Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evid Reviewer
Evid Reviewer
Admissibility of Evidence
Admissions
[I]n light of the positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the
crime, his defense of alibi and denial cannot be sustained. “An affirmative
testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially so when it comes
from the mouth of a credible witness.” (People v. Robert Daraman, GR No.
126046, August 7, 1998; People v. Bonifacio Zamora, GR No. 101829, August 21,
1997; People v. Domingo Sta. Ana, GR Nos. 115657-59, June 26, 1998)
Allegations
Mere allegations are not synonymous with proof. (Vinta Maritime v. NLRC,
GR No. 113911, January 23, 1998)
Ancient Document
An ancient document is one that is (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in
the proper custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance
of suspicion. It must on its face appear to be genuine. (Fernanda Cequena v.
Honorata Bolante, GR No. 137944, April 6, 2000)
Animus Possidendi
Circumstantial Evidence
Confession
Once admitted, the confession must inspire credibility or be one, which the
normal experience of mankind can accept as being within the realm of probability.
(People v. Nicomedes Fabro, GR No. 95089, August 11, 1997)
Credibility of Evidence
More than consistency, the best test of credibility is its compatibility with the
common experience of man. A testimony deserves credence if it does run counter
to human knowledge, observation and experience; whatever is repugnant to these
standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance. (People v.
Dionisio Marollano, GR No. 105004, July 24, 1997)
Credibility of Witnesses
We have ruled time and time again that the assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court
because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. These are the most
significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the
truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its observations
during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine, with
reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to
disbelieve. (People v. Bienvenido Ombrog, GR No. 104666, February 12, 1997;
People v. Victoriano Pontilar Jr., GR No. 104865, July 11, 1997; People v. Sergio
Betonio, GR No. 119165, September 26, 1997; People v. Gerardo Cogonon, GR
No. 94548, October 4, 1996; People v. Joel Pinca, GR No. 129256, November 17,
1999; People v. Roberto Pacis, GR No. 146309, July 18, 2002; Celestino
Marturillas v. People, GR No. 163217, April 18, 2006)
The basic rule is that findings and conclusions of a trial court, upon which
the responsibility of assessing the credibility of witnesses primarily rests, deserve
great weight and respect. Conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape
cases lie heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court. When the question
arises as to which version is to be believed, the judgment of the trial court is
accorded the highest respect in view of the opportunity it had to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the witness stand. Concededly, it is in a
better position than an appellate court to discern whether a witness is telling the
truth or fabricating a lie. Barring arbitrariness and oversight of facts, which might
affect the result of the case, such assessment must bind even this Court. (People
v. Joel Corea, GR No. 114383, March 3, 1997; People v. Ernesto Atuel, GR No.
106962, September 3, 1996; People v. Henry Apilo, GR No. 101213-14, October
28, 1996; People v. Efren Buendia, GR Nos. 133949-51, September 16, 1999;
People v. Vicente Basquez, GR No. 144035, September 27, 2001; People v.
Jovito Manalo, GR Nos. 144989-90, January 31, 2003; People v. Mario Umayam,
GR No. 147033, April 30, 2003; People v. Ma. Lourdes Felipe, GR No. 142505,
December 11, 2003)
Well-settled is the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. Such findings are
conclusive upon the Supreme Court in the absence of any showing that the trial
court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of
weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. (People v.
Diarangan Dansal, GR No. 105002, July 17, 1997; People v. Domingo Salazar,
GR No. 99355, August 11, 1997; People v. Efren Cabebe, GR No. 125910, May
21, 1998; People v. Cheng Ho Chua, GR No. 127542, March 18, 1999; People v.
Noriel Lacerna, GR No. 109250, September 5, 1997; People v. Nelson Agunias,
GR No. 121993, September 12, 1997; People v. Domingo Sta. Ana, GR No.
115657-59, June 26, 1998; People v. Cheng Ho Chua, GR No. 127542, March 18,
1999; People v. Glenn Lotoc, GR No. 132166, May 19, 1999; People v. Noel Diaz,
GR No. 130652, June 21, 1999; People v. Carlos Boco, GR No. 129676, June 23,
1999; People v. Jaime Ibay, GR No. 132690, August 10, 1999; People v. Isabelo
Perez, GR No. 130501, September 2, 1999; People v. Eleuterio Costelo, GR No.
