G.R. No.

108338

April 17, 2001

CALIXTO SAADO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF A EALS !"# SI$EON G. NE O$UCENO, respondents. $ELO, J.: This case is one of the older ones which was raffled to undersigned ponente pursuant to the Court's Resolution in A.M. 00-9-03 dated e!ruar" #$, #00% and concerns a petition see&ing the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 'epte(!er %%, %99# and its resolution dated )cto!er %*, %99# den"ing reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (odified the decision of +ranch %, of the Regional Trial Court of the -inth .udicial Region stationed in /agadian Cit" which was rendered in favor of herein petitioner. 0isposed thus the Court of Appeals in its CA-1.R. C2 -o. #3%3* per .ustice Montenegro, with .ustices /aras and )rdo4e5-+enite5 concurring6 789R9 )R9, pre(ises considered, :udg(ent is here!" rendered6 ;a< affir(ing the :udg(ent appealed fro( with (odification as follows6 %. )rdering and sentencing defendant-appellant 'i(eon 1. -epo(uceno to pa" the share of plaintiff-appellee in the a(ount of /%3,,000.00 covering the period of four ;=< "ears fro( e!ruar" %9, %9$* to e!ruar" %9, %9$9, with onl" eight ;,< hectares considered to !e productive> #. )rdering defendant-appellant 'i(eon 1. -epo(uceno to pa" reasona!le rental of the fishpond area in ?uestion fro( e!ruar" #0, %9$9 to March #0, %9,0 in the a(ount of /#*,000.00> 3. )rdering and sentencing defendant-appellant 'i(eon 1. -epo(uceno and defendant 9dgar .. Chu, to :ointl" pa" plaintiff-appellee the reasona!le rentals of the fishpond area in ?uestion at the rate of /#*,000.00 per annu( fro( March #%, %9,0 to .anuar" #, %9,*> =. )rdering and sentencing defendant-appellant 'i(eon 1. -epo(uceno and defendant 9dgar .. Chu, to :ointl" and severall" pa" plaintiff-appellee the su( of /%00,000.00 as attorne"' fees> *. )rdering and sentencing defendant-appellant 'i(eon 1. -epo(uceno and 9dgar .. Chu to pa" the costs> and ;!< reversing the decision appealed fro( insofar as it ordered @defendants :ointl" to restore possession and control of the fishpond area in ?uestion to the plaintiff@. ;pp. 3$-3,, Rollo.< The generative facts are chronicled as follows6 The controvers" !egan on )cto!er #,, %939 when the defunct /hilippine isheries Co((ission issued in favor of petitioner 'a4ado )rdinar" ishpond /er(it -o. -*,%0-A covering an area of fift" hectares situated in +o. Monching, 'ia", Ba(!oanga del 'ur. As a conse?uence, petitioner on .anuar" 3, %9$# eCecuted a deed of ?uitclai( involving twent" hectares of the original area of fift" hectares in favor of his uncle and !rother ;0ecision of the )ffice of the /resident, p. =3, Rollo<. )n .ul" %3, %9$3, petitioner as irst /art" and private respondent -epo(uceno as 'econd /art" eCecuted a contract entitled @Contract of ishpond 0evelop(ent and inancing@, which pertinentl" provided6 That the DR'T /ARTE is the possessor and holder of a piece of agricultural land with an area of approCi(atel" D TE ;*0< 89CTAR9' C)29R90 +E )rdinar" ishpond /er(it -o. -*,%0-A situated at Monching, 'ia", Ba(!oanga del 'ur> That the '9C)-0 /ARTE agreed to underta&e full eCpenses for the develop(ent of an area of T8DRTE ;30< hectares, out of the approCi(atel" D TE ;*0< hectares, covered !" )rdinar"

ishpond /er(it -o. -*,%0-A of the DR'T /ARTE and which parcel is descri!ed and !ounded as follows6 CCC CCC CCC

That the develop(ent which shall !e underta&en !" the '9C)-0 /ARTE on the aforesaid area of T8DRTE ;30< hectares, consists of6 a Construction of du(ps> gates, !uildings and other accessories pertinent to the full develop(ent of the fishpond area> ! Construction of di&es and the purchase of +angus r" for the said fishpond> That the whole a(ount invested !" the '9C)-0 /ARTE for the develop(ent of the aforesaid area for fishpond shall first !e recovered out of the products of the fishpond area> That after the full invest(ent of the '9C)-0 /ARTE shall have !een recovered, the sharing !asis with the DR'T /ARTE shall i((ediatel" co((ence for a period of our ;=< "ears and the sharing !asis shall !e in accordance with the following percentage6 T8DRTE D29 /9RC9-T ;3*F< of the -et per harvest G DR'T /ARTE> 'DATE D29 /9RC9-T ;3*F< of the -et per harvest G '9C)-0 /ARTE> That after the eCpiration of the our ;=< "ears of sharing !asis on the -et harvest, this contract of sharing !asis shall !e renewed at the option of the second part" for a period of another our ;=< "ears> ;pp. #3-#$, Rollo.< )n .ul" %,, %9$3, the contracting parties eCecuted a handwritten agree(ent, (odif"ing the earlier agree(ent !" eCcluding the area of ten hectares alread" cultivated and full" developed !" petitioner and providing that @the contract will !e renewed for another four ;=< "ears with another agree(ent !eneficial to !oth parties.@ 'i(pl" stated, instead of the renewal !eing at the option of private respondent, it shall !e renewed on ter(s accepta!le to !oth petitioner and private respondent. +ased on the agree(ent as (odified !" the aforestated handwritten agree(ent, private respondent proceeded with the develop(ent of the fishpond area, eCcluding the area of ten hectares alread" developed !" petitioner. )n 'epte(!er #,, %9$9, the 0irector of isheries and A?uatic Resources reco((ended to the then Ministr" of -atural Resources the conversion of )rdinar" ishpond /er(it -o. -*,%0-A into a #*-"ear fishpond loan agree(ent which covered a reduced area of #3.$=*0 hectares ;p. %3*, Rollo<. /ursuant to said reco((endation, ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090 was issued to petitioner on )cto!er ,, %9$9. )n March #0, %9,0, private respondent waived his rights, interest, and participation over the fishpond area in favor of one 9dgar .. Chu. )n March #,, %9,0, apparentl" to oppose the issuance of the #*-"ear fishpond lease agree(ent in favor of petitioner, private respondent infor(ed the +ureau of isheries and A?uatic Resources in writing of his financingIdevelop(ent contract with petitioner and that the fishpond was al(ost full" developed at his eCpense ;Ibid.<. /arentheticall", so(eti(e that "ear, private respondent su!(itted to petitioner an accounting of the inco(e or proceeds of the fishpond as well as his eCpenditures in the develop(ent thereof ;tsn, .ul" *, %9,3, pp. %0-%=<. This docu(ent, (ar&ed as 9Chi!it @0@ and dated e!ruar" %9, %9$*, showed earnings of the fishpond in the a(ount of /9,,%03.3*, eCpenses and advances in the su( of /,$,=0*.#*, and cash on hand of /%0,$0%.%0. The original cop" thereof was filed with the +ureau of isheries and 0evelop(ent as evidenced !" the sta(p of the office thereon.

)n .ul" %$, %9,%, petitioner filed a co(plaint against private respondent and 9dgar .. Chu with the regional trial court doc&eted as Civil Case -o. #0,* for recover" of possession and da(ages, wherein he alleged that on e!ruar" %9, %9$*, private respondent had alread" recovered his invest(ent in full> that as of said date, the total earnings had a(ounted to /9,,%03.3* leaving an eCcess of /%0,$0%.%0 to !e divided !etween petitioner and private respondent at 3*-3* sharing> that the =-"ear period during which petitioner and private respondent would share the net harvest co((enced on e!ruar" %9, %9$* and eCpired on e!ruar" %,, %9$9> that after e!ruar" %,, %9$*, private respondent has not accounted for the inco(e of the fishpond and has failed and refused, in gross and evident !ad faith despite renewed and repeated de(ands, to deliver petitioner's share of the net harvest for four "ears which totaled /#*0,000.00 (ore or less. Meanwhile, during the pendenc" of the aforesaid Civil Case -o. #0,* with the trial court, an order was issued !" then Minister of Agriculture and ood 'alvador 8. 9scudero DDD, on .anuar" #,, %9,* %!"%&lli"' Fi()po"# L&!(& A'r&&*&"+ No. 30,0 and forfeiting the i(prove(ents thereon in favor of the govern(ent. Hater, said order was reconsidered to the eCtent that private respondent was given priorit" to appl" for the area and that his i(prove(ents thereon were not considered forfeited in favor of the govern(ent. /etitioner elevated the (atter to the )ffice of the /resident !ut his appeal was dis(issed in a decision rendered on .ul" 3%, %9,9. )n .une %9, %9,9, the trial court rendered its decision in Civil Case -o. #0,*, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows6 789R9 )R9, D- 2D97 ) AHH T89 )R91)D-1, :udg(ent is here!" rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants6 %. )rdering defendants :ointl" to restore possession and control of the fishpond area in ?uestion to the plaintiff> #. 0eclaring the 7aiver of All Rights, Dnterests and /articipations )ver a ishpond Area ;/art< ;9Chi!it @9@< eCecuted !" defendant -epo(uceno in favor of defendant 9dgar Chu as null and void> 3. )rdering defendant 'i(eon -epo(uceno to pa" the share of plaintiff in the a(ount of /%3,,000.00 covering the period of four "ears fro( e!ruar" %9, %9$* to e!ruar" %9, %9$9, with onl" eight ;,< hectares considered to !e productive> =. )rdering defendants to :ointl" pa" plaintiff the rentals of the fishpond area in ?uestion at the reasona!le rate of /#*,000.00 per annu( rec&oned fro( e!ruar" %9, %9$9 up to the ti(e the sa(e fishpond area shall have !een dul" restored to the possession of the plaintiff> *. )rdering defendants :ointl" and severall" pa" plaintiff the su( of /%00,000.00 as attorne"'s fees> and 3. To pa" the costs. DT D' ') )R09R90.> ;pp. #=-#*, Rollo.< /rivate respondent and 9dgar .. Chu !oth appealed the trial court's decision. 8owever, for failure to file !rief, Chu's appeal was dis(issed. or his part, private respondent (aintained that6 ;a< the trial court erred in ruling that private respondent has full" recovered his financial invest(ent in the fishpond area in ?uestion as of e!ruar" %9, %9$* ;hence the sharing of the net harvest should not co((ence on said date<> ;!< the trial court erred in ruling that private respondent cannot waive his right to finance the develop(ent of the fishpond area> and ;c< the trial court co((itted grave error and in:ustice in not dis(issing petitioner's co(plaint and in ordering respondent to pa" petitioner the a(ounts of /%3,,000.00 as petitioner's share covering the period !eginning e!ruar" %9, %9$* to e!ruar" %9, %9$9, /#*,000.00 per annu( constituting reasona!le rentals fro( e!ruar" %9, %9$9 up to the ti(e the fishpond area shall have !een restored to petitioner, as well as /%00,000.00 as attorne"'s fees.

As (entioned earlier, the Court of Appeals affir(ed the trial court's decision as regards petitioner's share in the produce fro( e!ruar" %9, %9$* to e!ruar" %9, %9$9 ;/%3,,000.00<, the reasona!le rental of the fishpond area ;/#*,000.00 per annu(< fro( e!ruar" #0, %9$9 to March #0, %9,0 and fro( March #%, %9,0 to .anuar" #, %9,3, as well as attorne"'s fees ;/%00,000.00<, and costs. The petition !efore us hinges on the argu(ent that the Court of Appeals entertained evidence andIor other (atters not dul" covered or ta&en up in the trial of Civil Case -o. #0,*. /etitioner posits that the appellate court co((itted grave a!use of discretion in doing so and in appl"ing said (atters in its disposition of the case. 2eril", petitioner's gru(!le and protest is confined to that portion of the .une %9, %9,9 decision of the Court of Appeals directing @defendants :ointl" to restore possession and control of the fishpond area to the plaintiff.@ /etitioner points out that the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision rendered !" the )ffice of the /resident through 0eput" 9Cecutive 'ecretar" Magdangal +. 9l(a is a new (atter which should not have !een treated !" the appellate court with legal force and effect !ecause @it was (erel" incidental to the propriet" or i(propriet" of the issuance of a writ of preli(inar" (andator" in:unction respecting the earlier 7rit of 9Cecution granted !" the trial court in favor of CaliCto 'a4ado@ ;p. %9, Rollo<. Dn this light, petitioner (entions that on 0ece(!er %%, %990, during the pendenc" of the appeal of Civil Case -o. #0,*, he filed with the appellate court a (otion for eCecution pending appeal, stating that the appeal of 9dgar .. Chu ;who was said to !e the actual possessor of the area< had !een dis(issed. The appellate court denied the sa(e. )n Ma" #%, %99%, petitioner filed another (otion for issuance of writ of eCecution, clai(ing that the 'heriff's Return of 'ervice dated .une 3, %99% stated that @the restoration to andIor place(ent of plaintiff 'a4ado thereof on said fishpond area in controvers" . . . ., are here!" considered co(plied with.@ Thereafter private respondent filed a petition for relief fro( :udg(ent and or eCecution which resulted in an order dated .une $, %99% restoring possession of the fishpond area to hi(. /etitioner then proceeds to (ention that on .une %%, %99%, private respondent filed with the appellate court an @9C-/arte Jrgent Motion for Dssuance of 7rit of /reli(inar" Mandator" Dn:unction@, alleging that the trial court has not "et issued the corresponding writ of preli(inar" (andator" in:unction to restore private respondent to the possession of the su!:ect fishpond area. /etitioner stresses that it was at this particular stage of the proceedings that the su!:ect .ul" 3%, %9,9 Malaca4ang decision was initiall" (entioned !" private respondent who there!" argued that the trial court failed to consider that prior to the issuance of the writ of eCecution, the restoration of the su!:ect fishpond to herein petitioner would in effect destro" the essence of said Malaca4ang decision which affir(ed the cancellation of the ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 30*0. Dn conse?uence thereof, the appellate court issued a resolution dated .une %=, %99% ordering that an"one who had an"thing to do with the enforce(ent of the writ of eCecution issued !" the trial court was restrained te(poraril" fro( enforcing said writ, such that private respondent, who was ac&nowledged to !e in possession of the su!:ect propert" consisting of five ponds at the ti(e of the issuance of the aforesaid writs> should re(ain in the possession thereof until further notice !" the court. Hater, the trial court itself ordered the i((ediate restoration of possession of the su!:ect fishpond area to herein private respondent. An eCchange of pleadings followed where, as an attach(ent to his co((ent, private respondent presented a photostat cop" of the su!:ect .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision of the )ffice of the /resident.1wphi1.nt 'etting aside the factual ra(ifications of the instant case, we find that the onl" issue thereof refers to the legal effect and evidentiar" weight of the .ul" %9, %9,9 decision rendered !" the )ffice of the /resident in relation to Civil Case -o. #0,* and CA-1.R. C2 -o. #3%3*. Het us first eCa(ine the pre(ise and !asis of the aforesaid .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision of the )ffice of the /resident. A perusal thereof reveals that it resolved the appeal filed !" petitioner and the 'a(ahang Ka!uha"an ng +aranga" Monching fro( the order of the then Minister of Agriculture and ood, dated .anuar" #,, %9,* which cancelled the ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090 issued to petitioner and forfeited in favor of the govern(ent the i(prove(ents thereof, including the !ond, and ruled that the area with the i(prove(ents shall !e disposed of in accordance with /residential 0ecree -o. $0= ;Revising and Consolidating All Haws and 0ecrees Affecting ishing and isheries< to an" ?ualified applicant pursuant to applica!le rules and regulations thereon. 'aid cancellation was pre(ised on the following factors6 ;%< violation !" petitioner of the ter(s of the fishpond lease agree(ent and of isheries Ad(inistrative )rder ; A)< %#* ;s. %9$9< when he transferredIsu!leased his leasehold rights without govern(ent approval> and ;#< failure of petitioner to co(pl" with the develop(ent re?uire(ents. Dn the su!:ect .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision, the )ffice of the /resident, through then 0eput" 9Cecutive 'ecretar" Magdangal +. 9l(a, upholding the .anuar" #,, %9,* 9scudero )rder, dis(issed petitioner's

appeal and affir(ed the cancellation of the su!:ect ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090 on the following grounds6 ;%< 'ection *;&< of isheries Ad(inistrative )rder ; A)< -o. %#* prohi!its the awardee of a fishpond lease agree(ent fro( transferring or su!letting the fishpond granted to hi( without the previous consent or approval of the (inistr" concerned, and si(ilarl", the lessee shall not su!let or enter into a su!-lease contract over the area or portion covered !" the fishpond lease agree(ent> ;#< the 'a4ado--epo(uceno contract is not the onl" instance when petitioner transferredIsu!leased his rights over the fishpond area without approval of the appropriate (inistr" head since on .anuar" 3, %9$#, he transferred #0 hectares of the original *0-hectare fishpond area to his !rother and uncle, and on 'epte(!er %#, %9,#, he transferred his rights over the #3.$=*0 area to the 'a(ahang Ka!uha"an ng +aranga" Monching Association which later assigned its leasehold rights in favor of the 0evelop(ent +an& of the /hilippines in consideration of the a(ount of /3*3,%*3.=3> and ;3< petitioner's failure to develop fort" percent of the area within three "ears and to co(pletel" develop the re(aining portions within five "ears, !oth to co((ence fro( the date of the issuance of the lease agree(ent in accordance with the ter(s and conditions of the lease agree(ent ;out of the whole area occupied !" petitioner, onl" four hectares (ore or less, corresponding to 30F to $0F was developed<. The appellate court thus held that all these violations are recogni5ed grounds for the ter(ination and cancellation of a fishpond lease agree(ent under 'ection 9 of the A) -o. %#*, series of %9$9. As a last note, the su!:ect decision stated that it (ainl" deals with the validit" of the cancellation !" the Ministr" of Agriculture and ood of petitioner's ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090 for violation of the ter(s thereof andIor fisheries rules, and that a decision in Civil Case -o. #0,* which is a possessor" action has hardl" an" !earing in the resolution of the aforestated appeal. True, the su!:ect .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision was rendered a few da"s after the trial court handed down its decision ordering herein petitioner to !e restored to the possession of the su!:ect fishpond area. 8owever, such fact is of no (o(ent considering that said decision of the trial court did not attain finalit" and was seasona!l" appealed. Dn other words, the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision was rendered while Civil Case -o. #0,* was pending appeal. Dt is thus proper to consider the sa(e a supervening event the eCistence of which cannot :ust !e disregarded !" the appellate court. 7hat is the nature of the .ul" 3%, %9,9 Malaca4ang decision and what is its effect on the resolution of Civil Case -o. #0,*L The action of an ad(inistrative agenc" in granting or den"ing, or in suspending or revo&ing, a license, per(it, franchise, or certificate of pu!lic convenience and necessit" is ad(inistrative or ?uasi-:udicial. The act is not purel" ad(inistrative !ut ?uasi-:udicial or ad:udicator" since it is dependent upon the ascertain(ent of facts !" the ad(inistrative agenc", upon which a decision is to !e (ade and rights and lia!ilities deter(ined ;0e Heon, Ad(inistrative Haw6 TeCt and Cases, %993 ed., pp. %=3-%==<. As such, the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision of the )ffice of the /resident is eCplicitl" an official act of and an eCercise of ?uasi-:udicial power !" the 9Cecutive 0epart(ent headed !" the highest officer of the land. Dt thus s?uarel" falls under (atters relative to the eCecutive depart(ent which courts are (andatoril" tas&ed to ta&e :udicial notice of under 'ection %, Rule %#9 of the Rules of Court. .udicial notice (ust !e ta&en of the organi5ation of the 9Cecutive 0epart(ent, its principal officers, elected or appointed, such as the /resident, his powers and duties ; Francisco, 9vidence MRules %#,-%3=N, %993 ed., p. #=, citing Canal Zone vs. Mena, # Canal Bone %$0<. The rendition of the su!:ect .ul" 3%, %9,9 Malaca4ang decision is pre(ised on the essential function of the eCecutive depart(ent G which is to enforce the law. Dn this instance, what is !eing enforced is /residential 0ecree -o. $0= which consolidated and revised all laws and decrees affecting fishing and fisheries. 'uch enforce(ent (ust !e true to the polic" !ehind such laws which is @to accelerate and pro(ote the integrated develop(ent of the fisher" industr" and to &eep the fisher" resources of the countr" in opti(u( productive condition through proper conservation and protection@ ;'ection #, /.0. -o. $0=<. urther, the issue of whether or not petitioner is still entitled to possession of the su!:ect fishpond area is underpinned !" an ascertain(ent of facts. And such tas& !elongs to the ad(inistrative !od" which has :urisdiction over the (atter G the Ministr" of Agriculture and ood. The polic" of the courts as regards such factual findings is not to interfere with actions of the eCecutive !ranch on ad(inistrative (atters addressed to the sound discretion of govern(ent agencies. This polic" is speciall" applica!le in the grant of licenses, per(its, and leases, or the approval, re:ection, or revocation of applications therefor ;Manuel vs. Villena, 3$ 'CRA $=* M%9$%N<. 'uch respect is !ased on the ti(e-honored doctrine of separation of powers and on the fact that these !odies are considered co-e?ual and coordinate ran& as courts. The onl" eCception is when there is a clear showing of capricious and whi(sical eCercise of :udg(ent or grave a!use of discretion, which we find a!sent in the case at !ar. The reasons given !" the )ffice of the /resident in dis(issing petitioner's appeal are ?uite clear. Transferring or su!letting the fishpond granted to a licensee without the consent or approval of the ad(inistrative !od" concerned, as well as the failure to develop the area re?uired !" the fisheries

rules, are definitel" solid and logical grounds for the cancellation of one's license. 7ithal, if petitioner disagrees with the decision of the )ffice of the /resident, he should have elevated the (atter !" petition for review !efore the Court of Appeals for the latter's eCercise of :udicial review. -owhere in the record do we find such action on petitioner's part. Jnderstanda!l", to restore petitioner to the possession of the fishpond area is to totall" disregard the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision of the )ffice of the /resident which can hardl" !e descri!ed as an unrelated (atter, considering its patent i(plications in the result of !oth Civil Case -o. #0,* and CA-1.R. C2 -o. #3%3*. or how could the appellate court award possession to the ver" sa(e part" whose license has !een cancelled !" the eCecutive or ad(inistrative officer tas&ed to eCercise licensing power as regards the develop(ent of fishpond areas, and which cancellation has !een sustained !" the )ffice of the /residentL /etitioner (ust re(e(!er the essence of the grant of a license. Dt is not a vested right given !" the govern(ent !ut a privilege with corresponding o!ligations and is su!:ect to govern(ental regulation. 8ence, to allow petitioner to possess the su!:ect area is to run counter to the eCecution and enforce(ent of the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision which would easil" lose its @teeth@ or force if petitioner were restored in possession. Dn addition, as pointed out in the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision, petitioner is not assailing the Ma" %=, %9,* order of Minister 9scudero which gave private respondent priorit" in appl"ing for the su!:ect area and which considered respondent's i(prove(ents thereon as not forfeited in favor of the govern(ent. Dn this regard, the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision stated6 The 9scudero )rder of Ma" %=, %9,* stands unchallenged. As such, the herein appeal of 'a4ado, et al., fro( the 9scudero )rder of .anuar" #*, %9,* re(ains the onl" o!stacle, on the ad(inistrative level, to the said Ma" %=, %9,* )rder !eing considered in force and effect. ;p. *0, Rollo.< Accordingl", the Court of Appeals correctl" held G . . . The issue ;on waiver of rights and interests and participation !" respondent< is rendered (oot and acade(ic !" the order of then MA Minister 'alvador 8. 9scudero DDD cancelling ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090 of plaintiff-appellee which was affir(ed on appeal !" the )ffice of the /resident. The lease agree(ent having !een cancelled, possession of the fishpond area covered !" the lease agree(ent cannot !e returned to plaintiff-appellee even if the waiver of rights, interests, and participation is held null and void . . . ;p. 3%, Rollo.< Dn addition, petitioner considers the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision a foreign (atter which was not raised in the court !elow and hence should not have !een treated !" the Court of Appeals with legal force and effect. To reiterate, petitioner also notes that the decision of the )ffice of the /resident is dated .ul" 3%, %9,9, whereas the decision of Civil Case -o. #0,* was rendered .une %9, %9,9. urther, petitioner argues that the su!:ect decision of the )ffice of the /resident was (erel" incidental to the propriet" or i(propriet" of the issuance of a writ of preli(inar" (andator" in:unction to restore private respondent to the possession of the fishpond area after a writ of eCecution was issued !" the trial court in favor of petitioner. Rules of fair pla", :ustice, and due process dictate that parties cannot raise for the first ti(e on appeal i((-&( .)i%) +)&/ %o-l# )!0& r!i(&# 1-+ "&0&r #i# #-ri"' +)& +ri!l ;Reburiano vs. Court of Appeals, 30% 'CRA 3=# M%999N<. 'ignificantl", private respondent could have not !een eCpected to present the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision during the trial !ecause it was o!viousl" not "et eCtant during that ti(e. +ut one thing is for sure, petitioner &new that there was a pending ad(inistrative case ;)./. Case -o. #9*,< on the su!:ect fishpond area. 8e &new a!out the appeal since he was precisel" the one who filed it, challenging the .anuar" #,, %9,* order of then Minister 9scudero which cancelled ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090. 8ence, the presentation of the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision !efore the appellate court had caused no undue surprise upon petitioner who, we repeat, was the one who filed the appeal. 2eril", the trial court's decision of .ul" %9, %9,9 #i# "o+ !++!i" 2i"!li+/. Dt was appealed within the regle(entar" period. Df the court could (odif" or alter a :udg(ent even after the sa(e has !eco(e eCecutor" .)&"&0&r %ir%-*(+!"%&( +r!"(pir& r&"#&ri"' i+( #&%i(io" -"3-(+ !"# i"&4-i+!1l&, !( .)&r& %&r+!i" 2!%+( !"# %ir%-*(+!"%&( 3-(+i2/i"' or r&4-iri"' (-%) *o#i2i%!+io" or !l+&r!+io" +r!"(pir&# !2+&r +)& 3-#'*&"+ )!( 1&%o*& 2i"!l !"# &5&%-+or/ ;0avid vs. Court of Appeals, 3%3 'CRA $%0 M%999N< !"# .)&" i+ 1&%o*&( i*p&r!+i0& i" +)& )i')&r i"+&r&(+ o2 3-(+i%& or .)&" (-p&r0&"i"' &0&"+( .!rr!"+ i+ ; eople vs. !allo, 3%* 'CRA =3% M%999N<, .)!+ *or& i2 +)& 3-#'*&"+ )!( "o+ /&+ !++!i"&# 2i"!li+/ L

Dt is thus plain in the case at !ar that the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision of the )ffice of the /resident is a su!stantial supervening event which drasticall" changed the circu(stances of the parties to the su!:ect fishpond lease agree(ent. or to award possession to petitioner is futile since he has lost the fishpond license. Dn point is our ruling in +alu"ot vs. 1uiao ;3%* 'CRA 393 M%99$N< where we held that :udg(ent is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, !ut also covers those necessaril" included therein or necessar" thereto. or eCa(ple, where the ownership of a parcel of land is decreed in the :udg(ent, the deliver" of the possession of the land should !e considered included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated part"'s clai( to the possession thereof is !ased on his clai( of ownership. +" analog", the .ul" 3%, %9,9 decision, is not confined to the validit" of the cancellation !" the Ministr" of Agriculture and ood of petitioner's ishpond Hease Agree(ent -o. 3090 for violation of the ter(s thereof andIor the fisheries rules. The right to possess the su!:ect fishpond area is necessaril" included in the decision. The cancellation or revocation of petitioner's license necessaril" eli(inated his right to possess the sa(e since the new licensee would then !e the one to en:o" this right. 789R9 )R9, the instant petition is here!" 09-D90 for lac& of (erit. The 'epte(!er %%, %99# decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-1.R. C2 -o. #3%3* is here!" A DRM90. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 111762 $!r%) 27, 1,,8 THE EO LE OF THE HILI INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RO$AN $ENESES 8 $ARIN, accused-appellant.

9A UNAN, J.: 9"ewitness identification is vital evidence and, in (ost cases, decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution.1 'u!:ect of the Court's scrutin" in the instant cri(inal case is the credi!ilit" of a child's alleged e"ewitness account on which the appellant's conviction !" the trial court was solel" anchored. At around three o'cloc& in the earl" (orning of 0ece(!er %*, %99%, thirt"-three "ear old Cesar 2ictoria was sta!!ed to death while sleeping !" his seven-"ear old son Christopher in a rented (a&eshift roo( in Tondo, Manila. Appellant Ro(an Meneses was charged with the (urder of Cesar 2ictoria, in an Dnfor(ation dated 0ece(!er #$, %99%, which reads6 That on or a!out 0ece(!er %*, %99%, in the Cit" of Manila, /hilippines, the said accused, with evident pre(editation and treacher", did then and there willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl", with intent to &ill, attac&, assault and use personal violence upon one C9'AR 2DCT)RDA " 9R-A-09B, !" then and there sta!!ing the latter with a fan &nife ;!alisong< on the different parts of his !od", there!" inflicting upon the said C9'AR 2DCT)RDA " 9R-A-09B (ortal wounds which were the direct and i((ediate cause of his death i((ediatel". 2 The prosecution presented the following witnesses6 Christopher R. 2ictoria, '/)3 .ai(e Mendo5a, '/)3 9duardo 1on5ales and Medico-Hegal )fficer lorante +alta5ar. Christopher R. 2ictoria testified that he witnessed the sta!!ing of his father. 8e testified that while he lived with his Ku"a )deng on Kasipagan 'treet, Tondo, on the night of 0ece(!er %=, %99%, he went to his father's rented (a&eshift roo( to sleep after he ;Christopher< was whipped !" his !rother. Christopher's other si!lings lived elsewhere in Tondo and his (other was living in Oue5on. 8e further testified that he was awa&ened fro( sleep and saw his father !eing sta!!ed in the heart with a @veinte nueve.@ After the assailant ran awa", Christopher cried.

'/)3 .ai(e Mendo5a, a police investigator of the 7estern /olice 0istrict testified that on 0ece(!er %*, %99%, a &agawad of +aranga" %#3, Bone 9, Tondo, Manila called the precinct infor(ing hi( that Cesar 2ictoria was found sta!!ed to death. 7ith three police(en, Mendo5a i((ediatel" went to the cri(e scene, arriving there at around three o'cloc& in the (orning. Mendo5a descri!ed the scene as a (a&eshift roo( a!out three !" five s?uare (eters. The roo( was connected !" a divider with a door to a house owned !" the 'pouses Ardiete, the victi('s landlord. The police(en saw the victi('s !loodied !od", with several sta! wounds, l"ing on a wooden !ed. Mendo5a testified that when he ?uestioned Christopher, who was then in the house, Christopher could not identif" nor descri!e the attac&er, !ut that the child said he could identif" hi( !ecause he &new his face. )n re-direct eCa(ination however, Mendo5a said that Christopher identified the assailant as appellant. Mendo5a and the police(en !rought Christopher to the precinct where his state(ent was ta&en. 3 After the appellant was arrested and turned over to the investigators on 0ece(!er #3, %99%, Christopher was again !rought to the precinct where, during a confrontation with appellant, Christopher identified appellant as the person who sta!!ed his father. 6 '/)3 9duardo C. 1on5ales testified that at a!out two o'cloc& in the (orning of 0ece(!er #*, %99%, he arrested appellant. The arrest was !ased on the report of Angelina 2ictoria, appellant's wife, who i(plicated appellant in the cri(e. The police(en found appellant at the place pointed to !" Angelina, which was a flower !oC at the corner of Tua5on and Mithi 'treets. ris&ed, appellant "ielded a !alisong. After announcing that the" were police(en and that appellant was !eing arrested as the suspect in the sta!!ing of Cesar 2ictoria, 1on5ales and his co(panions !rought appellant to /olice 'tation -o. #. Appellant was later transferred to the 8o(icide 'ection. )n cross-eCa(ination, 1on5ales stated that he and his co(panions (erel" @invited@ appellant to go with the( to the police station for investigation, !ut that at the police station, appellant ver!all" ad(itted to sta!!ing Cesar 2ictoria. : Medico-Hegal )fficer lorante /. +alta5ar of the /hilippine -ational /olice Cri(e Ha!orator" conducted the autops" on the victi(. 8e testified in court that the cause of death of the victi(, as stated in his Autops" Report, was @cardio-respirator" arrest due to shoc& and he(orrhage secondar" to sta! wounds,@ and that the victi( sustained five eCternal in:uries, two of which were fatal. 7 8e opined that !ased on the direction of the sta! wounds, the victi( was not l"ing down when sta!!ed, !ut could have !een standing or silting when sta!!ed !" the attac&er who could have also !een standing. 7 The lone witness for the defense was the appellant hi(self, Ro(an Meneses. 8e interposed the defense of denial and ali!i. Appellant testified that the victi(, who was his !rother-in-law, and Christopher used to live with hi( and his wife Angelina, the victi('s sister, in their house at A. Tua5on 'treet, Tondo, Manila. )n the da" of the cri(e, appellant alleged that he was in 'an Dsidro, MeCico, /a(panga, and had !een there since the tenth or eleventh of that (onth, after he had a (isunderstanding with Angelina. 8e further testified that he was arrested on 0ece(!er #=, %99%, without a warrant after !eing i(plicated in the cri(e !" his wife. 8e was !rought to the police station where he was (auled !" police(en> he never ad(itted though to &illing Cesar 2ictoria, his !rother-in-law. Appellant also denied that there was ani(osit" !etween hi( and his !rother-in-law. Dn fact, when Cesar was sta!!ed after he ;Cesar< got out of prison, appellant even !rought hi( to the hospital and paid for his (edical eCpenses. Appellant even sent his nephew Christopher to school. 8 Dn a 0ecision dated .ul" #3, %993, the trial found appellant guilt", thus6 789R9 )R9, :udg(ent is here!" rendered convicting the accused of the cri(e of Murder, and he is here!" sentenced with the penalt" of Reclusion erpetua. The accused is here!" ordered to inde(nif" and pa" the heirs of the victi( Cesar 2ictoria the su( of /*0,000.00 as da(ages sustained !" the( on account of the victi('s death. , Dn this appeal, appellant assigns to the trial court the following errors6

D T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 D- -)T 1D2D-1 9ACJH/AT)RE 79D18T T) T89 92D09-C9 A00JC90 +E T89 09 9-'9. DD T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 D- C)-2DCTD-1 A//9HHA-T ) T89 CRDM9 C8AR190 -)T7DT8'TA-0D-1 T89 ADHJR9 ) T89 /R)'9CJTD)- T) /R)29 8D' 1JDHT +9E)-0 R9A')-A+H9 0)J+T. DDD )- T89 A''JM/TD)- T8AT A//9HHA-T D' 1JDHTE, T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 DC)-2DCTD-1 8DM ) MJR09R D-'T9A0 ) 8)MDCD09 )-HE. 10 The issue in the instant case is credi!ilit". The :udg(ent of appellant's conviction is anchored entirel" on the testi(on" of the single e"ewitness, Christopher 2ictoria, who identified appellant as the one who he allegedl" saw sta! his father. 7e find that the trustworthiness of the identification of appellant !" Christopher is du!ious, raising reasona!le dou!t in the (ind of the Court as to appellant's culpa!ilit". Dt was esta!lished that the cri(e too& place in the wee hours of the (orning, !efore the crac& of dawn, at around three o'cloc&. 11 The court can ta&e :udicial notice of the @laws of nature,@ 12 such as in the instant case, that at around three in the (orning during the Christ(as season, it is still ?uite dar& and that da"light co(es rather late in this ti(e of "ear. 13 -owhere in the description of the cri(e scene !" witness '/)3 Mendo5a in his testi(on" was it esta!lished that there was light or illu(ination of an" sort !" which Christopher could see the attac&er. '/)3 Mendo5a testified thus6 O Eou said "ou found the !od" of the victi(, what ;sic< did "ou found ;sic< at the !od" of the victi(L A 7e found the !od" of the victi( on ad:acent (a&eshift of the -o. %3#=. O The (a&eshift roo( which was ad:acent to the house, whose house of that (a&eshift was ad:acentL A Dt was owned !" Cesar 2ictoria and his son Christopher. O Eou said "ou interviewed a couple na(ed Ardiete, where did "ou see this coupleL A Dnside the house, sir. O 8ow far is that house to the house of the victi(L A )nl" a division within that house, onl" division separate. C)JRT6 O Eou said that the (a&eshift was ad:acent to the house, does the Court understand fro( "ou that the (a&eshift was attach to the houseL A /art of the house, Eour 8onor. O Ds there an opening on itL A Ees, Eour 8onor. O 8ow wideL

A The (ain door going to the house. O 0id "ou co(e to &now, what that (a&eshift was forL A Dt was occupied intended for the victi( Cesar 2ictoria and his son, the" actuall" rented the space. O 'o the place where "ou found the victi( is a place which can !e used for living purposesL A Ees, sir. O 8ow did "ou co(e to that conclusionL A +ecause that portion, there was a door, there was a door !efore "ou can get inside. D'CAH 'JHHA6 O 8ow !ig is that roo( (ore or lessL A More or less a!out three (eters or five (eters. O -ow who occupied the roo( ad:acent to the roo( occupied !" the victi(L A The spouses Ardiete, sir.
16

The cri(e too& place in a (a&eshift roo( (easuring a!out three !" five s?uare (eters. 7hile the roo( had a door, there was no (ention of a window which could have allowed entr" of so(e &ind of light fro( the outside. Dt is highl" i(pro!a!le that a "oung !o", :ust roused fro( sleep and his e"es ad:usting to the unlit roo(, could identif" the attac&er, (uch less identif" the &nife used, as Christopher did, as a @veinte nueve.@ The prosecution failed to paint a cr"stal-clear picture of the environ !" which Christopher could have (ade an accurate and relia!le identification of the attac&er. Christopher's testi(on" !eing i(pro!a!le, is not credi!le. 9vidence is credi!le when it is @such as the co((on eCperience of (an&ind can approve as pro!a!le under the circu(stances. 7e have no test of the truth of hu(an testi(on", eCcept its confor(it" to our &nowledge, o!servation, and eCperience.@ 1: 7e now consider the identification itself. 7e note a glaring discrepanc", not inconse?uential, in the testi(on" of '/)3 Mendo5a regarding Christopher's identification of appellant. '/)3 Mendo5a testified thus6 O 7here was the son of the victi( when "ou arrivedL A Dnside the house, sir. C)JRT6 O 0id "ou tal&ed ;sic< to the son of the victi(L A Ees, sir. O 7hat did he tell "ouL A "e told #e he can re#e#ber the suspect whenever he sees hi# a$ain . O Then he can identif" hi(L A Ees, Eour 8onor.

ATTE. 'ARMD9-T)6 O %o at the ti#e that &ou were there' the son of the victi# was not able to tell &ou who the suspect wasL A (es' sir. CCC CCC CCC O -either the wife nor the hus!and Mreferring to the spouses ArdieteN, nor the son tell "ou that the" saw the &illingL A The son of the victi( said that he can identified ;sic< the suspect. O 0id "ou as&ed ;sic< hi( if he can identif"L A Ees, sir. O And what did he tell "ouL A 8e &nows the face of the suspect. O 0id "ou as& hi( the na(e of the suspect, if he &nows hi( at that ti(eL A "e can)t tell the na#e. O 0id he tell "ou the description of the suspectL A "e can)t tell the description of the suspect but he insist *sic+ that if he can see hi# a$ain' he can identif&. 17 0uring his direct and cross-eCa(ination, '/)3 Mendo5a asserted that Christopher could not na(e his father's attac&er nor give a description> however, in his re-direct eCa(ination he said that Christopher (entioned categoricall" appellant's na(e, Ro(an Meneses, thus6 O 7hen "ou responded to the scene of the cri(e, and tal&ing to Christopher 2ictoria who can identif" the suspect, did "ou as&ed M sicN hi( wh" he can identif" the suspectL A Ees, sir. O 7hat did he sa"L A 8e re(e(!er MsicN the face. O And did "ou as& hi( wh" he can re(e(!er the faceL A Ees, sir. ,ecause he openl& sees the face' sice *sic+ he was his uncle . O 0id "ou as&ed MsicN the son what is the na(e of his uncleL A Ees, sir. CCC CCC CCC O 7hat is the na(eL A Ro#an Meneses. 17

This inconsistenc" in the testi(on" of '/)3 Mendo5a not onl" tolls on his credi!ilit" as well as the credi!ilit" of his testi(on", !ut (ore significantl", casts dou!t on the trustworthiness, veracit" and relia!ilit" of the alleged identification itself. 'ignificantl", this inconsistenc" was noted !" the trial court with veCation, !ut the court (erel" glossed over the sa(e, stating that the identification of appellant !" Christopher during the su!se?uent confrontation rendered such inconsistenc" uni(portant. 9ven in the Advance infor(ation 18 prepared !" '/)3 Mendo5a on 0ece(!er %*, %99%, no (ention was (ade regarding an identification (ade !" Christopher when ?uestioned i((ediatel" after the cri(e. Mendo5a wrote6 C8RD'T)/89R 2DCT)RDA, , "ears old, son of victi(, who was sleeping !eside the latter during the co((ission of the cri(e when interviewed stated that he was awa&ened, while his father was !eing sta!!ed !" suspect, who( he clai(ed he can identif" if he can see hi( again. Case to !e further investigated and follow-up to deter(ine the (otive !ehind the &nifesla"ing and efforts will !e eCerted to esta!lish the identit" of suspect. 1, Dndeed, it taCes the credi!ilit" of Christopher's testi(on" that while he &new appellant prior to the cri(e, !eing his uncle, who for so(e ti(e he was sta"ing with, he failed to point to appellant as the attac&er when ?uestioned !" the police i((ediatel" after the incident. 7all 20 in his wor& on e"ewitness identification eCpounds on the danger signals which a trial court :udge and the appellate courts should watch out for when considering identifications in cri(inal cases, thus6 7hen a person has !een the victi( of a cri(e co((itted !" a friend, ac?uaintance, relative, or other person previousl" fa(iliar to hi(, and decides to (a&e a co(plaint to the police, it is to !e eCpected that he would i((ediatel" infor( the( of the na(e ;or it that !e un&nown, then at least the identit"< of the person who( the" should arrest. The victi( would nor(all" tell the police that he had !een hit !" .ohn '(ith, or that her purse had !een snatched !" the grocer's deliver" !o". )f course, so(e cri(es are never reported, for one reason or another. +ut once the victi( decides to (a&e a cri(inal co(plaint, then he will al(ost invaria!l" na(e or designate the perpetrator of the cri(e i((ediatel", if he is a!le to do so. The occasional failure of a co(plainant to do this is a danger signal of which the courts have so(eti(es ta&en note. Dn an Ddaho prosecution for rape, for eCa(ple, the co(plaining witness identified the defendant at the trial, !ut had not accused hi( when (a&ing her original co(plaint to the police, even though he was previousl" &nown to her. As an eCplanation, she testified she had not recogni5ed hi( during the co((ission of the cri(e. The ensuing conviction was reversed on the ground that the evidence of identification was insufficient. Dn an lowa prosecution for assault with intent to co((it rape, the co(plainant was a "oung (arried wo(an who had &nown the defendant prior to the co((ission of the alleged cri(e. 'he identified hi( at the trial, !ut ad(itted that she had not recogni5ed hi( during the assault, for he had a veil covering his face. Dt was after he left, she testified that it ca(e to her (ind that he assault, and on the sa(e da", she !eca(e afraid to sta" alone at ho(e while waiting for her hus!and to return, and as&ed none other than the defendant to wait with her G a course of action that which was co((ented upon !" the appellate court which reversed the conviction on grounds which included the insufficienc" of the evidence of identification. Dn a -ew Eor& (urder prosecution, the victi('s widow identified the defendant prior to her hus!and's &illers. Although she &new the defendant prior to her hus!and's death, she ad(itted that she had not na(ed hi( to the police on the night of the cri(e, and ad(itted also that she had told the coroner that she had never !efore seen her hus!and's (urderers. A conviction for (urder in the first degree was reversed !ecause the trial :udge had failed to charge the :ur" that the" should consider those facts in deter(ining the accurac" of the identification. And in a recent -ew Eor& ro!!er" prosecution, it was !rought out that the two wo(en who had identified the defendant at the trial had not i((ediatel" na(ed hi( to the police, even though the" had &nown hi( previousl", since he was the son of an ac?uaintance of one of the(. The conviction was reversed on appeal, the court stating, with respect to the identif"ing witnesses, that6 Df we give credence to their testi(on", it appears that the" were a!le to and did o!serve full" the fact and general appearance of one of the three

alleged ro!!ers who was identified !" the( %$ (onths later as the defendant . . . . Certainl", if, at the ti(e of the incident, the" had recogni5ed the particular individual as one who( the" &new or as rese(!ling one with who( the" were ac?uainted, it is reasona!le to eCpect that the" would have given this infor(ation pro(ptl" to the police. . . . )n the state of this record, there was no plausi!le eCplanation for the failure of the two wo(en, or one of the(, to recogni5ed the defendant at the ti(e of the ro!!er" or, in an" event, to pass along to the police within a reasona!le ti(e infor(ation which would have led the( to identif" the defendant as one of the ro!!ers. 7e reali5e. . . . That the issue is one of credi!ilit" and that, generall" spea&ing, such issued is for the trier of the facts. 8ere, however, on the whole record, we have concluded that the finding of the :ur" as to the guilt of the defendant . . . is contrar" to the weight of the evidence> and that, in an" event, a new trial should !e had in the interests of :ustice. These four cases should suffice to illustrate how the courts react to this danger signal on the rather rare occasions when it is in the record !efore the(. Those occasions are rare, it is su!(itted, !ecause when the point actuall" arises in a case, it usuall" produces that reasona!le dou!t which causes a :ur" to ac?uit. Dt (a" also !e of so(e significance that when a :ur" convicts despite such a glaring wea&ness in the identification, it is usuall" in the t"pe of case that stirs up the greatest e(otions G seC cri(es and cri(es of violence. Co((on sense, however, dictates that when this danger signal is present in a case, and the failure of the witness or co(plainant to do what would nor(all" !e done, i.e., to na(e or designate the perpetrator of the cri(e i((ediatel", is not satisfactoril" eCplained, no conviction should occur or should !e allowed to stand in the a!sence of independent and persuasive evidence of the defendant's guilt. The prosecution did not endeavor to eCplain Christopher's failure to na(e the attac&er at the ti(e he was ?uestioned i((ediatel" after the cri(e. ro( '/)3 Mendo5a's testi(on", Christopher was at that ti(e coherent and answering clearl" ?uestions fro( the police. 7e further find o!:ectiona!le Christopher's identification of appellant during a @show-up@ at the police station. As testified to !" '/)3 Mendo5a, @D (ade confrontation !etween the(,@ referring to Christopher and appellant. '/)3 Mendo5a testified on the circu(stances surrounding the @confrontation@ !etween Christopher and appellant, thus6 O 7ho was a!le to arrest the suspectL A /) 9ddie 1on5ales sir. O And what did "ou do when "ou infor(ed a!out thisL A D invited again the e"e witness, the son of the victi(. O And what did "ou do when "ou invited the e"e witnessL A -e #a.e confrontation between the suspect and hi#. O 7hereL A Inside the roo# sir. O 7hen was thatL A Right after the suspect was arrested. O 7hen was he arrestedL A 0ece(!er #*, %99% CCC CCC CCC

O And then in the confrontation !etween the suspect and the e"e witness, what happenedL A The e"e witness positivel" identified the suspect as the one who sta!!ed the victi(. C)JRT6 7ho identifiedL A The e"e witness Eour 8onor. CCC CCC CCC D'CAH 'JHHA6 O /0actl&' where was the suspect when he was identified b& the witness L A Inside the office. O In what articular place inside &our officeL A Cri#e a$ainst person' ho#icide.
21

CCC CCC CCC O %o' when the accused was arrested and &ou were infor#ed about it' what did &ou doL A D investigated again, after I #ade a confrontation between the son of the victi# and the suspect. O %on of the victi# aloneL A 1o$ether with An$elinaL
22

CCC CCC CCC O 'o the suspect was turn-over ;sic< over to "ouL A Ees, sir. O 7hen was thatL A 0a" after 0ece(!er #*, %99#. O And when the suspect was turned-over to "our office, who were thereL A The night shift in charge. O 8ow a!out the son of the victi(, were ;sic< he thereL A D :ust saw hi( ;there< when D arrive ;sic<. O 7hat happened when the" arrived. A D too& i((ediatel" the state(ent of the son of the victi(. O 0id "ou point the( the suspectL

A -o, sir. O -as there confrontation between the suspect and the son to$ether with An$elinaL A (es' sir. O 7hat happened during the confrontationL A 8e pin-pointed the suspect. O 7ho pin-pointed the suspectL A The son of the victi(. O 8ow a!out AngelinaL A 'he did not.
23

CCC CCC CCC O And fro( that ti(e how long did it ta&eL 7hen the" arrive ;sic<, how long ;did< this Christopher 2ictoria identif" the suspectL A I##ediatel& durin$ #& investi$ation I #ade a confrontation with the suspect and the victi#' and he pin2pointed to #e that the suspect was reall& the one. O (ou said that the suspect was inside the 3ail' when &ou #ade the investi$ation in &our office' how far is &our office to the detention cell L A About three #eters. O -hen did the confrontation e0actl& too. *sic+ placeL A I let the son of the victi# to $o *sic+ nearer the detention cell . C)JRT6 0id "ou tell so(ething, did "ou as&ed ;sic< did "ou tell an"thing to the son !efore the confrontationL A Ees, sir. C)JRT6 7hat did the son told ;sic< "ouL A 8e told (e he can. O And after he told "ou he can, what did "ou doL A I #ade confrontation between the#. C)JRT6 And during the confrontation, what did the son tell "ouL A 8e is Ro(an Meneses.

