Ofcial Records

People v. Cabuang
Facts
October 1988, 11 p.m. - Evelyn De Vera and Cousin Maria Parana
Victim! "ere "al#in$ %ome alon$ an unin%abited place in Pan$asinan.
Cabuan$ emer$ed &rom t%e rice paddies "it% a 'as%li$%t, as#in$ "%ere t%ey
"ere $oin$. Evelyn "al#ed &aster, but Maria stopped to tal# to Cabuan$.
Evelyn loo#ed bac#, and t%en sa" Mataban$. Cabuan$ t%en $rabbed Maria,
and Mataban$ ran a&ter Evelyn. Evelyn "as able to %ide amon$ plants in a
yard. (ater, s%e sa" a tricycle "it% t%e t%ree, alon$ "it% its driver and
anot%er person at t%e rear. )%e %eard %er cousin cryin$ &or %elp.
)%e t%en "ent %ome to %er sister, but "as not able to tell %er because
s%e "as scolded. *%e ne+t mornin$, Maria "as &ound dead and na#ed alon$
t%e road. Evelyn e+ecuted a s"orn statement identi&yin$ t%e t"o, since s%e
#ne" t%em as %er baran$ay-mates, and t%ey "ere in close pro+imity t%e
ni$%t be&ore, t%estreet "as illuminated. )%e identi-ed t%em in a lineup. *%e
ot%er t"o remain unidenti-ed.
.n Or$C%emboo# and ot%er belon$in$s "ere &ound t%erea&ter. )%e died
/ %ours be&ore autopsy. On t%e basis o& t%e statement, t%e t"o "ere
convicted. .ppeal
Issues
Whether the TC erred in fnding that Evelyn identifed the!
since the entry in the police blotter stated that the assailants "ere
still unidentifed even a#ter she "as $uestioned by the police.
%eld&Ratio
0o. On initial 1uestionin$, s%e "as still in s%oc#, t%ere "as t%us t%e 11
a.m. blotter report, t%en t%e statement later t%at day. *%e delay is not
pre2udicial. 3eluctance a&ter a startlin$ occurrence is understandable. *%e &e"
%oursbet"een t%e blotter and t%e statement do not pre2udice %er credibility.
Entries in a police blotter, t%ou$% re$ularly done, are not conclusive
proo&. *%ey are only prima facie evidence o& t%e &acts t%erein. *estimony in
open court is commonly more len$t%y and detailed. *%e court must base its
-ndin$s on all t%e evidence $at%ered. *%ey "ere clearly identi-ed.
Denial and alibi do not avail. Cabuan$ says %e "as at t%e "a#e o& t%e
dau$%ter o& 4uinio t%e "%ole ni$%t, but did not elaborate or corroborate.
Matabuan$ said %e never le&t %is %ouse, but "as inconsistent and
uncorroborated. 5t "as not impossible &or eit%er to %ave been t%ere. Postive
identi-cation prevails.
*%e circumstantial evidence su6ces. *%ey "ere "al#in$ in an
unin%abited place "%en t%e t"o suddenly appeared and $rabbed Maria. )%e
sa" t%em on a tricycle "it% Maria cryin$. *%e ne+t day, s%e "as &ound dead
by t%e same road.
People v. 'abriel
Facts
7abriel, c%ar$ed in conspiracy "it% 3amon Doe &or t%e murder o&
*ono$. 0ovember 1989, 8 p.m., 0ort% 9arbor, a -st-$%t occurred bet"een
*ono$ and 7abriel and 3amon. *%ey "ere bro#en up by onloo#ers. 7abriel
and 3amon "ent to Marcos 3oad, but returned "it% blades, approac%ed
*ono$, and stabbed %im in t%e stomac% and bac#. *%ey le&t %im on t%e
$round, and "as dead on arrival. (e#ense )ersion - 7abriel sa" *ono$
drun#, and parried a blo" &rom %im. *ono$ t%en attac#ed 3amon, but 3amon
ran a"ay. *ono$ t%en met :Mando:, "%o "as li#e"ise bo+ed and &ou$%t bac#.
3amon returned "it% a bolo, and despite 7abriel;s "arnin$s, bot% stabbed
*ono$ and 'ed. 9e stayed "it% t%e victim. <itness 7on=ales arrived a&ter %e
""as ta#en to t%e %ospital, as#ed "%at %appened, and "anted %im to testi&y.