134311, October 13, 1999; People v. Constancio Merino, GR No. 132329,
December 17, 1999; People v. Alfredo Cabande, GR No. 132747, February 8,
2000; People v. Ernesto Garchitorena, GR No. 131357, April 12, 2000; People v.
John Kenneth de Guzman, GR No. 137806, December 14, 2000; People v.
Domingo Perez, GR No. 134756, February 13, 2001; People v. Evangeline
Ganenas, GR No. 141400, September 6, 2001; People v. Rolando Mendoza, GR
No. 142654, November 16, 2001; People v. Sueene Discalsota, GR No. 136892,
April 11, 2002; People v. Matias Lagramada, GR Nos. 146357 & 148170, August
29, 2002; People v. Teresa Corpuz, GR No. 148919, December 17, 2002; People
v. Felix Montes, GR Nos. 148743-45, November 18, 2003; People v. Toribio
Galido, GR Nos. 148689-92, March 30, 2004; People v. Lolito Estoya, GR No.
153538, May 19, 2004; People v. Larry Cachapero, GR No. 153008, May 20,
2004; People v. Sonny Bautista, GR No. 140278, June 3, 2004; Elsa Jose v.
People, GR No. 148371, August 12, 2004)
In a rape case, the credibility of the victim and her testimony is often the
most important issue. It is usually her word that she was raped vis-à-vis that of
appellant who denies such charge. This is because rape is often committed in
secrecy, without any other witness except the victim. (People v. Conde Rapisora,
GR Nos. 140934-35, October 23, 2001)
Desistance
The facts of this case show that the victim’s mother desisted from
prosecuting the case in consideration of the “financial help” extended to her family
by the accused-appellant. Such “financial help” when viewed as an offer of
compromise may also be deemed as additional proof to demonstrate appellant’s
criminal liability. Well-settled it is that the desistance of the victim’s complaining
mother does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action, but it does
operate as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity. Hence, in effectively
waiving her right to institute an action to enforce the civil liability of accused-
appellant, she also waived her right to be awarded any civil indemnity arising from
the criminal prosecution. This waiver is bolstered by the fact that neither she nor
any private prosecutor in her behalf appealed the trial court’s refusal to include a
finding of civil liability. (People v. Edelciano Amaca, GR No. 110129, August 12,
1997)
Documentary Evidence
It is a basic rule of evidence that the original copy prevails over a mere
photocopy. (People v. Ruben Tidula, GR No. 123273, July 16, 1998)
Dying Declaration
The elements of such exception [dying declaration] are: (1) the deceased
made the declaration conscious of his impending death; (2) the declarant would
have been a competent witness had he survived; (3) the declaration concerns the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (4) the declaration
is offered in a criminal case where the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry;
and (5) the declaration is complete in itself. (People v. Edelciano Amaca, GR No.
110129, August 12, 1997; People v. Tito Reduca, GR Nos. 126094-95, January
21, 1999; People v. Rolando Mendoza, GR No. 142654, November 16, 2001;
People v. Conrado De Leon, GR No. 144052, March 6, 2002; Celestino Marturillas
v. People, GR No. 163217, April 18, 2006)
Finally, the fact that the victim did not expire right after his declaration, but
survived seven days thereafter, will not alter the probative force of his dying
declaration. The occurrence of a declarant’s death immediately thereafter is not
indispensable. The rule on dying declarations does not require that the person
“should be at the time in the throes of death, or that he should die immediately, or
within any specified time thereafter, in order to give the declaration probative
force. Where a person has been fatally wounded, is in sore distress therefrom,
and believes that he will not recover and is soon to die, his statement made in this
belief relating to the cause of his injury is admissible, if it appears that he
subsequently died from the direct effects of the wound, although he may have
revived after making the statements or may have lived a considerable time
thereafter, and may have again begun to hope for recovery.” (People v. Rolando
Mendoza, GR No. 142654, November 16, 2001)
Equipoise Rule
As a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice of the evidence
presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in
the same court, or have been heard and are actually pending before the same
judge. This is especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has the
constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.
(People v. Jailon Kulais, GR Nos. 100901-08, July 16, 1998; Melanio Mallari v.
