You are on page 1of 20

Rule 128, secs. 1-4 II.

What Need Not Be Proved

1. Reyes v. Court of Appeals 216 SCRA 25 (1993) A. Rule 129, Secs. 1-4;; Rule 10, Sec. 8

2. People v. Turco 337 SCRA 714 (2000) B. Cases:

B. Relevance: 1. Judicial Notice

1. Sections 3 & 4, Rule 128 (a) City of Manila v. Garcia 19 SCRA 413 (1967)

2. Bautista v. Aperece 51 O.G. 805 (1995) (b) Baguio vs. Vda. de Jalagat 42 SCRA 337 (1971)

3. Lopez v. Heesen (c) Prieto v. Arroyo 14 SCRA 549 (1965)

4. State v. Ball 339 S.W2d 783 (1960) (d) Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales 167 SCRA 736 (1988)

C. Competence: (e) Tabuena v. CA 196 SCRA 650 (1991)

1. Section 3, Rule 128. (f) People v. Godoy 250 SCRA 676 (1995)

2. Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution, e.g., (g) BPI-Savings v. CTA 330 SCRA 507 (2000)

(a) Sections 2 and 3, Art. III 2. Judicial Admissions

(b) Section 12, Art. III (a) Lucido v. Calupitan

(c) Section 17, Art. III (b) Torres v. CA

3. Statutory Rules of Exclusion, e.g., (c) Bitong V. CA

(a) Section 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997

(b) R.A. 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits


RULE 128
(c) R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Wiretapping Act
REYES V. CA
i) Ganaan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112 (1986)

ii) Salcedo-Orta.ez v. CA 235 SCRA 111 (1994) LA p.9 FACTS: Petitioners Romeo Reyes, Angel Parayao and Emilio
Mananghaya question the respondent Courts decision, which
iii) Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
affirmed with modification the agrarian courts
decision, which ordered them and the other defendants of rentals, irrigation fees and other taxes due the government,
therein to, among others, restore possession of the disputed as his defenses.
landholding to private respondent, Eufrocina Vda. dela Cruz.
Petitioners now bring the present Petition for Review on
Juan Mendoza, father of defendant Olympio, is the owner of Certiorari.
farm lots in Bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga. Devoted to the
ISSUE: WN the affidavits filed by Eufrocina de la Cruz and Efren
production of palay, the lots were tenanted and cultivated by
Tecson admissible as evidence?
now deceased Julian dela Cruz, husband of plaintiff Eufrocina
dela Cruz. HELD: Since this is an agrarian case, Section 16 of PD 946 provides
that the Rules of Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even
Eufrocina alleged that her husbands death, she succeeded
in a suppletory character. In the same provision, it allowed affidavits
him as bona fide tenant of the subject lots; that Olympio, in and counter-affidavits as admissible in evidence. In agrarian cases
conspiracy with the other defendants, prevented her daughter like in the case at bar, the quantum of evidence required is
Violeta and her workers through force, intimidation, strategy "substantial evidence" which is more than a scintilla, or 'such
and stealth, from entering and working on the subject relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
premises; and that until the filing of the instant case, to support a conclusion.
defendants had refused to vacate and surrender the lots, thus
Thus, petitioners are liable. The evidence presented before
violating her tenancy rights. Plaintiff therefore prayed for
the trial court and CA served as basis in arriving at their
judgment for the recovery of possession and damages with a
findings of fact. The Supreme Court will not analyze such
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the meantime.
evidence all over again because settled is the rule that only
Defendant barangay officials denied interference in the questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
tenancy relationship existing between plaintiff and defendant on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court absent the
Mendoza, particularly in the cultivation of the latters farm exceptions which do not obtain in the instant case.
lots and asked for the dismissal of the case, moral damages
In agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence is no more
and attorneys fees.
than substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not
Mendoza raised abandonment, sublease and mortgage of the necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is required in an
farm lots without his consent and approval, and non-payment ordinarily civil case. It has been defined to be such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to testimony during direct examination, no other evidence was
support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing presented. Although medical certificate was presented, medico
that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or legal officer was not present at the trial.
circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its
own judgment or criteria for that of the trial court in
determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what ISSUE: W/N court can find accused guilty of rape based only on the
evidence is entitled to belief. testimonies of the complainant and witnesses - yes

W/N medical certificate is admissible despite absence of medico


legal officer yes
PEOPLE V. TURCO

FACTS: Rodegelio Turco was charged by RTC with the crime of rape.
The victim was his 13 year old second cousin, Escalea Tabada. Upon RATIO: 3 guiding principles in review of rape cases: 1. Accusation of
reaching home, Escalea heard a call from outside. She recognized rape can be made with facility; difficult to prove on the part of
the voice and when she asked who it was, the party introduced complainant, more difficult to disprove for accused
himself as Turco. When she opened the door, Turco covered her 2. In view of intrinsic nature of rape where only 2 persons are
face with a towel and placed his right hand on her neck. He led her usually involved, testimony of complainant is given importance and
to her fathers pig pen where he forced her to lie down and scrutinized with extreme caution
mounted her. After consummating the act, Turco kissed her and
held her breasts. He threatened her that he will kill her if she 3. Evidence of prosecution stands or fails on its own merits and
reports the incident. She reported the incident after 10 days and a cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of evidence
complaint was immediately filed. At the trial, Turco pleaded not of defense. Thus, the credibility of the complainant is a paramount
guilty and presented the sweetheart defense. importance, and if her testimony proves credible, the accused may
be convicted on the basis thereof.
Trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer penalty of
reclusion perpetua + Php 50,000 moral damages. Turco appealed ** The primordial consideration in a determination concerning the
arguing that Court erred in ruling that prosecution, based only crime of rape is the credibility of complainants testimony. Court
on affidavits and oral testimonies, was able to prove beyond held that testimony of complainant Escalea Tabada must be given
reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. Aside from written credence: 1. Declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who
statement of complainant before the police station and her are young and immature deserve full credence. 2. Court also took
cognizance of the fact that complainant was poor and illiterate. restored to Aparece. However, claiming that the property belongs
Court believes that these people value their virginity which like a to him, and alleging that with the aid of armed men and pretending
mirror, once dropped and broken, can no longer be pieced to be owner, usurped the land, Bautista filed a complaint in the
together, not ever. 3. The victims relatively low intelligence Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bohol. The CFI rendered judgment
explains the lapses in her testimony. Lapses should be expected declaring Aparece as owner of the land.
when a person recounts details of an experience so humiliating
and painful as rape. 4. Victim had no motive to falsely testify against On appeal, Bautista raised as defense the error of the trial court in
admitting the public instrument which he executed as evidence. He
accused. No woman, especially one at a tender age, would concoct
argued that the document was executed under duress, violence,
a story of defloration.
and intimidation, and that the guerilla officer before whom it was
Sweetheart theory not true, merely concocted by accused to escape executed, had no jurisdiction over the matter.
criminal liability. No independent proof (i.e. love letters, etc.)

