COMMERCIAL LISTS FACTS PNOC SHIPPING Early morning of September 21, 1977, the M/V Maria Efigenia XV,

, owned by Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation, was navigating the waters near Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas, Metro Manila when it collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). After Board of Marine investigation was conducted, Philippine Coast Guard Commandant Simeon N. Alejandro rendered a decision finding Petroparcel at fault Based on this finding and after unsuccessful demands on LSC, Respondent sued the LSC and the Petroparcel captain Doruelo with PRAYER: an award of P692,680.00, allegedly representing the value of the fishing nets, boat equipment and cargoes of M/V Maria Efigenia XV, with interest at the legal rate plus 25% thereof as attorneys fees o During the pendency of the case, petitioner PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation sought to be substituted in place of LSC as it had already acquired ownership of the Petroparcel(assumed obligations and liabilities of LSC) o Respondent later filed an amended complaint alleging that : 1. M/V Maria Efigenia XV had an actual value of P800,000.00 and that, after deducting the insurance payment of P200,000.00, the amount ofP600,000.00 should likewise be claimed 2. Inflation resulting from the devaluation of the Philippine peso had affected the replacement value of the hull of the vessel, its equipment and its lost cargoes, such that there should be a reasonable determination thereof 3. Due to the sinking of the vessel, respondent supposedly incurred unrealized profits and lost business opportunities that would thereafter be proven o Further amended to include PNOC as defendant granted TC Decision: ordered PNOC to pay Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation (MEFC) o Considering the evidence presented by MEFC consisting of the testimony of its general manager and sole witness, Edilberto del Rosario stating that: 1. M/V Maria Efigenia XV was owned by MEFC per Exhibit A, a certificate of ownership issued by the Philippine Coast Guard showing that M/V Maria Efigenia XV was a wooden motor boat constructed in 1965 with 128.23 gross tonnage 2. At the time the vessel sank, it was then carrying 1,060 tubs (baeras) of assorted fish the value of which was never recovered 3. Also lost with the vessel were two cummins engines (250 horsepower), radar, pathometer and compass 4. The loss of his flagship vessel in his fishing fleet of fourteen (14) vessels, he was constrained to hire the services of counsel whom he paid P10,000 to handle the case at the Board of Marine Inquiry and P50,000.00 for commencing suit for damages in the lower court o As to the award of P6,438,048.00 in actual damages, the lower court took into account the following pieces of documentary evidence that MEFC presented during trial: 1. Exhibit A certified xerox copy of the certificate of ownership of M/V Maria Efigenia XV; 2. Exhibit B a document titled Marine Protest executed by Delfin Villarosa, Jr. on September 22, 1977 stating that as a result of the collision, the M/V Maria Efigenia XV sustained a hole at its left side

that caused it to sink with its cargo of 1,050 baeras valued at P170,000.00; 3. Exhibit C a quotation for the construction of a 95-footer trawler issued by Isidoro A. Magalong of I. A. Magalong Engineering and Construction on January 26, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that construction of such trawler would cost P2,250,000.00; 4. Exhibit D pro forma invoice No. PSPI-05/87-NAV issued by E.D. Daclan of Power Systems, Incorporated on January 20, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that two (2) units of CUMMINS Marine Engine model N855-M, 195 bhp. at 1800 rpm. would cost P1,160,000.00; 5. Exhibit E quotation of prices issued by Scan Marine Inc. on January 20, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that a unit of Furuno Compact Daylight Radar, Model FR-604D, would cost P100,000.00 while a unit of Furuno Color Video Sounder, Model FCV-501 would cost P45,000.00 so that the two units would cost P145,000.00; 6. Exhibit F quotation of prices issued by Seafgear Sales, Inc. on January 21, 1987 to Del Rosario showing that two (2) rolls of nylon rope (5 cir. X 300fl.) would cost P140,000.00; two (2) rolls of nylon rope (3 cir. X 240fl.), P42,750.00; one (1) binocular (7 x 50), P1,400.00, one (1) compass (6), P4,000.00 and 50 pcs. of floats, P9,000.00 or a total of P197, 150.00; 7. Exhibit G retainer agreement between Del Rosario and F. Sumulong Associates Law Offices stipulating an acceptance fee of P5,000.00, per appearance fee of P400.00, monthly retainer ofP500.00, contingent fee of 20% of the total amount recovered and that attorneys fee to be awarded by the court should be given to Del Rosario; and 8. Exhibit H price quotation issued by Seafgear Sales, Inc. dated April 10, 1987 to Del Rosario showing the cost of poly nettings as: 50 rolls of 400/18 3kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P70,000.00; 50 rolls of 400/18 5kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P81,500.00; 50 rolls of 400/18 8kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P116,000.00, and 50 rolls of 400/18 10kts. 100md x 100mtrs., P146,500 and banera (tub) at P65.00 per piece or a total of P414,065.00 o Ruled that the prevailing replacement value of P6,438,048.00 of the fishing boat and all its equipment would regularly increase at 30% every year from the date the quotations were given o On the other hand, PNOC only presented Lorenzo Lazaro, senior estimator at PNOC Dockyard & Engineering Corporation, as sole witness and without any documentary evidence to support its position 1. Lazaro testified that the price quotations submitted by private respondent were excessive and that as an expert witness, he used the quotations of his suppliers in making his estimates. However, he failed to present such quotations of prices from his suppliers, saying that he could not produce a breakdown of the costs of his estimates as it was a sort of secret scheme CA affirmed in toto o Considering the documentary evidence presented as in the nature of market reports or quotations, trade journals, trade circulars and price lists ruled that until such time as the Supreme Court categorically rules on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this class of evidence, the reception of these documentary exhibits (price quotations) as evidence rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. In fact, where the lower court is confronted with evidence which appears to be of doubtful admissibility, the judge should declare in favor of admissibility rather than of non-