People, GR No. 153911, December 10, 2004)
Extrajudicial Confessions
While it is true that the confessions of appellant were made without benefit
of counsel, they are still admissible in evidence because of appellant’s failure to
make timely objections before the trial court. If only the defense had proffered
them on time, the prosecution could have been warned of the need to present
additional evidence to support its case. To disregard a major portion of the
prosecution’s case at a late stage during an appeal goes against the norms of
fundamental fairness. (People v. Guillermo Samus, GR Nos. 135957-58,
September 17, 2002)
Expert Opinion
[I]t is also hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting experts, even
those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts. This principle holds
true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the
questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
Facsimile Copy
Pleadings filed via fax machines are not considered originals and are at best
exact copies. As such, they are not admissible in evidence, as there is no way of
determining whether they are genuine or authentic. (Heirs of Sabanpan v. Alberto
C. Comorposa, GR No. 152807, August 12, 2003)
Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. (Sps. Lagandaon v.
Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 102526-31, May 21, 1998; Liberty Construction v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 106601, June 28, 1996; Erlinda de la Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 105213, December 4, 1996; Pacita David-Chan v. Phil. Rabbit
Bus, GR No. 105294, February 26, 1997; National Steel v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 112287, December 12, 1997; Industrial Insurance v. Pablo Bondad, GR No.
136722, April 12, 2000; Gregorio Pestaño v. Spouses Sumayang, GR No. 139875,
December 4, 2000; Nerio Salcedo v. People, GR No. 137143, December 8, 2000;
Yu Bun Guan v. Elvira Ong, GR No. 144735, October 18, 2001; Norgene
Potenciano v. Dwight Reynoso, GR No. 140707, April 22, 2003; Desamparados M.
Soliva v. Intestate Estate of Villalba, GR No. 154017, December 8, 2003; Virgilio
Bon v. People, GR No. 152160, January 13, 2004; Apolonia Ll. Ocampo v. Fidela
Ll. Ocampo, GR No. 150707, April 14, 2004; Bank of the Philippine Islands v. ALS
Management, GR No. 151821, April 14, 2004; Miguel Cuenco v. Concepcion
Cuenco, GR No. 149844, October 13, 2004; Pilipinas Shell v. John Bordman Ltd.,
GR No. 159831, October 14, 2005; Celestino Marturillas v. People, GR No.
163217, April 18, 2006)
The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule
deemed conclusive, may admit of review by this Court: (1) when the factual
findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of
discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the appellate court, in making its
findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the Court of
Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of
Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will
justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of fact are themselves
conflicting; (9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the
specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings
are contradicted by the evidence on record. (Maximo Fuentes v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 109849, February 26, 1997; Juan Castillo v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 106472, August 7, 1996; Archipelago Management v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 128850, November 20, 1998; Sps. Lagandaon v. Court of Appeals, GR
Nos. 102526-31, May 21, 1998; First Nationwide Assurance v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 128797, November 19, 1999; BPI-Family Savings Bank v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 122480, April 12, 2000; Rosendo C. Carticiano v. Mario Nuval,
GR No. 138054, September 28, 2000; Asset Privatization Trust v. Sandiganbayan,
GR No. 138598, June 29, 2001; Metro Concast Steel v. Manila Electric Company,
GR No. 132539, July 11, 2001; Fernando Santos v. Spouses Reyes, GR No.
135813, October 25, 2001; Nora T. Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical
Mission, GR No. 140472, June 10, 2002; Teresita Bongato v. Spouses Malvar, GR
No. 141614, August 14, 2002; Cesar Montanez v. Nestor Mendoza, GR No.
144116, November 22, 2002; Victorino Savellano v. Northwest Airlines, GR No.
151783, July 8, 2003; Roweno Pomoy v. People, GR No. 150647, September 29,
2004; Myrna Ramos v. Susana S. Sarao, GR No. 149756, February 11, 2005;
Pamplona Plantation v. Rodel Tinghil, GR No. 159121, February 3, 2005; Jose
Menchavez v. Florentino Teves Jr., GR No. 153201, January 26, 2005; Republic v.
Maxima Lensico, GR No. 158919, August 9, 2005; Erlinda Gajudo v. Traders
Royal Bank, GR No. 151098, March 21, 2006)
The judge who penned the assailed decision was not the one who presided
over the trial of the case. Because of this, the rule that the factual findings of the
trial court will not be disturbed on appeal finds no application, because the
ponente was not able to observe the witnesses or their manner of testifying.