C)JRT6 0id "ou as&ed ;sic< hi( where did he saw ;sic< the person pointed toL A Ees, he told (e that he saw hi( in the roo( the" rented at Alinia. 26 Dn 1ua4on v. Court of Appeals, 2: the Court stated that an identification of the accused during a @showup@ or where the suspect alone is !rought face to face with the witness for identification, 27 is seriousl" flawed. 7e stated thus6 . . . the (ode of identification other than an identification parade is a show-up, the presentation of a single suspect to a witness for purposes of identification. Together with its aggravated for(s, it constitutes the (ost grossl" suggestive identification procedure now or ever used !" the police ;%eeHouisell, 0avid 7., Kaplan, .ohn, and 7alt5, .on R., Cases and Materials on 9vidence> 7all, 9"ewitness Ddentification in Cri(inal Cases, %93, ed., p. %#33< Dn the 1ua4on case, during a first encounter in the -ational +ureau of Dnvestigation ;-+D< head?uarters, the accused therein was pointed to !" the alleged e"ewitnesses after an -+D agent first pointed hi( out to the(. The Court said that @Mthe e"ewitnesses'N Ddentification of MpetitionerN fro( a Msu!se?uentN lineup at the -+D was not spontaneous and independent. An -+D agent i(properl" suggested to the( petitioner's person.@ 27 ro( Mendo5a's testi(on" we can gather that appellant was presented as the suspect in the cri(e to Christopher inside Mendo5a's office in the 8o(icide 'ection of the police station, or later in the detention cell the !o" was (ade to approach. 7hile Mendo5a did not literall" point to appellant as in the 1ua4on case, e?uall" pervasive in the @confrontation@ in the instant case is what 7ig(ore calls @the suggestion of guilt" identit".@ 28 9ven appl"ing the totalit" of circu(stances test set in eople v. 1eehan.ee' 5r., 2, for(ulated and used !" courts in resolving the ad(issi!ilit" and relia!ilit" of out-of-court identifications, we (ust hold the identification of appellant !" Christopher to !e seriousl" flawed. The test lists three factors to consider6 . . . ;%< the witness' opportunit" to view the cri(inal at the ti(e of the cri(e> ;#< the witness' degree of attention at that ti(e> ;3< the accurac" of an" prior description given !" the witness> ;=< the level of certaint" de(onstrated !" the witness at the identification> ;*< the length of ti(e !etween the cri(e and the identification> and, ;3< the suggestiveness of the identification process. ;%ee -eil v. +iggers, =09 J' %,, ;%9$3<> Manson v. +rathwaite, =,# J' 9, ;%9$$<> 0el Car(en, Cri(inal /rocedure, Haw and /ractice, 3rd 9dition., p. 3=3< Dndeed, we cannot discount the angle that "oung Christopher was influenced !" prior pro(pting or (anipulation !" an adult, his aunt Angelina. Rather than reinforce the identification, the circu(stances pointed out !" the trial court plants in (ind the plausi!ilit" that appellant's wife Angelina could have coached the "oung i(pressiona!le Christopher. These circu(stances are6 irst, was the insistence of Mappellant'sN wife as testified !" the accused hi(self, that he was the one who &illed the victi(, and was pointed to !" her as the assailant, thus, he was arrested. Another was the resent(ent of the accused against his !rother-in-lawvicti( !rought a!out !" the latter's intervention in that serious ?uarrel !etween hi( and his wife. Thirdl", that the accused no dou!t disli&ed the financial support and su!sistence !eing given !" his wife to the victi(. Ouite revealingl", Angelina was the one who went to the police to i(plicate appellant in the cri(e and who directed the police to where he could !e found. 'he later herded Christopher to the police station for the !o" to give his state(ent. 'he was also with the !o" when he was (ade to identif" appellant during the @confrontation.@ 7e see Angelina's actuations as suspect, especiall" when we consider that per '/)3 Mendo5a's testi(on", when he ?uestioned Christopher i((ediatel" after the cri(e, the !o" could not si(pl" na(e the attac&er. And while the a!ove circu(stances, particularl", the supposed resent(ent of appellant against the victi(, who was his wife Angelina's !rother, and env" proceeding fro( Angelina's giving financial

support to the victi( (a" constitute (otive, (otive alone, without credi!le positive identification, cannot !e a !asis for conviction. 30 The /eople points out that appellant had ver!all" ad(itted having co((itted the cri(e at the ti(e of his arrest and later during the conduct of the investigation. 31 The appellant however during the trial denied having (ade such ver!al ad(issions of guilt. 1ranting ar$uendo that appellant indeed (ade such ver!al ad(issions, the sa(e would not !e ad(issi!le in evidence against hi( !ecause the constitutional preconditions for its ad(ission were not co(plied with. The (ere assertion !" a police office that after an accused was infor(ed of his constitutional right to re(ain silent and to counsel he readil" ad(itted his guilt, does not (a&e the supposed confession ad(issi!le against the purported confessant. 32 8ere, it was not even shown that appellant's supposed ad(issions of guilt were (ade with !enefit of counsel. 33 Dt is conceded that appellant's defense of ali!i is wea&. 36 The settled rule however is that conviction should rest on the strength of the prosecution and not on the wea&ness of the defense. 3: The onus is on the prosecution to prove the accused guilt" !e"ond reasona!le dou!t, in view of the constitutional presu(ption of the innocence of the accused. 37 7e (ust rule that the prosecution failed to so discharge its !urden. 789R9 )R9, in view of the foregoing, the 0ecision dated .ul" #3, %993 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, -ational Capital .udicial Region, +ranch 3= in Cri(inal Case -o. 9%-%0%,$, convicting appellant R)MA- M9-9'9' " MARD- is R929R'90 and appellant is ACOJDTT90 of the cri(e charged on the ground of reasona!le dou!t. The Court orders his R9H9A'9 fro( co((it(ent unless he is held for so(e other legal cause or ground. Costs de oficio. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 16:17,

$!/ 13, 2006

SIENA REALT8 COR ORATION, !( r&pr&(&"+&# 1/ L8DIA CO HAO !"# LILI;ETH $ANLUGON, petitioner, vs. HON. LOLITA GAL<LANG, !( r&(i#i"' =-#'& o2 +)& RTC o2 $!"il!, ;r!"%) 66> ANITA CO NG i" +r-(+ 2or ROC9EFELLER NG> !"# +)& COURT OF A EALS, S ECIAL 13+) DI?ISION, respondents. 09CD'D)CAR IO $ORALES, J.@ Challenged via petition for review on certiorari under Rule =* of the %99$ Revised Rules of Court is the 'epte(!er %3, #000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-1.R. '/ -o. *9093, %iena Realt& Corporation' as represented b& 6&dia Co "ao and 6ilibeth Manlu$on v. "on. 6olita 7. !al2lan$' as residin$ 5ud$e of ,r. 88 of the R1C of Manila' and Anita Co 9$ in trust for Roc.efeller 9$. 'ince the petition attri!utes grave a!use of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in the issuance of su!:ect resolution, what should have !een filed was one for certiorari under Rule 3*. )n this score alone, the petition (ust !e denied due course. +ut even if technicalit" were set aside, :ust the sa(e the petition fails. /etitioners filed a petition for certiorari !efore the Court of Appeals on .une $, #000 or allegedl" on the 30th da" fro( their receipt of the March #3, #000 )rder of +ranch == of the Manila Regional Trial Court den"ing their (otion for Reconsideration of said courtPs )rder #i(*i((i"', on (otion of private respondent, +)&ir %o*pl!i"+. The Court of Appeals, !" Resolution% of .une #0, #000, dis(issed petitionerPs petition for certiorari, however, for !eing filed out of ti(e, it holding that6

/er records, it appears that petitioners had onl" until Ma" #9, #000 within which to file the /etition for Certiorari considering the following6 %. /etitioners received a cop" of the )cto!er #0, %999 )rder den"ing their McounselPsN -otice of 7ithdrawal Mand li&ewise den"ing petitionersP Motion for Reconsideration of the )rder dis(issing their co(plaintN on -ove(!er ,, %999> #. /etitioners filed a (otion for reconsideration of the )cto!er #0, %999 )rder on -ove(!er %$, %999> and that 3. /etitioners received a cop" of the March #3, #000 )rder den"ing their (otion for reconsideration on April ,, #000. The instant petition was filed on .une $, #000 or nine ;9< da"s late. Thus, for !eing !elatedl" filed, the instant petition is here!" 0D'MD''90. /etitioners thereupon filed ;on .ul" %0, #000< a (otion for reconsideration # of the a!ove-said .une #0, #000 )rder of the appellate court. Dn the (eanti(e, this Court issued in A.M. -o. 00-#-03-'C ;Re$la#entar& eriod to File etitions for Certiorari and etition for Review on Certiorari< a Resolution dated August %, #000 approving the a(end(ent to the following provision of 'ection =, Rule 3* of the %99$ Rules of Civil /rocedure6 '9CTD)- =. 7here petition filed. Q T)& p&+i+io" *!/ 1& 2il&# "o+ l!+&r +)!" (i5+/ A70B #!/( 2ro* "o+i%& o2 +)& 3-#'*&"+, or#&r, r&(ol-+io" (o-')+ +o 1& !((!il&# i" +)& S-pr&*& Co-r+ or, if it relates to the acts or o(issions of a lower court or of a corporation, !oard, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court eCercising :urisdiction over the territorial area as defined !" the 'upre(e Court. Dt (a" also !e filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the sa(e is in aid of its :urisdiction. Df it involves the acts or o(issions of a ?uasi-:udicial agenc", and unless otherwise provided !" law or these Rules, the petition shall !e filed in and cogni5a!le onl" !" the Court of Appeals. I2 +)& p&+i+io"&r )!# 2il&# ! *o+io" 2or "&. +ri!l or r&%o"(i#&r!+io" !2+&r "o+i%& o2 (!i# 3-#'*&"+, or#&r or r&(ol-+io", +)& p&rio# )&r&i" 2i5&# ()!ll 1& i"+&rr-p+&#. I2 +)& *o+io" i( #&"i&#, +)& !''ri&0&# p!r+/ *!/ 2il& +)& p&+i+io" .i+)i" +)& r&*!i"i"' p&rio#, 1-+ .)i%) ()!ll "o+ 1& l&(( +)!" 2i0& A:B #!/( i" !"/ &0&"+, r&%Co"&# 2ro* "o+i%& o2 (-%) #&"i!l. No &5+&"(io" o2 +i*& ()!ll 1& 'r!"+&# &5%&p+ 2or +)& *o(+ %o*p&lli"' r&!(o" !"# i" "o %!(& +o &5%&&# 2i2+&&" A1:B #!/( . ;9(phasis and underscoring supplied< The a(end(ent to 'ec. =, Rule 3*, which too& effect on 'epte(!er %, #000, reads6 '9CTD)- =. 7hen and where petition filed. Q The petition shall !e filed not later than siCt" ;30< da"s fro( notice of the :udg(ent, order or resolution. I" %!(& ! *o+io" 2or r&%o"(i#&r!+io" or "&. +ri!l i( +i*&l/ 2il&#, .)&+)&r (-%) *o+io" i( r&4-ir&# or "o+, +)& (i5+/ A70B #!/ p&rio# ()!ll 1& %o-"+&# 2ro* "o+i%& o2 +)& #&"i!l o2 +)& (!i# *o+io". The petition shall !e filed in the 'upre(e Court or, if it relates to the acts or o(issions of a lower court or of a corporation, !oard, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court eCercising :urisdiction over the territorial area as defined !" the 'upre(e Court. Dt (a" also !e filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the sa(e is in the aid of its appellate :urisdiction, or in the 'andigan!a"an if it is in aid of its appellate :urisdiction. Df it involves the acts or o(issions of a ?uasi-:udicial agenc", unless otherwise provided !" law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed in and cogni5a!le onl" !" the Court of Appeals. -o eCtension of ti(e to file the petition shall !e granted eCcept for co(pelling reason and in no case eCceeding fifteen ;%*< da"s. ;9(phasis and underscoring supplied< The Court of Appeals, acting on petitionersP Motion for Reconsideration of its )rder of .une #0, #000, denied, !" Resolution of 'epte(!er %3, #000,3 said (otion in this wise6 CCC

ro( the argu(ent espoused !" petitionersP counsel, it appears that he overloo&ed the provision of second paragraph of 'ec. =, Rule 3* of the %99$ Rules of Civil /rocedure as a(ended per 'upre(e Court Circular dated .ul" #%, %99,, which provides as follows6 @Df the petitioner had filed a (otion for new trial or reconsideration after notice of said :udg(ent, order or resolution, the period herein fiCed shall !e interrupted. Df the (otion is denied, the aggrieved part" (a" file the petition within the re(aining period, !ut which shall not !e less than five ;*< da"s in an" event, rec&oned fro( notice of such denial. -o eCtension of ti(e shall !e granted eCcept for the (ost co(pelling reason and in no case to eCceed fifteen ;%*< da"s.@ 2eril", the siCt" ;30< da" period within which to file a /etition for Certiorari is not counted fro( the date of the receipt of the denial of Motion for Reconsideration, !ut fro( the date of the receipt of the ?uestioned order or decision, eCcept that such 30-da" period is interrupted upon the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. 789R9 )R9, for reason a!ove-stated, the instant (otion is 09-D90. Conse?uentl", the present /etition for Certiorari is 0D'MD''90 with finalit". ;Jnderscoring supplied< 8ence, the petition at !ar, petitioners challenging the 'epte(!er %3, #000 Resolution of the appellant court as having !een . . . D''J90 7DT8 1RA29 A+J'9 ) 0D'CR9TD)- A' DT 7A' MA09 7DT8)JT TAKD-1 /RD)R .J0DCDAH -)TDC9 ) 'J/R9M9 C)JRT A.M. -). 00-# - 03 'C 78DC8 R9')HJTD)- T))K 9 9CT )- '9/T9M+9R %, #000, A-0 78DC8 AM9-090 T89 '9C)-0 /ARA1RA/8 ) '9CTD)- =, RJH9 3* ) T89 %99$ RJH9' ) CD2DH /R)C90JR9.= ;Jnderscoring supplied< /etitionerPs argu(ent is well-ta&en. 'ection %, Rule %#9 of the Rules on 9vidence reads6 '9CTD)- %. =-#i%i!l "o+i%&, .)&" *!"#!+or/. Q A court shall ta&e :udicial notice, .i+)o-+ +)& i"+ro#-%+io" o2 &0i#&"%&, of the eCistence and territorial eCtent of states, their political histor", for(s of govern(ent and s"(!ols of nationalit", the law of nations, the ad(iralt" and (ariti(e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor" of the /hilippines, +)& o22i%i!l !%+( o2 the legislative, eCecutive and 3-#i%i!l #&p!r+*&"+( of the /hilippines, the laws of nature, the (easure of ti(e, and the geographical divisions. ;9(phasis and underscoring supplied< 9ven if petitioner did not raise or allege the a(end(ent in their (otion for reconsideration !efore it, the Court of Appeals should have ta&en (andator" :udicial notice of this CourtPs resolution in A.M. Matter -o. 00-0#-03 'C. The resolution did not have to specif" that it had retroactive effect as it pertains to a procedural (atter. Contrar" to private respondentPs allegation that the (atter was no longer pending and undeter(ined, the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was ti(el" filed was still pending reconsideration when the a(end(ent too& effect on 'epte(!er %, #000, hence, covered !" the its retroactive application. The a(endator" rule in their favor notwithstanding, petitionersP petition fails as stated earl" on. The order of the trial court granting private respondentPs Motion to 0is(iss the co(plaint was a final, not interlocutor", order and as such, it was su!:ect to appeal, * not a petition for certiorari. At the ti(e petitioners filed !efore the appellate court their petition for certiorari on the 30th da" following their receipt of the )cto!er #0, %999 )rder of the trial court den"ing their Motion for Reconsideration of its dis(issal order, the said )cto!er #0, %999 )rder had !eco(e final and eCecutor" after the %*th da" following petitionersP receipt thereof. DHEREFORE, the instant petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, here!" DENIED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 11,288 A-'-(+ 18, 1,,7 RE U;LIC OF THE HILI INES, r&pr&(&"+&# 1/ THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF A EALS !"# =OSEFA GACOT, respondents. R9')HJTD)-

?ITUG, J.: The Repu!lic of the /hilippines, represented !" the 0irector of Hands, pra"s in the instant petition for review oncertiorari for the annul(ent of the decision, dated ## e!ruar" %99*, of the Court of Appeals affir(ing the %#th August %993 :udg(ent of the Regional Trial Court of /alawan ;+ranch *0-/uerto /rincesa< which has ad:udicated Hot -o. *33$ in Cadastral Case -o. %3, 1HR) Cadastral Record -o. %%33, to herein private respondent, now deceased .osefa 1acot, the clai(ant in the cadastral case. The antecedents are a(pl" su((ari5ed in the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals, vi46 The entire lot *33$ is !eing clai(ed !" .osefa 1acot as per answer she filed on .une $, %9$%. Dt appears fro( the record that the lot is located in +aranga" Hos Angeles, Magsa"sa", /alawan !ut the area was not indicated. Dt also appeared that Ceferino 'a!enacio is her co-owner. This case was set for hearing on August 9, %990 and the petitioner was represented !" Assistant /rovincial /rosecutor Re"naldo 1ua"co and Rogelio /aglinawan, Co((unit" 9nviron(ent and -atural Resources )fficer ;C9-R)< of /uerto /rincesa Cit" while the clai(ant appeared without counsel. Dn view thereof, the hearing was reset to August %3, %990. +efore the scheduled hearing on August %3, %990, the Court received a report fro( the Hand Registration Authorit" calling the Court's attention of the decision rendered !" .udge Horen5o 1arlitos on )cto!er #0, %9*0 declaring this lot as propert" of the Repu!lic of the /hilippines. 0espite this declaration however, the petitioner nor the govern(ent did not !ar the clai(ant fro( filing her answer, possessing and occup"ing the lot and in fact accepted her taC pa"(ents and issuing her taC declaration on the sa(e. The clai(ant presented herself as witness as well as her son, 2icente 0antic, .r. The witnesses testified that .osefa 1acot was (arried to 2icente 0antic, 'r. in %9=0 and were in actual possession of the propert" for (ore than 30 "ears, having !ought the sa(e fro( Cipriana 0antic-Hlanera as per deed of sale dated April ##, %9** in Cu"ono dialect ;9Chi!it % and %-A<. 'ince she ac?uired the propert" fro( Cipriana Hlanera, she continued her occupation and introduced i(prove(ents thereon as well as declared Hot *33$ for taCation purposes in her na(e ;9Chi!it #< and paid the corresponding taCes thereon up to the present ti(e ;9Chi!it 3<. That clai(ant is now a widow and has * children na(el", 8ernando 0antic, Antero 0antic, elipe 0antic, e 0antic and 2icente 0antic, .r. Cipriano 'a!enacio, the alleged co-owner of clai(ant .osefa 1acot appeared in Court and (anifested that he is waiving his clai( over Hot *33$ in favor of .osefa 1acot who is in actual possession of the propert" as he is onl" a !oundar" owner. After the presentation of clai(ant and her son, the" offered their eChi!its and rested their case. Thereafter, the petitioner thru counsel (anifested that it is not presenting controverting evidence and is su!(itting the case for resolution. 1 )n 0* 'epte(!er %990, the trial court rendered :udg(ent ad:udicating Hot -o. *33$ to .osefa 1acot, thus G 789R9 )R9, this Court finds the clai( of .osefa 1acot 0antic to !e in order. Accordingl", Hot *33$ is here!" ad:udicated to .osefa 1acot-0antic, widow and a resident of +aranga" Hos Angeles, Magsa"sa", /alawan with all the i(prove(ents the, eon, su!:ect to the estate taC as provided !" law. ') )R09R90. 2

The Repu!lic, through the 'olicitor 1eneral, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. 0uring the pendenc" of the appeal, the )ffice of the 'olicitor 1eneral was a!le to verif" that Hot *33$ was earlier declared to !e the propert" of the Repu!lic in a decision rendered !" .udge Horen5o 1arlitos on #0 )cto!er %9*0 following an order of general default. The 'olicitor 1eneral thus filed a (otion with the appellate court to have the case reopened and re(anded to the court a :uo to allow the Repu!lic of the /hilippines to present the decision of .udge 1arlitos. Dn its resolution, dated #3 0ece(!er %99%, the Court of Appeals granted the (otion. 7hat transpired thereafter was narrated !" the trial court in its %#th August %993 decision> vi46 This case was set for hearing several ti(es for the govern(ent to present its evidence and for the parties to su!(it their respective (e(orandu( in support of their respective stand on the (atter. The clai(ant su!(itted her (e(orandu( while the govern(ent represented !" the Assistant /rovincial /rosecutor assigned to this sala has not presented an" witness to support the govern(ent's clai(, neither has he su!(itted an" (e(orandu( to support the govern(ent's stand on this (atter. 7ith the foregoing develop(ent, the Court is of the opinion that the su!se?uent application or clai( of .osefa 1acot-0antic on Hot *33$ which !eca(e part of the pu!lic do(ain where her occupation thereto having !een open to the whole world, pu!lic and notorious in the concept of an owner since 3, "ears ago was well ta&en and therefore entitled to the lawful ad:udication of Hot *33$ in her na(e. +esides, the govern(ent represented !" the Assistant /rovincial /rosecutor and the Co((unit" 9nviron(ent and -atural Resources )fficer ;C9-R)< for /uerto /rincesa Cit" and Cu"o, /alawan have not (ade an" protest nor interposed an" o!:ection on the clai( of .osefa 1acot during the hearings. -either was there a (anifestation of protest or clai( of govern(ent use co(ing fro( the (unicipal officials of Magsa"sa", /alawan despite notice sent to the( of the cadastral hearing. And the sad part was that the govern(ent had accepted without an" protest all the taCes due the propert" paid !" the clai(ant religiousl". This is not to sa" that this order has !een considered in the previous decision of this Court which is hereunder ?uoted as follows6 CCC CCC CCC 7ith this finding of the Court, it is its considered opinion and so holds, that there is no reason to distur! its previous decision afore?uoted. 3 An appeal was ta&en !" the Repu!lic fro( the decision of the trial court. Dn its now assailed decision of ## e!ruar" %99*, the Court of Appeals affir(ed in toto the :udg(ent of the trial court. The appellate court ratiocinated6 Dn its !rief, the )ffice of the 'olicitor 1eneral clai(s that @records of the re-hearing show that on )cto!er #0, %9*0, an order was, indeed, issued !" .udge Horen5o C. 1arlitos of the Court of irst Dnstance of /alawan, $th .udicial 0istrict, declaring that Hot -o. *33$ was a(ong lots declared as propert" of the Repu!lic of the /hilippines.@ ;p. 3, Appellant's +rief, p. %9, Rec.< Dt now invo&es Repu!lic Act -o. 93%, approved on .une 30, %9*3 and Repu!lic Act -o. #03%, which too& effect on .une 30, %9*,, !oth laws setting the ti(e li(its for the filing of applications, a(ong other things, for the reopening of :udicial proceedings on certain lands which were declared pu!lic land. Jnder R.A. #03%, the ti(e for filing an application shall not eCtend !e"ond 0ece(!er 3%, %93,. Thus, petitioner-appellant argues that since clai(ant-appellee .osefa 1acot filed her answer onl" on 0$ .une %9$%, the court a :uo did not ac?uire :urisdiction over the instant clai( since she did not file her answer within the period fiCed !" R.A. -o. #03%. This would !e true, if the )rder dated #0 )cto!er %9*0 of .udge Horen5o 1arlitos declaring Hot -o. *33$ as propert" of the Repu!lic of the /hilippines, was presented as evidence in the rehearing of this case. Jnfortunatel", the Repu!lic of the /hilippines failed to offer as its eChi!it the said order. There is no !asis for the appellant, therefore, to invo&e R.A. #03%, to support its clai( that clai(ant-appellee .osefa 1acot filed her answer !e"ond the period fiCed !" said law and therefore the court a :uo did not ac?uire :urisdiction over the case. /recisel", the purpose of the rehearing was to ena!le the Repu!lic of the /hilippines, thru the )ffice of the 'olicitor 1eneral, to present in evidence the said order. The 'olicitor 1eneral, in its Motion dated #% Ma" %99%, pra"ed that with regards to Hot -o. *33$ @the proceedings therein be ordered reopened and the sa(e !e re(anded to the court a :uo to enable the

Republic of the hilippines to present the 3ud$#ent dated 7ctober ;<' 1=>< of .udge Horen5o 1arlitos declaring Hot -o. *33$ as govern(ent propert".@ ;pp. 30-3%, Rollo< M9(phasis )ursN This Court granted the (otion and ordered the records of the case re(anded to the court a :uo for further proceedings @to enable the $overn#ent to present in evidence the 3ud$#ent dated 7ctober ;<' 1=><'declaring Hot -o. *33$ as govern(ent propert" . . .@ ;p. =#, Rollo< M9(phasis )ursN 0uring the rehearing, however, the 1overn(ent failed to present the said order of .udge 1arlitos in evidence. Thus, the court a :uo said in its appealed decision6 This case was set for hearing several ti(es for the govern(ent to present its evidence and for the parties to su!(it their respective (e(oranda in support of their respective stand on the (atter. The clai(ant su!(itted her (e(orandu( while the $overn#ent represented b& the Assistant rovincial rosecutor has not presented an& witness to present the $overn#ent)s clai# neither has he sub#itted an& #e#orandu# to support the $overn#ent)s stand on this #atter .@ ;see p. 9#, Rollo< M9(phasis )ursN Dt is the rule that @The court shall consider no evidence which has not !een for(all" offered.@ ;Rule %3#, 'ec. 3=< Dt is true that the )rder of #0 )cto!er %9*0 has !een appended to the records of this case ;see p. %9, Rec.<. +ut it is (isleading on the part of the 'olicitor 1eneral to state that @Records of the rehearing show that on )cto!er #0, %9*0, an order was, indeed, issued !" .udge Horen5o C. 1arlitos . . . .@ or, during the rehearing, as reflected in the appealed decision, the govern(ent did not present an" evidence nor an" (e(orandu( despite having !een ordered !" the court a :uo. @-either can 7e ta&e :udicial notice of the )rder of .udge 1arlitos. As a general rule, courts are not authori5ed to ta&e :udicial &nowledge of the contents of the record of other cases, in the ad:udication of cases pending !efore the(, even though the trial :udge in fact &nows or re(e(!ers the contents thereof, or even when said other cases have !een heard or are pending in the sa(e court and notwithstanding the fact that !oth cases (a" have !een heard or are reall" pending !efore the sa(e :udge. ;Municipal Council vs. Colegio de 'an .ose, et al., 1.R. -o. H-=*=30> 3% C...'. 3#3-3#=> cited in p. #*, 9vidence, 'econd 9d.> R... rancisco< Dndeed, the 1overn(ent (issed its opportunit" to have the clai( of .osefa 1acot, the herein appellee, declared as a nullit", considering that no evidence was presented !" it in opposition thereto. 6 Dn the instant petition, the Repu!lic, assigning a sole error, contends that G T89 8)-)RA+H9 C)JRT ) A//9AH' ;8A'< 9RR90 D- RJHD-1 T8AT T89R9 D' -) +A'D' )R /9TDTD)-9R T) D-2)K9 R.A. -o. #03% T) 'J//)RT DT' CHADM T8AT .)'9 A 1AC)T DH90 89R A-'79R +9E)-0 T89 /9RD)0 DA90 +E T89 'AD0 HA7 A-0 T89R9 )R9 T89 TRDAH C)JRT 0D0 -)T ACOJDR9 .JRD'0DCTD)- )29R T89 CA'9, 'D-C9 DT ;8A'< ADH90 T) ) 9R A' DT' 9A8D+DT T89 )R09R, 0AT90 )CT)+9R #0, %9*0 ) .J019 H)R9-B) 1ARHDT)'. : The 'olicitor 1eneral eCplains that the records of the reopened case would show that a certified cop" of the decision, dated #0 )cto!er %9*0, of .udge 1arlitos has !een appended to page %9 thereof. Dt is not evident, however, wh" the Assistant /rovincial /rosecutor and the Co((unit" 9nviron(ent and -atural Resources )fficer ;@C9-R)@< for /uerto /rincesa, representing the govern(ent during the rehearing, did not present it. The 'olicitor 1eneral, nevertheless, invo&es the rule that the Repu!lic is not estopped !" the (ista&e or error on the part of its officials or agents. Dn the (eanti(e, .osefa 1acot passed awa". The 'olicitor 1eneral thereupon (oved that the heirs of .osefa 1acot !e i(pleaded part" respondents in su!stitution for the deceased. The (otion was granted, and the heirs were directed to co((ent on the govern(ent's petition. To this da", private respondents have not su!(itted their co((ent. The Court, however, cannot allow the case to re(ain pending and unresolved indefinitel". Dt (ust now dispense, as it here!" dispenses, with such co((ent in order not to undul" dela" the re(and of the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Het it initiall" !e said that, indeed, the Court reali5es the points o!served !" the appellate court over which there should !e no ?uarrel. Firstl&, that the rules of procedure 7 and :urisprudence, 7 do not sanction the grant of evidentiar" value, 8 in ordinar" trials, , of evidence which is not for(all" offered, and secondl&, that ad:ective law is not to !e ta&en lightl" for, without it, the enforce(ent of su!stantive law (a" not re(ain assured. The Court (ust add, nevertheless, that technical rules of procedure are not ends in the(selves !ut pri(aril" devised and designed to help in the proper and eCpedient dispensation of :ustice. Dn appropriate cases, therefore, the rules (a" have to !e so construed 10 li!erall" as to (eet and advance the cause of su!stantial :ustice. urther(ore, 'ection %, Rule %#9, of the Rules of Court provides6 'ec. %. 5udicial notice' when #andator&. G A court shall ta&e :udicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the eCistence and territorial eCtent of states, their political histor", for(s of govern(ent and s"(!ols of nationalit", the law of nations, the ad(iralt" and (ariti(e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor" of the /hilippines, the official acts of the le$islative, eCecutive and 3udicialdepart(ents of the /hilippines, the laws of nature, the (easure of ti(e, and the geographical divisions. Mr. .ustice 9dgardo H. /aras 11 opined6 A court will ta&e :udicial notice of its own acts and records in the sa(e case, of facts esta!lished in prior proceedings in the sa(e case, of the authenticit" of its own records of another case !etween the sa(e parties, of the files of related cases in the sa(e court, and of pu!lic records on file in the sa(e court. Dn addition :udicial notice will !e ta&en of the record, pleadings or :udg(ent of a case in another court !etween the sa(e parties or involving one of the sa(e parties, as well as of the record of another case !etween different parties in the sa(e court. .udicial notice will also !e ta&en of court personnel. 12 The re(and of the case would li&ewise see( to !e unavoida!le. The area of Hot -o. *33$ clai(ed and awarded to the late .osefa 1acot had not !een specified in the records. Dndeed, on the !asis of the Certification of the orest Manage(ent 'ervices of the 0epart(ent of 9nviron(ent and -atural Resources, Hot -o. *33$, per Hand Classification ;HC< -o. %#=3 of %* .anuar" %933, would appear to contain an area of 39=,0=3 s?uare (eters, 300,000 s?uare (eters of which were classified as Aliena!le and 0isposa!le land and 9=,0=3 s?uare (eters as Ti(!erland, which under /rocla(ation -o. #%*#, dated #9 0ece(!er %9,%, had !een included to for( part of the Mangrove 'wa(p orest Reserve, closed for entr", eCploitation and settle(ent. 13 Dt !ehooves all concerned that the a!ove (atters !e carefull" loo&ed into, al!eit with reasona!le dispatch, for the final resolution of this case. 789R9 )R9, the case is R9MA-090 to the trial court for further proceedings for it to ascertain and resolve the conflicting clai(s of the parties confor(a!l" with the foregoing opinion of the Court. -o costs. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 1622,:

$!/ 31, 2001

?ICENTE DEL ROSARIO / NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. EO LE OF THE HILI INES, respondent. ARDO, J.@ /etitioner 2icente del Rosario " -icolas appeals via certiorari fro( a decision of the Court of Appeals% affir(ing with (odification the decision of the Regional Trial Court, +ulacan, +ranch #0, Malolos, and finding hi( guilt" !e"ond reasona!le dou!t of violation of /. 0. -o. %,33, as a(ended, !" Repu!lic Act -o. ,#9= ;illegal possession of firear(s<, sentencing hi( to four ;=< "ears, nine ;9< (onths

and eleven ;%%< da"s of prision correccional' as (ini(u(, to siC ;3< "ears, eight ;,< (onths and one ;%< da" of prision #a&or' as (aCi(u(, and to pa" a fine of /30,000.00.1wphi1.nt )n .une %$, %993, Assistant /rovincial /rosecutor 9ufracio '. Mar?ue5 of +ulacan filed with the Regional Trial Court, +ulacan, Malolos an Dnfor(ation charging petitioner 2icente del Rosario " -icolas with violation of /. 0. -o. %,33, as follows6 @That on or a!out the %*th da" of .une %993, in the (unicipalit" of -or5agara", /rovince of +ulacan, /hilippines, and within the :urisdiction of this 8onora!le Court, the a!ove-na(ed accused, did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" have in his possession under his custod" and control, the following, to wit6 @a< )ne ;%< pc. /istol Cal. =* '-6$01#3$9# ;wIo license< @!< )ne ;%< pc. Revolver Cal. ## '-6=,3$3 ;wIo license< @c< Twent" 'even ;#$< rds live a((os. or cal. .=* @d< ive ;*< pcs. Maga5ines for cal. .=* @e< 9ight ;,< rds live a((unitions for cal. ## @f< ive ;*< pcs. Maga5ines short for cal. *.*3 ;M%3< @g< Twent" ;#0< rds live a((unitions for cal *.*3. @without first having o!tained@ a proper license therefor. @Contrar" to law.@# )n .une #*, %993, the trial court arraigned the petitioner. 8e pleaded not guilt". 3 Trial ensued. The facts, as found !" the Court of Appeals, are as follows6 @'o(eti(e in Ma" %993, the police received a report that accused-appellant 2icente del Rosario was in possession of certain firear(s without the necessar" licenses. Acting upon the report, /I'r. Dnsp. .erito Adi?ue of the /-/ Cri(inal Dnvestigation 1roup at Ca(p )livas, /a(panga in?uired fro( the /-/ irear(s and 9Cplosive 0ivision @whether or not the report was true. )n Ma" %0, %993, /I'r. Dnsp. 9dwin C. Ro?ue of the /-/ irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision issued a certification ;9Chi!it H< stating that per records in his office, the appellant is not a licensedIregistered firear( holder of an" &ind and cali!er. Ar(ed with the said certification, /I'r. Dnsp. Adi?ue applied for a search warrant to ena!le his tea( to search the house of appellant.1wphi1.nt @)n .une %3, %993, a search warrant ;9Chi!it A< was issued !" .udge 1il e(ande5, 'r. of the Regional Trial Court of Oue5on Cit", +ranch #%$, authori5ing the search of the residence of appellant at +aranga" Tig!e, -or5agara", +ulacan. = )n .une %*, %993, at a!out $600 o'cloc& in the (orning, a tea( led !" /I'r. Dnsp. Adi?ue went to -or5agara" to serve the warrant. +efore proceeding to the residence of the appellant, the police officers re?uested +aranga" Chair(an Rogelio de 'ilva and +aranga" Council(an Aurelio /anteleon to acco(pan" the( in the i(ple(entation of the warrant. Jpon arrival at the house of appellant, the police officers introduced the(selves to the wife of appellant. 7hen the appellant ca(e out, /I'r. Dnsp. Adi?ue infor(ed hi( that the" had a search warrant and that the" were authori5ed to search his house. After appellant gave his per(ission, the police officers conducted a search of the house. The search "ielded the following ite(s6 ;a< a cali!er .=* pistol with 'erial -o. $03$9# with five (aga5ines of cali!er .=* ;9Chi!its + and 8< found at the (aster's !edroo(> ;!< five (aga5ines of *.*3 M-%3 rifle and two radios ;9Chi!its C to C-=< found in the roo( of appellant's daughter> and ;c< a cali!er .## revolver with 'erial -o. =,3$3 ;9Chi!it < containing , pieces of live a((unition ;9Chi!it M< found in the &itchen of the house. 7hen as&ed a!out his license to possess the firear(s, the appellant failed to produce an". This pro(pted the police officers to sei5e the su!:ect firear(s.

@'/)# Marion Monte5on, one of the searching officers, prepared three separate inventories of the sei5ed ite(s ;9Chi!its 8, M and -<. The inventories were signed !" /I'r. Dnsp. Adi?ue, the appellant and the !aranga" officials who witnessed the search. Thereafter '/)# Monte5on prepared a certification of orderl" search ;9Chi!it D< which was signed !" the appellant and the !aranga" officials attesting to the orderl" conduct of the search. @ or his defense, appellant contends that he had a license for the cali!er .=* pistol recovered in his !edroo( and that the other ite(s sei5ed during the search including the cali!er .## revolver, were (erel" planted !" the police officers. Appellant li&ewise assails the (anner in which the search was carried out, clai(ing that the police officers :ust !arged into his house without as&ing per(ission. urther(ore, he clai(ed that the !aranga" officials arrived onl" after the police alread" had finished the search. @After trial and on .ul" #, %99,, the trial court rendered a :udg(ent of conviction, the dispositive portion of which reads6 @789R9 )R9, pre(ises considered, the Court finds the accused 2DC9-T9 09H R)'ARD) " -DC)HA' guilt" !e"ond reasona!le dou!t of violation of /. 0. -o. %,33 as charged under the Dnfor(ation dated .une %$, %993. @Confor(a!l" with the provisions of said law, as a(ended !" Repu!lic Act -o. ,#9=, and pursuant to the provisions, of the Dndeter(inate 'entence Haw, the Court here!" sentences the accused to suffer i(prison(ent of siC ;3< (onths of arresto (a"or, as (ini(u(, to siC ;3< "ears of prision correctional, as (aCi(u(, and to pa" a fine of ifteen. Thousand /esos ;/%*,000.00<. )n .ul" #0, %99,, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing the decision for !eing contrar" to facts and the law.3 )n .ul" 9, %999, the Court of Appeals pro(ulgated its decision affir(ing with (odification the decision of the trial court as set out in the opening paragraph of this decision. $ )n August %0, %999, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a (otion for reconsideration andIor new trial., 8e contended that the certification issued !" the Chief, irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /hilippine -ational /olice stating that the person na(ed therein had not !een issued a firear( license referred to a certain 2icente @2ic@ del Rosario of !aranga" +igte, -or5agara", +ulacan, not to hi(. 8e co(es fro( !aranga" Tig!e, -or5agara", +ulacan, and that he has a valid firear( license. )n e!ruar" ##, #000, the Court of Appeals denied the (otion for reconsideration for lac& of (erit. 9 8ence, this appeal.%0 /etitioner su!(its that the search conducted at his residence was illegal the search warrant was issued in violation of the Constitution%% and conse?uentl", the evidence sei5ed was inad(issi!le. 8e also su!(its that he had a license for the .=* cali!er firear( and a((unition sei5ed in his !edroo(. The other firear(, a .## cali!er revolver sei5ed in a drawer at the &itchen of his house, a (aga5ine for *.*3 ((. cal. Ar(alite rifle, and two #-wa" radios found in his daughter's !edroo(, were either planted !" the police or illegall" sei5ed, as the" were not (entioned in the search warrant. 7e find the petition i(pressed with (erit. 7e define the issues as follows6 Fir(+@ whether petitioner had a license for the .=* cali!er Colt pistol and a((unition sei5ed in his !edroo(> and S&%o"#@ whether the .## cali!er revolver sei5ed in a drawer at the &itchen of his house, a (aga5ine for *.*3 ((. cal. Ar(alite rifle and two #-wa" radios found in his daughter's !edroo(, were planted !" the police or were illegall" sei5ed. 7e shall resolve the issues in seriati#. Fir(+@ The .=* cal. Colt pistol in ?uestion was dul" licensed.

-or(all", we do not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts. %# 8owever, this case co(es within the eCceptions. %3 The @findings of fact !" the Court of Appeals will not !e distur!ed !" the Court unless these findings are not supported !" evidence.@ %= Dn this case, the findings of the lower courts even directl" contradict the evidence. 8ence, we review the evidence. The trial court held that the cop" of the license presented was !lurred, and that in an" event, the court could rel" on the certification dated Ma" %0, %993, of ?'r. Dnspector 9dwin C. Ro?ue, Chief, Records +ranch, irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /hilippine -ational /olice stating that 2icente @2ic@ del Rosario of +aranga" ;i'+&, -or5agara", +ulacan is not a licensedIregistered firear( holder of an" &ind and cali!er.%* As against this, petitioner su!(itted that he was not the person referred to in the said certification !ecause he is 2icente del Rosario " -icolas fro( +aranga" Ti'1&, -or5agara", +ulacan. The Court ta&es :udicial notice of the eCistence of !oth !aranga" Tig!e and !aranga" +igte, in -or5agara", +ulacan.%3 Dn fact, the trial court erred grievousl" in not ta&ing :udicial notice of the !aranga"s within its territorial :urisdiction, !elieving the prosecution's su!(ission that there was onl" !aranga" Tig!e, and that !aranga" +igte in the certification was a t"pographical error. %$ /etitioner presented to the head of the raiding tea(, /olice 'enior Dnspector .erito A. Adi?ue, Chief, )perations +ranch, /-/ Cri(inal Dnvestigation Co((and, a valid firear( license. The court is dut" !ound to eCa(ine the evidence assiduousl" to deter(ine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Dt is true that the court (a" rel" on the certification of the Chief, irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/ on the a!sence of a firear( license.%, 8owever, such certification referred to another individual and thus, cannot prevail over a valid firear( license dul" issued to petitioner. Dn this case, petitioner presented the printed co(puteri5ed cop" of Hicense -o. RCH %3%=0#%9%* issued to hi( on .ul" %3, %993, eCpiring in .anuar" %99*, !" the Chief, irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/ under the signature of Re"naldo 2. 2elasco, 'r. 'upt. ;1'C< /-/, Chief, 9).%9 )n the dorsal side of the printed co(puteri5ed license, there is sta(ped the words @2alidit" of co(puteri5ed license is eCtended until renewed license is printed@ dated .anuar" %$, %99*, signed !" /olice Chief Dnspector ran&lin '. Alfa!eto, Chief, Hicence +ranch, 9).#0 Coupled with this indefinite eCtension, petitioner paid the license fees for the eCtension of the license for the neCt two-"ear period.#% Conse?uentl", we find that petitioner was the holder of a valid firear( license for the .=* cali!er Colt pistol sei5ed in the !edroo( of his house on .une %*, %993.## As re?uired, petitioner presented the license to the head of the raiding tea(, /olice 'enior Dnspector .erito A. Adi?ue of the Cri(inal Dnvestigation 0ivision 1roup, /-/.#3 As a senior police officer, 'enior Dnspector Adi?ue could easil" deter(ine the genuineness and authenticit" of the co(puteri5ed printed license presented. 8e (ust &now the co(puteri5ed license printed for(. The sta(p is clearl" visi!le. 8e could decipher the words and the signature of the authori5ed signing official of the irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/. 8e !elonged to the sa(e national police organi5ation. -evertheless, 'enior Dnsp. Adi?ue re:ected the license presented !ecause, according to hi(, it was eCpired. 8owever, assu(ing that the license presented was eCpired during the period .anuar" %99* to .anuar" %99$, still, possession of the firear( in ?uestion, a .=* cali!er Colt pistol with serial -o. $01#3$9#, during that period was not illegal. The firear( was &ept at ho(e, not carried outside residence. )n .une %*, %993, at the ti(e of the sei5ure of the firear( in ?uestion, po((&((io" o2 2ir&!r* .i+) !" &5pir&# li%&"(& .!( "o+ %o"(i#&r&# -"l!.2-l, provided that the license had not !een cancelled or revo&ed. Repu!lic Act -o. ,#9=, providing that possession of a firear( with an eCpired license was unlawful too& effect onl" on .ul" $, %99$. #= Dt could not !e given retroactive effect.#* According to firear( licensing regulations, the renewal of a firear( license was auto(aticall" applied for upon pa"(ent of the license fees for the renewal period. The eCpired license was not cancelled or revo&ed. Dt served as te(porar" authorit" to possess the firear( until the renewed license was issued. Meanti(e, the applicant (a" &eep the gun at ho(e pending renewal of the firear( license and issuance of a printed co(puteri5ed license. 8e was not o!liged to surrender the weapon. /rinted at the dorsal side of the co(puteri5ed license is a notice reading6 @DM/)RTA-T %. This firear( license is valid for two ;#< "ears. 9Chi!it this license whenever de(anded !" proper authorit". #. 'urrender "our firear(Is to the nearest /-/ Jnit upon r&0o%!+io" or +&r*i"!+io" of this license. Jnder an" of the following instances, "our license shall !e revo&ed for which reason "our firear(Is isIare su!:ect to confiscation and itsItheir forfeiture in favor of the govern(ent. a. ailure to notif" the Chief of /-/ in writing of "our change of address, andIor ?ualification.