ISSUE(S): Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting as


RULE 128: RELEVANCE evidence, a public document executed before an officer who had no
jurisdiction over the matter.
BAUTISTA V. APERECE

FACTS: As owner of the lot subject of the case, Nicolas Anasco sold
the same to Valentin Justiniani. In the same year, Valentin sold this RULING: This argument is beside the point. The test for the
property to Claudio Justiniani, In October 12, 1935, Claudio admissibility or inadmissibility of a certain document is whether or
Justiniani executed a public instrument whereby he sold the same not it is relevant, material or competent. The public document is
property for P100 to Apolonio Aparece in whose name it was not only relevant, but is also material and competent to the issue of
assessed since 1935. While Aparece was in possession, ownership between the parties litigants. Relevant evidence is one
Hermogenes Bautista illegally entered a part of the land and took that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter
possession thereof. Thus, Aparece file a complaint with the guerilla probable in ac action. And evidence is said to be material when it is
forces then operating in the province of Bohol. When the case was directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of
called for hearing, and after inspection was made by a guerilla substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one
officer, Bautista executed a public instrument wherein he promised that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
to return the land to Aparece in good will, and recognized Apareces
lawful ownership over the land. Thus, possession of the land was
With these criteria in mind, we hold that the mere fact that the This brought the rifle down and the rifle discharged, the bullet
public document was executed before a guerilla officer does not hitting appellant Lopez, who was nearby. Lopez brought suit against
make the same as irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent to the Heesen for allegedly unlawfully assaulting him, thereby inflicting
main issue raised in the pleadings. The public document, dangerous and painful wounds. He also included as party-
considered together with the other evidence, documentary and defendant, the designer, manufacturer and seller of the rifle, Sears,
oral, satisfies the Court that the portions of land in question really for allegedly negligently designing and manufacturing the rifle
belong to defendant Aparece. bought by Heesen. Defendants presented expert testimony on the
general reputation of other firearms companies who use the same
modified leaf safety device as the Higgins Model 51. Lopez objected
LOPEZ V. HEESEN to this evidence on the ground that it was wholly immaterial and
irrelevant to any issue in the case. He likewise objected on the
FACTS: Appellee Heesen, an air Force officer, purchased a J.C. introduction of testimony on the poundage pressure required to
Higgins Model 51 30.06 rifle from the store of appellee Sears. The move the safety levers from safe to fire position on the ground of
rifle has a bolt action known as a Mausser type action with a irrelevance and immateriality. Lastly, he objected to the
Class 1 safety mechanism. At the time of the purchase, Heesen introduction of opinion evidence regarding the design of the safety
was given an instruction pamphlet which he read, explaining the mechanism, on the ground that it was a subject which is within the
composition of the rifle and gave operating instructions, including province of the jury to determine.
the method to be pursued to make the gun safe. Immediately
after the purchase, Heesen left for a deer hunting trip in an area
known as Ute Park. He placed a live cartridge in the chamber and ISSUE(S): Whether or not expert testimony on the general
placed the gun on safety position. He traveled a good deal during
reputation of other firearms companies using the same safety
the hours before the shooting and on one of two occasions, he device is material and relevant.
discovered the gun off safety position. This occurred when he had
come down a long hill covered with rocks and boulders. Heesen Whether or not testimony on the poundage pressure required is
was not aware that the rifle moved from safe to fire position at relevant and material.
least twice before the shooting. Ten minutes before the accident
began, he left the knoll and he was carrying the gun on his shoulder. Whether or not the design of the safety mechanism was a proper
He later heard a rustle and saw a deer go between some trees. subject of expert testimony.
When he followed the deer, his left foot went down hard on the
ground on one side of a log and his right foot slipped on the grass.
RULING: The expert testimony is admissible. The allegations on the STATE V. BALL
ultimate facts in issue involve whether the Higgins Model 51 rifle
was in a dangerous and defective condition due to its negligent FACTS: Ball appeals from an order of the trial court, convicting him
manufacture, in that the safety mechanism moved re4adily from of robbery. At about 2:30 in the afternoon, two colored men, one of
safe to fire position. This is an issue, the proper understanding them tall and the other short, entered the Krekeler Jewelry Store.
of which, requires knowledge or experience and cannot be As the taller man looked at jewelry and made his purchase, the
determined independently merely from deductions made and shorter man looked in the cases and moved about in the store.
Later in the same day, at around 5:30 p.m., as John Krekeler was
inferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge. Moreover,
the conduct of others is proper evidence for a jury to consider, in placing the rings and watches in the safe preparing for the closing of
determining whether the tendency of the thing is dangerous, the store, the two men who had been in the store at 2:30, entered
defective, or the reverse. Considering these principles, the Court the store. They were immediately recognized by Krekeler,
held that the testimony as to the reputation of other firearms especially the taller mans narrow-brimmed tall hat, brown jacket,
companies using the same safety device is material and relevant to gray short and particularly a scar on his face. The shorter man
the issue of whether the safety device on the Higgins Model 51 was walked behind the counter and as Krekeler tried to intercept him,
unsafe or safe, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the man hit Krekeler on the face using a 0.38 long barreled pistol.
admitting this testimony. With the gun on his back, the two men directed Krekeler to go to
the watch repair department, then to the restroom, where he was
The testimony was introduced under Lopezs contention that the positioned, facing the wall. Thereafter, he could hear jewelry being
Higgins model was unsafe and thus, the issue arose as to the dumped in a bag, and the jingle of the car register. After hearing
poundage pressure required to move the safety lever from safe to the door slam, Krekeler call the police. He reported that the two
fire. It was then proper for Sears to show the amount of pressure men took $4,455.21 worth of watched and rings, and $140 in cash.
required to move the safety lever as this was relevant to the issue Three weeks later, Ball was arrested by Officers Powell and Ballard
posed. while walking in the street. Ball shoved Officer Powell over and ran
down the avenue. The officers ran after him and he was only
Expert testimony is admissible because the expert testimony was pacified when the Officers fired a bullet which fell in his back. Ball
upon the ultimate issue of whether or not the safety device was
claims that this evidence of flight was not material or relevant,
dangerous and defective. It was the proper subject of expert since it was too remote from the date of the robbery (3 weeks
testimony. It does not usurp the functions of the jury as the latter later), to indicate a consciousness of guilt. Ball likewise objected to
may still reject these opinions. Said opinion evidence is not binding the admissibility of the following articles found in his person during
on the jury. the arrest on grounds of immateriality and irrelevance: a brown felt
hat, a brownish windbreaker type jacket, trousers, gray shirt and elapsed, there was no proof that Ball had suddenly come into
shoes, and $258.02 in currency and two pennies. possession of the $258.02 and in all these circumstances the mere
possession of a quantity of money is in itself no indication that the
possessor was the taker of the money charged as taken, because in
ISSUES(S): Whether or not the evidence of flight is inadmissible for general all money of the same denomination and material is alike,
reason of remoteness to the time of the commission of the crime. and the hypothesis that the money found is the same as the money
taken is too forced and extraordinary to be receivable.
Whether or not the articles found in the person of the accused at
the time of his arrest are inadmissible for being irrelevant and
immaterial. RULE 128: COMPETENCE