(People v. Gerald Tayaban, GR No. 128481, September 25, 1998; People v.
Wilfredo Llaguno, GR No. 91262, January 28, 1998; People v. Noel Navarro, GR
No. 129566, October 7, 1998; Tomasa Vda. De Jacob v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
135216, August 19, 1999; People v. Emmanuel Mana-ay, GR No. 132717,
November 20, 2000; People v. Rafael D. Torres Jr., GR No. 138046, December 8,
2000)
Filiation
Flight
In criminal law, flight means the act of evading the course of justice by
voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or
continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused may,
as a general rule, be taken as evidence tending to establish guilt. (People v.
Edgar Ayupan, GR No. 140550, February 13, 2002; People v. Norberto Sabado,
GR No. 135963, November 20, 2000; People v. Roger Puedan, GR No. 139576,
September 2, 2002)
Foreign Law
Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they
must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters
that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. The power
of judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon
the subject should be resolved in the negative. (Grace J. Garcia v. Rederick A.
Recio, GR No. 138322, October 2, 2001)
Forgotten Evidence
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, provides that “[t]he court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.” A formal offer is
necessary, since judges are required to base their findings of fact and their
judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the
court to consider it as evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may
draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties will be deprived of their
chance to examine the document and to object to its admissibility. (Spouses Ong
v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 117103, January 21, 1999)
Forms of Evidence
Hearsay
The hearsay rule bars the admission of evidence that has not been given
under oath or solemn affirmation and, more important, has not been subjected to
cross-examination by opposing counsel. Cross-examination is required to test the
perception, the veracity and the articulateness of the out-of-court declarant, upon
whose reliability the worth of the out-of-court statement depends. (Aquila Larena v.
Fructuosa Mapili, GR No. 146341, August 7, 2003)
The interviews are hearsay and thus lack probative value, because the
persons interviewed were never presented in court. It is of no moment that no
timely objection was raised during the trial in the face of such evidence. A
conviction can never be rooted thereon, because it is not grounded on the
personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person
who was not cross-examined on the witness stand. (People v. Tomas Visperas
Jr., GR No. 147315, January 13, 2003)
Identification of Accused/Suspect
Due process demands that the procedure for the identification of criminal
suspects be free from impermissible suggestion. Indeed, the “corruption of out-of-
court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the
trial.” (People v. Rafael D. Torres, Jr., GR No. 138046, December 8, 2000)
The State, aside from showing the existence of a crime, has the burden of
correctly identifying the author of the crime. Both requisites must be “proved by
the State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without
solace from the weakness of the defense. Thus, even if the defense of the
accused may be weak, the same is inconsequential if, in the first place, the
prosecution failed to discharge the onus on his identity and culpability. The
presumption of innocence dictates that it is for the people to demonstrate guilt and
not for the accused to establish innocence.” (People v. Limpangog GR No.
141438-40, February 3, 2003)
Impotency
Where the arrests without warrants were held unlawful, so were the
searches conducted subsequent thereto. Thus, the items seized consequent to
the invalid search, though clearly prohibited by law (e.g. marijuana or unlicensed
firearm), were considered inadmissible as evidence against the person wrongfully
arrested. Important to bear in mind always is that any search conducted without a
judicial warrant must be preceded by a lawful arrest, whether with or without a
warrant duly issued therefore. (Separate Opinion in People v. Doria, GR No.
125299, January 22, 1999)
Judicial Admission
Marriage
Motive
When there is no evidence to indicate that the principal witness for the
prosecution was moved by an improper motive, the presumption is that such
motive was absent, and that the witness’ testimony is entitled to full faith and
credit. (People v. Edgar Ayupan, GR No. 140550, February 13, 2002; People v.