ISSUE RULING

admissibility WON the documentary evidence of MEFC were properly considered as commercial lists NO! To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available o The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side o In this case, actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of MEFCs general manager and certain pieces of documentary evidence Except for Exhibit B where the value of the 1,050baeras of fish were pegged at their September 1977 value when the collision happened, the pieces of documentary evidence offered with respect to items and equipment lost show similar items and equipment with corresponding prices in early 1987 or approximately ten (10) years after the collision Noticeably, PNOC did not object to the exhibits in terms of the time index for valuation of the lost goods and equipment BUT only objected to the fact that these were not duly authenticated and that the witness (Del Rosario) did not have personal knowledge on the contents of the writings and neither was he an expert on the subjects thereof Clearly ignoring petitioners objections to the exhibits, the lower court admitted these pieces of evidence and gave them due weight to arrive at the award of P6,438,048.00 as actual damages The exhibits were presented in the course of Del Rosarios testimony BUT MEFC did not present any other witnesses especially those whose signatures appear in the price quotations that became the bases of the award SC: the price quotations are ordinary private writings which under the Revised Rules of Court should have been proffered along with the testimony of the authors thereof o Del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the contents of the writings even though he was the seasoned owner of a fishing fleet because he was not the one who issued the price quotations because of HEARSAY RULE Thus, Del Rosarios claim that MEFC incurred losses of P6,438,048.00 should be admitted with extreme caution considering that, because it was a bare assertion, it should be supported by independent evidence Moreover, because he was the owner, whatever testimony he would give with regard to the value of the lost vessel, its equipment and cargoes should be viewed in the light of his self-interest therein SC: CA correct in ruling that his testimony as to the equipment installed and the cargoes loaded on the vessel should be given credence considering his familiarity thereto BUT his valuation of such equipment, cargo and the vessel itself should not be accepted as gospel truth o The price quotations presented as exhibits partake of the nature of hearsay evidence considering that the persons who issued them were not presented as witnesses AND do not fall under any of the exceptions One of the exceptions to the hearsay rule pertains to commercial lists and the like under Section 45, Rule 130 CA considered MEFCs exhibits as commercial lists but ruled that

these exhibits should be admitted in evidence until such time as the Supreme Court categorically rules on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this class of evidence because the reception of these documentary exhibits (price quotations) as evidence rests on the sound discretion of the trial court SC: arbitrary statement if reference is made to Section 45, Rule 130 Under Section 45, Rule 130, a document is a commercial list if: 1. it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation; 2. such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation; 3. said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation, and 4. it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation Based on the above requisites, it is our considered view that Exhibits B, C, D, E, F and H are not commercial lists for these do not belong to the category of other published compilations under Section 45 The exhibits mentioned are mere price quotations issued personally to Del Rosario who requested for them from dealers of equipment similar to the ones lost at the collision of the two vessels BUT Not published in any list, register, periodical or other compilation on the relevant subject matter Nor are these market reports or quotations within the purview of commercial lists as these are not standard handbooks or periodicals, containing data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the occupation These are simply letters responding to the queries of Del Rosario (Digesters note: refer to full case for sample content of the letters) While the letters and telegrams are admissible in evidence these are, however, subject to the general principles of evidence and to various rules relating to documentary evidence But even on the theory that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled on the admissibility of those letters or communications when it held that unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, evidence should better be admitted rather than rejected on doubtful or technical grounds,the same pieces of evidence, however, should not have been given probative weight Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to considered at all. VS.probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue Thus, the author of the letter should be presented as witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question him on the contents of the letter. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect. As earlier stated, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has

no probative value THUS, damages may not be awarded on the basis of hearsay evidence However, the non-admissibility of said exhibits does not mean that it totally deprives private respondent of any redress for the loss of its vessel based on Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals,In the absence of competent proof on the actual damage suffered, private respondent is `entitled to nominal damages o SC: allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount of nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action MEFC should be bound by its allegations on the amount of its claims

