RULE CITATION FACTS
Rule 128 Rico Rommel Private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal
Admissibility Atienza Medical Center to submit for a check up due to
of evidence vs. her lumbar pains. Her diagnostic laboratory
Board of Medicine test results revealed that her right kidney was
and Editha Sioson normal while her left kidney was non-
functioning and non-visualizing. Hence, she
G.R. No. 177407 underwent kidney operation under the care of
February 9. 2011 the four physicians namely: Dr. Judd dela
Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin III, Dr. Gerardo
Antonio and petitioner Dr. Rico Rommel
Atienza.
It was alleged in the complaint that the gross
negligence and/or incompetence committed by
the said doctors, including petitioner, consists
of the removal of private respondents fully
functional right kidney, instead of the left non-
functioning and non-visualizing kidney.
Private respondent filed a complaint against
the four doctors before the Board of
Medicine. Private respondent therein offered
four certified photocopies of X-ray Requests as
her documentary evidence to prove that her
kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time that she was operated.
The Board of Medicine admitted the formal
offer despite the objection of herein petitioner.
ISSUE RULING
1. Whether the 1. No. The subject of the inquiry
exhibits are in this case is whether the doctors
inadmissible are liable for gross negligence in
evidence on the removing the right functioning
ground that it kidney of Editha instead of the left
violates the best non-functioning kidney, not the
evidence rule. proper anatomical locations of
Edithas kidneys. The proper
2. Whether the anatomical locations of Edithas
exhibits are kidneys at the time of her operation
inadmissible at the RMC may be established not
evidence on the only through the exhibits offered in
ground that they evidence.
have not been
properly identified In fact, the introduction of
and authenticated. secondary evidence is allowed.
Section 3, Rule 130 provides that
3. Whether the when the subject of the inquiry is the
exhibits are contents of the document, no
inadmissible evidence shall be admissible other
evidence on the than the original document itself,
ground that it is except when the original has been
completely hearsay. lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court without bad faith
on the offeror. Since the original
documents cannot be produced
based on the testimony of Dr.
Aquino BOM properly admitted
Petitioner contends that the documentary
evidence offered were inadmissible as it were
incompetent.
Further, he alleged that the same documents
were not properly identified and authenticated,
violate the best evidence rule and his
substantive rights, and are completely hearsay.
Edithas formal offer of evidence,
and thereafter, the BOM shall
determine the probative value
thereof when it decides the case.
2. No, the documentary
evidence were properly identified
and authenticated. The records show
that the exhibits offered by private
respondent were the same evidence
attached in Doctor Lantin's counter-
affidavit filed before the Office of
the City Prosecutor in answer to the
criminal complaint of the
respondent. To lay the predicate for
her case, private respondent offered
the exhibits in evidence to prove that
her kidneys were both in their proper
anatomical locations at the time of
her operation.
3. No, these exhibits do not
constitute hearsay evidence. The
anatomical positions whether left or
right, of Edithas kidneys, and the
removal of one or both, may still be
established through a belated
ultrasound or x-ray of her abdominal
area.
Rule 128 Torralba The accused was charged with four counts of
Admissibility vs. libel. One of the evidence was a tape recording
of evidence People of the radio broadcast which recording was
G. R. No. 153699 made either by the daughter of the complainant
Aug. 22, 2005 or his housemaid, He maintained, however,
that he was near the radio whenever the
recording took place and had actually heard
petitioner Torralbas radio program while it
was being taped. This prompted petitioner
Torralba to pose a continuing objection to the
admission of the said tape recordings for lack
of proper authentication by the person who
actually made the recordings.