GANAAN V. IAC
RULING: Unexplained flight and resisting arrest even thirty days FACTS: Complainant Atty. Pintor and his client Montebon, were in
after the supposed commission of the crime is a relevant the living room of complainants residence, discussing the terms
circumstance. The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of from the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which they
the evidence rather than to its admissibility. filed against Laconico. After they decided on the conditions, Atty.
In identifying Ball, Krekeler was impressed with and remembered Pintor made a phone call to Laconico. That same morning, Laconico
the brown ensemble, particularly the tall brown hat. These items telephoned Atty. Gaanan to come to his office and advise him on
were of course relevant and admissible in evidence and there is no the settlement of the direct assault case. When Atty. Pintor called,
objection to them. Laconico requested Atty. Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone
conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear
However, the money is inadmissible. The proof of the money here personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. Twenty
was evidently on the theory that Ball did not have or was not likely minutes later, Atty. Pinto called up again to ask Laconico if he was
to have such a sum of money on his person prior to the commission agreeable to the conditions. Laconico agreed. An amount of P5,000
of the offense. However, Krekeler was not able to identify the as settlement money was agreed upon. He was instructed to give
money or any of the items on Balls person as having come from the the money to give the money to Atty. Pintors wife at the office of
jewelry store so that in fact, they were not admissible in evidence. the Department of Public Highways. However, Laconico insisted
There was no proof as to the denomination of the money in the that Atty. Pintor himself should receive the money. However, when
cash register, it was simply a total of $140. Here, nineteen days had
Atty. Pintor received the money, he was arrested by agents of the through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or
Philippine Constabulary. arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken
words.
On the following day, Atty. Gaanan executed an affidavit that he
heard complainant Atty. Pintor demand P8,000 for the withdrawal An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a
of the case for direct assault. Laconico attached the affidavit to the dictaphone, dictagraph or the other device enumerated un Section
complaint for robbery/extortion which he filed against Atty. Pintor. 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as
Since Atty. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without tapping the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone
Atty. Pintors consent, Atty. Pintor charged Atty. Gaanan and extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just
Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act (R.A. No. 4200). happened to be there for ordinary office use.

Atty. Gaanan and Laconico were found guilty by the trial court. The The phrase device or arrangement, although not exclusive to that
decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) enumerated, should be construed to comprehend instruments of
stating that the extension telephone which was used to overhear the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which
the telephone conversation was covered in the term device as would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It
provided in R.A. No. 4200. refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be
presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their
very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is
ISSUE(S): Whether or not an extension telephone is among the precisely for tapping, intercepting, or recording a telephone
prohibited device in Section 1 of the Anti-Wiretapping Act, such that conversation.
its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common
interception of communications between the two parties using a especially now when the extended unit does not have to be
telephone line. connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from
place to place within a radius of a kilometer or more.