!. ailure to r&"&. this license 1/ p!/i"' !""-!l li%&"(&, 2&&(, .i+)i" (i5 A7B *o"+)( 2ro* /o-r 1ir+) *o"+). R&"&.!l o2 /o-r li%&"(& %!" 1& *!#& .i+)i" /o-r 1ir+) *o"+) or (onth preceding "our !irth (onth. Hate renewal shall !e penali5ed with *0F surcharge for the first (onth ;fro( the first da" to the last da" of this (onth< followed !" an additional #*F surcharge for all of the succeeding five ;*< (onths co(pounded (onthl". c. Hoss of firear(Is through negligence. d. Carr"ing of firear(Is outside of residence without appropriate per(it andIor carr"ing firear(Is in prohi!ited places. e. Conviction !" co(petent court for a cri(e involving (oral turpitude or for an" offense where the penalt" carries an i(prison(ent of (ore than siC ;3< (onths or fine of at least /l,000.00. f. 0is(issal for cause fro(, the service. g. ailure to sign license, or sign D0 picture or affiC right thu(! (ar&. 3. Jnauthori5ed loan of firear(Is to another person is punisha!le !" per(anent dis?ualification and forfeiture of the firear( in favor of the govern(ent. =. Df ter(ination is due to death, "our neCt of &in should surrender "our firear(Is to the nearest /-/ Jnit. or those within Metro, Manila, surrender should !e (ade with 9), Ca(p Cra(e. *. 7hen firear(s !eco(e per(anentl" unservicea!le, the" should !e deposited with the nearest /-/ Jnit and ownership should !e relin?uished in writing so that firear(s (a" !e disposed of in accordance with law. 3. Application for the purchase of a((unition should !e (ade in case of a resident of Metro Manila direct to the Chief, 9) and for residents of a /rovince to secure reco((endation letter to the nearest /-/ /rovincial Co((and who will thereafter endorse sa(e to C8D9 , 9) for issuance of the per(it. Hicense (ust !e presented !efore an authorit" to purchase a((o could !e o!tained.@#3 Dndeed, as heretofore stated, petitioner dul" paid the license fees for the auto(atic renewal of the firear( license for the neCt two "ears upon eCpiration of the license in .anuar", %99*, as evidenced !" official receipt -o. $3%*%,3, dated .anuar" %$, %99*. #$ The license would !e renewed, as it was, !ecause petitioner still possessed the re?uired ?ualifications. Meanti(e, the validit" of the license was eCtended until the renewed co(puteri5ed license was printed. Dn fact, a renewed license was issued on .anuar" %$, %99$, for the succeeding two-"ear period.#, Aside fro( the clearl" valid and su!sisting license issued to petitioner, on .anuar" #*, %99*, the Chief, /hilippine -ational /olice issued to hi( a per(it to carr" firear( outside residence valid until .anuar" #*, %993, for the firear( in ?uestion. #9 The Chief, /hilippine -ational /olice would not issue a per(it to carr" firear( outside residence unless petitioner had a valid and su!sisting firear( license. Although the per(it to carr" firear( outside residence was valid for onl" one "ear, and eCpired on .anuar" #*, %993, such per(it is proof that the regular firear( license was renewed and su!sisting within the two"ear ter( up to .anuar" %99$.@ A /er(it to Carr" irear( )utside Residence presupposes that the part" to who( it is issued is dul" licensed to possess the firear( in ?uestion.@ 30 Jn?uestiona!l", on .anuar" %$, %99$, the Chief, irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/ renewed petitioner's license for the . =* cal. Colt pistol in ?uestion.3% Clearl" then> petitioner had a valid firear( license during the interregnu( !etween .anuar" %$, %99*, to the issuance of his renewed license on .anuar" %$, %99$. inall", there is no rh"(e or reason wh" the Court of Appeals and the trial court did not accept with alacrit" the certification dated .une #*, %993, of /I'r. Dnspector 9dwin C. Ro?ue, 3# Chief, Records +ranch, irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/ that 2icente -. del Rosario of +aranga" Tig!e, -or5agara", +ulacan is a licensedIregistered holder of /istol, Colt cali!er .=* with serial nu(!er $01#3$9#, covered !" co(puteri5ed license issued dated .une %*, %99*, with an eCpir" date .anuar" %99$.33 Reinforcing the afore(entioned certification, petitioner su!(itted another certification dated August #$, %999, stating that 2icente -. del Rosario of +aranga" Tig!e, -or5agara", +ulacan, was issued firear( license -o. RH-C%3%=0#%9%*, for cali!er .=* /istol with 'erial -u(!er $01#3$9# ' for the

"ears covering the period fro( .ul" %3, %993 to .anuar" %99*, and the eCtension appearing at the !ac& thereof for the "ears %99* to %99$.3= 8ad the lower courts given full pro!ative value to these official issuances, petitioner would have !een correctl" ac?uitted, thus sparing this Court of valua!le ti(e and effort. @Dn cri(es involving illegal possession of firear(, the prosecution has the !urden of proving the ele(ents thereof, vi5.6 ;a< the eCistence of the su!:ect firear( and ;!< the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or per(it to possess the sa(e. 3* The essence of the cri(e of illegal possession is the possession, whether actual or constructive, of the su!:ect firear(, without which there can !e no conviction for illegal possession. After possession is esta!lished !" the prosecution, it would onl" !e a (atter of course to deter(ine whether the accused has a license to possess the firear(.@33 @/ossession of an" firear( !eco(es unlawful onl" if the necessar" per(it or license therefor is not first o!tained. The a!sence of license and legal authorit" constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firear( and ever" ingredient or essential ele(ent of an offense (ust !e shown !" the prosecution !" proof !e"ond reasona!le dou!t. 'tated otherwise, the negative fact of lac& or a!sence of license constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution has the dut" not onl" to allege !ut also, to prove !e"ond reasona!le dou!t.@ 3$ @To convict an accused for illegal possession of firear(s and eCplosives under /. 0. %,33, as a(ended, two ;#< essential ele(ents (ust !e indu!ita!l" esta!lished, vi5.6 ;a< the e0istence of the sub3ect firear( or eCplosive which (a" !e proved !" the presentation of the su!:ect firear( or eCplosive or !" the testi(on" of witnesses who saw accused in possession of the sa(e, and ;!< the negative fact that the accused had no license or per(it to own or possess the firear( or eCplosive which fact (a" !e esta!lished !" the testi(on" or certification of a representative of the /-/ irear(s and 9Cplosives Jnit that the accused has no license or per(it to possess the su!:ect firear( or eCplosive.@ C C C 7e stress that the essence of the cri(e penali5ed under /. 0. %,33 is pri(aril" the accused's lac& of license or per(it to carr" or possess the firear(, a((unition or eCplosive as possession !" itself is not prohi!ited !" law.@3, Dllegal possession of firear( is a cri(e punished !" special law, a #alu# prohibitu#' and no (alice or intent to co((it a cri(e need !e proved. 39 To support a conviction, however, there (ust !e possession coupled with intent to possess *ani#us possidendi+ the firear(.=0 Dn upholding the prosecution and giving credence to the testi(on" of police officer .erito A. Adigui, the trial court relied on the presu(ption of regularit" in the perfor(ance of official duties !" the police officers.=% This is a flagrant error !ecause his testi(on" is directl" contradictor" to the official records of the irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/, which (ust prevail. Morever, the presu(ption of regularit" can not prevail over the Constitutional presu(ption of innocence. =# Right fro( the start, /I'r. Dnsp. .erito A. Adigue was aware that petitioner possessed a valid license for the cali!er .=* Colt pistol in ?uestion. 0espite this fact, /I'r. Dnsp. Adigue proceeded to detain petitioner and charged hi( with illegal possession of firear(s. 7e ?uote pertinent portions of the testi(on" of petitioner6 O6 7hat else did Adigue tell "ou after showing to hi( the license of "our cal. .=* pistol and the alleged cal. .## found in a drawer in "our &itchenL A6 8e told (e that since */ 2ir&!r* i( li%&"(&#, he will return (" firear(, 'i0& )i* +&" +)o-(!"# p&(o( ;/%0,000.00< and for (e to tell who a(ong the people in our !aranga" have unlicensed firear(, sir. O6 A6 O6 8ow did he sa" a!out the ten thousand pesosL 8e said @palit &ala!aw na lang ta"o@ sir. And what did "ou answer hi(L

A6 D told hi( (" firear( is licensed and D do not have (one", if D have, D will not give hi(, sir, !ecause he was :ust tr"ing to s?uee5e so(ething fro( (e. O6 A6 O6 A6 8ow a!out the unlicensed firear(s in "our !aranga" which he as&ed, fro( "ouL D said D do not &now an" unlicensed firear( in our !aranga", sir. A!out the .## cal. pistol, what was "our answer to hi(L D told hi( that it was not (ine, the" planted it, sir.

O6

7hat did he sa" neCtL

A6 8e said that it is "our word against (ine, the Co-r+ .ill 1&li&0& *& 1&%!-(& I !* ! poli%& o22i%&r, (ir. O6 7hat was "our co((ent to what he saidL

A6 D said (" firear( is licensed and we have Courts of law who do not confor( with officials li&e "ou and then he laughed and laughed, sir.@=3 The trial court was o!viousl" (isguided when it held that @it is a (atter of :udicial notice that a cali!er . =* firear( can not !e licensed to a private individual.@ == This ruling has no !asis either in law or in :urisprudence.=* S&%o"# i((-&. The sei5ure of ite(s not (entioned in the search warrant was illegal. 7ith respect to the .## cali!er revolver with 'erial -o. =,3$3, that the police raiding tea( found in a drawer at the &itchen of petitioner's house, suffice it to sa" that the firear( was not (entioned in the search warrant applied for and issued for the search of petitioner's house. @'ection #, Article DDD of the Constitution la"s down the general rule that a search and sei5ure (ust !e carried out through or on the strength of a :udicial warrant, a!sent which such search and sei5ure !eco(es 'unreasona!le' within the (eaning of said constitutional provision.@=3 @'upporting :urisprudence thus outlined the following re?uisites for a search warrant's validit", the a!sence of even one will cause@ its downright nullification6 ;%< it (ust !e issued upon pro!a!le cause> ;#< the pro!a!le cause (ust !e deter(ined !" the :udge hi(self and not !" the applicant or an" other person> ;3< in the deter(ination of pro!a!le cause, the :udge (ust eCa(ine, under oath or affir(ation, the co(plainant and such witnesses as the latter (a" produce> and ;=< the warrant issued (ust particularl" descri!e the place to !e searched and persons or things to !e sei5ed.@=$ 'ei5ure is li(ited to those ite(s particularl" descri!ed in a valid search warrant. 'earching officers are without discretion regarding what articles the" shall sei5e. =, 9vidence sei5ed on the occasion of such an unreasona!le search and sei5ure is tainted and eCcluded for !eing the prover!ial @fruit of a poisonous tree.@ Dn the language of the funda(ental law, it shall !e inad(issi!le in evidence for an" purpose in an" proceeding.=9 Dn this case, the firear( was not found inadvertentl" and in plain view. Dt was found as a result of a (eticulous search in the &itchen of petitioner's house. This firear(, to e(phasi5e, was not (entioned in the search warrant. 8ence, the sei5ure was illegal.*0 The sei5ure without the re?uisite search warrant was in plain violation of the law and the Constitution. *% True that as an eCception, the police (a" sei5e without warrant illegall" possessed firear( or an" contra!and for that (atter, inadvertentl" found in plain view. 8owever, @MtNhe sei5ure of evidence in 'plain view' applies onl" where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, !ut inadvertentl" co(es across an incri(inating o!:ect.@*# 'pecificall", sei5ure of evidence in @plain view@ is :ustified when there is6 ;a< a prior valid intrusion !ased on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legall" present in the pursuit of their official duties> ;!< the evidence was inadvertentl" discovered !" the police who had the right to !e where the" are. ;c< the evidence (ust !e i((ediatel" apparent, and ;d< @plain view@ :ustified (ere sei5ure of evidence without further search. *3 8ence, the petitioner rightl" re:ected the firear( as planted and not !elonging to hi(. The prosecution was not a!le to prove that the firear( was in the effective possession or control of the petitioner without a license. Dn illegal possession of firear(s, the possessor (ust &now of the eCistence of the su!:ect firear( in his possession or control. @Dn /eople v. de 1racia, *= we clarified the (eaning of possession for the purpose of convicting a person under /. 0. -o.%,33, thus6 C C C 'Dn the present case, a distinction should !e (ade !etween cri(inal intent and intent to possess. 7hile (ere possession without cri(inal intent is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firear(, it (ust still !e shown that there was ani#us possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused.' C C C C 8ence, the &ind of possession punisha!le under /. 0. -o. %,33 is one where the accused possessed a firear( either ph"sicall" or constructivel" with ani#us possidendi or intention to possess the

sa(e.@** That is the (eaning of ani#us possidendi. Dn the a!sence of ani#us possidendi' the possessor of a firear( incurs no cri(inal lia!ilit". The sa(e is true with respect to the *.*3 cal. (aga5ine found in the !edroo( of petitioner's daughter. The sei5ure was invalid and the sei5ed ite(s were inad(issi!le in evidence. As eCplained in /eople v. 0oria,*3 the @plain view@ doctrine applies when the following re?uisites concur6 ;%< the law if enforce(ent officer is in a position where he has a clear view of a particular area or alias prior :ustification for an intrusion> ;#< said officer inadvertentl" co(es across ;or sees in plain view< a piece of incri(inating evidence> and ;3< it is, i((ediatel" apparent to such officer that the ite( he sees (a" !e evidence of a cri(e or a contra!and or is otherwise su!:ect to sei5ure.@ 7ith particular reference to the two #-wa" radios that the raiding police(en also sei5ed in the !edroo( of petitioner's daughter, there was a!solutel" no reason for the sei5ure. The if radios were not contra!and per se.The -ational Teleco((unications Co((ission (a" license two-wa" radios at its discretion.*$ The !urden is on the prosecution to show that the two-wa" radios were not licensed. The -ational Teleco((unication Co((ission is the sole agenc" authori5ed to sei5e unlicensed two-wa" radios. More i(portantl", ad(ittedl", the two-wa" radios were not (entioned in the search warrant. 7e conde(n the sei5ure as illegal and a plain violation of a citi5en's right. 7orse, the petitioner was not charged with illegal possession of the two-wa" radios. 1wphi1.nt Conse?uentl", the confiscation of the two #-wa" radios was clearl" illegal. The possession of such radios is not even included in the charge of illegal possession of firear(s ;violation of /. 0. -o. %,33, as a(ended< alleged in the Dnfor(ation. DHEREFORE, the Court here!" RE?ERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-1. R. CR -o. ###**, pro(ulgated on .ul" 09, %999. The Court ACEUITS petitioner 2icente del Rosario " -icolas of the charge of violation of /. 0. -o. %,33, as a(ended !" R. A. -o. ,#9= ;illegal possession of firear(s and a((unition<, in Cri(inal Case -o. ,00-M-93, Regional Trial Court, +ulacan, +ranch #0, Malolos. Costs de oficio. The Chief> irear(s and 9Cplosives 0ivision, /-/ shall return to petitioner his cali!er .=* Colt pistol, with 'erial -u(!er -o. $00#3$9#, the five ;*< eCtra (aga5ines and twent" seven ;#$< rounds of live a((unition, and the two #-wa" radios confiscated fro( hi(. The Chief, /hilippine -ational /olice, or his dul" authori5ed representative shall show to this Court proof of co(pliance herewith within fifteen ;%*< da"s fro( notice. The .## cali!er revolver with 'erial -o. =,3$3, and eight ;,< live a((unition and the (aga5ine for *.*3 ((. cali!er Ar(alite rifle are confiscated in favor of the govern(ent.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED.

G.R. No(. 11768:<87 April 22, 1,,7 EO LE OF THE HILI INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. $ELCHOR ESTO$ACA / GAREUE, accused-appellant.

REGALADO, J.:p 7ith our recent ad:udg(ent in eople vs. Alicando 1 as a !ac&drop, even an initial perusal of the records of these cases now !efore us on appeal andIor auto(atic review gives a sense of para(nesia or, in the rench ter( (ore often used, de3a vu. )ne cannot escape the illusion of re(e(!ering events when eCperienced for the first ti(e, or of so(ething overl" or unpleasantl" fa(iliar in the present appellate review.

Dndeed, the courtroo( dra#atis personae in the cases at !ar are the sa(e as in Alicando, that is, the presiding :udge, 2 the govern(ent counsel de oficio, 3 and the su!stitute counsel de parte. 6 The cases li&ewise involve the heinous cri(e of rape and were repressed !" the sentence of death. The cruC of the controvers" in !oth is identicall" the validit" vel non of the arraign(ent conducted !" the sa(e trial court which followed closel" e?uivalent procedures in conducting the ?uestioned proceedings. 8ence, as will hereafter !e de(onstrated, the o!servations of this Court will also inevita!l" converge and (ove along the sa(e channels of thought. )n Ma" #=, %99=, conse?uent to five separate co(plaints, Cri(inal Cases -os. =3*3$, =3*3,, =3*39, =3*$0 and =3*$% were filed in the Regional Trial Court, +ranch 3,, Dloilo Cit" charging herein appellant, an illiterate la!orer, with rape co((itted on five separate occasions against his own daughter, co(plainant 9stelita 9sto(aca. The trial court detailed its findings and the prosecution's contentions on the (ultiple incestuous rapes, as follows6 Melita is the eldest daughter of the accused, the second hus!and of Melita's (other. Melita has a full-!lood "ounger !rother around twelve ;%#< "ears old. 'he has two ;#< half-!lood sisters ;fro(< the first (arriage of her (other who are residing in Manila. Melita clai(s that she was first raped in .ul" %993, at their residence at +aranga" Tiolas, 'an .oa?uin, Dloilo. This is now the su!:ect of Cri(inal Case -o. =3*3$. The offense was repeated !" her father !efore Christ(as of 0ece(!er, %993 ;Cri(inal Case -o. =3*3,<> .anuar" %99= ;Cri(inal Case -o. =3*39<> e!ruar" %99= ;Cri(inal Case -o. =3*$0<> and on March 3, %99= ;Cri(inal Case -o. =3*$%<. : There is so(e inconsistenc" in the state(ents on record as to what actuall" too& place on .une %=, %99= during the arraign(ent of appellant, assisted !" his govern(ent counsel de oficio, Att". Rogelio Anti?uiera. The decision of the court !elow, dated .ul" %*, %99=, declares that he entered a plea of guilt" to Cri(inal Cases -os. =3*3, and =3*$%, and a plea of not guilt" to Cri(inal Cases -os. =3*3$, =3*39 and =3*$0. 7 )!viousl" engendered !" the insufficienc" of the proceedings conducted and the i(precision of the notes ta&en at this stage, this (atter will !e further discussed hereafter. The two cri(inal co(plaints, !oth su!scri!ed !" the offended part" on April #9, %99= and which are the su!:ect of the :oint :udg(ent of the lower court challenged in this appellate review, respectivel" allege6 Cri#inal Case 9o. 8@>AB That so(eti(e in the (onth of 0ece(!er, %993, in the Municipalit" of 'an .oa?uin, /rovince of Dloilo, /hilippines, and within the :urisdiction of this 8onora!le Court, the a!ove-na(ed accused, ta&ing advantage of his superior strength, a!use of confidence and trust, he !eing the father of the undersigned, with deli!erate intent and !" (eans of force, threat and inti(idation, did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" have seCual intercourse with the undersigned who, at that ti(e, ;was< %* "ears of age. 7 Cri#inal Case 9o. 8@>C1 That on or a!out March 3, %99=, in the Municipalit" of 'an .oa?uin, /rovince of Dloilo, /hilippines, and within the :urisdiction of this 8onora!le Court, the a!ove-na(ed accused, !eing the father of the undersigned co(plainant, with deli!erate intent and !" (eans of force, threat and inti(idation, did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" have seCual intercourse ;with< the undersigned, who, at that ti(e, ;was< %* "ears of age. 8 /roceeding upon the capital nature of the offenses involved, the trial court, after appellant ostensi!l" waived the presentation of evidence for his defense, re?uired the prosecution to adduce evidence purportedl" to esta!lish appellant's guilt !e"ond reasona!le dou!t. Thus, on .une #9, %99=, the co(plainant herself, Melita 9sto(aca, appeared in court and testified that she was raped !" her father once in 0ece(!er, %993 and, again, on March 3, %99=. +oth incidents, according to her, too& place inside their residence at 'itio Tan-agan, +aranga" Tiolas in 'an .oa?uin, Dloilo at nightti(e and that, on those two occasions, she tried to resist her father's assaults to no avail. After the last rape, she gathered enough courage to flee fro(

their ho(e, and thereafter she reported the incidents to her (other who was then living separatel" fro( the(. Apparentl", appellant was later apprehended and has since !een under detention. , )n the authorit" of Repu!lic Act -o. $3*9 which too& effect on 0ece(!er 3%, %993, the lower court i(posed upon appellant the penalt" of reclusion perpetua for the seCual assault supposedl" perpetrated in 0ece(!er, %993, and the supre(e penalt" of death with respect to the rape allegedl" co((itted on March 3, %99=. Dn each of the said cases, he was further ordered to inde(nif" the offended part" in the a(ount of /*0,000.00 and to pa" the costs. 10 7hat disconcerts this Court, however, is the alar(ing consistenc" of non-co(pliance !" the court a :uo of the procedural rules to !e o!served for the validit" of the arraign(ent of an accused. Dndeed, the i(portance of this particular stage of a cri(inal proceeding, especiall" when capital offenses are involved, cannot !e over-e(phasi5ed. 8ence, we pause at this :uncture to once again !riefl" eCpound on this vital procedural aspect which the trial court, once in Alicando and again in the case at !ar, appears to have treated with cavalier disregard or frustrating (isapprehension. %. Dn eople vs. A. Albert, 11 we traced the develop(ental antecedents which cul(inated and found eCpression in regle(entar" for( in 'ection 3, Rule %%3 of the %9,* Rules on Cri(inal /rocedure governing a plea of guilt" to a capital offense. 7e there pointed out that the rationale !ehind the rule is that courts (ust proceed with (ore care where the possi!le punish(ent is in its severest for( G death G for the reason that the eCecution of such a sentence is irrevoca!le and eCperience has shown that innocent persons have at ti(es pleaded guilt". 12 7e stressed the need to avoid i(provident pleas of guilt since the accused (a" there!" forfeit his life and li!ert" without having full" understood the (eaning, significance and conse?uences of his plea. 13 7e la(ented the confused application adopted or the apathetic indifference in the application of said rule considering the para(ount i(portance of a valid arraign(ent, it bein$ the sta$e where the issues are 3oined in the cri#inal action and without which the proceedin$s cannot advance further or' if held' will otherwise be void. 7e then en:oined the trial courts to review and reflect upon the :urisprudential and statutor" rules which evolved over ti(e in response to the in:ustice created !" i(provident pleas ac&nowledging guilt, at ti(es !elatedl" discovered under the :udicial rug, if at all. 7ith eCacting certitude, 'ection %;a< of Rule %%3 re?uires that the arraign(ent should !e (ade in open court !" the :udge hi(self or !" the cler& of court furnishing the accused a cop" of the co(plaint or infor(ation with the list of witnesses stated therein, then reading the sa(e in the language or dialect that is &nown to hi(, and as&ing hi( what his plea is to the charge. The re?uire(ent that the reading !e (ade in a language or dialect that the accused understands and &nows is a (andator" re?uire(ent, :ust as the whole of said 'ection % should !e strictl" followed !" trial courts. This the law affords the accused !" wa" of i(ple(entation of the all-i(portant constitutional (andate regarding the right of an accused to !e infor(ed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled at hi( and is, therefore, reall" an avenue for hi( to !e a!le to hoist the necessar" defense in re!uttal thereof. 16 Dt is an integral aspect of the due process clause under the Constitution. #. or a (ore graphic illustration, and there!" a clearer appreciation of what actuall" transpired in the so-called arraign(ent of appellant in the court !elow, we ?uote at length the pertinent transcripts of the stenographic notes ta&en at that stage, with e(phases on significant portions6 /ros. -elson 1eduspan 6 or the prosecution. Att". Rogelio Anti?uiera 6 or the accused. Read" for arraign(ent. Court 6 The offended part" is the daughter. Dnterpreter 6 ;Readin$ the infor#ation?co#plaint to the accused in Ilon$$o?local dialect<. or Cri(. Case -o. =3*3$, the accused, pleads !uilt&. or Cri(. Case -o. =3*3,, the accused, pleads !uilt&. or Cri(. Case -o. =3*39, the accused, pleads !uilt&. or Cri(. Case -o. =3*$0,

the accused, pleads !uilt&. or Cri(. Case -o. =3*$%, the accused, pleads !uilt&. Court 6 7hat is "our educational attain(entL 7itness 6 D was not a!le to finish 1rade D. Court 6 The court would li&e to eCplain to "ou in "our plea of 1uilt". Df "ou plead 1uilt" to these five ;*< offenses, definitel&' &ou will have five *>+ sentences. Accused 6 Ees, "our honor. Court 6 Jnder the -ew Haw the least (ost pro!a!l" would !e life sentence. Accused 6 Ees, "our honor. Court 6 8ow old are "ou nowL Accused 6 ort" two. Court 6 ,ecause of this fact &ou have no chance to $et bac. to the new societ& and &our ri$hts will be affected. Accused 6 I .now. 1hat)s what the& told to #e. Court 6 0espite of ;sic< this fact "ou still insist on "our plea of guilt" in these five casesL Dnterpreter 6 Accordin$ to hi#' he perfor#ed onl& two *;+ acts . Court 6 7hen ;were< these two acts perfor(edL Accused 6 0ece(!er %993 and March %99=. Court 6 The other cases charged against "ou ;are< not trueL Accused 6 It is not true #a&be it was co##itted b& her bo&friend then it was char$ed a$ainst #e. Court 6 Dn so far as. . . 7hat is not included in the plea therefore, is the (onth of .ul" %993, .anuar" %99= and the (onth of e!ruar" %99=. Eou did not co((it theseL -h& is it that when &ou were as.ed &ou entered a plea of $uilt&L Accused 6 ,ecause I co##itted two acts onl&. Court 6 7h" is it that when "ou were as&ed "ou entered a plea of guilt"L Accused 6 ,ecause what I recall is that I 3ust co##itted two acts of rape . Court 6 -ot 1uilt" in the three ;3< charges and 1uilt" in two ;#< charges. 0oes counsel and accused agree to pre-trial conferenceL Att". Anti?uiera 6 -e dispense *with+ the pre2trial conference. Court 6 or the two charges ;to< which he pleads guilt", the court will receive evidence in order to i(pose the proper penalt" and on the other charges, the court will receive evidence for the prosecution. 1: ;9(phasis and corrections in parentheses ours.<

CCC CCC CCC At the su!se?uent hearing, :ust li&e what happened in Alicando, the presiding :udge went through the sa(e for(alit" of having appellant stand again !efore hi(, and this is what transpired6 Court 6 +efore the court allows the prosecution to present evidence, accused, please co(e here again. ;At this :uncture, the accused ca(e near to the court< Court 6 The court infor(s "ou as accused that "ou are charged ;with< the cri(e of rape> under the new law which if "ou plead guilt", "ou will !e sentence;d< to death penalt", did "ou understand thatL A 6 Ees, Eour 8onor. O 6 0espite this warning for the second ti(e !" the court to "ou, do "ou still insist ;o<n "our plea of guilt"L A 6 Ees, Eour 8onor. O 6 Ds this plea "our voluntar" will without force or inti(idation fro( an"one else to include the co(plaining witness or the fa(il"L A 6 9o' (our "onor. O 6 'o, therefore, the court will allow "ou to present evidence if "ou wis;h< to !ecause "ou insist ;o<n "our plea of guilt". 0o "ou intend to present evidence. A 6 -o, D will not present evidence. Court 6 )&e", !ecause of this the court will receive evidence of the prosecution. Dn another case, the last ti(e when arraigned, "ou ad(itted that so(eti(e in 0ece(!er, %993, "ou li&ewise raped "our daughter, do "ou still confir( and affir( thisL A 6 Ees, Eour 8onor. O 6 Dn this case, !ecause this was co((itted ;i<n 0ece(!er %993, the penalt" here isreclusion perpetua. After learning this as infor(ed to "ou !" the court, do still insist on "our plea of guilt"L A 6 Ees, D will ad(it. D did it. O 6 0o "ou ad(it this voluntaril" without force, inti(idation or ph"sical in:uries or (auling on "ou !" an"one who(soeverL A 6 9o' %ir. O 6 Dn connection with this, therefore, definitel& &ou will be convicted in both casesL A 6 Ees, "our honor. O 6 7hat is "our educational attain(entL A 6 1rade D.

O 6 +eing 1rade D, the court e(phasi5ed that &ou are swa&ed b& &our own fashion because of &our low educationL A 6 D a( not. O 6 Dn other words, "ou still insist on "our plea of guilt"L A 6 Ees, sir. Court 6 )&e", proceed with the presentation of prosecution evidence. O 6 Dn this Cri(inal Case -o. =3*3,, do "ou intend to present evidenceL A 6 -o, Eour 8onor. Court 6 )&e", proceed.
17

CCC CCC CCC 3. At threshold, what stri&es this Court as peculiar is that the arraign(ent appears to have consisted (erel" of the !are reading of the five co(plaints, s"ntheticall" and cr"pticall" reported in the transcript, thus6 @;Reading the infor(ationIco(plaint to the accused in DlonggoIlocal dialect<.@ 'ince what was supposed to have !een read was stated in the singular, !ut there were five cri(inal co(plaints against appellant, this Court is then left to speculate on whether all five cri(inal co(plaints were actuall" read, translated or eCplained to appellant on a level within his co(prehension, considering his li(ited education. Again, on the presu(ption of correctness, since this Court has no other !earings to steer !", it (a" !e assu(ed that all five co(plaints were read since the cler& is supposed to have thereafter announced in cadence and in the consecutive order of cases that appellant pleaded guilt" to all the charges. 7hat, however, punctures this possi!le !u!!le of regularit" is that appellant su!se?uentl" declared, and the cler& conse?uentl" contradicted her previous recital, that he was not pleading guilt" to three of the co(plaints. This is hardl" a respecta!le and credi!le perfor(ance in the sole(nit" of a court trial of five capital offenses. 7e cannot, therefore, !e persuaded that on this ver" !asic procedure alone, involving :ust the (echanical process of arraign(ent outlined in 'ection %, there was the necessar" degree of co(pliance !" the court !elow. )ther considerations reveal how flawed the supposed arraign(ent actuall" was. or instance, there is no showing whether or not appellant or his counsel de oficio was furnished a cop" of each co(plaint with the list of witnesses against hi(, in order that the latter (a" dul" prepare and co(pl" with his responsi!ilities. )f (ore trou!lous concern is the fact that appellant was not specificall& warned that on his plea of guilt", he would definitel& and in an& event be $iven the death penalt& under the @-ew Haw,@ as the trial court calls Repu!lic Act -o. $3*9. 8e was also not categoricall" advised that his plea of $uilt& would not under an& circu#stance affect or reduce the death sentence as he (a" have !elieved or (a" have !een erroneousl" advised. 'uch an erroneous notion on the part of appellant which (a" have i(pelled hi( to plead guilt" is not i(pro!a!le or con:ectural, especiall" when we consider his (ental state and the environ(ental situation. This is precisel" what eople vs. Da&ot 17 cautioned against, thus6 A @searching in?uir",@ under the Rules, (eans (ore than infor(ing cursoril" the accused that he faces a :ail ter( ;!ecause the accused is aware of that< !ut so also, the eCact length of i(prison(ent under the law and the certaint" that he will serve ti(e at the national penitentiar" or a penal colon".9ot infre:uentl& indeed' an accused pleads $uilt& in the hope' as we said' of a lenient treat#ent' or upon a bad advice or pro#ises of the authorities or parties of a li$hter penalt& should he ad#it $uilt or e0press Ere#orse .E Dt is the dut" of the :udge to see to it that he does not la!or under these (ista&en i(pressions, . . . . ;9(phasis supplied<. Hi&ewise of ver" serious i(portance and conse?uence is the fact that the co(plaints were supposedl" read to appellant in @DlonggoIlocal dialect.@ /arentheticall", there was no state(ent of record that appellant full" understood that (ediu( of eCpression. This assu(es added significance since Dlonggo, or properl" called 8iliga"non, is a regional language, 18 spo&en in a (a:or part of Dloilo province, -egros

)ccidental and, with variations, in Capi5. 7ithin a province or (a:or geographical area using a !asic regional language, there (a" !e other local dialects spo&en in certain parts thereof. Df said indication in the afore?uoted portion of the transcript intended to conve" that Dlonggo is (erel" a local dialect and was also the idio( referred to, the sa(e is egregious error> it would !e different if @local dialect@ was used to denote an alternative and different (ediu( !ut, ineCplica!l", without identif"ing what it was. The significance of this distinction is found right in the provisions of 'ection %;a< of Rule %%3 which, cogni5ant of the aforestated linguistic variations, deli!eratel" re?uired that the co(plaint or infor(ation !e read to the accused in the lan$ua$e or the dialect &nown to hi(, to ensure his co(prehension of the charges. The Court ta&es :udicial notice, !ecause it is either of pu!lic &nowledge or readil" capa!le of un?uestiona!le de(onstration, 1, that in the central and northwestern part of Dloilo province and all the wa" up to and throughout Anti?ue, including necessaril" 'an .oa?uin where the offenses were co((itted and of which appellant and his fa(il" are natives, the local dialect is &nown as @.inara&2a.@ +arring previous eCposure to or as a conse?uence of eCtended social or co((ercial intercourse, @.inara&2a@ is not readil" understanda!le to nor spo&en !" those !orn to the 8iliga"non regional language or who have lived in the areas under its swa" for an apprecia!le period of ti(e. The converse is true for those whose native tongue is the dialect of @.inara&2a,@ since the" are generall" not wellversed in Dlonggo, or 8iliga"non. 'ince all the co(plaints are not onl" in 9nglish !ut in technical legal language, we are again at sea as to whether and how the indict(ents were translated to Dlonggo andIor to @.inara&2a,@ or that the appellant was trul" and honestl" (ade aware of the charges and, especiall", the conse?uences of his guilt" plea thereto. The records are silent and do not reveal an"thing on this point, nor how the dialogue !etween the presiding :udge and appellant was translated. Eet a (an's life is at sta&e while this Court wrestles with that dile((a created !" an o(ission of official dut". =. The foregoing discussion !rings us to the strict in:unction that the trial court (ust full" discharge its dut" to conduct the re?uisite searching in?uir" in such a wa" as would indu!ita!l" show that appellant had (ade not onl" a clear, definite and unconditional plea, !ut that he did so with a well-infor(ed understanding and full reali5ation of the conse?uences thereof. To as& an accused a!out his educational attain(ent and then warn hi( that he (ight have ad(itted the cri(e !ecause of his poor intelligence is certainl" not the logical approach in assa"ing the sufficienc" of his plea of guilt". Dn the sa(e (anner, a (ere warning to hi( that he could possi!l" face eCtre(e retri!ution in the for( of death or face a life sentence in :ail is not even enough. 20 The trial :udge should ascertain and !e totall" convinced that, for all intents and purposes, the plea recorded has all the ear(ar&s of a valid and accepta!le confession upon which an eventual :udg(ent of conviction can stand. 21 Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial :udge (a" go a!out the (atter of a proper @searching in?uir",@ it would !e well for the court, for instance, to re?uire the accused to full" narrate the incident that spawned the charges against hi(, or !" (a&ing hi( reenact the (anner in which he perpetrated the cri(e, or !" causing hi( to furnish and eCplain to the court (issing details of significance. 22 The trial court should also !e convinced that the accused has not !een coerced or placed under a state of duress either !" actual threats of ph"sical har( co(ing fro( (alevolent or avenging ?uarters and this it can do, such as !" ascertaining fro( the accused hi(self the (anner in which he was su!se?uentl" !rought into the custod" of the law> or whether he had the assistance of co(petent counsel during the custodial and preli(inar" investigations> and, ascertaining fro( hi( the conditions under which he was detained and interrogated during the aforestated investigations. Hi&ewise, a series of ?uestions directed at defense counsel as to whether or not said counsel had conferred with, and co(pletel" eCplained to the accused the (eaning of a plea and its conse?uences, would !e a wellta&en step along those lines. 23 Ouestions of these nature are undou!tedl" crucial and no truer is this than in the case of appellant for, again, the original records and rollo of this case now under review are co#pletel& bereft of an& docu#ent or record concernin$ his apprehension' detention and prior investi$ation , whether custodial or preli(inar". The foregoing circu(stances (ust !e ta&en in addition to the appropriate forewarnings of the conse?uences of a plea of guilt", as well as the ?uestions !" the court regarding the age, educational attain(ent and socio-econo(ic status of the accused which (a" reveal contri!utor" insights for a proper verdict in the case. And, on this latter aspect, we are inclined to ?uote fro( Alicando since, as stated in li#ine the defective arraign(ent in the cases now !efore us is virtuall" a reprise of what the sa(e trial court with its presiding :udge did or did not do in that previous case6

'ection 3 of Rule %%3 which the trial court violated is not a new rule for it (erel" incorporated the decision of this Court in eople vs. Apduhan 5r. and reiterated in an un!ro&en line of cases. The !otto( line of the rule is that a plea of guilt (ust !e !ased on a free and infor(ed :udg(ent. Thus, the searching in?uir" of the trial court (ust !e focused on6 ;%< the voluntariness of the plea> and ;#< the full co(prehension of the conse?uences of the plea. The ?uestions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor did the ?uestions de(onstrate appellant's full co(prehension of the conse?uences of the plea. The records do not reveal an" infor(ation a!out the personalit& profile of the appellant which can serve as a trustworth" indeC of his capacit" to give a free and infor(ed plea of guilt. The age, socioecono(ic status, and educational !ac&ground of the appellant were not plu(!ed !" the trial court. . . . . ;Citations o(itted<. Dt will !e readil" o!served, if one would anal"5e appellant's responses during his irregular arraign(ent, that his low intelligence ?uotient and lac& of education co(!ined to deprive hi( of full" understanding what o!viousl" appeared to hi( as ("sterious rituals and unfa(iliar :argons. This was also what happened, and what we dul" noted, in eople vs. Albert' supra. Dn the transcripts of said proceeding which are earlier ?uoted eCtensivel", there are italici5ed portions showing not onl" the grossl" inade?uate or a(!iguous, if not indifferent, ?uestions of the lower court !ut also the erratic answers of appellant which are neither responsive nor rational.. There is no need to !ela!or the( here since the" spea& for the(selves, !ut we are not i(pressed !" the for(ular" ?uestions posed !" the lower court while going through the (otions of interviewing appellant. The Court would want to stress here, therefore, that the :udicial conscience cannot accept as valid a plea of guilt" to a charge with a (andator" death penalt" when entered !" an accused with a !efuddled state of (ind at an arraign(ent with reversi!le lapses in law. *. Adverting once again to Alicando, we reiterated therein that pursuant to ,inaba& vs. eople' et al., 26 no valid :udg(ent can !e rendered upon an invalid arraign(ent. 'ince in Alicando the arraign(ent of appellant therein was void, the :udg(ent of conviction rendered against hi( was li&ewise void, hence in fairness to hi( and in :ustice to the offended part" that case was re(anded to the trial court for further proceedings. The case at !ar !eing on all fours with the afore(entioned cases on the particular deter(inant issue, we have perforce to "ield to the sa(e doctrine and disposition. Het it !e clearl" understood, however, especiall" !" the censorious6 This Court will not hesitate to i(pose the capital punish(ent when all the re?uisites therefor have !een (et in accordance with the law of the land. Dt cannot, therefore, hold a life forfeit, no (atter how despica!le the offender, when effective protection for his !asic rights was denied !ecause of povert" or ignorance. -or will the Court render a death sentence :ust to (a&e a (eretricious o!eisance to the vengeful call for !lood. .udicious verdicts evolve fro( the privac" of reasoned reflection in cha(!ers and not fro( the pu!licit" of e(otional acclai( on the podiu(. 789R9 )R9, the :udg(ent of the court a :uo in Cri(inal Cases -os. =3*3, and =3*$% convicting accused-appellant Melchor 9sto(aca " 1ar?ue of two cri(es of rape is here!" '9T A'D09. 'aid cases are R9MA-090 to the trial court for further and appropriate proceedings, with instructions that the sa(e !e given appropriate priorit" and the proceedings therein !e conducted with deli!erate dispatch and circu(spection. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 12738, =-l/ 10, 1,,8 SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF A EALS, =UANITA DE =ESUS ?DA. DE DI$AANO, E$ERITA DI$AANO, RE$EDIOS DI$AANO, CONSOLACION DI$AANO !"# $ILAGROS DI$AANO, respondents.

URISI$A, J.: /etition for review under Rule =* of the Rules of Court see&ing to set aside the 0ecision 1 pro(ulgated on .ul" 3%, %993, and Resolution 2 dated 'epte(!er %#, %993 of the Court of Appeals 3 in CA-1.R. -o. =%=##, entitled @.uanita de .esus vda. de 0i(aano, et al. vs. 'outheastern College, Dnc.@, which reduced the (oral da(ages awarded !elow fro( /%,000,000.00 to /#00,000.00. 6 The Resolution under attac& denied petitioner's (otion for reconsideration. /rivate respondents are owners of a house at 3#3 College Road, /asa" Cit", while petitioner owns a four-store" school !uilding along the sa(e College Road. )n )cto!er %%, %9,9, at a!out 3630 in the (orning, a powerful t"phoon @'aling@ hit Metro Manila. +uffeted !" ver" strong winds, the roof of petitioner's !uilding was partl" ripped off and !lown awa", landing on and destro"ing portions of the roofing of private respondents' house. After the t"phoon had passed, an ocular inspection of the destro"ed !uilding was conducted !" a tea( of engineers headed !" the cit" !uilding official, 9ngr. .esus H. Re"na. /ertinent aspects of the latter's Report : dated )cto!er %,, %9,9 stated, as follows6 *. )ne of the factors that (a" have led to this cala(itous event is the for(ation of the !uilding in the area and the general direction of the wind. 'ituated in the peripheral lot is an al(ost J-shaped for(ation of =-store" !uilding. Thus, with the strong winds having a westerl" direction, the general for(ation of the !uilding !eco(es a !ig funnel-li&e structure, the one situated along College Road, receiving the heaviest i(pact of the strong winds. 8ence, there are portions of the roofing, those located on !oth ends of the !uilding, which re(ained intact after the stor(. 3. Another factor and perhaps the (ost li&el" reason for the dislodging of the roofing structural trusses is the i(proper anchorage of the said trusses to the roof !ea(s. The %I#' dia(eter steel !ars e(!edded on the concrete roof !ea(s which serve as truss anchorage are not !olted nor nailed to the trusses. 'till, there are other steel !ars which were not even !ent to the trusses, thus, those trusses are not anchored at all to the roof !ea(s. Dt then reco((ended that @to avoid an" further loss and da(age to lives, li(!s and propert" of persons living in the vicinit",@ the fourth floor of su!:ect school !uilding !e declared as a @structural ha5ard.@ Dn their Co(plaint 7 !efore the Regional Trial Court of /asa" Cit", +ranch %%$, for da(ages !ased on culpa a:uiliana, private respondents alleged that the da(age to their house rendered the sa(e uninha!ita!le, forcing the( to sta" te(poraril" in others' houses. And so the" sought to recover fro( petitioner /%%$,%%3.00, as actual da(ages, /%,000,000.00, as (oral da(ages, /300,000.00, as eCe(plar" da(ages and /%00,000.00, for and as attorne"'s fees> plus costs. Dn its Answer, petitioner averred that su!:ect school !uilding had withstood several devastating t"phoons and other cala(ities in the past, without its roofing or an" portion thereof giving wa"> that it has not !een re(iss in its responsi!ilit" to see to it that said school !uilding, which houses school children, facult" (e(!ers, and e(plo"ees, is @in tip-top condition@> and further(ore, t"phoon @'aling@ was @an act of 1od and therefore !e"ond hu(an control@ such that petitioner cannot !e answera!le for the da(ages wrought there!", a!sent an" negligence on its part. The trial court, giving credence to the ocular inspection report to the effect that su!:ect school !uilding had a @defective roofing structure,@ found that, while t"phoon @'aling@ was acco(panied !" strong winds, the da(age to private respondents' houses @could have !een avoided if the construction of the roof of Mpetitioner'sN !uilding was not fault".@ The dispositive portion of the lower court's decision 7 reads, thus6 789R9 )R9, in view of the foregoing, the Court renders :udg(ent ; sic< in favor of the plaintiff ;sic< and against the defendants, ;sic< ordering the latter to pa" :ointl" and severall" the for(er as follows6 a< /%%$,%%3.00, as actual da(ages, plus litigation eCpenses> !< /%,000,000.00 as (oral da(ages>

c< /%00,000.00 as attorne"'s fees> d< Costs of the instant suit. The clai( for eCe(plar" da(ages is denied for the reason that the defendants ; sic< did in a wanton fraudulent, rec&less, oppressive or (alevolent (anner. Dn its appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner assigned as errors, D T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 D- 8)H0D-1 T8AT TE/8))- @'AHD-1@, A' A- ACT ) 1)0, D' -)T @T89 ')H9 A-0 A+')HJT9 R9A')-@ )R T89 RD//D-1-) ) T89 'MAHH /)RTD)) T89 R)) ) ')JT89A'T9R-'' )JR ;=< 'T)R9E 'C8))H +JDH0D-1. DD T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 D- 8)H0D-1 T8AT @T89 C)-'TRJCTD)- ) T89 R)) ) 09 9-0A-T'' 'C8))H +JDH0D-1 7A' AJHTE@ -)T7DT8'TA-0D-1 T89 A0MD''D)T8AT T89R9 79R9 TE/8))-' +9 )R9 +JT -)T A' 1RA29 A' TE/8))- @'AHD-1@ 78DC8 D' T89 0DR9CT A-0 /R)ADMAT9 CAJ'9 ) T89 D-CD09-T. DDD T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 D- A7AR0D-1 ACTJAH A-0 M)RAH 0AMA19' A' 79HH A' ATT)R-9E'' 99' A-0 HDTD1ATD)- 9A/9-'9' A-0 C)'T' ) 'JDT T) 0DMAA-)' 789T89E 8A29 -)T D-CJRR90 ACTJAH 0AMA19' AT AHH A' 0DMAA-)' 8A29 AHR9A0E ')H0 T89DR /R)/9RTE, A- D-T9R29-D-1 929-T T8AT R9-09R' T8D' CA'9 M))T A-0 ACA09MDC. D2 T89 TRDAH C)JRT 9RR90 D- )R09RD-1 T89 D''JA-C9 ) T89 7RDT ) 9A9CJTD)D-'/DT9 ) T89 /9R 9CTD)- ) ')JT89A'T9R-'' A//9AH 789- T89R9 D' -) C)M/9HHD-1 R9A')- )R T89 D''JA-C9 T89R9T). As (entioned earlier, respondent Court of Appeals affir(ed with (odification the trial court's disposition !" reducing the award of (oral da(ages fro( /%,000,000.00 to /#00,000.00. 8ence, petitioner's resort to this Court, raising for resolution the issues of6 %. 7hether or not the award of actual da(ages MsicN to respondent 0i(aanos on the !asis of speculation or con:ecture, without proof or receipts of actual da(age, M sicN legall" feasi!le or :ustified. #. 7hether or not the award of (oral da(ages to respondent 0i(aanos, with the latter having suffered, actual da(age has legal !asis. 3. 7hether or not respondent 0i(aanos who are no longer the owner of the propert", su!:ect (atter of the case, during its pendenc", has the right to pursue their co(plaint against petitioner when the case was alread" (oot and acade(ic !" the sale of the propert" to third part". =. 7hether or not the award of attorne"'s fees when the case was alread" (oot acade(ic MsicN legall" :ustified. *. 7hether or not petitioner is lia!le for da(age caused to others !" t"phoon @'aling@ !eing an act of 1od. 3. 7hether or not the issuance of a writ of eCecution pending appeal, e02parte or without hearing, has support in law.
8

that6

The pivot of in?uir" here, deter(inative of the other issues, is whether the da(age on the roof of the !uilding of private respondents resulting fro( the i(pact of the falling portions of the school !uilding's roof ripped off !" the strong winds of t"phoon @'aling@, was, within legal conte(plation, due to fortuitous eventL Df so, petitioner cannot !e held lia!le for the da(ages suffered !" the private respondents. This conclusion finds support in Article %%$= of Civil Code, which provides6 Art %%$=. 9Ccept in cases eCpressl" specified !" the law, or when it is otherwise declared !" stipulation, or when the nature of the o!ligation re?uires the assu(ption of ris&, no person shall !e responsi!le for those events which could not !e foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevita!le. The antecedent of fortuitous event or caso fortuito is found in the artidas which defines it as @an event which ta&es place !" accident and could not have !een foreseen.@ , 9scriche ela!orates it as @an uneCpected event or act of 1od which could neither !e foreseen nor resisted.@ 10 Civilist Arturo M. Tolentino adds that @MfNortuitous events (a" !e produced !" two general causes6 ;%< !" nature, such as earth?ua&es, stor(s, floods, epide(ics, fires, etc. and ;#< !" the act of (an, such as an ar(ed invasion, attac& !" !andits, govern(ental prohi!itions, ro!!er", etc.@ 11 Dn order that a fortuitous event (a" eCe(pt a person fro( lia!ilit", it is necessar" that he !e free fro( an" previous negligence or (isconduct !" reason of which the loss (a" have !een occasioned. 12 An act of 1od cannot !e invo&ed for the protection of a person who has !een guilt" of gross negligence in not tr"ing to forestall its possi!le adverse conse?uences. 7hen a person's negligence concurs with an act of 1od in producing da(age or in:ur" to another, such person is not eCe(pt fro( lia!ilit" !" showing that the i((ediate or proCi(ate cause of the da(ages or in:ur" was a fortuitous event. 7hen the effect is found to !e partl" the result of the participation of (an G whether it !e fro( active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act G the whole occurrence is here!" hu(ani5ed, and re(oved fro( the rules applica!le to acts of 1od. 13 Dn the case under consideration, the lower court accorded full credence to the finding of the investigating tea( that su!:ect school !uilding's roofing had @no sufficient anchorage to hold it in position especiall" when !attered !" strong winds.@ +ased on such finding, the trial court i(puted negligence to petitioner and ad:udged it lia!le for da(ages to private respondents. After a thorough stud" and evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court !elieves otherwise, notwithstanding the general rule that factual findings !" the trail court, especiall" when affir(ed !" the appellate court, are !inding and conclusive upon this Court. 16 After a careful scrutin" of the records and the pleadings su!(itted !" the parties, we find eCception to this rule and hold that the lower courts (isappreciated the evidence proffered. There is no ?uestion that a t"phoon or stor( is a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which (a" !e foreseen !ut is unavoida!le despite an" a(ount of foresight, diligence or care. 1: Dn order to !e eCe(pt fro( lia!ilit" arising fro( an" adverse conse?uence engendered there!", there should have !een no hu(an participation a(ounting to a negligent act. 17 Dn other words> the person see&ing eConeration fro( lia!ilit" (ust not !e guilt" of negligence. -egligence, as co((onl" understood, is conduct which naturall" or reasona!l" creates undue ris& or har( to others. Dt (a" !e the failure to o!serve that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circu(stances :ustif" de(and, 17 or the o(ission to do so(ething which a prudent and reasona!le (an, guided !" considerations which ordinaril" regulate the conduct of hu(an affairs, would do. 18 ro( these pre(ises, we proceed to deter(ine whether petitioner was negligent, such that if it were not, the da(age caused to private respondents' house could have !een avoidedL At the outset, it !ears e(phasi5ing that a person clai(ing da(ages for the negligence of another has the !urden of proving the eCistence of fault or negligence causative of his in:ur" or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence (ust !e affir(ativel" esta!lished !" co(petent evidence, 1, not (erel" !" presu(ptions and conclusions without !asis in fact. /rivate respondents, in esta!lishing the culpa!ilit" of petitioner, (erel" relied on the afore(entioned report su!(itted !" a tea( which (ade an ocular inspection of petitioner's school !uilding after the t"phoon. As the ter( i(parts, an ocular inspection is one !" (eans of actual sight or viewing. 20 7hat is visual to the e"e through, is not alwa"s reflective of the real cause !ehind. or instance, one who hears a gunshot and then sees a wounded person, cannot alwa"s definitel" conclude that a third person shot the victi(. Dt could have !een self-inflicted or caused accidentall" !" a stra" !ullet. The relationship of cause and effect (ust !e clearl" shown.

