You are on page 1of 14

Case Title

1. TAN JR., vs HOSANA

2. TOLENTINO vs MENDOZA

3. PEOPLE vs CARANGUIAN

4. PEOPLE vs DEL MONTE y GAPAY

5. BSB GROUP, INC., vs GO

6. DE JESUS vs SANCHEZ-MALIT

7. PEOPLE vs SAMONTAEZ

8. NAVARRO vs CA

9. SPOUSES LATIP vs CHUA

10. JUAN vs JUAN

11. PEOPLE vs DOCUMENTO

12. PELTAN DEVELOPMENT INC., vs CA

13. PEOPLE vs SEVILLENO y VILLANUEVA

14. CANDELARIA vs PEOPLE

15. HABAGAT GRILL vs DMC-URBAN PROPERTY

16. PEOPLE vs TUNDAG

17. PEOPLE vs LIBAN

18. ALFELOR vs HALASAN

19. PEOPLE vs CASTILLO y LUMAYRO

20. CONSTANTINO vs HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO

21. ATILLO III vs CA

22. PEOPLE vs RULLEPE y GUINTO

23. BPI vs REYES

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


1
24. RICALDE vs PEOPLE

25. CONSOLIDATED BANK vs DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS

26. BAYANI MAGDAYAO vs PEOPLE

27. JOSEF vs PEOPLE

28. LORENZANA vs LELINA

29. PEOPLE vs CAYABYAB

30. HEIRS OF PRODON vs HEIRS OF ALVAREZ

31. MARQUEZ vs ESPEJO

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


2
1. TAN JR., vs HOSANA
- In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making the allegations has the burden of proving them
by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of their own
evidence, not upon the weakness of the defence offered by their opponent.
- Preponderance of Evidence is the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on the either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or
“greater weight of the credible evidence.”
- It is settled in jurisprudence that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it
- Any of the terms of a void contract have been performed, an action to declare its inexistence is
necessary to allow restitution of what has been given under it.
- While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it
does not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the
course of the execution of the contract.
- Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or by these
rules. There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void
document. The Rules only require that the evidence is relevant and not excluded by the Rules for its
admissibility.

2. TOLENTINO vs MENDOZA
- The exclusionary rule which bars admission of illegally obtained evidence applies more
appropriately to evidence obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures.
- The evidence presented by complainants reach that quantum of evidence required in administrative
proceedings which is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conviction.
- Rule 24, AO No. 1 series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore,
admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative
case against respondent.

3. PEOPLE vs CARANGUIAN
- The quantum of evidence required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sec.2 of
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty is only
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.”
- The task of the prosecution is two-fold: first, to prove that a crime was committed, and second, that
accused is the person responsible. Thus, the prosecution must be able to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt to justify conviction of the accused.
- The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told
him, whether orally or in writing.
- Sec 36 of Rule 130 provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge; that is, that a witness can testify only to perception, except as otherwise
provided in the rules.
- While it is accepted that the testimony of a sole witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to
sustain a judgment of conviction, it bears stressing that such testimony must be clear, positive, and

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


3
credible.
- Further, it does not appear that appellant has motive for killing the victim. While generally, the
motive of the accused in criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be proven; proof of the
same becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the assailant is in question.
- A finding of guilt must rest on the prosecution’s own evidence, not on the weakness of even absence
of evidence of the defence.

4. PEOPLE vs DEL MONTE y GAPAY


- Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to
reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objections.
- Non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9216 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilised in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
- Under Sec. 3 of Rule 1228, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.
- For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is
no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be
accorded it by the court.
- The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of
weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence.

5. BSB GROUP, INC., vs GO


- In estafa by conversion, whether the thing converted is cash or check is immaterial in relation to the
formal allegation in information for that offense.
- It is in this respect that what the offender does with the check subsequent to the act of unlawfully
taking it becomes material inasmuch as this offense is a continuing one.
- In other words, in pursuing a case for this offense, the prosecution may establish its cause by the
presentation of the checks involved.
- Theft, however, is not of such character. Thus, for our purposes, as the Information in this case
accuses respondent of having stolen cash, proof tending to establish that respondent has actualised
her criminal intent by endorsing the checks and depositing the proceeds thereof in her personal
account, becomes not only irrelevant but also immaterial and, on that score, inadmissible in
evidence.
- It can hardly be inferred from the indictment itself that the Security Bank accounts in the ostensible
subject of the prosecution inquiry. Without needlessly expanding the scope of what is plainly alleged
in the Information, the subject matter of the action in this case is the money amounting to 1.5M
alleged to have been stolen by respondent, and not the money equivalent of the checks which are
sought to be admitted in evidence.
- We hold that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondents supposed bank account
with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in support
thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of RA 1405. They are likewise
irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection
to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


4
6. DE JESUS vs SANCHEZ-MALIT
- Sec. 3 Rule 128 provides that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.
- The 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contains no provision declaring the inadmissibility of documents
obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the IBP correctly considered in evidence the other notarised
documents submitted by complainant as additional evidence.