RULING: The main issue revolves around the meaning of the phrase An extension telephone is not among such device or arrangements
any other device or arrangement. The law refers to a tap of a covered by Section 1 of R.A No. 4200.
wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for the
purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
communication. There must be either a physical interruption
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V. CA RULING: The tape recordings are inadmissible. Relevant provisions
of R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act) provides that:
FACTS: Rafael Ortaez filed a complaint for annulment of marriage
with damages against his wife Teresita Salcedo-Ortaez, on grounds Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized
of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of by all parties to any private conversation or spoken word, to tap any
Teresita. Among the exhibits offered by Rafael were three (3) wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between Teresita secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
and unidentified persons. These tape recordings were made and spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone,
obtained when Rafael allowed his friends from the military to wire or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
tap his home telephone. Teresita objected to Rafaels oral offer of however otherwise described x x x
the said tapes. However, the Regional Trail Court (RTC) of Quezon
City admitted the tapes into evidence. Teresita filed a petition for Section 4. Any communication, or spoken word, or the existence,
certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA upheld the contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part
lower courts order for two reasons: (1) Tape recordings are not thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained, or secured
inadmissible per se. hey are admissible depending on how they are by any person in violation of the preceding section of this Act shall
presented and offered and how the trial judge utilizes them and (2) not be admitted in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative,
Certiorari is inappropriate since the order admitting the tape into or administrative hearing or investigation.
evidence is interlocutory. The order should be questioned in the Hence, absent any clear showing that both parties consented to the
appeal from the judgment on the merits and through the special recording, the inadmissibility of the tapes is mandatory under R.A.
civil action of certiorari. Hence, Teresita filed a petition for review No. 4200
with the Supreme Court (SC).
(2) Certiorari was the appropriate remedy. Generally, the
extraordinary writ of certiorari is not available to challenge
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the recordings of Teresitas phone interlocutory orders of a trial court. The proper remedy is an
conversations, made and obtained through wiretapping are ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in the said
appeal the grounds fro assailing the interlocutory order. However,
admissible as evidence (not per se inadmissible)
where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and
Whether or not a petition for certiorari is the appropriate remedy to the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious
question an order admitting the tapes into evidence relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress.
RAMIERZ V. CA RULING: R.A. No. 4200 applies to recordings by one of the parties to
the conversation. Section 1 of the Act clearly and unequivocally
FACTS: Ester Garcia filed a criminal case for violation of R.A. No. makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties to any
4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act) against Socorro Ramirez, for secretly private communication to secretly record such communication by
taping their confrontation. Socorro filed a Motion to Quash the means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to
Information, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay granted, whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be
agreeing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense under a party other than or different from those involved in the private
R.A. No. 4200 since the law refers to the taping of a communication
communication. The statutes intent to penalize all persons
by a person other than a participant to the communication. After unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of
which, Ester filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals the qualifier any. Consequently, the CA was correct in concluding
(CA), which reversed the ruling of the lower court. Hence, Socorro that even a person privy to a communication, who records his
filed this instant petition where she raised three private conversation with another without knowledge of the latter,
will qualify as a violator under R.A. No. 4200. A perusal of the
Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports such conclusion.
ISSUES: W/N R.A. No. 4200 applies to the taping of the conversation
by one of the parties to the conversation. (She contends that R.A. The substance of the conversation need not be alleged in the
4200 only refers to unauthorized taping of a conversation of a information. The nature of the communication is immaterial. The
person other than those involved in the conversation. ) mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a
private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice
W.N substance or contents of the conversation must be alleged in to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 As the
the information; otherwise, the facts charged will not constitute a Solicitor General pointed out, Nowhere (in the said law) is it
violation of R.A. No. 4200. required that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature
of the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person
W/N R.A. No. 4200 penalizes the taping of private communication
should be professed.
not a private conversation and that, consequently, her act of
secretly taping her conversation with Ester was not illegal under the Private communication includes private conversation. The word
said Act. communicate comes from the Latin word communicare, meaning
to share or to impart. In its ordinary signification, communication
connotes an act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation
(process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between
individuals through a common system of symbols). These broad
definitions are likely to include the confrontation between Socorro ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Manila had properly found that
and Ester. Moreover, any doubts about the legislative bodys the City of Manila needs the premises for school purposes
meaning of the phrase private communication are put to rest by (considering that it had a contradictory stance regarding the
the fact that Senator Taada in his Explanatory Note to the Bill used admissibility of the evidence of the City on this point).
communication and conversation interchangeably.