Dn the present case, other than the said ocular inspection, no investigation was conducted to deter(ine the real cause of the partial unroofing of petitioner's school !uilding. /rivate respondents did not even show that the plans, specifications and design of said school !uilding were deficient and defective. -either did the" prove an" su!stantial deviation fro( the approved plans and specifications. -or did the" conclusivel" esta!lish that the construction of such !uilding was !asicall" flawed. 21 )n the other hand, petitioner elicited fro( one of the witnesses of private respondents, cit" !uilding official .esus Re"na, that the original plans and design of petitioner's school !uilding were approved prior to its construction. 9ngr. Re"na ad(itted that it was a legal re?uire(ent !efore the construction of an" !uilding to o!tain a per(it fro( the cit" !uilding official ;cit" engineer, prior to the passage of the +uilding Act of %9$$<. Dn li&e (anner, after construction of the !uilding, a certification (ust !e secured fro( the sa(e official attesting to the readiness for occupanc" of the edifice. 8aving o!tained !oth !uilding per(it and certificate of occupanc", these are, at the ver" least, pri#a facie evidence of the regular and proper construction of su!:ect school !uilding. 22 urther(ore, when part of its roof needed repairs of the da(age inflicted !" t"phoon @'aling@, the sa(e cit" official gave the go-signal for such repairs G without an" deviation fro( the original design G and su!se?uentl", authori5ed the use of the entire fourth floor of the sa(e !uilding. These onl" prove that su!:ect !uilding suffers fro( no structural defect, contrar" to the report that its @J-shaped@ for( was @structurall" defective.@ 8aving given his un?ualified i(pri(atur, the cit" !uilding official is presu(ed to have properl" perfor(ed his duties 23 in connection therewith. Dn addition, petitioner presented its vice president for finance and ad(inistration who testified that an annual (aintenance inspection and repair of su!:ect school !uilding were regularl" underta&en. /etitioner was even willing to present its (aintenance supervisor to attest to the eCtent of such regular inspection !ut private respondents agreed to dispense with his testi(on" and si(pl" stipulated that it would !e corro!orative of the vice president's narration. Moreover, the cit" !uilding official, who has !een in the cit" govern(ent service since %9$=, ad(itted in open court that no co(plaint regarding an" defect on the sa(e structure has ever !een lodged !efore his office prior to the institution of the case at !ench. Dt is a (atter of :udicial notice that t"phoons are co((on occurrences in this countr". Df su!:ect school !uilding's roofing was not fir(l" anchored to its trusses, o!viousl", it could not have withstood long "ears and several t"phoons even stronger than @'aling.@ Dn light of the foregoing, we find no clear and convincing evidence to sustain the :udg(ent of the appellate court. 7e thus hold that petitioner has not !een shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and (aintenance of its school !uilding in ?uestion and that t"phoon @'aling@ was the proCi(ate cause of the da(age suffered !" private respondents' house. 7ith this disposition on the pivotal issue, private respondents' clai( for actual and (oral da(ages as well as attorne"'s fees (ust fail. 26 /etitioner cannot !e (ade to answer for a purel" fortuitous event. 2: More so !ecause no !ad faith or willful act to cause da(age was alleged and proven to warrant (oral da(ages. /rivate respondents failed to adduce ade?uate and co(petent proof of the pecuniar" loss the" actuall" incurred.27 Dt is not enough that the da(age !e capa!le of proof !ut (ust !e actuall" proved with a reasona!le degree of certaint", pointing out specific facts that afford a !asis for (easuring whatever co(pensator" da(ages are !orne.27 /rivate respondents (erel" su!(itted an esti(ated a(ount needed for the repair of the roof their su!:ect !uilding. 7hat is (ore, whether the @necessar" repairs@ were caused )-HE !" petitioner's alleged negligence in the (aintenance of its school !uilding, or included the ordinar" wear and tear of the house itself, is an essential ?uestion that re(ains indeter(ina!le. The Court dee(s unnecessar" to resolve the other issues posed !" petitioner. As regards the siCth issue, however, the writ of eCecution issued on April %, %993 !" the trial court is here!" nullified and set aside. /rivate respondents are ordered to rei(!urse an" a(ount or return to petitioner an" propert" which the" (a" have received !" virtue of the enforce(ent of said writ. 789R9 )R9, the petition is 1RA-T90 and the challenged 0ecision is R929R'90. The co(plaint of private respondents in Civil Case -o. $3%= !efore the trial court a :uo is ordered 0D'MD''90 and the writ of eCecution issued on April %, %993 in said case is '9T A'D09. Accordingl", private respondents are

)R09R90 to return to petitioner an" a(ount or propert" received !" the( !" virtue of said writ. Costs against the private respondents. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 120677 $!/ 17, 1,,, COCA COLA ;OTTLERS HILS., INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LA;OR RELATIONS CO$$ISSION !"# RA$ON ;. CANONICATO, respondents.

;ELLOSILLO, J.: This petition for certiorari under Rule 3* of the Revised Rules of Court assails the 3 .anuar" %99* decision 1 of the -ational Ha!or Relations Co((ission ;-HRC< holding that private respondent Ra(on +. Canonicato is a regular e(plo"ee of petitioner Coca Cola +ottlers /hils. Dnc. ;C)CA C)HA< entitled to reinstate(ent and !ac& wages. The -HRC reversed the decision of the Ha!or Ar!iter of #, April %99= 2 which declared that no e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship eCisted !etween C)CA C)HA and Canonicato there!" foreclosing entitle(ent to reinstate(ent and !ac& wages. 1wphi1.nt )n $ April %9,3 C)CA C)HA entered into a contract of :anitorial services with +acolod .anitorial 'ervices ;+.'< stipulating 3 a(ong others G That the irst /art" ;C)CA C)HA< desires to engage the services of the 'econd /art" ;+.'<, as an Dndependent Contractor, to perfor( and provide for the (aintenance, sanitation and cleaning services for the areas herein!elow (entioned, all located within the aforesaid !uilding of the irst /art" . . . . %. The scope of wor& of the 'econd /art" includes all floors, walls, doors, vertical and hori5ontal areas, ceiling, all windows, glass surfaces, partitions, furniture, fiCtures and other interiors within the aforestated covered areas. #. 9Ccept holida"s which are rest da"s, the 'econd /art" will underta&e dail" the following6 %< 'weeping, da(p-(opping, spot scru!!ing and polishing of floors> #< Cleaning, saniti5ing and disinfecting agents to !e used on co((odes, urinals and wash!asins, water spots on chro(e and other fiCtures to !e chec&ed> 3< Cleaning of glass surfaces, windows and glass partitions that re?uire dail" attention> =< Cleaning and dusting of hori5ontal and vertical surfaces> *< Cleaning of fiCtures, counters, panels and sills> 3< Clean, pic&-up cigarette !utts fro( sand!urns and ashtra"s and trash receptacles> $< Trash and ru!!ish disposal and !urning. Dn addition, the 'econd /art" will also do the following once a wee&, to wit6 %< Cleaning, waCing and polishing of lo!!ies and offices> #< 7ashing of windows, glasses that re?uire cleaning> 3< Thorough disinfecting and cleaning of toilets and washroo(s. 3. The 'econd /art" shall suppl" the necessar" utensils, e?uip(ent and supervision, and it shall onl" e(plo" the services of fifteen ;%*< honest, relia!le, carefull" screened, cooperative and trained personnel, who are in good faith, in the perfor(ance of its herein underta&ing . . . . =. The 'econd /art" here!" guarantees against unsatisfactor" wor&(anship. Minor repair of co(fort roo(s are free of charge provided the irst /art" will suppl" the necessar" (aterials for such repairs at its eCpense. As (a" !e necessar", the 'econd /art" shall also report on such part or areas of the pre(ises covered !" this contract which (a" re?uire repairs fro( ti(e to ti(e . . . ;e(phasis supplied<. 9ver" "ear thereafter a service contract was entered into !etween the parties under si(ilar ter(s and conditions until a!out Ma" %99=. 6

)n #3 )cto!er %9,9 C)CA C)HA hired private respondent Ra(on Canonicato as a casual e(plo"ee and assigned hi( to the !ottling crew as a su!stitute for a!sent e(plo"ees. Dn April %990 C)CA C)HA ter(inated Canonicato's casual e(plo"(ent. Hater that "ear C)CA C)HA availed of Canonicato's services, this ti(e as a painter in contractual pro:ects which lasted fro( fifteen ;%*< to thirt" ;30< da"s. : )n % April %99% Canonicato was hired as a :anitor !" +.' 7 which assigned hi( to C)CA C)HA considering his fa(iliarit" with its pre(ises. )n * and $ March %99# Canonicato started painting the facilities of C)CA C)HA and continued doing so several (onths thereafter or so for a few da"s ever" ti(e until 3 to #* .une %993. 7 1oaded !" infor(ation that C)CA C)HA e(plo"ed previous +.' e(plo"ees who filed a co(plaint against the co(pan" for regulari5ation pursuant to a co(pro(ise agree(ent, 8 Canonicato su!(itted a si(ilar co(plaint against C)CA C)HA to the Ha!or Ar!iter on , .une %993. , The co(plaint was doc&eted as RA+ Case -o. 03-03-%033$-93. 7ithout notif"ing +.', Canonicato no longer reported to his C)CA C)HA assign(ent starting #9 .une %993. )n %* .ul" %993 he sent his sister Rowena to collect his salar" fro( +.'. 10 +.' released his salar" !ut advised Rowena to tell Canonicato to report for wor&. Clai(ing that he was !arred fro( entering the pre(ises of C)CA C)HA on either %= or %* .ul" %993, Canonicato (et with the proprieties of +.', 1loria Hacson, who offered hi( assign(ents in other fir(s which he however refused. 11 )n #3 .ul" %993 Canonicato a(ended his co(plaint against C)CA C)HA !" citing instead as grounds therefor illegal dis(issal and underpa"(ent of wages. 8e included +.' therein as a corespondent. 12 )n #, 'epte(!er %993 +.' sent hi( a letter advising hi( to report for wor& within three ;3< da"s fro( receipt, otherwise, he would !e considered to have a!andoned his :o!. 13 )n #, April %99= the Ha!or Ar!iter ruled that6 ;a< there was no e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship !etween C)CA C)HA and Ra(on Canonicato !ecause +.' was Canonicato's real e(plo"er> ;!< +.' was a legiti(ate :o! contractor, hence, an" lia!ilit" of C)CA C)HA as to Canonicato's salar" or wage differentials was solidar" with +.' in accordance with pars. % and # of Art. %03, Ha!or Code> ;c< C)CA C)HA and +.' (ust :ointl" and severall" pa" Canonicato his wage differentials a(ounting to /#,$$3.,0 and his %3th (onth salar" of /%,03,.00, including ten ;%0F< percent attorne"'s fees in the su( of /3,=.=,. The Ha!or Ar!iter also ordered that all other clai(s !" Canonicato against C)CA C)HA !e dis(issed for lac& of e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship> that the co(plaint for illegal dis(issal as well as all the other clai(s !e li&ewise dis(issed for lac& of (erit> and that C)CA C)HA and +.' deposit /=,=#9.#, with the 0epart(ent of Ha!or Regional Ar!itration +ranch )ffice within ten ;%0< da"s fro( receipt of the decision. 16 The -HRC re:ected on appeal the decision of the Ha!or Ar!iter on the ground that the :anitorial services of Canonicato were found to !e necessar" or desira!le in the usual !usiness or trade of C)CA C)HA. The -HRC accepted Canonicato's proposition that his wor& with the +.' was the sa(e as what he did while still a casual e(plo"ee of C)CA C)HA. Dn so holding the -HRC applied Art. #,0 of the Ha!or Code and declared that Canonicato was a regular e(plo"ee of C)CA C)HA and entitled to reinstate(ent and pa"(ent of /%,,%0*.%0 in !ac& wages. 1: )n #3 Ma" %99* the -HRC denied C)CA C)HA's (otion for reconsideration for lac& of (erit. 17 8ence, this petition, assigning as errors6 ;a< -HRC's finding that :anitorial services were necessar" and desira!le in C)CA C)HA's trade and !usiness> ;!< -HRC's application of Art. #,0 of the Ha!or Code in resolving the issue of whether an e(plo"(ent relationship eCisted !etween the parties> ;c< -HRC's ruling that there was an e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship !etween petitioner and Canonicato despite its virtual affir(ance that +.' was a legiti(ate :o! contractor> ;d< -HRC's declaration that Canonicato was a regular e(plo"ee of petitioner although he had rendered the co(pan" onl" five ;*< (onths of casual e(plo"(ent> and, ;e< -HRC's order directing the reinstate(ent of Canonicato and the pa"(ent to hi( of siC ;3< (onths !ac& wages. 17 7e find good cause to sustain petitioner. indings of fact of ad(inistrative offices are generall" accorded respect !" us and no longer reviewed for the reason that such factual findings are considered to !e within their field of eCpertise. 9Cception however is (ade, as in this case, when the -HRC and the Ha!or Ar!iter (ade contradictor" findings. 7e perceive at the outset the disposition of the -HRC that :anitorial services are necessar" and desira!le to the trade or !usiness of petitioner C)CA C)HA. +ut this is inconsistent with our pronounce(ent in Fi#berl& Independent 6abor Gnion v. Drilon 18 where the Court too& :udicial notice of

the practice adopted in several govern(ent and private institutions and industries of hiring :anitorial services on an @independent contractor !asis.@ Dn this respect, although :anitorial services (a" !e considered directl" related to the principal !usiness of an e(plo"er, as with ever" !usiness, we dee(ed the( unnecessar" in the conduct of the e(plo"er's principal !usiness. 1, This :udicial notice, of course, rests on the assu(ption that the independent contractor is a legiti(ate :o! contractor so that there can !e no dou!t as to the eCistence of an e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship !etween the contractor and the wor&er. Dn this situation, the onl" pertinent ?uestion that (a" arise will no longer deal with whether there eCists an e(plo"(ent !ond !ut whether the e(plo"ee (a" !e considered regular or casual as to deserve the application of Art. #,0 of the Ha!or Code. Dt is an altogether different (atter when the ver" eCistence of an e(plo"(ent relationship is in ?uestion. This was the issue generated !" Canonicato's application for regulari5ation of his e(plo"(ent with C)CA C)HA and the su!se?uent denial !" the latter of an e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship with the applicant. Dt was error therefore for the -HRC to appl" Art. #,0 of the Ha!or Code in deter(ining the eCistence of an e(plo"(ent relationship of the parties herein, especiall" in light of our eCplicit holding in %in$er %ewin$ Machine Co#pan& v. Drilon 20 that G . . . . MtNhe definition that regular e(plo"ees are those who perfor( activities which are desira!le and necessar" for the !usiness of the e(plo"er is not deter(inative in this case. An" agree(ent (a" provide that one part" shall render services for and in !ehalf of another for a consideration ;no (atter how necessar" for the latter's !usiness< even without !eing hired as an e(plo"ee. This is precisel" true in the case of an independent contractorship as well as in an agenc" agree(ent. The Court agrees with the petitioner's argu(ent that Article #,0 is not the "ardstic& for deter(ining the eCistence of an e(plo"(ent relationship !ecause it (erel" distinguishes !etween two &inds of e(plo"ees, i.e., regular e(plo"ees and casual e(plo"ees, for purposes of deter(ining the right of an e(plo"ee to certain !enefits, to :oin or for( a union, or to securit" of tenure. Article #,0 does not appl" where the eCistence of an e(plo"(ent relationship is in dispute. Dn deter(ining the eCistence of an e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship it is necessar" to deter(ine whether the following factors are present6 ;a< the selection and engage(ent of the e(plo"ee> ;!< the pa"(ent of wages> ;c< the power to dis(iss> and, ;d< the power to control the e(plo"ee's conduct. 21 -ota!l", these are all found in the relationship !etween +.' and Canonicato and not !etween Canonicato and petitioner C)CA C)HA. As the 'olicitor-1eneral (anifested 22 G Dn the instant case, the selection and engage(ent of the :anitors for petitioner were done !" +.'. The application for( and letter su!(itted !" private respondent ;Canonicato< to +.' show that he ac&nowledged the fact that it was +.' who did the hiring and not petitioner . . . . +.' paid the wages of private respondent, as evidenced !" the fact that on .ul" %*, %993, private respondent sent his sister to +.' with a note authori5ing her to receive his pa". /ower of dis(issal is also eCercised !" +.' and not petitioner. +.' is the one that assigns the :anitors to its clients and transfers the( when it sees fit. 'ince +.' is the one who engages their services, then it onl" follows that it also has the power to dis(iss the( when :ustified under the circu(stances. Hastl", +.' has the power to control the conduct of the :anitors. The supervisors of petitioner, !eing interested in the result of the wor& of the :anitors, also give suggestions as to the perfor(ance of the :anitors, !ut this does not (ean that +.' has no control over the(. The interest of petitioner is onl" with respect to the result of their wor&. )n the other hand, +.' oversees the totalit" of their perfor(ance. The power of the e(plo"er to control the wor& of the e(plo"ee is said to !e the (ost significant deter(inant. Canonicato disputed this power of +.' over hi( !" asserting that his e(plo"(ent with C)CA C)HA was not interrupted !" his application with +.' since his duties !efore and after he applied for regulari5ation were the sa(e, involving as the" did, wor&ing in the (aintenance depart(ent and doing painting tas&s within its facilities. Canonicato cited the Ha!or Jtili5ation Reports of C)CA C)HA showing his painting assign(ents. These reports, however, are not eCpressive of the true nature of the relationship !etween Canonicato and C)CA C)HA> neither do the" detract fro( the fact that +.' eCercised real authorit" over Canonicato as its e(plo"ee.

Moreover, a closer scrutin" of the reports reveals that the painting :o!s were perfor(ed !" Canonicato sporadicall", either in a few da"s within a (onth and onl" for a few (onths in a "ear. 23 This infre?uenc" or irregularit" of assign(ents countervails Canonicato's su!(ission that he was assigned specificall" to underta&e the tas& of painting the whole "ear round. Df an"thing, it hews closel" to the assertion of +.' that it assigned Canonicato to these :o!s to (aintain and saniti5e the pre(ises of petitioner C)CA C)HA pursuant to its contract of services with the co(pan". 26 Dt is clear fro( these esta!lished circu(stances that -HRC should have recogni5ed +.' as the e(plo"er of Canonicato and not C)CA C)HA. This is de(anded !" the fact that it did not distur!, and therefore it upheld, the finding of the Ha!or Ar!iter that +.' was trul" a legiti(ate :o!-contractor and could !" itself hire its e(plo"ees. The Co((ission could not have reached an" other legiti(ate conclusion considering that +.' satisfied all the re?uire(ents of a :o!-contractor under the law, na(el", ;a< the a!ilit" to carr" on an independent !usiness and underta&e the contract wor& on its own account under its own responsi!ilit" according to its own (anner and (ethod, free fro( the control and direction of its principal or client in all (atters connected with the perfor(ance of the wor& eCcept as to the results thereof> and, ;!< the su!stantial capital or invest(ent in the for( of tools, e?uip(ent, (achiner", wor& pre(ises, and other (aterials which are necessar" in the conduct of its !usiness. 2: Dt is to !e noted that C)CA C)HA is not the onl" client of +.' which has its roster of clients li&e 'an Miguel Corporation, 0istileria +ago Dncorporated, Jniversit" of -egros )ccidental-Recolletos, Jniversit" of 't. Ha 'alle, Riverside College, College Assurance /lan /hil., Dnc., and -egros Consolidated ar(ers Association, Dnc. 27 This is proof enough that +.' has the capa!ilit" to carr" on its !usiness of :anitorial services with !ig esta!lish(ents aside fro( petitioner and has sufficient capital or (aterials necessar" therefor. 27 All told, there !eing no e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship !etween Canonicato and C)CA C)HA, the latter cannot !e validl" ordered to reinstate the for(er and pa" hi( !ac& wages. 789R9 )R9, the petition is 1RA-T90. The -HRC decision of 3 .anuar" %99* declaring Ra(on +. Canonicato a regular e(plo"ee of petitioner Coca Cola +ottlers /hils., Dnc., entitled to reinstate(ent and !ac& wages is R929R'90 and '9T A'D09. The decision of the Ha!or Ar!iter of #, April %99= finding no e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relationship !etween petitioner and private respondent !ut directing petitioner Coca Cola +ottlers /hils., Dnc., instead and +acolod .anitorial 'ervices to pa" :ointl" and severall" Ra(on +. Canonicato /#,$$3.,0 as wage differentials, /%,03,.00 as %3th (onth pa" and /3,=.=, as attorne"'s fees, is R9D-'TAT90.1wphi1.nt ') )R09R90. G.R. No. 128720 =!"-!r/ 23, 2002

SFSGT. EL$ER T. ?ERGARA, petitioner, vs. EO LE OF THE HILI INES, respondent. 09CD'D)EUISU$;ING, J.: /etitioner see&s the reversal of the Court of AppealsP decision dated )cto!er 3%, %993, in CA-1.R. -o. CR %,3%,, which affir(ed the :udg(ent of the Regional Trial Court of /asig Cit", +ranch %3$, in Cri(inal Case -o. ,3%33, convicting hi( of ro!!er", thus6 789R9 )R9, :udg(ent is here!" rendered finding the accused 'I'gt. 9l(er 2ergara 1JDHTE !e"ond peradventure of dou!t of the cri(e of Ro!!er" defined and penali5ed under Art. #9=, -o. ;*<, in relation to Art. #9*, of the Revised /enal Code and is here!" sentenced to an indeter(inate penalt" of our ;=< "ears of prision correcional, as (ini(u(, to 9ight ;,< "ears and Twent"-)ne ;#%< da"s of prision #a&or, as (aCi(u(> to inde(nif" the offended part" in the su( of /%03,000.00> to suffer all the accessor" penalties appurtenant thereto> and, to pa" the Costs. ') )R09R90.% The facts of the case are as follows6

)n March %9, %99%, an infor(ation charging 'I'gt. 9l(er 2ergara, /C, C%C -icasio Custodio " A!rera, /C and Heonido Hosanes " 2as?ue5 of ro!!er" in !and was filed !" the Ri5al /rovincial /rosecutorPs )ffice with the RTC of /asig, Metro Manila. The infor(ation reads6 That on or a!out the %9th da" of )cto!er, %990, in the Municipalit" of Mandalu"ong, Metro Manila, /hilippines, a place within the :urisdiction of this 8onora!le Court, the a!ove-na(ed accused, conspiring and confederating together with .ohn 0oe, whose true identit" and present wherea!out is still un&nown, and (utuall" helping and aiding one another, ar(ed with high powered handguns, with intent of gain, !" (eans of violence and inti(idation e(plo"ed upon the person of one Catherine . Manalo, an e(plo"ee of . R 9 Manalo Construction Co., Dnc., who was then a!oard a private car, did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" ta&e, steal and divest fro( Catherine . Manalo the pa"roll (one" a(ounting to /,9,000.00 !elonging to . R 9 Manalo Construction Co(pan", Dnc. and a gold nec&lace with two ;#< pendants, %,K valued at /%$,000 !elonging to Catherine . Manalo, to the da(age and pre:udice of . R 9 Manalo Construction Co(pan", Dnc. and Catherine . Manalo in the afore(entioned a(ounts of /,9,000.00 and /%$, 000.00 respectivel". Contrar" to law.# Although all the suspects were !rought into police custod", petitionerPs co-accused (anaged to eCtricate the(selves fro( police control and re(ain at large. )nl" petitioner was left to face the charges. )n Ma" #%, %993, he was arraigned. 7ith the assistance of counsel de oficio, he pleaded @not guilt"@ to the charges. ollowing the pre-trial conference on August #0, %993, trial on the (erits ensued. The prosecution relied on the positive identification (ade !" private co(plainant who testified in court. As found !" the court a :uoH CCC )n )cto!er #$, %990, during the police line-up at the 'an .uan /olice 'tationSshe positivel" identified herein accused 9l(er 2ergara as the ar(ed (an who pointed the gun at her after he approached the left side of the car and wearing an ar(" fatigue unifor( with !lac& hat and who got her car &e"s, thereafter, she eCecuted another state(ent i(plicating accused 9l(er 2ergara as one of the four ar(ed (en who ro!!eMdN her. )n March %3, %99=, during the hearing of the case, she ;Catherine . Manalo< again pointed to accused 9l(er 2ergara to !e one of the ro!!er"Ihold-up gang (e(!ers ;8JHD0A/<, who too& the pa"roll (one" of the . R 9 Manalo Construction Co., Dnc., and her gold nec&lace, his participation !eing that of the person who pointed the gun at her and got the &e"s to her car> she re(e(!ered hi( to !e a!out *P3@ to *P$@ in height, with dar& features, chu!!" and heavil" !uilt. 3 /etitioner clai(ed an ali!i, while den"ing an" participation in the offense. The trial court su((ed up his defense as follows6 Accused 9l(er 2ergara la"s a serious dou!t on his identit" as one of the perpetrators of the ro!!er" Thold-upP in ?uestionSClai(ing innocence, he presented evidence showing that he was at so(e other place during the occurrence of the ro!!er". 8is alleged presence at the /acita Co(pleC at 'an /edro, Haguna, !eing a (e(!er of the narcotic operatives engaged in a surveillance of a suspected drug pusher, was corro!orated !" no less than the tea( leader Captain, now Ma:or Christopher HaCa. Ma:or Christopher HaCa was definite in declaring that 'I'gt. 9l(er 2ergara was ph"sicall" present inside the /i55a 8ut restaurant at /acita Co(pleC, 'an /edro Haguna, at a!out 3600 oPcloc& in the afternoon of )cto!er %9, %990 and, that he did not leave the area fro( the ti(e of their arrival at around %600 oPcloc& in the (orning until %%630 oPcloc& in the evening.S = The trial court chose to !elieve the prosecution and disregarded petitionerPs ali!i. )n March #9, %99*, it convicted 2ergara not of ro!!er" in !and as charged in the infor(ation, however, !ut of ro!!er" as defined and penali5ed under Article #9= of the Revised /enal Code. As eCplained !" the trial court6 Jnder Art. #9* of the Revised /enal Code a ro!!er" shall !e dee(ed to have !een co((itted !" a !and when (ore than three ar(ed (alefactors ;underline supplied< ta&e part in its co((ission. The prosecutionPs evidence de(onstrates that onl" three ;3< in the group were ar(ed, although there was another (e(!er inside the car at the ti(e of the co((ission. 8owever, there is no indication that the person inside the car was ar(ed. Conceding in gratia argu(enti, therefore, that the group of the

accused 9l(er 2ergara was co(posed of (ore than three ;3< (alefactors, the evidence disclosed that onl" three ;3< were ar(ed, and hence, the cri(e cannot !e considered to have !een co((itted !" a !and and does not co(e within the purview of Article #93 of the Revised /enal Code, which re?uires (ore than three ;3< ar(ed (alefactors to constitute the cri(e of ro!!er" co((itted !" a !and. * Dn convicting petitioner for ro!!er", the trial court stated6 +oth the defenses of negative identification and ali!i are unavailing. Contrar" to these protestations, co(plainant Catherine Manalo had a vivid recollection of the identit" of 'I'gt. 9l(er 2ergara as the person who accosted her on the left side of the car or at the driverPs seat and who po&ed a gun at her nec& and was also the one who too& the &e" fro( the ignition. Dt was a clear da", 3600 oPcloc& in the afternoon, and the pro!a!ilit" of a poor recollection is nil. Catherine Manalo was a!le to see 'gt. 9l(er 2ergara while on !oard the 1allant ;sic< 'ig(a Car when it was trailing her car and also at the ti(e it was passing her car until her path was !loc&ed and the three ;3< ar(ed (alefactors dise(!ar&ed. 'he had sufficient ti(e to recollect the faces of the persons who approached the car and their respective positions. There is no reason to dou!t her unerring testi(on" that she was a!le to positivel" re(e(!er and then later on identified the ro!!ers. +etween the positive declaration of Catherine Manalo and the denial of accused 9l(er 2ergara, the for(er deserves (ore credence, notwithstanding (inor inaccuracies as to the height and weight and st"ling of the hair of accused 9l(er 2ergara. CCC Conceding the fact that accused 9l(er 2ergara was in 'an /edro, Haguna, it is not ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have gone to /asig, Metro Manila, considering that he had an availa!le (eans of transportation. The distance !etween 'an /edro, Haguna where the accused clai(ed he was at the ti(e the ro!!er" too& place, and /asig, Metro Manila, where the cri(e was co((itted, is less than an hour drive !" car and can easil" !e reached !" one who, li&e the accused 9l(er 2ergara, had a car availa!le to hi(.3 Aggrieved !" his conviction, 2ergara elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, doc&eted as CA-1.R. CR -o. %,3%,, on the sole issue of whether or not petitioner co((itted the cri(e charged against hi(. The appeal was anchored on two grounds6 ;%< the alleged du!ious identification of 2ergara !" the private co(plainant, and ;#< failure of the trial court to appreciate 2ergaraPs ali!i that he was on an intelligence (ission in 'an /edro, Haguna at the ti(e the alleged ro!!er", speciall" in view of the corro!oration of his ali!i !" his co((anding officer. inding no reversi!le error in the findings and conclusions of the trial court, the Court of Appeals affir(ed 2ergaraPs conviction. The appellate court said6 Dn the case at !ench ;sic<, the prosecution had proven the identit" of accused-appellant !e"ond reasona!le dou!t through the testi(onies of prosecution witnesses 2illanueva and Manalo. Appellant failed to controvert the testi(on" of prosecution witness 2illanueva that accused-appellant was pointed to !" witness Manalo out of nine ;9< persons. Thus, the trial court had no reason to consider the identification (ade !" witness Manalo in the police station as one that ste((ed fro( a suggestive identification procedure used !" the police. The trial court was correct in regarding the difference in height as a (inor (atter. 7hat is vital is that the witness recogni5ed accused in the line-up and reiterated her identification of accused-appellant in open court. Dn the a!sence of ill-(otive on her part to testif" falsel" against accused-appellant, the trial court is correct in giving full faith and credence to the testi(on" of witness Manalo. $ /etitioner ti(el" filed a (otion for reconsideration, !ut it was denied !" the appellate court in its resolution of March #3, %99$. Dnsisting on his innocence, petitioner now su!(its to this Court the following sole assign(ent of error6 T89 8)-)RA+H9 C)JRT ) A//9AH' 1RA29HE 9RR90 D- 1D2D-1 M)R9 CR909-C9 T) T89 T9'TDM)-E ) C)M/HAD-A-T CAT89RD-9 MA-AH) T8A- T89 T9'TDM)-D9' ) T89 ACCJ'90 A-0 8D' 7DT-9'' A-0 C)-'9OJ9-THE JRT89R 9RR90 D- D-0D-1 T89 ACCJ'90 1JDHTE ) T89 CRDM9 +9E)-0 R9A')-A+H9 0)J+T., The issue of whether or not the guilt of the accused had !een proven !e"ond reasona!le dou!t hinges, in our view, on the credi!ilit" of witnesses presented !" the prosecution and the defense. Crucial in this

regard is the identification (ade !" the co(plaining witness, Catherine Manalo, of the petitioner, 'gt. 9l(er T. 2ergara, as one of the (alefactors. /etitioner vehe(entl" insists that the contradictions in Catherine ManaloPs testi(on" are not (ere (inor inconsistencies. According to petitioner, while private co(plainant !elow descri!ed hi( as around *P3@-*P$@ tall, weighing a!out %30-%3* l!s., and sporting a (ilitar" haircut> in truth, he is onl" *P3-%I#@ tall, tips the scale at less than %*0 l!s., and had long hair at the ti(e of the incident. 1iven these discrepancies, petitioner insists that private co(plainant !elow (ust have !een referring to another person and not to hi(. +asicall", petitionerPs contention raises ?uestions of facts, which traditionall" fall within the province of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. After reviewing the records of this case, we find no reason to distur! the assess(ent of the trial court of all the pieces of evidence su!(itted !efore it, particularl" as its findings and conclusions had !een affir(ed !" the appellate court. Dn this case, petitioner has !een convicted on the !asis of the positive identification (ade !" private co(plainant !elow. As the Court of Appeals stressed, petitioner was categoricall" identified !" the private co(plainant not :ust once, !ut twice, as one of the ar(ed (en who ro!!ed her. The first ti(e was during the police line-up of nine ;9< persons on )cto!er #$, %990 and the second ti(e was during her testi(on" in open court. The records show that private co(plainant had no (otive to falsel" testif" against petitioner. 7e agree with the lower courts that the discrepancies in the private co(plainantPs description are not decisive. 8er description was !ased on visual esti(ates, which cannot !e eCpected to !e perfect. 7hat is decisive is that petitioner was positivel" and categoricall" identified as one of the ro!!ers, not :ust once !ut twice, !" private co(plainant, Catherine Manalo. 8er recollection of his description (ight suffer fro( i(perfection regarding his height, weight and personal appearance. +ut we note less. .urisprudence recogni5es that victi(s of cri(e have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attac&ers, and re(e(!ering the(.9 That so(e variance as to petitionerPs height and weight (ight eCist in her recollection, in co(parison to his statistical (easure(ent does not destro" her credi!ilit". That the trial court found this variance inconse?uential does not render its findings on the credi!ilit" of witnesses erroneous. 'uch findings are accorded great respect and will !e sustained !" the appellate courts unless the trial court overloo&ed, (isunderstood, or (isapplied so(e facts or circu(stances of weight and su!stance which could alter the decision or affect the result of the case.%0 8ere, the i(portant thing is that co(plaining witness Catherine Manalo identified the petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the ro!!er" twice, without an" presu(ptions or suggestion fro( the police at the line-up or the court at the trial. /etitioner also argues that the prosecution failed to contradict his ali!i. 8e su!(its that the prosecution failed to prove that he had a car availa!le to hi(, or that he drove one fro( 'an /edro, Haguna to /asig, Metro Manila. /etitioner further insists that the trial courtPs finding that the place where the cri(e was co((itted is less than an hourPs drive !" car and can easil" !e reached !" one who, li&e petitioner, had a car availa!le to hi(, is erroneous and unsupported !" the evidence on record. .udicial notice could !e ta&en of the travel ti(e !" car fro( 'an /edro, Haguna to /asig Cit", Metro Manila, !ecause it is capa!le of un?uestiona!le de(onstration, and nowada"s is alread" of pu!lic &nowledge, especiall" to co((uters.%% 7e find no error in the trial courtPs finding that it was not i(possi!le for petitioner to !e at the scene of the cri(e, despite his ali!i that he was engaged in intelligence wor& in 'an /a!lo Haguna that sa(e afternoon of )cto!er %9, %990. or ali!i to prosper, it would not !e enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the cri(e was co((itted. 8e (ust further de(onstrate that it would have !een ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have !een at the scene of the cri(e at the ti(e of its co((ission. %# Dt is essential that credi!le and tangi!le proof of ph"sical i(possi!ilit" for the accused to !e at the scene of the cri(e !e presented to esta!lish an accepta!le ali!i.%3/etitioner failed to (eet this test. 7hile petitioner could have !een wor&ing as intelligence agent in 'an /edro, Haguna fro( )cto!er %9 Q#%, %990, contrar" to his clai(, it was not ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have !een in /asig Cit", Metro Manila on the da" of the co((ission of the cri(e. /etitionerPs insistence that he had no vehicle availa!le to hi( is not supported !" the testi(on" of his own co((anding officer who testified in petitionerPs defense, to wit6 D'CAH6 CR)'' 9AAMD-ATD)-6 O6 Mr. 7itness, what (ode of transportation did "ou ta&e in going to Haguna in ;sic< )cto!er %9, %990.

A6 7e used cars. O6 7hat vehicleL A6 To"ota Corona P$, (odel and a 1alant, old (odel. O6 And in what particular vehicle did "ou "ourself usedL A6 To"ota Corona and another car as a !ac&-up vehicle. CCC O6 7ho arrived ahead, "our car or the car of the accusedL A6 7e arrived together !ecause we traveled not far with each other, we (aintained the distance of three to five (eters, (aP(. O6 8ow (an" were "ouL A6 -or(all", up to nine (e(!ers of the tea(, !ut in that operation D thin&, seven or siC (e(!ers, (aP(. CCC O6 7ho were the co(panions of 2ergara where he was ridingL A6 Dt was 'gt. 'an .ose who was driving the car, together with 'gt. Magno and 'gt. Ru!i. O6 8ow a!out "ou, who were "our co(panionsL A6 D was with the other car, with a civilian driver, and D cannot recall an"(ore who( D was with at the ti(e.%= -or was his co((anding officerPs corro!orative testi(on" of (uch help in sustaining petitionerPs ali!i, as shown !" the following6 D'CAH6 7hat is "our !asis that 2ergara was with "ou at a!out 3600 in the afternoon of )cto!er %9, %990L A6 7hat do "ou (ean !asisL 8is ph"sical presence in the area is (" !asis, (aP(, that he was there. O6 0o "ou &eep an attendance record or attendance !oo& of the (e(!ers of the tea(L A6 7e do not nor(all" do it once we left for an operation, we !elieve it is not necessar" to account ever" (inute ever" hour of the operation, so long as we are in the area, target area and ever" !od" ;sic< is posted on our designated position, as soon as the signal is alread" given then thatPs the ti(e we will respond or arrest the gu", !ut D can sa" that 'gt. 2ergara never left the place until the #%st of )cto!er, he was there in /acita Co(pleC, (aP(. O6 Dn other cases where "ou conducted surveillance do "ou (aintain a log!oo&L A6 The log !oo& is filled up onl", D (ean we do the logging prior and after the operation, thatPs the ti(e we placed the preparations or eCtent of our operation, thatPs the ti(e we entered this in the log !oo& and when we returned fro( the operation, we also registered a!out the result of the operation. CCC O6 Eou do not li&ewise &eep a call or (a&e a roll call or &eep attendance recordL

A6 Dt is auto(atic (aP(, ever"ti(e, during the operation we see to it that all the persons were in the area at the ti(e we registered ourselves in the log!oo&. O6 Dn "our tea(, who in particular is assigned to &eep trac& of the attendanceL A6 +eing the tea( leader, D a( the one in charge to &eep the (ove(ents of ever" (e(!ers ;sic< of the tea(, !ut when D left on %9th )cto!er proceeding to Ma&ati, D specificall" gave instructions to (aintain the operation and see to it that the" have new infor(ations ;sic< or new develop(ent of the case the" have to call (e !" radio so that D can co(e !ac& in the area, that was the instruction to the assistant tea( leader whenever D left the area. O6 'o D understand that "ou do not go with the (e(!ers of the tea( during the whole period or duration of the surveillance. A6 'o(eti(es, (aP(, there are instances. Dn that particular instance D left (" (en at a!out %%30 in the evening of %9th )cto!er, D left (" tea( and !ac& again in the earl" (orning of #0 )cto!er. %* There were far too (an" glaring lapses in the testi(on" of petitionerPs corro!orative witness for petitionerPs ali!i to !e given (uch weight, thus6 O6 And what was that particular (ission in 'an /edro, Haguna on )cto!er %9, %990L A6 7e were supposed to conduct a !u"-!ust operation with the aid of our infor(ant, an errand !o" of the su!:ect pusher. O6 0o "ou &now the na(e of that infor(antL A6 D cannot recall. CCC O6 And in what particular place in Haguna was this suppose;d< surveillance that "ou will conductL A6 D cannot recall the na(e of the street !ut D &now the place, !ut the street na(e and the eCact nu(!er D cannot recall. CCC O6 7hat placeL A6 D cannot recall. O6 7hat is the nu(!erL A6 D cannot recall. O6 7ho was the su!:ectL A6 Dt was a certain alias 1er(an, (aP(. CCC C)JRT6 Ds a certain -icasio Custodio " A!rera a (e(!er of "our tea(L A6 D thin& during that ti(e. CCC C)JRT6

)n )cto!er %9, %990, will "ou recall if he was with "ouL A6 D cannot recall, "our honor.%3 Dn the case of ali!i, it is ele(entar" that the re?uire(ents of ti(e and place !e strictl" co(plied with !" the defense, (eaning that the accused (ust not onl" show that he was so(ewhere else !ut that it was also ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have !een at the scene of the cri(e at the ti(e it was co((itted.%$1wphi1 Dn the light of private co(plainantPs positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the cri(e, the latterPs defense of !are denial and ali!i (ust necessaril" fail, as her positive testi(on" overrides his negative testi(on".%,Ali!i is a wea& defense that !eco(es even wea&er in the face of positive identification of the accused.%9 urther, an ali!i cannot prevail over the positive identification of the petitioner !" a credi!le witness who has no (otive to testif" falsel". #0 DHEREFORE, the instant petition is here!" 09-D90. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-1.R. -o. CR %,3%, is here!" A DRM90. Costs against the petitioner. ') )R09R90.

9- +A-C

GG.R. No(. 167710<1:. April 3, 2001H

=OSE H E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. ANIANO DESIERTO, i" )i( %!p!%i+/ !( O*1-#(*!", RA$ON GONIALES, ?OLUNTEERS AGAINST CRI$E AND CORRU TION, GRAFT FREE HILI INES FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE ?ERA, DENNIS FUNA, RO$EO CA ULONG !"# ERNESTO ;. FRANCISCO, =R.,respondents.

