22.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs. HENRY SALVERON, he heard gunshots. He ran for fear of his life but after a while stopped and
G.R. No. 102079 November 22, 1993 looked back, in time to see Henry Salveron standing at the bridge with a long
Topic: Witnesses firearm. Gregorio then sped back to Rosibal's house, but by another route, to
Omission in the list of witnesses did not disqualify the eyewitness from inform Gloria that her husband had been shot.2
testifying as the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses other than those
named in the complaint or information.
The defense pleaded (a very weak) alibi.

Criminal Law; Evidence; Where an eyewitness saw the accused with rifle
The record shows that the criminal complaint filed with the municipal court on
seconds after gunshots rang out and victim was dead on the ground, the
did not include Gregorio among the witnesses because his sworn statement
conclusion is that the accused: killed the victim.—Gregorio saw Salveron with
was taken only two days later, and it was this list that was merely copied when
a rifle seconds after gunshots rang out Rosibal de Felipe was dead on the
the information was prepared by the provincial prosecutor.
ground. There was no other conclusion but that Salveron had killed Rosibal.

Same; Same; Right against self-incrimination; Paraffin test was not violative of ISSUE: Should Gregorio’s testimony be admitted even if he was not on the list
the accused-appellant’s right against self-incrimination as it involved only an of witnesses attached in the informations?
examination of a part of his body.—The nitrate burns on Salveron’s hands only
affirmed that conclusion. The claim that he had gone hunting was too pat for RULING: YES
the trial judge, who under- standably felt that the story had been concocted to
explain the nitrate burns. The paraffin test did not violate the appellant’s right
against self-incrimination as it involved only an examination of a part of his The fact that Gregorio was not in the list of witnesses that was attached to the
body. As Justice Holmes said in Holt v. United States: [T]he prohibition of information was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. At any rate, the
compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a omission did not disqualify Gregorio from testifying later because, as we said
prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort in People v. Pacabes: 12
communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it
may be material. We have held in a long line of decisions that the prosecution is allowed to
call witnesses other than those named in the complaint and information.
Same; Same; Alibi; Alibi of accused-appellant though corroborated by While the accused in a criminal prosecution is entitled to know the nature
witnesses was not convincing in the face of positive identification by an and cause of the accusation against him, it does not mean that he entitled
eyewitness.—The alibi itself, although corroborated by Romeo Salveron and to know in advance the names of all the witnesses for the prosecution. The
Elvira Barredo, was not convincing enough in the face of the positive success of the prosecution might be endangered if such right be granted to
identification by Gregorio of Salveron as the killer. That identification proved an accused for the known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or
that Salveron went to Anilao not before but after the killing of Rosibal. coerced not to testify. The time for the accused to know all the witnesses
Besides, Salveron would have the court believe that he deliberately left his against him is when they take the witness stand.
wife and children, as well as his mother, simply to assist his ailing uncle. The
record shows that the uncle did not really need his nephew because he had
from six to ten hired laborers who were then helping him The trial court convicted Salveron of murder but did not explain how it was
qualified by evident premeditation or treachery as alleged in the information.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Omission in the list of witnesses did not disqualify the The Supreme Court rendered Salveron GUILTY not of murder but of homicide.
eyewitness from testifying as the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses
other than those named in the complaint or information.—The fact that Criminal Law; Evidence; Where an eyewitness saw the accused with rifle
Gregorio was not in the list of witnesses that was attached to the information seconds after gunshots rang out and victim was dead on the ground, the
was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The record shows that the conclusion is that the accused: killed the victim.—Gregorio saw Salveron with
criminal complaint filed with the municipal court on March 29, 1986 did not a rifle seconds after gunshots rang out Rosibal de Felipe was dead on the
include Gregorio among the witnesses because his sworn statement was taken ground. There was no other conclusion but that Salveron had killed Rosibal.