9is re&usal, plus t%e &act t%at 7on=ales o"ed %im P>?? earned %er ire, t%us,
t%e c%ar$e. .ppeal.
Issues
Whether the TC erred in giving credence to 'o*ales+ and
Ochobillo+s testiony,
in fnding evident preeditation and treachery
%eld&Ratio
0o. *%eir testimonies "ere direct and candid. *%at %er o"in$ %im a
debt o& only P>?? resultin$ in t%e c%ar$e is unbelievable. 9er supposed
$rud$e a$ainst %im since %e enticed customers to patroni=e a di@erent
carinderia is unbelievable, since %e %imsel& "as eatin$ at 7on=ales;
carinderia. :Mando: is a -$ment o& t%e ima$ination, as not a sin$le "itness
"as presented reA %is identity. 5t s%ould %ave been easy, since t%ere "ere
many bystanders. 5& t%ere "as a $rud$e, it is unli#ely t%at s%e "ould as# %im
"%at %appened. 5t is unbelievable t%at s%e arrived only a&ter t%e -$%t, since
%er store "as ri$%t in &ront. Delay is li#e"ise acceptable.
.ccused emp%asi=es t%e -dvance In#oration .heet by Pat. )teve
Casimoro, "%ic% only named 3amon Doe as t%e suspect. But t%is cannot
de&eat positive testimony, since entries in o6cial records are only prima &acie
evidence. Curt%er, t%e )%eet "as never &ormally o@ered. *%e )%eet "as
prepared a&ter intervie"in$ Camba, an alle$ed "itness - %e "as never
presented.
*%e re1uisites &or t%e admissibility o& an o6cial record are1! t%e entry
"as made by a police o6cer or a person specially en2oined by la" to do so,
D! 5t "as made in t%e per&ormance o& %is duties or a duty specially en2oined
by la", and >!9e %ad su6cient #no"led$e o& t%e &acts eit%er personally or
t%rou$% o6cial in&ormation.
*%e .5) is inadmissible, since Casimoro %ad no personal #no"led$e o&
t%e incident. 5t only came &rom Camba, and t%is is not o6cial in&ormation,
since the person "ho a/es the stateent ust have personal
/no"ledge and the duty to give the stateent #or the record.
*%e discrepancies, i.e. t%e precise location o& t%e stab, 8pm vs />?pm,
E minute interval, are minor and inconse1uential. 9is presence does not
indicate innocence. "%at!
*reac%ery is present, since a&ter t%e end o& t%e -$%t, t%ey snuc# up on
%im "it% "eapons. Evident premeditation is 0O* present. . lapse o& E
minutes is not enou$% &or calm and cool re'ection.
(ela Cru* v. .ison
Facts
.ppeal &rom validity o& Deed o& )ale. Complainant Epi&ania D(C died
durin$ C. pendency, substituted by niece (aureana. Epi&ania alle$ed t%at in
199D, s%e discovered t%at %er Pan$asinan riceland "as trans&erred to %er
nep%e", Eduardo )ison, t%rou$% a Deed o& )ale dated 1989. )%e -led a
complaint "it% t%e 3*C to declare it null on t%e $round o& &raud, as %e
inserted it in t%e middle o& t%e docs o& trans&er to Demetrio.
)pouses )ison denied &raud, since t%e Deed "as notari=ed, and "as
investi$ated by t%e D.3, evidenced by a6davits and Certi-cations &rom t%e
P.3 and t%e payment o& C7*. *%ey bore %er si$nature. *%ey alle$ed
possession since 1989, corroborated by t%e careta#er. *%e 3*C ruled in %er
&avor, notin$ s%e %ad D residence certs &or 1989, and t%at s%e %ad no reason
to sell since s%e "as doin$-ne, but t%e C. %eld t%e sale valid.
Issues
Whether or not the sale is valid.
%eld&Ratio
Valid. )%e asserts t%at s%e "as 89 yFo and unable to read and
understand en$lis%, but s%e testi-ed t%at s%e :read t%e document on top:.