GG.R. No. 167738. April 3, 2001H

=OSE H E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA $ACA AGAL<ARRO8O, respondent. RESOLUTION UNO, J.@ or resolution are petitionerPs Motion for Reconsideration in 1.R. -os. %=3$%0-%* and )(ni!us Motion in 1.R. -o. %=3$3, of the CourtPs 0ecision of March #, #00%. Dn 1.R. -os. %=3$%0-%*, petitioner raises the following grounds6 UD. DT 0D'R91AR090 T89 CH9AR A-0 9A/HDCDT /R)2D'D)-' ) ART. AD, '9CTD)- 3 ;$< ) T89 C)-'TDTJTD)- A-0 T89 '9TTH90 .JRD'/RJ09-C9 T89R9)-. DD. DT 89H0 T8AT /9TDTD)-9R CA- +9 /R)'9CJT90 -)7, )R T8D' RJHD-1 7)JH0 2D)HAT9 T89 0)J+H9 .9)/AR0E CHAJ'9 ) T89 C)-'TDTJTD)-, C)-'D09RD-1 T8AT /9TDTD)-9R 7A' ACOJDTT90 D- T89 DM/9AC8M9-T /R)C990D-1'. DDD. DT 89H0 T8AT /9TDTD)-9R D' -) H)-19R 9-TDTH90 T) A+')HJT9 DMMJ-DTE R)M 'JDT. D2. DT 89H0 T8AT /9TDTD)-9RP' 0J9 /R)C9'' RD18T' T) A /R9.J0DC90 +E /R9-TRDAH /J+HDCDTE. ADR TRDAH 8A29 -)T +99-

2. DT 89H0 T8AT T89R9 D' -)T 9-)J18 92D09-C9 T) 7ARRA-T T89 C)JRT T) 9-.)D- T89 /R9HDMD-ARE D-29'TD1ATD)- ) T89 D-CJM+9-T )M+J0'MA-, /9TDTD)-9R 8A2D-1 ADH90 T) /R)29 T89 DM/ADR90 CA/ACDTE ) T89 )M+J0'MA- T) R9-09R A +DA'90 R99 09CD'D)-.V Dn 1.R. -o. %=3$3,, petitioner raises and argues the following issues6 %. 789T89R /9TDTD)-9R R9'D1-90 )R '8)JH0 +9 C)-'D09R90 R9'D1-90 A' ) .A-JARE #0, #00%> #. 789T89R T89 A-1ARA 0DARE D' D-A0MD''D+H9 )R +9D-1 2D)HATD29 ) T89 )HH)7D-1 RJH9' )- 92D09-C96 89AR'AE, +9'T 92D09-C9, AJT89-TDCATD)-, A0MD''D)-' A-0 R/% I91/R A6I7% AC1A> 3. 789T89R R9HDA-C9 )- -97'/A/9R AC)J-T' D' 2D)HATD29 ) T89 89AR'AE RJH9> =. 789T89R C)-1R9'' 7%1 FAC17 CA- 09CD09 /9TDTD)-9RP' D-A+DHDTE T) 1)29RC)-'D09RD-1 '9CTD)- %%, ARTDCH9 2DD ) T89 C)-'TDTJTD)-> and *. 789T89R /R9.J0DCDAH /J+HDCDTE 8A' A 9CT90 /9TDTD)-9RP' RD18T T) ADR TRDAH.

7e find the contentions of petitioner !ereft of (erit. I

r&3-#i%i!l

-1li%i+/ o" +)& Co-r+

/etitioner insists he is the victi( of pre:udicial pu!licit". A(ong others, he assails the 0ecision for adverting to newspaper accounts of the events and occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. Dn our 0ecision, we used the totalit" test to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner has resigned. 7e referred to and anal"5ed events that were prior, conte(poraneous and posterior to the oath-ta&ing of respondent Arro"o as president. All +)&(& &0&"+( !r& 2!%+( .)i%) !r& .&ll< &(+!1li()&# !"# %!""o+ 1& r&2-+&# . Thus, we adverted to prior events that !uilt up the irresisti!le pressure for the petitioner to resign. These are6 ;%< the eCpose of 1overnor Huis UChavitV 'ingson on )cto!er =, #000> ;#< the UD accuseV speech of then 'enator Teofisto 1uingona in the 'enate> ;3< the :oint investigation of the speech of 'enator 1uingona !" the +lue Ri!!on Co((ittee and the Co((ittee on .ustice> ;=< the investigation of the 'ingson eCpose !" the 8ouse Co((ittee on /u!lic )rder and 'ecurit"> ;*< the (ove to i(peach the petitioner in the 8ouse of Representatives> ;3< the /astoral Hetter of Arch!ishop .ai(e Cardinal 'in de(anding petitionerPs resignation> ;$< a si(ilar de(and !" the Catholic +ishops conference> ;,< the si(ilar de(ands for petitionerPs resignation !" for(er /residents Cora5on C. A?uino and idel 2. Ra(os> ;9< the resignation of respondent Arro"o as 'ecretar" of the 0'70 and her call for petitioner to resign> ;%0< the resignation of the (e(!ers of petitionerPs Council of 'enior 9cono(ic Advisers and of 'ecretar" Mar RoCas DDD fro( the 0epart(ent of Trade and Dndustr"> ;%%< the defection of then 'enate /resident ran&lin 0rilon and then 'pea&er of the 8ouse of Representatives Manuel 2illar and fort" seven ;=$< representatives fro( petitionerPs Hapiang Masang /ilipino> ;%#< the trans(ission of the Articles of D(peach(ent !" 'pea&er 2illar to the 'enate> ;%3< the unseating of 'enator 0rilon as 'enate /resident and of Representative 2illar as 'pea&er of the 8ouse> ;%=< the i(peach(ent trial of the petitioner> ;%*< the testi(onies of Clarissa )ca(po and for(er inance 'ecretar" 9dgardo 9spiritu in the i(peach(ent trial> ;%3< the %%-%0 vote of the senator:udges den"ing the prosecutorPs (otion to open the #nd envelope which allegedl" contained evidence showing that petitioner held a /3.3 !illion deposit in a secret !an& account under the na(e of U.ose 2elardeV> ;%$< the prosecutorsP wal&out and resignation> ;%,< the indefinite postpone(ent of the i(peach(ent proceedings to give a chance to the 8ouse of Representatives to resolve the issue of resignation of their prosecutors> ;%9< the rall" in the 90'A 'hrine and its intensification in various parts of the countr"> ;#0< the withdrawal of support of then 'ecretar" of -ational 0efense )rlando Mercado and the then Chief of 'taff, 1eneral Angelo Re"es, together with the chiefs of all the ar(ed services> ;#%< the sa(e withdrawal of support (ade !" the then 0irector 1eneral of the /-/, 1eneral /anfilo Hacson, and the (a:or service co((anders> ;##< the strea( of resignations !" Ca!inet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and !ureau chiefs> ;#3< petitionerPs agree(ent to hold a snap election and opening of the controversial second envelope. All +)&(& prior &0&"+( !r& 2!%+( .)i%) !r& .i+)i" 3-#i%i!l "o+i%& 1/ +)i( Co-r+. T)&r& .!( "o "&&# +o %i+& +)&ir "&.( !%%o-"+(. T)& r&2&r&"%& 1/ +)& Co-r+ +o %&r+!i" "&.(p!p&r( r&por+i"' +)&* !( +)&/ )!pp&"&# #o&( "o+ *!C& +)&* i"!#*i((i1l& &0i#&"%& 2or 1&i"' )&!r(!/. T)& "&.( !%%o-"+ o"l/ 1-++r&((&# +)&(& 2!%+( !( 2!%+(. For !ll )i( lo-# pro+&(+!+io"(, p&+i+io"&r )!( "o+ (i"'l&# o-+ !"/ o2 +)&(& 2!%+( !( 2!l(&.

7e now co(e to so(e events of .anuar" #0, #00% conte(poraneous to the oath ta&ing of respondent Arro"o. 7e used the Angara 0iar" to decipher the intent to resign on the part of the petitioner. Het it !e e(phasi5ed that it is not unusual for courts to distill a personPs su!:ective intent fro( the evidence !efore the(. 9ver"da", courts ascertain intent in cri(inal cases, in civil law cases involving last wills and testa(ents, in co((ercial cases involving contracts and in other si(ilar cases. As will !e discussed !elow, the use of the Angara 0iar" is not prohi!ited !" the hearsa" rule. /etitioner (a" disagree with so(e of the inferences arrived at !" the Court fro( the facts narrated in the 0iar" !ut that does not (a&e the 0iar" inad(issi!le as evidence. 7e did not stop with the conte(poraneous events !ut proceeded to eCa(ine so(e events posterior to the oath-ta&ing of respondent Arro"o. 'pecificall", we anal"5ed the all i(portant press release of the petitioner containing his 2i"!l (+!+&*&"+ which was issued after the oath-ta&ing of respondent Arro"o as president. After anal"5ing its content, we ruled that petitionerPs issuance of the press release and his a!andone(nt of Malaca4ang /alace confir(ed his resignation. M%N These areo0&r+ !%+( which leave no dou!t to the Court that the petitioner has resigned. I" li')+ o2 +)i( 2i"#i"' +)!+ p&+i+io"&r )!( r&(i'"&# 1&2or& 12 oJ%lo%C "oo" o2 =!"!-r/ 20, 2001, +)& %l!i* +)!+ +)& o22i%& o2 +)& r&(i#&"+ .!( "o+ 0!%!"+ .)&" r&(po"#&"+ Arro/o +ooC )&r o!+) o2 o22i%& !+ )!l2 p!(+ "oo" o2 +)& (!*& #!/ )!( "o l&' +o (+!"# o". 7e also re:ect the contention that petitionerPs resignation was due to #-r&(( and an i"0ol-"+!r/ r&(i'"!+io" is no resignation at all. UC C C MDNt has !een said that, in deter(ining whether a given resignation is voluntaril" tendered, the ele(ent of voluntariness is vitiated onl" when the resignation is su!(itted under duress !rought on !" govern(ent action. The +)r&&<p!r+ +&(+ for such duress has !een stated as involving the following ele(ents6 ;%< whether one side involuntaril" accepted the otherPs ter(s> ;#< whether circu(stances per(itted no other alternative> and ;3< whether such circu(stances were the result of coercive acts of the opposite side. The view has also !een eCpressed that a resignation (a" !e found involuntar" if on the +o+!li+/ o2 +)& %ir%-*(+!"%&( it appears that the e(plo"erPs conduct in r&4-&(+i"' r&(i'"!+io" effectivel" deprived the e(plo"er of free choice in the (atter. F!%+or( +o 1& %o"(i#&r&#, under this test, are6 ;%< whether the e(plo"ee was given so(e alternative to resignation> ;#< whether the e(plo"ee understood the nature of the choice he or she was given> ;3< whether the e(plo"ewe was given a reasona!le ti(e in which to choose> and ;=< whether he or she was per(itted to select the effective date of resignation. Dn appl"ing this totalit" of the circu(stances test, the assess(ent whether real alternatives were offered (ust !e gauged !" an o!:ective standard rather than !" the e(plo"eePs purel" su!:ective evaluation> +)!+ +)& &*plo/&& *!/ p&r%&i0& )i( or )&r o"l/ op+io" +o 1& r&(i'"!+io" K 2or &5!*pl&, 1&%!-(& o2 %o"%&r"( !1o-+ )i( or )&r r&p-+!+io" K i( irr&l&0!"+. Si*il!rl/, +)& *&r& 2!%+ +)!+ +)& %)oi%& i( 1&+.&&" %o*p!r!1l/ -"pl&!(!"+ !l+&r"!+i0&( K 2or &5!*pl&, r&(i'"!+io" or 2!%i"' #i(%ipli"!r/ %)!r'&( K #o&( "o+ o2 i+(&l2 &(+!1li() +)!+ ! r&(i'"!+io" .!( i"#-%&# 1/ #-r&(( or %o&r%io", !"# .!( +)&r&2or& i"0ol-"+!r/. This is so even where the onl" alternative to resignation is facing possi!le ter(ination for cause, unless the e(plo"er actuall" lac&ed good cause to !elieve that grounds for ter(ination eCisted. Dn this regard it has also !een said that a resignation resulting fro( a choice !etween resigning or facing proceedings for dis(issal is not tanta(ount to discharge !" coercion without procedural view if the e(plo"ee is given sufficient ti(e and opportunit" for deli!eration of the choice posed. uther(ore, a resignation !" an officer charged with (isconduct is not given under duress, though the appropriate authorit" has alread" deter(ined that the officerPs alternative is ter(ination, where such authorit" has the legal authorit" to ter(inate the officerPs e(plo"(ent under the particular circu(stances, since it is not duress to threaten to do what one has the legal right to do, or to threaten to ta&e an" (easure authori5ed !" law and the circu(stances of the case.V M#N Dn the cases at !ar, p&+i+io"&r )!# (&0&r!l op+io"( availa!le to hi( other than resignation. 8e proposed to the holding of snap elections. 8e trans(itted to the Congress a written declaration of te(porar" ina!ilit". 8e could not clai( he was forced to resign !ecause i((ediatel" !efore he left Malaca4ang, he as&ed 'ecretar" Angara6 U9d, aalis na !a a&oLV which i(plies that he still had a choice of whether or not to leave. To 1& (-r&, pr&((-r& .!( &5&r+&# 2or +)& p&+i+io"&r +o r&(i'". ;-+ i+ i( #i22i%-l+ +o 1&li&0& +)!+ +)& pr&((-r& %o*pl&+&l/ 0i+i!+&# +)& 0ol-"+!ri"&(( o2 +)& p&+i+io"&rJ( r&(i'"!+io". The Malaca4ang ground was then full" protected !" the /residential 'ecurit" 1uard ar(ed with tan&s and high-powered weapons. The then Chief of 'taff, 1eneral Angelo Re"es, and other (ilitar" officers were in Malaca4ang to assure that no har( would !efall the petitioner as he left the /alace. Dndeed, no har(, not even a scratch, was suffered !" the petitioner, the (e(!ers of his fa(il" and his Ca!inet who stuc& it out with hi( in his last hours. /etitionerPs entourage was even a!le to detour safel" to the Municipal 8all of 'an .uan and !ade good!"e to his followers !efore finall" going to his residence in /ol& 'treet, 1reenhills. The onl" incident !efore the petitioner left the /alace was

the stone throwing !etween a s(all group of pro and anti 9rap rall"ists which resulted in (inor in:uries to a few of the(. Certainl", there were no tan&s that ru(!led through the /alace, no attac& planes that flew over the presidential residence, no shooting, no large scale violence, eCcept ver!al violence, to :ustif" the conclusion that petitioner was coerced to resign. II

E0i#&"+i!r/ I((-&(

/etitioner devotes a large part of his argu(ents on the alleged i(proper use !" this Court of the A"'!r! Di!r/. Dt is urged that the use of the A"'!r! Di!r/ to deter(ine the state of (ind of the petitioner on the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the ad(ission of )&!r(!/ &0i#&"%&. 7e are unpersuaded. To !egin with, +)& A"'!r! #i!r/ i( "o+ !" o-+ o2 %o-r+ (+!+&*&"+. The A"'!r! Di!r/ i( p!r+ o2 +)& pl&!#i"'( i" +)& %!(&( !+ 1!r . /etitioner cannot co(plain he was not furnished a cop" of the Angara 0iar". -or can he feign surprise on its use. To !e sure, the said 0iar" was fre?uentl" referred to !" the parties in their pleadings. M3N The three parts of the 0iar" pu!lished in the /0D fro( e!ruar" =-3, #00% were attached as AnneCes A-C, respectivel", of the Me(orandu( of private respondents Ro(eo T. Capulong, et al., dated e!ruar" #0, #00%. The second and third parts of the 0iar" were earlier also attached as AnneCes %# and %3 of the Co((ent of private respondents Capulong, et al., dated e!ruar" %#, #00%. Dn fact, petitioner even cited in his 'econd 'upple(ental Repl" Me(orandu( !oth the second part of the diar", pu!lished on e!ruar" *, #00%, M=N and the third part, pu!lished on e!ruar" 3, #00%. M*N Dt was also eCtensivel" used !" 'ecretar" of .ustice 8ernando /ere5 in his oral argu(ents. Thus, petitioner had all the opportunit" to contest the use of the 0iar" !ut unfortunatel" failed to do so. 9ven assu(ing arguendo that the Angara 0iar" was an out of court state(ent, still its use is not covered !"the hearsa" rule.M3N 9vidence is called hearsa" when its pro!ative force depends, in whole or in part, on the co(petenc" and credi!ilit" of so(e persons other than the witness !" who( it is sought to produce it.M$NThere are three reasons for eCcluding hearsa" evidence6 ;%< a!sence of cross eCa(ination> ;#< a!sence of de(eanor evidence, and ;3< a!sence of the oath. M,N -ot at all hearsa" evidence, however, is inad(issi!le as evidence. )ver the "ears, a huge !od" of hearsa" evidence has !een ad(itted !" courts due to their relevance, trustworthiness and necessit". M9N The e(ergence of these eCceptions and their wide spread acceptance is well-eCplained !" 7einstein, Mansfield, A!ra(s and +erger as follows6 UC C C )n the other hand, we all (a&e decisions in our ever"da" lives on the !asis of other personsP accounts of what happened, and verdicts are usuall" sustained and affir(ed even if the" are !ased on hearsa" erroneousl" ad(itted, or ad(itted !ecause no o!:ection was (ade. 'ee 'hepp v. Jehlinger, $$* #d =*#, =*=-=** ;%st Cir. %9,*< ;hearsa" evidence alone can support a verdict<. Although volu(es have !een written suggesting wa"s to revise the hearsa" rule, no one advocates a rule that would !ar all hearsa" evidence. I"#&&#, +)& #&%i#&# )i(+ori%!l +r&"# )!( 1&&" +o &5%l-#& %!+&'ori&( o2 )i')l/ pro1!+i0& (+!+&*&"+( 2ro* +)& #&2i"i+io" o2 )&!r(!/ A(&%+io"( 2 !"# 3, i"2r!B, !"# +o #&0&lop *or& %l!(( &5%&p+io"( +o +)& )&!r(!/ r-l& A(&%+io"( 6<11, i"2r!B. F-r+)&r*or&, *!"/ (+!+&( )!0& !##&# +o +)&ir r-l&( +)& r&(i#-!l, or %!+%)<!ll, &5%&p+io"( 2ir(+ pio"&&r&# 1/ +)& F&#&r!l R-l&( .)i%) !-+)oriL& +)& !#*i((io" o2 )&!r(!/ +)!+ #o&( "o+ (!+i(2/ ! %l!(( &5%&p+io", pro0i#&# i+ i( !#&4-!+&l/ +r-(+.or+)/ !"# pro1!+i0& ;section %#, infra<. Moreover, (o*& %o**&"+!+or( 1&li&0& +)!+ +)& )&!r(!/ r-l& ()o-l# 1& !1oli()&# !l+o'&+)&r i"(+&!# o2 1&i"' loo(&"&#. 'ee, e.g., -ote, The Theoretical oundation of the 8earsa" Rules, 93 8arv.H.Rev. %$,3, %,0=-%,0*, %,%* ;%9,0< ;footnotes o(itted<6 The ederal Rules of 9vidence provide that TMaNlthough relevant, evidence (a" !e eCcluded if its pro!ative value is su!stantiall" outweighed !" the danger of unfair pre:udice.P Jnder this structure, eCclusion is :ustified !" fears of how the :ur" will !e influenced !" the evidence. 8owever, it is not traditional to thin& of hearsa" as (erel" a su!division of this structure, and the ederal Rules do not conceive of hearsa" in that (anner. /re:udice refers to the :ur"Ps use of evidence for inferences other than those for which the evidence is legall" relevant> !" contrast, the rule against hearsa" ?uestions the :ur"Ps a!ilit" to evaluate the strength of a le$iti#ateinference to !e drawn fro( the evidence. or eCa(ple, were a :udge to eCclude testi(on" !ecause a witness was particularl" s(ooth or convincing, there would !e no dou!t as to the usurpation of the :ur"Ps function. Thus, unli&e pre:udices recogni5ed !" the evidence rules, such as those ste((ing fro( racial or religious !iases or fro( the introduction

of photographs of a victi(Ps final state, the eCclusion of hearsa" on the !asis of (isperception stri&es at the root of the :ur"Ps function !" usurping its power to process ?uite ordinar" evidence, the t"pe of infor(ation routinel" encountered !" :urors in their ever"da" lives. S 'ince virtuall" all criteria see&ing to distinguish !etween good and !ad hearsa" are either incoherent, inconsistent, or indeter(inate, the onl" altenative to a general rule of ad(ission would !e an a!solute rule of eCclusion, which is surel" inferior. More i(portant, the assu(ptions necessar" to :ustif" a rule against hearsa" S see( insupporta!le and, in an" event, are inconsistent with accepted notions of the function of the :ur". Therefore, the hearsa" rules should !e a!olished. 'o(e support for this view can !e found in the li(ited e(pirical research now availa!le Q which is, however, derived fro( si(ulations Q that suggests that !#*i++i"' )&!r(!/ )!( li++l& &22&%+ o" +ri!l o-+%o*&( 1&%!-(& 3-ror( #i(%o-"+ +)& 0!l-& o2 )&!r(!/ &0i#&"%&. 'ee Ra&os R Hands(an, Researching the 8earsa" Rule6 9(erging indings, 1eneral Dssues, and uture 0irections, $3 Minn.H.Rev. 3** ;%99#<> Miene, /ar&, R +orgidas, .ur" 0ecision Ma&ing and the 9valuation of 8earsa" 9vidence, $3 Minn.H.Rev. 3,3 ;%99#<> Kovera, /ar&, R /enrod, .urorsP /erceptions of 9"ewitness and 8earsa" 9vidence, $3 Minn.H.Rev. $03 ;%99#<> Hands(an R Ra&os, Research 9ssa"6 A /reli(inar" 9(pirical 9n?uir" Concerning the prohi!ition of 8earsa" 9vidence in A(erican Courts, %* Haw R /s"chol. Rev. 3* ;%99%<. O+)&r(, &0&" i2 +)&/ %o"%&#& +)!+ r&(+ri%+io"( o" )&!r(!/ )!0& (o*& -+ili+/, 4-&(+io" .)&+)&r +)& 1&"&2i+( o-+.&i') +)& %o(+@ The cost of (aintaining the rule is not :ust a function of its contri!ution to :ustice. Dt also includes the ti(e spent on litigating the rule. And of course this is not :ust a cost voluntaril" !orne !" the parties, for in our s"ste( virtuall" all the cost of the court Q salaries, ad(inistrative costs, and capital costs Q are !orne !" the pu!lic. As eCpensive as litigation is for the parties, it is supported !" an enor(ous pu!lic su!sid". E!%) +i*& ! )&!r(!/ 4-&(+io" i( li+i'!+&#, +)& p-1li% p!/(. The rule i(poses other costs as well. 9nor(ous ti(e is spent teaching and writing a!out the hearsa" rule, which are !oth costl" enterprises. Dn so(e law schools, students spend over half their ti(e in evidence classes learning the intricacies of the hearsa" rule, and S enor(ous acade(ic resources are eCpended on the rule. Allen, Co((entar" on /rofessor riend(anPs Article6 The 9volution of the 8earsa" Rule to a Rule of Ad(ission, $3 Minn.H.Rev. $9$, ,00 M%99#N ;!ut would a!olish rule onl" in civil cases<. 'ee also ried(an, Toward a /artial 9cono(ic, 1a(e-Theoretic Anal"sis of 8earsa", $3 Minn. H. Rev. $#3 ;%99#<.VM%0N A %o*pl&+& !"!l/(i( of an" hearsa" pro!le( re?uires that we 2-r+)&r #&+&r*i"& whether the hearsa" evidence is one eCe(pted fro( the r-l&( o2 &5%l-(io". A *or& %ir%-*(p&%+ &5!*i"!+io" o2 o-r r-l&( o2 &5%l-(io" .ill ()o. +)!+ +)&/ #o "o+ %o0&r !#*i((io"( o2 ! p!r+/ !"# +)& A"'!r! Di!r/ 1&lo"'( +o +)i( %l!((. 'ection #3 of Rule %30 provides that Uthe act, declaration or o(ission of a part" as to a relevant fact (a" !e given in evidence against hi(.V M%%N I+ )!( lo"' 1&&" (&++l&# +)!+ +)&(& !#*i((io"( !r& !#*i((i1l& &0&" i2 +)&/ !r& )&!r(!/. Retired .ustice )scar 8errera of the Court of Appeals cites the various authorities who eCplain wh" !#*i((io"( !r& "o+ %o0&r&# 1/ +)& )&!r(!/ r-l&@M%#N UDi'*or&, after pointing out that the p!r+/J( #&%l!r!+io" has generall" the pro!ative value of an" other personPs asssertion, argued that it had a (p&%i!l 0!l-& .)&" o22&r&# !'!i"(+ +)& p!r+/. Dn that circu(stance, the ad(ission discredits the part"Ps state(ent with the present clai( asserted in pleadings and testi(on", (uch li&e a witness i(peached !" contradictor" state(ents. Moreover, he continued, !#*i((io"( p!(( +)& '!-"+l&+ o2 +)& )&!r(!/ r-l& , which re?uires that eCtra:udicial assertions !e eCcluded if there was no opportunit" for the opponent to cross-eCa(ine !ecause it is the opponentPs own declaration, and T)& #o&( "o+ "&&# +o %ro(( &5!*i"& )i*(&l2.J 7ig(ore then added that the 8earsa" Rule is satisfied since the part" now as opponent has the full opportunit" to put hi(self on the stand and eCplain his for(er assertion. ;Di'*or& o" &0i#&"%&, S&%. 1068 AC)!#1o-r" R&0. 1,72B, %i+&# i" S&%. 1:6, $%Cor*i%C < According to $or'!"6 TThe ad(issi!ilit" of an ad(ission (ade !" the part" hi(self rests not upon an" notion that the circu(stances in which it was (ade furnish the trier (eans of evaluating it fairl", !ut upon the adversar" theor" of litigation. A p!r+/ %!" )!r#l/ o13&%+ +)!+ )& )!# "o oppor+-"i+/ +o

%ro((<&5!*i"& )i*(&l2 or +)!+ )& i( -".or+)/ o2 %r&#&"%& (!0& .)&" (p&!Ci"' -"#&r (!"%+io" o2 !" o!+).P A (anPs acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever (ade, if voluntar", are ad(issi!le against hi(, for the reason that it is fair to presu(e that the" correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if the" do not. ;U.S. vs. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578, 583<.V The A"'!r! Di!r/ contains direct state(ents of petitioner which can !e categori5ed as !#*i((io"( o2 ! p!r+/6 his proposal for a snap presidential election where he would not !e a candidate> his state(ent that he onl" wanted the five-da" period pro(ised !" Chief of 'taff Angelo Re"es> his state(ents that he would leave !" Monda" if the second envelope would !e opened !" Monda" and U/agod na pagod na a&o. A"o&o na, (as"ado nang (asa&it. /agod na a&o sa red tape, !ureaucrac", intriga. ;D a( ver" tired. D donPt want an" (ore of this Q itPs too painful. DP( tired of the red tape, the !ureaucrac", the intrigue<. D :ust want to clear (" na(e, then D will go.V 7e noted that da"s !efore, petitioner had repeatedl" declared that he would not resign despite the growing cla(or for his resignation. The reason for the (eltdown is o!vious - - - his will not to resign has wilted. I+ i(, )o.&0&r, !r'-&# +)!+ +)& A"'!r! Di!r/ i( "o+ +)& #i!r/ o2 +)& p&+i+io"&r, )&"%&, "o"<1i"#i"' o" )i*. The argu(ent o0&rlooC( the doctrine of!#op+i0& !#*i((io". An adoptive ad(ission is a part"Ps reaction to a state(ent or action !" another person when it is reasona!le to treat the part"Ps reaction !( !" !#*i((io" o2 (o*&+)i"' (+!+&# or i*pli&# 1/ +)& o+)&r p&r(o" . M%3N .ones eCplains that the U!asis for ad(issi!ilit" of !#*i((io"( *!#& 0i%!rio-(l/ is that arising fro( the r!+i2i%!+io" or !#op+io" !" the part" of the state(ents which the other person had (ade.V M%=N To use the !lunt language of Mueller and Kir&patric&, U+)i( pro%&(( o2 !++ri1-+io" i( "o+ *-*1o 3-*1o 1-+ %o**o" (&"(&.VM%*N Dn the A"'!r! Di!r/, the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when the ar(ed forces withdrew its support fro( hi( as /resident and co((ander-in-chief. Thus, 9Cecutive 'ecretar" Angara had to as& 'enate /resident /i(entel to advise petitioner to consider the option of U#i'"i2i&# &5i+ or r&(i'"!+io".V /etitioner did not o!:ect to the suggested option !ut si(pl" said he could never leave the countr". /etitionerPs silence on this and other related suggestions can !e ta&en as an ad(ission !" hi(.M%3N /etitioner further contends that the use of the A"'!r! #i!r/ against hi( violated the rule on r&( i"+&r !lio( !%+!. The rule is eCpressed in section #, of Rule %30 of the Rules of Court, vi56 UThe rights of a part" cannot !e pre:udiced !" an act, declaration, or o(ission of another, &5%&p+ !( )&r&i"!2+&r pro0i#&#.V Again, petitioner errs in his contention. The res inter alios acta rule has (&0&r!l &5%&p+io"(. )ne of the( is provided in section #9 of Rule %30 with respect to !#*i((io"( 1/ ! %o< p!r+"&r or !'&"+. 9Cecutive 'ecretar" Angara as such was an !l+&r &'o of the petitioner. 8e was the Hittle /resident. Dndeed, )& .!( !-+)oriL&# 1/ +)& p&+i+io"&r +o !%+ 2or )i* i" +)& %ri+i%!l )o-r( !"# #!/( 1&2or& )& !1!"#o"&# $!l!%!M!"' !l!%& . Thus, according to the A"'!r! Di!r/, the petitioner told 'ecretar" Angara6 UMula u(pisa pa lang ng &a(pan"a, 9d, i&aw na lang pina&i&inggan &o. At hanggang sa huli, i&aw pa rin.V ;'ince the start of the ca(paign, 9d, "ou have !een the onl" one DPve listened to. And now at the end, "ou still are.<V M%$N T)i( (+!+&*&"+ o2 2-ll +r-(+ .!( *!#& 1/ +)& p&+i+io"&r !2+&r S&%r&+!r/ A"'!r! 1ri&2&# )i* !1o-+ +)& pro'r&(( o2 +)& 2ir(+ "&'o+i!+io". True to this trust, the petitioner had to as& 'ecretar" Angara if he would alread" leave Malaca4ang after ta&ing their final lunch on .anuar" #0, #00% at a!out %600 p.(. The A"'!r! Di!r/ ?uotes the petitioner as sa"ing to 'ecretar" Angara6 Ued, &ailangan &o na !ang u(alisL ;0o D have to leave nowL<VM%,N'ecretar" Angara told hi( to go and he did. /etitioner cannot den" that 'ecretar" Angara headed his tea( of negotiators that (et with the tea( of the respondent Arro"o to discuss the peaceful and orderl" transfer of power after his relin?uish(ent of the powers of the presidenc". The Di!r/ shows that petitioner was alwa"s !riefed !" 'ecretar" Angara on the progress of their negotiations. S&%r&+!r/ A"'!r! !%+&# 2or !"# i" 1&)!l2 o2 +)& p&+i+io"&r in the crucial da"s !efore respondent Arro"o too& her oath as /resident. Conse?uentl", p&+i+io"&r i( 1o-"# 1/ +)& !%+( !"# #&%l!r!+io"( o2 S&%r&+!r/ A"'!r!. U"#&r o-r r-l&( o2 &0i#&"%&, !#*i((io"( o2 !" !'&"+ AS&%r&+!r/ A"'!r!B !r& 1i"#i"' o" +)& pri"%ip!l Ap&+i+io"&rB.M%9N .ones ver" well eCplains the r&!(o"( 2or +)& r-l& , vi56 U7hat is done, !" agent, is done !" the principal through hi(, as through a (ere instru(ent. 'o, whatever is said !" an agent, either in (a&ing a contract for his principal, or at the ti(e and acco(pan"ing the perfor(ance of an" act within the scope of his authorit", having relation to, and connected with, and in the course of the particular contract or transaction in which he is then engaged, or in the language of the old writers, dum ervet opus is, in legal effect, said !" his principal and ad(issi!le in evidence against such principal.VM#0N

Moreover, +)& 1!" o" )&!r(!/ &0i#&"%& #o&( "o+ %o0&r i"#&p&"#&"+l/ r&l&0!"+ (+!+&*&"+(. These are state(ents which are r&l&0!"+ i"#&p&"#&"+l/ o2 .)&+)&r +)&/ !r& +r-& or "o+. The" !elong to +.o A2B %l!((&(6 ;%< those state(ents which are the ver" facts in issue, and ;#< those state(ents which are%ir%-*(+!"+i!l &0i#&"%& o2 +)& 2!%+( i" i((-& . The second class includes the following6M#%N a. S+!+&*&"+ o2 ! p&r(o" showing his (+!+& o2 *i"#, that is, his (ental condition, &nowledge, !elief, intention, ill will and other e(otions> !. 'tate(ents of a person which show his ph"sical condition, as illness and the li&e> c. S+!+&*&"+( o2 ! p&r(o" fro( which an inference (a" !e (ade as to the (+!+& o2 *i"# o2 !"o+)&r, that is, the &nowledge, !elief, (otive, good or !ad faith, etc. of the latter> d. 'tate(ents which (a" identif" the date, place and person in ?uestion> and e. 'tate(ents showing the lac& of credi!ilit" of a witness. Again, =o"&( +&ll( -( .)/ +)&(& i"#&p&"#&"+l/ r&l&0!"+ (+!+&*&"+( !r& "o+ %o0&r&# 1/ +)& pro)i1i+io" !'!i"(+ )&!r(!/ &0i#&"%&@M##N UW %0,,. Mental 'tate or Condition Q /roof of Knowledge.- There are a nu(!er of co(on issues, for(ing a general class, in proof of which hearsa" is so o!viousl" necessar" that it is not custo(ar" to refer to its ad(issi!ilit" as !" virtue of an" eCception to the general eCclusionar" rule. Ad(issi!ilit", in such cases, is as of course. or eCa(ple, .)&r& !"/ *&"+!l (+!+& or %o"#i+io" i( i" i((-&, such as (otive, (alice, &nowledge, intent, assent or dissent, unless direct testi(on" of the particular person is to !e ta&en as conclusive of his state of (ind, the o"l/ *&+)o# o2 proo2 !0!il!1l& i( +&(+i*o"/ o2 o+)&r( +o +)& !%+( or (+!+&*&"+( o2 (-%) p&r(o". 7here his acts or state(ents are against his interest, the" are plainl" ad(issi!le within the rules hereina!ove announced as to ad(issions against interest. And even where not against interest, if the" are so closel" connected with the event or transaction in issue as to constitute one of the ver" facts in controvers", +)&/ 1&%o*& !#*i((i1l& o2 "&%&((i+/.V As aforediscussed, The A"'!r! Di!r/ contains state(ents of the petitioner which reflect his state of (ind and are circu(stantial evidence of his intent to resign. Dt also contains state(ents of 'ecretar" Angara fro( which we can reasona!l" deduce petitionerPs intent to resign. The" are ad(issi!le and the" are not covered !" the rule on hearsa". This has long !een a ?uiet area of our law on evidence and petitionerPs atte(pt to fo(ent a !elated te(pest cannot receive our i(pri(atur. &+i+io"&r !l(o %o"+&"#( +)!+ +)& r-l&( o" !-+)&"+i%!+io" o2 pri0!+& .ri+i"'( !"# 1&(+ &0i#&"%& were violated in our 0ecision, vi56 UThe use of the Angara diar" palpa!l" !reached several horn!oo& rules of evidence, such as the rule on authentication of private writingsS CCC A. Rule on /roof of /rivate 7ritings 2iolated The rule governing private docu(ents as evidence was violated. The law provides that !efore an" private writing offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due eCecution and authenticit" (ust !e proved either6 a< !" an"one who saw the docu(ent eCecuted or written, or !< !" evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the (a&er. CCC +. +est 9vidence Rule Dnfringed Clearl", the newspaper reproduction is not the !est evidence of the Angara diar". Dt is secondar" evidence, of du!ious authenticit". Dt was however used !" this 8onora!le Court without proof of the unavaila!ilit" of the original or duplicate original of the diar". The U+est 9vidence RuleV should have !een applied since the contents of the diar" are the su!:ect of in?uir". The rule is that, eCcept in four ;=< specific instances, UMwNhen the su!:ect of in?uir" is the contents of a docu(ent, no evidence shall !e ad(issi!le other than the original docu(ent itself.V M#3N

/etitionerPs contention is without (erit. Dn regard to the ;&(+ E0i#&"%& r-l&, the Rules of Court provides in sections # to = of Rule %30, as follows6 U'ec. #. 0ocu(entar" evidence. Q 0ocu(ents as evidence consist of writings or an" (aterial containing letters, words, nu(!ers, figures or other (odes of written eCpressions offered as proof of their contents. 'ec. 3. )riginal docu(ent (ust !e produced> eCceptions. Q 7hen the su!:ect of in?uir" is the contents of a docu(ent, no evidence shall !e ad(issi!le other than the original docu(ent itself, eCcept in the following cases6 ;a< 7hen the original has !een lost or destro"ed, or cannot !e produced in court, without !ad faith on the part of the offeror> ;!< 7hen the original is in the custod" or under the control of the part" against who( the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasona!le notice> ;c< 7hen the original consists of nu(erous accounts or other docu(ents which cannot !e eCa(ined in court without great loss of ti(e and the fact sought to !e esta!lished fro( the( is onl" the general result of the whole> and ;d< 7hen the original is a pu!lic record in the custod" of a pu!lic officer or is recorded in a pu!lic office. 'ec. =. )riginal of docu(ent. Q ;a< The original of a docu(ent is one the contents of which are the su!:ect of in?uir". ;!< 7hen a docu(ent is in two or (ore copies eCecuted at or a!out the sa(e ti(e, with identical contents, all such copies are e?uall" regarded as originals. ;c< 7hen an entr" is repeated in the regular course of !usiness, one !eing copied fro( another at or near the ti(e of the transaction, all the entries are li&ewise e?uall" regarded as originals.V Dt is true that the Court relied not upon the original !ut onl" cop" of the A"'!r! Di!r/ as pu!lished in the /hilippine 0ail" Dn?uirer on e!ruar" =-3, #00%. Dn doing so, +)& Co-r+, #i# "o+, )o.&0&r, 0iol!+& +)& 1&(+ &0i#&"%& r-l&. Di'*or&, in his !oo& on evidence, states that6 U/roduction of the original (a" !e dispensed with, in the trial courtPs discretion, whenever in the case in hand +)& oppo"&"+ #o&( "o+ 1o"! 2i#& #i(p-+& +)& %o"+&"+( o2 +)& #o%-*&"+ and no other useful purpose will !e served !" re?uiring production. M#=N UC C C UDn several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavaila!ilit" has !een a!andoned, for certain docu(ents in which ordinaril" no real dispute arised. This (easure is a sensi!le and progressive one and deserves universal adoption ;post, sec. %#33<. Dts essential feature is that a cop& #a& be used unconditionall&, i2 +)& oppo"&"+ )!( 1&&" 'i0&" !" oppor+-"i+/ +o i"(p&%+ i+. V ;e(pahsis supplied< Fr!"%i(%oJ( opinion is of the sa(e tenor, vi56 U1enerall" spea&ing, an o!:ection !" the part" against who( secondar" evidence is sought to !e introduced is essential to !ring the !est evidence rule into application> and fre?uentl", where secondar" evidence has !een ad(itted, the rule of eCclusion (ight have successfull" !een invo&ed if proper and ti(el" o!:ection had !een ta&en. -o general rule as to the for( or (ode of o!:ecting to the ad(ission of secondar" evidence is set forth. 'uffice it to sa" here that +)& o13&%+io" ()o-l# 1& *!#& i" prop&r (&!(o" K +)!+ i(, .)&"&0&r i+ !pp&!r( +)!+ +)&r& i( 1&++&r &0i#&"%& +)!" +)!+ .)i%) i( o22&r&# !"# 1&2or& +)& (&%o"#!r/ &0i#&"%& )!( 1&&" !#*i++&# . The o!:ection itself should !e sufficientl" definite to present a tangi!le ?uestion for the courtPs consideration.V M#*N 8e adds6

U'econdar" evidence of the content of the writing will !e received in evidence if no o!:ection is (ade to its reception.VM#3N Dn regard to the !-+)&"+i%!+io" o2 pri0!+& .ri+i"'( , the Rules of Court provides in section #0 of Rule %3#, vi56 U'ec. #0. /roof of private docu(ent. Q +efore an" private docu(ent offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due eCecution and authenticit" (ust !e proved either6 ;a< +" an"one who saw the docu(ent eCecuted or written> or ;!< +" evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the (a&er. An" other private docu(ent need onl" !e identified as that which it is clai(ed to !e.V )n the rule of authentication of private writings, rancisco states that6 UA proper foundation (ust !e laid for the ad(ission of docu(entar" evidence> that is, the identit" and authenticit" of the docu(ent (ust !e reasona!l" esta!lished as a pre-re?uisite to its ad(ission. ;Rouw v. Arts, %$= Ar&. $9, #9= '.7. 993, *# A.H.R. %#33, and others< 8owever, ! p!r+/ .)o #o&( "o+ #&"/ +)& '&"-i"&"&(( o2 ! pro22&r&# i"(+r-*&"+ *!/ "o+ o13&%+ +)!+ i+ .!( "o+ prop&rl/ i#&"+i2i&# 1&2or& i+ .!( !#*i++&# i" &0i#&"%& . ;'trand v. 8alverson, ##0 Dowa %#$3, #3= -.7. #33, %03 A.H.R. ,3*<.VM#$N /etitioner cites the case of S+!+& pro(&%-+or( v. $-ro,M#,N which frowned on reliance !" courts on newspaper accounts. Dn that case, .udge Muro was dis(issed fro( the service for rel"ing on a newspaper account in dis(issing eleven ;%%< cases against Mrs. D(elda Ro(ualde5 Marcos. There is a (i'"i2i%!"+ #i22&r&"%&, however, !etween the !uro case and the cases at !ar. Dn the $-ro case, .udge Muro dis(issed the cases against Mrs. Marcos on the !asis of a newspaper account .i+)o-+ !22or#i"' +)& pro(&%-+io"V the !asic opportunit" to !e heard on the (atter !" wa" of a written co((ent or on oral argu(ent. . .;this is< not onl" a !latant denial of ele(entar" due process to the 1overn(ent !ut is palpa!l" indicative of !ad faith and partialit".V Dn the instant cases, however, the p&+i+io"&r )!# !" oppor+-"i+/ +o o13&%+ to the ad(issi!ilit" of the A"'!r! Di!r/ when he filed his Me(orandu( dated e!ruar" #0, #00%, Repl" Me(orandu( dated e!ruar" ##, #00%, 'upple(ental Me(orandu( dated e!ruar" #3, #00%, and 'econd 'upple(ental (e(orandu( dated e!ruar" #=, #00%. 8e was therefore not denied due process. Dn the words of 7ig(ore, supra, petitioner had U!een given an opportunit" to inspectV the A"'!r! Di!r/ !ut did not o!:ect to its ad(issi!ilit". Dt is alread" too late in the da" to raise his o!:ections in an )(ni!us Motion, after the A"'!r! Di!r/ has !een used as evidence and a decision rendered partl" on the !asis thereof. III