only on April 1, 1986, and it was this list that was merely copied when the
information was prepared by the provincial prosecutor. At any rate, the Same; Same; Right against self-incrimination; Paraffin test was not violative of
omission did not disqualify Gregorio from testifying later because, as we said the accused-appellant’s right against self-incrimination as it involved only an
in People v. Pacabes: We have held in a long line of decisions that the examination of a part of his body.—The nitrate burns on Salveron’s hands only
prosecution is allowed to call witnesses other than those named in the affirmed that conclusion. The claim that he had gone hunting was too pat for
complaint and information. While the accused in a criminal prosecution is the trial judge, who under- standably felt that the story had been concocted to
entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him, it does explain the nitrate burns. The paraffin test did not violate the appellant’s right
not mean that he is entitled to know in advance the names of all the witnesses against self-incrimination as it involved only an examination of a part of his
for the prosecution. The success of the prosecution might be endangered if body. As Justice Holmes said in Holt v. United States: [T]he prohibition of
such right be granted to an accused for the known witnesses might be compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a
subjected to pressure or coerced not to testify. The time for the accused to prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
know all the witnesses against him is when they take the witness stand. communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it
may be material.
FACTS:
Same; Same; Alibi; Alibi of accused-appellant though corroborated by
witnesses was not convincing in the face of positive identification by an
Gloria de Felipe was allegedly robbed and raped by Raul Salveron et al. eyewitness.—The alibi itself, although corroborated by Romeo Salveron and
During their trial, Raul Salveron was shot to death by Rosibal de Felipe, the Elvira Barredo, was not convincing enough in the face of the positive
husband of Gloria de Felipe. identification by Gregorio of Salveron as the killer. That identification proved
that Salveron went to Anilao not before but after the killing of Rosibal.
It was during the pendency of this case that Rosibal de Felipe was himself Besides, Salveron would have the court believe that he deliberately left his
gunned down by herein appellant, Henry Slaveron, son of the late Raul wife and children, as well as his mother, simply to assist his ailing uncle. The
Salveron. record shows that the uncle did not really need his nephew because he had
from six to ten hired laborers who were then helping him

At the trial, the prosecution presented Victoriano Gregorio as its star witness. Same; Same; Witnesses; Omission in the list of witnesses did not disqualify the
He declared that at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of said date, he went to eyewitness from testifying as the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses
see Rosibal at his house but was told by his wife that he was not there. On his other than those named in the complaint or information.—The fact that
way back, Gregorio met Henry Salveron and Federico Sadava at the foot of the Gregorio was not in the list of witnesses that was attached to the information
bridge in Barangay Dolores and asked them what they were doing there. was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The record shows that the
Salveron said they were waiting for somebody. Gregorio proceeded on his way criminal complaint filed with the municipal court on March 29, 1986 did not
and, halfway through the bridge, met Rosibal, who was riding on a motorcycle. include Gregorio among the witnesses because his sworn statement was taken
They talked about some cattle for sale and agreed to meet at the town of only on April 1, 1986, and it was this list that was merely copied when the
Estancia the following day. Gregorio reached the other end of the bridge when information was prepared by the provincial prosecutor. At any rate, the
omission did not disqualify Gregorio from testifying later because, as we said Even assuming arguendo that Rondon and Batin identified the appellant only
in People v. Pacabes: We have held in a long line of decisions that the on September 15, 1991, or after the lapse of five months from commission of
prosecution is allowed to call witnesses other than those named in the the crime, this fact alone does not render their testimony less credible.
complaint and information. While the accused in a criminal prosecution is
entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him, it does The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of appellant's identity
not mean that he is entitled to know in advance the names of all the witnesses immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human
for the prosecution. The success of the prosecution might be endangered if experience. In fact the natural reticence of most people to get involved in
such right be granted to an accused for the known witnesses might be criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors, as in this case, is of
subjected to pressure or coerced not to testify. The time for the accused to judicial notice.
know all the witnesses against him is when they take the witness stand.
At any rate, the consistent teaching of our jurisprudence is that the findings of
23. People v Malimit the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and
the highest degree of respect by the appellate court. This is the established
DOCTRINE: The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of rule of evidence, as the matter of assigning values to the testimony of
appellant's identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not witnesses is a function best performed by the trial court which can weigh said
entirely against human experience. In fact the natural reticence of most testimony in the light of the witness" demeanor, conduct and attitude at the
people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors, trial. And although the rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when
as in this case, is of judicial notice. patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial
court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the
FACTS: evidence, we found none in this case.