DISPOSITIVE: the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 14, 1992 in CAG. R. CV No. 26680 affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, is hereby MODIFIED insofar as it awarded actual damages to private respondent Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation in the amount of P6,438,048.00 for lack of evidentiary bases therefor. Considering the fact, however, that: (1) technically petitioner sustained injury but which, unfortunately, was not adequately and properly proved, and (2) this case has dragged on for almost two decades, we believe that an award of Two Million (P2,000,000.00) in favor of private respondent as and for nominal damages is in order. LEARNED TREATISE (See previous compilation for Seguritan v People) OPINION RULE DOCTRINE CHINA BANKING CORP. VS. CA Rule of evidence requiring opinion of expert witnesses applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts. Here, to prove whether one is blind, it is not necessary to submit a medical certificate attesting to the blindness or to require an expert (ophthalmologist) to testify to such fact, since the fact of blindness can be determined through common knowledge and by anyone with sufficient familiarity of such fact. Avelina Pinero was the owner of 2 parcels of land in Mandaluyong covered by TCTs 64018 and 59833. In Aug. 1991, Alfonso Kipte obtained P1.2M loan from CBC, secured by a P/N and REM (annotated on the TCTs) signed by Avelina over her properties; as well as a surety agreement (Kipte - principal, Avelina - surety). Kipte failed to pay Properties were foreclosed and auction sale was scheduled in Aug. 1992. Avelina and Emmanuel Pinero filed action in RTC (Annulment of REM, foreclosure of mortgage, notice of auction sale and damages w/ prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction against CBC, Kipte, the Ernesto Bonifacio (notary public) and Register of Deeds of Rizal. In Sept. 1992, Avelina was surprised to receive foreclosure notice from notary public. After inquiry from CBC, she learned that she allegedly executed REM and a surety agreement to secure Kiptes loan, whom she does not know. Foreclosure is void since she never voluntarily executed such documents, never appeared before the notary public, never received any proceeds from the loan, and was never Kiptes business associate. In 1990, Ludivina Rinnoces (Emmanuels common-law wife) asked Avelina to sign some documents (alleged loan from Cerila de Leon). Avelina signed without reading

FACTS

the same, as she is blind, and without knowing the contents thereof. The same happened in 1991. Alleged mortgage was annotated on TCT 64018 but not on TCT 59833; TCT 64018 also contained cancellation of mortgage in favor of Jose Macaraig and Cerila, whom she does not know.

CBC: Upon execution, Avelina was furnished with copies thereof. Avelina freely and voluntarily signed the documents. At the time of execution, though physically weak, she was mentally sound and in complete possession of her faculties, and she understood the nature of the transactions. Avelina personally appeared before the notary public. TC: CBC. Action dismissed. CA: Reversed. Avelina was old widow (80) and blind even before she allegedly signed the REM and surety agreement in Aug. 1991. Rebecca Pinero-Galang (Avelinas daughter) In 1985, Avelina became totally blind, was not physically fit, and suffered glaucoma. Avelina She was persuaded to sign the questioned documents as witness, Ludivina guided her when she signed the foregoing, she did not receive from Kipte any amount as consideration of the mortgage. Her deportment in court and the fact that she had to be guided to take the witness stand constitutes the strongest proof of blindness. Restituto Fano (notary public ) He remembered that Avelina had to be assisted and accompanied to the table to sign the questioned agreements, that she could hardly see, and that it was unusual for a woman of her age to be willing to act as surety to a P/N of a complete stranger for P1.2M. W/N Avelina signed the REM and surety agreement knowingly and voluntarily, with full knowledge of its contents. NO. CBC: Respondents admitted that Avelina indeed signed the agreements. As notarial documents, they are clothed with prima facie presumption of regularity and due execution. Avelina, being of sound and disposing mind despite old age, was duly informed of the nature and purpose of these agreements by their branch manager and the notary public before she affixed her signature. Respondents could have easily submitted a medical certificate attesting to the supposed blindness of Avelina or made an ophthalmologist take the witness stand. Re: The notarization Notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents of a document. GR: Notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it wrt its due execution and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. BUT, such presumption is not absolute; it may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Re: Blindness See DOCTRINE. HERE: Avelina, then alive during trial, categorically testified and attested to her own blindness. (TSN - I do not know who guided me because I could not see; I did not ask Ludivina to read or explain to me the contents because she only told me that I would merely act as a witness) Avelina was already blind when she was manipulated by her daughter-in-law Ludivina to sign the documents without explaining to her the contents and the true nature of the documents; she was made to understand that she was signing only as a