RULING: The CFI of Manila properly found that the city needs the
RULE 129: JUDICIAL NOTICE premises for school purposes. It is beyond debate that a court of
justice may alter its ruling while the case is within its power, to
CITY OF MANILA V. GARCIA make it conformable to law and justice. Such was done here. The
FACTS: Finding that it was necessary to expand the school grounds defendants remedy was to bring the attention of the court to its
of Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School, Manilas City Engineer, contradictory stance. Not having done so, the Supreme Court will
pursuant to the Mayors directive, ordered the illegal not reopen the case solely for this purpose. Anyway, elimination of
occupants/squatters (defendants) to vacate the property the certification as evidence would not benefit the defendants. For
contiguous to the school. The defendants refused to vacate, thus, in reversing his stand, the trial judge could have well taken
prompting the City of Manila to file a suit to recover possession over because he was duty bound to take judicial notice of Ordinance
the land. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila favored the 4566. The reason being that the city charter of Manila requires that
plaintiff. Consequently, the squatters appealed and questioned the all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances
lower courts finding that the city needs the premises for school passed by the municipal board of Manila.
purposes. The citys evidence on this point was the certification of
the Chairman Committee on Appropriations of the Municipal Board.
The certification recites that the amount of P100,000 had been set BAGUIO VS. . VDA DE JALAGAT
aside in Ordinance 4566, the 1962-63 Manila City Budget, for the
FACTS: GABRIEL BAGUIO filed for the quieting of title to real
construction of an additional building of the elementary school. The
said document was originally deemed inadmissible, but was, property against TEOFILA JALAGAT and her minor children with the
subsequently, admitted into evidence by the lower court. Hence, Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Oriental. The Jalagats filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that the present complaint is
the defendants appealed.
barred by a previous judgment rendered by the same court. The
previous case involved practically the same property, the same
cause of action, and the same parties, with Melecio Jalagat
(Teofilas deceased husband and predecessor in interest) as the PRIETO VS. ARROYO
defendant. The previous case was terminated with the court
dismissing Baguios complaint. Acting on the motion and taking FACTS: ZEFERINO ARROYO and GABRIEL PRIETO were registered
judicial notice of its previous judgment, the lower court dismissed owners of adjoining lots in Camarines Sur. After Zeferino died, his
the present complaint on the ground of res judicata. Consequently, heirs had a new certificate of title registered in their names.
Baguio appealed the order of dismissal. He claimed that for the Subsequently, the heirs discovered that the technical description set
ground of res judicata to suffice as a basis for dismissal it must be forth in their transfer certificate of title and in the original certificate
of title did not conform with that embodied in the decision of the
apparent on the face of the complaint.
land registration court (which registered the land in Zeferinos
name), and was less in area by 157 square meters. They, therefore,
filed a petition for the correction of the said description in their
ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Misamis Oriental was correct in titles. Thereafter, the court issued an order directing the correction
finding that there was res judicata by taking judicial notice of its of the technical description of the land covered by their title.
previous judgment. Gabriel filed a petition to annul the order granting the correction
claiming that the 157 square meters were unduly taken from his lot.
However, his petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Thus,
RULING: THE CFI OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL WAS CORRECT IN TAKING Gabriel filed a second petition containing similar allegations. As
JUDICIAL OF ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT. It ought to be clear even to expected, the court dismissed his second petition on the ground of
the appellant that under the circumstances, the lower court res judicata.
certainly could take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a
case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. That Hence, Gabriel appealed to the Supreme Court to question the
was all that was done by the lower court in decreeing the dismissal. dismissal of his second petition. He insisted that there was no res
Certainly, such an order is not contrary to law. The Supreme Court judicata since the dismissal of his first petition was erroneous. He
quoted Chief Justice Morgan, who said: Courts have also taken claimed that the lower court should have not dismissed his first
judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the petition for failure to prosecute because no parole evidence need
case pending is a moot one or whether or not the previous ruling is be taken to support it, the matters therein alleged being part of the
applicable in the case under consideration. records land registration proceedings, which were well within the
judicial notice and cognizance of the court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Appeals (CA) reversed the lower courts decision and held that the
Sur (in dismissing the first petition of Gabriel) erred in not taking petitioners and Yaos children were all of illegitimate status. The
judicial notice of the parts of the records of the land registration CA ruled that the marriage between Yao and Sy was not proven to
proceedings that would have supported Gabriels allegations, thus, be valid under the Chinese laws.
making the dismissal for failure to prosecute erroneous.
Hence, Yao filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court
claiming that the CA erred in holding that the validity of the foreign
marriage between Yao and Sy had not been proven. To support this
RULING: THE CFI OF CAMARINES SUR WAS CORRECT IN NOT contention, Yao claimed that the CA should have taken judicial
TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE RECORDS THE LAND notice of the Chinese laws on marriage which show the validity of
REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS. As a general rule, courts are not
her marriage to Sy.
authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of the cases
pending before them, of the contents of other cases, even when ISSUE: Whether or not the CA should take judicial notice of foreign
such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and laws (i.e. Chinese laws on marriage), thus, relieving Yao of her duty
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or of proving the validity of her marriage under Chinese laws.
actually pending before the same judge. Besides, if Gabriel really
wanted the court to take judicial notice of such records, he should RULING: COURTS CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN
have presented the proper request or manifestation to that effect. LAWS. Under the Philippine jurisprudence, to establish a valid
foreign marriage two things must be proven: (1) the existence of the
For failing to do so in the appropriate time, the dismissal of the first
petition is now valid and binding on him. Thus, the dismissal on the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) the alleged foreign
marriage by convincing evidence. Though Yao may have established
ground of res judicata must be sustained.
the fact of marriage, she has failed to prove the Chinese laws on
marriage that would show the validity of her marriage to Sy.

YAO-KEE VS. SY-GONZALES Well-established is the rule that Philippine courts cannot take
judicial notice of foreign laws or customs. They must be alleged and
FACTS: Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died intestate, leaving real and proved as any other fact. On this point, Yao cannot rely on a the
personal properties in the Philippines. AIDA SY-GONZALES and the case of Sy Joc Lieng v. Sy Quia (16 Phil. 137 (1910)) to prove her
other children of Sy with Asuncion Gillego filed a petition for the
case. The ruling that case did not show that the court took judicial
settlement of his estate. YAO KEE filed her opposition to the notice of Chinese laws on marriages. Even assuming for the sake of
petition claiming that she is the legitimate wife of Sy. The probate argument that the court did take judicial notice of Chinese laws or
court sustained the validity of Yaos marriage to Sy, but the Court of
customs on foreign marriages in that case, Yao still failed to show court erred in taking cognizance of Exhibits A, B, & C which
that the law assumed to recognized in Sy Joc Lieng case (wherein had been marked but not formally offered in evidence by Tabernilla.
the marriage was celebrated in 1847) was still applicable during the
time of her marriage to Sy, which took place 84 years later. Hence,
the CA was correct in considering that the validity of the marriage ISSUE(S): Whether or not it was proper for the CA and trial court
between Yao and Sy has not been established. properly took cognizance of the exhibits even if they were not
formally offered during trial?

