Evid Digested Cases - 1

G.R. No.
127240 March 27, 2000

ONG CHIA vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Petitioner was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China. In 1932, as a nine-year old boy, he arrived at the port of
Manila on board the vessel "Angking." Since then, he has stayed in the Philippines where he found employment and
eventually started his own business, married a Filipina, with whom he had four children. On July 4, 1989, at the age
of 66, he filed a verified petition to be admitted as a Filipino citizen under C.A. No. 473, otherwise known as the
Revised Naturalization
During the hearings, petitioner testified as to his qualifications and presented three witnesses to corroborate his
testimony. Prosecutor Isaac Alvero V. Moran who was impressed with the testimony of Ong Chia, di not counteract
the testimony. The trial court granted the petition and admitted Ong Chia to Philippine citizenship.
The State, however, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed all the names by which he is or had been
known; (2) failed to state all his former placer of residence in violation of C.A. No. 473, §7; (3) failed to conduct
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the Philippines, in violation of §2; (4) has no
known lucrative trade or occupation and his previous incomes have been insufficient or misdeclared, also in
contravention of §2; and (5) failed to support his petition with the appropriate documentary evidence. 4
The CA reversed the trial courts decision. On appeal to the SC, On Chia contended that the CA erred in considering
teh documents which had merely been annexed by teh State to its appellant’s brief. Not having been presented and
formally offerred as evidence, they are merely scraps of paper devoid of evidentiary value contrary to Rue 132, sec.
34 of teh Revised Rues on Evidence which provides that courts shall consider no evidencewhich has been not fomaly
offered.
ISSUE:
Whether the Revised Rules on Evidence applies in this case.
HELD:
No. Rule 143 of the Rules of Court provides that: “These rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and
election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.”
Prescinding from the above, the rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34) now being invoked by petitioner is
clearly not applicable to the present case involving a petition for naturalization. The only instance when said rules
may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient." That is not the
case here, since reliance upon the documents presented by the State for the first time on appeal, in fact, appears to
be the more practical and convenient course of action considering that decisions in naturalization proceedings are not
covered by the rule on res judicata. Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not preclude the State from later
14
on moving for a revocation of the grant of naturalization on the basis of the same documents.
Furthermore, the Court notes that these documents — namely, the petition in SCN Case No. 031767, petitioner's
marriage contract, the joint affidavit executed by him and his wife, and petitioner's income tax returns — are all public
documents. As such, they have been executed under oath. They are thus reliable. Since petitioner failed to make a
satisfactory showing of any flaw or irregularity that may cast doubt on the authenticity of these documents, it is our
conclusion that the appellate court did not err in relying upon them.
G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996
CECILIA ZULUETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN
FACTS:
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the
clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's
secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of
private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries,
Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for
legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.
Dr. Martin filed an action before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, rendered judgment for private respondent, Dr.
Alfredo Martin, declaring him "the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of plaintiff's
Complaint or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress." The writ of preliminary injunction earlier
issued was made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined from "using
or submitting/admitting as evidence" the documents and papers in question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition.
Zulueta’s only ground is that in Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr., involving similar documents, the Court ruled that
the documents and papers (marked as Annexes A-1 to J-7 of respondent's comment in that case) were admissible in
evidence and, therefore, their use by petitioner's attorney, Alfonso Felix did not constitute malpractice or gross
misconduct.
ISSUES:
1. Is Zulueta contention invoking the case of Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr., correct.
2. Whether the documents and papers unwillingly seized by Zulueta be admissible as evidence.
RULING:
1. No. Zulueta’s contention invoking the case of Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr., is not correct. The case against
Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment.
Rule 128, Sec. 1 provides that “Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.” Further Rule 1, Sec. 3, provides for judicial proceeding which
includes Civil (ordinary and special civil actions), Criminal and Special proceedings. Disbarment is not a judicial
proceeding because it is an exercise of the judiciary’s quasi-executive powers.
2. No. The documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring
"the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the
wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from
a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision
renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"

Evid Digested Cases - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evid Digested Cases - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

127240 March 27, 2000

Whether the Revised Rules on Evidence applies in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

You might also like