 At 8 pm, Onofre Malaki(victim) was attending to his store. Malaki's
houseboy Edilberto Batin, was busy cooking supper at the kitchen Additional info:
located at the back of the store The non-presentation by the prosecution of the police blotter which could
 Florencio Rondon, a farmer, arrived at the store of Malaki. to purchase prove if accused was indeed implicated right away by Batin to the crime was
chemical for his rice farm not necessary for the prosecution to present as evidence. Entries in the police
 Batin had just finished cooking, he proceeded directly to the store to ask blotter are merely corroborative evidence of the uncontroverted testimony of
Malaki if supper is to be prepared. As Batin stepped inside the store, he Batin that he identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime before
saw accused Ercarnacion “Manolo” Malimit coming out of the store with the Silago police. As such, its presentation as evidence is not indispensable.
a bolo while his boss, bathed in his own blood, was sprawled on the floor Besides, if appellant believed that he was not identified therein, then he
struggling for his life should have secured a copy thereof from the Silago Police Station and utilized
 Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the the same as controverting evidence to impeach Batin's credibility as witness.
store, also saw accused Malimit rushing out through the front door of Having failed to do so, appellant cannot now pass the blame on the
Malaki's store with a blood-stained bolo prosecution for something which appellant himself should have done.
o Aided by the illumination coming from a pressure lamp
inside the store, Rondon clearly recognized Malimit syllabus
 Both Batin and Rondon rushed to the nearby house of Malaki's brother-
in-law Eutiquio Beloy and informed Beloy of the tragic incident which Criminal Law; Evidence; Police Blotters; Where entries in the police blotter are
befell Malaki. merely corroborative evidence of the uncontroverted testimony of a witness,
 Batin, along with Beloy, went back to the store. Inside, they saw the the presentation of the police blotter as evidence is not indispensable.—Next,
lifeless body of Malaki in a pool of blood lying prostrate at the floor. appellant derided the nonpresentation by the prosecution of the police blotter
Beloy readily noticed that the store's drawer was opened and ransacked which could prove if appellant was indeed implicated right away by Batin to
and the wallet of Malaki was missing from his pocket the crime. We do not believe, however, that it was necessary for the
prosecution to present as evidence a copy of the aforementioned police
TC: Convicted accused for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide blotter. Neither was its non-presentation in court fatal to the prosecution’s
case. Entries in the police blotter are merely corroborative evidence of the
One of the contentions of accused Malimit in this appeal is that the trial court uncontroverted testimony of Batin that he identified the appellant as the
erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Rondon and Batin. He questions perpetrator of the crime before the Silago police. As such, its presentation as
the credibility of the 2 witnesses because they only revealed that they have evidence is not indispensable. Besides, if appellant believed that he was not
knowledge of the crime and identified the accused as the perpetrator, 5 identified therein, then he should have secured a copy thereof from the Silago
months after the incident. Police Station and utilized the same as controverting evidence to impeach
Date of the crime: April 15, 1991 Batin’s credibility as witness. Having failed to do so, appellant cannot now pass
Witnesses pointed at accused: September 17, 1991 the blame on the prosecution for something which appellant himself should
have done.
ISSUE:
WON the testimonies of the witnesses may be appreciated by the court? YES Same; Same; Witnesses; Judicial Notice; The non-disclosure by a witness to the
police officers of the accused’s identity immediately after the occurrence of
HELD: the crime is not entirely against human experience—the natural reticence of
most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate
Accused haphazardly concluded that Rondon and Batin implicated the neighbors is of judicial notice.—Even assuming arguendo that Rondon and
appellant to this gruesome crime only on September 17, 1991. The Batin identified the appellant only on September 15, 1991, or after the lapse of
aforementioned date however, was merely the date when Rondon and Batin five months from commission of the crime, this fact alone does not render
executed their respective affidavits, narrating that they saw the appellant on their testimony less credible. The non-disclosure by the witness to the police
the night of April 15, 1991 carrying a bolo stained with blood and rushing out officers of appellant’s identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is
of Malaki's store. not entirely against human experience. In fact the natural reticence of most
people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors,
As to his claim of delay, suffice it to state that extant from the records are as in this case, is of judicial notice.