T&*por!r/ I"!1ili+/

/etitioner argues that the Court (isinterpreted the (eaning of section %%, Article 2DD, of the Constitution in that congress can onl" decide the issue of ina!ilit" when there is a variance of opinion !etween a (a:orit" of the Ca!inet and the /resident. The situation presents itself when (a:orit" of the Ca!inet deter(ines that the /resident is una!le to govern> later, the /resident infor(s Congress that his ina!ilit" has ceased !ut is contradicted !" a (a:orit" of the (e(!ers of the Ca!inet. Dt is also urged that the presidentPs :udg(ent that he is una!le to govern te(poraril" which is thereafter co((unicated to the 'pea&er of the 8ouse and the /resident of the 'enate is the political ?uestion which this Court cannot review. 7e cannot sustain the petitioner. L&(+ p&+i+io"&r 2or'&+(, )& )i*(&l2 *!#& +)& (-1*i((io" in 1.R. -o. %=3$3, that UCo"'r&(( )!( +)& -l+i*!+& !-+)ori+/ -"#&r +)& Co"(+i+-+io" +o #&+&r*i"& .)&+)&r +)& r&(i#&"+ i( i"%!p!1l& o2 p&r2or*i"' )i( 2-"%+io"( i" +)& *!""&r pro0i#&# 2or i" (&%+io" 11 o2 Ar+i%l& ?II .VM#9N D& (-(+!i"&# +)i( (-1*i((io" and held that !" its (an" acts, Congress has alread" deter(ined and dis(issed the clai( of alleged te(porar" ina!ilit" to govern proffered !" petitioner. Df petitioner now feels aggrieved !" the *!""&r Congress eCercised its power, it is incu(!ent upon hi( to see& redress fro( Congress itself. T)& po.&r i( %o"%&#&# 1/ +)& p&+i+io"&r +o 1& .i+) Co"'r&(( !"# i+( !ll&'&# &rro"&o-( &5&r%i(& %!""o+ 1& %orr&%+&# 1/ +)i( Co-r+ . The recognition of respondent Arro"o as

our de "ure president (ade !" Congress is un?uestiona!l" a poli+i%!l 3-#'*&"+. Dt is significant that 8ouse Resolution -o. %$3 cited as the !ases of its :udg(ent such factors as the U p&opl&J( lo(( o2 %o"2i#&"%& on the a!ilit" of for(er /resident .oseph 9:ercito 9strada to effectivel" governV and the U(e(!ers of the i"+&r"!+io"!l %o**-"i+/ had eCtended their recognition of 8er 9Ccellenc", 1loria Macapagal-Arro"o as /resident of the Repu!lic of the /hilippinesV and it has a constitutional dut" Uof fealt" to the (-pr&*& .ill o2 +)& p&opl& C C C.V T)i( poli+i%!l 3-#'*&"+ *!/ 1& ri')+ or .ro"' 1-+ Co"'r&(( i( !"(.&r!1l& o"l/ +o +)& p&opl& 2or i+( 3-#'*&"+ . Dts wisdo( is fit to !e de!ated !efore the tri!unal of the people and not !efore a court of :ustice. -eedles to state, the doctrine of (&p!r!+io" o2 po.&r constitutes an i"(&p!r!1l& 1!r against this courtPs interposition of its power of :udicial review to review the :udg(ent of Congress re:ecting petitionerPs clai( that he is still the /resident, albeit on leave and that respondent Arro"o is (erel" an acting /resident. /etitioner atte(pts to eCtricate hi(self fro( his su!(ission that Congress has the ulti(ate authorit" to deter(ine his ina!ilit" to govern, and whose deter(ination is a political ?uestion !" now arguing that .)&+)&r o"& i( ! de "ure or de acto r&(i#&"+ i( ! 3-#i%i!l 4-&(+io". /etitionerPs change of theor", ill disguised as it is, does not at all i(press. The cases at !ar do not present the '&"&r!l i((-& of whether the respondent Arro"o is the de 3ure or a de facto /resident. Sp&%i2i% i((-&( were raised to the Court for resolution and .& r-l&# o" !" i((-& 1/ i((-& 1!(i( . )n the issue of resignation under section ,, Article 2DD of the Constitution, we held that the issue is legal and ruled that petitioner has resigned fro( office !efore respondent Arro"o too& her oath as /resident. )n the issue of ina!ilit" to govern under section %%, Article 2DD of the Constitution, we held that the Congress has the ulti(ate authorit" to deter(ine the ?uestion as opined !" the petitioner hi(self and that the deter(ination of Congress is a political :udg(ent which this Court cannot review. &+i+io"&r %!""o+ 1l-r +)&(& (p&%i2i% r-li"'( 1/ +)& '&"&r!liL!+io" +)!+ .)&+)&r o"& i( ! #& 3-r& or #& 2!%+o r&(i#&"+ i( ! 3-#i%i!l 4-&(+io". &+i+io"&r "o. !pp&!r( +o 2!-l+ Co"'r&(( 2or i+( 0!rio-( !%+( &5pr&((&# +)r- r&(ol-+io"( .)i%) 1r-()&# o22 )i( +&*por!r/ i"!1ili+/ +o 'o0&r" !"# r&(i#&"+<o"<l&!0& !r'-*&"+ . 8e asserts that these acts of Congress should not !e accorded an" legal significance !ecause6 ;%< the" are po(+ 2!%+o and ;#< a declaration of presidential incapacit" cannot !e i(plied. 7e disagree. There is nothing in section %% of Article 2DD of the Constitution which states that the declaration !" Congress of the /residentPs ina!ilit" *-(+ !l.!/( 1& ! priori or !efore the 2ice/resident assu(es the presidenc". Dn the cases at !ar, special consideration should !e given to the fact that the events which led to the resignation of the petitioner happened at eCpress speed and cul(inated on a 'aturda". Co"'r&(( .!( +)&" "o+ i" (&((io" !"# )!# "o r&!(o"!1l& oppor+-"i+/ to act ! priori on petitionerPs letter clai(ing ina!ilit" to govern. To !e sure, however, the petitioner cannot strictl" (aintain that the /resident of the 'enate, the 8onora!le A?uilino /i(entel, .r. and the then 'pea&er of the 8ouse of Representatives, the 8onora!le Arnulfo /. uente!ella, recogni5ed respondent Arro"o as the Uconstitutional successor to the presidenc"V po(+ 2!%+o. /etitioner hi(self states that his letter alleging his ina!ilit" to govern was Ureceived !" the )ffice of the 'pea&er on .anuar" #0, #00% !+ 8@30 A.$. and the )ffice of the 'enate at 9 /.M. of the sa(e da".VM30N Respondent too& her oath of office a few (inutes past %# oPcloc& in the afternoon of .anuar" #0. +efore the oath-ta&ing, 'enate /resident /i(entel, .r. and 'pea&er uente!ella had prepared a .oint 'tate(ent which states6M3%N U.oint 'tate(ent of 'upport and Recognition fro( the 'enate /resident and the 'pea&er )f the 8ouse of Representatives 7e, the elected leaders of the 'enate and the 8ouse of Representatives, are called upon to address the constitutional crisis affecting the authorit" of the /resident to effectivel" govern our distressed nation. 7e understand that the 'upre(e Court at that ti(e is issuing an en !anc resolution recogni5ing this political realit". 7hile we (a" differ on the (eans to effect a change of leadership, we however, cannot !e indifferent and (ust act resolutel". T)-(, i" li"& .i+) o-r (.or" #-+/ +o r&pr&(&"+ o-r p&opl& !"# i" p-r(-i+ o2 o-r 'o!l( 2or p&!%& !"# pro(p&ri+/ +o !ll, .&, +)& S&"!+& r&(i#&"+ !"# +)& Sp&!C&r o2 +)& Ho-(& o2 R&pr&(&"+!+i0&(, )&r&1/ #&%l!r& o-r (-ppor+ !"# r&%o'"i+io" +o +)& %o"(+i+-+io"!l (-%%&((or +o +)& r&(i#&"%/. 7e si(ilarl" call on all sectors to close ran&s despite our political differences. Ma" 1od !less our nation in this period of new !eginnings. Ma!uha" and /ilipinas at ang (a(a(a"ang /ilipino. ;'gd.< AOJDHD-) /DM9-T9H, .R. 'enate /resident

;'gd.< AR-JH ) /. J9-T9+9HHA 'pea&er of the 8ouse of RepresentativesV This ! priori r&%o'"i+io" !" the /resident of the 'enate and the 'pea&er of the 8ouse of Representatives of respondent Arro"o as the Uconstitutional successor to the presidenc"V .!( 2ollo.&# po(+ 2!%+o !" various resolutions of the 'enate and the 8ouse, in effect, confir(ing this recognition. Thus, Resolution -o. %$3 eCpressed UC C C the support of the 8ouse of Representatives to the assu(ption into office !" 2ice-/resident 1loria Macapagal-Arro"o as /resident of the Repu!lic of the /hilippines, eCtending its congratulations and eCpressing its support for her ad(inistration as a partner in the attain(ent of the nationPs goal under the Constitution. M3#N Resolution -o. ,# of the 'enate and Resolution -o. %$, of the 8ouse of Representatives !oth confir(ed the no(ination of then 'enator Teofisto 1uingona, .r., as 2ice-/resident.M33N Dt also passed Resolution -o. ,3 declaring the i(peach(ent court 2-"%+-( o22i%io.M3=N +oth 8ouses sent !ills to respondent Arro"o to !e signed !" her into law as /resident of the /hilippines.M3*N T)&(& !%+( o2 Co"'r&((, ! priori !"# po(+ 2!%+o, %!""o+ 1& #i(*i((&# !( *&r&l/ i*pli&# r&%o'"i+io"( o2 r&(po"#&"+ Arro/o, !( +)& r&(i#&"+ o2 +)& R&p-1li%. /etitionerPs insistence that respondent Arro"o is :ust a #& 2!%+o /resident !ecause said acts of Congress U C C C are (ere circu(stances of ac?uiescence calculated to induce people to su!(it to respondentPs eCercise of the powers of the presidenc"V M33N is a guesswor& far divorced fro( realit" to deserve further discussion. 'i(ilarl" wa" off the (ar& is petitionerPs point that Uwhile the Constitution has (ade Congress the national !oard of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections, this 8onora!le Court nonetheless re(ains the sole :udge in presidential and vice presidential contests. M3$N 8e thus postulates that Usuch constitutional provisionM3,N is i"#i%!+i0& of the desire of the sovereign people to &eep out of the hands of Congress ?uestions as to the legalit" of a personPs clai( to the presidential office.VM39N S-22i%& +o (+!+& +)!+ +)& i"2&r&"%& i( illo'i%!l. Dndeed, there is no roo( to resort to inference. The Constitution clearl" sets out the structure on how vacancies and election contest in the office of the /resident shall !e decided. Thus, (&%+io" 7 o2 Ar+i%l& ?II covers the instance when ;a< the /resident-elect fails to ?ualif", ;!< if a /resident shall not have !een chosen and ;c< if at the !eginning of the ter( of the /resident, the /resident-elect shall have died or shall have !eco(e per(anentl" disa!led. S&%+io" 8 o2 Ar+i%l& ?II covers the situation of the death, per(anent disa!ilit", re(oval fro( office or resignation of the /resident. S&%+io" 11 o2 Ar+i%l& ?II covers the case where the /resident trans(its to the /resident of the 'enate and the 'pea&er of the 8ouse of Representatives his written declaration that he is una!le to discharge the powers and duties of his office. I" &!%) %!(&, +)& Co"(+i+-+io" (p&%i2i&( +)& 1o#/ +)!+ .ill r&(ol0& +)& i((-&( +)!+ *!/ !ri(& 2ro* +)& %o"+i"'&"%/. Dn case of election contest, section =, Article 2DD provides that the contests shall !e resolved !" this Court sitting en !anc. Dn case of resignation of the /resident, it is not disputed that this Court has :urisdiction to decide the issue. Dn case of ina!ilit" to govern, section %% of Article 2DD gives the Congress the power to ad:udge the issue and petitioner hi(self su!(itted this thesis which was shared !" this Court. Dn light of these clear provisions of the Constitution, it is inappropriate, to sa" the least, for petitioner to (a&e inferences that si(pl" distort their (eanings.

I?

I*p&!%)*&"+ !"# A1(ol-+& I**-"i+/

/etitioner contends that this Court disregarded section 3 ;$< of Article AD of the Constitution which provides6 U;$< .udg(ent in cases of i(peach(ent shall not eCtend further than re(oval fro( office and dis?ualification to hold an" office under the Repu!lic of the /hilippines, !ut the part" convicted should nevertheless !e lia!le and su!:ect to prosecution, trial and punish(ent according to law.V /etitioner reiterates the argu(ent that )& *-(+ 1& 2ir(+ %o"0i%+&# in the i(peach(ent proceedings !efore he could !e cri(inall" prosecuted. A plain reading of the provision will not "ield this conclusion. The provision conve"s two unco(plicated ideas6 2ir(+, it tells us that :udg(ent in i(peach(ent cases has a li*i+&# r&!%). . .i.e.' it cannot eCtend further than re(oval fro( office and dis?ualification to hold an" office under the Repu!lic of the /hilippines, and (&%o"#, it tells us the%o"(&4-&"%& of the li(ited reach of a :udg(ent in i(peach(ent proceedings considering its nature, i.e.' that the part" convicted shall still !e lia!le and su!:ect to prosecution, trial and punish(ent according to law. -o a(ount of (anipulation will :ustif" petitionerPs non se#uitur su!(ission that the provision re?uires that his conviction in the i(peach(ent proceedings is a condition sine #ua non to

his prosecution, trial and punish(ent for the offenses he is now facing !efore the respondent )(!uds(an. /etitioner contends that the private and pu!lic prosecutorsP wal& out fro( the i(peach(ent proceedings Ushould !e considered 2!il-r& +o pro(&%-+& on the part of the pu!lic and private prosecutors, and the ter(ination of the case !" the 'enate is &4-i0!l&"+ +o !%4-i++!l. VM=0N 8e eCplains Ufailure to prosecuteV as the Ufailure of the prosecution to prove the case, hence dis(issal on such grounds is a dis(issal on the (erits.VM=%N 8e then concludes that Udis(issal of a case for failure to prosecute !*o-"+( +o !" !%4-i++!l 2or p-rpo(&( o2 !ppl/i"' +)& r-l& !'!i"(+ #o-1l& 3&op!r#/.NM=#N Di+)o-+ r-li"' o" +)& "!+-r& o2 i*p&!%)*&"+ pro%&&#i"'(, .& r&3&%+ p&+i+io"&rJ( (-1*i((io". The records will show that the prosecutors .!lC&# o-+ in the =!"-!r/ 17, #00% hearing of the i(peach(ent cases when !" a vote of %%-%0, the 'enator-:udges refused to open the second envelope allegedl" containing the /3.3 !illion deposit of the petitioner in a secret !an& account under the na(e U .ose 2elardeV. The neCt da", =!"-!r/ 17, the pu!lic prosecutors su!(itted a letter to the 'pea&er of the 8ouse tendering their r&(i'"!+io". The" also filed their $!"i2&(+!+io" o2 Di+)#r!.!l o2 App&!r!"%& with the i(peach(ent tri!unal. 'enator Raul Roco i((ediatel" (oved for the i"#&2i"i+& (-(p&"(io" of the i(peach(ent proceedings -"+il +)& Ho-(& o2 R&pr&(&"+!+i0&( ()!ll )!0& r&(ol0&# +)& r&(i'"!+io" o2 +)& p-1li% pro(&%-+or(. The Roco (otion was then 'r!"+&# !" Chief .ustice 0avide, .r. ;&2or& the 8ouse could resolve the issue of resignation of its prosecutors or on =!"-!r/ 20, #00%, petitioner relin?uished the presidenc" and respondent Arro"o too& her oath as /resident of the Repu!lic. Thus, on F&1r-!r/ 7, #00%, the 'enate passed R&(ol-+io" No. 83 declaring that the i(peach(ent court is 2-"%+-( o22i%io. r&(%i"#i"' 2ro* +)&(& 2!%+(, p&+i+io"&r %!""o+ i"0oC& #o-1l& 3&op!r#/. 0ou!le :eopard" attaches onl"6 ;%< upon a valid co(plaint> ;#< !efore a co(petent court> ;3< after arraign(ent> ;=< when a valid plea has !een entered> and ;*< when the defendant was ac?uitted or convicted or the case was dis(issed or otherwise ter(inated without the eCpress consent of the accused. M=3N Assu(ing arguendo that the first four re?uisites of dou!le :eopard" were co(plied with, petitioner failed to satisf" the fifth re?uisite for )& .!( "o+ !%4-i++&# "or .!( +)& i*p&!%)*&"+ pro%&&#i"' #i(*i((&# .i+)o-+ )i( &5pr&(( %o"(&"+. /etitionerPs clai( of dou!le :eopard" cannot !e predicated on prior conviction for he was not convicted !" the i(peach(ent court. At !est, his clai( of previous ac?uittal (a" !e scrutini5ed in light of a violation of his right to speed" trial, which a(ounts to a failure to prosecute. As +ernas points out, a failure to prosecute, which is what happens when the accused is not given a speed" trial, (eans failure of the prosecution to prove the case. 8ence, dis(issal on such grounds is a dis(issal on the (erits.M==N This Court held in $sme%a v. Pogo&M=*N, vi4H UDf the defendant wants to eCercise his constitutional right to a speed" trial, he should as&, not for the dis(issal, !ut for the trial of the case. After the prosecutionPs (otion for postpone(ent of the trial is denied and upon order of the court the fiscal does not or cannot produce his evidence and, conse?uentl" fails to prove the defendantPs guilt, the court upon defendantPs (otion shall dis(iss the case, such dis(issall a(ounting to an ac?uittal of the defendant.V Dn a (ore recent case, this Court held6 UDt is true that in an un!ro&en line of cases, we have held that the dis(issal of cases on the ground of failure to prosecute is e?uivalent to an ac?uittal that would !ar further prosecution of the accused for the sa(e offense. Dt (ust !e stressed, however, that these dis(issals were predicated on the clear right of the accused to speed" trial. These cases are not applica!le to the petition at !ench considering that the right of the private respondents to speed" trial has not !een violated !" the 'tate. or this reason, private respondents cannot invo&e their right against dou!le :eopard".V M=3N &+i+io"&r #i# "o+ *o0& 2or +)& #i(*i((!l o2 +)& i*p&!%)*&"+ %!(& !'!i"(+ )i*. 9ven assu(ing arguendo that there was a (ove for its dis(issal, not ever" invocation of an accusedPs right to speed" trial is (eritorious. 7hile the Court accords due i(portance to an accusedPs right to a speed" trial and adheres to a polic" of speed" ad(inistration of :ustice, this right cannot !e invo&ed loosel". Jn:ustified postpone(ents which prolong the trial for an unreasona!le length of ti(e are what offend the right of the accused to speed" trial. M=$N The following provisions of the Revised Rules of Cri(inal /rocedure are apropos6

URule %%*, 'ection %;h<. Ri$hts of accused at the trial. 22 Dn all cri(inal prosecutions, the accused shall !e entitled to the following rights6 ;h< To have speed", i(partial and pu!lic trial.V URule %%9, 'ection #. Continuous trial until ter(inated> postpone(ents.-- Trial once co((enced shall continue fro( da" to da" as far as practica!le until ter(inated. Dt (a" !e postponed for a reasona!le length of ti(e for good cause. The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a wee&l" or other short-ter( trial calendar at the earliest possi!le ti(e so as to ensure speed" trial. Dn no case shall the entire trial period eCceed one hundred eight" ;%,0< da"s fro( the first da" of trial, eCcept as otherwise authori5ed !" the 'upre(e Court.V &+i+io"&r +)&r&2or& 2!il&# +o ()o. +)!+ +)& po(+po"&*&"+ o2 +)& i*p&!%)*&"+ pro%&&#i"'( .!( -"3-(+i2i&#, *-%) l&(( +)!+ i+ .!( 2or !" -"r&!(o"!1l& l&"'+) o2 +i*&. Recalling the facts, on .anuar" %$, #00%, the i(peach(ent proceeding was suspended until the 8ouse of Representatives shall have resolved the issue on the resignation of the pu!lic prosecutors. This was :ustified and understanda!le for an i(peach(ent proceeding without a panel of prosecutors is a (oc&er" of the i(peach(ent process. 8owever, three ;3< da"s fro( the suspension or .anuar" #0, #00%, petitionerPs resignation supervened. 7ith the sudden turn of events, the i(peach(ent court !eca(e unctus o icio and the proceedings were therefore ter(inated. +" no stretch of the i(agination can the four-da" period fro( the ti(e the i(peach(ent proceeding was suspended to the da" petitioner resigned, constitute an unreasona!le period of dela" violative of the right of the accused to speed" trial. Nor %!" +)& %l!i* o2 #o-1l& 3&op!r#/ 1& 'ro-"#&# o" +)& #i(*i((!l or +&r*i"!+io" o2 +)& %!(& .i+)o-+ +)& &5pr&(( %o"(&"+ o2 +)& !%%-(&#. 7e reiterate that the i(peach(ent proceeding was closed onl" after the petitioner had resigned fro( the presidenc", there!" rendering the i(peach(ent court unctus o icio. +" resigning fro( the presidenc", petitioner (ore than consented to the ter(ination of the i(peach((ent case against hi(, for )& 1ro-')+ !1o-+ the ter(ination of the i(peach(ent proceedings. 7e have consistentl" ruled that when the dis(issal or ter(ination of the case is (ade at the instance of the accused, there is no dou!le :eopard". M=,N /etitioner stu!!ornl" clings to the contention that he is entitled to !1(ol-+& i**-"i+/ 2ro* (-i+. 8is argu(ents are (erel" rec"cled and we need not prolong the longevit" of the de!ate on the su!:ect. Dn our 0ecision, we eChaustivel" traced the origin of eCecutive i((unit" in our :urisdiction and its !ends and turns up to the present ti(e. 7e held that given the intent of the %9,$ Constitution to !reathe life to the polic" that a pu!lic office is a pu!lic trust, +)& p&+i+io"&r, !( ! "o"<(i++i"' r&(i#&"+, %!""o+ %l!i* &5&%-+i0& i**-"i+/ 2or )i( !ll&'&# %ri*i"!l !%+( %o**i++&# .)il& ! (i++i"' r&(i#&"+. /etitionerPs rehashed argu(ents including their thinl" disguised new spins are !ased on the re:ected contention that he is still /resident, albeit, a /resident on leave. 8is stance that his i((unit" covers his entire ter( of office or until .une 30, #00= disregards the realit" that he has relin?uished the presidenc" and there is now a new de 3ure /resident. /etitioner goes a step further and avers that even a non-sitting /resident en:o"s i((unit" fro( suit during his +&r* of office. 8e !uttresses his position with the deli!erations of the Constitutional Co((ission, vi4H UMr. 'uare5. Than& "ou. The last ?uestion is with reference to the Co((itteePs o(itting in the draft proposal the i((unit" provision for the /resident. D agree with Co((issioner -olledo that the Co((ittee did ver" well in stri&ing out this second sentence, at the ver" least, of the original provision on i((unit" fro( suit under the %9$3 Constitution. +ut would the Co((ittee (e(!ers not agree to a restoration of at least the first sentence that the /resident shall !e i((une fro( suit during his +&"-r&, considering that if we do not provide hi( that &ind of an i((unit", he (ight !e spending all his ti(e facing litigations, as the /resident-in-eCile in 8awaii is now facing litigations al(ost dail"L r. +ernas6 The reason for the o(ission is that we consider it understood in present :urisprudence that during his +&"-r& he is i((une fro( suit. Mr. 'uare56 'o there is no need to eCpress it here. r. +ernas6 There is no need. Dt was that wa" !efore. The onl" innovation (ade !" the %9$3 Constitution was to (a&e that eCplicit and to add other things.

Mr. 'uare5> )n the understanding, D will not press for an" (ore ?uer", (ada( /resident. D than& the Co((issioner for the clarification.VM=9N &+i+io"&r, )o.&0&r, 2!il( +o #i(+i"'-i() 1&+.&&" +&r* !"# +&"-r&. The +&r* (eans the ti(e during which the officer (a" clai( to hold the office as of right, and fiCes the interval after which the several incu(!ents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the ter( during which the incu(!ent actuall" holds office. The +&"-r& (a" !e shorter than the ter( for reasons within or !e"ond the power of the incu(!ent. M*0N Fro* +)& #&li1&r!+io"(, +)& i"+&"+ o2 +)& 2r!*&r( i( %l&!r +)!+ +)& i**-"i+/ o2 +)& pr&(i#&"+ 2ro* (-i+ i( %o"%-rr&"+ o"l/ .i+) )i( +&"-r& !"# "o+ )i( +&r*. Dndeed, petitionerPs stu!!orn stance cannot !ut !olster the !elief that the cases at !ar were filed not reall" for petitioner to reclai( the presidenc" !ut :ust to ta&e advantage of the i((unit" attached to the presidenc" and thus, derail the investigation of the cri(inal cases pending against hi( in the )ffice of the )(!uds(an.

r&3-#i%i!l

-1li%i+/ o" +)& O*1-#(*!"

/etitioner hangs tough on his su!(ission that his due process rights to a fair trial have !een pre:udiced !" pre-trial pu!licit". Dn our 0ecision, we held that there is not enough evidence to sustain petitionerPs clai( of pre:udicial pu!licit". Jnconvinced, petitioner alleges that the vivid narration of events in our 0ecision itself proves the pervasiveness of the pre:udicial pu!licit". 8e then posits the thesis that Udou!tless, the national fiCation with the pro!a!le guilt of petitioner fueled !" the hate ca(paign launched !" so(e high circulation newspaper and !" the !ull" pulpit of priests and !ishops left indeli!le i(pression on !ll sectors of the citi5enr" and !ll regions, so harsh and so pervasive that the prosecution and the :udiciar" can no longer assure petitioner a sporting chance.V M*%N To !e sure, petitioner engages in&5!'&r!+io" when he alleges that U!ll sectors of the citi5enr" and !ll regionsV have !een irrevoca!l" influenced !" this !arrage of pre:udicial pu!licit". T)i( &5!''&r!+io" %olli#&( .i+) p&+i+io"&rJ( %l!i* +)!+ )& (+ill &"3o/( +)& (-ppor+ o2 +)& *!3ori+/ o2 o-r p&opl&, &(p&%i!ll/ +)& *!((&(. /etitioner pleads that we appl" the doctrine of res ipsa lo#uitur ;the thing or the transaction spea&s for itself< to support his argu(ent. Jnder the res ipsa lo#uitur rule in its !road sense, the fact of the occurrence of an in:ur", ta&en with the surrounding circu(stances, (a" per(it an inference or raise a presu(ption of negligence, or (a&e out a plaintiffPs pri#a facie case, and present a ?uestion of fact for defendant to (eet with an eCplanation. M*#N Dt is not a rule of su!stantive law !ut (ore a procedural rule. Dts (ere invocation does not eCe(pt the plaintiff with the re?uire(ent of proof to prove negligence. Dt (erel" allows the plaintiff to present along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circu(stances to invo&e the doctrine, creating an inference or presu(ption of negligence and to there!" place on the defendant the !urden of going forward with the proof. M*3N 7e hold that it is i"!ppropri!+& to appl" the rule on res ipsa lo#uitur, a rule usuall" applied onl" in tort cases, to the cases at !ar. I"#&&#, +)&r& i( "o %o-r+ i" +)& .)ol& .orl# +)!+ )!( !ppli&# +)& res ipsa lo#uitur r-l& +o r&(ol0& +)& i((-& o2 pr&3-#i%i!l p-1li%i+/. 7e again stress that the issue !efore us is whether the alleged pervasive pu!licit" of the cases against the petitioner has pre:udiced the (inds of the (e(!ers of the panel of investigators. 7e reiterate the test we laid down in &opl& 0. T&&)!"C&&,M*=N to resolve this issue, vi4H U7e cannot sustain appellantPs clai( that he was denied the right to i(partial trial due to pre:udicial pu!licit". Dt is true that the print and !roadcast (edia gave the case at !ar pervasive pu!licit", :ust li&e all high profile and high sta&e cri(inal trials. 1hen and now' we rule that the ri$ht of an accused to a fair trial is not inco#patible to a free press. To !e sure, responsi!le reporting enhances an accusedPs right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out , a responsi!le press has alwa"s !een regarded as the hand(aiden of effective :udicial ad(inistration, especiall" in the cri(inal field C C C. The press does not si(pl" pu!lish infor(ation a!out trials !ut guards against the (iscarriage of :ustice !" su!:ecting the police, prosecutors, and :udicial processes to eCtensive pu!lic scrutin" and criticis(. /ervasive pu!licit" is not per se pre:udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The (ere fact that the trial of appellant was given a da"-to-da", gavel-to-gavel coverage does not !" itself prove that the

pu!licit" so per(eated the (ind of the trial :udge and i(paired his i(partialit". or one, it is i(possi!le to seal the (inds of (e(!ers of the !ench fro( pre-trial and other off-court pu!licit" of sensational cri(inal cases. The state of the art of our co((unication s"ste( !rings news as he" happen straight to our !rea&fast ta!les and right to our !edroo(s. These news for( part of our ever"da" (enu of the facts and fictions of life. or another, our idea of a fair and i(partial :udge is not that of a her(it who is out of touch with the world. 7e have not installed the :ur" s"ste( whose (e(!ers are overl" protected fro( pu!licit" lest the" lost their i(partialit". C C C C C C C C C. )ur :udges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-ca(era perfor(ances of parties to a litigation. Their (ere eCposure to pu!lications and pu!licit" stunts does not per se fatall" infect their i(partialit". At !est, appellant can onl" con:ure possibilit& of pre3udice on the part of the trial :udge due to the !arrage of pu!licit" that characteri5ed the investigation and trial of the case. Dn Martelino' et al. v. Ale3andro' et al.' we re:ected this standard of possi!ilit" of pre:udice and adopted the test of actual pre3udice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of pre:udicial pu!licit", there (ust !e allegation and proof that the :udges have !een undul" influenced, not si(pl" that the" (ight !e, !" the !arrage of pu!licit". Dn the case at !ar, the records do not show that the trial :udge developed actual bias against appellant as a conse?uence of the eCtensive (edia coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totalit& of circu#stances of the case does not prove that the trial :udge ac?uired a fi0ed opinion as a result of pre:udicial pu!licit" which is incapa!le of change even !" evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the !urden to prove this actual !ias and he has not discharged the !urden.V &+i+io"&r C&&p( o" po-"#i"' o" +)& !#0&r(& p-1li%i+/ !'!i"(+ )i* 1-+ 2!il( +o pro0& )o. +)& i*p!r+i!li+/ o2 +)& p!"&l o2 i"0&(+i'!+or( 2ro* +)& O22i%& o2 +)& O*1-#(*!" )!( 1&&" i"2&%+&# 1/ i+. As we held !efore and we hold it again, p&+i+io"&r )!( %o*pl&+&l/ 2!il&# to adduce an" proof of !%+-!l pr&3-#i%& developed !" the (e(!ers of the /anel of Dnvestigators. This fact (ust !e esta!lished !" clear and convincing evidence and cannot !e left to loose sur(ises and con:ectures. Dn fact, petitioner did not even identif" the (e(!ers of the /anel of Dnvestigators. 7e cannot replace this test of !%+-!l pr&3-#i%& with the rule of res ipsa lo#uitur as suggested !" the petitioner. The latter rule assu(es that an in:ur" ;i.e., pre:udicial pu!licit"< has !een suffered and then shifts the !urden to the panel of investigators to prove that the i(partialit" of its (e(!ers has !een affected !" said pu!licit". 'uch a rule will overturn our case law that pervasive pu!licit" is not p&r (& pre:udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The cases are not wanting where an accused has !een ac?uitted despite pervasive pu!licit". M**N or this reason, we continue to hold that it is "o+ &"o-') for petitioner to %o"3-r& po((i1ili+/ o2 pr&3-#i%& !ut (ust pro0& !%+-!l pr&3-#i%& on the part of his investigators for the Court to sustain his plea. Dt is plain that petitioner has failed to do so. /etitioner agains suggests that the Court should order a 2<*o"+) %ooli"' o22 period to allow passions to su!side and hopefull" the alleged pre:udicial pu!licit" against hi( would die down. 7e regret not to ac?uiesce to the proposal. There is no assurance that the so called #-(onth cooling off period will achieve its purpose. The investigation of the petitioner is a natural (edia event. Dt is the first ti(e in our histor" that a /resident will !e investigated !" the )ffice of the )(!uds(an for alleged co((ission of heinous cri(es while a sitting /resident. 8is investigation will even !e (onitored !" the foreign press all over the world in view of its legal and historic significance. Dn other words, petitioner cannot avoid the &leiglight of pu!licit". ;-+ .)!+ i( i*por+!"+ 2or +)& p&+i+io"&r i( +)!+ )i( %o"(+i+-+io"!l ri')+( !r& "o+ 0iol!+&# i" +)& pro%&(( o2 i"0&(+i'!+io". or this reason, we have warned the respondent )(!uds(an in our 0ecision to conduct petitionerPs preli(inar" investigation in a circus-free at(osphere. /etitioner is represented !" !rilliant legal (inds who can protect his right as an accused.

?I

R&%-(!+io"

inall", petitioner pra"s that Uthe (e(!ers of this 8onora!le Court who went to 90'A put on record who the" were and consider recusing or inhi!iting the(selves, particularl" those who had eCparte contacts with those eCerting pressure on this 8onora!le Court, as (entioned in our Motion of March 9, #00%, given the need for the cold neutralit" of i(partial :udges.V M*3N D& )ol# +)!+ +)& pr!/&r l!%C( *&ri+. There is no ground to inhi!it the twelve ;%#< (e(!ers of the Court who (erel" accepted the invitation of the respondent Arro"o to attend her oath

ta&ing. As *&r& (p&%+!+or( of a historic event, said (e(!ers of the Court #i# "o+ pr&3-#'& the legal !asis of the clai( of respondent Arro"o to the presidenc" at the ti(e she too& her oath. Dndeed, the Court in its en !anc resolution on .anuar" ##, #00%, the first wor&ing da" after respondent Arro"o too& her oath as /resident, held in Ad(inistrative Matter -o. 0%-%-0* 'C, to wit6 UA.M. -o. 0%-%-0*-'C Q Dn re6 Re?uest for 2ice /resident 1loria Macapagal-Arro"o to Ta&e 8er )ath of )ffice as /resident of the Repu!lic of the /hilippines !efore the Chief .ustice Q Acting on the urgent re?uest of 2ice /resident 1loria Macapagal-Arro"o to !e sworn in as /resident of the Repu!lic of the /hilippines, addressed to the Chief .ustice and confir(ed !" a letter to the Court, dated .anuar" #0, #00%, which re?uest was treated as an ad(inistrative (atter, the court Resolved unani(ousl" to confir( the authorit" given !" the twelve ;%#< (e(!ers of the Court then present to the Chief .ustice on .anuar" #0, #00% to ad(inister the oath of office to 2ice /resident 1loria Macapagal-Arro"o as /resident of the /hilippines, at noon of .anuar" #0, #00%. This resolution is without pre:udice to the disposition of an" :usticia!le case that (a" !e filed !" a proper part".V T)& !1o0& r&(ol-+io" .!( -"!"i*o-(l/ p!((&# 1/ +)& 1: *&*1&r( o2 +)& Co-r+. Dt should !e clear fro( the resolution that the Court did not treat the letter of respondent Arro"o to !e ad(inistered the oath !" Chief .ustice 0avide, .r., as a case !ut as an ad(inistrative (atter. I2 i+ .&r& %o"(i#&r&# !( ! %!(&, +)&" p&+i+io"&r )!( r&!(o" +o 2&!r +)!+ +)& Co-r+ )!( pr&#&+&r*i"&# +)& l&'i+i*!%/ o2 +)& %l!i* o2 r&(po"#&"+ Arro/o +o +)& pr&(i#&"%/. To #i(p&l +)& &rro"&o-( "o+io", +)& Co-r+ pr&%i(&l/ +r&!+&# +)& l&++&r !( !" !#*i"i(+r!+i0& *!++&r !"# &*p)!(iL&# +)!+ i+ .!( O.i+)o-+ pr&3-#i%& +o +)& #i(po(i+io" o2 !"/ 3-(+i%i!1l& %!(& +)!+ *!/ 1& 2il&# 1/ ! prop&r p!r+/.N Dn further clarification, the Court on e!ruar" #0, #00% issued !"o+)&r r&(ol-+io" to infor( the parties and the pu!lic that it UCCC did not issue a resolution on .anuar" #0, #00% declaring the office of the /resident vacant and that neither did the Chief .ustice issue a press state(ent :ustif"ing the alleged resolution.V T)-(, +)&r& i( "o r&!(o" 2or p&+i+io"&r +o r&4-&(+ 2or +)& (!i# +.&l0& A12B 3-(+i%&( +o r&%-(& +)&*(&l0&(. To 1& (-r&, ! *o+io" +o i")i1i+ 2il&# 1/ ! p!r+/ !2+&r lo(i"' )i( %!(& i( (-(p&%+ !"# i( r&'!r#&# .i+) '&"&r!l #i(2!0or. Moreover, to dis?ualif" an" of the (e(!ers of the Court, particularl" a (a:orit" of the(, is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its :urisdiction as esta!lished !" the funda(ental law. 0is?ualification of a :udge is a deprivation of his :udicial power. And if that :udge is the one designated !" the Constitution to eCercise the :urisdiction of his court, as is the case with the .ustices of this Court, the deprivation of his or their :udicial power is e?uivalent to the deprivation of the :udicial power of the court itself. Dt affects the ver" heart of :udicial independence. M*$N The proposed (ass dis?ualification, if sanctioned and ordered, would leave the Court no alternative !ut to a!andon a dut" which it cannot lawfull" discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire (e(!ership of .ustices. M*,N IN ?IED DHEREOF, petitionerPs Motion for Reconsideration in 1.R. -os. %=3$%0-%* and his )(ni!us Motion in 1.R. -o. %=3$3, are 09-D90 for lac& of (erit. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 130::0 S&p+&*1&r 2, 1,,, EO LE OF THE HILI INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDRES EAFLORIDA, accused-appellant.

DA?IDE, =R., C.J.: Accused-appellant Andres /e4aflorida ;hereafter A-0R9'< appeals fro( the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court ;RTC<, +ranch %9, Malolos, +ulacan, in Cri(inal Case -o. #3,3-M-9=, dated %# Ma" %99$, finding hi( guilt" of (urder and sentencing hi( to suffer the penalt" of reclusion perpetua and inde(nif" the heirs of the victi(, '/)3 9use!io -atividad, in the a(ount of /*0,000.

The infor(ation, 2 filed on %3 )cto!er %99=, charged A-0R9' together with two other persons, whose identities are still un&nown, with (urder, allegedl" co((itted in this (anner6 That on or a!out the *th da" of )cto!er, %99=, in the (unicipalit" of 'an Dldefonso, province of +ulacan, /hilippines, and within the :urisdiction of this 8onora!le Court, the a!ove-na(ed accused together with two ;#< other persons, whose true na(es are still un&nown and against who( the preli(inar" investigation has not "et !een co(pleted !" the )ffice of the /rovincial /rosecutor of +ulacan, ar(ed with guns, and with intent to &ill one '/)3 9use!io -atividad, conspiring, confederating together and (utuall" helping one another did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl", with treacher", evident pre(editation and use of superior strength, attac&, assault and shoot with guns the said '/)3 9use!io -atividad, hitting hi( on different parts of his !od", there!" inflicting upon hi( (ortal wounds which directl" caused death. A-0R9' pleaded not guilt" upon arraign(ent.
3

At the trial, the prosecution presented its e"ewitness, Rodolfo de la Cru5 ;hereafter R)0)H )<. 8e testified that at around =600 p.(. on * )cto!er %99=, he was resting on the terrace of his house at /inaod, 'an Dldefonso, +ulacan, when he noticed an onco(ing owner-t"pe :eep. )n !oard were the driver '/)3 9use!io -atividad, R)0)H )'s for(er CA 1J trainer and an un&nown co(panion passenger. 'uddenl", three (en, each ar(ed with a short pistol, !loc&ed and stopped the :eep. )ne of the three ar(ed (en shouted6 @-atividad &atapusan (o na ito,@ ;-atividad, this is "our end<. After which, the three gun(en si(ultaneousl" fired upon -atividad. 7hen the assault ceased, one of the gun(en too& -atividad's wallet and gun. The attac&ers then fled on !oard a vehicle. 6 R)0)H ) clai(ed that the &illing too& place in a s(all (ar&et ;talipapa< a!out five ar(slength fro( his terrace, hence, he was a!le to see clearl" the faces of -atividad's assailants. : R)0)H ) also recounted that seven da"s after the shooting incident or on %# )cto!er %99=, he voluntaril" proceeded to the %$*th /C 0etach(ent upon the invitation of the police authorities who were conducting the investigation on the (atter. There, the police officers presented a (an who( R)0)H ) instantl" recogni5ed as one of -ATD2D0A0's assailants, in particular, the one who too& -atividad's gun and wallet. The police then infor(ed R)0)H ) that the (an's na(e was A-0R9' /e4aflorida. Ar(ed with the na(e to (atch one of the faces he re(e(!ered as one of -atividad's attac&ers, R)0)H ) voluntaril" and pro(ptl" eCecuted on that sa(e da", a sworn state(ent narrating the events pertaining to the attac&. 7 Dn open court, R)0)H ) once again specificall" pointed to A-0R9' as one of the assailants of -atividad who sei5ed the latter's gun and wallet. 7 After R)0)H )'s testi(on", the prosecution for(all" offered in evidence his afore(entioned sworn state(ent as 9Chi!it @A@ and 9Chi!it @A-%.@ 8 Dt also offered in evidence the death certificate of -atividad as 9Chi!it @+,@ , which indicate that the cause of his death was (assive he(orrhage due to (ultiple gunshot wounds. The defense raised no o!:ections and ad(itted the eChi!its. The prosecution then rested its case. 10 The defense thereafter presented its witnesses A-0R9' and his !rother, Ro!erto /e4aflorida. A-0R9' interposed ali!i. 8e clai(ed that at around =630 p.(., on * )cto!er %99=, he was in the house of his !rother, Ro!erto in Marulas, +ulacan where he assisted the latter in the repair of the chassis of so(e auto(o!iles. 8e did not leave Marulas that da" hence, he could not !e ph"sicall" present in so(e other place, (uch less in 'an Dldefonso. 8e left Marulas onl" on %% )cto!er %99= upon his cousin's re?uest to harvest pala" at 'apang /ala". 8e was arrested on said date. 11 A-0R9' further denied ever &nowing !oth -atividad and R)0)H ). -atividad certainl" was not his ene(" hence, A-0R9' could not thin& of an" reason wh" R)0)H ) i(plicated hi( in the &illing of -atividad. 12 Ro!erto /e4aflorida corro!orated the ali!i of A-0R9'. 8e (aintained that he was wor&ing with A-0R9' the whole da" of * )cto!er %99= in the repair of a Motherland !us. Ro!erto further declared that A-0R9' had !een living with hi( since 0ece(!er, %993. There had !een no occasion for A-0R9' to leave Marulas eCcept on %% )cto!er %99= when he was invited !" a friend to go to 'an Dldefonso. A wee& later, Ro!erto learned that A-0R9' had !een arrested. 13 The trial court considered said evidence of the defense as unworth" of !elief. Dt instead gave full faith and credit to the evidence of the prosecution, particularl" the testi(on" of the lone prosecution witness R)0)H ). Dt is convinced that R)0)H ) positivel" identified A-0R9' as one of the culprits who, using

a short firear(, riddled the different parts of -atividad's !od" with !ullets that led to his unti(el" de(ise. Dt assessed the testi(on" of R)0)H ) as @clear, une?uivocal, un(ista&a!le and overwhel(ing leaving no roo( for dou!t as to its veracit" and conclusiveness@ 16 The trial court then reiterated in its decision, the :urisprudential doctrine that R)0)H )'s positive identification prevails over the uncorro!orated and self-serving denial and ali!i interposed !" the defense. 1: The trial court also appreciated that treacher", evident pre(editation and a!use of superior strength attended the &illing of -atividad. Dt then convicted A-0R9' of the cri(e of (urder and sentenced hi( to suffer the penalt" ofreclusion perpetua and to inde(nif" the heirs of -atividad in the a(ount of /*0,000. The dispositive portion of the decision 17 reads, as follows6 7herefore, !ased on the evidence on record, this Court finds the accused, A-0R9' /9XA H)RD0A, 1JDHTE !e"ond reasona!le dou!t of the cri(e of MJR09R punisha!le under Art. #=, of the Revised /enal Code, the &illing having !een attended with aggravating circu(stances of alevosia, evident pre(editation and a!use of superior strength, and here!" sentences hi( to suffer the penalt" ofreclusion perpetua with the accessor" penalties provided !" law and to inde(nif" the heirs of '/)3 9use!io -atividad the su( of /*0,000.00 and to pa" the costs. A-0R9' seasona!l" appealed fro( the decision. Dn his Appellant's +rief, A-0R9' contends that the trial court erred in convicting hi( since he was not positivel" identified !" R)0)H ). There was no positive identification !ecause ;a< R)0)H ) could not have re(e(!ered the ph"sical features of the three ;3< gun(en, particularl" A-0R9', given the short ti(e that he ;R)0)H )< had seen the( and that previous to the incident he did not &now an" one of the(> 17 ;!< R)0)H ) did not identif" A-0R9' fro( a police line-up !ut was introduced to hi( ;R)0)H )< alone> 18 and ;c< R)0)H ) !elatedl" eCecuted the sworn state(ent ;9Chi!it @A@ and 9Chi!it @A-%@<, al!eit seven da"s after the shooting incident. 7ith this, A-0R9' insinuates that the police authorities @coached@ R)0)H ) in the identification for he eCecuted the sworn state(ent, propitiousl" on %# )cto!er %99=, a da" after A-0R9' arrest. A-0R9' additionall" points out that he was arrested not !" virtue of a warrant of arrest !ut upon (ere invitation !" a certain police officer /alarca who !rought hi( i((ediatel" to the %$*th /C 0etach(ent. 1, Dn its Appellee's +rief, the )ffice of the 'olicitor general supports the trial court's decision and pra"s that the assailed decision !e affir(ed in toto. The appeal is without (erit. 7ell settled is the rule that the ascertain(ent of the credi!ilit" of witnesses is !est left to the deter(ination of the trial court. This is so !ecause the trial court is in a distinct advantageous position to eCa(ine the witnesses' deport(ent and (anner of testif"ing. )n appeal, its evaluation or assess(ent of the testi(onies of witnesses is accorded great respect and finalit" in the a!sence of an" indication that it overloo&ed certain facts or circu(stances of weight and influence which, if considered, would alter the results of the case. 20 Dn this case, no cogent reasons were presented to distur! the factual findings of the trial court particularl" on the assess(ent of the credi!ilit" of the prosecution e"ewitness. The trial court ascertained that R)0)H ) @categoricall", une?uivoca!l" and repeatedl" pointed to@ A-0R9' as one of the three ar(ed (en who a(!ushed and gunned down -atividad. Dt declared that R)0)H ) positivel" identified A-0R9'. 7e agree. R)0)H ) had all the opportunit" to o!serve the horri!le occurrence as he was onl" a!out five ar(slength fro( the scene of the cri(e. 8e had a good view of the assailants' ph"sical and facial features. True, he had seen their faces for onl" a short span of ti(e !ut that was all R)0)H ) needed in order to re(e(!er their faces. 9ven if he did not &now an" one of the assailants previous to the incident, such a fact would not deter R)0)H ) fro( re(e(!ering the(. Dn fact, R)0)H ) was so certain of the attac&ers' faces that he easil" and ?uic&l" recogni5ed A-0R9' as one of the( when he saw the latter at the %$*th /C 0etach(ent. Dt is therefore unnecessar" for R)0)H ) to have identified A-0R9' fro( the police line-up. +esides, there is no law re?uiring a police line-up as an essential re?uisite for proper identification. 21 urther, no proof was adduced indicating that R)0)H ) was coached !" the police officers or i(properl" (otivated in identif"ing A-0R9' as one of -atividad's sla"ers. As to the alleged dela" in the eCecution of R)0)H )'s sworn state(ent, it does not and will not i(pair his credi!ilit" as witness. This Court ta&es :udicial notice of the actualit" that witnesses in this countr"

are usuall" reluctant to volunteer infor(ation a!out a cri(inal case or are unwilling to !e involved in or dragged into cri(inal investigations. 22 Dndeed, R)0)H ) eChi!ited a natural hu(an reaction. Although there was dela" in the eCecution of his sworn state(ent, what (atters is R)0)H ) overca(e his initial reluctance and fear to !e involved !" voluntaril" participating in the police investigation and then openl" testif"ing in court. Dn su(, R)0)H )'s positive identification of A-0R9' as one of the authors of the cri(e prevails over his defense of ali!i. 23 'ettled is the rule that ali!i is the wea&est of all defenses, for it is eas" to contrive and difficult to prove.26 or such a defense to prosper, it is not enough for A-0R9' to prove that he was so(ewhere else when the cri(e occurred, i.e., at Marulas, +ulacan !ut he (ust also de(onstrate that it was ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have !een at the scene of the cri(e at 'an Dldefonso, +ulacan, at the ti(e of its co((ission. 2: This, A-0R9' failed to esta!lish. 7e will now discuss the trial court's assess(ent that all the aggravating circu(stances alleged in the infor(ation attended the co((ission of the cri(e. 7e approve the trial court's correct appreciation of alevosia, !ut disapprove its deter(ination of evident pre(editation and a!use of superior strength. or treacher" to !e considered, two ele(ents (ust concur6 ;%< the e(plo"(ent of (eans of eCecution that gives the person attac&ed no opportunit" to defend hi(self or retaliate> and ;#< the (eans of eCecution were deli!eratel" or consciousl" adopted. 27 -atividad's assailants uneCpectedl" appeared fro( nowhere to a(!ush hi(. The assailants were a!le to i((ediatel" esta!lish strategic positions fro( which vantage point the" si(ultaneousl" fired upon the victi(, ta&ing hi( !" surprise. The stratage( ensured -atividad's helplessness, defenselessness and i((o!ilit". Thus, it can !e said that A-0R9' and his two ;#< still un&nown co(panions e(plo"ed (eans of eCecution which gave -atividad no opportunit" at all to defend hi(self and that the (anner of eCecution was deli!eratel" and consciousl" adopted. The fact that the attac& was preceded !" a cr" or signal of @-atividad &atapusan (o na ito,@ fro( A-0R9' and his co(panions did not (a&e such attac& less treacherous. Dn the sa(e vein, the frontal attac& did not negate or lessen the presence of treacher". 27 Hi&e treacher", evident pre(editation should !e esta!lished !" clear and positive evidence. 'ifting through the records, we found a dearth of evidence esta!lishing the re?uisites of evident pre(editation, to wit6 ;%< the ti(e when the accused deter(ined to co((it the cri(e> ;#< an act (anifestl" indicating that the accused has clung to his deter(ination> and ;3< sufficient lapse of ti(e !etween such deter(ination and eCecution to allow hi( to reflect upon the conse?uences of his act. 28 8ence, the finding thereof !" the trial court in the a!sence of an" evidentiar" !asis was !ut speculation. 7e have alread" ruled that (ere presu(ptions and inferences, no (atter how logical and pro!a!le the" (ight !e, would not suffice to esta!lish evident pre(editation. 2, or the si(ilar reason that there (ust eCist proof that the attac&ers deli!eratel" too& advantage of their superior strength, their apparent superiorit" in nu(!er vis2I2vis that of the victi(, notwithstanding, 30 the aggravating circu(stance of a!use of superior strength cannot !e appreciated. Again, the records disclosed no such proof. Dn an" event, even if a!use of superior strength was proved, it would still !e a!sor!ed !" the ?ualif"ing aggravating circu(stance of treacher". 31 )ne final point, A-0R9' assails the regularit" and validit" of his arrest. 8e clai(s that his arrest without a warrant circu(scri!es the conditions for a valid warrantless arrest which are set forth in 'ection *, Rule %%3 of the Rules of Court, to wit6 'ec. *. Arrest without a warrant when lawful. G A peace officer or a private person (a", without a warrant, arrest a person6 ;a< 7hen, in his presence, the person to !e arrested has co((itted, is actuall" co((itting, or is atte(pting to co((it an offense> ;!< 7hen an offense has in fact !een co((itted, and he has personal &nowledge of facts indicating that the person to !e arrested has co((itted it> and ;c< 7hen the person to !e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped fro( a penal esta!lish(ent or place where he is

serving final :udg(ent or te(poraril" confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while !eing transferred fro( one confine(ent to another. Dn Filoteo v. %andi$anba&an, 32 petitioner therein i(pugned the validit" of his arrest on the ground that it was effected not !" virtue of a warrant !ut !" (ere invitation. 7e o!served therein that the clai( was !elatedl" (ade, stressed that petitioner should have ?uestioned the validit" of his arrest !efore he entered his plea, and ruled that his failure to do so constituted a waiver of his right against unlawful restraint of li!ert". 7e reiterate herein said ruling. An"wa", even if A-0R9' was illegall" arrested, it would not affect his culpa!ilit" since an allegation of a warrantless arrest could not deprive the 'tate of its right to convict the guilt" when all the facts on the record pointed to his guilt. 33 789R9 )R9, the instant appeal is here!" 0D'MD''90 and the challenged %# Ma" %99$ decision of the Regional Trial Court, +ranch %9, Malolos, +ulacan, in Cri(inal Case -o. #3,3-M-9=, finding herein accused-appellant Andres /e4aflorida guilt" !e"ond reasona!le dou!t of the cri(e of (urder and sentencing hi( to suffer the penalt" of reclusion perpetua and to inde(nif" the victi( in the su( of /*0,000 is here!" A DRM90.1wphi1.nt -o pronounce(ent as to costs. ') )R09R90. G.R. No. 1137,: $!r%) 28, 1,,: EO LE OF THE HILI INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. =ESUS ES INOSA, =R. !"# RODNE8 ES INOSA, !%%-(&#. =ESUS ES INOSA, =R., accusedappellant.