ISSUE/HELD

RATIO

witness. Kipte was a total stranger to her Implausible therefore that Avelina agreed to be his surety. Her blindness was confirmed by the testimony of her children (Emmanuel and Rebecca); even the notary public testified to the fact that she was indeed blind and that she was not made to understand the documents. MARQUEZ V SANDIGANBAYAN COA, in its Report on the Audit of Selected Transaction and Walis Ting-ting for Paranaque City for 96-98, found several anomalies involving Joey Marquez (Mayor and Chairman of Bids and Awards Committee) and Ofelia Caunan (Head of General Services office). Without public bidding, Marquez and Caunan procured thousands of rounds of bullets from VMY Trading (even though it was not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer w/ PNP and DTI). A COA special audit team issued Notices of Disallowances for the ammunitions. They appealed this to COA but they were denied. Meanwhile, at the office of the Ombudsman (OMB), in response to charges filed against them [during preliminary investigation], they filed their joint counter affidavit insisting on the propriety of the transaction and raised the pendency of their appeal to COA. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) found probable cause for violation of RA3019 Sec 3(e) against Marquez and Caunan and filed three informations against the Marque and Caunan. Nov 24, 2003, before arraignment, Marquez sought referral of several documents to the NBI Questioned Documents Section. Marquez asserted that his signatures on the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests [hereinafter referred as documents in question] were forged. He also requested for reinvestigation. This request was denied by the OSP Before the Sandiganbayan(SB) 4th division, the prosecution presented 5 witnesses: o Fatima Bermudez COA State Auditor o Elenita Pracale Chief of Business Permit and License office of Paranaque o Benjamin Cruz o Police Inspector Rolando Columna PNP Firearms Division Legal Officer o Emerito Lejano Guns Empire President The prosecution also presented the documents that were earlier questioned by Marquez. All of the evidence offered (on Jan 2006) by the prosecution was admitted by SB on March 2006. After the prosecution rested, Caunan testified and partly presented her evidence. April 1, 2008, Marquez moved for: o The inhibition of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez o The referral of the documents in question to the NBI. The two Justices did inhibit themselves and the case was re-raffled to the 5th division. But the request for the referral of the documents was not acted upon. July 4, 2008, Marquez filed another motion for the referral of the documents in question to the NBI alleging that his signatures on the same were forged. Prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition arguing that: o All of its documentary exhibits were offered in 2006 and had been duly admitted by SB. o When confronted with the transactions during the COA audit investigation, Marquez never raised the defense of forgery and instead insisted on the propriety of the transactions.

Petition DENIED. FACTS -

ISSUE HELD

DOCTRINE

Neither did he claim forgery when he filed his Counter Affidavit in the OSP. Rule 129.4; Since Marquez alleged on his pleadings that he relied on the competence of his subordinates and thus there could be no palpable mistake, he is thus estopped from alleging that his signatures on the documents in question were forged. o The motion was filed merely to delay the proceedings. - Marquez filed a reply saying that he never admitted that his signatures on the documents in question were his and that the motion was not filed for mere delay. - SB issued a resolution denying the motion of Marquez, citing Rule 132.22. They said that while, the opinion of handwriting experts could be helpful in the examination of the alleged forged documents, it was neither mandatory nor indispensible, since the court can determine forgery from its own independent examination. - After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Marquez filed a Rule 65 certiorari with the SC, saying that the denial of his motion for referral of the documents was in violation of his right to present evidence and due process. WoN denial of the motion to refer the documents in question to the NBI was done in GADALEJ? YES - The right of the accused to an opportunity to be heard necessarily implies with it the reasonable freedom to present its evidence. - Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. - In order to discharge this burden, the party alleging it must be afforded reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support his allegation. - This opportunity is the actual examination of the signatures of the documents in question by no less than the countrys premier investigative force, the NBI. If he is denied such opportunity, his only evidence on this matter is negative testimonial evidence w/c is generally considered as weak. - The findings of NBI will still be subject to scrutiny and evaluation in line w/ Rule 132.22. Nevertheless, Marquez shouldnt be deprived of his right to present evidence. While this defense may seem feeble to SB, Marquez should be allowed to adduce evidence of his own choice. - SBs reason for denial of the motion is that it may validly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence. But while it is true that appreciation of WoN the signatures are genuine is subject to the discretion of SB, this discretion may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. The prosecution had already offered its evidence on the matter. The court should not deny the same right to the defense. - Contrary to what the prosecution asserts, Marquezs motion was not a mere afterthought. As early as Nov 24, 2003, even before arraignment, Marquez already sought referral of the documents in question to the NBI and reinvestigation of the case against him. - The fact that Marquez did not raise this issue with COA is irrelevant and immaterial. His failure to do so may affect the weight of his defense, but it should not bar him from insisting on it during his turn to adduce evidence. - The fact that the documentary exhibit were already offered and admitted by SB cannot preclude an examination of the signatures thereon by the defense. With proper handling by court personnel, this can be accomplished by the NBI expert examiners. CAMACHO-REYES V REYES The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay. o o