ample testimonial evidence negating his assertion, to wit:
1. After having discovered the commission of the crime, Rondon and Same; Same; Same; It is the established rule of evidence that the findings of
Batin immediately looked for Eutiquio Beloy, Malaki's brother-in- the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and
law, and informed him that appellant was the only person they saw the highest degree of respect by the appellate court; Exceptions.—At any rate,
running away from the crime scene; the consistent teaching of our jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial
2. Beloy and Batin reported the crime with the CAFGU detachment in court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and the
their barangay where Batin declared that it was appellant who highest degree of respect by the appellate court. This is the established rule of
robbed Malaki on that fateful night; and evidence, as the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is a
3. Batin again made a similar statement later at the Silago Police function best performed by the trial court which can weigh said testimony in
Station. the light of the witness’ demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial. And
although the rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when patent
inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or
(2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence, Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution provides that "In all criminal
we found none in this case. prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Right Against Self-Incrimination; The right informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
against self-incrimination is simply a prohibition against legal process to speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
extract from the accused’s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt and have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
incriminating statement but an object evidence.—We are not persuaded. The proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has
right against self-incrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified." The purpose of this
no application in this case. This right, as put by Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt vs. rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in
United States, “x x x is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely abandoned,
compulsion, to extort communications from him x x x.” It is simply a because of the defendant's escape. The old case of People v. Avanceña (32 OG
prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]’s own lips, 713) required his presence at certain stages of the trial which as a
against his will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case result, had to be discontinued as long as the defendant had not reappeared or
where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement remained at large.
but an object evidence.
As his right to be present at these stages was then held not waivable even by
Same; Same; Same; Custodial Investigations; Extrajudicial Confessions; his escape, such escape thus operated to the
“Miranda Rights”; Infractions of the so-called “Miranda rights” render fugitive's advantage, and in mockery of the authorities, insofar as the trial
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during could not proceed as long as he had
custodial investigation—the admissibility of other evidence, provided they are not been recaptured. The doctrine laid down in that case has been modified
relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not by Section 19, which now allows
affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.— trial in absentia,
These are the socalled “Miranda rights” so oftenly disregarded by our men in
uniform. However, infractions thereof render inadmissible only the Now, the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution
extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. The and possibly eventual conviction provided only that: a) he has been arraigned;
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is b) he has been duly notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is
not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or unjustified. Thus, the right to be present at one's trial may now be waived
taken in the course of custodial investigation. Concededly, appellant was not except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses
informed of his right to remain silent and to have his own counsel by the who will identify the accused. Under Section 19, the defendant's escape will be
investigating policemen during the custodial investigation. Neither did he considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify him of
execute a written waiver of these rights in accordance with the constitutional the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial. He
prescriptions. Nevertheless, these constitutional short-cuts do not affect the will be deemed to have received due notice. The same fact of his escape will
admissibility of Malaki’s wallet, identification card, residence certificate and make his failure to appear unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed
keys for the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law.
the wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken
from Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card, residence SYLLABUS
certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are admissible
to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki. Constitutional Law; Trial in absentia; Purpose of the rule that trial of the
accused may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused.—The
purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of
which could in the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely
Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; There can be a verdict of conviction abandoned, because of the defendant’s escape. The old case of People v.
based on circumstantial evidence when the circumstances proved form an Avanceña required his presence at certain stages of the trial which as a result,
unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing the had to be discontinued as long as the defendant had not reappeared or
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator of the crime; remained at large. As his right to be present at these stages was then held not
Requisites for Conviction.—Our close scrutiny of the record reveals otherwise. waivable even by his escape, such escape thus operated to the fugitive’s
Time and again, we ruled that there can be a verdict of conviction based on advantage, and in mockery of the authorities, insofar as the trial could not
circumstantial evidence when the circumstances proved form an unbroken proceed as long as he had not been recaptured.
chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the accused,
to the exclusion of all the others, as the perpetrator of the crime. In order that Same; Same; Doctrine in People vs. Avanceña, modified by Section 19 of the
circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict, the same must comply Constitution which now allows trial in absentia; Requirements for trial in
with these essential requisites, viz., (a) there is more than one circumstance; absentia.—The doctrine laid down in that case has been modified by Section
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the 19, which now allows trial in absentia. Now, the prisoner cannot by simply
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction
reasonable doubt. People vs. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167, G.R. No. 109775 provided only that: a) he has been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of
November 14, 1996 the trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified.