TABUENA VS. COURT OF APPEALS Whether or not the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of
Tabuenas testimony in a case it had previously heard which was
FACTS: The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land of closely connected with the case before it?
about 440 sq. meters in Makato, Aklan. In 1973, an action for
recovery of ownership was filed by the estate of Alfredo Tabernilla
against Jose Tabuena. After trial, the court ordered Tabuena to RULING: The SC reversed the decision and ruled in favor of Tabuena.
return the property to Tabernilla. At the trial, it was found that the
lot was sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. in 1926 to Tabernilla while they (1) No. The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an
were in the United States. Upon Tabernillas return to the exhibit does not mean it has thereby already been offered as part of
Philippines in 1934, Damasa Timtiman, mother of Juan Peralta the evidence of a party. It is true that Exhibits A, B, and C
acting upon Juans instructions conveyed the land to Tabernilla. were marked at pre-trial but this was only for identifying them and
Upon her request, she was supposedly allowed by Tabernilla to not for making a formal offer. It is during the trial that the party
remain in the said lot provided she paid the realty taxes on the presenting the marked evidence decides whether to offer the
property which she did do so. She remained on the lot until her evidence or not. In case they dont, such documents cannot be
death and, thereafter, the property was taken possession by considered evidence, nor can they be given any evidentiary value.
Tabuena. This complaint was filed after a demand for Tabuena to
An exception was given in People vs. Napat-a, wherein the court
vacate was made. The trial court rejected his defense that the
ruled that evidence even if not offered can be admitted against the
subject of the sale was a different lot and that he was the absolute
adverse party if: first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly
owner of the said property by virtue of the inheritance he acquired
recorded and second, it has itself been incorporated in the records
from his deceased parent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
of the case. In this case, these requirements had not been satisfied.
decision of the trial court, rejecting therein his claim that the trial
The documents were indeed testified to but there was no recital of Godoy removed her panties and brought out his penis to rape her, a
its contents having been read into the records. knife was pointed at her neck. As such, she was not able to resist.
The next day, Godoy came by their house and asked the permission
of her parents if she can join him in soliciting funds, since Mia was a
(2) Yes. The Court of Appeals conceded that as a general rule, candidate for Ms. Palawan National School (PNS). Mias parents
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in the adjudication allowed her to go with Godoy and she was allegedly brought to the
of cases pending before them of the contents of the records of Sunset Garden Motel where she was repeatedly raped again. After
other cases, even when such events have been tried or are pending three days, they transferred to Edwards subdivision where she was
in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may kept in a lodging house and was again raped.
have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. During this time, a police blotter had already been placed for the
Nevertheless, it applied the exception that in the absence of missing Mia. She was later released by Godoy after a certain Naem
objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, or at the interceded and only after her parents agreed to settle the case. It
request or with the consent of the parties, the case is clearly was after Mias return that her parents accompanied her to a
referred to or the original or part of the records of the case are medico-legal which found lacerations in her vagina concluding that
actually withdrawn from the archives and admitted as part of the she just had sexual intercourse. She and her mother Helen went
record of the case then pending. These conditions however, were
to the police and executed sworn statements stating that the
not established in this case. Tabuena was completely unaware that accused Godoy had raped and abducted Mia.
the court had taken judicial notice of Civil Case no. 1327. Thus, the
said act by the trial court was improper. Godoy denied that he raped Mia Taha. He admitted having had sex
with her and that they indeed stayed in Sunset Gardens and in
Edwards Subdivision, but it was because they were lovers and that
PEOPLE VS. GODOY Mia had consented to their having sex. To support his claim that
they were lovers, he presented two letters supposedly delivered to
FACTS: This is an automatic review of the decision of the RTC in him in the provincial jail while he was detained by Mias cousin
view of the death sentence imposed upon Danny Godoy, who was Lorna. There Mia explained that it was her parents who forced her
charged in two separate informations with rape and another for to testify against him.
kidnapping with serious illegal detention. Complainant Mia Taha
alleged that Godoy, her Physics Teacher and a married man raped The delivery of the letter was denied by Lorna but the defense
her first on Jan. 21, 1994 in her cousins boarding house wherein presented the provincial jail guard on duty on the supposed date of
upon entering the back door, Godoy pointed a knife at her. As the delivery and testified that indeed Lorna had visited Godoy on
said date. Several witnesses were also presented including two complainant of having been threatened appears to be a common
former teachers of Mia who knew the handwriting on the two said testimonial expedient and face-saving subterfuge. But it had not
letters as belonging to Mia having been their former student and been duly corroborated by other evidence nor proved that the
where thus familiar with her handwriting particularly those made in accused indeed always carried a knife.
her test papers. Other witnesses were presented by the defense
attesting that they saw the two together in a manner that was The SC also takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas
affectionate and cordial, prior to the said kidnapping and even (such as in Palawan) young ladies are strictly required to act with
circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that
during such.
their reputations shall remain untainted. Any breath of scandal
which brings dishonor to their character humiliates their entire
families. It could precisely be that complainants mother wanted to
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond save face in the community where everybody knows everybody
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused else, and in an effort to conceal her daughters indiscretion and
escape wagging tongues of their small rural community, she had to
weave the scenario of this rape drama.
RULING: The Supreme Court acquitted Danny Godoy . Three guiding
principles in the appellate review of the evidence of the prosecution
for the crime of rape, namely: a) while rape is a most detestable BPI-SAVINGS VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS
crime, it must be borne in mind that it is an accusation easy to be
made, hard to be proved, but harder to be defended by the party FACTS: This case involves a claim for tax refund in the amount of
accused, though innocent; b) the testimony of the complainant P112,491.00 representing BPIs tax withheld for the year 1989.
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and c) that the evidence BPIs 1989 Income Tax Return (ITR) shows that it had a total
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot refundable amount of P297,492 inclusive of the P112,491.00 being
be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for claimed as tax refund in this present controversy. However, BPI
the defense. declared in the same 1989 ITR that the said total refundable amount
of P297,492.00 will be applied as tax credit to the succeeding
Mia claimed that the appellant always carried a knife but it was taxable year. On October 11, 1990, BPI filed a written claim for
never explained how she was threatened with the same in such a
refund in the amount of P112,491.00 with the Commissioner of
manner that she was allegedly always cowed into giving in to his Internal Revenue (CIR) alleging that it did not apply the 1989
innumerable sexual demands. In taking judicial notice, the Supreme refundable amount to its 1990 Annual ITR or other tax liabilities due
Court said that it is not unaware that in rape cases, the claim of the
to the alleged business losses it incurred for the same year. before this Court. Significantly, respondents do not claim at all that
Without waiting for the CIR to act on the claim for refund, BPI filed a the said Decision was fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do
petition for review with the CTA, seeking the refund of the amount not even dispute the contents of the said Decision, claiming merely
of P112,491.00. that the Court cannot take judicial notice thereof. This merely
showed the weakness of the respondents case because they did
The CTA dismissed BPIs petition on the ground that petitioner not take steps to prove that BPI did not suffer any loss in 1990.
failed to present as evidence its Corporate Annual ITR for 1990 to Respondents opted not to assail the fact appearing therein - that
establish the fact that BPI had not yet credited the amount of
petitioner suffered a net loss in 1990 the same way that it refused
P297,492.00 to its 1990 income tax liability. BPI filed a Motion for to controvert the same fact established by petitioners other
Reconsideration which was denied by the CTA. The CA affirmed the documentary exhibits. The Decision in CTA Case No. 4897 is not the
CTA. Hence, this Petition. sole basis of petitioners case. It is merely one more bit of
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner called the attention of the information showing that the petitioner did not use its 1989 refund
Court to a Decision rendered by the Tax Court in CTA Case No. 4897 to pay its taxes for 1990.
involving its claim for refund for the year 1990 wherein the Tax
Court held that petitioner suffered a net loss for the taxable year
1990. Respondent, however, urges the Supreme Court not to do RULE 129: JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
so.
LUCIDO VS. CALUPITAN
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court may take judicial notice of the
FACTS: The properties of Leonardo Lucido were sold on auction on
Decision by the CTA in deciding the present case?
Feb. 10, 1903 to Rosales and Zolaivar. On March 30, 1903, Rosales
RULING: AS A RULE, "courts are not authorized to take judicial and Zolaivar with the consent of Lucido, sold the properties to
notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when Calupitan via a public document. On the same day, Calupitan and
such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and Lucido executed a document admitting the sale and that their real
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or agreement was that redemption by Lucido can only be effected 3
are actually pending before the same judge." Be that as it may, years. from the date of the document. Lucido tendered the
Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of redemption price to Calupitan. For failure of the latter to surrender
matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial the properties to Lucido, this case was instituted. Calupitan claimed
functions. In this case, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in that the sale was not one with a right to redeem. The lower court
CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to the Petition for Review filed decided in favor of Lucido.
ISSUE: Whether or not Calupitans original answer to the complaint Lot no. 551, an urban lot, was leased to Margarita, who was the
may be used as evidence against him to prove that a sale with a actual occupant of the lot. A Sale Certificate was issued to Margarita
right to redeem was in fact agreed to by both parties? by the Director of Lands. The purchase price was to be paid in
installments. According to testimonial evidence, Leon paid the
installments out of his own earnings. Before his death, Leon sold
RULING: Yes, Calupitans original answer to the complaint expressly and transferred all his rights to portion of the lot in favor of
stated that the transaction was one of sale with right to repurchase. petitioner Macaria. Subsequently, Vicente executed an Affidavit
The Court held that its admission was proper, especially in view of claiming possession of Lot no. 551 and petitioned the Bureau of
the fact that it was signed by Calupitan himself, who was acting as Lands for the issuance of title in his name. A title was then issued
his own attorney. in the name of the legal heirs of Margarita (private respondents).