$ELO, J.: Accused were charged with (urder in an Dnfor(ation reading as follows6 That on or a!out the %3th da" of e!ruar" %993, in the Cit" of Dloilo, /hilippines and within the :urisdiction of this Court, said accused .esus 9spinosa alias .ing:ing 9spinosa, ar(ed with a handgun of un&nown cali!er, conspiring and confederating with Rodne" 9spinosa, wor&ing together and helping one another, with evident pre(editation, !" (eans of treacher" and with a decided purpose to &ill, did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and cri(inall" shot, hit and wound Agusto 9lon with the said handgun, with which the herein accused was provided at the ti(e, there!" causing upon said Agusto 9lon !ulled wounds on his head, which cause his death few (o(ents thereafter. ;p. ,, Rollo.< After the, the court a :uo rendered a decision dated -ove(!er %9, %993 disposing6 789R9 )R9, pre(ises considered, the accused .esus 9spinosa, is here!" found guilt" !e"ond reasona!le dou!t as principal, in the cri(e of (urder, defined and penali5ed under Art. #=, of the Revised /enal Code and there !eing no (itigating or aggravating circu(stance, is here!" sentenced to suffer the penalt" of reclusion perpetua. The accused Rodne" 9spinosa, alias Rodne" 'ecuilan is ac?uitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt !e"ond reasona!le dou!t. The accused .esus 9spinosa, .r. is further ordered to pa" as civil lia!ilit" to the heirs of the deceased, the a(ount of /=,=*0.00, as actual da(ages> /*0,000.00 for his wrongful death and /#0,000.00 as (oral da(ages> and the costs of this suit.

'aid accused .esus 9spinosa, .r., who is detained, is accredited with the nu(!er of da"s he spent under detention, if he is ?ualified, otherwise he shall !e credited with onl" fourfifth ;=I*< of his preventive i(prison(ent. The other accused, Rodne" 9spinosa, alias Rodne" 'ecuilan, who is also detained, is here!" ordered released i((ediatel". ;pp. ,$-,,, Rollo.< ro( said decision accused .esus 9spinosa, .r. appealed, insisting on his ali!i. The facts of the case as, su((ari5ed !" the trial court and as !orne out !" the evidence, are as follows6 At a!out %%6=0 in the evening on e!ruar" %3, %993, while the deceased Agusto 9lon, a deaf (ute, was urinating near the gate of the fence of the house of his sister, C"nthia 2illanueva, at Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet, Dloilo Cit", the accused .esus 9spinosa, .r. alias .ing:ing 9spinosa, shot said Agusto 9lon at the !ac& of his head three ti(es, which caused his death. Rodne" 9spinosa, alias Rodne" 'ecuilan, was standing a!out four feet awa" fro( .esus 9spinosa, .r., when the latter shot Agusto 9lon. The shooting of Agusto 9lon was witnesses !" his father .uan 9lon !ecause at that ti(e he was sleeping in the house of his daughter C"nthia, which house is situated along the road, or along Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet. 8e was re?uested !" his daughter to sleep at her house, which is onl" fifteen ;%*< (eters awa" fro( his own house, as C"nthia's hus!and was at He(er", Dloilo, at that ti(e, and she and her children had no co(panion in their house. As earlier stated, the house of C"nthia 9lon 2illanueva is located along or a!out one ;%< foot fro( Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet. The fence of her house which is (ade of hollow !loc&s is at the sa(e ti(e the wall of the front of her house. The place where his son was shot at well lighted and there was an electric light at the post near the place of the incident. 7hen .esus 9spinosa, .r. shot Agusto 9lon he was a!out three feet awa", (ore or less, fro( the deceased. The deceased was facing the wall when he was shot and his !ac& turned towards the accused, .esus 9spinosa, .r. .uan 9lon cried aloud when he saw his son !eing shot and ran downstairs, towards hi(, !ut he stu(!led at the (os?uito net of his grandchildren. 8is wife who was sleeping at their house, which is ver" near the house of his daughter, arrived first at the scene of the incident. 7hen he reached his son, .uan 9lon e(!raced hi(. 8e saw that the !ullets were @!ulging@ on his forehead and !lood was oo5ing fro( his nec&. 8e was alread" dead. 8e recogni5ed the accused !ecause he wor&ed as a @stevedore@ at the pier, and had also wor&ed with the grandfather of the accused and had &nown the accused since the" were s(all. At the ti(e of his death, Agusto 9lon was onl" #% "ears old. Although a deaf (ute, his son was e(plo"ed at @+asic ruit Corporation@ situated at /avia, Dloilo. 8is :o! was @peeling !anana@, to !e (ade into @!anana chips@ !ut the does not &now how (uch his son was earning. 8is son usuall" went ho(e at a!out %0 to %% o'cloc& in the evening, !ecause !efore going ho(e he used to pass at the !ac& of the church at .aro, Dloilo, to visit his friends, who were also deaf (uted. After his son died, the cadaver was e(!la(ed and autops" was conducted. 8e paid funenaria /orras the a(ount of Three Thousand 'iC 8undred ;/3,300.00< /esos, for funeral services. 8e also hired 3 :eepne"s during the funeral at ift" ;/*0,00< /esos. 8e !ought ;@Best-)@ .uice@ during the funeral, for the (erienda of the deceased's friends he spent a(ount of )ne Thousand our 8undred ;/%,=00.00< /esos. 8e also !ought !read and sandwich spread and spent )ne Thousand ;/%,000.00< /esos. or the @pantheon@ of his son he spent 'iC 8undred ;/300.00< /esos. or church services, Two hundred ;#00.00< /esos, or a total a(ount of our Thousand our 8undred ift" ;/=,=*0.00<

/esos. 8e also !ought !read and sandwich spread and spent )ne Thousand ;/%,000.00< /esos. or the @pantheon@ of his son he spent 'iC 8undred ;/300.00< /esos. or church services, Two hundred ;#00.00< /esos, or a total a(ount of our Thousand our 8undred ift" ;/=,=*0.00< /esos. The testi(on" of .uan, the father of the deceased was corro!orated !" another e"ewitness Ro(ualdo Ro!les. 8e testified that while he was on his wa" ho(e to Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet, at around %%6=0 in the evening of e!ruar" %3, %993, co(ing fro( Rotar" par& and while he was across the street in front of the house of .uan 9lon, he saw .esus 9spinosa, .r., shoot of Agusto 9lon of @Apa 9lon@, in front of their house at Ba(ora 9Ctension, Dloilo Cit", 8e was a!out fifteen to twent" (eters awa" fro( the place of the incident and the place was well lighted. At the ti(e of the shooting, Agusto 9lon was urinating and the deceased was !out three to four feet awa" fro( the assailant. 8e saw .esus 9spinosa, .r. shoot @Apa@ 9lon three ti(es and the deceased feel on his face on the fence ;nagda(hag sa &udal< and he fell on the ground on his !ac&. ;pp. $0-$3, Rollo< Accused-appellant (aintains that the prosecution failed in its tas& to identif" hi( positivel" as the perpetrator of the cri(e. The evidence does not support accused-appellant as the person who shot the victi(. /rosecution witness Ro(ualdo Ro!les positivel" and une?uivoca!l" identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri(e. Ro!les testified thusl"6 ATTE. CA'TR)6 7hile "ou were on "our wa" ho(e that evening of e!ruar" %3, %993, at around %%6=0 in the evening, can "ou recall whether there was an" untoward incident that happenedL 7DT-9''6 Ees, D witnessed the shooting incident done !" .ing:ing 9spinosa to Apa 9lon. ATTE. CA'TR)6 7ho is this Apa 9lon 7DT-9''6 The son of T"o .uan 9lonL ATTE. CA'TR)6 7hat is his na(e if "ou &nowL 7DT-9''6 Agusto 9lon. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said "ou witnessed the shooting of Apa 9lon, in what particular place was Apa 9lon shotL 7DT-9''6

Dn front of their houseL ATTE. CA'TR)6 Dn what streetL 7DT-9''6 Ba(ora 9Ctension. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Dloilo cit"L 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said "ou saw the shooting of Apa 9lon, how far were "ou fro( the place where the shooting too& placeL 7DT-9''6 M" distance fro( the victi( is a!out fro( %* to #0 (eters. ATTE. CA'TR)6 ro( where "ou were situated, where is the shooting incident, can "ou tell whether the place of the incident is lighted or notL 7DT-9''6 Dn the house of T"o .uan there was a light and the place of the incident is so well lighted. ATTE. CA'TR)6 7ho is the T"o .uan "ou are referring toL 7DT-9''6 The father of Apa 9lon. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said "ou saw the actual shooting of Apa 9lon, what was the victi( doing when he was the shotL 7DT-9''6 8e was urinating and his !ac& turned down the assailant. ATTE. CA'TR)6 8ow far was the assailant fro( the victi( when the victi( was shotL 7DT-9''6

Three to four feet fro( the !ac&. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said Apa 9lon was shot !" .ing:ing 9spinosa, do "ou &now the co(plete na(e of .ing:ing 9spinosaL 7DT-9''6 .esus 9spinosa. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Df this person who( "ou and who shot Apa 9lon is inside the courtroo(, can "ou point to hi(L 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. ATTE. CA'TR)6 /lease point to hi(L 7DT-9''6 There ;witness is pointing to one in the audience who( when as&ed answered !" the na(e of .esus 9spinosa. ;pp. $-%3, tsn, .ul" #3, %993< The testi(on" of Ro(ualdo Ro!les was full" corro!orated !" .uan 9lon, the father of the victi(, who testified as follows6 /R)'9CJT)R6 At a!out that ti(e %%6=0 "ou said "ou witnessed the shooting of "our son, where was "our son situated insofar as "ou are concerned in relation to "ouL 7DT-9''6 +eside the gate !ecause he was urinating. /R)'9CJT)R6 7hile "our son was urinating were "ou also witnessing the sa(eL 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. /R)'9CJT)R6 7hat happened then when "our son was urinatingL 7DT-9''6 .esus alias .ing:ing and Rodne" 9spinosa passed !" and without an" provocation the" shot (" son three ti(es.

/R)'9CJT)R6 7h" did "ou sa" that without the provocation the" shot "our son three ti(es. 7DT-9''6 D do not &now, !ecause (" son was urinating and (" son is a deaf(ute. /R)'9CJT)R6 0id "ou see where "our son was shotL 7DT-9''6 At the @tang&ugo@. /R)'9CJT)R6 8ow (an" ti(es he was shotL 7DT-9''6 Three ti(es. /R)'9CJT)R6 7ho shot hi(L 7DT-9''6 .esus 9spinosa, .r. alias .ing:ing. /R)'9CJT)R6 0id "ou see hi( holding a gunL 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. /R)'9CJT)R6 0id "ou see his face clearl" when he shoot "our sonL 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. /R)'9CJT)R6 7h" do "ou sa" "ou saw his face clearl"L 7DT-9''6 +ecause the street was well-lighted and there is a post-la(p and the light at the houses were lighting. ;pp. %#-%*, Ibid<.

Accused-appellant ?uestions veracit" of the testi(on" of .uan 9lon, (aintaining that .uan 9lon was asleep at the ti(e that the victi( was shot. Again the evidence does not su!stantiate accusedappellantPs contention. .uan 9lon une?uivoca!l" testified that he was full" awa&e when the shooting place. ATTE. MACA8DHD16 7hat ti(e did "ou wa&e up after having gone to sleepL 7DT-9''6 D a( alread" old and (" sleep is not so heav" and its so light that D can hear the noise and D hear the tr"s&ad that stopped and D saw (" son alighted fro( that tr"s&ad. ;p. #9, tsn., .ul" $, %993< Dn the a!sence of an" ill (otive on the part of .uan 9lon to point to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri(e charged, .uan 9lon's testi(on" (ust !e given full faith and credit ; eople vs. 1olentino, #%, 'CRA 33$ M%993N. A thorough search of the record fails to uncover an" such ill (otive. neither does not his relationship to the victi( i(pair his credi!ilit" ; eople vs. Do#in$ue4, #%$ 'CRA %$0 M%993N. urther, accused-appellant i(pugns the testi(on" of prosecution witness Ro(ualdo Ro!les. Accusedappellant asserts that the testi(on" of Ro!les Accused-appellant asserts that the testi(on" of Ro!les to the effect that .uan 9lon and his wife went out of the house together is inconsistent with the testi(on" of .uan 9lon that his wife went out of their house first then followed !" hi(. The ?uestion of who got out of their respective houses first is o!viousl" a (inor, trivial, and inconse?uential (atter that cannot adversel" effect the testi(on" of Ro!les that he saw accused-appellant shoot the victi(. Accused-appellant also assails Ro!les for his failure to i((ediatel" report what he saw to the police(an who arrived at the scene of the cri(e. 'uch failure does not su!vert the credi!ilit" of Ro!les for as eCplained !" hi( he i((ediatel" went ho(e after the shooting !ecause he was afraid that he (ight get involved ;p. $, tsn., .ul" #3, %993<. The reticence of Ca!atas to i((ediatel" reveal the said state(ent to the police officers was satisfactoril" eCplained> he was then afraid. The natural reluctance of witnesses to volunteer infor(ation to the police authorities in cri(inal cases is a (atter of :udicial notice. 8e (ight have dee(ed it the !etter part of valor not to give the na(e of the accused who was still at large and who pro!a!l" recogni5e hi(. 'uch reluctance should not affect his testi(on". The decisive factor is that he in fact identified the accused. ; eople vs. Vicente, ##* 'CRA 33%, 3$0.< Dn an atte(pt to destro" the credi!ilit" of Ro!les, accused-appellant presented a certification of Kila"&o 9Cpress 'ervices, Dnc. to the effect that Ro!les had never !een an e(plo"ee thereat, this to re!ut the state(ent of Ro!les that he was an errand !o" of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc. Dn this regard, we full" agree with the following o!servation of the trial court6 The defense would li&e to assail the credi!ilit" of Ro(ualdo Ro!les, the second witness of the prosecution !" presenting a certification issued !" the president or 1eneral of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc., 2ictor Kila"&o, that Mr. Ro(ualdo Ro!les has not !een an e(plo"ee of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc. in whatever capacit" since %990 up to %993. !ut Ro(ualdo never asserted that he was an e(plo"ee of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc. 8e (erel" testified that he was a @errand !o"@ or @(essenger@ !ut not a regular e(plo"ee. he received no regular salar" accepted whatever a(ount that (ight !e given to hi( as an errand !o". As a (atter of fact, in his personal circu(stance, he stated that he was :o!less. ;pp. #*-#3, Rollo.< 7e re:ect the defense of ali!i put up !" accused-appellant not onl" !ecause ali!i cannot prevail over the positive identification !" the prosecution witnesses ; eople vs. Do#in$ue4, #%$ 'CRA %$0 M%993N<,

!ut also !ecause accused-appellant has failed to esta!lish that it was ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have !een present at the place where the cri(e was co((itted at the ti(e it happened, ; eople vs. Flores, #%$ 'CRA 3%3 M%993N<. Dn the case at !ench, accused-appellant professes that he was in a fishpond situated at +rg". Taguangin, A:u", Dloilo at the ti(e of the co((ission of the cri(e. 8owever, said place is onl" ,0 &ilo(eters awa" fro( Dloilo Cit", and can !e negotiated !" !us in a!out %-%I# to # hours. Therefore, the ele(ent of ph"sical i(possi!ilit" of presence of accused-appellant at the scene and the ti(e of the cri(e does not o!tain. 7e, however, agree with accused-appellant that the (itigating circu(stance of a voluntar" surrender should !e ta&en into consideration in fiCing the penalt" The trial court itself stated that the record shows the act of voluntar" surrender !ut refrained fro( ta&ing it into consideration !ecause according to the trial court, the report on the warrant of arrest was not offered in evidence. There was no need for said report to !e su!(itted in evidence !ecause the court can ta&e cogni5ance of it, the sa(e !eing part of the record. Dt is a settled rule that a tri!unal (a" at an" ti(e ta&e :udicial notice of the records of a case pending !efore it. ;Gniversal 1e0tile Mills' Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations > 33 'CRA 3%9, 3#3 M%9$0N< 7e nonetheless concur with the following findings of the trial court that the &illing of the victi( was characteri5ed !" treacher"6 Dn this case, it was clearl" shown !e"ond reasona!le dou!t that the !ac& of the deceased was turned to the accused when he was shot three ti(es. 8e was urinating when shot and was defenseless. 8e was unaware what happened to hi(. 8e could not have put up an" defense at all. Dn short, the accused in eCecuting the cri(e, e(plo"ed (eans , (ethods or for(s which tend directl" and speciall" to ensure its eCecution, without ris&s to hi(self arising fro( the defense which the offended part" (ight (a&e . There was no wa" the deceased should not defend hi(self under the circu(stances. ;p. ,=, Rollo.< Dn view of the presence of the ?ualif"ing circu(stance of treacher", the cri(e co((itted !" accusedappellant is (urder under article #=, of the Revised /enal Code. There !eing a (itigating circu(stance, the penalt" for (urder prescri!ed !" said Article #=,, which is reclusion te#poral. Dn its (aCi(u( period to death, should !e i(posed in its (ini(u( period, or %$ "ears, = (onths, and % da", to #0 "ears. Appl"ing the Dndeter(inate 'entence Haw, the proper penalt" is that neCt lower in degree, which is prision #a&or in its (aCi(u( period toreclusion te#poral in its (ediu( period, or %0 "ears and % da" of prision #a&or, to %$ "ears and = (onths ofreclusion te#poral . ; eople vs. Roel ona&o & Villanueva, 1.R -o. %%%*#3, August %0, %99=<, 789R9 )R9, the decision appealed fro( is 89R9+E A DRM90, with the (odification that accusedappellant D' 89R9+E '9-T9-C90 to an indeter(inate sentence of ten ;%0< "ears and one ;%< da" of prision #a&or, as (ini(u(, to seventeen. ;%$< "ears and four ;=< (onths of reclusion te#poral, as (aCi(u(. Dn all other respects, the decision appealed fro( is here!" affir(ed. -o special pronounce(ent is (ade as to costs. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 1137,: $!r%) 28, 1,,: EO LE OF THE HILI INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. =ESUS ES INOSA, =R. !"# RODNE8 ES INOSA, !%%-(&#. =ESUS ES INOSA, =R., accusedappellant.

$ELO, J.: Accused were charged with (urder in an Dnfor(ation reading as follows6 That on or a!out the %3th da" of e!ruar" %993, in the Cit" of Dloilo, /hilippines and within the :urisdiction of this Court, said accused .esus 9spinosa alias .ing:ing 9spinosa, ar(ed with a handgun of un&nown cali!er, conspiring and confederating with Rodne" 9spinosa, wor&ing together and helping one another, with evident pre(editation, !" (eans of treacher" and with a decided purpose to &ill, did then and there wilfull", unlawfull" and cri(inall" shot, hit and wound Agusto 9lon with the said handgun, with which the herein accused was provided at the ti(e, there!" causing upon said Agusto 9lon !ulled wounds on his head, which cause his death few (o(ents thereafter. ;p. ,, Rollo.< After the, the court a :uo rendered a decision dated -ove(!er %9, %993 disposing6 789R9 )R9, pre(ises considered, the accused .esus 9spinosa, is here!" found guilt" !e"ond reasona!le dou!t as principal, in the cri(e of (urder, defined and penali5ed under Art. #=, of the Revised /enal Code and there !eing no (itigating or aggravating circu(stance, is here!" sentenced to suffer the penalt" of reclusion perpetua. The accused Rodne" 9spinosa, alias Rodne" 'ecuilan is ac?uitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt !e"ond reasona!le dou!t. The accused .esus 9spinosa, .r. is further ordered to pa" as civil lia!ilit" to the heirs of the deceased, the a(ount of /=,=*0.00, as actual da(ages> /*0,000.00 for his wrongful death and /#0,000.00 as (oral da(ages> and the costs of this suit. 'aid accused .esus 9spinosa, .r., who is detained, is accredited with the nu(!er of da"s he spent under detention, if he is ?ualified, otherwise he shall !e credited with onl" fourfifth ;=I*< of his preventive i(prison(ent. The other accused, Rodne" 9spinosa, alias Rodne" 'ecuilan, who is also detained, is here!" ordered released i((ediatel". ;pp. ,$-,,, Rollo.< ro( said decision accused .esus 9spinosa, .r. appealed, insisting on his ali!i. The facts of the case as, su((ari5ed !" the trial court and as !orne out !" the evidence, are as follows6 At a!out %%6=0 in the evening on e!ruar" %3, %993, while the deceased Agusto 9lon, a deaf (ute, was urinating near the gate of the fence of the house of his sister, C"nthia 2illanueva, at Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet, Dloilo Cit", the accused .esus 9spinosa, .r. alias .ing:ing 9spinosa, shot said Agusto 9lon at the !ac& of his head three ti(es, which caused his death. Rodne" 9spinosa, alias Rodne" 'ecuilan, was standing a!out four feet awa" fro( .esus 9spinosa, .r., when the latter shot Agusto 9lon. The shooting of Agusto 9lon was witnesses !" his father .uan 9lon !ecause at that ti(e he was sleeping in the house of his daughter C"nthia, which house is situated along the road, or along Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet. 8e was re?uested !" his daughter to sleep at her house, which is onl" fifteen ;%*< (eters awa" fro( his own house, as C"nthia's hus!and was at He(er", Dloilo, at that ti(e, and she and her children had no co(panion in their house. As earlier stated, the house of C"nthia 9lon 2illanueva is located along or a!out one ;%< foot fro( Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet. The fence of her house which is (ade of hollow !loc&s is at the sa(e ti(e the wall of the front of her house.

The place where his son was shot at well lighted and there was an electric light at the post near the place of the incident. 7hen .esus 9spinosa, .r. shot Agusto 9lon he was a!out three feet awa", (ore or less, fro( the deceased. The deceased was facing the wall when he was shot and his !ac& turned towards the accused, .esus 9spinosa, .r. .uan 9lon cried aloud when he saw his son !eing shot and ran downstairs, towards hi(, !ut he stu(!led at the (os?uito net of his grandchildren. 8is wife who was sleeping at their house, which is ver" near the house of his daughter, arrived first at the scene of the incident. 7hen he reached his son, .uan 9lon e(!raced hi(. 8e saw that the !ullets were @!ulging@ on his forehead and !lood was oo5ing fro( his nec&. 8e was alread" dead. 8e recogni5ed the accused !ecause he wor&ed as a @stevedore@ at the pier, and had also wor&ed with the grandfather of the accused and had &nown the accused since the" were s(all. At the ti(e of his death, Agusto 9lon was onl" #% "ears old. Although a deaf (ute, his son was e(plo"ed at @+asic ruit Corporation@ situated at /avia, Dloilo. 8is :o! was @peeling !anana@, to !e (ade into @!anana chips@ !ut the does not &now how (uch his son was earning. 8is son usuall" went ho(e at a!out %0 to %% o'cloc& in the evening, !ecause !efore going ho(e he used to pass at the !ac& of the church at .aro, Dloilo, to visit his friends, who were also deaf (uted. After his son died, the cadaver was e(!la(ed and autops" was conducted. 8e paid funenaria /orras the a(ount of Three Thousand 'iC 8undred ;/3,300.00< /esos, for funeral services. 8e also hired 3 :eepne"s during the funeral at ift" ;/*0,00< /esos. 8e !ought ;@Best-)@ .uice@ during the funeral, for the (erienda of the deceased's friends he spent a(ount of )ne Thousand our 8undred ;/%,=00.00< /esos. 8e also !ought !read and sandwich spread and spent )ne Thousand ;/%,000.00< /esos. or the @pantheon@ of his son he spent 'iC 8undred ;/300.00< /esos. or church services, Two hundred ;#00.00< /esos, or a total a(ount of our Thousand our 8undred ift" ;/=,=*0.00< /esos. 8e also !ought !read and sandwich spread and spent )ne Thousand ;/%,000.00< /esos. or the @pantheon@ of his son he spent 'iC 8undred ;/300.00< /esos. or church services, Two hundred ;#00.00< /esos, or a total a(ount of our Thousand our 8undred ift" ;/=,=*0.00< /esos. The testi(on" of .uan, the father of the deceased was corro!orated !" another e"ewitness Ro(ualdo Ro!les. 8e testified that while he was on his wa" ho(e to Ba(ora 9Ctension 'treet, at around %%6=0 in the evening of e!ruar" %3, %993, co(ing fro( Rotar" par& and while he was across the street in front of the house of .uan 9lon, he saw .esus 9spinosa, .r., shoot of Agusto 9lon of @Apa 9lon@, in front of their house at Ba(ora 9Ctension, Dloilo Cit", 8e was a!out fifteen to twent" (eters awa" fro( the place of the incident and the place was well lighted. At the ti(e of the shooting, Agusto 9lon was urinating and the deceased was !out three to four feet awa" fro( the assailant. 8e saw .esus 9spinosa, .r. shoot @Apa@ 9lon three ti(es and the deceased feel on his face on the fence ;nagda(hag sa &udal< and he fell on the ground on his !ac&. ;pp. $0-$3, Rollo< Accused-appellant (aintains that the prosecution failed in its tas& to identif" hi( positivel" as the perpetrator of the cri(e. The evidence does not support accused-appellant as the person who shot the victi(. /rosecution witness Ro(ualdo Ro!les positivel" and une?uivoca!l" identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri(e. Ro!les testified thusl"6 ATTE. CA'TR)6 7hile "ou were on "our wa" ho(e that evening of e!ruar" %3, %993, at around %%6=0 in the evening, can "ou recall whether there was an" untoward incident that happenedL

7DT-9''6 Ees, D witnessed the shooting incident done !" .ing:ing 9spinosa to Apa 9lon. ATTE. CA'TR)6 7ho is this Apa 9lon 7DT-9''6 The son of T"o .uan 9lonL ATTE. CA'TR)6 7hat is his na(e if "ou &nowL 7DT-9''6 Agusto 9lon. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said "ou witnessed the shooting of Apa 9lon, in what particular place was Apa 9lon shotL 7DT-9''6 Dn front of their houseL ATTE. CA'TR)6 Dn what streetL 7DT-9''6 Ba(ora 9Ctension. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Dloilo cit"L 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said "ou saw the shooting of Apa 9lon, how far were "ou fro( the place where the shooting too& placeL 7DT-9''6 M" distance fro( the victi( is a!out fro( %* to #0 (eters. ATTE. CA'TR)6 ro( where "ou were situated, where is the shooting incident, can "ou tell whether the place of the incident is lighted or notL

7DT-9''6 Dn the house of T"o .uan there was a light and the place of the incident is so well lighted. ATTE. CA'TR)6 7ho is the T"o .uan "ou are referring toL 7DT-9''6 The father of Apa 9lon. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said "ou saw the actual shooting of Apa 9lon, what was the victi( doing when he was the shotL 7DT-9''6 8e was urinating and his !ac& turned down the assailant. ATTE. CA'TR)6 8ow far was the assailant fro( the victi( when the victi( was shotL 7DT-9''6 Three to four feet fro( the !ac&. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Eou said Apa 9lon was shot !" .ing:ing 9spinosa, do "ou &now the co(plete na(e of .ing:ing 9spinosaL 7DT-9''6 .esus 9spinosa. ATTE. CA'TR)6 Df this person who( "ou and who shot Apa 9lon is inside the courtroo(, can "ou point to hi(L 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. ATTE. CA'TR)6 /lease point to hi(L 7DT-9''6 There ;witness is pointing to one in the audience who( when as&ed answered !" the na(e of .esus 9spinosa. ;pp. $-%3, tsn, .ul" #3, %993<

The testi(on" of Ro(ualdo Ro!les was full" corro!orated !" .uan 9lon, the father of the victi(, who testified as follows6 /R)'9CJT)R6 At a!out that ti(e %%6=0 "ou said "ou witnessed the shooting of "our son, where was "our son situated insofar as "ou are concerned in relation to "ouL 7DT-9''6 +eside the gate !ecause he was urinating. /R)'9CJT)R6 7hile "our son was urinating were "ou also witnessing the sa(eL 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. /R)'9CJT)R6 7hat happened then when "our son was urinatingL 7DT-9''6 .esus alias .ing:ing and Rodne" 9spinosa passed !" and without an" provocation the" shot (" son three ti(es. /R)'9CJT)R6 7h" did "ou sa" that without the provocation the" shot "our son three ti(es. 7DT-9''6 D do not &now, !ecause (" son was urinating and (" son is a deaf(ute. /R)'9CJT)R6 0id "ou see where "our son was shotL 7DT-9''6 At the @tang&ugo@. /R)'9CJT)R6 8ow (an" ti(es he was shotL 7DT-9''6 Three ti(es. /R)'9CJT)R6 7ho shot hi(L 7DT-9''6

.esus 9spinosa, .r. alias .ing:ing. /R)'9CJT)R6 0id "ou see hi( holding a gunL 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. /R)'9CJT)R6 0id "ou see his face clearl" when he shoot "our sonL 7DT-9''6 Ees, sir. /R)'9CJT)R6 7h" do "ou sa" "ou saw his face clearl"L 7DT-9''6 +ecause the street was well-lighted and there is a post-la(p and the light at the houses were lighting. ;pp. %#-%*, Ibid<. Accused-appellant ?uestions veracit" of the testi(on" of .uan 9lon, (aintaining that .uan 9lon was asleep at the ti(e that the victi( was shot. Again the evidence does not su!stantiate accusedappellantPs contention. .uan 9lon une?uivoca!l" testified that he was full" awa&e when the shooting place. ATTE. MACA8DHD16 7hat ti(e did "ou wa&e up after having gone to sleepL 7DT-9''6 D a( alread" old and (" sleep is not so heav" and its so light that D can hear the noise and D hear the tr"s&ad that stopped and D saw (" son alighted fro( that tr"s&ad. ;p. #9, tsn., .ul" $, %993< Dn the a!sence of an" ill (otive on the part of .uan 9lon to point to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri(e charged, .uan 9lon's testi(on" (ust !e given full faith and credit ; eople vs. 1olentino, #%, 'CRA 33$ M%993N. A thorough search of the record fails to uncover an" such ill (otive. neither does not his relationship to the victi( i(pair his credi!ilit" ; eople vs. Do#in$ue4, #%$ 'CRA %$0 M%993N. urther, accused-appellant i(pugns the testi(on" of prosecution witness Ro(ualdo Ro!les. Accusedappellant asserts that the testi(on" of Ro!les Accused-appellant asserts that the testi(on" of Ro!les to the effect that .uan 9lon and his wife went out of the house together is inconsistent with the testi(on" of .uan 9lon that his wife went out of their house first then followed !" hi(. The ?uestion of who got out of their respective houses first is o!viousl" a (inor, trivial, and inconse?uential (atter that cannot adversel" effect the testi(on" of Ro!les that he saw accused-appellant shoot the victi(. Accused-appellant also assails Ro!les for his failure to i((ediatel" report what he saw to the police(an who arrived at the scene of the cri(e. 'uch failure does not su!vert the credi!ilit" of Ro!les

for as eCplained !" hi( he i((ediatel" went ho(e after the shooting !ecause he was afraid that he (ight get involved ;p. $, tsn., .ul" #3, %993<. The reticence of Ca!atas to i((ediatel" reveal the said state(ent to the police officers was satisfactoril" eCplained> he was then afraid. The natural reluctance of witnesses to volunteer infor(ation to the police authorities in cri(inal cases is a (atter of :udicial notice. 8e (ight have dee(ed it the !etter part of valor not to give the na(e of the accused who was still at large and who pro!a!l" recogni5e hi(. 'uch reluctance should not affect his testi(on". The decisive factor is that he in fact identified the accused. ; eople vs. Vicente, ##* 'CRA 33%, 3$0.< Dn an atte(pt to destro" the credi!ilit" of Ro!les, accused-appellant presented a certification of Kila"&o 9Cpress 'ervices, Dnc. to the effect that Ro!les had never !een an e(plo"ee thereat, this to re!ut the state(ent of Ro!les that he was an errand !o" of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc. Dn this regard, we full" agree with the following o!servation of the trial court6 The defense would li&e to assail the credi!ilit" of Ro(ualdo Ro!les, the second witness of the prosecution !" presenting a certification issued !" the president or 1eneral of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc., 2ictor Kila"&o, that Mr. Ro(ualdo Ro!les has not !een an e(plo"ee of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc. in whatever capacit" since %990 up to %993. !ut Ro(ualdo never asserted that he was an e(plo"ee of Kila"&o 9Cpress, Dnc. 8e (erel" testified that he was a @errand !o"@ or @(essenger@ !ut not a regular e(plo"ee. he received no regular salar" accepted whatever a(ount that (ight !e given to hi( as an errand !o". As a (atter of fact, in his personal circu(stance, he stated that he was :o!less. ;pp. #*-#3, Rollo.< 7e re:ect the defense of ali!i put up !" accused-appellant not onl" !ecause ali!i cannot prevail over the positive identification !" the prosecution witnesses ; eople vs. Do#in$ue4, #%$ 'CRA %$0 M%993N<, !ut also !ecause accused-appellant has failed to esta!lish that it was ph"sicall" i(possi!le for hi( to have !een present at the place where the cri(e was co((itted at the ti(e it happened, ; eople vs. Flores, #%$ 'CRA 3%3 M%993N<. Dn the case at !ench, accused-appellant professes that he was in a fishpond situated at +rg". Taguangin, A:u", Dloilo at the ti(e of the co((ission of the cri(e. 8owever, said place is onl" ,0 &ilo(eters awa" fro( Dloilo Cit", and can !e negotiated !" !us in a!out %-%I# to # hours. Therefore, the ele(ent of ph"sical i(possi!ilit" of presence of accused-appellant at the scene and the ti(e of the cri(e does not o!tain. 7e, however, agree with accused-appellant that the (itigating circu(stance of a voluntar" surrender should !e ta&en into consideration in fiCing the penalt" The trial court itself stated that the record shows the act of voluntar" surrender !ut refrained fro( ta&ing it into consideration !ecause according to the trial court, the report on the warrant of arrest was not offered in evidence. There was no need for said report to !e su!(itted in evidence !ecause the court can ta&e cogni5ance of it, the sa(e !eing part of the record. Dt is a settled rule that a tri!unal (a" at an" ti(e ta&e :udicial notice of the records of a case pending !efore it. ;Gniversal 1e0tile Mills' Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations > 33 'CRA 3%9, 3#3 M%9$0N< 7e nonetheless concur with the following findings of the trial court that the &illing of the victi( was characteri5ed !" treacher"6 Dn this case, it was clearl" shown !e"ond reasona!le dou!t that the !ac& of the deceased was turned to the accused when he was shot three ti(es. 8e was urinating when shot and was defenseless. 8e was unaware what happened to hi(. 8e could not have put up an" defense at all. Dn short, the accused in eCecuting the cri(e, e(plo"ed (eans , (ethods or for(s which tend directl" and speciall" to ensure its eCecution, without ris&s to hi(self arising fro( the defense which the offended part" (ight (a&e . There was no wa" the deceased should not defend hi(self under the circu(stances. ;p. ,=, Rollo.<

Dn view of the presence of the ?ualif"ing circu(stance of treacher", the cri(e co((itted !" accusedappellant is (urder under article #=, of the Revised /enal Code. There !eing a (itigating circu(stance, the penalt" for (urder prescri!ed !" said Article #=,, which is reclusion te#poral. Dn its (aCi(u( period to death, should !e i(posed in its (ini(u( period, or %$ "ears, = (onths, and % da", to #0 "ears. Appl"ing the Dndeter(inate 'entence Haw, the proper penalt" is that neCt lower in degree, which is prision #a&or in its (aCi(u( period toreclusion te#poral in its (ediu( period, or %0 "ears and % da" of prision #a&or, to %$ "ears and = (onths ofreclusion te#poral . ; eople vs. Roel ona&o & Villanueva, 1.R -o. %%%*#3, August %0, %99=<, 789R9 )R9, the decision appealed fro( is 89R9+E A DRM90, with the (odification that accusedappellant D' 89R9+E '9-T9-C90 to an indeter(inate sentence of ten ;%0< "ears and one ;%< da" of prision #a&or, as (ini(u(, to seventeen. ;%$< "ears and four ;=< (onths of reclusion te#poral, as (aCi(u(. Dn all other respects, the decision appealed fro( is here!" affir(ed. -o special pronounce(ent is (ade as to costs. ') )R09R90.

A.$. No. RT=<,2<877 S&p+&*1&r 1,, 1,,6 STATE ROSECUTORS, co(plainants, vs. =UDGE $ANUEL T. $URO, R&'io"!l Tri!l Co-r+, ;r!"%) :6, $!"il!, respondent.

ER CURIA$@ Dn assa"ing the re?uisite nor(s for ?ualifications and e(inence of a (agistrate, legal authorities place a pre(iu( on how he has co(plied with his continuing dut" to &now the law. A ?ualit" thus considered essential to the :udicial character is that of @a (an of learning who spends tirelessl" the wear" hours after (idnight ac?uainting hi(self with the great !od" of traditions and the learning of the law> is profoundl" learned in all the learning of the law> and &nows how to use that learning.@ 1 )!viousl", it is the pri(ar" dut" of a :udge, which he owes to the pu!lic and to the legal profession, to &now the ver" law he is supposed to appl" to a given controvers". 8e is called upon to eChi!it (ore than :ust a cursor" ac?uaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. /art" litigants will have great faith in the ad(inistration of :ustice if :udges cannot :ustl" !e accused of apparent deficienc" in their grasp of the legal principles. or, service in the :udiciar" (eans a continuous stud" and research on the law fro( !eginning to end. 2 Dn a letter-co(plaint 3 dated August %9, %99#, respondent .udge Manuel T. Muro of the Regional Trial Court ;RTC< of Manila, +ranch *=, was charged !" 'tate /rosecutors -ilo C. Mariano, 1eorge C. 0ee and /aterno 2. Tac-an with ignorance of the law, grave (isconduct and violations of Rules #.0%, 3.0% and 3.0# of the Code of .udicial Conduct, co((itted as follows6 %. That on August %3, %99#, respondent :udge issued an )rder dis(issing eleven ;%%< cases ;doc&eted as Cri(. Cases -os. 9#-%0%9*9 to 9#- %0%939, inclusive< filed !" the undersigned co(plainant prosecutors ;(e(!ers of the 0). /anel of /rosecutors< against the accused Mrs. D(elda Ro(ualde5 Marcos, for 2iolation of Central +an& oreign 9Cchange Restrictions, as consolidated in C+ Circular -o. 930, in relation to the penal provisions of 'ec. 3= of R.A. #3*, as a(ended, . . .> #. That respondent .udge issued his )rder solel" on the !asis of newspaper reports ;August %%, %99# issues of the /hilippine 0ail" Dn?uirer and the 0ail" 1lo!e< concerning the announce(ent on August %0, %99# !" the /resident of the /hilippines of the lifting !"

the govern(ent of all foreign eCchange restrictions and the arrival at such decision !" the Monetar" +oard as per state(ent of Central +an& 1overnor .ose Cuisia> 3. That clai(ing that the reported announce(ent of the 9Cecutive 0epart(ent on the lifting of foreign eCchange restrictions !" two newspapers which are reputa!le and of national circulation had the effect of repealing Central +an& Circular -o. 930, as allegedl" supported !" 'upre(e Court decisions . . ., the Court contended that it was deprived of :urisdiction, and, therefore, (otu, prop;r<io had to dis(iss all the eleven cases afore(entioned @for not to do so opens this Court to charges of tr"ing cases over which it has no (ore :urisdiction>@ =. That in dis(issing aforecited cases on August %3, %99# on the !asis of a Central +an& Circular or Monetar" +oard Resolution which as of date hereof, has not even !een officiall" issued, and !asing his )rderIdecision on a (ere newspaper account of the advance announce(ent (ade !" the /resident of the said fact of lifting or li!erali5ing foreign eCchange controls, respondent :udge acted pre(aturel" and in indecent haste, as he had no wa" of deter(ining the full intent of the new C+ Circular or Monetar" +oard resolution, and whether the sa(e provided for eCception, as in the case of persons who had pending cri(inal cases !efore the courts for violations of Central +an& Circulars andIor regulations previousl" issued on the (atter> *. That respondent .udge's arrogant and cavalier posture in ta&ing :udicial notice purportedl" as a (atter of pu!lic &nowledge a (ere newspaper account that the /resident had announced the lifting of foreign eCchange restrictions as !asis for his assailed order of dis(issal is highl" irregular, erroneous and (isplaced. or the respondent :udge to ta&e :udicial notice thereof even !efore it is officiall" released !" the Central +an& and its full teCt pu!lished as re?uired !" law to !e effective shows his precipitate action in utter disregard of the funda(ental precept of due process which the /eople is also entitled to and eCposes his gross ignorance of the law, there!" tarnishing pu!lic confidence in the integrit" of the :udiciar". 8ow can the 8onora!le .udge ta&e :udicial notice of so(ething which has not "et co(e into force and the contents, shape and tenor of which have not "et !een pu!lished and ascertained to !e the !asis of :udicial actionL The 8onora!le .udge had (isera!l" failed to @endeavor diligentl" to ascertain the facts@ in the case at !ar contrar" to Rule 3.0# of the Code of .udicial Conduct constituting 1rave Misconduct> 3. That respondent .udge did not even ha;ve< the prudence of re?uiring first the co((ent of the prosecution on the effect of aforesaid Central +an& CircularIMonetar" +oard resolution on the pending cases !efore dis(issing the sa(e, there!" den"ing the 1overn(ent of its right to due process> $. That the lightning speed with which respondent .udge acted to dis(iss the cases (a" !e gleaned fro( the fact that such precipitate action was underta&en despite alread" scheduled continuation of trial dates set in the order of the court ;the prosecution having started presenting its evidence . . .< dated August %%, %99# to wit6 August 3%, 'epte(!er 3, %0, #%, R #3 and )cto!er %, %99#, all at 9630 o'cloc& in the (orning, in !ra5en disregard of all notions of fair pla", there!" depriving the 1overn(ent of its right to !e heard, and clearl" eCposing his !ias and partialit"> and ,. That, in fact, the (otive of respondent .udge in dis(issing the case without even waiting for a (otion to ?uash filed !" the counsel for accused has even placed his dis(issal )rder suspect. /ursuant to a resolution of this Court dated 'epte(!er ,, %99#, respondent :udge filed his co((ent, 6contending, inter alia, that there was no need to await pu!lication of the Central +an& ;C+< circular repealing the eCisting law on foreign eCchange controls for the si(ple reason that the pu!lic announce(ent (ade !" the /resident in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign eCchange controls was total, a!solute, without ?ualification, and was i((ediatel" effective> that having acted onl" on the !asis of such announce(ent, he cannot !e !la(ed for rel"ing on the erroneous state(ent of the /resident that the new foreign eCchange rules rendered (oot and acade(ic the cases filed against Mrs. Marcos, and which was corrected onl" on August %$, %99# !ut pu!lished in the newspapers on August %,, %99#, and onl" after respondent :udge had issued his order of dis(issal dated August %3, %99#> that the /resident was ill-advised !" his advisers and, instead of rescuing the Chief 9Cecutive fro( e(!arrass(ent !" assu(ing responsi!ilit" for errors in the latter's

announce(ent, the" chose to toss the !la(e for the conse?uence of their failures to respondent :udge who (erel" acted on the !asis of the announce(ents of the /resident which had !eco(e of pu!lic &nowledge> that the @saving clause@ under C+ Circular -o. %3*3 specificall" refers onl" to pending actions or investigations involving violations of C+ Circular -o. %3%,, whereas the eleven cases dis(issed involved charges for violations of C+ Circular -o. 930, hence the accused cannot !e tried and convicted under a law different fro( that under which she was charged> that assu(ing that respondent :udge erred in issuing the order of dis(issal, the proper re(ed" should have !een an appeal therefro( !ut definitel" not an ad(inistrative co(plaint for his dis(issal> that a (ista&e co((itted !" a :udge should not necessaril" !e i(puted as ignorance of the law> and that a @court can reverse or (odif" a doctrine !ut it does not show ignorance of the :ustices or :udges whose decisions were reversed or (odified@ !ecause @even doctrines initiated !" the 'upre(e Court are later reversed, so how (uch (ore for the lower courtsL@ 8e further argued that no hearing was necessar" since the prosecution had nothing to eCplain !ecause, as he theori5ed, @7hat eCplanation could have !een givenL That the /resident was tal&ing 'through his hat' ;to use a collo?uialis(< and should not !e !elievedL That D should wait for the pu!lication ;as now alleged !" co(plainants<, of a still then non-eCistent C+ circularL . . . As it turned out, C+ Circular -o. 3%*3 ;sic< does not affect (" dis(issal order !ecause the said circular's so-called saving clause does not refer to C+ Circular 930 under which the charges in the dis(issed cases were !ased>@ that it was discretionar" on hi( to ta&e :udicial notice of the facts which are of pu!lic &nowledge, pursuant to 'ection # of Rule %#9> that the contention of co(plainants that he acted pre(aturel" and in indecent haste for !asing his order of dis(issal on a (ere newspaper account is contrar" to the wordings of the newspaper report wherein the /resident announced the lifting of controls as an acco(plished fact, not as an intention to !e effected in the future, !ecause of the use of the present perfect tense or past tense @has lifted,@ not that he @intends to lift,@ foreign eCchange controls. inall", respondent :udge asseverates that co(plainants who are officers of the 0epart(ent of .ustice, violated 'ection 3, Rule %=0 of the Rules of Court which provides that @proceedings against :udges of first instance shall !e private and confidential@ when the" caused to !e pu!lished in the newspapers the filing of the present ad(inistrative case against hi(> and he e(phasi5es the fact that he had to i((ediatel" resolve a si(ple and pure legal (atter in consonance with the ad(onition of the 'upre(e Court for speed" disposition of cases. Dn their repl" : and supple(ental repl", 7 co(plainants aver that although the saving clause under 'ection %3 of C+ Circular -o. %3*3 (ade specific reference to C+ Circular -o. %3%,, it will !e noted that 'ection %%% of Circular -o. %3%,, which contains a saving clause su!stantiall" si(ilar to that of the new circular, in turn refers to and includes Circular -o. 930. 8ence, whether under Circular -o. %3%, or Circular -o. %3*3, pending cases involving violations of Circular -o. 930 are eCcepted fro( the coverage thereof. urther, it is alleged that the precipitate dis(issal of the eleven cases, without according the prosecution the opportunit" to file a (otion to ?uash or a co((ent, or even to show cause wh" the cases against accused D(elda R. Marcos should not !e dis(issed, is clearl" reflective of respondent's partialit" and !ad faith. Dn effect, respondent :udge acted as if he were the advocate of the accused. )n 0ece(!er 9, %993, this Court issued a resolution referring the co(plaint to the )ffice of the Court Ad(inistrator for evaluation, report and reco((endation, pursuant to 'ection $, Rule %=0 of the Rules of Court, as revised, there !eing no factual issues involved. The corresponding report and reco((endation, 7 dated e!ruar" %=, %99=, was su!(itted !" 0eput" Court Ad(inistrator .uanito A. +ernad, with the approval of Court Ad(inistrator 9rnani Cru5-/a4o. The ?uestioned order
8

of respondent :udge reads as follows6

These eleven ;%%< cases are for 2iolation of Central +an& oreign 9Cchange Restrictions as consolidated in C+ Circular -o. 930 in relation to the penal provision of 'ec. 3= of R.A. #3*, as a(ended. The accused Mrs. D(elda R. Marcos pleaded not guilt" to all these cases> apparentl" the other accused in so(e of these cases, Ro!erto '. +enedicto, was not arrested and therefore the Court did not ac?uire :urisdiction over his person> trial was co((enced as against Mrs. Marcos. 8is 9Ccellenc", the /resident of the /hilippines, announced on August %0, %99# that the govern(ent has lifted all foreign eCchange restrictions and it is also reported that Central +an& 1overnor .ose Cuisia said that the Monetar" +oard arrived at such decision