24. People vs. Salas Same; Same; Right to be present at one’s trial waivable, except only at that
Facts: stage where the accused has to be identified by prosecution witnesses;
Mario Abong was originally charged with homicide in the CFI Cebu but before Defendant’s escape constitutes a waiver of the right to be present and to be
he could be arraigned the case was reinvestigated on motion of the notified of the trial.—The right to be present at one’s trial may now be waived
prosecution. As a result of the reinvestigation, an amended information was except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses
filed, with no bail recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty. Trial who will identify the accused. Under Section 19, the defendant’s escape will
commenced, but while it was in progress, the prisoner, escaped. The judge, be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify him
learning later of the trickery, cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial.
Abong's rearrest. Abong, however, was gone. Nonetheless (Bernardo Salas), He will be deemed to have received due notice. The same fact of his escape
the prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance with the will make his failure to appear unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed
constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia under certain himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law,
circumstances. the judge denied the motion, however, and suspended all
proceedings until the return of the accused. The order of the trial court is Same; Same; When all the requisites for a trial in absentia are present, the trial
before the Supreme Court on certiorari and mandamus. judge erred in refusing to try the accused who had already been arraigned
when he escaped.—Trial in absentia was not allowed in Borja v. Mendoza
Issue: Whether Abong may be tried in absentia, in light of his escape. because it was held notwithstanding that the accused had not been previously
arraigned. His subsequent conviction was properly set aside. But in the instant
Held: case, since all the requisites are present, there is absolutely no reason why the
respondent judge should refuse to try the accused, who had already been
arraigned at the time he was released on the illegal bail bond. Abong should
be prepared to bear the consequences of his escape, including forfeiture of  In Savory Luncheonette v Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino:
the right to be notified of the subsequent proceedings and of the right to o The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
adduce evidence on his behalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution, not opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal
to mention a possible or even probable conviction. or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is fundamental
Same; Same; Interpretation, Too literal reading of the law, not advisable; right which is part of due process.
Judges, not bound by the language of the law but must discover the reason  In Ortigas Jr. v Lufthansa German Airlnes:
and rhyme for its enactment.—We admonish against a too-literal reading of o when cross- examination is not and cannot be done or
the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the completed due to causes attributable to the party
intention of its authors Same; Same; Doctrine in People vs. Avanceña, offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is
modified by Section 19 of the Constitution which now allows trial in absentia; thereby rendered incompetent.
Requirements for trial in absentia.—The doctrine laid down in that case has o The right of a party to cross-examine the witness of his
been modified by Section 19, which now allows trial in absentia. Now, the adversary is invaluable as it is inviolable in civil cases, no
prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and less than the right of the accused in criminal cases. The
possibly eventual conviction provided only that: a) he has been arraigned; b) express recognition of such right of the accused in the
he has been duly notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. Constitution does not render the right thereto of parties
in civil cases less constitutionally based, for it is an
Same; Same; Right to be present at one’s trial waivable, except only at that indispensable part of the due process guaranteed by the
stage where the accused has to be identified by prosecution witnesses; fundamental law. . . . Until such cross-examination has
Defendant’s escape constitutes a waiver of the right to be present and to be been finished, the testimony of the witness cannot be
notified of the trial.—The right to be present at one’s trial may now be waived considered as complete and may not, therefore, be
except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses allowed to form part of the evidence to be considered by
who will identify the accused. Under Section 19, the defendant’s escape will the court in deciding the case.
be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify him  Petitioner contends that it was ready to present another witness,
of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial. Mrs. Silva, to identify several documents but did not proceed to do
He will be deemed to have received due notice. The same fact of his escape so since the respondent’s counsel Atty. Santiago manifested to
will make his failure to appear unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed admitting the signatures of Mr. Kaplin on the documents.
himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law, o Santiago merely admitted the signature but not the
contents of the documents. The opposing party was
Same; Same; When all the requisites for a trial in absentia are present, the trial hence still entitled to cross-examine Kaplin on the
judge erred in refusing to try the accused who had already been arraigned matters of the documents. (case vague as to the content
when he escaped.—Trial in absentia was not allowed in Borja v. Mendoza of the documents)
because it was held notwithstanding that the accused had not been previously o Without Kaplin’s testimony, evaluation of the
arraigned. His subsequent conviction was properly set aside. But in the instant documents for “whatever they may be worth” cannot
case, since all the requisites are present, there is absolutely no reason why the be had
respondent judge should refuse to try the accused, who had already been
arraigned at the time he was released on the illegal bail bond. Abong should
be prepared to bear the consequences of his escape, including forfeiture of Other matters:
the right to be notified of the subsequent proceedings and of the right to
adduce evidence on his behalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution, not  Considering that the CIR denied Bachrach’s petition to dismiss
to mention a possible or even probable conviction. Jacob, the lifting of his suspension and his reinstatement with
backwages is a necessary consequence
Same; Same; Interpretation, Too literal reading of the law, not advisable;  The relief could be granted without need of evidence; the burden
Judges, not bound by the language of the law but must discover the reason of proof was with the company to justify the suspension and
and rhyme for its enactment.—We admonish against a too-literal reading of eventual termination of Jacob which they failed to discharge
the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the
intention of its authors
DISPOSITION: CIR affirmed with modifications as to the payment of
25. Bachrach v CIR (1978) backwages.

Muñoz-Palma, J.FACTS:
Labor Law; Due process; Evidence; A party, even in a labor suit, who was
 Petitioner Bachrach Motor Co., then known as Rural Transit had a deprived of his right to cross-examine a witness who left for abroad, is entitled
pending labor dispute with its employees before the CIR. to have the latter’s testimony stricken off the record.—Petitioner presented
 During the pendency of the case, petitioner filed a “Petition for only one witness, Joseph Kaplin, to prove its case against driver Jacob. The
Authority to discharge driver Maximo Jacob from the service”, witness failed however to appear at the scheduled hearings for his cross-
alleging that said driver violated the Motor Vehicle Law resulting to examination for the simple reason that he left for abroad. Having been
damage to property and injuries to third parties. deprived, without fault on its part, of its right to cross-examine Kaplin,
 In an Answer and Counter-Petition filed by the employees’ respondent association was entitled to have the direct testimony of the
association in behalf of Jacob, the allegations were denied and it witness stricken off the record.
was averred that the cause of the accident was a mechanical defect
 The petition was heard during which petitioner only presented one 26. PEOPLE v. PADERO, 226 SCRA 810 (1993)
witness, Mr. Joseph Kaplin. Mr. Kaplin was set to appear again for
cross-examination but failed to do as he already left for abroad. FACTS:
 The employees’ association filed a motion praying that the
In a complaint  filed on 21 January 1992 with Branch 45 of
testimony be stricken from the records and that the petition to
dismiss Jacob be denied and that he be reinstated with backwages. the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Negros Oriental and docketed
 The CIR granted the motion and dismissed the company’s petition therein Criminal Case No. 741-B, Jocelyn Cadeliña, a sixteen-year-old
and ordered Jacob’s reinstatement. lass and a resident of sitio Amalao, barangay Tagpo of Bais City,
charged Henry Padero, her uncle-in-law, with the crime of rape
committed. A plea of not guilty having been entered by the accused.
ISSUES + RULING: The prosecution presented as its witnesses complainant Jocelyn
Cadeliña and Cherryl Palacios for its evidence in chief, and Clara
Cadeliña, Rev. Lemuel Felecio, and Damiana Cadeliña on rebuttal. The
accused took the witness stand in his defense and presented Loreta
WoN the CIR erred in striking out Kaplin’s testimony. NO.
Samane, Elsa Garcia, Macrina Padero, and Marietta Padero as his
 The Court cited a number of cases in upholding the CIR’s decision. witnesses.
 have a damaging effect on the complainant’s version made it
Despite the positive testimony of the accused which imperative for the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence. Relegating
squarely traversed the complainant's version of force or intimidation the complainant to the background and presenting other witnesses to
by stating that he and the complainant had an intimate relationship, rebut minor or trivial matters brought out in the evidence in chief for
with the latter as the more aggressive partner, and that their first the defense engender serious doubts on the integrity of her story.