7. PEOPLE vs SAMONTAEZ
- In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained from the appellant during the police
custodial investigation relative to the crime, including other evidence secured by virtue of the said
confession is inadmissible in evidence even if the same was not objected to during the trial by the
counsel of the appellant.
- Fruit of the poisonous tree: once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained,
any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.

8. NAVARRO vs CA
- RA 4200 prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Since the
exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, the tape recording is not
prohibited.

9. SPOUSES LATIP vs CHUA


- The Doctrine of Judicial Notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take
judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the
negative.
- Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: 1.) the matter must be
one of common and general knowledge; 2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and 3) it must be known within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
- The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidence by public records and
facts of general notoriety.
- Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorised to make his individual knowledge of a fact,
not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action.
- Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are commonly known.
- A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: 1)
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or 2) capable of accurate and
ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.
- A court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-
existence of a fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge.
- The reason why our rules on evidence provide for matters that need not be proved under Rule 129,
specifically on judicial notice, is to dispense with the taking of the usual form of evidence on a
certain matter so notoriously known, it will not be disputed by the parties.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


5
10. JUAN vs JUAN
- Judicial notice is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of the further traditional
evidentiary support.
- The article in the website cited by the RTC patently lacks a requisite for it to be of judicial notice to
the court because such article is not well and authoritatively settled and is doubtful or uncertain.

11. PEOPLE vs DOCUMENTO


- (Appellant raised this issue: The trial court gravely erred in deciding the case without first resolving
its territorial jurisdiction over the crime charged as the prosecution failed to establish that the two
counts of rape were perpetrated in Butuan City.)
- The inclusion of the two Barangays in the City of Butuan is a matter of judicial notice by the trial
court. Sec. 1 of Rule 129 provides that a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the laws of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions.

12. PELTAN DEVELOPMENT INC., vs CA


- It is a well-settled rule that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the
complaint.
- It is axiomatic nonetheless that a court has a mandate to apply relevant statutes and jurisprudence in
determining whether the allegations in a complaint establish a cause of action. While it focuses on
the complaint, a court clearly cannot disregard decisions material to the proper appreciation of the
questions before it. In resolving a motion to dismiss, every court must take cognizance of decisions
this Court as rendered because they are proper subjects of judicial notice as provided in Sec. 1 Rule
129.
- The said decisions, more importantly, form part of the legal system and failure of any court to apply
them shall constitute an abdication of its duty to resolve a dispute in accordance with law, and shall
be a ground for administrative action against an inferior court magistrate.
- (As adverted to earlier, Margolles vs CA upheld the validity of this title and the titles derived
therefrom by, among others, petitioner Peltran.
- The Supreme Court promulgated Magolles ahead of the assailed CA decision. It was incumbent
upon respondent CA to take judicial notice thereof and apply it in resolving this case. That the CA
did not is clearly a reversible error.

13. PEOPLE vs SEVILLENO y VILLANUEVA


- The court below erred in disregarding the testimony of Norma Baquia “for the reason that her
testimony failed to establish that the incident happened within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court.” The court did not consider her testimony purportedly because she only testified that her sister
Virginia went with the accused to Guindali-an without specifying as to what municipality or city it
was part of. Again, this is error. Sec 1 Rule 129 requires courts to take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and geographical divisions of our country. There is only
one Sitio Guinadali-an Brgy. Guadalupe, San Carlos City.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