Curt%er, t%e 3*C noted mental acuity durin$ %er testimony. . comparison o&
t%e Deeds &or Demetrio and Eduardo s%o"s $larin$ di@erences t%at cannot be
missed. Di@erent type"riter "it% a bi$$er &ont, di@erent date, di@erent
residence cert. number.
Curt%er, t%e deed "as notari=ed. Gn&ortunately, t%e notary public %as
died. *%us, t%e rule t%at ac#no"led$ed documents are public documents
admissible "it%out proo& o& aut%enticity and due e+ecution, t%ey are
presumed re$ular, and Epi&ania &ailed to rebut t%is t%rou$% clear and
convincin$ evidence.
*%ou$% s%e %ad ban# accounts, s%e %ad stopped ma#in$ ba$oon$, and
%er deposit decreased &rom 1M to >H/#, s%o"in$ t%at s%e needed money. *%e
possibility o& sale &or cas% is t%us not remote, considerin$ t%at D? days later,
s%e sold to Demetrio.
*%e series o& o6cial actsleadin$ to t%e trans&er lends credence -
a6davit o& tenant, D.3 investi$ation report, a6davit o& trans&eror, P.3
clearance, 3evenue District O6cer approval, appearance t"ice be&ore t%e
Municipal .$rarian 3e&orm o6cer, D.3 visitors lo$boo#. *oo varied to %ave
accomplis%ed t%rou$% &raud. Even Demetrio said t%e land "as sold to
Eduardo.
Coercial 0ists
.tate v. 0ungs#ord
Facts
.pril 198E, (un$s&ord "as arrested &or possession o& a 19/8 Plymout%
3oad 3unner stolen in 4anuary &rom 4ames <ilton. <ilton "as not presented.
(un$s&ord stated t%at %e bou$%t it &rom 4ames (a", "%o "as also not
presented. (un$s&ord decries t%e admission o& certain %earsay evidence t%e
0.*B *race and a Criminal 5nvesti$ation 3eport o& t%e Edison Police Dept.
*%e manner in "%ic% t%e police attempted to prove possession durin$
arrest. Car %as t%ree distin$uis%in$ numbers - V50, C)0 Icon-dential serial
number, &actory order number &or C%ryslerJ, and P)0 Ipac#in$ slip numberJ!.
9ere, as t%ere "as no V50, a trace t%rou$% t%e C)0 "as conducted. *%e trace
resulted in a V50 in t%e name o& <ilton, but t%e V50 did not completely matc%.
9FD, /8F88.
*%e )tate alle$ed t%at (un$s&ord stole it and $ot a V50 ta$ &rom a
similar ve%icle. 5t produced an investi$ation report &rom <ilton, "%ic%
contained an incorrect V50. )$t. Barrett testi-ed t%at %e p%oned <ilson and
t%en obtained t%e correct V50 t%at matc%ed t%e C)0 o& t%e stolen ve%icle.
(e#ense - 9e bou$%t i& &rom 4ames (a", and t%at its "inds%ield "as
later bro#en, and i$nition stolen. 9e said %e bou$%t ne" seats, and replaced
t%e en$ine and radiator. 0o receipts "ere produced. 5t "as later re-re$istered
even t%ou$% t%e re$istration s%o"ed blue, "%en it "as actually $ray. *%e V50
"as di@erent.
*%e )tate relied on t%e 0.*B;s 0ational .utomotive *%e&t Bureau!
trace. 5t is a nonpro-t corporation -nanced by 9EK o& t%e industry.
Issues
Whether 0ungs#ord is guilty.
%eld&Ratio
0o. BO*9 *9E 0.*B .0D PO(5CE 3EPO3* .3E 50.DM5))5B(E. *%e
entire case rests upon t%e trace conducted by t%e 0.*B. *%e 1uali-cation o&
evidence is t%at it must be publis%ed &or use by persons en$a$ed in t%at
occupation and is $enerally considered use&ul and reliable, the 1udge ust
be convinced o# these. *%e rational is t%at t%eir use is necessary, it is
di6cult to call all "%o participated in its compilation. *%ere is reason to rely
on its accuracy since t%e success o& a business depends t%ereon. *%e basis o&
trust"ort%iness is $eneral reliance by t%e public or a particular se$ment, t%e
motivation o& t%e compiler is to &oster reliance t%rou$% accuracy. E+amples -
pedi$ree re$ister o& animals, s%ippin$ re$ister, :5ron .$e:, bible o& t%e steel
industry, *%e Mornin$ *ele$rap%.