Whether or not the It is generally held that sound
tape recordings can recording is not inadmissible
be admitted as because of its form where a proper
evidence. foundation has been laid to
guarantee the genuineness of the
recording. In our jurisdiction, it is a
rudimentary rule of evidence that
before a tape recording is admissible
in evidence and given probative
value, the following requisites must
first be established, to wit:
1. a showing that the
recording device was
capable of taking testimony;
2. a showing that the
operator of the device was
competent;
3. establishment of the
authenticity and correctness
of the recording;
4. a showing that changes,
additions, or deletions have
not been made;
5. a showing of the manner
of the preservation of the
recording;
 6. identification of the
speakers; and
7. a showing that the
testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without
any kind of inducement.
Rule 128 Samalio Weng Sai Qin, a Chinese with Uruguayan Whether or not the Yes. The provisions of the Rules of
Scope vs. passport, was taken to Augusto R. Samalio, Rules on Evidence Court may be applied suppletorily to
Court of Appeals Intelligence Officer of the Bureau of applies in the the rules of procedure of
454 SCRA 462 Immigration and Deportation (BID), because administrative case. administrative bodies exercising
her passport was suspected to be fake. Qin paid quasi-judicial powers, unless
G.R. No. 140079
Samalio $500 in exchange of her passport but otherwise provided by law or the
March 31, 2005
Samalio returned Qins passport without an rules of procedure of the
immigration arrival stamp. Thereafter, a administrative agency concerned.
criminal case for robbery and violation of the
Immigration Law was filed against Samalio in The Rules of Court, which are meant
the Sandiganbayan, as well as an to secure to every litigant the
administrative case for dishonesty, oppression adjective phase of due process of
and misconduct. Samalio was found guilty of law, may be applied to proceedings
the charges in both proceedings and was before an administrative body with
ordered dismissed from service by the BID quasi-judicial powers in the absence
Commissioner, and such decision was of different and valid statutory or
affirmed by the Civil Service Commission administrative provisions
(CSC), the Secretary of Justice and the Court prescribing the ground rules for the
of Appeals. The CSC and the Secretary of investigation, hearing and
Justice took cognizance of the testimony of adjudication of cases before it.
Weng Sai Qin in the Sandiganbayan case,
applying Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
Rule 128 Dr. DELA LLANA Dra. dela Llana suffered minor wounds due to car Whether her The medical certificate has no
Admissibility vs. collision with Rebecca Biong . She suffered medical certificate probative value for being hearsay.
of evidence BIONG minor wounds and began to feel mild to It is a basic rule that
 G.R. No. 182356 moderate pain on the left side of hernneck and is an admissible
March 12, 2013 shoulder. The pain became more intense as days evidence.
passed by. Her injury became more severe.
Thus she demanded from Biong compensation for
her injuries, but she refused to pay. This made her sue
Biong for damages and presented her medical
certificate as one of her evidence. The RTC
ruled in favor of Dra. dela Llana but was
reversed by the CA.
Rule 128 People Ferdinand Matito was charged with murder,
Collateral v. committed against Mariano Raymundo, Jr.
Matters Matito The prosecution presented the following
G.R. No. 144405 during the trial: (1) testimony of the widow
February 24, 2004 that her husband, prior to his death, declared
that it was appellant who had gunned him
down; (2) the presence of nitrate powder on
the cast taken from the right hand of appellant;
(3) the bitter quarrel that ensued between
Matito and the victim after the latter had cut off
the formers water supply; (4) the denial by
Matito of the request of his neighbors
(including the victim) to widen the right of way
along the premises of his house; and (5) hours
before the victim was killed, the threatening
remarks of appellant to the formers daughter.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Matito.
evidence, whether oral or
documentary, is hearsay if its
probative value is not based on the
personal knowledge of the witness
but on the knowledge of another
person who is not on the witness
stand. Hearsay evidence, whether
objected to or not, cannot be given
credence except in very unusual
circumstance that is not found in
the present case.
Whether or not the Yes. Circumstantial evidence, when
evidence of the demonstrated with clarity and
prosecution is forcefulness, may be the sole basis
sufficient to convict of a criminal conviction. It cannot be
the accused. overturned by bare denials or
hackneyed alibis.