6
14. CANDELARIA vs PEOPLE
- Circumstantial Evidence is sufficient proof for conviction if: 1) there is more than one
circumstance; b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and c) the combination
of all circumstance is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial
evidence suffices to convicr an accused only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the guilty person; the circumstance proved must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and, at the same time, inconsistent with any
other hypothesis except guilt. Corollary thereto, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must
exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence.
- While it is true that flight per se is not synonymous with guilt, unexplained flight nonetheless
evinces guilt or betrays the existence of a guilty conscience, especially when taken together will the
other entire circumstantial evidence attendant in this case.
- Candelaria has been found guilty of stealing diesel fuel. Unlike in Francisco, where the Court had no
reference to ascertain the price of the stolen jewellery, or in Merida and Dator, where the Court
refused to take judicial notice of the selling price of lumber and /or narra for lack of independent and
competent source of the necessary information at the time of the commission of the theft, the value
of the diesel fuel in this case may be readily gathered from price lists published by the DOE. In this
regard, the value of the diesel fuel involved herein may then be considered as a matter of public
knowledge which falls within the purview of the rules on discretionary judicial notice.
- Judicial notice which is based on considerations of expediency and convenience displace[s] evidence
since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfils the object which the evidence is intended to achieve.

15. HABAGAT GRILL vs DMC-URBAN PROPERTY


- Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without
proof because they already know them. Its object is to save time, labour and expense in securing and
introduction evidence on matters that are not ordinarily capable of dispute or actually bona fide
disputed, and the tenor of which can safely be assumed from the tribunal’s general knowledge or
from a slight search on its part.
- Municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in
which they sit.
- (The location of Habagat Grill cannot be resolved by merely taking judicial notice of Presidential
Proclamation No. 20; such location is precisely at the core of the dispute in this case. Moreover,
considering respondents allegation that the supposed lot covered by the Ordinance has been lost due
to inundation by the sea, we cannot fathom how the trial court could have known of the actual
location of the metes and bounds of the subject lot.
- Neither may the MTC take discretionary judicial notice under Sec 2 Rule 129 because the exact
boundaries of the lot covered by that law are not a matter of public knowledge capable of
unquestionable demonstration. Neither may these be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


7
16. PEOPLE vs TUNDAG
- Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without
proof because they already know them. Under the Rules, judicial notice may either be mandatory or
discretionary.
- With respect to matters not falling within the mandatory or discretionary judicial notice, the court
can take judicial notice of a fact pursuant to the procedure in Sec 3 Rule 129 requires that during the
trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
- In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defence counsel’s
admission, thereof acceding to the prosecution’s motion. As required by S3R129, as to any other
matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact.
- Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or
in the absence thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other
documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
- In several recent cases, we have emphasised the need for independent proof of the age of the victim,
aside from testimonial evidence from the victim or her relative. In People v Javier, we stressed that
the prosecution must present independent proof of the age of the victim, even though it is not
contested by the defence.
- The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.
- In People v Cula, we reiterated that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact
that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the
death penalty. Since the record of the case was bereft of any independent evidence thereon, such as
the victim’s duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant’s age,
appellant could not be convicted of rape in its qualified form.

17. PEOPLE vs LIBAN


- Relative particularity to the qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim in incestuous rape
cases, the Court has consistently adhered to the idea that the victim’s minority must not only be
specifically alleged in the information but must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt
during trial. Neither the obvious minority of the victim, nor the absence of any contrary assertion
from the defence, can exonerate the prosecution from these twin requirements.
- Judicial notice of the issue of age, without the requisite hearing conducted under Sec. 3 Rule 129
would not be considered enough compliance with the law.
- The birth certificate of the victim, or in lieu thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a
baptismal certificates, school records and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial
evidence, that can help establish the age of the victim should be presented.
- While the declaration of a victim as to her age, being a exception to the hearsay proscription,
would be admissible under the rule on pedigree, the question on the relative weight that may be
accorded to it is another matter.
- Corroborative evidence would be most desirable or even essential when circumstance warrant.

18. ALFELOR vs HALASAN


- A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact a judicial admission are a waiver
of proof, production of evidence is dispensed with.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


8
- A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an
admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be
ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not.
- The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the
pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was
pleaded.

19. PEOPLE vs CASTILLO y LUMAYRO


- Two requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: 1) the existence of the
subject firearm, and 2) the fact that the accused that owned or possessed the gun did not have the
corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence.
- The lack of a license or permit should have been proved either by the testimony or certification of a
representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused was not a licensee of the
subject firearm or that the type of firearm involved can be lawfully possessed only by certain
military personnel.
- It is the prosecution who has the burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of
the crime charged, consistent with the basic principle that an accused is presumed innocent until
proven guilty.
- Thus, if the non-existence of some fact is a constituent element of the crime, the onus is upon the
State to prove this negative allegation of non-existence.
- Although the appellant himself admitted that he had no license for the gun recovered from his
possession, his admission will not relieve the prosecution of its duty to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the appellant’s lack of license or permit to possess the gun.
- By its very nature, and ‘admission’ is the mere acknowledgement of a fact or of circumstances from
which guilt may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to
establish his guilt. In other words, it is a statement by defendant of fact or proof of guilt, but which
is, of itself, insufficient to authorise conviction. From the above principles, this Court can infer that
an admission in criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission
of the crime charged.
- Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature. As such, it does not fall under S4R129.
- Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does not prove beyond
reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a
prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does not stand as a proof of the
fact of absence or lack of a license.