9o"ever, in a case o& a stolen "eapon "%erein t%e prosecution relied
on a computer report &rom t%e 0ational Crime 5n&ormation Center, it "as
ruled inadmissible. 5t "as not s%o"n %o" and "%en t%e in&ormation "as
passed, %o" and "%o &ed t%e in&ormation into t%e computer, "%o
pro$rammed it, %o" t%e data "as retrieved, and t%e accuracy. %ere! the
2-T3 is inadissible, it "ould have been had there been a hearing
establishing trust"orthiness and reliance.
.lso, (un$s&ord 1uestions t%e admissibility o& t%e 3eport o& t%e Edison
Police Dept. "%ic% "as admitted as a :Business Entry:. )ince t%e )tate could
not locate <ilton, it relied on t%e in&ormation <ilton alle$edly $ave to t%e
police about %is stolen car. *%is is t%e only evidence t%ereo&.
)$t. Barrett "as presented to prove t%at it "as made in t%e ordinary
course o& business. *%e report "as actually made by Detective Vittello, "%o
"as not produced. 9e recorded in %and"ritin$ t%e statement. Barrett "as t%e
one "%o recorded t%e corrected V50 a&ter callin$ <ilton.
Inadissible. Police records, alt%ou$% business records, cannot be
ve%icles to con&er admissibility to %earsay declarations - it cannot be
predicated merely on t%e circumstance on t%at it "as made to an o6cer "%o
parap%rased it. i.e. t%e o6cer must %ave personal or o6cial #no"led$e! *%e
criteria o& 1! recordin$ in t%e usual course o& business and D! t%e declarant
is under duty to supply it trut%&ully must be met. *%e second criteria is not
present, since citi=ens are not under a business duty to ma#e an %onest
report.
P2OC .hipping v. C-
Facts
4566 - MFV Maria E-$enia LV collided "it% Petroparcel (u=on
)tevedorin$! at Batan$as. *%e BM5 &ound t%e Petroparcel at &ault. E-$enia
sued (u=on )tevedorin$, later substituted by P0OC as o"ner. *%rou$%
amendment, it prayed &or t%e value o& t%e vessel and its e1uipment, as "ell
as losses due to unreali=ed pro-ts and in'ation. *%e 3*C ruled in E-$enia;s
&avor &or P/.H million.
5t relied on its 7eneral Mana$er Del 3osario "%o testi-ed as to its
car$o o& -s%, en$ines, radar, and compass. 5t relied on 1uotations and
invoices o& t%e prices o& t%e vessel and its e1uipment, all dated 4576. P0OC
presented only a senior estimator "it% no documents and 1uotations, since it
"as :a sort o& secret sc%eme:. *%e C. a6rmed, citin$ t%e documentary
evidence as 1uotations, 2ournals, and price lists. 9ence, t%e appeal,
1uestionin$ t%e a"ard "%ic% "as not based on its actual value in 1988, and
t%e &ailure to prove t%e e+tent o& t%e dama$es.
Issues
Whether the a"ard is proper
%eld&Ratio
0o. 3educed to PDM nominal dama$es since t"o decades na.
.ctualFcompensatory dama$es must re'ect t%e value at t%e time o&
loss or destruction, compensation, and not in'iction o& penalty. E-$enia
proved dama$es t%rou$% its 7M;s sole testimony and 1uotations o& prices
made 1? years a&ter t%e loss. P0OC ob2ected on t%e $round o& lac# o&
aut%entication.
7M Del 3osario could not %ave testi-ed on t%e "ritin$s, as %e is not t%e
aut%or, %e does not %ave personal #no"led$e t%ereo&. Curt%er, since %e "as
t%e o"ner, %is testimony may be sel&-servin$.
*%e price 1uotations are %earsay, since t%e persons "%o made t%em
"ere not presented. They are not adissible under any e8ception. .
commercial list is admissiblei& 1! it is a statement o& matters o& interest to
persons en$a$ed in an occupation, D! t%e statement is contained in alist,
re$ister, periodical, or ot%er publis%ed compilation, >! said compilation is
publis%ed &or t%e use o& persons en$a$ed in t%at occupation, and H! it is
$enerally used and relied upon by said persons.