;issue of the /hilippine 0ail" Dn?uirer, August %%, %99# and issue of the 0ail" 1lo!e of the sa(e date<. The Court has to give full confidence and credit to the reported announce(ent of the 9Cecutive 0epart(ent, speciall" fro( the highest official of that depart(ent> the Courts are charged with :udicial notice of (atters which are of pu!lic &nowledge, without introduction of proof, the announce(ent pu!lished in at least the two newspapers cited a!ove which are reputa!le and of national circulation. /er several cases decided !" the 'upre(e Court ;/eople vs. Alcaras, *3 /hil. *#0, /eople vs. rancisco, *3 /hil. *$#, /eople vs. /astor, $$ /hil. %000, /eople vs. Crisanto Ta(a"o, 3% /hil. ##*<, a(ong others, it was held that the repeal of a penal law without reenact(ent eCtinguishes the right to prosecute or punish the offense co((itted under the old law and if the law repealing the prior penal law fails to penali5e the acts which constituted the offense defined and penali5ed in the repealed law, the repealed law carries with it the deprivation of the courts of :urisdiction to tr", convict and sentence persons charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. Jnder the aforecited decisions this doctrine applies to special laws and not onl" to the cri(es punisha!le in the Revised /enal Code, such as the D(port Control Haw. The Central +an& Circular -o. 930 under which the accused Mrs. Marcos is charged is considered as a penal law !ecause violation thereof is penali5ed with specific reference to the provision of 'ection 3= of Repu!lic Act #3*, which penali5es violations of Central +an& Circular -o. 930, produces the effect cited in the 'upre(e Court decisions and since according to the decisions that repeal deprives the Court of :urisdiction, this Court #otu proprio dis(isses all the eleven ;%%< cases as a forestated in the caption, for not to do so opens this Court to charges of tr"ing cases over which it has no (ore :urisdiction. This order was su!se?uentl" assailed in a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, entitled @/eople of the /hilippines vs. 8on. Manuel T. Muro, .udge, RTC of Manila, +r. *= and D(elda R. Marcos,@ doc&eted as CA-1.R. '/ -o. #93=9. 7hen re?uired to file her co((ent, private respondent Marcos failed to file an". Hi&ewise, after the appellate court gave due course to the petition, private respondent was ordered, !ut again failed despite notice, to file an answer to the petition and to show cause wh" no writ of preli(inar" in:unction should issue. 9ventuall", on April #9, %993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision , setting aside the order of August %3, %99#, and reinstating Cri(inal Cases -os. 9#-%0%9*9 to 9#-%0%939. Dn finding that respondent :udge acted in eCcess of :urisdiction and with grave a!use of discretion in issuing the order of dis(issal, the appellate court held that6 The order was issued #otu proprio, i.e., without an" (otion to dis(iss filed !" counsel for the accused, without giving an opportunit" for the prosecution to !e heard, and solel" on the !asis of newspaper reports announcing that the /resident has lifted all foreign eCchange restrictions. The newspaper report is not the pu!lication re?uired !" law in order that the enact(ent can !eco(e effective and !inding. Haws ta&e effect after fifteen da"s following the co(pletion of their pu!lication in the )fficial 1a5ette or in a newspaper of general circulation unless it is otherwise provided ;'ection %, 9Cecutive )rder -o. #00<. The full teCt of C+ Circular %3*3, series of %99#, entitled @ urther Hi!erali5ing oreign 9Cchange Regulation@ was pu!lished in the August #$, %99# issue of the Manila Chronicle, the /hilippine 'tar and the Manila +ulletin. /er certification of the C+ Corporate Affairs )ffice, C+ Circular -o. %3*3 too& effect on 'epte(!er # . . . . Considering that respondent :udge ad(ittedl" had not seen the official teCt of C+ Circular -o. %3*3, he was in no position to rule :udiciousl" on whether C+ Circular -o. 930, under which the accused Mrs. Marcos is charged, was alread" repealed !" C+ Circular -o. %3*3. . . . CCC CCC CCC A cursor" reading of the . . . provision would have readil" shown that the repeal of the regulations on non-trade foreign eCchange transactions is not a!solute, as there is a provision that with respect to violations of for(er regulations that are the su!:ect of pending actions or investigations, the" shall !e governed !" the regulations eCisting at the ti(e the cause of action ;arose<. Thus his conclusion that he has lost :urisdiction over the cri(inal cases is precipitate and hast". 8ad he awaited the filing of a (otion to

dis(iss !" the accused, and given opportunit" for the prosecution to co((entIoppose the sa(e, his resolution would have !een the result of deli!eration, not speculation. D. The doctrine of :udicial notice rests on the wisdo( and discretion of the courts. The power to ta&e :udicial notice is to !e eCercised !" courts with caution> care (ust !e ta&en that the re?uisite notoriet" eCists> and ever" reasona!le dou!t on the su!:ect should !e pro(ptl" resolved in the negative. 10 1enerall" spea&ing, (atters of :udicial notice have three (aterial re?uisites6 ;%< the (atter (ust !e one of co((on and general &nowledge> ;#< it (ust !e well and authoritativel" settled and not dou!tful or uncertain> and ;3< it (ust !e &nown to !e within the li(its of the :urisdiction of the court. 11 The provincial guide in deter(ining what facts (a" !e assu(ed to !e :udiciall" &nown is that of notoriet". 12 8ence, it can !e said that :udicial notice is li(ited to facts evidenced !" pu!lic records and facts of general notoriet". 13 To sa" that a court will ta&e :udicial notice of a fact is (erel" another wa" of sa"ing that the usual for( of evidence will !e dispensed with if &nowledge of the fact can !e otherwise ac?uired. 16 This is !ecause the court assu(es that the (atter is so notorious that it will not !e disputed. 1: +ut :udicial notice is not :udicial &nowledge. The (ere personal &nowledge of the :udge is not the :udicial &nowledge of the court, and he is not authori5ed to (a&e his individual &nowledge of a fact, not generall" or professionall" &nown, the !asis of his action. .udicial cogni5ance is ta&en onl" of those (atters which are @co((onl"@ &nown. 17 Things of @co((on &nowledge,@ of which courts ta&e :udicial notice, (a" !e (atters co(ing to the &nowledge of (en generall" in the course of the ordinar" eCperiences of life, or the" (a" !e (atters which are generall" accepted !" (an&ind as true and are capa!le of read" and un?uestioned de(onstration. 17 Thus, facts which are universall" &nown, and which (a" !e found in enc"clopedias, dictionaries or other pu!lications, are :udiciall" noticed, provided the" are of such universal notoriet" and so generall" understood that the" (a" !e regarded as for(ing part of the co((on &nowledge of ever" person. 18 Respondent :udge, in the guise of eCercising discretion and on the !asis of a (ere newspaper account which is so(eti(es even referred to as hearsa" evidence twice re(oved, too& :udicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign eCchange controls, a (atter which was not and cannot !e considered of co((on &nowledge or of general notoriet". 7orse, he too& cogni5ance of an ad(inistrative regulation which was not "et in force when the order of dis(issal was issued. .urisprudence dictates that :udicial notice cannot !e ta&en of a statute !efore it !eco(es effective. 1, The reason is si(ple. A law which is not "et in force and hence, still ineCistent, cannot !e of co((on &nowledge capa!le of read" and un?uestiona!le de(onstration, which is one of the re?uire(ents !efore a court can ta&e :udicial notice of a fact. 9videntl", it was i(possi!le for respondent :udge, and it was definitel" not proper for hi(, to have ta&en cogni5ance of C+ Circular -o. %3*3, when the sa(e was not "et in force at the ti(e the i(provident order of dis(issal was issued. DD. Central +an& Circular -o. %3*3, which too& effect on 'epte(!er %, %99#, further li!erali5ed the foreign eCchange regulations on receipts and dis!urse(ents of residents arising fro( non-trade and trade transactions. 'ection %3 thereof provides for a saving clause, thus6 'ec. %3. Final rovisions of C, Circular 9o. 1@1B. - All the provisions in Chapter A of C+ Circular -o. %3%, insofar as the" are not inconsistent with, or contrar" to the provisions of this Circular, shall re(ain in full force and effect6 rovided' however, that an" regulation on non-trade foreign eCchange transactions which has !een repealed, a(ended or (odified !" this Circular, violations of which are the su!:ect of pending actions or investigations, shall not !e considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are concerned, it !eing understood that as to such pending actions or investigations, the regulations eCisting at the ti(e the cause of action accrued shall govern. Respondent :udge contends that the saving clause refers onl" to the provisions of Circular -o. %3%,, whereas the eleven cri(inal cases he dis(issed involve a violation of C+ Circular -o. 930. 8ence, he insists, Circular -o. 930 is dee(ed repealed !" the new circular and since the for(er is not covered !" the saving clause in the latter, there is no (ore !asis for the charges involved in the cri(inal cases which therefore warrant a dis(issal of the sa(e. The contention is patentl" un(eritorious.

irstl", the second part of the saving clause in Circular -o. %3*3 eCplicitl" provides that @ an& regulation on non-trade foreign transactions which has !een repealed, a(ended or (odified !" this Circular, violations of which are the sub3ect of pendin$ actions or investi$ations' shall not !e considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are concerned, it !eing understood that as to such pending actions or investigations, there$ulations e0istin$ at the ti#e the cause of action accrued shall $overn.@ The ter(s of the circular are clear and una(!iguous and leave no roo( for interpretation. Dn the case at !ar, the accused in the eleven cases had alread" !een arraigned, had pleaded not guilt" to the charges of violations of Circular -o. 930, and said cases had alread" !een set for trial when Circular -o. %3*3 too& effect. Conse?uentl", the trial court was and is supposed to proceed with the hearing of the cases in spite of the eCistence of Circular -o. %3*3. 'econdl", had respondent :udge onl" !othered to read a little (ore carefull" the teCts of the circulars involved, he would have readil" perceived and &nown that Circular -o. %3%, also contains a su!stantiall" si(ilar saving clause as that found in Circular -o. %3*3, since 'ection %%% of the for(er provides6 'ec. %%%. Repealin$ clause. - All eCisting provisions of Circulars 33*, 930 and %0#,, including a(end(ents thereto, with the eCception of the second paragraph of 'ection 3, of Circular %0#,, as well as all other eCisting Central +an& rules and regulations or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with or contrar" to the provisions of this Circular, are here!" repealed or (odified accordingl"6 /rovided, however, that regulations, violations of which are the su!:ect of pending actions or investigations, shall !e considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are concerned, it !eing understood that as to such pending actions or investigations, the regulations eCisting at the ti(e the cause of action accrued shall govern. Dt une?uivocall" appears fro( the section a!ove ?uoted that although Circular -o. %3%, repealed Circular -o. 930, the for(er specificall" eCcepted fro( its purview all cases covered !" the old regulations which were then pending at the ti(e of the passage of the new regulations. Thus, an" reference (ade to Circular -o. %3%, necessaril" involves and affects Circular -o. 930. DDD. Dt has !een said that neCt in i(portance to the dut" of rendering a righteous :udg(ent is that of doing it in such a (anner as will !eget no suspicion of the fairness and integrit" of the :udge. 20 This (eans that a :udge should not onl" render a :ust, correct and i(partial decision !ut should do so in such a (anner as to !e free fro( an" suspicion as to its fairness and i(partialit" and as to his integrit". 7hile a :udge should possess proficienc" in law in order that he can co(petentl" construe and enforce the law, it is (ore i(portant that he should act and !ehave in such a (anner that the parties !efore hi( should have confidence in his i(partialit". Thus, it is not enough that he decides cases without !ias and favoritis(. -or is it sufficient that he in fact rids hi(self of prepossessions. 8is actuations should (oreover inspire that !elief. Hi&e Caesar's wife, a :udge (ust not onl" !e pure !ut !e"ond suspicion. 21 Moreover, it has alwa"s heretofore !een the rule that in disposing of controverted cases, :udges should show their full understanding of the case, avoid the suspicion of ar!itrar" conclusion, pro(ote confidence in their intellectual integrit" and contri!ute useful precedents to the growth of the law. 22 A :udge should !e (indful that his dut" is the application of general law to particular instances, that ours is a govern(ent of laws and not of (en, and that he violates his dut" as a (inister of :ustice under such a s"ste( if he see&s to do what he (a" personall" consider su!stantial :ustice in a particular case and disregards the general law as he &nows it to !e !inding on hi(. 'uch action (a" have detri(ental conse?uences !e"ond the i((ediate controvers". 8e should ad(inister his office with due regard to the integrit" of the s"ste( of the law itself, re(e(!ering that he is not a depositor" of ar!itrar" power, !ut a :udge under the sanction of the law. 23 These are i((uta!le principles that go into the ver" essence of the tas& of dispensing :ustice and we see no reason wh" the" should not !e dul" considered in the present case. The assertion of respondent :udge that there was no need to await pu!lication of Circular -o. %3*3 for the reason that the pu!lic announce(ent (ade !" the /resident in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign eCchange controls is total, a!solute, without ?ualification, and i((ediatel" effective, is !e"ond co(prehension. As a :udge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, respondent is supposed to !e well-versed in the ele(entar" legal (andates on the pu!lication of laws !efore the" ta&e effect. Dt is inconceiva!le that respondent should insist on an altogether different and illogical interpretation of an esta!lished and well-entrenched rule if onl" to suit his own personal opinion and, as it were, to defend his indefensi!le action. Dt was not for hi( to indulge or even to give the appearance of catering to the at-ti(es hu(an failing of "ielding to first i(pressions. 26 8e having done so, in the face of the foregoing pre(ises, this Court is hard put to !elieve that he indeed acted in good faith.

D2. This is not a si(ple case of a (isapplication or erroneous interpretation of the law. The ver" act of respondent :udge in altogether dis(issing sua sponte the eleven cri(inal cases without even a (otion to ?uash having !een filed !" the accused, and without at least giving the prosecution the !asic opportunit" to !e heard on the (atter !" wa" of a written co((ent or on oral argu(ent, is not onl" a !latant denial of ele(entar" due process to the 1overn(ent !ut is palpa!l" indicative of !ad faith and partialit". The avowed desire of respondent :udge to speedil" dispose of the cases as earl" as possi!le is no license for a!use of :udicial power and discretion, 2: nor does such professed o!:ective, even if true, :ustif" a deprivation of the prosecution's right to !e heard and a violation of its right to due process of law. 27 The lightning speed, to !orrow the words of co(plainants, with which respondent :udge resolved to dis(iss the cases without the !enefit of a hearing and without reasona!le notice to the prosecution inevita!l" opened hi( to suspicion of having acted out of partialit" for the accused. Regardless of how carefull" he (a" have evaluated changes in the factual situation and legal standing of the cases, as a result of the newspaper report, the fact re(ains that he gave the prosecution no chance whatsoever to show or prove that it had strong evidence of the guilt of the accused. To repeat, he there!" effectivel" deprived the prosecution of its right to due process. 27 More i(portantl", notwithstanding the fact that respondent was not sure of the effects and i(plications of the /resident's announce(ent, as !" his own ad(ission he was in dou!t whether or not he should dis(iss the cases, 28 he nonetheless deli!eratel" refrained fro( re?uiring the prosecution to co((ent thereon. Dn a puerile defense of his action, respondent :udge can !ut rhetoricall" as&6 @7hat eCplanation could have !een givenL That the /resident was tal&ing 'through his hat' and should not !e !elievedL That D should wait for the pu!lication of a still then non- eCistent C+ CircularL@ The pretended cogenc" of this ratiocination cannot stand even the (inutest legal scrutin". Dn order that !ias (a" not !e i(puted to a :udge, he should have the patience and circu(spection to give the opposing part" a chance to present his evidence even if he thin&s that the oppositor's proofs (ight not !e ade?uate to overthrow the case for the other part". A displa" of petulance and i(patience in the conduct of the trial is a nor( of conduct which is inconsistent with the @cold neutralit" of an i(partial :udge.@ 2, At the ver" least, respondent :udge acted in:udiciousl" and with un:ustified haste in the outright dis(issal of the eleven cases, and there!" rendered his actuation highl" du!ious. 2. Dt !ears stressing that the ?uestioned order of respondent :udge could have seriousl" and su!stantiall" affected the rights of the prosecution had the accused invo&ed the defense of dou!le :eopard", considering that the dis(issal was ordered after arraign(ent and without the consent of said accused. This could have spawned legal co(plications and inevita!le dela" in the cri(inal proceedings, were it not for the holding of the Court of Appeals that respondent :udge acted with grave a!use of discretion a(ounting to lac& of :urisdiction. This saved the da" for the /eople since in the a!sence of :urisdiction, dou!le :eopard" will not set in. To stress this point, and as a caveat to trial courts against falling into the sa(e :udicial error, we reiterate what we have heretofore declared6 Dt is settled doctrine that dou!le :eopard" cannot !e invo&ed against this Court's setting aside of the trial court's :udg(ent of dis(issal or ac?uittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in cri(inal cases is denied due process. . . . . 7here the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunit" to prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is there!" violated. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of !asic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their :urisdiction. Thus, the violation of the 'tate's right to due process raises a serious :urisdictional issue . . . which cannot !e glossed over or disregarded at will. 7here the denial of the funda(ental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lac& of :urisdiction . . . . 30 Dt is also significant that accused Marcos, despite due notice, never su!(itted either her co((ent on or an answer to the petition for certiorari as re?uired !" the Court of Appeals, nor was dou!le :eopard" invo&ed in her defense. This serves to further underscore the fact that the order of dis(issal was clearl" un:ustified and erroneous. urther(ore, considering that the accused is a pro(inent pu!lic figure with a record of influence and power, it is not eas" to alla" pu!lic s&epticis( and suspicions on how said dis(issal order ca(e to !e, to the conse?uent although undeserved discredit of the entire :udiciar".

2D. To hold a :udge lia!le for rendering a (anifestl" un:ust order through ineCcusa!le negligence or ignorance, it (ust !e clearl" shown that although he has acted without (alice, he failed to o!serve in the perfor(ance of his dut" that diligence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to eCact in the rendering of an" pu!lic service. -egligence and ignorance are ineCcusa!le if the" i(pl" a (anifest in:ustice which cannot !e eCplained !" a reasona!le interpretation, and even though there is a (isunderstanding or error of the law applied, it nevertheless results logicall" and reasona!l", and in a ver" clear and indisputa!le (anner, in the notorious violation of the legal precept. 31 Dn the present case, a cursor" perusal of the co((ent filed !" respondent :udge reveals that no su!stantial argu(ent has !een advanced in plausi!le :ustification of his act. 8e utterl" failed to show an" legal, factual, or even e?uita!le :ustification for the dis(issal of the eleven cri(inal cases. The eCplanation given is no eCplanation at all. The strained and fallacious su!(issions therein do not spea& well of respondent and cannot !ut further depreciate his pro!it" as a :udge. )n this point, it is !est that pertinent unedited eCcerpts fro( his co((ent 32 !e ?uoted !" wa" of graphic illustration and e(phasis6 )n the alleged ignorance of the law i(puted to (e, it is said that D issued the )rder dis(issing the eleven ;%%< cases against Mrs. D(elda R. Marcos on the !asis of newspaper reports referred to in paragraph # of the letter co(plaint without awaiting the official pu!lication of the Central +an& Circular. )rdinaril" a Central +an& CircularIResolution (ust !e pu!lished in the )fficial 1a5ette or in a newspaper of general circulation, !ut the lifting of @all foreign eCchange controls@ was announced !" the /resident of the /hilippines 7DT8)JT OJAHD DCATD)-'> as pu!lished in the 0ail" 1lo!e, August %%, %99#@ the govern(ent has lifted AHH foreign eCchange controls,@ and in the words of the /hilippine 0ail" Dn?uirer report of the sa(e date @The govern(ent "esterda" HD T90 the HA'T re(aining restrictions on foreign eCchange transactions, . . .@ ;e(phasis in !oth ?uotations supplied< not onl" the /resident (ade the announce(ent !ut also the Central +an& 1overnor .ose Cuisia :oined in the announce(ent !" sa"ing that @the Monetar" +oard arrived at the decision after noting how the @partial li!erali5ation@ initiated earl" this "ear wor&ed.@ Therefore, !ecause of the A+')HJT9 lifting of AHH restrictions on foreign eCchange transactions, there was no need to await the pu!lication of the repealing circular of the Central +an&. The purpose of re?uiring pu!lication of laws and ad(inistrative rules affecting the pu!lic is to infor( the latter as to how the" will conduct their affairs and how the" will confor( to the laws or the rules. Dn this particular case, with the total lifting of the controls, there is no need to await pu!lication. Dt would have !een different if the circular that in effect repealed Central +an& Circular -o. 930, under which the accused was charged in the cases dis(issed !" (e, had provided for penalties andIor (odified the provisions of said Circular -o. 930. The Co(plainants state that the lifting of controls was not "et in force when D dis(issed the cases !ut it should !e noted that in the report of the two ;#< newspapers afore?uoted, the /resident's announce(ent of the lifting of controls was stated in the present perfect tense ;1lo!e< or past tense ;Dn?uirer<. Dn other words, it has alread" !een lifted> the announce(ent did not sa" that the govern(ent D-T9-0' to lift all foreign eCchange restrictions !ut instead sa"s that the govern(ent @has HD T90 all foreign eCchange controls,@ and in the other newspaper cited a!ove, that @The govern(ent "esterda" lifted the last re(aining restrictions on foreign eCchange transactions@. The lifting of the last re(aining eCchange regulations effectivel" cancelled or repealed Circular -o. 930. The /resident, who is the Chief 9Cecutive, pu!licl" announced the lifting of all foreign eCchange regulations. The /resident has within his control directl" or indirectl" the Central +an& of the /hilippines, the 'ecretar" of inance !eing the Chair(an of the Monetar" +oard which decides the policies of the Central +an&. -o official !othered to correct or ?ualif" the /resident's announce(ent of August %0, pu!lished the following da", nor (ade an announce(ent that the lifting of the controls do not appl" to cases alread" pending, not until August %$ ;the fourth da" after (" )rder, and the third da" after report of said order was pu!lished< and after the /resident said on August %$, reported in the D-OJDR9R's issue of August %,, %99#, that the @new foreign eCchange rules have nullified govern(ent cases against D(elda R. Marcos, telling reporters that the charges against the widow of for(er /resident Marcos @have !eco(e

(oot and acade(ic@ !ecause of new ruling;s< which allow free flow of currenc" in and out of the countr"@ ;-ote, parentheticall", the reference to @new rules@ not to @rules still to !e drafted@<. The D-OJDR9R report continues6 @A few hours later, presidential spo&eswo(an Anna!elle A!a"a said, RAM)' ;sic< had @corrected hi(self'.@ @8e had !een !elatedl" advised !" the Central +an& 1overnor .ose Cuisia and .ustice 'ecretar" ran&lin 0rilon that the Monetar" +oard Regulation eCcluded fro( its coverage all cri(inal cases pending in court and such a position shall stand legal scrutin"', Mrs. A!a"a, said.@ D will ela!orate on two points6 %. Df the /resident was wrong in (a&ing the August %0 announce(ent ;pu!lished in August %%, %99#, newspapers< and in the August %$ announce(ent, %G RA, and thus D should have relied on the /residential announce(ents, and there is !asis to conclude that the /resident was at the ver" least DHH-'9R290 !" his financial and legal advisers, !ecause no one !othered to advise the /resident to correct his announce(ents, not until August %$, %99#, a few hours after the /resident had (ade another announce(ent as to the charges against D(elda Marcos having !een rendered (oot and acade(ic. The /resident has a lot of wor& to do, and is not, to (" &nowledge, a financier, econo(ist, !an&er or law"er. Dt therefore !ehooved his su!alterns to give hi( ti(el" ;not @!elated@< advice, and !rief hi( on (atters of i((ediate and far-reaching concerns ;such as the lifting of foreign eCchange controls, designed, a(ong others to encourage the entr" of foreign invest(ents<. Dnstead of rescuing the Chief 9Cecutive fro( e(!arrass(ent !" assu(ing responsi!ilit" for errors in the latter's announce(ent, these advisers have chosen to toss the !la(e for the conse?uence of their failing to (e, who onl" acted on the !asis of announce(ents of their Chief, which had !eco(e of pu!lic &nowledge. CCC CCC CCC The Court strongl" feels that it has ever" right to assu(e and eCpect that respondent :udge is possessed with (ore than ordinar" credentials and ?ualifications to (erit his appoint(ent as a presiding :udge in the Regional Trial Court of the -ational Capital .udicial Region, stationed in the Cit" of Manila itself. Dt is, accordingl", disheartening and regretta!le to note the nature of the argu(ents and the &ind of logic that respondent :udge would want to i(pose on this Court notwithstanding the (anifest lac& of cogenc" thereof. This calls to (ind si(ilar scenarios and how this Court reacted thereto. Dn one case, an RTC .udge was ad(inistrativel" charged for ac?uitting the accused of a violation of C+ Circular -o. 930 despite the fact that the accused was apprehended with J'Y3**,3=9.00 while !oarding a plane for 8ong&ong, erroneousl" ruling that the 'tate (ust first prove cri(inal intent to violate the law and !enefit fro( the illegal act, and further ordering the return of J'Y3,000.00 out of the total a(ount sei5ed, on the (ista&en interpretation that the C+ circular eCe(pts such a(ount fro( sei5ure. Respondent :udge therein was ordered dis(issed fro( the govern(ent service for gross inco(petence and ignorance of the law. 33 'u!se?uentl", the Court dis(issed another RTC :udge, with forfeiture of retire(ent !enefits, for gross ignorance of the law and for &nowingl" rendering an un:ust order or :udg(ent when he granted !ail to an accused charged with raping an %%-"ear old girl, despite the contrar" reco((endation of the investigating :udge, and thereafter granted the (otion to dis(iss the case allegedl" eCecuted !" the co(plainant. 36 'i(ilarl", an RTC :udge who was descri!ed !" this Court as one @who is ignorant of fairl" ele(entar" and ?uite fa(iliar legal principles and ad(inistrative regulations, has a (ar&ed penchant for appl"ing unorthodoC, even strange theories and concepts in the ad:udication of controversies, eChi!its indifference to and even disdain for due process and the rule of law, applies the law whi(sicall", capriciousl" and oppressivel", and displa"s !ias and i(partialit",@ was dis(issed fro( the service with forfeiture of all retire(ent !enefits and with pre:udice to reinstate(ent in an" !ranch of the govern(ent or an" of its agencies or instru(entalities. 3: 'till in another ad(inistrative case, an RT. :udge was also dis(issed !" this Court for gross ignorance of the law after she ordered, in a pro!ate proceeding, the cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the na(e of the co(plainant, without affording due process to the latter and other interested parties. 37

)nl" recentl", an RTC :udge who had !een reinstated in the service was dis(issed after he ac?uitted all the accused in four cri(inal cases for illegal possession of firear(s, on the ground that there was no proof of (alice or deli!erate intent on the part of the accused to violate the law. The Court found hi( guilt" of gross ignorance of the law, his error of :udg(ent !eing al(ost deli!erate and tanta(ount to &nowingl" rendering an incorrect and un:ust :udg(ent. 37 ACC)R0D-1HE, on the foregoing pre(ises and considerations, the Court finds respondent .udge Manuel T. Muro guilt" of gross ignorance of the law. 8e is here!" 0D'MD''90 fro( the service, such dis(issal to carr" with it cancellation of eligi!ilit", forfeiture of leave credits and retire(ent !enefits, and dis?ualification fro( ree(plo"(ent in the govern(ent service. 38 Respondent is here!" ordered to C9A'9 and 09'D'T i((ediatel" fro( rendering an" :udg(ent or order, or continuing an" :udicial action or proceeding whatsoever, effective upon receipt of this decision. ') )R09R90.

G.R. No. 116777

F&1r-!r/ 2, 2000

$ENANDRO ;. LAUREANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF A EALS AND SINGA ORE AIRLINES LI$ITED, respondents. EUISU$;ING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule =* of the Rules of Court see&s to reverse the 0ecision of the Court of Appeals, dated )cto!er #9, %993, in C.A. 1.R. -o. C2 3==$3, as well as its Resolution dated e!ruar" #,, %99=, which denied the (otion for reconsideration. The facts of the case as su((ari5ed !" the respondent appellate court are as follows6 'o(eti(e in %9$,, plaintiff MMenandro +. Haureano, herein petitionerN, then 0irector of light )perations and Chief /ilot of Air Manila, applied for e(plo"(ent with defendant co(pan" Mherein private respondentN through its Area Manager in Manila. )n 'epte(!er 30, %9$,, after the usual personal interview, defendant wrote to plaintiff, offering a contract of e(plo"(ent as an eCpatriate +-$0$ captain for an original period of two ;#< "ears co((encing on .anuar" #%, %9$,. /laintiff accepted the offer and co((enced wor&ing on .anuar" #0, %9$9. After passing the siC-(onth pro!ation period, plaintiffs appoint(ent was confir(ed effective .ul" #%, %9$9. ;AnneC @+@, p. 30, Rollo<. )n .ul" #%, %9$9, defendant offered plaintiff an eCtension of his two-"ear contract to five ;*< "ears effective .anuar" #%, %9$9 to .anuar" #0, %9,= su!:ect to the ter(s and conditions set forth in the contract of e(plo"(ent, which the latter accepted ;AnneC @C@ p. 3%, Rec.<. 0uring his service as +-$0$ captain, plaintiff on August #=, %9,0, while in co((and of a flight, co((itted a noise violation offense at the Burich Airport, for which plaintiff apologi5ed.;9Ch. @3@, p. 30$, Rec.<. 'o(eti(e in %9,0, plaintiff featured in a tail scraping incident wherein the tail of the aircraft scraped or touched the runwa" during landing. 8e was suspended for a few da"s until he was investigated !" !oard headed !" Capt. Cho". 8e was repri(anded. )n 'epte(!er #*, %9,%, plaintiff was invited to ta&e a course of A-300 conversion training at Aerofor(acion, Toulouse, rance at dependant's eCpense. 8aving successfull" co(pleted and passed the training course, plaintiff was cleared on April $, %9,%, for solo dut" as captain of the Air!us A-300 and su!se?uentl" appointed as captain of the A-300 fleet co((anding an Air!us A-300 in flights over 'outheast Asia. ;AnneCes @0@, @9@ and @ @, pp. 3=-3,, Rec.<.

'o(eti(e in %9,#, defendant, hit !" a recession, initiated cost-cutting (easures. 'eventeen ;%$< eCpatriate captains in the Air!us fleet were found in eCcess of the defendant's re?uire(ent ;t.s.n., .ul" 3, %9,,. p. %%<. Conse?uentl", defendant infor(ed its eCpatriate pilots including plaintiff of the situation and advised the( to ta&e advance leaves. ;9Ch. @%*@, p. =33, Rec.< Reali5ing that the recession would not !e for a short ti(e, defendant decided to ter(inate its eCcess personnel ;t.s.n., .ul" 3, %9,,, p. %$<. Dt did not, however, i((ediatel" ter(inate it's A300 pilots. Dt reviewed their ?ualifications for possi!le pro(otion to the +-$=$ fleet. A(ong the %$ eCcess Air!us pilots reviewed, twelve were found ?ualified. Jnfortunatel", plaintiff was not one of the twelve. )n )cto!er *, %9,#, defendant infor(ed plaintiff of his ter(ination effective -ove(!er %, %9,# and that he will !e paid three ;3< (onths salar" in lieu of three (onths notice ;AnneC @D@, pp. =%=#, Rec.<. +ecause he could not uproot his fa(il" on such short notice, plaintiff re?uested a three-(onth notice to afford hi( ti(e to eChaust all possi!le avenues for reconsideration and retention. 0efendant gave onl" two ;#< (onths notice and one ;%< (onth salar". ;t.s.n., -ov. %#, %9,$. p. #*<. Aggrieved, plaintiff on .une #9, %9,3, instituted a case for illegal dis(issal !efore the Ha!or Ar!iter. 0efendant (oved to dis(iss on :urisdiction grounds. +efore said (otion was resolved, the co(plaint was withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant case for da(ages due to illegal ter(ination of contract of services !efore the court a :uo ;Co(plaint, pp. %-%0, Rec.<. Again, defendant on e!ruar" %%, %9,$ filed a (otion to dis(iss alleging inter alia6 ;%< that the court has no :urisdiction over the su!:ect (atter of the case, and ;#< that /hilippine courts have no :urisdiction over the instant case. 0efendant contends that the co(plaint is for illegal dis(issal together with a (one" clai( arising out of and in the course of plaintiffs e(plo"(ent @thus it is the Ha!or Ar!iter and the -HRC who have the :urisdiction pursuant to Article #%$ of the Ha!or Code@ and that, since plaintiff was e(plo"ed in 'ingapore, all other aspects of his e(plo"(ent contract andIor docu(ents eCecuted in 'ingapore. Thus, defendant postulates that 'ingapore laws should appl" and courts thereat shall have :urisdiction. ;pp. *0-39, Rec.<. Dn traversing defendant's argu(ents, plaintiff clai(ed that6 ;%< where the ite(s de(anded in a co(plaint are the natural conse?uences flowing fro( a !reach of an o!ligation and not la!or !enefits, the case is intrinsicall" a civil dispute> ;#< the case involves a ?uestion that is !e"ond the field of speciali5ation of la!or ar!iters> and ;3< if the co(plaint is grounded not on the e(plo"ee's dis(issal per se !ut on the (anner of said dis(issal and the conse?uence thereof, the case falls under the :urisdiction of the civil courts. ;pp. $0-$3, Rec.< )n March #3, %9,$, the court a :uo denied defendant's (otion to dis(iss ;pp. ,#-,=, Ibid<. The (otion for reconsideration was li&ewise denied. ;p. 9* ibid.< )n 'epte(!er %3, %9,$, defendant filed its answer reiterating the grounds relied upon in its (otion to dis(iss and further arguing that plaintiff is !arred !" laches, waiver, and estoppel fro( instituting the co(plaint and that he has no cause of action . ;pp. %0#-%%*< % )n April %0, %99%, the trial court handed down its decision in favor of plaintiff. The dispositive portion of which reads6 789R9 )R9, :udg(ent is here!" rendered in favor of plaintiff Menandro Haureano and against defendant 'ingapore Airlines Hi(ited, ordering defendant to pa" plaintiff the a(ounts of G 'D-Y393,%0=.00, or its e?uivalent in /hilippine currenc" at the current rate of eCchange at the ti(e of pa"(ent, as and for unearned co(pensation with legal interest fro( the filing of the co(plaint until full" paid> 'D-Y%*=,$=#.00, or its e?uivalent in /hilippine currenc" at the current rate of eCchange at the ti(e of pa"(ent> and the further a(ounts of /3$,*00.00 as conse?uential da(ages with legal interest fro( the filing of the co(plaint until full" paid> /%,000,000.00 as and for (oral da(ages> /%,000,000.00 as and for eCe(plar" da(ages> and /%00,000.00 as and for attorne"'s fees.

Costs against defendant. ') )R09R90.# 'ingapore Airlines ti(el" appealed !efore the respondent court and raised the issues of :urisdiction, validit" of ter(ination, estoppel, and da(ages. )n )cto!er #9, %993, the appellate court set aside the decision of the trial court, thus, . . . Dn the instant case, the action for da(ages due to illegal ter(ination was filed !" plaintiffappellee onl" on .anuar" ,, %9,$ or (ore than four ;=< "ears after the effectivit" date of his dis(issal on -ove(!er %, %9,#. Clearl", plaintiff-appellee's action has alread" prescri!ed. 789R9 )R9, the appealed decision is here!" R929R'90 and '9T A'D09. The co(plaint is here!" dis(issed. ') )R09R90.3 /etitioner's and 'ingapore Airlines' respective (otions for reconsideration were denied. -ow, !efore the Court, petitioner poses the following ?ueries6 %. D' T89 /R9'9-T ACTD)- )-9 +A'90 )- C)-TRACT 78DC8 /R9'CRD+9' D- T9- E9AR' J-09R ARTDCH9 %%== ) T89 -97 CD2DH C)09 )R )-9 )R 0AMA19' ARD'D-1 R)M A- D-.JRE T) T89 RD18T' ) T89 /HAD-TD 78DC8 /R9'CRD+9' D- )JR E9AR' J-09R ARTDCH9 %%=3 ) T89 -97 CD2DH C)09L #. CA- A- 9M/H)E99 7DT8 A DA90 /9RD)0 ) 9M/H)EM9-T +9 R9TR9-C890 +E 8D' 9M/H)E9RL 3. CA- T89R9 +9 2AHD0 R9TR9-C8M9-T D A- 9M/H)E9R M9R9HE ADH' T) R9AHDB9 T89 9A/9CT90 /R) DT' 929- D DT 79R9 -)T, D- ACT, D-CJRRD-1 H)''9'L At the outset, we find it necessar" to state our concurrence on the assu(ption of :urisdiction !" the Regional Trial Court of Manila, +ranch 9. The trial court rightl" ruled on the application of /hilippine law, thus6 -either can the Court deter(ine whether the ter(ination of the plaintiff is legal under the 'ingapore Haws !ecause of the defendant's failure to show which specific laws of 'ingapore Haws appl" to this case. As su!stantiall" discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the /hilippine Courts do not ta&e :udicial notice of the laws of 'ingapore. The defendant that clai(s the applica!ilit" of the 'ingapore Haws to this case has the !urden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the /hilippine law should !e applied. = Respondent Court of Appeals ac?uired :urisdiction when defendant filed its appeal !efore said court.* )n this (atter, respondent court was correct when it !arred defendant-appellant !elow fro( raising further the issue of :urisdiction.3 /etitioner now raises the issue of whether his action is one !ased on Article %%== or on Article %%=3 of the Civil Code. According to hi(, his ter(ination of e(plo"(ent effective -ove(!er %, %9,#, was !ased on an e(plo"(ent contract which is under Article %%==, so his action should prescri!e in %0 "ears as provided for in said article. Thus he clai(s the ruling of the appellate court !ased on Article %%=3 where prescription is onl" four ;=< "ears, is an error. The appellate court concluded that the action for illegal dis(issal originall" filed !efore the Ha!or Ar!iter on .une #9, %9,3, !ut which was withdrawn, then filed again in %9,$ !efore the Regional Trial Court, had alread" prescri!ed. Dn our view, neither Article %%==$ nor Article %%=3, of the Civil Code is here pertinent. 7hat is applica!le is Article #9% of the Ha!or Code, vi46 Art. #9%. Mone& clai#s. G All (one" clai(s arising fro( e(plo"ee-e(plo"er relations accruing during the effectivit" of this Code shall !e filed within three ;3< "ears fro( the ti(e the cause of action accrued> otherwise the" shall !e forever !arred.

CCC

CCC

CCC

7hat rules on prescription should appl" in cases li&e this one has long !een decided !" this Court. Dn illegal dis(issal, it is settled, that the ten-"ear prescriptive period fiCed in Article %%== of the Civil Code #a& not !e invo&ed !" petitioners, for the Civil Code is a law of general application, while the prescriptive period fiCed in Article #9# of the Ha!or Code Mnow Article #9%N is a '/9CDAH HA7 applica!le to clai(s arising fro( e(plo"ee-e(plo"er relations. 9 More recentl" in De !u4#an vs. Court of Appeals,%0 where the (one" clai( was !ased on a written contract, the Collective +argaining Agree(ent, the Court held6 . . . The language of Art. #9% of the Ha!or Code does not li(it its application onl" to @(one" clai(s specificall" recovera!le under said Code@ !ut covers all (one" clai(s arising fro( an e(plo"ee-e(plo"er relations@ ;Citing Cadalin v. /)9A Ad(inistrator, #3, 'CRA $#%, $3= M%99=N> and J" v. -ational Ha!or Relations Co((ission, #3% 'CRA *0*, *%* M%993N<. . . . Dt should !e noted further that Article #9% of the Ha!or Code is a special law applica!le to (one" clai(s arising fro( e(plo"er-e(plo"ee relations> thus, it necessaril" prevails over Article %%== of the Civil Code, a general law. +asic is the rule in statutor" construction that @where two statutes are of e?ual theoretical application to a particular case, the one designed therefore should prevail.@ ;Citing Heveri5a v. Dnter(ediate Appellate Court, %*$ 'CRA #,#, #9=.< !eneralia specialibus non dero$ant.%% Dn the light of Article #9%, aforecited, we agree with the appellate court's conclusion that petitioner's action forda#a$es due to ille$al ter#ination filed again on .anuar" ,, %9,$ or (ore than four ;=< "ears after the effective date of his dis(issal on -ove(!er %, %9,# has alread" prescri!ed. Dn the instant case, the action for da(ages due to illegal ter(ination was filed !" plaintiffappelle onl" on .anuar" ,, %9,$ or (ore than four ;=< "ears after the effectivit" date of his dis(issal on -ove(!er %, %9,#. Clearl", plaintiff-appellee's action has alread" prescri!ed. 7e !ase our conclusion not on Article %%== of the Civil Code !ut on which sets the prescription period at three ;3< "ears and which governs under this :urisdiction. /etitioner clai(s that the running of the prescriptive period was tolled when he filed his co(plaint for illegal dis(issal !efore the Ha!or Ar!iter of the -ational Ha!or Relations Co((ission. 8owever, this clai( deserves scant consideration> it has no legal leg to stand on. Dn 7l&#pia International' Inc., vs., Court of Appeals, we held that @although the co((ence(ent of a civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or li(itations, its dis(issal or voluntar" a!andon(ent !" the plaintiff leaves in eCactl" the sa(e position as though no action had !een co((enced at all.@ %# -ow, as to whether petitioner's separation fro( the co(pan" due to retrench(ent was valid, the appellate court found that the e(plo"(ent contract of petitioner allowed for pre-ter(ination of e(plo"(ent. 7e agree with the Court of Appeals when it said, Dt is a settled rule that contracts have the force of law !etween the parties. ro( the (o(ent the sa(e is perfected, the parties are !ound not onl" to the fulfill(ent of what has !een eCpressl" stipulated !ut also to all conse?uences which, according to their nature, (a" !e in &eeping with good faith, usage and law. Thus, when plaintiff-appellee accepted the offer of e(plo"(ent, he was !ound !" the ter(s and conditions set forth in the contract, a(ong others, the right of (utual ter(ination !" giving three (onths written notice or !" pa"(ent of three (onths salar". 'uch provision is clear and readil" understanda!le, hence, there is no roo( for interpretation. CCC CCC CCC

urther, plaintiff-appellee's contention that he is not !ound !" the provisions of the Agree(ent, as he is not a signator" thereto, deserves no (erit. Dt (ust !e noted that when plaintiffappellee's e(plo"(ent was confir(ed, he applied for (e(!ership with the 'ingapore Airlines Hi(ited ;/ilots< Association, the signator" to the afore(entioned Agree(ent. As such, plaintiffappellee is estopped fro( ?uestioning the legalit" of the said agree(ent or an" proviso contained therein.%3

Moreover, the records of the present case clearl" show that respondent court's decision is a(pl" supported !" evidence and it did not err in its findings, including the reason for the retrench(ent6 7hen defendant-appellant was faced with the world-wide recession of the airline industr" resulting in a slow down in the co(pan"'s growth particularl" in the regional operation ;Asian Area< where the Air!us 300 operates. Dt had no choice !ut to adopt cost cutting (easures, such as cutting down services, nu(!er of fre?uencies of flights, and reduction of the nu(!er of fl"ing points for the A-300 fleet ;t.s.n., .ul" 3, %9,,, pp. %$-%,<. As a result, defendant-appellant had to la" off A-300 pilots, including plaintiff-appellee, which it found to !e in eCcess of what is reasona!l" needed.%= All these considered, we find sufficient factual and legal !asis to conclude that petitioner's ter(ination fro( e(plo"(ent was for an authori5ed cause, for which he was given a(ple notice and opportunit" to !e heard, !" respondent co(pan". -o error nor grave a!use of discretion, therefore, could !e attri!uted to respondent appellate court.1wphi1.nt ACC)R0D-1HE, the instant petition is 0D'MD''90. The decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. C2 -o. 3==$3 is A DRM90. ') )R09R90.