Antonio Alimon, GR No. 87758, June 28, 1996; People v. Roberto Mendoza
Pacis,GR No. 146309, July 18, 2002; People v. Jaime Gonzales, GR No. 140676,
July 31, 2002; People v. Veno Esperas, GR No. 128109, November 19, 2003)
That the appellants did not escape or flee from the crime scene does not
conclusively show their innocence. (People v. Rogelio Andres, GR No. 122735,
September 25, 1998; People v. Dominador Pili, GR No. 124739, April 15, 1998)
Appellant’s failure to flee and the apparent normalcy of his behavior subsequent to
the commission of the crime do not imply his innocence. Flight is indicative of
guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even
erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or flee --
a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt -- while others may remain in the same
vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from
other members of the community. (People v. Nelson Agunias, GR No. 121993,
September 12, 1997; People v. Darwin Bantayan, GR No. 137693, December 14,
2000)
Notarized Documents
Official Records
Paraffin Test
Time and time again, this Court has held that a negative paraffin test result
is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. In other words, it is
possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when culprits wear
gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in perspiration. (Celestino
Marturillas v. People, GR No. 163217, April 18, 2006)
Parol Evidence
Photocopies
Finally, when more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of
them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary
evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without
accounting for the other originals. (Citibank v. Efren S. Teodoro, GR No. 150905,
September 23, 2003)
Absent any such proof of authenticity, the photocopy of the original duplicate
should be considered inadmissible and, hence, without probative value. (Office of
the Ombudsman v. Carmencita D. Coronel, GR No. 164460, June 27, 2006)
Police Blotter
There is no law that requires a police lineup as the only means by which
culprits may be identified. (People v. Edgar S. Alojado, GR No. 122966-67, March
25, 1999)
Positive Identification
Well-settled is the rule that the positive identification of the accused -- when
categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness
testifying on the matter -- prevails over alibi and denial which are negative and
self-serving, undeserving of weight in law. (People v. Edgar Ayupan, GR No.
140550, February 13, 2002; People v. Rafael D. Torres Jr., GR No. 138046,
December 8, 2000; People v. Conrado De Leon, GR No. 144052, March 6, 2002;
People v. Sixto Paragas, GR No. 146308, July 18, 2002; People v. Lolito Estoya,
GR No. 153538, May 19, 2004)
This Court has noted in many crimes of violence that the most natural
reaction of persons involved in an attack is to strive to see the faces and the
appearances of the assailants, to observe the manner in which the crime was
committed, and to approximate what might be the latter’s next move, either as an
instinctive reaction or as a measure to fend off any further attack. (People v.
Conrado De Leon, GR No. 144052, March 6, 2002)
Preponderance of Evidence
Presence at the crime scene does not automatically make one the author of
the crime. (People v. Villamor, GR Nos. 111313-14, January 16, 1998)
True, the mere presence of appellant at the scene is inadequate to support
the conclusion that he committed the crime. However, his presence there
becomes an indicium of his participation and complicity in the offense when
coupled with his unexplained act of fleeing from the situs instead of reporting the
incident to the police authorities, as well as with his act of hiding until he was
arrested. Taken together, the foregoing circumstances are highly indicative of
guilt. (People v. Reynaldo Corre Jr., GR No. 137271, August 15, 2001)
Presumption of Innocence
Under our Bill of Rights, among the fundamental rights of the accused is to
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. To overcome such
presumption, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Our
criminal justice system dictates that if the prosecution fails to do so, it becomes not
only the right of the accused to be set free, but also the constitutional duty of the
court to set them free. (People v. Antonio C. Estella, GR Nos. 138539-40, January
21, 2003)
Probative Value
In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided by the following
principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove, but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b)
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which usually involves only two persons,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; it cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Thus, courts scrupulously examine the testimony of the complainant, bearing in
mind that the conviction of the accused depends heavily on the credibility of the
offended woman. (People v. Cirilo Balmoria, GR Nos. 120620-21, March 20,
1998; People v. Antonio Alimon, GR No. 87758, June 28, 1996; People v.
Alejandro Gabris, GR No. 116221, July 11, 1996; People v. Celerino Castromero,
GR No. 118992, October 9, 1997; People v. Loven Daganta, GR No. 122339,
August 4, 1999; People v. Dominador Tabion, GR No. 132715, October 20, 1999;
People v. Pacito Garces Jr., GR No. 132368, January 20, 2000; People v. Felipe
Hofileña, GR No. 134772, June 22, 2000; People v. Rolando Tabanggay,GR No.
130504, June 29, 2000; People v. Arnold Ratunil, GR No. 137270, June 29, 2000;
People v. Andrew Pacina, GR No. 123150, August 16, 2000; People v. Dionisio
Bataller, GR Nos. 134540-41, July 18, 2001; People v. Conde Rapisora, GR Nos.