*%e e+%ibits are mere price 1uotations. *%ey are not publis%ed. *%ey
are not standard periodicals or %andboo#s. They are siply letters
responding to (el Rosario+s $ueries. Even i& t%e C. admitted t%em on t%e
$round o& caution, %earsay evidence cannot be $iven probative value.
.dmissibility MFM value.
0evert%eless, nominal dama$es are in order. E-$enia claimed
P8??,??? in its amended complaint, "%ic% can be used as basis &or nominal
dama$es.
Minor issue o& 2urisdiction reA lo" doc#et &ee o& P1,DED - payable later
on as a lien. 3aised only a&ter 2ud$ment.
Prior Testiony
Tan v. C-
Facts
4uly 19EE - Carmelita and 3odol&o *an, t%rou$% t%eir mot%er Celestina,,
sued 3espondent Crancisco *an &or ac#no"led$ment and support.
Marc% 19E/ - Celestina, a&ter presentin$ evidence, moved to dismiss
on t%e $round o& an amicable settlement. On t%e same day, t%e subscribed
an a6davit statin$ t%at Crancisco *an is not t%e &at%er. *%e CC5 allo"ed it.
0ovember 19E8 - Carmelita and 3odol&o, t%rou$% t%eir $rand&at%er,
commenced t%e same action. 5t "as dismissed in 19/? on t%e $round o& 3es
4udicata. 5t "as reconsidered in 19/1, "it% 2ud$ment rendered in t%eir &avor.
*%e C. reversed. *%e c%ildren t%us appeal in forma pauperis be&ore t%e )C.
Issues
Whether the testionies o# their "itnesses in the prior case
are adissible,
Whether they are entitled to ac/no"ledgent and support.
%eld&Ratio
0o and 0o. *%ey "ere subpoenad multiple times, but did not appear.
*%ey are not dead. *%ey are "it%in t%e P%ilippines. *%ey "ere not unable, i.e.
some $rave cause suc% as disease or inability to spea#. *%ey only re&used.
*%e remedies o& contemptFbenc% "arrant "ere available but not availed o&.
*%ey alle$ed t%at Celestina and Crancisco co%abited &rom 19>/ to
19HH. Crancisco denied t%is as a married man. Celestina "as a yaya, but only
in 19>9. Carmelita and 3odol&o "ere born 19HD and 19HH. )%e %ersel& made
an a6davit pointin$ to anot%er man as t%e &at%er.
*%e baptismal certi-cates "ere admissible &or &ailure to comply "it%
statute. *%e period o& co%abitation "as not proved, so t%e certs "ere
immaterial to prove birt%date. *%eir testimonies "ere inconsistent, and
Celestina "as o& loose c%aracter.
Ohio v. Roberts
Facts
198E - 9ersc%el 3oberts "as arrested &or &or$ery o& a c%ec# in t%e
name o& Bernard 5saacs, and possession o& stolen credit cards belon$in$ t%e
t%e )p. 5saacs. . preliminary %earin$ "as %eld in t%e Municipal Court, and t%e
De&ense called .nita 5saacs, t%e dau$%ter, as t%e lone "itness. )%e testi-ed
t%at s%e #ne" %im and allo"ed %im to use %er apartment, s%e re&used to say
t%at s%e $ave t%e cards and c%ec#s to %im. *%e prosecution did not 1uestion
%er. 9e "as t%en indicted &or &or$ery, t%e stolen cards, and &or %eroin
possession.
Cive subpoenas "ere t%en issued to .nita, "%o &ailed to respond and
appear. .&ter t%e case "ent to trial, 3oberts too# t%e stand and testi-ed t%at
.nita 5saacs $ave %im t%e c%ec#boo# and cards "it% t%e understandin$ t%at
%e could use t%em. *%e prosecution presented .nita;s prior testimony,
relyin$ on a Code t%at allo"s t%e use o& prelim. e+amination testimony o& a
"itness "%o cannot &or any reason be produced.