20. CONSTANTINO vs HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO


- Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial admissions in
civil cases are one of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Sec. Rule 18
which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the
action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried.
- Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsels, they
become binding on the parties who made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts
stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescind them

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


9
unilaterally; it must assume the consequences of the disadvantage.
- As contemplated by S3R129, the general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial admission upon
the party making it and the dispensation of proof admits of the two exceptions: 1) when it is shown
that the admission was made through palpable mistake; 2) when it is shown that no such admission
was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he
made such an admission.

21. ATILLO III vs CA


- As provided for in S4R129, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party
making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the
admission was made through palpable mistake; and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was
in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made
such an admission.
- Granting, arguendo, that Lhuillier had in fact made the alleged admission of personal liability in his
Answer, We hold that such admission is not conclusive upon him. Applicable by analogy is our
ruling in the case of Gardner v CA which allowed a party’s testimony in open court to override
admission he made in his answer.
- It is clear in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a party’s pleading, the trial court is still
given leeway to consider other evidence presented. This rule should apply with more reason when
the parties had agreed to submit an issue for resolution of the trial court on the basis of the evidence
presented.

22. PEOPLE vs RULLEPE y GUINTO


- Several cases suggest that courts may take judicial notice of the appearance of the victim in
determining her age.
- Judicial notice signifies that there are certain facta probanda, or propositions in a part’s case, as to
which he will not be required to offer evidence; these will be taken for true by the tribunal without
the need of evidence. Judicial notice, however, is a phrase sometimes used in a loose way to cover
some other judicial action. Certain rules of evidence, usually known under other names, are
frequently referred to in terms of judicial notice.
- The process by which the trier of facts judges a person’s age from his or her appearance cannot be
categorised as judicial notice.
- Judicial notice is based upon convenience and expediency for it would certainly be superfluous,
inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the ordinary way, of
facts which are already known to courts.
- As Tundag puts it, it is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they already know them. R129 where the provisions governing judicial
notices are found is entitled What Need Not Be Proved. When the trier of facts observes the
appearance of a person to ascertain her ager, he is not taking judicial notice of such fact; rather, he is
conducting an examination of the evidence, the evidence being the appearance of the person. Such
process militates against the very concept of judicial notice, the object of which is to do away with
the presentation of evidence.
- S1R130: Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


10
- As the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the person’s appearance, as object
evidence of age, loses probative value.
- Because of the vast disparity between the alleged are (3yrs) and the age sought to be proved (12yrs),
the trial court would have no difficulty ascertaining the victim’s age from her appearance. No
reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that the second element of statutory rape is present.
- Whether the victim was below seven years of age, however, is another matter. Here, reasonable
doubt exists. A mature three and a half year old can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven
year old. The appearance of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much weight and,
following Pruna, the testimony of the mother by itself, is insufficient.

23. BPI vs REYES


- It is a basic rule in evidence that a party to a case must prove his own affirmative allegations by the
degree of evidence required by law.
- In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of
evidence, or that evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is
opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is
more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth.
- S1R133 provides the guidelines for determining preponderance of evidence.

24. RICALDE vs PEOPLE


- This court has explained the merely corroborative character of expert testimony and the possibility
of convictions for rape based on the victim’s credible lone testimony.
- In any case, the medico-legal explained that his negative finding of trauma in the anal orifice does
not remove the possibility of an insertion considering the flexibility of the sphincter.
- The Court has explained the merely corroborative character of expert testimony and the possibility
of convictions for rape based on the victim’s credible lone testimony.

25. CONSOLIDATED BANK vs DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS


- The best evidence rule as stated in our Revised Rules on Civil Procedure is not absolute. As quoted
earlier, the rule accepts of exceptions one of which is when the original of the subject document is in
the possession of the adverse party.
- Indeed, when the defendant fails to deny specifically and under oath the due execution and
genuineness of the document copied in a complaint, the plaintiff need not prove that fact as it is
considered admitted by the defendant.