140934-35, October 23, 2001; People v. Romeo Manayan, GR Nos. 142741-43,
October 25, 2001; People v. Prudencio Villaflores, GR Nos. 135063-64, December
5, 2001; People v. Renato Flores, GR No. 141782, December 14, 2001; People v.
Ernie Baro, GR Nos. 146327-29, June 5, 2002; People v. Marcelo Mendoza, GR
Nos. 132923-24, June 6, 2002; People v. Rogelio Barrozo, GR Nos. 138726-27,
July 3, 2002; People v. Ernesto Fernandez, GR Nos. 139341-45, July 25, 2002;
People v. Matias Lagramada, GR Nos. 146357 & 148170, August 29, 2002;
People v. Rogelio Bitancor, GR No. 147968, December 4, 2002; People v. Sonny
Bautista, GR No. 140278, June 3, 2004)
When the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape
because she had been rendered unconscious before the act was committed, the
conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence is
admissible, provided that more than one circumstance is duly proven, and that the
totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical
conclusion than that of the guilt of the accused. (People v. Danilo Caraang, GR
Nos. 148424-27, December 11, 2003)
Recantation
Res Gestae
Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of,
or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission.
These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a
false statement. An important consideration is whether there intervened, between
the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind
and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for
deliberation. (Celestino Marturillas v. People, GR No. 163217, April 18, 2006)
Res gestae pertains to the admissibility of evidence, and not to its weight
and sufficiency. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and
competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted
and its tendency to convince and persuade. (People v. Noel Navarro, GR No.
129566, October 7, 1998)
Substantial Evidence
Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court mandates that in cases filed
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, like the Department of Labor, a fact
may be established by substantial evidence, i.e. “that amount of evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”
(Caurdanetaan Piece Workers v. Usec. Laguesma, GR Nos. 113542 & 114911,
February 24, 1998; Franklin Susa v. Teofila Peña, AM No. P-03-1740, September
17, 2003)
Testimony of Accused
Being of human nature, culprits are likely to pin the blame on others rather
than on themselves. There is therefore no guarantee that petitioner’s co-accused
had testified truthfully. (Joebert Santiago v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 128517,
September 10, 1998)
To a young child, “brown complexion” may be the same as dark skin, and
having a “balding head” may refer to a long forehead. More important, minor
discrepancies, if any, will not detract from the fact that complainant categorically
identified appellant as her assailant and vividly narrated the sexual assault
committed against her. An error-free testimony cannot be expected from children
of tender years, most especially when they are recounting details of harrowing
experiences, those that even adults would rather bury in oblivion. To be sure,
complainant’s testimony may not be described as flawless, but its substance,
veracity and weight were hardly affected by the triviality of her alleged
inconsistencies. On the contrary, the supposed inconsistencies may have even
reinforced her credibility, as they had probably arisen from the naiveté of a seven-
year old child, confused and traumatized by the bestial act done upon her person.
(People v. Vicente Basquez, GR No. 144035, September 27, 2001; People v.
Romeo Manayan, GR Nos. 142741-43, October 25, 2001)
Testimony of Co-Conspirator
Testimony of Informant
Intelligence agents, due to the nature of their work, are often not called to
testify in court so as not to reveal their identities publicly. Once known, they could
no longer be used again and, worse, may be the object of revenge by the
criminals they implicate. The prevailing doctrine is that their testimonies are not
essential for conviction, nor are they indispensable to a successful prosecution.
With the testimonies of the arresting officers, they would be, after all, merely
corroborative and cumulative. (People v. Carlos Boco, GR No. 129676, June 23,
1999; People v. Cheng Ho Chua, GR No. 127542, March 18, 1999; People v.
Roberto Pacis, GR No. 146309, July 18, 2002)
Testimony of Relatives
It is well settled that the testimony of a lone witness -- if found by the trial
court to be positive, categorical and credible -- is sufficient to support a conviction.
This is so, especially if the testimony bore the earmarks of truth and sincerity and
was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.
Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that
the witness bent the truth, or that his or her observation was inaccurate. Evidence
is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. It is to be weighed, not counted.
Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the
testimony of a lone witness. (People v. Edgar Ayupan, GR No. 140550, February
13, 2002; People v. Rolly Obello, GR No. 108772, January 14, 1998; People v.