The Court cited Jones on Evidence (sec. 272, 273) which stated that On June 3, 1954, respondents filed a complaint against petitioner
although pleadings were originally considered as inadmissible as for forcible entry alleging that petitioner entered a portion of Lot
admissions because it contained only pleaders matter (fiction no. 551 without their consent and constructed a house therein. The
stated by counsel and sanctioned by the courts), modern tendency case was decided against the petitioner.
was to treat pleadings as statements of real issues and herein, On June 8, 1954, petitioner instituted an action for Partition of Lot.
admissions of the parties. N0. 551 alleging that said lot was conjugal property and the she is
the legitimated child of Margarita and Leon. The ejectment case
and the partition case was consolidated.
TORRES VS. COURT OF APPEALS
The trial court ruled that the lot was paraphernal property of
FACTS: This is a Petition for Review, treated as a special civil action Maragarita and adjudicated 2/3 of the lot to respondents and 1/3 to
praying that the decision of the CA be set aside. petitioner Macaria. On Motion for Reconsideration, the decision
was amended with Macaria being entitled to 4/6 of the lot. On
Lot no. 551 was originally owned by Margarita Torres. Margarita
appeal to the CA, the CA changed Macarias share to of the lot
was married to Claro Santillan and out of this union were begotten
and declared that she is not a legitimated child.
Vicente and Antonina. Claro died. Antonina married and had six
children, who, together with Vicente are the private respondents. Petitioner now alleges that although the CA is correct in declaring
After Claros death, Margarita cohabited with Leon Arbole, and out that she is not a legitimated child of the spouses, it has overlooked
of this, petitioner Macaria Torres was born. to include in its findings of facts the admission made by the
respondents that she and Vicente and Antonina are brothers and Teehankee, separate opinion: Such admission did not cease to be a
sisters and they are the legal heirs and nearest of relatives of judicial admission simply because respondents subsequently
Maragarita. The admission adverted to appears in paragraph 3 of deleted the same in their amended complaint. The original
respondents original complaint in the Ejectment Case, which was complaint, although replaced by an amended complaint, does not
however subsequently amended. cease to be part of the judicial record, not having been expunged
therefrom.