26. BAYANI MAGDAYAO vs PEOPLE


- It was incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce in evidence the original copy of the PNB check to
prove the contents thereof, more specifically in the names of the drawer and endorsee, the date and
amount and the dishonour thereof, as well as the reason for such dishonour. S3R129 specifically
provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original thereof.
- As long as the original evidence can be had, the court should not receive in evidence that which is
substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in the absence of any clear showing that the original
writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. Such photocopies must be

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


11
disregarded, being inadmissible evidence and barren of probative weight.
- Furthermore, under S3bR130, secondary evidence of a writing may be admitted when the original is
in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice. To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when
the original writing is in the custody of control of the adverse party S6R130 provides that the
adverse party must be given reasonable notice, that he fails or refuses to produce the same in court
and that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence:
- When the original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. If the document is in the
custody or under the control of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
- The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control of the party against whom it
is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that he has
done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice of said party to produce the
document. The notice must be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in
open court in the presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the
party in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. When such party has the
original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary
evidence may be admitted.

27. JOSEF vs PEOPLE


- By admitting that the originals were in his possession and even producing them in open court,
petitioner cured whatever flaw that might have existed in the prosecution’s evidence. The fact that
these originals were all stamped account closed merely confirmed the allegations of the respondent
that the checks were dishonoured by reason of the account being closed.
- In addition, petitioner’s own admission, five of the original checks were lost, thus rendering the
photocopies thereof admissible as exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule.

28. LORENZANA vs LELINA


- The Best Evidence Rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in
S3R130. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence
rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to be deemed admitted and may validly be considered by
the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere
photocopy of a document when objection was raised when it was formally offered.
- In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper
time, and the grounds specified.
- Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In case of documentary
evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying
the purpose for which evidence is offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection
to the documentary evidence may be made. And when a party failed to interpose a timely objection
to evidence at the time they were true even if by nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have
surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.
- Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified in any case.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


12
- Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived, even if the evidence
was objected to on some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider
any other ground of objection, except those that were raised at the proper time.

29. PEOPLE vs CAYABYAB


- There are other exceptions to the best evidence rule as expressly provided in S3R130: When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, exception: … when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
rendered in a public office.
- Without doubt, a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody of the local civil registrar
who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the presentation of the photocopy of live birth certificate of
Alpha Jane is admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents. Production of the original may be
dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, in the case at hand, the opponent does not bona fide
dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring the
production.

30. HEIRS OF PRODON vs HEIRS OF ALVAREZ


- The best evidence rule applies only when the terms of a written document are the subject of the
inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the existence of a deed of sale with right to
repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the best evidence rule
does not apply, and the defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the original
document.
- The best evidence rule stipulate that in proving the terms of a written document the original of the
document must be produced in court. The rule excludes any evidence other than the original writing
to prove the contents thereof, unless the offeror proves: 1) the existence or due execution of the
original; 2) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in court; and
3) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original can be
attributed.
- The primary purpose of the best evidence rule is to ensure that the exact contents of writing are
brought before the court. The rule further acts as an insurance fraud. Lastly, the rule protects against
misleading inferences resulting from the unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger
set of writings.
- But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading inferences arise only when
the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, the best evidence rule applies only when the
terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts,
such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without inferences to its terms, the best
evidence rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without
accounting for the original.
- The foregoing, notwithstanding, good trial tactics still required Prodon to establish and explain the
loss of the original of the deed of sale with right to repurchase to establish the genuineness and due
execution of the deed. This was because the deed, although a collateral document, was the
foundation of her defence in this action for quieting of title. Her inability to produce the original
logically gave rise to the need for her to prove its existence and due execution by other means that
could only be secondary under the rules on evidence.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


13
31. MARQUEZ vs ESPEJO
- When the parties admit the contents of written documents but put in issue whether these documents
adequately and correctly express the true intention of the parties, the deciding body is authorised to
look beyond these instruments and into the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in
order to determine such intent.
- The best evidence rule states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the best
evidence is the original document itself and no other evidence (such as a reproduction, photocopy or
oral evidence) as admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred because it reduces the chance
of undetected tampering with document.
- The parol evidence rule excludes parol or extrinsic evidence by which a party seeks to contradict,
vary, add to or subtract from the terms of a valid agreement or instrument.

Compiled by Guia Karla Saldivia, San Beda College of Law - Mendiola


14