*%e de&ense ob2ected on t%e $round o& t%e Con&rontation Clause. .t a
voir dire %earin$, it "as &ound t%at .nita le&t &or %ome a&ter t%e e+amination,
and "as at )anCo a year be&ore trial due to a "el&are application. )%e called
%er parents only once, 8F8 mont%s prior to say s%e "as :travelin$: outside
O%io. *%ere "as no "ay to reac% %er. *%e *C t%en admitted t%e transcript and
convicted %im. *%e C. reversed &or lac# o& a $ood &ait% e@ort to secure
attendance prior to t%e %earin$ no s%o"in$ o& &ailure o& service!. *%e state
disa$reed "it% t%e C.;s reasonin$, but still %eld it inadmissible, since t%e
mere opportunity to cross does not su6ce.
Issues
Whether the testiony is adissible
%eld&Ratio
Nes. *%e Con&rontation Clause operates in t"o "ays 1! t%e production
or unavailability o& a declarant, and D! "%en unavailable, only %earsay
mar#ed "it% suc% trust"ort%iness t%at t%ere is no material departure &rom
t%e reason o& t%e 73 is admissible. *%ey must bear an indicia o& reliability, i.e.
a@ordin$ a satis&actory basis &or evaluatin$ t%e trut% o& t%e prior statement.
9e must be unavailable .0D reliable, -rmly rooted %earsay e+ception.
5n 7reen, Porter pro&essed a lapse o& memory at trial, Prosec presented
%is prior statements, and "ere properly admitted, since t%e preliminary
%earin$ appro+imated trial, "it% same counsel and opportunity to cross.
5n t%is case, t%e de&ense;s 1uestionin$ partoo# o& cross-e+amination,
"it% leadin$ 1uestions all around. <%ile s%e "as not 1uali-ed as %ostile, it is
substantially a cross, complyin$ "it% t%e con&rontation re1uirement. *%e &act
t%at %e %ad a di@erent la"yer is immaterial. Due to ade1uate opportunity to
cross, t%ere is su6cient indicia o& reliability.
.s to absence or unavailability, $ood &ait% and reasonableness are t%e
test. 5n t%is case, E subpoenas "ere issued over several mont%s. 9er parents
tried to locate %er a&ter t%e "el&are o6cer;s call, and siblin$s did not #no"
%o" to reac% %er. *%ese su6ce, even t%ou$% %indsi$%t mi$%t indicate ot%er
courses. *%e possibility o& a re&usal is not t%e e1uivalent o& as#in$ and
receivin$ a rebu@.
Opinion Rule
(ilag v. 9erced
Dila$ O Co. o"ned a 19>8 5nternational truc#, entrusted to Cor)ec
Dila$ &or t%e business. 5n 19HH, t%e %ei$%t o& t%e occupation, it "as stolen in
(a$una. .&ter liberation, Dila$ sa" t%e truc# in )an Pablo in 19HE and %ad it
sei=ed. *%ou$% %e -led a complaint &or t%e&t -led a$ainst Merced, Ben, Pua,
and Pandueta, it "as dismissed. *%e company t%us -led t%is civil action &or
recovery and dama$es. Merced retained possession due to a counterbond.
Merced claims %e bou$%t it &rom Ben. Ben and Pua claim to %ave
bou$%t it &rom Pandueta. Pandueta "as in de&ault. *%e CC5 ruled Dila$ t%e
o"ner and absolved Ben and Pua &rom dama$es. Merced appeals.
Issues
Whether (ilag is the o"ner
Whether 9erced is liable #or (aages
Whether 0i 3en is liable to 9erced #or (aages
%eld&Ratio
Nesyesyes. Merced relies o& in certi-ed copy o& t%e re$istration cert. &or
truc# "it% motor no. 9D D>D DD1E8. Dila$ proved t%at it "as tampered, only
t%e last t%ree di$its are di@erent. .lso, %e pointed out distin$uis%in$ &eatures,
i.e. 1! t%e $eneral appearance, D! paint on t%e %ood, >! "ooden runnin$
board, H! iron bars on t%e "inds%ield, E! "elded tie rod, /! "elded propeller
s%a&t, 8! %al& inc% scre" on t%e cylinder %ead, 8! %ole in t%e radiator. 9e "as
corroborated by %is mec%anic "%o described t%e repairs.
Merced says > to / "ere all %is doin$, and t%at t%ese "ere all visible at
a $lance. 0o.