Circumstantial evidence is defined
as that evidence that "indirectly
proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact-finder
draws from the evidence
established. Resort thereto is
essential when the lack of direct
testimony would result in setting a
felon free." It is not a weaker form
of evidence vis--vis direct
evidence. Cases have recognized
that in its effect upon the courts, the
former may surpass the latter in
weight and probative force. To

Rule 128 People Appellant Paulino Sevilleno was charged for
Collateral v. rape with homicide, committed against
Matters Sevilleno Virginia Bakia. The RTC convicted appellant
based on the following circumstances
G.R. No. 152954 presented by the prosecution: (1) appellant
March 10, 2004 invited the victim to watch a "beta-show"; (2)
victim and the appellant proceed to a sugarcane
field in Hacienda San Antonio, the place where
the corpse of the victim was found; (3) the
appellant emerge from the sugarcane field
alone and without the victim, with fresh
scratches on his face, neck and both arms; (4)
the multiple scratches suffered by the appellant
on the right side of his face and ears were all
caused by human fingernails; and (5) the
victim suffered hymenal laceration,
contusions, abrasions and hematoma on
different parts of her body and was strangled
warrant a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, the
following requisites must concur:
(1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to
produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. The totality of the
evidence must constitute an
unbroken chain showing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
Whether or not the Yes. The rules on evidence and
prosecution precedents to sustain the conviction
evidence is of an accused through
sufficient to convict circumstantial evidence require the
the accused. presence of the following requisites:
(1) there are more than one
circumstance; (2) the inference must
be based on proven facts; and (3) the
combination of all circumstances
produces a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused. To justify a conviction
upon circumstantial evidence, the
combination of circumstances must
be such as to leave no reasonable
doubt in the mind as to the criminal
liability of the appellant.
Jurisprudence requires that the
 resulting to her death which indicated that
there was a struggle and the victim vigorously
put up a fight against her attacker. Sevilleno
appealed, contending that the scratches on his
face do not prove that they were inflicted by
Virginia, much less that he committed the
crime.
Rule 128 PEOPLE OF THE Ulysses Garcia et al. were convicted of
Admissibility PHILIPPINES qualified theft for stealing punctured currency
of evidence notes due for shredding in the total amount of
VS P194,190.00, belonging to the Central Bank of
the Philippines, where accused and others are
ULYSSES employed. Garcia had expressed in writing his
GARCIA willingness and readiness to give the Sworn
Statements without the assistance of counsel.
G.R. No. 145176 The prosecution presented three affidavits
March 30, 2004 allegedly executed by Garci. However
appellants aver that the alleged three Sworn
Statements of Garcia were obtained through
force and intimidation and without the
assistance of counsel.
circumstances must be established
to form an unbroken chain of events
leading to one fair reasonable
conclusion pointing to the appellant,
to the exclusion of all others, as the
author of the crime. The prosecution
were able to establish all of these.
Whether or not the The basic law specifically requires
affidavits are that any waiver of this right must be
admissible as made in writing and executed in the
evidence. presence of a counsel. In such case,
counsel must not only ascertain that
the confession is voluntarily made
and that the accused understands its
nature and consequences, but also
advise and assist the accused
continuously from the time the first
question is asked by the
investigating officer until the
signing of the confession.
Hence, the lawyers role cannot be
reduced to being that of a mere
witness to the signing of a pre-
prepared confession, even if it
indicated compliance with the
constitutional rights of the accused.
The accused is entitled to effective,
vigilant and independent counsel.
A waiver in writing, like that which
the trial court relied upon in the
present case, is not enough. Without
 the assistance of a counsel, the
waiver has no evidentiary relevance.
The Constitution states that [a]ny
confession or admission obtained in
violation of Section 12 shall be
inadmissible in evidence x x x.
Hence, the trial court was in error
when it admitted in evidence the
uncounseled confessions of Garcia
and convicted appellants on the
basis thereof.

Mark Michael M. Resuello