FACTS

This is a petition to declare nullity of marriage between Socorro Camacho-Reyes (petitioner) and Ramon Reyes (respondent). The facts the two met in UP during college days both are 19 years old. Socorro was attracted to Ramons care-free lifestyle despite knowing that the latter is fond of cutting classes and smokes marijuana (70s to). Ramon has money to spend on their dates because he works in the family business Aristocrat Restaurant. Socorro graduated with a degree in AB Sociology and found a steady job. Ramon quit college and continued working in the family business. A year after graduation, in 1976, they married. Socorro was then already pregnant. They lived with Ramons family the family of Ramon paid for their expenses. They used heir own salaries for their personal needs while Ramon also gave 1,500 from is salary to Socorro as allowance. 1977 their first child was born, allowance stopped. The reason is because Ramon resigned from him work in the family business and decided to set up his own business of supplying seafood in the provinces. The business venture entailed Ramon living in Mindoro, away from home, for months he would not communicate and would only give sporadic financial support to wife and children. The business failed. Ramon ventured next to a fishpond business. In 1985, petitioner, who had previously suffered a miscarriage, gave birth to their third son. At that time, respondent was in Mindoro and he did not even inquire on the health of either the petitioner or the newborn. A week later, respondent arrived in Manila, acting nonchalantly while playing with the baby, with nary an attempt to find out how the hospital bills were settled. In 1989, due to financial reverses, respondents fishpond business stopped operations. Although without any means to support his family, respondent refused to go back to work for the family business. Respondent came up with another business venture, engaging in scrap paper and carton trading. As with all of respondents business ventures, this d id not succeed. 1996 Socorro discovered that Ramon is having an extra marital when she overheard Ramon talking to her former secretary. One of the last episodes that sealed the fate of the parties marriage was a surgical operation on petitioner for the removal of a cyst. Although his wife was about to be operated on, respondent remained unconcerned and unattentive; and simply read the newspaper, and played dumb when petitioner requested that he accompany her as she was wheeled into the operating room. After the operation, Socorro asked her mother to order Ramon out of the operating room. Still, petitioner made a string of final attempts to salvage what was left of their marriage. Petitioner approached respondents siblings and asked them to intervene , confessing that she was near the end of her rope. Adolfo Reyes, respondents elder brother, and his spouse, Peregrina, members of a marriage encounter group, invited and sponsored the parties to join the group. The elder couple scheduled counseling sessions with petitioner and respondent, but these did not improve the parties relationship as respondent remained uncooperative. In 1997, Adolfo brought respondent to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological assessment to determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning. As with all other attempts to help him, respondent resisted. Socorro finally asked Ramon to get out of the house the latter agreed. Then in 2001, Socorro fled for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 FC. Granted the petition. TC relied much on the totality of circumstances plus the expert testimonies of two clinical psychologists, Dr. Dayan and Dr. Estrella Magno, and a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Villegas who all pronounced Ramon to be psychologically incapacitated to enter a valid marriage (the details of the findings of these experts is in the Ratio portion) Reversed. Generally, expert opinions are regarded, not as conclusive, but as purely advisory

RTC

CA

in character. A court may place whatever weight it chooses upon such testimonies. It may even reject them, if it finds that they are inconsistent with the facts of the case or are otherwise unreasonable. In the instant case, neither clinical psychologist Magno nor psychiatrist Dr. Villegas conducted a psychological examination on the [respondent]. Undoubtedly, the assessment and conclusion made by Magno and Dr. Villegas are hearsay. They are unscientific and unreliable as they have no personal knowledge of the psychological condition of the [respondent] as they never personally examined the [respondent] himself. Also, [I]t can be gleaned from the recommendation of Dayan that the purported psychological incapacity of [respondent] is not incurable as the [petitioner] would like this Court to think because Dayan recommended therapy and counseling sessions. [Respondents] defects were not present at the inception of marriage. They were even able to live in harmony in the first few years of their marriage, which bore them two children xxx. In fact, [petitioner] admitted in her Amended Petition that initially they lived comfortably and [respondent] would give his salary in keeping with the tradition in most Filipino households, but the situation changed when [respondent] resigned from the family-owned Aristocrat Restaurant and thereafter, [respondent] failed in his business ventures. It appears, however, that [respondent] has been gainfully employed with Marigold Corporation, Inc. since 1998, which fact was stipulated upon by the [petitioner]. WON there is sufficient evidence to show that respondent is psychologically incapacitated Yes Santos v. Court of Appeals - the factors characterizing psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations are: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. Republic v Molina: Molina Doctrine: 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the Plaintiff. Doubts will be resolved in favor of marriage & against nullity. 2. The root cause of the PI must be i. Medically or clinically identified ii. Alleged in the complaint iii. Sufficiently proven by experts iv. Clearly explained in the decision 3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. 4. The incapacity must be medically/clinically permanent or incurable. The incurability may be absolute or relative. The incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marital obligations. 5. The illiness must be grave enough to bring about a disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. 6. The essential marital obligations referred to are those in Art 68 to 71, FC and under Art 220, 221 & 225 of the FC. The non-compliance must be stated in the petition, proven by evidence, and included in the decision. 7. Interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church should be given great respect, although not controlling. 8. The trial court must order the fiscal or solgen to appear as counsel for the State. His opposition/agreement must be state in the decision. Diagnosis of 3 Experts: (Digesters note: I only excerpted the important parts)