.lso, Dila$ %ad a "or#in$ #ey "it% no si$ns o& alteration Bri$$s and
)tratton!, "%ile Merced %ad a scratc%ed up #ey Cabinet (oc# Co.!, a cabinet
#ey converted &or t%e truc#. 0ot presented, only described in t%e minutes
&rom t%e crimcase!
*%e certi-cation o& re$istration is not conclusive in vie" o& t%e
tamperin$. *%e last t%ree di$its are lar$er and out o& ali$nment, t%e 8 is
inverted, t%e E is lo"er. -guilar o# the 3ureau o# Public Wor/s testifed
on the alteration. 0ot 1uali-ed da" as an e+pert, but %e %as been "it% t%e
Bureau since 19>? as inspector in c%ar$e. *%ere is not precise re1uirement as
to t%e mode in "%ic% s#ill or e+perience is ac1uired. . "itness can be an
e+pert even "it%out scienti-c study and trainin$. 0o special study is needed.
*%e certi-cate is li#ely &or a di@erent truc#, made to apply to t%is one t%rou$%
t%e en$ine number;s alteration.
Dama$es are proper at PE,???,and it is not e+cessive, since %e %imsel&
testi-ed t%at it earned PH?? daily. *ime o& -lin$Ftime o& loss irrelevant t%usly.
(im Ben is liable &or implied "arranty a$ainst eviction, as %e "as
impleaded. But since no actual eviction yet, dama$es are o be computed
a&ter e+ecution o& 2ud$ment and presentation o& evidence o& value.
:... v. Trono
Facts
Murder o& Pere=. (ate at ni$%t o& Ceb. H, 19?>, Pere=, 7uevarra, and
Bautista "ere arrested in t%eir %ouses by *rono, Ma+imo, et al., members o&
t%e municipal police. *%ey "ere suspected o& t%e&t o& a revolver belon$in$ to
Ma+imo .n$eles. *%ey "ere ta#en to )apan$-.n$elo, "%ere t%ey "ere
beaten. Pere= "as %eard sayin$ :Ma+imo, %ave pity on me or else #ill me at
once:.
On t%e "ay bac# to t%e municipal buildin$, Pere= %ad to lean on a
policeman t%e "%ole distance and "as unable to stand. *%ey "ere
disc%ar$ed t%e ne+t day by t%e municipal president, and not%in$ "as brou$%t
a$ainst t%em.9is brot%er, Estanislao, %ad to &etc% %im on a boat, and %e %ad
to $o to bed. *%e mot%er, seein$ %is condition, c%ar$ed t%em all o& attempted
%omicide. Pere= "as unable to eat, urinated blood, and "as in $reat pain. 9e
died t%e ne+t day.
Issues
Whether or not they are guilty.
%eld&Ratio
Nes. Ma+imo and *rono sentenced. Bautista and 7uevara testi-ed to
%earin$ blo"s and $roans. *%ey "ere corroborated by )antos and Espedirion,
"%o "as sent by Pere=;s mom to &ollo". 0o need to see, and "as evidenced
by complaints o& pain, as "ell as bruises.
*%e municipal president testi-ed &or t%e de&ense, statin$ t%at Pere=
"as ill, %e in1uired since %e "as pale. 0o credit, since mere pallor "ould not
ordinarily attract attention - rat%er, %e "as partial to *rono, since %e re&used
to testi&y as to :&amily secrets.:
Dr. 5casiano "as obviously in &avor o& *rono, but "as &orced to certi&y
%is in2uries. *%ou$% t%e de&ense contends t%at t%e deat% "as not due to t%e
in2uries, but due to %epatic colic by %ypertrop%ic cirr%osis, t%is is not $iven
credit. 0ot%in$ "as s%o"n to corroborate drun#enness. *%e Dr. re&erred to
C%olera and "anted %im buried 1uic#ly under t%e pretense, but mot%er says
no ailments. Prior to t%at, %e even said ri'e blo"s "ere t%e cause. .lso, t%e
Dr. stated t%at %e "ent on &oot, but t%is is incorrect, as %e "as compelled to
do so and under support. 9e is also an intimate &riend o& Ma+imo .n$eles.
E+pert testimony is "ort%y evidence, but not e+clusive nor bindin$.
Cree to "ei$% and counterbalance.