ISSUE: Whether or not said statement in the original complaint


must be treated as a judicial admission despite the fact that the BITONG VS. COURT OF APPEALS
same statements no longer appears in the amended complaint?
FACTS: Petitioner Nora Bitong, claiming to be a former Treasurer
and Member of the Board of Directors of Mr. & Ms. Publishing Co.
filed a derivative suit before the Securities and Exchange
RULING: No, in the Amended Complaint filed by respondents in the Commission (SEC) allegedly for the benefit of private respondent
same ejectment case, the supposed admission was deleted and in Mr. & Ms. Publishing Co., Inc. to hold respondent spouses Eugenia
fact the statement simply read, That plaintiffs are the legal heirs Apostol and Jose Apostol liable for fraud, misrepresentation,
and nearest of kin of Margarita. By virtue thereof, the amended disloyalty, evident bad faith, conflict of interest and
complaint takes the place of the original. The latter is regarded as mismanagement in directing the affairs of Mr. & Ms to its damage
abandoned and ceases to perform any further function as a and prejudice and its stockholders. She further alleged that
pleading. The original complaint no longer forms part of the record. respondents Apostol, Magsanoc and Nyuda subscribed to Philippine
If petitioner had intended to utilize the original complaint, she Daily Inquirer (PDI) shares of stock; the stock subscriptions were
should have offered it in evidence. Having been amended, the paid for by Mr. & Ms. and treated as receivables from officers and
original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which employees but no payments were ever received from respondents.
would have required no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial The petition principally sought to enjoin respondent spouses from
admission of which as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary further acting a president-director and director, respectively of Mr.
to petitioners submission, therefore, there can be no estoppel by & Ms and disbursing any money or funds except for the payment of
extrajudicial admission in the original complaint, for the failure to salaries and similar expenses in the ordinary course of business.
offer it in evidence. Private respondents refuted the allegations of petitioner saying that
she was merely a holder-in-trust of JAKA shares and only
represented and continue to represent JAKA in the board. JAKA,
owned by spouses Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and Cristina Ponce Ms, by stating unequivocally that petitioner is not the true party to
Enrile, is one of the original stockholders of Mr. & Ms.. The the case but JAKA which continues to be the stockholder of Mr. &
respondents averred that the real party-in-interest was JAKA and Ms. In fact, one of the reliefs prayed for was the dismissal of the
not petitioner. Bitong testified at trial that she became the petition on the ground that petitioner did not have the legal interest
registered owner of 997 shares of stock of Mr. & Ms. after she to initiate and prosecute the same. When taken in its totality, the
acquired them from JAKA through a deed of sale.The SEC Hearing Amended Answer to the Amended Petition and even the Answer to
Panel dismissed the derivative suit. The SEC En Banc reversed the the Amended Petition alone, clearly raises an issue to the legal
decision of the Hearing Panel. The Court of Appeals reversed the personality of the petitioner to file the complaint.
decision of the SEC En Banc and held that from the evidence in
record, petitioner was not the owner of the shares of stock in Mr. & With regard to the contention of the petitioner that respondents
Ms. and therefore not a real party-in-interest to prosecute the admission that she has 1,000 shares of stocks registered in her
claim. She was merely an agent who cannot file a derivative suit in name forecloses any question on her status and right to bring a
derivative suit the Court said: Where the statements of the private
behalf of her principal.
respondents were qualified with phrases such as, insofar as they
Before the Supreme Court, petitioner submits that in her Amended are limited, qualified and/or expanded by, the truth being as
Petition in the SEC, she stated that she was a stockholder and stated in the Affirmative Allegations/Defenses of this Answer they
director of Mr. & Ms. and even declared that she is the registered cannot be considered definite and certain enough to be construed
owner of 1,000 shares of stock of Mr. & Ms. out of the latters 4,088 as judicial admissions. A party whose pleading is admitted as an
total outstanding shares, and that she was a member of the Board admission against interest is entitled to overcome by evidence the
of Directors and treasurer of said company. She contends that apparent inconsistency and it is competent for the party against
respondents did not deny the above allegations in their answer and whom the pleading is offered to show that the statements were
are therefore conclusively bound by this judicial admission. inadvertently made or made under a mistake of fact. While an
admission is admissible in evidence, its probative value is to be
ISSUE: Whether or not there was judicial admission on the part of determined from the whole statement and others intimately related
the respondents that petitioner is a stockholder of Mr. & Ms.? or connected therewith. Although acts or facts admitted do not
RULING: The answer of private respondents shows that there was require proof and cannot be contradicted, evidence aliunde can be
no judicial admission that petitioner was a stockholder of Mr. & Ms. presented to show that the admission was made through palpable
to entitle her to file a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. mistake. The rule is always in favor of the liberality in construction
The affirmative defenses of private respondents directly refute the of pleadings so that the real matter in dispute may be submitted for
representation of petitioner that she is a true stockholder of Mr. & judgment in the court.

You might also like