ISSUE RULING

Dra. Villegas: Referring to petitioner - Because of her high intellectual endowment, she has easy facilities for any undertakings (sic). She is organized, planned (sic), reliable, dependable, systematic, prudent, loyal, competent and has a strong sense of duty (sic). But emotionally, she is not as sensitive. She acts on the dictates of her mind and reason, and less of how she feels (sic). The above qualities are perfect for a leader, but less effective in a heterosexual relationship, especially to her husband, who has deep seated sense of inadequacy, insecurity, low self esteem and self-worth despite his intellectual assets. Referring to Ramon - [Respondent], on the other hand, has manifested strong clinical evidences (sic), that he is suffering from a Personality Disorder, of the antisocial type, associated with strong sense of Inadequacy along masculine strivings and narcissistic features that renders him psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. This is characterized by his inability to conform to the social norms that ordinarily govern many aspects of adolescent and adult behavior. His being a free spirit associated with no remorse, no guilt feelings and no anxiety, is distinctive of this clinical condition. His prolonged drug intake [marijuana] and maybe stronger drugs lately, are external factors to boost his ego. The root cause of the above clinical conditions is due to his underlying defense mechanisms, or the unconscious mental processes, that the ego uses to resolve conflicts. His prolonged and closed attachments to his mother encouraged cross identification and developed a severe sense of inadequacy specifically along masculine strivings. It existed before marriage, but became manifest only after the celebration, due to marital demands and stresses. Dr. Dayan: When [respondent] was asked about his drug problem, he mentioned that he stopped taking it in 1993. His brothers think that he is not telling the truth. It is so hard for [respondent] to stop taking drugs when he had been hooked to it for the past 22 years. When [respondent] was also asked what his problems are at the moment, he mentioned that he feels lonely and distressed. He does not have anyone to talk to. He feels that he and his wife [have] drifted apart. He has a small need of companionship and is most comfortable alone. He, too[,] feels uncomfortable in expressing his more tender feelings for fear of being hurt. Likewise, he maybe very angry within but he may choose to repress this feeling. Dra. Tiongson-Magno From the evidence available from [petitioners] case history and from her psychological assessment, and despite the non-cooperation of the respondent, it is possible to infer with certainty the nullity of this marriage. Based on the information available about the respondent, he suffers from [an] antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic and dependent features that renders him too immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a marriage. Referring to Socorro (and the best quote in this very long case): But she is emotionally immature and her comprehension of human situations is very shallow for a woman of her academic and professional competence. And this explains why she married RRR even when she knew he was a pothead, then despite the abuse, took so long to do something about her situation. Findings for Socorro: Obsessive Compulsive Personality Style with Self-Defeating features Findings for Ramon: Antisocial Personality Disorder with marked narcissistic, aggressive sadistic and dependent features Discussion re root cause of Ramons psychological incapacity (Digesters note: apparently he has mommy issues): One has to go back to [respondents] early childhood in order to

understand the root cause of his antisocial personality disorder. [Respondent] grew up the ninth child in a brood of 11. Unfortunately, [respondents] mother grew up believing that she was not her mothers favorite child, so she felt api, treated like poor relations. [Respondents] mothers reaction to her perceived rejection was to act outwith poor impulse control and poor mood regulation (spent money like water, had terrible temper tantrums, etc.). Unwittingly, his mother became [respondents] role model. (Digesters note: The logic, I think, is Freudian psych, but I am not really sure.) END OF DIAGNOSIS EXCERPTS START OF RELEVANT PART The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay. For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. In this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present state of the parties marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner. For another, the clinical psychologists and psychiatrists assessment were not based solely on the narration or personal interview of the petitioner. Other informants such as respondents own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testified on their own observations of respondents behavior and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew him. Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, citing The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV), instructs us on the general diagnostic criteria for Anti-social personality disorders: A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following: (1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest (2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure (3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults (5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others (6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations (7) lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another B. The individual is at least 18 years. C. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years. D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources. A person afflicted with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this case, considering that a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, selfdiagnosis by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the doctors separate diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.

Digesters note: So, to sum up the doctrine, findings of the experts in this case, even in the absence of personal examination of Ramon, did not amount to hearsay because they based their knowledge of the facts surrounding the case from narrations of the wife, who is naturally competent to describe Ramons behavior during thei r marriage, and close relatives of Ramon who had knowledge of what is happening between Socorro and Ramon especially Ramon. These facts are then applied by the doctors to some tested scientific factors (like a checklist see DSM IV above) to determine whether the behavioral facts amount to a personality disorder. They then come up with the proper diagnosis. On another note, Dr. Dayans recommendation of therapy and counseling does not automatically mean that Ramons psychological incapacity is not incu rable. In Kaplan and Saddocks textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, treatment, ranging from psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended. Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Republic v CA and Molina: [T]he professional opinion of a psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data about the persons enti re life, both before and after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional opinions about a partys mental capacity at the time of the wedding. These opinions were rarely challenged and tended to be accepted as decisive evidence of lack of valid consent. [Because] of advances made in psychology during the past decades. There was now the expertise to provide the all-important connecting link between a marriage breakdown and premarital causes. Caveat: It is true that a clinical psychologists or psychiatrists diagnoses that a person has personality disorder is not automatically believed by the courts in cases of declaration of nullity of marriages. In Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, we ruled that, even without delving into the non-exclusive list found in Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina, the stringent requisites provided in Santos v. Court of Appeals must be independently met by the party alleging the nullity of the marriage grounded on Article 36. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded. In the case at bar, however, even without the experts conclusions, the factual antecedents (narrative of events) alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. In the instant case, respondents pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa. END OF RELEVANT PART As regards the issue of Socorros psychological incapacity: there was no allegation of facts with respect to Socorros psychological incapacity because what was alleged in the petition only was to declare psychological incapacity of Ramon. Moreover, the findings of the expert do not amount to a showing that Socorro is psychologically incapacitated to enter the marriage. Indeed Dra. Villegas diagnosed her to have Inadequate Personality [Disorder] along the

