were together
when they had a transaction with the accused?
A Yes, sir because the confidential informant introduced
Mr. Marino Garcia to the accused.
xxxx
FISCAL COMILANG
Q After you saw PO3 Marino Garcia removed his cap, what
did you do after that?
A I went to the area to help PO3 Garcia.
Q What if any did you find out after helping PO3 Marino
Garcia?
A I arrested Saidamen and I removed from him the 2
pieces of P500 the bodol money.
xxxx
Q Now after recovering that 2 P500 bills from the accused
what will be, were you able to recover?
A Yes, sir.
COURT
Page 66
Page 67
PADILLA, J.:
Page 68
Page 69
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Page 70
xxx
xxx
Page 71
A Possible, sir.
FISCAL:
What could have been the cause of the contusion and
swelling under your findings No. 2 doctor?
WITNESS:
It may be caused by bumping to a hard object, sir.
Q Could a butt of a gun have caused it doctor?
A The swelling is big so it could have not been caused by a
butt of a gun because the butt of a gun is small, sir.
Q How about this findings No. 4?
xxx
xxx
FISCAL:
Could a bumping or pushing of one's head against a
concrete floor have caused shock?
WITNESS:
Possible, sir.
A Possible, sir.35
Page 72
SO ORDERED.
September 1, 2010
VIOLATION OF RA
NAME OF SUSPECT
NITA
EUGEN
57
years
Res.
At
Vi
Malinao, Pasig Cit
D.T.P.O.
On or about 8:30 P
2003 at Vicper Co
ARRESTING OFFICER
Elements
of
Action
Team
Detachment,
Police Station
PO1 Aldrin Marian
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED
One
(1)
transparent
containing
Page 73
amount of suspected
of all dangerous
"shabu"
drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs,
Marked
EXHcontrolled
A precursors
ARM and essential chemicals, as well as
05/13/03
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(emphasis and
Page 74
xxxx
Exh. C - we object to its admission as well as the purpose
for which they are being offered for being planted
evidence, your honor. 13 (underscoring supplied)
The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the burden of the evidence did not shift to the
defense to thus leave it unnecessary to pass upon the
defense evidence even if it were considered weak.
Appellants acquittal based on reasonable doubt is then in
order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed
decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant, Nita
Eugenio y Pejer, is ACQUITED for failure of the prosecution
to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections for Women, Mandaluyong City who
is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant,
unless she is being lawfully held for another cause, and to
inform this Court of action taken within ten (10) days from
notice.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 181831
Atty. Ronatay:
Page 75
Janet, who was designated as poseur-buyer, gave the premarked P200 (in five P20 and two P50 bills) to Rodnie
who placed them inside his pocket. Rodnie thereupon took
out a "black plastic container"5 from his pants back pocket
from which container he drew two plastic sachets which
he, however, returned to the container.
Page 76
Page 77
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 168644
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82