Gregorio Tulop, GR No. 124829, April 21, 1998; People v. Noel Navarro, GR No.
129566, October 7, 1998; People v. Glenn Lotoc, GR No. 132166, May 19, 1999;
People v. Norberto Sabado, GR No. 135963, November 20, 2000; People v. Gerry
Cuenca, GR No. 143819, January 29, 2002; People v. Sam Hinaut, GR No.
143764, February 15, 2002; People v. Richard R. Deauna, GR Nos. 143200-01,
August 1, 2002; People v. Tomas Visperas Jr., GR No. 147315, January 13, 2003;
People v. Homer Magdaraog, GR No. 151251, May 19, 2004)
Testimony of Victim
[W]hen a woman claims she was raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has been committed. If her testimony meets the test
of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof. (People v. Ariel
Oliva, GR No. 108505, December 5, 1997; People v. Narciso Barera, GR No.
99867, September 19, 1996; People v. Enrique Ramirez, GR No. 97920, January
20, 1997; People v. Alejandro Atop, GR Nos. 124303-05, February 10, 1998;
People v. Cirilo Balmoria, GR Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998; People v.
Eduardo Garcia, GR Nos. 120387-88, March 31, 1998; People v. Efren Cabebe,
GR No. 125910, May 21, 1998; People v. Jose Dedace, GR No. 132551, March
22, 2000; People v. Alexander Taño, GR No. 133872, May 5, 2000; People v.
Conde Rapisora, GR Nos. 140934-35, October 23, 2001; People v. Roderick
Santos, GR Nos. 135454-56, November 13, 2001; People v. Francisco Balas, GR
No. 138838, December 11, 2001; People v. Leonardo S. Pascual, GR Nos.
144495-96, March 12, 2002; People v. Pedro Daramay Jr., GR Nos. 140235 &
142748, May 9, 2002; People v. Boy Domingo, GR No. 143660, June 5, 2002;
People v. Rogelio del Ayre, GR Nos. 139788 & 139827, October 3, 2002; People
v. Atanacio Mendoza, GR Nos. 143844-46, November 19, 2002; People v. Iladio
Caralipio, GR Nos. 137766-67, November 27, 2002; People v. Rogelio Bitancor,
GR No. 147968, December 4, 2002; People v. Ignacio Sinoro, GR Nos. 138650-
58, April 22, 2003; People v. Mario Umayam, GR No. 147033, April 30, 2003;
People v. Genaro Biong, GR No. 144445-47, April 30, 2003; People v. Felix
Montes, GR Nos. 148743-45, November 18, 2003; People v. Toribio Galido, GR
Nos. 148689-92, March 30, 2004)
The recognized rule is that testimonies of rape victims who are young and
immature are each worthy of full credence. (People v. Alejandro Atop, GR Nos.
124303-05, February 10, 1998)
It would take the most senseless kind of depravity for a young daughter to
fabricate a story that would send her father to death, only because he had scolded
her or because they did not see eye to eye. A child, innocent and naive to the
ways of the world, is not likely to accuse her own father of so serious a crime as
incestuous rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring
the offender to justice. (People v. Jaime Gonzales, GR No. 140676, July 31, 2002;
People v. Richard R. Deauna, GR Nos. 143200-01, August 1, 2002; People v.
Iladio Caralipio, GR Nos. 137766-67, November 27, 2002; People v. Mario
Umayam, GR No. 147033, April 30, 2003; People v. Genaro Biong, GR No.
144445-47, April 30, 2003)
Testimony; Inconsistencies
Testimony; Translation
We note that the victim had an interpreter when she testified in open court.
Translations from the vernacular are not always fully accurate. (People v. Dionisio
Bataller, GR Nos. 134540-41, July 18, 2001)
Taking cover or running away is not the only natural reaction possible under
the circumstances. There is no standard form of human behavioral response to a
strange, startling and frightful event, and there is no standard rule by which
witnesses to a crime must react. (People v. Diarangan Dansal, GR No. 105002,
July 17, 1997; People v. Ernesto Jamiro, GR No. 117576, September 18, 1997)
Witnesses, Qualifications
Although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the
same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from
testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to
withdraw from active management of the case. (Jonar Santiago v. Atty. Edison V.
Rafanan, AC No. 6252, October 5, 2004)