FACTS

affectional area. But Dra. Villegas likewise noted that [petitioner] was able to remain in their marriage for more than 20 years trying to reach out and lending a hand for better understanding and relationship. With the foregoing evaluation made by no less than [petitioners] own expert witnesses, we find it hard to believe that she is psychologically incapacitated ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO Roxas is an American citizen of Filipino descent. She was a member of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYAN-USA). She enrolled in an exposure program of said organization to the Philippines. In April 2009, she volunteered to join members of BAYAN-Tarlac in conducting an initial health survey in La Paz, Tarlac for a future medical mission. May 19, 2009- petitioner and her companions, Juanito Carabeo (Carabeo) and John Edward Jandoc (Jandoc), decided to rest in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo (Mr. Paolo) in Sitio Bagong Sikat, Barangay Kapanikian, La Paz, Tarlac. 1:30PM- 15 heavily armed men forcibly opened the door, barged inside and ordered petitioner and her companions to lie on the ground face down. The armed men were all in civilian clothes and, with the exception of their leader, were also wearing bonnets to conceal their faces. Roxas, Carabeo, and Jandoc were blindfolded, mouths were taped, dragged to a nearby van. After an hour, the van stopped. They were ordered to alight. Roxas was informed that she is being detained for being a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA) Roxas was separated from her companions and was escorted to a room that she believed was a jail cell from the sound of its metal doors. From there, she could hear the sounds of gunfire, the noise of planes taking off and landing and some construction bustle. She inferred that she was taken to the military camp of Fort Magsaysay in Laur, Nueva Ecija. Roxas was tortured and interrogated for 5 days. Roxas was blindfolded but was still able to learn the names of three of her interrogators who introduced themselves to her as Dex, James and RC. RC told Roxas that those who tortured her came from the Special Operations Group , and that she was abducted because her name is included in the Order of Battle. May 25- Roxas was released. She was given (1) a cellular phone with a SIM card, (2) a slip of paper containing an e-mail address with password, (3) a plastic bag containing biscuits and books, (4) the handcuffs used on her, (5) a blouse and (6) a pair of shoes. She was also sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family. Roxas continued to receive calls from RC. Later on, she threw the cellphone away, fearing that she was being monitored. Roxas filed Petition for Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, impleading public officials on the belief that it was government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. Roxas likewise included in her suit Rose, Dex and RC prayin g that(1) respondents be enjoined from harming or even approaching petitioner and her family; (2) an order be issued allowing the inspection of detention areas in the 7 th Infantry Division, Fort Magsaysay, Laur, Nueva Ecija; (3) respondents be ordered to produce documents relating to any report on the case of petitioner including, but not limited to, intelligence report and operation reports of the 7th Infantry Division, the Special Operations Group of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and its subsidiaries or branch/es prior to, during and subsequent to 19 May 2009; (4) respondents be ordered to expunge from the records of the respondents any document pertinent or connected to Melissa C. Roxas, Melissa Roxas or any name which sounds the same; and (5) respondents be ordered to return to petitioner her journal, digital camera with memory

DEFENSE

COURT OF APPEALS

card, laptop computer, external hard disk, IPOD, wristwatch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, medicines and her P15,000.00 cash. SC issued the writs. 1) Roxas torture is stage managed, relying on the statement of Mr. Paolo, as contained in the Special Report of the La Paz Police Station. Statement: prior to the purported abduction, petitioner and her companions instructed him and his two sons to avoid leaving the house. Public respondents drew the distinct possibility that, except for those already inside Mr. Paolos house, nobody else has any way of knowing where petitioner and her companions were at the time they were supposedly abducted. This can only mean that if ever there was any abduction it must necessarily have been planned by, or done with the consent of, the petitioner and her companions themselves. Medical Certificate only shows abrasions in her wrists and knee caps. 2) Assuming abduction to be true, petition must be dismissed (a) as against respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because of her immunity from suit, and (b) as against all of the public respondents, in view of the absence of any specific allegation in the petition that they had participated in, or at least authorized, the commission of such atrocities. 3) They had not been remiss in their duty to ascertain the truth behind the allegations of the petitioner. a) Police Action-Upon report of the presence of heavily armed men, La Paz Municipal Police Station launched an investigation; -sent flash message to different police stations; -Special Report was transmitted to Tarlac Police Provincial Office and then to the Regional Police Office of Region 3; -follow up investigations were conducted -Special Investigation Task Group-CAROJAN was created -Task Group Carojan conducted background examinations on the victims of the abduction to reveal motive behind abduction and later on identify abductors -Task Group coordinated with Karapatan and the Alliance for Advancement of Peoples Rights -However, Task Group CAROJAN is still unable to make a definitive finding as to the true identity and affiliation of the abductorsa fact that task group CAROJAN attributes to the refusal of the petitioner, or any of her fellow victims, to cooperate in their investigative efforts. b) Military action - Gilbert Teodoro (Secretary of National Defense) issued a Memorandum Directive ddressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP, ordering the latter, among others, to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of the accusation of military involvement in the abduction. -Investigation Report: regarded petitioners allegations as opinionated and thereby cleared the military from any involvement in her alleged abduction and torture gave due weight and consideration to the petitioners version that she was indeed abducted and then subjected to torture for five (5) straight days disregarded the argument that the abduction of the petitioner was stage managed, as it is merely based on an unfounded speculation that only the latter and her companions knew where they were staying at the time they were forcibly taken. recognized the existence of an ongoing threat against the security of the petitioner, as manifested in the attempts of RC to contact and monitor her, even after she was released threat is all the more compounded by the failure of the police authorities to identify the material perpetrators who are still at large Thus, the appellate court extended to the petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparo by directing the public respondents to afford protection to the former, as well as continuing,