sexual encounter in August of 1991 was followed by fifteen more People vs. Padero, 226 SCRA 810, G.R. No. 106274 September 28, 1993
encounters at the same place during week-ends when the
complainant was alone, all of which were new facts, the complainant 27. People v. Fabre GR No. 146697 July 23, 2002
was never recalled to the witness stand to rebut these obviously
damaging revelations of the accused. The trial court convicted the Order of Presentation of Evidence
accused giving full faith and credit to the version of the complainant
who it said testified "with sincerity, honesty and candidness and with FACTS:
answers direct to the point, in a logical and straightforward manner,
and free from inconsistencies." The accused seasonably appealed Leonardo Fabre (Leonardo) was adjudged guilty of raping
from the judgment. his own daughter Marilou Fabre (Marilou), a 13 year old girl. The trial
court gave credence to the evidence given by the prosecution,
ISSUE: particularly to the narration of the young complainant, expressing a
Whether the act of the prosecution of not recalling the quote from an observation once made by this Tribunal in one of its
private complainant to rebut the testimonies of the accused decision that “even when consumed with revenge, it (would) take a
engenders doubt as to the credibility of said private complainant? certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to
concoct a story which (could) put her own father for the rest of his
RULING: remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a
Yes. The function of the rebuttal evidence is to explain, repel, lifetime of shame.”.
counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adversary. Its office is "to
Furthermore, it was corroborated by the testimony of Dr.
meet the new facts put in by the opponent in his case in reply" and is
Reinerio Jalalon (Dr. Jalanon), the government physciial stationed at
"necessary only because, on a plea in denial, new subordinate
the Bunawan District Hospital who had conducted a medical exam on
evidential facts have been offered, or because, on an affirmative plea,
Marilou. Also, the changing of the testimony of her mother Adela
its substantive facts have been put forward, or because, on any issue
Fabre (Adela), from being away at the time of the commission of the
whatever, facts discrediting the proponent's witnesses have been
crime to 6-10 in the morning is questionable.
offered." While the presentation of rebuttal evidence is discretionary
with the prosecution in a criminal action, in the instant case, the
overwhelming import of the new facts disclosed by the accused which
have a damaging effect on the complainant's version made it On 26 April 1995, around four o’clock in the afternoon,
imperative for the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence. Marilou was alone in their house in Barangay Manat, Trento, Agusan
Relegating the complainant to the background and presenting other del Sur. Adela, her mother, had gone to Purok 4 to buy fish while her
witnesses to rebut minor or trivial matters brought out in the siblings were out strolling. After cleaning their yard, Marilou went to
evidence in chief for the defense engender serious doubts on the the adjacent palm plantation, about fourteen to fifteen meters away
integrity of her story. from their house, to gather palm oil. Marilou had been gathering
palm oil for about a minute when her father, appellant Leonardo
Fabre, arrived. He suddenly gripped Marilou’s hands and forcibly
SYLLABUS
dragged her towards the house. He closed the door and removed his
daughter’s underwear. He took off his pants and asked Marilou to
Criminal Law; Rape; Remedial Law; Evidence; Credibility of Witnesses;
hold his sex organ. In tears, Marilou obeyed her father. He then
Rule that when the issue of credibility is involved, appellate courts
began touching the girl’s breasts and vagina. He forced her to lie
generally will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless certain
down, mounted her and sought to insert his penis into her organ.
facts of value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect
Marilou cried in pain. When after some time he still could not insert
the result of the case.—The credibility then of the complainant is
his penis into Marilou’s vagina, he applied coconut oil to lubricate his
under scrutiny here. The trial court gave her testimony full faith and
and his daughter’s sexual organs. He was finally able to penetrate
credit. The general rule is that when the issue of credibility of
her. Once inside her, appellant made push and pull movements until
witnesses is involved, appellate courts will generally not disturb the
he was through with her. Appellant threatened to kill her if she
findings of the trial court considering that the latter is in a better
would tell anybody about the sexual encounter. The young girl’s
position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
mother, Adela Fabre, arrived home about five o’clock that afternoon
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
but, remembering her father’s threats, she kept mum about her
during the trial, unless certain facts of value have been plainly
ordeal.
overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
ISSUE:

Whether the testimony of Leonardo should acquire added

Same; Same; Same; Same; Rebuttal Evidence; The function of rebuttal
strength for the failure of the prosecution to conduct a cross-
evidence is to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of
examination on him and to present and rebuttal evidence
the adversary.—The function of rebuttal evidence is to explain, repel,
counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adversary. Its office is “to
HELD:
meet the new facts put in by the opponent in his case in reply” and is
“necessary only because, on a plea in denial, new subordinate NO. The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of
evidential facts have been offered, or because, on an affirmative plea, the party against whom
its substantive facts have been put forward, or because, on any issue
whatever, facts discrediting the proponent’s witnesses have been the witness is called.[5] The purpose of cross-examination is to test
offered.” While the presentation of rebuttal evidence is discretionary the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness made on direct
with the prosecution in a criminal action, in the instant case, the examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem
overwhelming import of the new facts disclosed by the accused which any further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other
evidence theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on should be presented. While the declaration of a victim as to her age,
what would be believed is the perception of the court thereon. being an exception to the hearsay proscription, would be admissible
Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the under the rule on pedigree, the question on the relative weight that
testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because he is may be accorded to it is a totally different matter.
not cross-examined by the other party.
Same; Criminal Procedure; Evidence; Cross-examination of a witness
is a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is called; The
trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a
The alibi of appellant itself would not appear to be witness on direct examination merely because he is not cross-
deserving of serious consideration. His account that at the time of the examined by the other party.—The cross-examination of a witness is
alleged rape he was working at a coconut plantation, just about one a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is called. The
kilometer away from the place of the crime, hardly would amount to purpose of cross-examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the
much. Nor would the testimony of Adela Fabre, his wife, merit any statements of a witness made on direct examination. The party
better regard. At first, she testified that on the day of the rape against whom the witness testifies may deem any further
incident, she had left their house at four oclock in the afternoon. examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
Later, however, she changed her story by saying that she had left the theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what would
house in the morning and returned only at ten oclock that same be believed is the perception of the court thereon. Certainly, the trial
morning, staying home the whole day thereafter. In any event, in court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a witness on
order that alibi might prosper, it would not be enough for an accused direct examination merely because he is not cross-examined by the
to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was other party. People vs. Fabre, 385 SCRA 185, G.R. No. 146697 July 23,
committed; he would have to demonstrate likewise that he could not 2002
have been physically present at the place of the crime or in its
immediate vicinity at the time of its Commission. Clearly, in the
instant case, it was not at all impossible nor even improbable for
appellant to have been at the crime scene.

Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Alibi; In order that alibi might prosper,
it would not be enough for an accused to prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed; he would have to
demonstrate likewise that he could not have been physically present
at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.—In any event, in order that alibi might prosper, it would
not be enough for an accused to prove that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed; he would have to demonstrate
likewise that he could not have been physically present at the place of
the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
Clearly, in the instant case, it was not at all impossible nor even
improbable for appellant to have been at the crime scene.

Same; Same; Same; The testimony of a rape victim, who is young and
still immature, deserves faith and credence.—It has been stressed
quite often enough that the testimony of a rape victim, who is young
and still immature, deserves faith and credence for it simply would be
unnatural for a young and innocent girl to invent a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter
subject herself and her family to the trauma of a public trial unless
she indeed has spoken the truth. Most especially, a daughter would
not accuse her own father of such a serious offense or allow herself
to be perverted if she were not truly motivated by a desire to seek a
just retribution for a violation brazenly committed against her.

Same; Same; Death Penalty; Qualifying circumstances of relationship

and minority are twin requirements that should be both alleged in the
information and established beyond reasonable doubt during trial in
order to sustain an imposition of the death penalty; Judicial notice of
the issue of age without the requisite hearing conducted under
Section 3, Rule 129, of the Rules of Court, would not be considered
sufficient compliance with the law.—These qualifying circumstances
of relationship and minority are twin requirements that should be
both alleged in the information and established beyond reasonable
doubt during trial in order to sustain an imposition of the death
penalty. Neither an obvious minority of the victim nor the failure of
the defense to contest her real age always excuse the prosecution
from the desired proof required by law. Judicial notice of the issue of
age without the requisite hearing conducted under Section 3, Rule
129, of the Rules of Court, would not be considered sufficient
compliance with the law. The birth certificate of the victim or, in lieu
thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate,
school records and documents of similar nature, or credible
testimonial evidence, that can help establish the age of the victim