ISSUE RULING

under the norm of extraordinary diligence, their existing investigations involving the abduction. Noted the existence of records of investigation that concerns Roxas as a member of the CPP-NPA: a photograph and video file presented in a press conference by party-list representatives Jovito Palparan (Palparan) and Pastor Alcover (Alcover), which allegedly show the petitioner participating in rebel exercises. the proliferation of the photograph and video, as well as any form of media, insinuating that petitioner is part of the CPP-NPA does not only constitute a violation of the right to privacy of the petitioner but also puts further strain on her already volatile security. Hence, CA granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data mandating the public respondents to refrain from distributing to the public any records, in whatever form, relative to petitioners alleged ties with the CPP-NPA or pertinently related to her abduction and torture. HOWEVER, CA was not convinced that the military or any other person acting under the acquiescence of the government, were responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner. -judging by her own statements, the petitioner merely believed that the military was behind her abduction. -absolved the public respondents from any complicity in the abduction and torture of petitioner. -petition likewise dismissed as against public respondent President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, in view of her immunity from suit -prayers for the return of her personal belongings were denied -prayers for an inspection order and production order likewise denied W/N public respondents are responsible for petitioners abduction. NO A. Amparo Responsibility of Public Respondents Petitioner attempted to show government complicity through the ff. circumstances: 1) Forcible taking in broad daylight 2) Use of vehicles with no license plates 3) Utilization of blindfolds 4) Conducting interrogations to elicit communist inclinations 5) Infliction of physical abuse Petitioner also claims that she was held inside the military camp Fort Magsaysay a conclusion which she was able to infer from (a) the travel time required to reach the place where she was actually detained, and (b) the sounds of construction, gun-fire, and airplanes she heard while thereat. COURT: Totality of the evidence does not support the conclusion that her abductors were military or police personnel and that she was detained at Fort Magsaysay. 1) The similarity between the circumstances attending a particular case of abduction with those surrounding previous instances of enforced disappearances does not, necessarily, carry sufficient weight to prove that the government orchestrated such abduction. The perceived similarity cannot stand as substantial evidence of the involvement of the government. 2) The claim of the petitioner that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay was not adequately established by her mere estimate of the time it took to reach the place where she was detained and by the sounds that she heard while thereat. -the estimate and observations of the petitioner cannot be accepted as accurate on its face

-they were made mostly while she was in blindfolds, -she was a mere sojourner in the Philippines, whose familiarity with Fort Magsaysay and the travel time required to reach it is in itself doubtful Prayer for the Return of Personal Belongings 1) An order to return belongings is equivalent to a conclusive pronouncement of liability. Matters of liability are not determinable in a mere summary amparo proceding. 2) More importantly: A persons right to be restituted of his property is already subsumed under the general rubric of property rightswhich are no longer protected by the writ of amparo. Inspection of the Detention Areas of Fort Magsaysay A basic requirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the order. It is required as a minimum for the issuance of an inspection order that the supporting allegations of a party be sufficient in itself, so as to make a prima facie case. Since the very estimates and observations of the petitioner are not strong enough to make out a prima facie case that she was detained in Fort Magsaysay, an inspection of the military camp cannot be ordered. An inspection order cannot issue on the basis of allegations that are, in themselves, unreliable and doubtful. B. Habeas Data An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. There is no evidence on record that shows that any of the public respondents had violated or threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner. The act ascribed by to the public respondents that would have violated or threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner were only inferred from the video and photograph released by Representatives Palparan and Alcover in their press conference. No evidence on record even shows that any of the public respondents had access to such video or photograph. Until such time that any of the public respondents were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner, any inference regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes farfetched, and premature. DISPOSITION OF THE CASE awkward situation- the very persons alleged to be involved in an enforced disappearance or extralegal killing are the very ones tasked by law to investigate the matter -the main source of the evidentiary difficulties faced by any petitioner in any amparo case However, the Amparo Rule placed a potent safeguardrequiring the respondent who is a public official or employee to prove that no less than extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. Thus, unless and until any of the public respondents is able to show to the satisfaction of the amparo court that extraordinary diligence has been observed in their investigations, they cannot shed the allegations of responsibility despite the prevailing scarcity of evidence to that effect

Extraordinary diligence, as required by the Amparo Rule, was not fully observed in the conduct of the police and military investigations in the case at bar. -Task Group CAROJAN focused on conducting background checks on the victims rather than identifying perpertrators. -It relied solely on the cooperation or non-cooperation of the petitioner - Task Group CAROJANs reports still failed to explain why it never considered seeking the assistance of Mr. Jesus Paolo Further investigation under the norm of extraordinary diligence should be undertaken.